LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksSee there, now you're thinking... ...might not be the absolute best solution but its a start! A stick may serve just as well!Originally Posted by Splash
See there, now you're thinking... ...might not be the absolute best solution but its a start! A stick may serve just as well!
Can we assume that there's a picnic basket in the back of the van?
A gun would be useful though in that case,as a backup.
However,this was still quite interesting though:
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/gun...nst-bears.html
http://www.heraldextra.com/news/loca...#ixzz1p8MhZj7M
A study conducted by BYU professor Tom Smith has generated a rather surprising result. He studied reported bear attacks in Alaska from 1883 to 2009 and said the outcomes of 269 attacks were similar regardless of whether a weapon was fired or not.
“We look at those who never fire a shot and they had about the same ratio of injuries as those who did fire. We found no difference in the outcome. We did find a difference in the outcome for bears though; 172 were killed when firearms were used.” (Source: Herald Extra)
Of particular concern for the safety of people is the false sense of security carrying a gun provides, because it may lead to a belief a gun is all that is necessary for defense, and cause a disregard for learning important things like the appropriate and inappropriate behavior when encountering a wild bear. Some of the things that are advised when walking in bear habitat are:
constantly make noise to prevent startling a bear, which is one of the main causes of bear attacks
don’t walk in known bear country alone
don’t feed bears or knowingly camping in areas with bears that have been fed, and stay out of areas where it is known mother bears with cubs frequent.
don’t run when a bear charges
If you still think a gun might be useful, consider the fact that some people can’t aim and fire accurately when being charged by a bear due to fear, which may cause trembling or a loss of concentration. Also, guns sometimes jam, or gun operators fumble with the safety to switch it off, and lose their best chance to fire. The BYU research found about one-fifth of the gun carriers couldn’t bring themselves to fire at a bear that was close to them, because they didn’t want to kill it.
With pepper spray on the other hand, people had no hesitancy to use it. And bears may learn to stay away from humans if they associate the tremendous pain of pepper spray in the eyes with them. It seems the most sensible approach is simply to stay out of their territory altogether and leave them in peace.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/gun...#ixzz2Ni71N5KB
PROVO -- BYU professor Tom Smith has been studying bears and bear attacks for years, but his latest study has results that may surprise you. Smith has found that firing a gun during a bear attack may not protect a person anymore than bear spray or simply being smart in bear country.
The study is based on reported bear attacks in Alaska from 1883 to 2009. Smith said the outcomes of 269 bear attacks were relatively similar regardless of whether a person fired or even carried a gun.
"We look at those who never fire a shot and they had about the same ratio of injuries as those who did fire. We found no difference in the outcome," Smith said. "We did find a difference in the outcome for bears though; 172 were killed when firearms were used."
Data shows that when people use a gun in a bear attack the outcome is successful more than 75 percent of the time and Smith says that rate is likely higher because successful incidents aren't always reported.
Smith says the take-away of the study should not be that guns aren't a useful tool in warding off bear attacks but that there are other methods that are just as effective.
"The main point is that if you ignore conventional wisdom for how to be safe in bear country, the next mistake is thinking you are going to shoot your way out of bad situation," Smith said. "Guns are cumbersome and heavy, a kill shot is difficult and you will be under severe pressure. The main focus is if you avoid bear encounters you won't have to worry about making a perfect kill shot."
John Shivik, mammal program coordinator for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, says bear attacks in Utah are rare but that people still need to be cautious of the predators that call Utah's mountains home.
"Bears, lions or wolves are out there and the real take-home message is that these are predators, they kill things for a living so we should respect them but not fear them," Shivik said. It's a better approach to not get into a tough situation, and Shivik says he thinks Smith's research highlights that.
Some of the tips for staying safe in bear country include hiking in groups, making appropriate noise, keeping food and food odors away from tents and people and carrying some sort of deterrent with you whether it be a gun or bear spray.
Keeping calm is also a good idea, experts say.
"Talking in a calm voice, not moving when the bear's coming toward you, giving the bear a chance to think things over and realize you're not threatening," bear expert John Hechtel, a former Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologist, told The Associated Press. "A lot of times that will resolve the situation."
Smith says in more than 650 documented cases of bear encounters in Alaska there is not a single case where a bear attacked a group of two or more people. He also says that making noise as you round bends and enter areas of poor visibility will help keep from startling animals.
Smith says when hiking he carries bear spray, which is much like pepper spray that makes a loud hissing noise and creates a mist that often scares bears away.
"Utah has been fortunate to have very few black bear encounters but people have to assess their own risk," Smith said. "There is a chance that a bear could see a single hiker and want to kill them, so why wouldn't you want to be prepared for the rare but possible chance? Carrying bear spray is a layer of protection so if you run into something you can spray it."
Both Smith and Shivik agree that those trained and skilled with guns should carry them if it makes them feel safer but not to rely on the gun as an out of a bad situation.
"If people are well trained and safe a gun is a tool, just like your voice is a tool. If you are using a gun they are a tool, not an end all," Shivik said. "Seeing a bear is not a dangerous thing; in fact, that is a neat thing and people need to respond appropriately to the situation and not overreact and just start shooting. These are animals that we should respect but not fear and if you keep in the frame of mind you will probably act appropriately."
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 16-03-2013 at 02:49 PM.
Ok. Viable you say... Well, im not an expert in bear avoidance tactics, but as there are bears in zoos' i can see there must be ways to control them. So, heres a few ideas....
1. A sonic emitter (detterant).
2. A tranquiliser dart.
3. Avoiding areas with dangerous animals.
4. Building an interlocking steel fence around towns in polar bear regions.
5. Driving in vehicles that are designed to prevent attacks by large animals. (http://gallery.mailchimp.com/b721df1...Island_ATV.jpg)
6. Scientific study to best determine different methods of deterring them. (Things like having a bottle of Tigers urine for example).
These are just off the top of my head.
Educating people! A good one i should have thought of.
You are aware, I presume, that the shotgun Tony Martin used was ILLEGAL.
Martin's case was very much a one-off. First, part of the reason he went to jail was for firearms offences. Second, his murder conviction was quashed by the appeal court. Third, there were several very dubious decisions taken by his defence lawyers in the original trial, not least that of not challenging Fearon's testimony, despite it having changed several times, something the trial jury were never told. Fourth, the prosecution case was based on a theory of Martin having deliberately ambushed the burglars, and forensic evidence failing to show shotgun residue where Martin claimed to have fired from casting doubt on his version. But, by the time of the appeal, subsequent forensic testing did indeed show shotgun residues exactly where it would have been had Martin fired from where he said he did. Again, the jury never knew this. Finally, the reason the conviction was quashed was on the basis of medical evidence, accepted by the appeal court, of the diminished capacity of Martin due to his mental state at the time.
So .... a conviction that was quashed on the basis of use of a shotgun held illegally by a man with diminidhed mental responsibiluty is hardly a convincing argument for gun control laws, as he was already bsnned from holding guns, and ina vountry that already has very strict gun laws, and where, even then, forensic evidence at the least casts doubt on the original prosecution theory of deliberate ambush.
Would Martin be convicted again, today, based on the same facts? Very doubtful, in my opinion.
csgohan4 (16-03-2013)
1 may equally well scare or antagonise a bear. That one needs research. You volunteering for the trials?
2. The tranq. Well, first off, it's a single shot weapon. So don't miss. Second, The amount of tranq. required to stop a charging bear, in a few seconds you have, given the bear could be half a ton of 8 foot tall muscle, claws and bad attitude, would probably kill near anything else. And you need a tranq that drops it more of less on the spot, not one that takes a minute or two to work. Exact dosage will be critical. Enough to drop a big bear may kill a smaller (or female) one, and one suited for a smaller bear may merely pee off a big one.
3. Good idea. Unless the bear wanders into your back yard.
4. Fence? Really? I wonder what several miles of fence capable of stopping half a ton of black bear would cost? And, what about roads .... cars have to get in and out of town. Suppose the bear goes round the fence where the cars go through?
5. Not a help unless you're in it.
6. Maybe. Please advise, a) where to find a tiger in northern US states, and b), how to convince it to pee in a bottle.
Okay, I'm not wholly serious with 6.
Jay (16-03-2013)
All good points, but i think in your answer, you've missed 'my' point. Merely that there are always other ways at looking at a problem. Not just the 'shoot first, think later' approach, which is no more effective than most of the options i have suggested. As for the fence idea: firstly, i'd like to see a bear traverse a cattle grid. Secondly, the fence doesnt have to be heavy duty necessarily, it was only a thought. Merely being electrified would probably work well enough, and thats a pretty inexpensive solution.1 may equally well scare or antagonise a bear. That one needs research. You volunteering for the trials?
2. The tranq. Well, first off, it's a single shot weapon. So don't miss. Second, The amount of tranq. required to stop a charging bear, in a few seconds you have, given the bear could be half a ton of 8 foot tall muscle, claws and bad attitude, would probably kill near anything else. And you need a tranq that drops it more of less on the spot, not one that takes a minute or two to work. Exact dosage will be critical. Enough to drop a big bear may kill a smaller (or female) one, and one suited for a smaller bear may merely pee off a big one.
3. Good idea. Unless the bear wanders into your back yard.
4. Fence? Really? I wonder what several miles of fence capable of stopping half a ton of black bear would cost? And, what about roads .... cars have to get in and out of town. Suppose the bear goes round the fence where the cars go through?
5. Not a help unless you're in it.
6. Maybe. Please advise, a) where to find a tiger in northern US states, and b), how to convince it to pee in a bottle.
Okay, I'm not wholly serious with 6.
Oh, and your answer to 1: yeah probably, but scaring it is what the intention! Antagonise - certainly, i agree it would have to be tested. It may be very effective. Or not.
Having a gun doesn't mean you have to have a "shoot first, think later" attitude, any more than having one at home means you have to blast away at burglars .... or your girlfriend if she goes to the bathroom in the middle of the night. But it does mean you have an extra option, over your choices if you have a burglar and don't have a gun in the home.
Unfortunately either way Guns have a poor outcome when it enters an equation, Pistorius for example or victims being jailed for defending their own properties.
No matter how much you educate your citizens about responsibility, there will be some muppet who is trigger happey and guns down innocent civilians. Having more restricted access or stringent background checks and up to date ownership licenses i.e current address, number e.t.c so people can track you down.
Trust ProfileHEXUS Forum FAQ and Colour coding/Post Count awards
'The Fox is cunning and relentless, and has got his Fibre Optic Broadband'
If you take a gun in the woods because of bears, just in case - it so you can wave it at the bear and say 'SHOO!' is itIm not saying that people who have a gun will use it. Im saying the People who have one to 'protect themselves' are either reluctant to consider alternatives, or just bloody minded.
Interesting Devil's Advocate there. As South Africa claims to have a degree of vetting regards gun ownership, and Pistorius held a police license for the pistol he shot and killed his partner with (and had allegedly held 6 other unlicensed firearms which he'd applied for licenses for) where does this leave the whole argument with regards the idea that responsible gun owners are nothing to worry about?
I'd say that if Pistorius didn't hold that pistol (which was licensed) he'd have found it much trickier to shoot his girlfriend to death accidentally. Maybe he'd have used a golf club or similar? If so he'd have had to have got much closer, and that would make the mistaken identity angle much harder to sell.
yay double post!
EDIT - ah, sod it. My post count has gone up by one so I might as well make my point.
Had Dick Cheney (again, licensed) not been playing at Elmer Fudd then he'd have struggled to shoot Harry Whittington in 2006. No scary bears or terrismists involved.
I've never carried a gun beyond a laser pistol. I've never fatally nor seriously injured anyone.
Last edited by Splash; 16-03-2013 at 07:32 PM.
Please stop referring to Pistorius. He's not yet been found guilty.
And that's where we disagree, pretty much all through this thread. You keep attributing simplustic motivations to entire groups. It's rarely that simple. Some people may think a gun in the woods means they're invulnerable. Others will be well-trained, disciplined, and treat it as a last resort, once and only once all else has failed.If you take a gun in the woods because of bears, just in case - it so you can wave it at the bear and say 'SHOO!' is it
My 'generalised' comments i agree are a bit too simplistic. But we arent talking about individual behaviour of gun users, we're talking about the reason why 'people' have a need for guns. Its hard to be specific about a cultural behaviour. If we were talking about the motivations of an individual however, it would be a different kettle of fish.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote