Grizzly attack just outside Yellowstone

by **Ejnar Fjerdingstad** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:16 pm

Some years ago a Danish woman tried to ski alone to the North Pole from Greenland (I don't know whether it would have been a first or not, she never got there anyway). One day as she was going to begin another day's skiing, she was attacked by a polar bear. Unfortunately for her, she had packed the .44 pistol she brought along on the sled she was pulling, and she just barely managed to find the gun, and shoot barehanded, but a few shots from this heavy handgun killed the polar bear on the spot. So no doubt this would be possible with a grizzly too.

Fine so far, but when she tried to let go of the pistol, which had been lying in the intense cold for hours, it had frozen to the skin of her hand, and the only way to remove it was to pull it loose with some skin, even so she also got severe frostbite. She called for help on a satellite phone, and was picked up by a plane. Instead of on the North Pole she wound up at the hospital in Chamonix, which has some of the best experts in treating frostbite (due to Mont Blanc and the other surrounding peaks, of course).

by **Day Hiker** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:24 pm

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:it had frozen to the skin of her hand, and the only way to remove it was to pull it loose with some skin

Lesson: Never travel in the Arctic with an empty bladder.

by **chugach mtn boy** » Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:28 pm

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:... Instead of on the North Pole she wound up at the hospital in Chamonix, which has some of the best experts in treating frostbite (due to Mont Blanc and the other surrounding peaks, of course).

I've spent some time in the Hopital Mont Blanc (which is mostly in Salanches, although there's a little satellite in Chamonix). What an amazing place to an American--gorgeous views from every window, fresh-baked baguettes wafting from the food carts, lovely sauces on your dinner entree, with a nice wine to wash it down ... your polar explorer could have done worse!

by **Bob Sihler** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:16 am

Sorry to beat a dead horse, or maybe in this case I should say shoot a dead bear, but I received a PM from an anonymous member a little while ago and want to share it. I have not looked at all the sources yet and can't say I know that all the information is 100% correct even though it supports what I and some others have been saying. But the person obviously took a lot of time writing this, and I want to add it as food for thought. I put in bold what I think are some of the key points. I'm glad he pointed out the difference between PD pepper spray and the stuff hikers use, because I knew that but forgot to mention it in my posts.

Here it is:

I don't want to get back into posting here but feel free to post this from
an anonymous member if you want (Just cut and paste)

The science on this topic exists and it clearly points to using bear
spray instead of firearms.

The relevant authors are

S Herrero, T Smith, & A. Higgins put any of these names into google
scholar and add the word bear, this is all self verifiable information.

The generic results are that firearms deterred attacks 67% of the time
versus 92% of the time for bear spray, it also showed that the resulting
injuries were much more serious in cases involving firearms. Several other
myths such as the windy day or failing can myth were debunked.
Soundbite http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 171221.htm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 032508.php

Journal Article http://pinnacle.allenpress.com/doi/abs/10.2193/2006-452
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3873165

Confirmed by a Us fish and wildlife independent study
http://www.udap.com/bearnews.pdf

Statistics if anyone cares to do a bit of research
http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2192/1537-6176(2005)016%5B0001%3AABBHAH%5D2.0.CO%3B2

As far as attack statistics -
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... 0/3958/593

not comprehensive but it does show that 1 in 2 million people who visit
national parks is attacked so it limits its sample study to a smaller, more
risk prone population, contrast this with the approximately 240 million
adults of driving age in the US and the approximately 6 to 7 million auto
accidents or approximately 40 thousand fatal accidents a year.

So yeah, you are more likely to die in a car than from a bear even if you
are around bears a lot, of curse some outliers like the grizzly man are
obviously excluded. And yeah, you are more likely to get seriously f'ed up
defending yourself with a gun than with bear spray.

If a bear was going to attack me or mine and I had a gun I'd shoot the
heck out of it but if I want to be SMART about it I'd be carrying bear
spray.

Silly is relying on anecdotes or extending common sense to regimes it
doesn't apply. If you carry a gun for bear attacks you are simply choosing
a riskier, less effective alternative. By all means, defend yourself, just
don't be a fool about it.

As an aside, if you are that scared of certain aspects of the outdoors do
as redneck does and avoid them. I don't ever want to see a great white
sharks and subsequently will never dive in places they frequent. Simple
solution.

Pepper spray issued to police officers is not the same stuff as canisters
of bear spray. I'm guessing if the PD used bear spray on people it would
be a lot more reliable.

by **CBakwin** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:46 pm

I've carried pepper spray and a gun (on separate trips) into Grizzley country and thankfully never had to use either. Even though I have a lightweight (but 44 mag) gun, it is heavier, and both are a bit of a pain to carry since they have to be handy. I only took the gun because to me, if a Bear attacks you at 2am in your tent, probably you don't want to be spraying pepper spray in there, no? then there is the issue of not clearly being able to see the bear (at 2am, from inside the remains of your tent) so you have to be shooting blind (not optimum).
It's a tough call, I have read the reports that pepperspray is more effective and it puts out a "cloud" so aiming is not so vital in a very quick, stressful situation (during a bear charge). Lots of things to think about. Not going into Bear Country is not an option , most of the mountains in Montana are "Bear Country".

by **Ejnar Fjerdingstad** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:36 pm

chugach mtn boy wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:... Instead of on the North Pole she wound up at the hospital in Chamonix, which has some of the best experts in treating frostbite (due to Mont Blanc and the other surrounding peaks, of course).

I've spent some time in the Hopital Mont Blanc (which is mostly in Salanches, although there's a little satellite in Chamonix). What an amazing place to an American--gorgeous views from every window, fresh-baked baguettes wafting from the food carts, lovely sauces on your dinner entree, with a nice wine to wash it down ... your polar explorer could have done worse!

True, the French health system is considered the best in the world, and our experience during six years stay in France tends to confirm that, it is certainly much better than the Danish, and the view of the Mont Blanc group must have made it feel even better!

by **Ejnar Fjerdingstad** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 2:45 pm

Day Hiker wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:it had frozen to the skin of her hand, and the only way to remove it was to pull it loose with some skin

Lesson: Never travel in the Arctic with an empty bladder.

Yes, that would have worked, I presume, but perhaps it was too difficult for her as a woman to open her clothes to the required degree with the left hand alone (with the pistol bonded to the right hand). Or perhaps she didn't think of it, or as you say, she might just have emptied her bladder in preparation for setting out.

by **simonov** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:09 pm

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:
Day Hiker wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:it had frozen to the skin of her hand, and the only way to remove it was to pull it loose with some skin

Lesson: Never travel in the Arctic with an empty bladder.

Or perhaps she didn't think of it, or as you say, she might just have emptied her bladder in preparation for setting out.

Odds are she emptied her bladder when the polar bear attacked.

by **dskoon** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:33 pm

redneck wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:
Day Hiker wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:it had frozen to the skin of her hand, and the only way to remove it was to pull it loose with some skin

Lesson: Never travel in the Arctic with an empty bladder.

Or perhaps she didn't think of it, or as you say, she might just have emptied her bladder in preparation for setting out.

Odds are she emptied her bladder when the polar bear attacked.

Good one.

by **Jakester** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 5:22 pm

SoCalHiker wrote:You know what is scary (much more than the thought of encountering a bear in the wild): irrational people like you carrying guns

This is a very true statement. I just got back from Grizzly country (Glacier N.P.) yesterday and had a very close encounter with an irrational and potentially dangerous homo sapien. Apparently this aggressive specimen thought I took his parking space. He bluff charged me with name calling and threats of a vicious beat down. Great, exactly what I need; a sociopath stalking me in the back country. Far more dangerous than a bear in my opinion.

Moral of the story: Don't go to a National Park on the weekend during vacation season. Yes, I'm an idiot.

Here's a picture taken that day that barely describes why I choose to "foolishly" hike/camp/climb in Grizzly country.

P.S. Did not see one bear all weekend.

by **mrchad9** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:35 pm

Excellent last post by Bob, bringing facts into a discussion. What's with that? Not sure why that that person wants to remain anonymous (Kristoria I'd presume, but not sure), excellent info there.

redneck wrote:Meanwhile, it would interesting and revealing to know how many of you would ever go into the wilderness or climb your high walls without the high tech manufactured products of incredibly polluting and extractive industries that do far more harm to this planet than California's misguided hunters of century ago.

What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

gwave47 wrote:I have driven my car over 10,000 times in my life, rode in one and additional 35,000 times. I have been in a car during 4 wrecks and sustained zero injuries. Yes, I have never been attacked by a bear, but in the event that I had experienced 45,000 bear encounters I could almost guarantee you I would not be alive by number 1,000.

Incorrect analogy there, comparing 45,000 car trips to 45,000 bear encounters. You should compare the number of hours you have been in a car to the number of hours in the wilderness (the vast majority of the time you would not see any bears).

MoapaPk wrote:
lowlands wrote:Bummer. But, I don't see the sense in killing the bear. I don't support the idea that we need to crop and groom the backcountry to make it safer, it's the backcountry, leave it as it is.

The theory is that this bear has lost her fear of people, and has found that people can be prey as well as indirect sources of food. The corollary is that the cubs have been taught this aspect of hunting by her.

+1 The article explained that fairly well. There would likely be less bear encounter issues if problem bears were dealt with in a more severe manner.

Buz Groshong wrote:
Bombchaser wrote:And I will always carry my gun in the woods. When it comes down to it, the bear will be shot so I can live.... Sorry if the bunny huggers don't like this, but that is the way it is. And I will always carry my gun in the urban setting also. If the criminal decides to attack me, they will die also so I can live...

Don't bet on it. Having a gun in the tent wouldn't have done much good for those sleeping campers and having a gun wouldn't have helped the victims of the DC snipers. "Sometimes things just have to die at the end of a cold piece of steel!" - that could just as easily be a drama queen like you.

Agreed, having a gun does not make you invincible, and likely would not have helped these folks asleep in their tent.

gwave47 wrote:I will always be armed, and if anything (bear, wolf, or human) ever attacks me I know I'll be going home to my kids.

It doesn't make you invinsible either, you can still be attacked and killed by a bear, wolf, or even a human. If you think otherwise you are only fooling yourself.

by **Dow Williams** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 7:53 pm

mrchad9 wrote:Excellent last post by Bob, bringing facts into a discussion. What's with that?

My thoughts exactly, thought Bob stepped over the line there with that excellent post, facts mean little to nothing to red necks. George W helped create the sense it is ok to dumb everything down in America regarding any debate, war, immigration, guns, wildlife, you name it.

by **simonov** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 8:44 pm

mrchad9 wrote:
redneck wrote:Meanwhile, it would interesting and revealing to know how many of you would ever go into the wilderness or climb your high walls without the high tech manufactured products of incredibly polluting and extractive industries that do far more harm to this planet than California's misguided hunters of century ago.

What does that have to do with ANYTHING?

It means everyone in this thread has benefited from massive desecration and despoiling of the wilderness, in various ways, so let's not be so huffy about how we also benefit from from long-ago habitat constriction of grizzly bears.

Dow Williams wrote:My thoughts exactly, thought Bob stepped over the line there with that excellent post, facts mean little to nothing to red necks. George W helped create the sense it is ok to dumb everything down in America regarding any debate, war, immigration, guns, wildlife, you name it.

A bit out of your comprehension zone, I imagine.

by **Dow Williams** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 9:51 pm

redneck wrote:A bit out of your comprehension zone, I imagine.

True, when it comes to trying to communicate with a self professed red neck who claims he is afraid to hike or camp in a wilderness area that still has a grizzly population, we are obviously made up of opposite character and mettle, and comprehension would be mute on either side.

by **mrchad9** » Mon Aug 02, 2010 10:24 pm

Would have to agree with Dow the handle is probably not an asset to your POV.

And I was also wondering, if guns were so effective why still a reluctance to enter grizzly territory? Or perhaps your position is not the same as gwave47 and Bomchaser, and there is some acknowledgement that they are not the solution to everything nor creators of invincibility.

Grizzly attack just outside Yellowstone

Who is online