MontanaRifleman
Well-Known Member
You're not going to appreciate this response. You said "So I'll leave it there" more than 55 posts prior to this one.
Yes we all have opinions and we are all expressing them. Your opinion and the belief that yours is the superior one, led you to pose a question utterly without merit within this Thread's topic of discussion. "Why bet your life on anything?" The effect was to disparage the opinion and preference expressed by WildRose. But then your immediate response to my post, which exposed the irrelevant and condescending nature of your question, was "We all have our opinions on that and they have been pretty well fleshed out. No perfect answers... we do what we can do and what we think is best.." That's the healthy equivalent of "live and let live".
Which begs the question... is it live and let live only when you've decided it's time to live and let live? You could have, and really should have, adhered to that position of tolerance before asking WildRose "Why bet your life on anything?" Should have, that is, if you truly subscribe to "live and let live", respecting all members expressions of their opinions on whether bear spray or bullets are the better self defense tool.
Here's my answer to your question, "Why bet your life on anything?" Because we incur risk, and continually place incremental bets on our lives, in the pursuit of happiness. We bet our life when we drive our cars, when we walk across the street, when we venture into the bear's domain. We bet our life throughout life. What was the point of your question? To imply WildRose shouldn't place himself in the potential presence of bears, in order to avoid any bet that a bear might possibly take his life? He never said he was frozen in fear of bears. The neutral interpretation of WildRose's posts are that he'll not bet his life on what he believes to be the inferior defensive tool --> bear spray.
Paul, the question to Wildrose was a rhetorical one. My point with the reply was, IMO, we spend a lot of time and emotion on a topic like this and I think it's overkill. On average, our chances of getting struck by lightening is greater than being attacked by a bear... and the vast majority of the relatively few attacks do not result in death... making a mountain out of an ant hill.
There are a number of us in this thread who live and play in bear country and have had numerous encounters with bears and have not been attacked. /who knows how many times a Bear walked past my tent while I was sleeping inside. Once when there was a light snowfall during the night I found a set of tracks that walked in a straight line passing within 10' of my tent. My food was hung high in a tree. I was elk hunting and I did have a loaded 7 mag in the tent with me.
In a study Titled "Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska" I found this;
The study also concludes that people who use spray as a deterrent were less likely to be seriously injured or killed by a bear than those who used firearms. Now there are those who favor using a gun for defense that say this was a biased study promoting a non-lethal way of deterring bears. It seems to me the study clearly stated the data and defined it's parameters. IME, the only way this study could be biased is if it left out data.Miller and Tutterow (1999) reported that brown bear (Ursus arctos;synonymous with ''grizzly bear''and hereafter brown bear) attacks resulted in 2.75 injuries and 0.42 deaths per year in Alaska, USA, from 1986 to 1996
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/bear_cougar/bear/files/JWM_BearSprayAlaska.pdf
Also, the early years that the study covers were prior to the development of the newer more effective types of sprays.
Nothing I have written in thread suggests that I am "selective" in "live and let live". I have stated numerous times that a person should use whatever type of protection they want/are comfortable with. That said, when someone says something that I believe is not quite factual, then I'll address it. i.e., failure of spray can to function.
Cheers