California man finds 525-pound animal under his home after Los Angeles fires. The bear goes by Barry
A Southern California man returned home after evacuating last month's devastating Los Angeles-area wildfires to discover an unexpected resident lurking beneath it.
Samy Arbid told CNN he found a 525-pound adult, male black bear living under his Altadena, California, home after the Eaton Fire blazed through the city. The fire scorched more than 14,000 acres and ranks among the state's top-three most destructive wildfires, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
The bear, which survived the fire while living under Arbid's house, required out-of-the-box thinking for a wildlife team to safely lure him out.
'Barry,' as local residents call the bear, has been a recurring visitor in the neighborhood for quite some time, according to Arbid, who described him as a 'mellow' creature who generally minds his business.
The only bears that live in California are black bears, according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Arbid and his wife said they were warned about bears in the area, but never expected such a close encounter.
'We had heard from neighbors that there's, you know, this big bear. He comes around all the time,' Arbid said last week. 'Nobody knew that the bear was actually living under our house. So that was a surprise to everybody.'
The couple discovered Barry as they began to hear noises under their home. They decided it was likely a small critter. However, what started as a few hisses and strange growls quickly turned into a shocking discovery.
'We thought it was probably an opossum or something,' Arbid said. 'Sure enough, I put a camera under there, and we saw this huge bear.'
While other residents evacuated the Altadena area, it appears the bear decided to hang back and take shelter under the home, seemingly unaffected by the fire. Arbid said a fish and wildlife biologist explained what may have prompted the bear to stay under the house, despite the flames and smoke.
'The smoke won't deter them,' Arbid said. 'If they find a place they feel secure, nothing will deter them.'
SoCalGas, a local gas and oil company, refused to service Arbid's home until the bear was no longer in the crawl space they were going to work in, Arbid said. In all fairness, a bear wouldn't make the best coworker.
Until the bear could be removed, Arbid and his wife were unable to restore their power. Therefore, backup was needed to remove Barry in a timely manner.
The CDFW had the daunting task of removing the giant bear from a relatively small space. CDFW employees were concerned about how Barry may react once he came out from beneath the home, Arbid said. The CDFW team had several cameras set up from various angles to monitor the bear's behavior during the removal process, Arbid explained.
Due to the animal's size, the wildfire team decided using anesthesia to subdue the bear was not an option for removal, the fish and wildlife department said in a January 29 news release.
Fish and wildlife biologist Kevin Howells and a team of eight wildlife employees spent nearly 24 hours attempting to remove Barry from the crawl space, according to the release.
With some creative thinking – and the help of a rotisserie chicken – the team successfully coaxed Barry into coming out from his bear cave, according to CNN affiliate KCAL. The team used a bear trap to safely secure Barry and begin the process of relocating him to an appropriate habitat, CDFW said.
Barry received a welfare check and a GPS collar, and was released into the Angeles National Forest, the agency reported.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Final evacuation order officially lifted nearly six months after Palisades fire
Nearly six months after a wildfire devastated the Pacific Palisades, the final evacuation orders have been fully lifted, according to the Los Angeles Fire Department. A portion of the coastal Los Angeles neighborhood had remained under an evacuation order due to dangerous downed wires, potentially explosive lithium-ion batteries and toxic wildfire debris, according to Lyndsey Lantz, a spokesperson for the Fire Department. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the lead agency overseeing wildfire cleanup, has overseen federal contractors in clearing wreckage away from more than 3,200 properties, alleviating some of those worries. "Our concern has decreased since much of the debris has been removed," Lantz said. Only residents and contractors had previously been able to return to the portion of the Pacific Palisades that remained under the evacuation order. Authorities had established vehicle checkpoints, in part, to keep the public away from these lingering hazards. As the final evacuation orders fully lift, however, the general public will be allowed to access the area. Los Angeles police are expected to maintain a presence in the neighborhood to ward off potential thieves and deter property crime. Read more: Pressure is mounting for soil testing post-fire cleanup. The Newsom administration is downplaying the concerns Although people will be allowed back into fire-affected communities, public safety and health authorities are asking them to exercise caution, such as wearing an N-95 mask to prevent exposure to toxic dust. Elected officials and environmental researchers have raised serious concerns about the possibility of lingering soil contamination because federal disaster agencies have decided not to pay for soil testing to confirm that heavy contamination isn't left behind. Soil sampling projects by Los Angeles Times journalists and, separately, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health found lead and arsenic contamination above California's standards for residential properties at properties already cleaned by federal contractors. Read more: When FEMA failed to test soil for toxic substances after the L.A. fires, The Times had it done. The results were alarming Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
CNN
13 hours ago
- CNN
201 ways to say ‘f**k': what 1.7 billion words of online text shows about how the world swears
EDITOR'S NOTE: CNN is showcasing the work of The Conversation, a collaboration between journalists and academics to provide news analysis and commentary. The content is produced solely by The Conversation. This story contains graphic language that some readers may find offensive. Our brains swear for good reasons: to vent, cope, boost our grit and feel closer to those around us. Swear words can act as social glue and play meaningful roles in how people communicate, connect and express themselves – both in person, and online. In our new research published in Lingua, we analysed more than 1.7 billion words of online language across 20 English-speaking regions. We identified 597 different swear word forms – from standard words, to creative spellings like '4rseholes', to acronyms like 'wtf'. The findings challenge a familiar stereotype. Australians – often thought of as prolific swearers – are actually outdone by Americans and Brits, both in how often they swear, and in how many users swear online. Our study focused on publicly available web data (such as news articles, organisational websites, government or institutional publications, and blogs – but excluding social media and private messaging). We found vulgar words made up 0.036% of all words in the dataset from the United States, followed by 0.025% in the British data and 0.022% in the Australian data. Although vulgar language is relatively rare in terms of overall word frequency, it was used by a significant number of individuals. Between 12% and 13.3% of Americans, around 10% of Brits, and 9.4% of Australians used at least one vulgar word in their data. Overall, the most frequent vulgar word was 'fuck' – with all its variants, it amounted to a stunning 201 different forms. We focused on online language that didn't include social media, because large-scale comparisons need robust, purpose-built datasets. In our case, we used the Global Web-Based English (GloWbE) corpus, which was specifically designed to compare how English is used across different regions online. So how much were our findings influenced by the online data we used? Telling results come from research happening at the same time as ours. One study analysed the use of 'fuck' in social networks on X, examining how network size and strength influence swearing in the UK, US and Australia. It used data from 5,660 networks with more than 435,000 users and 7.8 billion words and found what we did. Americans use 'fuck' most frequently, while Australians use it the least, but with the most creative spelling variations (some comfort for anyone feeling let down by our online swearing stats). Americans hold relatively conservative attitudes toward public morality, and their high swearing rates are surprising. The cultural contradiction may reflect the country's strong individualistic culture. Americans often value personal expression – especially in private or anonymous settings like the internet. Meanwhile, public displays of swearing are often frowned upon in the US. This is partly due to the lingering influence of religious norms, which frame swearing – particularly religious-based profanity – as a violation of moral decency. Significantly, the only religious-based swear word in our dataset, 'damn', was used most frequently by Americans. Research suggests swearing is more acceptable in Australian public discourse. Certainly, Australia's public airing of swear words often takes visitors by surprise. The long-running road safety slogan 'If you drink, then drive, you're a bloody idiot' is striking – such language is rare in official messaging elsewhere. Australians may be comfortable swearing in person, but our findings indicate they dial it back online – surprising for a nation so fond of its vernacular. In terms of preferences for specific forms of vulgarity, Americans showed a strong preference for variations of 'ass(hole)', the Irish favored 'feck', the British preferred 'cunt', and Pakistanis leaned toward 'butt(hole)'. The only statistically significant aversion we found was among Americans, who tended to avoid the word 'bloody' (folk wisdom claims the word is blasphemous). People from countries where English is the dominant language – such as the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland – tend to swear more frequently and with more lexical variety than people in regions where English is less dominant like India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Ghana or the Philippines. This pattern holds for both frequency and creativity in swearing. But Singapore ranked fourth in terms of frequency of swearing in our study, just behind Australia and ahead of New Zealand, Ireland and Canada. English in Singapore is increasingly seen not as a second language, but as a native language, and as a tool for identity, belonging and creativity. Young Singaporeans use social swearing to push back against authority, especially given the government's strict rules on public language. One possible reason we saw less swearing among non-native English speakers is that it is rarely taught. Despite its frequency and social utility, swearing – alongside humour and informal speech – is often left out of language education. Cultural, social and technological shifts are reshaping linguistic norms, blurring the already blurry lines between informal and formal, private and public language. Just consider the Aussie contributions to the July Oxford English Dictionary updates: expressions like 'to strain the potatoes' (to urinate), 'no wuckers' and 'no wucking furries' (from 'no fucking worries'). Swearing and vulgarity aren't just crass or abusive. While they can be used harmfully, research consistently shows they serve important communicative functions – colourful language builds rapport, expresses humour and emotion, signals solidarity and eases tension. It's clear that swearing isn't just a bad habit that can be easily kicked, like nail-biting or smoking indoors. Besides, history shows that telling people not to swear is one of the best ways to keep swearing alive and well. Martin Schweinberger is a lecturer in applied linguistics at The University of Queensland. Kate Burridge is professor of linguistics at Monash University. Republished under a Creative Commons license from The Conversation.
CNN
13 hours ago
- CNN
201 ways to say ‘f**k': what 1.7 billion words of online text shows about how the world swears
EDITOR'S NOTE: CNN is showcasing the work of The Conversation, a collaboration between journalists and academics to provide news analysis and commentary. The content is produced solely by The Conversation. This story contains graphic language that some readers may find offensive. Our brains swear for good reasons: to vent, cope, boost our grit and feel closer to those around us. Swear words can act as social glue and play meaningful roles in how people communicate, connect and express themselves – both in person, and online. In our new research published in Lingua, we analysed more than 1.7 billion words of online language across 20 English-speaking regions. We identified 597 different swear word forms – from standard words, to creative spellings like '4rseholes', to acronyms like 'wtf'. The findings challenge a familiar stereotype. Australians – often thought of as prolific swearers – are actually outdone by Americans and Brits, both in how often they swear, and in how many users swear online. Our study focused on publicly available web data (such as news articles, organisational websites, government or institutional publications, and blogs – but excluding social media and private messaging). We found vulgar words made up 0.036% of all words in the dataset from the United States, followed by 0.025% in the British data and 0.022% in the Australian data. Although vulgar language is relatively rare in terms of overall word frequency, it was used by a significant number of individuals. Between 12% and 13.3% of Americans, around 10% of Brits, and 9.4% of Australians used at least one vulgar word in their data. Overall, the most frequent vulgar word was 'fuck' – with all its variants, it amounted to a stunning 201 different forms. We focused on online language that didn't include social media, because large-scale comparisons need robust, purpose-built datasets. In our case, we used the Global Web-Based English (GloWbE) corpus, which was specifically designed to compare how English is used across different regions online. So how much were our findings influenced by the online data we used? Telling results come from research happening at the same time as ours. One study analysed the use of 'fuck' in social networks on X, examining how network size and strength influence swearing in the UK, US and Australia. It used data from 5,660 networks with more than 435,000 users and 7.8 billion words and found what we did. Americans use 'fuck' most frequently, while Australians use it the least, but with the most creative spelling variations (some comfort for anyone feeling let down by our online swearing stats). Americans hold relatively conservative attitudes toward public morality, and their high swearing rates are surprising. The cultural contradiction may reflect the country's strong individualistic culture. Americans often value personal expression – especially in private or anonymous settings like the internet. Meanwhile, public displays of swearing are often frowned upon in the US. This is partly due to the lingering influence of religious norms, which frame swearing – particularly religious-based profanity – as a violation of moral decency. Significantly, the only religious-based swear word in our dataset, 'damn', was used most frequently by Americans. Research suggests swearing is more acceptable in Australian public discourse. Certainly, Australia's public airing of swear words often takes visitors by surprise. The long-running road safety slogan 'If you drink, then drive, you're a bloody idiot' is striking – such language is rare in official messaging elsewhere. Australians may be comfortable swearing in person, but our findings indicate they dial it back online – surprising for a nation so fond of its vernacular. In terms of preferences for specific forms of vulgarity, Americans showed a strong preference for variations of 'ass(hole)', the Irish favored 'feck', the British preferred 'cunt', and Pakistanis leaned toward 'butt(hole)'. The only statistically significant aversion we found was among Americans, who tended to avoid the word 'bloody' (folk wisdom claims the word is blasphemous). People from countries where English is the dominant language – such as the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland – tend to swear more frequently and with more lexical variety than people in regions where English is less dominant like India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Ghana or the Philippines. This pattern holds for both frequency and creativity in swearing. But Singapore ranked fourth in terms of frequency of swearing in our study, just behind Australia and ahead of New Zealand, Ireland and Canada. English in Singapore is increasingly seen not as a second language, but as a native language, and as a tool for identity, belonging and creativity. Young Singaporeans use social swearing to push back against authority, especially given the government's strict rules on public language. One possible reason we saw less swearing among non-native English speakers is that it is rarely taught. Despite its frequency and social utility, swearing – alongside humour and informal speech – is often left out of language education. Cultural, social and technological shifts are reshaping linguistic norms, blurring the already blurry lines between informal and formal, private and public language. Just consider the Aussie contributions to the July Oxford English Dictionary updates: expressions like 'to strain the potatoes' (to urinate), 'no wuckers' and 'no wucking furries' (from 'no fucking worries'). Swearing and vulgarity aren't just crass or abusive. While they can be used harmfully, research consistently shows they serve important communicative functions – colourful language builds rapport, expresses humour and emotion, signals solidarity and eases tension. It's clear that swearing isn't just a bad habit that can be easily kicked, like nail-biting or smoking indoors. Besides, history shows that telling people not to swear is one of the best ways to keep swearing alive and well. Martin Schweinberger is a lecturer in applied linguistics at The University of Queensland. Kate Burridge is professor of linguistics at Monash University. Republished under a Creative Commons license from The Conversation.
