Posted on 04/29/2024 4:34:00 AM PDT by marktwain
Attempting to quantify the effectiveness of defensive methods for use against bears suffers from significant selection bias. It is impractical to enlist large numbers of volunteers, randomly select half, give half a method of protection, leave the others as a control group, and place both in equal chances of being attacked. Instead, we rely on gathering data from people who were attacked and who had various types of defensive weapons. Obtaining a valid sample is nearly impossible because successful defenses have a strong bias of not being reported. The more spectacularly a defense fails, the more likely it is to come to the media’s attention and make headlines. It will be collected when people search for “bear attacks.” Researchers collecting data may exhibit bias in selecting what incidents to include.
In the most famous of the firearms and bear studies, “Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska” (1883 to 2009), the purpose was not to determine how effective firearms are in defense against bears. It was to find ways in which firearms did not work in defense against bears. From an interview with Tom Smith by Wes Siler in Outside Online:
The point of “Efficacy of Firearms” wasn’t to arrive at a conclusion on whether or not firearms work but, rather, to analyze the reasons why they didn’t—“poor aim, no time to use them, jammed, etc.,” elaborates Smith.
Therefore, even if more incidents had been made available through the Alaska DLP database, we anticipate that these would have contributed few, if any, additional human injuries.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Only cases where bear spray was sprayed were included.
In 15% of firearm cases, the firearms were not fired.
Firearms cases were included to maximize the number of human injuries.
bkmk
I have to believe there was a second or two when Timothy Treadwell wished he had a gun.....right before a bear killed and ate him that is.
Making the wrong assumptions about the nature of reality has consequences.
The horrifying thing about bears is that they seem to just go straight to eating and not worry too much about if you’re dead, or not.
I don’t want to be in the control group.
I see no mention of species.
The efficacy must also be sorted out by species
If you don’t have one, they are not effective at all....................
I reckon all bears, given the right circumstances, will kill you and eat you. But, the big Brown Bears of the northern hemisphere seem to be particularly ill-tempered.
The Efficacy of Firearms for Deterrence of Bears in Alaska was heavy on grizzly bears.
Bear spray: Black bear 20, Brown bear 24, Polar bear 2. Total incidents 72. (obviously, some of the bears were involved in more than one incident). 21 of the incidents involved bear management people hazing problem bears.
Firearms: Black bear 30, Brown bear 218, Polar bear 6, unknown 15. Total incidents: 269, no bears more than once, no management hazing.
So, of the cases where the species were known:
Spray paper: black bear were 43%, brown and polar were 56%.
Firearms paper: Black bear were 12%, brown and polar were 88%.
The Journals of Lewis and Clark offer one of the most comical 180 degree turnarounds in history.
The party had been hearing stories from various Indian nations about the “white bears” all the way up the Missouri. Pretty much completely unknown to science. Lewis noted that the warriors only attacked in groups of up to ten or so, and often got killed. They saw these huge 12” tracks and got pretty excited.
But they still didn’t get it. Lewis figured that the Indians, armed with indifferent rifles, bows and arrows, were no match for Infantry with modern rifles and aimed fire. He wrote basically, it was all hype and exaggeration. Oops.
Then, they started getting attacked, and they couldn’t believe how hard it was to kill one. “I believe the curiosity among the men about these bears is pretty well satisfied. I do not like these gentlemen, I’d rather fight two Indians than one bear”
You want bias, exactly 0% of bears were interviewed for their side of the incidents.
Is there anyway to tell how many of those situations were because of the lack of time to deploy the firearm? Same is true of bear spray. It seems that would have to count as a fail for either defensive tool if the bear is on the person so fast that there is no time of deploy.
Thanks for that.
My experience is several encounters with black bears. They huff and bluff but when yelled at or pots are beaten, back off.
The Tennessee bears I encountered though wild, have experience with humans and just want the goodie in your pack
Heck, if I were in a situation where there was risk of angry rioters bearing down on me, I'd probably choose the bear spray for that too. I'm not anti-firearms in the least (quite the opposite) but I think there is an element of machismo in the way people continue to argue in favor of firearms as a preferred bear attack deterrent. If you are going bear hunting, take the rifle. But if you just don't want to get eaten, carry bear spray.
Machismo....
Ahhh no.
The first thing to remember when dealing with any sort of bear is to leave them the H alone. Don’t go for that selfie. Don’t taunt them. Don’t chase them. And above all DO NOT FEED THEM! And keep in mind that with a large grizzly you are not safe in your car or pickup. Most people do not understand how heavy, fast and powerful a large grizzly can be. A grizz can cover a couple hundred yards with a blown out heart. A grizz can outrun a horse.
It is too easy to make generalizations about bears. In the east, black bears are less aggressive and are more used to people. In certain regions of Alaska and British columbia one may encounter the predatory black bear. The last thing you see is a black blur coming out of the woods at the speed of a horse.
People have employed all sorts of ways to deal with bears. I have chased a large grizzly out of the yard banging a pot with a ladle. I have also had to dispatch a grizzly with a rifle.
Grizzlies especially are opportunistic omnivores. So it is very impoprtant to keep a clean house yard or campsite. A grizz may decide that your place is a great den. I had a neighbor who had a grizz tear off the overhead door on his garage, overturn a freezer, and decide that this was a great place to hang out. It was evetually dispatched from an upstairs window with a .300 magnum.
The two most dangerous encounters are cub defense and carcass defense. Never approach a sow with cubs. Never approach a feeding bear. IF you come across a carcass LEAVE THE AREA.
Pepper spray or a pistol can discourage a bear that is only casually interested in you. If you have been identified as a threat or a food source you want to have a large caliber weapon.
Just saw a video of a guy who got attacked by a grizzly in Big Sky Montana. His .38 misfired and it bit his jaw off. Ooops!!
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.