Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska

Abstract

We present a comprehensive look at a sample of bear spray incidents that occurred in Alaska, USA, from 1985 to 2006. We analyzed 83 bear spray incidents involving brown bears (Ursus arctos; 61 cases, 74%), black bears (Ursus americanus; 20 cases, 24%), and polar bears (Ursus maritimus; 2 cases, 2%). Of the 72 cases where persons sprayed bears to defend themselves, 50 (69%) involved brown bears, 20 (28%) black bears, and 2 (3%) polar bears. Red pepper spray stopped bears' undesirable behavior 92% of the time when used on brown bears, 90% for black bears, and 100% for polar bears. Of all persons carrying sprays, 98% were uninjured by bears in close‐range encounters. All bear—inflicted injuries (n = 3) associated with defensive spraying involved brown bears and were relatively minor (i.e., no hospitalization required). In 7% (5 of 71) of bear spray incidents, wind was reported to have interfered with spray accuracy, although it reached the bear in all cases. In 14% (10 of 71) of bear spray incidents, users reported the spray having had negative side effects upon themselves, ranging from minor irritation (11%, 8 of 71) to near incapacitation (3%, 2 of 71). Bear spray represents an effective alternative to lethal force and should be considered as an option for personal safety for those recreating and working in bear country. (JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 72(3):640–645; 2008)

Utilising aversive conditioning to manage the behaviour of K’gari (Fraser Island) dingoes (Canis dingo)

“…Example failure Smith (1998) warned against the use of chemical sprays as some form of topical deterrent to areas or objects, as bears he observed were actually attracted to the scent and displayed vigorous rubbing and body rolling in affected areas (see also Smith et al 2008). The same could also be true for some other potential irritants, such as citronella.…”

“…Rogers (1984) found that sprayed bears never acted aggressively, and when sprayed, usually immediately retreated a short distance, where they then rubbed their eyes with their paws. Smith et al (2008) amassed all available (83) records on the use of capsaicin spray (commonly referred to as bear spray) against bears in Alaska, USA. They found that in all cases (72 of 83) where bear spray was used defensively by a person, neither bears nor people were severely injured (i.e.…”

“…In four cases, spray caused minor injury to people and they had to vacate the area. Smith et al (2008) concluded that bear spray was an effective non-lethal measure in diffusing potentially dangerous encounters between all three North American bear species and humans, and encouraged widespread use for both human safety and bear conservation reasons.…”

“…Certain sprays can also affect people in the process of deployment (Herrero and Higgins 1998;Smith et al 2008) so care and practice is required in terms of safe operation.…”

“…coyotes exposed to LiCl baits: Cornell and Cornely 1979). In some circumstances, a moderate degree of persistence of an aversive effect could be of direct benefit in terms of increasing human safety, as it might allow people the time required to retreat from an aggressive animal (Smith et al 2008). It is therefore important to contextually determine the 'sufficiency' of a stimulus (Appleby 2015).…”