Canada: Decision to climb tree proved fatal for bear's victim

[Blue Jays]

Hi All-

So who is the dumber of the two:

• A law-abiding and honorable person who hikes in the wilderness without a gun because it's against the law
• A so-called "criminal" who illegally packs a gun to protect his/her family from predators and could be caught and jailed

See? It's a tough call. Kind of goes back to that whole "judged by twelve rather than carried by six" argument. Many folks have families and jobs and therefore see imprisonment due to illegal firearm carry as a greater risk than a bear attack. It's a mighty big responsibility to determine you could be imprisoned if caught...but you're going to take your .357 Magnum revolver along anyway.

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

"I'm very sorry for grizzly bears in general because it's another black mark against them and another mark against their coexistence near people."

You guys who live in bear country let me know how you like the "coexistence". These tree huggers would make me ROLF if they weren't so SERIOUS about what they say.

I personally love nature, and I would love to see a grizzly, but something tells me I wouldn't want to do it up close and personal like...

And I would not be in any area with them unarmed.

 

[Preacherman]

It never ceases to amaze me how Northern Hemisphere tree-huggers and animal-lovers can be so extraordinarily dumb about dangerous animals. Being from South Africa, I can assure you that our local versions down there (and in the rest of Africa), whilst they may be animal-lovers and a bit demented about things like hunting, do indeed treat predators with the greatest possible respect! They've learned the hard way that love is best practised at a safe distance when the object of their affection is equipped with teeth, claws and an appetite.

Every year or so, we used to get (and may still get, for all I know) a visiting tourist or environmentalist who would get daffy for some reason and get out of their car in the presence of lions, or walk up to an elephant ("Don't worry, they're not carnivorous!" ), or do something else stupid. When the inevitable occurred, his/her traveling companions would typically make a huge fuss about why there were no armed rangers standing around to warn them. The armed rangers would typically respond that they had more sense than to stand around in the presence of danger, guns or no - and the rest of South Africa would typically yawn, shrug, and make some sort of comment that the animals had to eat, too...

 

[DarthBubba]

Liberals and HippyTreehugging Doofuses Oh My

This is why I hike with a new .480 Ruger, (When in the Northwest)

It may not stop the bear on the first shot, but it will slow them down on the way to the buffet.

DarthBubba

 

[Cosmoline]

A firearm is nice, but not really essential. I know many experienced hikers here who don't pack due the extra weight. But OTOH they know enough to keep well clear of bears. Most of the attacks by coastal brownies have been because of food defense (such as the McHugh Creek killings), sow defense of cubs, or habituation to humans (Treadwell). The second two categories are generally easy to avoid. Sows will usually start making a hell of a fuss if they even get wind of human, and if you pay attention and listen you can avoid the problem. Habituation in Alaska is pretty rare (outside of certain NPS controlled areas, but I won't get into that here). As far as a boar defending his kill, if you stumble across one and he acts, it's doubtful any firearm would do you a bit of good unless you have your rifle up and aimed ahead of time. This is why leaving the bells at home and keeping your EARS open is so critical. You can usually hear large wildlife here long before you see it. And if you hear what sounds like bones being broken, be like Brave Sir Robin and boldly run away

Personally, I pack a .357 primarily for black bear, which do sometimes come nosing up to people for food--or frankly to try to eat them.

 

[Blue Jays]

Hi Cosmoline-

Great post. I always have to laugh at backpackers who will leave behind a firearm due to "weight saving" efforts, but who will pack a folding camp chair or similar luxury nonsense.

If you're remote enough (and I'm talking no fireroads, etc.) it could be HOURS or DAYS before someone could reach you in the event of an emergency. My inclination is to be darn near as self-sufficient as one can get.

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[HI express]

Goes to show

I am sorry for that young lady, but it goes to show what many of what you have said for many posts about wild animals.."When faced with a wild predatory animal all you have to be able to do is out run the people that you are with." Those two ladies with the victim, sure ran away without her.

Throughout all our lives we get to make good and bad decisions. I am sorry that this lady did not live to regret her decision.

That vets attitude is great. We just learn to manage these grizzlies. Personally I think we ought to teach the grizzlies how to fire a rifle, then we can make it real even.

 

[106rr]

Grizzly Management

Moving a rogue grizzly 7.45 miles is similar to letting a serial killer out prison and moving him to the suburbs. They knew for sure that this bear was dangerous. The Canadian govt is just like ours. The life of a woman is worth less than the pride of a beaurocrat or a politician.
On the issue of grizzly numbers -- The official statistic was 700 Grizzlies on "Crown Land" inside Alberta. The amount of Crown land is very small compared to all other categories. This statistic is like the one in America where they say that firearms are the leading cause of death for young men in America. They neglect to mention that the survey was done on a weekend in a ghetto hospital near the drug dealing area.
Any grizzly is easily replaceable, they are genetically the same as Kodiaks. Simply transplant any number you want from Alaska or BC.
I believe that the govt officials in this case have exhibited a callous disregard for human life.

 

[javafiend]

A .357 is adequate to kill a griz if it is on top of you, and you shoot it under the chin or in the top of the mouth.

Shoot the predator? Shouldn't you just call 911 and be good a good witness?

 

[Libertyteeth]

Blue Jays said

It's a tough call. Kind of goes back to that whole "judged by twelve rather than carried by six" argument. Many folks have families and jobs and therefore see imprisonment due to illegal firearm carry as a greater risk than a bear attack. It's a mighty big responsibility to determine you could be imprisoned if caught...but you're going to take your .357 Magnum revolver along anyway.

In the U.S., at least in Montana, most forest service and wilderness land is open to the carrying of firearms, as far as I know. National parks, though, prohibit firearms. (The 2nd Amendment, of course says, that you have the right to keep and bear arms, except in National Parks. If memory serves.)

On top of this, if you do carry a firearm where the NP nazis prohibit it, it is a federal misdemeanor, with a maximum penalty of six months in the federal pen. Based on this, they deny you the right to a jury trial! If they can find additional offenses, they multiply charges, and the sentences run consecutively, but you still don't get a jury trial.