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/ 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

: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...

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.

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.

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.

"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

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-b...dclark/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."

How many acres in a hectare? We have 60.4 million hectares..?

If memory serves me right about 2.5 acres to the hectare.
About 151 million acres. Lots of room to get lost in.

You should have had a spoiler alert. That's the next book I'm going to read. :D

PD

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/op...wed4.html?_r=1