In 2018, a grizzly bear attacked hunter Anders Broste during a routine hunting trip just a few miles from his home near Columbia Falls, Montana. Broste told Outside what it’s like to survive a grizzly attack, and the lessons he’ll forever carry with him into the backcountry.

I never thought I’d come face-to-face with a grizzly bear in the wild.

When I did, it was a clear, November day in 2018 along the foothills of the Whitefish Range, a 76-mile-long mountain chain stretching from British Columbia, Canada, into northwestern Montana. Six inches of snow had fallen the night before, and I could see my breath with every exhale.

My friend Dan and I were going out for a quick, early morning elk hunt. I was fully aware that I was in bear country, but I play in this neck of the woods all the time. The foothills are my backyard, about five miles from my back door. I had even made plans to ski with my wife later in the day. But a routine hunting trip showed me the brutal reality of wilderness survival. Since first moving to Montana nine years earlier, I’d only come across a grizzly twice.

My hunting partner, Dan, split off from me so we could cover more ground–I had been in the area two weeks earlier and knew exactly where I wanted to look for elk. During the earlier trip, I had packed bear spray, but I forgot to bring my canister this time.

After Dan departed, I was on my own. I don’t know what prompted me to turn around—maybe I heard branches break—but when I looked over my shoulder, I saw a grizzly bear barreling at me from less than 100 feet away. Time froze, and my thoughts slowed down. Should I fire my rifle? No, there’s not enough time to get your glove off and finger on the trigger. I grabbed my firearm and shoved it between myself and the bear like a stick.

The bear crashed on top of me, bit my left hand, grabbed my right arm, started throwing me around, and shaking me like a rag doll. He then clamped his jaws around my left calf just above the ankle, rotating my entire leg 90 degrees, and began pulling me downhill.

I grabbed a branch, thinking, I’m not going to let this bear drag me off.

My leg extended unnaturally, and I said to myself, My leg isn’t supposed to move that way.

The bear bit down on the front of my foot, its canine tooth nicked between my big and little toes—you can still see the jaw marks on my mountain boots.

Then, the bear just dropped my foot and ran off. I’ll never forget its fuzzy brown butt running off into the distance. Time stood still.

Altogether, the encounter lasted no more than 30 seconds. I didn’t see my life flash before my eyes, but I remember thinking, This could be it.

I screamed for Dan.

I wasn’t scared of bleeding out, but my arm and leg were mangled. Dan rushed to me and built a makeshift brace for my broken wrist, thumb, and arm. My hand was also dislocated. There were major lacerations across my body. I grabbed a stick and attempted to put weight on my knee—it again bent 90 degrees. I later found out that my ACL, MCL, and meniscus were torn. My foot was only held to my lower leg by connective tissue.

Dan and I called search and rescue. It took the teams 45 minutes just to get to us, and I let out a big sigh of relief at the sight of the helicopter. But the terrain and snowfall made landing difficult, so they hoisted me out instead. I spent a week in the hospital, underwent three surgeries, and went through physical therapy for another three months.

I can’t quite run like I used to, but I’m more of a mountain biker anyway. I want to keep playing as long as I can, and I’m thankful my limbs still work.

Nearly every grizzly attack is an act of natural aggression, and in my case, we later learned the bear attacked me during a surprise encounter. I walked into its bedroom, and it rightfully charged me.

Through DNA analysis, Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP) traced the bear using routine tagging and told me its name was “Chubb.” He didn’t act unnaturally, and officials decided not to euthanize him.

I’ve since conducted field tests with FWP to track bears and document their lifestyles. Bears smell like dirt, and the size of their paws always leaves me in awe. They’re so big, and their skin is rough, almost like a Brillo pad. I can’t believe I survived.

Now, eight years after the attack, I acknowledge that I put myself at risk. It was a case of backyard complacency. I also don’t blame the bear for attacking me. I’m grateful the animal decided that I wasn’t a threat that required killing. I’ve since talked to other bear mauling survivors, or family members of attack victims, and every situation is different. I still go outside, and I know that I’m in bear country. I love Montana, and the bear is a symbol of the wildness of my home.

Am I more bear aware and prepared now? Sure. But my biggest piece of advice for anyone recreating in bear country is to take your time, carry bear spray, and practice routine safety. I was extremely fortunate, and you never know what’s going to happen. Don’t let things hold you back, understand the risks, and be respectful of the environments you visit.

As told to Madison Dapcevich. This interview was edited for space and content.

The Transparent Election Initiative (TEI) today launched sign.montanaplan.org, a website that guides Montana voters through submitting their own signatures for ballot measure I-194, also called “The Montana Plan,” which aims to eliminate corporate political spending and dark money influence in Montana elections.

The “Print, Sign, Submit” process is designed to make signature gathering more accessible to rural voters & households across Montana.

The new website provides a printable page and detailed instructions for signing and mailing signatures. Registered Montana voters can review the initiative text, print out the official I-194 petition form and unsworn declaration, sign the petition, complete an unsworn declaration, then mail their signed form and declaration to TEI’s P.O. Box in Helena. TEI has confirmed that self-witnessed and mailed signatures are legal and valid with the Secretary of State.

“Every Montanan deserves to have their voice heard. ‘Print, Sign, Submit’ allows rural communities to stand up to dark money without having to travel to an in-person signing location,” says Jeff Mangan, founder of the Transparent Election Initiative. “This process represents TEI’s commitment to accessibility and representation of all Montana voters.”

And it also allows those who simply want an easy way to sign & participate in direct democracy as afforded by Montana’s Constitution!

Signatures are necessary to put I-194 on the statewide ballot in November; they are not a vote for the measure. If passed, “The Montana Plan” would redefine the powers granted by the state of Montana to corporations and other artificial entities, preventing them from spending money to influence elections.

The Transparent Election Initiative is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to restoring democratic integrity by eliminating corporate and dark money influence in elections through constitutional reform and public education. Mail to The Montana Plan, PO Box 1953, Helena, MT 59624.

Montana’s lieutenant governor made clear that corner crossing remains trespassing in her state, despite a Wyoming case decided in favor of access to public land.

Lt. Governor Kristen Juras made her remarks Thursday at a legal forum at the Miles City Bucking Horse Sale, where she called the Wyoming corner-crossing case “unique” and said that Montana had a “different precedent” that allows it to criminalize the act.

She defended a Jan. 21 memo to game wardens declaring “corner crossing remains unlawful in Montana.” The memo authorizes them to cite corner-crossing hunters and others under state game and trespass laws.

The day Juras made her remarks, public land advocates sued Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, asking a district court to block enforcement of the memo.

The suit by Montana Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and Public Land And Waters Access names the wildlife agency and Director Christy Clark as defendants. The groups cite the Wyoming corner-crossing case in which hunters prevailed. Ruling on that Wyoming case, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that corner crossing is legal in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas and Oklahoma.

That should apply to Montana, even though it is not in the 10th Circuit’s jurisdiction, the new lawsuit states.

“The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals just last year held that Defendant [Montana, Fish, Wildlife and Parks] is wrong,” the new lawsuit states.

Corner crossing is the act of stepping from one piece of public land to another where ownership is arranged in a checkerboard pattern. Corner crossers do not set foot on kitty-corner sections of private property but do momentarily pass through the airspace above it.

Whether corner crossing is legal affects public access to 871,000 acres of public land in the Treasure State, public land advocates say. Juras said the “corner-locked” acreage — public land accessible by corner crossing alone — is about half that.

Unconstitutional directive?

The suit against Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks asserts that the memo authored by Director Clark violates administrative rule-making laws and the state constitution. The complaint goes further, claiming that Clark’s interpretation of Montana’s criminal and hunting laws “is an incorrect statement of Montana law and directly in conflict with federal law governing much of the lands at issue.”

The suit claims that treating corner crossing as a crime damages John Sullivan and Dylan Pipinich, who recreate on public land and have corner-crossed to do so.

“For generations, Montanans have responsibly corner-crossed to hunt, fish, and recreate on public lands without ever being found guilty of trespass,” Backcountry Hunters and Anglers said in a Facebook post. “Our lawsuit challenges that administrative overreach and seeks a durable path forward for law abiding citizens to hunt and access their shared public lands while ensuring private property rights are respected.”

The complaint by the two public access groups states that Clark’s memo “does not cite any Montana statute or court decision establishing that corner crossing is illegal, nor did it address a recent Federal Circuit Court Decision directly addressing the issue.

“[N]ot a single Montana Court decision supports FWP’s position,” the lawsuit states.

Montana’s trespass and hunting laws “focus on physical contact, occupation of land, and actual interference with property rights owned,” the suit states. The laws “require more than momentary crossing of undefined airspace” before they can be used to charge a person, according to the public-access advocates.

Fish, Wildlife and Parks “is specifically ‘interpreting’ the momentary act of de minimus [sic] airspace crossing as ‘entering private land’ or being ‘on private property’ with no statutory direction from the legislature,” the suit states.

Backcountry Hunters and the Public Land and Waters Access, an organization whose members say access to public lands and waters is fundamental to the identity of Montana, reject the common law ad coleum doctrine that holds that landowners also own from the depths to the heavens. The groups cite a 1946 U.S. Supreme Court decision that says the concept “has no place in the modern world.”

The new lawsuit also states that Fish, Wildlife and Parks has a public trust duty to ensure access. The suit claims that cases involving river access even allow contact with private land and should apply to corner crossing.

Courts have decided that “in order for the public to recreationally use its water resource, some ‘minimal’ contact with the banks and beds of rivers is generally necessary,” the two advocacy groups say. “[P]ublic access to public land at common corners is the same as public access to public water,” the suit states.

Ruling on the Wyoming case, the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the 1885 Unlawful Inclosures Act “prevents any landowner from implementing a program that prevented hunters from corner-crossing,” the groups’ suit reads.

“‘It is perfectly proper for [Montana courts] to use criteria developed in federal cases’ when state law is silent or lacking,” the suit states.

Bucking the 10th Circuit

Montana’s Lt. Governor Juras said the 10th Circuit opinion doesn’t apply in Montana’s 9th Circuit, which covers Montana, Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Nevada and Arizona.

“We do have different precedent,” she said. “That is why our administration feels strongly.

“We have Montana case law that does allow [prosecution of] trespass into airspace, both at the district court and the Montana Supreme Court level,” she said. “So we truly are under a different legal paradigm than the 10th Circuit.”

The 10th Circuit limited its ruling to federal public lands that can only be reached by corner crossing, she said.

“So if there is some other road,” Juras said, “even if it’s inconvenient, even if it means you have to hike another two miles, or you have to go over a mountain or across the stream, you need to use whatever available public access is there.”

A lot of corner monuments are affixed to trees, she said, making corner crossing at such points impossible.

“You literally can’t walk across it,” she said of a tree monument. “That takes away all the corner crossings with a marker on the tree.”

Juras also raised the issue of fencing and whether a corner-crosser who touches a fence is trespassing by contacting private property. The Wyoming case appears to discount that theory because the Unlawful Inclosures Act deems that a fence cannot be used to block public access.

Montana landowners build fences “with legitimate, good faith intent to contain your livestock,” Juras said. The intent “is not to lock out people from using the corner.”

In Montana’s 9th Circuit, a landowner’s fence-building intent — whether to contain stock or deter corner crossers — is relevant, she argued. If fences are built to contain livestock, a corner crosser who touches one would be trespassing unless they used a ladder or stile, she argued.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal from the Elk Mountain landowner who wanted it to overturn the 10th Circuit’s ruling that favored public access. But that doesn’t mean it endorsed the 10th Circuit’s reasoning, Juras said.

It is possible, depending on how the new Montana case evolves, that the Supreme Court would be more interested in considering corner crossing if the new lawsuit ends in a determination that’s different from the conclusion reached by the 10th Circuit.

Meanwhile, Juras said her concern “is that hunters are going to overly interpret what a corner crossing means, and don’t understand how narrow and what the tests are and how strictly you have to comply with them in order to meet the standards set out by the 10th Circuit.”