A Bit Of Sanity For Hunters In Idaho Concerning Defense Against Bears
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 6 months ago
When various far-left ecology and animal rights groups such as the Sierra Club, the Humane Society of the United States, the Center for Biological Diversity, submitted a petition, calling for the manditory carry of bear spray by hunters, it made national news. The petition was submitted to the Idaho Fish and Game Commission and others. The petition claimed that “Studies show that bear spray is far more effective than firearms.”
That claim is not correct.
The petition was written about in several Idaho outlets, and nationally.
The Commission turned down the request that the carry of bear spray by hunters be mandatory. From lmtribune.com:
The commission turned down a request from environmental groups that it create a rule that would require hunters in grizzly bear habitat near Yellowstone National Park to carry bear spray. Commissioners said the rule would be overbearing and difficult to enforce, and agreed with agency officials who said education about recreating in grizzly bear country would be more effective.[ … ]
Bear Spray Hoax: IFGD Betrays Hunters
I’m pleased the Commission recommends denying a petition that would require hunters in grizzly country to carry bear spray. But the petition is not being denied for the right reason: When a grizzly charges a hunter with a rifle after a classic surprise encounter at close range, bear spray will not keep a hunter safe. IDFG must prepare hunters to use an adequate rifle quickly and effectively.
In 1991, a Hunter/Grizzly Bear Interactions Task Team (that included U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service grizzly bear recovery coordinator Chris Servheen) told the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee that bear spray has “minimal usefulness in trail encounters with bears at close range due to the difficulty of effective use.”
Bob Wharff, executive director of Wyoming Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, told the Jackson Hole News & Guide that bear “spray isn’t the answer for every encounter, especially when it requires hunters to drop their guns when there’s little time to react. You’re talking milliseconds. It’s illogical that you’re going to set your gun down and get your pepper spray.”
Trina Jo Bradley, vice-president of the Marias River Livestock Association, said “Let’s just think about how we carry ourselves when we’re hunting. I carry a large caliber rifle in my hands, usually with a bullet in the chamber and the safety on. I can easily raise my rifle and fire if I see the game I am hunting, or if a bear attacks. Why in the world would I put down the firearm that I’ve used over and over to grab a can of bear spray?
It’s clear a hunter carrying a rifle cannot use bear spray in a safe or timely manner during a surprise encounter with a grizzly. IDFG and other agencies acknowledged this in 1991. But on September 1, 1999, these agencies did an about face on bear spray when U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service news release announced: “Outfitters And Guides Develop Safety Class To Prevent Bear Attacks.”
The news release said, “During the past year, over 200 outfitters and guides in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Colorado have been trained to safely share the backcountry with bears.”
Were the outfitters and guides taught to use an adequate firearm effectively? No. “Course presenters discourage the use of firearms to mitigate bear attacks, because the practice has resulted in much greater frequency and severity of injuries to people involved [than bear spray]. The reliability and safety of pepper spray over other methods of deterrence has also been promoted by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee.”
No data or references were provided to substantiate this claim. Nevertheless, these agencies adopted a de facto policy of discouraging firearm use, and promoting bear spray. The results have been disastrous. As the environmentalists’ bear spray petition notes, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team found that “54% of all injuries inflicted on humans by grizzly bears [in the Yellowstone region] involved hunters.”
In response to the environmentalists’ petition, Toby Broudreau said, “the Department already has a Bear Education Program within grizzly range in Idaho. That program helps inform hunters on bear spray use and benefits.”
That program does not teach hunters how to use bear spray with each of the six field carries for long guns. That program does not provide hunters with accurate, meaningful information about bear spray and firearms research. If you keep hyping bear spray—and use that as an excuse for not teaching hunters how to use an adequate rifle quickly for self-defense—you guarantee the carnage inflicted on hunters since 1999 will continue.
A 2008 study on the Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska said, “In 96% (69 of 72) of bear spray incidents, the person’s activity at the time of was use reported. The largest category involved hikers (35%), followed by persons engaged in bear management activities (30%), people at their home or cabin (15%), campers in their tents (9%), people working on various jobs outdoors (4%), sport fishers (4%), a hunter stalking a wounded bear (1%), and a photographer (1%).”
Given that the purpose of stalking a wounded bear is to kill it, non-lethal bear spray was the wrong tool for the job. The study did not provide additional information about this mysterious incident. A 1998 bear spray study did not provide any information about the activity of people who used bear spray. So research tells us hunters carrying a rifle don’t use bear spray, and common sense tells us why: Hunters can’t use bear spray because they’re already carrying a rifle.
Bear spray advocates focus on the overall success rate from Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska: 3 people were injured during 75 incidents. Of 175 people present during 72 incidents, just 3 were injured. Bear spray advocates never inform hunters that 3 of 9 people who sprayed charging grizzly bears were injured.
Bear spray advocates have repeatedly made the indefensible claim that research proves bear spray is more effective than a firearm. One, they’re claiming that research on bear spray use by non-hunters (who are not carrying a firearm) proves hunters (who are carrying a firearm) should use bear spray. That does not make sense.
Two, there have been two interrelated studies on bear spray, and two studies on guns vs. bears. Bear spray advocates are really saying, if you compare the results of one bear spray study to the results of one dissimilar study on guns, bear spray wins. But Field Use of Capsicum Spray As a Bear Deterrent/Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska used different methodologies than Efficacy of Firearms For Bear Deterrence in Alaska. It is unethical to compare the two studies, because of the different dynamics involved.
In addition, you’ve got to be totally unprincipled to pretend a 1999 study on the Characteristics of Nonsport Mortalities to Brown and Black Bears and Human Injuries from Bears in Alaska does not exist. After reviewing 1,036 incidents from 1986 to 1996 when people killed bears in defense of life or property (DLP), the authors of the 1999 study wrote, “Most of the persons shooting brown bears or black bears in DLP circumstances indicated that no human injury occurred (98.5% for brown bears and 99.2% for black bears).”
Bear spray advocates deny the existence of the 1999 study because it does not advance their cause. “Research proves bear spray is more effective than a firearm” is not a factual statement based on research; it’s a baseless propaganda slogan. To provide for the safety of big-game hunters in grizzly country, IDFG must teach hunters how to use an adequate firearm quickly and effectively.
This report dovetails nicely with the analysis conducted by Dean Weingarten. It’s nice to see some sanity from Idaho. It’s also nice to see the human-hating, creation-worshipping environmentalists put in their place.
|
|
On May 27, 2019 at 10:09 am, Fred said:
LORD, be with those families of the fallen today.
This is interesting but the leftists knew they were lying from the outset. The right, using logic and facts wins another argument (with itself). The left doesn’t care, didn’t examine the facts, and won’t examine these facts. They want you starving in a re-education camp and any lie to accomplish that justifies the means.
Also, these sample sizes are too small to be totally trusted by either side but, the trend toward the upper 90’s percentile during a “DLP” will be likely to stick or drift more toward the middle 90’s, as the range of documented incidents increases, I would think. That’s good, but I don’t base my decisions on statistics, I base them on God’s design.
[when a bear is charging ] “Why in the world would I put down the firearm that I’ve used over and over to grab a can of bear spray?”
A very sound and logical statement, but I submit that it’s incorrect. You would not put down the hunting rifle that you are carrying, you would not physically be able to put the gun down. Your God given duty to protect life would keep your body from answering this incorrect command, if given by your brain, a split second now having been wasted, as it could cause hesitation, the introduction of such information in training is a sin against God, as all life is precious. Go figure that the Godless want this in the training, right?
That said, as I’ve stated before, hunting is NOT self defense. If the situation allows, put down or shoulder your hunting rifle, and unholster your bear defense handgun, as your bear defense handgun should have a load effective more so at blunt force trauma, and less so penetration of vital organs.
30 miles per hour is 44 fps, spelled out, FORTY FOUR FEET PER SECOND, one more time just to be sure; 44 FEET PER SECOND.
You get one chance to convince the animal that you are too big of a danger to risk attacking and that breaking off this engagement is its ONLY choice, and like the hunter who would not be able to put down his rifle, the bear will not make this decision, it will be made for it, by its innate sense. You should have a weapon, if time allows, that will force this choice.
And remember, nothing that a bear does is wrong; it knows no sin and lives in a perfect state of nature. Killing you would simply be another day at its innate risk level of being.
On May 27, 2019 at 11:30 am, MTHead said:
I’m not good with computer stuff. so, go to youtube, type in “woman sprays bear, bear eats kayak”, I guess the stuff works, maybe, as she wasn’t attacked. But, I still like my 44mag, 300grs. out of a ruger “Alaskan”.
On May 27, 2019 at 1:35 pm, TRX said:
A number of bloggers have reported on cans of spray that either gave a short desultory stream and quit, or didn’t work at all. One of them claimed over half the cans tested did nothing.
Most brands, you can give a short squirt to see if it still has pressure, but how many people bother?
On May 27, 2019 at 4:45 pm, ExpatNJ said:
Bear Spray is a red-herring in this situation. The ultimate goal is to outlaw hunting entirely. Can’t do that? Then, just make the sport as difficult, expensive, and unpleasant as possible:
– Mandate purchase of unwanted, unnecessary, unneeded, useless stuff.
– Enact regulations mandating carrying all that stuff.
– Goal: Weigh-down the hunter with all that stuff.
– Hunter physically can’t – or refuses to – carry all that stuff.
– Hunter loses license – maybe 2A RKBA, too – if caught without all that stuff.
Don’t say I’, giving Antis ideas. They already thought of this, didn’t they?
On May 27, 2019 at 7:36 pm, Paul B said:
When I went hiking into the back country of yellowstone with a scout troop a lot of the scouts had bear spray. I had a stub nosed 357. We did the stuff you should do in bear country and the only bears we saw were always off and heading away.
On May 28, 2019 at 12:25 am, TheAlaskan said:
A brown bear charged two different people at two different times at the Juneau trail head last week, the report says.
F&W personal recommend staying off the trail or carry bear spray if you venture on the trail.
Right.
My bear spray, sprays lead.
On May 28, 2019 at 2:10 am, Dan said:
One of the classic tactics of the left….Lie…LIE BIG….and keep telling the lie…..the advice given by Hitler’s propagandist Joseph Goebbels and known as “The Big Lie”. These people have ZERO actual research and data to support their statements….but that has never stopped them.
What matters is the outcome…..getting people to not carry guns. The means to this end is irrelevant if it works. And lying is perfectly acceptable
to them if it gets the job done.