Grizzly bear kills two people in Banff National Park

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Every study in the history of studies has caveats. But we'll take your word for it that these caveats invalidate this particular study because you want it to.

I didn’t call the whole thing invalid, did I? I’m just suggesting that it’s worth actually reading it beyond just reading the summary as it gives better context which, imo, would have people less reluctant to put a stake in the ground

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

And you can make the same argument about the bear spray related incidents (that study cited was from one of these same authors) - there would be just as many non-reported non-injury incidents.

You can’t, actually, because the data they collected is from different sources and the data that is incomplete in the firearm one, which they say would change the numbers, is not relevant to the bear spray one (in which there is no similar caveat).

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If spray cans were discharged it doesn't add a whole lot to the knowledge, since there's no way to know when in the incident (too early, too late or as directed), if they were used properly or if they functioned properly.

One weird fact: this couple has the exact same first names as me and my wife.

They may find bear spray remnants on the bear, which would tell you it didn't work to save their lives.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Wanna hike in Alberta without worrying about bears? There is one park that doesn't have any - they haven't had a bear there since 1890.

Cougars though, are another story.

We talking about Lake Bonavista? Plenty of coogs there...

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by Sliver

We talking about Lake Bonavista? Plenty of coogs there...

Let's not bring your mother into this, shall we?

[woob]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You’re telling me these people had time to text but no time to try the bear spray?

No to be overally morbid, but I'm guessing the inReach message likely went out after the attack.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Wanna hike in Alberta without worrying about bears? There is one park that doesn't have any - they haven't had a bear there since 1890.

Cougars though, are another story.

Bear attacks are so rare that worrying about them is not logical at all. Elks attack more people.

[Minnie]

I'm aware. But there are people who do, so...

Cypress Hills Prov Park says the last bear there was in 1890 and it was shot and killed. When we were there in June, the only warning signs were for cougars and it was the same thing we were told at the info centre.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by woob

No to be overally morbid, but I'm guessing the inReach message likely went out after the attack.

The fact they messaged "Bear attack bad" sure implies it was after being injured.

There's more information in this article. https://www.msn.com/en-ca/travel/new...da/ar-AA1hEk9b

"Inglis said Parks Canada told him that one bear spray canister was used, but not the second one."

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I didn’t call the whole thing invalid, did I? I’m just suggesting that it’s worth actually reading it beyond just reading the summary as it gives better context which, imo, would have people less reluctant to put a stake in the ground



You can’t, actually, because the data they collected is from different sources and the data that is incomplete in the firearm one, which they say would change the numbers, is not relevant to the bear spray one (in which there is no similar caveat).

Nice to see you read the studies. Are you ready based on the conclusion of those studies to allow hikers (who the average one certainly won’t be proficient as the gun carriers in the studies) isn’t going to help.

Right now you sound like Seewhyguy in the Covid threads parsing random comments out of the studies rather than following the broad conclusions.

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

If spray cans were discharged it doesn't add a whole lot to the knowledge, since there's no way to know when in the incident (too early, too late or as directed), if they were used properly or if they functioned properly.

One weird fact: this couple has the exact same first names as me and my wife.

I think knowing would be useful info to aid deducing what happened. I'd assume that if all 3 were killed by the bear, a portion of the scenario related to not wanting to run and/or running too late/inability to flee. As long as all of them had run or kept running, the assumption is that the odds should be reasonable for at least one potentially surviving out of the 3.

I think the article does hint that they were all found near the same area (their campsite). The article says they did everything else right, so if the spray was discharged, I assume some form of standing their ground or surprise that caused them all to succumb together. ie: Trying to save dog/each other and trying to scare off/fight the bear that was insistent on sticking around and succumbing to the wounds in the skirmish. Or maybe there was some facet of being tired after full day hiking (Age 60s) or minor injury during hike that kept them from vacating the vicinity quickly (ie: sprain or other ailment).

If the spray was not discharged, I assume it was some form of being rapidly cornered away from their supplies and/or surprised by the bear. Maybe like in the tent when they were getting ready to rest or a campsite by a ridge or something that restricted their ability to effectively flee? Considering the alert was 8PM and sunset around 7 ish, darkness could be a huge component of how it all transpired in this specific way.

It doesn't seem logical that the bear would have insisted to hunt all 3 plus hang around and still be ultra aggressive in that specific spot from the initial potential attack at 8PM and then 5 hours later when the rescue party showed up... so I'm assuming the location played a big part of what had happed if the couple were experienced and had supposedly done everything else correctly.

In one of my previous posts, I had asked why the bear might have hung around for so long. Logically, it made sense that a bear might hangout in an area for a few hours to collect a few pounds of food per something I think I read. But I did overlook in this case it might have been considered a few hundred pounds of food for the bear. The confusing factor might have been why the bear was still aggressive after feeding for a few hours, but the comments about the bear potentially protecting the food make sense too.

Honestly it doesn't matter, but it's just curiousity.

[GioforPM]

^^ Fair to say this was a pretty unusual set of events so there may be nothing to draw from it at all.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Bear attacks are so rare that worrying about them is not logical at all. Elks attack more people.

Unless they play for Edmonton, then you really dont have to worry about getting hit.

[Torture]

This thread is such a trip.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Torture

This thread is such a trip.

Honestly, I love CalgaryPuck when it turns into users just starting post what is essentially a 'stream of consciousness' and threads just start weaving all over the place.

Its a fascinating study of the human psyche.

It would be interesting if there were psychologists lurking in the background watching everything and considering this place as a Social Experiment.

"I see...they've now turned on the Bears...turn up the heat...call the NHL and delay the season 2 more weeks...lets see where this goes..."

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

If the spray was not discharged, I assume it was some form of being rapidly cornered away from their supplies and/or surprised by the bear.

This is the likely event. They notified their friend they were okay and setting up camp, being unable to make it to the spot they were hoping to. There was no time mentioned, but it's safe to deduce that perhaps they tried to go as long as they could, giving themselves enough time to set up camp before dark (around 8:00). But the weather that day was cold (Banff was +3C), cloudy, raining (or even snowing), and likely breezy. Looking at the radar, rain was in the area. With clouds, darkness would have been around 7 like you say, or even earlier if in tree cover. Given the conditions, it's highly likely they were trying to warm up in the tent. The only question is, they mentioned the foot was stored properly (assuming up a tree), so perhaps they were eating in the tent while the rest of the food was stored away? With the conditions outside, they may have had minimal warning the bear was approaching and one person was able to use the bear spray while the other was being focused on. There was no way they could likely run.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

We can certainly debate the definition of 'proficiency', but there is plenty of literature to suggest proficiency rates may not be terribly high among gun owners. And this line does nothing to suggest it is the 'best' tool, but it is only a possibly effective tool for a small segment of the population.

Any of that literature come from 1883?

[greyshep]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

^^ Fair to say this was a pretty unusual set of events so there may be nothing to draw from it at all.

Yep. As mentioned earlier in the thread there is just no way to have all the facts at hand and to speculate on the cause is a fruitless exercise. Just an unfortunate set of events and result. Must have been a terrifying end for this group.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by woob

No to be overally morbid, but I'm guessing the inReach message likely went out after the attack.

I think the text saying they had set up camp was at 5 pm but the call for help was at 8 pm leading me to think that the attack was later in the evening.

Otherwise, the attack might have occurred earlier but with injuries, they could not get to their beacon to call for help until later?

Many things unknown at this time.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Torture

This thread is such a trip.

377 posts in three days. Rising up the Hottest Threads of 2023 charts like a rocket.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

This is the likely event. They notified their friend they were okay and setting up camp, being unable to make it to the spot they were hoping to. There was no time mentioned, but it's safe to deduce that perhaps they tried to go as long as they could, giving themselves enough time to set up camp before dark (around 8:00). But the weather that day was cold (Banff was +3C), cloudy, raining (or even snowing), and likely breezy. Looking at the radar, rain was in the area. With clouds, darkness would have been around 7 like you say, or even earlier if in tree cover. Given the conditions, it's highly likely they were trying to warm up in the tent. The only question is, they mentioned the foot was stored properly (assuming up a tree), so perhaps they were eating in the tent while the rest of the food was stored away? With the conditions outside, they may have had minimal warning the bear was approaching and one person was able to use the bear spray while the other was being focused on. There was no way they could likely run.

That's a lot of "what if's" and things experienced people like that would not do(eating in a tent). Their first check in they were at camp came at 5pm.