# General > General Guns & Ammo >  gun for backpacking

## kid

Me and some buddies are going to go and do thwe tahoe-yosemite trail either this summer or next.  Since it iis a long trip, and is through bear country we want to have a couple of guns; but since weight is an issue we haven't found a gun that is light enough and has a heavy enough caliber to defend from bears.  Any one have any ideas??

----------


## RobertRogers

How about carrying pepper spray?  The problem with guns is that A) They are dangerous for the inexperienced B) A shot may serve to enrage a bear rather than stop it C) it may be difficult to deploy a gun in time if the event happens unexpectedly D) Park officials, and others, may frown upon heavy artillery E) you may hesitate to use a gun on a person or animal (its one thing to talk about doing it, quite another to actually do it).  However with spray, since it is not deadly force, you are more likely to use it F) the list goes on and on.

There is little need to be afraid of bears in the first place - you are safer in the wilderness than you are walking down the street of any city.  This is a fact.

----------


## Ole WV Coot

Skip the firearms completely. If you have to ask you aren't experienced enough to hit with a heavy handgun, rifle is too obvious and neither is a guarantee of a stopping hit. Buy the spray and everyone keep it on them at all times but don't depend on it. Caution and reading a little about the animals to learn their habits is #1, but don't depend on any animal or person for that matter doing anything predictable except the Ranger who will frown on your artillery. Just my opinion and wasn't trying to insult your intelligence.

----------


## Rick

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used......

Leave the armor at home.

You may want to read this post: 

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/f...=carrying+park

----------


## Beo

Most on here know I'm a cop no big secret, so here is a little on guns and backpacking in a park as posted in another thread. *A gun is not kit for survival but since you asked and may be to lazy to follow Rick's link here ya go.*"I want to carry a firearm for protection." Firearm advocates have used this statement excessively as justification for carrying firearms in national park activities. The reality of daily life, however, is that crime incidents in state and national parks in the United States generally, are extremely low. Additionally, when serious and violent crimes have been recorded, most incidents are directed at park employees, namely maintenance staff and peace officers, and not park patrons. Crimes indexed by the Park Officials Incidence Based Reporting (IBR) data reveals that the most frequently occurring crimes within State and National parks tend to be drug possession, petit or grand larcenies, and miscellaneous misdemeanors, usually in the camping areas. Rarely do these categories include violent crimes and/or assaults. The argument promulgated for self-protection by firearm proponents is not supported by available data collected thus far within the State and National Parks. All of this data is readily available to the public, and accordingly, the assertion that it is necessary to carry weapons on public property is effectively rendered moot, since data that has been collected by federal and state park law enforcement does not support a need for self-protection on state lands whatsoever. There does exist, however, information which links together two very important observations:The aggregate rate of injuries and accidents increases when persons other then law enforcement officers carry concealed or non-concealed firearms and 
The aggregate rate of crime increases when persons other than law enforcement officers carry concealed or non-concealed firearms.
Statistics collected by park law enforcement and social organizations and scientists around the nation suggests that the higher prevalence of weapons result in higher accident and injury rates, both to the owner-operator of the firearm, and to bystanders. Carry the bear spray as suggested a good one used by a friend of mine (Medicine Wolf on this forum) in Montana who is a Ranger in the middle of bumblefook nowhere is- *Counter Assault Bear Deterrent*. 
Bushwacker Backpack & Supply Co. Inc.
120 Industrial Court
Kalispell, MT 59901
Attention: Mr. Pride Johnson
Tel: 1-800-695-3394 
E-Mail: original@counterassault.com
Website: counterassault.com  

Bear Spray plays an important part in reducing attacks during human encounters with bears. It is an effective deterrent of North American bears, but it can be adversely affected by wind, rain, temperature, and even how close the bear is when it charges. When purchasing bear spray it is important to remember that personal defense sprays are not the same as bear spray. Although both types of sprays are made from oleoresin capsicum, it is the capsaicin and related capsaicinoids that are the active ingredients in bear spray. Therefore, if you see claims on a large can that state 10%, 20% or 30% oleoresin capsicum, it is a personal defense spray, not bear spray.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates bear sprays pursuant to an Act of Congress. Look for the EPA registration and establishment numbers, usually found at the bottom of the front label; only bear sprays will have this information. Also, bear spray labels will clearly refer to bears, and state it is a bear deterrent, bear repellent, or for stopping attacking bears.
Currently the EPA requires that the concentration of Capsaicin and related capsaicinoids range between 1 and 2.0%. The variance in potency within this range is negligible, and all will affect the eyes, nose, throat and lungs of a bear. The minimum size can the EPA will register is 7.9 ounces, or 225 grams.

Just some food for thought.
Beo,

----------


## Rick

Beo, truly an excellent post. 

And don't dink around with the bear spray, either. A friend of mine thought it would be cute to squirt a bit up in the air. He did. A breeze caught it and it landed on another buddy behind us. It was not a pretty scene.

----------


## canid

when i was growing up in juneau there was a tourist who had bought some bear spray for a hike. he ended up in the ER because he thought it was used like insect repellant. according to my mother; true story.

----------


## Rick

That's where my buddy wound up. On O2 and getting his eyes rinsed. The guy that sprayed the stuff laid low for a couple of weeks till things cooled down.

----------


## Beo

I hope by no means does anyone think I don't support the *Right to Keep and Bear Arms*. I do whole heartedly, but I don't think one is needed in a National Park for hiking, the spray is much better and won't get you in trouble. I am an avid hunter with my Long Bow and Flintlock and carry off duty in case I run into some Johnny Butterbut I have locked up and he wants to start some bulljunk. I even do Starvation Treks and Canoe Treks with my flinter but we *always get the permission from the needed local or federal government to do this*.
Anyhow, just letting ya know I support the RIGHT TO KEEP & BEAR ARMS, (but please if ya got back fat on your arms wear sleeves :Big Grin:

----------


## Rick

Dude, there is something seriously wrong with you (wickedly funny, though). :Big Grin:

----------


## corndog-44

> Beo, truly an excellent post. 
> 
> And don't dink around with the bear spray, either. A friend of mine thought it would be cute to squirt a bit up in the air. He did. A breeze caught it and it landed on another buddy behind us. It was not a pretty scene.


That would be my luck, Rick. The wind would be blowing from my back when I aim the spray at the bear and just as I sprayed the wind would change direction and blow from behind the bear and towards me  :EEK!: . Maybe it would be better while in bear country if I got a pole and made a spear out of it and sit at the base of a big tree with the butt end of the spear propped against the base of the tree and tell the bear, "Come on you ******come and get it!!  :Mad:

----------


## Rick

There was this awful moment when it was just sooooo funny. The minute that spray hit him in the face. Then there was this quick realization that he was in real trouble. I think he would have killed at that moment if he had the capacity. He still doesn't find it funny and it's not a point ever brought up in his presence.

----------


## Beo

> That would be my luck, Rick. The wind would be blowing from my back when I aim the spray at the bear and just as I sprayed the wind would change direction and blow from behind the bear and towards me . Maybe it would be better while in bear country if I got a pole and made a spear out of it and sit at the base of a big tree with the butt end of the spear propped against the base of the tree and tell the bear, "Come on you ******come and get it!!



Or grease yourself in bacon fat and run naked through the woods, end result will be the same, Bear leaves with a full belly  :Big Grin:

----------


## Rick

See? That there is kinky I don't care who you are. Are you chasin' the bear or is he chasin' you? Kinky, kinky, kinky.

----------


## trax

> See? That there is kinky I don't care who you are. Are you chasin' the bear or is he chasin' you? Kinky, kinky, kinky.


that's just sad, I think you should go hover over the underlined red letters in the other post.....

----------


## Beo

what if ya took your buddy's bear spray and replaced it with that gag Bullsh** spray and he used it on a bear :Big Grin:  lol...

----------


## corndog-44

> Or grease yourself in bacon fat and run naked through the woods, end result will be the same, Bear leaves with a full belly


Hey thanks Beo. Never thought about getting naked in front of a hungry bear...I can see the look on his face  :EEK!:  "Holy crap...I ain't eat'n that!!", he says.  :Big Grin:

----------


## Rick

I know a mechanic that filled an old fire extinguisher with kerosene and put it back in one of the trucks. A couple of months went by and the driver ran up behind another truck that had a wheel bearing on fire. He grabbed that extinguisher, ran up and gave the wheel bearing a good spritz. The flames jumped up quite bit. He sprayed it again and the flames just a bit more. The other driver looked at him then at the extinguisher and told him, "I don't know what the hell's inside that extinguisher but I'll pay good money if you don't use it anymore." The mechanic got fired over the deal but it was pretty funny.

----------


## Sarge47

Okay, leave the howitzer at home; in some places it can be illegal to kill a bear even to save your life.  Get yourself a nice long walking staff and nail a strap with sleigh bells or small cowbells to it so that it makes a lot of noise.  You and your hiking buddy (ies) dialouge back & forth real loud.  Bears usually want to avoid human confrontation.  If one sees you and doesn't run off and charges, crouch down, put your head between your legs and kiss your tush goodbye! :EEK!:  :Big Grin:

----------


## Tony uk

If it is legal where you live you could try and use a tazer i think, hopefully make it go away

----------


## Beo

Tazer International actually makes a tazer that will take down a full grown Bull.

----------


## trax

Just what I've always wanted, a device that will kill my meat and cook it at the same time. This is even better than hunting buffalo with a bulldozer. God bless science...and those little New Guinea pygmies...

----------


## nell67

Not the pygmies again doh!!!!!!! :Stick Out Tongue:

----------


## trax

Of course the pygmies again. Part of my plan for Free Traxistan (and I know this is off topic, but bear with me) is to offer immigration to the little cuties and put them to work picking mushrooms....you see, I do have a plan!

----------


## Rick

Who was it yelled out in another thread? Shoot low boys, they're riding shetland ponies!
that there is funny I don't care who you are.

----------


## Tony uk

Gay Rights Now !!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## Rick

Is that like an "about face" command?

----------


## nell67

> Of course the pygmies again. Part of my plan for Free Traxistan (and I know this is off topic, but bear with me) is to offer immigration to the little cuties and put them to work picking mushrooms....you see, I do have a plan!


Ok and my job would be in Traxistan???

----------


## Tony uk

> Is that like an "about face" command?


Nope, its like a magical, irreplaceible, surpercalefragilisticxspealadousious kind of .................... Thinggggg

----------


## Beo

What do gay rights have to do with  pygmies? And Trax that's  pygmie slave labor... lol...

----------


## Tony uk

You have to beleve that pygmies can become sexualy confused before you get it.

----------


## nell67

> Nope, its like a magical, irreplaceible, surpercalefragilisticxspealadousious kind of .................... Thinggggg


Gee,I didn't know anyone could acutually spell that!!!

----------


## trax

beo..dude...I'd pay them!

Nell...queen of traxistan!

Rick...shetland ponies! Brilliant, I could start a short cavalry to combat light DRAG goons....


Tony....apparently queen of scotland....to each their own

----------


## Rick

There you go. I peed again! I know I did.

----------


## nell67

Qween!!! sweet,and hello to my fellow (fella???) Qween Tony!

----------


## trax

> You have to beleve that pygmies can become sexualy confused before you get it.


before I get it from any pygmies anyway....They're definitely going to have to answer some "skill testing questions" before they get on their little tiny boats to Free Traxistan

----------


## Beo

Screew that, pygmie slave labor is cool, what will they really do about kick in your knee caps. Oh snap no wonder I was overthrown!!!!!!!!

----------


## Rick

It has to be a tiny skills test best administered by the tiny boat captain, named Tiny.

----------


## Tony uk

> Qween!!! sweet,and hello to my fellow (fella???) Qween Tony!


All Hail Queen Tony, Master of the chocolate muffins

Bringer of Haggis 

Destroyer of alarm clocks

----------


## nell67

Hey Tony?? PUT DOWN THE SUGAR MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## Tony uk

> Hey Tony?? PUT DOWN THE SUGAR MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!


What are you talking about ?????

What sugar, Where ?

----------


## nell67

> What are you talking about ?????
> 
> What sugar, Where ?


Oh God,it's too late!!!!!!

----------


## Sarge47

Tony's off his meds again!  Also he's coom out o' the closet!  I shoulda known there was something phony about Tony when I saw his Kilt was the only one trimmed in lace! :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Tony uk

> Oh God,it's too late!!!!!!


AHHHH The Nukes Have Been Launched, There Gonna Fry My Sorry A**

----------


## nell67

> Tony's off his meds again! Also he's coom out o' the closet! I shoulda known there was something phony about Tony when I saw his Kilt was the only one trimmed in lace!


Now THATS funny!!! Nice one Sarge!

----------


## Tony uk

> Tony's off his meds again! Also he's coom out o' the closet! I shoulda known there was something phony about Tony when I saw his Kilt was the only one trimmed in lace!


Erm *Thinks of wicked comeback* .................... *5 Hours later*

Your a cheese

----------


## RBB

> Me and some buddies are going to go and do the tahoe-yosemite trail either this summer or next.  Since it iis a long trip, and is through bear country we want to have a couple of guns; but since weight is an issue we haven't found a gun that is light enough and has a heavy enough caliber to defend from bears.  Any one have any ideas??



Specifically in answer to your firearm question:  A reliable and reasonable weapon for defense against a grizzly bear would be a 12 gauge slide action shotgun loaded with slugs.  I've always preferred the slide action over a semi-auto for a pack gun as they are generally less tempermental.  A short barreled shotgun with an aluminum receiver - such as an Ithaca Featherlight, is a fairly low weight weapon.  As to pistols, a 44 Rem Magnum is roughly on par with a 30-30 Winchester, and is not a caliber I would care to rely on when facing a Grizzly.  Unless you are a good pistol shot and like shooting something like a 454 Casull magnum - more than I do - I'd stick with a 12 gauge slide action shotgun.  To be of any use in case of bear attack - your gun needs to be immediatley accessible - which generally requires some training or long term hunting skills.

----------


## traderran

I have hunted an still hunt Alaska where the question is not will I see bear
but how many. I carry a custom .454 with 4.5 barrel and a mod 70 Winchester
.458. The .454 will put one down for keeps. And yes I know this first hand. 
If I was only backing and not hunting I would only carry the .454. By the
way bear spray only ads seasoning for the bear. :Big Grin:

----------


## Rick

Carefull, traderran. This trail cuts across Yellowstone National Park and other BLM land. While the BLM recognizes state law on weapons, the National Park Service does not (for now). While your experience may be fine for Alaska it is not okay to tote, concealed or otherwise) on National Park land.

"Neither hunting nor firearms are allowed in Yellowstone's backcountry."

Source: http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisi...ntryhiking.htm

----------


## Beo

Listen To What Rick Is Saying About Firearms On Blm And National Park Land, It Is All True.

----------


## awfoxden

the only good i can see a gun being in a bear attack situation is to shoot your buddy in the leg so you can out run him.  not to mention all of the laws broken as previosly mentioned by carring one in the park.  concealed for self defense against other humans is about the only reason i could see for carring one in a state park, and it is still illegal to do so.

----------


## Rick

Not in Indiana. You can carry concealed in state parks and on BLM land. The only place you can not carry is Corps of Engineers property.

----------


## go2ndAmend

If legal to carry in that location, I'd pack a Smith and Wesson .357 Airlight revolver in a Wilderness tactical holster. Discreet and deadly combination for man or bear.

----------


## Arkansas_Ranger

If it's illegal then don't do it.

If you don't know how to operate it or carry it safely then don't do it.

People haven't always had guns in bear country.  You can survive without one.  If you know what you're doing and can carry one legally then I'm all for it.  I'll support you 100%.  But are you going to tuck it away in your pack?  Won't that defeat the purpose of readiness?

----------


## Arkansas_Ranger

> Not in Indiana. You can carry concealed in state parks and on BLM land. The only place you can not carry is Corps of Engineers property.


I've always guessed it's that way because the poor COE boys don't get to carry guns themselves.  Just a thought from a fellow parkie...

----------


## Arkansas_Ranger

> If it is legal where you live you could try and use a tazer i think, hopefully make it go away


Will it work?  I've had a TASER deployed on me in training, and I've deployed one against two other people.  It worked, but I don't think it would work on a bear.  They don't seem to work as we'd hope on dogs, and I recall seeing a TASER video demonstrating the "Animal TASER."  Basically the dude drops a bull with one.  Cool vid.  Look it up.

----------


## Arkansas_Ranger

> the only good i can see a gun being in a bear attack situation is to shoot your buddy in the leg so you can out run him.  not to mention all of the laws broken as previosly mentioned by carring one in the park.  concealed for self defense against other humans is about the only reason i could see for carring one in a state park, and it is still illegal to do so.


He's right.  Ironically, just because you might could carry the gun lawfully it could still be illegal to use it against the wildlife in the protected habitat that you were encroaching upon or simply for discharging the weapon in the park.  

If you shot a bear that was about to bite you I wouldn't arrest you unless (a) officer discretion was yanked from me by an upper echelon or (b) you did something stupid like tried to turn the cub den into a petting zoo and mom decided to suggest that wasn't a good idea.

----------


## Rick

> But are you going to tuck it away in your pack? Won't that defeat the purpose of readiness?


I'm sure you know there are packs/buttpacks designed for conceal carry. I think the down side of not carrying concealed in a park is you risk being reported by "concerned" park goers. Don't advertise and you won't get bothered or cause some Ranger to respond to an unnecessary call.

----------


## kx250kev

I personally don't want to be dead or a part of the food chain (despite the "odds") so I (like James Madison) believe that it is my right to defend my life with a firearm.  In that spirit, I've been trying to find that perfect lightweight backpacking defense gun also, but it's not easy.  I've settled on a .40 cal polymer pistol with double action fire capability and no safety(or maybe a backstrap/trigger safety) and ideally a decocker for hammer down open carry.  A double action trigger allows you to try to fire a second time if the round doesn't fire.  I know what your thinking...why not a large caliber revolver like a Ruger .454 Casull?  Had one, and it was like carrying around a cinder block.  Much too heavy, and with one shot (deer hunting 3 years ago), I managed SIGNIFICANT hearing loss in my left ear, not to mention CONSTANT ringing (aka Tinitus). :Frown:   A revolver is a more dependable gun, but 5 or 6 shots is not enough in my opinion.  If you are defending yourself from a large animal, you want to throw a lot of lead quickly, and I'm sure your shots won't be well placed.  Most state parks in WI will let you possess a gun if it is unloaded and cased.  A revolver is just to slow to load in an emergency, but a pistol is pretty damn quick.  Slap in a mag, rack and shoot.  I also like to attach a light to the light rail and sleep with it "ready to roll" incase something goes BUMP in the night.  I've done some penetration testing with .40 cal FMJ ammo, and I'm pretty satisfied that it would penetrate the skull of a bear at 50 ft.  The .40 also gives you about 10-12 shots which is better than a revolver. (Technically, my penetration testing for the 9mm FMJ round out performed my .40 and .45 test, and you get 15 to 17 shots)  The ballistics of a .40 cal are similar to a .357 at 100 yards, and perform like a HOT and heavier 9mm round.  My use of a pistol would also be a last resort as the beast is attacking me.  (Shoot when you can see the whites of their eyes  :EEK!: )  I like to "open carry" while hiking/backpacking so I chose locations (ie. non-state parks) that allow me to exercise this right.  

P.s. I had a buddy who chased a bear out of camp in Canada (entered a tent in the middle of the night) with firecrackers, so you might want to add those to your backpack too.   :Wink:

----------


## Rick

kx250 - You might want to re-think how quickly you can load a wheel gun. I have no doubt I can load my .32 or .38 and fire before you can load your automatic and fire. I use speed loaders, of course. Once I snap the cylinder closed it's ready. Once you load the clip you still have to cycle a round. By then I've fired. Just a thought. 

You might want to take a look at this thread. I just went through the same process and yesterday settled on the Springfield XD .45 Service Model in 4". 

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/f...ead.php?t=2678

Just for fun, how about a 6 shot wheel gun, a reload and six more shots in 2.9 seconds? 

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/21940/..._shooter_ever/

----------


## Ole WV Coot

Semi slower to reload? I don't think so. I can push a button, drop the empty mag and reload  push down another and fire before the empty hits the ground. In the good ole USA I don't see me going thru a full mag but in a semi controlled situation you don't empty your mag. Fire what you must, if a chance drop the mag before empty and reload. Remember just in case you have a live round in the tube if it's needed. If you empty a mag semis lock the slide open. Drop the empty, reload, hit the slide close, it picks up a round from the new mag and fire. I don't have to drop my pistol down to reload nor get off target, takes a little practice and has to be automatic. I own several wheel guns, a few SA and it took a lot of use to convince myself to change. A quality semi of mine I trust. I can beat a speed loader easily, especially against the average person. I ain't the fastest I've ever shot with but I can change mags and aimed fire before you can drop, dump, reload, raise the revolver and find your front sight. I have carried and practiced with handguns over 50yrs, only have a Win Defender 12ga, Marlin 30-30 for coyotes, and a Ruger 10-22, plus a 50cal front loader, gave everything else to my son years ago. I kinda put myself on automatic and it works for me, guess that's what counts. I use handguns a lot, every type has their use. Just don't "limp wrist" a semi and use the right ammo.

----------


## Stony

as a person living and working in bear country I agree with the posters advocating
bear (or pepper) spray.
8 ounces af spray can on the belt is much less weight than 7pounds of rifle.

----------


## Alpine_Sapper

> as a person living and working in bear country I agree with the posters advocating
> bear (or pepper) spray.
> 8 ounces af spray can on the belt is much less weight than 7pounds of rifle.


Yeah, but for an additional 6.5 lbs, I get a lot more functionality. So soddy GI, but rifle trump spray every time in my opinion.

----------


## Rick

Is it against the law to carry both? :Wink:

----------


## kx250kev

I love my Ruger GP-100 .357, and I'm very accurate with it, but even if I could load it fast (with practice), it is still too heavy for serious hiking in my opinion.  :Frown:  I've looked into the S&W Airweight models, and I know the .38 is very light from holding it.  I'd like to hold the .357 Airweight model sometime, but I still think (for my needs) the polymer pistol is a better solution.

----------


## klkak

Of all the folks who defended themselves from bears. Most of those who use a gun get mauled after shooting the bear. No of them that used Pepperspray are mauled after using it. For a shot to stop a bear it must be instantly fatal (almost impossible on a moving target). All pepperspray has to do is hit them in the face and the attack is over. I have defended myself 3 time with pepperspray once from one side of my ATV with the bear on the other side. She was in full charge. The spray stopped her dead in her tracks and turned her around. She was gone in a flash. Dont forget that most bears only become a threat when they are to close to use a long gun and at that range unless you hit them in the brain or spine a handgun is only going to enrage them more. If you think you are good enough to shoot one dead with the first shot try a little experiment. Have someone throw a softball (which is slightly larger than a bears brain) at you. You draw your handgun or lift your rifle and hit it with the first shot. In my observations most bears are shot during a false charge which wounds them and makes them mad. If they do runaway after being shot now you are obligated to track it down and put it out of its suffering. I've tracked a wounded bear. It's terrorfying. I'm not telling you this stuff to discourage you or start an arguement, only to inform and educate. It's better to know how to avoid bears then thinking you can kill one if you have an encounter.

----------


## crashdive123

Don't worry about starting an argument (we can do that easily enough).  I want to hear the nuts and bolts from those that have "been there, done that, got the T-shirt".  Last November I went hiking in the Smokies.  Since I haven't dealt with bears, I did quite a bit of research on the what to and not to do's.  I had a hand gun, but also opted for the bear spray (which would have been my choice if needed).  So klkak, Hopeak and others - keep it up because I believe you guys "got the T-shirt".

----------


## klkak

Study shows bear spray effective

The Associated Press


Published: April 20th, 2008 02:32 PM
Last Modified: April 20th, 2008 02:41 PM

A study concludes that bear spray works a great majority of the time in warding off bear attacks.

Biologist Tom Smith and others have published a paper of their research in "The Journal of Wildlife Management."

The study says bear spray is effective 98 percent of the time.

The researchers looked at 83 cases where bear spray was used and found that none of the incidents involved any serious injuries. The red-pepper spray causes painfully swollen eyes and nasal passages on its targets.

Smith spent years working in Alaska as a bear biologist for the U.S. Geological Survey.

He is now a professor of wildlife science at Brigham Young University.

In the report, Smith noted the risk for injury is greater with firearms, the other main means of self-protection. Wounded bears sometimes turn on people.

Johnny McCoy, a Baptist minister and former North Pole mayor, had his ear ripped off in 2001 by a grizzly bear that attacked moose-hunting partner Gary Corle. Corle shot at the bear with his rifle, but missed. The bear then turned on McCoy, who needed surgery to reattach his ear and close large gashes in his forehead, arms and hands.

Bear spray has been used in Alaska for more than two decades. No similar attacks against those using spray in self-defense have been reported.

"Bear spray represents an effective alternative to lethal force," the researchers wrote.

But bear spray also has its limits. Smith notes there have been problems with the spray in the wind, although its biggest drawback may be the one-shot limit.

Smith reported that in "7 percent of bear spray incidents, wind was reported to have interfered with spray accuracy, although it reached bears in every case

----------


## klkak

Thanks Crashdive. I just found the previous artical.

----------


## trax

> If you think you are good enough to shoot one dead with the first shot try a little experiment. Have someone throw a softball (which is slightly larger than a bears brain) at you. You draw your handgun or lift your rifle and hit it with the first shot.  It's better to know how to avoid bears then thinking you can kill one if you have an encounter.


And of course, if the little experiment fails...which I'm betting it will, you're going to have to find someone else to throw the _second_ softball aren't you?  Good comparison though klkak.

----------


## Rick

I was thinking the same thing. Just didn't want to say it. I read that and thought, "Hey, I ain't throwing that ball."

----------


## Alpine_Sapper

I'd rather have a couple bullets in reserve than shoot your load once and have the wind carry it away. What are you gonna do then? Crap you pants? Besides, I humbly suggest this: The only reason that it was effective 98% of the time, and there were "No similar attacks against those using spray in self-defense have been reported."  is because after they maced the p!ssed off bear and made it even madder the bear decided to have a nice lunch. Capsaicin flavored even. 

 :Big Grin:  :Big Grin:  :Big Grin:  

Seriously though, the above was all in good fun. My point to Stony was that the if it's either or, I'm gonna go for the rifle. 

 I agree with Rick. Carry both. That way when the spray is ineffective because of the wind you still have a real world alternative. 

Or god forbid the bear is charging you the same direction as the wind. Then you're getting maced and then mauled by the bear. D@mn, shoulda had the gun.

----------


## trax

Hey Alpine? Throw this softball at me...... :Big Grin:   :Big Grin:   :Big Grin:   :Big Grin:

----------


## Alpine_Sapper

> Hey Alpine? Throw this softball at me......


Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

how about one of these instead?   :Big Grin:  :Big Grin:  :Big Grin:  :Big Grin:

----------


## klkak

> And of course, if the little experiment fails...which I'm betting it will, you're going to have to find someone else to throw the _second_ softball aren't you?  Good comparison though klkak.


 :Big Grin:  :Big Grin:  :Big Grin:  LMAO

----------


## trax

> Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.
> 
> how about one of these instead?


OK, follow these instructions:

1. Clutch big round part, depressing small side handle
2. Pull ring
3. Release grip on small side handle
4. Maintain firm grip on big round part, throw ring.

----------


## Rick

Where's that John Wayne spirit? Pull that ring with your teeth. :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## crashdive123

What????  Again?????

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## klkak

:Big Grin: You guys are real comedians. :Big Grin:  I've been charged 4 times. The first time my 12guage blackmagic slug hit the bear in the forehead but did not hit the brain. My hunting friend hit him with a 250gr. Nos. par. from a 338 win mag. in the shoulder. The bear turned toword my friend. Then I hit him again in the ear with another slug which did hit the brain. The bear plowed right over my friend and died about 10 ft past him. This bear had already been shot in the shoulder by another person an hour earlier with a 338 win mag. I had the 870 up to my shoulder in the ready position when the bear charged. If my friend had not also hit him and made him turn I'm sure he would have gotten me. The whole thing happened in the amount of time it took me to cycle the action on the 870. This all happened with the bear no more then 10ft from either of us. The other 3 times I used pepper spray. "No fuss no muss" and I didnt have to prove to the Troopers that it was a justified "DLP" Defence of life or property. The point I'm trying to make is. Chances are you wont have a chance to take an aimed shot. Even if you hit the head you proably wont hit the brain. You are beter off educating yourself about bears and avoiding them. 

(We have a saying up here about buying a handgun for bear protection. "File the front sight off, That way it dont hurt so bad when the bear takes it from you and shoves it up you butt".)

----------


## Rick

Outstanding!!! LMAO!! (to Crashes post).

----------


## Rick

Based on what those that know have said, I think I'd go with the bear spray. Even if the wind were blowing straight at me and the spray came back in my face, that would be okay. At least one of us won't have to watch what's about to happen.

----------


## Alpine_Sapper

> OK, follow these instructions:
> 
> 1. Clutch big round part, depressing small side handle
> 2. Pull ring
> 3. Release grip on small side handle
> 4. Maintain firm grip on big round part, throw ring.


lol. Glad I never spent any time in a foxhole with you.

----------


## kx250kev

> Carefull, traderran. This trail cuts across Yellowstone National Park and other BLM land. While the BLM recognizes state law on weapons, the National Park Service does not (for now). While your experience may be fine for Alaska it is not okay to tote, concealed or otherwise) on National Park land.
> 
> "Neither hunting nor firearms are allowed in Yellowstone's backcountry."
> 
> Source: http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisi...ntryhiking.htm


Update: Looks like that's changed. :Wink: 
http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/120508.html

----------


## Cleankill47

This is my answer to the original question, nothing else.


I think you would be perfectly suited to a full-sized (4"-5" barrel) pistol in .45ACP. 

First of all, find one legal to carry and own in your own state (I will never live in CA)

Then, make sure it is legal to carry everywhere else you are going.

Including the park itself.

Then, and only then; 

Get a .45ACP you can comfortably hold, that naturally fixates at your point of aim when raised. 

Get a comfortable holster, that will not make you want to leave it somewhere or in your pack.

Load it and your spare magazine(s) with some Magsafe ammo.

Carry it.

----------


## skunkkiller

The best thing to do in bear country is make noice so you don't seprice the bear bells on packs work well.I hunted Admiralty inland in alaska and noice is the best thing to let the bears know you are there they will leave you alone because most times if they hear you will not see them.Admiralty inland has the second bigest grizzlys first is Kodiak.

----------


## canid

there is a world of difference between a supprize encounter, which can be easily avoided and a predatory or investigative one. the first is considerably more common, but when a bear is actually engaging you in a stalk, even if it is out of curiosity, the best thing you can do is to deter the bear as quickly as possible. with black bears, this can be as simple as yelling and throwing rocks. that has worked for me in the past. it will probably be all that is needed. 

i advocate both firearms and bear spray, but i trust the spray to be a first choice the more i think about it, and the more i learn.

if you mace a bear as soon as it's in range, it probably won't come closer. if you shoot a bear as soon as it comes in range, you are probably committing a crime, and as klk mentioned, if it isn't killed and it dosen't charge you, or continue charging you, you still have a wounded and *much* more dangerous bear roaming around. gunshot bears maul people, and it's not always the person who fired.

a maced bear might enrage, but generally will just retreat. in either event, it can no longer see or smell you which has to be an advantage.

i should point out that if it does enrage, you still have the potential for the bear to stumble on other people or camps in the area, but the rage will not last as long as a bullet wound.

i know this is not an easy subject, and i'm thrilled that there are so many here with enough bear experience to give sound testimony and advice.

----------


## primeelite

I would say a .45 pistol would be perfectly fine for protection against large game. But really from experience bears will not mess with you unless they are cornered or cubs are around. So really if you just use avoidance then it should be no problem. 

Also with all of the talk about pepper spray, the bear spray that I have seen is a gel, not an actually traditional pepper spray, that is developed to be wind resistant up to a pretty high mph wind.

----------


## SARKY

If you can find one, get your hands on a Taurus Total Titanium Tracker in  .41 Magnum. I love the caliber and stoked with Federal Dangerous Game loads it will handle any dangerous game in North America provided you do your part. Be forewarned it is only a 5 shot revolver and with it's light weight kicks like a mule, but when the adrenaline is flowing you will never feel it.

----------


## canid

and still be forewarned [as also mentioned above]that if you can't get a kill shot off after the animal engaged you it's worthless. otherwise, a worthy round i'm sure, and pistols are certainly more manuverable in close quarters than longarms.

for pistols, i like my .45acp, but that is because it's the only reasonable cartridge pistol i happen to own. i would try to defend myself against an attack [if it came to that] by any animal with whatever i had handy, but i somehow doubt that my 2 shot .22 would help.

----------


## primeelite

Yeah .22 wouldn't do a thing. I think the .45 acp round could handle a large bear probably if you shot off 3-4 rounds into it. I also heard a story about a guy who was attacked by a grizzly and shot at it with a 9mm and the two shots he got off before it got to him didn't even penetrate but just bounced off the skull.

----------


## jbone

I found this pretty funny:

http://www.outdooroddities.com/wp-co...rning_sign.jpg

----------


## crashdive123

Nice.......

----------


## primeelite

Haha Jbone thats hilarious. I think I have seen that somewhere before but it really does apply to this thread perfectly.

----------


## minuteman

Since you will be backpacking I would reccomend a .44 magnum handgun or a .357 magnum.  You really don't want to compromise your safety with small caliber firearms when it come to bears.  In my opinion the best choice would be the .44 magnum.  Hope this helps.

----------


## hermitman

There are some reviews on youtube about topics like this by Nutnfancy where he says you have to weigh mobility vs firepower deppending on the situation seems like good advice.

----------


## BlackEagle

I searched Google for "backpacking with guns" and found this thread.  I enjoy reading posts from knowledgeable people, and this thread seems to have a bunch, so I joined.

Assuming I am in bear country and I wish to carry both spray and my Sig 226 .357, does anyone have suggestions on holsters, either concealed or open?  Of course, that pesky backpack waist strap would be in the way.  I am thinking that some custom sewing or rigging on the pack might provide an answer, or possibly a pocket on the front of the waist strap similar to the Bianchi 4410.  Any other ideas?  (Yes, I have a concealed carry endorsement in MO, and therefore about 35 other states.)

And here's some fodder for the "should I carry a gun or not" argument.  Bears are not the only safety concern.  I have run into a pack of wild dogs on county park land here in Kansas City, and I have run into feral hogs on the Buffalo River in Arkansas.  I also ran into a guy once (whose parents had to have been closely related) who was walking around a crowded campsite with a pit bull that was trying desperately to get free from his log chain leash.

I seek enlightenment from those who have more experience or knowledge than I do.  Thanks.

----------


## crashdive123

For concealed carry while backpacking I prefer a small fanny pack worn in front.  (wonder why it's not called a front pack)  For open carry while wearing a pack I prefer a holster (either sewn or separate rig) that is worn across the chest.

----------


## klkak

This thread could be moved to the "Guns and Ammo" page.

----------


## lucznik

Not trying to pick nits here but, I had a few thoughts...  




> ...I've been trying to find that perfect lightweight backpacking defense gun also, but it's not easy.  I've settled on a .40 cal polymer pistol with double action fire capability and no safety(or maybe a backstrap/trigger safety) and ideally a decocker for hammer down open carry.  A double action trigger allows you to try to fire a second time if the round doesn't fire.


 I'm not a big fan of the 40 S&W but, otherwise I don't see too much wrong with this logic. Personally, I prefer to have a manual safety on my auto pistols - just as an extra safety measure for the kids and I tend to prefer DA/SA mechanisms.  The long, relatively heavy DA stroke for the first shot provides added safety and, if you have the time, the SA option allows for greater accuracy (all other things being equal).

 What specific DAO auto are you planning on using?




> A revolver is a more dependable gun, but 5 or 6 shots is not enough in my opinion.  If you are defending yourself from a large animal, you want to throw a lot of lead quickly, and I'm sure your shots won't be well placed.


 I watched an interesting dash-cam video of a traffic stop turned gun fight not too long ago.  Perp got off the first shot after which the cop unloaded his entire 15+1 from what looked to be a S&W 5906 (a very accurate duty weapon, BTW) as fast as he could pull the trigger and at a range of under 5 yards.  Wanna guess how many of those rounds struck the perp?  That's right; ZERO!  Not one.  Luckily he wasn't a good shot either and the cop survived unscathed as well.  

Read much about such shootings and you will find that a large percentage of them involve a whole lot of missing.  I can't help wonder if that's partially due to the mentality of "throw a lot of lead quickly" that wasn't available when you had only six shots and thus had to make them count. 

Accurate shooting is EVERYTHING.  No matter how many bullets you have and no matter how powerful they are, if you don't hit the charging beastie, they won't do you any good.  You want a clean, solid hit on the brain or CNS.  A single shot will do, if the bullet strikes where it's (supposed to be) aimed.  If you are shooting as fast as you can pull the trigger, you aren't aiming. 

If you prefer an auto over a revolver, that's fine.  But whatever gun you choose, learn to control your adrenaline and shoot for accuracy first, speed second. 




> I also like to attach a light to the light rail and sleep with it "ready to roll" incase something goes BUMP in the night.


Of course, the danger here is that such lights put you in the position of violating one of the cardinal rules of safe gun handling: "never aim a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy."  

So you're awakened in the middle of the night by some unknown sound, you are unaware of what you really heard, perhaps juiced on adrenaline a bit, and using your gun to illuminate the darkness for an unknown "threat." What happens if something/someone startles you?  

You're much better off with a flashlight in your non-dominant hand scanning the area while your gun is held at "low-ready" in your dominant hand, ready to be brought into action should an actual, real threat present itself.  

If you just simply insist upon having a weapon-mounted light, make sure you have another non-mounted flashlight as your primary illumination and search tool and  activate/use the gun-light only after you have properly assessed the threat and have determined that shooting must now commence. 




> I've done some penetration testing with .40 cal FMJ ammo, and I'm pretty satisfied that it would penetrate the skull of a bear at 50 ft.


 FMJ ammo is not generally a good choice for stopping raging beasties.  It's cheap.  It can punch paper targets with aplomb.  It is however, not a good fight-stopper.  Just ask soldiers who are required by binding international treaty to use only FMJ ammo in all their small arms.



Addendum:  I just noticed how old this thread was.  Sorry, wasn't trying to drudge up old material.  

Oh, and as for bears, I'm in full agreement that bear spray is the best primary option and the one most likely to turn an enraged animal before any injuries, lawsuits, criminal charges, etc. occur, but I still also carry a gun whenever I'm in the wilderness.

----------


## MatthewnOK

I prefer one of these 
Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.
My grandpa and I both have larger than normal hands so we can both comfortably hold one.
Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## catfish10101

Probably a better idea to wear bells and make noise while traveling to avoid startling a bear. If they know you are coming, most times, they will avoid you without you even knowing it.

----------


## wildography

I agree with the above; leave the guns at home; carry bear spray.  Having lived in Yosemite National Park for 4.5 years, and dealing a lot with Black Bears, I can tell you that 95% of the Black Bears that you encounter will run away when you yell & threaten them.  The bear spray is for the other 5%.  I've been bluff-charged about 20 times by Black Bear... and the most effective "anti-bluff charge" technique that I've found is to act like a full-grown Grizzley that is going to rip the head off that Black Bear.  (PS... never - ever - try that with a real Grizzely!)

You also get those really pesky Black Bears that run away... and come back in about an hour... makes for a poor night's sleep.  Bear Spray will help change their minds.

----------


## Rick

Yeah, but those bells are so hard for the bear to swallow.

----------


## kx250kev

> Not trying to pick nits here but, I had a few thoughts...  
> 
>  I'm not a big fan of the 40 S&W but, otherwise I don't see too much wrong with this logic. Personally, I prefer to have a manual safety on my auto pistols - just as an extra safety measure for the kids and I tend to prefer DA/SA mechanisms.  The long, relatively heavy DA stroke for the first shot provides added safety and, if you have the time, the SA option allows for greater accuracy (all other things being equal).
> 
>  What specific DAO auto are you planning on using?
> 
>  I watched an interesting dash-cam video of a traffic stop turned gun fight not too long ago.  Perp got off the first shot after which the cop unloaded his entire 15+1 from what looked to be a S&W 5906 (a very accurate duty weapon, BTW) as fast as he could pull the trigger and at a range of under 5 yards.  Wanna guess how many of those rounds struck the perp?  That's right; ZERO!  Not one.  Luckily he wasn't a good shot either and the cop survived unscathed as well.  
> 
> Read much about such shootings and you will find that a large percentage of them involve a whole lot of missing.  I can't help wonder if that's partially due to the mentality of "throw a lot of lead quickly" that wasn't available when you had only six shots and thus had to make them count. 
> ...



My gun is a Beretta Px4 Storm .40

Regarding the light, you make very good points.  I will remove the light when using, but keep the light on the rail until then.  ;-)

----------


## kx250kev

> you have to weigh mobility vs firepower deppending on the situation seems like good advice.


I agree, mobility vs firepower.  Better to have and not need than need and not have.  Whether to carry and defend yourself and your loved ones....well...I'll quote Sergeant Al Powell from Die Hard...

 "Now you're gonna stand there and tell me that he's gonna give a damn about what you do to him, *if* he makes it out of there alive? Why don't you wake up and smell what you shoveling?"

----------


## rat31465

In a photo provided by Ron G. Leming, Leming holds the arrow he shot to kill a grizzly bear that was attacking his son while the pair were elk hunting west of Cody, Wyo., on Sept. 12, 2008. Hunters have been killing bears in record numbers around Yellowstone National Park, threatening the species decades-long recovery just two years after it was removed from the endangered list.
(AP Photo/Ron Leming)


Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

My experiences in the woods do not include being in Grizzly country but I have some personal experience with Black Bears, Mountain Lions and Wild Hogs here in S.W. Missouri and Northern Arkansas. I think that its irresponsible for anyone who is going to venture deep enough into the woods away from civilazation and immediate rescue help not to carry a Firearm for personal defense. In my own encounters with Black Bear there wasn't any need for a firearm as the Bear turned and ran as soon as he saw me but the chance of attack from a different type of two-legged creature, one whom walks upright and reeks of beer or worse...makes me feel the need to carry at least my 9mm.  I would rather have it and not need it, than to find myself needing it and not having it with me.

----------


## kx250kev

> I think that its irresponsible for anyone who is going to venture deep enough into the woods away from civilization and immediate rescue help not to carry a Firearm for personal defense. In my own encounters with Black Bear there wasn't any need for a firearm as the Bear turned and ran as soon as he saw me but the chance of attack from a different type of two-legged creature, one whom walks upright and reeks of beer or worse...makes me feel the need to carry at least my 9mm.  I would rather have it and not need it, than to find myself needing it and not having it with me.


I agree with you completely.  I wish more people could understand the basic concept/need for self defense and self reliance while in nature.  

On a side note: I personally would not shoot at a bear unless I was definitely under attack.  I understand that bear sometimes "bluff rush", then stop their charge, but occasionally they DO carry out a full attack, and in that situation, I want real options to defend my life and the lives of my loved ones.  This is only accomplished with real firepower IMHO.

----------


## Rick

Just to follow up on your other post about 9mm. If that is what you plan to stop a charging bear with then I think you are woefully under armed. You are correct that shot placement is key but I don't think this is a real possibility with a charging bear and an adrenaline filled body. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding between the two posts. I also like 9mm. It's a good self defense round. I like .45 better but I would not want to use either one against a bear. 

I'm certainly no expert, never pulled down on a bear. Never faced one in the wild. So I defer to the experts on here and would carry bear spray.

For any threats in the Midwest, where I am, 9mm is a great choice. Packs of dogs is about the most dangerous thing you are apt to run into with 4 legs. Hollow points in either caliber for me.

----------


## rat31465

No it was never my intent to infer that a 9mm was a good cartridge for Bears.  I have never had any life threatening issues with Bears here where I am from, however I have had a couple of run ins with people on the trails and that is why I carry my Glock 17 everywhere I go. 

If I were going to be in Bear country I would carry a suitable round for the job...and while I am proficient with a handgun, I am not sure that I would feel all that comfortable with any handgun even with a .44 mag on Black Bears.  However, if I were surprise attacked by a Bear and all I had was my 9mm Pistol....I sure wouldn't drop it and pick up rocks to throw as having 18 rounds of Federal hydrashocks would be at least better than spitwads. 

 I agree with you about the packs of dogs to....I have came across as many as 6 running together while out hiking at Hercules Glade in Mark Twain Forest. I wasn't attacked but did feel like that they were a little to interested in me when the circled around me at about 20 yards away. I fired a couple of shots near them and they ran off.  Interesting here to note that I was packing a Ruger Mk-II .22 LR Pistol that day and at the time was all I had.

----------


## kx250kev

> if I were surprise attacked by a Bear and all I had was my 9mm Pistol....I sure wouldn't drop it and pick up rocks to throw


LOL, 15+ rounds of 9mm beats a handful of rocks everytime..(but I'd prefer my .40 S&W)

----------


## lucznik

> I have came across as many as 6 [dogs] running together... I wasn't attacked but did feel like that they were a little to interested in me when the circled around me at about 20 yards away. I fired a couple of shots near them and they ran off...


 Just curious, since this experience was with dogs (I'm assuming they were wild), which are not usually considered game animals, is there any reason why you didn't just shoot (at least some of) them?

----------


## rat31465

> Just curious, since this experience was with dogs (I'm assuming they were wild), which are not usually considered game animals, is there any reason why you didn't just shoot (at least some of) them?


As I stated they just seemed a little to interested in me.  None of them ever assumed an agressive posture nor made any move that would indicate they were ready to attack. I have no way of knowing if they were wild dogs or someones Coon Hounds...None wore collars and they didn't look mal-nourished so at the time I felt a couple of warning shots fired at the ground three feet behind one of them was my best course of action.  If any one of them had acted aggressively I wouldn't have hesitated to shoot as I had already positioned myself under a tree which would have been easy to climb. 
I knew that I could have easily picked them off one by one if necessary sitting on one of its branches. I shot this little pistol alot and hunted squirrels with it frequently so I wasn't worried about being able to hit a dog with a well placed shot. Plus I had two full magazines in my cargo pants pockets so had plenty of ammo on hand.

----------


## Alpine_Sapper

> Just curious, since this experience was with dogs (I'm assuming they were wild), which are not usually considered game animals, is there any reason why you didn't just shoot (at least some of) them?


Not everyone kills indiscriminately. The dogs didn't threaten him, just check him with a probe. He probed back. They decided better of it. Why escalate the situation further?

----------


## Rick

It really is awesome, isn't it? I mean, think of the power you have invested in yourself. For that one moment in time no one but you owns that level of power. Not Klkak, not War Eagle, not Trax, not me. Just you. In that one instant you can decide to kill or not to kill. It's up to you. Take yesterday for example. I killed probably six times. Every time the bag was full on the mower I just reached down and killed the engine. And, God help me, it felt good. A bit more than awesome that one time my finger touched the spark plug the but the rest of the time...just awesome!

----------


## sgtdraino

> Most on here know I'm a cop no big secret,


As am I. And while I have the utmost respect for my colleague, who has a LOT more survival experience than I do, this is one issue we definitely do not see eye-to-eye on.




> A gun is not kit for survival


I'd be interested to hear you clarify this, considering the various polls we've done on this forum generally rate firearms to be *the* most effective projectile weapon for survival there is. For example, this poll:

http://www.wilderness-survival.net/f...ead.php?t=3689

Not even close.




> "I want to carry a firearm for protection." Firearm advocates have used this statement excessively as justification for carrying firearms in national park activities. The reality of daily life, however, is that crime incidents in state and national parks in the United States generally, are extremely low.


The reality of daily life is that the chances of a violent crime happening to you *anywhere* are extremely low. Heck, even the chances of us as police officers finding ourselves in a situation where we have to use deadly force is extremely low. But who wants to bet their life on "extremely low?"




> Additionally, when serious and violent crimes have been recorded, most incidents are directed at park employees, namely maintenance staff and peace officers, and not park patrons.


And since, from my experience, the vast majority of parks prohibit civilians (and often even law enforcement) from carrying firearms, those serious and violent firearm crimes are often committed by people who are breaking the law to start with, by illegally carrying a firearm. Laws prohibiting the carry of firearms only deter law-abiding citizens, and they are generally not the people we have to worry about.




> Crimes indexed by the Park Officials Incidence Based Reporting (IBR) data reveals that the most frequently occurring crimes within State and National parks tend to be drug possession,


I have heard that there is a growing practice of drug dealers conducting their transactions in parks, because there is not as much law enforcement coverage, and the areas are difficult to surveil effectively.




> petit or grand larcenies, and miscellaneous misdemeanors, usually in the camping areas. Rarely do these categories include violent crimes and/or assaults.


Then why bother arming park rangers?




> The argument promulgated for self-protection by firearm proponents is not supported by available data collected thus far within the State and National Parks. All of this data is readily available to the public, and accordingly, the assertion that it is necessary to carry weapons on public property is effectively rendered moot, since data that has been collected by federal and state park law enforcement does not support a need for self-protection on state lands whatsoever.


The thing is, with the carrying of firearms being a constitutional right, it should not matter whether park officials or anyone else deems it "not necessary" to carry a firearm for protection. Such rights should only be restricted if it is truly "necessary" to *restrict* them. In other words, the statistical burden of proof should be on the park officials to prove it is necessary to curtail citizens' rights, not on the gun owners to prove they have a need to carry a firearm. The fact that incidents of violent crime are very low in parks is actually evidence that supports that there is *no need* to curtail the rights of gun owners.

A hypothetical example for you: Imagine a woman trying to stay away from her abusive ex-husband, who has threatened to kill her in the past. Who she suspects is following her around and spying on her. Should she just not visit the parks she loves anymore? Because she has no way of protecting herself while in there?

People are most often murdered by people they know, not random stuff you would happen across by chance. You can't really plan for that using statistics. If someone is being targeted, it doesn't matter whether they are in their house, on the street, or in a park. They are in danger.




> There does exist, however, information which links together two very important observations:The aggregate rate of injuries and accidents increases when persons other then law enforcement officers carry concealed or non-concealed firearms and 
> The aggregate rate of crime increases when persons other than law enforcement officers carry concealed or non-concealed firearms.


As someone with some experience in statistical studies like these, I question the veracity of your information. I'd be interested in seeing some sources for your conclusions.




> Statistics collected by park law enforcement and social organizations and scientists around the nation suggests that the higher prevalence of weapons result in higher accident and injury rates, both to the owner-operator of the firearm, and to bystanders.


I strongly suspect there is an agenda behind these analyses.




> Carry the bear spray as suggested


I would certainly agree with Beo on this. Spray is for bears, guns are for human bad guys... or the occasional smaller threat, if absolutely necessary.




> I hope by no means does anyone think I don't support the *Right to Keep and Bear Arms*. I do whole heartedly, but I don't think one is needed in a National Park for hiking,


With respect, if you are setting the bar for banning guns at, "you don't *need* one," then your support of the 2nd Amendment does not sound very wholehearted to me. 




> I am an avid hunter with my Long Bow and Flintlock and carry off duty in case I run into some Johnny Butterbut I have locked up and he wants to start some bulljunk.


So, you yourself would carry off-duty in a park, whenever allowed to do so? In spite of the statistical findings? And realistically, you know the odds of bumping into someone you put away *in a park*, *and* that person getting violent on you, are so very close to zero that it's hardly worth mentioning? But you would still carry? Even though it's probably not "necessary?"

I would too. Absolutely. Because no matter how low the odds, there is still a chance, and it's not a chance worth betting your life on.




> Assuming I am in bear country and I wish to carry both spray and my Sig 226 .357, does anyone have suggestions on holsters, either concealed or open?


I suggest you *always* carry concealed, unless it is not possible to do so. Open carry tends to draw undesirable attention, and make people nervous. I recommend either pocket-carry, or if the pistol is too large, a waist-pack designed to conceal a pistol. I just recently got my first one of these, for my Ruger GP100, and it works excellently. The pistol is readily available, it will not even occur to most people that you might be carrying, and (miracle of miracles) this is actually a very comfortable way to carry a pistol for a long period of time.




> And here's some fodder for the "should I carry a gun or not" argument.  Bears are not the only safety concern.  I have run into a pack of wild dogs on county park land here in Kansas City, and I have run into feral hogs on the Buffalo River in Arkansas.  I also ran into a guy once (whose parents had to have been closely related) who was walking around a crowded campsite with a pit bull that was trying desperately to get free from his log chain leash.


Precisely. And each one of those times, I'll bet there was not a park ranger immediately at hand to step in and potentially save you. That is simply a fact of life: 9 times out of 10, Law Enforcement will only arrive after the fact. The person best able to protect you, is *you*.

Of course, as others have said, if you don't know how to handle a gun, you should not be messing with them. If you're not sure you could use it, you should not carry it. Proper training, always.

----------


## crashdive123

Sgt D - you may have to wait a bit for a response from Beo - he's in Afghanistan right now.

----------


## sgtdraino

> Sgt D - you may have to wait a bit for a response from Beo - he's in Afghanistan right now.


I thought I remembered that, too bad I am so late to this thread. Perhaps someone who sees things similarly could speak on behalf of his position?

----------


## kx250kev

> As am I. And while I have the utmost respect for my colleague, who has a LOT more survival experience than I do, this is one issue we definitely do not see eye-to-eye on.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be interested to hear you clarify this, considering the various polls we've done on this forum generally rate firearms to be *the* most effective projectile weapon for survival there is. For example, this poll:
> 
> http://www.wilderness-survival.net/f...ead.php?t=3689
> 
> Not even close.
> ...



sgtdraino, I'm with you.  You hit the nail on the head with all of your points.  Ultimately, it is up to each individual to ensure their own life, their own liberty and their own property.  The police or rangers are usually left to clean up the mess.  The founding fathers said it best..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

P.s. Beo, thanks for your service. :Thumbs Up:

----------


## lucznik

> Not everyone kills indiscriminately. The dogs didn't threaten him, just check him with a probe. He probed back. They decided better of it. Why escalate the situation further?


The shooting of a pack of wild dogs is not exactly what I consider to be indiscriminate.  In my neck of the woods there are very few people running around with packs of 'coon dogs - which apparently is a real possibility in rat's case and thus, for the explanation of this mitigating circumstance, I am thankful.   Any pack of dogs around here is simply a menace - posing a very real danger not only to the game animals in the area, but also to any people, especially children. 

Other animals that simply get shot on sight around here include:

CoyotesRed FoxAny skunk observed during daylight hours. (Skunks out during the day are almost universally rabid). (Hopefully soon) Wolves

----------


## lucznik

> As am I. And while I have the utmost respect for my colleague, who has a LOT more survival experience than I do, this is one issue we definitely do not see eye-to-eye on.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be interested to hear you clarify this, considering the various polls we've done on this forum generally rate firearms to be *the* most effective projectile weapon for survival there is. For example, this poll:
> 
> http://www.wilderness-survival.net/f...ead.php?t=3689
> 
> Not even close.
> ...


I must say, I am in complete agreement with your assessments here.  

One of the things I have absolutely no confidence in at all is Law Enforcement's capacity to protect me from harm.  That, by the way, is not intended as a slight against any cops.  I have some very, very good friends who are police officers and I spend a lot of time working with my local Sheriff's Dept. as a contract Spanish translator.  

I just recognize that, if I am going to be the target of criminal behavior, then by the time the police know about the crime, it will already be all over.

I also question Beo's statistical analysis.  I too would like to read some of this research as it flies in the face of just about every other study related to concealed carry that have almost universally shown that, in every State that has enacted "Shall Issue" standards, crime rates have gone down.

----------


## glockcop

4-6" s/s .44 mag and up.  Smith or Ruger. Also make sure you are in really good shape so you can outrun your buddies. I know weight is a deciding factor for ya so think about this for a minute...That gun won't feel so heavy once it saves your life. Carry a BIG gun If you are in an area where YOU are not the top of the food chain. Nuff said! Just the same I'd rather have a 12g slug gun or rifle.

----------


## TangoFoxtrot

> Me and some buddies are going to go and do thwe tahoe-yosemite trail either this summer or next.  Since it iis a long trip, and is through bear country we want to have a couple of guns; but since weight is an issue we haven't found a gun that is light enough and has a heavy enough caliber to defend from bears.  Any one have any ideas??


Nothing lass than a high cap. .45 ACP or 10 mm in bear country.

----------


## NightShade

> Nothing lass than a high cap. .45 ACP or 10 mm in bear country.


.45 ACP could handle Black bears but you will have to unload multiple clips, Grizzly's on the other hand... you'll be wishing you brought at least a .357... but I would go even bigger than that!!.. I know a guy who is an amazingly accomplished pistol shooter... he went black bear hunting with a customized .45 and told me he had to unload 2 clips into it... said the second he started shooting he was wishing he brought something bigger.. and this guy LOVES his .45

----------


## Rick

I think Robert Rogers and Coot had the best answers to the question...




> How about carrying pepper spray? The problem with guns is that A) They are dangerous for the inexperienced B) A shot may serve to enrage a bear rather than stop it C) it may be difficult to deploy a gun in time if the event happens unexpectedly D) Park officials, and others, may frown upon heavy artillery E) you may hesitate to use a gun on a person or animal (its one thing to talk about doing it, quite another to actually do it). However with spray, since it is not deadly force, you are more likely to use it F) the list goes on and on.
> 
> There is little need to be afraid of bears in the first place - you are safer in the wilderness than you are walking down the street of any city. This is a fact.





> Skip the firearms completely. If you have to ask you aren't experienced enough to hit with a heavy handgun, rifle is too obvious and neither is a guarantee of a stopping hit. Buy the spray and everyone keep it on them at all times but don't depend on it. Caution and reading a little about the animals to learn their habits is #1, but don't depend on any animal or person for that matter doing anything predictable except the Ranger who will frown on your artillery. Just my opinion and wasn't trying to insult your intelligence.


I thought I would bump up their answers in case anyone is just reading the title and the last answers. Guns and bears don't mix unless you're hunting them.

----------


## kx250kev

> FMJ ammo is not generally a good choice for stopping raging beasties.  It's cheap.  It can punch paper targets with aplomb.  It is however, not a good fight-stopper.  Just ask soldiers who are required by binding international treaty to use only FMJ ammo in all their small arms.


I dissagree completely.  FMJ, especially flat nose FMJ is great at deep penetration of flesh and bone.  Granted you won't create a large wound channel because there is almost no expansion.  Maybe JHP would be better on the battlefield, but a head shot with FMJ is goint to provide true stopping power, but shot placement is key.  And let's face it, the only way a small caliber handgun is going exibit any "stopping power" on a large beasty is via a head shot.  15+ rounds into the body of a bear would provide mixed results.  Head shots are the only shots I will take in this defensive situation, so FMJ is the best choice for me.  In fact, I just picked up on some Win NATO 9mm ammo that is 10% hotter load than most 9mm Luger ammo per label.  Now if we were talking hunting, I would choose a completely different gun and caliber.

----------


## Rick

Did you know that a bear can scamper along at 30 miles an hour. Now I'll give you the fact that a bear has a really big head. Really big bears have really big heads. But that head bobbing while he's running 30 mph directly at you along with the adrenalin in your veins and the poop running down your pant leg is probably going to affect your aim just a smidgen. Well, maybe not yours but I know I'd be shakin' so hard that gun would probably shake to pieces. The bear would have to stop and help me pick up all the parts and put it back together just to be somewhat sporting about eating me. Nah, I think I'd stick with spray. At least that way if worst comes to worst I can use it on myself sort of like a marinade.

----------


## kx250kev

Yep, they are quick, no doubt, but I don't see how that negates me carrying a handgun?  I have spray too; I'm not against it.  In fact the gun would be my last line of defense.  Bobbin' bear heads aren't an issue for me because the bear would need to be in my face, or chewing on me before I'd begin to unload.

----------


## SARKY

TF.... a .45acp won't do squat to an angry bear except piss it off more. A 10mm with a flat/truncated cone bullet design pushing the top end of 10mm velocity is a better choice.
A .41 mag, or .44 mag are much better choices. Hard cast heavy bullets in both cases.

----------


## glockcop

Sarky, I agree that a .44 mag would be a better choice, but IMO a .45 ACP would do a alot more than just piss off a 250 lb. black bear. I would carry 230 gr. flat meplate FMJ .45 ACP ammo for greater penetration and "shock value". Round meplate FMJ .45 ACP ammo would be alot less disruptive to tissue. Brown bears are a different story. People have been using the .45 ACP to stop 250 lb enraged humans for 100 years. From my understanding black bears are alot smaller and are no where as tough as their brown bear cousins. From what I've seen and heard they go down pretty predictably fast with deer calbers like .243 on up. I also know people, myself included, who have dropped deer in their tracks with 9mm, .40 (me), .357 mag (me) and .45. I see no reason they would act differently with proper loads in black bear flesh. They would NOT be my first choice for deer or black bear but IMO one should not feel naked in black bear country with a .45 ACP with flat meplate FMJ's. Maybe a little under armed but not naked. I would definately feel next to naked in brown bear country with anything smaller than a .44 mag. Best

----------


## NightShade

> Sarky, I agree that a .44 mag would be a better choice, but IMO a .45 ACP would do a alot more than just piss off a 250 lb. black bear. I would carry flat meplate FMJ .45 ACP ammo for greater penetration. Brown bears are a different story. People have been using the .45 ACP to stop 250 lb enraged humans for 100 years. From my understanding black bears are alot smaller and are no where as tough as their brown bear cousins. From what I've seen and heard they go down pretty predictably fast with deer calbers like .243 on up. I also know people, myself included, who have dropped deer in their tracks with 9mm, .40 (me), .357 mag (me) and .45. I see no reason they would act differently with proper loads in black bear flesh. They would NOT be my first choice for deer or black bear but IMO one should not feel naked in black bear country with a .45 ACP with flat meplate FMJ's. Maybe a little under armed but not naked. I would definately feel next to naked in brown bear country with anything smaller than a .44 mag. Best


Equating shootin humans to bears is seriously flawed..... Bears have thicker hides and muscles than every human who was ever shot... Plus what if its 600 lbs rather than 250.... Black bears are smaller than browns but can still get pretty big....

----------


## sh4d0wm4573ri7

Personally I would leave the gun at home not only is it a pain to carry usually against the law also but is just really not needed most bear encounters result in the bear hightailing it in the opposite direction. And unless you are quite proficient and have nerves of steel your chances of stopping a charging bear are slim more likely to just agitate it even more juss my opinion.

----------


## Sourdough

Speaking from first hand experience of having either personally harvested, or guided hunters to and assisted with the harvesting of about 190 bears, of which about 130 were Black Bears, and about 60 were Grizzly/Brown Bears. I can report that the range of terminal ballistic performance of a wide range of cartridges is less than one would expect, much less.

----------


## hunter63

I have hunted in northern Wisconsin for years, have smelled a couple of bears, but never seen one in the woods other than attacking the bird feeders at a friends residence, the dump and, a couple crossing a road.

They are not on high on my list of stuff to worry about.
I have seen the signs that say, "You are in bear country, wear little tinkle bells, and carry pepper spray."

I have also heard the you can idenify the type of bear by the scat:

Black bear: has hair, berry seeds, fiberious material in it.
Grizzly bear: smells like pepper spray, and has little bells in it.

----------


## glockcop

> Equating shootin humans to bears is seriously flawed..... Bears have thicker hides and muscles than every human who was ever shot... Plus what if its 600 lbs rather than 250.... Black bears are smaller than browns but can still get pretty big....


If you think that a 230 gr. FMJ from a .45 ACP will not reach the boiler room of a black bear with a thoratic shot, than YOU are seriously flawed. With 25" to 30'' of penetration in ballistic jell you will definately get in where it counts on a black bear. Do a little research. Last I checked Black bears did not have 25" to 30" thick abdominal walls or skulls. I am not talking about hunting situations with shoulder shots. I am talking about using a .45 ACP as a "get off me" weapon with the muzzle against it's head or ribs. That bear will definately know it was in a fight. I said it would not be my first choice but I would not feel naked in black bear country with a FMJ .45 ACP.  I would still rather have at least a .44 mag though. Brown bears are another scenario. Howitzer possibly  :Smile: . Also it is my understanding that the vast majority of black bear attacks are females with cubs. They rarely exceed 300 lbs.

----------


## NightShade

Ehhhhh..... Research huh...  Well point blank ..yeah do sum damage.. If you're still alive....penetration isn't as important as energy transfer! A good ballistic tipped inner bonded round is what you would have best luck with..unless the bear has a bulletproof vest... We're talking a rampaging bear not gell... U wouldn't b naked with 45 but I have had experiences with bears and a get off me shot is too little too late

----------


## glockcop

All the "energy transfer" in the world is USELESS without penetration, Dude. Penetration is MORE important than energy transfer. I can tell ya this much, a spear will have roughly the "energy transfer" of a .32 ACP but will penetrate alot further. Primitive man did pretty good with Mammoths and spears even though there "energy transfer" was so low. Even 3000 ft lbs of energy is not gonna do much but inflict a flesh wound if it only penetrates a couple of inches. Yah, do some research! There are plenty of survivors that used a "get off me " gun. That I am very sure of. A few in the ribs will get that bear's attention off you and onto some berries. Read my last two posts. OK , for you, I'll say it a THIRD time: "I would still rather have at least a .44 mag though". Did ya get it this time?  :Smile:

----------


## NightShade

I totally understand what you're saying but my preference is to drop em before they get on top of me... They WILL keep running thru to you if they are mad enough... There are plenty of rounds that give u penetration and energy transfer... Not saying you are wrong... But waiting to shoot till they are on top of you is not a great tactic IMHO

----------


## crashdive123

Some of you people need to seriously consider bear spray.

----------


## glockcop

I can't agree more with your last post Nightshade. I would not want to wait until they were on top of me either. This whole subject was in reply to Sarky who said that a .45 ACP would just "Piss off" a bear and I rebuttled in disagreement. I would not go hunting black bear with a .45 ACP, it is the wrong tool for the job, but I would not feel naked with a .45 ACP FMJ as last ditch armament against black bear. Read post #121. That is where I got in this discussion. Stay safe.

----------


## Sourdough

> some Of You People Need To Seriously Consider Bear Spray.



 Hair Spray.........?

----------


## catfish10101

This http://www.taurususa.com/product-det...adcrumbseries=
With these http://www.federalpremium.com/produc...un.aspx?id=354

----------


## Rick

"It wasnt my .44 you see me holding that I                   pulled out, But my newly acquired can of UDAP, I sprayed the                   bear when he was no more than 5 feet from us,..."

"                   I carry a handgun when regulations allow it.  In this                   case, I had made the decision to use your product first                   if I needed it.   I am a fair shot with a pistol but                   under that kind of pressure and with an animal moving that                   fast, it would have been sheer luck to stop her with a bullet."

http://www.udap.com/testify.htm#testimonials

----------


## crashdive123

Al Klkak once said - hitting a charging bear with a shot/shots from a handgun to kill it is about like hitting a baseball coming at you at 30 miles per hour.  I will take my bear defense advice from those that have experience and leave the romantic notions and bravado to others.

----------


## wildWoman

> I totally understand what you're saying but my preference is to drop em before they get on top of me... They WILL keep running thru to you if they are mad enough... There are plenty of rounds that give u penetration and energy transfer... Not saying you are wrong... But waiting to shoot till they are on top of you is not a great tactic IMHO


I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about. You have a much better chance with bear spray. Bear spray will most likely save your butt, a gun will most likely get you mauled really good. 

Even when someone who took some manly shots at a provoked bear ends up as meat, it's sadly always the bears in the end who have to pay the price for people's ignorance, disrespect and macho-ness. That's the part that ticks me off.

----------


## NightShade

> I'm sorry, but you really don't know what you're talking about. You have a much better chance with bear spray. Bear spray will most likely save your butt, a gun will most likely get you mauled really good. 
> 
> Even when someone who took some manly shots at a provoked bear ends up as meat, it's sadly always the bears in the end who have to pay the price for people's ignorance, disrespect and macho-ness. That's the part that ticks me off.


With all do respect, I think you completly misunderstand my point....I was trying to counter the arguement that .45 acp with full metal jackets is not a great choice for bear protection.... I've NEVER said ANYTHING against or even about bear spray..... But if you were going to use a gun, in my opinion a .45 just won't do the trick...I was saying that even if you do shoot it a bunch of times it will charge thru and maul you... I didn't want some poor kid getting mauled because he tried to protect himself with a .45...I was talking from my experience..I've never used Bear spray so I wasn't gonna comment on that.. I've relied on high powered rifles and big bore modern black powder rifles when things went bad... I do have experience with bears.. granted Black Bears NOT Grizzlies...  I've encountered Bears countless times while hiking and hunting..I NEVER carry a gun into the woods unless I'm hunting... there's no  "machoness" here, I am not afraid of Bears... they are one of the least of my worries in the bush... if you treat them with respect and give them their distance most of the time they will leave you alone.. at least in the areas I go  .Every single time but twice the bears high tailed it out of there as soon as they saw me.... the other two times, it was a little different... Luckily both times I was armed... Though I never had to shoot a Bear out of self defense.. That would be my ultimate last resort...

The first time I was hunting deer in Primitive firearms season.... as I was on my way out of the woods to go meet up with my dad for lunch, and then head out to a different hunting area, a decent sized black bear came out of the woods into the clearing I was in, about 50 yrds from me... We played a game of him stalking then charging me... me yelling loud and scaring him back , over and over for about 3/4 mile till I got back to my truck... I was prepared to fire if I had to... but really didn't want to unless it became apparent he was coming for blood....(only got 1 50 caliber 280 grain ballistic tipped round in that gun..then it woulda been a knife/claw fight... didn't want that!!!)

The second time was a similar situation with a much bigger bear.. who was a lot more aggressive it seemed... but it was rifle season and I had a browning Abolt 30-06 loaded with 250 grain super shock tip hornady's... again I was deer hunting... I was ALOT further into the bush... I put a round in a tree next to him at 50 yrds (on purpose) and chambered another if he was to come closer...but as soon as I pulled the trigger he took off in the opposite direction...

I'm not saying Bear Spray is no good... in fact after reading these posts I think I'm gonna pick me some up.... I was just saying that relying on a .45 acp "at close range".. in my opinion is not effective bear control... From MY EXPERIENCE a high powered rifle was much more effective and while out hunting I have seen with my eyes a bear drop INSTANTLY when it charged a hunter.

sorry if i got a little  :Offtopic:  ......

I didn't want to comment on bear spray simply because I wouldn't give someone else advice about something I read somewhere....  You guys seem to have first hand knowledge it works so I'll give it a try....

sorry for the misunderstanding..and the long post  :Embarrassment:

----------


## trax

> but IMO a .45 ACP would do a alot more than just piss off a 250 lb. black bear.


We've got a word up where I'm from for 250 pound black bears.....cub.

----------


## Sourdough

NightShade, Old, Old Sourdough saying: "Man who get in pissing contest with another man get foot wet, Man who get in pissing contest with woman will wish he was sprayed by Wolverine".

----------


## crashdive123

> NightShade, Old, Old Sourdough saying: "Man who get in pissing contest with another man get foot wet, Man who get in pissing contest with woman will wish he was sprayed by Wolverine".


Now THAT sounds like boots in the field experience.

----------


## wildWoman

Hi Nightshade,

I greatly appreciate your clarification, especially since I went right for your jugluar ;-) Bears and gun "protection" unfortunately tend to have that effect on me. So thanks for your post :-)

We had a somewhat enlightening discussion about the comparative merits of bear spray and rifles a while back, with some interesting statistics: http://wilderness-survival.net/forum...ear+spray+guns

Not for your benefit Nightshade, since you seem to have a good understanding of bears already, but for others tempted towards gun-toting for protection:
Based on my personal experience and that of my friends and acquaintances up here, it really takes some effort to get yourself mauled. 

A bear, like any other creature, talks to people during an encounter/sighting. It is of course limited to its own vocabulary, largely body language and some sounds. It picks up on exactly these two things when encountering a person. So by learning "bear" and behaving accordingly, bear encounters can usually be defused. Most of the time, there is actually nothing to defuse.

Generally, bears and other large predators are seen through the lens of fear by people, which then leads to packing around firearms and shooting the animal even though it may have just been curious or wanting the person to move out of the way. When a person is ignorant and scared of an animal, the person feels the animal means harm even when it doesn't.
Once a bear is shot, you've put it on the spot and there is a very good chance it will want to protect itself from further injury - that's when you'll likely get mauled. 
When you are already scared and firing at a bear, chances are slim that you'll kill the bear immediately. They have a very slow heart rate and can go on for quite a while after having been shot.

With the bear spray, you are not injuring the bear. 
That means he has little reason to hurt you and most likely won't because it is in the bear's best interest to stay uninjured himself, in order to feed and fatten up for winter and not fall prey to a larger bear or human. Most animals avoid risk of injury to themselves and solve a lot of conflict through posturing.
The bear spray temporarily disorients the bear. He'll still not be a happy camper and you should get out of the area after spraying a bear but usually, you'll both live to tell the tale unscathed.

I used to be scared of bears myself and found it rather sad and stuid, so I worked on getting over the fear by learning more about bears and spending more time exposing myself to them. An individual bear who's grumpy and having a bad day will still scare me but now I can tell between one like that and a regular bear.

The only time and reason we carry firearms in the woods here is when we go hunting. Otherwise, we always carry bear spray. I've walked into sows with cubs, a sow with cubs at a fresh kill, had a bear sniff 2" next to my head while trussed up in my sleeping bag inside the tent, had a bear push in the window of a cabin, take a door of its hinges etc etc and none of this was a reason to shoot at the bear.
Behaving according to the situation, the bears so far were easily scared off by shouting or firing a rifle into the air when they made a nuisance of themselves (with the window and the door). On the other occasions, calling back the dogs immediately, talking calmly to the bear and walking slowly away while hollering every now and then to broadcast that I was leaving the area worked fine.

And then there's the rest of the times, which is by far the majority, when the bear and I just look at each other for a while and then one of us moves away first.

----------


## SARKY

WildWoman,...... Now don't bite my head off but you are wrong abot the only time to carry a firearm into the woods. A pack a feral dogs doesn't react like a bear and I don't know if you have enough spray in one of those containers to take on a whole pack of dogs. The other thing is How does this spray affect big cats (mountain Lion)? We've got lots of those around here as of late and they are moving down into the edges of the city.

----------


## wildWoman

I guess I outed my temper now and robbed you all of your illusions *sigh* 

Good point Sarky. I was speaking only about bears here. We don't have feral dogs here, so I don't know what the best defense would be there. Bear spray is just a more powerful version of the pepper spray available against dogs, so it might work quite well, but then that would depend on factors like how many dogs would be going for you. I have no clue.

As far as cougars go - I used to live on Vancouver Island where there are quite a few. Usually, they don't see adults as prey but may go for small children and little dogs. So personally, I wouldn't bring a firearm for cougars. Bear spray may work on them, too, but I don't know. It would still be the only thing I'd bring.

----------


## glockcop

> WildWoman,...... Now don't bite my head off but you are wrong abot the only time to carry a firearm into the woods. A pack a feral dogs doesn't react like a bear and I don't know if you have enough spray in one of those containers to take on a whole pack of dogs. The other thing is How does this spray affect big cats (mountain Lion)? We've got lots of those around here as of late and they are moving down into the edges of the city.


I'm with you, man. There is always a reason to be armed in the wilderness. Two legged predators are out there too. They also tend to travel in packs nowadays. Not to mention tons of different wildlife with teeth bigger than yours. I know somebody is gonna say, "Where I live there is no one around for 60 miles". Well you don't know that for sure and the two legged predators know that there is PROBABLY no body else around for 60 miles too. That is all the more reason for the bad guys to "roll" your a$$ and leave you for dead. Help will also be far away so ya better be able to protect yourself. The police are gonna be a while. Not to mention THE  :Alien: 's out there. Just joking. But in all seriousness being armed in the wilderness is just good sense. If someone does not want to carry a weapon in the woods that is their business but don't downplay the importance and say, "It isn't necessary around here". If that kind of person will just take their head out of the sand, they may just see that there is still danger in the wilderness. PERIOD! This relatively new concept that "There is nothing to worry about in the wilderness so I don't carry a weapon out there" would be totally foreign to the mountain men and pioneers who lived in areas that are very similar to the areas some people live in today. They would probably smack you with their flinlock to knock some sense into you. Sarky, men like you and I will most likely not ever find ourselves on the menue of predators for that very reason. We go armed. I have no sand in my hair because I keep my head out of it. Be safe brother.

P.S. Feral dogs like a little pepper spray spice with their meat (humans). That is all it's good for with k-9's.

----------


## Rick

And what are you gonna do when the zombies come? Always have a gun...oh, and a cricket bat just in case.

----------


## glockcop

> And what are you gonna do when the zombies come? Always have a gun...oh, and a cricket bat just in case.


 Cricket bat , Huh? I liked "Shaun Of The Dead" too. Very funny movie.

----------


## kx250kev

> I'm with you, man. There is always a reason to be armed in the wilderness. Two legged predators are out there too. They also tend to travel in packs nowadays. Not to mention tons of different wildlife with teeth bigger than yours. I know somebody is gonna say, "Where I live there is no one around for 60 miles". Well you don't know that for sure and the two legged predators know that there is PROBABLY no body else around for 60 miles too. That is all the more reason for the bad guys to "roll" your a$$ and leave you for dead. Help will also be far away so ya better be able to protect yourself. The police are gonna be a while. Not to mention THE 's out there. Just joking. But in all seriousness being armed in the wilderness is just good sense. If someone does not want to carry a weapon in the woods that is their business but don't downplay the importance and say, "It isn't necessary around here". If that kind of person will just take their head out of the sand, they may just see that there is still danger in the wilderness. PERIOD! This relatively new concept that "There is nothing to worry about in the wilderness so I don't carry a weapon out there" would be totally foreign to the mountain men and pioneers who lived in areas that are very similar to the areas some people live in today. They would probably smack you with their flinlock to knock some sense into you. Sarky, men like you and I will most likely not ever find ourselves on the menue of predators for that very reason. We go armed. I have no sand in my hair because I keep my head out of it. Be safe brother.
> .


Well said glockcop.   :clap:

----------


## kx250kev

> Personally I would leave the gun at home not only is it a pain to carry usually against the law also but is just really not needed .


1.) I support your right to not carry.  

2.) I would add that your "usually against the law" generalization is too broad.  It depends on  where you are, and if you have a CCW permit.

3.) Regarding "is just really not needed".  My opinion is that it is always a good idea to have a last line of defense...a firearm.

----------


## wildWoman

> I'm with you, man. There is always a reason to be armed in the wilderness. Two legged predators are out there too. They also tend to travel in packs nowadays. Not to mention tons of different wildlife with teeth bigger than yours. I know somebody is gonna say, "Where I live there is no one around for 60 miles". Well you don't know that for sure and the two legged predators know that there is PROBABLY no body else around for 60 miles too. That is all the more reason for the bad guys to "roll" your a$$ and leave you for dead. Help will also be far away so ya better be able to protect yourself. The police are gonna be a while. Not to mention THE 's out there. Just joking. But in all seriousness being armed in the wilderness is just good sense. If someone does not want to carry a weapon in the woods that is their business but don't downplay the importance and say, "It isn't necessary around here". If that kind of person will just take their head out of the sand, they may just see that there is still danger in the wilderness. PERIOD! This relatively new concept that "There is nothing to worry about in the wilderness so I don't carry a weapon out there" would be totally foreign to the mountain men and pioneers who lived in areas that are very similar to the areas some people live in today. They would probably smack you with their flinlock to knock some sense into you. Sarky, men like you and I will most likely not ever find ourselves on the menue of predators for that very reason. We go armed. I have no sand in my hair because I keep my head out of it. Be safe brother.
> 
> P.S. Feral dogs like a little pepper spray spice with their meat (humans). That is all it's good for with k-9's.


Maybe part of the reason why the mountain men became extinct...that or their biscuits...to me it seems largely an issue of boys and their toys.

Sorry to say, but the people who run into trouble up here are usually tourists from down south (drown in underestimated lakes, get lost and get hypothermia) or the local rednecks who are too stupid to carry survival gear with them on their ATVs or skidoos and who are too out of shape and know too little to get their butts back home once their machine goes on strike. A gun would help neither, other than putting themselves out of misery a bit earlier maybe.
It may well be different down where you live and do your surviving.

My reputation serves me well where I live, rest assured. It already has. Not to mention the dogs. I don't need to arm myself.

----------


## kx250kev

> I've walked into sows with cubs, a sow with cubs at a fresh kill, had a bear sniff 2" next to my head while trussed up in my sleeping bag inside the tent, had a bear push in the window of a cabin, take a door of its hinges etc etc and none of this was a reason to shoot at the bear.


wildWoman, I admire and applaud your restraint, and agree that these do not sound like reasons to shoot.  I'm glad that you feel you do not need to carry, but I always do, and that is my (and others) right.  I treat any animal confrontation similar to a human confrontation.    A large man in my face threatening me is not going to result in Defensive Gun Use.  I may have my hand on my weapon, but that doesn't mean I'll begin shooting.  I'm going to be backing away, or making my exit.  Only when it is clear that my life, or my families well being is in grave danger will I begin my deadly response.

----------


## wildWoman

I'm not arguing that it's not people's right to arm themselves. 
I am just making the point that in confrontations with bears, people are getting mauled a lot more often when they shoot at the bear. That's not treehugger fiction, that's proven fact. And that with bears, bear spray will serve people better. It's their choice what do in the end, the only thing I can do is provide what information I have on the topic. 
I really don't care if somebody gets mauled because of their own stupidity, I just find it a shame that the bear always gets tracked down and killed even when a person's stupidity caused the attack. That's all.

----------


## glockcop

> I'm not arguing that it's not people's right to arm themselves. 
> I am just making the point that in confrontations with bears, people are getting mauled a lot more often when they shoot at the bear. That's not treehugger fiction, that's proven fact. And that with bears, bear spray will serve people better. It's their choice what do in the end, the only thing I can do is provide what information I have on the topic. 
> I really don't care if somebody gets mauled because of their own stupidity, I just find it a shame that the bear always gets tracked down and killed even when a person's stupidity caused the attack. That's all.


KX250, thanks for the backup, partner. Wildwoman, I did not mention anyones name in my post agreeing with Sarky; but since you went there here goes: Sounds a whole lot like the shoe fitting though, doesn't it? I could care less that you carry your can of cayenne pepper rather than a gun. I just don't think that you are wise for it. Strictly my opinion. It's your descision. The combination of the two is unarguably the prudent choice. You can taste like spicey chicken all day long and I'll carry a BIG GUN in bear country. You think you have it all figured out with your ,"Largely an issue of boys and their toys" theory. Tools and toys often get blurred together but not this time. Men are intelligent enough to invent and carry firearms because a need exists for those tools. A need that some of the unenlightened have not realized or will not admit. Those same unelightened persons often persecute and critisize those that have been wisely and rightfully armed while they proudly display their halo up above the barbarians. Also it is evident from your last post that you believe that a "stupid" persons life is less important than a friggin bear's since you oppose the killing of a mauler. Hope ya grow out of that. Also those maulings you sight may be "stupid" people letting a bear get too close because they have such a "grasp" of the animal's behavior. Animal mind readers. What is next? If I'm sleeping and a bear comes sniffing on my head, I am intelligent enough to reason that the bear may be sniffing his meal. Since bears can't talk and I nor anyone else is an animal mind reader, I will defend myself with swift authority. I'm also sure that all the bears in your area have gotten word of your "reputation" that has served you so well where you live. They will just ignore your presents even over hunger pains for fear of smelling like crab boil. Tell your trees good night and give them a big hug/kiss for me.

----------


## Rick

Okay. That dredged off into getting personal. Let's let it drop right here. I think Sourdough and Wild Woman have offered up some very useful information based on a lot of experience in bear country. So if you are contemplating travel into that arena, I would re-read their posts with care and seriously consider their advice. That's my opinion but I think those who have walked the talk have a pretty thorough understanding of what's required. I have zero experience in the matter. 

For everyone else, if you want to carry a weapon then by all means do so. It's a free world. 

Exchanging ideas and information is excellent but if the thread continues on a personal course, I'll lock it down. There's no need for it.

----------


## glockcop

Rick, no disrespect intended and I know you are just doing your job. Since I posted strong and direct statements just before yours, it is obvious that you are refering to me.  There is no need to lock this thread. I am bowing out and will not defend "men", "rights", and "stupid people" any longer. This conversation is obviously beyond my barbarian intellect  :Taz: . Sarcasm intended. Stay Safe.

This is a footnote added 9-16-09 @ 0826 hrs. in response to the above and below posts (#161 and#163) : I would like it entered into record that in this thread it is totally acceptable to slander MEN as : full of "Bravado", carrying out acts of "Machoness", and "Boys". No Defense of such will be tolerated! Men, we have been ordered by the High Court to ''Sit Down, Be quiet and Take It". It shall further be noted that it is also totally acceptable for posters to advocate  bears mauling "stupid people" due to their life having lesser value than the omniscient. Yall be safe.

----------


## Rick

I was. Thank you. Possibly.

----------


## glockcop

Everyone please read the footnote in post #162 to save this thread. Stay Safe.

----------


## wildWoman

Just one last note in this thread: 
No matter which side of the fence I was on, it would sure make me think when Hope/Sourdough and Klkak (Alaskan outfitters and trappers with decades of experience with bears, firearms and the combination thereof) are also advocating the use of bear spray over that of guns in bear encounters. Now if these guys have the same recommendation as treehugging wildWoman (with 17 years of experience living and solo camping in bear country), and then good old statistics tell you that:

After researching aggressive bear behaviour incidents in Alaska, the statistics pan out the following way: bear spray stopped aggressive behaivour, including attacks, in 92% of the cases. Guns only in 67%. (1998 bear incident study by Stephen Herrero and others)

...well then it seems pretty obvious to me how to stay safe in bear country.

Because the thing with stupidity is, out in the bush you'll pay your price. As Glock pointed out, the cops are not just a phone call away. Neither is the ambulance, fire department, neighbours or passers-by.
So staying safe involves preparations and research of a kind you don't need in the asphalt jungle, and adhering to behaviour that is not dictated by ones fears.

----------


## glockcop

> Just one last note in this thread: 
> No matter which side of the fence I was on, it would sure make me think when Hope/Sourdough and Klkak (Alaskan outfitters and trappers with decades of experience with bears, firearms and the combination thereof) are also advocating the use of bear spray over that of guns in bear encounters. Now if these guys have the same recommendation as treehugging wildWoman (with 17 years of experience living and solo camping in bear country), and then good old statistics tell you that:
> 
> After researching aggressive bear behaviour incidents in Alaska, the statistics pan out the following way: bear spray stopped aggressive behaivour, including attacks, in 92% of the cases. Guns only in 67%. (1998 bear incident study by Stephen Herrero and others)
> 
> ...well then it seems pretty obvious to me how to stay safe in bear country.
> 
> Because the thing with stupidity is, out in the bush you'll pay your price. As Glock pointed out, the cops are not just a phone call away. Neither is the ambulance, fire department, neighbours or passers-by.
> So staying safe involves preparations and research of a kind you don't need in the asphalt jungle, and adhering to behaviour that is not dictated by ones fears.


Read my posts thoroughly. I have not quarelled with anyone advocating the use of pepper spray for bear protection. I already have said that pepper spray does nothing to feral dogs or any K-9 species for that matter. May as well be Kool-aid. In a previous post I stated that IMO the prudent choice would be the combination of a firearm and pepper spray (read post #160). Not the use of one with the exclusion of the other. Sort of a fail safe/back up plan working in conjuction. Also my choice to carry a firearm in the wood does not make me "Macho" , full of "Bravado", or a "Boy with a toy". I am prepared. Not to say that I won't have a can of "crab boil" spray along too. Nuff said.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> After researching aggressive bear behaviour incidents in Alaska, the statistics pan out the following way: bear spray stopped aggressive behaivour, including attacks, in 92% of the cases. Guns only in 67%. (1998 bear incident study by Stephen Herrero and others)


 Please, don't anyone take this the wrong way.......I'm not trying to pick a side, or anything like that......I'm just curious. 

 Does anyone know more about the study, that said 67%? I'm wondering if there is enough info from the study, to show what did and what did not work. You know....like did the ones who were not successful with the guns, using guns that were not powerful enough...or were they new to guns, and didn't really know how to use them.

 I also wonder if the ones who used pepper spray, acted sooner, and the ones who shot, waited until it was too late....hoping not to have to shoot.

----------


## glockcop

> Please, don't anyone take this the wrong way.......I'm not trying to pick a side, or anything like that......I'm just curious. 
> 
>  Does anyone know more about the study, that said 67%? I'm wondering if there is enough info from the study, to show what did and what did not work. You know....like did the ones who were not successful with the guns, using guns that were not powerful enough...or were they new to guns, and didn't really know how to use them.
> 
>  I also wonder if the ones who used pepper spray, acted sooner, and the ones who shot, waited until it was too late....hoping not to have to shoot.


There has never been a statistic that was not flawed in some way. Statistics are an imperfect art form. No study can include every variable in every situation. Percentages have very little bearing in my choices. Many years in Law Enforcent have taught me to trust my "gut" and use good reasoning. That is how my decisions are made. They RARELY let me down. Prepare for the worst and you won't be disappointed. Stay safe, Brother.

----------


## wildWoman

If I keep looking into this thread, I will have to trade names with you, 2dumb...
Or at least get myself renamed as "mildWoman" so y'all don't start off now with "please don't..."

Anyway, the original link to the CBC story of the report doesn't work anymore but I found it on a different website again, here it is:

Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska 
Tom S. Smitha,1, Stephen Herrerob, Terry D. Debruync, and James M. Wilderd 

Wildlife Sciences Program, Faculty of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, 451 WIDB, Provo, UT 84602, USA
Environmental Science Program, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
United States National Park Service, Alaska Support Office, 240 W 5th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501, USA
Minerals Management Service, 3801 Centerpoint Drive, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99503-5823, USA 

Options:

Create Reference
Email this Article
Search Google Scholar for:

Tom S. Smith
Stephen Herrero
Terry D. Debruyn
James M. Wilder
We present a comprehensive look at a sample of bear spray incidents that occurred in Alaska, USA, from 1985 to 2006. We analyzed 83 bear spray incidents involving brown bears (Ursus arctos; 61 cases, 74%), black bears (Ursus americanus; 20 cases, 24%), and polar bears (Ursus maritimus; 2 cases, 2%). Of the 72 cases where persons sprayed bears to defend themselves, 50 (69%) involved brown bears, 20 (28%) black bears, and 2 (3%) polar bears. Red pepper spray stopped bears' undesirable behavior 92% of the time when used on brown bears, 90% for black bears, and 100% for polar bears. Of all persons carrying sprays, 98% were uninjured by bears in close-range encounters. All bear-inflicted injuries (n = 3) associated with defensive spraying involved brown bears and were relatively minor (i.e., no hospitalization required). In 7% (5 of 71) of bear spray incidents, wind was reported to have interfered with spray accuracy, although it reached the bear in all cases. In 14% (10 of 71) of bear spray incidents, users reported the spray having had negative side effects upon themselves, ranging from minor irritation (11%, 8 of 71) to near incapacitation (3%, 2 of 71). Bear spray represents an effective alternative to lethal force and should be considered as an option for personal safety for those recreating and working in bear country.
(link:http://www.wildlifejournals.org/perl...F2006-452&ct=1)

_That link doesn't mention the comparative ineffectiveness of guns though, but in this report on the study it does:_

PROVO, Utah - Hikers and campers venturing into bear country this spring may be safer armed with 8-ounce cans of bear pepper spray than with guns, according to a new study led by a Brigham Young University bear biologist.

Thomas S. Smith, associate professor of wildlife science, has conducted field work among bears for 16 years and has never used bear spray, although he carries it faithfully. "I wish I had more scary stories to share, but I've behaved myself," said Smith, emphasizing that caution and wisdom are the best way to prevent bear attacks. 

Concerned about hikers' and campers' persistent doubts that a small can of liquid pepper spray could stop half a ton of claws, muscle and teeth, Smith and colleagues analyzed 20 years of bear spray incidents in Alaska, home to 150,000 bears. He found that the spray effectively halted aggressive bear behavior in 92 percent of the cases, whether that behavior was an attack or merely rummaging for food. Of all 175 people involved in the incidents studied, only three were injured by bears, and none required hospitalization. Smith and his research team report their findings in the April issue of the Journal of Wildlife Management. 

"People working or recreating in bear habitat should feel confident they are safe if carrying bear spray," Smith said. 

Smith's previous research found that guns were effective about 67 percent of the time. Shooting accurately during the terrifying split seconds of a grizzly charge is extremely difficult, he pointed out, and his data shows that it takes an average of four hits to stop a bear. In addition, firearms are prohibited in national parks like Glacier and Denali, popular with hikers and also with bears. 

"Working in the bear safety arena, I even found a lot of resistance to bear spray among professionals," Smith said of the product, which retails for $30-$40. "There was no good, clean data set that demonstrated definitively that it worked, so that's why we did this research." 

"Tom Smith is highly respected among bear biologists, naturalists and educators. His one-on-one experience with bears in the field is an enormous resource to the bear management community," said Chuck Bartlebaugh, director of the Center for Wildlife Information, the nonprofit that runs "Be Bear Aware" and other wildlife safety campaigns. "This new study is important information that is needed by hunters, hikers or campers to understand the value of bear spray and how it can protect both people and bears."

The research debunks these common misconceptions about bear spray:

"Bear spray doesn't work when it's windy." Wind was reported to have interfered with spray accuracy in five of the 71 incidents studied, although the spray reached the bear in all cases. Smith used a wind meter to test the speed of the spray as it streams out of the canister. Repeated tests showed an average of 70 miles per hour. Smith also noted that bears and humans can easily see each other in open, windy spaces. The surprise encounters tend to occur in wooded areas in which vegetation blocks wind. 
"The spray will also disable the person using it." In the 71 incidents documented in the study, 10 times users reported minor irritation and two reported near incapacitation. 
"The can might not work." There were no reports of spray malfunction among the 71 incidents. 
Smith believes one of the primary reasons bear spray works is that it gives users a reason to stand their ground. Running is the worst response to an aggressive bear, he said, "but it's hard not to. Just picture the meanest dog in your neighborhood and multiply his size by ten-it's very hard to keep your feet from running, but bear spray gives you an option. When you stop and plant your feet, that makes them stop."

This is because even though humans are much smaller than bears, the animals still view us as risky. "Having seen bears with porcupine quills in their faces, I'm sure that most bears learn at an early age that size is not a good indicator of threat," Smith said. "There's always this fear of retribution that keeps them in line. They could take any person they wanted. But they don't know that."

On the rare occasions bears get close enough to warrant a spraying - about three times a year in Alaska, the study showed - the hissing sound and sight of the expanding cloud are often enough to frighten away the animal. "I have data to show that if you sprayed water, they often would run," Smith said.

Counterintuitively, Smith and his team also documented 11 incidents when the residue of bear spray applied to objects like tents with the intent to repel curious bears actually backfired and attracted bears instead. Smith cautioned users against this practice and advised hikers to take their practice sprays before entering bear country.

The study did not make any comparisons among various types or manufacturers of bear spray because the sample was too small to draw significant conclusions. 

Other findings reported in the paper include:

On average, the spray was used when the bear was about 12 feet away 
35 percent of incidents involved hikers, and 30 percent involved bear management activities 
60 percent of the incidents occurred between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. 
Nearly 70 percent of the incidents involved brown (grizzly) bears and 28 percent involved black bears. The study also reports the first two documented uses of bear spray on polar bears in Alaska. 
###

Smith's co-authors on the paper are Stephen Herrero, professor emeritus at the University of Calgary; Terry D. Debruyn of the National Park Service, and James M. Wilder of Minerals Management Service. The paper also relies on an earlier publication of a decade's worth of bear spray data by Herrero and Andrew Higgins. The research was funded by the U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center. 
(link: http://www.localnews8.com/Global/story.asp?s=8101328)

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> He found that the spray effectively halted aggressive bear behavior in 92 percent of the cases, whether that behavior was an attack or merely rummaging for food.


 See...this is part of what I was wondering. If people shot bears for being in their trash cans, the numbers may look very different. Also if people saw bears looking at them, and just opened fire....the numbers would look very different.

 I think that spray is probably great, but the study sounds skewed, to me.
(Just a statistics thing.)

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

...and come to think of it....let's forget about bears, for a minute. I'd bet, that over 30% of people who have used a gun to defend themselves against another person, were not successful. (From pure lack of training, and knowledge.) LOL :Innocent: 

(Depending on your definition of success, of course.)

----------


## Pal334

> ...and come to think of it....let's forget about bears, for a minute. I'd bet, that over 30% of people who have used a gun to defend themselves against another person, were not successful. (From pure lack of training, and knowledge.) LOL
> 
> (Depending on your definition of success, of course.)


 :Smile:  I bet you are pretty close. I have seen well trained military folks fire hundreds of rounds in a real life scenario and only succeed in creating a breeze. Untrained folks, mmmm lets say luck is always good to have

----------


## Mountain Man

So what is the "Good" bear spray to buy?? They make a variety it appears.

----------


## wildWoman

The one I currently have is called "Frontiersman" and has 0.857% capsaicin content. They also have sprays with 1% which would probably be better.

@2dumb - it goes back again to my post #149...ideally, people should take the time to learn the body language of the bear to understand if there is a threat or not...and what I said in there what a shot bear may do and why.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> @2dumb - it goes back again to my post #149...ideally, people should take the time to learn the body language of the bear to understand if there is a threat or not...and what I said in there what a shot bear may do and why.


 I understand what you're saying, but then again...



> Timothy Treadwell, 46, male ; Amie Huguenard, 37, female
>  October 2003
>  Brown
>  Found by their pilot, dead and partially consumed at Katmai National Park, Alaska on October 6, 2003. Treadwell was world-famous for his books and documentaries on living with wild bears in Alaska. State Troopers investigating the incident recovered an audiotape of the attack. [2]


   Just sayin'. :Innocent:

----------


## wildWoman

Oh, that's another story...too long to get into...my short version of it:

Treadwell=self-appointed bear hugger+no bearspray+no weapons-good salmon run-good berry year+camping on a bear trail=getting killed. 

You see the amount of variables. Cozying up to wild animals is not a good idea, it shows a lack of respect.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> Oh, that's another story...too long to get into...my short version of it:
> 
> Treadwell=self-appointed bear hugger+no bearspray+no weapons-good salmon run-good berry year+camping on a bear trail=getting killed. 
> 
> You see the amount of variables. Cozying up to wild animals is not a good idea, it shows a lack of respect.


 I always thought, that this story sounded like the guy forgot that wild animals, *are wild animals.*  :Innocent:

----------


## crashdive123

> Cozying up to wild animals is not a good idea, it shows a lack of respect.


I agree.  I always thought it was a bit arrogant to assume that a wild animal would reciprocate "friendly" behaviour.

----------


## glockcop

> Oh, that's another story...too long to get into...my short version of it:
> 
> Treadwell=self-appointed bear hugger+no bearspray+no weapons-good salmon run-good berry year+camping on a bear trail=getting killed. 
> 
> You see the amount of variables. Cozying up to wild animals is not a good idea, it shows a lack of respect.


Your are correct. Timothy Treadwell ras a radical (among other things we should not discuss here) man. He thought his "love" for the animals would keep him safe. I appreciate his dedication but wow, he went crazy with it. Hope he is in a good place now. Best.

----------


## Rick

I can assure you that pepper spray works on dogs and works well. It has saved my tush on a number of occasions. The only dogs it won't work on are those with long hair over their eyes like a St. Bernard (wet mouth) or similar. I've sprayed them with no immediate affect. Although, after a couple of minutes even they become disinterested. Any other dog is impacted immediately. In over a decade of working in other peoples homes I was never bitten by a dog. Part of that is being able to "read" a dog and part of that was knowing when to use the spray. I can also attest to the fact that spray has NO affect on Blue Jays, however.

----------


## glockcop

> I can assure you that pepper spray works on dogs and works well. It has saved my tush on a number of occasions. The only dogs it won't work on are those with long hair over their eyes like a St. Bernard (wet mouth) or similar. I've sprayed them with no immediate affect. Although, after a couple of minutes even they become disinterested. Any other dog is impacted immediately. In over a decade of working in other peoples homes I was never bitten by a dog. Part of that is being able to "read" a dog and part of that was knowing when to use the spray. I can also attest to the fact that spray has NO affect on Blue Jays, however.


NOT in my experience as a Patrolman for over fifteen years and now a Detective/Supervisor/Instructor for alot more than a few years. Police grade  (10% O.C.) is stronger than most civilian grade sprays and it does't work on dogs. After a "couple minutes" it is too late for it to take affect and you are already shredded. You will still get your a$$ torn off right after a good burst in the face by a crack house guard dog. In fact N.O.P.D. had a few law suits due to dogs having to being shot that were not affected by pepper spray. I know several officers who had to be zipped back up after it's lack of effect. I have sprayed and witnessed being sprayed more dogs than somebody can shake a stick at and it DOES NOT WORK. They don't like being hit with something wet in the face, mind you, but  pepper spray does not turns dogs off. FREEZE +P is pepper spray plus tear gas and it works, but not regular 10% pepper spray. Maybe what you have is not straight 10% Police grade pepper spray but something on the lines of mace or tear gas mix. I suppose it is possible that you have a pepper spray that is specifically designed for dogs that is of higher O.C. concentration than that of standard Police (stronger than most civilian) grade 10% pepper spray. That product I am not aware of, but there is alot I don't know about in this world. I do know I will never expect Police O.C. spray to work on dogs ever again. Stay Safe.

----------


## ieatcrayons

> Most on here know I'm a cop no big secret, so here is a little on guns and backpacking in a park as posted in another thread. *A gun is not kit for survival but since you asked and may be to lazy to follow Rick's link here ya go.*"I want to carry a firearm for protection." Firearm advocates have used this statement excessively as justification for carrying firearms in national park activities. The reality of daily life, however, is that crime incidents in state and national parks in the United States generally, are extremely low. Additionally, when serious and violent crimes have been recorded, most incidents are directed at park employees, namely maintenance staff and peace officers, and not park patrons. Crimes indexed by the Park Officials Incidence Based Reporting (IBR) data reveals that the most frequently occurring crimes within State and National parks tend to be drug possession, petit or grand larcenies, and miscellaneous misdemeanors, usually in the camping areas. Rarely do these categories include violent crimes and/or assaults. The argument promulgated for self-protection by firearm proponents is not supported by available data collected thus far within the State and National Parks. All of this data is readily available to the public, and accordingly, the assertion that it is necessary to carry weapons on public property is effectively rendered moot, since data that has been collected by federal and state park law enforcement does not support a need for self-protection on state lands whatsoever. There does exist, however, information which links together two very important observations:The aggregate rate of injuries and accidents increases when persons other then law enforcement officers carry concealed or non-concealed firearms and 
> The aggregate rate of crime increases when persons other than law enforcement officers carry concealed or non-concealed firearms.
> Statistics collected by park law enforcement and social organizations and scientists around the nation suggests that the higher prevalence of weapons result in higher accident and injury rates, both to the owner-operator of the firearm, and to bystanders. Carry the bear spray as suggested a good one used by a friend of mine (Medicine Wolf on this forum) in Montana who is a Ranger in the middle of bumblefook nowhere is- *Counter Assault Bear Deterrent*. 
> Bushwacker Backpack & Supply Co. Inc.
> 120 Industrial Court
> Kalispell, MT 59901
> Attention: Mr. Pride Johnson
> Tel: 1-800-695-3394 
> E-Mail: original@counterassault.com
> ...



i second OLE WV more than any post i read.    

but for Beo.. if we go by your where violent crimes happen the most vs where they happen the least.....  then schools.. restaurant.. even homes wouldn't be a place where Most of your Violent crimes happen.  now i don't know that for sure.. but it sounds right.  an i am talking mostly in general.  i carry because i can.. and just for that one time i hope to never need it.. its there just in case i do.  i live in arkansas.  north arkansas is where i grew up. just the other day me an my gf were in some no-where little town....gas station and post office..  when a small truck pulled up to get gas.  there were 6 grown people all settin in the back of this thing and 3 grown people in the front.  you could tell it was the weekly/monthly trip to town.  one of the guys that got out of the back of that truck had a knife strapped to his leg that was at least a foot an a half long.  i do not want to run into his family while out backpacking. now.. before someone chimes in with you shouldn't be backpacking on there land. in AR.... there are LOTS of privately own sections of land in our WMA's.  and i do not want to sound like there all crazy hill billy's.  only some of us are!!  =)   i say if i need one in the mall..i need one in the woods..

----------


## hunter63

I just though I would ad this..............


Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

----------


## Rick

The stuff we used was called Dog Stop. It stopped humans, too. We were walking to the coffee shop one day and one of the guys spritzed it into the air. The wind caught it and dropped it on a guy behind me. We had to forgo the coffee and take him to the ER instead. 

I was taken to the ground by a goat and a German Shepherd (long story. They tagged teamed me) and the dog stop was the only thing that saved my bacon. The Shepherd was coming head long at me when I hit him with the spray and he did an abrupt 90 and buried his face in the yard.

----------


## SARKY

To all of you, it comes down to this for me, I would rather have it (gun) and not need it than need it and not have it.

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

> To all of you, it comes down to this for me, I would rather have it (gun) and not need it than need it and not have it.


 'Nuff said.

----------


## glockcop

> to All Of You, It Comes Down To This For Me, I Would Rather Have It (gun) And Not Need It Than Need It And Not Have It.


Best Advice Yet!!!!

----------


## sgtdraino

> NOT in my experience as a Patrolman for over fifteen years and now a Detective/Supervisor/Instructor for alot more than a few years. Police grade  (10% O.C.) is stronger than most civilian grade sprays and it does't work on dogs.


I have 13 years as a LEO, and have personally used spray on dogs on at least two occasions. On both occasions, the dogs immediately turned and fled.

----------


## Rick

vertebrate animals are put together pretty much the same way in terms of nerves and brain centers. Some irritant hitting the eyes of any vertebrate is going to cause pain receptors to start clicking in the brain.

----------


## rwc1969

If you shot a bear 10 times in the face with a .22 would he keep coming at you?

----------


## kyratshooter

Good question.

The world record Alaskan Brown was killed with one .22 rimfire to the brain.

But I once saw a Wyoming Griz cover 200 yards and take ten 220gn .35 Whelen slugs before he fell at the shooter's feet.

----------


## Alaskan Survivalist

> Good question.
> 
> The world record Alaskan Brown was killed with one .22 rimfire to the brain.
> 
> But I once saw a Wyoming Griz cover 200 yards and take ten 220gn .35 Whelen slugs before he fell at the shooter's feet.


I have to see that record for myself. What is your source? Don't skull damage keep them out of record books?

----------


## Rick

It's my understanding it was a rectum shot. Plugged him up solid. In just a couple of days the bear passed out. He finally died because no one was brave enough to pull the .22 out. The resulting pressure release would have surely killed them.

----------


## Beans

> It's my understanding it was a rectum shot. Plugged him up solid. In just a couple of days the bear passed out. He finally died because no one was brave enough to pull the .22 out. The resulting pressure release would have surely killed them.


Now Now Rick that is such a crappy story    :Innocent:

----------


## Ken

> To all of you, it comes down to this for me, I would rather have it (gun) and not need it than need it and not have it.


_Man Survives 2 Grizzly Bear Attacks in Alaska Wilderness_ 

_' Rick Sinnott of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game said that Miller was very fortunate to have survived the bear attack. He recommended carrying a more powerful gun while in the Alaska Wilderness, saying that you would either need to be a very good shot or very lucky to stop a brown bear with a .357 Magnum.  '_

http://www.wikipeers.com/news/3999-M...ilderness.html

----------


## 2dumb2kwit

What we need to keep in mind, is that running an animal off, or even killing an animal, is very different than stopping a charging animal. Think about it.

----------

