Bear Attack Victim: I wish I had a gun
- Thread starter Alaska444
- Start date
Carne Frio
New member
This is one of the best bear/spray/gun
type threads that I have seen. How many
of you folks are spending time around
black and/or brown bears ? Out of the
last 9 years, with a bit of hiking and such,
I have only seen a couple. They were not
close and were running away at great speed.
type threads that I have seen. How many
of you folks are spending time around
black and/or brown bears ? Out of the
last 9 years, with a bit of hiking and such,
I have only seen a couple. They were not
close and were running away at great speed.
I hike pretty much daily in Alaska and have for years. (By that I would say 360+ days a year; unless on vacation, so maybe 350 days a year.)
I have seen bears out my front windows.
I have seen bears when hiking, hunting, driving, flying, and boating on a regular/yearly basis.
I have seen fresh bear sign in the Winter; they are not true hibernators.
My closest non-hunting bear encounter was right about at 4 feet.
Get out enough, and not sound like a herd of elephants enough, and you will see bears in the right places in Alaska. What always makes me think is the number of bears that I walk right by and don't see; the ones behind the bushes, where you can't see...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2102438/posts
The best bear defense is a bow and arrow! Just ask this guy!
The debate about what is better to repel an attacking Grizz is quite funny. Every time I go into bear country, I take every tool available to me to prvent a bear attack. The list includes bear (pepper) spray by DAP, a large pistol, a rifle, and AWARENESS of my surroundings!
And I agree with AZAK, it is the bear you don't see that is going to eat you!
The best bear defense is a bow and arrow! Just ask this guy!
The debate about what is better to repel an attacking Grizz is quite funny. Every time I go into bear country, I take every tool available to me to prvent a bear attack. The list includes bear (pepper) spray by DAP, a large pistol, a rifle, and AWARENESS of my surroundings!
And I agree with AZAK, it is the bear you don't see that is going to eat you!
Could you explain why that paragraph indicates bias in the study?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080325171221.htm
Isn't it nice that they have the MLA citation all ready?
Thank you Buzzcook. The statement is self evident of his bias supporting pepper spray. He clearly states he was appalled by the lack of support among experts for pepper spray. He set out to do a study to change that. That my friend is the pure definition of a biased view prior to performing a study.
He had the conclusion that it worked and then set out to prove it. Sorry Buzzcook, but that is a damning statement for a lead researcher. Since the method he chose to "study" this issue cannot eliminate bias, he opens himself to legitimate criticism.
Instead of being a "neutral" observer, Tom Smith looks more like a pepper spray salesman than a scientific researcher.
Your response, your entire post, actually, is not even relevant to the comment you're claiming is untrue.
The statement was that "The myth you want to dispell is a myth nobody here has championed."
Are you claiming that those articles were written by someone "here"? If not, what is untrue about the statement you responded to?
How is that disagreement? I've never claimed it was.
Yet you continue to try to prove your contention by similar methods.
You would like us to totally discard any attempt to make sense of large amounts of data collected on survivability during bear encounters because you say it doesn't, it can't possibly prove anything at all.
Then, in the same breath you try to prove your position by pointing to a few incidents that support your general opinion.
Basically what you're saying is that looking at one or two incidents provides useful information but that looking at hundreds makes it completely impossible to prove anything at all. You would actually have us believe that performing a study on a topic actually eliminates the ability to draw accurate conclusions about the topic whereas (based on your attempts to support your conclusions with a few incidents) one might have been able to do so with much more limited data before performing the study.
Based on your arguments, I would HIGHLY recommend that you stop studying this topic immediately. Who knows where the limit is that will destroy your ability to draw useful conclusions about bear attacks--I'd hate to think that I was the one who caused you to absorb that last bit of information that pushed you over the line.
Serously, not even your own cites support your contention.
For example, you claim it's impossible to prove anything with a survey. But your source actually says: "...retrospective studies are usually unable to reach cause-and-effect conclusions."
First of all, "usually" implies that they sometimes can. That means that your claim that they can't ever do it is false. Second, the comment is very careful to state what is difficult to prove. It doesn't say NOTHING can be proven by a study, it says that it's USUALLY not possible to establish "cause-and-effect".
Cause-and-effect is often difficult to establish regardless of the method employed. In this case, it's unnecessary to prove cause-and-effect. It's sufficient to note that a significantly greater percentage of people have survived bear attacks uninjured by employing bear spray as opposed to using firearms.
Basically the cite doesn't say what you claim it does and even if it did, it's not relevant because it's not directly applicable to what we want to know.
Here's another of your cites: "A case series provides weak empirical evidence because of the lack of comparability unless the findings are dramatically different from expectations."
In fact, here we have a case where the findings (bear spray is significantly more effective at preventing injuries from bear attack) that is "dramatically different from expectations". Again, the cite doesn't say what you claim it does. Not only does it NOT call the survey results into question, in fact it points out a good reason that they should be considered as valid.
Fortunately we don't have to rely on his results. There are several other studies that agree with his.
Getting back to one of your original statements: "The only type of study that can "measure" the differences between two interventions is a randomized and controlled study".
We can all understand that when the difference in the outcomes is dramatic, there's no need to measure the differences to note which one is larger. I can't, off the top of my head, tell you accurately how much a blue whale weighs or how long it is, nor can I accurately provide the weight and length of a bottlenose dolphin, but I CAN, without measuring anything at all tell you that the blue whale is bigger and heavier. A definitive and correct result provided without the need to do any measurement, quantitiation and without needing to establish any cause and effect.
Your objections to the study results, which you've attempted to support with cites which you often mischaracterize or which sometimes turn out to be irrelevant are all concerned with precise differentiation of the outcomes and/or definitively establishing cause-and-effect. There is no need for either of those things in this case.
If you can successfully show that the studies misrepresent the data, you have a point.
If you can successfully show that the studies omitted data and that the ommitted data will change the results, you have a strong point.
If you can successfully show that all of the studies (not just one or two) were conducted by biased researchers then you have a point.
You've done none of those things. So far, in spite of your creativity and your obvious determination, the strongest argument that you've raised amounts to pointing out that the survey results disagree with your opinion. And that's no argument at all.
Dear JohnSKa,
I have only pointed out the weakness of the study design based on my 30 years of utilizing and studying medical studies that rely on many of the scientific principles as the bear studies.
You cannot draw definitive conclusions from the data we have, yet guns are disparaged widely and pepper spray is our only source of bear protection and salvation according to many.
I carry pepper spray but recognizing the weakness of the study designs and their inherent limitations as retrospective studies, I personally question the magnitude of benefit. This is once again based on my extensive knowledge of what studies can and can't tell you.
To support this, I have given several links to articles on the strengths and weaknesses of different study methods. I have not strayed at all from the accepted scientific protocols on how to use these various methods.
I am sorry that we must agree to disagree, but I have already answered these issues.
I carry both because none are perfect. I believe that is the consensus of most on this thread. Don't fall in love with these studies, they have serious flaws simply based on methodology alone. You simply cannot make them state more than they have the power to state.
Once again, I will simply agree to disagree since we are going around in circles on this issue. Bottom line, if you take your bear spray, don't forget the .44 magnum as well.
James Gary Shelton is the only bear expert that I give any credence since he trains his students with realistic moving targets and tells them to take their pepper spray as well. We truly need to recognize the power of propaganda concerning this and many other issues. The Feds have a long reaching agenda that places bears in a higher category than peoples safety. Just try to protect yourself against one of these beast and find out how glad the Feds are that you are alive and the beast trying to kill you is dead.
Their data does not justify an adherence to pepper spray alone. Buyer beware. That is a concerted agenda designed to reduce grizzly bear deaths in DLP situations.
I have only pointed out the weakness of the study design based on my 30 years of utilizing and studying medical studies that rely on many of the scientific principles as the bear studies.
You cannot draw definitive conclusions from the data we have, yet guns are disparaged widely and pepper spray is our only source of bear protection and salvation according to many.
I carry pepper spray but recognizing the weakness of the study designs and their inherent limitations as retrospective studies, I personally question the magnitude of benefit. This is once again based on my extensive knowledge of what studies can and can't tell you.
To support this, I have given several links to articles on the strengths and weaknesses of different study methods. I have not strayed at all from the accepted scientific protocols on how to use these various methods.
I am sorry that we must agree to disagree, but I have already answered these issues.
I carry both because none are perfect. I believe that is the consensus of most on this thread. Don't fall in love with these studies, they have serious flaws simply based on methodology alone. You simply cannot make them state more than they have the power to state.
Once again, I will simply agree to disagree since we are going around in circles on this issue. Bottom line, if you take your bear spray, don't forget the .44 magnum as well.
James Gary Shelton is the only bear expert that I give any credence since he trains his students with realistic moving targets and tells them to take their pepper spray as well. We truly need to recognize the power of propaganda concerning this and many other issues. The Feds have a long reaching agenda that places bears in a higher category than peoples safety. Just try to protect yourself against one of these beast and find out how glad the Feds are that you are alive and the beast trying to kill you is dead.
Their data does not justify an adherence to pepper spray alone. Buyer beware. That is a concerted agenda designed to reduce grizzly bear deaths in DLP situations.
Dear JohnSKa,
Let's take a look at some of the data directly from these studies.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3873165?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47699134901387
1) In 6 cases, the bear continued to act aggressively; in 3 of these cases the bear attacked the person spraying.
That is 6/15 cases. More than a 3rd of the time, the bear will still be aggressive and you have a 1/5 chance of still being attacked.
2) In all 3 injurious encounters, the bear received a substantial dose of spray to the face.
This is NOT a comforting finding. The remaining grizzly encounters were not of an aggressive nature giving more effectiveness in those situations.
3) In 100% (4 of 4) of the encounters with aggressive and surprised, or possibly predacious black bears (Ursus americanus), the spray appeared to stop the behavior that the bear was displaying immediately prior to being sprayed. However, no bears left in response to being sprayed.
4/4 black bears exhibiting predacious behavior stopped temporarily, but NONE left the area. This is far from comforting since the majority of encounters in the woods in the US is with black bears.
Fortunately, predacious black bear encounters are rare. But when they occur, you MUST have lethal force to survive or escape serious injury.
4) In 73% (19 of 26) of the cases associated with curiosity, the spray appeared to stop the behavior. The bear left the area in 54% (14 of 26) of the cases, but in 6 of these 14 cases it returned. In 62% (8 of 13) of the incidents where the black bear received a substantial dose to the face, it either did not leave the area or left the area and returned.
Wow, don't count on pepper spray to get rid of a black bear. Once again, these findings are not comforting.
Simply reviewing the studies themselves does not justify the propaganda against guns that is put forth on news outlets nor does it justify depending on pepper spray exclusively. While I am comforted that the pepper spray may abort some encounters, it cannot nor should be the only method of bear protection.
Once again, back to the OP, I wished I had a gun. Yes, I agree, it was what the lady needed at that moment.
Lastly, the researchers have lumped together aggressive and nuisance encounters into one "series" which is really comparing apples to oranges. Simply standing your ground with curious bears is also very effective strategy. Looking at the outward aggressive encounters, the stats don't look as good as when they lump them all together.
Let's take a look at some of the data directly from these studies.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3873165?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=47699134901387
1) In 6 cases, the bear continued to act aggressively; in 3 of these cases the bear attacked the person spraying.
That is 6/15 cases. More than a 3rd of the time, the bear will still be aggressive and you have a 1/5 chance of still being attacked.
2) In all 3 injurious encounters, the bear received a substantial dose of spray to the face.
This is NOT a comforting finding. The remaining grizzly encounters were not of an aggressive nature giving more effectiveness in those situations.
3) In 100% (4 of 4) of the encounters with aggressive and surprised, or possibly predacious black bears (Ursus americanus), the spray appeared to stop the behavior that the bear was displaying immediately prior to being sprayed. However, no bears left in response to being sprayed.
4/4 black bears exhibiting predacious behavior stopped temporarily, but NONE left the area. This is far from comforting since the majority of encounters in the woods in the US is with black bears.
Fortunately, predacious black bear encounters are rare. But when they occur, you MUST have lethal force to survive or escape serious injury.
4) In 73% (19 of 26) of the cases associated with curiosity, the spray appeared to stop the behavior. The bear left the area in 54% (14 of 26) of the cases, but in 6 of these 14 cases it returned. In 62% (8 of 13) of the incidents where the black bear received a substantial dose to the face, it either did not leave the area or left the area and returned.
Wow, don't count on pepper spray to get rid of a black bear. Once again, these findings are not comforting.
Simply reviewing the studies themselves does not justify the propaganda against guns that is put forth on news outlets nor does it justify depending on pepper spray exclusively. While I am comforted that the pepper spray may abort some encounters, it cannot nor should be the only method of bear protection.
Once again, back to the OP, I wished I had a gun. Yes, I agree, it was what the lady needed at that moment.
Lastly, the researchers have lumped together aggressive and nuisance encounters into one "series" which is really comparing apples to oranges. Simply standing your ground with curious bears is also very effective strategy. Looking at the outward aggressive encounters, the stats don't look as good as when they lump them all together.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2193/2006-452/abstract
1) 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.
Here the researchers lumped all encounters and did not distinguish aggressive vs curious as in the last paper from 1995. How many of these were serious aggressive encounters. From the first paper above, we know that bears acting aggressively are affected differently by pepper spray than the simply curious bear. What is "undesirable behavior?"
2) Wind and incapacitation by the pepper spray for the person were significant findings that must be accounted for in deployment of pepper spray. This limits its usefulness.
From the PDF link with the full study, an interesting observation is instructive:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/bear_cougar/bear/files/JWM_BearSprayAlaska.pdf
20% of the time, the bears will not abandon aggression after being sprayed. Yes, it does buy you time and that is the chief purpose why I carry pepper spray. To give me time to escape or get to my gun. Understanding the study results grants insight into how to design your bear survival strategy in case you have a failure to avoid and the encounter is upon you.
With nearly 20% continued aggression, you need to be able to fly above the critters or have a big stick or better yet, a .44 magnum or better.
The final paragraph gives the real reason for the pepper spray use:
People think incorrectly that all of this bear spray is for people protection, but heck, listen to what they state, it is for bear protection. That speaks a lot in my mind.
Finally, even in this study, it states pepper spray IN ADDITION to firearms. Once again, let's go back to my OP and the statement, I wished I had a gun. If you read the study, pepper spray is supposed to be an adjunct to firearms, not the sole defense.
Last edited:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.342/abstract
Here is the study that has really shaken up the anti-gun media/lobby when these researchers declared guns not effective!!
The biggest news in this abstract is that they could only find 269 encounters in over a hundred years.
We compiled, summarized, and reviewed 269 incidents of bear–human conflict involving firearms that occurred in Alaska during 1883–2009.
Really? Only 269 incidents? Kodiak Island averages about 20 DLPs a year alone. That is the biggest criticism of this "scientific" study that lacks data on the thousands of encounters that has occurred since 1883. They present it as an all inclusive study, but they only have a fraction of the thousands of bear encounters people have suffered since that time.
Look at the following "news account" of this article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120306131921.htm
Really? Wow, look at the abstract from the actual study:
Our findings suggest that only those proficient in firearms use should rely on them for protection in bear country.
What does that mean? Guns are effective but only if you know how to use them. Sorry, I am not impressed by that conclusion. I have been shooting guns since I was 6 years old and feel very comfortable with them. I carry daily and my gun is always at hand. In such a circumstance, I feel very proficient with firearms and the authors state, go ahead and use a firearm.
Geez, if you don't know how to drive you shouldn't drive either. Is that science?
I am completely underwhelmed by the relevant studies that are the lowest form of scientific study as a case series and reviewing the data itself points out the strengths and weaknesses of pepper spray.
Bottom line for me, I carry both and intend to understand what I am likely to expect if I ever have to use pepper spray. The take home answer for me is that firearms have to be part of the equation. Back to the OP, I wished I had a gun. Yes, I agree.
Attachments
Last edited:
I have nothing against bear spray.I have nothing against bears.If bear spray makes a bear go away,great!
Some bears do not behave as expected and bear spray is not effective on them.
I stack that up as an element of faith in the bear spray,and actually the bear is the one making the decision.The bear has the power.
If I have the composure and skill to pass a heavy,strongly constructed .375 slug through the central nerve system of the bear,the bear is stopped.
I might fail,I might be to slow,I might miss,but it is myself that I have faith in,and I hold the power.
The woman in the OP can say,in Elmer Keith's words"Hell,I was there!"
She had bear spray,a bear who does not read books or studies,and she wished she had a gun.
Y'all do whatever makes you happy.I do not feel compelled to argue.
Some bears do not behave as expected and bear spray is not effective on them.
I stack that up as an element of faith in the bear spray,and actually the bear is the one making the decision.The bear has the power.
If I have the composure and skill to pass a heavy,strongly constructed .375 slug through the central nerve system of the bear,the bear is stopped.
I might fail,I might be to slow,I might miss,but it is myself that I have faith in,and I hold the power.
The woman in the OP can say,in Elmer Keith's words"Hell,I was there!"
She had bear spray,a bear who does not read books or studies,and she wished she had a gun.
Y'all do whatever makes you happy.I do not feel compelled to argue.
youngunz4life
New member
HiBC
same scenario, a guy amped up on a bunch of drugs to include pcp amongst others the spray might not work either. it will incapacitate him though. basically just because the stun gun doesn't work on most criminals, it does on most. a 357 will too but it will take longer on a bear. even people upon getting shot stumble away, drive away, etc before succumbing to their injuries.....sortof like the family dog who limps home after getting hit by a car before dropping dead in the front yard or at the doorstep....the bear will not like the spray. people dont even realize they are shot sometimes so the same can go for a bear who has one thing on his mind. it is extremely unlikely to have an instant, killshot on a bear charging you. in essence, that is why people want the gun right? /// "oh the spray isn't gonna do anything. I want to eliminate the threat."
SEPARATE POST NOT RELATED TO ABOVE RESPONSE // ps- bear spray isn't a myth so I don't think people advocating that have had the wool pulled over their eyes. Woodsman from AK, MT, ID and other places have known the ability of this stuff for decades.
same scenario, a guy amped up on a bunch of drugs to include pcp amongst others the spray might not work either. it will incapacitate him though. basically just because the stun gun doesn't work on most criminals, it does on most. a 357 will too but it will take longer on a bear. even people upon getting shot stumble away, drive away, etc before succumbing to their injuries.....sortof like the family dog who limps home after getting hit by a car before dropping dead in the front yard or at the doorstep....the bear will not like the spray. people dont even realize they are shot sometimes so the same can go for a bear who has one thing on his mind. it is extremely unlikely to have an instant, killshot on a bear charging you. in essence, that is why people want the gun right? /// "oh the spray isn't gonna do anything. I want to eliminate the threat."
SEPARATE POST NOT RELATED TO ABOVE RESPONSE // ps- bear spray isn't a myth so I don't think people advocating that have had the wool pulled over their eyes. Woodsman from AK, MT, ID and other places have known the ability of this stuff for decades.
youngunz4life
New member
PPS - this is a gun forum so the voting above does not surprise me. I think a wild animal, bear forum, etc would have a different output and I also think a completely neutral forum would have a different result. the voting up top on a firearm forum really means nothing. just trying to make a point; I am not saying I have a problem with the TFL opinion, I just thought of that.
This has been very educational for me, personally. I wasn't kidding when I said I didn't know bear spray was even a thing. Not too many bears in my area. We're much more concerned with mountain lions and coyotes. In fact, coyote sightings in our area have been increasing to a disturbing degree.
I agree from what has been said so far that a multi-layered defense is best, but I wouldn't trust my life to any kind of pepper spray. What really scares me is the thought that if that is your first line of defense the bear has to be really close before it can be engaged.
Maybe I'm a wuss, but I would just avoid areas where bear sightings are common. Some of the descriptions of bear attacks make mountain lions seem downright cuddly. I get that may not be an option depending on where you live.
I agree from what has been said so far that a multi-layered defense is best, but I wouldn't trust my life to any kind of pepper spray. What really scares me is the thought that if that is your first line of defense the bear has to be really close before it can be engaged.
Maybe I'm a wuss, but I would just avoid areas where bear sightings are common. Some of the descriptions of bear attacks make mountain lions seem downright cuddly. I get that may not be an option depending on where you live.
Dear Youngunz4life,
I never stated that pepper spray being able to deter bears in some situations is a myth. Please go back and read what I have been writing about. The myth is that guns won't help and the only salvation is pepper spray.
That is NOT what these studies are stating but that is the myth and propaganda the news articles about the studies are promoting. Pepper spray has its place, but it is NOT good enough to leave the .44 magnum at home either.
One interesting statistic from the studies above is that the bears in 24% of the events came back AFTER the first spray. Bears are not always solitary critters. How much bear spray do you carry?
Even in the study allegedly showing that guns do no good, read the small print in it, it actually states don't take a gun if you don't know how to use it. Well, duhh, don't drive a car if you don't know how to drive a car.
If you don't have time to reach for your gun, you won't have time to reach for your pepper spray either. Most encounters were evident when the bear was within 15 meters or closer. That gives you 1-2 seconds to react in a charge. That is why you need 1 or more companions in bear country so you can rescue each other should you encounter a surprise attack.
If you are going to criticize my opinions, please quote them correctly. Again, back to the OP, I wished I had a gun!!
+1 Botswana, the data from these studies indicates pepper spray is most effective within 3 meters/10 feet and that the charge in a majority of cases doesn't stop until the bear is within 1 meter!!
Sorry, but that will generate a bit of nightmare should you survive that night now won't it. In addition, the majority of black bears will NOT leave you with pepper spray and will continue to come back again and again in an aggressive encounter. In addition, 24% of the time, you will have to spray them more than once.
I see pepper spray as a manner in which to give me time to escape or secure my weapon and hopefully not need to use it. You must understand that pepper spray can fail and have multiple layers of defense, not the least of which is someone else to share this experience with you.
Back to the OP, I wished I had a gun!!
There is no such thing as "neutral forum" just like there is no such thing as a neutral opinion. Will all have opinions and we all have bias from whatever perspective you wish to look.
Gun forum opinions on gun related issues are going to be the most informed people with the most informed opinions on what does and what does not work. I say the TFL and other gun forums IS the best and really the only place where we can discuss this issue with a degree of knowledge in formulating our opinions.