One needs to make up ones own mind what works best. Picture at the link not pretty

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2...r-spray-failure.html

Another case of bear spray failure occurred in Montana on September 4th at about 8 a.m. The bear charged through bear spray to get at Tom Sommers. Sommers was unable to get the safety off his spray can and dropped it as the bear closed with him. He then accessed a pistol, but was unable to shoot before the bear swatted his hand down. As the bear attacked him, it stood on his hand/gun, so he could not shoot.

I have seen at Cabela's bear spray on clearance.
I would not want to be thinking why was it discontinued as Yogi is charging.

M

The spray didn't fail, the hunter did. Perhaps he should have familiarized himself with how to deploy it before going out.

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:
The spray didn't fail, the hunter did. Perhaps he should have familiarized himself with how to deploy it before going out.

In others stories it has been described as a spray save.

The whole spray debate is a lot about what is a success and what isn't.

After reading about many encounters that involved firearms and many that bear spray were used the conclusion I come to is that there is no "one size fits all" solution.
Sometimes bear spray is a deterrent, sometimes it requires a firearm to conclude the episode and sometimes neither is the right answer for some people.
Everyone needs to really determine which they are more comfortable with and what fits their abilities.

prairie dog shooter is correct in his statement
"The whole spray debate is a lot about what is a success and what isn't."
Some people are so afraid of bears that upon seeing a bear they would spray and deem it a success when it retreats even though someone else may have yelled and made the bear aware of their presence and had the same result.
All of the information is so subjective it is relatively useless.
One thing for certain is that not everyone should give up spray for a firearm. Some people do not have the experience or "wherewithall" to safely handle a firearm and some people carrying a firearm should give it up for spray because they are unknowingly a hazard to themselves and others.
Whatever you choose to carry you should train for the experience so your response is automatic, there will not be time to figure it out....

If you are afraid of bears,stay out of the woods or where ever they might reside.The truth is you have a greater chance of being abducted by aliens than attacked by a bear.
. Bear attacks happen so fast most people have no time to use a weapon or bear spray .Many things are said about what you should do or not do during an attack.The fact is no one really knows how they will react unless it happens.I worry more about driving through a large city than bears.Chances of running into 2 legged predators is much higher.Just sayin,OB

""greater chance of being abducted by aliens then attacked by a bear""

Both?

I hate it when I'm abducted by aliens then attacked by a bear!!! That's a bad day for sure!
Zeke

quote:

Originally posted by ZekeShikar:
""greater chance of being abducted by aliens then attacked by a bear""

Both?

I hate it when I'm abducted by aliens then attacked by a bear!!! That's a bad day for sure!
Zeke

As a 5th grade teacher I know better than to act as the grammar police on a public forum. Next time I(or you) might be the one who gets called to the front of the class.....

He should have glued the can of Bear Spray to his hat.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter: Sommers was unable to get the safety off his spray can and dropped it as the bear closed with him.

I can't access the article but I am having trouble understanding how the bear "charged through the bear spray" if the guy couldn't get the safety off the can?????

Also, it looks like the firearm "failed" in the same manner:

quote:

He then accessed a pistol, but was unable to shoot before the bear swatted his hand down. As the bear attacked him, it stood on his hand/gun, so he could not shoot.

quote:

posted document.write('<nobr>'+ myTimeZone('Tue, 12 Sep 2017 15:36:24 GMT-0700', '13 September 2017 03:36')+'</nobr>');13 September 2017 03:3613 September 2017 03:36Hide Postquote:Originally posted by p dog shooter: Sommers was unable to get the safety off his spray can and dropped it as the bear closed with him. I can't access the article but I am having trouble understanding how the bear "charged through the bear spray" if the guy couldn't get the safety off the can?????Also, it looks like the firearm "failed" in the same manner:

That's the problem with any of the spray vs firearms studies.

What is a success and what is a failure. unless one comes up with a standard that applies to both.

Then one can not do a honest study or comparison of one against the other.

Reality is, in a large number of bear attacks there just isn't time to respond with pepper spray or gun. Just had a Sheep hunter mauled by a Grizzly, bear came out of the bush while he was cooking breakfast and grabbed him.

Grizz

quote:

Originally posted by ZekeShikar:
""greater chance of being abducted by aliens then attacked by a bear""

Both?

I hate it when I'm abducted by aliens then attacked by a bear!!! That's a bad day for sure!
Zeke

Caught by the grammar police.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:
The spray didn't fail, the hunter did. Perhaps he should have familiarized himself with how to deploy it before going out.

In others stories it has been described as a spray save.

The whole spray debate is a lot about what is a success and what isn't.

Not sure what a "spray save" means but the original story has too many conflicts in it.

You seem to like to post incidences here how spray doesn't work. My question to you is do you have any personal experience to support that? Or do somehow just think in your personal opinion it doesn't work?

I post all the bear attacks I come across.

If it seems like more spray attacks just might be something to that.

I have lots of experience with spray on humans to know that it is subjects to all kinds of variables and failures.

What I object to is the pro-spray people using incomplete science to promote something that may or may not work like they say.

P dog was just copying the title of the article, which in itself it totally false and misleading.

quote:

From facebook.com:

(Tom Sommers) And partner Dan both pulled out pepper spray. Dan sprayed but Toms spray didn't work so bear came after Tom. Tom ran behind a tree, bear kept coming. apparently bear chased Tom around tree twice, Tom got his pistol out turned to shoot, bear knocked his hand down. Tom hit ground. bear bit through thigh then put toms head in his mouth. while head in mouth tom tried to shoot bear in neck but bear stepped on hand /gun. Tom said he could hear his skull cracking. thought that was it. Dan shot bear at 2 feet with pepper spray. that's all it took. bear ran off and tom shot at it but said he couldn't see anything from all the blood and pepper spray in his face. 4 hours later after several hours on back of mule he is alive and in hospital. great spirits. was laughing. hope I did his story justice.

It WAS bear spray that finally drove the bear off, not anything to do with a gun, which was fired AFTER the bear was already leaving. Of course, GUNWATCH will say anything to make a gun seem more effective than anything else.

You have to forgive P dog for his vocabulary. What he meant to say, I believe, was 'In other stories it has been described as spray SALVE'.

His answer also indicates that he has no personal experience with bear spray, just human spray.

So the spray did work.

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:
So the spray did work.

Depends on ones definition of.

'it did work".

That is the whole problem with the spray VS. firearms debate.

The same standard is not used comparing one to the other.

quote:

So the spray did work.

Apparently it did or the guy would most likely be dead. The facebook post certainly thinks it did.

P dog you are correct. If a gun was shot missing the bear and it ran off, you would say the gun worked. When the spray hits the target at 2' and the bear runs off, you say the effectiveness is questionable.

The only real debate I see is the pre-conceived notion that the gun is more effective.

quote:

If a gun was shot missing the bear and it ran off, you would say the gun worked. When the spray hits the target at 2' and the bear runs off, you say the effectiveness is questionable.

Where have I ever said that.

I am questioning the whole not having a standard.

Most mauling victims do not die from their attacks.

Hard numbers are tough to find on injuries I could find a number 500 black bear attacks up until 1980 and 49 fatal ones up until this year.

Hard injury data is difficult to find on grizzly/brown bears.


Below is the number from BC but the data is older

BEAR-INFLICTIENDJU RIEINS B RITISHC OLUMBIA* Herrero and Hi?2ins 211
Table 1. Number of serious or fatal injuries and incidents inflicted by grizzly bears and black bears, 1960-97, British Columbia,
Canada.
Total number of
Number of incidents resulting Number of Number of serious injuries +
Species in serious injury or fatality serious injuires fatalities fatalitiesa
Grizzly 44 41 8 49
Black 19 14 8 22
Unknown 1 0 1 1
Total 64 55 17 72
a A single incident may include multiple serious injuries or fatalities; therefore, the total number of serious injuries and fatalities exceeds the total
number of incidents.

the chart didn't copy well numbers are numbers of incidents numbers of serious injuries numbers of fatalities total numbers

Can we find exceptions sure but over all deaths from mauling is rare

Severe injury in all most all cases.

So contrary to popular belief most people are not killed when attacked.

Why does it really matter. If the attack stopped then it was a success no matter the method, gun or spray. Thats what the person in the situation wants.

Stop screwing around , just carry a skunk in that holster !!

quote:

Originally posted by Cougarz:
Why does it really matter. If the attack stopped then it was a success no matter the method, gun or spray. Thats what the person in the situation wants.

It matters when the powers to be push a political anti fire arms, anti hunting agenda using false data.

It matters when some one is injured or killed because that person used a safety device.

When that device was promoted as being better then another one using false data.

The whole bear spray debate is not about protecting humans. It is about protecting bears.

Bear spray was develop because one could not carry firearms in certain places and areas.

It became politically incorrect and almost totally illegal to kill a bear in certain areas except under very strict conditions.

Even then perfectly reasonable self-defense kills were investigated and prosecuted as major felonies.

I think your way over the top but your certainly entitled to your opinion.

If you're in a national park then yes spray is your only option. I have carried it in places like Yellowstone where I fish quite a bit for that reason. Grizzlies are the main concern. Park bears and other animals can be a unique problem because they have lost their respect for humans.

I also have carried it black bear hunting where if I didn't want to shoot one causing trouble it gives the option not to. A few years back in northern Alberta I had a sow try to get into the stand with me so she got sprayed. This is first time in years I've ever had to do that. The area we hunt is fairly remote so the bears have likely never seen a human before. Most will just climb the tree and a poke in the nose is enough. She was really mad from the beginning and after several bluff charges and a lot of huffing & puffing decided to actually start to climb onto the platform. I had a gun in one hand and the spray in the other. So she got the spray first. No use in needlessly killing a bear if given the option. The spray by the way worked just fine, she backed off.

I've never experienced any place where politics dictated what I carried other than if you could call it that a national park.

quote:

If you're in a national park then yes spray is your only option. I have carried it in places like Yellowstone where I fish quite a bit for that reason. Grizzlies are the main concern.

Carrying a firearm in most national parks has been allowed for several years now.

The parks are now covered by the laws of the state they are in.

Does spray have it uses yes. I have a can around on back country trips.

I rather spray a problem bear then shoot them.

If faced with a bear that is going to do me great bodily harm or possible death I prefer quality firearms.

I well not give a bear any more of a chance to cause me great bodily harm or death.

Then I would give a human attacker armed with impact and edge weapons.

A bear is many times faster and stronger and there is no chance that they can be reasoned with. Or that they understand any thing you say to them.

The question should be if you had a human standing or charging you from or at a certain distance armed with edge or impact weapons, threating your life.

Would you relay on spray to stop them.

The standard for use of deadly force against humans is and has been clear for a long time.

Why would one give an animal that is stronger faster and always armed and can not be reasoned with more benefit then a human attacker.

When I saw the words, ' bear came trough the cloud of bear spray,' I have to think he sprayed way too soon and the bear barely noticed it.

Having exactly zero experience I an betting that if one hits the bear in the face with a stream of spray is far more effective. I am also betting that being able to hold off on spray deployment til then is likely far easier to type about, that to experience.

Stumbling on a bear with their food at hand is not what I would want to do. I would think they would be very protective of their meal(s)

Getting back to the gun/spray effectiveness debate.
Unless one could determine exactly how the pray was deployed the effectiveness is up to debate.

quote:

If you're in a national park then yes spray is your only option.

Cougar this is not true. The law is that if you are legal to carry in the state in which the National Park is located you can legally carry in the national park. All national parks have a no weapons in buildings (including the million dollar outhouses you paid for) policy.

If someone with bear spray gets attacked by a bear then they either never activated the bear spray or absolutely missed the bear.

In this case he dropped the can and never sprayed anything.

I tried out a can of bearspray I had that's 15 years old at least. As fast a I could I touched of a squirt. The wind was blowing away from me and the spray still took me out.

Spray and get away!