Originally Posted By: Bingley
...
Here's a paragraph that addresses your concern:

Quote:
The researchers found no statistical difference in the outcome (no injury, injury or fatality) when they compared those who used their gun in an aggressive encounter (229 instances) to those who had firearms but did not use them (40 instances).


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.


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.