Bear Attack Victim: I wish I had a gun

[AZAK]

I would not go alone in griz country

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm...nbear.rangemap

[Alaska444]

That's interesting that Nome is in the middle of grizzly country. We never thought of grizzly when we were out running around the tundra as kids sometimes as far as 10 miles out of nome on our bikes.

Times were different, the bears left us alone in those days for some reason. I don't think I would let my kids run around in Alaska the way that we did as kids. Times are different for both two legged and four legged predators.

[Alaska444]

Today, 12:20 AM #125
JohnKSa
Staff

Join Date: February 11, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 15,661
The problem is that you provided another source, earlier in the thread, on page 12. (http://www.ade.az.gov/sa/msp/RCT.pdf)

It points out that even when a true random controlled trial can't be carried out, it is possible to do studies such as "comparison group" studies. Such studies are capable of, per the source you provided, of "producing valuable knowledge, and may be a good alternative" to more controlled trials. They also, per the same source, generally provide overall results that are accurate, and only "in some instances" produce "erroneous overall conclusions".

Basically, what that source, that you provided earlier says, is what you have proven you believe by quoting portions of the studies in support of your position. They provide valuable knowledge and can be a good alternative to more rigidly controlled testing, producing overall results that are generally accurate and only in some instances erroneous.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
Check out Black Bear Flashlights.

Dear JohnSKa,

I am only trying to give another view from my professional perspective of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of medical studies for about 30 years now. Yes, there are several types of research study methods. In the prior links, some of the sites went into the various types of studies including retrospective case series, randomized and controlled trials and also observational studies with case controls.

All of these studies are still retrospective case series without any controls. The only study that they try to promote as a case control study is Tom Smith's gun study where he looked at outcomes where people with guns shot and people with guns did not shoot. He is trying to make the case that the encounters were the same, but not shooting had the same outcome as shooting.

That is a bit of a stretch in my mind asserting and assuming that the encounters were essentially the same in both cohorts. It is more likely that the cases where people with guns did not shoot were not in as immediate danger as in the cases where they did shoot. I suspect he is in essence comparing apples to oranges. That is what he alleges anyway.

In any case, the DLP study is important because it does not support that hypothesis. It is contradictory evidence against the pepper spray is better than guns hypothesis. And yes, once again, it cannot by itself answer that same question either.

You could assemble an observational controlled trial without randomization and conduct a case controlled prospective study based on people's preference for guns vs pepper spray. There are people that spend a great deal of time in the boonies and only carry pepper spray. You could likewise assemble a group of folks that only carry guns.

However, it is likely that the behavior of the people in these two groups would be substantially different in that those that carry guns would be more likely to engage in hunting activities which is one of the most dangerous activities greatly increasing the risk of bear attack. Think about it, folks hiding, staying quiet and avoiding being upwind from critters aborts the usual tips to the bear that people are nearby. This dramatically increases the risk of surprise encounters which are the most dangerous of all.

Even this hypothetical study design would have many built in biases that would likely render the data inaccurate as well.

We are stuck with the current data as the best available, yet within these studies, is conflicting evidence with truly no way to settle the question. Since both methods have definite strengths and weaknesses, the only answer is to carry both, but further to truly understand where one has weaknesses and the other has strengths.

While none of these studies can give conclusive proof, common sense would dictate that there are conditions where you should avoid one and use the other. Determining that comes from understanding the details of the researchers finding as well as combining that with experience and personal knowledge.

As I have stated before, these studies are valuable, but ultimately not designed to answer all of the questions. Carry both and think through different scenarios ahead of time just as we do with CCW. Training and practice and learning all you can is all that we can do. Avoidance techniques and bring someone to enjoy the experience with you are probably much more important than pepper spray or guns.

JohnSKa, I hope that this is helpful. It is a complex issue especially for folks that may not be familiar with different study designs. Once again, I am just trying to give a different perspective from my professional background of reading and studying and applying medical research studies to my own career. The bear researchers use the same type of methods in their research as well.

Take care. We will be off canoeing again today. After a month of unusual thunder storms, we are finally getting "normal" summer Idaho weather for the next few days anyway.

God bless,

Alaska444

[JohnKSa]

All of these studies are still retrospective case series without any controls.

First of all even without any controls, some of your sources clearly indicate, as you note, that such studies can provide valuable information.

Second, we're not trying to establish the same things nor to the same level of confidence that a medical study is.

1. The first order of business in a medical study is to insure that the intervention is better than doing nothing at all. The assumption is that things have deteriorated to the point that the person involved is GOING to do SOMETHING so we don't care about what happens when we do nothing at all, we merely want to know which of the two interventions (spraying or shooting) most often results in the uninjured survival of the persons involved.

2. We don't need to establish absolute effectiveness/efficacy as in a medical study, all we need to know is which approach most often leaves the defender uninjured.

3. There's no need to rigorously establish causality, all we want to know is what has worked well in the past. We all understand that there are no guarantees that our encounter will go smoothly simply because we picked the tactic that has worked most often in the past, but it still makes sense to have that data available as opposed to simply guessing, speculating or opining as to which approach might be best.

4. We are not concerned with quantizing small differences in the outcome probabilities. If there's not much difference then it's moot--no need to try to grind it out to find a winner. Similarly, if there is a significant difference, then the exact magnitude of the difference isn't really important. Either way, correctly quantizing small differences isn't important to us.

5. There is a good case to be made that if one is careful in selecting the encounters to study (all encounters over a given time period in a given area involving the same type of bear and same type of bear behavior) that comparing sprayings to shootings is a somewhat controlled comparison given that all of the pertinent variables are covered and the ones that aren't don't matter. Again, since it's only the difference in the two outcomes that's important, and it's only important if the difference is large, a lot of the normal limitations of retrospective studies are moot.

6. We don't have to make this an exclusive choice. We generally have the option to carry both spray and a gun. Generally a medical professional isn't going to have the same flexibility to simply choose both treatment options when confronted with a decision.

7. Finally given the fact that it's not possible to do more controlled testing, these studies provide all the information we're going to get on the topic. It's much more productive to find ways to make use of the data than to try to discount it. There's obviously valuable information contained in the data sets and in the individual encounters.

[Alaska444]

Dear JohnSKa,

I truly wish that medical studies were much more rigorous in all cases. Sadly, a lot of what we look at is case reports and case series since the other type of studies are quite expensive and difficult to conduct. Plenty of case series in the medical literature. That is why I knew that case series are limited in scope of interpretation. It is the same method precisely used in medical case series studies. There are universal scientific methodologies we all use through a wide spectrum of disciplines.

These retrospective case series studies are the best evidence we have to date and I am satisfied and glad that pepper spray is efficacious. How good it is? No one really knows. John, that is really all I was trying to point out. I am also comforted by the 1/71 injuries in the DLP study. Not absolute proof of the magnitude of benefit, but still useful and hopefully folks will not leave their guns at home when they gather up the pepper spray.

As the OP stated, I wished I had a gun. Forgive me if I haven't made my points clearly and succinctly.

Great day at the lake today. Idaho is beautiful and glad to be here. Be safe out there, bears are out and about. Hopefully they don't run into me when I am out and about.

God bless,

Alaska444

[American Made]

Very good thread and information.

I live in North Idaho and we do have bear issues at times. The issue is the training of the person being attacked, imo. No training = dinner for bear.

My only time in my life when I thought i was dinner was in Morro bay California. I was swimming in the ocean and felt something move the water underneath my feet. I said " just great, a freakin great white shark! " Luckily, this seal popped up right next to me and almost caused my heart to stop. No more ocean for this country boy!

Against a bear I would stick with my firearms. Just because I can shoot pretty well and would not want the wind to blow spray in my eyes.

As far as fighting and not playing dead? I think that depends. If the bear is charging your chance of playing linebacker is slim. However, if the bear stands up then you may have the advantage with throwing rocks, tree stumps, etc. But...once the bear lands one single paw the match is over.

Play dead and let the bear bit on your head and shoulders? Fight and hope the bear leaves? I don't think someone could just let something eat them for dinner.

[Al Den]

I would offer the bear a lift to Morro Bay, Calif. Make him sit in the trunk or ride shotgun...

[American Made]

I put my money on the shark. After I had my almost heart attack some people told us that they have BIG sharks in the waters around that area. I can just see my local newspaper " Idaho resident that camps and hunts around wolves and bear finally meets his match in California."

This took place just outside of Morro bay.
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/aug...cal/me-shark21

How do you defend against that? No thanks..

[Al Den]

A California university sociology professor. Poor shark.

[youngunz4life]

you don't need a tag (in any state) if the bear is in your backyard and 'threatening' to you, right? Notice threatening used loosely for the question...

[youngunz4life]

I know if it is endangered you can't just kill said bear(TFL thread regarding man who was defending livestock and was arrested), but I guess you have more leeway if bear is near your home...

[dorc-1]

I know if it is endangered you can't just kill said bear(TFL thread regarding man who was defending livestock and was arrested), but I guess you have more leeway if bear is near your home...

What does all this have to do with Sharks? I see that one bit a surfer in half over in Australia. Guy on a jet ski tried to p/u the other half of the body, but the shark took it away from him. He should have been armed.

[dorc-1]

Another genius injured while hiking in Alaska with his dog by sow with her mature cubs. Carried no gun or spray and crossed private land following an old utility road with 6 foot high grass on either side. He didn't see the bear till it was 5' away. She was probably relaxing in her daybed with the cubs. Owner of the private land didn't say anything to him as he crossed, but said he doesn't even mow his lawn without a gun. In this instance, guns or spray wouldn't have made any difference. He should have had enough sense to stay off a road or a trail like that with no clear line of sight. And leave the dog home. Bears hate dogs.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/nat...osition=recent

[Alaska444]

While we have raging debates of Pepper Spray vs Guns on these forums, the sad truth is that a lot of folks mauled carry neither and exhibit cavalier attitudes prior to the attack.

Come on, the owner warns you, "look out for bear" and then you go wading through six foot tall brush with no gun, no pepper spray. Why bother calling 911 at that point, it was a disaster waiting to happen.

As many have stated, avoidance is your best bear defense. I hope this man recovers quickly and then seeks better information before resuming his daily hikes. Thanks for the link.

[Al Den]

People who would beware a large, domesticated, dog seem to have no qualms about disregarding the danger of cute wild bears. Another noble savage for their blog.

Frankly, they deserve everything they get and more. Sorry. Darwin's Principle they think they are exempt from. The Law of the Jungle over which they feel they have immunity. Call it fate, just deserts, reality, whatever...

I believe in the right to keep and arm bears!

[Double Naught Spy]

While we have raging debates of Pepper Spray vs Guns on these forums, the sad truth is that a lot of folks mauled carry neither and exhibit cavalier attitudes prior to the attack.

And that brings us full circle back to the aunt, nieces, and dog you opened the thread with. She had that attitude as well and that was more of her problem than anything else. Her dog was not on a leash and while dogs are great for helping with moutain lions, they can really antagonizing for bears. She had two youngsters with her, but they didn't have pepper spray. Why? The 13 year old certianly should have had some, but did not. The 9 year old could have had as well. Okay, the aunt had her bear spray and managed to get it out and made one spray, but then she then she dropped it. Weapons do no good when you don't have them with you.

Oh sure, she had time to fish around in her pack for mac n cheese to throw at the bear and she had time to fish the bug spray from the dog's pack, but no time to get the bear spray she dropped.

This guy probably wished he had a gun as well. No doubt he would still have been calling 911 from 30 feet up in a tree and bleeding badly at the time if he would have had a gun because he didn't have time to use his bear spray and so he would not have had time to use a gun. Of course, his bear spray was in his backpack and he could not get to it and he lost his pack in the process. However, since he had his phone in his pocket on his person, he was able to call for help.

This first article notes that bear spray was no help. Of course not. If you don't use it, it can't be any help.
http://article.wn.com/view/2012/06/1...spray_no_help/
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...orage-resident
Initial 911 calls...
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...by-brown-bear/

What is interesting is that he was alone on the trail, said he was calling out to let bears know he was there, but said they probably could not hear him because of the rushing of the water...which means he could not hear them. He rounded a cornder and surprised a cub...and then momma responded to the threat.

Ironically, the backpack protected him more than his ski poles or his bear spray, but only because it was extra layers of protection.

You are right. Cavalier attitudes are what get people into trouble. Beyond that, weapons you no longer have will never help you on their own. I know that sounds ironic, but once you drop or otherwise lose your weapon, whatever advantage it might have offered you ceases to exist. Or if like Steve Stevenson and you are helping a buddy track down a wounded bear both of you misidentified and then don't use your own gun to defend yourself when you attract its attention from your buddy and it protects itself from you, it doesn't do you any good. It does less good when your buddy, Ty Bell, who landed the original poor shot on the mistakenly identified bear then kills you while shooting the bear that is defending itself from attackers.

I think you are hitting on a major point here that is often common amongst the animal attack threads you post - cavalier attitudes before the events. Far too many people are unprepared before the events occur, find themselves in an event and react poorly, and in many cases the events turn out poorly because of the cascade of problems that occurred that really all started via their cavalier attitudes.

[Alaska444]

Dear DNS,

I most certainly agree with your last paragraph, but the lady DID have pepper spray as her protection device which is way ahead of many bear attack stories you here about. It simply didn't work. She at least had it and had the wits to do whatever she had to do to save her life and the kids. In the end if we look at outcomes, she did good and could have done better if she had a gun. I suspect the gun is going to be the first thing she takes in the future.

Going into bear country without any preparation is not only foolish, it is dangerous.

[Double Naught Spy]

But just having the weapon with you is not enough. Having the weapon and not having access to it, not using it, losing it, not getting it back, etc., you can't claim the lady would have done any better losing her gun than she did losing her pepper spray. Lots of people use guns or fail to use guns properly with poor results. As noted early in the thread, there are lots of folks injured and killed by bears shot or shot at just once just like the aunt's initial use of the pepper spray. As you claimed the studies were invalid saying pepperspray worked so well, you failed to cite the studies supporting your view that guns work better. Guns might work better, or not, but you failed to ever provide the data, so you can't say she would have been better off any more than you can say Steve Stevenson was better off.