I've had this article from the Daily Mail bookmarked for a couple of weeks. There is something about it that puzzles and horrifies me, but more on that in a bit.
It is a news story about a British Columbian fellow by the name of Jim West who was out walking his dog. He heard a grunt behind him, turned around, and discovered a rather pissed-off black bear. He tried to scare it off by kicking it, and ended up with a bear on top of him mauling him. Somehow he rolled free and got his hands on a large tree limb. He cronked the bear over the head with it. The bear was stunned by the blow, and he figured his only hope was to keep swinging the tree branch. Amazingly he survived the encounter by killing the bear with that tree limb.
That's all remarkable, but it is not the part of the article that really caught my attention. The final two paragraphs are what puzzle me to this day. I quote:
Sadly, the bear was the mother of two young cubs - who had to be euthanised because it was believed they would not survive the cruel Canadian winter without her.Seriously, did the reporter actually ask him if he regretted saving his neck by killing the bear? Who would even ask such an idiotic question? Poor little bear cub orphans aside, did they think Mr. West would regret making it out alive of a situation like that to return to his family and friends?
Even so, he said, he did not regret what he had done - believing it had been necessary for him to survive.
There is a frightening fuzziness of thought in mechanics of that question -- I imagine a reported solemnly grieving for the bear cubs and not noticing the fellow with 60 stitches standing in front of them.
Oh yea, there is one comment on the piece. Again, I quote:
I'm sorry, but I'm totally on the side of the bear here. Those poor cubs... was there not a zoo they could have gone to?Totally on the side of the bear? Good God Almighty, doesn't that fool realize how callous their sensitivity sounds?