Circumnavigation of Svalbard ended by Polar bear attack

[rbannocks]

Two Norwegian paddlers' attempt to paddle around Svalbard have had their trip ended by an attack by a polar bear while they were camped. One paddler was seriously injured while the other shot the bear dead.

See
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=www.nrk.no%2Fnyheter%2Fdistrikt%2Ftroms_og_finnmark%2F1.7228684&sl=no&tl=en&act=url

[horis karloff]

Bloody trespassers!

[Yakdiver]

Bloody trespassers!

Your right, they wanted a paddle and a bear had to die, OK it was most probably in self defence, but does it make it right, hope the guy recovers OK

[Wenley]

Yakdiver:

they wanted a paddle and a bear had to die...

This is it! The young lads distressed the cuddly polar bear, who otherwise would have been perfectly happy munching its diet of ringed and bearded seals.

[lg18]

Some info on their expedition as they set off....
http://www.explorersweb.com/oceans/news.php?id=19481

Near the end of that article is says previous expeditions have also been affected by polar bears.

Scary...

Here's an attempt in 2008 (not stopped by polar bears this time, but back injury)
http://www.ohad.info/svalbard/

[Newdaze]

More info and pictures - http://www.explorersweb.com/oceans/news.php?id=19544
Seem's like the bear fence was not enough of a deterent.
Unfortunately we're not at the top of the food chain. Really, Hope the guy's OK.

[David A]

we're not at the top of the food chain.

We are when we have a rifle with us!
I was glad to hear that they were prepared: had a rifle with them. It certainly brings a different element to kayaking as we in Scotland/UK perceive it.
I only hope that the kayaker that was injured recovers. There seems to be an undertone to this thread that the life of the polar bear is more important than a human life or subduing the need of humans to seek true adventure? It’s only an opinion but in a case like this one, human life should always supersede animal life. The upside of this story, someone is going to have a fantastic rug in front of their fire.

Big Wave Dave

[lg18]

I was glad to hear that they were prepared: had a rifle with them.

I may be remembering wrong, but when I went to Svalbard (eons ago now) I think we simply were not allowed to expeditionize beyond Longyear without a gun, and the first visit we were given a short course on firing it at a target before heading off. We also had a flare gun to shoot into a bear's face as a warning, and were supposed to (if time allowed!) shoot the big gun into the air as a warning to the bear before going for the kill. (I actually did need to do this when a bear peered into the open door of the tent one bright sunny night, mere inches from my feet. It was one of the most terrifying happenings of my life, and took a while to get over. The tent I was in already had a huge tear in it from the previous year's bear attack on the tent).

We were also advised by the authorities that, if we did have to kill one, to shoot for its heart, not its head, as their skull is so thick it might not kill them, and a bear with a headache is even more dangerous. Clearly in this case of the two kayakers, there was absolutely no time for peeing about with any warning/flare shots. He is so lucky to be alive. I think it might take both of them a long time to get over the terror.

Lucy

[Owen]

A good few years ago I looked into doing a ski tour in Spitsbergen; the rules on carrying a gun are very strict. If you leave Longyearbyen you have to have a gun with you all the time. If you camp you must use tripflares around your tent. Tripflares are very nasty things containing white phosphorus.

I contacted a German guide who said he could surpply us with an AK47, ammo and the flares. At this point it struck me as this was more like warfare than a peaseful skiing trip and I gave up on the idea. I just couldn't justify to myself spending all that time and money to go to somewhere to see the wonderful wild life and end up maybe blowing it away.

[lg18]

Hi Owen,

Yes we were also told we had to have trip fencing round the camp too. It really adds to the weight and hassle having to have guns, flare-guns and trip-fences, and the fences are fiddly and take ages to put up properly (and take down, so if you are travelling, it is even more of a burden). Was the German guy Andreas Umbreit by any chance? (I worked for him there guiding one season).

Lucy

[Owen]

Was the German guy Andreas Umbreit by any chance? (I worked for him there guiding one season).

Lucy

Yes that's the chap.

[tannys]

I was glad to hear that they were prepared: had a rifle with them.

I may be remembering wrong, but when I went to Svalbard (eons ago now) I think we simply were not allowed to expeditionize beyond Longyear without a gun, and the first visit we were given a short course on firing it at a target before heading off. We also had a flare gun to shoot into a bear's face as a warning, and were supposed to (if time allowed!) shoot the big gun into the air as a warning to the bear before going for the kill. (I actually did need to do this when a bear peered into the open door of the tent one bright sunny night, mere inches from my feet. It was one of the most terrifying happenings of my life, and took a while to get over. The tent I was in already had a huge tear in it from the previous year's bear attack on the tent).

We were also advised by the authorities that, if we did have to kill one, to shoot for its heart, not its head, as their skull is so thick it might not kill them, and a bear with a headache is even more dangerous. Clearly in this case of the two kayakers, there was absolutely no time for peeing about with any warning/flare shots. He is so lucky to be alive. I think it might take both of them a long time to get over the terror.

Lucy

When the other half goes there for work he is not allowed to walk out of the perimeter of the pit, only by car/plane etc that's on the south west side where there is not so many polar bears
he got this picture in January last year

[Ken_T]

Hi,
Just to say I'm glad both paddlers survived & to wish them a speedy recovery physically & emotionally.
Ken

[pby5a]

It’s only an opinion but in a case like this one, human life should always supersede animal life.

You do mean in this case I hope (as you wrote of course)? "Always" unfortunately won't do for me.

[Enray]

I just couldn't justify to myself spending all that time and money to go to somewhere to see the wonderful wild life and end up maybe blowing it away.

A nice comment. I often think that we sometimes have to consider whether it is totally necessary to enter the realm of wildlife where there is a good chance we will be in direct conflict with them - after all they will only recognise us as a potential food source or a threat. Tough one though, because it is the wildness that many of us seek!

[horis karloff]

As I get older I think Live and Let Live. I wont kill spiders, flies or anything. I wouldn't go somewhere that could endanger me and have as a last resort have to shoot to kill something coming to kill me, I wouldn't go there.
Like I said earlier "Bloody Trespassers" Man has done so much damage to this planet and its inhabitants.

[Ken_T]

Hi,
I don't think we ought to be condemming these 2 especially at the moment when they will both be traumatised & one very seriously injured. Also a lot of human activities probably do more harm to the wildlife of this planet than was done by these 2. Using oil, destroying forest for farming many other examples & I expect most of us use products from these activities.

[Owen]

I put my eariler post up mainly to show that the rules on Svalbard are very serious about what you have to carry. My comment, about deciding not to go, was my personal decision and was not meant to condemn or criticize anyone. I hope they both recover quickly.

[Wenley]

Polar bears are formidable creatures of majestic beauty, and also incidentally, the largest land predators. People in Svalbard take them seriously and try to avoid incidents that may result in people being hurted or a bear killed in self-defence. I remember that when Alon Ohan and Tim Starr attempted the circumnavigation in 2008 they carried large caliber rifles, trip wires and flare shooting equipment. It seemed then like a bare minimum compared to what seasoned campers sported in the islands at the time. Thing is that those precautions are standard in the Barents Sea: The Norwegian Polar Institute publishes a very interesting phamplet that after urging to keep out of the bears' way, stress the need to be armed with a high powered big game rifle as safety measures fail often and attacks may be quick and without warning. When the time comes, the suggested course of action is:

"If an aggressive bear attacks with no sign of being scared away by warning shots, shoot with the aim to kill. This is a last resort. Aim for the chest, below the head, either from the front or the side. Do not attempt a shot in the head because the skull of polar bears is tough and well protected by heavy muscles, and the vulnerable area is surprisingly small even on a big bear. Keep shooting until the bear lies still, and do not approach it until you are sure it is dead. Even then approach the bear from behind. Do not move the bear or remove anything from the scene. Contact the Governor of Svalbard immediately."

[Ran]

Hi,
I think there has to be an element of expectation of polar bear attack in Svalbard. This place is world famous for polar bears. Kayaking there is arguably tempting or at least risking this outcome. Whilst I sympathise with the guys and genuinely wouldnt wish this outcome on anyone, they are responsible for their own fate. This is what expeditioning is all about isnt it?

As regards the outcome for the bear, it is truly a sad affair, the cost of two Norwegians fun was its demise.
I would think that maybe expeditioning in Svalbard is a poor decision, I am thinking that these guys will probably believe so now. Svalbard does have a higher attack rate than other Arctic areas and it may have been prudent and may be prudent in future to head somewhere else.

As kayakers do we have a 'right' to go anywhere? At any cost? Or do we travel accepting the limits and confines of the natural order, the same natural order we appreciate and go kayaking to see? Each has to answer that.

Its pretty sad for both kayaker and bear, however we can make the decision to encounter the bear, the bear has no such strategy or luxury.
cheers
Ran

[tenboats1]

Many years ago we were faced with a similar dilemma for a trip to the frozen North. After much discussion we decided that we could not justify shooting such a magnificent animal when we were just going for fun.

So we came up with the following plan: we would all run like billyO, but the bear would still catch one of us (the slowest). We were all fairly evenly matched as runners as we were competing in fell races at the time.

We reasoned that the bear would stop chasing us once it had caught someone. The rest of us would then shoot our unlucky mate, thus giving him a clean, quick death , relative to being mauld and eaten alive by the bear. The bear would continue with its meal and we (the survivors) would then make good our escape (hopefully). As there were 4 of us this seemed like good enough odds to us.

Naturally this provided great incentive for the exped members to get fit, and we each engaged in intensive, but secret, training. I've never been on a trip when folk were so fit!! We even put in extra range time to make sure we could shoot straight, not wanting to make a mess of that important shot if the need arose. (which it never did as we were able to out run all the bears after all that extra training).

Yes, we all impact negatively on the earth, just by being here, but there are an awful lot of humans and not very many bears left..............pick your side and live by your ethics:)

[Wenley]

Ran:

As kayakers do we have a 'right' to go anywhere? At any cost?

Of course not at any cost, and I would guess that people who think about attempting to circumnavigate the archipelago assume that they might have to face Polar bears at any given time. Just think about continuous sunlight for 24 hours and the small teams that make very difficult to keep a revolving watch: One can imagine them falling after the first few days, inside their tent, trying to sleep in a semiconscious vigil for bears with a rifle close at hand. But in the end, more people climb K2 each year that kayak expeditions are attempted around Svalbard where bear encounters are very much a common eventuality: e.g., students and staff of the college of Arctic studies in Longyearbyen spend their first day in the island learning how to use rifles against bears. Of course, expeditioners are far more exposed as with bears routinely following the shoreline, they just cannot set their campsites very far from the shore, but as I see it, the only way to avoid incidents completely would be to let the Russians with the bears by themselves.

The problem might be the low reproduction rates of the polar bear but with a number (estimated) of 1,500 animals, just three bears were killed in Svalbard every year on average, during the period from 1993 to 2004, which makes it safe to assume that the bear populations in the islands do not face decline.

[chrism]

There seems to be an undertone to this thread that the life of the polar bear is more important than a human life or subduing the need of humans to seek true adventure? It’s only an opinion but in a case like this one, human life should always supersede animal life.

I don't think anybody is suggesting the shouldn't have shot the bear because its life was more important than the human's. Whether we should subdue our need for adventure (and so avoid the situation in the first place) rather than shoot bears is a more debatable point.

[Jimski89]

I've heard that polar bears showing normal healthly behaviour are naturaly wary of human activity. Being a well studied, endangered species it is likely that the dead animal will be taken for study. It would be interesting to know the results of the post mortem to see if this particular bear was old or sick.

[delphinidae]

I agree with chrism (re David A).

Incidents like this should at least make people weigh up the pros and cons of that expedition they've always wanted to do.

I'm somewhat unsentimental when it comes to killing wildlife (but not to the point of not giving a damn about there being one less polar bear in the world), but incidents like this one and the degree of preparation and skill/level-headedness needed to survive such encounters would make me think twice about that particular expedition.

Good excuse to post a link to the polar bears and huskies video though.

[Owen]

I've heard that polar bears showing normal healthly behaviour are naturaly wary of human activity. Being a well studied, endangered species it is likely that the dead animal will be taken for study. It would be interesting to know the results of the post mortem to see if this particular bear was old or sick.

I'm no great expert on Polar Bears but if I remember rightly what I read up/was told. It's the adolescent male that are the main problem, aren't they always. There are so many bears on the island because it's a major denning area. The mothers need land to den on, sea ice might break up. The pregnant females go into the den in the autumn and give berth during the winter. In the spring they'll take the cubs with them onto the sea ice. At the end of the summer she'll chase the males cubs off but keep the females with her for a second winter. Come the next spring, the ice starts to melt and retreats northward. If any of the adolescent males are on the islands, and don't twig on that the ice is going, there's a danger they'll get left behind. The seals live on the edge of the sea ice, so there's not much for the bears to eat on the islands during summer. They get hungrey and this is why they get dangerious.

As I said I'm no expert and could be talking total cobblers, so don't take this as gospel. Any polar bear experts out there?

[Becs]

I’ve just come back form a completely unrelated expedition to Svalbard. Mountaineering and sea kayaking. We had two high caliber riffles and a flare gun with the group. The flare gun was seen as the first defense to try and scare away the bear, we practiced firing it in the riffle range before departing Longybean. It has a range of about 100 meters, so the last thing you would want to do is fire it if the bear is closer as it risked going over the bear landing behind it and thus scaring it towards the group. You can also get smaller pen flares.

Instead of trip wires around tents (which on all accounts often don’t go off as the bear enters the tent area but are set off on its departure as it drags a body across the wire) we operated a bear watch system throughout the night, 2 hours each. Which was very tiring after a hard day mountaineering or sea kayaking. Another way of getting a full nights sleep is using husky dogs as an early warning system, but obviously not possible by sea kayak! Trip wires are also sometimes used when leaving a food stash un manned for a number of days to discourage bears eating supplies. Although dehydrated ration packs don’t hold much appeal compared to sweaty bodies in tents!

I heard about the Norwegians lucky escape due to his friends brave actions and they where found to be compliant to all the polar bear laws in Svalbard. Any polar bear shooting is subject to a full investigation. There was another shooting near Longybean in July also in self defense. I’ve got a photo of the local newspaper report on the kayaker’s attack I’ll try and post it here. There where in a little visited area the North West an area that has a high polar bear population compared to the east. I think every effort by groups to avoid attack is used and it a great shame to shoot such a magnificent animal but fully justified under self protection. The polar bear population in Svalbard in greatly recovering in the last few decades after years of shooting and trapping for furs that has been rightly made illegal for some time. In warmer years the bears have trouble hunting for seals due to lack of sea ice and can look for any other prey. So perhaps the bigger problem of global warming is a contributing factor to there mortality and attacks on humans?

Much as I’d have liked to see a bear – at a distance – we only encountered footprints and droppings over the 5 weeks of being out there.

[Mad Trapper]

Well I have decided to visit Svalbard and at present I am gathering all available information to help me decide mode of travelling, and time of the year to visit. I found this page really useful.

One of the options I am looking into is kayaking and that is how I got to this page. All the information I found on the internet about bear attacks relate to attacks that happened on ice/land. There are 2 questions I have :

1.) Can bear swim fast enough to catchup or sneak on the water-borne kayak.
2.) What the natives of the polar regions (e.g Inuit) do when they encounter bears, or what they do to avoid them

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[tenboats1]

I understand that the bears can swim very fast and have great stamina. If one got the drop on you there is a good chance you would not be able to out paddle it. Factors such as wind will help or hinder you. Wind is unlikely to hinder a swimming bear.

[Mark R]

In 'Paddle to the Arctic', Don Starkell talks about a swimming polar bear that kept up with them for hours, despite attempts to outrun it.

Enjoy.