>>1024960The sample size was stupidly small, considering the same people used a sample size for almost 300 in the firearms study, when in this one they used one of 83, of which only 72 actually involved bears, some of them just involved misuse or whether or not bears where attracted or repelled to a spray, which laughable practically. I know you’ve said that bear encounters are hard to find, but they found close to 300 for the last study, so get over it. Another big thing that makes study worthless, Only 25 of the 72 that ACTUALLY involved bears involved bears that were aggressive. Whereas the last study had ALL of the encounters being aggressive. This is ridiculous, that means that in a sample size of 83 Only 86% ACTUALLY involved bears, and of those only 34% actually involved aggressive bears. Fucking pic related all in all the sample size of aggressive bears was 25, or 30% of the study is relevant.
>We deemed bears aggressive when the encounter included behaviors such as charging, agonistic vocalizations, or persistent following.Oh wait it isn’t relevant anyways since it’s a sample size of 25!!!! Fuck!
Im not even going to continue with this link, its garbage, and it continues to be more garbage throughout the study, just like the last one.
> http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2008/12/use-pepper-spray-instead-guns-stop-charging-grizzlyJust like the national geographic link, except it while referencing the above study, it also goes in depth into some guy they found and his anecdotes.
