Bear Protection. Bear Spray vs Guns.
Is there anything more likely to raise an argument in the backcountry and backpacking community than bear spray vs guns for bear protection??? Probably not. It seems like there is no middle ground anymore, simply people on one side of the debate or the other slinging stones and quotes from papers at each other across the fence.
Can we get to the truth of the matter? Is it even possible to convince someone one way or the other, or have people long ago made up their minds?? Guns vs Bear Spray for protection in the backcountry, what’s the answer?
Let’s set the record straight on a few items, and clear the air as the saying goes, when it comes to the argument of should a person use a gun or bear spray for protection.
- Certain people hate guns and simply are for bear spray because of that.
- It turns into a political issue if you’re not careful.
- Most people use bear spray because it’s cheap, available, and “easy” to use.
- It’s a complicated topic and not as easy as one would think to come to a conclusion.
- People can do whatever they want in the end.
Let’s start with the most obvious thing people will bring up. The Forest Service actively says that bear spray is more effective. This is backed up by two studies.
”
Statistically, bear spray is more effective at deterring a charging bear. In a study done in 2008 (Smith et. al. 2008), researchers analyzed 83 bear spray incidents (61 brown bears, 20 black bears and two polar bear). Red Pepper spray proved over 90% successful on stopping the bear’s “undesirable” activity. 98% of people involved in these incidents were unharmed by the bear. However, fourteen percent of the incidents resulted in negative side effects upon the human (they were effected by the spray) and three percent left the user incapacitated.
In similar study on firearms (Smith et. al. 2012), they were effective 84% with handguns and 76% with rifles to stop bears from undesirable behavior. The study analyzed 269 bear-human conflicts in Alaska from 1883-2009. The study said, “firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters with bears whether they used firearms or not.” Basically, firearms didn’t statistically keep people from getting injured by bears. This means that people shot bears that still attacked them.” – Source
It’s hard to argue with the data right?
As someone who’s worked a long time with data, and I think we should all know by now, anyone can make any data say what they want, typically the truth is more nuanced. Some people lately are starting to question the prevailing wisdom because of recent high-visibility fatal bear incidents involving bear spray not working.
This includes an older couple and long-time outdoors lovers, bear spray of no use.
Another guide found killed by grizzly with empty bear spray.
The truth is that stories like these can freak people out who spend time in the backcountry, it takes away that feeling of safety that bear spray provides, the thought that “this will always work.” But, that doesn’t change the data, like it or not is probably the safest to stick with what the data says will keep you the safest, and that is bear spray.
A lot of people ask, or wonder, how can bear spray be more effective than a gun?? Well, usually the answer is fairly obvious.
Bear spray is going to be more forgiving than a gun in a lot of situations. Think about it, it’s a high-stress situation going on, bear spray allows you to not be as accurate or precise, whereas with a gun you will need to be incredibly accurate to work perfectly.
Not many people, well, most people, are not proficient enough with a handgun for the recommendation to say “Use a gun, not spray.” Another argument that is used in favor of guns is that “All the guides in places like Alaska and Montana carry guns, so should I.”
Sure, but that is a cultural thing mostly, many people in these places have carried firearms for generations, it’s simply their culture. It’s not the culture of most backpackers to carry guns, for some sure, but for many it’s not. Mostly what it comes down to is personal preference. Carry what you want that will make you feel safe and comfortable.
But, I have a proposition for you. Instead of choosing between the two, why not carry both? Doesn’t it stand to reason based on the data that having both would be the closest to perfect safety as is possible to achieve?
There is no 100% guarantee that carrying both would have a 100% survival rate in bear encounters, but it’s probably the closest.
It’s not hard to imagine if some of the fatal incidents mentioned above, where spray didn’t work, had a firearm as a backup, probably would have had a chance at a different outcome.
What it comes down to is that most people don’t treat the issue of bear spray vs guns as a normal issue, it’s a political or cultural issue for them. They refuse to be logical about it, proof that they are simply parroting their ideals and nothing else.
People who only carry guns are ignoring the data that says many times bear spray is more effective or just as effective as a firearm.
People who only carry spray where others have been killed by bears using spay, and say no one else is them, should carry a gun, are just being obvious idiots.
The debate shouldn’t be a guns vs bear spray, instead people should understand the data and accepting risks and make a decision themselves they are comfortable with!
