HUNTERS SHOULD DO MORE OF IT
Think Grizzly
Thousands of hunters are crawling around grizzly country in the predawn darkness, alone, quietly, into the wind, and smelling like stale elk pee. If they have a successful hunt, they'll fill the wind with the smell of high-quality grizzly food. Is this a problem?By Bill Schneider, 9-11-08
 |
|
 | |
| Hunters must be on red alert in grizzly country. Photo courtesy of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Department. | |
|
Editor's Note: This is a rerun of a column I posted two years ago, slightly expanded with new research, and it seems, still quite timely.
Big game hunters, it's your time to rule the forests. Archery seasons are underway, and general big game seasons will be soon throughout the New West. Thousands of hunters will be crawling around grizzly country in the predawn darkness, alone, as quietly as possible, into the wind, and smelling like stale elk pee. If they have a successful hunt, they'll fill the wind with the smell of high-quality grizzly food.
Is this a problem?
Here are a few examples of what happens.
In October 1995, two British Columbia hunters, William Caspell and Shane Fumerton, shot a large bull elk on the Continental Divide on the Alberta-British Columbia border. A time-delayed snapshot from a stump showed two happy hunters with their prize. But shortly after the photo was taken, they were both dead. Two days later, officials shot a small female grizzly and two cubs that refused to give up their elk carcass, even when hazed with a helicopter. Three bears, in biologist-speak, were "removed from the population."
In October 2001, Timothy Hilston shot an elk on the Blackfoot-Clearwater Game Range, northeast of Missoula, almost within sight of U.S. Highway 200. While he field dressed the elk, a female grizzly and her two cubs came to claim it, and he died a slow, tragic death. The next day, three grizzly bears died a fast, tragic death.
In October 2004, Wally Cash was hunting elk near Moran in northwestern Wyoming, He was "sneaking along" and crested a small rise and saw a grizzly only a few feet away. The bear instantly jumped him, punching a quarter-sized hole in his skull and biting his hand before running off. Later, tracks in the snow told investigators that the female grizzly and her cubs had been feeding on an elk carcass Cash and his hunting partners had left out overnight. In addition to being surprised by a stealthy hunter, the grizzly was protecting her cubs and newfound food source--a classic bad three strikes against you if you're an elk hunter. This time, no bears died.
Also in October 2004, Weston Scott was after elk in Moccasin Creek in northwestern Wyoming. He heard rustling in a thick timber and thought it was an elk, but instead, a 600-pound grizzly charged out of the thicket. He managed to get off a hip shot, but missed. He had bear spray, but didn’t have time to reach for it. The bear mauled Scott’s face horribly and inflicted minor injuries before running away. A few minutes later, one of Scott’s hunting partners killed the bear.
In May 2005, Jebb Lackey was bow hunting for black bear in thick brush along a stream noisily cascading out of the mountains near Hungry Horse Reservoir in northwestern Montana. "I decided to stop on the side of the creek and take a leak," he said. "I was buttoning my pants up and I looked to my right and the bear was already at full charge about 10 yards away. I saw two cubs running away in the opposite direction."
Lackey reached for his .44 magnum, but his belt was still unbuckled. "It wouldn't have done me a bit of good," he recalled. "She had the draw on me. I got caught with my pants down, literally." He said the bear hit him "like a ton of bricks." The bear knocked Lackey flat on his face and put its front paws "directly on my shoulder blades and put her nose directly on the back of my neck and made some growling, gurgling sounds. "And just as I thought this is it, I'm going to die, she took off after her cubs." While walking back to his truck and thinking about what to do with his "second chance," Lackey decided to continue to hunt, but no more bear hunting. "I can't justify going after them with that intent anymore. If she wanted me dead, there was nothing to stop her. I take it like she let me live."
I couldn't find a good online source of specific advice for hunters hunting in grizzly country, so here is a list I paraphrased from my book, Where the Grizzly Walks.
|
One could, in fact, argue that hunters do everything possible to seduce grizzlies into an encounter, so is it a miracle there aren’t many more dead and injured hunters?
Perhaps, but two things keep the number of incidents down. First, most hunters are extremely aware of their surroundings, and this training and built-in alertness prevents many encounters. Second, the grizzly deserves praise for being so incredibly aware of its surroundings that the bear can detect and avoid the most stealthy hunters stalking through the night, making no noise, and reeking of artificial buck scent.
The punch line is, hunters must think grizzly, both to protect themselves and to prevent incidents leading to the death of bears. The species has made a nice comeback from the brink of extinction and may soon be completely removed from the protections of the Endangered Species Act, so hunters need to do their part to keep human-caused mortality low.
One way hunters can do their part is rely on bear pepper spray instead of firearms for protection. Recent research by Alaskan bear expert Tom Smith clearly answers the question many hunters have: Is bear spray safer than guns when charged by a bear? In 72 incidents where people used bear spray to defend themselves from an aggressive bear attack in Alaska, 98 percent were uninjured and all who were injured only had minor injuries. In 350 incidents where people used firearms, 40 percent were injured or killed. That 40 percent includes 23 fatalities, 16 severely injured, and 48 persons with minor injuries.
Grizzlies have probably always keyed on hunters as a source of food, either gut piles or unwatched carcasses, but now, it's more serious because we have more bears in more places. In addition, some biologists believe each generation of bears gets smarter about getting food from hunters, now even interpreting a rifle shot as a dinner bell.
Hunters should think grizzly everywhere in western Montana, northwestern Wyoming and in Idaho next to Yellowstone and on the panhandle near Canada. But the most serious problem is heavily hunted areas like on the north and south edge of Yellowstone National Park in the Blackfoot Valley and Rocky Mountain Front in Montana. Like it or not, the opening of hunting season is no different than the salmon run starting up in Alaska. Bears habitually migrate to popular big game hunting areas expecting to find easy meals.
Based on the low number of bloody encounters, grizzlies are either remarkably tolerant of those thousands of smelly hunters or intelligent enough to avoid almost all of them. But the trend, more hunters and more bears in the same spots, tells us that we can no longer be nonchalant about the risk.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Bear spray is potent, and it works. In camp, it would be a much better choice for hunters than a firearm. Light, easy to carry, and if a bear came into camp there's no risk of accidentally shooting someone. In the field, while hunting, bear spray is not an option for hunters during a classic surprise encounter with a grizzly.
The Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Wyoming Game & Fish Dept., and Idaho Fish & Game Dept. all chant the same slogan: hunters in grizzly country should carry bear spray and know how to use it. They don't train hunters how to use it, or explain how hunters should use it, because it can't be done.
"They don't train hunters how to use it, or explain how hunters should use it, because it can't be done"
Read his comments carefully because it explains the large number of camo-clad bubbas out there with no common sense.
It's not the Grizzlies I fear, it's the hunters that can figure out how to load and fire their weapon, but can't figure out how to use bear spray.
But "Logger" seems to know, so please do tell us.
You have two hands, right? Bear spray can be fired with one and doesn't require accuracy, which might be tough to achieve in the moment of duress, even for an experienced rifleman (ask Mr. Workman). Your rifle can be held with the other.
You don't even need to draw the bear spray out if its holster. Rip off the safety and spray from the hip, which will also help you avoid spraying too high.
"“We carry bear spray all the time,” Manley said of bear managers like himself. “We wouldn't carry it if we didn't think it worked. With a gun, people miss all the time. Or else they end up wounding the bear, and then I have to go in and deal with that. Our position is the bear spray is a very effective tool.”
And Workman isn't disagreeing. He just thinks it has to be at the ready, right there in hand, because when a bear encounter happens, it happens with remarkable speed."
source: http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/09/08/news/mtregional/news08.txt
I suppose it might be possible to train hunters to let go of their rifle with one hand and try to fire bear spray from a holster with their free hand. But it would take a lot of practice. I suspect that if bear spray advocate and Center For Wildlife Information director Chuck Bartlebaugh suggested this technique to a group of experienced Montana hunters, he'd meet with a certain amount of skepticism. And unless Bartlbaugh or some other bear spray quick draw artist could demonstrate this technique, it would not fly. To the best of my knowledge, this technique is not taught in hunter education classes. Nor has anyone demonstrated how to do it.
The Center For Wildlife Information does have a bear spray video aimed at hunters, but it's rather comical because it's unrealistic and shows a firearms safety violation that makes hunters cringe in fear. Two hunters walking along startle a bear, and one hunter points his rifle at the bear, while the other hunter fires his bear spray at the bear. Of course the "hunter" who fires the bear spray is not carrying a rifle!!!!! The "hunter" carrying a rifle sure looks like he has his finger on the trigger, which is a firearms safety taboo.
It's readily apparent to hunters that bear spray advocates have an alarming lack of familiartiy with firearms, and that raises credibility issues when bear spray advocates tell hunters how to handle their firearms during a life and death situation with a charging grizzly.
You are making assumptions about others with a complete lack of knowledge. I have also assisted in teaching firearm safety. I have not recommended dropping a loaded rifle. I pointed out that most hunters have two arms that operate independently of one another. If a hunter can be trained to react effectively using his rifle he can be trained to react effectively using other means as well.
All that aside, archery hunters are at greater risk, due to the stealth and scents they employ, than rifle hunters (see article). Certainly bear spray can be drawn and used as quickly as a side arm and, again, given that bear spray is more foregiving with regard to accuracy, a problem in a extreme situation, it remains the best bet.
If it's so simple for a hunter with a rifle in his hands facing a charging grizzly to let go of the rifle and then deploy bear spray with his free hand, how come the Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho Fish & Game departments don't train hunters to do it? They've all been preaching that hunters should "carry bear spray and know how to use it" for a decade. What's the problem?
Why don't the Fish & Game departments, or the Sierra Club, or the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee put out a video showing hunters how to do it? A demo would be inspiring. Why doesn't the Center For Wildlife Information give hunters step-by-step instructions on how to let go of your loaded rifle with one hand and use bear spray with your free hand?
I'll tell you why. Any agency, organization, or individual that tells hunters, "if you're facing a charging grizzly, keep calm, let go of your rifle with one hand, and deploy bear spray with your free hand" is going to be a laughingstock.
Remember the old saying:"Thank GOD you have it and pray you never have to use it."
Training helps, that's why law enforcement officials do so much training with lethal weapons for high stress, life and death situations, but right now state and federal agencies are not training hunters in grizzly country how to use firearms or bear spray. Criminal negligence.
Day time encounters were too numerous to count. I was always on the Park side of the boundary and this was where the bears day bedded after feasting on Indian quartered carcasses and all that meat left behind by outfitters who did not want to pack anything but the cape and skull plate. They didn't expect anyone to come across them on the Park side.
My horse alerted me to most of these but on occassion griz charged from very close range. A good horse holds his ground and the bear either veers or stops and turns like a road runner cartoon...all within 5-10 feet of me. The only thing not a blur is its eyes and teeth. Again there is no time to reach for anything...bear spray, the 44 on my hip or the 45-70 in my scabboard. If I did have time to reach for any of these items then I had time to figure out a way to get out of that situation safely for myself and the bear. Thats how it was and it happened on foot as well as on horse.
Most maulings and bear killings in my area (SE corner of Yellowstone...and there were more in that 3x15 mile area that I know of no place in Canada and beyond with so many in so concentrated an area) came about the same way, very close, and the gun was invariably knocked away. If the guy had time to shoot then he probably was not in real danger.
The guys who had bear spray used it while they were on the ground and the bear was on top of them, gun or no gun. This happened to bow hunters as well. It also happened when a buddy could come to the rescue and spray the bear. You can not get a gunshot off at a bear with a him on your bud without risking hitting him. It has been done but it mostly happens after the bear takes a break from the fast and furious activity ...and the damage has already been done.
The scenario is then helping a mangled partner away and then everybody back in town soon thinks the guy with the gun saved his buddy. Oh, patriotism at its best.
With bear spray the guy to the rescue comes right up to the bear...if he is not scared and runs with his tail between his legs, which happens a lot .... and it is only said in confidence while the principles are still in the back country (can't let that out back in the bars of Ohio can we?)....and sprays while the bear is in action mode. It usually works in getting that bear away.
Thus, to conclude, our man with the scenarios of how a REAL Man with a gun has to use that almighty phallic symbol probably has mostly Outdoor Life magazine and local bar expertise. At least I hope so, because otherwise he is a danger to not only himself but also anyone he is with while in bear country.
I'll pass this along to folks in Alaska at the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the US Forest Service. For some strange reason, they train people to use bear spray, and they still require some people who work in bear country to qualify with firearms. What a waste of time and taxpayers money.
Me: Counterbart: can you explain a concept to me that I'm unfamiliar with?
Counterbart: your question shows you are unfamiliar with this concept, idiot.
Thanks for nothing. I hope as I continue to learn about hunting this fall -- including taking the FWP course next week -- I meet relatively few hunters/teachers like you. I also hope the future of hunting as a popular pastime doesn't depend on spokespeople like you.
In the country I patrolled all the Walter Mitty outfitters and guides were itching to have an "encounter" they then could pass on to newbie employees and naive, bug eyed clients. It helped to get tips also.
One outfitter I knew would show his pin hole "wounds" on the back of his hand and wrist (probably originating by the pointed end of a knife or awl) for the whole season. Said he was coming out of his tent in the dark and this huge griz was on his hind legs right in front of him. He shielded his face with his arm as this "big fella" knocked him down. Upon this statement he would then move his hair from his forhead and show more pin holes and a couple of remnants of cuts about an inch long. The guy from the Forest Service, investigating the alleged attack, and I would joke about how this cowboy of a man ____ didn't have the pain tolerance to make longer more legitimately looking rips. The fact there were no griz tracks in front of the dusty tent didn't seem to deter starry eyed guides from believing their hero, however.
Another camps guide out in the woods shot a griz sow and her two yearling cubs who "attacked him". "Barely had time to get her with the rifle and then had to pull the 44 as the cubs came at him from different directions".
Its all a crock. The outfitter stories repeat themselves in different variations and naive, hero worshipping drug store cowboy will forever want to relive the Wild West. As for the law enforcement community they help perpetuate the myth. They did not prosecute the guide in the case above because "there was not enough evidence to disprove the guide shot the tree griz in self defence". Talk about double negatives to justify a hype of what they hope they themselves "have to do some day"!
Folks, we have a lot of weak kneed game wardens, biologists and USFW agents out there when it comes to the high profile issue of griz. And those few hunters and law enforcement personnel who have bear knowledge and who are not caught up in a Walter Mitty outlook on life...those who actually want to pass on legitimate info ....have very few non biased case incidents that they then can access to pass on to class attendees when it comes to firearms.
In the Park it is no different. Walter Mitty "Back country" rangers would radio for all the Park to hear (no local channel communication here when you need to repeat war stories to as many peers as will listen to you) in supposed distress situations when there was none. A favorite repeating itself with new ranger though the years was the guy, out of breath and on the mike a lot so others heard gasping, who panic stricken, told how he just made it to the tree before the bear. Invariably the tree was too small to climb higher or there were only dead branches that broke under his feet. Thus the bear was just out of reach. The final statement one could repeat outloud before they even uttered it, "what should I do?"
As for bear spray effectiveness I found most of these stories could be assessed as having some accuracy of effectiveness when personal injury was involved because there were no options to tell. On the other hand, those stories without injury sometimes were suspect. A biologist coming out of the back country smelling of bear spray probably had it go off in or on his pack ...not the story given where the guy "sprayed a charging bear but it was discharged into a strong wind".
The mauling reasons with back country users, public servant or private citizen had to be scrutinized closely and most investigators were taken more with the image of griz than with what had happened and why.Thus the truth was biased. One nationally known case happened because some academic put together a study (which the park endorsed) where they were to study how griz behaved when they were repeatedly jumped. The results were inevitable. The guy and his assistant had jumped these bears 3 times in one morning (no they weren't great trackers. hint, radio collars). Then it was break time and time to do earthy duties. With his pants down the bear had circled and got him from behind. It was legite as to reaction when I heard the the assistant yell by radio "May Day, May Day"...and upon the Park fire cache responding with the question of what happened the guy saying over and over, "Its bad, its bad".
Years pass and the story out of the "experts" and in the press changes as justification for that biologist story changes for the principles narrating first hand encounters or the writer to get desired effect. So do those stories coming out of outfitter camps and back home in middle USA when hunters tell thier buddies at the bar or the son growing up and wanting to be like his father.
The only reason there are not more stories is because there are so few griz left to allow more stories to be generated. My favorite bear story came from a guy who didn't see or even have a bear in the area. The suspense created by that narrator was edge of chair reality, however, and forever he will believe that bear was close to getting him.
PS. Counterbart, the worst thing one could do is to curl up in a ball and stay there when you are in the zone of a bear on a kill or "gut pile" (I quote gut pile because gut piles in any wilderness area do not have enough mass for bears to find in non habituated conditions. The ravens, then eagles,then coyotes, then wolves if there are any come in quick succession to clean up the remains.... before a non shot habituated bear could find it. In Thorofare this shot chasing started only after outfitters quit taking out full quarters. It all could be changed back if every hunter was required to take out full quarters and stay on site till the carcass is packed up and out. If this means pack stock are taken while hunting or extra hands have to accompany for processing then so be it. All the game wardens and any knowledgable bear biologist knows this is the solution for any normal wildlife behavior to return .... but either the game warden doesn't like bears (which most of them in my country didn't) or they are biologists who have tails that wrap around to under their chin.
The bears are the losers and those who want to keep the Walty Mitty image going ...game wardens....or they are biologists where keeping there jobs is more important than making honest statements to the press .....are the self serving "winners". As for the gun - spray debate I think digging a bit deeper into folks psyche and inner insecurities will give more answers as to why answers are not as easily obtained as they should be.
Why hold fire until the bear is two inches away? Even if you made a perfect shot with an elephant rifle, the bear's momemtum is going to carry it into you and a 300 pound bear going 30mph is going to cause injuries. Did Heimer panic and fire a wild shot at the last moment? Was he using his client's rifle? Was he trying to operate a safety he wasn't familiar with? The bear mauled Heimer and his client. The Montana Outfitter's Association named Heimer guide of the year. Good campfire story, I'm sure, but it just doesn't add up.
This is a situation where, if Heimer had been carrying bear spray, he had time to pick and choose between bear spray and a firearm. Bob, if you were in Heimer's boots and you had your own rifle, would you reach for the rifle or bear spray?
As to what I would have done, it is the same now as I did on a number of occassions with bears that close or closer. And more than half of these encounters were while on foot. Travelling 600 miles each month with horses staying in the backcountry months at a time (dependent on graze), and which I used 7 days a week, meant more than half the time was spent walking in front of the horse. I also did a lot of walking without a horse when poachers were involved.
If the bear(s) were not charging upon discovery the first thought was to lower myself a bit and at the same time start stepping back. It was not to reach for a gun. If I had a horse I grabbed the reins close and backed him up also. Sometimes I got lucky and the bear never saw me. Other times I might make it a few steps back before being seen. Most ran the other way. This is probably what honorable guide Heimer was hoping.
The fact that the client was a woman and therefore not one of the likely good ole boy hunters who shared similiar outfitter natural resource prejudice probably helped the guide to decide against shooting upon sight or at the first step the bear moved ... if this guide was the typical good ole redneck ruffian. Remember, my prejudice come from working "with" outfitters on the line. Not the best of situations to tempt these guys.
I have had sows charge and veer at the same time. The adrenaline heats up a bit then. I have also had them charge the same instant as both of us discovered each other. As I said in an earlier post, then it is all a blurr except for the eyes and nose. I have reached for my gun as fast as I could in these cases...before bear spray came on the scene.
I never once had time to get that pistol or rifle in position to fire. Thus, I'd say our honorable Mr. Heims waiting until 2" away was actually a case of not having time even if the gun was on his shoulder or hip when she started. It just sounds good to say "you waited as long as you could". These bears come way to fast for the African safari type scenarios to actually happen in this manner.
Thus, a rifle is not of much value when a bear is on top of you or of much effectiveness for "true" defense in griz country.. pistol or bear spray ... maybe. To answer your question directly I would have chosen the bear spray over the rifle. I'd figure I still might have a chance to use it with a bear on top of me. If I had a pistol and bear spray I would try to have both ready. In later years while backing a horse up I "saw" after the fact the pistol was in the same hand as the one holding the reins. Therefore I must have instinctively known the bear spray was better?? Or could it be I always held my reins in my right hand and I figured it was easier to misfire with spray than a pistol without the trigger finger in it??? All I can say for sure is it is a lot easier to get the drop on poachers than it is on griz. I was fortunate to never suprised a sow with her on one side and cubs on the other. It sounds like Mr. Hummer, I mean Mr. Heimer, had them altogether in front of him. The odds should have been on his side for a fake charge to happen. Thats what happened to me in this case...as well to lots of others with that scenario.
I think one also needs to put all this modern day panic of vulnerability into perspective. The Indians in bear country could figure losing two out of six if they went after bear. With todays health care I think all the alarm of a few maulings pales when compared to the perspective of interactive nature Indians possessed. I am sure I did not come close to what they understood of life and death but then again I probably came closer to sharing these same feelings as Indigenous peoples than most weapon carriers in this country today.
However, I still had nightmares after putting bear created human body parts into garbage bags. So I guess I should not condemn those who need to get a bit of buzz in their lives by reading bear stories from accounts of those folks who can't seem to get it right as to what led up to them wounding a bear or getting mauled. None of thiese tragedies ever happened to me but I guarentee it would have happened if I would have reacted as a lot of folks do in bear country.
One last thing. Montana has nothing on other states when it comes to this big game "sporting" hunt tradition of ours. In Wyoming the outfitters bestowed guide of the year awards on a person from my neck of the woods who already had his guide license revoked for chronic hunting violations.That whole year he had been relegated to wrangler status. Of course, he made the best of those duties. It enabled him to steal the Parks SE hand carved in the 1800's 200 lb. corner stone. Ta da, ta da
Here's a light-hearted barb aimed at you and Jerry Mernin, and I hope you'll take it in the right spirit; you horse lovers operate on the assumption the rest of the world cares about horses as much as you do. And that there's a horse involved in every, well, most, bear-human encounters. That's just not true. I think the fact that you were generally on horseback when you had encounters with bears, makes your experiences way different from people on foot. Not that you don't have years of experience, just that horses made things different.
Thus, what Mr. Smith describes with short stroking rifles with griz I have seen several times on the firing range and in the backcountry...by fellow rangers. And no, there would not be a single shot fired before all 5 cartridges from a bolt action rifle lay on the ground. I have also seen rangers dump all six live ammo on the ground of a revolver because they got so excited in preparation to shooting ... and then commence "firing" six times with the empty cylinder.
I don't think there is a "cool" person out there in time of urgency.
Thus, I'd have to say whatever weapon is least lethal is the best one to use on a charging griz. Since guns kill and bear spray doesn't I'd say bear spray is the best weapon for just about all folks visiting bear country. At least when the bear is on you your senses will come back to allow you to do what you need to do. With a rifle as your security blanket you have a barrel not pointing at anything.
I've had a life full of guns. The accuracy I knew translated into being the only one in the Park Service allowed to carry a lever action (45-70) . Guns and their feel are second nature to me. And I still kill. I shoot ever buffalo we butcher, and this means hundreds. I am incapable, though, of not giving a prayer to every buffalo I kill... and the family they leave behind. I look at the death I cause as a huge responsibility.
There would be no glory for me in killing a charging grizzly...just sadness, grief and despair. Thus I always looked for another solution to the predicaments before me. Maybe a bit was luck, but at the same time I can see the duplication of many other cases in Thorofare that ended in maulings or wounded bears...that I was able to extricate myself from with no damage to either of us.
As for horses, they had their life and I had mine. I never talked to any of them.To fall in love with my stock, or the image they created in many, meant I couldn't do my job as well. I would become just like all others who talked of bays, roans or chestnuts. On the other hand I knew the value of them to me and I took good care of them. I never sored a horse in thirty years and a lot involved difficult off trail packing and travel.
"Horsemen (women) ended in the same mental camp, whether they were on one side of the law or the other. It made rangers incapable of suspecting fellow bonded horse riders and it made game wardens talk the hunting camp horse crap with outfitters instead of doing their job. The end result was it was a lot easier for them to go after private hunters (less horse associated infrastructure) than it was to prosecute those from an outfitter camp with ten wall tents, 70 stock and big packed tack tent they all went into to smell the leather. It was all sick...a Wild West role for all of them. The horse image became more important than the job for way too many of them.
Yes, my horse made the difference in most bear encounters. I appreciated this a lot. I would have liked it better if my "fine" animal could have been part of his own herd, however. Since he wasn't and they had already castrated him I tried to give him as much of his life back as possible. To hell with teaching a horse manners and insisting on total control. How could they help you if the "horsemen" insisted on psychologically lobotimizing their stock? I was "excused" from mandatory horse training in my later years not because I didn't need it but because the teachers knew I thought they cared more about getting a "buzz" from dominating animals than trying to work with them.
So you got it wrong again debatebart. I also suggest you forget thinking of guns and the shiny,spent brass. Forget smelling the spent cartidge for that exploded gunpowder high. Of course, on the other hand, I could be stereotyping you as part of the "greater we" when you are not. Maybe you sniff ink instead?You do make me refresh my memory on the Walty Mitty hunting environment I patrolled, however.
What I thought of the fakery associated with both the avocation for many and vocation for a few can be described best when the bull shit finally got too deep in those camps. One time I got off my horse at an outfitter city on a cold wintery type day, walked into the cook tent, buffalo leather chaps and all .... with lots of hunters and heel grinder guides around, ...and took of my gloves to let them dangle from the attached strings running through the insides of my worn canvas jacket sleeves. Such is life.
The emphasis is on avoiding trouble with bears, but "the second portion of Nava's class involves basic shotgun training," where Nava draws a bear target forward "at a speed meant to mimic a charging bear."
Nava teaches people to use firearms for self-defense in bear country--what a novel concept!!! The Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho fish & game departments don't teach hunters to use firearms for self-defense. Nothing at all. Instead, they tell hunters to use bear spray, but they fail to provide realistic training.
Maybe Bob Jackson could provide some useful tips instead of just bragging and whining.
I'd also have to say his practice of simulating a bear coming at the student probably rates the same as rangers fire arms training where we would have to duck behind imaginary defenses to shoot. It was all so one dimensional. Emotions have to be stirred for any education to work. Let him get footage of a charging griz where the eyes and teeth is what any person would focus on, let them "feel" the blur of fur...then he might have something.
Firearm trained rangers who learned how to duck behind cardboard defenses for years, when the real thing came up, would have the sides of their shirts wet all the way to their belts. One learned to always be watching these guys ...as much as the "target" in order to not get shot by them.
I am also skeptical as to the speed Mr. Nava draws the "bear" forward. He would have to have quite the pulley system to get that kind of speed generated so fast...and then to stop instantly. And I hope his foam(?) bear has a lot of structural support behind it to absorb the instant pull.
Thus, if Mr. Nava is teaching folks something they supposedly expect that isn't real life then he is actually making things more dangerous for them and the bear. I hope I am wrong on training techniques but I had 30 years of various gun, horse, wildlife and law enforcement training regimens put on by way too many people who knew little of what they were talking about (it was amazing to see so many desk types come out of the closet, act the expert and try to lead training when it was to be filmed by the likes of Dateline and 20-20).
About half way through those years I didn't even bother to question them anymore. If other students came to me and asked I gave them info as I knew it to be (in the end the infrastructure was too great for most of them to overcome to become logical).
Debatebart, I suggest you moderate all that reading and also reevaluate your need for dominance over everything. It isn't how we can kill all things around us, but rather figuring out how we can live with them. It can be a lot more satisfying and peaceful.
Obviously, people hunting elk and other big game in Montana and Wyoming are not going to be carrying a shotgun with slugs; they'll have rifles. Which takes us back to my original post that you refuse to address--there's no way for a hunter with a rifle in hand facing a charging grizzly to somehow ditch the rifle and switch to bear spray. There's no time.
You've repeatedly mentioned how quick things happen during bear encounters. You've never given a straightforward explanation of how a hunter could ditch his or her rifle and use bear spray instead.
With that being said, you must be a little behind on your internet searches. Try looking under USGS and USFWS. Their studies and conclusions were pointed out to us backcountry rangers many times over the years. It is why the ole standby alternating slug, buckshot shotguns were relegated to the front country patrol car.
And if you want to go beyond your apparent mystique of ALASKA try reading up a bit on African bush encounters and what they used in times like this, whether it was in the woods or defending at home.
As for your reference to protection of tourists I ask you to think a bit. Congregated people and guns are a bad mix .... so the powers above have to minimize this. Slugs don't travel as far and they don't richocet like whizzing rifle bullets. Plus, you have to think of who they are going to get to stand there all this time acting as a poor substitute for a Palace figurehead guard. One has to wonder if they even give these people "protectors" real bullets.
And concerning your show stopper question, it is a side note. It is why I didn't commit 3 paragraphs to it earlier and I'd say this is why any resource person you asked it to at any public meeting didn't adress it directly. They were trying to give you the respect due anyone who is a novice. Or if you were asking it more for reason of proving a point ...as compared to trying to understand the greater issue, then they avoided answering you out of respect for others in attendance.
Since you push it, I will be blunt in saying you get feelings of importance out of a detail that has little relevance to helping people wanting info on what to do in bear country. You are incapable of understanding the issue because your strength or feeling of importance is in this detail. If there was a meeting where all at once someone rushed in to exclaim the road in front of the building had just fallen into a cavernous hole you would still be focused on your raised hand, waiting to be recognized so you could ask this question.
I suggest you use your reading "knowledge" to reassess your reason of "why" so you can go on to other issues. Maybe you can refocus words such as guns, shiny brass, spent powder odors and penetration capabilities into shiny rings, perfumes and quiet walks in the woods. Oh, and remember your bear spray. Its hard to hold hands while keeping a rifle in ready position.
You consider that "a detail that has little relevence." I think its important. I say there's no way hunters can switch. You tell old war stories about bears and horses and night time poaching patrols.
As for your comment that "slugs are duds when travel too slowly," the Remington Firearms catalog says factory loads for your 45/70 send a 405 grain bullet out the barrel at 1300 feet per second. Factory loads for a 12 gauge shotgun with a 438 grain/1 ounce slug have a muzzle velocity (MV) of 1560 fps from a 2 3/4" high-brass shell, 1680 fps from a 2 3/4" Magnum shell, or 1760 fps from a 3" Magnum shell.
For non-firearms people, Bob is claiming his Mini-Cooper going 25 miles an hour would cause more damage than my Ford F150 pickup going 35 miles per hour.
So do tell us Bob, how were those 24 hunters carrying rifles supposed to switch to bear spray? Chuck Schwartz with the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team told the Casper Star Tribune, “Time and again, hunters said it happened so fast that when they shot, the bear fell right at their feet.”
Last fall, I think there were 8 clashes like this between hunters and grizzlies in Montana. Not a relevent issue, Bob?
The alternative is to forget delisting and reenact bounties ($100,000 should be a nice starting point) for turning people in who claim to have them die at their feet when in reality it is something a lot more nefarious or buck fevered. The fact I never had to resort to extreme measures when I had to be quieter than hunters for 30 years in heavy bear country is more than luck.
I stand behind what I said in earlier comments. This includes assessments of what is happening on the ground and the folks with all kinds of Walter Mitty emotional baggage that ends up with these bears dieing.
Gotta go on a trip mr. librarian who reads only on one floor. This page is all yours. See where you go with all this ....besides red neck dominate and exploit everything in their path sort of folks. For me I'd rather live a life where vitality depends more on what books and people there are to read or play with on the rest of the floors...or decks in your case.
About those "Palace figurehead guards" at McNeil River that Bob Jackson denigrates, google "Derek Stonorov National Geographic," or "Larry Aumiller bear expert," and you'll see that the palace guards Bob insults both worked at McNeil and are regarded as two of the top experts in the world on brown bear behavior. When National Geographic wanted an expert opinion on bears, why contact Aumiller or Stonorov rather than the great all knowing Bob Jackson? Perhaps Jackson is a merely a legend in his own mind. Or a bigfoot expert, rather than a grizzly bear guru. Bob, you're doing a great job of hurling insults at me, but you still refuse to give straightforward answer about how hunters in grizzly country are supposed to use bear spray.
I sure hope Bill Schneider is reading this discussion and takes the trouble to do an honest report on bear spray for hunters. It's often said that for journalists, withholding information is the same as lying. Journalists won't discuss the real world practicality of bear spray with hunters or NRA certified firearms safety instructors. If a journalist took the trouble to discuss bear spray for hunters with a real firearms/law enforcement expert, or Montana Dept. of FWP commissioner Vic Workman, the show is over.