Outdoor Pursuits

If you spend time hunting in grizzly country, there is an uncomfortable question that often pops up: what happens if a grizzly bear attacks you and the only way to survive is to kill it? It is a question most hunters would rather not think about. Nobody goes into the mountains or foothills hoping for a grizzly encounter, but encounters happen, and occasionally they become life-and-death situations.

Alberta Fish and Wildlife recognizes killing a grizzly bear in self-defense as a category of human-caused mortality. The province’s Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan specifically notes that most defensive kills are made by hunters. Yet killing a grizzly, even when a person believes his life is in danger, can result in a lengthy investigation and potentially serious legal consequences. The maximum penalty for illegally killing a grizzly in Alberta is a $100,000 fine and up to two years in prison.

I started thinking about this recently when I read about a hunter in Montana who killed a grizzly bear that he thought was about to attack him. The hunter was then put under investigation.

This creates an obvious dilemma for someone confronted by an attacking bear; is it survive first and explain what happened later, or hesitate because of what might happen if it’s determined the shooting wasn’t justified? One Alberta hunter knows exactly what that dilemma looks like.

Way back in May 0f 2013, we published an article in Alberta Outdoors(men) about Alberta bowhunter Robert Bennett. On September 18, 2012, Bennett was hunting moose near Swan Hills. He was an experienced outdoorsman and knew he was hunting in an area with grizzlies. He had never encountered a grizzly there, but he carried a handgun as a precaution. About 10 minutes after making his first moose call, Bennett saw a small, dark bear cub roughly 30 yards away. He initially believed it was a black bear. He put down his bow, pulled out his firearm, and took the safety off. Then the cub ran toward him... and a sow followed.

Bennett remained concealed, hoping the bears would simply pass. The cub came within a few feet and the sow passed less than 10 feet away before Bennett slowly turned, expecting the bears to continue down the trail. Instead, the sow looked directly at him. The attack was immediate.

The bear pounced on Bennett, grabbed his thigh and bit deeply into it. He fired his gun with the muzzle pressed against the bear. The sow released him momentarily, then grabbed his thigh again. Bennett continued firing. When the bear lunged toward his head, he raised his left arm and the sow clamped onto his hand, biting deeply. Bennett continued shooting with his free hand. The bear released his hand and went for his head again, with its teeth scraping his skull. Eventually the sow backed away.

Bennett had fired all the ammunition in his handgun. Bleeding heavily from his head, hand and thigh, he struggled to reload while the bear was still close. When his movement attracted the sow’s attention again, she charged once more. Bennett fired and this time the bear finally broke off and disappeared into the bush.

Bennett managed to call 911 and waited for help, keeping his firearm ready in case the bear returned. First responders reached him more than an hour after the attack and he was eventually transported by STARS Air Ambulance. He spent two months in hospital before making a full recovery. The sow was later found dead about 125 yards away.

Bennett’s story, written by TJ Schwanky, illustrates that an attacking grizzly does not provide a hunter with time to consider the legal consequences of his action. Bear spray is an important first line of defense, and research has demonstrated that it is highly effective, but “highly effective” does not mean 100%. In a 2008 study of bear-spray encounters in Alaska, bear spray stopped the bear in 92% of the incidents in which it was deployed.

But there are also limitations. A hunter may not have time to reach the spray, wind can affect the spray, and a bear can be extremely close before an attack begins. And, as in Bennett’s case, a determined grizzly can cover ground very quickly. None of this diminishes the value of bear spray; rather, it raises a different question: should hunters in grizzly country have a lawful option beyond bear spray? The answer under current firearms law is not simply “carry a handgun.” Carrying a restricted firearm requires an Authorization to Carry, not easily qualified for. And a hunter who deliberately kills a grizzly outside the bounds of the law should face consequences, as the province has an obligation to protect them. But a hunter who is attacked by a grizzly faces a very different situation.

Robert Bennett did not have the luxury of knowing whether the sow intended to attack until she was already on top of him. At that point, the distinction between a dangerous wildlife encounter and a life-threatening attack was no longer a question. Without the gun, Bennett might no longer be with us.

Should the law recognize the reality faced by hunters in grizzly country? If a hunter is entitled to defend his life when attacked, should the law provide a means for him or her to do so?

That is a question worth asking, and not because every hunter needs a handgun, and certainly not because bear spray should be abandoned, but because there are circumstances in which a hunter may have only seconds to make a decision that could determine life or death. And when those seconds arrive, the priority is inevitably survival, and a handgun might be the deciding factor.

For the previous Outdoor Pursuits article, click here.