GRIZZLY attack in National Park gun free utopia

[gunsmith]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1267200,00.htmlMan Hikes For Miles After Bear Attack

Updated: 09:50, Thursday May 24, 2007
A photographer whose face was ripped and gouged in a grizzly bear attack had to walk miles before finding help in the US state of Wyoming.
The man suffered severe facial injuries when the animal used its claws to savage him in Yellowstone National Park.



He had been photographing wild bears in the park when a female with a cub lunged at him.

The man, believed to be in his late 50s, survived the attack but had to walk up to three miles before being helped by other park visitors at around 1pm on Wednesday.

He was taken to hospital but officials have declined to comment on his condition.

Yellowstone spokesman Al Nash said: "I was told that the injuries to his face were severe."
Advertisement

He added that the injuries were of a type that result from clawing and said park officials would be investigating the attack.

Grizzly bears and black bears, including sows with cubs, are active in the spring.

Park visitors are encouraged to travel in groups and make noise so the bears can hear them coming and are not surprised.

They are also advised to carry pepper spray in case they come into contact with bears.

Yellowstone authorities say they have a good record when it comes to bears, with only eight people suffering minor injuries since 2000.

The last report of a person being killed by a bear in the park was in 1986.

 

[helpless]

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=260379

 

[gunsmith]

you can say that again!

 

[bsf]

Park visitors are encouraged to travel in groups and make noise so the bears can hear them coming and are not surprised.

They are also advised to carry pepper spray in case they come into contact with bears.

I was always told that tying a couple jingle bells to your clothing or backpack and carrying pepper spray would be suitable protection against bears. I was also told that you could differentiate grizzly scat from black bear scat because grizzly scat was likely to contain little bells and smell strongly of pepper.

Old, I know.

 

[gunsmith]

heh

In light of the rising frequency of human/grizzly bear conflicts, the Idaho

Department of Fish and Game is advising hikers, hunters, and fisherman to

take extra precautions and keep alert for bears while in the field.

We advise that outdoorsmen wear noisy little bells on their clothing so as

not to startle bears that aren’t expecting them. We also advise outdoorsmen

to carry pepper spray with them in case of an encounter with a bear.

It is also a good idea to watch out for fresh signs of bear activity.

Outdoorsmen should recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly

bear feces. Black bear feces is smaller and contains lots of berries and squirrel fur. Grizzly bear feces

is much larger and has lots of noisy little bells in it and smells like pepper spray.

 

[Joe Demko]

Tell me, gunsmith, were you traumatized by an episode of When Animals Attack as a child?

 

[gunsmith]

Don't worry Joe

someday, if you practice, you'll be able to post and follow the thr rules.

Now....try again.


If you do not like the rules of conduct or the acceptable topics, seek out a new venue to frequent or start your own board.

 

[Joe Demko]

No, see the reason I ask is that this is twice in two days you've cut n' pasted articles about animal attacks on humans without offering anything original as far as the point you're trying to make by bringing them to our attention.
In this article, for example, the guy who got clawed up was a photographer actively putting himself in proximity to the bears of his own free choice. He chose to be there and got clawed up for his efforts. He wasn't some poor hiker randomly attacked by a vicious man-eating bear.
There are plenty of good reasons why carry should be legal in the National Park System, your cut n' paste doesn't illustrate any of them.

 

[Erebus]

In this article, for example, the guy who got clawed up was a photographer actively putting himself in proximity to the bears of his own free choice. He chose to be there and got clawed up for his efforts. He wasn't some poor hiker randomly attacked by a vicious man-eating bear.

Are you saying he deserved to get clawed up or that he shouldn't be able to protect himself because he approached them willingly?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

GRIZZLY attack in National Park gun free utopia

This had nothing to do with being in a gun free area and everything to do with an idiot human taking unnecessary risks to photograph a potentially dangerous situation from too short of a distance that turned out to be a very dangerous situation resulting in serious injury. Yes, cubs are oh-so-cute, but also yes mother bears are oh-so-protective of their young.

When you have people who are willing to stupidly perform Treadwellian acts, then arming them just means arming stupid people who will then go even more stupidly into dangerous situations because they think they can protect themselves now because they have a gun, not ever realizing that the fault for being endangered is their own.

 

[kludge]

He had been photographing wild bears in the park when a female with a cub lunged at him.

Lunge implies proximity.

Stupid is as stupid does.

A gun wouldn't have helped this fool.

A telephoto lens might have.

 

[Joe Demko]

Exactly right, Double Naught Spy.

 

[Erebus]

When you have people who are willing to stupidly perform Treadwellian acts, then arming them just means arming stupid people who will then go even more stupidly into dangerous situations because they think they can protect themselves now because they have a gun, not ever realizing that the fault for being endagered is their own.

So you think that someone's right to protect themselves should be dependant on whether or not their activity is unwise? Who will determine what activities are unwise?

 

[Joe Demko]

If he had left the cubs the freak alone, the mother wouldn't have clawed his stupid self up. Surely, since the dawn of humanity, it has been universally considered unwise to interfere with bear cubs when the mother is about.

 

[Erebus]

You didn't answer the question Joe. Should he have been allowed to protect himself or not? I agree that approaching a bear with cubs is stupid, but should that revoke his right(2A) to protect himself?

 

[Joe Demko]

In this case, he wouldn't really have been protecting himself, IMO. He provoked the mother bear. An analogous situation would be me walking into a bar, picking a fight with another man, and then shooting him when he starts kicking my behind. No jury would accept self-defense from me and I don't consider what this guy did self-defense for the same reasons.

Edited to add: We have more stupid people than we know what to do with already. Bears are in much shorter supply.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Erebus, he had the right to protect himself. Not being allowed to have a gun is NOT the same thing as not being allowed to protect himself. He had the right to maintain a safe distance from dangerous animals. He gave up that right and approached too closely.

He could have had a stick, knife, club, pepper spray, but he chose not to be using any of those items. So the photographer could have protected himself in any number of manners, the first being to not put himself in immediate proximity to a very dangerous situation.

Even if armed, most photographers don't have the ability to shoot pictures and shoot guns at the same time.

Arming idiots with guns doesn't magically cause them to cease being idiots. They just become idiots with guns.

 

[Erebus]

picking a fight with another man,

Your analogy indicates intention, he didn't intend to provoke the bear. Accidently bumping into a drunk man at a bar who then tries to pound you into paste would be a better analogy. You intentionally approached but didn't intend to bump/provoke him. Would you defend yourself from the beating?

 

[Joe Demko]

Okay, then how about this analogy? I try to photograph Sean Penn outside a bistro. He is famous for not wanting to be photographed, but I do so anyway. He starts in to whooping on me, so I pull a gun and shoot him. All I wanted was a picture, right? So it's just self-defense, right?

 

[GoRon]

We should be able to carry in National Parks. This guy is not a good example of why.

You don't hang around grizzlies for very long without getting their attention and provoking them. That is what this guy did, he provoked an attack. Obviously he was seen as a threat to the cubs, he wasn't being hunted. If he was being hunted they would have killed and ate him.

They perceive us as either food or a threat usually, neither bodes well for us, gun or no gun.

If I was in a camera crew I would want a guide with a rifle hanging around to make sure nothing happened to me. How sad would it be though if a mother bear gets killed "protecting" its young just because we want some good photos?

 

[obxned]

I used to live right outside of Yellowstone. It ain't the bears that make me feel the need for a firearm in the park.

 

[Erebus]

Okay, then how about this analogy? I try to photograph Sean Penn outside a bistro. He is famous for not wanting to be photographed, but I do so anyway. He starts in to whooping on me, so I pull a gun and shoot him. All I wanted was a picture, right? So it's just self-defense, right?

If he is trying to kill you yea it would be. Taking a picture in public is a completely legal act. Might not be moral to follow someone around taking pictures but it's legal. You taking a picture of him doesn't give him the right to attack you. And you have the right to defend yourself from that attack. Unless you think annoying people is a valid reason for them to beat you up.

 

[Joe Demko]

My point is that provoking someone into attacking you negates self-defense as a legal defense. Grizzly bears are famously easy to provoke, especially when you mess with their cubs. The guy provoked the bear and it swatted him. Since he survived and was able to walk away from the experience, it seems to me that he received what amounts to a gentle reprimand from the bear.
As I've said already, there are good reasons why carry should be legal in the National Parks. This guy's story doesn't show any of them. His story illustrates mainly that being ignorant and/or stupid can get you killed. Perhaps in the future, he'd be better served to photograph ladybugs.

 

[funfaler]

I agree that this guy provoked that animal to attack, perhaps the solution is banning cameras in the Parks, not guns.

The acts of stupid or reckless people should not be used to promote or deny my rights. However, if I am "packing" for bear, then I should be set as far as packing for the two legged varmints as well. Even if the first threat is remote, the second in not so much, I would much rather carry an extra 36 oz on my trip and not need it than save the weight and sorely want in at some point.

 

[george29]

Personally, I am writing to Senator's McCarthy, Schumer and Feinstein and DEMAND a new law against carrying bear claws, and don't no one tell me "It's not the Claw, it's the Bear using the Claw":banghead:.
It's time for a Claw-Free Zone in our National Parks!!!!