Talk:List of fatal bear attacks in North America

,

Killing of Baron von Schlosser

I just found a source that says that Baron von Schlosser was not killed in 1904: https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=LAH19040228.2.75 . Here an other source: https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/17073879/ . Fake news or alternative facts?

Thanks, removed. --CutOffTies (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Limiting list to wilderness attacks

This list is getting very long. If anyone is reading this, are there any thoughts on removing entries that involve captive bears? It seems a bit out of place. That would probably involve creating a new title for the list as well. Thanks

--CutOffTies (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I too see captive bear attacks as a different thing from free-ranging bear attacks. I'm not sure, however, that the captive bear attacks should just be deleted and lost to Wikipedia. What about adding another column: captive/free-ranging? That way, a reader could see at a glance the ones s/he is looking for. Chrisrus (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. How do you feel about Beeblebrox's suggestion of creating a different article for captive? --CutOffTies (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Chrisrus, I assume that for whatever reason you have stopped reading the talk page, since you ignored my question about splitting the article up and added more to it. I'm probably talking to myself here (well at least not you), but the problem is that the article is too big now. It is over 100 KB. See WP:SIZERULE. The article takes a bit to load even on broadband and is very slow when submitting an update (I'm getting Wikipedia errors which seems to be a bug since it does save). We need to split it up. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to just splitting the content on captive bears into a new article if length is the only concern. I think the entire list, split or not, would benefit from some attention by someone who knows how to construct sortable tables. Instead of having them broken down by section according to time and species, the entire list could be sorted on-the-fly by readers. Although I know this can be done I personally have no idea how to do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it can be done. Each section is already sortable by date now. I see how it is quite limiting though, as opposed to being able to sort everything at once. I suppose there's really no need to break it out by decade or black/brown. I think it was just like that when I started editing it and stuck with it. --CutOffTies (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've gone through and marked them all either "wild" or "captive". Maybe I should have said "wilderness" than "wild" because a captive animal is still a wild animal. But some happened with animals in the wild, while others happened with captive animals. Anyway, please notice that the captive attacks are quite few so losing them will not effect the size significantly anyhow. I don't think we can make an article out of them nor should we lose them. So I oppose the proposal. The readability reasoning to split at a certain size doesn't to me seem to apply to list articles because you don't suppose they will read everything on the whole list, they are just browsing through the list and the large numbers of citations mean the size is large but the text you read isn't that much because you don't read all of every citation, so raw KB count is a bit deceptive a measure for list articles. And now please notice they can sort by wild/captive. I agree that wild attacks and captive attacks are very different phenomena, but the reader can easily just focus on the type of attack that interests them now with the new changes. I don't think the article will be improved by removing the captive attacks, and article improvement is the only criterion. Chrisrus (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Sorry, I was a bit confused as to why you participated in a discussion here and then just went and made a big change without consensus.

After seeing in wp:SIZERULE that lists don't have the same criteria, I am okay with leaving as it is. I still don't think it is ideal, given that there is so much scrolling involved. I also think captive incidents are such different incidents that they shouldn't be included in the same list, but there doesn't seem to be a better alternative, and listing the wild/captive category is an improvement. Also I am concerned about the slowness and errors I receive when submitting an edit, but they do save so it isn't that big of a deal I guess. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

List is still way too long

I again think this list is way too long and affecting readability. There are so many ways to split it- I'd be interested in thoughts from others. Thanks --CutOffTies (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Maps removal

Maps do not accurately show all of the attacks listed on this page. For example, it does not show the 1960s fatality in Minnesota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariner82 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the section on maps as WP:SYNTH, per a discussion on WP:NORB. The relevant section diff is here.

I think that the whole article is dubious, but it's part of a general class of articles of this sort and I think that it's probably appropriate to have a general RfC about these types of articles in general to make a decision about that. I think there's a pretty strong consensus so far that if you're going to compile an article like this, it's inappropriate to compile the information into maps or summary lists.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The deletion of the maps does not constitute article improvement. The maps of the fatal bear attacks help the reader by providing WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR a straightforward summary of the article]]. Before you delete them again, please explain how deleting them improves the article here below.

I understand that you want all disparately sourced lists removed from Wikipedia on the WP:OR grounds. There should be another forum for that. I understand that you want to delete this article. This is a place for discussing article improvement, not article destruction. You should make a deletion request. Chrisrus (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not want "all disprately sourced lsits removed from Wikipedia. You consistently misrepresent my position here. Just like in the fatal dog attacks article, the compilation of these data into maps or numbers is the first and biggest problem here. What is the point of putting these maps here? What information are they trying to convey? They're either a mapping of locations of bear attacks mentioned on wikipedia (which is of interest to no one), or they are trying to convey the locations of bear attacks generally, in which case it's inappropriate as WP:OR. I think there is very clear support for this removal. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I now understand that you agree that desperately sourced lists are not WP:SYN, but, instead, you believe that no disparately source incomplete lists should be summarized. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists or Wikipedia:List_guideline might be the place for you to get your questions answered and to get this rule accepted. If so, we will have to delete the maps at that time. Until then, I will continue to restore the maps of the attacks on this list because they summarize the locations, species, and attack types found in this article very well, and therefore serve the reader and constitute article improvement, even though there may have been other such attacks that we don't know about. Chrisrus (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not say that disparately sourced lists are not synthesis, just that that's a different question from the summary question (which is much more obvious). I'm not necessarily convinced either way on disparate sourcing in general, but I think at the very least it's a strike against. Also, if there is a consensus that these are OR (which I'm sure there will be, because it's completely analogous to the dog attack case), they will be removed. You don't have to say that you will "continue to restore them", since you're the only one who has repeatedly reverted changes against consensus in these discussions. Frankly, I'm convinced there's a consensus on this matter already, since even you admit it's a completely analogous situation to the summary tables, for which there is a clear consensus in favor of removal, and other editors have already chimed in on suggesting the removal of the maps, but I'll wait for a third party to assess the current state of the consensus.

Oh, and as for whether removal is an article improvement, obviously we disagree on that point, otherwise we wouldn't have a content dispute here. I think that it is an improvement to the article, because quality articles don't include original research, and this is very clearly original research. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The maps should be removed. Since the list is not exhaustive, the maps misrepresents the danger posed by bears and which bears are more likely to attack. Also, its silly to have separate maps for Canada, the continental U.S. and Alaska, instead of one map for the U.S. and Canada. Bears do not observe international boundaries. TFD (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

When you say that your are not convinced about disparate sourcing in general, I assume you're talking about list articles, only. Is that correct? What about, say, List of planets? Chrisrus (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't represent nor misrepresent the danger posed by bears, nor which bears are more likely to attack. It represents the locations of fatal bear attacks known to the article thus far, their species and whether they were wild or captive. That is all. Chrisrus (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"List of planets" is a disambiguation page. If you wanted a list article for planets in the solar system, it would make sense to use a list which you will find in books about astronomy and post all of them at once, rather than add them individually as editors manage to identify them. As for your map, if I saw more bear attacks in one place than another, I would assume that that place had more bear attacks. Instead the map merely tells me the progress Wikipedia articles have made in identifying bear attacks in that area. Why would a reader want to know that? Surely The Signpost would be a better place to post that information. TFD (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry that readers will think that these are the only fatal bear attacks that have ever occurred in North America, but if you must, it would be better to simply add a disclaimer to that effect than to delete the maps. Also, please don't worry that we are missing many fatal bear attacks that have been published in WP:RSes but haven't collected here. When fatal bear attacks appear in WP:RSes, they appear on this page right away. All the maps represent is a summary of the article. What conclusions the readers draw belong to the readers. Chrisrus (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that a visual representation of the progress of Wikipedia editors documenting bear attacks is useless information that doesn't help anyone, but that's the only thing that you can be conveying in the article without it being original research. A disclaimer won't help with that. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 12:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry; the list isn't missing any recent reliably sourced, confirmed fatal bear attacks in North America. Fatal bear attacks are big news, and every time one happens, someone adds it to this list with little delay, so we're not missing any for a very long time. As to whether this information is useless or unhelpful to anyone, I wouldn't set myself up to be the judge of that. You can't predict, maybe this information might be useful to someone. But even if not, it's assumed that someone reading this article is interested intrinsically, so they can be predicted to helped in their research by maps of the ones we know about, which is all of them for a very long time. To improve it, we should just date the maps and work on ways to ensure that they are updated each time a new attack is added. Chrisrus (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

First off, who cares if these things are reliably sourced? Wikipedia cares, but no one wants to know where all the bear attacks are that meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards. Second, do you have a source that says that you aren't missing any? Because it seems to me like this is the exact point that you are missing. You are synthesizing a list here and saying, "This is all of them". If the inclusion of the maps depends on the list being exhaustive, then you need to have a source that it's exhaustive. If it's not exhaustive, then the sampling methodology is "These are the ones Wikipedia editors have found so far".

As for the utility of these, you seem to be dodging the question of why someone would find these useful, since they only convey information about Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors' progress, which is not something that is usually included in Wikipedia. The only reason anyone would find it useful is if they misinterpreted what it was showing them, so again it's either WP:OR or WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and either case it should be out. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course people care that they are reliably sourced because it shows that they actually happened.

While a citation would be needed to add to the article that we haven't missed any recent fatal North American bear attacks, it's not needed for me to tell you that here now. Reason dictates that if a known fatal bear attack occurs, it's going to make the news. The list has all the confirmed fatal bear attack reports that have occurred for several years because if you watched this page you would see how it works. Once, I tried to add one that had just appeared in my news feed, but others had already beat me to it. Now that it's on your watchlist you will see what I mean. There really isn't any realistic danger that such attacks will be left off the list for very long.

But you are right, reason dictates that there must have been many other unconfirmed fatal bear attacks on this continent. In the history of North America, surely there have been other fatal bear attacks that we don't know about. For example, when the first North Americans arrived, there was the short-faced bear, the biggest badass on the planet since T-rex. We can assume, but not add to the article, that they killed many people. Readers understand this, but there is no way that we could add these to the list because there are no records and this obviously only includes those we can know about through reliable records.

So people do understand what those maps are showing them, but if you don't agree, some kind of disclaimer would be a better solution than deleting them. As to the utility of the lists, I can only repeat that there is intrinsic interest in fatal bear attacks and that we can't know if this information might have some practical utility for readers beyond that, but who knows, it might. But more to your point, there really isn't any realistic danger of reader misinterpretation. Chrisrus (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Reason dictates that if a known fatal bear attack occurs, it's going to make the news." That is original research. Even it could be reliably sourced, you would have to combine it with the examples you found, which is synthesis. Anyway, I think you are missing the broader picture. We are not supposed to provide articles about topics that they are not in reliable sources. If no one in any reliable source has decided to compile a list of bear attacks in the U.S. and Canada, then the topic lacks "notability", and hence should not be written. TFD (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Whether "Reason dictates that.......make the news" is WP:OR or not is completely irrelevant because it only appears on a talk page, not the article. I might as well tell you that "If no one...written" is WP:OR, so we can scratch that argument from consideration. Chrisrus (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The broader picture you seem to be referring to, whether this article should ever have been written, is not map deletion, but article deletion. This is a place to discuss article improvement; that is all. Deletion discussions do not belong here. There is a deletion procedure and a place for the corresponding deletion discussion. You cannot rightly discuss article deletion here. If what you want is not to improve but to destroy this article, you must begin a proper deletion procedure. Chrisrus (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (partially) mooted?

I was looking through the peer review for this article and noticed that CutOffTies had suggested that a comprehensive list would be published in an academic journal shortly (i.e. soon after the peer review, which was over 3 years ago). It seems that this has in fact been published, here (this is cited in the article), covering the years 1900-2009. The supplementary information of that paper has a list of bear attacks, broken down by party size, location and many other variables. The paper itself has various charts including a histogram of attacks by decade and maps (less detailed than those included in this article) of the locations. If the data in the maps presented is limited to the data in this or other academic journal articles, I wouldn't consider this a disparately sourced list, and as such not WP:OR. Can CutOffTies or Chrisrus clarify if the maps are limited to the data from comprehensive sources? Would excising information not taken from comprehensive sources be an acceptable compromise on this matter? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but please do not believe that disparately sourced articles are WP:OR. It is longstanding consensus and practice that they are not. See for example, List of apes, or thousands of other examples. Anyway we would still need different sources for attacks not within the date range of that article. Chrisrus (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I have never said that disparately sourced articles are WP:OR. All my old points stand and I think are even strengthened by the fact that exactly what's going on here (compiling a list, then drawing conclusions about geographic distributions, making summary tables, etc) is a research project. If you look at the paper cited, you'll see that it goes into details about the methodology and why they believe it's a comprehensive list. The article then underwent peer review and entered the academic literature. Your argument that, absent this source, it's not original research to do that exact same thing ourselves does not, to me, hold much water. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This is just a list reliably sourced attacks. The attacks on the map should not be limited to just one source. We want to have all the attacks on the maps, not just those from one source. It doesn't improve the maps to exclude some attacks that we know about from the maps. We should include all the known attacks on the maps, no matter which or how many sources they come from. If we limited the attacks on the maps to just that source, then we would be denying the reader all the attacks that have happened since 2009. That would constitute impoverishing the maps of good, reliable information. Chrisrus (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

So compile the list and submit it to the Journal of Wildlife Management. If your sampling methodology is accurate and conveys useful information, then you should be able to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. We're not in the business of doing research on the locations of bear attacks. What you are suggesting is that we should extend Stephen Herrero's published research project ourselves for the good of the reader. That is inappropriate.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Those maps are a good, straighforward summary of this article, and straightforward summaries of entire articles based on many different sources can't be a violation of WP:OR because they are everywhere on Wikipedia. Straightforward summaries of articles are a huge chunk of Wikipedia. We summarize articles and summarize them in not just text but also tables and charts and maps. There are countless, countless maps all over Wikipedia which are compiled from more than one reliable source. Looking around and you will see them everywhere and agree that it is absolutely clear that there is a long-standing consensus all over Wikipedia for a very long time that we can summarize articles about history and wars and animal ranges and geographic phenomena in maps that are compilations of information from multiple reliable sources and therefore, the way you see it, "original" to Wikipedia. Recently, for example, the range map of Canis lupus was updated to expand a bit based on some new source that just one corner of the entire map and of course was not used when that map was originally made to make the rest of the map outside that corner. Wikipedia has added circles and arrows and text and blotches and shapes, whatever seems best to summarize disparately sourced articles into the maps because such maps improve articles and are reliably sourced. Don't take if from me, put WP:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop on your watchlist, and watch the great work they routinely do for the readers of all kinds of articles. WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR, and that applies not only to text summaries but also graphic ones like maps. Chrisrus (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

What is a primary source? A journal article is an example of a primary source. Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be a primary source. In the case of a LIST of bear attacks, the individual reports in the news are NOT actually primary sources. They are DATA POINTS. The journal articles that are published by collecting those data points are the primary sources. Textbooks that use those journal articles are secondary sources. Wikipedia that is based on the textbooks and journal articles is therefore a tertiary source. If a wikipedia article is based on the DATA POINTS (e.g. individual news reports of attacks), that makes the article a PRIMARY SOURCE, just like the journal article that uses similar methods. That is original research.

Original research is good. It is important. But it is not appropriate for wikipedia articles to be original research.Onefireuser (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

So the list of fatal bear attacks is qualitatively different than the other lists you have been giving as counter examples. Those are lists of individually notable items. Most of the items have their own wikipedia pages. On the bear page, only Mr Treadwell has his own page. This suggests that the items on the list are not notable in and of themselves. Only the list as a whole is notable. Therefore it is original research. I agree with Chrisrus that someone might be interested in reading this article. However, I disagree with Chrisrus that Wikipedia is an appropriate place to publish this information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I perform original research for my career. Although I believe in my research and I think others would be interested in reading it, it would be highly inappropriate for me to publish it on Wikipedia, even though it is complied from publicly available sources.Onefireuser (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You are right, Wikipedia is not a primary source. The primary sources for this article are the WP:RSes on which it is based. Chrisrus (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no WP:OR in this article. There is only summary of the WP:RSes that the article is based on. Chrisrus (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the guidelines for list articles, the notability threshold for each item on list is not as high as that of articles: Wikipedia:CSC#Common_selection_criteria. To give some example from articles that I personally have worked on, List of dogs is only a list of "famous" dogs, many of which are not notable enough for articles themselves, but notable enough for item-on-a-list status. Another example that I haven't worked on is List_of_minor_biblical_figures. None of the attacks on this list are notable enough for their own articles, but they are notable enough to be collected together on a list. Even if they were not, it would be a WP:NOTABILITY problem, not an WP:OR problem, because the source of everything in the article are the WP:RSes on which it is based. Chrisrus (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia:CSC#Common_selection_criteria is not defining what is allowed in a list; it is giving examples of criteria that could be used to define a list. Second, you missed my point. My point was not that the individual items were not notable enough. It was that they are not notable at all. Only the list as a whole is notable. That makes the list original research. Even if you do not agree, did I explain that clearly above? Do you see how the creation of these articles is most similar to the way that scientists conduct research, and not similar to the way that editors write encyclopedia articles?Onefireuser (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Onefireuser

WP:CSC categorizes lists on Wikipedia by item selection criteria:

1. The first category I like to call "blue link lists" because each item is notable enough to link to an article. A red link is an a lacuna where an article sh/w/could be.

2. I call these "Black link lists", because, like List of minor biblical figures, we don't surround item titles in double brackets few if any items are notable enough for their own articles. There are thousands of such lists on Wikipedia, just like this one.

Here's my point: it was earlier said that, because "....the items on the list are not notable in and of themselves" and that because "only the list as a whole is notable" this means that "Therefore it is original research." The existence of countless black link lists described by WP:CSC all over Wikipedia proves that this is not the case. The fact that the items on this list are mostly not notable in and of themselves, and the fact that only list as a whole is notable like, for example, List of minor biblical figures, and countless others, does not mean that such articles are "original research". Please agree on this point. Chrisrus (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems we are approaching a consensus, although not unanimous, on removing these maps. Could a couple of more editors weigh in on whether these maps are WP:OR or WP:INDISCRIMINATE? It would be good to get a couple more opinions before we remove them. Onefireuser (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Do not remove these maps. WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR. Chrisrus (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Independent of Chrisrus's potentially spurious argument that this is a straightforward summary, I don't think the maps need to be removed, because there is a source which includes the full list from 1900-2009. I think removing items from the list from before 1900 and from after 2009 does not hurt the article at all and moots any questions about WP:OR, but I think there's no strong argument for removing the maps from the 1900-2009 period.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

For more detail on why these maps should not be removed on WP:OR grounds, please see the corresponding discussion going on parallel to this one, Here. There is no consensus to delete these maps. Chrisrus (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Are disparately sourced list articles OR? No, but only provided they follow the "Manual of Style/Lists" guideline: "List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings). The items on these lists include links to articles in a particular subject area, and may include additional information about the listed items." So if any of these attacks had notability and their own articles, a disparately sourced article would be fine. The list article would then help readers interested in bear attacks navigate to specific articles. Otherwise it is synthesis. TFD (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand a proposal to remove all list items which can only be sourced to WP:RS news reports, is that correct?

I understand the assertion being made that each item on disparately sourced lists must have its own article, or the list may be deleted on OR, is that correct?

You seem to be saying that the article may stay if it reproduces only a list published in one single WP:RS, because otherwise the list would be WP:SYN because the list is being compiled from different sources, is that correct?

Or that all items sourced to news report-type WP:RSes must be deleted, is that correct? Basically, to restrict the type of WP:RS that may be used on lists, or at least on all disparately sourced list articles, is that correct? Chrisrus (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of list articles (or list sections in articles) is to provide a navigation tool or to replicate lists found in reliable sources. Personally I have never seen the need for a list article as a navigation tool, since categories and subject templates. But the are allowed under policy. Of course there are lots of articles that fail guidelines, but AfDs usually succeed in the most egregious cases or where an article cannot be fixed. This article can be fixed by using proper sourcing and it would then tell readers in which parts of North America fatal bear attacks are more frequent. Surely that is a more worthwhile approach than listing bear attacks that Wikipedia editors have managed to find in local papers.

Incidentally, a sourced list should contain all the attacks currently listed. It will be interesting to see how complete the current list is. And the same information and sources currently in the article can be maintained. Also, wikipedia is free to compile lists that have not already been compilled elsewhere. each item may be sourced to different WP:RSes.

TFD (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, that is not correct. That is the purpose of a navigation page. The purpose of a list article is to inform the readers, not to help them find articles. Lists do not need to be complete. Maybe you are familiar with the tag. IF we limited this list to only onetype of RS, many reliably sourced items will be lost, as it only covers attacks between certain years. Having said that, however, please feel free to improve the article by summarizing and incorporating information from it into the article. Chrisrus (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

New book on the civil trial following the Yellowstone Park 1972 death of Harry Walker (maybe useful for environmental history articles?)

This book might be useful for an article on the history of US national parks/environmental history: Engineering Eden: the true story of a violent death, a trial, and the fight over controlling nature by Jordan Fisher Smith 2016, Penguin Random House ISBN 978-0307454263 Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like a fascinating book! --CutOffTies (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

E. Schwimmer, death of 2002.

Regarding Ester Schwimmer, killed 19 August 2002:

The baby's name is given here and in the CBS News citation as Ester. She is named Esther in this New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/20/nyregion/catskill-bear-snatches-infant-from-stroller-and-kills-her.html . In the Times Herald-Record, the local regional paper, she is Esty (which could be a nickname). http://www.recordonline.com/article/20020820/NEWS/308209999/0/SEARCH

The first officer on the scene chased the bear into the woods where it attempted to climb a tree. (Male, ~ 2 years old, 155 lbs.) He dispatched it.

In this NYT article, we see that the necropsy discovered plastic bags, peanut butter smears, grocery store fruit stickers, and aluminum in his stomach, indicating that he'd been eating garbage http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/21/nyregion/a-recipe-for-a-run-in-more-bears-and-more-people-in-their-path.html .

I cannot corroborate this, but as a cautionary tale for others reading this comment, a NYS Trooper who was also at the scene told his wife, a nurse I worked with, that the baby's stroller was parked near the bungalow colony's dumpster. Bears + human temptations (like bird feeders, barbecue grills, dumpsters) = regret.

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism

Obvious vandalism by 174.254.197.202

Tried to patch it up a bit.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.68.204 (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Additional Death by Grizzly

Mr. Frank Scott Barnes, former mayor of Wrangell, AK, and salmon cannery owner/operator, was killed by a grizzly in 1939, while guiding a party of fisherman on the Stikine River. He'd headed back to a cabin in which the party had overnighted to retrieve an article of gear, encountered the bear, fired one shot. His party found him wedged into the crotch of a tree, only to be freed using an axe. Mr. Barnes died en route to Seattle for treatment. This story was reported in Outdoor Life, sorry don't know the date, but did read the article. Also, Mr. Barnes was a relative, I learned of his death through family lore. Mr Barnes isn't mentioned in this list.

Fewer annual deaths as you go back in time, and a greater proportion involving captive bears. Grizzlies and blacks were subject to pretty constant hunting pressure in earlier days, so tended to display a greater fear of man. The hunting early on was directed toward eradication, because the bears, killing livestock and raiding produce, were direct competitors of humans in the survival game. Controlled hunting, aimed at maintaining reasonable populations, results in a more nocturnal and less bold bear population, aiding in the reduction of human fatalities due to bears. Banning hunting and criminalizing self defense against bears leads to saturated population levels, resulting in full-tilt intra-species cannibalism, and to a bolder, more diurnal bear population that interacts more freely with humans. To reduce bear deaths, implement hunting aimed at population maintenance, at a density well below resource saturation.

2600:6C54:7A80:3C3C:49AF:8416:8801:E941 (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Alaskan Grizzly attack at

Gary Sotherden was killed by Grizzly in 1976 and it was proven with dna from skull in 1991. 2600:1700:69F3:1880:4591:8072:AC32:2E88 (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

NOT "Brown" Bears

Brown bears are coastal AK/BC bears, and I assert should be a different subspecies. GRIZZLIES are INLAND bears, look much different and are more aggressive. 2607:FB91:1E68:D18C:AC39:C2D1:6883:6242 (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Allan Russell Baines

This was my brother. First of all his name was Allan Russell Jones!!! And he was killed in Leo Creek, BC. Not Granisle!! And he was fishing Kokanee with 3 friends, not 2!! Get it right!! Polarmj (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)