Quoted:
http://www.adn.com/article/are-guns-more-effective-pepper-spray-alaska-bear-attack

2011 article by a former Alasaka Dept of Fish and Wildlife Biologist

-author is a former junior high .22 competitor, former Marine and owns firearms (ie doesn't sound like a gun hating libtard if you believe him)
-in 70 percent of maulings by bears in Alaska in the time period studied someone in the group was armed with a firearm-NOTE-study did not include bear encounters where the bear was shot to giblets before mauling anyone, so take that with a grain of salt
-in 92% of grizzly attacks and 90% of black bear attacks where pepper spray was used the pepper spray stopped the attack and in the other cases it looks like there were minor injuries and no deaths
-1983 test of firearms by forest service-did not involve actually shooting bears: 44 magnum handgun considered minimally effective, 357 and 45 (I assume 45acp) were inadequate. The newer 460 454 etc where not tested (obviously because they did not exist in 83). 458 Magnum with 510 grain was highest ranked in effectiveness for rifles, 375 H and H and 338 Win Mag also did well 30-06 220 grain considered marginelly effective. 12 gauge was deemed effective with slugs, but not with buckshot

I read up on all this years ago when my wife and I were going to western Canada and hiking in the rockies in areas heavily populated by bears. I wasn't crazy about not being able to carry a firearm but I think there is a lot of hullabaloo posted here claiming that bear spray is ineffective and not taking into account the difficulty most people have in getting a firearm ready and hitting a charging bear effectively with a firearm.

An interesting flip side to this is my wife did not give two shits about anything I told her and basically had said I should try to sneak a gun into Canada or try to, er, get one there. Everytime we saw a "bear warning sign" (and there seemed to be lots of warning signs about bears, fire, avalanches, and logging trucks that I expected to see a burnging, run away logging truck barrelling down on me driven by grizzlies) she would look at the bear spray I had (we should have had two or more, not sure why we only bought one-also you can rent it but we were not returning to the same location) and mutter "should have brought a gun"
 

Quoted:
ADFG and USFW train their employees in the use of firearms for bear protection. Alaskans are mauled more often because collectively they spend more time in bear country.If you think its hard to hit a charging bear with a bullet try it with a can of bear spray. You hear this debate all the time, The Alaska Dispatch News is a liberal,progressive mouthpiece with a not exactly favorable view of guns.Bear spray can be good, bears love Cajun flavored tourists.

Quoted:
I took the USGS firearms training for bear protection.  The instructors considered the OC spray to be human marinade.  They also cited the small problem of being UPWIND when deploying said bear spray.  "Excuse me Mr. .. pardon me Mrs. Bear.  Stay put while I move upwind"

I carried a 12 ga.  Rem. 870 with slugs


they did not have any .44 mag revolvers without front sights.

Quoted:
http://www.adn.com/article/are-guns-more-effective-pepper-spray-alaska-bear-attack

2011 article by a former Alasaka Dept of Fish and Wildlife Biologist

-author is a former junior high .22 competitor, former Marine and owns firearms (ie doesn't sound like a gun hating libtard if you believe him)
-in 70 percent of maulings by bears in Alaska in the time period studied someone in the group was armed with a firearm-NOTE-study did not include bear encounters where the bear was shot to giblets before mauling anyone, so take that with a grain of salt
-in 92% of grizzly attacks and 90% of black bear attacks where pepper spray was used the pepper spray stopped the attack and in the other cases it looks like there were minor injuries and no deaths
-1983 test of firearms by forest service-did not involve actually shooting bears: 44 magnum handgun considered minimally effective, 357 and 45 (I assume 45acp) were inadequate. The newer 460 454 etc where not tested (obviously because they did not exist in 83). 458 Magnum with 510 grain was highest ranked in effectiveness for rifles, 375 H and H and 338 Win Mag also did well 30-06 220 grain considered marginelly effective. 12 gauge was deemed effective with slugs, but not with buckshot

I read up on all this years ago when my wife and I were going to western Canada and hiking in the rockies in areas heavily populated by bears. I wasn't crazy about not being able to carry a firearm but I think there is a lot of hullabaloo posted here claiming that bear spray is ineffective and not taking into account the difficulty most people have in getting a firearm ready and hitting a charging bear effectively with a firearm.

An interesting flip side to this is my wife did not give two shits about anything I told her and basically had said I should try to sneak a gun into Canada or try to, er, get one there. Everytime we saw a "bear warning sign" (and there seemed to be lots of warning signs about bears, fire, avalanches, and logging trucks that I expected to see a burnging, run away logging truck barrelling down on me driven by grizzlies) she would look at the bear spray I had (we should have had two or more, not sure why we only bought one-also you can rent it but we were not returning to the same location) and mutter "should have brought a gun"
 

Quoted:
....................

............ Everytime we saw a "bear warning sign" (and there seemed to be lots of warning signs about bears, fire, avalanches, and logging trucks that I expected to see a burnging, run away logging truck barrelling down on me driven by grizzlies) she would look at the bear spray I had (we should have had two or more, not sure why we only bought one-also you can rent it but we were not returning to the same location) and mutter "should have brought a gun"  

Quoted:
ADFG and USFW train their employees in the use of firearms for bear protection. Alaskans are mauled more often because collectively they spend more time in bear country.If you think its hard to hit a charging bear with a bullet try it with a can of bear spray. You hear this debate all the time, The Alaska Dispatch News is a liberal,progressive mouthpiece with a not exactly favorable view of guns.Bear spray can be good, bears love Cajun flavored tourists.

Quoted:
My problem isn't spray vs firearm.  I have had two occasions to use bear spray against dogs in the neighborhood.  It worked both times.  And both times, I suffered the effects of the spray.  All it takes is a very light breeze to blow the fog back at you.  Now, if I could find bear spray that was deployed in a stream not a fog, I would carry it into bear country along with a gun.  Until then......


When I went to Canada last summer, there was a story about a biologist that was attacked by a bear.  The attack lasted 45 minutes he says.  He had spray and used it in short bursts until the can was empty.  He lived.  It almost sounded like the bear was playing with him despite the spray.

Quoted:
Would you please post that track record. I've never seen it.  I don't know anyone personally that makes their living outdoors  in Alaska that carries pepper spray. They carry guns,big guns. Lets see that record your referring to.

Quoted:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18412844/Bear-GIFS-bear-eats-camera.gif

Quoted:
I say, get both.

Especially if you are going with a partner.  Why leave yourself with only 1 tool?

Quoted:
<snip statistics references>
People who are successful in using firearms to defend themselves against bear, are probably outdoors in bear country a lot, and are probably profecient with firearms.
They are also probably unlikely to file reports if they don't have to.  And in some cases, they may be worried about legal hassles by unserving and unreasonable government employees.
Some tourist with nothing but an empty can of pepper spray is going to be on the cell phone or otherwise looking for armed government employees after a bear attack.

Quoted:
Aside for polar bears up around Baffin Island, I don't foresee a scenario where I would carry a firearm for protection against bears.

It's the weight.  I can't recall a time where I said, "Gee, I wish I was carrying more stuff."  I can recall burning stuff, hundreds of dollars worth of stuff, just to make things more manageable to pack out of the mountains.

If I was afforded the luxury of mechanized ingress and egress, sure, I'd consider bringing a firearm.  But, I've never had that luxury.  Either through penny pinching, or lack of comms, it's always been mechanized ingress, and self-powered egress.
- a shotgun would get ditched ASAP on the hike out
-- happily bury it and let it rust away
-- continue on with the miserable, agonize hike back to civilization
- a pistol might make the whole trip, but
-- the thought of even three extra pounds makes me wither
-- the idea of being able to effectively and accurately deploy the pistol when physically exhausted - that doesn't leave me with a warm and fuzzy
- bear spray
-- it's lighter
-- I can employ it in situations where taking shots with a pistol would seriously endanger myself or someone else
--- how in hell can you shoot yourself?  imagine turtle'ing with a 90 pound pack during an encounter with a brown bear, and being unable to free your arms from the pack straps; I'm pretty sure I'd be ok with accidentally shooting myself in the knee with bear spray; not so much with a .44 mag.
-- I know a number of people for whom it's been effective

YMMV

Quoted:
http://www.adn.com/article/are-guns-more-effective-pepper-spray-alaska-bear-attack

-in 70 percent of maulings by bears in Alaska in the time period studied someone in the group was armed with a firearm-NOTE-study did not include bear encounters where the bear was shot to giblets before mauling anyone, so take that with a grain of salt
-in 92% of grizzly attacks and 90% of black bear attacks where pepper spray was used the pepper spray stopped the attack and in the other cases it looks like there were minor injuries and no deaths
-1983 test of firearms by forest service-did not involve actually shooting bears: 44 magnum handgun considered minimally effective, 357 and 45 (I assume 45acp) were inadequate. The newer 460 454 etc where not tested (obviously because they did not exist in 83). 458 Magnum with 510 grain was highest ranked in effectiveness for rifles, 375 H and H and 338 Win Mag also did well 30-06 220 grain considered marginelly effective. 12 gauge was deemed effective with slugs, but not with buckshot.