Having a gun makes no difference in the outcome of bear attacks!

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/03/08/2058759/gun-is-no-insurance-policy-in.html

I would imagine the number of fatalities to the bears probably goes way down when the human is unarmed!

there's was a thread on this a while ago.

-john

Sorry for the duplication. I was busy fighting off bears...

Some very interesting things said in that article:



Totally agreed. I highly recommend that people carrying guns for self-defense should be trained, and not just shooting paper targets on a square range. Training to shoot under stress is key.

Regarding handguns:



Handguns are often far more useful in close quarters encounters, especially in the brush.



Emphasis added.

My belief is that a trained person with a gun is safer than he or she would be without it. Training in this context means knowing how to avoid bear encounters as well as knowing how to shoot under stress.

I believe this is the original discussion referred to above: Teens mauled by grizzly in survival skills course

That said, the article you refer to brings the results of an additional study to the table that I don't think we had during that discussion. While there were the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's study results comparing firearms to bear spray, I believe we only had Dr. Tom Smith's study on the effectiveness bear spray ... now it looks like we have the results of his study on firearm effectiveness too. The more information we have, the better.

Here's a good quote from the study's author from the university's press release that sums things up for me:

“People should consider carrying a non-lethal deterrent such as bear spray,” said Smith, a gun owner himself. “It’s much easier to deploy, it’s less cumbersome and its success rate in these situations is higher than guns.”


With respect to this, wouldn't a bear banger do the same thing? I'm not saying the shotgun is necessarily a bad idea, but I'm just not sure that its the only tool that can provide this benefit (i.e., make a loud bang to scare the bear away).

"Longtime bear biologist Tom Smith and colleagues analyzed 269 incidents of close-quarter bear-human conflict in Alaska between 1883 and 2009 in which a firearm was involved. They found the gun made no statistical difference in the outcome of these encounters, which resulted in 151 human injuries and 172 bear fatalities."

I'm not a scientist or a bear expert, but I find flaws in both your reasoning and the statement in the article.
The study was of 269 incidents where the human was armed with a firearm. Out of 269 incidents, they tallied 151 human injuries and 172 bear fatalities.

From that, he and you draw the conclusion that firearms made no difference in the outcome.

A scientific study would have included (at least) groups of armed and unarmed encounters. But then, attempting to study the "unarmed encounters" may leave you frustrated at the difficulty in locating witnesses. There are the occasional findings of finger bones in bear scat that could bear (npi) witness, I suppose.

Let's see, I would guess that if there were no firearms involved that there would have been NO bear fatalities and the outcome would have been leaning toward: Bears: 269, Humans: 0. Does that make sense?

172 bear deaths in a study of 269 cases where there would have been NO bear deaths without firearms is called "no statistical difference in the outcome of these encounters". ? ? ! ! ! Really?

Does the biologist have his own agenda?? There were NO deaths of humans mentioned. How many deaths of humans would there have been without the firearm available?

Firearms used to be called "Equalizers" for a reason. They give you a chance, but you must have the training, knowledge, discipline and ability to use them correctly.

I agree. I always go armed in bear country and in Alaska. The people who had guns obviously weren't proficient with them. A 300 grain solid from a .44 magnum does wonders for a bear problem when properly placed in the vitals.

[quote=Bingley]Having a gun makes no difference in the outcome of bear attacks!quote]

I guess that is why no one in bear country carries a gun! No one! - Alaska State Troopers, pilots, hunters, fisherman, guides, residents. They all learned from the real experts like - Timothy Treadwell (4/29/57-10/5/03). I think he died hugging a tree.

Here's a paragraph that addresses your concern:



From: http://news.byu.edu/archive12-mar-bearsandguns.aspx

Keep in mind that these are news articles, not research reports where Smith presents his findings in a detailed, comprehensive manner suitable for scientific scrutiny. If you are interested, check out the next issue of the Journal of Wildlife Management.

This forum is not the place for debating gun rights and such. I'd suggest a bit of care and attention to what the researcher is trying to accomplish, giving him the benefit of doubt, before accusing him of having "hidden agendas."

Are for other posters clamoring about always carrying in bear country: it may be so that people carry firearms, but it does not alter the statistics. Just because I think having my little blanky with me prevents a meteor from falling on my head, and no meteor has yet fallen on my head, it doesn't mean the blanky is a good meteor repellant. If you have hard numbers to show that firearms give you a higher survival rate in bear encounters, please do share. Otherwise you need to respect the people who actually put in the work.

On that note, here is a link to the article in the Journal of Wildlife Management: Efficacy of firearms for bear deterrence in Alaska

Unfortunately only the abstract can be viewed for free, but hopefully after the article has been out for a little bit a copy of it will be posted for free somewhere (like his other study I referred to above).

Certainly a bear banger has the potential to be effective, and may be a good thing to carry for someone who, for whatever reason, does not choose to go armed.

In my mind, shotguns have three distinct advantages: 1) The bear may be able to sense a difference in your posture between "go away or I'll make that noise again" and "go away or I'll put an ounce of lead in your brisket." Note that this is supposition, based on a layman's informed opinion and not based on hard science. 2) If the loud noise doesn't work, the shotgun has a chance of preventing injury to humans. The bear banger, not so much. 3) Firearms can help protect against non-ursine threats.

For the record, when I'm in bear country, I do bring bear spray as well as a gun.

The end of the abstract states:



Hard to argue with that.

Were not talking little blankies here, and I imagine that if you had carried as many bodies out of the wilderness, or swam as many out of waterways as folks I know and have worked with, you would not minimize it as such. If you feel safe to draw the conclusions from the data provided, as the writer seems to do, more power to you. I am not an advocate of folks carrying a firearm anywhere, the folks I know don't need a lecture. When you are faced with a lethal threat and you respond in a non-lethal manner, I hope you and your loved ones survive. Truly. That is just not my preferred method.

If you want to argue statistics, I don't have any handy. Let me give you an example of my thoughts on statistics: If statistics show that 6 in 7 folks survive a bear attack without a firearm and that one dies, would you want that one to be you or a member of your family? The statement is telling you that, statistically, you don't need a firearm to survive a bear attack, so... does that mean that it's safe and a wise way to proceed... or should you consider the consequences if things don't go too well for you statistically.

Was the info provided to make folks here safer when venturing into bear country?

I stand by what I said, with no agenda and no disrespect to your beliefs. I just believe there is a lack of sense about the presented article and it's conclusions.

I also do not harbor any ill will against bears or have any unreasonable fears, but I do have a healthy respect for them and many other things in nature. I have had the unique experience of being wakened by a bear. Not by the noise it was making, but by his nose brushing along my neck as he sniffed me. I guess I didn't offer a tasty enough (or maybe not a large enough) meal at 12 years of age. So, I survived a close bear encounter, and I am eternally grateful that it was not an attack

Other conclusions of studies I recall:
Chocolate is good for you.
Chocolate is bad for you.
Salt is good for you.
Salt is bad for you.
Butter is good for you.
Butter is bad for you.
Wine is good for you.
Wine is bad for you.

What to do... I think it's wise to address potential threats based on potential consequences.

I think I'll add bear bangers to my wilderness carry this year. I like the idea that it adds an option to the bear spray (i.e., the ability to do something if you aren't in close quarters - yet).

In my opinion, the question shouldn't be "am I responding to a lethal threat in a non-lethal manner" but rather "am I responding to a lethal threat in the manner which provides me the best chance of survival." My goal when facing such a threat should be to end the attack as quickly as possible without experiencing injury or death (my own, that is!).

Looking at the studies available (at least the ones I've found), the evidence suggests that you are more likely to be injured or killed if you defend yourself against a bear using a firearm as opposed to bear spray. For example:

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.

Based on all I've read, I now advocate that the best form of defence against a bear attack (black or grizzly) is bear spray. I won't tell people they shouldn't carry guns, but at the same time I would not recommend a firearm as someone's primary defensive tool against bears.

Whew...I almost hate to enter this thread. Guns for bear protection is one of those topics that always generates a lot of heat. The discussion can get quite contentious.

One article I found very interesting is this one from last summer by Rick Sinnott on myths about guns and bears. In it he points to a lot of the totally lame ideas that some people have regarding bears and guns. He also talks about pepper spray. Rick is a retired biologist who had responsibility for the Anchorage area. We do have a lot of bears (brown and black) in and around our city. Rick has dealt for many years with the bear vs people issue.

There is a good research article on pepper spray. Bottom line is that there isn't much doubt anymore that it works. Nothing is guranteed to work in every case, but pepper spray works well.

After having lived, worked, and played in Alaska for over 20 years, I have (surprise..surprise) some opinions of my own. Let me preface this by saying I am not anti-gun. I own and shoot a variety of long and short guns. I have military experience. Some years back I was doing field work in remote areas and my employer sent me to an excellent wildlife safety class. Unlike many who offer advice, I have actually killed bears (one brown and one black, both on bear hunting trips).

In my opinion, most of the people I see on the trails carrying guns for bear protection are very poorly trained. (See some of the comments in Sinnott's article). Most of them would be better off carrying pepper spray. At best they don't have the skills to successfully stop the bear in time to prevent injury, and at worst some of them are a danger to others on the trails. Their gun is psychological protection only.

These days my personal choice is that I generally carry only pepper spray. It has been shown to work. And I don't shoot as much as I used to, and don't feel my skills are as sharp as they should be to carry a gun for bear protection. Besides, pepper spray is a lot less weight to lug around, which is nice as I get older.

It seems to me the big point of Smith's research is not that you shouldn't carry in bear country, but that other factors matter more to keep you safe.

For firearm usage, his research seems to indicate a pretty sharp divide in effectiveness between people who can perform well under high stress and people who are not used to it. Also, I do think it's quite interesting that handguns are more successful than the more powerful long guns in defending against bears, according to his research. I would have expected the opposite.



You're saying that if you happen to the the unlucky one person, would you want to have a gun, right? What's motivated you to think about this, when what Smith is arguing is that there's little statistical difference between using and not using firearms in bear encounters? What you're thinking is "at least I'll have a fighting chance if I had a gun." Smith's research indicates that your chances aren't any better. You may still want to have a gun, perhaps because when the bear attacks you, you'll feel confident rather than helpless. This has to do with psychology than practicality. If SHTF, maybe you will be the small number of exceptions that manage to get off a well-placed shot. (And I hope you'll be able to pull this off.) Maybe you'll die trying to do that. (I hope not.) It's your prerogative to choose which path to go, not mine.

Again, I don't think this study says to disarm. Rather, it highlights the more crucial safety practices, and suggests that if you want to carry, carry a pistol and get ready for the difficulties of shooting a 500 lb charging animal.

It also says you'l have to fill out quite a bit of paperwork if you kill a bear in self defense. So pack a pen, too.

My only agenda here is to get people to understand what the research says (according to the news articles anyway). I have no inherent interest one way or the other about carrying in bear country.

"They are on their back shooting the bear in the mouth."

Proficient in the use of a firearm or spray would be important,
sure, but you wouldn't have to been a participant in TOP SHOT
to pull off that sort of target accuracy.

Seems like a big hole in the survey that it didn't include all the times a firearm stopped a bear without either party being wounded.

While the study author didn't seem to have an obvious agenda, the Tribunes author did talk about things political in the case of firearms in National Parks.

From the Alaska Dispatch.

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/study-guns-not-fool-proof-against-bear-attack

My motivation for thinking about this doesn't have anything to do with being lucky or unlucky, but being prepared. It involves having been involved in training and being involved in or studying several serious situations, not specific to bears, but not excluding them. My thinking is more along the lines of "being able to handle whatever comes at me" (in a broad sense) with multi-purpose gear rather than carrying a bulky canister that may provide some protection from a specific threat. Consider the following: bears aren't the only threat in the wild, pepper spray doesn't work 100% of the time, I have been through a few chemical weapons courses (and been trained as an instructor) and know that it does affect me 100% of the time. Firearms can be used for signaling and for food, but pepper spray is not as efficient at either.

I have never shot or killed a bear, but know someone who has done so for protection ( and he was a bit disappointed in .45LC). I have shot and killed a brahma bull (~1200 lb. ) who had just charged and been shot by someone I was with. (Did I want to? No. Was it a one-shot-kill? No. Was it legal? Yes. Was paperwork done? Yes, and since the owner of the bull was a superior court judge, the paperwork was very detailed.) We all have some paradigm which shape our responses. It is good to read studies on both sides, understand what is being said and what is not (and perhaps, why) and figure out if it applies to you and how.

I think one of the things found in studies is that, if the person is using the right tool for the job and that person is adept with the tool they are using, the chances that the tool works for them is greatly increased. I don't believe that everyone should carry a gun, I do believe that if they choose to do so, they should become adept with it prior to carrying it... and, yes, become familiar with the aftermath.

I believe this, and many other articles, report dangerously misleading conclusions based on incomplete, misread or disregarded data.

I also believe that we could discuss this at length, bringing in "experts" defending different sides of the discussion, and still arrive at no defining solution.

I understand that there are other factors that matter to keep us safe, I'm focussing beyond that, at the point you are facing an attack.

We all have to make decisions based on our beliefs and what our heart and reasoning tell us to, and face the consequences of doing so. Every situation is different and every person's ability is different.

My only real complaint with the discussions I've had on the topic are that people who prefer firearms over bear spray downplay the effectiveness of bear spray in direct conflict with the available evidence. They often use language that suggests your are taking an unreasonable risk if you choose bear spray as your primary defence tool in bear country, and yet all the available data suggests that it is your safest bet.

If a bear charges you, you have a much greater chance of being injured or killed if you try defending yourself with a firearm than if you try defending yourself with bear spray. This is what the facts from multiple sources all say and I've yet to see any substantiated argument to suggest otherwise.

Would you care to give examples of the "incomplete, misread, or disregarded" data? If you have looked over the 200-odd cases Smith examined, I eagerly await your analysis of his data and why, based on the hard data, his conclusions are "misleading."

I have only read the two news articles. I haven't seem Smith's research article, which I assume presents his data and his findings. If you are in the same boat, then I don't see how your statement above has any worth.

We don't have much for bears here in Alabama that I know if, but we were discussing this at work on day. A female coworker (who knows I carry and we've discussed it at length) asked me if I thought using a .45 would stop a bear.

I just told her I'll shoot until one of us is dead. They wouldn't find me laying dead with a half-empty magazine, that's for sure. I'd fire it dry and then shove it in an eye socket or something if I could.

The real simple fact of the matter is this: 1000's of hikers die, get injured every year by their own undoing and mistakes as compared to those who may even see bear, let alone be charged or mauled by a bear. These are not numbers I just made up in my head, rather from years of daily Google news alerts based on key words that are sent to my email inbox, multiple times per day. All the discussion here will not change these statistics and I cannot believe that the topic of guns vs bear spray comes up so often and always leads to the same arguments.

I live and adventure in bear country on a very regular basis and the last thing crosses my mind, is a bear attack as there are 100's of more self inflicted accidents and mistakes that will cause me injury or death before a bear attack. And yes, I do carry bear spray and after decades of outdoor travels, have never had to use it once and in all likelihood, I will die of old age before having to pull the spray trigger (or any trigger) on a bear...

I'm wondering whether that addressed the following potential issue: maybe the 40 instances in which no firearm was used were less aggressive than the instances where a firearm was used.

I'd say that what the data actually suggests is that bear spray is an average person's safest bet. If you are sufficiently different from the average (e.g. if you are better at handling a firearm), then your personal safest bet might well be different too.

Examine and present only 260+ case studies...that should only take a couple of weeks, would you like to pay my O.T. rate?
Why don't you pick out an example of what you feel is definitive case or five that you think shows your point, draw a conclusion from it and I'll try to show where it may be misleading. Sound reasonable?

My go to guy for bears is Steven Herrero,particularly his publication "Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance." It isn't very macho,but the number one factor in bear country is keeping a scrupulously clean camp. I don't have the figures at hand, but the statistics demonstrate that bear spray is more effective at warding off bear attacks than firearms; again, not very macho. Frankly,I,too, feel more secure when packing a firearm, compared to carrying around a spray can, but that doesn't mean that I am actually more protected.

According to one recent study 63 people have been killed in bear attacks in 109 years, so death by bear is certainly a possibility, and worth preparing for, but that number of fatalities pales in significance to the number lost to falls,drownings, and extreme weather, both heat and cold, while in the outdoors.

Annually, there are something like fifty deaths from honey bees in the United States. What caliber is effective against this clearly dangerous animal?

Equipping ourselves against the threat we face in the outdoors is a very personal process; it is not surprising that we will make different choices. I haven't been in bear country lately, but when I am, I will probably do it with a can of bear spray, keep a clean camp, and use a bear can or hang my chow. My S&W will most likely stay home, because a good climbing rope will be more effective in the face of the threats I will be confronting.

Here's hoping we all make good choices.....

The article referred to here is based on the study/report made by Tom Smith, the biologist, with the writer's opinions interjected and his conclusions.

This is what the State of Alaska thought of the biologist's study: "While Alaska wildlife officials questioned the usefulness of Smith's data set, they "agree 100 percent" that a firearm should not be used as a crutch. Ditto with pepper spray."

Looks like the State of Alaska feels neither firearms nor pepper spray be used a a crutch. If you're going to carry a firearm for protection, be adept with it. If you are going to use pepper spray for protection, be adept with it. Understand their limitations and capabilities.

'He points to lame ideas'; do you mean he gives statements made to him and then discounts them due to his opinion? That's what it looks like to me.

The author states: "While claiming to have fist-hand experience with guns and bears, many of the advocates proffered bad advice, apparently subscribing to the any-gun-is-better-than-no-gun rule of self-defense. It doesn’t work that way. An aggressive grizzly bear, or one defending its cub or a carcass, is not necessarily deterred by a little pain."

Does this guy understand that pepper spray is a pain deterrent?? It doesn't sever the spine, break bones or stop brain activity which ends aggressive behavior, is causes some level of temporary pain!


Here's his conclusion: "Because when a bear attacks and you have two seconds to react … and it’s raining … or dark … and you can’t see 10 feet into the brush … and your shotgun is leaning against a tree … or your rifle’s scope makes it difficult to acquire the bear … or you short-stroke your 12-gauge and jam it … or you empty your .357 magnum and the bear keeps coming … or you’ve never shot a gun before … and the ground is slippery … and your partner steps between you and the bear … or the bear straddles you, pinning your long gun in the present-arms position ... you might be wishing you had a can of bear spray."

So: ... When you use pepper spray, you have minutes to react ... and it's clear, dry and daylight conditions ... and you have unlimited visibility ... you have perfect vision and a clear shot ... you perfectly execute the safety, aim and fire sequence of the pepper spray deployment and have direct hits in the eye/nose/mouth area causing immediate incapacitation ... you have practiced with the pepper spray every month for years ... the ground is perfectly dry and level ... there is no one or nothing to get in your way or go wrong ... the bear is passive (why are you attacking it, anyway?) and stays 6' away from you and perfectly still so as to receive the full effect of the pepper spray ... and you still might be wishing you had a firearm?

If bear spray might work, and a firearm might work, guess what? I would be carring both! Which one would be used would depend on circumstance. Firing bear spray into a 20 mph headwind? I.d pick the firearm for that case. Using pepper spray would just serve as seasoning for my meaty little body for the bears dinner.

Yes, it is amazing, isn't it. People who have never even seen a grizzly or brown bear, let alone been attacked by one, or shot one, are more than willing to give "expert" advice. And they tend to get really upset when someone challenges their "facts" (or lack therof).

Yes, that is my view also. I've been living, working, and playing in big bear country for well over two decades. While bears certainly can hurt you, the odds of a serious encounter are extremely low. I've long been convinced that on any given outing in Alaska, one has at least two orders of magnitude greater risk of dying from hypothermia than a bear attack.

In my earlier post I had a link showing movements of just 11 collered bears around this town. We are a city of over 300,000 people, with some estimates of upwards of 60 brown bears around town (and many hundreds of black bears). One friend of mine once had a brown bear come up on his porch. To listen to some of these armchair experts, people should be getting mauled right and left. Yet the fact is, injuries from bears are extremely rare.

I've run into two bears in my whole life (in the wild). Both in Yellowstone, if you can call that "in the wild". We were hiking on trails away from the crowds so it was kinda-sorta in the wild.

The first one was a grizzly. I think. He had that flat-ish face and hump on his back. We stumbled upon him (her?) accidently, but he pretty much ignored us for the first few seconds. He was digging at something. He looked up at us and that's when my wife took his picture as we carefully, but quickly, left the area. I wanted to kill her when I heard that shutter click, but he had already seen us anyway. Looking straight at us actually. His picture is below. He was pretty close - that shot was taken with a 200mm lens on a 35mm film camera. We certainly didn't approach him this closely, we got surprised. It was dusk. Picture is grainy because back in those days film wasn't as good. The shot was on 400ASA film that we pushed to 800ASA during processing (realizing we might have a decent shot of the bear, but underexposed, hence the "push"). All you young folks probably have no idea what "pushing" film means - ah, the joys of getting older - I miss that darkroom!

The second was a black bear. We were fishing on a remote stream. He came stumbling out of the woods on the opposite side of the stream from us. He saw us, and took off running in the opposite direction. We didn't run, but packed up and left the area.

Mr. Bear, as we nicknamed him, sometime in the early 80's in Yellowstone:

Thanks AKSAR. I am glad that there is at least one other person here who agrees with me...

I think that at times, people inadvertently get too focused in their ideology and that colors their thoughts then distracts them from a more realistic and plausible way of thinking of what is a greater threat to their safety and well being while out in wilderness as apposed to the extremely small odds of a confrontation...let alone being attacked by a bear.

Just because a greater threat exists does not mean you should ignore the lesser threat. I'm not saying that means you need to carry a gun, but I'm also not saying that you shouldn't carry a gun just because a greater threat exists. Other factors need to be considered as well.

it seems to me that these statistics are not really about people and bears. What they really tell is a message about how people with firearms are likely to react if charged at close quarters by a dangerous animal. Clearly ... making an effective shot is a LOT harder than most of us would like to admit.

On a separate, but important, subject ...

chocolate IS definitely good for you :-)

So if I am charged by an enraged grizzly, my plan is to take out a chocolate bar from my pocket and eat it. Might as well die happy.
Hahaha !

Pete2

If a bear were charging you, how many people would know WHERE to shoot it for best effect? I know I wouldn't. Again, that doesn't mean I'm against having a firearm in bear country, just that I wouldn't know where to shoot such a beast. Maybe if I were treed and had a long time to take nice aimed shots, I'd go for the eyes and the nose - take away his senses the he would use to find you. But I think that's actually a pretty bad plan. not to mention, very cruel to the bear.

I appreciate your overall sentiment, but your statement is hyperbolic. If somebody said they're going to drop me off in the middle of known bear territory (with no other threats), I would definitely carry a powerful gun if given the option.

You, in contrast, are saying that it makes no difference. Actually, you're saying carrying a gun would be worse because the gun would be nothing more than dead weight. Going without the gun would allow you to save weight.

To reiterate, for those who say it makes no difference, than I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is by refusing the option of carrying a powerful gun in bear territory. For example, somebody hands you a powerful gun in bear country (with no other threats), and you must deliberately refuse because it's dead weight.

Here's a video worth watching:
http://youtu.be/tjHiu4RWMBk
The gun made a difference in that situation. Further, the gun was the only thing that made difference. What else would have worked there? A whistle? Yelling?

Post voluntarily removed.

I'm with you ... don't forget, if you have opted for pepper spray at that point, spray it all over yourself at the last second, the bear may appreciate a spicier meal.

I don't know what went on here, I didn't notice anyone stating they were giving expert advice or that they were an expert. I noticed one biologist's report given as an informational, safety notice that we could file into our "other folk's experiences" file. I didn't see it as the end all, do all report of human - bear encounters.

Some folks here take offense to others opinions and experiences and call names, thinking that only their opinion and supporting data matters. There are usually at least two sides to every story... with deviations and variances...

AKSAR, your name here infers that you are, or have been, on a SAR team in AK (with my limited imagination, anyway). You should have some great info and insight. I have 25 years experience on a recognized team. I would imagine that, working in AK, if you had looked around at other team members, you might notice a few firearms. I carried once in a while, but not all the time. A couple of times the volunteers were intentionally excluded and we went in armed due to circumstances of the search but that was not due to bears in the area.

You can read many studies, reports and opinions and you may notice that there are arguments across the spectrum as to cause and effect.

To those of you that think pepper spray automatically incapacitates any animal, man or beast, I would say it would be in your best interest to do further research.

To those of you that believe that a properly placed shot of the correct calibre does not incapacitate an animal, I would say the same. Yes, it is not as simple as all that, and I did not say "immediate incapacitation"... there are many variables... but bullets destroy tissue and turn off switches that make things run. Yes, adrenaline and drugs and all that. yada, yada, yada..

Really, no disrespect, these really are facts.

Best wishes and safe travels to you all, I understand that not everyone likes firearms. The best use of pepper spray I have found to date is to dissuade vicious dogs, but it was always backed up with a firearm.

P.S. The last time I was assigned critical incident review, I was given a months for a researching single incident. There are "experts" on all sides, some will arrive at different conclusions that you; hopefully they have arrived at their conclusion after a thorough investigation of all involved parties, witnesses, the scene and available evidence... I know, time consuming, boring, and may seem like too much to do for something so apparently cut and dry... maybe. I don't know all the details of these incidents reported, If I read the reports of all the incidents reported, I still would not have all the info, just the info that was presented.

Hopefully we come away with the knowledge of how it may have happened, what conclusions were arrived at by the individual or team assigned to study the incident(s) and we can use that info to make our lives safer.

Let me edit this for content ...

I think the point of the spray is that it's a LOT easier to aim a "fog" versus the "pencil beam" of a bullet when under stress, rushed, slipping in the mud while the bear tries to hump your leg or whatever.

I didn't read the article, but I would agree the idea of effectiveness of a pistol is a lot easier to agree w/ conceptually. No one carries a rifle up and ready when in the woods. Slung, or on your backpack typically. A pistol at least can be holstered and removed relatively quickly. So can bear spray. I have a feeling (not fact!) that the speed to deployment is one of the biggest factors bear spray has in it's favor.

Someone needs to invent a bear spray that starts popping off fire-crackers (or bullets) simultaneously.

As long as we're talking about anecdotal experiences, I've seen maybe 10 black bears over the years. Closest was sniffing our tent one night (thanks, tent-mate). Farthest was maybe 50 yards. Like some others here, I rank bear attack pretty low on my threat assessment. If I were to live where grizzlies do, I might raise it a couple of notches.

It all comes down to individual choices, doesn't it? We make these all the the time in choosing our preparation/survival strategies and tool kits. The threads in this forum I find very helpful in considering and refining my choices and developing strategies.

The strident, emotional level of invective in some of the posts in this thread are less than helpful and are not in line with the typical discourse here. It would help if we would play nicely together.

Since SAR experience has been cited, I can't resist chiming in. I did my first SAR more than fifty years ago and have contributed to hundreds of operations since then, mostly in southern Arizona. During that time, I have seen no operations involving bears (none involving rattlesnakes either, for that matter), a few involving accidental discharge of firearms (not a huge number, but some), but many (more than the cross ties on the railroad or the stars in the skies) involving alcohol, where the blood levels at autopsy indicated the victim was legally drunk. These typically involved a fall from great height sufficient to cause death. By a wide margin, the major cause of fatalities was falling from height (usually more than forty feet); usually the victim had wandered inadvertently into steep terrain and did not have the equipment or experience to deal with the situation.

The common denominator among the victims was inexperience or unfamiliarity with the environment. Oddly enough, during the period during which I was most active, we had more fatalities from drowning and floods than from dehydration and heat. This has changed somewhat in recent years in southern Arizona because of the influx from south of the border. We lost more people from cold weather than from heat, as well.

I own and use firearms - one of my most cherished possessions in my S&W M28, owned since 1964, and used seriously on a few occasions. Mostly I don't carry it because other items are far more likely to be useful, like a good climbing rope or a full canteen, an extra fleece, or a handful of matches. That is my choice and yours may differ; that's fine.

The fact that we are having this discussion is good - we are thinking about the problem. The majority of people getting in trouble in the outdoors do so because they don't even consider that they could get into trouble. Any strategy is better than no strategy.

Based on what I have learned, the next time I am in serious bear country, I will probably carry bear spray, based on what seem to me to be fairly clear, unbiased statistics. Others are welcome to do otherwise. The bottom line is that it is unlikely that any of us will ever suffer a bear mauling; we are far more likely to die in an automobile accident or suffer death by honey bee, for that matter.

[quote=MDinana No one carries a rifle up and ready when in the woods. [/quote]

REALLY! My guess is you have not been in big bear country.

My problems with bear spray are simple. What if it's windy? You have to let the bear get too close for comfort. What if I panic. Firearms training is easy, not so easy, or inexpensive with cans of spray. Also, many men, myself included, would feel immasculated with a can of spray vs say a .454 Casull magnum. Just my opinion.

I already have put my money where my mouth is. In my gun safe I have several options for carrying powerfull firearms in bear country. In fact, two of those powerful firearems have proven to kill bears (my 30-06 on a black bear hunt in Prince William Sound, and my 338 Win Mag on a brown bear hunt on Kodiak). I also own a S&W 629 44 Mag, and a 12 gauge shotgun with 18 inch barrel, but have not killed anything with either of those. Nevertheless, unless I am planning on hunting, they stay in the gun safe.

I spend many days each summer hiking, backpacking, and paddling in Alaska. I have been doing so for well over 20 years. I have considered the risk of bear attack, the effectiveness of firearms vs pepper spray, and the weight of firearms vs pepper spray.

I do not routinely carry a firearm. I do carry pepper spray. My choice.

There are only two occaisions anymore when I carry a firearm in the woods. One is when hunting. The other is when doing geologic field work, because my employer requires it as a matter of policy (they don't give me a choice).

If you choose to carry a firearm for bear protection (I do not), the best place to shoot is to try to break the shoulder. This is the recommendation of most bear hunting guides.

The brain is actually relatively small, and is encased in a very thick skull, with a sloping front. Not an easy shot, and if you are off even slightly, you may have a very angry bear with a bad headache. Heart or lung shots will certainly kill the bear, but may not stop it in time.

The shoulder is a reasonably large target, and if hit will stop or at least slow the charge. Also, if the shoulder is hit, the bullet will generally pass on through into the vital organs. Note that this assumes a weapon with sufficient penetration! Bears may look rolly polly, but underneath are solid muscle, and their bones are very stout, hence the recommendation for large calibers, and bullets designed for lots of penetraion (not so much expansion).

I'm not certain exactly why/how pepper spray works as well as it does, but it does.

Yes, I am a member of a volunteer SAR team. A few folks on the team carry firearms, but by far the general preference seems to be for pepper spray.

As always, these discussions of bears and guns get way too heated. I've stated my position. After looking at the odds of a bear attack (very low), and the pros and cons of firearms vs pepper spray, I have chosen to carry pepper spray.

This is probably my last post on this thread!

I guess for me the difference is that I would not be carrying a gun solely for protection against a possible bear attack. I already carry one wherever I go. We had a discussion at work about the same thing and one person suggested that a rifle would work better than a handgun. I agreed but stated I'd rather try to defend myself with the handgun I *DO* have than the rifle I don't.

I doubt the bear would give me time to run home and get a rifle or shotgun under those conditions. I'd have to go with what I have on me, which is a subcompact .45acp loaded with 10+1 230-grain JHP's. Might kill the bear, might not.

But to say that all because a person hasn't trained extensively at killing a charging bear with a gun means they couldn't is discounting the times that exactly that has occurred.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/08/31/man-kills-charging-bear-with-454-casull/

http://sleepless.blogs.com/george/2003/10/bear_killed_wit.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/31/backpackper-shoots-kills-grizzly-alaska-park/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/zanesville-depu...64#.T1zxmPXleSo

AKSAR, please don't do so because of me. The statement above was to point out that different folks make different choices. Same on the team I was on, although I don't recall seeing the spray.

I was not trying to present the quoted portion with any attitude, but was a comment from one former SAR team member to another perceived as such.

I had the same thought of dropping the thread, but that wouldn't be in what I perceive the spirit of the site to be, to learn and make our outdoor experiences safer and more enjoyable. When things go to safety and I see something I see as dangerous advice, sometimes I respond. This type of thread (firearms v. anything else in the universe) usually has some pretty definite opinions. There are no absolutes or guarantees no matter what we choose along these lines.

I carry a .45 ACP daily, except in the dead of winter or in the wilderness when I switch up to magnums. Your choice is very good for self defense, but very poor for bears. Your soft points won't penetrate deeply enough. When in bear country my minimum is a .357 magnum loaded with flat nose bullets I have cast myself of wheel wieghts with extra tin added. I load them specificlly for that gun at a hot but safe load which will give excellent penetration. As for breaking the bears shoulder that works best when he is sideways. Gun, spray or both is a personal choice. Why not carry your cup so it bangs on your pack frame or a carabiner with every step and scare the bear away before there is a confrontation?

Hey Izzy. Think I saw that one. I believe I commented at the time that human life takes presedence. I understand they were upset, but it was attacking.

Sorry Chaos. Btw what are spiders?

One advantage of spray versus bullets is that all the participants walk away (or perhaps scamper) from the encounter and go on living. It is likely that the bear learns that humans are nasty and there are better things to do than mess around with them. If the objective is to maintain a healthy ecosystem, spray is the better tool.

REALLY! My guess is you have not been in big bear country. [/quote]
Really? You carry the rifle at a high-ready (heck, even low ready) the entire time you're out camping?

Anything other than that, and a pistol will almost always be faster to get up and sighted in.

Have I been to big bear country? Depends if you consider the Yukon "big bear country" or not. It's not my normal playground, but I do get around.

what happened to the old strategy of simply lying down and pretending to be dead? It's not guaranteed that you won't be injured or mauled, but it may prevent death. Seems like it might be a workable solution against a grizzly that was acting out of territorial instinct. once the bear realizes that you are not a challenge - it might move on.

i can't say that i have seen any statistics on the success of this passive defense, though.

Pete2

There are no grizzlies where I live, and the black bears I have encountered usually head the other way. My cousins adult daughter was attacked last fall while she was sitting in her treestand bow hunting for deer. She had to get 65 stitches in her leg.

Here is a link to some videos and testimonials from people who were attacked by bears and other animals and used pepper spray.

I carry a 4oz can of pepper spray when I'm in the wilderness and not hunting. In my opinion, that will be sufficient protection for the most likely scenarios, including two legged predators.

http://www.udap.com/testify.htm

Herrero,in his book, Bear Attacks, recommends playing dead in a sudden encounter situation with grizzlies. He gives a table, page 127, which shows that attacks decreased in sixteen incidents, did not change in eight, and increased in two. The strategy evidently is less successful with black bears

A colleague of mine played dead in an Alaskan grizzly attack; the same bear injured her companion in the incident.

I don't know that I could "play dead." If by myself, maybe. With someone else? Nope, that was a seizure, fainting, whatever. I ain't a quitter! (shame is a wonderful thing, huh?)

Don't worry, if your nightmare creature has eyes and mucous membranes, the pepper spray will slow them down too.

If anybody was in Bear country,It most certainly was Timothy("No,No Mr.Bear!)Treadwell,& he certainly didn't Tread to well(pun Intended)So,Unless you are making Salami,I see no reason to keep beating this Dead Horse!(Pun Intended,Again!)

Thanks for the info about recent knowledge about how well bear spray works.

Does anyone know about experiences with using bear spray on polar bears? My ambition is to make a new trip into polar bear country (Spitsbergen) within the next few years or so. Last time I was there, the general advice was to bring a heavy caliber rifle.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone demonstrates that pepper spray works on polar bears, too. Until then the old advice about guns still apply...

Don't know much about Alaskan or North American bears, but polar bears are notoriously unpredictable. Most of the time they will prefer to leave humans alone, but they can also be very inquisitive and turn aggressive at the spur of the moment.

Tom Smith's study on bear spray effectiveness documented 2 cases where bear spray was used against polar bears; both successfully. It didn't sound like the bears were being aggressive at the time the spray was deployed though, but rather it was used to deter curious bears. The study stated:

In both polar bear incidents, subadult bears approached humans in a pickup truck there to observe bears feeding on bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus) remains near the village of Kaktovik, Barter Island, Alaska, USA. In both instances (100%), bear spray stopped the bear’s approach and turned the bear away. Neither of these bears returned to the truck following spraying.

I noticed the results of this study hit the news again a couple weeks back when Dr. Stephen Herrero presented his conclusions based on this and the bear spray study to the Fourth International Human-Bear Conflict Workshop.

After seeing this, I did a bit more looking around and found that the study at the centre of this thread, Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska, is now available online here (scroll to the bottom of the article).

For those interested in this topic, this study published in The Journal of Wildlife Management makes for a good read. And more importantly, when we discussed this earlier we did so based only on brief reports of what the study found; now we have the opportunity to read what the experts involved actually published.

One interesting thing the introduction to this study pointed out is that until now there have been no real studies published on bear-human conflicts involving firearms. This appears to be the first study which has presented any data on the efficacy of firearms when dealing with bears.

I would be willing to bet that dead bears are not much of a threat to human beings.

Except if the bear was rabid.
My favorite cautionary tale: rabid bear attacks family
http://times-news.com/archive/x1540401278

The objective should be for the human to stay alive. Anyone with different objectives needs to have their head examined. No offense intended hikermor, but I value human life over bear life every time.

Anyway, it's probably better for the ecosystem if humans stayed out of it in the first place.

But, in a surprise confrontation, is someone's attempt to kill the bear more or less likely to result in their serious injury or death? I'd suggest it's more important to walk away from a potentially deadly situation than it is to try and chalk up a kill.


I completely agree. I guess the good news from these studies is that the most likely survival scenario for people is also the one that allows the bear to walk away unharmed, but more wary of humans.

One of the elements of a healthy ecosystem is live, functioning human beings; there is no value judgement implied as to the value of bears versus people. In a good situation, all parties walk away.

I have a lot less confidence in my ability to use firearms under pressure than I used to.

I stumbled on a couple of moose while fishing in a narrow creek. I was about 5 yards away from one and 10 yard from the other and I'd never seen one up close before. Picture a very large cow on stilts. The rack on one had to be 5 or 6 feet across. And they were not happy.

I retreated slowly and when I got to some logs I thought gave some protection, I went to get my pistol from my vest but I couldn't make my hand grab the zipper pull. I consciously tried 3 or 4 times and never got closer than an inch or two away. The only thing I can compare it to is being very, very drunk and just not having any coordination.

I don't think I would have been able to pull the safety tab from a can of pepper spray either.

This is a very helpful story, thank you for posting it.

In my opinion, everyone who carries a gun should train with it. Most gun owners, in my experience, train for safety and marksmanship and then stop. This is acceptable for someone who wants to enjoy certain shooting sports but doesn't have any intention to be able to use a gun defensively.

Next is training for gunfighting. This encompasses a number of different skills, including using cover, shooting on the move, reloading, ammunition management, shoot/no shoot training, the law, and so on. The bulk of people I've met who carry a gun (professionally or simply for their own protection) obtain some level of training in this area and then stop.

On the higher end of gunfighting skills is force-on-force training with stress inoculation. You'll know if the stress inoculation is good if you find yourself experiencing tunnel vision, auditory exclusion, time dilation, and tachycardia. If you take some training that includes force-on-force training (preferably with Simunitions) you will probably find that your ability to use firearms under pressure will be significantly improved.

I consider myself a lifelong student of shooting and I think it behooves anyone who carries a gun to do the same. I am certified as a Range Safety Officer, Pistol Coach and Basic Pistol Instructor. I focus my instructional efforts on bringing new shooters into the sport safely and making shooting fun for my students. While I've taken some advanced classes I've never been any sort of armed professional and I am not qualified to teach advanced classes.

Chaos - I think you're probably right. I haven't done any force-on-force training.

I'm a certified RO as well do quite a bit of competitive pistol shooting and usually score favorably compared to other shooters.

Before the "moose incident" I thought I could handle a pistol pretty well under stress.

"I retreated slowly and when I got to some logs I thought gave some protection, I went to get my pistol from my vest but I couldn't make my hand grab the zipper pull. I consciously tried 3 or 4 times and never got closer than an inch or two away. The only thing I can compare it to is being very, very drunk and just not having any coordination.

I don't think I would have been able to pull the safety tab from a can of pepper spray either. "

When I lived 70 miles from Yellowstone my doctor and I would discussed strategy for hiking safely in the park. His idea was to have a can of bear spray on your hip with the safety off while you were on the trail. Then you would merely point your body at the threat and press the button on the can. Real simple and easy. Of course I would rehearse this in my mind before I got on the trail. Have to admit I would carry my 357 mag in my backpack as a backup.

drahthaar

A very honest self-evaluation ... quite refreshing to see.

I think that in your cicumstances the element of surprise was a very significant factor. "Surprise" - together with the "shock of surprise" - can have a very powerful effect on the mind and the body. There was nothing wrong with you. But the psychological shock and the huge quantity of adenaline in your system produces feelings of a "very unreal" sitation.

We see very similar reactions by people in other circumstances.
For example, if you look at the statistics of motorcycle accidents ... you discover the amazing fact that in critical accidents many riders NEVER even touch the brakes before they impact an object (car or solid object), and those that do use the brakes nearly always fail to swerve their bike to avoid an obstacle. This defies "common sense" since many riders are skilled and quite adept at quick responses under normal conditions. So again why??? Because the combination of a sudden life-threatening surprise, plus a lot of adrenaline dumped into their blood, overwhelms normal responses. People find themselves in the frightening reality where their brain is "screaming" at the body to do something ... but their body is just not responding.

So I think what you said is really quite relevant ... a lot of people carrying firearms might be quite surprised to discover they could not handle them effectively under sudden high-emotion shock conditions.

cheers,
Pete2

Here's an account of a recent attack by a rabid bear near my town. Apparently, this was the first incidence of a rabid bear reported in Virginia and only the second on the entire east coast. These fellows were incredibly lucky to have been armed at all.

http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/Close_Call_Share_Story_of_Rabid_Bear_Attack_148331975.html

I think there have been at least 3 confirmed cases here on the east coast. The incident you link to (in Virginia), the Maryland incident I linked to in my earlier post in this thread, and the confirmed case in Pennsylvania referred to in that article.


That is 3 confirmed cases in 3 contiguous states. Rabies is out there and bears are being infected. The only effective defense against a rabid bear is to put it down, and for that, a significant firearm is needed. Thankfully, rabid bears are very very uncommon. But, IMO, if you are in bear country in these states, you are safer with a firearm than with just spray. Best to carry both. Spray for the normal healthy bear, firearm for the others. The firearm will also be effective against the other potentially rabid inhabitants.

I think it is dangerous to assume that every bear or other animal contacted will be a healthy normal individual.

I would say that this is plausible, but do we know this? Are there instances where rabid bears were undeterred by bear spray?

As for other rabid critters, it is only prudent to avoid contact with any that show any abnormal behavior - simple, easy,and effective.

While I was living in the Yellowstone area I would talk to the rangers on weekend trips and they would tell you about grizzly encounters where the bear wasn't phased by bear spray deployed by the outfitters for horseback riders etc.. These aren't rabid bears, just normal ones. Glad I had my 357 as a backup those in 2 years living there I never saw a bear in the wild.