Get access

Efficacy of firearms for bear deterrence in Alaska

Authors

  • Tom S. Smith,

    Corresponding author
    1. Wildlife Sciences Program, Faculty of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, 451 WIDB, Provo, UT 84602, USA
    • Wildlife Sciences Program, Faculty of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, 451 WIDB, Provo, UT 84602, USA.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Stephen Herrero,

    1. Environmental Science Program, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Cali Strong Layton,

    1. Wildlife Sciences Program, Plant and Wildlife Sciences Program, Brigham Young University, 448 WIDB, Provo, UT 84602, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Randy T. Larsen,

    1. Wildlife Sciences Program, Faculty of Plant and Wildlife Sciences and Monte L. Bean Life Sciences Museum, Brigham Young University, 407 WIDB, Provo, UT 84602, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Kathryn R. Johnson

    1. Alaska Science Center, USGS, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99502, USA
    Current affiliation:
    1. P.O. Box 4374, Palmer, AK 99645, USA.
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Associate Editor: Scott McCorquodale.

Abstract

We compiled, summarized, and reviewed 269 incidents of bear–human conflict involving firearms that occurred in Alaska during 1883–2009. Encounters involving brown bears (Ursus arctos; 218 incidents, 81%), black bears (Ursus americanus; 30 incidents, 11%), polar bears (Ursus maritimus; 6 incidents, 2%), and 15 (6%) unidentified species provided insight into firearms success and failure. A total of 444 people and at least 367 bears were involved in these incidents. We found no significant difference in success rates (i.e., success being when the bear was stopped in its aggressive behavior) associated with long guns (76%) and handguns (84%). Moreover, firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters with bears whether they used their firearms or not. Bears were killed in 61% (n = 162) of bear–firearms incidents. Additionally, we identified multiple reasons for firearms failing to stop an aggressive bear. Using logistic regression, the best model for predicting a successful outcome for firearm users included species and cohort of bear, human activity at time of encounter, whether or not the bear charged, and if fish or game meat was present. Firearm variables (e.g., type of gun, number of shots) were not useful in predicting outcomes in bear–firearms incidents. Although firearms have failed to protect some users, they are the only deterrent that can lethally stop an aggressive bear. Where firearms have failed to protect people, we identified contributing causes. Our findings suggest that only those proficient in firearms use should rely on them for protection in bear country. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.

Get access to the full text of this article

Ancillary