If you will recall, I brought you a story last week about Vic Workman a member of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks commission, who was attacked by a grizzly bear while hunting. Workman said in a “nanosecond” a very big grizzly attacked him and his only split-second reaction was to fire his rifle from the hip to ward off the bear. Workman escaped without injury but as part of the ordeal, he made comments that if he had been carrying bear spray and if he had taken the time to put his rifle down in order to take out the bear spray, he would be dead. This has set off a firestorm of criticism from those who advocate for the use of bear spray over guns.
Maybe there’s really more to this effort to promote bear spray over guns than just plain old public safety. According to an article in the Missoulian, Chris Servheen, a Montana bear biologist, said that Workman’s comments “are detrimental to grizzly conservation and human safety in bear country”.
In a previous article I did, I questioned whether there was sufficient studies and testing results in order for authorities to be claiming that using bear spray is safer than a gun. Obviously those people venturing into grizzly bear country and not on a big game hunting outing, should carry something for protection. I personally believe there has not been enough complete studies to show that when a person is carrying a high-powered rifle in their hands, that the most effective means of self-protection is to put down the rifle and grab a can of spray. And this leads me to wonder what’s really behind this promotion of bear sprays over guns?
When a Montana bear biologist alludes to the statement that Workman’s comments are bad for bear conservation, I can’t help but wonder if this person is all that concerned about Workman’s or anyone else’s safety over that of the bear. I’m sure the last thing on Workman’s mind as this grizzly was attacking was what could he do to ensure the protection of the grizzly bear in the state of Montana.
One of the comments Workman made said he would opt for a gun over bear spray every time.
“These people who think that they’re safe with bear spray, I’m here to tell them it’s a false sense of security,†he said. “The spray is better than nothing, but I’ll choose a firearm every time.â€
Much of the point that is being made is the fact that when hunters, like Workman, go into the woods, the years of experience they have in the use of a rifle isn’t going to suddenly be put aside and replaced by a can of bear spray that many don’t feel is more effective than a bullet.
This brings me back to my original stance on bear spray – it just hasn’t been proven thoroughly enough to convince the hunting crowd. As I reported previously, the study that authorities refer to in recommending bear spray is incomplete and inconclusive. Here’s what I wrote before.
A closer look at the results could lead someone to render different results because they omitted results from within the same survey. Those conducting the study admit that the data is limited and that the number of incidences for unarmed people with pepper spray is considerably less than reported attacks on hunters. Also, if you examine the graph provided, I could say that if you want to increase your chances of living to tell your family and friends about your attack by a grizzly, ditch the pepper spray and carry a gun. 56% of grizzly attacks on those without a gun resulted in death while only 44% of those who were armed with a gun died.
That data came from the U.S. Forest Service website information (a pdf file).
I think that it is unfortunate first of all, that states like Montana have opted to prematurely jump on this bear spray bandwagon. Servheen, in this same article, chastises Workman saying his comments were irresponsible.
“It was a totally irresponsible thing to say,†Servheen said. “We spend a lot of time teaching people how to be safe in bear territory, and having someone in a position of authority make those comments is contrary to everything we teach people about the value of spray and the effectiveness of its use in close-encounter situations.â€
I believe it is just as irresponsible for those in authority to be so absolute in the promotion of the spray. We are talking about public safety here, aren’t we? Or is this more about saving the grizzly bear? Or promoting bear spray? What other governmental agency would move so quickly to promote a product that hasn’t been fully tested? Isn’t it irresponsible to state broadly that bear spray is more effective than a gun, period? Yes, there are always exceptions to everything but once again, there are no hard data to fully support this claim.
I think the agencies should be educating and promoting the use of spray for all those using the woods in grizzly bear country that are not armed with a sufficient caliber gun but until time that sufficient studies can be done that can convince hunters to put down their weapon and pick up the spray, I think hunters will opt for what they know will protect them.
I ask again. This is about saving the life of a man over saving a grizzly bear? Isn’t it?
Tom Remington
