Unfortunately, I let this thread get away from me by making some intemperate comments. I do apologize for making what were perceived as personal attacks.
That said I stand by the premises of my argument. The utter lack of rebuttal affirms that evidence supports the points I have made.
First of all, the idea of running down hill to escape a bear is a complete and total fallacy.
This plan is ineffective and extremely impractical. There are many reasons for this.
- The vast majority of places where you will be dealing with a bear there will be no steep hills. I either see a bear or see signs of a bear(bear crap, torn up trees or logs etc.) usually about every week. There are no steep hills. When I travel in the back country of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Ontario there are no hills.
- To run pellmell down a hill to escape a bear is inviting injury. I do not care if you are an experienced rock climber. Footing is extremely unstable off of trails and on trails. A turned ankle or broken bones is going to be a disaster.
- Running across flat ground in the backcountry is inviting injury also. Try running as fast as you can through the woods. You are not going to be able to go fast and injury is likely. Even a simple injury like a turned ankle or stick in the face will drastically slow you down. In northern MN and ON it is impossible to move at any speed off of trails because of the nature of the ground cover. Last year I startled a beaver(they do growl and scared the crap out of me) I turned and made one step before I fell flat on my face.
Running, either up hill, down hill, cross country or whatever is never a good idea when dealing with a bear.
The other thing I want to address is the idea that a handgun is going be your big protector in dealing with a bear. I tend to react harshly when someone makes a gun comment full of bravado and braggadocio. Guns are tools used for work and recreation. I find throwaway comments about them offensive and ignorant.
There are a number of reasons why 5 shots of hollowpoints from a .357 is not an effective response to a bear.
Keeping this USAcentric, we are talking about two potential situations. One is black bear country the other is grizzly country. In non-grizzly country there is no wildlife threat that a handgun is need for protection. Have people been attacked by wildlife? Of course, but it happening is extremely rare. If the thought of having a handgun makes you feel more secure(or as I have found in most cases, tougher and more manly) than carry it, but the chance of ever needing it is so rare as to not even be realistic.
Grizzly country is different. Grizzly's can be a bit more aggressive than a black bear, but that doesnt mean your "home defense", "personal defense" handgun is going to help you. Unless you have a .454 Casull or higher your vaunted handgun is going to be of little help to you.
There are a few reasons for this.
- Your revolver or semiauto is not going to have the barrel length or bore size to be effective. A grizzly may very well die if you pump 5-6 rounds from your 10mm into it, but before it dies it is going to shove the gun up your ass and then go back for it from the other direction. Rather than dieing from blood loss it might ultimately succumb to infection from the wounds. Wildlife are extremely hardy. Even a white tailed deer can be extremely difficult to kill. Three years ago my wife's cousin shot a deer with a bow. We found a blood trail and followed it till it stopped. He thought it was a good hit, he is a good hunter so I did not doubt him. 10 days later during gun season he shot a deer with a 30-06, it was a body shot in the area of heart and lungs. He saw the deer drop after about 30 feet. He got down about 30 mins later as he approached the deer it got up and ran away. He shot it again, this time it stayed down. When we skinned it we had some surprises. The first gun shot missed everything important and was already starting to clog with fat and hair and clotting. The biggest surprise was finding the broadhead he hit the deer with 10 days earlier. It was just under the skin on the opposite side he had hit the deer. The deer must have been in a bit of pain but it was healing. The bow shot was almost a perfect shot but it slipped in just under the spine and missed everything important. Point is wildlife are extremely tough.
quote:
Smith's previous research found that guns were effective about 67 percent of the time. Shooting accurately during the terrifying split seconds of a grizzly charge is extremely difficult, he pointed out, and his data shows that it takes an average of four hits to stop a bear.
Source
- If a grizzly is threatening you getting off effective shots is going to be extremely difficult. I do not care how good a shot someone is on the range or hunting, dealing with an attacking bear is much different. Hitting a target and hitting it effectively while shitting your pants is extremely difficult. Watch competitive shooting the shooters are extremely relaxed, this is not the situation while trying to protect your life. An injured and enraged bear is much more dangerous than an irritated bear.
- Bear spray is proven to be much more effective.
quote:
When it comes to self defense against grizzly bears, the answer is not as obvious as it may seem. In fact,
experienced hunters are surprised to find that despite the use of firearms against a charging bear, they were
attacked and badly hurt. Evidence of human-bear encounters even suggests that shooting a bear can escalate
the seriousness of an attack, while encounters where firearms are not used are less likely to result in injury
or death of the human or the bear. While firearms can kill a bear, can a bullet kill quickly enough -- and can
the shooter be accurate enough -- to prevent a dangerous, even fatal, attack?
The question is not one of marksmanship or clear thinking in the face of a growling bear, for even a skilled
marksman with steady nerves may have a slim chance of deterring a bear attack with a gun. Law
enforcement agents for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality --
based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and
defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons
defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured
experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries. Canadian bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero
reached similar conclusions based on his own research -- a person’s chance of incurring serious injury from
a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used.
Source
Thomas Smith, a bear biologist from Brigham Young University performed a study on bear spray. After analyzing 20 years of bear incidents, he found that bear spray was effective 92 percent of the time, compared to 67 percent for guns.
Bear spray
The bear belongs there as much or more than you do. You are probably intruding on its territory when you disturb it. Why should it die because you are the one intruding?
Give me the bear spray.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
™ Version 4.2
(1)