I figured this topic had to have been discussed before, but the search turned up random political gun discussions.

How many of you carry a firearm of some kind with you while you're hiking? The old saying goes, rather carry one and not need one than need one and not have it.

And just so we're clear, it's for protection against animals. Not for humans. A bear might just get pissed off when hit, but I bet damn well I can put five hollow point .40s in him as he's taking me to the ground. That's going to be one hurt bear. Any anything smaller than that is done for.

Never have and never will.

I've had 45+ years of hiking and backpacking experience and have never needed a firearm. There's been many close encounters with critters including rattlers and even a cougar. I've seen more bears than I can remember, but I've had 4 bear encounters that were actual confrontations. Three of them were with the bear and me about 6 or less feet apart. A couple of those encounters were because I inadvertently happened upon a sow and her cub. Oops! In all those close encounters I was scared s**tless, but followed the guidelines suggested by the park and faced them down while trying to appear large, loud and threatening. It worked! A firearm would have been useless and illegal (in National Parks, remember). You don't just hike a trail in a National Park with a holster and / or a rifle. Be brave and use your head.

Of course this was in the Sierra Nevada with our local Black Bears. I don't know how this would have ended had it been an actual grizzly bear encounter in other parts of the continent. I've always believed that if you're too nervous about venturing into such country without a firearm, then maybe you should either stay home or go somewhere else. After all, those lands belong to them. We're just visitors, right? (Sorry about the 70's-ish cliche, but that's what I believe. )

You can buy this stuff called bear spray. It's like pepper spray, but you use it on bears if they get too close. Seems to work well. I carry it on every trip and have never used it.

If a bear wants to eat you it will probably eat you, because you're going to be too scared to hit it. But the bear doesn't want to eat you, because you're not a berry, so don't worry about it. Just make the occasional noise when hiking and you'll be right.

The research seems to suggest that, at least in Alaska, bear spray is actually a more effective deterrent than a gun:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.342/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2193/2006-452/abstract

I'll admit I have no idea how rigorous the review process is at the Journal of Wildlife Management, and because attacks are so rare those sample sizes are inherently pretty small. Personally, "you're not a berry, so don't worry about it" - with the addition of "if you're really, really worried about it, carry bear spray" - is the best advice I've heard on the subject.

Things may be different out West, but here in the East, the "you're not a berry" line just isn't true. It's pretty rare, but black bears will prey on moose and they do prey on humans from time to time. However, carrying a gun is pointless. If you can see the bear, it's not hunting you. You won't have time to draw, so don't worry about it.

I've had my share of close bear encounters, but never felt the need for a weapon. Humans are a different story.

If you carry because you've used it successfully, by "putting 5 hollow points in him" then perhaps it does make sense. I'd be curious to know how many times hikers have successfully defended themselves against wild animals by carrying firearms??

No political statement here but my take on it is that it's really a "security blanket", it makes some people feel safe. I've encountered people that think I'm nuts for not packing in the backcountry. I can only figure it's because they always do and can't imagine leaving themselves so vulnerable to bears, bigfoot and all those things that go bump in the night.

There was a time when I wrestled with this question but it wasn't because of wild animal encounters. It was because of people. More than a couple of times my wife and I, backpacking alone, ran into groups of men on horseback, all packing heat. I had the thought, "What would happen if these guys decided to have their way with my wife, how could I stop them?" Paranoid thinking?-Yes, but it's really not much different than thinking the boogieman is gonna get you in the night. Unlike the boogieman, the riders were real though their intentions were a matter of conjecture.

Once we ran into a father and two of his sons in a remote wilderness and they looked like a western version of the Deliverance hillbillies. They were grizzled looking cowboys from Baggs, Wyoming and I was more than a little nervous when they made camp not too far from ours, with no one else around for miles! I felt a little relief when the elder of the group said that it was too bad that his other 3 boys couldn't make the trip. Yeah, a damn shame I thought. While we declined their offer to drink whiskey with them we did accept a bottle of wine that one of the boys offered saying "His wife packed it for him". Turned out they were nice, they just looked scary to me because we were in a vulnerable position (and they were scary looking!). Try to imagine, 3 grizzled faces with a weeks worth of stubble, bowie knife on one hip, a pistol on the other, wearing chaps and carrying a fly rod (the fly rod eased my concerns a bit).

Would I have felt safer if I was packing? I don't think so, but it could have made me think that the reason they didn't try to take advantage was because I was armed, which would have reinforced the thinking that a gun made us safer. Imagine what it could be like if every hiker carried a gun. That, is a scarier thought to me!

Maybe it was that incident that made me abandon the idea of carrying a firearm and the risks that go with it. Bear spray I have carried and never used. A much safer (and lighter) option in my opinion.

Hmmm. Actually I could see bear spray being pretty darn effective against wildlife.

And Bill, I hear you but can't understand your final thoughts/outcome. Paranoid? Sure maybe. But you're absolutely correct that your thoughts could become a reality. Even if it's a 1% chance, you want to chance you or your wife's life (or her sanctity)? Against humans, a firearm is going to be far more effective for defense.

I have carried a firearm while hiking and backpacking. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I don't have an opinion on whether a person should or shouldn't. I think that decision is best left up to the individual. The only real opinion I have on the subject is that nobody should be able to tell me I can't carry. Actually, I'm planning to go into grizzly country on a backpack trip for the first time and right now I think I will carry bear spray, but not a firearm. It'll save me 20 ounces or so.

Carrying a firearm in Brown bear country is very common (Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Yukon, etc). A 40 cal is worthless against a Brown bear, as is pepper spray. IF you are in Brown bear country and want to carry a firearm, carry something large enough in caliber to do what its intended to do. 454/500 cal.

If I thought that a firearm was necessary for a trip into the backcountry, I would forgo the trip. Simple as that. I can understand the desire if hiking in Alaska or some other place with grizzly or brown bears, but it might not be effective for the reasons mentioned, so I probably still wouldn't bother. When did suddenly feel the need for a gun to feel safe?

fatdad wrote: When did suddenly feel the need for a gun to feel safe?

Since we crawled out of the cave and invented steel. The truth is, where most modern folks hike, we aren't part of the food chain. Thats fine, as you pointed out, we all have a comfort level. However, many hike in areas where, legitimately, they are part of the food chain. I've been charged by an interior grizzly just once. He was a small one, probably no larger than 600 pounds. He was faster than a horse-these do chase down Elk and moose to eat! Most human kills by a Grizzly are not a blitz, they generally are there to eat(you)(the two human kills in Yellowstone represent both kill types) or they are defending a perceived threat against cubs. Either way survivor accounts reveal that there was time to react. Most ran, some climbed a tree, some used Pepper Spray, some used a FA. I carry Pepper, when a nuisance bear comes around camp, I use it preemptively to discourage the bear. This usually works. However, when a bear is hungry, or protecting a cub, Pepper will not work period.

This is a great book to read if you're worried about bears.

http://www.amazon.com/Bear-Attacks-Causes-Avoidance-revised/dp/158574557X

Very few Canadians carry guns when hiking, I take my cue from them. Don't sweat it, be more worried about the route you're about to climb it's definitely more dangerous.

firebirdude wrote:Hmmm. Actually I could see bear spray being pretty darn effective against wildlife.

And Bill, I hear you but can't understand your final thoughts/outcome. Paranoid? Sure maybe. But you're absolutely correct that your thoughts could become a reality. Even if it's a 1% chance, you want to chance you or your wife's life (or her sanctity)? Against humans, a firearm is going to be far more effective for defense.

After giving it more thought, I think the real reason I decided against carrying a gun, was that thought of what it could be like if every hiker carried one. That thought scared the hell out of me so I just sucked it up and moved on. But, I didn't own a handgun nor did I grow up around them, so it was easier for me to do that.

Paranoid?-I was talking about me. A bad thought can stick with you and be hard to shake. I've had to overcome some of those in recent years when going on solo backpacks, it gets a little easier every time.

At this point I use your logic as far as bear spray goes. If I feel the situation warrants it, I'd rather carry one and not need it, than need one and not have it. Most places I go, I don't feel the need.

Migolito wrote:The truth is, where most modern folks hike, we aren't part of the food chain.

This reminds me of an eye-opening encounter with some friendly guys hiking with pistols in Idaho. I don't think of myself on the eating or eaten end of the food chain while hiking -- animals are "scenery" -- but they clearly thought of their place in both directions.

If you do a little research, the benefits of bringing a gun appear to be overstated. Most attacks on hikers are surprise attacks, contrary to what migilito claims. As a result, you'll have little time to reach for a firearm and, if you did, unless you can fire off several accurate shots in about 1.5-2 seconds (doubtful), you'll be left with a wounded, angry bear. Unlike spray, a firearm is not a deterrent.

It's interesting to note that the profiles of those who have been outdoors alot do not carry guns, whereas the profiles of those who do, or are asking about it, show little to no activity. My wife had a friend whose boyfriend, who spent little time outside, insist that they take a gun camping. To me, it seemed that his inexperience outdoors made the imagined dangers very real.