Dave Smith's thoughts on bear spray.

Dave Smith’s critiques of the Efficacy studies have been ignored by the same media that uncritically promote the use of bear spray over firearms as a defensive tool.

Dave Smith on bear spray

Try not to laugh to hard bear chewing on kayak


Real life spray video

riverrunner: " Try not to laugh to hard bear chewing on kayak



Real life spray video "

Seems like the spray worked just fine. Kept the bear from coming closer to her when she sprayed it in the air between herself in the bear. Maybe if she had actually hit the bear it would have kept her kayak from getting damage.

The standard set by Dr. Tom Smith for a successful spray is that bear stops it's bad behave and or leaves.

This bear did neither.

If only left after more people arrived and chased it off. Not seen in this short video.

The bad behavior would have been approaching her, which it stopped when she sprayed it. Did I miss where she sprayed it again while it was at her kayak?

I am an advocate for spray.......but I am also an advocate for a firearm.

It's apples and oranges for many of us. A firearm is a non starter for Canada or national parks. And who wants to go hiking packing a big heavy handgun?

But if I was in Alaska or in polar bear country give me a firearm any day.

Certainly the situation needs be considered. Interesting read though, hard to argue with reason and logic.

riverrunner: " Try not to laugh to hard bear chewing on kayak



Real life spray video "

I remember watching this video a while back. I would have aggressively walked towards that bear and sprayed the crap out of it.

airmorse: "

riverrunner: " Try not to laugh to hard bear chewing on kayak
Real life spray video "

I remember watching this video a while back. I would have aggressively walked towards that bear and sprayed the crap out of it."

Yep. I had a bear in my bird feeder sunflower seed barrel one day and he wouldn't leave.
I walked up to him and smacked him on the bridge of his nose with a baseball bat.
I never saw him again.

riverrunner: "The standard set by Dr. Tom Smith for a successful spray is that bear stops it's bad behav(ior) and/or leaves."

Seems like in the video it did stop it's bad behavior.... of coming toward her. It just started other bad behavior after that. Which another dose of spray may have helped.

I've read several of these retrospective studies on the topic. Also you wonder how many bear/handgun incidents are NOT reported.....
From what I gather both are effective. A surprise attack it often doesn't matter what you have because there isn't time to react. I think your personal comfort level / proficiency is what matters most. From conversations with folks carrying spray a lot of them have never actually discharged it.....just assume they can handle the task. But spray is somewhat forgiving. Eek
As for firearms, if you are proficient and have the correct gun for the task it seems like an easy choice.
I do find it humerus the misconceptions around caliber needed for the task though. Forum's would have one believe anything short of a 44 Mag is a waste of time. So many folks carry massive 44/454/460/500's when .357 Mag takes down more grizzlies annually in a defensive situation than any other handgun, at least last I saw via Alaska F&G. Hell even 9mm's with the newer Underwood and Buffalo Bore ammos are getting the job done.....not that it would be anyone's first choice.
Chose what you're comfortable with, better to be prepared.

Just a consideration about in camp spray use.

"The impetus for Smith's study came after he observed a brown bear rolling vigorously in beach gravel that had been inadvertently sprayed with red pepper spray five days previously. A surprised Smith watched bears on their backs, paws skyward, vigorously rubbing their heads and back in the red pepper-sprayed gravel. Before this observation, Smith had never seen brown bears behave in such an unusual manner."

From, US Geological Survey press release

butthead

bwca.com = bears will cultivate arguments.com

riverrunner, you better hope Heaven is crawling with bears or it won't be Heaven for you.

riverrunner: " Dave Smith's thoughts on bear spray.

Dave Smith’s critiques of the Efficacy studies have been ignored by the same media that uncritically promote the use of bear spray over firearms as a defensive tool.
Dave smith on bear spray "

So tell me, why do you believe excerpts from something Dave Smith has purportedly said, posted on a firearms blog, but refuse to accept the results of peer-reviewed publications in professional journals, authored by accredited scientists who've spend many, many years researching and evaluating bear behavior, who also have many other peer-reviewed publications in professional journals on bear behavior.

I don't doubt that Dave Smith has a good knowledge of how to behave in bear country. However, if he takes issue with published literature, then he should take the fight there, along with its peer-review process. There's a big difference between providing anecdotes (many to non-professionals) counter to established research, and publishing an objective counter argument in those same journals and subject to the same stringent scientific review.

Exactly how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin? In some places, pepper spray is the only legal alternative. In others, firearms are allowed. Your best defense is what you always have with you, that matter between your ears. The one time I was charged by a grizzly (while on a run in AK), I had neither spray or a firearm with me, and I came through untouched doing exactly what I've taught others to do. Did I carry pepper spray after that? You bet!

mastertangler: "I am an advocate for spray.......but I am also an advocate for a firearm.


It's apples and oranges for many of us. A firearm is a non starter for Canada or national parks. And who wants to go hiking packing a big heavy handgun?


But if I was in Alaska or in polar bear country give me a firearm any day.


Certainly the situation needs be considered. Interesting read though, hard to argue with reason and logic. "

Why would you not carry in a national park?

Dooger: "Why would you not carry in a national park?"

Because MN does not have reciprocity with my state. I would if they did. To get a nonresident license is overly burdensome as one cannot apply by mail/online, but in person.

MReid makes a great point, and I'd like to add my own related observations. There are a number of logical and factual errors and misrepresentations in Dave Smith's comments, but I'd like to point out two in particular:

1) Dave Smith states: "If there were more that 1,000 bears killed in defense of life or property by people with guns between 1987 and 1996, how come the 2012 gun study only included 263 incidents between 1883 and 2006?

Did the authors of the 2012 gun study omit hundreds of firearms successes? Did they cherry pick their data?"

Dave Smith uses this statement to call into question the data presented in the 2012 efficacy study. First off, the authors of this study state in the study text exactly how they collected and evaluated their data. Secondly, Dave Smith doesn't mention any attempt to actually request the data from the authors. The website article author says that "Davis Smith dug deeply to find what we know." Did he though? The text of the 2012 study indicates that supplemental information can be found online and even provides the email of the author. It shouldn't be that hard to get this data from the authors, and if they are responsible scientists they should provide it readily.

2) The 1999 defense of life and property paper (the one that Dave Smith uses to argue for firearm effectiveness) actually states that "these data underrepresent the frequency of injury to people from bears." This is because is the DLP kill reports from the 1999 article are all firearm successes in the sense that in every case the bear died. Thus this data set is inherently biased in favor of firearms limiting injuries.

All this is to say, I don't find this article or Dave Smith's comments particularly convincing.

One final point: Dean Weingarten, the author of the website article writes: "If you start with different priorities, you will often arrive at different conclusions." That certainly couldn't be more clear from this article (on a website called Ammoland) and I hope the irony is not lost on him or the members of BWCA.com.

geotramper: "MReid makes a great point, and I'd like to add my own related observations. There are a number of logical and factual errors and misrepresentations in Dave Smith's comments, but I'd like to point out two in particular:


1) Dave Smith states: "If there were more that 1,000 bears killed in defense of life or property by people with guns between 1987 and 1996, how come the 2012 gun study only included 263 incidents between 1883 and 2006?


Did the authors of the 2012 gun study omit hundreds of firearms successes? Did they cherry pick their data?"


Dave Smith uses this statement to call into question the data presented in the 2012 efficacy study. First off, the authors of this study state in the study text exactly how they collected and evaluated their data. Secondly, Dave Smith doesn't mention any attempt to actually request the data from the authors. The website article author says that "Davis Smith dug deeply to find what we know." Did he though? The text of the 2012 study indicates that supplemental information can be found online and even provides the email of the author. It shouldn't be that hard to get this data from the authors, and if they are responsible scientists they should provide it readily.


2) The 1999 defense of life and property paper (the one that Dave Smith uses to argue for firearm effectiveness) actually states that "these data underrepresent the frequency of injury to people from bears." This is because is the DLP kill reports from the 1999 article are all firearm successes in the sense that in every case the bear died. Thus this data set is inherently biased in favor of firearms limiting injuries.


All this is to say, I don't find this article or Dave Smith's comments particularly convincing.


One final point: Dean Weingarten, the author of the website article writes: "If you start with different priorities, you will often arrive at different conclusions." That certainly couldn't be more clear from this article (on a website called Ammoland) and I hope the irony is not lost on him or the members of BWCA.com. "

Well done!

It's a strange argument regardless. We've proven both methods work. Arguing that seems odd.

Just a note that butthead is quoting a discussion about a study by Tom Smith and not by Dave Smith. The quote didn’t specify and so I checked to be sure.

pamonster: "Well done!


It's a strange argument regardless. We've proven both methods work. Arguing that seems odd. "

I agree although I'd modify slightly:
We've proven both methods work *sometimes*.

Bears (as with most of the natural world) are volatile and unpredictable. Nothing is going to be 100% effective.

I will not paddle with out a fire arm PERIOD

Armored: "I will not paddle with out a fire arm PERIOD"

You will not paddle in Canada.

Banksiana: "

Armored: "I will not paddle with out a fire arm PERIOD"

You will not paddle in Canada."

ry

In the true wilderness of Canada you are sometimes required to carry a firearm especially in polar bear county.

For 25bucks and filled out form it is not hard to take a rifle or shotgun across the
border.

MatteMatt: "The bad behavior would have been approaching her, which it stopped when she sprayed it. Did I miss where she sprayed it again while it was at her kayak?"

She would accomplished the same effect had she backed off and she let the bear attack her kayak.

The bad behavior started with the bear going after the kayak.

riverrunner: "

MatteMatt: "The bad behavior would have been approaching her, which it stopped when she sprayed it. Did I miss where she sprayed it again while it was at her kayak?"

She would accomplished the same effect had she backed off and she let the bear attack her kayak.

The bad behavior started with the bear going after the kayak."

You're being disingenuous.

riverrunner: "
In the true wilderness of Canada you are sometimes required to carry a firearm especially in polar bear county.


For 25bucks and filled out form it is not hard to take a rifle or shotgun across the
border."

All true. Lower reaches of the Seal River required a shotgun or rifle. I was thinking handgun.

Vikings>Bears

An article on the internet on a website called "ammoland" could have some bias.

(Sorry, I realize that satire is lost on some.)

billconner: "An article on the internet on a website called "ammoland" could have some bias.


(Sorry, I realize that satire is lost on some.)"

Naturally one should consider sourcing as spin is ever present. But, having said that I automatically don't discount information just because it might not be from my philosophical point of skew.

Rather the question always needs be asked "is that the truth"? Ammoland website or not many of the particulars seem difficult to offer an intellectually honest argument against the use of a firearm.

Still doesn't negate spray however as a viable alternative.

billconner: "An article on the internet on a website called "ammoland" could have some bias.


(Sorry, I realize that satire is lost on some.)"

Like the other sites the promote spray as the best alterative do not have bias.

Any study done by or for a spray manufacturer should be instantly suspect.

Any study that thinks the lives of bears are more important then humans should be suspect.

All of them need to be looked at through a jaded eye. What are personnel bias of the authors and researchers.

Does the site or study give their sources and data points.

As with the firearms is 97 percent effective article it lists the actual attacks that made it up.

The author of that article is actively looking for and is very willing to include any attack that a firearm is use for self-defense that can be documented.

Not that uncle Joe told Henry who heard it from his brother that is friend was attacked and he shot the bear 5 times and it still mauled them.

Feel free to post them here and I well make sure the author gets them and adds them to the list.

No amount of discourse on this subject is likely to put an end to this topic but the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service which has no axe to grind or reason to be biased states in their Fact Sheet #8 and I quote: "Based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992. Persons encountering grizzlies and defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same time period, person's defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time and those that were injured experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries. Canadien bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero reached similar conclusions based on his own research. A person's chance of incurring serious injury from a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used."

Not only does this data support the effectiveness of bear spray over firearms but this resolves the issue of dealing with any wounded animals.

Something for everyone on the issue:

Bear politics

Freddy: "No amount of discourse on this subject is likely to put an end to this topic but the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service which has no axe to grind or reason to be biased states in their Fact Sheet #8 and I quote: "Based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992. Persons encountering grizzlies and defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same time period, person's defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time and those that were injured experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries. Canadien bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero reached similar conclusions based on his own research. A person's chance of incurring serious injury from a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used."


Not only does this data support the effectiveness of bear spray over firearms but this resolves the issue of dealing with any wounded animals.


"

That was always my belief.

But River Runner has provided what seems to be contrary evidence which is not easily dismissed.

My take is the type of bear may have much to do with course of action. Black bears may be more easily dispatched via a firearm and since a black bear is more likely to hunt a person for food as opposed to grizzlies spray may not be an effective deterrent with a hungry determined bear.

Conversely my understanding is a shot to stop a hard charging grizzly is not so easy and shoulder hits are common. Just enough to piss it off.

But I must admit to shrugging my own shoulders and admitting I am more confused than ever and lack clarity on the issue. I guess I will just continue to lug my spray which is also supposedly a good moose deterrent and in a pinch can be used to quiet unruly Boy Scout camps.

Freddy: "No amount of discourse on this subject is likely to put an end to this topic but the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service which has no axe to grind or reason to be biased states in their Fact Sheet #8 and I quote: "


"

"

What BS the U.S. Fishand Wildlife is very bias. They have adopted the attitude that bears are more important then people.

I know fish and wildlife agents their attitude is the humans are always wrong when dealing with animals that are protected by the ESA.

They have become infected with anti hunter and anti firearm folks. The ESA gave them great power and they use it with a big stick

For years they treated a bears death investigation as a major homicide spending a lot of money on them.

For years they brought into the idea the humans were always responsible for bad bear interactions and that it had to be the humans fault thus there could not be any legitimate self-defense cases.

Just spent 12 days camping and backpacking in Denali, and other places in Alaska. I felt perfectly comfortable with a can of bear spray. But to each their own. We did see 5 Grizzleys on this trip, but they were not close enough to be a threat. The 2 moose that walked through our campsite concerned me more then the Bears lol

riverrunner: "

Freddy: "No amount of discourse on this subject is likely to put an end to this topic but the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service which has no axe to grind or reason to be biased states in their Fact Sheet #8 and I quote: "

"

"

What BS the U.S. Fishand Wildlife is very bias. They have adopted the attitude that bears are more important then people.

I know fish and wildlife agents their attitude is the humans are always wrong when dealing with animals that are protected by the ESA.

They have become infected with anti hunter and anti firearm folks. The ESA gave them great power and they use it with a big stick

For years they treated a bears death investigation as a major homicide spending a lot of money on them.

For years they brought into the idea the humans were always responsible for bad bear interactions and that it had to be the humans fault thus there could not be any legitimate self-defense cases.
"

There's a hunting season for bears. Shooting a bear outside of hunting season, or without a license during season, is called poaching and is illegal. There are also laws against shooting animals without intent to kill (also called don't be a dick).

There's leeway given for self-defense situations, but it has to be determined that it was self-defense. Especially considering it's the go-to argument for every poacher on why they "had to" shoot it.

Even when the intention wasn't to shoot the bear, like making a trail of dog treats leading towards your campsite just to see one, it doesn't absolve the person of creating the situation where self-defense was needed. You can't blame a bear for being a bear, you can blame a person for being stupid.

There are probably better arguments to be made then what you're trying. You're coming across as a person who is upset they aren't allowed to shoot bears whenever they want.

Are you a politician Matt? Your answer to River Runners post seems to have little to do with what he actually stated but just rather "spin" and of course the inevitable unfair personal attack.

Yes it's obvious that River Runner is pro gun and not the least bit shy when it comes to protecting people over bears which have crossed a behavioral line. I have no problems with that philosophy. He has considerable personal experience and speaks from that advantage. I do not detect any purposeful deceit or guile in his posts. Rather just strong convictions which may come across as a bit abrasive and politically incorrect and perhaps I can recognize it easily because it is a trait I share from time to time.

From my perspective if he is to be faulted at all it is in his lack of supporting spray as a viable alternative to firearms. Not everyone is cut out to handle a firearm.

Commenting on poor behavior is not a personal attack.

I was responding to absurd complaints about the US Fish & Wildlife Service caring about animals which is literally the entire purpose of the agency. It's like complaining that a zookeeper cares too much about the animals they've been hired to care for and not the park visitors, or a dentist cares too much about teeth and not the rest of your body.

More so, that they're somehow wrong in investigating animals that have been shot. Not only is it still their job to investigate animal shootings, but there's a very good and simple reason for it. Because poaching is illegal and so is shooting animals not in self-defense.

Complaining that the USFWS is doing their basic job? I've only heard complaints like that from poachers angry they got caught and people angry about having to follow hunting seasons and bag limits. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt that riverrunner is just upset and getting carried away with his complaints, but he's coming across as someone who's upset that there are rules.

I'm not interested in the overarching argument of the efficiency of guns vs pepper spray. It's a false equivalency. People don't choose pepper spray because it's more efficient, they choose it because they don't want to use a gun. I choose neither, doesn't mean I think my bare hands are better than a gun or pepper spray.

MatteMatt: "Commenting on poor behavior is not a personal attack.

I was responding to absurd complaints about the US Fish & Wildlife Service caring about animals which is literally the entire purpose of the agency. It's like complaining that a zookeeper cares too much about the animals they've been hired to care for and not the park visitors, or a dentist cares too much about teeth and not the rest of your body.

More so, that they're somehow wrong in investigating animals that have been shot. Not only is it still their job to investigate animal shootings, but there's a very good and simple reason for it. Because poaching is illegal and so is shooting animals not in self-defense.

Complaining that the USFWS is doing their basic job? I've only heard complaints like that from poachers angry they got caught and people angry about having to follow hunting seasons and bag limits. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt that riverrunner is just upset and getting carried away with his complaints, but he's coming across as someone who's upset that there are rules.

I'm not interested in the overarching argument of the efficiency of guns vs pepper spray. It's a false equivalency. People don't choose pepper spray because it's more efficient, they choose it because they don't want to use a gun. I choose neither, doesn't mean I think my bare hands are better than a gun or pepper spray."

+1

I suppose one can have differing interpretations of the same material. I never got the impression he was against game laws nor did I get the impression that he was "upset that he couldn't shoot bears whenever he wanted" which I thought was a huge cheap shot.

Rather, I prefer not to add my own conjecture and start imputing nefarious motives but rather take him at his word. Perhaps he is well acquainted with bias which puts the health and welfare of animals over that of people. Does not sound the least bit far fetched to me in this day and age. Bias in an activist government agency? Could that be possible? #FBI/DOJ.

It's a lot harder to post facts then personnel attacks.

I more then welcome comments with facts that prove me wrong.

The others I read with a sense of humor.

I as I stated before if you have documented instances of proven documented firearm failures.

Feel free to post them and they well be added to the list.

I strongly feel that a bears life is no way as important as a humans life.

I strongly believe that humans have a fundamentally right to defend themselves against attack.

With the best tool they can have. It should be a personal choice not a government mandated one.

No where have I stated that you have to carry a firearm. But if one wants the best tool to defend yourself the facts seem clear.

Maybe that is why the pro spray, pro bear people have such a problem with it.

Because it kills the old wife's tales and myths that have been told them for years

Every state allows one to defend themselves against unlawful attack.
So it is not illegal nor poaching killing a bear out of season if defending ones life or body from death or great bodily harm.

Make the choice for your self spray, fists( there are documented cases where a punched worked.) along with knifes.

Personally if I am going to get in a fight with something bigger, stronger, faster armed with very effective cutting, puncturing and impact weapons. trying it's best to kill , mane or eat me.

I prefer a stand off weapon and one that's has the best record of saving me not my attacker.

If one would gladly use spray against armed human attacker trying to kill you or do you great bodily harm. Then feel free to use spray against an animal attacker that is stronger faster armed with cutting, puncturing and impact weapons then I guess spray is for you.

I have defended myself against human attackers using the best tools for the job why would one use a lesser degree against bears or any other animal that wants to kill me or do great bodily harm.

But again it's your choice.

"No where have I stated that you have to carry a firearm. But if one wants the best tool to defend yourself the facts seem clear".

Since the facts seem clear based on the testimony of numerous Federal Law Enforcement Agents and bear experts like Dr. Herrero that Bear Spray is the best tool to defend yourself in a bear encounter we must be in agreement?

Freddy: "
Since the facts seem clear based on the testimony of numerous Federal Law Enforcement Agents and bear experts like Dr. Herrero that Bear Spray is the best tool to defend yourself in a bear encounter we must be in agreement?"

That have relied on old insufficient data, Flawed and bias studies to come to their conclusions.

Federal agent law enforcement testimony is hardly fact or expertise they are very subject to testifying to what they think their agencies want to hear and personal bias.

Dr. Herrero has changed his mind about black bears with his.

Beware of predatory male black bears study

Research regarding North American black bear fatal attacks on people shows lone males are most dangerous, attack rates are rising with human population growth.

Another study from 2016 places the blame on humans.
New study says half of bear attacks are result of inappropriate human behaviour
Stephen Herrero, EVDS professor emeritus, is study's lead North American researcher
By Drew Scherban February 3, 2016

He also states many times that he is worried about bears getting kill. when that is your state of mind bear spray is better.




He has not up dated his spray study has more information has come about why.

The incident reports filed by agents of the Fish & Wildlife Service stand on their own, will never become outdated, and are what they are but you certainly have the right to question them. Kudos for your research on Dr. Herrero but I have yet to see anywhere that he has changed his position on bullets vs bear spray.

I don't see either of us changing our position as well. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Dr Herrero is my mentor on all things bears and has provided a considerable education. He opened my eyes to predatory black bears which may stalk and eat humans vs Grizzlies which are more likely to "remove the threat" (batter you until you stop moving).

It would seem obvious to me that given the threat of a determined hungry black bear and their less sturdy body (compared to a grizzly) that a firearm would be the preferred choice. Spray may not deter a determined bear which is intent on YOU and not merely looking for your picnic basket.

On the other hand, given the speed of a charging grizzly and the smallish target box and heavier build I would probably want spray and would employ it right after changing my shorts of defecation.

mastertangler: "

On the other hand, given the speed of a charging grizzly and the smallish target box and heavier build I would probably want spray and would employ it right after changing my shorts of defecation. "

I would recommend changing ones shorts after one took care of the threat.

The smallish target box that one supposedly one has to hit is another old wife's tale reread the successful accounts of people defending themselves and you well find it untrue.

Sounds like you need more practice the reality of it is not all people who have defended themselves with firearms have not been world record shooters.

Come to Wisconsin and I well up your skill and confidence level with the firearm or firearms of your choice.

My rates are very reasonable for one on one personal training.

As far as Dr. Herrero being a mentor I wouldn't trust anybody who is more concerned about saving my attackers life then my own. One has to remember he lives in Canada where firearm owner ship is restricted and owning a handgun is very hard.

That alone makes me suspect does he even knows how to or ever has shot one. No where have I seen that he has personal knowledge on how to use them as weapons.

People who have no personal knowledge of things tend not to recommend those items.

Spray is all about savings bears not humans. Dr. Tom smith and Dr. Herrero through out their talks repeatedly talk about how many bears it stops or could stop from dying.

I like bears they are fun to hunt and most black bears are very good to eat and I would hate to see their numbers diminished to the point where we could not do either.

riverrunner: "

mastertangler: "


On the other hand, given the speed of a charging grizzly and the smallish target box and heavier build I would probably want spray and would employ it right after changing my shorts of defecation. "

I would recommend changing ones shorts after one took care of the threat.


The smallish target box that one supposedly one has to hit is another old wife's tale reread the successful accounts of people defending themselves and you well find it untrue.


Sounds like you need more practice the reality of it is not all people who have defended themselves with firearms have not been world record shooters.


Come to Wisconsin and I well up your skill and confidence level with the firearm or firearms of your choice.


My rates are very reasonable for one on one personal training.


As far as Dr. Herrero being a mentor I wouldn't trust anybody who is more concerned about saving my attackers life then my own. One has to remember he lives in Canada where firearm owner ship is restricted and owning a handgun is very hard.

That alone makes me suspect does he even knows how to or ever has shot one. No where have I seen that he has personal knowledge on how to use them as weapons.

People who have no personal knowledge of things tend not to recommend those items.

Spray is all about savings bears not humans. Dr. Tom smith and Dr. Herrero through out their talks repeatedly talk about how many bears it stops or could stop from dying.


I like bears they are fun to hunt and most black bears are very good to eat and I would hate to see their numbers diminished to the point where we could not do either.
"

Doesn't this violate a rule of bwca.com? I didn't think one was allowed to advertise one's services and this isn't the first time riverrunner has done this. Please correct me if I'm wrong, moderators. I also note that riverrunner hasn't donated to the site, so it's literally free advertising.

missmolly: "

riverrunner: "

mastertangler: "



On the other hand, given the speed of a charging grizzly and the smallish target box and heavier build I would probably want spray and would employ it right after changing my shorts of defecation. "

I would recommend changing ones shorts after one took care of the threat.



The smallish target box that one supposedly one has to hit is another old wife's tale reread the successful accounts of people defending themselves and you well find it untrue.



Sounds like you need more practice the reality of it is not all people who have defended themselves with firearms have not been world record shooters.



Come to Wisconsin and I well up your skill and confidence level with the firearm or firearms of your choice.



My rates are very reasonable for one on one personal training.



As far as Dr. Herrero being a mentor I wouldn't trust anybody who is more concerned about saving my attackers life then my own. One has to remember he lives in Canada where firearm owner ship is restricted and owning a handgun is very hard.


That alone makes me suspect does he even knows how to or ever has shot one. No where have I seen that he has personal knowledge on how to use them as weapons.


People who have no personal knowledge of things tend not to recommend those items.


Spray is all about savings bears not humans. Dr. Tom smith and Dr. Herrero through out their talks repeatedly talk about how many bears it stops or could stop from dying.



I like bears they are fun to hunt and most black bears are very good to eat and I would hate to see their numbers diminished to the point where we could not do either.
"

Doesn't this violate a rule of bwca.com? I didn't think one was allowed to advertise one's services and this isn't the first time riverrunner has done this. Please correct me if I'm wrong, moderators. I also note that riverrunner hasn't donated to the site, so it's literally free advertising. "

+1

A very interesting article on the use of spray against predatory black bears.


black bears and spray

better to carry bear spray and not need it than to need it and not carry it

Little Red Riding Hood: "better to carry bear spray and not need it than to need it and not carry it"

The same can be said about firearms. Or any other safety item one carries PFD's first aid kit ect.

riverrunner: "A very interesting article on the use of spray against predatory black bears.



black bears and spray



"

This is getting played out, but riverrunner, you may enjoy this study, if you haven't already read it. Doesn't really incorporate spray but does show noting works all the time...and circumstance carries a much higher predictability of outcome for bear attacks.
Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska
Guns/Spray are obviously for worst case scenario
Yes, spray can fail just as a gun can. Insert hunter (with a gun) killed by bear story here....

pamonster: "

riverrunner: "A very interesting article on the use of spray against predatory black bears.



black bears and spray



"

This is getting played out, but riverrunner, you may enjoy this study, if you haven't already read it. Doesn't really incorporate spray but does show noting works all the time...and circumstance carries a much higher predictability of outcome for bear attacks.
Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska
Guns/Spray are obviously for worst case scenario
Yes, spray can fail just as a gun can. Insert hunter (with a gun) killed by bear story here....
"

I have been straight forward about my experience in hunting and shooting bears. I have shot many and I can tell you that firearms work very well in stopping a bear from what it is doing.

Insert the 10000 plus bears killed every year by firearms with no harm to humans .

In Wis. alone we kill 5000 a year with no harm to humans.

I would love to heard about your use of firearms and or spray.

Yes I read it, it has many flaws it.

If you haven't already research why the study you mention is flawed you should.

Both links provided below have good information in them if one has a open enough mind to bother to read them.

Flaws

You should be interested in the following quote from Dr. Herrero's book.
Yet he very willing to let a bear get with in 15 or 20 feet of you so you can use spray.

In biologist Steve Herrero's classic book Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance, Herrero said you should shoot a charging bear when it gets within 100 feet (33 yards).



Smith on spray

riverrunner: "

pamonster: "

riverrunner: "A very interesting article on the use of spray against predatory black bears.




black bears and spray




"

This is getting played out, but riverrunner, you may enjoy this study, if you haven't already read it. Doesn't really incorporate spray but does show noting works all the time...and circumstance carries a much higher predictability of outcome for bear attacks.
Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska
Guns/Spray are obviously for worst case scenario
Yes, spray can fail just as a gun can. Insert hunter (with a gun) killed by bear story here....
"

I have been straight forward about my experience in hunting and shooting bears. I have shot many and I can tell you that firearms work very well in stopping a bear from what it is doing.

Insert the 10000 plus bears killed every year by firearms with no harm to humans .

In Wis. alone we kill 5000 a year with no harm to humans.

I would love to heard about your use of firearms and or spray.

Yes I read it, it has many flaws it.

If you haven't already research why the study you mention is flawed you should.

Both links provided below have good information in them if one has a open enough mind to bother to read them.


Flaws


You should be interested in the following quote from Dr. Herrero's book.
Yet he very willing to let a bear get with in 15 or 20 feet of you so you can use spray.


In biologist Steve Herrero's classic book Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance, Herrero said you should shoot a charging bear when it gets within 100 feet (33 yards).



Smith on spray

"

Don't take me the wrong way, I carry a 10mm in Grizzly country, .357 otherwise. I'm a strong advocate of being prepared and my version of that can involve firearms. I'm legal in most states and exercise that right when I see it fit. But to each their own. I do wish we had better vetting process for ccw but that's a different topic.

I guess I misunderstood your point. I was thinking we were talking about bear attacks, but you're talking about hunting bears, that's completely different and I misinterpreted what your point was. I agree, hunting bears is as safe as any hunting.

I've witnessed exactly zero bear attacks in person.
I've encountered many black bears and a handful of grizzly's in the wild. The closest grizzly was ~35 yards away down a ravine. I was on horseback and we moved on, the bear looked at us for about 3 seconds and sat there. It was not a terrorizing event, it was quite the opposite, that animal was beautiful and it's a memory I'll have forever.

As a veterinarian I do have a better understanding of animal life and capabilities than most. I can speak to dogs surviving shotgun and handgun injuries. I'm no fool and in a chaotic event like a bear attack, unlike hunting, shot placement is not guaranteed (not that it is all the time with hunting either). Without a lucky shot to the CNS or heart you're waiting on blood loss to end the animals life. It won't take a bear long to kill you if it gets you even if it bleeds out minutes later.

My point is not to argue with you. You can believe spray works or doesn't, I don't care. I'm not trying to get you to carry spray or something.
But in my opinion spray can work, and has. Just as guns can work and can fail.

pamonster: "

riverrunner: "

pamonster: "

riverrunner: "A very interesting article on the use of spray against predatory black bears.





black bears and spray





"

This is getting played out, but riverrunner, you may enjoy this study, if you haven't already read it. Doesn't really incorporate spray but does show noting works all the time...and circumstance carries a much higher predictability of outcome for bear attacks.
Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska
Guns/Spray are obviously for worst case scenario
Yes, spray can fail just as a gun can. Insert hunter (with a gun) killed by bear story here....
"

I have been straight forward about my experience in hunting and shooting bears. I have shot many and I can tell you that firearms work very well in stopping a bear from what it is doing.


Insert the 10000 plus bears killed every year by firearms with no harm to humans .


In Wis. alone we kill 5000 a year with no harm to humans.


I would love to heard about your use of firearms and or spray.


Yes I read it, it has many flaws it.


If you haven't already research why the study you mention is flawed you should.


Both links provided below have good information in them if one has a open enough mind to bother to read them.



Flaws



You should be interested in the following quote from Dr. Herrero's book.
Yet he very willing to let a bear get with in 15 or 20 feet of you so you can use spray.



In biologist Steve Herrero's classic book Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance, Herrero said you should shoot a charging bear when it gets within 100 feet (33 yards).




Smith on spray


"

Don't take me the wrong way, I carry a 10mm in Grizzly country, .357 otherwise. I'm a strong advocate of being prepared and my version of that can involve firearms. I'm legal in most states and exercise that right when I see it fit. But to each their own. I do wish we had better vetting process for ccw but that's a different topic.


I guess I misunderstood your point. I was thinking we were talking about bear attacks, but you're talking about hunting bears, that's completely different and I misinterpreted what your point was. I agree, hunting bears is as safe as any hunting.


I've witnessed exactly zero bear attacks in person.
I've encountered many black bears and a handful of grizzly's in the wild. The closest grizzly was ~35 yards away down a ravine. I was on horseback and we moved on, the bear looked at us for about 3 seconds and sat there. It was not a terrorizing event, it was quite the opposite, that animal was beautiful and it's a memory I'll have forever.


As a veterinarian I do have a better understanding of animal life and capabilities than most. I can speak to dogs surviving shotgun and handgun injuries. I'm no fool and in a chaotic event like a bear attack, unlike hunting, shot placement is not guaranteed (not that it is all the time with hunting either). Without a lucky shot to the CNS or heart you're waiting on blood loss to end the animals life. It won't take a bear long to kill you if it gets you even if it bleeds out minutes later.


My point is not to argue with you. You can believe spray works or doesn't, I don't care. I'm not trying to get you to carry spray or something.
But in my opinion spray can work, and has. Just as guns can work and can fail. "

Good post, pamonster

It was you pamonster that brought up the hunter getting mauled or killed by a bear.

Again this is the problem with the spray and gun studies they use two different standards of what is an effective stop.

That standard for spray is the bear stopped his behavior

If the same standard is applied to firearms as is applied for spray firearms come out on top by a huge margin..

mc2mens: "

pamonster: "

riverrunner: "

pamonster: "

riverrunner: "A very interesting article on the use of spray against predatory black bears.





black bears and spray





"

This is getting played out, but riverrunner, you may enjoy this study, if you haven't already read it. Doesn't really incorporate spray but does show noting works all the time...and circumstance carries a much higher predictability of outcome for bear attacks.
Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska
Guns/Spray are obviously for worst case scenario
Yes, spray can fail just as a gun can. Insert hunter (with a gun) killed by bear story here....
"

I have been straight forward about my experience in hunting and shooting bears. I have shot many and I can tell you that firearms work very well in stopping a bear from what it is doing.



Insert the 10000 plus bears killed every year by firearms with no harm to humans .



In Wis. alone we kill 5000 a year with no harm to humans.



I would love to heard about your use of firearms and or spray.



Yes I read it, it has many flaws it.



If you haven't already research why the study you mention is flawed you should.



Both links provided below have good information in them if one has a open enough mind to bother to read them.



Flaws



You should be interested in the following quote from Dr. Herrero's book.
Yet he very willing to let a bear get with in 15 or 20 feet of you so you can use spray.



In biologist Steve Herrero's classic book Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance, Herrero said you should shoot a charging bear when it gets within 100 feet (33 yards).





Smith on spray



"

Don't take me the wrong way, I carry a 10mm in Grizzly country, .357 otherwise. I'm a strong advocate of being prepared and my version of that can involve firearms. I'm legal in most states and exercise that right when I see it fit. But to each their own. I do wish we had better vetting process for ccw but that's a different topic.



I guess I misunderstood your point. I was thinking we were talking about bear attacks, but you're talking about hunting bears, that's completely different and I misinterpreted what your point was. I agree, hunting bears is as safe as any hunting.



I've witnessed exactly zero bear attacks in person.
I've encountered many black bears and a handful of grizzly's in the wild. The closest grizzly was ~35 yards away down a ravine. I was on horseback and we moved on, the bear looked at us for about 3 seconds and sat there. It was not a terrorizing event, it was quite the opposite, that animal was beautiful and it's a memory I'll have forever.



As a veterinarian I do have a better understanding of animal life and capabilities than most. I can speak to dogs surviving shotgun and handgun injuries. I'm no fool and in a chaotic event like a bear attack, unlike hunting, shot placement is not guaranteed (not that it is all the time with hunting either). Without a lucky shot to the CNS or heart you're waiting on blood loss to end the animals life. It won't take a bear long to kill you if it gets you even if it bleeds out minutes later.



My point is not to argue with you. You can believe spray works or doesn't, I don't care. I'm not trying to get you to carry spray or something.
But in my opinion spray can work, and has. Just as guns can work and can fail. "

Good post, pamonster"

I'll see your "good" and raise it to "great."

you people must not be very good shots, I simply carry a .22 because it is small and light, last time a bear attacked I put two shots in the eyeballs, then kicked him in the groin, he'll think twice the next time he tries to attack a woman

I just love how these posts get folks worked up over the truly rare bear attacks. How come no debate over drunk driving or other accidents that are FAR more likely to kill someone while en route to their backcountry trip--or lightning, drowning, or hypothermia that kill numerous wilderness tripper every year?

In my 40 years of wilderness travel I can think of just TWO occasions where I was pretty nervous about bears. 1. While traveling cross-country down a trail-less valley in Glacier National Park in Montana, and, 2. While pinned down in a storm along the western coast of Hudson Bay on a long canoe trip.

arctic: "I just love how these posts get folks worked up over the truly rare bear attacks. How come no debate over drunk driving or other accidents that are FAR more likely to kill someone while en route to their backcountry trip--or lightning, drowning, or hypothermia that kill numerous wilderness tripper every year?


In my 40 years of wilderness travel I can think of just TWO occasions where I was pretty nervous about bears. 1. While traveling cross-country down a trail-less valley in Glacier National Park in Montana, and, 2. While pinned down in a storm along the western coast of Hudson Bay on a long canoe trip."

+1. Especially in BWCAW and Q. Grizzly and polar bear country maybe.

From North Country Canoe Outfitters

"In the 80+ years that the Quetico – Superior has been an entity, there have been only three people hurt by bears."

And amusingly "In the United States there are more people hurt by buffalo each year than by bears."

Why do we talk bears because a lot of people are interested.

Any one can start a thread about all the other ways for someone to die. Feel free to do so bringing them up in bear thread is just trying to divert the attention away from
bears.

I wouldn't mind seeing a tread on how many people have been involved in vehicle crashes along the narrow forest roads leading to many of the entry points. Or have you ever rolled your canoe and were in danger.

Since neither of them have happened to me I am not the one to talk about it.

But I have killed a bear in the BWCA that the day before attack a young lady and tried to drag her off.

So yes a lot of what can happen to a person depends are what they are doing where they are at.

If you are traveling in certain areas where grizzlies and polar bears are dominate.

One as a greater chance to be killed by a bear than lighting.

lightning and bears

riverrunner: "It was you pamonster that brought up the hunter getting mauled or killed by a bear.


Again this is the problem with the spray and gun studies they use two different standards of what is an effective stop.


That standard for spray is the bear stopped his behavior


If the same standard is applied to firearms as is applied for spray firearms come out on top by a huge margin..


"

Yes this was my mistake, though you can quickly pull up hunters getting killed by bear stories via google. But I should have said "human with a gun killed by a bear", like I said, my mistake. But my point is people with guns get killed by bears too.....

It is such a hot topic and essentially everyone discussing it has absolutely no experience in that situation. We're all giving an inexperienced, theoretical, option on the matter. Has anyone here actually been the victim of an unprovoked, surprise attack, from a bear and used spray or a gun in defense of your life? If you have, you obviously survived, and you'll probably stick with the method that saved your life and defend it. So you should! riverrunner killed a bear that attacked someone else, that might be as close as we get on here so I completely understand his/her(sorry, don't know) position on it.

Read all you want about how whiskey is better than vodka, but do you really know anything about it if you've never had either? Or if you've only had 1? No, it's that simple.
We do know some facts on the subject though.
Fact: Guns can kill bears
Fact: Bear spray can deter bears
Fact: Guns can malfunction, shots can miss
Fact: Bears can continue to engage after being sprayed
Arguing these seems ignorant. But which is better? Now that's a personal opinion with way too many factors that can swing it to either side.

Nobody being attacked by a bear cares what a study says or what and which methods were used. Or who has a new opinion on it. They're going to fight with anything they have to survive. I prepare myself the way I think is right, but that doesn't mean it right for everyone.

arctic: "I just love how these posts get folks worked up over the truly rare bear attacks. How come no debate over drunk driving or other accidents that are FAR more likely to kill someone while en route to their backcountry trip--or lightning, drowning, or hypothermia that kill numerous wilderness tripper every year?


In my 40 years of wilderness travel I can think of just TWO occasions where I was pretty nervous about bears. 1. While traveling cross-country down a trail-less valley in Glacier National Park in Montana, and, 2. While pinned down in a storm along the western coast of Hudson Bay on a long canoe trip."

I take my .357 magnum into all restaurants (CCW and 00-license) and if I see diabetes about to take a bite out of a person, I shoot their carrot cake right out of their hands. However, bear spray also works in such situations.

riverrunner: "Why do we talk bears because a lot of people are interested.


Any one can start a thread about all the other ways for someone to die. Feel free to do so bringing them up in bear thread is just trying to divert the attention away from
bears.


I wouldn't mind seeing a tread on how many people have been involved in vehicle crashes along the narrow forest roads leading to many of the entry points. Or have you ever rolled your canoe and were in danger.


Since neither of them have happened to me I am not the one to talk about it.


But I have killed a bear in the BWCA that the day before attack a young lady and tried to drag her off.


So yes a lot of what can happen to a person depends are what they are doing where they are at.


If you are traveling in certain areas where grizzlies and polar bears are dominate.


One as a greater chance to be killed by a bear than lighting.


lightning and bears "

I don't have the link to prove it, but I am certain that one is MUCH more likely to be killed by a bear than squashed by a locomotive falling out of a clear, blue sky.

missmolly: "

riverrunner: "Why do we talk bears because a lot of people are interested.



Any one can start a thread about all the other ways for someone to die. Feel free to do so bringing them up in bear thread is just trying to divert the attention away from
bears.



I wouldn't mind seeing a tread on how many people have been involved in vehicle crashes along the narrow forest roads leading to many of the entry points. Or have you ever rolled your canoe and were in danger.



Since neither of them have happened to me I am not the one to talk about it.



But I have killed a bear in the BWCA that the day before attack a young lady and tried to drag her off.



So yes a lot of what can happen to a person depends are what they are doing where they are at.



If you are traveling in certain areas where grizzlies and polar bears are dominate.



One as a greater chance to be killed by a bear than lighting.



lightning and bears "

I don't have the link to prove it, but I am certain that one is MUCH more likely to be killed by a bear than squashed by a locomotive falling out of a clear, blue sky.
"

It is nice to know that some are very willing to back there statements up with facts.

What we should debate is which handgun & caliber is best for bear defense. Also ammo :)

pamonster: "What we should debate is which handgun & caliber is best for bear defense. Also ammo :)"

I suggest ammo filled with pepper spray.

I vote for whatever these guys were using. If it's good enough for alien lasers it's probably good enough for bears.

MatteMatt: "I vote for whatever these guys were using. If it's good enough for alien lasers it's probably good enough for bears."

I agree. Aliens have not conquered Earth, therefore their gun is the ultimate defense weapon.

BTW, I just made another bwca.com donation and I urge all to do the same. My only regret is that I could not donate in the name of bears everywhere.

I take this problem more seriously than some on this forum for I have worked with a bear management officer in YNP that was attacked by a predatory grizzly when his backup with a shotgun failed to get involved and worked for a FMO in Ak that survived by climbing a tree and belting himself in after being attacked. Our crew was on fire detail before and after The Night of the Grizzlies in GNP. There also was two grizzly bear fatalities in YNP that we cleared with shotguns. Once you witness what a bear does to a body, you get a bit tired of the flip attitude of some on this forum that have never been there or ever will be there. I have been treed twice and that is not that uncommon but never gets in the papers.

missmolly: "

pamonster: "What we should debate is which handgun & caliber is best for bear defense. Also ammo :)"

I suggest ammo filled with pepper spray. "

Now were talking! And everyone has to agree it will work the best!

Here you guys go peppered filled shotshells

pepper shells

more

pamonster: "What we should debate is which handgun & caliber is best for bear defense. Also ammo :)"

An interesting topic by its self.

Hundreds of opinions out there. Just search what's the best firearm for bear defense.

I have some having killed bears with rifles, handguns and shotguns.

I am always up to discussing such feel free to start a thread and I am sure I well chime in.

Carver: "I take this problem more seriously than some on this forum for I have worked with a bear management officer in YNP that was attacked by a predatory grizzly when his backup with a shotgun failed to get involved and worked for a FMO in Ak that survived by climbing a tree and belting himself in after being attacked. Our crew was on fire detail before and after The Night of the Grizzlies in GNP. There also was two grizzly bear fatalities in YNP that we cleared with shotguns. Once you witness what a bear does to a body, you get a bit tired of the flip attitude of some on this forum that have never been there or ever will be there. I have been treed twice and that is not that uncommon but never gets in the papers. "

I respect your opinion and those of folks who have been in your shoes. I have been a lot of places but I have not been in your shoes. If and when I am, I will be prepared with a firearm (or two) and spray. I need all the odds I can get.

pamonster: "What we should debate is which handgun & caliber is best for bear defense. Also ammo :)"

I am interested to hear from those who have been there and know. What is/are the best firearms/ammo to have with when in grizzly country.

mc2mens: "

pamonster: "What we should debate is which handgun & caliber is best for bear defense. Also ammo :)"

I am interested to hear from those who have been there and know. What is/are the best firearms/ammo to have with when in grizzly country. "

I prefer a chest holster, when packing a 44 mag, such as the Guides Choice Leather Holster from Diamond D Leather out of Wasilla, AK. I prefer using a 12 gauge with Black Magic Magnum 3" shells but also carry two or three rubber rounds. I worked for a Fire Management Officer in interior AK that was trusted by the old timers so that we were aware of where the problem bears were. The native Alaskans often took care of problems in their own way so that many encounters never reached a bureaucratic level.

For handguns heavy for caliber hard cast with a wide front nose (WFN).

Buffalo bore ammo seems to have the best reputation of the commercial stuff.

ammo

For rifles I prefer .308 caliber or bigger with heavy for caliber bullets.

180's or more in .308

250's or more in .338.

270's or more in .375

350's or more in the 416's

400's or more in the 458's

Not that bears haven't been killed with lighter bullets in those calibers but when defending ones life it is nice to have the deeper penetration of heavier bullets.

The all copper mono bullets can allow one to go to a lighter bullet they have a great reputation for deep penetration.

Shotguns I prefer slugs even through I have killed bears with buckshot. Buckshot can really have a problem with under penetration.

It is all distance related.

Up to about 10 yards it doesn't matter past 10 yards the pattern of buck shot can be iffy placing enough pellets close enough together to drive them deep enough.

One still has to aim a shotgun to get the best results especially at the closer ranges. So one should use the best round that well guarantee depth enough penetration.

If the shot is far enough that the pattern is wide enough that aiming isn't as critical the pattern could very well be to thin to work well.

Carver: "I take this problem more seriously than some on this forum for I have worked with a bear management officer in YNP that was attacked by a predatory grizzly when his backup with a shotgun failed to get involved and worked for a FMO in Ak that survived by climbing a tree and belting himself in after being attacked. Our crew was on fire detail before and after The Night of the Grizzlies in GNP. There also was two grizzly bear fatalities in YNP that we cleared with shotguns. Once you witness what a bear does to a body, you get a bit tired of the flip attitude of some on this forum that have never been there or ever will be there. I have been treed twice and that is not that uncommon but never gets in the papers. "

You just arrived and you're already tired? Here's what'll perk you up: Donate to the website!

riverrunner: "For handguns heavy for caliber hard cast with a wide front nose (WFN).

Buffalo bore ammo seems to have the best reputation of the commercial stuff.


ammo

For rifles I prefer .308 caliber or bigger with heavy for caliber bullets.

180's or more in .308

250's or more in .338.

270's or more in .375

350's or more in the 416's

400's or more in the 458's

Not that bears haven't been killed with lighter bullets in those calibers but when defending ones life it is nice to have the deeper penetration of heavier bullets.

The all copper mono bullets can allow one to go to a lighter bullet they have a great reputation for deep penetration.

Shotguns I prefer slugs even through I have killed bears with buckshot. Buckshot can really have a problem with under penetration.

It is all distance related.

Up to about 10 yards it doesn't matter past 10 yards the pattern of buck shot can be iffy placing enough pellets close enough together to drive them deep enough.

One still has to aim a shotgun to get the best results especially at the closer ranges. So one should use the best round that well guarantee depth enough penetration.

If the shot is far enough that the pattern is wide enough that aiming isn't as critical the pattern could very well be to thin to work well.


"

Right on there.
Double Tap makes the hottest 10mm around. 200 grain HC 1300fps/750ftlb....she’s smoking! Meplat is darn near 10mm too. They recently dropped a 230gr HC though haven’t ordered any yet.

missmolly: "

Carver: "I take this problem more seriously than some on this forum for I have worked with a bear management officer in YNP that was attacked by a predatory grizzly when his backup with a shotgun failed to get involved and worked for a FMO in Ak that survived by climbing a tree and belting himself in after being attacked. Our crew was on fire detail before and after The Night of the Grizzlies in GNP. There also was two grizzly bear fatalities in YNP that we cleared with shotguns. Once you witness what a bear does to a body, you get a bit tired of the flip attitude of some on this forum that have never been there or ever will be there. I have been treed twice and that is not that uncommon but never gets in the papers. "

You just arrived and you're already tired? Here's what'll perk you up: Donate to the website! "

I would rather donate to another forum that doesn't have so many know it all's that back each other even though some have never been in the BWCA. Goodbye Molly

Carver: "

missmolly: "

Carver: "I take this problem more seriously than some on this forum for I have worked with a bear management officer in YNP that was attacked by a predatory grizzly when his backup with a shotgun failed to get involved and worked for a FMO in Ak that survived by climbing a tree and belting himself in after being attacked. Our crew was on fire detail before and after The Night of the Grizzlies in GNP. There also was two grizzly bear fatalities in YNP that we cleared with shotguns. Once you witness what a bear does to a body, you get a bit tired of the flip attitude of some on this forum that have never been there or ever will be there. I have been treed twice and that is not that uncommon but never gets in the papers. "

You just arrived and you're already tired? Here's what'll perk you up: Donate to the website! "

I would rather donate to another forum that doesn't have so many know it all's that back each other even though some have never been in the BWCA. Goodbye Molly"

Anything to add to the OP? Sounds like you have some experience...

Very few would argue that a 12 gauge with slugs as the best stopping power but when your fishing the Russian or Kenai with a rod in one hand and a net in the other that means your 12 is most often on the bank leaning on a tree or strapped ineffectively across your back. For me it's always a 15 shot 10mm with Buffalo Bore hard cast in a chest holster. I have not pulled the trigger but I have definitely had it in hand at the ready.

That is one of the problems with rifles and shotguns they tend to get left in places when one is busy doing other stuff.

Like going to the out house, cutting firewood, fishing, gardening, feeding live stock or any other chore that takes two hands.

With a good carry rig one can have a handgun with you most of the time.

Carver: "

missmolly: "

Carver: "I take this problem more seriously than some on this forum for I have worked with a bear management officer in YNP that was attacked by a predatory grizzly when his backup with a shotgun failed to get involved and worked for a FMO in Ak that survived by climbing a tree and belting himself in after being attacked. Our crew was on fire detail before and after The Night of the Grizzlies in GNP. There also was two grizzly bear fatalities in YNP that we cleared with shotguns. Once you witness what a bear does to a body, you get a bit tired of the flip attitude of some on this forum that have never been there or ever will be there. I have been treed twice and that is not that uncommon but never gets in the papers. "

You just arrived and you're already tired? Here's what'll perk you up: Donate to the website! "

I would rather donate to another forum that doesn't have so many know it all's that back each other even though some have never been in the BWCA. Goodbye Molly"

Good-bye, beloved sock puppet. I turn to Daddy Jack now: “What is that feeling when you're driving away from people and they recede on the plain till you see their specks dispersing? - it's the too-huge world vaulting us, and it's good-bye. But we lean forward to the next crazy venture beneath the skies.”

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking.
You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.

—Marcus Aurelius

Let’s all just make a little effort to be good to one another. We can disagree and see things differently; it’s ok

pamonster: "Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking.
You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.


—Marcus Aurelius


Let’s all just make a little effort to be good to one another. We can disagree and see things differently; it’s ok"

Good reminder.

Here is a good link on firearms vs bear spray. Bear Spray vs Firearms

The U.S. Forest Service did a study of firearms/calibers for effectiveness for Brown bears specifically. They tried a variety of bullet types and weights too. The study was done in 1983. The largest handgun they used was the .44 mag. Some of the larger caliber hand guns such .454 casull, .460 S&W, 500 S&W were not common then or didn't exist. I thought it was fairly interesting. Here is the Link

missmolly: "

Carver: "

missmolly: "

Carver: "I take this problem more seriously than some on this forum for I have worked with a bear management officer in YNP that was attacked by a predatory grizzly when his backup with a shotgun failed to get involved and worked for a FMO in Ak that survived by climbing a tree and belting himself in after being attacked. Our crew was on fire detail before and after The Night of the Grizzlies in GNP. There also was two grizzly bear fatalities in YNP that we cleared with shotguns. Once you witness what a bear does to a body, you get a bit tired of the flip attitude of some on this forum that have never been there or ever will be there. I have been treed twice and that is not that uncommon but never gets in the papers. "

You just arrived and you're already tired? Here's what'll perk you up: Donate to the website! "

I would rather donate to another forum that doesn't have so many know it all's that back each other even though some have never been in the BWCA. Goodbye Molly"

Good-bye, beloved sock puppet. I turn to Daddy Jack now: “What is that feeling when you're driving away from people and they recede on the plain till you see their specks dispersing? - it's the too-huge world vaulting us, and it's good-bye. But we lean forward to the next crazy venture beneath the skie
s.” "

You have never been to the BWCA. You are anti-guns. We get it.

Freddy: "
Here is a good link on firearms vs bear spray. Bear Spray vs Firearms "

A totally pro spray article. filled with a lot of BS.

1st is one carrying a firearm in national parks is subject to the laws of the state it is in. One does not concealed in a lot of states.

2nd is people who have shot bears with firearms being horrible mauled.
Don't know where or what books. I also read a lot of bear attack books his statement is totally false.

Here's a link the shows the effectiveness of firearms.

97%

Instead of listening to this guy who has no clue what his talking about and just sprouts nonsense.

Do some more research.

Read this it might help.



Dave smith on spray

And this one.

Flaws

Zwater: "

missmolly: "

Carver: "

missmolly: "

Carver: "I take this problem more seriously than some on this forum for I have worked with a bear management officer in YNP that was attacked by a predatory grizzly when his backup with a shotgun failed to get involved and worked for a FMO in Ak that survived by climbing a tree and belting himself in after being attacked. Our crew was on fire detail before and after The Night of the Grizzlies in GNP. There also was two grizzly bear fatalities in YNP that we cleared with shotguns. Once you witness what a bear does to a body, you get a bit tired of the flip attitude of some on this forum that have never been there or ever will be there. I have been treed twice and that is not that uncommon but never gets in the papers. "

You just arrived and you're already tired? Here's what'll perk you up: Donate to the website! "

I would rather donate to another forum that doesn't have so many know it all's that back each other even though some have never been in the BWCA. Goodbye Molly"

Good-bye, beloved sock puppet. I turn to Daddy Jack now: “What is that feeling when you're driving away from people and they recede on the plain till you see their specks dispersing? - it's the too-huge world vaulting us, and it's good-bye. But we lean forward to the next crazy venture beneath the skie
s.” "

You have never been to the BWCA. You are anti-guns. We get it."

We are supposed to be most excellent to each other.

I use a bear bell. On my food keg at night, it has never rang.

On the trail, I try not to sneak up on things, the black bears I have encountered have always sauntered away and we've both gone on to enjoy our days.

I don't f--- with grizzlies though. Fortunately none in the bwca, so that's not something that needs to be discussed.

barracuda: "I use a bear bell. On my food keg at night, it has never rang.


On the trail, I try not to sneak up on things, the black bears I have encountered have always sauntered away and we've both gone on to enjoy our days.


I don't f--- with grizzlies though. Fortunately none in the bwca, so that's not something that needs to be discussed."

I also have some type of warning on my food pack and I stack the dishes so they well go rattle bang if tipped over.

I have encounter 10 black bears in the area I live so far this year. All have been very good respectable bears they ran like hell when they saw me.

Over the past 50 years I seen a few grizzles I haven't had trouble with them.

There is a old saying about grizzles 99 out of 100 well not cause any trouble.
But one never knows if the one that causes the trouble well be the first or the hundred one.

riverrunner: "

Freddy: "
Here is a good link on firearms vs bear spray. Bear Spray vs Firearms "

A totally pro spray article. filled with a lot of BS.


1st is one carrying a firearm in national parks is subject to the laws of the state it is in. One does not concealed in a lot of states.


2nd is people who have shot bears with firearms being horrible mauled.
Don't know where or what books. I also read a lot of bear attack books his statement is totally false.


Here's a link the shows the effectiveness of firearms.


97%


Instead of listening to this guy who has no clue what his talking about and just sprouts nonsense.


Do some more research.


Read this it might help.




Dave smith on spray


And this one.


Flaws
"

Thank you! It does help! If the link is pro gun it must be embraced and if not it must be B.S. Got It!!!!

Freddy: "

riverrunner: "

Freddy: "
Here is a good link on firearms vs bear spray. Bear Spray vs Firearms "

A totally pro spray article. filled with a lot of BS.



1st is one carrying a firearm in national parks is subject to the laws of the state it is in. One does not concealed in a lot of states.



2nd is people who have shot bears with firearms being horrible mauled.
Don't know where or what books. I also read a lot of bear attack books his statement is totally false.



Here's a link the shows the effectiveness of firearms.



97%



Instead of listening to this guy who has no clue what his talking about and just sprouts nonsense.



Do some more research.



Read this it might help.





Dave smith on spray



And this one.



Flaws
"

Thank you! It does help! If the link is pro gun it must be embraced and if not it must be B.S. Got It!!!!"

I just hoped you read them with a open mind. other than that nothing is asked.

Objectivity is key isn't it!

"There are none so blind as those who will not see". Jeremiah 5:21

Some of you guys take this bear stuff way too seriously. Most of them are really freindly.

Freddy: "
Objectivity is key isn't it!


"There are none so blind as those who will not see". Jeremiah 5:21"

Yes it one needs to weigh the pros and cons and make up their own mind.

But it is hard to do that when one side uses incomplete information to inform you.

riverrunner: "

Freddy: "
Here is a good link on firearms vs bear spray. Bear Spray vs Firearms "

A totally pro spray article. filled with a lot of BS.


1st is one carrying a firearm in national parks is subject to the laws of the state it is in. One does not concealed in a lot of states.


2nd is people who have shot bears with firearms being horrible mauled.
Don't know where or what books. I also read a lot of bear attack books his statement is totally false.


Here's a link the shows the effectiveness of firearms.


97%


Instead of listening to this guy who has no clue what his talking about and just sprouts nonsense.


Do some more research.


Read this it might help.




Dave smith on spray


And this one.


Flaws
"

I remember when that referenced story involving the .454 happened. Bullet jumping crimp and jamming the gun. Just goes to show even the most reliable guns "revolver" can fail. Thankfully he killed it with the shot before!

As we know nothing is perfect.