I don't think I'm misreading your last response, but it sounded like you were saying bear spray might work against non-aggressive bears, but wouldn't be effective against aggressive ones; for those scenarios you'd need a firearm to have even a chance. This is something the study contradicts.
No, I wasn't saying "aggressive bears" vs "non-aggressive bears". But rather bears vs bears *committed* to an attack.
Keep in mind the study can't know the intent of the bear.
Remember bears charge to figure out what you are about. Are you a threat? Food? We may interpret this as "aggressive", but that doesn't mean they are going to actually attack or are committed to kill you.
Think about it this way. Human vs human in total adrenalin berserker rage intent on killing you. Totally different animals.
Same with bear. Bear vs bear in total adrenalin berserker rage intent on killing you.
In both cases often the former can be dissuaded from an attack. In both cases the latter must be forcibly stopped.
For example, you reiterated:
But I also stand by my suggestion that bear spray isn't going to stop a bear fully committed to an attack. It won't even stop all humans fully committed to an attack.
Yet the evidence suggests otherwise:
I don't see how we differ on the usefulness and typical effectiveness of bear spray. I agreed the number of bear attacks is few, and most of those can be dissuaded with bear spray, so the statistical chance where bear spray is not effective is very small.
Approach the situation as you will, but in a forum such as this I think it does a disservice to anyone reading this to suggest that they would be at risk by relying on bear spray as their defence against bear attacks.
Well the alternative is to suggest they are perfectly safe relying only on bear spray. Considering that bear spray does not incapacitate the bear that seems like a potential disservice as well.
YMMV.
-john
Previous Topic
Index
