I do believe there are a fair number of studies that support effectiveness of bear spray, properly deployed. Just like with street self defense scenarios, the particulars matter.

One thing I like about spray, the threshold for using it is lower than shooting a nuisance bear. There may be times a bear needs a wake up, but short of a real charge.

I’ve only carried guns & spray a few times in AK, saw two griz but they stayed across the river.

The fabled 10mm only has 1/5 the energy of a 308 round, not ideal to stop a charge. Of course, 15(or 14) rounds on target would help.

It seems he let his guard and awareness down. This seems to happen often enough where one should keep it in mind, stay armed, post some type of watch. I can see how one could focus on the field dressing, especially the solo job with just the onlooker.

We were in CO, just black bear & lions, but we seemed somewhat on watch while cutting up. There were also 3.5 of us. I may hunt elk with a 375 H&H if I was up that way.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

Thanks for sharing your first hand experience there in that area. Clearly you know what you're taking about here, having been there and done that a bunch.

This statement, however, makes me question what the Gunsite folks are teaching in that course... do you agree with this? If so, why? It sounds like patently terrible advice:

quote:

Fog the area between the bear and you, if it breaks off—great! If it doesn’t—shoot.

Why, if concerned for your safety and within Fog or Pistol range of an advancing or threatening Grizzly, and compelled enough to do anything at all, would anyone who is lucky enough to have a firearm handy start with Bear Spray instead?

Isn't that tantamount to the faulty Shoot Em In The Leg argument some make? Why take that chance? Every second matters in terms of getting shots on target in the heat of the moment, why wouldn't one start with the best tool you have available?

Oddly enough, I just heard about the course at Gunsite a week ago. It’s taught by Il Ling New and this is what she teaches. I will say this. I’ve been to the field with grizzly researchers from WY Game and Fish and USGS, and enjoyed conversation with both biologists and large predator conflict managers with WGFD and, of course, Forest Service biologists. First of all, let me readily admit that NONE OF US who work in the GYA for a state or federal agency wants to shoot a bear. It’s just not good business to be the subject of two weeks of letters to the editor in Jackson Hole News & Guide. We would all be prone to first try to break off the attack with spray. Remember, lots of charges are bluff charges that the bear does not mean to carry to the ultimate.

I really do believe that there’s a better chance of breaking off the charge with spray than with a hand gun. That’s based on conversations with those who work with bears all the time. A grizzly could still knock your head off with a fatal round in its chest cavity. I honestly don’t know if a hard cast pistol round can penetrate the skull, if the angle of the shot is not straight in.

as has been stated : overwatch

with an AK

------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

Why, if concerned for your safety and within Fog or Pistol range of an advancing or threatening Grizzly, and compelled enough to do anything at all, would anyone who is lucky enough to have a firearm handy start with Bear Spray instead?

Isn't that tantamount to the faulty Shoot Em In The Leg argument some make? Why take that chance? Every second matters in terms of getting shots on target in the heat of the moment, why wouldn't one start with the best tool you have available?

You're making the leap that at 25ish feet that the bear is advancing or threatening. That distance can be a lot of non-threatening reasons such as bear walking across trail in front of quiet hikers.

Additionally, why kill a bear if you don't have to? If you can spray bear spray and it goes away the bear learns to avoid people and the person doesn't have to kill a bear. One thing I learned in my 5 years in Anchorage (not sure on other state's laws) is that if you shoot a bear you are responsible for paying for the bear's brain tested for disease and having its carcass hauled off. I certainly didn't want to fork out a $1000+ unless I needed to so I carried a 454 and bear spray.

No, I guess I'm saying... if one is worried enough to spray them then you're engaging them at that point, and clearly (presumably) feel legitimately threatened by the bear, so at that point you're in the fight, so to speak, yet you (the universal) go for the weaker tool first?

Sounds like picking a fight with a grizzly but starting with your weaker of two options.

I don't *want* to shoot a random bear at all, but I don't get *a little scared* either, it's either a real threat or it isn't, I'm either in fear of my person or my loved ones or I'm not, and under what scenario, then, does spraying them first really make sense at all?

Just out of proactive extra caution, folks just spraying away at any bear that crosses their path? Where is the dividing line between worried enough to Spray but not shoot? I dunno man, it sounds like some marketing speak the Bear Spray lobby might come up with.

And how is it different from some would-be threat on the street? Isn't the bear even more dangerous than the hood rat? Isn't human life worth more than a wild animal? Why are we showing deference to the bear at all, when in the heat of the moment, in the woods...?

Mind you, I live in the woods / mountains in CO, and rarely encounter the bears and when I do they want nothing to do with us, so I've never even been in a situation that would make me want to spray or shoot one, but if one comes my way (the wrong way), well...

Yeah, more and more I think there just aren't many real world scenarios where it would: (A) definitely warrant Spraying, but (B) not have you worried enough to Shoot. I've been in Black Bear county a ton throughout my life, but have minimal Grizzly exposure, fwiw.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Yeah, more and more I think there just aren't many real world scenarios where it would: (A) definitely warrant Spraying, but (B) not have you worried enough to Shoot. I've been in Black Bear county a ton throughout my life, but have minimal Grizzly exposure, fwiw.

Yes, but there are scenarios such as a bear acting aggressively but not yet attacking where I'd rather spray. Also, grizzly/brown bears bluff charge (black bears don't) and it's just a warning that you're near their cub or carcass (aka meal). It's a situation where I'd rather spray 2 seconds (mine was supposed to empty entire bottle in 7 seconds) and have it run off, but in my other hand have my 454 in case it didn't run off.

I carried my Ruger Redhawk Super Alaskan in a chest holster and I either clipped the bear spray to my backpack strap next to the holster or preferably did what was occurring in this picture was my L48 buddy was carrying my bear spray and I was carry the large bore revolver.


That's less than 30 minutes after being ~25 ft from an adolescent brown bear. The Russian River Falls are a tourist spot to watch bears fishing and salmon jumping up the falls. There is a viewing platform up above the falls, but since there were no bear present we hiked down to the river edge to get better pictures of salmon. The bear came out of the woods on the other side of the river, caught a salmon in a slow spot, ate it, scared off the rest of the salmon in the slow spot, started fishing the rapids for a little while, and then got way to close (astonishing how fast he could move through the rapids). My buddy and I backed away and the bear went back to the other side, trekked around the falls, and started making his way down the trail toward the parking lot. My buddy and I were the only ones carrying bear protection so after giving it a 30 minute head start we ended up walking out 12 to 15 people.

I dunno' guys. I'm in the, shoot first and ask questions later, camp. Nobody wants to destroy these magnificent animals. But I'm not risking my life over one.

We have black bears and moose up here in the Minnesota north woods. The black bears mostly come out at night (and run from you). Mostly...

I don't have to deal with ninja attack cats, or the Griz, so nothing to worry about there. In your travels, have you seen a real life adult brown bear up close, though? They are massive and lighting quick. If it comes to it, if you have to think about a charging Griz whether your going to spray or shoot, I have to believe you're already dead, your mind just hasen't figured it out yet.

I'd rather face a herd of sharks with friggin' lasers on their heads than moose. Moose up here are HUUUGE. They will pound the frak out of you until there is nothing left but a residue of feldercarb.

You can keep your tiny, puny 10mm. I'm bringing my 12-bore with 1oz slugs and buck shot. Either that or a SCAR 17s. I don't mind humping heavy gear around tight woods, especially when I hear some of these stories. It's not like I'm out in the deep woods all that often anyway, so what do I care about a few extra pounds on rare occasion?

Now I'll leave the discussion to those with more experience than I.

H&K-Guy

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Yeah, more and more I think there just aren't many real world scenarios where it would: (A) definitely warrant Spraying, but (B) not have you worried enough to Shoot. I've been in Black Bear county a ton throughout my life, but have minimal Grizzly exposure, fwiw.

Depends on where you're at.

The Glacier/Yellowstone/Northern Rockies ecosystem is thick with grizzlies, despite what the leftists would tell you that there are only half a dozen breeding pairs out there. They are everywhere nowadays, even in places where they have never been seen before, and I've spent 53 years in the woods around here.

It's not just griz either. Add to it the cats and wolves. The game wardens will hate me saying this, but every single person I know now considers the woods a free fire zone and will kill any of the three on sight. I'm with 'em. SSS.

@tater

OK, I can see how in certain higher traffic touristy areas where Grizzlies and humans are most likely to cross paths most frequently and other tourists may abound there can be situations where you can reasonably cipher that it's prudent to Spray first.

Fair enough.

It does feel more like an exception rather than a standard, both Grizzly specific and bound to those particular areas where the incident rate of bumping into one is at its higher range.

Maybe.

Interesting, regardless.

This was on the news tonight.

“Authorities are investigating the death of a woman and her 10-month-old daughter after they were found dead in a remote area of Canada’s Yukon territory, officials said.

Valerie Theoret, 37, and her daughter Adele Roesholt, were found dead Monday outside their cabin near Einarson Lake, the Yukon Coroner’s Service said.

The woman’s husband said he was charged by a grizzly bear about 100 meters (roughly 328 feet) from the cabin as he returned from trapping in the Einarson Lake area, officials said.

After he was forced to shoot and kill the bear, officials said, he found the bodies of his wife and child just outside the cabin.

“It appears they had been out for a walk when the incident occurred,” the coroner’s service said.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police said it was investigating the death of two individuals in the area following a suspected bear attack but has not release additional details.

The family had been living in the cabin for the past three months.“

https://whnt.com/2018/11/28/mo...spected-bear-attack/

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:

quote:

Originally posted by Graniteguy:
As someone who has logged a lot of backcountry miles in Wyoming, Idaho and Montana, I have seen my share of Grizzlies.

Do you live in that 3-state area?

[QUOTE/]
You may well be an experienced hiker in grizzly country. Up until a couple years ago, I was the District Ranger on the very district where this guide was killed. My own experience is that there are not usually 12-15 mph winds and that bear spray has proven to be an effective deterrent. When I fished the back country I carried a big bore pistol in a chest holster, but I also carried bear spray, and I would deploy it first. I’m told that Gunsite teaches a back country predator defense course and recommends deploying both bear spray AND a big bore revolver at the same time. Fog the area between the bear and you, if it breaks off—great! If it doesn’t—shoot.

You give the impression that if you encounter a bear, it’s already too late and you’re fucked. Be aware of your surroundings, scan constantly, and make some noise; especially if you happen to be in heavy timber or the willows along a stream or river. Avoid surprising the bear, and it’s likely it will avoid surprising you.

You can argue that they should carry a 12 gauge with slugs, but my old district has both a heavy and a light trail crew. They spend the entire summer in the Teton Wilderness, and have for years. No incidents.[/QUOTE]

Well said.
I hike a lot in bear country, often by myself. I carry both spray and a gun and would reach for the spray first.

I keep my head up, scan the surroundings, make noise, and pause to look and listen. In my own experience its been moose that my noise chased off the trail. Mr. Moose is one other creature that would be happy and more than capable of ruining my day.

Unless you've seen it with your own eyes it is unbelievable how fast an otherwise lumbering bear can move when it wants to.

Silent

I’ve thought about this some. Breaking down an elk is work, enough so the guide was stripped to the waist. A chest rig holster may be excellent upright hiking and trailing game, but I would not want to be wearing one myself if I were skinning and quartering. I wear a hip holster because I don’t want a giant handgun hanging from my chest all bent over double on the hillside.

Having an empty chamber, I’m far past my fear of a gun just going off. A random grizzly encounter would be much different than one involving a bear on the scent of a fresh kill, pepper spray couldn’t hurt but would be a force multiplier added to the gun.

As to the client, that is why you don’t trust your safety to someone else.

From the article.
"Chubon tried to shoot the bear, Hovinga said. “He grabbed [the pistol], was unable to make it fire,” Hovinga said. “There was not a round in the chamber, so the gun was empty. He couldn’t make the gun work.”

The article was clearly written by someone with little firearms knowledge but most of the known facts are in there somewhere.

They mention earlier that the gun was tested and found to be fully functional and they couldn't understand why no shots were fired. Then the quote above appears. Go Figure.

I'm no scientific rocket, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the "incisor piercing his brain" that killed the guide. If you know your mouth anatomy, incisors are the very front (read: short) teeth in between the two massive canine teeth. If the incisor was able to contact the skull, those canine teeth had to have gone somewhere....

Either way, I read it as the hunter looked at the guide and his last view before mounting the horse and leaving was to see the bear attacking a standing guide who was fighting for his life. I can't say he could have done anything at that point, just sucks to live with that.

quote:

Originally posted by reflex/deflex 64:
I’ve thought about this some. Breaking down an elk is work, enough so the guide was stripped to the waist. A chest rig holster may be excellent upright hiking and trailing game, but I would not want to be wearing one myself if I were skinning and quartering. I wear a hip holster because I don’t want a giant handgun hanging from my chest all bent over double on the hillside.

I'm thinking a mid-drop holster, as is now popular in the tactical world, would be optimal to clear a pack hip belt.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:

quote:

Originally posted by reflex/deflex 64:
I’ve thought about this some. Breaking down an elk is work, enough so the guide was stripped to the waist. A chest rig holster may be excellent upright hiking and trailing game, but I would not want to be wearing one myself if I were skinning and quartering. I wear a hip holster because I don’t want a giant handgun hanging from my chest all bent over double on the hillside.

I'm thinking a mid-drop holster, as is now popular in the tactical world, would be optimal to clear a pack hip belt.

I'm thinking having a bullet in the chamber while you're pressing the trigger might be most helpful. All the other stuff really doesn't matter.
Sounds like they got to the gun, it just didn't go bang.

Why are chest rigs so popular for hikers versus wearing on the hip? Is it the assumption that most people hiking are wearing packs and the pack can impede a draw from traditional waist/hip holster?

The chest rig he took off was already the best way to carry the damn thing.

Taking it off, and not having a round chambered, were colossally bad decisions here, and I don't accept the notion that he needed to remove the chest rig at all to field dress the other animal.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeGLI:
Why are chest rigs so popular for hikers versus wearing on the hip? Is it the assumption that most people hiking are wearing packs and the pack can impede a draw from traditional waist/hip holster?

For what I did in Alaska, it was best. Didn’t interfere with backpack, didn’t interfere with waders (river fishing), and could put over any jacket (eg might not need much jacket at trailhead but go up a few thousand feet in Alaska and you’ll be in snow even in middle of summer).

I carried in a chest holster for fly fishing