‘Help Me, Help Me’: Hiker Finds Yellowstone Grizzly Attack Victim, Calls 911

Cowboy Times ^ | 5/5/26 | Andrew Rossi

[sopo]

A Maryland man was the first to come across one of two hikers seriously hurt in a Monday afternoon Yellowstone National Park grizzly attack, hearing the man call for help before coming across the man “tore up pretty bad.”

“I was hiking up Mystic Falls Trail when I saw bear prints in the mud,” Craig Lerman told Cowboy State Daily on Tuesday morning. “I kept walking a little further and saw a bloody hat with a watch torn off.”

Lerman, from Baltimore, was hiking on the Mystic Falls Trail when he was the first person on the scene after the grizzly attacked a pair of hikers.

Lerman kept hiking until he found the first victim, a severely injured 28-year-old man, lying on the trail.

“He heard me coming and started saying, ‘Help. Help me,’” Lerman said. "At first, I thought it was a prank or joke. Kids playing games. But when I got close to him, I knew this was a serious matter.”

According to Lerman, the man was “tore up pretty bad” with cuts all over his face, back, legs, and stomach with “flesh next to him.” The man had already managed to call 911 on his blood-covered phone.

“I called 911 from my phone and took over the call from there,” Lerman said. “I was scared the bear was going to come back around, so I just kept my head on a swivel.”

The dispatcher told Lerman to focus on keeping the man conscious and to turn him onto his side so he didn’t choke on his own blood, while responders coordinated a response.

“He kept talking to me the entire time,” Lerman said. “I ended up giving him my T-shirt (because) he said he was cold and wet, so I just laid it over him and reassured him help was on the way.”

The official first responders were two National Park Service rangers who reached the scene on foot, he said. Soon after, a helicopter arrived with more personnel to evacuate both bear attack to the Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center.

“I never saw the other guy,” Lerman said. “He was 14, and I believe that was his brother, but I don’t know that. His mom was there, but not on that trail. She was on the phone with him, trying to keep him calm.”

Lerman described the experience as “scary, brutal,” and “not something I’ve ever seen before.”

‘One Or More Bears' Yellowstone officials reported Tuesday morning that the incident occurred on the Mystic Falls Trail near Old Faithful. The victims may have been attacked by “one or more bears.”

National Park Service emergency services personnel responded to the victims, and the incident “remains under investigation,” the agency report. No additional information was provided.

Pastor and former Idaho Falls resident Travis Guse shared information he received about the incident on Facebook. He was contacted by David Jenkins, an associate pastor at Lake Church in Arlington, Texas.

“Two (men) from his church were up in Yellowstone with their mom when they were mauled by a grizzly bear,” Guse wrote. “The kids were life-flighted to the hospital in Idaho Falls, and the hospital still had my contact on file from when I was a pastor there over a decade ago.”

When Cowboy State Daily reached out to Guse, he confirmed he had made the post but declined to comment further.

Jenkins confirmed that the victims are members of the church’s congregation and had been taken to Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center for treatment. He also declined to comment further.

Cowboy State Daily reached out to Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center to get an update on the victims’ condition, but hadn’t received a response by the time of publication.

Stimulus, Response This is the first human-grizzly incident in Yellowstone in 2026 and the second to result in injury in the last five years.

The previous incident happened in September 2025 when a man hiking on the Turbid Lake Trail near the northeastern shore of Yellowstone Lake was attacked by a grizzly and suffered injuries on his arm and chest.

Based on what he could see at the scene, Lerman believes there were two grizzlies in the vicinity of the Mystic Falls Trail on Monday. He based his assumption on the two sets of footprints he observed on the muddy trail.

“There were two sets from a bigger and smaller bear,” he said. “The conclusion was that it was a mom protecting her cub, but that’s an assumption.”

Sow grizzlies with cubs usually emerge from hibernation in late April.

Mothers are fiercely protective of their cubs and will attack with little to no provocation, which can lead to serious and potentially lethal attacks on humans in spring and early summer.

In May 2024, Shayne Patrick Burke was attacked by a mother grizzly while hiking on Signal Mountain in Grand Teton National Park. He survived but was seriously injured.

NPS personnel and officials with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service usually categorize these attacks as defensive rather than aggressive.

That means it’s unlikely the grizzly responsbile for this attack will be removed from the park’s population, but there’s been no official information other than that the investigation into the incident is ongoing.

Lerman didn’t know the status of either victim but hopes they are recovering at the Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center.

“I’d like to eventually know if they survived,” he said.

Andrew Rossi can be reached at arossi@cowboystatedaily.com.

[reasonisfaith]

If the wind is blowing, bear spray is ineffective.

State and federal biologists and other officials generally advocate for bear spray over firearms.

But talk to hunters. Some carry both, but all of them have a sidearm specifically for bears.

Funny how hunters always know more than government officials.

[EnderWiggin1970]

If you are talking gale-force winds, and the bear is not downwind. But I would disagree about “if the wind is blowing” if you mean to imply any kind of wind will automatically render it ineffective. Even in high wind conditions (and we do get that a lot in WY) I’d still expect the bear spray to work and be able to put it in the bears face, just at a reduced range.

[reasonisfaith]

The wind gusts out there in grizzly country are random and unpredictable.

There are bullets available that don’t bounce off the bear’s skull, even at an angle. These bullets are made to drill into the skull.

[Jim Noble]

“ Does Yellowstone allow guns for protection?”

No.

But I have a story to go with the answer. When I was 18, my Dad took the whole family on a horseback trip to Elizabeth Lake in Glacier NP. We rode across the park boundary past a sign that said, among other things, “no firearms”.

About a half mile down the trail and around a bend the horses stopped. The guides dismounted, pulled rifles out of their bags, and put them into the empty saddle holsters.

That night around the fire, I got up the nerve to ask.

“Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6”

Words to live by.

[DarrellZero]

Surprisingly yes Yellowstone does allow guns subject to which state you are in within the park.

So yeah I would take a pistol and make sure my partner was at least carrying spray.

[roving]

There are certain places I would never hike. I don’t hike anyway, but if I did.

[Equine1952]

I’ve read black bear attacks are more frequent than grizzly bear attacks. Maybe that’s true years ago. With all the grizzly control out here in the Yellowstone area. We have more grizzlies and more people. Ya do the math viola! These things happen. I was an avid elk hunter in my younger years. There were certain areas you were more alert in than others. Now days on the southeast side of Idaho you better have your head outa your butt. We got grizzlies and they eat elk too.

[mikey_hates_everything]

What I’ve heard of Grizzlies, they will chop you up for the fun of it. Almost as bad as Polar Bears. Black bears are mostly afraid of humans, dogs and loud noises but when it’s a momma and her cubs, all bets are off. I saw all the elk in Estes Park, wouldn’t want to mess with those or moose. They’ll ruin your day. Don’t have either in WV to be concerned about. Just flocks of wild turkeys that might get rowdy if you catch them in a bad mood.

[Equine1952]

Grizzlies don’t do anything for fun. They defend themselves and they hunt for food. Coming out of winter sleep they are generally hungry and cranky. If you startle one they defend themselves and retreat most times. It’s the defend themselves portion that gets people tore all to hell. Throw a cub in the mix? The brakes are off. My main experience is fall elk hunting. I don’t hike unless it’s for meat. The spring hiking cross threads folks with cranky bears. Nothing new here. Yellowstone ain’t a petting zoo. The country, the weather, the wild life, and the water can and will kill you if you’re careless or just plain stupid. I wouldn’t trade this country for anything. But I damn sure respect what it can do. Be safe

[2nd Amendment]

.38 special to put you out of your misery 44mag,454 casull 500 smith to subdue griz

[Aut Pax Aut Bellum]

Most people go with a Glock 10mm....

[marktwain]

Here is an article discussing the testing of bear spray in wind and cold, and what effects were found.

https://www.ammoland.com/2020/11/study-on-bear-spray-confirms-performance-limitations/

[EnderWiggin1970]

Ammoland epitomizes the mindset of some, that firearms are their hammer and every problem a nail. No bias in that write-up /s!

[marktwain]

Did you read the article?

It directly references the research done by Tom Smith.

[EnderWiggin1970]

Yes, I did. It does indeed "reference" the research, with a whole lot of editorializing/rationalizing on top. An anti-firearms writer could play the same game, noting (for example) the increased complexity of firearms operation (which played a role in the last fatal bear attack here in WY) and likelihood of a misfire. But these rationalizations all explain the baseline data on outcomes, they don't change it.

It occurs to me that while I've been in 90+ MPH winds in the high country, down below the treeline where a bear encounter is much more likely, and at a closer range, the wind is muted by the foliage.

[marktwain]

The research directly found that with a headwind of any significant amount more than 1 m/s, limited the range of bear spray to 5-7 feet.

Such is information which I thought could make a significant change in your understanding of how effective bear spray is.

The reduction in range is extremely important.

I understand you have had training. Unfortunately, I believe your training has misinformed you.

Bear spray is *not* more effective than handguns in stopping bear attacks. At best, it is almost as effective in stopping attacks which are not serious, but of course, both methods have some drawbacks.

If you are comfortable with bear spray, it is your choice.

Here is a little factoid which may give pause. This is backed up by easily verified searches on the Internet.

9 people have been killed by bears in incidents where bear spray was used to defend (maybe 10 if you include a captive bear which killed a trainer in California). Bear spray has only been in use from about 1985. One of those incidents was in Russia, in the middle of winter where a bear researcher was killed.

1 person has been killed by a bear in incidents where handguns were used to defend against a bear attack. That was a .22 handgun against a polar bear in the Svalbard archipelago in the arctic. This is from extensive searches for handgun failures over several years, yielding over 200 documented cases where handguns were used since 1890. There were four documented failures (the gunfire did not stop the bears. One was the Svalbard incident) in about 170 cases where only handguns were involved (there are about 30 cases which involved multiple lethal methods used)

I mention the fatalities because they are the best documented incidents and the least subject to selection bias.

Bear attacks are pretty rare events. Lots of people go hiking in bear country and never have a problem. I have researched this extensively, over years. The research by bear spray proponents (Tom Smith is the most prominent of those researchers) does not show what you have been told about the effectiveness of bear spray. It is not ineffective, it is simply not nearly as effective as early claims made it out to be.

The primary purpose of the research seems to have been to save bears. It is better than nothing as a defense against bears, but it does fail at times where handguns seem to work well.

There are several cases where people were not able to deploy bear spray. The difficulties of deploying bear spray are pretty similar to the difficulties in deploying handguns, but handguns have about 150 years of ergonomic development, which bear spray does not. It is mostly a training problem for either system, or the incident occurs so fast that either system would not have worked before the bear was on them.

Sorry to run on and on, but I hope to allow you to understand this subject has suffered from a huge media blitz, pushing a narrative which is not true.

[marktwain]

Admittedly, I’m an ultralight hiker. Just the bearspray is quite a concession against that in many ultralighters’ minds. And firearms capable of being useful against a grizzly are not exactly “ultralight.”

---

Ounces can be important when hiking. I have done some. There are a few ultralight firearms which would probably be effective. When I hiked down into the Grand Canyon on a backpacking trip, I thought long and hard about taking an ultra light handgun. I chose not to take it. Mostly, bears are not a problem there, and very few people are, and I was with a group.

Contrary to what most people believe, caliber is not super important in defense against bears. Everything from a .22 to a .500 magnum has been effective. The one fatality was where a .22 was used against a polar bear.

[EnderWiggin1970]

The research directly found that with a headwind of any significant amount more than 1 m/s, limited the range of bear spray to 5-7 feet.

I'm an engineer, and that just doesn't make any sense. If in a 0 wind condition a can of bear spray is capable of sending spray, say, 30' (what my can says, online I'm seeing 25-44' in a quick search), a 1 m/s headwind shouldn't reduce that more than 5' or so, max. And that's if we were treating air as an unrealistically solid substance.

1 person has been killed by a bear in incidents where handguns were used to defend against a bear attack

Look up the Uptain case in Wyoming, which I alluded to in my last post. I suspect that it was wrongly discounted in such research. In that case a guide with a bowhunter found an elk they'd shot the prior day. The guide hung his pistol on a branch a few yards away, had bear spray on his waist. A mother grizzly and partly grown cub following the scent burst out of the foliage as they were dressing the elk.

The guide spent the next few seconds shouting and waving; that had probably worked in other encounters but in this case the bears were following the blood scent and were primed to chase off or attack any competition when they found the carcass. So the mother barreled directly into the guide and immediately mauled him, inflicting fatal wounds.

Meanwhile the bowhunter ran for the pistol and tried to use it as the largish cub attacked him. He wound up ejecting the magazine instead of flipping the safety off, and then tossed the now-useless pistol to the guide and ran off.

The guide's body was found about 50 yards away with the discharged bear spray alongside. Evidently he crawled/ran that far before the bears renewed their attack at which time he used it. His body and the elk carcass were not molested, which suggests the bear spray was effective in driving off both bears at that point. It was just too late for him, unfortunately.

[marktwain]

I have written extensively about that case. It is a classic case of bear spray failure.

Yes, there was a handgun present. It was never used because the only person who had access to it did not know how to use it. Very likely they would have had the same problem with bear spray.

We have a couple of minor misallignments in our memory. The pistol was in a pack, as I recall. The bear spray distances are from the Tom Smith study. Aerosol movement in air is a complex, dynamic process. (I have an engineering degree and a meteorology degree) Smith used a complex computer program to simulate the wind effects. I am not a big fan of using simulation programs, but it only makes sense wind would have a big effect on a quickly aerosolized spray cloud.

There have been several incidents where people said they could not use spray because it would be ineffective because of wind, (only anecdotal information). There is at least one documented case where it was ineffective because of cold.

Smith is a bear spray proponent, so when he publishes a paper saying wind significantly decreases the range, I paid attention. He also said it would not be a problem, in an interview, saying just wait until the bear is within 2 meters to spray! ( I found that to be silly). 1 meter/sec is about 2.24 miles per hour.

Glock pistols do not have traditional safeties. The pistol did not have a round in the chamber. If you know what you are doing, and practice, that is not a big problem. If you do not know what you are doing, and have not practiced, getting the safety off a bear spray can is a big problem, too.

I recall reading the official report. As I recall the bears had bear spray on them.

I read these reports with a critical eye. They seem to attempt to convince people bear spray is extremely effective. They appear to me to be written by people who want to believe such, because they are extremely concerned about saving bears.

I may have been the first person who made it widely public that Uptain had sprayed the bears before he died. As I recall, the official report was not published very widely.

Maybe Uptain carried the empty cannister, clinging to it as he attempted to get away from the bears. Maybe he was given a mortal wound before he was able to spray. None the less he died using bear spray.

If Uptain had fired a handgun while defending against the bears, I would have scored it as a handgun failure. It is useful to reverse the methods and apply the same logic to each. In the first and most commonly referenced bear spray study, Tom Smith and Stephen Herrero only included instances where bear spray was sprayed against bears. Many of the cases were park personnel harassing problem bears.

In their firearms study, the included all instances where a firearm was present and someone tried to use it. The looked hard for cases where people were injured. So the Uptain case would have been both a bear spray and a handgun failure in their studies, even though the handgun was not fired.

They admit, in the firearm paper, they have a problem with selection bias about firearms. Admitting it made the publication valid. The bias is seldom discussed.

Here is the image from the Tom Smith paper on Bear Spray.

[EnderWiggin1970]

Saying the handgun was never used to gloss over it isn't very objective. There was an attempt to use it, which is what matters most. Imagine a study investigating whether a car is an effective getaway vehicle for criminals under police pursuit that discounted cases where the vehicle wouldn't even start. (FWIW, my recollection is that the pistol was in a shoulder holster that was hung along with the outer layer of clothing the guide was wearing, as the day was heating up. I believe it was a crossbow or 2nd can of bearspray owned by the bowhunter that was in the pack and went unsought in the incident.)

Claiming this was a "bear spray failure" is tortuous logic. I can see how you could choose criterion that would lead to this result, but that makes the criteria itself problematic for anyone trying to get a handle on this subject. The victim made a choice not to use it, and was then fatally mauled prior to any use per the eyewitness/survivor. Speculating that the victim used it and then carried it to his final location doesn't change the testimony and forensic evidence that the initial mauling of Uptain's head was mortal. Nor does it change the fact that it drove off the bears who could have feasted at their leisure after everyone was dead/gone. I call that evidence of a win - you just need to deploy before being mauled.

Pulling a tab on bear spray is a simple as it gets. (My problem is that it comes out too easily when bushwhacking - all my cans are now lacking their safeties, and the replacement cost is exorbitant for little pieces of plastic. I've learned to be careful.)

I don't care about saving bears, and am pro-2A (including private ownership of AA, anti-tank and other advanced weaponry in the spirit of the 2A). The victim's brother was an acquaintance of mine (volunteered and traveled with our teams several times when I was ops manager at my last job.) I see irrational bias and insecurity motivating the denigration of bear spray, and a pointless focus on presumed "save the bears" motivation that is really beside the key point of keeping people safe.

I simply can't buy those charts and have to wonder if something is misprinted. 1 meter/second is just over 2 MPH. Since when is the wind in Wyoming ever that low?? Yet this would have me believing that bear spray can virtually never be used in Wyoming, and just strikes me as utterly unreal.