|
06/21/2018 10:35AM |
riverrunner: "GearJunkie: "Zwater: "+++1. I would like to say more, but I know the anti gun people won't let it end.
If a bear is attacking your dog, would you grab a gun or bear spray if there was an option?"
If a bear was attacking my dog I’d want to know how it made it hundreds of miles into suburbia...
My dog would die of a heart attack at the first real BWCA storm."
I take it you haven't heard of this attack.
A Florida man was attacked by a bear just feet from the doorway of his home as he was preparing to take his dog outside.
It was just about an hour before midnight on January 9 when Andy Meunier walked to his back door to let out his dog, Howie, for his usual bathroom break. As always, Howie barked and made a bit of a commotion, so Meunier quickly got him on a leash and opened the door. Yet, Meunier was only able to take one or two steps out of his door when he heard his dog growl and run back into the house. Curious at what made him growl, Meunier turned and found himself facing the fright of his life: three bears, just feet away, were standing in a line looking straight at him.
"
I haven’t. Wouldn’t surprise me if that was near Naples.
Most of our bears are in the Everglades or up in North Florida.
For myself, the bear would have to travel a solid 2 hours by car to get to me. Through Miami, Fort Laudy etc...
|
06/14/2018 08:38PM |
riverrunner: "Banksiana: "I am amazed that a blog entitled Gun Watch favors guns over spray. Without a doubt GunWatch is a neutral unbiased source of information concerning fire arms.
Bumper sticker observed in Alaska:
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Except bears. Bears will f***ing kill you.
"
Feel free to inform us of all the firearm failures but I guess one would have to have definition on what a failure is.
The spray studies use one definition for spray and another for firearms. They also count harassment sprays as successes not just attack sprays.
Other wise they cooked the numbers to make spray seem more successful.
Did you even bother to read the flaw steadies report here it is again
flawed bear spray study "
If you want to have a strong opinion, one way or the other, rely on the original published manuscripts--they'll tell you exactly how they collected and evaluated their data. Also, the published manuscripts are all peer-reviewed, meaning the report is evaluated by professionals with some expertise in the field (as well as statisticians, if necessary). Having been in the peer-review process myself, I'm a lot more likely to accept the results of a published paper than I am from a website produced by gun enthusiasts.
And all this really shouldn't be a debate--in many areas, firearms aren't allowed, and pepper spray is the most effective defense. I hunt, work and recreate in grizzly country (WY, MT, and AK), and always have pepper spray with me, and sometimes a firearm (I've been carrying pepper spray along with my hunting firearm for over 20 years in grizzly country). It doesn't have to be an either-or scenario. Both are effective, and each has its advantages depending on the situation.
Read the original literature, understand what it says and doesn't say, and THEN make your own decision. This link allows you to download some of the original literature, authored by Stephen Herrero, the giant in the field.
Herrero literature
|
06/16/2018 10:27PM |
Banksiana: "Dances with Sheep: "
I find your sexualization of guns to be very disturbing ("gun fetish", "barrel stroking"). Some counselling may be in order."
Fetish
noun.
A form of desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object.
If the shoe fits......."
Dude..you are getting a little carried away. YOU are the only one making sexual comments about guns. It is interesting that in your attempt to insult gun owners you went down this perverted pathway. Speaks volumes.
|
06/13/2018 09:39PM |
|
06/14/2018 08:44AM |
riverrunner: "Some more interesting reading the spray numbers are unrealistic with authors failing to allow others to see documentation to support there numbers.
If you go to the links and site you well find many articles
Firearms 97 percent effective .
97%
spray failure
Another failure
Double bear attack surivor "
Riverrunner, have you ever been to the gunwatch.blogspot.com website? Check it out! I think you'll like it.
|
06/14/2018 11:36AM |
|
06/14/2018 01:09PM |
Too bad in Canada they make self-defense really hard.
|
06/13/2018 08:13PM |
We discussed this at length different times,but new article and always interesting to me.
|
06/15/2018 01:09PM |
That is where training would help and that still is not the real thing. If I had time like 10 seconds to get my train of though maybe I would do fine.
Even with pepper spray practice getting the safety mechanism off. I see in one bear attack the individual kind of froze and fumbled trying to get ready to spray.
Getting back to Minnesota bear is the least of my worries.
I did mention previously my friend in Brainerd two years ago walking his dogs after dark got between two cubs and the sow. He looked up shined the light in the bears at 5 yards and he had no time to react. The bear swated him across his chest broke some ribs and he went flying thru the air. The bear than got the cubs and left. No his two little small dogs ran the other way. Also neighbors thought it was cute feeding the bears at the sunflower bird feeder.
Ironic we tease him,he is a black belt karate expert who teaches classes.
|
06/15/2018 02:44PM |
LindenTree3: "Wick: "LindenTree3: "Many people will not be comfortable or proficient using a firearm, my wife has never touched one, but I felt some what comfortable with her carrying a can of Bear Spray while we hiked in Alaska.
I was trained and required to carry a Winchester 870 while escorting others in Alaska for the Federal Government. I carried the 870 in my fire engine in a roof mount. If I wasn't on duty, I never carried that piece of Iron, I carried Bear Spray.
While doing our firearms bear training (You had to get 2 of three shots in the heart to qualify, and this thing bounced around at you at 15 mph) we also practicied with pepper spray at a bear cut out pulled toward us on a cable.
In a nut shell,
This retired Federal Officer (Non-Leo), has been trained in both firearms and Bear Spray while working on the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska (Heavy Brown Bear country), and I choose Pepper Spray over guns.
First pic pepper spray training , second one my roof mounted gun in my fire engine.
"
Well, it is my opinion that you should carry the spray, and not touch guns. I am a gun guy. You claim to carry the shotgun that does not exist. Winchester 870? I looked at your pic,,it is a remington. To be proficient with a firearm,,you would no doubt spend enough time with it to know what the name of that gun is. No personal offense to you, but it is like a race car driver not knowing if he drove a chevy or a ford."
Fair enough."
Well, to be fair, this stringent standard is only fair if Wick applies it in all sectors.
|
06/15/2018 02:45PM |
Pinetree: " neighbors thought it was cute feeding the bears at the sunflower bird feeder."
If that is not illegal then it should be. What a stupid thing to do.
|
06/15/2018 03:12PM |
A1t2o: "Pinetree: " neighbors thought it was cute feeding the bears at the sunflower bird feeder."
If that is not illegal then it should be. What a stupid thing to do."
Yes it was stupid and many neighbors new better. I believe many took them down until fall after the MN DNR and local Sheriff asked them,but it is not illegal. They were feeding birds which is legal,but when bears start coming around and you don't pull the feeders in a highly occupied area you should be liable. These bears get habituated to come into these neighbor hoods to get food.
|
06/15/2018 03:56PM |
Before he could tell me I told him 7 foot isn't high enough for bears.
He said he well have to put it higher I told him to feed the birds in the winter.
|
06/15/2018 05:13PM |
|
06/15/2018 07:48PM |
missmolly: "LindenTree3: "Wick: "LindenTree3: "Many people will not be comfortable or proficient using a firearm, my wife has never touched one, but I felt some what comfortable with her carrying a can of Bear Spray while we hiked in Alaska.
I was trained and required to carry a Winchester 870 while escorting others in Alaska for the Federal Government. I carried the 870 in my fire engine in a roof mount. If I wasn't on duty, I never carried that piece of Iron, I carried Bear Spray.
While doing our firearms bear training (You had to get 2 of three shots in the heart to qualify, and this thing bounced around at you at 15 mph) we also practicied with pepper spray at a bear cut out pulled toward us on a cable.
In a nut shell,
This retired Federal Officer (Non-Leo), has been trained in both firearms and Bear Spray while working on the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska (Heavy Brown Bear country), and I choose Pepper Spray over guns.
First pic pepper spray training , second one my roof mounted gun in my fire engine.
Well, it is my opinion that you should carry the spray, and not touch guns. I am a gun guy. You claim to carry the shotgun that does not exist. Winchester 870? I looked at your pic,,it is a remington. To be proficient with a firearm,,you would no doubt spend enough time with it to know what the name of that gun is. No personal offense to you, but it is like a race car driver not knowing if he drove a chevy or a ford."
Fair enough."
Well, to be fair, this stringent standard is only fair if Wick applies it in all sectors. "
Identifying a gun that one was "trained" to use is hardly a stringent standard. Perhaps this seems nitpicky to a layperson but Wick's point is 100% valid.
|
06/15/2018 07:46PM |
riverrunner; Peer reviewed studies can be good or bad depending on the motivation of the authors and reviewers. Money and political agendas have great influence on the process.
I haven't seen where these spray studies have been peered review feel free to prove me wrong. "
Most professional science journals are peer-reviewed: Science, Ecology, Journal of Wildlife Management, Wildlife Monographs, and I can go on and on. If it is an accepted journal, used by professionals, then it is more than likely to be peer-reviewed, primarily because it is only through peer review that results are accepted. Having been a science professional and worked with research professionals since the 1970s, I've found the primary motivation of researchers is elucidating observations, not money or political agenda. In general, they either directly observe something that brings up questions, or they find some interesting nugget in the literature that piques their interest. Then they find money to try to explain whatever phenomenon they pursue. Usually finding money is a competitive process, whereby their research proposal is reviewed by other professionals on the merits of the science proposed, and the feasibility of adequately addressing the issue.
It is after the science is completed and published (again, with peer review for the higher quality science), that politics comes to play. People will use the actual results of studies to further whatever interest they have.
For an example, here's submission guidelines for publishing in the Journal of Wildlife Management, which publishes the majority of wildlife related research JWM Submission Guidelines , which includes "The editorial staff assigns peer-reviewed manuscripts that have been approved for review to 2 qualified reviewers. The staff considers expertise, affiliation, geographic location, date of last review, and performance on previous reviews when selecting reviewers." That's pretty standard with peer-reviewed journals.
|
06/15/2018 08:20PM |
Dances with Sheep: "missmolly: "LindenTree3: "Wick: "LindenTree3: "Many people will not be comfortable or proficient using a firearm, my wife has never touched one, but I felt some what comfortable with her carrying a can of Bear Spray while we hiked in Alaska.
I was trained and required to carry a Winchester 870 while escorting others in Alaska for the Federal Government. I carried the 870 in my fire engine in a roof mount. If I wasn't on duty, I never carried that piece of Iron, I carried Bear Spray.
While doing our firearms bear training (You had to get 2 of three shots in the heart to qualify, and this thing bounced around at you at 15 mph) we also practicied with pepper spray at a bear cut out pulled toward us on a cable.
In a nut shell,
This retired Federal Officer (Non-Leo), has been trained in both firearms and Bear Spray while working on the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska (Heavy Brown Bear country), and I choose Pepper Spray over guns.
First pic pepper spray training , second one my roof mounted gun in my fire engine.
Well, it is my opinion that you should carry the spray, and not touch guns. I am a gun guy. You claim to carry the shotgun that does not exist. Winchester 870? I looked at your pic,,it is a remington. To be proficient with a firearm,,you would no doubt spend enough time with it to know what the name of that gun is. No personal offense to you, but it is like a race car driver not knowing if he drove a chevy or a ford."
Fair enough."
Well, to be fair, this stringent standard is only fair if Wick applies it in all sectors. "
Identifying a gun that one was "trained" to use is hardly a stringent standard. Perhaps this seems nitpicky to a layperson but Wick's point is 100% valid."
+1
|
06/16/2018 05:26AM |
Dances with Sheep: "missmolly: "LindenTree3: "Wick: "LindenTree3: "Many people will not be comfortable or proficient using a firearm, my wife has never touched one, but I felt some what comfortable with her carrying a can of Bear Spray while we hiked in Alaska.
I was trained and required to carry a Winchester 870 while escorting others in Alaska for the Federal Government. I carried the 870 in my fire engine in a roof mount. If I wasn't on duty, I never carried that piece of Iron, I carried Bear Spray.
While doing our firearms bear training (You had to get 2 of three shots in the heart to qualify, and this thing bounced around at you at 15 mph) we also practicied with pepper spray at a bear cut out pulled toward us on a cable.
In a nut shell,
This retired Federal Officer (Non-Leo), has been trained in both firearms and Bear Spray while working on the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska (Heavy Brown Bear country), and I choose Pepper Spray over guns.
First pic pepper spray training , second one my roof mounted gun in my fire engine.
Well, it is my opinion that you should carry the spray, and not touch guns. I am a gun guy. You claim to carry the shotgun that does not exist. Winchester 870? I looked at your pic,,it is a remington. To be proficient with a firearm,,you would no doubt spend enough time with it to know what the name of that gun is. No personal offense to you, but it is like a race car driver not knowing if he drove a chevy or a ford."
Fair enough."
Well, to be fair, this stringent standard is only fair if Wick applies it in all sectors. "
Identifying a gun that one was "trained" to use is hardly a stringent standard. Perhaps this seems nitpicky to a layperson but Wick's point is 100% valid."
-1.4205
P.S. - You guys seriously want to gang up on LT3? The guy has built houseS, fought infernos, and spent more time in the Alaskan bush than the average bear. Today, he lives in the northwoods, the only cabin on a lake, and has bears for neighbors.
Rattlesnakes don't shake their tails when they see him; They simply shake. Grizzly bears cross to the other side of the creek when they see him coming. Best of all, he's a mensch and in most parts, you have to go full Diogenes to find a mensch.
Reread MReid's posts, like I just did. He is more informed than the rest of us and opines from a higher standard.
|
06/16/2018 06:37AM |
|
06/16/2018 07:57AM |
Zwater: "Dances with Sheep: "missmolly: "LindenTree3: "Wick: "LindenTree3: "Many people will not be comfortable or proficient using a firearm, my wife has never touched one, but I felt some what comfortable with her carrying a can of Bear Spray while we hiked in Alaska.
I was trained and required to carry a Winchester 870 while escorting others in Alaska for the Federal Government. I carried the 870 in my fire engine in a roof mount. If I wasn't on duty, I never carried that piece of Iron, I carried Bear Spray.
While doing our firearms bear training (You had to get 2 of three shots in the heart to qualify, and this thing bounced around at you at 15 mph) we also practicied with pepper spray at a bear cut out pulled toward us on a cable.
In a nut shell,
This retired Federal Officer (Non-Leo), has been trained in both firearms and Bear Spray while working on the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska (Heavy Brown Bear country), and I choose Pepper Spray over guns.
First pic pepper spray training , second one my roof mounted gun in my fire engine.
Well, it is my opinion that you should carry the spray, and not touch guns. I am a gun guy. You claim to carry the shotgun that does not exist. Winchester 870? I looked at your pic,,it is a remington. To be proficient with a firearm,,you would no doubt spend enough time with it to know what the name of that gun is. No personal offense to you, but it is like a race car driver not knowing if he drove a chevy or a ford."
Fair enough."
Well, to be fair, this stringent standard is only fair if Wick applies it in all sectors. "
Identifying a gun that one was "trained" to use is hardly a stringent standard. Perhaps this seems nitpicky to a layperson but Wick's point is 100% valid."
+1"
I'm trying to catch up on reading this thread and deciding what is the best course of action for me. Some good points have been made both ways, but I still haven't gone through all the links and information.
One thing I don't really understand is what Wick's point is, why it's 100% valid, and what if anything it has to do with whether I should take a gun or spray or both.
I can't tell if it's a Remington or Winchester from the picture, but I'm not a gun guy although I have hunted with them. I don't think there would be a substantial enough difference between using a 12 gauge Remington pump shotgun or a 12 gauge Winchester pump shotgun to change the conclusion.
I don't think calling a Remington a Winchester has more to do with proficiency than the test of putting two bullets in the heart. I have not been through the training that Linden has, nor have I spent any time in Brown Bear territory, but maybe someone besides Linden has been through it or something similar. For all I know they may have trained with and carried both Remingtons and Winchesters.
I just don't see how calling a Remington a Winchester should invalidate the value of his training and experience. Am I missing something?
|
06/16/2018 08:59AM |
|
06/16/2018 09:30AM |
|
06/16/2018 09:30AM |
I would absolutely love to have the opportunity to take the shotgun training class that LindenTree3 took. Spending a day running an 870 at a moving target and being able to put 2/3 in the zone is very good hands-on training. While basic proficiency and practice time at a range is always good, high stress scenario based training with moving targets is REALLY good! While calling the shotgun by the incorrect manufacturer name shows that LT3 is not a "gun guy", the fact that he has professional training with the 870, passed a competency/skills test, and carried the weapon as a part of his duties give him much credibility in my book.
After doing lots of research on the topic in preparation for an Alaskan canoe camping trip, I'm going the route of not choosing one approach over the other, but using both firearms and spray:
- Each of our group of 4 will have a can of bear spray with a hip mounted holster.
- Two of us will be carrying chest mounted revolvers in .44 and .454 and we will have a Remington 870 for in-camp.
Two of the guys in our group have some familiarity with firearms, but little experience and no formal training. These two will have pepper spray because if I'm being mauled by a bear, I'd be more worried about these guys unloading on the bear with me right below it!
I have trust in the bear spray being able to work, but I have complete trust that the two of us with firearms can stop whatever needs to be stopped.
|
06/16/2018 10:06AM |
|
06/16/2018 09:58AM |
|
06/16/2018 10:53AM |
Pinetree: " reviews "
Great link! Thanks, Pinetree.
|
06/16/2018 11:40AM |
Using spray one has to be far less precise.
Herrera also mentions that a side holstered hand gun may be inaccessible during actual contact and a chest holster is preferred.
I guess the bottom line is if you choose a hand gun you better be proficient and confident.......it's not an easy shot despite the size of the target.
|
06/16/2018 11:54AM |
OldFingers57: "Here is some good research from someone who studies bears. As for the pro gun website touting that using a gun is best I wouldn't imagine that they would have said anything but that. NOLS Bear Safety video "
Besides the obvious bias against firearms he gives some good info.
One of the problems with is they have a different standard on what a failure is.
The biggest is they counted a firearms failure when ever a firearm was around and not even deployed.
They don't account when spray was never deployed as a spray failure it was human error.
If you caught it at near the beginning a save for spray is any time the bear stopped what they were doing.
When one uses standard for one item and not the same standard for the other item. It puts there whole research into question.
If the standard is, the bear stopped what they were doing.
I can honestly say I have had several firearm saves that did not include shooting the bear. There are many more out there it is very common to harass a bear away from humans with gun firearm.
I can't even count the number of times people told me that they scared a bear away from there residence with gun fire.
Other then the obvious errors in the firearms vs spray numbers his advice on how and what to do around bears is spot on.
|
06/16/2018 12:41PM |
boonie: "Zwater: "Dances with Sheep: "missmolly: "LindenTree3: "Wick: "LindenTree3: "Many people will not be comfortable or proficient using a firearm, my wife has never touched one, but I felt some what comfortable with her carrying a can of Bear Spray while we hiked in Alaska.
I was trained and required to carry a Winchester 870 while escorting others in Alaska for the Federal Government. I carried the 870 in my fire engine in a roof mount. If I wasn't on duty, I never carried that piece of Iron, I carried Bear Spray.
While doing our firearms bear training (You had to get 2 of three shots in the heart to qualify, and this thing bounced around at you at 15 mph) we also practicied with pepper spray at a bear cut out pulled toward us on a cable.
In a nut shell,
This retired Federal Officer (Non-Leo), has been trained in both firearms and Bear Spray while working on the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska (Heavy Brown Bear country), and I choose Pepper Spray over guns.
First pic pepper spray training , second one my roof mounted gun in my fire engine.
Well, it is my opinion that you should carry the spray, and not touch guns. I am a gun guy. You claim to carry the shotgun that does not exist. Winchester 870? I looked at your pic,,it is a remington. To be proficient with a firearm,,you would no doubt spend enough time with it to know what the name of that gun is. No personal offense to you, but it is like a race car driver not knowing if he drove a chevy or a ford."
Fair enough."
Well, to be fair, this stringent standard is only fair if Wick applies it in all sectors. "
Identifying a gun that one was "trained" to use is hardly a stringent standard. Perhaps this seems nitpicky to a layperson but Wick's point is 100% valid."
+1"
I'm trying to catch up on reading this thread and deciding what is the best course of action for me. Some good points have been made both ways, but I still haven't gone through all the links and information.
One thing I don't really understand is what Wick's point is, why it's 100% valid, and what if anything it has to do with whether I should take a gun or spray or both.
I can't tell if it's a Remington or Winchester from the picture, but I'm not a gun guy although I have hunted with them. I don't think there would be a substantial enough difference between using a 12 gauge Remington pump shotgun or a 12 gauge Winchester pump shotgun to change the conclusion.
I don't think calling a Remington a Winchester has more to do with proficiency than the test of putting two bullets in the heart. I have not been through the training that Linden has, nor have I spent any time in Brown Bear territory, but maybe someone besides Linden has been through it or something similar. For all I know they may have trained with and carried both Remingtons and Winchesters.
I just don't see how calling a Remington a Winchester should invalidate the value of his training and experience. Am I missing something?
"
Wick's (100% valid point) is simple. If you are advocating the use of Bear Spray over a gun and you post something that makes nonlaypersons (aka "gun guys") question your knowledge then it takes away from his argument. To be clear, I have nothing against LT3 he sounds like the greatest man on earth by MM's description. He very well could have had a brain fart.
|
06/13/2018 09:24PM |
Pinetree: " Bear spray
We discussed this at length different times,but new article and always interesting to me."
For how strong a black bears nose is, I have no question in my mind that bear spray will send it running. I’d imagine it would be like putting your hand in a fire.
|
06/14/2018 06:47AM |
|
06/14/2018 07:33AM |
If you go to the links and site you well find many articles
Firearms 97 percent effective .
97%
spray failure
Another failure
Double bear attack surivor
|
06/14/2018 07:44AM |
|
06/14/2018 08:06AM |
riverrunner: "Some more interesting reading the spray numbers are unrealistic with authors failing to allow others to see documentation to support there numbers.
If you go to the links and site you well find many articles
Firearms 97 percent effective .
97%
spray failure
Another failure
Double bear attack surivor "
Failure is going to happen regardless of method. Also the brand also makes a big difference.
Put it this way it is a lot more effective than nothing. You go out west and if Rangers you meet believe in it it is a confidence builder.
|
06/14/2018 08:40AM |
|
06/14/2018 08:43AM |
|
06/14/2018 11:39AM |
Pinetree: "riverrunner: "Some more interesting reading the spray numbers are unrealistic with authors failing to allow others to see documentation to support there numbers.
If you go to the links and site you well find many articles
Firearms 97 percent effective .
97%
spray failure
Another failure
Double bear attack surivor "
Failure is going to happen regardless of method. Also the brand also makes a big difference.
Put it this way it is a lot more effective than nothing. You go out west and if Rangers you meet believe in it it is a confidence builder."
The Rangers are forced to by policy. If you read Todd Orr's account the reason he choses spray that his Job with the NFS all he could carry and they preached it was the best and greatest thing..
He now carries a S@W 69 5 shot 44mag
What we are finding the bear spray is better studies use in accurate data they pick and chose the data they want and discard the data the disagrees with their opinions.
They well not release their sources for the data they claim.
Flaws in the bear spray studies
|
06/14/2018 12:41PM |
missmolly: " One of the scarier bear encounters I've ever read. "
I imagine most people attacked like that wouldn't live to tell about being eaten alive. Hope I can forget this story soon!
|
06/14/2018 12:51PM |
BWPaddler: "missmolly: " One of the scarier bear encounters I've ever read. "
I imagine most people attacked like that wouldn't live to tell about being eaten alive. Hope I can forget this story soon!"
I know! That story has stuck with me too. The bear coming through the high window is the thing that amazed me. You think you'd be safe in a house. Heck, you think you'd be safe on a porch with a German Shepherd too!
|
06/14/2018 01:59PM |
|
06/14/2018 02:30PM |
|
06/14/2018 02:33PM |
riverrunner: "Stories like this is what they make firearms for.
Too bad in Canada they make self-defense really hard.
"
Pick what you feel comfortable with and your activity will make a difference also. Also the firearm stat you gave how many were big game hunters with high powered rifle and were already carrying in hand or over the shoulder not doing any other activity. How many were actually attacking or just a certain distance away looking threatning that study you mentioned I wonder how good those stats were?
Bottom line if you feel more comfortable with one or the other-go for it. I see in one instant a guy had a pistol and Bear spray and he had trouble using both.
I use to do a lot of hiking in Griz country and have carried one or the other. Also their is bear sprays and their is bear sprays. Like there is firearms-calibers to use and their is others.
For a long time slugs in shotguns were often preferred over rifles in Alaska. Why?
|
06/14/2018 02:52PM |
The researchers looked at 83 bear spray incidents from 1985 to 2006 in Alaska: “All bear-inflicted injuries ... associated with defensive spraying involved brown bears and were relatively minor (i.e., no hospitalization required).”
Compare that with a 2012 study in the same journal by the same authors titled, “Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska.” Of 269 bear-human incidents involving people carrying firearms, bears injured a human 151 times.
Also look at the source of the study on preferred firearms(which may be correct) but look at other studies from that same site and they are Super pro firearm on all issues as the name applies and maybe they biased their study? Just maybe.
Just adding food to the discussion. Both are better than nothing.
|
06/14/2018 03:05PM |
On one trip to Cascade River State Park I scored the coveted backpack site #1 right on the shore of Lake Superior. It was a little over a mile hike through the woods from the parking area to camp. I was nearly to camp, less than a quarter mile way. I had the spray ready as was my routine, when I stepped into a small hole that was obscured, tripped and fell. One strong burst of that spray was released when I hit the ground and my face went right through the cloud. I don't think I've ever felt that panicked in my entire life. The burning was almost unbearable. I emptied my nalgene but it didn't help much. I pulled myself together, put the safety pin back in the can where it belonged, and sprinted the rest of the way to my site and buried my face in the lake. Temporary relief, more from the numbing effects of the water than anything. That was a long freaking night.
I still carry bear spray, but I obviously learned a few lessons in safety that day.
|
06/14/2018 03:46PM |
Griz country I now have the 10.2oz cannister of Counter attack.
I do own a 44 mag but haven't taken it in recent years,but there would be occasions I may still take along with bear spray out west.
Yes like I said earlier pick your own choice
|
06/14/2018 04:34PM |
Bumper sticker observed in Alaska:
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Except bears. Bears will f***ing kill you.
|
06/14/2018 05:27PM |
Banksiana: "I am amazed that a blog entitled Gun Watch favors guns over spray. Without a doubt GunWatch is a neutral unbiased source of information concerning fire arms.
Bumper sticker observed in Alaska:
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Except bears. Bears will f***ing kill you.
Feel free to inform us of all the firearm failures but I guess one would have to have definition on what a failure is.
The spray studies use one definition for spray and another for firearms. They also count harassment sprays as successes not just attack sprays.
Other wise they cooked the numbers to make spray seem more successful.
Did you even bother to read the flaw steadies report here it is again
flawed bear spray study
|
06/14/2018 05:42PM |
I was trained and required to carry a Winchester 870 while escorting others in Alaska for the Federal Government. I carried the 870 in my fire engine in a roof mount. If I wasn't on duty, I never carried that piece of Iron, I carried Bear Spray.
While doing our firearms bear training (You had to get 2 of three shots in the heart to qualify, and this thing bounced around at you at 15 mph) we also practicied with pepper spray at a bear cut out pulled toward us on a cable.
In a nut shell,
This retired Federal Officer (Non-Leo), has been trained in both firearms and Bear Spray while working on the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska (Heavy Brown Bear country), and I choose Pepper Spray over guns.
First pic pepper spray training , second one my roof mounted gun in my fire engine.
|
06/14/2018 06:16PM |
LindenTree3: "Many people will not be confortable or proficient using a firearm, my wife has never touched one, but I felt some what comfortable with her carrying a can of Bear Spray while we hiked in Alaska.
I was trained and required to carry a Winchester 870 while escorting others in Alaska for the Federal Government. I carried the 870 in my fire engine in a roof mount. If I wasn't on duty, I never carried that piece of Iron, I carried Bear Spray.
While doing our firearms bear training (You had to get 2 of three shots in the heart to qualify, and this thing bounced around at you at 15 mph) we also practicied with pepper spray at a bear cut out pulled toward us on a cable.
In a nut shell,
This retired Federal Officer (Non-Leo), has been trained in both firearms and Bear Spray while working on the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska (Heavy Brown Bear country), and I choose Pepper Spray over guns.
First pic pepper spray training , second one my roof mounted gun in my fire engine.
I know I have had friends would go in the Bushes of Alaska and they first had to do the shotgun test. It was like a volunteer job. They dropped you off for a month and you counted Salmon run numbers. The first month they just got all the food they wanted no pay. Stay the next two months they got pay and meals paid. Nice summer job in the back country for someone didn't need the money.
|
06/14/2018 08:38PM |
riverrunner: "Banksiana: "I am amazed that a blog entitled Gun Watch favors guns over spray. Without a doubt GunWatch is a neutral unbiased source of information concerning fire arms.
Bumper sticker observed in Alaska:
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Except bears. Bears will f***ing kill you.
Feel free to inform us of all the firearm failures but I guess one would have to have definition on what a failure is.
The spray studies use one definition for spray and another for firearms. They also count harassment sprays as successes not just attack sprays.
Other wise they cooked the numbers to make spray seem more successful.
Did you even bother to read the flaw steadies report here it is again
flawed bear spray study "
If you want to have a strong opinion, one way or the other, rely on the original published manuscripts--they'll tell you exactly how they collected and evaluated their data. Also, the published manuscripts are all peer-reviewed, meaning the report is evaluated by professionals with some expertise in the field (as well as statisticians, if necessary). Having been in the peer-review process myself, I'm a lot more likely to accept the results of a published paper than I am from a website produced by gun enthusiasts.
And all this really shouldn't be a debate--in many areas, firearms aren't allowed, and pepper spray is the most effective defense. I hunt, work and recreate in grizzly country (WY, MT, and AK), and always have pepper spray with me, and sometimes a firearm (I've been carrying pepper spray along with my hunting firearm for over 20 years in grizzly country). It doesn't have to be an either-or scenario. Both are effective, and each has its advantages depending on the situation.
Read the original literature, understand what it says and doesn't say, and THEN make your own decision. This link allows you to download some of the original literature, authored by Stephen Herrero, the giant in the field.
Herrero literature
|
06/16/2018 12:54PM |
He is solidly in the pro spray camp.
His lack of knowledge about firearms weakens his point of view.
Unless that point of view is people who don't want to use firearms shouldn't.
I have extensive experience with both and very well know the limitations and the effectiveness of both.
When used against deadly threats spray is not the weapon of choice to have in your hand unless backed up by lethal means.
Neither works very well if one misses or for some other reason one doesn't use them.
,
Bears are very powerful, fast and armed with very effective weapons and can inflict massive amounts of damage in seconds.
The limitations of spray make them a poor choice when dealing with a deadly threat. but if you willing to use it so be.
I prefer to use the most effective means available to me.
|
06/16/2018 01:05PM |
As a result I would probably prefer a firearm as a black bear deterrent than spray. Blackies are far less sturdy than grizzlies as well and perfectly placed shots are not a requirement. On the television I watched a clip where a guy was in the woods and hit a black bear 3 times with spray. He would shout at the bear which was following, hit it with spray and then beat a hasty retreat. The bear would stop, then paw its face but then soon engage the pursuit. This happened 3 times in like manner. Fortunately the guy made his vehicle as he was out of spray.
As per the kerfuffle over the proper identification of a firearm it is just the unfortunate usual tactic of impugning the messenger over what is basically an irrelevant matter. Consider rather is there truth in the message. Denigrating the messenger is the work of ideologues and propagandists and has become all to common in our day and age and obscures clarity of thought.
|
06/16/2018 02:13PM |
Yes, my gun verbage was a brain fart. I took my medicine because I thought Wick had a valid point.
I will admit I am not a gun guy. I havn't shot a deer in 5 years, the only two guns I own are a 30.06 and a 12 guage.
Yes, I lean toward the bear spray camp, but there are times when I would rather have a gun than spray. in 2016 we had to steal a fresh moose kill from a brown bear, the bear stashed the kill right next to a popular hiking trail. We were nervous as hell and the LEO's had us watch their 6 oclock as they relocated the dead moose down the river with a jet boat.
There are other times and places that I would/may prefer a gun over bear spray, including Black Bears in AK. They are not the Apex predator there, not sure if that makes them meaner, but we had two predatory attacks/killings by two Black Bears in Ak last year.
Yes as a general rule, I choose bear spray over guns, but not 100%.
I think most of you would be very glad to have me watch your 6-oclock with a shotgun.
I'm going to the BW tomorrow heading for Cherokee Lake.
It will be a shame to miss out on my hijacked thread ;-)
|
06/16/2018 01:31PM |
Remember when I wrote: "Well, to be fair, this stringent standard is only fair if Wick applies it in all sectors."
I have a couple tents. In threads where bwcaers share what tents they use, I can't. I can't because I don't know what my tents are. I can raise them in the rain and at night. I've raised them in howling winds with lightning closing. However, I don't know their names, so by Wick's standard, I shouldn't use them.
|
06/16/2018 02:45PM |
|
06/16/2018 02:58PM |
missmolly: "Talking about shooting bears is quite inappropriate given that there is a generous, sweet paddler on this board named Yogi (yogi59weedr).
Remember when I wrote: "Well, to be fair, this stringent standard is only fair if Wick applies it in all sectors."
I have a couple tents. In threads where bwcaers share what tents they use, I can't. I can't because I don't know what my tents are. I can raise them in the rain and at night. I've raised them in howling winds with lightning closing. However, I don't know their names, so by Wick's standard, I shouldn't use them. "
No. By Wick's standard you shouldn't advocate a tent over a hammock that you called a camper :)
|
06/16/2018 03:32PM |
Dances with Sheep: "missmolly: "Talking about shooting bears is quite inappropriate given that there is a generous, sweet paddler on this board named Yogi (yogi59weedr).
Remember when I wrote: "Well, to be fair, this stringent standard is only fair if Wick applies it in all sectors."
I have a couple tents. In threads where bwcaers share what tents they use, I can't. I can't because I don't know what my tents are. I can raise them in the rain and at night. I've raised them in howling winds with lightning closing. However, I don't know their names, so by Wick's standard, I shouldn't use them. "
No. By Wick's standard you shouldn't advocate a tent over a hammock that you called a camper :)"
You made me laugh! Thanks!
However, Wick did say that LT3 shouldn't use a gun. Here it is, verbatim: "Well, it is my opinion that you should carry the spray, and not touch guns."
|
06/16/2018 03:57PM |
Dances with Sheep: "
No. By Wick's standard you shouldn't advocate a tent over a hammock that you called a camper :)"
No- that analogy is false. It would be the equivalent of saying Eureka Copper Spur instead of Big Agnes Copper Spur. Its a brand he got wrong. If you don't have a gun fetish its not that big of deal which brand of barrel you're stroking.
|
06/16/2018 05:41PM |
LindenTree3: "It appears I am really able to hijack a thread.
Yes, my gun verbage was a brain fart. I took my medicine because I thought Wick had a valid point.
I will admit I am not a gun guy. I havn't shot a deer in 5 years, the only two guns I own are a 30.06 and a 12 guage.
Yes, I lean toward the bear spray camp, but there are times when I would rather have a gun than spray. in 2016 we had to steal a fresh moose kill from a brown bear, the bear stashed the kill right next to a popular hiking trail. We were nervous as hell and the LEO's had us watch their 6 oclock as they relocated the dead moose down the river with a jet boat.
There are other times and places that I would/may prefer a gun over bear spray, including Black Bears in AK. They are not the Apex predator there, not sure if that makes them meaner, but we had two predatory attacks/killings by two Black Bears in Ak last year.
Yes as a general rule, I choose bear spray over guns, but not 100%.
I think most of you would be very glad to have me watch your 6-oclock with a shotgun.
I'm going to the BW tomorrow heading for Cherokee Lake.
It will be a shame to miss out on my hijacked thread ;-)"
It is clear when push comes to shove and his life would be in real danger.
LT3 would rather have a gun.
|
06/16/2018 05:51PM |
Ohiopikeman: "
I would absolutely love to have the opportunity to take the shotgun training class that LindenTree3 took. Spending a day running an 870 at a moving target and being able to put 2/3 in the zone is very good hands-on training.
"
Come to Wis. and I can give equal training I can assure you my instructor credential's are up there with the best.
Certified in rifle, shotgun, pistol, patrol rifle, police shotgun and law enforcement handgun.
Decades as a instructor, taught instructor the instructor courses. Four plus decades of practical application of them all. I have my own private ranges out to 600 yards and a couple miles of woods roads one can run practical exercises on.
My fees are very reasonable.
|
06/16/2018 05:54PM |
riverrunner: "LindenTree3: "It appears I am really able to hijack a thread.
Yes, my gun verbage was a brain fart. I took my medicine because I thought Wick had a valid point.
I will admit I am not a gun guy. I havn't shot a deer in 5 years, the only two guns I own are a 30.06 and a 12 guage.
Yes, I lean toward the bear spray camp, but there are times when I would rather have a gun than spray. in 2016 we had to steal a fresh moose kill from a brown bear, the bear stashed the kill right next to a popular hiking trail. We were nervous as hell and the LEO's had us watch their 6 oclock as they relocated the dead moose down the river with a jet boat.
There are other times and places that I would/may prefer a gun over bear spray, including Black Bears in AK. They are not the Apex predator there, not sure if that makes them meaner, but we had two predatory attacks/killings by two Black Bears in Ak last year.
Yes as a general rule, I choose bear spray over guns, but not 100%.
I think most of you would be very glad to have me watch your 6-oclock with a shotgun.
I'm going to the BW tomorrow heading for Cherokee Lake.
It will be a shame to miss out on my hijacked thread ;-)"
It is clear when push comes to shove and his life would be in real danger.
LT3 would rather have a gun."
RR,
Why would you put words into my mouth, I did not say that?
All,
Certian situations call for different tactics and stratagey's, all depending on the out come one seeks.
It has been hard for me to bite my tounge these last few days, so I will close with this.
Being bear aware and having knowledge of their behavior is the most important part.
Without that knowledge whether you carry a gun, bear spray or both, one is at a major disadvantage when it comes to neuteralizing a bear encounter.
I saw ~40 bears last summer and my whole day started with planning on how to avoid them.
Its windy today so I won't go hiking because a bear won't be able to hear me.
The Salmon are spawning so I will stay away from the rivers, and definately not canoe/ hike in thick alders by streams.
Alot of small birds making a racket around a certian place or Ravens circling over an area, (might be a kill site) I'm on my edge now.
So on.
|
06/16/2018 06:23PM |
LindenTree3: "It appears I am really able to hijack a thread.
Yes, my gun verbage was a brain fart. I took my medicine because I thought Wick had a valid point.
I will admit I am not a gun guy. I havn't shot a deer in 5 years, the only two guns I own are a 30.06 and a 12 guage.
Yes, I lean toward the bear spray camp, but there are times when I would rather have a gun than spray. in 2016 we had to steal a fresh moose kill from a brown bear, the bear stashed the kill right next to a popular hiking trail. We were nervous as hell and the LEO's had us watch their 6 oclock as they relocated the dead moose down the river with a jet boat.
There are other times and places that I would/may prefer a gun over bear spray, including Black Bears in AK. They are not the Apex predator there, not sure if that makes them meaner, but we had two predatory attacks/killings by two Black Bears in Ak last year.
Yes as a general rule, I choose bear spray over guns, but not 100%.
I think most of you would be very glad to have me watch your 6-oclock with a shotgun.
I'm going to the BW tomorrow heading for Cherokee Lake.
It will be a shame to miss out on my hijacked thread ;-)"
I am rather stiff on my views of who should carry guns and what training they should have before they do that. I’ll never change my mind or apoligize for my views on lethal weapons and the training needed. I would have said it to my best friend. I did not mean it harshly, but i meant it.
But,,,i have brain farts too! Next time i will ask if you are sure about the details before i give my views. Have a great time on cherokee!
|
06/16/2018 06:37PM |
Wick: "LindenTree3: "It appears I am really able to hijack a thread.
Yes, my gun verbage was a brain fart. I took my medicine because I thought Wick had a valid point.
I will admit I am not a gun guy. I havn't shot a deer in 5 years, the only two guns I own are a 30.06 and a 12 guage.
Yes, I lean toward the bear spray camp, but there are times when I would rather have a gun than spray. in 2016 we had to steal a fresh moose kill from a brown bear, the bear stashed the kill right next to a popular hiking trail. We were nervous as hell and the LEO's had us watch their 6 oclock as they relocated the dead moose down the river with a jet boat.
There are other times and places that I would/may prefer a gun over bear spray, including Black Bears in AK. They are not the Apex predator there, not sure if that makes them meaner, but we had two predatory attacks/killings by two Black Bears in Ak last year.
Yes as a general rule, I choose bear spray over guns, but not 100%.
I think most of you would be very glad to have me watch your 6-oclock with a shotgun.
I'm going to the BW tomorrow heading for Cherokee Lake.
It will be a shame to miss out on my hijacked thread ;-)"
I am rather stiff on my views of who should carry guns and what training they should have before they do that. I’ll never change my mind or apoligize for my views on lethal weapons and the training needed. I would have said it to my best friend. I did not mean it harshly, but i meant it.
But,,,i have brain farts too! Next time i will ask if you are sure about the details before i give my views. Have a great time on cherokee!"
No offense taken at all Wick, I wasn't the least bitten by your post.
I'm a tough guy, I have to listen to Smoke Jumpers all the time tell me I don't know shit
about fire because I never jumped and I'm not in their group.
My lesson learned, is that I should not be talking specifics about anything, much less guns when I have had a couple glasses of wine.
Thanks for the well wishes, hoping to have a good time in the BW, the weather is looking good.
|
06/16/2018 07:29PM |
"I would/may prefer a gun over bear spray"
Please tell us what those times are.
|
06/16/2018 07:37PM |
|
06/16/2018 07:37PM |
riverrunner: "lT3
"I would/may prefer a gun over bear spray"
Please tell us what those times are.
"
You are not baiting me up about bears. (Pun intended).
We already know the answer to your question.
I think we need to get back to the OP's thread.
|
06/16/2018 08:00PM |
|
06/16/2018 09:03PM |
Banksiana: "Dances with Sheep: "
No. By Wick's standard you shouldn't advocate a tent over a hammock that you called a camper :)"
No- that analogy is false. It would be the equivalent of saying Eureka Copper Spur instead of Big Agnes Copper Spur. Its a brand he got wrong. If you don't have a gun fetish its not that big of deal which brand of barrel you're stroking."
I find your sexualization of guns to be very disturbing ("gun fetish", "barrel stroking"). Some counselling may be in order.
|
06/16/2018 10:08PM |
Dances with Sheep: "
I find your sexualization of guns to be very disturbing ("gun fetish", "barrel stroking"). Some counselling may be in order."
Fetish
noun.
A form of desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object.
If the shoe fits.......
|
06/16/2018 10:45PM |
Geez!
|
06/16/2018 10:51PM |
Dances with Sheep: "Banksiana: "Dances with Sheep: "
I find your sexualization of guns to be very disturbing ("gun fetish", "barrel stroking"). Some counselling may be in order."
Fetish
noun.
A form of desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object.
If the shoe fits......."
Dude..you are getting a little carried away. YOU are the only one making sexual comments about guns. It is interesting that in your attempt to insult gun owners you went down this perverted pathway. Speaks vol
umes."
+1
|
06/16/2018 11:04PM |
Dances with Sheep: "
Dude..you are getting a little carried away. YOU are the only one making sexual comments about guns. It is interesting that in your attempt to insult gun owners you went down this perverted pathway. Speaks volumes."
Hit a nerve? Sensitive subject?
Didn't make a"sexual comment" or go down a "perverted pathway". Perhaps some self-reflection is in order.
|
06/16/2018 11:15PM |
Banksiana: "Dances with Sheep: "
Dude..you are getting a little carried away. YOU are the only one making sexual comments about guns. It is interesting that in your attempt to insult gun owners you went down this perverted pathway. Speaks volumes."
Hit a nerve? Sensitive subject?
Didn't make a"sexual comment" or go down a "perverted pathway". Perhaps some self-reflection is in order."
Really. You started it with your comments.
|
06/16/2018 11:13PM |
Banksiana: "Dances with Sheep: "
Dude..you are getting a little carried away. YOU are the only one making sexual comments about guns. It is interesting that in your attempt to insult gun owners you went down this perverted pathway. Speaks volumes."
Hit a nerve? Sensitive subject?
Didn't make a"sexual comment" or go down a "perverted pathway". Perhaps some self-reflection is in order."
Really? Why make comments that you won't stand by? Review what you posted and explain what you meant by "gun fetish" and "barrel stroking". You think you can deflect that on me but those were your words.
|
06/17/2018 12:14AM |
Banksiana: "Way too sensitive. My initial point was valid; calling a remington 870 a winchester 870 is an insignificant error- scarcely a means to determine whether someone is qualified to use it. To base an argument on this scrambling of brands is sort of obsessive behavior.
"If you don't have a gun fetish its not that big of deal which brand of barrel you're stroking." Is a light and humorous observation of this behavior. That you've found it so offensive demonstrates either a humor deficit or a sensitivity on the issue. Not my problem.
Well armed and devoid of humor.... Sounds like a problem."
Seems we are talking in circles. The Remington/Winchester discussion already explained the perceived lack of expertise that was being advertised therefore diminishing the pro-spray/anti-gun rhetoric. I think everyone is past this.
I guess I am devoid of humor when it comes to anti-gunners making "light and humorous" sexual comments aimed at insulting others. I am glad that you were able to find your posting and confirm the comments that you denied making.
|
06/17/2018 12:55AM |
If a bear is attacking your dog, would you grab a gun or bear spray if there was an option?
|
06/17/2018 01:07AM |
Dances with Sheep
I guess I am devoid of humor when it comes to anti-gunners making "light and humorous" sexual comments aimed at insulting others. I am glad that you were able to find your posting and confirm the comments that you denied making. "
I'm sorry I've offended you.
I never denied my comments. I deny your characterization of them. To dissect the sentence that so disturbed you; it begins with a qualifying phrase: "If you don't have a gun fetish" meaning that to be the subject of said insult you'd have to have a gun fetish. And since you are adamantly opposed to both the term fetish and disturbed by tongue in cheek sexual inference you don't qualify as a subject of said insult.
I'm not "anti-gun". I own a number of firearms.
|
06/17/2018 01:04AM |
Zwater: "+++1. I would like to say more, but I know the anti gun people won't let it end.
If a bear is attacking your dog, would you grab a gun or bear spray if there was an option?"
They may not let it end but I will. I shouldn't encourage someone to keep digging once they've gotten themselves in a hole and that is what I was doing with Banksiana. I know better and I apologize.
|
06/17/2018 06:32AM |
dr bob
|
06/17/2018 06:52AM |
DrBobDg: "underwear on a little tight guys? I bought bear spray for Glacier and Denali. I hope I never have to use it. Gun or spray...a surprise charge going around a bend on a trail.really puts a fellow at a disadvantage.
dr bob"
What kind of doc are you, Doc? And did you read the story about the two biking rangers who came around a bend and the lead cyclist rammed a griz? Yikes, huh? The surviving ranger said the griz cried out in pain from the collision.
|
06/16/2018 11:59PM |
"If you don't have a gun fetish its not that big of deal which brand of barrel you're stroking." Is a light and humorous observation of this behavior. That you've found it so offensive demonstrates either a humor deficit or a sensitivity on the issue. Not my problem.
Well armed and devoid of humor.... Sounds like a problem.
|
06/17/2018 07:21AM |
How difficult it is to place an accurate shot on a charging grizzly. I notice River runner conviently sidesteps this and fails to admit the veracity of just how difficult this might be to achieve.
Give me a gun any day in black bear country.........give me spray with a shoulder holstered handgun as a last means of defense in grizzly country.
The only caveat would be if I was a guide protecting a client on a salmon stream in AK. They are usually carrying a high powered lever action rifle if I am not mistaken.
|
06/17/2018 07:05AM |
LindenTree3: "riverrunner: "lT3
"I would/may prefer a gun over bear spray"
Please tell us what those times are.
"
You are not baiting me up about bears. (Pun intended).
We already know the answer to your question.
I think we need to get back to the OP's thread."
Well if a firearm is better some times why wouldn't it be better all the time.
I would bet that the LEOs backing you up at the moose kill where not carrying spray as their main protection.
I had the same discussion with Phil Shoemaker the guide the shot the brown bear with a 9mm.
For years he argued that one didn't need to carry a fire arm. He said that after several decades in AK. except while guiding hunters he never had to shoot a bear in a defense of life or property and that spray was better for most people.
He would show pictures of him with bears and he was holding a can of spray.
But if one looked close enough he had a side arm on also.
Well you know he finally came across a bear that didn't seem to agree with that.
When the life's of his clients were put in grave danger he didn't grab his spray he grab what would be considered by many a firearm and caliber that was to small for bear protection.
A S@W 3913 in 9mm I own one just like it he was using 147gr buffalo boar hard cast at about 1000fps probably the best load bear load for that caliber.
He said he wished he hard his normal bear rifle in 458 Winchester magnum.
Most shooters would agree that that caliber is very capable of being use on the largest and most dangers game on the planet.
Why didn't he wish for more bear spray.
If spray is so wonderful so great and has such high effective rate why would any one want to use a firearm at anytime unless one was hunting.
Because spray is not as effective in stopping a determine attack.
Spray has some good uses mostly to harass bears into leaving when they are not determined to kill you or eat you alive.
Dr. Tom Smith gives some good sound advise on how to behave around bears.
But he uses inadequate data, conclusions and faulty numbers to make his points that spray is better. There is a very simple reason for that, he doesn't want bears killed.
If having bears not killed is your goal, if having not bears die because of interactions with humans then spray is the best.
If you are opposed to killing bears, opposed to learning how to and using a firearm then spray is really you only choice.
When camping in bear country our group has both because at times one is a better option then the other. But spray is always backed up with a firearm.
Quote from LT3
Again.
"Yes, I lean toward the bear spray camp, but there are times when I would rather have a gun than spray"
Well if spray is so effective and the best why would anybody ever want a firearm instead of spray.
Again I can tell you why because when something is really trying to kill, maim, or eat you.
It is poor choice.
|
06/17/2018 08:13AM |
mastertangler: "Tsk tsk.......nobody wants to talk about the real issue.
How difficult it is to place an accurate shot on a charging grizzly. I notice River runner conviently sidesteps this and fails to admit the veracity of just how difficult this might be to achieve.
Give me a gun any day in black bear country.........give me spray with a shoulder holstered handgun as a last means of defense in grizzly country.
The only caveat would be if I was a guide protecting a client on a salmon stream in AK. They are usually carrying a high powered lever action rifle if I am not mistaken.
"
I not avoiding that issue because there as so many variables in each and every attack one can not know how hard or easy it would be.
I can tell you, I have shot some very mad bears with handguns at some very close
ranges while they were moving and never had a problem putting rounds on target and stopping the bears behavior. For me it was very simple sights on target controlled trigger pull dead bear.
So I have personnel experience in killing mad bears with handguns let alone rifles and shotguns. I have Killed bears with all three.
For say mastertangler have you any experience in doing such.
Again read the firearms are 97% effective report that details bears being stopped with firearms. It should give you a good idea on what it took to stop a bear attacking you.
These real life encounters give you a much better idea then I could.
firearms 97% effective
|
06/17/2018 08:58AM |
|
06/17/2018 10:57AM |
|
06/17/2018 11:13AM |
You continue to sidestep my primary point. That being the very difficult shot required to stop a hard charging Grizzly bear heading directly at you. According to my research, the effective target box is relatively small being below the jaw and between the shoulders. Would you agree or disagree with that assessment? I am genuinely curious and open to your perspective.
It has the ring of truth IMO. Factor in uneven ground and a grizzlies speedy rolling gait and it seems to me to be a difficult shot for all but the most advanced. Grizzlies have exceedingly thick skulls so a head shot may be but glancing and a shoulder shot may slow but not stop the bear.
Would I be wrong to believe that your primary experience and background is associated with black bears? If that is the case I wholeheartedly agree with you and a firearm is a vastly better option than spray and seldom fails if time allows deployment of even a modest caliber. Black bears have been dispatched with nothing more than a 22 on occasion.
|
06/15/2018 05:24AM |
When I read LT3, I always think of the Tennessee Ernie Ford song and the line, "One fist of iron, the other of steel."
|
06/15/2018 06:22AM |
Charging grizzlies come at you at about 35mph. Extremely fast. The sweet spot to put one down on a frontal assault is about the size of a breadbasket.......below the chin and between the front legs. Tough moving shot for any but the most cool, calm, collected and expert marksman.
What is handy is a chest strapped 45 so if they do get you down you can access the weapon.
Spray is probably far better in most situations for the average person.
Polar bears are not to be trusted.
|
06/15/2018 08:04AM |
There is podcast by Randy Newberg called Hunt Talk Radio, he recently had a podcast where he talked to Todd Orr about his attack. It's worth a listen, he's a pretty interesting guy and gives good insight on how fast an attack can occur.
http://www.thetoddorr.com/2016/10/18/question-why-didnt-bear-spray-work/
|
06/15/2018 08:27AM |
I would agree that if the bear is predatory and sees you as a meal then spray is unlikely to deter it. These situations are rare though and spray to chase off a curious or scavenging bear would suffice most of the time. No need to choose one over the other since the spray should at least buy enough time to not make you worse off in using it (unless you spray into the wind).
What I wouldn't recommend is taking advice at face value from opinionated sites that have a political agenda regardless of my party affiliation. Their credibility is questionable because of their clear bias. That is no way to get your facts, as it is almost completely opinions with some references that I hesitate to call stats or facts.
|
06/15/2018 07:16AM |
So ones 20 years experience, mine is almost triple that.
Peer reviewed studies can be good or bad depending on the motivation of the authors and reviewers. Money and political agendas have great influence on the process.
I haven't seen where these spray studies have been peered review feel free to prove me wrong.
As far as I can tell the spray steadies have not given up their sources and documents
proving their firearms claims.
The cases in firearms are more effective has fully documented.
Firearms 97% effective
I been training people to use firearms in self-defense situations for 45 plus years.
I am a multi level fire arms instructor who has trained local state and federal LEOs. plus who knows how many civilians. I was the coordinator for my counties 4H shooting sports program.
I have extensive experience with spray.
I been studying bear attacks for well over 50 years. I have hunted and killed bears with handguns some very close range.
You say it takes a expert to use a firearm effectively against bears I can document several cases where that has proven untrue.
Please prove the documents on handgun failures in stopping bear attacks. The more data one has the more accurate the report. documentation isn't I heard from Joe who heard Frank that is brother in-law tried to shoot a bear and failed.
You say it takes a large caliber firearm to stop a bear I can document cases where a 9mm has stopped bear attacks.
You say it takes a perfect shot well I can document cases where that is untrue also.
Some say that one can not use a firearm fast enough most bear attacks people have some warning. If one has time to use spray one has time to use a firearm. With out all the limitations of spray.
1. Very limited range.
2. Highly affected by the weather.
3. Only one use can not be refilled.
4. Weighs as much as some firearms.
5 Can not be transported by commercial air craft.
Give me some one who wants to learn how I can trained them to safely use and shoot a firearm with reasonable accuracy in 4hrs. Becoming better then reasonable take a bit more time. Just like any other activity one might engage in practice is the key.
Spray takes training also.
There is a huge difference in I can't because I am unable, to I can't because I don't want to.
As some as stated I could not do that or are they really say I do not want to do that, is a personnel problem and doesn't mean others can't.
Some have stated in the past that one is more likely to be killed by lightning in places one has a higher percentage to be killed by bear.
lightning and bears
Spray has some very limit good uses it makes a great harassment tool a lot of the so called saves are just that. Bears being sprayed because they are hanging around where they shouldn't.
When it comes to stopping a determined attack it's record is less the stellar .
Feel free to carry what you want to but do so by being fully informed.
|
06/15/2018 08:54AM |
We had a lot to talk about he likes hunting, he likes riding MC actual uses one for his job,
He makes knifes.
All things I like to do, my knifes are no where as nice as his.
Besides being a Forest service employee he runs a custom knife business Skyblade Knives out of Bozman Montana.
boondock: "
There is podcast by Randy Newberg called Hunt Talk Radio, he recently had a podcast where he talked to Todd Orr about his attack. It's worth a listen, he's a pretty interesting guy and gives good insight on how fast an attack can occur.
http://www.thetoddorr.com/2016/10/18/question-why-didnt-bear-spray-work/"
|
06/15/2018 09:13AM |
boondock: "link
There is podcast by Randy Newberg called Hunt Talk Radio, he recently had a podcast where he talked to Todd Orr about his attack. It's worth a listen, he's a pretty interesting guy and gives good insight on how fast an attack can occur.
http://www.thetoddorr.com/2016/10/18/question-why-didnt-bear-spray-work/"
|
06/15/2018 09:49AM |
I didn't click on the link. I don't need to. Experience and common sense prevail.
Problem is for folks who don't have that- who to believe?
Riverrunner makes many valid points.
And remember...if all else fails and you have no gun or spray available, most bears are left handed. No stats to prove that, just the word from an Inuit Elder.
|
06/15/2018 11:21AM |
LindenTree3: "Many people will not be comfortable or proficient using a firearm, my wife has never touched one, but I felt some what comfortable with her carrying a can of Bear Spray while we hiked in Alaska.
I was trained and required to carry a Winchester 870 while escorting others in Alaska for the Federal Government. I carried the 870 in my fire engine in a roof mount. If I wasn't on duty, I never carried that piece of Iron, I carried Bear Spray.
While doing our firearms bear training (You had to get 2 of three shots in the heart to qualify, and this thing bounced around at you at 15 mph) we also practicied with pepper spray at a bear cut out pulled toward us on a cable.
In a nut shell,
This retired Federal Officer (Non-Leo), has been trained in both firearms and Bear Spray while working on the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska (Heavy Brown Bear country), and I choose Pepper Spray over guns.
First pic pepper spray training , second one my roof mounted gun in my fire engine.
Well, it is my opinion that you should carry the spray, and not touch guns. I am a gun guy. You claim to carry the shotgun that does not exist. Winchester 870? I looked at your pic,,it is a remington. To be proficient with a firearm,,you would no doubt spend enough time with it to know what the name of that gun is. No personal offense to you, but it is like a race car driver not knowing if he drove a chevy or a ford.
|
06/15/2018 11:39AM |
Wick: "LindenTree3: "Many people will not be comfortable or proficient using a firearm, my wife has never touched one, but I felt some what comfortable with her carrying a can of Bear Spray while we hiked in Alaska.
I was trained and required to carry a Winchester 870 while escorting others in Alaska for the Federal Government. I carried the 870 in my fire engine in a roof mount. If I wasn't on duty, I never carried that piece of Iron, I carried Bear Spray.
While doing our firearms bear training (You had to get 2 of three shots in the heart to qualify, and this thing bounced around at you at 15 mph) we also practicied with pepper spray at a bear cut out pulled toward us on a cable.
In a nut shell,
This retired Federal Officer (Non-Leo), has been trained in both firearms and Bear Spray while working on the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska (Heavy Brown Bear country), and I choose Pepper Spray over guns.
First pic pepper spray training , second one my roof mounted gun in my fire engine.
Well, it is my opinion that you should carry the spray, and not touch guns. I am a gun guy. You claim to carry the shotgun that does not exist. Winchester 870? I looked at your pic,,it is a remington. To be proficient with a firearm,,you would no doubt spend enough time with it to know what the name of that gun is. No personal offense to you, but it is like a race car driver not knowing if he drove a chevy or a ford."
Fair enough.
|
06/15/2018 11:36AM |
|
06/17/2018 12:09PM |
If I was in grizzly, Kodiak or polar bear country I would want a large caliber wheel gun on my hip and a large caliber lever rifle on my shoulder. This is if it were legal to have them like private land, not National parks. Second choice would be a large can of bear spray, and identification in my pockets so they know where to send the remains.
Logistics plays a large point in how armed you can be. To bring a rifle into Canada it can be a real hassle, and no handguns. If flying you have to jump through hoops to travel with a weapon or ammo. Bear spray can be rented and returned if not used at many parks. And bear spray is sold locally in bear country, I don’t think you can fly with this in your checked luggage, not sure though.
|
06/17/2018 12:06PM |
missmolly: "DrBobDg: "underwear on a little tight guys? I bought bear spray for Glacier and Denali. I hope I never have to use it. Gun or spray...a surprise charge going around a bend on a trail.really puts a fellow at a disadvantage.
dr bob"
What kind of doc are you, Doc? And did you read the story about the two biking rangers who came around a bend and the lead cyclist rammed a griz? Yikes, huh? The surviving ranger said the griz cried out in pain from the collision. "
dairy cow doctor....dairy
That bike incident. If the other feller had bad spray he might have been able to save his buddy...I think the story was he went for help which was probably worthless. I think this was outside Glacier NP and these guys were mountain biking...
I imagine they just went flying around the bend and surprise... one guy is soon meeting his Creator giving and account of his life and his buddy wondering if he/they should have done different.
a bad day.
dr bob
|
06/17/2018 12:55PM |
mastertangler: "RR I have zero experience in putting hot rounds into a live charging bear. But that does not disqualify me from having an informed perspective. I marvel at folks who believe that unless you have subjective experience you are unable or unqualified to comment on a subject. One has merely to become well read on others experiences to become knowledgeable........after all, isn't that what a degree from a university primarily is.....that being absorbing from those who have already learned? Historians do the same. Many military historians have never fired a shot in anger but are eminently qualified to discuss their fields of interest.
You continue to sidestep my primary point. That being the very difficult shot required to stop a hard charging Grizzly bear heading directly at you. According to my research, the effective target box is relatively small being below the jaw and between the shoulders. Would you agree or disagree with that assessment? I am genuinely curious and open to your perspective.
It has the ring of truth IMO. Factor in uneven ground and a grizzlies speedy rolling gait and it seems to me to be a difficult shot for all but the most advanced. Grizzlies have exceedingly thick skulls so a head shot may be but glancing and a shoulder shot may slow but not stop the bear.
Would I be wrong to believe that your primary experience and background is associated with black bears? If that is the case I wholeheartedly agree with you and a firearm is a vastly better option than spray and seldom fails if time allows deployment of even a modest caliber. Black bears have been dispatched with nothing more than a 22 on occasion.
"
Mastertangler you keep on side stepping the facts using old wife's tales. One that grizzlies shull are hard to penetrate
Driving a bullet into and through a bears head is not that all difficult. A bullet placed in a proper spot well do the job.
Feel free to post the documentation that proves me wrong not some old wife's tale.
And that is what the bullets bouncing of skulls is
Here is a story of a women who killed a world record grizzly with a 22 long cartridge.
22 long" TARGET="_blank">22 grizzly
Again if you really want to know about what it takes to stop a bear with a firearm read the personnel accounts of people that have.
Here are a few prime examples.
But then the bear turned, looked up at Brenner and lunged, said Lewis, who interviewed the three men Saturday.
Brenner fired twice at the center of the hulking shape closing to four or five feet away. The sow, estimated at 400 to 450 pounds, went down. Brenner then put three more bullets into her head.
He used a 9 mm semiautomatic pistol. Lewis said such a low-caliber gun ordinarily doesn't pack enough punch to kill a bear. But Brenner loaded the pistol with full-metal-jacket bullets that penetrated to the bear's vital organs, he said.
BACHELOR GULCH – The Aug. 31 shooting of a bear in Bachelor Gulch still echoes among residents in the upscale enclave.The Colorado Division of Wildlife continues to investigate the incident, in which homeowner John Tietbohl shot and wounded a bear outside his Daybreak Ridge home. Tietbohl told officers the bear had been trying to get into his home, then charged him as he was getting into his car that evening. Tietbohl, who had been carrying a 9-millimeter pistol as a sidearm to protect himself from the bear, shot and hit the animal, which left a trail of blood as it ran off.Earlier in the day, Bachelor Gulch security officers had repeatedly sprayed pepper spray at the bear near Tietbohl’s house, but the animal stayed around. The bear also reportedly slipped into Tietbohl’s garage in the days before it was shot.
3. AK: Guide Kills Attacking Grizzly with 9mm, July, 2016
In the last week in July, 2016, Phil Shoemaker had use a 9mm pistol to kill a grizzly that was threatening his clients and himself. It worked.
4. Bowhunters, Spray Failed, 9mm, Grizzly October, 2017, account from two sources, Todd Orr, and Eye-witness, Beaver Creek, MT.
I interviewed both sources. The attack was reported to Fish and Game, but was not published.
It was at the end of the day, and was getting dark. Two bow hunters, were returning from their bow hunt. They both had bear spray and pistols. They had agreed that if forced into defending themselves, one would use spray, the other would back up the spray with his pistol.
The male grizzly bluff charged several times, blocking their return to camp.
Warning shots were fired in the air with a 9 mm pistol. The bear ran off, then came back. Bear spray was utilized but only extended 10 feet into a light head wind and did not reach the bear. The bear would not disengage. It kept coming back and getting closer. The aggressive bear was finally shot with the 9 mm pistol at close range. It ran off. The report was made to Fish and Wildlife, and the bear was found dead the next day. Eye-witness believes it was one shot to the chest of the bear.
Again read about the flaws in the bear spray studies.
One things all these have in common is they shot the bear and according you not perfect shot placement.
Even with a what some would consider a small caliber handgun for bear protection.
Bullet placement doesn't seem as import as just shooting the bear and keep
shooting until it is no longer a threat.
How hard is it to for some not so hard for others very hard for those who don't carry a fire arm impossible.
Other then that there is really no answer to your question.
As proven by the stories above it can be done and has been done many times.
Again the old wife's tale that people can't hit charging bears and stop them has been proven many times to be false.
studies
|
06/17/2018 01:59PM |
As per my belief that a charging grizzly presents a tough target to put down via a hand gun your disagreement is not with me but rather Stephen Herrera who is widely considered a foremost expert in the realm of all things bears. I would suspect there is plenty of "ammo" for his arguments with verifiable accounts of grizzlies which did not succumb to being shot. He is of the opinion that the average person is better off with spray when being confronted with a grizzly.
However, I do value your opinion and you have certainly caused me to rethink if Herrera opinions are actually reality or rather wishful thinking. His book is extremely well documented and supported however.......he does not strike me as biased against guns but rather "here are the facts" etc.
Part of my concern is how many bears are shot needlessly while engaging in a bluff charge. I would certainly be tempted to pull the trigger with a firearm during a charge. It's sort of tough to wait and see if Mr grizz means business.
In any event........I will continue to carry spray for the foreseeable future due primarily for reasons of convenience. Lately I have been stashing my spray until I get to camp.......lotta good it does me stashed away ("um, exscuse me, wait just a second ;-)
|
06/17/2018 03:53PM |
uses.
If one is concerned about saving bears one finds ways to do that.
If one sells spray one finds ways of promoting ones product.
For me a bear isn't worth the human life it ruins or takes. So if a few bears get
killed I have no problem with that it's a bear.
You and others could very well feel different about that. But you and they really need to ask your self am I ready to be main or killed to save a bear. Or have a family member or friend maimed or killed.
As far as old timers shooting bears multiple times even happens in modern times.
especially when one has a few humans shooting.
A good firearms operator can shoot many rounds in a very short time.
One story I read in out door life said that four hunter using several different calibers up to 375 H@H shot one bear 13 times.
Unless your make a central nervous system hit brain or spine and animal can live for seconds
I shot hundreds of big game animals. I seen animals with their heart and lung turned to mush and they still travel a 100 yards or so.
What happens in these multiple shots situations is the bear is still moving every body is shooting as fast as possible.
If it takes a few seconds for the bear to die it can take a lots of hits even thou the first hit was fatal.
Plus we don't know where all the bullets hit or if some missed.
I see it in self-defense shootings all the time. Where people are attacked shoot a large amount of rounds and only one or two hits.
They want to blame the ammo the gun and not their own poor shooting.
I am a very firm believer in shooting until that animal is down and dead even than putting an insurance shot in.
The Phil Shoemaker case is a prime example of this Phil shot the bear 8 times that all is gun held .
Some would have fatal in a second or two some would have been fatal at some time. But Phil knew you keep shooting until it wasn't threat any more. Total time 5 seconds or so maybe less or more.
Again anybody can carry and use what they want as I stated before in our camps we have both.
I have never said firearms only, spray has some very good uses but stopping determined attacks is not one of them.
|
06/18/2018 04:49PM |
MReid: "riverrunner; Peer reviewed studies can be good or bad depending on the motivation of the authors and reviewers. Money and political agendas have great influence on the process.
I haven't seen where these spray studies have been peered review feel free to prove me wrong. "
Most professional science journals are peer-reviewed: Science, Ecology, Journal of Wildlife Management, Wildlife Monographs, and I can go on and on. If it is an accepted journal, used by professionals, then it is more than likely to be peer-reviewed, primarily because it is only through peer review that results are accepted. Having been a science professional and worked with research professionals since the 1970s, I've found the primary motivation of researchers is elucidating observations, not money or political agenda. In general, they either directly observe something that brings up questions, or they find some interesting nugget in the literature that piques their interest. Then they find money to try to explain whatever phenomenon they pursue. Usually finding money is a competitive process, whereby their research proposal is reviewed by other professionals on the merits of the science proposed, and the feasibility of adequately addressing the issue.
It is after the science is completed and published (again, with peer review for the higher quality science), that politics comes to play. People will use the actual results of studies to further whatever interest they have.
For an example, here's submission guidelines for publishing in the Journal of Wildlife Management, which publishes the majority of wildlife related research JWM Submission Guidelines , which includes "The editorial staff assigns peer-reviewed manuscripts that have been approved for review to 2 qualified reviewers. The staff considers expertise, affiliation, geographic location, date of last review, and performance on previous reviews when selecting reviewers." That's pretty standard with peer-reviewed journals.
"
Agree 100%. Knowing the review process very well.
|
06/18/2018 07:33AM |
Where I will disagree is that spray is ineffective in stopping a determined attack. That is obviously false. Spray has been used successfully for many decades and has deterred the vast majority of charges.
But I think I understand where your coming from.......it may be just semantics. Your definition of "determined" and mine might be different. From my point of view spray has deterred the vast majority of assaults where the bear had decided (determined) to eliminate a perceived threat. Obviously spray would not stop an enraged which had "determined" that it was going to make contact regardless.......fortunately these types of events are not the norm.
When I hiked Glacier there was a wildlife biologists and a group of several college students doing a wildlife survey. A rather large group. I would imagine wildlife surveys would require silence. They came upon a sow and cubs and she charged the group. Spray was deployed effectively. Such stories are a dime a dozen. Was the bear "determined"? Sure seems like it to me, but I'm no expert.
|
06/18/2018 08:22AM |
We well have to disagree on this point.
|
06/18/2018 08:48AM |
Guns vs spray as a bear solution. Beats me what works best. Likely a gun in the right hands or spray for someone else. I am respectful of everyone's perspective and information.
I don't carry either in the BW or Q. I really don't worry about it, even though I have had a number of bear contacts since I grew up in northern Minnesota in the woods and have spent a great deal of time hunting and canoeing.
What worries me most about the discussion, as it pertains only to the BW, is my view of many of the groups I see in the BW.
Let me assure you I would feel wayyyyyy less safe if I knew all of these folks were toting guns around with them!
|
06/18/2018 04:23PM |
riverrunner: "One can find also cases where the bear ran right through the spray and carried out the attack.
We well have to disagree on this point."
Disagree on what point? I am accepting of the nuances concerning firearms vs spray and acknowledge the pros and cons of each choice.
But, If you are suggesting that spray is of little value then indeed we will have to disagree. Facts clearly show spray can be a very high value deterrent and in many situations the only practical / legal option. Naturally you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
|
06/20/2018 05:20PM |
Graphic video of bear beating
|
06/20/2018 05:35PM |
The bear would have been dead long before that if some one could have shot it.
But firearms are very hard to get and keep for most people in India.
|
06/20/2018 08:23PM |
riverrunner: "Stories like this is what they make firearms for.
Too bad in Canada they make self-defense really hard.
"
Man, that is exactly what I thought. The guy made a whole lot of mistakes, IMHO. I'm surprised he had nothing in the cabin to protect himself with. Hell a CAST iron pot to the snout, if nothing else, but Man oh Man.......Something.
AX, Knife, PAN, GUN........surely there was something to use. I'm glad he lived, and I sure hope he's learned a valuable lesson about living in the woods with animals.
Later,
Geo
|
06/20/2018 08:36PM |
boonie: "Zwater: "Dances with Sheep: "missmolly: "LindenTree3: "Wick: "LindenTree3: "Many people will not be comfortable or proficient using a firearm, my wife has never touched one, but I felt some what comfortable with her carrying a can of Bear Spray while we hiked in Alaska.
I was trained and required to carry a Winchester 870 while escorting others in Alaska for the Federal Government. I carried the 870 in my fire engine in a roof mount. If I wasn't on duty, I never carried that piece of Iron, I carried Bear Spray.
While doing our firearms bear training (You had to get 2 of three shots in the heart to qualify, and this thing bounced around at you at 15 mph) we also practicied with pepper spray at a bear cut out pulled toward us on a cable.
In a nut shell,
This retired Federal Officer (Non-Leo), has been trained in both firearms and Bear Spray while working on the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska (Heavy Brown Bear country), and I choose Pepper Spray over guns.
First pic pepper spray training , second one my roof mounted gun in my fire engine.
Well, it is my opinion that you should carry the spray, and not touch guns. I am a gun guy. You claim to carry the shotgun that does not exist. Winchester 870? I looked at your pic,,it is a remington. To be proficient with a firearm,,you would no doubt spend enough time with it to know what the name of that gun is. No personal offense to you, but it is like a race car driver not knowing if he drove a chevy or a ford."
Fair enough."
Well, to be fair, this stringent standard is only fair if Wick applies it in all sectors. "
Identifying a gun that one was "trained" to use is hardly a stringent standard. Perhaps this seems nitpicky to a layperson but Wick's point is 100% valid."
+1"
I'm trying to catch up on reading this thread and deciding what is the best course of action for me. Some good points have been made both ways, but I still haven't gone through all the links and information.
One thing I don't really understand is what Wick's point is, why it's 100% valid, and what if anything it has to do with whether I should take a gun or spray or both.
I can't tell if it's a Remington or Winchester from the picture, but I'm not a gun guy although I have hunted with them. I don't think there would be a substantial enough difference between using a 12 gauge Remington pump shotgun or a 12 gauge Winchester pump shotgun to change the conclusion.
I don't think calling a Remington a Winchester has more to do with proficiency than the test of putting two bullets in the heart. I have not been through the training that Linden has, nor have I spent any time in Brown Bear territory, but maybe someone besides Linden has been through it or something similar. For all I know they may have trained with and carried both Remingtons and Winchesters.
I just don't see how calling a Remington a Winchester should invalidate the value of his training and experience. Am I missing something?
"
Remington 870 is a very, VERY Common shotgun, and I would suspect most everyone who has a shotgun on this site, has had one or shot one . it is also an unmistakable weapon ......
The comments about it being a Remington versus a Winchester are only valid if you think it is important to have a serious relationship with your weapon if you "think" you're proficient with it.......
That is all.
I got my first 870 before I was a teenager, Nearly 40 years ago. Awesome gun, and I still have it. . I also have another 870 Express, because you can never just have one :) .
|
06/20/2018 09:10PM |
What kind of doc are you, Doc?
dairy cow doctor....dairy
dr bob"
I thought he was a quack who's gone's gone to the dogs
veterinarian's hospital
|
06/20/2018 10:16PM |
Zwater: "+++1. I would like to say more, but I know the anti gun people won't let it end.
If a bear is attacking your dog, would you grab a gun or bear spray if there was an option?"
If a bear was attacking my dog I’d want to know how it made it hundreds of miles into suburbia...
My dog would die of a heart attack at the first real BWCA storm.
|
06/21/2018 07:39AM |
GearJunkie: "Zwater: "+++1. I would like to say more, but I know the anti gun people won't let it end.
If a bear is attacking your dog, would you grab a gun or bear spray if there was an option?"
If a bear was attacking my dog I’d want to know how it made it hundreds of miles into suburbia...
My dog would die of a heart attack at the first real BWCA storm."
I take it you haven't heard of this attack.
A Florida man was attacked by a bear just feet from the doorway of his home as he was preparing to take his dog outside.
It was just about an hour before midnight on January 9 when Andy Meunier walked to his back door to let out his dog, Howie, for his usual bathroom break. As always, Howie barked and made a bit of a commotion, so Meunier quickly got him on a leash and opened the door. Yet, Meunier was only able to take one or two steps out of his door when he heard his dog growl and run back into the house. Curious at what made him growl, Meunier turned and found himself facing the fright of his life: three bears, just feet away, were standing in a line looking straight at him.
|
06/30/2018 11:03AM |
Wick: "Indians beat bear to death with sticks
Graphic video of bear beating "
Somewhere in here is a great line about the Indians and the Cubs and bats.....