A travel tragedy occurred this past week when a cruise ship guard for German operator Hapag-Lloyd shot and killed a polar bear that attacked another company guard prior to an excursion in Norway's Svalbard archipelago.
According to a statement on the company's Facebook page, an advance group of polar guards went ashore in Spitzbergen prior to guests to ensure no polar bears were in the immediate area.
It was then that "A polar bear guard-an expert employed by the cruise line-was attacked on land by a polar bear," said Hapag-Lloyd officials. The guard suffered head injuries in the attack but was airlifted from the site and is "out of danger." The polar bear in turn was shot dead "in an act of self-defense."
Hapag-Lloyd officials "very much regret[s] this incident. [We] very aware of [our] responsibility when traveling in environmentally sensitive areas and respect all nature and wildlife," said officials in a statement.
Still I can't help but think it all might have been avoided. The thought that a wild animal could regrettably wind up dead after a human encounter that might have been avoided can't sit well with anyone.
Watching animals in their natural environment has fascinated humans since the beginning of civilization. Animals figure prominently in prehistoric cave drawings dating back to 7000 B.C.
Personally I recall the Sunday evenings long ago when my own family would gather around our living room TV to watch "Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom" featuring zoologist Marlon Perkins. It seemed we couldn't get enough of watching leopards chase gazelles and rhinos stomping around water holes.
In recent years, cruise line excursions that offer travelers animal sightings from bird-spotting in South America to whale -watching in the Caribbean, have exploded in popularity. It's clear that excursions promising up-close animal encounters aren't about to end anytime soon.
But as the phenomenon grows, mankind runs the distinct risk of enabling tragic events like those of this past week. It's obviously not a good thing when a wild animal is killed in its natural environment as a result of a cruise-ship excursion.
As a cruise industry reporter for more than a decade and later director of public relations for Cruise Lines International Assn. (CLIA), I knew Hapag-Lloyd as a well-regarded, experienced Arctic cruise operator.
Yet I winced a little at the Facebook statement in which officials say the Spitzbergen shore excursion, during which the guard was attacked and the polar bear killed, is "not about polar bear observation." Yet a description of the excursion on the Hapag-Lloyd website plays up the tour's polar-bear watching opportunities.
"There is a good chance of spotting polar bears throughout your Spitsbergen expedition," the description reads. "Ursus maritimus prefers to hunt in protected fjords and ice floes. The sudden call of 'Polar bear spotted!' will fill the deck or Zodiac with whispers. The experienced crew is able to react spontaneously and bring the ship about to ensure some unforgettable animal observations."
Certainly no one at Hapag-Lloyd, an operator with a solid reputation, would have wanted a tragedy to occur. Indeed expedition cruise lines tourism operate in Svalbard under strict governmental regulations, say officials at the Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators (AECO), although Hapag-Lloyd is not an AECO member.
More facts about the event should emerge in the coming days as the incident is being investigated by Svalbard's governor. In accordance with Article 30 of the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act, it is "prohibited to lure, pursue or otherwise seek out polar bears in such a way as to disturb them or expose either bears or humans to danger."
Scientists describe polar bears as a "vulnerable" species. Yet at least two of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations are currently increasing and another six are considered stable. That's good news for polar bears and our natural environment.
What isn't good is activity that may result in potentially disastrous human intrusion into the habitats of dangerous wild animals for the purpose of observation. The risks seem to outweigh the rewards.
According to one news report, five fatal polar bear attacks have occurred in Svalbard in the last 40 years. The most recent was 2011, during which a bear attacked 14 people on a British schools association trip.
I have to agree with Dr. Douglas Clark, associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, who said, "No matter what you think of climate change or the politics of polar bears, everyone can agree that polar bear/human conflicts are a bad thing that should be prevented or mitigated."
Predictably, this past week's events led to a Twitter firestorm of protest and counter-protest. Reading these and some others on the CruiseRadio.net Facebook page, I found a few posts that posed some sharply relevant questions:
"So we never go anywhere in the world where it's dangerous or their [sic] are endangered species etc? So much for Africa, Australia, Canada etc. What about the oceans. Who are you to make a choice for me? No, I am not a hunter and respect all living things."
Yes it's silly to think human beings will immediately stop observing species in natural environments. That's not going to happen. But can't we all be a little more careful about it?
For the latest travel news, updates and deals, subscribe to the daily TravelPulse newsletter.
