My wife ran this race today, and was on the mountain when this happened.

http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Bear-mauling--429297643.html

Paul

Quote from: gitano;148115My wife ran this race today, and was on the mountain when this happened.

http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Bear-mauling--429297643.html

Paul

Bad deal!

Hungry bear?

A lot of people think grizzlies and brown bears (Ursus horribilis), are 'worse' than black bears (Ursus americana), when it comes to being dangerous. The truth is, while WAY bigger, grizzlies and brown bears rarely actually kill the humans they maul; black bears almost always do, AND EAT THEM. Extremely rare for browns or grizzlies to eat a human they kill. This bear hadn't started eating the kid yet, but was 'guarding' the body. The boy was an intended meal.

We've had several maulings this year already. A couple of drownings. Alaska is still not a 'domesticated' place. It's the primary reason why I live here.

Paul

http://www.ktva.com/second-fatal-bear-mauling-2-days-934/

Black bear.

Paul

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/wildlife/2017/06/14/3-injured-by-brown-bear-at-eagle-river-campground/

About a week ago.

Paul

By the way, I don't read these articles or the comments associated with them. The people that write them are, for the most part, "reporters" that have lived in Alaska for 5 years or less, and all of that time in Anchorage. They usually write completely inane BS. As for the comments, the stupidity by most commenters is nauseating. I cite the articles simply to provide the 'evidence' of the event.  Often, I know some of the people involved in the 'hunt' or as was the case with the race, my wife or daughter is in it.

Paul

"Reporter" is Montanan for "horse hockey", " bull puckey" and Elmer Keith.

"That guy is so full of Elmer  that his eyes are brown and he could be a reporter"

"Ah reporter, your dog never won no blue ribbon for his looks!!! For Elmering on the porch, maybe."

A bad deal all around. To get a text from your son telling you he's getting chased by a bear ?

:cens:


RJ

QuoteA bad deal all around. To get a text from your son telling you he's getting chased by a bear ?

That sounded a little 'reporter-ish' to me. Why not CALL instead of text? There are aspects that may explain 'texting': "No cell coverage" so he sent a text and it arrived 'later'; kids these days just DON'T "call". They only "text".

One of the things I wonder about is why no one heard him yelling/screaming.

This incident has caused the organizers of these races to "rethink" things. Of course it has. Eedjits! My wife and daughters 'pack' most of the time, but never in a race. That's changed! And I NEVER go in the 'woods' without a sidearm. NEVER. I'm way too soft and squishy to fight it out with anything that would want to 'fight it out'.

By the way, the behavior of the idiot park rangers brings up another point of stupidity. They shot the bear "in the face" with a 12 ga shotgun with slugs, and "it got away". This makes me spitting mad and illustrates AGAIN the STUPIDITY of "government agents" that think that because they have been "trained by the government" they actually KNOW how to deal with wild animals - particularly bears. #1 - There is no way on God's earth that that park ranger didn't have AT LEAST 8 rounds in that shotgun, #2 - aiming at the head of an animal you want to dispatch, ESPECIALLY a bear, is STUPID, #3 - With said shotgun, you aim at "the big part" AND EMPTY THE EFFING GUN!

When I was working for ADF&G and responsible for remote sonar sites all over the state, I made sure each camp had TWO 12 gauges in camp for "bear protection". More importantly, I had WRITTEN instructions on the EXACT procedures for killing a bear that came into camp. Along with those specific procedure was the admonishment that not following the procedures was "grounds for disciplinary action". Those procedures were:

1) BOTH weapons were to be used. This was primarily to protect the project personnel FROM THE STATE TROOPERS. Sons of bachelors in the Troopers AND the Attorney General's office would charge state personnel with game violations if THEY thought it was "unnecessary" to have killed the bear. If there were two shooters, it would be impossible - in a legal sense - to determine which one had actually "killed" the bear.
2) NO WARNING SHOTS WILL BE FIRED! Bears don't "warn". If the bear doesn't 'vamoose' when the people show up, it's 'contemplating' being 'unfriendly'. Bears don't get 'second chances'. You run when I yell at you, or I kill you. No negotiations.
3) Aim at the "big part" of the bear and EMPTY BOTH GUNS INTO THE BEAR! PERIOD! NO OPTIONS. DO NOT "SAVE" ammo. I don't care if the bear is "on the ground". EMPTY THE GUNS INTO THE BEAR!

Follow these steps and 1) no one will get hurt, 2) No one will be "assaulted" by the Troopers or the AG, and 3) The bear will NOT "get away".

Only had to kill one bear in one camp in all the years I ran the program. The project leader - a little **** - 1) shot 'warning' shots, 2) only used one gun, and 3) didn't empty the gun he had into the bear. I tried to fire him, but was only able to "suspend without pay" for two weeks.

The BEST bear protection for these sonar camps (different from PERSONAL bear protection), would have been a fully automatic .30 caliber machine gun, (AR-10 for example), with 30-round magazines. But "they" wouldn't let me have those. The instructions would have been EXACTLY the same. EMPTY THE GUN INTO THE BIG PART OF THE BEAR. NO bear - I don't care how ferocious it is - will get to you with 60 rounds of .308 Win in it, taken at 20-ish feet. This isn't "hunting". This is KILL THE THING THAT WANTS TO KILL ME, with emphasis on KILL. There should be NO "margin for error". "THINKING" about WHERE to AIM adds a "margin of error". DON'T THINK. POINT - DON'T AIM -  AT "THE BIG PART" AND EMPTY THE GUN. That "works". EVERY TIME. EVERY TIME. EVERY TIME.

These idiots with the "training" infuriate me to start off. Then they follow the STUPID "training" and THE BEAR GETS AWAY! Forum decorum prevents me from fully expressing myself.

Paul