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:
Posted on 10/03/2014 10:24:33 AM PDT by marktwain
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.
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?
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.
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.
Uhmmmm, if I’m in Bear country I want a minimum .45 and 4 extra mags.
I’d also like any rifle chambered above .300 and extra mags.
skip that bear spray stuff.
Several rounds, penetrating the head ought to keep me safe and then I’ll make a rug out of the punk...
how about spraying it with bullets...
LOL!
Nope. To liberal true believers gun control is a religious belief. Religion is not subject to logical constraints.
To parapharase Stuart Chase,"For the true believer no proof is necessary and no disproof possible"
Sample size alone obviates any statistical study of these events. Personally, I do hike in bear country and I do carry both. But nothing is a substitute for situational awareness - most bear attacks occur within three seconds of the principals sighting one another, and that isn’t really much time to draw and present either spray or a firearm.
.45 auto would be my bare (bear?) minimum ... I’d think more in terms of .44Mag ... or the “Ruger Only” .45 Colt loads ... or something like that.
Bear spray will possibly make a bear stop and run away. A gun will make a bear run away from intense pain or die. I will put my faith in the more logical of the 2. I’ll let the FReepers decide which one is more logical.
And remember folks. Don’t put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire.
That was my minimum.
I’d actually carry my Cimarron .45, with moon clips
There, see, now everyone is equal and we have a level playing field for all the sensitive types among us.
Oh, by the way, I think it's globull warmong that is causing all these bear attacks. Well, that and the peanut butter sandwiches people are carring.
Before guns were legally allowed in National Parks, rangers in the NPs in Alaska viewed carrying a gun in bear country just plain common sense in spite of the law. They would even ask an unarmed hiker why he wasn’t carrying. 44 magnum with special bear loads were typical.
.454 Casul vs Bear Spray? Hmmmmmm! :-)
BULLSHOT!!
Excellent point. My sister's cabin is in bear country (San Isabel national forest in Colorado) and we hike all over the area. My last encounter I smelled the big guy before I saw him. The wind was in my face so I just stopped and waited for it to move on.
The .44 Mag Blackhawk was a comfort.
Zactly.
With all probability one wins over the other, with a predictable outcome..
Beary spray=higly incensed bear=you are a picnic basket.
.454 and I have a bear skin rug...
Right...You can always tell you are in a bear area in the woods by the little bells in the bear crap.
You're better off aiming for center mass, not the head. Bullets have been known to bounce off the thick skulls of grizzlies.
When I see bears casually ripping apart wasp and bee hives to eat the larva or honey, with their heads swarmed, I instantly lose faith in a can of spray to be an effective deterrent.
and it would mess up his beautiful head making my rug look disgusting.
Thnx!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.