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 ...
The Looney Left is right ... you Freepers don't need your #%&*# guns when you go hunting ... cause the professor has proven that if you ever face a bear like this one, a simple squirt of pepper spray will convince the beast not to kill you.
What utter hogwash!
This guy is so full of it, he has agenda smears in his shorts.
I have a can of bear spray. I use it when I walk my dog.
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.
The dog stood about 5 feet away from me. I pulled the can, shook it, sprayed, and the cone dissapated before it ever hit the dog. It missed. However, the spray action itself seemd to convince the dog to leave.
If I go in the woods, I’m bringing my rifle and my .44 magnum.
That is all.
As I recall, you should wear bells to scare the bear off. /s
Timothy Treadwell Syndrome needs to be classified as a mental illness.
They do have a point. If you don’t have the right firearm all you’ll do is anger the bear, especially a brown bear. IIRC correctly Lewis and Clark record in their journals how their men found their firearms couldn’t take down one. And who can forget Jeremiah Johnson always trying to find a .50 cal rifle?
If it were true that bear spray would save my life more reliably than a gun I'd be glad to learn. But these jerk's priorities are so bizarre you can't believe a word they say.
hmm I guess he misinterpreted the saying loaded for bear....
I think if I unload 30 rounds from my AK in a bear’s general direction that it will go down.
They'll be calling him the late Professor Tom Smith pretty soon.
The story is that you use pepper spray on black bears, and bells on brown bears. Want to tell the difference between black bear poop and brown bear poop? Black bear poopy is peppery and brown bear poop will have bells in it.
They’re probably assuming most bears wear bulletproof vests.
Another attack on the right to bear arms?
(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.)
So the professor thinks that you getting killed by the bear is better than you killing the bear, because of “what a bear can contribute both economically and ecologically”. Call me crazy, but I think a human being is more precious than a bear, except maybe for the professor! I would gladly trade his worthless hide for a bear any day.
Well, if you’re Kanawa, a six-inch hunting knife (and a good dog), go a long way.
BYU excellence in academic research ping.
If correct, Tom Smith’s theory should have predictive value: if he’s a true scientist I suggest he put it to the test against a suitable number of bears in the wild (N>7 at least for statistical significance), and publish the results.
What is with the picture on the left, did that guy kill the polar bear cubs as well?
Disregard, I checked out the article, they were knocked out with spray.
My grandmother once attacked a bear with a jar of mayonnaise. Then I think my grandfather shot it.
I got a .500 smith and wesson magnum that would drop any animal on earth. I guarantee it’s more effective than a can of bear spray. I plan on hunting bears with it in fact.
You’re right about the bear being more precious than the professor, however I would like to add that I think bears, yes all types, are more precious than Obama, his wife, Joe Biden, Sandra Fluke, Bill Maher, Barney Frank, Mitt Romney, Anthony Wiener, Louis C.K., Cass Sunstein, Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Lesbitano, Ruth Ginsburg...heck I could go on FOREVER!
"It's a conservation issue in that we'll see needless bear mortalities," Smith said."
Hey Smith, you nimrod......can't have it both ways with your cutesy little "research". Either you can off a bear with a gun or you can't. Which is it, sparky?
Liberals always are well aware of the essence of whatever perversity they are pushing. They are taught by Leftists to go right to it, and declare it's opposite, in order to create extreme cognitive dissonance in their targets (and force the self-rape of themselves to deny the shame that would otherwise make them unable to push the perversity for their Leftist masters).
So, Perversity: "Study shows that drinking water won't quench your thirst."
Cognitive dissonance: "There is nothing in this study to contradict common sense" - or - "the only people who disagree are known racists" - or - "disbelief in this common sense conclusion reveals hatred for women."
See, it's like building blocks. Learn to parse their mind f***ing, and you can simply and easily deconstruct what it took them years of secret society handshakes to learn.
When in bear country, I suggest both guns and bear spray.
Spray first, then shoot.
Unless you think you can accurately hit a fast charging bear with a large enough caliber to put her down, you are better off with the spray. It gives the bear pause, which gives you time to safely shoot it.
"It's a conservation issue in that we'll see needless bear mortalities," Smith said.
I thought he was leading to the premise that the most important survival tool is what's between your ears. Which I could have agreed with. Then I got to those lines and saw this was an entirely agenda-driven politically correct load of enviro-wacko spotted owl feces.
A gun may not be the most effective way to deal with bears in most situations. But you'll darned sure wish you had one, and a big one, if Plan A fails. As for Mr. Touchy Feely here he's full of some kind of scatology, ursine or bovine. If the bear kills you because you didn't have the heart to kill it it's dead anyway. It's government policy to hunt down and kill any bear that kills a man.
LOL! That will also work.
“The story is that you use pepper spray on black bears, and bells on brown bears. Want to tell the difference between black bear poop and brown bear poop? Black bear poopy is peppery and brown bear poop will have bells in it.”
LOL! Funniest post I’ve seen in a while!
Bacon! It’s almost as indispensable as duct tape. ;^)
Even an old Thompson with a drum magazine would waste a few bears. Sears Roebuck used to sell them.
Someone needs to explain that one to me. Just what does a bear contribute economically, unless it's his pelt and meat? The entertainment value of watching him devour guys like the author? And what a bear contributes ecologically would be his scat and rotting carcass when he dies. Not to denigrate that, but 2-3 cows would be pretty much equivalent.
Tom S. Smith, associate professor in the plant and wildlife sciences department at BYU, holds up a temporarily knocked-out family of polar bears.
For what ever purpose, unmentioned, does a “scientist” run around knocking out polar bears. It would appear to be relavent. Another item they did mention caught my attention.
“What they found was that there was no statistical difference in terms of injury or death between those who used their gun (229) and those who didn’t (40)”.
Was anyone injured or killed? Of the 269 was common sense an issue? Of the 40, how many were carrying a gun? How many incidents were surprise encounters? How many were in the wild vs home invasion? How many of the 269 were long time Alaska residents. etc. This guy has a history of feel good and polar bear populations are decreasing articles. The population decrease alone is bogus whether Alaska or Canada.
If you have lived in Alaska for any length of time, you learn it can be dangerous to be outside in the wild with anything less than a 44 mag. Back when I lived there in the 70’s IIRC there was no bear spray and S&W 44 mags were over 600 dollars back then. So then common sense came into play. I didn’t have a 44 so I didn’t go where brown bears were. Did run into a black bear once. A chance encounter, he or she was rooting for food or whatever, and I had sufficient time to reverse course and leave the bear to its business. I was carrying a 357 mag which was one third the price of a 44.
This is why there should not be a 200.00 fee to own a machine gun...
You and I both know, there should be no restrictions on the ownership of any machine gun.
The passage of the 1987 gun laws put the citizens of the United States at a disadvantage vis a vis government at city state and federal levels as Govt’s purchasing power was unlimited whereas the individual citizen became eligible for practically nothing in comparison, especially when one considers what that did to the price of the now much limited supply. Yes once again government has chosen winners and losers. Citizens and manufacturers, you lose.
I hope so!
Saw a program years back where researchers tried to raise an orphan polar bear cub in their back yard.
When it got to that size it turned surly and violent.
They filmed it taking three or four swipes at the male researcher’s face.
Its right-left paw speed and power - even at that age - were awesome and completely shocking.
When I was in the Navy there was an old chief who went grizzly hunting every year, and the only weapon he took with him was a huge honking pistol. No idea what it was, .44 magnum or something similar.
Every year, he got his bear. Had the pics and the trophies to prove it, too. Why a pistol? Well, I guess it was more fun if the bear had a sporting chance.
Someone asked him how long he would keep it up. He said “Until a bear gets me.” That was about 30 years ago. I sometimes wonder if he’s still out there.
Pepper spray on bears is more of what I’d think of as a recipe for dinner, not survival.
Bears do business, and pay taxes too!
Well they do their business anyway!
thanks for the reply. Interesting
What’s the minimum needed to kill a bear and not just piss it off?
I was just going to say “Sometimes a knife and a dog work pretty well”.
Yes, they are indeed powerful creatures!
At first blush, it sounds like this researcher knew what his result was before he started his research.
As a practical matter, killing a bear with a gun before he can kill you is a very tricky proposition. A head shot will just piss him off.
In any case, this is not the “bear” mentioned in the Second Amendment.
There is no problem even driving a 357 mag and above bullet through a bears skull. I have done it several times.
This guy is a pro bear anti who is more concerned about the bears then people.
If guns aren’t effective against bears why do people in Alaska and in the Arctic carry them?
Declining polar bear numbers? Why has the number been going up since 1950 from 5,000 to 25,000? Could you show me the decline?
I think this guy disagrees:
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.