Interesting New Study of Bears vs. Guns

[Panzercat]

A better article relating to the thread can be found here:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080325171221.htm

It also addresses the myth about bear spray being useless in wind.

Science has a niftly little thing called peer review which does an excellent job of verifying the validity of studies, such as this. The general public on the other hand tend to dismiss science when its not convenient in supporting their opinions and biases.

Yeah, about that...

Smith believes one of the primary reasons bear spray works is that it gives users a reason to stand their ground. Running is the worst response to an aggressive bear...

On the rare occasions bears get close enough to warrant a spraying - about three times a year in Alaska, the study showed - the hissing sound and sight of the expanding cloud are often enough to frighten away the animal. "I have data to show that if you sprayed water, they often would run," Smith said.

Once you get past the statistical flash of a 92% stop rate and read further, you realize that it really has very little to do with the effectiveness of the spray at all according to this 'nifty peer reviewed scientific article'. Especially realizing that you can achieve all of the very same deterrents with a firearm and preserve the ability to employ lethal measures if they don't work. There is literally nothing in this peer reviewed article that determines the effectiveness of the actual spray itself. It merely confirms the primary stimuli and triggers a bear will react to in any given situation and absolutely fails as bear spray advocacy.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

This really isn't peer review -- true peer review is when another researcher either studies the collection and analysis methods, or attempts to duplicate the results. This is just a summary of the study.

 

[KodiakBeer]

"Once a bear charges, the odds of a successful outcome is seven times less likely, regardless of whether or not you have a firearm,"

Uh yeah... Until a bear charges, the story is "I saw a bear today", after it charges you've been attacked by a bear.

I wish I could see the original study because no doubt my attack was in there. Did my rifle prevent the attack? No. Did my friends rifle save my life? Yes.

 

[brickeyee]

Longtime bear biologist Tom Smith and colleagues analyzed 269 incidents of close-quarter bear-human conflict in Alaska between 1883 and 2009 in which a firearm was involved.

This is called 'stacking the deck.'

By not counting ALL incidents the data set has been compromised to the point of uselessness.

Like saying 'In a study of water encounters, drowning victims showed a poor ability to swim.'

 

[Loosedhorse]

It also addresses the myth about bear spray being useless in wind.

Heck, anyone who's ever sprayed OC into a headwind knows that it is marvellously effective.

On you.

Science has a niftly little thing called peer review which does an excellent job of verifying the validity of studies

So those anti-gun studies by Kellermann, Hemenway, and Miller are actually TRUE?

I apologize, but I will continue to be skeptical of any study that says I should not have a gun, or that it is "useless" for defending against attacks, bear or otherwise.

This is called 'stacking the deck.'

Agreed. I bet the researcher never even gave any unarmed or OC-toting hiker who was eaten by a bear a chance to fill out a survey form!

 

[JR24]

I'm gonna still go ahead and carry the .44 mag on my hip and a 12 gauge in the boat.

 

[blarby]

Note the author said if you're using handgun theres a good chance you're on your back shooting it in the mouth.

Lending a little more credibility to the the " you can kill a bear with a handgun" camp.

I think this kinda illustrates the point of the : " Preparing for trouble, have time ? Bring a rifle" Dialogue.

When a rifle wont or cant do, thats what sidearms are for.

If theres a good chance your handgun defense is going to be at "drool" distance, I think that does provide some useful data : A small maneuverable weapon of significant capacity is going to be far more useful than a large cumbersome sidearm of limited capacity.

I'll take kodiaks word above all else.... but that statement from the author might be the most useful piece of information snuck in there.

 

[Alaska444]

These studies utilize selected data that is in my opinion biased to support their views. I simply don't believe we know how effective guns or pepper spray is with bears. I believe that we have enough evidence to endorse a combination of both depending on conditions. Both pepper spray and guns have saved lives. That should be enough, but studies like this don't add to the information needed when I can recall several episidoes of pepper spray failures not even mentioned.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Here's the real problem.

You don't know if a bear attack was thwarted by a gun or spray or anything else because you simply can't know how many of these "events" are actual attacks. Just because Penelope Treelover squirted a bear near her camp with some spray or Chester Hairychest whacked one with his .338 near his camp doesn't mean an attack was thwarted.

I guarantee you that 90% plus of "thwarted" bear attacks are just bears making a threat display or just getting too close in nuisance mode.

Conversely, you can't know how many threat displays were turned into attacks by somebody shooting a bear that had no intention of attacking until it got shot.

In short, you can't base a study on anecdotal information.

Still, it would be interesting to see the actual study instead of some journalists cherry-picked synopsis of the study. Stephen Herrero's name is on this study and he is a respected authority in the field which leads me to believe that if you could see the actual study, it probably makes sense on some level.

 

[newbuckeye]

Heck, anyone who's every sprayed OC into a headwind knows that it is marvellously effective.

That's one thing I remember from the Police Academy. OC works on YOU too!

 

[rugerman07]

I think, and I could be wrong, that a short barreled 12 gauge loaded with 00 buck shot would be the best defensive weapon against bears of any size. You'd have a much better chance of hitting a charging bear in the face blinding him to ward off the attack.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I think, and I could be wrong, that a short barreled 12 gauge loaded with 00 buck shot would be the best defensive weapon against bears of any size. You'd have a much better chance of hitting a charging bear in the face blinding him to ward off the attack.

I think you could be right, though 000 buck might be a better choice. If you hit the bear in the face, he's going down. There is very little bone between your shot and his brain.

For some reason, my coach shotgun throws buck high, but with old fashioned Foster slugs it hits under the golden bead. So, I use Foster slugs when I carry it. It also throws modern sabot slugs high, so go figure... Yet, throws birdshot right on the money. Even Dave McCracken was unable to figure that one out, and he's forgotten more about shotguns than any of us will ever know.

I feel pretty confident with a shotgun. I can hit a running rabbit or flying ptarmigan without much effort, so I don't think a bears face is a much greater challenge.

 

[Alaska444]

Not to disagree for the sake of disagreement alone, but I don't believe buckshot is a great bear defense at all when you look at two issues: Penetration and spread.

If you look at tests for both, you see that buckshot is a very limited option even at close ranges.

I will stick with the biggest, fattest piece of lead I can throw at the critters as fast as they can go.

 

[rugerman07]

Not to disagree for the sake of disagreement alone, but I don't believe buckshot is a great bear defense at all when you look at two issues: Penetration and spread.

If you look at tests for both, you see that buckshot is a very limited option even at close ranges.

I will stick with the biggest, fattest piece of lead I can throw at the critters as fast as they can go.

I disagree. In a close encounter situation with a charging bear, I don't care how good of a shooter you are with a rifle, you're gonna be scared to death. Your chances of dropping him in his tracks is much better with a face shot of 00 or 000 buck shot.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I think a good case can be made for buck or slugs, depending on how you look at it.

If you miss that face shot, you'll sure wish you had a slug. However, you have a better chance of making that face shot with a ten or twelve inch spread of 000 buck.

Six of one, half dozen of another.

I carry slugs, because that's what hits under the bead of my preferred shotgun.

 

[exavid]

In 1968 I backed up a handgunner who wanted to take a bear with his .44mag on the Upper Kelly River in NW Alaska. I'd flown the man in and backed him up with a 30-06 while he stalked a bear we'd seen just before landing on an adjacent river bar. (This was before the days of no hunting and flying on the same day.) After the hunter got within 50yds of the bear it made a couple false charges then made a serious one at about 30yds. I was behind the hunter and a bit to his right when he fired twice with his .44. Both were pretty much frontal chest shots and the bear went down. One more close up final shot did the job on a fairly decent grizzly. In those days I wasn't much into handloads or ballistics so I don't know what kind of ammo he used but that .44 did the job though I fully expected to use my rifle and just about did because he let the bear get closer than I'd have allowed. I know one other guy in Juneau when I lived there that got a black bear with a .44mag. and have heard of one killed with a .357 but don't have personal knowledge of that. All in all I find it hard to believe that a handgun won't make a difference in a bear attack.

 

[Alaska444]

Today, 04:04 PM #39
rugerman07
Member


Join Date: April 6, 2007
Location: Southern Illinois
Posts: 389
Quote:
Not to disagree for the sake of disagreement alone, but I don't believe buckshot is a great bear defense at all when you look at two issues: Penetration and spread.

If you look at tests for both, you see that buckshot is a very limited option even at close ranges.

I will stick with the biggest, fattest piece of lead I can throw at the critters as fast as they can go.
I disagree. In a close encounter situation with a charging bear, I don't care how good of a shooter you are with a rifle, you're gonna be scared to death. Your chances of dropping him in his tracks is much better with a face shot of 00 or 000 buck shot.
__________________
Help support concealed carry in Illinois, show your support. http://www.cafepress.com/sicc

For close encounter, let's say 15 yards or less, you still have to aim your buckshot at the bear. Beyond 15 yards, it begins to spread so that by 25 yards, you will be lucky to get half of the pellets on target. Once again, spread of the buckshot for most loads is rather rapid.

Secondly, the sectional density of spherical shells are rather pitiful. You don't get the penetration needed to do the damage needed to drop a bear. Take a look at a test of buckshot vs slugs on car doors. Granted, not a bear, but you get the idea on penetration and spread from this video. I will still go with big chunks of lead for myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWRT...DvjVQa1PpcFMlqWREy9MwPDmuMBUa7lwi2QJCvIXs0uw=

 

[KodiakBeer]

There's a huge difference between hunting a bear and being hunted by a bear. In hunting you're ready, your gun is leveled, you stalk in and make the shot.

When they come after you, you just hear some breaking brush (if you're lucky) and then they're on you. If you hear them or see them coming in you'll have one or two seconds to make the shot. If you don't hear or see them, they just take you down.

 

[KodiakBeer]

Beyond 15 yards, it begins to spread so that by 25 yards, you will be lucky to get half of the pellets on target. Once again, spread of the buckshot for most loads is rather rapid.

If they're that far away, you're hunting or poaching. That's not how these attacks unfold. Mine was from under ten yards. Rarely they begin their rush from as far as twenty yards and then only because it's open ground between them and you.

Bears are ambush predators. They either lie on a game trail or stalk in from downwind and then rush from very close range. Or, just as commonly they're sleeping and somebody walks up on them and they spring from close range.

Whatever the case, it would be extremely rare to shoot a bear (in self defense) from 25 yards.

 

[Alaska444]

Dear Kodiakbeer,

I have great respect for your knowledge and your courage in the way that you handled your own bear mauling and I do look forward to the last free offer of your book that I believe has one more chance to come.

Grizzly bears are a frightful creature and I hope to only see them up close in a zoo. My only encounter with a bear was when I was three years old near Fairbanks when a black bear came and brushed up against our umbrella tent back in 1961. My dad yelled when he saw the bear paw come within a foot of his head. That is when I awoke and can still remember the silhouette of the bear standing on his hind legs with the ever present sun in early morning summer Alaska.

I am aware of many bear encounters documented in books and other sources and to say that you would not likely have a chance to shoot a bear in self defense at 25 yards and then be charged with hunting/poaching is not the case with several encounters documented. I don't wish to test any of these theories in person as you have, but bear attacks come in wide variety of shapes and presentations. Yes, the ambush attacks are pretty much impossible to defend against no matter what your choice of gun/pepper spray since you can't react and deploy that quickly. At 10 yards, you have 1-2 seconds at best.

Several factors come into play. Two of the most important are numbers of people in a group and visibility. Most attacks occur with only 1-2 people and in dense brush. Attacks on 4 or more people are rare, but do occur. The avoidance of these two factors increases the avoidance factor. Playing in dense brush in bear country is asking for an encounter. Unfortunately, there are many places where it can't be avoided, in that case, rule number two on numbers applies.

Once again, I have great respect for your knowledge on these issues, but attacks do come in a variety of circumstances and there are many documented attacks thwarted by shots at 25 yards and sometimes more that are ruled DLP's. Once again, 25 yards for a bear is 2-3 seconds, not much time at all.

My main issue with buckshot is the lack of penetration, the low sectional density and the need to still aim the gun.

 

[KodiakBeer]

I just can say that over the last ten years I've personally talked with a variety of people who have had the experience, and read far more accounts than I can recall. When it comes to grizzly/browns, the attacks almost always unfold as I describe - from extreme close range. Some of those accounts are related in the book.

I'm not talking about legality or being charged if you shoot a bear doing his threat display at 30 yards, because for the most part the state will give you the benefit of a doubt. Yet, few (if any) of those are actual attacks or would have turned into attacks... in my opinion. It's only my opinion, based on my experiences. I take no offense with you or anyone else who disagrees.

 

[orionengnr]

Quote:
They found the gun made no statistical difference in the outcome of these encounters, which resulted in 151 human injuries and 172 bear fatalities

I found it hard to get past this sentence. If there were no statistical difference with a gun being used, how were there 172 bear fatalities??? With no guns I would expect there to be 323 human injuries/fatalities instead of 151.

Yes, the art of actually reading, or analyzing what one reads, is a skill that is mostly obsolete. Thank our "public education" system.

Most people have devolved into absorbing sound bytes without thinking.

 

[Alaska444]

Dear Kodiakbeer,

I found a great study done a while back by Stephen Herrero that had some interesting stats:

In 64% (14 of 22; G1 = 1.62, P = 0.203) of incidents involving grizzly bears, the inferred motivation was “startled”. Of these incidents where the bear’s inferred motivation was “startled,” the initial encounter distance was <50 m in 100% (11 of 11; G1 = 14.6, P < 0.001) of the incidents where the initial encounter distance was known.

http://www.macecanada.com/downloads/AB_injuries.pdf

Most attacks are by startle reaction of an unsuspecting bear. In this study, he used 50 meters or less as the measuring stick. 50 meters gives you 3-4 seconds of a headlong charge right at you to respond. That is not much time to comprehend and react as you have stated. Herrero didn't break down the distances less than 50 meters, but of course, many will be that type of distance and less in these startle attacks.

The take home message is to have more than one type of defense and more than one person running around in bear country.

 

[chute2thrill]

Imagine if we had tigers......

 

[KodiakBeer]

Most attacks are by startle reaction of an unsuspecting bear.

I certainly agree. As to less than 50 meters, I also agree. I suspect if you broke those down in increments less than 50 meters, the great majority would be less than 20 meters.

When you break down the other 36% of attacks (at least where brown/grizzlies are the culprit) you'll find the majority of those are stalk or ambush attacks. You're packing out a deer or caribou and the bear stalks in and rushes you. Or, the bear is laid up on a game trail to ambush game and you happen along. Again, from very close range when the final rush begins.

The problem always, is that you have so many anecdotal "attacks" that are ended with a gun before they really begin. I could relate two or three of those told to me for every actual attack survivor I've spoken or emailed with.

I don't know how well this will illustrate the issue, but here's a short video I shot below my house a couple summers ago. This is about 5am and a bear is acting like an idiot in the surf. I decided I'd be an idiot and go down and film him. I was armed, but what I did at first was get in between him and the woods/brush behind me. I cut off his escape route.

So, if you watch closely, he gets nervous a couple times and begins to run at me. Just short lopes to tell me to back off - it's particularly apparent at 1.41 seconds into the vid. What you can't see is that during the entire vid I keep edging to the left to give him an exit route, but then he keeps running my way and cutting himself off.

I'm holding the camera to my eye, and every time he looks my way I drop my face in submission. When the camera pans to the ground or looks left or right, I'm turning my face or bowing my head to tell him I'm not a threat. Each time I do that, he immediately looses interest in me.

A different person having this bear take even a short lope at him might have shot him, and you'd have another case of someone being saved by a gun - at fairly long range, because the bear is at least 40 or 50 yards from me.

Anyway, typical bear behavior: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt86lKjaA7c



.