| Author | Posts |
|---|---|
| Author | Posts |
| May 2, 2011 at 11:48 am #33345 | |
 paddleplacid |
Marine air horns have proven far more effective than pepper spray for defence against bears .. and on the water an air horn can alert a power-boat operator to your presence. The horn I have is inexpensive, air-powered, palm-sized, a powerful blast, clips onto my PFD when in the canoe and in my shirt pocket or around my neck if hiking. Marine air horns are made to be waterproof, can normally be found at marinas. |
| May 3, 2011 at 12:28 am #33346 | |
 Dog_paddle |
I really challenge you to produce a current scientific study that proves your statement. I can find no research at all that supports your position. Air horns are long range bear deterrents and have a different intended use than bear spray. Bear management professionals suggest to use airhorns in conjunction with bear spray. Use the horn first- when you see a bear from afar….but, then use the bear spray if the horn didnt deter the bear- when you are being charged…And, if you can only have one of those- than by all means have the bear spray. Yellowstone Park doesnt even allow air horns in the backcountry by the way. Read over the Bear Safety Guidelines for Kenai Fjords National Park in Alaksa http://www.nps.gov/kefj/planyourvisit/bear-safety.htm. And, the same for Yellowstone http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/bearspraytranscript.htm You’ll see that Bear Spray is the most recommended bear deterrent by bear management professionals. |
| May 3, 2011 at 1:15 pm #33347 | |
|
paddleplacid |
You might read Stephen Herrero’s scholarly book ’Bear Attacks’ for your answer, Dog Paddle, it contains many scientific studies of all kinds including effectiveness of horns and spray. Herrero’s a PHD biologist with huge real world experience, a bear consultant called on by every government in the world where bears are found, including the U.S. and Russia. I did not say bear spray was ineffective, by the way, just that marine horns are more effective, and certainly firing a warning shot or two of the horn before using the spray is a good idea, but bear spray has been proven totally ineffective in several situations, with bears even eating airplane tires which have been sprayed as deterrents. One question for you: can you give me one good reason Yellowstone Park wouldn’t allow a proven bear deterrant in the park? (And I don’t think ‘disturbance of campers’ sleep’ would be a good reason when lives can be saved. I also don’t think attracting a bear’s attention to you when it is afar is a good idea under any circumstances, especially as it’s almost certain that a bear’s curiousity will attract it to a low volume noise from afar. Horns proved effective in deterring bears at close quarters in a study at, I believe it was, Ketnai Park in Alaska. I recommend ‘Bear Attacks’ as a must read for anyone desirieng safety in bear country. |
| May 3, 2011 at 3:06 pm #33348 | |
|
Dog_paddle |
I have read Bear Attacks several times. Please quote from the book where it states as you do, “Marine air horns have proven far more effective than pepper spray for defence against bears“…..also, please site the source that Herrero uses for the basis of your statement. Its one thing to spout things in a forum- its another one to prove it. If your going to continue to give out your advice as fact- I want to see the facts. |
| May 3, 2011 at 3:58 pm #33349 | |
 Bryan Hansel |
I actually just read pages 112 to 113 in Bear Attacks, which is where Stephen Herrero discusses marine horns. He didn’t write anything similar to your suggestion. In fact, he suggests that loud noises may cause some grizzly bears to investigate and cites two encounters where they did (page 113 to 115). Later, he says marine horns were one promising long-range deterrent. Also, later in the text just after writing about how effective spray is as a deterrent (using it for what it was designed to do), he notes the tire incident you referenced in which pilots attempted to use the spray as a repellent instead of a deterrent (p. 128) — spray isn’t designed as a repellent. But, you ignored everything written the few pages before it in both of your posts in this thread. Herrero states he was so impressed with the performance of spray as a deterrent that he started carrying it himself. paddleplacid, you talk about bad info and advice getting out, but here you are doing the same thing you don’t like. |
| May 4, 2011 at 10:05 am #33350 | |
|
paddleplacid |
If each poster on this forum has to provide scientific proof and full reference for all statements we make we all may as well just shut up because it would turn posting into a full time job. Herrero’s is a big book, much too big to condense into a couple of pages, and I don’t carry references to all I have read in my life in a handy pocket reminder. If I make statements that interest people, they can and absolutely should research those statements for themselves. Also, Dog Paddle, I asked you why Yellowstone would ban air horns, and you didn’t respond, so it seems you make demands of others you yourself cannot fullfill. Also, you seem to interpret my phrase “defence against bears” as meaning “defence against charging bears.” My phrase was intended to be all-inclusive, especially in that proper defence against bears will almost guarantee that a person will not be charged by a bear. Bryan, I made the suggestion already that air horns at long range can attract bear’s interest, but perhaps you missed that post. I also did not say pepper spray is totally ineffective against bears, but in reading Rich 5665′s references I’m reminded that conditions have to be just right for spray to be effective, whereas air horns can be used in any conditions with no danger from the horn to the user, whereas pepper spray blown by the wind into a user’s face can blind the user during a bear charge .. not a good scenario. I also never at any time referenced Herrero’s book for every statement I made in this topic. In my opinion, Rich 5665′s attitude and processes are the correct ones for a forum, and we all would do well to emulate him as anyone using this forum will have safer, more enjoyable experiences on the water, in the bush and on the forum.
I’ve begun to wonder if Chlorine bleach has been tried as a bear spray, sprayed into their eyes. It seems to be chlorine might be just as effective as pepper spray with none of the unwanted effects. |
| May 4, 2011 at 11:37 am #33351 | |
|
Dog_paddle |
—————————————– I would say, you only have to provide scientific proof and full references to support your posts- IF you state things to be fact…..you said, and I quote….”Marine air horns have proven far more effective than pepper spray for defence against bears”……if someone is going to come on a forum and say that- then yes, you have to back it up….If you would have phrased it something like “I read that air horns can be effective also” then I would have no problems with your posts. But you came on here and spoke like an authority on the subject and made statements that are not only untrue, but are potentially deadly!….so, yeah if your going to do that- your statements are going to have to be able to be proved…. I havent responded on the “why are airhorns not allowed in Yellowstone” yet, because I dont know the actual reasoning behind the rule. I emailed a friend that is a backcountry ranger and havent heard back yet. I am not going to make statements that I cant support. I will say they are banned- I can support that……..but I cant say why, because that I dont know….
|
| May 4, 2011 at 4:18 pm #33352 | |
|
paddleplacid |
In my opinion some of your statements are untrue and potentially deadly, Dog Paddle, including that statement which you made about me that my statements are untrue and potentially deadly. The readers of our statements will have to glean, research, find out for themselves. You are a contradiction in terms, that’s for sure, making a statement like “air horns are banned in Yellowstone Park” and yet not proving it despite having repeated it a few times .. and yet expecting all other posters to bring up scientific evidence for their statements. Yes siree, a real contradiction in terms. |
| May 4, 2011 at 4:47 pm #33353 | |
|
Dog_paddle |
Not being able to explain the governments logic behind one of their rules, is completly different than what you did… Although I cant say why the rule is in place- I can site a source of where I read of the rule…. |
| May 5, 2011 at 8:52 am #33354 | |
|
paddleplacid |
I’m certainly glad you can substantiate some of your claims, Dog Paddle. It is certainly a huge mystery why Yellowstone would allow firearms and not airhorns. And I remind you that simply because a person disagrees with another poster is no reason for accusation of any kind. I have said that I consider class five whitewater suicidal and that is my opinion based on extensive reading and my own experiences. You have no qualms about guiding people into class five whitewater. I cannot quote author, chapter and page of books I have read, you cannot name every person you say you have guided. However, only three or four years ago a female professional kayaker was drowned in a class three or four rapids in the city of Ottawa in which training is done for our national kayak team. The woman was trying out a new kayak at the time of her death, and failed in her attempts to eskimo roll it upright. This woman had been surrounded by other advanced kayaker friends in their boats at the time of the accident. They were unable to rescue her or revive her. I cannot quote chapter and verse on this incident either, but I’m known by my family and friends as an honest and trustworthy man. Whitewater is extremely dangerous. I cannot recommend paddler playing in it. Whitewater is obviously a pleasureable experience in your eyes. Perhaps that difference between us is why you have such animosity towards me, because certainly any mature person will grant the right of opinion to other people in discussion without maligning and accusing them. |
| May 5, 2011 at 10:55 am #33355 | |
 Aggroman |
In my opinion, I found my best defense is flatulence. If the loud crack of my thunder doesn’t deter it, then the burning odor should do the trick and it’ll run away. I don’t have proof that this will work every time, and my wife is not a scientist, but she thinks I have what it takes to make it work. (LOL) |
| May 5, 2011 at 11:07 am #33356 | |
|
Dog_paddle |
Chemical Warfare….now that is aggro. i like it. I think its endorsed by the ACA, and the Red Cross as a “Last chance bear deterrent”! |
| May 5, 2011 at 11:07 am #33357 | |
 Always January (Randy) |
Haha, that’s an interesting theory!
I’ll be wilderness canoe camping in grizzly territory this summer with my family. If I get charged I’ll test the theory, as I’m sure to pass lots of gas as I’m crapping myself.
|
| May 5, 2011 at 9:50 pm #33358 | |
|
Aggroman |
Thanks Randy, i’ll be waiting on that report since I sent in for a patent on it. Don’t worry my friend, I will share the profits. LOL |
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Previous post: Howdy from Montana…
Next post: How to keep a laptop dry while charging off Solar panel for 5-6 weeks.