I raised the DLP issue earlier, and they address it on page 5. They note their failure to include these DLP records due to apparent privacy issues, but claim it doesn't matter because even if they had access they don't expect it would have added few, if any HUMAN INJURIES to their database.
So in other words, adding the voluminous DLP shooting database would have increased the number of successful shootings of bears with correspondingly few if any human injuries. And in so doing, increased the percentage of successful firearm deployments. They pretty much admit this in their findings.
By relying instead on newspaper articles, they are selecting their database in favor of human injuries. Ordinary DLP shootings don't make the papers because "nothing happens" other than a drawn firearm and a dead bear. But of course that's precisely what we WANT to occur in a successful bear defense.
There's also no accounting made of missed shots and vanishing bears with no human injuries. Is that a "success"? Maybe, but it happens a lot with and without any corresponding report to F&G. No dead bear, so nothing really to report. It's anecdotal I know, but I have yet to hear from any long time homesteader or trapper who hasn't shot at a bear at some point and had the animal run off. It's not uncommon, and these kinds of pot shots were the standard practice for settlers dealing with all bears in all circumstances until the legal situation changed a few decades ago. They're still SOP in villages, where it's referred to as giving the bear a "belly ache." It seems to work.
I think there are some valuable conclusions here, but the study should have focused solely on the material it could reliably collect rather than attempting to draw overall conclusions about the use of firearms in all bear encounters.
From all I've seen and experienced here, a high powered long gun is going to be the best weapon against bear and will be more effective at longer ranges with slower moving bears. Once you've got a bear charging, let alone attacking, the effective rate of firearms of all types starts to decrease more and more for the simple reason that it's danged difficult to get one up, aimed and firing fast enough. In those circumstances, which is really what the article examined, the spray appears to be just as good as a firearm. BUT (and this is a big but), the goal needs to be to NEVER EVER get in those circumstances to begin with, because even a "successful" defense after the mauling starts will likely leave serious permanent injuries. I would therefore view any physical attack by the bear as a failure of whatever defenses you were using. Whether you had to shoot it off or spray it off, you're going to be hurting.
The best way of preventing that is to plan ahead and follow the usual precautionary rules about where and when to hike and how to camp. I'd also add the great importance of using your ears and nose, not just your eyes. And your mind of course.