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
Perhaps the hiker here was justified in shooting the bear but the details needed to determine this are not public yet (and may never be). Speaking as an avid back packer and gun owner, I'm worried that peremptory, hasty or not fully justified use of firearms against wildlife in a place like Denali will deteriorate the wilderness experience for all of us.
Denali hikers have thousands of very close contacts with bears each summer. The extremely low injury rate of people due to bear encounters shows that being around these bears is by and large “safe” and I can attest that it is thrilling to encounter a bear at close range. But, if the criteria for determining when lethal self defense from a bear is allowed becomes a measure of proximity and direction of travel (perceived threat), the bears will be slowly picked off, one by one, in situations just like this. This will fundamentally alter and cheapen the character of Denali's wilderness experience for anyone who visits.
I believe that when I carry a sidearm (or even pepper spray) I subconsciously alter my behavior toward my surroundings and operate with a false sense of security. I more likely to ignore the precautions that would likely prevent a sudden and unexpected encounter with a bear. Bear attacks are often accidents, the bear was scared because the person and bear met unexpectedly at close range.
My experience hiking in Denali and Yellowstone and other places teaches me that reliance on a firearm for self defense from animals is highly overrated and in most instances misplaced. My anecdotal review of bear attacks (Stephen Herrero's book and others) and my personal encounters with various dangersous animals reveals that bear attacks in these wilderness areas are likely to happen little or no warning, leaving most victims with little or no opportunity to make a meaningful defense, with pepper spray or a firearm.
I'm willing to take my chances when I enter a wilderness like Denali and I assume the risk of not carrying a firearm or pepper spray but I know that many people will legally choose to do so. Gun carriers must adopt or create a strict culture of use and engagement against wildlife in parks. Here’s my advise; learn all that you can about bear behavior and how you should react to a bear, take all of the normal precautions of travel in bear country and don’t take unnecessary risks, carry at least a .44 mag, open carry, and learn how to use it (5000 rounds), travel in groups of 4 or more,. Finally, be certain before pulling the trigger and don’t panic because you may regret getting worked over by the legal system more than by a bear. Until a bear is less than 10 yards away, it is much more likely to leave than attack.
There are situations in which a firearm may prevent a serious injury or deadly attack but statistically they are insignificant compared to all other hazards in our parks. We spend our collective time worrying about the tooth and fang encounters when we should reassure ourselves that we are much more likely to die driving to the park, in a river crossing, from weather exposure, a fall, lightning etc.
Without a lot more info, no conclusion can be drawn. Worked for a few years in AK back country, several friends were maimed and 2 killed by bears. Have been up close and personal with bears, cats, and other animals many times in many places, have had to shoot some of them. No one I know works out in the bush w/o a 44 Mag or a "Mare's leg" rifle, it's a good way to change your position in the food chain. This isn't Disneyland, the animals here are real. Not every encounter with a bear is a "need to shoot" situation, but neither is it necessarily a "non-shooting" situation. The video training given should extend to all visitors, and should include something about firearms policy and alternatives.Those that would demonize or exonerate this couple should wait for all the facts first. If I had to guess, I'd say the shooting will probably be ruled justifiable but unfortunate, and hopefully will lead to a change in information given to those who visit the park.
One Anonymous person wrote: "I've taken over 30 hours of live-fire training on a range with former Law Enforcement and Blackwater contractors in order to react to a bear threat.... In my training, I've practiced one handed and one eyed (non-dominant) self-defense shooting for just this situation.... I don't want to go to jail and lose my firearm. I'd rather lose an eye or be paralyzed than go to jail!" I have to hope this is a rather cleverly crafted joke haha
Regardless of how this turns out though, there will be tough calls, and this is probably the first of many. Years down the line we will probably be comparing data from before and after the ban was lifted, and there (and not by examining individual close calls) we might better understand the impact of the ban on wildlife and human fatalities.
There are obnoxious comments on both sides, but just because you are skeptical of whether this shooting was justified doesn't mean you value the life of a human being over a bear, it may just mean you don't think lifting the ban was overall a good thing.
In these cases, you will never know what WOULD have happened had the person not had a gun, or whether (without their gun) their entire course of actions leading up to the bear encounter would have been different. Maybe they would have walked a little louder in the minutes leading up to the encounter (thereby avoiding the encounter), maybe they would have planned their trip a little differently to avoid such encounters, maybe they would have chosen not to go at all (because he/she couldn't bring their guns). So I think even once we get more facts in, it might actually say very little about how this would have played out if the ban had been in place because whether you have a gun may impact a lot more than simply what you do in the moment when you're face to face with a bear. Which is all why I think the long-term data may be more instructive than just trying to judge if this person was in lethal danger in the moments before the shooting. And it's why I don't value the lives of bears over humans, I just worry that this has changed the calculus for a lot of people so much that they do a lot of things differently and the end result after many years will be more animals getting killed in more encounters that could have ended peacefully or been avoided altogether, one way or another.
Kurt, I am wondering too what the difference is as far as carrying a handgun in the national preserve portion of Denali, both pre- and post-ban. Obviously hunting has been allowed in preserves, but were handguns allowed too before?
You chose to enter the National parks at your own risk and therefore you assume the risk of a bear encounter. Having worked at Yellowstone I dealt with bear encounters and even had a close call myself. I agree that it is nice to have a firearm in case of an emergency but carrying a firearm poses a great risk to our law enforcement in the park. Not everyone is responsible with their firearm. To add, this case and others like it a far and few between. The hikers should have been making noise as they were walking through the brush to ensure that the grizzly heard them approaching. Had they been making a considerable amount of noise, the bear would have been frightened and ran away seeing as how grizzly bears are non-confrontational. I guess we will see how the year goes but if wildlife are being killed for no reason or it could have been prevented in cases to come, congress should re-examine the law and reverse it.
I'll add one more thing, there are very few National Parks outside of Alaska where carrying a firearm is warranted. I too get nervous in the fall when I see hunters on horseback while out hiking. I can see where inexperienced backcountry visitors who are armed, possibly without much handgun/firearms training, can add up to a volatile situation.
MikeD wrote "I have to hope this is a rather cleverly crafted joke"... No sir, I am an antique arms collector and the last thing I want to do is have the Feds confiscate everything I've collected and lose my right to own arms due to breaking a Federal "no discharge" law. It's worth a lot to me, both monetarily and sentimentally, and at this point I'm considering leaving my sidearm at home. The law is too ambiguous and leaves prosecutors with ample opportunity to paint a picture of a firearm owner with a motive. I only want to defend myself as a last resort just like I can in public. It seems that NPS can discharge a firearm in a park, but the average citizen cannot. That's a shame. Those Fed employees only have to re-qualify with firearms once a year and don't target shoot every week as a hobby. I trained beside them, and most remind me of Recruit Hooks from the Police Academy movie.
This year will be my 9th visit to Glacier and the first time having the right to defend myself with a firearm thanks to the Coburn Amendment. All other 8 times, I had to take my chances with bear spray. It seems like taking my chances by not being armed will result in less problems for my collecting and reenacting hobbies if it actually comes down to needing to use the firearm to save my life or that of my loved-one. :-(
I have read a lot about bears and their bluff charges. I have read a lot of stories here about how some people would never carry a gun -as they could "Talk to the bear and wave their arms" for defense.
I also read about the woman who was ripped from her roof and eaten. This after the bear broke into her and her husbands cabin and he ran for help.
I don't know that much about bears but I know 45 ACPs. These are short range weapons 15-25 yards under ideal conditions. Hitting a bear with this under-powered weapon (not a weapon for bear) would have had to be close quarters.
We don't have all the answers yet, perhaps a couple of warning shots were fired and the bear kept coming. I really want to know what happened out there.
One more thing, if the hiker really wanted to just kill a bear, I can think of a better sidearm than a 45 for that size game.
non-confrontational? Bear breaks into cabin -occupants retreat to roof - man goes for help. When he returns he finds his half eaten companion on the roof.
That's pretty confrontational.