[Alaska444]

Incredible story of a one year bear cub that attacked a mother and two children. The woman had bear spray which did not deter this young bear:

"It was kind of trotting around me, and then it would charge and growl," said Jones-Robinson, an English professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. "It charged, and I used my bear spray when it was about four feet away and then I fell with my pack on and dropped the bear spray."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Alaska-woman-recounts-terrifying-ordeal-with-bear-3707497.php#ixzz20eC0iwhF

The most interesting aspect of this encounter is the woman's statement at the end of the news account:

It was a terrifying escape for Jones-Robinson and her nieces, who were visiting from Washington state.
"All I could think about was this bear is so close to me I can see its teeth," she said. "I could have kissed it. I wished I had a gun."


Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Alaska-woman-recounts-terrifying-ordeal-with-bear-3707497.php#ixzz20eCFB5mE

Wonder if this failure of pepper spray will make the scientific stats. I guess we could chalk it up to the macaroni and cheese bear defense.

[Chevelle SS]

My Dad ALWAYS has his 44 Redhawk when he is in the woods. I usually carry a sidearm when hunting.

[xerxesthecat]

I like the story Jeff Cooper used to tell about the hikers wearing bells to alert bears of their presence. The assumption being that the alerted bears would amble off (being the peaceful, sensible, violence-abhoring teddy bears that we have been told they are) without confrontation. Cooper's story ended with a line about park rangers finding bells in bear droppings, and I agree that if I was headed back to bear country, I wouldnt want to go with anything less than my high cap 10mm.

[Rail Driver]

Personally, if I'm hiking in bear country, I'm gonna be carrying my Mosin/Nagant M44. Not only is it stout enough to take down a bear at pretty much any reasonable range, it's also got a nice long bayonet for if I run out of ammo, and makes a decent walking stick if necessary.

[rcmodel]

I prefer an old friend, older and more crippled then I am.

I can probably outrun him, but I can't outrun a bear.

rc

[paintballdude902]

both then i can throw the bear spray, shoot it and hopefully get rid of the bear. if it doesnt then i can shoot the bear

[goon]

From what I've heard, having both might not be a bad idea.
But to me the gun would be a necessity.

[hogshead]

You could carry a 22 and shoot him in the knee.

[firesky101]

I don't think you will have too many on this forum that would vote to be near a bear without a gun. FWIW I carry my 7.5" 44Mag redhawk with me in the woods, and there has not been grizzly in these parts for a long long time.

[Lost Sheep]

Incredible story of a one year bear cub that attacked a mother and two children. The woman had bear spray which did not deter this young bear:



Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Alaska-woman-recounts-terrifying-ordeal-with-bear-3707497.php#ixzz20eC0iwhF

The most interesting aspect of this encounter is the woman's statement at the end of the news account:



Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Alaska-woman-recounts-terrifying-ordeal-with-bear-3707497.php#ixzz20eCFB5mE

Wonder if this failure of pepper spray will make the scientific stats. I guess we could chalk it up to the macaroni and cheese bear defense.
Sobering. Thanks for posting, Alaska444

It is easier to miss with a gun than with bear spray, though at 4 feet it seems unlikely missing with either. I wonder what strength of spray, whether it did actually hit the bear in the face and how much was spent (before Ms Jones-Robinson dropped it).

Certainly having a gun as a backup to the spray would have enabled her to kill the bear, but, as it turned out, it would have saved only her pack and car keys, certainly not worth the trouble of following through her duty to preserve the skull and cape and turn it over to the State of Alaska (required under Alaska law for DLP shoots).

I look forward to reading more detailed reports in my local media.

As far as how this incident will be counted in the Bear-Human encounters, I will venture to guess it will probably be chalked up as "successful" unless the person compiling shows some judgement. That is, (a) no human injury bear (b) spray used (c) no firearm used. Though, from the (very short) testimony of Ms Jones-Robinson, the spray actually failed.

But as long as I am speculating, I wonder if shooting the bear (one-shot instant kills are rare in DLP situations) would not have brought the mother bear onto the scene.

By the time the locksmith showed up, I wonder if Fish & Game would have gotten there, too, properly equipped to defend against the bear. I would have gone back for my keys (which would hold little interest for the bear when a nice, juicy backpack was available to chew on).

As far as the bells are concerned, Brown Bears usually only attack when surprized or threatened. Letting them know you are coming will usually cause them to quit the area (unless they are protecting a kill or cubs). You take the best odds you can get. If you are in the woods birdwatching or just to enjoy the quiet, you probably don't want to wear bells anyway.

Lost Sheep

[Lost Sheep]

both then i can throw the bear spray, shoot it and hopefully get rid of the bear. if it doesnt then i can shoot the bear
Bears can run 35 mph over uneven ground. By the time you have determined that it is not a bluff charge, you have about 10 yards maximum to try the "throw the can and shoot it".

Do the math. At full speed a bear will cover 40 feet in less than one second. So, if you are surprised by a bear you don't have much time to react.

The more likely scenario is that the bear sees you and issues a challenge, giving you time to pick a defense. Backing away is usually best.

The MOST likely scenario is that you never know the bear was there unless you smell him.

Lost Sheep

[MachIVshooter]

I prefer an old friend, older and more crippled then I am.

I can probably outrun him, but I can't outrun a bear.

^^^^^^^^

This. You don't need to be faster than the bear, just faster than the other guy. lol.

In all seriousness, bear attacks, like all animal attacks, always make the news big time, so the threat is blown out of proportion. The reality is that fewer than 3 people are killed by bears annually in North America. Total human deaths in North America is about 2.8 million per year. So, quite literally, one in a million people is killed by a bear.

This doesn't mean I don't think a defensive weapon is a good idea, and I'd certainly carry one in bear country. But I do believe it's over-thought; The other things that present a much more significant deadly threat should be given appropriate consideration before worrying about hostile Ursidae. Man is THE apex predator, and all higher animals seem to know this and almost always avoid us, bears included. Once in a while, predation gets reversed, and it really sucks if you are that unlucky one in a million. But don't overthink it and/or overburden yourself with gear and weapons worrying about it to the point that you may subject yourself to a more likely fatal event, such as falling down a mountain because all your gear was too heavy and threw you off-balance.

[Alaska444]

Thanks Lost Sheep, but the issue of limited response time affects guns and deployment of pepper spray equally. In that situation, if you don't have someone to rescue you, playing dead is your only option but that is a 50-50 proposition. Not the kind of odds you want.

[bushmaster1313]

Cooper's story ended with a line about park rangers finding bells in bear droppings,

Sad but funny

[JTHunter]

Does anybody have any idea of the effectiveness of spraying the spray at the bear while firing 1 or 2 shots in the air to intimidate the bear? :confused:
If that doesn't work, you still have 4 shots to put in the bear.

[Alaska444]

Today, 09:47 PM #17
JTHunter
Member

Join Date: July 24, 2010
Location: Southwestern Illinois
Posts: 410
Does anybody have any idea of the effectiveness of spraying the spray at the bear while firing 1 or 2 shots in the air to intimidate the bear?
If that doesn't work, you still have 4 shots to put in the bear.
__________________
“Crime is to be expected since humans are never perfect. But the failure of Justice may be more damaging to Society than the crime itself.” - - Clarence Darrow


If the pepper spray is effective, you are doing aversion therapy for the bear which may teach them to stay away from man. If the pepper spray does not work, you are two shots fewer in your arsenal against the bear.

[Onward Allusion]

Carry both. It's not like you are required to carry just one.

[Alaska444]

Today, 10:06 PM #19
Onward Allusion
Member

Join Date: March 22, 2009
Location: IN
Posts: 1,801
Carry both. It's not like you are required to carry just one.
__________________
"With great power, there must also come great responsibility." - Stan Lee

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Absolutely, since neither guns or pepper spray is 100% effective, that is my strategy as well. Since my wife cannot handle the recoil of any gun that is effectively lethal against bears, she has the pepper spray, I have the gun. Maybe not the "best" strategy, but it does give us dual options if we have enough time to react. If I go down, my wife still can protect me with the pepper spray and vice versa.

Other observational data shows avoiding dense brush and having 4 or more in a party is effective at avoiding bear attacks. Multiple layers of defense and good bear sense with campgrounds goes a long way. Unfortunately, nothing is 100% effective.

[Bobson]

I've never been sprayed with bear spray, but I have had direct eye exposure to OC rated at 2 million Scoville Heat Units - which is the most "powerful" pepper spray available to law enforcement - during my department's academy. I confess that it was the most painful experience of my life, but add that it took a solid ten minutes for the me to feel the full strength of the OC. Furthermore, I was absolutely able to function at nearly full capacity for some time following the direct exposure, as we were required to conduct specific tasks for the 60 seconds immediately after being sprayed.

I have very little confidence, if any, in any type of chemical agent being able to stop any mildly determined animal in the event of an attack.

I vote gun - no contest whatsoever.

[Texan Scott]

<--- just idly wondering about hollowpoint cavities filled in with habanero pepper paste... and garlic, because if I had to eat a bear, hot peppers and garlic sounds good right about now.

Of course, this requires a gun, but - why NOT both?

[Friendly, Don't Fire!]

...hollowpoint cavities filled in with habanero pepper paste...why NOT both......
I would think that would make the wound-channel much more painful!
Good idea!

[Salmoneye]

The MOST likely scenario is that you never know the bear was there unless you smell him.

I've smelled them twice before I saw them...

Rank wet dog is all I can equate it to...

[EddieNFL]

The reality is that fewer than 3 people are killed by bears annually in North America.

Insignificant statistic...unless you're one of the three.

Gun.

[Reloadron]

Years ago I would extensively hunt deer in West Virginia with a friend of mine who lived there. One year I found a nice spot up from a river and parked my butt as my friend went further up the mountain. I caught movement in a large patch of hemlock expecting my 8 point giant WV deer.

This black bear walks out maybe 20 yards in front of me sniffing. Got up on the hinds and sniffed more, looked at me and just wandered down towards the river. Back then I carried a Ruger Model 44 Carbine I wish Ruger still made, along with my S&W Model 29 (Thank You Elmer Kieth).

That bear had no interest in me nor me in him.

Here in Ohio the black bear population is growing as they migrate in from PA. The only time I guess they get aggressive is if you get your ass between a mother and her cub(s) which is expected.

Whenever I am out and about in the woods my Model 29 is my best friend and travel companion. :)

Problem being is the bear and coyote population never read the book as to how they are supposed to behave and I am in their home.

Ron

[hardluk1]

First thing I see wrong here is it was a 100 to 200lb grizzly??? Really. And then when she did deside she needed her bear spray she said she tried to spray it at a distance of 4 feet?? It sounds like she was so under prepared she is lucky it was not even the avergae sized black bear much less a grizzly of any size.. BUT maybe she did get some spray in the bears eyes and that saved her from atleast getting chewed or slobbered on a bit.

IT would have been helpfull for her to atleast had the spray out and ready to use at 25 feet or so. Would still think if she had a gun she would have dropped it or she would have shot herself our someone other than the bear. If your going for a walk in black bear country ,a handgun should serve to protect ,should.

In grizzly country I will carry a slug gun, not a handgun but still have some bear spray. I do believe that if a healthy grizzly wants you it more than likely will get you so the rifle maybe way more usefull at shopping the bear from mauling how your with.

[lobo9er]

there should be a both option. if not alone one in the group maybe have bear spray too.

[Driftertank]

Y'know, more people are killed by deer, per annum, than all other wild animal attacks combined in the US. Or at least, so says the statistic relayed to me. Though i suspect vehicle strikes are counted in that statistic.

Just that Bambi's not as scary to most people as Smokey.

[buck460XVR]

I like the story Jeff Cooper used to tell about the hikers wearing bells to alert bears of their presence. Cooper's story ended with a line about park rangers finding bells in bear droppings

That story has been around for a while......

http://www.outdooroddities.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/grizzly_bear_warning_sign.jpg

[Alaska444]

Today, 06:54 AM #26
lobo9er
Member

Join Date: July 8, 2009
Location: Earth, Currently
Posts: 1,821
there should be a both option. if not alone one in the group maybe have bear spray too.


It only allowed two options here on THR. Obviously BOTH is the best answer since neither is 100% effective.

[hang fire]

That one year old bear should be killed and tested for rabies. Killed, because at that early age, it's aggressive behavior towards humans will only increase as it gets older.

[xerxesthecat]

someone mentioned a rifle, and sure that would be ideal. but if you run into a game warden, you could have problems. A handgun is generally considered 'defensive' for bear, while a rifle could be interpreted as 'hunting out of season'; at least thats the attitude around these parts.

[hardluk1]

Depends where you are and when.

[jmr40]

Either the spray was not used correctly or she was just unlucky. It does happen. I carry a gun when practical in black bear country, but all the research shows that spray is more effective. Especially when really big bears are involved. I'll not be in grizz country again without bear spray, and a gun if possible.

Black bear are not that hard to kill or deter with conventional handguns. With the really big boys even a perfectly placed shot from the largest caliber rifle could take enough time to allow the bear to get you before he expires.

[B!ngo]

I'm no expert but it would seem that doing it the other way around would be best. That is, rely on the gun for the greater range, and if that fails then rely on the spray - especially if the value of the spray is iffy.
But then again, I'd be surprised if anyone on a shooting/gun site like THR would recommend against having a gun in the bear country. :)
I did all of my serious hiking and camping on the east coast when I was younger and luckily never ran in to any ferocious four-leggers.
B

Sobering. Thanks for posting, Alaska444

It is easier to miss with a gun than with bear spray, though at 4 feet it seems unlikely missing with either. I wonder what strength of spray, whether it did actually hit the bear in the face and how much was spent (before Ms Jones-Robinson dropped it).

Certainly having a gun as a backup to the spray would have enabled her to kill the bear, but, as it turned out, it would have saved only her pack and car keys, certainly not worth the trouble of following through her duty to preserve the skull and cape and turn it over to the State of Alaska (required under Alaska law for DLP shoots).

I look forward to reading more detailed reports in my local media.

As far as how this incident will be counted in the Bear-Human encounters, I will venture to guess it will probably be chalked up as "successful" unless the person compiling shows some judgement. That is, (a) no human injury bear (b) spray used (c) no firearm used. Though, from the (very short) testimony of Ms Jones-Robinson, the spray actually failed.

But as long as I am speculating, I wonder if shooting the bear (one-shot instant kills are rare in DLP situations) would not have brought the mother bear onto the scene.

By the time the locksmith showed up, I wonder if Fish & Game would have gotten there, too, properly equipped to defend against the bear. I would have gone back for my keys (which would hold little interest for the bear when a nice, juicy backpack was available to chew on).

As far as the bells are concerned, Brown Bears usually only attack when surprized or threatened. Letting them know you are coming will usually cause them to quit the area (unless they are protecting a kill or cubs). You take the best odds you can get. If you are in the woods birdwatching or just to enjoy the quiet, you probably don't want to wear bells anyway.

Lost Sheep

[BBDartCA]

Bear attacks seem not so uncommon. From google news:

Serial criminal bear here in Arizona!

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/06/arizona-bear-attacks-up-to-three-in-a-month/

One in Pennsylvania few weeks ago
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120706/NEWS/207060335

NY times even in on the act
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/in-bear-country-never-walk-alone/

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/bear_attack_survivor_ben_radak.html

And bear spray being used by criminals:
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/strange/article/263246/82/Bear-spray-attack-backfires-on-suspects

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/07/09/calgary-mace-home-invasion.html

Even the Indians are not safe:
http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/woman-killed-in-bear-attack-in-ramban/1020543.html

[highlander 5]

My mother lived in a small apartment complex in NH that had a mother bear and her cubs raid their trash dumpster on a regular basis,I suggested geting a large container of cayane pepper to put in everyone's trash to deter her. When I went to visit 3 things came with me,my wife,my dogs and a 44 mag. I had people tell me that I'd be arrested for shooting the bear if the situation arose and my reply was I'll pay the fine better out a few hundred bucks than being mauled/killed by a bear.

[longknife12]

Pepper stays on camp table....sidearm goes with me. My kids were raised same way...so far, we have only used the pepper!
Dan
;)

[Warp]

Both. I voted gun, though, if for some strange reason I could have one or the other.

4 feet away? WOW, it's amazing she is in one piece.

[hermannr]

My experience has been a large male bear that is hungry (they always are), or protecting food he has already procured is a lot more dangerous than a sow with cubs.

Had my local little sow (about 250 lbs) with her small cub (less than half her size) were back again this year, trying to break into the dog food, again. Last year I shot my 12 ga into the air, and both ran off. This year I just yelled, and they both ran off.

Three years ago my Doberman chased another bear off, but the one bear that was enough of a problem to get F&W out was a 450 lb male...he broke the door to the garage to get to that dog food, and he did not just run off because an 88 pound dog was harassing him. He is making someone a nice rug now. I don't shoot them if at all possible because I cannot (physically) clean them.

and for the rest of the story....Now you know why the dog food is in the garage, not the cabin.

[gym]

What you do is dig a big hole and cover it with ash, when the bear gets close you kick him in the ash---e.
Really give me a 50 cal or a 454, and forget the air freshner.
Wrong crowd to ask this question to. i bet the Bradys would pick the spray every time, uless no one was looking. But you could always get dick chaney to go Bear hunting with you, "wear protection" the bear should be safe unless he's with the hunting party.

[dprice3844444]

i don't need bear spray or a gun,i just need to be able to run faster than the person i'm with

[skoro]

"I used my bear spray when it was about four feet away and then I fell with my pack on and dropped the bear spray."


... seems to me the moral of this story is that if you're using bear spray:

1. don't fall down

-and-

2. don't drop your can of bear spray

Just my humble opinion... ;)

[Warp]

I might add:

3. Don't wait until the bear is a claimed 4 feet away before using it.

[checkmyswag]

Im a pretty environmental fellow...do try to scare the bears with bells/spray. If need be though do use lead based bear repellent.

Watch your lane.

[Certaindeaf]

Well, perhaps she'll change her wishing to doing.

[Swing]

Gun. .44 Mag-o-rama minimum, .454 Casull would be better.

[Lost Sheep]

I've never been sprayed with bear spray, but I have had direct eye exposure to OC rated at 2 million Scoville Heat Units - which is the most "powerful" pepper spray available to law enforcement - during my department's academy. I confess that it was the most painful experience of my life, but add that it took a solid ten minutes for the me to feel the full strength of the OC. Furthermore, I was absolutely able to function at nearly full capacity for some time following the direct exposure, as we were required to conduct specific tasks for the 60 seconds immediately after being sprayed.

I have very little confidence, if any, in any type of chemical agent being able to stop any mildly determined animal in the event of an attack.

I vote gun - no contest whatsoever.
I don't want to discount your training experience, but are you certain it was the two million SHC chemical? That causes almost immediate blistering to exposed human skin.

I found this testimonial on another forumWe tested Phase IV about 4 years ago for our department to see if it would be better than the Def Tech at 25,000 SHU. One of our SWAT men volunteered ( he was the guy that walks around with the big red "S" on his chest all day). I gave him a one half second spray on the side of the face only for a simple test. The skin immediately blistered and he had to be taken to the hospital.

Respectfully,

Lost Sheep

[Alaska444]

Going back to the OP, who in this situation wouldn't want a gun? She fought the bear with a stick and bug spray to hit it with and simply standing up to it. Why, the pepper spray didn't do the job.

If we are going to look at pepper spray, look at it in the proper perspective. The anti-gun, pro-bear media makes people believe that pepper spray is a complete panacea for bears. Not true. It is a great option to have, but it should never be the total bear defense paradigm.

Go with multiple and overlapping layers of defense. None are effective completely by themselves. The whole pepper spray vs guns is a false dichotomy fed by the anti-gun lobby and pro-bear (anti-people) factions. The studies cannot answer the questions that the media blitz claims they have answered. Pure poppycock to state categorically one is better than the other.

These studies are truly quasi-scientific at best with levels of evidence considered in general as the lowest level "scientific" methods which are weak and flawed by their design. They have generated the hypothesis which is their chief purpose, but they CANNOT answer that hypothesis. They are not designed for that purpose.

[Bobson]

I don't want to discount your training experience, but are you certain it was the two million SHC chemical?
Pretty sure. Taken from the Sabre Red site (http://www.sabrered.com/servlet/the-template/LawEnforcement-dsh-SABREFormulations/Page):


Formulation --- MC --- Level --- OC
SABRE Red --- 1.33% --- III --- 10%
. . . .
[Scale] --- Raw SHU --- OC --- Percentage Dilution --- NET SHU
Hottest --- 2,000,000 --- 10% --- 90% --- 200,000


See attached picture of issued spray, same as used in academy.

Thing is, Sabre calls this Level III, and doesn't have any reference to a Level IV (as was referred to in your quote) that I was able to find on their site. I've seen a number of individuals immediately following being sprayed with what we're issued, both in the academy and during actual uses-of-force, and never saw any blistering whatsoever.

[Shadow 7D]

sorry, I will have to respectfully disagree
OC doesn't cause blistering, reddening of the skin, yeah, maybe even some mild (and this is MILD no defined boarder, soft to touch...etc.) swelling

the action of OC won't cause blistering unless the person is allergic to some component of the spray.

[Deltaboy]

Thank the Good Lord she is alright. She is very blessed to have walked away. I say carry spray, a good handgun 44 mag + and a good knife.

[Snag]

I carry a gun. Never had to shoot a bear though. Anywhere around here other than the resorts bears run off when they see you.

[beatledog7]

Sometimes one must choose his tools for their ability to perform multiple tasks.

I have .44 Mag in my safe, but I don't own a single can of bear spray.

[skoro]

I might add:

3. Don't wait until the bear is a claimed 4 feet away before using it.

A very worthy addition. :)

[xerxesthecat]

with all this bear talk, I was inspired to do an internet search for animal attacks. apparently many people have been savaged by packs of raccoons. No kidding - youtube has a whole list of examples, so this might be a greater problem than we think. And while I agree with the .454 concept for bear, it seems to me that tactical zombie gear might be best for small, fast assailants - an acog sighted M4 loaded with zmax rounds, heavy chaps and gloves, possibly a codpiece. you can never be too prepared in the raccoon woods.

[sansone]

I prefer an old friend, older and more crippled then I am.

I can probably outrun him, but I can't outrun a bear.

rc
enjoying this thread ..
I voted gun but my usual carry is a tiny .380 which isn't much better than spray

[Kendahl]

Bear spray works well. However, there are exceptions as this woman found out. If I lived in bear country, I would have a spray can on one hip and a 44 mag on the other. The spray probably works on raccoons, too.

[B!ngo]

What is the range of bear spray?

[JustinJ]

So when people with guns get mauled is it accepted as proof that bear spray is superior?

[Bobson]

What is the range of bear spray?
Depends if its windy. Its not uncommon for the user of a chemical agent to feel it's effects nearly as much as the target.

To answer your question, it probably depends on the manufacturer. UDAP bear spray (http://www.udap.com/Bearspecifications.htm) is advertised of having a range of "up to 30 feet plus," and "30-35 feet." Their website actually says both of those, so you can take that for what it is. This spray is rated at 3.3 million Scoville Heat Units.

[Alaska444]

Today, 03:19 PM #59
JustinJ
Member


Join Date: February 15, 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,256
So when people with guns get mauled is it accepted as proof that bear spray is superior?
__________________
Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.

Thomas Jefferson

Dear JustinJ,

That is not what this thread is about. All of the retrospective studies to date have established an hypothesis that spray is better than guns. However, many including myself question the bias inherent in these studies funded often by the people promoting pepper spray and avoiding bear deaths. Unfortunately, none of these studies has the ability to eliminate this potential bias since they are not prospective studies. Nor will anyone every perform those studies.

So many continue in the myth that they have proven pepper spray is better when all that they have done is to raise the question, nothing more, nothing less. The question remains and will remain unanswered and unanswerable. So questioning that guns are better or worse is a debate without an answer.

The correct answer is multiple layers of bear protection starting with avoidance. I would hope folks don't fall for the propaganda that guns have no place in bear defense. In the case in the OP, it is the defense of choice.

[Bobson]

Something to kick around for a bit:

After being exposed to OC, some people become even more aggressive/violent than they were initially; and its far from being the 1 in every 1000 people some might make it out to be.

Would it be outrageous to suggest the same possibility exists with animals?

[Lost Sheep]

Dear JustinJ,

That is not what this thread is about. All of the retrospective studies to date have established an hypothesis that spray is better than guns. However, many including myself question the bias inherent in these studies funded often by the people promoting pepper spray and avoiding bear deaths. Unfortunately, none of these studies has the ability to eliminate this potential bias since they are not prospective studies. Nor will anyone every perform those studies.

So many continue in the myth that they have proven pepper spray is better when all that they have done is to raise the question, nothing more, nothing less. The question remains and will remain unanswered and unanswerable. So questioning that guns are better or worse is a debate without an answer.

The correct answer is multiple layers of bear protection starting with avoidance. I would hope folks don't fall for the propaganda that guns have no place in bear defense. In the case in the OP, it is the defense of choice.
The voice of reason.

First line of defense (and survival generally) is knowledge. Good woodscraft will serve you better than spray OR firearms.

Prospective studies do not have the preeminence of double-blind scientific studies, but they do have illustrative value. Even anecdotal evidence carries weight

In support of spray:
http://www.adn.com/bearattacks/story/147318.html


On this thread, find the post by Windwalker (page 5, halfway down)
http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/view...r=asc&start=60
this Montanan has a lot of experience with bears and a wide choice of remedies.

In support of firearms:

http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/080709/out_478669517.shtml

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/bears/story/897940.html

and for a direct quote from the surviving party with pictures

http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/index.php/topic,179994.0.html

Lost Sheep

[JustinJ]

That is not what this thread is about. All of the retrospective studies to date have established an hypothesis that spray is better than guns. However, many including myself question the bias inherent in these studies funded often by the people promoting pepper spray and avoiding bear deaths. Unfortunately, none of these studies has the ability to eliminate this potential bias since they are not prospective studies. Nor will anyone every perform those studies.

Studies by definition offer evidence as opposed to proof. If one wishes to challenge a study it should be done on its merits and methodology instead of by ad hominem. What bias one expects from the BYU study i'm not sure of. The school seems an unlikely hotbed of animal rights activity. And studies in general are far more useful than single anecdotal events such as that of the article. What i see is a bias against a study for offering information contrary to preconceived notions.

So many continue in the myth that they have proven pepper spray is better when all that they have done is to raise the question, nothing more, nothing less. The question remains and will remain unanswered and unanswerable. So questioning that guns are better or worse is a debate without an answer.

I don't know who claims to have proven such a thing. Science by its nature is always open to further information and in one regard never truly finalizes an answer. Information from it can only provide a best answer based on available information. The bear spray vs gun studies I've read are obviously very general and make only general predictions. What gun, skill level, type of bear, location, time of year, etc. are all considerations that could influence if a spray or gun will provide better protection but such considerations are likely not practical for general advise.

The correct answer is multiple layers of bear protection starting with avoidance. I would hope folks don't fall for the propaganda that guns have no place in bear defense. In the case in the OP, it is the defense of choice.

One has no way to know if a gun would have made the situation better or possibly worse.

Carrying both is fine and likely a good idea however in many attacks one will have only time to choose one or the other.

[Coop45]

I've heard that polar bears are the second most dangerous bear and the bi-polar bear is the really dangerous one. LOL!!

[Alaska444]

Studies by definition offer evidence as opposed to proof. If one wishes to challenge a study it should be done on its merits and methodology instead of by ad hominem. What bias one expects from the BYU study i'm not sure of. The school seems an unlikely hotbed of animal rights activity. And studies in general are far more useful than single anecdotal events such as that of the article. What i see is a bias against a study for offering information contrary to preconceived notions.



I don't know who claims to have proven such a thing. Science by its nature is always open to further information and in one regard never truly finalizes an answer. Information from it can only provide a best answer based on available information. The bear spray vs gun studies I've read are obviously very general and make only general predictions. What gun, skill level, type of bear, location, time of year, etc. are all considerations that could influence if a spray or gun will provide better protection but such considerations are likely not practical for general advise.



One has no way to know if a gun would have made the situation better or possibly worse.

Carrying both is fine and likely a good idea however in many attacks one will have only time to choose one or the other.
Dear JustinJ,

You are out on a limb. You state I should attack the studies based on methodology instead of ad hominem attacks????

Sorry, page after page after page and post after post after post on the weakness of the study design is basing my arguments on methodology my friend. Please go back and read them again, no ad hominem in my arguments at all.

Texas doesn't have bears so for those of us that face the risk of bears running around in the woods of Idaho know and understand these issues since it is a real life issue that we have to deal with in person.

I challenge your contentions that the lady in the OP was incorrect in stating, I wished I had a gun.

Questioning whether a researcher was biased IS a legitimate aspect of critiquing scientific studies ESPECIALLY when the researcher chooses a method in his report that DOES NOT control for any bias. That my friend is NOT ad hominem.

Let's stick to the issues my friend.

My message is and has been quite clear on this issue.

1) The studies making headlines for year after year are retrospective case series studies. These are the lowest form of scientific evidence. Look at the picture I will attach.

2) You cannot quantitate whether one intervention is better based on the magnitude of the outcomes in a retrospective case series. These studies are important in generating the hypothesis, but they are not designed to answer that hypothesis. Just the way it is scientifically JustinJ.

3) Even in the studies, in their discussions, they advise to use pepper spray IN CONJUNCTION with firearms. Go read them, that is what they state. Yet, the propaganda around these studies voices the opinion that pepper spray is all that a person needs. Read the studies for yourself and that is what they state.

4) I advocate and act upon a multi-layered bear protection plan. Yes, JustinJ, here in Northern Idaho in grizzly country, this is not a hypothetical discourse, this is real life. The critters are here, they are not in Texas.

Get real folks, scientific studies can produce erroneous "evidence." Anyone that lives in a profession dependent on scientific research understands that you MUST evaluate any scientific study for its strengths and weaknesses before blindly excepting the conclusions.

In fact, there are methods to analyze scientific research studies. When I was in my internal medicine training, we based our analysis of medical studies on the McMaster series on how to evaluate them to see what is and what is not applicable to your personal practice.

http://www.srs-mcmaster.ca/Portals/20/pdf/ebp/qualguidelines_version2.0.pdf

Once again, retrospective case series are the lowest form of a scientific study and are greatly limited in what they can conclude.

[piece of meat]

I would take both..that way when the bear comes id roll the can of bear spray under the bear then shoot it with my gun, blowing the bear apart in a huge fiery explosion

[JustinJ]

Sorry, page after page after page and post after post after post on the weakness of the study design is basing my arguments on methodology my friend. Please go back and read them again, no ad hominem in my arguments at all.

Are you talking about some other thread because i don't see mention of any specific study nor its methodology in this one?

Texas doesn't have bears so for those of us that face the risk of bears running around in the woods of Idaho know and understand these issues since it is a real life issue that we have to deal with in person.

Actually, Texas does have Black Bears. They are extremely rare where i live but i have and will spend plenty of time outdoors in West TX which actually has a fair and growing population.

I challenge your contentions that the lady in the OP was incorrect in stating, I wished I had a gun.

Great, except that is not what i said.

Questioning whether a researcher was biased IS a legitimate aspect of critiquing scientific studies ESPECIALLY when the researcher chooses a method in his report that DOES NOT control for any bias. That my friend is NOT ad hominem.

Attacking the researcher is by definition ad hominem. The proper course would be to identify how the methodology failed to account for variables that made the study itself bias. What study are you referring to, what variable remains that creates bias and how should it have been controlled?

1) The studies making headlines for year after year are retrospective case series studies. These are the lowest form of scientific evidence.

I agree that a double blind controlled placebo study is always better but obviously it would be hard to find volunteers to test the hypothesis that guns or bear spray is better. Retrospective studies are very often the best thing available and in the absence of better data one goes with what is known. For example, retrospective studies are regularly used to evaluate and choose if approved medications need to be pulled or further regulated. Or would you suggest one wait for an experiment to be performed if deadly side effects begin popping with a medication one is prescribed? Or swim in the ocean at dusk in murky water? Or not wear a seatbelt? etc.

3) Even in the studies, in their discussions, they advise to use pepper spray IN CONJUNCTION with firearms. Go read them, that is what they state. Yet, the propaganda around these studies voices the opinion that pepper spray is all that a person needs

How a study is performed and how outside parties try to manipulate the results are two completely different things and quite irrelevant per this discussion.

4) I advocate and act upon a multi-layered bear protection plan. Yes, JustinJ, here in Northern Idaho in grizzly country, this is not a hypothetical discourse, this is real life.

So if a bear is charging you without sufficient time to draw gun and spray which are you going for?

Get real folks, scientific studies can produce erroneous "evidence." Anyone that lives in a profession dependent on scientific research understands that you MUST evaluate any scientific study for its strengths and weaknesses before blindly excepting the conclusions.

Who said it can't? And science can produce erroneous results after a double blind controlled placebo experiment as well. So what? Again, one goes with the best available information.

So many continue in the myth that they have proven pepper spray is better

Again, what study claims to have proven this?

[Alaska444]

Dear JustinJ,

Showing a public statement of a researchers bias is NOT ad hominem, it is simply showing that bias. Go look up ad hominem. I didn't denigrate the man, I only quoted his OWN statement. Go figure.

Yes, that small population of black bears is also highly protected as an "endangered" species so you may as well shoot yourself instead of the bear in Texas. You don't have any wild grizzly bears which is where pepper spray is the most effective. Pepper spray is least effective on black bears.

Once again, you have to failed to understand my contention. My contention is NOT that there is no place for pepper spray, but instead that it is limited in its scope of effect and since it and guns are not 100% effective, you need multiple layers of defense.

The studies are quite limited and you need to truly understand that limitation. Yes, I have been discussing this on THR's sister site, TFL. I may have placed more evidence on methodology over there.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=495664

[JustinJ]

Once again, you have to failed to understand my contention. My contention is NOT that there is no place for pepper spray, but instead that it is limited in its scope of effect and since it and guns are not 100% effective, you need multiple layers of defense.

I agree that both are preferable and never argued any different. But if a bear is charging one could very easily have time to deploy only one or the other. So again, which would be your first choice? If you won't address my other points and questions at least respond to that one.

The studies are quite limited and you need to truly understand that limitation. Yes, I have been discussing this on THR's sister site, TFL. I may have placed more evidence on methodology over there.

I fully understand that limitation. Which is why i have maintained they provide the best AVAILABLE information.

[Alaska444]

I agree that both are preferable and never argued any different. But if a bear is charging one could very easily have time to deploy only one or the other. So again, which would be your first choice? If you won't address my other points and questions at least respond to that one.



I fully understand that limitation. Which is why i have maintained they provide the best AVAILABLE information.
When I am in the woods, since my wife cannot handle anything beyond a .22 LR, she carries pepper spray, I carry at least two guns in the boonies, my EDC .357 SP101 often pocket carried and my .44 Magnum SRH. I go with my gun first, my wife goes with pepper spray.

Lastly, if a study is seriously flawed from a researchers bias, then the results of that study are seriously flawed and are worse than anecdotal evidence alone since now they are spreading disinformation.

When you look at Tom Smith and his public statement about why he did his study, his bias is evident that he wishes to promote pepper spray:

"Working in the bear safety arena, I even found a lot of resistance to bear spray among professionals," Smith said of the product, which retails for $30-$40. "There was no good, clean data set that demonstrated definitively that it worked, so that's why we did this research."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080325171221.htm

In addition, his latest study on how effective guns are in bear defense is also subject to bias since he was motivated by the change in law allowing guns into national parks. Sorry, that by definition is bias that could easily affect the outcome of his studies SINCE none of his studies controls for bias. The latest study of 269 encounters since 1883 is subject to critique since there have been thousands of encounters. The data set is limited and subject to skewed outcomes. Once again, it can only generate the hypothesis but it cannot at all answer that question with retrospective case series.

Yes, I question the results of these studies on how GOOD pepper spray is and how BAD buns are for bear defense. I have several friends here in Idaho who have shot dozens of black bears, most hunting but a few in self defense situations. Guns work well my friend, I question anyone who has publicly stated he is motivated by showing how good pepper spray is and is concerned about people carrying guns in national parks. Sorry, but that is evidence of bias and you are simply wrong to erroneously accuse me of an ad hominem attack.

[Certaindeaf]

That does it, I'm going to the zoo.


































j/k

[Lost Sheep]

That does it, I'm going to the zoo.
j/k
Methinks we are already there.

Lost Sheep

[pa350z]

When in the woods or hunting, my Colt Trooper MKIII .357 6inch barrel is at my side with three spare speed loaders. My grandpa hunted deer and dropped deer with one shot and used it in the woods regularly. My BUG in the woods is a Glock 27 if I am not hunting with a rifle or shotgun.

[wdyasq]

Remember your woodscraft ....

Bear scat has little bells in it ans smells like pepper spray.

Ron

[Alaska444]

Today, 11:39 PM #143
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member

Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 8,975
But just having the weapon with you is not enough. Having the weapon and not having access to it, not using it, losing it, not getting it back, etc., you can't claim the lady would have done any better losing her gun than she did losing her pepper spray. Lots of people use guns or fail to use guns properly with poor results. As noted early in the thread, there are lots of folks injured and killed by bears shot or shot at just once just like the aunt's initial use of the pepper spray. As you claimed the studies were invalid saying pepperspray worked so well, you failed to cite the studies supporting your view that guns work better. Guns might work better, or not, but you failed to ever provide the data, so you can't say she would have been better off any more than you can say Steve Stevenson was better off.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011


http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=495664&page=6

Dear DNS,

That is not what I have been stating. I never said the pepper spray studies were "invalid," but I did state that they are limited in scope because of their methodology.

Lots of folks have criticized this woman with no direct knowledge of the event other than what the article stated. They have accused her of not using the pepper spray correctly, not spraying soon enough, etc, etc, etc.

I will take her at her word, I wished I had a gun. I suspect that she will always have a gun in the future and probably know how to use it as well.

Pepper spray according to the studies works best within 10-20 feet and the bears a large majority of the time don't turn away until they are within 3 feet of the person.

As far as evidence of the usefulness of guns, I did indeed provide you with a study where only 1/71 people in DLP situations was injured. That is actually better statistically than pepper spray. Once again, this study is subject to the same limitations as all of the pepper spray studies. It does make you question Tom Smith's gun study where he stated you are no better off with or without a gun. I don't believe that conclusion for a minute and this study speaks against that.

Steve Stevenson is a sad case where mistaken identity and a possible cavalier attitude approaching a wounded bear cost him his life because his partner killed him with his rifle trying to save him from the bear. The NOLS kids didn't do much better with their pepper spray protection device either.

This is an issue without a definitive answer and we will never have the proper type of study to answer that question beyond what we have today. Both guns and pepper spray have documented failures. Multiple measures including avoidance, guns and pepper spray with larger group numbers is the best way to approach a difficult subject without a perfect answer.

For anyone that is going to carry pepper spray, you need to understand how to use it, where it works best and its limitations. The same applies to guns.

[hardluk1]

Better have a good friend you can depend on with your live if on stumbling around in big bear country. If attacked you may very well get mauled reguardless if your skill level an a friend with both spray and firearm maybe the only thing from being dinner. Well placed shots of spray on bear and person being mauled then well place big bores in the bear,not the person after bear rolls back.

Now all this about a woman and a big ole 100 to 200 lb bear??

[Robert]

4 pages is enough for this round of what caliber, or spray, for bear. Also, THR is does not serve as a "posting area" for responses to or gripes about other forums.