Archive for the 'Animals' Category

Via David Codrea.  Too good not to link and embed.

News from Alaska.

Troopers received a report at about 7 p.m. that a moose hunter, who was with another hunter, was attacked by a bear.

“Reportedly the two hunters surprised a sow brown bear with two cubs,” troopers wrote. “The sow attacked one of the hunters causing serious injuries.”

According to AST, the second hunter shot the adult female bear and ended the attack. The hunters then evacuated to a cabin and the injured hunter was flown by helicopter to an Anchorage hospital for treatment.

The report doesn’t say with what gun or caliber the bear was shot.  Next up, news from Canada.

A black bear killed a Minnesota woman on a secluded island in Canadian waters in an attack that experts call extremely rare.

Catherine Sweatt-Mueller, 62, of Maple Plain, was staying with her parents in a remote cabin on Red Pine Island in Rainy Lake when she was killed, Ontario Provincial Police said.

Police Constable Jim Davis said Sweatt-Mueller went outside Sunday evening when she heard her two dogs barking, but that she never returned, the Star Tribune reported.

The dogs, one of them injured, returned to the cabin. Her parents, who are in their 80s, also were on the island and her mother called police, Davis said. Officers found a bear standing over Sweatt-Mueller’s body and shot the animal.

[ … ]

Minnesota wildlife biologist Andy Tri says a predatory attack by a black bear is “beyond extremely rare.”

Remember that.  “Beyond extremely rare.”  Beyond, mind you.  Whatever that means.

Perhaps it’s so beyond extremely rare we could persuade Canadian law enforcement to turn in their weapons.  Or perhaps she should have had means of self defense, and state law be damned.

By way of update, recall that I linked Dean Weingarten’s research work Pistols Or Handguns 95% Effective When Used To Defend Against Bear Attacks, 63 Cases.

Dean has expanded and updated his work and it now includes 73 cases.  He can now add the case from Alaska, which will make it 74.  It would be good to know the weapon and caliber used.

Grok the right lesson here.  It isn’t that bear attacks, whether brown or black, are that rare.  It’s that people who successfully live through such attacks carry means of self defense.

Via WiscoDave and BRVTVS, first, in Banff National Park, Canada.

The Rispolis were asleep in their tent at the park’s Rampart Creek Campground when they were jolted awake after midnight by the wolf.

“It was like something out of a horror movie,” Elisa wrote in the Facebook post.

Matt instantly threw himself in front of his wife and the children, fighting the predator as it ripped apart the tent. While her husband was trying to keep the wolf at bay, Elisa wrote that she lay on top of her two boys to shield them. Together, the couple cried out for help.

Luckily, Fee heard them.

When he arrived at the family’s campsite, Fee told “Calgary Eyeopener” that he saw the wolf attempting to yank something free of the tent, like it was “pulling on a toy.”

“It was big enough that I immediately figured out what it was, which is weird because I’ve never seen one outside of the zoo,” he said. “It was just so much larger than any dog I’ve ever seen.”

Inside the now mostly collapsed dwelling, an intense tug-of-war was unfolding. Elisa wrote that the animal had “started to drag Matt away” and she was holding on to his legs.

“I cannot and don’t think I’ll ever be able to properly describe the terror,” she wrote.

Meanwhile, as Fee ran toward the tent, carrying only the lantern his wife gave him, he devised a hasty plan.

“I just kind of kept running at it and I just kicked it . . . in the back hip area like I was kicking in a door,” he said on the radio show. “I booted it as hard as I could.”

The kick may not have done much physical damage, but Fee said it was enough to startle the wolf into letting Matt go. Then, the animal emerged from the tent and Fee said he “immediately regretted kicking it.”

“I felt like I had kind of punched someone that was way out of my weight class,” he said.

But before Fee had to think of another way to take on the wolf solo, he said Matt, whose “whole half side was just covered in blood,” came flying out of the tent. The two men began screaming at the wolf and hurling rocks about “the size of a head of cabbage” at the animal to drive it back, Fee said. Soon, the wolf was far enough away that the group was able to flee to Fee’s campsite, where they hid in his minivan.

Next up, Vancouver, Canada.

Keeping his bike between him and the bear, he gave it a firm poke with the hiking pole, which led to brief a tug-of-war.

He remembers negotiating with the bear, saying “I know this is your territory, I’m just passing through – we don’t have to do this”.

The grizzly kept coming at him with “methodical, heavy swats” and – as those swats got heavier and stronger – Mr Dowler threw his bike towards it.

That’s when it came for him, biting deep into his abdomen below his ribs.

“It was so much pain and weirdness, I could feel the hot blood,” he says. “I’m being rag-dolled, suspended by my flank by a bear carrying me.”

It dropped him near a ditch about 50ft away and began taking deep bites into his thighs. He tried gouging at the bear’s eyes, and briefly, playing dead.

He then reached for a pocket knife in his right pants pocket – it was painful to do so as he could hear the grating of bear teeth on bone – and went for the bear’s neck. There was a rush of blood and the bear let go and walked away from him, back towards where it had come from.

Do you see anything in common here?  Let me point out two things: [1] Both of these instances occurred where the victim wasn’t carrying a large bore handgun, and [2] both of these instances occurred in a country that prohibits the carrying of large bore handguns.

The solution here isn’t to suggest that we not enjoy the wilderness God gave us.  He commanded us to “subdue the earth.”  The solution here in both instances would have been a large bore handgun.  If you lose a fight like this it will be because you relied on fists, rocks and pocket knives.

News from the mountains.

A woman had “an unusual encounter” with a bear while hiking on the Appalachian Trail Saturday, according to officials from the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

GSMNP spokesperson Dana Soehn said the park’s wildlife biologist and park Rangers interviewed the woman Monday morning after receiving a radio report of a “bear attack.” She said she wanted to make sure to pass on the information to our staff regarding her interaction with a bear along her hike.

The woman was hiking in the eastern section of the park in a fairly remote section of the Appalachian Trail near Camel Gap when a bear darted quickly across the trail knocking her over, according to details from the park.

The woman told park officials the encounter happened very quickly, but she was certain that it was a bear. The bear did not linger or react when it knocked into her and kept quickly going on its way.

She was hiking with headphones so she had no advance warning of the bear approaching the trail as it crossed over, according to the park.

Soehn said while it’s not unusual for bears to cross the trails while people are hiking, it is unusual for a collision to occur. Normally people hear a bear’s approach and have time to react before the crossing.

By the time she heard movement in the tree branches near the trail, the bear was already crossing and knocked her over, according to the park. She was not injured and the bear did not attempt to access her pack or interact with her in any way.

Why does anyone want to listen to music when you can listen to the birds, wind, rustling of the trees, and animal life?

And for goodness’ sake, keep your head on a swivel when you’re in the bush.

This video has apparently gone viral.  What isn’t apparent, and seems very clear to me with all the giggling going on, is that she doesn’t understand anything about bears.

This man and woman don’t seem to either, relying on the bear speaking English and their ability to reason with it.  And of course this woman seems clueless.

Here is a recent video the girl should watch before giggling any more when a bear is interested in her.

Outside:

I’m not anti-gun, nor am I a city-dwelling ideologue. I’ve lived in Montana for nearly 20 years, and I own guns. The only time I carry one into the woods, however, is to hunt. To kill game. That’s what they’re built to do.

I’ve been an outdoor writer and editor for nearly as long, covering everything from skiing and climbing to hunting and fishing. I own a backcountry guide service and operate exclusively in grizzly country, including some of the most bear-dense parts of Yellowstone. I’ve had dozens of grizzly encounters, run-ins with polar bears on Arctic ski expeditions, and more than a few awkward conversations with disturbed individuals over the years—all sans sidearm and no worse for wear. Some of these experiences were scary, but I’ve never pulled the trigger on my bear spray (much less a pistol), and every one of those encounters made me a better outdoorsman.

Honestly, every time I read one of these pieces my eyes just glaze over when I have to wade through their ridiculous creds.  Why can’t anyone simply say what they think?  Why do they have to trot out their creds?  You know, that’s “appealing to authority,” or in other words, it’s formally called the genetic fallacy.  But this guy still isn’t finished.

I’ve also worked as an armed courier, transporting millions of dollars in an armored Freightliner—a job that required defensive-firearms training and certification with law enforcement and former military contractors. Guns were part of my wardrobe, and I’m comfortable with almost any firearm you could put in my hand. It’s guns in other peoples’ hands that make me nervous.

I’m not going to cite statistics about rifles and pistols or their effectiveness in wilderness-self-defense scenarios (the outcomes are generally piss-poor).

I don’t know anything about this guy and I’ve never met him, but one thing we learn from his writing is that he’s either a liar or a very sloppy and careless man.  But you knew that already.  His allegations disagree with what we learned from the fantastic research work performed by Dean Weingarten concerning bear attacks.  So whatever else you think of what he says, just remember he’s lying or is just too stupid to know the real facts.

We are not in danger on our favorite hiking trails and in our national forests. In fact, these places are ridiculously safe

So if someone listens to him, he disarms himself and loved ones in the face of potential danger.

There are three practical reasons why carrying a gun in the backcountry is silly.

First, any responsible owner knows that the highest priority is the security of their weapon at all times. On the trail, that becomes a real issue, since there’s no way to safely store your weapon. Want to go for a quick swim? Sorry, you can’t leave your sidearm unattended. Need to head into town for a resupply? Public transportation is off-limits, and most businesses don’t allow firearms. Want to grab a cold beer at the local watering hole after a particularly humid stretch of trail? Bummer, because in most states guns aren’t allowed in bars.

Second, hikers and backpackers are notorious gram counters. Are you seriously going to agonize for months over how to save a few grams on your stove, tent, and shoes, and then pack two pounds of loaded pistol on your hip? You may as well carry an external frame pack and a canvas-wall tent.

Finally, and most importantly, carrying a gun changes the way we interact with and feel about others. For thru-hikers, the social element is an enormously rewarding part of the experience. They meet people from around the world, adopt kooky trail names, share information (including who might be sketchy or carrying a weapon), and coexist for a brief time in a remarkable place, doing a remarkable thing. Bring a firearm into that dynamic, and it won’t be the same. Others don’t know you—they don’t know your training, demeanor, judgment, or intelligence. All they know is that you have a weapon and, with it, the power to hurt them. And that’s all that truly matters. Guns intimidate.

So basically this all boils down to three things with him.  First, beer.  Second, weight.  Third, intimidation.  So if you like beer on the trail, or if you’re concerned about a couple of pounds that could save your life, or if you like to gather with folks who call each other by kooky names, then perhaps he has a point.  Or maybe not.  I didn’t have any problems with a couple of additional pounds, I never had beer on the trail, and I’ve just never worried about intimidation when I carry.  That’s not the point.

If you’re not experienced in the bush but very concerned about how people feel about you – in other words you’re a unique and special snowflake – this might be the guide for you.  On the other hand, he might get you killed too.  My bet is that for whatever reason he has been blessed in the bush, and he is conflating his lack of means of and need for self defense with something totally out of his control.

He isn’t in control over the disposition of wildlife or two-legged threats in his life.  On the other hand, he is indeed in control over his own decisions, and he has chosen the option less safe.  That’s his prerogative, just as it is mine to call him an idiot.

This picture was taken today near my home.

News from Idaho:

When various far-left ecology and animal rights groups such as the Sierra Club, the Humane Society of the United States, the Center for Biological Diversity, submitted a petition, calling for the manditory carry of bear spray by hunters, it made national news. The petition was submitted to the Idaho Fish and Game Commission and others. The petition claimed that “Studies show that bear spray is far more effective than firearms.”

That claim is not correct.

The petition was written about in several Idaho outlets, and nationally.

The Commission turned down the request that the carry of bear spray by hunters be mandatory.  From lmtribune.com:

The commission turned down a request from environmental groups that it create a rule that would require hunters in grizzly bear habitat near Yellowstone National Park to carry bear spray. Commissioners said the rule would be overbearing and difficult to enforce, and agreed with agency officials who said education about recreating in grizzly bear country would be more effective.[ … ]

Bear Spray Hoax: IFGD Betrays Hunters

I’m pleased the Commission recommends denying a petition that would require hunters in grizzly country to carry bear spray. But the petition is not being denied for the right reason: When a grizzly charges a hunter with a rifle after a classic surprise encounter at close range, bear spray will not keep a hunter safe. IDFG must prepare hunters to use an adequate rifle quickly and effectively.

In 1991, a Hunter/Grizzly Bear Interactions Task Team (that included U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen) told the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee that bear spray has “minimal usefulness in trail encounters with bears at close range due to the difficulty of effective use.”

Bob Wharff, executive director of Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, told the Jackson Hole News & Guide that bear “spray isn’t the answer for every encounter, especially when it requires hunters to drop their guns when there’s little time to react. You’re talking milliseconds. It’s illogical that you’re going to set your gun down and get your pepper spray.”

Trina Jo Bradley, vice-president of the Marias River Livestock Association, said “Let’s just think about how we carry ourselves when we’re hunting. I carry a large caliber rifle in my hands, usually with a bullet in the chamber and the safety on. I can easily raise my rifle and fire if I see the game I am hunting, or if a bear attacks. Why in the world would I put down the firearm that I’ve used over and over to grab a can of bear spray?

It’s clear a hunter carrying a rifle cannot use bear spray in a safe or timely manner during a surprise encounter with a grizzly. IDFG and other agencies acknowledged this in 1991. But on September 1, 1999, these agencies did an about face on bear spray when U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service news release announced: “Outfitters And Guides Develop Safety Class To Prevent Bear Attacks.”

The news release said, “During the past year, over 200 outfitters and guides in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Colorado have been trained to safely share the backcountry with bears.”

Were the outfitters and guides taught to use an adequate firearm effectively? No. “Course presenters discourage the use of firearms to mitigate bear attacks, because the practice has resulted in much greater frequency and severity of injuries to people involved [than bear spray]. The reliability and safety of pepper spray over other methods of deterrence has also been promoted by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee.”

No data or references were provided to substantiate this claim. Nevertheless, these agencies adopted a de facto policy of discouraging firearm use, and promoting bear spray. The results have been disastrous. As the environmentalists’ bear spray petition notes, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team found that “54% of all injuries inflicted on humans by grizzly bears [in the Yellowstone region] involved hunters.”

In response to the environmentalists’ petition, Toby Broudreau said, “the Department already has a Bear Education Program within grizzly range in Idaho. That program helps inform hunters on bear spray use and benefits.”

That program does not teach hunters how to use bear spray with each of the six field carries for long guns. That program does not provide hunters with accurate, meaningful information about bear spray and firearms research. If you keep hyping bear spray—and use that as an excuse for not teaching hunters how to use an adequate rifle quickly for self-defense—you guarantee the carnage inflicted on hunters since 1999 will continue.

A 2008 study on the Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska said, “In 96% (69 of 72) of bear spray incidents, the person’s activity at the time of was use reported. The largest category involved hikers (35%), followed by persons engaged in bear management activities (30%), people at their home or cabin (15%), campers in their tents (9%), people working on various jobs outdoors (4%), sport fishers (4%), a hunter stalking a wounded bear (1%), and a photographer (1%).”

Given that the purpose of stalking a wounded bear is to kill it, non-lethal bear spray was the wrong tool for the job. The study did not provide additional information about this mysterious incident. A 1998 bear spray study did not provide any information about the activity of people who used bear spray. So research tells us hunters carrying a rifle don’t use bear spray, and common sense tells us why: Hunters can’t use bear spray because they’re already carrying a rifle.

Bear spray advocates focus on the overall success rate from Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska: 3 people were injured during 75 incidents. Of 175 people present during 72 incidents, just 3 were injured. Bear spray advocates never inform hunters that 3 of 9 people who sprayed charging grizzly bears were injured.

Bear spray advocates have repeatedly made the indefensible claim that research proves bear spray is more effective than a firearm. One, they’re claiming that research on bear spray use by non-hunters (who are not carrying a firearm) proves hunters (who are carrying a firearm) should use bear spray. That does not make sense.

Two, there have been two interrelated studies on bear spray, and two studies on guns vs. bears. Bear spray advocates are really saying, if you compare the results of one bear spray study to the results of one dissimilar study on guns, bear spray wins. But Field Use of Capsicum Spray As a Bear Deterrent/Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska used different methodologies than Efficacy of Firearms For Bear Deterrence in Alaska. It is unethical to compare the two studies, because of the different dynamics involved.

In addition, you’ve got to be totally unprincipled to pretend a 1999 study on the Characteristics of Nonsport Mortalities to Brown and Black Bears and Human Injuries from Bears in Alaska does not exist. After reviewing 1,036 incidents from 1986 to 1996 when people killed bears in defense of life or property (DLP), the authors of the 1999 study wrote, “Most of the persons shooting brown bears or black bears in DLP circumstances indicated that no human injury occurred (98.5% for brown bears and 99.2% for black bears).”

Bear spray advocates deny the existence of the 1999 study because it does not advance their cause. “Research proves bear spray is more effective than a firearm” is not a factual statement based on research; it’s a baseless propaganda slogan. To provide for the safety of big-game hunters in grizzly country, IDFG must teach hunters how to use an adequate firearm quickly and effectively.

This report dovetails nicely with the analysis conducted by Dean Weingarten.  It’s nice to see some sanity from Idaho.  It’s also nice to see the human-hating, creation-worshipping environmentalists put in their place.

Yes, you read that right.  In Nevada, maybe.

But you can kill as many human babies as you want as long as they are a sacrifice to Baal.

And in New Mexico, certainly.

Well Betsy, let’s call them what they are – they’re not Coyotes.  Coyotes don’t exist any more.  They are Coywolves or Coydogs.  They aren’t the “shy, curious canines” you’re making them out to be in your rainbow world of dreams of pixie-dust unicorns.  They’re just not.  Just make sure you don’t let your pet out unguarded, or go anywhere they could be, or let your children loose when they could be around.  You’ll see what I’m talking about.

Dean Weingarten:

These are all the cases I and associates have found where both bear spray and firearms were used. Tom Sommers is the only case where the firearms were of uncertain efficacy. The bear was moving away when the single shot was fired; Sommers was blinded by bear spray and blood. There are cases where only bear spray was used when firearms were present. There are cases where only firearms were used when bear spray was present.  Those cases are not included in this article.

This is a good followup to his piece on Pistols or Handguns 95% Effective When Used to Defend Against Bear Attacks, 63 Cases.

I would never say not to carry bear spray.  I just wouldn’t use it myself.  And I would never be caught in the bush without a gun.

Somewhat amusingly (and I missed this when it came out), Wes Siler, who was once of the school of thought that bear spray is most effective against bears, now carries guns in the bush when he might be around a bear.  The dispositive and determinative element?  Funny you should ask.  ” … the salubrious effect of moving into grizzly bear territory in Bozeman, Montana.”

Just yesterday, this instance of a bear attack thwarted by bear spray occurred in Montana.