Backpacker vs grizzly bear in Denali Natl Park

To address the argument "how is the hiker supposed to know if the charge is a bluff or for real?" This begs the question should there be any stipulations for those venturing into wildlife territory? It also poses an ethical dilemma, should man be allowed to blast anything that evokes a fear response in him just so he can take a walk through the park? How are we to separate men defending their lives from cowards hiding behind a gun?
Click to expand...

One of the difficulties is that there is no sure way of knowing whether or not that bear or moose is really going to run you over or veer off into the brush short of standing there and letting the animal decide.

I have bear and moose literally just outside my front door; often see them multiple times daily. My closest non-hunting bear encounter was at about 4 feet.

Hunting and defense are completely different situations. I am amazed at all of the folks who think that they are going to be safe with a (list you favorite caliber here in hand gun or rifle) or with the "you just need to have good shot placement" crowd, or the "I will just keep shooting and empty xx number of rounds until it stops" when considering a charging bear. (Sure these things can help, but they do not make one safe.)

Bears can run in the neighborhood of 40mph; just imagine reacting to a bear popping out of the brush 30 feet away that can run 40 mph and can weigh a half a ton or more. In the couple of seconds that you might have, somehow multiple rounds, shot placement, and caliber are not as reassuring as they are sitting behind a keyboard.

Check the numbers, do some real research, and/or live where you can observe them, I have, and my first response is bear spray, backup shotgun with slugs (or magnum hunting rifle), and final back up 10mm in that order when I am out in the bush. (Just outside my front door: spray and backup 10mm.)

The "Bubbas" referred to above are unfortunate and everywhere. Help educate those that can be, make a difference.

YMMV
 
I carry a 45 when I go hiking but we don't have Grizzlies here in Georgia. Black bears and possibly panthers but my reason for carrying the 45 on a hike is for the 2 legged threats - and a 45 is adequate for that.
 
I carry a Ruger GP .357 for woods, but if I am in griz country I sling my .444 over my shoulder. The Marlin .444 is almost double the ballistics of the 30-30 and just as quick. If I was younger, it would be a 45/70 guide gun with maxed out loads. You can unsling these rifles from your shoulder as quick as anyone could draw a pistol and they carry the short range punch that no pistol packs that any normal human could shoot. With the 45/70, you get some of the hot loads over 4000 ft/pds of muzzle energy. Compare that to your .44 mag that many people see as the minimum for bear defense. Not even a close contest. Even my Browning BLR 300 wsm will get off rapid shots in a self defense situation with much more power than any ordinary pistol or revolver.
 
As far as knowing a bluff vs a real charge, body language is likely to be the same in both cases. The test of a bluff is whether they stop. If they don't stop, it wasn't a bluff. I have not been charged by any bear, although at the age of three we had a black bear brush up against our tent with the whole family inside. His paw came down the tent right next to my father's head which woke him up. My dad's shouts woke me up and the rest of the family. I still remember seeing his hairy profile standing up outside of our tent. This was the Fairbanks area with the sunshine all night long. My dad's self defense gun, a single shot 410 that he had for rabbit hunting. I guess bears were more afraid of people back in those days, they didn't seem to bother people as much.

As far as the bluff charge, they certainly happen, but you just have to have a zone that you will defend with lethal force if they get inside that zone. For some people that might be 10 feet, some 25, some 50 some a thousand. Ask Bubba about the thousand foot policy. If you wait till less than 10 feet, you better have a real cannon to stop him instantly in his tracks and better be able to dodge his body coming at you dead or alive. I believe an aggressive bear within 25 feet of you is certainly a reasonable perimeter and more than that if it is a mommy grizzly coming at you or you stumble across a bear with a kill that he is eating. In these situations you are looking at life and death. Better the bear than you.
 
Even Texans are allowed an opinion

(Referencing posts 34 and 35)
Stiofan said:
Yes, well you live in Texas where there are no Griz or Brownies. 'Nuff said.
Click to expand...
Even Texans are allowed an opinion, and his seems valid to me, at least as valid any anyone else's.

Be civil, please.

Lost Sheep

(Who has been here since the saying "Texans, quit your whining or we'll divide ourselves in half and make you the THIRD largest state in the union".)
 
(Referencing posts 34 and 35)
Quote:Originally Posted by Stiofan
Yes, well you live in Texas where there are no Griz or Brownies. 'Nuff said.

Even Texans are allowed an opinion, and his seems valid to me, at least as valid any anyone else's.

Be civil, please.

Lost Sheep

(Who has been here since the saying "Texans, quit your whining or we'll divide ourselves in half and make you the THIRD largest state in the union".)
Click to expand...


Just pointing out if he lived in Alaska instead of Texas he might not be claiming he'd never venture into the wilderness. You must have missed that, but at any rate I didn't realize you were today's thread monitor. My bad.
 
Weapon effectiveness

Can anyone cite a case where someone was killed or injured after using a firearm defensively against a wild animal?

I'm not talking about hunting or against a problem animal being sought, but a defensive use during a random encounter. With most wild animals, the noise and pain of even a small firearm would probably deter an attack. I have only heard of attacks where no firearms were involved, or the victim did not have a chance to deploy the weapon.

I suppose I've read accounts where the animal was only dropped after being hit with much heavier firepower, but these also seem to involve wounded, enraged or otherwise problem animals, not self-defense type situations.

It sounds as if the .45 was effective in this case. We don't know how many of the 9 rounds fired hit, nor whether the bear was seriously attacking, but the people escaped injury.

The point about the difference between choosing a weapon for hunting and defense has been made. Choosing a defensive weapon always involves trade-offs, and I think I would feel confident hiking in Denali carrying a .45 as a side-arm, though it would not be my choice if I was expecting to encounter an enraged bear.
 
Can anyone cite a case where someone was killed or injured after using a firearm defensively against a wild animal?
Click to expand...

Try reading some of Larry Kaniut's books, like Alaska Bear Tales, etc...
Non-fiction Alaska bear encounters; in his later books some lower 48 bear encounters.

With most wild animals, the noise and pain of even a small firearm would probably deter an attack.
Click to expand...

Bears up here can reach 1,000 lbs. I have personally seen bears standing on their hind legs where the top of my head would be easily under their head (just about perfect for them to lean over and take a bite on the top of my head); and I am 6' 02". They can charge in the neighborhood of 40 mph; do the math: half a ton of a whole lot of muscle, layers of fat, teeth, and claws moving at 40 mph versus... little old you or me.

I have .45 acps. I have hunted bear in Alaska; I live here. I have also been about four feet away from a bear, non-hunting encounter, and I was not carrying a .45 acp nor would I have felt in any way shape or form confident had I been carrying a .45 acp at that time. If a bear is headed my way, I do not feel comfortable with a 12 gauge with slugs; and a flame thrower is just too cumbersome to carry with me each and every time out the door.

So, bear spray (first), 12 gauge or magnum hunting rifle (second), 10mm (third); this being the defensive do-dads, actual first is Pray. (A good type of Spray and Pray!)

YMMV
 
Incorrect

R1145 said:
(edited for brevity and focus)
With most wild animals, the noise and pain of even a small firearm would probably deter an attack.
Click to expand...
R1145,

That is simply not correct. Wild animal behavior is widely unpredictable, especially if they are startled or defending territory, a food source or their young. Sometimes a shot fired will run them off, but sometimes it will only make them more determined to neutralize the threat that hurt or scared them.

Read posts 41, 44 and 51 (which I acknowledge came after, probably in answer to, your post) and check out the State of Alaska's web site (they have links to some pretty good bear information)

http://www.wildlife.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=bears.main

The first and best line of defense against tragedy in the wild (or in the city, for that matter) is knowledge.

Lost Sheep
 
In response to Stiofan

These people were not venturing out into wilderness on their property or traveling through dangerous country en route to some destination. They were hiking through a national park.

I feel your point is moot because had they been on/about their own property and harassed by a bear the context of the shooting would have been completely different; then you could argue that, as a Texan and bear encounters not being a part of my everyday life, I would lack the ability to empathize with their situation. If I lived in an area where the presence of mountain lion, coyotes, or any other predatory mammal was documented as being indigenous to the area, of course I would be sure to carry on me if in the course of my regular duties or activities I would find myself out in the open and exposed so to speak; however, this couple invited the situation upon themselves by venturing into a locale where the odds of a bear encounter significantly increased as opposed to not hiking at all through that particular region in Denali.

Again, no one is arguing the right to self-defense and certainly not I. I just think the situation could have been avoided altogether.
 
I just think the situation could have been avoided altogether.
Click to expand...

There are in the neighborhood of 50,000 bears in Alaska. I walked past fresh bear scat this morning within 100 feet of my front door.

One does not have to go to Denali to find bears in Alaska. I know that I will not run into any bears in my living room; however, I have had moose on my deck next to my living room on a number of occasions, and worried that they were going to come through my front windows (big windows).

I have a friend who just shot an aggressive bear on his property, next to his home, less than 48 hours ago; he has a family/children.

I also have a different friend who shot a bear literarily blocking his front door on his porch.

I have seen a bear hit and killed on the highway in Anchorage. I have seen many bears and moose over the years when in Anchorage.

Sometimes, one needs to realize that bears are all over Alaska, not just in the National Parks.
 
Bears can go well over a 1000 pounds, it's just that it's rarely possible to weigh them. A bear was killed at a summer salmon cannery site on Kodiak some years ago. They had a sling scale for weighing salmon, so using a fork lift or front end loader they weighed the bear and it went just over 1600 pounds.

A friend shot a fall bear at Narrow Cape a few years ago where they have cattle scales. It was not a particularly large bear for Kodiak (9 1/2 feet), but went 1,140 pounds.

For out-of-staters, when you see a "ten foot" brown bear described, it doesn't mean it stands ten feet tall on its hind legs, it means the hide squares ten feet. A "ten foot" brown bear will stand over 12 feet high on its hind legs.

The difference between a "nine footer" and a "ten footer" is impossible to describe unless you see it. A ten foot bear (trophy class) isn't just 10% bigger than a nine footer, it's MUCH bigger. The head, the girth, the musculature is jaw-dropping. No matter how many bears you've seen, when you see that rare old one-in-a-hundred boar that gets to ten feet, you're mesmerized and awed. When you see one on the spongy ground around creeks, the earth literally quakes when they walk. These are bears you would not want to shoot with a handgun.

This bear is of that class, or close. Shot by a friend about ten years ago here on Kodiak.

DWIGHTSBEAR.jpg
 
Bears can go well over a 1000 pounds
Click to expand...

Now, you are talking about Kodiak bears! I was talking about the "little" thousand pounders that the rest of the state sees; at least those are the ones that I normally see out in the bush/not Kodiak.

And here I was breaking it to them gently, with the "half-ton" and "my head below their head" bit...

One of the greatest bear pictures that I have seen is a picture of a full grown man standing next to a stuffed bear standing on his hind legs. The man literarly is half the bear's height.

Twice your height and... six or seven or eight times your weight...

And that is about the worst facial bear mauling that I have seen! (Above pic)
 
Sometimes, one needs to realize that bears are all over Alaska, not just in the National Parks
Click to expand...

True. But we're discussing the incident that took place within the park and my comments were from a standpoint of conservationism. of course, this would seem to engender all manner of discussion on the ecological effects of man developing/speading/living so close to natural wildlife but then I would really be off the beaten path.

On your property, porch, etc., with the bear getting too curious, anyone should have the ability to shoot to defend themselves and their family. I'm not even saying that the hiker shouldn't have had the ability to shoot. Like a few others, I was simply wondering whether the shoot was absolutely necessary.

P.S. the picture up above is frightening. Definitely wouldn't take a shot at that with .45 ACP!
 
Last edited:
These people were not venturing out into wilderness on their property or traveling through dangerous country en route to some destination. They were hiking through a national park.

I feel your point is moot because had they been on/about their own property and harassed by a bear the context of the shooting would have been completely different; then you could argue that, as a Texan and bear encounters not being a part of my everyday life, I would lack the ability to empathize with their situation. If I lived in an area where the presence of mountain lion, coyotes, or any other predatory mammal was documented as being indigenous to the area, of course I would be sure to carry on me if in the course of my regular duties or activities I would find myself out in the open and exposed so to speak; however, this couple invited the situation upon themselves by venturing into a locale where the odds of a bear encounter significantly increased as opposed to not hiking at all through that particular region in Denali.

Again, no one is arguing the right to self-defense and certainly not I. I just think the situation could have been avoided altogether.
Click to expand...

Almost all of Alaska from the city limits on is wilderness. Where I live in Idaho my town is surrounded by national forest, and I carry when out in it and there is no National Park at all. And the odds of wildlife encounters in Alaska are much higher, whether you are in a National Park or not.

What you are saying is that since they crossed some boundary into a National Park they moved into the Bear's territory. It's not like that up there.
 
....well ..if I am the one hiking and a grizzly prsents few feet away and is not running away...well I will unload everything I have....
..again .45 would not be my choice..than again I would unload anything I have .... If semi auto is a your choice 10mm is the round at least 200 gr hardcast... much better chances than .45 ACP...
 
My signature says it all...

But seriously, who is to say that a mock charge or just a threat from surprise is what made the guy react? Could the bear have already been scared but decided to run first after getting hurt? I understand most people wouldn't take the chance to find out. Also think about it, you read what people say about what guns they would want for Grizzlies, ever see anyone mention a .45? Usually not, we want bigger booms. I doubt he was intending to go out and find one but he did and may have felt that his "underpowered" .45 should go into action sooner than later. Or they are telling the truth. Or I am rambling and going in circles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top