I spent three summers in Alaska with one working on a fishing boat. When we are on land in the remote backcountry, I carry a rifle and my buddy carries a rifle. When I hike anywhere else in the lower 48 (WA/OR/CA/AZ/NM/UT/NV) and around the world, I do not carry a gun. I can't speak for ID/MT and the grizzlies/wolves in the backcountry there.

I usually carry spray on day hikes (mostly I'm in Glacier Park) but will also take my 45 when camping overnight. My reasoning: deploying spray in a tent is going to be incapacitating to myself and any others inside the tent. Another thought on a firearm: if a bear (or any animal for that matter) attacks a human it will eventually be put down. If I'm able to put down an animal that attacks me I'm saving the time and effort (and possible destruction of the wrong animal) of the authorities to track down the animal. Right or wrong that's my thought process. I take every precaution in the backcountry, by the book, but I'm a Boyscout at heart and tend to always be prepared for the worst case scenario.

First of all, I'd just like to commend everyone on having a conversation more than a page long - about guns, on an internet forum - without it devolving into a politicized shouting match.

Second of all - I've heard many other stories besides Kevin's of it being pretty much SOP to carry a gun in the Alaskan backcountry and other areas with lots of grizzly/polar bear activity. I believe there's even a town in Norway where it's the law to carry a gun if they leave the main residential area. The studies I cited earlier, and other "official" sources like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/bear%20spray.pdf seem to indicate that they would better off if they were required to bear spray.

So who's right, the sources backed up by data, or the folks that actually live in these areas? I don't have a strong opinion either way (full disclosure: I've never been shot or pepper sprayed, and I'm not a grizzly bear), I just sort of find it interesting that there's this discrepancy.

I believe it is now legal to carry concealed in national parks.

[quote="boyblue"]Never have and never will.

"I've had 45+ years of hiking and backpacking experience and have never needed a firearm."

In today's world, the human predator might be more of a risk than the wild critter variety.
I can think of several attacks on the AT trail. One attacker used a hatchet. Another, also on
the AT I think, pulled a hand gun and shot two men w/o warning. At least one of them survived
to tell the tale and a retired cop recognized the MO of the attack / the guy was arrested
and sent BACK to prison.

FOR THE MOST RECENT EXAMPLE, LOOK AT THIS: ESCAPEE FROM INSANE LOCK UP / CONVICTED OF TORTURE / MURDER / IN WOODS.
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/psych-patient ... ories.html

^^^
There's nothing new under the sun. There was an interesting scene in No Country For Old Men where a retired LEO told a younger one that the idea that things are worse LEO now than what they used to be is just "vanity". There have always been bad people with guns. I don't believe that more people with more guns makes it safer.

slowbutsteady wrote:I believe it is now legal to carry concealed in national parks.

I know there was recently discussion in Congress about that although I'm not sure if they ordered a change to
the existing policy / or federal law regarding firearms in a national park.

I'm not sure about your "concealed" fetish.

The following link to the NPS website ATTEMPTS to answer the question. While reading it,
notice the bureaucratic inability to answer simple questions by responding, "IF ITS ALLOWED."

https://www.nps.gov/appa/learn/manageme ... nswers.htm

DayHiker2011 wrote:

slowbutsteady wrote:I believe it is now legal to carry concealed in national parks.

I know there was recently discussion in Congress about that although I'm not sure if they ordered a change to
the existing policy / or federal law regarding firearms in a national park.

I'm not sure about your "concealed" fetish.

The following link to the NPS website ATTEMPTS to answer the question. While reading it,
notice the bureaucratic inability to answer simple questions by responding, "IF ITS ALLOWED."

https://www.nps.gov/appa/learn/manageme ... nswers.htm

I'm under the impression that a couple years ago it became legal to have a gun in a National Park but that it is illegal to fire it.

From Yellowstone's web site:
Firearms in Parks

As of February 22, 2010, a new federal law allows people who can legally possess firearms under applicable federal, state, and local laws, to legally possess firearms in this park.

The Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, was enacted May 22, 2009 and will become effective February 22, 2010. Section 512 of this law; Protecting Americans from Violent Crimes, supersedes the uniform treatment of firearm possession in the national park system outside Alaska under the regulations found at 36 C.F.R. 2.4.

It is the responsibility of visitors to understand and comply with all applicable state, local, and federal firearms laws before entering this park. Yellowstone encompasses parts of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. Each state has different regulations and these are listed below.

Federal law also prohibits firearms in certain facilities in this park (such as visitor centers, government offices, etc.); those places are marked with signs at all public entrances. Hunting and discharge of firearms remain prohibited in Yellowstone National Park.

Firearms should not be considered a wildlife protection strategy. Bear spray and other safety precautions are the proven methods for preventing bear and other wildlife interactions.

From the Intermountain National Park gun regulation page:
• Although it is now legal to carry loaded guns in national parks, guns cannot be fired except in rare circumstances. Hunting is illegal in most national parks except under special permits. Target practice also is banned.

^^^^
And with that, a civilized thread begins its death spiral...

fatdad wrote:^^^^
And with that, a civilized thread begins its death spiral...

Civilization took a step back with your passive agressive insult. You stated your opinion three different times. You were loud and clear. Sunny took the opposite view. Now its time to relax...

Accepting different opinions is what seperates civilization from the animals.

For what it's worth, I think carrying a gun is just stupid... between the gun and the ammo... too much weight...

The original post was basically-Do you or Don't you?
How bout we it leave off at-Take one if you want, don't take one if you don't want to!

Bill Reed wrote:The original post was basically-Do you or Don't you?
How bout we it leave off at-Take one if you want, don't take one if you don't want to!

Bill, that sounds a lot like "Smoke 'em if you got 'em." This thread resembles that dude who wanted to carry (and smoke?) cigarettes in the mountains.

fatdad wrote:^^^^
And with that, a civilized thread begins its death spiral...

No, it's bound to gain new life in "The Comfort Zone."

Fletch wrote:

fatdad wrote:^^^^
And with that, a civilized thread begins its death spiral...

Civilization took a step back with your passive agressive insult. You stated your opinion three different times. You were loud and clear. Sunny took the opposite view. Now its time to relax...

Accepting different opinions is what seperates civilization from the animals.

For what it's worth, I think carrying a gun is just stupid... between the gun and the ammo... too much weight...

Like I said death spiral, though with that comment I think we've hit the talus. Way to keep it classy Fletch.