A friend just published this: https://www.ammoland.com/2019/02/bear-sp.../#axzz5glljhr7s

If we need to remind researchers drawing conclusions in their studies, "before reporting how effective something is, you have to first attempt to use it" then I'm afraid we are doomed, and live in a world full of journalistic/scientific idiots.

If anyone has ever wondered if a handgun left in their pack, out of sight, untouched, is effective against bears ... well, I guess we know the answer to that now. I hope they didn't spend too much money on the research to come up with their conclusion. "Hey, look what I determined. This handgun didn't do diddly-squat. We'd better report it." I'd be rooting for the bear in that study.

It's nice that your friend published his article to set the other researcher-morons straight, but it's very sad that he had to in the first place.

Bear spray, matches, cell phones, fire extinguishers, guns. You are not "equipped" if you can't access them when needed.

I like Dean's posts on these topics.

"The two studies most commonly compared, the Efficacy of Bear Deterrent spray, and Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska, both written by Tom S. Smith and Stephen Herrero, are significantly different. The incidents they cover are significantly different. The incidents were selected using different criteria.

The difficulties in making such comparisons can be reduced by only including incidents where bear spray was actually sprayed or the firearm was actually fired."

"an incident should only be included if the bear spray was actually sprayed or if a shot were actually fired."

Well, this doesn't seem right to me. I think the proper evaluation of ANY technology requires the consideration of full context of its use, including educational, legal, economic, societal, and usability aspects.

In general (without regard to the specific articles) it is actually quite scientific not to pre-judge where the problem is before beginning research.

- Suppose bear spray was extremely expensive and canisters were rented with a big deposit against their use?
- Suppose the act of carrying bear spray increased the confidence of people carrying it, and caused them to unwisely enter situations they shouldn't?
- Suppose there were severe laws against unleashing bear spray against a bear unless it was actually attacking?
- Suppose bear spray didn't come with instructions on how to use it?
- Suppose bear spray didn't come with a holster or clip and the only way to carry it was in hand or in a pack?
- Suppose bear spray was so difficult to aim that only an expert could effectively use it?

None of the above have anything to do with the response of a bear to a proper application of spray to its face, but they would be important in an OVERALL evaluation of the technology. And they would also be important in actually figuring out what it is that needs fixing.

I am not suggesting anything about the statistical validity of the articles in question - just that it is too narrow-minded to look at only the end-point (unleashing bear spray or firing a gun) without looking at everything else that may be going on.

None of these obvious conclusions really require a research study.

The reported study was regarding if bear spray/firearms were effective against bears, not if they were practical.

If any of the above conditions apply to you, I would say that bear spray is not practical for you. Likewise, if you have never handled, fired, been trained, or practiced with a handgun I would say a handgun is not practical for you. These items could still be very effective in competent hands, just not in yours. ("you" and "yours" are being used here generically, not specifically pointing to anybody in particular)

I would agree though, that if the study were about defense against humans and not bears, then other considerations beyond "shot being fired" are of importance. The mere presence of a handgun may be enough to warn a human attacker off (and it often is). However, I don't think a bear cares one way the other if you brandish your handgun, so this usage can be safely ignored when talking about bears.

The lesson of the study seems clear and obvious. Whatever mode o defense you employ, it must be handy in order to be effective. Same goes for a lot of other tools and implements. And you must know how to use whatever gadget you have.

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/loca...04-4944f11f0018
is another way, apparently to survive a grizzly attack: carry a friends large camera bag.

Good article. As a rule, when I carry defensive tools, I carry them in a way that they're immediately accessible. Clearly I should keep doing that.

Organization is a good thing - works not only for defensive or potentially defensive items, but for other stuff as well. I've tried it both ways, and organised gear is a lot easier and more efficient to use.

I was bow hunting in grizz territory once with a 12 ga shorty slung and rapidly accessible for protection and to finish off a wounded animal (oddly they are legal here while handguns are not)

While stalking a trail a griz erupted from the bushes across my path and took of chasing something I didn’t see. I don’t think it knew I was there as I was wearing a full camo suit and sent blockers. I didn’t know it was there till it was too late but at full sprint it actually shook the ground.

Even if I had the dammed gun in my hands I don’t think I could have got off a (reliable) shot. I stood frozen in place for about 10 minutes with that 12 ga waiting for it to rush out of the trees a second time contemplating if 5 1 oz slugs were enough. I don’t think they were.

I don’t think some people appreciate just how fast these things can move. I’m telling you right now, that 1000 lb bear can be on you faster than you think possible in close country.

I am greatfull Costco sells underwear in 5 packs to say the least.