Polar Bear Kills Man–Shock News From The BBC
By Paul Homewood
h/t MrGrimNasty
From the BBC Polar Bear Dept:
A hunter has been killed in northern Canada in an attack involving a polar bear and her cub, and two other hunters received minor injuries.
The hunting party from Naujaat, Nunavut, an Inuit hamlet located on the Arctic Circle, were out seeking narwhal and caribou when they were attacked.
Both the mother bear and cub were shot and killed following the incident.
This is the second fatal polar bear attack in Canada’s northernmost territory this summer.
Naujaat Search and Rescue went looking for the men after they failed to return as planned on Thursday from their hunting trip.
The two survivors of the hunting party were found off the shore of Lyon Inlet, about 100km (60 miles) east of Naujaat.
They had been blocked in by sea ice that was making it dangerous to navigate out to open water and leave the area. They also had mechanical issues with their boat.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Nunavut and the coroner’s office are investigating the incident and have not released more details about the attack.
It is not clear whether the mother bear and cub were killed by the hunters in retaliation, or if they were destroyed by the authorities.
The CBC reports three other bears were also killed in the following days after they were drawn to the location. In July, a father died protecting his children in a rare polar bear attack in Nunavut.
Aaron Gibbons, 31, was on Sentry Island, a popular fishing and hunting spot on the west coast of Hudson Bay, when he encountered the bear on 3 July.
He told his daughters to run and placed himself between them and the bear, which was later shot and killed.
Robert Hedley, Naujaat’s senior administrative officer, told the BBC on Wednesday that the community is always concerned about polar bear incursions and wildlife management in general.
He said in the wake of this second fatal attack, both the hamlet and Nunavut government have to take a close look at the reasons behind the two incidents.
A 2017 study looking at polar bear attacks in Canada, Greenland, Norway, Russia and the US found they were likely to be caused by hungry male bears or – more rarely – females trying to defend cubs.
Polar bear attacks are uncommon. Researchers documented 73 attacks between 1870 and 2014 across the five countries, but warned a loss of sea ice habitat and increased interaction with humans could increase their frequency.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45324627
Now, to any semi intelligent being, this event would be easily explained:
1) Polar bears kill people.
2) Anybody who goes hunting in the Arctic should expect to meet up with polar bears.
3) The aforesaid hunters were in a pretty precarious position, because they were hemmed in by sea ice and could not escape in their boat. (Had not the BBC told us all the ice was melting?)
4) Hungry polar bears around suggest that their population is increasing, and not the opposite.
5) Polar bear attacks are becoming more common because more people are coming into contact with them, and those that do are more likely to report attacks. Not that polar bears are coming further south, supposedly because all the ice has melted.
In other words, it’s called nature.
I wonder, if the same hunters had been shooting antelope in Kenya, and got eaten by a lion, the BBC would have blamed it on global warming?
One final thought. Apparently three other bears were killed in the following days, after approaching the area. I thought we were all supposed to be worried about polar bears becoming extinct?
Would not it be better telling hunters to stay away from the area in the first place, instead of shooting the poor bears afterwards, if we were really concerned?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
No sympathy for the hunters (deserved what they got ),
loads of sympathy for polar bear and her cub.
” I thought we were all supposed to be worried about polar bears becoming extinct? ”
Only when it suits
Your ignorance is astounding, the hunter was doing what you do hundreds of times a year while he only does it a few times. Heading out to the food store to feed his family.
“Heading out to the food store to feed his family.”
So was the polar bear.
YOUR ignorance astounds me.
AndyG55 doesn’t like it that the person won in the food gathering and the polar bear did not.
Sheri, both died, so the person won by dying and the polar bear lost by dying. Ohh, OK.
Wondering: Yep, I guess it was a wash, so to speak. Never really looked at it that way.
Are you against hunting or what?
These were Inuit hunters hunting for food to feed their families.
I’m guessing that if a polar bear kills a man it’s because of AGW.
If a man kills a polar bear it’s because of AGW.
If a bear and man kill each other that’ll be AGW.
If they meet and fall in love that’ll be AGW.
Why shoot the mother bear and cubs.. What a DISGUSTING act of perversion.
If not there would likely have been three dead hunters. Maybe this is what you would have preferred? Polar bears are huge beady-eyed killers, killing is what they do.
Agreed, but people make this mistake all the time. Plus, they become anti-hunting. The death of Cecil the Lion resulted in decrease hunting, increased poaching and fewer animals. The goal is obviously not to protect the animals in any way.
So all the ranting and raving about polar bear numbers was just a leftist ploy.
Correct.
I found the statement interesting: ” It is not clear whether the mother bear and cub were killed by the hunters in retaliation, or if they were destroyed by the authorities.”
The real possibility that the surviving members of the hunting party might have killed the bears out of self-preservation is not a part of the statement. Curious.
Bears are not the cute cuddlies as portrayed by the cartoon and environmentalist industries.
Christ.
Sounds like the polar bear population is expanding so fast they need to do some culling to bring numbers into balance. Maybe cull some greens at the BBC at the same time – their numbers are out of control.
Nice to see UKIP have announced that they would end the BBC licence fee tax and break the bbc monopoly by making it a subscription service. Given that most of the best Tory policies of the last 10yrs were first proposed by UKIP maybe they’ll have the courage to pick this one up as well.
How mean. You know the left likes their things “free” which means paid by others who are given no choice.
If you don’t watch broadcast TV then you don’t have to pay for a licence. Ironic that the BBC was the first to push catch-up or online downloads.
Gerry–I stopped my TV contract on February 1, 2013. I actually kept it one month beyond the 2 year contract in order to watch my high school band march in the 2013 Tournament of Roses Parade in Pasadena, CA on New Year’s day.
Now I watch things on my laptop via YouTube. I do not miss TV. I listen to Rush Limbaugh on radio and then pick up a few snips of Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson from Fox. My Fox snips are a day late, but not a problem.
Last night I watched President Trump’s rally in Evansville, IN streaming in real time. I don’t let the media slice, dice and cherry pick what he has to say. I am far ahead of those who watch news on TV.
I don’t think the BBC will need ‘culling’ – because of the preponderance of “non-cis” employees, I think that natural population decline will see to it just by Darwinism. Mind you, a few top of the food-chain predators might hasten the decline, but then, most of the BBC IS in London!
Reason: There are more polar bear attacks because there are more bears. They’ve been multiplying rapidly over the last 20 years. More seals are available.
When Al Gore was born, there were 7000 polar bears, now there are just 30,000 left.
This is what happens whenever human populations expand. The only solutions are to learn to deal with nature or confine all humans to tiny areas completely away from wildlife. Guess which one the “caring” greens are for?
Well pointed out.
Let it be said, this is a human tragedy, i don’t wish to make political capital – not one bit..
However, never even get close to a mother Polar bear with cub – NEVER!
I’ve been chased by a cow who was protecting her young calf at her side, you can’t believe how fast they can move – that was in a field and I jumped over a three foot barbed wire fence, in the nick of time and yes – I got nicked – by barbed wire. A mother Polar bear could move even more quickly – I am guessing.
An adult male polar bear can be more than 10 feet tall when standing on its hind legs. I remember hearing this on a PBS program in the 1980’s when I owned a Victorian house with 12′ ceilings. I remember looking at the top of a built in cupboard door in the room and going “yikes!!”
Just checked and it is true. It is about the same for Grizzly bears whereas our eastern black bears are about 6′ on their hind legs.
All are dangerous. Imagine just one swipe from the paw you pictured…..
Heavens, the pads and claws are quite enormous, speaks of big animal, very big.
I once got knocked down by a cow when I unknowingly got between the cow and its calf. A lot of deaths and injuries on farms, to both farmers and walkers, are attributable to cows. Stay well away from any big animal you are not familiar with is the best advice (even more so if it is a carnivore).
Believe me Phil, I know!
If only Yellowstone tourists could grasp that concept, Phillip.
The bears are probably hungry due to the thicker arctic ice these last few years. Too thick and they can’t get to the seals, nor can the seals get to air unless they are many many miles from shore.
A family were gathering spring eggs on an island in the Hudson Bay. Time goes by and suddenly a bear is going towards a young child. The father runs in front of his daughter to protect her. No time to grab a gun. The bear attacks him. Another man shots the bear, but too late for the man protecting his daughter.
The Naujaat’s polar bear attack, it’s believed the man had no gun at the time. He fought off the bears and died later from his wounds. Possibly with the 2 other 2. The man leaves behind 7 young children, who he was likely hunting for food and clothing for the up coming, very cold winter. Heart breaking.
Bears are put down: a) to recover body parts b) when attack human will attack again c) as now have taste of human.
It’s also being questioned if the environmentalist up close polar bear tours (within inches, from high Tundra buggies) at Churchill, Manitoba have accustomed the bears to humans over the decades. Or the wild life group feeding bears outside of Arviat, Nunavut is changing bear natural instincts.
For decades Kivalliq Inuit have been saying there are too many bears. And bears are healthy. Why the global warmers, aka climate changers have dropped the starving polar bear over the past many years. It’s also been getting much colder, destroying their Arctic is melting $$$ fund raising campaigns.
So they are pushing Wind Turbines and solar panels for the Arctic. (Face palm.) Yea, just gotta have un-realiable electricity at higher prices at -40c, with a wind chill of -60c in the dark in the Arctic.
blimey, there’s no accounting for stupid – PV arrays in the Arctic……………….I can’t get with that one, birdmincers are bad enough but in the land of midnight – solar panels, the mind boggles.
Paul you are so right but hysteria, lies and political activism are rife at the Beeb. Worst of all we are forced to fund its propaganda!
Quite so!
+1
This tragic mess only tells us that the Inuit people have lost most of their hunting and survival skills as a product of their exposure to so-called “civilisation”. A hundred years ago they would never have made any of the apparently basic errors these poor people made.
A very sad story at every possible level.
a hundred years ago they would not have survived so no story, just “gone, dunno why”. details are in the story, last 3 bears were attracted to the food source, 1 dead, 1badly injured, 1minor injuries so unable to retreat.
The BBC is almost back in its comfort zone at the end – bringing in Global Warming.
As I have posted already on Effect of Greenland Melt…
As a dog returns to his vomit, a fool returns to his foolishness.
Until I checked just now, I did not know this charming line was from the Bible. And after looking at various Translations, I think they are all slightly wrong. It makes more sense – although it is less pithy – as,
As a dog returns to his pool of sick AND LICKS IT, so a fool returns to his FOOLISH NOTIONS and ENJOYS THEM AGAIN.
Actually, when you poke around in the background, you realize that the BBC was always in its comfort zone, because this is just another instance of the worldwide echo-chamber. Why would the BBC have it as a story anyway? It is not of the slightest intrinsic interest to any person in Britain. Even in Canada it is only a story because of the usual “victimology” aspect – another “problem being faced by the Native community.”
As I say, the background will be found in an earlier incident, and write-up in Canada, following which ONE* “expert” opined the bears were spending more time on land because there was less sea-ice, and so there were more sightings and interactions, and a journo on July 13 immediately and gratuitously added his own two cents:
“And with global warming not showing any signs of slowing down it appears the bear problem will continue.” Which comment immediately became the lead part of the Headline “Declining ice is blamed…” and…
so on and so forth, and then to the BBC’s department of “We are doing strange things to the Arctic, and urgent action is needed to punish the British people for it.”
*In the story this became ‘researchers’ – plural.
I do love the BBC’s cognitive dissonance in so many of their reports. Insinuate that this attack happened because global warming has reduced sea ice whilst also reporting that the hunters were trapped by, er, sea ice.
“…[BBC] reports…”
China does not read them.
Phoenix 44, Good Point!!
I’m sickened that the polar bears were killed, especially the mother and cubs.
It has to be said that we might think we are the only species with a right to live, but eventually this will be our downfall.
Why is the “mother and cubs” so important? I believe it was “mother and CUB.” So she had all the rights and those out hunting for species other than polar bears to feed their families had none?
What is the moral position when a mother polar bear with a cub kills a seal who had a pup?
Would it have been better to kill the mother bear who did the attacking and leave the cub to starve?
Blaming humans for everything one sees as “bad” is an old and useless road to travel. One soon comes to the end of logic and only emotion is left. Pure emotion is not a sound philosophy to follow.
Doublethink, not cognitive dissonance, unless the BBC are actually not believers in global warming and are only saying so because it’s their job to do so.
There is a town in north Norway where visitors are required to checkout a firearm when they arrive and must carry it with them at all times when travelling around. It is not that it is a rough place but it is to protect them against roaming polar bears.
Just to be clear, this place has LOTS of residual sea-ice this year. So it is a funny old sort of “scientist” who says a polar bear cannot find enough of it to park his fanny on:
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/cgi-bin/getprod.pl?prodid=WIS55CT&wrap=1&lang=en
The local town, now called Naujaat, but formerly Repulse Bay, is in the bottom left,
at 67 1/2 N. It is on the Arctic Circle.
Sorry.
66 1/2 N.
Thanks. I had no idea where Najat was and assumed it was some small Innuit village. Of course, I know where Repulse Bay is. I mean it is small too but it is rather large by regional standards.
The whole The Polar Bears Are Dying Out thing was started by a study from that go to source for all things Arctic….the University of Arizona. It seems one of their academics did a summer study of one small polar bear population in Alaska and concluded it was shrinking.
The University then announced that they had proof….proof I tell you…..that the entire Polar Bear world was coming to end as prophesied. And that it was just one of many signs of the forthcoming doom to befall mankind for its wicked, wicked ways.
As with wind farms vs bat deaths or CO2 “pollution” vs the need to attend climate conferences in exotic loctions, the question of polar bears vs people simply adds to the already substantial evidence that eco-actvists are more than capable of holding two totally contradictory ideas in their head at the same time.
Allegedly the test of a first-rate intelligence though I have doubts about that!
Dr Susan Crockford’s book, “Eaten” is a good story and educational on polar gears!
Oops! I mean bears.
I went to Kruger national park in south Africa last year. I saw zero sea ice and zero Polar bears.
You denialists are so full of it….I refuse to debate any of you ever again.
Why does the WWF lie about polar bears and why do they seek monetary gain by getting gullible people to ‘Adopt a Polar Bear”?
Because it works.
For you paul.
Another bit of BBC hysteria.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45358643
Small boat of 2 fools crushed and sunk by non-existent Arctic sea ice (link may require browser translation).
https://www.yacht.de/aktuell/panorama/drama-in-der-nordwestpassage/a118316.html
First found via WUWT.
There was a time, when all Inuit were primarily nomadic, all those who were too old, sick or injured to travel, were left behind for the bears.
Bears and Inuit interacted this way for centuries. It is only since progress has allowed Inuit to settle in permanent communities that this interaction has been disappearing. However, as long as they hunt and fish to feed their families, the old enemies will confront each other on occasion.
If you haven’t been to the Kivalliq region or where the 3 hunters were, understand the land is not flat.
The man see’s the female bear in front of him then turns and heads in a different direction. But unknown to him he is going towards the cub.
You can be 30 even 10 feet from a wild animal and not know or see it, because of all the different levels of land and rock.
Both attack him. Note this cub is not a cute, cuddly muscle-less tiny stuffy a child has in their bedroom.
Soon this cub would be a year old or like a teenager if human. Cocky, curious, no fear and lacking discipline. Emphasize lacking discipline but with human taste knowledge.
Don’t forget the National G starving polar bear hoax became well known a few weeks ago. I kinda believe the BBC story was to replace that narrative with the emotional baby polar bear being shot story. (And to keep global warming, the arctic is melting alive in minds for reader to conclude polar bears must really be hungry, no hoax as now eating humans.)
It works, as seen by comments who are more concerned about the (cough couch innocent) polar bear than a young man’s life lost who was lovingly providing for his 7 children. Turns my stomach.