I shot the one that nailed me 5 times with a .44 magnum at point blank range, but didn't kill her. In the heat of battle aiming is not as simple as we like to think. I hope USFWS doesn't try to punish him, but I can see it happening, especially since he had no spray with him.
This is something that most tend to forget, including me. But it goes back to training.
Considering the article mentioned he had non, I bet they'll be going after him on that. Even though the data doesn't support it, but to each their own.
I'll have to do some looking. But I thought I read about 2ish years ago of a griz attack either in MT or WY that the person was charged due to not using spray first... I'll have to do some digging now.
If you don’t mind sharing I would like to hear a bit more about your story.
I can see where if someone had it and chose not to use it, depending on the circumstance that could play into it.
Absolutely not on private land. It’s not in general on public lands, and I’m pretty sure we weren’t required to carry it as part our backcountry use permit in GNP. I sure don’t remember having it and I’m certain we would have if it was required.
I'm pretty sure he was aiming at that bear to defend his life in a totally volatile situation. Pretty sure intended results are to hit the bear and break the charge seems like I'm glad he's ok not lucky. No you don't have to carry spray and no it's not illegal to carry a gun and defend yourself from a grizzly bear in MT.
Not sure what you mean by that but what I was saying is it's not easy to shoot and kill a grizzly at full charge with a pistol. I think he is lucky he made a kill shot on it before it was able to get to him.
Ahhh... I think what I was thinking was someone in YSP or thr Elk Refuge in WY, where they were required to have bear spray due to a permit and they didn't.
That would make sense. It was probably the elk refuge. I’ve never carried it in YNP when I was fishing.
Why would you not shoot to kill? Confused?
