With Handguns Allowed in National Parks, Why are we still having deaths from bears?
- Thread starter Alaska444
- Start date
Actually, within hiking circles, there is a lively debate about carrying firearms on the trail. You first have to realize that no one fits neatly into one group or another. Most people, myself included, have multiple interests and firearms is only one of them--and probably the most expensive. So it is not accurate to describe anyone who hikes as liberal and anti-gun no more than it is accurate to describe someone who is interested in guns as conservative. Personally I think I'm conservative but I also think most people who call themselves as conservative are actually reactionary. But my wife thinks I'm liberal in spite of having voted for Nixon. But that's another story.
Likewise, there is some debate about the people/animal problem in National Parks and presumably the same about state parks as well, though I've not read anything specifically about state parks. There are also National Forests as well and they have a totally different attitude about almost everything. Some national parks with a bear/people problem have special fenced areas for camping, which is good but doesn't help the person on a tramp. By the way, I've never heard of "Counter Assault." Usually if something like that actually works, it's not legal.
Likewise, there is some debate about the people/animal problem in National Parks and presumably the same about state parks as well, though I've not read anything specifically about state parks. There are also National Forests as well and they have a totally different attitude about almost everything. Some national parks with a bear/people problem have special fenced areas for camping, which is good but doesn't help the person on a tramp. By the way, I've never heard of "Counter Assault." Usually if something like that actually works, it's not legal.
many hikers are anti-gun and would ridicule anyone they saw carrying a gun
Not this hiker
I log a lot of trail time and I'm always amazed at what I see with regard to general safety. People are out, sometime deep into the woods, with no water, poor clothing, small kids who are obviously not having fun, etc. I get the impression that very few are armed with anything more than a pb&j.
Not this hiker
I log a lot of trail time and I'm always amazed at what I see with regard to general safety. People are out, sometime deep into the woods, with no water, poor clothing, small kids who are obviously not having fun, etc. I get the impression that very few are armed with anything more than a pb&j.
Show me a bear with title to some land, and i will certainly respect his property rights, otherwise, the bear doesn't have a "back yard" in my book.
It seems like there is some support for fencing off the dangerous predators here. A fenced off bear will be less bothered by tourists and better preserved. Perhaps the best compromise would be to fence off the roads through the parks for safer bear viewing (safer for both sides of the fence, longterm), while eliminating bears from other areas that are used for hiking, like state parks and designated trail areas of the park system.
Dangerous predators belong in zoos in a developed country such as ours, just like murderers, rapists, pedobears, and such belong in jails, for public safety. Seriously, when the bears start paying taxes, let's let them have some rights; until then, it should be citizens first, visitors second, and animals after them, rights wise.
At least the bears can't bare or bear firearms.
Glad there are a few of us out there. In the hiker's circle I circulate in I would say maybe at most 5%-10% are firearms minded and probably carry in the woods in some fashion. But the vast majority of the industry is very much anti-gun, anti-protection. Practically all of the hiking/outdoor businesses and "conservation" associations are rabidly liberal and anti-gun at least according to their political support and bear advice.
Unfortunately I have not found someone who is both a gun enthusiast or even gun friendly and loves to hike in my area. It would be nice to know I am not the only one armed and I might have some help if an attack by 2 or 4 legged critters comes along.
"The establishment of Yellowstone National Park by act of Congress on March 1, 1872,
for the first time signified that public lands were to be set aside and administered by the
federal government 'for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.'"
http://usparks.about.com/library/weekly/aa012598.htm
Having visited Yellowstone on several occasions and having made the loop through the park
each time (to my later regret,) I offer my observations. On more than one occasion, I've had
a vehicle directly in front of me slam on its brakes, all doors thrown open with no regard to
traffic, driver jump out into oncoming traffic while trying to get his video camera turned on,
front seat passenger jump out looking through the viewfinder of a camera with a lens a foot
long, kids running around the vehicle to get together with Dad, all over a bear sighted 200
yards or so out in the meadow. They all dash out toward the bear, run half-way to the bear,
all the time looking though their camera viewfinders. Kids unwatched and uncontrolled.
Multiply this by one thousand and you have a typical summer day at Yellowstone.
I'm surprised there isn't a bear incident every day. Should these people be armed? Absolutely not!
These might be the people who, if they had a weapon, should keep it locked in a safe while not
knowing the combination.
Should the bears be there? Well, there's no good way to keep them out other than killing them.
Should people be separated from the bears by fences? Might as well go to a zoo. Bottom line,
the general public is uninformed bordering on stupid when out of their little cocoon of daily
activity, and when involved in situations requiring awareness of surroundings and safety of self
and loved ones, they usually fail miserably. Bad things will happen sometimes. Life can be cruel.
These same people generally 'learn from their mistakes,' which is a tough way to learn life.
To the subject at hand, IMHO the park does not belong to the bears as some have opined. U.S.
taxpayers pay dearly for the upkeep, salaries and maintenance of the sites and facilities. Weapons
in the park are a double-edged sword. It surely makes it easier for those of us who have weapons
to not have to circumvent or disobey a 'No Weapons In Park' law. By the same token, woe to the
unfortunate of us who might find ourselves in the position of defending our life or the life of a
loved one by injuring or killing a bear in Yellowstone. In such a situation, deep scratch marks down
the arms before calling the Park Rangers wouldn't hurt! Assumption of the innocence of the bear is
where the investigation would start, and the idea of a 'civilian' with a weapon typically sends shivers
up the spine of a Park Ranger. So good luck with that!
for the first time signified that public lands were to be set aside and administered by the
federal government 'for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.'"
http://usparks.about.com/library/weekly/aa012598.htm
Having visited Yellowstone on several occasions and having made the loop through the park
each time (to my later regret,) I offer my observations. On more than one occasion, I've had
a vehicle directly in front of me slam on its brakes, all doors thrown open with no regard to
traffic, driver jump out into oncoming traffic while trying to get his video camera turned on,
front seat passenger jump out looking through the viewfinder of a camera with a lens a foot
long, kids running around the vehicle to get together with Dad, all over a bear sighted 200
yards or so out in the meadow. They all dash out toward the bear, run half-way to the bear,
all the time looking though their camera viewfinders. Kids unwatched and uncontrolled.
Multiply this by one thousand and you have a typical summer day at Yellowstone.
I'm surprised there isn't a bear incident every day. Should these people be armed? Absolutely not!
These might be the people who, if they had a weapon, should keep it locked in a safe while not
knowing the combination.
Should the bears be there? Well, there's no good way to keep them out other than killing them.
Should people be separated from the bears by fences? Might as well go to a zoo. Bottom line,
the general public is uninformed bordering on stupid when out of their little cocoon of daily
activity, and when involved in situations requiring awareness of surroundings and safety of self
and loved ones, they usually fail miserably. Bad things will happen sometimes. Life can be cruel.
These same people generally 'learn from their mistakes,' which is a tough way to learn life.
To the subject at hand, IMHO the park does not belong to the bears as some have opined. U.S.
taxpayers pay dearly for the upkeep, salaries and maintenance of the sites and facilities. Weapons
in the park are a double-edged sword. It surely makes it easier for those of us who have weapons
to not have to circumvent or disobey a 'No Weapons In Park' law. By the same token, woe to the
unfortunate of us who might find ourselves in the position of defending our life or the life of a
loved one by injuring or killing a bear in Yellowstone. In such a situation, deep scratch marks down
the arms before calling the Park Rangers wouldn't hurt! Assumption of the innocence of the bear is
where the investigation would start, and the idea of a 'civilian' with a weapon typically sends shivers
up the spine of a Park Ranger. So good luck with that!
But the vast majority of the industry is very much anti-gun, anti-protection. Practically all of the hiking/outdoor businesses and "conservation" associations are rabidly liberal and anti-gun at least according to their political support and bear advice.
Agreed. Hiking does have a "one-with-nature" aspect that appeals to the clueless.
Agreed. Hiking does have a "one-with-nature" aspect that appeals to the clueless.
Back when we visited Yellowstone as kids in the 1960s black bears were a nightly nuisance around the campgrounds. Don't remember any reports of attacks, but maybe folks had more sense of self preservation back then.
Millions of visitors = millions of bits of food to scavenge = lots of bears = more bear encounters. Mix in a majority of those visitors having been mis-educated that wildlife is always friendly and won't hurt us if we don't hurt them = pain.
Not sure what impact the fact that Yellowstone and other parks are now UNESCO World Heritage sites (as are Olympic, Grand Canyon, Glacier, etc.) on Park policy or communications. At least up to the early 1980s Park Rangers were usually were seasoned woodsmen, naturalists, and experts on wildlife by direct interaction and observation. Many appeared to have been former foresters, mountain climbers, etc.
Most of those woodsman Rangers seem to have retired and now it is mostly young people with no hands on experience just regurgitating the scripts they've been give for the summer. I would rarely trust a Park ranger when it came to advice on getting along in the woods as I doubt most of them do more than an occasional nature walk tour. Weather condition, closed routes, regulations, best campsite sure; real animal behavior and personal security...no.
Millions of visitors = millions of bits of food to scavenge = lots of bears = more bear encounters. Mix in a majority of those visitors having been mis-educated that wildlife is always friendly and won't hurt us if we don't hurt them = pain.
Not sure what impact the fact that Yellowstone and other parks are now UNESCO World Heritage sites (as are Olympic, Grand Canyon, Glacier, etc.) on Park policy or communications. At least up to the early 1980s Park Rangers were usually were seasoned woodsmen, naturalists, and experts on wildlife by direct interaction and observation. Many appeared to have been former foresters, mountain climbers, etc.
Most of those woodsman Rangers seem to have retired and now it is mostly young people with no hands on experience just regurgitating the scripts they've been give for the summer. I would rarely trust a Park ranger when it came to advice on getting along in the woods as I doubt most of them do more than an occasional nature walk tour. Weather condition, closed routes, regulations, best campsite sure; real animal behavior and personal security...no.
grubbylabs
New member
a couple of years ago (about 4 I think) they had a problem bear that would cruse the campsites l looking for dome tents. He would stand up and do a belly flop on them. Then quietly move on to the next. I am not sure if he just happened to miss the occupied ones or if he looked for empty ones but he never did it while a tent was occupied. Talk about a bear with a sense of humor. Unfortunately it got him killed. The first summer he did this he was relocated. He returned the next summer and when he started doing it again. They thought it was best to put him down.