Talk:2011 Svalbard polar bear attack
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 August 2011. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Articles
[edit]A few links for referencing/expansion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14456536
RafikiSykes (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Moved from main article for now, I am concerned this is someone trying to defend/cover parties involved rather than reflecting events
[edit]However, information freely available to anyone planning to visit Svalbard, from the [[Sysselmann]]'s (local authority) website <ref>[http://www.sysselmannen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=45609 Notification and Insurance - Governor of Svalbard]</ref>, makes it clear that the risk assessment of any camping trip like this has to be approved by the Sysselman. BSES had been sending trips to the same area since the 1960s, and in recent years these must have been approved by the Sysselmann's office as having acceptable safety procedures, or they would not have been allowed to leave Longyearbyen. BSES usually rents expedition rifles in Longyearbyen, since expedition leaders do not routinely have the qualifications needed to own or transport firearms. To rent a rifle in Longyearbyen you need a police certificate from your home country, and necessary skills in handling a firearm. <ref>[http://www.sysselmannen.no/hovedEnkel.aspx?m=56694&amid=2722686 Renting firearms - Governor of Svalbard]</ref> Rifle training for leaders is more than the minimum done by other institutions; training for expeditioners is similar to the minimum level; again, this is part of the presumably approved risk assessment. Other tourist operations that run camping trips in Svalbard also do not take dogs and do not routinely do night watches: so the "failings" - while evidently they are failings - are well within accepted practice.
- The editor above has only contributed that to wiki and that combined with the wording to me suggests an involved party.RafikiSykes (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose however it is quite possible (for example) that the SPA editor is not an involved party to this specific event but has some familiarity with the general situation on the island. I don't see a link to the contributor's page to leave a note that references the guidelines.FeatherPluma (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)