Bear Attack Victim: I wish I had a gun

Which do you prefer: gun or bear spray? (Or mac and cheese?)

  • Gun

    Votes: 67 64.4%

  • Bear Spray

    Votes: 22 21.2%

  • Mac and Cheese

    Votes: 15 14.4%
  • Total voters
    104
  • Poll closed .
A

Alaska444

Moderator
Incredible story of a one year bear cub that attacked a mother and two children. The woman had bear spray which did not deter this young bear:


"It was kind of trotting around me, and then it would charge and growl," said Jones-Robinson, an English professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. "It charged, and I used my bear spray when it was about four feet away and then I fell with my pack on and dropped the bear spray."
Click to expand...
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/artic...ng-ordeal-with-bear-3707497.php#ixzz20eC0iwhF

The most interesting aspect of this encounter is the woman's statement at the end of the news account:

It was a terrifying escape for Jones-Robinson and her nieces, who were visiting from Washington state.
"All I could think about was this bear is so close to me I can see its teeth," she said. "I could have kissed it. I wished I had a gun."
Click to expand...
Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/artic...ng-ordeal-with-bear-3707497.php#ixzz20eC0iwhF

Wonder if this failure of pepper spray will make the scientific stats. I guess we could chalk it up to the macaroni and cheese bear defense.
 
Last edited:
"Bear spray" is a thing?

One of the disadvantages of pepper spray is that it can hurt the wielder as much as the intended target if the wind is just wrong.

I'd imagine anything that could deter a bear would be an even bigger threat to a human.

I'd rather just shoot it. I can understand less lethal options against humans. I have no moral qualms or hang-ups when it comes to killing animals.
 
honestly i'll choose the bear spray and stand there spraying it. you can't run and he needs to smell it. either way you have to stand your ground. even a good shot probably won't kill the bear instantly. the hardest part is probably standing your ground but it is a must.
 
Just because she used bear spray doesn't mean she used it correctly. She stood a much better chance with the spray than with a gun. Incident analysis has proven it time and time again. Spray works better than guns.

This is no different than that person we probably all know who was in a car accident without a seatbelt and some "south bound end of a north bound donkey" told them how they'd have been killed if they'd had the belt on, so now they won't wear a seatbelt because, theoretically, that one time, it would have been bad.

Never mind the 99% odds that every other time it would have been better.

Bear spray, same deal.
 
EH, you'd have to have nerves of steel to stand up to a bear with spray. They did say how good bear spray would be against humans! Answer the door with some bear spray if you don't want to with a gun! Sorry different thread. :D
 
Today, 07:32 PM #5
Brian Pfleuger
Staff

Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 11,069
Just because she used bear spray doesn't mean she used it correctly. She stood a much better chance with the spray than with a gun. Incident analysis has proven it time and time again. Spray works better than guns.

This is no different than that person we probably all know who was in a car accident without a seatbelt and some "south bound end of a north bound donkey" told them how they'd have been killed if they'd had the belt on, so now they won't wear a seatbelt because, theoretically, that one time, it would have been bad.

Never mind the 99% odds that every other time it would have been better.

Bear spray, same deal.
Click to expand...

You can't make a statement that spray is better than guns based on retrospective, highly selected observational data. The only study that has the power to state categorically that spray is better than guns is a randomized and controlled trial. That will never happen.

Are there circumstances where spray is useful? Absolutely. This is a situation where a gun would be more useful. If she got close enough with a circling bear to see its teeth, I would MUCH rather have a gun than the spray.

Even in the highly selected, retrospective, anecdotal collection of stories used in these so called "scientific" studies, there were failures recorded as well for pepper spray. Pepper spray has its place, but folks, get real, so does a gun.

Since neither pepper spray or guns are 100% effective in stopping an attack immediately, the prudent woodsman carries both and goes out with at least one buddy to rescue you if your method fails. Just the way it is.
 
"You can't make a statement that spray is better than guns based on retrospective, highly selected observational data. The only study that has the power to state categorically that spray is better than guns is a randomized and controlled trial. That will never happen."

The same could be said when saying a gun is better than bear spray.
 
Yeah but that's just being argumentative with no point. It is possible for a person to have a gun and no training and fail to protect themselves in similar fashion as the lady did with the bear spray (she dropped it).

But having a gun would generally increase anyone's chances of surviving an attack from a bear, training or no training. Let's not harp on the ultimate retard who would shoot himself in the foot. Most people could operate the gun and give the bear something else to think about besides attacking.
 
Wonder if this failure of pepper spray will make the scientific stats.
Click to expand...

It will just as much as gun failures make it into the stats such as in those cases where hunters are "attacked" by bears that they have already shot or already shot multiple times such as ...
http://www.americanhunter.org/articles/wounded-bear-attacks-hunter/
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs...mistakenly-shoots-grizzly-killed-wounded-bear
http://www.wabi.tv/news/23917/hunter-attacked-by-wounded-bear-near-machias
http://www.wolfsongnews.org/news/Alaska_current_events_795.htm
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...xpbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8k4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=3569,2738171
http://thelibrary.org/lochist/turnbo/V5/ST153.html

Not American, but interesting...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcEzaDvftDk
I don't see where the bear spray failed. It certainly sounds like it stopped the charge on the woman and the bear didn't follow through with the charge despite the woman ending up on the ground which was a time when she would have been most vulnerable.

She stood a much better chance with the spray than with a gun. Incident analysis has proven it time and time again. Spray works better than guns.
Click to expand...

You can't make a statement that spray is better than guns based on retrospective, highly selected observational data.
Click to expand...

I understand that you are calling the data and analysis into question, saying that the data are heavily biased (highly selected), but what is your basis for stating this?

Some of the studies that you are calling into question are by a guy you have mentioned here a couple of times as an authority on bears and using his information to support your statements - Stephen Herrero.

BP is right. Multiple studies have shown bear spray to work better than firearms during real life attacks.

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120325/NEWS03/703259851
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3873165?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56308156483
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2193/2006-452/abstract
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/bear_cougar/bear/files/JWM_BearSprayAlaska.pdf

Elsewhere, Smith has also found bear spray to be highly effective...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080325171221.htm

He also notes that of those who had guns, use of guns produced the same results as not using guns.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120306131921.htm

The only study that has the power to state categorically that spray is better than guns is a randomized and controlled trial.
Click to expand...

I think you have that backwards. Controlled studies have to be verified (field tested) against real life incidents and not the other way around. Controlled studies only look at selective aspects and so may or may not reflect what happens in real life.

In a couple of the studies noted above, there was a very interesting negative aspect to bear spray and bears. Bear spray can be an attractant. Apparently when folks have applied bear spray around their camp areas to act as a repellent (which is an incorrect use of the spray), it actually attracted bears. In at least one case, where bear spray was sprayed on the the ground, the bear rolled around on the spot where it was sprayed.

I don't see where the bear spray failed. It certainly sounds like it stopped the charge on the woman and the bear didn't follow through with the charge despite the woman ending up on the ground which was a time when she would have been most vulnerable.

As for the scientific stats, you would first have to evaluate what is or is not considered successful, then evaluate the data.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
edward

EH, you'd have to have nerves of steel to stand up to a bear with spray.
Click to expand...

take the 'spray' out of your quote and pretend you have no gun and no spray. I say you have a better chance going to to toe than playing dead.

I am not saying I would have the guts or stamina to do this; I just personally believe it. If it happens and doesn't work, don't blame me:D. Their height and a swipe at you might be enough to foil your plan. If you play dead they mess with you either way and many times snack on you. In this day in age food is more scarce it seems.


Most people could operate the gun and give the bear something else to think about besides attacking
Click to expand...

It would be instinct for me to grab the spray. I don't care what anybody says. If the bear is charging you, he probably won't change his mind by you shooting at him & he'll probably be pretty peeved by the time he gets you. Of course, the gun does offer an advantage: the instantaneous kill shot (good luck with that but it is always a possibility).
 
With regard to the effect of lesser concentrations of spray having an attractant effect, consider musk: a heavy concentration is what a skunk uses in self-defense, while a much lower concentration is what the perfume industry uses for colognes.
 
I'm a gun guy, but bear spray, if used correctly has a good track record of successfully deterring an attack. Given one or the other, I'd take the spray.
 
No one covered this, but:

Are you more likely to to practice with a gun, or bear spray?

I thought so ...............

on Practice & Training:
I once read a post by a blogger in which she asked why money was spent on police training - "Don't they come trained from the Academy?"

BTW: My Super Redhawk in 44 mag for me. It's not a magic bear killer, but it does have 6 shots, and any of them will put a bear down hit in the right spot. All six will make the bear heavier than 240 gr. x 6.
 
Spot the fallacy: :rolleyes:
Are there circumstances where spray is useful? Absolutely. This is a situation where a gun would be more useful. If she got close enough with a circling bear to see its teeth, I would MUCH rather have a gun than the spray.
Click to expand...

Just because you think a gun would be a better choice, does not mean it is the better choice.

Different people.
Different situations.
Different experience levels.
Different results.
 
if I could only have one, then bear spray would be the clear choice.

Feeling that a gun would be better is significantly different than knowing that bear spray has been proven more successful in the field.
 
You can't make a statement that spray is better than guns based on retrospective, highly selected observational data.
Click to expand...

Of course you can.

Take all the bear attack reports you can, and categorise them:

Location
Species
Time of year
Time of day
Gender
Number and size of bears
Number and size of Humans
Other parties (dogs, horses, etc)
Stimulants (food present?)
User experience with guns/spray
etc

Keep going until you have neat groups of incidents where, as close as is possible, the only real variable to each the encounter in that group is whether a gun or spray was used.

Once you have that, provided that you have a sufficiently big sample size to give the outcome statistical power, you analysise. Job done. Yo'll soon see if there is a statistacally supported advantage to one or the other
 
Once you have that, provided that you have a sufficiently big sample size to give the outcome statistical power, you analysise. Job done. Yo'll soon see if there is a statistacally supported advantage to one or the other
Click to expand...

Right, and that is what Herrero, Smith, and others have done. What the data won't tell you is how well one method or the other will work for any one situation in the future. Statistics are all about probabilities, not absolutes.

So the lady in the story said she wished she had a gun. She may have wish to have one. If she thinks about it, she would probably wish that she had not dropped her bear spray when she fell and would probably wish that she took the time to pick it up instead of rummaging through her own pack for the Mac-n-cheese or rummaging through the dog's pack for bug spray (which she used as a blunt force object). When dropped and not retrieved, it really doesn't matter what you weapon you had, you don't have it anymore.

It really does seem counterintuitive that sting and discomfort would do more to thwart bear attacks than ballistic trauma, but this is what is indicated by historical data.
 
I have always felt, and prepared, that spray is more immediately effective, fastest, short term option (other than a 12 ga. with certain buckshot) but that an intent prolonged attack, even a stalking, cannot be solved but, except, with a potent firearm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top