Hiker Killed by Grizzly Bear in Yellowstone

Since we're on the subject of bear attacks, do any of you have any knowledge of the shelf life of Counter Assault? We purchased 2 cans for a 2012 North Cascades backpacking trip, and have carried them with us on every trip into bear country. We've had them out a few times, but never had to squeeze the trigger. So we've now had them going on 3 years. Anyone know how long that stuff is good for?
 
Tres Westbrook said:
Since we're on the subject of bear attacks, do any of you have any knowledge of the shelf life of Counter Assault? We purchased 2 cans for a 2012 North Cascades backpacking trip, and have carried them with us on every trip into bear country. We've had them out a few times, but never had to squeeze the trigger. So we've now had them going on 3 years. Anyone know how long that stuff is good for?
Click to expand...
There should be an expiration date on it.
There is on ours, but I'm not sure of the brand we have.
Cheers
IRG
 
http://www.counterassault.com/faq.htm

12. What is the shelf life of bear pepper spray?

Counter Assault products have a four-year recommended replacement date because ALL aerosols lose propellant over time. This four-year replacement date means that it will shoot to maximum distance the first four years, and will still spray a considerable distance after that date. For example, Counter Assault Bear Deterrent, when new, sprays 30 to 32 feet whereas many other bear deterrents only spray from 15 feet to 20 feet when freshly manufactured. Though the potency of the pepper does not diminish, all aerosol canister seals will weaken over time, allowing the propellant to escape.
 
The park intends to euthanize the sow and her cubs once they determine they were indeed responsible. What do you guys think of that? I'm inclined to believe that we take risks traveling in the wilderness and a bear like this with no known history of human aggression shouldn't be killed. At least not without knowing more about how and why it occurred. But on the other hand, if there was compelling evidence that killing and then feeding on a human makes it extremely likely to happen again, maybe I could understand. I don't know. I'm curious to hear other's thoughts.

I saw this petition roll across my Facebook feed a few minutes ago. 53k+ signatures of people saying don't kill them.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/814/...src=LG_fb&campaign=DontKillYellowstoneGrizzly
 
Nick said:
The park intends to euthanize the sow and her cubs once they determine they were indeed responsible. What do you guys think of that? I'm inclined to believe that we take risks traveling in the wilderness and a bear like this with no known history of human aggression shouldn't be killed. At least not without knowing more about how and why it occurred. But on the other hand, if there was compelling evidence that killing and then feeding on a human makes it extremely likely to happen again, maybe I could understand. I don't know. I'm curious to hear other's thoughts.

I saw this petition roll across my Facebook feed a few minutes ago. 53k+ signatures of people saying don't kill them.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/814/...src=LG_fb&campaign=DontKillYellowstoneGrizzly
Click to expand...

I agree. Let the bear live!
 
Nick said:
I'm inclined to believe that we take risks traveling in the wilderness and a bear like this with no known history of human aggression shouldn't be killed.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, 100%. Except for the no known history of human aggression part. What kind of history of human aggression do you need? She just killed and ate some poor fawker. She's a man eater. Sounds like a pretty serious history of human aggression, to me.

They say... Humans are downright tasty. Long pork, was the euphemism the last of the cannibals used. The other white meat. Sweet and tender, so all the descriptions go. In the literature, it's not hard to find examples of bears going back for more, after that first taste, of the forbidden fruit. We're soft and slow and full of good fat and calorically dense. And tasty. For an animal that burns fat for energy - unlike most of humanity who've fallen into the carb trap, why wouldn't a nursing sow bear easily capable of stalking, killing and eating us, go back for more? My reading of the literature, says she is way more likely to, than a bear that hasn't tasted the forbidden fruit. I'm sure that will be disbelieved and discarded as nonsense, here. I trust Art to ferret out and read the tea leaves on it, if he wishes, and will abandon the subject entirely now, myself.

I'm all for letting people take their chances out there. Everywhere. In all contexts. Totally in favor of way less rescue and overall concern for human safety. Let idiots (or the simply unlucky), die out at the Wave, rather than further burden everyone with regulations and access restriction which serves only to save the lives of the unprepared. Let 'em just die. I'm fine with that. Apply that concept universally. I'm down.

Bear country? Same deal. I'm fine with letting the bears rule as they please. No repercussion for eating people. Provided, we humans are legally allowed to care for ourselves. I end up as predator turds? Sounds good to me. But, do allow me freedom to fully participate in the event. In which case, take it as sadly, and I won't begrudge the thought, but, I like MY chances.

But that's not reality, or ever going to be reality. The world is moving, at an ever accelerating pace, in the opposite direction. If gov't is going to make rules and restrict our behavior, "for our own good" and the good of the animals, then gov't killing of the killers is just part and parcel of it. I don't see trying to have it both ways as very reasonable. Kill the bear and move on... Else let people get eaten, or not, according to their own conscience, ability and luck. But also let them fully participate in their own fate, without repercussion. But, like I said, that's not reality.

None of which, touches on the real issue here. Which are the financial aspects. Money is the ultimate driver of all policy decision anymore. In all areas of gov't. Finances dictate that man eaters be destroyed. None of our thoughts or concerns will be consulted, except as elaborate diversion. Money best served by destruction of killer bear. End of story.

- DAA
 
I think the bears should live. At the most, they should take them to a less visited area to appease the people who want them killed. It seems appeasing them is the only reason they're really euthanizing the bears anyway.
 
DAA said:
Except for the no known history of human aggression part. What kind of history of human aggression do you need? She just killed and ate some poor fawker.
Click to expand...

I worded that poorly. I should have specified no previous history.

DAA said:
My reading of the literature, says she is way more likely to, than a bear that hasn't tasted the forbidden fruit.
Click to expand...

See, that's why I asked. I want to hear what others have read or heard as to whether they would go back for more. So thank you, I'd love to hear more if you are so inclined. Obviously it makes sense, it's just not something I have any direct knowledge of.
 
IntrepidXJ said:
Remember, if those bears aren't destroyed and they injure/kill someone else, the NPS will most likely be sued.
Click to expand...

I had forgotten that. It really is all about the Benjamins when you get down to it.
 
I seem to remember the statistics showing that a bear that has predated on humans is much more likely to be a repeat offender. Someone over at the Yellowstone Hiking FB page said that in 2011 a bear that had killed a hiker was just relocated and killed another person a month later. I don't remember that incident and I have not yet looked up the statistics I mentioned. When I do I will cite them.
 
langutah said:
I seem to remember the statistics showing that a bear that has predated on humans is much more likely to be a repeat offender. Someone over at the Yellowstone Hiking FB page said that in 2011 a bear that had killed a hiker was just relocated and killed another person a month later. I don't remember that incident and I have not yet looked up the statistics I mentioned. When I do I will cite them.
Click to expand...
The bear in 2011 was a sow with 2 cubs of the year. They did not relocate her that I'm aware of, they just let her be. She then later was at the scene of the dead body of the second incident along the Mary Mountain Trail. She and her cubs where definitely eating him. But from reading that report, it sounded like a few other bears were eating on his body too. If you want a good, long read, that will get you nowhere and really confuse you about the incident, do a search on the NPS Yellowstone website in the news feeds for 2011. Actually, I think I have it saved in my email somewhere. I will try to find it and send it to you. I think you will find it interesting. Hugh and I are mentioned in there.

I'm yet to have anyone give me an explanation for that 2nd attack. The victim was attacked from behind while taking a snack break. His body was there for a few days before they found it. Interestingly, all of the bears in the area overlooked the ham sandwhich lying on the ground from his snack bag. which was still there when they found him. They did kill that sow after the second incident.
 
Last edited:
Also, on that sow from 2011, there was a poster on the backpacker and ynet websites who sprayed a sow and cub off trail in Hayden Valley, about a week before the first death. The sow charged out of a tree strand, and he saw one cub behind her. I've always speculated that it was the same sow.
 
I personally only use Counter Assault. There are a few other brands that are good, I'm just more trusting of Counter Assault.

IntrepidXJ said:
Counter Assault Bear Deterrent, when new, sprays 30 to 32 feet whereas many other bear deterrents only spray from 15 feet to 20 feet when freshly manufactured
Click to expand...
I do think they are stretching the truth here. I test fire every new can I purchase, and I've never seen them shoot 30 feet. Maybe in an enclosed or wind blocked area.
 
There are 2 things I'm particular curious about with this incident:
1. What time of day did this take place.
2. Was he trail running or jogging.
 
Joey said:
Also, on that sow from 2011, there was a poster on the backpacker and ynet websites who sprayed a sow and cub off trail in Hayden Valley, about a week before the first death. The sow charged out of a tree strand, and he saw one cub behind her. I've always speculated that it was the same sow.
Click to expand...
Did the spray work in repelling/demotivating her?
 
Joey said:
There are 2 things I'm particular curious about with this incident:
1. What time of day did this take place.
2. Was he trail running or jogging.
Click to expand...
Neither piece of information is available AFAIK. From the public or private info. It is not even certain what day it occured on.
 
Joey said:
I personally only use Counter Assault. There are a few other brands that are good, I'm just more trusting of Counter Assault.


I do think they are stretching the truth here. I test fire every new can I purchase, and I've never seen them shoot 30 feet. Maybe in an enclosed or wind blocked area.
Click to expand...
I concur although I do see ~20+ normally.
 
Joey said:
I had a situation on July 4th where I did everything right (according to books and NPS), and still had an uncomfortable encounter with a bear.
Click to expand...

Just curious, what was your encounter?

As far as @Nick's question, I'm of the thinking that they should be spared, without question, from a Wilderness perspective. But then again, it's not a place I frequent; so I do wonder if my opinion would be different if I was a regular visitor to that Park, or more specifically, that exact area. It's easy to form an opinion from my distant armchair. So at the same time I can see why the locals would be spooked over the incident and the concern over a repeat. But I still say let the bear, and (arguably more importantly), the cubs, live.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top