Deltaboy1984
Member
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.
warp said:I might add:
3. Don't wait until the bear is a claimed 4 feet away before using it.
enjoying this thread ..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
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.What is the range of bear spray?
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
The voice of reason.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.
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.
Dear JustinJ,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.
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.
1) The studies making headlines for year after year are retrospective case series studies. These are the lowest form of scientific evidence.
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
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.
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.
So many continue in the myth that they have proven pepper spray is better
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.
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.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.
"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."
Methinks we are already there.That does it, I'm going to the zoo.
j/k