OT: Bear safety--what's the REAL deal?

[MauiRob]

Uwinv go over to the Community Forum and find one of Vampire Gerbils post's. The Great Vamp handles the world's best pepper spray according to the Great Himself. There's a link at the bottom of his posts taking you to the place you want to visit. Vamp wrote quite an article on being sprayed with different pepper sprays and says this stuff is straight from the furnaces of hell

Thanks Edutsi Can't beat a recommendation from someone who's actually TRIED the pepper spray on themselves! I'll check it out...

Rob, I think you will be fine in the Tetons, in fact I would be amazed if you even see a bear. If you head into Yellowstone you might see a black bear or two. I would recommend you get a few cans of Counter Assault- in Glacier my dad had to mace a grizzley...I came pretty close. As long as you make some noise: shout or clap your hands, the bears should leave you alone. The day when we had close encounters was a very windy day- the bears couldn't smell us or hear us. I love the Tetons and Yellowstone, if you fish take a trip to the Firehole river. Have a good trip

Thanks L.R. Yeah, I think it'll be fine. I generally have good sense about animals and their body language, and add to that a strong desire to live = good chance of avoiding trouble. I bought a whistle (mostly for search and rescue aid) that is ungodly loud--loud enough so that if you blow it with both ears plugged your ears still hurt! I'm sure that would give the bear pause, if not I'll spray em.

 

[Ferrous Wheel]

but this thread's gettinng 'grizzly.'

Keith

 

[firkin]

Check the label before you buy.

Always a good idea! Also note that "mace" (spray, not the spice from the nutmeg plant) at least the originals, is a pretty nasty, reactive, and fairly toxic substance. (typically some variety of alpha-chlorinated ketone if anyone cares). Lots of skin rash and allergic reactions possible. I've seen it happen to people using such substances in labs if they were careless. Don't know if they're still used. Hopefully pepper spray has totally replaced them.

If there's no nasty ingredients in the pepper spray, you can use a couple shots of the (hopefully) unused portion in the BBQ or smoker for that extra zippy flavor!

 

[Ferrous Wheel]

you could relabel a can of the pepper spray as "Breath Spray--Hot Cinnamon flavor"

Keith

 

[not2sharp]

Make sure your knife is engraved with your full name and address. It makes it much easier to identify the bear shat when they find a properly marked knife.

You may also want to see if the park offers bear proof primitive camping. Some of the parks have bear enclosures (like a roofed cage) that you can use in bear country. But, they fill up, so you may need to reserve a shelter in advance.

n2s

 

[ddean]

Originally posted by firkin ........If there's no nasty ingredients in the pepper spray, you can use a couple shots of the (hopefully) unused portion in the BBQ or smoker for that extra zippy flavor!

Not as crazy as it sounds.

Well, yeah, it is...........

But,

There was a program on the Food Channel
not long ago about hot sauces.

One manufacturer interviewed showed
a can and said it was the same pure
capiscum oil used to make pepper spray.

Claimed his hot sauce was the only legal high.
That it was so painful that the body released
a flood of endorphins (body's feel Good chemical)
and you float away on the pain.

Not my cup of tea. :barf:

 

[Federico]

Oooh..hurts soo good

 

[Semper Fi]

Originally posted by Bill Martino
It'll be plenty cool enough for a jacket. Stick a .44 magnum under the jacket or in your photo equipment bag and to hell with the rules.....

I would vote for a .454 Casull. That's if I couldn't lug a .50 cal Barrett with me.

 

[Semper Fi]

Originally posted by Yvsa
Uwinv go over to the Community Forum and find one of Vampire Gerbils post's.....

I checked out VG's website. I thought there were some sick puppies on this forum but this VG has some serious issues.

 

[Eikerværing]

Originally posted by munk
Good post, Eik.

Thanks Munk.

Originally posted by munk

What is it about noses with Bears and Sharks?

Some things about Nature puzzles me. If the sharks are supposed to be great predators, how come they get stunned by a gentle rub on the nose? And it is the same with us, if we were supposed to be great warriors in the good old paleolithic age then why did we end up having our testicles on the outside? Any woman can kick us in our balls and make us kneel! I know, our testicles had to go on the outside for keeping a below body temperature. So my guess is that both the bear and shark have a design flaw too. Probably something to do with the fact that they have a lot of sensitive nerve cells in those snouts for their sensitive sensing apparatus. Nature didn't find any other way of doing it, just like with our testicles. Amazing!

Originally posted by munk

No one I know wants to shoot a bear. They are tremendous, and I like having them around...

...I've listned and read about arguments pro and con and decide I agree with the folks.

My guess is that in USA there are more than enough bears some places and so they should be removed or hunted, while other places they still need to be protected so that they can spread out from there and reestablish themselves in their old territories.

Maybe American folks have a better attitude than the Norwegian folks when it comes to this. I can't compare Norway and America directly on this because our bears and other predators still need to grow in numbers to reestablish themselves. But in Norway we have a problem with so called predator haters among the folks. So here I go for the words of the scientists and not the politicians, green people or common folks. None of them think any further than their own noses. Well, I am quite green hearted myself but I do the scientific approach.

 

[munk]

Eik, the problem with many predators is the lack of unbroken wild land to allow 'natural' behavior. The Grizzly bear is less expansive in his needs, but there are episodes every year with man. The wolf requires much more space, and reproduces quickly. There are going to be real problems.

But in a thread about bear defense I wanted to give the great beast a thumbs up; I'm glad he's here, I wish we'd manage him with more common sense. Sell a few bear permits at 20,000 dollars each and send a few bullets their way. Reestablish a good reason for fear of man. And relax the crazed, over zealous legal attack of any poor smuck unlucky enough to shoot one in self defense. Frankly, allow self defense in National Parks. That's right.

This bear is not called 'terrible' without reason. A black bear can live a few miles from men. A coyote can live over the back yard fence and eat the big mac left overs in the trash, as well as Ceci the poodle if she's left out too long. But a Brown Bear is unpredictable and top of the food chain. He has unmatched power and ferocity. He is a locomotive bastard and nothing you want brousing while you and your family are eating a picnic nearby.

In America we're Bambized. Maybe if these were African Lions they'd get it through their baby in wonderland brains that this is nothing to play around with.


munk

 

[munk]

lemme add this; it is upsidedown, assbackward logic to legally harvest a big game animal only to allow a grizzly to take it from you. If the Grizzly is eating your buck or doe, then obviously the 'experiment' is not working. How in the hell is the bear supposed to know that if you're willing to give him your meat your three year old son wouldn't be a nice desert too?


Stupid stupid stupid. Then what? "Gee, the bear killed my best friend and maimed my son...guess you'll have to 'put him down.' We are supposed to bend over backwards to the point of death.

Men are more important than this. If the bear was a 'drunk' we'd say we were enabling him. If he was a felon we'd say we were soft on crime and encouraging him to murder.

munk

 

[munk]

I would vote for a .454 Casull. That's if I couldn't lug a .50 cal Barrett with me. Semper Fi

Hey Semper; do you own a Casul?



A Barrett would be great fun here. There is enough unbroken space I could play old washingmachine kill at 1000 yards.



munk

 

[MauiRob]

According to a book I have called "Wildlife Watcher's Guide-Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks"

"..during Yellowstone's first 100 years (1872-1972) fewer than a dozen people were fatally mauled by bears, though scores of visitors were injured when they ventured too close to bruins that wanted to be left alone."

"..from 1931 to 1969, an average of 46 people were injured by bears in Yellowstone, and an average of 24 bears were killed each year."(my italics).

Combine shrunken habitat, people's idea that animals in parks are tame and approachable(and need to be feed sandwiches), and the bears subsequent belief that people=food source and you're bound to have trouble. The thing that burns my ass is that people like me (that don't approach wild animals closely, and NEVER feed them) might get ripped up because of the actions of these morons. We've all met them, and we've definetely all seen them. They're the ones who stand PAST the signs that say KEEP OUT.

Here's a story for you: my wife and I went to summit of Haleakala on Maui to catch the sunrise. A guy was sitting outide of a metal 3ft high fence that had several signs on it that said "KEEP OUT fragile native plants and animals". When the ranger asked him to get out he said "just let me have a few minutes to enjoy the sunrise" to which the ranger replied "GET OUT NOW!! or you'll ride home in a police car!" Made my day

People like that force the Rangers to impose strict rules that piss off considerate and careful park goers. But I have no doubt that the reason they make you have a trowel to bury you feces is because the people before you dropped a steamy one right on or next to the trail:barf:

It never ceases to amaze me the things people do when there are signs right there to tell them why they shouldn't do it! Inconsiderate, lazy, good for nothing sons of bitches, that ought to be taken out and shot in the face. Maybe THEN the A**HOLES would follow the rules and the parks wouldn't have to be so anal!

Tragedy of the commons--its so true in today's world!!!!!

Ahhhh, I feel much better now

 

[munk]

One, a hundred years ago bears were still shot at outside the park. They had fear.
Two, most injuries have occurred in last 20 years or so. Park is more visited. Multiple millions vs hundreds of thousands. And remember, statistically, tourists in cars and safe places will keep the stats low. The real stats are backwoods numbers not segregated from the overall visatation. Tricky, eh?
Three, deaths and injuries are going to be more frequent outside the park, where conflict with livestock and houses turn deadly by younger bears forced out of the Park.

The wildlife myopic vision people use these same stats over mountain lions, etc, which are disingenious when you consider the prevalence of hunting in yesteryear and the relative small size of development.

oh, wasn't it in the 70's that the women were killed in yellowstone by Bears? Uh huh. People putting out pamphlets don't have any agendas....yet they site their stats from 1872 to 1972. Why does it end in 72?
They stopped counting?
I hear you about idiots who make it bad for all of us. How many highway signs have bullet holes? How many new trails carved by quads? How many times have I hiked to oblivion only to find a f'.//!!23% beer can waiting for me on the ground!!? On the other hand, I also know many rules and regulations, like roadless access, destroy the forest. The guiding philosophy of forest managment is heavily one sided.

I do not believe the bear population numbers. These are the same agencies who manufactured data about the lynx (?) in another location to get it closed to men.

 

[MauiRob]

Yep,statistics are easy to manipulate.

I quoted those numbers to show that people make such a big deal out of attacks on people that are non-fatal, while many bears are killed as a result of those non-fatal attacks. Granted, the attacks probably wouldn't have occurred if that bears had their natural fear of humans and people kept their distance.

Numbers of attacks have to be looked at while considering several factors. #1 the number of bears #2 the number of visitors. The statistics have to take into account the two totals. The 1872-1972 numbers could be exactly the same as now, IF you look at the number of visitors vs. number of attacks. My guess is the attack #'s have risen proportionately with the # of visitors. But I do think your hunting theory will skew the figures, and people's attitudes toward safe--food-free camping and bear feeding, Plus the parks management philosophy with respect to bears.

You have to wonder...how many attacks would be averted if the person fired off one .44 magnum round into the ground when a bear showed signs of charging? I bet most if not all of them. That's one hell of a noise to an animal who doesn't know what it is---hell, it'd make me have damp trousers myself

 

[munk]

Yes, I agree. The attacks I'm mostly concerned with are in the backcountry. They've largely stopped feeding the bears so a lot of car attacks are probably gone. At any rate,` the people who get out of their vehicles, walk to within three yards of a male Buffalo, as I've personally witnessed, do not deserve to be included in any serious analysis of risks. You don't count lemmings jumping off the cliff the same as those making a living on land, do you?

There are more backcountry travelors. That is the meaningfull number. The amount of cars on the highway is nothing.

Rob, people do use airhorns. I'd think if a bear knew what a gunshot was- pain- it would work. What happens though if he thinks a gunshot means a down deer for him to eat?

Bringing a harmonica has occured to me, though I'm not sure if I should play it frequently, or only after a bear gets too close. If he hears the harp would he be curious and come closer? Not good, i'm thinking. If he's already close, would he leave, or get mad because I wasn't playing, "InnaGodadevita"??

munk

 

[Bill Martino]

Beat threads always generate a lot of action.

 

[munk]

Yeah, the Beat generation left it's impact, alright. Bear threads are good too. Only thing left undone is the beet thread.


munk

 

[firkin]

the people who get out of their vehicles, walk to within three yards of a male Buffalo, as I've personallywitnessed, do not deserve to be included in any serious analysis of risks.

Ever see the cartoon depicting a long, spindly gantry barely supporting a tiny platfrom bearing two fat tourists? Inches underneath a huge killer whale's open mouth was waiting for them to drop in a tiny fish. "If it wasn't safe they wouldn't let us do it"

What happens though if he thinks a gunshot means a down deer for him to eat?

Exactly.

Some of the parks have bear enclosures (like a roofed cage) that you can use in bear country. But, they fill up, so you may need to reserve a shelter in advance.

Neat, so it's sort of like a zoo that the nocturnal forest animals can vist and see undisturbed sleeping humans in their natural state. Hate it when those bears muck everything up and interfere with human behavior!

These are the same agencies who manufactured data about the lynx (?) in another location to get it closed to men.

That was quite a mess!

version (a): Somebody surreptitiously planted lynx hair in the field with intent to deceive, it was then collected by a researcher and sent to a genitics laboratory and identified by PCR. Who exactly released the data to the media? Researcher or lab? Can't recall.
Conclusion--evil, duplicitious agency researchers fabricating data according to an agenda.

version (b): The researcher decided to take the usually reasonable (at least outside of government) step of including some "blind" controls in the set of samples that he submitted to the testing lab. He submitted sample of lynx hair and quite properly made it indistinguishable from the other samples. (Such "blind" controls are commonly used to insure that testing laboratories are competent or aren't simply charging one for the test results that they think one wants without properly performing the assays.) The testing lab did however, perform the assay well enough to identify the lynx sample. However, instead of objectively reporting raw data to the researcher to be converted into useful information (which includes taking into account control samples) someone announced that lynx were in the study area. When it became known that the lynx hair was not collected from the study area, version (a) above was instantly printed everywhere. As I recall someone even publicly expressed surprise and outrage at the notion that an unmarked control sample could be submitted, that "it wasn't done".
Conclusion--Very, very bad science. Very, very bad public relations. Who's in charge of the study? The assay lab, some assistant or the principle investigator? How can they report raw data? No blind controls for an assay lab? Bullsh*t! The fact that this fiasco occurred demonstrates the need for controls--the assay lab shouldn't have even had a clue as to what geographical area the samples came from. That is how experiments are designed in order to prevent intentional or unintentional bias no matter what the source.

Which is the "truth"? Doesn't really matter I guess. Pretty sad state of affairs either way.