I personally thought that the grizzle man was hallirious. This allows his message to be better taken serious that he is indeed someone who could fit into society and a good friend, but yet he chooses to go into with wilderness and live among bears and the rest of nature. I thought it was very unfortunate what happened to him. I think He did take teh bears seriously and was dealing with them very well, but nature does turn ruthless when it's at it's extremes. All animals have to feed to leave and unfortunately he go in the way of a bear who had not eat in a long time and was forced to eat something it might have saw as bad food, or a dangerous kill as a possed to salmon, rabbits or whatever else it might eat, which would be non leathal animals. I think the movie sends a slightly different message than what he wants it to send. That is that nature will do what ever it has to do in order for it to survive. As things become harder on nature nature will become harder and it's self and on humans. I think it's kind of funny how we as humans don't think any animal should have the right to kill us humans but yet we are able to freely kill any animal unless it is considered morally wrong. Morally wrong comes from two different source; religion, and society. Religion is self explainitory like a cow might be sacred or else it's bad to eat meat on good fridays. Society cosiderers it wrong when it's on the endangered list or depending on the area if it's a state/national animal symble like the bald eagle. I'm not so sure it's agood idea to kill violent animals is it will breed more animals that don't fight for their survival.