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.