Posted on 01/04/2022 4:17:02 AM PST by marktwain
On April 15, 2021, Carl Mock was attacked by a grizzly bear, just outside of Yellowstone Park. Mock was an accomplished woodsman and guide. He did not have a firearm with him. He had bear spray. He used the bear spray but was fatally injured.irected to Montana Fish and Wildlife Morgan Jacobsen, was able to determine bear spray had been used in the incident. Initially, the use of bear spray was reported as unknown by ktla.com:
Mock when attacked had bear spray — a Mace-like deterrent meant to protect against attacks — but officials said they did not know if he managed to use it. Bear spray canisters have safety tabs to prevent them from going off accidentally and the safety tab on Mock’s bear spray was off, Jacobsen said.
Ktvh.com reports the investigation confirms bear spray was used. Although the attack was fatal, the lead investigator, Hillary Cooley, is reported as characterizing the use of bear spray as helpful. From ktvh.com:
Cooley says the incident again shows the need for safety precautions, even close to town. While bear spray helped curtail this attack, carcasses can present a real hazard in grizzly country.
Another report indicates the full can of bear spray was discharged in the incident. From gohunt.com:
Investigators say he had brought fishing gear and a camera to the closed campground and likely the surprised the grizzly bear around 3:30 p.m. He was able to discharge a full can of bear spray during the attack and call 911 to report where he was.
The full investigative report makes clear the bear spray was deployed against the grizzly bear during the attack.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
“Daniel Boone was a man, was a biiig man.”
“But the bear was bigger, so he ran like a … “
And, of course, I stop myself … you can’t touch that … don’t go there.
Amen! I call it "having friends with high numbers..."
“The grizzly was killed Friday after it charged a group of seven game wardens and other personnel as they approached the scene of the attack. Several people fired at the animal and it died about 20 yards (18 meters) from the group, Jacobsen said.”
How about doing that BEFORE they kill people. Given their shitty attitude, they don’t deserve to live (except in zoos).
The running shoes are so you can outrun your partner.😁
Would you feel adequately armed in polar bear country with a .243 Winchester? I know you are all about being prepared. Would you really feel prepared for an up-close encounter with a polar bear defended by a .243?
The Svalbard standards call for a rifle that can deliver 2,700 joules of impact at 100 meters. The .243 delivers just under that at the muzzle. The standards also call for a 11.5 gram bullet, at minimum but the .243 maxes out at 6 grams for commercial loads. A .243 is not going to have much of a wound channel. From what I have read, polar bears are undeterred by warning shots because the cracking of ice which they hear all the time is like a rifle shot, so they don't associate it with danger. So, it's probably going to have to be the wound that deters them so I'd want to send them a VERY clear message that continuing this is not a good idea (and if things go right, it's probably the last message it will ever receive). The thought of a giant wounded bear who has already shown signs of aggression in the vicinity is not an attractive one to me.
Personally, I'd want something with a lot more oomph than the .243. No ambiguous messages. Lots of rifles that can provide much higher power without even going to the more unmanageable calibers, .375s, .416s, and the other shoulder-busters.
No bear spray. Give me an adequate firearm.
I would feel adequately armed with a .243, but a lot depends on the bullet. You want a deeper penetrating bullet for bears. But, given a choice, I'd probably take the Svalbard advise.
Strangely, it appears polar bears are more easily handled than grizzly bears.
Lots of polar bears have been (and are) killed with lesser calibers. Quite a few killed with the early black powder cartridges like the .44-40, it appears.
But, it also appears people went to more powerful cartridges as they became available.
In Greenland, where they still hunt polar bears regularly, it appears they use the British .303 or surplus .30-06 rifles.
The Sirius Danish Sled Patrol uses the .30-06 for bear protection, as I recall.
I would agree on this. Given a choice, it would seem to me that a .243 would be a poor choice with a myriad of much better choices out there. Personally, I would not use a .243 on anything larger than a deer and certainly not on something much, much larger than can certainly kill you with ease.
I would prefer to spray any aggressive bears with my 44 magnum which is what I always carry when hiking.
Yup. Bought my son a Marlin 95 guide gun. Excellent bear medicine. I load them light, 300 grain soft points for deer. But have up to 500 grain hard cast loaded up also(plus the traditional 405 grain loads for cowboy action). Scary powerful. I have two loads for each. A very hot smokeless load for marlin and a gentle smokeless load for my 1884 trapdoor Springfield.
I guess these people know what they are doing but for my taste, I'd want more gun. However, each of those rifles is significantly more powerful than a .243 and has bullets greater than 11.5 grams. If I were hunting polar bear, I'd probably be looking at a .338 WM or equivalent so longer distance shots are possible. Although if we're talking defense only and shots within 50 yards or so, give me my .45/70 Marlin carbine.
My dad had two 1878 trapdoors he left me when he passed away. One of them had been “sporterized” by my Uncle which has made it worthless. He also left me an old Ideal Handloader and a bullet mold. I load my own and am very careful to keep the trapdoor ammo separate from the ammo I used in my 1895.
BTW I discovered that IMR 4895 gives better velocity and shoots a bit softer than the off the shelf Winchester ammo in the 1895. If you do your own loading I recommend trying the 4895.
Interesting how they concluded both a rifle and a pistol were necessary.
They spend most of their time on the Greenland ice, where polar bears and musk ox are the principle threats.
My go to powder for 30-06.
Also, can use it for .223.
Currently using IMR 3031 for most 45-70 loads. I only use nickel plated brass for the hot Marlin loads so as to not use them in the trapdoor. I hoped to one day taking a Buffalo with the trapdoor. Probably at this time that ain’t happening.
I’m even more chicken. My loads for the trapdoors are 40gr of blackpowder. Locked in a separate cabinet.
I’ve used BP in trapdoor. Also I have a couple of muzzle loaders. It’s fun. Though I’m not a big fan of the cleanup.
That makes sense to me if they aren't going with a revolver.
Interesting how they concluded both a rifle and a pistol were necessary.
Do you think that has to do with the idea of always having a firearm with them? When you're busy doing something, the rifle always seems to be in the way and it makes it easy to set it aside for awhile and then move far enough away from it to make it useable in an emergency.
After delisting — if and when it occurs — Cooley will remain involved with the Yellowstone-area population by continuing with monitoring duties and having a technical advisory role on the Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee, which does not yet exist.
Cooley’s energies will also shift to the other five grizzly bear recovery areas that lie south of the Canadian border. The Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem population, the largest, has also met its recovery goals and will likely be the next to go through the delisting process, she said.
Before the Alaskan stint Cooley was Mike Jimenez’s counterpart at Fish and Wildlife as the wolf coordinator for the Pacific Northwest. She was a regional wolf biologist before that for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Controversy, she said, has been a “stringer” that’s pervaded all the topics of her work.
“Even in graduate school,” Cooley said, “I was dealing with mountain lions in Washington state after there had been some human attacks.
“It’s not that I love it, but I’m comfortable with it,” she said of the controversial nature of her profession. “Some people take it personally, and I’ve learned to not.”
That is exactly what I think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.