You say

"They give vague numbers"

US FWS statement:

"a personís chance of incurring serious injury from a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired versus when bear spray is used."

Actually that's not vague. Accuracy can be questioned, though the statement offers nothing other than FWS authority for debate.

You also say " I got no problem with them at all" but then you add that "the Federal goverment seems to think prospectors and Bush pilots are the only people who should carry firearms to protect themselves from animals, I guess their lives are more important then everyone else's."

My personal view is, given choice of a 12-gauge slug or pepper spray at the instant of a grizzly attack, I'd definitely take the gun....

But given same choice while packing for a 2-week expedition, and I'd probably take the spray....Apparently, statistically, according to FWS, it wouldn't make much difference.

I'd be interested in a similar analysis of the effectiveness of firearms as a defense against criminals. I bet the data is more compelling.