Skip to comments.BYU study: Guns don't give people advantage during a bear encounter
Posted on 03/08/2012 10:58:38 PM PST by Zakeet
Conventional wisdom isn't always based on common sense, and sometimes isn't even based on real data, especially when it comes to animals of mythological proportions like bears.
BYU wildlife biologist Tom Smith wants to change that.
A new study suggests that one of the most commonly suggested deterrents against bears in the wild guns actually won't protect people any better than not using a gun.
"It really isn't about the kind of gun you carry, he said. It's about how you carry yourself. We need to respect an animal that could potentially take our lives."
This isn't the first time Smith has had a study showing that guns aren't as effective against bears as generally believed. In 2008, Smith released a study saying that bear spray is more effective than guns.
Part of the problem is that shooting accurately is very difficult in a terrifying situation like having a giant animal charging at you. Even if you do kill the bear, that's still a problem, given declining populations and the the loss of what a bear can contribute both economically and ecologically.
"It's a conservation issue in that we'll see needless bear mortalities," Smith said.
(Excerpt) Read more at deseretnews.com ...
It’s Frontiersman Bear Attack Deterrent.
Furthermore, where precisely did I call “every scary dog a pit bull”.
I called the dog that menaced me a pit bull, which it was.
Are you illiterate or something, or do you just read what you want to read?
Although the perfesser might be a bear-worshipping idjit, he still has a good point: having your wits about you is the key factor in not having inappropriate carnivorous connection with bears.
I’ve encountered dozens of black bears over the years and only really sweated it once.
The only two people I know personally who survived bear attacks(one black, one grizzly), were saved by their loyal labradors diverting the bear enough to allow escape with only bites and scratches.
In conclusion, take a dog. ;^)
Regardless of what anyone posts it wasn’t a pit bull if it dwarfed your 100lb dog. It might have been a rott or a Shetland pony but it wasn’t a pit.
Pits are the most misidentified breed in the world and both my pit and I are tired of it.
I'll bet you're right. What mama bear would lie docile like that, while some human is touching her cubs?
or a Jupiter stone...
I figgered you for a FAST learner!
LOL! That sounds like something I would do. :)
...how’d the dogs fare?
Try bein' a guy with a screen name of ELSIE!
I use to think so also....LOL
Yes, thats the one...those that say no pit weights 100 pounds are not really up on information on pits...
But we only have the writters word for them being temp. disabled.
link to 150 pound pits at #130
“Got menaced up close and personal bout 3 months back down a lonely road by a massive pitbull that made my 100lb. german shepard look small.”
Never said it dwarfed my dog, never said it weighed 100 lbs. I said my dog weighed 100 lbs.
It could have weighed less than 100 lbs and made my dog look small based upon muscle mass.
As I suggested before you should read what is acutally there, not what you think is there.
It was a pit, I could tell by its markings, its wide jaw, the muscles around its jaw, and its other dense muscles, sorry.
Perhaps the reason these dogs enjoy a bad rep is because their owners let them run free terrorizing people with dogs on leashes like me.
Dunno what else to tell you, it is what it is.
Had a good laugh myself
In my case a model 94 Winchester 30/30 solved my problem nicely.
I see that you took my overly-critical post (I’ve got to get over that tendency) in good humor. I am sorry, though, really, since I had “misremembered” what I had seen, i.e., the photo with the caption under it stating that the animals had been temporarily disabled. I thought it was in the original post and it tweren’t.
As for them being “temporarily disabled,” yep, we only had the writer’s word, and that might be wrong. Could be.