gun for backpacking

[Rick]

Okay. That dredged off into getting personal. Let's let it drop right here. I think Sourdough and Wild Woman have offered up some very useful information based on a lot of experience in bear country. So if you are contemplating travel into that arena, I would re-read their posts with care and seriously consider their advice. That's my opinion but I think those who have walked the talk have a pretty thorough understanding of what's required. I have zero experience in the matter.

For everyone else, if you want to carry a weapon then by all means do so. It's a free world.

Exchanging ideas and information is excellent but if the thread continues on a personal course, I'll lock it down. There's no need for it.

[glockcop]

Rick, no disrespect intended and I know you are just doing your job. Since I posted strong and direct statements just before yours, it is obvious that you are refering to me. There is no need to lock this thread. I am bowing out and will not defend "men", "rights", and "stupid people" any longer. This conversation is obviously beyond my barbarian intellect . Sarcasm intended. Stay Safe.

This is a footnote added 9-16-09 @ 0826 hrs. in response to the above and below posts (#161 and#163) : I would like it entered into record that in this thread it is totally acceptable to slander MEN as : full of "Bravado", carrying out acts of "Machoness", and "Boys". No Defense of such will be tolerated! Men, we have been ordered by the High Court to ''Sit Down, Be quiet and Take It". It shall further be noted that it is also totally acceptable for posters to advocate bears mauling "stupid people" due to their life having lesser value than the omniscient. Yall be safe.

[Rick]

I was. Thank you. Possibly.

[glockcop]

Everyone please read the footnote in post #162 to save this thread. Stay Safe.

[wildWoman]

Just one last note in this thread:
No matter which side of the fence I was on, it would sure make me think when Hope/Sourdough and Klkak (Alaskan outfitters and trappers with decades of experience with bears, firearms and the combination thereof) are also advocating the use of bear spray over that of guns in bear encounters. Now if these guys have the same recommendation as treehugging wildWoman (with 17 years of experience living and solo camping in bear country), and then good old statistics tell you that:

After researching aggressive bear behaviour incidents in Alaska, the statistics pan out the following way: bear spray stopped aggressive behaivour, including attacks, in 92% of the cases. Guns only in 67%. (1998 bear incident study by Stephen Herrero and others)

...well then it seems pretty obvious to me how to stay safe in bear country.

Because the thing with stupidity is, out in the bush you'll pay your price. As Glock pointed out, the cops are not just a phone call away. Neither is the ambulance, fire department, neighbours or passers-by.
So staying safe involves preparations and research of a kind you don't need in the asphalt jungle, and adhering to behaviour that is not dictated by ones fears.

[glockcop]

Just one last note in this thread:
No matter which side of the fence I was on, it would sure make me think when Hope/Sourdough and Klkak (Alaskan outfitters and trappers with decades of experience with bears, firearms and the combination thereof) are also advocating the use of bear spray over that of guns in bear encounters. Now if these guys have the same recommendation as treehugging wildWoman (with 17 years of experience living and solo camping in bear country), and then good old statistics tell you that:

After researching aggressive bear behaviour incidents in Alaska, the statistics pan out the following way: bear spray stopped aggressive behaivour, including attacks, in 92% of the cases. Guns only in 67%. (1998 bear incident study by Stephen Herrero and others)

...well then it seems pretty obvious to me how to stay safe in bear country.

Because the thing with stupidity is, out in the bush you'll pay your price. As Glock pointed out, the cops are not just a phone call away. Neither is the ambulance, fire department, neighbours or passers-by.
So staying safe involves preparations and research of a kind you don't need in the asphalt jungle, and adhering to behaviour that is not dictated by ones fears.

Read my posts thoroughly. I have not quarelled with anyone advocating the use of pepper spray for bear protection. I already have said that pepper spray does nothing to feral dogs or any K-9 species for that matter. May as well be Kool-aid. In a previous post I stated that IMO the prudent choice would be the combination of a firearm and pepper spray (read post #160). Not the use of one with the exclusion of the other. Sort of a fail safe/back up plan working in conjuction. Also my choice to carry a firearm in the wood does not make me "Macho" , full of "Bravado", or a "Boy with a toy". I am prepared. Not to say that I won't have a can of "crab boil" spray along too. Nuff said.

[2dumb2kwit]

After researching aggressive bear behaviour incidents in Alaska, the statistics pan out the following way: bear spray stopped aggressive behaivour, including attacks, in 92% of the cases. Guns only in 67%. (1998 bear incident study by Stephen Herrero and others)

Please, don't anyone take this the wrong way.......I'm not trying to pick a side, or anything like that......I'm just curious.

Does anyone know more about the study, that said 67%? I'm wondering if there is enough info from the study, to show what did and what did not work. You know....like did the ones who were not successful with the guns, using guns that were not powerful enough...or were they new to guns, and didn't really know how to use them.

I also wonder if the ones who used pepper spray, acted sooner, and the ones who shot, waited until it was too late....hoping not to have to shoot.

[glockcop]

Please, don't anyone take this the wrong way.......I'm not trying to pick a side, or anything like that......I'm just curious.

Does anyone know more about the study, that said 67%? I'm wondering if there is enough info from the study, to show what did and what did not work. You know....like did the ones who were not successful with the guns, using guns that were not powerful enough...or were they new to guns, and didn't really know how to use them.

I also wonder if the ones who used pepper spray, acted sooner, and the ones who shot, waited until it was too late....hoping not to have to shoot.

There has never been a statistic that was not flawed in some way. Statistics are an imperfect art form. No study can include every variable in every situation. Percentages have very little bearing in my choices. Many years in Law Enforcent have taught me to trust my "gut" and use good reasoning. That is how my decisions are made. They RARELY let me down. Prepare for the worst and you won't be disappointed. Stay safe, Brother.

[wildWoman]

If I keep looking into this thread, I will have to trade names with you, 2dumb...
Or at least get myself renamed as "mildWoman" so y'all don't start off now with "please don't..."

Anyway, the original link to the CBC story of the report doesn't work anymore but I found it on a different website again, here it is:

Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska
Tom S. Smitha,1, Stephen Herrerob, Terry D. Debruync, and James M. Wilderd

Wildlife Sciences Program, Faculty of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, 451 WIDB, Provo, UT 84602, USA
Environmental Science Program, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
United States National Park Service, Alaska Support Office, 240 W 5th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501, USA
Minerals Management Service, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99503-5823, USA

Options:

•Create Reference
•Email this Article
Search Google Scholar for:

•Tom S. Smith
•Stephen Herrero
•Terry D. Debruyn
•James M. Wilder
We present a comprehensive look at a sample of bear spray incidents that occurred in Alaska, USA, from 1985 to 2006. We analyzed 83 bear spray incidents involving brown bears (Ursus arctos; 61 cases, 74%), black bears (Ursus americanus; 20 cases, 24%), and polar bears (Ursus maritimus; 2 cases, 2%). Of the 72 cases where persons sprayed bears to defend themselves, 50 (69%) involved brown bears, 20 (28%) black bears, and 2 (3%) polar bears. Red pepper spray stopped bears' undesirable behavior 92% of the time when used on brown bears, 90% for black bears, and 100% for polar bears. Of all persons carrying sprays, 98% were uninjured by bears in close-range encounters. All bear-inflicted injuries (n = 3) associated with defensive spraying involved brown bears and were relatively minor (i.e., no hospitalization required). In 7% (5 of 71) of bear spray incidents, wind was reported to have interfered with spray accuracy, although it reached the bear in all cases. In 14% (10 of 71) of bear spray incidents, users reported the spray having had negative side effects upon themselves, ranging from minor irritation (11%, 8 of 71) to near incapacitation (3%, 2 of 71). Bear spray represents an effective alternative to lethal force and should be considered as an option for personal safety for those recreating and working in bear country.
(link:http://www.wildlifejournals.org/perl...F2006-452&ct=1)

That link doesn't mention the comparative ineffectiveness of guns though, but in this report on the study it does:

PROVO, Utah - Hikers and campers venturing into bear country this spring may be safer armed with 8-ounce cans of bear pepper spray than with guns, according to a new study led by a Brigham Young University bear biologist.

Thomas S. Smith, associate professor of wildlife science, has conducted field work among bears for 16 years and has never used bear spray, although he carries it faithfully. "I wish I had more scary stories to share, but I've behaved myself," said Smith, emphasizing that caution and wisdom are the best way to prevent bear attacks.

Concerned about hikers' and campers' persistent doubts that a small can of liquid pepper spray could stop half a ton of claws, muscle and teeth, Smith and colleagues analyzed 20 years of bear spray incidents in Alaska, home to 150,000 bears. He found that the spray effectively halted aggressive bear behavior in 92 percent of the cases, whether that behavior was an attack or merely rummaging for food. Of all 175 people involved in the incidents studied, only three were injured by bears, and none required hospitalization. Smith and his research team report their findings in the April issue of the Journal of Wildlife Management.

"People working or recreating in bear habitat should feel confident they are safe if carrying bear spray," Smith said.

Smith's previous research found that guns were effective about 67 percent of the time. Shooting accurately during the terrifying split seconds of a grizzly charge is extremely difficult, he pointed out, and his data shows that it takes an average of four hits to stop a bear. In addition, firearms are prohibited in national parks like Glacier and Denali, popular with hikers and also with bears.

"Working in the bear safety arena, I even found a lot of resistance to bear spray among professionals," Smith said of the product, which retails for $30-$40. "There was no good, clean data set that demonstrated definitively that it worked, so that's why we did this research."

"Tom Smith is highly respected among bear biologists, naturalists and educators. His one-on-one experience with bears in the field is an enormous resource to the bear management community," said Chuck Bartlebaugh, director of the Center for Wildlife Information, the nonprofit that runs "Be Bear Aware" and other wildlife safety campaigns. "This new study is important information that is needed by hunters, hikers or campers to understand the value of bear spray and how it can protect both people and bears."

The research debunks these common misconceptions about bear spray:

"Bear spray doesn't work when it's windy." Wind was reported to have interfered with spray accuracy in five of the 71 incidents studied, although the spray reached the bear in all cases. Smith used a wind meter to test the speed of the spray as it streams out of the canister. Repeated tests showed an average of 70 miles per hour. Smith also noted that bears and humans can easily see each other in open, windy spaces. The surprise encounters tend to occur in wooded areas in which vegetation blocks wind.
"The spray will also disable the person using it." In the 71 incidents documented in the study, 10 times users reported minor irritation and two reported near incapacitation.
"The can might not work." There were no reports of spray malfunction among the 71 incidents.
Smith believes one of the primary reasons bear spray works is that it gives users a reason to stand their ground. Running is the worst response to an aggressive bear, he said, "but it's hard not to. Just picture the meanest dog in your neighborhood and multiply his size by ten-it's very hard to keep your feet from running, but bear spray gives you an option. When you stop and plant your feet, that makes them stop."

This is because even though humans are much smaller than bears, the animals still view us as risky. "Having seen bears with porcupine quills in their faces, I'm sure that most bears learn at an early age that size is not a good indicator of threat," Smith said. "There's always this fear of retribution that keeps them in line. They could take any person they wanted. But they don't know that."

On the rare occasions bears get close enough to warrant a spraying - about three times a year in Alaska, the study showed - the hissing sound and sight of the expanding cloud are often enough to frighten away the animal. "I have data to show that if you sprayed water, they often would run," Smith said.

Counterintuitively, Smith and his team also documented 11 incidents when the residue of bear spray applied to objects like tents with the intent to repel curious bears actually backfired and attracted bears instead. Smith cautioned users against this practice and advised hikers to take their practice sprays before entering bear country.

The study did not make any comparisons among various types or manufacturers of bear spray because the sample was too small to draw significant conclusions.

Other findings reported in the paper include:

On average, the spray was used when the bear was about 12 feet away
35 percent of incidents involved hikers, and 30 percent involved bear management activities
60 percent of the incidents occurred between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.
Nearly 70 percent of the incidents involved brown (grizzly) bears and 28 percent involved black bears. The study also reports the first two documented uses of bear spray on polar bears in Alaska.
###

Smith's co-authors on the paper are Stephen Herrero, professor emeritus at the University of Calgary; Terry D. Debruyn of the National Park Service, and James M. Wilder of Minerals Management Service. The paper also relies on an earlier publication of a decade's worth of bear spray data by Herrero and Andrew Higgins. The research was funded by the U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center.
(link: http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?s=8101328)

[2dumb2kwit]

He found that the spray effectively halted aggressive bear behavior in 92 percent of the cases, whether that behavior was an attack or merely rummaging for food.

See...this is part of what I was wondering. If people shot bears for being in their trash cans, the numbers may look very different. Also if people saw bears looking at them, and just opened fire....the numbers would look very different.

I think that spray is probably great, but the study sounds skewed, to me.
(Just a statistics thing.)

[2dumb2kwit]

...and come to think of it....let's forget about bears, for a minute. I'd bet, that over 30% of people who have used a gun to defend themselves against another person, were not successful. (From pure lack of training, and knowledge.) LOL

(Depending on your definition of success, of course.)

[Pal334]

...and come to think of it....let's forget about bears, for a minute. I'd bet, that over 30% of people who have used a gun to defend themselves against another person, were not successful. (From pure lack of training, and knowledge.) LOL

(Depending on your definition of success, of course.)

I bet you are pretty close. I have seen well trained military folks fire hundreds of rounds in a real life scenario and only succeed in creating a breeze. Untrained folks, mmmm lets say luck is always good to have

[Mountain Man]

So what is the "Good" bear spray to buy?? They make a variety it appears.

[wildWoman]

The one I currently have is called "Frontiersman" and has 0.857% capsaicin content. They also have sprays with 1% which would probably be better.

@2dumb - it goes back again to my post #149...ideally, people should take the time to learn the body language of the bear to understand if there is a threat or not...and what I said in there what a shot bear may do and why.

[2dumb2kwit]

@2dumb - it goes back again to my post #149...ideally, people should take the time to learn the body language of the bear to understand if there is a threat or not...and what I said in there what a shot bear may do and why.

I understand what you're saying, but then again...

Timothy Treadwell, 46, male ; Amie Huguenard, 37, female
October 2003
Brown
Found by their pilot, dead and partially consumed at Katmai National Park, Alaska on October 6, 2003. Treadwell was world-famous for his books and documentaries on living with wild bears in Alaska. State Troopers investigating the incident recovered an audiotape of the attack. [2]

Just sayin'.

[wildWoman]

Oh, that's another story...too long to get into...my short version of it:

Treadwell=self-appointed bear hugger+no bearspray+no weapons-good salmon run-good berry year+camping on a bear trail=getting killed.

You see the amount of variables. Cozying up to wild animals is not a good idea, it shows a lack of respect.

[2dumb2kwit]

Oh, that's another story...too long to get into...my short version of it:

Treadwell=self-appointed bear hugger+no bearspray+no weapons-good salmon run-good berry year+camping on a bear trail=getting killed.

You see the amount of variables. Cozying up to wild animals is not a good idea, it shows a lack of respect.

I always thought, that this story sounded like the guy forgot that wild animals, are wild animals.

[crashdive123]

Cozying up to wild animals is not a good idea, it shows a lack of respect.

I agree. I always thought it was a bit arrogant to assume that a wild animal would reciprocate "friendly" behaviour.

[glockcop]

Oh, that's another story...too long to get into...my short version of it:

Treadwell=self-appointed bear hugger+no bearspray+no weapons-good salmon run-good berry year+camping on a bear trail=getting killed.

You see the amount of variables. Cozying up to wild animals is not a good idea, it shows a lack of respect.

Your are correct. Timothy Treadwell ras a radical (among other things we should not discuss here) man. He thought his "love" for the animals would keep him safe. I appreciate his dedication but wow, he went crazy with it. Hope he is in a good place now. Best.

[Rick]

I can assure you that pepper spray works on dogs and works well. It has saved my tush on a number of occasions. The only dogs it won't work on are those with long hair over their eyes like a St. Bernard (wet mouth) or similar. I've sprayed them with no immediate affect. Although, after a couple of minutes even they become disinterested. Any other dog is impacted immediately. In over a decade of working in other peoples homes I was never bitten by a dog. Part of that is being able to "read" a dog and part of that was knowing when to use the spray. I can also attest to the fact that spray has NO affect on Blue Jays, however.