So the person survived a Grizzly bear attack by killing the bear, but the rest of us should do it differently. Makes sense, right?

I remember reading a story in Outdoor life years ago. I think there were four guys, all with rifles. A bear charged them. Everyone unloaded. I think about 10-12 rounds were fired. The bear was hit twice. Luckily one of the shots killed it and it died at their feet. I think many people are delusional when it comes to how they will react to a giant bear running at them. I used to shoot USPSA for a few years and I can't tell you how many times I completely missed a target that was under 5 yards and the only stressor was a timer. It didn't even seem possible. If you don't train regularly drawing from your holster and trying to get shots on target as fast as possible, you will NEVER do it when it matters. Also, train with all of your gear. Even just dry firing.
 
Yoder said:
I remember reading a story in Outdoor life years ago. I think there were four guys, all with rifles. A bear charged them. Everyone unloaded. I think about 10-12 rounds were fired. The bear was hit twice. Luckily one of the shots killed it and it died at their feet. I think many people are delusional when it comes to how they will react to a giant bear running at them. I used to shoot USPSA for a few years and I can't tell you how many times I completely missed a target that was under 5 yards and the only stressor was a timer. It didn't even seem possible. If you don't train regularly drawing from your holster and trying to get shots on target as fast as possible, you will NEVER do it when it matters. Also, train with all of your gear. Even just dry firing.
Click to expand...
Strong point made. From what I've seen as a volunteer range officer and infrequent competition shooter, I doubt that most people carrying a handgun can draw and hit a garbage can lid at 10 yards on their first shot, much less successfully engage a charging grizzly. That being said, I've always carried at least a 9 mm in bear country. Considering adding a cannister of bear spray, however.
 
RockAndSage said:
^^ This, exactly.

When you dig just below the surface on almost anything related to environmentalism, and the professional fields that often attract people with those leanings, it reveals an anti-human bias. This must, must start being recognized.
Click to expand...
My Bachelors degree is in wildlife biology...I know first hand it is filled with people with this mentality of "animal worship", especially large predators for some reason.

To add to this point: One of the stories about using a handgun for bear defense happened at a cabin directly across the river from my house.

I recently talked to the guy and got his story first hand. Years later he's still upset he had to kill the bear. He said "I feel really bad I had to shoot it.", practically crying. I just laughed, patted him on the shoulder and said, "Well that makes one of us". Pathetic mentality IMO.
 
Last edited:
Yoder said:
I remember reading a story in Outdoor life years ago. I think there were four guys, all with rifles. A bear charged them. Everyone unloaded. I think about 10-12 rounds were fired. The bear was hit twice. Luckily one of the shots killed it and it died at their feet. I think many people are delusional when it comes to how they will react to a giant bear running at them. I used to shoot USPSA for a few years and I can't tell you how many times I completely missed a target that was under 5 yards and the only stressor was a timer. It didn't even seem possible. If you don't train regularly drawing from your holster and trying to get shots on target as fast as possible, you will NEVER do it when it matters. Also, train with all of your gear. Even just dry firing.
Click to expand...
Not saying your experience isn't valid, but the data very clearly shows far less human fatalities when firearms are used compared to bear spray.

The point I made about having to pick between bear spray or a firearm potentially being worse if you have both is illustrated by the man that tried to stop a bear attack by first choosing bear spray. Had he just had a firearm, rather than having to go back and get one after his choice of bear spray failed, he may have saved his wife's life.
 
Thegman said:
Not saying your experience isn't valid, but the data very clearly shows far less human fatalities when firearms are used compared to bear spray.

The point I made about having to pick between bear spray or a firearm potentially being worse if you have both is illustrated by the man that tried to stop a bear attack by first choosing bear spray. Had he just had a firearm, rather than having to go back and get one after his choice of bear spray failed, he may have saved his wife's life.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying firearms are a bad choice at all. I'm picking gun over spray every time. I just think way too many people think they are safe just by carrying a gun. I just think if you don't train, you won't be able to react quick enough to make a difference unless you see the bear ahead of time.
 
Thegman said:
especially large predators for some reason.
Click to expand...

That's a great point, and it's a bizarre phenomenon I've wondered about more than I probably should. But I think it says something about humans. Just not quite sure what, though it does seem to be cross-cultural.

What's interesting for me is not just the ones we do this with, but the ones we don't. You see humans do this with apex predator mammals, to the point where we make cutsie little toy versions of them for our kids (teddy bears, stuffed wolves, lions, etc). I mean, really - why in the world do we make fun, cuddly little toys out of animals that would quite litterally be happy to eat them right there in their beds if they could?

Yet...while you see people literally spend hours on webcams getting to know individual brown bears, or idolize wolf packs, you do not see people do this dirt-worshiping with lizards or sharks...

But you do see it with dolphins and even more so with killer whales - to the point where you see that same weird dirt-worshiping ("animal worship" thing, as you put it), with people insisting killer whales get called "orcas", putting them up on some sort of pedestal. Why don't they do that with sharks, or Humboldt squid?
 
Thegman said:
My Bachelors degree is in wildlife biology...I know first hand it is filled with people with this mentality of "animal worship", especially large predators for some reason.

To add to this point: One of the stories about using a handgun for bear defense happened at a cabin directly across the river from my house.

I recently talked to the guy and got his story first hand. Years later he's still upset he had to kill the bear. He said "I feel really bad I had to shoot it.", practically crying. I just laughed, patted him on the shoulder and said, "Well that makes one of us". Pathetic mentality IMO.
Click to expand...
I've yet to watch a full episode of Yellowstone (shame on me, I know), but happened upon this thanks to youtube.

A few tweaks of the words in this scene would apply to killing bears/whatever to save, you know, humans.



Eddie
 
I apologize for:
1. Not reading the article right off.
2. Not letting it go...but this shit really bugs me.

"When a grizzly bear is sprinting towards you at 30 miles per hour and you’re panicking, the chances of squeezing off a perfect shot seem unlikely, and even if you get lucky, the problem of a defensive bear that wants to kill you won’t necessarily be solved."

You don't need a "perfect shot". There are 100s of documented cases of firearms used in bear defense. Many if not most of the time, bullets into bear remedy the situation. Very often the bear runs off to die a distance away. Seldom does the bear persist (at least not in a focused way) after being shot.

And, "seems unlikely"? That means absolutely nothing. Firearms are successful in preventing bear attacks about 98% of the time. We don't need to speculate on what "seems unlikely", just look at the data that's out there.

“If you hit the bear and you don't kill it, you're in a lot more trouble than you would have been otherwise because now that bear's probably gonna be enraged."

This guy is supposed to be both a scientist and a bear biologist. There is almost zero (or zero) data that supports this claim of making an attack worse. He's literally espousing lore and doesn't know what he's talking about or is being purposely deceptive.

“It's unlike anything they’ve ever experienced, and they just want to get out of there instantly. It changes the dynamic, and you don't have to be a good shot with it. So it works much better, and it's a lot less precise of a tool.”

No, it doesn't work better. That's why there's more examples of people that use bear spray getting killed by bears than those that use firearms. Scientists should follow the data, this guy is just another eco-ideologue. I've seen this kind of shit so many times.

"It also means there's a chance both you and the bear will get out of the encounter alive."

And there it is. The bear -will- get out alive, there's a -chance- the bear-sprayer will get out alive. This whole article is simply meant to dissuade people from shooting bears in self defense by telling us bear spray is the best choice, while offering zero data to back up the claims.

"Hey, did you see this!?!? This guy saved himself during a bear attack with a handgun. Maybe I should look into getting a handgun for bear defense?"

"No, no! Bad idea! You want bear spray, yeah, it's MUCH better! 😃"

IMO, these people don't give a damn if people are injured or killed by bears from following their advice. It's all about not shooting one of their idols.
 
Last edited:
Thegman said:
I apologize for:
1. Not reading the article right off.
2. Not letting it go...but this shit really bugs me.

"When a grizzly bear is sprinting towards you at 30 miles per hour and you’re panicking, the chances of squeezing off a perfect shot seem unlikely, and even if you get lucky, the problem of a defensive bear that wants to kill you won’t necessarily be solved."

You don't need a "perfect shot". There are 100s of documented cases of firearms used in bear defense. Many if not most of the time, bullets into bear remedy the situation. Very often the bear runs off to die a distance away. Seldom does the bear persist (at least not in a focused way) after being shot.

And, "seems unlikely"? That means absolutely nothing. Firearms are successful in preventing bear attacks about 98% of the time. We don't need to speculate on what "seems unlikely", just look at the data that's out there.

“If you hit the bear and you don't kill it, you're in a lot more trouble than you would have been otherwise because now that bear's probably gonna be enraged."

This guy is supposed to be both a scientist and a bear biologist. There is almost zero (or zero) data that supports this claim of making an attack worse. He's literally espousing lore and doesn't know what he's talking about or is being purposely deceptive.

“It's unlike anything they’ve ever experienced, and they just want to get out of there instantly. It changes the dynamic, and you don't have to be a good shot with it. So it works much better, and it's a lot less precise of a tool.”

No, it doesn't work better. That's why there's more examples of people that use bear spray getting killed by bears than those that use firearms. Scientists should follow the data, this guy is just another eco-ideologue. I've seen this kind of shit so many times.

"It also means there's a chance both you and the bear will get out of the encounter alive."

And there it is. The bear -will- get out alive, there's a -chance- the bear-sprayer will get out alive. This whole article is simply meant to dissuade people from shooting bears in self defense by telling us bear spray is the best choice, while offering zero data to back up the claims.

"Hey, did you see this!?!? This guy saved himself during a bear attack with a handgun. Maybe I should look into getting a handgun for bear defense?"

"No, no! Bad idea! You want bear spray, yeah, it's MUCH better! 😃"

IMO, these people don't give a damn if people are injured or killed by bears from following their advice. It's all about not shooting one of their idols.
Click to expand...

Nailed it.
 
Whaledriver said:
Dead grizzly is successful on all fronts innthis situation. So called experts are scientists types that like sitting in Starbucks talking about what ifs. Bear spray works until it doesn't. Wind, proximity of bear, other people, spray can failure and spray manipulation. Hot lead gives you a chance. The hell with the liberal bear hugging types.
Click to expand...

I’d agree with some of those, but proximity of other people is a big pro for spray over gun, not the other way around. If there is a bear on top of me, please by all means hose me down with the spray. The odds of the spray working are probably a lot better than the odds that the person shooting is actually as good as they think they are under that kind of pressure. Same goes for other people around the area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BuckSmasher said:
I used to be a bear spray believer. The argument that accurate shooting at a rapidly moving target while under duress vs a cloud of spray that was much easier to get on target resonated with me.

Then came the reports of folks dying after deploying bear spray, not just one or two isolated instances but several. I began to re-evaluate my position and research firearm effectiveness.

A couple of things became clear. Spray, even under ideal conditions is an extremely short range defense. The extreme short range of spray negates the accuracy problem of a firearm. If both my spray and my pistol are both used at the range of my arm accuracy is equal. The second thing that became clear is that spray doesn't stop some bears. Maybe they got a partial mouthful, or they were not psychologically willing to break the attack for whatever reason. Bullets do not rely on getting the bear to change its mind.

I am of the opinion that the continued insistence on spray instead of firearms is more to protect the bear than humans, a bias against or unfamiliarity with guns, or all the above.
Click to expand...

Here’s the thing though. If you start shooting at bears outside of bear spray range, you’re shooting at bears that are probably not doing anything more than running you off. Most actual maulings don’t start with a bear coming in hot from that far out. They happen before you know they’re coming. It’s the close encounter that is the risk. I’ve lived and recreated in grizzly (and now brown) bear country for decades. Sometimes I carry a g20, sometimes I carry spray, sometimes I carry both, sometimes I forget to bring either and don’t worry about it too much. I’ve had encounters with bears a lot of times inside spray range over the years to the point of pulling out spray and thumbing the safety off or pulling my pistol. Have never deployed either. I know a handful of people who have used each, all successfully. People spend waaaaaaay too much time worrying about bears. Keep in mind just how many idiots are out there with bears every day, recreating/hunting/living their lives, and how few incidents there are. It’s a risk blown so far out of proportion it’s astonishing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Maybe its been mentioned already but I think it is important to read between the lines on bear attach data. Bear spray and firearm defensive studies do not actually compare to each other. Bear spray is heavily encourage in favor of the life of the bear and not erring on the side of caution with regards to the life of the human.

Also, when it comes to bear spray, effectiveness greatly diminishes if the bear has been exposed previously. If some idiot sprayed it last year, not so surprised at the feeling this year so to speak. Much like yelling at your kid or a bear for that matter. Do it enough they just tune out the volume difference and consider it normal thus rendering the implied threat void.

Additionally, most of these bear spray encounters, like most studies, are majority in populated areas. Meaning a park in Colorado with thousands of hikers a year will see more bear encounters that that nameless valley in the Yukon that see 5 humans a decade. This means the "study" is really not separating wild bears from conditioned bears. A hiker sprays a bear that is just strolling by or coming over our of curiosity apparently results in a "bear attack defense" like a bb gun in a school parking lot at 2 am constitutes a "school shooting". This type of interaction is far different than a wild bear that either stays far away or is in full attack mode as it is not conditioned to get Doritos from hikers. This means the the "conclusions" of how effective bear spray is are inherently misleading, if not negligently over inflated.

Firearms are not rendered useless in the wind
Firearms result in dead bears.
Spray never results in dead bears.


Personally the ONLY time I would employ bear spray is for defense against mostly peaceful karens and for people in the woods that may encounter a cow moose or bear that are NOT proficient with a firearm...until they become proficient with a firearm.
 
The story was about griz. What happens most of the time is "bears" get lumped all together. Black bear behavior and disposition are very different than griz. Both require different tactics when encountered. Lower 48 griz and AK griz might share DNA, but are different beasts. Coastal AK bears have different aspects as well. Polar bears are a whole different topic. When a biologists lumps them all together - I say BS. Unless I get between a black bear sow and cubs, I have little fear of them. The 4 (currently - get prepared WA/OR) lower states that have a griz problem, can't be managed using black bear tactics. AK has coastal and interior brown/griz, I'm guessing black bear as well, and polar. AK seems to manage their bears better than WY/MT/ID/UT. The 4 lower states are handcuffed by the feds, while AK is handcuffed on the polar bear front.
It bothers me when bear spray or "fill in the blank" caliber is found "fill in the blank" % effective on BEARS. What kind of bears!!! They all aren't the same.
The new rage around here is a 10mm for a "bear" gun. Why? Because you have 10-20 shots. I would be very comfortable with a 10mm in any of the 45 states that aren't AK, MT, WY, ID, UT. In those states my minimum would be a 41 mag with 260gr or heavier bullets. 44 with 300 and up work too, my favorite being a 45 Colt with 320-340 gr bullets. I don't expect to get more than 3 off so no need to carry 20 rounds of ammo.
My backyard is griz country. I have had 2 of them on my front deck (a few years ago). When I take my 7 lb dog out first thing in the morning or at dark, I carry an AR 450 Bushmaster or a Marlin in 356. Both with heavy hard cast bullets. The handgun stays behind. If I am out in the woods, I carry the handgun, only because I know that I will set the rifle down and walk 10' from it. If I am elk hunting in griz country, I carry enough gun to get a griz off of me. That usually starts at 358 Norma as I don't have a 33 cal.
I'm not saying you have to do what I do. I hope you are not telling me what I have to do. You do what you want, I'll do what I want. Please define the type of bear in which you are referencing. A person from TN has a different idea and plan for bears than a person from WY.
 
cowboybart said:
The story was about griz. What happens most of the time is "bears" get lumped all together. Black bear behavior and disposition are very different than griz. Both require different tactics when encountered. Lower 48 griz and AK griz might share DNA, but are different beasts. Coastal AK bears have different aspects as well. Polar bears are a whole different topic. When a biologists lumps them all together - I say BS. Unless I get between a black bear sow and cubs, I have little fear of them. The 4 (currently - get prepared WA/OR) lower states that have a griz problem, can't be managed using black bear tactics. AK has coastal and interior brown/griz, I'm guessing black bear as well, and polar. AK seems to manage their bears better than WY/MT/ID/UT. The 4 lower states are handcuffed by the feds, while AK is handcuffed on the polar bear front.
It bothers me when bear spray or "fill in the blank" caliber is found "fill in the blank" % effective on BEARS. What kind of bears!!! They all aren't the same.
The new rage around here is a 10mm for a "bear" gun. Why? Because you have 10-20 shots. I would be very comfortable with a 10mm in any of the 45 states that aren't AK, MT, WY, ID, UT. In those states my minimum would be a 41 mag with 260gr or heavier bullets. 44 with 300 and up work too, my favorite being a 45 Colt with 320-340 gr bullets. I don't expect to get more than 3 off so no need to carry 20 rounds of ammo.
My backyard is griz country. I have had 2 of them on my front deck (a few years ago). When I take my 7 lb dog out first thing in the morning or at dark, I carry an AR 450 Bushmaster or a Marlin in 356. Both with heavy hard cast bullets. The handgun stays behind. If I am out in the woods, I carry the handgun, only because I know that I will set the rifle down and walk 10' from it. If I am elk hunting in griz country, I carry enough gun to get a griz off of me. That usually starts at 358 Norma as I don't have a 33 cal.
I'm not saying you have to do what I do. I hope you are not telling me what I have to do. You do what you want, I'll do what I want. Please define the type of bear in which you are referencing. A person from TN has a different idea and plan for bears than a person from WY.
Click to expand...

For what it’s worth, 10mm is far and away the most common carry for bears in AK as well. Given a decent bullet, shot placement trumps all else. And yes, we have a ton of black bears as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
cowboybart said:
Please define the type of bear in which you are referencing. A person from TN has a different idea and plan for bears than a person from WY.
Click to expand...
Following the data that's out there, no differentiation is really necessary. So far, handguns 9mm and up have been almost 100% effective for bear defense, regardless of the species of bear. The only case of failure (I think just one) was with a 357 Magnum. He survived, but wasn't sure he actually hit the bear at all.

Looking at the data available, being able to shoot what you're carrying accurately under pressure and being able to access it immediately is more important than the firearm's chambering. A handgun on your belt is better than a rifle strapped to your pack, or maybe even a rifle slung on your shoulder in some cases.
 
Cinnabar Slim said:
I've had to use spray twice, once with an over-curious sub adult griz during archery that kept belly crawling up to where I was sitting. I could tell he wasn't serious and didn't want to ruin my hunt with discharging my sidearm, so sprayed him right in the face at 10 yards. Worked as you hear it should.

Same summer, few weeks later had a griz scratching on the window of my house in the middle of the night after messing with the bear proof garbage cans. Didn't want to risk wounding the griz and having a bigger problem on my hands, I sprayed him through the window screen. Same result, but surprise , surprise...he was back tossing the garbage cans 30 minutes later.

Have been packing both spray and a sidearm or shotgun ever since, they just have different situational uses. If people think that they can get away with just using bear spray, they are probably wrong. I know several bear biologists in on the backcountry team in Yellowstone that have had more close bear encounters than anyone I know...and they pack and train rigorously with glock 20s and 44 mags in addition to spray.
Click to expand...
Sorry, can't get the image of small grizz belly crawling out of my head. Been grinning all day over it. In all seriousness you have the patience of jobe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Featured Video

Stats

Threads
363,165
Messages
3,844,670
Members
82,469
Latest member
dfish

Latest Articles

Back
Top