Could be.

I bet they were using other protocols developed to keep everyone
safe while doing a stream crossing. Stream crossings being
a more frequent cause of death during outdoor education trips.

One of my friends worked as a botanist for the Forest Service
in Alaska. Their job was mostly staring at the ground. They traveled as a group, each carried pepper spray and had one lookout with a shotgun.

The latest I read was that the bear had cub(s) with her and when it comes to protecting their cubs, bears don't play by the rules...

Please read the article a bit closer. They weren't talking themselves out of the situation they were calling out - ie. making noise to ward off the precesnce of the bear -- BIG BIG difference. Since the first 2 took the brunt of the attack it is likely that they surprised the bears by their presence and that any noise making they were doing was not effective. I quite imagine that with a group of 7 teens, they were doing a lot of talking especially as they were organinzing themselves to cross the stream.

I find the attack most interesting as there has NEVER before been a documented attack on a group larger than 6 (not 4) people (Dr. Stephen Herrero has studied and documented EVERY bear incident in NA since the start of Yellowstone NP). The fact that this was a sow with cubs probably explains the actions of the grizzly. It would be interesting to note the terrain they were in, was it a blind spot? Did they chance upon a berry or salmon feeding area? The attack occured at 8:30 pm as they were lining up for a stream crossing so there would have been good light. Bears often feed at daybreak or dusk.

I find the tactic used by NOLS also interesting, I would like to know more about it. There were 7 other students and 3 instructors some 6 miles away. I guess they must break the larger group up into smaller units. This group had a PLB so at least they were able to communicate the emergency; it was activated about 1 hour after the bear attack. NOLS as well as other outdoor groups have these month long courses (sometimes longer) used to cultivate young outdoor leaders. This portion of the training had them alone without an experienced instructor (as if that would have changed ANYTHING in the attack at all is only conjecture). They are aged 16-19 so it appears unlilkely that any were qualified to handle guns. I don't know of ANY of these outdoor schools that will even permit weapons on any of their courses - full stop - period. So discussion about having firearms in this situation is a non-starter.

Hmm, despite that fact that statistically, a person is much more likely to die of a bee sting than a bear attack, even in Alaska?

As I noted last night, any type of deterrent protection whether it be gun or spray needs to used immediately. Most bear attacks are made with very little warning and usually over in a few seconds. Add in the panic amongst the group along with a very determined and protective female bear and it is easy to comprehend what the outcome was.

Another thing to keep in mind, this could of happened anywhere bears inhabit and not just in Alaska. All my life, I have had enough bear encounters either on solo, 2 person to 4 person group hikes to know that the next encounter could be the last...you just never know.

Bear spray is most effective if you get to spray it BEFORE the attack while the bear is still many feet away from you. Once the attack has begun, I suspect the bear could care less if you poured a bucket of spray on his/her head as they really get into it. Whether or not the teens had such warning is totally unknown.

I tend to think the no firearms rules stem from world views
rather than actual reason. You can train youngsters to do some
extreme activities and yet maintain reasonable safety. (I think we should too. Better than leaving
them to find their own thrills, if you know what I mean.)

Millions (12.5) of teenagers roam the wilds each year
armed. Some solo, some as young as grade school. There are few
accidents relative to the participating numbers.

NOLS will allow rock climbing, mountaineering and unaccompanied
travel in trail-less environments. Activities that without proper training and judgment lead to death and injury. No
real reason they can't teach how to safely use firearms in the
bush just like many Alaskans do.

The probable real reason can be summed up in 3 words "fear of litigation" if something goes wrong. That said, I would not be surprised if there is not any litigation stemming from the bear attack.

Through all this discussion, can we be mindful of the differences between grizzly and black? The original post is about a grizzly. I see people saying "bear", and I wonder if they're lumping all bears into one category. So, while the discussion seems useful on the surface, I'll have to assume someone is talking about black bears if they say "bear". That's to err on the side of caution.

I am confused: you would not be surprised if there is NOT any litigation from this, which means you do not expect litigation? If so, I would have to disagree.

It may not be right, but NOLS may get sued out of existence on this one, especially if any of the kids dies or has ongoing disability.

Frankly I'm surprised something this big hasn't happened to them before. I heartily approve of the outdoor experiences they provide like climbing, solo hiking, etc. but I can't imagine putting myself on the legal hook for the welfare of strangers doing those activities.