Claiming this was a "bear spray failure" is tortuous logic. I can see how you could choose criterion that would lead to this result, but that makes the criteria itself problematic for anyone trying to get a handle on this subject. The victim made a choice not to use it, and was then fatally mauled prior to any use per the eyewitness/survivor. Speculating that the victim used it and then carried it to his final location doesn't change the testimony and forensic evidence that the initial mauling of Uptain's head was mortal. Nor does it change the fact that it drove off the bears who could have feasted at their leisure after everyone was dead/gone. I call that evidence of a win - you just need to deploy before being mauled.
Pulling a tab on bear spray is a simple as it gets. (My problem is that it comes out too easily when bushwhacking - all my cans are now lacking their safeties, and the replacement cost is exorbitant for little pieces of plastic. I've learned to be careful.)
I don't care about saving bears, and am pro-2A (including private ownership of AA, anti-tank and other advanced weaponry in the spirit of the 2A). The victim's brother was an acquaintance of mine (volunteered and traveled with our teams several times when I was ops manager at my last job.) I see irrational bias and insecurity motivating the denigration of bear spray, and a pointless focus on presumed "save the bears" motivation that is really beside the key point of keeping people safe.
I simply can't buy those charts and have to wonder if something is misprinted. 1 meter/second is just over 2 MPH. Since when is the wind in Wyoming ever that low?? Yet this would have me believing that bear spray can virtually never be used in Wyoming, and just strikes me as utterly unreal.
You can choose to believe whatever you want.
The chart is from the paper, peer reviewed, written by Tom Smith. Tom Smith is the major bear spray proponent. He published, along with Stephen Herrero, the papers on bear spray efficacy and firearms efficacy, on which the inappropriate comparisons of bear spray to firearms are based. As I recall, they were published in the same journal. Tom Smith, at least at one point (recorded in an interview) said the papers were never meant to compare the efficacy of bear spray to the efficacy of firearms. At other points he has said or written things which sound like the opposite, though maybe not quite so clearly.
I should mention that handguns appear to be more effective than long guns, because handguns tend to stay with the person, whereas long guns are often not available. The difference shows up in Tom’s efficacy paper on firearms.
Here is a link to the abstract of the paper the chart is from. Tom Smith graciously sent me a full copy so I could write about it.
https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jwmg.21958
The co-author of the article is James S. Wilder, who, I recall, was the editor of when the “efficacy” articles about bear spray and firearms were published.
Tom sent me the full article for free, for my use, and the original is behind some sort of paywall. I hesitate to put a complete digital copy out in the wild. I can send the title page if you want that to validate the chart, but if you look closely at the image in this link, it shows “The Journal of Wildlife Management” in the upper right hand corner, which is the bottom slice of page 6 in the article, caught in my screenshot of the page with the chart.
Here is a link to the official report by the Wyoming Fish & Game department. The pistol was in a holster on top of the packs.
It is not known if the bears left the scene or not directly after inflicting the mortal injury on Uptain. No one examined the scene until the next day, about 1330 hours. It is common for bears to leave the scene and return later. In defense of the idea they left after being sprayed, yes they did. Just exactly when is unclear. The report does not mention if any of the elk remains were disturbed by the bears.
Clearly, Uptain was able to walk about 50 yards before collapsing. He was not under attack while doing so.
It is also common for bears to move away for short periods and to come back. We simply do not know a lot of the details about this event. Uptain, for example, was bitten by both bears, but only one bear had evidence of bear spray residue.
The bears were killed at the attack site (yearling trapped, Sow killed charging the responders) on September 16, about 48 hours after the attack, perhaps a little earlier.
The official report came out four months after the attack.
Here is a recent article by Wes Siler, who is pretty far left, but is willing to be convinced by the truth.
He talks about his interview with Tom Smith, and talks about what changed his mind on bear spray a few years ago.
Easiest to scroll down to the Bold section header: Fact Two: Bear Spray is Not Effective In A Bear Attack
I think he is a bit over the top with the header, but you might find interesting why he says that.
https://wessiler.substack.com/p/bear-spray-is-a-placebo
When one believes a lie.
That aligns with one’s beliefs.
It is very hard to change.
Spray is a good harassment tool.
Firearms when you want to protect yourself from serious bodily harm or death.
I have been recreating/living in bear country for close to 70 years. Yes, many weeklong back backing trips.
I carry a handgun.
It is common knowledge that one doesn’t not deploy spray against a armed attacker unless backed up by lethal force.
Bears are always armed and have disproportionately physical advantage.
If a bear makes contact, you will have great bodily harm and could die.
All reasons to deploy deadly force.