Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42

Thread: Non-Lethal self defense against bears....

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    730

    Question Non-Lethal self defense against bears....

    A recent thread had a lengthy discussion around bear spray. Can a TAZER or STUN GUN type device be adapted or invented to disable an attacking bear at close range. They sure seem to work on agitated humans. Years ago, I witnessed a fight between 2 large (125# or so) male Rottweilers end abruptly with the use of a stun gun. The dogs owner told me that was the only way she could stop them once they got into it. The dogs weren't damaged, simply incapacitated for a few minutes.

    I would think a powerful electric charge to a bear's central nervous system would end an attack/charge. Any thoughts?

    I'd still carry my pistol, and usually, a rifle, but it would be great to be able to effectively disable a bear so you can get away to safety, particularly if the problem bear is a sow with cubs.

  2. #2
    Moderator kingfisherktn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ketchikan, AK
    Posts
    4,076

    Default

    I'd consider getting one for you to try if I can video the whole episode.

  3. #3
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    730

    Default Bear defense

    I'd imagine that the voltage would have to be stepped up quite a bit over the available units. I like this as an idea over a can of pepper spray, but can it be done?

    Wouldn't it be interesting to see a 400# furious mama bear on the ground - incapacitated - if it can be done?

    By the way, pepper spray was tested on captured bears before use in the field. That seems to be a sensible approach.
    Last edited by Rick; 07-03-2008 at 17:52. Reason: omission

  4. #4

    Default

    A stungun would need some serious power to zap a 1,400 lb grizzly hard enough to make it drop. The probes would have to be shot out pretty hard to penetrate their hide, and they'd need good enough range that a person wouldn't have to be within spitting distance before taking a shot. Plus, would they be a one-shot deal? What if I miss and need a followup shot?

    If those issues can be addressed, I think a handheld stunning device might make a good alternative to pepper spray or a handgun.
    Tsimshian tribe, wolf clan, the house of Walsk.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    516

    Default Use a shot gun

    Or really big Pistol!!!!



    Why take chances, If it's going to kill me then I feel that I need to kill it!
    Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.

  6. #6
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default This concept was tested, but not practical

    TASER used to have a video on their website of their prototype Animal TASER being used on a huge bull (you know, the kind cowboys ride ). I just tried to find it and the video page has been taken down. Anyhoo, this "ramped up" TASER took that bull, locked him up stiff as a board and he fell over onto his side like right now. It was pretty impressive to watch.

    Here's the bad part. After the 4-5 second burst of electricity shut off, that bull jumped back to his feet, red-eyed and blowing snot, ready to kill him some cowboy. The guy running the TASER was safely on the other side of the fence. Not so sure this would be a very good arrangement in the middle of the woods. The effects of the TASER wear off the instant you stop applying electricity and now you have a really mad animal (if he wasn't before).

    Pepper spray has a lasting effect that the bear has to deal with while you vacate the area. It's also been proven to work... most of the time. Same with firearms. There just is no completely "right" answer after avoidance fails.
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  7. #7
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JOAT View Post
    .......Here's the bad part. After the 4-5 second burst of electricity shut off, that bull jumped back to his feet, red-eyed and blowing snot, ready to kill him some cowboy. The guy running the TASER was safely on the other side of the fence. Not so sure this would be a very good arrangement in the middle of the woods. The effects of the TASER wear off the instant you stop applying electricity and now you have a really mad animal (if he wasn't before)........
    I tried to point this out to somebody with regard to pepper spray. I'd been sprayed, and my attitude afterwards was one of rage and the distinct desire to whip some butt.

    Conversely, when I was shot with a gun, my immediate reaction was to seek a way to the hospital.

    I'm not sure what the aversion to firearms are. Why fool around with toys in the face of a very horrible experience? Why not just defer to the proven technology of firearms?

  8. #8

    Default

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    I tried to point this out to somebody with regard to pepper spray. I'd been sprayed, and my attitude afterwards was one of rage and the distinct desire to whip some butt.
    A couple of points... First, your sense of attitude and motivation is quite different than a bear or moose, etc. Second, you didn't get sprayed with a powerful bear spray product. OC is vastly different than OC combined with Capsaicin (UDAP). Kind of like comparing a sling shot to a 44 mag.

    Conversely, when I was shot with a gun, my immediate reaction was to seek a way to the hospital.
    Once again, your motivations and actions and reactions can not be used to predict a wild animals actions and reactions. Bears can be unpredictable after being shot, sometimes they flee and sometimes they they are enraged and press the attack.

    I'm not sure what the aversion to firearms are.
    I personally have absolutley no aversion to firearms. My view on this subject leaves emotion out of the equation. I have simply considered the *evidence* and the *facts* and have to conclude that a good bear spray is more effective than than a firearm in deterring a bear, especially a handgun.

    Why fool around with toys in the face of a very horrible experience? Why not just defer to the proven technology of firearms?
    And here is where you are going to flat out loose this debate. Proven??? I would sure like to see your proof... Firearms have deterred and killed bears, but not always. sometimes the person who used a firearm against a bear has been mauled or killed. Tell me... if handguns are so effective against bears, why do many hunters choose to hunt bears with a powerful rifle and a partner or guide who also has a powerful rifle as a back up. Why the need for a back up??? After all a firearm is proven right??? Is it because a lot of bear hunters know that bears are not always stopped with one or even multiple bullets??? And you think you will hands down stop a surprised bear at close quarters with your handgun?

    Back to *proof*, I and others in these forums have asked numerous times for people to provide just one case, just one, where a bear has seriously injured or killed someone who has time to effectively use bear spray as a deterrent and so far that challange has gone unanswered. So please show me the *proof* and save the *emotional gun rhetoric* for people who are not interested in *facts*.

  9. #9
    Member MyKC395's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    94

    Default MX Taser

    The MX Animal Taser,IMHO, would not be a vialbe tool to use against a bear. There are just too many variables that can murphy's law on you. For example, for the Taser to work both probes must hit the intended animal. One misses and the taser is useless, unless you want to perform a drive stun on the bear, which is not advisable. If you manage to get both probes into the intended target and during the fall one probe either pulls loose or the thin copper wire that connects the probe to the cartridge breaks you are back to square one. I don't believe there would be time to change the cartridge and get another shot off. The third problem would be even if you managed a good hit and dropped the animal, the cycle of charge it distributes does not last for ever. Once the taser is off the effects are gone. I don't know the length of the cycle for the MX, but the C2 (civilian taser) is 30 seconds (I think). Bears smell pretty well and are much faster so you may be stalked, only now the bear is all amped up, (pun intended).

    Here is a youtube link to the video JOAT was referencing. The quality is not that great, but I could not figure out how to take if from the Taser dvd and put it on here.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOhYvu_EgwM

    Found this one right after posting and it says bear defense...Love their products but that is nuts.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA73p...eature=related
    Last edited by MyKC395; 07-13-2008 at 12:39. Reason: add info and website

  10. #10
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default Today's Medred column...

    Was just perusing the ADN and found that Craig Medred (once again) is right on topic with his article today. It's about shooting problem black bears. This is a must read. And you really need to note the case presented of the Denali Park shooting on July 4th. Specifically, pepper spray was used and HAD NO EFFECT. After all else failed, the 12g slug stopped the attack and the bear ran away. It wasn't found, but is presumed dead as there was significant blood trail. The actions of this bear showed that it need to be killed, not just deterred.

    http://www.adn.com/outdoors/story/463256.html

    Gonna love to see the comments section fill up on this article
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  11. #11
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    730

    Default Tazer

    My point in starting this thread wasn't anti-firearms. I would like to have an option that didn't necessarily kill the bear, but gave the bear a really bad experience and ended any threat. I would think that if a number of probes/contacts fired in shotgun fashion by the device, with only 2 needed to complete the circuit, would increase the likelihood of success.

    Remember, firearms bear defense isn't foolproof. Some bears have taken repeated rounds of .458's and still fought.

    I'm still convinced that the most reliable way to deter a bear is the age old solution ... dogs. The dogs will usually distract a bear and allow a more judicious application of gunpowder. I'm not talking about a couch potato, untrained pet dog. My choice is my Border Collie, not one of my sled dogs. Border collies have been bred for centuries to harry animals, and do so by instinct. Further, a dog's ears and nose are an excellent early warning system, i.e., I'm less likely to it be surprised by a bear. But Rover has to have had his training - the normal control/obedience regimen. And he needs to know that barking is only for his job, not for fun. So, as far as i'm concerned, my canine hunting buddy me safer in the woods up here than a firearm alone.

    There are many breeds that would work well in this role. I happen to have a Border Collie, and he suits my purpose. By the way, he's not a hunting dog, and merely accompanies me. So I'm not "hunting with dogs" as per the AK F&G reg.s.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JOAT View Post
    Was just perusing the ADN and found that Craig Medred (once again) is right on topic with his article today. It's about shooting problem black bears. This is a must read. And you really need to note the case presented of the Denali Park shooting on July 4th. Specifically, pepper spray was used and HAD NO EFFECT. After all else failed, the 12g slug stopped the attack and the bear ran away. It wasn't found, but is presumed dead as there was significant blood trail. The actions of this bear showed that it need to be killed, not just deterred.

    http://www.adn.com/outdoors/story/463256.html

    Gonna love to see the comments section fill up on this article
    That's an interesting article and I would like to know what kind of spray they used and the details of the encounter. It also states that "...you can't deter all the bears all the time..." I would also like to know if they have any other cases where spray has failed and all the details. I have heard of two other cases where bears came back after the first shot of spray. In one case they shot it and in the other case they sprayed it again and it left.

    Also, in my personal opinion, I do believe some bears need to be killed. Any bear that shows a predatory nature toward people needs to be hunted down and killed and any bear that draws human blood or shows a tendancy to attack people without cause needs to be killed.

    As for tazers, I would pick a gun over a tazer. IMO way too many issues with a tazer.

  13. #13
    Member JOAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Soldotna, ALASKA since '78
    Posts
    3,720

    Default not a black and white issue

    Not sure why this discussion always ends up at pepper vs lead, as if you have to go with one or the other like it's a presidential election or something.

    Bear defense, just like most self-defense situations, is a layered approach. You start by learning about bear behavior, and then being aware of your surroundings and avoid getting into a spot where cornering or surprising bear is likely. You advertise your presence where applicable so the bear has a chance to know you're coming and leave (which they will do most of the time). You camp and store food & game in an appropriate manner to avoid drawing bears in. Dogs are good, too.

    If you choose pepper spray, it needs to be a non-expired can of the stuff rated for bears, not the little keychain canister for muggers. It also needs to be hanging or holstered on your front so it can be deployed within 2-3 seconds. It does no good to carry it in your pack.

    If you choose a gun, same access rules apply. You are allowed to carry both in order to cover most situations. If you have a curious bear that's getting too close, you can grab the pepper and teach him a lesson without permanent harm or all the DLP nightmare paperwork and such. But if the pepper fails or you're thrust into a life-or-death situation, you can go to lead to save your life. It's a progression, not an either/or issue.

    As for the Taser concept, it looks cool in the testing lab, but once you inject batteries, electronics, flying darted-wires, and such into the life-or-death struggle, you've made it way too complicated with too much stuff to fail. Keep it dead simple... dangling can of pepper and a big bore revolver and/or rifle or shotgun.
    Winter is Coming...

    Go GeocacheAlaska!

  14. #14
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MontanaRifleman View Post
    Originally Posted by Mark
    I tried to point this out to somebody with regard to pepper spray. I'd been sprayed, and my attitude afterwards was one of rage and the distinct desire to whip some butt.
    A couple of points... First, your sense of attitude and motivation is quite different than a bear or moose, etc.....
    Says who? How do you know if a bear surprised by somebody at close range that gets sprayed won't be as pissed of as I would?

    ....Second, you didn't get sprayed with a powerful bear spray product. OC is vastly different than OC combined with Capsaicin (UDAP). Kind of like comparing a sling shot to a 44 mag.
    And I'm not 750+ lbs, either.

    Conversely, when I was shot with a gun, my immediate reaction was to seek a way to the hospital.
    Once again, your motivations and actions and reactions can not be used to predict a wild animals actions and reactions......
    Now that I agree with (which is different than your statement above).

    However, it certainly reflects my experiences. When shot in the face with OC spray, I was partially and temporarily blinded and stinging, and pissed off as Hell. When shot in the head I was focused on stopping the bleeding and getting medical treatment as soon as possible.

    ....Bears can be unpredictable after being shot, sometimes they flee and sometimes they they are enraged and press the attack.....
    After being shot my first reaction was cover and stopping the bleeding. I then was looking for the ******* who shot me so I could return fire. When I ascertained that it was an accidental shooting and caught the attention of the shooter, I was then focused on gaining the medical treatment.

    I can assure you that if there was a hostile involved, I would have been returning fire before seeking the medical attention.

    In contrast, when sprayed with OC, I didn't need medical attention. All I needed was a shower.

    I'm not sure what the aversion to firearms are.
    I personally have absolutley no aversion to firearms......
    Some people do, and that is who I was referring to.

    My view on this subject leaves emotion out of the equation.
    I would hope so. It isn't an emotional subject.

    ....I have simply considered the *evidence* and the *facts* and have to conclude that a good bear spray is more effective than than a firearm in deterring a bear, especially a handgun....
    I have also considered the *evidence* and the *facts* and have concluded that a good bear spray is not as effective as a firearm in defense from a bear attack.

    Neither, in my opinion, is a good deterrant for a bear attack. Behavior is the best deterrant, and even that isn't foolproof.

    That's why one carries the firearm or spray.

    Why fool around with toys in the face of a very horrible experience? Why not just defer to the proven technology of firearms?
    And here is where you are going to flat out loose this debate. Proven??? I would sure like to see your proof...
    Proof of the technology of firearms? A supposed military man is asking me for proof of the proven technology of firearms?

    Did the United States Army arm you alone with pepper spray when all of the armed forces I know and worked with were armed with firearms?

    As for the use of firearms in defense of bear attack, you may begin reading at your pleasure:

    http://www.amazon.com/Some-Bears-Kil...5977934&sr=1-1

    http://www.amazon.com/Bear-Tales-Age...5977934&sr=1-2

    http://www.amazon.com/More-Alaska-Ta...5977934&sr=1-6

    http://www.amazon.com/More-Bear-Tale...5977934&sr=1-7

    http://www.amazon.com/Alaska-Bear-Ta...5977934&sr=1-8

    Larry Kaniut is the clear authority on research of bear attacks in Alaska. He has researched many more than just the fatal attacks, and I can assure you he knows of many more attacks not published in the above books he has written.

    (And, just for kicks and grins, the defensive weapon that his research has shown has a 100% success record (as far as I found reading his books) has been a flare gun. I think he has found 3 cases where they were used to repel an attack, and it worked all 3 times. I guess Richard Pryor can attest to how focused one gets when one is on fire.)

    ....Firearms have deterred and killed bears, but not always....
    That is true. Nothing is perfect.

    However, why don't you go hunting a brown bear with pepper spray and let us know how many you harvest.

    ....Tell me... if handguns are so effective against bears, why do many hunters choose to hunt bears with a powerful rifle and a partner or guide who also has a powerful rifle as a back up....
    Obviously, the rifle is more powerful and accurate than a handgun. That is also why armed soldiers are primarily armed with rifles (but you knew that, right?)

    ....Why the need for a back up???....
    For the reason stated above: nothing is perfect.

    That is why I carry both a rifle and a handgun while in the field, and that is why most biology personnel working hands on with bears carry handguns. For me, my rifle is in the boat/plane/ATV/hanging-on-the-tree/leaning-on-a-hummock-while-skinning-the-moose. The handgun is always at my side and within reach.

    I do not hunt brown bears with handguns, but if a bear surprises me and is on top of me, and if I can get a single hand on that handgun in my waistband, I'm hopeful that a half dozen rounds point blank will get him off of me so I can crawl back, broken and bleeding, to my rifle.

    Biologists work with tranquilized bears with handguns at thier sides. The reasons should be obvious.

    ....After all a firearm is proven right???...
    Yes, they are.

    There has never been a single bullet blown back into the face of it's shooter by the breeze. Never. Ever.

    .....And you think you will hands down stop a surprised bear at close quarters with your handgun?....
    No, I do not. Nor do I think you will do so with a spray.

    ....Back to *proof*, I and others in these forums have asked numerous times for people to provide just one case, just one, where a bear has seriously injured or killed someone who has time to effectively use bear spray as a deterrent and so far that challange has gone unanswered. So please show me the *proof* and save the *emotional gun rhetoric* for people who are not interested in *facts*....
    1) Here is your challenge answered:

    Although the (spring '00) bear mauling of the woman in the Smokies was a rarity, bear protection seems best with a firearm. Unfortunately, most National Parks prohibit firearms (for us--not Rangers. They use them for bear protection, esp. in Glacier N.P. where most bear attcks occur in "Lower '48" Meanwhile advising us to use pepper spray)[Wrangell-St.Elias allows firearms--Alaska]. Missionary friend Keith Benner and I were attacked by brown bear (grizzly) along Kenai River in Alaska ('A Can of Spray, A Lot of Luck; Anchorage Daily News; 9/29/96). Sprayed bear in charge--I was knocked down with side-arm swipe to chest--sprayed rest in bears mouth--bear ran away--I jumped up---Bear made U-turn, charged again. Resigned myself to being mauled--turned back to it so as not to see--but bear went around me knocking Keith against tree before leaving. Pepper spray allowed face to face encounter--risking mauling and death--whereas a firearm (.338 rifle) could have stopped the bear in its charge. Furthermore, ADN followup article cited biologists finding pepper spray ineffective on black bears due to a unique protective mucous coating (10/06/96). Information not found in propagandic outdoors magazines, etc. Fort Collins Coloradoan did print my editorial this spring though. Yet many rejections/much censorship on this issue. GORP.com removed my latest post and banned me from their website. They also manipulated my former posts--removing my strong arguments while leaving weaker ones containing error. Contact me for further info.
    ......Did anyone notice the ADN reported that government officials responding to the attack carried 12 gauge shotgun whereas outdoor magazine and state/national park propaganda tells us to use pepper spray? See our bear attack story from 9/29/96: 'A Can of Spray; a Lot of Luck'; ADN; C. Medred. The article tells of how I experienced a face to face encounter with a grizzly (brown bear) when it attacked and knocked me down on a trail along the Kenai River near Renfroes Hole. Pepper spray failed to stop the bear in its charge. --Chris Deile (or google search my name, try Bruce Deile also--my middle name--and find my site describing the attack--it's on site "Bewildered Yet?"...)
    Ultimately, here is your bottom line:

    .....Like seatbelts, bear spray saves lives. But just as seatbelts don’t make driving off a bridge safe, bear spray
    is not a shield against deliberately seeking out or attracting a grizzly bear. No deterrent is 100% effective,
    but compared to all others, including firearms, proper use of bear spray has proven to be the best method for
    fending off threatening and attacking bears, and for preventing injury to the person and animal involved.

    Because the grizzly bear is federally protected in the Lower 48 States as a threatened species, it is a violation of the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA) to shoot one, except in self defense and defense of others during an imminent
    attack. Penalties under the ESA include up to 6 months in prison and a $100,000 fine. Additional penalties may
    also apply to violations of state law. For more information about bear spray and its effectiveness, see:
    http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/wildlife/igbc
    You'd probably be better off carrying spray instead of firearms (unless you're big enough to carry both). Those firearms might get you in trouble. Spraying those nasty bears away like a skunk is probably the better option for you down there. The bears are "protected" by bureaucrats.

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    702

    Default

    [quote=MontanaRifleman;302576]

    My view on this subject leaves emotion out of the equation. I have simply considered the *evidence* and the *facts* and have to conclude that a good bear spray is more effective than than a firearm in deterring a bear, especially a handgun
    Now that you have decided this for us what else is there to say. Myself, I'd rather carry a gun and get eaten by a bear than carry around some girlishlooking spray bottle in a holster. That's just me though. Have fun with your spray bottle.

  16. #16
    New member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    730

    Unhappy Same old feud.

    Sorry I seem to have reignited this worn out feud about pepper spray on bears. Frankly, I have no interest in wearing a can of bear spray in the woods. As far as I am concerned, that crap is touted as really great to convince people in the lower-48 that they don't need a firearm to be safe in wild areas, and, besides, many have no training/familiarity with firearms. It's a great idea for anti-firearms types who have watched too many Disney shows. But what if it doesn't work? Apparently, sometimes it has failed .... re: Craig Medred's report. The 12 gauge solved the problem, pepper spray failed.

    Some years ago, in Fairbanks, there were a series of abductions and murders of women from area shopping center parking lots. My wife decided to carry a small can of Mace and a S&W .38 Special in her parka pocket. And to this day, she maintains that system. I suppose that some may feel that Mace is the best self defense for women, but I think a 158 grain semi-wadcutter, or 2, to the center of mass will do a better job. And possibly save the public the expense of a trial and incarceration.

    Firearms, not pepper spray, are what brought us to the top of the food chain.

    My thought was that a specialty Tazer, developed specifically for use on bears, might be an interesting addition, not a replacement for firearms.

    By the way, has anyone read or heard how the mauled 15 year old from Anchorage is doing?

  17. #17

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark View Post
    And I'm not 750+ lbs, either.
    Size might be an issue when it comes to guns and bullets but not chemicals. Bears flat out dont like the stuff.

    ...However, it certainly reflects my experiences. When shot in the face with OC spray, I was partially and temporarily blinded and stinging, and pissed off as Hell.
    Who knows what the bear thinks? What matters is, what will it do? And form all the reports and stories I've read, they leave except in the case of two that I posted about earlier. The first came back after being sprayed and was shot and not sure what it was sprayed with. The second was sprayed with UDAP and left after it was sprayed a second time.

    I would hope so. It isn't an emotional subject.
    Oh, but I think it is. For some reason some seem to feel threatened that their guns might be taken away or whatever. Ridiculous.

    I have also considered the *evidence* and the *facts* and have concluded that a good bear spray is not as effective as a firearm in defense from a bear attack.
    Not sure how you came up with your conclusion, because from what I've read People who use spray for defense/deterrent get hurt and killed less than people who use guns

    Neither, in my opinion, is a good deterrant for a bear attack. Behavior is the best deterrant, and even that isn't foolproof.
    I agree, but what your talking about is preventtion not deterrence, but I'm not going to debate semantics with you.

    That's why one carries the firearm or spray.
    Cool, good for you. It's your choice.

    Proof of the technology of firearms? A supposed military man is asking me for proof of the proven technology of firearms?
    What does this have to do withthe subject? I know about firearm technology and what guns can do. The question about *proof* refers to effective detererrence/defense against bears. And you have alread admitted that guns dont always stop bears.

    Did the United States Army arm you alone with pepper spray when all of the armed forces I know and worked with were armed with firearms?
    Once again, what in the world does this have to do with the subject?

    As for the use of firearms in defense of bear attack, you may begin reading at your pleasure:

    http://www.amazon.com/Some-Bears-Kil...5977934&sr=1-1

    http://www.amazon.com/Bear-Tales-Age...5977934&sr=1-2

    http://www.amazon.com/More-Alaska-Ta...5977934&sr=1-6

    http://www.amazon.com/More-Bear-Tale...5977934&sr=1-7

    http://www.amazon.com/Alaska-Bear-Ta...5977934&sr=1-8

    Larry Kaniut is the clear authority on research of bear attacks in Alaska. He has researched many more than just the fatal attacks, and I can assure you he knows of many more attacks not published in the above books he has written.
    Is he an expert or compiler of bear attack stories and what does it have to do with the subject? Does he have stories of bear spray not working? I have read a ton of stories on bear attacks, so what?

    ...However, why don't you go hunting a brown bear with pepper spray and let us know how many you harvest.
    Keep on track...you keep wandering off the subject. Were we talking about hunting? If I want to kill a bear, I'll use a powerful rifle.

    Obviously, the rifle is more powerful and accurate than a handgun. That is also why armed soldiers are primarily armed with rifles (but you knew that, right?)
    Exactley, so it seems to me that a handgun's effectiveness against a bear attack is very questionable and that stats back that up. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't.

    That is why I carry both a rifle and a handgun while in the field,
    Wow, sorry to hear that. Sounds like a lot of bulk and weight, especially if you're going fishing.

    and that is why most biology personnel working hands on with bears carry handguns.
    Not sure you can say *most*.

    I do not hunt brown bears with handguns, but if a bear surprises me and is on top of me, and if I can get a single hand on that handgun in my waistband, I'm hopeful that a half dozen rounds point blank will get him off of me so I can crawl back, broken and bleeding, to my rifle.
    You can crawl back broken and bleeding if you want, but I don't plan on getting chewed up

    .....And you think you will hands down stop a surprised bear at close quarters with your handgun?....
    No, I do not. Nor do I think you will do so with a spray.
    On the contrary, I fell 99% confident wih spray.

    Where is it answered? Was the woman in NC seriously mauled after using bear spray? If so, what type of spray was she using? This is a pretty obscure ref from a post in some thread 8 yrs ago. Is this the only thing you could find?

    As for the guy and his buddy, doesn't sound like either of them got hurt bad. Wonder what would have happened if he didn't have the spray? And who knows what would have happened if he had a gun? One can only speculate.

    And to raise the challange a notch... has anyone ever been mauled or killed using UDAP or similar product. There's a big difference between a sling shot and a 44 mag.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dws View Post
    Now that you have decided this for us what else is there to say. Myself, I'd rather carry a gun and get eaten by a bear than carry around some girlishlooking spray bottle in a holster. That's just me though. Have fun with your spray bottle.
    I haven't decided didly for you or anyone. You have your choice and your post is a prefect example of irrational emotionalism. Are you worried about a fashion statement? Have you always worried about what people think of you? I sure dont have to worry about my manhood. A gun doesn't make a man.

  19. #19

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick View Post
    Sorry .... Frankly, I have no interest in wearing a can of bear spray in the woods. As far as I am concerned, that crap is touted as really great to convince people in the lower-48 that they don't need a firearm to be safe in wild areas, and, besides, many have no training/familiarity with firearms. It's a great idea for anti-firearms types who have watched too many Disney shows. But what if it doesn't work? Apparently, sometimes it has failed .... re: Craig Medred's report. The 12 gauge solved the problem, pepper spray failed.
    Didn't you bring up the subject of spray and isn't this your quote?

    By the way, pepper spray was tested on captured bears before use in the field. That seems to be a sensible approach.
    Firearms, not pepper spray, are what brought us to the top of the food chain.
    Maybe you should think before you type. God put us at the top of the food chain, not firearms. He gave us intellegence and dominion over animals. And if you don't believe in God, humans were still at the top of the food chain long before firearms.

    If you don't like bear spray, cool. You started a thread called "Non Lethal Self Defense Against Bears" in a public forum and *you* mentioned bear spray in *your* thread. I had some different views about some posts and joined the discussion. If you want to sit around and slap each other on the back and have a oneway discussion cool, enjoy your bliss.

  20. #20
    Mark
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MontanaRifleman View Post
    My view on this subject leaves emotion out of the equation.

    I would hope so. It isn't an emotional subject.
    Oh, but I think it is. For some reason some seem to feel threatened that their guns might be taken away or whatever. Ridiculous.
    So it's you who thinks it's an emotional subject? And because "some seem to feel threatened that their guns might be taken away or whatever"? Because of a bear attack?

    And so the answer is to carry pepper spray?

    I'm really confused now. Another thread dealt with the rights of Americans to carry firearms for personal protection in national parks (which would include self defense from human predators as well as bears), but that isn't about a fear that thier guns might be taken away.

    In that case their rights to "bear arms" have already been taken away. They're trying to get them back legally.

    I was unaware that the subject of tazers, spray, and other non-lethal means of protection against bears was part and parcel to the right to keep and bear arms.

    Of course, I did mention and reference this, didn't I?:

    Because the grizzly bear is federally protected in the Lower 48 States as a threatened species, it is a violation of the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA) to shoot one, except in self defense and defense of others during an imminent
    attack. Penalties under the ESA include up to 6 months in prison and a $100,000 fine. Additional penalties may
    also apply to violations of state law. For more information about bear spray and its effectiveness, see:
    http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/wildlife/igbc
    I have also considered the *evidence* and the *facts* and have concluded that a good bear spray is not as effective as a firearm in defense from a bear attack.
    Not sure how you came up with your conclusion, because from what I've read People who use spray for defense/deterrent get hurt and killed less than people who use guns
    It's like the flare gun statistics I mentioned above. Larry Kaniut's research has shown a 100% success rate.

    Of course, there are only 3 cases.

    The number of cases of spray being used are extremely low compared to centuries of cases of bear attacks against humans armed with firearms, and that includes cases where the humans were actually the aggressors (hunters who failed to kill the bear with the initial shots).

    But the number of cases of firearms (and yes, even handguns) being used to successfully to defend humans against full attack are legion. Here's one right here in Anchorage which happened fairly recently:

    .....A massive male brown bear erupted from the forest less than 20 feet away, claws tearing up hard-packed earth as it charged toward the 57-year-old .

    The bear, later estimated at 750 pounds, had apparently been guarding the remains of a moose taken in a Fort Richardson bow hunt in the woods about 75 feet off the gravel track used by hikers, bikers and dog walkers.

    "I fired the first shot, and I aimed at its shoulders," Boyd said. "When the first shot didn't faze it, I fired the second time, and it turned into the ditch, and I shot three more times, and it went down."....
    Proof of the technology of firearms? A supposed military man is asking me for proof of the proven technology of firearms?
    What does this have to do withthe subject? I know about firearm technology and what guns can do. The question about *proof* refers to effective detererrence/defense against bears. And you have alread admitted that guns dont always stop bears.
    My point was (and still is) that firearms are a proven technology. That's what I said up front, I repeated, and I state again.

    Larry Kaniut is the clear authority on research of bear attacks in Alaska. He has researched many more than just the fatal attacks, and I can assure you he knows of many more attacks not published in the above books he has written.
    Is he an expert or compiler of bear attack stories and what does it have to do with the subject?....
    He has interviewed more bear attack victims than anybody else in Alaska.

    I would think that bear attacks are very pertinent to the subject of bear attacks.

    ....Does he have stories of bear spray not working?....
    I believe he does. In emails to me he has mentioned that, according to his research, his belief is that firearms and shooting aggressive bears is the proper approach.

    ....I have read a ton of stories on bear attacks, so what?
    I believe bear attacks are a pertinent thing to research when researching bear attacks.

    If I want to kill a bear, I'll use a powerful rifle.
    That would be wise.

    And if you want to defend yourself from an aggressive bear, you advocate using an aerosol spray?

    Obviously, the rifle is more powerful and accurate than a handgun. That is also why armed soldiers are primarily armed with rifles (but you knew that, right?)
    Exactley, so it seems to me that a handgun's effectiveness against a bear attack is very questionable and that stats back that up.
    Reference, please (as I provided the reference above that shows that a handgun successfully prevented a mauling).

    That is why I carry both a rifle and a handgun while in the field,
    Wow, sorry to hear that. Sounds like a lot of bulk and weight, especially if you're going fishing.
    It is. That is why (like I wrote) the rifle is usually secured in my rig, and my handgun is always at my side.

    and that is why most biology personnel working hands on with bears carry handguns.
    Not sure you can say *most*.
    Actually I can. I can't say "all".

    I do not hunt brown bears with handguns, but if a bear surprises me and is on top of me, and if I can get a single hand on that handgun in my waistband, I'm hopeful that a half dozen rounds point blank will get him off of me so I can crawl back, broken and bleeding, to my rifle.
    You can crawl back broken and bleeding if you want, but I don't plan on getting chewed up
    Nor do I.

    But I also didn't plan on getting sprayed with OC spray or getting shot in the head, either.

    Mr. Boyd (referenced above) didn't plan on getting attacked, either.

    1) Here is your challenge answered:
    Where is it answered? Was the woman in NC seriously mauled after using bear spray?
    Yes, she was.

    ...If so, what type of spray was she using?...
    Bear spray.

    ....This is a pretty obscure ref from a post in some thread 8 yrs ago. Is this the only thing you could find?...
    Nope.

    ....As for the guy and his buddy, doesn't sound like either of them got hurt bad....
    Are we now moving the goalposts? The ball already went through the uprights.

    .....Wonder what would have happened if he didn't have the spray?...
    I don't know, and nor do I know what would have happened had he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express the night before.

    ....And who knows what would have happened if he had a gun? One can only speculate....
    Yes. You apparently like to do that.

    And to raise the challange a notch... has anyone ever been mauled or killed using UDAP or similar product.
    Yup. Just a few months ago:

    .....Big Bear Lake, California. A famous bear trained to perform in movies unexpectedly turned on a handler, fatally biting him in the neck. The bear was recently featured in the movie Semi-Pro featuring Will Ferrell. Pepper Spray was used to subdue the bear, and no further injuries were reported. The bear was a 7.5-foot (2.3 m) 700-pound (320 kg) 5 year old male named Rocky. He was being held in the "Predators in Action" animal training facility at the time of the incident. The bear's fate has yet to be determined......

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •