Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Firearms Defense Against Bear Attacks in National Parks is Legal

Figured so!

All due respect, but in the length of time between your first post and this one, I don't think you've had sufficient time to do any real digging. And I don't have time to go back and look at the work in its entirety, either, so fair's fair. But I will say that I don't think you'll find Herrero every advocated using spray, OR FIREARMS, on a bear at 200 meters.

I would encourage you to read more of Tom Smith's research, which is more to the point of this discussion, and is far more recent. There's some pretty good stuff.

Doc,
I'm home with some crappy head cold.. been reading on this material all day as entertainment. So yes, regardless of whether you believe me or not (and why wouldn't you?) I did read more deeply than apparently you have re Herrero's data set.
Second, no one in the thread has advocated spray or firearms at 200 meters.. I'm not certain re your point?
I'll check out Tom Smith. A point I have attempted to make is that 'bear activists' - and these can be biologists - bring with them certain positions/beliefs that tend to mask honest research.

Back to the OP, I agree with the basic premise of the authors' argument but reality being what it is, I would not hold a lot of stock in the assumption that you won't get charged for shooting a bear in self defense, even provable beyond doubt, considering the currant political climate and todays' activist judges. Thanks democrats.

And not to mention most if not all have little to no experience in mortal combat or training in that regard, regardless of peer reviews.

One of Bush II's last acts as president was to make it legal to carry in a NP, but there are some restrictions. You have to have a permit that is recognized in the state where the park is located. Of if permitless carry is legal in that state. You cannot carry inside a federally owned building.

My wife and I spend quite a bit of time in the SMNP and have to be careful about which buildings we enter. And since about 1/2 the park is in NC, and the other half is in TN that could cause problems if your permit isn't recognized by one of those states. Both recognize GA so it isn't a problem for us.

I think the distinction between "analysis" and "advice" is valid. Glad you see it.



The effectiveness of bear spray MAY be diminished by wind (that's what you meant by "environmental conditions", right?), but the spray delivery systems available now are much less susceptible than the stuff we were getting in the 1980's. In any case, the range of spray is quite short, and if used at intended ranges wind is going to be a smallish problem.

Remember, I am NOT saying you should use bear spray INSTEAD of a firearm. I carry both. And in very close quarters, where many of the deadliest bear attacks start, spray is proven to be very effective. If the bear is outside that range, you'd have to be an idiot to not have your gun out, no?


As stated 2 paragraphs up, I ain't saying you need to pick spray or a gun. I carry both, and I think anybody who's serious about bear defense would do well to do the same. But that's up to you. As for "lotta good research", look up Tom Smith's research and answer your questions for yourself.


Aww. My feelers are hurt.

In Canada, a handgun is not a choice.

FYI

I've held safety demonstrations training people in the use of bear spray.

I've deployed bear spray on real live bears...

There are monstrous shortcomings with its use.

After you overcome the access and deployment issues involved, there is a advertised distance and distance judgment problem one doesn't encounter with a firearm.

Then there is the wind issue, how much does it effect advertised distance?

One doesn't want to mace himself when vision is of the upmost importance.

A man isn't incline to shoot himself just because the winds blowing.

In any 'suprise' or 'close encounter' situation, which most all are, the deployment of bear spray is almost a guarantee that the deployer is going to be effected by the chemical spray...

So the more experienced you get the more you'll learn why it's a hopeless method of deterrent when most needed.

In the case of the Wyoming guide death by grizzly, I assumed you'd be well versus of the event.

The biologists interpretation of events a year after the fact seemed nothing but defense of the bear. The interviews with the eye witness at the time of the attack painted a bit different picture.

The guides choice to lay his handgun aside but keep his bear spray proved fatal.
His encounter was all but immediately hands on.
He may have very well been aware that with the close encounter he would blind himself if he deployed the spray.

Never would've been in that predicament if he hadn't been falsely convinced of the bear sprays effectiveness in ALL of the most common situations.

longarm, sorry about your cold. I suppose that does give you some time to read, though, so there's a silver lining.

I haven't read anything by Herrero for a while (but read his stuff extensively in the past), but I was responding to your statement: "Digging further into the incidences that Herrero re-examined to form the basis of his opinion re the efficacy of spray, some of the 'bear encounters' happened as far as 200 meters from the person holding the spray." This is what I was responding to. I took you to mean Herrero cited this as an example of bear spray deterring an attack, which of course you were not. As far as I recall, bear spray has to actually be used to be included as a successful deterrence in any database. I know that's part of the inclusion criteria on the more recent research published by Smith, as well as joint publications with other authors.

Well, Jeff, I see your mind is made up. Carry on, you do you.

And that's a damn shame. When I lived up there, it was also the case. I carried a Model 12 shotgun when outside the Parks, which was the best I could do. Having a slung shotgun over your shoulder plays hell with your flycasting. Cheers.

This is precisely why I wrote this in my first response:


Attacks on hunters (which seem to make up the majority of firearms defense incidents) are far more likely to happen very suddenly, in very close quarters. These are necessarily much more dangerous than attacks that start farther away, with the bear displaying aggressive or predatory behavior. And since most hunters hunt with a rifle, which is more difficult to use in a close quarters attack, the means of deterring the attack is inherently more difficult to deploy than a handgun or bear spray. This skews the data against firearms. There are other examples as well, but in the main I think that firearms come off worse in these studies than they actually are.

Absolutely, always a pleasure.

Different experiences reveal different results.

After 45 years in grizzly and brown bear country and numerous encounters the only bear that even came close to dieing needlessly was a angry bear that had been sprayed yet returned.

The difference between park bears and wild bears is night and day.

I enjoy this debate by two experienced outdoorsman.

To me, a non-expert in the lower 48, who likes to watch Chukes youtube...when comparing handguns to spray...a 44 mag prevents recidivism in bear attacks just like it does in home invasions.

YMMV

Likewise!


Ditto. Well, in my case, not 45 years CONtinuously in bear country, but significant time every year over about 40 years, and intermittently since then. I love the wilds that bears inhabit, and I think those places would be a lot less beautiful without the bears. And you're 100% right on the difference between park bears and wild bears.

Speaking of bears being sprayed and then having returned, there was a recent incident that I saw on YouTube where that happened. The guy was alone, and had no firearm with him because he was "only scouting" for an upcoming hunt. Big mistake. He was mauled but survived the attack. Gary Shelton described a couple of similar incidents in his book. This just underscores the wisdom of having BOTH spray and firearm, and even better, having TWO guys together who both have spray and firearms.

Funny how some fear encountering a bear in the wild, I cherish the moments.

When I was in Glacier a long time guide had just been killed by a grizzly, he had sprayed the bear but it persisted and killed him. Bear spray is 50:50 based on what I have read and based on the opinion of the guy I rented near spray from. Further more a 9 mm is more effective in stopping a bear attack than bear spray. Y’all carry the spray if you want, I will carry both. I have to question anyone who suggests that a chemical is more effective than making the animal leak a lot of blood. Right on Sitka Deer.

Let me throw another log on the fire, this is completely contrary to every .gov agency in America as far as I know (Alaska? I don't know about that state at all):

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/10/go...y-vs-firearms-for-defense-against-bears/

The Government of Svalbard, Norway, has strict requirements for protection against bears. People are not allowed to leave the town without adequate protection, because of the large number of polar bears in the vicinity, and the constant potential for attack. The governor of Svalbard does not recommend bear spray. The governor of Svalbard prohibits the use of bear spray as a protection against polar bears. The Governor requires people to have appropriate firearms in their group. From Svalbard, Norway;

Regulations on firearms and other devices to protect against polar bears:

3.2.Bear repellent spray/ pepper-balls The use, trade and import of bear repellent spray and pepper-balls for protection against polar bears in Svalbard is prohibited. The Governor of Svalbard is currently looking into the regulation of bear repellent spray and pepper-balls for protection against polar bears.

The governor of Svalbard requires firearms of adequate power to protect against polar bears. Here are the requirements:

2.Types of firearms

2.1. Rifles

The acquisition, use, trade and import of rifles for use as protection against polar bears is permitted in Svalbard, pursuant to the Firearms Act and Firearms Regulations.

2.1 Rifles used for protection against polar bears shall have a minimum calibre of .308W or 30-06 (7.62 mm). Rifle bullets shall be expanding, with a minimum bullet weight of 11.5 g. The required impact energy shall be 2,700 J, measured at a distance of 100 m.

For reasons of precision, range, functionality in cold conditions and stopping power, the Governor of Svalbard recommends the use of rifles as the primary means of protection against polar bears, rather than other types of firearms.

Hiring out rifles is permitted. For more detailed conditions regarding this, please refer to Section 4.2.2. Shotguns

The acquisition, use, trade and import of shotguns for use as protection against polar bears is permitted in Svalbard, pursuant to the Firearms Act and Firearms Regulations.

2.2 Shotguns used for protection against polar bears shall have a minimum calibre of 12, and should have a magazine permitting a minimum of four shots (automatic or pump-action shotgun). The use of slugs (shotgun ammunition comprised of one projectile) is recommended for protection against polar bears.

However, the Governor of Svalbard warns that most magazine-fed shotguns tend to have problems with icing and condensation, and require more preventive maintenance work if they are to function in difficult conditions. Because of this, combined with the fact that shotguns have less precise sights and a limited range, the Governor of Svalbard recommends the use of rifles as the primary means of protection against polar bears.

The Governor of Svalbard advises against the use of double-barrelled shotguns for protection against polar bears, because of the number of available shots.

It is prohibited to hire out shotguns for protection against polar bears.

2.3. Handguns/revolversHandguns for competition and practice can legally be used in the field for protection against polar bears, provided that the Governor of Svalbard has granted a special permit for this.

This combination of usage purposes shall be stated explicitly on the firearm permit and may only be granted upon application to the Governor of Svalbard. This permit may only be granted if the applicant meets the requirements for documented activity in an approved shooting association.

Handguns for which an applicant is seeking a permit for use as protection against polar bears shall have a minimum calibre of 44. Ammunition to be used for protection against polar bears shall have a minimum weight of 15.5 g and a minimum muzzle energy of 1,200 J.

In English measurement, that is 885 ft-lbs, with a minimum bullet weight of 239 grains. Full power .44 magnum loads, .480 Ruger, .454 Casull, .500 Smith & Wesson and .460 Smith & Wesson would qualify. Some .41 magnum loads would qualify.

Those who would carry a pistol for protection in Svalbard need to show they have participated in organized pistol training four times in the last year, before they can be approved.

The Governor also reserves the power to grant handgun permits for bear protection to trappers who are Svalbard residents, and in special cases. It is not permitted to rent handguns for protection against polar bears.

Cheers Doc,
Interesting conversation all around.