Sep 12
28
Motives, Intents and Situational Ethics in the Wilderness: Rod Taylor
Last week, an Alaskan visitor fishing along one of BC’s northern rivers startled a mother grizzly bear with at least one cub. As we all know, a mother bear is a force to be reckoned with and when she feels her cub is threatened. So it happened on that fateful day and our visitor was badly mauled. He experienced broken bones and serious injuries to his head but by the grace of God, he was able to escape and hike out to his truck. For that we can all be truly thankful. Not every such encounter ends with a reprieve.
What troubled me however, when I read the news report, was the response of the wildlife branch, which announced that they were “not actively pursuing” the aggressive grizzly mother. The reason: “her actions were deemed to be ‘defensive’…” In other words, the fact that she mauled a man to within inches of his life is irrelevant because we understand that her response was a natural response for a startled grizzly mother.
What’s wrong with this picture? A couple of things: First of all, a dangerous wild animal has attacked a man and gotten away with it. I’m sure if the man had died that wildlife officers would be attempting to find and destroy the bear to prevent further tragedy. But now that this bear has tasted blood—has fought with a human being and won—isn’t it conceivable that she may be even bolder at the next encounter? While she didn’t kill this fisherman, neither did she run away when she saw him. Fishing and hiking in grizzly country is always potentially dangerous but bears are unpredictable and how an individual bear may respond to an encounter is not an exact science. This one attacked; might she not do so again?
Secondly, we’re applying a psychological evaluation to a non-human and basing our approach on our best guess as to motives and intent. In our judicial system, intent has some legitimate role in a judgment because we are dealing with human beings and the basic principles of justice. When dealing with the elements of our surroundings, including flora and fauna, oughtn’t our actions to be based on the best outcomes for the human community? Grizzly bears are not endangered. I certainly appreciate their part in the ecosystem, their unique beauty and power and their symbolic representation of the wild and wondrous creation of which we are a part as well as stewards. Nevertheless, to ascribe motives and defer consequences (i.e. to make the mauling of a man a “non-culpable offense”) when a man has nearly died seems too much like giving the animal kingdom a voting representative at the table of human discussion.
The Bible has something to say about the responsibility of owners of dangerous beasts to destroy an animal which has injured a man. If your ox has gored a man and you do nothing to prevent it happening again and if it happens again, you, the owner, are responsible. The Fish and Wildlife branch of government has primary responsibility to oversee the interactions between mankind and the wild beasts around us. They know this bear has mauled an innocent human being. If this bear does this again, F&W is responsible. If a person dies as a result, they must be held accountable; the same goes for parole boars which release murderers who go out and do it again.
Scripture says, “Let a bear, robbed of her cubs meet a man; that’s better than running into a fool and his folly…” Bears are not, nor can they be held, accountable in an eternal sense for what they do but sometimes they must face consequences in this life. But human beings are told not to be foolish. Those who have charge of wildlife matters must learn from the past and avoid foolish decisions. We are able to reason and we are held accountable for our actions, both in this life and the one to come.