testtest

Is Bear Spray Better Than a Pistol?

While the brown/grizzly bears are essentially genetically alike in Alaska then down thru Canada into the Northern Rockies (Idaho and Montana west of I-15 and north of I-90) and the Central Rockies (east of I-15 and south of I-90) into Wyoming, they use different habitats and have different habits between these two extremes of their range.

No bear deterrent is 100% effective. But the facts are that bear spray has been proven effective and is widely used by folks that live in the Idaho, Montana & Wyoming areas. Many of us carry both bear spray & a firearm.

If you're a visitor, or have moved to the parts of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming where grizzly's occur, getting bear spray should be considered if you going out into bear country, especially since you're likely not familiar with local conditions. It's everyone's choice.

BUT, note the info below regarding carrying a gun in the National Parks in Montana, Wyoming & Idaho.


Note: The concealed carry permit requirement in MT has gone away other than were prohibited by signage.


And it's very important to have situation awareness has you spend time in griz/brown bear country.

Here's just a repeat of useful info.




Additional note: Moose are very dangerous also.

 
Last edited:
In general, I fully agree.

I like the way that bear spray effectiveness is portrayed in the YNP link:

"Bear spray is a non-lethal deterrent designed to stop aggressive behavior in bears. Its use can reduce human injuries caused by bears and the number of bears killed by people in self-defense. Bear spray uses a fine cloud of Capsicum derivatives to temporarily reduce a bear's ability to breath, see, and smell, giving you time to leave the area."

Simply stating that spray "can reduce bad encounters," seems like a reasonable way to describe it.

However, the "Bearwise" link states in bold at the beginning of the page "Bear spray stopped black bears’ undesirable behavior 90% of the time..."

One very important point the article makes:

"I asked Smith to clarify the nature of bear-management incidents in which bear spray was used. Was the use of the spray premeditated and intended to alter the behavior of the bears involved? “These were largely intentional hazings, not surprise-encounter-type situations,” he says.

This is definitely a critical point worth noting. Intentional hazings and surprise encounters are likely to produce pretty different reactions in bears.

Given that, while it's true that "90 efficacy" was concluded in Smith's study in regards to black bears, the results for grizz should not be conflated with those for black bear efficacy (and they often are by people who don't any know better). This is why I posted the previous link to the Outside article in which Tom Smith was interviewed:

"The bear-spray study looked at 14 close encounters with aggressive brown bears. Of those, the spray was successful at stopping the bear’s aggressive behavior in 12 incidents.....The bear-spray research included nine brown bear charges where the spray was successful at stopping the charge three times....

...I asked Tom Smith if it was valid to conclude that the studied effectiveness of bear spray in brown bear charges is just 33 percent. “That’s what you would conclude from that data,” he says, before going on to point out that the sample size is very small. “Importantly, protracted mauling did not occur,” he says. “Whether that’s due to the spray or simply due to the vagaries of bear attacks is an open question.”


The bottom line take-away from the study is that when it comes to grizz, the more aggressive the bear is behaving, culminating in a charging bear, the more that demonstrated bear spray efficacy becomes questionable, at best.

The other basic take-away that Smith stresses in the Outside interview in regards to bear spray is a reminder that the sample size for grizz in particular was very small, and that it's very difficult to make confident assertions based on so few incidents. And yet, a lot of 'official' bear guidance being produced by various land mgmt agencies, outdoor programs, etc. state ever since quote these results as proven certainties based seemingly based on extensive research. I think this has led to some false beliefs and a false sense of security on the part of the public who don't know better. According to Smith's own words, this was not the case. We shouldn't extrapolate firm universals from a study with such a small sample size, as Smith cautions.

I realize this is long-winded, but I think caution is required when people are taking the results of Smith's study far beyond the actual scope of the research, or what was actually concluded.
 
I also agree 100%. Although I myself surprisingly, have never had to use pepper spray. I know plenty that have had to use pepper spray on bear though. It worked for all of them.
Its .my understanding one can not use a firearm of any type on dangerously aggressive animals in any of our National Parks and in same national parks its illegal to even carry a firearm!

If you guys remember? The first word in my first post on this thread was "BOTH". Carry a firearm and bear spray.
The thing with bear spray is. Chances are, its gonna work. In turn the animal gets to continue to live it's life! I have a tremendous amount of respect for these magnificent animals. Actually the are one of my favorite animals and Im very familiar with there behavior. The biggest thing one should be familiar with is. That they are an extremely UNPREDICTABLE animal.

On feeding bears. If one is feeding a griz in Yellowstone stone a loaf of bread and thinks a bear is going to understand that you're out when you give it your last slice? Think again, because while you start walking back to your vehicle that bear is going to want to know where your going with the rest of "his" bread? Hes going to let you know about it too and trust me. It ain't gonna be pleasant! DO NOT FEED THE WILDLIFE!

Also, I'm prey certain our interior griz in AK are not much bigger than the griz in the lowey 48 or Canada. Only the Coastal Brown Bear is much larger.

IMO, the greatest thrill of these animals is not to kill but to let live. Now I know some Of you might be thinking? Who is this hypocrite to say that when he himself has killed two bears. Keep in mind. These were both problematic nuisance bears hanging around a small rural community robbing dog food of porches, destroying chicken coops and slaughtering chickens in the process, hanging around the community dumpster, and becoming more aggressive and use to people at the same time. ADf&G themselves recommend to the community that we terminate these bears.
Okay, so why did I rug them out?
Well, it was open season so a lot of us got tags. Just because they are one of my favorite animals dosent mean Im not going to keep a bear hide if I were to legally kill one, and I did. Two of them, the second one is getting rugged out at the taxidermist as we speak. It is my decision that it will be donated to the local school here in our community.

The results of a problematic nusance bear in our community after crossing paths with my neighbors ten year old boy while ridding his motorcycle.
Pepper spray wasn't an option after this incident. That dog just ain't gonna hunt! The bear was the disease. My .338WM and three 250gr A-frames was the cure!

IMG_20220428_225144719.jpg
IMG_20220430_120845578_HDR.jpg


Thankyou Gentleman, That is all.
 
Last edited:
Mercy!! Had never seen a side-by-side comparison of these two cartridges...The 45-70 is a long time favorite of mine not only for the history behind it, but its efficacy. And, I have a great deal of respect for its bark with modern loads, 300 grainers at 2200 fps. How does the 416 compare in recoil and accuracy?
Also, the .416 Ruger loaded with a 400gr projectile can push velocities excess of 2450 pfs and deliver just under 5000lbs of ME. The 350gr can be loaded to push 2550fps.
 
Back
Top