The data is solid on this issue, reflecting superior effectiveness and efficiency in deployment of bear spray. I have hunted Montana all my life and now only bowhunt where the risk of grizzly encounter is much lower, and when I do I carry only bear spray. My wife and I completed a forty-mile, four day backpack in Yellowstone Park last week. In August we completed two long day hikes in areas of YNP known for bears. We carry a canister on the belt for quick deployment and one in the pack for backup, as a close encounter for me likely will involve deploying an entire canister of bear spray. We saw lots of scat and tracks, but no bears. Our primary mitigation is through noise, as we argue, sing, joke, debate, reminisce, and generally make enough noise to repel any respectable griz from the neighborhood. But that's not an option when hunting.
I understand and appreciate the desire to pack a large firearm, but I think it may create more of a risk than anything. To unsnap it the holster, draw the firearm, and fire accurately under duress is not easy for most. To fire at a bear mauling your partner is highly risky for your partner.
The real importance of the bear spray, as evidenced in what we know so far of the recent Jackson Hole story, is for a secondary person to be able to mitigate the attack on another person in the party being mauled. During a sudden attack it is seldom that the immediate victim can deploy the bear spray ... it is up to a partner to stop the attack by spraying the bear until it retreats. Yeah, everyone gets a respiratory attack, burns, hacks, coughs, and wheezes for awhile ... but it's better than the bear completing the attack. Anyhow, that's my take on it after lifelong hunting, hiking, and backpacking in Montana and considering the best safe and known practices.
