Grizzly bear kills two people in Banff National Park

[Wormius]

So the people preferring something that is:

- 90% effective vs 84%;
- lightweight and not a slog to carry around; - costs $50 vs whatever a rifle or handgun cost; and
- can be easily deployed

Are the ones that are crazy?

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by Hey Connor, It's Mess

This thread did a great job of exposing the loonies on here, if nothing else. Nearly spat my drink out reading that people would genuinely prefer bear spray to a firearm in a bear attack.

One needs to be a very good shot to kill a charging 500lb bear under pressure, you might just piss him off so he eats your face before he feels the bullet in his shoulder. Personally I'd like to have both, spray him, blind him enough to get a few lethal shots off.

Having said that, I still don't want firearms carried by trigger happy idiots in our national parks.

Want to be safe in bear country this time of year?, travel in large groups or stay home.

[Engine09]

Stuff You Should Know just had a great episode on 2 fatal grizzly attacks in Montana in 1967, covers our history with bears, the attitude towards them in national parks and how those attacks changed everything, the details on how the 2 people died, what they did wrong, etc.


Night of the Grizzlies

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0wi...TM-XBp2vubsmxQ

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wormius

So the people preferring something that is:

- 90% effective vs 84%;
- lightweight and not a slog to carry around; - costs $50 vs whatever a rifle or handgun cost; and
- can be easily deployed

Are the ones that are crazy?

Even more importantly: requires no special training to achieve proficiency; mastery can be achieved in about 1 hour. Not sure what the comparison is for guns, but I can't imagine anyone gets their PAL in under an hour.

- consequence of accidental discharge = really sore eyes vs. injury/death
- no false sense of security
- lower odds of jamming


I can't be arsed to develop gun skills, so I'm absolutely content to stick with bear spray. And even if I had both, bear spray would almost always be the first tool to deploy

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

One needs to be a very good shot to kill a charging 500lb bear under pressure, you might just piss him off so he eats your face before he feels the bullet in his shoulder. Personally I'd like to have both, spray him, blind him enough to get a few lethal shots off.

Having said that, I still don't want firearms carried by trigger happy idiots in our national parks.

Want to be safe in bear country this time of year?, travel in large groups or stay home.

I feel like this is being glossed over and is worth repeating. For some of us, the issue isn't "which would you rather have in an encounter," it's "do you mind people in the park having firearms." I don't mind that hunters carry guns into the backcountry because there are clear rules that keep them isolated from other people.

I trust bears a lot more than I do people.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Russic

I feel like this is being glossed over and is worth repeating. For some of us, the issue isn't "which would you rather have in an encounter," it's "do you mind people in the park having firearms." I don't mind that hunters carry guns into the backcountry because there are clear rules that keep them isolated from other people.

I trust bears a lot more than I do people.

There is backcountry in the park. Non-hunters can also carry guns there.

There’s no reason to believe they would be any less isolated from people, or that the rules would be any less clear. It’s being glossed over because what’s actually being talked about is the imaginary line between what is park and what is not, and if there is anything about the line (where it currently is) that necessitates the difference in rules.

[Ryan Coke]

Imagine Sliver in bear country going for a hike, but replace “bear banger” with “gun”.

“Just clearing the trail”
“People love it”

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Imagine Sliver in bear country going for a hike, but replace “bear banger” with “gun”.

“Just clearing the trail”
“People love it”

I'd be like Yosemite Sam. Gun in each hand blasting them into the air.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

One needs to be a very good shot to kill a charging 500lb bear under pressure, you might just piss him off so he eats your face before he feels the bullet in his shoulder. Personally I'd like to have both, spray him, blind him enough to get a few lethal shots off.

Having said that, I still don't want firearms carried by trigger happy idiots in our national parks.

Want to be safe in bear country this time of year?, travel in large groups or stay home.

If you unloaded a clip of handgun bullets into a bear's face and chest, you're likely going to stop most attacks. Yes bears have thick skulls, but when they are charging you are mostly seeing the face and chest, which are relatively large targets and soft spots filled with organs.

A bear attack, from what I've seen, isn't a quick process either. It seems to be drawn out and quite gruesome. Most bears aren't going to stick around and pick at our corpse while they have internal bleeding in their lungs.

As far as the heat of the moment thing, spraying bear spray at a bear is going to be equally hard.

I also think that having everyone walking around with guns, however, is likely to result in far more injuries and deaths than bears ever would.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

There is backcountry in the park. Non-hunters can also carry guns there.

There’s no reason to believe they would be any less isolated from people, or that the rules would be any less clear. It’s being glossed over because what’s actually being talked about is the imaginary line between what is park and what is not, and if there is anything about the line (where it currently is) that necessitates the difference in rules.

I regularly go into the backcountry and that doesn't change anything for me. I get you're trying to make a distinction between Banff Ave or somewhere you have to hike 5 days to get, but I'd still be more at risk with randoms carrying guns to remote backcountry campgrounds than "only" having bear spray at my disposal.

If you're worried about going into the backcountry without a gun, don't go into the backcountry in national parks. Simple.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by blankall

If you unloaded a clip of handgun bullets into a bear's face and chest, you're likely going to stop most attacks. Yes bears have thick skulls, but when they are charging you are mostly seeing the face and chest, which are relatively large targets and soft spots filled with organs.

A bear attack, from what I've seen, isn't a quick process either. It seems to be drawn out and quite gruesome. Most bears aren't going to stick around and pick at our corpse while they have internal bleeding in their lungs.

As far as the heat of the moment thing, spraying bear spray at a bear is going to be equally hard.

I also think that having everyone walking around with guns, however, is likely to result in far more injuries and deaths than bears ever would.

Without knowing a whole lot about bear anatomy, I think a grizzly bear charging at you, the only targets you have are the head and it’s shoulders/front legs. It’s not going to come at you walking on two legs like a circus act where you can hit all of its major organs. Again, this is where I think firing off the bear spray needs to be as precise.

[MoneyGuy]

Bear warnings issued today for areas northwest and west of Calgary in Kananaskis and Banff.

[Fuzz]

Watching how fast that bear was moving in Troutman's video should show just how hard it would be to hit a charging grizzly with anything. You aren't pulling your gun and popping 2 in the centre of mass. You'd be lucky to hit any part of it. Not that spray would help much either, but at least some of the spray might hit it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Torture

I regularly go into the backcountry and that doesn't change anything for me. I get you're trying to make a distinction between Banff Ave or somewhere you have to hike 5 days to get, but I'd still be more at risk with randoms carrying guns to remote backcountry campgrounds than "only" having bear spray at my disposal.

If you're worried about going into the backcountry without a gun, don't go into the backcountry in national parks. Simple.

Yeah, it is simple, that’s what people already do. Nobody is demanding they change it, people are wondering why that rule exists for all of a national park when there are areas that are indistinguishable from those where guns for wildlife protection are allowed.

On a per-encounter basis, I’d guess you’re more likely to be at higher risk with the bear. Tough the find stats that tell the whole story, but from a cruise through some info, it looks like wild animals have caused a lot more deaths of non-hunters than hunters have. And those are people actively out there looking to shoot something, not people carrying for protection.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, it is simple, that’s what people already do. Nobody is demanding they change it, people are wondering why that rule exists for all of a national park when there are areas that are indistinguishable from those where guns for wildlife protection are allowed.

On a per-encounter basis, I’d guess you’re more likely to be at higher risk with the bear. Tough the find stats that tell the whole story, but from a cruise through some info, it looks like wild animals have caused a lot more deaths of non-hunters than hunters have. And those are people actively out there looking to shoot something, not people carrying for protection.

But why? It's right there in the name, it's a National Park.

On behalf of the people of Canada, we protect and present nationally significant examples of Canada's natural and cultural heritage and foster public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment in ways that ensure their ecological and commemorative integrity for present and future generations.

We choose to protect these areas and their ecological diversity. This is a good thing. So where is the mystery? And if people aren't comfortable with it, no one is forcing them to enter the park.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

But why? It's right there in the name, it's a National Park.



We choose to protect these areas and their ecological diversity. This is a good thing. So where is the mystery? And if people aren't comfortable with it, no one is forcing them to enter the park.

Conservation officers kill more bears than people carrying firearms for protection. By… a lot. And nobody is suggesting allowing hunting in National Parks.

Nobody feels forced to enter the park, people do it because they want to. And people are wondering why the imaginary line between where you can carry a firearm for wildlife protection and where you can’t exists where it does. Saying “nobody is forced to cross the line” doesn’t answer the question.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by Hey Connor, It's Mess

This thread did a great job of exposing the loonies on here, if nothing else. Nearly spat my drink out reading that people would genuinely prefer bear spray to a firearm in a bear attack.

When faced with that 1% case of an animal that will probably slowly and greusomely massacre them and even feed on them while they're still breathing, they're assured that a modest reserve of spray will hit its target and successfully deter it.

I wish I could confidently have that much trust in a can of anything.

If the same rules that exist for hunters/carriers on crown land were expanded to parks backcountry I really doubt things would suddenly devolve into Dick Cheney shootings every weekend in the woods. Rules and regulations are in place and this is Canada. It's not like they'd be handing out rifles to Joe shmoe at the door.

You just retain massive penalties for shooting down protected species in non emergency situations.

Personally, I'd feel comforted knowing a few people out there have the means to scare off a dangerous animal. And that doesn't necessarily mean gunning down the animal where mistakes could be made, but firing a warning shot to scare it. Often times, that's enough to gain the upper hand in that situation.

[ResAlien]

If you’re that terrified of nature then stay home

[NuclearFart]

Gun lovers often have delusions of grandiose defense applied to a very different context. Equating a very relaxed situation on the gun range or hunting while waiting in a blind/stalking prey for hours, and extrapolating those skills to a charging bear while shooting from the hip. I have rural family who always brag about their ability to rifle blast their way out of a bear attack because they've (successfully) hunted black bear, yet they've known 2 people who were mauled by grizzlies despite carrying a gun. Fortunately for everyone they havent had to defend yet.

They consistently overestimate their abilities under duress while simultaneously underestimating the threat. The rational person should assume the inverse of that, and chose the solution which is most rapid and easiest to deploy - bear spray.

[TrentCrimmIndependent]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

If you’re that terrified of nature then stay home

That would be a good rule of thumb.

Having a decent amount of experience seeing bears I don't see them as threats these days (your average bear, that is). But I'm also helping my chances by not bringing dogs out or trail running with earbuds in, as well as being prepared. So my chances of an eventful encounter are pushed down further than some others who are equally confident in their odds out there but consciously hurting them at the same time with bad practices.