I am not sure how much faith I'd put into that. Several of the examples included situations that aren't conducive to what I would think a normal 'attack' would consist of, nor what I'd consider a "success" in stopping an attack.
On the third case they describe, a guide killed a black bear (which in a quote was referred to as both a sow and a boar) with a .22 LR after shooting it 20+ times and dogs fighting it (as opposed to it actually attacking the person).
The fourth example involves a black bear eating a dead woman and they shoot it off her body. Again not what I'd refer to as an 'attack', at least not on the part of the shooter. That same entry states: "The animal was shot and killed", but also that "Michael was very careful *not* to hit the bear, for fear of enraging it."
The fifth example (and the "one" failure) involved a polar bear, again shot with a .22 LR at 15 feet. The article states: "On examination, three shots to the head were discovered, none of them piercing the cranium", so the survivors examined a live bears head??? This isn't to mention that despite the article stating "We found one failure out of 37 documented cases", it describes a second situation in that same example with "two tourists defended themselves with a .22 calibre pistol which proved ineffective. One man was killed, the other injured. Police later shot the bear."....that sounds like at least 2 failures to me.
It was poorly written on several fronts, which makes me suspect of it overall. I didn't even bother reading it further as the first several examples were full of holes, so to speak.
