Results of Denali bear shooting.

Status
Not open for further replies.

KodiakBeer

member
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
3,276
Location
Kodiak, AK
http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/8939745/article-No-charges-filed-in-Denali-grizzly-bear-shooting?instance=home_news_window_left_top_3

No charges filed in Denali grizzly bear shooting


by Tim Mowry

FAIRBANKS — The National Park Service will not pursue charges against a hiker who shot and killed a grizzly bear while hiking in Denali National Park and Preserve two months ago.

The man, from North Pole, told park rangers he shot the bear when it charged his girlfriend, also from North Pole, as they hiked up Tattler Creek on May 28.

The park service’s investigation found no evidence to contradict the man’s claim, and physical evidence collected by rangers was consistent with the description of the incident provided by the two hikers, park spokeswoman Kris Fister said.

“We can’t say they did anything deliberately wrong,” she said.

The park service did not release the names of the hikers because they were not charged with anything, Fister said.

This is believed to be the first time a visitor to the park has shot and killed a bear in what used to be Mount McKinley National Park, Fister said.

The park was expanded and renamed Denali National Park and Preserve in 1980 as a result of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

The shooting came three months after Congress passed a law allowing people to carry loaded guns in national parks, including the original Mount McKinley National Park, the area where the bear was shot.

While a state law in Alaska allows the killing of wildlife in defense of life or property, there is no such federal law. It’s still against the law to actually fire a gun in the part of the park the bear was shot.

But Fister said park officials determined “this was a legitimate defense of life” and decided not to press charges.

According to the hikers’ account of the incident, they were talking as they hiked up Tattler Creek, which is located about halfway along the 92-mile Denali Park Road and is “known to be a pretty brushy, bear-friendly area,” Fister said.

The hikers were 20 to 25 feet apart when the man heard a noise in the brush to his right. He turned and drew a .45-caliber, semi-automatic handgun from a holster on his waist seconds before a large grizzly bear emerged from the brush about 25 feet away.

The bear charged the woman and the man fired seven to nine rounds at the right side of the bar. The bear stopped several feet from the woman and then moved back into the brush.

The hikers retreated and walked 1 1/2 miles back to Denali Park Road, noting the location on a GPS they were carrying. They notified a park employee about the shooting.

The dead bear was found the next day a short distance from the location provided by the hikers. The 434-pound bear was an older male with several pre-existing injuries, including a partly torn-off ear, Fister said.

Neither hiker had much backcountry or Alaska experience, according to park officials, and neither carried bear spray. Both had watched the park’s backcountry and bear safety orientation video and had proper backcountry permits.

Park officials aren’t worried that the shooting two months ago, combined with the new law that allows visitors to carry guns in the park, will lead to more bear shootings, Fister said.

“We hope that it doesn’t happen again,” Fister said. “If it does, it will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”

Park officials will still emphasize avoidance rather than the use of bear spray or firearms, Fister said.

“You can’t depend on those,” she said. “We hope people are still going to realize the use of firearms or bear spray is only potentially appropriate in a very last-ditch effort, and they need to take precautions.”

Using a gun against bears can also sometimes backfire, Fister noted.

“If someone doesn’t how to use it well, you can tick an animal off and create a worse situation,” she said.

Fister estimated there are 300 to 350 grizzly bears living in the park north of the Alaska Range.
 
That's good, but NPS still needs to get out of the land management business in this state. They do the tours groups well enough, but they have zero respect for local law and run their turf pretty much as a foreign government would. PERMITS to go hiking. PERMITS! Orientation videos!
 
The bear charged the woman and the man fired seven to nine rounds at the right side of the bear.

7-9 rounds of .45 acp on a Grizz!!

This doesn't hail praise to the .45 NEARLY as much as it does to this guy's butt-load of Lucky Stars and Horseshoes he must have used-up on that encounter.

I don't care how hot of loads you may cook up, I would feel far less than adequately armed in Grizzly country with a .45. -And I love .45.

But you darn sure better carry something more substantial if you're gonna visit the Grizz or you could likely end up visiting the angels after witnessing your body being munched by one of the top 5 APEX PREDATORS on the planet.

This is the kinda' story that could get somebody killed.

Good read, none the less.
 
Last edited:
That's good, but NPS still needs to get out of the land management business in this state. They do the tours groups well enough, but they have zero respect for local law and run their turf pretty much as a foreign government would. PERMITS to go hiking. PERMITS! Orientation videos!
I can understand your angst but the truth of the matter is there are plenty of complete bozos who gain entrance to back country and can ONLY be kept track of with a permit system. And to let them out there without an orientation video (or SOME sort of guidance) is pure folly. If these safeguards were not in place there'd be hundreds of thousands (MORE) of taxpayer's dollars spent to rescue them from their their lack of knowledge and foolishness.
 
I guess you use what you have. That always seems to be the case with firearms.

I agree with Buck Snort on the orientation and permits thing. These things are made for the masses and not for the person who may have much more experience in both camping and wildlife encounters. The permits allow for the park to know who and how many might be in a particular area. Think about the flood in Arkansas, without permits, officials would have absolutely no idea who might be camping.
 
The reporters always stress the "7-9 rounds AT the bear" in this story, but has anyone released a report of how many rounds actually HIT the bear?
 
..."The reporters always stress the "7-9 rounds AT the bear" in this story, but has anyone released a report of how many rounds actually HIT the bear? "...

likely your best bet would be to call fish cop HDQ bldg in fairbanks for that info.

gunnie
 
I was pretty skeptical of this shooting based on the original news report, but now with fuller details it sounds entirely legitimate. The bear was injured (almost certainly from a fight with another bear) thus surly, so the guy did his best with what he had.

I can't help but wonder if he chose a .45 acp for concealment so as not to offend the sensibilities of tree-huggers? Note: The bear charged the woman and the man fired seven to nine rounds at the right side of the bar. The bear stopped several feet from the woman and then moved back into the brush.
The gun didn't "stop" the bear, it was more of a discouragement - the bear walked off and bled out. This was an elderly 400 pound inland grizzly.
 
proper backcountry permits

I'm just glad they had the proper "permits." Because otherwise, we'd want to prosecute them. Fine them. Charge them with other stuff (like bear murder :rolleyes:). Ticket them.

Control them.

Remember, it's all about "safety." "Sensible", "common-sense" permits.
 
I wonder how many times actually shooting a bear made it worse?

I'm not advocating such but I like real data over speculation.
 
The reporters always stress the "7-9 rounds AT the bear" in this story, but has anyone released a report of how many rounds actually HIT the bear?

Well, since the bear didn't fly backwards, I would guess that no bullets hit their mark, given the .45's famous knock-down power. The shockwaves from the bullets passing by must have ruptured its internal organs. ;)
 
I wonder how many times actually shooting a bear made it worse?

I'm not advocating such but I like real data over speculation.
probably will not see a whole lot of data on that either
when it does turn worse, the "witness" too often is unavailable to give testimony

these folks were lucky it was a small old slow bear
"emerged from 25 FEET, 435# bear"
is not 900# or more of fury coming your way at 40 mph (40 mph = ~60 feet per second)
even the steel shooters here would likely not get off a shot, not from a draw, much less dump a mag
(take a dump, maybe)
 
Last edited:
I liked seeing where the couple was from (the) North Pole! He may have had a magic touch and didn't need any luck. ;)
 
We all know who lives at the North Pole. They didn't have to release the couple's names to give away their identity. And that bear will definitely be on the naughty list.
 
Why a .45 ACP? I'm thinkin' that is what he owned and didn't want to buy a $600-$1200 revolver just for a hiking trip. A .50 cal would be great but he surely wouldn't have gotten off 7-8 shots............... maybe 2.
 
If these safeguards were not in place there'd be hundreds of thousands (MORE) of taxpayer's dollars spent to rescue them from their their lack of knowledge and foolishness.

No, not at all. You see, the REST of the State of Alaska, including the other federal holdings, has no such orientation video or backcountry pass system. People, being adults, take their chances. Every year a few dozen or more will drown, fall or die in some other way and many hundreds have bad injuries. That's the way it goes. That's Alaska. NPS seems to think it's a resort outside of Orlando and treats everyone accordingly. They're refusal to honor any local or state laws, or to allow firearms until very recently, is part of that overall philosophy. On NPS lands you're sheep to be shepherded through. Not adult humans, but livestock.

without permits, officials would have absolutely no idea who might be camping.

So? You want officials to know where you are for your own safety?
 
“If someone doesn’t how to use it well, you can tick an animal off and create a worse situation,” she said.

What? He'll just attack you harder than he was originally going to?
 
Well, since the bear didn't fly backwards, I would guess that no bullets hit their mark, given the .45's famous knock-down power. The shockwaves from the bullets passing by must have ruptured its internal organs.

LOL :)
 
I wonder how many times actually shooting a bear made it worse?

A very high percentage of bear attacks come from injured bears. If you're going to shoot a bear, you'd best kill the damned thing because the next person may not be armed and once they're wounded they're even more likely to attack.

It's no coincidence that this bear was injured (in a fight with another bear) and subsequently attacked these people.
 
So? You want officials to know where you are for your own safety?

Don't you think thats a good idea for the average person not familiar with Alaska?

It sounds like there is plenty of wild land still left in Alaska for people who are experienced to use and have fun on, but a group of people from the east with no Alaska experience probably would be better to stick to areas where the NPS rangers know where to find them. No?

I am from Georgia, and have never been to Alaska, but would like to go some day. I have camped a lot in the lower 48, but I am not sure I want my first trip to Alaska to be in remote area, with no one knowing where I am.
 
I'm pretty sure I read about this in the most recent American Rifleman magazine. It was in the armed citizen section.
 
I'm not sure why anyone would choose to hike Denali when there's a half million square miles around Denali that are just like Denali, but without all the bureaucratic BS attached.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top