Hand guns and bears . . . let's chat.

Status
Not open for further replies.
"... Law enforcement agents for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality -- based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries. Canadian bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero reached similar conclusions based on his own research -- a person’s chance of incurring serious injury from a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used"

See Post 16, above.

I predict that no amount of truth will overcome the emotion of "feeling safer with a..." and besides, what do the Colorado Fish and Game people know about bears that a bunch of fellas on the Interwebs don't know better?

The most important conclusion in that report is basically "Learn about bears, avoiding them, and don't act like a tourist with a hamburger in his pocket." I may have exaggerated that quote. Heck, I maybe just made it up, but it's in there somewhere! Really! (not really)
 
a person’s chance of incurring serious injury from a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used"
Click to expand...

THEY SAY, numbers don't lie. I agree with that. But, conclusions using numbers as "proof" are not necessarily the truth.

Every one of those bear attacks studied (and those which weren't) is DIFFERENT. Different people, and different bears. The only thing that isn't different is that people and bears were involved.

Any one remember the oft repeated (sometimes still repeated) bunk about how having a gun in your home makes you 17%, 43%, 67% (I've heard all three numbers used and others etc) more likely to be murdered???

That particular "study" was debunked a couple years after it came out, but certain people continued to use that conclusion as if it were fact, for decades!!

There is an old saying, attributed to African native wisdom,
"today, you meet a lion on the path, he roars at you, and walks away. Tomorrow you meet the lion's brother on the path, an your family wonders why you did not come home...."

The point is that animal behavior can be as individual as human behavior. And what gives one set of results with Bear A can give much different results with Bear B, etc.

I take leave to doubt conclusions based on numbers that only take into account PART of the factors involved in very complex situations.

Even if those conclusions are "accurate" there is a 50/50 chance that they will not apply to any situation you or I find ourselves in.
 
While working in Colorado some years back, I met a fellow who looked like a movie character, and who had a three-legged dog. When I asked him about the dog, he said it was a bear dog, and "It generally costs a dog a leg to learn something about bears."

I still have all my limbs, but in working with domestic animals for a few decades, and a small amount of work and quite a bit of observation of wild animals, my opinion of their behavior is similar to 44 AMP above - highly individual, and therefore always somewhat unpredictable.
 
stinkeypete said:
"... Law enforcement agents for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality -- based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries. Canadian bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero reached similar conclusions based on his own research -- a person’s chance of incurring serious injury from a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used"

See Post 16, above.

I predict that no amount of truth will overcome the emotion of "feeling safer with a..." and besides, what do the Colorado Fish and Game people know about bears that a bunch of fellas on the Interwebs don't know better?
Click to expand...

.....and it always amazes me that folks will find 900 ways to debunk the truth using off the wall scenarios."Well, iffin you're in a hurricane when the bear attacks, the spray isn't going to go very far!" Yep, and there's always a 50/50 chance their scenario is going to be different.....but as the facts show, even with a myriad of different scenarios, the outcome is generally the same. Folks don;t admit it because they don't want to. Pepper Spray is not as macho or manly like carrying a big sidearm they can't shoot. Better to die a man with a gun in your hands than live like the lady in the next tent that had bear spray.....:rolleyes:

I tell folks, use what you are comfortable with, confident in and proficient with. Making that choice by emotions instead of facts and real life encounters is up to you. It's only you, your loved ones and anyone else with you, that may find out how correct that choice is.

I don't live in grizzly country altho I have been there. I do live with Blackies tho. I have found that knowledge of bears, their habits and their preferences, along with observation, awareness and presence of mind, is much more important in the field, than what protection you are carrying.
 
. Pepper Spray is not as macho or manly like carrying a big sidearm they can't shoot. Better to die a man with a gun in your hands than live like the lady in the next tent that had bear spray.....
Click to expand...

Makes you wonder how much of that is involved in the bear shootings they studied. Idiots who can't /don't use a gun effectively are about identical in the statistics to those who do. This could tend to skew the results, about how effective the gun is, in the database numbers.

MAYBE the reason some of those folks who used a gun got hurt was because they couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside. Maybe not, but the statistics don't take that into account.

MAYBE its because the bear thinks "you shot me, it hurts, I'm mad AT YOU!" when MAYBE when you use bear spray the bear doesn't connect that with you, directly, and just thinks, "hmm this place smells bad, I'll go elsewhere"

NO study takes those kinds of things into account. The simply cannot.

It may be true that A+B can =C, it may be true that A+B causes C, sometimes, but I think its hubris to flatly state A+B always results in C...when there are equally valid examples of times when it did not.

Am reminded of the story about the bush pilot who drops off a "Nature Enthusiast" at a remote Alaskan lake. Pilot notices the guy is unarmed, and offer to loan him a .44MAG. Guy says no thanks, he's got bear spray, he'll be fine.

Pilot says "ok, its your butt..etc" taxis to the end of the lake and makes his takeoff run past the beach where he dropped the guy off.

As he's taking off, he looks and sees the guy, rolling and flopping on the ground. He lands, and picks the guy up and takes him to medical aid.

Apparently the guy didn't know that bear spray is NOT like mosquito repellant!! :eek:
 
44 AMP said:
Makes you wonder how much of that is involved in the bear shootings they studied. Idiots who can't /don't use a gun effectively are about identical in the statistics to those who do. .

MAYBE the reason some of those folks who used a gun got hurt was because they couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside. Maybe not, but the statistics don't take that into account.

MAYBE its because the bear thinks "you shot me, it hurts, I'm mad AT YOU!" when MAYBE when you use bear spray the bear doesn't connect that with you, directly, and just thinks, "hmm this place smells bad, I'll go elsewhere"

NO study takes those kinds of things into account. The simply cannot.

This could tend to skew the results, about how effective the gun is, in the database numbers
Click to expand...

The data base is not being skewed. The conclusions from the study come from what is being reported directly....from real life scenarios and experiences. Doesn't really matter what the bear thinks as long as it is repelled. Without actually interviewing repelled bears, we'll never know anyway. I doubt very much if the skill levels and experience vary much percentage wise from those in the study and the general population that is going into the woods with bears. One answer I give quite a bit when these "what gun for bear?" threads come up, is that is someone has to ask which gun, they would be better off with spray. This is just not because it has been shown that spray is more effective, but because I believe that someone that needs to know "which gun" doesn't have the knowledge or skill level required to use it effectively anyway. If they did, they wouldn't need to ask.
 
This bear spray vs. handgun will be argued until the bear is extinct when the sun explodes in a few billion years.

My suggestion and it is based on coming face-to-face on two separate occasions with grizzlies; once in Shoshone NF WY and the other time either Shoshone or Custer WY or MT. They were not overly aggressive other then speaking bear in a loud growl but not charging; and bear spray solved my immediate problem. (Counter assault to be exact)

But I will also say that after the mist was sprayed I did pull out a .44 Mag (loaded with Corbon 300+ HC) and retreated just as fast in the opposite direction as the bear was retreating.

However, every September I travel up to the same area, and hike the same trails and always carry a large can of Counter Assault and my .44 mag and usually my .40 Beretta for no other reason than it is with me at all times while I camp in the trailer.

As for the numbers, if anyone has seen a bear run, I can only imagine what it would be like trying to hit a charging bear with a handgun especially in the critical area behind the shoulder while it is charging head on. From what I have watched from a distance they bounce a lot while running. One reason why a mist, is in my opinion, more effective.

Can a bear be killed with a handgun....heck yes. You could actually take one on with a large knife and Native Americans commonly killed them with arrows. But why not use all the weapons available at your nearest Sports store, and allow the bear to live another day with just a set of sore eyeballs? But if it comes down to me being a rug in a bears den or a bear being a rug in my den, I'll take the latter. (Don't believe you are allowed to keep the skin if it is killed in self defense.)


So, let the discussion continue.
 
Having heard of a bowhunter who managed to survive a grizz attack by stabbing the bear with an arrow, (and survive long enough to reach medical attention, and beyond
Click to expand...
Yes! Ed Wiseman! 9/23/1979
Colorado - he did survive & they crucified him for killing the bear - last Grizz left in Colorado at the time.

There's a book written about the whole ordeal - both the attack and the legal aftermath.

https://www.thegazette.com/2014/01/14/marion-man-battled-a-grizzly-and-lived


Moral of this one is - be sure that you have all your bases covered when it comes to defending yourself.
 
44 AMP wrote:

There is an old saying, attributed to African native wisdom,
"today, you meet a lion on the path, he roars at you, and walks away. Tomorrow you meet the lion's brother on the path, an your family wonders why you did not come home...."

The point is that animal behavior can be as individual as human behavior. And what gives one set of results with Bear A can give much different results with Bear B, etc.
Click to expand...

Thx AMP,

You were able to put into words something that always seemed to bother me.
Have read many bear Hunting and bear Defense thread over the years.

I realize now it was Generalizations for the Whole population from Statistics.
And gave me a mental analogy:

A human can go his/her whole life without incident due to 99.9+ percent of the human population they meet mean them no harm and won't kill them.

YET their is a small part of the population that doesn't follow the norm.
I now believe that there are bears that just won't follow the norm, too.
 
On the other hand, maybe nothing but a central nervous system hit is going to drop 1200 pounds of hard muscled predator charging at you at 35 mph.

My optimal solution would be to learn lots about the species and habitat and terrain, take all prudent precautions, and travel in a small group of like minded people with bear spray and long guns. But we don’t usually get to pick the optimal scenario.

Yeah, I like my .44 and yeah i shoot it at 25 and 50 yards but no... I am not worried about black bears and if I was in Alaska I’d carry both. But mostly because I am really proud of that .44 and it’s rig.
 
stinkeypete wrote:

My optimal solution would be to learn lots about the species and habitat and terrain, take all prudent precautions, and travel in a small group of like minded people with bear spray and long guns.

.
Click to expand...


Yes that makes more sense to me.
I always carry a long gun.
A friend along with bear spray could work together very well.

My problem was couldn't see how
one person could manage both a rifle and bear spray at same time.
 
My problem was couldn't see how
one person could manage both a rifle and bear spray at same time.
Click to expand...

Well, now your fortune is made, just design a mount & trigger system for the bear spray that goes on the tacky-cool rail so many people want on their rifles.

Something under the barrel, I think, like the grenade launcher under the M16.

Since you'll be doing all the work, I'll only take 1% of the net profits for suggesting the idea! ;)

Good Luck!!
 
No, No, No, No, NO !!!

If I put a grenade launcher on my stopping rifle,
It will be for grenades not some stinking repellant !
 
To proclaim efficacy of bear spray is unsupported opinion. Its purported efficacy was not proven via scientific methodology. At best, it's anecdotal. Most assuredly, it's the product of urban legend, myth, and baloney. The reality is bear spray efficacy cannot be proved via scientific methodology. My guess is gun control advocates use the same propaganda model as bear spray advocates.

Assuming bear spray does stop a charging bear, how could anyone eliminate all confounding factors leaving only bear spray as causal. And a population of one charge is very from from scientific.

If one were to think reasonably and logically about bear spray, one would come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to develop a valid scientific model to test efficacy of bear spray.

Handguns do possess utility. There is no question that a high power rifle is vastly superior...if one can bring it to battery during a charge. A slung rifle is useless.

Everyone has to do what's best for her/him when it comes to protecting her/his life. If one has an emotional attachment to the belief that bear spray is superior to handguns, the aerosol deterrence is what she or he should use.

BTW, US government employees are protected by 870's, not bear spray, when they're working in bear country.

While the info at the below linked article does not arise to the level of scientific proof, it does support theory of handgun efficacy in stopping bear attacks:

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/02/de...s-rate-37-incidents-by-caliber/#axzz5uDlEzWxv
 
I lived in Alaska for a while years ago. The though then was to carry a 44 mag. Then when the bear charged, shoot your buddy in the foot and run like h*ll! Also if your alone, file off the sight on the 44 so when the bear stick's it up your arse it doesn't hurt so much. Fished with a friend a number of time'sand we carried in my 308 loaded with 200gr bullet's, never saw a bear! I think the best defense against them is pay attention and try not to surprise them. But even then it doesn't work on all bears. Knew fishing guide's up there and they carried sawed off 12ga shotgun's with slugs. I think it was at something like 10 yds, it would penetrate a grizzly's head. A 20ga it was said would not do that. Haven't a clue how bear spray works but sure can't hurt a thing to carry it just in case. Still I think the best defense is be aware of where you are and make noise to alert the bear your there. My understanding is you do and you'll probably never see the bear, it'll leave first! Now a bad thing to do is get full of yourself because you have a 44 mag with you. If that happen's, hope you didn't forget to file off the front sight!
 
* * * Haven't a clue how bear spray works but sure can't hurt a thing to carry it just in case. Still I think the best defense is be aware of where you are and make noise to alert the bear your there.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Bear spray only 'works' when you've got a buddy with you. ;)

Here's how: when the bear first appears, pull out the can and hose your buddy's face with a few quick blasts. Now that he's blind and screaming from burning eyes, stinging nostrils and the sudden inability to breathe, you high-tail it the other way to safety.

The bear's attention will instantly be drawn to your buddy - flopping on the ground, screaming, and holding his face - appearing to the bear to be a rather noisy but convenient meal. :eek:

Easy peasy.
 
Last edited:
SATRP said it. Not one single game warden carries spray so let that sink in.
I live in griz central and everyone carries a gun in the woods. The only ones stupid enough to carry spray are the tourists that believe the sales pitches about how good bear spray is.

A friend of mine was mauled 10 years ago here and he killed it with a 41mag.
If the air is dead calm the spay may help you, but here the air is never calm and you are as likely to get a face full as the bear
 
Not one single game warden carries spray so let that sink in.
...
The only ones stupid enough to carry spray are the tourists that believe the sales pitches about how good bear spray is.
Click to expand...
https://powelltribune.com/stories/off-duty-game-warden-kills-charging-grizzly,584?

An off-duty Powell game warden shot and killed a charging grizzly bear in the Little Sunlight Basin area on Wednesday evening.

Chris Queen, who had been hunting elk, told investigators he was returning to his horses around 6:30 p.m. when he came upon the grizzly sow and three cubs.

...

“It was then that he discharged his hunting rifle, killing the charging grizzly,” Mathess said of Queen’s account. “It fell only a few feet from where he stood.”

Queen, 48, was carrying bear spray, the Sheriff’s Office says.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top