I think the brown bears prefer Tabasco over pepper spray. <BR>But seriously folks.<BR>I've lived in Alaska and NEVER went into the backcountry without at least my Glock 9mm. I know that won't kill a grizz unless you are real lucky but at least I felt better and was able to save the 17th bullet for myself. Also, some say just the sound of a gun will scare away a bear. I never want to have to try. I felt safest when:<BR>a)Traveling in a group and<BR>b)Carrying a 44. Mag Desert Eagle and my high powered rifle.<BR>Its best to pack at least a .338 Winchester Magnum or better to stop an angry Brown bear and even then, there are no guarantees.

Saw a documentary on the travel channel yesterday with park rangers in bear country. They said they never go out into bear territory without their weapons.

People with guns do not belong anywhere near bears.

Can you enlarge upon that, John?

Brother John's post states that "people with guns do not belong anywhere near bears." <BR><BR>Actually, people like John, without guns, are welcome in Alaska bear country. Reduces the total numbers of people like John. And breaks the monotony of the local newscast.

John,<BR>Maybe if you go hug the 1200 pound coastal Brown bear and tell him softly in his ear that you would rather not be a snack, you could both go about your merry way, communing with nature. Even better, maybe you could share your trail mix with him as a token of your appreciation for his good will. <BR>By the way, mind if I watch?<BR>Paul

Paul (Rabe) - As others have pointed out, your statement that a .45 caliber or larger weapon is required to "bring down" a brown bear is simply not true - in fact, I would guess that the majority are taken with smaller calibers, notably the .338 Win Mag someone else mentioned. I do agree that even the most powerful handgun is of minimal self-defense value against bears. On a few salmon fishing trips to Alaska I've been with guides who carried .44 Mag revolver and guides who carried 12 ga. shotguns with alternating loads of buckshot and slugs in extended magazines - I was more afraid of the former than I was of the bears, but felt perfectly safe with the latter.<BR><BR>Now about those accident statistics - of course you are correct that there are, sadly, great numbers of accidental firearm deaths every year. But that's not the correct data to use in this comparison. The original discussion concerned carrying a firearm as protection against bears, so you can't compare all accidental gun deaths with all (few, of course) bear maulings. The data of interest would be how many (if any) individuals have been accidently killed by a firearm they were carrying specifically for protection against bears. Now, I don't know what that number is, but I'd guess it's very, very small (which is why I made a passing reference to hunting injuries), as are the number of bear maulings, as are the number of times a firearm has prevented a bear mauling. Small numbers do not make for good statistical comparisons, however I believe that the right weapon in the right hands is good protection. Unfortunately, few people have the "right hands", which is why I did and still do agree with your original point.

This is simply the most entertainement I had in a long time ( guess I am cheap date). I guess hiking in a group of more than 4 and possibly hiring an experienced guide would be a good idea.