At 08:59 PM 2/21/98 -0900, Andrew & Rebecca Sorensen wrote:

>Don Baccus wrote:

>>Your guide is saying "pepper spray doesn't work because I don't trust it".
>>He's not saying "it doesn't work because I've tried it". That's hardly
>>a >strong argument.

>Why bother with an argument when it will only be characterized as
'anecdotal'?

Good point! Herrero tells stories of well-armed folks getting killed by
grizzly, anecdotal evidence I've resisted cluttering the argument with.
I've resisted in part because his work makes it clear that firearms, in
the hands of those properly trained, are effective despite such anecdotal
evidence to the contrary.

At least his anecdotal evidence regarding firearms is based on real,
documented
incidents rather than speculation, as is offered by your guide.

He wrote his book before pepper spray showed up, but other researchers
seem to vouch for the efficacy of pepper spray, including the one who
learned that they like the taste and smell of it sprayed on the ground. I've
never heard anyone claim it's a good substitute for proper bear-avoidance
behavior, though.

>The difference here is I know the man and trust him completely in regards
>to his experience, just as you trust Herrero. He may not be a 'recognized
>expert' but that doesn't justify using terms such as 'tequila-laced
>folkloric opinion'. This man is a professional in every respect of the
>term, and is highly respected in the guiding community. Just because you
>don't know him doesn't mean he is not. Unfounded generalizations and
>attacks upon a person's character in a discussion such as this are unfair,
>uncalled for, and less than helpful.

Why? You admit he's just speculating. Speculation is useless. You trust
his experience, fine. However, you're arguing that you also trust his
INEXPERIENCE - in this case, his inexperience with any actual use of pepper
spray on grizzly bears.




- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net