Bear Spray

[Pandion]

Most of the studies that show bear spray is better than a firearm are kind of bunk. Not having cited any in particular, I can't comment on the particulars of what has been referenced. But in general, these aren't the most rigorous and are generally funded by interested parties. It's hardly a thing that has real conclusive scientific support.

Here's what I learned: the science says spray is the most effective for most people ...

Science, schmience. I'm having trouble picturing how one would go about conducting such a study. Would you be performing the tests with volunteer bears, caged bears, or simulated holographic bears? Old crippled-up really hungry bears (like the one that ate that guy and his girlfriend), adolescent bears, mother bears? Coastal brownies or barren ground grizzlies? How many dozens of hapless bruins would you have to experiment on, with guns or spray, to get a statistically valid study—one you'd be willing to bet your life on?

I'm an okay shot ... at the rifle range, but I've never been charged by a bear and really have no idea how straight my shooting would be under such circumstances. When I lived in Alaska—in the Chugach Mountains outside of Anchorage, and in Juneau—on most hiking trips I carried a short-barreled Mossberg 12 gauge pump, with a pistol grip, on a sling, loaded with alternating rounds of triple aught buckshot and rifled slugs. I liked the false sense of security it gave me. My pacifist wife, who hates guns, but hates the idea of being eaten even more, liked it too. When we'd be getting ready to head out on the trail, she'd ask, brightly, “honey, you're bringing the shotgun along, aren't you?”

I'm hoping to take a trip up the Inside Passage in the next year or two, and have begun—thanks in part to this conversation—to think about how to reduce my chances of being devoured. I can't imagine not going ashore and walking around in some locations, to get water, take pictures, pick berries. But I really don't want to hassle with taking a gun across the border. So—valid science or not—I'll probably just be packing my good karma and a big can of high test bear spray.

 

[localboy]

My pacifist wife, who hates guns, but hates the idea of being eaten even more, liked it too. When we'd be getting ready to head out on the trail, she'd ask, brightly, “honey, you're bringing the shotgun along, aren't you?”

Reminds me of the old saying: There are no atheists in fox-holes.

In my experience, some people even hate the police...until the wolf is at THEIR door...

 

[smckean (Tosca)]

I personally take scientific studies with a grain of salt. Many are skewed, and data can say what the researcher wants to see in it.

So what's a better method of determining reality? Listening to the guy on the next barstool telling you his anecdotal story?

Science, schmience. I'm having trouble picturing how one would go about conducting such a study.

Several years ago, when I was involved with a group of about 100 people who got very interested in this topic, we attempted to find the "best" answer to this gun vs spray question, a thorough search was done of the available literature. The studies are done via scientifically valid statistical techniques of many, many bear encounter reports -- many of which included maulings. These techniques are similar to those scientific studies done in the worlds of sociology or psychology where you can't do such things as actually feed young children lead to discover how it affects their brains.

 

[Pandion]

Several years ago, when I was involved with a group of about 100 people who got very interested in this topic, we attempted to find the "best" answer to this gun vs spray question, a thorough search was done of the available literature. The studies are done via scientifically valid statistical techniques of many, many bear encounter reports -- many of which included maulings. These techniques are similar to those scientific studies done in the worlds of sociology or psychology where you can't do such things as actually feed young children lead to discover how it affects their brains.

Tosca, it would be great if you could point us to one of these studies, so we can understand the underlying methodology. Lacking that, I remain a skeptic.

 

[colbysmith]

Still enjoying the replies. Even the ones that refuse to believe in science or it's studies. :wink: Reminds me of the person whose bags are lost by the airline. Don't mind the fact that the airlines transfer and transport millions of bags a year. But if they lose your bag, then that airline is inept at getting your bags to your destination. :wink: Actually, I can appreciate that some folks feel more safe carrying the lead shot, over liquid shot. It really comes down to a comfort level, once you get to the point of your own personal safety. But I am going to go with the bear spray, along with common sense and respect for the animal, is the best combination for a safe experience. Not everyone is proficient (or responsible) at handling guns, but I do appreciate those that are. Colby

 

[starcrafttom]

So far I have only seen studies that say spray is effective % of the time. I have not seen , please provide then and I will read them , that spray is % more effective over a gun ( caliber unknown) . But more effective at?? stopping a charge or killing a bear. See if you are saying that spray will stop a charge % of the time and guns will only kill % of the time then we are not looking at the same fruit are we? I would be interested in a report that 1) compares apples to apples and 2) defined what that apple is . I would like to know if 1) a gun or a spray is better at stopping an attack of a charging bear. Because that is the point isn't it.

Now for the every present buzz of " well no one can shoot any how so it does not matter if you own a gun" As a Us marine I spent two year on the range teaching marksmanship. Nothing fancy just requal basic course of fire. I have seen the best shooter and the worst shooters and I can tell you it takes very little training to make someone a good shooter. It really is not that hard. shooting a weapon is not very hard . I can teach any one on this site to be a effective shot with open sights under 400 yards in a few days. Really its not very hard at all. That is with a rifle or a pistol for shorter distances. Its all practice and muscle memory. And I strongly suggest that anyone who has a weapon spend at least 3 day every six months on the range to re enforce their skilles. So that being said what in hell name makes you thing you are going to be any better of a shot with a spray can???? How many times if any did you practice with it??? Was a bear charging you when you did?? See it does not matter if you are holding a gun or a spray can when a bear charges you. You are going to have the same reaction based on the amount of training you have. And I would bet that the vast majority of gun owners have more training and practice ( times fired) then anyone with a spray can they bought on the way to bear country. I would strongly suggest that if you do carry a spray can that you follow the same advice as carrying a gun and practice often. You do not need to practice by firing, the best weapons practice is dry firing and the bringing of your weapon to firing position. In short you should be able to pull your choice of defense from its holster or storage location to the ready to fire position with any safety disengaged with out looking at it and keeping your eyes on your incoming target. This last part is far harder and more ignored then marksman ship. ( an should be done with a empty weapon. No one want to explain how the dog got bear sprayed in the house.) .

So in short if you think that there is a difference between firing a spray can at a bear then firing a gun at a bear you are wrong. Remember that whether you like it or not you WILL react the way you were trained, including if you were not trained.

But either way carry what you are comfortable with and let the other guy do the same, see how easy that is.

 

[colbysmith]

Thomas, you can google as well as I can. But I think a big part of the argument is hitting the bear and killing it when it's charging you at close range. Just wounding it isn't going to stop it, whereas the bear spray is more apt to make it stop as you've affected it's sight and smell. Stop it just for enough time for you to quickly leave the area. I bet even I could hit a bear with a wounding bullet at short range. But maybe not if it's swaying back and forth and coming at me at 35 mph. With the bear spray, I just need to put up a cloud. As I've been saying, to each their own with comfort level. But I'm going with the studies that show bear spray is more effective than a gun. The situation with the gun is getting a killing shot off. If one has time and distance, then I would tend to consider a gun as more potent. But bear spray is considered a last defense. Has to be when you are talking about it's use at 30-60 feet of a charging bear. I don't have personal experience, and while I very much appreciate the stories of personal experience of others, very few of those stories actually involve a charging bear encounter. In the mean time, there are studies involving many stories or incidents of charging bears, and I'm going to tend to listen to what that research has to say.

I did go ahead and pull up two links you can peruse:

http://www.themeateater.com/2016/the-cold-hard-facts-of-bear-deterrents-bear-spray-vs-firearms/

https://www.outsideonline.com/1899301/shoot-or-spray-best-way-stop-charging-bear

 

[ssobol]

I would guess that in conditions of rain or wind, the effectiveness of bear spray probably goes down a lot faster and further than the effectiveness of a gun.

But I don't know for sure. I've never used bear spray or shot anything at a bear.

 

[colbysmith]

Many of the articles I've read also suggest wind is going to have an affect. You really don't want to be downwind if you spray that stuff. And I also suspect rain is going to shorten the distance it is effective. Lot of what ifs. But I think basically they are saying in calm clear conditions, the bear spray is going to be better than firearms. I'm not telling others that they should immediately switch from guns to sprays. But I do think one needs to pay attention to the studies, also done by experts in the field, and realize firearms are not the only or best answer. Colby

 

[thataway]

Colby,thanks for the interesting link. I think that this whole bear situation is being over analyzed. The chance of a serious bear encounter for the average cruiser along the inland passage is minimal. Some folks are even lucky to see a bear. There are two specific bear viewing areas--Anan Creek ($10 pass July 5, to August 25) and Pack Creek (also reservation and fee)--both of these are highly supervised and require prior permits.

On the other hand, I don't agree with the "just stay on the boat" crowd. You are going to a beautiful country, there are some great hikes, good stream fishing, and fantastic people--go enjoy all of this!

 

[starcrafttom]

The situation with the gun is getting a killing shot off.

So this is what I have questions about and you stated it again. Why are we comparing scaring a bear off with a spray can to killing a bear with a gun? The objective is to scare the bear off. How does a gun stack up to a spray can with that apple in mind. I do know how a spray can stacks up to a gun if killing a bear is the point. thanks for the link I will take a look at them and see if they are comparing the correct fruit. [/url]

 

[DrewbirdII]

Skunks have a very effective spray against humans, but not for my dog. He still likes to kill them anyway to my dismay. I believe if carrying spray makes you feel safer and you get out there and explore all the better. Think about how many people have walked before you and lived to talk about it. Jim

 

[colbysmith]

My hopes are to get to the Alaska part of the Inside Passage summer 2019. And that I can find a few others to go along. Folks slower than me when hiking on land. That's my plan to stay alive in bear country! lol. I agree that bear spray and lead spray are two different methods and that if you use a gun at that close range, it better be a killing shot. I really think the question needs to be narrowed down to, if you are in very close range of a charging bear, which is going to prove to be more effective in stopping that bear? No doubt in my mind a killing shot as opposed to bear spray. But I think what all the studies are saying, your chance of getting that killing shot off (or in deterring the bear) are less than 86% whereas the effectiveness of bear spray in deterring the bear long enough to get away is 90%. That's assuming you are proficient with the gun... BTW, at that close range, if the hiker has done everything else right, and the bear is charging, I don't have a lot of sympathy if the bear is shot dead as opposed to tear gassed... but if I'm the hiker, I want the better odds in my favor.

 

[Pandion]

Bob is right of course, this is being overanalyzed ... but since I've just spent a few hours reading the stories Colby cited, and abstracts of the two studies they were based on ...

Colby, thanks for the links. I stand corrected. Please pardon my initial skepticism. These appear to be thorough, competent studies, based on way more data than I'd imagined was available.

• —The2008 study looked at 83 bear spray incidents involving brown bears (61 cases), black bears (20 cases), and polar bears (2 cases). In all of the incidents, there were only three injuries, none of them fatal, for a 98 percent success rate.

• —The 2012 study, by the same two authors, looked at 269 Alaska incidents of bears vs. humans with guns, between 1883 and 2009. Long guns deterred attacks 76 percent of the time; hand guns were 84 percent effective. According to the Outside Magazine article, “Bear-inflicted injuries occurred in 151 of the incidents, including 17 fatalities.”

That's persuasive enough for me. I think I can leave my firearms at home.

By the way, when you get down into the weeds of the study, there are more interesting findings. For example, 12 gauge shotguns were successful in 16 incidents, with only 2 failures. Unsurprisingly, with .300 caliber rifles, where aim was a little more important, there were 7 successes and 7 failures.

 

[ssobol]

Skunks have a very effective spray against humans, but not for my dog. ...

My dog is also unaffected by skunk spray.

Skunk spray is not like pepper spray. Other than smelling bad it really has no effect.

Pepper spray is an inflammatory agent. It inflames the mucous membranes in the eyes, nose, throat and lungs. It causes immediate closing of the eyes, difficulty breathing, runny nose, and coughing. The duration of its effects depends on the strength of the spray, but the average full effect lasts from 20 to 90 minutes [on humans].

If the skunk sprayed pepper spray your dog would probably leave it alone.

 

[localboy]

The situation with the gun is getting a killing shot off.

I'm no hunter. That said, actually KILLING a bear with a hand gun would be quite an accomplishment. I know it can be done, but it's with large caliber handguns, (.44 Magnum and up) with the proper bullet and at close range. A 12 gauge loaded with slugs would up your chances, but I'd still worry about missing or wounding it and making it even MORE unhappy.

The proper type of bullet:
(https://www.federalpremium.com/ammunition/handgun/family/vital-shok/vital-shok-castcore/p44e)

That said, go back and look at the two videos I posted; neither bear was hit and the shooters did not intend to hit them. They used the loud noise, flash, pressure wave, smoke etc of the handgun to startle the bear and make them run off. Both times it worked. I do know that you do not want to do this with a small caliber handgun/pistol. Please don't bring a 9mm to the fight. I've got a light weight S&W .357 Magnum, snub-nose Scandium/Titanium/stainless that probably would work for this app. It's loud as hell and bucks like hell (small framed).

Many of the articles I've read also suggest wind is going to have an affect.

I guarantee it. Especially with foggers, which is what bear spray is, vs stream dispensers. It's common sense. Smaller droplets more easily blown...back into your face/eyes. Now YOUR disabled. I've "been sprayed" as I said. It took every ounce of my training and self-control just to survive and complete mediocre tasks. Surviving being eaten alive is not on my bucket list. :lol:

This is all very helpful. One day we hope to do the inside passage. Those damned Canadians will make me alter my preference due to their anti-'Merica mentalities...unless I can find a legal shotgun. But then I have a shotgun/ammo I need to safely and securely store. Ugh. I just need to be faster than the slowest guy on the trail... :wink:

 

[Foggy]

Colby, the Swiss have the answer to the "Pepper Spray v Gun" debate in bear country.
They would not allow either. Bears have rights! It's true. Now, you can't even
boil a live lobster or "fight" a fish as their laws demonstrate all "critters lives
matter".

Amazing.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/wor ... 341412002/

Aye.

 

[Aiviq]

One thing to keep in mind if you want to carry a gun vs bear spray for bear deterrence is what happens if you shoot and kill a bear. At least in Alaska, if you shoot a bear in defense of life and property you are required to report the circumstances to the state, and salvage the skull, hide and claws and turn them over (permanently) to the Alaska Department of fish and game. To me, it seems like it would be a PITA, especially if you were in a very remote area. I personally carry bear spray in bear country.

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/lice ... fs/dlp.pdf

 

[Brewkid]

Okay, it’s snowing, and I woke up early, and I’m bored so here you go! Bob, please don’t tell my professor I chose to do this instead of studying like I should be….

Colby, “Even the ones that refuse to believe in science or it's studies.” Tosca, “So what's a better method of determining reality?” Listening to the guy on the next barstool telling you his anecdotal story? You’ve missed the mark with me. I do believe in science and read quiet a bit. But just like you two have, I tend to pull my own conclusions from what I’ve read and experienced. A person can read and write a scientific paper to defend their preconceived conclusion, so like I said, “I take them with a grain of salt”, meaning to accept it while maintaining a degree of skepticism about its truth. Below are some details a person who maybe, “doesn’t like the use of firearms”, may overlook to find what they want to read in an article. By no means am I labeling you as such, just trying to highlight how some of us might see things in a different light. If you like pepper spray and it gives you the courage to explore the great outdoors, then it’s perfect for you! The odds are in our favor, and it surely is more beneficial than spending a life behind a keyboard!

Lastly, it was already said but “bears” repeating. The best weapon you can carry into the wild is between your ears.” See, I’m punny!
https://www.thealaskalife.com/outdoors/ ... statistic/

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Miller and Chihuly (1987) found that 72% of non-sport brown bear deaths in Alaska were the result of aggressive bear–human interactions. It is likely that some of these bear fatalities could have been avoided had nonlethal deterrents been available. On Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula, the number of brown bears killed in defense of life or property has increased more than 5-fold in recent years and presently exceeds population sustainability (Suring and Del Frate 2002). (Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska (2008))

In the second paragraph alone, there are two things to point out. First is the statement of “had nonlethal deterrents been available”. This is the apples to apples Tom was speaking to. The point of this paper is to sell a nonlethal method. Effectiveness of stopping the bear with a side arm is not addressed. If the discussion is, “will it help deter a bear?” the answer is yes. “Is it 100% effective?”, No. “In 92% (46 of 50; G1 ¼ 41.4, P , 0.001) of close-range encounters with brown bears, spray stopped undesirable behavior in which the bear was engaged” and “we found that in the decade following bear spray, efficacy was 90% (36 of 41 cases; G1 ¼ 33.4, P , 0.001) (Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska (2008)) Second, it addresses “bears being killed in defense”. Echoing the point, they are trying to promote less than lethal deterrent. I am not apposed to less than lethal deterrent, but as addressed before, I’m not carrying both. Speaking on that area directly, our bear population is managed or was managed using a model from outside the direct area, resulting in a spike in bear and predator numbers. Because of this moose numbers have since drop significantly as well.

Subjectivity of incident records, presence of confounding factors (e.g., multiple manufacturer’s products having been used), and small sample sizes limited statistical analyses. (Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska (2008))

“Our findings suggest that only those proficient in firearms use should rely on them for protection in bear country” and “Although firearms have failed to protect some users, they are the only deterrent that can lethally stop an aggressive bear” and “Furthermore, data regarding firearm performance in aggressive bear encounters are lacking. In fact, we could find little published information quantitatively addressing the effectiveness of firearms as bear deterrents. (The Journal of Wildlife Management 76(5):1021–1027; 2012; DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.342

Localboy, not my choice of weapon, but it worked. https://www.americanhunter.org/articles ... mm-pistol/

Now back to studying...

John
Scallywag

 

[CC Rider]

Those damned Canadians will make me alter my preference due to their anti-'Merica mentalities..

There is nothing "anti-american" about Canadian gun laws. It is simply another country with different laws than what you have in the USA. American laws/beliefs don't apply to the rest of the world you know...as a police officer, you should understand this better than most.
Chris