On June 14, 2014, a man in northwestern Montana experienced and survived two distinct wild-animal attacks in the same day: an encounter with a grizzly bear followed hours later by a mountain lion mauling. The events drew attention because of their rarity and because the victim lived through both encounters while traveling alone in remote backcountry. Location and context The incidents occurred in the remote backcountry of northwest Montana, an area home to both grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) and mountain lions (Puma concolor). Summer months bring more human activity into wildlife habitat, increasing opportunities for close encounters. Exact public records and contemporaneous news reports indicate the man was on foot and away from major roads when the encounters occurred. Sequence of events Available accounts report that the first encounter involved a grizzly bear, which the man detected at a distance or surprised at close range. He managed to escape that encounter without life-threatening injuries; details vary about whether he used deterrents such as bear spray, made noise, or retreated to a vehicle or other shelter. Later the same day, while still in the backcountry, the man was attacked by a mountain lion. That attack resulted in significant wounds, and he sought medical help. Local emergency services responded, and the victim was transported to a hospital for treatment. Reporting from the time indicates the victim survived and received medical care; there are no authoritative accounts indicating he later died from the injuries. Wildlife behavior and rarity Attacks by either grizzly bears or mountain lions on humans are uncommon, and documented cases of one person being attacked by both species on the same day are exceptionally rare. Grizzly encounters can vary from noncontact warnings (bluff charges, vocalizations) to defensive attacks, often related to surprise or proximity to cubs or a carcass. Mountain lion attacks on adults are also uncommon and more often occur in regions with limited human activity or when the animal is sick or habituated. Experts emphasize that multiple predatory encounters in a single day generally reflect high overlap of human travel routes with predator territories rather than systematic targeting. Aftermath and response Local wildlife authorities typically investigate such incidents to assess the animals’ behavior, the threat to public safety, and whether management actions are needed. Investigations can include tracking, site interviews, and, if possible, testing of the animal(s) involved. Public advisories often follow to remind backcountry users of precautions: travel in groups when possible, make noise to avoid surprising wildlife, carry and know how to use bear spray in grizzly country, and store food and scented items properly. Specific findings or management outcomes from this particular double-encounter were not universally reported in contemporaneous sources; statements from wildlife agencies were cautious and focused on general safety guidance rather than asserting unusual animal behavior. Reporting limitations Contemporary news accounts and public records provide the broad outline of these events but differ on details such as precise locations, timings, and the victim’s exact actions during each encounter. No verified, detailed medical or investigative reports are publicly available that enumerate wound descriptions, the use of deterrents, or the ultimate disposition of the individual animals involved. As with many backcountry wildlife incidents, some elements remain uncertain in public sources. Implications The episode underscores the risks of traveling alone in habitat shared with large predators and the importance of preparedness and respect for wildlife. It also highlights how rare but serious encounters can prompt public interest and agency reminders about coexistence measures: avoid surprise contacts, carry appropriate deterrents, and seek immediate medical care after any significant wildlife attack.