I lived on Kodiak for most of my life, with one bear per square mile. I was an avid deer hunter, hiker, fisherman and photographer and encountered bears on almost a daily basis, sometimes multiple bears on a single day. What all such studies miss (whether pepper spray and bears, handguns and bears, any encounter with brown/grizzly bears) is that defining an "aggressive" bear is entirely subjective and that subjectivity is almost always based on the opinion of somebody that has very little experience with brown/grizzly bears. I won't speak of black bears because in that case, my own experience is limited. How does a relatively inexperienced person define an "aggressive" brown/grizzly? Most commonly, that is based on a threat display which will include loud vocalizations, pounding the ground with their paws and sometimes short bluff charges. It's terrifying, but the problem is that threat displays are the polar opposite of aggression. That bear has already decided he doesn't want to fight and he's simply telling you to go away, so heed his warning and go away. Threat displays are *never* a prelude to an attack unless you do something stupid like shooting or spraying him. Inflicting pain may change the bear's mindset from "go away" to "I'm going to kill you" or it may indeed drive him away, but doing that was entirely unnecessary. Understand the behavior. Bears that give you a threat display are good bears with no intention of attacking. I went through many, many such encounters and simply backed off without any further problems from that bear. I did eventually endure a mauling and barely survived, and it did *not* begin with a threat display. Actual attacks from brown and grizzly bears are all eerily similar. After the mauling I researched in detail hundreds of attacks and reached out to as many survivors and witnesses as I could contact. I wrote a book on the subject (A Kodiak Bear Mauling - Amazon). Brown/grizzly bears are ambush predators. You'll get no friendly warming like a threat display if he's decided to attack. Bears of this species commonly lie up in thick spots during the day and most often an attack is simply because you walked up on him. Bears have a scent pool around them that all wildlife can smell and avoid. Humans can't smell that so when you enter his scent pool (which may extend fifty or one hundred yards), the bear, not knowing we have weak olfactory senses, takes that as a challenge. He is the apex predator and you are challenging his dominance by entering his space. Period. 90%+ of the time he'll simply glide silently away and you'll never know how close you were. Less commonly, he'll exhibit that threat display which is also a benign response. "This is my space, go away!" And in a tiny minority of cases they'll rise, make a half circle downwind (they don't know we can't smell them) creep silently in as close as the cover allows and charge you from the rear or side from close range at 35-30 mph. Depending on how thick the cover is (and these tend to happen in very thick cover) you will have one to two seconds from the time you hear branches breaking before he runs you down. They tend to run you over like a Volkswagen hitting a pedestrian, then turn and comeback to finish you off. That's how actual attacks happen, and this is why I doubt 99% of the cases where some nimrod claims he "stopped" an attack with pepper spray or firearms. You simply don't have the time to deploy a defense. Your real defense is having a partner that you trust. Let him interrupt that attack, or you interrupt the attack on him. Pepper spray is very useful for bears that nose around your camp out of curiosity. That's a bear that needs a blast of pepper spray, though a shot in the ground is just as useful. If you're hunting have an LPVO optic in 1X6 or 1X8 and keep it at 1X until you need to dial up for a shot. The typical 3X9 scope leaves you blind at close range, even if you have time to get a shot off before he's on you. Have a solid partner in bear country. Have a scope that dials down to 1X and keep it there. Hunt from the relatively open ridges, not down in the thick stuff. Bears are not slow lumbering creatures that vocalize and give you warnings. They attack like big cats, from cover, at close range and with blurring speed. Understand the behavior. And please, don't shoot or pepper spray the "good bears" that give you the fair warning of a threat display.
Absolutely LEGIT. This is supported by accounts of "Dinner Bell" bears who are attracted to an armed hunters kill site from the gutted animal scent cone or the sound of the initial shots, who then stalk in close from downwind and then charge violently without any warning at armed hunters who often anticipate a bear encounter, ending up in the obituaries.
@@jt3200 I gave up a number of deer to bears. On one late season hunt I dropped a buck across a steep gully and he slid right to the bottom. It was very steep and covered in snow so we walked along the lip for half a mile or so to find a place to climb down. My partner waited there and I climbed down. Most of the bears were already hibernating and we hadn't even seen a track in several days of hunting. I walked along the bottom back to the deer and just as I made the first cut I looked up and a big male bear was standing there about ten yards away, having come from the opposite direction. He was just frozen, staring at me. I dropped my knife back in the pack and picked it up in the crook of my arm, slowly side-stepped to grab my rifle leaned against a tree and began backing up the gully. He just watched until I had opened some distance and then stepped forward and put a big paw on the deer like "This is mine." I just kept backing away. I would call that a benign encounter. We understood each other perfectly.
I live in Alaska and I own a lodge near the Copper River which is the #1 Salmon fishing spot in Alaska and has a massive bear population with both black and brown (Grizzly) bears. Our lodge sits on the banks of a tributary to a river where Salmon spawn and as a result, bears hunt and feed here and I deal with them on a regular basis. Your video detailing the "Data" doesn't take several factors into account as I will describe: At my lodge each year, we issue a bottle of bear spray to each of our rental cabins for our guests to cary along with them and with their group as they go about their touristy business of visiting local landmarks and attractions and such. The thing is, 99% of them are completely ignorant of bear behavior and they end up using the bear spray in completely inappropriate ways during encounters with bears! Then the "Data" from that encounter is used for these reports. I have encountered many many bears while living in Alaska, and have never sprayed a single bear and I have only had to shoot a very few, the rest of the many bears were just communicating to me that I have crossed their individual personal space and I need to change course and give them that particular piece of the river, or a certain piece of land (which if you look around you would see the bear rubs, and scratched trees to see where he marked the place as his territory). Bears cannot talk (surprise!) So they must communicate in other ways which they do by bluff charging, chuffing, stomping etc to tell you that you are a stupid human withoud good olfactory senses and you have entered his property. These bears which are communicating with people are not generally in the mindset of attack, which is why the bear was giving a warning in advance of violence. So the report saying it "prevented" an attack is ridiculous. These type of bears (by 'type' I mean bears in this particular mood or mindset, not in the way of 'good' vs 'bad' bears) do not warrant spray or bullets. A person should just yell, raise and swing their arms to look big and back off. 90% of the time, the bear will back off too. It really depends upon the reason for the bear's actions. Feeding is a reason for the bear to behave in this way, protecting "his" river feeding area or perhaps the area near his den. If the bear has made a kill of perhaps a moose and a person has stumbled into the kill area, the bear is most likely going to attack without warning. A mother with cubs is well known for straight out attacking without warning (which are the bears to fear, and is very difficult to even deploy spray or firearm in time to head off the attack ) and to be honest I am not so sure an attacking mama-sow would be 100% detered by spray.... maybe initially she would stop, but I suspect she might break off the initial attack and then dissappear into the brush, recover and then circle around downwind and proceed with an overwhelming lightning attack (bears can run at up to 30 mph!). In my opinion, the data in the reports are skued because most of the people in alaska who carry bear spray are inexperienced and ignorant tourists (OK, only ignorant of bear behavior). The locals in Alaska cary firearms with them when outside. I don't know one local who carries bear spray, not one. I would never want to be fumbling with a spray bottle safety while a bear is running at me at 30 mph! I can have my firearm out and have a shot on target in 1 second! Roughly 90% of my encounters with bears are bluff charges. 9% are nuisance bears getting onto the lodge property looking for food/trash and i usually use a loud yell and perhaps a gunshot which is enough to cause him to scamper (for the moment....bears have a tendency to circle and come back). That other 1% is the dangerous bear and those bears are the ones that you do not see coming. If a bear is hunting an animal or a human, they do not bluff charge or chuff and stomp. They circle downwind and wait for the perfect moment to rush, using their unbelievable speed and overwhelm the person or animal with thier massive size and claws, biting at the head and neck. In all of my time here, yelling and looking big and using intimidating body language has worked more than anything else (situations where I suspect a tourist would have deployed spray). I do proactively make sure to get bear tags each year, just in case I absolutely need to shoot a bear, I purchase the tags so that I don't have to give away the animal to fish and wildlife (nuisance bears have to be surrendered). I have only had to shoot 2 bears in my time here in Alaska (outside of hunting bear). So, I think there needs to be studies done where only Alaska residents with experience in the Alaskan bush (not people who live in Anchorage of Fairbanks) have had to deploy a bear deterrent and compare that data. As for me, I will cary a firearm daily and consider carying both a firearm and spray if I am hunting and deep in the bush.
Excellent response! Data only tells part of the story, knowing how that data was collected (from inexperienced tourist bear spray users OR people who live side by side with bears ).
Well said. I recall reading that the Massai tribesmen in Africa can "read" lions (traditionally, nowadays they might be like city folk) can can tell when a lion is going to bluff charge. They routinely stand their ground and the lion backs off. Furthermore as you implied trying to shoot a charging mama bear is harder than you think. I belong to a wild hog hunting club in Europe and I've seen hogs that seemed half the size of a Volkswagon and they are not put down right away even with well placed slugs. I recall reading a grizzly bear shot through the heart with a rifle managed to run another 100 meters before it went down. So I vote for bear spray for most people, and if you're an expert, then both firearm and spray.
@Unknown_Random_Guy I recently had a run in with a grizzly momma and am very lucky to be unharmed. Im set on bringing bear spray and a sidearm on my next Kodiak adventure but I'm not sure what handgun to go with. What do the locals carry generally? I'm thinking to get a glock20, but your input would be very helpful
I knew you were Canadian when you mentioned "Cole's Notes!" Hahaha. I'm a former BC Forest Service Compliance and Enforcement officer. I worked in Kispiox district which is the Hazeltons. I spent a lot of time in the bush with bear bangers, an 870 and bear spray. Both grizzly and black bears became accustomed to the bear bangers in my zone. I noticed this over 8 years. Here's my anecdotal experience: I've been charged by grizzlies twice. In both instances I deployed my bear spray in sufficient time. In both instances the bears stopped their charge, would turn around and then slowly amble off rubbing and licking their faces. I must also note that in both instances, the attack occurred in thick brush. I would not have had enough time to turn, aim and shoot a shotgun (I always had a round racked). I carried my bear spray in my right hand all the time with unclipped safety tag. Bear spray worked fine both times. After awhile, I stopped bringing the shotgun. Bear awareness is very important also. Knowing when to be extra vigilant (season/time of year), avoiding noisy streams or river banks and also wearing bear bells. I also had a German Shepherd with me. I'm sure many bears heard or smelled us long before I heard or saw them. I also highly recommend practicing with a can of bear spray first. There are several training courses for this. Great channel!👍
I was cycling down a deactivated forest road in northern BC, came around a blind curve and was right up close to a Grizzly sow and two cubs. I had no chance of fleeing. It immediately charged me and I had no problem hitting it square in the face with bear spray. The bear emptied its bowels (as did i) and quickly retreated. Scariest experience of my life, but very thankful to ride away unscathed.
I enjoyed your attempt to be objective about this subject. I watched Ron Sooner’s episode 354 interview with Alaska bear guide Phil Shoemaker- perhaps the man with more than 40 years experience of hunting and living with brown bears. I realized that often times a guide or hunter may aim the firearm at the bear and shout at the bear. The bear will do a bluff charge and depart with no shot being fired. Shoemaker stated that is the most common response. I doubt that data is reported. If spray is deployed, the bear may have bluffed and departed without any response to the spray and was counted as a successful spray incident. So perhaps we need all the data from people who had neither spray nor a firearm ( a control group). I lived in Colorado for years and it is a common saying with people who live in more remote areas with a lot of bears. S. O. S. If you have a bad bear encounter. Shoot, Shovel and Shut up. So without a doubt most successful firearms defense incidents go unreported. The people do not trust the authorities to deal objectively and fairly with them if they have to shoot a bear.
The police or game wardens do not exist to make your life better. They’re always looking for something that they can use against you and turn your world into an expensive living hell.
" So perhaps we need all the data from people who had neither spray nor a firearm" They are all dead... Very Murican attitude - that why Canada Has many less fatalities due to Bears than Murica - We are not Ego Driven idiots - we like Bears.
I appreciated your attempt to be data driven and objective. You presented some good data. I think you did a really good job. I have hunted and backpacked in wilderness country for almost 41 years. I have carried both bear spray and a side arm and over the years have had two “bad” bear encounters and one mountain lion that seemed crazy. I have also studied into this debate quite heavily. Here is a couple of points that I don't feel get addressed. Point #1: Most people carrying a sidearm in the woods are not as proficient with the firearm as they think they are. I have found that MANY of the people carry a sidearm they have not even shot in the last 2-3 years. I am no expert at shooting, but I do go to the outdoor gun range 2-3 times per month. In a given year, I will normally send 1800-2200 shots downrange. That is not as much as I would like, but it makes me more prepared than the majority that do not practice at all. I also try to practice shooting in different body positions to simulate not having the perfect shooting scenario. Also, many people that carry firearms are largely ignorant of what type of projectile to use in bear country. If you are using ammo that was designed for self defense it will likely not have the penetration that is needed for predators. Because of my preparation I feel better about carrying a firearm than bear spray. On the other hand, if a person seldom if ever practices with a firearm they would be MUCH better served carrying bear spray. Also, regarding the effectiveness of firearms many studies cite old outdated data. I read one “study” that cited a Grizzly shot by the Lewis and Clark expedition in the early 1800s with blackpowder rifles as proof that a firearm was NOT powerful enough to stop a Grizzly! When I read this “data” I just shook my head in disbelief. Bullet projectiles have gone thru a technology revolution in the last 20-25 years. This is a total game changer. For example: A Glock 20 (10mm) shooting a 200g hard caste projectile has proven to be VERY effective. It has a 15 round magazine capacity and can be comfortably carried all day. It is VERY reliable and shootable and can be extremely accurate in the hands of a practiced shooter. That kind of protection was not available back in the 1940s and 1950s or earlier and so many of the studies still cite data from old low technology projectiles. BUT I repeat that a firearm is ONLY going to be effective if someone is REGULARLY practicing and has developed the necessary muscle memory to perform in an emergency. Many people would be better served with bear spray than their pistol that has sat in the gun safe all year long without being shot. Sorry for the long rant, but I feel your video was good enough that it merited a full response.
CC permit holder here.What you say is so very true. I Regularly train with what ever firearm i carry. It is important. Otherwise it is just a false security. Also your point with ammo improvements is very true. Eg. 9mm loads are much more "hot" than compared eg. to WW2 ammo. etc. I am not a hunter, nor i live in a bear country so i am not well versed with a bullets type, loads, calibers etc. that can be used for hunting or self-defense against bears. But if i ever was visiting, hiking, etc i would definitely have both. Spray and firearm and i would train with both before going. Also, there are reports of people which under huge stress could not use even the bear spray. So yes, the training is paramount.
BTW, if you are hitting the range 2-3 time per month, you are more trained up than most LEO’s and military personnel with the exception of those in basic training and specialized Units.
Id say that the Browning Hi Power was way more revolutionary than a Glock. One is like going from a calculator to a PC the other is like going from Windows 95 to Windows 98.
So in your opinion, if you don't have commitment to gun training and such Bear Spray is a better option. I agree and I think that opinions applies to home defense as well.
One good argument for bear spray is that you can be a little bit more liberal with it than you can a gun. With a gun, you are committed to using lethal force or making a loud noise, without much of an in between. Warning shots are also teaching a bad lesson which is "gunshot sounds don't hurt you." Whereas bear spray teaches the lesson "humans spray this spicy stuff in your eyes and it hurts."
Warning shot normally won't faze a brown bear because most of them haven't seen humans. Even the Brown bears my clients miss often stand there looking at us wondering what was that ?
As an exploration professional, I have lived and worked in the Canadian wilderness for most of my life. Dealt with a number of close calls with black, grizzly and polar bears. In those 48 years, in the early days, there was no option for bear spray and after seeing the results of bear spray use I am not a big believer in it as the only thing to carry. I carry both spray and a 12 gauge or a 45/70. The spray works well on a bear that must be deterred, a gun is for when a bear must be stopped. You don't always get the choice on which you can deploy and bring to bear in a given situation and you can't always know for sure if deterrence vs stopped is needed but many face-offs can go either way based on your confidence and the vibe you put out. Many encounters backed with gun or spray end with all parties concerned going their own way without either option having to be used. A good part of that being, the human had something they felt would protect them and projected confidence. One thing I have noticed is that in curious bear situations when the bear is still at distance but moving closer to check things out, bear spray sucks at firing a warning shot lol. Still if one of the crew is on the ground wrestling a bear I don't want to have to shoot into that. Hose them both down and hope the bear takes off or at least moves off so you can safely take a shot - your crew member will hate you but at least they aren't bear fodder. That said, one of your best protections is another person or two with you who are similarly ready to deal with the situation. Again, its the vibe projected that suggests don't mess with the noisy two legged things. That can go a long way toward everybody just avoiding each other and going about their day.
This is a common sense and clearly the right way to think about this. Bear Spray is a great tool, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that both are better. The right tool to deploy is 100% situational and "studies" should be understood in the correct context - they often come with an undisclosed agenda and underlying biases. Sometimes with reliable data and sometimes with "curated" data. They too are tools that when used properly can help provide insight, not when they are used as a tool to sell an agenda, product or service.
I was totally thinking that shortly before I read your comment. A bear is going to know if you are scared or confident. So whatever a person feels more confident with the bear is going to know.
@@JH-jx1hs There was very little bias in either of the studies he presents. +90% vs 80% are the numbers. He even demonstrates why bear spray is more effective. You are the one with the bias, not the people who got the studies published.
@@papat7435You either didn't read my comment or didn't understand it. Your comment is irrelevant to the point I made. My comment was never meant as data. It was my observations in real-world situations and my decisions based on those observations. There was no argument against what the data said; it was merely my experienced opinion on how I would apply it. You choose to apply the finding as you will. If bear spray is 90% effective, then I do not choose to be in the unlucky 10%, if possible. Doug Inglis and Jenny Gusse would probably have appreciated another option once they had emptied their can of bear spray on the bear that killed them. The rescue people who responded to their distress call were forced to kill the bear that killed the couple and their dog. If they were following standard procedure, the rescue crew had bear spray. They also had a gun. In that situation, the gun was the tool for the job. That's what the comment was about - options.
*The specific topic aside, thank you for the masterclass on maintaining healthy skepticism of unsubstantiated claims and rigorous analysis of data / studies. We could use more of that in our day-to-day discourse.*
I know the subject matter was bullets vs bear spray but actually this vid is a masterclass in what the Scientific Method is , how to approach data & why you must remain skeptical when claims are made without any link to the source, sample size etc. These are the very important questions people need to ask themselves when they hear a friend spew something (like stats) or they read it in some blog or hear it in some video. Question it, challenge the person. Newspapers and magazines that love fancy graphs need to be scrutinized. Theres a reason why they sometimes show the sample size in tiny lettering lol. Excellent video I subbed!!
As a backcountry hiker, I have bells and bear spray on my hiking stick, and a weapon as backup. I know I'll be faster with the bear spray because aiming is simpler. I've used bear spray effectively in two bear encounters. I've had over twenty bear encounters where the bears retreated. That's the key. Let them hear you coming and you usually won't see them. If you do see them, back up quietly and slowly while setting up to spray. The most dangerous time is when you cook at your campsite then go to bed in clothes that smell like food. Our backpacking group follows strict food discipline rules. We cook in the morning and eat a cold meal like a peanut butter sandwich a few miles before camping. Then it's wash up and put on clean sleeping clothes time. Basically, a clean set of clothing reserved only for sleeping. Nothing with a possible food smell goes into the tents or hammocks. No drinks, snacks, toothpaste, chapstick, toiletries, or lotions.
Bears don't go after smells that do not recognize as food so why would they tear up a tent with a man in it (who they are afraid of) for some chapstick.? The first thing he will smell is YOU and you are not food, you are a danger to be avoided. If he knows you have food he is is just as likely to go for it WHILE you are cooking it no matter what time of day it is. I personally always hike/backpack stoveless.
@@hikerJohn If you sleep in a hammock with cherry flavored chapstick you might be a bear taco. They will go after anything with a food smell. We bear bag food, cooking equipment, drinks other than water, toothpaste, lotion, anything they could be attracted to. It's common sense.
"Dinner bell" bears. They might be attracted to the smell of bear spray because they expect a camp with food for example. But to that regard, a gunshot can signal that another animal is dead or dying and they can maybe steal it.
Pretty silly if they did I'd say as animals already attacked I'd shoot first spray later lol as animals already known to injure others in close proximity I'd be extra wary just saying but no bear experience no bears in Tasmania Australia but I'm learning as about to move to usa maybe Alaska to marry within a few months
Professional guides carry large bore hard hitting lever action rifles and know well how to use them, the average hiker outdoor people do not. Unless you hit the aggressive attacking bear in a vital spot the gun won't stop it.
Oh yes the Smith Herrero study AGAIN ! The Smith Herrero study has a few flaws and , as you stated , their conclusion should be taken with a grain of salt ! Firstly they should have limited the scope of their data to only include the incidents of bear defense using MODRERN firearms . Unfortunately they compiled data on over 400 cases of firearms use, some from over a century ago when antique black powder firearms were in use. Accorrding to their study the most common cause for failure of a firearm to defend a bear attack was " inabillity to reload " Well, that is no surprise when they included data , even news paper articles , from the black powder days of yesteryear . The second GLARING error that I noticed was they studied cases where pepper spray was used on non aggressive bears and compared that to the use of firearms to defend a bear attack . In most of the cases of pepper spray use in the Smith Herrero study , the bears were only displaying curious or otherwise non aggressive behaviour. There is a BIG differnce between scaring off a nuisance bear with pepper spray and having to shoot at a charing bear that is about to kill you or rip your guts open . The Smith Herrero study would have much more credibility if they had limited the scope of their data to only compare similar aggresive encounters using both pepper spray and only modern firearms normal used in the last 30 years or so . I went through the entire paper a few times and my conclusion , based on their study was that pepper spray can often be successfully deployed to scare off or change the behaviour of curious non aggressive bears. In the case of an aggressive or charging bears I believe that pepper spray may help to reduce the duration of a bear attack but not always . Just a few years ago a lady from our area lost her life in a bear attack . They sprayed the bear with pepper spray but according to a family member that only seemd to make the bear more aggrivated. The attack was stopped when the ladys husband retrieved his rifle from the cabin and shot the bear. I have seen with my own eyes how inaffective pepper spray can be on wildlife and there is no way I would trust my life to it if I had a better option . A 45-70 or a 12 Gauge shotgun dosen't care which way the wind is blowing . UPDATE thanks to others reponding to this post the stats also seem to reveal that in almost half the cases where the study claims firearms failed to defend an attack , the people being attacked never fired a shot . In those cases , it wasn't the gun that failed . Those cases were stll counted as a failure of firearms to defend a bear attack . The more I learn about this study the more biased their conclusion appers to be . Be aware of your surroundings . Stay alert and be prepared. A gun isn't going to help you in a bear attack if it is still sitting in the holster while a bear is chewing on you . Get familiar with your firearm. Pratice shooting it and practice getting it put of the holster and into action . Practice LOTS . Your life or the lives of your friends might depend on how well prepared you are .
These studies are just not equivalent. It is sad they are so often compared. Firearms used on aggressive bears, vs spray used on all sorts of bear behaviors.
Interesting BillyHill4937: You mentioned precisely the same firearms as I did in my comment. Some of the experts on youtube also mention a number of handguns that can be effective. When I see a message like this from Stefan Kesting, I am grateful that there are other viewpoints on the subject. Of course, each person is responsible for their own life and safety. It all depends I suppose, upon who it is that we trust as a reliable source of information. Part of the deceptive reasoning that I see introduced here, is what are called "statistics". People can think of themselves as a "statistic". People can also think of themselves as "possible victim". There is an enormous difference is there not? The same distinctions appear in the arguments of "gun control" advocates. Thus, should we consider ourselves as "statistically unlikely" to be a victim, or should we think of ourselves a "statistically" a possible "victim". Should we consider what the bears think of us? For example, in what way did TIMOTHY TREADWELL think of himself. He was, according to some reasonable estimates, somewhat of an expert. I will grant that. He had a great deal of experience with bears. By that account, he even ordered a bear to "Go away!" or something to that effect. ----So should we think that our expertise regarding bears and their behavior be reliable? --- Do we as wilderness travellers actually "know" what the behavior of an encountered bear will be? The majority of us respect wildlife. But my "respect" and my knowledge of statstics do not, in my opinion, justify choosing a MINIMAL DETERRENT. I want a MAXIMUM deterrent, as the outcome may be life or death.
I totally agree with your comments. I believe there are a few cases where bear spray is a viable solution. However, I believe there are many more cases where a firearm is a better solution. The only caveat is that anyone depending on a firearm must be extremely well versed with that specific gun.
A friend of a friend was recently attacked by a brown bear defending cubs. He was hit from behind before he could discharge the bear spray (he was aware he was about to be attacked but didn't have time to turn the safety off and aim). After multiple bites to the leg, the bear went in for a bite to the back of the neck but got the can instead, which sprayed directly into the bear's mouth and face. The bear left immediately and ran off.
I've heard of that happening once where the guy had the spray in his back pack when he was attacked. He was face down and the bear attacked his back pack then suddenly hauled ass. He didn't know what had happened until he looked at his backpack and got the can of bear spray out and he saw where it had a hole in it. It just so happened that the bear bit into the can in his backpack and got a mouthful of bear spray. He didn't get a scratch on him. His lucky day I guess.
So, why not come up with something you can wear on your person that, once punctured, exposes the bear to some nasty substance like bear spray? It may be some extra weight, but it would require nothing on your part except wearing it.
Well done, here is another anecdote from me. We live in Staten Island NY and once before going to the mountain in upstate NY with my family I purchased a bear spray for protection. I opened the can and since I never used it before in my life I decided to test it a bit, to give a short burst into a toilet bowl from a 3 ft distance to see if it worked. Boy, was it fun! The fine residual mist of the spray started to choke me and my wife in another room almost instantly. The same invisible mist settled on the surfaces including the toilet seat, and even after we wiped it off with a wet towel several times it still burned the skin after contact. This is how one idiot gained his faith in bear spray, that stuff is potent!
Reminds me of a joke I once heard about a man who bought a pocketbook taser as a present for his wife and decided to first test it out (just a short burst) on himself. The planned short burst turned into a long burst as his muscle control locked up when the current first hit him. Testing dangerous stuff out on yourself rarely goes well.
One factor that I wonder about in the difference between the rates of success is the type of encounter. I would think that there would be more of a tendency to use bear spray in minor encounters where the bear would have gone away without any type of deterrence being deployed. That would inflate the apparent efficacy of the spray.
That could certainly affect the numbers. That being said, I think it’s relatively rare for people to carry both bear spray and a gun for most activities. I carry both sometimes but only when I’m in really deep bush and most bear encounters in the North are relatively close to towns.
Excellent point! I would even say: the depth of incident investigation varies. They'll do a lot more if a human is injured or if shots are fired, certainly if human or bear are killed. If the bear just left after spray was used, there's not much to investigate, it's just hearsay at that point.
I've quite a few people who have had an encounter with a bear interviewed . What I have taken away from them is if it's a more curious encounter the bear spray works very well but when it's truly an aggressive encounter it's effective and a firearm is more effective. But that's just my take away. I've watched interviews with hunting and fishing guides and have a cousin who is a fishing guide in Alaska. He agrees with the opinion.
@@essentialwilderness, Alaska bushman for 32 years. Worked for AK F&G for 25 years. Been attacked 5 times. Bluff charged twice. Ran a bait station for 25 years & had multiple generations of bears return every year. Had 1000s of sightings, 100s of up close ( 10-20 feet) encounters. Here's my opinions & i'll tell you why. Throw the useless spray into a dumpster where it belongs. Back in early 2000s we had a California transplant demonazi become our governor. He fired ALL the F&G top officials & replaced em with untrained, fully agenda driven, gun/ hunting hating Sierra Club members. California transplants who wouldn't know reality if it were biting their ass. They phucked up our F&G dept so bad with their bunnyhugger mentality it almost destroyed all of Alaskas wildlife & is doing damage even to today. They purposely censored many fatal bear attacks to not scare tourists away because tourism & oil are Alaskas lifeblood. An Alaskan senator gave up his seat to beat Tony Knowles, the California transplant demonazi idiot & beat him hands down. He immediately fired all the Sierra Club members & reinstated the original F&G experts who desperately tried to UNDO the damage the demonazies did. The demonazies, being the crybabys they are started screaming " Fair & balanced" & through the politics got half the experts refired & replaced them back with the Sierra Club fools & our F&G dept has been at war with itself since & the demonazies don't give a rats ass about FACTS or how many people get killed & use the liberal courts to get their way. Truth & FACTS be damned. That being said heres my own personal experiences. 1st summer attacked by a moose wounded grizzly w a kicked in face who was starving & desperate. He covered 150 yards so fast i barely had time to shoulder, find & fire at 10 feet killing it w a 375 H&H mag. THAT bear was only flipped over & ran 150 yards & into a lake with its spinal cord shot cleanly in half. Running on pure rage adrenaline & muscle memory. Entire gutpack blown to smitherines. Sold that useless rifle & got my 1st 45/70 a loaded my own PROVEN hot bear loads. 2nd summer a 10 ft blackie (7-800 lbs) stood up 200 yards away, saw me across an open swamp, let out the death roar & charged. I hit him @ 100 yards square in the sternum & dropped him like hed been thunderstruck. No more attacks for 13 years & then THREE in one summer. 2 black bear attacks & 1 young grizzly. Killed 1 with the 375, 2 with my 44 point blank w the muzzle shoved tight into their chest & the young griz ( last attack) w my wifes 243 w the muzzle shoved into its chest hard while firing. In NON of thoes cases would spray have helped at all. Its FAILURE rate is WAY higher than reported. All the F&G depts nationwide have been staffed w Sierra Club liberals similiarly & their " Fact sheets are highly skewed LIES. MY GUN stopped every one of thoes attacks & experienced bushmen wouldnt even consider carrying/ using that trash because WE know better. In a REAL attack youll never have time to use both & during a real attack its useless & only pisses the bears off worse. ESPECIALLY a sow w cubs who once stung sees you as an even bigger threat to her cubs & reacts accordingly. A bluff charge usually stops at 10 feet & no spray is needed. However if the death roar is issued that bear fully intends to kill you. Head shots are useless unless you hit the magic triangle. Across the eyes down to the nose & bear skulls are NOT bulletproof. No thicker than ours & easily shot through IF you hit the tiny skull relative to the size of the bears head. The BRAIN is in the magic triangle & any gun can punch into that. Eskimos regularly use 22s to drop polar bears no problem. In the eye, up the nose or sideways right at the base of the ear are solid brain, instant off, brain shots. We had a F&G officer who did his entire career w only a 40 S&W w regular FMJ bullets & didnt shoot them until they were too close to miss. He retired unscathed & laughed at the big bore guys. ( Including me, a 44/454 guy) He did get knocked off his feet a couple times by the bears momentum but never mauled. Bears were instantly dead from the brain shot. I could go on but the bottom line is spray has gottin more people killed & vanished than it ever saved. And theres no escaping the POLITICS & the scums who use it to achieve their agendas.
Intelligent analysis. The problem with the data that I see is the possibility that bear spray is used on a not too serious charge whereas a firearm is used when the bear is seriously trying to kill you. 10 mm handgun seems to be a smart thing to carry as well as bear spray. Backup companion with a 45-70 wouldn’t hurt.
@@stripedassape8148The slug is single-use, but the 12gauge can work on anything from small game to birds to bears. The 44magnum loaded with hot 305 grain bear loads should work on bears, but not so much for birds and small game.
look I was born and raised in grizzly and brown bear country, yes I know they are the same the difference in coastal and inland raised in both. 1. every encounter is different no two bears are the same. Now with that said!! If the bear is not aggressive, just pushy or not paying attention, bear spray is your go-to. However, if the switch has flipped and is set on hurting or killing you a firearm is going to be your go-to. I have seen bears that are switched on keep killing or attacking with a leg ripped off the only thing that will stop a bear dead set on battle is death. I would carry both, most people that live in bear country don't go very far outside without a firearm on them, I would carry both, and what I used would depend on the encounter. I would make my choice. What would make that switch flip, well too many reasons to list, but here are a few common reasons why a bear would go into full-on kill mode. 1. Cubs, especially first-year cubs, 2. breeding season, males get moody and aggressive when females go into season. 3. food cash close by, 4. dumb bad luck, just startling the bear can flip the switch. In most encounters, you need nothing. In some encounters, a little spray will bush them off. but if that switch is flipped you could put that entire can up the nose of that bear and he or she would keep coming like nothing ever happened. I promise you this. if the switch is flipped you have to kill or be killed. It truly is that simple. One time when I was about 13 I was running the rabbit snare trail collecting rabbits, and all of a sudden about 15 feet from be a good 10' bear stood up and screamed at me, I was young and did the wrong thing, in about 0.5sec I took off, never looked back, ran so fast that when I got home my mom said my lips were blue. I have no idea what it did but my guess is not a damn thing. Oh watch out for blueberry patches that is where I have had the most bears sneak up on me, one sec you're alone picking berries the next a bear is eating berries about 10 feet from you. this has happened a few times in my life. I was older by then and just backed up a little and picked berries on the other side of the patch. But I had a bear pistol in my chest or stomach holster. In every case, I could read the body of the bear and they did not give a sh*t about me.
You failed to mention on your list when the bear is actually hunting your for food. Bear encounters at night are far more dangerous because if they are out and about its usually because they are in hunting mode.
If the bear charges you, you don't know if the "switch is flipped" though. Sometimes it's a mock charge. And even if the deterrent doesn't work and the bear makes contact a lot of people survive just by playing dead. And that's even with a mother bear protecting cubs. The study even said that.
@@georgesimon1760 Please, stop giving advice to people. You are going to get someone seriously hurt. Have you had personal experience from "playing dead?" If not, shhh.
I imagine the Mineral Management Service was included, because they've got geologists out in the field and would have people with their share of bear encounters. They can see almost anything from a satellite, they say, but there's no substitute for a man out there bushwacking with a prospector's pick and a good set of eyes. I'd throw out the polar bear encounter, because they were feeding on a whale carcass. It might be entirely different if you're out on an ice floe and a bear's on the ice floe next to yours, and you're the only food for miles.
Carry both. I live in prime Canadian Grizzly country with a dense population of Grizz, Black Bear and Cougar. Up here it is big trouble if you shoot a Grizz, even in defence. I carry bear bangers, air horn and spray. At times I also have a 45-70 guide gun. Bear spray is the most effective most of the time but there are instances where they are sick, old or just an exception that they become predatory and a firearm might be required. I hunt in the bush by myself and I have never had to use spray or bullets. All of my encounters resulted in the Bear running away or myself backing away. I've probably been lucky, I also try to be highly aware of sign and the vegetation that I'm in. Sight lines, wind and noise are your friend when you aren't hunting...
The studies rely on completely different criteria. In the bear spray study, the authors only counted times when bear spray was sprayed. In the firearms study, they included all the times the firearm was not fired. Those were 15% of the firearm incidents. Apply the bear spray selection criteria to the firearms incidents, and firearms are at least as effective as bear spray. Access problems for bear spray and firearms (especially handguns) are essentially the same. The studies suffer from strong selection bias. 21 of 71 incidents in the bear spray study were of bear management people harassing bears, not the most dangerous encounter. The 71 incidents only involved 46 bears. In the firearms study, the authors made sure they included every incident they could find where people were injured. It is how they obtained the 56% injury rate. They state they deliberately did not include more firearm incidents. In the polar bear example, the two sub-adult polar bears curiously approach two researchers who are in a truck. Not a very dangerous situation. The two sub-adult bears are sprayed, and move off. The two papers should never be compared.
Logic prevails! I'm in grizz country and it's often too windy for spray but I generally carry both. Why not? I'm almost as interested in the bear's safety as mine. Spray is to there train them if possible so both creatures can survive the encounter.
As a hunter we try to stay downwind of animals we are stalking such as deer that may result in an encounter with a bear. Startling the bear usually results in an attack. Since this encounter is at close range deploying the bear spray isn’t likely to help not only because being down wind as a factor but reaching in time for the spray usually attached to your belt or pack and then pulling the clip. Hence the hunter holding his or her rifle opts shoots the raging bear in hopes of fending off the attack. This may not prevent the bear from inflicting some wound to the hunter with the bear running with adrenaline at you and coupled with perhaps a deer caliber and not a bear caliber. So the number in the test results then become screwed noting this wasnt efective but others hiking along trails making noise and perhaps not downwind have bears at further distances from them have time to deploy an effective tactic to thwart off the aggressive bear. Note in this situation I would rather have my rifle to get off a good shot or several shots being effective than wait for this charging bear to get into effective range with the spray! Most bear spraying persons armed with spray are likely to have yelled at the bear or walking/hiking in pairs or in a group or that obviously would intimidate the bear than a lone hunter stalking stealthily through the woods.
The BIG question is what people would call an aggressive bear encounter. Most people, including many used to seeing and encountering bears, are not able to see the difference between a mock attack and a real attack. People also very often think that a curious bear coming close is an aggressive bear. If it is a mock attack or the bear being curious only, a bear spray, a shot in the air and you even doing nothing will most of the time make the bear walk away. But a bear spray can also make the mock attacking bear change it to a real attack. And someone claiming that is not the case talks pure nonsense. I have a very good friend that has done research on bears for 30+ years and one of his colleague that was rather inexperienced with bears mistook a mock attack from a brown bear for a real attack and used his bear spray against it, but his first attempt missed the bear, but since he was stressed and rattled by the "attack" he really didn't pay notice to what the bear did as he changed his aim and sprayed again, but at that time the bear had already stopped the charge and was already turning away. The moment that second spray hit the head of the bear, there was no turning away and just a mock attack anymore. The bear clearly felt attacked and attacked him in defense and started to bite him and hit him with his paws. My friend was not able to shoot the bear with his 44 magnum soon enough to stop the attack and he had to move close enough to be totally sure he could shoot the bear in the head and not hit his colleague. If his colleague had been alone in that situation with his bear spray, he would most likely have been killed by a bear that in reality only did a mock attack. My friend is never working without a proper firearm to protect himself from bears as he very well know that a bear spray is totally useless against a bear that really wants to harm him. Yes, he has a bear spray with him as well, but he mainly uses that against young bears that are curious and to stupid to walk away from a shot or two in the air. I am no scientist as my friend is, but I have been around a lot of bears of all kinds for about 40 years and have had many bears close to very close to me. I have experienced rather many mock attacks during those years but I have only experienced four real attacks. Two of them the same year. All of them brown bears. None of these four bears would have stopped because of some bear spray as their intent was VERY obvious. Another friend I have once stopped an attacking polar bear with his 44 magnum and that bear dropped less than 6 feet from his toes and he would for sure be dead today if he had a bear spray in his hands instead of his gun. If a polar bear is aggressive against you, it will not care at all about your silly bear spray. Wounding a bear with a firearm can also turn a mock attack into a real attack and some people bring something like a 9mm for self defense against brown bars or polar bears, it is not strange that things are going badly.... Reports and studies like this should be taken with at least some grains of salt and maybe even with a shovel of salt at times. Most of the times are "aggressive" bears not aggressive at all. And I totally understand why it is claimed that a bear spray is better than a firearm, since wounding a mock attacking or curious bear with a bad shot or inferior cartridge/ammo will result in a real attack much more often than the use of a pepper spray will. But the reality is that the bear spray is utterly useless if you encounter a bear that really wants to harm you or even eat you. But having firearm is not enough. It needs to be powerful enough and you need to practice enough with it to be both quick and accurate with it incase you need to use it. A 9mm handgun can in most cases be enough against a black bear if you are a good enough shot with it, but it is close to useless against brown bears or polar bears. A 10mm handgun is minimum against brown bears and polar bears in my opinion and you need to use proper loads with proper bullets that can penetrate the skull well and deep into the body. This is what I use when bowhunting in bear country and as backup when fishing or hunting with a rifle in bear country. My main gun when fishing, is a shotgun with slugs. And when I hunt with a rifle in brown bear country, I hunt with my 375 Ruger. All these are very capable to stop an attacking bear if you hit where you need to hit, but the 10mm takes the most practice to be skilled enough with. A high quality pump action or a high quality semi auto 12 gauge with slugs is by far the best choice for most people in my opinion. It takes the least practice and is VERY effective against an attacking bear. The type of bear also matters a lot. If a polar bear really is aggressive, there is NO pepper spraying in the world that will stop it. The story about stopping aggressive polar bears wanting to hurt them with a pepper spray is utter nonsense. If a polar bear wants to hurt you, it will not stop unless it is dead. When it comes to brown bears, few of them are really aggressive and want to hurt you. They say that about only 1 in 100 brown bears will attack you and that fits rather well with my own experience. In most situations by far are they only curious or at worst making a mock attack. Since most people don't encounter many brown bears when visiting their backyard, would they be rather unlucky to encounter a brown bear that really wants to hurt them. In most of those cases it is a sow with cub/s, a bear guarding his/her food or you suddenly come very close to it without it noticing you and it attacks you in defense instead of running off. When it comes to black bears, you need to be very unlucky to encounter an aggressive bear. I have encountered MANY black bears and have yet not encountered one that was aggressive. But the most dangerous black bears by far are the dumpster bears and the bears roaming around to gorge in people's garbage. These black bears tend to have no fear of humans at all and are in general much more dangerous than the black bears in the wilderness that I am used to. That said, can black bears in the wilderness still be dangerous, but they are extremely few compared with the black bear population. But you still need to be prepared in case you encounter one of them. Black bears are also by far the bears where bear sprays are the most effective against. Both bear sprays and guns can give a false sense of security when it comes to bears and no matter what you choose to bring, do you need to practice enough with it to be able to use it well if you need it. Personally I would NEVER be in brown bear or polar bear areas without a firearm. And I highly recommend people to not rely on bear sprays only in those areas. I VERY much doubt that a bear that really wants to hurt you, will stop because of a bear spray.
@@upcycle.outdoorsman9629 Right no blowback and IF you hit the mouth, nose and eyes the attack IS over...! Tho either one of the three is a game change being liquid fire, two is better, tho three and that bear or person isn't able to do anything AND rubbing it smears as it also is expanding foam...! Another smart move is to have the loudest decible airhorn you can have which IF enuff time can be blasted off early in a charge to see if it'll turn...! Also if camping 2-3 insta-lite flares for an in your face scorcher or just a deterent...! As far as pistol's go it's the bullet type + powder charge that makes the difference...¡ Tho no doubt a 12gauge 1oz Foster slug is the ticket for final bear obedience which I carried-[12g double] in Alberta, BC, Yukon & Alaska, magnum(1,700fps) steel waterfowl in one barrel + 1oz Fosters in the other to be able to choose for a warning shot IF It's possibly the right move: OR - at 20yds charging in fast take its eyes out w/waterfowl load, immediately dump the slug in'em-[or both@once], w/auto ejectors its a fast 2-more slugs to finish it..! Least likely gun to jam...lol Also a double barreled 12gauge pistol(or 20g) by Diablo be handy at point blank range like from within a tent = always use a tent-fly as a 2-second heads up before the bear scratch's thru to the tent proper & giv'em both barrels in the face from the Diablo or a pistol of your choosing...!
@@upcycle.outdoorsman9629 Am sure if ever used on a worthy perp esp smearing it with hands(paws)makes it worse = waaay more effective then powder spray...!
We have a male black bear, easily 300 lbs, acting curious around our property. It has visited, always skirting the edge of the yard, 4 times so far this season. Last year it was only once. But this year 4 times. It concerns me because his behavior is very un-black-bear like. Usually they run away, but this one seems interested in the sounds of playing children. I hollered at it twice, and the first time it took off and ran away, but the 2nd time there was a long pause, a tepid retreat, and then he turned around and watched us from the edge of the woods for about 5 minutes. Very unusual. I bought some bear spray and mounted it in an old fire extinguisher holder beneath the dech, so if anyone is out there in the yard and a bear approaches, they can reach for it readily enough. I am very reluctant to use a rifle (bolt action remmi 700), not because I may kill it (although that is sad and I don't really want to harm it) but what troubles me is FAILING to kill it, and it ends up suffering. Or it carries on and mauls or kills one of my family or me. We don't have any, but our neighbors have bird feeders, and I'm aware that's what the bears want most. Seeds and rubbish.
Bullet placement is important. As they are charging aim for the nose or just ahead because they are lower than you ad they are coming ,other wise you will shoot high . I dont carry a shot gun for bear because there is no way enough penetration after a lot of testing . A handgun in a chest rei is good ,its faster than a hip holster and with hard cast bullets Is very effective. Rifles are also effective but you might have set it down ,with not time to retrieve. An Alaskan guild recently used a S&W 9 mm auto with buffalo bore hard cast And it worked. Its not a one off. Bullet placment and hard cast bullets are the key. A 10 mm ,.357 will work to. When you get to 44 ,454, and larger handgun calibers you run into recoil that hinders your follow up rounds . Do not rely ever on Soft lead or or jacketed bullets. I always travel in twos. I carry a hand gun in a chest rig and the other person bear spray. They shoot first ,im the back up. Oh and besides hanging your food far away from your tent . Dont go in the tent with the cloths you had on when cooking and eating . Yup no food in the tent tent ,Or drink unless its water.
I always travel in twos thats the best advise i have seen i would never hunt on my own in USA i am from Australia even here its advisable just in case of a medical episode of a fall getting injured i always carry a personel beacon if on your own to call for help
"... aim for the nose..." That's a laugh and a half. No matter how good you think you are with a gun, your ability to even hit the bear at all in a surprise situation is extremely dubious. We're talking about blinding fast action where you haven't been able to choose your stance or even orient your body toward the bear. I knew the late grizzly researcher, Dr. Charles Jonkel. He told me about the one bear attack that he had experienced. He had emptied a revolver's cylinder at a bear's face at nearly point-blank range. Every bullet but one glanced of the bear's thick, sloping skull, creating only surface wounds. The last bullet entered through the eye by sheer dumb luck and stopped the attack, killing the bear. The only reason that he had an opportunity to fire so many rounds was because he was on a steep upslope above the bear, behind a giant half-rotten downed log, so the bear's claws kept tearing away rotten wood instead of being able to get a grip to get over the log. Chuck was extremely lucky to have survived that attack, firing six rounds at a distance of no more than a couple of feet. Partly due to this experience, he was one of the people involved in the initial project to develop and test bear spray as a defense tool against bears. Bear spray doesn't require an accurate aim, and bears' noses, eyes, and respiratory systems are just as sensitive to pain as ours. When it hits the lungs, it causes severe respiratory distress and a sensation of mortal harm. Skunks employ the same strategy. They have been driving off bears and other predators for many thousands of years. Their defense is so effective, that they really don't fear these larger animals much at all. I've been close to skunks many times, because they're just not afraid of anything else. If I had to bet on whether a skunk or Rambo with a gun was going to be more likely to survive a full-on bear attack, I'd bet on the skunk every time. If you think that a full, close-up blast of skunk spray is nothing but a bad smell, you're very much mistaken. It has the subjective effect of making you feel like you're in danger of dying of radical poisoning. With a can of bear spray, you're a super-skunk. Notice the data about even completed attacks being less likely to result in fatality or extremely severe injury. With either bear spray or a firearm, the bear may hit you through the sheer inertia of the attack. However, with a cloud of bear spray hanging in the air, it's going to get to the bear's nose, eyes, and lungs anyway. The pain of that stuff is swift and severe, and more compelling than physical wounding, which bears are inured to from their occasional necessity to fight each other. The bear is going to back off the same way my dog backs off when she's hit with a blast of skunk spray. The bear spray may get to you, too, but you'll survive that. You and the bear both will walk away from the experience with no permanent harm from the spray, just as skunks don't actually kill anybody even though they make them think they're gonna die. The people who would choose to carry a firearm over a can of bear spray are the people who want to cosplay at being Matt Dillon with their he-manly gun on their hip. That's their whole shtick. They're permanent twelve-year-olds.
You forgot to circle back around to the misuse examples in the bear spray study. It’s important to note that in 4 cases, residue of bear spray actually seemed to attract bears. Having been hit by an accidental discharge of bear spray due to the safety clip being dislodged in brush, my biggest concern with bear spray is that in the wind you get one shot. It took me a substantial amount of extra time to hike out while covered in residue, and I was out of commission for minutes. It seems likely, atlthough not proven in this data, that the most likely aggressive bear encounters involve hiking with the wind in your face and surprising a bear, which is the worst case scenario for spray. I actually find most bears avoid human interaction normally. With the wind in my face, I prefer a firearm.
Maybe if we read the directions on the can of bear spray, it will tell the purchaser that it will always deploy downwind. If the wind is blowing toward the user, the aerosol can will not discharge, thus saving the purchaser from any discomfort. The manufacturer guarantees this. Or, maybe the research and development department understands that bears always, by statistical studies, approach Into--The--Wind, thus assuring that bear spray is effective as a deterrent. If the wind is blowing into your face, the bear spray is designed to pierce through the plasma field of electromagnetic subatomic particles such as Muons and Quarks and deter the bear from approaching further. When you have returned to camp, and removed your Aluminum Foil Hiking Cap and opened a cold beer to relax around the fire, the slow realization that your left arm is missing will pale in the light of the fact that you have saved the life of a gentle woodland creature. You are one of the "brights" of the world because your thinking is Politically Correct.
@@YaxisX Why would you have your self defense dependent on the direction that the wind is blowing? I mean, it's not like the bear is just gonna line itself up for you.
One thing I didn't hear you mention, was that most people will shoot off the bear spray with less hesitation. Which I believe gives it an advantage. Easier to justify that 'warning shot ' when it's non lethal to the bear. Great video!
Okay, my first comment was before watching the video. This is trash studies. Okay, in most cases the bear will stop on its own when charging so if you just happen to set off the spray and the bear would have stopped anyway you get credit for the spray, you see what I'm saying. like I said below in my other comment, if a bear switch flips it will not stop, I'm telling you, it is rare for that switch to flip but when it does. I don't think you can count charges, like I said, I have been charged at least 10 times in my life, they stopped on their own every time, so if I happened to spray would all 10 charges count for spray stopping the bear without a full-on attack.
@@christopherrowley7506 that's because the consequences are more severe with the gun and your odds of hitting the bear where you need to aren't as good.
Dean Weingarden (sp?) has written extensively on ammoland. Most of the comparison studies count bear spray only if it was actually used, whereas they count attacks on those carrying firearms as a failure regardless of whether gun was used or not. They even count attacks where someone had a pistol in their backpack as firearm failure. Bear spray in a backpack would be just as ineffective. Can also be expected that those who used spray are more likely to self report while people who shoot a bear are more likely to shoot-shovel-shutup - meaning successes are undercounted.
I'm a Marine who has trained with Pepper Spray, and CS gas. I've been around many others who have trained with both as well. Not everyone is affected as severely as others who are not affected nearly as much. There are some who seem hardly affected by those chemical agents, and some who are just about immobilized. I've never seen anyone who wasn't affected by a gunshot. I suspect that any and all bears have the same reactions. Not all bears are adversely affected enough by chemical agents to save ones life. I'll take my chances with a gun, rather than a chemical agent. You can squirt them if you want, but as for me, I'm choosing a gun. -Gunny T sends
You're right about different people having different reactions to tear gas and stuff when I went to Parris Island I was standing about a 100 yd away from the tear gas Chambers when they were doing their training and when they came out I started choking because of the stuff just being on the wind but there was dudes that were standing much closer who were just fine.
On May 18, 2018 a US Wildlife worker (Amber Kornak) while out in the woods checking bear hair sample traps, was attacked by a grizzly less than 2 air miles from our home at the base of the Cabinet Mountains near Libby, MT....Per various news reports: “As the bear attacked her from behind she was able to reach her bear spray and spray the deterrent to ward off the bear,” Hemer’s fundraising post continues. “Amber’s wildlife training skills kicked in, and she somehow managed to stay calm and hike two miles from the site of the attack to her work vehicle where she then drove to find help.” I spend a lot of time in the woods hunting and fishing as well as fishing trips to Alaska. When in the woods or at camp I carry two cans of bear spray in a holster for fast access. During archery season I add a revolver. During rifle hunting season, I still carry the two cans of bear spray. Also carry a Garmin Messenger in case I get into a bad situation.
Some great answers here from viewers. Generally, it's difficult to get unbiased statistics as not everyone reports incidents and some groups have certain agendas. If its not possible to carry a rifle or self defense shotgun, carry both bear spray and a handgun like a 10mm with a great penetration round from buffalo bore or underwood. If no guns are allowed or the person is not skilled with a firearm, pepper spray is the only proven option. Sometimes a problem bear needs to be educated but is not predatory and pepper spray will prevent an unwanted investigation. A true predatory bear is better dead, as it can eventually injure or kill a person. Many people are not skilled with a handgun and will not shoot effectively. In summary, carry two types of protection when possible. Be prepared, practice with the spray or firearm so in the heat of the moment, a person can use their tool of choice. Thanks for sharing the studies as they provide interesting info and details.
Predatory? Get between a mother bear and her cubs and an attack becomes much more likely but that's not predatory behavior it's protective. Bears often look to put on weight in the Fall before going into their winter torpor and may be more aggressive that time of year but that's not about the bear being predatory it's more about it's biological clock. Finally there are 8 billion humans on the planet we are in little danger of running out of those selfish, destructive, myopic, deformed chimps. There are 8 bear species in the world 6 are listed as threatened or endangered.
Man that was fantastic. When I saw the title I was prepared for conjecture. But you gave the topic about as fair a treatment as we can do with such limited data. Earned a new subscriber
Always enjoy your content Stephan, so thank you! But I have a few comments and/or questions. The caliber of the bullet should be a key component of this analysis. I know many avid hunters who have had several encounters with bears who swear by a .45 ACP pistol. It’s a small and nimble firearm easy to maneuver but yet with huge stopping power. These real world outdoorsman have told me that with that particular firearm they’re pretty at ease and it’s never failed them whereas they’ve had failures with the bear spray (a) outdoor conditions b) the bear charged right through the spray). This caliber of the bullet as parallel to the content of the spray. You wouldn’t want to spray a bear with a dog spray, for instance. I appreciate your reliance on scientific analysis. I’m a scientist myself but I can tell you that as of the last decade or so, I have increasingly lost confidence in these journals who are easily swayed by those who fund them. I know that’s very much against the scientific method but sometimes there are political motives behind these papers as data can be easily manipulated. The best source of info are villagers and populations who live in the wilderness full time and deal with bear matters on a frequent basis. I would take their word over any publication. That’s just the world we live in. Ow unfortunately.
Two things... First, the fourth study (Analysis of fourth report, Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska, by Smith et al.) did look at long guns vs handguns and found no difference in efficacy between the two. In general bullets spat out of long guns are travelling much faster than those coming out of handgun, and due to kinetic energy being 1/2m*v*v they'll have more stopping power in general. Second, it's true that any one study or report can be biased, but if you've got four different reports published in three different places then that's beginning to form a pretty indicative pattern. As always, I am open to having my mind changed by more data, but I have not found any reliable data to the contrary. And I respectfully disagree with you about the power of anecdote. Especially in the modern era people are so religiously wedded to their guns that if you asked a sample of 100 people whether gunsmoke cured cancer that five of them would probably say yes.
@@essentialwildernessHow does that prove the power of the anecdote ? Sorry for my English , English isn’t my first language and I think I am confused. Thank you🙏 ❤
The Smith Herrero report was a study with many flaws and was hardly a fair comparrison. They used at least some data from the days of antique black powder firearms in their study on firearms use . According to their statistics the most common cause of firearms failure to defend against a bear attack was the inability to reload. That is no surprise when they used stats from the old days of black powder firearms. The other GLARING error was they compiled data on pepper spray use where, in most of the cases the bears were displaying curious or non aggressive behaviour and comparred those stats to the use of firearms to defend actual bear attacks . Big difference between a curious bear and one that is trying to kill you. After going through the entire Smith Herrero paper I concluded that pepper spray was often successful at scaring away curious non aggressive bears and black powder muzzle loaders were often not the best choice for bear defense. It's too bad they didn't do a more fair comparison , compiling and limiting the data to only include cases of aggressive bear attacks and also stick with only data from the days of more modern firearms.
I absolutely cannot praise you enough for approaching this situation from the wisest and most reliable perspective. Using data and an understanding about flawed and biased studies to help people keep safe is highly preferable because this is an important subject. I hope more campers find your subject.
We lived right on the edge of the wilderness in Washington State. Every now and again a Bear would come into the neighborhood. Just about everyone has a Bear Slap. It's two bords hinged together with straps for your hands or hand holds(drawer knobs). When you slap it together, it sounds like a double barrel shotgun cracking off. There were 30 of us kids in the neighborhood running wild all over the place. 10-12 of us would take off in the summer time for 2-3 weeks at a time miles up in the mountains. We would use the Bear Slap every hour or so. But Bears wouldn't ever bother us because there were so many of us stomping around out there. But I do remember my Dad a few times grabbing the Bear Slap and running out the back door.
Bear spray vs firearm effectiveness studies contain major methodological flaws. They compare spray use primarily in bluff charges/curious bear encounters against firearm use in legitimate attacks/predatory encounters. This fundamentally mismatches the scenarios being compared. The studies ignore spray's critical limitations: single use, 7-9 second duration, 30ft max range, and vulnerability to wind/temperature. They also completely miss that bears' learned fear of firearms prevents countless encounters - this background deterrence effect isn't captured. Spray offers no warning capability, unlike firearms where sound alone often deters. Once deployed, spray leaves you defenseless. Firearms maintain defensive capability with multiple rounds, work at any range/temperature, and allow early engagement. The research appears designed to support policy preferences for non-lethal alternatives while diminishing legitimate firearm carry justification. Raw "success rate" comparisons are invalid given the biased methodology and mismatched encounter types. Proper analysis shows firearms, with appropriate caliber and training, provide more reliable and versatile defense - especially critical in remote areas or predatory encounters.
So I had just seen a RUclips video about a couple who were on their way to a camp, had reported there location to an uncle, and were subsequently killed that evening by a grizzly bear. There were two cans of bear spray completely empty having been deployed. The rescuers found their camp and then were attacked and killed the bear.
Nothing is 100%, not bear spray, not guns, not seatbelts, not airbags. But if you actually look at the studies, I’m citing you’ll see that hairspray worked about 90% of the time and firearms worked about 80% of the time. Both are better than nothing, but neither are perfect. Guns two can jam, can miss, can run out of ammunition, or can shoot your fellow hiker
I believe I know that story. It was an old malnurished and sick female bear. Most Bears don't have behaviours like that. The problem with playing the odds is that there is always an outlier. Unfortunately media and social media only exaggerate and share the abnormal incidents. I was out his weekend and found three different sets out G-Bear tracks within 500meters of the hamlet I live near and a Mom and 2 cubs walked through Town this morning. No attacks. We see them or their sign regularly they are not inherently predatory. They are wild animals and like humans also have bad apples that don't follow reason. Be careful, smart and have a backup plan or just stay out of their home.
One thing I almost guarantee guarantee no study would reflect is (1) whether the firearm was immediately accessible, (2) whether the person was even moderately proficient with the firearm, (3) their hit rate during the encounter. I almost guarantee that a lot of people carrying handguns while hiking put them in a backpack, or somewhere else that's not immediately accessible. If it's not immediately accessible it's essentially useless for self defense.
I’m willing to wager most people _vastly_ over-rate their proficiency with both guns and bear spray. There’s a reason so many people have a firearm in their house because it makes them feel safe, but statistics say they are mistaken by a factor of 30 (meaning only 3% of these people are proficient enough to actually make themselves safer).
Does most of the time mean they are uninjured 90% of the time or 49.99999% of the time. I immediately question why they gave a percentage for guns and a "most of the time" for bear spray. That indicated they didn't want to reference the actual numbers. Which instantly disqualifies their opinion in my eyes. Because the first two are 100% opinion and not studies.
ha, my plan was to always spray myself and make my self as uneddible as possible.. but then I realized they got freddy kruger gloves on each paw as well
🤣 well now I know not to spray it on me in hopes that it’ll prevent an attack. Maybe if you spray yourself, the reaction you give might make them think you’re crazy and they’ll run away. While you do this, wake up and say your prayers.
There was a man in Alaska who was attacked while in his tent. He sprayed through a mosquito net and got most of it on himself. He passed out from the spray. When he woke up, the bear was gone, and he was relatively ok. So, if all else fails, it might work to spray it on yourself.
So the firearm categories and time range is interesting. Being that the timeframe begins prior to 1900, one question related to categories is, how many long guns or handguns were smokeless vs. black powder. Also, how many were autoloader, single shot, or manual repeaters, or shotguns? Also, what calibers? These are considerations of consequence, especially today, as firearm technology indeed advanced materially within that time period. It would be misleading to lean on data related to single shot muzzle loaders or sub 40 cal handguns. Such antiquated arms are anemic next to modern firearms. There is a massive difference to a 7.62 Mosin, or a 45/70 guide gun, for instance. If that study doesn't make these distinctions, then I can't really regard it as credible.
Agree totally, I also want original data before accepting any reports. If the original data is not presented no check can be conducted. Even when the data is presented, far too often the conclusion listed cannot be supported by analysis of the data presented. From my experience the data must analysed first to draw accurate information if informative at all.
Thank you for this very honest and meticulous analysis, and for pointing out superficial vs. detailed reports. I work in data analytics, so I'll add my 2 cents. Relying on data can play its own tricks on the analyzer, even if we completely exclude dishonesty and political views. When people consider "data", there is this illusion of data points being fungible, in other words assuming that every bear attack is the same, interchangeable, that every human in a bear encounter is also the same. I've seen professionals at work look at data and draw false or meaningless conclusions and "trends", where there were none. A couple of examples of variability: the data with spray use might have more "hippies hiking in bear country" represented, whereas the data with guns might have more hunters, where the bear behavior and motivation are different. So we are already comparing different situations. People react differently - some are decisive, others might panic or freeze. Every bear is obviously different - different demeanor, different time of year, weather, mood, how hungry, how angry, etc. Another: level of training with a firearm. I read recently about a man who survived, although still injured, but he practiced with his 10mm Glock all year long, and that saved him. Other people don't practice, thinking that the gun is a magic power. There's a guy on RUclips who relates how his brother took an unvetted pistol with him elk hunting, which he's never once fired. Or how about the elk hunt guide who was killed because the pistol was out of reach and didn't have a round chambered, so his client couldn't get it to work. Even cases of defense against humans, like police shootings or citizen defenders, are considered to be incomplete to judge "stopping power" of some calibers vs. others, although there's far more such incidents vs. bear attacks. Spray doesn't even stop every human attacker. I dream of visiting bear country some day, maybe years in the future, and I would never want to have to shoot a bear, but I won't go if I'm limited to spray only. So I am studying and training now, learning and figuring out what do bring. We don't see studies analyzing whether smoke detectors are better than fire extinguishers. We have both. Likewise with bear defense. Spray is a given, a must. A firearm should be up to the person. And that person better put in the time to figure out the caliber, action, ammo selection and lots of training and practice. P.S. cool looking pump action there, is it chrome plated or stainless steel? What kind is it? I'm not sure I've ever seen one with that finish and type of stock.
I just left a comment basically mirroring your comment before scrolling down and seeing you already beat me to it. This guy apparently is a biologist and he missed the simple observation that the nature of bear encounters between hunters and hippies is highly relevant in interpreting this data properly.
@@drott150 👍you should see all the argumentative replies I got on several of my comments. People are so uneducated about statistics and data analytics, that Dunning-Krueger kicks in massively whenever someone waves "data" or "science" in front of them. The more logical explanations you provide, the more they argue.
@@languagesource355 I also read some more comments where experienced outdoorsmen who live in bear rich territory made the very valid point that the vast majority {i.e. 9 out of 10 or even more} of bear rushes towards humans are bluffs. They turn around and back down before they attack. Under those circumstances, someone with bear spray who deploys it would interpret the encounter as a "win" for bear spray, where in most cases the bear spray had little or nothing to do with the bear's retreat. And these encounters, which would constitute the clear majority of the "data" presented here, heavily weight the results making it appear that bear spray is far more effective as a life-saving repellent than it actually is. And another comment from an experienced guide described his many encounters. He said it's rare, maybe 1 out of 10 or 20 close encounters, are from a bear who's "switch is on." And by that he meant they are dedicated to killing you. And nothing will stop them other than deadly force. They will sprint right through spray and absolutely will not stop until they're on you. As for me, I go hiking in bear country once in a while. I will carry both spray and a handgun. I'm letting myself get 'et based on some half-assed government report with "data" like this written by liberal govt employee ecologists who you know darned well are opposed to "a bunch of MAGA bubba's in the woods with their precious guns."
@@drott150 you totally get it! 👍 I've also read that the large browns/grizzlies, if they perceive themselves or cubs to be in mortal danger, their reaction is to annihilate anything that they perceive as the cause, no matter the cost to themselves. Like aggression is their only fear response. This obviously wouldn't apply to many other situations. That's where the advice to "play dead" comes from, except it's not going to harmlessly "fool" the bear. He might still slice you open or bite off an arm, but at least he might leave you alone eventually, if you're not moving, not presenting danger. The "ecologists" you describe obviously care more about bears than humans, they would only sneer if a human was killed by a bear. Taking their advice is not unlike taking "expert" advice on masking or jabbing. To any observant person their credibility approaches zero at light speed.
The problem about government studies is that the government, both state and federal, doesn't allow most of its employees that work on public lands to carry firearms unless they have police authority (ie. rangers). They have a huge incentive to say that bear spray works better than firearms exactly for that reason.
Also those studies that you went through, bear spray is applied much more liberally, often in situations where the bear wasn't necessarily aggressive but engaging in undesirable behavior. Even though they included similar situations in the fire arms study, almost no one is going to shoot a bear for digging through trash in a campground. People are going to be a lot more conservative in shooting off a gun than bear spray. So the data is apples to oranges. I think it's telling that Norway, a socialist country, requires everyone visiting their arctic island of Svalbard to carry a firearm due to the number of polar bears; not bear spray. Thanks for going through this stuff though, it's interesting.
As a retired wildlife biologist and Forest Service Law Enforcement officer I feel I must point out the error in the premise of your argument. Federal employees in AK are given training in both bear behavior and firearm use. Following successful completion of the training they are authorized to carry firearms in the field. Also scientist, government or other, have a huge incentive to report their results based on the evidence.
@@780monster ok interesting I didn't know about Alaska. I live in Montana and that's definitely not the case here. And there is always bias, any good scientist is aware that objective evidence doesn't exist, the subject always has an influence. The evidence you get out of an experiment is heavily dependent on the structure of the experiment. It's the reason why Tylenol has been researched for decades and sold as an effective pain killer until recently it's come out that it actually doesn't have a statistically significant effect on pain reduction. If something as straight forward as a medicine's effect can be muddled by bias how much more then can the chaotic and highly variable scenario of defense in a bear attack be muddled?
@@christopherrowley7506 Frankly your argument to counter the cited studies amounts to nothing. You infer that there was bias but you only offer speculation. In science if you believe you have observed bias you have 3 options: 1. present relevant data that counters the papers findings, 2. Demonstrate that the data analysis is flawed and reanalyze the data with defensible methods and have results that support your alternative hypothesis, or 3 Assume that the data and analysis was valid but point out alternative inferences from the results or argue that the results were speculative and should have been stated more consecutively. Further, laboratory studies on Tylenol has nothing to do with bear spray vs firearms.
@@780monstermost the papers cited in this video are just reports not studies, they don't offer enough detail into how the data was collected to even comment much on it. That's a huge red flag there, fish and game tells us 'trust us, this is what the data tells us, but we won't give you access to the data or detail how the data was collected'. And I did bring up one point but you ignored it--the possibility that bear spray is applied more liberally than firearms (for example if you spray a non aggressive bear hanging around camp with bear spray that counts as a successful deterrent, but probably people wouldn't shoot a bear in that scenario). And the Tylenol thing is relevant because medicine is a much more regulated and well researched field, and as such it is a 'there exists' argument for my theory that a bad incentive structure results in bad research.
Well I've lived 65 years born and raised in Alaska and I will tell you it depended on the situation. In my younger days we didn't really see that many bears because they still had fear of human, but now generations of bears have been born that just don't see humans as much of a threat. If a bear is running full out at you, you may as well have salt spray along with your pepper spray so you're well seasoned when he tears you apart. The bear will literally come right thru the spray before it even realizes what the hell it is. Nothing is going to save you in every situation, but my number one best defense is a good dog. Yes a dog can be trained to hunt with you, without scaring the game offs as well warn you of impending danger. I carry both spray and a 12 gauge short barreled pump shot gun. The first two shells are 3 inch large buckshot followed by 3 inch lead slugs. The big buckshot obviously has wider pattern than the slugs but also has amazing stopping power, like running into a brick wall. And one other suggestion if a bear is coming around your home or being nuisance, don't just shoot up into the air, all that does is make the bear realize there's no pain to that loud noise. Get some solid rubber slugs and shoot the F-er right in the face so in the future he will associate that noise with pain. Personally I wouldn't care if there wasn't another bear left on the planet. They aren't much better than having T-Rex hanging around just one bite or claw swat can disfigure a person for life. But of course we have to have to have them so tourist can take photos and tell their friends how cute and cuddly they look, and so the all great white hunters can compare testicle size.
@@petersmythe6462 well I’ll tell you I’ve been up here in Alaska long enough to know a lot of old timers trappers, miners and loggers that are long gone now but everyone of them had a dog.
You envisioned what I said as going out into your yard, standing in front of a brown bear or any bear for that matter and shooting it with a rubber slug??? You must of just got off the turnip truck from the west coast
Good information. I carry a handgun and bear spray. Hand gun is in a chest rig for fast deployment. Bear spray is on a waist belt along with first aid kit. I can't get to that bear spray as fast, no doubt about that. Do all of my hiking in the mountains with 2 dogs that are good for situational awareness of potential threats. Those extra eyes and ears plus scenting capabilities alert me to things I rarely know about before those dogs.
Please never change your methodology. Taking these types of precautions and methods toward conclusions is sure to piss either (or both) ends of the polarized world. It needs more people like you
He didn't read a very important part of the study. If a scientist counts 21% of people choosing not to use a gun against a bear as a failure of the gun, then that is outright bad science. 'Firearms failed to protect people for a variety of reasons including... did not use the firearm (21%)...' 'However, interviews revealed that some people were hesitant to use lethal force for fear of shooting the person being attacked, or because they did not want to have to skin the bear and pack out its hide, skull, and claws as required by law. Additionally, some people admitted that they were reluctant to shoot a protected species. In some cases, this reluctance proved detrimental when split second decisions were required for the person to defend themselves from an aggressive, attacking bear.' Source: “Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska”
Fantastic analysis. You said guns are 7 times less effective after the bear has started charging. It would be very interesting to strip out the data for bears that are not charging and compare bear spray vs charging bears & guns vs charging bears. My guess is bear spray and guns are both extremely effective against non charging bears but once a bear is charging, bear spray is far more effective than guns.
I carry both simply because a hungry bear will take a hit but an empty stomach often wins over pain. I would be interested in a report of how often firearms and bear spray we present in incidents of human bear predation.
I wonder if another factor which skews the data is the legal/social implications of using a firearm. I imagine if you killed a bear you might not go through the trouble of reporting vs spraying a bear and leaving it out there to harass or injure the next person.
'Firearms failed to protect people for a variety of reasons including... did not use the firearm (21%)...' 'However, interviews revealed that some people were hesitant to use lethal force for fear of shooting the person being attacked, or because they did not want to have to skin the bear and pack out its hide, skull, and claws as required by law. Additionally, some people admitted that they were reluctant to shoot a protected species. In some cases, this reluctance proved detrimental when split second decisions were required for the person to defend themselves from an aggressive, attacking bear.' Source: “Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska”
Great video. I would premise that a Wildlife Management publication might be skewed against firearms. Having said that, the second 2 you mentioned appeared to have attempted a real study. I would agree with most of the conclusions, however I noticed there was no attempt to record incidents that did not include aggressive bear action, no attempt to address the fact that the bear spray is a deterrent only vs firearms have the potential to physically disable the animal. Anyone who has used pepper spray on humans will report that there are a plethora of variables that determine whether pepper spray works, where as taking out the pump or the control board will absolutely shut things down. I did enjoy the video tho
I've defended against a brown bear once in Alaska. It was while fishing in Alaska on the Newhalen River by Iliamna. It was harassing me over my string of sockeye, I postured the first time around and it backed away, then it got progressively more brave while I was trying to leave and I had the misopportunity to shoot it in the face with bear spray and didn't have a problem again. Unfortunately the very next day the same bear harassed a local native and their net on the other side of the river to the point where they had to shoot it. The native was cornered and used what appeared to be a .44 mag wheel gun. It was sad to see, but the native was cornered and had already used up his bear spray. I will always wear a bell to let them hear me, and will always have a can of spray in my off hand and tied to my body when in bear country. I carry a glock 20 10mm on a chest harness too, but fortunately I wasn't on the other side of the river that day.
There are definitely anecdotal reports of it working, but I do not believe there have been any large scale studies. I have to imagine it would be way, way better than nothing.
I paused your video because I've been close to 3 or 4 different species of bears. Also, I'm Native and am even named KIASAX, which means Bear on the Left. So, I do have an affinity for bears. Also, there's an old Cherokee story that tells about some of our People becoming bears to help feed our People when there was a time of starvation. Our People have a very close association with bears. The bears that I've been closest to the most often are black bears, when I was hunting in our Appalachian Mountains, beginning as a young boy and armed with only a .22 caliber rifle, which would only piss off a black bear. Fortunately, the best was upwind of me and I was wearing moccasins. I was staying absolutely silent as I moved through the woods, just the way my Cherokee grandfather taught me. Later, I was deer hunting armed with an FN Herstal Mauser 98k chambered in 30-06. There's no doubt a 30-06 round will take down a bear, but I want hunting bearI was hunting for deer. Again, I was wearing my moccasins and moving silently through the mountains. Again, the bear was upwind of me and neither smelled nor saw me The last time I encountered a black bear I was rock climbing in Shenandoah National Park. I had just ascended a small rock face when I see 2 small bear cubs come running toward me. At first, they struck me as cute. I clearly was NOT THINKING CLEARLY. Whenever there are bear cubs, there's ALWAYS A MAMA BEAR! Fortunately, there was an easy path down the side of the rock face and I RAN DOWN to the road below and got into my car and drive off. I didn't see Mama Bear, at all. Phew ... My next bear encounter was at the Grand Tetons as I was hiking to meet a friend to go climbing. I had a full pack, weighing about 85 pounds of climbing gear, like ropes, carabiners, etc, food, stove, butane, and clothing to wear at night. As I was going along the trail I smelled a dead carcass, then I heard bones crunching and I stopped instantly checking the wind direction. Since the smell was coming to me I knew I was downwind of the carcass. I very slowly moved off the trail and hid behind a few trees and a bush. I had a small monocular that I took out of a side pocket and traced the crunching sound. Sure enough, it was a very large grizzly. I watched it for almost an hour as it devoured an elk. When it has its fill, it took a few minutes to cover it and ambled off in the opposite direction from me. I waited about 30 minutes before I felt safe enough to start to move again. Just then, I heard bones crunching again! Of crap, another bear? I dropped down into my hiding place again and pulled out my monocular once more. This time, it was one of my favorite animals a wolverine! I had never seen one in the wild before, so I felt incredibly privileged. The wolverine crunched away for another 40 minutes and then, oddly enough, came trotting along with the elk's face firmly in his teeth! The wolverine seemed quite happy just bouncing along with his prize! In Alaska, I passed by brown bears fishing for salmon, but I was safely enclosed in a truck. I eat in no danger whatsoever. Finally, my last bear contact was with a polar bear. There's no doubt the polar bear was hungry and would have eaten me if it could've caught me, but I went straight up an ice ridge with 2 ice axes and crampons, and pure terror. The polar bear had no chance of following me, unless I slipped, and I did NOT SLIP. So, since it's my life, I will bet on firearms, every time. Blessings to all.
Man, this is a 101 on argument. As a seven-year hunting guide (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and New Mexico) and a 16-year high school AP English teacher, thank you for this. I'll be using this vid as a case study in logos, pathos, and ethos.
Bear kind of angry? Spray will probably work -- the hissing and the cloud of gas will likely turn it. Bear REALLY angry and committed to attack? Has to be a gun to stop it.
You need to practice to be quick and efficient. I talked to a fishing guide in Alaska and he said a .45 won’t penetrate the body cavity. Too slow. 10mm works well But like you say you better practice and be quick
Same could be said about spray, it's a good idea to practice with inert spray cans, or a bit with real ones if you have to as long as you're careful about wind and whatnot. Wind is also an enormous disadvantage for sprays, if you're downwind you might be screwed or get yourself. Overall if you pick the right gun and train it's probably the best bet, but spray is a lot less spendy and more accessible to most people, so for people with no gun or training at all it might be a better option than buying a S&W 500 or maybe an under-powered but affordable handgun and hardly practicing if at all. It really depends on a lot of confounding factors. Some sprays though make a fairly big cloud so accuracy isn't a huge issue, but at least what I remember Cold Steel offering years ago is more of a jet stream like wasp sprays, so in that case it's important to know how the arc of the spray acts to hit a target at a certain distance, but it's super effective if you can get the eyes with it and far less susceptible to wind like fogging sprays. It's also orange for high visibility, they sell inert cans for practice.
Yes, a shotgun is hard to use in close quarters, like you said, but a nice hi-power revolver, like a 44 magnum or 454 casull is WAY different as you can pull that over your head and/or shoot at close quarters much easier than that unwieldly shotgun (if you are in the brush and hit a branch while turning around....). The study discarded the type of gun, well, you know, bear can sprays come in mostly one size and is rather manageable, guns come in different sizes and grabbing and swinging around a long gun, having to use both arms is way different than having to use one arm to unholster a handheld revolver and use the same arm to point at your target. The handgun is not much more different in size than the can and the time to unholster both is very similar. My questions are" What are the chances that you shoot yourself with the gun while pointing at the bear? What are the chances that you will inhale bear spray and now disable yourself, even if you hit the bear with it at close quarters? What then? The way to look at this issue would be best served by examining only imminent OFFENSIVE bear attacks, not the annoying type-of-bear kind. And yes, it would be wise to have both gun and bear can, because shooting a bear is the last thing you want to do.
Thanks, good info. An added advantage of spray is, the bear learns that people are bad news, while not suffering an injury that could shorten its life. A disadvantage for firearms is that bears are hard to kill and prone to attack if wounded. A hunter here in WA several years ago was killed by a black bear after being shot by the hunter with a rifle.
If it’s tough to get off a shot, then it’s also tough to get off a spray, though spray probably provides a wider pattern under most cases, depending, of course, on what projectiles one is firing and from what distance.
One thing that is going to heavily skew data is the rounds that were used. Did they lump in 9mm, 22 lr, 357, 454 together for handguns? What about rifles? Were they 223, 12ga hard cast slugs, 30 carbine, 300 wm? I don't think that study takes this into account even though its one of the most important factors in success. What would you be more confident in against a big bear 223 or 12ga with hard slugs? Id be curious to see some studies that broke down successful stops by caliber/cartrigde. I think it would be much more valuable than guns as a generic category. Maybe 12ga and 500 sw have a 90% success rate. Maybe they don't, i don't know. But i don't need a study to tell me a 9mm is just going to piss off a polar bear.
Actual Alaskan here, most that live / work in bush carry a bear gun of some sort. they may also carry spray, but when your life is at stake, a gun is always best. ive found those from los anchorage, tourists, or those that are casual bush goers, tend to favor spray. the types of encounters betwixt the two populations, while overlapping, are different in nature, and local. lastly, i knew Smith when he was doing Bear research for US fish and wildlife in anchorage, 1011 e tudor rd. if you want to do a deep dive, i dont know if its in the report, or just in research paper, he told me of a story, part of the 'spray misuse'. they used to have FWL volunteers do a test spray after leaving the float plane, at drop off site. everyone carried spray, and there was always one bear gun (shotgun) among the group. during one trip, they tested the spray, getting it on the planes floats. when they came back, they discovered that a gear had gnawed the floats where the spray was, causing enough damage to ruin a float, this sinking partially the plane, and necessitating a rescue. it was a long time ago, and if i remember correctly, that is what smith told me gave (in part) idea for research into bear spray.
It's all about preparation I would assume, if you have a bolt action rifle that doesn't have a round in the chamber because you aren't supposed to be walking around with a round in the chamber, if you miss that first shot you are most likely going to get tackled and mauled. Same applies to Bear spray, if you don't have it handy and can't get it out fast enough you're screwed. The difference here though is with a bolt action rifle you only have one shot before you have to cycle for a new round and by that time the bear most likely has closed the gap, with bear spray if you can get it out fast enough you can continue to spray in the direction of the bear while it's closing that Gap and even if it jumps you, history is showing that the bear will most likely Scurry off in pain. A rifle is only as effective as its user, and if you don't have enough time and you miss your shots or you don't hit anything vital, you are going to be in for some bad times. With bearspray you may inadvertently get yourself as well but at least it's a giant cloud that will most likely land all over that bear and irritate the s*** out of it. It's hard to say really, I feel a lot of this has to do with ego as well. Once a person holds a gun and learns how to fire it they instantly start to feel invincible. Like they can take any threat out, yet never have been in a situation where they are under stress and only have about 5 Seconds to pull the gun out and fire It On Target that's rushing towards them. I've heard plenty of stories of a Grizzly jumping on a guy after he missed his first shot, unable to grab his gun because it was knocked out of his hands when he was jumped, only to be saved by his buddies. If anything carry a semi-automatic and carry some bear spray. Don't let your ego or cocky attitude put you at risk, you have to accept that unless you've had experience trying to take out a 500 lb threat running at you full force, you may very well screw up
Yes this is anecdotal. But I heard that a lot of bear spray success stories were on bears that were not extremely aggressive. They then went on to say a lot of bear spray interactions were with bears at garbage dumps
Not many peer reviewed journals will get published or studies funded when the answer to the study is firearms are better. That said, many New Jersey cat ladies hiking around Yellowstone have no business carrying a sidearm. So bear spray is their only choice
The problem is, everyone who does "studies" of this sort has an agenda, or they wouldn't be doing the study. I think a simple common sense approach is more logical here than reading biased questionable "studies". A firearm can dissuade a bear from a much greater distance than spray can, allows for follow-up shots, and can kill the bear. A dead bear will stop attacking pretty much 100% of the time. The bullshit in some of the reports is just so evident....like it is difficult to hit a charging bear with a firearm, but easy with pepper spray? Biased, agenda driven bullshit.
I'm near the end of your examination of the first Journal of Wildlife Management article you looked at, and I feel compelled to say that the 2 polar bear incidents should carry absolutely no weight whatsoever, because these bears left a huge, windfall supply of food to slake their curiosity. They had no need whatsoever to pursue the party as prey because the open buffet of a no-risk, no-effort-needed whale carcass was there for the easy snacking. If they had approached the same party in the absence of so superior an alternative food source, the outcome might have been entirely different. The incident only shows that polar bears prefer chowing down on an easy meal to the discomfort of being sprayed in the face with capsaicin. Who, besides a masochist, wouldn't? I'm only saying that we can disregard that incident as having no probative value one way or the other.
In general, peer reviewed journals USED to be more reliable, however interesting studies have shown recent cases wherre totaly made up farcical studies ahave been " peer reviewed" and quoted around and used as evidence other studies.
I carry _both_ bear spray and a firearm when in bear (and cougar) country. As a hunter, I am at higher risk of bear encounters because I'm in the same areas hunting the same prey species as bears. Does bear spray work to deter curious bears? Of course. After all, bears have eyes and lungs sensitive to chemical irritants. Would I choose bear spray over a firearm against an aggressive bear? Absolutely not. Fair point, however, a firearm is only as effective as the person wielding it. Bear Sprays, having a more dispersed locus of effect than a firearm, may be easier to deploy for average people under stress. The deployment time issue would be similar for both technologies, but the warning distance might very well be shorter for a hunter in bear country versus a hiker on a common trail. However, I have some issues with the two studies cited. First and foremost, the bear spray encounters sample size was too small to be relevant. The data collection and sources included in either study were not detailed and the quality of those sources is unknown (but likely less reliable the farther back the data was collected). The spray study appeared to primarily be self-reported encounters with curious bears, as opposed to aggressive bears with the firearms encounters. The study's authors may have been biased towards non-lethal methods for dealing with bears.
My dad was an outdoorsman as d avid hunter. Never had any bear encounters with him so I don't even have anecdotal evidence either way so this was informative. Thanks for data driven evidence.
Well done. Of course gun lovers will never believe bear spray is better than guns. All the data in the world won't change some minds. I also like how you talked about the variables to be considered. Personally, I'd like to have both options with me at all times.
Good analysis. One question I have is about how to compare the two studies. It seems to me that there is likely a difference between the types of incidents where bear spray is used compared to the types of incidents where firearms are used. This could have an effect increasing the apparent effectiveness of bear spray relative to firearms. I would be likely to use bear spray even in situations where I would not consider the threat great enough to justify shooting the bear. I would be likely to wait to pull a trigger on a firearm until I was certain that the danger of attack was clear and immanent. This would leave some percentage of successful bear spray events that would also have been successful with a firearm, but would not be included in the firearm study as the firearm would not have been discharged. My takeaway is similar to yours. My few encounters with bears in the wild have all been with black bears and have all been resolved by either making noise or getting into a vehicle until the bear went away. After viewing you video I am more likely to have bear spray with me when venturing into bear country and about as likely to have a firearm as I would have been before seeing the video. In other words, If I am in dangerous bear country I am likely to have both, but I am also likely to have bear spray with me even if I consider the bear danger to be too low to justify carrying a firearm.
Compelling conclusion. Thanks!
I lived on Kodiak for most of my life, with one bear per square mile. I was an avid deer hunter, hiker, fisherman and photographer and encountered bears on almost a daily basis, sometimes multiple bears on a single day. What all such studies miss (whether pepper spray and bears, handguns and bears, any encounter with brown/grizzly bears) is that defining an "aggressive" bear is entirely subjective and that subjectivity is almost always based on the opinion of somebody that has very little experience with brown/grizzly bears. I won't speak of black bears because in that case, my own experience is limited. How does a relatively inexperienced person define an "aggressive" brown/grizzly? Most commonly, that is based on a threat display which will include loud vocalizations, pounding the ground with their paws and sometimes short bluff charges. It's terrifying, but the problem is that threat displays are the polar opposite of aggression. That bear has already decided he doesn't want to fight and he's simply telling you to go away, so heed his warning and go away. Threat displays are *never* a prelude to an attack unless you do something stupid like shooting or spraying him. Inflicting pain may change the bear's mindset from "go away" to "I'm going to kill you" or it may indeed drive him away, but doing that was entirely unnecessary. Understand the behavior. Bears that give you a threat display are good bears with no intention of attacking. I went through many, many such encounters and simply backed off without any further problems from that bear. I did eventually endure a mauling and barely survived, and it did *not* begin with a threat display. Actual attacks from brown and grizzly bears are all eerily similar. After the mauling I researched in detail hundreds of attacks and reached out to as many survivors and witnesses as I could contact. I wrote a book on the subject (A Kodiak Bear Mauling - Amazon). Brown/grizzly bears are ambush predators. You'll get no friendly warming like a threat display if he's decided to attack. Bears of this species commonly lie up in thick spots during the day and most often an attack is simply because you walked up on him. Bears have a scent pool around them that all wildlife can smell and avoid. Humans can't smell that so when you enter his scent pool (which may extend fifty or one hundred yards), the bear, not knowing we have weak olfactory senses, takes that as a challenge. He is the apex predator and you are challenging his dominance by entering his space. Period. 90%+ of the time he'll simply glide silently away and you'll never know how close you were. Less commonly, he'll exhibit that threat display which is also a benign response. "This is my space, go away!" And in a tiny minority of cases they'll rise, make a half circle downwind (they don't know we can't smell them) creep silently in as close as the cover allows and charge you from the rear or side from close range at 35-30 mph. Depending on how thick the cover is (and these tend to happen in very thick cover) you will have one to two seconds from the time you hear branches breaking before he runs you down. They tend to run you over like a Volkswagen hitting a pedestrian, then turn and comeback to finish you off. That's how actual attacks happen, and this is why I doubt 99% of the cases where some nimrod claims he "stopped" an attack with pepper spray or firearms. You simply don't have the time to deploy a defense. Your real defense is having a partner that you trust. Let him interrupt that attack, or you interrupt the attack on him. Pepper spray is very useful for bears that nose around your camp out of curiosity. That's a bear that needs a blast of pepper spray, though a shot in the ground is just as useful. If you're hunting have an LPVO optic in 1X6 or 1X8 and keep it at 1X until you need to dial up for a shot. The typical 3X9 scope leaves you blind at close range, even if you have time to get a shot off before he's on you. Have a solid partner in bear country. Have a scope that dials down to 1X and keep it there. Hunt from the relatively open ridges, not down in the thick stuff. Bears are not slow lumbering creatures that vocalize and give you warnings. They attack like big cats, from cover, at close range and with blurring speed. Understand the behavior. And please, don't shoot or pepper spray the "good bears" that give you the fair warning of a threat display.
Exactly!!!
Excellent comment. Thanks.
The best comment. Simple, real
Absolutely LEGIT. This is supported by accounts of "Dinner Bell" bears who are attracted to an armed hunters kill site from the gutted animal scent cone or the sound of the initial shots, who then stalk in close from downwind and then charge violently without any warning at armed hunters who often anticipate a bear encounter, ending up in the obituaries.
@@jt3200 I gave up a number of deer to bears. On one late season hunt I dropped a buck across a steep gully and he slid right to the bottom. It was very steep and covered in snow so we walked along the lip for half a mile or so to find a place to climb down. My partner waited there and I climbed down. Most of the bears were already hibernating and we hadn't even seen a track in several days of hunting. I walked along the bottom back to the deer and just as I made the first cut I looked up and a big male bear was standing there about ten yards away, having come from the opposite direction. He was just frozen, staring at me. I dropped my knife back in the pack and picked it up in the crook of my arm, slowly side-stepped to grab my rifle leaned against a tree and began backing up the gully. He just watched until I had opened some distance and then stepped forward and put a big paw on the deer like "This is mine." I just kept backing away. I would call that a benign encounter. We understood each other perfectly.
I live in Alaska and I own a lodge near the Copper River which is the #1 Salmon fishing spot in Alaska and has a massive bear population with both black and brown (Grizzly) bears. Our lodge sits on the banks of a tributary to a river where Salmon spawn and as a result, bears hunt and feed here and I deal with them on a regular basis.
Your video detailing the "Data" doesn't take several factors into account as I will describe:
At my lodge each year, we issue a bottle of bear spray to each of our rental cabins for our guests to cary along with them and with their group as they go about their touristy business of visiting local landmarks and attractions and such. The thing is, 99% of them are completely ignorant of bear behavior and they end up using the bear spray in completely inappropriate ways during encounters with bears! Then the "Data" from that encounter is used for these reports.
I have encountered many many bears while living in Alaska, and have never sprayed a single bear and I have only had to shoot a very few, the rest of the many bears were just communicating to me that I have crossed their individual personal space and I need to change course and give them that particular piece of the river, or a certain piece of land (which if you look around you would see the bear rubs, and scratched trees to see where he marked the place as his territory). Bears cannot talk (surprise!) So they must communicate in other ways which they do by bluff charging, chuffing, stomping etc to tell you that you are a stupid human withoud good olfactory senses and you have entered his property. These bears which are communicating with people are not generally in the mindset of attack, which is why the bear was giving a warning in advance of violence. So the report saying it "prevented" an attack is ridiculous. These type of bears (by 'type' I mean bears in this particular mood or mindset, not in the way of 'good' vs 'bad' bears) do not warrant spray or bullets. A person should just yell, raise and swing their arms to look big and back off. 90% of the time, the bear will back off too. It really depends upon the reason for the bear's actions. Feeding is a reason for the bear to behave in this way, protecting "his" river feeding area or perhaps the area near his den. If the bear has made a kill of perhaps a moose and a person has stumbled into the kill area, the bear is most likely going to attack without warning. A mother with cubs is well known for straight out attacking without warning (which are the bears to fear, and is very difficult to even deploy spray or firearm in time to head off the attack ) and to be honest I am not so sure an attacking mama-sow would be 100% detered by spray.... maybe initially she would stop, but I suspect she might break off the initial attack and then dissappear into the brush, recover and then circle around downwind and proceed with an overwhelming lightning attack (bears can run at up to 30 mph!).
In my opinion, the data in the reports are skued because most of the people in alaska who carry bear spray are inexperienced and ignorant tourists (OK, only ignorant of bear behavior).
The locals in Alaska cary firearms with them when outside. I don't know one local who carries bear spray, not one. I would never want to be fumbling with a spray bottle safety while a bear is running at me at 30 mph! I can have my firearm out and have a shot on target in 1 second!
Roughly 90% of my encounters with bears are bluff charges. 9% are nuisance bears getting onto the lodge property looking for food/trash and i usually use a loud yell and perhaps a gunshot which is enough to cause him to scamper (for the moment....bears have a tendency to circle and come back).
That other 1% is the dangerous bear and those bears are the ones that you do not see coming. If a bear is hunting an animal or a human, they do not bluff charge or chuff and stomp. They circle downwind and wait for the perfect moment to rush, using their unbelievable speed and overwhelm the person or animal with thier massive size and claws, biting at the head and neck.
In all of my time here, yelling and looking big and using intimidating body language has worked more than anything else (situations where I suspect a tourist would have deployed spray).
I do proactively make sure to get bear tags each year, just in case I absolutely need to shoot a bear, I purchase the tags so that I don't have to give away the animal to fish and wildlife (nuisance bears have to be surrendered).
I have only had to shoot 2 bears in my time here in Alaska (outside of hunting bear).
So, I think there needs to be studies done where only Alaska residents with experience in the Alaskan bush (not people who live in Anchorage of Fairbanks) have had to deploy a bear deterrent and compare that data.
As for me, I will cary a firearm daily and consider carying both a firearm and spray if I am hunting and deep in the bush.
Thanks for the great info!
Excellent response!
Data only tells part of the story, knowing how that data was collected (from inexperienced tourist bear spray users OR people who live side by side with bears ).
Well said. I recall reading that the Massai tribesmen in Africa can "read" lions (traditionally, nowadays they might be like city folk) can can tell when a lion is going to bluff charge. They routinely stand their ground and the lion backs off. Furthermore as you implied trying to shoot a charging mama bear is harder than you think. I belong to a wild hog hunting club in Europe and I've seen hogs that seemed half the size of a Volkswagon and they are not put down right away even with well placed slugs. I recall reading a grizzly bear shot through the heart with a rifle managed to run another 100 meters before it went down. So I vote for bear spray for most people, and if you're an expert, then both firearm and spray.
Good info but for the love of god please separate paragraphs better!
@Unknown_Random_Guy
I recently had a run in with a grizzly momma and am very lucky to be unharmed. Im set on bringing bear spray and a sidearm on my next Kodiak adventure but I'm not sure what handgun to go with. What do the locals carry generally? I'm thinking to get a glock20, but your input would be very helpful
I knew you were Canadian when you mentioned "Cole's Notes!" Hahaha. I'm a former BC Forest Service Compliance and Enforcement officer. I worked in Kispiox district which is the Hazeltons. I spent a lot of time in the bush with bear bangers, an 870 and bear spray. Both grizzly and black bears became accustomed to the bear bangers in my zone. I noticed this over 8 years. Here's my anecdotal experience: I've been charged by grizzlies twice. In both instances I deployed my bear spray in sufficient time. In both instances the bears stopped their charge, would turn around and then slowly amble off rubbing and licking their faces. I must also note that in both instances, the attack occurred in thick brush. I would not have had enough time to turn, aim and shoot a shotgun (I always had a round racked). I carried my bear spray in my right hand all the time with unclipped safety tag. Bear spray worked fine both times. After awhile, I stopped bringing the shotgun. Bear awareness is very important also. Knowing when to be extra vigilant (season/time of year), avoiding noisy streams or river banks and also wearing bear bells. I also had a German Shepherd with me. I'm sure many bears heard or smelled us long before I heard or saw them. I also highly recommend practicing with a can of bear spray first. There are several training courses for this. Great channel!👍
Thought the same. The US has Cliff notes!
I was cycling down a deactivated forest road in northern BC, came around a blind curve and was right up close to a Grizzly sow and two cubs. I had no chance of fleeing. It immediately charged me and I had no problem hitting it square in the face with bear spray. The bear emptied its bowels (as did i) and quickly retreated. Scariest experience of my life, but very thankful to ride away unscathed.
man what a shitty day lol.
@forestyforest Hey i know you! I wonder if we had the same search to get us here. Cheers to you and rocco
@@jjmckay6man1rio sucker
Holy crap
What area was this?
I enjoyed your attempt to be objective about this subject. I watched Ron Sooner’s episode 354 interview with Alaska bear guide Phil Shoemaker- perhaps the man with more than 40 years experience of hunting and living with brown bears. I realized that often times a guide or hunter may aim the firearm at the bear and shout at the bear. The bear will do a bluff charge and depart with no shot being fired. Shoemaker stated that is the most common response. I doubt that data is reported. If spray is deployed, the bear may have bluffed and departed without any response to the spray and was counted as a successful spray incident. So perhaps we need all the data from people who had neither spray nor a firearm ( a control group). I lived in Colorado for years and it is a common saying with people who live in more remote areas with a lot of bears. S. O. S. If you have a bad bear encounter. Shoot, Shovel and Shut up. So without a doubt most successful firearms defense incidents go unreported. The people do not trust the authorities to deal objectively and fairly with them if they have to shoot a bear.
The police or game wardens do not exist to make your life better. They’re always looking for something that they can use against you and turn your world into an expensive living hell.
" So perhaps we need all the data from people who had neither spray nor a firearm" They are all dead... Very Murican attitude - that why Canada Has many less fatalities due to Bears than Murica - We are not Ego Driven idiots - we like Bears.
Same thing happens with two legged predators most of the time predator see the prey is not prey and promptly leaves. No report made.
I appreciated your attempt to be data driven and objective. You presented some good data. I think you did a really good job. I have hunted and backpacked in wilderness country for almost 41 years. I have carried both bear spray and a side arm and over the years have had two “bad” bear encounters and one mountain lion that seemed crazy. I have also studied into this debate quite heavily. Here is a couple of points that I don't feel get addressed. Point #1: Most people carrying a sidearm in the woods are not as proficient with the firearm as they think they are. I have found that MANY of the people carry a sidearm they have not even shot in the last 2-3 years. I am no expert at shooting, but I do go to the outdoor gun range 2-3 times per month. In a given year, I will normally send 1800-2200 shots downrange. That is not as much as I would like, but it makes me more prepared than the majority that do not practice at all. I also try to practice shooting in different body positions to simulate not having the perfect shooting scenario. Also, many people that carry firearms are largely ignorant of what type of projectile to use in bear country. If you are using ammo that was designed for self defense it will likely not have the penetration that is needed for predators. Because of my preparation I feel better about carrying a firearm than bear spray. On the other hand, if a person seldom if ever practices with a firearm they would be MUCH better served carrying bear spray. Also, regarding the effectiveness of firearms many studies cite old outdated data. I read one “study” that cited a Grizzly shot by the Lewis and Clark expedition in the early 1800s with blackpowder rifles as proof that a firearm was NOT powerful enough to stop a Grizzly! When I read this “data” I just shook my head in disbelief. Bullet projectiles have gone thru a technology revolution in the last 20-25 years. This is a total game changer. For example: A Glock 20 (10mm) shooting a 200g hard caste projectile has proven to be VERY effective. It has a 15 round magazine capacity and can be comfortably carried all day. It is VERY reliable and shootable and can be extremely accurate in the hands of a practiced shooter. That kind of protection was not available back in the 1940s and 1950s or earlier and so many of the studies still cite data from old low technology projectiles. BUT I repeat that a firearm is ONLY going to be effective if someone is REGULARLY practicing and has developed the necessary muscle memory to perform in an emergency. Many people would be better served with bear spray than their pistol that has sat in the gun safe all year long without being shot. Sorry for the long rant, but I feel your video was good enough that it merited a full response.
CC permit holder here.What you say is so very true. I Regularly train with what ever firearm i carry. It is important. Otherwise it is just a false security. Also your point with ammo improvements is very true. Eg. 9mm loads are much more "hot" than compared eg. to WW2 ammo. etc. I am not a hunter, nor i live in a bear country so i am not well versed with a bullets type, loads, calibers etc. that can be used for hunting or self-defense against bears.
But if i ever was visiting, hiking, etc i would definitely have both. Spray and firearm and i would train with both before going.
Also, there are reports of people which under huge stress could not use even the bear spray. So yes, the training is paramount.
BTW, if you are hitting the range 2-3 time per month, you are more trained up than most LEO’s and military personnel with the exception of those in basic training and specialized Units.
I cannot imagine affording that much ammo in the modern days. Lol.
Id say that the Browning Hi Power was way more revolutionary than a Glock. One is like going from a calculator to a PC the other is like going from Windows 95 to Windows 98.
So in your opinion, if you don't have commitment to gun training and such Bear Spray is a better option. I agree and I think that opinions applies to home defense as well.
One good argument for bear spray is that you can be a little bit more liberal with it than you can a gun. With a gun, you are committed to using lethal force or making a loud noise, without much of an in between. Warning shots are also teaching a bad lesson which is "gunshot sounds don't hurt you." Whereas bear spray teaches the lesson "humans spray this spicy stuff in your eyes and it hurts."
Dead bears can't smell pepper spray.
Warning shot normally won't faze a brown bear because most of them haven't seen humans.
Even the Brown bears my clients miss often stand there looking at us wondering what was that ?
@@MrCobb-rq8iv
ruclips.net/video/YZ1glxX1BiQ/видео.htmlsi=xLV-3VDYVF7MRaCJ
Forced to save my life too
Spray is the first, the gun is the second. Spray usually works, but not always. Have a backup in any situation.
As an exploration professional, I have lived and worked in the Canadian wilderness for most of my life. Dealt with a number of close calls with black, grizzly and polar bears. In those 48 years, in the early days, there was no option for bear spray and after seeing the results of bear spray use I am not a big believer in it as the only thing to carry. I carry both spray and a 12 gauge or a 45/70. The spray works well on a bear that must be deterred, a gun is for when a bear must be stopped. You don't always get the choice on which you can deploy and bring to bear in a given situation and you can't always know for sure if deterrence vs stopped is needed but many face-offs can go either way based on your confidence and the vibe you put out. Many encounters backed with gun or spray end with all parties concerned going their own way without either option having to be used. A good part of that being, the human had something they felt would protect them and projected confidence. One thing I have noticed is that in curious bear situations when the bear is still at distance but moving closer to check things out, bear spray sucks at firing a warning shot lol. Still if one of the crew is on the ground wrestling a bear I don't want to have to shoot into that. Hose them both down and hope the bear takes off or at least moves off so you can safely take a shot - your crew member will hate you but at least they aren't bear fodder. That said, one of your best protections is another person or two with you who are similarly ready to deal with the situation. Again, its the vibe projected that suggests don't mess with the noisy two legged things. That can go a long way toward everybody just avoiding each other and going about their day.
This is a common sense and clearly the right way to think about this. Bear Spray is a great tool, it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that both are better. The right tool to deploy is 100% situational and "studies" should be understood in the correct context - they often come with an undisclosed agenda and underlying biases. Sometimes with reliable data and sometimes with "curated" data. They too are tools that when used properly can help provide insight, not when they are used as a tool to sell an agenda, product or service.
I was totally thinking that shortly before I read your comment. A bear is going to know if you are scared or confident. So whatever a person feels more confident with the bear is going to know.
The data in the video showed a +90% efficacy for bear spray. The study was done by experts. Your anecdote is not data.
@@JH-jx1hs There was very little bias in either of the studies he presents. +90% vs 80% are the numbers. He even demonstrates why bear spray is more effective. You are the one with the bias, not the people who got the studies published.
@@papat7435You either didn't read my comment or didn't understand it. Your comment is irrelevant to the point I made. My comment was never meant as data. It was my observations in real-world situations and my decisions based on those observations. There was no argument against what the data said; it was merely my experienced opinion on how I would apply it. You choose to apply the finding as you will. If bear spray is 90% effective, then I do not choose to be in the unlucky 10%, if possible. Doug Inglis and Jenny Gusse would probably have appreciated another option once they had emptied their can of bear spray on the bear that killed them. The rescue people who responded to their distress call were forced to kill the bear that killed the couple and their dog. If they were following standard procedure, the rescue crew had bear spray. They also had a gun. In that situation, the gun was the tool for the job. That's what the comment was about - options.
*The specific topic aside, thank you for the masterclass on maintaining healthy skepticism of unsubstantiated claims and rigorous analysis of data / studies. We could use more of that in our day-to-day discourse.*
Thank you very much
*I was thinking same thing. RUclipsr Dr. John Campbell with 3M subs would be so proud.*
.
I know the subject matter was bullets vs bear spray but actually this vid is a masterclass in what the Scientific Method is , how to approach data & why you must remain skeptical when claims are made without any link to the source, sample size etc.
These are the very important questions people need to ask themselves when they hear a friend spew something (like stats) or they read it in some blog or hear it in some video.
Question it, challenge the person. Newspapers and magazines that love fancy graphs need to be scrutinized. Theres a reason why they sometimes show the sample size in tiny lettering lol. Excellent video I subbed!!
I feel the same. I recommended it to my wife to show to her students. "Masterclass" is the right word.
As a backcountry hiker, I have bells and bear spray on my hiking stick, and a weapon as backup. I know I'll be faster with the bear spray because aiming is simpler. I've used bear spray effectively in two bear encounters. I've had over twenty bear encounters where the bears retreated. That's the key. Let them hear you coming and you usually won't see them. If you do see them, back up quietly and slowly while setting up to spray.
The most dangerous time is when you cook at your campsite then go to bed in clothes that smell like food. Our backpacking group follows strict food discipline rules. We cook in the morning and eat a cold meal like a peanut butter sandwich a few miles before camping. Then it's wash up and put on clean sleeping clothes time. Basically, a clean set of clothing reserved only for sleeping. Nothing with a possible food smell goes into the tents or hammocks. No drinks, snacks, toothpaste, chapstick, toiletries, or lotions.
Bears don't go after smells that do not recognize as food so why would they tear up a tent with a man in it (who they are afraid of) for some chapstick.? The first thing he will smell is YOU and you are not food, you are a danger to be avoided. If he knows you have food he is is just as likely to go for it WHILE you are cooking it no matter what time of day it is. I personally always hike/backpack stoveless.
@@hikerJohnpeople feed bears.
How does your theory work now?
@@hikerJohnwe are literally food for bears silly
@@hikerJohn If you sleep in a hammock with cherry flavored chapstick you might be a bear taco. They will go after anything with a food smell. We bear bag food, cooking equipment, drinks other than water, toothpaste, lotion, anything they could be attracted to. It's common sense.
@@hikerJohnchapstick can be cherry flavored... Do you not read about bears and what attracts them?
I wonder how many professional guides, or people who go to rescue the mauled individuals, choose to only carry the "more effective" spray?
All you need is your cell phone.
"Dinner bell" bears. They might be attracted to the smell of bear spray because they expect a camp with food for example.
But to that regard, a gunshot can signal that another animal is dead or dying and they can maybe steal it.
Pretty silly if they did I'd say as animals already attacked I'd shoot first spray later lol as animals already known to injure others in close proximity I'd be extra wary just saying but no bear experience no bears in Tasmania Australia but I'm learning as about to move to usa maybe Alaska to marry within a few months
@@LEGOTROLL1 Good humor there! Heh heh!
Professional guides carry large bore hard hitting lever action rifles and know well how to use them, the average hiker outdoor people do not. Unless you hit the aggressive attacking bear in a vital spot the gun won't stop it.
Oh yes the Smith Herrero study AGAIN ! The Smith Herrero study has a few flaws and , as you stated , their conclusion should be taken with a grain of salt ! Firstly they should have limited the scope of their data to only include the incidents of bear defense using MODRERN firearms . Unfortunately they compiled data on over 400 cases of firearms use, some from over a century ago when antique black powder firearms were in use. Accorrding to their study the most common cause for failure of a firearm to defend a bear attack was " inabillity to reload " Well, that is no surprise when they included data , even news paper articles , from the black powder days of yesteryear . The second GLARING error that I noticed was they studied cases where pepper spray was used on non aggressive bears and compared that to the use of firearms to defend a bear attack . In most of the cases of pepper spray use in the Smith Herrero study , the bears were only displaying curious or otherwise non aggressive behaviour. There is a BIG differnce between scaring off a nuisance bear with pepper spray and having to shoot at a charing bear that is about to kill you or rip your guts open . The Smith Herrero study would have much more credibility if they had limited the scope of their data to only compare similar aggresive encounters using both pepper spray and only modern firearms normal used in the last 30 years or so . I went through the entire paper a few times and my conclusion , based on their study was that pepper spray can often be successfully deployed to scare off or change the behaviour of curious non aggressive bears. In the case of an aggressive or charging bears I believe that pepper spray may help to reduce the duration of a bear attack but not always . Just a few years ago a lady from our area lost her life in a bear attack . They sprayed the bear with pepper spray but according to a family member that only seemd to make the bear more aggrivated. The attack was stopped when the ladys husband retrieved his rifle from the cabin and shot the bear. I have seen with my own eyes how inaffective pepper spray can be on wildlife and there is no way I would trust my life to it if I had a better option . A 45-70 or a 12 Gauge shotgun dosen't care which way the wind is blowing . UPDATE thanks to others reponding to this post the stats also seem to reveal that in almost half the cases where the study claims firearms failed to defend an attack , the people being attacked never fired a shot . In those cases , it wasn't the gun that failed . Those cases were stll counted as a failure of firearms to defend a bear attack . The more I learn about this study the more biased their conclusion appers to be . Be aware of your surroundings . Stay alert and be prepared. A gun isn't going to help you in a bear attack if it is still sitting in the holster while a bear is chewing on you . Get familiar with your firearm. Pratice shooting it and practice getting it put of the holster and into action . Practice LOTS . Your life or the lives of your friends might depend on how well prepared you are .
These studies are just not equivalent. It is sad they are so often compared. Firearms used on aggressive bears, vs spray used on all sorts of bear behaviors.
Interesting BillyHill4937: You mentioned precisely the same firearms as I did in my comment. Some of the experts on youtube also mention a number of handguns that can be effective. When I see a message like this from Stefan Kesting, I am grateful that there are other viewpoints on the subject. Of course, each person is responsible for their own life and safety. It all depends I suppose, upon who it is that we trust as a reliable source of information. Part of the deceptive reasoning that I see introduced here, is what are called "statistics". People can think of themselves as a "statistic". People can also think of themselves as "possible victim". There is an enormous difference is there not? The same distinctions appear in the arguments of "gun control" advocates. Thus, should we consider ourselves as "statistically unlikely" to be a victim, or should we think of ourselves a "statistically" a possible "victim". Should we consider what the bears think of us? For example, in what way did TIMOTHY TREADWELL think of himself. He was, according to some reasonable estimates, somewhat of an expert. I will grant that. He had a great deal of experience with bears.
By that account, he even ordered a bear to "Go away!" or something to that effect.
----So should we think that our expertise regarding bears and their behavior be reliable?
--- Do we as wilderness travellers actually "know" what the behavior of an encountered bear will be? The majority of us respect wildlife. But my "respect" and my knowledge of statstics do not, in my opinion, justify choosing a MINIMAL DETERRENT. I want a MAXIMUM deterrent, as the outcome may be life or death.
Ok, that makes way more sense to me. Thanks for the input 😊
I totally agree with your comments. I believe there are a few cases where bear spray is a viable solution. However, I believe there are many more cases where a firearm is a better solution. The only caveat is that anyone depending on a firearm must be extremely well versed with that specific gun.
quit whining. you have to aim the firearm its not just about reloading it.
A friend of a friend was recently attacked by a brown bear defending cubs. He was hit from behind before he could discharge the bear spray (he was aware he was about to be attacked but didn't have time to turn the safety off and aim). After multiple bites to the leg, the bear went in for a bite to the back of the neck but got the can instead, which sprayed directly into the bear's mouth and face. The bear left immediately and ran off.
Bad luck and luck in the matter of seconds.
I've heard of that happening once where the guy had the spray in his back pack when he was attacked. He was face down and the bear attacked his back pack then suddenly hauled ass. He didn't know what had happened until he looked at his backpack and got the can of bear spray out and he saw where it had a hole in it. It just so happened that the bear bit into the can in his backpack and got a mouthful of bear spray. He didn't get a scratch on him. His lucky day I guess.
You sure you didn't just see that story on social media? 🤣🤣 That sorry was everywhere.
So, why not come up with something you can wear on your person that, once punctured, exposes the bear to some nasty substance like bear spray? It may be some extra weight, but it would require nothing on your part except wearing it.
@@ruleaus7664 What about a pressurised suit full of Pepper Spray?
Also depends in two camps;
1) experienced w/guns hunters & outdoorsmen
2) non gun campers/hikers & city-ot neo-phytes
Well done, here is another anecdote from me. We live in Staten Island NY and once before going to the mountain in upstate NY with my family I purchased a bear spray for protection. I opened the can and since I never used it before in my life I decided to test it a bit, to give a short burst into a toilet bowl from a 3 ft distance to see if it worked. Boy, was it fun! The fine residual mist of the spray started to choke me and my wife in another room almost instantly. The same invisible mist settled on the surfaces including the toilet seat, and even after we wiped it off with a wet towel several times it still burned the skin after contact. This is how one idiot gained his faith in bear spray, that stuff is potent!
A good lesson learned a very bad way
That toilet will never again act up like that, well done.
Reminds me of a joke I once heard about a man who bought a pocketbook taser as a present for his wife and decided to first test it out (just a short burst) on himself. The planned short burst turned into a long burst as his muscle control locked up when the current first hit him. Testing dangerous stuff out on yourself rarely goes well.
Testing spray INDOORS? It is designed for OUTDOOR use only. Hope you learned your lesson.
One factor that I wonder about in the difference between the rates of success is the type of encounter. I would think that there would be more of a tendency to use bear spray in minor encounters where the bear would have gone away without any type of deterrence being deployed. That would inflate the apparent efficacy of the spray.
That could certainly affect the numbers. That being said, I think it’s relatively rare for people to carry both bear spray and a gun for most activities. I carry both sometimes but only when I’m in really deep bush and most bear encounters in the North are relatively close to towns.
Excellent point! I would even say: the depth of incident investigation varies. They'll do a lot more if a human is injured or if shots are fired, certainly if human or bear are killed. If the bear just left after spray was used, there's not much to investigate, it's just hearsay at that point.
I've quite a few people who have had an encounter with a bear interviewed . What I have taken away from them is if it's a more curious encounter the bear spray works very well but when it's truly an aggressive encounter it's effective and a firearm is more effective. But that's just my take away. I've watched interviews with hunting and fishing guides and have a cousin who is a fishing guide in Alaska. He agrees with the opinion.
Also there is a lot of variation in skill of user, type of firearm, distance etc.
@@essentialwilderness, Alaska bushman for 32 years. Worked for AK F&G for 25 years. Been attacked 5 times. Bluff charged twice. Ran a bait station for 25 years & had multiple generations of bears return every year. Had 1000s of sightings, 100s of up close ( 10-20 feet) encounters. Here's my opinions & i'll tell you why. Throw the useless spray into a dumpster where it belongs. Back in early 2000s we had a California transplant demonazi become our governor. He fired ALL the F&G top officials & replaced em with untrained, fully agenda driven, gun/ hunting hating Sierra Club members. California transplants who wouldn't know reality if it were biting their ass. They phucked up our F&G dept so bad with their bunnyhugger mentality it almost destroyed all of Alaskas wildlife & is doing damage even to today. They purposely censored many fatal bear attacks to not scare tourists away because tourism & oil are Alaskas lifeblood. An Alaskan senator gave up his seat to beat Tony Knowles, the California transplant demonazi idiot & beat him hands down. He immediately fired all the Sierra Club members & reinstated the original F&G experts who desperately tried to UNDO the damage the demonazies did. The demonazies, being the crybabys they are started screaming " Fair & balanced" & through the politics got half the experts refired & replaced them back with the Sierra Club fools & our F&G dept has been at war with itself since & the demonazies don't give a rats ass about FACTS or how many people get killed & use the liberal courts to get their way. Truth & FACTS be damned. That being said heres my own personal experiences. 1st summer attacked by a moose wounded grizzly w a kicked in face who was starving & desperate. He covered 150 yards so fast i barely had time to shoulder, find & fire at 10 feet killing it w a 375 H&H mag. THAT bear was only flipped over & ran 150 yards & into a lake with its spinal cord shot cleanly in half. Running on pure rage adrenaline & muscle memory. Entire gutpack blown to smitherines. Sold that useless rifle & got my 1st 45/70 a loaded my own PROVEN hot bear loads. 2nd summer a 10 ft blackie (7-800 lbs) stood up 200 yards away, saw me across an open swamp, let out the death roar & charged. I hit him @ 100 yards square in the sternum & dropped him like hed been thunderstruck. No more attacks for 13 years & then THREE in one summer. 2 black bear attacks & 1 young grizzly. Killed 1 with the 375, 2 with my 44 point blank w the muzzle shoved tight into their chest & the young griz ( last attack) w my wifes 243 w the muzzle shoved into its chest hard while firing. In NON of thoes cases would spray have helped at all. Its FAILURE rate is WAY higher than reported. All the F&G depts nationwide have been staffed w Sierra Club liberals similiarly & their " Fact sheets are highly skewed LIES. MY GUN stopped every one of thoes attacks & experienced bushmen wouldnt even consider carrying/ using that trash because WE know better. In a REAL attack youll never have time to use both & during a real attack its useless & only pisses the bears off worse. ESPECIALLY a sow w cubs who once stung sees you as an even bigger threat to her cubs & reacts accordingly. A bluff charge usually stops at 10 feet & no spray is needed. However if the death roar is issued that bear fully intends to kill you. Head shots are useless unless you hit the magic triangle. Across the eyes down to the nose & bear skulls are NOT bulletproof. No thicker than ours & easily shot through IF you hit the tiny skull relative to the size of the bears head. The BRAIN is in the magic triangle & any gun can punch into that. Eskimos regularly use 22s to drop polar bears no problem. In the eye, up the nose or sideways right at the base of the ear are solid brain, instant off, brain shots. We had a F&G officer who did his entire career w only a 40 S&W w regular FMJ bullets & didnt shoot them until they were too close to miss. He retired unscathed & laughed at the big bore guys. ( Including me, a 44/454 guy) He did get knocked off his feet a couple times by the bears momentum but never mauled. Bears were instantly dead from the brain shot. I could go on but the bottom line is spray has gottin more people killed & vanished than it ever saved. And theres no escaping the POLITICS & the scums who use it to achieve their agendas.
Intelligent analysis. The problem with the data that I see is the possibility that bear spray is used on a not too serious charge whereas a firearm is used when the bear is seriously trying to kill you. 10 mm handgun seems to be a smart thing to carry as well as bear spray. Backup companion with a 45-70 wouldn’t hurt.
Accuracy and being able to shoot accurately multiple times seems to be most important.
12 gauge slugs #1 rated bear stopper. Also as a backpacker you want to carry multi-useful items not single use items.
A 12 guage slug IS a single use item
✌😉
@@stripedassape8148 Yep and they don't take much space and I carry extra. :)
@@stripedassape8148The slug is single-use, but the 12gauge can work on anything from small game to birds to bears. The 44magnum loaded with hot 305 grain bear loads should work on bears, but not so much for birds and small game.
look I was born and raised in grizzly and brown bear country, yes I know they are the same the difference in coastal and inland raised in both. 1. every encounter is different no two bears are the same. Now with that said!! If the bear is not aggressive, just pushy or not paying attention, bear spray is your go-to. However, if the switch has flipped and is set on hurting or killing you a firearm is going to be your go-to. I have seen bears that are switched on keep killing or attacking with a leg ripped off the only thing that will stop a bear dead set on battle is death. I would carry both, most people that live in bear country don't go very far outside without a firearm on them, I would carry both, and what I used would depend on the encounter. I would make my choice. What would make that switch flip, well too many reasons to list, but here are a few common reasons why a bear would go into full-on kill mode. 1. Cubs, especially first-year cubs, 2. breeding season, males get moody and aggressive when females go into season. 3. food cash close by, 4. dumb bad luck, just startling the bear can flip the switch. In most encounters, you need nothing. In some encounters, a little spray will bush them off. but if that switch is flipped you could put that entire can up the nose of that bear and he or she would keep coming like nothing ever happened. I promise you this. if the switch is flipped you have to kill or be killed. It truly is that simple. One time when I was about 13 I was running the rabbit snare trail collecting rabbits, and all of a sudden about 15 feet from be a good 10' bear stood up and screamed at me, I was young and did the wrong thing, in about 0.5sec I took off, never looked back, ran so fast that when I got home my mom said my lips were blue. I have no idea what it did but my guess is not a damn thing. Oh watch out for blueberry patches that is where I have had the most bears sneak up on me, one sec you're alone picking berries the next a bear is eating berries about 10 feet from you. this has happened a few times in my life. I was older by then and just backed up a little and picked berries on the other side of the patch. But I had a bear pistol in my chest or stomach holster. In every case, I could read the body of the bear and they did not give a sh*t about me.
You failed to mention on your list when the bear is actually hunting your for food. Bear encounters at night are far more dangerous because if they are out and about its usually because they are in hunting mode.
If the bear charges you, you don't know if the "switch is flipped" though. Sometimes it's a mock charge. And even if the deterrent doesn't work and the bear makes contact a lot of people survive just by playing dead. And that's even with a mother bear protecting cubs. The study even said that.
@@drott150 people regularly survive that way.
@@georgesimon1760 Please, stop giving advice to people. You are going to get someone seriously hurt. Have you had personal experience from "playing dead?" If not, shhh.
@@georgesimon1760 So, how will you know if it is a mock charge? You just wait until the 1 to 2 seconds it's already on top of you to decide? Shhhh.
I imagine the Mineral Management Service was included, because they've got geologists out in the field and would have people with their share of bear encounters. They can see almost anything from a satellite, they say, but there's no substitute for a man out there bushwacking with a prospector's pick and a good set of eyes.
I'd throw out the polar bear encounter, because they were feeding on a whale carcass. It might be entirely different if you're out on an ice floe and a bear's on the ice floe next to yours, and you're the only food for miles.
Exactly correct👍🏼
Carry both. I live in prime Canadian Grizzly country with a dense population of Grizz, Black Bear and Cougar. Up here it is big trouble if you shoot a Grizz, even in defence. I carry bear bangers, air horn and spray. At times I also have a 45-70 guide gun. Bear spray is the most effective most of the time but there are instances where they are sick, old or just an exception that they become predatory and a firearm might be required. I hunt in the bush by myself and I have never had to use spray or bullets. All of my encounters resulted in the Bear running away or myself backing away. I've probably been lucky, I also try to be highly aware of sign and the vegetation that I'm in. Sight lines, wind and noise are your friend when you aren't hunting...
The studies rely on completely different criteria. In the bear spray study, the authors only counted times when bear spray was sprayed. In the firearms study, they included all the times the firearm was not fired. Those were 15% of the firearm incidents. Apply the bear spray selection criteria to the firearms incidents, and firearms are at least as effective as bear spray. Access problems for bear spray and firearms (especially handguns) are essentially the same. The studies suffer from strong selection bias. 21 of 71 incidents in the bear spray study were of bear management people harassing bears, not the most dangerous encounter. The 71 incidents only involved 46 bears. In the firearms study, the authors made sure they included every incident they could find where people were injured. It is how they obtained the 56% injury rate. They state they deliberately did not include more firearm incidents.
In the polar bear example, the two sub-adult polar bears curiously approach two researchers who are in a truck. Not a very dangerous situation. The two sub-adult bears are sprayed, and move off. The two papers should never be compared.
@@deanweingarten8700 Somebody with a brain... this video is almost pointless.
45-70? Better get your life insurance updated. Either that or get a "real" gun.
Logic prevails! I'm in grizz country and it's often too windy for spray but I generally carry both. Why not? I'm almost as interested in the bear's safety as mine. Spray is to there train them if possible so both creatures can survive the encounter.
Everything is a big offense in Canada. Screw em. Just protect yourself and don't report it. Duh
As a hunter we try to stay downwind of animals we are stalking such as deer that may result in an encounter with a bear. Startling the bear usually results in an attack. Since this encounter is at close range deploying the bear spray isn’t likely to help not only because being down wind as a factor but reaching in time for the spray usually attached to your belt or pack and then pulling the clip. Hence the hunter holding his or her rifle opts shoots the raging bear in hopes of fending off the attack. This may not prevent the bear from inflicting some wound to the hunter with the bear running with adrenaline at you and coupled with perhaps a deer caliber and not a bear caliber. So the number in the test results then become screwed noting this wasnt efective but others hiking along trails making noise and perhaps not downwind have bears at further distances from them have time to deploy an effective tactic to thwart off the aggressive bear. Note in this situation I would rather have my rifle to get off a good shot or several shots being effective than wait for this charging bear to get into effective range with the spray! Most bear spraying persons armed with spray are likely to have yelled at the bear or walking/hiking in pairs or in a group or that obviously would intimidate the bear than a lone hunter stalking stealthily through the woods.
I truly appreciate the DATA approach with opinions and unique special cases set aside.
The BIG question is what people would call an aggressive bear encounter.
Most people, including many used to seeing and encountering bears, are not able to see the difference between a mock attack and a real attack.
People also very often think that a curious bear coming close is an aggressive bear.
If it is a mock attack or the bear being curious only, a bear spray, a shot in the air and you even doing nothing will most of the time make the bear walk away.
But a bear spray can also make the mock attacking bear change it to a real attack.
And someone claiming that is not the case talks pure nonsense.
I have a very good friend that has done research on bears for 30+ years and one of his colleague that was rather inexperienced with bears mistook a mock attack from a brown bear for a real attack and used his bear spray against it, but his first attempt missed the bear, but since he was stressed and rattled by the "attack" he really didn't pay notice to what the bear did as he changed his aim and sprayed again, but at that time the bear had already stopped the charge and was already turning away.
The moment that second spray hit the head of the bear, there was no turning away and just a mock attack anymore.
The bear clearly felt attacked and attacked him in defense and started to bite him and hit him with his paws.
My friend was not able to shoot the bear with his 44 magnum soon enough to stop the attack and he had to move close enough to be totally sure he could shoot the bear in the head and not hit his colleague.
If his colleague had been alone in that situation with his bear spray, he would most likely have been killed by a bear that in reality only did a mock attack.
My friend is never working without a proper firearm to protect himself from bears as he very well know that a bear spray is totally useless against a bear that really wants to harm him.
Yes, he has a bear spray with him as well, but he mainly uses that against young bears that are curious and to stupid to walk away from a shot or two in the air.
I am no scientist as my friend is, but I have been around a lot of bears of all kinds for about 40 years and have had many bears close to very close to me.
I have experienced rather many mock attacks during those years but I have only experienced four real attacks.
Two of them the same year.
All of them brown bears.
None of these four bears would have stopped because of some bear spray as their intent was VERY obvious.
Another friend I have once stopped an attacking polar bear with his 44 magnum and that bear dropped less than 6 feet from his toes and he would for sure be dead today if he had a bear spray in his hands instead of his gun.
If a polar bear is aggressive against you, it will not care at all about your silly bear spray.
Wounding a bear with a firearm can also turn a mock attack into a real attack and some people bring something like a 9mm for self defense against brown bars or polar bears, it is not strange that things are going badly....
Reports and studies like this should be taken with at least some grains of salt and maybe even with a shovel of salt at times.
Most of the times are "aggressive" bears not aggressive at all.
And I totally understand why it is claimed that a bear spray is better than a firearm, since wounding a mock attacking or curious bear with a bad shot or inferior cartridge/ammo will result in a real attack much more often than the use of a pepper spray will.
But the reality is that the bear spray is utterly useless if you encounter a bear that really wants to harm you or even eat you.
But having firearm is not enough.
It needs to be powerful enough and you need to practice enough with it to be both quick and accurate with it incase you need to use it.
A 9mm handgun can in most cases be enough against a black bear if you are a good enough shot with it, but it is close to useless against brown bears or polar bears.
A 10mm handgun is minimum against brown bears and polar bears in my opinion and you need to use proper loads with proper bullets that can penetrate the skull well and deep into the body.
This is what I use when bowhunting in bear country and as backup when fishing or hunting with a rifle in bear country.
My main gun when fishing, is a shotgun with slugs.
And when I hunt with a rifle in brown bear country, I hunt with my 375 Ruger.
All these are very capable to stop an attacking bear if you hit where you need to hit, but the 10mm takes the most practice to be skilled enough with.
A high quality pump action or a high quality semi auto 12 gauge with slugs is by far the best choice for most people in my opinion.
It takes the least practice and is VERY effective against an attacking bear.
The type of bear also matters a lot.
If a polar bear really is aggressive, there is NO pepper spraying in the world that will stop it.
The story about stopping aggressive polar bears wanting to hurt them with a pepper spray is utter nonsense.
If a polar bear wants to hurt you, it will not stop unless it is dead.
When it comes to brown bears, few of them are really aggressive and want to hurt you.
They say that about only 1 in 100 brown bears will attack you and that fits rather well with my own experience.
In most situations by far are they only curious or at worst making a mock attack.
Since most people don't encounter many brown bears when visiting their backyard, would they be rather unlucky to encounter a brown bear that really wants to hurt them.
In most of those cases it is a sow with cub/s, a bear guarding his/her food or you suddenly come very close to it without it noticing you and it attacks you in defense instead of running off.
When it comes to black bears, you need to be very unlucky to encounter an aggressive bear.
I have encountered MANY black bears and have yet not encountered one that was aggressive.
But the most dangerous black bears by far are the dumpster bears and the bears roaming around to gorge in people's garbage.
These black bears tend to have no fear of humans at all and are in general much more dangerous than the black bears in the wilderness that I am used to.
That said, can black bears in the wilderness still be dangerous, but they are extremely few compared with the black bear population.
But you still need to be prepared in case you encounter one of them.
Black bears are also by far the bears where bear sprays are the most effective against.
Both bear sprays and guns can give a false sense of security when it comes to bears and no matter what you choose to bring, do you need to practice enough with it to be able to use it well if you need it.
Personally I would NEVER be in brown bear or polar bear areas without a firearm.
And I highly recommend people to not rely on bear sprays only in those areas.
I VERY much doubt that a bear that really wants to hurt you, will stop because of a bear spray.
Nicely stated...!
Foaming Bear Spray by Cold Steel comes out liquid expanding and sticking to everything...!
@@mtman2 Yes; and it also is much much less likely to incapacitate the user with a secondary exposure.
@@upcycle.outdoorsman9629
Right no blowback and IF you hit the mouth, nose and eyes the attack IS over...!
Tho either one of the three is a game change being liquid fire, two is better, tho three and that bear or person isn't able to do anything AND rubbing it smears as it also is expanding foam...!
Another smart move is to have the loudest decible airhorn you can have which
IF enuff time can be blasted off early in a charge to see if it'll turn...!
Also if camping 2-3 insta-lite flares for an in your face scorcher or just a deterent...!
As far as pistol's go it's the bullet type + powder charge that makes the difference...¡
Tho no doubt a 12gauge 1oz Foster slug is the ticket for final bear obedience which I carried-[12g double] in Alberta, BC, Yukon & Alaska, magnum(1,700fps) steel waterfowl in one barrel + 1oz Fosters in the other to be able to choose for a warning shot IF It's possibly the right move:
OR - at 20yds charging in fast take its eyes out w/waterfowl load, immediately dump the slug in'em-[or both@once], w/auto ejectors its a fast 2-more slugs to finish it..!
Least likely gun to jam...lol
Also a double barreled 12gauge pistol(or 20g) by Diablo be handy at point blank range like from within a tent = always use a tent-fly as a 2-second heads up before the bear scratch's thru to the tent proper & giv'em both barrels in the face from the Diablo or a pistol of your choosing...!
@@mtman2 I used foam spray only as a cop. Hard cast lead for ammo is in my trail pistol. +P of course.
@@upcycle.outdoorsman9629
Am sure if ever used on a worthy perp esp smearing it with hands(paws)makes it worse = waaay more effective then powder spray...!
We have a male black bear, easily 300 lbs, acting curious around our property. It has visited, always skirting the edge of the yard, 4 times so far this season. Last year it was only once. But this year 4 times. It concerns me because his behavior is very un-black-bear like. Usually they run away, but this one seems interested in the sounds of playing children.
I hollered at it twice, and the first time it took off and ran away, but the 2nd time there was a long pause, a tepid retreat, and then he turned around and watched us from the edge of the woods for about 5 minutes.
Very unusual.
I bought some bear spray and mounted it in an old fire extinguisher holder beneath the dech, so if anyone is out there in the yard and a bear approaches, they can reach for it readily enough.
I am very reluctant to use a rifle (bolt action remmi 700), not because I may kill it (although that is sad and I don't really want to harm it) but what troubles me is FAILING to kill it, and it ends up suffering. Or it carries on and mauls or kills one of my family or me.
We don't have any, but our neighbors have bird feeders, and I'm aware that's what the bears want most. Seeds and rubbish.
Paintball guns, roman candles, a pack of beagles... anything unbelievably annoying.
Paintball guns, roman candles, a pack of beagles... anything unbelievably annoying.
Air horn
Bullet placement is important.
As they are charging aim for the nose or just ahead because they are lower than you ad they are coming ,other wise you will shoot high .
I dont carry a shot gun for bear because there is no way enough penetration after a lot of testing .
A handgun in a chest rei is good ,its faster than a hip holster and with hard cast bullets
Is very effective.
Rifles are also effective but you might have set it down ,with not time to retrieve.
An Alaskan guild recently used a S&W
9 mm auto with buffalo bore hard cast
And it worked.
Its not a one off.
Bullet placment and hard cast bullets are the key.
A 10 mm ,.357 will work to.
When you get to 44 ,454, and larger handgun calibers you run into recoil that hinders your follow up rounds .
Do not rely ever on
Soft lead or or jacketed bullets.
I always travel in twos.
I carry a hand gun in a chest rig and the other person bear spray.
They shoot first ,im the back up.
Oh and besides hanging your food far away from your tent .
Dont go in the tent with the cloths you had on when cooking and eating .
Yup no food in the tent tent ,Or drink unless its water.
I always travel in twos thats the best advise i have seen i would never hunt on my own in USA i am from Australia even here its advisable just in case of a medical episode of a fall getting injured i always carry a personel beacon if on your own to call for help
"... aim for the nose..." That's a laugh and a half. No matter how good you think you are with a gun, your ability to even hit the bear at all in a surprise situation is extremely dubious. We're talking about blinding fast action where you haven't been able to choose your stance or even orient your body toward the bear.
I knew the late grizzly researcher, Dr. Charles Jonkel. He told me about the one bear attack that he had experienced. He had emptied a revolver's cylinder at a bear's face at nearly point-blank range. Every bullet but one glanced of the bear's thick, sloping skull, creating only surface wounds. The last bullet entered through the eye by sheer dumb luck and stopped the attack, killing the bear. The only reason that he had an opportunity to fire so many rounds was because he was on a steep upslope above the bear, behind a giant half-rotten downed log, so the bear's claws kept tearing away rotten wood instead of being able to get a grip to get over the log.
Chuck was extremely lucky to have survived that attack, firing six rounds at a distance of no more than a couple of feet. Partly due to this experience, he was one of the people involved in the initial project to develop and test bear spray as a defense tool against bears. Bear spray doesn't require an accurate aim, and bears' noses, eyes, and respiratory systems are just as sensitive to pain as ours. When it hits the lungs, it causes severe respiratory distress and a sensation of mortal harm.
Skunks employ the same strategy. They have been driving off bears and other predators for many thousands of years. Their defense is so effective, that they really don't fear these larger animals much at all. I've been close to skunks many times, because they're just not afraid of anything else. If I had to bet on whether a skunk or Rambo with a gun was going to be more likely to survive a full-on bear attack, I'd bet on the skunk every time. If you think that a full, close-up blast of skunk spray is nothing but a bad smell, you're very much mistaken. It has the subjective effect of making you feel like you're in danger of dying of radical poisoning.
With a can of bear spray, you're a super-skunk. Notice the data about even completed attacks being less likely to result in fatality or extremely severe injury. With either bear spray or a firearm, the bear may hit you through the sheer inertia of the attack. However, with a cloud of bear spray hanging in the air, it's going to get to the bear's nose, eyes, and lungs anyway. The pain of that stuff is swift and severe, and more compelling than physical wounding, which bears are inured to from their occasional necessity to fight each other. The bear is going to back off the same way my dog backs off when she's hit with a blast of skunk spray. The bear spray may get to you, too, but you'll survive that. You and the bear both will walk away from the experience with no permanent harm from the spray, just as skunks don't actually kill anybody even though they make them think they're gonna die.
The people who would choose to carry a firearm over a can of bear spray are the people who want to cosplay at being Matt Dillon with their he-manly gun on their hip. That's their whole shtick. They're permanent twelve-year-olds.
You forgot to circle back around to the misuse examples in the bear spray study. It’s important to note that in 4 cases, residue of bear spray actually seemed to attract bears. Having been hit by an accidental discharge of bear spray due to the safety clip being dislodged in brush, my biggest concern with bear spray is that in the wind you get one shot. It took me a substantial amount of extra time to hike out while covered in residue, and I was out of commission for minutes. It seems likely, atlthough not proven in this data, that the most likely aggressive bear encounters involve hiking with the wind in your face and surprising a bear, which is the worst case scenario for spray. I actually find most bears avoid human interaction normally. With the wind in my face, I prefer a firearm.
Maybe if we read the directions on the can of bear spray, it will tell the purchaser that it will always deploy downwind. If the wind is blowing toward the user, the aerosol can will not discharge, thus saving the purchaser from any discomfort.
The manufacturer guarantees this. Or, maybe the research and development department understands that bears always, by statistical studies, approach Into--The--Wind, thus assuring that bear spray is effective as a deterrent. If the wind is blowing into your face, the bear spray is designed to pierce through the plasma field of electromagnetic subatomic particles such as Muons and Quarks
and deter the bear from approaching further. When you have returned to camp, and removed your Aluminum Foil Hiking Cap and opened a cold beer to relax around the fire, the slow realization that your left arm is missing will pale in the light of the fact that you have saved the life of a gentle woodland creature. You are one of the "brights" of the world because your thinking is Politically Correct.
@@YaxisX Why would you have your self defense dependent on the direction that the wind is blowing? I mean, it's not like the bear is just gonna line itself up for you.
One thing I didn't hear you mention, was that most people will shoot off the bear spray with less hesitation. Which I believe gives it an advantage. Easier to justify that 'warning shot ' when it's non lethal to the bear. Great video!
Okay, my first comment was before watching the video. This is trash studies. Okay, in most cases the bear will stop on its own when charging so if you just happen to set off the spray and the bear would have stopped anyway you get credit for the spray, you see what I'm saying. like I said below in my other comment, if a bear switch flips it will not stop, I'm telling you, it is rare for that switch to flip but when it does. I don't think you can count charges, like I said, I have been charged at least 10 times in my life, they stopped on their own every time, so if I happened to spray would all 10 charges count for spray stopping the bear without a full-on attack.
But if you shoot the bear and it was just a mock charge you get credit for that too. And you end up with a dead bear, or even worse, an injured bear.
@@georgesimon1760 people are much more conservative in firing off a gun than bear spray
@@christopherrowley7506 that's because the consequences are more severe with the gun and your odds of hitting the bear where you need to aren't as good.
Dean Weingarden (sp?) has written extensively on ammoland. Most of the comparison studies count bear spray only if it was actually used, whereas they count attacks on those carrying firearms as a failure regardless of whether gun was used or not. They even count attacks where someone had a pistol in their backpack as firearm failure. Bear spray in a backpack would be just as ineffective. Can also be expected that those who used spray are more likely to self report while people who shoot a bear are more likely to shoot-shovel-shutup - meaning successes are undercounted.
I'm a Marine who has trained with Pepper Spray, and CS gas. I've been around many others who have trained with both as well. Not everyone is affected as severely as others who are not affected nearly as much. There are some who seem hardly affected by those chemical agents, and some who are just about immobilized. I've never seen anyone who wasn't affected by a gunshot. I suspect that any and all bears have the same reactions. Not all bears are adversely affected enough by chemical agents to save ones life. I'll take my chances with a gun, rather than a chemical agent. You can squirt them if you want, but as for me, I'm choosing a gun.
-Gunny T sends
Of course you'd rather use a gun, you eat crayons....
I'm with you on this!
You dudes don't train with bear spray though. It will put down any human being real fast.
You're right about different people having different reactions to tear gas and stuff when I went to Parris Island I was standing about a 100 yd away from the tear gas Chambers when they were doing their training and when they came out I started choking because of the stuff just being on the wind but there was dudes that were standing much closer who were just fine.
@@joerenner8334 You do realize that humans and bears are not the same, right?
On May 18, 2018 a US Wildlife worker (Amber Kornak) while out in the woods checking bear hair sample traps, was attacked by a grizzly less than 2 air miles from our home at the base of the Cabinet Mountains near Libby, MT....Per various news reports: “As the bear attacked her from behind she was able to reach her bear spray and spray the deterrent to ward off the bear,” Hemer’s fundraising post continues. “Amber’s wildlife training skills kicked in, and she somehow managed to stay calm and hike two miles from the site of the attack to her work vehicle where she then drove to find help.”
I spend a lot of time in the woods hunting and fishing as well as fishing trips to Alaska. When in the woods or at camp I carry two cans of bear spray in a holster for fast access. During archery season I add a revolver. During rifle hunting season, I still carry the two cans of bear spray. Also carry a Garmin Messenger in case I get into a bad situation.
Some great answers here from viewers. Generally, it's difficult to get unbiased statistics as not everyone reports incidents and some groups have certain agendas. If its not possible to carry a rifle or self defense shotgun, carry both bear spray and a handgun like a 10mm with a great penetration round from buffalo bore or underwood. If no guns are allowed or the person is not skilled with a firearm, pepper spray is the only proven option. Sometimes a problem bear needs to be educated but is not predatory and pepper spray will prevent an unwanted investigation. A true predatory bear is better dead, as it can eventually injure or kill a person. Many people are not skilled with a handgun and will not shoot effectively. In summary, carry two types of protection when possible. Be prepared, practice with the spray or firearm so in the heat of the moment, a person can use their tool of choice. Thanks for sharing the studies as they provide interesting info and details.
Thank you, I've never heard this specific point articulated, even though it's almost obvious. A true predatory bear is a danger to humans.
Predatory? Get between a mother bear and her cubs and an attack becomes much more likely but that's not predatory behavior it's protective. Bears often look to put on weight in the Fall before going into their winter torpor and may be more aggressive that time of year but that's not about the bear being predatory it's more about it's biological clock. Finally there are 8 billion humans on the planet we are in little danger of running out of those selfish, destructive, myopic, deformed chimps. There are 8 bear species in the world 6 are listed as threatened or endangered.
Man that was fantastic. When I saw the title I was prepared for conjecture. But you gave the topic about as fair a treatment as we can do with such limited data. Earned a new subscriber
Always enjoy your content Stephan, so thank you! But I have a few comments and/or questions.
The caliber of the bullet should be a key component of this analysis. I know many avid hunters who have had several encounters with bears who swear by a .45 ACP pistol. It’s a small and nimble firearm easy to maneuver but yet with huge stopping power. These real world outdoorsman have told me that with that particular firearm they’re pretty at ease and it’s never failed them whereas they’ve had failures with the bear spray (a) outdoor conditions b) the bear charged right through the spray). This caliber of the bullet as parallel to the content of the spray. You wouldn’t want to spray a bear with a dog spray, for instance.
I appreciate your reliance on scientific analysis. I’m a scientist myself but I can tell you that as of the last decade or so, I have increasingly lost confidence in these journals who are easily swayed by those who fund them. I know that’s very much against the scientific method but sometimes there are political motives behind these papers as data can be easily manipulated.
The best source of info are villagers and populations who live in the wilderness full time and deal with bear matters on a frequent basis. I would take their word over any publication. That’s just the world we live in. Ow unfortunately.
Two things...
First, the fourth study (Analysis of fourth report, Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence
in Alaska, by Smith et al.) did look at long guns vs handguns and found no difference in efficacy between the two. In general bullets spat out of long guns are travelling much faster than those coming out of handgun, and due to kinetic energy being 1/2m*v*v they'll have more stopping power in general.
Second, it's true that any one study or report can be biased, but if you've got four different reports published in three different places then that's beginning to form a pretty indicative pattern. As always, I am open to having my mind changed by more data, but I have not found any reliable data to the contrary.
And I respectfully disagree with you about the power of anecdote. Especially in the modern era people are so religiously wedded to their guns that if you asked a sample of 100 people whether gunsmoke cured cancer that five of them would probably say yes.
@@essentialwildernessHow does that prove the power of the anecdote ? Sorry for my English , English isn’t my first language and I think I am confused. Thank you🙏 ❤
The Smith Herrero report was a study with many flaws and was hardly a fair comparrison. They used at least some data from the days of antique black powder firearms in their study on firearms use . According to their statistics the most common cause of firearms failure to defend against a bear attack was the inability to reload. That is no surprise when they used stats from the old days of black powder firearms. The other GLARING error was they compiled data on pepper spray use where, in most of the cases the bears were displaying curious or non aggressive behaviour and comparred those stats to the use of firearms to defend actual bear attacks . Big difference between a curious bear and one that is trying to kill you. After going through the entire Smith Herrero paper I concluded that pepper spray was often successful at scaring away curious non aggressive bears and black powder muzzle loaders were often not the best choice for bear defense. It's too bad they didn't do a more fair comparison , compiling and limiting the data to only include cases of aggressive bear attacks and also stick with only data from the days of more modern firearms.
I absolutely cannot praise you enough for approaching this situation from the wisest and most reliable perspective. Using data and an understanding about flawed and biased studies to help people keep safe is highly preferable because this is an important subject. I hope more campers find your subject.
@@mariateresabissinger3035 complementing me on making data deriving decisions is the route to my heart so thank you
We lived right on the edge of the wilderness in Washington State. Every now and again a Bear would come into the neighborhood. Just about everyone has a Bear Slap. It's two bords hinged together with straps for your hands or hand holds(drawer knobs). When you slap it together, it sounds like a double barrel shotgun cracking off. There were 30 of us kids in the neighborhood running wild all over the place. 10-12 of us would take off in the summer time for 2-3 weeks at a time miles up in the mountains. We would use the Bear Slap every hour or so. But Bears wouldn't ever bother us because there were so many of us stomping around out there.
But I do remember my Dad a few times grabbing the Bear Slap and running out the back door.
Bear spray vs firearm effectiveness studies contain major methodological flaws. They compare spray use primarily in bluff charges/curious bear encounters against firearm use in legitimate attacks/predatory encounters. This fundamentally mismatches the scenarios being compared.
The studies ignore spray's critical limitations: single use, 7-9 second duration, 30ft max range, and vulnerability to wind/temperature. They also completely miss that bears' learned fear of firearms prevents countless encounters - this background deterrence effect isn't captured.
Spray offers no warning capability, unlike firearms where sound alone often deters. Once deployed, spray leaves you defenseless. Firearms maintain defensive capability with multiple rounds, work at any range/temperature, and allow early engagement.
The research appears designed to support policy preferences for non-lethal alternatives while diminishing legitimate firearm carry justification. Raw "success rate" comparisons are invalid given the biased methodology and mismatched encounter types.
Proper analysis shows firearms, with appropriate caliber and training, provide more reliable and versatile defense - especially critical in remote areas or predatory encounters.
So I had just seen a RUclips video about a couple who were on their way to a camp, had reported there location to an uncle, and were subsequently killed that evening by a grizzly bear. There were two cans of bear spray completely empty having been deployed. The rescuers found their camp and then were attacked and killed the bear.
Nothing is 100%, not bear spray, not guns, not seatbelts, not airbags. But if you actually look at the studies, I’m citing you’ll see that hairspray worked about 90% of the time and firearms worked about 80% of the time. Both are better than nothing, but neither are perfect. Guns two can jam, can miss, can run out of ammunition, or can shoot your fellow hiker
@@essentialwildernessNo damn way I'm going to use hairspray on a mean bear. 😊
@@JDsModernMartialArts
I’d pay 50 bucks to see you do that!
I believe I know that story. It was an old malnurished and sick female bear. Most Bears don't have behaviours like that. The problem with playing the odds is that there is always an outlier. Unfortunately media and social media only exaggerate and share the abnormal incidents. I was out his weekend and found three different sets out G-Bear tracks within 500meters of the hamlet I live near and a Mom and 2 cubs walked through Town this morning. No attacks. We see them or their sign regularly they are not inherently predatory. They are wild animals and like humans also have bad apples that don't follow reason. Be careful, smart and have a backup plan or just stay out of their home.
@@essentialwilderness Yes, and why even take the chance? Carry a firearm as well.
My wife is having difficulty getting a well reasoned study from a student. I recommended that she show him this video. It is masterful.
One thing I almost guarantee guarantee no study would reflect is (1) whether the firearm was immediately accessible, (2) whether the person was even moderately proficient with the firearm, (3) their hit rate during the encounter.
I almost guarantee that a lot of people carrying handguns while hiking put them in a backpack, or somewhere else that's not immediately accessible. If it's not immediately accessible it's essentially useless for self defense.
I’m willing to wager most people _vastly_ over-rate their proficiency with both guns and bear spray. There’s a reason so many people have a firearm in their house because it makes them feel safe, but statistics say they are mistaken by a factor of 30 (meaning only 3% of these people are proficient enough to actually make themselves safer).
Food or garbage ? ....ok so we are counting bear spray driving away garbage bears .......who the hell gets to shoot at garbage bears ?
This demonstrates the fundamental differences in the studies.
It's literally a garbage in garbage out study.
Gun nut detected.
Does most of the time mean they are uninjured 90% of the time or 49.99999% of the time.
I immediately question why they gave a percentage for guns and a "most of the time" for bear spray. That indicated they didn't want to reference the actual numbers. Which instantly disqualifies their opinion in my eyes.
Because the first two are 100% opinion and not studies.
Grizzlies,in the lower 48 are known to be much more aggressive than Alaskan bears
The minute you said "piss everyone off" your cat took it personally.
"Bear Spray does NOT work like bug spray ,,, we wish we didn't have to say that ."
Oh man! 😂 I had one go off in my Xtra Tufs one time... man that burned!
ha, my plan was to always spray myself and make my self as uneddible as possible.. but then I realized they got freddy kruger gloves on each paw as well
🤣 well now I know not to spray it on me in hopes that it’ll prevent an attack. Maybe if you spray yourself, the reaction you give might make them think you’re crazy and they’ll run away. While you do this, wake up and say your prayers.
There was a man in Alaska who was attacked while in his tent. He sprayed through a mosquito net and got most of it on himself. He passed out from the spray. When he woke up, the bear was gone, and he was relatively ok. So, if all else fails, it might work to spray it on yourself.
So the firearm categories and time range is interesting. Being that the timeframe begins prior to 1900, one question related to categories is, how many long guns or handguns were smokeless vs. black powder. Also, how many were autoloader, single shot, or manual repeaters, or shotguns? Also, what calibers?
These are considerations of consequence, especially today, as firearm technology indeed advanced materially within that time period.
It would be misleading to lean on data related to single shot muzzle loaders or sub 40 cal handguns.
Such antiquated arms are anemic next to modern firearms. There is a massive difference to a 7.62 Mosin, or a 45/70 guide gun, for instance.
If that study doesn't make these distinctions, then I can't really regard it as credible.
Yep !
Agree totally, I also want original data before accepting any reports. If the original data is not presented no check can be conducted. Even when the data is presented, far too often the conclusion listed cannot be supported by analysis of the data presented. From my experience the data must analysed first to draw accurate information if informative at all.
Thank you for this very honest and meticulous analysis, and for pointing out superficial vs. detailed reports. I work in data analytics, so I'll add my 2 cents. Relying on data can play its own tricks on the analyzer, even if we completely exclude dishonesty and political views. When people consider "data", there is this illusion of data points being fungible, in other words assuming that every bear attack is the same, interchangeable, that every human in a bear encounter is also the same. I've seen professionals at work look at data and draw false or meaningless conclusions and "trends", where there were none. A couple of examples of variability: the data with spray use might have more "hippies hiking in bear country" represented, whereas the data with guns might have more hunters, where the bear behavior and motivation are different. So we are already comparing different situations. People react differently - some are decisive, others might panic or freeze. Every bear is obviously different - different demeanor, different time of year, weather, mood, how hungry, how angry, etc. Another: level of training with a firearm. I read recently about a man who survived, although still injured, but he practiced with his 10mm Glock all year long, and that saved him. Other people don't practice, thinking that the gun is a magic power. There's a guy on RUclips who relates how his brother took an unvetted pistol with him elk hunting, which he's never once fired. Or how about the elk hunt guide who was killed because the pistol was out of reach and didn't have a round chambered, so his client couldn't get it to work. Even cases of defense against humans, like police shootings or citizen defenders, are considered to be incomplete to judge "stopping power" of some calibers vs. others, although there's far more such incidents vs. bear attacks. Spray doesn't even stop every human attacker.
I dream of visiting bear country some day, maybe years in the future, and I would never want to have to shoot a bear, but I won't go if I'm limited to spray only. So I am studying and training now, learning and figuring out what do bring.
We don't see studies analyzing whether smoke detectors are better than fire extinguishers. We have both. Likewise with bear defense. Spray is a given, a must. A firearm should be up to the person. And that person better put in the time to figure out the caliber, action, ammo selection and lots of training and practice.
P.S. cool looking pump action there, is it chrome plated or stainless steel? What kind is it? I'm not sure I've ever seen one with that finish and type of stock.
I just left a comment basically mirroring your comment before scrolling down and seeing you already beat me to it. This guy apparently is a biologist and he missed the simple observation that the nature of bear encounters between hunters and hippies is highly relevant in interpreting this data properly.
@@drott150 👍you should see all the argumentative replies I got on several of my comments. People are so uneducated about statistics and data analytics, that Dunning-Krueger kicks in massively whenever someone waves "data" or "science" in front of them. The more logical explanations you provide, the more they argue.
@@languagesource355 I also read some more comments where experienced outdoorsmen who live in bear rich territory made the very valid point that the vast majority {i.e. 9 out of 10 or even more} of bear rushes towards humans are bluffs. They turn around and back down before they attack. Under those circumstances, someone with bear spray who deploys it would interpret the encounter as a "win" for bear spray, where in most cases the bear spray had little or nothing to do with the bear's retreat. And these encounters, which would constitute the clear majority of the "data" presented here, heavily weight the results making it appear that bear spray is far more effective as a life-saving repellent than it actually is.
And another comment from an experienced guide described his many encounters. He said it's rare, maybe 1 out of 10 or 20 close encounters, are from a bear who's "switch is on." And by that he meant they are dedicated to killing you. And nothing will stop them other than deadly force. They will sprint right through spray and absolutely will not stop until they're on you.
As for me, I go hiking in bear country once in a while. I will carry both spray and a handgun. I'm letting myself get 'et based on some half-assed government report with "data" like this written by liberal govt employee ecologists who you know darned well are opposed to "a bunch of MAGA bubba's in the woods with their precious guns."
@@drott150 you totally get it! 👍 I've also read that the large browns/grizzlies, if they perceive themselves or cubs to be in mortal danger, their reaction is to annihilate anything that they perceive as the cause, no matter the cost to themselves. Like aggression is their only fear response. This obviously wouldn't apply to many other situations. That's where the advice to "play dead" comes from, except it's not going to harmlessly "fool" the bear. He might still slice you open or bite off an arm, but at least he might leave you alone eventually, if you're not moving, not presenting danger.
The "ecologists" you describe obviously care more about bears than humans, they would only sneer if a human was killed by a bear. Taking their advice is not unlike taking "expert" advice on masking or jabbing. To any observant person their credibility approaches zero at light speed.
The problem about government studies is that the government, both state and federal, doesn't allow most of its employees that work on public lands to carry firearms unless they have police authority (ie. rangers). They have a huge incentive to say that bear spray works better than firearms exactly for that reason.
Also those studies that you went through, bear spray is applied much more liberally, often in situations where the bear wasn't necessarily aggressive but engaging in undesirable behavior. Even though they included similar situations in the fire arms study, almost no one is going to shoot a bear for digging through trash in a campground. People are going to be a lot more conservative in shooting off a gun than bear spray. So the data is apples to oranges.
I think it's telling that Norway, a socialist country, requires everyone visiting their arctic island of Svalbard to carry a firearm due to the number of polar bears; not bear spray.
Thanks for going through this stuff though, it's interesting.
As a retired wildlife biologist and Forest Service Law Enforcement officer I feel I must point out the error in the premise of your argument. Federal employees in AK are given training in both bear behavior and firearm use. Following successful completion of the training they are authorized to carry firearms in the field. Also scientist, government or other, have a huge incentive to report their results based on the evidence.
@@780monster ok interesting I didn't know about Alaska. I live in Montana and that's definitely not the case here.
And there is always bias, any good scientist is aware that objective evidence doesn't exist, the subject always has an influence. The evidence you get out of an experiment is heavily dependent on the structure of the experiment. It's the reason why Tylenol has been researched for decades and sold as an effective pain killer until recently it's come out that it actually doesn't have a statistically significant effect on pain reduction. If something as straight forward as a medicine's effect can be muddled by bias how much more then can the chaotic and highly variable scenario of defense in a bear attack be muddled?
@@christopherrowley7506 Frankly your argument to counter the cited studies amounts to nothing. You infer that there was bias but you only offer speculation. In science if you believe you have observed bias you have 3 options: 1. present relevant data that counters the papers findings, 2. Demonstrate that the data analysis is flawed and reanalyze the data with defensible methods and have results that support your alternative hypothesis, or 3 Assume that the data and analysis was valid but point out alternative inferences from the results or argue that the results were speculative and should have been stated more consecutively. Further, laboratory studies on Tylenol has nothing to do with bear spray vs firearms.
@@780monstermost the papers cited in this video are just reports not studies, they don't offer enough detail into how the data was collected to even comment much on it. That's a huge red flag there, fish and game tells us 'trust us, this is what the data tells us, but we won't give you access to the data or detail how the data was collected'.
And I did bring up one point but you ignored it--the possibility that bear spray is applied more liberally than firearms (for example if you spray a non aggressive bear hanging around camp with bear spray that counts as a successful deterrent, but probably people wouldn't shoot a bear in that scenario).
And the Tylenol thing is relevant because medicine is a much more regulated and well researched field, and as such it is a 'there exists' argument for my theory that a bad incentive structure results in bad research.
Well I've lived 65 years born and raised in Alaska and I will tell you it depended on the situation. In my younger days we didn't really see that many bears because they still had fear of human, but now generations of bears have been born that just don't see humans as much of a threat. If a bear is running full out at you, you may as well have salt spray along with your pepper spray so you're well seasoned when he tears you apart. The bear will literally come right thru the spray before it even realizes what the hell it is. Nothing is going to save you in every situation, but my number one best defense is a good dog. Yes a dog can be trained to hunt with you, without scaring the game offs as well warn you of impending danger. I carry both spray and a 12 gauge short barreled pump shot gun. The first two shells are 3 inch large buckshot followed by 3 inch lead slugs. The big buckshot obviously has wider pattern than the slugs but also has amazing stopping power, like running into a brick wall. And one other suggestion if a bear is coming around your home or being nuisance, don't just shoot up into the air, all that does is make the bear realize there's no pain to that loud noise. Get some solid rubber slugs and shoot the F-er right in the face so in the future he will associate that noise with pain. Personally I wouldn't care if there wasn't another bear left on the planet. They aren't much better than having T-Rex hanging around just one bite or claw swat can disfigure a person for life. But of course we have to have to have them so tourist can take photos and tell their friends how cute and cuddly they look, and so the all great white hunters can compare testicle size.
Dogs are not necessarily a great defense as they often provoke or escalate encounters that would otherwise beem harmless.
I'm ojibou ,we always been white . But I get your point . My Alaskan name wasFu( k a Bear . Ive never eaten a horn or a trophy .
@@petersmythe6462 well I’ll tell you I’ve been up here in Alaska long enough to know a lot of old timers trappers, miners and loggers that are long gone now but everyone of them had a dog.
shooting a brown bear with a rubber slug is the dumbest idea i've ever heard, it's going to kill you after that if it can
You envisioned what I said as going out into your yard, standing in front of a brown bear or any bear for that matter and shooting it with a rubber slug??? You must of just got off the turnip truck from the west coast
Good information. I carry a handgun and bear spray. Hand gun is in a chest rig for fast deployment. Bear spray is on a waist belt along with first aid kit. I can't get to that bear spray as fast, no doubt about that. Do all of my hiking in the mountains with 2 dogs that are good for situational awareness of potential threats. Those extra eyes and ears plus scenting capabilities alert me to things I rarely know about before those dogs.
You’re correct about source biases. My 2¢: Flat Nosed Hard Cast.
I appreciate your analysis of this issue. You obviously did considerable research. I’ll give this very careful thought. Thank you.
Please never change your methodology. Taking these types of precautions and methods toward conclusions is sure to piss either (or both) ends of the polarized world. It needs more people like you
He didn't read a very important part of the study.
If a scientist counts 21% of people choosing not to use a gun against a bear as a failure of the gun, then that is outright bad science.
'Firearms failed to protect people for a variety of reasons including... did not use the firearm (21%)...'
'However, interviews revealed that some people were hesitant to use lethal force for fear of shooting the person being attacked, or because they did not want to have to skin the bear and pack out its hide, skull, and claws as required by law. Additionally, some people admitted that they were reluctant to shoot a protected species. In some cases, this reluctance proved detrimental when split second decisions were required for the person to defend themselves from an aggressive, attacking bear.'
Source: “Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska”
Fantastic analysis. You said guns are 7 times less effective after the bear has started charging. It would be very interesting to strip out the data for bears that are not charging and compare bear spray vs charging bears & guns vs charging bears. My guess is bear spray and guns are both extremely effective against non charging bears but once a bear is charging, bear spray is far more effective than guns.
That's really interesting. Valuable analysis. Thanks Stephen.
The second study introduced the presence of game meat and fish. That seems like a pretty important detail.
My guess as to why the Mineral Management group was part of it is that miners have a big portion of the interactions.
I carry both simply because a hungry bear will take a hit but an empty stomach often wins over pain. I would be interested in a report of how often firearms and bear spray we present in incidents of human bear predation.
I wonder if another factor which skews the data is the legal/social implications of using a firearm. I imagine if you killed a bear you might not go through the trouble of reporting vs spraying a bear and leaving it out there to harass or injure the next person.
'Firearms failed to protect people for a variety of reasons including... did not use the firearm (21%)...'
'However, interviews revealed that some people were hesitant to use lethal force for fear of shooting the person being attacked, or because they did not want to have to skin the bear and pack out its hide, skull, and claws as required by law. Additionally, some people admitted that they were reluctant to shoot a protected species. In some cases, this reluctance proved detrimental when split second decisions were required for the person to defend themselves from an aggressive, attacking bear.'
Source: “Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska”
So refreshing to come upon a RUclips video that's actually informative on the subject
An angry charging commited bear...vs a bear just mulling around.
I want 3 capable people in big bear country.
Great video. I would premise that a Wildlife Management publication might be skewed against firearms. Having said that, the second 2 you mentioned appeared to have attempted a real study. I would agree with most of the conclusions, however I noticed there was no attempt to record incidents that did not include aggressive bear action, no attempt to address the fact that the bear spray is a deterrent only vs firearms have the potential to physically disable the animal. Anyone who has used pepper spray on humans will report that there are a plethora of variables that determine whether pepper spray works, where as taking out the pump or the control board will absolutely shut things down. I did enjoy the video tho
I've defended against a brown bear once in Alaska. It was while fishing in Alaska on the Newhalen River by Iliamna. It was harassing me over my string of sockeye, I postured the first time around and it backed away, then it got progressively more brave while I was trying to leave and I had the misopportunity to shoot it in the face with bear spray and didn't have a problem again. Unfortunately the very next day the same bear harassed a local native and their net on the other side of the river to the point where they had to shoot it. The native was cornered and used what appeared to be a .44 mag wheel gun. It was sad to see, but the native was cornered and had already used up his bear spray. I will always wear a bell to let them hear me, and will always have a can of spray in my off hand and tied to my body when in bear country. I carry a glock 20 10mm on a chest harness too, but fortunately I wasn't on the other side of the river that day.
There are no bears where I live or ever go, but your process for evaluating information found online fascinated me. I learned something.
Bear Spray work against Mountain Lions Wolves or Bob Cats?
There are definitely anecdotal reports of it working, but I do not believe there have been any large scale studies. I have to imagine it would be way, way better than nothing.
I paused your video because I've been close to 3 or 4 different species of bears.
Also, I'm Native and am even named KIASAX, which means Bear on the Left. So, I do have an affinity for bears. Also, there's an old Cherokee story that tells about some of our People becoming bears to help feed our People when there was a time of starvation. Our People have a very close association with bears.
The bears that I've been closest to the most often are black bears, when I was hunting in our Appalachian Mountains, beginning as a young boy and armed with only a .22 caliber rifle, which would only piss off a black bear. Fortunately, the best was upwind of me and I was wearing moccasins. I was staying absolutely silent as I moved through the woods, just the way my Cherokee grandfather taught me.
Later, I was deer hunting armed with an FN Herstal Mauser 98k chambered in 30-06. There's no doubt a 30-06 round will take down a bear, but I want hunting bearI was hunting for deer. Again, I was wearing my moccasins and moving silently through the mountains. Again, the bear was upwind of me and neither smelled nor saw me
The last time I encountered a black bear I was rock climbing in Shenandoah National Park. I had just ascended a small rock face when I see 2 small bear cubs come running toward me. At first, they struck me as cute. I clearly was NOT THINKING CLEARLY. Whenever there are bear cubs, there's ALWAYS A MAMA BEAR! Fortunately, there was an easy path down the side of the rock face and I RAN DOWN to the road below and got into my car and drive off. I didn't see Mama Bear, at all. Phew ...
My next bear encounter was at the Grand Tetons as I was hiking to meet a friend to go climbing. I had a full pack, weighing about 85 pounds of climbing gear, like ropes, carabiners, etc, food, stove, butane, and clothing to wear at night.
As I was going along the trail I smelled a dead carcass, then I heard bones crunching and I stopped instantly checking the wind direction. Since the smell was coming to me I knew I was downwind of the carcass.
I very slowly moved off the trail and hid behind a few trees and a bush. I had a small monocular that I took out of a side pocket and traced the crunching sound. Sure enough, it was a very large grizzly. I watched it for almost an hour as it devoured an elk.
When it has its fill, it took a few minutes to cover it and ambled off in the opposite direction from me. I waited about 30 minutes before I felt safe enough to start to move again. Just then, I heard bones crunching again! Of crap, another bear?
I dropped down into my hiding place again and pulled out my monocular once more. This time, it was one of my favorite animals a wolverine! I had never seen one in the wild before, so I felt incredibly privileged.
The wolverine crunched away for another 40 minutes and then, oddly enough, came trotting along with the elk's face firmly in his teeth! The wolverine seemed quite happy just bouncing along with his prize!
In Alaska, I passed by brown bears fishing for salmon, but I was safely enclosed in a truck. I eat in no danger whatsoever.
Finally, my last bear contact was with a polar bear. There's no doubt the polar bear was hungry and would have eaten me if it could've caught me, but I went straight up an ice ridge with 2 ice axes and crampons, and pure terror.
The polar bear had no chance of following me, unless I slipped, and I did NOT SLIP.
So, since it's my life, I will bet on firearms, every time.
Blessings to all.
Man, this is a 101 on argument. As a seven-year hunting guide (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and New Mexico) and a 16-year high school AP English teacher, thank you for this. I'll be using this vid as a case study in logos, pathos, and ethos.
Bear kind of angry? Spray will probably work -- the hissing and the cloud of gas will likely turn it. Bear REALLY angry and committed to attack? Has to be a gun to stop it.
The rigorous scientific analysis in this video is delightful, as most internet experts don't bother or have a agenda that limits their analysis.
The person using the gun makes a huge difference.
And the caliber & choice of ammo.
You need to practice to be quick and efficient. I talked to a fishing guide in Alaska and he said a .45 won’t penetrate the body cavity. Too slow. 10mm works well
But like you say you better practice and be quick
now there's a news flash
Same could be said about spray, it's a good idea to practice with inert spray cans, or a bit with real ones if you have to as long as you're careful about wind and whatnot. Wind is also an enormous disadvantage for sprays, if you're downwind you might be screwed or get yourself. Overall if you pick the right gun and train it's probably the best bet, but spray is a lot less spendy and more accessible to most people, so for people with no gun or training at all it might be a better option than buying a S&W 500 or maybe an under-powered but affordable handgun and hardly practicing if at all. It really depends on a lot of confounding factors.
Some sprays though make a fairly big cloud so accuracy isn't a huge issue, but at least what I remember Cold Steel offering years ago is more of a jet stream like wasp sprays, so in that case it's important to know how the arc of the spray acts to hit a target at a certain distance, but it's super effective if you can get the eyes with it and far less susceptible to wind like fogging sprays. It's also orange for high visibility, they sell inert cans for practice.
They'd like to think so, anyhow.
Yes, a shotgun is hard to use in close quarters, like you said, but a nice hi-power revolver, like a 44 magnum or 454 casull is WAY different as you can pull that over your head and/or shoot at close quarters much easier than that unwieldly shotgun (if you are in the brush and hit a branch while turning around....). The study discarded the type of gun, well, you know, bear can sprays come in mostly one size and is rather manageable, guns come in different sizes and grabbing and swinging around a long gun, having to use both arms is way different than having to use one arm to unholster a handheld revolver and use the same arm to point at your target. The handgun is not much more different in size than the can and the time to unholster both is very similar.
My questions are"
What are the chances that you shoot yourself with the gun while pointing at the bear?
What are the chances that you will inhale bear spray and now disable yourself, even if you hit the bear with it at close quarters? What then?
The way to look at this issue would be best served by examining only imminent OFFENSIVE bear attacks, not the annoying type-of-bear kind. And yes, it would be wise to have both gun and bear can, because shooting a bear is the last thing you want to do.
Better to have both, gives you more peace of mind.
If you often don't have time to deploy even one defense, its ridiculous to suggest that having multiple options is useful.
Thanks, good info. An added advantage of spray is, the bear learns that people are bad news, while not suffering an injury that could shorten its life. A disadvantage for firearms is that bears are hard to kill and prone to attack if wounded. A hunter here in WA several years ago was killed by a black bear after being shot by the hunter with a rifle.
Laughed at your John wick joke!
Cracked me up!
If it’s tough to get off a shot, then it’s also tough to get off a spray, though spray probably provides a wider pattern under most cases, depending, of course, on what projectiles one is firing and from what distance.
Great video, very well spoken!!
Thanks for taking the time to present a clear and credible comparison of bullet vs spray with bear attacks.
Both, but I would not rely on taco seasoning to finish the job..
One thing that is going to heavily skew data is the rounds that were used. Did they lump in 9mm, 22 lr, 357, 454 together for handguns? What about rifles? Were they 223, 12ga hard cast slugs, 30 carbine, 300 wm? I don't think that study takes this into account even though its one of the most important factors in success. What would you be more confident in against a big bear 223 or 12ga with hard slugs? Id be curious to see some studies that broke down successful stops by caliber/cartrigde. I think it would be much more valuable than guns as a generic category. Maybe 12ga and 500 sw have a 90% success rate. Maybe they don't, i don't know. But i don't need a study to tell me a 9mm is just going to piss off a polar bear.
Actual Alaskan here, most that live / work in bush carry a bear gun of some sort. they may also carry spray, but when your life is at stake, a gun is always best.
ive found those from los anchorage, tourists, or those that are casual bush goers, tend to favor spray. the types of encounters betwixt the two populations, while overlapping, are different in nature, and local.
lastly, i knew Smith when he was doing Bear research for US fish and wildlife in anchorage, 1011 e tudor rd. if you want to do a deep dive, i dont know if its in the report, or just in research paper, he told me of a story, part of the 'spray misuse'. they used to have FWL volunteers do a test spray after leaving the float plane, at drop off site. everyone carried spray, and there was always one bear gun (shotgun) among the group. during one trip, they tested the spray, getting it on the planes floats. when they came back, they discovered that a gear had gnawed the floats where the spray was, causing enough damage to ruin a float, this sinking partially the plane, and necessitating a rescue. it was a long time ago, and if i remember correctly, that is what smith told me gave (in part) idea for research into bear spray.
It's all about preparation I would assume, if you have a bolt action rifle that doesn't have a round in the chamber because you aren't supposed to be walking around with a round in the chamber, if you miss that first shot you are most likely going to get tackled and mauled. Same applies to Bear spray, if you don't have it handy and can't get it out fast enough you're screwed. The difference here though is with a bolt action rifle you only have one shot before you have to cycle for a new round and by that time the bear most likely has closed the gap, with bear spray if you can get it out fast enough you can continue to spray in the direction of the bear while it's closing that Gap and even if it jumps you, history is showing that the bear will most likely Scurry off in pain.
A rifle is only as effective as its user, and if you don't have enough time and you miss your shots or you don't hit anything vital, you are going to be in for some bad times. With bearspray you may inadvertently get yourself as well but at least it's a giant cloud that will most likely land all over that bear and irritate the s*** out of it.
It's hard to say really, I feel a lot of this has to do with ego as well. Once a person holds a gun and learns how to fire it they instantly start to feel invincible. Like they can take any threat out, yet never have been in a situation where they are under stress and only have about 5 Seconds to pull the gun out and fire It On Target that's rushing towards them. I've heard plenty of stories of a Grizzly jumping on a guy after he missed his first shot, unable to grab his gun because it was knocked out of his hands when he was jumped, only to be saved by his buddies.
If anything carry a semi-automatic and carry some bear spray. Don't let your ego or cocky attitude put you at risk, you have to accept that unless you've had experience trying to take out a 500 lb threat running at you full force, you may very well screw up
A dead bear won't harm you.
Yes this is anecdotal. But I heard that a lot of bear spray success stories were on bears that were not extremely aggressive. They then went on to say a lot of bear spray interactions were with bears at garbage dumps
Not many peer reviewed journals will get published or studies funded when the answer to the study is firearms are better.
That said, many New Jersey cat ladies hiking around Yellowstone have no business carrying a sidearm. So bear spray is their only choice
Thank you for such a thorough analysis of the reports available to us.
immediately 'like' as soon as the black cat passed into the frame )
How refreshing, someone who wants to see facts backed up by legitimate linked sources!!! Ty!😊
The problem is, everyone who does "studies" of this sort has an agenda, or they wouldn't be doing the study. I think a simple common sense approach is more logical here than reading biased questionable "studies". A firearm can dissuade a bear from a much greater distance than spray can, allows for follow-up shots, and can kill the bear. A dead bear will stop attacking pretty much 100% of the time. The bullshit in some of the reports is just so evident....like it is difficult to hit a charging bear with a firearm, but easy with pepper spray? Biased, agenda driven bullshit.
I’m guessing that you often dismiss actual scientific studies as “agenda driven bullshit” in favor of what feels right to you, amiright?
@@essentialwilderness When that's what they are, yes. Are you saying "science" is not influenced by politics?
I'm near the end of your examination of the first Journal of Wildlife Management article you looked at, and I feel compelled to say that the 2 polar bear incidents should carry absolutely no weight whatsoever, because these bears left a huge, windfall supply of food to slake their curiosity. They had no need whatsoever to pursue the party as prey because the open buffet of a no-risk, no-effort-needed whale carcass was there for the easy snacking. If they had approached the same party in the absence of so superior an alternative food source, the outcome might have been entirely different. The incident only shows that polar bears prefer chowing down on an easy meal to the discomfort of being sprayed in the face with capsaicin. Who, besides a masochist, wouldn't?
I'm only saying that we can disregard that incident as having no probative value one way or the other.
I have dealt with 2 bears with guns. And I am alive and well to type this.
What kind of guns did the bears have?
@@stillnessspeaks4080 Just teeth and claws and a disturbing habit to try and charge me.
An outstanding presentation. Knowing the data and the methodology of gathering and analysis of the data are indispensable to successful decision.
In general, peer reviewed journals USED to be more reliable, however interesting studies have shown recent cases wherre totaly made up farcical studies ahave been " peer reviewed" and quoted around and used as evidence other studies.
I carry _both_ bear spray and a firearm when in bear (and cougar) country. As a hunter, I am at higher risk of bear encounters because I'm in the same areas hunting the same prey species as bears. Does bear spray work to deter curious bears? Of course. After all, bears have eyes and lungs sensitive to chemical irritants. Would I choose bear spray over a firearm against an aggressive bear? Absolutely not.
Fair point, however, a firearm is only as effective as the person wielding it. Bear Sprays, having a more dispersed locus of effect than a firearm, may be easier to deploy for average people under stress. The deployment time issue would be similar for both technologies, but the warning distance might very well be shorter for a hunter in bear country versus a hiker on a common trail.
However, I have some issues with the two studies cited. First and foremost, the bear spray encounters sample size was too small to be relevant. The data collection and sources included in either study were not detailed and the quality of those sources is unknown (but likely less reliable the farther back the data was collected). The spray study appeared to primarily be self-reported encounters with curious bears, as opposed to aggressive bears with the firearms encounters. The study's authors may have been biased towards non-lethal methods for dealing with bears.
How do you know bear spray doesn't work? When you find an empty can in a pile of bear poop, along with some poor guy's shoes!
Excellent answer
They found a camper ,his .38 and six bullets in the 12 ft plus man eater in Ak.
My dad was an outdoorsman as d avid hunter. Never had any bear encounters with him so I don't even have anecdotal evidence either way so this was informative. Thanks for data driven evidence.
Well done. Of course gun lovers will never believe bear spray is better than guns. All the data in the world won't change some minds. I also like how you talked about the variables to be considered. Personally, I'd like to have both options with me at all times.
Good analysis. One question I have is about how to compare the two studies. It seems to me that there is likely a difference between the types of incidents where bear spray is used compared to the types of incidents where firearms are used. This could have an effect increasing the apparent effectiveness of bear spray relative to firearms. I would be likely to use bear spray even in situations where I would not consider the threat great enough to justify shooting the bear. I would be likely to wait to pull a trigger on a firearm until I was certain that the danger of attack was clear and immanent. This would leave some percentage of successful bear spray events that would also have been successful with a firearm, but would not be included in the firearm study as the firearm would not have been discharged.
My takeaway is similar to yours. My few encounters with bears in the wild have all been with black bears and have all been resolved by either making noise or getting into a vehicle until the bear went away. After viewing you video I am more likely to have bear spray with me when venturing into bear country and about as likely to have a firearm as I would have been before seeing the video. In other words, If I am in dangerous bear country I am likely to have both, but I am also likely to have bear spray with me even if I consider the bear danger to be too low to justify carrying a firearm.