SOS text: ‘Bear attack bad’

This again (guns vs spray). Terrible tragedy. The lesson I take from this is that the most dangerous bear is an old/starving bear and there might not be a lot you can do to deter them. There have been several predatory black bear attacks with the same root cause – starving bear – especially in fall, desperate for calories to survive.

I don’t own a gun and don’t plan on owning one. If you own one – cool. Bring it – you do you. My brother owns a hand cannon and brings it where he can on our hikes. Too heavy for me. Too much emotion gets tied up in this topic – I do not discourage him or comment. He doesn’t tell me to get one.

I bring bear spray. Many examples of effective use of bear spray. I take what other measures I can (eat away from camp, hang food or use a bear can, etc.), just like the couple in this tragedy. Sometimes the risks of life just catches up with you – like the unlucky person driving down the road and a tree falls on their car during a wind storm. Wrong place at the wrong time. You can’t have a risk free life.

Well said David H

Then there is the guy in Montana last month who lost part of his lower jaw. News report says his gun misfired and could not get to his bear spray (in his backpack) in time. Luckily, there were two others with him that shot at the bear to scare it off.

https://apnews.com/article/montana-grizzly-attack-lower-jaw-bit-off-e044003043566d886965721d0cc71905

^^^

Baja Bob’s post raises the one option that David Hartley did not mention–instead of bear spray or a gun, bringing a slower, smellier partner on the hike with you, one who is willing to engage with bears in several meaningful ways…

The guy in Prescott drug off while drinking coffee by a very healthy black bear wouldn’t have been saved by bear spray or a gun. Or a motorcycle I saw mangled on the road a few days ago after rear ending a truck. Don’t get too comfortable. Don’t expect what happens today to be the same as yesterday. You were just lucky yesterday. Don’t get complacent. Be aware.

My first thought on reading this report was “dog.” I have always been taught that dogs in bear country are a big no-no. See this for one discussion: https://www.ksl.com/article/50731074/video-the-worst-thing-you-can-do-in-bear-country

While we certainly can’t know for sure that the dog was the inciting factor for the bear’s behavior, we also can’t ignore the fact that the unfortunate victims did a big no-no. I worked for the Park Service in several national parks, including Yellowstone, and learned that people do lots of things they shouldn’t that bring about their own injury or demise. Examples: the man gored (accidentally) by a bison after he kicked the bison to make it stand up so he could get a better picture; the man who documented the reason for his own demise by taking a series of pictures of a mother grizzly with cubs from increasingly closer distances. For lots of reasons, dogs don’t belong in the backcountry but bear conflicts may be the top reason.

A terrible tragedy for sure.   I hike often in black bear country and occasionally in grizzly bear country.  Before my first trip to Alaska (2015) I did a lot of research and my conclusions were that the best protection was to be in a group of 4 or more, and bear spray was better than a gun, due to the fact that a lot of bear charges and bear attacks were “false” charges, but a wounded bear wouldn’t stop.  That along with the fact that a kill shot on a charging bear was such a difficult shot under duress I chose bear spray.

I have been false charged by a (black) bear on the trail before, and can honestly say that it happened so fast that I doubt I’d be able to get a gun or bear spray unholstered and aimed prior to the bear reaching me.  I was solo, but if I was in a group, perhaps it would help my trip mates get the bear away before I was mauled or killed.  In the end that incident made me realize just how vulnerable we as humans can be.

“Before my first trip to Alaska (2015) I did a lot of research and my conclusions were that the best protection was to be in a group of 4 or more…”

I usually hike solo in the Sierra and, unlike most folks who hike in pairs or groups, enjoy camping in proximity to other backpackers. I’m chatty and enjoy being able to have some conversation in the evening. I don’t worry at all about Sierra bears. But, there, a group of people in established camps are more likely to attract bears than when I camp alone or with one other person in non established sites, or anyway rarely visited sites.

In Alaska grizzly country, I can see how hiking with a group of four makes a lot of sense. I wonder if there are statistics that indicate larger groups are less likely to be attacked…?

When I worked at Yellowstone there were zones in the park where you weren’t allowed to backpack in a group of less than four, so I guess they must have had  statistics. I don’t know what they require now.

Brad,

One time, while on the trail alone at dusk, I was almost run over by a large,  full speed, running and huffing black bear. I agree with you that it happened so fast I couldn’t get my bear spray out in time.

If I had a gun I wouldn’t have been able to get it out in time either, let alone fired it with any accuracy.

I did yell really loud.  Closer to a roar than a yell and the bear swerved just before hitting me.

I’m guessing he/she was running from something, not charging me, because it kept going at full speed and didn’t come back.

I envision using bear spray if a bear is approaching slowly.  Some recommend first spraying when it is about 30 feet away.

While one might suspect “Ammoland” of having a bit of pro-gun bias, it’s worse than that.  Whatever their “research” was, it wasn’t very complete.  The two one-degree-of-separation gun-fail bear fatalities I’m know were not included with the single incident they report for all time, everywhere in the world failure of guns for bear protection (a patient of my wife got a .270 round off and there were some clipped bear fur near his dead body and a utility peer had an employee killed at a remote worksite that had firearms for protection).  None of the numerous firearms failures that resulted in a fatality examined by Herraro and Smith were addressed except that single one.

In general, I think examining the role of a dog is very valid.  It’s happened repeatedly in Alaska that an off-leash dog will find a bear but when the dog realizes what it’s up against, come running back to their human.  That doesn’t seem to be the case here, where the hungry, lean, injured bear was likely resorting to the pink, hairless, no antlers, no horns bipeds as a food source.  That’s been the case in several of the latest fatalities in Alaska, too.

I’ve got my dog trained to return to me when she senses a bear, moose, or humans ahead.  That makes me safer with her along and multiple times I only noticed the moose or bear because she’s sitting right in front of me with that “you wanted me to come back in this situation” expression on her face.  But she’s an unusually easy dog to teach and it was more important to me than most people.

Randy: Bear attacks are a very strong function of group size with solo travelers being at highest risk followed by a pair of humans while there’s essentially no fatalities among larger groups.  It’s often theorized that the bear avoids the larger “pack” but I disagree.

Bears haven’t been hunted by packs of humans for a century or more now but will wade into a caribou herd (which have hooves and antlers) for a meal.  I think it’s noise.  6 people CAN NOT walk down a trail quietly.  Not only are there 2-3 conversations going on, but they’re talking over each other, trying to heard, etc.  I frequently hike up to and through such a group, startling them, because they didn’t hear me over their own noise.  At lunch or while taking a dump, I don’t hear solo hikers coming down the trail until they’re very close, while a group can be heard from far away, over the next rise.

Thank you David for the very thoughtful and fact-based contributions.

I read the 2nd edition of the Herraro book years ago. His research into documented bear attacks divided the attacks into two distinct types of bear behavior: defensive and offensive.

Following up on your comment, I would surmise that solo travelers involved in a bear-human encounter while they are moving, more often and not surprise a bear that then defends itself.

>a kill shot on a charging bear was such a difficult shot under duress I chose bear spray

Here’s a bit more data from 2008 supporting this

“according to an analysis of 20 years of data…Canadian and U.S. researchers…found the spray stopped aggressive bear behaviour in 92 per cent of the cases, whether that behaviour was an attack or merely rummaging for food. Guns were effective about 67 per cent of the time…Brigham Young University bear biologist Thomas Smith, along with Stephen Herrero, bear expert and professor emeritus at the University of Calgary, and their research team report their findings in the April issue of the Journal of Wildlife Management. The researchers analyzed reported bear encounters in Alaska involving 175 people.”

Smith’s update in 2022 is even more convincing of the benefit of spray over guns when faced off with a bear:

“Ninety-eight percent of people who used bear spray escaped injury (with 2% being knocked over but not killed) as opposed to only about 50% of people using guns”

Bear attacks are very rare in my neck of the woods (black bear country, and I’ve come up on a couple with no issues so far) but I like to keep up on the research to understand how to best manage the risks.

@Moab Randy, thanks for that great article regarding dogs and bears.  “A published examination of 92 black bear attacks within a four-year block in North America concluded the majority of attacks involved one or more dogs. And the majority of those attacks involved dogs that were off-leash”

A bit off topic but I’ve noticed that many people took in dogs for companionship during the Covid lockdowns.  Unfortunately its meant far more instances of being accosted by unleashed dogs jumping up on me and circling aggressively on trails.  The negligent owner’s response is always the same “don’t worry, he doesn’t bite”, yet I’ve gone to hospital twice over the years for stiches after being attacked by an off leash canine paragon of kindness.   If it were legal to pack a piece on trail up here, it would be for the dogs, not bears.

“>a kill shot on a charging bear was such a difficult shot under duress I chose bear spray”

I’ve seen a stationary black bear soak up an aimed .300 Win Mag (nearly the biggest long gun one might carry for protection) and run a long ways afterwards (and another who dropped like a bag of meat from a .308).  A charging bear and a human fumbling with the gun?  There have been successful shots, but any honest hunter would admit it’s a crap shoot in that situation.

Dogs kill about 40 people a year in the US, versus all three species of bears hovering around 1-2 annual human fatalities for decades now.

Two additional reasons I trained the dog to return to me when she senses a bear, moose or people; is 1) to not startle the other group and 2) so they aren’t trigger happy with the furry black thing in their midst.

“…versus all three species of bears hovering around 1-2 annual human fatalities for decades now.”

I’m guessing that there are a few more fatalities and many more wounds caused by guns brought along by backpackers to protect themselves from bears than there are actual bear attacks.

p.s. in my earlier post I was trying to suggest that in the lower 48 in non-grizzly country, groups of four or even many folks in established sites ATTRACT bears, whereas in Alaska and elsewhere, more hikers deter grizzly bears.

So: this thread seems to suggest that, in Grizzly country,

–hike in a group of four or more

–all members bring bear spray and know how to use it

–no need to carry guns

Idiots with guns on the trail worry me more than the wildlife ever has.  My ex-cop fishing buddy had a single time in his career in which he would have shot someone, but 1) other LEOs were already doing that and 2) he didn’t have a clear backstop.  Few people think about those things in the heat of the moment.  Other motorists have been injured when a citizen tried to euthanize a vehicle-injured moose when it ricochets off the pavement – a situation that required no sudden action.

And the whole “it’s for two-legged predators”?  That S&W Model 29 .44 Magnum in your chest holster is like having a $500 bill or more pinned to your shirt.  If they draw first, you kind of have to hand it over, and guns are even more fungible than drugs.  I’m surprised it doesn’t happen more often.  Or maybe it does and the victims are too embarrassed to tell anyone or report it.

>any honest hunter would admit it’s a crap shoot in that situation

To that end, this was eye opening.  Their rifle jammed and then they had to resort to a pistol at 15 feet, and got very lucky.

“Dogs kill about 40 people a year in the US, versus all three species of bears hovering around 1-2 annual human fatalities for decades now.”

another example of using Bayes theorem

there are probably way more instances of people in a situation where there are dogs, like walking down the street, than there are people in a situation where there are bears.  Hard to evaluate the risk with that statistic of dogs vs bears

(although if there are 1 to 2 deaths per year, given the large number of people walking around in bear habitat, then the risk is tiny.  And if you’re not in grizzly country in the fall it’s tinier yet)

Couple of thoughts:

They were hiking in a National Park where firearms are not permitted, so the discussion of firearms is moot.

All my backpacking is in grizzly country – I’d never backpack with a dog in grizzly country and tend to view those that do as taking a real chance.

Monday morning QB-ing is all well and good, but it does tend to diminish the tragedy of two people losing their lives.

“Monday morning QB-ing is all well and good, but it does tend to diminish the tragedy of two people losing their lives.”

I have to respectfully disagree. The tragedy has been acknowledged over and over again in this thread; it goes without saying. Analyzing WHY it happened in order to avoid it happening again is perfectly legitimate.

Analyzing WHY it happened in order to avoid it happening again is perfectly legitimate.

We have essentially no facts since none of us were there, so there is little to no analyzation that can take place in any meaningful way. So yes, this is all just mostly Monday Morning QB-ing.

OK, but am I the only one who wants to know how you train a dog to return when they sense stranger danger?

“We have essentially no facts since none of us were there, so there is little to no analyzation that can take place in any meaningful way. So yes, this is all just mostly Monday Morning QB-ing.”

I don’t think anyone’s intent was to blame the victim.

Even though we can’t understand what happened very completely, I get tidbits of useful information, like that having a dog in grizzly habitat may encourage bear attack, I don’t remember hearing that before

And sometimes I get unrelated information like it would be interesting to know how David trains his dog to come back

At least there is little arguing about guns, few things for Matthew to delete