http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100531/ap_on_re_us/us_hiker_kills_grizzly


20 mins ago
ANCHORAGE, Alaska � A backpacker shot and killed a grizzly bear with his handgun in Alaska's Denali National Park, officials said.

A man and woman reported that they were hiking Friday evening when the bear emerged from trailside brush and charged the woman, park spokeswoman Kris Fister said in a statement.

The man fired nine rounds from his .45 caliber, semiautomatic pistol at the animal, which then stopped and walked into the brush.

The two reported the shooting to rangers, who restricted access to the Igloo Canyon area for fear that the bear was wounded and dangerous.

On Saturday, rangers found the dead bear about 100 feet from the shooting site.

Park officials are determining the justification for the shooting. It's legal to carry firearms in that area of the park but illegal to discharge them.

Rangers said it was the first known instance of a grizzly bear being shot by a visitor in the wilderness portion of Denali, formerly called Mount McKinley National Park.

If indeed he had to shoot, it is good he had the real thing instead of pepper spray.

I would like to be on that jury if it goes to that......How can it be legal to carry but illegal to discharge??

What sub-genius dreamt that up?

"Just show it to the bear and he'll run away."



They WAY under penetrate on bear

At least it wasn't a Kel Tec .32, or we might be reading about how the bear had a snack.

The bear stopped and walked away, the report says, which makes me doubt that it was charging.

Too many people interpret the approach of a park bear as charging. Park bears soon lose their fear of humans and become fearless, shameless beggars.

Was this one just looking for a hand-out? I'd expect a bear that was really charging to continue charging as long as it was able � not to just shrug, think Oh, well, win some, lose some � better go lie down for a while, and walk away.

The only thing I know about bears is you never know about bears. They are as 'individualistic' as people, perhaps more so.

Either way, I'm guessing you had to be there...

Good thing he wasn't packing a 9mm! <popcorn>

I probably don't know near as much about bears as a lot of people on here but one thing I do know. Whether or not the bear was charging of looking for a hand out it sure as hell won't do either again.

BCR

I am thinking he would have been better off with a Glock 10MM.

I agree. If you are going to carry a semi-auto, the 10mm would certainly be a good choice.

I always heard the 45-70 lever gun.



At any rate, I'm kinda surprised to read of hikers packing heat. In my experience, hiking and backpacking tend to attract those who sing to bears, munch tofu and dislike things that go boom. I hope any attempts at prosecution are quickly disregarded.

It's interestng to note what will and what won't kill big critters � and under what circumstances.

I remember an elephant and a polar bear that were killed with rimfire .22s. Of course, they weren't charging and probably died slowly.

When I first moved to Alaska in 1957, friends there told me about a couple of GIs who emptied a belt of service .30-06 ammo from a machine gun into a polar bear without stopping it. It ran them down and killed them before it died from its wounds. I'm not sure after all these years, but IIRC, it wasn't charging when they first shot it, but it sure was after being shot made it mad.

In my experience a higher % of hikers are more likely to endorse firearms use than the general public.

Now the 5.56 would prolly have vaporized the Yogi.

My thought is that it's legal to carry for defense of life but not for target shooting, a good shoot wouldn't be charged for illegal discharge of firearm but a bad shoot (or target shooting) most likely would.

That's good news.
Thanks.

Ken, did you take into account the fact that many reporters write about topics of which they no little to nothing about. It could be that the bear charge was halted by the wounds it received and then staggered away.

Given as were weren't there, and that we'll only get one side of this story, I'd side with the one that came out alive.....

I'll bet someone is rethinking their choice in backcountry sidearm.

He may be rethinking the side arm but I bet he was glad he had what he did as it worked. Sounds like he was armed for human encounters rather than animal.

Anyone want to trade their 44mag for my 45

?? Because...??

pm's full yet ?

My Alaska friends told me they recommend you file off the front blade sight of the 44 mag revolvers, make it easier to retrieve it after the grizzly gives it to you in the form of an enema.

Well, its a good thing it weren't a Black bear... Jesse and Al would be up there in a heartbeat....

Bears are people too, in little fur coats.

I was thinking about this very subject the other day. I shot my .45 into a 6x6 post from about 15' and it went clear through and left a ugly hole on the back side. My thinking is that unless you do some severe brain or spinal damage to a pissed off Bear it ain't going to stop no matter what you shoot it with. Could be I don't know what I'm talking about either. I do know that if you shoot them in the heart with a 165gr NP that they quit running real quick. Maybe I need a real long magazine for my Kimber. Ken

I have seen several bears run well over a hundred yards with a destroyed heart...

Take out the plumbing and leave the pump alone and they expire fast...

The bull moose that I killed in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness when he was attacking my wife (1960) had charged me twice before (on two other days).

Each time, I'd turned him with a shot fired just over his head as he came at me. I was shooting a .44 Magnum, but I suspect that a .22 Long Rifle would've been enough.

The .44 did the job on his third charge when I finally had to shoot to kill. Shots fired just over his head from the side failed to turn him. On the first two charges (at me), he was looking right into the muzzle flash. On his third charge (at Carol Anne), the muzzle flash was of course well off to his right, not close right into his face. The sound was the same, off to the side as well as right in his face. Apparently, the muzzle flash in his face is what turned him both times when he charged me.

Carol Anne wasn't packing � had no way to turn him.

Funny thing �
Ever have a fast action "freeze-frame" one instant in the middle of a movement? I still have a vivid mental image of pine needles floating away in a light breeze about ten yards beyond him, cut by my .44 bullet, the second time when he charged me. That image is strangely much stronger than the much closer, moving image of that big critter's ugly mug coming right at me. Funny what little insignificant things you notice in such moments of extreme stress and fast, fast, fast action.

I'll be forever glad that Earl wisely forbore shooting the big boar brownie that was standing over me after it had clobbered me (cf Smokelore, "A Brownie Got Me"). He'd been holding his .375 Alaska (Skinner) Magnum on that bear, ready to shoot if necessary, but he knew that even as that bear were dying from a heavy Barnes .375 bullet, it could fall onto me and shred me a bit with a death twitch or two.

This is similar to the Katmai park where the late great Timothy Treadwell made his infamous video "Grizzly Man" about grizzlies, before he got et by one. He did some incredibly stupid things with them under the assumption that they're just big pets.

I remember reading that.
And many others.
I'll say agian, always enjoyed your writing and the subject matter.
Thanks.

I have read of a .454 Casull stopping a Griz, but not a .45. If it was a 1911, with nine shots fired, that report would suggest at least an eight round mag + one in the chamber.

I met a hiker in King's Canyon NP, who had been roughed up the night before by a black bear. The four prominent scratches on the side of his face and neck, from the bear's claws, were a pretty good testament to his close call. I'll wager he packs nowadays, if he goes hiking.

The same trip (before I met the victim) I had one pawing my tent at 2:00am, even though I had my food in a bearproof container, a good distance from the tent. After I quit screaming like a girl, he walked away. The next day at mid-afternoon, a cinnamon colored smallish bear wandered through came, eyed me from 40-50 feet away, and kept going.

Outside the park, a few miles away, I stalked one who was rooting around. I finally decided it was too small to shoot, and lowered my rifle. It saw me and bolted like a racehorse to get away. They learn fast to not to fear people in parks, but to run like hell when they can be hunted.

Better to be wrong than be dessert. I'll take my chances with a jury thank you over a brown bear any day.

The down side of carrying �

Unless you carry constantly, long enough that you quit thinking about its being there when you don't need to use it (and long enough to remember it when you need it), carrying can exacerbate existing apprehension.

I remember one old-timer � experienced hunter, familiar and comfortable with rifles and shotguns, better than average marksman � who borrowed a sixgun for a long carriage trip one dark night in a lonely and unfamiliar area. He couldn't escape worrying that he might have to use it. Said that returning it to its owner had been a great relief.

He'd made a lot of such trips unarmed and cautious and alert but able to think about other matters. Carrying, he couldn't get carrying off his mind.

Having never had ANY experience with bears I will say this with deference to anyone who thinks otherwise. I would think that bears are totally without conscience. The jury is the way to go.

Alan

Nine from a .45 auto...I wonder if that emptied it, or did he save one for himself?

Beats Hell outta praying!

Speaking of .45 ACPs and bears....

When I lived in California, my wife and I owned a vacation cabin on the western slope of the southen Sierra, southern Tulare County, at about 6,000' altitude. It was in what had been an ancient homestead which had been turned into a "vacation spot" with lots, cabins, etc., at around the turn of the century.

There were about six families who lived there all year long and I became acquainted with an older man, retired, who lived there year round. Sometimes we talked about bears, etc., as there were a lot of Black bears up there in the Sequoia Nat'l. Forest, which surrounded the old homestead. It was not unusual for them to be around the cabins.

He told me that Black bears didn't bother him too much, but did not care for Grizzlies. He'd had to kill one once when he was working in Alaska, after WW II, around 1950. He was hired by a large logging company to cruise timber in remote forests.

He said one morning at his cabin where he and his wife lived, he went outside to get some firewood from his stack. As he walked toward the firewood, a Grizzly suddenly appeared from behind the stack and charged him. He pulled his Colt's Govt. Model .45 ACP and emptied it into the Grizzly, killing the bear at about his feet.

He showed me some old Kodak pictures his wife took of him and the Grizzly. He was kneeling beside the large bear, with the Govt. Model in his hand. The cordwood stack was nearby in the picture's background. I asked him, "Why did you use that .45??"

He kinda laughed and said, "'Cause that's all I had."

You do with as with what you have, seems to me.

Oh, BTW, this man had been a paratrooper with the 101st Div. (Abn.), and had jumped at Normandy, Holland, and fought at the Battle of the Bulge. So I guess you could say he had a bit of experience at dealing with stress while "under fire."

L.W.

Yes, just because......grin

I would imagine that it would be easy to reconstruct the crime scene.

"Let's see dead bear over there.... empty 45 casing over there... and one large pile of human poop right here."

It'd be interesting to learn more regarding ammo used, how many hits, where, damage, etc.

Yes!

Specifically, to give some idea of how long it took the bear to die. A long, slow, oozy loss of blood (especially through internal hemorrhaging, perhaps) would suggest a low or moderate level of adrenalin in a beggar approach for a hand-out rather than a determined intent to inflict serious bodily harm.

I recall reports of an elephant and a polar bear � neither charging � that died very slowly from the loss of blood, not from damage to vital viscera, long after they'd been shot once each with rimfire .22s. Autopsies were necessary to determine why and how they'd died.

If I remember correctly, Para makes 1911 models that have double stack magazines...that would me he had several leftover for himself if that's what he was carrying!

Yeah, the carry but don't discharge sounds stupid but it's actually designed to keep the morons from shooting indiscriminately in the wilderness portion of the park. Alaska has a DLP law, (Defense of Life or Property) that authorizes them to kill a bear to protect themselves. That part of the article was simply due to an ignorant reporter.

Well, let's see. Nine shots eh? It might take the guy about 4 seconds to empty the gun at the bear. Since brown bears typically charge at about 30 mph he would have had to commence firing when the bear was at least 180 feet away. Since we have to factor in reaction time to the charge the bear would really have to have started it's charge about 220 feet away.

Obviously, there is something wrong with the whole story or the reporter screwed it all up.

I go with the second answer.

"You skin griz Pilgrim?? Skin this 'en whilst I find anothern!"

He should have been packing something more substantial than a .45 ACP. I would think it starts with .41 Magnum (loaded with heavy for caliber hard cast), and goes up from there if you're thinking there might be grizzlies.

Well on the other hand most say it's about shot placement. I'm betting more can shoot faster and more accurate with their ACPs than they can with a .44. Whadda you think?

Sure, but it's not all about shot placement when you're talking an animal that big and potentially deadly. I would think penetration has a lot to do with it in that case, which the .45 ACP just doesn't have going for it in relation to an animal that size.

You think one head shot with a good .45 bullet would dispatch a grizzly? Wouldn't it take a head shot with a .41 to stop a grizzly.

I have been near both Brown Bear and Lion whilst clutching only my 329PD 44 magnum loaded with 300gr hard cast flat nose bullets ahead of a stout charge of H110 and in all instances I felt vastly undergunned. In each case I was in my bedroll with the rifles too far away to do any good should the situation have turned dour. (mere feet away, but I was NOT about to move a muscle at these moments) I have not, to date, thought of a 45ACP as a reasonable weapon to carry in bear country and still do not but this is a fascinating story. I really hope we get more details about this in time. If all I had to carry was a 45, you can bet it would be along on any backcountry trip for the discuoragement of predatory varmints of either two legged or four legged variety's.

TFF

*MOST* places are legal to carry, illegal to discharge. All cities and towns in Indiana (that I know of) are that way. Think about it...

Dr. Howell, if you don't mind me asking, where (as in shot placement) did you shoot the moose, that you had to stop with a .44?

I know the recoil of that setup is not as bad getting chewed, but my 5" 629 Classic is about all I want with full power loads. Can you control that 329 in rapid fire?

head

Personally, I wouldn't trust a .45 ACP to penetrate the skull. A heavy hard case Kieth-style .41, though, I would trust to do the job.

My 9mm penetrates better than my son's 45ACP. Still, I'd prefer a 357 magnum to the 45 ACP. 357 Mag was good enough for Mr. Wesson to harvest a grizzly. Whatever you have, it's all about shot placement and it sounds like the subject of our discussion was really stressed. Always know your target's anatomy and make the first shot count.