View Full Version : Firearm carry law is being updated for National Parks
SUBMAN1
12-07-08, 11:50 AM
Woo hoo! Its about time they get rid of these draconian laws. So many times I read about people getting robbed, mugged, raped, and killed, and so many times I here about park rangers getting killed because of this stupid law. The criminals hang out in the National Park because no one can be armed there. No one can fight back. Now that is all about to change. No place will be safe for the criminal in the future.
$5 says crime in National Parks is about to drop off the deep end to near '0'. I refuse to camp even in a National Park because of this stupid law. Now I will be able to peaceably.
-S
U.S. Department of the Interior - News Release - Interior Announces Final Firearms Policy Update
"WASHINGTON, D.C. – Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Lyle Laverty today announced that the Department of the Interior has finalized updated regulations governing the possession of firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The final rule, which updates existing regulations, would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located. The update has been submitted to the Federal Register for publication "
Now I will be able to peaceably.
...and now no one else will, knowing YOU of all people are running around our National Parks with your beloved guns...:rotfl:
SUBMAN1
12-07-08, 01:11 PM
Now I will be able to peaceably.
...and now no one else will, knowing YOU of all people are running around our National Parks with your beloved guns...:rotfl:
Shows your intelligence level.
-S
I can see the need to carry a weapon out in those places but I really don't see why it would be preferable to carry concealed.
Now I will be able to peaceably.
...and now no one else will, knowing YOU of all people are running around our National Parks with your beloved guns...:rotfl:
Shows your intelligence level.
-S
ofcourse ! he has got to be a stupid commie cause he doesnt want everyone running around packing a hidden .45
Now I will be able to peaceably.
...and now no one else will, knowing YOU of all people are running around our National Parks with your beloved guns...:rotfl:
Shows your intelligence level.
-S ofcourse ! he has got to be a stupid commie cause he doesnt want everyone running around packing a hidden .45
Morts seriously do you have something against allowing us to make our own laws in our own country?
not at all
i just like making fun of them:rotfl:
not at all
i just like making fun of them:rotfl:
So you don't think it's wise for a person to carry a firearm when they're hundreds of miles away from civilization? Why not?
SUBMAN1
12-07-08, 01:43 PM
not at all
i just like making fun of them:rotfl:
So you don't think it's wise for a person to carry a firearm when they're hundreds of miles away from civilization? Why not?I think any man with half a brain could see the wisdom in carrying when out in the wilderness. It may be a case where Europeans don't quite understand in that you could drive 100 miles in this country and not see a single bit or building or inkling of civilization.
But I don't think that is what is going on here.
Morts has realized how pathetic his own laws are and has given up. So he is directing his attention at the one Western civilization left that still has some respect left. Its a jealousy thing, nothing more. No other explanation.
-S
Morts has realized how pathetic his own laws are and has given up. So he is directing his attention at the one Western civilization left that still has some respect left. Its a jealousy thing, nothing more. No other explanation.
-S
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: is that your best shot ?
cause then i honestly feel sorry for you
Well I for one are really interested in hearing what Morts has to say on the subject instead of taking "shots".
What is so ridiculous about letting people carry a firearm when they are out in the wilderness?
I just cant see the point in having a firearm with you unless you're out hunting, at the range or its part of your job.
then again im used to rules concerning guns that are, compared to american laws, very strict and i like it that way
MothBalls
12-07-08, 02:05 PM
Hell I never knew it was against the law. Any time I've ever gone camping or fishing in the National Forrest I've always carried a weapon with me. I have a carry permit so I guess I can do it legally now.
You're in the middle of nowhere. In addition to the criminals who intentionally stalk these areas because they know (or think they know) people don't have a way to protect themselves there's also the danger of the wildlife. It's just common sense and survival.
It wouldn't bother me knowing Subman was behind me with a weapon. Wait.... rephrase that.... It wouldn't bother me knowing Subman was in front of me with a weapon, I'd feel a little safer.
I just cant see the point in having a firearm with you unless you're out hunting, at the range or its part of your job.
then again im used to rules concerning guns that are, compared to american laws, very strict and i like it that way
Perhaps it's because you don't understand the sheer size of our wilderness areas. I mean you can literally be weeks away from civilization. If anything happens you are basically on your own, no law at all out there. In that situation a firearm might be the difference between life or death.
I just cant see the point in having a firearm with you unless you're out hunting, at the range or its part of your job.
then again im used to rules concerning guns that are, compared to american laws, very strict and i like it that way
Perhaps it's because you don't understand the sheer size of our wilderness areas. I mean you can literally be weeks away from civilization. If anything happens you are basically on your own, no law at all out there. In that situation a firearm might be the difference between life or death.
aye, if i get lost in the woods here...civilization is only a few hours away
and i understand that a firearm might help you
im just not used to that kind around here, thats why i posted the above post
Fincuan
12-07-08, 04:24 PM
Think of it this way: You're going out on a hike several days from the nearest road or house. You're going on foot, which means weight is crucial and everything you take with you must be considered carefully since no one is going to carry them for you. In our example there are no great amounts animals in the area that should be considered dangerous to humans, although there might be an odd bear or a wolf hanging around. In your area they still behave their natural way and try to steer clear of humans the best they can(can't blame them there :lol:).
Your average .45 M1911 weights around 1.5 kg fully loaded(just a common example, granted there are lighter pistols around). That's about the same as two days worth of food or a satellite phone with hell of a lot of batteries. A rifle would naturally be a lot heavier. Which one would you rather take with you? Would it be the pistol "just because I can", or something else?
... there might be an odd bear or a wolf hanging around. In your area they still behave their natural way and try to steer clear of humans the best they can(can't blame them there :lol:).
Weight is not a problem - the cute SUV has room for the whole household including TV, Computer, coffee machine and -of course- guns, all necessary for the complete natural experience. The biggest dangers are a flat tyre, an empty tank or (biggest catastrophe) failure of the GPS system.
Bears and wolves usually avoid humans, but some of them are criminals or -even worse- commie partisans so a gun is still very useful.
I just cant see the point in having a firearm with you unless you're out hunting, at the range or its part of your job.
then again im used to rules concerning guns that are, compared to american laws, very strict and i like it that way
Perhaps it's because you don't understand the sheer size of our wilderness areas. I mean you can literally be weeks away from civilization. If anything happens you are basically on your own, no law at all out there. In that situation a firearm might be the difference between life or death.
Weeks? :-? Where might that be? I know you can travel for hours in Sweden/Finland and Norway without seeing anything but a moose. I feel perfectly safe there without a gun.
Weeks? :-? Where might that be? I know you can travel for hours in Sweden/Finland and Norway without seeing anything but a moose. I feel perfectly safe there without a gun.
Our national park system alone encompasses 84.4 million acres.
Look, all this regulation does is bring the national park lands in line with the laws of the states they're located in. It's not like these huge wilderness areas have a fence around them.
Morts has realized how pathetic his own laws are and has given up. So he is directing his attention at the one Western civilization left that still has some respect left. Its a jealousy thing, nothing more. No other explanation.
-S
I was actually agreeing with a Subman/August-combo, then this gem came along. SERIOUSLY? :rotfl:
wow. a lot of frightened people on this thread.
MothBalls
12-07-08, 08:11 PM
wow. a lot of frightened people on this thread.
Maybe there aren't as many predators in Europe? In the open areas of our country there are many wild animals that can kill you, will kill you, and eat you. If you're 100 miles from nowhere dialing 911 isn't going to do much good. It's just common sense to have a weapon to protect yourself.
It's not a matter of being frightened as much as it is dealing with the reality of the situation(s).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/08/pot.eradication/ "This is about serious criminal organizations," Walters said. "They're willing to kill anybody who gets in their way. They're taking money back to those who kill prosecutors, judges and law enforcement."
<snip>
Authorities uncovered more than $1 billion worth of pot plants in Sequoia National Forest this week.
The drug cartels are using our national forest and parks to grow pot. So they can run around with guns, and we can't? Nope, not going to happen for long, not here.
... there might be an odd bear or a wolf hanging around. In your area they still behave their natural way and try to steer clear of humans the best they can(can't blame them there :lol:).
Weight is not a problem - the cute SUV has room for the whole household including TV, Computer, coffee machine and -of course- guns, all necessary for the complete natural experience. The biggest dangers are a flat tyre, an empty tank or (biggest catastrophe) failure of the GPS system.
Bears and wolves usually avoid humans, but some of them are criminals or -even worse- commie partisans so a gun is still very useful.
ROFLMAO!!! Thanks for the laugh, mate! :rotfl::rotfl:
As for having guns with you in the wilderness, well, I've come up with a bear 3 times in my life, they've never done anything as long as I havent act agressively. Met few deers too, same thing, dont act agressively, back down slowly and they dont give a damn about you. That's something, atleast, we Finns are teached from child, respect the nature and it respects you. Unloading a mag from a .45 Colt to a bear that prolly wouldnt've done anything to you isnt that. You only need a gun in wilderness if you're planning to behave like you need a gun to defend yourself. That's my take on it. Animals arent stupid.
Maybe there aren't as many predators in Europe? In the open areas of our country there are many wild animals that can kill you, will kill you, and eat you. If you're 100 miles from nowhere dialing 911 isn't going to do much good. It's just common sense to have a weapon to protect yourself.
It's not a matter of being frightened as much as it is dealing with the reality of the situation(s).
The reality is there IS danger out 'where the wild things are'. There is also danger in our bathrooms. The point is, is carrying a concealed, pocket 9mm going to make any difference at all? If you are going to camp next to a river during the salmon run in grizzly territory then you need a bazooka not a concealed pop gun. To quote Gene Wilder in Blazing Saddles, "No, don't do that! If you shoot him you will only make him mad."
In all the 30+ years I've been camping I've dealt with the cold, the heat, the wet, lack of water, lack of food, injury and bears+. My grandfather and Mr Ligertwood, my old scoutmaster taught me how to deal successfully with all those things and funny enough, bringing a gun along never came up.
So, go ahead, pack heat if it will make you feel better. Just know being in the woods is a heck of a lot safer that civilization.:up:
Geez guys. Understand the situation. ALL THIS RULE CHANGE DOES is put the concealed carry laws in a national park in sync with the state that the park is located in. Carrying firearms UNconcealed on national park land is perfectly legal and always has been, again in accordance with pertinent state law.
Geez guys. Understand the situation. ALL THIS RULE CHANGE DOES is put the concealed carry laws in a national park in sync with the state that the park is located in. Carrying firearms UNconcealed on national park land is perfectly legal and always has been, again in accordance with pertinent state law.
Why bother then? Hiding our guns from Yogi and BooBoo? Concealed carry in civilization is a little paranoid anyway.
But, that's another thread.....:smug:
PeriscopeDepth
12-07-08, 10:49 PM
Why bother then? Hiding our guns from Yogi and BooBoo? Concealed carry in civilization is a little paranoid anyway.
But, that's another thread.....:smug:
There are people who have lots of money growing in national parks. Those people tend to have guns. I don't think it's so crazy to want to carry concealed in the wilderness these days.
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_10986714
PD
Frame57
12-07-08, 10:50 PM
I hike an area here called Skyline park. We have a situation with mountain lions being forced into these areas because they are over populated. I love these cats, but make no mistake, that they have on occaison attacked hikers, bikers, joggers etc... The Smith and Wesson 329 is my carry weapon of choice when I am hiking. Even if I miss the target the fireball this puppy produces will sear its hair right of its face.
Years back my Dad always advised his family to never go into the woods without a firearm. My Uncle went camping up near Booneville circa 1975. Some biker thugs slashed my Aunt and Uncle's tent with machettes. Luckily they were unharmed, but since then my Uncle always took a pump 12 gage camping.
Recently some pot growers just killed and buried a hiker in the Mendocino forest. It is a sad reality of life, but to go into the forest without a firearm IMO is foolish.
Captain Vlad
12-07-08, 11:00 PM
As for having guns with you in the wilderness, well, I've come up with a bear 3 times in my life, they've never done anything as long as I havent act agressively. Met few deers too, same thing, dont act agressively, back down slowly and they dont give a damn about you.
All it takes to make that bear a lot less agreeable is for you to have, unintentionally, placed yourself between her and her cubs. I've been raised the same way you have; respect nature, but I still carrying a gun in the woods is a pretty good idea.
The bear, generally, will not do anything to me if I don't do anything to it. This works both ways, as I'm not going to shoot the bear unless it's acting in a hostile fashion. But if the bear decides, for whatever reason, that he isn't pleased with my continued existence, I would much prefer to have the means to defend myself.
Why bother then? Hiding our guns from Yogi and BooBoo?
:lol:
Well, for instance did you know that 4 million acres of the National Park system remain in private ownership? Imagine a situation where a CC registered person can legally be packing walking down the main street of his town but be in violation of the law doing the same thing on his own property.
Imagine a person driving down a back road carrying concealed, crossing an unmarked boundary onto government land and suddenly becoming a criminal without even knowing it.
The laws in national park land should be the same as the state they are located in with few exceptions. It only makes sense.
FWIW I don't think Obamas pick for Interior secretary is going to let that stand for long though...
Stealth Hunter
12-08-08, 01:46 AM
As for having guns with you in the wilderness, well, I've come up with a bear 3 times in my life, they've never done anything as long as I havent act agressively. Met few deers too, same thing, dont act agressively, back down slowly and they dont give a damn about you.
All it takes to make that bear a lot less agreeable is for you to have, unintentionally, placed yourself between her and her cubs. I've been raised the same way you have; respect nature, but I still carrying a gun in the woods is a pretty good idea.
The bear, generally, will not do anything to me if I don't do anything to it. This works both ways, as I'm not going to shoot the bear unless it's acting in a hostile fashion. But if the bear decides, for whatever reason, that he isn't pleased with my continued existence, I would much prefer to have the means to defend myself.
Bear mace would be more effective than a .45. You can shoot a bear five times through the heart, and it will not slow. Read about Lewis and Clark's encounter with a grizzly. Three shots to the head and three to the heart, I believe it was, and it finally died after chasing them for half an hour!
Repellents like mace work well because they irritate the bear's vital sensory organs. A gun is just going to make it even more pissed off than it already is.
You don't need to carry a gun around on a national park, and the reason why the law was introduced in the first place was to prevent poaching of endangered animals, like buffalo, wolves, eagles, etc. that live on the parks.
Frame57
12-08-08, 11:20 AM
Larry Kelly has taken every large game animal with a meager 44 magnum. Bob Munden took a Grizzly at 60 yards with one shot with a 454 Casull. No animal with its heart shot out can do the exploits Stealth referenced. Usually when tales of such things occur is that non lethal shots were placed and the animal had not yet bled out and rode on pure adrenaline.
Sailor Steve
12-08-08, 06:48 PM
I live in the state known as Utah. The total land area of The UK is 94.5 thousand square miles. The total land area of Utah is 85 thousand square miles - pretty close to the same. The total population of the UK is about 61 million. The total population of Utah is 2.6 million.
I have a friend who lives in a small town 30 miles from Salt Lake City. He has what we call a "horse property" - a small farm/ranch with a couple of horses, a cow, some chickens, ducks etc. He regularly has what he jokingly describes as "kitty problems". Cougars, aka mountain lions, regularly come out of the nearby foothills to try to get a cheap meal.
The bordering state of Wyoming (where the oft-maligned Dick Cheney is from) has a total area of almost 98 thousand square miles - bigger than the entire UK. Wyoming also has a total population of just 523,000 people. Unlike Utah, which is half desert and half mountains, Wyoming is mountains and plains. What isn't forest is grass, but it's mostly forest. And only half a million people live there. In Wyoming it really is possible to have the nearest policeman be 300 miles away when a criminal, or a bear, or a cougar, or a wolf, decides to see if there are some easy pickings around.
What a lot of Europeans - and eastern-seaboard Americans - don't realize is that what's good for Copenhagen - or New York - isn't necessarily what's good for Wyoming - or Utah. I don't care if this state or that wants to ban guns, or to have socialized health care, or anything else. What I object to is anyone else trying to force their ideals on me by using the federal government as a lever. That's why we still have States, and why we need to make our own rules, not somebody elses. It's also why why you calling the way we choose to live "stupid" is, well, stupid.
sunvalleyslim
12-08-08, 07:12 PM
"would allow an individual to carry a concealed weapon in national parks and wildlife refuges if, and only if, the individual is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under state law in the state in which the national park or refuge is located.
Doesn't allow for everyone to "carry".........you need to be a law enforcement officer or have a concealed weapons permit from a law enforcement agency to be armed. Los Angeles City and County do not give private citizens concealed gun permits
Stealth Hunter
12-08-08, 11:15 PM
Larry Kelly has taken every large game animal with a meager 44 magnum. Bob Munden took a Grizzly at 60 yards with one shot with a 454 Casull. No animal with its heart shot out can do the exploits Stealth referenced. Usually when tales of such things occur is that non lethal shots were placed and the animal had not yet bled out and rode on pure adrenaline.
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/aa/explorers/lewisandclark/bears_1
:hmm:
Clark's full diary entry reads:
Sunday, May 5, 1805
"In the evening we saw a Brown or Grisley beare on a sand beech, I went out with one man Geo Drewyer & Killed the bear, which was verry large and a turrible looking animal, which we found verry hard to kill we Shot ten Balls into him before we killed him, & 5 of those Balls through his lights This animal is the largest of the carnivorous kind I ever saw we had nothing that could way him, I think his weight may be stated at 500 pounds [227 kilograms].... we had him skined and divided, the oile tried up & put in Kegs for use."
baggygreen
12-09-08, 12:21 AM
Weeks? :-? Where might that be? I know you can travel for hours in Sweden/Finland and Norway without seeing anything but a moose. I feel perfectly safe there without a gun.
Our national park system alone encompasses 84.4 million acres.
Look, all this regulation does is bring the national park lands in line with the laws of the states they're located in. It's not like these huge wilderness areas have a fence around them.How many acres in a hectare? We have 60.4 million hectares..?
magic452
12-09-08, 01:03 AM
If memory serves me right about 2.5 acres to the hectare.
About 151 million acres. Lots of room to get lost in.
PeriscopeDepth
12-09-08, 01:14 AM
Larry Kelly has taken every large game animal with a meager 44 magnum. Bob Munden took a Grizzly at 60 yards with one shot with a 454 Casull. No animal with its heart shot out can do the exploits Stealth referenced. Usually when tales of such things occur is that non lethal shots were placed and the animal had not yet bled out and rode on pure adrenaline.
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/aa/explorers/lewisandclark/bears_1
:hmm:
Clark's full diary entry reads:
Sunday, May 5, 1805
"In the evening we saw a Brown or Grisley beare on a sand beech, I went out with one man Geo Drewyer & Killed the bear, which was verry large and a turrible looking animal, which we found verry hard to kill we Shot ten Balls into him before we killed him, & 5 of those Balls through his lights This animal is the largest of the carnivorous kind I ever saw we had nothing that could way him, I think his weight may be stated at 500 pounds [227 kilograms].... we had him skined and divided, the oile tried up & put in Kegs for use."
You should have had a spoiler alert. That's the next book I'm going to read. :D
PD
Frame57
12-09-08, 12:08 PM
Larry Kelly has taken every large game animal with a meager 44 magnum. Bob Munden took a Grizzly at 60 yards with one shot with a 454 Casull. No animal with its heart shot out can do the exploits Stealth referenced. Usually when tales of such things occur is that non lethal shots were placed and the animal had not yet bled out and rode on pure adrenaline.
http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/aa/explorers/lewisandclark/bears_1
:hmm:
Clark's full diary entry reads:
Sunday, May 5, 1805
"In the evening we saw a Brown or Grisley beare on a sand beech, I went out with one man Geo Drewyer & Killed the bear, which was verry large and a turrible looking animal, which we found verry hard to kill we Shot ten Balls into him before we killed him, & 5 of those Balls through his lights This animal is the largest of the carnivorous kind I ever saw we had nothing that could way him, I think his weight may be stated at 500 pounds [227 kilograms].... we had him skined and divided, the oile tried up & put in Kegs for use."Years ago there was great controversy about the .44 magnum being an effective big game cartridge and the fellow arguing used biased and un-educated information to make his point. It was argued that at point blank range the 44 magnum could not penetrate an adult grizzly sufficiently to engage the vital organs. The problem here is that what was not reported and later found out was that the alleged incident involved the 44 being loaded with lead semi wad cutters and the charge was at the level of a 44 special. On the other hand, the experienced hunter know that you have to have a balance of penetration and expansion in order to have an effective game stopping cartridge. A 44 magnum with a hard cast 310 grain bullet (see Garrett website) can go right through a bear. So the fact that these fellows you are referencing were using lead balls, it does not surprize me that they had a problem on their hands. I do go along in that an enraged bear is harder to stop than a docile one because of adrenaline issues. It is all about using the right cartridge and shot placement...
The other side of the argument.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/opinion/10wed4.html?_r=1
The other side of the argument.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/opinion/10wed4.html?_r=1
Unfortunately, far too many states have laws that allow citizens to carry concealed weapons. But no one should misinterpret those laws as the will of the people. They too are the will of the N.R.A., which has done everything in its power to force dangerous gun laws through one State Legislature after the next.
Yeah because everyone in the whole country thinks like a New York opinion piece writer... :roll:
More....
A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations said the rule change will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.
"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.
"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades," Wade said.
Seven former National Park Service directors went on record opposing any changes in the Reagan-era regulation last April in a letter to Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne.
The letter stated in part: “The current regulations have served the Park Service and the public well for the past 25 years. These rules, promulgated during the Reagan Administration, are essential to park rangers in carrying out their duties of protecting park resources and wildlife, and in assuring the safety of visitors to the parks.
As matters stand, visitors to the national parks are not prohibited from having guns. The regulations require merely that firearms in a visitor’s possession be unloaded and put away while within park boundaries. The regulation was crafted to be as narrowly restrictive as possible while assisting park personnel to prevent unlawful killing of wildlife. Informing visitors as they enter a park that their guns must be unloaded and stowed away puts them on notice that they are entering a special place where wildlife are protected and the environment is respected both for the visitor’s enjoyment and the enjoyment of others. While most gun owners are indeed law-abiding citizens, failure to comply with this minimal requirement can be a signal to rangers that something is wrong.
Removing that simple point of reference would seriously impair park rangers’ ability to protect people and resources, and if necessary manage crowds.
In all our years, we experienced very few instances in which this limited regulation created confusion or resistance. Park boundaries are required to be well marked. Even where national parks border wilderness or other open public or private land there is really little reason for hunters to claim confusion as to their location. Rangers have discretion to determine whether a particular violation of the rule should be prosecuted. There is no evidence that any potential problems that one can imagine arising from the existing regulations might overwhelm the good they are known to do.”
The seven directors signing the letter included: Ronald Walker, 1973-1975; Gary Everhardt, 1975-1977l; George B. Hartzog, 1964-1972; James M. Ridenour, 1989-1993; Roger G. Kennedy, 1993-1997; Robert Stanton, 1997-2001 and Fran P. Mainella, 2001-2006.
The park rule will be published in the Federal Register early this week and take effect 30 days later. Federal officials say overturning the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.
Captain Vlad
12-10-08, 06:44 PM
You can shoot a bear five times through the heart, and it will not slow. Read about Lewis and Clark's encounter with a grizzly. Three shots to the head and three to the heart, I believe it was, and it finally died after chasing them for half an hour!
See other people's replies for why this has little relevance in the modern world. Also keep in mind that a lot of national park land in the US doesn't feature grizzly bears.
As for bear mace...I'd prefer not to wait until the grizzly was quite that close, sorry.
You don't need to carry a gun around on a national park/
Your perception is that no one needs to carry a gun on a national park. There's been plenty of reasons listed as to why the reverse is closer to the truth.
Stealth Hunter
12-10-08, 07:52 PM
You can shoot a bear five times through the heart, and it will not slow. Read about Lewis and Clark's encounter with a grizzly. Three shots to the head and three to the heart, I believe it was, and it finally died after chasing them for half an hour!
See other people's replies for why this has little relevance in the modern world. Also keep in mind that a lot of national park land in the US doesn't feature grizzly bears.
If a black powder musket doesn't kill a bear after shooting it FIVE TIMES through the head, do you really think a magnum is going to be much better? I mean, it's more powerful, but are you a good enough shot to get five consecutive shots on a charging GRIZZLY BEAR with a revolver? You're betting on an awful lot.
Oh, and can you name of any national parks that have huge fences preventing animals from coming and going as they please?
Also, a bear is slower than a mountain lion. Imagine having one of those fast beasts coming for you.
As for bear mace...I'd prefer not to wait until the grizzly was quite that close, sorry.
Read up a little more about it. They don't have to be like three feet away from you. Not that it matters. If you're a good enough shot to get off a full magnum chamber into a charging and pissed-off bear's head, you can definitely use mace against it...:up:
Your perception is that no one needs to carry a gun on a national park. There's been plenty of reasons listed as to why the reverse is closer to the truth.
Why do you feel the need to carry a gun? Be worried about the people, not the animals. Bears and cougars and such generally avoid people, unless you trespass in their territory or act like an idiot and/or keep your food in the open.
Use your brain, and you have nothing to fear from the animals.
Frame57
12-10-08, 08:26 PM
I have friends who like using blackpowder to hunt to this day. But the blackpowder is much better than it was in those days and they use hard cast rather than soft lead. Even still when we go to the range they often get misfires and i would not trust a ball and cap when i can use modern technology. But the discussed case of these fellows shooting a bear and allegedly hitting 5 times in the knoggen etc... is not suffiecient to stand alone as a case in this matter. Not when modern famous hunters like Kelly, Munden, Peterson, Jamison etc... have taken big game using a handgun.
But i do agree that the #1 reason I carry when i hike is the subhuman threat rather than a rogue animal attack.
In regards to these sprays people advocate. I was a letter carrier in Florida for about two years. I was attacked by a dog and used my authorized pepper spray on him, and all the damned dog did was roll his snout in the grass for a moment and then was really pissed and came at me again. But this time i used my unauthorized retractable baton and took care of Mister doggy. So I have very little confidence in these pepper sprays, especially against a friggin bear...
Captain Vlad
12-10-08, 08:43 PM
If a black powder musket doesn't kill a bear after shooting it FIVE TIMES through the head, do you really think a magnum is going to be much better?
See Frame's reply. You're comparing a blackpowder propelled musket ball to a much more destructive modern centerfire round.
I mean, it's more powerful, but are you a good enough shot to get five consecutive shots on a charging GRIZZLY BEAR with a revolver? You're betting on an awful lot.
Well he is getting closer with each shot.;)
Oh, and can you name of any national parks that have huge fences preventing animals from coming and going as they please?
In reference to national parks not having grizzlies? Nope, of course I can't. But I can name several that exist in areas where grizzly bears do not reside.
Also, a bear is slower than a mountain lion. Imagine having one of those fast beasts coming for you.
This actually isn't quite as true as you think it is. Bears can run. Bears also have a much better chance of inflicting a fatal injury.
Read up a little more about it. They don't have to be like three feet away from you. Not that it matters. If you're a good enough shot to get off a full magnum chamber into a charging and pissed-off bear's head, you can definitely use mace against it..
I know they can project chemicals farther than three feet. I also know it's still not enough distance to suit me.:D
Why do you feel the need to carry a gun? Be worried about the people, not the animals.
The people do provide a more compelling reason to carry a firearm, I'll admit.
Bears and cougars and such generally avoid people, unless you trespass in their territory or act like an idiot and/or keep your food in the open.
Use your brain, and you have nothing to fear from the animals.
Of course they do, and I am fully aware of this. I'm also fully aware that bad situations can spawn even when normal precautions are taken, and that 'generally' isn't always.
FYI....
When I hike in the wilderness, in black bear country, I carry a small air horn. Works like a charm. :yep:
Stealth Hunter
12-10-08, 09:28 PM
If a black powder musket doesn't kill a bear after shooting it FIVE TIMES through the head, do you really think a magnum is going to be much better?
See Frame's reply. You're comparing a blackpowder propelled musket ball to a much more destructive modern centerfire round.
Suitable game for a .44 only goes up to a brown bear. Grizzly bears are a helluva lot bigger than a brown. Of course that's not to say that you couldn't, by some miracle, kill a grizzly, but it's going to take a lot more than six bullets to finish one (it took 12 for Robert Peterson to kill a polar bear, which is more closely related to a brown bear genetically, although it's only a little larger than the grizzly). More than likely, you'd be dead before you could finish putting your next six bullets into the chamber.
Well he is getting closer with each shot.;)
Like I said, assuming you don't miss the grizzly once, you're going to need a lot more than six bullets. That doesn't take into account the possibility that you're a crack sharp shooter who can make six perfect headshots...:up:
This actually isn't quite as true as you think it is. Bears can run.
Not as fast as mountain lions, however. Grizzly bears, for instance, can only run about 25 mph max. Some species of mountain lions have that beat by about 10 mph. I'd rather face a mountain lion, however.
Bears also have a much better chance of inflicting a fatal injury.
An immediate fatal injury, but having a mountain lion/cougar attack you it just as bad. They might not weigh as much as your average bear, but they have teeth and claws just as sharp.
I know they can project chemicals farther than three feet. I also know it's still not enough distance to suit me.:D
If you shoot it, you're only going to make it even more mad. Use chemicals, and it WILL bugger off. The nose and eyes of a bear are extremely sensitive. If you irritate those with mace, you will make it leave you alone. It's a guaranteed thing.
Of course they do, and I am fully aware of this. I'm also fully aware that bad situations can spawn even when normal precautions are taken, and that 'generally' isn't always.
Then we can agree on one thing, but if you look at the animal attacks on people, you'll find that the people usually did something to provoke the animal or were careless in the animal's territory.
Animals do not bother humans unless something is wrong with them (if they're starving or infected with a disease, for instance; there are only, for diseases, like 4 reported cases of rabies per year; I'd have to find the statistic).;)
I'd like to point out that "unloaded and put away" pretty much prevents a firearm from being used in any kind of self defense situation. So while it's technically not a gun ban, it is in practice.
Stealth Hunter
12-10-08, 10:22 PM
Well, the reason why they don't want and why there's no need for guns to be allowed on national parks/wildlife reserves is because of poaching. Even in the United States, there are problems with it. Well, there's that reason, and also the problem of idiots running around and killing off as many animals as they could find for no other reason than because they think it's fun.
Captain Vlad
12-10-08, 10:37 PM
Suitable game for a .44 only goes up to a brown bear. Grizzly bears are a helluva lot bigger than a brown. Of course that's not to say that you couldn't, by some miracle, kill a grizzly, but it's going to take a lot more than six bullets to finish one (it took 12 for Robert Peterson to kill a polar bear, which is more closely related to a brown bear genetically, although it's only a little larger than the grizzly). More than likely, you'd be dead before you could finish putting your next six bullets into the chamber.
Size between a grizzly and a non-grizzly brown bear subspecies depends on which variant we're talking about. Personally, I'd prefer something heavier than any pistol round I can think of if being charged by either...but a .44 would certainly be better than nothing, especially since I believe you're underestimating the power of a heavy caliber magnum round.
That doesn't take into account the possibility that you're a crack sharp shooter who can make six perfect headshots...:up:
I can hold my own...but that's in a situation where I'm not peeing myself because an 800-1000 pound bear is charging me.:D
Not as fast as mountain lions, however. Grizzly bears, for instance, can only run about 25 mph max. Some species of mountain lions have that beat by about 10 mph. I'd rather face a mountain lion, however.
Me too. Cougars have been fought off with bare hands, rocks, sticks, etc. Ferocious, yeah, but not the engine of destruction and carnage a ticked off bear can be.
Note that some brown bears have been clocked in excess of 35 mph. I've heard mention of 40. Grizzlies tend to be a bit slower. More muscle mass and such.
If you shoot it, you're only going to make it even more mad. Use chemicals, and it WILL bugger off. The nose and eyes of a bear are extremely sensitive. If you irritate those with mace, you will make it leave you alone. It's a guaranteed thing.
Nothing is guaranteed. Since I leave animals alone, I have to assume that if I'm being attacked by one, it's enraged enough, for some reason, that it's adrenaline level might render such non-lethal measures useless or only momentarily effective. See the example of the dog in an earlier post.
I again feel you're underestimating the power of a Magnum round. While yeah, grievously injuring an enraged bear might not help me much, the chance of inflicting a debilitating wound is probably higher than you're suggesting. Overall, a gun of appropriate size is a better defense, at least from my standpoint.
Then we can agree on one thing, but if you look at the animal attacks on people, you'll find that the people usually did something to provoke the animal or were careless in the animal's territory.
Oh you betcha. If you can't be respectful of the animals, and cautious with yourself, you really don't belong in the woods. Nevertheless, unprovoked attacks have occurred, and will occur again at some point. Murphy's Law.
Incidentally, I'd like to go on record as saying I'm pretty fond of bears, and find them to be a favorite animal to observe. I'd hate to have to shoot one.
Well, the reason why they don't want and why there's no need for guns to be allowed on national parks/wildlife reserves is because of poaching. Even in the United States, there are problems with it. Well, there's that reason, and also the problem of idiots running around and killing off as many animals as they could find for no other reason than because they think it's fun.
Note that possessing a firearm on national park land is quite legal. Do you seriously think that a poacher or a nut like in your example is going to be the slightest bit deterred by a requirement to keep his firearm locked up and put away?
Then there is the issue that national park boundaries are very often not marked. A person can become a criminal merely by walking a few feet further down the trail although they hold all the applicable carry licenses required by the state they are in at that moment.
Hylander_1314
12-11-08, 12:35 AM
Working for BFI in the mountains was real fun with no protection from the bears and cougars. Getting chased by three brown bears that were 500 + lbs with no way of defending yourself except for making a beeline to the cab and locking the doors was all I had. Had a cougar charged, I would have been a goner. 220 lbs of big kitty with big claws ,and choppers, and nobody not even a big football lineman is gonna withstand that.
And some of the parks have grizzleys too. At least you can slow them down and increase your chances.
It would be nice to see the Rangers take a few of the crooks out.
Frame57
12-11-08, 01:04 PM
Google Bob Munden's website and you can actually purchase the video of him taking a grizzly. 454 Casull! The rounds completly exited the animal...
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.