THE actions of the human race never cease to astonish me.

On one hand, we are regularly informed how precious and fragile the magnificently majestic polar bears are, and how we should all do our bit to protect them against extinction. But on the other, it is seemingly acceptable for one of these precious creatures to be shot dead for protecting its home and probably its family from man.

It is a tragedy for the family of young Horatio Chapple and for the others injured in the polar bear attack. Why, after warnings were issued by the governor of Svalbard about reported sightings of polar bears close to Longyearbyen, the nearest major town to where the incident occurred, did the British Schools Exploring Society take the teenagers to the region?

In my opinion, to brand Michael Reid – who shot the bear dead – as a "hero" is wrong. This party should not have been there in the first place.

They had a choice of location, the polar bear did not; it was his home. Please save the title of "hero" for people that deserve it, like the guys in Afghanistan losing their lives.

Man insists on invading the territory of wild animals for his own pleasure, and why such young lives were put at risk has to be questioned. I feel the group was too close for comfort for the polar bear, and he reacted in the only way he knew – and for this he was shot.

Recently in the same country, a man went berserk with a gun and killed innocent youngsters enjoying a summer camp. Why was he not shot dead on the spot for his actions? The polar bear acted instinctively and regrettably took a young life, for this it was killed instantly.

Norway massacre suspect Anders Behring Breivik acted upon some mixed-up right wing Christianity in his head, yet he is given the right to life. Why?

Human ethics you might say. If you can call Breivik a human after his actions, then I pity you.

K C MURPHY

Via email