I thought that the grizzly man had a rather etic view (a view developed by someone who is not immersed in the culture he is evaluating) on the bears he lived with. I know this may sound negative and condescending, especially because the grizzly man did seem to be pursing what he truly loved, but there are a few specific reasons for my generalization.

The curator of the museum, noted how the grizzly man “provided more harm than benefit” for the bears. At first this struck me as an uncalled for criticism, but then the curator noted how “his relatives for thousands of years left the bears unharmed and did not involve themselves with them.” My view of the grizzly man changed immediately. He did seem to give protection to the bears through the means of educating the public, but I do not think the benefits outweighed the costs to the grizzly species. His etic view seemed to omit the possibility that the presence of a human being (him) would make the bears to accustom to the presence of all humans- which in turn would make them vulnerable.

Furthermore, I agree with Brad Hoh’s blog. I think that even though the grizzly man had the future of the bears in his best interest, he was using them as a means to forget his past drug and alcohol additions. Brad noted, “I know for many people their faith or religious beliefs are what get them through hard times such as drug addition or death. The only way this is possible is with the help of a supernatural essence.” I think that the grizzly man was using the bears a form of spirituality- specifically a means to forget his past and devote his time to helping a species that he assumed needed a guardian or protector.