Firearms when Backpacking

[Arthur]

Ben H. “Oh good, we haven’t had a thread full of a million posts of people talking past each other in a while.”

+1      Let’s start an (deleted) thread.  Same result.

[BlackHatGuy]

I love (deleted) threads!

[Jerry Adams]

(deleted) threads?

[Arthur]

(deleted) was a word that was deleted by the admins.  It was a topic where there are also polar opposites where each side does not listen to the other.   It was not obscene.

[BlackHatGuy]

I pretty much knew what the word was, and certainly knew it was deleted by management. My post was a tongue-in-cheek comment on that.

[Jerry Adams]

yeah, I read it before it was deleted, I don’t know why Roger deleted it but I give him the benefit of the doubt.  No matter what he does, people will be critical.  I don’t really care.

I was just being silly.  Again…

 

[Roger Caffin]

To explain:
Things are pretty tense at the moment, what with COVID and Trump. So I acted to remove what could have been the trigger for another big political/emotional flare-up on a subject quite unrelated to backpacking.
Let’s all stay peaceful.

Cheers
Roger Caffin

[Nick Gatel]

Thanks, Roger.

Gun threads always get emotional and then deteriorate. I read the deleted word, which did not bother me personally, but thought it might cause a lot of controversy and heated dialogue.

[DirtNap]

We date our bear spray cans and practice safe deployment once every three years. Understanding what it looks and feels like is important and can safety is too. Too often forgotten is the implications of food storage, bear hanging and odor control. As I stated I’ve never deployed defensively with my sidearm, the same thing is true for bear spray for me. Knocks on all the wood.

The peanut gallery in these comments really are counterproductive. Firearms are a part of backcountry travel, especially for hunting and bear safety,  and have many of the same considerations and intricacies (weight, comfort, education, theory). Would love to be able to have adult conversations here about the subject

[Kattt]

“Would love to be able to have adult conversations here about the subject”

+1

On more than just this subject while we are at it.

[AK Granola]

Those uninterested can just not read it, right? I force myself to ignore the firearm conversation, since I don’t carry one and likely never will. I am annoyed by carelessness with firearms, which I’m sure none of you people are. I live among people who know nothing about the guns they carry, which I find abhorrent, but there’s nothing I can do about them. (They drive the same way – without knowing or understanding basic traffic safety laws!)

I have just a quick comment on bear spray, since I carry it always and have used it once (on dogs). I have never had this happen, but I know several people who have; the cans can leak! Even just sitting in storage, apparently. When not in “use,” meaning actually carrying it on a hike, I put mine in ziplock bags and seal them. When I’m transporting it in a vehicle, I keep it in the bag, and take it out when I’m ready to attach it at the hip. Does no good in a bag tucked into a backpack, so having it on the shoulder or hip is critical. Just as you would be careful on how you store a firearm in transit or storage, you want to be careful with bear spray. The one time I used it, and the couple of times I’ve tested it, I got a small bit of backdraft. It is powerful stuff. Not deadly, but who wants an unpleasant 24 hours?

[David Thomas]

Karen, Do you know if the bear-spray cans that leaked lose their active ingredient or their propellent?  The liquid is orange colored so it seems you’d notice if any had leaked.

Maybe this would help (couldn’t hurt): weigh the canister when new and write the weight on it.  If it has decreased in weight, delegate it to a (downwind-pointing!) practice session.

And, yes, safe storage.  I was packing for a trip and left the bear spray on the counter.  Just an engineer, doctor and Alaskan teenager in the house, so no problem, right?  And the old dog is well behaved and never grabs things off the counter.  I forgot about the 4-month-old puppy.  She snagged it and chewed on the plastic handle/trigger/trigger block, discharging a little bit of it.  So now it’s on my to-do list to put on some latex gloves and a swim mask and go have a practice session.  I’m debating where to do it.  Maybe the side of our 13 acres where the neighbors let their off-leash dog wander?

[David Thomas]

DirtNap: agreed about food storage and odor control.  Best practices here in Alaska are to prepare dinner an hour and a few miles from where you camp, and to space your food storage and campsite >100 yards apart.  And, if base-camped, space food storage, kitchen area and campsite in a large triangle, separate from each other.

What adult conversation would you like to have about firearms in the woods?

I did a 60-mile trip with a friend last month and I talked him out of bringing his .44 but then his wife made him bring it.  So he had that in a chest holster the whole time.  I’m more comfortable around him with firearms than the vast majority of Alaskans (retired military, ex-police, former pipeline security).  The one time most cops would have taken the shot (semi-mass-shooter at the hospital), he didn’t, because 1) the guy was done shooting the people he was upset at and only wanted to commit “suicide by cop” 2) he didn’t have a perfect backstop, and 3) other officers did.

My plan was bring my dog, who I’ve trained to return to me when there is a person or large animal ahead.  Third day, she returns and sits down in front of me in her “You wanted me to do this for critters/people” demeanor.  I look up and see a bear 70 yards ahead.  Which then ran away.  Because that’s what bears do.  Almost always.  We then discussed the legality of taking the shot* – he had his hunting license for 2020 (I’ve only gotten my fishing license so far this year), and as residents we don’t need tags.  But we would have had to haul out the hide and skull (and I’d want to salvage the meat) and we were 20 miles in at that point.  With only UL packs.

* if we’d been closer.  70 yards isn’t a revolver shot.

[Roger Caffin]

Firearms are a part of backcountry travel
Adult conversations are always fine.
Always remembering that most BPL members would never carry, and in National Parks in many other countries around the world it would mostly be illegal anyhow.

Cheers

[Dave @ Oware]

David brings up some of the host of hassles associated with killing a bear (or other predator)  in self defense. You may be required to carry out the animal, be exposed to law enforcement scrutiny, (and also derision and threats from the cancel culture). Non lethal methods are preferred when they work. Not to mention that killing of animals has it’s own set of ethical issues.

That said, it is becoming more apparent that firearms are more effective in preventing death and injury to people from bear attacks. Previously people were comparing studies between lethal and non-lethal defense methods that were not directly comparable. Sort of one study showing how nuisance bears could be shooed away with pepper spray while another study examining attacking bears and the mere presence of a firearm. All good data, but not as formally used, conflated and parroted by government agencies and web influencers.

Here is a list of bear attacks and handgun use.

https://www.ammoland.com/2020/03/update-handgun-or-pistol-against-bear-attack-93-cases-97-effective/#axzz6UczDhFak

 

 

[Arthur]

I don’t carry a gun but also do not carry bear spray now.  Carried it for years where “needed”.  One day, on the way from the trail head, I decided to try the bear spray.  Open field, nothing around, wind about 10-12 knots.  Sprayed it at a big rock about 20 ft away.  The wind at my back seemed safe, but it created a bit of an eddy around my body and the spray came raging back in my face in-spite of the wind at my back.  Miserable few hours.  Anyway, I got to thinking. All those videos demoing the spray are in ideal situations, no wind, nice level ground, nobody else around.  And, nobody is excited or panicked.  And they advise spraying it many yards away long before the bear gets close.  All great advice in a controlled world. Now the real world.  Down wind from the bear, trees and bushes in my way, down hill from the bear, my buddy is between me and the bear, and I am scared to death.   I figure the chance of ME effectively causing ME to be incapacitated will be high and I will now be unable to do anything rational to avoid the bear attack after I use the spray.  There are probably many holes in my argument, but after spraying myself, I am a bit “gun shy”.

As an aside,  I was hiking with a NPS ranger who patrolled the Sierras. I asked him about bear spray. He said he has only seen it used in camp. He volunteered that bear spray is very effective in clearing out crowded campsites!

[DirtNap]

Adult conversations are always fine.
Always remembering that most BPL members would never carry, and in National Parks in many other countries around the world it would mostly be illegal anyhow.

Agreed although I suspect that is changing rapidly based upon gun sales figures for various reasons. But lightweight hunting is a real thing and is booming. And gun manufacturers are doing amazing things with ultra-lightweight arms. A great example is the amazing 11 oz 340 PD, which is a .357 mag that weights less than a can of bear spray! More people than ever are embracing knowledgeable firearms use.

As I’ve said, I don’t always carry. It’s always a matter of judgement For example in the Winds: if I’m on the Pop Agie, I carry bear spray alone. If I’m in one of the Bull Creek Lake drainages, where grizzly cattle “slaughter events” are not uncommon now, and human death/injury is statistically inevitable (see search term: Absoroka bear attack. 20 miles north of the Winds) I pack both. I’m actually digging this thread now. Lots of great info. And cheers to you good sir!

[AK Granola]

I believe both of these statements are in error. I’m not trying to be politically provocative, just fact-oriented. I’m not opposed to guns or hunting, but I just don’t think these things are true.
<p style=”text-align: center;”> firearms are more effective in preventing death and injury to people from bear attacks.</p>
I’d need to see solid evidence to support this. I don’t think it exists. Hunters say that because they are cutting up big pieces of bloody meat, which naturally bring in bears, so they are more frequently attacked than hikers, which changes the stats. They shoot because they have guns; they’re not even trying bear spray. I’d probably not rely on bear spray to defend a piece of bloody meat either.

But this is a very different situation than hikers or backpackers eating couscous (which not only doesn’t attract bears, but puts me off too!). I also find that in Alaska, hunters like to make up stories. One guy commented in an article about a recent bear attack, that he personally knew hundreds of people who had run from bears. No he doesn’t! Some hunters up here believe that all bears are out to eat us. It’s just not true; most are not. Their beliefs reflect their different experience, where bears are very interested in what hunters are doing. There are literally thousands of hikers and backpackers who never have encounters with bears, but there are plenty of bears. They tend to ignore us or avoid us. Maybe we smell bad.
<p style=”text-align: center;”> lightweight hunting is a real thing and is booming.</p>
Hunting numbers are dropping and have been for years. People are more interested in wildlife watching than hunting, according to this report from the Dept of Interior. It’s one more reason to put charges on backpack equipment (or find another sources)  to support conservation, since the hunting licenses funded a lot of it and that revenue is dwindling.

 

 

[David Thomas]

Yeah, I tweaked on the “firearms are more effective in preventing death and injury to people from bear attacks” as well.

Because when actual researchers, with actual PhD’s who publish in actual peer-reviewed journals look at the data (e.g. BYU prof Tom Smith, Calgary professor Stephen Herrero, et al), that’s not what they find.  A few of their conclusions:

1) that “firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters with bears whether they used their firearms or not,” and 2) that “bear spray [has] a better success rate under a variety of situations … than firearms.” The data set included 444 people, 357 bears (black, brown, and polar), and a total of 269 close encounters.

Their 2008 study looking specifically at the effectiveness of pepper spray in bear encounters in Alaska. They gathered reports from 1985 to 2006 (spray wasn’t used before the mid-’80s), and reviewed 83 close bear encounters involving 156 people. In all of the incidents involving spray, there were only three injuries, and none of them fatal—a 98-percent success rate.

(And from a different study) Surprising a mother bear with cubs is the NOT most dangerous kind of black bear encounter. Instead, lone male black bears hunting people as a potential source of food are a greater cause of deadly maulings and related predatory attempts.

[John S.]

After the Huffman attack in the ANWR, 2005, a National Geographic article had this quote…

“Thompson, the river guide who found the Huffmans’ campsite, believes that a floorless tent, an electric fence, and a loaded pistol (that doesn’t need to be cocked) might help future campers.”

The Huffmans had a rifle in the tent that was not used in defense.

[Jerry Adams]

floorless tent for easier exit?

I’ve thought about that, more to escape a tent fire

[J-L]

Surely an article from ammoland.com can’t be biased towards guns.

Thanks, David, for clearly laying out accurate information.

[AK Granola]

Yes, Alaska has its share of fatal maulings, predatory attacks, and injuries from bears. But it’s helpful to remember that they’re rare, especially if you look at the huge number of people stomping around out there. The river won’t let you fight back and that’s probably how you’ll get it up here. I’ve been hiking, backpacking, kayaking and berry picking up here for 30 years and still don’t see a need to carry a gun. If I’m someday eaten, y’all can have a beer in my name. Cheers.

[Dave @ Oware]

Those are the studies by smith and herraro are the ones being conflated.

One of those authors won’t release his data either. Look into it if you want or just go with your bias.

Here’s a place to start-

“Tom Smith states, again, that he would not compare the two studies—“Efficacy of Firearms” and “Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray”—directly. Yet a press release from Brigham Young University, where he works as an associate professor, did conflate results from the two studies, leading to stories in media outlets like The New York Times that conclude “A rifle apparently doesn’t work as well as a canister of red pepper spray.””

https://www.outsideonline.com/2401248/does-bear-spray-work#close

Of 72 incidents in Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska, just 9 involved charging grizzlies, and 3 of 9 people who sprayed charging grizzlies were injured.

https://bioone.org/journals/journal-of-wildlife-management/volume-72/issue-3/2006-452/Efficacy-of-Bear-Deterrent-Spray-in-Alaska/10.2193/2006-452.short

1999 study of over 1,000 bears killed in “defense of life or property” from 1987 to 1996 showed that less than 2% of the people who used firearms were injured

https://www.bearbiology.org/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_11/Miller_Tutterrow_Vol_11.pdf

Dr smith only lists 263 incidents in his 2012 study.

 

The Journal of Wildlife Management based on a four-year study in California’s Sequoia National Park says shooting black bears with rubber slugs from a 12-gauge shotgun is most effective — better than pepper spray, chasing them off or hitting them with rocks. Researchers detailed 1,050 instances of so-called aversive conditioning on more than 150 bears, some of which had become accustomed to human food.

I know rocks only work to keep the SEKI bears at rock throwing distance.

Dr Smith may be a Phd, but the take aways from the studies are not being done by Phd’s.

Then there is “John” worrying about bias. Couldn’t find anything wrong with the data so just “shoots the messenger” so to speak.

And second thought so is David.

 

 

 

[Roger Caffin]

One of those authors won’t release his data either
This usually means the ‘data’ is either made up or does not support the conclusions. Fraud either way.

Cheers

[Author]

Posts