'Cracker Shell' Proves Lethal To North Slope Polar Bear

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fred Fuller

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Mar 26, 2004
Messages
21,215
Location
AL, NC
http://www.adn.com/2011/08/24/2030257/hazing-proves-fatal-for-slope.html
North Slope polar bear dies after hazing shot by guard
NORTH SLOPE: Guard thought he was firing a non-lethal bean bag.
By SEAN COCKERHAM
Published: August 25th, 2011 04:28 PM
==========================

There are IMHO at least two points worth noting in this newspaper story. Number One, it's been said pretty often here that anything fired out of a shotgun can be lethal. In this case it took days for the bird bomb to actually kill the bear, but the bear did die eventually.

Number Two, anyone who uses a shotgun for serious purposes needs to know for absolute certain what will be coming out of the muzzle when the trigger is pressed. That means being able to identify the round being loaded BY FEEL if necessary. It reinforces Louis Awerbuck's assertion that the shotgun is a thinking person's weapon.

It's good to learn from other people's mistakes, because no one lives long enough to make all the mistakes there are in one lifetime.

lpl
 
Very good points Lee. And interesting story.It looks like he may have just had the hulls stored too close to one another and grabbed the wrong one or had the gun pre-loaded and not realized it.

I would also add - don't shoot at something unless you plan to destroy it. Just because a hull says it's non-lethal doesn't mean that the outcome will always be a non-lethal one.
 
a good lesson in knowing your weapon and its loads, no doubt

but as for the overall story
a comment from the article sums it up quite well in my book
An aggressive bear dies before it can hurt or kill a person....is that even a story? -gigaton
 
One other small item to remember about ammo.... particularly shotgun ammo. Treat it carefully and make sure it's under your control at all times. If you have the slightest doubt about the above, carefully inspect each round and discard any that aren't clean, in good condition, and showing the appropriate markings....

This was standard doctrine for my officers who were issued different shotguns on a daily basis and could never be certain what weapon or rounds they'd be issued at the start of each shift. In later years we went to permanent issue but still had occasional problems, finding training ammo (low base birdshot) occasionally mixed in with duty ammo... during surprise inspections. It's one of the reasons that every user and supervisor needs to take the attitude that you can't be certain you're armed and loaded properly without doing an inspection on a regular basis (and that's the only way you can be confident on that once in lifetime event when your weapon has to work that first time...).

That business about ammo goes across the board.... my outfit once had a justified shooting with a revolver that the offender survived (shot in the rump and then taken into custody). Imagine the fuss when the docs removed the slug and found it was a wadcutter (a basic target load - never intended to be used on duty)... Yes the officer was reprimanded, etc. but that sort of stuff can happen to anyone that's careless about their ammo.... That incident happened so long ago that it didn't make any waves, today I imagine we'd be hearing about it on every news source (if there was any money to be made...).
 
Last edited:
but as for the overall story
a comment from the article sums it up quite well in my book

An aggressive bear dies before it can hurt or kill a person....is that even a story? -gigaton

When aggressive animals need to be put down, that is one thing, but this bear did not need to be put down, hence why the incompetent guard was trying to shoot it with beanbags. It obviously wasn't being all that aggressive or he would have been shooting it with slugs. "Aggressive" in this case means that the bear was not doing what the guard wanted it to do. Apparently, not all the bears understand that when a security guard turns on his lights, siren, and honks his horn that the bear is supposed to change his behavior.

Very good points Lee. And interesting story.It looks like he may have just had the hulls stored too close to one another and grabbed the wrong one or had the gun pre-loaded and not realized it.

This would be akin to the cops who drew and fired their service guns at suspects when they meant to draw and fire their tasers. It is a "simple mistake" but one with significant consequences.
 
Imagine the fuss when the docs removed the slug and found it was a wadcutter (a basic target load - never intended to be used on duty)...

lemaymiami, pm me if this is too off topic, but is there a big problem with using a wadcutter for self defense, if that is all you had?
 
Apparently, not all the bears understand that when a security guard turns on his lights, siren, and honks his horn that the bear is supposed to change his behavior.

I'm pretty sure that a polar bear that is that desensitized to humans is not safe to be around, especially when it hangs around populated areas...that may not be aggressive in your book, but I feel that that sort of behavior coming from a bear of that magnitude should not be taken lightly
 
It obviously wasn't being all that aggressive or he would have been shooting it with slugs.

Well... not exactly. This is a special case we're talking about. First off, unlike brownies and black bear the polars are HIGHLY protected critters under a particularly bizarre federal law from the 70's that classifies them as marine mammals. So shooting them, for a non-native, is akin to shooting a walrus or seal. A fellow I know did hard prison time for hunting them in violation of the act, and no hunting is permitted at all by non-natives under this law in the US. NONE. Even though until very recently they weren't even listed as threatened. Now they supposedly are because of ice melt. But there ain't no actual shortage of the buggers.

Second, this was done by a contractor for BP at one of their slope facilities. They are under all kinds of pressure to be extra nice to the environment.

So basically it takes a lot more provoking to justify a guard putting a slug into a polar bear at a BP facility than it would for some hiker in the state to put a slug into a brown bear. If some brown bear is roaming near your homestead like that, you kill it and it's perfectly legitimate DLP. What you are seeing here is the farcical interplay of corporate politics, federal interference and the extinction of common sense. The upshot of which, a wounded predator was permitted to die slowly because anyone capping it off would be facing federal prison.

But rest assured, between BP the feds and the contractors, there will enough trees killed and carbon burned over this incident to melt an iceberg.
 
Last edited:
With what they pay security guards, was anyone surprised? I wasn't. I work for BP, and they are as good or better than any other company I have ever worked for (6 Fortune 500s), but they aren't perfect.
 
The issue here is not whether or not the guard intended to shoot the bear - obviously, he did. He was trained to do what he had intended to do, and his certification was current.

He just didn't intend to shoot the bear with what actually was in the chamber of the shotgun when he pressed the trigger - a cracker shell or bird bomb, not the intended bean bag round. That's where the difficulty arises for him, for his employer - and not to mention the bear, which died a slow agonizing and completely unintended death as a result of the guard's mistake.

I'm not interested in calling names here. The bear was a bear, doing what bears do a lot - looking for easy eats. Apparently some (or even many) polar bears don't worry too much if the easy eats they come across have two legs instead of four, smell funny, make lots of noise, can't move very fast and don't fight back very effectively, but that's the way things are for creatures at the top of the food chain. And up there in white bear country, they are definitely at the top of the food chain. In my mind that doesn't make the bear aggressive, just normal. Some bears will eat some people given the chance. But then, some people will eat some bears given the chance too. Turn about is fair play, no?

And the guard was just a human being. Doing a job out in the (no doubt) cold, in the (apparently) dark. And he made a mistake. A very human mistake. I can't say for 100% sure it was a mistake, I don't know because my mindreading ability doesn't extend across state lines :)D). But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I don't have any bean bag rounds and have never seen one or shot one. I've had some bird bombs in the past but that was a looong time ago and I don't have any currently, we used them all for their intended purpose, routing pestilential birds. I'd hope it would be reasonably easy to tell a bird bomb from a bean bag by feel in the dark with cold fingers - but it might not be. They might both be roll crimped loads with no distinguishing features except color and markings.

If that's the case, THAT'S what needs to be fixed.

And for those of us here, who are not guarding oil installations in the frozen north from abominable snowmen and too-curious bears, can we identify our shotgun shells in the dark by feel with our adrenalin pumping and our heart thundering in our ears? Be honest, now...

How many kinds of loads are in your magazine at one time? Can you really know for 100% sure what will be exiting that muzzle every time you break a shot? How many kinds of loads are in your go gear or on your gun in a buttcuff or Sidesaddle? Can you tell the difference in all of them by feel? Can you distinguish between a star crimped load of birdshot and a star crimped load of buckshot?

I'm not here to try and tell anyone what to do or what not to do. This is teh Intrewebz and I am not your daddy. But I'd like for all of us here not to run up on the opportunity to make a bad mistake in a critical situation the way this guard did. Remember KISS - keep it simple and sure. Don't candy-cane load your magazine, because under real stress you can't count rounds. Don't keep a half dozen kinds of shotgun shells in your go gear or on your gun because "you might need thus and so." Simplify. Louis Awerbuck is the shotgun Yoda as far as I'm concerned, and he uses ONE kind of shotgun shell "for real" - slugs. Period. And he knocks around all over the country (http://www.yfainc.com/schedule.html) teaching carbine, subgun, pistol and shotgun classes with a coach gun handy. Not a 14" 11-87P, though he has one. Not a long magazine Browning Auto Five Police gun, though he has one. Not a Benelli M1 Super 90 or a Remington 870 or a Mossberg 500. Just a simple coach gun, loaded with slugs.

I took Louis' shotgun class once upon a time, and would have done it again this summer had not family necessity prevented it. I'm certainly not smarter than Louis is, or more experienced, or better with a shotgun. But I use a repeater. That's a harder gun to run than a double barrel coach gun. And there's more that can go wrong with it. We (my wife and I) stick to 870s for the serious guns here, all 12 gauges, and they all work right and they all work the same. I have a dozen different kinds of shotguns that are pretty much toys, but the go-to guns are 870s. I've been shooting 870s on and off for about 40 years now.

We use two kinds of ammo in/on the house guns - 00 buckshot in the magazines, and Brenneke KO slugs in the sidesaddles. Birdshot is for practice and training and hunting. My go bag is an old Army Claymore mine bag with two pockets, one pocket has 20 rounds of loose buckshot (same brand, same load, same lot number even) and the other pocket has 20 rounds of slugs, same deal. The buckshot is star crimped, the slugs are roll crimped. We try to keep it simple. When we take a shotgun out for practice, it's cleaned as needed and loaded with fresh ammo that is double checked to be sure what's where. We try to be consistent. Could we still make a mistake? Sure. But we try to stack the odds in our favor.

You should, too... don't forget about Murphy.

Stay Safe,

lpl
 
Bobby...
No problem using a wadcutter if you're a civilian (not exactly a premium round but certainly better than throwing rocks...). As a cop you might get yourself in a lot of trouble with the folks you work for.... Every agency I knew about was very particular what their officers carried, what it was loaded with, etc. That's something that only a cop would have to worry about. For an officer to be carrying on duty the cheap wadcutter reloads we were all issued as practice rounds instead of +p duty rounds was a no no... Not enough by itself to cost you your job but you wouldn't ever want to do it a second time..... if you'd been disciplined for it already.

You'd be surprised to see the frequency of poorly cared for weapons, ammo, etc. on the job. All of that ends with proper supervision, and frequent inspections - both in the station and on the street without notice.... I was a PITA about that sort of stuff as a sergeant, and even worse as a lieutenant all those years ago. But I never had to go tell anyone's family that husband/dad, etc. wasn't going to coming home that night. In my era, 1973 to 1995 I expected that three cops a year would be killed on the job (counting Dade and Broward counties - the Miami to Ft. Lauderdale area) as one area... That's just what we had year after year, 66 total in my years on the job (and none of that counts suicides, bad habits, angry wives or girlfriends). Three cops a year, every year, killed in the line of duty. I quit going to funerals about halfway through my career.... Some lessons you just don't forget. Occasionally I speak up about it, but most citizens will never have to fire a shot on the street, and they'll be the only ones that buy the ammo, and maintain their weapons. In police work that's just not the case.
 
Good post,Lee. Agreed on all points.

For duty ammo, roll crimps are slugs, pie crimps are 00. Nothing else carried...

Lemay, same with MD DOC.
 
God, how many times to I hear about this happening. Someone gets shot by what someone thought was blanks or non-lethal rounds. And most of it seems to stem from a serious lack of training.
 
Since I heard about that 19 yr old Russian girl being eaten alive over 2-hours while cell-phoning her Mom, forgive me, but there's not much you can do to a bear that would bother me anymore.
 
Maybe totally wrong but I heard somewhere the whole Polar bear decrease in density/population is not true. The latest census (guess they mailed the form to them?) indicated that in the last two years they had an increase in population of over 5000 bears. It is all tied up in the global warming politico.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...JybPI0NuGDzLGEyuw&sig2=xQ5qptejj7RBC3vowvDtIg

ScienceDaily (May 10, 2008) — Research done by the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine if global warming threatens the polar bear population is so flawed that it cannot be used to justify listing the polar bear as an endangered species, according to a study being published later this year in Interfaces, a journal of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences.

Something along the lines of always knowing if the firearm is loaded and with what type of round should be a big concern for all of us.
 
Civilians have to worry about what ammo they use. Seditious prosecutors will go after you for whatever gun/ammo combo you used.

This is why you always use commercial ammo for self defense and a modern or traditionally normal gun. Another gun forum has people talking about their 20 round drum mag fed Saiga 12 shotguns for home defense....some DA would have a field day with those.

"It's a DRUM FED AK47....SHOTGUN?!?!....Your honor, I recommend the death penalty for just OWNING such a gun!"
 
Well... not exactly. This is a special case we're talking about.
It is a special case, but at issue here is the term of "aggressive" and the "aggressive" bear was simply too close to the facility. Comments were made about why anyone is raising a stink over an "aggressive bear" as if the term implied the bear was shown intent to do harm. That was not the case. The term of "aggressive" here apparently means that the bear was not doing what the security officer thought it should be doing. He was not charged by the bear or any such other typical aggressive action. Hazing is a proximity action and the notion of "aggressive" as used here simply means proximity, not necessarily violence as none was reported. In other words, "aggressive" as understood by many of the readers of the article is a bit of a misnomer.
 
This happened August 3rd, so it wasn't cold or dark. The guard was just careless, or quite possibly wanted to see what a cracker shell did when it hit a bear.
 
Comments were made about why anyone is raising a stink over an "aggressive bear" as if the term implied the bear was shown intent to do harm. That was not the case.

It was a polar bear moving towards a housing section of a remote base, not a brown bear eating salmon. That's plenty of aggression. They've certainly been known to smash into housing modules up there and attack people with predatory intent. If it weren't for the legal and political issues it would have been shot dead.

FYI, here is the Endicott field:

http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9027593&contentId=7050416

He was not charged by the bear or any such other typical aggressive action.

Polar bears aren't known for huffing, jaw snapping and charging. They are known for walking right up and grabbing a meal with minimal drama.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top