Page 1 of 1

bear spray better defense than gun?

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:52 am
by Emily
The NY Times reports that red pepper spray is more effective at repelling bear attacks than guns are...

http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/200 ... ei=5087%0A

March 28, 2008, 12:26 pm
Bear Attack? Not to Worry

By John Tierney

Tags: bears, explornography

A shot of spray keeps the brown bear away — and a polar bear, too — according to a new study in Alaska. The red-pepper bear spray, which can be effective out to 20 or 30 feet, seems to offer better protection than a gun. (Photo: Alaska Department of Fish and Game)
When I went on a dogsled and ski expedition in the Arctic, we carried a rifle and a flare gun for protection against polar bears, and we still worried about being attacked by the bear we’d heard was the most fearsome on the planet. But we were mistaken both in our strategy and our concerns, according to Thomas S. Smith, a biologist who has analyzed close encounters between humans and bears in Alaska.

A rifle apparently doesn’t work as well as a cannister of red pepper spray. Dr. Smith and colleagues report in the Journal of Wildlife Management that in encounters during the past three decades where humans used the spray against black, brown and polar bears, the spray stopped the bears’ “undesirable behavior” more than 90 percent of the time — and in none of the incidents did any person suffer serious injury.

Most of the incidents involved brown bears, not polar bears. Dr. Smith, an associate professor of wildlife science at Brigham Young University, explained to me that the polar bears have an undeserved reputation for ferocity, particularly by comparison with brown bears like grizzlies:

We show in the paper that bear spray was 100% effective for the five polar bear incidents we were able to collect. As a bear biologist, I can think of no reason why it would not. I think people have an expectation that it wouldn’t due to a false belief that polar bears are amongst the fiercest bears in the world. The data argue otherwise, however. In collecting 600 bear attack incidents spanning 125 years of Alaska history, I could find only six polar bear-human conflict incidents, including two fatalities. Interestingly, these two fatalities (and one severe mauling) were the fault of humans, partly, for putting bears in situations where they found attacking the best option. What I’m saying is, that polar bears act much more like black bears (very risk averse) than grizzlies (much more aggressive) and hence we find few incidents.

Many hikers and park rangers have been skeptical of the bear sprays, fearing that they wouldn’t deter a bear or might not work in the wind. But the cannisters, which can be carried in holsters and work like fire extinguishers, eject the red-pepper spray at more than 70 miles per hour, and the new study showed that they reached bears even in windy conditions. It’s a lot easier to aim a spray than to fell a bear with a rifle shot, said Dr. Smith, who found in a previous study that rifles were effective only two-thirds of the time in human-bear encounters.

“People working or recreating in bear habitat should feel confident they are safe if carrying bear spray,” said Dr. Smith. “Working in the bear safety arena, I even found a lot of resistance to bear spray among professionals. There was no good, clean data set that demonstrated definitively that it worked, so that’s why we did this research.”

Well, if the bear spray works better than a gun against half-ton ursine intruders, does that lesson apply to human intruders, too? Should you keep one of these cannisters at home?

“It would be highly effective against humans,” Dr. Smith told me, “but I’m sure the EPA would not like you doing that (odd as that sounds) since it is supposedly only to be used on bears. However, if I were a woman (or women) in the backcountry, I would certainly take comfort in knowing that this spray is not only highly effective at deterring unwanted advances by bears but by two-leggers as well. My daughter will have a can by her nightstand.”

You can read more about Dr. Smith and the study here. I’m not sure if I’ll be equipping our home with this spray, but if I go into bear country again, I won’t leave home without it.

BYU press release

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 3:59 am
by Emily
on the scientific research the Times reported on
http://byunews.byu.edu/archive08-Mar-bearspray.aspx

from the Salt Lake City Tribune

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:03 am
by Emily
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8699976

Tribtowns.com: Enter your Zip code to find news and events in your area
del.icio.usDiggRedditYahooMyWebGoogleFacebookWhat's this?
Print Email
Wildlife encounters: If you meet a bear, don't shoot. Spray
Bear spray is better protection than a gun, a BYU biologist's study finds
By Brian Maffly
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 03/26/2008 11:43:53 AM MDT

Related
Bear spray
Mar 26:
How bear spray works
If you're roaming bear country, your best protection against an unpleasant encounter is a can of bear spray, not a gun, according to Brigham Young University wildlife biologist Tom Smith.
Smith's team, which included Stephen Herrero, a world authority on bear attacks, has studied 600 bear encounters in Alaska over two decades. In 72 incidents in which bear spray was used properly, the bear stopped charging more than 90 percent of the time, according to a study Smith published in the April edition of the Journal of Wildlife Management. People using guns, by contrast, stood a one-in-three chance of failing to deter the bear, according to an earlier study.
"The probability is the bear spray will outperform a firearm and it's easy to see why. The spray is easy to deploy. The rifle is just difficult to use," Smith said. Stopping a charging bear with bullets required, on average, four hits.
Most of the 72 bear spray deployments Smith studied involved grizzly bears; the rest were black and polar bears. His team studied newspaper accounts, anecdotes and reports from wildlife agencies to determine the bears' activity before being sprayed, the distance involved, time of day, wind effects, mechanical problems and dosage of spray. Of the 150 people involved, just three injuries were reported and none required hospitalization.
"Tom is the best person to do this study because he has so much
Advertisement

hands-on experience with bears," said Chuck Bartlebaugh, a vocal bear-spray advocate who leads the Center for Wildlife Information in Missoula, Mont. "We need a similar study done for the Intermountain region with inland grizzly bears who tend to be more aggressive because they don't have the salmon runs."
Last year was the worst on record for human-bear conflicts in Utah, with 203 black bear encounters, including a fatal mauling in American Fork Canyon. That total was substantially higher than in the previous four years combined, probably the result of poor natural food sources and a high number of fledgling juveniles leaving their home turf, according to Kevin Bunnell, large-mammal coordinator for the Division of Wildlife Resources.
Utah's wet winter bodes well for the coming season, "but it can turn south in a hurry," Bunnell said. "A single late freeze can have a big impact. So can a hot, dry July or August."
Smith's findings should debunk common reasons given for not carrying bear spray, which Smith calls ''an olfactory assault weapon.'' Although wind can interfere with spray accuracy, wind rarely reduced the spray's effectiveness, probably because most discharges occur in wooded areas and the spray exits the nozzle at 70 mph. His team found no instances in which the spray malfunctioned and only two instances in which the sprayers incapacitated themselves.
"Bear spray diffuses potentially dangerous situations in the short term by providing the user time to move out of harm's way and allowing the bear time to reassess the situation and move on," Smith wrote. "When food or garbage is involved with bear conflict, bear spray is effective initially, but one can expect bears to continue returning until these attractants are removed or otherwise secured."
Smith's study, funded by his former employer, the U.S. Geological Society and the Alaska Science Center, shows that bear spray can help conserve grizzlies, protected as a threatened species.
Every fall in the lands around Glacier and Yellowstone national parks, elk hunters kill grizzly bears in self-defense. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, between 1980 and 2002, 49 grizzlies were fatally shot by people protecting themselves around Yellowstone (accounting for nearly one in six of all known bear deaths). Another 23 were shot around Glacier.
"In most cases there are no attempts to carry bear spray, much less use it. Every time a hunter decides to shoot instead of use bear spray they are making a decision they are going to set back grizzly bear recovery," said Brian Peck, of the Great Bear Foundation. "Had those people used bear spray, not only would [the bears] be alive, they would know that this red hot spray stuff will be really nasty and to avoid it and they would pass this information on. Bears are smart."
bmaffly@sltrib.com

from the Journal of Wildlife Management

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:13 am
by Emily
abstract is here:
http://www.wildlifejournals.org/perlser ... 2F2006-452

Abstract View
Volume 72, Issue 3 (April 2008)
Journal of Wildlife Management
Article: pp. 640–645 | Full Text | PDF (244K)

Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska

Tom S. Smitha,1, Stephen Herrerob, Terry D. Debruync, and James M. Wilderd

a Wildlife Sciences Program, Faculty of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, 451 WIDB, Provo, UT 84602, USA
b Environmental Science Program, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
c United States National Park Service, Alaska Support Office, 240 W 5th Avenue, Anchorage, AK 99501, USA
d 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.

the full journal article can be purchased online at the site