1 dead, 2 injured in Montana bear attack

"When I posted the link to the original story, I just knew that it would degrade into this debate :("

Which leads to the obvious question…..

"The other thing about pepper spray is it's reversible. The bear (or human) might not feel well for a while but definitely less serious than a gun shot wound and very unlikely to be fatal."

In the general sense, I would agree. However, if you happened to get the stuff blown into your eyes from an upwind shot while hiking solo, you could well end up dead anyway. This is the main reason I have avoided carrying bear spray. Some will say don't shoot into the wind, stupid, but my reply is that you don't always get to pick your shot; in the real world, you are far more likely to surprise a bear who is upwind from you.

I just think the gun would be better in that situation, at point blank range the gun would be very effective and you wouldn't disable yourself at the same time as with the spray.

I don't think I would rely on one or the other for every potential situation, in griz country I think carrying both would be a good idea.

Even though being attacked by a bear is very unlikely, the thought of being eaten by another creature ranks pretty high in ways I would not want to go.

There was the Huffman couple that were killed while sleeping in their tent along an Alaska river in 2005. The river guide that found them recommended a floorless tent, an electric fence, and a loaded pistol (that doesn't need to be cocked).

Of course, that is in Alaska.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0510/whats_new/anwr_grizzly_attacks.html

…

I carry a firearm for a living, but always carry spray in grizzly country

recent incident in Glacier w/ Jack Hanna

http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_29aad35a-9979-11df-a156-001cc4c002e0.html

"I carry a firearm for a living, but always carry spray in grizzly country. recent incident in Glacier w/ Jack Hanna"
Aw, all he did was protect five people from three grizzlies, and resolve the incident without harm to any of the people or animals. If he'd been a *real* man, he would have shot a couple of pounds of lead into that critter, preferably with a good quote from Charles Bronson thrown in. Instead, all he's done is to teach a grizzly cub to avoid humans, because if you mess with them they make stuff go in your eyes that hurts. Now where's the sport in that?

It will be interesting to see if all this pepper spray
will have some long term effect on the animals. Maybe
they will learn not to mess with humans.

In the Smokey Mtns and SEKI National Parks for a time the
rangers were issued baseball bats and axe handles and were
trained to club any bear over the head that was getting into
garbage or begging for food. The bears were quick learners
and avoided

David, that's hilarious, in a black-humor sort of way.

I had sort of a similar experience on a recent 2-week hike. You know how it gets when you go a long time without seeing women? Well, for some reason it seemed like on this hike, I kept running into a lot of rangers who were female and … well, kind of cute. It got to where I'd see that brown uniform and hat in the distance, and start wondering if I had time to wash up a little and make myself more presentable. I'm sure they were wondering why I was breathing so heavy when I handed over my wilderness permit.

Someone way back mentioned bear spray is limited because you can't spray it into the wind. My understanding was that the spray was under enough pressure that it could be sprayed into the wind with some loss of range but it wasn't coming back in your face. I think it might have actually been a thread here anyone remember? For the record I would spray away, if it does come back in my face that would be the least of my worries.

It can affect affect you with a direct headwind, even according to the manufacturer.

Not that I've had the pleasure, but I would try to wait until it was close enough to take us both out :-)

All in all, I believe it to be the best option.

"Someone way back mentioned bear spray is limited because you can't spray it into the wind. My understanding was that the spray was under enough pressure that it could be sprayed into the wind with some loss of range but it wasn't coming back in your face"

Hi Luke,

That was me, a few posts back. I actually didn't say you couldn't spray into the wind but, rather, that it was a risk I would not want to take. Wind is so variable that there is no way of really knowing whether you're going to get blowback. A blanket statement either way would be inaccurate. What I have concluded is that I personally will not take that chance, even less so, BTW, inside a tent, which I didn't mention. The path I have chosen instead of carrying bear spray is simply to avoid areas where it might be necessary. I have chosen not to backpack in grizzly country, nor do I frequent areas with a lot of black bear activity. What this means in practice is getting up high very quickly on trails that are not heavily used and then off trail. Since 2 bear encounters 30 some years ago I have seen one bear, down in Kern Canyon 3 years ago. I'm sure I have missed a lot of beautiful country, but I have also enjoyed a lot of equally beautiful country in solitude and with the peace of mind that comes from knowing I have almost zero chance of a confrontation that could end badly for me or a bear. Saved myself some weight in the process, too. ;)

Smith and Wesson makes a lightweight .44 magnum revolver called the S&W 329 PD, which I carry whenever I camp or backpack. It is an alternative to the much heavier S&W .44 magnum mountain gun and, for me, a better option. Recoil is strong, but if you practice with it at your local range on a regular basis, it is very manageable.

You can purchase the 329PD here:

http://www.impactguns.com/store/022188634143.html

One person above commented that you had to hit a bear dead on in exactly the right place under extreme stress with a handgun in order for it to be effective. I wouldn't plan on missing, and would practice regularly so as not to, but the video below shows that the concussion from a .44 magnum alone was, at least in this one case, enough to turn a charging Sow defending her cubs against some bowhunters in a raft who had the misfortune of floating right past the cubs on the stream bank, which triggered the charge. The guide quickly drew his .44 mag. handgun (I'm guessing that's what the caliber was since .44 mag is universally agreed to be the smallest handgun cartridge capable of stopping a grizzly) and fired one shot right in front of the bear (apparently intentionally). The bear, which had been in an all out charge, turned immediately. Bad situation averted.

This is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMbnmLLnsfw

Finally, if you're looking for an alternative to the "Bears never eat people (on purpose)" view, I recommend any of the books on the subject of bear behavior and how to survive bear attacks by James Gary Shelton. He teaches forest service employees in British Columbia, Canada on how to identify different types of bear behavior and how to survive attacks. He provides lots of case studies from actual attacks and includes a pretty extensive discussion on the pros and cons of firearms (vs. pepper spray) for bear defense.

This is a link to his book, "Bear Encounter Survival Guide:"

http://www.amazon.com/Encounter-Survival-Guide-James-Shelton/dp/0969809905/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1280664412&sr=1-2

I also have and recommend his book, "Bear Attacks: The Deadly Truth."

Finally, UDAP makes a portable lightweight (3.7lbs) bear electric fence that can be put up around one's tent to keep bears away when sleeping at night. If I'm not mistaken, the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) uses these when leading backpacking courses in grizzly country. It might be some other brand, but I think it's this one. I recently bought one myself, but have yet to have a chance to use it. I hope to in the fall.

http://www.udap.com/bearshock.htm

Some comparison list of bear gear would be interesting.
To have it all in one place would be handy.

Electric fences
Spray
Guns
Noisemakers
Food Hangs
Canisters
etc.

Here is an example of a gun being used as a deterrent on a
charging mama griz. (No, not Sarah Palin)

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d7a_1277139136

(I notice this is posted on liveleak.com. If I was still
living after this experience, I sure would have, well,
been a little leaky.)

And perhaps the lightest option, use what is lying about

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/10/08/bc-bear-attack-survivor.html

Tom wrote: "The path I have chosen instead of carrying bear spray is simply to avoid areas where it might be necessary.I have chosen not to backpack in grizzly country, nor do I frequent areas with a lot of black bear activity"
Yep. The last time I saw a bear was in Little Yosemite ca. 1982. I don't have hard data, but based on anecdotal evidence, it seems that virtually all black bear hassles in the Sierra occur in a small number of heavily impacted areas, such as Little Yosemite and certain backpacker's campgrounds. These aren't places I'd want to camp anyway. I don't go backpacking so that I can spend my evening asking people camped 15' away from me to please quiet down so I can sleep. And when an area has been as heavily desecrated as Yosemite Valley or Little Yosemite, why would I want to add to that impact by parking my own carcass there for the night?

I've never hiked in grizzly country, but isn't it kind of pointless to worry so much about getting attacked by a grizzly? The number of people it happens to is miniscule. You're probably more likely to die from an allergic reaction to a bee sting — and *much* more likely to die in a traffic accident on the way to the trailhead. Carrying bear spray sounds like a reasonable reaction. Anything more than that strikes me as an overreaction.

the option of choosing to not hike in grizzly country is a sad choice indeed, you'll be missing some of the spectacular and wild country in the world :(

I've had 20+ "encounters" with grizzlies, they've all ended the same- w/ the grizzly(ies) hightailing it out of the country

just follow some common sense protocols and enjoy what the big guy has meant for us to enjoy

Some points:

1) Taking each others ideas seriously (and not belittling them) is I think something we all owe to each other.

2) For me [edited to sound like less of an a$$] not hiking in Griz country is a poor (unacceptable) option indeed.

3) Ryan Jordan's 5 year old article on the subject still covers the bases pretty definitively, and answers some questions here posed: http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/bear_predation_jordan.html

"Ryan Jordan's 5 year old article on the subject still covers the bases pretty definitively, and answers some questions here posed: http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/bear_predation_jordan.html"

The first six paragraphs give a fictionalized story of something that has happened to a tiny number of people over a period of many years. This is like training scuba divers by having them watch "Jaws."

Paragraph #7 consists of speculation with no foundation in fact about the hypothesis that black bears in California will become ravenous man-eaters in the future. This is like taking an ornithology grad student interested in hummingbirds and beginning his training by having him watch Hitchcock's "The Birds."

Paragraph #8's thread of logic is pretty hazy, but it seems to be advocating sleeping with your food, which is really not smart.

Paragraph #9 discusses electrified fences, without giving any factual information about the pros and cons of this approach.

I have to agree with Ben here. The logic in the article is a little tough to follow. Is Jordan advocating aversion-therapy as an excuse to sleep with your food? It doesn't seem so since he starts out by saying we could be eaten no matter what we do. But… it's tough to follow. I don't see how it answers anything, personally.

As for firearms:

"I wouldn't plan on missing, and would practice regularly so as not to"

You are the exception. More people than not will wander out in the wild and think they're Dirty Harry with a gun they couldn't qualify with at 25 yards. People are irresponsible; firearms are not a blanket option. The last thing we need is more people in the backcountry with guns.

Aversion is important, but so is avoidance. There should be just as much emphasis on the use of odor-proof barriers as there is on the canister. Opsaks are great, and the agencies should be encouraging the development of the technology.

The forum exchange that accompanied Ryan's article is important to read in addition to the article itself. Folks found the logic hard to follow then too. I find it quite clear myself.

Ben, the hypothetical attack is the whole reason for discussing this at all, no? (Irrespective of the statistical probabilities.) We don't undertake cooking and campsite precautions to defend against deer maulings.

As for the Sierras, given the aggression occasionally demonstrated by black bears in the Smokies (IMO the most frightening bears in the US, polar bears excepted) and the food seeking behavior exhibited by Sierra bears over the last 50 years, what leads anyone to believe that at some point in the future increased habitat/food stress and human contact will not lead to stochastic predatory behavior of the type observed in Montana, North Carolina, etc?

As I read it, Ryan's point was that there are and will be no answers of the hard sort we would like. Which is exactly correct.

David wrote: "Ben, the hypothetical attack is the whole reason for discussing this at all, no? (Irrespective of the statistical probabilities.)"
Careful, because this could turn into circular reasoning. We discuss it because we think maybe the risk is significant… and the risk must be significant because people discuss it so much. Something similar happens with other extremely low-probability hazards such as having your kid abducted by a stranger while walking to school. People discuss it because they find the story psychologically compelling, and then because there's so much discussion on the TV news, etc., they start to assume that the risk must be significant.

"We don't undertake cooking and campsite precautions to defend against deer maulings."
This is a very interesting comparison. I wouldn't be at all surprised if deer caused far more injuries to people each year than bears. Deer can be very aggressive. They will attack people who inadvertently get in the middle of their herd. On a golf course in the town where I grew up, they would commonly mug golfers for their cigarettes. And of course a lot of people get in potentially dangerous car accidents because of deer that run out in front of their cars. Continuing the child kidnapping analogy, the deer may be sort of like the ex; a much higher risk, but not one that makes a story as psychologically compelling as the stranger.

Rather than discussing spray versus firearms, it could be that the best discussion we could be having here would be spray versus nothing. That is, your risk of being killed by a grizzly may be so remote that you'd be better off spending the same effort/weight/cost on protection against some other threat. There is a long history of humans in the American West responding to scary animals in irrational ways. What ranchers did to California condors is a good example.

Ben, I think we are very much in agreement that of all the risk to be found in the outdoors, bear attacks are quite low on the list. I hiked solo in Griz country all last year, and it was only fear that in the end had little to do with bears that had me buy a can of spray for my May trip in the Thorofare.

People discuss it because they find the story psychologically compelling, and then because there's so much discussion on the TV news, etc., they start to assume that the risk must be significant.
That is also the problem with assuming people who carry guns are irresponsible Dirty Harry types that would be happy to go through the woods shooting anything with teeth. An assumption that, as this thread is latest evidence, runs rampant on this board. Let's not forget that hunters and those that responsibly use firearms are the ones that pay for much of the land we get to backpack on (Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937).

Not everyone with a gun in the house, or who choose to use one as self protection, are looking to kill everything in sight and use it as a mechanical Viagra. Something to think about as we rationalize our co-existence with bears, perhaps we should rationalize our co-existence with other people too.

I definitely agree with Kieran. The firearms owners I know are nearly all responsible people.

I think I've already pointed out that unless you can aim really well under extreme stress (like a 500-lb. grizz charging full speed at you 10 feet away), you are only going to wound the bear, which will only make him madder! Do remember that the predatory activity of this bear and her cubs was not usual bear behavior. Since I can't hit the side of a barn when inside it, I wouldn't even think of carrying a firearm for the 1:1 million (or less) chance of this happening to me.

Driving to and from the trailhead is a far riskier activity, particularly on the way home when you're tired! Just driving in the late Sunday afternoon rush hour off Mt. Hood or through the Columbia Gorge in the Portland, OR area is too scary for me, which is why I try to go out and return home on weekdays (advantage of being retired, lol!),

Kieran wrote: "Not everyone with a gun in the house, or who choose to use one as self protection, are looking to kill everything in sight and use it as a mechanical Viagra."
"Mechanical Viagra" — nice turn of phrase, wish I'd thought of that one! Anyway, this sounds like a reference to some of the admittedly harsh sarcasm in one of my posts. I don't have anything against firearms. I love the 2nd amendment. Don't hunt or shoot, but don't have any problem with people who do. Being skeptical about firearms as defense against grizzlies is different from being against guns in general.

But I do think that the concept of using firearms as defense against grizzlies taps into a powerful subcurrent of American mythology, and also that it's an example of how people in general tend to be very bad against evaluating low-probability risks. As an example of the psychological dimensions of the thing, imagine that I do a careful statistical study, and find that the effort/cost/weight of both spray and firearms for grizzly defense is extremely unfavorable in relation to the risk, but that there is an extremely favorable cost-benefit ratio if you put reflective stripes on your windbreaker in order to reduce your risk of getting hit by a car in a parking lot or on a road near a trailhead. I think most male Americans' intuitive psychological response is that the guy with the reflective stripes is a woos, whereas the guy packing the .45 is a bada~ss.

In an attempt to get some grounding in actual statistics, I spent some time this afternoon looking through a very cool book by Ronald Mueser, "Long-Distance Hiking: Lessons from the Appalachian Trail." It's basically a narrative by an AT through-hiker summarizing the results of surveys that he got other AT through-hikers to fill out.

As far as physical harm from animals, by far the most common culprit was dogs. Bears do exist on the AT, but they seemed to be way down on the list in terms of threats, lower than skunks. Of course the AT doesn't have grizzlies, and national parks in grizzly country may have zero dogs, but nevertheless this suggests an example of how the threat that we find most titillating to dwell on may not be a significant threat. I can recall having some very scary experiences with dogs when I was hiking in Ecuador. Cattle also kind of scared me, although, unlike some of the dogs, they never actually acted aggressive any way that would have justified my anxiety.