Reading the articles in question, it seems apparent that the discussion is a skirmish in the larger conflict over the 2nd Amendment and the right to carry which obscures what should be an objective, relatively unemotional inquiry about the relative merits of bear spray and firearms. This is actually a relatively knotty problem, since not all "incidents" are equivalent.

I am caught in the middle on this. Basically, I am a life long owner and user of firearms, but with increasing knowledge and experience, I carry less and less when outdoors. If bear spray is going to be as effective as bullets in an encounter, what is there not to like in a gadget that is lighter and cheaper?

Also missing from the discussion is the need to develop good habits when in bear country - situational awareness, clean camps, proper food storage. Doing right in those areas and you may never have to deploy either gun or spray.

I don't agree with this. On the surface, a study of 107 incidents seems small but in reality that is the nature of bear attacks. They are a very low-probability event so we're never going to get a sample of multiple thousands to study (at least not for a very long time).

To put the numbers in context, in Smith & Herrrero's study on firearms in Alaska, they only had 269 incidents to look at ... and that study covered bear-human conflicts involving firearms from 1883 - 2009. The bear spray study spanned 1985 - 2006.

I understand the Bear Examiner article says this limited amount of a data is due to cherry picking by citing the 2 thousand odd cases in the Miller & Tutterrow study (interesting read by the way, worth checking out). This claim seems off-base, if not simply disingenuous.

The Miller & Tutterow's study was looking at something quite different than Smith & Herrero were. They were comparing bears that were killed in defence of life or property in Alaska to sport kills, to try and better understand the differences. This makes a pretty large difference because the 2 most prevalent reasons for the killing of the bear were "Bear was thought to be dangerous" and "To protect property." Secondly, the study notes that for "both species of bear, the person shooting the bear most frequently described their activity as at home or dwelling." So, this study seems to encompass a large number of incidents that seem to fall outside of the scope of what Smith & Herrero were looking at in their firearm study.

Finally, the biggest difference I think, is that Miller & Tutterow were only studying cases where the bear died ... these are by default successful uses of firearms.

In the full context of their study, the less than 2% injury rate of humans makes sense ... these were all successful uses of firearms by people, often at home, and who, for the most part, weren't under imminent threat. The authors recognized and included in their report, stating: "However, when injuries or deaths from bears occurred, the bear frequently was not found, so these data under represent the frequency of injury to people from bears."

You are very right, proper Bear Awareness means you may never have to use either as we travel into the wilderness. Looking for Bear Sign (Scat, Paw Prints, Scathed Trees, Field Diggings, etc.), Avoiding areas with High concentrations of Bear Signs, Making Noise as you Travel, Not Traveling Alone, Keeping good control of both Garbage and Foods are things we can all do to avoid or minimize possible Bear Encounters. 300kg of Grizzly Bear makes things like that very hard.

This article may put a smile on this complicated issue, Bear Bites Pepper Spray. In this case the Mountain Biker was in a National Park and could not have carried a gun, and would have been unlikely to have been physically able to have pulled out a Handgun after he was knocked over by the Bear. In this case his Bear Spray worked for him even when he did not have time to deploy it. Now if anyone can find a properly working firearm that can shoot the Bear by itself I will be impressed!

just a few words about watching for bear sign and keeping a clean camp.
a couple years ago i was talking with my outfitter before leaving on a canoe trip about the bear sightings where i was going.
he pointed out a map that was marked with red dots where bears had been reported around but not always right in campsites.
there were only a couple dots.then he flipped the map back and went thru a series of them going back over ten years.as he went back in years the map filled up with red dots.
the change he said was,what he thought,due to the work the local outfitters in Ely MN had done to educate people on the importance of keeping a clean camp and hanging food bags where the bears could not get to them.after a few years the bears stopped coming around so much looking for a easy meal.


this is not the sort of thing i like to find in a camp but with no other bear signs i set up and stayed overnight.

I think you hit the bullseye, hikermor! Having lived in Alaska since 1984, I've followed this debate closely for years. What I find fascinating is how the terms of the debate have shifted over time.

It wasn't that long ago that people were ridiculed for carrying spray. Firearms proponents were convinced that spray couldn't possibly work. And certain gun proponents implied that spray certainly wasn't very 'manly'. But slowly, year after year, more and more evidence accumulated that spray works, and works rather well. Then the argument was that while maybe spray would discourage an agressive bear, but it couldn't possibley stop a full-on charge. But, again, plenty of incidents demonstrated that spray would indeed stop a charge. Spray has even been successful when the bear had someone down and was chewing on them.

What is fascinating about the links in the OP is that these folks now seem almost defensive about the effectiveness of firearms. Like they are worried that people might think that pepper spray might even prove better than firearms! I found it hilarious when they claimed that bear spray users are a cult!

I'm with you on this also. I own guns, both long and short. I've killed bears (on hunts, not in defense) and have a bear rug on my wall. I am by no stretch anti-gun. But these days I opt to carry spray rather than a firearm. Spray has been proven to work, it is lighter to carry, cheaper, and generally less of a hassle than firearms.

Dang....we agree again! Great minds think alike.

"Also missing from the discussion is the need to develop good habits when in bear country - situational awareness, clean camps, proper food storage. Doing right in those areas and you may never have to deploy either gun or spray. "

That's missing from the debate because "good habits in bear country" is not the topic. The debate is "guns vs. spray". Going on about habits in bear country is like being at a "airbags vs seat belts" conference and saying "well you know, if you just use good driving habits you'll likely never need airbags or seat belts".

True, but irrelevant to the discussion. The point is to explore the benefits of tools employed once the collision has already commenced.

If the evidence is as clear cut as you present it, why are the relevant studies so ambiguous? If the data is really that stark surely you could present an unbiased and irrefutable paper on how clear the truth is regarding spray.

That sounds snarky. That's not my intent but again, if the data are so clear how could there be any debate left?

Actually the evidence that spray is effective is pretty unambiguous. Smith, Hererro, et al's paper is quite well documented. The attemps to debunk it aren't terribly convincing. Bear spray works quite well.

No one denies that firearms also work. Even Hererro states that explicitly in his book. Whether or not spray works better (or worse) than firearms is an entirely different question.

But spray does work. Not long ago we had yet another successful use of spray in Alaska. A fish biologist was jumped suddenly by a bear on Kodiak. Bear had him down, with the guys leg in the bear's mouth. The guy managed to use his spray and the bear ran off. It does work.

If you choose not to rely on spray, that is your choice. I don't much care one way or another what you do. But claiming that spray doen't work, and work well, is [insert mod prohibited term for male bovine excrement].