Since the subject of bears is a recurring on here, I thought this might be of interest. Dean Weingarten, an old friend, has done a brief article on the subject of Bear Spray v. Bullets: Flaws in the Studies which makes for interesting reading if you follow the links:

http://www.ammoland.com/2014/10/bear-spray-v-bullets-flaws-in-the-studies/

Weingarten's article claims rely on another article by "The Bear Examiner," Dave Smith. When you click on the link, to Dave Smith's article, you learn that the main argument that Dave Smith makes is that Tom Smith's and Stephen Herrero's works on bear attacks are fraudulent because they deliberately excluded a previous study by Miller and Tutterrow that (1) includes many more bear incidents, and (2) shows the effectiveness of firearms. Dave Smith concludes that Tom Smith and Stephen Herrero lied about their data and misrepresented their study as the first ever on bear attacks.

I think we need to call on a nature biologist who actually works on this sort of stuff to settle the issue. But we are also intelligent adults, and we can figure a few things out ourselves. Tom Smith does cite Miller's work -- and a whole host of other studies on bear attacks, You can't misrepresent your work as the "first ever" if you cite a whole bunch of other works that come before yours. in fact. I also noticed that Tom Smith and Miller seem to define their cases differently, which may account for the numerical disparity between the datasets of Miller's and Smith's studies.

The peer review process generally eliminates stuff like failure to cite important previous studies on a subject, especially if they matter for the article under review. It's also pretty good at eliminating obvious data fraud like the sort that "The Bear Examiner" accuses Smith and Herrero of. No, it's not perfect, and perhaps some stuff slips through -- however, the sort of stuff that slips through is not so obvious that "The Bear Examiner" can explain in the sort of simplistic argument he uses. ("They cherry-picked their examples!") I think "The Bear Examiner" is just some amateur hack with opinions that don't square with facts. It looks to me like he misrepresented the scientific research to advance his personal agendas. Click on his bio, and his main qualification seem to be "I've spent a lot of time out there." Doug, your friend Weingarten should stop listening to him.

Just to be clear -- in the spray vs gun thing I don't necessarily advocate one thing over another. However, I get annoyed by ignorant attacks on science.

Somehow I suspect that Ammoland, the publication in which Weingarten's article appeared, is not big on peer review. Let's just leave it at that.

I found the last paragraph of the "Bear Examiner" piece amusing. Apparently those who choose to carry bear spray are now members of a cult! LOL

If you are looking for another study this one is an even better study out of Alaska, but with varied authors from both Canada and US, who are both Academics and Government Employees.

Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska

I like the use of Alaska for these studies, it is closes to Canada in Latitude, it has a frontier mentality which means a higher level of gun handling and individuals are more likely to have a fire arm handy than in the south and still people carry and use Bear Spray.

Bear Spray vs. Guns Arguments should not be about "Gun Control", it about saving lives. If you have a Shot Gun Loaded with Slugs, in your hand, you are an excellent shot, then no problem. {PS this would also break Canadian Gun Laws unless you were out hunting with the gun).

Bear Spray is Legal in Parks & Protected Areas, Readily Available, Easy to Learn to Use, Highly Deployable and fairly Safe to Use (on both the Bears & Yourself)

Bear Spray Work well for what it is designed to do, nothing more. It does not means we should stop hunting, target shooting or owning weapons. Just that Bear Spray can save both the Your Life and the Bears Life more often.

Let's see... It would be a cult with an introductory invocation of "Let us spray," leading up to a sermon on "Mist opportunities.."

Actually, the data on use of bear spray looks pretty decent.

Too lazy to follow links, but my opinion is still the same: I'll take a gun over spray. That's my opinion and I'll stand by it.

"However, I get annoyed by ignorant attacks on science."

I would say ignorant attacks are a big part of science. How many scientists have been vindicated late in life or after death after peers tried to humiliate them.

It does seem studies are being used to draw conclusions that don't really match with the findings about bear defense.

I normally don't comment without reading the link and I will read the article, but I do want to point out that lots more people can 1) legally carry spray, 2) can afford spray and 3) are able to learn to deploy it effectively. It's easy for those of us that are experienced shooters to overestimate the ability of a person (including ourselves) to stop an attack with a firearm. Shooting, especially with a handgun, takes some practice.

You make an excellent point and one that really strikes home for me. I have enjoyed shooting sports all my life and appreciated all the free ammo when I got my LEO commission and the periodic sessions afterward. I am probably better trained than the average.

But, I am rusty, and I haven't shot intensively in years. I am almost certainly better off with spray than with bullets,and it is a lot cheaper, too. 357 Magnum is considered marginal for bear defense, and I am sure I could spend $1000 or more on a more suitable handgun. Bear spray is what - 30 to 50 bucks? I could carry my 12 gauge with slugs or buckshot, but that is heavier and more cumbersome than a spray canister.

So, the next time I am in serious bear country (like Alaska) I will pack chemicals instead of lead. When I leave, I can always trade unused canisters for water (cool, clear water!)....