With all due respect, do you really think its fair to discount the results of those studies based on your suppositions?

I'm not saying those studies are perfect or that there is no chance the experts who have found bear spray to be effective cannot be wrong, but all that I've seen here and elsewhere are suppositions and gut-feelings on why firearms must be a part of bear defence. I'm not going to say firearms can't be a viable defence against bear attacks because I think they can be, but I can't accept that they should be a mandatory part of ones bear defence strategy without something more substantial than someone's feelings to back up the argument.

I'd love to see some detailed critical analysis of these studies or alternate studies that have come to different conclusions. However, I've found none.

I haven't started advocating bear spray here because its my personal preference, but because all the information I can find indicates it will give someone the best chance at walking away from a bear attack. I haven't found anything similar that suggests the addition of a firearm to the equation adds to ones chance of survival.

I wouldn't tell someone who feels safer with a firearm and can legally carry it to leave it at home; but I would recommend to them that they carry bear spay on their belt and plan on that to be their first line of defence. In the same respect I am not going to say one ought to have a firearm in bear country given what I know at this time.