Yeah because everyone in the whole country thinks like a New York opinion piece writer... :roll:

More....

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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...

See Frame's reply. You're comparing a blackpowder propelled musket ball to a much more destructive modern centerfire round.

Well he is getting closer with each shot.;)

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.

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.

I know they can project chemicals farther than three feet. I also know it's still not enough distance to suit me.:D

The people do provide a more compelling reason to carry a firearm, I'll admit.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...