Bear Attacks - The Deadly Truth

By James Gary Shelton

This book contains an assemblage of the most accurately detailed bear attack stories you’ll ever read. But more than that, this is the only publication with a complete explanation of the underlying causes for these terrible events. In addition, there are two secondary themes running through these pages that distinguish this book from all other bear books: an exploration of how natural systems really operate and a thorough examination of the battle now raging in many areas of North America between conservationism and preservationism. The author’s views are based on over 30 years of bush experience and research while living in the remote Central Coast of British Columbia. His knowledge is not that of an observer, but rather as a participant in nature. This material indicates that a significant portion of our cultural beliefs regarding bears and other predators is not only incorrect, but, unfortunately, dangerous. Gary Shelton’s first book, Bear Encounter Survival Guide, has become the authoritative work on how to survive bear attacks. It contains the first-ever definitive description of bear aggressive behaviour and provides realistic strategies for surviving bear attacks. It is now used by the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Alaska, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Western Canada, the British Columbia Ministry of Forests, plus hundreds of companies and thousands of individuals. This second book is also destined to become required reading for those who share the woods with bears.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BookBaby
• Release date: Nov 1, 2014
• ISBN: 9781483565002

Book preview

located.

Introduction

In 1965, with my wife Sandy and two children, I moved from Placerville, California, to the Bella Coola Valley in British Columbia. I wasn’t a draft dodger from the Vietnam War—I was a person who had to find some small spot on the planet that wouldn’t change much over my lifetime. I also wanted to hunt the big coastal bears of B.C. that I had heard about in my youth.

My uncle, Lige Gurr, moved to Bella Coola back in 1928. Many times as a child I had looked at pictures of the Valley at my grandmother’s house. At a very young age, while living in Utah, I decided that I had to live in the North Country. Later on, after we moved to California and when I was 17 years old, my family went on a vacation to Bella Coola—I was hooked for life.

When we moved to B.C. we went back in time 50 years. The telephone system was the old crank type. When ours was hooked up, we had 27 people on our party line. If we wanted to talk to a relative long distance, we had to drive down to the tiny telephone office in Hagensborg and make the call on one of only two copper lines going to the outside world.

We were lucky; when we built our cabin up the Valley, we lived only part of a year without electricity until the power line was extended further along. As we started our new life, we enjoyed the dim light of kerosene lamps, dipping our water from the creek, growing our own food, and using the outdoor toilet (except when it was 20 below with a 50-mile-an-hour wind).

Our isolated Valley was a logging and commercial fishing community of 2,000 people with the following basics: a small hospital, two schools, two post offices, and three general stores, but no radio or television. The people were great; they were very helpful and kind to us. They worked extremely hard at their jobs and also at building their own homes, growing their own food, and making most of their own clothing. The Valley people were very content living in a place that time had passed by.

Over the years Sandy and I built a nice hobby farm, raised four children, and faced all the challenges of living in a remote area. In the early years it was very difficult for Sandy to adjust to the hardships that come with living in the north. The lack of direct sunlight in the wintertime seemed to bring on a virulent strain of cabin-fever in those of the female gender. However, as time went by, we acquired television, improved shopping, better jobs, and we were able to relieve the doldrums by travelling more. We are now both quite content with a lifestyle that gives us true wilderness in our backyard but tempered with modern contrivances like a computer, a fax machine, and other gizmos that make life easier and more enjoyable.

When we moved north my trade was in field engineering. Not long after our arrival I was trekking up and down coastal valleys laying out roads and cut-blocks for Crown Zellarbach Logging. But as soon as I found out that I would be spending most of my time in logging camps away from my family, I transferred from engineering to the local logging crew. I enjoyed logging and eventually partnered up with Bud Lorenzen in a sawmill business.

Bud was twice my age and had started milling lumber at age 17 on a steam-powered mill. He had an amazing amount of knowledge on many subjects and was a willing tutor. We logged and cut lumber for a living until we ran out of our own timber supply.

During the last 20 years I worked primarily in construction and guiding until I started my bear safety business in 1988. My new business grew rapidly as more and more people became concerned about bear danger, and of course, this led to my writing and publishing career.

However, work hasn’t been my main interest in life, my family has. And second to my family is my love of hunting and exploring. I’ve spent a good deal of time hunting and observing bears.

I have always had a keen interest in bear biology and have read most of the research papers on the subject.

In the 1970s I became active in bear conservation through our local Rod and Gun Club and eventually became chairman of the Central Coast Grizzly Management Committee. This committee was co-chaired by Wildlife Branch Regional Biologist Daryl Hebert and had members from all of the government ministries and other groups who were interested in grizzly management.

At that time bears were not adequately protected. We devised regulation changes and policies for reducing grizzly mortality—both hunting and control kills. By 1985 a whole new concept about managing bears was in place throughout B.C. This resulted through the efforts of the Wildlife Branch, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C., and many groups like the one I was involved with locally.

Then something different started happening right about the time I became involved in the guiding business. Large environmental groups became active in B.C. during the middle 1980s. At first they put their efforts towards reducing the over-harvest of timber that was taking place. After most of the logging issues were dealt with, the more radical groups started looking around for some high-profile animal species to protect. Wolves had already been saved, so the next species in line was the grizzly bear.

There was a total disregard for the tremendous work that had already taken place to protect grizzlies. Once these groups declared a grizzly crisis, their focus became the public’s hard-earned money, and all rules of engagement were thrown out. Never has the public been subjected to such blatant lies and distortions of the truth in such a short period of time.

In 1989 the local Ministry of Forests district office in Bella Coola asked me to develop a bear safety training program for their personnel that included bear behaviour, bear avoidance, and firearms defence information. My course was immediately successful, and I was soon providing training for other ministries as well. The next year I was asked to create a similar course for people who do not carry firearms. At first I wasn’t comfortable with my non-firearms course, but after I researched pepper spray-use against bears, I felt confident that I could provide good information for people who do not carry guns.

In the first year of my training I informed class members that we were entering into a new era in our relationship with bears. Because of over-protection, there were going to be more bears and many that do not fear people. Most participants in my training courses really liked my material, but many had a hard time believing that all of the endangered bear information they were hearing might be wrong. After all, it wasn’t just the environmentalists saying it, it was also biologists and politicians claiming that bears were disappearing. The most damning testimony was the claim that thousands of bears were being killed in B.C. to remove their gall bladders for the Asian black market—which I knew to be untrue. There were some bears being killed for parts, but not enough to reduce populations.

Bear attacks in B.C. have slowly increased since the middle 1970s. During the ‘80s most of the serious bear attacks were by predatory black bears. However, I knew that grizzly attacks would eventually increase because of the over-protection that started in 1985. But most people in B.C. had difficulty accepting this concept until just recently.

In the last five years I’ve been embroiled in many battles and controversies with people who do not believe there is a connection between the over-protection of bears and the frequency of bear attacks on humans. These people are wrong. Since 1990 there has been a significant jump in bear attacks, and many involving grizzlies. In 1995, two people were killed and eight seriously injured by grizzlies. There were also hundreds of minor incidents with both species of bear. Thousands of people are now taking my views seriously. However, government statistics show only a small increase in bear attacks, because they are missing a large component of the data.

The recent return to carrying firearms for defence and, more importantly, the significant increase in carrying bear spray have helped dramatically to offset the increase in bear attacks. Government statistics include only a few of the firearms defence attacks and none of the spray defence attacks. Based on my own research, there are now at least 12 individuals saving themselves from injury or death in B.C. each year by using pepper sprays or firearms against attacking bears.

This picture of the Bella Coola River is taken 15 miles east of Hagensborg. The river runs generally from east to west, and at the town of Bella Coola, flows into the head of a 60-mile long fjord.

This is a January view, from the author’s front yard, of 8,400-foot Mt. Nusatsum. At this time of the year, the mountains on the south side of the Valley block out the sun.

Bear stories are something we have to be careful with. They can become exaggerated and inaccurate. My interest in this material is for bear behaviour and human reactions during a bear encounter. Consequently, I have handled the stories in this book very carefully. In most cases I’ve interviewed the people involved directly, then sent them a rough draft of the story to be checked for accuracy. I’ve tried to describe all the intricacies of the bear’s behaviour and the person’s feelings and reactions during these events. I’ve found that when bear stories are dealt with in this manner, they become more fascinating than any exaggerated bear tale.

An important question comes to mind regarding this book: Have I been biased in picking stories that would support my views about the causes of bear attacks? I now have a very large file of attacks and encounters that would fill three books. I admit some bias in selecting material that sheds light on topics I’m interested in—such as, can grizzlies climb trees? And how effective are bear sprays? Beyond that, I’ve made every effort to avoid over-exaggerating bear aggression by picking certain types of stories, and I haven’t eliminated stories showing human error or carelessness that contributes to attacks and human/bear conflict. The truth is, most bear attacks in B.C. are not the fault of the person or people involved.

BEAR AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR

If you were to read the stories in this book without a clear knowledge about bear aggressive behaviour, you would not understand what was taking place. I have therefore included the following condensed chapter from my first book. If you have already read Bear Encounter Survival Guide, I suggest rereading this material to refresh your memory.

Bear aggressive behaviour is very complex and difficult to understand. However, what is known about both black bear and grizzly bear behaviour sheds considerable light on what occurs during a bear encounter. There are, though, significant differences in behaviour between these two species, and it is impossible to understand these differences without an evolutionary perspective of how they arrived at their present state.

Sow grizzly with two second-year cubs. Courtesy Mike Wigle.

Grizzly bears evolved over a long period of time in open habitat conditions during the Pleistocene Epoch with many extremely dangerous large predators. Grizzlies developed a defensive-aggressive behavioural mode of challenging intruders by ferocious bluffing and, if necessary, making contact with and immobilizing the threat, then quickly retreating. Sow grizzlies usually defend their young by having them run in the opposite direction of the threat (if it can be clearly located). She then exhibits bluffing displays toward the threat and either makes contact with the intruder or runs after the cubs. Whether or not a grizzly makes contact in this situation depends on several factors: the aggressiveness of the particular bear; what events have just preceded the encounter; the distance to the threat; and, in the case of a sow with cubs, whether or not the distance between the threat and the cubs is being increased.

In the present evolutionary period grizzlies do not have any formidable competitive predators that threaten their safety, except man. But for eons they co-existed and interacted with a host of dangerous animals, with no way of escaping from them, except through ferocious behaviour. Even though the large predators of the past that influenced grizzly bear behaviour have become extinct in the last 13,000 years, grizzly behavioural patterns will continue into the future for thousands of years.

Grizzlies do not have the ability to determine whether or not you do actually pose a threat to them. Their defensive-aggressive behaviour does not work that way; if it did, they would have probably suffered extinction a long time ago.

Occasional variations on this grizzly bear open-habitat defensive-aggressive behaviour can occur and usually lead to very dangerous circumstances—such as when cubs run in your direction by mistake, or first-year cubs climb a tree, or when second-year cubs follow their mother in a bluffing display.

Black bears developed a behavioural pattern of living in forested areas and using trees for defence early in their evolutionary development. In general, black bears are less aggressive than grizzlies, but equally dangerous because of their more predatory nature towards people. They will make the same aggressive displays as grizzlies when threatened, but are less likely to make contact. A sow usually defends her cubs by sending them up a tree, then stands at the base of the tree growling and popping her teeth. If a single bear or a sow cannot dissuade a threat by bluffing, it will sometimes make contact; more often it will also go up a tree.

Predacious black bear behaviour is different. Usually, a predacious bear does not show any anger or bluffing; it follows its prey in a stalking mode—maybe circling and moving closer. If the bear decides the potential prey is ‘takeable’, the bear charges, takes down its prey, then kills and eats it. Black bears are more difficult to read during encounters; they are not as ‘upfront’ as grizzlies are in letting humans know their intentions. They can be very unpredictable, so be alert for behaviour indicating predacious behaviour.

TYPES OF BEAR AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR

Most species' populations are held in check by food availability, predation, and parasitism. Some animals at the top of the food chain have another limiting factor: intraspecies strife and competition. Bear population regulation seems to be influenced mainly by food availability and intraspecies mortality. To quote a statement from the Grizzly Bear Compendium (1987), under Population Regulation: Thus, density-independent (nutritional regulation) and density-dependent (social) mechanisms appear to be implicated in bear population regulation.

Nutritional regulation of a population would primarily cause sows to sexually mature later, breed less often, and to have smaller litters. Social regulation would be manifest primarily in aggressive behaviours that cause mortality—dominant males killing cubs, sub-adult males, and sometimes complete families. It would also cause death in competitive battles over breeding and indirectly cause death of bears who are out-competed for food resources.

In reality, the two mechanisms of bear population regulation (nutritional and social) are an inter-woven complex of aggression, competition, and available nutrition.

A significant part of bear aggressive behaviour is related to density-dependent (social) population regulation. This mechanism, and its associated aggressive behaviours, exists in all bear populations and can become acute when high population densities occur. The following types of bear aggression, with the exception of predatory aggression, pertain not only to population regulation, but also to genetic selectivity.

There are five general types of bear aggression:

1.    Predatory aggression (including carcass defence).

2.    General competitiveness aggression (including breeding aggression).

3.    Home-range aggression.

4.    Male cub-killing aggression.

5.    Female cub-defence aggression.

PREDATORY AGGRESSION: Both black bears and grizzlies have a degree of predacious instinct, but this instinct is manifest in somewhat different ways. Bear Biologist Stephen Herrero's research into bear attacks brought out an important point in relation to attack categories: Most serious injuries and deaths caused by black bears are predatory in nature—that is, the bear is trying to kill the person for food.

Statistics indicate that black bears are more predacious towards humans than are grizzlies. Grizzly bears do occasionally kill people for food, but most serious injuries and deaths caused by grizzlies (excluding park attacks) are defensive-aggressive in nature.

An important statistical point regarding predacious attacks by both species is that most people killed by a predatory grizzly are people camping in a park at night; most people killed by predacious black bears are people doing various types of activities during the day. Predatory black bears often take time to carefully assess potential prey and are more likely to attack children. It is my opinion that if humans were half the size we are, we would have major problems with black bears. Parents should be very cautious with their children.

Bears do not have a refined prey profile in relation to predatory behaviour like most true predators. If a bear was lying on a hill-side and saw a bull moose walk by, it would most likely pay little attention. If, on the other hand, a cow moose with a small calf walked by, a predatory interest would be behaviourally triggered in most bears upon seeing the small calf. The sight of an animal that appeared to be injured would also trigger a predatory interest in most bears. The appearance of vulnerability and a significant reward for little effort with little chance of injury probably play a key role in many predatory attacks.

What about everything else that falls in between a bull moose and a calf moose, and what goes through a bear's mind when it sees a human? It is next to impossible to accurately define predatory behaviour in bears because it is a remnant behaviour, and each bear's genetic makeup, learned behaviour, and level of hunger at a given time can vary.

Grizzlies and black bears have been evolving towards omnivorism for a long time and must devote much of their time securing plant foods as a basic survival strategy. However, animal tissue has a significantly higher food value than plant foods, and even though these two species can no longer survive as true predators, some circumstances will bring their predatory behaviour forward. Something as simple as encountering a human who is lying on the ground may trigger a predatory response, especially if the bear is very hungry. That same person in the standing position would probably not look ‘takeable’ to that bear. If, on the other hand, we were dealing with an African Lion, it wouldn't matter whether the person was lying or standing—they would fit into the lion’s prey profile.

Most grizzlies that attack predaciously are food-conditioned to human garbage; most black bears that attack predaciously are wild or only slightly habituated to human presence. A significant portion of the predatory black bear encounters I’m familiar with, where the bear was killed, have involved three-year-old males. These young bears were probably under considerable competitive stress, and very hungry.

My own studies indicate that there has been a significant and little-known shift during the last nine years in the frequency and category of victims of predacious black bear attacks. Predacious black bear attacks are by far the most dangerous type of attack in B.C., and the majority of victims are people who are working in the field during the day. If you find this hard to believe, consider the following statistics obtained from the Wildlife Branch: Between 1984 and 1992 there were 25 people injured and five people killed by black bears in B.C. Most of the black bear attacks were predatory in nature. Comparing the same time period, there were only four injuries and one death caused by grizzlies.

Most predators have developed aggressive behaviour for defending a carcass that they have killed or found. Some African predators, for example, have more difficulty defending a carcass than killing the animal. This behaviour in bears is dangerous for people, especially in relation to grizzly bears.

COMPETITIVENESS AGGRESSION: Bears must compete against each other for food, cover, dens, breeding privileges, etc. Each bear must try to jockey its way up the hierarchy so that it can spend more time eating than running away. Hibernation has intensified the competition, because bears must obtain their yearly food requirement in six to eight months.

Bears are generally antagonistic toward each other, with a lot of huffing-puffing and threat displays going on during encounters. These encounters sometimes end in fights and occasionally death. However, bears have evolved a complicated system of threat-and-appeasement signals that reduce potential danger to both parties.

During spring breeding males become quite aggressive toward other breeding males, sub-adult males (three to five years), and probably toward females with cubs that are not identifiable by smell.

This competitive aggression does cause some mortality, mostly for cubs and sub-adults. Once a bear is six years or older, it has a good chance of living to be over 20.

HOME-RANGE AGGRESSION: Bears are not exclusively territorial; they are semi-territorial—that is, their home ranges overlap, and they will use and defend high-value areas according to their position in the hierarchy of power. These home ranges vary in size from 50 to 300 square miles, depending on the species, sex, and age of the bear Bears establish their home ranges in the first three years of being on their own, with females usually staying in the vicinity of their mother's home range and males moving to other areas (out migration). Sows are sometimes quite tolerant of their female offspring but not of their male offspring.

When young bears are establishing their home ranges, they are subjected to a considerable amount of aggression from other bears. They sometimes receive fatal injuries during encounters. Quite often they are denied access to high-value food areas that can reduce food intake, particularly if the population density is high. If they have not built up sufficient fat reserves by denning time, they do not survive the winter.

Large male grizzly in the Bella Coola Valley. Courtesy Mike Wigle.

MALE CUB-KILLING AGGRESSION: This behaviour is common throughout nature. In those species that have been carefully studied, the results are usually the same—males are killing the offspring of other males. The way in which this behaviour is manifest varies greatly and in some species is rather bizarre.

In some species the infanticidal males cannot identify their own offspring but can identify females they have bred with recently. It has not yet been proven exactly how this behaviour works in bears, but there have been many observations of its existence, and it is probably most prevalent during spring breeding when males are more aggressive.

Sometimes a male will kill both the sow and cubs. Large males also inflict significant mortality on sub-adult males. The most important aspect of this behaviour is the reciprocal behaviour of females to defend their cubs and the overall effect on total bear aggressiveness.

Sow grizzly with two first-year cubs. Courtesy Mike Wigle.

CUB-DEFENCE AGGRESSION: The ferocity of female bears defending their young (particularly grizzlies) is legendary, and there is good reason for it. The ferocity and willingness to suffer injury or death gives a sow the ability (in most cases) to defend her cubs against a male that may be twice her size. This is also an important behaviour in defence against individuals of other species.

When a sow grizzly is standing in open ground and must defend her cubs against a dangerous opponent, she must convince the intruder that even though she may lose the battle, she will inflict significant damage. Cub-defence behaviour is explosive, seems to be genetically programmed, and is probably chemically induced. I have seen sow bears trigger into this behaviour and not de-trigger until the acceptable distance between myself and the cubs was reached. This behaviour doesn’t necessarily mean that contact will be made, because much of it is designed to scare the hell out of what it is being directed at—and it usually does. In some cases, the sow will show restraint if contact is made, inflicting only minor damage, then quickly retreating. In other cases, the perceived threat may lose an eye, an ear, the nose, and a good portion of the scalp—in the first few seconds.

In the last 30 years I have had many encounters with sow grizzlies with cubs. When I was young I enjoyed these experiences, but no more. I want to tell you something very important regarding all of those documentaries about bears that were filmed in Alaska—the ones that show fisherman on the Brooks River or photographers at McNeil River Falls standing within a few yards of sows with cubs. Those bears are habituated to human presence. In those locations it took bears ten years or more to develop a learned tolerance of close human presence, but equally important is the open visual