From the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

MILLINOCKET, Maine – In four separate instances on Monday, Judy and Rick Givens encountered moose standing on snowmobile trails between Millinocket and Jo-Mary Mountain.

Twice Mrs. Givens was frightened – and angry. Not with the moose, but with the snowmobilers riding on the trails from the opposite direction.

Mr. and Mrs. Givens had slowed their machines and waited for the moose to move, she said in a telephone call to the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. But the snowmobilers approaching from the other side of the trail did not.

“They know it isn’t safe, but they think it is fun to get as close as they can,” said Mrs. Givens, who called to express her concern about the safety of moose on the trails. “They are stressing the moose. The moose are exhausted. They don’t need this.”

This season’s high snow pack has been making it difficult for moose and deer to travel to and from winter yards. And last weekend’s storm left a crusty coating of ice on the snow, adding to an already difficult task, according to IF&W Wildlife Biologist Lee Kantar.

“Deer, moose and other animals are looking for easier travel out of the deep snow to reduce energy expenditure and will be using the packed snowmobile trails, logging roads and other routes to make their treks,” Kantar said. “Outdoor recreationists need to take caution in approaching wildlife in this situation.”

In one of the instances Monday, Mrs. Givens said she didn’t know if the moose was going to charge her or attempt to move out of the way. The other snowmobilers were moving closer to the animal.

“His head was down and his ears were pinned back,” said Mrs. Givens, noting that the moose did leave the trail. “I didn’t know what he was going to do.”

According to the Maine Warden Service, it is against state law to use a motorized vehicle such as a snowmobile or an ATV to intentionally kill, injure or harass wild animals or birds. A person found in violation commits a Class E misdemeanor, which is subject to a $1,000 fine and 30 days in jail.

The Maine Warden Service and IF&W biologists are urging snowmobilers to be considerate of the plight of wildlife this winter, and to slow down and use caution if they see a deer or moose on the trails.

“It’s always important to drive at a reasonable speed for conditions and give yourself time to slow down and stop if an obstacle such as a moose or a tree is on the path,” said Maine Warden Service Captain Joel Wilkinson.

Kantar agrees.

“Snowmobilers and ATV riders need to watch their line of sight when traveling down trails,” Kantar said. “They need to be able to see far out what is ahead of them and avoid potential collisions with animals and other objects.”

He said people, too, need to be “very cautious” and avoid driving around a moose.

“They certainly should avoid doing this if it means that they have to closely approach an animal,” Kantar said. “You don’t know how a moose is going to react.”

The Maine Warden Service and IF&W biologists are issuing the following tips on how to safely share the trails with wildlife:

* Maintain a fair distance from the animals.
* Give moose and deer ample space to move off the trails. They need an escape route.
* If you suddenly come upon an animal, slow down and stop. Do not move towards him/her or corner him/her.
* Do not approach deer or moose. The wildlife already is experiencing high stress levels and energy deficits due to severe winter conditions. Getting close to the animals will stress them more.

“If deer or moose are in the path, they need time to move away from people and look for a place to jump off the trail to gain access to the woods,” Kantar said. “I think people need to critically evaluate the situation, back off, and give the animal time to move.”

Posted by Tom Remington

ATV, captain joel wilkinson, deer, jo mary mountain, judy givens, lee kantar, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Maine Warden Service, millinocket, moose, rick givens, snowmobiling

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

“And I don’t see how you can ever bear to shoot them.”

“Don’t you?” said I. “Well; suppose you’ve been climbing a mountain late in the afternoon when the sun is on the other side of it. It is a mountain of big boulders, loose little stones, thorny bushes. The slightest misstep would send pebbles rattling, brush rustling; but you have gone all the way without making that misstep. This is quite a feat. It means that you’ve known all about every footstep you’ve taken. That would be business enough for most people, wouldn’t it? But in addition you’ve managed to see everything on that side of the mountain - especially patches of brown. You’ve seen lots of patches of brown, and you’ve examined each one of them. Besides that, you’ve heard lots of little rustlings, and you’ve identified each one of them. To do all these things well keys your nerves to a high tension, doesn’t it? And then near the top you look up from your last noiseless step to see in the brush a very dim patch of brown. If you hadn’t been looking so hard, you surely wouldn’t have made it out. Perhaps, if you’re not humble-minded, you may reflect that most people wouldn’t have seen it at all. You whistle once sharply. The patch of brown defines itself. Your heart gives one big jump. You know that you have but the briefest moment, the tiniest fraction of time, to hold the white bead of your rifle motionless and to press the trigger. It has to be done very steadily, at that distance, - and you’re out of breath, with your nerves keyed high in the tension of such caution.”

“The reason I can bear to kill deer is because, to kill deer, you must accomplish a skillful elimination of the obvious.”

Now of course she did not see. Nobody could see the force of that last remark without the grace of further explanation, and yet in the elimination of the obvious rests the whole secret of seeing deer in the woods.

In traveling the trail you will notice two things: that a tenderfoot will habitually contemplate the horn of his saddle or the trail a few yards ahead of the horse’s nose, with occasionally a look about at the landscape; and the old-timer will be constantly searching the prospect with keen understanding eyes. Now in the occasional glances the tenderfoot takes, his perceptions have room for just so many impressions. When the number is filled out he sees nothing more. Naturally the obvious features of the landscape supply the basis for these impressions. He sees the configuration of the mountains, the nature of their covering, the course of their ravines, first of all. Then if he looks more closely, there catches his eye an odd-shaped rock, a burned black stub, a flowering bush, or some such matter. Anything less striking in its appeal to the attention actually has not room for its recognition. In other words, supposing that a man has the natural ability to receive “x” visual impressions, the tenderfoot fills out his full capacity with the striking features of his surroundings. To be able to see anything more obscure in form or color, he must naturally put aside from his attention some one of another of these obvious features. He can, for example, look for a particular kind of flower on a side hill only by refusing to see other kinds.

If this is plain, then, go one step further in the logic of that reasoning. Put yourself in the mental attitude of a man looking for deer. His eye sweeps rapidly over a side hill; so rapidly that you cannot understand how he can have gathered the main features of that hill, let alone concentrate and refine his attention to the seeing of an animal under a bush. As a matter of fact he pays no attention to the main features. He has trained his eye, not so much to see things, as to leave things out. The odd-shaped rock, the charred stub, the bright flowering bush do not exist for him. His eye passes over them as unseeing as yours over the patch of brown or gray that represents his quarry. His attention stops on the unusual, just as does yours; only in his case the unusual is not the obvious. He has succeeded by long training in eliminating that. Therefore he sees deer where you do not. As soon as you can forget the naturally obvious and construct an artificially obvious, then you too will see deer.

You will see many deer thus from the trail, - in fact, we kept up our meat supply from the saddle, as one might say, - but to enjoy the finer savor of seeing deer, you should start out definitely with that object in view. Thus you have opportunity for the display of a certain finer woodcraft. You must know where the objects of your search are likely to be found, and that depends on the time of year, the time of day, their age, their sex, a hundred little things.

Perversely enough the times when you did not see deer are more apt to remain vivid in your memory than the times when you did. I can still see distinctly sundry wide jump-marks where the animal I was tracking had evidently caught sight of me and lit out before I came up to him. Equally, sundry little thin disappearing clouds of dust; cracklings of brush, growing ever more distant; the tops of bushes waving to the steady passage of something remaining persistently concealed, - these are the chief ingredients often repeated which make up deer-stalking memory. When I think of seeing deer, these things automatically rise.

One morning, happening to walk over a slashing of many years before in which had grown a strong thicket of white popples, I jumped a band of nine deer. I shall never forget the bewildering impression made by the glancing, dodging, bouncing white of those nine snowy tails and rumps.

But most wonderful of all was a great buck, of I should be afraid to say how many points, that stood silhouetted on the extreme end of a ridge high above our camp. The time was just after twilight, and as we watched, the sky lightened behind him in prophecy of the moon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ramblings and thoughts of a modern-day hunter? Surely I think not but it could be although a rare find.

My good friend and chief photographer for Skinny Moose Media, Milt Inman, discovered a book in a pile of what looked more like trash than treasure while browsing a yard sale not that long ago and came upon a book looking old, faded and frail. The book had a friend and found a new home.

“The Mountains” by Stewart Edward White just might be a modern-day treasure looking for a reading deer hunter to inspire. White is the author of other books; “The Blazed Trail”, “Silent Places”, “The Forest” and others. “The Mountains” is illustrated by Fernand Lungren and was published by McClure, Phillips & Company of New York in 1904.

Over one hundred years have passed since White moved about the trail looking for deer. What has changed? That really depends upon who might be reading the book. For me, it could have very well be written today, with the exception of the use of certain words and terminology of its day. For others the tactics described would be ancient history, something that happened in an era long ago passed by.

I think not! You see, I’ve never been one to hide out in a ground blind or sit uneasily in a tree stand. For those who do, the accounts described above could just as easily been written in ancient Greek. It would have as much meaning.

All too often in the so-called modern era of deer hunting, nearly every article written or hunting tip given focuses on blinds, tree stands, scents, lures, calls and about every assorted gimmick and gadget ever invented and those yet to come. The art of tracking doesn’t seem to be practiced as readily as it did once but I can attest that it’s not dead.

I discussed this book some with Milt before I confiscated it and he brought to my attention that much of what White writes about in this book is similar to what a family of big buck deer hunters from Vermont talks about and spends time each year trying to teach to other hunters.

The Benoits all grew up in Vermont. There’s Larry the father and sons Lanny, Lane and Shane. They love to deer hunt and their passion is tracking down big bucks. As they say, the proof is in the pudding and if you look at the success these guys have had, you cannot deny that they must know more about the art of tracking than the average deer hunter.

A couple years ago, Milt and I traveled to the far reaches of Northern Maine to a small town called Allagash to attend a Benoit Brothers’ Big Buck Tracking School. I wanted to cover the event as a writer and I took Milt along to take pictures and to use his perspective on issues.

There were two things the Benoits emphasized all during their instruction - shooting and tracking. Shooting is obvious. As Lanny pointed out and as White points out in his book over a hundred years ago, you have a very brief moment to “hold the white bead on your target” and shoot. But, Lanny further points out that if you have been successful enough to “eliminate the obvious”, as White describes it, you’ll have perhaps as much as a split second to react and shoot. If you can’t shoot, the hard work leading up to the shot is all for not.

The second aspect is the one White writes about in knowing the obvious and removing it from what the mind takes in and sees. If you can accomplish such, you will see deer. The Benoits often talk about learning what a big buck will do. This begins with an understanding of where to find the big deer, taking into consideration all factors. You pick up a track and follow it. You have to learn and know your area, the terrain, escape routes, etc. and you have to recognize from the track what the deer is thinking, know his habits and use this to eliminate the obvious.

There will be mistakes. That’s how we learn, that is if we are willing to learn from our mistakes and apply them to the next outing. The more seasoned we become the more we will be able to remove from our visual all the obvious things - the rock, the tree, the flowering shrub, etc.. Then, once our minds are trained to know what to look for and how to apply all the information being processed, our success rate will go up. We will turn seeing no deer into seeing deer and in turn taking deer.

I agree with Milt, now that I’ve read that section of the book. Almost every aspect of what Stewart Edward White wrote about over one hundred years ago still applies today and accurately describes the Benoits methods they employ in tracking down monster bucks.

Tom Remington

benoit brothers, book reviews, books, deer hunting, hunting education, hunting tips, Milt Inman, stewart edward white, tracking

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I may get ridiculed for some of what I am about to write but I have to at least ask the questions that I’m sure many of us have asked. First, let me say that I am extremely happy that 53-year old Steven Wright of Woodford, Vermont, who was lost in the Maine woods near Tumbledown Mountain during a recent hunting triop, was found safe and has since recovered.

Wright was hunting this area with two other buddies during a snowstorm. When Wright decided it was time to head back to the truck and meet up with his companions, a series of events caused him to spend three days and two nights in the woods.

The Bennington Banner has an article today recounting Wright’s adventures as was told by him. This is the first chance I have had to read accounts as told by the lost hunter himself. I had received all the press releases and updates being put out by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Prior to reading this article, I only had a couple of questions. After reading this, I have a bunch more.

Wright is described as being “an experienced hunter and outdoorsman”. According to the article, it began snowing there around 4 a.m. and by the time the hunters left camp, there were six inches of snow on the ground. Wright saw deer tracks crossing the woods road he was on and followed them. He says that about 300 yards from the road, he spotted the deer.

By his own account, he saw the deer again about an hour later and says he should have had the deer but didn’t and doesn’t give any explanation as to why. Once again according to the article, Wright continued to follow the deer “for some time, winding his way through the woods.” At some point he decided to call it a day and head back. This is where it gets interesting.

Wright said he knew where he was supposed to go by his instincts but decided he would refer to his GPS device to find out how far it was back to his truck. He claims the device was telling him to go in another direction.

Confused, he decided to take out his compass and by some strange coincidence, it too wasn’t working. He said he couldn’t get it to read the same way twice.

“I could not get my compass to read the same spot twice. I’ve never had a problem with it,” he said. “You get a little nervous when your compass is not working. That’s all right, I’ve got my GPS,” Wright said.

Apparently his GPS was telling him the truck was about a mile away and he didn’t believe that to be the correct information. So, according to Wright, when it was time to head out, his instincts were telling him where to go and his instincts didn’t agree with his GPS and his compass isn’t working. As a footnote here, after Wright was found, Maine authorities took the GPS and was able to determine the path Wright took until he turned the GPS off in a gravel pit.

Wright opted to follow what the GPS was telling him which he claims was leading him straight up Tumbledown Mountain.

This is where I begin to have several questions. First let me say that in this article, much of the information being told to the reporter is quite detailed. When someone gets lost, often with a certain degree of panic setting in, thinking becomes unclear and also you memory of what you did is sometimes non existent. Wright is described as being experienced. Reports that came from the MDIFW say that the hunter left his survival pack back at camp. Of course that was a mistake.

I’m trying to put myself in that situation which may or may not be the right thing to do. If I’m hunting an area like this, which sounds like he has been to before but doesn’t know real thoroughly, my thought processes are much different than if I’m in an area I know real well.

So, here I am hunting in snow. I’ve decided to head back. I’m confused at my GPS and my compass doesn’t work. What are the odds of both a compass and a GPS failing? Why not backtrack? I’m hunting on snow. I’m leaving tracks. Was it snowing so hard that his tracks could not be determined anymore?

Let’s say his GPS was working properly, which according to MDIFW it was until Wright shut if off. If the direction it was telling him to go was straight up Tumbledown Mountain, then isn’t it correct to conclude that he would have to have gone all the way around the back side of the mountain from where he began? Assuming of course that his GPS plotted course back to the truck was a straight line. If that were the case, then wouldn’t an experienced hunter and outdoorsman, who we should assume knew how to use his GPS, reconfigure his track so as not to have to go up and over the top of Tumbledown Mountain?

During his journey up Tumbledown Mountain, somewhere he fell into water - twice. During his interview he tells the reporter that if his truck was where his GPS was telling him it was, “they would have had to put it up there with a helicopter”.

Now wet and frozen, Wright makes his was back down the mountain, supposedly still following the directions on his GPS. He comes to a woods road. Here’s an interesting part of the story that I didn’t pick up on initially. Here’s how it reads:

Wright then made his way back down into a valley until he came to a logging road. He walked for several hours, watching the sun disappear, passing a gravel pit and a camper. He chose not to go inside, though.

Before I get into the camper part of the story, here’s what came to me. When he decided to head back to the truck, in this accounting he doesn’t say what time that was. Of course this could be important in trying to determine how far he had gone while tracking this deer. How much time had elapsed from the time he headed up Tumbledown, fallen in twice and gotten wet and now come upon a logging road? I don’t know but look what it says. It says that Wright “walked for several hours watching the sun disappear”. This makes no sense at all to me.

If he is watching the sun disappear, then he certainly knows where west is. How long has the sun been out? When did it stop snowing? Is using a GPS turning an “experienced” hunter into one that doesn’t know general directions before setting off into the woods?

The sun is disappearing, which means it’s getting dark and it is obvious that Wright doesn’t know where he is or how to get out. He claims that at the point where he fell into the water a second time, the GPS was still telling him the truck was only 300 yards away.

He passed a gravel pit and a camper.

“I was gonna go in it, but the door wouldn’t open,” he said. “I said, ‘well, I’m not going to break into this camper. It was my stupidity. Why? I’m gonna be out of here by daylight anyway.”

Even though Wright seems to be recalling what he did, I have to question whether or not he was thinking clearly at all. He fell in the water and says his GPS is telling him the truck is 300 yards away. He has walked for “hours”. Is this the point where he turns off his GPS? Wardens say he turned it off in the gravel pit. Then Wright says his thought process was that he would be out by daylight. How did he know that? What is telling him that he will be out by daylight. You either know where you are or you don’t. He admits his stupidity in not breaking into the camper.

An experienced hunter and outdoorsman would have stopped before dark, built a fire and shelter and planned to spend the night there. Wright can’t be thinking at all clearly. The first rule of thumb when you realize you’re lost is stay put. He didn’t do that. At some point of the interview and it appears near the end of the article, Wright says he was never lost.

Wright maintains that he was not lost. “I just trusted an instrument that put me in a situation and it snowballed from there,” Wright said. “Other than that I would have been back to the truck and home. None of this would have happened. A chain of events just kept me from doing what I needed to do.”

Wright says he walked through the night. Why didn’t he find shelter or build a fire. Here’s what he says.

“You think of all kinds of things like, ‘let me cut some pine boughs and make myself a little shelter,’ but you know, that’s fine to tell somebody,” he said. “I didn’t have the time or the energy to jerk around and spend an hour doing something.”

He didn’t have the time or energy to build a shelter but he walked on through the night. Another indication that either Wright was not thinking clearly or he wasn’t the experienced hunter and outdoorsman many thought he was.

The next day, Wright suffers from snow blindness. I’m getting even more confused. Let’s recap briefly. According to reports from the MDIFW, Wright reached the gravel pit around midnight. He claims he walked on through the night. How far did he go? The sun came out and at some point he became sun blind. He says he tried to continue on for about a half hour but couldn’t see.

“It wasn’t my glasses. I was finally going blind,” he said. “It was like half my eyes were looking through an iceberg. I walked for another half an hour and then everything got screwy on me. The roads were going in every direction. At this time I’m getting down to the point where I can’t even see my hand.”

He tried to turn back and get to the camper but couldn’t see. He said he walked back and forth on the logging road to keep moving for most of the day.

If Wright walked all night and if in fact he had been at the gravel pit at midnight, how far did he travel and in what direction was he walking? He is still on this one road. If the sun rose at around 5 a.m. then from the point of the gravel pit to the crack of dawn was approximately 5 hours. How long after the sun came up did he come down with sun blindness?

“Everything got screwy on him”, he said. Then the article says that Wright turned back trying to get to the camper. Are you kidding me? How many hours away is this? Isn’t he lost? Wright says he was never lost. Was he lost or wasn’t he lost?

While suffering from sun blindness, he hears a plane overhead.

“I could hear a plane go by my. I kind of put my arms out. I thought I heard it kill the engine a little bit but it just kept on going,” Wright said.

I think that if I had just spent the night in the woods and I had two hunting buddies expecting me to return that afternoon, I would assume, lost or not, that people were looking for me. But suppose I didn’t think that. I’m blind. I don’t know how long this will last. Do you think I’m going to “kind of put my arms out”.

From that point on, details in the article are sketchy. It says Wright spent the night in a ditch curled up in a ball. He had a difficult time getting out of the ditch in the morning but once he did, he said he was going to try to find his way back to the camper.

Wright says he was in a lot of pain and couldn’t walk very fast or far but he did manage to crawl down over an embankment to get a drink of water. This is when the snowmobile, driven by Donald Eisenhaur of Madrid, went by. Eisenhaur didn’t see Wright down in the brook.

Fortunately, a short time later Eisenhaur returned and brought Wright safely out.

This entire story is nuts. When incidents like this happen, we take them and try to learn from them. We can use real life accounts to educate others on what to do and not do when we’re lost in the woods. I, like everyone else, try to second guess and make some sense out of what happened.

I certainly hope that Mr. Eisenhaur has learned an awful lot from this episode but I have my doubts that he has learned perhaps the most valuable lesson of all. And for that proof, I’ll leave you with what he said once again.

Wright maintains that he was not lost. “I just trusted an instrument that put me in a situation and it snowballed from there,” Wright said. “Other than that I would have been back to the truck and home. None of this would have happened. A chain of events just kept me from doing what I needed to do.”

Evidently none of this was his fault.

I’m glad he’s home safe and sound with his wife and kids.

Tom Remington

bennington banner, donald eisenhaur, lost maine hunter, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, steven wright, tumbledown mountain

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Pete Bodo has a story today in the New York Times about a traditional bowyer and deer hunter, Thomas Aquinas Daly, who prefers to hunt with a hand-made long bow and arrows. Interesting story and one I like because he doesn’t dump all over hunters who prefer other methods of hunting the whitetail tail.

Check it out here.

Tom Remington

archery, bow hunting, deer hunting, long bow hunting, new york time, pete bodo, thomas aquinas daly, whitetail deer

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

It appears that the states of Idaho, Wyoming and Montana have jumped onto a bandwagon suggesting that everyone, including hunters, carry and use bear pepper spray, for protection while in the woods. As a matter of fact, Idaho’s fish and game departments, along with the support of the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council, are promoting it. To the right is an ad that appeared in the Idaho Falls Post Register a few days ago.

What first raises an eyebrow for me is the fact that an ad appeared in an Idaho newspaper that carries the logo of three institutions - The Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. While many would concur that it would be commonplace to find the SC and NRDC working hand in hand, one has to question when an agency whose main function is to provide hunting, fishing and trapping opportunities to licensed Idaho residents, would be teaming up with known environmental groups much opposed to those activities.

Let’s set the record straight before we proceed any further. For people hiking and journeying into the woods in grizzly bear country, it seems that the most likely alternative you have for protection against grizzly bear attacks is bear pepper spray. There seems to be, at least from my perspective, some discrepancies in the truthfulness of the effectiveness of the spray, which I will explain and whether or not the advice to use the spray over the use of a gun, particularly for hunters, should be followed as is being recommended.

I will admit that I can be a stickler for details and along with that I think it is responsible for all parties to be completely forthcoming when advising the public on issues such as bear safety.

If you want to take the time, you can get quite a bit of information about the use of bear spray but there is one slight problem when conducting any research. I’ll help you out with providing links where I found most of my information.

One problem that shows up right away is that those agencies recommending the use of bear spray before hunters use their guns for protection, is they are all getting their information from one source, that source being the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. This holds true as well for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Note: I had difficulties in reaching their website at the link provided through a Google search or from the Forestry Service website.)

What appears to be the only real testing is that done by Dr. Stephen Herrero and Andrew Higgins of the University of Calgary, Alberta. While their testing is interesting fodder for the bear spray industry, the results cannot be used as a definitive claim that bear pepper spray works best for all occasions all the time and herein lies one of the problems I am having with taking at face value that I should opt for the use of spray over my gun in my hands while hunting.

The U.S. Geological Survey published the results of a grizzly bear/pepper spray report completed by Tom S. Smith, Ph.D for the U.S. Geological Survey Alaska Science Center in Anchorage. Smith makes the following statement in regards to the spray testing done by Herrero and Higgins.

Although not under tightly controlled conditions nor observed by scientists, these results strongly suggest that red pepper spray deterrents work well. It would have been interesting to see if any difference existed between the various brands of spray but the data set is far too small.

As I said, this is interesting stuff but should we be claiming this as the gospel and telling people that bear pepper spray is going to save them before a gun will?

In a fact sheet put out by the USFWS called, “Bear Spray Vs. Bullets“(pdf), the following statement is made regarding statistics about injuries associated with grizzly bear attacks on those using spray versus those using a gun.

The question is not one of marksmanship or clear thinking in the face of a growling bear, for even a skilled marksman with steady nerves may have a slim chance of deterring a bear attack with a gun. Law enforcement agents for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality — based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries. Canadian bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero reached similar conclusions based on his own research — a person’s chance of incurring serious injury from a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used.

A closer look at the results could lead someone to render different results because they omitted results from within the same survey. Those conducting the study admit that the data is limited and that the number of incidences for unarmed people with pepper spray is considerably less than reported attacks on hunters. Also, if you examine the graph provided, I could say that if you want to increase your chances of living to tell your family and friends about your attack by a grizzly, ditch the pepper spray and carry a gun. 56% of grizzly attacks on those without a gun resulted in death while only 44% of those who were armed with a gun died.

Many will think I’m a bit paranoid but within the text of this report by Smith of the U.S. Geological Survey, we hunters can read this statement.

Not only are firearms in of themselves a hazard to carry but consider for a moment that a bear has charged and you’ve killed it.

This further goes on to explain what happens in Alaska when you opt to kill an attacking grizzly bear out of self preservation. I fail to accept the statement that a firearm is a hazard to carry for a hunter. Think about it a moment. This report that these state agencies are using to tell hunters to opt for bear spray over guns was clearly written for those venturing into the woods for something other than a big game hunting trip.

While not questioning the study, one has to better understand the conditions under which the study was conducted to determine how that effectively relates to the elk hunter in the wilderness of Montana. I don’t have the answers but I sure have a lot of questions.

Isn’t it a safe bet that bears within the boundaries of Yellowstone National Park will react differently to people than to those some distance outside the park hunting elk in remote areas? It seems that Herrero and Higgins alluded to this somewhat when they commented that:

Regarding brown/grizzly bear incidents associated with curiosity of searching for human foods and garbage, in 100% (20/20) of the cases the spray had the effect of stopping the behavior that the bear was displaying immediately prior to being sprayed. The bear left the area in 90% of the cases.”

Here, both researchers are saying that bears searching for human food are more accustomed to humans and I think it would be reasonable to expect the bears to generally act less aggressively toward a human than say a hunter who stumbles onto a grizzly startling it and causing the bear to attack.

Let’s be honest here. No complete studies have been done that I can find, that would allow me to put my signature on a statement warning hunters to drop their rifles and pick up their bear spray if being attacked. There are just too many variables and unanswered questions.

Montana’s Fish, Wildlife and Parks website has information about who should use bear spray and how to affectively use it. This is good information but just as I have been reluctant to agree with our wildlife experts who continue to repeat the same old mantra time and again, that bears don’t attack people, I will not freely jump on this wagon to tell hunters to drop their guns and aim their spray.

While some of the information put out by agencies about being bear aware is good useful information, it is incomplete and could be construed as misleading. The U.S. Geological Survey’s report states the following about the use of spray under certain windy conditions.

In a number of bear-human encounters (on the low side of things admittedly) people have used bear pepper sprays to deter menacingly curious bears. In such instances it seems entirely possible to maneuver about until you have the wind in your favor.

Shouldn’t this further go on to state that the odds that anyone would have the time or the presence of mind to maneuver themselves around a menacing bear to get upwind, practically slim and none?

What if while being attacked you face a stiff head wind? You spray at the charging bear and get a face full of pepper spray. Then what? Granted we all know that not all conditions are conducive to the use of pepper spray which is one reason I am questioning the blank statement encouraging the use of spray over bullets.

There are other factors to consider. No studies that I have found give any data on what if any effects temperature has on the spray. As I was asked by one reader who e-mailed me,

Has the IGBC tested bear spray in cold weather? My old Ruger 77 will perform whether it’s 55 degrees or 10 degrees, but all bear spray companies note that “cold” affects bear spray performance. How much? What’s the range of a can of bear spray that’s been at 65 degrees for 3 hours Vs the range of a can of bear spray that’s been at 10 degrees for 3 hours? You could keep bear spray warm by carrying it in a chest holster under your jacket, but I doubt if a charging grizzly would call a “time out” so you had time to unzip your jacket and reach for your bear spray.

All excellent questions and there’s more. I’ve never been attacked by a bear of any kind but the stories I have reported about quickly have taught me that when a bear attacks, you have but a split second to react. If I am hunting elk in the reaches of Montana and realize I am being attacked by a grizzly, I don’t think my instincts are going to allow me to put down my gun and reach for my spray. I doubt that I would have enough time to do that if I wanted to.

Don’t get me wrong, if I am going hunting in grizzly country, no matter where it is, I’m taking my rifle, of which I intend to use and strapped to my belt will also be a can of pepper spray.

I have been told that the Sierra Club is providing inert bear spray cans for practice during hunter training classes, etc. This is good as buying pepper spray and practicing how to use it and take aim can get a bit costly. In one article I was reading, it recommended arming every member of your outdoor party with at least one can and recommended two. They also suggested that if you plan to be out for any extended period of time, you take some extra canisters along. With a suggested retail price starting around $35.00 - $40.00 a can, I can see that should I take my wife and 6 grandchildren on a hike, I’m looking at a minimum of $300 just for spray.

Don’t get me wrong, I place a much higher value on my grandchildren and wife than that but I can say that this would definitely be a deterrent to hiking in grizzly country.

I want to clarify my position one more time. I am not against bear pepper spray for use as self-protection against grizzly bear attacks. I’m also not opposed to suggesting that hunters also carry pepper spray for protection in addition to their hunting weapons. What I am opposed to is state agencies doing as it appears Montana and Idaho have done and that’s telling hunters that pepper spray is more affective in preventing injury and saving your life than their gun. Until more reliable data from tests and studies are done, I think it irresponsible for anyone to be making that recommendation.

As all agencies and manufacturers of bear spray tell us, there is no substitute for proper planning and preparedness. When you are going to be out in grizzly bear country, whether hunting or hiking, arm yourself with some industry approved bear spray and learn how to use it. While hunting and carrying a rifle, you will have to decide from the information presented to you which you honestly feel is the best tactic to employ while being attacked.

I can concur that certain circumstances of bear encounters while hunting would better call for the use of spray over bullets - say a menacing bear not in an all out attack. But if I have rifle in both hands stocking game and a bear charges from a few yards away, my faith is going to be in placing a bullet.

Let’s have some better testing under all conditions by completely independent sources before running ads in newspapers warning hunters to drop their weapons and take out their bear spray cans while being attacked by a grizzly bear.

Tom Remington

alaska science center, andrew higgins, attacking bears, bear spray, defense against grizzly bears, dr. stephen herrero, idaho falls post register, Idaho Fish and Game, interagency grizzly bear committee, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, natural resources defense council, pepper spray, Sierra Club, tom s. smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, university of calgary, Wyoming Fish and Game, Yellowstone National Park

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

At times I have written about how hunters need to change how and where they hunt when conditions change that might move deer to other locations. Pennsylvania is an example that comes to mind that I have written about. About six years ago, the state mounted a campaign to reduce the deer population and bring it to a level experts believed were more friendly to the landscape, safer for the public and healthier for the deer. Some hunters have adjusted to this change while others remain ingrained in their old habits while hunting the same old haunts they have for years. Frustrated at not seeing as many deer, they want to blame the experts for decimating the deer herd.

It doesn’t take a whole lot of smarts to figure out that with each successive year things change in the woods. In talks around the kitchen table or at the local greasy spoon, hunters will tell yarn after yarn about the big one that got away. Often during those discussions, the notion that deer at creatures of habit rears its head. While I am one who does believe that deer are animals that seem to stick to similar routines, I also understand that certain circumstances can and will change those habits forcing deer to alter routines.

This year at my yearly hunting trip to Western Maine, I became witness to such an event. I have hunted at this one camp for over 30 years and have seen many changes. This year’s was quite dramatic.

There was a group of 9 of us who spent the entire week at camp and others, at times totaling as many as a dozen, also hit the woods there. In short, no deer were taken and only a quick glimpse was seen by only one or two hunters. I could just as easily come away from hunting camp declaring that the deer herd in Maine has been decimated because of my frustration. But that wouldn’t be fair or accurate as I quickly learned that things having to do with weather and habitat had sweeping affects on this year’s hunt.

First of all, Maine’s fall weather was mild to say the least. When I arrived in Maine, there were still a lot of leaves on the trees and in some cases those leaves were still green. My first morning in the woods and I realized there were virtually no signs of any kind of rutting activity - no pawings, scrapes or rubs. Of course we all know that the deer’s rut is triggered by the effects of natural light. As the days shorten, this triggers little signals within the deer letting them know it’s that time of year again.

I’m not a scientist but my logical thinking would tell me that if it is the reduced light or length of day that triggers the rut, then isn’t it reasonable to suggest that if the fall season was unusually bright and sunny, with very little rain or cloudy days, that this would at least slow down the start time of the rut? And if that were possible, then it would be conversely true with a lot of clouds, etc.

While the lack of any real activity from the rut reduced the likelihood of seeing deer, the one thing that I believed had the most influence on the hunt was the lack of any mast crops in the area where I hunted. I found no acorns or beechnuts. I was also unable to find what in particular the deer that were in our area were feeding on. It is my belief that they were just moving about browsing on whatever was available and not hanging out in areas where there was available food.

Once I arrived in Maine, all I heard from friends and family was about how many deer there were around this year. I soon discovered that the reason was because the deer were coming to the orchards to feed on apples and to open fields to feed on the green grasses, including clover and alfalfa. They were not staying deep in the forests.

Of course if I lived in Maine and hunted throughout the entire deer season, I would have been in a different position to change up how and where I hunted. Because I was more or less relegated to the hunting camp, I tried to make do with what I was presented with.

With all this said, I do believe there is nothing wrong with Maine’s deer population. I think it is healthy and well managed. I think some hunters will also be frustrated early on but things will change and if the hunters adapt their hunting tactics to better match those of the deer, their success rate will increase and their frustration level will subside.

Good luck to those for the rest of the season and I suggest you hunt the perimeters of the fields and orchards.

Tom Remington

deer habits, deer hunting, hunting tips, Maine hunting, mast crops

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The following story is one I wrote last year after my annual hunting trip to Maine. This is the story of my good friend and hunting companion, Gary Inman.

By Thomas K. Remington

Moving slowly through the mixed hard and softwood forest, I occasionally passed a bog hole or two. The woods in Maine can be unpredictable and this area around hunting camp was not only unpredictable but at times was confusing and downright scary. I often times avoided those areas even knowing that’s probably where the big guys hung out.

I knew where I wanted to go but the big question was, could I get there. In my younger days the thoughts of time and distance were mired somewhere deep in my brain but now with “age creeping up on me”, as the saying goes and a back that can leave me non-functional, it was directly in the forefront of my thought processes.

As I proceeded through familiar territory, even passing very close to the exact spot I’d shot a nice buck several years ago, my concentration level dropped to a point where I might as well have gone back to camp and made hot cocoa.

The lack of any signs will do that to you but even after hunting in the Maine woods for better than 40 years, I still can’t get it through my thick scull that deer can be anywhere at anytime.

Sliding between the beech whips I tormented over how high up on the side of the mountain I wanted to go. I had been in this area many times before. Several years ago on a day very similar to this particular day, I spotted a mother black bear and her two cubs moving in slow fashion uphill, more than likely headed up into the ledges. The two cubs played for what seemed an eternity. Not wanting to rile anybody up, I sat very still and just observed but you can be sure my right index finger wasn’t too far from the trigger of my .308 – just in case.

I was tiring quickly and had decided that I was going to cut my journey shorter than planned and at the first opportunity I was going to head downhill, hit the big log landing near the big beaver pond and head for camp.

That’s when it happened. From out of nowhere, a big buck busted out through the beech whip thicket and was gone – just like that. The woods and the deer bested me one more time. If I was keeping score……well, I’m glad I’m not.

It took me only a few minutes to learn where this big fella was headed – high up on top of the mountain, a place I wasn’t willing or physically able to make the trek up. It was back to camp for me. Time for a rest, some nourishment and to regroup.

Left to right, Gregg Inman, Gary Inman, Dennis Doyon - showing us his IQ - and me. - Photo by Milt Inman.

Back at camp, we shared war stories. This is often the process we go through to determine what the plan of attack will be after lunch. I guess it’s one of those, best story wins the right to make the plan.

I’m not much of a planner when it comes to laying out hunting strategies. I’m a pretty good theorizer based on hunting knowledge and past experiences, so I can “guess” what I think a deer will do under certain circumstances.

Looking back at the buck I’d jumped that morning, I knew if I didn’t pursue him, he would more than likely head for the top of the mountain and hide out in the black-growth thickets.

Everyone offered a plan or added to an existing one and before long all members were headed someplace. It seemed that one way or another, Peabody Mountain was going to see some hunting activity.

I wasn’t interested in hiking up the south side of the mountain. I’d done that before and even though it’s the shortest route up to the top, it’s quite steep.

Camp came equipped this fall with two ATVs. Gregg and I decided we would each take a vehicle and drive to the cabin located near the south end of the mountain. We had permission from the owners of the cabin and the land to get there. This would put us within a few hundred yards of the top.

Dennis and Gary were assaulting the steep face I had refused to hike. But they are more up to the task. Both are a bit younger than I. I’ve also traveled with them in the woods before. Dennis towers around 6-foot and 7-inches and Gary is probably 6-foot and 3 or 4-inches. I stride 3 times to their one.

Once we met up with the weary “draggers”, the deer was loaded onto an awaiting ATV for the journey back to camp. - Photo by Milt Inman

Once we reached the top Gregg headed down a hiking trail that leads to the far end of the mountain. The top is shaped like a dogleg and if you aren’t paying attention it’s easy to find yourself heading off the backside of the mountain thinking your heading down the front. Trust me when I say you don’t want to wander off the backside very far without a good compass, a lot of ambition and time on your hands.

I admit I was tired from the morning hunt and didn’t have the energy to strike off too far too fast. As I ambled along, I was refreshing my mind of the area and terrain and painting a picture how Dennis and Gary would be coming up over from the other side. I calculated where I wanted to take up a stand at least until I knew they had reached the summit.

I found a nice rock, opened my little padded seat hanging from the rear of my pants and sat down where I could scan a very large ravine. This ravine was the only way up over the top on that end of the mountain. I thought it would be a good place to hang out.

It was a good spot but not good enough on this day. I hadn’t been sitting more than 20 minutes when I heard a gun shot. Within 5 seconds I heard two more shots quite closely together.

I gathered the shots came from where Dennis and Gary were. Dennis was hunting with a muzzleloader. Even though he was using speed loaders, I knew he couldn’t reload that quickly. Gary was carrying a Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 magnum single action revolver. This very likely was him, I figured.

I remained where I was because I still believed it was a strategic place to be. It wasn’t too long before Dennis caught up with Gary and shortly thereafter Gregg was there ready to offer assistance.

Gary began tracking the blood trail. The deer only traveled about 150 yards to where Gary found him dead. It was beginning to get dark and we were on top of the mountain.

They all put their heads together while I remained near where I had sat that afternoon waiting for a call on the radio. Finally the call came. They were going to drag the deer down over the far end of the mountain, cross a beaver dam and come out near a trail that enters from a logging road. I contacted Travis, one of our camp hunters who wasn’t too far from me at that time and he and I drove the ATVs back to camp. Our instructions were to bring rope and flashlights, along with as much help as we could and drive the ATVs up the logging road to a specified place. Once there, I was to call them on the radio for further directions.

Gary being congratulated by camp friend and local game warden Norm Lewis - Photo by Milt Inman

Once Travis and I reached camp, it was dark. Hunters were still out. As we gathered gear as instructed, good friend and local game warden Norm stopped in to see what kind of success we were having. It was mid-week and time for a check.

He was excited to hear the news and eagerly assisted us in helping get the deer out of the woods. It was a long drag the direction they took and not an easy one by any stretch. It was after 8 p.m. by the time we got back to camp with the deer.

This wasn’t Gary’s first deer by any means but it was his biggest, weighing in at 190 pounds and sporting a nice rack of nine points. It was for sure the first deer he had taken with a pistol.

As I said, he was shooting a Ruger Super Blackhawk, single action revolver with open sites. His load was 240-grain soft-point reloads. He estimates the deer was 40 yards away.

When I decided to write this story, I e-mailed Gary to get some specifics so I’d make sure some of the finer details was accurate. He e-mailed me back so instead of rewording what he wrote, I have decided to print exactly his e-mail to me.

“Here it is as I remember………..

As I was approaching the crest of Peabody Mountain, I thought I heard something walking above me. I stopped and it stopped. There were many squirrels in this area making noise in the leaves. So having a wicked urge come over me at that moment seemed to offer a chance to test the unknown critter above. I dribbled a little here, a dribble there and before I knew it the sound of a walking animal started again. I took two quiet steps up onto a hummock of moss and there appeared a set of white antlers in a very open slot ahead. I must have raised and cocked my pistol by magic, for when the buck took that next step into the open my gun had fired. As the deer jumped I fired two more shots as taught by some old veterans to take advantage of a possible miss. Well, the first shot did the trick. The 190-pound, nine pointer folded up within one hundred fifty yards. Then in time the “Gut master” arrived and the drag out began.”

I wanted to make sure I got the account exactly how it happened when he opted to relieve himself.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!