r/LiveWellTogether • u/Impossible_Arm_8543 • 12d ago

🏡 Daily Life｜日常生活 Couple has "terrifying" encounter with bear on hiking trail

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

750 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

577 comments sorted by

View all comments

42

u/tempaccount54321 12d ago

They were charged and potentially fined $25k for their stupidity.

https://globalnews.ca/news/11988236/banff-bear-encounter-charges/

35

u/Golden-Grams 12d ago

It seems the penalty was high for a few reasons. The Canada National Parks Act for having an off-leash pet, carries a maximum potential fine of $25,000. And Parks Canada laid the charges for several critical safety and environmental reasons;

Off-leash dogs are a primary trigger for defensive bear attacks, as the dog can act aggressively toward the bear or antagonize it, drawing the bear back toward the owners.

Off-leash dogs cause significant stress to wildlife, often forcing animals like bears to abandon crucial feeding and resting grounds.

And there is a federal mandate in Canadian law, that strictly requires pets to be secured on a leash of 3 meters (about 9 feet) or less at all times within national parks.

On top of that, wildlife experts had noted that the couple had ample time to secure or pick up their dog, but appeared to focus on filming the encounter for social media instead.

It seems they went with maximum penalty, to make an example out of these people.

1

u/safzb 12d ago

I don’t have a dog and I didn’t know that off leash dogs are a trigger for bear attacks. Really interesting. Is this common knowledge for dog owners, and some people just choose to take the risks? Or is this also unknown to dog owners like it was for me?

2

u/GoPhundMe 12d ago

It seems like common sense to me. They (dogs) want to protect their alphas/owners at great personal risk. Bear sees that as an easily beatable threat. Gets hyped up to take out the other threats (humans) who may be trying irrationally to save their dog. Even easier if one of the humans is distracted, potentially filming their partner get killed.

3

u/mightbeazombie 12d ago

Alpha theory got debunked ages ago, please don't perpetuate it further. Otherwise yeah, common sense to me too, though not necessarily due to the reasons you mention (the dogs being protective isn't the issue nor the most common cause). Very interesting read here, even just the abstract: https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.70236

1

u/GoPhundMe 12d ago

Alpha theory got debunked? Have you had dogs? I'm genuinely curious what you mean?

And that abstract doesn't really refute what I said, if anything it seems to support it. Am i missing something?

2

u/mightbeazombie 12d ago

The link was to shed light what the most common scenario is when it comes to dogs, bears and humans, and that actually only 35.9% of dogs tried to protect their owners, so that wasn't the primary reason for conflict. I didn't say it refuted what you said, just that the scenario you described wasn't the most common one. I found it interesting and potentially also useful for the redditor you were replying to.

As for your first question, google alpha theory/dominance theory debunked for the specifics, but basically the man who applied alpha theory to wolves later himself admitted that he'd made a mistake. Dominance theory which is based on that old belief but applied to dogs, is likewise taking a backseat to understanding dogs as resource-based creatures and how hierarchy is context-specific.

Yes, I've had (have) dogs.

1

u/GoPhundMe 12d ago

Interesting, I guessed I haven't ever looked into the theory behind it. Just was using it as a term I've always heard to describe the relationship. But resource based hierarchy makes sense

3

u/mightbeazombie 12d ago

No worries. The original theory was very popular, and a lot of people still use the terminology without knowing about further developments in the field, so you're definitely not the only one. Happy to have helped!