1 dead, 2 injured in Montana bear attack

sounds like a reference to some of the admittedly harsh sarcasm in one of my posts
I'm not picking on anyone in particular, just that there are a lot of comments about gun owners on this thread and others that are quite out of touch with reality. To be fair, there are similar comments from the other direction, but that's not what I'm addressing here.

Your analogy about the windbreaker – yes, there is a wussy factor to the american male perception of such things. I can also remember when it was unthinkable to wear a helmet when riding a bike… attitudes can change if there really is evidence that such and such technique will work. You don't get called a sissy for wearing little bells on your ankles as you skip through the woods ;)

But that's where this all breaks down, cause there isn't any truly scientific evidence in bear country. There's at best, survey data, which is inherently flawed. And there doesn't seem to be enough consistent survey data to create a statistically solid "winner" of a technique. Attacks are rare enough and with such unique circumstances that a model is all but impossible.

So those of us cushy folks in the lower 48 can wield our pepper spray, but the people I've talked to in Alaska will call you crazy if you go into grizzly country without packing heat. There was also a good show on PBS a few weeks ago about a guy in AK that studies the grizzlies, and I didn't see one minute of him in the woods without a shotgun. And when he was charged by one very grumpy grizzly, it was a one shot stop. Now I still doubt you'll ever catch me backpacking with a 10 gauge hanging off my pack, but I'll think about the .44.

"2) For a serious backpacker not hiking in Griz country is a poor (unacceptable) option indeed."

I sort of figured when I posted that it would end up with something like this, but I am surprised it came from you, Dave. That said, I have to admit this is the first time in my life I've ever been dismissed as un-serious about backpacking. People go into the mountains for many reasons, and make their risk/reward calculations accordingly. I don't think it has much to do with being serious about backpacking and the implied lack of courage, cojones, or whatever. I've taken my fair share of risks down through the years; I just choose not to take this particular one. It's got nothing to do with seriousness or courage. Period.

This may give you a pause about where you usually hike and guns. It did so for me .
http://www.nwhikers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7985190&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=1572e6f4a5d50333a2158b612799a9a7

Kids are abducted walking to schools all the time, had several attempts happen in my neighborhood recently. The risk is significant and you would need to bury your head in the sand to ignore it. Even if it were a remote chance I don't see any reason taking the risk to play the odds with my child.

I am not afraid of bears, I like to stop and take photos of them but when I am sleeping in my tent I want something to defend myself with whether it be from a human or a bear.

If you don't want to carry gun that is cool and your choice but don't try and make my decision for me. It has nothing to do with trying to be more of a "man" like you keep suggesting. Seems to be more like an insecurity on your part with the idea of guns.

John, I don't see why that story would give me a pause about carrying a gun, it only encourage me to more.

I don't feel secure about anyone but me having a gun. After doing a bit of research I am not sure a having a gun would help much in a 4am bear attack in a tent. Someone discharging a firearm at that time under duress in a campground makes me feel even less secure. I own four firearms and have killed varmints in the past. Bullets can not be taken back.

Not to detract from the great gun debate but more info has come out regarding the bear attacks. It seems the cubs were malnourished.

http://www.woodtv.com/dpps/news/national/west/grizzly-cubs-from-deadly-mauling-were-malnourished-nt10-jgr_3523423

Not sure why the hyperlink doesn’t work but if you copy and paste it does take you to the story. Incidentally, I inserted the link inside INSERT LINK so if anyone has an idea let me know.

Personally I probably would not go to a campground with a gun, I would camp away from other people. If other people were around it would certainly make me more cautious about where I was shooting if a bear was harassing my tent.

"…I just choose not to take this particular one. It's got nothing to do with seriousness or courage. Period."

Tom, my intention was to highlight the rewards of hiking in places like Yellowstone, versus the risks. My poorly worded comment was certainly not meant to denigrate your or anyone else's perfectly valid choice to weigh risks as you/they see fit. You have my apologies for not being more careful.

In the end I just come back to this being a topic that (obviously) concerns me very deeply. In the last year especially I've really come to value backpacking in Yellowstone, and can't imagine going without now. At the same time, I am even more invested in staying alive for the sake of my wife, family, friends, etc. The two don't necessarily contradict, and there are many more probable things to worry about. Perhaps this incident is just a catalyst for many of us to think about our own mortality, something from which some good can likely come.

We've resolved the first part off line, so no need to respond here other than to say that Dave has once again proven himself to be a class act and a credit to BPL.

"Perhaps this incident is just a catalyst for many of us to think about our own mortality, something from which some good can likely come."

Definitely worth pondering, Dave. Not that I have much choice any more. A myriad of little aches and pains remind me on a daily basis that there is no circumventing The 2nd Law.

The entire commentary about Yellowstone is worth pondering for that matter. For my part, I have a very similar attachment to the Sierra and now find myself wondering whether a grizzly population there would stop me from backpacking there. Probably not. I hadn't considered the whole issue in this light before.

> Not sure why the hyperlink doesn’t work …
Your link is malformed.

Check out Putting Hyperlinks in Forum Postings at BPL

The TinyURL version

–MV

if you read the article, the malnourished is coming from comments from the Billings Zoo, the professionals looking at the cubs said they were a little small, but not malnourished- same for the sow, a little on the light side (221#) but not out of norm; three cubs is also in the norm of 2.2, the sow was 10 years old (often live into their 20's) and teeth were in good condition

unfortunately none of the above sheds any more light on the matter, sadly these anomalies sometimes happen- fortunately rarely