Pictures at the link

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2...laws-in-studies.html


Three recent cases of bear attack in Wyoming illustrate the flaws in studies purporting to show that bear spray is superior to firearms as a defense against bears. On September 20th, 2014 the following incident occurred. From county10.com:


(Dubois, Wyo.) – The Wyoming Game and Fish Department and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service both confirmed today that a third bear incident occurred this past weekend, on Saturday in northwestern Fremont County. In this incident, Lander Large Carnivore Specialist Brian DeBolt said a Grizzly bear was shot and killed “in an act of self defense” in the East Fork drainage east of Dubois. He said the bear was an adult male. He said there were no reported injuries in the incident.
It appears that in the above incident, a defense with a gun worked without any injuries to the defending humans.

There was another attack a day later, this time from a sow with cubs. It occurred on September 21, 2014. From ktvq.com:

DeBolt said the man suffered only minor injuries from a bite to his side. The man's partner sprayed the bear with bear spray, causing it to stop its attack and retreat. The pair was then able to pack out and get to help.
This one is a lot harder to classify. Do you say that the pepper spray failed, as the man was injured, or that it worked, because the bear left the scene? Do you count it as a failure of gun defense, because, as a hunter, he probably had a gun? Could it be a failure of a hunter to use a gun, because "bear spray studies" had convinced him to use bear spray instead?

The third attack was fatal, and occurred sometime before September 12th, probably at least five days earlier. From wyofile.com:

Searchers found Stewart’s body Sept. 12, on the fifth day of searching in Cub Creek, just north of Togwotee Pass in the Bridger-Teton National Forest. Preliminary investigations reveal he died of blunt force trauma, likely a bear bite.
None of the responders has reported that either pepper spray or a firearm were found at the scene. It is not certain what species of bear killed Stewart.

Investigators found both black and grizzly hairs on Stewart’s remains. They haven’t said what species killed the researcher, but McAuslan told the Associated Press he suspects a grizzly bear.
If you are in bear country, having either a gun or pepper spray, or both, could be a good idea. In an excellent article by the Bear Attack Examiner, Dave Smith, he tears apart the idea that studies have shown bear spray to be more effective than firearms.

A thorough review the research on firearms and bear spray reveals that it's not possible to make a legitimate comparison of bear spray to firearms, and that Smith's research on bear spray and firearms is flawed and biased.

The Bear Attack Examiner goes on to show selection bias in the study by Tom Smith. All 269 incidents used to classify gun defenses were incidents involving aggressive bears, while less than a third of the bear spray incidents involve aggressive bears. Dave Smith goes on to write:


A far more significant problem is that the results of Tom Smith's study on firearms are inconsistent with the results of a 1999 study by Miller and Tutterrow on Characteristics of Nonsport Mortalities to Brown and Black Bears and Human Injuries from Bears in Alaska. Miller & Tutterrow examined more than 2,000 incidents from 1970 to 1996 when people killed bears in defense of life of property, and less than 2% of the people involved reported injuries. Instead of offering a meaningful explanation for major differences between the two studies on firearms vs bears, Smith and Herrero claimed there were no previous studies on firearms vs. bears.
I found an interesting quote from one of the authors of the bear spray studies. From elk-hunting-tips.net:


In the Sept/Oct 2012 issue of Sports Afield, BYU professor Tom Smith, the author of Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska and Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska--says, "If I'm actually out hunting and I have a gun in my hands a suddenly a bear comes at me--do you think I'm going to lay the gun down and pick up bear spray? Are you out of your mind?" Smith also asks, "Does it really have to be a spray versus gun argument? That's ridiculous." Smith says "both guns and spray have their place... because there are times when one is the better, or the only option."
Another indicator of selection bias in the two bear spray vs. gun studies is that numerous incidents were included where people did not have time to use their gun, but no incidents were included where people did not have time to use bear spray.

I highly recommend the Bear Attack Examiner series of articles on this issue. Dave Smith's attention to detail, citations, and reporting make it easy to know the players involved, who did the actual research, and who hyped the research to reach conclusions that simply are not supported.


©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

There is no question a well placed bullet from a proper cartridge will do the job.
However many who are avid hikers are not gun people, and do not want to own or be responsible for a gun.
The bear spray is an option better than having nothing

Mark

A lot of times a person is not aware of the bear's presence till it's too late. Can think of a couple of cases where a hunters body was found and his rifle hadn't been fired.

Picture I took two weeks ago and I apologize for the poor quality, but what I got represents more luck than skill. Look closely, there's a hunter in a red coat sitting near the top of the pic, up and right of the wire enclosure. In the middle of the picture, there is a sow Grizzly with two cubs, loping all out. The guy probably never was aware of their presence, but a slight change of course on her part could have become a disaster in the making.



Grizz

Interesting note to the situation where the man, mr. Stewart was killed by a bear. I am in Dubois right now and have been all summer. I know the person who was in charge of the search for Mr. Stewart. He tells me, now that it is public information, that Mr. Stewart was killed by a Black bear, not a grizzly, and that the Bears den is nearby and that it will be killed once and if it returns to its den. DNA evidence exists on the identity of the bear. I'm also told that the outfitters that operate in the area where Mr. Stewart was killed, are experiencing cancellations by hunters who are afraid of hunting in the area, Cub Creek. Also, I'm told that Mr. Stewart had nothing on him to ward off an attack, his 2 cans of bear spray were found in his car.

I carry both. Use spray first if I can then lead poisoning.

Some years ago I was going hiking in the Bob Marshall wilderness Montana.

I stopped at the ranger station just get an up date on conditions.

The gal behind the desk said they just had a grizzly shot and killed.

A lone hiker was attacked in camp he had enough warning to climb a tree he shot the sow coming up the tree after him with a 44mag.

That sow had just two weeks earlier had been trapped and removed from Glacier NP for causing trouble.

He also had a can of spray but it fell out of it's holster two days before and broke the top losing all it spray two days before.

Just shows one needs to prepared stuff happens.

Bear spray is 92% effective at stopping bear attacks.
firearms are 69% effective at stopping bear attacks.
(Numbers from our G & F)
You STILL have to have time to deploy either.
A griz will cover 100 yds in just over 4 seconds!
Shorten the distance to "normal" charging distances (30-40 yds) and you have between 1.2 and 2 seconds to identify the threat and react.

Not enough statistic, plus every case is different and so forth.
My humble opinion, as hunters are more accustomed to guns and we carry them ready so GUN for me...

ravenr,

I agree with the statistics. Doesn't surprise me that spray is more effective. And I am also not surprised that a lot of hunters think that those stats would not apply to them because they are obviously such fast and deadly shots.

quote:

Originally posted by ravenr:
A griz will cover 100 yds in just over 4 seconds!

That's about 50 m.p.h., the speed some antelope can attain - I think you meant about 30 m.p.h. or 8 seconds for 100 yards. Nevertheless it's not much time to think and react if you aren't prepared.

I stand corrected
1.2 - 2 seconds wrong
2.2 - 3 seconds right
Now you got just enough time to crap your pants.
1 second to recognize the threat
1.2 - 2 seconds to react...

I dont agree with the bear spray/firearm statistics. Those statistics dont take into account the type or caliber not to mention the shooters abilities.

Bear spray can be affected by wind (good luck if the wind is blowing in your face when you deploy it).

Someone shooting and missing or just grazing a bear is included in that often quoted statistic.
I personally would never carry both, I dont want the moment of hesitation used up deciding which to draw first. If I'm in scary bear country it's a .454 Casull that is riding on my hip. Anywhere else it's a Glock 10mm. If you want to carry and trust the spray then good on you, at least you aren't going out without planning to help yourself.

I do not buy the statistics either. Almost All numbers are outcome driven these days.
Pepper spray is much more animal friendly than an evil gun that could kill an innocent bear. If you use pepper spray, no animal has to die.
So, of course it more 'effective'.

Chances are bear spray is more effective for MOST people.
I have had combat veterans panic when a bear chase gets exciting. I have seen many experienced hunters panic when close encounters happen, one narrowly missing me with a shot. Blacks and grizzlies can run 40 miles /hr and they close quick when it happens.

quote:

Originally posted by chilcotin hillbilly:
Chances are bear spray is more effective for MOST people.
I have had combat veterans panic when a bear chase gets exciting. I have seen many experienced hunters panic when close encounters happen, one narrowly missing me with a shot. Blacks and grizzlies can run 40 miles /hr and they close quick when it happens.

That's my experience as well. I wonder what the actual truth is about the bear attack experience of those who insist they are quick draw McGraw come again. If the average bear charge is from 20 yards or less, then the fact is your bit even if your packing a 50 BMG, because you will not have time to react. The advantage of the spray is that it will increase your hit percentage while your John Wayne persona disappears as you shit your pants.

Combat vet can mean a lot of things these days. In the infantry I saw a lot of tough talkers turn into useless fools when things got dicey. How someone will react under a life and death situation is entirely on the individual.

If someone has decided they are giving up to be bitten inside of 20 yards what difference does it make what they carry? Is a fog easier to "hit" with than a single projectile? Yes but again it's dependent on favorable weather.

For me personally a gun that is always on my hip is much more familiar and easy to find under stress than a can of spray dangling from a sting around my neck. It would take me time to find the can, while muscle memory gets the gun in my hand without thinking on it.

The ideal situation probably is to carry both but since I dont live in big bear country I dont. I'll stick to a gun because there's always one there, it's familiar and a commonly used tool for me.

quote:

Originally posted by HawkCreek:
Combat vet can mean a lot of things these days. In the infantry I saw a lot of tough talkers turn into useless fools when things got dicey. How someone will react under a life and death situation is entirely on the individual.

If someone has decided they are giving up to be bitten inside of 20 yards what difference does it make what they carry? Is a fog easier to "hit" with than a single projectile? Yes but again it's dependent on favorable weather.

For me personally a gun that is always on my hip is much more familiar and easy to find under stress than a can of spray dangling from a sting around my neck. It would take me time to find the can, while muscle memory gets the gun in my hand without thinking on it.

The ideal situation probably is to carry both but since I dont live in big bear country I dont. I'll stick to a gun because there's always one there, it's familiar and a commonly used tool for me.

Absolutely, I too am very familiar with my 45, I'd be as much use with bear spray as I am with a camera which is about none.

erict, I.v seen so many numbers for the speed of a pronghorn and I keep asking. My limited experience with prong horns includes driving along at a steady 55 mph .We where then joined by a pronghorn . It gave no sign of effort at a afairly long drive until it got bored and left us in the dust !! To accelerate from 55 we figured it must have reached at least 70 MPH ! There aren't many mentions of a 70 mph pronghorn .
Of course most people don't believe a Canada Goose can fly 60 mph but that's why most hunters get only tail feathers.