FWP Commissioner/Grizzly/Bear Spray Debate

BigHornRam

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
13,561
Location
"Land of Giant Rams"
Spray vs. gun bear deterrent debate rages
By JOHN CRAMER of the Missoulian



Long ago, grizzly bears thrived in Montana as did tales - some tall, some true - told by frontiersmen of a man-eater even more fearsome than the other two bogeymen of the forest, wolves and mountain lions.

By the late 1800s, one of Vic Workman's great-grandfathers was among the legions of homesteaders who trapped and shot the giant bears by the thousands in an effort to make the area safe for fellow settlers.

Today, the reputation of Ursus arctos horribilis - along with other major predators - is no longer that of a brutish killer, but of a keystone species decimated by overhunting and habitat loss, a symbol of America's misunderstanding of how nature works.


Also changed is how people can handle encounters with grizzlies, using a chemical spray rather than guns to improve the odds that both humans and bears will escape the encounters unharmed.

But Workman believes that if a bullet was good enough for his great-grandfather more than a century ago, then it's good enough for him when confronted by a charging grizzly, especially since he's wielding a modern, high-powered rifle.

It's an opinion held by many hunters, but Workman also is a member of Montana's Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission, the citizen board that oversees the state Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.

And that agency, along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, devotes considerable resources each year on bear awareness programs that emphasize chemical spray, not bullets, as the way to keep both people and bears safe in the woods.

Last week, Workman drew widespread criticism from bear biologists, wildlife officials and some hunters when he shot a charging grizzly - and later said bullets are far more effective than bear spray in fending off such an attack.

“These people who think that they're safe with bear spray, I'm here to tell them it's a false sense of security,” he said. “The spray is better than nothing, but I'll choose a firearm every time.”

Workman, FWP's District 1 commissioner, also drew fire for saying grizzlies have become so populous in Montana that they should be taken off the endangered species list and hunted to make them afraid of people.

A tall, rangy man who wears a cowboy hat and a made-in-Montana look, Workman is known for his outspokenness. He's a lifelong hunter with record-book kills of brown bear and black bear, but no room on his belt for a canister of bear spray when he heads into the wilderness.

He said only a blast from his rifle could have deterred the grizzly that charged him last Sunday while he was hunting north of Whitefish Lake.

Workman's comments come at a time of growing encounters between grizzlies and people in Montana's forests and open spaces, where both bear and human populations are increasing.

Chris Servheen, a Missoula-based bear biologist who heads grizzly recovery efforts for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said Workman's comments are detrimental to grizzly conservation and human safety in bear country.

“It was a totally irresponsible thing to say,” Servheen said. “We spend a lot of time teaching people how to be safe in bear territory, and having someone in a position of authority make those comments is contrary to everything we teach people about the value of spray and the effectiveness of its use in close-encounter situations.”

Workman said he had time to fire only one shot from the hip, hitting the bear and causing it to veer away into the brush. The bear had been covering up a deer kill when it charged.

Workman said he and his hunting partner examined the deer immediately after the encounter, but that they couldn't find the bear.

His comments, which have caused a buzz among hunters, biologists and conservationists in western Montana, contradict a growing body of research and anecdotal evidence about bear encounters.

According to studies of human-bear encounters by the Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey and the University of Calgary, hunters who used firearms to defend themselves against grizzlies were much more likely to be injured or killed than those who used bear spray.

The main ingredient in bear spray, which evolved more than a decade ago from tear gas and pepper spray used by police, is a derivative of capsaicin, a red-pepper oil that causes severe irritation to the mouth, eyes, nose and lungs.

Several years ago, Montana FWP considered making it mandatory for hunters to carry bear spray, which is not the same thing as modern pepper spray, but the commission instead voted to continue with voluntary public outreach efforts with hunters, ranchers, recreationists and other groups.

Workman said he regrets having to shoot the grizzly. He said he's taken heat from a number of people, but that he makes no apologies for his actions or his comments.

He said the only time he carries bear spray is in Glacier National Park, where firearms are prohibited and grizzly bears abound, but he expects it would be of limited use in an attack.

“I've had people chastise me for not packing bear spray,” he said. “Some even suggested I had time to use it before I fired (Sunday), but they weren't there. It happened in a nanosecond. Some absolute idiots would rather see a person potentially get eaten than harm a bear.”

At Thursday's monthly meeting of the FWP commission in Helena, Workman's comments were not on the agenda, but they prompted a lot of discussion and concern, said Chris Smith, the agency's chief of staff.

Workman faces no disciplinary action because commissioners are free to express their personal opinions, said Smith, a lifelong hunter who said he has twice fired his rifle to scare away bears but never used the bear spray he always carries.

The five-member FWP commission is a quasi-judicial, citizen board appointed by the governor to four-year terms. Commissioners' duties include setting fish and wildlife regulations and hunting seasons; they are not agency employees.

Interviews with hunters and wildlife officials suggest that many hunters in Montana don't carry bear spray, instead relying on their rifles and a sidearm as a backup if confronted by a grizzly.

According to FWP, none of the hunters mauled or charged by grizzlies in Montana this year were carrying bear spray.

Three grizzly bears have been reported shot to death this year by hunters who fired in self-defense, roughly the same number as in the previous eight years, according to FWP and Fish and Wildlife Service.

Workman faces no charges in last Sunday's shooting because FWP authorities determined he fired in self-defense. No sign of the grizzly was found, but blood samples from the scene are being analyzed to determine whether they are from the bear or the deer it had recently killed.

State and federal wildlife officials said they weren't questioning Workman's integrity or his decision to use his rifle against the grizzly that charged him, but they said his position on bear spray sends the wrong message to the public.

“His total dismissal of bear spray is a gross injustice,” said Mack Long, FWP Region 2 supervisor, who has tested the spray for years during public education classes. “Bear spray is extremely effective. You can shoot a bear five times and it can still live long enough to maul you, but bear spray works instantaneously. People don't need to be afraid when they go into the woods. They just need to be ready.”

Long, another lifelong hunter who always carries bear spray, said he regularly disagrees with Workman, so he's not surprised by his comments.

“He does get some weird ideas,” Long said. “I've heard it said several times that he shoots from the hip and not just with his gun.”

Biologists also criticized Workman's opinion that grizzlies should be taken off the endangered species list and hunted to teach them to stay away from people.

“That's ridiculous,” Servheen said, adding that a dead bear can't pass along behavioral traits.

He said three types of human behavior provoke natural aggression from grizzly bears: surprising a bear at close range, getting between a mother and her cubs, and getting too close to a bear on a food source.

“No amount of grizzly hunting will prevent natural aggression in such a situation,” Servheen said.

Montana FWP and the Fish and Wildlife Service offer brochures and public presentations about bear safety, but state law only requires rifle hunters born after Jan. 1, 1985, to complete a hunter education class, which includes bear spray recommendations. All bowhunters must complete the class.

Authorities said they have no plans to expand the bear education program or to make hunter education mandatory for older sportsmen, but they are spreading the word that grizzly populations are growing.

Scientists estimate that more than 500 grizzlies live in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem in northwestern Montana, one of the species' last strongholds in the lower 48 states. A five-year DNA study by federal and state agencies is nearly complete and is expected to give a more accurate count of the grizzly population and range.

Servheen said common sense is the best defense in the wild, including carrying the proper gear, looking for signs of bears, making noise so bears aren't surprised and knowing how to react if they charge.

He said the chances of encountering a bear are far less than getting into a traffic accident.

“You're not automatically safe with bear spray,” he said. “You're not magically immune to doing something dumb. It's wild country. That's why animals are there. If you wanted complete control, it'd be called Disneyland.”

Two dozen grizzlies have been reported killed this year in the Northern Rockies by cars, trains, poachers, wildlife managers and other human causes. That is above average but below the record of 34 in 2004.

Tony Hoyt, a member of the Hellgate Hunters and Anglers Club, said Workman's comments have prompted his group to ask FWP to expand its bear awareness education program, including a stronger emphasis on bear spray for hunters.

“We don't want Vic off the commission, but there has to be a way to stop all this needless killings of grizzlies,” Hoyt said. “Bear spray is amazingly effective, but there's just this sort of good old boy prejudice for a high-powered gun.”

Workman, 48, a Montana native who owns a real estate company in Whitefish, said he has been hunting, hiking and fishing all his life.

“I'm sure there are situations where bear spray could be adequate, but the only weapon that saved me from getting eaten was my rifle,” he said.

Workman acknowledged his stance may send a confusing message to the public.

“But my job isn't to promote or hinder the use of bear spray,” he said. “My job is to help manage wildlife and to try to expand opportunities for outdoorsmen and outdoorswomen.”

Reporter John Cramer can be reached at 523-5259 or at [email protected]
 
That is actually a good long two sided article, which is rare for the missoulian.
I have been sprayed by pepper spray and can tell you that you can still function, even draw and shoot a gun ( in training ). I have also sprayed people (with the spray and foam) and when they are hyped up on adrenaline (comparible to a charging grizz) there is still a pretty good fight on your hands ( yes a few pusses just fold and cry like a little girl ).

When I was in LE it was engrained in us that when the shit really hit the fan the words fair and fight should never be used in the same sentence. Also I was going home to my family at night.

I know a guy that rolled a bear at 15 feet in Ovando MT a couple years ago. He said that bear covered 75 yards so fast he almost didn't have time to get the safety off and pull the trigger. There were biologists and FWP officers all over the place and they shut the whole area down for 5 days (during hunting season which didn;t make him any friends). I have never held a can of bear spray but don't they have a safety device that has to be turned to be able to use? And you have to take it out of its holster? Seems like it would be much faster to use the highpowered rifle in your hands.

Is it me or have the Bioligists become narrow minded. It seems like if you are a bear bioligist, the Heck with everything else ( even humans) it is all about the bears.
Chris Servheen, a Missoula-based bear biologist who heads grizzly recovery efforts for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said Workman's comments are detrimental to grizzly conservation and human safety in bear country.Just because he said he would rather shoot a charging grizzly then spray it with cyanne pepper????

“It was a totally irresponsible thing to say,” Servheen said. “We spend a lot of time teaching people how to be safe in bear territory, and having someone in a position of authority make those comments is contrary to everything we teach people about the value of spray and the effectiveness of its use in close-encounter situations.”
“That's ridiculous,” Servheen said, adding that a dead bear can't pass along behavioral traits.

He said three types of human behavior provoke natural aggression from grizzly bears: surprising a bear at close range, getting between a mother and her cubs, and getting too close to a bear on a food source.

“No amount of grizzly hunting will prevent natural aggression in such a situation,” Servheen said.
These comments aren't radical but they seem to me to have the undertone that it is the hunters fault not the bear. If most Grizzly bears learned that humans were predators not a source of food wouldn't that deter them?

I know they are passionate about "their Bears", but most of our families would rather see us come home at night and a bear dead then the other way around ( well amybe not my wife but most of you guys)

There was a PBS special on the other night on the wolves in yellowstone. It was pretty good pertraying both the ranchers point of veiw and the Fed Wolf Biologists and enviromentalists. The ranchers claimed that they were told that the wolves were going to be in yellowstone and contained there and if they grew outside the park they would be controlled. The Biologists and envorimentalist came on and said " oh we never said that we want them to spread through the whole Yellowstone Eco system." ???????

They then interveiwed a millionaire Landowner. He was all for trying to live with the wolves on his 30,000 acre cattle . There was even a lady camping out with the cattle herds to keep human activity in the area to deter wolf kills. Well once the wolves finally started killing his cattle out came the rifles and down went a bunch of wolves.
It actually was a really good program that showed both sides and In my opinion how bothsides react from there own passion.

Anyway that was the long way around to my opinion that the Bear and wolf biologists are so focused on their own agenda that it may be detrimental to all wildlife as a whole. ( and even humans).

To each his own on the spray issue. But I think I will continue to relie on trying to stay out of a bear situation and if I can't then the 300 in my hands will be my back up.
 
Agree with you HH. I'm not putting down my rifle for bear spray. I caught part of the "Wolves in Paradise" PBS special and thought what I saw was good......fair and balanced. The part where they hooked the wolves up with shock collars on Turners ranch and put a "wired" calf in the pen with them was a hoot. Who came up with that hair brained idea?

Here's a picture of the grizzly that was killed by a vehicle near Lincoln a few months ago. Sad that it's fate came to this, but may be an indicator that there are a lot of grizzlies in that country now. Tell me you would prefer bear spray over a rifle if facing this guy at close range?
 

Attachments

  • moz-screenshot-461.jpg
    moz-screenshot-461.jpg
    54 KB · Views: 138
I laughed pretty hard about the shick collar deal on the wolves. One of the Wemples in Victor was getting on the boat in alasaka when we were getting off. I heard he killed a bear at 6 feet (bear squared out over 9 feet) jumped it from a patch of alders and killed it at his feet. I haven't talked to him yet but heard it was pretty hairy. Don;t think spray would have worked in that situation.
 
I know a guy who carried an air horn when he was fishing. He thought the loud noise would scare off a bear. Seems logical, but then I think about it, when my adrenaline is up, I don't hear loud noises (like when I'm shooting at critters) so why would a bear hear it?
 
Another relevent Missoulian article

Man mauled by bear believes spray wouldn't have deterred charge
By JOHN CRAMER of the Missoulian

The last thing that Brian Grand expected to see while pheasant hunting near Valier was a grizzly bear. It took only a few seconds for the 350-pound male bear to do extensive damage to Grand's body. Photo by MICHAEL GALLACHER/Missoulian

Brian Grand can't sleep more than a few hours a night.

It's not because of nightmares about the grizzly bear that mauled him last month.

But something wakes him. He doesn't know what.


He's a tough guy, a lifelong outdoorsman, built like a linebacker, so he knows there's no bear hiding under the bed.

He figures it's the pain lingering in his wounds - not his psyche - that won't let him go back to sleep.

He just stares at the dark, tries to nod off, waits for the sun to rise.

But the Stevensville man says he's mostly gotten on with his life, deciding to go back to work as a construction supervisor, to resume bird hunting when his wounds heal, to keep a positive attitude.

He's decided not to dwell on the mauling, which happened Oct. 15 along Dupuyer Creek near the Blackfeet Indian Reservation while he and three friends were hunting pheasants.

A young male grizzly bear charged out of the brush, mauled him for about 15 seconds and fled.

“I thought my buddies were going to be packing out a dead body,” he says.

State wildlife officials captured the bear a few days later and relocated it.

Grand needed surgery and bunches of stitches to close wounds on his head, face, throat, hands, arms, back and leg. His flesh was torn open to the bone in some spots.

He may have permanent nerve damage in his right hand, which was broken, but he's foregoing physical rehabilitation as well as counseling.

Grand, 39, a California native who moved to Montana nearly 20 years ago, often ventures into grizzly country in pursuit of birds, elk and other game.

He's carried bear spray in Alaska and Canada, but says he now believes that grizzlies charge too quickly for the spray to be effective.

He wasn't carrying bear spray or a sidearm when he was mauled, and he won't carry them in the future.

If fate decides the bear is going to get you, it's going to get you, Grand says.

But he may carry a shotgun that takes not only birdshot but some heavy slugs that might tip fate his way if another bear charges.

He says he and his hunting partners followed all the rules of being “bear aware” - making noise, looking for signs of bears, putting bells on their dogs - while they bagged a dozen pheasants before the grizzly attacked.

He says he's not angry at the bear, but he bristles at state and federal bear biologists, who he says are downplaying the increasing danger that grizzlies pose to people in Montana.

He said he agrees with Vic Workman, a Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks commissioner who generated controversy recently by saying bear spray provides a false sense of security, and that firearms are more effective in warding off a grizzly.

Workman, who doesn't carry bear spray when hunting, made the comments after he shot at a charging grizzly, which fled into the woods near Whitefish Lake.

Workman's position conflicts with recommendations from FWP and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which say studies show people and grizzlies are far more likely to escape unharmed when bear spray is used rather than firearms.

Grand said he also agrees with Workman that grizzlies have become so numerous that they should be taken off the endangered species list and hunted in a limited number to teach them to stay away from people.

He thinks government biologists are taking too long to complete their grizzly population studies.

He says everyone knows many grizzlies are returning to historic rangeland that long ago was converted to farms, rural neighborhoods and other places occupied by people - places where grizzly bears should not be allowed to live.

And Grand wants grizzlies that attack people to be killed rather than relocated because the ones that “have a taste of human blood” will return looking for an easy meal.

“I'm not saying grizzlies should be wiped out” or hunted in remote wilderness areas, he said, “but we've got to draw the line somewhere.

“Everyone's always saying, ‘the poor bear.' You're talking about the fiercest animal on the North American continent. There's too much consideration given to grizzlies and not enough to human beings.”

But Chris Servheen, grizzly bear recovery coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said hunting will not deter natural aggression from grizzlies if people surprise them at close range, get between a mother and her cubs, or get too close to a bear on a food source.

Servheen said taking the grizzly off the endangered list requires more than a high population of bears. It takes a proper management plan, a conservation strategy signed by a host of agencies, habitat standards and amended U.S. Forest Service plans. Such an effort is still several years away, he said.

State and federal wildlife biologists said they were not criticizing Grand or Workman for how they responded when they were charged, but the biologists said “bear awareness” and bear spray are the best chances for staying safe in the countryside.

Servheen said bear attacks are rare - there have been five this year in Montana, which is a typical number - and that far more people are injured in traffic accidents.

Mack Long, Region 2 supervisor for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, said wildlife biologists and managers are working diligently to better understand and manage grizzly bears in the Northern Continental Divide ecosystem in Montana.

The Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project is using genetic tests to estimate the population and distribution of grizzlies.

The project, results of which are expected to be released next year, is an offshoot of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, a cooperative effort among state, federal and tribal agencies, landowners, conservation groups and universities.

Long said FWP supports taking grizzlies off the endangered species list once all recovery criteria are met. At that time, the state of Montana would assume management responsibility for maintaining a healthy population of grizzlies and ensuring their safe cohabitation with human beings.

Reporter John Cramer can be reached at 523-5259 or at [email protected].
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
110,816
Messages
1,935,414
Members
34,888
Latest member
Jack the bear
Back
Top