[Kanuck]

Backpacker Kills Grizzly in Alaskan Park

Hi All

I thought you might appreciate this story, if it hasn't already been posted.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100531/grizzly-shooting-alaska-100531/

 

[UnCruel]

"Park officials are determining the justification for the shooting. It's legal to carry firearms in that area of the park but illegal to discharge them."

Isn't that a low blow. I'm sure any penalty is preferable to being killed by a bear, but talk about adding insult to injury.

This is only months after lifting the ban against firearms in national parks. It makes me wonder how often we are going to hear about this sort of thing in the future. It also makes me wonder how often such confrontations have occurred in the past while visitors to the parks were forcibly disarmed.

 

[slim 60]

im sure some have read that story..it happened in alaska..
i guess the reason its leagal to carry is you can use the time when you resting to get her good an clean..what kinda dang sense is that set of laws..i don t belong in the century .. i just don t belong..umh too crazy for me to even grasp.. slim

 

[mr.pepper]

I guess the hikers was supposed to throw the gun and hope the bear shot itself...

 

[mattsbox99]

I wish we could carry a Envirowacko with us in the grizzly country, then if one decided to attack, the EW could sacrifice itself. The trouble with the EW is keeping one quiet while you enjoy your time in the wilderness.

 

[broom_jm]

If the lady who was attacked in this story has the nom-nom marks to prove it, something tells me very little will be made of her husband choosing to shoot the bear that was doing the nomming. The park service will do their "investigation", conclude this was a justified shooting, and the story will quietly go away. I seriously doubt any charges will be filed against a man defending his wife from a bear attack.

 

[hailstone]

That would be common sense but haven't you noticed anything the federal government does lacks "common sense".

 

[Griz]

That would be common sense but haven't you noticed anything the federal government does lacks "common sense".

that goes double for the park service in Alaska, some of the looniest people I've ever met; a LOT OF THEM would rather the bear killed you than you kill the bear.

Grizz

 

[jbee]

They said he shot it 9 times with his .45, which means to me he emptied his gun (8+1) and it still went 100 feet off to die somewhere. I think if the bear was angry or hungry enough this might have turned out different with two dead people.

I guess my question is, isn't a .45 to the head of a bear enough to kill it or is it a tougher shot then most of us can make with a charging animal?

 

[MikeG]

Hopefully there is a defense to prosecution for being in fear of life and limb, etc. While I can't comment on federal rules, our CHL laws in Texas specifically forbid displaying a weapon, discharging, etc. - except for life-threatening circumstances.

 

[broom_jm]

Sensationalized accounts to the contrary aside, common sense still prevails in the majority of these cases. I saw a nearly identical circumstance in California, shortly after they passed a moratorium on mountain lion hunting. A man killed a big bad kitty that had mistaken him and his girlfriend for blacktailed deer. After much rattling of sabers and gnashing of teeth, a judge laughed it out of court. The man DID have to put up with a lot of annoying courtroom antics, but in the end was exonerated of any wrongdoing.

Important distinction: "The man fired nine rounds from his .45 caliber, semiautomatic pistol at the animal, which then stopped and walked into the brush." The article does not say he actually hit the bear 9 times, only that he fired 9 rounds at it. In fact, I'm thinking it would take a pretty salty character to successfully hit a grizzly bear with 9 out of 9 shots!

 

[UnCruel]

Hopefully there is a defense to prosecution for being in fear of life and limb, etc. While I can't comment on federal rules, our CHL laws in Texas specifically forbid displaying a weapon, discharging, etc. - except for life-threatening circumstances.

Missouri's self-defense law uses the language, "use physical force upon another person". It says nothing about animals or inanimate objects. There is another law addressing defense against dogs. However, I am not aware of anything in Missouri's law applying to bears. That would mean the man's only protection would be the common sense of the prosecutor. As Kevin L. Jamison would say, it doesn't have to make sense, it's just the law.

 

[kdub]

In Arizona, the prosecutor has to prove it wasn't self defense. No telling what the G&F will do.

 

[kudu40]

I think it all boils down to the old saying "It is better to be judged by 12 than be carried by 6".
I'm sure there will be an investigationto determine the angle and distance of the shots before any conclusion can be made.
A few years ago, a guy in upstate NY shot a moose he said was threatening him. The investigation showed he shot it going away.

Kudu40

 

[leverite]

They said he shot it 9 times with his .45, which means to me he emptied his gun (8+1) and it still went 100 feet off to die somewhere. I think if the bear was angry or hungry enough this might have turned out different with two dead people.

I guess my question is, isn't a .45 to the head of a bear enough to kill it or is it a tougher shot then most of us can make with a charging animal?

I doubt a 45 acp would be anyone's choice for an adequate bear gun. I'd rather have a 357 mag w/ 200 gr hardcast bullets than a 45 acp. But nowadays would not be in grizzly country w/out a 44 mag or 45 colt revolver loaded hot.

 

[Nite Ryder]

I see one glaring mistake this guy made after defending his girl friend by killing the bear. He went to the park officials and told them what he had done. My moto is the follow the three S's, Shoot, Shovel and Shut-up. The shooter must have had *** to stand his ground and fire 9 times. I have a hard time deciding which would be better a 10 MM semi auto with 10-12 rounds or a 44 Mag with only six rounds. The 10 MM is pretty nasty when you've used it enough to be able to control the recoil. Controlling the recoil of a 44 Mag isn't easy either if you're trying to get off six shots accurately in a hurry.

 

[shane256]

Probably, the law against discharging firearms is to keep people from just walking around and shooting at trees, bugs, flowers, rocks, or whatever just for the fun of it. They allow firearms (for protection) and disallow shooting them to keep people from just popping rounds off all over. So, you can have your firearm for protection and use it if you feel threatened. In the worst case, you get a citation for illegal firearm discharge (or something similar) if you shoot something that they didn't think was self protection. Otherwise, they'll call it 'justified' and you don't get into trouble.

BTW, there was a nice Discovery Channel program about the Denali Park on over the weekend.

 

[recoil junky]

We just spent a couple days in bear country doing a bit of hiking and fishing. Three of us in the party, two of us with firearms. "Doc" had my 1911, (he's qual'd expert) and I was packin' the Redhawk.

My point is this: IF you deem it necessary to go into the wild, no matter if it's in a Natl park or where ever, carry something you can shoot well and while under attack.

RJ

 

[Mad Kaw]

Hopefully there is a defense to prosecution for being in fear of life and limb, etc. While I can't comment on federal rules, our CHL laws in Texas specifically forbid displaying a weapon, discharging, etc. - except for life-threatening circumstances.

Unfortunately, from the Denali park website: "The State of Alaska’s Defense of Life and Property (DLP) regulation does not apply within Denali National Park and there is no DLP regulation in federal law."

To paraphrase an old saw: "We're from the government and we're here to protect you."

 

[AVIVIII]

Self-defense it a viable legal defense in any situation, regardless of the being that requiring that action.

Would the shooting have been any more or less legitimate if it was a rapist or a robber? I don't think so, nor do I think that any judge or jury will say that a grizzly in close proximity would not pose a threat to life.

Obviously it is new territory for the parks dept, as this is the first incident since the new law went into effect. Lets just hope that it sets a good precedent.