You worry about Bears... read this!

[danez71]

Maybe Deaf has never been to Dallas zoo either...?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gorilla-escapes-4-injured/

He said he did not know why zoo employees, who were armed with
pepper spray, did not use it on the gorilla.

http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/wildlife/captive/big-cat-incidents.pdf
That link cites 2 other zoos and while searching for that, I found zoos in FL and HI carry pepper spray too.

Originally posted by Dog Soldier

You did not get the complete story. He was also bowhunting. What is your problem? And besides what matters he was killed by a bear armed only with bear spray.

I think what also matters is that you've claimed2 or 3 times he had pepper spray however, 1) the links say there was no pepper spray and 2) you've been asked at least once where did you get that info and 3) you have not answered that question.




Said by buck460XVR

Even with both, you will have little time and little chance once the bear is up to speed.

That's for sure.

Angry charging bear coming to eat you has approx. 99.99% of succeeding.

 

[Deaf Smith]

There's nothing to discuss. I already said it is considered scientifically valid. You just chose not to believe it.

Look, this thread needs to be euthanized. We even have a troll that came out of the woodwork. Why don't you do us all a favor and provide third-party, scientifically valid evidence to back up the claims you made at the jump. Provide those and we can put this thread down.

Hahahaha.... oh, the 'science' is settled.

No it ain't OC. Just tree huggers think it's valid.

It's the new PC. Don't want to hurt those cuddly bears.

Deaf

 

[TomJ]

When you cut through all the arguments, the fact is that bear spray sometimes works. It also doesn't work sometimes. Whether it's success rate is 98% or 5% or somewhere in between is irrelevant to the person for whom it doesn't work. Their failure rate is 100%. The question then is whether you want to rely on it exclusively or also carry a gun. Given the consequences if it doesn't work, I question the judgment of someone who doesn't also carry a gun who can do so. This is of course MHO. I also question the ethics or anyone who tries to convince people to rely on it exclusively due to their political agenda or because they're involved in the industry. If they are successful in their efforts, what do they tell the person or the family of an attack victim who, had they also had a gun, could have avoided injury or survived an attack? The ethical advice from people promoting it is that it is an effective tool, but it's success rate is not 100% and you should be prepared for it's failure, because it's failed before and will fail again.

 

[OC-Trainer]

When you cut through all the arguments, the fact is that bear spray sometimes works. It also doesn't work sometimes. Whether it's success rate is 98% or 5% or somewhere in between is irrelevant to the person for whom it doesn't work. Their failure rate is 100%. The question then is whether you want to rely on it exclusively or also carry a gun. Given the consequences if it doesn't work, I question the judgment of someone who doesn't also carry a gun who can do so. This is of course MHO. I also question the ethics or anyone who tries to convince people to rely on it exclusively due to their political agenda or because they're involved in the industry. If they are successful in their efforts, what do they tell the person or the family of an attack victim who, had they also had a gun, could have avoided injury or survived an attack? The ethical advice from people promoting it is that it is an effective tool, but it's success rate is not 100% and you should be prepared for it's failure, because it's failed before and will fail again.

Who is doing this? I'm getting tired of people making all these claims and then not answering the questions. Who is advocating this?

And, Tom have you read any of the literature linked in firearms injury rates in this thread?

ETA ---This is the most important finding IMO of all the studies done on bear-human conflicts. Anyone who doubts this need not look and further than the Orr bear attack.

We found no significant difference in success rates (i.e., success being when the bear was stopped in its aggressive behavior) associated with long guns (76%) and handguns (84%). Moreover, firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters with bears whether they used their firearms or not.

 

[OC-Trainer]

Hahahaha.... oh, the 'science' is settled.

No it ain't OC. Just tree huggers think it's valid.

It's the new PC. Don't want to hurt those cuddly bears.

Deaf

Well, I'm the furthest thing from a tree hugger and I consider that science and study valid.

I'll tell you what, Deaf... Forget bear spray. Act as though it was never created.

Show us third-party, scientific data that states handguns are the most effective mean of stopping a bear attack. You started this thread on that premise now back it up with proof!

 

[TomJ]

Who is doing this? I'm getting tired of people making all these claims and then not answering the questions. Who is advocating this?

And, Tom have you read any of the literature linked in firearms injury rates in this thread?

ETA ---This is the most important finding IMO of all the studies done on bear-human conflicts. Anyone who doubts this need not look and further than the Orr bear attack.

Take a step back and look at this through the eyes of someone like me. I was born and raised in Chicago and know next to nothing about bears. Before planning our trip with my sons to Glacier National Park last June I thought the only threat from bears, other than the fact that any animal can be dangerous, was them taking your food. The first time I heard of bear spray or the extent to which bears can be a threat was when I looked at the park’s website while making arrangements for our trip. One thing led to another, and I got a quick education on bear spray and firearm options.

Looking at the 2008 "Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska" study, it states that “98% were uninjured by bears in close-range encounters. All bear-inflicted injuries (n = 3) associated with defensive spraying involved brown bears and were relatively minor (i.e., no hospitalization required).” It’s reasonable from that language to assume that bear spray will stop 98% of attacks, and in the event that you’re in the unlucky 2% any damage you suffer will be minor. The implication is that 100% of people using bear spray walk away with little to no injuries. That is completely untrue, and someone taking that advice can get hurt as they aren't sufficiently prepared. If you remember my prior post on this subject, I stated that it took me only a few minutes to find 3 stories of people for who bear spray didn’t work, and had to then rely on firearms. Links to those stories were attached, and if I spent more time searching I'm sure there are many more such instances. I did take the time to read the study and it went into much detail with many statistics, but the 98% number they quoted was posted in a bold font by you, with the subsequent language also quoted by you. Coupled with your downplay of the effectiveness of firearms, someone like me who knows nothing about bears can reasonably come to the conclusion that all I need is bear spray and to leave the guns at home.

I am in no way saying bear spray is ineffective, and as I stated before we brought 2 cans of it to Montana along with a 454 Casull. I also understand that firearms are not the sole answer and I did look at their failure rates. What I am suggesting is that as with any self defense strategy, protecting yourself from bears should be built in layers with bear spray being an effective part of that, but not the only part.

 

[OC-Trainer]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but you still didn't answer my question based on this comment:

I also question the ethics or anyone who tries to convince people to rely on it exclusively due to their political agenda or because they're involved in the industry.

1)Who is advocating this and where.

*Please provide a citation where someone is only advocating bear spray as a sole means of protection against bear attacks based on "political agenda" and so forth.

With all due respect, just because you are misinterpreting the stats from the study, isn't the datas fault.

 

[typhun]

typhun

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.
What *have* you been carrying? And what would you change to?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I was hiking in the Lee Metcalf Wilderness just one week prior to Todd Orr though on a different trailhead entrance since the Bear Creek Trail was closed due the earlier incident with presumably the same sow.

I have previously carried a

SW .357 66-5 2.5" w\158g SWC 6 rds
Kimber Ultra CDP .45 w\230 ball 8 rds
Glock G17 9mm w\124 +P+ Buffalo Bore Penetrators 18 rds

I do have a .44 mag 7" Ruger Super Redhawk but its a heavy gun for hiking

I'm thinking now along the lines of a Glock G20 10mm @ 15 rds or a Ruger Alaskan 2.5" .44 mag @ 6 rds.

I do hike Yellowstone backcountry as well and for me i just feel more comfortable with the gun on my hip where i can cover it and most folks never notice as opposed to a chest rig...but i'm rethinking that as well.

 

[typhun]

https://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=41...ack-goes-viral

from the link

Is it better to use a gun or bear spray during an attack?
Smith and his work further advise that unless you have a loaded gun in your hands with the safety off and a bullet in the chamber, bear spray is the better deterrent.

I carry Bear Spray also but it's in a holster on my pack belt and it has a safety also, how does that make it a better deterrent? I don't typically hike with it in my hand, i'm busy with Binos and such. For the most part my observation is folks don't have it in their hand when hiking, its either in pocket, hanging off pack or belt.

I guess i better figure out\practice how to manipulate the bear spray safety with my non-dominant hand because my primary is going to be busy with my gun, assuming of course i see the bear with enough time to react. I've pondered why Mr. Orr didn't have his gun out as well when he first saw the bear at 80 yards, you certainly don't have to use it. I guess it comes down to what distance you can first use the bear spray effectively and then still have enough distance to go to your gun for defense.

Need to do some research on different bear spay brand deployment distances.

 

[scaatylobo]

OC in the zoo's LOL

Of course the zoo's will issue a can of OC to their staff.

Just like the USPS issues the same thing to its walkers.

They are NOT about to issue or allow the carrying of a = OMG ---- gun.

That argument about the zoo trainers with OC is too silly to believe a man would think it true.

AND do recall that when that last few attacks in a zoo did happen ---- THEY SHOT DEAD the critters.

Sorry,but the FACT IS that had the victim of this attack used a gun ---------- WELL WE WILL NEVER KNOW.

BUT if it becomes my butt in those woods,you will have a clue as to the effectiveness of the gun OVER the OC.

OMG = issue a gun to ANYONE IN ANY ZOO ------- lol X 10000000000000.

 

[OC-Trainer]

That argument about the zoo trainers with OC is too silly to believe a man would think it true.

Say what?

Someone asked about whether or not OC spray was being used for different animals. Zookeepers using it on "code red" animals is the best example. Myself and Dan supported this with some examples for the doubters.

Why don't you clue us in as to what you find so funny?

 

[pintler]

For the most part my observation is folks don't have it in their hand when hiking, its either in pocket, hanging off pack or belt.

One note: my sense is that a lot of people are conditioned to keep the spray (or gun) in the holster even when the hair on their necks is standing up - like you're down by the creek in the willows and something big is nearby. I wonder if that's a holdover from being in town, where drawing a gun before you're 100% certain you're being mugged can lead to a brandishing charge.

The Rules of Engagement are different, IMHO, in the woods. If you're busting through the willow, trying to whistle dry mouthed, no one is going to get mad if you unholster the spray. Heck, it's probably good practice to draw it once in a while. Unlike in town, you're not going to get arrested for brandishing if it turns out it wasn't a bear.

 

[X-Rap]

If you go to Old Faithful you will be treated to a demonstration by a female ranger of small stature on how effective bear spray is.
I didn't pay much attention but there was little credence given to firearms which fits the agenda of the NPS or USFWS, USFS. I don't believe one will find defense by firearms anywhere in any of their literature.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[OC-Trainer]

Be a shame to shut down an informative thread that challenges skewed data that is prejudiced in favor of a gov agenda.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

And since I'm logged in...

You've made these remarks a few times now.

Why don't you actually post something to support your claims?

It's time to put up or shut up.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Well, I'm the furthest thing from a tree hugger and I consider that science and study valid.

I'll tell you what, Deaf... Forget bear spray. Act as though it was never created.

Show us third-party, scientific data that states handguns are the most effective mean of stopping a bear attack. You started this thread on that premise now back it up with proof!

No OC, I started this thread showing handguns are effective on bears and never said they were a be-all-end-all answer. And if you read above on this thread, I pointed out OC has it's place but I guess you didn't read that.

And I showed, after YOU posted your 'proof', that the studies you used as proof have major flaws in the thinking OC is better than firearms. You just ignore the facts I laid out.

Deaf

 

[OC-Trainer]

No OC, I started this thread showing handguns are effective on bears and never said they were a be-all-end-all answer. And if you read above on this thread, I pointed out OC has it's place but I guess you didn't read that.

And I showed, after YOU posted your 'proof', that the studies you used as proof have major flaws in the thinking OC is better than firearms. You just ignore the facts I laid out.

Deaf

You neither proved, nor disproved anything, Deaf - or should I say Larry Mudgett.

I guess we are done here, then.

 

[Dog Soldier]

I know of 2 men who were saved by their handguns. Both were badly injured and survived. An NYPD retired cop killed an attacking sow with a .41 Mag. in the Sun Light Basin a few years ago. I like many others have carried an LAR Grizzly 1911 .45 Win Mag. for years.

 

[Leanwolf]

A small aside here regarding firearms if utilized against bears.

Do NOT ever depend on "warning shots" to discourage a charging bear. You're just wasting ammo, which you might really need.

This one was not even charging and the shots did not faze him. (A beautiful bear, nonetheless.) In Alaska.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27J2wxn2syU&feature=youtu.be

If you're going to pull the trigger, make sure your sights are on Mr. Bruin.

L.W.

 

[typhun]

The Rules of Engagement are different, IMHO, in the woods. If you're busting through the willow, trying to whistle dry mouthed, no one is going to get mad if you unholster the spray.

I agree different rules. Been a few times where the trail went through thickets of brush where you couldn't see around bends. Made a lot of noise while moving cautiously through with heightened awareness and defensive tool in hand, made ready

 

[Deaf Smith]

You neither proved, nor disproved anything, Deaf - or should I say Larry Mudgett.

I guess we are done here, then.

You mean you are saying handgun are NOT effective?

Deaf

 

[Dog Soldier]

You can believe all the Government reports you like. We are on the ground here and know the facts. Remember this is the same Government who only publishes the facts about gun control and global warming.

 

[Leanwolf]

Here is another Griz mauling in Alaska that occurred just four days ago.

http://juneauempire.com/local/2016-10-05/theres-no-fighting-back

Shows how quickly a Griz can be on a person who is in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Maybe a heavy caliber revolver would have helped the hunter. Maybe bear spray, but once the bear was on him, I don't know how the spray would have helped him. As I stated in an earlier post, there are so many, many variables when a bear, or other wild animals, attack.

L.W.

 

[JohnKSa]

Remember this is the same Government who only publishes the facts about gun control and global warming.

Are you saying that the government has, for 2 years, successfully conspired to hide the fact that Adam Stewart had bear spray on him when he was killed?

You can believe all the Government reports you like. We are on the ground here and know the facts.

Great. Facts are good and that would be a starting point for proving your conspiracy theory. Where did you get the information that Adam Stewart was armed with bear spray?

 

[Robert]

Sigh, this is why we don't do bear threads. We are done here.