No Guns in the Wilderness? Are People Nuts? GRAPHIC!


PDA






Confederate
March 27, 2007, 09:44 PM
I watch the National Geographic Channel a lot and I'm always stunned by the number of numbnuts in the world who go out in the middle of nowhere without any means of defending themselves. And they're constantly being attacked; by bears, by cougars, wolves, even hippos. I don't know what the gun control laws are in Kenya and South Africa, but if I were out in the middle of the wilds, especially in Alaska or Africa, I'd want to have a pretty decent sidearm, even if it was a .357 magnum. I wouldn't expect to drop a hippo with a peashooter like that, but shooting one betwixt the eyes repeatedly might get its attention. Beats a paddle, leastways.

But whatever a person carries, they should carry something, shouldn't they? I've noticed that the vast majority of attackees have been yuppie types. They have their little digital cameras and their bug spray and they probably vote (removed)if they're Americans.

The good Lord gave just about every animal on Earth some sort of defense, both from enemies and from the elements, but He didn't seem to give man anything except a tan and some intelligence. Unfortunately, some men immediately enact laws banning just about any sort of reasonable defense other men might devise to protect themselves. Even when such laws are absent, many American yuppies are conditioned to be adverse to weapons, which kind of lowers them a few notches on the food chain, if you get my drift. Especially amusing (and tragic) was the fellow who decided to go for an evening walk in Alaska without so much as a toenail file for protection. He got eaten by wolves. But what did he expect? Nice doggies?

One fellow whose girlfriend turned out to be a snack for a big black bear did, to his credit, have a 4-inch locking blade knife. He managed to fight off the bruin with both he and the bear sustaining some painful injuries. (But it shows what even a minimal weapon can do. It beats fingernails!)

I've heard that most park rangers will turn a blind eye at folks who discreetly carry handguns in national parks. But even that won't do anyone any good if they think they don't need 'em.

Comments?


http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn9010/dn9010-2_250.jpg http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn9010/dn9010-1_250.jpg

Bear attack victims. Above, 30-year-old Li Guoxing received a new upper lip, cheek and nose from a brain-dead donor to repair injuries sustained after an attack by a black bear.

http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/C/i/polarbear004_sm.jpg

No, dear, I'm not seeing anyone else....

http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/graphics/polar5_small.jpg

[Removed ankle photo....probable shotgun blast.]

If you enjoyed reading about "No Guns in the Wilderness? Are People Nuts? GRAPHIC!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
kevin387
March 27, 2007, 09:48 PM
:what: Those pictures are both brutal and worth a thousand words. Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.

Ichiro
March 27, 2007, 10:21 PM
I'm never going into the wild. I need my face and the tissue between my knee and ankle. I just think my quality of life would be lower without them.

GP-100 with 180-grain .357s, just because that's what I have. A couple speedloaders and a big flannel shirt for a cover garment.

Holy (*&^*&*%*% !

Father Knows Best
March 27, 2007, 10:26 PM
People who venture into the wilderness without protection are just proving Darwin right. Natural selection favors the strong and smart, not the weak and stupid.

As for Park Rangers "turning a blind eye", don't count on it. I was a NPS (National Park Service) ranger back in the late 80s. Unless things have changed in the last 20 years, NPS rangers tend to be a pretty liberal lot. Even those authorized to carry guns in the line of duty (not many of them) tend to believe that they should be the only ones with them. An illegal firearm is a big deal to them, and would certainly get them cranked up. If you choose to carry in violation of park regs, you'd better not let anyone find out unless and until your life depends on it.

Claude Clay
March 27, 2007, 10:27 PM
seems i remember seeing it b4, was it not the result of a buddies shotgun at very close range???

jlbraun
March 27, 2007, 10:31 PM
Hmmm...:scrutiny:

I'm not impugning your message (that we need to carry in the woods). The second is an actual polar bear attack. The last I've heard is an ND with a shotgun at point blank range.

jad0110
March 27, 2007, 10:47 PM
I've noticed that the vast majority of attackees have been yuppie types.

Don't forget hippies! :p

I used to go hiking every summer in the Appalacian Mountains of western North Carolina. Haven't been in several years. Most of the areas I frequented were Federal and State Parks :banghead: , so I can't even open carry :fire: .

Stupid. Would I even be able to carry bear spray?

lebshiff21
March 27, 2007, 10:53 PM
http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/polarbear.asp

still disturbing

Confederate
March 27, 2007, 11:48 PM
Well, I posted in good faith, though that's what I get for Google searches of bear attacks! I've heard that many dangers in the national parks are from two-legged animals. There are not enough rangers to protect everyone and, with animals and biker gangs, drug dealers and the sort hanging out there, it's really not fair to ask people not to carry their guns, especially if the park is in a state where carrying guns is legal.

bensdad
March 28, 2007, 12:03 AM
I would never carry in a national park. What? What bulge? Oh, that bulge. The one in the back... at the waist, under the untucked t-shirt. No, that's a hemorrhoid.

skeeter1
March 28, 2007, 12:27 AM
But whatever a person carries, they should carry something, shouldn't they?

Well, I always did when I was backpacking in the Red River Gorge in Kentucky. A S&W M60 in .38Spl. Never used it, but it was in a side pocket on the backpack. Not the most powerful thing in the world, but I had confidence in it as I still do.

mec
March 28, 2007, 08:18 AM
A local guy here took a job with some game bureaucracy. It had to do with counting Kodiak bears in alaska. He and a partner had to kayak in. They carried all their food in smell proof containers to keep the bears from being too interested. No guns allowed at all. Sure enough a bear came charging after him and he would have been ate except his woman partner charged at the bear and let him have it with a large cannister of capsicum. I guess they were lucky the government let them have that much protection.

Double Naught Spy
March 28, 2007, 09:18 AM
People who venture into the wilderness without protection are just proving Darwin right. Natural selection favors the strong and smart, not the weak and stupid.

Obviously you think the Darwin Awards are what defines natural selection. Natural selection does not necessarily favor the strong and smart. Natural selection favors those that live long enough to, and manage to, pass on their genes to the next generation.

If you take a look at the descriptions of many of the Darwin Awards, family (children) are sometimes mentioned. If that person has passed on his or her genes to the next generation already, then that person really hasn't done much to better the population by being removed from the gene pool.

I'm not impugning your message (that we need to carry in the woods), but the first image I've heard is a Korean dude that got his face blown off in an industrial accident. The second is an actual polar bear attack. The last I've heard is an ND with a shotgun at point blank range.

Right, so the last image is a reason folks should NOT be carrying guns because they can hurt themselves, but that image is now removed as it does not support the claim about the need to be armed in the woods, does it?

If you check the stats, I think you will find that more people are killed in hunting "accidental shootings" than by bear, wolf, and mountain lion attacks in the USA. Similarly, more people are killed by dogs than by mountain lions.

Y'all won't like the site, but check ....
http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/accident-center.html

How about this video posted a while back of some fine hunters? Nobody got shot, but not because the hunters showed muzzle discipline.
http://www.huntingfootage.com/data/5...ging_Boar1.wmv

A few other examples/data
http://www3.sympatico.ca/d.rosen/accidents2.htm
http://www3.sympatico.ca/d.rosen/accidentstats.htm

for Texas, showing improvement, but still showing problems...
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_k0700_1124_2004.pdf

http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg04_HuntingTrapping/Hunting_accident.pdf

This is old data, but the IHEA tracks "accidents" and it shows an improving trend, no doubt, but still a lot of injuries and deaths, many of which are from firearms.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ihea/ihea96b.html

The bottom line here is that it is pretty easy to post a couple of pictures of folks hurt or killed by animals in the wild and suggest they are Darwin candidates, naive, or stupid for not being armed. HOWEVER, it is also pretty easy to come up with data to support the notion that having guns out in the wild makes you look like you haven't really properly assessed the risks given the number of folks who screw up and shoot themselves or shoot others in 'events' that were not intended as aggression toward humans. Being armed is not the be all to end all answer to safety in the wild. Sure, being armed may protect you from the animals, but doesn't seem to protect you from yourself or other hunters.

In looking through different years of IHEA data, something I noticed that was interesting is that a person was more likely to be shot by another hunter if that person was part of a group of hunters versus a person hunting alone. However, a person who is part of a group is more likely to get medical aid when shot by a buddy than a person who is hunting alone. Also, deer hunting seems to be the game animal preference that results in hunter deaths most commonly.

Just how strong and smart are hunters who shoot themselves or their hunting buddies?

ZeSpectre
March 28, 2007, 09:56 AM
I've noticed that the vast majority of attackees have been yuppie types.
Don't forget hippies!

Oh boy, you just reminded me of an incident from YEARS back. I'm hiking along the AT in Shenandoah National Park and up ahead I see a bobcat sitting at the edge of the trail. I start smacking my walking stick on a nearby tree and the noise startles it and it vanishes into the bush. I resume walking and suddenly I hear this voice up in a tree. It was this over-the-top hippie type yelling at me to run 'cause there's a COUGAR stalking him and he only just made it safely up the tree.

I finally convince the guy that it was a Bobcat not a Cougar and that I'd chased it off so he was safe. Once he was on the ground he starts in again about how he barely made it to safety up that tree, you should have seen the look on his face when I reminded him that cougars and bobcats are both cats and are excellent climbers who could have gone up that tree far faster than he could.

Anyway, more directly on the topic, I've been going out in the backcountry of the eastern coast of the US for a lot of years, had a few encounters with various critters, and am firmly convinced that I would like to stay at the TOP of the food chain thank you very much!

Having said that I'm going to post another plug for the "Carry in National Parks" project (see THIS THREAD (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=260379) here at THR)

mljdeckard
March 28, 2007, 01:13 PM
Yeah, watch it when you carry in OR AROUND a national park. I've done some long-distance hiking between parks in Utah, and I get varying opinions when I ask local rangers if they mind if I keep a defensive firearm on my pack. Some say they don't care, some say no, I had one guy tell me it was ok as long as it was just a .22. (As if there's any legal distinction.)

Having said that, I did work a summer as a survival instructor in bear country, and the 'court referred youths' I was in the company of made it a bad idea to have guns around. (At least, that was the company guideline I did honor.) There is something to be said for knowing how to be out on your own without backup. (People lived in the wilderness for thousands of years before firearms were invented.) But where I was, there were a few black bears, rattlesnakes, and cattle. I would feel very differently in the land of black mambas and pachyderms.

hrgrisso
March 28, 2007, 01:26 PM
Double Naught, while I agree there are a lot of shmucks out there who should NOT be hunting. Using hunting accidents, yes accidents (at least I hope they are) to say your in greater danger of hunters than animals, so carrying to defend yourself accordingly is silly, that doesn't tow the logical sense.

I don't believe the original post was about hunting at all. I go outdoors hiking, walking etc. quite often where hunting is not the objective. Often not even during season. So I should be safe right? I've been stalked by Mountain lions in southern arizona before. I've also had to shoot and kill rabid coyote and I must say I'm glad to have had a gun.

Should everyone hunt? No, in fact if my brother in law takes it up, I will never allow anyone I know to go with him. But, the dangers associated with hunting and related risks, hunters no this, accept this, and we do it anyway.

The pain, is when not hunting, there are certain places won't let you carry. And sometimes, people decide not to carry an icky gun and they suffer the consequences.

The point is, you sleep in the bed you make.

Rinspeed
March 28, 2007, 01:55 PM
As a general I just don't go in the woods without some sort of handgun.

go_bang
March 28, 2007, 03:21 PM
The bottom line here is that it is pretty easy to post a couple of pictures of folks hurt or killed by animals in the wild and suggest they are Darwin candidates, naive, or stupid for not being armed. HOWEVER, it is also pretty easy to come up with data to support the notion that having guns out in the wild makes you look like you haven't really properly assessed the risks given the number of folks who screw up and shoot themselves or shoot others in 'events' that were not intended as aggression toward humans. Being armed is not the be all to end all answer to safety in the wild. Sure, being armed may protect you from the animals, but doesn't seem to protect you from yourself or other hunters.

In looking through different years of IHEA data, something I noticed that was interesting is that a person was more likely to be shot by another hunter if that person was part of a group of hunters versus a person hunting alone. However, a person who is part of a group is more likely to get medical aid when shot by a buddy than a person who is hunting alone. Also, deer hunting seems to be the game animal preference that results in hunter deaths most commonly.

Just how strong and smart are hunters who shoot themselves or their hunting buddies?

The question that comes to mind for me is what is the experience and overall responsibility level of those hunters who shoot themselves or shoot others? Are we talking about hunters that only bring out the guns for hunting season and then stash them away for the rest of the year? How many of these accident victims were drinking a good bit the night before? For accidents in groups of hunters how many were because the victim failed to tell his partners where he was going to be, or did and one or more of his partners forgot.

It would not surprise me if the better answer to the problem would be for these hunters to spend a little more time with their firearms throughout the year.

Double Naught Spy
March 28, 2007, 07:39 PM
Okay, look. NONE of the examples with the graphic images match the claim about people being numbnuts for going into the wilderness unarmed. No, the original post was not about hunting, but that doesn't mean being armed in the wilderness makes you are more safe. Sure, you can claim hunters who shoot themselves or others may not have been doing the right things. D'uh! You can also say that about folks who have gotten attacked by animals. More often than not, they were doing something wrong such that they were attacked. Maybe the didn't know the signs, didn't know how to respond when faced by an animal, encroached on the animal, its family, or food supply, or were simply clueless.

So let's look at the examples provided by Confederate and see if they match the claim of folks being unarmed numbnuts in the wilderness who end up being attacked and unable to defend themselves. Do the graphic examples support Confederate's argument?

Take Li Guoxing, the face transplant guy. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14088742/

Li's face was mauled in 2003 when he tried to use a stick to chase away a black bear attacking his cows. So first, he wasn't in the wilderness, but on his farm. Second, he was armed with a stick. Third, he attacked the bear and not the other way around. So the horrific face injury and transplant pictures don't match the claims of being an unarmed numbnuts in the wilderness.

What about the guy with the caption No, dear, I'm not seeing anyone else....

Was he a numbnuts who went into the wilderness unarmed? Was this a non-hunting example as suggested by go_gang? Not exactly. The maulee was Kootoo Shaw, the hunting guide for three American hunters. They were armed. They ignorantly or neglectfully thought it okay to sleep in cloth tents in polar bear country and not post a guard or lookout to keep everyone safe. So, the attack occurred against an group of armed hunters who were caught like sleeping seals. http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_polar_bear_attack3.htm

Sure, gunfire was used to save Kootoo Shaw, but had the hunters been more pro-active in their own safety, nobody would have been attacked.

There are inherent risks in going outside, be it armed or unarmed. If you are ignorant of nature or fail to use proper caution when interacting with nature, you can get into trouble. Sometimes the trouble is from nature, sometimes from other humans in nature with you.

go_bang has some excellent post-hoc rationalizations as to why hunters get injured by guns, but the problems really boil down to the same basic issues as with being unarmed in the wilderness, being ignorant of the factors in the situation or failing to use proper caution while uses guns. The problem isn't the wilderness and the problem isn't guns. The problem is with the people.

As a general I just don't go in the woods without some sort of handgun.
As a general rule, I don't go anywhere without some sort of handgun.

BigO01
March 28, 2007, 08:01 PM
Well from my years of hunting and hiking/scouting I have been attacked by zero animals yet it could happen so a 4 inch 357 goes with me , it is almost the exact same odds of running into a Ranger or whatever in the woods and getting caught with the gun which happened once in all those years and he was so far away on another trail headed away from me he didn't even know I was there taking a break leaning on a tree .

Cavemen had enough sense to take rocks and sharpened sticks to protect them why would I NOT take a gun with me ?

Confederate
March 28, 2007, 08:12 PM
...except his woman partner charged at the bear and let him have it with a large cannister of capsicum. I guess they were lucky the government let them have that much protection.
Only there was a woman badly injured not too long ago doing the same sort of thing. Noise and pepper spray didn't do the job and she required all sorts of surgery. I have her account around here somewhere. Why people would not be given adequate forms of protection is beyond me. Why don't they catch all the bears and declaw them?

Oh, ye can't do that! Ye'd take away their only means of defense!!!

Well, no one worries about people not having any defense. Skin, hair and fingernails is all we've got. No one would pass a law saying a person couldn't go into a national park with protective clothing. And no one would bar the use of arms to Park Police. It should be a no-brainer.

Okay, look. NONE of the examples with the graphic images match the claim about people being numbnuts for going into the wilderness unarmed. No, the original post was not about hunting, but that doesn't mean being armed in the wilderness makes you are more safe.
Debatable. I think anyone who goes into an area with no means of defense, sometimes trekking miles and miles into the wilderness, should have their heads examined. Now if you're driving through, okay, you probably won't need a magnum, but if you're on foot and you're wandering miles and miles into the wilderness, you probably ought to have a handgun. If you get lost, it goes *BOOM!* Ditto if you fall into a ravine. Then there are dog packs, wolves, cougars (had a friend who was attacked by one of them), bears, snakes and Dirty George and his goons who like to beat up or kill hikers. (I've had friends who have had to fend off two-legged predators, too.)

The pictures simply show what can happen to you, not exactly case points, okay? I won't go into the wilderness without packing heat. Certainly wouldn't camp out without it, either.

Boats
March 28, 2007, 08:14 PM
One shouldn't so readily dismiss capsacium on bears. The concentrations, distance, and duration of specially prepared bear chemical warfare is much better than those preparations approved for use on meth freaks in the lower 48.

Of course I object to OC being the only line of defense, but it's easier to get an effective hit with the OC than attaining multiple hits with the most bear effective handgun loads.

grimjaw
March 28, 2007, 09:18 PM
I don't watch much TV or read magazines. However, the last National Geographic mag I read, on a flight a few months ago, had a story about two men trying to hit one of the poles (south/north, don't remember) during the worst season of the year to do so. Among their equipment was, shock me dead, a S&W .44 Magnum "for bears."

So it's not all bad.

jm

hagar
March 28, 2007, 09:33 PM
I grew up in South Africa. Do you know what we called US Peace Corps volunteers that came to Africa? Crocodile food. These naive, save the world and the animals types, more often than not met an untimely demise, and went home in a body bag.

We had a more realistic view there of the danger wild animals pose, and even in most National Parks there they would allow you to carry a gun in your car, if you declare it and they put an easily removable seal throught it. Remove the seal without a very good reason, and you will be in a world of hurt, but it did not leave you defenceless.

Dave1
March 28, 2007, 09:41 PM
There are some places in this country where if you venture far into the woods or wilderness you become part of the food chain. It is only common sense to carry a firearm for protection. The Nat Park Service should not have a problem with legal carry for self protection but they have a different perspective.

Some LEOs are looking for the big score and making an arrest for a firearms violation would really look good on their record and probably ruin yours forever. It is a lousy situation.

If you are traveling on vacation, have CWP, have a firearm in your vehicle, and want to visit a Nat Park as part of your vacation, what are you supposed to do? Leave/hide the weapon in the bushes alongside the highway before entering the park?

Conflicting gun laws leave us all in a very risky sitaution frequently and you are at the mercy of the locals if caught in a unfortunate situation. It is likely we would lose our gun and maybe our rights and ultimately pay a high price for trying to protect ourselves.

Dave

20nickels
March 29, 2007, 12:31 AM
Cougars are a recent problem where the cities are growing into the mountains in California. Cyclers and hikers on the trails carry little more than a granola bar for defense. Odds are in your favor, but even a lightweight, descreet pocket knive would have saved some lives.

DWARREN123
March 29, 2007, 01:57 AM
If they are not smart enough to figure it out then Darwin wins.

Sniper X
March 29, 2007, 12:28 PM
This reminds me of a story I like to tell. It is a true story about a nice, gentle man who loved Grizzlies. He had a documentary series which I can;t remember the name of on the Discovery channel. He lived in Alaska among the Grizzs for two or three seasons and made quite a few snide comments about those of US who go into the wilds armend for our self defense. All the while saying if you respect the animals they will respect you ad infinitum....

The last episode of the series came prematurely because they stopped hearing from him and his girlfreind who was with him, one month and when they got up there to see what happened they found their remains, those remains of being eaten by the very Grizzlies he so respected and supposedly respected him.....friggin tree huggers....if it wasn't so predictable ( I nailed it in the first episode) it would be sad.....but you reap what you sow.....and if you don;t carry a big bore hand gun or carbine EVERYWHERE in back country, you are askin for it!




Synopsis
Timothy Treadwell's death was as sensational as his life: Having presumed he could live safely among the grizzly bears of the Alaskan wilderness, the outdoorsman and author (Among Grizzlies)--along with his partner, Amie Huguenard--was eventually killed and devoured by one of the very animals to whom he had devoted years of study.

TallPine
March 29, 2007, 01:52 PM
FWIW, more hunters, hikers, birdwatchers, etc are probably killed in car wrecks going to/from their recreation locations than are killed by either wild animals or firearm accidents :rolleyes:

Sniper X
March 29, 2007, 01:58 PM
Actually more are killed in falls than any other way, but still, it makes a attack by an animal "avoidable" if you have a firearm, but if you don;t the other alternative is far worse.

Geno
March 29, 2007, 02:12 PM
I knew it!!! I knew that miserable Congress would disarm the animals. :o Oh, you meant humanoid CCWs. Can you imagine a more stupid law?

In Michigan, we can CCW in our parks.

bigbore442001
March 29, 2007, 02:27 PM
That is why I do not go to National Parks to vacation. If they do not honor my rights as a citizen to be able to protect myself, why should I patronize them in any way?

I will go and spend my time and money in places that do not restrict my right to be able to protect myself.

Beatnik
March 29, 2007, 02:32 PM
Yeah, I don't know why there isn't more emphasis on the reason I, personally, would not go into the wilderness without a handgun.

I've been packing in bear country, even stayed in campsites in NM where every single tree in the site has had all its bark removed up to about 7' from the ground from clawing. I've run into bears on the trail. I'm still around and in one piece, because there are rules, and if you follow them, you're not really in any more danger than when you drive to work.

Why do I need a handgun in the wilderness? It's the same exact reason we need handguns at home. Only the naysayers can't possibly feed me the old jaw that it's the police's job to save us from rapists and murderers out there.

It's ridiculous enough when I have to wait 45 minutes to get to my house. If I'm attacked without defense in the wilderness, they don't have much of a chance of even finding my body.

Sniper X
March 29, 2007, 03:21 PM
This brings a question to mind for me that I have thought of from time to time. OK, first a statement, we are by law not supposed to carry in the Natinal Forest, aand the reason s never givin clearly or one that has any intellegence behind it. They, the naysayers of gun hating public say we don;t need to protect ourselves that that is the job of LE or in this case, the Game wardens or Park Rangers. Now if you asked why a park ranger has a gun I'd love to hear why that is any differnet than why we should be able to. Also, if one does get attacked in the NF and doesn't have a firearm because it is AGAINST the law, can we sue the National Government for neglect in making a law against being able to protect yourself, and them not being able to do it even though it is "their job"....I thnk if there wer more lawsuits against them for this the law about being able to carry in the NF would change.

Ill carry there anyway, as I live in New Mexico and it be Bar country......

Double Naught Spy
March 29, 2007, 07:37 PM
The pictures simply show what can happen to you, not exactly case points, okay?

So they are no longer case points of numbnuts because they don't fit your claims? You are right, they are poor case points for your argument about being unarmed in the wilderness given that the injured folks were all armed and the first example wasn't even in the wilderness. They are still numbnuts, armed numbnuts who still failed to use proper judgment.

The last episode of the series came prematurely because they stopped hearing from him and his girlfreind who was with him, one month and when they got up there to see what happened they found their remains, ...

Actually, Treadwell and his companion missed their scheduled pickup and that is what set things into motion. see ... http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=153604&highlight=treadwell

ASM826
March 29, 2007, 08:03 PM
Wouldn't this be better in one of the general or political forums?

grizz
March 29, 2007, 08:26 PM
I've been charged by a sow grizz in AK. The bear retreated at about 10 yards away AFTER me and my buddy let a few 12ga slugs fly into the air. Any closer and she would have got a nice dose of 3" magnum slugs.

I've had to camp right next to FRESH grizz tracks in the snow in Glacier National Park.

I've walked down the road at my land one way and on the return trip crossed FRESH cougar tracks where I had been 10 minutes earlier.

I've encountered 100 different scenerios where a firearm could save my life, or be very useful in the wilderness. I pack heat every time I'm in the wild. Even in National Parks (.44 mag in my pack).

I like having my face attached to my head.

--Grizz

telomerase
March 29, 2007, 10:56 PM
two men trying to hit one of the poles (south/north, don't remember) during the worst season of the year to do so. Among their equipment was, shock me dead, a S&W .44 Magnum "for bears."

That tells you what pole it was. Of course the leopard seals will still eat you at the other pole, but there's no bears.

Vermonter
May 12, 2007, 12:55 PM
Sniper-X, it's National PARKS that don't allow humans to carry proper weapons, not National FORESTS.

It's a good thing, because there's a lot more National Forests!

MassMark
May 12, 2007, 03:15 PM
I carry nearly everywhere I go - especially in the wilderness...The 5 months I was in Africa however were different. There where many places where carrying a firearm was not only illegal, it could get you shot on sight...My only defense along the Savuti river for lions was a 6-cell Maglite and an airhorn...Thankfully, I never had to use it... ;) I can however say that animal threat levels in Africa appeared to be seasonal. In the Okavango for instance, the animals were well-fed and largely ignored us. In the dry season however, it was a bit different. Food was scarce and we had to be on guard. The closest I came to being killed was by a hippo and in fact found the lions sleeping ootside my tent at night a comfort. While on the Savuti, (dry riverbed), I had a pride of lions outside my tent every night - some only separated by the thickness of my tent. I was camped underneath an ironwood tree which was the only tree for several hundred yards. The baboons used it for safety, (they crapped on my tent all night) and the lions used it as a launching point for attacks on the animals below in the dry riverbed.

I had a few tense moments - especially on foot in Africa, but generally felt safe amongst the animals. I likely would have felt a tad safer with a revolver on my waist, or a .45-70 on my shoulder, but would do it again in an eye-blink... ;)

PigPen
May 12, 2007, 06:54 PM
Right, so the last image is a reason folks should NOT be carrying guns because they can hurt themselves, but that image is now removed as it does not support the claim about the need to be armed in the woods, does it?

If you check the stats, I think you will find that more people are killed in hunting "accidental shootings" than by bear, wolf, and mountain lion attacks in the USA. Similarly, more people are killed by dogs than by mountain lions.


I'm sure that lots here have more experience than I but I have enough to have an opinion.... :).

So far, bad incidents in this country of any given type are a bit uncommon. Yes, it is true, you are pretty unlikely to be attacked by a wild animal while camping or even hiking. Trouble is, if you ignore risks of all types (or most types) in you daily life, the chance that one or the other of these adverse events, which occur to someone everday will eventually happen to you. Liberals simply choose different things to be concerned about.

Now I have been driving a car for some 30 almost 40 years.....EVERYDAY...in all types of terrain and all types of weather on all types of road surfaces. I have never suffered a single scratch. Not one scratch!! Yet, supposed reasonable people think it reasonable that I wear a seat belt and children ride in car seats to prevent injury in case of an accident.

Everyday, in numerous ways, we do things to prevent the unlikely......but possible.

If a close encounter with a vicious animal was likely, I simply would not go into the woods at all. I am not looking for trouble. I believe that such an encounter is unlikely!

Never-the-less, and for the same reason that I take lots of other precautions, I think it prudent to carry a firearm for defense. Of course I hope that I will never need it. I expect not to need it. But I will have it for the same reason that I will have a life preserver in rough water or a seat belt in my car etc.

Whether a person is trained properly in the safe use of firearms is another matter. If not, perhaps they should not venture out until they are prepared......including the safe and useful use of self defense with a firearm.

PigPen

pv74
May 13, 2007, 01:40 AM
Here in Scenic Idaho, I can carry just about anywhere I damned well please.
(save for a national park but NATIONAL FORRESTS are fair game).

I ALWAYS carry my S&W 629 5" loaded with 240 gr JSPs behind a stout charge of 2400 within imediate reach whenever i am hiking, camping or hunting in the mountains here. Better to have it and not need it then to get jumped by a mountain lion and be eaten miles from nowhere.

Double Naught Spy
May 13, 2007, 08:49 AM
So far, bad incidents in this country of any given type are a bit uncommon. Yes, it is true, you are pretty unlikely to be attacked by a wild animal while camping or even hiking. Trouble is, if you ignore risks of all types (or most types) in you daily life, the chance that one or the other of these adverse events, which occur to someone everday will eventually happen to you. Liberals simply choose different things to be concerned about.

Now I have been driving a car for some 30 almost 40 years.....EVERYDAY...in all types of terrain and all types of weather on all types of road surfaces. I have never suffered a single scratch. Not one scratch!! Yet, supposed reasonable people think it reasonable that I wear a seat belt and children ride in car seats to prevent injury in case of an accident.

Everyday, in numerous ways, we do things to prevent the unlikely......but possible.

If a close encounter with a vicious animal was likely, I simply would not go into the woods at all. I am not looking for trouble. I believe that such an encounter is unlikely!

Never-the-less, and for the same reason that I take lots of other precautions, I think it prudent to carry a firearm for defense. Of course I hope that I will never need it. I expect not to need it. But I will have it for the same reason that I will have a life preserver in rough water or a seat belt in my car etc.

Whether a person is trained properly in the safe use of firearms is another matter. If not, perhaps they should not venture out until they are prepared......including the safe and useful use of self defense with a firearm.

Pig Pen, I think you missed the point. The point isn't that you should be unarmed or unprepared. The point was that if one could post a few pics of supposed injuries of people unarmed in the wilderness who have been attacked by bears to justify the horrible dangers posed by animals in the wilderness, then it could be equally justified that having a gun in the wilderness, such as while hunting, is even more dangerous based on the yearly reports of hunters shooting themselves or others while hunting. This is a form of like argument reasoning, only the data are even more condemning for unintentional shootings than for animal attacks.

With that said, both arguments are specious at best in that the examples don't actually offer justification to the real problem at hand. All of these problems could have been mitigated or avoided had the people involved not acted in stupid or naive manners. You don't attack a bear with a stick. You don't have everyone go to sleep in their tents like seals in polar bear country. You keep your finger off the trigger until you have a known target and you know what it behind the target.

We all know that animals can be dangerous. We all know that guns can be dangerous. In fact, it is the proper application of the dangerous aspect of guns that makes them useful for such things as self defense and hunting. The problems here are not that animals are dangerous or that guns are dangerous. The problems here are that humans often act in stupid, naive, or ignorant manners when dealing with items and situations that have danger involved and when they act in such a manner, they often get hurt or get somebody else hurt.

Bondo_Red
May 13, 2007, 02:53 PM
Would it be legal to bring pre-1898 guns or blackpowder guns into the parks with the no guns law?guns that don't require a license.

pv74
May 13, 2007, 05:44 PM
Would it be legal to bring pre-1898 guns or blackpowder guns into the parks with the no guns law?guns that don't require a license.

Uh no..

The liberals would rather you be eaten.
It must be because a human life is worth less than that of an animal or a criminal to them.

RPCVYemen
May 13, 2007, 09:12 PM
I grew up in South Africa. Do you know what we called US Peace Corps volunteers that came to Africa? Crocodile food. These naive, save the world and the animals types, more often than not met an untimely demise, and went home in a body bag.

I'd like to know more about these attacks. When I was in Peace Corps, the most common cause of fatality was traffic accidents. The second most common was drowning - largely in the Pacific/Oceana region.

I'd be very interested in knowing the stats on PCVs killed by wild animals. Do you have a source?

The only source I found lists 2 crocodile attack (Ethiopia 1966, Zaire 1973), 1 elephant attack (Tanzania 2001), 1 honey bee attack (Togo 1988), and one shark attack (Samoa 1972) in over 45 years, with a couple of hundred thousand PCVs serving in that time.

Given that many volunteers are serving at an age where risky behavior is common (early to mid 20's), the safety record looks pretty good. A depressing number of the accidents/drownings are label ETOH (ehtyl alcohol), which is not unexpected given the age of the folks involved.

http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/messages/2629/2018358.html

I am not sure what good any reasonable handgun serves against honey bee or shark attacks. But it looks to me like very few Peace Corps volunteers go home in a body bag, and of those that do, very, very do so because of wild animal attacks that could be prevented with a weapon.

Do you have some different stats?

I gather that you disapprove of what you perceive to be the politics of Peace Corps.

Mike
RPCV Yemen 1984-86

arctictom
May 17, 2007, 08:16 PM
Its my second favorite topic , and some thing that tourists typically do not think about when traveling in Alaska.
Its some what unusual for Bears to attack people, they get shot at enough during hunting season that most are shy, But every so ofter they attack some one.
About 15 years ago a bear ate one tourist and maimed another, in Glacier bay national park. The park rangers called the Alaska State troupers to assist , but wouldn't let them bring their firearms , the Troupers politely declined , the Park rangers called again , the troupers declined again. The Park Ranges gave in and allowed the Troupers to bring rifles and retrieve the body and dispatch the bear.
The anti gun sentiment is not a rational faction and their is a disconnect between what is necessary and prudent and their naive Walt Disney view of the world and reality .

XavierBreath
May 17, 2007, 11:18 PM
This has little to do with revolvers.
It might have something to do with hunting, so I am moving the thread to the hunting forum.

obxned
May 18, 2007, 02:02 AM
The chances of an animal attack are very, very small. I still take a gun.

kmrcstintn
May 18, 2007, 02:39 AM
this is a topic that deals with self protection that is often addressed by carrying A MAGNUM REVOLVER...it could have been quite at home in the revolver section; what if someone was contemplating the purchase of a high powered revolver for such a purpose and the person doesn't hunt...now they won't know where to find this thread...please put it back where it was located

thank you,

the peanut gallery :D

Art Eatman
May 18, 2007, 12:59 PM
Certain events are rare, insofar as any one person is concerned: House fire, major car wreck, tort liability lawsuit. But, folks carry insurance against those events.

A firearm is nothing more than a form of insurance.

Mountain lion attacks are quite rare. However, they do happen. Same for bears. To me, there's an obvious answer, and I'm reminded of the saying I heard from a cop, some forty or more years ago: "Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

Art

Eyesac
May 18, 2007, 01:30 PM
The chances of an animal attack are very, very small. I still take a gun

Better to not need one and have one...

koja48
May 18, 2007, 03:12 PM
I carry almost everywhere I go . . . destination & degree/source of hazard determines which tool I select.

ranger335v
May 20, 2007, 02:26 PM
My wise old sargent in the AF once said of parachutes, "You may never need it, but if you need it just once and don't have it you will never need it again."

Seems to apply to defensive weapons too.

351 WINCHESTER
May 26, 2007, 09:38 PM
I live in Fl. We have bears, cougars, coyotes, gators, huge rattlesnakes, bobcats. Under the right circumstances all will attack. I always have my 640 stoked with h/c wadcutters. I guess that makes me a criminal when I venture into a national forest, but I'm more afraid of the 2 legged ones. I firmly believe that man has a God given right to protect himself and his loved ones. Man's laws are wrong.

Creeping Incrementalism
June 3, 2007, 05:22 AM
To distinguish between a National Forest and a National Park:

Dogs + Guns = Cool :) = National Forest

No Dogs + No Guns = Sucks :mad: = National Park.

NF/NP don't always have signs about guns, but they always have signs about dogs.

One story I read about a guy in Alaska being attacked out of nowhere by a starving bear, what first alerted him was the growl of his dog, whereupon he drew his revolver, just a moment before the bear charged from out of the brush.

Dogs are the first domesticated animal, for a good reason.

One more thing: this auto-spell check red-underline thingy rules!!! How long has it been around?

Caimlas
June 3, 2007, 06:40 AM
Well, yes, it's foolish to be out in the wilderness without protection.

But, consider: people have been - successfully - doing just that for millions of years (at the least!), and in environments much less hospitable than North America. Africa, India, Central and South America all have more (and more common) poisonous snakes, and large predatory or dangerous animals. And that doesn't even take into account the inhospitable climates, bugs, poisonous plants and quicksand... you get the idea.

My point is, if you know what you're doing, and you're not so foolish to travel alone (that is the DUMBEST thing a person could do, period) through 'wilderness', then you're, more than likely, going to be Safe Enough from threats not originating from two-legged animals. Do you have knowledge of your surroundings? Can you tell when you're being stalked? Do you know to avoid berry patches (and other areas of conflict) when there might be a bear around? Folks, last I checked, there were no pack-hunting predators in North America, short of feral dogs and wolves (in the rarest of cases), which will attack a human, and two people have been shown to be able to fight off large predators (bears, mountain lions) without injury if they're alert and aware of their surroundings.

That said, having a gun is never a bad idea when it's just you and one or two other people.

And if you don't like national parks, try national forests. They are, as far as I know, not inflicted with the same bull*hit no-gun rules, and are subject to state law.

bearmgc
June 5, 2007, 11:52 PM
I don't go to National Parks, but I do carry in National Forests. I was fishing the Big Sandy in the Bridger Mountains last weekend, and met a Government guy who told me a guy shot a young Griz over his bait site a week ago. Folks will tell ya there's no Griz in these mountains, yeah right.
But I still carry mainly to be prepared for 2 legged bad guys.

Bondo_Red
June 6, 2007, 12:14 AM
I always wondered the best legal protection in the no-gun wilderness areas.Combat knife?Tranq gun?Crossbow pistol arrows dipped in poison?

jeepmor
June 6, 2007, 12:35 AM
I always wondered the best legal protection in the no-gun wilderness areas.Combat knife?Tranq gun?Crossbow pistol arrows dipped in poison?

Whatever gun you see fit, can conceal adequately to stay out of hot water should you meet up with Mr. Ranger, and a good lawyer on retainer. ;)

twoblink
June 6, 2007, 04:18 AM
trying to kill a big black bear with a 357Mag revolver is not the goal, scaring it off with the noise is.. Bears scare fairly easily from noise (in pre-attack mode). Once they have sunk their teeth into your arse, that's another story altogether.

But a WHISTLE would at least be good... 30-06 probably better.. SICK PICS.

If you enjoyed reading about "No Guns in the Wilderness? Are People Nuts? GRAPHIC!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!