• ThatGuy46475@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Polar bears are very curious animals, so if you back away while slowly undressing they will stop to inspect each piece of clothing, giving you time to get away.

    • Prethoryn Overmind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      They are also one of the few, next to tigers, land predators that actually have a taste for human blood. The nature of a polar bear thinks it can eat it then it will certainly try. You also absolutely cannot out run them.

  • BigBenis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    180 seconds (3 minutes) is a hilarious overestimation of any fighter’s ability. Unless you’re counting the time it takes to bleed out.

  • Case@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Worked in Yellowstone for a summer.

    Spent some time with the rangers. They got all sorts of questions…

    Like which handgun caliber would be best to defend oneself from a bear.

    Essentially, the ranger broke it down stating there was a weakness in the skull about the size of a bullet that you had to hit directly to have a chance of dropping a bear with a handgun. While its coming at you and pissed/hungry.

    So essentially, you’ve just pissed off the bear before it gets it claws on you.

    Well placed slugs from shotguns, rifle rounds, and preferably (according to the ranger in question) a tranquilizer to re-home the bear away from people. That being said, the bears are tracked to an extent and bears who show repeated behavior endangering themselves/tourists tend to be exterminated, sadly.

    Hand to claw combat? Human is going down.

    This is why in the past, when bears were hunted, they were hunted in their dens during hibernation - at the end of spears to keep that hungry bear as far away as possible from your soft easily rent flesh.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        It entirely depends on the bear species, but in general guns are a last resort defense against bears.

        Primary defense is avoidance and making it so they can avoid you. A bear will eat you, but is unlikely to hunt you. For most bears we’re an unknown quantity so they’ll avoid us, since other food is reasonably available with less risk.

        A bear has heavy fur, thick skin for storing winter fat deposits, and dense bones. While bullets will injure the bear and perhaps even kill it, it won’t be enough to save you.
        Much like how hitting someone on the head with a glass bottle will hurt them, almost certainly injure them, and potentially kill them, the type of injury is likely to be a fractured skull or brain bleed. Extremely serious and deadly, but they have minutes of functionality and hours of bewildered stumbling before they black out.

        So it’ll likely die… Later. For now you have a scared, confused and pissed off bear.

        I believe hollow points have less penetration power, so it might not even get through the hide. Other bullets will get through fine, but are unlikely to stop the bear dead.

        • console.log(bathing_in_bismuth)@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          Woah. I must ask further in my quest to understand last resort bear encounter gun tips. What about an .45 calibred pistol with an magazine alternating between normal and hollow points? I get the skull take, even some fighting dogs are immune to 9mm skull shots. I don’t live in America, don’t own a gun but know a lot about guns, just very interested in this topic

          • sus@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 hours ago

            .44 magnum is barely on par with an intermediate rifle round like 5.56 against large game. And that’s before considering the massively lower felt recoil or the fact that a rifle is much easier to aim

              • Pumasuedeblue@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 hours ago

                I carry a .45-70 rifle with me when I’m up north. The high powered rounds I have for bears will also fell an elephant. (In theory. I really don’t want to find out.)

              • sus@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 hours ago

                I haven’t heard of .500 blackout before, and google gives conflicting info on whether it’s “necked down .338 lapua magnum” or “like .510 whisper”

                polar bears have historically been felled with “panicked shooting with ar-15”, and the “standard recommendation” seems to be “magnum rifle round”

          • madcaesar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Your question is 100% valid.

            All these people piling on you claiming a bear will just shrug off having a hand gun emptied into it. That just sounds like bullshit to me, they aren’t robots… Bullets aren’t pellets that shit will penetrate and any species with a survival instinct will back up.

            I simply cannot believe what people are saying? Is there any proof or is it all just made up speculation people make by extrapolating size and injuries caused by bullets?

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 hours ago

      That reminds me of a dirty joke.

      Tourist: So, which would you recommend for self-defense against a grizzly: a hunting rifle, or a large-caliber pistol?

      Ranger: The pistol.

      Tourist: Really? Why’s that?

      Ranger: Because it’ll hurt less when the bear shoves it up your ass.

  • Oniononon@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    2 days ago

    They may kill SEAL with a slap but how many polar bear slaps does it take to kill members of other special forces?

      • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Oh, I had understood that to mean lay down facedown (with your back to it) since people usually have backpacks while hiking/hunting, and it provides some measure of protection.

    • s_s@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      2 days ago

      Also.

      Some black bears are brown.

      Some brown bears are black.

      Good luck everyone.

    • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      Bear is white, say good night, and tuck it in and tell it a story. Once the bear has fallen asleep snuggle up to it, so it has a fresh morning snack.

    • lobut@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I remember somewhere they were saying you should remove your clothes (slowly piece by piece) with a polar bear. The bear will get distracted and start sniffing your clothes.

      I think it was a QI episode and then David Mitchell said something like that Polar Bear being happier in the fact that the human would be better to eat this time because it didn’t have a wrapper.

      • The Giant Korean@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        This works because polar bears are super horny. Its desire to rend you limb from limb will be replaced by overwhelming lust. Of course then you’ve got a completely different issue to deal with, but at least you might not die.

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I think removing your clothes is just so the bear doesn’t choke to death on your Nikes.

  • FundMECFS@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Fun fact: Grizzlies and Polar Bears are the same species according to the Biological Species Concept.

    Meaning they interbreed in the wild (somewhat rare), and produce viable offspring that can have babies as well.

    We’re actually noticing this happening more and more with climate change. As Grizzly populations move further and further north, they’re encountering polar bears more often and are more likely to mate. Some scientists actually think within the next couple centuries due to arctic sea ice pretty much disappearing polar bears will either go extinct, or interbreed with grizzlies so much that there isn’t a “pure” polar bear left. Most likely a mix of both.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      2 days ago

      Biologists wouldn’t say they’re the same species, because biologists are aware of interspecies hybrids and the species problem.

    • xwolpertinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Fun fact: Grizzlies and Polar Bears are the same species according to the Biological Species Concept.

      Calling it that gives it too much credit, it is something thought up in the 17th/18th century without any concept of genetics and evolution.

      Which might explain why it breaks down almost instantly under any amount of scrutiny.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        It’s a category. All lines are arbitrary to a degree and “interbreeds and produces viable offspring” is not exceedingly arbitrary. You can have arguments around populations which could and would interbreed if they weren’t geographically distinct, you can argue about whether offspring needs to be viable no matter which way around the sexes of the parents are, or how large the percentage of viable offspring needs to be, but in the end, yep it makes sense to have a distinction somewhere around that bunch of criteria.

        House cats and European wild cats are considered distinct species not because they’re genetically incompatible, but because they don’t interbreed to any significant degree – too many behavioural differences, and we’re not speaking about culture, here. So even if they could intermingle in theory in practice they don’t, so they stay separate, so they’re different species.

        It’s kind of… a behavioural view on the genome? If you have a better idea, field it, there has to be some dividing line because taxa for the taxonomy god.

      • bluewing@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Close enough that we probably helped bred them out of existence. Neanderthal genetic markers show up with some regularity in certain modern human populations.

        Edit to add: While humans didn’t breed them out of existence, we certainly did intermix with them. And that does help to maintain their existence yet today.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      There are tons and tons and tons of species that can do this. It’s not clear to me what the prevailing species concept is nowadays, if we’re even still following one.

    • Geetnerd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      In the near future, Polar Bears as a separate species will likely disappear, and we’ll have all hybrids.

  • Donebrach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Fighting bears isn’t that common of an encounter. I’d be more worried about deer and coyotes or even a single cougar than the off chance of encountering a bear. They will definitely fuck you up but it’s not like they are starting their day to be like “Imma go murder a human” in the same way other urban-adjacent animals are—I think they just wanna get that sweet sweet pick-a-nic basket.

    dies from turkey assault

    • Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      Polar bears will absolutely try to hunt you. They’ll eat anything that moves. The only way to deal with a polar bear is a gun.

      • djsoren19@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        21 hours ago

        Tbh, even if you have a gun, your odds are not 100%. You’re firing at essentially a biological tank, small caliber fire might cause pain and eventually kill a polar bear with non-vital shots, but it’s not going to stop one barreling down on you.

        Realistically, you need to be a decent enough marksmen to aim for a vital point, all while making your will saves because a giant monster is charging you. I’m pretty sure most humans are still fucked.

        • kakler bitmap@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          The ancient drawing was by a caveman trying to convince his caveman bros that he could totally take a polar bear.

    • tatann@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      You mean there are single cougars in your local area ? I always thought these ads were lying

      • bluewing@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        There are enough of them that I no longer go in certain areas of the forest unless I’m armed. And I always have 2 arms on me at all times.

    • FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Moose are not to be trifled with either. If you accidentally put yourself between mama and baby, you’re gonna have a real bad time