Davy Crockett ain't got shit on me!
July 1, 2008 4:06 PM Subscribe
That's worth a guest spot on Colbert
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 4:12 PM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 4:12 PM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]
Everybody taking photos and videos and no one fucking helping the guy.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:13 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:13 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
And then was promptly mauled with gratitude.
posted by miss lynnster at 4:15 PM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]
posted by miss lynnster at 4:15 PM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]
If the bear had drowned the biologist by grabbing him the way people do in water when they're panicked, the guy would have been up for a Darwin Award.
posted by orange swan at 4:15 PM on July 1, 2008
posted by orange swan at 4:15 PM on July 1, 2008
Just when you thought the story couldn't get any more interesting, as the two, man and bear, made it to shore a person with a backhoe showed up out of nowhere according to Warwick. They loaded the animal into the backhoe and then into an FWC truck.
This is buried in the seventh graph, of course. *sigh*
Anonymous backhoe drivers: The unsung heroes of most waterborne animal rescue operations.
posted by Rhaomi at 4:19 PM on July 1, 2008 [17 favorites]
This is buried in the seventh graph, of course. *sigh*
Anonymous backhoe drivers: The unsung heroes of most waterborne animal rescue operations.
posted by Rhaomi at 4:19 PM on July 1, 2008 [17 favorites]
fuck all the snark...
Adam Warwick: you rock!
posted by jammy at 4:20 PM on July 1, 2008 [7 favorites]
Adam Warwick: you rock!
posted by jammy at 4:20 PM on July 1, 2008 [7 favorites]
For a moment I thought the title read "man saves beer from drowning".
posted by ...possums at 4:21 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by ...possums at 4:21 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
Man saves bear from drowning after man had tranquilized it causing it to be too wasted to swim.
Other headlines from the same school of writing:
Nazis Extinguish Reichstag Fire
Area Man Cures Early Morning Headache, Dry Mouth
US Government Pares Bill of Rights Down to a Manageable Six
posted by lalochezia at 4:22 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
Other headlines from the same school of writing:
Nazis Extinguish Reichstag Fire
Area Man Cures Early Morning Headache, Dry Mouth
US Government Pares Bill of Rights Down to a Manageable Six
posted by lalochezia at 4:22 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
He now officially has the best "let me tell you about the time..." story. Ever.
posted by starman at 4:27 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by starman at 4:27 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]
Yay!
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 4:35 PM on July 1, 2008
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 4:35 PM on July 1, 2008
I constantly struggle with the US habit of describing animals by their weight. I had no bloody idea how big a 375lb bear was until I clicked through. We (UK) always tend to describe animals by physical dimensions, as much as I remember. I wondered what the hell was going on a while ago when I was reading real estate adverts with "only dogs smaller than 25lbs allowed". Straight after I said "Who the hell weighs their dog before renting a place?" The sheer quantity of baffled looks made me realise that people do things differently in the US...
I'm pretty sure that would have been referred to as a "large bear" with some reference to it's height on its rear legs on the BBC. Weird. It always confused me when police reports in the US had weight measurements for suspects too, whereas UK ones have just a height and build approximation. Now it all makes sense if you lot weigh everything all the time.
posted by Brockles at 4:36 PM on July 1, 2008
I'm pretty sure that would have been referred to as a "large bear" with some reference to it's height on its rear legs on the BBC. Weird. It always confused me when police reports in the US had weight measurements for suspects too, whereas UK ones have just a height and build approximation. Now it all makes sense if you lot weigh everything all the time.
posted by Brockles at 4:36 PM on July 1, 2008
Now there's a site sight I don't see every day. Fixed that for them.
posted by emelenjr at 4:36 PM on July 1, 2008
posted by emelenjr at 4:36 PM on July 1, 2008
Was he also able to recover the pic-i-nik basket?
posted by hojoki at 4:38 PM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]
posted by hojoki at 4:38 PM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]
I constantly struggle with the US habit of describing animals by their weight. I had no bloody idea how big a 375lb bear was until I clicked through. We (UK) always tend to describe animals by physical dimensions, as much as I remember.
Oh yeah, because comparing them to a certain number of stones is waaay better
posted by poppo at 4:41 PM on July 1, 2008 [9 favorites]
Oh yeah, because comparing them to a certain number of stones is waaay better
posted by poppo at 4:41 PM on July 1, 2008 [9 favorites]
And then JP Morgan bought the Bear at a huge discount.
posted by Frank Grimes at 4:45 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by Frank Grimes at 4:45 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]
I'm pretty sure that would have been referred to as a "large bear" with some reference to it's height on its rear legs on the BBC.
Except that's more of a medium-sized bear (though they may be smaller in Florida, for all I know). I think 375 lbs. is a pretty good descriptor for a bear: I read that and know that there were about two people worth of bear. I don't think that there would be too much difference between the density of a person and of a bear.
posted by ssg at 4:49 PM on July 1, 2008
Except that's more of a medium-sized bear (though they may be smaller in Florida, for all I know). I think 375 lbs. is a pretty good descriptor for a bear: I read that and know that there were about two people worth of bear. I don't think that there would be too much difference between the density of a person and of a bear.
posted by ssg at 4:49 PM on July 1, 2008
ssg: "I don't think that there would be too much difference between the density of a person and of a bear."
If you ever try to discuss religion or politics with a bear you will find yourself surprisingly correct.
posted by Science! at 4:51 PM on July 1, 2008 [12 favorites]
If you ever try to discuss religion or politics with a bear you will find yourself surprisingly correct.
posted by Science! at 4:51 PM on July 1, 2008 [12 favorites]
Two monks were washing their bowls in the river when they noticed a scorpion that was drowning. One monk immediately scooped it up and set it upon the bank. In the process he was stung. He went back to washing his bowl and again the scorpion fell in. The monk saved the scorpion and was again stung. The other monk asked him, "Friend, why do you continue to save the scorpion when you know it's nature is to sting?"
"Because," the monk replied, "to save it is my nature."
posted by Auden at 4:55 PM on July 1, 2008 [16 favorites]
"Because," the monk replied, "to save it is my nature."
posted by Auden at 4:55 PM on July 1, 2008 [16 favorites]
Oh yeah, because comparing them to a certain number of stones is waaay better
Last time I checked, stones are also a unit of weight. Way to miss the point.
I think 375 lbs. is a pretty good descriptor for a bear:
Absolutely, assuming the audience has a strong awareness of size and weight. That was my point. It makes perfect sense for a US audience, it's just I can't visualise it easily, as weight isn't something used as a descriptor as constantly as it seems to be in US culture.
Except that's more of a medium-sized bear (though they may be smaller in Florida, for all I know).
Are you sure? That's pretty damn large. The average size is something around 250lb in Ontario, I believe. Grizzlies are larger, but although you get big black bears, they are smaller than I was initially led to believe. I researched that to try and prove the guy who told me wrong, and I failed miserably.
posted by Brockles at 4:59 PM on July 1, 2008
Last time I checked, stones are also a unit of weight. Way to miss the point.
I think 375 lbs. is a pretty good descriptor for a bear:
Absolutely, assuming the audience has a strong awareness of size and weight. That was my point. It makes perfect sense for a US audience, it's just I can't visualise it easily, as weight isn't something used as a descriptor as constantly as it seems to be in US culture.
Except that's more of a medium-sized bear (though they may be smaller in Florida, for all I know).
Are you sure? That's pretty damn large. The average size is something around 250lb in Ontario, I believe. Grizzlies are larger, but although you get big black bears, they are smaller than I was initially led to believe. I researched that to try and prove the guy who told me wrong, and I failed miserably.
posted by Brockles at 4:59 PM on July 1, 2008
Having said that, averages aside (and it seems Males can get larger than that by a good margin in other parts of North America) I don't care how much is average. That thing comes anywhere near me and it's A LARGE BEAR.
posted by Brockles at 5:03 PM on July 1, 2008
posted by Brockles at 5:03 PM on July 1, 2008
If you ever try to discuss religion or politics with a bear you will find yourself surprisingly correct.
I've done my share of talking to (or more accurately yelling at) bears and have found them almost totally inarticulate. Perhaps I'm a bore though.
posted by ssg at 5:05 PM on July 1, 2008
I've done my share of talking to (or more accurately yelling at) bears and have found them almost totally inarticulate. Perhaps I'm a bore though.
posted by ssg at 5:05 PM on July 1, 2008
That thing comes anywhere near me and it's A LARGE BEAR.
Indeed. I read somewhere that park rangers and conservation officers have a rule of thumb for recording bear sightings made by civilians: write down half the claimed weight.
posted by ssg at 5:09 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
Indeed. I read somewhere that park rangers and conservation officers have a rule of thumb for recording bear sightings made by civilians: write down half the claimed weight.
posted by ssg at 5:09 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
I think it's because your sphincter slams shut so tight when you see it, that your eyes are pulled open and your sense of perspective is screwed.
posted by Brockles at 5:10 PM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]
posted by Brockles at 5:10 PM on July 1, 2008 [5 favorites]
Now I regret selling my backhoe, neglecting to learn how to swim, and just randomly shooting bears with tranquilizer darts.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:12 PM on July 1, 2008
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:12 PM on July 1, 2008
Truly heroic. This is a big, aggressive, heavy, problematic animal and while it wouldn't have been "easy" to let it drown, it would be hard to dive in there instinctively, as it would have been had another human been in distress. Hats off to Adam.
posted by fire&wings at 5:13 PM on July 1, 2008
posted by fire&wings at 5:13 PM on July 1, 2008
I constantly struggle with the US habit of describing animals by their weight.
I always have to convert things into canned ham units.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 5:14 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
I always have to convert things into canned ham units.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 5:14 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
Everything I know about bears, I learned from AskMetaFilter!
posted by Dark Messiah at 5:25 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Dark Messiah at 5:25 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
Everyone's all happy about this bear getting saved, but nobody cares about Bear Stearns.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 5:28 PM on July 1, 2008
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 5:28 PM on July 1, 2008
I was reading real estate adverts with "only dogs smaller than 25lbs allowed". Straight after I said "Who the hell weighs their dog before renting a place?" The sheer quantity of baffled looks made me realise that people do things differently in the US...
yeah, and what REALLY gets some of us informed-like americuhns is that some of the most obnoxious, not-neighborly dogs are those breeds which are under 25 pounds...whereas some of the best apartment dogs (e.g. great danes) are veeeeeerry large. *sigh*
I think 375 lbs. is a pretty good descriptor for a bear: I read that and know that there were about two people worth of bear.
[looks at belly]
[sobs a little bit]
posted by CitizenD at 5:39 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
yeah, and what REALLY gets some of us informed-like americuhns is that some of the most obnoxious, not-neighborly dogs are those breeds which are under 25 pounds...whereas some of the best apartment dogs (e.g. great danes) are veeeeeerry large. *sigh*
I think 375 lbs. is a pretty good descriptor for a bear: I read that and know that there were about two people worth of bear.
[looks at belly]
[sobs a little bit]
posted by CitizenD at 5:39 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
I used to work as a tour guide/naturalist in Alaska in the Tongass National Forrest. So I can tell you a little about bears. We had both black and brown bears (browns are also known as Kodiak.) The adult black bear weighs average of 400 to 600 lbs. Females are generally smaller, usually topping out at 400 range. Browns do not appear naturally in the lower forty-eight and they are the giants that you see in all the salmon catching vids. Top end, 1,500 lbs for one of those bad boys. By the way, the reason I am talking about the brown bear at all is that I think that is the bear most people think of when they think bear, but most bears you will encounter in the USA will be the black.
In the lower 48 black bears are common to many areas of the states. They are very adaptable, don't like the deserts or the plains, but are just about everywhere you can find forrest or shrubby kind of territory. Florida, for those of you who have never been there, has huge tracts of rural land with lots of fish and game and lots of cover for a bear to feel at home in. The funny thing about them, at least in AK, and I don't know about any other place, is that they are a much bigger problem than their bigger cousin, the brown bear. Browns are big ol' dummies that like to fish and get fat and go to sleep. Black bears are clever and will find a way in to your secured bear-proof garbage cans no matter what you do, and if you relocate them, they will always come back.
As for dragging that animal that far: bears live to make fat. They are giant flotation devices with claws. That man was indeed lucky that the bear was under the influence, because they can swim for a very long way. In Southeast Alaska bear relocation was stopped because, when you moved it to another island, it would be back within a few months.
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 5:45 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]
In the lower 48 black bears are common to many areas of the states. They are very adaptable, don't like the deserts or the plains, but are just about everywhere you can find forrest or shrubby kind of territory. Florida, for those of you who have never been there, has huge tracts of rural land with lots of fish and game and lots of cover for a bear to feel at home in. The funny thing about them, at least in AK, and I don't know about any other place, is that they are a much bigger problem than their bigger cousin, the brown bear. Browns are big ol' dummies that like to fish and get fat and go to sleep. Black bears are clever and will find a way in to your secured bear-proof garbage cans no matter what you do, and if you relocate them, they will always come back.
As for dragging that animal that far: bears live to make fat. They are giant flotation devices with claws. That man was indeed lucky that the bear was under the influence, because they can swim for a very long way. In Southeast Alaska bear relocation was stopped because, when you moved it to another island, it would be back within a few months.
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 5:45 PM on July 1, 2008 [3 favorites]
I think 375 lbs. is a pretty good descriptor for a bear...
But can he sing and does he own a pastel polo shirt?
posted by miss lynnster at 5:47 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]
But can he sing and does he own a pastel polo shirt?
posted by miss lynnster at 5:47 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]
if you relocate them, they will always come back.
duh-duh-DUHHHHHHH
time to call chainsaw maid!
posted by CitizenD at 5:53 PM on July 1, 2008
duh-duh-DUHHHHHHH
time to call chainsaw maid!
posted by CitizenD at 5:53 PM on July 1, 2008
I think 375 lbs. is a pretty good descriptor for a bear: I read that and know that there were about two people worth of bear.
Or about 1/2 Israel Kamakawiwo'ole.
posted by Citizen Premier at 5:53 PM on July 1, 2008 [2 favorites]
Oh also, love the tags.
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 5:57 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 5:57 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
miss lynnster, that's an FPP right there. i mean, day-um.
posted by CitizenD at 5:58 PM on July 1, 2008
posted by CitizenD at 5:58 PM on July 1, 2008
This biologist has earned bragging rights as the baddest-ass person on the planet at this point in time.
posted by yort at 5:59 PM on July 1, 2008
posted by yort at 5:59 PM on July 1, 2008
Pretty awesome, though this could easily have been a Darwin Award thread. "Did you think about the claws before you jumped in?" "No, not really."
posted by DU at 6:02 PM on July 1, 2008
posted by DU at 6:02 PM on July 1, 2008
as the two, man and bear, made it to shore a person with a backhoe showed up out of nowhere
what
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:08 PM on July 1, 2008
what
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:08 PM on July 1, 2008
That brockles guy?
He's GOTTA be the Geico gekko.
posted by Dizzy at 6:09 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
He's GOTTA be the Geico gekko.
posted by Dizzy at 6:09 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
Everyone's all happy about this bear getting saved, but nobody cares about Bear Stearns.
That's because at least this bear shat in the woods. It helped cover up the smell wall street left.
posted by stet at 6:21 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
That's because at least this bear shat in the woods. It helped cover up the smell wall street left.
posted by stet at 6:21 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
miss lynnster, that's an FPP right there. i mean, day-um.
Yup.
posted by miss lynnster at 6:35 PM on July 1, 2008
Yup.
posted by miss lynnster at 6:35 PM on July 1, 2008
Pretty awesome, though this could easily have been a Darwin Award thread. "Did you think about the claws before you jumped in?" "No, not really."
Not to mention the possibility of drowning himself after getting pinned under 375lbs of dead weight.
Between that and...
"Let's tranquilize a bear right next to the ocean--What could go wrong?"
...in conjunction with...
"Oh no, the bear is going to drown! I'd better create a commotion to to draw him back to shore! Bears like commotion, right?"
...I get the feeling this guy's not the sharpest dart in the blowgun.
posted by Sys Rq at 6:38 PM on July 1, 2008
Not to mention the possibility of drowning himself after getting pinned under 375lbs of dead weight.
Between that and...
"Let's tranquilize a bear right next to the ocean--What could go wrong?"
...in conjunction with...
"Oh no, the bear is going to drown! I'd better create a commotion to to draw him back to shore! Bears like commotion, right?"
...I get the feeling this guy's not the sharpest dart in the blowgun.
posted by Sys Rq at 6:38 PM on July 1, 2008
anyone else here see those bears scratching their backs on trees like they were dancing?
so sorry, I simply can't make my way thru the 50 very funny wisecracks, if you wanna see this coolness, goggle I guess.
Or later I can provide, you know, an actual link or 3.
posted by dawson at 7:04 PM on July 1, 2008
so sorry, I simply can't make my way thru the 50 very funny wisecracks, if you wanna see this coolness, goggle I guess.
Or later I can provide, you know, an actual link or 3.
posted by dawson at 7:04 PM on July 1, 2008
Of course the bear tried to commit suicide, they obviously stole his tricycle.
posted by inigo2 at 7:32 PM on July 1, 2008
posted by inigo2 at 7:32 PM on July 1, 2008
In other, happy bear news... A Bear Freaking A Tree! Yo yo yo!!!!!!!
posted by miss lynnster at 8:32 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by miss lynnster at 8:32 PM on July 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
for lunch.
posted by Citizen Premier at 8:57 PM on July 1, 2008
posted by Citizen Premier at 8:57 PM on July 1, 2008
Apparently, no thread is safe this week from Brockles' complaints about Americans.
posted by Kwine at 9:30 PM on July 1, 2008
posted by Kwine at 9:30 PM on July 1, 2008
though this could easily have been a Darwin Award thread
Haha, Yeah and we all could've had a real good laugh at this mans death! LOLZAPLENTY!
I mean this guy has probably never even studied bears and doesn't even get paid to know what the hell he's doing out there...waitaminute...Wildlife Biologist?
Whatever! I wanna see some maulings and face eating, amirite or amirite!
posted by P.o.B. at 9:51 PM on July 1, 2008
Haha, Yeah and we all could've had a real good laugh at this mans death! LOLZAPLENTY!
I mean this guy has probably never even studied bears and doesn't even get paid to know what the hell he's doing out there...waitaminute...Wildlife Biologist?
Whatever! I wanna see some maulings and face eating, amirite or amirite!
posted by P.o.B. at 9:51 PM on July 1, 2008
Am I the only person that thought this was hawt? Adam Warwick...any time...any place.......call me?
posted by The Light Fantastic at 10:11 PM on July 1, 2008
posted by The Light Fantastic at 10:11 PM on July 1, 2008
...and yeah...I downloaded the picture - so what?!
posted by The Light Fantastic at 10:14 PM on July 1, 2008
posted by The Light Fantastic at 10:14 PM on July 1, 2008
Am I the only person that thought this was hawt?
Yes. Definitively yes.
Then again, I might be bitter since my drugged / threatened with drowning bear-sex fantasies went awry.
Ohhhh!!! You were talking about the dude.
Hell no.
posted by Dark Messiah at 10:23 PM on July 1, 2008
Yes. Definitively yes.
Then again, I might be bitter since my drugged / threatened with drowning bear-sex fantasies went awry.
Ohhhh!!! You were talking about the dude.
Hell no.
posted by Dark Messiah at 10:23 PM on July 1, 2008
I think this entitles him to a free MeFi account.
Adam, come collect your prize!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:13 PM on July 1, 2008
Adam, come collect your prize!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:13 PM on July 1, 2008
Anyone else remember something similar on an episode of Baywatch?
posted by Daddy-O at 1:11 AM on July 2, 2008
posted by Daddy-O at 1:11 AM on July 2, 2008
I constantly struggle with the US habit of describing animals by their weight. I had no bloody idea how big a 375lb bear was until I clicked through. We (UK) always tend to describe animals by physical dimensions, as much as I remember.
Tell me how you would measure a bear. Is the height on all fours or standing upright on two legs?
posted by srboisvert at 2:53 AM on July 2, 2008
Apparently, no thread is safe this week from Brockles' complaints about Americans
Apparently, some Americans can't tell an observation from a complaint.
posted by asok at 3:56 AM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]
Apparently, some Americans can't tell an observation from a complaint.
posted by asok at 3:56 AM on July 2, 2008 [3 favorites]
Tell me how you would measure a bear. Is the height on all fours or standing upright on two legs?
Either, just state which.
posted by asok at 3:58 AM on July 2, 2008
Either, just state which.
posted by asok at 3:58 AM on July 2, 2008
Tell me how you would measure a bear. Is the height on all fours or standing upright on two legs?
Yeah. Phrases such as "at the shoulder" would get used or something or the fully erect measurement. It's a much more clumsy way of getting the point across in terms of quantity of language required, if that is the metric by which it is judged, but I'd never heard of weight being used as a descriptor so universally until I came to the US.
Consequently I am often hideously out on my guesses as to how much people and animals weigh. Also, being as we don't use pounds (other than as part of a stone) so that also that throws my perception out. So I'd (and I imagine a lot of UK'ians who don't weight themselves constantly) would think "375lbs? Er. That sounds probably quite heavy... How much do bears normally weigh?.... what? 6 feet on it's back legs? Holy shit, that's a big bear". I imagine a bear is more dense than a human (10-20%?) but with a physical measurement I don't have to do any maths before running away and locking myself inside something solid.
Of course, we don't have much call to measure bear too often. Foxes and rabbits, maybe, but bears? Not so much. Plus, bear (arf) in mind that this is the country that measures horses in 'hands' which, rather amusingly for their usability, don't bear any resemblance to the actual size of a hand in any way.
Apparently, no thread is safe this week from Brockles' complaints about Americans
As mentioned... Er. What?
posted by Brockles at 5:08 AM on July 2, 2008
Yeah. Phrases such as "at the shoulder" would get used or something or the fully erect measurement. It's a much more clumsy way of getting the point across in terms of quantity of language required, if that is the metric by which it is judged, but I'd never heard of weight being used as a descriptor so universally until I came to the US.
Consequently I am often hideously out on my guesses as to how much people and animals weigh. Also, being as we don't use pounds (other than as part of a stone) so that also that throws my perception out. So I'd (and I imagine a lot of UK'ians who don't weight themselves constantly) would think "375lbs? Er. That sounds probably quite heavy... How much do bears normally weigh?.... what? 6 feet on it's back legs? Holy shit, that's a big bear". I imagine a bear is more dense than a human (10-20%?) but with a physical measurement I don't have to do any maths before running away and locking myself inside something solid.
Of course, we don't have much call to measure bear too often. Foxes and rabbits, maybe, but bears? Not so much. Plus, bear (arf) in mind that this is the country that measures horses in 'hands' which, rather amusingly for their usability, don't bear any resemblance to the actual size of a hand in any way.
Apparently, no thread is safe this week from Brockles' complaints about Americans
As mentioned... Er. What?
posted by Brockles at 5:08 AM on July 2, 2008
I constantly struggle with the US habit of describing animals by their weight.
Tony Soprano had similar struggles.
His reference to the "500 pound elephant in the room" was one of the series' great malapropisms!
posted by Jody Tresidder at 6:01 AM on July 2, 2008
Tony Soprano had similar struggles.
His reference to the "500 pound elephant in the room" was one of the series' great malapropisms!
posted by Jody Tresidder at 6:01 AM on July 2, 2008
Tell me how you would measure a bear.
I prefer to use the forest scale; that bear is two deer four raccoons big.
That said, I think it's great that this guy went after the bear. He easily could have just wrote it off as being too dangerous to rescue and let it drown, but he risked himself to save a life and I think that is cool.
I still want a pet bear. Someone really needs to work on domesticating them.
posted by quin at 7:33 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
I prefer to use the forest scale; that bear is two deer four raccoons big.
That said, I think it's great that this guy went after the bear. He easily could have just wrote it off as being too dangerous to rescue and let it drown, but he risked himself to save a life and I think that is cool.
I still want a pet bear. Someone really needs to work on domesticating them.
posted by quin at 7:33 AM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
I don't understand why you'd want to describe the bear by size, rather than weight. When you talk about an 18 foot high giraffe, compared to a 10 foot high elephant, what does that mean?
Animals' power, dangerousness (aside from venom) and heft all comes from weight, not their linear size. The man had to lug 375 pounds of bear, that means a whole lot more than its height, length, or shoe size. If you really do care though, the bear wears a 12EEE sneaker.
posted by explosion at 7:44 AM on July 2, 2008
Animals' power, dangerousness (aside from venom) and heft all comes from weight, not their linear size. The man had to lug 375 pounds of bear, that means a whole lot more than its height, length, or shoe size. If you really do care though, the bear wears a 12EEE sneaker.
posted by explosion at 7:44 AM on July 2, 2008
I don't understand why you'd want to describe the bear by size, rather than weight.
That's presumably because you are unable to imagine a populace that doesn't have an instant and extensive awareness of weight like the US does. A "375lb bear" means nothing to me beyond vague rough size - as in "it's probably a big one" - a bear that stands on it's hind legs to a height of 6 feet does mean something to me. The weight is an abstract number - mainly because I don't know how much the average bear density is, and I don't assume it is the same as a human, which seems to be the basis for being able to relate to is that a US person uses. That assumes a constant density for all animals to be accurate, whereas the height measurement assumes an awareness of approximate build for the animal in question. Length of leg (Chaseability?) is also a factor in how dangerous they are. As is the size of their mouth. Both are linear dimensions.
Surely it's not that much of a stellar leap to understand that not everyone visualises animals (or in fact people) the same way? After all, I"d bet $20 bucks that a US person will judge a person's weight based on their height and build. What I'm used to is not bothering calculating that up. I very much doubt you'd be able to guess the weight of a bear without a frame of reference for its size any more than I could judge its height.
posted by Brockles at 8:23 AM on July 2, 2008
That's presumably because you are unable to imagine a populace that doesn't have an instant and extensive awareness of weight like the US does. A "375lb bear" means nothing to me beyond vague rough size - as in "it's probably a big one" - a bear that stands on it's hind legs to a height of 6 feet does mean something to me. The weight is an abstract number - mainly because I don't know how much the average bear density is, and I don't assume it is the same as a human, which seems to be the basis for being able to relate to is that a US person uses. That assumes a constant density for all animals to be accurate, whereas the height measurement assumes an awareness of approximate build for the animal in question. Length of leg (Chaseability?) is also a factor in how dangerous they are. As is the size of their mouth. Both are linear dimensions.
Surely it's not that much of a stellar leap to understand that not everyone visualises animals (or in fact people) the same way? After all, I"d bet $20 bucks that a US person will judge a person's weight based on their height and build. What I'm used to is not bothering calculating that up. I very much doubt you'd be able to guess the weight of a bear without a frame of reference for its size any more than I could judge its height.
posted by Brockles at 8:23 AM on July 2, 2008
Brockles, I have questions about "comprehensive" versus "collision" for my 94 Honda.
What do you suggest?
posted by Dizzy at 10:35 AM on July 2, 2008
What do you suggest?
posted by Dizzy at 10:35 AM on July 2, 2008
Apparently, some Americans can't tell an observation from a complaint.
Er...What?
Brockles observing a few days ago and continuing to observe for many comments with great enthusiasm that USian whining about gas prices is unjustified.
Brockles observing eight days ago that USian security theater does not apply to the rest of the world, with bonus cheapshot observation towards TSA employees.
Look, I happen to think you're right about both of these points. But now you don't understand USian bear measurement procedures? That's sort of funny in the context, eh? Anyway, I'm sorry that I said anything and I hope there are no hard feelings.
posted by Kwine at 10:56 AM on July 2, 2008
Er...What?
Brockles observing a few days ago and continuing to observe for many comments with great enthusiasm that USian whining about gas prices is unjustified.
Brockles observing eight days ago that USian security theater does not apply to the rest of the world, with bonus cheap
Look, I happen to think you're right about both of these points. But now you don't understand USian bear measurement procedures? That's sort of funny in the context, eh? Anyway, I'm sorry that I said anything and I hope there are no hard feelings.
posted by Kwine at 10:56 AM on July 2, 2008
After the bear gets partially tranquilized, pulled out of the ocean, and picked up by backhoe, Brockles would have them somehow convince the poor creature to stand upright on its hind legs in order to provide the people of England with a measure of its height.
posted by ssg at 11:03 AM on July 2, 2008
posted by ssg at 11:03 AM on July 2, 2008
If I collided with said bear, would I be covered in
a) bear poody,
2) comprehensive, or
lll) Union Jack.
posted by Dizzy at 11:17 AM on July 2, 2008
a) bear poody,
2) comprehensive, or
lll) Union Jack.
posted by Dizzy at 11:17 AM on July 2, 2008
Look, I happen to think you're right about both of these points.
I'm not sure what filter you read my posts with, but you are way out on the airports one - that was in no way a complaint about the US. Someone asked why there needed to be armed police at airports. One reply was Security Theatre post 9/11. I answered that this cannot explain the considerable longer standing armed presence at, for instance, the UK airports where terrorist activity did not start (not even close) nor end with 9/11. Unless the question was specifically about US airports (which was not clear at the time or since) then it was valid and useful extra information entirely pertinent to the question.
In short: There have been armed police at airports long before 9/11, therefore the reaction to 9/11 cannot explain their presence.
Is that so hard to understand, or do you have a persecution complex?
This is not US bashing. This is explaining to people that some things are a certain way in other countries that they may not be aware of. In exactly the same way, the use of blanket weight assessments for animals is (to me) extremely foreign. I attempted to tell people, that clearly didn't know, that was what it was like for other people. Clearly any attempt to educate as to how other cultures do things is some sort of personal attack on the US.
But now you don't understand USian bear measurement procedures?
No. I don't. Nor do I understand the method for classing dogs (for instance) by weight class in terms of suitability for apartments. I haven't been brought up in your country. You do things differently. Just as much as (before I came here) I had no fucking clue what $100 would buy me in a supermarket. It's just I kind of expected to be out of my depth with a foreign currency when I moved out of my country. I didn't, however, expect to be thrown a curve ball by something as random as animal size estimation. I thought it was bizarre and interesting - clearly I'm not able to discuss it without mentioning the difference being considered some sort of attack.
Are we only allowed to discuss things that agree with the US-median position and experience, then? Or do perhaps some people need to widen their blinkers a little?
posted by Brockles at 11:19 AM on July 2, 2008
I'm not sure what filter you read my posts with, but you are way out on the airports one - that was in no way a complaint about the US. Someone asked why there needed to be armed police at airports. One reply was Security Theatre post 9/11. I answered that this cannot explain the considerable longer standing armed presence at, for instance, the UK airports where terrorist activity did not start (not even close) nor end with 9/11. Unless the question was specifically about US airports (which was not clear at the time or since) then it was valid and useful extra information entirely pertinent to the question.
In short: There have been armed police at airports long before 9/11, therefore the reaction to 9/11 cannot explain their presence.
Is that so hard to understand, or do you have a persecution complex?
This is not US bashing. This is explaining to people that some things are a certain way in other countries that they may not be aware of. In exactly the same way, the use of blanket weight assessments for animals is (to me) extremely foreign. I attempted to tell people, that clearly didn't know, that was what it was like for other people. Clearly any attempt to educate as to how other cultures do things is some sort of personal attack on the US.
But now you don't understand USian bear measurement procedures?
No. I don't. Nor do I understand the method for classing dogs (for instance) by weight class in terms of suitability for apartments. I haven't been brought up in your country. You do things differently. Just as much as (before I came here) I had no fucking clue what $100 would buy me in a supermarket. It's just I kind of expected to be out of my depth with a foreign currency when I moved out of my country. I didn't, however, expect to be thrown a curve ball by something as random as animal size estimation. I thought it was bizarre and interesting - clearly I'm not able to discuss it without mentioning the difference being considered some sort of attack.
Are we only allowed to discuss things that agree with the US-median position and experience, then? Or do perhaps some people need to widen their blinkers a little?
posted by Brockles at 11:19 AM on July 2, 2008
Brockles, I can't believe you're pissed at Americans because you can't understand something as simple as "a 375 lb. bear."
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:21 AM on July 2, 2008
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:21 AM on July 2, 2008
Is it true I can get a 10% discount if I don't smoke and stay accident-free for a year?
Because that would be, like, a good deal.
And what's the deal with that guy in the hat following you around in those ads?
posted by Dizzy at 11:30 AM on July 2, 2008
Because that would be, like, a good deal.
And what's the deal with that guy in the hat following you around in those ads?
posted by Dizzy at 11:30 AM on July 2, 2008
Brockles, I can't believe you're pissed at Americans because you can't understand something as simple as "a 375 lb. bear."
And you would be absolutely right. I have no idea where this concept of being pissed about it comes from - I'm simply saying that it is not something that I can at all visualise, being brought up with a different way of describing thing. It isn't as simple as 'a 375lb bear' if you haven't been brought in a culture that allows you to easily relate to either bears or their weights. Quite the opposite. That.....was......the.....point.
Holy crap, people. We're just not all brought up the same way. Some of the differences are not what you expect (which is mainly the reason I thought this was interesting). Is that so tough to understand?
posted by Brockles at 11:48 AM on July 2, 2008
And you would be absolutely right. I have no idea where this concept of being pissed about it comes from - I'm simply saying that it is not something that I can at all visualise, being brought up with a different way of describing thing. It isn't as simple as 'a 375lb bear' if you haven't been brought in a culture that allows you to easily relate to either bears or their weights. Quite the opposite. That.....was......the.....point.
Holy crap, people. We're just not all brought up the same way. Some of the differences are not what you expect (which is mainly the reason I thought this was interesting). Is that so tough to understand?
posted by Brockles at 11:48 AM on July 2, 2008
You can't spend too much time playing with a 375 pound bear.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 12:38 PM on July 2, 2008
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 12:38 PM on July 2, 2008
Meh. Give me Gorilla saves Bear, and I'll be impressed.
posted by jabberjaw at 12:56 PM on July 2, 2008
posted by jabberjaw at 12:56 PM on July 2, 2008
I've lived in the US my whole life, and I'm no good with the weight descriptions either. The observation upthread that 375 pounds is about 2 people worth of bear was a fantastic flash of insight to me. This is really just a question of what units you're used to thinking in. I can do the math to figure out how hot it is when somebody reports the temperature in degrees Celsius, but if they give it to me in Fahrenheit I have an immediate sense of the temperature. If they tell me the time is eighteen-hundred hours, I can translate to 6pm, but I have to make that extra step before my brain goes, "Oh, like dinner time." When you hear these units used for years on end, you build up a frame of reference for them. Personally I feel pretty familiar with how big 6 feet is, because I use linear measurements all the time. Weight, not so much. In any case, I applaud Brockles' ability thus far to mostly ignore people who are accusing him of being angry - I hope you can continue it. There's nothing wrong with noticing an interesting difference in how your brain processes something due to lifelong cultural influences.
And the bear thing? Wonderful. I, too, am a big fan of the biologist.
posted by vytae at 1:59 PM on July 2, 2008
And the bear thing? Wonderful. I, too, am a big fan of the biologist.
posted by vytae at 1:59 PM on July 2, 2008
Is that so tough to understand?
HE'S CALLING YOU ALL STUPID! GET HIM! ;)
posted by Dark Messiah at 2:56 PM on July 2, 2008
HE'S CALLING YOU ALL STUPID! GET HIM! ;)
posted by Dark Messiah at 2:56 PM on July 2, 2008
C'mon people, the main reason it was described as a 375 lb bear was because he was pulled out of the friggin water! If Adam Warwick had instead beaten the bear in a slam-dunk competition, It probably would have been a 6''7' bear or something.
posted by Citizen Premier at 3:42 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Citizen Premier at 3:42 PM on July 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
What weighs more, 375 lbs of bear or 375 lbs of feathers?
And which would be tougher to retrieve from the Gulf of Mexico?
posted by raider at 8:12 PM on July 2, 2008
And which would be tougher to retrieve from the Gulf of Mexico?
posted by raider at 8:12 PM on July 2, 2008
*widens blinkers, removes filter with which he had been reading Brockles' posts, overcomes persecution complex, laments failed hope for no hard feelings, really sees world for first time, cries big fat baby tears of joy, tries to remember to "help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand, not at other members of the site, tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto*
Let's call the whole thing off.
posted by Kwine at 8:28 AM on July 3, 2008
Let's call the whole thing off.
posted by Kwine at 8:28 AM on July 3, 2008
Another bear rescue story from last year: Spectators, officers and advocates save bear from fatal fall
posted by homunculus at 12:38 PM on July 5, 2008
posted by homunculus at 12:38 PM on July 5, 2008
« Older chainsaw maid | Kelpie Sculpture Part of Boat Lift Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Citizen Premier at 4:08 PM on July 1, 2008