News of this attack popped up on trapperman about two days ago. Its hard to imagine/wrap your head around dealing with it.
It certainly seems like a banner year for griz attacks - especially for those that appear to be predatory. Earlier this year or last, there was a discussion, again, I think it was on trapperman, regarding spray, vs gun, vs what gun, etc. - the usual. But one interesting point that was raised by several people that trap in griz areas and who were strong proponents of guns vs spray was in their perception of the 'statistics' of the effectiveness of bear spray vs gun.
We often hear that spray is more effective, blah, blah. And several of those who responded felt like the stats were twisted, in that the effectiveness of a gun was under-reported, for exactly the reason that Kevin cited - the fiasco of dealing with killing an attacking bear. They felt that they or those they knew that would need to kill (or just shoot) a bear in defense, were far more likely to not report it to avoid dealing with the subsequent investigation than someone that had deployed spray. I.e., "what happens in the woods stays in the woods". I'm not advocating this, just stating the arguement.
I suspect the trend will continue if the attacks continue, and if the current legal climate continues...