After 20 years of enticing bears into a remote compound tucked away in a little visited corner of the Yentna River valley, retired Anchorage school teacher Charlie Vandergaw said last fall he was ready to end his bear-taming shenanigans. Filmmaker Richard Terry, the man to whom Vandergaw made the statement, didn't know whether to believe it.
Now skeptical state officials have taken action to make sure it happens. They have charged the 70-year-old Vandergaw with 20 counts of illegally feeding game. Also charged were two friends accused of assisting him.
The criminal misdemeanor charges, filed by the state Department of Law on Friday in Palmer, cover bear feedings from May 10 to Sept. 19 last year at "Bear Haven," Vandergaw's remote summer home north of the community of Alexander Creek.
Charging documents, however, note the bear feeding there has been going on for far longer than a year. In interviews with Alaska State Troopers last fall, those documents say, "Vandergaw acknowledged that he was feeding the bears at his cabin and stated that he couldn't immediately stop. Vandergaw admitted to feeding the bears for the past 20 years."
By this time most years, Vandergaw would again be out at Bear Haven putting out dog food for the bears that are like family to him, but not this year. The state seized his single-engine Bush plane after serving the search warrants in September. They have been holding it ever since, making travel to the compound more difficult and costly for Vandergaw.
And among the charges filed Friday was a warning shot for anyone who might choose to help Vandergaw with his bears.
Those of you who are frequent visitors to this blog probably already know that Charlie Vandergaw was my high school science teacher. I have written about him and his "Bear Haven" several times in the past, and have often struggled to decide exactly where I come down on his dangerous experiment.
However lately I have called for Mr. Vandergaw to please put a stop to his Club Med for bears because I fear for his safety. At 70 years of age his reflexes are not once they once were.
If Mr. Vandergaw were to be injured or killed by these bears that he loves so much he would undue all of the work he has done over these last 20 years to show them to be fascinating creatures, with complex personalities, instead of simply voracious killing machines. I know it would break Charlie's heart to leave that as his legacy.
Because I know Charlie Vandergaw I am very drawn to this particular story, since in many ways it fits so well with the personality of the man whose class I attended over 30 years ago.
The other reason that I find myself so interested in his work is that it is so fundamentally an "Alaskan" story.
Before the pipeline days this place was filled with the kind of no nonsense, make it up as you go along, freethinkers that thought nothing of going out into the wilds of Alaska for weeks at a time just to experience some new adventure. Charlie Vandergaw seems like one of the last examples of that very rugged, individualistic type of Alaskan.
Charlie was not content to simply have us sit quietly in his class jotting down notes while he lectured to us about the periodic table of elements. No he wanted us gathered around the Bunsen burners combining exotic chemicals, or interacting with electricity and testing how the human body worked as a conductor. (Of course we were kids so we spent much of the time shocking the crap out of each other, but we definitely learned to respect the power of electricity.)
Mr. Vandergaw was just one of the amazing, eclectic teachers who helped shape my own somewhat singular personalty. I can definitely trace my lifelong love of learning to these amazing educators, and I owe Mr. Vandergaw and his peers a huge debt of gratitude.
So once again I implore Mr. Vandergaw to simply walk away from his "experiment" and let these bears acclimate back to the life they were born to live.
Here is an excerpt from the documentary "The Man who Lives with Bears".
I'm with you Gryphen I'm not sure where I stand on this? Yes he could be in great danger, but also the bears he is feeding...in the ADN someone commented that hunters have stale donuts to entice the bears then they kill them. I'm always afraid for the animals to become habituated to humans and then be harmed b/c they trust.
ReplyDeleteAnd then there is the Timothy Treadwell story...Grizzly man! Tragic.
As unfortunate as it is, in the long run the bears would be better off not to be dependent on humans for food. There are always going to be people who will exploit this situation and as crystalwolf points out, give them food just to make them an easy target. I never will forget the impact Born Free had on me concerning humans and wild animals. However, can I say I would not befriend a wild animal if I had the chance. Probably not. I am sorry for your friend and the situation he now finds himself in.
ReplyDeleteCharlie Vandergaw is an exeptional human being! What a fascinating and truly awesome journey he has experienced. I am reminded of Diane Fossey who lived amongst the gorillas for 13 years--gained their trust and acceptance in their world.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with crystalwolf and you--for much the same reasons you stated. The time has come for Mr. Vandergaw to "release" these wonderful animals back to a life that is inherently their nature.
Wouldn't a book by Mr. Vandergraw be fascinating? Or a documentary of this twenty year relationship enlightening?
I imagine that Mr. Vandergaw might be torn about what he wants to do and what is the selfless decision that he needs to make. The central focus rests upon what is in the best tnterests of these magnificent bears of the wild.
Considering the Governor's hate/hate relationship with Alaska's wild animals, I hope they don't use Charlie's plane to fly hunters to Charlie's cabin and then use the grounds as a killing field for bears that don't expect to be hunted on a 'safe ground'.
ReplyDeleteIt would be just like her to order it. Kill all Charlie's bear = problem solved.
Oh, and here's your plane back.
Not only is Vandergaw in danger but so are other humans and the bears themselves.
ReplyDeleteToo often, humans feel the need to "love" wild animals up close and personal and being a super animal lover, I understand completely.
However, being a super animal lover and having worked in vet clinics I know that loves means loving what is best for the animal and not what necessarily satisfies our desire for a close relationship with undomesticated animals.
One of the things I was in total awe of one summer morning was watching a coyote trot down a path next to the APU wooded area--30 ft from my front door--while my dog and I went unnoticed. This animal did not need me, nor want my companionship. HE WAS JUST FINE BY HIMSELF IN HIS WORLD AS HIS GOD INTENDED.
I respected his independence, his autonomy, his self-contained confidence in his ability to deal with his world.
I loved him enough to not harbor a child like fantasy of wanting to cuddle him.
To be sure no one misunderstands, wild animals DO NEED us to protect them from other humans; they just do not need us for their emotional nor psychological fulfillment.
Sometimes love means putting the "beloved's" welfare first.
Timothy Treadwell is a good analogy to this man. Of course you can feed wild animals but where I live, in the heart of bear country in Ontario, Canada - we do everything we can to not attract the bears. Habituating them to man and to food handouts is dangerous -- perhaps more so for the bears than man. Where I live, a fed bear is a dead bear because sooner or later a problem will occur.
ReplyDeleteHave the authorities in Alaska nothing better to do than harass a 70 year old man? Leave him alone, for crying out loud. Who is he hurting? And if the story ends like Treadwell then he died doing what he loved, where he chose to be.
ReplyDeleteI'd MUCH rather see law enforcement out there hassling people who hunt from planes and other cowardly acts such as that.
Must we stick our noses in everyone's business?
I think the alaska statute is overbroad and stops behavior that would NOT endanger the public at large. How as an attorney can i find Charlie to assist in his defense??
ReplyDeleteThe comment, "Timothy Treadwell is a good analogy to this man." is one of a VERY POORLY EDUCATED PERSON in this subject. Timothy was a fool that went and hunted to be near these animals. This man simply waits for them to come. Bears are extremely intelligent and quite willful in their manners. Hence, I don't think this one man who has a passion is causing any harm what so ever. Every keeps screaming danger danger. He has been doing this for 20 years. No true harm to Charlie and I bet you can't link a single bear that visits him to a single incident involving bears. My point being, Alaska has nothing better to do than be a harassment. This is simply a serious injustice to Charlie's freedom. This is his right and no one has ANY RIGHTS to remove it from him.
ReplyDeleteTimothy Treadwell was not a fool, he was sick and he was delusional. He suffered from manic depression, as very evidenced by his lifestyle. He only met a bad end because I think he really believed, deep down in his heart, that if he loved them enough, those bears wouldn't hurt him. No, Timothy wasn't a fool; he was ill and he was misguided.
DeleteAnd as far as your statement about Charlie goes, "This man simply waits for them to come", yeah, they show up because he's feeding them dog food and cookies, genius. He's not some miraculous bear whisperer-he keeps his pockets full of treats. Almost any animal can be swayed with food.
I agree that feeding the bears human food or dogfood is wrong, but I don't agee that feeding them is wrong. What if he fed them the things they eat in the wild, like fish and berries? But was still able to be close to them and have them visit.
ReplyDeleteleave the poor man alone. What if someone came along and told you that what you love is wrong and you can't do it anymore.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has there thing, some party, some sleep, some live. This man is living, unlike all of us on here typing.
I think what Charlie has done is amazing. He has shown us the truth about bears, but I think he is hurting them too. HIS bears have gotten use to coming up to him for food. Now HIS bears are in real danger. A hunter could do the same and the bears think it's okay to come close to a human. Then this hunter kills the bear. Charlie can't watch his bears all the way from his cabin to the caves every time. Hunters are going to be out there looking for his bears now because they know where he lives and the mood of these bears. It hurts me that these family members are now in real danger. So far as Charlie, leave him alone. This is his family and there is nothing that can be done now. He is taking the right action by putting up the electric fence, but he needs to keep it on as much as it will hurt him and stop feeding them. Good luck, Charlie. I pray for you and your bears.
ReplyDeleteI think it's wonderful that someone out there has the patience and the courage to bond with animals as potentially dangerous as bears. However, he shouldn't have bribed them with food or let them in his cabin. He just didn't have enough boundaries for himself. That's what got him into trouble. I believe humans can have relationships with wild animals without taking away their independence. Indifference is the real enemy!
ReplyDeleteIt's only a matter of time before this guy is turned into Bear scat, just like that other lunatic that wanted to go and "befriend" Bears in Alaska. There's plenty of food up there for those animals and they don't need his dogfood/oats or whatever to survive. We have a saying here in British Columbia, a fed Bear is a dead Bear. If these animals encounter humans again the first thing they`ll want is the free handout they`ve been receiving from him, and well, that outcome is pretty predictable.
ReplyDelete-KM
Bears in Alaska are suppose to be "WILD" - they are suppose to be "ABLE" to take care of themselves ie find food for themselves or they die ! Thats "NATURE".
ReplyDeleteWhat Charlie is doing or has done -Is Wrong.
Charlie may love the Bears - but Bears are NOT suppose to "DEPEND" on MAN for food.
Charlie, I know your heart is in the right place - wanting to protect Bears - the best way IMHO is to designate an area heavily populated with Bears "OFF LIMITS" to MAN.
The Bears will do fine !
The Bears don't depend on charlie for food. Can you imagine how much money it would take for him to feed the 10-20 or so bears that are on his property. He's a retired school teacher. All he is doing is occasionally feeding them to keep them on his property which is a safe place for them to live. No one can hunt on his property. I support Charlie 110%. I would love to find out what he is doing to fight the alaskan government or what he is doing please post if you know
ReplyDeletei think if everyone in the world was like charlie it would be a better place for all the animals and the humans not to mention the environment
ReplyDeleteBear caused deaths: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America
ReplyDeleteLeading preventable causes of death... ha including STD's! Too many people die from sex, stop having it! Same with driving a car, but people are even more stupid they text and cell phone while driving!
Charlie may have Asperger's. But he could be used for science. Let the scientists live with him and learn.
Humans...
I can understand Charlie's love for the bears. I am not so sure his methods are what could be considered "desirable" for these Wild animals. We have made so many mistakes in the past when dealing with the public & lack of laws concerning feeding bears. I think the laws we have in place now are appropriate and to date "best practices" where bears are concerned.
ReplyDeleteI'm a very big animal lover although I've never been friends with bears I get where he's coming from, getting a wild animal to trust in you is a huge accomplishment and gets very addicting. I think everyone just needs to leave him alone , in my opinion the man knows bears are dangerous and he's willing to take that risk and he feels great doing it. Fish and game got on to him because what he's doing is illeagal but when he tried to get a permit they denied him of it. The only thing I wasn't comfortable with was inviting people to the property and I think if anything were to happen to his guests it would be their fault not his. Animals are animals if you get a dog and think it's never going to bite , you're a fool , I'm not saying it will but there's always chance with any animal.This man did nothing wrong he fell in love with animals and decided to feed them and it's not like they forget how to hunt so whats the big deal , he didn't live by anyone he didn't train them to attack people and they were free roaming. If someone came to my house and told me I had to stop feeding feral cats, picking up snakes out of the roads and rescuing hawks and that I couldn't raise baby racoons after their mother got hit by a car, I would be pissed and fight every way I could . I love what I do I try to help as much as I can and I would rather go broke saving animals then watch them suffer. I really respect his work I think it showed people a lot about bears.
ReplyDeletecharlie is not putting any body in harms way by giving the bears a treat.the bears are not depending on a little bit of dog food.to me the bears are coming there because charlie has showed them love and made them feel safe like you would in your on home,and also i think charlie has saved some of these bears from the hunters.It makes me mad that charlie has to go to court. If the court wants to do something, make the law of no hunting bear in that area. They can't make money on that so it wouldn't happen!I hope he wins and gets to keep doing what he loves to do for the people that live around bears. It is your choice and your risk and you know the risk, its your right to make that choice and nobody should stand in your way.
ReplyDeleteIn this case the law needs to but out he's a good guy who has lived with them 20+ years and who cares if he's feeding them if he was feeding deer there wouldn't be this "problem" these jackholes have nothing better to do then harass people
ReplyDeleteonejrkitty these bears don't need him they enjoy him , all animals if hungry will hunt, a cat will hunt even if fed. I bet if he didn't feed for a full year they would still come back for him not food.
ReplyDeleteyou know it was really crappy that he was forced to give up. If this is what Alaskan fish and game gets paid to do they need a serious pay cut don't they have anything better to do then steal planes and snoop on peoples private property ?!?? what a load of crap! somebody needs to crap on F&g's building and fire anyone who has went on his property sent him complaints,tickets, basicly anyone who pursued stopping this man .
ReplyDeleteI think Charlie should receive a special waiver, be grandfathered in. He is miles from civilization. He may get eatten. his business. Bears are going to kill people any way you cut it shown clearly by many that have tried them and died. The state is getting ridicules with their interference of formerly Free Men. We need a Revolution, violent if necessary, to throw off the many Gov bio assholes among us. Jim a former combat sailor, soldier, sarine
ReplyDeleteI firmly believe he means well but sorta got hooked on adrenalin rush from being so close to these animals.One thing I do see bad is that some yo yo somewhere else will try the same thing and eventually be mauled or eaten, sorta hard to feel sorry for those folks.
ReplyDeleteFeeding wild animals does not necessarily mean feeding them so much that they become completely dependent. Omnivorous bears have an appetite for a wide range of foods and as I understood the program Mr. Vandergaw did not feed them to the extent that would make them forget to seek out their natural foods. As I understand it, the authorities have taken his plane so that he can no longer go to his remote Alaskan property. Isn't that felony theft. I cannot but wonder that there might be another agenda for all the legal tactics to prevent this man from the life he loves with the privilege of befriending the bears and the research he has done.
ReplyDeleteThis is not just Alaska business and butt out. The well being and continuance of our planet is a global business and the interaction of species is a large part of it. I would think that the indiscriminate killing of species, such as wolves and bears is a detriment that deserves some thought process and legal interference rather than a focus of denying safe habitat.
Didn't the natives live on caribou before planes and high powered rifles? The wolves wrreen't slaughtered than and there were caribou. They killed the coyote in the west and paid for the mistake by being overrun with rabbits. There is a natural selection that maintains the balance on our planet. Every time we interfere with that natural selection by massive killing we err. The research, caring for and providing safe habitat is commendable and should be assisted not destroyed.
Bears will sniff out human waste, foods and the garbage and they will investigate for it. It is a natural, survival behavior for them. Charlie Vandergaw is not instilling a new behavior in bears. He has only done what Diane Fossey and Jane Goodall and others have done before him. He should be applauded, assisted and commended for his work with a very misunderstood and solitary animal. Thank you Mr. Vandergaw.
there has to be a way for him to live out HIS dream without the govenment stepping in, what hes doing is what he lives for, and to take that away from him i can only imagine how heartbreaking this is for him! i hope he fights his @$$ off to live his dream, hes been doing it for 20+ years, why stop him now???
ReplyDeleteI think what Charles did was his businees. He was not hurting anyone. He knows the dangers of these animals, and like a few others have stated, if something were to happen he died doing what he loved. I think the Alaska Fish and Game need to find something else to do, besides break this poor mans heart. It is quite obvious from the shows, that the bears do care about him. I mean, the it would be a little bit different if he were sitting on his front porch in Anchorage and feeding bears. I hope he gets a great attorney to stand up for him, and if he does have to stop going to his cabin, i hope he will take time to write a book about his 20 years with the bears. i am sure it would be very interesting. I hope he will share lots of pictures he took of them too. GOOD LUCK CHARLES!!
ReplyDeleteSo, let me get this straight - you can feed them to shoot them in the face, but not to be kind to them? Screw that! This guy is a hero to the human race. Leave him alone! Let him live in peace as long as he wishes!
ReplyDeleteSo, you can feed them to kill them like a coward, but not feed them to be kind to them. People suck! Let this guy live in peace - luck, brave man that he is.
ReplyDeleteBears, just like humans, enjoy variety in their diets and someday one big old griiz will decide enough with the bland puppy chow and munch on some old tasty fool, poop him out in 24 hours and then move on to the next delicious, jucy human. Charlie has fed his selfish ego for 20 years, now move on old feller.
ReplyDeleteThey are not just there for food. They play and interact with him. There is great respect for each other. Lots of luck to the beare and there buddy Charlie.
ReplyDeleteI beleive that if this is his calling than noone should tell him what to do. I do however understand that there is laws, but there can be exceptions. This is not going to hurt anyone but his self if they turn on him. But i beleive that what he has done is great I am one of those people that love critters of all types. My favorite wild animals is the bears. I would love to be up close to a bear.
ReplyDeleteWhen you are in a peaceful state of mind, you are not in danger. This man should be applauded and thanked for his wonderful demonstration. Perhaps the laws should be changed so that those who are properly trained are allowed to interact and help tame the wild. The pursuit of happiness is his right.
ReplyDeleteThere are many more issue the government could be dealing with rather than this. Let the man be, and stop harrassing him.
ReplyDeleteCharlie has found something within himself that we all have but few of us understand. He has tapped into energy that has allowed him to become one with the bears. To punish him would be like punishing us all. We should not fear what we do not understand.
ReplyDeleteYou are a great man Charlie and I Adam Coulby support you.
THE BEARS & CHARLIE HAVE (HAD) A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP. THEY ARE NOT HURTING THE PUBLIC NOR PLACING THE GENERAL PUBLIC "AT RISK" DUE TO THE SECLUSIVENESS OF HIS RESERVE. ALMOST LIKE A LION RESERVE... PERHAPS THE GRIZZLY & BLACK BEARS WILL BE AT RISK OF EXTINCTION SOMEDAY??? IN MY OPINION "BEAR HAVEN" SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE. CHARLIE & THE BEARS SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENJOY THIER LIVES FOR 6 MONTHS OF THE YEAR. THE REMAINING SIX MONTHS OF THE YEAR THE BEARS ARE SURVIVING SUCCESSFULLY ON THIER OWN. SO MY VOTE IS TO LEAVE HIM ALONE AND DROP THE LEGAL CHARGES.
ReplyDeleteEver since growing up parents tell their kids to follow their dreams! If this is his dream let him continue living it! He is Not harming the bears or doing anything wrong. He is actualy helping them by not geting them hunted and fed. I am so in love with this story I say keep it up charlie! Follow your heart and like u say... "you only live once". Do what makes you happy! I wish so many people can use this and turn this into something good in their own lives!!!! May charlie be able to continue to live his dream!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteIs there a petition that can be signed to help get these charges reduced or dropped against Charlie?
ReplyDeletehis actions will kill an innocent person soon.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately could get the bears killed as well.
DeleteFirst, hunting represents the most unfair advantage of any kind. And although it's been done for centuries, hunting for trophies (which is really all bear hunting is) is truly immoral and cowardly murder. So let's not call it hunting, let's call it waht it really is - killing. Thank God for people like Charlie who at least commune with nature as it should be, without the advantage of weapons. He's proven it can be done. As did George Adamson in Kenya who lived very comfortably with wild lions, but was murdered by a gun shot by the human animal. Alaska should be proud of Charlie.
ReplyDeleteI HAVE JUST SEEN THE STORY ABOUT CHARLIE FOR THE FIRST TIME LAST NIGHT ON TV. WHAT A RARE PRIVILEDGE TO LIVE IN THE WILD WITH THE BEARS. IT BREAKS MY HEART THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS PUT AN END TO BEAR HAVEN. DO THEY HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO? WHAT CHARLIE DID ON HIS PROPERTY WAS HIS BUSINESS, NOONE ELSES. HUNTERS CAN BAIT BEARS ALL THEY WANT, ONLY TO KILL THEM. AND SOMEHOW THIS IS OK BUT IF YOU FEED BEARS BECAUSE YOU LOVE THEM YOU ARE A CRIMINAL. HOW DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? THANK YOU CHARLIE FOR CARING FOR THE BEARS. YOU ARE IN MY PRAYERS.
ReplyDeleteLeave Charlie alone. If he gets hurt then he only has himself to blame. He loves the bears and knows the consequences. I am behind you 110% Charlie. Keep fighting for what you love :)
ReplyDeleteCharlie Vandergaw
ReplyDeleteCharlie Vandergaw has not created a bear haven but a bear habituation site. His actions endanger himself, the bears, other humans, and bears everywhere by perpetuating the myth that intimate contact in permissible if one has a “special connection†with the animal. That concept has been proven false time and again (Timothy Treadwell, Roy Horn are recent examples).
Mr. Vandergraw only connection with these bears is that he is a source of food for them. He has been very lucky. If permitted to continue his irresponsible behavior he will eventually be injured or killed by one of the bears.
Even if this does not happen he is habituating generations of bears not to fear or avoid humans, but rather to seek them out as a food source, and that will eventually necessitate their destruction. That act alone shows Mr. Vandergraw to be ignorant, selfish, or completely unaware of what it really means to love animals.
Mr. Vandergraw does not deserve support for his cause. The efforts by those who wish to support him are not based on fact or science, but on emotionalism and a wrong-headed romanticism about the reality of the nature of wild animals.
Because of misinformaion, ignorance and the kind of exceptionalism practice by people like Mr. Vandergraw people and bears are injured and die every year.
" Human habituated and human food-conditioned bears are more likely to come into conflict with people due to their increased proximity to, and associated lack of wariness around, people. Such bears are therefore at greater risk of removal or being killed as “problem wildlifeâ€. They also have an increased vulnerability to hunters, poachers and to becoming road-kill. (Herrero 1985)
Human habituated bears and human food-conditioned bears have the potential to be especially dangerous to humans because:
they are willing to be in close proximity to people, and in the case of food-conditioned bears, they may become bold in their attempts to secure food from people.
people may mistakenly presume such bears to be “tame†and behave inappropriately around them."
www.whyte.org/bears/conflict.html
Dr. Stephen Herrero Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science BA; PhD. Psych.-Zoo. (CA)
Past president International Association for Bear Research and Management (IBA) past chair of IUCN Bear Specialist Group. Author of "Bear attacks: Their causes and avoidance", in 1990 this book was chosen "the most important scientific work on bears in past 25 years" by research peers.
www.ucalgary.ca/evds/herrero
I agree, Linda from Michigan. I think he should be allowed his pursuit of happiness.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the lengthy post shown as anonymous at 3:14pm might hold some water, BUT I suspect the so-called authoritative author of that piece wouldn't go that far to oppose killing them in cold blood - vis-a-vis, hunting them. So I still strongly stand on the side of living together on equal terms in PEACE - vis-a-vis Charlie's lifestyle. Alaska couldn't be more wrong in trying to penalize him!!!!! Animals have paid a way too heavy a price for our arrogant (and cowardly) selfishness!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI based my opinion on extensive study of bears, but even more so on the weight of science and the policies the National Park Service, the National Forest Service, and State Fish and Game departments across the country, who do their best to educate the public of the dangers of habituating bears (and other wildlife) to human contact and food.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do not hunt myself I have no objection to responsible regulated hunting. But that is a separate issue.
Mr. Vandergaw does not live on equal terms with the bears. He actions have made them dependant on him for survival. He has used them for his own pleasure and aggrandizement.
If Mr. Vandergaw truly cared for these bears he would not have spent years feeding them a domestic diet and fostering their dependency, in essence making them his pets.
Mr. Vandergaw's "peaceful" behavior is in reality an act of violence that will, over time, manifest itself in his local area,towns bordering the wilderness, and every campground located in every bear habitat acoss the country.
People will be mauled and bears will be put down, because of Mr. Vandergaw's promotion of the myth that we can have close personal and benign with these wild animals.
Larry Waters Tucson Arizona
Correction of my last post
ReplyDeleteI based my opinion on extensive study of bears, but even more so on the weight of science and the policies the National Park Service, the National Forest Service, and State Fish and Game departments across the country, who do their best to educate the public of the dangers of habituating bears (and other wildlife) to human contact and food.
While I do not hunt myself I have no objection to responsible regulated hunting. But that is a separate issue.
Mr. Vandergaw does not live on equal terms with the bears. He actions have made them dependant on him for survival. He has used them for his own pleasure and aggrandizement.
If Mr. Vandergaw truly cared for these bears he would not have spent years feeding them a domestic diet and fostering their dependency, in essence making them his pets.
Mr. Vandergaw's "peaceful" behavior is in reality an act of violence that will, over time, manifest itself in his local area,towns bordering the wilderness, and every campground located in every bear habitat acoss the country.
People will be mauled and bears will be put down, because of Mr. Vandergaw's promotion of the myth that we can have close personal and benign contact with these wild animals.
Larry Waters Tucson AZ
There's no doubt that Larry is a realist and is properly tutored by those who only care about animals for the pleasue and aggrandizement of responsible regulated animal killers. It took strong idealists to fight this kind of thinking and reintroduce wolves to many controversial areas in this country, lions to the wilds of Africa, save many whales from extinction, stigmatize fur coats, stand up for sharks, and on and on. I and, thank goodness, more and more others are wanting to choose the side of finding ways to live in peace with wild animals and not kill them for the bragging rights of owning a bear rug, etc. Again, it's never a fair match ... which certainly doesn't qualify "hunting" as a "sport." It can no more be a sport than any other kind of physical abuse. We need more Charlie Vandergaws to help the wild animal and human worlds better understand each other. He, George and Joy Adamson, Diane Fosse, Jane Goodall and others have certainly helped me understand the potential of peaceful existance. Even if he's habituating, it's a brave start, and that's how positive change always comes about. I only wish he could add a polar bear haven and a way to save so many of them from falling victim to global warming. My view: animals owe us nothing, but we owe them everything. Charlie, thank you for helping so many of us better understand how love, albeit with food (as is always the case, even in our own families) does work in the two worlds!
ReplyDeleteAnonymous
ReplyDeleteI fail to see how you can feel so passonate about animal welfare and not understand that Mr. Vandergaw and his kind are determental to wild animals.
To truly live in a state of peaceful co-exsistance with wild animals one must let them be wild, preserve their habiat and enjoy them from a safe distance.
One final note: your personal attacks and negative assumptions about me, along with your unwillinness to engage in a constuctive dialouge have convinced me that any further communication with you is pointless.
I stand by my statements which I have arrived at through being tutored by my father who was a conservationist and educator in the early fifties, my years of experience in the wild, and research conducted with an open mind, critical thinking,and intellctual honesty.
Respectfully,
Larry Waters Tucson Arizona.
This too will be my last posting on this, and with due respect to Larry, his father and the other influences in his life, most of whom were probably well-intended, but in my (and a fast growing number of others') opinion, need to reconsider their theories. And Charlie among many others, as I have pointed out, has made a very heroic contribution to making the necessity of reconsideration quite clear. I remain anonymous because I must admit I fear the average American "hunter" (cowardly killer) mentality. However, like Larry, I too have been influenced by numerous intellectuals and naturalists, and have had my first-hand experience with "game," even as one of those killers of game in my younger life. The sad thing is, like blue and red in politics, polarization on this subject is heightening; and sadder for me because the NRA side of the argument has guns. It was recently announced that the state of Lousianna has set aside a few days as tax-free for only the sale of firearms - as they say, to boost the economy. How outrageous! I feel for all the wild animals in Lousianna. I found this website and am glad I was able to debate a bit here, but not to wear out my welcome, I'll now take my defense of Charlie Vandergaw elsewhere. Thanks for this opportunity.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but one (really) last point directed at Larry. I find him the one who won't engage in a constructive dialog as he refuses to take up the subject of hunting which is what truly drives the regulations around wildlife. He mentions that we should simply enjoy the animals at a safe distance, but doesn't mention that a very large part or that "enjoyment" is through a rifle scope. And picking up on what someone else posted above, if we're going to outlaw Bear Haven, it would make us much safer if we returned to prohibition, and spent the funds protecting us from bears on single pay healthcare. According to reliable resources, in all of North America, the average annual death toll by bears between 1900 and 2003 is 8. So repeating again what has already been posted here, there are so many really critical things we need to deal with, why this? Anyway, as I move on, I ask all who read this to get behind Charlie if they find opportunities to do so. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteIF THE STATE TROOPERS & OFFICIALS PUT HALF AS MUCH ENERGY INTO FINDING MISSING CHILDREN AS THEY DID IN FINDING EVIDENCE AGAINST CHARLIE WE'D HAVE A LOT MORE CHILDREN HOME SAFE.
ReplyDeleteHOW MUCH TIME & MONEY DID IT TAKE FOR THEIR EFFORTS?
I DON'T AGREE W/FEEDING THE BEARS BUT DOES IT NEED TO GO TO THIS EXTREME? I FEEL BLESSED TO SEE THE UNIQUE INTERACTION BETWEEN HIM & THE BEARS.
I PRAY HE CAN GET THESE CHARGES DROPPED BY AGREEING NOT TO FEED THEM, GO BACK HOME & BE W/THE BEARS AGAIN.
In the TV series Charlie states that he is very happy with his life with the bears. He feels as if he has found heaven. Politicians don't like us to find heaven do they?
ReplyDeleteSo - it could end tragically. He could be attacked and killed by the bears. We all take risks everyday. Any of us could be killed by numerous things in our lives - cars, buses, muggers,robbers,the food we choose to eat, heart attacks, etc etc etc.
He would probably be honoured to be killed by a bear. Again - as he said in series - being with the bears is his redemption for all the years he hunted and killed so many of them.
Leave him alone - it is his choice to live this life.
ANYONE WHO VISITS THIS SITE AND IS ON CHARLIE'S SIDE PLEASE GO TO THE FOLLOWING WEBSITE AND FILL OUT THE PETITION FOR CHARLIE AND THE BEARS AT BEAR HAVEN...
ReplyDeletewww.savebearhaven.org
THANKS,
Brenda S.
I think Charlie has done a great thing and he should not be stopped the Alaskan government well all of them are fools. In anchorage no one secures their garbage so bears come to feed on the garbage, why aren't those people find. Charle can keep the bears by him and feed them and stop them from going into town. Who is tending to charlie's bears now?
ReplyDeleteI live in Africa, so I have only a vague idea of how Americans and Alaskans view animals, but it appears you regard them simply as targets. There seems to be no respect for wildlife whatsoever. What Charlie has done is get past that stage, to meet the personalities within his bears, and believe me all animals, big or small have personalities. Any dog owner knows his dog has a personality - why should a bear be different? They're not.
ReplyDeleteTo me this hostile uproar is baffling. Charlie has in no way harmed them. He has not tamed them, they are not captive, his lodge is miles from anywhere and I heard no reports of any bears that he knows being a nuisance to anyone else. These bears clearly have well-defined ranges which they do not venture out of. His 'feeding' is simply a way of demonstrating to the bears that he trusts them and will not harm them, and the dog-cubes he gives them are not nearly enough to keep one bear fed, let alone the number who visit him. Charlie knows the risks better than anyone. If he chooses to put himself in danger that is no-one's business except his. If he was to die at the claws of a bear it would not make that bear a man-killer, the bear's nature would be unchanged, and no other person would be put at risk.
Getting close to a live wild animal, and being trusted by it, is a very special experience. Shooting the poor bastard with a high-powered telescopic sight rifle is not 'getting back to nature' or proving yourself to be some heroic nature lover, it is just simple butchery. I have walked amongst wild eland and had little wild mongoose eating out of my hand, and stepped around sleeping buffalo, and it makes me feel like St Francis of Assisi. It is enormously special. Risky sometimes, but really rewarding. Charlie has experienced that. The rest of Alaska should try it sometime.
I respect many of the comments posted here but I think you should know that these bears are no where near any town or camp ground - It's out in the middle of no where -- litereally.. The only people who go back that far into the country are hunters & they are flying in - no roads even exist....
ReplyDeleteWhile, I agree that hunting has it's place - especially when habitat has been reduced and natural preditors have been removed from an area. Nothing wrong if you are hunting to eat - However - there is never a good reason to ever hunt a bear. Bears are not over populated in any way.. I think Charlie thought he was providing a sanctuary for them. He was doing no one any harm & the amount of kibble he left for them was minor - The bears are in no way dependent on him.. He didn't live up there full time - only long visits. This is no differnt then when the game and fish department sets out hay for buffelo heards and such in a bad winter... People are making comments and assumptions for a person they have never met. I say let him be...
Shame on you Alaska Goverment to stop Charlie,your best ambassaddor and son.Who would ever have heard and read about you if it wasnot CHARLIE VANDERGAW
ReplyDeleteIf any idiot with gun goes into the woods and shoot the bears- no problems,if someone with food goes in there and feed the bears-big problem.Put good man in the court and sue him? Something is wrong with this world.
ReplyDeleteLeave Charlie and his bears alone! If he dies from the hand of one of his bears, then so be it. There are worse ways to die...in a hospital bed with cancer or withering away from a broken heart. Typical government stamping out original thinkers. Protecting hunters that thrill kill bears and prosecuting an old man that has inspired and enthralled myself and others all over the world with his relationship with bears and their complex and delightful personalities. Sure they are dangerous, but so is driving a car! It's his life and his risk.
ReplyDeleteI can identify with Charlie's love for bears, and for all wildlife. I have met bears myself in the wild, although not in the same way, my encounters being quite scary. But I understand the connection and the beauty of being close to the creatures who live life in the wild the way nature planned it. They exist just as I do, and so we are all related. Charie's story touches my heart, and yet I see the potential danger for him and the bears. I am sad to see it end, yet also glad to have witnessed it. God bless you, Charlie, and your bears.
ReplyDeleteI am so angry they took the airplane. It is amazing to me that the officials never discuss that what Charlie is doing could make others think they can get close to bears too. (I would say to that if they were worried that until the press got ahold of the story no one knew. But the government is in a personal battle with a man and they are not going to be over powered in this. But they are always allowing themselves to be manipulated by big mouths who do not want to have prays said or the word God mentioned.
ReplyDeleteThose people always when. The government needs to reevaluate who they are and what they are for. God gave Charlie a gift and it would be a horrible thing if something happened to Charlie, but it should be his choice. What happened to freedom and selection to hard working Americans. Sheri Kuykendall Tennessee
Why couldn't the state turn Mr. Vandergraw's place into a preserve of some kind to study the bears? Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteKevin M. Stipe
ReplyDeleteLawrenceville, Ga.
I support Mr. Vandergaw 100%. I think his work with bears is amazing. I will volunteer my services to help him. The chance to live among the bears is priceless and he should be allowed to continue doing so. Tell me to go and will go.
First of all, I must note that the situation with Timothy Treadwell was different than the case involving Vandergaw. In Treadwell's case, he acclimated bears to his presence (arguably harassing them, as the Park Service often claimed), rather than allowing the bear to become habituated to his presence through feeding, as is the case with Mr. Vandergaw. While Mr. Vandergaw's actions have worked for 20 years, and largely only endanger his own life, the government policy of "no feeding" has its basis in legitimate science.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have seen too many bears euthanized after becoming habituated to human food, being that the bear resort to raiding campsites, cars (a significant problem with black bears in Yosemite National Park), and, on the rare occasion, attacking hikers. History has shown that bears accustomed to human interaction are far more likely to attack, hence the law regarding "no feeding".
While Mr. Vandergaw's property is isolated and he has practiced this lifestyle for 20 years, any passing hunters and/or hikers could possibly be put in danger by his detrimental actions. As shown in the show, the bears are also in danger by losing their fear of people and thus, becoming more vulnerable to hunters. It should be duly noted that the bears have shown some behavior that is not observed in normal conditions (when he doesn't have food, they do not become aggressive), but examples throughout the continent support Alaska's "no feeding" law. The biggest problem, then, arises from the media coverage surrounding Mr. Vandergaw and "his" bears: if the government took no action, they could not justify inaction if an attack did occur. The law exists, and it is their job to enforce just laws.
As for Mr. Vandergaw threatening only his own life, which would be justified under Mill's Principle for political philosophy, that is his choice. However, another problem arises from situation. Under ideal conditions, roughly 85% of a grizzly bear's diet consists of vegetation, with black bears in a similar, if not higher, range. This means about 15% of their diet consists of meat, from ants and grubs to salmon to moose and other ungulates (especially calves). True omnivores, bears are opportunists, with some studies showing problem-solving abilities on par with apes when food is the reward. They learn and adapt quite quickly. If a single bear attacked and killed Mr. Vandergaw, it would quickly learn to associate humans with prey. Weighing up to 1,500 pounds (inland grizzlies average 200-800 lbs), brown bears feed on animals much larger than people, and there is no reason they could not learn to associate people with prey. Black bears range from 100-900 pounds and feed heavily on elk and moose calves in spring. They have been known to prey on people. This learning curve could threaten other lives and, thus, would result in the removal of the bear from the ecosystem, by lethal means.
As romantically appealing as the relationship Mr. Vandergaw has with "his" bears appears (I am personally quite intrigued by - worried by and enamored with - this phenomenon) , the government has to establish laws that apply to all citizens. Whether or not his specific example works, the law must apply to all. While I do believe in selective enforcement, the excessive media coverage means Alaska officials had to act, and feeding bears IS wrong. There are more examples proving it is dangerous than there are suggesting it works, and often it only takes one mistake to create a disaster.
What an opportunity to learn and study bears to become aware of what they are really like. Out government, local, state, and federal always seem to go after the little guy while people with money that really don't care about others get away with anything. Charlie represents people that want to touch nature in an undisturbed form. People that supposedly know better, want it stopped because they can't.
ReplyDeleteI think he is an amazing man. Leave it to the government to control someones life. This is the land of the free. He is in the middle of nowhere and has been doing it for 20 yrs...good lord leave the man be!!!!! I am fascinated by his work and think we all can learn form it.
ReplyDeleteIt's Dec 2009 and the last bit I read about Charlie's legal difficulties with the Alaskan authorities was that multiple charges were filed against him. I hope Charlie has successfully defended himself against these charges and avoided prosecution. If I were Charlie, I would have told the court that I started feeding the bears before it became illegal and that this carried on for a number of years (which I believe is true). Then, once the act was outlawed, I would contend that feeding the bears was a necessary act of defense against the bears, because had Charlie not feed the bears, and kept in form with what had been happening over the course of several years (prior to bear feeding illegalization), then Charlie should state that he was fearful that the bears would turn on him for not feeding them. Until such time that Charlie could gather the resources to build his electric fence, he had no other option but to feed the bears, as they expected, else he would have put himself in peril.
ReplyDeleteOn the none legal note, Charlie living among the bears had the chance to be reckoned by the law of nature, and Charlie survived his actions, then so there it is.
Fascinating nevertheless, and thank you Charlie.
I think what this idiot Charlie is doing is WRONG and all of you saying that people should leave him alone are morons. How would they like to be camping and then have a grizzly that has been acclimated to being fed come into their camp expecting some food? Wake up! Bears do not need humans for their subsistence. They DO need to be protected, but as someone here said, from other humans. Now that the bears that he fed are accustomed to being fed, I hope they get hunted down so they do not pose a THREAT to other humans that they might encounter.
ReplyDeleteI just saw the video and was suprised on not how he becomes a bear, but on how they just accept him. On the other side, of course, his acceptance relies primarilly on his feeding them, and how they must relate him as a now or later feeding resource....May be controversial, but its his formula, and seems succesful at it.
ReplyDeleteDifferente from Timothy Tread...he doesn´t intrude in their hunting territory (river salmon hunting) and theirfore isn't a threat to the. As I see it, one of TT errors was to go into the bears riverbeds...and therefore became a threat to take their salmons from them (fish wich they do not want to share with TT).
Guilty, Inocent, Idiot or Not....Charly is breaking all barriers, and is demonstrating that close interaction with wild bears can be taken place, if knowing how to do it.....may be risky or stupid....but inside me, I feel fond of him and admire his achievement...and last but not least: "who wouldn't like to be able to almost play and interact with these amazing and beautiful animals"??...I certainly would like to have that gift.
Charlie:"Live long and well"
RB, Chile - Jan'10
I am absolutely fascinated by Charlie's story. And I am completely on his side.
ReplyDeleteIf the bears were relying on him for all their food, if his feeding them rendered the bears incapable of fending for themselves, then I would feel differently. But that isn't the case.
If he lived close enough to any other humans, if he were endangering other lives, then I would feel differently. But again, that isn't the case.
I find it absolutely disgusting that the Alaskan government is on board with things like aerial hunting, or hunting for sport, and has instead chosen to make THIS their battle.
I would hope that Charlie would decide to stop on his own, simply because I would hate for something to happen to him. But for the government to come in and tell him that living this way is wrong...well, that is a joke. What's wrong is not allowing a man to live the way he wants when he is not hurting anyone else.
Let him do what he wants, if he gets killed, so be it. As long as he died doing what he loves. If any of the bears did try to attack him the other bears might even aid him.
ReplyDeleteleave charlie alone with his bears!! please suscribe to the facebook group
ReplyDeletehttp://www.facebook.com/search/?q=Charlie+Vandergaw&init=quick#/group.php?gid=90038707329&ref=mf
if someone say you that you cant be with your dog . im sure that you will be sad if you cant bve with him ...PLEASE PEOPLE SUSCRIBE TO THE GROUP
I SUPPORT YOU CHARLIE!!
As long as human beans like Charlie continue to exist among us, the hopes and even the real sense of humanity will be last.
ReplyDeleteSo is Alaska gone fine everyone who has a bird or hummingbird feeder in the backyard ?
ReplyDeleteI was born and raised in Alaska and believe me, you don't fuck with bears. What exactly is Charlie accomplishing with this, other than to stroke his own ego? Ya, I'd be interested to snuggle up to a bear too -- what an honor, really -- but you know, they have their place and we have ours. AND THEY ARE DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS. Watching those bears, only at the "haven" for FOOD, try to bite the hand that feed them, should be proof enough.
ReplyDeleteMy blood boiled watching this program about what this man is doing, and the conversation that follows. This is not a government vs. animal lover fight as the show suggests. Could it be that Alaska officials know what they are talking about? That this could be dangerous to other people, to the bears themselves?
It's very true, absolutely documented that when a bear gets accustomed to people, used to getting food from people, someone dies. People get killed but more often, bears are killed.
I saw a bear shot right on the street in Juneau. Bears and people DON'T MIX.
If this man really loves bears he should stay away and let them live as God intended.
leave the man alone he is not doing any harm
ReplyDeleteI have watched this documentary a year ago and was inspired by the insights Charlie Vandergaw had share, and through his view I once again realized our responsibility as human, to share your time and resources as a more charitable person with the wildlife that live close to you.
ReplyDeleteThe legal system always has misunderstanding on many social issues and in some cases, act upon the polical sway from the generalized view. One thing about animals is that you can never know them unless you share a relationship with them. Just like any other human relationship, and each one is different.
Timothy Treadwell's story is commonly known as a tragic, but most people do not mention he was killed by the thing he love more then his own life. What I see, is that he is simply a man who grew tired and depressed in the human world and desperately seeking freedom and peace in the wilderness. He might had been a least educated person, yet you don't need a master degree to form a close bond with any wild animals.
Some people here say that wild animals do not need our care, that we should leave them alone in the name of respect and Nature will take care of them. But the deforestation and loss of natural heritage telling us that Nature is not in its former strength and unable to preserve aniamls, all because of the ever increasing human population and activity. We human have changed the land for our own pleasure, and leave the wildlife almost nothing for survival. How can we expect them to care for themselves? How can we expect the Nature to care for them after all the harms we have contributed?
As for me, I want to know the animals I love, that means I will share a friendship with them, and do all that I can to meet their needs. Because I simply cannot sit by and watch all the animals disappear. And that is what Charlie Vandergaw and the rest of those people who like him have been doing.
Stopping Charlie, an outstanding individual of the old school, from communicating with wild bears in Alaska in an incredibly interesting and uplifting experiment, represents a nasty, petty, mean bureaucratic mentality, so typical and loathsome of our modern governments.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the illiterate hockey sticks mum has abandoned her state to further her opportunistic career in the venal and banal, to become an interfering busy-body parasite, to achieve power and make money by pandering to the succour public with fatuous promises about 'fixing' America.
If we were to compare the worth of these two people, which one would you chose?
I think its amazing what Charlie is doing! Leave the guy alone, he loves the bears and the bears love him back!!!!!Go Charlie!!! <3 :D
ReplyDeleteI have just seened the documentary and am touched by it. I have read all opposing documents but in the end. Its go charlie! In being an individual and persuing his passion. In keeping this short because all good points are mentioned above. I just wanted to add my support
ReplyDeleteYou "implore" Charlie to end his experiment and you think it will all come undone if one of the bears kills him? You ask him, and the authorities have forced him to abandon a life he loves because he is not safe?
ReplyDeleteYour old math teacher is still smarter than you are and you are a pussy.
Matthew Doyle's remark among others is a clear indication of prevailing arrogant human ignorance of habituating wildlife as if they were domesticated pets. Encouraging bears to feed from or near a human dwelling teaches the bears to associate food with houses and endangers other humans as well as the bears. The best thing humans can do for the bears is to carry and use bear spray - teach wild bears to avoid humans. If people want to commune with bears, go to a zoo and leave the wild to the wild.
ReplyDeleteI don't appreciate being taught to fear life and living things. Our "animal lovers" are usually afraid to touch any animal that is conscious and not completely domesticated.
ReplyDeleteI think we should keep in mind that Charlie has no reason to harm these bears and no reason to bring harm to himself. The only crime he has committed is loving these beautiful animals more than most of us, perhaps too much. Did he make an error in judgement? Probably. But realize, once he started feeding the animals, there was no turning back. Things spiralled out of control but I think he has learned his lesson. Why can't we find a way to use his great love for these wonderful creatures, to ensure they are around for future generations, and to protect their habitat so they continue to flourish?
ReplyDeleteHow do you decide what constitutes an "error in judgment" in this case and why do the scary people from the Department get to rob him of his plane and his joy?
ReplyDeleteGaining a wild animals's trust must be an exhilarating experience, maybe even addictive as some previous commentators surmised. Feeding them treats is a short-cut to for this. I only know about cats and horses so can only make inferences here. In fact I have a semi-feral cat that may beg for a treat, but will demand to be let out again straight after consumption. So... I am not sure how demanding bears may become regarding their treats, but I know giving treats to horses without reason (that is they work for you in the arena etc.) can turn them into brash greedy creatures, but not showing them boundaries turns them into nasty equines. So... I am undecided. But essentially I don't condone feeding. My question could he have lured them with food and kept them with (for the bear) fun interaction? This would have been truly great.
ReplyDeleteJutta Grünewald
I THINK CHARLIE SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE TO DO WHAT HE HAS BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 20+ YEARS. I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS AN EGO-THING WITH HIM, BUT THAT HE HAS ATTAINED VALUABLE RESEARCH INFORMATION ON THESE CREATURES. HE HAS BEEN "GIFTED" BY GOD TO HAVE THIS ABILITY TO GET CLOSE TO THESE MAGNIFICENT ANIMALS WITHOUT BEING KILLED, JUS AS DIANE FOSEY AND JANE GOODALL HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO WITH THE GORILLA AND CHIMPANZE. MAYBE LAWS SHOULD BE PASSED SO THAT NO ONE CAN FLY IN AN AIRPLANE OR RIDE IN ANY TYPE OF MOTOR VEHICLE BECAUSE WE "MIGHT" GET KILLED AND THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROTECT US FROM WHAT IT CONSIDERS OUR STUPIDITY FOR USING THESE METHODS OF TRANSPORTATION. I'M SURE MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED IN TRAFFIC DEATHS THAN BY BEARS. ALSO, IF THERE IS SUCH A FOCUS ON NOT FEEDING THE BEARS BECAUSE THEY MIGHT BECOME DEPENDANT ON MAN, THEN THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ANY TYPE OF BIRDFEEDERS AND BIRDBATHS SHOULD ALSO BE FORCED TO STOP IMMEDIATELY SINCE THEY ARE PROMOTING DEPENDANCE ON HUMANS BY THE BIRDS AND WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE CARE FOR THEMSELVES WITHOUT MAN'S INTERVENTION. I HOPE THOSE INDIVIDUALS IN ALASKA WHO ARE SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT CHARLIE HAS BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 20+ YEARS WILL WORK ON HIS BEHALF TO GET THIS LAW AMENDED SO CHARLIE AND OTHERS LIKE HIM CAN CONTINUE WITH THEIR PASSION AND WORK ON BEHALF OF THE BEARS.
ReplyDeleteMy general feeling about this rather thrilling ( saga ) is very much in favor of Charlie. As it is, I'm coming on board 8 years after the fact and am anxious to learn of Charlie Vandergaw's present status. My sentiments which support what Charlie has endeavored to accomplish for those 20+ years in forming a trusting and loving relationship with his beloved bears has been quite aptly expressed by others contributing their views on this Blog. First of all, I've watched this 6 part episode on you-tube many times; opps, maybe I've become a bit addicted myself, but I just loved watching him live out his leisure and his dream ! In spite of the arguments which have some merit of those against what Charlie was doing by feeding the bears__let me just say in his defense, that in my opinion, he was located at least 50 miles from any road, as reported, and therefore posing very little, if any threat to anyone. Also, as Charlie himself said in one of the episodes, " My bears come to me, I don't go out in search of them..." What is [key] to myself is that they are protected .from hunters, which goes against my grain, and just to think that the state allows baiting them in order for them to be shot like fish in a barrel...some sport ehhh ( ? ) And through this experience with Charlie they haven't lost their normal wild instincts; i.e., their ability to hunt and live as wild bears. Finally, I hope that Charlie is living a happy and peaceful life currently, and if anyone is able to provide an update on his status and also if by now, he has been able to return to " Bear Haven " ?
ReplyDeleteI think he and any one else should be able do the science and study of bears. We have as humans start thinking out of the conventional box if we are to survive. That is quite an achievement and demyths a lot of myths about bears. Give him some respect that he learned bear behaviour and manage to control them while other bears fought amongst themselves. Why is it OK to kill in this age but not to learn some compassion and empathy. It is too bad that the government is always about 100 years behind in moving forward to awakening.
ReplyDelete