With all the debate lately over whether visitors should be allowed to carry weapons in national parks, much has been said about the need for protection against wild animals, bears in particular. Well, studies show bear spray is a much more effective deterrent than a speeding bullet.
Evidence of human-bear encounters even suggests that shooting a bear can escalate the seriousness of an attack, while encounters where firearms are not used are less likely to result in injury or death of the human or the bear. While firearms can kill a bear, can a bullet kill quickly enough -- and can the shooter be accurate enough -- to prevent a dangerous, even fatal, attack?
The question is not one of marksmanship or clear thinking in the face of a growling bear, for even a skilled
marksman with steady nerves may have a slim chance of deterring a bear attack with a gun. 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.
That snippet was taken from a report prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. You can find the entire document attached below.
Comments
grizI'm taking both (gun and spray) on the trail where bears and cougars are known....whether blessed by the gov't or not. As long as drug cartels are growing pot in our national forests....to go unarmed for protection is foolish.
Unfortunately, taking away guns are not going to take away the intent to commit crime, murder most of all...There are many crimes (that result in death) where guns are not involved...I am an educated chemical engineer, not just some backwoods Kentucky hick with a shotgun, although those people do exist...My reason for chiming in is simple...the black bear population in Eastern Kentucky is on the rise. I mt. bike, hike, and backpack in Eastern KY with my wife all year long...I have also always been an avid hunter (mostly bow more than gun) and have always had a respect for our right to bear arms. Contact with bears is something I have not had much experience with, which is what led me to this discussion...I definitely see the benefits of the bear spray, having read much documentation on it. I will say that if it works as well as many people say it does, I will stick it on my hip from now on, just in case...I am also a serious conservationist, meaning I would rather watch animals in the wild theses days than hunt them. As for the right to bear arms...well, I stand beside the people who support freedom....freedom in its most raw form....If not, we have become exactly what we were trying to escape....Great Britain...I think we should focus on a more educated society, which apparently is way down on the agenda...With an educated society not focused on capitalism some issues cease to exist...Imagine if everyone were educated and trying to help each other instead of trying to screw each other for money, which has become the norm in our country....No mortgage crisis, no 50 billlion dollar scandal, etc...I am ashamed at what America has become...
As I was scanning the posts I felt like I was in one of those pro/anti gun debates I often get in with my friends. First gun ownership and use is a personal choice for most and a legal right for law abiding citizens. The fact is that legal gun owners, especially ones with concealed license, are sane and safe. Bears would be the last thing on my mind while wandering in remote areas in a national forest, parks or on private land. The most dangerous and unpredictable beast is simply man. I have heard of people being killed in protected parks and forest even in low crime states like VA. These areas are targets for criminals looking for victims for the simple reason that they know you are by law unarmed and have little chance of being detected by witnesses. Look at the crime statistics in "shall issue" states and you will see violent crime decreases while areas with the most severe gun laws typically have rising crime rates. The answer to needing a gun to ward off a grizzly is simply don't count on it. One shot stops on big bears are rare and unlikely when under duress. Shot guns with slugs are best but you wont likely have time to get it into action if the bear charges from close up, and unnecessary when they are far away. Big handguns are heavy and hard to master and only a few have the power to quickly kill big bears, however, if I were to carry a weapon in bear country, I would probably carry at least a 44 mag with a short barrel. The safest method is to stay alert and make a lot of noise when hiking and never go alone. Most fatalities are when people are alone and quietly sneak up on the bear. You would probably have more risk of a limb falling out of a tree and hitting you than a bear anyway.
Any aggresiveness from you will definitely anger the bear more, always act defensively be calm, use bear spray but also hold a survival knife with your right master hand, you need only one hand to spray the bear,if the bear is undeterred use your survival knife to defend yourself by allowing the bear to touch the razor tip of blade to warn that you can inflict pain on him. Stay upright but if you fall curl up yourself holding the survival knife with two hands pointing upwards tostab the bear in case it crawls up near you
To the "Anonymous" who commented today on how to be aggressive yourself against an aggresive bear, he might rethink his solution if he ever encounters a bear that close to his body. Sounds like a real winner, Anon - for the bear.
Obviously, one can carry both a firearm and bear spray, at the same time. There is nothing mutually exclusive about the two tools.
Bear-spray is intended to perform like a chemical shot-gun - extra powerful and not aim-sensitive: To defend against sudden & close attack (human or animal), the weapon of choice has always been the shotgun - not a pistol or rifle. The power of bear spray (against any mammal species) continues to work in the immediate vicinity for a useful period of time following the initial discharge. That's a good thing, in any kind of attack.
There has been an intentional liberal-progressive aspiration & effort over the last half-century to deprecate private firearm ownership in the United States. This issue is on par with religion, though contrary to Pres. Obama's indicated perception, they are largely separate matters. Still, it is useful to imagine trying to dissuade the religious of their conviction, as a proxy for persuading gun-owners that their attitude toward firearms is 'so 18th C.'.
Terrorism is an excellent commentary on the notion that we have evolved beyond the need or importance of private (i.e., dispersed, optionally cloaked) armament. Although North America is not presently convulsed by terrorist actions ... neither was the Middle East, a couple generations ago.
Likewise, the potential for malignant government (a major motive behind the 2nd Amendment), while not currently on display in North America, is more than amply exhibited on all scales, all around the planet.
So yes ... bear spray may be the tool of choice in a close-quarters bear-attack, but that hardly has anything to do with why we have & continue to support the Second Amendment. Empowerment of the citizen is very American, in the Founding Era context, and will remain strongly appealing and profoundly useful in the 21st Century, and beyond.
In fact, wild animal threats have absolutely nothing to do with American firearm ownership & Rights. Although there were dangerous animals and a need for meat on the early frontiers, those were not and are not the reasons for codifying private gun ownership into the Constitution. It's not Apple & Oranges - it's closer to Apples & Hickies.
Liberal-progressive anti-gun sentiment, I think reached its zenith some little while in the past, and current invocations of the notion are largely the expression of a dissipating social momentum. Once it became clear to mainstream Americans that gun-opponents might actually succeed in depriving the nation of private firearms (rather than merely expressing their personal antipathy to guns, which can be safely ignored/allowed), I think what we have seen an ongoing case of "waking the sleeping giant". America as a whole has a strong pro-security, pro-military, pro-gun stance. Even many who choose not to own a gun themselves, do not join the military, and decline to educate themselves on security issues, nonetheless firmly support those who do so on all our behalf.
Bear spray is a good thing ... as are firearms. I don't see a conflict ... or any relationship.
The thing is that with pepper spray, you get a fog pattern and it can be fired from the hip or the chest. Aim is not that critical. I am a former corrections officer and spent many hours on the range. I can only imagine having a couple of seconds to draw a weapon (assuming I don't get it stuck in my jacket or shirt tail), aim at a fast moving bear (perhaps moving erratically and with little or no advance notice), and hit the vital spots (with ammo sufficient to penetrate a bear's tough exterior) and while probably stumbling backwards from the surprise. I can say that under the circumstances, I'd be hard-pressed to stop the bear or mountain lion, or coyote, etc. Saying that, I have a CCW permit that is reciprocal on both sides of my favorite national park in my end of the country--the Smokies--TN/NC, plus my own state as well as most others. I do admit that up to this point I've never carried a weapon in park areas, other than a knife and hiking pole. But, having kids makes me reconsider that "one time" that might unexpectedly happen. Last year, a boy was attacked twice by a bear with menningitis on the TN side of the Smokies. His dad wrestled the bear off of him and it chased him down the trail and attacked him again. Then it attacked two rangers who responded to investigate. You never know... Another issue is the issue of caliber. Big calibers = heavy guns. I would prefer to not carry a heavy gun. Interestingly, a few years back, I saw an old guy in Wal Mart with a Ruger hogleg strapped to his side. It was somewhat disconcerting, even though it was legal. I think I would have preferred it concealed...out of sight, out of mind. He was also one of those wierd looking old guys...spooky enough by itself. If I'm just hiking the local Mammoth Cave NP, I might not carry anything...or some pepper spray in case any dogs on the north side trails decide they don't like me. A former NPS ranger buddy once knocked a dog out with a hiking pole as it attacked him on a trail. If I'm in a more remote area, I just might decide to carry a weapon if I feel the need to. I do think I'll start carrying pepper spray...just in case. But, I do feel that people should be competent and have a sufficient caliber; not overwhelming. I wouldn't want to make a bear mad with a .22 pistol. I joked with a ranger a couple of years ago at the Smokies as we were watching a mother bear and her 3 cubs (long time residents of Cades Cove) casually walk past us, if her taser would have any effect on the bear. She said it would definitely serve to piss her off royally. Given my druthers, I don't want to hurt any animal. LIke some of the other posts, the issue of humans might be of more concern. There are lots of nuts out there. I dealt with many of them. Opportunistic predators may not be as prevalent as camera snatchers, but if I'm camping in the backcountry and somebody comes up, who knows if they are nuts? Campers have been killed by nutjobs and escaped felons. Would I shoot one? Well...threaten me or my kids and let's find out. As far as an "innocent" animal that is just being what it is...I would try to avoid it. But, better me than them if it comes down to it. So now we have a dichotomy of the percentage of risk vs. the advantage of pepper spray vs. firearms. But, if you have a CCW, why not be allowed to carry if you want to...
all you have to do is watch a few episodes from cops to see that pepper spray shot directly in the face of drunk suspects tends to only work at times. Although a bad odor sounds like something I would leave my life to as a deterrent (sarcasm) what I do know as fact is that a .223 remington round fired out of an ar-15 will puncture an engine block and bring a semi truck to a stop. For those of you that are unfimiliar with firearms this is basically the smallest hunting round possible.(not some super huge cannon round) Anything able to stop an automoblie has to give you more protection than a can of spray, and you can't tell me that it will have no effect on a bear. As far as cases of bears being put down when "Bluff charging" your right some innocent bears might get injured or killed. In my oppinion however my life, my childrens lives, and that of any humans for that matter comes before that of a bears. The other things to consider is other predatory animals. I saw a "when animals attack" type of show once that spotlighted a young child that was attacked by a rapid mountain lion that had the childs head in its mouth, and luckly for him his uncle had a glock 17 9mm pistol that he was able to use to force the lion to release. and as was pointed out the likley hood of an attack is slim to say the least so instances of firearms being discharge are not going to be running rampant. So if you prefer spray or a high powered metal projectile travling at 3500 feet per second either way you should have the right to choose.