You worry about Bears... read this!

[Dog Soldier]

I have lived in Grizz country all my life. I have known of many bear attacks. I have never known of an attack being stopped by Bear Spray. I have known of many incidents where the spray failed or blinded the user. An old friend was saved by a fellow hunter shooting a sow 5 times with a .270. The spray became popular in the media with the Walt Disney Syndrome. The bears only attack humans who want to kill them. The chemical peddlers never show up at funerals when one of their customer dies a horrible death.

 

[X-Rap]

The same people making veiled threats about fines and prison are the ones promoting spray, the USFWS. I still don't know what to think of the claim that "Most" states require you to "hike" a bear out if you end up shooting one. I assume they ment pack but it's unbelievable to me to think a state or federal agency would even let a suspect close to a crime scene let alone skin, quarter and pack out the incriminating evidence.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[200Apples]

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.

Thanks in advance.

 

[danez71]

The chemical peddlers never show up at funerals when one of their customer dies a horrible death.

Nor do the gun manufacturers.

What's the point you're trying to make with that comment?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Nor do the gun manufacturers.

What's the point you're trying to make with that comment?

It is a logic flaw argument meant to appeal to emotion while casting dispersions/attacking one party, casting that party in a negative light first, so that they are appear discredited as a result. As you noted, the gun peddlers don't show up when their customers die horrible deaths either, so casting such dispersions on the OC peddlers is pretty silly.

Even worse, nothing would change if either side did show up to funerals. It is a meaningless point not actually salient to the discussion.

 

[OC-Trainer]

@danez71
Appreciate the kind words, thank you!

 

[OC-Trainer]

I've been following this Todd Orr attack very closely and I don't want to rush to judgement until more facts come out about the case (if ever), but I got to say that a lot of the information that I'm reading about it strikes me as odd. Somethings just aren't adding up for me. I guess time will tell.

However, as luck would have it, one of the authors of the bear attack studies (referenced in this thread many times) was interviewed about the case. I thought I would link it here for those interested.

https://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=41728322&nid=1288&title=utah-bear-expert-weighs-in-after-montana-mans-grizzly-attack-goes-viral

 

[Dog Soldier]

The Gun peddlers are not profiting by appealing to the Animal Rights crowd. Anyone who was around before the Urban animal rights became vocal using spray cans was laughable. The pepper spray lobby established a suicide culture. No one who knows what a bear is capable of goes to the mountain without a firearm.
Those who psychoanalyze experienced wilderness guides should try talking down a Grizz sow while aiming his spray can.

 

[OC-Trainer]

The Gun peddlers are not profiting by appealing to the Animal Rights crowd. Anyone who was around before the Urban animal rights became vocal using spray cans was laughable. The pepper spray lobby established a suicide culture. No one who knows what a bear is capable of goes to the mountain without a firearm.
Those who psychoanalyze experienced wilderness guides should try talking down a Grizz sow while aiming his spray can.

You are clueless and your posts don't even make sense.

Why are you even participating in this thread? You add nothing of substance here.

Maybe you should change your screen name to Troll Soldier...

 

[scaatylobo]

Trolling = really ?

Sorry but that article about the bear attack was amusing in the end.

IF you don't have " a firearm in your hand with the safety off " ---- then of course you don't have a " can of spray in your hand,with the safety off " either !!!.

Apples to apples,is the only way to view a course of action.

My version is to have BOTH options,and choose the one you see as SAVING YOUR BUTT = as long as YOUR the one in the 'line of fire' so to speak.

As this man was observing the bear RUNNING at him,he might have chosen a firearm [ IF he had that option ? ].

And since he got mauled AFTER USING THE MAGIC SPRAY = he might have fared no worse if he had used a proper firearm,guess we wont know.

BUT the part that states that the spray worked better in the majority of attacks ----- is exactly the same as any "poll" that is published.

As long as its my butt on the line,I opt for both ,as well any other tools I could think to use.

I might even carry a fire extinguisher IN HAND as that might be better at blinding and stopping an attack.

At the very least,the extinguisher might give me real cover if it there is no strong wind to deflect it.

Just pointing out that if its your butt on that line = YOU choose and I hope you win.

I just find it funny that the poster " o.c.trainer " seems to have a obvious choice ----- just an observation s'all

 

[Deaf Smith]

Yes Smith followed the Orr attack.

The columnist asked (to the readers), "Orr’s story raises a number of questions, like why did the bear attack him?"

Hmmm. Two cubs... might that be a reason?

Smith says, “My hunch is that there wasn’t a sufficient deposit. (The) vast majority of evidence suggest that (bear spray) works very well, (and Orr’s story) should not undermine confidence in bear spray.”

No kidding. Like not being shot enough.

"According to Smith, bear spray has a 93 percent success rate (defined as altering an aggressive bear's behavior). Of 197 people involved in 75 incidents, only 2 percent sustained “slight” injuries (all caused by grizzlies.) 98 percent were uninjured. "

Well it's not 93 percent now..., right? Notice 75 incidents.

"Compare that with the 75 percent firearm success rate (altering an aggressive bear’s behavior) involving 444 individuals, resulting in 17 fatalities and 35 severe injuries. "

Notice he didn't mention how many incidents nor over how many years (if you want to know, it's years 1883–2009 and about 269 incidents. Lots more than the bears spray.)

And notice in the studies it has 'firearms failures'.

"Firearms failed to protect people for a variety of reasons including:
1. lack of time to respond to the bear (27%), <--- WHAT? And that is a 'failure' of the firearm?????
2. did not use the firearm (21%), <---- WHAT??? And that is a failure of the firearm??
3. mechanical issues (i.e., jamming;14%),
4. the proximity to bear was too close for deployment(9%), <--- WHAT? And that is a 'failure' of the firearm?????
5. the shooter missed the bear (9%), the gun was emptied and could not be reloaded (8%),
6. the safety mechanism was engaged and the person was unable to unlock it in time to use the gun (8%),
7. people tripped and fell while trying to shoot the bear (3%), <-- WHAT?? And that is a failure of the firearm???
8. and the firearm’s discharge reportedly trig-gered the bear to charge that ended further use of the gun(1%)" <-- Not sure what he means here!

So notice the failures of the firearm that seem bogus consist of 60 PERCENT of the failures.


But then look at the bear spray studies... just not one failure! Nope, not any kind of failure.

And that is one reason I feel the studies are flawed.

Go look at the data posted on these two studies and see if I'm right.

Deaf

 

[OC-Trainer]

I just find it funny that the poster " o.c.trainer " seems to have a obvious choice

Can you elaborate? I'm not following your logic.
I carry 2 cans of bear spray and a 12g shotgun w/ slugs when out bear country.

 

[OC-Trainer]

@ Deaf

You waste so much time and energy posting that stuff, but you still refuse to answer the biggest question of all from the Orr bear attack.


Why was the handgun a nonfactor?

That is the crux of this thread, Handguns to stop attacking bears. Using your logic, we can just as easily say the handgun failed.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Hmmm. Two cubs... might that be a reason?

That would only explain the first attack and not the 2nd attack 10 minutes later. Given the type of the first attack, it was likely a surprise encounter and the sow acted on behalf of her cubs, beat the heck out of Orr, then left him when he no longer posed a threat. That is a typical sort of response for that sort of encounter.

The 2nd attack raises some questions...

Why was the handgun a nonfactor?

That is the crux of this thread, Handguns to stop attacking bears. Using your logic, we can just as easily say the handgun failed.

True. Orr failed to deploy the handgun for both attacks. Given that the spray did not work as intended in the first attack and Orr of only marginally hurt (nothing keeping him from handling a gun), the fact that he left the gun in the holster on his pack, only later to see it laying on the ground (still in the holster) during the 2nd attack is strange. He wanted the gun, but it wasn't there where he could get it anymore, well into the 2nd attack.

 

[X-Rap]

I wonder if the will to use the spray more freely skews the data.
I can see people willing to use spray on bears that may not even be a threat while most in modern times at least will be hesitant to fire at a bear until it may already be to late.
This could be what happened with Orr in the first attack but I can't say about the second.
As I stated above, I would prefer more than one person and to have either option but I can see how having a choice could cloud ones judgement.
I can't imagine the point the author was trying to make about having the gun in hand with safety off but perhaps we need a new Tuller drill using spray instead of a knife.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[danez71]

The OP contained a link to an article the was posted on Marksmanship Matters website.


The author states:

I have described these accounts to the best of my recollection.

He goes on to say, 17 times, that he 'read' and article or report etc.

The author provides no supporting documents; only his 'best recollection', as stated by the author.



The last paragraph of the story:

At Marksmanship Matters we teach a two-day class on Predator Defense and the use of the handgun in other outdoor emergencies. You are welcome to attend this course with any safe handgun from 9 mm to a .454 Casull. The prerequisite for this course is Marksmanship Matters Defensive Pistol 1-5. If you are interested in attending, please contact us.

Larry and Stacey Mudgett
Marksmanship Matters LLC

So basically we have a sales pitch to buy instructional time with the author.



Sorry OCTrainer. I have revised my rankings. Questioning your OC Spray knowledge is no longer the most laughable aspect of this thread.



The new #1 laughable aspect about this thread is <virtual drum roll inserted here>

The amount of people that have been suckered into and defending a sales pitch, that's chock full of anecdotes based solely on his recollection, as being more credible and less biased than the 3rd party documents provided in this thread.

 

[buck460XVR]

The new #1 laughable aspect about this thread is <virtual drum roll inserted here>

The amount of people that have been suckered into and defending a sales pitch, that's chock full of anecdotes based solely on his recollection, as being more credible and less biased than the 3rd party documents provided in this thread.

Pretty much what I said 6 pages and 144 posts ago........

This is clearly an article written whose sole purpose is to promote the " two-day class on Predator Defense " advertised at the end of the article. One needs to take it for what it is.

 

[OC-Trainer]

This thread was definitely *interesting* to say the least. It was debunked many pages ago, and then dead...until the Orr bear attack occurred.

Maybe some good can come from this thread in light of this attack. I know I have tons of questions about what occurred during his ordeal. Certain things just aren't adding up, in my opinion. Others, statistically, are lining up perfectly. To be continued....

 

[danez71]

Pretty much what I said 6 pages and 144 posts ago........

Sorry
I'm slow sometimes..... or maybe it was just worth repeating

 

[scaatylobo]

GUN, not O.C. as my primary

I cannot for the life of me see why y'all have not come to the conclusion that it was the O.C. that pissed off the bear in the first place !.

AND wearing a gun on YOUR PACK, is not wearing a gun IMNSHO !.

IF you had time to unholster the O.C. and not time ---- or inclination to take out a real gun ,then I see that you are trying VERY hard to avoid using a gun.

NOT USING THE GUN, rules out the fact that it was there at all !!!.

Having been attacked by pitbulls [ and other dogs ] I can say that even buckshot at POINTBLANK RANGE may not stop the critter in its tracks ------- BUT it was no longer interested in attacking me.

As hard as it would be to do,standing your ground and firing for FULL effect [ making sure you get as many rounds where they count ] is the only answer that I see with a " Charging bear " of any breed.

Brown.black,Polar.etc.

And as noted,there was no O.C. until a few decades back,and then it was more for 2 legged critters and not made for 'bear' attacks.

Having seen men [ rather stoned or high ] fight off a full face of the good stuff [ yes,bear O.C. ] I have to say the gun is the PRIMARY choice for me.

 

[Deaf Smith]

@ Deaf

You waste so much time and energy posting that stuff, but you still refuse to answer the biggest question of all from the Orr bear attack.


Why was the handgun a nonfactor?

That is the crux of this thread, Handguns to stop attacking bears. Using your logic, we can just as easily say the handgun failed.

Well, OC, by Dr. Smith's silly criteria, it did fail.


I suspect it was a non-factor in the second attack due to shock. He was still in shock.

As for the first attack, he had a choice between a bear spray and a pistol on his pack. He chose the spray (maybe it happened to fast to find the gun.)

He chose poorly.

But OC... YOU posted the links again. I posted the fact Dr. Smith's research was poor at best and why it was (and I could say lots more on that subject.)

Lesson is, if you carry a gun, have it where you can get to it FAST. Not on some pack (same applies to OC, rifle, shotgun, whatever..)

Deaf

 

[OC-Trainer]

Deaf,

You seem like a good guy, so understand that our spirited debate is nothing personal.

This thread took a lot of twist and turns, but I honestly think that some good can come from it.

I alluded to a bunch of questions that I have about this incident. I'll be straight up now. I am having a hard time believing the facts about this case.

I suspect it was a non-factor in the second attack due to shock. He was still in shock.

Him being in shock is a hard sell for me. Why? My thoughts are this - He had the presence of mind to film a video and go out of his was to mention bear spray. If you just escaped death not once but twice, essentially winning the lottery twice in the same day. Last thing on my mind is filming a video. A photo? Sure. He just seemed so intent on specifically mentioning one tool and not the other. So I can't get on board with that theory.

I don't want to drift too far into conspiracy theories, but I'm very skeptical of this story so far. I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Dog Soldier]

OC Trainer is a bully and a shell for the chemical companies. I will offer you this. Our fees for packing into the lower Tetons is very expensive. But we will offer you a free 7 day pack trip into Grizz country. The only caveat is you must only carry Bear spray no firearms. We do reserve the right to the videos.

 

[Gun Master]

OC, please take a breather, man !

It's OK . Just relax and enjoy reading the thread . We all have bad days.

I hope you have a good night, and a better tomorrow.

 

[OC-Trainer]

OC Trainer is a bully and a shell for the chemical companies. I will offer you this. Our fees for packing into the lower Tetons is very expensive. But we will offer you a free 7 day pack trip into Grizz country. The only caveat is you must only carry Bear spray no firearms. We do reserve the right to the videos.

This is the last time I'm going to feed you, Troll Soldier.

You tipped your hand in your very first post in this thread. Your incoherent post can't hide your true agenda.

You stay safe out there in the bush.