Quote:
Originally Posted by MindBomber
|
I read the article and highly question the statistics presented. First, it openly states that the study is being widely circulated by people with an agenda: those "looking to reduce unnecessary bear killings". The article even admits the study does not take into consideration the circumstances of each bear encounter, and "No bear encounter is identical, and the number of variables, from type of terrain to equipment malfunction, vary significantly from incident to incident". It only accounts for situations in which each was used (spray, handguns, long guns), and the result of if the bear was turned away or not.
This is important because I imagine as a lethal option, a person would only employ a firearm against a bear when the bear presents itself aggressively and is likely a dangerous threat. I would argue against this study that people would be more likely to employ non-lethal bear spray against a bear who is not posing a threat or acting aggresively. Therefore this study is useless if it doesn't account for each specific situation.
The biggest concern is the data includes encounters with 357 bears, a mix of black, brown, and polar bears, but does not catagorize the data based on bear type or bear size/weight. I would like to know which method was most effective against the largest and most dangerous bears, data the study does not give us.
I cannot access the study directly without purchasing it, but the study abstract seems to indicate many of the bear encounters with firearms carriers involved the person also being in proximity to hunted/fished game. This could greatly influence a bear's behaviour compared to a person not near any open food.