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 short-sightedness of the pro-force camp is overwhelming. Don't you see, people, where your arguments lead? In 20 years from now, there will be no grizzly bear left in Denali, because of some "adventurous" hikers seeking cheap thrills in bear country. Somebody who is attacked is entitled to defend himself, even using deadly force. But if that same person created, or contributed, to situations justifying the use of such force, his punishment must be so severe, so that nobody else will attempt to repeat doing the same.
The preservation of wild life and wilderness is more important than anything else that endangers it. And this would include these two hikers. Those carrying weapons in areas known to be a grizzly habitat should be strictly liable, both in civil and penal law, for any injury they inflict upon wildlife. And when I say liable, I mean severely. Some people openly acknowledge that they "assume risk" in hiking/campin in such areas. The law cannot sanction the assumption of such risk with the "easy" self-defense argument. We sould be strictly liable.
Honestly if I was walking through the woods with my wife and a bear, no matter what species, cubs or no cubs, license or no license, bluff charge or not, If the bear did not give me an opportunity to scare it away before busting the brush and charging my wife or myself... I would have killed it too. No questions asked. Forget the fine, and possible repossession of my firearm or court sentencing, nothing is worth risking my wife's life because the killing wasn't "justified". At most this person could be charged with illegal discharge of a firearm in a recreational area. Any other charge is ridiculous.
The report states that the man firing the weapon discharged nine shots "in the general area of the bear". If he had been firing for fatal effect, he would have at least tried to aim the gun AT the bear. A bear is a big target, especially a Grizzly at close range. Though as hard as it is to aim at such an animal with the given circumstances, an intentional shot would have been easy enough to do. I would also like to point out that if it were me in this situation, the bear would have surrendered it's "right" to a warning shot the moment it charged my wife or myself. Grizzlies are not the bluff chargers like black bears, If a Griz is coming for you... It isn't stopping unless one of the two of you dies.
Here's a bluff charge by a grizzly bear:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/grizzly-bear-charges-alaskan-touris...
And here's a warning shot. The guy making the shot felt that even had he hit the bear, it probably would have been able to finish him off had it really wanted to, even if it did eventually succumb. Bears and other large animals don't go down easy. I remember the case of the escaped tiger at the San Francisco Zoo. It had been hit twice by police using their standard issue .40 S&W sidearms and didn't even get phased. It took a hail of gunfire from four officers to actually kill it.
http://www.adventure-journal.com/2010/06/aint-bluffing-grizzly-bear-char...
Personally, I would worry about your stance on using a weapon. I've seen a bear that bluff charged someone. It was pretty much harmless. However, it was in a very, very crowded campground (Upper Pines in Yosemite). I'd hate to imagine what would happen if someone felt threatened enough by a bear (and there's never been a case of a black bear killing a person in Yosemite) to start firing gun. There are hundreds of people, and this is possibly the most densely laid out federal campground I've ever been to. Illegal discharge is pretty mild compared to negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter.
There was a guy who started shooting at a black bear in a campground a couple of years ago in California. It was also his fault that the bear was attracted by the cooler he left out inside a tent gazebo he placed over the site's picnic table.
I absolutely love animals, nature, and the "idea" of tenting and hiking but I would never do it in any park or area where there was even a remote chance of a bear (or other) encounter.
To protect everyone and every animal can't the government come up with a fence to keep humans and animals separate? I am shocked that tourists can actually die form a bear attack while on vacation. Just imagine if I took my grandchildren on a trail and one of them was mauled?
Some people do not have any common sense. So, why depend on it. Also, I wouldn't know what my survival skills would be unless the opportunity presented itself, regardless of the bear brochure, I don't want to find out.
That would be a zoo. Common sense and appropriate preparation are pretty good "fences" for national parks.
That has got to be the oddest suggestion that I've ever seen here. I'm left wondering if this is just a joke.
We take a risk anywhere we go. Even going to the mall we have a remote chance that maybe someone will start shooting, and it's happened before.
So let me get this straight. You would suggest walling off entire ecosystems just to prevent any possibility of human and animal interaction? A bear mauling is excruciatingly rare. The odds are far higher that your family will be injured in a vehicle accident on the way than be injured by a bear. You might as well avoid all of Alaska, Yosemite, Yellowstone, Lake Tahoe, upstate New York. There are entire states you would need to avoid given there are bears. There are bears in some of the suburbs around Los Angeles. It's just not practical to say that you won't go anywhere with a remote chance of encountering a bear. I've seen many bears and I'm still alive.
I thinks they did the right thing, bears runs very fast and its just ridiculous to stand still and find out bears intentions that weather he is bluffing or serious. The law not to discharge weapons is stupid, if someone trying to protect his/her life, he should discharge it.