This weekend, a man and a woman hiking through Denali National Park shot and killed a grizzly bear that emerged from a nearby thicket. The man, who was in the lead, was carrying a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol drew the weapon when he and his partner heard a rustling in the brush. According to a release from the park, the bear came running at the couple, at which point the man fired “approximately nine rounds” in the general direction of the animal. The bear then supposedly turned around and disappeared back into the brush from which it had come.
The couple continued hiking roughly 1.5 miles through the park until they encountered a park employee, who called in the incident and conducted a brief interview. The bear’s body was later found about 100 feet from the pistol casings.
Since February, it was been legal to carrying firearms in National Parks, although it is still illegal to discharge them, according to park officials. The case is currently under investigation, and Park wildlife biologists and rangers are attempting to determine whether the shooting of the animal was justified or not.
Regardless of legality, it’s questionable whether or not killing an animal in its natural habitat is morally OK. Ultimately, hikers, backpackers and the like should respect the wilderness and the wildlife they very well may encounter while strolling through their territory. Killing them, even in self defense, is no doubt a questionable subject.
[Via: National Parks Traveler]
[Photo Via: Alaskan Dude]
Related Posts
No related posts were found.
You know, I’ve never been in this stituation but if a grizzly bear were to attack me in a National Park I wouldn’t sacrifice myself or others with me for the sake of ‘morality.’
Sorry, that’s just insane.
It’s easy to sit around in Portland and pontificate about the situation but I know many Alaskans that are armed every single time they go into the wilderness. Not because they’re looking to kill an animal but because they’re trying to prevent BEING KILLED by one.
In my back pack years, I have encountered many bears. Mostly black bears but a couple of grizzlies. Never been attacked. Been warned a few times.
But my instinct tells me that these people that carry guns into National Parks are the same people that shoot our road signs.
Point taken. There is a difference between self defense and shooting an animal point blank. But the issue that I want to address here is that the report has yet to show whether or not the man acted in defense for his life. If he did — then it’s arguably “understandable” on a “moral” level — although, as I said, still a “questionable” subject in my opinion.
I can’t believe what I’m hearing from an “adventure” magazine. What you’re saying is that we’re invading on their turf so we should just roll over and die when attacked. Don’t defend yourself. Or better yet, don’t be so adventurous out there in the world. Just stay out of nature since it’s their natural habitat? Maybe we should all just still to adventuring around LA or NY since that’s our natural habitat. STAY OUT OF FOREST PARK! What a stupid comment on the killing of a bear. If you hate the fact that a .45 carrying human lived and a poor innocent bear died, just say so.
[comment edited by moderator]
Seriously… some one needs to lay off the granola.
Zimmerman and Jeff, you seem to overlook the fact that shooting bears and never going into bear territory aren’t the only two options for preventing folks getting attacked in grizzly country. What about preventative noise? Care to feel a bit more secure? Get some bear spray and have it out at all times.
Byron,
Do you know how to tell the difference between black and grizzly bear droppings?
A black bear’s scat contains undigested berries and nuts.
A grizzly bear’s droppings contains small metal bells and smells like pepper spray.
Just saying!
I’m appalled .. if they really did fear for their life, I’m sure they would have turned around and gone back to the camp /headquaters (etc)rather than nonchantly continuing on with their hike.
as someone who has hiked in Denali I’m really upset that guns are allowed there now. Other hikers are also at risk with those guns now.
“Killing them, even in self defense, is no doubt a questionable subject.”
This article is laughable. As an advocate of animal rights and avid outdoorsman I would not propose entering into a fistfight with bear if you have a firearm. While there are alternatives to carrying firearms–bear spray, preventative noise–neither have been proven to work as well as a firearm. It is sad that the park has lost a beautiful animal, but assuming the bear acted aggressively the hikers were well within their rights to protect their well being. I love this magazine, but the author should lay off the ganja. Don’t deny it…I lived in Portland many years and I know that you all are moon worshiping, pot smokers. It’s fine, I’m OK with it, but accept the fact that it does not improve your writing.
Point: “Killing them, even in self defense, is no doubt a questionable subject.”
Proof: A huge variety of comments about the subject in both strong agreement and disagreement.
Now please just let me get back to my moon worshiping and pot smoking. Thanks.
ok, i still don’t agree with your “proof,” but that was funny.
It’s sad the bear was killed, it would have been much sadder if two people had been killed by the bear. We can all agree on that, right?
There’s lots more people than bears, I wouldn’t be sad at all.
Should have known there’d be one to disagree.
If a Grizzly is attacking you, I think its justified. The problem is where is that line?
If a Bear is on his hind quarters 30 feet away, some people would feel threatened and some wouldn’t.
People who have a lot of experience around Bears might think it is just posturing, and would pull out bear spray or a horn.
So the question I would ask, Is it ok to shoot an Orca if it jump right next to your Kayak and you felt threatened? Some would think they are being attacked but many wouldn’t.
I have ended up while mountain biking, stopped between a momma elk and her baby. She was pissed and snorting and looked like she was going to charge me. Of course I was scared, but do i have the right to shoot the Elk right then? It was threatening me. Where is the line?
Shooting the bear if it was actively attacking them is one thing. But I know there’s plenty of people who will take advantage of the ability to take a gun into a National Park and be able to come out going “he, he- I shot a bear dude!” There are people like that.
The other thing- the guy fired 9 rounds. Did all of them hit the bear? Not everyone who carries a gun fully knows how to use one. Imagine if you were further up the trail and you randomly get shot cause some guy shot at a bear.
And we are invading their territory. If you go to Texas and walk into some guys house- he can shoot you. If you go to the woods- a bear can maul you. People who participate in outdoor activities know and except these risks. I’m not going to take my gun into a park because some animal “might” attack me. I have a knife if it comes down to that. And at least with that, I don’t have to worry about killing my fellow hikers/bikers/climbers with it.
Jaeryn good luck with that knife buddy! Remember this was a charging grizzly. They can weigh 600 to as much as 1200 lbs. Vegas would likely love this reality show and would give you some pretty slim odds at best. Maybe 10,000 to 1, possibly worse. No question you might have a yahoo go into the National Parks armed in hopes of being attacked by a grizzly. Should that sad event happen I hope the facts will show his guilt and he will receive just punishment. I personally would feel much safer with a 45 at my side than with a knife. Althoug I would likely have both. And yes if I’m carrying it I would certainly know how to use it responsibly. That is the simple expectation for any and all who carry a firearm!
Sorry the bear was killed. The bears have lost their fear of humans. Your story stated; “the bear came running at the couple” So after the bear started charging how long do you suggest he make loud noises? When should he have pulled out the pepper spray? How long should he have waited before discharging his 45? He likely had all of about 2 seconds to react! Come on – the article reads way to one sided for the bear.
I wonder if you would have given as much coverage if the bear had injured the couple or lord forbid killed them. I for one am glad that law abiding citizens are allowed to carry personal protection into National Parks. End result the bears who are agressive and as a result of agressive actions hear gunfire will learn to be more cautious of humans in the future. Mutual respect. In addition there is the side benefit of less criminal activity on the innocent if some of our park users are packing. We all know of people, or have heard the stories of people, that have been victimized by real criminals while enjoying our national treasures. Sad story but the bear was the agressor here. The guy wan’t out hunting for bear. But he was protecting what is important to him and that is his right!
The bears in Denali do have a fear of humans….that park is strict on the number of people that go into the park every summer. Also, there has never been a death from a bear attack in that park. They still fear us. We are just allowing any uneducated redneck with a gun the chance to hike in one of countries most wild and pristine places. the Bears Lose!!!
Here are some facts to toss into the dialogue:
1.) As of 2005 (most recent info I could find, please update with a link if it’s not accurate) there had never been a fatal bear mauling in the park’s history.
2.)According to the NPS: There have been only 23 cases of bear-induced human injury in the park’s history, two of which involved parties that were camped without a tent, and one was camped near a dead moose as well.
Here’s another way this story could have ended. In the beginning, this bear-confrontation case (also in Denali) seems nearly identical to the one Sami wrote about, but then it gets worse for the hikers as the woman was actually grabbed by the bear and dragged for a few yards. The only other differences: no guns and the bear is still alive. (http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?id=2072805).
One sentence that appeared in the original article but didn’t appear in our version is chilling to read: “The man, who was in the lead, drew a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol when they heard a noise coming from the brush.”
One more thought. Readers who have responded to this article have suggested the use of guns, noise and bear spray as a defense against bears. However, a gun may injure the bear, noise may awake a bear from its slumber and disturb its sleeping patterns and bear spray may irritate a bear’s skin (bears have nowhere to go to buy moisturizers). Maybe the author should have considered pursuing a park policy requiring all hikers to carry a pole vault. This policy would ensure that a bear would not be harmed as hikers could vault over a bear in the event one became aggressive.
No Gil,
The issue is responsibility. There are smart people and stupid people.
The issue is that just because you have the right to carry a gun, doesn’t mean you you can shoot a bear or anything else at any time.
You go into the Bears world, hiking through the brush, knowing there are bears around. You get to a bear and you are scared, so you shoot it?
The fact is that there has never been a human fatality in Danali, and thousands of people have been as close as this couple to the bears.
It scares the crap out of me knowing people have guns on them in Nat Parks. I have been shot at while mountain biking by drunk hunters who thought it was funny to scare the shit out of the “fag in spandex”.
but I am guessing your answer would be, well if you had a gun you could have shot back. f ing brilliant
The article says nothing of the hikers overreacting and killing the bear needlessly. In fact, the author refers to the bear charging the hikers. With the limited information available I opt to take the hikers word for it as 1) the bear is dead and 2) If the bear had survived it would not be able to speak english. Also, your argument is flawed–seriously–and speaks to your clear bias against guns (I do not own a firearm nor am I a member of the NRA). As the article does not quote the hikers as saying, “we went to the park in hopes of spotting wildlife that we could shoot needlessly.” I also did not promote the use of firearms in my response, but I must admit that shooting at men who wear spandex does seem a bit more reasonable than shooting at aggressive bears.
Commenters here have posted inaccurate information, and have left important details out of their judgment of this incident. While more information will be needed from further investigation of the human-bear incident before we know its true nature, here are a few facts:
1. Peer-reviewed research has shown that practicing active deterrence while traveling in grizzly bear country prevents more human injury than any other behavior. Deterrent behavior includes making noise so that bears can hear your approach, avoiding travel through brushy areas with little visibility so that bears can see your approach, avoiding travel around/near carrion and bear cubs so that bears don’t perceive you as a threat to their potential/actual food and young, and backing away slowly if a bear and/or its very fresh sign is seen.
2. Peer-reviewed research has shown that the vast majority of grizzly bear charges, when the bear runs hard towards something else (human or other animal), are bluff charges. That is, almost all charges end in a bluff, where the bear turns their course and makes no contact with the animal it’s charging.
3. Peer-reviewed research has shown that bear spray is significantly more effective in preventing human injury than the use of a firearm during a human-grizzly bear incident.
Finally, here are a couple of my own thoughts, not science, just my opinions and experience:
1. As someone who has both lived and traveled in grizzly bear country, my life/trips have been many times modified on account of encountering a grizzly bear and/or its sign. That is, I’ve skirted around a trail/route for a few hundred meters when I’ve seen/heard a bear on/near the route/trail so as to give it space. And, I’ve also completely turned around when I’ve encountered carrion and sows with cubs on/near a trail. In summary, I would never continue unmodified, forward travel on a route or trail with very fresh bear sign unless I could make certain the bear wasn’t still there.
2. Most people I know and with whom I have traveled in grizzly bear country sing or yell as they move so as to avoid surprise, close encounters.
3. I’ve twice surprised a grizzly bears when coming around a sharp turn without singing or yelling as I traveled (In my opinion, I wasn’t practicing the deterrence I above preach, both errors on my part.). In both cases, the bear exhibited signs of stress (One huffed and swung its head back and forth, the other stood up on its back legs.). I backed away until the bear stopped modifying its behavior on my account, or until I could no longer see it.
4. There are few places left in North America where grizzly bears still live in sustainable populations (As compared to their ranges before about 1850, when humans began inhabiting much of the continent.). It’s my opinion that there should be wild places on our continent where grizzly bears are allowed to take their natural place at the top of the food chain. It’s also my opinion that humans are arrogant in their desire to enter these last few wild places and attempt to unnaturally modify their place in the food chain with the use of firearms.
5. I very much value human life, and, of course, don’t want anyone to die or become injured by a grizzly bear. I also very much value grizzly bear life, and don’t want bears to die/be injured by humans. More than anything here, I value human intelligence, and our keen ability to modify our behavior so as to prevent human-grizzly bear incidents that end in any injury to human and bear.
There seems to be a simple solution: stop permitting the carrying of guns in national parks (I’d prefer if that were extended everywhere in general). If you can’t discharge them anyway, what’s the point?
If you don’t want to risk getting into a run-in with a bear, then don’t hike in bear country. Why is it our “right” to encroach on their territory and then shoot them if we scare them? I think carrying a gun would also offer a false sense of security, making hikers more cavalier in their activities. “No need to worry, I HAVE A GUN! I can go anywhere.” There’s no incentive to practice caution.
And why is that anyone who opposes guns or loves animals has to be “granola-eating, pot-smoking, moon-worshipping(?) hippies”? Anyone who decides to attack someone’s character in a debate has lost all credibility.
I don’t know the circumstances under which the bear was shot, so I don’t want to pass judgment. But in general I think it’s ethically wrong just to put yourself in any situation where you’re going to have to shoot a bear, whether it’s feeding them so they get accustomed to human presence or carrying unmasked food down a trail where you know that there will be bears.
And I don’t think acting responsibly makes you a pot-smoker or a hippie. I think it makes you an adult.
Adam, Carlo
You and others on this thread have posted comments that do not stick to the facts. For instance, you state, “…I think it’s ethically wrong just to put yourself in any situation where you’re going to have to shoot a bear, whether it’s feeding them so they get accustomed to human presence or carrying unmasked food down a trail where you know that there will be bears.”
I doubt anyone would argue with your point that hikers who do not follow basic backwoods protocol are acting irresponsibly and have no business visiting the wild. Yes! Use bear cannisters, keep camp clean, make noise while hiking on trail, but where did the article indicate the hikers were not doing this?
Carlo states “Why is it our “right” to encroach on their territory and then shoot them if we scare them?” Huh? We actually do have the “right” to visit our country’s parks and my tax dollars (not enough of them) are spent, in part, on supporting these parks. And, we should treat any park and its inhabitants with respect, but we should also value our lives to the extent that we would defend it in the face of danger–not a bear 50 yards away, but when I can count its teeth as it is charging me…bye bye bear.
What I, and others, have taken exception to is the assumption made by others that the hikers were acting irresponsibly. Where they, maybe…but we don’t know. This said, I must label you and Carlo moon worshiping hippie pot smoking, deusche bags. I hope you understand.
I have an idea. Since protecting oneself in a national park against wildlife is “immoral”, then stay out of the woods. No one needs to hike; no one needs to dirt bike (it only tears up the wilderness anyway), no one needs to camp in the wood either (I’ve seen the mess campers leave behind)- those are desires not needs – therefore, if no one goes in the woods no one needs protection. How does that suit everyone?
Gil, I’ll ignore the fact you think I’m a “deusche bag” (is that German?)…and try to have a civilized discussion…I don’t see how this is different than if I wander into someone’s (your?) “private” property with a gun, and when you come out with a baseball bat running at me to “get off my lawn!”, I shoot you in self-defense.
Just because the bear isn’t paying a 30-year mortgage for his patch in the woods or hasn’t built a chain link fence around his den, doesn’t mean that it’s not his territory. And that attitude of “my tax dollars build these parks so I have every right to go wherever I please” just stinks. I would hope that the main reason the parks/reserves are built are to PRESERVE nature and limit development, not to provide a playground for man.
I’m not in any way saying these hikers were wrong in shooting the bear in self-defense (if, in fact, that IS the truth), which is strangely where this debate is focused on…but I question why guns are even permitted AT ALL.
Then again, I’m not American so don’t understand this gun culture.
Carlo,
I hope you recognize the humor in my responses. While you may indeed be an enormous deusche bag I have opted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Ultimately, I would agree that the park system is about preserving the wilds and not becoming a playground where I, and others, can leave our empty plastic bags and beer cans. However, we should see the parks–all of us should–as it is through experiencing these amazing places that we learn the value in having them. Ultimately, I value human life more than animal life. Therefore, when it comes to a situation like that which occurred in the park I choose to side with the hikers. Had the hikers not had a gun and the bear was not bluff charging what then? Had the hikers died would you have said it is the hikers fault and the bear had the right to kill them? Better yet, what if you did climb my fence and as I came at you with a baseball bat you found yourself without a way to defend yourself–you die. Should your family say–it was our deusche bag son’s fault?
“Had the hikers died would you have said it is the hikers fault and the bear had the right to kill them?” – Yes, of course. It’s a risk. Like surfing/swimming where there are sharks.
“Should your family say–it was our deusche bag son’s fault?” – Yes, because I would have known the risk of entering the property.
And no, I do not recognize any humour in your comments. Perhaps you could point out your jokes? And I would have thought you’d pick up on my hint. But since you insist on repeatedly calling me one, it’s DOUCHE. Not deusche. But I guess only a douchebag would know that, right? (Now THAT’S humour!)
Man, if you’re going to be calling people Deutsche bags, I’m not going to play your game. But let me just state the facts:
-There are other ways to scare away a bear than by shooting it “approximately nine” times. Firecrackers are one. Flare guns are another. Both have been used regularly and successfully against polar bears, which are both larger and more aggressive than grizzlies.
-You shouldn’t be going to areas where grizzly bear attack is a big issue. Honestly, you just shouldn’t. There are plenty of places to hike where you will never see, hear, or smell a bear, or where the bears are not so accustomed to humans that they’ll attack them. A large part of my job involves hiking, I’ve done it across the US and South America, and I have never been attacked by a bear. Humans shouldn’t own the whole world.
-Yes, if there were no way out, I would shoot a bear to survive. But there is no reason you should have to put human life above animal life because there’s no reason we can’t coexist.
And FYI, I’m sober, Jewish, and have never been to Portland.
Also, American, not German.
The infamous debate to have the right to own and use a firearm or not. Well personally I own several firearms, I use them both for protection and for recreation. If I had been in a situation where I felt either myself or my loved ones were in danger and that were the final thing left to me I would in fact would have used said firearm. I would not use it to scare, nor to wound but to kill since I was alway trained that if you pull a firearm you use it to kill. I doubt a bear or any animal (including man) would be scared of me waving it around saying back off or I will shoot. So with much regret I would draw, aim and fire my firearm till what ever I was aiming at stopped moving. There is not any glory in taking a life, be it animal or human, and in the course of my life I have done both. (again not my most proud moments in life) I have shot and killed animals for subsistance and I am grateful that they gave their lives so that me and mine could live, and I have also killed them in defense so that again me and mine could survive. You see in the final moments of it all it really does come down to that fact that it will be either you or I and frankly in that whole ordeal I am going to live and sorry about your morality issue when it comes to survival there is no time for the morailty question that will hit later when I will regret having to kill someone or something so that I that either me or my loved ones can live. To say that you would let someone or something kill you with out trying to defend yourself is well just silly. I guess I would rather be though a heartless immoral sot, than a moral dead person. – I guess you can say that is just my 2 cents worth
ps I am sorry the bear died but at the same time I am glad the hikers are alive to report it to the proper people.