Aggressive bear shot in Denali National Park and Preserve
Published Sunday, July 6, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!FAIRBANKS -- An aggressive black bear was shot and killed in a remote section of Denali National Park by park staffers on July 4, according to a news release.
The black bear had threatened the life and safety of three park employees in an area along the McKinley River about 20 miles northwest of Wonder Lake.
Three seasonal National Park Service technicians were conducting a botany field study along the remote river when a sub-adult black bear approached their camp at 11:15 p.m. on July 4. The three tried to scare it away by yelling, waving their arms and throwing objects at the bear. After being chased off into dense brush, the bear circled back to the camp three or four times. At one point, the animal destroyed a tent. On its final approach to the camp, the bear charged the three researchers, hissing and pouncing at the ground. An attempt to divert the bear with pepper spray was ineffective.
One of the researchers, who was authorized to carry and use firearms in the park, shot the bear when it charged within 20 feet of the team. The bear was hit in its mid-section with a 12-gauge shotgun slug. Despite considerable blood loss, the wounded bear moved into dense vegetation and out of view.
The three employees immediately notified Denali’s Communication Center via park radio. The following morning, the park wildlife biologist, along with two law enforcement rangers and one backcountry ranger, were flown to the camp in a park helicopter. The group tracked the blood trail for a few dozen feet, but were unable to locate the wounded bear in the dense brush. Both the helicopter and a fixed-wing aircraft searched from the air, but spotters were similarly unable to locate the bear.
In light of the remoteness of the incident and the amount of blood loss to the bear, park officials consider there to be little, if any, ongoing hazard to human life. Park management has issued a backcountry closure for the area in question, a remote unit that sees limited visitor activity. Further investigation into the incident is ongoing.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I would really like to know the experience level of the three people involved. How many years experience did they have working in remote areas of DNP?
How big was the bear? A sub-adult black bear could be less than 100 pounds. The old timers used a thick stick to smack an aggressive bear. That usually did the trick.
If the bear was that aggressive before being wounded hopefully a hiker doesen't cross paths seeing you can't carry guns in the park for protection,the least they could do is bring in dogs to track the bear and make sure it is dead.
You don't leave a gut-shot bear in the bush, especially where others are apt to be hiking.
Unless they're willing to close off that area of the park to hikers, then they need to find that bear. Use dogs, FLIR, what ever..
Front shoulder/brisket shots work miracles on arresting a bear's mobility. Gut ("mid-section") shots are, as often than not, less than effective and somewhat cruel, unless the spine's hit.
I just wonder what the criterior is to be armed while visiting the park. Just seems biased that one man based on some formula is more privileged to carry a firearm for protection while the rest of us are left to depend on nothing more than pepper spray and maybe a knife should we desire to enter the park....
My knowledge of NPS practices is dated (I worked for NPS back in the mid-1980s in Colorado), so this may not be 100% accurate.
The criteria to be armed wile visiting a park, national monument or other NPS unit is defined in that particular park's enabling legislation - the congressional legislation that formed the park originally. Thus the 'criteria' varies from unit to unit. In a park where hunting is permitted it is obviously more liberal than in a unit where hunting is prohibited.
Thus, any change in that 'criteria' requires a literal act of congress.
With the exception of "visitor protection" (law enforcement) park rangers, policies regarding who might or might not be armed while working in a park in which firearms are generally not permitted was one of the responsibilities of the park superintendent, who typically consulted with other staff members such as the chief ranger, naturalist, &c.
Policies regarding visitor protection rangers were established nationally and overseen by regional law enforcement specialists (I forget the actual job title)and were strictly enforced. That was done to ensure that park superintendents would not prohibit visitor protection rangers from bearing defensive equipment such as side arms and batons.
Since then other less-lethal defensive equipment has been devised (i.e. OC spray and tasers), and I no longer know what is issued, required or prohibited for rangers.
Confusing title : Aggressive bear killed ?
Or just wounded ?
Apparently shot by someone who needs more practice at the range.
Hey Dirk, regarding closure of the section, this was in the last paragraph of the article: "Park management has issued a backcountry closure for the area in question, a remote unit that sees limited visitor activity."
That said, I agree that the bear needs to be located, although that's often easier said than done.
Speaking of black bears, the Ester Republic reports that one has been wandering around Ester Dome lately. It's been in several yards (including mine) and apparently isn't too afraid of people. Residents of the area, as well as those of you who use the dome as a recreational spot, need to keep their eyes and ears open. Leave your iPods at home if your running, biking, or hiking in the area.
Dr. C.
As noted above this DNM story needs a headline adjustment from agressive bear killed to agressive bear wounded. The law enforcement rangers should take a break from ticketing illegal parking and find this bear.
Thanks Dr. C. I was shredding the dome with some friends last night and didn't see anything. However, when we stopped to remove downed trees from the trail, I may have payed better attention to what was going on around me. We'll be back with a chainsaw and a 4-wheeler sometime this week because the hatchet/saw method was taking way too long on the larger trees.
I was told Park workers are highly ethical people, totally comitted to the preservation of the Park's wildlife, who do not carry firearms - and - each and every one of them would gladly give up their life to save a bear. I was told visitors lack this sort of comittement and are not allowed to carry a firearm because they might freak out and shoot the first bear they see. We were told there has never, ever, been a bear attack in the Park since recorded history - that the Rangers carry side arms simply because they are also police officers. This is from the welcome brief the rangers told our 80 6th graders we brought to the Park on a school outing.
Now we learn, "One of the researchers, who was authorized to carry and use firearms in the park" - that Park personnel do regularly carry firearms when out of the public's view. And not just 9mm side arms for law enforcement - 12 ga shotguns specifically for bear protection.
Now the truth finally surfaces. The people who work in the Park and 'know these animals better than anyone else' are in fact running around with 12ga shotguns all the time. So....... why is the general public forced to be unarmed and remain in harm's way while visiting the Park? This is not right. And it shouldn't take someone getting arrested for posession of a firearm and facing years of appeals to the Supreme Court to change it.......... or for a visiting family of 4 from Rhode Island to be mauled or their kids killed to bring the need to light.
If this technician was 'authorized' - what is the process for visitors to become authorized?
Thanks Dr. C. In my early morning reading and haste, I apparently missed that.
Yes, I had seen that there's a black bear frequenting the Ester Dome area.
FLIR can be an effective tool in tight brush, when it comes to locating warm-blooded critters.
In the last 26 years, I've slept in Denali park ZERO times, specifically because I don't sleep in the bush without a firearm. Preceding that, there were two instances in which I slept there. One of those was a snow storm-born road emergency in the middle of the night, during which nearly no vehicles, including chained tractor-trailer rigs, could negotiate the hills and banked corners, due to extremely slick icing.
Past track record of Denali-area bears not withstanding, I refuse to leave myself more vulnerable than I have to in order to sight-see or camp.
If a person's shooting at a 100 lb. target at a distance of 20 feet, and is unable to make a terminal shot, then I'd wager that either their adrenaline isn't under control, or they haven't achieved proper qualification with the weapon that they're toting. That, or this was a very 'mobile' young bear.
I don't really see what the problem is here GW. I do trust park staff that have been "authorized" (thus insinuating some sort of process) to carry firearms. The last thing I want is some clueless tourist from California (or gawd forbid DC!) wandering around with a .44 Mag looking to protect their family from a "dangerous" animal they have never seen before and don't understand the behavior of. We have a concealed carry permit process in this state that is getting used less and less frequently because of the fact that it isn't required. However, even those people with permits I wouldn't necessarily trust to carry inside the park. Why? Because the class is aimed at understanding human behavior and when it is appropriate and legal to use force. It doesn't prepare people to deal with wildlife. Concealed carry is to deal with people, not animals.
If a researcher is authorized to carry a gun into park for protection; they should be trained properly to shot and kill the animals that live in the park; only if they are truley presenting a danger to the camp and researchers.
Bring some dogs in have them find the bear and put the bear out of the misery that it is suffering if it is not dead from the wound already.
DNM fix the wording, there is no proof either way if the the bear is dead or still alive.
Wait a sec here, according to the park's very own website: "Firearms are NOT needed for protection from bears!"
http://www.nps.gov/dena/frequently-asked...
Apparently the bear didnt get THAT memo...
I lived in one of the highest concentration areas of brown bears in the world. Admiralty Island for 7 years, procedure was rubber bullets first. The one fatality that occurred was when a gun was inadvertently loaded with live ammo. Double OT Buck. We did not find the bear for a while until the stench, was overwhelming.
It's unfortunate that there could not have been a clean kill, but it's highly unlikely the bear is alive after being hit with a shotgun slug.
Also where was the pepper spray?
I believe that they said that they used their pepper spray, and that it proved ineffective (whether the aerosol pressure failed, the spray wasn't sufficiently offensive to the bear, or the bear liked the pepper flavor and requested some ground cumin seed and tomatoes to accompany it, isn't clear..). I've personally typically regarded the stuff as a form of condiment for serious carnivores. I like tobasco sauce on most things myself.. though not in my eyes.. ;^>)
A gut shot can kill in a matter of minutes, or it can take days.
During the Fireside, British Columbia fire in the early 80s, I was immediately behind a 2-1/2 ton flat-bed truck that was hauling support gear for fire fighters when the flat-bed hit a (roughly) 300 lb. black bear at a full-on 65 mph. The bear did multiple piroettes, air-born, into the ditch. I stopped my truck, and went back to what I presumed was a lifeless carcasse.
Lo and behold, the thing slowly got up, appropriately groaning in pain, one leg clearly injured, and another shattered ridiculously, and retracted, and began pulling himself off into the bush.
Bears, even young ones, can take a heck of a lickin' and keep on tickin', if it's not a lethal shot to start with.
I've used polymer 12 gauge projectiles on uncivil or rogue moose, but would never use one on a bear, unless I'd simply decided that I needed to give my life insurance policy pay-off to my wife, while murmuring, "Good-bye cruel world," in the process.... The range on rubber buck-shot and slugs is somewhat greater than polymer shotgun shell projectiles, and the impact is more substantial than with the polymer, but both stand to piss off a serious rogue bear..
But I'll be more than willing to watch someone else use those on bear all day long, providing that there's lots of distance between me and the shooter.. and that I'm not closer to the bear than they are. ;^>)
Read the release from the NPS on the Denali Website for more accurate information. It sounds like everything was done correctly to make the bear go away. It did not. An unfortunate but last measure and correct step was taken. I have no problem with properly trained NPS officials having a gun. I do have a problem with most of the public having one. Many would have shot at first site of the bear. It happens frequently under the guise of protecting property outside of the park. Many just like to bash park people for the sake of bashing. I know most to be hardworking, dedicated, low paid people who are doing a good service to the public, our state and our country. I am not an NPS employee but I have great respect for the the job they do for us.
Sounds to me like the shooter shot in total haste. The researchers should have just left.
Dirk, You have made many good points, except for that it was a 200+ lb black bear with a 12 gauge, slug in his guts. He was not a 1500lb bear. Tell them the truth...
It could have been handled worst. If people need training on how to handle a black bear, go to Claysburg PA and train with township police and PA Game Commission. Black bear sightings are not uncommon.
After the local hillbillies chased a black bear cup up a tree, the local police could not control the crowd of 150 along the street (outnumbered 50 to 1). The PA Game Commission Officer finally tranquilized the bear up a tree and everybody stood around watching & waiting. After the black bear finally climbed down the tree, the bear ran behind the building and along a fence and warehouse.
The police were in hot foot pursuit. It took about twenty shots but the township cops (keystone cops) eventually got the tranquilized bear after it ran pass them. The warehouse took seven hits and the propane tank got grazed but survived. The locals were ready to riot over shooting the bear.
Youtube video: Claysburg black bear vs. police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TQSIJeev...
realdeal,
What I read in the article (I didn't view the NPS site) stated it was a 'sub-adult black bear.'
When I used to hunt bear (long ago, as I've had no desire to shoot one in over 23 years, though I've recently requested a friend to donate a roast from either a black or grizzly bear when he can, for a corned meat recipe that I use for moose roasts), an illegal cub was considered to be an animal under 100 lbs.
I didn't say anything intentionally misleading here.
I know that the reference to the "1500 lb. bear" was an exageration, written for effect. There's no such thing. Not on this planet.
My first experience hunting racoons with .22's as a kid, resulted in witnessing a large, mature racoon (much smaller than a cub black bear) take an obscene number of .22 lr cartridges to vital areas. The problem was that the first several rounds didn't hit vital areas like the follow-up bullets did. The critter lived for a long time, hissing, crawling toward us, like a bad moment in a Hitchcock movie.
I saw the same phenomenon with snapping turtles we used to harvest when I was in Northern Michigan.
Once an animal is hit, if the initial round or two doesn't knock it down for good, then it's a coin-toss whether adrenaline and the central nervous system take over. I've seen it with racoons, turtles, even bunnies of various species.
That's the facts as I know 'em.
The last black bear that I shot was an 11 year-old 350-lb. boar, July 1987, out Chena Hot Springs Rd., near 39 mile. The one before that was a 150 lb. black bear that came into camp when we were smoking fish, a ways out of Haines, at an old cabin that we stayed at, opposite the Mosquito Lake side of the highway.
In both cases, the bears received either an initial or secondary terminal shot (either removing portions of spinal column, or travelling directly into the brain pan at close range).
I've had close contact with bears since then, including standing less than 15 ft. from a 400-lb. black bear on Prince of Wales Island, roughly 18 years ago. I sighted, but didn't shoot. (Didn't want to spend 2-3 days with a pressure canner and jars at that time; money changes perceived needs I guess..).
Even small animals can turn into the Energizer Bunny from Haites if they're given over to adrenaline and the autonomic central nervous system due to a poorly placed shot/impact.
Not trying to be argumentative, realdeal. Those are some of my observations involving critters.
And no, I don't believe that this went down according to NPS protocol. The decision to shoot may or may not have been arrived at according to policy, but if proper shooting procedure and adequate training were used, there wouldn't be a young bear, gut-shot, and us writing here about whether or not it might still be alive.
The result of an effective execution is a carcasse. That's lacking in this particular story. (Unless there's news on the NPS site I haven't travelled to yet..)
Correction: "23 years," in the second paragraph above, should've been "21 years." Sorry.
These three seasonal employees should be fired. Humans are able to avoid situations where they put themselves and the animal in danger. The whole idea of a "PRESERVE" is to "maintain" the ecosystem in its natural state...not gun down bears because they scare you.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.