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).
Certainly a bear banger has the potential to be effective, and may be a good thing to carry for someone who, for whatever reason, does not choose to go armed.
In my mind, shotguns have three distinct advantages: 1) The bear may be able to sense a difference in your posture between "go away or I'll make that noise again" and "go away or I'll put an ounce of lead in your brisket." Note that this is supposition, based on a layman's informed opinion and not based on hard science. 2) If the loud noise doesn't work, the shotgun has a chance of preventing injury to humans. The bear banger, not so much. 3) Firearms can help protect against non-ursine threats.
For the record, when I'm in bear country, I do bring bear spray as well as a gun.
Previous Topic
Index
