Bear Attack Victim: I wish I had a gun
- Thread starter Alaska444
- Start date
+1, not the sort of stimulus I want to experience for sure. The real test is if you are able to learn from someone else's experiences without going there yourself. I found her comments a very powerful commentary on the entire pepper spray vs gun debate. Very compelling testimony from someone who has been there and done that.
Hey jgcoastie,
Thanks for adding the much maligned .444 to your list.
My objections over the technical scientific details of these studies diminishes in no manner the evidence that bear spray does have a place in bear protection. I have my UDAP sitting beside me ready for our camping trip. Keep your powder dry and your spray handy.
Very interesting study on DLP's in the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska. From 1961-1999, there were 71 DLP's recorded in this time period. Once again, this ONLY for the Kenai Peninsula, not the entire state of Alaska.
Of those 71 DLPs, there was only 1 recorded injury. The majority of these were away from the residence, the majority were from aggressive acting bears. Only 13 of the 71 were to protect property. 55% were an immediate threat and 27% were thought to be a danger.
http://www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_13/Suring_13.pdf
The purpose of this study was not on the safety of people from the bear, it was instead the "unsustainable" level of DLP killings on the Kenai Peninsula.
This was a prominent study highlighted in one of the recent pro-pepper spray articles.
If we compare the numbers between these two studies alone, we find some interesting relationships:
There was only 1/71 injured in DLP shootings most of which were aggressive brown bears.
For pepper spray, there were 3/83 injuries all from brown bears. If we look only at brown bears that is 3/61. They noted that they were all "minor" injuries.
You can compare the two articles for yourself on all of the different details, but I truly question the studies comparing guns to pepper spray stating categorically that pepper spray is "better" than guns.
I wish I had access to all of the DLPs in Alaska, Canada and the lower 48. Once again, pepper spray is definitely on my list of to do items when going to the woods, but I believe that the obsession with pepper spray in the last 20 years is mainly about reducing bear deaths, not people deaths. Just my own opinion. In addition, I believe it also gives people not familiar with the woods a false sense of security. Once again, back to the OP, I wished I had a gun.
Of those 71 DLPs, there was only 1 recorded injury. The majority of these were away from the residence, the majority were from aggressive acting bears. Only 13 of the 71 were to protect property. 55% were an immediate threat and 27% were thought to be a danger.
http://www.bearbiology.com/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_13/Suring_13.pdf
The purpose of this study was not on the safety of people from the bear, it was instead the "unsustainable" level of DLP killings on the Kenai Peninsula.
This was a prominent study highlighted in one of the recent pro-pepper spray articles.
If we compare the numbers between these two studies alone, we find some interesting relationships:
There was only 1/71 injured in DLP shootings most of which were aggressive brown bears.
For pepper spray, there were 3/83 injuries all from brown bears. If we look only at brown bears that is 3/61. They noted that they were all "minor" injuries.
You can compare the two articles for yourself on all of the different details, but I truly question the studies comparing guns to pepper spray stating categorically that pepper spray is "better" than guns.
I wish I had access to all of the DLPs in Alaska, Canada and the lower 48. Once again, pepper spray is definitely on my list of to do items when going to the woods, but I believe that the obsession with pepper spray in the last 20 years is mainly about reducing bear deaths, not people deaths. Just my own opinion. In addition, I believe it also gives people not familiar with the woods a false sense of security. Once again, back to the OP, I wished I had a gun.
Now, back in the day I remember being able to buy a tag to hunt grizzly around Libby; more than two decades ago now.
And for what it's worth, I used to carry .44 mag and spray back then when out stomping around in that neck of the woods; and saw as many mountain lions as bears.
oldmanFCSA
New member
The wife
My wife says she doesn't need a gun or bear spray, because she can run faster than me.
Me - I choose a heavy handgun over bearspray.
If needed, shoot the wife in the knee, so I can out run her. Just kidding of course.
Actually I have shot 2 bears, one VERY close and personal, three feet away, 462 pound hungry Spring boar, used 12 gage deer slugs and buckshot combo.
It was him or me, and I can't shoot myself.
My wife says she doesn't need a gun or bear spray, because she can run faster than me.
Me - I choose a heavy handgun over bearspray.
If needed, shoot the wife in the knee, so I can out run her. Just kidding of course.
Actually I have shot 2 bears, one VERY close and personal, three feet away, 462 pound hungry Spring boar, used 12 gage deer slugs and buckshot combo.
It was him or me, and I can't shoot myself.
Alaska444 said:Thanks for adding the much maligned .444 to your list.
It's placement is deserved. With proper (read: Buffalo Bore) loads, it's just as capable as my beloved .45/70 for bear killing in a hurry.
I started a thread a while back in the rifles forum about an AR15 pistol in .458 SOCOM... I was ridiculed pretty heavy for the idea, but I'm charging forth with it anyway... Working on parts research and finding a good gunsmith that I'll use to fine-tune the piston operating system... I'll let you know how that one turns out.
If I can get a working model together and functioning 99.999% reliably (no gun is 100% reliable), then I'll be leaving the Marlin in the safe when I make it back to AK.
I hate studies and statistics. Like this DLP thing. 1/71???......and this includes bears who were shot because of depredation of your animals or were perceived to be a threat to humans. I was watching this Alaska show on the Kilcher family, and they were shooting at a Brown from a distance who had previously killed their Bull. They missed. Hardly a great correlation to an aggressive charge, where spray is used most often.
We all read about it every hunting season where either some poor soul hunter is mauled or killed. There's always a few who are good enough or get lucky enough to get a kill shot before this happens, and even a few who are just roughed up a bit without serious injury. Very few carry spray.
Alaska 444, you say you carry the spray as part of your layered defense. That's not a bad idea to spray the bear on a not so windy day and then shoot him with the 44 while he's thinking about it. However, on a windy day you better make a real good shot to his the brain or your toast. I like the epitaph "one and done."
We all read about it every hunting season where either some poor soul hunter is mauled or killed. There's always a few who are good enough or get lucky enough to get a kill shot before this happens, and even a few who are just roughed up a bit without serious injury. Very few carry spray.
Alaska 444, you say you carry the spray as part of your layered defense. That's not a bad idea to spray the bear on a not so windy day and then shoot him with the 44 while he's thinking about it. However, on a windy day you better make a real good shot to his the brain or your toast. I like the epitaph "one and done."
Given that the Kilcher's were not in immediate danger, and none of their property was in immediate danger, I sincerely doubt it would be legally defined as a DLP shoot. Folks that live in the bush up there generally buy harvest tickets for every species in their GMU. The fact that another of their group was brown bear hunting in that same episode somewhat solidifies my reasoning.dorc-1 said:
Hunting is the single-most dangerous thing to do in serious bear country. You're stalking/moving quietly in the bear's backyard. If you're not hunting bears themselves, you might not be carrying a serious bear defense gun (.243, .223, .22lr, etc.). Bear gets ornery because you popped up near his/her den/kill site/salmonberry bush and you get charged. This is the worst case scenario. That's why you never hunt alone in AK.dorc-1 said:
I've sprayed 3 bears, 2 ran off immediately. The 3rd licked his lips. So I threw the silver salmon at my feet across the river. That was sufficient incentive for him to leave me alone. I nearly crapped myself because I only had my 10mm on me at the time. I always carried a .45/70 after that.dorc-1 said:
A "shot to the brain" isn't nearly as easy or trivial as many internet experts would have you believe. I've participated in and instructed several "charging bear shoots" where a full-scale bear target is put on a zipline coming at you at 25mph, starting 30 yards away. I made what would be defined as a "brain shot" maybe a handful of times, out of the several hundred rounds fired at such events. Other instructors fared about as well as I did, hunting guides were about 50/50. Just about all my shots were lethal hits, but it brought to the forefront of my mind what I already knew in the back; avoidance is the best policy.
The "strength in numbers" is the second-best policy.
Shooting is the last resort, just like when you're dealing with people.
Dear Dorc-1,
I respect your opinion and your views. However, I don't believe folks understand my arguments.
Quite simply,
1) The type of studies used generate questions but cannot answer those questions as to which is better, spray or gun.
2) I believe that much of the pepper spray recommendations have to do with protecting the bear, not so much the people.
3) 1/71 is the number of injuries in DLP shootings from 1961-1999 in the Kenai Peninsula. Of these, only 13 were DLP's for protection of property. This is almost exactly the same numerator for brown bear encounters in the often quoted study above "establishing" pepper spray 98% effective. This is a very valid study, as much as the other studies since it utilizes the same exact methodology. It is also subject to the same criticisms as well.
Both of these studies are equal in outcomes essentially. In this case, guns and pepper spray appear to be equally effective for people, not so for the bears.
Further, if you read the entire article, the message to fellow researchers is that they must do something to reduce DLP's since it allegedly creates an unsustainable grizzly population in that area. However, that may not be an accurate statement since hunting has not been restricted in this area that I am aware.
So, yes, practice practice practice and understand bears, your weapons at hand and practice avoidance especially. Here is one man who chooses guns over pepper spray.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-AVr7gNmrU
This has been your repeated contention but there are two major problems with it.
1. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are more than willing to answer questions using the very study results you claim can't answer questions when you perceive that the study results agree with your position. You can't have it both ways, and your attempt to pull off this impossibility is a clear demonstration that your primary objection to the studies has nothing to do with their validity and everything to do with the fact that you don't like what some of the studies show.
2. The quotes you have used to support your contention about the inability of the surveys to answer the questions at hand do not support your contention at all. In fact, in several cases they directly contradicted your assertions.
If we take your comments about the validity of the study results and what they can do at face value, this comparison is comparing two studies, neither of which can answer any questions or be used to prove anything.
If we accept your assertion about the validity of the poll results, your comparison is the equivalent of taking a true false test using coin flips to answer the questions and then grading the test by flipping the coin again for each question to determine if the answers are correct.
Clearly you DO believe that the studies can answer questions or you wouldn't be doing your own informal retrospective studies nor would you be quoting the results of other similar studies to validate your own.
Dear JohnSKa,
No, once again that is not an accurate account of my posts.
1) John, I have quoted several websites reviewing scientific study methodology. I correctly understand and have correctly stated the limitations of retrospective case series. I don't need to repeat that again. This is not my opinion, this is simply scientific facts on how to interpret these studies.
2) I did not argue one way on pepper spray and then again on guns. Read my post again. I stated that they were both equally valid and equally flawed.
I do find it interesting how much better guns were in this study compared to other studies. If guns were as bad at bear defense as Tom Smith would have us believe, we would have expected many more injuries than were recorded. Doesn't this lead you to question the validity of the entire pepper spray is better than guns theories? Yes, it is conflicting evidence which can only be sorted out by a randomized and controlled trial which controls for known and unknown bias. Since that will never happen, there is no way to prove which is "better."
Lastly, I have NEVER stated I didn't like what the studies show. In fact, I am comforted that pepper spray does have efficacy in preventing some and perhaps most attacks. These studies are used by the anti-gun lobby to attack the 2A. If folks on TFL don't promote this controversy, so be it, but we should nevertheless understand the strengths and limitations of these studies to properly interpret them.
This is likely not going to be the last round of anti-gun, pro-pepper spray studies we will face. If folks on TFL who are gun advocates can't understand how to interpret these studies in an objective manner, then how will we argue against those that wish to deny us the right to carry guns in the woods for our protection?
I stand by my statements and once again return to the OP, I wished I had a gun.
Eh, I don't buy that theory. I think officials are trying to get non firearms people as well as those that do to carry firearms to carry bear spray. Heaven knows we don't need more incidents like what happened in the GYE the last few years.
It may be valid but were the rest based on a charge? Big difference between a charge and shooting a bear broadside that is near humans.
That big 45-70 is a pain to wield and shoot in a close charge. Looks impressive on a standing target and to a guide that needs to take down a bear after a poor shot, but that's not a realistic gun for a close charge. Hunters because of their quiet stalking and hikers because of lack of bear experience face a close charge more often than not. Unfortunately many ungulate hunters usually have a scoped under powered gun to handle a bear charge and send an inaccurate shot into a bear. Having a high powered pistol that will pass through a bear like a ski pole is also a low percentage shot unless you are a "super" shooter under pressure......which most of us are not.
youngunz4life
New member
dorc-1
dorc-1, you make some very good points in your above post(and quote):
everyone needs to think about this. you are completely surprised, the bear is Huge, the bear is moving at a very rapid pace, and.....
by the time you raise your weapon its game over or like all experts and bear enthusiasts will tell you, you might get two shots IF YOU ARE LUCKY. Now what's your posture going to be when you shoot that shot??? I know what your posture will be if you stand your ground and use the bear spray. Dang if you're that worried about it draw with your second hand if you can multitask. You will NOT outrun the bear. You must face him or maybe you can do what they used to recommend:
play dead and hope he stops stomping on you and eating you.
another good point...obviously the higher the power the better though. I have heard points from both sides, but not every study has a hidden agenda or is biased. many science oriented individuals are intent on being honest and unbiased. Does that mean that some studies aren't tainted or skewed? Of course not. It can be an issue(as pointed out) when a group gets funding to further their goal/study(a paycheck to care for their family by being on one side of the study) as an example.
dorc-1, you make some very good points in your above post(and quote):
everyone needs to think about this. you are completely surprised, the bear is Huge, the bear is moving at a very rapid pace, and.....
by the time you raise your weapon its game over or like all experts and bear enthusiasts will tell you, you might get two shots IF YOU ARE LUCKY. Now what's your posture going to be when you shoot that shot??? I know what your posture will be if you stand your ground and use the bear spray. Dang if you're that worried about it draw with your second hand if you can multitask. You will NOT outrun the bear. You must face him or maybe you can do what they used to recommend:
play dead and hope he stops stomping on you and eating you.
another good point...obviously the higher the power the better though. I have heard points from both sides, but not every study has a hidden agenda or is biased. many science oriented individuals are intent on being honest and unbiased. Does that mean that some studies aren't tainted or skewed? Of course not. It can be an issue(as pointed out) when a group gets funding to further their goal/study(a paycheck to care for their family by being on one side of the study) as an example.
Dear dorc-1,
I once again respect your opinion and your disagreement with my position. If you look at the study I linked and quoted above, finding non-lethal deterrents is a stated objective of bear biologists here in America.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/bear_cougar/bear/files/JWM_BearSprayAlaska.pdf
The second and last paragraph in this often cited study is dealing with bear conservation through non-lethal deterrents, specifically pepper spray. That is why I have formed my opinion that the pepper spray advocates are seeking to diminish DLP's. It is NOT all about people's safety.
On the second issue, it is not likely that all 71 DLP incidents involved super good shots either, yet in 70 of those 71 documented cases, the guns were effective. Muzzle blast alone can be effective in some cases.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCP0Xhx6sfw
Back to the OP, I wished I had a gun.
I once again respect your opinion and your disagreement with my position. If you look at the study I linked and quoted above, finding non-lethal deterrents is a stated objective of bear biologists here in America.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/bear_cougar/bear/files/JWM_BearSprayAlaska.pdf
The second and last paragraph in this often cited study is dealing with bear conservation through non-lethal deterrents, specifically pepper spray. That is why I have formed my opinion that the pepper spray advocates are seeking to diminish DLP's. It is NOT all about people's safety.
On the second issue, it is not likely that all 71 DLP incidents involved super good shots either, yet in 70 of those 71 documented cases, the guns were effective. Muzzle blast alone can be effective in some cases.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCP0Xhx6sfw
Back to the OP, I wished I had a gun.
There are some studies that are certainly politically motivated. When they are, it's just like most political attacks by either party.....the truth always lies somewhere in between.
Eh, I don't buy into that. I used to carry a 41 Mag when I hike, and practicing with it brought me to tears, and getting it back on target quickly is not easy. The 44 is just a larger version, and anything above that is completely unmanagable and not enough to bring down a grizzly without a CNS shot. The gun makers have done a very good job of marketing these overpowered handguns for backup against bears.
Dear dorc-1,
I can't argue with you about how comfortable the .44 magnum is to shoot. I also carry a SP101 in .357 which isn't much fun either, but they both give me power advantages others don't have. I find both manageable but not fun.
Another option that is better on recoil is the .45 LC that many prefer. Can't go wrong with either. Both have protected folks for years. Certainly no a high powered rifle, but better than a stick and a lot better than mac and cheese.
I can't argue with you about how comfortable the .44 magnum is to shoot. I also carry a SP101 in .357 which isn't much fun either, but they both give me power advantages others don't have. I find both manageable but not fun.
Another option that is better on recoil is the .45 LC that many prefer. Can't go wrong with either. Both have protected folks for years. Certainly no a high powered rifle, but better than a stick and a lot better than mac and cheese.
Yeah, I love that video too. They have another one that I like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUG8UPsgE3U
Both of these videos show two different types of attacks by a sow protecting her cubs. The one you refer to shows just how hard it is to get a shot on target when a bear is zigging in and out and bobbing up and down. Personally, I believe he was trying to hit the bear but nerves got the better of him. You will notice the sow's ears are up and she is very unsure of weather to bluff or go for a direct charge. The blast sent her the other way to protect her cub.
The next video is a direct charge with mean intention. Notice her ears are pinned back. The guide is a very cool customer and is obviously very confident in his abilities. He places a shot right in front to turn her, and I believe his next shot would have been placed very close to her brain....that's how good I think he is. Whether he would have been successful or not....we'll never know.
I have read your quotes and the contents of the links and none of them state categorically that retrospective questions can't answer questions and can't prove anything.
I've addressed them one at a time as you raised them and pointed out that your assertions do not mesh with the cites and quotes you claim support them. Rather than address the points I've raised, you simply keep repeating your same objections and providing other links and cites that also do not support your objections.
A classic example of this is your contention that retrospective studies can only generate hypotheses but can not prove them. Then you provided this quote as evidence: "Case series are best used as a source of hypotheses for investigation by stronger study designs..." The quote says no such thing. It tells what the BEST use of a case study is, but it does not support your contention that it can't be used to prove a hypothesis.
If you DO actually correctly understand and have correctly stated the limitations of the retrospective case studies then you need to provide some links that back you up.
So far you haven't. So far the links/cites/quotes you have provided do NOT back you up and do NOT support your claim that you correctly understand and have correctly stated the limitations of this type of studies. You have, based on the evidence you, yourself provided, clearly overstated the limitations of these studies.
When your cites say what the best use of a particular type of study is, you claim that means the studies can't do anything else.
When your cites say that that a particular type of study sometimes provides overall conclusions that are incorrect you claim that particular study can't ever prove anything.
When your cites say that a particular study can't do A well, you claim that means that the study can't do A at all and can't do B, C, and D either.
I do agree that repeating it again, is indeed, useless. I stated early on that stating something is a fact does not make it so, and repeating the claim multiple times is useless. If, as you claim, it is scientific fact then it should not be difficult to find a quote from an authority in a published work, that actually supports your claims.