Some if's. How would one us it if:
I'd start by saying no tool is perfect and will guarantee results in every situation.
If one were attacked in a tent?
Wouldn't this be difficult no matter the tool? You still need to see the attacker before shooting (instead of shooting your buddy whose trying to help get the bear to break its attack!). Both bear spray and firearms would likely prove difficult in this scenario.
You're might just be screwed
. That said, that first study I mentioned seems to indicate performance is not as bad in the wind as commonly thought and that most encounters occur in areas where wind is less of a factor (e.g., dense woods).
As a side note, this was one scenario from my wilderness first aid field day ... the freaked out wilderness photographer who sprayed himself in the face. This is actually what prompted the whole discussion on bear spray effectiveness with the class.
If it goes off accidentally while driving the car?
If it goes out of date after 2 years?
If the temp dips low and the stuff won't work?
If the temps get hot and it explodes?
Like any potentially dangerous tool you have to treat it with respect and understand its care and maintenance.
I'm sure there are many "what ifs" along these lines that could be used to paint firearms as unsafe or unreliable; I don't think they'd be good reasons not to use a firearm though.
When a bear is already mauling a friend.
This is an interesting one. I have been told that spraying a bear who is mauling someone will cause it to break the attack, but I haven't been able to find anything that backs up their statement aside from some unsourced anecdotes.
I'd give it a shot though.
One study alone is not enough.
To be fair, I've referred to (or at least mentioned) three. The other 2 references seemed to cast firearms in a less favourable light though (these were the 2 mentioned in the USFSW fact sheet).
And both the park service and the national forests in Alaska say bring more than one kind of protection.
I haven't been able to find anything like this on-line, but I would be interested in reading more along these lines. I would like to understand the reasons behind such an approach; given the likelihood of a bear attack is low to start with, I would have thought going with the most effective and easy to carry defence tool would be sufficient.
And really, this is what this issue boils down to for me. I have no problem with people who want to carry firearms as either their primary or secondary defence against bears. I have a problem when people make the accusation that other people or groups are irresponsible for not carrying firearms when firearms have proved not to be the best tool for bear defence in most situations.
Previous Topic
Index
