Bear attack--1 dead--2 injured

I think that's really a question for its own thread, it has been asked before, and we generally get a mix of answers. But a hypothetical situation like that, with so many variables, really doesn't have much to do with this incident.

These people were asleep. WHICH knife, axe, or pistol are all beside the point.

* ****** **** ****** *

I just read this morning that the fourth bear was picked up, the last of the cubs.
 
Esav Benyamin said:
These people were asleep. WHICH knife, axe, or pistol are all beside the point.
Click to expand...


Exactly, you don't always have time to draw a weapon. When 800+ lbs of grizzly killing machine lands on your sleeping body, the outlook is grim. Your best chance is another camper coming to your assistance [as we saw in the black bear attack last week in BC]. Keep in mind, that black bear was reported to be less than 150 lbs i.e. small for a bear.
 
Also, the man who responded was a big enough guy to grab the bear and throw him aside!
I bet the bear was surprised. :p
 
We have a similar problem in Africa. Many campsites in lion country have strong, high fences around them. Gates are closed at sunset. Other, less glamorous sites which may be further from lion locations (usually national or private gameparks) do not have the same level of security. I once stayed in such a campsite when it was reported that a lone lion had been shot and wounded by a local tribal farmer (he used a shotgun). We heard the lion calling for two nights after that. We were in a foreign country and did not have access to any firearms. We had, however, purchased 2 Masai hunting spear heads which we had affixed to suitable sticks (ha ha ha). We did not sleep well.
In Africa the competition between man and nature continues. 400 hundred years ago Cape Town had lion, elephant and hippopotami. They were all shot for the pot or to make way for farmers and their livestock. It would be a great pity if more natural habitat is lost because of mans’ encroachment.
I would recommend that ‘lion’ fencing should be erected around campsites in bear territory and gates closed at night. It need not be unsightly and would benefit humans and bears.
 
Just 2 days ago a similar thing happened in Svalbard (Norway). A polar-bear snatched a man from his tent, while he was sleeping and dragged him off. His buddy, rushed out the tent and shot it with a rifle after it had dragged his buddy 40 meters.

IIRC, the polar-bear is one of very few animals that dosent fear humans naturally.

Now dont quote me on this, but i remember my friend who went hiking in Svalbard, told me that firearms are mandatory when tenting in Svalbard because of the Polar-bears, and he had a rifle with him on his trip. Are there any norwegians here who can confirm this?

But nobody carries firearms on mainland Scandinavia, just because theyre hiking in bear territory. After centuries of hunting, the european brown bears harbour a natural fear against humans, and one should consider themselves lucky if they manage to catch a glimpse of these shy animals. In Scandinavia there has only been 4 fatal attacks against humans by a brown bear, since 1902, and i believe they were all hunters who had wounded it.

Artivle here: http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/07/30/polar-bear-shot-after-paddler-attack/

Foto-Arild-LyssandSysselmannen-e1280479160282.jpg
 
Last edited:
I've fished all over Yellowstone and southwestern Montana. It's bear country, plain and simple. Not to say the people killed or injured were not careful or deserved what happened to them, but if you don't expose yourself to bears, they can't harm you.

I once watched a guy and his eight year daughter approach a cow moose with a calf. I tried to explain how dangerous this was and was told to mind my business by this goof. I left not wanting to see the mother moose stomp him and his kid to death.

People go to Yellowstone and other large national parks and behave like its Disneyland. Every year someone puts their kid on a buffalo to take a picture and the kid gets hurt or killed. Why??

A little common sense will keep you safe.
 
I don't really mind when a bear eats some stupid hippy envirowack who thinks he can talk to bears. It's kinda funny actually.

But in general the place for a bear is on my living room floor. Hunt them, kill them, and make them into rugs. If the envirowacks want to see a bear, tell them to go to the zoo.

I'm tired of predators being released into the woods and the children, women, pets, being put at risk so east and west coast concrete-dwelling envirowacks can feel green.
 
nemoaz said:
I don't really mind when a bear eats some stupid hippy envirowack who thinks he can talk to bears. It's kinda funny actually.

But in general the place for a bear is on my living room floor. Hunt them, kill them, and make them into rugs. If the envirowacks want to see a bear, tell them to go to the zoo.

I'm tired of predators being released into the woods and the children, women, pets, being put at risk so east and west coast concrete-dwelling envirowacks can feel green.
Click to expand...
I hope you're joking, although I agree that I can't help but laugh when an " envirowack who thinks he can talk to bears" gets eaten.
Personally, I'm tired of children, women and pets strolling into bear country thinking they're in a zoo. The bears were there first. If I look like a snack, that's my fault, not the bears'. ;)
 
I think it needs to be stressed this was a highly unusual occurrence- the fact that is was a sow w/ cubs even more unusual.

I would suggest that anyone traveling into grizzly country carry bear spray- not sure it would have helped in this situation, but it certainly wouldn't have hurt if the spray was handy in the tent. The second gentleman who was bitten in the leg, punched the bear in the nose and she let go. Playing dead is a good tactic when a startled grizzly attacks and has you pinned to the ground (especially a sow w/ cubs), but when the motive appears to be eating, not the tactic I would choose :)

We're currently trying to get the grizzly removed from the T/E list (and keep the wolf off as well!)- we had a very successful season for several years before an environmental group sued and removed our season. It won't eliminate grizzly/man conflicts, but I'm confident they will be reduced.

The grizzly is a magnificent animal and I for one want them around, a well regulated hunting season won't interfere with that wish.
 
MustardMan said:
In the US, guns are now allowed in all National Parks, due to recently passed federal regulation. Not many people know about it, but you're legally allowed to carry in all national parks now, although you will probably take crap in certain heavily populated areas still.
Click to expand...


I spent a week in Yellowstone in June and I wore my Ruger 44 on my hip the entire time. The only problem is, you can NOT go inside any of the buildings in the park with the gun on you. That's a Federal offense and is posted on all the entrances of the buildings. 1 Year mandatory... and 5 yrs if there was intent to do harm. Ok.. I stayed OUT of the buildings!
 
MustardMan said:
In the US, guns are now allowed in all National Parks, due to recently passed federal regulation. Not many people know about it, but you're legally allowed to carry in all national parks now, although you will probably take crap in certain heavily populated areas still.
Click to expand...

MM, I don't think that is accurate. National parks are not "feel free to carry guns" zones. The law was changed to eliminate a layer of federal firearm prohibition that sat on top of the state laws of the various states the parks are located in.

If you have a CPL that is valid in say, Montana, and are entering a portion of a National park that is in Montana, then you can carry in accordance to Montana provisions for concealed carry. If you cross in to Wyoming, its laws will apply.

Apparently, the host state's law regarding possession of long guns and openly carried firearms also applies.
 
Pritch said:
MM, I don't think that is accurate. National parks are not "feel free to carry guns" zones. The law was changed to eliminate a layer of federal firearm prohibition that sat on top of the state laws of the various states the parks are located in.

If you have a CPL that is valid in say, Montana, and are entering a portion of a National park that is in Montana, then you can carry in accordance to Montana provisions for concealed carry. If you cross in to Wyoming, its laws will apply.

Apparently, the host state's law regarding possession of long guns and openly carried firearms also applies.
Click to expand...

Not only open carry, but concealed as well. You must abide by the laws of the state that you are in. Luckily for me, my MN or FL permit to carry works in MT, WY, ND and SD.... I never had to disarm on my whole trip! I did switch from a Glock 26 to my 44 when in the park though. I like the heavier lead it throws for more dangerous critters. I honestly doubted I would need it, but I liked knowing it was there for that .0000001% chance that I might need it!
 
Frankly being in a tent in bear country is more or less being an MRE. I sleep lite and carry a big bang stick, as well as mentioned above using bells or cans and rocks on paracord.
 
even in the 60s i carried a 357 in my pack in yosemite & YELLOWSTONE better to be locked up than ate up. kudos to Rat. dennis
 
HJK said:
I'm tired of children, women and pets strolling into bear country thinking they're in a zoo. The bears were there first. If I look like a snack, that's my fault, not the bears'.
Click to expand...
It's a basic lack of masculinity to not protect women and children. Of course, I've been to Toronto and there was indeed a lack of masculinity there.

Shoot the predators. Little chance you'll face any consequences. I know it won't happen in most of Michigan.
 
nemoaz said:
It's a basic lack of masculinity to not protect women and children. Of course, I've been to Toronto and there was indeed a lack of masculinity there.
Click to expand...
Methinks someone protesteth too much about "masculinity":rolleyes:
Your being gay is nothing to be ashamed of. The ignorance, however, is a problem.
Knowing how to live in the wild and to respect nature isn't a question of "masculinity". Only those without balls or brains think it's heroic or masculine to shoot a bear because you or your brood stupidly city around in the bears' habitat without knowing what you're doing.
Kill a bear if you have to, of course, but the vast majority of the time it's the human's fault, not the bear's.
 
How about this thread getting locked? As many before it, it has turned ugly.
 
nemoaz said:
It's a basic lack of masculinity to not protect women and children. Of course, I've been to Toronto and there was indeed a lack of masculinity there.

Shoot the predators. Little chance you'll face any consequences. I know it won't happen in most of Michigan.
Click to expand...

What an unfortunate post. It adds nothing to this discussion (which seems to be over for the most part) and drags down the tone of the forum. And I say this not because I currently reside in Toronto, but because I know how to conduct myself in civilized conversation.


:thumbdn:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top