MoapaPk wrote:

SoCalHiker wrote:

gwave47 wrote:Bears come out of the woods, just like we go in the woods.

I think that qualifies for the most ridiculous (or even delusional) statement I have heard in a very long time.

Hmmm. In Albuquerque, most bear-human interactions occurred when bears came down from the Sandia Mountains into town, perhaps lured by the fruit trees or the poultry and small livestock kept in Tijeras canyon. Several times during my 16 years there, bears wandered way down into the suburbs.

C'mon...

Has the thought ever crossed your mind that...

... every time a bear does wander into town the chances somebody sees it equals to probably close to 100%, while the chances of encountering a bear in the woods every time somebody ventures there is, what? ... almost zero. You're not seriously use that to argue that bears wander into towns as humans into woods...

... that many of those towns are built where bears used to roam freely before humans decided to settle there...

... that bears have to wander into new territories because human destroy their habitat...

... that bears wander into towns because they lost their instinctive fear of humans caused by thoughtless human behavior...

cheez...

Bob Sihler wrote:

redneck wrote:This is why I will never hike or camp in grizzly country. They are simply too unpredictable.

And at 400lbs or so, this was a small bear.

The last California grizzly was killed almost 100 years ago. I confess it's hard to feel really sorry about that.

Although I totally disagree with the views you've expressed here about grizzlies, I do commend you for this: you don't like them and therefore choose not to go where they are. Would that others were as honest and did the same instead of going and expecting to impose their rules.

I have to completely agree with Bob here. I respect Redneck for that too.

The mind of a bear is a terrible thing to waste.

The foamy head of a beer looks sensible on your face.

Ha. ha ...

Yes Bob, I was in the Northeast Yellowstone/ Cooke City Area for 5 days. I know what its like there. Who is talking about Cooke City other than you Bob? Just you Bob. If you pay attention I am addressing the fact that every time there is a human/bear encounter and the human gets injured or killed everyone says its the humans fault for being outdoors and then argues that humans should not begin defending themselves with guns. Just saying if we all followed that approach that we should stay inside instead of defending ourselves, eventually we'd never be able to leave our couch. But you're such a moron you can't understand the point i'm trying to make.

I could stand behind you in the grocery store with my gun on and you'd never know it, but you're so against anyone bringing one into the back country because you're sold on the fact that it would disrupt you. Say what you want, but I will always be armed, and if anything (bear, wolf, or human) ever attacks me I know I'll be going home to my kids. Meanwhile, some tree hugging hippie like you can scream and wallow in your blood for 7 hours and have your body discovered 2 weeks later. You choose your path, I'll stick to mine.

The service in this place STINKS !!!

I'm moving to another thread ...





Hold on - WHERE'S that Bob Sihler fella ???

He won't even offer me one of his beers. I'm OUTTA here !!!!!!!

gwave47 wrote:Yes Bob, I was in the Northeast Yellowstone/ Cooke City Area for 5 days. I know what its like there. Who is talking about Cooke City other than you Bob? Just you Bob. If you pay attention I am addressing the fact that every time there is a human/bear encounter and the human gets injured or killed everyone says its the humans fault for being outdoors and then argues that humans should not begin defending themselves with guns. Just saying if we all followed that approach that we should stay inside instead of defending ourselves, eventually we'd never be able to leave our couch. But you're such a moron you can't understand the point i'm trying to make.

I could stand behind you in the grocery store with my gun on and you'd never know it, but you're so against anyone bringing one into the back country because you're sold on the fact that it would disrupt you. Say what you want, but I will always be armed, and if anything (bear, wolf, or human) ever attacks me I know I'll be going home to my kids. Meanwhile, some tree hugging hippie like you can scream and wallow in your blood for 7 hours and have your body discovered 2 weeks later. You choose your path, I'll stick to mine.

You know what is scary (much more than the thought of encountering a bear in the wild): irrational people like you carrying guns

gwave47..............I also can't understand the point you're trying to make.

gwave47 wrote:Who is talking about Cooke City other than you Bob?

Umm, the incident in question occurred at a CG very close to Cooke City...

I am addressing the fact that every time there is a human/bear encounter and the human gets injured or killed everyone says its the humans fault for being outdoors and then argues that humans should not begin defending themselves with guns.

Have people here expressed that this was a tragedy for the people involved? Yes. Have people expressed regret that a bear had to be killed? Yes. Has anyone argued that the people deserved it or the bear shouldn't have been killed? No.

No, what people have said is that in grizzly country, there are risks that you have to accept or maybe you shouldn't go there. Then someone like you comes in with the guns angle, as if a gun is proven to be any more effective in preventing and defending against attacks than pepper spray and good sense (it's not). But some of you gun owners always seem to think that having a gun is some kind of, pardon the lame joke, a magic bullet. It's not. Unless you have the gun in your hand and ready to fire, you have no advantage whatsoever as opposed to someone with spray beyond the fact that the gun is lethal and the spray is not. And that's where the discomfort comes, and it's a discomfort shared by law enforcement officers in the parks and national forests, not just the tree huggers you want to portray us as-- if I get scared and spray a bear when it was bluffing or really wasn't threatening at all, it lives; if I shoot it, it dies (maybe). Or maybe, more likely, I wound and enrage it, all but assuring that I get killed. How are you going to know if it's a bluff or not until the bear's on you? That's why I prefer a proven effective non-lethal measure. It's not infallible, but neither is self-defense with a gun.

I don't have a problem with guns-- my views on defending your home and yourself against criminals fall well into the right-wing category, for I disagree that you should have to wait until your life is threatened-- I, and others here, have a problem with gun nuts, the people who feel compelled to carry their guns everywhere and who go into their gun rants given any opportunity. We think they're paranoid or have issues with having to act macho or both, and that makes us not trust their stability and their judgment. And many times each year, some gun nut snaps and kills people or gets arrested while planning to, like the guy recently caught with a ton of weapons on his way to San Francisco to kill leftists after being stoked up by the Glenn Beck show.

You jumped into this thread with an agenda and created arguments people never made. You were not the first to express sentiments of your sort, but only you provoked such a strong response from multiple people. Why? It is because you served up an agenda-driven rant, nothing more.

So you and others like you can talk all you want about your training and how using a gun is the last thing you want to do, etc. Your rants reveal what's underneath, and that's why we don't trust you and wish you would stay away from us and the wilderness. I know some people who own guns, some of whom carry them, and they don't sound like you at all. They are almost as dismayed by people like you as they are by those who want to ban guns outright, for your types give them all a black eye.

I'm done "talking" with you; feel free to have the last word and call me a hippie or tree hugger or whatever some more. In my first post directed at you, I admit I provoked you, and maybe I should have taken a different tack, but I felt you were asking for it. Judging from others' responses to you, I was right.

Jerry L wrote:gwave47..............I also can't understand the point you're trying to make.

He has no lucid points in any of his posts, makes wild distortions, and creates arguments that people never made so he can fuel his rants; it is fun, and revealing, getting him going.

So, in other words, it's WAY better than watching TV !

I have written it before, but I think it may bear repeating here. On the Islands of Spitsbergen (Norwegian islands at the same latitude as Northern Greenland), which are literally crawling with polar bears, nobody is allowed outside the only town there unless carrying a rifle or heavy pistol/revolver. Tourists are required to rent such a weapon and take at least two hours practice shooting it. It is recommended that if the bears come closer than 25 meters/75 ft. one should shoot (Al Gore or not).

Now Spitsbergen is, of course, a much wilder environment than any in the (contiguous) U.S. national parks, and polar bears are more dangerous than grizzlies, but still I wouldn't want to go to a place where if a bear wants to eat you it is considered your fault. As for pepper-sprays, I haven't ever heard them recommended for polar bears, but I guess even a person who has had little practice should be able to hit a bear with a handgun from a distance of say 10m/30 ft, and much longer with a rifle, while a pepper-spray can't be worth much unless the distance is below 2m/ 6ft. If it doesn't work the first time you press, you are dead.

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:I have written it before, but I think it may bear repeating here. On the Islands of Spitsbergen (Norwegian islands at the same latitude as Northern Greenland), which are literally crawling with polar bears, nobody is allowed outside the only town there unless carrying a rifle or heavy pistol/revolver. Tourists are required to rent such a weapon and take at least two hours practice shooting it. It is recommended that if the bears come closer than 25 meters/75 ft. one should shoot (Al Gore or not).

Now Spitsbergen is, of course, a much wilder environment than any in the (contiguous) U.S. national parks, and polar bears are more dangerous than grizzlies, but still I wouldn't want to go to a place where if a bear wants to eat you it is considered your fault. As for pepper-sprays, I haven't ever heard them recommended for polar bears, but I guess even a person who has had little practice should be able to hit a bear with a handgun from a distance of say 10m/30 ft, and much longer with a rifle, while a pepper-spray can't be worth much unless the distance is below 2m/ 6ft. If it doesn't work the first time you press, you are dead.

Ejnar, given that polar bears are far more likely to attack a person than a grizzly is and that one could rationally argue that it is foolish for a person to be anywhere near a polar bear, that policy makes sense for those circumstances.

That's good to know, too, because I have always wanted to visit Spitzbergen!

SoCalHiker wrote:

Bob Sihler wrote:Although I totally disagree with the views you've expressed here about grizzlies, I do commend you for this: you don't like them and therefore choose not to go where they are. Would that others were as honest and did the same instead of going and expecting to impose their rules.

I have to completely agree with Bob here. I respect Redneck for that too.

<Sniff> You guys have no idea how much that means to me. Especially coming from Bob, him being so brave and tough and all.

knoback wrote:Bear spray goes out to about 30 ft., depending on wind. The recommendation to shoot at a given range rather than based on bear behavior points out the limitations of firearms for self defense against bears or anything else: at long range they are unbeatable, at close range they are somewhat unreliable. It frequently takes more than one shot to drop a large animal, and if a bear is charging you, that's probably all you're going to get.

If I may pardoned for a lapse in my usual humility here, if I am an expert at anything it is knowledge and use of firearms. I believe I can declare with confidence that there is no repeating handgun on earth that can be used reliably against a bear weighing between 500 and 1,000 lbs. You will simply not get the penetration required to damage vital organs.

So the idea of carrying a handgun to defend against grizzlies is rather a quaint one. And terribly naive. And perhaps dangerous.

The only firearm that will reliably stop such an animal is a rifle or a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with slugs, either one of which will weigh about eight or nine pounds minimum, plus ammunition. Nine pounds. That's a hell of a lot of dehydrated mac and cheese.

To say nothing of the time it takes to deploy a slung long gun.

So since firearms are of little practical use to the backpacker or hiker in defense against grizzlies, anyone who expects to depend on them for his personal protection is better off staying the fuck out of grizzly country altogether.

Pepper spray is supposed to be good stuff (and bear spray is far more potent than the kind smart ladies carry in their purses), but again, you run into the issues of rapid deployment. And neither spray nor firearms would have helped the victim in the article that started this thread.

knoback wrote:If I go to Spitsbergen, I'll bring the 12 gauge with slugs.

Sounds like you know a thing or two about firearms too.

Slugs vs buckshot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpvRWa8il7k

Bob Sihler wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:I have written it before, but I think it may bear repeating here. On the Islands of Spitsbergen (Norwegian islands at the same latitude as Northern Greenland), which are literally crawling with polar bears, nobody is allowed outside the only town there unless carrying a rifle or heavy pistol/revolver. Tourists are required to rent such a weapon and take at least two hours practice shooting it. It is recommended that if the bears come closer than 25 meters/75 ft. one should shoot (Al Gore or not).

Now Spitsbergen is, of course, a much wilder environment than any in the (contiguous) U.S. national parks, and polar bears are more dangerous than grizzlies, but still I wouldn't want to go to a place where if a bear wants to eat you it is considered your fault. As for pepper-sprays, I haven't ever heard them recommended for polar bears, but I guess even a person who has had little practice should be able to hit a bear with a handgun from a distance of say 10m/30 ft, and much longer with a rifle, while a pepper-spray can't be worth much unless the distance is below 2m/ 6ft. If it doesn't work the first time you press, you are dead.

Ejnar, given that polar bears are far more likely to attack a person than a grizzly is and that one could rationally argue that it is foolish for a person to be anywhere near a polar bear, that policy makes sense for those circumstances.

That's good to know, too, because I have always wanted to visit Spitzbergen!

There are magnificent mountains there, and large glaciers. I'm not sure, but some peaks may still be unclimbed!

redneck wrote:
If I may pardoned for a lapse in my usual humility here, if I am an expert at anything it is knowledge and use of firearms. I believe I can declare with confidence that there is no repeating handgun on earth that can be used reliably against a bear weighing between 500 and 1,000 lbs. You will simply not get the penetration required to damage vital organs.

So the idea of carrying a handgun to defend against grizzlies is rather a quaint one. And terribly naive. And perhaps dangerous.

The only firearm that will reliably stop such an animal is a rifle or a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with slugs, either one of which will weigh about eight or nine pounds minimum, plus ammunition. Nine pounds. That's a hell of a lot of dehydrated mac and cheese.

To say nothing of the time it takes to deploy a slung long gun.

So since firearms are of little practical use to the backpacker or hiker in defense against grizzlies, anyone who expects to depend on them for his personal protection is better off staying the fuck out of grizzly country altogether.

Pepper spray is supposed to be good stuff (and bear spray is far more potent than the kind smart ladies carry in their purses), but again, you run into the issues of rapid deployment. And neither spray nor firearms would have helped the victim in the article that started this thread.

knoback wrote:If I go to Spitsbergen, I'll bring the 12 gauge with slugs.

Sounds like you know a thing or two about firearms too.

Slugs vs buckshot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpvRWa8il7k

Ah, Redneck, totally true?
Ie, see the thread about the Griz shot up in Denali. I believe it was supposedly charging, (bluff or not, we'll never know), and the guy shot and killed it with a handgun. Pretty sure about this. There have got to be handguns, given the right circumstances, that will stop a bear, as was the case here.