Grizzly scenario

[Nnobby45]

A hunter killed a large Grizzly that attacked him. He didn't know that the bear had recently killed and eaten a hiker. Think his rifle was a .338 or .375--a choice that likely saved his life. Took more than one shot to stop him, but he was able to operate the bolt and get the job done in time--barely.

The hiker was able to put a .38 slug into the bear immediately before his death. Maybe a slug loaded 12 ga. would have been a life saver, but you can see from the pictures why you'd want to choose a deep penetrating slug and have some quick follow-up shot capability.

Maybe an administrator could comment on the appropreateness of posting the picture of a partially eaten hiker as testimony to what happens when inadequately armed human meets huge predatory Grizzly. Don't want to violate any board rules, so I'll leave it out for now, although the pictures have been on the net and some of you may have seen them.

[Capt. Charlie]

500 pounds?? Maybe a big male black bear. Grizz? Try this on for size!

And in this corner, weighing in at over 1200 pounds......

Anybody wanna wrestle??

[stephen426]

Holy Crap!!! 1200 lbs??? I wouldn't even serve as an appetizer for that guy! I might not make it with the arsenal I have but I'll shoot him in his wee wee before i go. We don't need any more of those guys running around!!!

[black bear 84]

Stephen 426
I have a GE unit that is working very well by repelling cats in my back yard, but that is AC current operated.
However, a more portable unit is availaible that operates in 4 C batteries. The site also mentions that it repels bears.
Here is the link:
http://www.safepetproducts.com/pilot...repellent_main
It will be interesting to further investigate this new technology.

Candlepowers and lumens are not equivalent as they measure two different things.
Candlepowers measure the intensity of the hot spot in the center of the beam while lumens is the measure of total light emitted by a source.
Lumens is the better and more telling figure because the side spill of a flashlight is very important to illuminate all the area that we want to see.
Some Companies, Surefire one of them, use lumens. They make flashlights for Police and the Army and have the entire spectrum from the E2e at 60 lumens thru the Centurion C-2 with P-61 lamp at 120 lumens and the M-3 for 250 lumens and finally the M-4 at 350 and the M-6 at 500 lumens.

I have made a shootout between my light (the MAG 951 lumens) and the Surefire M-6 that ilustrates how powerful these lights really are. Here is the link:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...803post1581803

Now answering your questions, the 9 Nimhs high current batteries that I use last for 1000 recharges and the running time of the light is a half hour per charge (10 more minutes than the Surefire M-6 that uses six 123 batteries that are disposable).
The bulb lasts for 25 hours, just the same as the Surefire lamps.
And yes, it gets hot, but it doesn't have any effect due to the mass of the head and the heavy walled aluminum reflector that I use.
The original plastic stock reflector will melt in a minute with this lamp.

Dark-adapted eyes when confronted by a burst of a 951 lumen light cannot take the sudden light and proccess it properly; thus the brain is short circuited and the eyes are unable to see.
You can see this phenomen when deer are dazzled by your headlights and stay there unable to move while your car is approaching them and is in danger of collision.

Respectfully,
black bear 84

[Nnobby45]

Whooa! Well, if i had to be attacked by Ursus arctos horribillus, I hope he first offers me a shot like that.

Looks like an over fed pussycat.

[Capt. Charlie]

That memorable soul was Bart, the star of many a hit movie. Sadly, he passed away of cancer several years ago . The man beside him is Doug Suess(who is part grizz too, I hear ) who raised him from a cub in N. Utah. Doug is undisputedly one of the world's greatest experts on grizzlies, and spearheaded project "Vital Ground" in an effort to preserve them. There is a wealth of online material about Doug, Bart, and Vital Ground.

[Capt. Charlie]

Think of the movie "Jaws", where the guy dragged his nails down a chalkboard in a public meeting (eeeuuu!! *shudder* ) It's irritating as hell and makes me want to run out of the room , but if I were determined to get that guy, it would hardly be a deterrent. I don't think it would be to a determined or pissed off grizz, either.

[stephen426]

Black Bear,

How much is one of those conversion kits? It seems pretty interesting, although its useful applications would be limited for me. If I worked in search and rescue or in SWAT, I'd order a few for sure. I have a Surefire 6P and just ordered a Lumimax L2 recently. I love the fact that it has dual output so it is much more versitile. I don't carry my 6P on a regualr basis because I end up playing with it. I know I'll drain the batteries when I need them most. They will drain even faster when I change it out for the high power lamp which puts out 120 lumens.

I do like the fact that your conversion kit throws out much more ambient light while the Surefires have their beams narrowed down. Thanks for the info!

[Heist]

A hunter killed a large Grizzly that attacked him.

Incorrect.

He didn't know that the bear had recently killed and eaten a hiker.

Wrong.

but he was able to operate the bolt and get the job done in time--barely.

Nice adventure story. Still wrong.

The hiker was able to put a .38 slug into the bear immediately before his death.

Totally made up.

the picture of a partially eaten hiker as testimony to what happens when inadequately armed human meets huge predatory Grizzly. Don't want to violate any board rules, so I'll leave it out for now, although the pictures have been on the net and some of you may have seen them.

I find it hard to believe that you could think that that body would have either been inside a grizzly, or been the leftovers of one.

In 2003 another photograph began to be circulated in conjunction with the pictures shown above, purportedly showing a human victim who was the bear's "last meal":

Although this is presumably a genuine photograph of human remains gnawed by one or more animals, it has nothing to do with the bear pictured above.

Do you have a source for that story?

Oh wait, you don't. Posted back on page 2:

Originally Posted by spacemanspiff

06-29-2005, 03:32 PM
is it the same as described here?
http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/bearhunt.asp

WARNING!!! link does show graphic images. WARNING!!!

From that page:


Bear size is mostly optical illusion, as you can see here.

I'd like to respectfully suggest that just because you got it in your email doesn't make it true, and that propogating urban legends is a poor use of anyone's time.

[Nnobby45]

I find it hard to believe that you could think that that body would have either been inside a grizzly, or been the leftovers of one.

Maybe you could tell us what it was, or how he came to meet his demise before being "gnawed" on. It isn't uncommon for Grizzlies to kill a human when surprised and then partially consume the kill.

Considering that his remains had not begun to decompose, seems that he was "gnawed on" rather fast by a fairly large carnivore. I wasn't there, but I guess that what killed him also ate him. Doubt if it was porcupines .

In keeping with the topic of the thread, the point is more along the lines of weaponry in bear country and the likely hood of him still being alive if he'd had it.

If I took the bait and reported facts the way they were falsely reported without checking, then shame on me---thanks for the correction.

[Heist]

I'd feel safe with one of those.

The hiker looks like he got chewed on by some small scavengers or predators- note the intact bone structure of the leg. A grizzly would leave stumps!

I'd guess that he died from exposure of some sort and turned into lunch for Papa Raccoon and Mama Skunk.

[panzer426]

well, the hiker was actually found in british columbia. the forensic/pathologists whichever beleive that he broke his leg on a muddy slope, miles from camp and was hiking alone. their was a spiral fracture from his ankle (not the leg pictured) half way to his knee. they found track/marks leading them to believe he crawled a few hundred feet and passed out (who knows how many times during the crawl) and was caught outside at night. they found tracks and tooth marks indicating atleast one skunk, a few raccoons, a few coyotes and vultures found the carcasse. they found the body several days after they think he died.
his big mistakes: hiking back country alone. not having anyone expect him at a certain time/day.
read that the same day snopes put it on their site, if I remember correctly it was cnn.com that told that story, they were telling how the email story was untrue but mostly talked about the hiker.
I am not posting this to prove one way or the other who was right and who was wrong. but because this mans unfortunate mistakes show what to do and not to do. carrying a gun wouldnt have helped him in this case, though I absolutely agree that when in bear, mountain lion, moose, or human territory you should carry one. however he should not have been hiking the wild wilderness alone. or should have atleast given someone an itenerary so if he didnt show up at each campsite etc he would be missed and the search could begin.

[joshua]

During my younger years I use to hunt in Utah by myself, usually covering 5-7 miles and climbing small cliffs with lots of big rocks that can cause an unfortunate fall that is sure to break something. I'm glad I never got hurt, but I did see some wild dogs out there, nothing a GP100 and a 10-22 can't handle. Now I hear of people spotting mountain lions in the area, I think a good dog will be a good requirement when trekking those mountains from now on. josh

[Limeyfellow]

Those mountain lions are quite scary to run into or so I been told. They kill alot more people than grizzlys do as attacks have really gone up in the past 20 years, but still a tiny moment and for the most part you are just not worth attacking. Too boney. Most the time they are bobcats any way that people see, even though when those things go rabid or protecting themselves and young they are pretty brutal in their attacks. We have been seeing in the state (North Carolina) really large coyotes, possibly mixed with wolf for a hybrid (the have done like 4 or 5 genetic tests proofing that) and some of these things way about 70ibs and hunting in packs and been taking out people's dogs twice their size. They also tried to attack a couple of elderly people the other side of town not long ago, looking for easy prey, but luckly the biggest thing I heard them take down so far is a 85ib doberman. You can usually hear them howling alot when out hunting.

[CarbineCaleb]

Capt: Can you imagine the food bill and the size of the pooper scooper for Bart? I wouldn't really care to be the veterinarian to treat that bad boy, either.

[Capt. Charlie]

Hey, being his vet would be really easy. You could treat him from the inside out

[Capt. Charlie]

I went to check out Vital Ground's web site a little more thoroughly and if you scroll down the link below, there are some interesting numbers concerning fatal grizzly attacks in the continental US. I'm absolutely lousy at statistics but there appears to be some evidence of a cycle over the years. What do you think, Cal?

http://www.vitalground.org/vital_gro...edicament.html

[CarbineCaleb]

Hi Capt - well, I took the total anyway, and entered it into good old Excel as a function of time so I could look at a plot, and see this:


Now, there might be something there, and there might not be. I will say that it doesn't look entirely random to me, but you need to be careful.

Before proposing that there is cyclic behavior though, you would like a causal hypothesis for the cyclic behavior. In other words, what would make the fatalities fluctuate in a cyclic manner?

Think of this as a system, with the output being fatalities, and the input being some sort of environmental driver for the system. If you believe it's appetite, then look for data on prey populations over this period. If you believe it's bear numbers themselves, then look for numbers on bear population over this period. If you believe it's due to crowding/habitat loss, then look at numbers for development activity over this period. What you would like to see is that for something that you can believe mechanistically is the system driver, that you would find a statistically significant correlation. If it's news, that would be worth a research publication, by the way.

I have just looked at the total, here, I will look at the larger systems, since it may be that mixing the data from what may operate independently under independent driving forces, essentially confounds the data. Will get back with that.

[CarbineCaleb]

Ok, Capt - I looked at the more isolated case of the Yellowstone data, and it does indeed look prettier. Looks like this:


Now, you tell me - I don't think this actually cyclic (sinusoidal)... however, I do think this data looks smooth in time. That implies that there is some environmental causitive agent that is also varying smoothly in time, as described above, it's just not sinusoidal. Any ideas Capt?

[Capt. Charlie]

If I do, I'll publish in Scientific American . Seriously, the number of possible factors or drivers is going to be high, not to mention the good old X-factors, which can always throw a monkey wrench into things. There is a theory of XY predator/prey relationships that says as prey animal populations increase, predator populations increase proportionately, but with a time lag. I guess I'm not explaining that very well, but the graph would look like two full sine waves, with one slightly behind the other. Anyhow, as predator populations equal and exceed those of prey animals, the prey animal population begins to drop, leaving an excess of predators. Now you have lots of hungry predators with few prey. The length of the cycles is proportionate to the life span of the animals involved. Could this be a reason? Possible, but I don't think so. This line of thinking assumes that the bear's intent was predation, and we know that most grizzly attacks aren't of that nature. We know that moon phases not only affect tides, but animal behavior. Could it be some unknown cosmic force acting on a much longer cycle? Who knows? I'm thinking something other than loss of habitat or familiarization (contempt) of people, because you would think that would result in a steady increase overall when a graph is plotted, but yours don't seem to reflect that. It's a shame that we don't have several centuries of data to analyze. It would be a lot easier to verify an existing pattern. As it is, it's impossible to rule out random behavior. I think you're right; there is a LOT of room here for some serious research.

[CarbineCaleb]

Capt: Some interesting stuff there - I know that for most mammals, evolution has ensured that fertility is a function of food supply - obviously a good strategy. This is accomplished by hormones whose levels track the feeding state of the animal and act to enhance or suppress ovulation. I think there may be multiple hormonal cues, but one of them has to do with the amount of fat on the animal. Therefore, you will naturally get an increase in predator population - if they are better fed, they will have more babies.

Same thing happens with humans, by the way - hormonal changes due to high fat levels seem to be capable of introducing pubescent changes and estrus earlier, for example, and very low levels of feeding - what we call malnutrition, can completely suppress menstruation. If you are poorly fed, you will have fewer or no babies.

Just as you said, the population of the response system cannot overlay directly on the driving system - there has to be some inherent lag between the two (a phase lag), that is characteristic of the reproductive cycle rates for the animals.

Like you, I have my doubts about the predator/prey cycle business with regard to bears. While bears can eat meat, my understanding is that they get about 2/3 - 3/4 of their calories from vegetable sources (like berries), and most of the rest is carrion found by scavenging in the wild. So I am not sure how tightly coupled they'd be to "prey" populations of any kind.

However, bear population changes, regardless of the causes for them, could definitely affect attack/fatality rates. More bears mean more encounters, and more encounters mean more fatalities. Likewise, more bears means increased competition for food, which will cause some of them to move to seek out new territory where there is greater opportunity.... that will invariably cause the nomads to encounter humans in their search.

What you would need would be the other data for the candidate causes to allow them to be overlaid and correlated. I don't think this shape is just random variation, anyway.

Keep me posted! ;-)
Caleb

[wayneinFL]

Something that surprises me, is the wanting there to be a "reason" for the bear to predate on people. True, it isn't common in the greater sceme of things, but there isn't anything that's so special about humans that make bear magicaly avoid us at any cost. We flatter ourselves to think there HAS to be some reason or circumstance for a bear to attack a human. Maybe the ones that do, just decide they WANT to. Do they need any more reason than that? They are career predators. They do this for a living. Kill and eat stuff. Sometimes they try something different, and sometimes they realize how easy people are (usually).

I do wonder if after all of the scientists analyze shark,alligator and bear attacks and come up with all of their hypotheses and theories, if a wild animal wasn't just sitting around one day and said:

"Hmmm....I always wondered what one of those things would taste like?"

Maybe I spent too much time reading the Far Side.

As to the charts: Could it be there are more people going into bear country for recreation than before? Maybe due to more people here than before, or less public lands for them to enjoy, or that there's just a renewed interest in the outdoors? Or that we are less likely to shoot bears that come into contact with people? Or that there are more bears than before due to conservation efforts?

[panzer426]

its probably a combination of all of those things. more people going out there facilitating encounter, more wilderness everyday destroyed for homes and stores. and I imagine 90 ish % of people who go hiking in bear country carry a Nikon rather than a firearm? most of them are probably HOPING to see a bear up close, or just think its not gonna happen to them because if that was possible or likely the government wouldnt allow anyone in the area. most people I have talked to think that the only dangerous bears are the ones that have caused problems already, and that those bears get killed. they dont realize that most bear attacks are either caused by startling a feeding bear, or by getting too close (wether intentional or accidental) to a female with cubs. personally if I were 1,000 pounds, had razor sharp claws longer than a humans fingers, had huge jaws with sharp teeth, and had succesfully chased/faught off other enormous bears mountain lions wolves etc I would not have any second thoughts about seeing if the first person I encountered tasted good or not. if you are physically capable of eating just about anything in the forest, why would you not attack unless you had something better to do, or had experience telling you that humans are dangerous???

[CarbineCaleb]

From what I know, although there are occasionally bear attacks in the backcountry, the majority of bear encounters, as well as the majority of bear attacks, come along park roads, and drivein campgrounds.

Here, the bears have become used to people, and don't avoid them... in fact, because many people feed bears either inadvertently or purposely, many of these bears have come to associate people with food. Likewise, people in these areas usually are less knowledgeable about bears than backcountry travelers, and tend to do more stupid stuff. Rangers have told me that many people will feed bears, some by hand, some get out and have picture taken with bears (try to put arm around it for photo), punching bears who try to get into their cooler... just really, really stupid stuff.

I have actually seen most of my bears along wilderness roads and big campgounds. Far fewer in the backcountry, even though I spent a lot more time there.

As to bears eating people "any time they have nothing better to do"... come on - if that were the case, there'd be incredible carnage, and we would have wiped them out centuries ago, in fact.

[Capt. Charlie]

"Maybe I spent too much time reading the Far Side."
Naw! Why I heard just the other day that one of those man-eating grizz was wearing a pair of those pointy, pink-framed 1950's sunglasses (Gotta love Gary Larson!)

Seriously, if I've learned anything at all about Ma Nature, it's that there's always a reason. There can be random variations in behavior among individuals of a species, but consistent behavior within a species always has a reason, even if we don't know what it is. Grizzlies as a rule don't generally prey on human beings. So why the increase? Research (yeah, even statistical research [sorry Cal ]) may seem fruitless or even useless to some in the short term, but if we can find the reason, we can usually find the remedy. That would be a win/win situation. We could do more to preserve a truly majestic species and at the same time, reduce human fatalities. There are so many factors, or drivers, that it's a daunting task. If you consider the possibility that two or more factors working together are the cause for increasing attacks, then the number of factors that must be explored rises exponentially, making for an almost impossible task. Until then, though, common sense.... and a Street Sweeper loaded with slugs , should keep everyone safe.