I believe this is the original discussion referred to above: Teens mauled by grizzly in survival skills course

That 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.”

Originally Posted By: chaosmagnet
Quote:
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).
_________________________
Victory awaits him who has everything in order — luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time; this is called bad luck. Roald Amundsen