Camping with Firearm-Post Bear Mauling

DanCooper

Adventurer
I'm coming late to this party, and it looks like the discussion has pretty much degenerated to the point of, well, to THAT point. But I want to throw a few cents worth in.

The article in the October, 2012 Journal of Wildlife Management (Published by the Department of the Interior) titled "Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence n Alaska" (authored by Tom Smith, Steven Herrero, Cali Strong Layton, Randy Larsen and Kathryn Johnson, should be read in its entirety. The link to the abstract is good, but the article itself sets out the methodology, as all scientific papers must, so the reader may make a rational judgment on whether or not to believe the study. Reading the article itself, one would find the specific method used, for instance, to quantify the injuries suffered, viz:

"We also subjectively evaluated injuries as follows: slight injuries included nips, limited biting, and scratches where hospitalization was not required; moderate injuries required hospitalization to some degree, and included punctures, bite wounds and broken bones; and severe injuries resulted in extended hospitalization and often permanent disability."

When you read the actual article, you will see that the authors did have to make subjective analysis in certain areas. This is so because the records used in the study were and are incomplete. This is to be expected because the reporters of the incidents under study did not know the facts they were reporting would be used later in a scientific paper. The fact that subjective analyses were made does not, however, invalidate the study or the conclusions. Remember, this paper was peer reviewed, and accepted for publication. A panel of scientists review the methodology for scientific soundness, and approved. If a reader believes their education, training, and experience is superior to the reviewing panel, then of course that reader will disagree with the panel's conclusion that the study met the standards of science.

Among the people I know who have acted as bear guards, that is, persons who are hired to protect camps and crews from bears, the article is still subject to debate. This appears to be because people bring their life's experiences to bear (no pun there) on the study. They do or do not want to believe the conclusions based on their particular anecdotal experience, and what they have heard from others they believe and trust. Moreover, some of these professionals DO challenge the science in the Smith paper because they believe applying a rigorous statistical analysis to a collection of incomplete anecdotal reports is unsound.

I'm not a scientist. I'm just a guy who lives and plays in Alaska, which only means I have a lot of anecdotes (none of which, so far, have resulted in an unintentional DNA deposit in my underwear). I'm packing now for my hunting trip into the Alaska Range where it is more probable than not that I will encounter bear in, as we like to say, their natural habitat. Our camp is along a stream below treeline, and we hunt just above treeline so we can see game coming into the woods below. Thus, if I encounter bear above tree line, I have many options, usually based on distance and visibility. But if I'm near camp, along the stream, or headed through the woods to the ridge I like to sit upon, any bear encounter is likely going to be a surprise to one or both of us. Moreover, it is more likely than not going to be in close quarters.

What does that all mean? Simply that whatever system I use to survive the encounter, whether it be wits, guile, bullets, or spray, it has to be immediately at hand. And that is the one thing that every person, whether expert to not, with whom I've spoken on the topic agrees: If it's not at hand, it's not going to help. "Best" is only what you have ready, and all other options are just "what ifs" around the campfire later.

I have a PDF copy of the Smith article. PM me your email address and I will send it to you. Meanwhile, I always like to post this link to an Anchorage newspaper article written by a guy who is an actual big game biologist, Rick Sinnott:

http://www.adn.com/article/are-guns-more-effective-pepper-spray-alaska-bear-attack

Everyone can find something to agree with there.
 

PirateMcGee

Expedition Leader
I'm coming late to this party, and it looks like the discussion has pretty much degenerated to the point of, well, to THAT point. But I want to throw a few cents worth in.

The article in the October, 2012 Journal of Wildlife Management (Published by the Department of the Interior) titled "Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence n Alaska" (authored by Tom Smith, Steven Herrero, Cali Strong Layton, Randy Larsen and Kathryn Johnson, should be read in its entirety. The link to the abstract is good, but the article itself sets out the methodology, as all scientific papers must, so the reader may make a rational judgment on whether or not to believe the study. Reading the article itself, one would find the specific method used, for instance, to quantify the injuries suffered, viz:

"We also subjectively evaluated injuries as follows: slight injuries included nips, limited biting, and scratches where hospitalization was not required; moderate injuries required hospitalization to some degree, and included punctures, bite wounds and broken bones; and severe injuries resulted in extended hospitalization and often permanent disability."

When you read the actual article, you will see that the authors did have to make subjective analysis in certain areas. This is so because the records used in the study were and are incomplete. This is to be expected because the reporters of the incidents under study did not know the facts they were reporting would be used later in a scientific paper. The fact that subjective analyses were made does not, however, invalidate the study or the conclusions. Remember, this paper was peer reviewed, and accepted for publication. A panel of scientists review the methodology for scientific soundness, and approved. If a reader believes their education, training, and experience is superior to the reviewing panel, then of course that reader will disagree with the panel's conclusion that the study met the standards of science.

Among the people I know who have acted as bear guards, that is, persons who are hired to protect camps and crews from bears, the article is still subject to debate. This appears to be because people bring their life's experiences to bear (no pun there) on the study. They do or do not want to believe the conclusions based on their particular anecdotal experience, and what they have heard from others they believe and trust. Moreover, some of these professionals DO challenge the science in the Smith paper because they believe applying a rigorous statistical analysis to a collection of incomplete anecdotal reports is unsound.

I'm not a scientist. I'm just a guy who lives and plays in Alaska, which only means I have a lot of anecdotes (none of which, so far, have resulted in an unintentional DNA deposit in my underwear). I'm packing now for my hunting trip into the Alaska Range where it is more probable than not that I will encounter bear in, as we like to say, their natural habitat. Our camp is along a stream below treeline, and we hunt just above treeline so we can see game coming into the woods below. Thus, if I encounter bear above tree line, I have many options, usually based on distance and visibility. But if I'm near camp, along the stream, or headed through the woods to the ridge I like to sit upon, any bear encounter is likely going to be a surprise to one or both of us. Moreover, it is more likely than not going to be in close quarters.

What does that all mean? Simply that whatever system I use to survive the encounter, whether it be wits, guile, bullets, or spray, it has to be immediately at hand. And that is the one thing that every person, whether expert to not, with whom I've spoken on the topic agrees: If it's not at hand, it's not going to help. "Best" is only what you have ready, and all other options are just "what ifs" around the campfire later.

I have a PDF copy of the Smith article. PM me your email address and I will send it to you. Meanwhile, I always like to post this link to an Anchorage newspaper article written by a guy who is an actual big game biologist, Rick Sinnott:

http://www.adn.com/article/are-guns-more-effective-pepper-spray-alaska-bear-attack

Everyone can find something to agree with there.

That's a good article. I would highly encourage those that disagree with the study to do their own research and publish their own paper. In close quarters in particular by the way carry the spray and learn to use it from the hip. It's faster to deploy and creates a cloud.
 
Last edited:

Dalko43

Explorer
Dalko, I still think you don't fully understand what many of the experts are saying about injured bears and how they react when injured. I think you also don't fully grasp how spray effects their most sensitive sensory system. It doesn't just cause pain, it causes extreme disorientation. It is an overwhelming of their olfactory system. Again, like blowing a train whistle next to your head. It attacks the most vulnerable aspect of their biology.

I've been exposed to CS gas and I've been sprayed with mace and forced to ground fight with another person (all in the course of training). So you can trust me when I say that being exposed to this stuff is nothing like a train whistle blowing in your ear. And you can trust me when I say that while you are somewhat disoriented (mostly due to blurred vision) a human, and a grizzly, is very capable of fighting through that irritation. I've seen humans fight through that type of irritation and I've seen a black bear totally ignore it. Bear spray is a very good deterrent, but it is nowhere near being effective 100% of the time.


A gun wound often does not debilitate a bear in any capacity, but unfortunately for the shooter, initiates that part of a bear's biology you don't want to initiate - it's amplified desire and ability to fight. So, a gun wound has to overcome the biology of a bear that evolution has made its most imposing strength. It's ability to fight with severe wounds.

Again, I think you are talking about the worst case scenario as if it was the norm. I agree, that in the worst case scenario, a brown bear suffering a non-debilitating shot might be able to fight through the pain and continue on its attack. In the average scenario, a brown bear would flee the close encounter simply after hearing the gunshot. Less common, but still more common than the worst case scenario, a bear suffering multiple gunshots will leave the situation because of the pain and shock induced. Again, we aren't simply talking about "poking holes" in the bear, we are talking about torn muscle, punctured lungs, fractured bones. A brown bear is used to pain it endures from fighting another bear or wrestling with prey; there is nothing that can desensitize it to the pain/shock of gunshots, except well getting shot.

Ultimately, the experts all agree, the ability for any marksmen to place a debilitating round in a bear during an attack is highly unlikely as evidenced by the 269/17 attack to dead guy ratio verses the 133/0 results of spray.

The problem is the 2 studies you are referencing ('Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray' in Alaska and 'Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence
in Alaska'), which were done by the same authors, did not actually conduct a study which compared firearm and bearspray usage from the same data pool. They were 2 separate studies, conducted independently. Moreover they were conveniently vague on how they classified 'injuries' and provided little information on the exact nature of these bear encounters and how they were compiled. Instead of providing a fact sheet documenting the pool of incidents for both firearm and bear spray, they simply said they compiled these incidents from:

readily accessible state and federal records, newspaper accounts, books, and anecdotal information

Where are their citations documenting the exact articles and government documents which they used to find these incidents?
How are third parties supposed to spot-check their models and their results?
Most studies that are considered truly "academic" provide the raw data and source information so that others can verify their findings.
And do you understand that they used anecdotal evidence as part of their study? This means that part of the "data" they incorporated for their models consisted of other peoples' fish stories.

There's a crap load of anecdotal and scientific evidence around to support what all of the bear experts have to say.

No, it seems to me that a lot of articles, online bloggers, and forum posters are regurgitating the same 2 studies, which have vague research methods and provide little detail on the incidents which form the basis of their "scientific" models:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/bear_cougar/bear/files/JWM_BearSprayAlaska.pdf

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/sites/default/files/efficacy_of_firearms_for_bear_deterrence_in_alaska_2014_01_29_15_23_07_utc.pdf

I agree that no other contradictory studies have been published as of late, but that does nothing to make these 2 studies anymore credible in my eyes.

As I said earlier, I don't see a firearm as the one and only solution for bear defense. I believe in having multiple tools to deal with such a scenario. Bear spray is one tool that I have on my person; a firearm is the other. Those 2 tools, coupled with smart camping/hiking techniques, proper food storage, is how I venture into bear country.
 
Last edited:

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
Dalko, read the Bear Aware article I wrote for the home page. It specifically explains why bear spray is relatively ineffective on humans, but utterly debilitating to a bear.

It's the science, my man. Science.
 

Dalko43

Explorer
Dalko, read the Bear Aware article I wrote for the home page. It specifically explains why bear spray is relatively ineffective on humans, but utterly debilitating to a bear.

It's the science, my man. Science.

I understand that bears have a sense of smell much more sensitive than a human's. I didn't need to read your article to come to that realization.

I've used bear spray during a close encounter with a bear. The bear was not deterred in the least bit. I don't know if it was because of how the wind carried it, or if the spray canister was faulty, or if the bear didn't inhale it, or if the bear simply muscled through it. All I know is it didn't have any noticeable effect on the bear. And I've talked to others who've had similar experiences. Like I said earlier, I believe bear spray is a valuable tool to have in your kit; but it's not the end-all-be-all when it comes to bear defense, and there is no reason for people to portray it as such.

As for the rest of your article and the posts on this thread, I think you're letting myopia get the best of you. You keep referencing 2 studies with research methods and data sources that are questionable at best....proper citations would have gone a long way in furthering the authors' case. I don't know the authors well enough to accuse them of having a biased approach or doctoring the results to their liking; but the lack of transparency on how and where they gathered their information from and how they made certain categorizations does raise questions.

I also think you owe it to yourself to read up on how firearms actually work. Your reference to a bullet simply "poking" a hole in the bear shows that you have an incomplete understanding of the mechanics and physics behind ballistic performance. As I said earlier, there are several different ballistic profiles associated with firearm projectiles....none of them are friendly to living matter. You brought up a first-hand account of how a large brown bear acted aggressively and destroyed vegetation after being shot once, and required 2 more shots to be put down effectively. I'll take that experience of yours at face value and remind you that just because you witnessed such a response does not mean its the norm. Bears have a central nervous system, they have lungs, they have bones, they have arteries...hitting any one of those items, while not a guarantee of immediately killing the bear, will quickly degrade the bear's ability to function and move.

To declare that in any given bear encounter, a gunshot wound will only exacerbate the bear's attacks and aggression is not something that you or I can factually prove or disprove; we all have our own sets of experiences to base our opinions on and every bear encounter is different from the last. What I can say, with full factual backing, is that a firearm gives you the ability to kill a bear, should the situation come to that, while bear spray does not. That's why I carry both.
 
Last edited:

PirateMcGee

Expedition Leader
Bear spray used = zero deaths, 90+% efficacy rate
Firearms = 17 deaths and 50% rate injury rate, They found that “firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters with bears whether they used their firearms or not.”
Grizz = 30mph sprints (or faster), time to cover 30 yard = 2 sec closer is even less
Time for most to react, draw, fire single shot = 1-2 sec in controlled environment. Whereas you can use bear spray from your hip accurately enough to be effective.
Size of bear brain: Softball
Pistol rounds: marginal, rifle rounds below a 30-06 marginal

If you don't agree with the studies that is fine but please please please do the research, compile the results, and submit your paper. Get it peer reviewed and then published. Till then you had one incident with a black bear that walked through your spray, grabbed your lunch, and walked off. You did not get attacked and the bear did not die. Guess your bear fell in the 10%. You'll likely not have another bear incident the rest of your life simply using preventative measures.

I have perfectly shot deer through both lungs and heart with an exit wound larger than my fist and watched the animal get up and run 50 yards. Adrenaline does crazy things.

Bear spray is faster to deploy, covers more area, and is more effective in preventing injury and reducing the length/severity of mauling. That is the best information out there until someone else compiles all the information and refutes that claim.
 

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
As Pirate said, it's important to frame your personal experiences within the science. Your one spray experience clearly has much to say about your confidence in that defense. I on the other hand have sprayed at least a dozen bears. Only once in a wild and unprotected setting where we were on a trail. The other events were either spraying from my front steps of my house, or from a vehicle. In Alaska, many bears are sprayed along the roadsides to deter bears from hanging out on the shoulder where they can get hit, or be a threat to passers by. In every instance, particularly including those of our 50 plus employees in AK, every sprayed bear was highly effected and split the scene as fast as they could. So, my experience, like hundreds of others, suggest spray works. This is aside from the science and statistics.

And I'm fully aware of how a bullet inters a biological mass, tumbles and tears at bone, muscle, et all. That doesn't really mean anything as it has been well proven that shooting a bear clearly isn't a guarantee it will stop a charge or attack. Statistically and anecdotally, the inverse is well proven.

By the way, this is exhausting.
 

Dalko43

Explorer
Grizz = 30mph sprints (or faster), time to cover 30 yard = 2 sec closer is even less
Time for most to react, draw, fire single shot = 1-2 sec in controlled environment. Whereas you can use bear spray from your hip accurately enough to be effective.

With a loaded firearm, especially a semi-automatic pistol, it is not at all difficult to get 2-3 shots off in that time.

Size of bear brain: Softball
Pistol rounds: marginal, rifle rounds below a 30-06 marginal

More important than the caliber of the bullet is the bullet's velocity and shot placement. A well-placed hollow-point 9mm round can kill or incapacitate a large animal, so long as the shot hits the right area. Is it the preferred round for that type of usage? No, there are certainly more optimized rounds for that. But as has been said before, I'd rather have any firearm in that type of situation than no firearm at all.

If you don't agree with the studies that is fine but please please please do the research, compile the results, and submit your paper. Get it peer reviewed and then published.

The issue I have with these studies that you and Christophe keep referencing is not just that I don't agree with them...it's that no one has peer reviewed them or verified their results. And it is impossible for any reader to go refer back to the source data for these compiled incidents because the authors didn't provide citations for that data. I would like to think that these wildlife experts put out a truly "academic" and "scientific" study but every other study and research paper I have read has actually provided these supporting references so that others in their given field/community can verify the findings.

And let's be honest here. I don't need write up my own paper or study in order to prove that these studies have gaps in their argument.

So, my experience, like hundreds of others, suggest spray works. This is aside from the science and statistics.

I've always agreed that bear spray is good tool to have. I don't know why you insist that I've been saying the opposite.

As for your science and statistics, well I've always agreed that bears have more powerful sense of smell...I dispute everything else you've said about the ineffectiveness of "hole" poking bullets and the "statistics" behind that argument for reasons that I've already laid out....so I won't bother repeating them here.

And I'm fully aware of how a bullet inters a biological mass, tumbles and tears at bone, muscle, et all. That doesn't really mean anything as it has been well proven that shooting a bear clearly isn't a guarantee it will stop a charge or attack.

Well I'm sure you've googled a 'ballistic performance' since you and I began this back-and-forth...but in the early stages of this conversation, it was readily apparent that you weren't totally familiar with how bullets and firearms work.

Shooting a bear is certainly not a guarantee of stopping its attack...I agree 100%. But a firearm is the only tool (within the context of firearms vs bear spray) that offers humans the potential to kill the bear, should the attack escalate. Rangers, law enforcement, and hunters use firearms to kill bears (whether it be for food or for management) not bear spray...so its obvious that one tool offers a lethal solution, while the other doesn't. And I'm quite sure many guides still carry firearms as a backup measure when guiding clients through bear country.

I'm sure all of the parties mentioned above carry bear spray as well...my point has never been that one tool should be carried in place of the other (unlike you), but rather that carrying both tools gives you more options and added protection.

By the way, this is exhausting.

Agree...maybe you and I should just acknowledge that we both have different views on this subject and that as long as we both conduct ourselves responsibly out in the wild, there is nothing inherently wrong or unsound with either approach.

I have had more than a few encounters wild black and brown bear...and so far I've gotten by without inflicting any harm on the animals or suffering any injuries myself. I'd like to think that I have at least a basic understanding of how to safely travel and camp in bear country.
 
Last edited:

PirateMcGee

Expedition Leader
Agree...maybe you and I should just acknowledge that we both have different views on this subject and that as long as we both conduct ourselves responsibly out in the wild, there is nothing inherently wrong or unsound with either approach.

Agreed but only because you carry both and go for spray first :sombrero:
 

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
And I'm quite sure many guides still carry firearms as a backup measure when guiding clients through bear country.
I managed one of the largest guiding companies in Alaska. We took more than 9,000-10,000 clients through thick brown bear country every year. We never, ever, ever, carried a firearm. We did go through cases of bear spray every year. We also took council from a panel of bear experts an naturalists, many of whom were/are leaders in their fields of study.

It's one thing to frame your own ideas of bear safety when it's your own butt on the line. When you're responsible for the safety of thousands of paying clients, you tend to frame your opinions a little differently.

I have no incentive to champion any particular form of defense, just 'cuz. I had an obligation to put my biases aside and just do what the experts, of which there were many, advised me to do. Then we put those practices into action, not just stowed them away for a theoretical rainy day. That we all safely walked away from several bear encounters I think validated what we were told to do. Including the advice not to elevated the risks unnecessarily with firearms.

But again, I am not saying anyone should or shouldn't carry a gun for defense. That is not my decision to make. I'm simply saying that in accordance with what I was told, introducing a firearm into these situations has a high probability of making the encounter a tragic one, and not for the bear. That's all I'm saying.
 
Last edited:

Dalko43

Explorer
I managed one of the largest guiding companies in Alaska. We took more than 9,000-10,000 clients through thick brown bear country every year. We never, ever, ever, carried a firearm. We did go through cases of bear spray every year.

What kind of guide company did you manage? I was referring to hunting guides in my previous post, FYI, not that it makes your experience any more or less relevant.

But again, I am not saying anyone should or shouldn't carry a gun for defense. That is not my decision to make. I'm simply saying that in accordance with what I was told, introducing a firearm into these situations has a high probability of making the encounter a tragic one, and not for the bear.

So you're not telling anyone to refrain from carrying a firearm in bear country, but if they do carry, you think they increase their chances of getting hurt? There's no need to try and maintain the appearance of neutrality on this subject; it's obvious where your opinion lies, and it's perfectly okay to have that opinion....just like it's perfectly okay for someone else to have a different opinion. Individual responsibility is essential to a successful/safe outcome in these types of encounters. If someone is uncertain or incapable of proper firearm usage, then I totally agree they would be better off carrying another tool, like spray. But for those who know how handle firearms, they are perfectly justified and sound in carrying if they choose to do so.

My final note of caution on your proselytizing is that you are basing the majority of your argument on models and statistics that have neither been verified nor accurately cited. If you are going to claim that the debate has been settled on this issue, you owe it to yourself to conduct some of your own research or perhaps verify the research that has already been done rather than blindly adopt its conclusions.
 
Last edited:

Christophe Noel

Expedition Leader
This will be my last post here as this is getting futile. Not that it matters, but the company I managed offered hiking, mountain biking, rafting, sea kayaking and multi-day adventure tours all in the thick of brown bear country. We primarily did mountain bike tours, a great way to bump into a bear. Our multi-day tours included large groups of 12-15 camping for a week or more, again, always in prime bear country.

The reason I didn't feel it necessary to "conduct my own research" is because we relied on the guidance of the most respected individuals in this field which included animal attack investigators, biologists, researchers, naturalists who had spent four decades in these environments and even a couple bear hunters from Fish and Game. Me? I'm just a smart kid from Kansas who knows when to shut up when teacher is talking. :)
 

Dalko43

Explorer
This will be my last post here as this is getting futile.

What is futile about our discussion? Besides, I think you and I have more common ground on bear safety/avoidance than perhaps you are willing to admit.

The reason I didn't feel it necessary to "conduct my own research" is because we relied on the guidance of the most respected individuals in this field which included animal attack investigators, biologists, researchers, naturalists who had spent four decades in these environments and even a couple bear hunters from Fish and Game. Me? I'm just a smart kid from Kansas who knows when to shut up when teacher is talking. :)

Yeah, I've heard from other bloggers and articles that the authors of these 2 studies are highly respected within their given fields. But even Einstein showed his work when he developed the theory of relativity. The topic we are discussing here is not nearly as complex as that, so it shouldn't be that difficult at all for the authors to demonstrate where and how these models and statistics were derived.

There are very few topics that I consider myself an expert on, and bear behavior (and wildlife biology in general) certainly isn't one of them. But whenever I do see the experts express opinions, I expect them to prove their work/findings....I'd say that's a fairly simple and normal expectation to have, especially in this country where political and monetary influence is an all-too-common factor.
 

GregSplett

Adventurer
There are very few topics that I consider myself an expert on, and bear behavior (and wildlife biology in general) certainly isn't one of them. But whenever I do see the experts express opinions, I expect them to prove their work/findings....I'd say that's a fairly simple and normal expectation to have, especially in this country where political and monetary influence is an all-too-common factor.

What experiance with brown bears do you have?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,533
Messages
2,875,597
Members
224,922
Latest member
Randy Towles
Top