Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Backpack Hunting
Bear spray vs Bullets
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pdvdh" data-source="post: 1058850" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p>No disagreement that a man eating bear should be killed, if possible. And no animosity intended.</p><p></p><p>But it would be wrong to characterize the Timothy Treadwell investigation as, primarily, a bear hunt for a man eating bear. The primary mission for officials was to investigate the death, and recover the remains of, at least one dead person, and to determine the status of a second missing person. The location was a jungle of alders, which is why they never saw any bears from the air moments prior to walking up to the camp/death site.</p><p></p><p>When entering the domain of the most deadly of bears, a killer and a man eater, there's no mention of any of these men carrying bear spray, or being prepared to use bear spray. The bear approached them determinedly, head on in brushy alders, appearing at less than 15 yards. My purpose in posting this incident was to point out that when placing themselves in a life and death confrontation with a killer, man eating bear, all officials employed firearms rather than bear spray.</p><p></p><p>Survival is the first priority taught to emergency responders, since a dead responder isn't helping anyone, or anything. Neither their self survival instincts, nor their training, would have caused them to prioritize the killing of any bear, above the selection of the best bear defense possible to ensure their own survival. They all employed firearms, rather than bear spray.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 1058850, member: 4191"] No disagreement that a man eating bear should be killed, if possible. And no animosity intended. But it would be wrong to characterize the Timothy Treadwell investigation as, primarily, a bear hunt for a man eating bear. The primary mission for officials was to investigate the death, and recover the remains of, at least one dead person, and to determine the status of a second missing person. The location was a jungle of alders, which is why they never saw any bears from the air moments prior to walking up to the camp/death site. When entering the domain of the most deadly of bears, a killer and a man eater, there's no mention of any of these men carrying bear spray, or being prepared to use bear spray. The bear approached them determinedly, head on in brushy alders, appearing at less than 15 yards. My purpose in posting this incident was to point out that when placing themselves in a life and death confrontation with a killer, man eating bear, all officials employed firearms rather than bear spray. Survival is the first priority taught to emergency responders, since a dead responder isn't helping anyone, or anything. Neither their self survival instincts, nor their training, would have caused them to prioritize the killing of any bear, above the selection of the best bear defense possible to ensure their own survival. They all employed firearms, rather than bear spray. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Backpack Hunting
Bear spray vs Bullets
Top