PDA

View Full Version : Grizzly kills hiker in Yellowstone backcountry



Jäger
07-07-2011, 07:57 AM
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, Wyo. — A grizzly bear killed a man who was hiking with his wife in Yellowstone National Park’s backcountry after the couple apparently surprised the female bear and its cubs on Wednesday, park officials said.

It was the park’s first fatal grizzly mauling since 1986, but the third in the Yellowstone region in just over a year amid ever-growing numbers of grizzlies and tourists roaming the same wild landscape of scalding-hot geysers and sweeping mountain vistas.


Rest of story here;
http://helenair.com/news/article_be4b3794-a85e-11e0-af20-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1RQKJippE

Sgt. Mac
07-07-2011, 08:03 AM
Saw this on FOX this AM Bro. Very sad

J
07-07-2011, 08:11 AM
Grizzlys used to roam a huge majority of the country, and weve shoved them back into a small area, dwindling their numbers. Weve killed or wiped out every threat to us so we can walk around like king of the hill. Then people want to go and stick their nose in the Grizzlys backyard and wonder why they get mauled. From what Ive heard on the news he did everything wrong when faced with that situation. Im sure the women had food in her pack, and im sure he got between a momma and her cubs. One cardnial rule of bear country. Dont f**k with mama.

I read a book recently that said the Blackfoot indians dont even have a word for bear. Its the same as brother. Gotta show them respect. I also heard people saying it is a rouge bear etc etc....So quick to want blood, but yet we set child killers free. Makes my head spin. I hope their are grizzly bears around for my grand kids to see.

FWIW, I do think its tragic, and I feel for their loss. A bear did what bears do though.

goosefacer
07-07-2011, 08:28 AM
Very sad.

Beo-wulf
07-07-2011, 08:32 AM
Yea, I read about this online, bad deal all around.
We all need to remember to be careful and not let our guard down....need to be thinking all the time, especially in bear country.

solocanoe
07-07-2011, 08:59 AM
yep, was on the MSN homepage this morning too - thanks for putting this thread up, Jager.

I hope they take the route proposed by several hunting mags I've read...the park could benefit greatly by expanding the permits - even charging a premium for them as many would pay more not to have to add in the costs to fly to Kodiak Island or someplace...

The funds could help the park and control the population in a safe, effective manner.
(just my opinion - I'm a hunter)

LECTER
07-07-2011, 09:05 AM
It even made CNN!!

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/07/06/montana.grizzly.attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Hubb
07-07-2011, 09:12 AM
So, now the bear's are coming after people. I guess that one dude shouldn't have marched into that den and shot that sleeping one like he did...

dwightp
07-07-2011, 09:14 AM
Grizzlys used to roam a huge majority of the country, and weve shoved them back into a small area, dwindling their numbers. Weve killed or wiped out every threat to us so we can walk around like king of the hill. Then people want to go and stick their nose in the Grizzlys backyard and wonder why they get mauled. From what Ive heard on the news he did everything wrong when faced with that situation. Im sure the women had food in her pack, and im sure he got between a momma and her cubs. One cardnial rule of bear country. Dont f**k with mama.

I read a book recently that said the Blackfoot indians dont even have a word for bear. Its the same as brother. Gotta show them respect. I also heard people saying it is a rouge bear etc etc....So quick to want blood, but yet we set child killers free. Makes my head spin. I hope their are grizzly bears around for my grand kids to see.

FWIW, I do think its tragic, and I feel for their loss. A bear did what bears do though.

I'm not sure what book you read, but my understanding is that the Blackfeet most certainly have a word for "bear" and it is not the same as their word for "brother". I own property within the confines of the Blackfeet Nation just outside Babb, MT, and have some Blackfeet friends.

Also, I heard on the news today that the Yellowstone N.P. authorities are not going to hunt down the bear and kill it or even re-locate it. They said that it was only doing what its natural instincts called for, i.e., a sow protecting her cubs.

dwightp
07-07-2011, 09:16 AM
yep, was on the MSN homepage this morning too - thanks for putting this thread up, Jager.

I hope they take the route proposed by several hunting mags I've read...the park could benefit greatly by expanding the permits - even charging a premium for them as many would pay more not to have to add in the costs to fly to Kodiak Island or someplace...

The funds could help the park and control the population in a safe, effective manner.
(just my opinion - I'm a hunter)

Are you suggesting that Yellowstone grizzlies should be hunted to control their numbers? I don't think there are but around 150 in the entire park. It's not like they are over populated.

3fires
07-07-2011, 09:19 AM
It's an unfortunate situation both for the people and the bears.

Mannlicher
07-07-2011, 09:32 AM
If you are serious about hiking in bear country, then you should carry an adequate firearm. Something in a .454 would work well.

I can't buy into the "it's the bear's area, you must sacrifice your life if necessary" silliness. I don't know who are the most obnoxious about that, the enviro nazis or the modern day back woodsmen that want to return to 1800.
Even the Indians killed bears when they wanted to, or had to.

solocanoe
07-07-2011, 09:54 AM
Are you suggesting that Yellowstone grizzlies should be hunted to control their numbers? I don't think there are but around 150 in the entire park. It's not like they are over populated.

actually, yes, Dwight. I was.

Several hunting mags have been "on this" for a few issues now...and I do think game management is a great tool to use.

Land is at a premium - especially since the population explosion since the 50's here and worldwide. If we are going to co-exist there has to be a plan...or it will be all FUBAR'd up in a few years and won't be good for anyone - people or animals.

SCI / Jim Shockey recently had a thing where it put the cost of the average Kodiak bear hunt at over $3k.
(by the time you factor in everything)
The thought was even a $1500 permit - even 10 a year...would provide much needed funds for the park
- extra income for local guides - and then the added hotel/resturant/lodge $ spent, etc...

I realize it's controversial...but it's just an idea that's being floated around out there...

dwightp
07-07-2011, 10:00 AM
actually, yes, Dwight. I was.

Several hunting mags have been "on this" for a few issues now...and I do think game management is a great tool to use.

Land is at a premium - especially since the population explosion since the 50's here and worldwide. If we are going to co-exist there has to be a plan...or it will be all FUBAR'd up in a few years and won't be good for anyone - people or animals.

SCI / Jim Shockey recently had a thing where it put the cost of the average Kodiak bear hunt at over $3k.
(by the time you factor in everything)
The thought was even a $1500 permit - even 10 a year...would provide much needed funds for the park
- extra income for local guides - and then the added hotel/resturant/lodge $ spent, etc...

I realize it's controversial...but it's just an idea that's being floated around out there...

I understand controlling numbers through hunting and have no problem with the concept. I'm just saying that there aren't enough grizzlies in Yellowstone N.P. to necessitate a public hunt.....won't happen anytime soon.

werewolf won
07-07-2011, 10:05 AM
Yellowstone and nearby surrounding areas are home to at least 600 grizzlies and some say more than 1,000. Once rare to behold, grizzlies have become an almost routine cause of curious tourists lining up at Yellowstone’s roadsides at the height of summer season.



Read more: http://helenair.com/news/article_be4b3794-a85e-11e0-af20-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1RQqK9YGY

According to that source there seem to be more than 150 bears.

Wolf

ccove
07-07-2011, 10:09 AM
Hmmmmm I don't think hunting them is the solution. From what I know there is not an overpopulation issue, at least not to bears. Given the usual visitor to any park the people probably had no idea what they were doing and reacted the wrong way. Not the bears fault.

dwightp
07-07-2011, 10:10 AM
Yellowstone and nearby surrounding areas are home to at least 600 grizzlies and some say more than 1,000. Once rare to behold, grizzlies have become an almost routine cause of curious tourists lining up at Yellowstone’s roadsides at the height of summer season.



Read more: http://helenair.com/news/article_be4b3794-a85e-11e0-af20-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1RQqK9YGY

According to that source there seem to be more than 150 bears.

Wolf


from: http://www.nps.gov/yell/10047.htm

It is estimated there are roughly 150 grizzlies with home ranges that include portions of the park; with around 600 believed to live in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.

wsdstan
07-07-2011, 10:20 AM
Grizzlys used to roam a huge majority of the country, and weve shoved them back into a small area, dwindling their numbers. Weve killed or wiped out every threat to us so we can walk around like king of the hill. Then people want to go and stick their nose in the Grizzlys backyard and wonder why they get mauled. From what Ive heard on the news he did everything wrong when faced with that situation. Im sure the women had food in her pack, and im sure he got between a momma and her cubs. One cardnial rule of bear country. Dont f**k with mama.

I read a book recently that said the Blackfoot indians dont even have a word for bear. Its the same as brother. Gotta show them respect. I also heard people saying it is a rouge bear etc etc....So quick to want blood, but yet we set child killers free. Makes my head spin. I hope their are grizzly bears around for my grand kids to see.

FWIW, I do think its tragic, and I feel for their loss. A bear did what bears do though.

Why are you guessing at what occured? You don't know if the woman had food in her day pack and you don't know if they got between the female and her cubs. The article linked in the first post says details are sketchy. It is reported that it was the second time they saw the bear that day and the woman did not see the attack.

The Blackfoot word for bear is Kyi-yoo or Kiaayo.

santaman2000
07-07-2011, 10:24 AM
Grizzlys used to roam a huge majority of the country, and weve shoved them back into a small area, dwindling their numbers...

I just checked wikipedia and what I suspected was confirmed. The Grizzly Bears' (Ursus arctos horribilus) historic range has never been East of the Western edge of the Mississippi River Basin. Even at it's Post Glacial height it never extended into the Southeast or East. It just needs a cooler climate. Perhaps you're thinking of the Black Bear (Ursus Americanus) But even it doesn't (and apparently never has) inhabited the desert Southwest or the Great Plains.

Phaedrus
07-07-2011, 10:25 AM
It's a sad event but I think, based on the scant information presented, that the park officials are probably right not to try to hunt the bear down. It doesn't appear right off that it's a "rouge" animal nor a completely unprovoked attack. Of course that doesn't mean I think you should just roll and over and feed yourself to the bear so as to not inconvenience it. I think firearms are legal in national parks, and if I were in grizzly country I'd be packin' if I could.

santaman2000
07-07-2011, 10:29 AM
yep, was on the MSN homepage this morning too - thanks for putting this thread up, Jager.

I hope they take the route proposed by several hunting mags I've read...the park could benefit greatly by expanding the permits - even charging a premium for them as many would pay more not to have to add in the costs to fly to Kodiak Island or someplace...

The funds could help the park and control the population in a safe, effective manner.
(just my opinion - I'm a hunter)

Yeah, I'm a hunter too. I agree that maybe there is a case for a limited number of permits for Grizzly in the lower 48. BUT. I'm not sure about allowing it IN Yellowstone. Yellowstone is part of the NationalPark System, not the National Forest System. I know there is over protection in the NPS but even I am not quite ready for allowing hunting in the parks just yet. Maybe some permits in the surrounding area would take pressure off the park itself by increasing the area for grizzlies by decreasing total area grizzly population? Just a thought.

santaman2000
07-07-2011, 10:30 AM
If you are serious about hiking in bear country, then you should carry an adequate firearm. Something in a .454 would work well.

I can't buy into the "it's the bear's area, you must sacrifice your life if necessary" silliness. I don't know who are the most obnoxious about that, the enviro nazis or the modern day back woodsmen that want to return to 1800.
Even the Indians killed bears when they wanted to, or had to.

Yellowstone is a National Park. Firearms aren't allowed in the park system. and regarding a 454 are you referring to a 454 Casul? It's a very powerful handgun but!!!! It is still a handgun. Not exactly a grizzly gun.

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 10:31 AM
Habitat's have ideal carrying populations. Just because you think there are not enough bears does not mean all biologists agree. Obviously a huge animal like a grizzly requires an incredible amount of space and resource. At this point they are not being managed and their population is growing, which is good until they are overloading the habitat.
By issuing a small handful of tags biologists will be able to manage the grizzly population and not damage it. Until you want to find a way to move human populations away (or put them down), people are going to have to accept that hunting is the most viable way to responsibly manage wildlife. If anti-hunters had their way could you imagine what the deer populations would look like?

I don't want to see Grizzly's slaughtered but it is obvious that they are thriving and expanding. Instead of letting them overgrow their habitat I believe using hunting to manage them would help the Bears in the long run. The fact that it would also generate incredible revenue in this day in age is just a bonus.

This is a sad event, and my prayers go out the families. That is the main point.

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 10:32 AM
Yellowstone is a National Park. Firearms aren't allowed in the park system.

Didn't that change recently?

twyggy
07-07-2011, 10:35 AM
If you are serious about hiking in bear country, then you should carry an adequate firearm. Something in a .454 would work well.

I can't buy into the "it's the bear's area, you must sacrifice your life if necessary" silliness. I don't know who are the most obnoxious about that, the enviro nazis or the modern day back woodsmen that want to return to 1800.
Even the Indians killed bears when they wanted to, or had to.

Bear spray has a much better proven track record of stopping bear attacks than firearms. I carry a J-frame .357, but I'm not sure I could shoot it well enough to hit a charging bear. Bear spray has a conal spray that helps with aiming when you have 1 second to react. Some things to think about. I think the best bear deterrent is understanding and predicting the animal's behavior.

While this is a tragedy, that doesn't mean we can't focus on the positive aspects of the situation. I'm absolutely enthralled with Yellowstone's take on the subject, which essentially ammounts to "Hey, it's a wild park. The bear was just being a bear." Also, at least the man was 57 and had lived himself a lifetime. :dblthumb:

santaman2000
07-07-2011, 10:35 AM
Didn't that change recently?

TBH I vaguely remember it coming up but I'm not real sure. I do remember that the proposal would have still left any individual state prohibitions in place anyway. I need to do more research on it too. I hope you're right (and I hope most states agree)

santaman2000
07-07-2011, 10:43 AM
Bear spray has a much better proven track record of stopping bear attacks than firearms. I carry a J-frame .357, but I'm not sure I could shoot it well enough to hit a charging bear...

Bear spray has a proven track record all right. That record is MARGINALLY effective---against Black Bears. Neglibley effective against Grizzlies. Firearms against Grizzlies also have a proven track record. IF!!!! you carry a big enough gun and are very good with it.

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 10:44 AM
TBH I vaguely remember it coming up but I'm not real sure. I do remember that the proposal would have still left any individual state prohibitions in place anyway. I need to do more research on it too. I hope you're right (and I hope most states agree)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35484383/ns/us_news-life/t/new-law-allows-loaded-guns-national-parks/


That being said, and also because I live in the wonderful state of California, I know that things are not black and white and would definitely check state regs.

(I think in CA you are still NOT allowed to carry in an NP, I want to double check)

ReallyBigMonkey1
07-07-2011, 10:52 AM
Bear spray has a proven track record all right. That record is MARGINALLY effective---against Black Bears. Neglibley effective against Grizzlies. Firearms against Grizzlies also have a proven track record. IF!!!! you carry a big enough gun and are very good with it.

Bushccraft, survivalist and outdoorsmen like us might could pop off a round at a charging grizzly but for the moms with little knowledge of bears and firearms that hike on vacation the bear pepper spray is a very realistic option.

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 10:57 AM
Bushccraft, survivalist and outdoorsmen like us might could pop off a round at a charging grizzly but for the moms with little knowledge of bears and firearms that hike on vacation the bear pepper spray is a very realistic option.

I agree, bear spray is above and beyond the best option for almost everyone. And just because you're packing your .454 with a 3 inch barrel doesn't mean you're going to be able to hit a charging bear with viable shot placement and put it down. That's a hell of a boom maker, may the force be with you kinda thing.

ReallyBigMonkey1
07-07-2011, 10:58 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35484383/ns/us_news-life/t/new-law-allows-loaded-guns-national-parks/


That being said, and also because I live in the wonderful state of California, I know that things are not black and white and would definitely check state regs.

(I think in CA you are still NOT allowed to carry in an NP, I want to double check)

It is still illegal to posess a firearm in the great smokey mountains national park in tennessee. I don't know if all national parks are the same.

santaman2000
07-07-2011, 11:03 AM
Bushccraft, survivalist and outdoorsmen like us might could pop off a round at a charging grizzly but for the moms with little knowledge of bears and firearms that hike on vacation the bear pepper spray is a very realistic option.

Realistic yes. Good no. My point is that neither guns (unless you carry a big rifle and are good with it) nor bear spray are really anything more than a comforting weight against a pissed off mama Grizzly.

Likesthewoods
07-07-2011, 11:10 AM
We made a trip through the park recently, actually, we just came back through yesterday, and it is always amazing to see how naive people are when it comes to wild animals. There are signs posted everywhere regarding the dangers of approaching wildlife, but people get out of their cars and get within yards (sometimes feet) of elk, bison and even bears. We saw a black bear with cubs near the road, and a Park Ranger was there keeping people from getting to close while they were trying to get a picture.
We were in Wyoming just outside the park for a week, and had two fairly close encounters with grizzlies. One was on a closed road we were walking on, probably 50 yards in front of us, the other came into our campsite one morning not 30 yards from our trailer. My first instict was to make noise and let the bear know I was there, in both cases, he ran off, and the encounter was over. Afterword, I was dissappointed I didn't get a picture, but I know I did the right thing. Later in the trip we saw a bear from a further distance while hiking and I did take some video.
I hope the investigation of this incident in Yellowstone includes looking at the camera these folks had. If they were trying to get a picture, then fair amount of blame belongs on them. If not, then it is a just an unfortunate incident. Either way, it just proves that wildlife is unpredectable and we take our lives in our own hands when we enter their domain.

Just my two cents worth.

LTW

Chris P. Bacon
07-07-2011, 11:11 AM
"It was the park’s first fatal grizzly mauling since 1986"

I think it's safe to say that bears are not really a life threatening problem in Yellowstone and everyone has a much better chance of being killed in a car accident on the way to the park. (That number is probably in the hundreds since 1986)Therefore it's my opinion that the bears should be allowed a small limit of hunting permits of terrible drivers. :27:

ReallyBigMonkey1
07-07-2011, 11:12 AM
Realistic yes. Good no. My point is that neither guns (unless you carry a big rifle and are good with it) nor bear spray are really anything more than a comforting weight against a pissed off mama Grizzly.

I agree, in all reality if the bear wants to attack, theres not much you can do to stop it

santaman2000
07-07-2011, 11:19 AM
It is still illegal to posess a firearm in the great smokey mountains national park in tennessee. I don't know if all national parks are the same.


I may be reading that article backwards but what I gathered is the listed parks (including the Smokeys) are included in the parks where you CAN carry.

"As of Monday, guns will be allowed in all but about 20 of the park service’s 392 locations, including some of its most iconic parks: Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, Yosemite and Rocky Mountain National Park."

J
07-07-2011, 11:20 AM
I'm not sure what book you read, but my understanding is that the Blackfeet most certainly have a word for "bear" and it is not the same as their word for "brother". I own property within the confines of the Blackfeet Nation just outside Babb, MT, and have some Blackfeet friends.

Also, I heard on the news today that the Yellowstone N.P. authorities are not going to hunt down the bear and kill it or even re-locate it. They said that it was only doing what its natural instincts called for, i.e., a sow protecting her cubs.

Well on my local AM news there were several people calling it a rouge bear and were awaiting the decision to see if it would be killed or not. I had no doubts the park service would do the right thing. Thats to leave them alone.

It was a wilderness survival book, I am not an indian fact checkere. I was just stating something I have read recently. Interesting.


Why are you guessing at what occured? You don't know if the woman had food in her day pack and you don't know if they got between the female and her cubs. The article linked in the first post says details are sketchy. It is reported that it was the second time they saw the bear that day and the woman did not see the attack.

The Blackfoot word for bear is Kyi-yoo or Kiaayo.

Beacuse I can guess and draw conclusions based on so many sheeple not carrying bear spray and sometimes even bear cans into the field. Thats perfectly acceptable. I didnt state it was fact, I stated its what I could see happened. No bear attacks in so many years makes one believe that something was done wrong. I stand behid that.


I just checked wikipedia and what I suspected was confirmed. The Grizzly Bears' (Ursus arctos horribilus) historic range has never been East of the Western edge of the Mississippi River Basin. Even at it's Post Glacial height it never extended into the Southeast or East. It just needs a cooler climate. Perhaps you're thinking of the Black Bear (Ursus Americanus) But even it doesn't (and apparently never has) inhabited the desert Southwest or the Great Plains.

West of the Mississippi is a HUGE roaming area. A hell of a lot more then they have now. Again, just stating something I read in a book recently. Not a fact checker, just thought it was interesting. Apparently when The Blackfoot nation was approached about buying some of their land, they said no and that US should support the Blackfoot children in being taught in their native tounge because their wasnt a word for bear in their language. It was the same word as brother. Just something I read, but im not suprised there are a ton of experts here to set me straight.

600 grizzly bears. Oh man, thats alot. We better start hunting them, instead of learning how to coexist. Population booms, yada, yada. I hope their is enough wild spaces left without starbucks and prefab housing after people have their ways. Thank God parks are protected. Lets just drill for oil all over the place, and drain the resivoir underneath death valley so that casinos and suberbs in vegas can expand and flourish too.

joe305
07-07-2011, 11:34 AM
Yellowstone is a National Park. Firearms aren't allowed in the park system. and regarding a 454 are you referring to a 454 Casul? It's a very powerful handgun but!!!! It is still a handgun. Not exactly a grizzly gun.

Sorry Brother but you are incorrect!!!!! as of feb. of 2010 Loaded Handguns are allowed in in national parks...Including Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon....as for the 454 casul.....With a good size barrel and well placed shots....It should get the job Done...

Snake Eyes 3211
07-07-2011, 11:34 AM
Well on my local AM news there were several people calling it a rouge bear and were awaiting the decision to see if it would be killed or not. I had no doubts the park service would do the right thing. Thats to leave them alone.

It was a wilderness survival book, I am not an indian fact checkere. I was just stating something I have read recently. Interesting.



Beacuse I can guess and draw conclusions based on so many sheeple not carrying bear spray and sometimes even bear cans into the field. Thats perfectly acceptable. I didnt state it was fact, I stated its what I could see happened. No bear attacks in so many years makes one believe that something was done wrong. I stand behid that.



East of the Mississippi is a HUGE roaming area. A hell of a lot more then they have now. Again, just stating something I read in a book recently. Not a fact checker, just thought it was interesting. Apparently when The Blackfoot nation was approached about buying some of their land, they said no and that US should support the Blackfoot children in being taught in their native tounge because their wasnt a word for bear in their language. It was the same word as brother. Just something I read, but im not suprised there are a ton of experts here to set me straight.

600 grizzly bears. Oh man, thats alot. We better start hunting them, instead of learning how to coexist. Population booms, yada, yada. I hope their is enough wild spaces left without starbucks and prefab housing after people have their ways. Thank God parks are protected. Lets just drill for oil all over the place, and drain the resivoir underneath death valley so that casinos and suberbs in vegas can expand and flourish too.


I actually agree for the most part on what you say. My head spins too, thinking people want to go hunt a kill a bear, and are out for blood, who mauled someone to death on the bear's Homeland(the outdoors), and we will let Casey Anthony go, and give her a cover story for killing her daughter in our own backyard.(the city).

I have ran into bears on 2 sepertae occasions. Both we're LITERALLY 10-15 ft.away. THINK ABOUT THAT number. That is to close for comfort. And I had WEAPONS on me. We even locked eyes, and I had packaged food on me. ( once it was up in the trees). I didnt act like a billy-bad ass, and start hootin and hollarin', I was 110% RESPECTFUL. And animals snese that. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out how a bear will react. Its nature. You on his home turf, ACT LIKE IT.

Like you say, He probably got in the way of his girlfrined and the bear, and started acting out, trying to get the bears attention, and in turn suffered the reprocussions. I hate it happend to the guy, But what you say, Williams, their is a lot of truth to that.

Newt
07-07-2011, 11:37 AM
It's a terrible thing for all sides, but let's face it, when you decide to do some things, there are risks. No matter if it's spending time in bear country, climbing walls or mountains, scuba diving, whatever...life has no guarantees.

You could spend your life indoors, but we all *know* how dangerous that is, taking millions of lives every year.

At least he was *out doing what he wanted to do*.

J
07-07-2011, 11:53 AM
Thanks man.

Ya know, Im all for responsable conservation, and population controll of animals. I do understand that, and support it 100%. However this cowboy lets start killin em attitude is wrong. One attack in that many years. Not really a reason to send out lynch mobs of armed hunters to "controll" populations. Thats exactly why their populations were once almost gone. Hunted out and forced to exist on a small part of their normal range. People have in general got this high horse attitude, that the world needs humans to say whats good for it and bad for it, when these natural cycles have been occuring for a very long time. We need these bears. The are a vital part of many ecosystems. I would not hesitate to kill a bear or 3 bears if they were threatining me or my family, just as the bear wouldnt hesitate if it deemed you were a threat. I just think controlling their populations so that a bunch of fat tourists can trodge around the parks in their cars and feed them and shoot pictures is no good reason. Bears are Bears. If you cant be prepared for an encounter with one, then you have no bussiness being in their range. Being prepared for an encounter means packing a bear can, bear spray or firearm or both, and being aware of your surroundings at all times, while understanding the bears habits.. To me anyways. Most bears are scared to death of humans, as it should be.. If they arent, its because they were interacted with and fed by people. Or you appear to be a human happy meal. I dont really care if anyone agrees with me, its how I choose to live. Respecting living things, human, or not.

EagleRiverDee
07-07-2011, 11:56 AM
If you are serious about hiking in bear country, then you should carry an adequate firearm. Something in a .454 would work well.

I can't buy into the "it's the bear's area, you must sacrifice your life if necessary" silliness. I don't know who are the most obnoxious about that, the enviro nazis or the modern day back woodsmen that want to return to 1800.
Even the Indians killed bears when they wanted to, or had to.

I agree with this. The odds of a bear encounter are very low, but when they do happen so far as I'm concerned the human's life is infinitely more valuable than the bear's life. Not to mention that in many cases where a bear kills a human, the bear is killed anyway and if it has cubs and there isn't a zoo available to take them the cubs are also killed.

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 11:57 AM
I actually agree for the most part on what you say. My head spins too, thinking people want to go hunt a kill a bear, and are out for blood, who mauled someone to death on the bear's Homeland(the outdoors), and we will let Casey Anthony go, and give her a cover story for killing her daughter in our own backyard.(the city).

I have ran into bears on 2 sepertae occasions. Both we're LITERALLY 10-15 ft.away. THINK ABOUT THAT number. That is to close for comfort. And I had WEAPONS on me. We even locked eyes, and I had packaged food on me. ( once it was up in the trees). I didnt act like a billy-bad ass, and start hootin and hollarin', I was 110% RESPECTFUL. And animals snese that. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out how a bear will react. Its nature. You on his home turf, ACT LIKE IT.

Like you say, He probably got in the way of his girlfrined and the bear, and started acting out, trying to get the bears attention, and in turn suffered the reprocussions. I hate it happend to the guy, But what you say, Williams, their is a lot of truth to that.


I live in bear country northern CA and have been within 50 feet of about half a dozen bears in the past 3 weeks. Lately it's getting old, I just want to walk the dogs in peace.

It is strange for me to see so many people pretending to know what was there. I hope one day if I meet the wrong bear and it wants to rock n' roll I don't have some of you guys in the background with your 2 cents.

What if they were prepared? what if the bear escalated because the cubs were right around the corner? How many of you know how grizzly's act?
I have only met black bears and most of the time they act like big ol bunny rabbits. I am not bold enough to claim on the internet that I would even come close to comparing that to a grizzly run in.
Who was that nutter that thought he could live with the bears? A grizzly made sure that didn't happen. (Timothy Treadwell?) He thought he understood the bears and could live with them. Google will tell you how that turned out.

The grizzly's deserve to be here as much as we do, but to tell them to co-exist isn't fair. So either you start bulldozing every man made structure in sight and start shipping people elsewhere. or you manage the bear population to make sure it is the strongest healthiest population the habitat they have can sustain. Healthiest/strongest and unlimited numbers don't go hand in hand. Until you eliminate the human problem you have to pick one or the other.

I don't think it's fair to assume "city slickers" had it coming. That is very bold to presume. Especially since I don't see any grizzly bear experts coming forward.

EagleRiverDee
07-07-2011, 12:02 PM
Yellowstone is a National Park. Firearms aren't allowed in the park system. and regarding a 454 are you referring to a 454 Casul? It's a very powerful handgun but!!!! It is still a handgun. Not exactly a grizzly gun.

This is incorrect- on February 19, 2010 Congress passed a law allowing firearms in national parks, including Yellowstone provided that the state the park is in also allows firearms. It is legal to carry a firearm in Yellowstone.

I do agree with you that a handgun is not my choice if I had to go up against a bear, but let's face it- people will carry a handgun but not many will carry a rifle or shotgun hiking due to the weight. I carry a .44 mag and use good judgment so that I never have to use it- but if I ever DO have to use it, it's there.

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 12:07 PM
However this cowboy lets start killin em attitude is wrong. One attack in that many years. Not really a reason to send out lynch mobs of armed hunters to "controll" populations. Thats exactly why their populations were once almost gone.

That is incorrect.

Not once has a species been "managed" into becoming extinct or endangered.
If you think what the DFG would try to do is comparable to the days of grizzly and timber wolf bounty hunters you are just being ignorant. The goal then was to make these populations extinct and it was wrong.
It is emotional responses like this that do more damage then good.

J
07-07-2011, 12:18 PM
Nobody is saying to bulldoze every manmade structure in sight or to let them move on into their guest house. Coexist doesnt mean move on into their range and roll around with them and shoot video and give em names like that fruit Treadwell did. Coexist to me means responsable conservation, and responsable prepardness for traveling in bear country. That is also not a safety guarantee, but it goes a long way. There still are animals that are higher up on the food chain then us in some places. I understand that populations of humans are growing, but where does it end? If we screw around enough with natural cycles, the ripple effect of damage will affect many other animals and plants. Not just with Grizzlys. Lots of people every day live in bear country, and can exist responsably with them. I hardly call 600 bears overpopulated. The strongest, healthiest population in their area we have "allowed" them to have, untill we need that land for strip malls and macdonalds. Then they will get pushed back further. Kinda like the Native Americans.

Sgt. Mac
07-07-2011, 12:18 PM
http://i673.photobucket.com/albums/vv97/SgtMac80/2f9601fb.jpg

joe305
07-07-2011, 12:18 PM
I'm not taking sides but, If i were in Yellowstone, I would be packing a hand cannon. If a bear or any other large Predatory animal so much as gives me that Porter House, drizzled with A-1 steak sauce look...they are getting a double tap...Sorry but that's just the way its going to be....:16::16:

BillCr
07-07-2011, 12:20 PM
Holy *&^! Mac. LOL. I thought that was a serious sign at first and was reading it intently til I got to the end! :4:

J
07-07-2011, 12:21 PM
That is incorrect.

Not once has a species been "managed" into becoming extinct or endangered.
If you think what the DFG would try to do is comparable to the days of grizzly and timber wolf bounty hunters you are just being ignorant. The goal then was to make these populations extinct and it was wrong.
It is emotional responses like this that do more damage then good.

My response isnt at all emotional. However thank you for letting me know that my response is not approved by you. I said exactly what you said. They were hunted out. Not managed out. I never said managed out. I said sending out the hunters to controll populations is what went wrong in the first place. So how is that incorrect?

Chert
07-07-2011, 12:22 PM
Words of wisdom - Grizzly bear shit has bells in it and smells like pepper.


http://i673.photobucket.com/albums/vv97/SgtMac80/2f9601fb.jpg

BillCr
07-07-2011, 12:24 PM
That's a good tag line there for sure

AaronMB
07-07-2011, 12:24 PM
This is incorrect- on February 19, 2010 Congress passed a law allowing firearms in national parks, including Yellowstone provided that the state the park is in also allows firearms. It is legal to carry a firearm in Yellowstone.



Right. But if required within their state, that person must also have the correct Permit to carry the weapon within their local National Park. Not every legal gun owning citizen can carry a weapon in their local NP. The National Forest is a different story.

For example, I cannot legally carry or even transport (assembled) my 'whatever' within Sequoia National Park because I don't have a California CCW. I can, however, carry my piece once I'm out of the National 'Park' boundary and am in the National 'Forest' boundary. Of course, all other local laws apply.


Deadly encounters with animals is never good for anyone and this case is no different.
If there's management to be done, I think it needs to be 'people' that are better managed (and educated, etc), in order to fix the problems we originally created to begin with. Nature can, has, and will manage itself just fine, without Man's anthropocentric influence.

solocanoe
07-07-2011, 12:25 PM
I try to stay more focused here, and don't post much on my hunting. Well, other than ducks and the horrible hog problem...

Certainly, it's wasn't my intention to draw forth any animosity on any side(s) of the game management issue.

The Jim Shockey / SCI idea was put forth by them to offer a chance to solve a couple problems at once...
more of a 'musing' probably...and I should have said that.

Certainly nothing takes away from the tragedy of this for the family members involved, the people who have to 'work the scene', or anyone who may have been involved.
That's probably a better focus.

EagleRiverDee
07-07-2011, 12:30 PM
Right. But if required within their state, that person must also have the correct Permit to carry the weapon within their local National Park. Not every legal gun owning citizen can carry a weapon in their local NP. The National Forest is a different story.

For example, I cannot legally carry or even transport (assembled) my 'whatever' within Sequoia National Park because I don't have a California CCW. I can, however, carry my piece once I'm out of the National 'Park' boundary and am in the National 'Forest' boundary. Of course, all other local laws apply.


Deadly encounters with animals is never good for anyone and this case is no different.
If there's management to be done, I think it needs to be 'people' that are better managed (and educated, etc), in order to fix the problems we originally created to begin with. Nature can, has, and will manage itself just fine, without Man's anthropocentric influence.

Agreed- I was speaking specifically to Yellowstone in this instance. I feel fortunate that I live in Alaska, where gun laws favor the People. Concealed carry is legal by State law, open carry is also legal by State law. We can carry nearly anywhere with the exception of specifically prohibited locations such as bars, court buildings, the airport, and any privately owned location that specifically posts "No Firearms", etc.

Also understand I'm not suggesting any management of the bears, just that we have a right to defend ourselves.

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 12:36 PM
My response isnt at all emotional. However thank you for letting me know that my response is not approved by you. I said exactly what you said. They were hunted out. Not managed out. I never said managed out. I said sending out the hunters to controll populations is what went wrong in the first place. So how is that incorrect?

Because they sent hunters out to kill every animal they could for reward because in their eyes there was no point in having "monsters" like grizzly's or wolves in the woods.

Today people will pay large sums of money for an exclusive chance to ethically hunt and harvest an animal. It is the most powerful management tool available.

Comparing a well researched management system to a bunch of lawless bounty hunters as the root of the problem is what I have issue with.

joe305
07-07-2011, 12:39 PM
Agreed- I was speaking specifically to Yellowstone in this instance. I feel fortunate that I live in Alaska, where gun laws favor the People. Concealed carry is legal by State law, open carry is also legal by State law. We can carry nearly anywhere with the exception of specifically prohibited locations such as bars, court buildings, the airport, and any privately owned location that specifically posts "No Firearms", etc.

Also understand I'm not suggesting any management of the bears, just that we have a right to defend ourselves.

Thats awesome....the last Frontier....

One Legged Josh
07-07-2011, 12:40 PM
I will keep my opinion out of the powder keg, and simply say Prayers sent for the family.

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 12:42 PM
Does anyone here know how many grizzly bears say, one hundred square miles, will hold?
I don't, and I am not saying I know if the carrying capacity of yellowstone has been reached yet.
I don't really believe anyone else here is qualified to say so either.
What I am saying is when it is reached, when the competition for food is so strong that the resources are used too fast to be replenished. When the amount of elbow room for the bears shrinks they will start looking at other options to survive. Overpopulation is just as dangerous as under population, and a grizzly bear is a special kind of animal with special needs.
I don't pretend to know where the population currently stands, nor am I a saying that at this specific moment they need management. But they will soon, and you will keep seeing the signs.

santaman2000
07-07-2011, 12:42 PM
Sorry Brother but you are incorrect!!!!! as of feb. of 2010 Loaded Handguns are allowed in in national parks...Including Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon....as for the 454 casul.....With a good size barrel and well placed shots....It should get the job Done...

yeah, I just read the article about which parks they're allowed in.

As far the 454 Casul, It looks like it delivers a little more than 2000 ft/lbs. That's still less than a 30-06 (2500-3000) and a 30-06 is usually considered too light for Grizzly. It'll do the job; but not reliably. Especially when you consider the small target area on a charging bear. And the adrenaline (yours and the bear's)

J
07-07-2011, 12:45 PM
What I meant was that sending out the hunters to hunt a species thats numbers are already quite small is irresponsable. I didnt say it happened, or was gonna happen. I was commenting on the attitude that since a person was killed, we now need to kill off a bunch of them. Nothing to do with responsable management. Their numbers are growing, so obviously they are doing their jobs quite well, and I have the upmost confidence that they would responsably manage the hunts with permits etc. My thought process was that just because a hiker was killed doesnt mean lets start hunting. The fish and game people, and responsable hunters know that. I never once meant to comment on how such a hunt would come about, how much the permits cost, or what the fed regs would be. I simply meant that we dont need to go out and start hunting them just when their populations are bouncing back from what those idiots did so many years ago......

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 12:47 PM
What I meant was that sending out the hunters to hunt a species thats numbers are already quite small is irresponsable. I didnt say it happened, or was gonna happen. I was commenting on the attitude that since a person was killed, we now need to kill off a bunch of them. Nothing to do with responsable management. Their numbers are growing, so obviously they are doing their jobs quite well, and I have the upmost confidence that they would responsably manage the hunts with permits etc. My thought process was that just because a hiker was killed doesnt mean lets start hunting. The fish and game people, and responsable hunters know that. I never once meant to comment on how such a hunt would come about, how much the permits cost, or what the fed regs would be. I simply meant that we dont need to go out and start hunting them just when their populations are bouncing back from what those idiots did so many years ago......

I don't think that is what anyone was saying. The idea of Grizzly management has been going on for a while. Same with the wolves. This event just brings a bit more light to it.

IndieroxNWusa
07-07-2011, 12:48 PM
Im sorry but you cant doubletap a surprised charging bear with a large caliber handgun!

Sad unfortunate accident

Bear spray is the best deterrent. I carry spray and a .44 mag with hot rounds. I figure if the spray and prey dosnt work, the .44 is just backup.

Between the charge speed, recoil, and proficiency of the handgun user - I can maybe see this accomplished by a extremely proficient large caliber handgun expert. And not to mention the effects of adrenaline, time of day/night, and state of mind/sleep?

And to be proficient, you have to practice... and to practice you need to shoot that hand cannon alot. And shooting a .44 454 500 is a pain in the ass on your wrist after a while and expensive

So you can pack your 6 pound 500 s&w, pull and draw on a charging bear and hit accurately, not very likely!


Blackfoot language guide
http://www.seawell.net/ybms/language/bflanguage.htm

Snake Eyes 3211
07-07-2011, 12:54 PM
I live in bear country northern CA and have been within 50 feet of about half a dozen bears in the past 3 weeks. Lately it's getting old, I just want to walk the dogs in peace.

It is strange for me to see so many people pretending to know what was there. I hope one day if I meet the wrong bear and it wants to rock n' roll I don't have some of you guys in the background with your 2 cents.

What if they were prepared? what if the bear escalated because the cubs were right around the corner? How many of you know how grizzly's act?
I have only met black bears and most of the time they act like big ol bunny rabbits. I am not bold enough to claim on the internet that I would even come close to comparing that to a grizzly run in.
Who was that nutter that thought he could live with the bears? A grizzly made sure that didn't happen. (Timothy Treadwell?) He thought he understood the bears and could live with them. Google will tell you how that turned out.

The grizzly's deserve to be here as much as we do, but to tell them to co-exist isn't fair. So either you start bulldozing every man made structure in sight and start shipping people elsewhere. or you manage the bear population to make sure it is the strongest healthiest population the habitat they have can sustain. Healthiest/strongest and unlimited numbers don't go hand in hand. Until you eliminate the human problem you have to pick one or the other.

I don't think it's fair to assume "city slickers" had it coming. That is very bold to presume. Especially since I don't see any grizzly bear experts coming forward.

What is strange is to see you belittle everyone's comments but you own.
we are sharing our opinions, you are argueing yours. we get it. You think Bears aught to be controlled.

And as far as a guy TRING to coexist with bears, I think that was a stupid idea. And the out come is what it is.

I believe in the spirits of animals. You treat them right, you will get the same in return. You dont go out looking for an animal adventure to prove you got what it takes.

If it so happens you stumble across 1, remember IT AINT YOUR HOUSE. So dont go in their thinking you run things or you will get the $h!t end of the stick. My heart goes out to the fella that passed, but controlling their population when there's hardly ANY left is just plain ole stupid. ;)

santaman2000
07-07-2011, 12:57 PM
Im sorry but you cant doubletap a surprised charging bear with a large caliber handgun!

Sad unfortunate accident

Bear spray is the best deterrent. I carry spray and a .44 mag with hot rounds. I figure if the spray and prey dosnt work, the .44 is just backup.

Between the charge speed, recoil, and proficiency of the handgun user - I can maybe see this accomplished by a extremely proficient large caliber handgun expert. And not to mention the effects of adrenaline, time of day/night, and state of mind/sleep?

And to be proficient, you have to practice... and to practice you need to shoot that hand cannon alot. And shooting a .44 454 500 is a pain in the ass on your wrist after a while and expensive

So you can pack your 6 pound 500 s&w, pull and draw on a charging bear and hit accurately, not very likely!


Blackfoot language guide
http://www.seawell.net/ybms/language/bflanguage.htm

Exactly. Thank you. Would I carry one? you betcha. Would I use it? You betcha. Would I really trust it to work? Not likely.

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 01:02 PM
What is strange is to see you belittle everyone's comments but you own.
we are sharing our opinions, you are argueing yours. we get it. You think Bears aught to be controlled.

And as far as a guy TRING to coexist with bears, I think that was a stupid idea. And the out come is what it is.

I believe in the spirits of animals. You treat them right, you will get the same in return. You dont go out looking for an adventure to prove you got what it takes.

If it so happens you stumble across 1, remember IT AINT YOUR HOUSE. So dont go in their thinking you run things or you will get the $h!t end of the stick. My heart goes out to the fella that passed, but controlling their population when there's hardly ANY left is just plain ole stupid. ;)



it hardly seems like belittling, but I apologize for being heated.

There was only one point I didn't like and that was even suggesting that current hunting practices are comparable to what brought several species to near extinction. It's thoughts driven by this logic that makes so many people anti hunting.

That and I don't think it's fair to call the guy out on being unprepared or he must of acted like a fool and started yelling and screaming and dancing, when no body knows what happened except the bear.

How many are left exactly? Over how many square miles?

santaman2000
07-07-2011, 01:04 PM
...East of the Mississippi is a HUGE roaming area...

Exactly. It is a huge area. An area where there NEVER were any Grizzlies. That's my point. You said they once roamed MOST of the country until we pushed them back but apparently the entire Eastern half of the country never had them. At least if Wikipedia is correct.

joe305
07-07-2011, 01:05 PM
yeah, I just read the article about which parks they're allowed in.

As far the 454 Casul, It looks like it delivers a little more than 2000 ft/lbs. That's still less than a 30-06 (2500-3000) and a 30-06 is usually considered too light for Grizzly. It'll do the job; but not reliably. Especially when you consider the small target area on a charging bear. And the adrenaline (yours and the bear's)

Of course the best thing to have is a high powered rifle...and the 30-06 while traveling about or maybe a little faster than the .454 it weighs substantially less and will deliver less energy when it hits the bear. so you cant compare the two..

the 2000 ft/lbs. is regular ammo with prob about 300 grains...you can get allot better ammo than that..specially if you are hand loading

I'm just responding to that post and a .454 was mentioned....and like I said sure a rifle is better...and is what I would carry and it sure wont be a 30-06 or .308 for that mater

J
07-07-2011, 01:09 PM
Exactly. It is a huge area. An area where there NEVER were any Grizzlies. That's my point. You said they once roamed MOST of the country until we pushed them back but apparently the entire Eastern half of the country never had them. At least if Wikipedia is correct.

Sorry, I meant West. WEST. That is still a huge area, and we have indeed pushed them back. I consider an area they once roamed to what they roam now a huge area. I will correct my post. Thanks for the heads up.

Snake Eyes 3211
07-07-2011, 01:11 PM
it hardly seems like belittling, but I apologize for being heated.

There was only one point I didn't like and that was even suggesting that current hunting practices are comparable to what brought several species to near extinction. It's thoughts driven by this logic that makes so many people anti hunting.

That and I don't think it's fair to call the guy out on being unprepared or he must of acted like a fool and started yelling and screaming and dancing, when no body knows what happened except the bear.

How many are left exactly? Over how many square miles?


Well the guys here who are saying he was unprepared, are more than likely Avid Hunters like myself. But I understand your points. The Victim MIGHT not have been.


But when you are exploring territory you are not used to, A park map or Google, in your case, could have proved and provided extremely useful for this young man.

Areas we are familiar with we know what to take, and even if we dont know the area to our liking we take the essentials.

A jogger or trail hiker, doesnt really think that far ahead, thus the reason we are hear sharing our opinions so it doesnt happen to one of us.

santaman2000
07-07-2011, 01:14 PM
Of course the best thing to have is a high powered rifle...and the 30-06 while traveling about or maybe a little faster than the .454 it weighs substantially less and will deliver less energy when it hits the bear. so you cant compare the two..

the 2000 ft/lbs. is regular ammo with prob about 300 grains...you can get allot better ammo than that..specially if you are hand loading

I'm just responding to that post and a .454 was mentioned....and like I said sure a rifle is better...and is what I would carry and it sure wont be a 30-06 or .308 for that mater

No, me either. I'd rather have a Ma Deuce. But realisticly I'd probably hunt them (if I could) with a magnum rifle of some type. Equally realisticly I probably wouldn't hike with one all the time so like you I'd probably actually have a large cal handgun; just wouldn't really trust it. The best defense is just common sense and situational awareness. I'm pretty good with guns but I think my ability to stop a charging, adrenaline filled Grizzy at close range is about as good as my ability to stop a freight train with a semi-truck. It'll phase it (maybe even derail it) but not actually stop the charge.


BTW. That 2500-3000 figure I listed for the 30-06 is the ft/lb energy level, not the velocity.

J
07-07-2011, 01:20 PM
FWIW, I respect all of your opinions, and I hold no ill will to those who dont agree with me. I learn from opposing viewpoints all the time.

I never meant to compare modern hunters to what was done so many years ago, I meant that going straight to hunting them back was irresponsable IMO, and could dwindle their numbers once again. I do understand and support responsable game managment, and understand the need for it. Its sad, but a fact of modern life. I just hope we are making the right desicions for the sake of furure generations. Im not an anti hunting tree hugger neither. I hunt deer, Quail, Squirell, and Dove, and am an avid supporter of gun rights and hunting and fishing conservation.

I also understand what Siskiyou is saying too. Numbers of overpopulation are directly related to size of range. I think we just misunderstood eachother.

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 01:21 PM
Well the guys here who are saying he was unprepared, are more than likely Avid Hunters like myself. But I understand your points. The Victim MIGHT not have been.


But when you are exploring territory you are not used to, A park map or Google, in your case, could have proved and provided extremely useful for this young man.

Areas we are familiar with we know what to take, and even if we dont know the area to our liking we take the essentials.

A jogger or trail hiker, doesnt really think that far ahead, thus the reason we are hear sharing our opinions so it doesnt happen to one of us.

I am just pretty sure that no matter how prepared you are there is a very slim chance of surviving a grizzly ATTACK. The best thing to have would probably be life insurance.

From some of the Alaska guys I know a 12 gauge with slugs is the best way to go.

santaman2000
07-07-2011, 01:23 PM
Well the guys here who are saying he was unprepared, are more than likely Avid Hunters like myself. But I understand your points. The Victim MIGHT not have been.


But when you are exploring territory you are not used to, A park map or Google, in your case, could have proved and provided extremely useful for this young man.

Areas we are familiar with we know what to take, and even if we dont know the area to our liking we take the essentials.

A jogger or trail hiker, doesnt really think that far ahead, thus the reason we are hear sharing our opinions so it doesnt happen to one of us.


Agreed. We have to remember that this was a "National Park." It's open for tourists from anywhere and everywhere who have little or no real outdoor experience. They come from (among other places) large cities with the idea that a "park" is a safe, controlled place to just wander around. Should we ban them? NO. After all it's their park too. Should they read and follow the rangers' advise? absolutely. Will they? Probably not. Will this happen again? Probably.

Snake Eyes 3211
07-07-2011, 01:23 PM
I am just pretty sure that no matter how prepared you are there is a very slim chance of surviving a grizzly ATTACK. The best thing to have would probably be life insurance.


Lol.

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 01:28 PM
FWIW, I respect all of your opinions, and I hold no ill will to those who dont agree with me. I learn from opposing viewpoints all the time.

I never meant to compare modern hunters to what was done so many years ago, I meant that going straight to hunting them back was irresponsable IMO, and could dwindle their numbers once again. I do understand and support responsable game managment, and understand the need for it. Its sad, but a fact of modern life. I just hope we are making the right desicions for the sake of furure generations. Im not an anti hunting tree hugger neither. I hunt deer, Quail, Squirell, and Dove, and am an avid supporter of gun rights and hunting and fishing conservation.

I also understand what Siskiyou is saying too. Numbers of overpopulation are directly related to size of range. I think we just misunderstood eachother.


We are in agreement about the important things. I never meant to come off as rude and presumptuous. This is just a topic very near and dear to my occasionally passionate heart.

Shorty
07-07-2011, 01:41 PM
Grizzlys used to roam a huge majority of the country, and weve shoved them back into a small area, dwindling their numbers. Weve killed or wiped out every threat to us so we can walk around like king of the hill. Then people want to go and stick their nose in the Grizzlys backyard and wonder why they get mauled. From what Ive heard on the news he did everything wrong when faced with that situation. Im sure the women had food in her pack, and im sure he got between a momma and her cubs. One cardnial rule of bear country. Dont f**k with mama.

I read a book recently that said the Blackfoot indians dont even have a word for bear. Its the same as brother. Gotta show them respect. I also heard people saying it is a rouge bear etc etc....So quick to want blood, but yet we set child killers free. Makes my head spin. I hope their are grizzly bears around for my grand kids to see.

FWIW, I do think its tragic, and I feel for their loss. A bear did what bears do though.

I could not agree more. I hate to say it but we truly are like locusts...consume and consume until nothing is left. It is not the bear's responsiblity to be mindful of tourists...it is the other way around. And while tragic, this was the first fatality since 1986. bears are not the problem. People are.

I recall a ridiculous hunting video on one of the outdoor channels where these bear hunters were in Alaska...mother and father had 3 cubs and were feeding at a river's edge. Hunter takes out the father. Mother charges the hunters to protect the cubs. Hunters take out semi auto pistols and blow the mother to bits. They later described the fear they had for their lives and the necessary action of killing the mother to save themselves. Yea. Great. Good job guys.

I am no bush hippy. I am in favor of hunting, and certainly of conservation. However, going on a bear slaughter because they happened to get one of us or similarly going and shooting wolves en masse after we re-released them into the wilderness just makes my blood boil.

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 01:46 PM
I am no bush hippy. I am in favor of hunting, and certainly of conservation. However, going on a bear slaughter because they happened to get one of us or similarly going and shooting wolves en masse after we re-released them into the wilderness just makes my blood boil.

Who is in favor of going on a bear slaughter? I keep seeing this repeated. I just want to know the source. Thanks.

The wolves are a different story and the product of one of the most piss poor federally managed programs to date.

45jack
07-07-2011, 02:20 PM
Should this particular bear be killed? Probably not.
Should top of the food chain predators be controlled around human populations? Probably.

Genesis 1:26. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Sgt. Mac
07-07-2011, 02:23 PM
Amen Jack!!

santaman2000
07-07-2011, 02:37 PM
...I recall a ridiculous hunting video on one of the outdoor channels where these bear hunters were in Alaska...mother and father had 3 cubs and were feeding at a river's edge. Hunter takes out the father. Mother charges the hunters to protect the cubs. Hunters take out semi auto pistols and blow the mother to bits. They later described the fear they had for their lives and the necessary action of killing the mother to save themselves. Yea. Great. Good job guys.

When you say the hunters "take out the father" are you referring to the "father" bear?" If so then it's probably faked. Female bears raise their young alone; the males would eat them.

Mannlicher
07-07-2011, 05:05 PM
Yellowstone is a National Park. Firearms aren't allowed in the park system. and regarding a 454 are you referring to a 454 Casul? It's a very powerful handgun but!!!! It is still a handgun. Not exactly a grizzly gun.

loaded guns are allowed in National Parks, and have been for about a year now. .454 Casull will absolutely stop a grizzly bear.

I'll be the first to say that staying out of areas where they may be lurking is bear defense rule #1. When surprised by one though, as it looks like happened in this case, then you have every right to protect yourself.

Likesthewoods
07-07-2011, 05:48 PM
I could not agree more. I hate to say it but we truly are like locusts...consume and consume until nothing is left. It is not the bear's responsiblity to be mindful of tourists...it is the other way around. And while tragic, this was the first fatality since 1986. bears are not the problem. People are.

I recall a ridiculous hunting video on one of the outdoor channels where these bear hunters were in Alaska...mother and father had 3 cubs and were feeding at a river's edge. Hunter takes out the father. Mother charges the hunters to protect the cubs. Hunters take out semi auto pistols and blow the mother to bits. They later described the fear they had for their lives and the necessary action of killing the mother to save themselves. Yea. Great. Good job guys.

I am no bush hippy. I am in favor of hunting, and certainly of conservation. However, going on a bear slaughter because they happened to get one of us or similarly going and shooting wolves en masse after we re-released them into the wilderness just makes my blood boil.

I think you may be referring to this, however they DON'T use semi auto pistols. It used to be on Youtube.

www.liveleak.com/view?i=a44_1238995443

dducey
07-07-2011, 05:49 PM
It is best to make noise when in bear country to announce your presence and avoid a sudden confrontation with a spooked bear. Wearing bells on your clothing is one recommended method of doing this. Also carrying pepper spray to fend off any aggressive bears is recommended. To know which type of bear you may encounter, one can look at the signs left in the area being traveled: black bear droppings contain what is left of nuts and berries. Grizzly droppings may contain shoe laces, small bells and smells like pepper.

Old Philosopher
07-07-2011, 05:51 PM
Fascinating subject, as always, ad nauseam.
THIS is a "rogue bear":
http://bushcraftusa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16677
And in western and southwestern Montana their presence is a fact of life. Down south, there is the "Yellowstone ecosystem". Up north, there is the "Glacier Park ecosystem".
Bears don't respect man-made park boundaries. They wander in and out as they please. In my neighborhood, a stock-killing sow and her two cubs were trapped and relocated inside Glacier Park. They were back in 2 weeks. No cows in Glacier. :p

santaman2000
07-07-2011, 06:25 PM
Fascinating subject, as always, ad nauseam.
THIS is a "rogue bear":
http://bushcraftusa.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16677
And in western and southwestern Montana their presence is a fact of life. Down south, there is the "Yellowstone ecosystem". Up north, there is the "Glacier Park ecosystem".
Bears don't respect man-made park boundaries. They wander in and out as they please. In my neighborhood, a stock-killing sow and her two cubs were trapped and relocated inside Glacier Park. They were back in 2 weeks. No cows in Glacier. :p

Yeah, relocating Black Bears down here hasn't worked either. They just travel hundreds of miles to get back "home."

Old Philosopher
07-07-2011, 06:37 PM
Does anyone here know how many grizzly bears say, one hundred square miles, will hold?
I don't, and I am not saying I know if the carrying capacity of yellowstone has been reached yet.
I don't really believe anyone else here is qualified to say so either. ...



... Especially since I don't see any grizzly bear experts coming forward.
100 sq miles is a block of land 10 miles by 10 miles. It will hold 2 male grizzlies, if they have the good sense to stay away from each other. 100 sq miles might seem like a lot of turf to someone who lives on the crowded east coast, and knows how many people we can jam in a 10x10 mile area. But grizzly bears don't tolerate that!
They are not gregarious, they are very territorial.

The reason you don't hear a lot of "bear experts" in this thread is because they are probably tired of hearing the same old songs and dances by people who have no first hand knowledge of bears, their habits, and their attitudes.
My definition of a "grizzly bear expert" is not someone who learned about them from a biology book, or observing them in captivity, or on NatGeo TV channel. My definition, IMO, is someone who's lived on their turf, had them on their back porch in the middle of the day, found the shredded remains of black bears who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (gee..sounds like the folks in the OP, huh?), and have had them chase a p/u truck down the road because they wanted the garbage it was carrying to the dump.

One of the things most people say they respect about the content of BCUSA is the first hand, hands-on knowledge of some of the members. However, that all goes out the window when talking about grizzlies, cougar, or wolves. :(

I am just pretty sure that no matter how prepared you are there is a very slim chance of surviving a grizzly ATTACK. The best thing to have would probably be life insurance.

From some of the Alaska guys I know a 12 gauge with slugs is the best way to go.
Yep. The #1 advantage of carrying a firearm in bear country is not because you're going to be able to play Wyatt Earp, and double-tap a charging bear. It the NOISE that's going off in the bear's face that scares the scat out of it...hopefully.

madmax
07-07-2011, 06:45 PM
The reason you don't hear a lot of "bear experts" in this thread is because they are probably tired of hearing the same old songs and dances by people who have no first hand knowledge of bears, their habits, and their attitudes.


:4:

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 06:46 PM
Thank you! I always knew they were hellishly territorial animals and had heard something similar regarding the one or two male bears per 100 sq miles. A quick google couldn't find anything so I wanted to see if anyone knew.
150 doesn't seem like a lot of bears until you figure out how much territory they need. What is more important then the physical number is the health and stability of the population.

Old Philosopher
07-07-2011, 07:06 PM
Thank you! I always knew they were hellishly territorial animals and had heard something similar regarding the one or two male bears per 100 sq miles. A quick google couldn't find anything so I wanted to see if anyone knew.
150 doesn't seem like a lot of bears until you figure out how much territory they need. What is more important then the physical number is the health and stability of the population.
Again, in my humble opinion, grizzlies/brown bears are so freakin' ornery they don't even like themselves, let alone any other critter (man being no exception).
A male grizzly encountering a good lookin' sow with cubs will kill the cubs so she's not distracted and wants to mate again. A boar griz will even kill his own cubs because one of them may grow up to challenge his territory!
Hell hath no fury like a female grizzly protecting her cubs from their own father! A puny human who is perceived as a threat is no match.

woodsrunner
07-07-2011, 08:32 PM
a conservative estimate of the number grizzly bears in yellowstone park alone, stands at approx 650. according to a bear management amigo of mine the actual number is believed to be much higher.
now thats not even counting the bears in the gravelly range, the madison range, the beartooth range, the absaroka range, the mission mt range, the gallitan range, the bob marshall wilderness, not to mention glacier park whos numbers are higher than yellowstone.
griz have been been spotted as far west as idaho and eastern washington.
i could go on but i think you get my point, wolves? don't even get me started on those killers! wake up and smell the coffee people! sometimes the truth hurts, but then it is what it is.
thats all i'll say on this matter and you can and probably will disagree with me (seeing on how some folks are such experts on the matter) personally i don't give a hoot...woods

wabow
07-07-2011, 09:09 PM
Sad news! Simply put by not being politically correct and carrying a Marlin Guide Gun in 45/70 over the shoulder and the wife with a 12ga auto short barrel with hard cast slugs and buckshot every other round could have made all the difference.

I've visited that part of rugged Beautiful country about 20 years ago and wish I could have stayed. One thing I wouldn't leave for a hike without up there nomatter who said what, is one of the above and a large bore pistol along with a Big knife.....

Old Philosopher
07-07-2011, 09:21 PM
a conservative estimate of the number grizzly bears in yellowstone park alone, stands at approx 650. according to a bear management amigo of mine the actual number is believed to be much higher.
now thats not even counting the bears in the gravelly range, the madison range, the beartooth range, the absaroka range, the mission mt range, the gallitan range, the bob marshall wilderness, not to mention glacier park whos numbers are higher than yellowstone.
griz have been been spotted as far west as idaho and eastern washington.
i could go on but i think you get my point, wolves? don't even get me started on those killers! wake up and smell the coffee people! sometimes the truth hurts, but then it is what it is.
thats all i'll say on this matter and you can and probably will disagree with me (seeing on how some folks are such experts on the matter) personally i don't give a hoot...woods
I'm not sure I understand, Woodsy, when you mumble that way.
Are you trying to say there are a LOT of freakin' grizzlies around here? ;) :D

Mountain Ron
07-07-2011, 09:24 PM
I had one encounter with a griz in Montana. A friend took me on an elk hunt high up in the Bitter Root mountains outside Missoula. He got a nice bull and I was helping him clean and quarter when we heard a "huffing and popping" sound. I said "what the hell is that?" My buddy said "I think its a grizzly bear but there aint any around here". That bear hadto be real close and checking us out. I immediately went into high pucker factor mode and scanned the area with my finger on the trigger while Jim finished up. We were in a jam since the Jeep was a good mile down the trail and I know Jim didn't want to leave anything behind and we couldn't carry it all in one trip. He suggested I stay with the kill and he would go get the Jeep when no sooner the biggest bear I ever saw in my life rambled out of the tree line and stopped about 100 yards from us. It just stood there on all fours and the hair on the back of my neck stood straight out. All I could do was whimper "ma ma". My 30-06 felt like a Red Ryder. Jim said we should crack a few rounds over in its direction and I said "what are ya nuts?" I didn't feel it would be a good idea to piss him/her off. While we were brain storming, these three guys in a Landrover pulled up, jumped out and looked in the direction we were staring and said "is that a bear?" "No shit, Goldilocks" I said and one of the fellows hopped into the rover and laid on the horn. Mr/Mrs bear said "enough of these silly humans" and beat feet. The 3 amigos offered to help us load the elk into the rover and drop us off at the Jeep. We most graciously accepted the offer and got the hell down the mountain. Later after Jim talked to the local Game Warden we found out that bears had been spotted in the Bitter Roots for the past 3 years (this was in 1989) and the crazy thing is they are getting wise. When they hear a gun shot they don't run. They come for the free meal. Scary. That was the only grizzly I ever saw and I've been to Glacier, Yellowstone, the Tetons and other bear happy places. There was a thing on the news about 2 sows and 5 cubs at Teton being very "public" and hanging out near the highway. I guess the rangers have their hands full keeping people away from them. Go figure. http://news.yahoo.com/grand-teton-grizzly-family-causing-bear-jams-094253696.html
By the way, there's a good show about bears by Ray Mears on the internet. Here's the link: http://stagevu.com/video/ohgojtuoxinn

Now, I don't know what happened in Yellowstone with the hiker, but some times accidents happen and its sad to loose a life. I wonder if they were even aware of being in bear country? I saw there were cubs involved so that answers why the bear attacked. A lot of people go into back country clueless and pay the price. I don't know the answer but I know its senseless to kill a bear who was guarding her youngins.

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 09:53 PM
a conservative estimate of the number grizzly bears in yellowstone park alone, stands at approx 650. according to a bear management amigo of mine the actual number is believed to be much higher.
now thats not even counting the bears in the gravelly range, the madison range, the beartooth range, the absaroka range, the mission mt range, the gallitan range, the bob marshall wilderness, not to mention glacier park whos numbers are higher than yellowstone.
griz have been been spotted as far west as idaho and eastern washington.
i could go on but i think you get my point, wolves? don't even get me started on those killers! wake up and smell the coffee people! sometimes the truth hurts, but then it is what it is.
thats all i'll say on this matter and you can and probably will disagree with me (seeing on how some folks are such experts on the matter) personally i don't give a hoot...woods


I have a few houndsmen friends in your area that would love to tell you all about how they feel about the wolves. :33:

Old Philosopher
07-07-2011, 10:07 PM
I have a few houndsmen friends in your area that would love to tell you all about how they feel about the wolves. :33:
Don't take the bait, Woodsrunner.

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 10:16 PM
Don't take the bait, Woodsrunner.

that was all I had to say? I have seen some pretty remarkable pictures of what the wolves are capable off. I've never seen anything like it in my life.

Wait,

Am I one of those bad guys I keep reading about.

hah oh my.


Edit: How could I be baiting anyone when he brought wolves up? Man, this internet business makes my head hurt sometimes. I think if we were all sitting around a table it would be different.

Old Philosopher
07-07-2011, 10:25 PM
I have a few houndsmen friends in your area that would love to tell you all about how they feel about the wolves. :33:


that was all I had to say? I have seen some pretty remarkable pictures of what the wolves are capable off. I've never seen anything like it in my life.

Wait,

Am I one of those bad guys I keep reading about.

hah oh my.


Edit: How could I be baiting anyone when he brought wolves up? Man, this internet business makes my head hurt sometimes. I think if we were all sitting around a table it would be different.
Okay, before I jump to conclusions, what is a "houndsman"? Bear hunters? (Illegal in Montana) Cougar hunters? Upland bird hunters?
Maybe I misinterpreted your comment. I take it these "houndsmen" are wolf experts?

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 10:33 PM
You are allowed to hunt lions with hounds in Montana. I know a handful of people who do, and since the boom in wolves in the woods things have been very different for them. The wolves hunt the dogs, they hear them treed and kill them all without mercy before the hunter can get there. I have seen some shocking pictures of a guy who lost his whole pack. They have driven many out of the woods.

It was in response to his comment, "wolves, don't get me started on those killers"

Old Philosopher
07-07-2011, 10:42 PM
You are allowed to hunt lions with hounds in Montana. I know a handful of people who do, and since the boom in wolves in the woods things have been very different for them. The wolves hunt the dogs, they hear them treed and kill them all without mercy before the hunter can get there. I have seen some shocking pictures of a guy who lost his whole pack. They have driven many out of the woods.

It was in response to his comment, "wolves, don't get me started on those killers"
My sincere apologies, SB. If you've missed the wolf threads here in the past, usually when someone calls them "killers", the doors of the nearest PETA chapter fly open. :rolleyes:
Sounds like your friends have some first hand experience with our "furry, friendly, protect-at-all-costs" canines. I can truly feel their pain. A close friend here has been a cat hunter for 30 years.
The cat hunters have been impacted even more that the elk and deer herds here.

Siskiyou Blues
07-07-2011, 10:47 PM
My sincere apologies, SB. If you've missed the wolf threads here in the past, usually when someone calls them "killers", the doors of the nearest PETA chapter fly open. :rolleyes:
Sounds like your friends have some first hand experience with our "furry, friendly, protect-at-all-costs" canines. I can truly feel their pain. A close friend here has been a cat hunter for 30 years.
The cat hunters have been impacted even more that the elk and deer herds here.

That's ok! I haven't been here for too long, so I didn't realize there was a lot of water under that bridge.
Judging by your posting so far I think you'll find that I agree with you on almost every point in this regard.
Regarding the wolves I am just glad we are slowly seeing legislative progress.

I am just glad we cleared that up. I have lots of respect for you and your posting, I didn't want any mis-communication to get in the way of that.

woodsrunner
07-07-2011, 11:08 PM
That's ok! I haven't been here for too long, so I didn't realize there was a lot of water under that bridge.
Judging by your posting so far I think you'll find that I agree with you on almost every point in this regard.
Regarding the wolves I am just glad we are slowly seeing legislative progress.

I am just glad we cleared that up. I have lots of respect for you and your posting, I didn't want any mis-communication to get in the way of that.you guys just make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside...woods

mario
07-07-2011, 11:25 PM
After reading 7 pages, I couldn't really take any more.

It seems one aspect of carrying a firearm has been neglected. If the guy's wife had been packing, she could have shot it while is was occupied mauling him.

AFA the bear itself, set hounds on it and kill it. My personal opinion with any wild animal that has killed a person.

Did she have food in her pack? Perhaps. Hikers do carry food when traveling place to place.

Hunting pressure gives them a reason to fear man. But if they fear man, the tourists won't be able to get their pictures...

Mario
resident of grizzly/brown bear country, 1998-2005.

Old Philosopher
07-07-2011, 11:57 PM
you guys just make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside...woods
Sorry, WR...no group hugs! :4:

GeoKrpan
07-08-2011, 12:07 AM
It's a terrible thing for all sides, but let's face it, when you decide to do some things, there are risks. No matter if it's spending time in bear country, climbing walls or mountains, scuba diving, whatever...life has no guarantees.

You could spend your life indoors, but we all *know* how dangerous that is, taking millions of lives every year.

At least he was *out doing what he wanted to do*.

Oh, absolutely!

Old Philosopher
07-08-2011, 12:07 AM
I think you may be referring to this, however they DON'T use semi auto pistols. It used to be on Youtube.

www.liveleak.com/view?i=a44_1238995443
Thank you for finding that link!



...
I recall a ridiculous hunting video on one of the outdoor channels where these bear hunters were in Alaska...mother and father had 3 cubs and were feeding at a river's edge. Hunter takes out the father. Mother charges the hunters to protect the cubs. Hunters take out semi auto pistols and blow the mother to bits. They later described the fear they had for their lives and the necessary action of killing the mother to save themselves. Yea. Great. Good job guys.
The video (which has been posted on the Board before) bears little resemblance to the description above. The unfortunate shooting of the sow was investigated by authorities. The guide didn't "blow her to bits", he fired one shot (from a rife) after the bear closed to 8 yards at full charge.
Please endeavor to get your facts straight.


... However, going on a bear slaughter because they happened to get one of us or similarly going and shooting wolves en masse after we re-released them into the wilderness just makes my blood boil.
No one is going to shoot wolves "en mass". The States involved are seeking the ability to deal with a serious problem that has been ignored by setting reasonable seasons and sound management policies.

dms1
07-08-2011, 12:30 AM
...

Old Philosopher
07-08-2011, 12:34 AM
I just wanted to point out that since Feb 22 2010 guns are now allowed in Yosemite National Park, However, pepper spray is NOT (http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/weapons.htm) allowed. I didn't believe this my self until a co worker pointed this out as I was planning my summer vacation in Yosemite.

Prayers to the victim and his family.

Doesn't surprise me one bit. OC spray is entirely too convenient to assist in relieving someone of their vacation bankroll. I've never been to Yosemite, but from the pictures I've seen, a Wal-Mart parking lot is less crowded!

walkabout
07-08-2011, 01:24 AM
Id like to start by sending my condolences to the deceased and family,
Facts are though that Old ephraim is as much deadly as beautiful,

I look at bear country like a bad neighborhood at 3am, sometimes your alright but sometimes you get robbed or even killed but you know the risks going in,
The best advice should to be like any other conflict and that is to avoid it at all costs,

It doesnt matter who you are if teddy wants ya teddy gets ya its that simple, no matter who you are your not going to outrun him or her and when caught you will be mauled or killed with the latter being the reality of the outcome,

A perfect example is the well known attack of Jedidiah Smith, a man who was much more skilled in his woodsmanship skills than me, he barely made it out of that attack alive and was going to be left for dead, his mates had to sew his face and ear back on with no pain meds, it dont matter who you are or what type of weapon you have(he had a .50 hawken iirc)if that cuddly ball of fur decides he is pissed at you theres very little chance its going in your favor even if prepared, be safe out there guys and stay alert while in there home.

tennecedar
07-08-2011, 04:24 AM
I love these "soap opera" threads. (said with a scowl) I read every post on all 11 pages and still can't see why we argue on-line about it. Debate leads to new ideas and different ways of seeing things. Arguing or making statements that anyone else's opinions are "Stupid" never gets us anywhere. Unless creating friction on the forum is the goal some folks have...

Mannlicher
07-08-2011, 06:19 AM
I love these "soap opera" threads. (said with a scowl) I read every post on all 11 pages and still can't see why we argue on-line about it. Debate leads to new ideas and different ways of seeing things. Arguing or making statements that anyone else's opinions are "Stupid" never gets us anywhere. Unless creating friction on the forum is the goal some folks have...

one man's 'debate' is another man's 'argument'. It is all semantics in the end, and the points made or not made, are subjective.

coloradowildman
07-08-2011, 06:23 AM
Bear spray has a proven track record all right. That record is MARGINALLY effective---against Black Bears. Neglibley effective against Grizzlies. Firearms against Grizzlies also have a proven track record. IF!!!! you carry a big enough gun and are very good with it.

This is simply untrue. The US Fish & Wildlife Service did a study that confirmed that Bear Spray is more effective than bullets in stopping a charging grizzly. BEAR SPRAY vs BULLETS (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/bear%20spray.pdf)

We have aggressive black bears in our area that have broke into our back porch as well as the neighbors porches and everyone here carries bear spray as the first line of defense over a firearm.

Pict
07-08-2011, 07:13 AM
yeah, I just read the article about which parks they're allowed in.

As far the 454 Casul, It looks like it delivers a little more than 2000 ft/lbs. That's still less than a 30-06 (2500-3000) and a 30-06 is usually considered too light for Grizzly. It'll do the job; but not reliably. Especially when you consider the small target area on a charging bear. And the adrenaline (yours and the bear's)

This will be my only comment in this thread.

Whenever a person loses their life to an animal attack it is a tragedy no matter the cause. From what I understand once a bear kills a human they will be more prone to doing it again or more aggressive in future encounters. So managing that particular bear becomes an issue and that is sad as well.

As for handguns against bears, I carried a .30-06 when I hunted in Alaska and lots of people said it was fine for our hunt (wolf) but light for grizzlies and I agreed. I carried a spare magazine of 220 grain SP in case we had fresh grizzly sign figuring it was the best I could do with what I had. At the same time I also had a .41 magnum which everyone agreed would be fine because it was loaded up to .44 mag velocities. It seemed like a real disconnect that my rifle was light but my handgun was OK. IMO neither of them are OK and the best bet is to stick with your buds who are all well armed too.

When in big bear country you have to be disciplined enough to do your part to keep yourself safe and avoid a confrontation. Even doing that things can happen.

wildernut
07-08-2011, 07:20 AM
one man's 'debate' is another man's 'argument'.

No it isn't.

http://youtu.be/teMlv3ripSM

santaman2000
07-08-2011, 08:32 AM
...As for handguns against bears, I carried a .30-06 when I hunted in Alaska and lots of people said it was fine for our hunt (wolf) but light for grizzlies and I agreed. I carried a spare magazine of 220 grain SP in case we had fresh grizzly sign figuring it was the best I could do with what I had. At the same time I also had a .41 magnum which everyone agreed would be fine because it was loaded up to .44 mag velocities. It seemed like a real disconnect that my rifle was light but my handgun was OK...

yeah it does sound a bit ironoic. I can only guess that they had less expectations for a "back-up"

santaman2000
07-08-2011, 08:35 AM
...the best bet is to stick with your buds who are all well armed too...When in big bear country you have to be disciplined enough to do your part to keep yourself safe and avoid a confrontation. Even doing that things can happen.

Best advise yet.

Shorty
07-08-2011, 08:38 AM
Thank you for finding that link!



The video (which has been posted on the Board before) bears little resemblance to the description above. The unfortunate shooting of the sow was investigated by authorities. The guide didn't "blow her to bits", he fired one shot (from a rife) after the bear closed to 8 yards at full charge.
Please endeavor to get your facts straight.


No one is going to shoot wolves "en mass". The States involved are seeking the ability to deal with a serious problem that has been ignored by setting reasonable seasons and sound management policies.

It has been years since I had seen the video. I remember a pistol, but I guess it was just a rifle. Still, it wasnt that far off my description. the hunters put themselves in that situation. The mother was protecting her cubs because the hunters decided to shoot the other male bear right beside them. What did they expect?? Again, I am not meaning to say I am anti-hunter or anti-gun or anything like that. I am a huge gun-rights advocate. I just tend to side with the animal when it has to do with people, because I really think that for the most part, people suck.

And regarding wolves, which is really off-topic and I should not have mentioned it...I am not referring to the legal conservation efforts to control numbers, which I of course agree with (although there is an excellent article in one of the outdoor mags talking about how the re-introduction of wolves has already made a tremendously positive impact on the environments they are in because elk and other large game are now much more mobile and grazing in different areas, which is allowing the vegetation, and hence the food chain, to be restored)...I am referring to the farmers and ranchers that are illegally shooting every wolf they see because they disagree with them being there.

Anyway, these are all controversial topics that illicit a lot of emotion, and certainly we are not going to solve the issue in a thread on an online forum...so I will stop talking.

Whitestone
07-08-2011, 08:54 AM
When I was in Alaska, the chopper pilot carried a 45/70 lever gun. The field researchers carried 12 gauge pumps with slugs and buckshot. None carried side arms. They all had pepper spray.
.
.
I stayed behind them ;-)

Malamute
07-08-2011, 09:52 AM
Are you suggesting that Yellowstone grizzlies should be hunted to control their numbers? I don't think there are but around 150 in the entire park. It's not like they are over populated.


Apologies if this has been addressed, I only have a minute, and need to get to work.


The grizzlies in the entire Yellowstone ecosytem are, in fact overpopulated for the availalbe range suitable for them. I don't know the numbers in the Park, but that isnt the whole story. The mountains surrounding the Park have many more bears than the official numbers, the State of Wy has stated such, that the official numbers were, in their opinion, just over half the true number of grizzlies. Bears are literally overflowing the suitable range, and moving into populated areas, and have been found and capturee many miles from mountains, and anything that anyone would call bear range, and the picture is getting worse each year. You don't hear on the news the true numbers of bears trapped and euthenized by the respective game dept's. There are simply too many bears for the range available to them now. Recovery has been achieved and surpassed. Many have reported sow grizzlies with 3 and 4 cubs, and have for a couple years or so. The current problem is escalating. Don't be surprised when there are more bear conflicts and human fatalities. It's been rising for several years already.

Not sure when I'll have time to read this thread in it's entirety, may be a couple days. I was surprised at how many pages it has already. What I wrote has probably already been covered,....

Pantucci
07-08-2011, 10:02 AM
Personally, for bear protection I would bring along Liz from Swamp People. She wouldn't hesitate for a second, and I could shout, "Shoot that Griz, Elidabet!"

twyggy
07-08-2011, 07:59 PM
Bear spray has a proven track record all right. That record is MARGINALLY effective---against Black Bears. Neglibley effective against Grizzlies. Firearms against Grizzlies also have a proven track record. IF!!!! you carry a big enough gun and are very good with it.

Well, I've done a LOT of research on this subject, back when I was dumb and scared of bears in the woods, and I've found quite the opposite to be true. I'm not talking about wikipedia research, I'm talking about documented cases and cited resources research using National Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife reports.

I found that the ratio of people mauled after discharging bear spray vs people mauled after discharging firearms was extremely low. I'm perfectly open to the fact that I might be wrong, and I would hate to disseminate misinformation, but, like I said, I did some pretty meticulous research on the subject and have found the opposite to be true.

Would you be kind enough to substantiate your claim of a marginal effectiveness for bearspray against bear maulings to help me learn the truth?

Old Philosopher
07-08-2011, 10:41 PM
...
And regarding wolves, which is really off-topic and I should not have mentioned it...... (although there is an excellent article in one of the outdoor mags talking about how the re-introduction of wolves has already made a tremendously positive impact on the environments they are in because elk and other large game are now much more mobile and grazing in different areas, which is allowing the vegetation, and hence the food chain, to be restored).......
That is the most bold faced balderdash I've read on the subject, anywhere! And it flies in the face of every biologist working in ID, MT and WY, and their management efforts. What a bunch of crap. If I knew what magazine, I'd write the editors.

santaman2000
07-09-2011, 12:34 AM
Well, I've done a LOT of research on this subject, back when I was dumb and scared of bears in the woods, and I've found quite the opposite to be true. I'm not talking about wikipedia research, I'm talking about documented cases and cited resources research using National Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife reports.

I found that the ratio of people mauled after discharging bear spray vs people mauled after discharging firearms was extremely low. I'm perfectly open to the fact that I might be wrong, and I would hate to disseminate misinformation, but, like I said, I did some pretty meticulous research on the subject and have found the opposite to be true.

Would you be kind enough to substantiate your claim of a marginal effectiveness for bearspray against bear maulings to help me learn the truth?

In post #112 Coloradowildman posted a link to the article on the Fish & Wildlife research. Did either one of you notice what's missing? They were comparing the effects after bear spray vs after gunfire. OK, WHAT guns? There's a whole thread going on what is an effective bear defense handgun (if there is one) What percentage of those guns in there research were high power rifles? What percentage were 38s? How many were 22s? In other words; just how many of them were really ANYTHING in an effective choice? I definitely cain't tell from that article. Can you?

It also said they were comparing how many people in each situation were injured after their defensive action. Does it break down whether the injuries of either group was more serious than the other? I don't see it anywhere in the article.

In other words it just looks like a creative use of statistics by another government agency. I say "creative" because they either omitted to gather/record the relevant data or they just decided to omit it. It certainly reinforces my confidence in the US Fish & Wildlife Service (yeah, right)

Heck, I've used pepper spray on people and it didn't work. Granted back when they let us carry REAL tear gas (CS or CN) there was never a problem but only the military gets that now. I know the "bear" version of pepper spray is stronger but so what? The bear is stronger too. Yep a lot of people carry it. but other than statistics; I've never heard FROM anybody who actually used it and only heard ABOUT 1 or 2 people who used it successfully.

My last thought is a concession though. Just like I'd rather have a mediocre handgun vs not having anything; I'll say the same about "bear" spray (I'd rather have it vs not having anything)

Old Philosopher
07-09-2011, 10:02 AM
...
Heck, I've used pepper spray on people and it didn't work. Granted back when they let us carry REAL tear gas (CS or CN) there was never a problem but only the military gets that now. I know the "bear" version of pepper spray is stronger but so what? The bear is stronger too. Yep a lot of people carry it. but other than statistics; I've never heard FROM anybody who actually used it and only heard ABOUT 1 or 2 people who used it successfully.

My last thought is a concession though. Just like I'd rather have a mediocre handgun vs not having anything; I'll say the same about "bear" spray (I'd rather have it vs not having anything)
The relative "strength" of "bear spray" vs the LEO version of OC spray has been debated (discussed?) at length elsewhere. In law enforcement we went from 5%, to 10% (both ineffective against drunks and people "high" on something else), to 15% oleocapsicum resin.
The "bear spray" I recently looked at in our local sporting goods store had TWO different percentages given. It was unclear from the label what they were claiming. One figure was 2.5% "capsicum resin", and the other was .02% (point-o-2) "capcaicin". Using either measure of capcaicin puts the "bear spray" well below the threshold found effective against humans.

Siskiyou Blues
07-09-2011, 10:10 AM
My own personal experience with bear spray is having it fail to stop a huge crackhead with a large metal pipe somewhere in chicago. The stopping power was remarkably lacking. Maybe I just bought the wrong stuff.

santaman2000
07-09-2011, 10:35 AM
Yeah, I've witnessed a pair of dogs pretty much unfazed by it too.

coloradowildman
07-09-2011, 10:43 AM
In post #112 Coloradowildman posted a link to the article on the Fish & Wildlife research. Did either one of you notice what's missing? They were comparing the effects after bear spray vs after gunfire. OK, WHAT guns? There's a whole thread going on what is an effective bear defense handgun (if there is one) What percentage of those guns in there research were high power rifles? What percentage were 38s? How many were 22s? In other words; just how many of them were really ANYTHING in an effective choice? I definitely cain't tell from that article. Can you?

It also said they were comparing how many people in each situation were injured after their defensive action. Does it break down whether the injuries of either group was more serious than the other? I don't see it anywhere in the article.

In other words it just looks like a creative use of statistics by another government agency. I say "creative" because they either omitted to gather/record the relevant data or they just decided to omit it. It certainly reinforces my confidence in the US Fish & Wildlife Service (yeah, right)

Heck, I've used pepper spray on people and it didn't work. Granted back when they let us carry REAL tear gas (CS or CN) there was never a problem but only the military gets that now. I know the "bear" version of pepper spray is stronger but so what? The bear is stronger too. Yep a lot of people carry it. but other than statistics; I've never heard FROM anybody who actually used it and only heard ABOUT 1 or 2 people who used it successfully.

My last thought is a concession though. Just like I'd rather have a mediocre handgun vs not having anything; I'll say the same about "bear" spray (I'd rather have it vs not having anything)

I think what you're not understanding is that bears aren't like people in that they don't know that they can defeat bear spray like felons that train in prison do with regular OC. It causes a terrible sensation that puts them in panic mode and they don't know that they could simply keep charging and it wouldn't really injure them.

As for the type of firearm, yes, a shotgun with 3" magnum slugs would have some real stopping power, but who here really takes a day hike with the family carrying a heavy shotgun in ready mode? As a Gulf War era veteran and having gone through urban\desert warfare training with both pistols and rifles, I can tell you that hitting a moving target that is bearing down on you (in uneven terrain) at 35mph and under high stress is much harder than anyone here realizes. I don't wish to start any arguments here as all of us generally get along well, but assumptions based on thoughts and feelings instead of sound science and research such as that in the US Fish & Wildlife study is a recipe for getting seriously injured or killed when faced with these dangerous situations. I have a pistol and knife as a backup to my bear spray against aggressive bears on our property, but the bear spray is my first line of defense. Our state game wardens also use bear spray before a firearm against a bear attack, and that is good enough for me :)

GreyOne
07-09-2011, 10:52 AM
I don't wish to start any arguments here as all of us generally get along well, but assumptions based on thoughts and feelings instead of sound science and research such as that in the US Fish & Wildlife study is a recipe for getting seriously injured or killed when faced with these dangerous situations.

I understand your point, but think that Santaman has pointed out the weakness- a study that does not differentiate between effective firearms and smaller caliber guns is NOT a truly scientific study. Same problem, how much information do we have on the initial distance at which a problem was recognized, what do we know about wind direction in the Bear Spray incidents, etc.

A lot of comparison studies are not truly scientific, and that may well be the case here. Or, they may just have omitted the relevant details from their "public" version.

santaman2000
07-09-2011, 11:27 AM
I think what you're not understanding is that bears aren't like people in that they don't know that they can defeat bear spray like felons that train in prison do with regular OC. It causes a terrible sensation that puts them in panic mode and they don't know that they could simply keep charging and it wouldn't really injure them...

Actually felons don't "train" or "practice' to resist pepper spray. Yeah I've seen them practice for violent encounters but not for chemical resistance. It's just that there is a percentage of the population who simply aren't effected by it. And for others it causes respiratory distress (that's what it's supposed do do) Yeah some panic, others simply ignore it either because they're high or because they're P***** off and full of adrenaline (like a charging Grizzly)

Let me explain it this way. In law enforcement you're trained that you are allowed to go one level of force higher than that used by your attacker. Chemical agents (in this case bear spray) is an incapacitating, non-deadly force. A charging Grizzly is deadly force. Why would I want to use one step LESS when I distrust the outcome?

When I was still a cop on the street I carried pepper spray too. Why? Because my dept. issued it. When a member of the public ever asked about it, I gave them the company line (not necessarily what I believed) because that was official dept. philosophy. You local Game & Fish Officers are also Law Enforcement Officers. They carry it because it's issued and that makes the public feel good. Some of them probably believe in it and others don't; either way they're gonna espouse dept. philosophy.

twyggy
07-09-2011, 11:36 AM
In post #112 Coloradowildman posted a link to the article on the Fish & Wildlife research. Did either one of you notice what's missing? They were comparing the effects after bear spray vs after gunfire. OK, WHAT guns? There's a whole thread going on what is an effective bear defense handgun (if there is one) What percentage of those guns in there research were high power rifles? What percentage were 38s? How many were 22s? In other words; just how many of them were really ANYTHING in an effective choice? I definitely cain't tell from that article. Can you?

It also said they were comparing how many people in each situation were injured after their defensive action. Does it break down whether the injuries of either group was more serious than the other? I don't see it anywhere in the article.

In other words it just looks like a creative use of statistics by another government agency. I say "creative" because they either omitted to gather/record the relevant data or they just decided to omit it. It certainly reinforces my confidence in the US Fish & Wildlife Service (yeah, right)

Heck, I've used pepper spray on people and it didn't work. Granted back when they let us carry REAL tear gas (CS or CN) there was never a problem but only the military gets that now. I know the "bear" version of pepper spray is stronger but so what? The bear is stronger too. Yep a lot of people carry it. but other than statistics; I've never heard FROM anybody who actually used it and only heard ABOUT 1 or 2 people who used it successfully.

My last thought is a concession though. Just like I'd rather have a mediocre handgun vs not having anything; I'll say the same about "bear" spray (I'd rather have it vs not having anything)

Thanks, you bring up a great point that had completely slipped my mind. In all the research I did, I did not factor the caliber of the weapon into the results. I made the assumption (we know where those get us) that anyone firing a weapon at a charging bear in defense would have selected the appropriate weapon to carry prior to an attack. Also, I absolutely agree with your last sentiment as I too carry a J-frame .357 instead of bear spray while I'm hiking in the woods.

While I was researching all this stuff, even downloading .mp3 interviews of people who survived bear attacks, one of the hardest obstacles by far was, like you mentioned, the limited ammount of data available. I think this limited data is the cause of the varying array of opinions regarding bear attacks. That's why I think civil discussions like this are paramount to uncovering the truth, and I applaud you for responding in kind with some great ideas.

The ratio of bearspray vs. firearm deterrents was so low that I'm not sure different caliber weapons, while certainly something I overlooked, would bring the ratio any closer to 1. In light of this new idea, I still believe bearspray is a more effective deterrent against bear mauling. But, I think we can all agree that, regardless of what type of weapon is applied to an attacking bear, the most important deterrent is understanding and predicting the animals behavior.

I'd like to offer the possibility that, in some of the enounters I researched, bearspray may only be effective at deterring bears who were never intent on attacking anyways, like bears that were doing false charges for example. I think we also both agree that, like you said earlier, nothing is going to stop a grizzly bear hell bent on attacking you.

So, when the data is gathered and interpreted, I still think the data supports bearspray as being a more effective bear mauling deterrent than firearms, however, the quality and size of the data pool are absolutely in question. The scientific method is far from flawless, and, like I said, I still hike with a .357. :4::dblthumb:

santaman2000
07-09-2011, 11:44 AM
...But, I think we can all agree that, regardless of what type of weapon is applied to an attacking bear, the most important deterrent is understanding and predicting the animals behavior...

I'll agree with this part almost completely. That is if we change the "Predicting the animals behavior' to read, "avoiding the attack." I'm just uncomfortable trying to predict a dangerous, wild animal.

Old Philosopher
07-09-2011, 02:21 PM
... As a Gulf War era veteran and having gone through urban\desert warfare training with both pistols and rifles, I can tell you that hitting a moving target that is bearing down on you (in uneven terrain) at 35mph and under high stress is much harder than anyone here realizes. ...
This statement reiterates my contention that a handgun is the least effective firearm in the situation.
As G1 mentioned, wind direction can completely nullify the effectiveness of any aerosol deterrent. MOST bears will avoid a confrontation with humans. A bear that is down wind of you will most likely identify your scent, and move away.
The types of charges we seem to be focused on are the surprise/react attacks. If the bear doesn't have time to identify the threat, they just seek to eliminate it, whatever it is.
I loved the comment about discharging OC into the wind at a charging bear as only acting as "seasoning" for its next meal. So now you have yourself basted with hot sauce, and blind, and sneezing, and the bear is still coming.
I agree with Santaman's assessment that OC is touted to the public because that's "department policy". And I would add that 1,000 people in a Park carrying pepper spray is a whole lot better than 1,000 people toting shotguns, from an LEO perspective.

GreyOne
07-09-2011, 03:56 PM
As a LEO, I know first hand that OC spray works far less reliably than might be assumed from the advertising. In the old days, we would have gone straight to a baton for physical altercations, and to a firearm if a deadly weapon was present. Those options are more reliable, but _nothing_ works 100% of the time.

I have a LEO textbook with a morgue photo of a bad guy who took 33 hits from 9mm. pistols, from several officers. At least 20 of those were classic kill zone hits. The gentleman was high , probably on PCP.

Now, the REST of the story ! :)
He was not stopped by the 33 9mm hits, he was stopped by a pair of 12 ga. slug hits in the side of his lower abdomen.

Point of this story is that force is indeed a continuum and you keep raising the level until you have stopped the threat.

Bear spray is better than nothing, a good large caliber pistol is better yet, and a major caliber rifle or a shotgun is still better, if we are dealing with an angry grizzly bear.

Old Philosopher
07-09-2011, 04:57 PM
...
Point of this story is that force is indeed a continuum and you keep raising the level until you have stopped the threat.

Bear spray is better than nothing, a good large caliber pistol is better yet, and a major caliber rifle or a shotgun is still better, if we are dealing with an angry grizzly bear.
People may have the impression that I think OC is worthless. Far from it. It's a whole lot better than a stick!
The Continuum of Force is real and valid. Keep escalating the deterrent until an effective level is reached. However, as most LEOs know, a guy with a knife in hand 20 feet away will have you for lunch before you can react, draw and fire. A grizzly has two fists full of knives, and they are lot quicker than that street thug.
I firmly believe that only enough force should be used to neutralize a threat. But if I anticipate having to force a Mack truck off the road, I'm not going to be driving a VW....

draco
07-09-2011, 06:29 PM
As a LEO, I know first hand that OC spray works far less reliably than might be assumed from the advertising. In the old days, we would have gone straight to a baton for phsical altercations, and to a firearm if a deadly weapon was present. Those options are more reliable, but _nothing_ works 100% of the time.

I have a LEO textbook with a morgue photo of a bad guy who took 33 hits from 9mm. pistols, from several officers. At least 20 of those were classic kill zone hits. The gentleman was high , probably on PCP.

Now, the REST of the story ! :)
He was not stopped by the 33 9mm hits, he was stopped by a pair of 12 ga. slug hits in the side of his lower abdomen.

Point of this story is that force is indeed a continuum and you keep raising the level until you have stopped the threat.

Bear spray is better than nothing, a good large caliber pistol is better yet, and a major caliber rifle or a shotgun is still better, if we are dealing with an angry grizzly bear.

Good points. I have watched COPS on TV and have yet to see spray stop anyone from being combative.

As others point out if I knew I was going to be attacked I would want to be in a tank with a 30 cal belt fed something. If it was likely I would take that major caliber rifle or shotgun. If it was unlikely but I wanted something just in case I would take a large caliber wheel gun.

wabow
07-09-2011, 06:38 PM
One thing is certain in this story and it's the use of the 12ga. is the only thing that saved these Rangers. This is a Great read for those who want to visit bear country. Enjoy but make sure you read ALL of the story or you will miss the part about the Rangers and how they dealt with an Angry Grizz and how they too were Very Lucky!

http://www.yellowstone-bearman.com/Tim_Treadwell.html

87Burban
07-09-2011, 06:57 PM
My brother in law was there fishing at the time of the attack.

I'll have to quiz him when he returns.

We had a lot of black bears around the house when I grew up. Never bothered anything except when a fellow up the road put some bee hives in. These were torn up within a week.

The wildlife service had a problem bear that was getting into some trash at a camp ground around that same time. In their brilliance, they trapped it and dropped it off by our place in the Blue Mountains. Started off doing the same thing on our road. One of our neighbors Ted Tate (around 75 years old) was cooking bacon in his kitchen when the bear came and tried to open the front door of the trailer. He poked his 270 out the kitchen window and shot it, then proceeded to call wildlife to come pick up their bear.

Make a lot of noise in bear country and pack a 12 bore or at least a 44 mag. Bear spray will only aggravate the situation.

GreyOne
07-09-2011, 09:59 PM
Don't mess with an old man's bacon ! :)

Great story.

coloradowildman
07-09-2011, 10:21 PM
I respect everyone's opinion here but those of you bashing bear spray are not doing it from direct experience. Bears reactly differently to OC than humans, so bashing it is not based on real world experience. Bears don't know what OC is and hate the stuff. It triggers a biological fight or flight mechanism in them that bullets don't always do. Now, if the wind is blowing then it's power can diminish. The other thing to remember is that many states do not allow loaded pistols to be carried, so many folks don't have this option.

fish
07-09-2011, 10:32 PM
heard about this on the BBC here,real scary stuff,glad the worst we have are wild boar!

Malamute
07-09-2011, 10:39 PM
This statement reiterates my contention that a handgun is the least effective firearm in the situation...

...The types of charges we seem to be focused on are the surprise/react attacks. If the bear doesn't have time to identify the threat, they just seek to eliminate it, whatever it is...



I agree that most handguns are inferior to most rifles regarding power, tho a couple points are worth consideration. First is, with good loads, many heavier handgun rounds can outperform many high power rifles regarding penetration. It isnt the paper energy that matters, it's the ability of the bullet to damage tissue and break down the frame of a large animal. A non expanding bullet (heavy handgun loads with solid bullets) often penetrates deeper and can break bones better than an expanding one, and high velocity (rifle with hunting bullet loads) often inhibits good penetration characteristics, as when fired at very close range. with good load that maintain bullet integrity when fired at very close range and maintain good penetration charactersitics, the rifle can be a very good performer, tho all those things arent a given.

The next point would be, a handgun, even a poor choice in handguns, when compared to a good rifle, may still be more likely to save the day in one regard. You carry a rifle, you wear a handgun. The guy that was jumped and killed the bear with the 41 could quite likely have lost a long gun in the initial charge and contact. He only had to reach to his side to lay hands on his handgun. He was seriously mauled in the initial contact, the bear hit him from a rear quartering ab]ngle, bit his face breaking his jaw, tearing is laranx loose, then bit down his body, breaking ribs, punchering his lung, and continued to bite down his back and leg. It then ran to it's cubs, rounded them up, and turned back to him, ears back (very aggresive behaviour, not questioning behaviour), teeth popping, and front feet pounding the ground. He got to his feet or knees, pulled his handgun,and fired 3 rounds, conciously saving three for whatever may be next. He made two body hits, with complete pass throughs, killing the bear on the spot. I believe it's quite likely that had he relied soley on a long gun, he would not have survived the encounter. The bear was clearly about to charge again. Is a handgun the best tool for killing a bear? Perhaps not, but then again, it may be the best possible thing to have when things to really wrong, and nothing else will substitute. You can't use a long gun while laying on your back, or when hit blindside, and knocked semi-senseless.

As a side note, this guy wasn't anywhere that was considered bear country, nobody had seen bears in that area, he was a couple miles from anything that was considered bear cover or country, he was in open sage brush country, it happened to be tall sage tho. We can make educated guesses about what he could have done differently, but this wasnt a place anyone expected to see a grizzly.

I believe pepper has a solid palce in the bear deterance arena, but it's shortcomings are real. Wind can not only diminsh it, but make it entirely useless, or sorse, blind the user in worst case situations. There was a case in Montana a couple years ago where two women were attacked and used pepper, they still got mugged fairly well. The pepper was mostly blown away when they used it. If it's all you have available, then you use it. I keep pepper around camp, but my first choice is a sixgun and rifle.

I don't believe a bears beliefs (or lack of them) has much part in how effective pepper spray is. Sometimes it works, and works well, sometimes it doesn't. It's not bashing it to say so, that's just life.

As far as hitting moving targets with a rifle or handgun, SHOOT MORE!!!! I used to hunt small game game with handguns, and some with rifles. I would regularly shoot 500 or 1000 rds of 22's each time out shooting for fun, and it wasn't that difficult to consistantly hit running rabbits and squirrels in trees with a pistol. What you can do with a 22 rifle or handgun translates to your larger guns. Do enough practice and you can hit things thrown in the air. Just depends on how motivated you are. I can't hit airborn things as regularly as when I shot more, but can make enough hits to feel like I still have my hand in the game. I often see comments about "the average guy can't do,...". You can choose not to be average.

Old Philosopher
07-09-2011, 10:55 PM
... He was seriously mauled in the initial contact, the bear hit him from a rear quartering ab]ngle, bit his face breaking his jaw, tearing is laranx loose, then bit down his body, breaking ribs, punchering his lung, and continued to bite down his back and leg. ....
He got to his feet or knees, pulled his handgun,and fired 3 rounds, conciously saving three for whatever may be next. He made two body hits, with complete pass throughs, killing the bear on the spot. ....
That dude is one tough son-of-a-buck! Broken jaw, lacerated throat, broken ribs...and still counts his shots.

Malamute
07-09-2011, 10:56 PM
Yes he is. He's pretty interesting to talk to.

Seniorman
07-10-2011, 01:09 AM
I prefer a centerfire rifle, 7mm and up, when in bear country, Black or Griz, and Idaho has both. That said, I always have a heavy caliber handgun very handy... and know how to use it.

When I lived in Califonria, I knew a man who had lived in Alaska many years ago, cruising timber for one of the large logging companies. While there, he had been charged by a Grizzly and had killed it with a Colt's Govt. Model .45 ACP.

He told me that one morning early in 1949, he had gone outside his cabin to his wood pile for stove wood. Suddenly from around the wood pile came a large Grizzly heading straight for him. He immediately pulled his .45 ACP pistol and fired all eight rounds, stopping and killing the bear at about his feet.

He showed me an old black & white Kodak picture of him kneeling by the dead Grizzly, Colt's .45 ACP in hand, with his woodpile just behind him. At that time, the standard load for a .45 ACP was the 230 grain FMJ ("ball") ammo, and that's what he used.

Obviously one can argue that he killed the bear with a heavy, high powered rifle and then staged the picture. I would disagree because I'd known him for some time and knew him to not be a liar.

Also, he was somewhat familiar with "high stress." He'd been a paratrooper with the 101st Div. (Abn.) the famous "Screaming Eagles," and had jumped at Normandy, into Holland, and had fought at the Battle of the Bulge, in December of 1944. Twice wounded, he had seen more than a few "high stress" situations.

I asked him, "Why'd you use a .45 ACP?"

He laughed and said. "'Cause that's all I had!"

Sometimes practice, experience, and a bit of luck, can make a difference when one finds oneself up to one's ass in alligators. :16:

S.M.

santaman2000
07-10-2011, 08:39 AM
Yeah, luck's always gonna have a lot to do with it. Unfortunately, luck's something we cain't prepare.

Old Philosopher
07-10-2011, 10:01 AM
Yeah, luck's always gonna have a lot to do with it. Unfortunately, luck's something we cain't prepare.
I think I listed that as the #1 best chance of surviving a surprise attack. Within the past 2 years, a guy here killed a griz in his hen house at 10 feet with a .410 loaded with bird shot. Go figure.... It wasn't his time.... (That was my #2 'best chance' ;))