Big Game hunting in Grizzly country

Status
Not open for further replies.
MiG25 said:
Weird eh, the majority of fatal Grizzly attacks (orangey brown) are along the spine of the Rockies. I'll make the assumption that non-fatal attacks are also concentrated there. And few along the Coast, almost like the fat, happy Coastal Bears aren't as aggressive as those in the Mountains.

Blue is fatal Black Bear attacks.

View attachment 692002
Click to expand...
It would appear that most of the Grizzly attacks are along the eastern slope of the rockies....right where the parks are and the most access to hikers and other non hunting outdoor enthusiasts. Kind stands to reason doesn't it??. Not going to see many attacks where easy access to humans is limited/non existent.
 
Licensed to kill said:
It would appear that most of the Grizzly attacks are along the eastern slope of the rockies....right where the parks are and the most access to hikers and other non hunting outdoor enthusiasts. Kind stands to reason doesn't it??. Not going to see many attacks where easy access to humans is limited/non existent.
Click to expand...

Or maybe where there is a reservoir of Bears that have been protected for 75 years.
 
None here have been eaten by one yet in my 19 years on the forum despite two decades of worry of the best chambering and firearm for them.
Click to expand...

I ####ing lost it at this

In a sea of anecdotal evidence this might be the winner.

The map looks like a population density/ trail network map...
 
Is it because black bears don't require the blood of middle aged white men to survive like montane grizzly bears?

I believe in the " dinner bell phenomenon" , but like I said I'm much more concerned about returning to meat to pack it out

That doesn't change how ####ing funny the cgn bear mauling stats comment is. I bet the forum has not had a single bear mauling since its inception. The guns are working baby
 
Last edited:
None here have been eaten by one yet in my 19 years on the forum despite two decades of worry of the best chambering and firearm for them.


You haven't heard from them ? lol
 
MiG25 said:
You're right, he must've been out feeding on berries.
Click to expand...
There is no shortage of frozen berries throughout the winter but, be that as it may, I never said ANYTHING about berries. Bears leaving the den in winter is NOT unusual. Sure any that do would not pass up a gut pile should they come across one and some may even go towards the sound of a gunshot in search of such a gut pile, however, to say that the "ONLY" reason a bear is out with snow on the ground is for gut piles is presumptuous at best.
 
23 people a year on average die in BC due to winter sports, mostly avalanches. 10 people a year in Canada used to die of lightning strikes, which with education has declined to 2-3 in recent years. Average bear fatalities? 2 to 5, in all of the United States including Alaska, and Canada combined, for both species of bears. Pulling up an attack from a decade ago, or plotting decades of attacks on one map, does not make an epidemic.

You’re still more at risk from the bacon on your plate with breakfast, even as an avid outdoorsman. Can a bear attack happen? Of course. Is it a high risk factor? Of course not. But we’re primal beings, wired through our evolution to pay great heed to predators and fear them. It’s understandable why it’s such a captivating topic, we’re still running an operating system developed 40,000 years ago.

And again, packing a gun feels good, it feels like adventure. I’ve enjoyed that sensation in a few environments with their apex predators intact. I hope it doesn’t continue to get rarer and rarer globally. But I won’t stay home just because I don’t have a gun.
 
Licensed to kill said:
There is no shortage of frozen berries throughout the winter but, be that as it may, I never said ANYTHING about berries. Bears leaving the den in winter is NOT unusual. Sure any that do would not pass up a gut pile should they come across one and some may even go towards the sound of a gunshot in search of such a gut pile, however, to say that the "ONLY" reason a bear is out with snow on the ground is for gut piles is presumptuous at best.
Click to expand...

a lot is not very known about bears. i can tell that most of the time the ones out are not the sow at the end of the winter unless the cubs did not survive when she gave birth. we had a grizzly boar that every winter ws wandering in january and february arount the yukon college now university not to feed not to do anything just wandering. maybe it was a seasonal thing for him.
we ve seen tracks of one grizzly bear in february on the south canol road while going for ice fishing on quiet lake but the bear never came back. it might have disturbed by wolves or another bear and left his den.
i ve seen bears in the springs looking for frozen berries as well.
now we got a friend that is no more trapping that had always issues with wolverines on his trapline in the winter and never a problem with bear. he told me the issues was most when wolves where digging into the den to eat bears ...
 
Bc grizzly bears are a different breed. More closely linked to a teddy bear. The real pricks live in Alberta. By Chuck.
You don’t take the same chances with an Alberta bear that you do with a BC grizzly.
 
Real pricks like these eh. Grande Cache Alberta, while hunting elk. Unfortunately still own a home there, have been all over Wilmore in the Alberta Rockies. Even got close to some grizzlies there in the course of hunting and adventures.

Never had a problem there either, nor did I know anyone who had. What’s wrong with those bears, is it only bears west and south of Calgary? ;) The year we have 20 attacks, over the tens of thousands using the back country, I’ll get more alarmed.

Owned an acreage and hunted in the southern Alberta foothills too we can get to next.

rTL5abq.jpg
 
Ardent said:
Real pricks like these eh. Grande Cache Alberta, while hunting elk. Unfortunately still own a home there, have been all over Wilmore in the Alberta Rockies. Even got close to some grizzlies there in the course of hunting and adventures.

Never had a problem there either, nor did I know anyone who had. What’s wrong with those bears, is it only bears west and south of Calgary? ;) The year we have 20 attacks, over the tens of thousands using the back country, I’ll get more alarmed.

Owned an acreage and hunted in the southern Alberta foothills too we can get to next.

rTL5abq.jpg
Click to expand...

They're all angry about Canmore real estate. - dan
 
Quite right I bet, the BC ones should be pissed then. ;)

It is interesting we appear to have a consensus now BC grizzlies aren’t a serious threat. That’s nice to see, we’re getting narrowed down to an area of the Alberta Rockies that’s the problem, but not any of the areas I’ve hunted naturally.
 
Ardent said:
Quite right I bet, the BC ones should be pissed then. ;)

It is interesting we appear to have a consensus now BC grizzlies aren’t a serious threat. That’s nice to see, we’re getting narrowed down to an area of the Alberta Rockies that’s the problem, but not any of the areas I’ve hunted naturally.
Click to expand...

If you look at it from 20,000 feet, instead of at your feet, you'd realize that, perhaps, the message being conveyed is that a well fed bear, is a happy bear. A well fed bear, with many other well fed bears, are still happy.
You can only put so many bears in a box, with so much available food, before they turn into pricks. The food situation hasn't changed, but the bear population certainly has. Has it changed enough to modify behavior? The stats suggest it, don't they?
The map clearly identifies a problem area. Why? Population proximity, land ownership, and access, for sure. Bear population? Food availability compared to population? Definitely.
The world is a big place... until it isn't. It's still best viewed without blinders.
R.
 
How many years does that map contain. Decades… millions of occurrences of backcountry use in that time. Try and plot all the times people were in those areas, typically unarmed. You wouldn’t be able to see the map under it.

Statistics are a funny thing, we get captivated by the number we want to see. The big picture is far more boring. You face a higher risk driving to the backcountry than from Grizzlies, and a comparable risk from lightning in the backcountry. Your risk is FAR higher in the transport part if you ATV, boat, sled, or fly in. That’s sadly not a joke, but it is admittedly less exciting.
 
Ardent said:
How many years does that map contain. Decades… millions of occurrences of backcountry use in that time. Try and plot all the times people were in those areas, typically unarmed. You wouldn’t be able to see the map under it.

Statistics are a funny thing, we get captivated by the number we want to see. The big picture is far more boring. You face a higher risk driving to the backcountry than from Grizzlies, and a comparable risk from lightning in the backcountry. Your risk is FAR higher in the transport part if you ATV, boat, sled, or fly in. That’s sadly not a joke, but it is admittedly less exciting.
Click to expand...

Sure... it could be viewed that way, as far as the stats go... And the big picture look is also extremely accurate. It really is a lotto ticket scenario.
However... to be dismissive about facts/stats presented by others, as well as valid reasons for more attacks in a certain area, as supported by those same facts/stats... without presenting facts or reasons to refute them, is being narrow minded, and staring at your feet.
Your experience is certainly your own. It doesn't discount anyone else's, that may be different.
A well fed coastal river bear, would not exhibit the same behavior as a hungry, habitat pressured mountain bear. Would it?

R.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom