When it comes to protecting myself
against bears, I personally prefer firearms. I’m not against pepper spray, mind you, which has indeed proven effective
on a great many occasions. For people completely unfamiliar with firearms,
pepper spray is a sound and effective choice. It certainly offers a great deal
more safety and security recreating in grizzly country than waltzing around
completely unarmed.
I do believe,
however, that all of the supposedly empirical “proof” of its effectiveness has
been grossly distorted and highly over-rated to the point that it gives people
a very dangerously false sense of security.
Just the other day, I ran across a gun
article which said, “Alternatively, 97% of bears are stopped with a 9oz. can
of bear spray. Yep I said it, bear spray. Comparing the percentages, a firearm
should actually be carried as a second line of defense should the bear spray
prove ineffective…I am a believer in math, so ‘I know’ that statistically the
odds or survival will favor me should I choose the Bear Spray.”
Similarly, the United States Fish
& Wildlife Service…you know, the people who spend American taxpayer dollars
to help fund African and Asian elephant habitats at zoos in Europe…puts out a
“Fact Sheet” entitled Bear Spray vs.
Bullets. It makes such claims as, “…persons encountering grizzlies and
defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time.” And,
“…a person’s chance of incurring serious injury from a charging grizzly doubles
when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used.”
Well, the
advocates cannot possibly be wrong, since they have math to prove it, right? As the old saying goes, “Statistics don’t
lie.” That rather depends on the statistics
and how they were garnered. There’s another old adage, generally attributed to
Mark Twain, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” Yet another old saying,
again apropos, notes, “Torture numbers and they will confess to anything.”
Although the
advocates always say studies (plural)
or even numerous studies prove the
effectiveness of bear spray, when you seek out this plethora of studies
(plural) they pretty much boil down into a single study (singular) that has
appeared in a couple of different forms. The 2012 study was researched primarily
by BYU professor Tom Smith and author Stephen Herrero and published in the Journal of Wildlife Management under the
title of “Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska.”
Mankind has
been taking out bears with “modern” firearms (loosely defined as ones using
self-contained cartridge ammunition) for about a hundred and fifty years, but
pepper spray is a comparatively new invention. In wide-spread use for only a
couple of decades, it is naturally more difficult to find and compile incidents
in which bear spray has been used.
The authors found 72 cases to include
in the study. It is interesting to note that out of these 72 cases, 30%
involved government personnel engaged in “bear management activities”, only 25
of the bears were considered aggressive, and just 10 cases involved actual bear
charges and/or attacks. The majority dealt with curious or non-aggressive
bears. On the other hand, 100% of the 197 bear vs. gun
incidents chosen for the study involved aggressive bears and bear attacks.
There seemed
to be the scent of cherries being picked in the air when I considered the
researchers found fewer than 200 incidents of bear attacks involving guns in
Alaska over a 126 year period, especially when you take into account that when
it comes to true “bush” Alaskans many minor children and even some household
pets are routinely armed with large caliber firearms. Kodiak Island all by its
lonesome averages about a dozen Defense of Life/Property incidents (these are
common enough in Alaska that they even have their own acronym…DLPs) involving
bears and guns every year.
A little digging found a 1999 study
conducted by the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (Miller & Tutterrow)
entitled Characteristics
of Nonsport Mortalities to Brown and Black Bears and Human Injuries From Bears
in Alaska. This
study documented 2,289 cases within the
State of Alaska
of people using firearms to defend themselves and/or their property against
bears during the period from 1970 to 1996. In this study, fewer than 2% of the incidents involved injuries to humans. One
summary noted, “Most of the people shooting brown or black bears in DLP
circumstances indicated that no human injury occurred (98.5% for brown bears
and 99.2% for black bears).”
Percentage-wise, that comes to only
1.15% of those who used firearms against bears being injured. That’s a helluva
long way from the Federale’s “Fact Sheet” claim that you stand a 50-50 chance
of injury or death by shooting a bear in self-defense.
It is also interesting to note that
the Alaskan state researchers uncovered well over two thousand documented cases
over a period of just 26 years; that averages out to 88 attacks per year. Apply
that average over a 126-year period and you could potentially have as many as
11,088 bear attacks to study. Examining 72 of those cases amounts to a
statistical sampling of 0.65% which, no matter how I try to stretch it, seems
to fall a tad bit short of proving anything with 97% certainty.
It was, however, personal experience
that led to my own loss of faith in pepper spray. In the US Forest Circus,
Department of Aggravation, we used to be required to take a yearly 4-hour block
of instruction on the use of pepper spray in order to be “qualified” to carry
it for protection in bear country. I recall most clearly the training session
taught by a lady biologist. Pepper spray was much more effective than a
firearm, she began, because an ex-boyfriend had taken her out shooting once and she wasn’t able to hit
anything, thus proving that guns are
ineffective. Since this was undoubtedly true from her personal perspective, I
was willing to let that slide.
Other information during the training
also made me go hhhmmmm. While the
instructor claimed that pepper spray was indeed “proven” effective against
bears, she admitted that it might not necessarily work against large felines or
canines, and legally could not be used as protection against two-legged
varmints.
When we went
outside for the practical demonstration of pepper spray, the class became truly
enlightening. The instructor unlimbered the canister of pepper spray which she
personally carried on duty in the woods and let fly. Only a small bit of liquid
substance oozed rather sluggishly out of the nozzle and dribbled down her
fingers. She washed her hands thoroughly, broke out a brand new can of pepper
spray still in the plastic wrapper, and took another poke at it. This can
sprayed for somewhere close to a good three quarters of a second before it also
just up and quit entirely. But the THIRD can, also brand-new in the wrap,
worked as advertised, “proving” its superiority over a firearm by streaming out
in a fan-shaped pattern.
I, of course,
had a huge problem with the whole one-in-three success rate. That did not
inspire much confidence. I sure as hell wouldn’t advocate carrying a revolver
if I could only count on two out of the six cartridges actually going off when
I dropped the hammer.
There was no wind that particular
day, either. Knowing my luck, I always kind of figured that if I ever had to
use pepper spray it would be at the exact moment I was facing into a 40 mph
headwind. Dispersion and blow-back due to wind is certainly possible, although
IIRC it was only listed as a factor in 7% of the cases studied. Consider also
that while you may be able to defend yourself
against a bear with spray, you may very well be SOL when it comes to protecting
a partner or friend standing only five or ten yards away.
Lastly, I personally used pepper
spray in an attempt to run a problem black bear out of a campground. I can’t
recall the brand name, but the stuff I used was the USFS approved, recommended
and issued capsaicin-based spray. On my first attempt, I sprayed the bear in
the face out the truck window at a distance of 20-25 feet. This failed to
impress the bear in question, a 2 or 3 year-old blackie that probably wouldn’t
have weighed more than 150 pounds soaking wet. After being sprayed in the face,
he snorted, shook his head vigorously, and ambled away in a leisurely fashion
further into the campground. I headed him off at the pass and gave him another
dose of pepper spray at similar range. This time he made a couple of sneezing
noises, rubbed at his face and eyes irritatedly with a paw, then looked
straight at me and growled. With a final snort he continued on his way, back
into the campground, in no big hurry. A third application was mostly scattered
by the wind, but the bear finally felt harassed enough to stroll unhurriedly
off into the woods for the moment. He was back raiding the campground within
the hour.
Between all
these incidents, I eventually became completely underwhelmed by the
effectiveness of pepper spray. If I were an academic, I could cherry pick my
own personal “statistics” and author a study substantiating that pepper spray
has a 66% failure-to-fire rate and has been proven in the field to be 100%
ineffective against black bears.
I am making no
such ludicrous claims. Even I readily admit that such a small sampling is
essentially worthless for the purposes of statistical proof. It would be as
ridiculous as, say, specifically singling out a mere 0.65% of bear attacks
spread out over a century and a quarter.
I’m not
saying, nor do I believe, that pepper spray is worthless or ineffective. It is a
viable and valuable option that can greatly increase your personal safety in
case of a bear attack. It can work quite effectively and has most certainly
been used successfully on a great many occasions over the past couple of
decades. It has saved lives, both human and ursine. Especially for people who
don’t know anything about guns, it is an obvious choice. Pepper spray certainly
beats the hell out of walking around the woods completely defenseless.
I am saying that, mainly for political
reasons, the powers-that-be have intentionally over-stated the true effectiveness
of pepper spray while deliberately denigrating the use of firearms. It is not
omnipotent and infallible; simply buying a can does not instantly render you
97% invulnerable in bear country. It’s more a last line of defense for when all
else goes wrong and the bear shit hits the fan and you have no other options.
Ironically, I can say exactly the same thing when it comes to the big-bore
handguns I prefer.
If you chose
to carry pepper spray, I would offer a few words of advice. Not all pepper
sprays are equal; you don’t want the personal defense or law enforcement sprays
designed for use against people. What you need should contain capsicum and be
clearly labeled, “For deterring attacks by bears.” Minimum size of the canister should be 7.9 ounces and it should
have a minimum spray distance of 25 feet and a spray duration of at least 6
seconds. A larger size is obviously valuable in case more than one application
is required to deter a bear.
As with even
the most powerful weapon available, pepper spray is worthless if, at the moment
of truth, it is buried in your pack and inaccessible. Even worse is to carry it
attached to the exterior of the pack, where it’s both difficult to reach
quickly as well as susceptible to getting snagged in the brush where it could
accidentally triggered, depleting your defenses while potentially giving you a
nice incapacitating dose to boot.
Carry pepper spray on your person and easily accessible at
all times; the good brands come with a holster that can be attached to a belt.
Practice drawing the can from its holster and removing the plastic safety clip
until you can do so smoothly and easily with no fumbling around. Pay close
attention to the expiration date and test fire the canister at least once at
the beginning of each season. Since I spend a great deal of time in the
mountains every year, doing activities that involve my gear getting
occasionally jostled, bumped or dropped, if I relied entirely upon pepper
spray, I would simply purchase a brand new canister at least every other year
regardless of the expiration date. Even though pepper spray is not our primary
means of defense, we still carry it, and replace it with a new can every third
year.
Lastly, in an attack you need to
concentrate the spray cloud directly in the bear’s face or just in front of it.
There is somewhat of a “recoil” type of effect when holding down the button on
the spray can that can tend to lift your hand a bit and thus disperse the spray
pattern upwards. Be sure to keep the cloud down and concentrated where it will
do the most good.
Although my
wife and I both carry .44 Magnum revolvers and
pepper spray in the woods, neither one is our primary defense against bear attacks. Our primary defense is
avoiding bear attacks in the first place by maintaining good situational awareness
and practicing all of the “Bear Aware” methods of avoiding a confrontation
altogether.
Of course,
sometimes shit happens no matter what precautions you take. I’ve cleaned up
some unbelievable messes people have left in the woods. You and your party may
be scrupulously following all of the best practices only to discover that the
previous campers dumped fifty pounds of garbage a stone’s throw away from your
present campsite. Or it could just be one of those times when Murphy’s Law
decides to kick in.
While we do
carry pepper spray as a non-lethal alternative if the situation allows, for us it is Plan B. Plan A remains the
revolver because I know it will go “bang” each and every time I pull the
trigger, the ammunition won’t “go bad” over time, it can be used with equal
effectiveness against multiple threats and species, and not even the stiffest
of headwinds will blow a 300-grain bullet back in my face.
