Grizzly bear kills two people in Banff National Park

[JJolg]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They carry sidearms because it’s Alaska. You will not kill a charging grizzly with a pistol or a shotgun.

People who are commenting like to think they know about this stuff without ever having dealt with bears.

Dealt with a sow with a cub bluff charge on elk opener. I’ve also helped 3 didn’t ranchers that SSS multiple grizzlies in the last ten years. A slug will drop a bear rather quickly lol these are not invincible animals and we’re hunted for years and dropped on the spot by many with a .270. Placement is far more important than the calibre. And yes guides have used the pistols to do the same. There’s a reason they carry them for bear defence.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

They carry sidearms because it’s Alaska. You will not kill a charging grizzly with a pistol or a shotgun.

People who are commenting like to think they know about this stuff without ever having dealt with bears.

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2023/06/us-...grizzly-pistol

[Geraldsh]

After watching a black bear eat a hornet’s nest I can’t imagine trusting a can of spray to save me.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Weitz

When I’ve worked remotely with a fish and wild life officer on “bear duty” they have only had a shotgun… this was out in NWT and Yukon. They seemed happy enough with just a shotgun.

The thing about shotguns is they are loud, and especially a black bear, probably good to scare it away. Mind you, so are two pots.

I mean, not every bear wants to eat you. Even grizzlies can be scared away. If it’s mot motivated, a shotgun will hurt it and it runs away.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by JJolg

Dealt with a sow with a cub bluff charge on elk opener. I’ve also helped 3 didn’t ranchers that SSS multiple grizzlies in the last ten years. A slug will drop a bear rather quickly lol these are not invincible animals and we’re hunted for years and dropped on the spot by many with a .270. Placement is far more important than the calibre. And yes guides have used the pistols to do the same. There’s a reason they carry them for bear defence.

Hunting a bear is different than defending against a bear.

Alaskan guides use handguns because they are easy to carry. Given time and a choice, any one of them would take a rifle. If they are smart, that is.

[Geraldsh]

I assumed the shotguns were loaded with slugs.

[GioforPM]

There’s no doubt a gun can kill a bear. I just don’t think most people can do it. Especially a lot of people that really really want to carry a gun around. Some of them would like to fire one off at the beginning of a hike just to make sure it works, and to clear the trail.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

A charging grizzly bear versus a shotgun or handgun? You are dreaming. I have a semi auto .300 Magnum Weatherby. I don’t like my chances against a charging bear. Off at a distance, sure.

It’s not that handguns can’t possibly kill a bear. It’s just that it hardly ever works out that way:

https://www.thearmorylife.com/handgu...-bear-defense/

See? You first said I was dreaming that a handgun could kill a bear and then edited your post to say “oh well possibly but not likely!”

The main point was to dispel this idea that bears can only be killed with a high calibre rifle from way down the road and they are these otherwise invincible beasts. People encounter them from all sorts of ranges with all sorts of firearms and successfully put them down.

If a bear is charging you and it’s 10 feet away, you’re probably hooped anyway, right? Which would you rather have as your last line of defence? Pepper spray that can get ####ed up by the wind? Or a shotgun? I know what I would choose, even knowing how bad I am with a shotgun.

[Bill Bumface]

If you're seriously worried about your safety on a back country hiking trip, you should address the most dire threat to your life before moving onto guns for bears. Wear a helmet while you drive out to the mountains.

Or maybe stay home and go to the mall as ResAlien said.

The risk of bear attack is so bloody low, and there are a lot of other ways people get themselves killed in the mountains that are way more frequently occurring.

Please don't ruin my hike by making me look at people with their crying eagle bandanas and "sidearms". Go for a road trip to Montana instead.

[Wormius]

I think people are fantasizing about their skills with a shotgun in a bear encounter the way some guys think they’ll be a hero in an active shooter. You think if the bear is nearly on top of you, the effect of the wind when you release the bear spray is less effective than you trying to get a shotgun unstrapped from you back and point it? I’ll take my chances with the bear spray.

If this wasn’t a Mythbusters episode though, it should have been.

[JJolg]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Hunting a bear is different than defending against a bear.

Alaskan guides use handguns because they are easy to carry. Given time and a choice, any one of them would take a rifle. If they are smart, that is.

You are over looking your own point. The reason shotguns and pistols are often chosen over rifles when going into bear country is they are a lot easier to deploy when s hits the fan. Trying to control and maneuver a rifle is far more difficult than a pistol. Slugs far more effective at close range than your rifle. Look at your ballistics of your bullet.

Do we want any random to be able to carry a firearm definitely not but it is your best defence against bears aside from not going into the bush in the first place. Bear spray can be very effective also but again how many have actually opened up a can and tried it to understand how it works? How many know you don’t spray it straight…. Most don’t even carry it where they can use it in less than 5 seconds including getting the cap off

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I think people are fantasizing about their skills with a shotgun in a bear encounter the way some guys think they’ll be a hero in an active shooter. You think if the bear is nearly on top of you, the effect of the wind when you release the bear spray is less effective than you trying to get a shotgun unstrapped from you back and point it? I’ll take my chances with the bear spray.

If this wasn’t a Mythbusters episode though, it should have been.

Most people overrate their ability to handle firearms in a low stress situation, never mind in a life or death situation.

Most people are silly when it comes to firearms and lack a true understanding of how to handle them and frankly people walking around with one up the spout concerns me.

[nik-]

Didn't realize we had so many Meal Team Six here.

[Fuzz]

If guns were allowed in parks we'd have a lot more accidental shootings, dead animals, and the exact same number of people attacked and killed by bears.

[GGG]

People should be reading the literature available before commenting on guns vs bear spray. Alberta has the worlds leading expert on this stuff. Read what he has to say and then draw conclusions. Don’t rely on anecdote. We don’t rely on the UCPs assessment on the CPP we look to an economist. So for bear attacks we should look to bear researchers.

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.707738
Summary by CBC

https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley....2193/2006-452
Bear spray paper paywalled but abstract is there

https://westernwildlife.org/wp-conte...-Deterrent.pdf

The above paper going into effectiveness in various scenarios of guns

Anyway based on currently available research bear spray is the better option.

Go read Stephan Herrero.

[PepsiFree]

Again, some of you guys are convinced this is about arming everyone with a gun or filling the most popular trails with guys rocking pistols. It’s literally the difference between not allowing guns in remote bear territory that happens to be designated as a national park while allowing them everywhere else and just allowing them in both.

So what if most people couldn’t handle a shotgun in that situation? Why would more people get a gun licence if the remote area that they could carry that gun was expanded? The only guys I know who take a gun into the bush for protection also happen to be hunters, and they also go into the weirdest areas by choice because that’s what they like. They aren’t hiking Johnston Canyon in their Sauconys, you guys are super safe.

If they made it so you could carry a shotgun in the back country of a national park, I’m not suddenly going to have a desire to get a licence and go into the back country given I could already do that wherever else and neither is anyone else. That’s silly.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by JJolg

You are over looking your own point. The reason shotguns and pistols are often chosen over rifles when going into bear country is they are a lot easier to deploy when s hits the fan. Trying to control and maneuver a rifle is far more difficult than a pistol. Slugs far more effective at close range than your rifle. Look at your ballistics of your bullet.

Do we want any random to be able to carry a firearm definitely not but it is your best defence against bears aside from not going into the bush in the first place. Bear spray can be very effective also but again how many have actually opened up a can and tried it to understand how it works? How many know you don’t spray it straight…. Most don’t even carry it where they can use it in less than 5 seconds including getting the cap off

Your statements are not backed up by reaearch.

[Sliver]

Unpopular opinion: bear cull. Let's kill these fkers. I don't get why we allow something on top of the food chain to stalk around our outdoor playground. It's ridiculous.

Also, I love how 90% of you guys - when faced with the option of gun or no gun when facing off against a bear - are choosing no gun. lol. Give me a break, that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Again, some of you guys are convinced this is about arming everyone with a gun or filling the most popular trails with guys rocking pistols. It’s literally the difference between not allowing guns in remote bear territory that happens to be designated as a national park while allowing them everywhere else and just allowing them in both.

So what if most people couldn’t handle a shotgun in that situation? Why would more people get a gun licence if the remote area that they could carry that gun was expanded? The only guys I know who take a gun into the bush for protection also happen to be hunters, and they also go into the weirdest areas by choice because that’s what they like. They aren’t hiking Johnston Canyon in their Sauconys, you guys are super safe.

If they made it so you could carry a shotgun in the back country of a national park, I’m not suddenly going to have a desire to get a licence and go into the back country given I could already do that wherever else and neither is anyone else. That’s silly.

The available evidence suggests that people exchanging bear spray for guns would result in more deaths.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by JJolg

You are over looking your own point. The reason shotguns and pistols are often chosen over rifles when going into bear country is they are a lot easier to deploy when s hits the fan. Trying to control and maneuver a rifle is far more difficult than a pistol. Slugs far more effective at close range than your rifle. Look at your ballistics of your bullet.

Do we want any random to be able to carry a firearm definitely not but it is your best defence against bears aside from not going into the bush in the first place. Bear spray can be very effective also but again how many have actually opened up a can and tried it to understand how it works? How many know you don’t spray it straight…. Most don’t even carry it where they can use it in less than 5 seconds including getting the cap off

The thing with bear spray is you don't have to be perfect. I'd guess even if the bear was physically attacking you, deploying some spray may be enough to get it to leave you alone.