76% Of Documented Handgun Defenses Against Bears Happened Since 2000
BY Herschel Smith
2 years, 6 months ago
As I collected documented incidents of handguns fired in defense against bears, a pattern emerged. The recorded incidents of pistols being fired in defense against bears overwhelmingly occurred from 1960 onward.
I’ve found 125 documented cases where handguns have been fired in defense against bears, from 1890 to present. Two of the 125 cases were considered to be indeterminate as to success or failure. An additional 20 cases, where handguns were used with other lethal means, are considered combination defenses. They are not included in this analysis.
The total numbers include indeterminate cases, but not the combination cases. 95% of all the documented cases occurred from 1960 onward. 76% of all cases occurred from 2000 forward.
Dean then goes on to examine the causes.
First, while pistols were used against bears prior to the development of the cartridge firing handgun, (about 1840 – 1870) much of the use was in hunting. There the handgun was used as an ancillary device to long guns.
Bears tended to be hunted hard on the outskirts of settled areas. They were considered pests. Bounties were offered for them. Bears had no legal protection. Bears, of necessity, became wary of humans, and seldom attacked humans other than when hunted and wounded.
Second, few records were written of handguns being used against bears during this period. Some hunts were recorded, as were a few incidents involving bears. Most involved long guns. What few records there were are difficult to find. Records became more common after 1960, and much easier to find after the Internet information explosion in the 1990’s.
Third, while human populations continued to increase, bear populations declined, then started to increase, with the greatest increase from about 1960 onward.
To sum up, an increase in effective handguns, record keeping and the ability to search records, and increasing populations of humans and bears do much to explain the rapidly expanding number of documented cases of pistol defense against bears.
It all makes sense. Handguns firing centerfire cartridges were developed, and cartridges became much more powerful and with much higher muzzle velocity, with much better materials and construction to take the higher chamber pressures. Next, record keeping and the availability of retrieval. Third, bears are protected. You can’t hunt the if they’re not in hunting season, and if you have to shoot one, even in self defense, you just might run afoul of game management officers. Thus, population is on the rise.
Maybe depending upon how near we are to the bush, we all need to go back to carrying long guns for self defense. Just a thought.
Long guns are heavy. Then again, it might be good exercise.
|
|
On April 19, 2022 at 8:45 am, Drake said:
There are a LOT of bears in western New Jersey now. In the spring it isn’t uncommon to see dead bears on some of the roads near state or national parks. Often had them strolling past our fenced yard going up the hill to look for berries. Of course in NJ, there was no carrying a pistol to protect yourself allowed.
On April 19, 2022 at 8:51 am, Herschel Smith said:
Which is why I’ll never even visit NJ.
On April 19, 2022 at 1:22 pm, BRVTVS said:
This is the earliest account of bear defence using a pistol of which I am aware.
“This point is illustrated by an incident which fell under my own observation. In passing near the “Medicine-Bow Butte” during the spring of 1858, I most unexpectedly encountered and fired at a full-grown grizzly bear; but, as my horse had become somewhat blown by a previous gallop, his breathing so much disturbed my aim that I missed the animal at the short distance of about fifty yards, and he ran off. Fearful, if I stopped to reload my rifle, the bear would make his escape, I resolved to drive him back to the advanced guard of our escort, which I could see approaching in the distance; this I succeeded in doing, when several mounted men, armed with the navy revolvers, set off in pursuit. They approached within a few paces, and discharged ten or twelve shots, the most of which entered the animal, but he still kept on, and his progress did not seem materially impeded by the wounds. After these men had exhausted their charges, another man rode up armed with the army revolver, and fired two shots, which brought the stalwart beast to the ground. Upon skinning him and making an examination of the wounds, it was discovered that none of the balls from the small pistols had, after passing through his thick and tough hide, penetrated deeper than about an inch into the flesh, but that the two balls from the large pistol had gone into the vitals and killed him. This test was to my mind a decisive one as to the relative efficiency of the two arms for frontier service, and I resolved thenceforth to carry the larger size. ”
Source: http://www.kancoll.org/books/marcy/machap05.htm
On April 19, 2022 at 7:50 pm, PGF said:
He really is the top guy on this bear defense topic. I don’t understand the 2 indeterminate cases. I guess that means he was unable to determine if it was a qualified handgun instance.