Wolf prevention

[Peter J]

This isn't as fun to talk about as wolves, but I worry a lot more about it: Map of fatal traffic accidents- http://metrocosm.com/10-years-of-traffic-accidents-mapped.html

[Kattt]

This needs it's own thread in chaff maybe. I get the point but it's a chaff type of point, unrelated to discussion.

[Anonymous]

"Real world effective range of spray is 10 yards. Less with much wind. Given the limited description of the circumstances it seems unlikely spray was deployed in an optimal fashion. I also find it quite understandable why those involved went for their rifles. I probably would." Even more to my point. If you sprayed the bear at 30 feet or less and he kept on coming, what do you think the likelihood of getting in an accurate shot would be, before the bear was all over you? Just asking. I haven't hunted in a long time, and I guess my doubts, based on my remembrance of my own capabilities, are showing here.

[Jerry Adams]

"Even more to my point. If you sprayed the bear at 30 feet or less and he kept on coming, what do you think the likelihood of getting in an accurate shot would be, before the bear was all over you?" Maybe spray caused him to pause, then he resumed the attack, giving you enough time to shoot him?

[Dean F.]

Tom- read the first few paragraphs of my (second) very long post, which I'm quite sure most people rightly skipped. :) Brief recap: The bears in question probably weren't "charging," as everyone keeps saying. Comparing the spray study vs the gun study is bogus, because that is (if I may engage in hyperbole) comparing a study in which spray was used to a study in which a gun was NOT used. That said, I can easily pontificate on why bear spray might indeed be more effective than a gun. To whit- bear spray is clearly a noxious stimulus that a bear is unlikely to misinterpret, whereas being shot would presumably cause pain which the bear might (correctly) interpret as a physical attack and respond with violence.

[Jerry Adams]

bear spray will condition a bear to avoid humans if a bear is shot, maybe it'll be dead. Maybe it'll be injured and then attack the human. An Olympic NP ranger said the only bear attacks he was aware of were hunters after they shot a bear. I think they were hunting it. This is clearly anecdotal. Maybe it'll recover and then be conditioned to avoid humans.

[HkNewman]

Bear spray has been proven against grizzly and unofficially against cougar which is in Carnivora like Canis , so I imagine it works against wolves, dogs, coyotes. Primates too. Range is OK as I have shot it (into a decent wind) every so often when a canister seems to be getting old. It comes out as a cone of red spray with a surprising amt of force. I've had large black bear suddenly pass right in front of me in the southern Rockies .. and ignore me. They can be surprisingly quiet for a large animal. so if one went after a person there wouldn't be much time. A hiking party I know brought a lady who attempted suicide by bear (to join her deceased backpacking husband – death by cheeseburger btw) by scattering her tuna dinner around camp. The next AM the groups males (some fairly tall at 6'3") had to pelt the bear with rocks to keep it away. So a dirty camp filled with delectable offerings may prove irresistible.

[Anonymous]

"The bears in question probably weren't "charging," as everyone keeps saying." 'probably' Which leads me to pose a follow on question. If they weren't charging, why shoot them? If, on the other hand, they were charging, my original question stands. Not trying to be argumentative here. It's just how I'm understanding the situation, based on what's been posted. In the end, I think your post containing the likelihood-consequences matrix offers the best method I have seen so far for analyzing risk, be it bears, wolves, getting bit by a Coastal Taipan when going out at night to take a leak, or whatever. Then it's up to the individual to decide how to mitigate the derived risk. If they decide to carry bear spray in wolf country, so be it. It's certainly no reason to deride their decision.

[Dean F.]

Yes, 'probably.' So why are so many people automatically assuming mal-intent? Either that or we're using different definitions of "charging," here. A bear can act aggressively and get too close without "charging." Again, Tom, if you haven't read my first few paragraphs, please do so, because I swear that I've already answered your question and am puzzled why it continues to be asked- both by you and others. Of course, if you didn't want to slog through that manifesto I totally understand. :) I think that at this point it is not unreasonable to grant the benefit of the doubt that these bears got too close, were sprayed, and continued to come closer. Heck, almost by definition spraying-distance is "too close." As I said, if there is better info out there I may stand corrected, but both scenarios described are very believable and involved factors proven to increase aggressive behavior. These are not suspicious accounts. Put another way, is it ok if a bear walks up and bites you so long as they do it SLOWLY? In most bear spraying videos I've seen the bear wasn't charging, but it definitely got too close. Or, as another extreme example- would you be happy to let a bear slowly approach, while huffing and snapping it's jaws, close enough to lick you *after you spray it*? Even if it's not "charging?" As much as I sympathize with the bears in these encounters, at some point a human has to protect themselves. And yes, though rare, there are occasional armed jackasses out there. (And they disgust the other, responsible hunters.) But nothing in the article I read seems to indicate such in these two particular cases. I maintain that the instant assumption of jackassery on the part of these guys says more about those making the assumption than about anyone else. Scott, in particular, comes across as having a radical anti-hunting agenda when he calls them "trigger happy cowards." One interesting thing about the firearms vs bear paper he linked is that apparently a large fraction of the people involved expressed an extreme reluctance to shoot the bears, which seems to be quite a rebuttal of this insulting stereotype.

[Anonymous]

"Again, Tom, if you haven't read my first few paragraphs, please do so, because I swear that I've already answered your question and am puzzled why it continues to be asked- both by you and others. Of course, if you didn't want to slog through that manifesto I totally understand. :)" Actually, I read it when you first posted it, but didn't see how it materially affected what I posted. We are probably in a semantic miscommunication, and I will own it. I probably should have said "approaching uncomfortably close after being sprayed". In either case, if, as Dave C. posted, the effective range of bear spray is ~25 feet, and I have no reason to doubt him, that does not leave much time to make a decision, drop the spray, bring your rifle to your shoulder, and get in a well placed shot. Grizzlies do not exactly move at the pace of a slug. One need only to view the video clip posted by Erin and Hig of a curious grizzly approaching to see what I am talking about, and we are very likely not talking about highly trained SEALs here or professional hunters/guides, who are cool in the face of danger. To reiterate, when I made my post, I was not making an accusatory statement, merely QUESTIONING what had transpired. I admit to being a bit skeptical, but that is all. If you read my original 2 posts, I think, or at least hope, you will see what I am trying to say here.

[Dean F.]

>>> In either case, if, as Dave C. posted, the effective range of bear spray is ~25 feet, and I have no reason to doubt him, that does not leave much time to make a decision, drop the spray, bring your rifle to your shoulder, and get in a well placed shot. Grizzlies do not exactly move at the pace of a slug. Oh, sure it does, and yes they do! You can't seriously propose that grizzlies always move at full tilt! We'll have to disagree on that one. Google more bear-spraying videos, though even then you'll get reporting bias because the more dramatic ones tend to be popular and thus higher on the searches. For instance look at the one that was recently linked elsewhere on this forum where the bear went on to eat the lady's kayak after being sprayed (though admittedly that was a black bear.) Moving VERY slowly in that one. I also personally have no difficulty imagining that the spraying would have at least given the bear pause (literally) before it resumed approaching, or even made it back off then approach again, thus allowing time to ready a firearm- which does not take nearly as long as a lot of people who have never used one seem think it does. Also, being in danger does not magically equate to people not being able to hit their target, especially at such presumably close range, and this repeated protestation in these discussions is way off base. (And if you try to quote Grossman at me I'll laugh at you.) If you start YouTubing one thing you will find are many videos of brown bears that ARE charging at full tilt yet people still somehow manage to get accurate shots off and stop them. I'm frankly boggled how all of this isn't obvious to everyone. So since at least one of us is having a failure of imagination of some sort- and it may well be me- there's no further point in discussion, I guess. Agree to disagree. [rant] I strongly suspect it's ant-hunting/anti-gun bias on people's part. If you carry a gun and shoot a bear that approaches you, you're a "trigger-happy coward" who should have brought bear spray. If you do bring bear spray and spray the bear, then have to shoot it when the spray fails, then you're a "trigger-happy coward" and also a liar, because you won't be believed. Because the hoplophobes just won't give anyone with a gun the benefit of the doubt- they MUST be at fault somehow. Obviously, anyone who shoots a bear is a "trigger-happy coward" BY DEFINITION. Further, I propose that Scott is an irresponsible jackass who litters, cuts switchbacks, and starts forest fires. Because, y'know, there are rare hikers that do those things, and he's a hiker, so it stands to reason! [/rant] Whew. Sorry about all of the hyperbole in those last two paragraphs, but explaining my thoughts rigorously would result in another manifesto. Another actually quite odd thing on YouTube is a strangely large number of videos of bears trying to climb up to hunters in treestands, who then spray them- yet again, hunters not shooting bears even when it could have been justified. I found another one of a guy who was bowhunting black bears using bait (which I really don't agree with but that's another argument) when a grizzly approached, and it was illegal to hunt grizzlies over bait. He got his .375 ready but didn't shoot despite the bear getting within three yards of him- he eventually called out and it ran. Very cowardly of him, huh? Oh, and, sorry about wondering if you'd read my post, Tom. As I said, I would understand anyone who skipped that novel. :)

[Ryan Tucker]

I really don't think this is about the anti-gun sentiment. Full disclosure I carry a firearm on trips. I grew up in the south and guns are very much a part of our culture. I practice all the safety aspects of having a gun, etc…I have no concerns about being safe using a gun. I expect in a bear scenario the noise of a gun will be more of my friend than the ability to make a shot on one, but I really don't carry a gun for the bears. In Griz country I tote bear spray. It does seem highly unlikely that the bears were sprayed at an effective range then a person had time to make a killing shot on a charging bear. Just my 2 cents.

[doug thomas]

nm

[Dean F.]

Yet again- the bears were not described as "charging." Given that such a word was not used when it would have made for great drama in the news article, I for one assume that since it wasn't used that they were not in fact charging but rather acting aggressive and getting too close. IIRC Tom is anti-gun (I can't recall if anti-hunting), but in his case I'll readily grant that he is just being a sceptic rather than knee-jerk anti-gun, here. Scott I have my doubts about, however, as I do any time someone trots out "trigger happy coward."

[David Chenault]

Dial it back a bit folks. A few posts are pushing the civility boundary here. I find it implausible that a griz could be charging or bluff charging, a person could use spray at proper ranger, and then be able to deploy a hunting rifle and kill said bear. Possible, but not probable. As the above mentioned black bear v. kayaker video shows, to use spray you have to be close (which she was not). I also don't hold it against anyone who used spray when the bear is say, circling at 30 yards (been there myself, it is intimidating), and then fired when the bear got closer. Ideally there would be no such griz deaths, but if you gives folks reasonable latitude for human foibles they are inevitable. Especially for hunters, who are not only armed, but far more likely to encounter bears to begin with, as they (we) are out during the time bears are traveling most, moving silently, moving in the dark, traveling through good habitat, butchering large mammals, etc. More than anything this discussion points towards the need for better spray. I don't know of any study, nor talked with any experienced field hand, who disputes the efficacy of pepper spray. The problem is the efficacy of the weak and mechanically fragile delivery system, which is designed to be cheap enough to get into the hands of tourists which will hopefully prevent human/bear incidents on a broad policy level. A robust, reloadable weapon which could deliver pepper spray out to 50 yards against a bit of wind would be a far more practical tool for folks who actually might need to use it. But the volume might not be there to make it economically viable.

[Anonymous]

"Oh, sure it does, and yes they do! You can't seriously propose that grizzlies always move at full tilt! We'll have to disagree on that one." Of course not always. You should know by now I don't generally deal in absolutes. Let me put it this way: They move fast often enough to make me skeptical enough to pose my original question. As to the time required to ready a firearm and get off a killing shot on a griz, I'll defer to your expertise. I hunted long ago, but whatever skill I had at the time has long since deteriorated. and my memory is correspondingly hazy, other than to say I have witnessed enough incompetence when it comes to firearms to reinforce my skepticism, to the point that your point isn't obvious to me. Plausible? Yes; obvious? No. So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but certainly not vehemently. In any case, I don't have a dog in this fight, as bears are a minor issue for me, at best, so I am not inclined to get emotionally invested in the outcome of this thread. "I strongly suspect it's ant-hunting/anti-gun bias on people's part. If you carry a gun and shoot a bear that approaches you, you're a "trigger-happy coward" who should have brought bear spray. If you do bring bear spray and spray the bear, then have to shoot it when the spray fails, then you're a "trigger-happy coward" and also a liar, because you won't be believed. Because the hoplophobes just won't give anyone with a gun the benefit of the doubt- they MUST be at fault somehow. Obviously, anyone who shoots a bear is a "trigger-happy coward" BY DEFINITION." I hope you're not tarring me with this particular brush. My views on guns are decidedly more complex that your uncharacteristically simplistic rant would have it. In any case, I'm inclined to cut you some slack on this one. Everybody has their hot buttons, even a pacifistic, bed wetting, pink lingerie wearing liberal like me. ;0)) Just set me off on cats crapping in my potato patch if you want to see a real tirade and perhaps a potential NRA recruit in the making. ;=] "Oh, and, sorry about wondering if you'd read my post, Tom. As I said, I would understand anyone who skipped that novel. :)

[Dean F.]

I'm coming out of my manic phase, so hopefully I can be more lucid and less confrontational or sarcastic. :) First, yes, I tried to make it clear that I wasn't assuming irrationality on your part, Tom. Perhaps an assumption of mal-intent that I thought inappropriate, but not irrationality. Thus the preemptive apologies in my last few posts. Scott's verbage does irk me, I admit. It's offensive. I spent a couple of hours on YouTube looking at bear videos (it's been a pretty slow deployment) and have come away with a few impressions, none of which are in any way scientifically rigorous: 1) A grizzly at full charge is one of the most terrifying things on Earth. JESUS those things can move. 1a) I have serious doubts about the use of a handgun in that situation. The only obvious handgun shot I saw missed- though the guy did claim he fired it as a warning shot in front of the bear, which apparently worked. It was a truly startling attack by a sow protecting three (!) cubs that happened VERY quickly as a raft came around a corner along a stream bank, but he got it out and fired it quickly, too. There is another that I strongly suspect was a handgun but only the tip of a muzzle is ever shown, and again both charging grizzlies fled after one shot- unclear if the shot hit. This was also a VERY impressive video, with two adult grizzlies charging through brush along a treeline at the speed of light. OTOH there are many effective rifle shots in those videos, though that could easily be survivor bias… 1b) Aiming spray is a heck of a lot easier than a handgun. I think someone proficient with a longarm is pretty safe- emphasis on "proficient." Longarms suffer obvious limitations in dense brush, though. Thus, except in situations where you know you'll always have long views, I feel that spray is clearly the best choice for a hiker- even one who is good with a gun. Even given clear views I personally would prefer not to kill the bear. 2) There are a lot of videos of hunters going to quite some lengths to NOT shoot bears. And, oddly, a preponderance of bears trying to climb up to hunters in treestands- which I don't really understand. Maybe treestands mimic some sort of prey behavior? I didn't find a video in which a shooting even approached being inappropriate, but then that's likely reporting bias. 3) A surprising number of the bear shootings involved nature photographers. This seems odd, since I would have expected that demographic to prefer spray. Or perhaps that's just Alaskans being pragmatic. 4) There are a lot of "bear charging!" videos that are nothing of the sort. 5) There are a hell of a lot more shooting videos than spraying videos. I suspect that this is a split along the hiker/hunter demographic. The former I presume to favor spray and to rarely have cameras running, in contrast to the latter. 6) When a bear wanders up to your catch during the salmon run it is no longer your fish. It is the bear's fish. This scenario also plays out in a lot of the videos. Some of these bears came on at what I would characterize as "charge" speed, but merely grabbed the fish and ran when the fishermen retreated a few steps- without shooting the bear, I might add. In the two papers I discussed, having fish or fresh game nearby had something like an odds ratio of 8 for injury during a bear encounter.

[Dave @ Oware]

Friends carried firecrackers, big ones for grizzly deterrence. When one came toward them, they lit one and threw it. Adrenaline kicked in. The cracker went OVER the bear, Then the bear charged, right by and off into the woods.

[Anonymous]

"Friends carried firecrackers, big ones for grizzly deterrence. When one came toward them, they lit one and threw it." A qualified +1, by which I mean, in my case, that I found the small Chinese firecrackers effective against a BLACK bear that had gotten my food bag down from its hang. The issue hung delicately enough in the balance, and my scrawny little a$$ with it, that I upgraded to M-80's and thereafter carried them faithfully up until post 9/11, when carrying firecrackers on flights became a bigger danger than any bear I was likely to encounter. It was a moot point anyway, because I didn't even see a bear for the next 32 years. "Adrenaline kicked in. The cracker went OVER the bear, Then the bear charged, right by and off into the woods." Indeed. The adrenaline factor should not be underestimated. The trick is to lay the firecracker in front of the bear, as close to it as possible, at least in my limited experience. That your friends, a massive dose of adrenaline likely coursing thru their veins, sailed it over the bear only reinforces my skepticism as to the likelihood of getting a killing shot in on a rapidly approaching grizzly already within spraying range. To reemphasize, I am not saying it is impossible, just that I am skeptical. I know I certainly would not want to find myself in that situation.

[Dean F.]

I think that if you surprise a brown bear at close quarters in thick alder then you're screwed no matter what you're carrying and just have to hope for a reasonable bear. All of the dead bears put lie to the proposition that "guns never work because you're too scared to shoot straight" meme. The effect of fright is far more of a user factor than a device factor, and if you're likely too scared to shoot a rifle straight then you very well may be too scared to work spray correctly either. Open the Velcro holster, pull it out of the holster, point it in the correct direction- no mean feat with an object that is very nearly symmetrical- flip off the safety clip on the first try, dope the range and (possibly) the wind correctly in a split second, and fire accurately. Sounds just as complex as using a rifle to me. Yes, I have seen people fire spray in a split second in how-to bear spray videos- in perfect conditions with the holster unvelcroed and no stress. I have also seen Jerry Miculek keep five .500 magnum shots in the black in 1.14 seconds using an unmodified revolver, but I'm not going to claim that this is representative. The spray benefits from generating a wide cone, that makes aiming rather easier, though this is much less pronounced at closer ranges. And, of course, spray is lighter. :) IIRC the rangers did use .40 caliber Glocks to kill Timothy Treadwell's bear, but they were hunting it, not being attacked by it. Another point about the article that triggered this discussion, though- why did the hunters have bear spray? I mean, if they could make up any story they wanted then they could just make up one that justified a shooting. Why mention the spray? If they planned to cover their tracks somehow by spraying the bear afterwards then 1) they wasted the effort and 2) they're in for a surprise, because the feds are investigating and the necropsy will show if the airway and eyes are inflamed, so at the very least they'll get caught in a lie if they did that. Yes, there are sadistic twerps out there but automatically assuming that is… well… I'm going to persist in calling it inappropriate. Nothing in the article- if you actually read it- sounds unreasonable. They don't get to keep any meat or trophies. They get a federal investigation. And they have to know that various groups will be howling for their blood so there's no chance of this getting swept under the rug by the feds. Pretty stupid. If they'd had no spray to begin with there would be a modicum more doubt on my part, I admit, but that these guys even had the spray gives them quite a bit of credibility. And if they didn't have the spray I guess we wouldn't even be discussing this. I'm also not sure why people doubt that the spray didn't work- even in the study that Scott quoted the failure rate was 13% for a single spraying. One possibility, I suppose, would be incorrect use of the spray- at too long a distance, e.g. like the kayak lady. But if we're going to count user error failures for guns- as in those papers- then you have to own the spray user error, too. It counts.

[Larry De La Briandais]

I can shoot very straight with a full load of adrenaline. I know I can hit a target charging at me as I have done it many, many times. Now, it was only paintball, but there was enough adrenaline that I couldn't feel my big toenail being lifted from the boot pressing down on the tip of my nail. So, I know I could shoot straight if a bear were charging me. But I would still far prefer bear spray. The problem with a firearm is that you will likely have to disable the bear with one shot. You may get off more than one shot, but you still will have to disable the bear. Because, when you shoot the bear it is most likely going to take it as an attack, which it was. It will then react to that attack. My guess is when attacked a bear will attack back. You have escalated the situation. When you use bear spray bears do not appear to take that as an attack. At least not in the videos and reports I have seen. It seems more of an irritant and makes their approach no longer worth the increased trouble. You haven't escalated the situation. Of course, bear spray is not a permanent solution. It is temporary, but in most cases the deterrent lasts more than long enough. BTW, I've enjoyed reading this thread, especially the discussion between Tom and Dean. I hate to see it end. ;^)

[Anonymous]

"BTW, I've enjoyed reading this thread, especially the discussion between Tom and Dean. I hate to see it end. ;^)" Dean and I are old fencing partners. If you really want to see the fur fly do a search on either Ukraine or Iran over in CHAFF. Ah, those were the days. ;0))

[Anonymous]

"Now, it was only paintball" Aha, a potential Saul on the road to Damascus moment. Some paintball guns have an effective range of 200 feet. I'm wondering if a pepperball gun might be effective against bears. Just a random thought, and no, I'm not halfway through my third IPA. You may fire when ready, Cher Acrosome. ;0)

[Larry De La Briandais]

"I'm wondering if a pepperball gun might be effective against bears. Just a random thought". I would think that they are. They have a VERY strong OC content. Shooting the ground in front of the bear would produce a cloud of OC (the contents of pepperballs are a powder). My first thought is that it would be heavier than bear spray, but some "markers" are pretty light. It's still probably heavier, but would give the user more attempts; as many as one is willing to carry. ;^) Edit: Pepperballs do not use OC, they use Capsaicin II, which is the hottest molecule in the capsaicin family, and can be thought of as the “essence” of what makes hot peppers hot. They would certainly be "hotter" than bear spray.

[Dean F.]

Not… engaging… Tom… on… Ukraine… Whew. That was close. Offhand, I think that pepperballs would perfectly combine all of the disadvantages of a gun with all of the disadvantages of spray. Not to mention that it's hard to keep a paintball gun ready all of the time- the things are finicky. And heavy. Unless you're talking about one of those plastic pistols powered by a 12-gram cartridge, in which case I would propose that is simply not enough gun. And those (heavy) fast-firing speedball guns usually have exposed pneumatic fittings and batter-powered motherboards, both of which introduce yet more points of failure. And they're heavy. And having a hopper full of balls rattling around as you walk is annoying (you can't pack them totally full or they won't feed). I imagine that a pepperball body strike on a bear would be relatively useless. So you have to be able to hit it in the face. With a smoothbore. If you have a semi- or fully-automatic paintgun this might not be too terribly difficult but I personally would never risk my life with a paintgun's low reliability. Also, IIRC don't pepperballs tend to have relatively thick shells as paintballs go, to make breakage in the gun less likely? (The greater pain involved in a nonbreaking hit on a rioter is also a deterrent, so this isn't much of an issue for cops.) Thus I have to wonder how well they'll break when hitting a chubby, hairy, well-padded bear. I know that some rangers use pepperballs but I think that they are harassing bears to alter behavior, not defending against them.

[Author]

Posts