[cabbage]

Any thoughts from the forumites?

Personally I thought it was one of the best series I've seen in a long time, the bears were fabulous and the 'story' was engaging and timely I think.

Just how far should we go when trying to research animal behaviour?

Given that most scientists will tell you its impossible to study anything (let alone an animal) without affecting its behaviour is it time to explore new techniques and get up close and personal?

Should the researchers have intervened to save Hope the abandoned bear cub? My first instinct is no - but then if I'd been in that situation I'd almost certainly have done something. Does that make me a bad scientist or a good human being?

Is it a good thing to teach any wild animal to associate people with food, even if its for the benefit of research?

I don't know the answer to any of these but they're fascinating questions IMO, I think we may be on the verge of - or even in the middle of - a paradigm shift in our approach to wildlife research and conservation, whether its a good thing remains to be seen but wildlife films like this are a great way to bring the discussion to the public domain.

Gordon Buchanon is rapidly becoming my favourite of the new breed of wildlife presenters. I was pleased to see that he attempted to prevent the bears becoming habituated to humans by growing his hair out so that he could pretend to be a sheep.

[Hawk_Eye]

I really enjoyed it but was disappointed that they only edited the footage to 3 episodes.

Just how far should we go when trying to research animal behaviour?

Given that most scientists will tell you its impossible to study anything (let alone an animal) without affecting its behaviour is it time to explore new techniques and get up close and personal?

Should the researchers have intervened to save Hope the abandoned bear cub? My first instinct is no - but then if I'd been in that situation I'd almost certainly have done something. Does that make me a bad scientist or a good human being?

Is it a good thing to teach any wild animal to associate people with food, even if its for the benefit of research?

It's hard to say because there are so many variables. The one thing I stand by is that if an animal has been directly effected by human actions then it's fine to interfere in order to correct this.

[cabbage]

I really enjoyed it but was disappointed that they only edited the footage to 3 episodes.

Just how far should we go when trying to research animal behaviour?

Given that most scientists will tell you its impossible to study anything (let alone an animal) without affecting its behaviour is it time to explore new techniques and get up close and personal?

Should the researchers have intervened to save Hope the abandoned bear cub? My first instinct is no - but then if I'd been in that situation I'd almost certainly have done something. Does that make me a bad scientist or a good human being?

Is it a good thing to teach any wild animal to associate people with food, even if its for the benefit of research?

It's hard to say because there are so many variables. The one thing I stand by is that if an animal has been directly effected by human actions then it's fine to interfere in order to correct this.

I'd generally agree with you on that one - but then I'm not a scientist! You have to take into consideration the animals future life as well - what exactly were they going to do with Hope if her mother hadn't accepted her back? I suppose it could also be the case that there was something 'wrong' with Hope that wasn't apparent to human senses which had caused her abandonment.

I have to say I was uneasy with the technique being used to track the bears, I just can't see that anything but trouble can come from habituating wild animals like this to accepting food from people. The film was at pains to point out that Black Bears aren't actually very dangerous to humans, but most people don't know this.
Most people when they see a bear approaching them, even if only innocently looking for a treat, will panic - and if they're armed... (the people not the bears that is, I'm not sure if I support the right to arm bears either )

[Hawk_Eye]

I'd generally agree with you on that one - but then I'm not a scientist! You have to take into consideration the animals future life as well - what exactly were they going to do with Hope if her mother hadn't accepted her back? I suppose it could also be the case that there was something 'wrong' with Hope that wasn't apparent to human senses which had caused her abandonment.
I have to say I was uneasy with the technique being used to track the bears, I just can't see that anything but trouble can come from habituating wild animals like this to accepting food from people. The film was at pains to point out that Black Bears aren't actually very dangerous to humans, but most people don't know this.
Most people when they see a bear approaching them, even if only innocently looking for a treat, will panic - and if they're armed... (the people not the bears that is, I'm not sure if I support the right to arm bears either )

So many variables to take into consideration. It's hard to know where the line is drawn. I think you'd have to make a judgement call and hope for the best. As we all know nothing is certain in life - well apart from death (sorry a bit morbid but true) - so no decision in this respect can really be classed as right or wrong. At least that's how I see it.
Definately with you on the tracking technique very uneasy. Just look at what happened to Gordon, slight mistake and got nipped for it. Could have been worse. I remember watching a programme when I was younger where it stated that if you're attacked by a Grizzly fight back hard and if you're attacked by a Black bear play dead. Don't know how true that is?
and what if you're attacked by a polar bear, well what would you be if you were attached to another object by an incline plane, wrapped helicly around an axis? (answer below )

Perhaps BBC Wildlife should do an article on this subject.













Answer: You're screwed!

[cabbage]

So many variables to take into consideration. It's hard to know where the line is drawn. I think you'd have to make a judgement call and hope for the best. As we all know nothing is certain in life - well apart from death (sorry a bit morbid but true) - so no decision in this respect can really be classed as right or wrong. At least that's how I see it.
Definately with you on the tracking technique very uneasy. Just look at what happened to Gordon, slight mistake and got nipped for it. Could have been worse. I remember watching a programme when I was younger where it stated that if you're attacked by a Grizzly fight back hard and if you're attacked by a Black bear play dead. Don't know how true that is?
and what if you're attacked by a polar bear, well what would you be if you were attached to another object by an incline plane, wrapped helicly around an axis? (answer below )

Perhaps BBC Wildlife should do an article on this subject.

Answer: You're screwed!

Thats a perfect example. Gordon admitted it was his own fault as the bear had been giving him signs it was unhappy and he'd ignored them - I wouldn't even have been aware the bear was giving any signals at all. He knew how to handle things; I'd have panicked and made a bad situation worse - and ultimately if anything did go wrong then, one way or another, it would have been the bear who would pay the price. Can't have bloodthirsty critters stalking the woods can we? Well not unless they're taxpayers of course