PINTLER - " Everyone should consider their own unique situation and carry one, the other, both, or neither, as appropriate. And they shouldn't assume their choice is right for everyone else."
This is, in my opinion, the wisest post on this thread.
Whatever "tool" with which one is proficient, is the "best" tool if attacked by a Griz or Black bear. There are so many uncontrollable variables regarding bear or other wild animal attacks it is sheer folly for anyone, scientist, hunter, hiker, etc., to smugly claim, "I know what's best for all you others."
Speaking of one extremely important variable in regard to bear spray which is
barely mentioned here is wind direction. Most of the bear spray advocates seem to base their theory that spray is best, without regard to the wind.
I've been fortunate enough to hunt all over the mountains of Calif., Idaho, in five locations in Colorado, a dozen times in Utah, twice in Wyoming, twice in Arizona, and once in Montana. I can not recall a single time that the wind direction stayed consistent for more than a few minutes. The mountains and valleys and canyons and ridges cause the wind to be an irratic and huge variable and one has to constantly check the wind to try and get downwind from a game animal.
That said,
IF one is unfortunate enough to have a bear charge and the person is carrying
only bear spray, he or she had better hope and pray the bear is coming from upwind so the spray will hit the bear and not the person.
I've never been charged by a bear, although have seen a bunch of Black bears and killed two while actually hunting them. I've seen one Griz but probably an half mile away so no problem. I am always armed, no matter what part of the outdoors I'm in, and in Griz country I now carry a bear spray but my primary "tool" is either a high powered rifle and/or heavy caliber revolver.
I and my partners try to be alert and keep as clean camp as possible, but nothing is perfect.
As for the "statistics" used by researchers that the odds favor spray over firearms, I am reminded of the statistics other researchers use regarding firearms and self defense against two legged attackers. They claim that the odds are against a person being attacked by criminals so why own a gun? I say that if you
are attacked by either a criminal or bear, you are now no longer part of the odds: now you're part of the
statistics.
My opinion: others will vary.
EDIT: P.S. Another hunter was mauled in Wyoming this past Sunday by a Griz. Killed an elk on Saturday late evening, gutted it but went back to camp. Sunday morning, came back to get the meat, unarmed so the report read, and a Griz had claimed the elk. The hunter was attacked by the Griz and wasn't killed but seriously torn up. It happens.
L.W.
