https://www.outsideonline.com/2401248/does-bear-spray-work

Fact #1: Bear spray is 98 percent effective.

Fact #2: Your odds of being injured by a bear while carrying a firearm are the same as if you’re carrying no defense at all.

I’ve always taken the scientific studies that arrived at those two conclusions as gospel. And I’ve written articles repeating their findings while arriving at the invariable conclusion that bear spray is better than a firearm when it comes to defending against a bear attack. But you know what? I was wrong.

“There was no thought of comparing the two [studies], though some do that,” says Tom Smith, who authored both reports, titled the “Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska” and “Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska.”

Yet many people—including me, obviously—have compared the results of those two studies. And that, according to Smith, was never his intention.

Entirely Different Methodologies
Read beyond the results of the two studies and you’ll see that, despite similarities in subject matter and titles, they actually cover two very different scenarios.

The bear-spray study includes 83 incidents spanning from 1985 to 2006 in which the deterrent was employed. Of those incidents, 50 involved brown bears—on 31 occasions, the bear was curious or seeking food, while the remaining 18 cases involved an aggressive bear. There were only nine studied instances where a brown bear charged a human.

Twenty-four of the people in the bear-spray study were hiking when they encountered a bear. Twenty-one were wildlife officials engaged in bear management. The rest were doing a variety of the usual outdoor activities, including photography and fishing. None were hunting.

I asked Smith to clarify the nature of bear-management incidents in which bear spray was used. Was the use of the spray premeditated and intended to alter the behavior of the bears involved? “These were largely intentional hazings, not surprise-encounter-type situations,” he says.

In contrast, the firearms study “compiled information on bear attacks,” with 269 incidents between 1883 and 2009 selected, notably excluding Alaska’s own Defense of Life and Property (DLP) records, as studied by Sterling Miller in this paper. Smith and his coauthors acknowledge the effect this exclusion had on the study’s findings, writing: “Because bear-inflicted injuries are closely covered by the media, we likely did not miss many records where people were injured…. if more incidents had been made available through the Alaska DLP database, we anticipate that these would have contributed few, if any, additional human injuries.” The study states that including that data would have improved the reported success rates for firearms.

I asked Smith to explain why the DLP records were excluded from his firearms study, when they seem to so obviously represent a large amount of data on firearms efficacy. “All of the records cited in Miller’s paper were missing from the files, as though they had never been returned after they completed their analysis,” he explains, also noting that state officials denied him access to more recent records, due to privacy concerns. Does Smith think the results would have been different had he gained access to the DLP data? “The main value isn’t in the percentages reported but in taking a look at why firearms failed to protect people,” he says. The point of “Efficacy of Firearms” wasn’t to arrive at a conclusion on whether or not firearms work but, rather, to analyze the reasons why they didn’t—“poor aim, no time to use them, jammed, etc.,” elaborates Smith.

“Comparing the two studies is like comparing the injury rate for people picking up apples to the injury rate for people picking up live hand grenades,” says Dave Smith, a naturalist who has worked in Yellowstone, Glacier, Denali, and Glacier Bay National Parks and who has authored two books on surviving dangerous encounters with wildlife. It makes no sense to compare bear encounters where bear spray was employed with actual bear attacks, he says. There’s another flaw in the data: incidents in which users were unable to access their bear spray in time were excluded from samples, while users who experienced malfunctions with, or were otherwise unable to employ, their firearms were included, since that was the point of that study.

Like-for-Like Results
Diving into Tom Smith’s two studies, we can uncover some data similar enough to merit a limited comparison.

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

I asked Tom Smith if it was valid to conclude that the studied effectiveness of bear spray in brown bear charges is just 33 percent. “That’s what you would conclude from that data,” he says, before going on to point out that the sample size is very small. “Importantly, protracted mauling did not occur,” he says. “Whether that’s due to the spray or simply due to the vagaries of bear attacks is an open question.”

The Trouble with Numbers
Thirty-three percent is very far from that 98 percent efficacy rate so widely cited. And it’s an especially problematic number if we accept that firearms can be demonstrated to have a success rate of between a 76 percent (in a worst-case scenario, as presented in “Efficacy of Firearms”) and 96 percent (as is the case in Alaska’s DLP data or that compiled by firearms writer Dean Weingarten).

Conflating the results of Tom Smith’s two studies has informed everything from public opinion to public policy, and more importantly, the resulting conclusion guides bear-attack survival advice that’s distributed by governments, taught in classes, and marketed by makers of bear spray. If the conclusion that bear spray is more effective than firearms is wrong, then the entire way in which we’ve approached coexisting with the brown bear is also wrong.

So is it? I think it just presents a more limited conclusion than the one we’ve all chosen to believe, leading to an unfortunately narrow understanding of our relationship with bears. “The appearance that bear spray outperforms firearms was not the focus of our work,” says Tom Smith. “We wanted simply to highlight the pros and cons of each and let individuals decide how they best could stay safe in bear country.”

While “Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray” sends a mixed message on the effectiveness of bear spray in aggressive brown bear encounters—and a very bad message about its usefulness during a brown bear charge—it does show that the spray is enormously effective at deterring brown bears when they’re simply curious. Of note here is the conclusion in “Efficacy of Firearms” that “No bears were killed when firearms were not used.” Bear spray gives users a nonlethal way to influence the behavior of a brown bear before it risks human life.

You’ll note throughout this article my careful delineation of results by bear species. That’s because the bear spray’s efficacy was largely studied on brown bears; results on polar bears are largely from use in hazing, while another study found that bear spray isn’t terribly effective on black bears. The 2010 study “Does Aversive Conditioning Reduce Human-Black Bear Conflict?” found that methods like chasing, rock throwing, or shooting black bears with nonlethal rubber shotgun slugs were as effective as, if not more effective than, pepper spray. Conversely, Tom Smith has demonstrated elsewhere that polar bears, often feared as human predators, are the least likely of all three species to engage in conflict with humans.

What We Don’t Know Can Hurt Us

In 1998, researchers at the University of Calgary, in Canada, published “Field Use of Capsicum Spray as a Bear Deterrent.” It analyzed 66 field uses of bear spray between 1984 and 1994 and found that, in 15 of 16 close encounters with aggressive brown bears, bear spray was effective in stopping the bear’s unwanted behavior—a 94 percent success rate. But read closer, and it’s apparent that in six of those cases, the bear hung around and continued to act aggressively. In three of those 16 close encounters, the bear attacked the human after being sprayed, despite receiving what the study refers to as, “a substantial dose of spray to the face.” Interpret this data differently, and in a worst-case scenario, the demonstrated effectiveness occurs in seven of the 16 incidents—a 44 percent success rate. This study did not compare these results either to the efficacy of firearms or with no defense method at all. The study did find that the spray was effective in 20 of 20 encounters with curious bears.

The bottom line is that no study has ever attempted to compare the effectiveness of bear spray to that of firearms. All studies are limited both by the outright rarity of bear attacks and the inability to recreate them in a controlled environment. We’re parsing an incredibly small number of encounters influenced by a huge number of variables, then trying to arrive at definitive conclusions. The best we can do is compare disparate data sets, applying our own subjective criteria to try and arrive at an inadequate conclusion.

Yet in public opinion, media reports, and public-safety messaging, we have an overwhelming impression that bear spray is the one-stop solution to safely recreating in bear country. Dave Smith calls this, “propaganda” and says he fears that it leads to misinformation and misunderstanding about what it takes to stay safe around bears.

Tom Smith states, again, that he would not compare the two studies—“Efficacy of Firearms” and “Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray”—directly. Yet a press release from Brigham Young University, where he works as an associate professor, did conflate results from the two studies, leading to stories in media outlets like The New York Times that conclude “A rifle apparently doesn’t work as well as a canister of red pepper spray.”

We Need Data-Based Bear-Safety Guidelines
My entire purpose for writing this article is to illustrate that the exaggerated effectiveness of bear spray is getting in the way of more important advice on bear safety. Here in Bozeman, Montana, just north of Yellowstone, it’s common to see people being told to carry bear spray any time they go on a hike, but almost always, the advice stops there. And while the spray may be effective at deterring a curious bear, it cannot be shown to have the ability to effectively stop an actual bear attack. Something more is needed.

Is that something more a firearm? “If you’re competent, then a firearm is a valuable, time-tested deterrent,” says Tom Smith. He goes on to reference the case of Todd Orr, who was famously mauled twice by the same bear here back in 2016. Despite employing the spray, the bear still managed to attack Orr, then later stalked and attacked him again. “Bears accurately shot don’t have that option,” says Smith. “Game over.”

But user competency is the largest determining factor in the successful use of a firearm. “When a person is competent with firearms—and I mean competent under pressure—it is an effective deterrent I highly recommend,” he says. “Conversely, those with little to no firearm experience shouldn’t rely on a firearm to save them from a close encounter with a bear.”

He recommends getting training if you intend to carry a gun. “However, even that same firearm-competent person would do well to carry bear spray also,” the researcher states. Smith highlights bear spray’s ease of use and portability as the reasons for that, as well as its effectiveness in nonlethal encounters.

But any talk of bear spray or firearms tends to get in the way of advice on how to avoid conflict with bears in the first place. It’s Smith’s 2018 study “Human-Bear Conflict in Alaska: 1880–2015” that comes to the most effective, actionable conclusions. It looks at the human variables involved in bear attacks, and from those we can glean some truly eye-opening information.

That study found that the kind of habitat in which you encounter a bear is a major determining factor on the likelihood of an attack. “The poorer the visibility, the more likely bears were to engage with people, presumably because of an inability to detect them until very close,” it states. It also notes that human rescuers had a success rate of over 90 percent at terminating maulings and were only mauled themselves in less than 10 percent of those rescues.

There’s one more surprisingly effective piece of advice that comes from the 2018 study: travel in groups. “The larger the group, the less likely to be involved in a confrontation,” it finds.

“To the best of my knowledge, I have not seen an instance where two or more persons have remained grouped, whether standing their ground or backing from a bear, that the bear made contact,” says Tom Smith. “That seems an important piece of advice.”

So what’s the conclusion here? To me, this isn’t an argument for or against guns or for or against bear spray. It’s an argument that, despite the presence of deterrents, dealing with an aggressive bear encounter does not involve any sure outcomes. Rather than beginning and ending the conversation with a false statement about bear spray’s efficacy, we should instead acknowledge that recreating safely in bear country requires training and knowledge—not dogma.

I'm too lazy to type out the whole bear spray and bells interwoven in the shoelaces joke, but this would be a good place for it.

It's the thought that counts?

My wife carries the bear spray and I carry the Glock and sometimes my Marlin GG. With my stuff I don't have to check the wind. Have never had to use either but will have 30 days of opportunity starting the 21st of this month



mike r

I carry .44 or .454 bear spray, to each their own. I believe the bear spray vs gun numbers are BS and contrived to sell bear spray. Your just not going to stop a bear in attack mode with pepper spray..

I stay away from bears. Works well so long as some twit doesn't want to bring back the prairie grizzly.

Felt the same way earlier. Suppose it depends on how pissed the bear is, like trying to fence cattle where there's no graze.

I'd rather have bear spray than nothing. But I don't own any bear spray.

Reading the article is worth the time. It's a real education. If you are going to be around bears, the education is helpful.

Me either, and sure wont while bowhunting, there's a damn 500lb black bear and wild boar up in my honey hole this year, +p 45 acp and heavy loaded 10mm both with Lehigh penetrators is as light as im willing to go, never had time, inclination or interest in 'anything' aerosol.

Way back when I was foolish enough to camp in big bear country, I used to carry a 7.5" Ruger Superblackhawk .44 mag in my backpack loaded up with a hard cast version of Elmer's load. (Lyman 429421 over 22 grains of 2400) It had a 2.5 lb trigger and I could shoot it. (My handgun skills have diminished markedly since then.)

A big Griz might have et me anyway back then,......but he would have a bad time digesting me with his guts rearranged in the manner that 6 rounds of Elmer's medicine is wan to do.

I've only hunted in Griz country four times: three times in Idaho and once in Wyoming. As I was elk hunting, I was carrying my old tried-'n-true Ruger 77 in .338 Win. Mag. But I also had my S&W 57 in .41 Mag. with 265 grains Beartooth Bullets hard cast ... just in case I needed to set aside my rifle to clean an elk, or to wear while cooking in my wall tent., gathering firewood, or water. I did not see a Griz, but we did see some very large tracks.

I don't have any bear spray but I know a couple of yuppie hikers here who claim they always carry bear spray but have not used it. To each his own, I say.

L.W.

Rarely do the winds in Aleutian Hell slow down enough to consider bear spray. Besides, I've obtained great results loading their asses with Remington Nitro Steel. It's not just for ducks anymore. Even if they come back, they become very wary of humans.

The National Park Rangers are advising hikers in Glacier National Park and other Rocky Mountain parks to be alert for bears and take extra precautions to avoid an encounter.
They advise park visitors to wear little bells on their clothes so they make noise when hiking. The bell noise allows bears to hear them coming from a distance and not be startled by a hiker accidentally sneaking up on them. This might cause a bear to charge. Visitors should also carry a pepper spray can just in case a bear is encountered. Spraying the pepper into the air will irritate the bear's sensitive nose and it will run away. It is also a good idea to keep an eye out for fresh bear scat so you have an idea if bears are in the area. People should be able to recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear scat. Black bear droppings are smaller and often contain berries, leaves, and possibly bits of fur. Grizzly bear droppings tend to contain small bells and smell of pepper.

Here is the whole article..... I highlighted the parts that I thought summed it up.

U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- When various far-left ecology and animal rights groups such as the Sierra Club, the Humane Society of the United States, the Center for Biological Diversity, submitted a petition, calling for the mandatory carry of bear spray by hunters, it made national news. The petition was submitted to the Idaho Fish and Game Commission and others. The petition claimed that “Studies show that bear spray is far more effective than firearms.”

That claim is not correct.
The petition was written about in several Idaho outlets, and nationally.

The Commission turned down the request that the carry of bear spray by hunters be mandatory. From lmtribune.com:

The commission turned down a request from environmental groups that it create a rule that would require hunters in grizzly bear habitat near Yellowstone National Park to carry bear spray. Commissioners said the rule would be overbearing and difficult to enforce, and agreed with agency officials who said education about recreating in grizzly bear country would be more effective.

The coverage of the Commission turned down the petition was far less extensive.

Dave Smith, author of Backcountry Bear Basics: The Definitive Guide to Avoiding Unpleasant Encounters, has done significant work explaining how the carry of bear spray by hunters is not effective and can be counterproductive. Dave wrote a letter to the Idaho Fish and Game Department, IFGD, to educate them about the problems involved.

Dave's letter deserves a wider audience. Dave graciously gave permission for me to use it in this article. Dave explains the problems with hunters relying on bear spray for protection from grizzly bears. He carefully explains why the bear spray and firearm studies about defense against bears do not show that bear spray is more effective. I have placed some of Dave's words in bold for emphasis:

Bear Spray Hoax: IFGD Betrays Hunters

I’m pleased the Commission recommends denying a petition that would require hunters in grizzly country to carry bear spray. But the petition is not being denied for the right reason: When a grizzly charges a hunter with a rifle after a classic surprise encounter at close range, bear spray will not keep a hunter safe. IDFG must prepare hunters to use an adequate rifle quickly and effectively.

In 1991, a Hunter/Grizzly Bear Interactions Task Team (that included U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen) told the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee that bear spray has “minimal usefulness in trail encounters with bears at close range due to the difficulty of effective use.”

Bob Wharff, executive director of Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, told the Jackson Hole News & Guide that bear “spray isn’t the answer for every encounter, especially when it requires hunters to drop their guns when there’s little time to react. You’re talking milliseconds. It’s illogical that you’re going to set your gun down and get your pepper spray.”

Trina Jo Bradley, vice-president of the Marias River Livestock Association, said “Let’s just think about how we carry ourselves when we’re hunting. I carry a large caliber rifle in my hands, usually with a bullet in the chamber and the safety on. I can easily raise my rifle and fire if I see the game I am hunting, or if a bear attacks. Why in the world would I put down the firearm that I’ve used over and over to grab a can of bear spray?

It’s clear a hunter carrying a rifle cannot use bear spray in a safe or timely manner during a surprise encounter with a grizzly. IDFG and other agencies acknowledged this in 1991. But on September 1, 1999, these agencies did an about face on bear spray when U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service news release announced: “Outfitters And Guides Develop Safety Class To Prevent Bear Attacks.”

The news release said, “During the past year, over 200 outfitters and guides in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Colorado have been trained to safely share the backcountry with bears.”

Were the outfitters and guides taught to use an adequate firearm effectively? No. “Course presenters discourage the use of firearms to mitigate bear attacks, because the practice has resulted in much greater frequency and severity of injuries to people involved [than bear spray]. The reliability and safety of pepper spray over other methods of deterrence has also been promoted by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee.”

No data or references were provided to substantiate this claim. Nevertheless, these agencies adopted a de facto policy of discouraging firearm use, and promoting bear spray. The results have been disastrous. As the environmentalists’ bear spray petition notes, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team found that “54% of all injuries inflicted on humans by grizzly bears [in the Yellowstone region] involved hunters.”

In response to the environmentalists’ petition, Toby Broudreau said, “the Department already has a Bear Education Program within grizzly range in Idaho. That program helps inform hunters on bear spray use and benefits.”

That program does not teach hunters how to use bear spray with each of the six field carries for long guns. That program does not provide hunters with accurate, meaningful information about bear spray and firearms research. If you keep hyping bear spray—and use that as an excuse for not teaching hunters how to use an adequate rifle quickly for self-defense—you guarantee the carnage inflicted on hunters since 1999 will continue.

A 2008 study on the Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska said, “In 96% (69 of 72) of bear spray incidents, the person's activity at the time of was use reported. The largest category involved hikers (35%), followed by persons engaged in bear management activities (30%), people at their home or cabin (15%), campers in their tents (9%), people working on various jobs outdoors (4%), sport fishers (4%), a hunter stalking a wounded bear (1%), and a photographer (1%).”

Given that the purpose of stalking a wounded bear is to kill it, non-lethal bear spray was the wrong tool for the job. The study did not provide additional information about this mysterious incident. A 1998 bear spray study did not provide any information about the activity of people who used bear spray. So research tells us hunters carrying a rifle don’t use bear spray, and common sense tells us why: Hunters can’t use bear spray because they’re already carrying a rifle.

Bear spray advocates focus on the overall success rate from Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska: 3 people were injured during 75 incidents. Of 175 people present during 72 incidents, just 3 were injured. Bear spray advocates never inform hunters that 3 of 9 people who sprayed charging grizzly bears were injured.

Bear spray advocates have repeatedly made the indefensible claim that research proves bear spray is more effective than a firearm. One, they’re claiming that research on bear spray use by non-hunters (who are not carrying a firearm) proves hunters (who are carrying a firearm) should use bear spray. That does not make sense.

Two, there have been two interrelated studies on bear spray, and two studies on guns vs. bears. Bear spray advocates are really saying, if you compare the results of one bear spray study to the results of one dissimilar study on guns, bear spray wins. But Field Use of Capsicum Spray As a Bear Deterrent/Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska used different methodologies than Efficacy of Firearms For Bear Deterrence in Alaska. It is unethical to compare the two studies, because of the different dynamics involved.

In addition, you’ve got to be totally unprincipled to pretend a 1999 study on the Characteristics of Nonsport Mortalities to Brown and Black Bears and Human Injuries from Bears in Alaska does not exist. After reviewing 1,036 incidents from 1986 to 1996 when people killed bears in defense of life or property (DLP), the authors of the 1999 study wrote, “Most of the persons shooting brown bears or black bears in DLP circumstances indicated that no human injury occurred (98.5% for brown bears and 99.2% for black bears).”

Bear spray advocates deny the existence of the 1999 study because it does not advance their cause. “Research proves bear spray is more effective than a firearm” is not a factual statement based on research; it’s a baseless propaganda slogan. To provide for the safety of big-game hunters in grizzly country, IDFG must teach hunters how to use an adequate firearm quickly and effectively.

Dave does not address a basic premise of the advocates for the use of bear spray. The premise is that in a bear human conflict, it is better if the bear is not killed. The purpose of bear spray seems more to protect the bear than to protect the human.

Bear and human conflicts are rare. Most bears avoid humans. If all the bears that threaten humans were killed, it would not harm bear populations.

One major advantage of firearms over bear spray is the bear is usually killed.

Bears that attack humans should be killed. Bears that are killed are not able to attack other humans. They are no longer a threat. If bears are not killed during the attack, they often must be tracked down and killed at some expense and danger.

Both grizzly and black Bear populations are increasing in North America. Bear populations will continue to expand, utilizing human developed food sources, as long as humans allow them to expand. The grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem has continued to increase, even though about 5% of the grizzly population is killed in bear/human conflict every year. Humans must kill bears to keep the bear population inside acceptable limits.

It is poor management to attempt to prevent a bear attacking a human from being killed so that another permit to kill a bear can be issued to a hunter in the necessary bear hunting season.

The idea that it is important to save the lives of bears who are threatening humans is a bad one. It is a false economy.

Bear spray has benefits. It is useful to people who are afraid of firearms, or who do not wish to develop the modest skill necessary to use them to defend against bears. Bear spray is useful where firearms are difficult to obtain, such as for American tourists in Canada. Bear spray does not present a lethal danger to bystanders, except as it may inhibit their own defenses, as it did with Tom Sommers.

Bear spray should not be mandated for people who are already carrying a gun to hunt big game. The idea that bear spray is more effective than firearms in stopping bear attacks is not proven. It is junk science.

As I have posted many times, two interactions with brown bears led to serious doses of spray to the faces at staplegun range. Spray did not save either bear's life...

But do not consider for a second that it is the bear spray manufacturers pushing for spray. It is the treehuggers begging for the use of condiments to save as many bears as possible.

So I hear most bear attacks are when hiker/hunter surprises the bear, especially grizzly. If a bear is down wind they aint going to be surprised. My conclusion is then that most bear attacks are with the wind blowing in the face of the bear sprayer. So now I'm both blind and mauled. great

Also, I never hear mention how effective spray is going to be when I'm in my tent and the bear is trying to drag me out by the leg. A 325 grain 45 cal slug may slow from 1200 fsp to 1199 fps as it passes through the nylon of the tent... I don't think bear spay will pass through a water proof tent at all.

It is quite a feeling listening to a grizz snort around your camp as you lay in your bag.... while reaching for your rifle. I have encountered hunters with electric fences around their tent . Did not learn of that was affective.

Bear spray may be found in the back packs of attackees.

With a firearm you have the advantage of the loud noise too. Which may or may not help.

Sounds like my area. When it's time to act immediately, having to pause and analyze the right tool to grab is a bad thing.

Here are some articles on this subject. Too long to copy and paste, but good reading.

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/03/pi...ainst-bear-attack-95-effective-63-cases/

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/the-truth-about-bear-spray-vs-bullets/

Told this story on another thread.



Also:

Laughing.

Effectively spraying bears depends on how fast you can work the bolt.

" I carry a large caliber rifle in my hands, usually with a bullet in the chamber and the safety on." Well that statement in the article should add at least ten pages to the "I carry cold" nonsense crowd...

I agree with you on the article. I think there is a bigger point to this article though. The article shows how writers can cherry pick data and shade or twist the conclusion to their narrative or pre conceived ideas. The Global Warmers/climate change researchers are good at using this technique too. Techniques such as this make me very sceptical of any study results that are widely published.

This guy has an opinion about bear spray that is perhaps valid through his experience, but it's probably not a definitive answer for every event that might happen. In his situation he felt that bear spray might have helped with the first charge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUHE6oJZArc

A shorter "selfie" video that he filmed of himself back at the trail head where his vehicle was parked.

https://time.com/4550059/bear-attack-montana-todd-orr/

BTW - He also makes some great custom knives. I do have proof of that.

About the only thing I can add to this is neither a handgun nor bear spray are effective carried in one's backpack. And carrying cold in bear country is the same as carrying a semi auto handgun with an empty chamber. You may be doomed to spend the rest of your life running the bolt (or slide).

I thought you had learned how it is done here and got off your hot chamber high horse...

Another true story from my trip to Grand Teton last year. Staying at a small boutique hotel in Jackson, a citified couple asks for best day hikes in the park. Desk guy tells him Jenny Lake and so forth and asks if they have bear spray. Women answers negative. Guy gives her one of the hotels and asks if she knows how to use it.

I thought my hearing was bad at first because i heard her ask "Do I spray on my clothes too, or just exposed skin ? " (Like mosquito repellent)

To the guys, credit, he didn't laugh or blink an eye. He just said

"If you try either one, please step outside first!"

Fixed it for you....

But for those needing visual stimulation... (pardon me whilst I load my chamber in the middle of this charge)

Game Warden told me this : make sure if you shoot a bear,that dead bear is pepper sprayed before i get there, so buy a can of bear pepper spray . TO your question > yes it does it helps keep the cost down on court cost,fines and attorney fees.

Sorry, thought this was about Barr spray.

I know someone who will say that fact is a bunch of feel good horse schit.

Answer: Sometimes! memtb

Agreed.

And this from the article:


Doubtful that capsicum provides enough pain to cause long-term memory for future avoidance with humans.

This what Phil had to say back in November of '18. I guess he is insecure about having someone behind him with a hot chamber, but hardly clueless

Originally Posted by 458Win
I guess the counter argument is that you are completely free to carry a round in your chamber and I am completely free to not hunt with you. And if you are required to hunt with a guide then you have a choice to make.

After forty years of guiding and a lifetime of hunting and being around people with loaded guns I have seen numerous accidental deaths caused by men carrying loaded weapons, have a bullet scar in the back of my thigh from an "unloaded" rifle and had numerous unintended discharges that narrowly missed either me or someone close by.

I will willingly face a charging bear rather than walk in front of a nervous hunter carrying a loaded rifle!

When you see scat along the trail don't you see little bells in it? And it smells like OC spray? Yep. Th!t confirms it is bear scat! Be Well, RZ

So let me get this straight, you want me to be in the bush hunting dangerous game with a cold chamber in the hopes that:
A guide/PH whom I scarcely know will get between me and a possible dangerous animal with a cold chamber in the hopes he will stop it? Fine, rest assured I will not be hunting dangerous game with ANY guide or Professional Hunter that does not allow me the right to defend my own ass...

Bear spray is effective only if the bear was bluffing. It has no physiological capability to stop a bear. That's what guns are for.

So you would not hunt with Phil... interesting...

Let me go find something from that earlier thread, after we had these comments...

jorgeI
Campfire Oracle

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 36,111
Orange Park, Florida
Originally Posted by Sitka deer
Originally Posted by jorgeI
Originally Posted by yukon254
Sitka says Alaskan guides dont allow it,

A guide friend of mine has hunted Africa 5 times now and neither he or his PH walked around with a hot rifle unless they were on game.


1. So Sitka is the mouthpiece for ALL Alaskan Guides? Tell you what, in a bout two months after I return from the DSC convention, I'll have an honest answer for you. I'll make a point of asking a few Guides I know. Fair enough?
2. As far as Africa, I'll have to throw the BS flag on that one. I know there are quite a bit of members here who've hunted there and maybe they can chime in. Only been twice myself and for dangerous game (buffalo) but regardless, EVERY time we left the truck and got on a track we were hot chamber.



A box of bullets says you do not find an Alaskan brown bear guide that makes a regular habit of allowing clients to carry hot.


Fair enough... Oh yeah, tits IS my first language...

Bear in mind, that's not me saying saying that, it's the Fish and game people who are more invested in bears than they are people. I have never believed that.

Another quote from Phil on that same thread...

Only a fool goes into a situation where he reasonably expects to have to shoot with an unloaded gun,
but it is also foolish to carry a loaded gun in rough, uneven terrain all day and needlessly put someone else in danger !

I knew that Bud.

Fish and game really doesn't give a schit about people, always been that way ya just gotta know how to work around them.

Ever tried to aim one of those stupid spray cans? That right there is an idiotic and ineffective setup.

They expect me to unwaveringly trust my life on hairspray technology yet they (the rangers) pack pistols.

Always entertaining watching people with no experience in combat or training in combat tactics giving advice (in an official capacity, no less) on just that.

Perspectives differ as do the ability and experience of various humans. If you were a guide you probably would feel more comfortable if the unknown entity behind you w/ his brand new 300 Win. mag that he waves around like an orchestra conductor had an empty chamber until told otherwise. Groups of trained troops in combat zones are expected to have a hot chamber and their weapon on safe until positive target ID is confirmed.

When I am in bear country, alone or with my wife I carry hot, as I do at home or at the store.

If I was hunting w/ Phil I would be OK w/ his standards and would drive him crazy w/ questions, to not take advantage of a learning experience would be foolish. When I was teaching no one entered the classroom w/ live ammo and their firearms were individually inspected by me to assure compliance. If they didn't approve they were free to exit. Standards exist for a reason.


mike r

animal of peace

Life long alaskan who has hunted in bear country entire career. I carry bear spray at times to deture curious bears and a rifle 5o protect myself. Rifle can kill a bear but any loud sound is largely ineffective...shoot for cns

I guess I’ll throw my .02c in on the hot cold issue. I tend to hike and traverse rough terrain like rockslides and avalanche scree with a cold chamber. I usually have longer sight ranges and surprising a bear isn’t likely but when I go into the willows and alders I have a hot chamber. I will walk point if that makes the guide feel better since the only reason I even have a guide is because it’s REQUIRED. I won’t enter the thick stuff without being ready to defend myself. I don’t, or at least damn sure wouldn’t, sign my right to protecting my ass from a rapid attack to any guide. If a guide is that scared of firearms and their practical use in the field then it’s time to retire to fishing as the fallback.

I’ve never had a misfire or AD and I’ve been around firearms and in the industry for decades. There’s a lot of bubbas out there but I ain’t one of them nor will I be treated as such.......not even for a last minute cancellation emergency filling spot that only costs me $20,000. 😉

Perhaps the lure of money precludes a more thorough screening process. Or maybe it’s because for that kind of money you’re more likely to only attract bubbas that need to be babysat instead of riflemen and real hunters.

IME, that attitude is almost always coupled with those with the least muzzle control...

What attitude?

Everything after the first three sentences...

THe first sentence is about game set and match....As to the second, Your posts CLEARLY dealt in absolutes. As to the other convoluted post from the past, frankly, I forgot all about it (did you spend much time on the search engine? I would have thought a "big shot" guide like you would be too busy), but I have and did ask Professional Hunters and especially in Africa, the gun comes off the truck unloaded, it's loaded and on safe when the hunt begins. As to "guides" stateside, it was a mix. I will also add when I hunted elk, we were told the cold chamber nonsense practice during the safety brief, but the minute I was alone with my guide I told him I would respect that, but the second we saw game and began the approach, I was loading the rifle and on safe. He had no issues with that. When I hunt alone, the gun is always loaded..

As to not hunting with Phil, this probably works for me:

What this means to me is if we are walking a long way in open terrain that is rough or mountainous, I obviously have no problem with it, but once we spot and stalk, especially in thick stuff, you bet your ass I'm going hot chamber. Moreover, in Africa aside from what I've already said, if you are not loaded up when going after any dangerous game (not dealing in absolutes here, for example, my PH John Sharp made me climb a tree once when we were chasing buffalo and in that instance the gun was unloaded whilst I climbed, just to show you nothing is absolute) you're a dunce, so if the cap fits... I guess this means I won't be hunting with you...

I carry cold in open country before game is spotted. I tend to have one inthe chamber, safety on while actively stalking after sighting. In DG country, I carry with one in th chamber, safety on. I base this mostly on African hunting. Not much DG in Georgia during whitetail season. Here, if I'm in a stand, chamber is empty until game is spotted.

I have not guided in a number of years, but you would still be safe. Why the need to be an ass about it?

As to welching on a bet I do not see where I dealt in absolutes, and I did not say NA, but AK. As to Searching, my memory is good enough to allow a single search request to take me where I needed to go. The only absolute is the fact the guided AK hunter will be cold until reasonable to do otherwise. There are gray areas there but the main point remains. The guide calls it when it is time to go hot and that generally means shooting time is very close.

Honestly, I think that you should have someone have the phone camera at the ready, you have a neighbor run at you growling and snorting and stuff and you spray them starting at 25' , then at 20', 15', etc....then post the video on here. Its not an exact science, but it would be worth a laugh. I would also venture to say after the try at 25' you will need to find a new neighbor to try it at 20. It works.....just don't buy the cheepo little pocket can. Frontiersman....about 50.00

What is your location?

A. Go back to your original post and your "ass" question is answered
B. *I* call it when I decide to go hot, taking the Guide's suggestion of course, but I reserve the right as to when to go hot... Lastly, there WERE guides at DSC who were not absolutely wedded to the cold carry issue. It makes NO SENSE when hunting DG, other than outside the parameters discussed..

"Original post" is not very specific.
Name an AK guide that said you could go hot at your discretion alone. Certainly Phil did not say that and none of the guides I know ever say that. Period.

If this is what wadded your thong, YGBFKM.

Not a very good attempt at putting words in my mouth, but I guess you needed to salvage your obtuseness. My "B" answer's pretty clear, then again maybe I'm expecting too much.

Actually I’ve used bear spray once, in the case of a black bear sow with two cubs. She seemed more curious than aggressive. I pulled the trigger on the spray can to make sure it was going to work and the noise the blast made scared her away.

When I’m in bear country I always carry spray and a big revolver. The one I use first will depend on the situation. I don’t understand why so many people get hung up on arguing about this like it’s a one or the other thing. A can of bear spray weighs as much as a small water bottle. Not a big thing to strap on the belt of a backpack.

I have hunted in Kodiak Island Alaska three times for brown bear. After you spend enough time around bears, the raw fear goes away and you just get very mindful of them. If a bear has a bead on you and they are very close to you when you discover them around, there isn’t much that is going to save you unless you are with another person that has some type of deterrent. There are a lot of people alive today because the bear decided to leave the person alone. It isn’t natural for brown bears to want to mess with people. They generally prefer a calm relationship too. They are incredible animals. The only time I would get concerned is the sow with cubs scenario.

Good post!

Pardon the laughing during a serious subject, but, in thinking about this and visualizing it, all I can think of is John
Candy in the Great Outdoors with the bald headed bear.

I cannot prove a negative... but I know ZERO AK guides that would accept your position. I believe it is up to you to name one so I can verify their position.

If you are not wrong it means I lose the bet and bullets. You are only hiding from the fact you lost and have not claimed you won... telling, no?

I do not see that statement conflicted with what I posted: "Name an AK guide that said you could go hot at your discretion alone. Certainly Phil did not say that and none of the guides I know ever say that. Period."

And you pulled the entire US into it where we were clearly discussing AK bear guiding.

And a charge from a wounded buff.

I'm laughing at his funny statement. You do what you want to do and don't try to tell me what to do. That way we'll get along. Otherwise, GFY.

Yeah, and that was a really relevant argument to authority, no?

I like Jorge ok, but that was a softball/watermelon comparison.

dumbest thing I've ever heard and totally wrong as to legalities.

I don’t know any bears well enough to ask them if it works.

We do not have "game wardens" here which opens up a lot more area... but I have heard similar.

Maybe you should try to develop a first name relationship with one before asking.

It's entertaining when you dump a load in their ass. They look pretty cartoonish while running from it. We try to get at least 25 to 35 yards distance before we shoot. With our short-barreled 870s, the distance and the inferior ballistics of steel, it spills off enough speed to limit penetration to just under the hide and in the fat. The open chokes allow the patterns to spread quickly. I've shot at 20 yards when I've not had much choice and found the patterns spread enough not to be too concerned, but it's still moving faster than I like. Ones we've had to kill after the steel shot treatment show no penetration past the fat layer and only bruising on the muscle tissue.

One of the guys I use to work with killed a problem dumpster diver that he could hang a tag on. While we were fleshing the hide we found steel shot pellets that were of about three different stages of decomposition. There were the bright, shiney ones of less than a month or so. The dull grey ones of a couple of months and the dark brown/rust colored ones that were dissolving probably about three months. He had a hell of a time getting a shot on him. Every little noise sent him scurrying back into cover.

Steve
Have you folks used the plastic buckshot? I’ve used that on spring moose trying to own my hay shed, threatening me. Sends them right along.

Of course hair/hide differences.

Guessing Jorge does not want to answer very simple questions.

As in many things you post, you guessed wrong again... The simple answer was at DSC, the answers given were NOT absolute, you yeah, you're wrong (again)...

just because you are an enforcer for the state, doesn't mean you can't be stupid at the same time. LEO often gives bad advice.

While I get the advice, its beyond stupid to even say it that way IMHO.

Just like they used to say drag the dead back into the house...

A bit of forensics, would tell that the spray was after the shot I suspect.

Its either a good shoot or not.

People in my boat with cans of bear spray bother me. LOL

Can you name an Alaskan bear guide that said you can run hot?

Here it is very simple, say nothing except "I was afraid."

great old video back when Butch King was a scrawny kid (1990)....https://ruslar.pro/video/nNCntVuxbq4
good action starting at 11:26
I like the whole video, though. I have been emailing Butch lately asking about a silver trip in another year or so.

That sounds personal. I have no idea of what "running hot" means (oh, never mind, that's unwashed-speak for "carrying/using"), but if I remember this all important to you drivel next time I see one, will you take my word for it or will you require a notarized statement?

Sorry, not buying the lame excuse. You were willing to accept the bet. You were willing by your own words to ask at DSC. Now you have only to provide a single name to win the bet.

I made two calls to guide/friends that were at DSC. I know their requirements. I asked who was there that might have said they would let a hunter run hot. They laughed.

One name is all it takes...

There were very few Alaska bear guides at DSC... hint...

Oh, by the way, you made it "personal" and I have a couple points to make when you fail to name a guide. And to point out the incredibly obvious, there are several levels here and you are ignoring the obvious point you could win this bet with a name. You are not trying to win, you are hiding.

And to pile on a bit, Phil did not say a thing to support your side.

Well, just spoke my friend just back from an Alaska moose hunt (and it will be in his TV show next fall) and he and his dad carried hot EVERY TIME they stepped off the boat to go in the alders after moose. does that count or are you going to Bill Clinton this with technicalities? Why don't you ask Phil if he was carrying cold when he shot that bear with his Glock. BTW, there is also a well known African PH who also has a pretty large hunting business in Texas, who was on an Alaskan bear hunt (on TV) using a lovely Holland & Holland double (with two sets of barrels in 300 H&H and 500/465). In the video, he is seen loading his rifle way before any bear was spotted (pretty similar to what I described above) and they headed into the alders. He was also carrying hot. Eventually he shot it with the 300 barrels, but followed up with the big bore option into the alders once the blood trail was picked up. That said, I'll make sure to put this into my Outlook file so I can remember this "seminal" issue in my life when I attend DSC this year and if I am wrong (not the first time) I'll honor the bet and maybe some of our other forum members will be there to corroborate. I'm not in the habit of cheating folks out of ANYTHING. In the meantime, I am going to ask a few friends who've hunted Alaska as to their experiences regarding the absoluteness of your silly assed argument that has degenerated from the sublime to the ridiculous.

After all, this is right our of the article and I was merely agreeing this was the smart way to go, instead on relying on someone (your guide) you hardly know and or met to save your ass:

Those of us who've stared down that hole know of what we speak. Do you?

So, I have a few emails out to friends who hunted bears in Alaska. Below was my question to him followed by his answer:

Howdy, i have a question about your hunts in Alaska, specifically, your bear hunt.
The subject of carrying "hot" or "cold" whilst hunting. In Africa I'm used to going 'locked and loaded" once we step off the truck and into the bush. This discussion came up when hunting in Alaska, particularly when hunting big bears and I was told Alaskan guides to a man, simply will not allow a client to go hot until after the game is spotted and one is moving in for a shot. I can see walking miles of open country with a cold rifle, but I would not feel comfortable with a cold rifle while say, going after a moose off a river bank and into the alders with the possibility of a bear around. Can you share your experience with me?

jorge

And his response: Interesting. I was hot the entire time I was physically in the field.

I do not recall that the topic ever came up. That said, I have only hunted AK once.

On the ground in bear country w/a unloaded gun??!! I don't think so.

The only thing "hiding" is this post straight up your keester....

With pages of hoo-ha I could stand it no longer. Got myself some bear spray and every evening went out on the deck and fired a spritz. NO bears.

Guess it works - or doesn't if it's supposed to bring bears.

And from another guide:
It just depends on the person and circumstance.
I strongly advise my fishing clients to not bring a gun at all. They get in the way and we're 100% not going to need it, and if "lightning" does strike, there's other options than they having a gun.
When hunting, again I think it's circumstantial. I wouldn't mention gun safety unless I needed to, nor would I mention loaded chambers if I didn't think I needed to.
If I think I should address both I will.

And another from a very reputable outfitter and Alaska native:
jorge,

I don't think the empty chamber thing is universal in AK at all. I think it is dependent on how the guide feels about the situation. As you know I lived in AK for many years. If I was hunting I had one up the spout always. I've hunted with folks that were fumbling for their rifle to get it loaded and the moose was gone.

Mark




And to be fair, from the Oracle at Delphi, Phil Himself:
We have just wrapped up our peninsula bear season and during the decompression sessions with the guides and packers the scariest stories always revolved around gun handling by clients.

When following up wounded bears we naturally have rounds chambered , but otherwise never !

So much for your "blanket" edict of ALL Alaskan guides. I am sure there are many, even the majority that follow the cold rule, but since you said ALL, well, there you are...wrong again..


I can PM you the names of at least two now.. Let me know when you've had enough (HINT)...

Youse guys dont unnerstant.

This Bear Spray BS is premeditated and designed to educate folks as to the lack of need outdoorsmen, hikers, etc for guns. All ya gotta do is keep the BS handy. Ya dont reallyneed a gun and you may choot your bud being toyed with by a bear.

BUMP,,,,

Ah no, just letting you keep digging. Still have not seen a name.

We can now add reading comprehension deficiencies to the rest of your "resume" or even more telling as to your character, you conveniently ignored what I wrote...

Just put it in public... I bet the guide will love the advertising. Your tactics are very, very transparent. Mine should be, too.

So you can go and pull a Gomer Pyle style citizen'a arrest circus? not hardly, at least not the first instance. As for the other two I quoted, it's on a public forum so here are a few. pm both sides. Once gain proving you wrong ..

here are the quotes plus the reference link:
1. Scott King: It just depends on the person and circumstance.
I strongly advise my fishing clients to not bring a gun at all. They get in the way and we're 100% not going to need it, and if "lightning" does strike, there's other options than they having a gun.
When hunting, again I think it's circumstantial. I wouldn't mention gun safety unless I needed to, nor would I mention loaded chambers if I didn't think I needed to.
If I think I should address both I will.
2. World Wide Outfitter and Alaska resident Mark H Young: jorge,

I don't think the empty chamber thing is universal in AK at all. I think it is dependent on how the guide feels about the situation. As you know I lived in AK for many years. If I was hunting I had one up the spout always. I've hunted with folks that were fumbling for their rifle to get it loaded and the moose was gone.

Mark

MARK H. YOUNG
MARK'S EXCLUSIVE ADVENTURES

3. :Adventure 907 (handle on AR): Circumstances certainly dictate when and where I have one in the chamber when guiding. For my sheep hunts, and the majority of my guiding, I nor the client will carry one in the chamber.

The exception is when I guide SouthEast Alaska brown bear hunts. We are often still hunting over extremely tight covered salmon streams. In these situations, we carry one in the chamber. Sometimes if we have to scale a log jam or other awkward terrain, we will pull one out of the pipe.

As a guide, there is no worse feeling than turning around and seeing a muzzle pointed at you, that is for sure.


Art's vaseline

The last (4) and arguably the most renowned , I will not name because it was sent to me via email but the quote is there about three posts above your repeated horsewhippings ...

The truth and simple.

Not my fight. Thankfully the outfit I'll work for will tell the client WHEN to chamber.

That said Jorge you note that you don't want to trust a guide you have never met or know to save you in case of attack.

Same goes for me as a guide. I don't want you hot walking behind me because I dont' know you.

I'd say the chance of getting shot by a client vs being attacked by a bear, well getting shot would be more chance. IMHO.

Thankfully while fishing our clients have never wanted to bring a gun and trust us to save them if it ever comes to that.

Completely fair and justified point of view. My ONLY point was to counter Art's ridiculous, blanket and absolute statement that ALL Alaskan guides forbid the practice of clients carrying hot, which they do not. I don't expect him to own up, his past record in that field is well documented here...

IMO, it makes them aggressive. i think people need to practice on how to use Bear spray. there is a distance you have to be away from the bear. you just don't do it wrong and hope for the right results.

IMO, it’s not about knowing the person behind, but the simple fact (other than ‘fire members) people can slip, trip, and fall.

So, the discussion was about bear hunting guides. I can look up the exact wording if you like. So for proof you name two individuals that are not and never have been hunting guides of any kind in AK. And you consider that a valid argument?

I can name a great many guides that laughed at your comments. Certainly Phil does not agree with you.

I am still waiting for the name of an AK Bear hunting guide agreeing with you. You said you talked to more than one at DSC. I seriously doubt that is factual. Instead I suggest you were speaking with salesmen appeasing a potential client.

If only obviously...

Another cheap shot... why not just name the guide(s) agreeing with you?

They can all use a little advertising!

Holy schit! You were posting opinions from AR! Laughing!

Just post a name! The fact you consider that proof is beyond amusing. The guy with the bona fides does not agree, again.

Jorge,
Mark Young has not even been an AK resident for quite a few years. But i do not believe that was a reading comprehension issue on your part...

I work in an outdoors store where we sell bear spray and yes, it does work on black bears. It is concentrated pepper spray that will work on anything that breathes air basically. In fact, because black bears are generally smaller than grizzlies it works better on them.
As far as brand, I'm not really sure. The stuff we sell is 1% capsaicin so look for that. As for using a dog, the stats I've seen at work suggest that a dog is just as likely to see a bear, make it mad, then run back to you for protection with bear in tow.
One other thing to note is that the mace that would be used on humans is NOT the same thing as bear spray. Mace is (I think) .25% capsaicin and the cans hold much much less than bear spray. Bear spray is under so much pressure that the recoil when fired is similar to a handgun. It's enough to drop a charging grizzly to it's knees so it can't get back up. Bear spray is strong enough that it can actually be lethal to anyone with a respiratory issue like asthma.
Generally there are two sizes you can get. I really recommend the bigger size. We don't even sell the smaller size because if you don't get a good clean shot we don't feel the small can will be effective.
Don't use bear bells. Again, the stats are iffy but there's no real evidence that they deter bears but there is some speculation that they attract cougars. The bells are also too quiet to be heard. I've walked up to people before and didn't even realize they had a bear bell until I had already seen them anyway. It's much safer to yell out "hey bear bear" regularly. Human voices are the only distinctly human sound we make and it's the only real way to let a bear know who you are.

Are you THAT STUPID? (rhetorical of course). What does "GUIDE" mean in the sentences above?

And from one of my first posts where my friend Ben from Texas hunted with SAM FEJES: " I was hot the entire time I was physically in the field.

I do not recall that the topic ever came up."

On the ground in bear country w/a unloaded gun??!! I don't think so.

I called and spoke with Ben again just to ensure, but now of course you're calling me a liar. Typical . Then again I should have known better, given your integrity issues here, but go ahead and welch again, you know like when you stole that stock..... You're right about one thing though, there's no way I'd ever hunt with the likes of you...

And of course, let us not lose sight of the original QUOTE from the article:

Another personal attack, but at least you put a name there. How do you think Sam will respond to the fact you put his name out there like this?

I am laughing and your only move is being a total dick. Please expound further on things you know nothing about.

And to be very, very clear you are relying on hearsay evidence and have NOT given one name that will enlist on your side. You are not going to find an AK guide willing to come down on your side in public. Privately you may find one trying to appease a potential client.

Twice I have been there when bear spray was used in huge quantities and it failed to save either bear's life...

So what happened to your challenge of "just one name"? Now you modify it with the qualifier "in public", which, STUPID, has been my often stated reticence to provide one. What an artful dodge. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. If you go back to the start, it was YOUR casting of the first stone that started this. Then you ask to put a name out there and when I am reticent to do so, you call me a liar (ergo the personal and valid invectives). Then when I do put the name out there because *MY* integrity is in question, you chastise because I put the name "out there" and in no way was being disparaging towards Sam, in fact HE would get my business with his reasonable approach of when to carry hot or not. I was just merely relating what my friend, HIS CLIENT told me about carrying hot. It was YOU, who issued the first insult and a now proven false statement that ALL guides in Alaska proscribe carrying hot.

Oh, just got off the phone with Mike Stroff of Savage Outdoors TV show. Both him and his dad just got back from a moose hunt (to be shown on his TV shoe next year) and guess what? the second they got off the skiff and go after the moose he eventually shot and with bear tracks all around the bank and guess what? they went hot. WAY before the moose was seen. Perhaps next time if you disagree with someone you might want to take a different tact by maybe saying "the overwhelming majority of guide in Alaska do not want clients to carry hot" or words to that effect, other than "get off your high horse" I don't enjoy this, I really don't, but if you think I was just going to sit idle while you threw crap at me, well there it is. AS to Sam. if he is at DSC this year and he's taken umbrage (assuming you are calling him as a write this to Gomer Pyle citizen's arrest my ass), I will personally apologize . As to you, it'll be a cold day in hell...

Jorge y Sitka 😍

Honest question from a guy that will not be traveling to brown bear country anytime soon, I read stories where the human say they did not have time to use their firearm and I completely believe them. If a bear came at me I would be thinking about where my toilet paper was. Here is my question: if you don't have time for a gun, how would you have time for a can of bear spray?

# I have no idea sir. I've never hunted the Big Bears (only black) and I do not subscribe to the bear spray defense if given the option. All I can tell you is I have hunted where dangerous game abound and I always carried locked and loaded. J

It's legal now, guys.

But just to show you I'm a fair guy, Mike just called me to say "most guides in Alaska will make you carry with no round in the chamber, they are all that way, very standard...

My reasons for not accepting Sam should be obvious. But let me spell them out for you:
You are using hearsay from another. You did not get Sam to say he lets people run hot chambers and we know nothing of the specifics of the hunt.

And, more specifically, I might know a bit about how Sam hunts.

Sadly for you, every bit of this is a matter of record. You have been tossing insults forever and somehow, way late in the game you want to claim I started the incivility. That would be bluffing on your part.

If there were so many guides out there it should have been easy.

The key to staying out of danger in bear country is being aware of what is around you. Standing in the middle of an alder patch butchering requires far more caution than standing out on a wide-open river bar doing the same. Stay aware of where a bear might be and use your head.

Bear spray takes a bit of time to deploy and IME is only useful on nosey bears, not aggressive bears. I do not bother to carry it anymore.

Hmmmm.... crickets...

No crickets, A S S hole, it's called having another life... You're record of dishonesty bears you out. YOUR first post to me:


So then you expect me to say nothing?

So you challenge me for "just one name" and I give you one based on what a very good friend of mine (know to others here) explicitly told me about his hunt, but I hold off on the name but provide a few examples of GUIDES who allow this given the circumstances. Then you call me a liar so I put Mr. Feje's name out there, then you had issues with that, even to the point of throwing your "fellow guides" under the bus by accusing them of "saying anything just to get the business" but publicly sating otherwise (That's called having no principles Art, but coming from someone with your record of honesty, no surprise there) So I cited examples, gave a name (you just wanted one so that's what you got), even though I predicted you'd probably require a notarized affidavit and it turns out I was right again, now it's all hearsay therefore invalid and the rest of your convoluted excuses. I should have known better than to deal with a known and dishonest welcher, all to avoid paying off on a bet ( I would't take free air from you ace) . I've scraped stuff off my shoes with more integrity. If my friend Ben said he hunted hot the whole time he was in the field, well guess what I believe him and there is nothing you or anyone else can say to change that fact. When I'm wrong I say so and have many times, but that takes character, something entirely alien to you.

Bacvk to "Does Bear Spray Work". New use:

I have said this before. I spent 3 years in Kodiak. I never heard of carrying cold chamber the entire time I was there. I can understand why a guide might want their clients cold. I doubt I'll ever get to hunt in big bear country again, but if I do it won't be with a cold chamber and I won't have bear spray with me.

The last time I was around an aggressive grizzly my chamber was hot...... with full consent of the outfitter, I wasn't in Alaska though.....

You don't seem to have much bear experience or bear spray experience. You seem know what you've read. Yes pepper spray Which is typicall 2% Capsaicin, rather than 1% that is actually made for bears. Will it work on black bears, yes it will but it's that effective. May cause black bears to rub their face in the grass, or take off but be assured if they showed an interest in someone it's because they are predatory and will be back. If you know that, you are wise to leave the area, Typically the spray you are using isn't very effective on dogs. Not sure where you got the deal about the recoil of the spray is under so much pressure it's recoil is similar to firing a handgun. You might consider trying it yourself, as that's not the case.
Be careful about talking to hear yourself because there are people on here who know what they are talking about. Yes bears hearing human voices can let bears know there are people in the area, but it can also help them get a focus on where you are if they decide to come for you. I've seen it happen both ways. Bears that don't know you are there, are less likely to get focused on you.