Firearms for bear self defense - not allowed in grand teton NP

[TOGIE]

I don't care about your opinions on using guns versus bear spray in the event of a Grizzly charge or bear attack. For what it's worth I would prefer bear spray.

Anyway, maybe this has been discussed before, but I'm curious if people have come across some solid or legit legal grounding for if this is legitimately illegal or not, as it is implied on the Grant Teton National Park website:

"Firearms may not be discharged in this national park (except during legal hunting seasons) and can not be used as a wildlife protection strategy."

https://www.nps.gov/grte/learn/management/firearms.htm

I came across stuff where people argue they don't actually have the authority to supersede a citizens right to use a firearm in legitimate defense of one's life like this implies and that the reality is that you could if the circumstances warranted it. Has anyone had any more direct experience with this? I may call the park see their thoughts on it, although I'm sure they'll try to convince me I can't..

I just like the idea of having both. The Todd Orr podcast made me think more about this - when he was lying on the ground, out of bear spray, hoping to find his gun in his holster if the thing came back and it wasn't there, wishing it was, hoping it was still within reach.

Contingency in the form of a firearm could be life or death in the worst of situations.

Anyway, in the actual event, since you can carry guns in the Park, and it came to it, I would obviously choose the path of discharging a firearm at a bear if the alternative was losing my life. I couldn't care less about the legal ramifications if I was in a legitimate bear encounter that may be my last moments on earth.

Obviously true legal advice is what we need here, but I'm still curious about anyone else's thoughts on this, or if you've discovered anything relevant.

 

[Dan O]

In reading the information you posted I would have bear spray as your bear strategy. Carry your concealed/open carry handgun and if the spray fails then you have a back up option. At that point if you can use the handgun to stop an attack from a bear or person then that is what a reasonable person would do. I think a jury would view it that way also. If it happens and if you survive I'm sure you would get to tell your story to a jury as I think they would not give a guy any slack.
But this is just my opinion.

Dan

 

[406LIFE]

It was about 5 years ago that they allowed firearms, but not discharge in the Natl parks. There have been instances of using them for bear defense in GNP I believe with no charges that I am aware of. When I am in GNP and YNP I carry both. I would rather have to draw again for my gun than have the headache of not using bear spray first.

 

[smarandr]

It's also illegal to pop off a firearm in most (if not all) cities, but I don't hear of people being prosecuted for discharging a round in the case of legitimate self defense.

 

[Straight Arrow]

If it happens and if you survive I'm sure you would get to tell your story to a jury as I think they would not give a guy any slack.

'Don't think grizzly bear fatalities, regardless of circumstances, ever end up as a bear "murder" jury trial. If you know of a jury trial following a bear fatality, share it as it would be interesting.

The bear spray versus firearms as a potential bear encounter defense is a well-worn topic and about beat to death ... albeit quite interesting each iteration. My take on it is that the bear spray has proven very effective, but depending on circumstances. My wife and I hike and backpack in bear country alot and each pack bear spray as most serious encounters involve the second person spraying the bear attacking the first person. This summer, with the increase in griz population where we like to go, I will have a canister at-the-ready on my belt and an extra in my pack.

 

[TOGIE]

It’s just interesting that they call out firearms as a bear protection strategy hat “can not be used.” Which seems to imply you’ll get in trouble if you do so. And I’m definitely questioning their authority on that; except for the fact that you can’t legally discharge firearms in the park. But yeah the city analogy is good.

It makes sense that they’re deincentivising firearms to, in turn, favor bear spray, which may be all they’re doing. It annoys me though that they’re inplying you’ll get in trouble by using one to protect your life.

 

[Straight Arrow]

There have been instances of using them for bear defense in GNP I believe with no charges

which refutes that it

seems to imply you’ll get in trouble if you do so.

 

[1_pointer]

My guess is the intent is to keep people from letting rounds fly as a way of scaring off bears. I can't really see anyone getting in trouble if you're getting gnawed on.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

My guess is the intent is to keep people from letting rounds fly as a way of scaring off bears. I can't really see anyone getting in trouble if you're getting gnawed on.

This... also I think they are saying if you are going into the backcountry your entire bear mitigation strategy can't be I'm going to shoot it.

Also I realize that the point of this thread is the NPS trying to mislead the public about the law (I also get pissed when I see 'leash required' signs at NF trail heads as inevitably I get crap from some dude about having my dog off leash while hunting grouse, ptarmigan etc.) BUT, don't be that tool running around the board walk and gift shops in Teton strapped. 2.8 million people visited Teton last year, of which maybe 600K+ went into the back country there have been 6 recorded attacks since 1994, none of which were fatal.

If you want to concealed carry go for it, but nothing makes me roll my eyes more than seeing some dude with a .357 in a shoulder holster and a rambo knife on his belt walking up Cascade Canyon with about 2000 other people.

 

[Straight Arrow]

...nothing makes me roll my eyes more than seeing some dude with a .357 in a shoulder holster and a rambo knife on his belt walking up Cascade Canyon with about 2000 other people.

... with his chest puffed up, thinking everyone perceives him as a macho hero.

 

[nrpate05]

During the Grand Teton elk hunt a few years ago a couple hunters shot and killed a grizz in self defense. Of course there was some serious backlash as that hunt is somewhat controversial already. I think they sprayed the bear first and it didn't work. As far as I know, none of the hunters were charged with any crime.

 

[406LIFE]

BUT, don't be that tool running around the board walk and gift shops in Teton strapped. .

This would be a different story. Those are federal buildings at that point, and a no go for a CCW. If you are a federal officer, you can still carry.

 

[FredoTwoWheels]

I'd rather be on the stand, than in the bear.

 

[EYJONAS!]

I'd rather be on the stand, than in the bear.

Perfectly said

 

[Jape]

While I am an attorney, I am not offering legal advice. Rather, I am providing some observations that I hope will be helpful. Several appellate courts have ruled that the doctrine of self-defense applies to animals as much as it does to humans (i.e. the ability to use force when faced with significant danger to life, liberty, or property). It is a limited legal doctrine and does not necessarily apply in every state. That being said, it would be difficult for a prosecutor to argue a person was not justified in using deadly force to stop a grizzly from injuring/killing that person. I personally plan on carrying both during my Wyoming elk and bison hunts this year.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm more worried about getting t-boned by tourists in their rental RV's than I am getting et by a bear.

99.9% of park visitors don't leave the pavement. That small percentage that does, generally has more outdoor skill than you average touron from outside the region. Packing heat in any NP is a cry for attention.

Signed, a guy who carries his .44 & spray when in the backcountry.

 

[Deleted member 16014]

I'm more worried about getting t-boned by tourists in their rental RV's than I am getting et by a bear...

This is absolutely true. By the time you find a parking spot at a GTNP trailhead you'd likely rather shake hands with a bear than see another UT rental plate.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I'm more worried about getting t-boned by tourists in their rental RV's

As my wife and I say... 'rolling white death'

Also what is up the rental company that has the picture of a family who looks like they're are being held against their will on the windows... creepy... all I'm saying

 

[Ben Lamb]

But to the OP's point, you can carry, and you'll likely not face any charges for popping a bear if it's truly self-defense. NPS has to manage to the lowest common denominator, which is why they now have signs that tell you how to use a toilet.

 

[Straight Arrow]

While I am an attorney, I am not offering legal advice. Rather, I am providing some observations that I hope will be helpful. Several appellate courts have ruled that the doctrine of self-defense applies to animals as much as it does to humans (i.e. the ability to use force when faced with significant danger to life, liberty, or property). It is a limited legal doctrine and does not necessarily apply in every state. That being said, it would be difficult for a prosecutor to argue a person was not justified in using deadly force to stop a grizzly from injuring/killing that person.

Don't give up your day job, counselor.