You worry about Bears... read this!

[OC-Trainer]

Since this is the High Road, I suppose you have a cite for that?

I'm your source. I spent 30 years in the aerosol defense industry. It's called insider information. (see below)

it's pretty useless against, say, the people tending the grow op you stumble onto

No idea what you are trying to say.


ETA-

If you shoot a grizzly in the Lower 48, you’re moron of the year. Most states require you to hike out the carcass, and in some cases you’ll have to pay fines [for shooting an endangered species]. Those problems go away with bear spray. Plus, you can use bear spray with impunity - See more at: http://www.backpacker.com/survival/bears/the-truth-about-bears-the-skills/#sthash.kPbfnMKK.dpuf

That quote is from Dr. Smith, the author of the study above. Read between the lines.

At the end of the link below, you'll get an idea of some of the fines.

https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/bear%20spray.pdf

 

[Deaf Smith]

Yeah, Deaf- where is the case study that say bear spray is 100% effective? Can you provide a link?

Yes, yours or I should say, theirs. Red pepper spray stopped bears’ undesirable behavior 92% of the time when used on brown bears, 90% for black bears, and 100% for polar bears. All bear-inflicted injuries (n¼ 3) associated with defensive spraying involved brown bears and were relatively minor (i.e., no hospitalization require.)

I was refering to the polar bears. And the others amazing 90-90 percent success rate.

I spent 30 years in the aerosol defense industry.

But isn't that a conflict of interest?

Like I pointed out about the studies up above on this thread, why no 'mechanical' failures with pepper spray on the studies but some on the gun studies? Why failures of 'falling back' on gun studies but no such thing on the pepper spray studies?

What are your thoughts on that OC-Trainer?

And why they always were able to access the pepper spray, pull the pin, and fire a 'successful' burst? Not one failure? Could it be most were not charging but just bluffing or being in nuance?

More thoughts on that OC-Trainer?

At the end of the link below, you'll get an idea of some of the fines.

Fines? And how much did the medical bills cost Mr. Orr? More or less than the 'fines'. Do you think Orr would be 'fined' for shooting that bear?

Deaf

 

[X-Rap]

I'm frankly less than impressed with USFW "Fact Sheets".
They are very agenda driven so while I favor both spray and gun, preferably carried by separate individuals.
Dam lies and statistics comes to mind there.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[OC-Trainer]

Yes, yours or I should say, theirs. Red pepper spray stopped bears’ undesirable behavior 92% of the time when used on brown bears, 90% for black bears, and 100% for polar bears. All bear-inflicted injuries (n¼ 3) associated with defensive spraying involved brown bears and were relatively minor (i.e., no hospitalization require.)

I was refering to the polar bears. And the others amazing 90-90 percent success rate.





But isn't that a conflict of interest?

Like I pointed out about the studies up above on this thread, why no 'mechanical' failures with pepper spray on the studies but some on the gun studies? Why failures of 'falling back' on gun studies but no such thing on the pepper spray studies?

What are your thoughts on that OC-Trainer?

And why they always were able to access the pepper spray, pull the pin, and fire a 'successful' burst? Not one failure? Could it be most were not charging but just bluffing or being in nuance?

More thoughts on that OC-Trainer?



Fines? And how much did the medical bills cost Mr. Orr? More or less than the 'fines'. Do you think Orr would be 'fined' for shooting that bear?

Deaf

You make me chuckle, Deaf.

How can it be a conflict of interest if I linked the case studies that were performed by bear-human conflict experts, that I had nothing to do with? The firearms study on bear-human conflict compares data from over a hundred years worth of reports.

You simply aren't grasping the results of the case studies. Pulling quotes or stats out of context to try and validate your way of thinking.

Fines? And how much did the medical bills cost Mr. Orr? More or less than the 'fines'. Do you think Orr would be 'fined' for shooting that bear?

Again, taken out of context to build scarecrows...
I guess we'll never know, because his handgun was a complete non-factor. Why are you focussing on only the bear spray part of his story? What about the handgun? That's the whole crux of this thread, right? Handgun effectiveness against bear attacks?

 

[Dog Soldier]

Hornet and Wasp Spray is more effective. The Forest Service will tell you to use Bear Spray. They however carry 12 Gauge shotguns? The wind in Grizz country is a constant. They often find piles of bear poop with silver bells,and ground up hiking shoes that smells like Pepper Spray?

 

[OC-Trainer]

Hornet and Wasp Spray is more effective. The Forest Service will tell you to use Bear Spray. They however carry 12 Gauge shotguns? The wind in Grizz country is a constant. They often find piles of bear poop with silver bells,and ground up hiking shoes that smells like Pepper Spray?

Wow, thanks for chiming in with that little nugget, Dog. I guess you subscribe to the same school of thought as Deaf, school of Denialism.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Wow, thanks for chiming in with that little nugget, Dog. I guess you subscribe to the same school of thought as Deaf, school of Denialism.

So no answer on why no 'mechanical' failures with pepper spray on the studies but some on the gun studies? Why failures of 'falling back' on gun studies but no such thing on the pepper spray studies?



And why they always were able to access the pepper spray, pull the pin, and fire a 'successful' burst? Not one failure?

Yep, school of Denialism.

Deaf

 

[OC-Trainer]

So no answer on why no 'mechanical' failures with pepper spray on the studies but some on the gun studies? Why failures of 'falling back' on gun studies but no such thing on the pepper spray studies?



And why they always were able to access the pepper spray, pull the pin, and fire a 'successful' burst? Not one failure?

Yep, school of Denialism.

Deaf

Yup, it's all a conspiracy. Just like Flat Earth.

There's nothing left to say. The objective case studies, published by experts in bear-human conflict are linked above. Either you chose to except tbem or you don't. I don't care either way. Just don't make up BS. Baseless claims and strawman arguments do nothing but perpetuate myths.

 

[Deaf Smith]

So no answer. No idea why the studies are skewed and have holes in them.... ok.

Deaf

 

[typhun]

Duplicate Post

 

[typhun]

duplicate post

 

[typhun]

Fined for shooting charging Grizzly??

From the cite linked about the fines

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mountain-Prairie Region, P.O. Box 25486
Lakewood, Colorado 80225
phone 303/236-7905, fax 303/236-3815
website: www.r6.fws.gov

Because the grizzly bear is federally protected in the Lower 48 States as a threatened species, it is a violation of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) to shoot one, except in self defense and defense of others during an imminent
attack. Penalties under the ESA include up to 6 months in prison and a $100,000 fine

As far as being fined for shooting a charging Griz, what would a reasonable person due in the same or similar situation. Seems to me Mr Orr would have a pretty valid argument for self defense as well as the first hunting party that was also charged by a griz a few weeks earlier and couldn't use bear spray due to wind (it is a valid reason) I've been on that trail a few times and always carried bear spray and a firearm though never encountered a bear. I have talked with a lot of locals that access that area and they are all armed when going into that area. I think it was reasonable to be armed though i am rethinking the gun i have been carrying up there.



Now if you're hunting/poaching Griz that's another story though there is a lot of talk about de-listing the status of the Griz and i have a feeling it is not far off.

 

[OC-Trainer]

So no answer. No idea why the studies are skewed and have holes in them.... ok.

Deaf

Here's how this works, Deaf...

I consider both reports valid, and scientifically sound.

You are the one making baseless claims (due to your obvious bias). You are the one claiming the studies are "skewed" and "have holes in them." Therefore it is up to you to discredit those studies, not me.

 

[pintler]

I'm your source. I spent 30 years in the aerosol defense industry. It's called insider information. (see below)

I didn't see anything below that elaborated. Maybe you left something out?

I confess I don't find your claim to authority very convincing. It sounds like the other side of the coin from 'I worked in the gun industry for 30 years, and the bear spray folks are all wet. You can trust me because the authorities investigating bear incidents call me up and give me all the inside dope'.

I wouldn't find that persuasive either.

 

[OC-Trainer]

I didn't see anything below that elaborated. Maybe you left something out?

I confess I don't find your claim to authority very convincing. It sounds like the other side of the coin from 'I worked in the gun industry for 30 years, and the bear spray folks are all wet. You can trust me because the authorities investigating bear incidents call me up and give me all the inside dope'.

I wouldn't find that persuasive either.

I didn't see anything below that elaborated. Maybe you left something out?

I confess I don't find your claim to authority very convincing. It sounds like the other side of the coin from 'I worked in the gun industry for 30 years, and the bear spray folks are all wet. You can trust me because the authorities investigating bear incidents call me up and give me all the inside dope'.

I wouldn't find that persuasive either.

Why is this so difficult to understand? Or are you just being intentionally obtuse?

In reality, it doesn't matter whether or not I worked in the aerosol defense industry, just like your opinion of me has nothing to do with the empirical data on the subject. I am not hear to promote bear spray, only to promote the most accurate information we have to date on the subject of bear-human conflict. I cited THE most definitive studies every done in the history of mankind, performed by authorities on the subject. They analyzed the empirical data, data that was the result of over 100 hundred years of reported bear-human conflicts and over 20 years of data of bear-human conflict with bear spray. Reports that they had nothing to do with. It is about as objective as it gets.

I relayed to you that, in my experience from 30 years in the aerosol defense industry, it is widely known that many, many cans of bear spray are sold to proactively defend against any fines/penalties/prison time that could possibly result from killing an endangered species. I cited a quote and link from one of the study authors that essential pointed that out and said read between the lines.

If you shoot a grizzly in the Lower 48, you’re moron of the year. Most states require you to hike out the carcass, and in some cases you’ll have to pay fines [for shooting an endangered species]. Those problems go away with bear spray. Plus, you can use bear spray with impunity - See more at: http://www.backpacker.com/survival/b....kPbfnMKK.dpuf

Here is an example of potential penalties:

Because the grizzly bear is federally protected in the Lower 48 States as a threatened species, it is a violation of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) to shoot one, except in self defense and defense of others during an imminent
attack. Penalties under the ESA include up to 6 months in prison and a $100,000 fine

Is it that much of a stretch to think that people would only carry bear spray to use as a defense against the penalties? "Those problems go away with bear spray"...to which I'll add- whether you used it or not. It is not hard to shoot first then spray later. Like I said before. Read between the lines!

This whole thread was started by the OP, with an agenda. To promote the use of handguns as a viable means of defense against a bear attack, while simultaneously trashing bear spray. Why? Who knows. His claims have been debunked by the experts on the subject. With real-world data and science. Finis

 

[buck460XVR]

I have always stated that folks need to use what they feel most confident with and are most proficient with for SD. This is against two legged or four legged predators. What I use may not be what someone else prefers to use. That's how it should be, 'cause what it comes down to in the end, it's our lives and the lives of those around us. When their granddaughter is carried off into the brush by a bear to be eaten, one should only have themselves and their personal choice to blame. But folks need to make that choice based on viable statistics, personal experience and valid knowledge of the possible risks.

As I said in my first post here, the article linked to in the OP is blatantly biased towards the use of handguns against bears....any handgun. It is obviously trying to convince folks to take their 2 day $175 Predator defense class (Prerequisite: Pred Defense 1 & Defensive Pistol 1-5, another $625). The use of Massad Ayoob is as a paid spokesperson(kinda what he does) and Marksmanship Matters is hoping those folks that think Massad walks on water, will trample each other to get there. It's just another way to separate folks from their money. It may very well have it's benefits, but it still does justify eliminating the #1 defense against bear attacks, bear spray. Claiming the USFS is skewing facts and endangering human lives in order to save bears is a joke. Is just as invalid as the claim made by Marksmanship Matters....

As the bear pressed the attack the man shot it several times with his .22 RimFire (RF) S&W revolver. Needless to say the puny bullets had no immediate effect and the man was killed by the bear. This is the only case I have come across where a victim attempted to defend himself with a handgun and was in fact killed by a bear.

 

[Deaf Smith]

So Buck, do you know of a case where a victim attempted to defend himself with a handgun and was in fact killed by a bear?

Just wondering since if it's 'invalid' then there must be cases of this, right?

Not saying there isn't one, but you did say it was 'invalid'.

Deaf

 

[pintler]

Hunter buys bear spray even though they don't "trust" it (sound familiar Deaf?), then if/when they are involved in some sort of bear encounter/attack and are "forced" to shoot the bear, guess what they claim to avoid the penalties? The bear spray didn't work...

OC: I got involved in this conversation when you posted the sentences above. In order to make that clear, I quoted them in my first post, and have quoted them again here for convenience.

You are making a specific accusation here: that people buy spray, then shoot bears w/o justification (that's what the scare quotes you put around 'forced' seem to imply), then spray the general area with bear spray afterwards and say 'when the spray failed, I had to shoot'.

I wasn't asking for a rehash of the general discussion; I was asking for your source for that specific allegation - that people are using fake spray discharges to cover up the crime of illegally shooting a beat often enough to skew the statistics.

Your accusation sounds fishy to me because:
1)Since illegally shooting bears is a serious crime, I expect the authorities to investigate. As with any other crime, the crime scene, interviews of witnesses and so on will be carefully matched to the shooter's story. I think if your accusation is commonly true, the authorities would have found evidence to support it at least once. If so, the shooter would have been prosecuted. Can you cite such a case of a post shooting bear spray coverup?
2)My sense is that the investigating authorities would be unlikely to call up some employee at PepperSprayCorp and chat with them about their investigations; that's not how things work in my experience.

You ask us to take your accusation as gospel based on no more than 'I worked for 30 years in the industry'. I'm sorry, but that's not persuasive. You'll have to expand that with a lot more details - both about the inside info you say you have, and how it came into your possession.

As I posted, I tend to think spray is a better choice for most people. It's your accusations of people commonly using post shooting spray discharges as part of a coverup that I'm questioning.

 

[buck460XVR]

So Buck, do you know of a case where a victim attempted to defend himself with a handgun and was in fact killed by a bear?

Just wondering since if it's 'invalid' then there must be cases of this, right?

Not saying there isn't one, but you did say it was 'invalid'.

Deaf

Cross, a hunter, was killed by a mother bear when he accidentally got between her and her cubs. Park rangers stated that it appeared that Cross managed to fire his rifle before being overwhelmed. He was discovered with a knife clenched in each hand. His body was found near his backpack, but the corpse was only identified by his boots. RCMP said it appeared he wandered into the area where the mother and cub were feeding on a dead deer

Cates was killed while hiking near Soldotna, Alaska in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. Troopers found Cates' rifle, spent shell casings, and blood nearby which suggested that Cates may have shot the bear

Just a quick GTS gave me two example of where folks tried in vain to save themselves with rifles against bear and died. Now you can claim that handguns are more effective against bear attacks than a rifle, but I doubt too many here, will believe you. To me, that makes Marksmanship Matters statement invalid.

Massad argues over and over that folks should never use handloads for SD because of legal problems, yet there is no evidence whatsoever that they ever had or ever would. Still we are suppose to take his word that they "could", and many folks take that as Gospel. I'm not saying folks should not take a firearm with them in bear country, I'm just saying folks need to honestly evaluate their effectiveness as compared to spray and not to dismiss either. You on the other hand want us all to dismiss bear spray. Others here are claiming Bear Experts are overstating the effectiveness of Bear Spray and that handguns are a more viable solution for the average person. I've shot at moving targets with my handguns and watched many others shoot at them also. Used to have a tether-ball on auto cord reel at our private range to simulate a charging animal. If I were a betting man, for the average person, I'd be betting on bear spray.

Again, the link in the OP is just a buttered up ad for a overpriced gun training class.

 

[danez71]

I didn't see anything below that elaborated. Maybe you left something out?

I confess I don't find your claim to authority very convincing. It sounds like the other side of the coin from 'I worked in the gun industry for 30 years, and the bear spray folks are all wet. You can trust me because the authorities investigating bear incidents call me up and give me all the inside dope'.

I wouldn't find that persuasive either.

I could understand this position.... if it were anything like whats been going in this thread.


OCTrainer didn't make or allude to anything like what you just portrayed.


OC cited 3rd party sources that were NOT related to the pepper spray industry and you're jumping leaps and bounds to mischaracterize what he's said.


You said: "You can trust me because the authorities investigating bear incidents call me up and give me all the inside dope'."


He NEVER claim anything remotely similar to that. He cited 3rd party documents unrelated to the pepper spray industry and that are available to anyone.



If you, or anyone in this thread, have followed any of his contributions in the Non-firearms section here at THR, you'd know he has actually been, IMO, quite critical of some of the claims that various manufacturers of pepper spray have made.

You'd also know that he has recommended for, and advised against, different models with-in the same manufacturer. For ex: he may say FOX xyz is good... FOX abc is not so good. He has also not shown favoritism for any one particular brand.



You'd also know that he has gone out of his way in those threads to point out some of the short comings that pepper spray has.



To insinuate, or worse, mischaracterize, OCTrainer otherwise, is THEE most laughable aspect of this entire thread.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Just a quick GTS gave me two example of where folks tried in vain to save themselves with rifles against bear and died.

Cool. Give is the links to the articles. I'd like to read them.

Deaf

 

[buck460XVR]

Cool. Give is the links to the articles. I'd like to read them.

Deaf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America

No where did I see anything about failed Bear Spray and where bells/whistles and shoes smelling of pepper spray were found in bear poop.

There is one listing where Bear Spray was successfully used to subdue a bear that had previously killed someone tho.

 

[pintler]

DaneZ, I'm confused. I saw OC post this:

Hunter buys bear spray even though they don't "trust" it (sound familiar Deaf?), then if/when they are involved in some sort of bear encounter/attack and are "forced" to shoot the bear, guess what they claim to avoid the penalties? The bear spray didn't work...

When I asked how he knew that was happening, his response was:

I'm your source. I spent 30 years in the aerosol defense industry. It's called insider information.

That doesn't seem like convincing documentation of the claim to me.

FWIW, I have no prior knowledge of the personalities or history are involved here; I only know what I read in the thread, and I'm only commenting on the single specific assertion I quoted.

 

[Deaf Smith]

No where did I see anything about failed Bear Spray and where bells/whistles and shoes smelling of pepper spray were found in bear poop.

Well just read above in THIS thread and you will see where bear spray failed.. Some guy named Todd Orr. Just a few pages up. Give the bear a few days and if you want, smell the poop.

Deaf

 

[danez71]

DaneZ, I'm confused. I saw OC post this:



When I asked how he knew that was happening, his response was:



That doesn't seem like convincing documentation of the claim to me.

FWIW, I have no prior knowledge of the personalities or history are involved here; I only know what I read in the thread, and I'm only commenting on the single specific assertion I quoted.

I went back and re-read the back and forths.

Fair enough. I can see how things were taken a bit out of context a few times in the back and forths.


I'll be more clear,

OC isn't claiming to have some secret bat phone that all the rangers call him every time yogi gets involved in something he shouldn't.

That's essentially what your post was claiming he said.



He has 30 yrs in an industry. People with that many years in an industry do tend to get info and learn things that other people wont.

An honest persons perspective and knowledge, with that many years, is very valuable.

OC contributions in the many other threads about pepper spray have demonstrated that he shows no favoritism of brands or bias in favor of pepper spray.


You said: "I have no prior knowledge of the personalities or history are involved here"

And I believe that.

That is the reason why I said what I said. Because IF you did have knowledge of the "personalities or history", I think you would see how off base the mischaracterization is.


On a side note, If you want to learn too much about the pepper spray industry, look up his huge amounts of posts in the Non-Firearm section.