View Full Version : Mama Grizley does it again...lost hiker
pistol p
07-06-2011, 20:23
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43661957/ns/us_news-environment/
Sad to see another incident like this happen. Stumbling onto a mama with her cubs is a very dangerous position to be in.
:(
House of Payne
07-06-2011, 20:46
tough situation, wrong place at the wrong time doing everything right. Sad...
johnnybgood
07-06-2011, 20:48
Condolences go out to the man's family for their loss , but lets not destroy the bear for she was acting on instincts ; ie protecting her cubs from a perceived threat.
There are unfortunate incidents such as this where we can only hope the family understands the bear is in it's natural habitat and we are the ones encroaching on their soil.
Walking into a mom griz with her cubs is the last thing you want to do. It must have been awful for the wife to witness.
ChinMusic
07-06-2011, 20:53
Dang, that's a bad one.
Feral Bill
07-06-2011, 23:01
Scary item. My son is working in Yellowstone and hiking there this summer.
modiyooch
07-07-2011, 07:23
I have plans to camp/hike/visit Yellowstone and the surrounding area including MT. Should I carry bear spray?? I never carried it on the AT.
Pedaling Fool
07-07-2011, 07:28
I don't think bear spray is going to deter a charging mom-grizzly in the act of protecting her young, but that's just speculation.
Trailbender
07-07-2011, 07:49
I'm not a fan of shotguns, but I know most rangers in grizzly areas carry a 12 gauge with slugs. Be heavy as hell, but worth carrying for something like that, where you knew they were around.
Fiddleback
07-07-2011, 10:32
In my 22 vistis to Yellowstone, I've seen one ranger 'carrying' a shotgun/rifle once. And that weapon wasn't so much 'carried' as contained in a saddle scabbard. But, in my observation, most Park rangers have bear spray at hand...virtually all rangers heading to the back country.
FB
ChinMusic
07-07-2011, 10:49
Any details coming out about this incident? Like, was it a case of the hiker wanting to get closer for a picture, etc.? What did the couple do upon first seeing the bear? Did they stop and slowly retreat or try to walk by?
trainhopper
07-07-2011, 11:50
This story is indeed sad. I came across a bear with a cub hiking just the other day and it is a scary situation. Luckily I was in NJ and the bear was a black bear. This is why I am going to get my pistol permit. I know that the bear was just acting on instincts and is not to blame, but if I was put in this situation with the people I loved I would want to have a gun to defend them. Plus a warning shot in the air might let both parties leave the scene unharmed.
HiKen2011
07-07-2011, 11:56
This story is indeed sad. I came across a bear with a cub hiking just the other day and it is a scary situation. Luckily I was in NJ and the bear was a black bear. This is why I am going to get my pistol permit. I know that the bear was just acting on instincts and is not to blame, but if I was put in this situation with the people I loved I would want to have a gun to defend them. Plus a warning shot in the air might let both parties leave the scene unharmed.
More people are attacked and killed by BLACK bears than grizzlies, I wasn't aware of this fact until the other day. At least that's what I heard on a news channel?????????
I never carry pepper spray in black bear areas, but I always do in grizzly country.
This seems like a case of very bad luck.
There are a LOT more black bears in the U. S. than grizzlies, and they live next to (and sometimes inside) areas of human population. It's much more likely that they will encounter people. Grizzlies are much more isolated, only in the Absaroka region of Wyoming/Montana/Idaho and Alaska for the most part, with almost no exposure to populated areas.
Also, a hungry black bear will attack small humans for food. Lone children and small women have been targeted here in the southeast, usually in late May/early June before berries have begun to bear fruit. It's still an extremely rare incident, but it has happenned. There are virtually no incidents of grizzlies attacking humans as a food source. They typically make due with fish until elk begin dropping calves, their preferred food source in early summer. Hiking in a group seems to substantially reduce chances of being attacked, at least statistically.
Nutbrown
07-07-2011, 14:05
Before you go off and get a gun for protection, learn how to use it with your eyes closed and one hand behind your back. A gun is incredibly dangerous in the hands of a scared, untrained person. I carry bear spray on almost any hike I go on. Makes the family feel better about me being out by myself.
ChinMusic
07-07-2011, 14:35
Hiking in a group seems to substantially reduce chances of being attacked, at least statistically.
The magic number for Griz seems to be 4. I do not recall any group of 4 or more being attacked. Every attack I can recall is either a solo or couple. When we camped in Alaska we tented closer than we would on the AT.
Mrs Baggins
07-07-2011, 18:37
According to the news reports today: 1) they were not lost. 2) they saw the bear about 100 yds up the trail, backed away very slowly, and then turned and tried to walk away slowly and quietly. They looked back over their shoulders and the bear was in full charge. The husband yelled for his wife to run and she managed to get in behind some bushes. The bear killed her husband and then came after her. She played dead, it picked her up and dropped her and left. So....they did nothing like try to get closer, take pictures, interfere with cubs (which the wife said they never saw), or do anything else to anger the bear other just be living and breathing.
Rocket Jones
07-07-2011, 18:41
According to the news reports today: 1) they were not lost. 2) they saw the bear about 100 yds up the trail, backed away very slowly, and then turned and tried to walk away slowly and quietly. They looked back over their shoulders and the bear was in full charge. The husband yelled for his wife to run and she managed to get in behind some bushes. The bear killed her husband and then came after her. She played dead, it picked her up and dropped her and left. So....they did nothing like try to get closer, take pictures, interfere with cubs (which the wife said they never saw), or do anything else to anger the bear other just be living and breathing.
Wow. That would seem to indicate that this wasn't just momma protecting cubs, if she had to charge that distance at retreating "threats".
ChinMusic
07-07-2011, 19:32
Wow. That would seem to indicate that this wasn't just momma protecting cubs, if she had to charge that distance at retreating "threats".
If that story is the truth they gotta kill Momma. Again, IF.
IMO, that is way too aggressive to be allowed to live. I know I wouldn't feel comfortable hiking there IF that story is true and they left it.
Mrs Baggins
07-07-2011, 19:47
The same news report talked about 2 other griz attacks in Yellowstone in the past year. One came into a campground at night, everyone in their tents, no one out threatening the "poor bears" and the griz dragged people out of their tents and killed them. Another went out of the gates of the park and pursued people to kill them. The whole "animals before people" crowd will stop their moaning when it's their loved ones who are mauled. Or maybe not. Maybe they'll stand back, say "it's the bear's land" and just let it happen. Wouldn't want to be related to them.
Some misinformation and ill-advised intentions in this thread. Grizzlies do kill and eat people in Alaska and the Yukon. Just ask the relatives of Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend. Alaskan natives will tell you that a pistol on more useful as peace of mind than as a means of protection. Most cheechakos (Lower 48 folks) don't have the training and experience to use a large caliber handgun (.44 magnum or higher), rifle, or shotgun to effectively counter a brown bear/grizzly attack; more often they end up shooting themselves or another human. Pepper spray works well on humans, sometimes bears; it's in the same class as firearms, but without the lethality, although you might wish you were dead if you spray yourself, which happens often.
The news on this unfortunate incident says that back country areas in the vicinity of the attack will be closed. NPS staff will try to locate the bear, tranquilize it, give it a locator collar, and track its movements; it's unlikely that they will shoot it, given the circumstances. That might not sound fair from justice perspective, but that's how it goes in cases like this. If the bear is tracked close to hiker areas, it and the cub will be tranquilized and transported out of the area. Repeat behavior will result more permanent measures.
johnnybgood
07-07-2011, 20:12
Interesting ... but NBC didn't spin it that way. Tragic just the same.
modiyooch
07-07-2011, 20:13
According to the news reports today: 1) they were not lost. 2) they saw the bear about 100 yds up the trail, backed away very slowly, and then turned and tried to walk away slowly and quietly. They looked back over their shoulders and the bear was in full charge. g. The informations I have is that they continued hiking once they saw the bear.....
Nash said the couple saw the bear twice on their hike.
The first time, they continued hiking. The second time, the grizzly charged them and Matayoshi told his wife to run
Old Boots
07-07-2011, 20:19
It is very sad story but all to true to life. Maybe she was protecting her cubs or maybe she felt they were encroaching on her territory. At this distance we can all speculate about how we would react. I was chased up a tree by a grizzly in Glacier park in 1963. It was one scary time. If I had had a gun I would not have had the presence of mind to shoot the bear because I was so terrified. Most of us do not have the training to calmly aim and shoot at a charging grizzly. They are extremely fast and ferocious. It is highly doubtful that, barring a very accurate shot, discharging a firearm at the bear would have deterred it.
Old Boots
07-07-2011, 20:24
One further comment. We need to remember that we are only one part of the natural order. When we enter the milieu of other creatures we need to tread very lightly and carefully. And even when we are careful there is always a risk and that is part of the allure of the wilderness.
The only way to get this rolling the other way is an annual bear hunt in each of the national parks. They learn quick to vanish when they sense people. Doesn't have to be a big unlimited hunt. Just 20-50 a year and the word gets around the bear community.
johnnybgood
07-07-2011, 20:39
The only way to get this rolling the other way is an annual bear hunt in each of the national parks. They learn quick to vanish when they sense people. Doesn't have to be a big unlimited hunt. Just 20-50 a year and the word gets around the bear community. Sorry , but that's a knee jerk reaction IMO .
Lone Wolf
07-07-2011, 21:05
dude shoulda had some protection
According to NBC News this evening, the bear will not be shot or moved as it was deemed she was protecting her cubs.
I am sorry for the family, but thankful the correct decision has been made.
It is a terrible accident to run into a mother bear defending her cubs. It was not the fault of the bear.
TrailPossum
07-07-2011, 21:33
dude shoulda had some protection
It's very sad and unfortunate the man was killed but Lone Wolf is right. Going hiking in Grizzly country without bear spray (being that it is Yellowstone and firearms are prohibited) is like going to Antarctica without a jacket, it just doesn't make sense. :(
Alaskan natives will tell you that a pistol on more useful as peace of mind than as a means of protection. Most cheechakos (Lower 48 folks) don't have the training and experience to use a large caliber handgun (.44 magnum or higher), rifle, or shotgun to effectively counter a brown bear/grizzly attack; more often they end up shooting themselves or another human. Snip.
Care to offer some proof of that statement? Sounds ridiculous to me.
That was her first cubs ever or her last due to age.But the park has WAY to much MONEY TO LOSE IN SALES to ever let the true story out.
I have plans to camp/hike/visit Yellowstone and the surrounding area including MT. Should I carry bear spray?? I never carried it on the AT.
Good Grief man, bear spray is an absolute necessity in the backcountry here.
I don't think bear spray is going to deter a charging mom-grizzly in the act of protecting her young, but that's just speculation.
Speculation based on nothing I'd say.
As to handguns, I don't carry in the summer months. Only during hunting season when packing out bloody elk meat. Then I'm always armed, including bear spray which is the best first-line of defense IMO. Fall bears are more aggressive than spring/summer bears and acting like a predator (hunting) isn't an especially good way to avoid bears. Of course a mama with cubs is always problematic, no matter the season.
It's very sad and unfortunate the man was killed but Lone Wolf is right. Going hiking in Grizzly country without bear spray (being that it is Yellowstone and firearms are prohibited) is like going to Antarctica without a jacket, it just doesn't make sense. :(
Firearms are absolutely allowed in Yellowstone...
TrailPossum
07-07-2011, 23:38
Looks like they did change that in 2010 Brad, thanks for the heads up.
Care to offer some proof of that statement? Sounds ridiculous to me.
Well, I've been to Alaska, hiked in remote areas, and spoken to Alaskan Natives about it. I've also read a few books on the subject. If you read books, go to Amazon.com and key word search on Alaska and grizzly bear, buy some books, and read them.
Trailbender
07-08-2011, 00:21
Most cheechakos (Lower 48 folks) don't have the training and experience to use a large caliber handgun (.44 magnum or higher), rifle, or shotgun to effectively counter a brown bear/grizzly attack; more often they end up shooting themselves or another human.
As many shooters as there are in the lower 48, I'd find this very hard to believe. Even if half of them were inept.
Killing a bear with a handgun takes genuine skill, luck or more likely both.
I've owned/own enough large caliber handguns (including a 454 Casull) to know in a tense situation making a stopping shot on a bear is damn near impossible.
In fact, I believe a 357 Mag you shoot well (loaded with hard-cast LBT super-penetrating bullets) is likely a better grizzly bear defense weapon than the 44 Mag and up stuff. Less recoil, more precision, less muzzle jump, faster follow-up shots...
Note, bears are about impossible to stop without a CNS (Central Nervous System)hit. They'll keep on chomping through you with a lethal, but non-CNS hit. A properly stoked 357 is as capable to make a CNS hit as anything larger, and it will be easier to do with for most mortals.
But bear-spray is so well-proven, I believe it's beyond intelligent debate it's a mush more reliable bear stopper than a handgun. The ultimate stopper for me would be something like a 20" bbl'd 458 Win, but most of us aren't going to lug around a rifle.
Looks like they did change that in 2010 Brad, thanks for the heads up.
You're more than welcome TP... just wanted to keep the record straight.
As many shooters as there are in the lower 48, I'd find this very hard to believe. Even if half of them were inept.
There's another way to look at it. The grizzly is way faster than a human. Shooters might be fast at the range, but things change when 500+ pounds of bear is flying at you at 35 mph from 50 yards away. That's how it was explained to me and it's what I read. I own firearms and shot 289/300 on a Government Colt 1911 .45 cal. for qualification as expert, back in the day. It's hard to do at 5-7 meters. It takes the grizzly less than half a second to cover that distance. You might get one shot off, but who's to say you'll hit the bear? Momentum will have that bear on top of you and it won't likely be dead. That's how it was explained to me by people who live in Alaska and I believe it.
Good Grief man, bear spray is an absolute necessity in the backcountry here.
I respectfully disagree. Many people, myself included, think that hiking without bear spray is usually a perfectly acceptable risk, even in grizzly country. This was the first fatal attack in Yellowstone in about 25 years.
In my opinion the reason the story is newsworthy is that fatalities are relatively very rare (about 1 out of 2,000,000 Yellowstone visitors are INJURED [as opposed to killed] by bears (http://www.aolnews.com/discuss/2010/07/28/yellowstone-bear-attack-what-are-the-odds#gcpDiscussPageUrlAnchor),) and people are inordinately fearful of bears and morbidly fascinated by attack stories.
I think it could be rationally argued that wearing a helmet while driving a car is much more likely to save your life than carrying bear spray while backpacking. Bear spray itself is not without potential risk, including overconfidence in it's use and the risks of accidental discharge. A few days ago I encountered a sow grizzly with cubs, which ran as they usually do. Shortly thereafter a pilot told me about a bush plane in which a can of bear spray had gone off with people jumping out in all directions, luckily while still on the ground. As far as I know the only time I have been in the backcountry with someone carrying bear spray it went off in a saddle bag. Luckily in that steep country the horse wasn't sprayed.
I certainly don't mind if people want to carry bear spray. It can be useful in those rare cases when it's needed, but I see the greatest value in peace-of-mind.
I think the bottom line here is that the risk of being killed by a bear on the AT is infinitesimal and there is no advantage to carrying a pistol.
Trailbender
07-08-2011, 03:48
There's another way to look at it. The grizzly is way faster than a human. Shooters might be fast at the range, but things change when 500+ pounds of bear is flying at you at 35 mph from 50 yards away. That's how it was explained to me and it's what I read. I own firearms and shot 289/300 on a Government Colt 1911 .45 cal. for qualification as expert, back in the day. It's hard to do at 5-7 meters. It takes the grizzly less than half a second to cover that distance. You might get one shot off, but who's to say you'll hit the bear? Momentum will have that bear on top of you and it won't likely be dead. That's how it was explained to me by people who live in Alaska and I believe it.
Well, if you can't hit something as big as a grizzly that is only 5 meters away, you probably deserve to get eaten(you in general, not you personally). I really wouldn't want to take one on with a handgun, even a good one, but it is a lot better than nothing. I would prefer a shotgun with slugs, or a high powered semi auto rifle, if I had to travel through a grizzly area and had no choice about the matter.
Well, if you can't hit something as big as a grizzly that is only 5 meters away, you probably deserve to get eaten(you in general, not you personally). I really wouldn't want to take one on with a handgun, even a good one, but it is a lot better than nothing. I would prefer a shotgun with slugs, or a high powered semi auto rifle, if I had to travel through a grizzly area and had no choice about the matter.
You missed the entire point... anyone can "hit" a grizzly. To "stop" a bear you need more than just a "hit"... a bear can do a lot of damage to you while it's dying with a lethal wound. What's needed is a CNS hit. THAT will stop a bear, but is a very difficult thing to do with a handgun.
Fiddleback
07-08-2011, 09:52
The same news report talked about 2 other griz attacks in Yellowstone in the past year. One came into a campground at night, everyone in their tents, no one out threatening the "poor bears" and the griz dragged people out of their tents and killed them. Another went out of the gates of the park and pursued people to kill them. The whole "animals before people" crowd will stop their moaning when it's their loved ones who are mauled. Or maybe not. Maybe they'll stand back, say "it's the bear's land" and just let it happen. Wouldn't want to be related to them.
The first instance didn't happen in Yellowstone NP. A small point perhaps but given the population density of griz in the Park and the 3 million-plus visitors the low rate of aggressive interaction is interesting.
The second instance, as far as I can remember last year's reports of bear encounters, is fantasy.
FB
Fiddleback
07-08-2011, 09:56
Early reports quite often don't get everything right. None the less, here's what I woke up to early this morning:
"The couple saw the bear twice on their hike, according to Yellowstone spokesman Al Nash. The second time, the bear charged them and the couple ran, according to a press release. “The bear caught up with them, attacking Mr. Matayoshi. The bear then went over to Mrs. Matayoshi, who had fallen to the ground nearby. The bear bit her daypack, lifting her from the ground and then dropping her. She remained still and the bear left the area.”It does not appear the couple carried bear mace."
http://www.newwest.net/topic/article/details_emerge_about_fatal_griz_attack_on_hikers_i nside_yellowstone/C41/L41/
FB
Trailbender
07-08-2011, 18:47
You missed the entire point... anyone can "hit" a grizzly. To "stop" a bear you need more than just a "hit"... a bear can do a lot of damage to you while it's dying with a lethal wound. What's needed is a CNS hit. THAT will stop a bear, but is a very difficult thing to do with a handgun.
Which is why I recommended a shotgun instead of a handgun. If you were in bear country, expecting a bear, carrying a slug loaded shotgun, I think you would be able to get 1 or 2 good hits in. That might not be enough, nothing is ever guaranteed, but 2 12 gauge slugs in a bear's head might at least slow it down.
Trailbender
07-08-2011, 18:58
That's with a pump, actually. If you had a Saiga short barrel or some other semi auto loaded with hard cast slugs, it would probably work even better.
You said:
; more often they end up shooting themselves or another human. Pepper spray works well on humans, sometimes bears; it's in the same class as firearms, but without the lethality, although you might wish you were dead if you spray yourself, which happens often.
Which implies it is better not to have a gun. A. I don't ever recall hearing of someone shooting another person rather than an attacking bear, or shooting themselves. B. Even being poorly trained, a gun gives the person a chance. Even a non-CNS but fatal/serious hit will eventually stop the bear which is certainly better than curling up in a ball and hoping for the best.
Bears are powerful, strong animals, but they are not magic, unstoppable, or made of stone. The Grizzly that was for many years the world record was killed with a .22LR.
It seems foolish to walk in grizzly country without something (whether gun or bear spray). Yes, the odds of an attack are quite small : so are the odds of a commercial airliner going down in water, but they still have life preservers. Certainly, one needs to follow proper precautions so as to avoid an encounter and take the attitude that a gun or bear spray will save you, but when the excrement hits the rotary air mover, I'd sure like to be armed.
You said:
Which implies it is better not to have a gun. A. I don't ever recall hearing of someone shooting another person rather than an attacking bear, or shooting themselves. B. Even being poorly trained, a gun gives the person a chance. Even a non-CNS but fatal/serious hit will eventually stop the bear which is certainly better than curling up in a ball and hoping for the best.
Bears are powerful, strong animals, but they are not magic, unstoppable, or made of stone. The Grizzly that was for many years the world record was killed with a .22LR.
It seems foolish to walk in grizzly country without something (whether gun or bear spray). Yes, the odds of an attack are quite small : so are the odds of a commercial airliner going down in water, but they still have life preservers. Certainly, one needs to follow proper precautions so as to avoid an encounter and take the attitude that a gun or bear spray will save you, but when the excrement hits the rotary air mover, I'd sure like to be armed.
well, those plane owners and those who fly on them are just paranoid! PARANOID, i tell you! making up for their own inadequacies by having life preservers.. the shame. what kind of life do you have if you go around living in fear. what if i don't want to be around someone that has a life preserver? i demand that all life preservers be banned. learn to swim you lazy ****ers!
pistol p
07-08-2011, 23:41
You said:
It seems foolish to walk in grizzly country without something (whether gun or bear spray). Yes, the odds of an attack are quite small : so are the odds of a commercial airliner going down in water, but they still have life preservers. Certainly, one needs to follow proper precautions so as to avoid an encounter and take the attitude that a gun or bear spray will save you, but when the excrement hits the rotary air mover, I'd sure like to be armed.
I'm with you...better safe than sorry.
...learn to swim you lazy ****ers!
Sorry, I wish I knew how
. My Dad was right, I am stupid.
the Morning Report article:
" Yellowstone National Park (ID,MT,WY)
Yellowstone Visitor Killed by Grizzly Bear
A 57-year-old Torrence, California, man is dead after an encounter with a grizzly bear Wednesday morning. Brian Matayoshi, and his wife Marylyn, were hiking Wednesday morning on the Wapiti Lake Trail, located off the South Rim Drive, south of Canyon Village and east of the park’s Grand Loop Road. The couple was hiking west back toward their vehicle. At approximately 11 a.m., at a point about a mile and a half from the trailhead, they walked out of a forested area into an open meadow. It appears that the couple spotted a bear approximately 100 yards away and then began walking away from the bear. When they turned around to look, they reportedly saw the female grizzly running down the trail at them. The couple began running, but the bear caught up with them, attacking Matayoshi. The bear then went over to Matayoshi’s wife, who had fallen to the ground nearby. The bear bit her daypack, lifting her from the ground and then dropping her. She remained still and the bear left the area. She then walked back toward the meadow and attempted, without success, to call 911 on her cell phone. She began to shout for help and was heard by a distant group of hikers who were able to contact 911 by cell phone. Two rangers already in the area on backcountry patrol were contacted by the park Communications Center by radio and responded to the scene of the incident. Matayoshi received multiple bite and clawing injuries, and was dead when rangers arrived at the scene at approximately 11:30 a.m. Rangers immediately closed the hiking trails in the area. A subsequent helicopter patrol of the area failed to turn up any other hikers or backpackers. This small section of the park’s backcountry is expected to remain closed for several days. The initial investigation suggests the sow grizzly acted in a purely defensive nature to protect her cubs. This female bear is not tagged or collared, and does not apparently have a history of aggression or human interaction. Typically, the National Park Service does not trap, relocate, or kill a bear under those circumstances. A Board of Review which will include interagency experts will be convened to review the incident. Bear attacks are extremely rare. No one was hurt by a bear in Yellowstone in 2010. This is the first time a human has been killed by a bear in the park since 1986. Park visitors are encouraged to stay on designated trails, hike in groups of three or more people, and be alert for bears and make noise in blind spots. Visitors are also encouraged to consider carrying bear pepper spray, which has been shown to be highly successful in stopping aggressive behavior in bears. The Matayoshis were not carrying pepper spray.
[Submitted by Al Nash] "
key item IMO is that they _ran_
Which is why I recommended a shotgun instead of a handgun. If you were in bear country, expecting a bear, carrying a slug loaded shotgun, I think you would be able to get 1 or 2 good hits in. That might not be enough, nothing is ever guaranteed, but 2 12 gauge slugs in a bear's head might at least slow it down.
Yours is a moot point, which was my point. Nobody is going to hike with a shotgun (or the superior bolt action 458 WM or similar stopping round I recommend)... bear spray is a better deterrent than a pistol which is what most backpackers would carry.
I think the bottom line here is that the risk of being killed by a bear on the AT is infinitesimal and there is no advantage to carrying a pistol.
Actually no, that's not the bottom line. This discussion is about the grizzly of the Northern Rockies, not black bears in the Appalachians. But I agree, I've never bothered with bear spray on the AT.
For anyone, YNP's rules on firearms:
http://www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/lawsandpolicies.htm
That's with a pump, actually. If you had a Saiga short barrel or some other semi auto loaded with hard cast slugs, it would probably work even better.
Only a noob would use a complicated, high maintainance auto as a dangerous game stopping weapon... a simple CRF bolt action is the way to go.
Actually no, that's not the bottom line. This discussion is about the grizzly of the Northern Rockies, not black bears in the Appalachians. But I agree, I've never bothered with bear spray on the AT.
Oops, my bad. I looked at the upper right corner of this website and saw that Whiteblaze.net is a community of Appalachian Trail enthusiasts. I take your point on the topic of the OP, but I'm sure that a lot of members read this stuff and wonder about their safety on the AT. Some members wonder if they need firearms on the AT or state their intentions to carry firearms. That's a bad idea because they will likely make themselves subject to arrest for violating state and local laws governing open and/or concealed carry. I'm a firm believer in the Second Amendment, but some people are morons when it comes to firearms. If I see someone carrying or talking about carrying while I'm on the trail, I'm will put some distance between me and them. The purpose of my prior post was to dissuade fellow trail enthusiasts of their fears while on the trail and to not confuse what happened in YNP with what they will encounter on the AT.
Tuckahoe
07-09-2011, 10:16
Well never underestimate God's blessed cartridge the .45acp given to man through his prophet John Moses Browning :D
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/05/grizzly-bear-shot-and-killed-hikers-denali-national-park-and-preserve5943
Trailbender
07-09-2011, 11:53
Only a noob would use a complicated, high maintainance auto as a dangerous game stopping weapon... a simple CRF bolt action is the way to go.
Not a noob, actually. I have been shooting and studying firearms for 15 years, so I do have quite a bit of knowledge. A pump action is slower to put rounds on target. A Saiga uses the AK action, and is a very reliable firearm. I wouldn't leave the mags loaded for a long time, as the hulls can get squeezed and cause jams. Auto shotguns today are as reliable as pumps, particularly a Benelli M4 and a few other models. In fact, in high stress situations, a pump can be short stroked, and jammed up.
I hear gun store "experts" mention that auto shotguns are unreliable. That is garbage, and you should actually research them more before stating that. Of course, it can jam, any firearm is a machine, and subject to such. The likelihood is slim, however.
trainhopper
07-09-2011, 13:07
Before you go off and get a gun for protection, learn how to use it with your eyes closed and one hand behind your back. A gun is incredibly dangerous in the hands of a scared, untrained person. I carry bear spray on almost any hike I go on. Makes the family feel better about me being out by myself.
I already have two guns and do know how to use them. A pistol in NY however is much different because you need a carry permit. Of course if I got a pistol I would shoot it to get a feel for the gun. I just don't think guns are as dangerous as they are perceived to be. I would keep the pistol concealed and never even touch it unless the situation was a dire one (like the one we are talking about). I don't feel people need to be trained in how to act with a gun facing a charging grizley. They might want to practice their shot but that is up to them. It is alot more dangerous a person to only have bear spray.
modiyooch
07-09-2011, 14:17
so there are conflicting reports. one is that they continued hiking; the other they retreated. which is it? as far a running when you see a bear, it was out of my control the first time I saw a bear on the AT, but I believe he ran faster in the opposite direction.
Not a noob, actually. I have been shooting and studying firearms for 15 years, so I do have quite a bit of knowledge. A pump action is slower to put rounds on target. A Saiga uses the AK action, and is a very reliable firearm. I wouldn't leave the mags loaded for a long time, as the hulls can get squeezed and cause jams. Auto shotguns today are as reliable as pumps, particularly a Benelli M4 and a few other models. In fact, in high stress situations, a pump can be short stroked, and jammed up.
I hear gun store "experts" mention that auto shotguns are unreliable. That is garbage, and you should actually research them more before stating that. Of course, it can jam, any firearm is a machine, and subject to such. The likelihood is slim, however.
Using firearms in actual real-life situations is different than reading about them. I've been shooting, hunting big game and handloading for 40 years. Have been up close and personal with more than a few grizzliies, including Alaskan Brown Bears. I'll take my experience over your reading. Auto's and Pumps require more constant maintainance than a simple bolt action.
Aside, never seen an African PH using an auto or pump to backup clients... the preferred weapon is some sort of Mauser or Mauser clone in an appropriate chambering. And that ain't theoretical.
Trailbender
07-09-2011, 18:50
Using firearms in actual real-life situations is different than reading about them. I've been shooting, hunting big game and handloading for 40 years. Have been up close and personal with more than a few grizzliies, including Alaskan Brown Bears. I'll take my experience over your reading. Auto's and Pumps require more constant maintainance than a simple bolt action.
Aside, never seen an African PH using an auto or pump to backup clients... the preferred weapon is some sort of Mauser or Mauser clone in an appropriate chambering. And that ain't theoretical.
I have used firearms in real life situations, I wasn't in Iraq selling Girl Scout cookies. It isn't just about reading, I have handled and shot many firearms over the years. Autos don't require that much maintenance, the Marine Corps uses the Benelli M4 auto, and they have done tests of thousands of rounds fired without lubrication or cleaning. Same for the Saiga 12. A bolt action is fine, but if I was to come face to face with a grizzly, I'd prefer a reliable auto with hard cast slugs. Personal preference, I suppose.
Your talk of autos being crappy and unreliable reminds me of the 1911 guys bashing Glocks.
Tuckahoe
07-09-2011, 20:37
I am a fan of semi-auto rifles and shot gun and I love bolt actions, but I certainly wouldnt rely on a Saiga. But then again I am one of those 1911 guys too.
Trailbender
07-09-2011, 21:31
I am a fan of semi-auto rifles and shot gun and I love bolt actions, but I certainly wouldnt rely on a Saiga. But then again I am one of those 1911 guys too.
Why not? Saigas are incredibly reliable, basically an AK shotgun. I like 1911's and Glocks, just about any gun for that matter. Not sure why some people bash Glocks, they are more durable and reliable than any handgun I have seen out there. There is a test of a guy who has 250K rounds through the same Glock. It seems like people resist change, even when something better comes along. I hear it all the time with optics on combat rifles, RDS pistols, ect. I wasn't trying to say a high caliber bolt action was a bad weapon, they are very reliable and accurate, obviously moreso than a shotgun, but I would prefer a shotgun for the closer range stuff.
I learn and practice on a wide variety of weapon systems, you never know when you will have to use an unfamiliar firearm. I mainly do so on the AK and AR platforms, as those are the most widely common "assault rifles" out there.
I have used firearms in real life situations, I wasn't in Iraq selling Girl Scout cookies. It isn't just about reading, I have handled and shot many firearms over the years. Autos don't require that much maintenance, the Marine Corps uses the Benelli M4 auto, and they have done tests of thousands of rounds fired without lubrication or cleaning. Same for the Saiga 12. A bolt action is fine, but if I was to come face to face with a grizzly, I'd prefer a reliable auto with hard cast slugs. Personal preference, I suppose.
Your talk of autos being crappy and unreliable reminds me of the 1911 guys bashing Glocks.
Military and Game applications are two different things... pretty easy to spot an armchair expert.
Trailbender
07-10-2011, 00:08
Military and Game applications are two different things... pretty easy to spot an armchair expert.
Far from it, I have plenty of practical training. Reliability is the same for military or game, you think that a reliable firearm is going to suddenly not be functional just because it is for game hunting? That doesn't even make sense. You haven't really posted anything that shows off your "expertise", either. The question was mainly what would you carry for close range bear encounters, an autoshotgun with hard cast slugs more than fits the bill. I wouldn't be wanting to mess with a bolt action at those ranges.
Considering that you think an autoshotgun is unreliable doesn't give much faith in trusting anything else you would have to say, since you are clearly wrong about that.
Far from it, I have plenty of practical training. Reliability is the same for military or game, you think that a reliable firearm is going to suddenly not be functional just because it is for game hunting? That doesn't even make sense. You haven't really posted anything that shows off your "expertise", either. The question was mainly what would you carry for close range bear encounters, an autoshotgun with hard cast slugs more than fits the bill. I wouldn't be wanting to mess with a bolt action at those ranges.
Considering that you think an autoshotgun is unreliable doesn't give much faith in trusting anything else you would have to say, since you are clearly wrong about that.
Lets see all the photos of dangerous game you've taken, or any Big Game for that matter... it's pretty easy to spot a theoretical expert.
No Guide I know uses an auto or pump as a backup for dangerous game. None. But what the hell do they or I know... and yes, military and BG applications are different. Auto's, for one, don't handle heavy stopping cartridges. Pump 12 ga's don't penetrate like a solid from a 375 H&H, 416 RM or 458 Win (all three of which I've owned and used)... you can fool the fans but not the players...
Fiddleback
07-10-2011, 09:57
It is alot more dangerous ((for)) a person to only have bear spray.
I don't track Canadian or even Alaskan grizzly encounters. But in the lower 48, i.e., the Northern Rockies, a high proportion of encounters (and fatalities) are hunters...armed hunters. Of course, there is no causation between the weaponry and the encounters rather the hunters' stealthy methods which lead to surprise encounters, I think. Unfortunately, every group has its black sheep and hunter-grizzly encounters occasionally lead to a grizzly being shot...from a distance...leading to a dsiputable, 'self-defense' contention. Still, even with those successful 'defenses', there is a high proportion of injuries and deaths amongst those who carry.
While hunters, law enforcement, military and some other groups are populated by well trained and even experienced individuals, the general backpacking population is not. Given the risk of personal injury, injury to others on the trail, and the difficulty for anyone to get off an effective shot on a rapidly closing bear, bear spray is safer and more effective IMO. Others strongly disagree. But I am more concerned with a different argument.
Again in the lower-48, there aren't a whole lot of grizzlys nor is there a whole bunch of habitat where they are allowed to roam naturally (or, what is considered 'natural' today). Our desire for outdoor recreation does not justify a bear's death and those that feel the risk calls for lethal protective means should backpack somewhere else. And I contend the same for those who don't carry bear spray.
Bear spray protects more than the hiker...it also protects the bear. A bear involved in an encounter that does not result in human injury is one that is most likely allowed to live. If one is going to hike in girzzly country, particularly that which is set aside to protect wildlife and its habitat, then one should carry bear spray as a personal responsibility to self and to the wildlife. If ya' don't want to carry bear spray, stay out out of grizzly country.
Protect a bear...carry bear spray.:)
FB
Trailbender
07-10-2011, 10:53
Military and Game applications are two different things... pretty easy to spot an armchair expert.
Yep, it's someone that thinks bolt actions are great for close range fighting, and shotguns aren't.
Trailbender
07-10-2011, 10:58
Also, if you don't consider a 3" magnum slug a heavy stopping cartridge, I am not sure what to tell you.
Anyways, you are a spoiled, whiny dumb@ss, welcome to ignore. Don't try to talk to a 15 year expert like a newbie and expect to get anywhere.
Wise Old Owl
07-10-2011, 11:03
I like the part where the area is roped off ( barricaded) by rangers after the incident and dumb-ass still walks around the things to get to the trail....not knowing what they are for!
Tuckahoe
07-10-2011, 13:41
Lets see all the photos of dangerous game you've taken, or any Big Game for that matter... it's pretty easy to spot a theoretical expert.
No Guide I know uses an auto or pump as a backup for dangerous game. None. But what the hell do they or I know... and yes, military and BG applications are different. Auto's, for one, don't handle heavy stopping cartridges. Pump 12 ga's don't penetrate like a solid from a 375 H&H, 416 RM or 458 Win (all three of which I've owned and used)... you can fool the fans but not the players...
Brad, I think that you laid it out pretty clearly. Some folks just dont want to listen.
The Saiga is a toy and gets worse the more people try to screw with it trying to make it look like the AK. I love the AR, I have built ARs, but I wouldnt consider the various cartridges available for it sufficient for Grizzlies. The benefit of serious bolt actions is that they are built for bigger, heavier and harder hitting cartidges that can put the big animals down.
I already have two guns and do know how to use them. A pistol in NY however is much different because you need a carry permit. Of course if I got a pistol I would shoot it to get a feel for the gun. I just don't think guns are as dangerous as they are perceived to be. I would keep the pistol concealed and never even touch it unless the situation was a dire one (like the one we are talking about). I don't feel people need to be trained in how to act with a gun facing a charging grizley. They might want to practice their shot but that is up to them. It is alot more dangerous a person to only have bear spray.
Oh my. It isn't the guns that are dangerous, it's the users who won't train. And saying that users who rely on firearms for wilderness defense have no obligation to train for the threat is like saying no one needs driver education to operate a car.
Brad, I think that you laid it out pretty clearly. Some folks just dont want to listen.
The Saiga is a toy and gets worse the more people try to screw with it trying to make it look like the AK. I love the AR, I have built ARs, but I wouldnt consider the various cartridges available for it sufficient for Grizzlies. The benefit of serious bolt actions is that they are built for bigger, heavier and harder hitting cartidges that can put the big animals down.
Prezactly. I like auto's and military weapons (as well as pump shotguns) as much as the next guy, but they're not backup weapons for dangerous game, period. The 3" 12 ga magnum is better than a handgun, but isn't close to the penetrating/stopping ability of a 375 H&H or 416 RM with a flat-point solid or something like a Barnes TSX. Nothing beats the absolute simplicity and reliability of a properly tuned bolt action (for me I'm biased to controlled round feed actions like the Mauser and Pre-64 Wnchester).
Here's one elk I took that I'll post... it was an interesting hunt as I tracked this bull all morning and shot him at 50 yards dozing in his bed. How it is relevant to this thread is that just 1/4 mile before I shot him I crossed a big, fresh boar grizzly track in the snow. I'll tell you, I'd take a bolt 30-06 over any pump or military auto. Hauling the meet out the next day, I made sure I came in upwind and let my scent drift down to the quartered animal:
http://i1192.photobucket.com/albums/aa326/bradmacmt/Hunting/IM000612.jpg
Some misinformation and ill-advised intentions in this thread. Grizzlies do kill and eat people in Alaska and the Yukon. Just ask the relatives of Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend. Alaskan natives will tell you that a pistol on more useful as peace of mind than as a means of protection.
Timothy Treadwell was an idiot. I do feel sorry for his girlfriend. Pistols can certainly kill a grizzly. http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2008/01/grizzly-attack-caught-camera?photo=13#node-1000014248 http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2008/01/grizzly-attack-caught-camera?photo=20#node-1000014248 Seems that some in Montana know how to kill a Grizzly when they decide to attack a human. But I certainly believe that anyone that behaves like Treadwell deserves to be bear scat. Certainly can't blame the bear that ate him.
Timothy Treadwell was an idiot. I do feel sorry for his girlfriend. Pistols can certainly kill a grizzly. http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2008/01/grizzly-attack-caught-camera?photo=13#node-1000014248 http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2008/01/grizzly-attack-caught-camera?photo=20#node-1000014248 Seems that some in Montana know how to kill a Grizzly when they decide to attack a human. But I certainly believe that anyone that behaves like Treadwell deserves to be bear scat. Certainly can't blame the bear that ate him.
Did you see the badge that guy was wearing, or what he does for a living? I can assure you Warden Kis trains on that .357. It's not a question of where he lives...
Seems that some in Montana know how to kill a Grizzly when they decide to attack a human.
Yup, I carry a 357... it's enough. But only during fall hunting season. Otherwise the wiser choice is spray IMO.
An ar-15 (5.56) with 30rd magazine full of 75gr bthp is all you need for ANY bear period. if i ever hike in grizzly bear country you bet ill have a glock in 9mm or 45acp on my hip weather its "legal" to or not. im in black bear country now so i dont think ill need anything more than a pocket gun. any gun is better than bear spray... take a .22lr pistol!
pafarmboy
07-11-2011, 00:05
Is it me, or does every time an assault (by human or animal) turn up on this site the thread turns into a "I'm cool cause I can carry a gun" diatribe. You all think you're Wyatt Earp. Laughable.
Is it me, or does every time an assault (by human or animal) turn up on this site the thread turns into a "I'm cool cause I can carry a gun" diatribe. You all think you're Wyatt Earp. Laughable..
In fencing, touche.
Wise Old Owl
07-11-2011, 22:56
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCi4QgPoHZE
wornoutboots
07-12-2011, 12:40
I read a bear attack book a few years ago & every survivor had use bear spray & not guns. Wow just thinking about being in that position with a a grizzly racing towards you, it would be one HUGE test to stand still & patiently wait to fire off that cloud of spray!!
Skidsteer
07-12-2011, 17:46
Is it me, or does every time an assault (by human or animal) turn up on this site the thread turns into a "I'm cool cause I can carry a gun" diatribe. You all think you're Wyatt Earp. Laughable.
Wyatt Earp was pretty bad ass but I have a better moustache.
pistol p
07-12-2011, 18:12
IMHO it just comes down to awareness. People should fully know what they are getting into when hiking in grizzly country. Personal protection, whether gun or spray, is up to the individual. Which works better? Well, that's a matter of opinion. I have not been in grizzly country, but I guarantee that I WILL carry spray, when I do go. Better safe than sorry.
trailangelbronco
07-12-2011, 19:37
An ar-15 (5.56) with 30rd magazine full of 75gr bthp is all you need for ANY bear period. if i ever hike in grizzly bear country you bet ill have a glock in 9mm or 45acp on my hip weather its "legal" to or not. im in black bear country now so i dont think ill need anything more than a pocket gun. any gun is better than bear spray... take a .22lr pistol!
I live in Idaho and also travel to Alaska alot. They find bears all of the time with 7-8 bullets. In Grizz country people laugh at little teenie 5.56 rounds. Guides carry 45-70 alot, or shotuns with slugs.
Bears are very fast. They charge at 30 mph, and they are very low to the ground when they charge. Many shots miss, espcially when you are crapping in yer pants and that over priced undersized AR-15 is shaking in yer hands. Come out on a Grizz hunt with me in Alaska and the other hunters may offer to loan you a 45-70 so that we don't have to carry your body all the way out.
I live in Idaho and also travel to Alaska alot. They find bears all of the time with 7-8 bullets. In Grizz country people laugh at little teenie 5.56 rounds. Guides carry 45-70 alot, or shotuns with slugs.
Bears are very fast. They charge at 30 mph, and they are very low to the ground when they charge. Many shots miss, espcially when you are crapping in yer pants and that over priced undersized AR-15 is shaking in yer hands. Come out on a Grizz hunt with me in Alaska and the other hunters may offer to loan you a 45-70 so that we don't have to carry your body all the way out.
Heimo Korth would agree with you. YouTube search for Heimo Korth and see why, particularly the episode where he bumps into a grizzly at night and has to shoot it several times with a large caliber rifle before he could kill it.
Trailbender
07-13-2011, 15:29
The Saiga is a toy and gets worse the more people try to screw with it trying to make it look like the AK. I love the AR, I have built ARs, but I wouldnt consider the various cartridges available for it sufficient for Grizzlies. The benefit of serious bolt actions is that they are built for bigger, heavier and harder hitting cartidges that can put the big animals down.
The Saiga is a sturdy and reliable weapon. Making it look like an AK does not affect the receiver or magazine, so it would have no effect on reliability. Also, they are not making it "look" like an AK, it is an AK, just has to have the sporter stock for importation.
I wasn't debating that bolt actions are useless, far from it. They fire powerful, accurate cartridges. They have their place, but I don't feel that place is close range. You have a smaller magazine capacity and a slower firing weapon.
That's such a sad story.
Today my wife and I were hiking Rich Mountain Loop Trail at Cades Cove in the GSMNP. 1.5 miles into the trail we walked within 50 ft. of a HUGE momma and her two cubs. We never saw or heard them until we were almost parallel with them. They were quite and blended in. It was frightening at first but we stayed quiet, backed up slowly while I got out my whistle and mace. We gave them several hundred ft. of space and observed them, wishing they would go away but they played and kept wandering around the trail so we left to do another trail.
I live in Idaho and also travel to Alaska alot. They find bears all of the time with 7-8 bullets. It undoubtedly has happened but it's not common and certainly doesn't happen "all the time."
sir limpsalot
07-21-2011, 05:54
I read a bear attack book a few years ago & every survivor had use bear spray & not guns. Wow just thinking about being in that position with a a grizzly racing towards you, it would be one HUGE test to stand still & patiently wait to fire off that cloud of spray!!
The ones with guns didn't make for much of a story.
Fiddleback
07-21-2011, 09:14
Actually, it's the other way around. Gun play involving a grizzly most certainly makes the news...because it requires an investigation to determine if the shooting of a (protected) grizzly was justified, i.e., self-defense. Reporting of such shooting is similarly required.
While reporting the use of bear spray inside NPs is (presumed to be) required, reported instances both inside and outside NPs usually get low key treatment. One reason? No injury to the bear(s), no injury to the hikers.
Maybe it's the old saw, 'bad news makes the headlines, good news doesn't'. :)
FB
richardgrobbler
04-25-2012, 00:49
Is it legal to carry a shotgun for protection? I know a CCW permit doesn't count long guns, and I wouldn't be out trying to hunt any. I just don't want to get mauled/eaten by bears and or my girlfriend/friends/children to get mutilated in front of me. I would much rather drop a bear (they grow back) than try to replace a loved one or pay for years of therapy after I witness a wild animal rip my loved one's arms off.
Also, what caliber of handgun can take a bear out?
I know some people are probably butthurt by my statements, but we live in a dangerous world, and I'm not willing to be a victim to hostile humans or animals.
ChinMusic
04-25-2012, 00:52
Is it legal to carry a shotgun for protection? I know a CCW permit doesn't count long guns, and I wouldn't be out trying to hunt any. I just don't want to get mauled/eaten by bears and or my girlfriend/friends/children to get mutilated in front of me. I would much rather drop a bear (they grow back) than try to replace a loved one or pay for years of therapy after I witness a wild animal rip my loved one's arms off.
Also, what caliber of handgun can take a bear out?
I know some people are probably butthurt by my statements, but we live in a dangerous world, and I'm not willing to be a victim to hostile humans or animals.
Post #1? Please tell me you are a troll.
T.S.Kobzol
04-25-2012, 08:07
You could probably carry some home made (holy) handgranades.
Is it legal to carry a shotgun for protection? I know a CCW permit doesn't count long guns, and I wouldn't be out trying to hunt any. I just don't want to get mauled/eaten by bears and or my girlfriend/friends/children to get mutilated in front of me. I would much rather drop a bear (they grow back) than try to replace a loved one or pay for years of therapy after I witness a wild animal rip my loved one's arms off.
Also, what caliber of handgun can take a bear out?
I know some people are probably butthurt by my statements, but we live in a dangerous world, and I'm not willing to be a victim to hostile humans or animals.
Care to offer some proof of that statement? Sounds ridiculous to me.
You are right it is. When I lived in Alaska the only people that shot themselves or other people were drunk Alaskans. But the same can be said of most places.
In Alaska bear country = 338 Win Mag.
In refeference to the original story, a bear that will attack and kill a human once will do it again. I like bears but I like live uninjured people more.
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2