I believe this is the original discussion referred to above:
Teens mauled by grizzly in survival skills courseThat said, the article you refer to brings the results of an additional study to the table that I don't think we had during that discussion. While there were the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's study results comparing firearms to bear spray, I believe we only had Dr. Tom Smith's study on the
effectiveness bear spray ... now it looks like we have the results of his study on firearm effectiveness too. The more information we have, the better.
Here's a good quote from the study's author from the university's
press release that sums things up for me:
“People should consider carrying a non-lethal deterrent such as bear spray,” said Smith, a gun owner himself. “It’s much easier to deploy, it’s less cumbersome and its success rate in these situations is higher than guns.”Van Daele observed that many Alaska bear encounters may not appear in Smith's historical data in instances where no person or bear was hurt. Alaskans often travel armed in the backcountry. Positive outcomes where a person deterred an attack with a shotgun blast directed over a bear's head may very well never get reported, he said.
Emphasis added.
With respect to this, wouldn't a bear banger do the same thing? I'm not saying the shotgun is necessarily a bad idea, but I'm just not sure that its the only tool that can provide this benefit (i.e., make a loud bang to scare the bear away).