OT: Bear safety--what's the REAL deal?
- Thread starter MauiRob
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2002
- Messages
- 746
As a working Geologist, I have spent quite a few months walking in Canadas artic tundra on my lonesome, and living in small tent camps. The first bear I saw up close and personal was a Barrenland Grizzly that had come to inspect our kitchen supplies. He was less than 30 yards away from me, outside of the tents. I got the shotgun and a coworker went to get the bear bangers. You would not believe the speed those animals can travel at. There are no trees where I work, and yet the bear banger had him out of sight within a few seconds.
The rest of the encounters I have had were not as close: I spotted another Barrenland grizzly crossing the lake in front of our camp about a half-mile distant. He just kept moving and had little interest in us. We had four grizzlys like that come within the same distance in four days. At one point there was a grizzly headed straight towards one of our drill crews. They were scared $h!tless and called for the helicopter to drive it off. The pilot estimated its size at over 1000 lbs!
We had two Polar bears spotted within seven miles of our camp near Hudsons bay. We were barbecuing steaks for fifty people at dinner and also had bacon and eggs cooking every morning. Polar bears are the most dangerous of all bears, and these two were uncharacteristically inland by about 12-15 miles. I dont know if they smelled our cooking or not, but they didnt come and bother us. Polar bears are also the only North American species known to actively hunt humans on a regular basis. Black bears only rarely try to eat people and I dont believe I have ever heard of a grizzly eating anyone. We just dont taste that good, although pepper spray may help as a seasoning. I regard black bears and polar bears as unpredictable and dangerous, and grizzlies as fairly predictable.
In Alberta, I have walked within a few meters of a black bear and didnt know it until my camping buddy came back from just passing me (going the other way) with a terror-stricken look on his face. It was right beside the path. He didnt care that I was there, and I couldnt care because I didnt see him, so we were both OK when we passed each other. Another time we were staying on an isolated cut line in tents and there was another camping couple fifty yards away. The other couple left during the night, and I found fresh black bear tracks right on top or their tire tracks, about halfway between our camp and theirs. Again, he didnt much care to bother us, and we didnt know he was there until morning.
I think that bears generally dont give a rats @$$ if people are around, as long as those people dont surprise them, threaten their cubs or act/smell like food. If you can avoid these three mistakes, then you have a better likelihood of falling of a cliff when hiking than getting attacked.
I can heartily recommend reading Stephen Herrero's "Bear Attacks - Their Causes and Avoidance." This will take some of the illusion out of how you plan on conducting yourself in bear country.
You could do a search and likely find it at most bookstores.
An attack by a bear is a rapidly explosive thing. I gather that often you won't have time to react. In the very rare and unlikely instance that one is hunting you, you probably wont even know until it is too late. These animals spend part of their time hunting deer or moose or caribou or muskox or seals, and have honed their stealth and hunting capabilities all of their lives. It would be a lucky thing to detect a bear stalking you before it made an attack.
If you confront one, frequently charges are false just to let you know who is boss. So it comes down to displaying awareness and not acting like food when you see one. Running often triggers a prey response. One should learn which parts of the bush bears frequent and then endeavor to give them their space. As with human predators, prudence is key to avoiding a fight. In a confrontation, speak in a low voice and tell the bear that you are sorry you have invaded its space and that you are going to leave now. Wish it a wonderful life, filled with salmon/lake trout and many liaisons with bears of the opposite sex. Dont run as you leave or it will think you are food.
Don't count on taking down a charging bear with a handgun. Handgun cartridges are weak in comparison to shotgun/rifle rounds, hard to hit with compared to rifles/shotguns, and a wound may just stimulate the bear to neutralize its attacker. Pepper spray is a last-ditch effort too. People in our camp watched a grizzly take down a large muskox, and I have seen pictures of one taking down a moose. Are you as strong as a moose? Can you draw a .44 magnum and place two or three shots into his heart/lungs in the ~1.5 seconds it takes to reach you at it bounds up and down at 40mph? What if it is a false charge and the bear stops 2-10 feet away from you. When will you shoot? Do you want to risk only wounding it? Ok as a last resort, but you have to be PRUDENT. Our standard bear defense weapon was and is a 12 gauge pump with slugs, or slugs and buckshot. You can also load the first round as a blank or a rubber bullet as a deterrent. I prefer to fire a live round into the air or the ground as an effective noisemaker. A 12 gauge at close range is a VERY good stopper. But again, if you are prudent, you are carrying a shotgun in anticipation of winning the lottery. If you have to shoot a bear at close range, dont stop firing unless you have the sense to stop one round short before reloading. Not likely you can count to five or six in a confrontation like that. You wont even know youve soiled your pants until you smell it five minutes afterward. Be realistic about your marksmanship abilities under extreme stress if you choose a firearm to lug around.
Also, cooking bacon over an open fire is a very good way to attract black bears. Just pour the left-over grease into the pit and you are virtually guaranteed excitement in the next day or so.
A spooky Halloween type thought: Wildlife biologists are coming to the conclusion that the only black bears you see in daylight are young ones. The really huge, older, dangerous, mainly carnivorous ones are nocturnal and hunt large game by night.
I want to conclude this very long post with the sentiment that I love bears and feel that wilderness would not be truly wild without these majestic predators. I would rather walk in the wild knowing I am at risk, than in an ecosystem castrated by human sentiment.
The rest of the encounters I have had were not as close: I spotted another Barrenland grizzly crossing the lake in front of our camp about a half-mile distant. He just kept moving and had little interest in us. We had four grizzlys like that come within the same distance in four days. At one point there was a grizzly headed straight towards one of our drill crews. They were scared $h!tless and called for the helicopter to drive it off. The pilot estimated its size at over 1000 lbs!
We had two Polar bears spotted within seven miles of our camp near Hudsons bay. We were barbecuing steaks for fifty people at dinner and also had bacon and eggs cooking every morning. Polar bears are the most dangerous of all bears, and these two were uncharacteristically inland by about 12-15 miles. I dont know if they smelled our cooking or not, but they didnt come and bother us. Polar bears are also the only North American species known to actively hunt humans on a regular basis. Black bears only rarely try to eat people and I dont believe I have ever heard of a grizzly eating anyone. We just dont taste that good, although pepper spray may help as a seasoning. I regard black bears and polar bears as unpredictable and dangerous, and grizzlies as fairly predictable.
In Alberta, I have walked within a few meters of a black bear and didnt know it until my camping buddy came back from just passing me (going the other way) with a terror-stricken look on his face. It was right beside the path. He didnt care that I was there, and I couldnt care because I didnt see him, so we were both OK when we passed each other. Another time we were staying on an isolated cut line in tents and there was another camping couple fifty yards away. The other couple left during the night, and I found fresh black bear tracks right on top or their tire tracks, about halfway between our camp and theirs. Again, he didnt much care to bother us, and we didnt know he was there until morning.
I think that bears generally dont give a rats @$$ if people are around, as long as those people dont surprise them, threaten their cubs or act/smell like food. If you can avoid these three mistakes, then you have a better likelihood of falling of a cliff when hiking than getting attacked.
I can heartily recommend reading Stephen Herrero's "Bear Attacks - Their Causes and Avoidance." This will take some of the illusion out of how you plan on conducting yourself in bear country.
You could do a search and likely find it at most bookstores.
An attack by a bear is a rapidly explosive thing. I gather that often you won't have time to react. In the very rare and unlikely instance that one is hunting you, you probably wont even know until it is too late. These animals spend part of their time hunting deer or moose or caribou or muskox or seals, and have honed their stealth and hunting capabilities all of their lives. It would be a lucky thing to detect a bear stalking you before it made an attack.
If you confront one, frequently charges are false just to let you know who is boss. So it comes down to displaying awareness and not acting like food when you see one. Running often triggers a prey response. One should learn which parts of the bush bears frequent and then endeavor to give them their space. As with human predators, prudence is key to avoiding a fight. In a confrontation, speak in a low voice and tell the bear that you are sorry you have invaded its space and that you are going to leave now. Wish it a wonderful life, filled with salmon/lake trout and many liaisons with bears of the opposite sex. Dont run as you leave or it will think you are food.
Don't count on taking down a charging bear with a handgun. Handgun cartridges are weak in comparison to shotgun/rifle rounds, hard to hit with compared to rifles/shotguns, and a wound may just stimulate the bear to neutralize its attacker. Pepper spray is a last-ditch effort too. People in our camp watched a grizzly take down a large muskox, and I have seen pictures of one taking down a moose. Are you as strong as a moose? Can you draw a .44 magnum and place two or three shots into his heart/lungs in the ~1.5 seconds it takes to reach you at it bounds up and down at 40mph? What if it is a false charge and the bear stops 2-10 feet away from you. When will you shoot? Do you want to risk only wounding it? Ok as a last resort, but you have to be PRUDENT. Our standard bear defense weapon was and is a 12 gauge pump with slugs, or slugs and buckshot. You can also load the first round as a blank or a rubber bullet as a deterrent. I prefer to fire a live round into the air or the ground as an effective noisemaker. A 12 gauge at close range is a VERY good stopper. But again, if you are prudent, you are carrying a shotgun in anticipation of winning the lottery. If you have to shoot a bear at close range, dont stop firing unless you have the sense to stop one round short before reloading. Not likely you can count to five or six in a confrontation like that. You wont even know youve soiled your pants until you smell it five minutes afterward. Be realistic about your marksmanship abilities under extreme stress if you choose a firearm to lug around.
Also, cooking bacon over an open fire is a very good way to attract black bears. Just pour the left-over grease into the pit and you are virtually guaranteed excitement in the next day or so.
A spooky Halloween type thought: Wildlife biologists are coming to the conclusion that the only black bears you see in daylight are young ones. The really huge, older, dangerous, mainly carnivorous ones are nocturnal and hunt large game by night.
I want to conclude this very long post with the sentiment that I love bears and feel that wilderness would not be truly wild without these majestic predators. I would rather walk in the wild knowing I am at risk, than in an ecosystem castrated by human sentiment.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 2,737
munk,
As far as I can tell, I'm about your age...and I can't claim to have produced a family, or be economically stable enough to consider it. You win, your'e sharper at this time, no matter how what it took to get there.
I just happened to see a couple of later details on this story and the ridiculous "conspiracy" reaction. I found some links to later, totally unpublicized stories. Having had immediate family working in the timber business and worked some summers in that area, I learned a little of how politics, fanatics and the inepitude of government agencies are always at work. Nothing special there. My own suspicion is that some unhinged, loose cannon with an agenda in either the principle invesigator's group or the assay lab "leaked" the raw data to support an entirely unscientific, preformed conclusion, sort of like "animal rights" activists infiltrating various research laboratories. I suspect that the principle investigator got b*ttf*ck*d. While there is a lot of politics and BS in operation in science too, the stench of impropriety does still seem to hang around a while in science, as opposed to say, corporate governance. There are capable and dedicated scientists that work for federal agencies. I cannot immagine a more horrible environment to try to perform research with scientific integrity, and we should be grateful for their efforts as much as we despise those who pervert them.
Having dealt with various commercial contract assay laboratories in the chemical field may have given me a slight edge in interpreting the later, less visible stories, but the real villians in this sad example are the "leaker" and those who so willingly retold the story that fit their pre-formed conclusions. The very opposite of scientific endeavor.
Certainly, submitting an occasional or regular control sample is acceptable and indeed required. It is part of the cost of properly doing science. Determining if the laboratory can continue to reliably distinguish between cougar and lynx hair should be part of a properly conducted study, particularly if the goal is to measure the presence of cougars and lynx via collection of hair. If it were up to me I'd have thrown in some tiger hair too, and if the laboratory didn't tell me "tiger", or "We don't know", I'd be looking for another lab to perform my analyses. And that's what any privately operated analysis lab run expects. The use of controls are what enables data from an experiment to be converted into useful information and conclusions.
stepping off rickety soapbox now...
As far as I can tell, I'm about your age...and I can't claim to have produced a family, or be economically stable enough to consider it. You win, your'e sharper at this time, no matter how what it took to get there.
I just happened to see a couple of later details on this story and the ridiculous "conspiracy" reaction. I found some links to later, totally unpublicized stories. Having had immediate family working in the timber business and worked some summers in that area, I learned a little of how politics, fanatics and the inepitude of government agencies are always at work. Nothing special there. My own suspicion is that some unhinged, loose cannon with an agenda in either the principle invesigator's group or the assay lab "leaked" the raw data to support an entirely unscientific, preformed conclusion, sort of like "animal rights" activists infiltrating various research laboratories. I suspect that the principle investigator got b*ttf*ck*d. While there is a lot of politics and BS in operation in science too, the stench of impropriety does still seem to hang around a while in science, as opposed to say, corporate governance. There are capable and dedicated scientists that work for federal agencies. I cannot immagine a more horrible environment to try to perform research with scientific integrity, and we should be grateful for their efforts as much as we despise those who pervert them.
Having dealt with various commercial contract assay laboratories in the chemical field may have given me a slight edge in interpreting the later, less visible stories, but the real villians in this sad example are the "leaker" and those who so willingly retold the story that fit their pre-formed conclusions. The very opposite of scientific endeavor.
Certainly, submitting an occasional or regular control sample is acceptable and indeed required. It is part of the cost of properly doing science. Determining if the laboratory can continue to reliably distinguish between cougar and lynx hair should be part of a properly conducted study, particularly if the goal is to measure the presence of cougars and lynx via collection of hair. If it were up to me I'd have thrown in some tiger hair too, and if the laboratory didn't tell me "tiger", or "We don't know", I'd be looking for another lab to perform my analyses. And that's what any privately operated analysis lab run expects. The use of controls are what enables data from an experiment to be converted into useful information and conclusions.
stepping off rickety soapbox now...
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2000
- Messages
- 1,077
Wear natural colors...stay away from red or other colors not found in nature, bears are quite curious about them and will investigate.
Cowbells are a good suggestion, but check it out further.
If the Tetons are a national park, you won't be able to bring in any hardware so I'd forget that notion.
Check with the rangers as to what the current bear situation is and take their recommendations seriously.
Keep food well away from camp and hang it up high...20 feet or so up and 10-15 feet from the trunk if possible.
Know how to use pepper spray and what to do if you spray yourself-> no, this is not fun at all.
Philthy Geezer mentioned one good reference, read it. There are others and if you do a search of the Net, will find others.
As one who survived a close encounter with an irate momma bear and two cubs at 10 feet, you do want to take any encounter seriously and have options available to you. I was lucky...momma bear and cubs went one way and I went the opposite way.
Just my thoughts...
Cowbells are a good suggestion, but check it out further.
If the Tetons are a national park, you won't be able to bring in any hardware so I'd forget that notion.
Check with the rangers as to what the current bear situation is and take their recommendations seriously.
Keep food well away from camp and hang it up high...20 feet or so up and 10-15 feet from the trunk if possible.
Know how to use pepper spray and what to do if you spray yourself-> no, this is not fun at all.
Philthy Geezer mentioned one good reference, read it. There are others and if you do a search of the Net, will find others.
As one who survived a close encounter with an irate momma bear and two cubs at 10 feet, you do want to take any encounter seriously and have options available to you. I was lucky...momma bear and cubs went one way and I went the opposite way.
Just my thoughts...
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2002
- Messages
- 746
I absolutely positively love it. My wallet and I decided to have another one shortly after the first one was delivered, so it wouldn't have to grow up alone. We are currently expecting a younger sibling to arrive in a week or so. Word is it will be 18" long and a little heavier than our first.
I am thinking about making some wallet-size prints to show off to friends and coworkers, and send to parents and grand-parents. What do you think? Should I send you one?
I am thinking about making some wallet-size prints to show off to friends and coworkers, and send to parents and grand-parents. What do you think? Should I send you one?
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2002
- Messages
- 746
Apothecary is dead on about consulting with rangers before you go hiking.
Bells and noisemakers are a good idea to avoid surprising anyone. I find singing is a wonderful thing to do in the bush alone, but I find that I usually break into song when I am by myself. You may simply make a point of singing or talking whenever you go around a sharp corner or hike through heavy brush. Usually if two or three people are hiking together they make enough noise and talk to scare away everything within a few miles, and noise makers aren't really necessary.
You could even bring a small ghetto blaster and listen to music on the really short 2-3 day hikes. You might get some nasty looks if others are using the trail though: a lot like to think they are leaving civilization behind. I mention all of these options because the thought of having some dayumed bell going off every time I take a step, for eight hours straight already makes me grumpy. And who says that little bells don't make bears curious, or make associations like jingling bells = timid hikers = easy food?
About hanging up food: It's not just food, but anything smelly that you should hang up. This includes soap, shampoo, deoderant, tampons, baby powder, towels, chewing gum, chocolate bars and anything else that comes with a scent.
Apothecary is right, bears deserve to be taken seriously and it is wise of you to post this question.
I continue to question the value of a handgun. A handgun is better than nothing, but not much. I doubt that even a .454 Casull or .50 Action Express would get near the power of a pump shotgun at close range. They are not magic death rays. Even then, recovering quickly for a second shot takes time with these guns. And if you are going to take a four pound handgun that would make Paul Bunion wince, then why not a 6.0 to 6.5 pound twelve gauge that Richard Simmons could shoot well? I practice irregularly, and can hit five targets in 3.8 seconds with a 12 gauge. I very much doubt I could do this with the .44 magnum I have shot without a LOT of practice.
Thousands of people go hiking without firearms every year and return home unharmed. The likelihood is that you will too. What about those distasteful looks and comments you may get from Granolavores on the trail? Carrying a firearm on a well-used trail in a National Park may find you ostracised and feeling really weird about the way your friends and neighbours talk about you. Then the fun you came to have will not be there, and you will wish for a bear to come and try to eat them just so you can save the day and be a hero instead of a freak.
Some people think anyone with a firearm is deranged in some way. You may think that sheeple react strangely to knives, but you should see their reaction when pump shotguns or handguns intrude into their blissfully ignorant lives! I have dealt with this kind of strange behaviour and it gives you an awful feeling. I have been shooting since I was 13, and have taught safety and proficiency with a twelve gauge to two different camps. Though management and our ex-military camp coodinator knew better, a couple of my coworkers still refused to trust my skill and judgement when there were polar bears around. You should see how inexperienced people change when you bring a gun into the equation. You magically turn from being a good friend and coworker into a deranged lunatic with a power fixation, and no amount of molly-coddling will get them to trust your judgement, because you have a GUN. It scares them badly.
You may be better off with a whistle, bear-bangers, pepper spray, a tough hiking stick and a large khukuri. All of this stuff will weigh about the same as a large handgun or 12 gauge, and be more useful to you. You will be able to relax around your co-hikers, rather than make them uncomfortable.
I think I am at 4 cents worth now... I am writing a lot because I take this topic very seriously, and it is an occupational hazard I can help with.
Bells and noisemakers are a good idea to avoid surprising anyone. I find singing is a wonderful thing to do in the bush alone, but I find that I usually break into song when I am by myself. You may simply make a point of singing or talking whenever you go around a sharp corner or hike through heavy brush. Usually if two or three people are hiking together they make enough noise and talk to scare away everything within a few miles, and noise makers aren't really necessary.
You could even bring a small ghetto blaster and listen to music on the really short 2-3 day hikes. You might get some nasty looks if others are using the trail though: a lot like to think they are leaving civilization behind. I mention all of these options because the thought of having some dayumed bell going off every time I take a step, for eight hours straight already makes me grumpy. And who says that little bells don't make bears curious, or make associations like jingling bells = timid hikers = easy food?
About hanging up food: It's not just food, but anything smelly that you should hang up. This includes soap, shampoo, deoderant, tampons, baby powder, towels, chewing gum, chocolate bars and anything else that comes with a scent.
Apothecary is right, bears deserve to be taken seriously and it is wise of you to post this question.
I continue to question the value of a handgun. A handgun is better than nothing, but not much. I doubt that even a .454 Casull or .50 Action Express would get near the power of a pump shotgun at close range. They are not magic death rays. Even then, recovering quickly for a second shot takes time with these guns. And if you are going to take a four pound handgun that would make Paul Bunion wince, then why not a 6.0 to 6.5 pound twelve gauge that Richard Simmons could shoot well? I practice irregularly, and can hit five targets in 3.8 seconds with a 12 gauge. I very much doubt I could do this with the .44 magnum I have shot without a LOT of practice.
Thousands of people go hiking without firearms every year and return home unharmed. The likelihood is that you will too. What about those distasteful looks and comments you may get from Granolavores on the trail? Carrying a firearm on a well-used trail in a National Park may find you ostracised and feeling really weird about the way your friends and neighbours talk about you. Then the fun you came to have will not be there, and you will wish for a bear to come and try to eat them just so you can save the day and be a hero instead of a freak.
Some people think anyone with a firearm is deranged in some way. You may think that sheeple react strangely to knives, but you should see their reaction when pump shotguns or handguns intrude into their blissfully ignorant lives! I have dealt with this kind of strange behaviour and it gives you an awful feeling. I have been shooting since I was 13, and have taught safety and proficiency with a twelve gauge to two different camps. Though management and our ex-military camp coodinator knew better, a couple of my coworkers still refused to trust my skill and judgement when there were polar bears around. You should see how inexperienced people change when you bring a gun into the equation. You magically turn from being a good friend and coworker into a deranged lunatic with a power fixation, and no amount of molly-coddling will get them to trust your judgement, because you have a GUN. It scares them badly.
You may be better off with a whistle, bear-bangers, pepper spray, a tough hiking stick and a large khukuri. All of this stuff will weigh about the same as a large handgun or 12 gauge, and be more useful to you. You will be able to relax around your co-hikers, rather than make them uncomfortable.
I think I am at 4 cents worth now... I am writing a lot because I take this topic very seriously, and it is an occupational hazard I can help with.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2002
- Messages
- 2,633
Sticks, whistles, K's, pepper spray are nice. But I don't go anywhere without my pistol. Period. Maybe it wouldn't stop a bear in its tracks. Maybe I get stomped by the bear. But I feel safer with a gun. Around here the meth addicts are more worrisome than bears (we don't have any). They ride 4 wheelers everywhere and we've found evidence of cooking in our deer camp.
Phil the Geezer; very good writing and experiences.
1. People have been eaten by Grizzlies. They are found in shallow graves, covered with leaves and debris for later snacking. The late Jack O'Connors favorite Sheep Guide, Field Johnson, was buried twice by a griz, got out twice, but succumbed to his injuries. Many more people are killed and partially eaten by Grizzlies than Blacks. I may be mistaken, but think one of the women killed in a Park was found half buried. At any rate, this is not unusual once the kill is made.
2. Bears behave differently in Alaska and Canada with open space. Parks in the lower 48 are different, both in habitat and interaction with humans. YOu regard Black Bears and Polar bears as unpredictable and dangerous, but the Brown or Grizzly as fairly predictable? WAs this a misprint? Everything I've read supports your view of the Polar bear. VEry dangerous bear. Good thing he's made for ice!
3. You are essentially correct about handguns. People used to write Jack O'Connnor asking what handgun for bear back up to use. He'd always answer that if the more powerful rifle they carried was insufficient for the task, a handgun was a waste of time. That said, a large bore handgun projectile, a solid at warm velocities, has some reasonable expectation of penetrating the brain pan. Elmer Keith was a irritable character, but right about that. When one is not hunting, does not wish to carry a rifle, but still wants some protection, a hot loaded 45 colt, casul, 41 or .44 mag is better than waving one's arms. If a second shot is possible, the Colt and the .41 get the nod. I've read Canadian Guides before the handgun ban used to prefer the Ruger Single Action in .41
You are absolutely correct about the amount of time you will have. 1.5 seconds may be too much. Count upon one shot only, and at a mass of moving roaring hair. A brown has been clocked at a little over 3 seconds covering a hundred yards of tundra, not track meet gravel.
Your experiences were very interesting to read. Me, I have none. But I do read a lot, and garnering from anecdotal evidence such as yours, with many experts opinions, have come to some conclusions about the great bears. You realize your own experiences are not statisically relevant by themselves?
Your conclusion, even in the lower 48, I'll buy. Don't reek of food and keep an eye open and I think almost all of us will be A-OK. I'd rather not be one of the unfortunates, though.
munk
1. People have been eaten by Grizzlies. They are found in shallow graves, covered with leaves and debris for later snacking. The late Jack O'Connors favorite Sheep Guide, Field Johnson, was buried twice by a griz, got out twice, but succumbed to his injuries. Many more people are killed and partially eaten by Grizzlies than Blacks. I may be mistaken, but think one of the women killed in a Park was found half buried. At any rate, this is not unusual once the kill is made.
2. Bears behave differently in Alaska and Canada with open space. Parks in the lower 48 are different, both in habitat and interaction with humans. YOu regard Black Bears and Polar bears as unpredictable and dangerous, but the Brown or Grizzly as fairly predictable? WAs this a misprint? Everything I've read supports your view of the Polar bear. VEry dangerous bear. Good thing he's made for ice!
3. You are essentially correct about handguns. People used to write Jack O'Connnor asking what handgun for bear back up to use. He'd always answer that if the more powerful rifle they carried was insufficient for the task, a handgun was a waste of time. That said, a large bore handgun projectile, a solid at warm velocities, has some reasonable expectation of penetrating the brain pan. Elmer Keith was a irritable character, but right about that. When one is not hunting, does not wish to carry a rifle, but still wants some protection, a hot loaded 45 colt, casul, 41 or .44 mag is better than waving one's arms. If a second shot is possible, the Colt and the .41 get the nod. I've read Canadian Guides before the handgun ban used to prefer the Ruger Single Action in .41
You are absolutely correct about the amount of time you will have. 1.5 seconds may be too much. Count upon one shot only, and at a mass of moving roaring hair. A brown has been clocked at a little over 3 seconds covering a hundred yards of tundra, not track meet gravel.
Your experiences were very interesting to read. Me, I have none. But I do read a lot, and garnering from anecdotal evidence such as yours, with many experts opinions, have come to some conclusions about the great bears. You realize your own experiences are not statisically relevant by themselves?
Your conclusion, even in the lower 48, I'll buy. Don't reek of food and keep an eye open and I think almost all of us will be A-OK. I'd rather not be one of the unfortunates, though.
munk
Federico and Semper: years ago I was persuaded to get a firearm because of my constant hiking in a desert area of Calif known to have meth labs.
Fed; I haven't heard the term, 'tweakers' in a while!! The term is best understood if you've ever come across one in the wilds with the clear look of a man who no longer responds to reality as we know it, and is capable of saying or doing anything. Takes a lot of meth to make one of those.
Semper Fi; the Casul is too much effort to defeat the laws of physics. I'd prefer a normal SAAMI pressure round. Ruger's .480 ought to be a winner, and with repeat shots possible. I like the .44 with 300 gr hard cast. The .41 with as heavy as it will shoot acurately. Fed has a nice 250 grainer.
While a hand gun is not 100% bear medicine, a properly loaded big bore is a a working chance, especially by those who know how to use it. No one really knows; is it 50/50? Is it 80%? EVen a ten percent failure rate would give the handgun a bad rap if you were a member of the unlucky one out of ten.
When hunting the great bears it is said that a .270 can kill one humanely while the bear is unaware, but if the bear is charging the .375 H&H is inadequate.
makes sense to me.
munk
Fed; I haven't heard the term, 'tweakers' in a while!! The term is best understood if you've ever come across one in the wilds with the clear look of a man who no longer responds to reality as we know it, and is capable of saying or doing anything. Takes a lot of meth to make one of those.
Semper Fi; the Casul is too much effort to defeat the laws of physics. I'd prefer a normal SAAMI pressure round. Ruger's .480 ought to be a winner, and with repeat shots possible. I like the .44 with 300 gr hard cast. The .41 with as heavy as it will shoot acurately. Fed has a nice 250 grainer.
While a hand gun is not 100% bear medicine, a properly loaded big bore is a a working chance, especially by those who know how to use it. No one really knows; is it 50/50? Is it 80%? EVen a ten percent failure rate would give the handgun a bad rap if you were a member of the unlucky one out of ten.
When hunting the great bears it is said that a .270 can kill one humanely while the bear is unaware, but if the bear is charging the .375 H&H is inadequate.
makes sense to me.
munk
- Joined
- May 30, 2002
- Messages
- 374
Philthygeezer, congratulations, if everybody had had your set of mind then we wouldn't need environmentalists preaching anymore. The day when all people of this world have reached your level of personal enlightenment, that's the day we will have learned to live in coexistence with nature including it's large predators. That's the day when I will lay down my sword because I would not need to fight anymore to save this world.
You write with a purely logical way of looking at things combined with a proper respect for nature. You speak of how to defend yourself against bears without having any kind of bad emotions against bears, because you just see them for what they are and don't define them as problems but as bears. I guess being a scientifically educated person makes you think with reason, and think further than your own nose (which other people in this world tend not to do).
Deeply respectful greetings from a biology student
- Joined
- Mar 5, 1999
- Messages
- 34,096
Bear threads work. Some really good and thoughtful stuff.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2002
- Messages
- 3,674
This is a great thread. Phil, I really appreciate your input.
I'd like to digress slightly to make a statement here. It seems that whenever there's a thread about the outdoors, someone always manages to slip in a few cheap shots at federal land managers.
For those of you who don't already know, I am a Park Ranger. The federal agency I work for is the largest provider of outdoor recreation in the U.S. (Free prize for the first person who emails me the name of that agency).
I spend a great deal of my time "out in the woods." My uniform closely resembles a Fish & Game officer or a sheriff's deputy yet I carry no weapon. I have no authority to detain or arrest anyone. My boat and my vehicle are not equipped with flashing lights. I contact thousands of people a year but only write one or two citations. I rescue ten times that many from situations that are potentially life-threatening. Most of the time I am in remote areas I am working alone.
Having said that, I agree that there are many appalling examples of excesses and misuses of "authority" carried out by individuals entrusted with the management of public lands and paid with your tax dollars. These examples infuriate me probably more than they do any of you, because they reflect directly on ME as a public servant. People like me get shot because of people like that.
Please remember that there are a hell of a lot more people like me out there than there are the other type. Most of us are out there to make public lands available and enjoyable to the public.
I'd like to digress slightly to make a statement here. It seems that whenever there's a thread about the outdoors, someone always manages to slip in a few cheap shots at federal land managers.
For those of you who don't already know, I am a Park Ranger. The federal agency I work for is the largest provider of outdoor recreation in the U.S. (Free prize for the first person who emails me the name of that agency).
I spend a great deal of my time "out in the woods." My uniform closely resembles a Fish & Game officer or a sheriff's deputy yet I carry no weapon. I have no authority to detain or arrest anyone. My boat and my vehicle are not equipped with flashing lights. I contact thousands of people a year but only write one or two citations. I rescue ten times that many from situations that are potentially life-threatening. Most of the time I am in remote areas I am working alone.
Having said that, I agree that there are many appalling examples of excesses and misuses of "authority" carried out by individuals entrusted with the management of public lands and paid with your tax dollars. These examples infuriate me probably more than they do any of you, because they reflect directly on ME as a public servant. People like me get shot because of people like that.
Please remember that there are a hell of a lot more people like me out there than there are the other type. Most of us are out there to make public lands available and enjoyable to the public.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
- Messages
- 7,269
I want pictures, comparisons, impact studies, more pictures (before and after), carrying rig, anecdotal references to what you did before the khuk arrived, and cost-benefit analysis on the return on your investment. Your first work was nice for everyone--I posted a link to it in Plainsman's Cabin.
Nice of you to get a companion for it. (And how clever to suggest you are doing it for the KHUK, rather than for yourself!)
[National Park Service...by the way.]
My personal experiences with land trust and DNR officers is wonderful. Courteous, conscientious, more hard-working than folks can believe, on-call 24 hours a day, and subject to the whims and idiosyncratic behaviors of Politicians whose (mostly) only agenda is more funds to campaign with, or headlines/sound-bites.
Oh...And Lord can they drink coffee!!! (during one deer season, I had eight dnr types in my kitchen, trading stories and making arrangements for the next sweep. I had two percolators going, and was searching for the instant coffee.)
Kis
Nice of you to get a companion for it. (And how clever to suggest you are doing it for the KHUK, rather than for yourself!)
[National Park Service...by the way.]
My personal experiences with land trust and DNR officers is wonderful. Courteous, conscientious, more hard-working than folks can believe, on-call 24 hours a day, and subject to the whims and idiosyncratic behaviors of Politicians whose (mostly) only agenda is more funds to campaign with, or headlines/sound-bites.
Oh...And Lord can they drink coffee!!! (during one deer season, I had eight dnr types in my kitchen, trading stories and making arrangements for the next sweep. I had two percolators going, and was searching for the instant coffee.)
Kis
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2000
- Messages
- 3,708
MANY thanks for all the thoughtful and well written replies!
I'll check that out, thanks Phil
I completely agree! And to be honest, I'm more worried about humans anytime I'm out hiking than the wildlife... which brings me to the reason I WON'T carry a firearm in a National Park. Guess where I'd end up if things went wrong? Yep, a Federal Prison. And I'll tell you, I'd rather sleep naked a covered in bacon grease in Grizzly country than spend a long stretch in one of those prisons!!
Raghorn,
My experience with park rangers is limited but it has been 100% positive, so I don't understand the rage that some folks seem to have either. The rangers I met in Acadia were very knowledgeable and friendly, and I expect the same from the folks at Grand Teton N.P. I think most people will treat you right when they see that you're a stand up guy who's not out to make trouble--except for wilderness meth-heads
Incidently, according to the Nat'l Park's website on Grand Teton, the Grizzlys tend to be at higher elevations in the fall feeding on some kind of tree bark IIRC...
And if I had to choose an ultimate bear "gun" thats easy: a double barrel, belt fed .12ga, full auto, with a back pack 1,000rd magazine, side by side with a flame thrower barrel next to that.And while we're at it, a RPG tube underneath. Of course it'd have to have a 25lb weight hanging off the barrel to counteract the recoil, and then we're back to maneuverability issues again... Guess my pocket folder will have to do--hell didn't that guy kill a mountain lion with a 2.5" blade, mines at least 5" long--more than enough for Grizzly--if you're a REAL man
I'll check that out, thanks Phil
I completely agree! And to be honest, I'm more worried about humans anytime I'm out hiking than the wildlife... which brings me to the reason I WON'T carry a firearm in a National Park. Guess where I'd end up if things went wrong? Yep, a Federal Prison. And I'll tell you, I'd rather sleep naked a covered in bacon grease in Grizzly country than spend a long stretch in one of those prisons!!
Raghorn,
My experience with park rangers is limited but it has been 100% positive, so I don't understand the rage that some folks seem to have either. The rangers I met in Acadia were very knowledgeable and friendly, and I expect the same from the folks at Grand Teton N.P. I think most people will treat you right when they see that you're a stand up guy who's not out to make trouble--except for wilderness meth-heads
Incidently, according to the Nat'l Park's website on Grand Teton, the Grizzlys tend to be at higher elevations in the fall feeding on some kind of tree bark IIRC...
And if I had to choose an ultimate bear "gun" thats easy: a double barrel, belt fed .12ga, full auto, with a back pack 1,000rd magazine, side by side with a flame thrower barrel next to that.And while we're at it, a RPG tube underneath. Of course it'd have to have a 25lb weight hanging off the barrel to counteract the recoil, and then we're back to maneuverability issues again...
Guess my pocket folder will have to do--hell didn't that guy kill a mountain lion with a 2.5" blade, mines at least 5" long--more than enough for Grizzly--if you're a REAL man
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2002
- Messages
- 2,737
OK, a couple of questions?
What is a bear banger exactly? It doesn't seem to be like a bang stick used aginst sharks from the context.
I've read somewhere of a couple of instances of a flare pistol succesfully deterring bears for dogsled racers. Maybe singeing a little fur helped. Expect lots of trouble with this option during fire season!
Excellent point that I've not seen addressed! Cleaning oneself after an accidental spraying in the field seems a bit of a challenge...In "civilization" I'd be thinking to scrub with something like whole milk, "tearless" baby shampoo, or some other kind of mild detergent or fat emulsion to remove the oil-soluble capsaicins then lots and lots of water. Maybe a lanolin-based hand cleaner/degreaser? Carrying all the extra water seems problematic. Something similar is possible in the field, if one prepared, but how to avoid smelling even more "interesting" than all the stuff that's been hung up in the tree?
What is a bear banger exactly? It doesn't seem to be like a bang stick used aginst sharks from the context.
I've read somewhere of a couple of instances of a flare pistol succesfully deterring bears for dogsled racers. Maybe singeing a little fur helped. Expect lots of trouble with this option during fire season!
Excellent point that I've not seen addressed! Cleaning oneself after an accidental spraying in the field seems a bit of a challenge...In "civilization" I'd be thinking to scrub with something like whole milk, "tearless" baby shampoo, or some other kind of mild detergent or fat emulsion to remove the oil-soluble capsaicins then lots and lots of water. Maybe a lanolin-based hand cleaner/degreaser? Carrying all the extra water seems problematic. Something similar is possible in the field, if one prepared, but how to avoid smelling even more "interesting" than all the stuff that's been hung up in the tree?