So far as I can tell, the common line that bear spray is more effective than firearms is based on an atrociously bad reading of the (limited) science, which is disavowed by the author of the studies. In short, successfully spraying a bear is more effective at driving off curious bears than simply having a firearm is are at stopping charging bears, but when you’re comparing apples to apples then firearms are much more effective.
Here’s a pretty good overview: https://www.outsideonline.com/2401248/does-bear-spray-work. I haven’t put a ton of work into verifying what he’s claiming here, but it does match with the other data I’ve seen and I haven’t seen anyone be nearly as careful and reach the opposite conclusion.
I quite liked this video on the topic when I watched it awhile back:
Where he goes over the 2 reports and 2 studies on the topic and discusses “hey, wind tho.” What I most remember from is a high rated comment on the video, rather than in it proper. An author who had been mauled, done interviews, and written a book on the topic claimed that bears committed to killing you don’t tend to engage in threat displays—they stalk you, charge you from downwind and run you over, then circle back to start eating. Many people reporting what did or didn’t work to prevent being attacked by a bear were likely not actually at high risk of being attacked, they just shot or sprayed a bear who was attempting to be very clear about their boundaries. Right or wrong, what the comment illustrates well is that the studies don’t distinguish between aggression as threat display and aggression as actively dangerous behavior.
So far as I can tell, the common line that bear spray is more effective than firearms is based on an atrociously bad reading of the (limited) science, which is disavowed by the author of the studies. In short, successfully spraying a bear is more effective at driving off curious bears than simply having a firearm is are at stopping charging bears, but when you’re comparing apples to apples then firearms are much more effective.
Here’s a pretty good overview: https://www.outsideonline.com/2401248/does-bear-spray-work. I haven’t put a ton of work into verifying what he’s claiming here, but it does match with the other data I’ve seen and I haven’t seen anyone be nearly as careful and reach the opposite conclusion.
I quite liked this video on the topic when I watched it awhile back:
Where he goes over the 2 reports and 2 studies on the topic and discusses “hey, wind tho.” What I most remember from is a high rated comment on the video, rather than in it proper. An author who had been mauled, done interviews, and written a book on the topic claimed that bears committed to killing you don’t tend to engage in threat displays—they stalk you, charge you from downwind and run you over, then circle back to start eating. Many people reporting what did or didn’t work to prevent being attacked by a bear were likely not actually at high risk of being attacked, they just shot or sprayed a bear who was attempting to be very clear about their boundaries. Right or wrong, what the comment illustrates well is that the studies don’t distinguish between aggression as threat display and aggression as actively dangerous behavior.