Here's yet another hunting fiasco. Why didn't the guide just punch the bear in the face - like that 15-yr old kid did? Wonder if BW was involved with the chopper rescue from the Sitka USCG station?

_________________________________________________________



Brown Bear Attacks Guide



Guide goes after wounded brown bear, is charged, injured

Bruin shot several times, found dead 30 yards from where attack occurred



By TONY CARROLL

JUNEAU EMPIRE



After a wounded bear tore at his leg and arm Monday night on Admiralty Island, a licensed game

guide was reported as "alert" in the Sitka Community Hospital.



Scott D. Newman, 39, of Petersburg, declined to talk with the Empire Tuesday. Alaska State Troopers

reported that he had suffered fractures to his left leg, left arm, left ankle, right arm and right

forearm.



The brown bear that attacked him was found dead Tuesday morning, trooper Spokesman Greg

Wilkinson reported. It was about 30 yards from the attack.



Troopers who interviewed Newman at the hospital said he and his

client spotted a bear near Pybus Bay on the southeast side of the

island at the end of a 10-day hunt, Wilkinson said.



Paul Mooney, wildlife biologist for the state Department of Fish and

Game in Sitka, said Newman's client had shot the bear twice.

Newman returned the client to other family members on the boat

and went to recover the bear alone.



Mooney said Newman followed the blood trail a short distance into the brush until the bear, within 15

feet of him, charged. He fired his rifle once more, striking the bear, but it grabbed him.



Wilkinson said the bear bit Newman's legs and arms before turning away and lying down. Newman

pulled out his radio and called the U.S. Coast Guard.



The Coast Guard advised troopers that they responded by helicopter and flew him to Sitka.



"He spent most of the night in surgery," Mooney said Tuesday afternoon. "At last report, he was alert

and doing fine."



He said he did not know the size of the bear that attacked Newman.



"The bear was wounded," Mooney said. "Any wounded animal can be pretty formidable, and a brown

bear in particular."



The bear was skinned and the hide sent back to Petersburg with members from Newman's camp,

Wilkinson reported.

_________________________________________________________



Seems like we had a discussion recently about a pistol for bear protection. There were those who "poo-poo'ed" the idea of a pistol being any use. Here's another classic example of why it works. The bear knocked the guys down, seperating the guide from his gun. If he has a pistol by his side, be probably could have finished off the bear a bit easier.

"Why didn't the guide just punch the bear in the face - like that 15-yr old kid did?"



Hmm, you may want to re-read the news report that you posted Mr. Muskeg. With the injuries sustained to both his feet AND hands, it's evident that he was kicking and hitting the bears' face like a, well, like a man being mauled by a brown bear. LOL



This bear was a wounded PISSED off bear that had taken multiple shots, and you think punching him in the nose would back him off?



By the way, this guide is very respected and experienced. It was not a "fiasco" as you concluded while sipping coffee and sitting behind your monitor.



After reading your post, I am concluding that although you may be from Alaska by your username, you have never hunted Brown bear. I'd advise you to back away from the computer and do some brown bear hunting yourself and you'll see that these are amazing creatures and that at SOME point, you're going to have to go into the brush to get your bear. Scary stuff, but if you look at this guide's record, you'll see that he's someone you'd want to have with you.

I was Scott's assistant guide for several years, let me start by saying that there isn't a more knowledgeable and capable brown bear guide than he is. I've followed wounded bears into the thick stuff with Scott, and I'd do it again. Anyone trying to claim that Scott Newman is incompetent has his head up his ass so far he'll have a hard time swallowing the foot he just stuck in his mouth.

Unless Scott changed rifles recently he was using a Sako rebarrelled to .416 Rem mag, the same backup rifle he has used for years. I've done quite a bit of shooting and hunting with Scott, this is probably his first short stroke, and it couldn't have come at a worse time.

The Anchorage Daily News article gives a more complete picture, including the two errors Scott said he made, the first one was leaving the client alone while taking a peek at the bear. Had he been next to the client, coaching him on when to take the shot and precisely where to place it, this incident wouldn't have happened. Had the client kept his cool and waited for Scott to tell him when to shoot, as he was previously instructed, this incident would never have happened. A poor first shot, marginally effective followups on a moving bear, and darkness lead to the mauling.

Scott Newman takes big brown bears, regularly, spring and fall in SE. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he has the largest skull size average of any guide currently working in SE Alaska. If he made a mistake then anyone can make a mistake on a brownie.

Don't believe me about Scott's ability. Ask former clients Jim Cloward, or Buzzy Cook, or SE guides like Parker and Boyce. If Duncan Gilchrist was still with us you could ask him, too.

And don't assume from the safety of your own computer room that this was a clusterf*ck and that the guide was incompetent. Many of the finest dangerous game guides in the world have been mauled by their quarry; spend enough time around wounded dangerous game and incidents like this are bound to happen.

BTW, I'd say that a man kicking a bear in the face is at least as effective as a punch from a young teen. Also, I imagine he tried some punching as well, his hands did somehow get around the bears mouth.

Please permit a question from a rank amateur.

Would it not have been a good idea to have let the client come with the guide to locate the wounded bear? It would seem that in this instance two rifles could have been more effective than one.

It is of course possible that the client didn't want to go in after the bear. I could not imagine how that fellow could ever be at peace with himself if that was the case.

Also I suppose it possible that the guide preferred not to be worrying about a client and a wounded bear at the same time - especially after the client didn't wait for the guides instruction to shoot in the first place.

At any rate this incident illustrates once again the high quality of the guides in Alaska.

Palmer, good question and you answered it yourself.

The bear is a big enough worry, having an overexcited client (as illustrated by his unwarranted first shot) behind you carrying a rifle while chasing a wounded bear is likely to cause more problems than the bear. I can tell you from experience that a typical guide can identify most rifle makes and calibers from a look at the muzzle, as that's what clients are frequently pointing at him.

Also, the guide's job is insuring client safety. That client obviously wasn't ready for tackling a wounded bear in the thick stuff. He would have been a danger to himself and Scott. I wouldn't have taken him, either.

I would think most guides fear being shot by the client more than being malled, and hence ask them to keep at a fair distance. Sad to say that many clients, maybe most, have poor shooting skills, and on top of that, get all bent out of shape when around the big bears.

Gents,

Just got back today from a shrimping trip located about halfway to Admiralty Island from here (Sitka.) I wasn't involved in any way.

Glad the Coast Guard could help, that's what we're paid for.

I don't think Muskkeg man was trying to be disrespectful. The way I read his post, he was just pointing out some of the topics that have been discussed here and related them to this incident.

That Scott sounds like a cool character. It's a real shame he got hurt this early in the season! I sure hope he can get another guide to fill in while he out of commission.

Oh, Jim Boyce sold his operation to one of his assistant guides. Parker is still the same I believe.

The short stroking incident may light a new fire under the CRF issue.

Hey guys, let me clarify a few things here.

I posted the articles because I thought they would be of great interest to the Alaska Hunting Forum members. I did not mean to piss on this guide. A fiasco = a failure.

I work with a fellow who was neighbor of this guy and he said he was a great guy.

I assumed the rifle was a Remington because I don't know of any other factory offerings in 416 Remington. The guy had a custom Sako. Seems like we always have these arguments about why a DG rifle should be CRF. This made a pretty good argument IMO.

Bronco - I love the way you assume (ass-u-me) something from a guy's handle. I've live in Alaska 32 years. I've hunted for 25 years, since I was 16 - all in S.E. Alaska. O.K. - I've only shot one bear - that a 6-foot blackie with a .357 revolver. I have ONE HELLUVA LOT OF RESPECT FOR BROWN BEARS. That's probably one of the reasons I choose not to hunt them. I've been face-to-face with them plenty of time. I've called both blackies and brownies in with a deer call. In fact, the bear I shot with the handgun was one of those instances.

I choose to go into the heart of brownie country every year. I'd rather have a gun in the woods than be gunless in the big city ghetto. Everything has it's risks. Every year someone gets hurt by a bear in Alaska. Every year some dofus asks - "is my 300 wizz-bang magnum good enuff for a brown bear."

I find it very interesting to share my real-world experiences and front page articles with all and will continure to do so, thank you very much!!!

Muskeg,
Well I'm gladd I "Ass-U-Me'd" you lived in Alaska correctly. (although I wrote "concluded")

Not saying you shouldn't post news and experiences here. That's what these boards are for.

Your use of "Fiasco" and the "Why didn't the guide just punch the bear in the face - like that 15-yr old kid did" quote LED ME (and at least one other) TO BELIEVE (note: not assume) that you have never hunted these and failed to read the article you posted.

Obviously, "Whitehurst" felt the same way from reading his post by his quotes of:
"And don't assume from the safety of your own computer room that this was a clusterf*ck and that the guide was incompetent."
and
"BTW, I'd say that a man kicking a bear in the face is at least as effective as a punch from a young teen. Also, I imagine he tried some punching as well, his hands did somehow get around the bears mouth."
and
"Anyone trying to claim that Scott Newman is incompetent has his head up his ass so far he'll have a hard time swallowing the foot he just stuck in his mouth."

Althought you "Tried not to piss on this guide" your excellent choice of the word "Fiasco" was obviously a Fiasco. I believe you'll also find the words "blunder,bobble,debacle,dumb trick, embarrassment, screwup, stunt, and washout" also describe the word you meant to mean "Failure'. So, although "failure" is just one word to describe "fiasco", the great majority of the definitions of your chosen word sure does "Piss on this guide".

Thanks for clarifying that you meant "failure" though.

Congratulations on your Blackie with your .357. I don't know many ppl brave enough to use a .357 as their backup or main weapon when bears are around. Around here, a .44 is pretty much standard as a backup.

A classic case of Murphy's Law here.

Although I don't know him and have never met him, Newman has my respect just from what I read in the newpaper. He made a few mistakes, he's the first one to point them out, and now he's ready to limp forward. I'll bet he doesn't make those mistakes again. That's my kind of man.

And I think he didn't make a mistake going in after the bear himself. I had the experience of tracking a wounded black bear with a nervous 16 year old kid behind me carrying a loaded rifle. After 25 yards, I told the kid to go back to the boat. Although I can't prove it now, I think that was a wise move on my part....

Because I've also been accidently shot on a hunting trip. While I personally can't compare that to a bear mauling (because I've been blessed not to experience that), I can tell you that bullets hurt, and will non-descriminatly put you in the hospital bed right next to Newman's (if you're lucky to survive it).

I just talked to Scott's wife this evening, he's recovering well, according to the docs. He's also getting his bookings covered, which is a major worry. He has a long road of therapy and further operations ahead of him, but he's as tough as they come, and in excellent shape.

Mac, I here ya on the rarity of short stroking, and the advantages of the crf. Scott owns some pre-64 mod 70s, and loves them. Why the Sako then? I think because he liked it, and was used to it, as his brown bear rifle. I wouldn't be surprised to see a pre-64 in .458 Lott appear in the Newman gun closet. Hell, knowing Scott, I wouldn't be surprised if he put in an order for a .470 NE double. I know my opinion of doubles, which was already high, just went a notch or two higher.

BTW, this was a spruce, hemlock, alder and berrybush clad brownie.

BW,
When did Boyce sell his operation? I talked to him last week on the phone and there was no mention of it.

Well, I could be wrong. It was second-hand info from a friend who knows Scott McCloud (I think that's the name) who supposably bought Boyces operation.

Maybe he just bought one of his boats, as I've seen 'for sale' signs on one of them in the harbor.

Just think 10k brown bear hunt and the (world class guide) cant get a tracking dog that was his mistake.He took the client back to the boat.PRO??

Rug,



The use of dogs to hunt brown bears (and all big game except some black bears) in Alaska is illegal. Don't you think all brown bear guides would have a dog or two if they were allowed?



Yes, it's acceptable and normal practice for the guide to go in after a wounded bear alone. So what do you suggest he do with the client? Leave him alone on the beach where he may shoot another bear by mistake?



Get your facts straight before you make anymore stupid comments...

Just had a long chat with Scott, he's in good spirits and doing well.

He is replacing the Sako with a pre-64, caliber to be determined. He is also planning on carrying a .454 Casull the next time he follows one up. I'm a believer in CRF, but I'm not sure in this instance that it would have entirely prevented the bear from getting to him, the bear was just too damn close and coming too damn fast. It certainly wouldn't have hurt a bit, however, and it may have helped to reduce the damage Scott took.

The only good shot made on the bear was Scott's at about 6' on the charging bear, a solid chest shot. He said it had literally no immediate effect, although it is what killed the bear. The other hits on the bear were in the groin, in the paw, and in the leg. This certainly points up the utter necessity of a well-placed first shot on dangerous game. Scott had previously discussed at some length with this client the need to place the first shot precisely, on a broadside angle to be absolutely sure of a quickly fatal wound. The client simply lost his composure when the bear came into view and took it on his own to blaze away.

My thanks to master guide Jimmie Rosenbruch for helping Scott's nephew find and skin the bear after Scott was medivaced. Jimmie told Scott it was a good 9' bear with a 25" skull, a very large bear for Admiralty Island.

BW, thanks for the astute reply to Rug. As the vast majority of people here realize, Scott put himself into grave danger cleaning up a mess not of his own making. And when that big bear charged, he stood his ground and made a good shot. Get back to me with negative comments on Scott's ability as a guide after you've faced a wounded brown bear solo at knife fighting range. I don't expect to have a full inbox.

Let's see, sounds like every one agrees that Newman has been a very competent guide. No argument there. But in this incident he let the client get out of control, resulting in a painfully wounded animal that could be potentially dangerous to any hunter, hiker, boater, birdwatcher, camper who may cross it's path in the future. I don't think that is competent. He was the only one in the world who knew exactly where to start tracking this wounded and potentially dangerous to the public, animal. Because of economic considerations, the next paying customer, he has a lapse in judgement and goes into the ever darkening heavy cover and puts himsself in a position where he can't see far enough around him and the bear is able to rush him at close range. Not competent. Luckily he get's in a killing shot and the bear can't completely kill him and dies and isn't able to go off and tear up the next pilgrim he comes across. Good shooting and competence there. He may have been put out by the client blazing away and wounded the bear, this could have clouded his judgment. If that is partly the cause of his going into the brush with fading light, that is not competent. His best move would have been to wait until first light, and maybe go get the help of the other guide or guides in the area, to deal with the mess. When he admitted that he was thinking of the next client and scheduling the next hunt, and that caused him to make "mistakes" that is where he lost me. Poor judgement is not competence. He may be the nicest guy in the world and been 100% competent his whole life and a whole bunch incompetent for a few minutes or so. He intentionally went in after the bear with fading light. No "mistake" there. No accident there. A man can be skillful and competent his whole life in this country, and one poor judgement call can get you killed real sudden like. Being dead before your time or crippled up is not what I would call real success.

walex,

I have met a lot of people in my long life. Many were very good at a lot of things. Some seemed perfect. Perhaps you are one of those people? I suppose you have never hit a rock with your boat have you?

If so I tip my hat to you. If not so then........

Glad to hear Mr. Newman is improving.

Quote:

---

other hits on the bear were in the groin,

---

I will make a note not to try that shot.

Savage 99, Wish I could draw you picture. Read what I was saying. First off, everyone is gushing about this guide being being a hero having lots of balls and being so competent. Second if someone hits a rock with a boat, because of a dumb-shit attack, it generally doesn't leave an extremely large, dangerous and wounded animal in the woods in a highly used spot, to possibly rip an unsuspecting citizen to pieces, if one should happen to blunder into the damn thing. If you lived here and had youngsters and friends and loved ones that use those woods you might have a different take on this situation. I have a 32 year old daughter and a 14 yr old grandson that love to hunt, and I would like to think that All these guides are taking care of business and not leaving wounded pissed off brownies in the woods for them to deal with. I will say that Scott may be the nicest guy in the word and super capable on every other day of his life, but on this particular hunt, by his own public statement HE LET CONCERN OVER THE NEXT SCHEDULED HUNT (INOTHERWORDS MONEY) take over his good judgment, and went in after the bear with the light and his visability fading. Because of the low sun angle at these northern latitudes, light fails much sooner before sundown, than in the lower 48 state. Had this guide been killed and the bear got away, it could have been a public menace for years to come. These things are extremely tough and can survive and live with horrible wounds for many years. That's why we have the guides in the first place. PUBLIC SAFETY! For those of us who live here and those of you who are our guests. Yes, I've bounced off a few rocks. I've a life long reputation for loading the boat with fish. Skill, hard work, luck, competence, whatever, but if I take a shortcut or cut the corner too close and hit an outlying rock, sink the boat and drown myself and my crew before we can sell the load of fish, then you, Savage 99, can get on AR and post away and be as judgemental and as righteous as you want to, on the subject of my competence, or sudden loss of it. Even if you don't live here in the Great Land, or know anything about it. Thanks, Wayne

A mess not of his own making? While I'm sticking my neck out on this issue, Already, I would like to know how you figure this one? Wasn't Scott the fellow with the guides license? Didn't he admit to leaving the clients side momentarily, so that he wasn't close enough to whisper Don't shoot yet? 10 days with a foreign client who maybe didn't comprehend the nuances of Alaska bear guide english.? I think you would be hard pressed to convince anyone that the guide wasn't responsible for "Making this Mess" at an official hearing, which I assume they will have, or should have.

I have to agree with Walex on all counts. The guide is always responsible for the hunter or client. If something goes wrong, it is the guides' responsibility. It is the guides' responsibility to ensure that nothing does go wrong. That is what he is getting paid for. I don't know what this guide charges, but a 10-day brown bear hunt goes for anything between $8,000 (rare) and $15,000 (more common). To blame the client is, I think, disingenuous. And it is only one side of the story. I hope that the guide recovers quicky and completely.

Lets see here... I hit a BB in the groin, the paw, and yep, the guide's fault, I'm just the tag holder. That SOB, I want my money back, or I want another hunt if it isn't recovered.. FOR FREE. Hell, I'm suing the rifle MFG because I missed the damn BB!! I seriously doubt the client had this attitude at all, and probably tried to do the best he could, even if he misplaced shots like that or fired before the more experienced guy would have. Clients live and learn like the rest of us, so do guides, and as far as I know, the learning process never stops, for most. Guides prepare for these type of misunderstandings and errors and try to minimise them, although they can never be totally prevented.

The BB ran off in the thick wounded, happens all the damn time. Guide's fault? His fault if he doesn't track it and finish it and someone gets attacked later, his fault if he gets nailed going in too soon, his fault if he gets overly munched on because he don't have a backup pistol or short strokes the bolt, his fault if he'd insisted the client come along with him and the client would have suffered as a result of his obvious lapse in judgement.

Bottom line is, it's the guide's fault he got chewed on, plain and simple, it's not the client's fault. The client bears responsibility for missing the shots but, missing the shots does not mean the client hauled "your" ass out there, forced big money into your pocket, force you in after the bear in a hurry, or force you to to hunt until it was almost dark, this is his chosen profession, and other choices "he" made. Some that I'm sure he also would have done differently.

I think every Bear guide's done something or another which he felt was real risky and a roll of the dice, namely Bear hunting.

Clients probably questioning his part in it too, namely his shot placement and timing. Would be nice to hear his side of the story.

I'd hunt with the guide, he sure wouldn't get me in trouble, and sounds like he'd be right there if I found some.

MuskegMan, You're right, Everybody should carry a 44 mag. when hunting these bears. When you encounter the bear, you shoot your huntin buddy in the leg with it and then run like hell. Godsdog!

I do not understand your point in the first part of your post, but I do agree with what you say in the last half of your post.

Poor shooting by the client is not the guide's responsibility (he cannot control that). But it is clear, or at least is seems to me, that the guide and the client were not communicating in this case. And the guide should be able to control that. It's his job. I've been on guided hunts and I astutely listen to the guides and do what they say---but guides are like any body else you give money to for a service: sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't.

In the case that we are looking at here, the problem is not that the client made a poor shot (which we do not know is in fact the case)...the problem is that a professional hunter got hurt hunting. Guides frequently push hunters to shoot, even when conditions are poor, like when shooting distances are long, and light is poor, and it is the last day of a $12,000 contract. I have actually hunted brown bear in Pybus Bay where this attack occurred...and I pasted on a beautiful long haired black grizzly because it was too far out (400 yards). That was the spring before last. I came home with no bear and without shooting my rifle. It is not clear to me that I would have passed on that bear if I had paid $12,000-$15,000 to 'have an opportunity to shoot it.'

I think that if something catastaphic goes wrong, like on this hunt, I imagine there probably are a bunch of other things that were going wrong as well. The attack resulted from poor judgement on the part of the guide. Blaming the problem on the client does not acknowledge the guide's responsibilties.

So, according to some, guides are to never leave the client's side, not even for a moment, not even when the client or guide needs to take a leak, or a crap. A guide is at fault if he leaves the client, only for a minute, and the client takes that opportunity to shoot, even though that client was told previously not to do so. Interesting. I didn't know paying a guide for a hunt absolved the client of any responsibility for his own actions.



The poor first shot created this problem. We know the first shot was a poor one because of the wounds found on the dead bear. There was only one shot that was in the heart/lung area, and that was the shot that Scott fired as the bear was charging. The poor first shot was fired by the client, of his own volition, directly against the instructions the guide had given him. The client, as always when shooting at a bear, is told to wait until the guide is ready, and the bear is at a good angle for the shot. The guide then tells the client, "shoot". This insures the best possible chance for both the first shot, and any follow up shots by both the client and the guide. Scott and the client had discussed at length how the shot was to be taken, the client chose to act on his own. The guy got excited and made a mistake. Scott's mistake at this point was in not predicting that the client was going to shoot when Scott left his side to see if he could get a better angle at the bear from a few yards away. By the way, Scott said that he enjoyed his time with the client prior to the shot, and that he likes the guy. If the client had waited until Scott told him to shoot, then made a poor shot, it would just be "one of those things". Remember, Scott has never said he blames the client for making a bad shot, he said he blames himself for leaving the client's side for a minute.



Scott could have chosen to leave the follow up until the next morning, but that could possibly have meant losing a wounded bear. Of course, if he'd lost the bear and it had gone on to maul someone else, we'd all be bitching Scott out for not following it up. It's the hunter's responsibilty to follow up animals he wounds, and on a guided hunt that responsibility falls to the guide. Part of the reason why dangerous game hunts are so expensive is because they are dangerous, primarily to the guide himself.



Speaking of money, of course it came into Scott's thinking. If it didn't he would just conduct his brown bear hunts in Petersburg without the inherent dangers of a boat ride to Admiralty. He might not get many future bookings, but they'd be safe hunts. Money comes into everyone's thinking when making decisions. For example, commercial fishermen sometimes risk their lives by pushing the weather in order to load the boat, when they could have easily decided to stay safe in the harbor.



Were mistakes made? Of course, the hunt was conducted by humans, mistakes are always made. The first person who admitted making mistakes was the one person who got hurt, Scott. He didn't blame the client, he blamed himself for leaving the client's side. He blamed himself for not waiting until morning. As it turns out, though, with the hits the bear had taken who knows how far that bear might have gotten by morning. At the end of the day, however, the only person who got hurt is the one who gets paid to protect the client, and a wounded brown bear was put down before it could be a danger to anyone else or suffer any longer. Scott, while not perfect (ie human), is exremely competent as a hunting guide.



I'm proud to have man like Scott Newman as a friend.

Interesting, You trying to tell us you didn't know all that. The guy with the license is exactly 100% responsible, and he is the one who has his ticket at stake at the inquiry or hearings when things go wrong. That's the way it should be. Otherwise we wouldn't need the licensed guides, and the non-resident pilgrim hunters wouldn't have to pony up the kind of money they do to hunt here. And let's hope that they do have a real in depth inquiry, for real, for the public safety aspect of this case. Maybe, because of people like you making excuses and disembling and laying down smokescreens, some of us citizens who live and hunt in this area should get together and demand it. There are just too many people using this area for their recreation these days, and too many brown bear guides that act like they think their ticket gives them rights over every one else to the use of the area. It would appear that your friend has a nice little family operation and that's all fine, one can keep all the money in the family. But the dough he saved by not hiring a good assistant, may have been false economy. With the lost time and injuries figured in, an extra set of eyes and ears and a heavy rifle, could have been money well spent. and it could have saved the hunting community and guide business a real big black eye. Show me where I'm wrong on that logic.

One thing I don't understand from reading all of these post is the reasoning being put forward for some sort of a hearing. Nowhere that I can fathom has there been a violation of guiding or hunting regulations. The client certainly has no disagreement with the guide or his operation. You proponents of an official investigation are reading something into it that isn't there. Geez, the guy made 1 or perhaps 2 errors, leave him alone but wish him the best of luck for the future. Bear in Fairbanks

RWJ,

I just wanted to point out the client "most likely" wasn't a thoughtless ass with a gun, as some may be assuming.


Walex,

It seems you have other issues with the guide(s), unrelated to this incident, at least that's what's coming across to me by your comments. You just don't seem to me to be being reasonable or objective concerning this, and possibly other issues with guides/guiding regs are bothering you.

Scott and other guides get paid high dollar for far more than what is being considered here in this discussion, not to mention it's exactly what the market will bear, and thus they should be asking to be paid what they do, only a total fool would ask for less.

Scott could not have had perfect communication with a client, hell, nobody can every time, not even with their friggin wife for cryin out load. Total control of communications and client, get real. As a matter of fact, I'm sure he figured the communication was clear between the two when he went for a better look, then either learned it wasn't or the client figured things had changed enough and with his best judgement, decided firing was in his/their best interest when he did. I'm sure Scott instructed him to fire after he slipped off for a better look in the event some sort of situation developed when he was away. There lies an area for misunderstanding through interpretation of what was said/meant, and everyone knows you can't discuss ever possible scenario and what to do etc, etc, etc...

Scott may feel he should have not left the client's side, but had it turned out the BB dropped in his tracks with a thud, what would Scott think or say then.

This guy may have felt Scott couldn't yet see the bear and Scott may be walking into trouble if he didn't fire, who the F*&% knows the whole story! I sure as hell haven't heard it yet.

Who's got the client's side of this one... "in his words"?

I agree with Bear in Fairbanks FWIW...

Why in the hell would I have any other issues with this guy. I don't know him, have never heard of him, and could care less. I just don't like the god damn idea of sharing my space in the woods with large boar brown bears that have been shot in the nuts or the groin or wherever because of faulty and poor judgement decisions and actions by the guy with the license and responsibility, the Guide,or guides. This guy got lucky and and this bear got dead. It could have killed him and got away, to be a real menace. Maybe that don't bother guys like you and Bear in Fairbanks. Guys like you and your posts on this and other forums have convinced that I'll start getting together a group and start demanding hearing to get answers why these guys are allowed to operate without qualified assistants to aid in wounded bear emergencies, and make life or death decisions like Newman said he did based on the timing of the next scheduled hunters arrival. This is my last post on this silly assed forum on the matter. Tomorrow I'm going to the phones and press and every official in the Capital here and try to get some explanations or action. Some one asked why Newman would need a lawyer, well, he might not on this particular show, but I'll tell him right now that if I or any of my loved ones had to deal with a brownie wounded and maybe not recovered by his operation, he can count on me having a lawyer and sueing him for every damn thing sueable. You don't like it, tough, no skin off mine. Oh, by the way, I was thinking about going down that way on a Brown Bear hunt here shortly. It's also my favorite deer hunting country. So I do have a dog in this fight, if push comes to shove. Irresponsile guide decisions aren't the only ones we have to worry about here if it will make you feel any better. There was a fellow from Juneau, here, come back to town after a cruise on the NW side of Admiralty Island, telling of how he sseen a brownie on the beach, and went in and popped it a few times with the three rounds that was all the ammo he had left for his 06. Didn't follow it up because he was out of shells. Now there is one for you. Have a nice evening.

After reviewing these posts, I still have to support Walex's observations and agree with him 100%. The basic arguement I read here in defense of the guide is that the client couldn't shoot, the gun failed, and the bear wanted to fight. A person might think the guide was there by accident and that the client did this on purpose. Maybe someone could place responsibility on the rescue team.

No one has presented the client's side of the story. And no one has explained why the guide was alone when he was attacked. He shouldn't have been alone. Everyone that lives, works or spends anytime in Alaska knows that being alone, even for short periods of time, can be dangerous.

Instead of pointing fingers, we might want to consider what actions would prevent this from happening in the future. I think all of us take this seriously and that it disturbs all of us. That nitwit that dragged his girl friend out to Kaflia Bay where they both got killed and eaten by big brown bears not even a year ago disturbs all of us. That nitwit was a professional too. Years of experience and no fear. But he did exhibit poor judgement. People died. And there were no guns envolved...you don't need a wounded bear to have bear problems....but if the bear is wounded, then you need to be more afraid..don't you think? Being alone shows poor judgement. This is not 20-20 hind-sight. This is basic bear safety stuff...it also works for falling of mountians, out of boats, accidently shooting or cutting yourself, and a bunch of other emergency situations.

Everything that Walex has said has had to do with safety: public safety, safety of the guide, and the safety of his family. I agree with Walex 100%. I like Admiratly Island and I like Pybus Bay and I intent going back soon. I want it to be a safe place, with brown bears to hunt.

Thanks for the support, being an ornery old cantankerous contrary old SOB, this is something I'm not accustomed too. But yeah the public safety concern should be the primary concern, That's the value of investigations and board hearings, to find out what was done wrong, and get the info out what to do right the next time, and rule changes if necessary. I can still remember when there were very few rules and far too many who didn't go by what few rules there were. And the animals, and their environment and hunting fishing and all other outdoor sports suffered accordingly. Just good common sense to use good judgement, good judgement is common sense. The Oldtimers doted on it, the good ones, and it's something we need more of these days when it seems to be in short supply. Thanks again.

Walex,

Maybe one of the reasons the guide went in after the bear was for the sake of trying not to loose to so it wouldnt have the opportunity to eat somesones daughter or son.

I'm just getting in on this after reading all this about the mauling. After all is said and done here, the bear is dead, there's no wounded bb running around the woods so Walex or whomever wants to go deer hunting in the same area. Public safety is intact. Sounds to me like Scott did what he was supposed to do, take the bear out, even though it cost him some nasty slices and stitches. It also seems to me Scott made up for any mistakes that were made and paid for his or whomever's mistakes in full with his own blood. A hearing?? for what?? Waste all that hot air and government funding for a stupid bureaucratic ADF&G hearing and for what because he made a simple mistake by leaving the client alone for a minute or two? Have the state Roast him for that?? That's all it would be is how can we squash Scott Newman while he's down?? What the hell is that all about? You guys are making mountains out of molehills and place too much faith in bureaucrats. Only thing that would become of a hearing is more stupid rules and regulations put on us hunters and guides.

No my friend, that was not the case. He plainly made the statement that he went right away because he was pressed for time because of another client coming out in another day or two. He's not making any excuses himself, although many on these forums are making up plenty, not so much as to defend him, but more for the purpose of ripping others which is their agenda on these forums, or sport, whatever. hava nice day fellas