Tragic bear attack in Wyoming

[Kmccord]

Here is the link, man I am surprised the guide did not have that Glock on his hip instead of the bear spray..

https://trib.com

 

[Pdvdh]

Thanks for the notice of the details reporting.
The only logical conclusion from the reporting by the coroner and the F&G, is the bear spray was dispensed before the fatal injuries were inflicted. So the bear spray did not deter this bear's fatal attack.
Why can't F&G state the obvious? I think they can't get over their personal bias, and/or don't dare cross the company line. That F&G prefer people use non-lethal bear spray rather than lethal firearms for bear protection.

Yet when they go in to investigate, it's with guns blazing. So the bear spray's good enough for Joe public, but not for them when their life is on the line.
What lends credence is their inability and unwillingness to state the obvious. The poor guy was killed after he dispensed the bear spray to the head/face of the bear. After all, the corner stated the fatal injury caused immediate death. Which clearly had to occur AFTER the bear spray was dispensed.
Instead, their statement is "We can't say that the bear spray didn't work."
Let me help: The bear spray DIDN'T WORK. Can you hear me now?

 

[Hatrick]

Thanks for the notice of the details reporting.
The only logical conclusion from the reporting by the corner and the F&G, is the bear spray was dispensed before the fatal injuries were inflicted. So the bear spray did not deter this bear's fatal attack.
Why can't F&G state the obvious? I think they can't get over their personal bias, and/or don't dare cross the company line. That F&G prefer people use non-lethal bear spray rather than lethal firearms for bear protection.

Yet when they go in to investigate, it's with guns blazing. So the bear spray's good enough for Joe public, but not for them when their life is on the line.
What lends credence is their inability and unwillingness to state the obvious. The poor guy was killed after he dispensed the bear spray to the head/face of the bear. After all, the corner stated the fatal injury caused immediate death. Which clearly had to occur AFTER the bear spray was dispensed.
Instead, their statement is "We can't say that the bear spray didn't work."
Let me help: The bear spray DIDN'T WORK. Can you hear me now?

Looks to me they got it all wrong. They said the bear was teaching to kill humans for food. The bear was full of elk so eating humans was not the purpose of the attack. The bear was fighting for the elk carcus and trying to drive off the people. He sprayed the bear and it killed him. When he was dead the bears ate the elk and left.
The only other thing that went though F&Gs mind was the bear sprayed herself to make it look like self defense. That is how stupid they are!

 

[Pdvdh]

Well there is the possibility the reporter erred. But some of the statements are quoted.

I believe your version until shown otherwise.

 

[Barrelnut]

They said the bear was teaching to kill humans for food.

I read it as -- teaching the cub to kill humans so it can take the humans food. As in -- all they have is a can of funky smelling spray and are easy to take down.

 

[Ckgworks]

I don't want to make light of this sad situation, but below is a video of how Liberal minds deal with bears........I wonder if a full grown grizzly would be more obedient to her demands.

In all seriousness, this whole tragedy can make us look at ourselves.....Bad habits are built in lax/good times, and come back to bite you when you least expect it. I was out hunting yesterday, and was thinking about how I'm set up. I used to carry in a shoulder holster, and when I took my pack off, my gun stayed on my person, this started in Alaska and carried over for awhile. After awhile I added a holster to the waist strap of my pack.......I can't think now why I did, but I must of had a "good" reason at the time. In SW Washington, the likely hood of me needing it is low so it's easy to become lax, and just make sure it's on my pack and loaded......SO in short, in reality, if something like this happened to me yesterday, I might have been in the same boat as the guide in this story......When I needed it, it might be on my pack, 10' away.

 

[HARPERC]

.......I don't want to make light of this sad situation, ......SO in short, in reality, if something like this happened to me yesterday, I might have been in the same boat as the guide in this story......When I needed it, it might be on my pack, 10' away......

A good reminder the Monday morning quarterbacking is a reminder to the living, not a criticism of those not here to defend there decisions.

The most important thing to me for recovering game in bear country is it's a two person job. With one person on watch with whatever defensive measures available.

Some of the stuff I've done in younger days could have readily turned into this type of incident.

 

[FlGunner]

My heart goes out to their families.....I'm about to go on my first elk hunt and will definitely keep this in mind. In not sure our guide will allow me to carry a personal side arm but I promise you one thing, I'm gonna ask too. We have a lot of black bears here in Florida but I've never seen them be aggressive. The libs here think there all cuddly and cute when there a nuisance to most to have them around.

 

[KyCarl]

Here you go.... More of the same stupid liberal Crap!!
https://www.thelocal.fr/20180920/fr...-france-announces-more-bears-for-the-pyrenees

 

[Hand Skills]

You said it, @HARPERC

Even if the bear spray and handgun were to trade places in this story, there is no guarantee of a different outcome. Plenty of examples people carrying bear spray AND a gun getting bested by Ursidae. It's easy to say things would have worked out differently if he was wearing the gun, but one can't be certain. It's not only insensitive, but unrealistic to believe 'wearing a gun' is the takeaway here. This is obvious to anyone who has seen how fast bears can happen.

Thanks for the link @wyosteve it's interesting to fill in the details.

It's somewhat comforting the speed and efficiency with which 'officials' deal with bears guilty of human attacks. It's nice to read that the guide didn't do anything 'overtly wrong'. According to the article, he was prepared with bearspray, he way able to deploy the bear spray, and to paraphrase 'maybe if he used the bear spray earlier it would have helped more'?

Clearly something went wrong here.

The problem I see with bear spray is, in most cases it cannot be used to prevent an attack. By my definition, if an angry bear is close enough to get the mist, they have already attacked!

Still, I agree with the statement 'this story does not prove bearspray ineffective'. Used against a predatory black bear, statistics suggest there is a pretty good chance the subject of the attack will live. In the case of a territorial grizzly (like this one), the result here is tragic but not unprecedented.

My car has airbags, but it doesn't make driving on the freeway risk free. Skill of the driver is a big factor, but even the best driver can get blindsided. I look at bear protection much the same way.

 

[KyCarl]

Doesn't mean a heck of a lot when you are the dead guy?

"It's somewhat comforting the speed and efficiency with which 'officials' deal with bears guilty of human attacks."

 

[RockyMtnMT]

You said it, @HARPERC

Even if the bear spray and handgun were to trade places in this story, there is no guarantee of a different outcome. Plenty of examples people carrying bear spray AND a gun getting bested by Ursidae. It's easy to say things would have worked out differently if he was wearing the gun, but one can't be certain. It's not only insensitive, but unrealistic to believe 'wearing a gun' is the takeaway here. This is obvious to anyone who has seen how fast bears can happen.

Thanks for the link @wyosteve it's interesting to fill in the details.

It's somewhat comforting the speed and efficiency with which 'officials' deal with bears guilty of human attacks. It's nice to read that the guide didn't do anything 'overtly wrong'. According to the article, he was prepared with bearspray, he way able to deploy the bear spray, and to paraphrase 'maybe if he used the bear spray earlier it would have helped more'?

Clearly something went wrong here.

The problem I see with bear spray is, in most cases it cannot be used to prevent an attack. By my definition, if an angry bear is close enough to get the mist, they have already attacked!

Still, I agree with the statement 'this story does not prove bearspray ineffective'. Used against a predatory black bear, statistics suggest there is a pretty good chance the subject of the attack will live. In the case of a territorial grizzly (like this one), the result here is tragic but not unprecedented.

My car has airbags, but it doesn't make driving on the freeway risk free. Skill of the driver is a big factor, but even the best driver can get blindsided. I look at bear protection much the same way.

They don't show pictures of black bears on the bear spray cans. They show grizzlies.

Steve

 

[Ckgworks]

Doesn't mean a heck of a lot when you are the dead guy?"

The sad truth of the matter is, that if the pistol and bear spray were reversed, and the guide had killed the bear before anyone got hurt, WITHOUT the bear spray being deployed first, the same officials who bring guns and NOT bear spray would probably be questioning if the bear really did need killed, or was it bluffing........

 

[Hand Skills]

They don't show pictures of black bears on the bear spray cans. They show grizzlies.

Steve

False advertising of the worst kind.

I carry it when required to for work.