Another bear post...

But one with a mostly happy ending, everyone survived, including the bear.

Bear attack in Yellowstone

My DD is currently supervising a salmon survey crew on Prince William Sound. In bear prone areas at least two of the six crew members carry shotguns as well as bear spray. You don't mess with bears eating or protecting their cubs.

Sounds like it ended up as well as can be hoped. Chalk up a 'save' for bear spray!

News story
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2013/08/16/nl-torngat-polar-bear-attack-doctor-816.html

Probable trip
http://www.sierraclub.org/outings/national/brochure/13026a.aspx

I saw this one too. Just unbelievable. No amount of eco-sympathy and karma points will prevent a polar bear from hunting you for food. When the parks department recommends hiring an armed local hunter for bear safety, you think people would have the wit to do so.

" Also nice to see two cans of bear spray both used successfully."

Depends on your version of success.

"She tried running from the bear but it caught her, dropped her to the ground, and scraped and clawed at her, she said. So she tried petting it, but "that did not work, so then it just got me again."
Then she played dead -- and the bear walked away."

When bears attack: 7 people mauled by bears in recent days
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/us/bear-attacks/
--

Chalk up a save for playing dead.

They apparently didn't follow the advice in their own brochure:

"Learn the special considerations for bear country. Contact the local public land agencies for advice and resources"- this is in their section on LNT principles.

I get it that firearms would be contrary to the conservationist ethic of the Sierra Club, and in general I am sympathetic to their principles. Polar bears, however, are a rather different breed of cat (or rather, ursid). It makes perfect sense to me to carry a twelve gauge in PB country, along with a full complement of slug loads - not to be used immediately, but available when necessary.

I understand that classically polar bears and native Inuit were in a state of mutual predation - "Let us prey" so to speak....

This would probably really tick off the Sierra Clubbers, but I know an older native Alaskan with lots of bear experience that says #9 is what he uses. He would never shoot a bear unless it couldn't be avoided but he asserts that a blast of birdshot in the face of the bear ends things fast. Yes, this technique does require some follow up on the part of the shooter...finishing off the bear.

At any rate, don't use your birdshot on the messenger! I'm just relaying the words of an old timer that's dealt with bears for 45 years or so.

BTW, every bear attack story I see in the news calls them "anomolies",no matter how many there are. The old Alaskan bear guy says not as anomolous as you think, FWIW.

Phaedrus,
I don't mean to diss your friend, but even allegedly experienced old timers sometimes give bogus advice. (For example there are still people around who will tell you to drink whiskey in cold weather to keep warm.) In my opinion your friend was giving you very bad advice.

The virtually unamimous advice from bear hunting guides, biologists, and others with experience shooting bears is that if you choose to carry a firearm for bear protection you should:
1. Try to avoid getting in situations where you need to shoot.
2. Carry the most powerful gun you can shoot very well.
3. Practice until you are extremely proficient with that gun!
4. Select heavy solid bullets with good penetration.
5. If you must shoot, shoot to kill.
6. If you wound a bear, you must follow it into the brush and make sure it is dead.

Back in 1983 the USFS in SE Alaska did a study to determine the most appropriate firearms for USFS employess to carry for bear protection. That study needs to be updated, since there are many more gun and bullet options now, but the basic recommendations are still valid.

Bear hunting guides sometimes have to go into the "pucker brush" to finish off a bear wounded by a client. Some have been known to carry the 458 Winchester Magnum. The 375 H & H Magnum and the 338 Winchester Magnum are popular bear hunting rifles. The minimum rifle that most would recommend for bear protection would be a 30-06 with heavy bullets (220 gr).

A 12 gauge pump shotgun with an 18 inch barrel, loaded with rifled slugs, is also a good choice for bear protection. These guns have good penetration, are fast to bring into action, point well, and can be fired rapidly. (Note however that buckshot is not considered a good ammo choice by knowledgable persons.)

Handguns are severly lacking in power (relative to rifles and 12 gauge), but are easier to carry and can be fast to bring into action. If you opt for a handgun for bear protection a 44 Magnum with hot loaded solids is the minimum. However, in my experience, many people carrying 44 Mags don't practice nearly enough with them and aren't skilled enough with big handguns to rely on them for bear protection. In my opinion, many of those folks would be better served by carrying a 12 gauge with slugs.

The forest service study had more to do with bullet construction than caliber. Some of the more powerful guns were down rated because the bullet came apart.

Also note the deep penetration the old colt 45's and 45-70's had. Energy was
less, but penetration was good.

Cherry pick and you get these results.

Colt 45 handgun penetration 14.3"
338 winchester mag rifle 14.7"

45-70 17.8"
460 Wthby Mag 17.2"

As I explicitly stated "That study needs to be updated, since there are many more gun and bullet options now...." The methodology of the USFS study could probably also be updated, using more modern methods of testing.

However the point remains that if you choose to carry a firearm for bear protection, the best gun is the most powerful one that you can shoot well. The best test is performance on actual bears. The weapons I mentioned (375 H&H, 338 Win Mag, 12 gauge with slugs, etc) are some of those that have been very widely and very successfully used either in bear hunting or bear defense. Certainly many other calibers will also do the job.

I killed a brown bear on a hunt with one shot from a 338 Win Mag using 250 Nosler Partition bullets. I killed a black bear with my 30-06 with 220 gr bullets. Doing field work in the Brooks Range, my employer equipped us with 12 gauge pump shotguns using slugs. I spend a lot of time outside in Alaska. These days my personal choice is to carry bear spray. Spray has achieved very good results in actual bear charges, and is much lighter to carry than any firearm. Your choices may vary.

Shot placement has a little something to do with stopping bears. It's not all about power.

AKSAR,

My daughter first learned to shoot the 12 gauge when she was working for the USFS trail repair crews around Cordova. Normally they had one bear protection person per crew. But her crew is doing salmon surveys in the middle of prime bear food habitat (the salmon spawning streams in PWS). In the photos she sends there are two guys with the 12 gauge shotguns (Remington 870's I think). So far, no problems but she has another 6 weeks on the Sound so Mom's (and Dad's) fingers are crossed.

Bears aren't the only threat, however. Got a picture of her diving off the boat into the sound with the caption " water's great, just have to be wary of the jellyfish and seal attacks..."

That about put Mom over the edge.

That is why in my last post I said "....that you can shoot well."

And further upthread I also said "3. Practice until you are extremely proficient with that gun!"

Sounds like your daughter is having a great time in Alaska. PWS one of my favorite places!

Mom and dad can take comfort in the fact that dangerous bear encounters in Alaska are actually not all that common, considering the large number of people out and about in bear country. From what I have seen the USFS also does a good job of training their employees in good field practices to avoid having bear trouble in the first place.

Not to down play bear hazards, but there are lots of things to be more concerned about. Hypothermia, boating, and flying worry me more than bears.

But Alaska is a wonderful place. One just has to be careful.

I would agree with AKSAR. While the potential hazards of bears should be recognized, falls and drowning are far more common causes of death, although you wouldn't know that from internet discussions and news reports.

One of the easiest ways to avoid bear trouble is to keep a clean camp and secure all food-like items. One of the very best back country camps I have ever experienced was in Denali NP (I believe the location was known as Sunshine Pass)- beautiful weather and a gorgeous sunset. We were mindful because grizzlies had been reported from the spot just the day before. We clean up , cooked away from the tent, stowed our food at still another spot, and enjoyed Alaska.

There's the rub in this case. They are picking up salmon post spawning, making measurements, hacking off the heads, extracting the ear bones (the otoliths) and collecting other DNA; all in the bears' backyard. But she's been doing this for some years and knows how to keep the bears aware and away. She's never had a close call but will occasionally get a little too close for my comfort...



Been to Alaska a couple of times, everyone needs to go there once.

Yes, some activities put one at a higher risk. Working in a salmon stream during the run, covered in fish blood and gore, is certainly one of those activities. Sounds like her crew is going about it in a safe manner, with two guards.

#9 shot? Blind it before you dispatch it? Probably gain a second or two to do so. Just remember to pack T.P...

I'm not endorsing this guys method, but he actually used the technique successfully. Yeah, I expect that blinding it is the idea, probably pretty hard to do much with no eyes, etc. It sounds awful I grant you, but if the alternative is being killed...

"Been to Alaska a couple of times, everyone needs to go there once."

that includes me .. haven't been but it's on my bucket list. I plan on having a great time, and I'm not aiming at making any bears mad.

Pete2

I would absolutely love to get up to Alaska! It would rock to camp, hike and fish there for a month.

you know ... based on this thread I went back and took a look at the news. You guys are right - there have been a LOT of bear attacks in 2013. Wonder what is going on???

Generally I dismiss the whole "bear attack" thing because I'm lucky and the only bears that live in my area are black bears. They are usually on the timid side. But when I checked the news stories I was amazed to discover that several of the incidents have been caused by regular black bears. And furthermore, it doesn't look as though some of the victims did anything particularly wrong. The bears just attacked - that's it.

Not sure what's going on here. Normally I might say that the "problem" is due to more people venturing in the wilderness. But in my neck of the woods ... it's the total opposite. I was up in the High Sierras last week myself - and I have never seen as few people in the campgrounds as I saw last week. I pretty much had the whole place to myself, and in some areas the local "economy" is actually shutting down due to no customers to buy things. The modern generation is just not going out there.

so I wonder what's going on??

Pete2

"Random variation" may be what's going on, at least if your reference is to the article reporting seven bear incidents. On the other hand, a mad scientist in Scotland (AFLM's evil cousin) may splicing genes from killer cobras into the black bear genome, and teleporting them to North American wilderness areas - this being first steps in his plan for world domination - simply unbearable!(Where's James Bond when you need him?)

The correct explanation probably lies somewhere between these two extremes.

Unfortunately, the bear did not survive in this one, but it demonstrates the application of current policies....Please discuss


Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area (MT,WY)
Aggressive Black Bear Destroyed

On August 9th, a 120-pound female black bear was killed at Black Canyon Campground in a joint operation by rangers and Montana Fish and Wildlife officers.

Over the last three years, this black bear had gotten into unsecured food and coolers brought in by day users and campers at this popular campground on Bighorn Lake and recently displayed aggressive behavior toward people. Black Canyon has been closed to the public at various times during past years due to this bear and was just recently closed to the public on July 26th. Bear activity in the area had been monitored by rangers since this most recent closure.

While monitoring the closed area, this same bear reappeared. A ranger shot a rubber slug deterrent round at the bear, hitting it front and center; although the bear ran into some brush, it came back out five minutes later. The ranger then shot a second rubber slug deterrent round at the bear, hitting it in the back. The bear again ran away, but returned within fifteen minutes.

A decision was made by park management in conjunction with the park’s standard operating procedures and step-up plan that the bear would need to be killed due to its habituation to humans and human food and its lack of significant response to the deterrent rounds fired by the rangers.

During an investigation of this latest occurrence, a 22-year-old woman was cited for feeding wildlife after she admitted to throwing a hotdog to the bear prior to the area closure. Other food storage violations are being investigated.
[Submitted by Dale Kissner, Supervisory Park Ranger]

The news release should be titled "Stupid Humans employ Utterly Imbecilic Behaviour to Guarantee a Bear's Untimely Death."

A fed bear is a dead bear.

Like it or not, the rangers acted correctly. The bear had to be destroyed. A bear never, ever forgets a food source and will pursue it and defend it once habituated.

As for the stupid humans, there's a temptation to smear them in sardine oil and feathers and drop them off ten miles from town. Wouldn't do it, of course, but it's cathartic to contemplate.

well that's one possibility. maybe some of these animals did have previous human contact - they were fed by tourists or locals.

Pete2

The statement hikermor posted to says the bear was getting access to unsecured human food over a three year period. So there was a long parade of human dumbness, not just a one-time event. Rangers and wildlife officers don't have many options left after all that.

A True Story:
Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge is an awesome place to visit, either for hunting, fishing,or just getting out in the wilderness. Bear hunting is strictly regulated, there is a lottery for drawing a bear permit. There are public use cabins available. There is lots of information in those cabins (posters, pamphlets, etc) about proper behaviour in bear country.

Some years back friends of mine flew in to one of the cabins on a lake to fish the Silver Salmon run in the outlet stream of the lake. The entire time they were there they had trouble with a big brown bear hanging around the cabin. It got scary using the outhouse at night. These cabins all have a log book and most visitors choose to leave a note about their stay at the cabin. In the log book, my friends noticed that an ealier party from out of state (they were from California as I recall) had left a note about how they were cleaning their fish on the beach in front of the cabin, and how much fun it was to watch the bear come by to enjoy his "evening snack".

A couple of years later, another buddy and I were using that same cabin, and remembered the story our friend had told us. So naturally we looked back through the book. From the time of the out of staters writing about feeding the bears, every single party that wrote in the log book said something about scary bear encounters. That is until a bunch of guys were there on a deer hunt. One of the deer hunters tangled with a bear about a mile from the cabin and was seriously injured. The bear was killed. After that there wasn't a single note about problems with bears arond that cabin. We had no issures during our visit.

Of course we can't know for sure that the bear they were feeding was the one that mauled the guy, but the coincidence is rather interesting. People feed a bear near a cabin, over the next two seasons everyone has bear trouble at that cabin, a bear seriously injures a hunter in the area and is shot, no more bear problems at that cabin.

The sad thing is that you might be careless with food and trash and get away with it. But if your stupidity conditions a bear to associate people with food, sooner or later someone will kill that bear. And quite possibly a person will be seriously injured.

Maybe your friends should've used bear spray on the bear. Then the bear would've run off and left everyone alone after that, and it would still be alive and the one deer hunter would not have gotten hurt.

Actually Benjamin, the incident I referred to happened back before bear spray was widely known or available.

A much better option would be for idiots to learn something about living in bear country, and to keep a clean camp and avoid getting bears habituated to cabins and camps. That would have avoided the whole incident to begin with.

Yes, I think that would be much better.

It's a lose/lose situation when a bear must be killed, no doubt. Humans are the visitors there, the bears are just doing what they're on Earth to do. I'm not one of those guys that thinks an animals life is equal to a human life, but at the same time it's disgraceful when human ignorance and stupidity result in the death of a wild animal.

A clean camp in bear county is vitally important. Herrero documents this rather thoroughly.

"These cabins all have a log book and most visitors choose to leave a note about their stay at the cabin"

entry ... October ... 2012

You know I told Joe not to eat that chili with beans. Last night he went to the outhouse. Never did come back.