You have no evidence despite your demand for same, but your hero whom you cite, Doc Herrero, has done quite a bit of investigation as has the US FWS...
Quoting an author's opinion is a lot different from citing evidence published in a paper.
For example, people often repeat the "98%" effectiveness of pepper spray, yet the paper from which that figure was taken, (Smith, et al., 2006) says the following:
"Our research shows that bear deterrent spray is an effective tool for defusing bear�human conflict in a nonlethal manner... bear spray was [b]92% effective by our definition of success... [while] 98% of persons carrying it were
uninjured after a close encounter with bears."[/b]
But, in the same paper the authors state that
"In 18% of cases we analyzed (13 of 72), both brown and black bears resumed their threatening behavior after having been sprayed the first time." Which begs the question, how did they define "success" in the use of bear spray? If we subtract 18% from 92%, we see that
only 74% of bears sprayed are fully deterred from their aggressive behavior. This is a far cry from the 92% effectiveness claim touted by the spray proponents on the internet! The authors admit that bears might need to be sprayed multiple times in order for the person(s) involved to escape. They also admit that subsequent sprayings are often less effective than the initial use in most cases. And in fact, bear spray residue on clothing and equipment
may attract bears and actually trigger bear aggression.
Yet the same authors in the same paper denigrate firearms use because attacking bears need to be shot an average of 4 times before they are killed. Hmmm... so they say that firearms are not good, because they often require repeated applications, but spray is good, even though it often requires repeated applications. Having been trained in reading academic papers critically, this strikes me as bias.
Another set of studies by Smith, Herrero, and others, was touted in Missoula this past winter. This was widely publicized and has been repeated on a number of bear attack websites. Stephen Herrero spoke at this conference, and reported on two studies that seemed to show spray was a "better" response to bear aggression than firearms. One study looked at firearms, the other study looked at spray. The two studies were not related, and methodology was quite different, so it's apples to oranges, and the conclusions you can draw from comparing the studies are not very solid.
Nonetheless, a bunch of bear attack websites and a ton of academics have seized upon this as "proof" that spray is "better" than firearms. What they fail to do is apply the caveats that the researchers explicitly stated in their talks:
"The caveats: The firearms study was much more extensive, with 269 incidents involving 444 hunters. The spray study had 72 incidents with 175 people, and included a mix of less-dangerous encounters and full-on attacks. So the two studies aren�t directly linked."In another study published in 2011 which was discussed on the 24HCF, Smith et al. noted that people who used firearms in bear defense appeared to have been much closer to the bear when the attack started than people in the pepper spray studies, and the level of bear aggression faced by firearms users appeared to be much greater than that of spray users. Spray users hit the bears when the bruins were posturing, standing on hind feet, walking toward the people, and so forth, whereas firearms users were more often dealing with a bear that was charging or in actual contact with the person(s). Spray users were being actively mauled by the bear significantly less often than firearms users. (I'm still looking for that paper in my office, which I printed out at the time.)
Gary Shelton's studies have also shown that spray can be highly effective when bears are not in actual contact with the person(s) in question, but when the bear is physically mauling you, its effectiveness is much less certain. I refer you to his series of books,
Bear Attacks: The Deadly Truth, Bear Attacks II, and Bear Encounter Survival Guide.
All of the authors I have studied, including Shelton, Herrero, Smith, and others, share the same thesis: knowledge of bear behavior and modification of human behavior accordingly is the most important factor in avoiding injury in a bear encounter. Because my outdoor interests put me square in the middle of dense bear populations from the early 1970's until the late 1990's, I learned everything I could from these people to improved my chances of survival. As I stated previously, I had 3 bear encounters that required use of firearm or spray (and since on the first one I was actually bear hunting, I'm not sure that qualifies), and I have never been touched, bitten, or otherwise harmed by a bear in close to 3 dozen close bear encounters.
Shelton is a strong proponent of carrying and using (and knowing how to use!) bear spray, as are Herrero, Smith, and others. I am also a strong proponent of bear spray.
However, Shelton has become stronger in his advocacy of firearms for high-risk persons (B.C. forestry workers, etc.) because his work has shown that as bear populations increase in concert with increased human activity in bear country, the probability of highly aggressive bear attacks increases, and his studies show that highly aggressive bears are probably less likely to be effectively stopped with spray. He cites numerous examples in his books of bears that were initially turned by spray, but then came back for another go-round. Such bears are rarely controlled with anything less than a lethal dose of high-velocity lead.
The bottom line is this: despite the conclusions of many "experts" who say that there is overwhelming evidence of the superiority of spray over firearms, I haven't seen that evidence yet in my reading of the literature. If you read the papers that have been published critically, you find that there is no direct head-to-head study that conclusively proves this. The apples-to-oranges rule violation is seen again and again.
So I say again, and truly mean this: if you can cite a paper that truly shows this superiority of spray over firearms, I'd love to read it. But I haven't seen that study yet, and there are a lot of bear biologists out there who share my skepticism.
"Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Region 4 bear manager Mike Madel [who attended the Missoula conference and was quoted in the news article] said the results are pretty convincing.
Madel said, 'Still, I know a lot of bear managers who would like to rely on their firearm.'"
In other words, there are a lot of people with far more experience and expertise than you or me who continue to carry their firearms in bear country, even though they may also carry bear spray.
