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
Just a few points, sir..I don't expect to convince you of anything.
First off, the pepper spray shot at drunks is far weaker than what you get for bears, as I understand it.
Second, there's no debate by anyone with a brain that a gun doesn't have the capability of killing a bear. The problem is aim...the bear is charging, you're tense because, as you seem to continue pointing out, the bear is charging your child, and you have to hit what, something the size of a basketball? If you hit the stomach, or the shoulder, or a leg...
Now, this article isn't here to debate anything. Kurt was simply pointing out what studies show. Studies are studies, sir, and there is now evidence, by actually events, that bear spray is more effective than a gun. Take it as you will.
I would note that a 2.5 oz (maximum legal self-defense) personal protection pepper spray is not the same as a 8-13 oz can of 2% OC bear spray. Theoretically the bear spray is considered a pesticide (California law calls it an "economic poison") and in many states carries legal consequences for its use against humans.
The big problems seen with stopping drunks or drugged out users is that they might not feel the pain. A bear (not likely to be high on PCP) receiving a fog of 2% OC spray will feel the burn and more than likely won't be able to see well enough to attack anyone.
Not sure about an AR-15. I thought that one would weight about 9 lbs loaded. I'm trying to figure out who might carry one ready to use like a scene from a Vietnam War movie. In any case, I've heard the recommendations in Alaska for bear country are for 12 gauge shotguns with slugs or high-powered hunting rifles. I'm not sure a .223 (which is really designed as a combat weapon against humans) will stop a charging bear unless it's a direct hit to the head or major organ. It might be able to punch a hole in an engine block, but things are far different when it's a bear with soft tissue that might not stop with only a minor flesh wound.
I remember the 1988 movie "Shoot to Kill" with Sidney Poitier. His character was an FBI agent trying to track someone in the woods when he and his guide came across a grizzly bear. He asked his guide if he should shoot it with his revolver, and the guide said, "Nah - you'll probably just piss him off."
Steve.
I agree fully. Its nice to see sombody with a level headed responce in this forum. I think that pepper spray is a more effective deterant for wildlife than a firearm but I have always carried both while camping in certain areas. I want to be able to keep large predators/assailants away without having to employ deadly force. I would also like an effective way to employ deadly force if it became neccesary. (I appologize for my spelling throughout this ppg.) If I am a law abiding citizen of this country and I have been granted the right to carry a weapon why should I be stripped of that right in a park? In short, if you are very brave go with nothing, if you are prudent go with spray, if you are fully prepared go with both.
Thanks all
it is an interesting topic to be sure.
Interesting topic? Mildly... I was looking for some studies to show a friend regarding the efficacy of bear spray on grizzly bears and I ran across this discussion. Much ado about nothing really. We're discussing allowing law abiding people, who have taken the trouble to apply for and obtain a concealed weapons permit, to carry a defensive handgun concealed upon their person. It would be a rare individual indeed who would be carrying concealed upon their person a handgun of sufficient power to stop a grizzly. Most of the handguns designed around this issue are not readily concealable, and if it were truly a handgun for defense against grizzlies, I'd not want it concealed anyway. Too slow to retrieve from within clothing and jackets, and when the issue arises you will not have the time.
I carry pepperspray when I am in bear territory. I've fished mostly, and hunted a little in Alaska. Fishing the Kenai peninsula I carried my 12 gauge shotgun, locked and loaded, and a can of bear spray. My primary choice would be pepper spray, given a couple of things. 1. The wind is not blowing back in my face. Pepper spray will blow back into your face. The last thing you want to be is blinded by your own defense while trying to repel a charging bear. Bears actually like the pepper spray, and will lick the ground and items sprayed with it minutes or days later. 2. I am not sleeping in a tent... confined within a tent, you'd have to be something of a fool to think this would have any effect on a bear which has pounced on the side of the tent or is coming through the side of it.
I am not horrifically worried about bears, and them attacking me. It can happen, and bears in "populated areas" like the in the Kenai area or other places where they are regularly exposed to humans and get "human food" are not as fearful of people as those in "wild" areas. In some areas all you will ever see of a grizzly bear is his big butt wheeling off into the sunset when he figures out you are there, and then you're lucky to see him. Around the Kenai and I would venture certain areas of Yellowstone and other park areas, bears are not quite so timid.
One thing has always been clear to researchers, and myself after reading a few studies and books, and being out around bears. Do not ever take anything regarding bears for granted. Each and every one has a unique personality and each situation when you're dealing with them is unique.
I favor allowing concealed weapons permit holders to carry their firearms where ever they go. They have been vetted, and have a permit. They are not the people you need to be worried about having firearms. The ones you need to be worried about are those who do not care what the law says. The murderers, rapists, robbers, drug dealers, and gang bangers are the ones you should concern yourselves with. They're the same ones that CCW permit holders are concerned with.
Great piece of work on the study, by the way. I will forward it to my friend who does not believe in bear spray. I will also continue to carry my shotgun. Hoping for a one stop shot on a bear is a bit foolish, and I'd never bring a .223 Remington or anything that fired it into bear country for defense. It will not penetrate an engine block and stop a truck. I've shot a few of them, and they're good for stopping small to medium sized game, humans included when necessary. But not a grizzly bear, not in my hands. An old guide explained the "process" to me once, and I'll trust his instruction. He's shot, and guided hunters who shot, a whole bunch of bears over the years. He was 93 when I met him, and he didn't get that old being stupid. He said, in short, "Break him down... make sure your first shot gets him in one of his front shoulders or his chest/collarbone... he's going to fall onto that side... back up, and when he makes his feet again, hit him in the other one... make it stick. Once his front legs are useless, he might already be dead anyway, then put him out of his misery.
Cruel? Don't know... I've spoken to a couple of people who were mauled by a bear, and seen pictures and read accounts of fatal attacks. That process does not sound terribly "humane" to me. Sounds to me like it sucked, really bad. Don't spend much time worrying about it, as it's rare. No more time than I spend fretting about a car accident... but I drive carefully and wear my seatbelt too. And I carry bear spray and an appropriate firearm when I am in bear territory. Like my seatbelt, it too is "always on".
It's a tragedy when a bear is killed by a human in defense of life and property, it really is. That said, define what it is when someone is horrifically mauled or killed by a bear. No nitwits from the lower 48 who have never seen a bear need respond. If the bear dying is a tragedy, then the human being mauled and or killed is something worse.
Thank you. This guns don't kill people, people kill people nonsense is the stupidest non-argument I've ever heard. If you can't kill someone with a gun, what's the point of having it? To make coffee? To water the lawn? A gun is a tool, a killing tool. There is no other use for it, that's its primary function.
The implication being that you are able to get a shot off and are able to hit a vital organ on a charging animal, no small feat. I'll stick to pepper spray, where I don't have to worry about aim. The data apparently backs me up.
Well tom, the great thing about scientific studies is that opinion doesnt come into it. There have been numerous studies on real Alaska grizzly bear encounters over the last couple decades, including one by the USGS in Alaska that studied 377 cases of grizzly encounters. In the cases where people defended themselves with bear spray, they escaped injury 98% of the time. When they used firearms, they escaped injury only 60% of the time....what would you use? It isn't a matter of brute force, it's about intelligence. It is very difficult to react and accurately get an instant kill shot on a charging grizzly, thus it is better to make him change his mind about attacking. Bear spray is very effective at doing this. If you don't like it, that's fine, but when your ignorance catches up to you if you are ever to encounter a grizzly, hopefully you will be on the lucky side of the 60% figure.
LoL it is very ovious that most of you have never seen pissed off black let alone grizzley. you people are full of it try your bear spray on a 200 lb crack head, and he will still kick your but but a Grizzley get a life.
You don't even know a bear from a donkey. go drink some more coctails,.