A grizzly bear that emerged from a thicket and charged two backpackers in the backcountry of Denali National Park and Preserve was shot and killed by one of the two who was carrying a .45-caliber semi-automatic pistol, according to park officials.
The killing Friday is believed to be the first instance of a hiker killing a grizzly in the park's wilderness. The killing occurred in the original Mount McKinley National Park portion of the Denali, which was expanded by two-thirds in 1980.
Until February, when Congress changed the rules, it was illegal to carry a loaded firearm in that portion of Denali. While the rule change now allows hikers to carry firearms in all areas of Denali, it still is illegal to discharge them, park officials said.
Park officials did not speculate whether the killing was justified. This is believed to be the first instance of a visitor to a national park killing an animal with a firearm since the gun regulations were changed.
According to a release from the park, the two backpackers, a man and woman, were hiking in dense brush along the edge of Tattler Creek, which is at the west end of Igloo Canyon roughly 35 miles from the park headquarters.
"The man, who was in the lead, drew a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol when they heard a noise coming from the brush. When the bear emerged from the thicket and ran toward the other hiker, he fired approximately nine rounds in its general direction. The bear stopped, turned, and walked back into the brush, where it quickly disappeared from view," said the release.
The two then headed roughly 1.5 miles back to a road, where they encountered a park employee, who called in the incident and took the two backpackers to the Toklat Road Camp. A ranger there did a short preliminary interview with them at approximately 10:00 p.m. Because of the concern that a wounded bear was in the area, four backcountry units were immediately closed, and bus drivers were instructed to not drop off day hikers in the Igloo Canyon on Saturday.
"Early Saturday morning rangers and wildlife technicians flew to Toklat via helicopter to conduct a secondary interview with the two backpackers. Afterwards they flew over Tattler Creek and all of side tributaries, very low at times, to determine if there was an active, wounded bear," the park release said. "No bears were seen during the overflight, and late in the afternoon three rangers hiked into the site. The bear was found dead in a willow thicket approximately 100 feet from the pistol casings at approximately 6:00 p.m.
"The bear’s body was transported via helicopter to a landing site on the park road and brought back to headquarters on Sunday, where park wildlife biologists are assisting with the investigation of the bear carcass. The backcountry units have been reopened."
The case is still under investigation, and the names of the backpackers are not being released at this time. Park wildlife biologists and rangers are trying to determine if there was a justification for shooting the animal.
The estimated grizzly bear population in the park north of the Alaska Range north is 300-350 animals.
Comments
The more we allow handguns in National Parks, the more likely we are to see the accidental shooting of a backpacker "rustling" in the eye-high tundra plants. If you want to backpack, don't bring a gun. If you want to hunt, don't bring a backpack. If you want to stay home and watch National Geographic, by all means do so. Just don't shoot me if I surprise you in The Bush.
Usually around here when a mountain lion or a bear mauls a human being, law enforcement tracks it down and kills it. If memory serves that's what was done in Alaska with the bear that mauled the girl mountain biking in a park near Anchorage. (I don't know what Denali's policy is on that). In Yosemite, a bear that injures a visitor is killed, I believe. So my point is that there would have been a dead or mauled woman and a dead bear.
To those of you who think that the couple should have just gone ahead and been mauled, have you ever seen the injuries from an animal mauling? What if the victim had been your wife, would you still have let the bear charge?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that no one would have wanted the hikers mauled.
But the question that arises in my mind is whether the shooting could have been avoided? Had the hikers been adequately schooled by park officials on how to deal with wildlife in general and bears particularly? I know at Yellowstone, just to name one other park with bears, if you're going for an overnight in the backcountry you need to sit through a video and sign a paper attesting that you understand where you're going and what you might encounter.
There's an abundance of literature out there on bear behavior and how to deal with it, on how bear spray is more effective than a sidearm, on how to behave in backcountry inhabited by bears.
There's also been much concern voiced since the gun regs for national parks were changed over inexperienced backcountry travelers going armed into these situations and resorting to their weapons when it's not necessary.
Until more is known about this incident -- and park officials told me today the investigation is ongoing -- it's impossible to say whether the shooting was justified or not.
I've been charged by a black bear in Kings Canyon. It happened in seconds. Fortunately it was a bluff charge. I can't imagine being charged by a bear the size of a grizzly. For bear spray to be effective you have to be closer to the bear than I would want to be. And even if the hikers didn't make noise, didn't have bear bells, once the bear charges the fact that they may not have been the best bear-country prepared hikers is irrelevant to what they should be permitted to do to defend themselves.
Oh my god, these comments are hilarious. You guys can't even spell!
I keep reading the argument "how is the hiker supposed to know if the charge is a bluff or for real?" This begs the question should there be any stipulations for those venturing into wildlife territory? It also poses an ethical dilemma, should man be allowed to blast anything that evokes a fear response in him just so he can take a walk through the park? How are we to separate men defending their lives from cowards hiding behind a gun? I think the conservationist's great fear is that the new law will give men, who aren't of the proper disposition and mindset to preserve and admire nature while accepting that they are in it's domain, license to carry and discharge their handguns in the name of moral superiority and without consideration for the long-term effects their actions will have on the eco-system. This is the part where someone cues Bubba: "I'll put down ever last bear if it means keeping my kids safe!" If safety is your concern, then stay the hell out of the wild.
For my part, I believe the wilderness should be kept wild and I don't intend to venture into it to test my resolve or the stopping power of my sidearm just to get a glimpse of "nature." I've got National Geographic and Discovery for that.
Oh my god, these comments are hilarious. You guys can't even spell!
I keep reading the argument "how is the hiker supposed to know if the charge is a bluff or for real?" This begs the question should there be any stipulations for those venturing into wildlife territory? It also poses an ethical dilemma, should man be allowed to blast anything that evokes a fear response in him just so he can take a walk through the park? How are we to separate men defending their lives from cowards hiding behind a gun? I think the conservationist's great fear is that the new law will give men, who aren't of the proper disposition and mindset to preserve and admire nature while accepting that they are in it's domain, license to carry and discharge their handguns in the name of moral superiority and without consideration for the long-term effects their actions will have on the eco-system. This is the part where someone cues Bubba: "I'll put down ever last bear if it means keeping my kids safe!" If safety is your concern, then stay the hell out of the wild.
For my part, I believe the wilderness should be kept wild and I don't intend to venture into it to test my resolve or the stopping power of my sidearm just to get a glimpse of "nature." I've got National Geographic and Discovery for that.
When I did my backpacking trip in Denali the rangers showed us a 30 minute film similar to what I saw at Glacier NP, on what to & not to do. They stressed when walking through the bush, to shout out Hey bear! or something similar. If you're not on the tundra, most of the time you can't see very far, and the noise of the creek or river is also fairly loud. So its fairly easy to walk up on wildlife if you're not careful. I was most cautious/nervous during the first couple of days of hiking upstream with the wind in our faces. My hunch is the couple weren't shouting out enough, and if that's the case the incident could have been avoided.
Once the bear charged, I can't fault them for shooting it. I know how scary that must have been.
I did read Bear Attacks, Their Causes and Avoidance, before our trip & had the others in my party do so too. It helped everybody to stay bear aware.
Denali has been our best wilderness experience to date.
If you know that you've had "30 hours" of firearm training, you haven't had enough. I've both been trained and trained others for over 40+ years and don't necessarily feel I've had enough. And Goddess save me from someone trained by Blackwater. Denali is not Fallujah.
Does anyone actually know if the bear got one round in the front and the rest in the rear? Shooting at a threat that is running away from you is NOT self defense.