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: