Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.

OT - Grizzly Attack near Yellowstone

Discussion

21 replies
Posted by Kurt Bowman on July 9, 2010 at 9:58 AM
I feel very bad for the man's family and my thoughts and prayers are with them, but I sure hope they don't have to put this Grizzly down after this attack. Seems like the bear was simply reacting to man tranquilizing and tagging him. Especially since this seemed to happen right after he woke up from the tranquilizer.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/19/grizzly-bear-kills-man-near-yellowstone-park/
Posted by Jack Garrett on July 9, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Sorry Kurt but they did wind up destroying the bear the next day. I saw this a couple weeks ago and was following up on it. I agree that tranquilizing the bear most likely had something to do with his behavior.
Posted by Jared Atencio on July 9, 2010 at 10:25 AM
bears can sometimes become more aggressive after they've been trapped and tranquilized..a grizzly bear that had been captured 20 times and drugged 12 times....

What an interesting theory? Who wouldn't be pissed and become at least a little distrusting of humans after having these pleasant interactions? You would also think they might close that section of the trail after releasing a tranquilized bear back into the wild? Anyway, I also feel for the man's family and believe it's not entirely the bear's fault.

Out of curiosity, how do most of you protect yourselves from natural predators etc.? I've had a couple scary encounters when all I had was a tripod to swing, but wonder if anyone carries any protection out in the field and what? Are sprays and such any real deterrent?
Posted by Kurt Bowman on July 9, 2010 at 10:26 AM
Thanks for the follow-up Jack. That bums me out a bit.....something about that just doesn't seem right.
Posted by Bret Edge on July 9, 2010 at 10:52 AM
What the article doesn't note is that this man was advised not to enter the area and there were warning signs posted. He gambled and lady luck wasn't on his side this time. When I see "do not enter" signs in grizzly country, I heed the advice.

Jared: I carry bear spray and a .44 magnum. Thankfully, I've never had to use either despite a few encounters with grizzly and black bears, and one way too close run-in with a giant bull moose in the Tetons a few years ago (that one was entirely my fault).
Posted by Koveh Tavakkol on July 9, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Jared, your best bet is to get a can of spray as Bret mentions. It is certainly bad news all around, but I agree that they should have closed that area of the trail after messing with a bear like that.
Posted by Kurt Bowman on July 9, 2010 at 11:41 AM
I agree about closing the area would have been the smartest thing to do...maybe they will learn from this, so they don't have to keep destroying these animals and stop people form getting killed.
Koveh, I also carry bear spray (in foam form...very important, as I understand it, regular spray can bounce off their fur if wet...foam sticks to it) when in bear country and also a handgun. Don't have a .44, which is really what is needed, but carry a .357 with hollow-point rounds (just enough to really tick off a Grizzly)
Posted by Jack Garrett on July 9, 2010 at 12:07 PM
This gun thing brings up a question. If you shoot a bear, mountain lion or whatever..can you be charged with anything if you are licensed to carry?
Posted by Bill Bean on July 9, 2010 at 12:11 PM
As Bret mentioned, there were warning signs posted while the research team was working in the area. No mention has been made on whether they were taken down after the bear was drugged and tagged. Either way it's a sad thing for his family but at the same time you have to remember, when you enter an area where you are no longer on top of the food chain precautions need to be taken. You don't go into grizzly country alone and certainly not without some sort of deterrent. Bear spray is good, .44mag is better.

Speaking of which, I have a sealed, unopened can of bear spray from REI from my trip to Yellowstone in May. Due to crummy weather we didn't do any hiking so it wasn't even taken out of the REI sack. Anyone heading up there is welcome to it. Shoot me an e-mail.
Posted by Brian Jackson on July 9, 2010 at 12:21 PM
This gun thing brings up a question. If you shoot a bear, mountain lion or whatever..can you be charged with anything if you are licensed to carry?


I'd be curious to what that answer is to this as well. Actually there might not be a correct answer as of the supreme court decision a few weeks ago.

Stories like this piss me off too. Stupid human takes risk when there are warning signs and then they kill the bear. Hey, it's the guys right to take the risk, but don't kill the bear for the humans dumb decision.

For me I carry a gun with me when I'm out in the woods. I've never even pulled it and hopefully never will have to. But I'd rather be standing, explaining to the park ranger/police whatever what happened, take my punishment if there is one, then for that same park ranger/police to be explaining to my wife what happened.
Posted by Jared Atencio on July 9, 2010 at 12:29 PM
Thanks for the follow up. A few close encounters really make you feel pretty vulnerable out there and I'd like to take all reasonable precautions to protect myself. I guess you have to be aware of your surroundings, follow posted closures and restrictions, and do what makes you feel comfortable, whether that means carrying a .44 or bear spray/foam. I'm sure the more "wild" places you venture into and the more intimate interactions you have with these creatures, the more willing you are to take serious measures for protection.
Posted by Koveh Tavakkol on July 9, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Jack, I am not sure on all the legality myself, but as I understand it you can even carry without a conceal license in the wilderness, as long as it is not "concealed". That said, I don't know the details on shooting and killing an animal, but as Brian mentioned, if your life is truly in danger, I would rather be dealing with explaining to the cops/rangers than dead. That said, I by no means think it is acceptable to provoke these animals by doing anything to get a picture.

I have yet to be anywhere that there is a high chance of a bear encounter, but if I was I would have bear spray. My .40 would do nothing against a bear but piss it off. =P
Posted by Bret Edge on July 9, 2010 at 12:51 PM
Jack and Brian: The short answer is this - while it is now legal to carry a firearm w/i a national park it is illegal to discharge it. If you fire your weapon in self-defense you could legally be charged w/ discharging a firearm. Whether you are charged or not would probably come down to the outcome of their investigation. If they determine that your life or that of another human was in imminent danger, you probably would not be charged.

Outside of a national park is a whole other ball game. You'd have to check w/ BLM or Forest Service about their regulations.
Posted by Kurt Bowman on July 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM
From what I understand, it is also only legal to carry inside a National Park if you have the required permits to carry in your state and the state the NP is in must also recognize your state laws. I have read the orignal purpose of the law in the NP was so people moving from one state to another would not get ticketed for carrying. I guess what I am saying, is it's a confusing mess (as usual) and somehwat fuzzy from what I have read. Either way, I would rather get a ticket or even jail time then be found dead....especially to be eaten...that just seems messed up.
Posted by Don George on July 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM
From what I've heard from guy's who live in the area this guy knew they were tagging that day. One of the tag team was a good friend of his. The person who was killed owned a cabin in the area and was a noted botanist and author. He knew better and wasn't even carrying his bear spray with him. I know the area and it is prime grizzly country. If your going to carry bear spray make sure its a magnum container and its bear spray not just pepper spray. I've seen several bear charges over the year and it raises the hair on your back. The snapping of the jaws and foaming at the mouth is enough to give you nightmares.
Posted by Todd Caudle on July 11, 2010 at 2:28 AM
Whatever the law says, if I'm charged by a grizzly while I'm packing heat, I'm shooting first and suffering the consequences later. Not that I foresee myself being in that kind of situation, since I don't spend any time in grizzly country. With a black bear or mountain lion, I'd sure put a few rounds in the ground at their feet first, and shoot to kill only if that didn't work and the animal had obvious bad intentions.
Posted by Doug Roane on July 11, 2010 at 12:23 PM
Sad story. Grizzlies are my biggest fear hiking in Montana and Yellowstone. Let me just say that if you are going to carry a gun to protect yourself from a grizzly attack, you'd better be damn good with it and fast, and carry at least a .44! If not, then carry bear spray. No, it's not 100% effective, but pretty darn good, and much more reliable for the average hiker than a gun. In many cases, you will be lucky to have time to pull out a gun, let alone accurately aim it! It's important to remember that the majority of grizzly charges are bluffs - so countless bears would be needlessly injured or killed if you shot at every charging bear. We are in their territory, and the majority of attacks are from surpising a bear or if it sees you as a threat to it's cubs or food supply - very very few attacks are predatory. The best measure is caution - avoid hiking alone in grizzly country as much as possible (groups of at least 4 are best), make lots of noise, and in areas where the brush is thick and visibility is poor, especially around noisy rivers, I have my bear spray in my hand with the safety off, ready to discharge.
Posted by Howard Cihak on July 11, 2010 at 1:22 PM
Am I correct in my understanding that bear spray must be discharged at a fairly close range (4 to 6 feet) because it either can't travel any significant distance or because it will dissipate too much?

On a recent trip to the Canadian Rockies I heard one person say (off the record) that ordinary wasp spray was preferable because it did not dissipate for about 20 feet. I suspect that isn't legal, but it seems this thread has already established that breaking the law is preferable to becoming a grizzly dinner.
Posted by Doug Roane on July 11, 2010 at 6:03 PM
Howard, bear spray has a range of about 30 feet. 4 to 6 feet would be way too late to do any good. The idea is the bear runs into the cloud of spray, feels the sting in the eyes and thinks twice.
Posted by Howard Cihak on July 11, 2010 at 6:09 PM
Doug, how does this square with someone's comment that the foam was more effective than the spray, especially if the bear's fur is wet? Is the foam effective at that distance?
Posted by Doug Roane on July 12, 2010 at 8:59 AM
Howard, I've read many books about grizzlies and grizzly attacks and have never even heard of the foam. The effectiveness of the spray is based on it getting into the eyes, so that argument doesn't make any sense to me - the bear is coming towards you. It comes out not as a liquid, but as a vapor, which leaves a cloud hanging in the air for a few seconds.
Posted by Ed Fuhr on July 13, 2010 at 9:07 AM
Dave Parker on the glacierparkchat has a lot of good information on bear sprays and how to avoid an unpleasant bear encounter. I would not hike Yellowstone and Glacier w/o spray. http://glacier.nationalparkschat.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4206