I have never used one, and I think these would work pretty well for defending a static base you are pinned to, like a campsite in a National Park, where guns were banned. Unless you had just grilled up some steaks, in which case the smell of food might keep the bear interested. Otherwise, I'd much rather pop-off a round of .44 magnum into the dirt and let them react to that - much faster and quicker than the "banger." I've seen Civil War Parrot 9lb cannons that were quicker and simpler to discharge than some "bear bangers." I do no have as much "bear experience" as say, a real wilderness guide or many Rangers, etc. I have just studied everything I could for the last few years, and I have talked in person and via email to a few real experts to learn as much as I could. Then, I just started bumping into bears all the time - six in the last 2.5 years. I think partly it's the area - the Cascades are pretty heavily populated with them. Secondly it may be our horses - maybe the bears smell them and come closer or expose themselves to check it out, but given the distances I am not so sure about that. I think the main reason is the trails we use, which tend to be along natural watercourses in the valleys/passes of the mountains. This is of course where the bears are going to travel/feed, so it's just natural you will bump into them. Of the bears, only one was possibly a grizzly - he was quite big and brown, but I did not stick around long enough to ID him via the hump or go back to look at prints. Color alone is not enough to guarantee an ID and that size range can overlap the two species, especially springtime as that encounter was. The others were clearly black bears in the 200 to 450lbs range.
I have never encountered a bear in the wild that made me feel threatened. We just both keep going on our own way. The only time I really worry is sleeping at night, with livestock (prey animals) tethered near by. I think most people who DO get in trouble, get in trouble because they violated the annoying precautions you need to follow: Cook WELL away from the sleeping area, "tree" the food and cooking utensils after eating AWAY from the tents/sleeping area. Also "tree" clothes saturated with cooking smoke/scents, and don't sleep in those clothes. The USFS and NPS have pamphlets on traveling in bear country at their ranger stations, too, which cover these practices.
I am hoping to spend at least one night maybe two this week on a remote trail in the mountains in the Cascades. I am just taking sealed dry food and not cooking since it's only me.
I have tried very hard to track down the source of that information and verify it. Unfortunately, the only thing I could find is a study done by a pepper spray maker that stated when "properly deployed" their spray was in the realm of 85 to 90% effective. This brought up a few questions:
1) What does the caveat "properly deployed" mean? A: it means that you have had time and favorable wind conditions to spray a circular area 20' in radius around you and your camp/party, and that you stay within it during the period of the bear attack, AND you confront the bear with the can and spray more at his snout at each approach. I'm sorry, I don't have the time to gurantee I can always set up a defensive perimeter or possibly even the nerves of steel for that.
2) If you have the cojones for that, you then will only be mauled 10% of the time. IF you do everything by the book.
3) If you don't manage to pull off all of those requirements, you are out of the sample and therefore not part of the "properly deployed" statistics. They don't publish those numbers, oddly.
I would LOVE to see some honest, scientific statistics about "had a can of bear spray" vs. "had a loaded .44 magnum" in a bear attack! basically, when I hear "bear spray works better," what it tells me is the arguer has not actually studied the issue, but is just drinking the "kool aid" of the anti-gun crowd, and on a matter that could cost them their life.
This is a study with some decent science behind it by an expert:
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF12/1245.html
If I can find the laughable industry study with the outlandish claims, I'll post a link to that, to. The major fault with the government touted studies is that they compare pepper spray-mediated bear encounters vs. gun-mediated bear attacks. For example, one study I found used data on sprays where bears were routing in garbage, then maced them. Hey, the bear was having a snack, not defending territory or cubs. So it skedaddled. These tend to run in the 90% or so effective category: non-angered/attacking bears are deterred. Then these statistics are rolled out and compared to situations where a gun was used to defend against an actual attack, which shows about a 2/3 rate of avoiding injury overall (no control for type of gun, experience of user, situation e.g. - they had a gun, but they happened to be asleep in their tent at the time).
I've spent much of my adult life working with statistics, research, or science of one type or another - mostly social science, biological science or epidemiology. The science in most "bear attack" studies is so sloppy as to be complete "junk science."
Last edited:
.
