Bears, Bears, Bears

Hi there,
I live in Edmonton and I am closest to Jasper, Alberta and also have camped in Kananaskis close to Calgary. There appears to be an increasing problem with bears. A few people ( 3 to 4 as I understand it) a year now are killed by bears in and around Jasper, Banff and the surrounding areas.
the numbers of berar attacks and bears killing people is increasing as we encroach on their habitat and they find easy pickings of food close to humans. Incidenently, a down hill biker was killed by a bear recently while cycling down a run at the Lodge in Panorama! My wife also quoted to me that she had heard of a Park Rangter who recently quit the Park service after 3 bear attacks on hikers. Last weekend she stayed a hotel in Jasper for a few days of R&R and the hotel gave out bear attack material and warned people to only go out in very large groups for saftery. I love backpacking and intend to do more, however my wife is now very scared of being attacked, mauled or eaten by a bear, while hiking on a trail. Of course, I have some concerns too. We have Bear Guard but again my wife is afraid that this will not be sufficient depending on the circumstances. Is there hikes that are close to Edmonton or Calgary that are less bear prone? What do other hikers do in regard to this in other areas of the Western Rockies? What hikes to people go on in the Western Rockies with potentially less problems. What experiences so other people have and what di they or do they do.

Comments please.

Terry

Carry a bear pepper spray. They've been found very effective against bears both brown and black.

I worked for the Alberta Forest Service at Hinton, on Athabaska Tower in '90 and'91, was with the BCFS for some years and grew up in BC Grizzly country. I have taught basic bear defence to many people on various crews I have trained/supervised and would suggest the following.

Buy a copy of "Bear Encounter Survival Guide" by James Gary Shelton and READ it. This is the BEST bear info. now available, Gary is a Yank who came to BC circa 1965 and was wise enough to learn from oldtime bushwhackers of the kind I was raised by. His suggestions concerning bears WORK as many encounters have taught me.

I usually hike un-armed, always have, but, I do carry a gun whenever I think it is a good idea. This is problematic in our National Parks and in certain parts of Kananaskis Country, too bad, people ALSO are a natural presence in the wilderness. However, unless you are dammed good with it, a gun is useless and so may not be the best option for many.

I NEVER carry bearspray, useless crap that can blind you and this happened to me. I DO suggest a small air horn to toot when you enter an area of restricted vision, this will warn bears that you are nearby.

Relax, given the numbers of bears in BC, about 1/4 million, we have had about 150 attacks in 20 years with about a dozen deaths. Watch where you are going and keep away from areas where bears travel, again, buy and read Gary's book. HTH.

Make noise when you hike and keep your eyes open. Secure your food in the apporpirate container and don't try to "defend" it if a bear comes after it.

No scented personal products (can be like catnip to large carnivores), no food in your tent, no cooking equipment in your tent.
If you see a bear, back away slowly and take a different path. Eye contact can be seen as a challange and running indicates that you're prey.
Avoid being near dead animals at all cost and give sows with cubs a wide distance - most of this applies to black and brown bears (although black bears are typically more afraid of humans than humans are of bears).
From what I've read most people who get attacked have done something to prompt the attack - startling a bear is a bad idea (hence making noise when you hike - typically the bears will not want to be near you) and approaching a bear to take their picture or get nearer to prove your bravado or some other reason is generally a sign of stupidity - in which case the bear taking action will be further proof that Darwin was right!

And don't believe that bull about bears not being able to run downhill, not being good climbers if above a certain weight/size etc.
Treat them with a healthy mix of caution & respect.
Law permitting, an Ithaca 37 riot shorty loaded with brennekes will do the trick for a particularly ornery bear.
As always, common sense & avoidance should be attempted first if possible.

Hey there, I too live in Edmonton. I am not sure where you get the idea that there are tons of bear attacks in Alberta. Have a look at this link that posts all documented bear attacks through the 1990's and 2000's to give you a sense. As Kutenay mentioned - read and be prepared. But get out and enjoy yourself and don't let the potential of a bear encounter diminish your pleasure. Most bear encounters have the bear running away:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America_by_decade

Yikes, I didn't want to read that page(but I did). The last thing I want to think about is people being attacked while in their tents. :-|

And last night (on the National Geographic channel) I watched a show about hunters in Kodiak, Alaska, being attacked (and killed) by bears. I need to keep reminding myself that (1) those are brown bears, and we don't have them here, and (2) they were most likely attacked because they were handling dead meat out in the wilderness (not that I need another reason, but this is another reason why I am glad I'm not a hunter).

But, it does seem like bear problems are on the rise all over. Bill S mentioned this elsewhere here regarding upper Yosemite, and I've seen numerous other reports elsewhere, indicating the same thing.

I, for one, will deal with the limitations of my Bearcache - and in fact am even considering the smaller version for day hikes, so I don't have to worry if I leave my day pack sitting for as I step away to take pictures etc. The only reason I haven't so far is the $70 price tag even for the BV350.

That list is definitely not exhaustive. I noticed it's missing one notable death from Liard Hotsprings north of Fort Nelson B.C. from 1997.

There certainly does seem to be more attacks and deaths lately, or is it just media hype? There's been a few stories lately about people who've fought back and killed the bears. Some of them have killed the bears with knives! I'm not going to rely totally on that to protect me though.

My only run in with a bear has been while I was on a bike in an urban area and we both went in opposite directions. There was one time while walking my dog, he absolutely refused to go down a certain path in a park near where I lived, coincidentally called Bear Meadow. The dog was the smart one that day I think. I never saw a bear though.

Bear bells are one item that might help warn the bear to take off. A gun could be helpful, especially in serious bear country, but who wants to lug it around. Bear spray may work, as long as the bear doesn't like the flavour. :P Can't say I've had to ward off a bear with either. Hope I never do, but the price in weight and $$ would be worth it to survive to hike another day.

A couple major reasons for the apparent increase in bear encounters, and particularly the violent ones have to do directly with the increased encroachment of the 2-legged apes into bear territory (and other formerly wilderness areas. One of these is the spread of dwellings (permanent, as in increase in settlement size, and temporary, as in "summer" cabins). This reduces the size of bear habitat and their food-gathering area. The other is the increased invasion of the 2-legged ones, most of whom are hopelessly ignorant of the wilderness and the rules that govern it (rules that preceded humans and their related accoutrements by thousands of years, sometimes called "Nature's Rules"). When you look at the "accident" reports, you will note that virtually all the humans involved in the attacks are very inexperienced in the outdoors, and virtually all have not even read the signs and handouts that are available all over the areas giving the precautions.

Many of the bears, both black and grizzly (brown bears), have become habituated to humans and human-frequented areas as sources of food. To take Tioga, where Barb and I were a couple weeks ago - while we had no problem, the food taken, cars broken into, and confrontations involved dumpsters (supposedly bearproof, but torn open by force), fish on stringers left in the streams, pop-up camper trailers with food inside, cars with ice chests visible, and so on.

The other major scenes involved sow and cubs, humans approaching recent grizzly kills, and humans lingering in feeding areas (berry patches, diggings - where the bears dig up ground and logs for grubs and such).

The basic thing is to learn the signs and the bear habits. Barb and I have been in the outdoors and in bear country all our lives. Neither of us separately nor together has ever lost anything to a bear or had a confrontation. We have seen plenty of bears close-up (including our trek in Katmai, where we were photographing the large coastal Alaskan brownies from less than 100 meters), and we have seen bears invading camps within 50 feet of our campsite. It isn't just luck. It has to do with education and mentoring from an early age. No, don't mistake my statement for hubris - if I don't take precautions constantly, I won't avoid all confrontations. And there is always the chance of encountering a very hungry, human-accustomed bear (there are ways of mitigating such encounters, as well).

There have been lots of comments here and elsewhere about carrying bells, pepper spray, and heavy artillery. If you are not "bear-aware" and do not behave according to Nature's Rules, none of those will do you any good. Pepper spray, for example, may work temporarily if you get the bear in the eyes, but experiments in Canada have shown that the pepper spray around a tree where a food bag is hung actually attracts the bears, and some bears have been observed to return after the stinging wears off in a few minutes. You still have to leave the area (not fleeing - that says you are prey).

Before you venture into bear country, learn from an experienced guide or ranger in the area. First, though, learn what "bear country" is - it's closer than you think (we have bears right here on the SF Peninsula in San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties, as well as on the Marin Peninsula to the north).

Bill, do you think the recent incidents where bears tore into tents (I think you mentioned this) were due to people having food or other scented items in the tents? Or were these due to bears having learned previously they might find food inside, even though the "current" campers might have taken all necessary precautions?

"...do you think the recent incidents where bears tore into tents were due to people having food or other scented items in the tents? Or were these due to bears having learned previously they might find food inside, even though the "current" campers might have taken all necessary precautions?"

Don't forget... Bears know "food" by smell only. To a bear, lipgloss, toothpaste, candles, car air freshners, deodorant, soaps, chewing gum (even just the wrappers in your pocket), and a host of other "people things" smell just like food to a bear.

I know most real outdoor people know this, but I mention it as a reminder to the weekend warriors and newbies to hang this stuff up too if you "need" to take it into the woods.

A black bear's sense of smell is 700 times more sensitive than a blood hound. A blood hound can smell 1000 times better than a human! Bears can smell food 4 miles away. One trailed a sow in heat for 14 miles!

I teach wilderness survival at Carbon County Environmental Education Center near Jim Thorpe, PA. We've dealt with numerous bear/human contact incidents in our area in the last few years. In the past 30 days, there have been 2 biting incidents at Hickory Run State Park. ALL of the incidents have been provoked by food stored improperly. One of the children bitten was sleeping in the "food tent"!!!!!!!!

Education is the key to success. Never stop teaching, NEVER.

bheiser,
You asked if the tent invasions were

Quote:

people having food or other scented items in the tents... Or were these due to bears having learned previously they might find food inside,

Both. All the incidents we saw last month in the Tioga area were cases where the food was in the tent, car, or "bearproof dumpster" or fishermen with their stringer of fish cooling in the stream a few feet from them as they continued fishing. The incidents involving a kid in a tent here in Calif this summer were all cases where the kid had some candy in the tent with him/her. But my ranger friend in Yosemite tells me that there were several incidents in the Valley, Little Yosemite Valley (backpackers' area), and a couple of the campgrounds along the Tioga Road where a tent was entered that had no food or smellables according to the tent owners, which implies habituation. Only thing is, several of the tents in campgrounds were located close to where the people were cooking, so potentially had picked up smells. Plus, since there is a substantial fine if the bear was attracted to food left in the open or in a tent instead of provided bear boxes (the welded steel lockers) or backpacker canisters, the tent owners might have been denying having left food in the tents, even though it was there. My ranger friend does think that at least one case she interviewed was truthfully a tent with no food or smellables (it was a long-experienced backpacker).

As if there hasn't been enough input on this subject, let me add a couple more observations. 1. I read that some recent bear incidents occurred in areas where habitat and food have been temporarily reduced by wildfire and drought, making resident bears more hungry and aggressive than they would be ordinarily, so you may want to plan hikes accordingly. 2. Don't forget to include unburned trash (including packaging) and leftover garbage with your other bear vault contents ); these items smell like food and are attractants, too. By the way, I just use ziplock bags (sometimes doubled) along with the usual other precautions and so far, so good after 50+ years hiking in black bear and some brown bear country in WA, ID, MT and WY with numerous encounters, but no incidents. I, too, carry a small airhorn, but I have never used it. It's pretty old; I guess I better at least test it!

Just read an article about a guy who carried bear spray. When approached by a brownie, he proceded to spray himself in the face. As he lay on the ground blinded and screaming, the bear pawed and swatted him a couple of times and lumbered off. I guess it worked! Probably not the recommended procedure though!!!

"Pepper spray, for example, may work temporarily if you get the bear in the eyes"
"You still have to leave the area (not fleeing - that says you are prey)."

So if one were to spray an aggressive bear directly in the eyes, what should the procedure be? Calmly grab essentials (if possible) and walk away? Begin running when out of sight?

Bears are one thing, but Bigfoot...now he scares me!

That wasn't bigfoot.

If the creature had grey hair & beard and reaked of body odor, that was Babu.

If worse came to worse, could a person rely on dropping a black bear with a .357 revolver? (six-shot, (for safety) only 5 loaded)?

Mr Haze asked

Quote:

If worse came to worse, could a person rely on dropping a black bear with a .357 revolver?

Short answer is "no". Even someone with training and continual practice is going to be excited in a situation where you might want to shoot the bear. The best "approach" by far is to be aware of your surroundings and the "psychology" of bears (bad choice of words, since avoidance and not approach is part of the solution). Black bears are generally pretty shy of people, the exception being mother and cubs when you get between them, or habituated bears. Even then, a bit of alertness on your part will prevent any problems.

In my almost 7 decades of being in the outdoors, I have never had a bad encounter with a black bear (or grizzly, for that matter) and never lost any food to them. That includes most bear habitat in the US (including Alaska) and Canada. I was taught properly from a very early age about their habits and how to take precautions with food and other smellables. I am not as familiar with grizzlies, but have spent time photographing them (Alaskan brown bears) from within 50-60 meters.

I have seen people camped within 50 feet of me lose all their food (I used to say "within 100 feet", but last fall in a car campground near Tioga Pass, the people in the next campsite over left freshly cleaned fish sitting on the table and left their ice chest open - bear came into camp, raided both, then tried to flee through the tent when they came back to camp and started yelling). There were 2 bears roaming that campground. Between them, they raided a half dozen campsites (all having left food out or leaving ice chests sitting on the table, or surprisingly, a couple of SunShowers).

Let's not start the "guns in the woods" thread all over again. It has been beaten to death, especially by people who have no personal extended experience with bears. However, a comment from kutenay, based on his decades in BC and the Canadian Rockies, would be welcomed.

Non-intuitive information for the 18-year period 1978-1996

Number of people killed by grizzly bears in British Columbia: 4; number injured, 34.

Number of people killed by black bears in BC: 10; number injured, 78.

BC grizzly bears population estimate for relevant period; 10,000 to 13,000; black bears about 120,000.

(Source: Web page by John Merriman, resource management instructor, Malaspina Univeristy, Nanaimo, BC. In a side note, Merriman says rate of attacks has recently increased, but doesn't provide data.)

----------------

P.S., current BC human population: 4.4 million; 2006 overnight customs entries, 4.9 million. A survey of BC outdoor recreation "providers" (guides, lodges etc.) reported nearly 1 million clients in a recent year. Sources; various.

There have been, as I posted several deaths and quite a number of attacks since Merriman's data and this can be easily corroborated by checking with the BC Ministry of Environment or several other sources. The most recent estimates of both Black and Grizzly Bear populations AND in country like this, you can ONLY do estimates are coming out of UNBC in Prince George.

The indications are that our rapidly increasing populations of both species are now about 160-200 thousand for Ursus Americanus and in excess of 20,000 for Ursus Arctos Horribilus.

Again, the best current estimates indicate, as I posted, a very strong increase in bear numbers and this correlates to both a major decrease in hunting mortality and, IMO, the faster "greenup" in most recent springs plus much less severe winters than during most of the 20thC, thus allowing survival of more "borderline"cubs and older bears.

Based on 52 years of hiking in BC, 44 years of backpack camping and many decades involved in conservation, wilderness work and nature study; I would agree that, as most serious knowledgeable bear people here state, we need much greater study of bears to make the best possible management decisions.

The working bear professionals here, many of whom I know personally, are bitterly divided over exactly WHAT should be done and how to do it. As with internet forums, we see a great deal of "expertise" promoted as actual truth by outsiders with little or no actual Grizzly experience; seems that a weekend as a tourist in BC qualifies such types to comment on our management of our bears, etc.

Anyone intersted can contact the MoE, BCWF or GOABC for up to date, field-experience-based data and the UNBC study "should"be available soon. With decades of involvement in this, I am keenly interested in facts and from those who, as I have done, actually have lived or worked in the BC-Alberta bush.

Again, read James Gary Shelton's books, especially his first one for REAL info. on dealing with dangerous and problem bears. Another VERY interesting guy is Charlie Russell, son of Andy, whom I knew slightly long ago; he is anti-hunting to a ridiculous degree, but, I respect his integrity and share his love of bears, always have.

His two books are worth reading and I think the "truth"is somewhere between Gary and Charlie......check them out.

SO, if the brown bear population has not quite doubled since the middle 1990s in BC, can we expect eight fatal attacks from browns in the next 18 years?

Given growth backcountry recreation there, one might reasonably expect a somewhat greater number.

But the ratio of backcountry recreationalistis, versus bear attacks, is likely to remain about the same-- that is, negligible.

Of course, as Merriman expresses on his Web site, personal experience with an attack is a terrible experience. But one ought nevertheless, consider the odds.

And if you spend much time, unlike the average hiker, field dressing big game in brown bear habitat, you should probably have a plan B....

Interestingly, the 18-year record cited shows the ratio of attacks versus injury among black and brown bears is almost exactly the same.

Nobody can tell that and anyone who states that they can is full of BS. The furor over G-bears IS over-done, UNTIL you encounter one and THEN your attitude changes.

Yet, I still seldom carry a gun when backpacking due to weight and have never been attacked, however, experienced friends/colleagues of mine have been mauled.

I regularly dress and backpack game in Grizzly country, have for 44 years and I still will, BUT, given the increase in incidents, I am much more wary than we were in the '60s.

Black Bears "usually" are not as dangerous to full-grown men as Grizzlies are; a Grizzly is a truely formidable animal and should always be treated with respect and caution. Blacks are often timid or actually quite friendly and several have hung out around BCFS lookouts I was on with no problems, I kinda enjoy having them nearby.

Bears are like avalanches, you simply learn as much about them from credible sources as you can and behave wtih caution. The attitude that the wilderness of BC-Alberta is just as safe as can be, often held by urbanites with zero bush experience gets people real dead, real fast.

The original poster will, hopefully, take heed of the advice given by those here who are familiar with the region he is concerned about and govern his activites accordingly.

As kutenay points out, it seems that there is always an instant response from someone meeting the criterion of

Quote:

"expertise" promoted as actual truth by outsiders with little or no actual Grizzly experience;

Oh, wait, I forgot. This is an internet forum, so anyone who has a keyboard can promote himself as an "expert" by misquoting "statistics." It is always good to remember the rule of thumb - "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." It is far too easy to misunderstand and misinterpret "statistics", and dangerous to the point of being life-threatening to rely on such misunderstandings.

It is unfortunate that there are so few people posting on web sites whose real life experience is extensive and whose information is reliable. When it comes to bears, living in the wilderness, and the usefulness or non-usefulness of firearms in the wilderness, one of those few is kutenay.

Misquoted Mr Merriman's data?

But I've just rechecked the information and it is accurately quoted. Perhaps when you use the term "misquoted," you have something else in mind that was inadequately expressed?

Four people, in total, killed by grizzly bears over a relatively recent eighteen-year period in BC, versus ten killed by black bears...

Malaspina U ain't Harvard, but it's fair to assume that Mr. Merriman's data is carefully compiled, accurate and valuable.

----

As I posted, the incidence of attacks has greatly increased during the past decade and it seems that the original poster was concerned about an area in Alberta where I worked for the government department which manages wildlife, forests, etc. So, with that direct experience, my opinions may have some validity that is lacking among Harvard graduates, for example.

Among the tree-planters, etc., whom I supervised and taught bear safety to, long ago, were quite a number of graduates from prestigious American universities, including Harvard, Yale,Stanford and UCLA.

Their bear knowledge was/is minimal, although some thought themselves true experts, after reading Bradford Angier, another self-touted expert on BC and the north.

What we know here is that BC universities and colleges as I posted are certainly NOT Harvard, the level of bear knowledge here is FAR higher, there is simply no comparison between an eastern American urbanite and working professionals in BC-AB.

I completely understand Bill's point and I suspect most here do, but, why don't you give us your opinion based on your actual experience with Grizzlies in the area under discussion. I am sure that we all can learn a great deal from your "expertise" as we always do here.

John Merriman is a part-time instructor at Malaspina, with an M.Ed. He is NOT a biologist, however, the former principal of Malaspina was a Phd. ecologist, friend of mine for years and one of my bio. profs.

Merriman's ...major paper...according to Malaspina's website was about human-bear conflicts, he was a Conservation Officer here...this will account for the population estimates given; they are from the early '90s BC MoE estimates and far more recent data is available.

I will probably call him later today to chat and see if he has any more recent data as my original post here concerning bear populations/deaths by is pretty accurate as checks will substantiate.

I am very familiar with Malaspina as my friend/mentor was it's principal, my nephew was born and raised there in Nanaimo and obtained his BSc. honours degree there as a result of which he won a full scholarship in marine biology to The University of Queensland, in Aus. where he is now completing his Phd.

I was a Canadian Coast Guard Lightkeeper near Nanaimo and often visted Malaspina to use the library as is my right as a BC citizen and taxpayer, so, I am quite familiar with the bio. dept. there. Funny, one would expect data from the U of A studies to deal with the area concerned, I have some new stuff sent me by a researcher in Banff-Jasper on a disc last year, but, have no means of posting it here. I know more about wilderness, ecology and gear-bush living than I do about computers.

I double-checked the stats. from Wikipedia,which they state are incomplete and my original estimate was actually slightly lower than the total number of deaths caused by bears during the timespan I mentioned.

If, you look at the past THIRTY years, a period coinciding with the major, unfortunate population growth in BC, you find that about 20 people have been killed by bears here in that time, five since Merriman's data period ended and a number of others have been killed in Alberta, where the original poster lives and is concerned about.

I consider that a sufficient number for a serious backpacker to be concerned about and thus offer simple advice that HAS worked for me and others while in bear country. MANY bear attacks do not get reported here and it only takes ONCE, to ruin or end your life.

Caution and a lack of the bravado suggested by those with little or no actual experience will, IMHO, do far more to keep you safe than anything else.

If as you seem to say, there were 14 deaths in the 18 years ended 1996, and five since then, where is the higher attack rate that Merriman refers to (and which I'm reasonably sure exists)?

Any idea how many potential victims were there during these periods?

How was it that I misquoted Merriman? I'm not really clear what your personal opinion may be of his reliability, but I think his credentials speak for themselves.

What does my experience have to do with his data?

I called John, we have never met, but, have many friends in common among the BC working resource community and academic community, according to his wife.

I will call him again this evening and then get his latest data to add to my previous posts.

I did NOT say that you ...misquoted...ANYONE, it seems that you do not read as closely as you might. As to ...credentials..., I do not question John's, however, mine are at least equal in this situation and as to your experience, well, re-read Bill's posts above.

I live in Calgary and have spent ALLOT of time in K-Country and Banff Nat Park. I am a avid back country camper and before I was domesticated a bike nut. I have come across many black bears over the years and only two encounters with griz. Here is what I have learned from reading books on the matter and talking with REAL seasoned pros on the subject.

Bear spray does not work! 99% of the people that carry it are too scared to think straight and if they even get it out cannot figure out what when where and when not to use it. Usually the person is standing with the can in hand and the bear is gone

Bear bells are the WORST idea when hiking in black bear country. Black bears are curious animals and will come out to find what is making that noise. You may not see them but they are looking at you.

Bear bangers and flare pens work, but again it falls under the same category as the pepper spray in scared s... to use.

If your going to spend the night you need some guidelines. NO FOOD IN TENT
NO CLOTHES YOU WEAR WHILE EATING IN THE TENT
WASH BEFORE GOING TO BED
HANG YOUR FOOD AND CLOTHES(above mentioned) or use bear bins

Pay attention to your surroundings. dont put yourself in a position that you can startle a bear. Blind corners for example.

Learn what signs to look for at the different times of year. Learn what scat is and what bear does to trees.

Personally I am more afraid of the cats. They ARE watching you, you WONT hear them and if they think your a tasty catch... well your done. I was told by a guy once that for every back country trip you take you have a better chance of being watched at some point by a cat than a bear.

I would like to offer a comment. First, I have never camped in Grizzly territory. However, I spent a lot of time over the years in deep woods of Eastern Canada, camping for months at a time, so I have some exposure to Black bears. Pretty sorry credentials, I suppose, but what I wanted to tender was not statistics or experience, but logic.

Regarding bear spray. The conditions under which you are most likely to startle a bear are, logically, the following:
1/ Strong breeze blowing from the bear toward you, so that he cannot smell you.
2/ Heavy rain or thick mist which softens your footsteps and the sound of your approach.
3/ Thick brush which shields you from the sight of each other.
4/ A combination of any/all of the above.

In all of the above scenarios, bear spray will, logically, be markedly ineffective; perhaps even dangerous. The spray will blow back upon you if you are "spitting into the wind". The spray will not penetrate rain or thick brush well. And the smell of the residue spray, even if it thwarts the immediate attack, will lure black bears to the site (which is often a hiking trail) for days, perhaps provoking attacks on other hikers. You are, in effect, setting a trap for hikers. So, even ignoring tests which show that black bears seem relatively resistant to spray, what good does the spray do?

The spray is helpful as:
1/ Placebo effect - it, possibly, provides the hiker with less tendency to emit the smell of total fear when confronting a bear. This, logically, helps reduce the inclination of the bear to attack.
2/ The sound of the spray is often enough to scare away the bear (from studies, but not illogical) even when the discharge never reaches him.

Generally, I would conclude from the above that bear spray is a waste of money so far as ultimate effectiveness, but might be nice to have along if someone forgot the other seasonings :)

I will not remark upon the logical superiority of a high-caliber firearm under the conditions outlined above, other than to state that its profitable use is entirely user-dependent.

Warm regards,

Reed
www.overmywaders.com

BrianL, I would be interested in knowing who some of these ...REAL seasoned pros... you refer to are, if you don't mind? I know a number of people in the Foothills-East Slopes areas, some of whom I worked with years ago and might well know some of those you mention.

There are not anywhere near the number of Grizzlies there as in BC, but, in Jasper and Banff Parks, there are sure enough to ruin a guy's day, if you get tangled up with one in the wrong manner!

I never saw a Grizzly in AB in three seasons of 4-5.5 months living solo in the bush there, but, I did see a Blackie or two. One in particular, on the road into Athabaska Tower not far from the Hinton Nordic Center, was one of the largest I have ever seen and was bigger than many Interior Grizzlies, just a monster and so fat he could hardly walk....maybe a card-carrying Liberal in disguise??? :)

I would imagine bear spray would work quite effectivly on a human. I say this based on the comments on the "Missing Hiker" board. (This forum) Sort of a multi-purpose tool wouldn't you say?

the seasoned pros I mentioned mostly include rangers and I only know them by first name. Its hard to remember their names but I believe one was named Kelly and she was stationed at the base just before Moose mountain in K country. As well a Ranger named Bruce that I had a good long talk with out in Banff half way around lake minnewanka. Both were between 1996 and 2000. I also went to a couple Bear awareness courses held by MEC around that same time. I wish I had a better memory of the presenters but alas no luck.

Also I remember a course on Backcounty navigation (staying found). The course was through Mount Royal in Calgary and its instructor was a 10+ year professional guide (so he said) that worked out of northern California. This genius had no idea about bears and took us out on one memorable trip into a field of wild berry's, bear scat and diggings in late fall... Well lets just say I had to say some choice words to this "guide". You know how you get this creepy tingle running down your spine when you KNOW something is not right? Well I was more than a little afraid.

Both the griz encounters I have had were quick and not very eventfull (thankfully) Both times I came around a corner and their they were. Both times they were a long way away from me but close enough that I had my heart rate jump to double the speed. The first time the bear turned and walked into the bush in a matter of a few seconds. The second time the bear turned on the trail and faced me. Stood there of a good 20 secondes (seemed like a hour). Took a couple steps toward me and then slowly walked into the low bush to the side of the trail. I was at a loss at the time if I should keep walking toward where the bear was or hang out for some time. I ended up just having a good sit down and eating a power bar and water. I waited for almost a half hour and made allot of noise in that time. I had the fear in me for the rest of the day.

The U.S. Geological Survey has a page analyzing bear attacks in Alaska.
It is based completely on statistics, rather than one person's direct, hard-won, and sometimes long and bitter personal experience, gained through many decades, deep in the bush, and for which there is no substitute, apparently.

It draws several interesting conclusions, but also suggests, perhaps disappointingly, that "Bear attacks are very, very rare phenonmen in Alaska, bearing testimony to the great pains these animals take to avoid humans. "

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/attacks/bear-human_conflicts.htm

If you root around, there are links there that address certain topics within this thread.

There are some excellent written opinions out of Alaska and the Melenius study is among these; I have seen some pretty humungous Grizzlies there when I worked on the BC-AK border many years ago.

I am cautious about statistics where subjects of this sort are concerned, but, I can say that VERY FEW working pros I have known EVER base their opinions about bears on ONE person's experience, I certainly never did and still don't.

However, anyone who has NO personal experience with Grizzlies and very little in wilderness of the BC-AK-YT-NWT type, should probably refrain from commenting on the topic.

Ah, Moose Mountain Lookout, brings back memories and I wish that the oldtime high Albertan lookouts were still in operation, such as Sugar Loaf and Burnt Timber, THAT is lovely country and I would go back to work for the AFS if they were still working.

If, you read Stephen Herrero's book, he mentions his "partner" John, another draftdodger from the "Bay Area" who was on the first BCFS crew I ever had to supervise at New Denver, BC, in spring, 1969. This guy KNEW IT ALL about Grizzlies as did so many of the others like him and we BCFS "locals"as he called us, had to continually teach these hotshots how to keep out of trouble.

Herrero, whom I used to know slightly, was refused permission to study bears in Canada's National Parks due to his lack of field experience with living bears...not a lot of Grizzlies at Berkeley, I gather. He is a nice guy, I respect his scientific studies and notice that the source given by our resident "expert" points out exactly what I have said in respect of bear attack frequencies...how very odd, eh?

Herrero changed his book for the second edition due to comments by many BC working pros, of whom I was one; he admitted that his opinions on dealing with a bear attack were wrong. I admire his integrity, but, his book is not the best source of info. on this topic....better than some, however.....

"There are some excellent written opinions out of Alaska."

Note that USGS won't offer many opinions, because they do science.

Both science and opinion are useful, but different. Some say there are no facts, only opinions. They tend to get lost.

And God Bless the United States Geographical Survey:

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/attacks/bear-human_conflicts.htm

Honestly, Mr. K is right, because the brown bear basically s**kx, and I ought not even comment, because their habitat tended to be very sparse, in the limited parts of North Cascades and Canada where I've spent brief periods without regretting their abscence.

Also, in Canada, I've tended to stay in the cabins, which are reassuring. The rangers around Banff and Canmore are eagle-eyed and strict about hazards, but I didn't encounter much like that in Purcells or Selkirks. Are there less bears there?

My actual problem is, the truly deep and terrible grief that I've suffered in the wilderness, merely due to girlfriend's severe anguish regarding black bears. All bears, 'coons, porcupines, skunks, et cetera, are potential trouble, but blacks aren't too bad..I've even had my own, tiny share of troubles with the blacks.

My worst bear experience was at walk-in camp very near Jasper, Alberta, involving large group from Quebec on a very strong drug in 1974 and lots of fully habituated bears. I was quite sober at the time, and it wasn't worth freaking about.

-

Calamity,

You said that "Note that USGS won't offer many opinions, because they do science.

Both science and opinion are useful, but different. Some say there are no facts, only opinions. They tend to get lost."

I would politely disagree, the article you cited was replete with opinions but singularly devoid of facts. The first step in scientific, and legal, discourse, is a definition of terms. The writers never defined the terms "encounter" or "attack" yet they used them synonymously. When is an "attack" an attack. Since 50% of the attacks caused no injury, were these attacks bluff charges, bears prowling a campground at a safe distance (but campers panicked), or campers protecting their breakfast of oatmeal? We don't know because the scientists don't tell us -- of course, the reporting of some of these bear "attacks" may have been grossly exaggerated.

Also Tom Smith's page, also on the site you pointed to, on the subject of pepper spray was very biased and blatantly subjective. If I ever presented a paper like that to a commercial entity, I'd lose all credibility. I appreciate that he was writing for the public, but he twisted statistics painfully.

So, you stick with your science, others can present experience, and some may present logic. Between the three approaches we all may benefit.

Warm regards,

Reed

P.S. - I would wager that there has been more loss of life over the years in the Interior of Alaska among the native groups and homesteaders than has gone reported. This would be due to the long winter allowing for grieving and the spring for renewal. Visitors coming through every few years would not be told of the sad events of the past year. Some remote old-timers would die, cause unknown, body not found ... could be bears?

Dr. Smith, Dr. Herrero and a number of other such academics have a "no shoot" attitude toward bears, especially Grizzlies and most of them have VERY little actual field experience as I have seen in more than four decades of dealing with this issue. Other persons concerned have far too strong a "shoot" attitude, IMHO, and Gary Shelton is among these, I have alluded to this in previous posts.

The article concerned is an example of this, Smith often lauds pepper spray over guns as he is against shooting bears and he certainly presents "data" in a skewed fashion to bolster his ideological biases. I don't think much of Smith, after reading material he has written over the years.

What gets ...lost...in this and other discussions here when someone, usually the same inexperienced tourist, introduces his opinion about the supposedly lack of danger in wilderness recreational pursuits, is the useful info. that some DO present that could assist novices with their excursions and that is really sad.

One example is the reference to ...brown bear...habitat... in Canada, of which there is a great deal; the animal in question is simply a "race" of the Grizzly and we have both oodles of these bears here and lots of habitat for them. They ARE very dangerous animals and it is wise to learn some basic methods of dealing with this before hiking/camping here just as one checks with The Canadian Avalanche Service before going into the mountains.

I would add that BC has about as many, probably somewhat more bears, in total, than Alaska does, using the stats. presented. This IS an "educated" guess, based on various reports from sources I consider credible, quite a number of them.

We have more Blackies, nearly as many Grizzlies and no Polar Bears in a smaller area and we have a whack of novice and foreign hikers-campers here all year long. So, it would seem very wise to take the advice of people who actually live here and work with these animals, or, that of guys with the most extensive outdoor experience on this forum, such as BillS.

Short stays in tourist cabins does not qualify one as particularly knowledgeable on any topic relevant to outdoors safety, IMHO.

I've always been personally trying to see a bear up close, and to date I've only encountered one. And he ran away from me. I even offered him a twinkie. I walked right over and held it out in my hand while I tried to pet him.

Ok, so I didn't offer him a twinkie, I'm not stupid. =) But I had you going for a minute.

Twinkies have been statistically identified by a US Government Agency as being the primary cause of Black Bear obesity in the contemporary Lower 48 "wilderness" and Yogi Bear of "Jellystone Park" is considered a prime example of what is wrong with 21stC bears. Go to this link for the REAL, non-opinion-based, hocus-pocus urbanite story........

www.USBS.org

Not just plain twinkies, but twinkies in pic-a-nic baskets, right? :)

Now you get the picture, almost as "real" as the Disney fantasies that some entertain about bears.....

The pic-a-nic basket IS the most insidious means of introducing Twinkyism into the bears of the USA, like those evil handguns, they MUST be BANNED!!!!

No Twinkie addiction, pic-a-nic temptation and who knows, the lion might well lie down with the lamb and think of the joy in Mudville about THAT!!!

I'm pretty sure Twinkies are illegal as a defense against bears. Something about toxic compounds, collateral damage, environmental pollution... I remember reading it somewhere :)

In Maine they use Dunkin Donuts, but the folks near the CA border make a run for Tim Horton's. Even black bears can be fussy. Read the difficulties some of the folks in Maine had, trying to wean Blackie from food like berries onto good carb charges like donuts (doughnuts). -- http://www.mainehuntingforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2110

Best regards,

Reed

Hey, do you suppose the bears remember that after hunting season?

kutenay if you dont mine I would like to know in your opinion if I am off on my train of thought with the local areas bears. I would really appreciate your opinion. I dont reguard myself as a expert in any stretch of the imagination. I want to learn learn learn. Being confident in your knowledge on a subject that directly relates to my familys safety is important to me. I would rather be told that I am wrong than keep hiking with info that directly affects me and my own.

you could send me a Email as well
0degreec@telus.net

Smith's USGS site recommending pepper spray is replete with opinions, but also offers good reasons to avoid killing a bear, given his slavish devotion to finicky state laws requiring carcass disposal, retrieval of skin by shooter, and relevant onerous logistics.

I don't grant at all, that the separate, historical analysis I linked to is much beyond science, pure and stupid, rather than opinion, nor that its terms are not reasonably well defined.

Smith et al., worked with 17,000 different numbers for the total study.

Obviously there is a tiny fraction of these numbers on USGS Web site. The most suspect statistic, to me, shows that people with firearms fared worse in the average bear attack than those unarmed. I bet half of those injured or killed with firearms were dressing game.

But to discount the work wholesale is merely cranky.

It's s probably some of the best work of its kind. Its comment that "bear attacks in Alaska are rare," is certainly accurate relative to the total human population in the state. It would probably remain fairly accurate, even if restricted to certain hunters and backpackers.

--------

Brian, I strongly agree with your attitudes concerning bear safety and suggest the use of a noisemaker of some sort, as well. The little Freon horns sold as emerg. fog horns to boaters here on the coast are very good for this and many prospectors carry these in the BC bush, they are good for S.O.S. signalling if you get lost, as well.

Given the regulations concerning guns where you are, I don't recommend carrying, although the right type of gun, in skilled hands, is the BEST defence against Grizzlies, period. The extra weight is the reason I have never backpacked with one of my bear guns, as a regular practice, however, this is an option to consider given your concern about your family and the cost, etc., is worth it in terms of peace of mind.

With over 60 Grizzly encounters in my life, a few at very close range and most while un-armed, I have never been charged and have never had to kill a bear, nor do I wish to. Yet, I know several very experienced bushmen who HAVE been attacked and the potential is always there and requires a level of caution such as you demonstrate.

I think that you are on the right track and suggest getting Gary Shelton's book as a sound reference on dealing with aggressive bears. I also would obey the signage concerning problem bears in the parks, no point in tempting fate, eh!

Dear Calamity,

You said:
"I don't grant at all, that the separate, historical analysis I linked to is much beyond science, pure and stupid, rather than opinion, nor that its terms are not reasonably well defined."

Well, I hope I didn't offend you with my comments on the study. Perhaps the actual study was more scientific than Smith & Herrero's presentation.

Let me give you examples of the errors I find and I will use no superlatives, just bare comments:

"database of Alaska bear-human encounters" -- What do they mean by a Bear-human encounter? If the bear is sighted 100 feet away and growls at the sight of humans, is that an "encounter"? Does the bear need to at least mock-charge, if so, how close must the bear approach?

"the database contains 500 incidents" -- now the term is "incident". What comprises an "incident"?

"patterns and timing of bear attacks" -- now it is "bear attacks". What is a bear attack? Must the bear actually have physical contact with a human? If so, why were 46% of the "attacks" non-injurious, not even a broken fingernail?

All of the above, Calamity, was just in the first paragraph. Yet, we continue:

"This is the distribution of bear attacks..." -- but the actual graph shown has the caption -- "Bear-Human Conflicts...". So we have another undefined term - "conflicts". This is not the way a scientist presents data.

The rest of the "study" cycles through the use of the undefined terms above, never settling on any one and never bothering to tell us how an incident/encounter/conflict/attack/interaction/encounter-attack is objectively defined.

Okay, let us move on, Calamity. Please read the following quote:
"Consistent with reports elsewhere, the greatest contributing factor to bear attacks is surprise. As you browse the other categories note too that many of these causes could have been avoided had people alerted bears of their presence by making noise."

"could have been avoided" -- a scientist might have said "might have been avoided", but would never use the declarative in dealing with ursine behavior.

Now look at the graph "Injury Class". Forty-six percent (233 of 500) of the "attacks" "result in no injury at all." We assume this means neither bear nor human was injured, but we don't really know. In law, if no damage is sustained, there is no "cause for action". Why, then, do Smith & Herrero include those "attacks"?

Oh, wait, S&H have another graph, also entitled "Injury Class". I think this one is bear injury because it says underneath -- "Bears fare far worse in encounters with humans with nearly 33% being killed." But does this mean 33% of five hundred bears? That would mean that 165 bears were snuffed in Alaska in self-defense over than time period. That would certainly indicate to me that from a human perspective, carrying a firearm in the Alaskan bush is a wise and safe choice. BTW, contrary to your statement, nowhere in their "Analyses and Implications" did the writers' mention firearms for or against.

Do you understand now how flawed this study is? If we cannot come away without the merest definition of the central theme "Bear encounter/attack,etc." the writers have given us nothing.

Warm regards,

Reed

My question would be, exactly what professional qualifications does Calamity possess to "peer-review" the work in question? He states that it is ...probably some of the best work of it's kind...and ...It would probably remain fairly accurate..., etc. as though HE has the scientific qualifications and field experience to judge this accurately.

Frankly, I do not think that Calamity HAS such a basis for his opinions and I knew Herrero not long after he came to Canada. I have about everything he has written and have read his and many other's scientific and popular treatises on Grizzlies over and over again, yet, I am ...merely cranky...

Yeah, sure, I am although I was dealing with Grizzlies as part of my employment years before Herrero ever saw his first one. Herrero is NOT the ultimate authority on Grizzlies, far from it and this study simply shows his and Tom Smith's willingness to skew data to fit THEIR political agenda concerning Grizzlies. I do not consider this sound science at all.

Hi folks, I would like to make an observation: as a novice outdoorsperson, and one who has been visiting the forums here for several months, I am disappointed by the attitudes of some of the members of this community. It has not taken me very long to learn which posters should be listened to and which should be ignored. To those of you who express thoughtful, considered, and experience-based advice and opinions (and do so with humility and tact), thank you! It has been a pleasure...

To others among you who persist in offering reams of next-to-useless info and have little practical experience to back it up, perhaps you should simply listen and learn from those who know what they are talking about?

kutenay mentioned the area signs warning of dangers and notices of the places we travel to. I would like to know how many "attacks" that are reported were in areas with a notice or warning of activity in the area.

One example I recall was from a few years ago in Canmore up in the benchlands area where a runner was killed by a bear (I think it was a blackie but not 100% sure). The woman was running on a trail that was "closed" due to allot of activity in the area. Sadly the woman was killed and the real events of the encounter were not discovered to my knowledge. But as you can guess the Forestry service tracked, trapped and killed the bear because it was "encroaching" into "civilization". (Now the Forestry service must of had a good reason or were pressured politically to take this action. ALLOT of very wealthy and influential people live in this hyper inflated mountain town)

This is just one example of the media and people not familiar with local WILDLIFE spinning the story into a crazy frenzy.

I think that its a fine line between showing people why we need to respect nature and scaring people with dramatic stories.

Respect and Education. Key to enjoying our wonderful outdoors. be it bears, avalanches, snakes, scorpions etc.
For myself I try to keep in mind that we are guests in their environment. After all bears are instinct driven animals and the "behavioral problems" are human educed.

One Canmore case involving a female runner five or six years ago I thought was a brown bear attack.

But here's to getting an education -- what we used to call back in the woods, "book learn'in !"

There are a number of good Web sites where one can view results of bear research. I haven't found any actual bears on the Web. Virtual bears yes.

Most of the attacks of that sort in the Rockies are by Grizzlies, Blacks are often scarce where Grizz. population densities are high as they are PREY. You find that Blacks are more numerous further north and my ugliest experience with one was at Slave Lake in 1993, when the boywas killed and eaten. Horrible for my colleagues who had to deal with it and when I spoke with them, a couple weeks later, they were pretty upset.

Please post these websites you mention as I may know or have friends who know the researchers concerned. I had an excellent old gab with John Merriman after you used his research, we have a number of former colleagues and buddies in common; he very kindly sent me a copy of his un-published paper that you posted on. Funny, among the working bush people in western Canada, the community is quite small and folks often send me research results and also their contact info. to call.

So, where was ...back in the woods..., Central Park, didn't know there WERE Grizzlies there!

One of the current Central Park Zoo polar bears ate a homeless person some years back. I didn't personally witness this event.

The United States Geographical Suvey is among foremost scientific agencies in the world sponsoring research into brown bears. They have several projects in this field.

Claims that USGS is any less than a golden standard for this type of science are sadly ill informed and foolish.

For various information and bear research results, see for example:

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/igbst-home.htm

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/grizzlyb.htm

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/brownbears.htm

http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/NCDEbeardna.htm

http://biology.usgs.gov/wter/mammalslarge.html

ETC...

------

Calamity,

You said:
"Claims that USGS is any less than a golden standard for this type of science are sadly ill informed and foolish."

Since I made such a claim, I would assume that your puerile name-calling is for me. Please treat us, then, your eager audience, as adults and dissect my previous post disputing the Smith & Herrero study. Meet my arguments with your own clever reasoning -- prove me wrong.

Petulance and whimpered invectives do not advance harmony on this forum -- or learning. Stand up and debate the clearly delineated issues; I am ready to be proven wrong. But if you do it, do it as a man - intent on truth, no matter its source.

"One of the current Central Park Zoo polar bears ate a homeless person some years back. I didn't personally witness this event."

I seem to be unable to find any documentation of this event online. Does anyone know when this was supposed to have happened? If it happened BI (Before Internet)it may be harder to verify.

I'll keep looking.

Try New York Times for Central Park polar bear attack.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00F17F6345C0C768CDDA90994DA484D81&scp=11&sq=polar+bear%2C+central+park+and+bronx+zoo&st=nyt

Anyone doubting the USGS's credibility may benefit by learning more about the agency, its aims, and social context.

calamity,

Should Kutenay and I accept your silence on the Smith & Herrero study as acknowledgment of its manifold inadequacies, or simply as your personal inadequacies in presenting a reasoned defense of the document?

"Fish, or cut bait"...Apologize for your infantile name-calling, or defend your premise.

Thanks in Advance.

I'm sorry. One difficulty may be that you're confusing the screed on bear spray with the analysis of Alaskan human/bear conflict.

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/attacks/bear-human_conflicts.htm

To call an analysis that relys on 17,000 bits of data "singularly devoid of facts" wouldn't be accurate.

Also, consider that the piece shown on the Web is not the study itself, but rather an informal presentation of its findings for public consumption sparing us the arcane mathematics and much else.

To say that it merely distorts facts to fit a political viewpoint is a potentially interesting criticism that ignores all but a small part of the presentation. Yet sometimes, science does confirm the counter-intuitive, and the scientist gets burned at the stake.

To criticize the scientists who performed the work for a "lack of field experience," is perhaps ungenerous and not necessarily even credible. But just as importantly, it's not even particularly relevant. The project was not an account nor analysis of personal field experience, which, while perhaps interesting and valuable, probably wouldn't be science and might simply be another "Grizzly Man" story with a happier ending.

Highly trained scientists kill for USGS jobs, for reasons that should be obvious.

Oh, and about the bear spray item: Chiefly, it presents a very systematic, detailed discussion of non-controversial strategies related to bear safety without regard to the particular safety devices employed.

Bear spray is a standard device. The author recommends backing this up with flare guns, and while acknowledging that firearms may also be effective, points out some downsides that are infrequently discussed.

"scientists" are in the same realm of delusion as Engineers and meteorologists. Seldom are they right about anything and when they are proven wrong they blame someone else for their failures.

I would venture to say that the reason scientists "kill" for USGS jobs is because its a guarantee of funding without the need to knock on doors and apply for grants. Ever meet a government employee that is starving for work or wages??? Neither have I.

I have no opinion on this "research". But I dont trust research from ANY source that does not have hands on experience in the field of question.

And lets face it, Government agency's are not known for their impartial objective studies. Money talks and corporate corruption rule the day. (especially in the USA.)

Sorry for any offense to US citizens. But sometimes the truth hurts.

calamity,

You dodged again, but not artfully. I did not confuse the two articles, you did. The Smith & Herrero article never mentioned firearms, you said it did.

However, you haven't even attempted to show me the definition of a Bear-human encounter/attack/incident/interaction/encounter-attack from that article. Without these terms defined the whole article is more worthless than drier-lint (which at least makes good tinder).

Show me the definitions -- from the article. If you can't/won't then retract your statements of the article's merit, like a gentleman.

Thank you.

You raise an interesting philosophical question pertaining to bear research, but which extends farther afield.

So should I throw away my USGS maps because they're from some Government Agency, and the guys who did the cartography didn't personally visit the benchmarks let alone walk each contour line?

Nobody's seen the earth revolve around the sun, or a tectonic plate, so ought I therefore assume these theories are doubtful and possibly corrupted by the government and/or corporations?

(Tectonic theory, BTW, is an interesting example of science that was almost entirely funded in its development by the US Gov.)

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Calamity (Jane)... Westerns... Dodge City...

You are correct.

When you said the piece contained no facts, I assumed you meant the defensive strategy item, which leaned more toward recommendations, whereas the piece to which you actually refer is almost pure data.

You are quite right that the term "BEAR ATTACK" isn't defined, which is an editorial oversight by USGS public information officers handling the Web site, or lack thereof.

Yet despite my lack of experience, I could probably just wing it, definition-wise, in order to know whether I were being subject to a bear attack.

I'm sorry you don't find the link I posted of any interest. Ought to have left it there.

I