Reader comments: Spray deters bears best, study finds
15 comments | Read story
George | 6:55 a.m. March 31, 2008
I'll still be packing my 44. Thanks
Anonymous | 8:23 a.m. March 31, 2008
On the other hand, we don't want to gin up the fear of bears unnecessarily."
uh huh, they would hate it if sales went up!
uh huh, they would hate it if sales went up!
Consider Spray | 9:03 a.m. March 31, 2008
Bear Spray if probably preferable for use against humans too. If you get mugged or car jacked, I'd really rather spray someone, and not do permanent damage that do permanent damage and have to contend against lawsuits.
Not that guns aren't still valid defenders, but sprays deserve a good look.
Not that guns aren't still valid defenders, but sprays deserve a good look.
Comments continue below
Billy | 9:40 a.m. March 31, 2008
Yeah! My 44 - BLAM, BLAM! Heh, heh.
Yellowstone Backpacker | 10:34 a.m. March 31, 2008
Last summer, we went backpacking around Lake Yellowstone, starting on its eastern side and coming around the southern. Our route took us into the most remote portion of the lower 48 states and the closest road was a 4 day hike.
We prepared for the voyage knowing that we would be camping and hiking for several days in Grizzly and Black Bear country. Accordingly, we each had a can of bear spray, along with bells, and other devices to make noise while hiking.
Upon our arrival, we found out that our route led directly through the area where the "problem bears" from the park were flown when they had come into contact with campsites and people. In other words, we were going to ground zero for grizzlies.
Our 8 day trip was without incident of any kind. We made noise as we hiked, kept our food hoisted on "bear poles" 100 yards from our tents and always kept our food bags seperated from the remainder of our gear.
We know that bears were always close, as we saw fresh prints. That being said, they left us alone as we did them.
Proper behavior is the answer to 99% of incidents
We prepared for the voyage knowing that we would be camping and hiking for several days in Grizzly and Black Bear country. Accordingly, we each had a can of bear spray, along with bells, and other devices to make noise while hiking.
Upon our arrival, we found out that our route led directly through the area where the "problem bears" from the park were flown when they had come into contact with campsites and people. In other words, we were going to ground zero for grizzlies.
Our 8 day trip was without incident of any kind. We made noise as we hiked, kept our food hoisted on "bear poles" 100 yards from our tents and always kept our food bags seperated from the remainder of our gear.
We know that bears were always close, as we saw fresh prints. That being said, they left us alone as we did them.
Proper behavior is the answer to 99% of incidents
Jeremy Parker | 10:48 a.m. March 31, 2008
"Proper behavior is the answer to 99% of incidents"
Actually "incidents" are when a bear does not leave you alone.
Those of us that live in big bear country 24/7 don't put much stock in 99% of anything. It is that 1% that defines the question.
Actually "incidents" are when a bear does not leave you alone.
Those of us that live in big bear country 24/7 don't put much stock in 99% of anything. It is that 1% that defines the question.
Jeremy Parker | 10:49 a.m. March 31, 2008
Tom, I know you're reading this, I would encourage you to post here and clear the record up on the study relative to firearms use.
This media assault on firearms is rediculous. Tom told me that he and those he does research with carry firearms AND bear spray. Obviously he does not share Joe Bauman's flawed conclusions.
As an Alaskan who often discusses the matter with many other Alaskans (many of whom have fielded both forms of defense), I can assure you that the firearms study is horribly flawed.
It considered firearms and ammunition that have no business being used as bear defense among other flaws.
To do a comparative study between pepper spray and firearms (Tom's was not), you would have to consider only those that have wide acceptance as acceptable for the task at hand.
With bears up here that MINIMUM standard is a 44 magnum WITH PROPER, heavy for caliber, deep penetrating BULLETS at acceptable velocities.
Considering even the 10mm or 357 mag would flaw the study.
Likewise the study would have to compare bears hit with those bullets vs. pepper spray as well as the % able to hit with firearms or spray.
This media assault on firearms is rediculous. Tom told me that he and those he does research with carry firearms AND bear spray. Obviously he does not share Joe Bauman's flawed conclusions.
As an Alaskan who often discusses the matter with many other Alaskans (many of whom have fielded both forms of defense), I can assure you that the firearms study is horribly flawed.
It considered firearms and ammunition that have no business being used as bear defense among other flaws.
To do a comparative study between pepper spray and firearms (Tom's was not), you would have to consider only those that have wide acceptance as acceptable for the task at hand.
With bears up here that MINIMUM standard is a 44 magnum WITH PROPER, heavy for caliber, deep penetrating BULLETS at acceptable velocities.
Considering even the 10mm or 357 mag would flaw the study.
Likewise the study would have to compare bears hit with those bullets vs. pepper spray as well as the % able to hit with firearms or spray.
Jeremy Parker | 11:05 a.m. March 31, 2008
"It takes awhile for a person to level a rifle, get into position, aim, lever a shell into the chamber, click off the safety and pull the trigger. Meanwhile, the snarling bear bounds toward the victim."
It takes a while for a backpacker to rifle through their pack retrieve their bear spray, read the instructions (since nobody practices with bear spray at $60 a 1-shot cannister), figure out the safety, aim the spray forward, and manipulate the trigger. Meanwhile the snarling bear bounds towards the victim.
It takes a while for a backpacker to rifle through their pack retrieve their bear spray, read the instructions (since nobody practices with bear spray at $60 a 1-shot cannister), figure out the safety, aim the spray forward, and manipulate the trigger. Meanwhile the snarling bear bounds towards the victim.
pack both | 3:14 p.m. March 31, 2008
I'll still pack a 44 and spray. I should be 100% protected then, right?
Jeremy Parker | 8:37 p.m. March 31, 2008
Lots of people have died with firearms and bear spray (though probably not both at the same time as very few go equipped that way). Bears can surprise you and catch you off guard. Nothing is 100%, ask Larry Kanuit, ask Timothy Treawell, ask Michio Hoshino, ask the Rick and Kathy Huffman...
Dave | 11:04 a.m. April 1, 2008
This must be one of the most irresponsible articles I have read in a while. There are some major flaws in the reporting here. Firstly there is evidence to suggest that bear spray is significantly less effective on black bears, the type we have in Utah.
Also the article assumes that people are using ineffective firearms like a lever action rifle. Most would suggest a magnum handgun that would be just as easy to access as bear spray. An appropriate rifle would be semiautomatic.
It is obvious that the man quoted about firearms has little knowledge of them, rifles take cartridges shotguns take shells!
As a reporter you should be accurate! Thats your job! There is data that shows that bear spray is not the best choice for Utah, because of our black bears. A responsible reporter would have researched that and included that data!
Also the article assumes that people are using ineffective firearms like a lever action rifle. Most would suggest a magnum handgun that would be just as easy to access as bear spray. An appropriate rifle would be semiautomatic.
It is obvious that the man quoted about firearms has little knowledge of them, rifles take cartridges shotguns take shells!
As a reporter you should be accurate! Thats your job! There is data that shows that bear spray is not the best choice for Utah, because of our black bears. A responsible reporter would have researched that and included that data!
Nicegrizzly | 4:52 p.m. April 1, 2008
Jeremy, any hiker who carries bear spray in his backpack is irresponsible and has no business in bear country. As a native Alaskan, I'm sure you are very informed and no doubt aware of that.
It is likewise irresponsible walk into bear country without knowing exactly how to use your bear spray.
As for the victims you mention, Timothy Treadwell had unwisely pitched his tent in the middle of a grizzly food trail, and the Huffmans and Mr. Hoshino were attacked in the night by rogue bears, a rare event. None of these unfortunate deaths were due to the shortcomings of bear spray. Incidentally, the Huffmans had a rifle but didn't have sufficient warning to use it.
Like anything else in life, in bear country, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. With the exception of the rare rogue bear that attacks in the night, follow the rules in bear country and you'll never have to use that spray you have ready on your hip.
It is likewise irresponsible walk into bear country without knowing exactly how to use your bear spray.
As for the victims you mention, Timothy Treadwell had unwisely pitched his tent in the middle of a grizzly food trail, and the Huffmans and Mr. Hoshino were attacked in the night by rogue bears, a rare event. None of these unfortunate deaths were due to the shortcomings of bear spray. Incidentally, the Huffmans had a rifle but didn't have sufficient warning to use it.
Like anything else in life, in bear country, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. With the exception of the rare rogue bear that attacks in the night, follow the rules in bear country and you'll never have to use that spray you have ready on your hip.
Jeremy Parker | 4:36 p.m. April 3, 2008
My point is that it is no easier to access and use bear spray than a firearm for a competent individual. A proper firearm utilized properly is 100% effective, dead is dead.
Bear spray can make no such claims, and actually must consent that the spray acts as an attractant for up to 5 days after spraying, has irritating residues, and bears can become conditioned to being sprayed to the point where they are unfazed by it.
I do have to eat crow though as Tom Smith's own webpage does compare firearms to bear spray (very very poorly) though the study did not.
He told me quote: "Importantly, our study did not pit bear spray against firearms… that’s a media creation that I have to undo best I can in interviews. We carry guns and we carry bear spray. This paper merely analyzed the efficacy of bear spray with no cross comparison to firearms."
After seeing his webpage it is clear that it is not a media creation, but his own creation. I was disappointed at the misleading response to say the least!
Bear spray can make no such claims, and actually must consent that the spray acts as an attractant for up to 5 days after spraying, has irritating residues, and bears can become conditioned to being sprayed to the point where they are unfazed by it.
I do have to eat crow though as Tom Smith's own webpage does compare firearms to bear spray (very very poorly) though the study did not.
He told me quote: "Importantly, our study did not pit bear spray against firearms… that’s a media creation that I have to undo best I can in interviews. We carry guns and we carry bear spray. This paper merely analyzed the efficacy of bear spray with no cross comparison to firearms."
After seeing his webpage it is clear that it is not a media creation, but his own creation. I was disappointed at the misleading response to say the least!
Standing your ground | 7:52 p.m. April 5, 2008
Does anybody have data or know where I could find info on the effectiveness of simply standing one's ground without discharging a firearm or bear spray during a charge? This data not only biased by lumping all encounters with gun users into one category, but there was no control data in the study...a pretty important thing to be missing if you want the data to mean anything at all.
Derril | 10:29 a.m. April 7, 2008
I find it interesting that the "study" includes "rummaging for food" as an aggressive behavior for a bear. What are the statistics (gun vs spray) for ATTACKING bears? A non-attacking bear rummaging for food is not necessarily a life and death situation with only two options. So, we know no more after this study than we knew before. Occassionaly I'm in bear & moose country. I carry a .454 Casull. I hope I never have to use it and if I do, I hope (and practice) to be successful. I'm not a hunter and I would hate to have to kill a bear. Plus that would make some bear-lover sad so he has to recklessly recommend spray ONLY to people?
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
