'Several' (maybe five) teens, aged 16 to 19 were on a 30-day survival course in Alaska when they were attacked by a grizzly with cubs.

Near the end of the course, they were alone with no instructor. "... because that far into the course, they’ve learned enough survival skills".

They had been taught to call out to the bears to warn them that they were around, and they were doing that when the bear attacked.

The bear attacked four of the group, and two are in the hospital in serious condition, and two were released with relatively minor injuries.

Teens mauled by grizzly

Is it just me, or does this sound wrong?

What are you supposed to do when you run across a bear that hadn't taken the course, and didn't know that when she hears the calling, to grab her cubs and run in the opposite direction?

Alaska has a reputation for grizzly bears. The National Park Service estimates Alaska has over 30,000 grizzlies, and more than 100,000 black bears.

And the best this so-called "outdoor leadership school" can teach them is to talk to them? Apparently they had no bear spray and no gun. Clever. Makes me want to sign up right now.

Sue

I would guess that the "calling out" is meant to ensure they are making enough noise so the bear is alerted to them. Typically, wild animals will leave the area upon hearing/smelling humans. However, if the hikers had been in path between the sow and her cubs, then no amount of precautionary measures would have helped. An angry sow only sees threats in those situation.

Luckily no one was killed. NOLS has been around for a long time and has a good record of teaching outdoor skills, no one is perfect. I do know that they do not believe in firearms and apparently bear spray is not something they condone either.
Overall, I hope the teens get well and get back to growing up. I am sure NOLS will look into how they run courses in bear areas in the future. Most Alaskans in the bush carry some form of bear protection, whether effective or not.

I think it is just you. Like many similar incidents, the news report are never clear. Also another news report suggests that the group did have bear spray.

A few things to keep in mind though.

Making noise while hiking whether it be loud talking, singing etc is standard for bear country. Is if effective 100% of the time? Obviously not, however making noise in bear country is recommended by many experts who have extensive bear behavioral knowledge.

The group was attacked at a river crossing. This time of year, the water is flowing fast, loud and is almost impossible to hear anything around you and the same goes for the bear. Yes you can argue that the group should of been more aware but we don't know the exact details as we were not there. Depending on the immediate terrain and vegetation, a bear or any animal can be 20 feet from you and not even be noticeable.

Also grizzly bears are well known for being territorial, especially around their coveted fishing spots on the river. The group was actually in the middle of crossing the river when the bear attacked, so yes the territorial aspect may of played part?

In regards to the school allowing these teenagers out on their own in the wilderness without an instructor. The same attack may of occurred with the instructor there also.

As in many of these incidents, there are too many "known unknowns" to attempt to armchair and not second guess or criticize what happened 1000's of miles away...

Excellent point!!

I suspect the lawsuits will cause more thinking about that than the mere injury of their students.

No guns in bear country, eh? Like I've said before, some people just have to learn the hard way.

Sue

Simple fact of the matter is that literally millions of people go into bear country every year and do not have any troubles with bears.

Yes you can carry a gun, however keep in mind that a younger bear, especially this time of year in good condition can run upwards of 30 mph. If you don't soon enough spot that bear charging you from 100 feet, do the math and figure out how much time you have to draw the gun, load then pull the trigger and hope that you did it in time. Same basic principles apply for bear spray...if not even less considering the relatively short effective range of the spray.

All in all though, the odds of actually being charged and actually attacked by a bear are extremely slim to none and I have never felt the need to pack a gun in bear country. I can think of a lot worse ways to be charged / attacked in an urban environment...

I wish the attack victims well.

I do not know if anything would work in the momma-and-cubs- situation, but in my imagination I would sure appreciate a thick fog of bear spray to increase chances of distraction to aid safe extraction.

Please educate my imagination so it more closely resembles reality. How does bear spray work? Do bears see through bear spray or can you use the spray to create a blank curtain-effect to hide behind? Are bears threatened by the spray so it makes them more aggressive?

Thanks.

Bear spray is a type of pepper spray, it works on bears the same way as people, however I think the bear spray is in larger packs which squirt further. Often people use a holster to carry it for quick deployment.

All you need to know about bear spray.

3 years ago, I purchased a new can of bear spray. For future emergency use reference and to familiarize myself with the trigger mechanism, I took it out into the trees behind our house. I shot a small test spray out onto a base of a tree from about 25' away only to have some of the spray bounce back into my face. Needless to say, it was not a pleasant experience at all and luckily I only got a bit in my eyes which my SO was able to help flush out.

With that said, when it comes to using the spray against the real thing, the environment and wind must be right otherwise not only will you might end up with the full brunt of the spray in your face, the bear attack that you wanted to avoid with the spray may also end up causing you to have a really bad day..

Here is a short video of bear spray being applied against a bear. Keep in mind that this looks like a staged event against the bear that I am not too thrilled to see but does show the spray and it's effectiveness in some cases.

Look, it's certainly possible that NOLS has been overrun by the trippy dippy hippies to the point that it has now bitten them, or rather their students, in the butt. But you're really displaying a lot of ignorance to refer to them as a 'so-called outdoor leadership school'. Check out their history and pedigree to help tame your inner keyboard commando.

Alaska Daily News:

The hikers carried three canisters of bear spray, but there was no initial indication that the hikers used the repellent

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/07/24/1983379/grizzly-sow-attacks-group-of-seven.html#ixzz1T8XtRIFV

Pray and use a suitable firearm, not necessarily in that order.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjHiu4RWMBk&feature=channel_video_title

I would not trust bear spray in that situation. What if there's an oncoming wind, or if I accidentally spray yourself for another reason? Imagine that. There's too much risk there. I would not fully trust a firearm either, but I'd trust it a lot more than bear spray.

Bears doing what bears do. I guess you shouldn't try and sneak up the rear of a Grizzly bear going about its business with its youngster. People are much much more dangerous, but pulling a gun on everyone on the trail isn't recommended.

Guns aren't much of an option around these parts, but I don't feel ill-prepared with just bear spray as a last line of defence.

The only study I've heard referenced found bear spray was effective at stopping aggressive bear behaviour in 92 percent of case while firearms were effective in 67 percent of the cases. This was study of 20 years worth of bear encounters in Alaska.

This same study also suggested wind wasn't as big of a factor in bear spray's effectiveness as commonly thought. Also, interestingly, it found the hissing sound and visible cloud are in themselves an added deterrent (from this article).

What will be interesting is what if any policy and procedure
changes will come of this. Or if they decide that Alaska trips are too risky.

I have been told by many, that grizzly's won't attack a group of
4 or more and that such an attack has never happened. That this alone is the best defense against attack. Here were 7 people.

NOLS not allowing firearms under any circumstance seems like
hubris.

Here is another report.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/07/24/alaska.bear.attack/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

Says the teens WERE in critical condition. The first responders
were afraid to move them. They had to wait for better equipped
help.

According to the article Colorama linked to above, the attack began when the lead guy was up ahead and the others were still crossing the river ... specifically it said:

"The first hiker had apparently made it out of the water and was out of sight of the others when he began screaming, Palmer said."

Based on this and the earlier suggestion that the river could have masked the hiker's noise, it seems very possible the bear only became aware of the other hikers after the attack had begun.

But it kept attacking after it discover the other students. At least four were attacked and it went back to do extra damage to the first one it encountered.

That bear apparently didn't know the rules.

I'm no expert, but I am thinking the rule is referring to attack prevention as opposed to the dynamic when an attack is already under way.

In other words, I am wondering if things might have gone differently had the 7 hikers come across the bear as a group as opposed to the lead hiker running into her while effectively alone (assuming that is what happened based on that news article).

Actually, this makes me think about what it means to travel as a group in bear country.

This weekend, for example, there were 5 of us out hiking and one of us had bear spray. Looking at this on the surface, this seems like a good and fairly safe set-up.

However, realistically for many stretches of the hike we were effectively a group of 3 and a group of 2. A bear isn't going to know that lead group of 2 was actually a part of a larger hiking group; its just going to see 2 people.

Added to that, this also meant one group had bear spray and one didn't. Had the lead group of 2 startled a bear they would've had no defence and those of us following behind would have been of limited assistance.

Could be.

I bet they were using other protocols developed to keep everyone
safe while doing a stream crossing. Stream crossings being
a more frequent cause of death during outdoor education trips.

One of my friends worked as a botanist for the Forest Service
in Alaska. Their job was mostly staring at the ground. They traveled as a group, each carried pepper spray and had one lookout with a shotgun.

The latest I read was that the bear had cub(s) with her and when it comes to protecting their cubs, bears don't play by the rules...

Please read the article a bit closer. They weren't talking themselves out of the situation they were calling out - ie. making noise to ward off the precesnce of the bear -- BIG BIG difference. Since the first 2 took the brunt of the attack it is likely that they surprised the bears by their presence and that any noise making they were doing was not effective. I quite imagine that with a group of 7 teens, they were doing a lot of talking especially as they were organinzing themselves to cross the stream.

I find the attack most interesting as there has NEVER before been a documented attack on a group larger than 6 (not 4) people (Dr. Stephen Herrero has studied and documented EVERY bear incident in NA since the start of Yellowstone NP). The fact that this was a sow with cubs probably explains the actions of the grizzly. It would be interesting to note the terrain they were in, was it a blind spot? Did they chance upon a berry or salmon feeding area? The attack occured at 8:30 pm as they were lining up for a stream crossing so there would have been good light. Bears often feed at daybreak or dusk.

I find the tactic used by NOLS also interesting, I would like to know more about it. There were 7 other students and 3 instructors some 6 miles away. I guess they must break the larger group up into smaller units. This group had a PLB so at least they were able to communicate the emergency; it was activated about 1 hour after the bear attack. NOLS as well as other outdoor groups have these month long courses (sometimes longer) used to cultivate young outdoor leaders. This portion of the training had them alone without an experienced instructor (as if that would have changed ANYTHING in the attack at all is only conjecture). They are aged 16-19 so it appears unlilkely that any were qualified to handle guns. I don't know of ANY of these outdoor schools that will even permit weapons on any of their courses - full stop - period. So discussion about having firearms in this situation is a non-starter.

Hmm, despite that fact that statistically, a person is much more likely to die of a bee sting than a bear attack, even in Alaska?

As I noted last night, any type of deterrent protection whether it be gun or spray needs to used immediately. Most bear attacks are made with very little warning and usually over in a few seconds. Add in the panic amongst the group along with a very determined and protective female bear and it is easy to comprehend what the outcome was.

Another thing to keep in mind, this could of happened anywhere bears inhabit and not just in Alaska. All my life, I have had enough bear encounters either on solo, 2 person to 4 person group hikes to know that the next encounter could be the last...you just never know.

Bear spray is most effective if you get to spray it BEFORE the attack while the bear is still many feet away from you. Once the attack has begun, I suspect the bear could care less if you poured a bucket of spray on his/her head as they really get into it. Whether or not the teens had such warning is totally unknown.

I tend to think the no firearms rules stem from world views
rather than actual reason. You can train youngsters to do some
extreme activities and yet maintain reasonable safety. (I think we should too. Better than leaving
them to find their own thrills, if you know what I mean.)

Millions (12.5) of teenagers roam the wilds each year
armed. Some solo, some as young as grade school. There are few
accidents relative to the participating numbers.

NOLS will allow rock climbing, mountaineering and unaccompanied
travel in trail-less environments. Activities that without proper training and judgment lead to death and injury. No
real reason they can't teach how to safely use firearms in the
bush just like many Alaskans do.

The probable real reason can be summed up in 3 words "fear of litigation" if something goes wrong. That said, I would not be surprised if there is not any litigation stemming from the bear attack.

Through all this discussion, can we be mindful of the differences between grizzly and black? The original post is about a grizzly. I see people saying "bear", and I wonder if they're lumping all bears into one category. So, while the discussion seems useful on the surface, I'll have to assume someone is talking about black bears if they say "bear". That's to err on the side of caution.

I am confused: you would not be surprised if there is NOT any litigation from this, which means you do not expect litigation? If so, I would have to disagree.

It may not be right, but NOLS may get sued out of existence on this one, especially if any of the kids dies or has ongoing disability.

Frankly I'm surprised something this big hasn't happened to them before. I heartily approve of the outdoor experiences they provide like climbing, solo hiking, etc. but I can't imagine putting myself on the legal hook for the welfare of strangers doing those activities.

As I mentioned a bit earlier on in this thread, the only study I've heard about found that bear spray was effective at stopping aggressive bear behaviour in 92 percent of cases while firearms were effective in 67 percent of cases.

This was a study of 20 years worth of bear encounters in Alaska; the bears involved were mostly (70%) grizzlies with the remainder being blacks (there were with a couple polar bear incidents included in the study too).

What are the important differences you see?

Do they apply in Alaska too?

I thought I was fairly clear. I expect litigation...

I think what we have here is an example of random stats being pulled out of the sky. Here is the original study:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2193/2006-452/abstract

The study does not analyze guns used in bear attacks, but the CBC article goes ahead and pulls 67% out of nowhere. I guess we're supposed to take that as the truth. I don't. Anyway, what does 67% mean? What type of gun is each person using? Are they including warning shots in that 67%? There are too many unknowns.

Further, check the source. CBC is a Canadian news source. Canada is overall anti-gun, just like Britain. I don't trust any study coming out of Canada or Britain that's related to using guns for self-defense. In Britain, it's basically illegal to use a gun to defend yourself against an attacker who intends to kill you. That's a warped mindset that completely disregards the natural right of self-defense.

I tend to lump browns and grizzlies together even though there are some minor differences with browns (kodiaks) having evolved to a larger size due to their fatty fish diets. Blacks are smaller than either (although some blacks in Alaska can also get very large due to rich diets).

One thing I've read is that even though grizzlies can be more lethal than blacks because of their greater strength and size, they tend to maul their victims but not necessarily kill them outright. Most people are actually survivors of attacks. Blacks have a bit more tendancy than grizzlies to stalk a person and they tend to finish the attack to the end rather than maul and leave as the grizzly would. These are tendancies, not written-in-stone behaviours, mind you. There are two three situations where bears are most dangerous -- when a sow with cubs is involved or if you come between the bear and it's food or if your dog gets aggressive with it. Otherwise they will most likely leave the area to avoid an encounter or they will huff and bluff charge in an effort to get you to move.

When I saw the follow-up articles about the first one or two people encountering the bear AFTER crossing the stream, it makes a far more sense. The bears may have not have known there were more people or a group which explains the idea that there were 7 hikers. And as others pointed out, the sounds of the stream and air currents could have masked the sounds and even the smell of the hikers as they approached which lends to the idea that the encounter was a surprise to the grizzlies. The first two individuals may not have had one of the 3 bear spray cannisters.

In any case, I wish the hikers a speedy recovery and all the best going forward.

A link to the NOLS press release here.

I've hiked some in the Chugach National Forest in SW Alaska. Our tactic was to constantly make noise just on the off chance we would come across a bear. The real problem may be that since the bears don't make noise you can get surprised. We were walking a well used trail when, with no warning at all, a very large dog ran up on us. He was friendly so no problem, but we never heard him coming. I doubt we would have heard a bear and in some of terrain we wouldn't have seen one either.

National Park trail and ADFG crews (fish & game), on which my DD has worked, always have a member whose job it is to provide protection against bears. She ends up carrying the 12 guage most of the time. The NPS does provide firearms training to all crew members before allowing them out on the trails.

DD's said that the crews worry more about black bears than grizzlies, but that may be because of her location in SW Alaska (Prince William Sound).

Sounds like all the kids will survive which is great news. And, NOLS did provide them with a PLB, which they used. It would be interesting to read the first person accounts of what happened.

"They weren't talking themselves out of the situation they were calling out - ie. making noise to ward off the precesnce of the bear".

Oh, I read it and understood it perfectly. But it DIDN'T WORK, did it? What was Plan B?

Lots of people go out into the wilderness every day and don't have a bear problem. That's probably because there aren't any bears around. What's the death and injury rate when there are?

Granted, feeding the bear one of the group would only incur a 20% loss (if there were five), or a paltry 14% loss if there were seven. Is that considered acceptable?

NOLS seems to have the same kind of planning mentality that governments usually have for their disaster plans: They prepare for the best-case scenarios instead of the worst-case scenarios.

NOLS is a non-profit organization with 14 on their board of trustees. Next time, send one of the trustees across the river first. That way, I'll bet company policy will change more quickly, unless their donors and grant sources do it first.

Glock-A-Roo: I can't find anything online regarding the NOLS accident and death rate history. Can you help me with this? The Wikipedia entry is more an advertising spiel than anything else, obviously written by themselves.

And I am not downplaying the response of the victims. It appears that they did an incredible job in all respects. I would say that they probably did a better job than most adults.

Sue

Exactly, if they are undertaking a "real" challenge they
should have all the tools and training an adult would.

I can think of a couple reasons why a course like this wouldn't include firearms for personal protection.

First, the study I referred to earlier is fairly well known by outdoor people who have to deal with the risk of bears but do not have a pre-existing affinity with firearms. This study (or at least how it has been interpreted) shows that they are not increasing the risk to their lives or others by foregoing a firearm and opting instead for bear spray.

I've heard this study referred to both by in online forums as well as in real life by my wilderness first aid instructor who was involved with the gun vs. bear spray debate with his SAR unit (he was on the bear spray side).

The second reason is training. To send a group of people with no prior firearms experience out with guns but no training is (I'd hope) a non-starter to begin with. If a program were to provide firearms for protection they'd have to provide a decent level of training first; something I assume this group feels falls well outside its mandate.

This second point links in to the first point: if you are convinced bear spray is more effective in repelling an attack than a firearm then your risk management strategy doesn't need to incorporate firearms; on paper they become more liability than benefit.

Forget the fact that its a CBC article. It is irrelevant. They did not participate in the study, they only reported on it. Second, the study as published may prove to be an interesting read. I have a couple other of Dr. Herrero's books and have read several others. I might pick this one up to. Third, these are not stats pulled out of the sky they are based on 83 bear spray uses where they analysed the encounters to the minute details (which way the wind was blowing, how hard, what brand of sray, particulars of the encounter.) The gun statistics are likely from another study or part of this one, its difficult to say. But when a I hear a stat like: "Smith pointed out, and his data suggests that it takes an average of four hits to stop a bear" tells me that there was some research behind that comment.

I do know that Dr. Herrero has documented all the reported bear attacks in NA from the start of when Yellowstone was created to at least when he wrote his first set of books on bear attacks. No word of whether he has been comprehensive of all the attacks since then. It may be that Herrero was relying on his previous studies. Lastly, while I take a bit of exception to the CBC article - it mentions US and Canadian researchers but Thomas Smith is from Brigham Young and Dr. Herrero is an American living in Calgary so it isn't as if this is an Canadian anti-gun agenda being pushed here.

True, the CBC is anti-gun. However, the 67% seems to be accurate, the article just isn't clear about where it came from. While the article makes it seem like the study compared bear spray to guns, it was actually the study's author (or at least his University) who appears to have drawn the line between the study you linked to and his previous work.

The following is from the University's press release:

"... Smith and colleagues analyzed 20 years of bear spray incidents in Alaska, home to 150,000 bears. He found that the spray effectively halted aggressive bear behavior in 92 percent of the cases ... Smith's previous research found that guns were effective about 67 percent of the time."

The CBC article did not make it clear that the 67% figure came from a previous study, not from the bear spray study.

It seems that similar numbers are quoted by other researchers. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have a fact sheet Bear Spray vs. Bullets which says:

"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."

I have nothing vested in these results, but everything I find seems to indicate that bear spray is more effective than firearms as a general rule.

I will claim no expertise on the matter, but the summaries I've read do seem to indicate bear spray is more effective than a gun (statistically). Obviously there are lots of variables. Many people seem to think of the .44 Magnum as a very formidable handgun but realistically it's a pop gun vs a large bear. How many shooters have the skill to drop a bear moving 30 mph with a handgun? I consider myself pretty skilled with firearms (Dad had an FFL and sold guns thru his sports club when I was young, and we had 80 personal firearms in our household) but I wouldn't feel great at all about facing an angry bear with a handgun. A person with limited training with a handgun would probably be much better off with a canister of bear spray. For a skilled shooter with a 12 gauge (with appropriate ammo) maybe the gun would be better. Of course, if the pepper spray works it's a win/win situation, whereas if the gun works it's win/lose.

First, the study I referred to earlier is fairly well known by outdoor people who have to deal with the risk of bears but do not have a pre-existing affinity with firearms.

--- This is their world view. You could say they have a pre-existing dislike with firearms too.

I've heard this study referred to both by in online forums as well as in real life by my wilderness first aid instructor who was involved with the gun vs. bear spray debate with his SAR unit (he was on the bear spray side).

---It is not a vs. situation. Choosing one over the other is kind of like choosing whether to have airbags OR a seat belt in your car.

The second reason is training. To send a group of people with no prior firearms experience out with guns but no training is (I'd hope) a non-starter to begin with. If a program were to provide firearms for protection they'd have to provide a decent level of training first; something I assume this group feels falls well outside its mandate.

---Bet most of them haven't used and ice axe either. They are dangerous if used incorrectly, but you
can be sure they train and carry them on glaciers. If their
mandate is to travel in the Alaska wilds, they also have a
mandate to protect the students as well or better than the
local population protects themselves.

This second point links in to the first point: if you are convinced bear spray is more effective in repelling an attack than a firearm then your risk management strategy doesn't need to incorporate firearms; on paper they become more liability than benefit.

---It is no longer on paper. Green ideology comes up against
children's safety.
If omitting a firearm component makes the students
less safe than similar groups traveling in that area
(fishing guides, NPS, NFS etc.) they are leaving themselves
open for criticism, or worse.

How to survive a bear attack

Why would anyone carry a handgun as protection against bears???

The phrase "armed for bear" has a meaning to it, you know.

If you're just carrying a handgun, you may be "armed for squirrels or a raccoon", but not a large predator.

Sue

I think one could argue all day about which study is accurate, what statistic is correct etc. I work with numbers and statistics all day and can massage them into any interpretation you want. Speaking of statistics, more people who are out trying to enjoy the outdoors in many related sports die each year from getting lost, falling and other accidents then all the known bear attacks on record. Do a search on Google for "hiking deaths".

The simple fact of the matter is that all those studies go out the window when it comes to encounters with bears. Every bear is going to react different, every person or group is going to react different also. The foremost important thing when confronted with any wildlife encounter that may cause you or others harm is to keep your head about you by being aware of your environment beforehand and to keep your wits about you when it is most critical.

Again with this particular bear attack, none of us were there to able to accurately analyze what occurred before and after the attack etc. As I always tell people, when it comes to wilderness accidents and survival situations, it is never one mistake that is the root cause, rather a whole sequence of events that lead up to the problem.

As for the bear spray vs gun debate. I carry bear spray and that does not mean I am anti-gun in any shape or form as I do own firearms also. If I ever get in the situation of having to pull the trigger on the bear spray then perhaps I might be wishing of having a firearm instead.

In principle I agree with you. However, the key phrase in your statement is "[i]f omitting a firearm component makes the students less safe..."

All the evidence and studies I have heard of suggest that pepper spray is an effective defence against bear attacks; a more effective option than firearms. Based on this, the only data I have, I can't say they are putting their agenda before the kids' (or their own) safety.

As you correctly stated, many groups, maybe even these guys, hold a worldview that would prevent them from using firearms even if the evidence showed they were more effective. It just so happens that, in this case at least, the data appears to support their preferences.

If I were going to hike in Alaska I would carry pepper spray.
And likely it would be my first response.

Some if's. How would one us it if:

If one were attacked in a tent?

Strong wind in the face?

If it goes off accidentally while driving the car?

If it goes out of date after 2 years?

If the temp dips low and the stuff won't work?

If the temps get hot and it explodes?
http://www.survivalreviews.com/index.php/articles/selfdefense/130-really-bad-deal

When a bear is already mauling a friend?

--

One study alone is not enough. And both the park service and the
national forests in Alaska say bring more than one kind of
protection.

From the Glacier National Park website:

Contrary to your behavior on the trail, if a grizzly bear is aggressive while you are sleeping in your tent, you must fight back with all your might.

Use anything you have as a weapon and go for the eyes and face. Outside of encountering a grizzly bear on the trail, this is the most dangerous situation to be in as the grizzly bear's aggression is likely due to hunger.


Don't pull the trigger on the spray, you will incapacitate yourself and make a bad situation much worse. On the other-hand, many bear attacks/charges are bluffs...just hope this is one of those times otherwise follow the recommended guides for black or grizzly attack.


Don't keep it in the car interior, rather in a trunk and closed container. The can I have states in capital letters: DO NOT STORE IN CAR PASSENGER COMPARTMENT.


Inadvertently if it is all you have, take the spray and use it if need be. It would be better then none as the spray would still have some effectiveness.


The bear spray I have says on the can that is good to 0C (32F). Chances are most bears are not out by time the weather gets this cool. I would (only) guess if the can is kept warm inside a jacket pocket etc, the temp range might be extended.


Can states: Safe to 50C, see above about not storing in the car where summer temps can climb above the safe zone.


Tough call on this one. Do you attempt to distract or confront the bear with a bear banger, whistles, yelling, rocks, sticks etc and risk having the bear next turn on you. If you had pepper spray, would it be worth spraying your friend along with the bear? I probably, maybe would? Chances are you will recover completely from the spray but the bear attack may be a different story..

Sure, call them at 800-710-6657, express your concerns, and go from there. They are above-board people.

This should put you on the right path, unless of course you're just running your suck instead of genuinely looking for answers.

I do not have case information but I do know NOLS has had other incidents and deaths on their courses. The problem comes from taking young people with little to no outdoor experience and putting them on a dangerous mountain or in sea kayaks in rough ocean conditions. I do know they have had fatalities at both those endeavors in the past.
In the case of the bear incident, one or more of the instructors should have been armed and prepared to protect the students. Same way a fishing guide or other outdoor guide in Alaska is armed to protect their clients.
In some ways it reminds me of the case some years ago where the BOSS "survival school" took people out for 2 days at the beginning of it's training without food or WATER and a student had begged and pleaded for water and showed all the signs of being in dire condition, the "instructor" ignored the young man and they allowed him to become unconscious and die. The school has a responsibility to ensure the safety of the clients, period. There is little value to exposing someone to danger for the sake of survival. A survival school should not be pass/fail it should be a place to learn technique and wisdom from experienced instructors so if you are ever in a true survival situation you have a better chance to actually survive.
Even the military, who trains many troops very vigorously, provides water and other necessities to ensure their health and safety.
There are way too many of these so called survival schools that set themselves up based on the Rambo mentality. They run people too hard, they deprive students of essentials so you can learn survival. NO, what you learn is pain, agony and fatigue. There is little survival technique being learned, it is all about endurance, which is another game altogether.
There needs to be more control and licensing to operate this sort of school, especially when minors are involved. Wilderness First Aid Cert is not enough to ensure student safety and oversee proper curriculum.

I recommend watching this video of Lars Monsen, he did a trip from the west coast of Canada to the east coast of Canada, it took over 2 years. He was out spring, summer, fall and winter traveling with just some sled dogs. He had numerous encounters with bears and was successful in running all off except one Polar Bear that attacked him in his camp and he had to kill the bear. He was not charged and the bear's death was ruled necessary. Some of the Inuit were glad to take the dead bear!
Very interesting trip, well worth watching and you see numerous encounters with bears. He had a shotgun with slugs for bear protection and bear protection only. Quite a man, quite a trip. All filmed by himself, like Survivorman does but for over 2 years total time in the bush.
Each video will link to the next episode.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-arbvSst6U&feature=player_embedded

Widget:

Every outdoors related sport has injuries and deaths every year and the same goes for high schools that teenagers attend every year.

According to the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research Twentieth Annual Report:

From 1982-2002, the total numbers of direct and indirect fatalities among high school athletes were:

Baseball — 17
Basketball — 88
Cheerleading — 21
Cross Country — 14
Football — 22
Soccer — 31
Track & Field — 47
Wrestling — 16

In 2001, the number of sport-related injuries for each sport are as follows:
Gymnastics — 99,722
Basketball — 680,307
Baseball — 170,902
Softball — 118,354
Football — 413,620
Soccer — 163,003
Volleyball — 55,860
Track & Field — 15,113
Hockey — 63,945

Granted there is a lot more kids in high school then participating in NOLS, however rest assured that this bear attack incident will radically change how NOLS operates in the future and for the good. If I lived in the US, I would not hesitate to send my kid to NOLS if he/she wanted to attend...

I'd start by saying no tool is perfect and will guarantee results in every situation.


Wouldn't this be difficult no matter the tool? You still need to see the attacker before shooting (instead of shooting your buddy whose trying to help get the bear to break its attack!). Both bear spray and firearms would likely prove difficult in this scenario.


You're might just be screwed . That said, that first study I mentioned seems to indicate performance is not as bad in the wind as commonly thought and that most encounters occur in areas where wind is less of a factor (e.g., dense woods).

As a side note, this was one scenario from my wilderness first aid field day ... the freaked out wilderness photographer who sprayed himself in the face. This is actually what prompted the whole discussion on bear spray effectiveness with the class.


Like any potentially dangerous tool you have to treat it with respect and understand its care and maintenance.

I'm sure there are many "what ifs" along these lines that could be used to paint firearms as unsafe or unreliable; I don't think they'd be good reasons not to use a firearm though.


This is an interesting one. I have been told that spraying a bear who is mauling someone will cause it to break the attack, but I haven't been able to find anything that backs up their statement aside from some unsourced anecdotes.

I'd give it a shot though.


To be fair, I've referred to (or at least mentioned) three. The other 2 references seemed to cast firearms in a less favourable light though (these were the 2 mentioned in the USFSW fact sheet).


I haven't been able to find anything like this on-line, but I would be interested in reading more along these lines. I would like to understand the reasons behind such an approach; given the likelihood of a bear attack is low to start with, I would have thought going with the most effective and easy to carry defence tool would be sufficient.

And really, this is what this issue boils down to for me. I have no problem with people who want to carry firearms as either their primary or secondary defence against bears. I have a problem when people make the accusation that other people or groups are irresponsible for not carrying firearms when firearms have proved not to be the best tool for bear defence in most situations.

I was reading another news account about this incident and noticed the following:

"Gottsegen told Denver's KMGH-TV that the first person to go around a corner yelled that there was a bear and then started running backward. Then Gottsegen said he looked behind him and saw the bear so he started running down the hill. He said the bear tackled him on the way down."

This stood out because earlier today I read this:

"Smith believes one of the primary reasons bear spray works is that it gives users a reason to stand their ground. Running is the worst response to an aggressive bear, he said, "but it's hard not to. Just picture the meanest dog in your neighborhood and multiply his size by ten-it's very hard to keep your feet from running, but bear spray gives you an option. When you stop and plant your feet, that makes them stop.""

Oh well, looks like they failed the course, so no team leadership mountain survival certificates for these fellows.

It is always fascinating how a single bear attack will generate enormous media attention,as well as commentary here on ETS, while the far more common falling and drowning fatalities go by unnoticed.

I would carry bear spray in bear country. Its record is good..

Given the nature of the initial attack with the teen triggering the bear's prey drive by running, I don't see where either bear spray or a firearm would have been useful.

The statistics say it is ok to put teens in bear country without any protection because they are statistically ok to be injured. I fully understand now.
The problem with those statistics is they don't account for what caused the 88 basketball deaths. Did they get hit by the ball? Did they fall on the floor and get trampled or did the transport they were riding in become involved in an accident and all aboard were killed?
As usual, statistics are just that, numbers that have little relevance. Bottom line is activities should always be risk managed to provide as much safety as possible. Statistics do not justify negligence.

While I don't have a problem with that choice, I wouldn't consider someone unprepared who only had bear spray while travelling in bear country.

Since bear attacks are relatively infrequent when compared to other backcountry incidences, having only one tool to defend yourself seems quite reasonable. Choosing the tool which has shown itself to be the most effective doesn't strike me as a bad choice.

I appreciate your info. However, I think you may have to punt on the wind issue. I just can't wrap my mind around how, during a head wind, bear spray can be both effective against the bear and NOT hurt the user. If warnings say "DO NOT USE IN HEAVY WIND," then I would actually have MORE confidence that bear spray can make the bear have a bad day.

Just to be clear, I'm not accusing anybody of being irresponsible. For me, it's about knowing what the heck I'm talking about when recommending a self-defense device to another person. Either I know entirely what I'm saying, or I don't talk at all. The self-defense tool, whether it's a gun or bear spray, should be put through the ringer from all different viewpoints. Every stat should be questioned. All available facts should be known.

By the way, I do like the idea of bear spray, even though I'd be more comfortable with a gun. I practice shooting guns. I don't practice using bear spray at all.

That is funny. At the same, it seems like those other things are entirely within one's control to prevent. If you don't want to get injured while falling, then look where you're going. If you don't want to drown, then become a better swimmer and respect the water.

Meanwhile, a bear attack has a huge unpredictability factor involved. I'm a bit of a control freak. So, things like bear attacks, snake bites, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc., make me uneasy.

Would you be comfortable with water purification that killed
90% of pathogens?

Edit- just noticed the claim is 98%. That is quite a bit better.

Since a bear has poor eyesight and good sense of smell, the
likely-hood of surprising a bear (when a grizzly is most likely
to attack) would be when you are facing the wind. Both sound
and smell would be muted by the airflow.

As for storing bear spray in a trunk, I have had soles of shoes
de-laminate from the heat generated by a car trunk. Not a good place to store something in an aerosol can.

Pepperspray works only to 32 F? Alaska doesn't get that cold
does it?

Limit yourself if you want, but the safety of other's children?

The Alaska NPS and USFS web pages I was going to post that suggested bringing more than 1 method of bear deterence have been changed. Both pages now have identical
wording. (They HAD listed air horns and flares as some of the other methods.)

"Protection

Firearms should never be used as an alternative to common-sense approaches to bear encounters. If you are inexperienced with a firearm in emergency situations, you are more likely to be injured by a gun than a bear. It is illegal to carry firearms in some of Alaska's national parks, so check before you go.

A .300-Magnum rifle or a 12-gauge shotgun with rifled slugs are appropriate weapons if you have to shoot a bear. Heavy handguns such as a .44-Magnum may be inadequate in emergency situations, especially in untrained hands.

State law allows a bear to be shot in self-defense if you did not provoke the attack and if there is no alternative, but the hide and skull must be salvaged and turned over to the authorities.

Defensive aerosol sprays which contain capsicum (red pepper extract) have been used with some success for protection against bears. These sprays may be effective at a range of 6-8 yards. If discharged upwind or in a vehicle, they can disable the user. Take appropriate precautions. If you carry a spray can, keep it handy and know how to use it."

http://www.nps.gov/anch/naturescience/bear-safety-in-alaska.htm

Here is the forest service employee manual on the subject

http://bit.ly/pQKwsa

That's fair, that said there have been statements made (not by you) in this thread accusing the group of negligence for not including firearms in their preps.


Information is key. Honestly, I always assumed a firearm was a superior choice to bear spray. However I was not able to find any real information to back this up; everything I've found indicates bear spray is, generally speaking at least, the better choice.

I'm not anti-gun and honestly have no issues with firearms in the wilderness; they seem like a valuable tool. I just haven't found any compelling reason to suggest that firearms should be considered the go-to, or even mandatory, self defence tool against bears.

I would.

A long arm is heavy and cumbersome. Therefore, it's more likely to be leaning up against a tree a few feet away when you need it most. It's also slow to the draw if it's slung over your shoulder, or, worse yet, strapped to a pack.

A handgun is much easier to carry, so it's more likely to be with you when you need it most. It also tends to be faster to the draw.

A .454 Casull (like Ruger's Alaskan) or one of Smith and Wesson's X-frames is plenty for bear, if you can hit what you're aiming at. S&W's .500 magnum actually replicates the ballistics of a 2 3/4" shotgun slug pretty closely. Both will throw a 300gr projectile at right around 2,000 feet-per-second.

Here's an article about a guy who killed a ~900lb brown that charged him while he was out walking his dog. The gun used was a Ruger Alaskan .454:

http://www.adn.com/2009/08/13/897940/twig-snap-alerts-dog-walker-to.html

I am more comfortable with a self defence tool that allows me to escape injury over 90% of the time compared to the one that only allows me to escape injury 50% of the time (according to the USFWS study).


This was answered by Tom Smith's research.

"Wind was reported to have interfered with spray accuracy in five of the 71 incidents studied, although the spray reached the bear in all cases. Smith used a wind meter to test the speed of the spray as it streams out of the canister. Repeated tests showed an average of 70 miles per hour. Smith also noted that bears and humans can easily see each other in open, windy spaces. The surprise encounters tend to occur in wooded areas in which vegetation blocks wind."


Part of safe operation & maintenace is storing and transporting it where it is under 50 degrees C (~120 F). This is a part of being the responsible owner of a dangerous item.


If you are dealing with these temperatures, the brown/black bears are likely hibernating and yes, a firearm would become the go-to option. That said, in Smith's study of incidents of bear spray use in Alaska there were no reports of spray malfunction.


You have not demonstrated that choosing bear spray as one's defence tool puts anyone at risk.

All the data I've been able to find suggests that choosing bear spray over firearms increases ones chances of survival and avoiding injury in the case of a bear attack. If this is not the case please provide information which shows the results of these studies are incorrect.

Here is a cut/paste from a post I did some time back:
------------------------------------------------------
Article worth reading: http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/downloads/BearAttack.pdf

Another article worth reading: http://www.nps.gov/glac/parknews/news10-05.htm

Best information I've read on Bear Spray vs. Firearms on bears:

"Between 2005 and 2009, park visitation totaled 9,835,188. During that timeframe, three visitors were injured by grizzly bears in Glacier. Bear spray was not used by any of those three individuals. Glacier managers agree with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks’ statement: "If you are armed, use a firearm only as a last resort. Wounding a bear, even with a large caliber gun, can put you in far greater danger."

"According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and defending themselves with firearms suffered 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.

"Other researchers have come to the same conclusions. According to the USFWS, Canadian bear biologist / bear conflict expert Dr. Stephen Herrero, a person’s chance of incurring serious injury from a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used. Also, in a study published in the April 2008 Journal of Wildlife Management, Tom Smith examined "The Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska." The study showed that in 72 cases where people used bear pepper spray to defend themselves from bears, the spray stopped bears 92 percent of the time and 98 percent of the people involved were uninjured."

The only problem with bear spray is that, in the off chance it isn't an effective deterrent, it needs to be backed up by something that doesn't just deter the threat, but can stop it completely. This is where a firearm comes in. I don't believe that one excludes the other....if I'm in big bear country, I truly want both available to me. I'm emptying that can and then transitioning to my firearm as fast as possible.

With a group, this is easier. Everyone in the group gets a can of bear spray, while a few select members of the group also get firearms. Then all bases are covered.


With that in mind, if I can only carry one of the two, I'm going to carry a firearm. That's simply because, when it comes down to it, the chance of me having a dangerous encounter with a bear is relatively low and I find a firearm to be more versatile overall (like if I get lost and need to take game to survive) or if I need to defend myself from some of the two-legged animals out there.

Clearwater, can you or a MOD fix that extremely long web link you posted as trying to read this thread on a smart phone makes for a lot of scrolling...

Fixed Link that Clearwater posted.

An article in the Alaska Dispatch has some new details.

Apparently the group was hiking down the winding creek, not crossing it, when the attack occurred. It was also raining heavily which it's thought, along with the creek itself, could have masked the group's noise.

Based on this and the geography, it's thought the bear didn't realise there was a large group:

"As the students, Stuemke and Ford have described the creek bed in which everyone met, it is quite probable the bear at first thought it was confronting only Berg.
...
"She (the bear) probably didn't realize the others were there," Stuemke said. Had she known the size of the pack she was confronting, bear biologists believe, she likely would have smacked her cub to get it moving and chased after it away from the area. Instead, however, she attacked Berg, cracking his skull in the process, to neutralize what she apparently perceived to be a solitary threat."

Also, it looks like no one in the group was able to deploy their bear spray in time:

"[Berg] was attacked and knocked to the ground before he could grab the bear spray he and others were carrying with which to defend themselves.
...
Some of them were trying to get to their bear spray. They never did. There wasn't enough time."

The big takeaway I see from this is to ensure you can always get your bear spray (or firearm) out and ready to fire in seconds (or less if possible). You don't have much time to react.

This article also has more details about the first aid administered by the group following the attack; it sounds like they did an amazing job.

Mike Clelland is an ultralight hiker and author. He counts fractions of a gram with the best of them, but he insists on carrying his bear spray in a holster at his side for immediate access, regardless of the weight penalty.

Weight and because it is better than nothing.

Typically while hiking in Alaska I carried a Remington 870 12ga with slugs.

I can attest it gets very heavy. :-)

If going somewhere where I'm less likely to run into a bear I admit I would often just carry the .357.

And yes, I understand the relative effectiveness of each option.

FWIW, if you are in the brush and startle a bear, deploying a long arm is iffy at best. Actually, deploying anything is iffy, but a long arm even more so.

-john

I suspect this is a misleading statistic.

While on the surface it sounds like apples to apples, it really isn't.

Basically, if a bear shows up, there is little reason NOT to deploy the bear spray. If the bear goes away, the spray worked, right?

Consider that in many situations the bear is checking you out. It isn't really committed to an attack. It may bluff charge you, see you aren't a threat, and wander off.

So... It many of these cases option 3: doing nothing probably has similar results to deploying the bear spray.

That said, the bear spray is clearly a deterrent. Basically it puts the human on similar ground as a skunk. Bear approaches, fog of unpleasantness appears. Yuk.

The gotcha is if the bear is committed to the attack (has cubs for example), I suspect the effectiveness of bear spray is near zero.

So as a deterrent, I suspect bear spray is good. Better than doing nothing, and better than a firearm.

But, if the bear is committed, the effectiveness of the firearm is probably going to be by far your most effective option.

Of course, "by far most effective" isn't going to be "highly effective".

These are two things that should be used together, not compared. One is a deterrent, one is your last ditch defense. These should be layered with the forethought to try to avoid startling the bear in the first place.

-john

With all due respect, do you really think its fair to discount the results of those studies based on your suppositions?

I'm not saying those studies are perfect or that there is no chance the experts who have found bear spray to be effective cannot be wrong, but all that I've seen here and elsewhere are suppositions and gut-feelings on why firearms must be a part of bear defence. I'm not going to say firearms can't be a viable defence against bear attacks because I think they can be, but I can't accept that they should be a mandatory part of ones bear defence strategy without something more substantial than someone's feelings to back up the argument.

I'd love to see some detailed critical analysis of these studies or alternate studies that have come to different conclusions. However, I've found none.

I haven't started advocating bear spray here because its my personal preference, but because all the information I can find indicates it will give someone the best chance at walking away from a bear attack. I haven't found anything similar that suggests the addition of a firearm to the equation adds to ones chance of survival.

I wouldn't tell someone who feels safer with a firearm and can legally carry it to leave it at home; but I would recommend to them that they carry bear spay on their belt and plan on that to be their first line of defence. In the same respect I am not going to say one ought to have a firearm in bear country given what I know at this time.

"With all due respect, do you really think its fair to discount the results of those studies based on your suppositions?"

With all due respect, I didn't discount the results of the study. I simply suggested that people may draw the wrong conclusions from them.

Further, I clearly indicated that I felt bear spray was useful and an effective *deterrent*.

But I also stand by my suggestion that bear spray isn't going to stop a bear fully committed to an attack. It won't even stop all humans fully committed to an attack.

Bear attacks are fairly rare. A fair portion can be deterred by bear spray making the remaining number even more rare.

So, statistically, you are probably safe without a firearm. But if you fall into that last unlucky bunch, I do suggest a firearm improves your chances. Hence, the layered approach.

I fully support your decision to take whatever chances you like as long as you are willing to live with any potential consequences.

In the end, we all must make our *own* decision what to do. I feel the best way to do this is to have a robust discussion, consider the arguments, and then make that personal decision.

-john

It will continue to be interesting as more facts and thoughts
of the attack come out.
How many students were attacked?

What if anything, did the students do that helped or made worse the situation?

What finally caused the bear to break off the attack?

Did one of the other students had time or ability to deploy pepper spray?

If a firearm was present, could someone have deployed it and would it have prevented some of the
attacks by scaring off or disabling the bear after the initial
contact?

and perhaps some changes in practice and protocol for NOLS in
bear country-

Do they let students on their own in brushy griz terrain?
Do they let students hike in the rain, or near streams in
heavy covers with bears about?
Do they let students walk single file and spread out?
Do they let groups with instructors go into brushy places?
Does the point hiker carry spray in their hand when in thick
places?
A shotgun?
Will other students be taught to come to the aid of someone
being attacked?

I am firmly on the fence about this. I hope never to be in that situation but it's my understanding that these attacks happen very quickly. I wonder if a layed, 2 step approach (spray and then gun if the bear keeps coming) is realistic? I'd probably want a gun if I was up there, but I'd definitely have bear spray on my belt.

Here is one persons take on bear fighting-


http://www.findingwilderness.com/?page_id=112

lots there, mostly theorys.

"Don’t play dead, even with non-predatory surprise encounters."

"Dr. Steven Herrero, admits that his recommendation for remaining passive or motionless (playing dead) in the case of non-predatory grizzly bear attacks is based more on “impressions from examining similar incidents and [his] understanding of bear behavior” rather than quantifiable statistical analysis. (See page 18 of the Revised Edition of his book“Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance,” Revised Edition 2002)"

This is the conclusion one of the studies we are talking about draws:

"Persons working and recreating in bear habitat should feel confident that they are safe if carrying bear spray. Although bear spray was 92% effective by our definition of success, it is important to note that 98% of persons carrying it were uninjured after a close encounter with bears."

I don't think I'm misreading your last response, but it sounded like you were saying bear spray might work against non-aggressive bears, but wouldn't be effective against aggressive ones; for those scenarios you'd need a firearm to have even a chance. This is something the study contradicts.

For example, you reiterated:


Yet the evidence suggests otherwise:

"In 64% (9 of 14) of these close encounters, brown bears charged the person(s) before being sprayed. In 85% (12 of 14; G1 = 7.9, P = 0.019) of aggressive encounters with brown bears, bear spray stopped the bear’s aggressive behavior; in 12% (1 of 14) the person spraying the bear was not injured, but the bear charged through the fog, halting 1 m from the person before moving off. In 12% (1 of 14) of aggressive encounters the bear contacted and slightly injured the person in the interaction (i.e., deep scratches requiring stitches)."

So in 20 years of known encounters in Alaska there has not been a single fatality, or even significant injury, among those who have used bear spray as a defence against bears, even aggressive ones.

Approach the situation as you will, but in a forum such as this I think it does a disservice to anyone reading this to suggest that they would be at risk by relying on bear spray as their defence against bear attacks. The information available simply does not warrant suggesting that bear spray cannot be relied upon as ones primary, and even sole, tool for defence.


To this, my response is the same as the one I made to clearwater when he made a similar suggestion (that I am somehow risking my life or the life of others by not recommending a firearm). I'll simply quote that exchange:



Absolutely. My point is we need to make this decision using the best and most accurate information we have available to us.

If you have both tools in your capability, you can use either or both as you see fit. Nothing saying you can't decide your best chance is to shoot and skip the spray. The only thing you can't use is what you don't have.

-john

No, I wasn't saying "aggressive bears" vs "non-aggressive bears". But rather bears vs bears *committed* to an attack.

Keep in mind the study can't know the intent of the bear.

Remember bears charge to figure out what you are about. Are you a threat? Food? We may interpret this as "aggressive", but that doesn't mean they are going to actually attack or are committed to kill you.

Think about it this way. Human vs human in total adrenalin berserker rage intent on killing you. Totally different animals.

Same with bear. Bear vs bear in total adrenalin berserker rage intent on killing you.

In both cases often the former can be dissuaded from an attack. In both cases the latter must be forcibly stopped.



I don't see how we differ on the usefulness and typical effectiveness of bear spray. I agreed the number of bear attacks is few, and most of those can be dissuaded with bear spray, so the statistical chance where bear spray is not effective is very small.



Well the alternative is to suggest they are perfectly safe relying only on bear spray. Considering that bear spray does not incapacitate the bear that seems like a potential disservice as well.

YMMV.

-john

Can you cite anything to support this, or is this your opinion? I haven't seen anything yet which would support this assertion that bear spray is not effective in some class of "committed" attack.


Maybe my only qualm is that the way those chances of ineffectiveness are being presented. The way I read them, it sounded like they were being presented as likely scenarios that would leave someone in harms way. Reading some posts in this thread (I'm not only referring to your posts here), it makes it sound like relying on bear spray would be a crap shoot with dire consequences.


Sorry, I'm still going to have to disagree here. Bear spray alone provides you with an extremely high probability of surviving an incredibly low probability event. In my books that is solid preparedness.

As a side note, there is no such thing as "perfectly safe" in any context.

I'm sure you will discount this as hearsay, but it is considered common knowledge in the law enforcement and self defense communities that OC spray simply doesn't work on 100% of the subjects and high suspicion that "highly motivated to resist/assault" plays a factor.

Even if that isn't true, and we rather attribute the result to some are "simply immune", the result is the same. Not 100% effective means not 100% effective.

I suspect I could dredge up some studies, but I'm not really that interested.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-6152.html




To use your phrase, that's how your response sounded to me.

-john

Have you tried African carry?

This event that started the discussion is such an event.

They were depending on bear spray, but were unable to (apparently) access it in time. Could a rifle shot from someone
else in the group have made a difference?

That's one of the other reasons it might still be a good idea to have a firearm around. For bear spray to work, you have to be relatively close. That's fine if the bear is going after you, but if it's chasing someone else in your group you essentially have to go chasing after the bear to stop it, putting yourself in harms way.

I find this debate interesting but I'm a little confused. (Not trying to pick a fight or sides, just trying to figure out my own position on this.) John, It sounds like you're saying we should skip the bear spray. Are you advocating carrying both a gun and spray, trying spray first and then shooting only if it doesn't work? Or are you saying that we go straight for a gun and shoot at or around any bear if they charge, whether a bluff or not in case we misread the intent of the bear?

It sounds like Paul has the right idea. Know know to and plan to use your spray if you are attacked and have a gun on hand in case the bear's pursuing someone else.

I don't think that's a fair statement; the key word in my statement above is used. Neither bear spray nor firearms are magic amulets, they need to be used to be effective.

According to the accounts I've read, they had bear spray but none of them used it; not even those who were not directly under attack.

According to the most detailed account I read, it said:

"[Berg] was attacked and knocked to the ground before he could grab the bear spray he and others were carrying with which to defend themselves.
...
Some of them were trying to get to their bear spray. They never did. There wasn't enough time."

It would be interesting to find out what caused this failure. Was it just panic (which would be understandable) or did it have to do with how they were carrying the spray?


If the other members weren't able to ready their bear spray, I don't see how they would have been more able to ready a rifle.

But yes, its possible it could have helped if there was someone more capable with a firearm than this group appeared to have been with bear spray. Its also possible someone more capable with bear spray (or even who carried it in a more accessible way?) could have made a difference as well.

I don't think I'd write it of as hearsay, but I do wonder how well human behaviour / psychology maps to bears when it comes to this (I honestly don't know). Admittedly, I would be more swayed if those in bear management / conservation roles noticed such behaviour in bears.

That said, it is definitely worth taking into consideration.

However, I still end up going back to those studies of actual events which lead me to the conclusion I stated above that bear spray alone provides you with an extremely high probability of surviving an incredibly low probability event.

Where hunting of these animals is restricted, do these animals appear to be less aggressive/fearful towards human beings. Bears don't seem human beings are a source of food or there would be more deaths, missing hikers etc. Is this factored into any of the studies about bear attacks?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moyCJ7Z-EaY @6:15 - as Sally said -'Bears don't bother you if you don't bother them'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAFV5_4k0sA - Even wild birds will show no fear to humans in remote country.

No, I'm saying they shouldn't be *compared* as in this vs that, but rather they fill different and compatible roles.



Yes.



Not specifically. I'm saying you have two different types of tools and can respond as you feel the situation dictates.

-john

So this "study" that determines how effective bear spray is, only had data on 18 aggressive brown bear attacks?

"In 36% (18 of 50) of brown bear incidents, brown bears
acted aggressively towards people before being sprayed."

2 of those cases (out of 14 for which they had data), the pepper spray did not stop the bear. So in 15% of those cases, the spray did not stop the bear.

Be careful in trusting other people's statistics (or statistics in general). Read the data for yourself, draw your own conclusions, read the researchers conclusions, and see if/why they did or did not make the same conclusion as you.

Regardless, info on only 14 aggressive brown bear attacks does not give you enough info to draw a strong conclusion on whether or not bear spray will stop an aggressive brown bear. They should have mentioned their lack of data with regards to aggressive bears in their conclusion.

You are correct, that study (and it was a study, not a "study", by some of the most respected experts in the field) only included 18 brown & 7 black bear encounters where the bear was exhibiting aggressive behaviour.

These were the only known encounters in Alaska over the 2 decades the study covered where bear spray was employed.

However, I'm having a hard time figuring what percentage of actual attacks these 25 encounters would represent. It looks like there were around 12 fatal attacks in Alaska during the course of the study, but I can't seem to find anything on non-fatal attacks.

Do you know how many attacks happened during the study's time frame ('85- '06)? Given only 12 fatal attacks occurred I'm not sure how insignificant 25 attacks would be in the overall pool of attacks.

That said, these results are consistant with other, similar research performed. The US Fish & Wildlife fact sheet on this topic mentions 2 of these other sources:

"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."

On the other side, I haven't found anything suggesting the conclusions drawn by these various studies are incorrect.

As a side note, I haven't found the underlying studies mentioned in that fact sheet yet, but I have emailed the USFWS to see if they can point me in the right direction so I can see the results myself.

I found this U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service article interesting:
http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/bear%20spray.pdf

Another aritcle I read said this:

"A handgun or rifle seems like the obvious choice but according to studies when a bear is shot there is a high chance it will become enraged and further its attack if not taken down with the first shot. In fact when relying on your firearm there are quite a few things that could go wrong. Your gun may jam and malfunction, you might miss your target or the bullets may strike the bear but merely injure and enrage it. Even if shot multiple times."

"Just to clarify bear mace isn't the same as regular pepper spray it is much stronger. Regular sprays are designed to incapacitate humans whereas bear mace was specifically developed to repel an enraged bear."

I have never used a bear spray, so I read this thread from Canadian Canoe Routes with interest.

Several members of the group decided to discharge their bear sprays as a small 'research project' since all the canisters were at least three years old and didn't have expiration dates.

"From what I've seen they all seem to start as a stream and over the course of about 10 to 20 feet move out into a cone around 6 foot diameter. The one thing that surprised me was the big difference in how fast they opened up into a mist, how far the stream went and how long the spray lasted... We all liked and settled on the make the got the furthest distance before coning... I'm guessing 25 plus feet and a 6 foot cone at that distance. We got just over 7 seconds of pepper."

He said the brand they all decided to buy was Counter Assault for duration and distance, and it has a glow-in-the-dark safety. (This link was from 2007) Bear spray

So, if the spray comes out initially as a stream, you could probably shoot it straight into the eyes/nose of a bear that was actually in the process of attacking someone else (or yourself), since it doesn't come out initially as a mist.

If the bear had the victim's head in it's mouth, the spray would probably still affect the victim, but if the bear had hold of an arm or leg or torso, the person holding the canister might be more likely to use it if they knew the spray didn't come right out in a cloud that would instantly affect everyone in the immediate area.

Sue

Ok no time to read all of this.But one of the kids was from around here and I read a lot of the local coverage.

First off they DID have bear spray,that is also easy to find if one well googles the new stories and reads the accounts.

Second they were walking in a creek bed they came around a bend and there was the sow and cub,she charged hard right off, no time for nothing .

... or reads this thread.



No way! I didn't know that... until I read this thread.

Note also the definition of "aggressive" from their paper: "when the encounter included behaviors such as charging, agonistic vocalizations, or persistent following". People pointed out before that bears often charge as a test, without real intention of attacking. What JohnN asked was how many of these bears had a commitment to attack. The number is smaller than 25, and probably much smaller.


I guess the point is that we haven't seen anything yet which supports the assertion that bear spray *is* effective for "committed" attacks. The Smith et al. study that you cited does not show it since for all we know, none of these 25 attacks was "committed" (and the reason for that is that their definition of aggressive behavior does not necessarily indicate a commitment to attack).


I think what's interesting is not so much the fraction of all attacks they presented (as long as they were chosen at random), but rather the absolute number of attacks they analyze. The reason is that with so few attacks it is difficult to determine significance of the results. For example, they claim that for brown bears, the spray stopped the attack in 12 out of 14 cases. With so few cases, the 95% confidence interval for success is from 60% to 96%. I.e. it wouldn't be surprising if with more data their claimed effectiveness would drop to 60%.

Spray and being in a group of four or more seems to be a popular precaution:

"One of the most popular hiking and biking trails in Banff National Park is bringing in restrictions at the height of the summer tourist season due to fears of bear attacks. Until Sept. 15, it will be mandatory for hikers to travel in groups of at least four. At least one of the individuals will be required to carry bear spray."

http://mobile.thestar.com/mobile/canada/article/1031709

Looking at Parks Canada's bulletin, they have an added piece of advice that I tend to forget about:

The maximum distance between two individuals must not exceed 3 metres and should be less when sight or hearing is reduced by the physical surroundings.

Having a group a people doesn't do much good if you end up breaking up into pairs or smaller groups while hiking.

Also, regarding the bear spray recommendation, to be fair it is illegal to have firearms in the national parks so spray the only option that could be recommended to the public.

WRONG...Federal law permits firearms in national parks, provided the person complies with the firearms laws of the park's home state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#National_Park_Carry

In an article written by Dr. Thomas Smith, one of the authors of that study, I found some additional details about bear attacks where firearms were involved (note: while the bear spray numbers are those from the 20 year study, another article I read indicated the following firearm numbers span a 100 year period):

What position do bear biologists take in this debate? I can’t speak for others, but after studying more than 600 Alaska bear attacks, I've learned:

• In 72 incidents of people using bear spray to defend themselves against aggressive bears in Alaska, 98% were uninjured, and those that were suffered only minor injuries.
• In 300 incidents where people carried and used firearms for protection against aggressive bears in Alaska, 40% were injured or killed, including 23 fatalities and 16 severely injured persons. Another 48 people suffered lesser injuries.

These numbers are consistent with the US Fish & Wildlife findings that:

...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.

Based on these observations I see 2 possible explanations. One is that bear spray is more effective than firearms when defending against bear attacks. The other is an overwhelming amount of bears will only commit themselves to attacking those who choose to defend themselves with firearms. The former seems more likely to me.

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I was referring to Canada's national parks.

I actually feel the second possibility is not that implausible. Of course it's unlikely that bears decide ahead of time to come after people with firearms. But it seems pretty plausible that what started as a test charge would turn into a committed attack if the bear is injured but not killed. Most people who use firearms are poorly trained and don't have appropriate firearms for killing bears. So they injure and aggravate the bear and it now feels it has to kill the human. Whether this hypothesis is true can be tested by comparing the number of injuries among general people with guns and among people who are well trained and use appropriate guns.

If that's true, then what's best depends on your skill level. If you don't know how to use the gun, then a better option is to use bear spray. If you do know how to use the gun, it may be better to use the gun.

I'd probably leave out the word "only", but I do think it is likely if you shoot a bear and do not kill it that it is going to do its best to return the favor.

"Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" -Mal

Basically, if you use lethal force when a deterrent would be more appropriate, you likely escalate the situation.

On the other hand, if you use a deterrent when a deterrent is not going to be effective, you likely are out of luck.

-john

It's funny, because of this incident, I keep thinking about this issue in terms of Alaska and the US but it's an issue in Canada too, in Alberta and BC in particular. Our gun laws are very different so the debate certainly changes focus when we're talking North of the border.

There is some descrepancy on that. The lead hiker mentioned that he didn't see any cub(s) and that he believed the rest of the group didn't see them either. So either someone is mistaken, some presumptions were made, or the signs of bear cubs were seen as an after the fact (paw prints in the mud?)

+1


Kind of like hunting boar in tule reed tunnels.

But how many were injured in the attack, four or six of the seven? Something to be learned here about hiking as a group in thick brush in bear country.

Not attentive enough were Jedi those.

Or not trained or equipped enough.

An additional takeaway, that had nothing to do with the gun vs bear spray debate: Get training and be prepared for anything.

One of the kids is from around here, and he's getting a lot of press lately. He had recently graduated from an EMT class and had been a volunteer at a local hospital.

He managed to keep his rather severly injured friends alive until the professionals got there. According to the news here, one had a fractured skull, and one had two sucking chest wounds. Not minor injuries at all. I'm not sure how much can be done for a skull fracture in the field (I'm an EMT, but I'm usually within 10 - 15 minutes of a hospital - backboard, collar, and go!), but the chest wounds would probably need to be managed carefully, with the management having a significant impact on outcome. Seems he did a really good job.

That a member of the party had medical training probably played a role in the good outcome.

(For the record, I rarely hike without bear spray, even in New York state, and I have never hiked with a firearm, except to get to and from my hunting spots. Now that I have kids in the woods with me, I'm thinking about changing that fact, but it's hard to get the right permits around here.)

What this incident says to me is that you don't acquire true competence simply by taking a "course." You need instruction, followed by experience, backed up with more "book learning," and yet more field time... Competence eventually emerges.

Very true. These are the 2 provinces I've lived in and the only places I've really pursued the outdoors. It's just a simple fact that if I'm hiking or camping that I am doing so in bear country (brown & black). I had to hit a couple outdoor stores today and there was noticeable activity around the bear spray & deterrents due to that Parks Canada bulletin.

And yes, the gun debate is much different up here due to both the laws and culture (which I guess are somewhat tied together).

You and JohnN both raise a good point; injuring a bear that was bluffing can definitely cause an attack / mauling that might not have occurred otherwise.

I can also see inexperience being a factor as you suggest, but good shots don't appear to guarantee an immediate end to an attack. For example, Scott Oberlitner and a buddy defended themselves against a bear attack, him with a .375 H&H Magnum rifle. Each man fired at the bear before it came into contact with Oberlitner, but with less than ideal results even though both shots were good:

"... both of the bullets fired at the start of the attack mortally wounded the bear, but because those bullets failed to hit any bone, they did nothing to slow the bear's attack. The force of the last shot rolled the bear off Oberlitner."

Based on my limited reading, I think there are things that can be done to increase the effectiveness of a firearm as a defence tool against bear attacks, including:

• Having your firearm in hand
• Having your firearm loaded with a round chambered
• Being able to disengage the safety smoothly and intuitively under pressure
• Don't try to scope the bear

However, I'm not convinced firearms can be brought up to the effectiveness of bear spray.

In the time allowed, shot placement rules. This is similar to discussions on some gun forums about stopping an attack vs killing an attacker. A .22LR can kill an attacker, but maybe not fast enough.

A bear's physiology allows it to keep moving quite a bit longer than it takes to attack and kill a mere human. Then the bear moves off and the blood pressure drops off and it dies. We're back to putting rounds in the brain for an effective stop and that is much easier said than done against a fast moving bear.

I'd go with bear spray too.

YMMV <$.02

I know I know, reviving an old thread is generally throwing akin to throwing gas on a old fire but I just thought I would post an article that I found recently.

It is a 5-part breakdown of the discussions that following the incident and doesn't really shed light on the incident itself. The author discussed the use of guns vs bear spray in a bear attack and comes back with some surprising conclusions and makes a good logical case for not giving firearms to the teens. Never the less, it was a good read written a few weeks afer. The second article provides more clarity on what happened on the day of the attack and of the nature of the attack. It was raining and the sounds of the creek disquised the approach of the group. The attack was maybe 10 seconds long. Since the kids crossed the creek indiviually the bear didn't know it was confronting a group if she had known would have preferred flight to fight. Only the first student said he saw a cub. This is one encounter that was not likely to have been avoided and the writer congratulates the teens on their post-attack response. There are several related links from the first and following articles. Some are also interesting reading.

Where I hike, my preference would be to carry bear bangers and bear spray and position a tree/obstacle between me and advancing bear. Firearms are illegal in Canadian parks. Bear bells are basically annoying dinner bells and are worthless decorations. Knowledge of bear habits and being attentive to the surroundings is paramount above all else.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/ar...attack?page=0,0
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/alaska-bear-attack-nols-kids-did-phenomenal-job?page=0,0

I have seen Herrero's statistics before and they are pretty convincing. It is also very clear that one needs to be scrupulously clean when in bear country in order to deter attacks. I have enjoyed firearms all my life, but I think bear spray to be a more effective deterrent.