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