We are headed to the Cody Wyoming area in four weeks with elk tags. While I have experience with black bears (depredation kills, tranquilizing, and a nasty encounter with a sow and 3 cubs in Colorado when I was hauling a pack full of elk) I have never even seen a Grizzly. We will be carrying rifles and bear spray (doubt I would drop my rifle for a can of spray). My question to you folks who have encountered Grizzlys in the woods, at what distance, between you and the bear, would you consider using lethal force for self protection ? I understand your decision may be based on the exhibited attitude of the bear.
Grizzly - How close is too close ?
- Thread starter F250
- Start date
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
When it charges. Anything short of that will probably get you a federal court appearance. You can’t reasonably fear for your life just because the bear is close. People are in close proximity to grizzlies daily across the West and AK and Canada with no adverse results. It has to be acting aggressive.
grandejuan
Active member
Listen to Steve Rinella's podcasts on elk hunting Afognak island. It will give you some perspective on close encounters of the worst kind. GJ
shootbrownelk
Well-known member
You had better show some tooth or claw marks or you'd be facing some serious Federal penalties.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
Rzrbck918
Well-known member
My understanding of the case law is that proximity alone is insufficient grounds for a self defense claim. There has to be a justifiable fear of danger of personal harm. I agree with BD that a charge is the only sure defense.
Absolutely not true
while not actually true, u better be able to show the bear did more than bluff charge.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
You have to have a good faith belief that you are protecting yourself from harm. If a bear is charging you, that’s enough. There’s nothing that says you have to differentiate between a bluff charge and a real charge.
TheGrayRider
Well-known member
Self defense - n. the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of assault, battery or homicide.
Not legal advice...just “food” for thought!
Not legal advice...just “food” for thought!
rideold
Well-known member
The Endangered Species Act, Section 11 [16 U.S.C. 1540], Subsection (a)(3):
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no civil penalty shall be imposed if it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed an act based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other individual from bodily harm, from any endangered or threatened species.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no civil penalty shall be imposed if it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed an act based on a good faith belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other individual from bodily harm, from any endangered or threatened species.
Goatshoes
Active member
- Joined
- May 18, 2016
- Messages
- 456
A study led by BYU biologist and bear expert Tom S. Smith found that firing a gun is no more effective in keeping people from injury or death during bear attacks than not using a firearm.
"People should consider carrying a non-lethal deterrent such as bear spray," said Smith, a gun owner himself. "It's much easier to deploy, it's less cumbersome and its success rate in these situations is higher than guns."
In a 2008 study, Smith found that bear spray effectively halted aggressive bear encounters in 92 percent of the cases.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-03-gun-encounters-doesnt-safer.html#jCp
What constitutes "Good faith" 20yds? 50yds? Its not uncommon to have a bear bluff charge to well under 50yds....shot one that's not real close and see what happens
100% + if u don't kill the bear outright with 1st shot you are likely to have an especially irate bear climbing all over u
Bambistew
Well-known member
Just make sure you dont shoot them in the back and you'll be fine for a DLP claim.
You are trying to quantify the unquantifiable. A tiny little change in the context can greatly alter whether a shooting is justifiable or not. For instance, a bear on a steep hill above me, charging towards a person and gets shot at 50 yards is much more justifiable than the same bear charging up a hill. A bear in full charge from 100 yards out and gets shot at 50 yards is much more justifiable than the same bear huffing and popping its teeth without charging and gets shot at 50 yards.
Also, preponderance off the evidence is a fairly low bar in the criminal justice world.
Dinkshooter
Well-known member
When in doubt, take them out!
My redneck version of SSS and smoke a pack a day
My redneck version of SSS and smoke a pack a day
PrairieHunter
Well-known member
Yep. Unless someone video taped the incident it would simply come down to what the game warden was told.
Makes me wonder if there has ever been anyone charged with a crime after shooting a bear in self defense. I certainly can't think of any but maybe it has happened.
There very well may be a wet spot in the front but there for 100% going to be a pile in the back.
Similar threads
