Killer Bear in the House: Truth vs. Feminist Fairytales! By Chris Knight (Florida)
Some time back, feminists lit up X and TikTok saying they'd rather face a bear in the woods than a random man. Bears are "predictable," they claim, men are the real threat. Okay, let's raise the stakes: you're locked in your house with a killer bear, 300 kg of claws smashing your kitchen. Still picking the bear? Downieville, California, says you're dead wrong.
In 2023, a bear ripped the bars off Patrice Miller's windows, punched through the glass, and mauled her to death in her kitchen. The 71-year-old's body was found with gnawed limbs and bear paw prints everywhere (LA Times, May 2025). First fatal bear attack in California history, says the sheriff. Yet Ann Bryant of the Bear League swears bears don't kill, she claims Miller died first, and the bear just snacked. Sure.
Feminists have something of a point: 1 in 3 women face assault, mostly by men. But a killer bear in your house isn't a stat, it's instant death. No trees to climb, no door to bolt. A random man might be a creep, but he could also be me, or at least a distraction while you grab a knife. Bears don't negotiate; they eat. Downieville's sheriff said bears were fearless, raiding daily. Miller fought them off before, calling one "big b**tard." She didn't feed them, despite Bryant's lies. The bear broke in for blood, not biscuits.
This isn't about men being heroes or women being soft. It's about survival. Feminists betting on bears are drunk on dogma, like Bryant denying a bear's nature. Men can be scum, plenty are. But saying they're worse than a grizzly smashing your fridge is a fairytale. A bear's just another fight. Most men would try to help, or at least bleed with you. A bear? It's dining solo.
Environmentalists and feminists need a reality check. Downieville's bears are out of control because "conservation" coddles predators Same with ideas, coddle dumb ones, and they kill. Pick a bear in your house, and you're lunch. Pick a man, you've got a chance.
"After woman is savagely mauled by a bear in the Sierras, environmental wackos argue bears wouldn't dream of doing such a thing
Some people can't be taught.
That brings us to Downieville, a Gold Rush village up in the Sierras where an elderly woman living alone was mauled by a bear who broke into her house and killed her.
According to the Los Angeles Times:
DOWNIEVILLE, Calif. — Patrice Miller, 71, lived by herself in a small yellow house beneath towering mountain peaks on the edge of a burbling river in this Sierra County village. She doted on her cats and her exotic orchids, and was known to neighbors for her delicious homemade bread. One fall afternoon in 2023, after Miller had failed for several days to make her customary appearance at the town market, a store clerk asked authorities to check on her.
A short time later, a sheriff's deputy found Miller's lifeless body in her kitchen. Her right leg and left arm had been partially gnawed off. On the floor around her were the large paw prints of a bear.
Months after her death, officials would make a stunning disclosure, revealing that an autopsy had determined that Miller had likely been killed by the animal after it broke into her home. It marked the first known instance in California history of a fatal bear attack on a human.
The Times frames this as a "debate" over bear management.
It shouldn't be a debate at all, bears are to be shot if they threaten people, but with loonies like the following to reason with, I guess it gets to be a debate:
"We don't believe the bear did it," said Ann Bryant, executive director of the Bear League in the Tahoe Basin. "And I will go on record as saying that. ... We've never had a bear kill anybody."
Well, the victim is in her grave, so now you do, except that Bryant's still living pre-bear attack on the Downieville woman.
They only don't do it until they do.
Yet she still defends the bear, like a stupid parent telling teacher her little Johnny wouldn't dream of pouring glue into another kid's backpack.
She also says that the victim must have died first before the bear came in to eat her, being a nice bear and all:
"These people are using [Miller's death] to try to start hounding bears again," said Bryant, who maintains that Miller, who was in poor health, must have died before the bear came into her home and devoured her. "She would roll in her grave if she knew that in her death people would create a situation where people were going to mistreat bears, because she loved bears."
Who cares if she loved bears? The bear loved her back, but only as his next meal. She could have had a sentimental love for bears based on misinformation about their actual nature as predators.
But the idiocy is not confined to Bryant.
The Time reports that there are a lot of them out there -- and they don't seem to live in the Sierras.
Lawmakers representing conservative rural districts in the state's rugged northern reaches argue that their communities are under attack, and point to Miller as one example of the worst that can happen. One solution they have pushed is changing the law to allow people to set packs of hunting dogs after bears to haze them. A similar measure has been floated — for now unsuccessfully — to ward off mountain lions considered a threat.
Wildlife conservation advocates are aghast. They say turning dogs on bears is barbaric and won't make anyone safer. They contend the proposed laws don't reflect a scientifically backed approach to managing wild populations but instead are pro-hunting bills dressed up in the guise of public safety. The real solution, they say, is for humans living near bears to learn to safely co-exist by not leaving out food or otherwise attracting them.
The victim's friend, quoted by the Times, said she wasn't feeding the bears.
The local sheriff said the bears had gotten to be a problem:
Longtime residents in the area were used to the challenges of living among wild animals. But in the summer of 2023, Sierra County Sheriff Mike Fisher said he started getting an overwhelming number of calls about problem bears.
"We had three or four habituated bears that were constantly here in town," said Fisher. "They had zero fear. I would say, almost daily, we were having to go out and chase these bears away, haze them."
The victim had told her friends she had beaten them off more than once -- she even gave them unflattering names, one of which was 'big bastard.'
After Bryant said the bear wouldn't do it, she claimed the victim must have died first of natural causes before the bear broke in, and then argued that the victim must have been feeding them:
"We got calls [from her neighbors] that told us she had been feeding the bears, tossing food out to them, and let them come into her house," Bryant said. She added that some thought, erroneously, that the Bear League was a government organization, and "maybe we had the ability to enforce the law" against feeding bears.
Well, which is it? Her precious bears wouldn't dream of killing a person, the bear ate its victim but didn't attack her, or the victim had it coming because she fed the bears? Obviously, bears eat people, and this thing ripped the bars off her window and busted through the glass to break in for the kill, leaving a huge pile of scat as its signature for the next people who entered the house.
I know people who live in the Sierras -- on the southern side, not the northern half which is where this story took place. They are on guard against bears all the time, they cannot store food outside closely fitted metal containers, they often have to keep that food on the second story of the house (which they say is nearly useless as the bears can smell everything), and they must wear bear spray and air horns at all times when they go out. Guns for many are a matter of survival. The bears are out of control in the boondocks of California and environmental wackos, making bad laws and sentimental cases for bear conservation are getting it wrong all the time. The only people who should have any sayso in how the region deals with bears are the people who live there. That the bears have multiplied obviously speaks to bad environmental policies and management, too, probably related to the state's failures to clear its brush for greenie reasons, which has triggered humongous wildfires.
Any questions as to why this region, particularly in the north, wants to secede along with western Oregon and join greater Idaho?
The bears alone and the state's failure to deal with their proliferation is all by itself a good reason, given that now there are victims and the state has no plan to do anything about it. There shouldn't be any debate at all that this has got to stop."
Comments