>>2250269I think the idea is even if your are pinned in an ambush you can still hopefully, with one hand, reach your spray and just put off a cloud of it around you. Yea it'll fuck you up, but I guess most of the time the bear lets go once it gets a whiff.
A major aspect of the firearm vs bear spray debate people often ignore is the psychology of the animal response to the stimulus, which is well studied (see "Bear Attacks: Their Causes and Prevention" by Stephen Herrero). Apparently bear spray provokes a stronger "deterrent" response from the animal, versus a bullet wound, which often only enhances the "fight or flight" response. And usually, since your firing a gun, it means the animal has already decide on "fight" - so you better make fucking sure you kill it dead.
This makes a lot of sense when you simply consider the relative "stopping power" of bear spray: effectively "none" - the bear "decides on it's own" to fuck-off in the presence of unpleasant stimuli.
Versus a bullet wound - you've basically declared "it's on: one of is dying here."
I've read of guys who get tags to go grizzly hunting in Alberta and still bring bear spray along with their fucking .600 nitro or whatever just because it's better for the application of "preventing attacks".
