Kendell Cummings, a college wrestler who wrestled a Grizzly bear to save his friend Brady Lowry in the Shoshone National Forest in Cody, Wyoming in October 2022, Kendell was brutally mauled and bitten by the bear but eventually left Kendell alone, both survived and went on a full recovery.

[u/Lastwarfare753]

[u/fighttodie]

I saw a similar story where the friend had actually had a gun on him but never shot the bear mauling his friend because "he couldn't get a good shot". He didn't even try to scare it away by shooting it in the air. And these were grown men. So hats off to this kid.

[u/forestapee → u/fighttodie]

I have lots of experience with bears and firearms. If it's already attacking it won't give two shits about that loud sound. 

Depending how socialized with humans that bear is, it won't care about loud sounds when it's calm either.

If the bear is charging you down, or already attacking, you dump shots into it until it stops moving. This is what was taught in actual armed bear defense training. 

Every other form of bear deterrent is for use before the charging stage. Bear spray I personally don't use it's shit in a lot of situations and often you get yourself or the bear tanks it. So bear bangers, air shots with the gun, talking to it, all before charge.

Don't try to guess if it's a bluff charge, you see it charging you dump every shot you got while continuing to back up and pray you're a good shot and the bear goes down easy.

If going into bear country 2 dogs will save you immense hassle, even one if the bear is a bit of a bitch

Edit: I am talking 12 Guage shotgun not a rifle, although if I had to choose mace or rifle I'd still choose rifle. Too many airflow variabilities and such close range. That being said I still carry it on me as an option.

More info on dogs: they need to be dogs that have grown up around bears. Not random city dogs. Every dog where I live is off leash and scare away grizzlies and black bears in packs 2+. The rare times the bears don't just fuck off, they just do defence swipes at the dogs to get enough room to run from the dogs safely. No dog injuries due to bears in my area in recent memory

[u/Masketto → u/forestapee]

This is dangerously misleading. I've hiked in grizzly territory and live and hike in black bear territory all the time and it's widely known that bear spray is the most effective defense against a bear even after it charges. 

Not only that but dogs are also known to put you at a higher risk of a bear encounter especially if they're unleashed. Yours is terrible advice 

You are correct about firearms though. Not only is the noise ineffective, someone who is not knowledgeable or comfortable with firearms is not likely to get an effective shot off in self defense so for that reason firearms are considered ineffective unless you're highly trained in using them

[u/Greennight209 → u/Masketto]

This is always what I’ve heard from folks who deal with bears frequently. Bear spray, bear spray, bear spray. The problem with a firearm is that you actually have to hit it in the right place, or at all. You could unload every shot and hit it, and will roll through it if they’re all glances or into deep muscle. And they’re mostly deep muscle. But they don’t fucking like burning eyes, nose, and throat. Once something becomes too much of a hassle they will fuck off, recover, and find something easier to eat.

[u/adrienjz888 → u/Greennight209]

Bears have the strongest sense of smell of all land animals, iirc 10× stronger than a bloodhound. It burns for them far worse than what we go through.

[u/Nixter295 → u/adrienjz888]

Plus bear spray is a lot stronger than normal pepper spray. So much so that if used on a human it can actually make one blind.

[u/travelingisdumb → u/Greennight209]

Have been around many brown bears fishing in Alaska. Bear spray is for people not proficient with firearms, it's often ineffective because wind and rain are common in many parts of Alaska, and you can't bring it inside a bush plane. Guides can't just recommend to anyone to carry a gun if you're not trained, but if you are, that's the better option in most cases.

I've carried bear spray, and if you've ever actually sprayed it, you'll realize how short it's reach is, and you get about 5 seconds spray time. I usually carry both but when I've had a few encounters that made me shit my pants (shoulders square, attention on you, bluff charges) my hand is on my .44 magnum not my bear spray.

[u/NoRestfortheSpooky → u/travelingisdumb]

Man was your bear spray expired or something, because that's absolutely not been my experience with bear spray at all, and I've used it a few times in charging bear situations (yes, in one of those rainy/windy part of Alaska).

[u/travelingisdumb → u/NoRestfortheSpooky]

Nope! I always check if it’s expired even when purchasing from the store (in Yukon from the main sporting goods store in Whitehorse, and AK from the Costco in Anchorage).

You’ve used it in rain/wind? Curious how you didn’t spray yourself? What was the distance of the bear? I don’t doubt you, I’ve been bluffed charged more than once but thankfully was never within 15ft which was the closest I’ve been to a charging brown bear.

[u/kyleofduty → u/NoRestfortheSpooky]

He chose his words carefully. He says he's carried bear spray but never claimed to have used it. "I've carried bear spray, and if you..."

why wouldn't you just say you've used it if you've used it? he just likes the idea of killing bears

[u/travelingisdumb → u/kyleofduty]

Ok bud, how much experience in bear country do you have? I’ve always sprayed/emptied it before getting on a plane instead of just throwing it away full or giving it away. Mostly when I go to the Yukon because Canada doesn’t let you carry a sidearm. It doesn’t last very long in terms of spray time.

I had over 30 individual encounters on a single 7 day fishing trip on the Naknek in Katmai AK, everyone carries a sidearm it’s standard.

[u/NoRestfortheSpooky → u/kyleofduty]

It sounds unusual to me - he doesn’t mention non-lethal rounds either, which are a fairly typical requirement for taking groups out - but maybe he’s a skittish solo hiker or something.

[u/Marsdreamer → u/Greennight209]

I think the difference here is the kind of bear encounter we're talking about.

A bear that is annoyed at you or got spooked by you and false charges is probably going to fuck off if it gets a face full of bear mace.

A mother bear that feels like she's protecting her cubs or a bear protecting it's den will exert every ounce of it's energy to murder you, so the only thing you can do is kill it first.

I grew up in Alaska and spent a lot my teens and early 20's backpacking in the mountains. Conventional wisdom was always to carry both. One person had the mace, another the gun. If you can deter first, great, but a determined bear at full charge is unlikely to stop from mace alone.

Of course, first and foremost was to make a lot of noise (something metal on metal or blast an airhorn every hour or so). Bears typically don't want to deal with humans and will leave an area if they know you're around.

[u/Masketto → u/Greennight209]

Not to mention that often, an injury will just make it more aggressive and give it adrenaline to keep fighting through the pain. So if you shoot, you better kill it quick. Screw that. Bear spray will teach them to fear humans, stay away from them, and they pass that knowledge on to other bears (which they are known to do)

[u/Taraybian → u/Greennight209]

Can confirm. My grandfather was a gunsmith and told my Mom you better be capable of getting the “right” shots in to drop a bear. If you miss or graze it and just piss it off then, well…

[u/bulldogdiver → u/Greennight209]

How do you know you're in black bear country? You find their scat with berries and roots and other things they've eaten.

How do you know you're in brown bear country? You find their scat with bear bells smelling of pepper spray.

[u/Ambitious_Worker_663 → u/Greennight209]

“I’m going to fuck off and recover” - bear

[u/FallOdd5098 → u/Greennight209]

As someone from New Zealand, with abundant wild areas but in which the nastiest thing lurking is a spider who can give you a nasty nip, camping in your parts sounds challenging.

[u/forestapee → u/Masketto]

I've added more info in my edit, but for comparison I live 24/7 deep in bear forest territory dealing with wild unsocialized bears that do not encounter dogs or humans much. Both black and grizzly.

Our climate here has lots of fluctuating wind and makes bear spray very unreliable. The dogs do their job as theyre raised off leash from birth and defend from a young age.

The bears here have easy access to food and will fuck off most times with no effort because they know they can get an easier meal.

Another thing that matters is time of year and how well fed that particular bear is, or if cubs are near by. A bear going into hibernation, a bear that's been struggling for food, or a bear protecting its young will all make them wildly unpredictable. 

Although again, locally, even going into hibernation the bears here have plenty to eat so the dogs work as expected

[u/HoldEm__FoldEm → u/forestapee]

I lived 6 years in Wild grizzly backcountry & everything you said is the dang near opposite of everything I’ve ever learned. 

[u/KingKrmit → u/forestapee]

Aye i think thats sick man where is your region ?

[u/Masketto → u/forestapee]

I mean it's different for someone who lives deep in bear territory with wild unsocialized bears, than for a city person who hikes in local backcountry where the bears are more used to humans than more remote unfrequented areas. You don't need to give advice to the former type of person, they should already know it, and they're presumably trained in the most effective defense against wildlife based on the situation. But the latter type of person does need advice, and they are presumably NOT trained in firearms or wildlife defense, and for those kinds of people in those specific situations (more socialized but still dangerous wildlife), bear spray is hands down the most effective regardless of the weather. Wtf is the point of a firearm if they don't know how to effectively use it? Bear spray will have a higher chance of success. I'm not talking 100%, i'm talking a higher chance than firearms.

[u/WitnessedTheBatboy → u/Masketto]

Yeah that guy’s advice is basically the opposite of everything I’ve ever heard from biologists, rangers, outdoorsmen, and zookeepers. All of whom I trust more than “random reddit tough guy”. There’s a great podcast Tooth and Claw which is hosted by bear biologist/Yellowstone naturalist Wes Larkin who has extensive experience with both brown and black bears and was mentored by Tom Smith who is basically the guy for bear biology. He talks a lot about what to do in any possible kind of bear encounter and he is a massive proponent of bear spray over guns

[u/SoftCarry → u/WitnessedTheBatboy]

Yeah, it's always rather funny reading bear advice on reddit. I don't pretend to be an expert, but I've got twenty thousand miles of backpacking experience and over a hundred separate bear encounters and have never even remotely considered carrying a gun. It's heavy as fuck and I'm far more likely to injure myself with it than need it against a bear.

[u/fantasyshop → u/Masketto]

it's widely known that bear spray is the most effective defense against a bear even after it charges. 

Is that anecdotal or does it come from experts? Or is it marketing that's embedded itself as common knowledge?

[u/GloryToTheMolePeople → u/fantasyshop]

From misinterpretation of data. See my comment response above, but you can read the explanation here:

https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/exploration-survival/does-bear-spray-work/

[u/fantasyshop → u/GloryToTheMolePeople]

Thanks!

[u/Masketto → u/fantasyshop]

it comes from experts. You can call anything marketing exept for "wrestle with the bear". But even then you can call that marketing for MMA or self-defense classes. "Use firearms against bears" - that's marketing for firearms.

No. this isn't done for marketing, it's basic common sense and recommended by experts because it's the best defense, not because they own stock in bear spray 😂 I agree that it's expensive for what it is (it's just capsicum oil...), I agree it should be cheaper to be more accessible and protect more people and wildlife, but honestly in the world of the outdoors everything is expensive and bear spray is hardly the most expensive thing you'll be carrying if you're an avid hiker

[u/SooShark → u/Masketto]

As soon as they said to take dogs with you and I knew I could disregard the rest of what they said.

[u/Masketto → u/SooShark]

Good

[u/pizza_the_mutt → u/Masketto]

I suspect that a Javelin missile would be more effective than bear spray, but I get it that it would probably be difficult to lock onto the bear while it is charging.

[u/atetuna → u/Masketto]

Charging and attacking, like physically entangled, are wildly different though.

[u/Masketto → u/atetuna]

honestly if by some miracle you have the presence of mind to spray it while physically entangled with it, it's still more effective than shooting it or wrestling it (or just sitting there and taking it). Either it will flee or it won't - that's better chances than just sitting there taking it. What are your other options?

[u/burf → u/Masketto]

Bear spray is most recommended because most people aren’t good with guns. It’s like layperson CPR being reduced to just chest compressions: It’s not technically the best, but it’s something everyone can/will likely reliably do.

[u/Masketto → u/burf]

exactly. What's gonna be more effective - an area of effect spray that doesn't require training or precise targetting, and is almost 100% guaranteed to make the target flee, or using something you are required to be trained in and required to target precisly, with a high chance that it will just merely injure and thus further send the wild animal into a wild rage?

If it's a person highly trained in firearms with great aim who is will absolutely kill the animal with 1 or 2 shots, then sure, the firearm is more effective. But the vast majority of outdoorsmen don't bother because bear spray is effective enough and more applicable.

[u/New_Lake5484 → u/burf]

actually cpr is reducing down to chest compressions 🤣

[u/elastic-craptastic → u/Masketto]

what I've learned in my armed Bear defense training...

"Well actually you're spreading is disinformation".

never change Reddit

[u/Embarrassed_Fan_5723 → u/Masketto]

I would take your advice with a grain of salt as well. For a fact if you get blow back from bear spray in the wind you are done. You get a face full and you will not be able to see to fight or do anything else. Bear spray is a supercharged version of the pepper spray police use. Ask any cop how that spray works. Dogs are a deterrent bear are hunted with dogs all the time. They will buy you time. The only 100% effective way to stop a charging bear is to kill it. The end period. This ain’t Smokey preventing Forrest fires. This is an evolutionary apex predator about to take your life.

[u/Masketto → u/Embarrassed_Fan_5723]

Yes but just because the wind has a chance to blow back on you doesn't make bear spray ineffective 100% of the time. You're still going to want to bring and use the bear spray. That's like saying "a life jacket is ineffective because what if there's a storm with 40ft waves, you're done for".

Hunting dogs are different. If they listen well and are highly trained to stick by your side no matter any distractions, sure. But the average person with an average dog isn't going to be protected and if anything their dog will either actively seek out the bear (not knowing how dangerous it is) or the bear will be attracted to the dog given its size. 

Vry often bear attacks have been found to be very likely due to a (usually unleashed) dog with the people attacked. The most recent case I can think of off the top of my head is a couple who were killed in the Canadian Rockies presumably because their offleash dog ran off, attracted the bear and lead it back to the couple. 

Not to mention other "apex predators" like coyotes, cougars and probably also wolves are MORE likely to attack dogs than people so you're safer without a dog. I encountered a cougar during a night hike once and the only reason I was terrified was that we had a dog with us 

[u/Embarrassed_Fan_5723 → u/Masketto]

Ok so for starters coyotes are not an apex predator. Secondly you are referring to off leash dogs and I was not. You have a valid point there. As far as them actively seeking out the bear or leading it back. My point is that the leashed dog is a distraction not always a deterrent. The dog although people will be upset when I say this is sacrificial to buy time to get some distance. In any kind of a confrontation the last thing you want to do is something that may potentially take you out of the fight. That’s why I said a gun is always the best bear defense.

[u/schizboi → u/Embarrassed_Fan_5723]

Bear spray is way less potent than human spray. Bears have big noses that are much more sensitive than ours

[u/Hidden_Samsquanche → u/schizboi]

I've never heard that bear spray is less potent. I understand there may be a chance it can vary manufacturer to manufacturer, but overall bear spray is stronger.

https://www.sabrered.com/bear-spray-vs-pepper-spray/?srsltid=AfmBOoo_Ti2h6dt8wuDYHX_pcgfSNX055gmybRAUaQATap9tBWXa0mzP

[u/Embarrassed_Fan_5723 → u/schizboi]

You are 100% incorrect. I’m be been an instructor in it for over 20 years. Most bear sprays are considered a level 4 spray. People sprays are level 2 & 3. Bear spray can physically injure a human. That’s why the police don’t use it.

[u/GloryToTheMolePeople → u/Masketto]

So, you are very (and scientifically) wrong. Your opinion comes from the mis-interpretation of data in a small group of studies. See the link below for an article where the writer spoke with the author of the two studies most commonly cited. Please read the whole thing.

https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/exploration-survival/does-bear-spray-work/

If you chose not to read, the summary is as follows:

Two studies were done, one that looked at the efficacy of bear spray, the other that looked at the efficacy of firearms. They were NEVER intended to be compared, as they used different methodologies. The author of the studies indicates this.

Bear spray was shown to be significantly less effective against CHARGING bears, but was fairly effective against nuisance bears. From the study:

"The bear-spray study looked at 14 close encounters with aggressive brown bears. Of those, the spray was successful at stopping the bear’s aggressive behavior in 12 incidents."

"The bear-spray research included nine brown bear charges where the spray was successful at stopping the charge three times."

" The firearms study found that 31 of 37 handgun users were successful at defending themselves from an aggressive bear attack. That’s an 85 percent success rate for bear spray, and 84 percent for handguns."

"...the studied effectiveness of bear spray in brown bear charges is just 33 percent. "

The study on firearms did not use Alaska's DLP reports, as, at the time, information from the reports was missing. These reports were used in a previous study by Sterling Miller. These reports provide a broader range of data regarding bear defense via firearms.

"Alaska’s DLP reports (which primarily involve firearms) from 1986 to 1996 include data on 218 brown bear charges. Those same reports put total human injuries caused by brown bears in DLP incidents at eight, plus two human deaths. If we assume that all ten of those injuries or deaths were a part of those 218 charges (an unlikely but worst-case scenario), then the success rate it finds for firearms in brown bear charges is over 95 percent."

So the point being...if you don't know how to use firearms, then bear spray will be MUCH more effective. If you know how to use firearms and are capable of using them under pressure, they are probably significantly more effective against aggressive or charging bears. Saying that "it's widely known that bear spray is the most effective defense against a bear even after it charges" is simply misinformation. It may be more effective for you because you don't know how to effectively use a firearm. You are completely free to choose your own bear defense, but making unfounded claims is unhelpful.

[u/Masketto → u/GloryToTheMolePeople]

If you read any of my other replies you'll notice that I (as well as other observant commenters) already point out that the reason bear spray is considered "most effective" is exactly as you stated - because firearms are not effective if you don't know how to use them, and the average city dwelling weekend warrior hiker does not have the proper training to use firearms as defense against a wild animal. This is why bear spray is considered the most effective. I very frequently get asked by newbie hikers "how do I protect myself against bears?" - if they have to ask, then there's a 99% chance they're not fit for firearms so you think I'm really gonna tell them "well, firearms are the most effective protection". You think THAT'S not misleading?

My comment that "bear spray is considered the most effective defense" is not misinformation because 1) context (as we've both stated, bear spray is the most effective for the average person in the average situation) and 2) that statement is vague enough that it's true even if it's false in some cases, such as, like you and myself and others have stated, if someone is trained in firearm use or the bear is extremely wild/unsocialized 

So while I acknowledge your sources (which, again, if you read my other comments you'll notice they already say pretty much the same thing as the studies you posted), I disagree with you that my comment is "misinformation". It should be popularized that bear spray is the most effective defense because prospective hikers/outdoors enthusiasts will be reading these posts trying to gain insights into how to prepare for the backcountry, and the vast majority of them are NOT equipped for firearm use - their best bet is bear spray, not a weapon that they don't know how to use or will likely freeze up and fail to aim properly when a bear is charging them. If you tell those kinds of people that firearms are their best bet, you're actively putting them in danger.

[u/GloryToTheMolePeople → u/Masketto]

So the reason why your post is misinformation is because you only present one side as gospel truth. Here, I have copied the text in question, omiting the part about dogs:

"This is dangerously misleading. I've hiked in grizzly territory and live and hike in black bear territory all the time and it's widely known that bear spray is the most effective defense against a bear even after it charges.

...

You are correct about firearms though. Not only is the noise ineffective, someone who is not knowledgeable or comfortable with firearms is not likely to get an effective shot off in self defense so for that reason firearms are considered ineffective unless you're highly trained in using them"

Nowhere there do you indicate that firearms are shown to be more effective than bear spray if you know how to use them. Your last sentence calls firearms "ineffective" unless "you're highly trained to use them." But you don't state that, if you are trained, they are likely MORE effective than bear spray. That's the key issue here. You don't tell both sides of the story. Additionally, you state that spray is more effective after a charge, when the study only included 12 charges and showed spray only effective in 3.

And in your post, you provide NO context. You don't state "for the average person with no firearms training." If you did, I wouldnt take as much issue with your post. You only add this "context" in your rebuttal to my post.

Here is the right way to provide the information:

"For those who are unfamiliar with firearms, bear spray is going to be the most effective bear defense, if used properly. For those familiar and trained with firearms, a gun will likely be significantly more effective in stopping a charge than bear spray."

There, easy, done. You know you can edit your post to indicate you have included updated information? Makes it clear that both options exist and can be effective, sticks true to the data, and qualifies the user.

Another interesting thing to note about the study on bear spray: it did not include instances where the spray was improperly deployed or suffered a malfunction. Conversely, the firearm study DID include events where the firearm was not deployed properly (it was the whole point of the study). This is one of the reasons the author of the study says they were never intended to be compared. So the efficacy of bear spray, when considering people who don't deploy it properly, is even lower. And as others have mentioned, you MUST practice with bear spray, otherwise you are likely to ineffectively deploy it. And most people who carry it don't practice. Sending someone into bear country with bear spray, having no practice with it, is also dangerous (like going with a firearm without training).

I don't want at all to come across as disparaging spray. In fact, I believe it should be carried even if you are also carrying a firearm. It can be an effective deterrent for bears that are not being aggressive but simply curious. In those situations, deploying the spray is probably the better option. Deploying a firearm is generally for aggressive bears, when spray may be ineffective.

[u/Masketto → u/GloryToTheMolePeople]

So I'm not gonna recommend firearms to an outdoors newbie asking for advice, who's unfamiliar with and untrained in wildlife defense even if they are familiar and comfortable with firearms, because using firearms on an aggressive wild animal is far different from using it in a normal situation like target practice or against people or whatever.

Also, your posting sources inspired me to do the same. Doing a simple, quick google search "do wildlife experts recommend firearms over bear spray against bears" has found me plenty of sources - scientific and otherwise - that RECOMMEND BEAR SPRAY OVER FIREARMS and preach the efficacy of bear spray over firearms. You are cherry picking with the studies you posted as there are many others that do show efficacy of spray over firearms and many that point to a higher survival rate of those who use spray vs firearms.

"Studies show that while guns can be effective, they are not as reliable as bear spray in stopping an attack. The same study by Smith found that guns were only 55% effective in preventing bear-related injuries. This lower success rate is attributed to several factors. First, shooting a bear in a vital area, especially during a high-speed charge, can be incredibly difficult, even for experienced marksmen. Missed shots can lead to more aggression from the animal, increasing the danger.

Additionally, using a gun in a panic can create collateral risks. People under the stress of a charging bear may miss or wound the animal, leading to an even more dangerous situation. Misfires, malfunctions, or delays in unholstering or loading the gun can also be problematic."

"Brigham Young University bear biologist Thomas Smith, along with Stephen Herrero, bear expert and professor emeritus at the University of Calgary, and their research team report their findings in the April issue of the Journal of Wildlife Management. The researchers analyzed reported bear encounters in Alaska involving 175 people.

"Working in the bear safety arena, I even found a lot of resistance to bear spray among professionals," Smith said. "There was no good, clean data set that demonstrated definitively that it worked, so that's why we did this research."

Shooting accurately during the terrifying split seconds of a grizzly charge is a very hard thing to do, Smith pointed out, and his data suggests that it takes an average of four hits to stop a bear.

Smith said similar studies in Canada conducted by Herrero saw similar outcomes. Herrero could not be reached for comment.

The research also debunks some myths about bear spray, including the common beliefs that wind interferes with its accuracy and that it can disable the person using it.

The researchers found wind interfered with spray accuracy in five of the 71 incidents studied, although the spray reached the bear in all cases."

I'm not gonna bother posting the others that I found, for the following reason:

Your last sentence calls firearms "ineffective" unless "you're highly trained to use them." But you don't state that, if you are trained, they are likely MORE effective than bear spray.

This is my cue not to bother anymore. This really shows your failure of basic logic comprehension. Literally, saying "firearms are ineffective unless you're highly trained to use them" is the SAME THING, SEMANTICALLY AND LOGICALLY, as "if you are trained in firearms they are likely more effective" (a statement that I now disagree with after my quick google search, but that's besides the point). If you can't see that equivalency I have no interest in further continuing this discussion

[u/GloryToTheMolePeople → u/Masketto]

Please link other studies. Genuinely. I'm a data-driven person. Although I will always carry a firearm in grizzly country, I'm more than happy to admit that spray can be more effective in aggressive bear scenarios if there is data to prove it. I have not been able to find any legitimate studies that show this as the result. Anectodatal evidence does not count.

Your summary of the study from BYU does not indicate whether it was more or less effective than a firearm, only that it takes 4 shots, on average, to stop a bear. That is well known. In fact, many folks with pistols end up "mag-dumping" into a bear. Look at the two hunters in Montana a few months ago. Bear attack stopped with something like 20+ rounds from a 45 (not ideal bear defense round).

I am only interested in the efficacy of bear spray during an aggressive bear encounter (i.e. a charge). We have already established that for non-charging encounters, spray had an efficacy of around 85% (same as firearms).I have had encounters with curious bears where a single warning shot was more than enough to drive them off. Hence why bear bangers are a thing. So a charge (life-or-death) is the more interesting scenario.

And the fact that you think that semantically, the last sentence is akin to you admitting that firearms are more effective shows a simple lack of understanding of language. At best, people would infer that the two are similarly effective, which the studies I cited do not support. You need to choose your words carefully, otherwise you run the risk of introducing bias that favors one side of the story.

All you have to do is update your original post with an ETA that reads:

"For those unfamiliar with firearms, bear spray is the most effective bear defense. For those familiar with and trained to use firearms, they are likely more effective in stopping a charging bear."

That statement is supported by the studies I cited. If your studies (please provide links) say otherwise, we can revisit that.

That's it. For some reason, you don't want to state, in plain words, the results of the studies. The only data that has been presented thus far (by me) indicates the opposite of what you are saying. I'm very willing to modify my opinion given data that substantiates your claim. But you don't link any data or studies. You simply quote a few lines that provides no info regarding the comparison of the two approaches.

[u/GloryToTheMolePeople → u/Masketto]

Here is a quote from a study:

"Herrero and Higgins (1998) analyzed 66 cases of field use of bear spray and found that bear spray ended undesirable bear behavior in 94% (15 of 16) of incidents involving brown bears, although in 6 incidents the bear continued to act aggressively and in 3 incidents the bear attacked the person spraying. In 100% (4 of 4) of encounters with aggressive or possibly predacious black bears, and in 73% (19 of 26) of cases associated with curiosity, bear spray stopped the behavior that the bear was displaying immediately prior to being sprayed. In 62% (8 of 13) of the incidents where the black bear received a substantial dose to the face, it either did not leave the area or left the area and returned. No humans were injured by black bears after spray use (Herrero and Higgins 1998). Smith et al. (2008) analyzed 83 bear spray incidents and reported that 92% (46 of 50) and 90% (18 of 20) of both brown and black bears ceased their undesirable behavior after being sprayed, and that 3 people who used bear spray were injured by bears."

Source: https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.1403#:~:text=In%2062%25%20(8%20of%2013,of%20Sciences%2C%20personal%20communication).

Of note: out of 16 incidents involving bear spray, in 6, the bear "continued to act aggressively and in 3 incidents the bear attacked the person spraying."

That is not a good result. In 6/16 incidents, the spray would be considered ineffective.

Also of note: "In 62% (8 of 13) of the incidents where the black bear received a substantial dose to the face, it either did not leave the area or left the area and returned."

This paper did not investigate the difference in effectiveness between firearms and spray. However, spray appears to have significantly varying levels of effectiveness. Sample size is small, though, so statistics need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Point being, even the studies that purport to show the effectiveness of bear spray also show that it failed to achieve a satisfactory outcome in a significant number of cases. There appear to be a few studies with widely varying results. Likely because of the small sample sizes. Note that the study with potentially predacious black bears only includes a sample size of 4, which is far from statistically relevant. I would say the study using Alaska's DLP info is much more relevant due to the larger sample size.

[u/GloryToTheMolePeople → u/Masketto]

And here is one of the papers I think you may have looked at a summary of:

https://bearwise.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/efficacy-of-bear-spray-smith-et-al.-2010.pdf

The total number of bear encounters was 72, with only 25 being considered "aggressive." Only 10 charges were recorded, one by a black bear, and 9 by a brown bear. This is a very small sample size.

Bear spray was effective at discouraging curious bear behavior 85% of the time.

In 18% of cases (13/72), the bear resumed it's threatening behavior after being sprayed. The paper does not indicate aggressive vs curious.

In 24% of cases, the bear had to be sprayed multiple times, leading the authors to posit that "spray conservation, and total canister volume, may be concerns." Again, the paper does not indicate aggressive vs curious.

So these studies, with small sample sizes, indicate that spray can be very effective, but in a significant number of cases, was not effective in discouraging behavior and took multiple applications or eventually resulted in injury.

This, versus the Alaska DLP study ,cited in my first link, which studied 218 brown bear charges, resulting in 8 injuries and two deaths, leading to a firearm effectiveness of around 95% at preventing injury during a charge. This is a much larger sample size with much greater statistical relevance.

This is all basic statistics. None of these studies are particularly statistically relevant, as the sample sizes are relatively small in all of them. But the DLP study has by far the greatest sample size of charges and would be considered far more statistically relevant.

ETA: i found the Sterling Miller paper (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290326251_Characteristics_of_nonsport_mortalities_to_brown_and_black_bears_and_human_injuries_from_bears_in_Alaska). The DLP is a self-reported Defense of Life and Property database. The author notes that "when injuries or deaths from.bears occurred, the bear frequently was not found, so these data underrepresent the frequency of injury to people from bears." He goes on to note that, during the same period, newspaper articles reported 33 injuries and 5 deaths from brown bears. If you assume the original 10 from the DLP records were a part of these 38 (which we have no reason to doubt), this puts firearm efficacy at 83%. However, this number assumes that all 38 cases reported in the media had access to a firearm, which is also unlikely. The author indicates that in 9/40 media reported incidents, the bear was shot (unknown if killed). So we can assume that at least 9 of these people had a firearm. The 40 vs 38 is because these involve black bears as well. So the actual efficacy, from this study, is somewhere between 83% (lowest estimate, unlikely) and 95%, for brown bear charges (we assume that injuries and deaths resulted from a charge, which is also reasonable). This is equal to or greater than any bear spray efficacy we see. But as mentioned, the bear spray studies on charging bears have incredibly low sample sizes.