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."
[Snip]
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 ...
"On one side, human safety is a huge issue. On the other, we're having bears blown away for no good reason," he said.
This moron clearly has an agenda, and his top priority obviously isn't protecting human life.
One of many possible explanations for his blatantly false conclusion aside from his bias is that he relied solely on reported attacks. Most people have enough common sense that they are unlikely to report a self-defense incident that ended up in a dead bear and no human injuries. There are simply too many eco-freak idiots in authority, like this "researcher", to put oneself in peril of legal persecution. A dead human-attacking bear means that the problem has been solved. Shoot, shovel (optional), and shut-up.
Be on the look out for EPA as well. Seems such feeding may be considered “point source pollution”.
Got permit?
When I first got it, I bought two hundred 350 grain factory loads. After less than half those rounds one afternoon, I literally thought I had broken bones in my wrist. It took over a month before I no longer felt pain in my hand. I subsequently invested in a pair of jack hammer gloves which make it tolerable. I put a scope on it and those same rounds broke the reticle loose inside the tube so with every round, you could see the cross hairs rotate a little more. I have since loaded up some less brutal ammo that doesn’t break wrist bones or scope reticles. I’m looking at getting some 440 grain projectiles next though. That’s equal to a 1 ounce shotgun slug flying out the end of the barrel. Eventually, I want to do some penetration tests with some max loads and see if this thing will shoot through IIIA body armor the way I think it will. BTW DJ, the .500 develops significantly more muzzle energy than a 45/70. I think it would easily crack an elephant’s skull and shred its brain but you would have to be one ballsy SOB to go on that hunt. I think it would be particularly effective out of a rifle barrel however. you would be looking at energy levels in the 4000-5000 ft/lbs level with a rifle length barrel. I have been keeping my eyes open for a lever gun chambered in .500 SW mag.
no problem, don’t be so hard on yourself..Lots of times I don’t read article unless freeper replies make it sound interesting....(I am a lazy freeper) “O)
The dogs were fine...and well-loved by their masters!
“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.”
Die you flukers..bears are important not humans.
The caption says that they were "knocked out"; it doesn't say they were knocked out with the spray. I'd suspect that they were shot with tranquilizer darts.
I thought it was a spray, and that was the point that he was making that one need not have a gun to stop a bear.
The caption:
Tom S. Smith, associate professor in the plant and wildlife sciences department at BYU, holds up a temporarily knocked-out family of polar bears. A study he co-authored shows that a small can of bear spray can stop a charging animal.While the spray is mentioned in regard to his study, I don't read it that he knocked out the bears with it. As far as I can tell, bear spray is just industrial-strength pepper spray. The spray will (hopefully) drive them away, but it wouldn't be able to knock them out.
If I can get Grampa's farts packed into a spray can....
yeah, I’ve seen that one. It’s freaking awesome but pricey. I was hoping a more affordable one would come along.
Gee, it’s almost as they were “WILD” animals.
Thanks!
Must have had gonads!
A world record grizzly bear was shot and killed by Bella Twin in 1953 in British Columbia, with a .22 single shot rifle.
http://www.angelfire.com/on2/LandOwner/misc/Grizley1.html
I hope that no one is foolish enough to believe that. Indeed, Dr. Smith should be condemned in the strongest terms for such a blatant and callous lie. If some nitwit lefty actually follows that advice and dies, then Dr. Smith must share some blame.
Astonishingly, Dr. Stephen Herrero is listed as a co-author on this study. Dr. Herrero is the author of Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Avoidance. Dr. Herrero certainly knows that particular advice is a dangerous lie, and should condemn it in the strongest terms.
I personally do not recommend large caliber hunting weapons as they tend to tire my gun bearer. Also, the recoil often causes me to splash whisky all over my shirt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.