Among their conclusions were 1) that “firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters with bears whether they used their firearms or not,” and 2) that “bear spray a better success rate under a variety of situations … than firearms.” For the first time, bear researchers had provided compelling statistical evidence that firearms were less effective in protecting individuals against bear attacks than many folks previously believed, including the researchers themselves. In March 2012, the Journal of Wildlife Managementpublished Tom Smith and Stephen Herrero’s “ Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska.” The paper’s prosaic title didn’t prevent it from grabbing headlines around the country. But while everyone from veteran guides to Second Amendment zealots has sounded off against the superiority of spray over guns, a survey of recent studies only reinforces the arguments in favor of pepper spray. Such claims aren’t without merit, or controversy. If you went with C you may be among the converted who believe a growing body of research suggesting that non-lethal deterrents aren’t just a feel-good alternative for animal-loving liberals, but a field-tested defense strategy backed up by hard data. If you’re leaning toward B, you’re probably a bear-country veteran with a lot of faith in, and probably decent skill with, firearms. If you picked A, you just made the bear’s dinner menu. 30/06 and level it between said griz’s eyes or C) quick-draw your hip-holstered canister of pepper spray. You, A) turn screaming and bolt past your buddies B) unshoulder your. Imagine: You’re on a backpacking trip in Alaska, bushwhacking along an overgrown trail, when-hey now!-you’re up close and personal with a 400-pound griz.
0 kommentar(er)
