Sunday, June 7, 2015

Defensive Gun Use - Man Kills Charging Bear

Black Bear Face

Ammoland

A 25-year-old Capitan man shot and killed a charging bear while looking for shed antlers in the Lincoln National Forest. 

The man was not injured by the bear. He reported Thursday evening that he was searching for antlers in the forest between Carrizozo and Capitan when he encountered the bear as he came over the top of a hill. He told officers that the bear charged and he shot it with his .30-30 caliber rifle from about 10 yards away.

Department of Game and Fish Officers investigated the incident and recovered the carcass of the bear, an adult female, early Friday morning. There was no evidence to indicate the presence of cubs.
Referring to the man who shot the bear, Game and Fish Corporal Curtis Coburn said, “Based on a thorough review of the scene, I believe he had little or no choice but to take the action that he did.”

14 comments:

  1. Better him than me--a .30-30 is a good deal less rifle than I'd want to have to count on to stop a charging bear. Glad he made it work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Kurt .30-30 good for putting bambi's mom on the dinner table but id want something with alot more umph to take on a bear

      Delete
  2. Hmm. I'm surprised you didn't say "Man kills charging black bear. Black bear was unarmed."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This guy is a specist who shot this young black male bear down in cold blood for nothing more than being a black bear..This never happens to polar bears

      Delete
    2. You guys are slipping. I thought for sure you'd raise my many disparaging past remarks about fake DGUs involving animals. Of course, this one's a little different that shooting at snakes and coyotes.

      Delete
    3. George - the bear was female so this is obviously a story illustrating how guns are bad news for women.

      Delete
  3. Here's an idea.

    Don't waste your time dicking around in the wilderness looking for shed antlers whilst simultaneously carrying a firearm for personal protection against bears. Shed antlers? That sounds kinda little kid to me.

    Respect nature. Avoid conflict. Don't go looking for a fight. Shed fucking antlers? That sounds like a joke.

    I'd like to see a mountain lion teach one of these boys what it means to live and let live.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't waste your time dicking around in the wilderness looking for shed antlers whilst simultaneously carrying a firearm for personal protection against bears

      This incident would seem to be a pretty strong indicator that "wast[ing one's] time dicking around in the wilderness looking for shed antlers whilst" not "simultaneously carrying a firearm for personal protection against bears" is a significantly more dangerous, and thus worse, idea.

      Shed antlers? That sounds kinda little kid to me.

      What are you saying? That little kids being attacked by bears is preferable?

      I'd like to see a mountain lion teach one of these boys what it means to live and let live.

      And just what would that "lesson" entail?

      Delete
  4. I don't think I was really feeling like myself. What I was trying to express was that the man was invading the bear's habitat with no good reason, armed with a rifle presumably because he knew he was in bear country.

    Quite often mountain lions and bears occupy the same ranges as their human counterparts. Particularly mountain lions are purported to be in a very close proximity, yet fatal encounters are rare. Usually the only time we heare about trouble with bears has to do with foraging human food and garbage. It's a big country. Not every state or national park is the same. Some wilderness areas require a permit. Some have trails.

    I should probably just STFU.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I was trying to express was that the man was invading the bear's habitat with no good reason . . .

      Is it your contention, then, that people should be required to articulate a "good reason" for being in the great outdoors? And that if they are out there without one, that they have no right to defend themselves from any critters that take offense?

      Quite often mountain lions and bears occupy the same ranges as their human counterparts.

      Is that not another way of saying that "bears' habitat" and "mountain lions' habitat" is also "humans' habitat"? If so, don't people have an equal right to be there, particularly when the purpose for their presence, whether you think it's a "good reason," or not, does nothing to harm either bears or mountain lions (or pretty much any other species, as far as I can imagine)?

      Delete
    2. Jesus, Kurt, leave FJ alone. You sound like a picky, nya,nya, nya baby when you pick apart comments like that demanding answers to your fake questions (questions that are really statements of opinion).

      Delete
    3. Tat's funny--I don't think I'm the one coming across like a whiny crybaby,

      Just trying to obtain the information needed to gain a better understanding of his position--a position I frankly find baffling.

      Delete