Hunter Killed By Friend's Bullet, Not Bear Attack

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well i wonder how many of you have even seen a grizz in the wild but less been attacked. No he did not do the best job but untill you have been in some kind of real firefight you have no idea how you will do.
I really don't understand this point of view.

If a defender tries to shoot an attacker, but shoots an innocent instead--maybe the very person he was attempting to save--he screwed up. Period. Doesn't matter if he's a private citizen, a cop, or a hunter: he screwed up.

And it doesn't matter if I have ever shot anyone who was attacking me, or ever shot an animal that was attacking someone else: he still screwed up.

No one said he should go to jail. We all "understand." But I sure hope no one here wants to be like him, or considers his performance anything except what it is: failure.

We can have sympathy for him; but our sympathies are already weakened (in this particular case) by the many things these two hunters did wrong to get themselves in that position to begin with (which Double Naught Spy outlined for us).
 
I really don't understand this point of view.

Neither do I. The screwups started long before there was ever a life or death situation for the hunters and after the first screwup, they continued to screwup repeatedly until it got one of them killed by the other one.

This was a very preventable incident.
 
there were plenty of mistakes but once the bear was on his buddy its game on. The bear is mauling him. Now none of the other mistakes matter. Its show time.
 
The point is staying alive here. Let's talk about how to that, shall we?

Many mistakes were made in this...which started with failing to identify the species of bear they shot...

And effectually ended when they followed a wounded grizzly into thick cover...it was bound to go south from there.

The point...they had the opportunity to CHOOSE their battleground...they failed to make that choice, maybe even failed to see that they had a choice.
 
I applaud them for going after it. An unforgivable sin in Alaska is to leave a wounded bear behind. YOU GO IN AFTER THEM. NO MATTER WHAT! They always head for the thickest cover they can find. Thats when you man up and get it done. Imagine an unsuspecting person stumbling across one. At least the hunters know its there. One of my points is that almost no one here knows anything about Grizzly's. Nothing. they may have seen one in a zoo or Yellowstone but thats it. Grizz in the lower 48 are small compared to the coastal Grizz in AK. They get HUGE and if you hit one you go after it. PERIOD! You finish what you start. If you dont have the hair to go after it then dont go hunting.
 
If you dont have the hair to go after it then dont go hunting.
And if you don't have the eyesight to distingush a (how did you put it, oh, yeah) HUGE Grizz from a black bear...

And if you don't have "the hair" to shoot him right the first time...

And if you don't have the smarts to call in all your other hunting buddies when you're going after a wounded bear...

And if you don't have the skill to keep from SHOOTING YOUR FRIEND when you go after a wounded bear...

THEN what conclusion do you draw, kgpcr?
 
On this board i see plenty of guys who can tell you how to do it having never done it. I bet 95% of the people on this board could not tell the difference between a brown phase black bear and a grizz. an interior grizz averages 400-500lbs. I have shot 400lb blacks before so its a hell of a lot more to it than size to judge what it is. I bet 95% would have no idea what to do when a bear is on their buddy. Most would just freeze. So many talk of how they would react when the bullets start flying but have never been there. I can tell you this from my Marine Corps days. Nothing goes according to plan when the bullets start flying. I just get a bit tired of all the people who critisize others actions when they have never been in a situation where they bullets start flying or the feces hits the oscilating blades. That is all. Case in point. I just love the Grizz experts from Iowa and the east coast.

Just an FYI you dont want a lot of people after a bear!! You DO NOT CALL IN ALL YOUR SHOOTING BUDDIES. Two at most in fact many guides in AK will NOT let anyone go in with them other than the hunter and he is BEHIND the guide. You DO NOT want any more than that because its to hard to keep track of where every one else is and you dont know where the bear may come from. He may come at you from any point in the compass or he may head for another zip code. He may be laying there in the brush stone dead. If you do have to shoot you dont have time to try and find out where all your shooting buddies are.

Shoot him right the first time?? I bet you have never missed an animal before in your life correct? hit it but not in the vitals?

There were a ton of mistakes made to be sure. I think they screwed the pooch for sure but once the bear was it then they had started down a path they could not turn back from.
 
Last edited:
Just a few facts to help us out...

Especially since we should use this thread to learn lessons of our own.
Compiled from several different news sources, the dead man's family,
and statements by investigating officials:

Stevenson, the dead man, was an experienced bear hunter.
He hunted bear in that area for several years.
They had bear tags for both Idaho and Montana,
so they could hunt both sides of the border.
The party of four split up into two pairs early in the day and hunted separate areas.
Stevenson was accompanied by a 20 year old hunter with limited experience.

The bear was shot at 10am by the inexperienced 20 year old.
It is possible that the experienced Stevenson did not see the bear that was shot.
He may not have had an opportunity to identify the species.
Either way, the animal had been shot. It was necessary to track it and find it.

Stevenson had them wait for 2 hours before tracking the animal.
That gave time for traumatic shock and/or blood loss to weaken the animal.
In the best case, the animal would be dead.

The men were apart at the time the wounded animal attacked.
It attacked the 20 year old first. Both hunters shot at the animal.
It continued toward the young man, Stevenson shouted and waved to distract it.
The bear turned the attack upon Stevenson.
The younger man continued to shoot.

Both Stevenson and the bear died.
Autopsy indicated bear wounds to Stevenson's legs
and one bullet wound to the chest.
The bear had several bullet wounds in it.
It was medium size for a grizzly, weighing approximately 400 pounds.

Sheriff's officials said there are no roads in that 400 square mile area.
They used a helicopter to find the location and evacuate the bodies.

The 20 year old was able to get cell phone contact.
We should not assume that the location was near civilization.
Here in Nevada we get cell phone signal out in very remote areas.
Cell sites operated by the US Army and accessible to the public
are found in remote areas for safety and strategic value.
The site of the tragedy appears to be remote wilderness.
Perhaps a THR member living in the area can confirm/deny that.


I'm not drawing any conclusions for you guys.
I just thought that a bigger picture helps clarify.
 
Separate post from above, my own thoughts.

The experienced hunter didn't do anything wrong.
In fact, he acted wisely and heroically.

He couldn't leave the animal there.
He was with an inexperienced man,
and other hunters were in the area.
It is imperative to find the animal and dispatch it.
I don't fault him for that.
He waited two hours. Can't fault that either.

When the bear attacked the other man, Stevenson began to fire.
But as the bear got closer to the young man,
he knew he couldn't shoot any more.
It was very heroic that he distracted the bear instead.
I honor the man's actions.

Perhaps you haven't been in that region,
but the undergrowth varies widely.
It's easy to say that the young man should run up to the bear,
put muzzle to its body, and shoot.
But undergrowth can be extremely dense,
probably more than you're imagining right now,
at times it can take two and a half minutes to go 20 feet.
And if you're a scared 20-year-old it may be asking too much.
He tried to shoot the bear dead. That's probably all he could do.
I'm truly sorry that he will live with this outcome for the rest of his life.

Stevenson knew what he was doing. Bear hunting is dangerous. He knew that.
When we wound a deer or elk, we find it immediately so the meat won't spoil.
But bears are dangerous. Waiting two hours before tracking was wise.
Wise, yes. But very dangerous. I'm certain Stevenson knew that.
It would be difficult for me to ridicule him.

He has two teenage daughters. I hope they find rest, knowing that Dad died a hero.
 
On this board i see plenty of guys who can tell you how to do it having never done it.
No. You see a lot of folks who recognize when someone else screwed up...by the tell-tale sign of a dead friend with a bullet hole in him. Not subtle, no big expertise required.

You seem to imply one has no right to conclude that the shooter screwed up unless he's already shot a grizz off someone. I think that's ridiculous, if you'll pardon my frankness.

That's probably all he could do.
ants, if you're saying that we weren't there at this particular shooting, so we don't know, I see your point. Perhaps this hunter, taking everything in, decided: "I'm going to shoot. I'll probably kill my friend, but I might save him, and I've got to take that chance because it's the only chance he has." Then, fine.

Still doesn't change that it took a lot of mistakes to get them both there.
 
Last edited:
Mistake 1. Mistook a grizz for a blackie. After that they did things right for a while. They waited for the animal to bleed out then went after it. That was the right thing to do. They then went after it. again the right thing to do. They should have done some things different depending on the terain but every situation is different. The younger one screwed up big time when he shot at his hunting partner. YOu MUST ALWAYS know where the other person is when going into thick cover after an animal that may leave you no choice but shoot as it can mess you up. Yes mistakes were made and the guy choked under pressure. My point is many here would choke too when the bullets start flying. Unless you have been in a truly critical situation you dont know how you will react.
 
They they should have both passed the bear identiificaiton test required for hunting black bears in Montana.
Yes, they did.

The investigating LEO confirmed that all four hunters took the identification course as required.
 
Question.

If the bear had several bullet wounds, any chance the bullet that killed the guy went THROUGH the bear before hitting him?

If so, I really can't say it's the young guys fault.

Deaf
 
I'd hate to be the young guy here. He's gotta live the rest of his life with it. No matter the circumstances, whether you think he was totally at fault or not (I wasn't there. I don't know) he's going to be miserable the rest of his life.
 
Question.

If the bear had several bullet wounds, any chance the bullet that killed the guy went THROUGH the bear before hitting him?

If so, I really can't say it's the young guys fault.

The family was told that this was a possibility, but nothing definitive was noted (at least not in the articles I read). Even so, it would still be Ty Bell's fault. It was his shot that killed Stevenson whether it went through the bear or not.
 
We still have to be sure of what's behind the target, even in a defensive shooting. Always easy to say, not always easy to do. And bullets don't always travel in a straight line after they impact something, either.

lpl
 
We still have to be sure of what's behind the target, even in a defensive shooting.
I recently received a couple of opinions that gunfights were an "exception" to Rule 4. My guess is that's true if "what's beyond" is someone else's kids, not yours.

:what::banghead:

In other words, complete agreement, Lee.
 
It's a sad series of events, and in the end it still leaves behind victims on both sides. Regardless of what happened leading up the man's death, the dead man still put his life on the line to save his friend, and his friend, in panic and horror, tried to save him but ended up accidentally killing him.

People can point fingers and go, "If only so-and-so had done this", but in the end, only victims are left behind. The young hunter will never be the same again, and, knowing that it was his own bullet that killed him, is a very high risk for suicide. He tried to save his friend, but sometimes things just don't work out that way.

Yes, there were screwups that started off this whole chain of events, but you can't be too critical of how either man reacted during the bear attack. Both men tried to save the other. They both tried to do the right thing. And they didn't have the benefit of being able to calmly think things through at their leisure, either. So don't condemn the young hunter. And realize that he, too, is a victim.
 
Posted by Lee Lapin: We still have to be sure of what's behind the target, even in a defensive shooting. Always easy to say, not always easy to do. And bullets don't always travel in a straight line after they impact something, either.
That's the real lesson here, and it's true whether the threat is a grizzly or a black bear in the wild or a knife-wielding robber at a service station.

It is true whether what's behind the target is your hunting companion or someone whom you do not know.

It is something that is never far from my mind.
 
The family was told that this was a possibility, but nothing definitive was noted (at least not in the articles I read). Even so, it would still be Ty Bell's fault. It was his shot that killed Stevenson whether it went through the bear or not.

But that is real easy to say while sitting down, real hard when a bear is mauling your buddy.

Many a state has good Samaritan laws for people who give first aid for accident victims of car wrecks.

Even if they accidentally hurt or kill the one they are trying to save they have immunity.

We will see how this turns out.

Deaf
 
Grizzly vs Black Bear and Other Thoughts

It is interesting to me that people not familiar with grizzly and black bear always think that the grizzly is vastly different. This is not true. Unless you are experienced, grizzly and black bear are difficult to distinguish and equal in capability. The color of the fur means nothing, they can look the same and both bear types can reach 300 pounds so weight is not distinguishing. The grizzly has a scalloped face, small round ears (big difference, black bears have long pointed ears) and a distinguishing hump at its shoulders. The hump is due to the grizzly digging more and its muscles are more developed in that area. There are other differences but you can't see them at a distance, i.e. the claws of the grizzly are long (easily seen in the track) and for digging and the black bear's are short, i.e. when tracking a black bear you see no claw tracks usually but their footprint is much bigger than a grizzily. The scat is also different but only to the experienced tracker, this is because the diet of the grizzily (it digs for food, i.e. the claws) is different. In this case the hunter mis-identified the bear as a black but this has nothing to do with the counter attack, which a wounded black bear would also attempt if it was motivated. Everyone knows in Montana that hunts black bear, (like me), that black bear and grizzly are so difficult to distinguish, even with binos, that you pass on the shot if you are not 100% certain. Further, the shot that wounded the bear was a bad shot, period (I know the details of what happened as many hunters in Montana do). These bears will drop dead like a rock if shot with the appropriate rifle, (they are taken with bow and arrow here too). These animals (i.e. black bear and grizzly) are thin skinned and not cape buffalo by any means and black bear go down easier than many big tough bull elk in my experience. As Craig Boddington has said, "if bull elk had the disposition of cape buffalo they would be hunted with the same rifles used to hunt buffs." I have a lot of experience with hunting bears and close encounters with them, (by close encounters I am talking where I kicked a 300 pound black bear in the **** to drive it away from my dog, my boot had goo on it from where I kicked the bear, fish and game documented this. The fish and game officer laughed and said, "that bear won't come back and he will tell his friends to keep away too") I just posted on a different thread here on bear spray, which I have used many times and received free cans from UDAP. Note that in Montana you have to take a test to distinguish a grizzly from a black bear to get a certificate to hunt them. However, it is a lame test where if you score 80% you get the certificate for life. You can take the test yourself here: http://fwp.mt.gov/education/hunter/bearID/default.html. However, just because you pass the test doesn't mean your "the great bear hunter" LOL. Note: I am not talking about the bears in Yellow Stone or Glacier, i.e. the land of the condition white. Around where I live, (just like wolves know what a human with a gun is), the bears run for their lives when they see a hunter.
 
Last edited:
But that is real easy to say while sitting down, real hard when a bear is mauling your buddy.

Many a state has good Samaritan laws for people who give first aid for accident victims of car wrecks.

Even if they accidentally hurt or kill the one they are trying to save they have immunity.

As noted, doing the right thing isn't always easy. Just because you buddy is being mauled does not mean you are absolved of responsibility for your actions, especially if said actions were negligent. Yes, Good Sam laws exist. They specificially do not protect against incompetence, especially in cases where the action results in the death of the person injured.

Idaho's Good Sam law says...
I.C. §5-330.

Immunity of persons giving first aid from damage claim.

That no action shall lie or be maintained for civil damages in any court of this state against any person or persons, or group of persons, who in good faith, being at, or stopping at the scene of an accident, offers and administers first aid or medical attention to any person or persons injured in such accident unless it can be shown that the person or persons offering or administering first aid, is guilty of gross negligence in the care or treatment of said injured person or persons or has treated them in a grossly negligent manner.

Assuming it applies in this case, would Ty Bell's actions of shooting Steve Stevenson in the chest be considered grossly negligent? Are SWAT snipers held accountable when they shoot the victim instead of or in addition to the perp? Sure enough.
$3.9 million paid to Andrea Hall's family when a LEO sniper shot and killed her. It was a tough deal, high stress, and the sniper was acting in good faith, but that did not absolve civil responsibility for the taking of the life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top