plainjaneFJC
Deplorable
Screw past history. If I was in both the videos above I want a rifle not bear spray!
Camping with Firearm-Post Bear Mauling
- Thread starter ECVMatt
- Start date
bear attack
This week a local bow hunter stumbled onto a sleeping grizzly bear while pushing through a brushy coulee on the edge of the Bob Marshall Wilderness. As he started to back away the bear awoke and charged, grabbing him by the head and then the leg shaking him like a rag doll. The bear then stood over him roaring. The young man took an action that will elevate him to "Legend" status. Remembering his grandmothers advice for such occasions he shoved his hand down the bears throat. This turn of events dispirited the bear and he beat a hasty retreat. The hunter said that he did not want the bear hurt and that he though that it was as scared as he was. Myself if I stick my hand down the throat of a grizzly that's mauling me I would prefer to be holding my S&W 329
This week a local bow hunter stumbled onto a sleeping grizzly bear while pushing through a brushy coulee on the edge of the Bob Marshall Wilderness. As he started to back away the bear awoke and charged, grabbing him by the head and then the leg shaking him like a rag doll. The bear then stood over him roaring. The young man took an action that will elevate him to "Legend" status. Remembering his grandmothers advice for such occasions he shoved his hand down the bears throat. This turn of events dispirited the bear and he beat a hasty retreat. The hunter said that he did not want the bear hurt and that he though that it was as scared as he was. Myself if I stick my hand down the throat of a grizzly that's mauling me I would prefer to be holding my S&W 329
NOTHING will stop an angry animal faster than Lead applied to the brain pan at a high velocity. NOTHING. That being said, bear spray would be a first resort, and the brain pan shattering the latter. I will pull the thunderstick if I have to to protect my family case closed, screw animal activists etc.
Worked great? The guy died.
Nvm, I just read the Wikipedia entry. Turns out he was in fact killed from bleeding out. That, however does not show that sprays doesn't work. If you read the Wiki entry, you will see what actually killed him. It was a list of things that went wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan_Miller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephan_Miller
digitaldelay
Explorer
One other thing you have to remember about spray. You could very easily contaminate yourself if the wind is in your face. Foggers mist a wide pattern. Stream sprayers require more accurate aiming.
So if using a fogger style is you have to be super careful. It's sucks being sprayed and still having fight or run for your life.
Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk
So if using a fogger style is you have to be super careful. It's sucks being sprayed and still having fight or run for your life.
Sent from my QMV7A using Tapatalk
One advantage of bear spray over a gun is that when a bear approaches too close you can spray the air and towards the bear. Most likely this will force the bear away. Its not ethical (and probably not legal) to fire a shot at a bear who isn't acting aggressively.
Personally, when I am in grizzly country I pack a large caliber handgun and bear spray.
Personally, when I am in grizzly country I pack a large caliber handgun and bear spray.
I think a lot of it basically comes down to personal experience and preference. Those that grew up around guns, use them often, and are very comfortable around them are more likely to pack a firearm versus bear spray. This probably applies to most other situations that involve a decision to carry or not. It really is that simple.
Yeah the spray caused the bear to cease its attack, but the victim did die...so saying that the spray worked is pretty much irrelevant or a moot point.
Would the spray have saved the guy's life had it been deployed earlier? Maybe...but that's speculation (you can't really prove the outcome of something that didn't happen in the first place).
I don't know if you've been browsing some of the earlier posts from this thread, but there have been a lot of comments on fireams vs spray when it comes to bear deterrence/defense. My view: there's no need to carry one while excluding the other; carry both, as they are both great tools to have out in the wild. That said, if someone feels uncomfortable carrying a firearm, bear spray, by itself, is still a good deterrent....just don't treat it like some magic get-out-jail card; it has its limitations.
My point about it working (after reading the entire wiki entry) was that it did indeed work when they got around to actually use it, rather than try to beat the bear off with a stick.
Another thing to the story is that the guy failed to have his arm up so the bear couldn't go at his throught, and it was supposed to be a "wrestle match", so the bear had more than enough opportunity to get very, very close without anyone even attempting to do anything. When they then failed to follow safety procedures (aka spray the freaking bear) and instead tried to beat the bear with a small stick (******!?). What is good about that video is that if they had sprayed almost instantly, the attacked would have had much of a chance of survival.
There is very little chance of meeting a bear in nature that not only get's that close, but also have you not have your arm up in defense. If you had a spray or someone near you had a spray, you would have it drawn before the bear comes that close, or you would at least have your hands up in a defensive position.
A gun would probably not have helped either, assuming you actually hit with a kill shot, if you take into account their behaviour. I mean, if the man had still failed to have his arm up in the proper position, and they had still first tried to whip the bear into submission as it happened.
It did work to stop the bear, even if it had been enraged by being whipped. If only they had sprayed the bear the instant it attacked, as I'm sure they had planned to do.
No, bear spray is not a guarantee, nor is a gun. But after seeing that video, it is very evident that it works, and works very well. Of course you have to actually spray it for it to have effect. But the same applies to a gun.
Another thing to the story is that the guy failed to have his arm up so the bear couldn't go at his throught, and it was supposed to be a "wrestle match", so the bear had more than enough opportunity to get very, very close without anyone even attempting to do anything. When they then failed to follow safety procedures (aka spray the freaking bear) and instead tried to beat the bear with a small stick (******!?). What is good about that video is that if they had sprayed almost instantly, the attacked would have had much of a chance of survival.
There is very little chance of meeting a bear in nature that not only get's that close, but also have you not have your arm up in defense. If you had a spray or someone near you had a spray, you would have it drawn before the bear comes that close, or you would at least have your hands up in a defensive position.
A gun would probably not have helped either, assuming you actually hit with a kill shot, if you take into account their behaviour. I mean, if the man had still failed to have his arm up in the proper position, and they had still first tried to whip the bear into submission as it happened.
It did work to stop the bear, even if it had been enraged by being whipped. If only they had sprayed the bear the instant it attacked, as I'm sure they had planned to do.
No, bear spray is not a guarantee, nor is a gun. But after seeing that video, it is very evident that it works, and works very well. Of course you have to actually spray it for it to have effect. But the same applies to a gun.
Btw, we can determine to some degree what might have happened if only [Dot, dot, dot] in some cases. That is why we have notions such as negligence, gross negligence, manslaughter, or even just "mechanical flaw", or even "pilot error". There was a plane crash a while ago where the thing that led to a plane crash was a taped-over pitot tube, which ended up confusing the pilots, which then led to a crash shortly after take-off. So, I do believe you can at times find some things - especially when it's on video like this, to at least find contributing factors.