Do Wounded Bears Attack More? Handgun Defense Data Tells a Different Story

Image of grizzly bear  by Troy Nemitz, used with permission. 

One theory about defending against bear attacks is this: Defenders must be careful not to shoot a bear without immediately killing it, because wounded bears are more likely to attack. The theory has been put forward for many decades. One of those who put the theory up for consideration was Stephen Herrero in his book: Bear Attacks: Their causes and Avoidance. On page 241 of the 1985 edition, Herrero writes:

Of course, if an aggressive bear actually attacks you or a companion, a firearm may be a lifesaver, or it may cause a wounded bear to intensify its attack. 

Herrero puts forward the theory.  He does not appear to have data to determine how common such reactions may be. His speculation is shared with numerous others over the last hundred years. With over 200 documented incidents where a handgun was fired in defense against bears, this correspondent has numbers which indicate 21% of bears continue to attack after they are shot. Of 175 incidents where bears were shot, they stopped attacking in 138 cases and persisted in 37 cases. Warning shots were effective in 23 of 44 cases. In 8 of the 23 cases the positive effect  of the warning shot(s) was temporary. There were four cases where it could not be determined if the bears were wounded or if the shots were effective. Of the 175 incidents where bears were shot, 29 were shot after a person was already injured by the bear. Of  the 146 incidents where shooting the bear occurred before a person was injured, the bears persisted after being shot in 31 cases, also 21%.

Bear attacks are often complicated. Some incidents fall into multiple categories.  For example, two experienced outdoorsmen were archery hunting in Montana in 2019. A grizzly bear attacked without provocation in dense cover. One of the hunters was being mauled before any shots were fired. The other hunter fired a shot from his 9mm and drove off the bear, wounding it. The bear persisted in coming back, twice, and the mauled hunter fired his 9mm, driving the bear away. Those shots probably missed, but stopped the persistent attack. In some cases, shooting can precipitate an attack.

In cases where bears persisted after being shot, over half the attacks were stopped before a person was injured. In the cases of persistence, the defense was successful in stopping the attack in all cases, even after a human was injured, except for one, the case of the .22 rimfire defense against a polar bear. To put it another way, when you only look at cases where the bear was shot, the success rate rises to 1 failure in 175 cases, or over 99%.

In the three other failures of handguns fired in defense against bears, it seems likely the bears were not shot. One was a failure of warning shots fired to drive off a polar bear. No humans or bears were injured. In the other two cases, it seems likely the bear was not wounded. Extreme speed and accuracy are not required for a successful defense in most cases.

Bears do not like to be shot. Most bears stop attacking when shot, or they are killed. Most bears which persist in attacking after being shot are killed. One of the societal advantages to killing these aggressive bears is their genes are removed from the gene pool. Bears in their generation learn that attacking humans is dangerous. The site where a human killed a bear is like scent version of a neon billboard in the woods. As the erudite Valerious Geist has written, this is a valuable outcome which protects everyone who uses wildlands in bear country. It must be noted, hunting bears is different from defending against bears. Hunters who wound bears are morally bound to follow the wounded bear to finish it off. Defenders are not so bound. A wounded bear is more likely to attack a hunter which is following it after it has been wounded. This is a different situation than a wounded bear continuing to attack when the bear initiated the attack.

Bear spray has been widely touted as more effective than firearms. The studies used to the compare the two were not designed for such comparison. The studies have serious problems with selection bias, acknowledged by the authors. A better comparison is the number of people who have been killed when bear spray was sprayed against a bear compared to the number of people killed when a handgun has been fired in defense against a bear. These incidents tend to be widely reported, reducing or eliminating selection bias. This correspondent has found eight documented cases where nine people were killed by bears where bear spray was used during the attack.  This correspondent has found one documented case where one person was killed by a bear where a handgun was used during the attack, the polar bear incident with the .22 rimfire handgun in the Svalbard archipelago.

Warning shots can work.  In one third of instances, their effect is temporary.  They buy time for the defenders. Seconds can be precious in preparing a more effective defense.

©2026 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.