As long as the bear isn't radioactive, I'm not concerned. Radiation-induced death is far worse than any other kind. Not that it is more painful, it's just terribly un-PC.

MoapaPk wrote:As long as the bear isn't radioactive, I'm not concerned. Radiation-induced death is far worse than any other kind. Not that it is more painful, it's just terribly un-PC.

I wonder if Moses was ever struck by lightning ??? ?

JasonH wrote:

gwave47 wrote:Bob you're so tough,

You talking to Bob, Punk.

Good one, Jason! It's healthy to laugh at yourself! (I mean myself.)

gwave47 wrote:No, you really can't completely avoid bears. We've had two black bears in the past year in the middle of downtown Greenville (a city of 60K people). So if I was going to Dick's Sporting Goods at the intersections of two interstates in a good size city and a black bear attacks me in the parking lot, am I at fault for going outside and being in their territory? Bears come out of the woods, just like we go in the woods.

Next time any of you get robbed, or worse, I'll be the one to say "that's what you get for leaving your house and going into the criminals territory, if you don't want to be the prey of criminals don't ever leave your house ever."

Tree huggers.

Your "arguments" are so silly that there's no point even trying to debate them, but I do have to ask and say this: Do you have any idea how dumb you sound drawing a parallel between the Cooke City area and a 60,000-person city? Have you ever been to Cooke City and the environs? I remember you started a thread about Gannett Peak once; did you ever get out to Wyoming? If you have or had, you would know what northwestern Wyoming and most of Greater Yellowstone are like. And if you did and still make those arguments, then you're even dumber than you sound.

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.

knoback wrote:Wha? Dude you are mental! These things aren't the bear's fault or the person's, just bad luck when you get right down to it. It isn't morally wrong to carry a pistol so you can defend yourself against bear attack, it's just quite likely to be ineffective or worse. Now if you decide to be proactive and shoot on sight or when you hear something in the bushes or something outside your tent, then it is your fault. Just cowboy up, leave the gun at home and enjoy your climb. You may get hit by lightning or a falling snag. A bear may bite you. If you can't put those things aside after you've taken reasonable steps to avoid them, then maybe you shouldn't go out.

Great post

b. wrote:The idea that killing these bears is somehow cleansing the backcountry is ridiculous. This didn't happen in the backcountry. If she had stayed in the backcountry there would be no problem. I don't like it, it really sucks, but these bears will be killed, and should be killed to preserve the rest of them. If bears like this were allowed to keep disrupting the peace, they would all be eradicated as a matter of general peacekeeping.

I don't think anyone here has said that this bear shouldn't have been killed (the one that killed the man in June is a different story); a certain nut here has tried to put that argument in others' mouths.

Rather, I think some people were originally expressing their sadness that another bear had to be killed, not disagreement with the decision. What you say is true-- if proven dangerous bears aren't killed, it will be not only more people but also more bears that suffer as a result-- and I don't disagree even though in my heart I don't like it.

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.