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.
Can you cite anything to support this, or is this your opinion? I haven't seen anything yet which would support this assertion that bear spray is not effective in some class of "committed" attack.
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.
Maybe my only qualm is that the way those chances of ineffectiveness are being presented. The way I read them, it sounded like they were being presented as likely scenarios that would leave someone in harms way. Reading some posts in this thread (I'm not only referring to your posts here), it makes it sound like relying on bear spray would be a crap shoot with dire consequences.
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.
Sorry, I'm still going to have to disagree here. Bear spray alone provides you with an extremely high probability of surviving an incredibly low probability event. In my books that is solid preparedness.
As a side note, there is no such thing as "perfectly safe" in any context.
Previous Topic
Index
