And the Park Rangers Question if it was Justified?!?

Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Roger Batts

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
1,351
Reaction score
3
Location
Garland, TX
A couple was hiking over the weekend in Denali when a grizzly came out of the brush and charged after the woman. The man was packing a .45 auto, which is legal, and he emptied it into the bear, which is not. They reported the attack and subsequent shooting to the park rangers. Now, they are questioning if the man was justified in shooting the bear. If it was me, and the choice is me and mine or the grizzly, the bear is going down!:fire:
 
This is an open and closed case. Self defense or the protection of someome. Pretty simple. Lets see some common sense here.





Tom
 
I love my 45's and have several, but only a complete idiot would rely on one in Brown Bear country. Even a 44 Mag is a little lite.
 
Coastie,



Depends on if hunting the bear was legal. If they did not have a hunting license, then he is a poacher.



Seriously, pretty sad.





Tom
 
Are you saying they should not investigate the incident? It is legal to carry a firearm in the Park, it is illegal to discharge it. The Park puts out two pages of warnings and instructions on how to handle Bears encountered during hiking and biking. Their has never been a bear shooting in the history of Denali.



If what they say is true and they were blindsided at close range, no problem. If an investigation show them not following instructions or him on you-tube hunting bear with a .45 in the Park they should have a problem.



 
I like the statement:



It's legal to carry firearms in that area of the park but illegal to discharge them.



Yeah, just throw the gun at the bear and lie down and play dead......
 
It is legal to carry a firearm in the Park, it is illegal to discharge it.



It is also illegal to discharge a weapon in public. That doesn't mean there are not instances where it is permissible, though, i.e. self defense.



Just remember...innocent until proven guilty. Its not like he shot the bear and got caught dragging it out. Or shot it and left it laying in brush. He shot it, and reported the incident. I've never heard of poachers shooting animals for sport and then reporting the kills. Until there is proof of wrongdoing, I'm going to assume he's innocent of any crime.



Entry wounds should tell everything they need to know. If the bullet entries are frontal, immediately dismiss the case case. You'll have to take his word on how close it was, but the bear was certainly headed his direction. If the entry wounds are broadside or from the rear, probably a case there and an investigation is certainly warranted.



I just hope common sense is used here and not feelings.
 
National Park Service Morning Report





Today's Report | Recent Editions May 28, 2010May 27, 2010May 26, 2010May 25, 2010May 24, 2010May 21, 2010May 20, 2010



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Tuesday, June 01, 2010







INCIDENTS



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Denali National Park & Preserve (AK)

Grizzly Bear Shot By Backpackers



Two backpackers, a man and woman, encountered a grizzly bear last Friday evening while hiking in the dense brush along the edge of Tattler Creek, which is at the west end of Igloo Canyon, approximately 35 miles from park headquarters. The man, who was in the lead, drew a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol when they heard a noise coming from the brush. When the bear emerged from the thicket and ran toward the other hiker, he fired approximately nine rounds in its general direction. The bear stopped, turned, and walked back into the brush, where it quickly disappeared from view. The backpackers ran and hiked approximately a mile and a half back to the road, where they encountered a National Park Service employee who called in the incident to the parks communication center and transported them to the Toklat Road Camp. A ranger there did a short preliminary interview with them around 10 p.m. Because of the concern that a wounded bear was in the area, four backcountry units were immediately closed and bus drivers were instructed to not drop off day hikers in Igloo Canyon on Saturday. Early Saturday morning, rangers and wildlife technicians flew to Toklat via helicopter to conduct a secondary interview with the two backpackers. Afterwards they flew over Tattler Creek and all of side tributaries, very low at times, to determine if there was an active, wounded bear. No bears were seen during the overflight. Late in the afternoon, three rangers hiked into the site and found the bear dead in a willow thicket approximately 100 feet from the pistol casings. The bears body was transported via helicopter to a landing site on the park road and brought back to headquarters on Sunday, where park wildlife biologists are assisting with the investigation of the bear carcass. The backcountry units have been reopened. The case is still under investigation, and the names of the backpackers are not being released at this time. Park wildlife biologists and rangers are trying to determine if there was a justification for shooting the animal. It is legal to carry a firearm in the former Mt. McKinley National Park portion of the park, but it is not legal to discharge it. This is the first known instance of a grizzly bear being shot by a visitor in the wilderness portion of the park. The estimated grizzly bear population in the park north of the Alaska Range north is 300 to 350 animals. [Submitted by Kris Fister, Public Affairs Officer]





Just can't see why anyone would have any problems with what has been done. No one has been charged. There is no case to drop. It's something that happened in the Park that is being checked out. It's being made out that they are questioning the right of self defense. That's not the case.





 




Lesson number one, first day of recruit training.

It is better to be tried by 12 of your peers than carried by six of your friends.



IMO this applies. The bear attacked and lost the fight.



Mac
 
If a bear is shot in the woods, and nobody hears it...
 
I don't think anyone's questioning whether, if the story truly went down as reported, that the shooting was completely justified. But there is still a legitimate need for at least a basic investigation to occur, simply to verify that things actually unfolded as reported.



It's kind of like when there's a police officer-involved shooting. It doesn't matter how straightforward an incident may appear to have happened, it's still appropriate for a proper investigation to occur--both to make sure that nothing inappopriate happened, and that all that can be done to avoid there being a public perception that something inapppropriate happened.



In either case, the investigation is not a reflection on either the legitimacy of the shooting or the deductive intelligence of the investigators. It's simply standard protocol to make sure everything's on the up and up.
 

Latest posts

Top