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 .
Let's cut to the chase, making a statement that these studies have "proven" that pepper spray is better than guns is a false statement based on the methology used in these studies. The only type of study that can "measure" the differences between two interventions is a randomized and controlled study:

Definition: RCTs are studies that measure an intervention’s effect by
randomly assigning individuals (or groups of individuals) to an
intervention group or a control group.
Click to expand...

http://www.ade.az.gov/sa/msp/RCT.pdf

Retrospective, anecdotal "studies" are subject to several confounding errors and potential for bias that render them hypothesis generating instead of definitive answers to the hypothesis. The biggest bias of these studies is lack of full reporting of all incidents to a common agency. We don't have 100% capture of all encounters.

Thus, since no one will ever do a randomized and controlled trial on pepper spray vs guns in bear defense, we shall never get beyond personal preference, expert opinion and speculation. If you simply looked at data from DLP's in Alaska, there are hundreds of cases of successful grizzly bear defense every year with guns. I simply do not see these cases reflected in the studies represented.

Once again, the type of studies used can generate an hypothesis but are not designed to prove or disprove that hypothesis. As a medical doctor with 30 years experience digging through various medical studies, I stand by the statement that no one has proven pepper spray is better than guns. It is a hypothesis that shall likely remain unanswered and unanswerable forever.

However, in the specific case above, a gun was the more definitive method. I end by simply repeating what the lady stated: "I wished I had a gun." Who can argue with that summation from someone who had been in the middle of it all.
 
Today, 08:14 AM #18
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member

Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 8,945
Quote:
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
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.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher."
-- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
Click to expand...

No they collected selected reports that do not capture a 100% baseline that generates an hypothesis but cannot answer it.

Example, the NOLS pepper spray failure where not only one person failed, but all of them failed to deploy their pepper spray. Since pepper spray was taught and used as their bear protection, it is an absolute failure just as a man who does not deploy his gun is a failure of the gun as protection. That was 7 failures at one time. I doubt that will ever be scientifically considered in any of these studies. Yes, highly selected according to a pre-existing bias about the outcome is at the heart of these studies.

It does look like most people take these studies with a grain of salt and would much rather have a gun if given only one choice. On the other hand, mac and cheese could be the best way to go as well.

Let's go to the study itself and see how the author stated his data should be used:

"Because the database is composed of diverse field records, the results should be viewed with caution."

Folks, the authors never stated that they proved pepper spray is "better" than guns, you should simply consider adding pepper spray to your gun. Both are much better than playing dead as a survival strategy. Yes, use these results with caution and bring your gun along as well.
 
Last edited:
Abstract: We present a comprehensive look at a sample of bear spray incidents that occurred in Alaska, USA, from 1985 to 2006. We analyzed 83 bear spray incidents involving brown bears (Ursus arctos; 61 cases, 74%), black bears (Ursus americanus; 20 cases, 24%), and polar bears (Ursus maritimus; 2 cases, 2%). Of the 72 cases where persons sprayed bears to defend themselves, 50 (69%) involved brown bears, 20 (28%) black bears, and 2 (3%) polar bears. Red pepper spray stopped bears' undesirable behavior 92% of the time when used on brown bears, 90% for black bears, and 100% for polar bears. Of all persons carrying sprays, 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). In 7% (5 of 71) of bear spray incidents, wind was reported to have interfered with spray accuracy, although it reached the bear in all cases. In 14% (10 of 71) of bear spray incidents, users reported the spray having had negative side effects upon themselves, ranging from minor irritation (11%, 8 of 71) to near incapacitation (3%, 2 of 71). Bear spray represents an effective alternative to lethal force and should be considered as an option for personal safety for those recreating and working in bear country. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 72(3):640–645; 2008)
Click to expand...

THis statement is biased since once again, no method is 100% effective. The authors themselves set up this false debate by their choice of considering bear spray an effective ALTERNATIVE when instead they should use the term COMPLIMENT. Many people have correctly pointed out that you should carry both and that is my choice as well.

I would point out that up to 14% in this limited cohort were adversely affected by the pepper spray themselves. In addition, most of the attacks in North America are from black bears and it was decidedly less effective against black bears in these studies who almost always may stop temporarily but will not leave with pepper spray. How big is that can of spray you have anyway?
 
Bear spray is best on paper at least but the 2 to 1 margin in the poll for a firearm, would lead me to suggest a shotgun with Dixie or Bernneke slugs. Regardless, you best be ready to deploy whatever you decide on using.
 
Today, 11:30 AM #25
Carne Frio
Senior Member

Join Date: August 28, 2008
Location: Near Fairbanks Alaska
Posts: 515
Never leave town without:

1. 12g loaded with Brennekes.
2. UDAP Bear Spray 8oz.
3. Cell phone.
4. Bug spray
Click to expand...

+1 Carne Frio, NEVER forget the bug spray!!:eek:

Fighting the Skeeters is much worse than any potential bear encounter:D
 
No study of past events will give a firm answer. In this instance I would suggest only those events with bear spray used successfully are apt to make the news and be studied with a few exceptions. Because the population of bear spray events is slanted in one direction, the results will be slanted also.

The population of events with no bear spray is probably much larger, so the study of that population would also be slanted.

Perhaps a better study would be of events in which the victim did not survive.:D
 
I once read a defense of spray over gun that included some bear anatomy. It stated that a charging bear would present mostly a head shot and that the bouncing, weaving, rapidly closing head is only vulnerable in the snout area due to a thick skull plate. I made my choice then that I would feel adequately insured by a large can of spray and a large bore revolver. The odds of me hitting a charging bear in a vital area with any gun are poor so I would choose the spray. If that didn't work then the pistol at what is hopefully an easier target albeit a much closer one.:eek:
 
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.
Click to expand...

There was no failure all the people involved escaped unhurt.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/17/us-grizzly-attack-montana-idUSTRE78G0BY20110917
A grizzly bear attacked and killed a Nevada man whose friend moments earlier had shot and wounded the animal during a hunting trip in northwest Montana, authorities said on Saturday.

Steve Stevenson, 39, of Winnemucca, Nevada, died of injuries he sustained in the mauling by the grizzly on Friday, said Brent Faulkner, undersheriff with the Lincoln County Sheriff's Office in Montana. After the attack, the bear was shot and killed by Ty Bell, 20, also of Winnemucca.

The two men had paired off as part of a four-man hunting party seeking black bears in the rugged Purcell Mountains where Idaho and Montana border British Columbia.
Click to expand...

So can we now say guns are ineffective defense against bears given this "failure" of firearms.

The science of what is effective and what isn't will not stand or fall on one example. Science doesn't work like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]
Click to expand...
 
Dear Buzzcook,

You have failed to understand my point. There are many examples of failure with pepper spray that never seem to make it into these studies. That is all I was stating.

Now, stalking a wounded grizzly bear is one of the most dangerous events you can engage in. Much different than an unprovoked attack. Approaching a wounded bear is one of the most fearful tasks anyone can attempt and for good reason. The bear is already in fight or flight response. Good luck to anyone attempting that without good knowledge of what they are up against. Show me some stats that place pepper spray as your weapon in that situation and you won't find any at all. Sadly, these hunters made several mistakes, but that is another discussion altogether.

In any case, science has limitations and the methods used to state pepper spray is "better" than guns does not have that ability to sort out that question. Retrospective, uncontrolled cohort studies can only generate that hypothesis but it CANNOT answer that question.
 
I am certain the woman was terrified and will have horrible nightmares.

I am glad she and her daughters came out of it alive.

I hope the bear keeps away from people because if it keeps this up, it is one dead bear.
 
Indeed, when just walking afield (not hunting) in Alaska, carrying bear spray outside my jacket and/or pack, where a .44 Magnum always was regardless of my location quite frankly, has been my own solution, play on words intended. And at other times I made a 12 ga. "loaded for bear" available too.
 
There are many examples of failure with pepper spray that never seem to make it into these studies. That is all I was stating.
Click to expand...
Unless one can demonstrate that there are significantly more examples of failure with pepper spray that don't make it into the studies than there are examples of failure with firearms that don't make it into the studies it's a moot point.

All studies have to deal with the fact that not all incidents are reported. That doesn't invalidate the study results unless it is possible to show or reasonable to suspect that the unreported incidents: 1) Are sufficient in number to affect the results significantly AND 2) Are sufficiently biased that ignoring them will skew the results.

Simply saying that there are unreported examples of one particular category of outcome isn't sufficient to call the results of a study into question.
Thus, since no one will ever do a randomized and controlled trial on pepper spray vs guns in bear defense, we shall never get beyond personal preference, expert opinion and speculation.
Click to expand...
That is an unwarranted conclusion as explained above.

Unless there is an articulable reason to assume or evidence to prove that the unreported incidents are both a significant percentage of the total number of incidents AND the unreported incidents are sufficiently biased toward one outcome or another to skew the results should they be omitted, it is totally unwarrented to characterize the study results as "personal preference, expert opinion and speculation".

Furthermore, the idea that there are a large number of unreported failures of bear spray is a strain on the imagination.

I can't think of even one really good reason why a bear spray failure would go unreported. People like to complain, people like to tell sensational stories, especially ones involving themselves. If anything, I would think that pepper spray failures would be likely to be OVER reported.
 
Not true my friend, I have explained in reasonable detail why retrospective, uncontrolled and anecdotal studies cannot do anything further than generate a hypothesis, but cannot prove that hypothesis due to failure of these studies to control bias in its many types. After 30 years of reviewing medical studies and their methods, what I am speaking is correct science. Randomized and controlled trials are designed to quantitate the hypothesis outcomes, nothing else can do that in science. Just the way it is my friend. If you don't believe me, review the different study designs and their strengths and weaknesses.

I am aware of several failures of pepper spray that I have read in news accounts over the last few years. In addition, it strains credulity the number of gun encounters listed in these studies when you consider the DLP's in Alaska alone every year.

The best you can say is that the data is flawed and you cannot draw definitive objective measures of which is "better." There is an association with protection from bear spray and from guns, but there truly is no definitive quantitative data anywhere on this planet to state which is "better."

As I have stated numerous times, both are flawed in that they do not afford 100% protection and I utilize both as do many that spend time in the woods. I just bought my wife a new canister of Counter Assault but that does not mean I am leaving my .44 magnum at home.
 
Today, 03:38 PM #32
Al Den
Senior Member

Join Date: April 28, 2012
Posts: 123
Indeed, when just walking afield (not hunting) in Alaska, carrying bear spray outside my jacket and/or pack, where a .44 Magnum always was regardless of my location quite frankly, has been my own solution, play on words intended. And at other times I made a 12 ga. "loaded for bear" available too.
__________________
"Libertarians." Really? Seriously!?
Click to expand...

+1 Al, that is my preference as well. In the news account in my OP, a handgun is the protection of choice in that type of encounter. Black bears especially MUST be met with lethal force since they will not leave with a couple squirts of pepper spray. You better have a back up plan or you will be a failure of pepper spray in the statistics. That is what these studies state as well.
 
...retrospective, uncontrolled and anecdotal studies cannot do anything further than generate a hypothesis, but cannot prove that hypothesis due to failure of these studies to control bias in its many types.
Click to expand...
It takes more than just making a general statement like this to invalidate the results of a survey/study you don't agree with.

There are limitations to any survey methodology. Everybody understands that, but it doesn't prevent surveys and studies from providing useful results as long as reasonable precautions are taken in collecting data and in evaluating the accuracy of the study results.
I am aware of several failures of pepper spray that I have read in news accounts over the last few years.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant for three reasons.

1. If you read them in the news, they are reported incidents and would have figured into any reasonably well conducted survey.

2. It takes more than pointing out that there have been failures in one category of the survey/study to invalidate the survey/study results.

3. Even if these were unreported incidents--and they're not--you would still need to establish that the number of unreported incidents is statistically significant in terms of their effect on the survey/study outcomes. Your statement doesn't even attempt to do anything of the kind.
I have explained in reasonable detail...
Click to expand...
Not at all.

I read the article in your link and it's quite good. It points out that when RCTs are not possible and one must result to "well-matched comparison group studies" that "magnitude estimates are often inaccurate" and "in some instances" the overall conclusion is even incorrect.

In other words, if you can't do an RCT but can only do a "well-matched" comparison group, then you can expect "magnitude estimates" to often be inaccurate. HOWEVER, you can expect overall conclusions to be accurate except "in some instances". That is, most of the time the overall conclusions will be accurate.

So, with our "well-matched comparison group" of people attacked by bears, the issues you raise point out that predictions about the percentage of the time bear spray will fail--the magnitude estimate--will often be incorrect. That's expected. However, it also points out that the "overall conclusion" will only be incorrect "in some circumstances".

Basically it says you can't count on the outcome of a single study to be absolute gospel in every respect. But that's not the same thing as totally invalidating the results, particularly if the results of the study agrees well with other similar studies/surveys and the results of the studies are all convincingly and unanimously in favor of one outcome.
The best you can say is that the data is flawed and you cannot draw definitive objective measures of which is "better."
Click to expand...
Absolutely false. Even in the case where the data in a survey is KNOWN to be flawed and the fact can be proven, the survey results may still have some usefulness depending on the effect of the flaw on the survey results.

For example a flawed survey might predict that the chances of surving a bear attack using pepper spray are X when they are actually Y due to a flaw in the data or in the data collection methodology. So if one were to use the "X" figure it would be incorrect. However, if the overall outcome of the study indicated that the chances of surviving a bear attack using pepper spray were 10 times greater than surviving a bear attack using a firearm, and it could be shown that the effect of the known flaw could only change X by 20%, then the survey results could still be used, in spite of the flaw, to accurately determine which tactic is more likely to achieve success, even though it wouldn't be possible to say precisly how much more likely it is due to the flaw.
Randomized and controlled trials are designed to quantitate the hypothesis outcomes, nothing else can do that in science.
Click to expand...
Even assuming, for the sake of argument that this statement is precisely accurate in every respect, it still doesn't prove that the survey results can't be relied upon to provide a useful result.

The study outcomes make it absolutely clear that it is not necessary to precisely quantitate the probability of the various outcomes to determine which tactic is most likely to result in a favorable outcome.
 
You have failed to understand my point. There are many examples of failure with pepper spray that never seem to make it into these studies. That is all I was stating.
Click to expand...

So why don't you list those many examples instead of just posting the one non-example?
 
I already have, the NOLS incident is the most famous, this incident and one other I will try to find which is on video all in the last year or so. Pepper spray is NOT 100%. It now has a cult following that is not based on scientific evidence. Even the authors have not made such claims.

The manner in which to interpret these studies is that pepper spray is one of many strategies to place in effect as bear defense. A gun in the OP news report was the strategy of choice for that situation. Black bears, guns are the strategy of choice although pepper spray may give you more time to react, but pepper spray WILL not make them go away consistently.

So, let's look at the evidence objectively and understand the strengths and weaknesses of these studies. They are not randomized, controlled studies that can show causality or show magnitude of effect by controlling for inherent bias. Once again, retrospective, uncontrolled cohort assembled from anecdotal events is one of the lowest levels of scientific investigation. It can generate but not prove a hypothesis. Just the way it is. Taking these studies to a higher level in my opinion is not justified. Unfortunately, pepper spray now has a true cultish following and rational discussion is hard to accomplish on the pepper spray vs gun data. It is sorely lacking and quite weak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top