Grizzly bear kills two people in Banff National Park

[ResAlien]

I make sure to leave my pic-a-nic baskets at home. Never had any issue with bears doing that

[driveway]

This is the 5th fatal bear attack reported in either Jasper or Banff National Park since the 1950s.

In that time those parks have to be close to 100 million total visitors.

We're going to allow guns in National Parks because there is a 0.000005% chance of a fatal bear encounter?

Oh wait, cougars ... right, there's been 1 fatal attack in Banff/Jasper since 1970, so we're talking a 0.000006% chance.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by driveway

This is the 5th fatal bear attack reported in either Jasper or Banff National Park since the 1950s.

In that time those parks have to be close to 100 million total visitors.

We're going to allow guns in National Parks because there is a 0.000005% chance of a fatal bear encounter?

Oh wait, cougars ... right, there's been 1 fatal attack in Banff/Jasper since 1970, so we're talking a 0.000006% chance.

Yup.

The value of peace of mind can't be overstated. And honestly, that could only work in the parks favour if they want people to continue flooding through their gates and paying the toll.

I'm pretty sure this story shook most regular local hikers I know, and I haven't seen them out there since.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Conservation officers kill more bears than people carrying firearms for protection. By… a lot. And nobody is suggesting allowing hunting in National Parks.

Nobody feels forced to enter the park, people do it because they want to. And people are wondering why the imaginary line between where you can carry a firearm for wildlife protection and where you can’t exists where it does. Saying “nobody is forced to cross the line” doesn’t answer the question.

First, it shouldn't be surprising that people who's job it is to look after and control animals end up killing more of them, since it is part of the job, and done as a last resort by people qualified to make that decision.



As the bold...because it is a park, for conservation of wildlfe. You keep ignoring that part, so it's all I'll type.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, it is simple, that’s what people already do. Nobody is demanding they change it, people are wondering why that rule exists for all of a national park when there are areas that are indistinguishable from those where guns for wildlife protection are allowed.

On a per-encounter basis, I’d guess you’re more likely to be at higher risk with the bear. Tough the find stats that tell the whole story, but from a cruise through some info, it looks like wild animals have caused a lot more deaths of non-hunters than hunters have. And those are people actively out there looking to shoot something, not people carrying for protection.

Well yes, because the rules keep guns away from non-hunters...

Isn't it more relevant to see how humans fare when mingling with armed humans?


https://cssa-cila.org/hunting-accide...can-do-better/

“Thanks to a strong culture of safety in the firearms community, gun accidents are rare,” Mauser writes. “In the past five years (2015-2019), the most recent years statistics are available, 11 Canadians died each year from an accidental firearms injury.”

“This is less than half the number of accidental deaths in the early 2000s,” he says, “when 26 people lost their lives through firearms accidents.”

Non-specific to activity, but still a relevant number to see what happens when guns and humans mix.

Now I can't find a source for this, but I'm pretty sure the number of gun related accidental deaths are approximately 0 per year when guns are not present.


I think this study dates to the 90s and I did not read the actual study

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/..._4/p6.html#a61

Canadian research is limited on the circumstances of firearm accidents, such as hunting and other types of accidents, and individual and environmental factors. Researchers recently conducted a study in Quebec and found that 37 percent of accidental deaths resulted from a hunting incident; five percent occurred when the shooter was carrying a firearm; and 48 percent occurred during other activities. In 55 percent of cases, the shooter accidentally shot himself.

We can slap all these numbers together and see that at least a few people die each year from hunting related accidents.

From 1970-2018 there were 21 fatalities from grizzly attacks in Canada...but most of these happened outside National Parks, most likely where people were free to possess firearms.
(https://grizzlybearfoundation.com/bl...y-in-the-yukon)

Now that is all very lazy first google result stuff, feel free to tear it to shreds. I found a good list of fatal attacks in N.A. that I'll wade through to see how many times a firearm might have helped within a national park

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

When faced with that 1% case of an animal that will probably slowly and greusomely massacre them and even feed on them while they're still breathing, they're assured that a modest reserve of spray will hit its target and successfully deter it.

I wish I could confidently have that much trust in a can of anything.

If the same rules that exist for hunters/carriers on crown land were expanded to parks backcountry I really doubt things would suddenly devolve into Dick Cheney shootings every weekend in the woods. Rules and regulations are in place and this is Canada. It's not like they'd be handing out rifles to Joe shmoe at the door.

You just retain massive penalties for shooting down protected species in non emergency situations.

Personally, I'd feel comforted knowing a few people out there have the means to scare off a dangerous animal. And that doesn't necessarily mean gunning down the animal where mistakes could be made, but firing a warning shot to scare it. Often times, that's enough to gain the upper hand in that situation.

There are less than 10 (probably closer to 4-5) wardens patrolling the 6000+ sq kms of true wilderness in BNP. It's already a bit of a #### show where poachers cross the imaginary line...give them an excuse of plausible deniability and watch what happens.

Originally Posted by TrentCrimmIndependent

Yup.

The value of peace of mind can't be overstated. And honestly, that could only work in the parks favour if they want people to continue flooding through their gates and paying the toll.

I'm pretty sure this story shook most regular local hikers I know, and I haven't seen them out there since.

It can also be stated as a false sense of security, which is probably more dangerous.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

First, it shouldn't be surprising that people who's job it is to look after and control animals end up killing more of them, since it is part of the job, and done as a last resort by people qualified to make that decision.



As the bold...because it is a park, for conservation of wildlfe. You keep ignoring that part, so it's all I'll type.

So, the people in charge of conserving wildlife can kill wildlife and that’s understandable, but people who are attacked by wildlife… can’t… because we need to conserve the wildlife that conservation officers are going to kill because they attacked a person… got it.

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Well yes, because the rules keep guns away from non-hunters...

They don’t, actually, as you can carry a gun for wildlife protection without hunting and nobody is suggesting changing any of the rules related to gun ownership or licensing.

I read those studies as well, I also read this one, but like those the information just doesn’t tell an accurate enough story to know exactly what to make out of if:

https://www.ofah.org/wp-content/uplo...l-activity.pdf

Basically says that non-hunter injuries stemming from hunting activity is extremely rare, and that’s in areas where hunting is actively occurring, not in a National Park where hunting would still not be allowed.

[powderjunkie]

Ultimately, the most relevant stat to consider if probably fatal bear attacks within a Canadian National/Provincial Parks (it sounds like guns aren't necessarily prohibited in the US parks), and how many of these might have been mitigated with a firearm? I'll actually put in a bit of work here, but this list may not be comprehensive:

1. Doug Inglis, 62, male
2. Jenny Gusse, 62, Female [15] September 29, 2023 Wild Red Deer River Valley, Banff National Park, Alberta A response team trained in wildlife attacks were mobilized, after receiving an alert from an inReach GPS device at about 8 p.m. on Friday Sept 29, 2023, but weather conditions at the time did not allow for helicopter use, leading the team to travel to the location by ground through the night. The response team arrived at 1 a.m. and found two deceased individuals and their dog (Tress), also killed. A grizzly bear displaying aggressive behavior was encountered and euthanized at the site.[16][17]

Seems unlikely a gun would have helped; perhaps could have saved one of them

3. (Black Bear) Jacqueline Perry, 30, female September 6, 2005 Wild Missinaibi Lake Provincial Park, Ontario Perry was killed in an attack at a remote campsite.[108] Her husband was seriously injured trying to protect her with a Swiss Army knife, and later was given a Star of Courage award from Governor General Michaëlle Jean.[109] Ministry of Natural Resources staff shot and killed the bear near the area where the fatal attack occurred.[110]

Gun may have helped; hard to say if it would have been soon enough to save her life

4. Isabelle Dubé, 35, female June 5, 2005 Wild Canmore, Alberta Dubé was killed while jogging with two friends on the Bench Trail. After an initial attack, Dubé climbed a tree while her friends sought help. The bear brought Dubé down from the tree and mauled her.[133][134] Fish and wildlife officers shot and killed the bear.[134] At the time of the attack, the trail was closed, and the public had been told to avoid it.[135] A few days earlier, the bear had been relocated from Canmore to Banff National Park.[133]

Gun may have helped, though hard to say how likely 3 women would be to carry a gun(s) while jogging.

5. (Black Bear) Raymond Kitchen, 56, male
6. Patti McConnell, 37, female August 14, 1997 Wild Liard River Hot Springs Provincial Park, British Columbia McConnell died from injuries while defending herself and her 13-year-old son Kelly from a black bear attack on a boardwalk to the hot springs. Kitchen heard the attack in progress, and was killed while attempting to rescue. Kelly and a 20-year-old man were also injured. The bear was shot while standing over the victims.[141][142] McConnell's son received a Star of Courage for his attempt to save his mother. Kitchen also received the honor, posthumously.[143]

gun may have helped, but it's worth noting the number of humans that may have been caught in crossfire

7. (Black bear) Raymond Jakubauskas, 32, male
8. Carola Frehe, 48, female October 11, 1991 Wild Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario While they were setting up camp on Bates Island, a black bear broke both of their necks. The bear then dragged their bodies into the woods and consumed the remains. When police arrived five days later, the bear was guarding the bodies. A park naturalist called the attack "right off the scale of normal bear behavior".[149][150]

a gun may have helped; seems more likely to save one of them than both

9. Christine Courtney, 32, female July 5, 1996 Wild Kluane National Park, Yukon Courtney was killed while hiking on the Slim's Valley trail in Kluane National Park. Her husband was also attacked but survived. Park wardens killed the bear.[163]

gun may have helped

10. Trevor Percy-Lancaster, 40, male September 15, 1992 Wild Jasper National Park, Alberta Percy-Lancaster and his wife were setting up camp in an isolated area of the Tonquin Valley. They surprised a bear, and began running away. The bear initially caught Percy-Lancaster's wife, and then he distracted the bear, which turned on him.[168][169]

don't want to victim blame, especially considering it was 31 years ago and I don't know what conventional wisdom was at the time, but I find it hard to imagine proficient deployment of a gun instead of fleeing

11. Ernest Cohoe, 38, male August 24, 1980 Wild near Banff, Alberta While fishing with a friend just north of Banff, Alberta, a bear charged and bit off part of Cohoe's face. He died a week later as a result of the injuries.[193][194]

gun may have helped...though hard to say if it would have precluded the charge


In every case where a gun may have helped, bear spray may also have been just as effective (not listed in these summaries, would have to dive deeper to see if it was deployed). If bear spray was present but not deployed for whatever reason, it seems likely that a firearm would also not have been deployed for those same reasons.

So it's really a question of how many times has bear spray been insufficient, and for what reason? If the reason was inaccuracy, then a firearm is unlikely to have fared better. Properly deployed, you can fire ~4 good bursts from a can. So maybe bullets #5 and beyond would be the difference maker.

Without reading deeply into each of these incidents, we only know of 1 can of emptied bear spray

43 years, 11 fatalities where guns were prohibited as an option. You'd have to dive more deeply to consider relative gun use vs. national park backcountry use (though many of these were not far off the beaten track), but I can't fathom any way to twist the numbers to conclude it is safer to be in the presence of a firearm than it is to be in bear-country without one.



A few incidents where guns were present and failed to save (there are many more, I wasn't really looking for them):

12. Claudia Huber, 42, female October 14, 2014 Wild near Teslin, Yukon A 25-year-old healthy male grizzly bear broke into a home and chased the victim and her husband outside. The bear pursued and fatally attacked Ms. Huber. Her husband, Matthias Liniger, shot at the bear and killed it.[69]

13. Rick Cross, 54, male September 7, 2014 Wild Kananaskis Country, Alberta Cross, a hunter, was killed by a mother bear when he accidentally got between her and her cubs. Park rangers stated that it appeared that Cross managed to fire his rifle before being overwhelmed. RCMP said it appeared he wandered into the area where the mother and cub were feeding on a dead deer.[71]

14. Ken Novotny, 53, male September 17, 2014 Wild near Norman Wells, Northwest Territories While on a hunting trip near Norman Wells, Novotny was charged and struck by a bear. Friends reported Novotny had just killed a moose and was processing the carcass when the bear "came out of nowhere." He died on the scene. Authorities later found and killed the bear responsible for his death.[70]

15. Don Peters, 51, male November 25, 2007 Wild near Sundre, Alberta Peters' body was found 200 metres (660 ft) from his parked truck. He was on a hunting trip. An autopsy confirmed that he died due to a grizzly bear attack. The bear that attacked Peters was captured and killed the following April.[126][127]

[GioforPM]

meanwhile:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vJxq8bsuK0

[MoneyGuy]

Article on the Glacier night of the grizzlies.

https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoo...ght-grizzlies/

[TKB]

Originally Posted by Hey Connor, It's Mess

This thread did a great job of exposing the loonies on here, if nothing else. Nearly spat my drink out reading that people would genuinely prefer bear spray to a firearm in a bear attack.

It’s pretty mind boggling. I would be 1000x more confident in protecting myself with a firearm than bear spray, not even sure how this is a debate.

[tkflames]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

fantastic summaty

Fantastic summary powderjunkie. Summary...11 people die per year from accidental gun discharge and 11 people have fide in a gun prohibited area by bear attack in the last 43 years and the solution is more guns?

I don't understand why people who want guns feel the need to justify them. Outside of very discreet incidents, they are more likely to escalate a situation or kill someone accidentally. If you like having a gun because it makes you feel confident or good or you like shooting it - great! I am all for that. However, trying to justify it as personal protection against an animal or crime is nonsense.

[Sr. Mints]

Originally Posted by Russic

I feel like this is being glossed over and is worth repeating. For some of us, the issue isn't "which would you rather have in an encounter," it's "do you mind people in the park having firearms." I don't mind that hunters carry guns into the backcountry because there are clear rules that keep them isolated from other people.

I trust bears a lot more than I do people.

My parents' ~15-20lb dog was shot by a hunter/hiker/farmer/?? down near Crowsnest Pass before I was born, and they were about 50 feet from her. I've heard that story dozens of times. My folks were always they last thing from backcountry people.

My dad was so weird about nature after that. Growing up we used to just chalk it up to him being a spaz.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by tkflames

Fantastic summary powderjunkie. Summary...11 people die per year from accidental gun discharge and 11 people have fide in a gun prohibited area by bear attack in the last 43 years and the solution is more guns?

I don't understand why people who want guns feel the need to justify them. Outside of very discreet incidents, they are more likely to escalate a situation or kill someone accidentally. If you like having a gun because it makes you feel confident or good or you like shooting it - great! I am all for that. However, trying to justify it as personal protection against an animal or crime is nonsense.

Why do wildlife officers carry them, then?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

meanwhile:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vJxq8bsuK0

Lol...I am far, far from an expert on Guns, but some of those people....that guy is right, they need to be removed from the gene pool.

Like...looking down the barrel of your rifle after a hang-fire?? Thats a Looney Tunes Elmer Fudd joke FFS...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Why do wildlife officers carry them, then?

Mainly as a deterrents to predators of the human variety. If you are confronting armed poachers in remote areas where there aren't witnesses, you are going to want a firearm.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Why do wildlife officers carry them, then?

Because they’re basically police officers who work in parks.

https://www.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife-officer

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Why do wildlife officers carry them, then?

You don’t see a difference between trained professionals responding to a known threat vs a bunch of weekend warriors practicing their quick draw every time they hear a rustle in the bushes?

Do you think arming humans in daily life is a good solution, too? If police officers carry guns it only makes sense that we all should.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And people are wondering why the imaginary line between where you can carry a firearm for wildlife protection and where you can’t exists where it does. Saying “nobody is forced to cross the line” doesn’t answer the question.

You're thinking about this backwards. The question should be "why the hell do we allow carrying firearms on the other side of the line". Probably because it makes hunting laws/enforcement easier, and because Mini-Texas syndrome.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

So, the people in charge of conserving wildlife can kill wildlife and that’s understandable, but people who are attacked by wildlife… can’t… because we need to conserve the wildlife that conservation officers are going to kill because they attacked a person… got it.

Yeah no ####.

Joe Blow with his gun and bear spray that gets jumpy around wildlife is going to reach for his gun and blast the poor critter in the face first, because he doesn't know what he's doing.

Conservation officers are trained professionals, and have taken courses and training to know when to reach for the bear spray (which they also carry) or the gun. They are also the ones called in to deal with aggressive/problem animals, and face disproportionate encounters with problem animals compared to those of us out there in our full Patagonia kit. If everyone has to go through the same vetting and training as conservation officers before they can carry a gun, and are subject to the same loss of income for doing it wrong, ok, maybe.

Otherwise you're just saying this is what you want:

MOD EDIT: Removed image as it was causing malware flags in some browsers, please rehost images.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

You don’t see a difference between trained professionals responding to a known threat vs a bunch of weekend warriors practicing their quick draw every time they hear a rustle in the bushes?

Do you think arming humans in daily life is a good solution, too? If police officers carry guns it only makes sense that we all should.

You’re missing the point. I see the difference, I just reject the idea that carrying a firearm for wildlife protection is not actually for wildlife protection, but rather some psychological hang-up. It is completely undeniable that people carry guns for wildlife protection. It’s quite literally one of the reasons you’re allowed to carry a gun. The government didn’t just make up that reason to appease people.

Why would I think arming humans in daily life is a good solution? I don’t think arming humans in the woods is a good solution either, I just think the line between where they can be armed and where they can’t be is arbitrary.

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

You're thinking about this backwards. The question should be "why the hell do we allow carrying firearms on the other side of the line". Probably because it makes hunting laws/enforcement easier, and because Mini-Texas syndrome.



Yeah no ####.

Joe Blow with his gun and bear spray that gets jumpy around wildlife is going to reach for his gun and blast the poor critter in the face first, because he doesn't know what he's doing.

Conservation officers are trained professionals, and have taken courses and training to know when to reach for the bear spray (which they also carry) or the gun. They are also the ones called in to deal with aggressive/problem animals, and face disproportionate encounters with problem animals compared to those of us out there in our full Patagonia kit. If everyone has to go through the same vetting and training as conservation officers before they can carry a gun, and are subject to the same loss of income for doing it wrong, ok, maybe.

Otherwise you're just saying this is what you want:

MOD EDIT: Removed image as it was causing malware flags in some browsers, please rehost images.

Requiring a high level of training makes total sense. Having a gun is a big responsibility that people don’t take seriously enough (much more seriously here than in the US though, at least).

Even saying hey, we actually shouldn’t allow guns for wildlife protection at all… you know what? That makes sense, too. That’s a valid argument and one that has legs, and I think a lot of the arguments point towards that with or without intending to, but in the end they are allowed elsewhere so giving those kinds of reasons as to why they shouldn’t be allowed in Parks specifically seems dumb.

“They’re not as effective as bearspray” - OK, well they’re nearly as effective as bearspray so carry both seems twice as safe.

“These areas are for conservation” - Yet conservation officers kill more animals than anyone carrying for wildlife protection even does, by far (and kill the animals that attack people anyway) so that’s out the window.

“I’m less safe in the woods with other people carrying” - Maybe? But stats seem to indicate they pose less of a thread than animals, so….

“People don’t carry them for protection they just want a gun” - Except people very much do carry them for protection so why pretend?

I think there are valid arguments against guns in general, guns in the backcountry, etc, but when the question is “Why are they allowed in the backcountry and not in a National Park” almost nobody has come close to addressing that question. “Because guns are bad” might be true, but that is not a valid reason as to why they are allowed in one area and not the other. You know what I mean?

People should get out and go hunting sometime (in Canada, ideally, where it is less insane). Go with someone who knows what they’re doing. You get a different view of a gun owner that isn’t some “jumpy guy in patagonia”/“bandana wearing gun bro” stereotype. Would at least give you a sense of who is actually out there instead of some inflated fear.