Posted on 07/10/2024 4:58:00 AM PDT by marktwain
In 2008, bear spray received a large boost with the publication of the paper on the “Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray” by Smith and Herrero. The paper considered 83 incidents, of which 72 incidents were scored for effect where bears were sprayed. The eleven other incidents did not involve bears being sprayed. The authors judged bear spray to be 92% effective. 25(35%) of the scored incidents involved aggressive bears. 10 of the aggressive bears charged (14% of the incidents). 21(29%) of the 72 incidents involved park personnel targeting bears. The percentage of aggressive bears that were deterred was not mentioned. While 92% seems high, the authors were not content. They created a sound bite, which was intensely magnified by the media. From the Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska:
Although bear spray was 92% effective by our definition of success, it is important to note that 98% of persons carrying it were uninjured after a close encounter with bears.
Consider the above statement. The sentence separates carrying bear spray from using bear spray. 175 people were reported as “carrying bear spray.” Only 71 bears were sprayed. How many bears were sprayed by multiple people was not reported. The vast majority of close encounters with bears do not result in humans being injured, whether they are unarmed or carry firearms or bear spray. No one seriously suggests more than 1 or 2 percent of close encounters with bears involve injury to a human. The number is likely much less than 1 percent. Many articles about bear spray jumped to the claim bear spray was 98% effective in deterring bears.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Given the choice of a properly sized hand gun and spray, I’d pick the gun any day. I do not trust chemical deterrents, especially when lives are at stake.
What is with the ammoland obsession with bears?
I’ve had numerous encounters with bears and, excepting a fishing trip to Canada, never had reason to be concerned, and if a bear wanted to take on 5 guys with larger pistols and a guide with a rifle, good luck to him.
Bear growled and thought better of his chances and took off at a gallop with nary a shot fired.
A slug in the heart, or through the mouth, does a pretty good job of stopping a bear, but it has to be a big enough slug with enough power behind it to burst through bone and viscera.
If it is not a kill shot with a bear, the game goes on for FAR too long.
“There are two things to do to stay safe from bears: Always carry pepper spray, and learn to recognize bear scat.”
“How do you recognize bear scat?”
“It smells like pepper.”
The bear articles are just one of many series on AmmoLand.
They are about .2% of the article published on AmmoLand.
And even fewer of those involved spraying an aggressive bear. It looks like most of the incidents involved running the bears out of trash cans.
Discussion of firearm for protection from criminals - how dare you!?!?!?!? You're sick. You're a gun nut. Guns kill people. You shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. We need more red flag laws. You're showing intent to kill people. People don't need guns because police have guns.
Bear spray on a hungry bear just makes them ugly. It will not stop them.
But then, these idjits do not know bears.They ascribe human cgaracterustics to bears subconsciously.
Bears are like an alien life form. They have no hesittation to eat.They are driven. A human is just a skin bag full of meat to a bear.
Thank goodness we have 12 guage shotguns loaded with rifled slugs and OO buck.
Fending off the apex predator has long been the wet dream of gun nuts, since the days of pulp stories of TR. it’s a primal memory, if that sort of thing is to be believed.
Being a gun nut myself, these bear fantasies are at least palatable, if also juvenile. They not nearly as disturbing as the ‘home defenders’ that literally just want to kill someone.
Good point. I believe it is one of the reasons the left was so accepting of bear spray as "better than guns".
Then how about posting some of the other content. The 'bear' material has been retreaded almost every couple of weeks. If you go back and look at the articles for the last several years, they even use the exact same words over and over again.
Many readers are interested in how various handgun calibers have performed in defense against bears. This is a complicated subject. Sometimes, any caliber will do. Sometimes, a level of power may be required. Sometimes, a level of accuracy or speed may be required. Many permutations exist. The most important aspect is to have a firearm available, easily and quickly accessible. The specific caliber is less important.
No kidding Sherlock. Seriously, a few words get moved around but these words are reprinted in every article.
The makers of pepper spray are pretty quiet about using it against the wind.
I think Dean Weingarten, the author, was molested by a bear as a child...
Pepper spray is a lefty’s combined effort against guns and the favoring of animal rights.
Yes, against the wind - in such a case what’s more effective, the spray, calling 911 or throwing rocks? A good lefty will have the answer and it will not be a gun.
A few years back some loons went into Yellowstone and were allowed to live with grizzlies. The bears had lunch.
The topic of defense against bears has been heavily debated in the firearms/hunting community for decades. A lot of ink has been shed, a lot of angry words have been exchanged, but facts and logical analysis have been generally lacking.
I, at least, am glad to see this deplorable situation rectified.
Then how about posting some of the other content. The 'bear' material has been retreaded almost every couple of weeks. If you go back and look at the articles for the last several years, they even use the exact same words over and over again. Many readers are interested in how various handgun calibers have performed in defense against bears. This is a complicated subject. Sometimes, any caliber will do. Sometimes, a level of power may be required. Sometimes, a level of accuracy or speed may be required. Many permutations exist. The most important aspect is to have a firearm available, easily and quickly accessible. The specific caliber is less important.
Those words are used because they are part of the series which explores how various calibers have functioned in defense against bears.
They identify the articles as part of the series, of which there have been six posted on freerepublic, all posted since May 10, 2024, or over the last two months.
Please show where those words, as claimed, have been posted during the last "several years".
I’m not here to do your research. Do a search on bear in the title yourself. I am not trying to attack you personally, and I am not going to get in a heated argument and waste either of our time over this. I simply said if this is 2% of ammoland, how about posting something from the other 98% for a change.
I love a good gun thread. This is tired material, and years its been repeatedly posted almost as far back as I can remember, and I’ve been here 20 years.
You, Magnum44, are the one who made the claim that the words mentioned were repeated over years on freerepublic. It is your responsibility to back up your claim.
No one said the bear articles were 2% of AmmoLand content. It was said they are .2% of AmmoLand content, an order of magnitude difference.
When a person makes a claim about a matter of fact, the onus of documenting the claim falls on the person making the claim.
I am not attacking you personally. I am disputing your claim of fact, which is incorrect.
You have no responsibility to read articles which have been posted. It is a long tradition on freerepublic to post about articles without reading them.
Whatever.
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.