Another example of a stupid photographer, who chose to put his life in danger for a picture of a bear. Does not have any relevance to the "gun free zone" issue of National Parks. Pepper spray costs $50, a small price to pay for a stupid person. Personally, I steer clear of gun free zones more because of the 2 legged threats.
GRIZZLY attack in National Park gun free utopia
- Thread starter gunsmith
- Start date
- Status
GoRon
Member
I read on another board where this photographer has been warned by the park services that his methods for getting photos of bears were dangerous.
The park has decided not to kill the sow that attacked him.
The guy should have just bought some good glass, its cheaper than reconstructive surgery.
The park has decided not to kill the sow that attacked him.
The guy should have just bought some good glass, its cheaper than reconstructive surgery.
JerryM
Member
Although I believe that carrying a firearm in a National Park should be legal, I also agree that this instance does nothing to strengthen that argument.
The man was intentionally in close proximity to the bears, and even if he has been armed I seriously doubt he would have had the opportunity to stop the attack.
Two considerations; a handgun is not a bear stopper, and we do not carry guns so that a foolish photographer who gets himself in a fix due to his poor judgment can legally shoot a bear. Such folks take their chances. That is very different from a person hiking, and coming under attack by beast or man.
I have little sympathy for the guy, although I would not wish that he was attacked and injured. He made a dumb mistake, and suffered the consequences. That is life. Bears are not big cuddly teddy bears. I have seen folks photographing bears and getting much too close.
Regards,
Jerry
The man was intentionally in close proximity to the bears, and even if he has been armed I seriously doubt he would have had the opportunity to stop the attack.
Two considerations; a handgun is not a bear stopper, and we do not carry guns so that a foolish photographer who gets himself in a fix due to his poor judgment can legally shoot a bear. Such folks take their chances. That is very different from a person hiking, and coming under attack by beast or man.
I have little sympathy for the guy, although I would not wish that he was attacked and injured. He made a dumb mistake, and suffered the consequences. That is life. Bears are not big cuddly teddy bears. I have seen folks photographing bears and getting much too close.
Regards,
Jerry
Joe Demko
Member
However that may be, Chui, this is not an example of that.
GoRon
Member
Jingly bells? JINGLY BELLS? F*** a bunch of jingly bells! how about I jingle loose cartridges in my pocket? People being too stupid to be armed around bears and getting eaten is getting VERY old. We, and they, know for a pure and golden fact that bears are dangerous and capable of horrible things. Why on EARTH people still insist on wandering around dangerous animals and not being armed i just don't know. As far as I care, let the people that are too ignorant to be armed around such creatures be eaten and mauled. One of these days, they will learn...or die. Harsh, I know, but the weak apparently just can't learn.
learningman
Member
When I was younger I worked for an outfit that ran their cattle for the summer in the Babb country. Babb is right outside the park and from time to time you would see a Grizzly walking around. I've seen first hand the damage those huge beast can do. We had one cow with a chunck missing out of it's neck, her name was bear bait. The point is those bears are very big, very fast, and very protective of thier young. It may be public land, but its thier home so if you go into the woods then you had better be as prepared as you can. I know some hunters that had thier camp raided by a grizzly while hunting in the Bob Marshall while they were in the tent. They were able to repel borders but carrying guns in the Bob is leagal. Right now its not legal in the park. Right, wrong, or indefferent those are the rules right now and if you go into the park then you should take something else to protect yourself. I would suggest common sense for starters. The only thing stupid is assuming that you have the upper hand even with a gun at you side.
GoRon
Member
Quoted for emphasis
ubermensch
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 33
Please people, don't shoot the animals. If you don't want to risk being eaten or mauled, don't go wandering through the animals' territory. It is their home and you are a trespasser/lunch.
It is like you jumping into a tiger cage at the zoo, then shooting the tiger when it tries to see if you taste good. They don't know any better--you do.
It is like you jumping into a tiger cage at the zoo, then shooting the tiger when it tries to see if you taste good. They don't know any better--you do.
gunsmith
member
Wow! thats great!
If that is true, then that is really good news.
I hate treadwellian people.
Sorry uber, no can do. Coyotes wander through my neighborhood, if they bug me , they'll be shot...providing they stand still of course
I'm supposed to give up camping because I live in mountain lion territory?
Nope, we have bear in the mountains near here too.
Most of the time they leave you alone and it is rare that they attack...
I would rather have a gun than not have one if I'm in the woods.
Though I'm much more concerned about two legged creatures, the four legged ones have never bothered me.
And you folks who are getting uptight about the photog, how do you know how close he was?
Where in the article does it say he was not using telephoto lenses?
I know most of us have super developed "Daniel Boone" super powers and we know when a Grizz is stalking us...maybe this photog has not spent enough time in front of a pc screen like you guys and was unprepared
If that is true, then that is really good news.
I hate treadwellian people.
Sorry uber, no can do. Coyotes wander through my neighborhood, if they bug me , they'll be shot...providing they stand still of course
I'm supposed to give up camping because I live in mountain lion territory?
Nope, we have bear in the mountains near here too.
Most of the time they leave you alone and it is rare that they attack...
I would rather have a gun than not have one if I'm in the woods.
Though I'm much more concerned about two legged creatures, the four legged ones have never bothered me.
And you folks who are getting uptight about the photog, how do you know how close he was?
Where in the article does it say he was not using telephoto lenses?
I know most of us have super developed "Daniel Boone" super powers and we know when a Grizz is stalking us...maybe this photog has not spent enough time in front of a pc screen like you guys and was unprepared
Joe Demko
Member
Give us the benefit of your finely honed wilderness senses. How do you know when a mountain lion is stalking you? Perhaps we can generalize from that to grizzly bears and shoggoths.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
From the specific information you provided...
As noted by kludge, the lunge indicates immediate proximity as the bear was able to lunge and strike the photographer. Notice it was not described as a charge, chase, or any other term to indicate that the photographer was anywhere distant.
Maybe he was using a telephoto lens, but he was way too close.
Let's see, the guy didn't report using or having any weapons with which to defend himself, was close enough to an animal that could readily kill him that he was caught off guard via a lunge attack, and he WALKED 3 miles for help, apparently because he had no comm gear to summon help and no other form of transportation. Yep, he sounds like a well-prepared wilderness man to me.
gunsmith
member
heh!
Well, my fine tuned wilderness skills come from growing up in the deep dark canyons of....NYC!
And making it to the "Star" rank in the BSA.
Other then that, great white hunter joe I have never made any claims
You (at least I think it was you, maybe it was your pals) insinuated that the photog was partly at fault for taking the photo's.
I was trying to point out (I know some of us are sarcasm impaired despite the use of the roll eyes emotithing) that a Grizz could have easily stalked the photog.
as far as the mountain lion? I was totally surprised to see one cross the road in front of me on the way back from Virginia City, so...nope....I would have no way of knowing.
You guys were the ones critical of the photog, not me.
I feel he has a right to be in the wilderness, and carry a gun and a camera, whether he is in a National Park victim zone or not.
You can not be sure if your gonna be attacked by a criminal or an animal.
Thats why I support the NRA and the 2nd amendment.
You have a right to think that humans do not belong at the top of the food chain, don't expect the rest of the world to agree with you.
Don't you have an PETA meeting to get too?
Well, my fine tuned wilderness skills come from growing up in the deep dark canyons of....NYC!
And making it to the "Star" rank in the BSA.
Other then that, great white hunter joe I have never made any claims
You (at least I think it was you, maybe it was your pals) insinuated that the photog was partly at fault for taking the photo's.
I was trying to point out (I know some of us are sarcasm impaired despite the use of the roll eyes emotithing) that a Grizz could have easily stalked the photog.
as far as the mountain lion? I was totally surprised to see one cross the road in front of me on the way back from Virginia City, so...nope....I would have no way of knowing.
You guys were the ones critical of the photog, not me.
I feel he has a right to be in the wilderness, and carry a gun and a camera, whether he is in a National Park victim zone or not.
You can not be sure if your gonna be attacked by a criminal or an animal.
Thats why I support the NRA and the 2nd amendment.
You have a right to think that humans do not belong at the top of the food chain, don't expect the rest of the world to agree with you.
Don't you have an PETA meeting to get too?
.....you can read Joe....right?
gunsmith
member
DNS
So why not contact the poor fellow and invite him to thr where he can learn these great skills you and Joe share?
again, how do you know he was not stalked by the bear?
He could have been taking pics of a bear a mile away and this one came up from behind him.
The article does not say he was doing a treadwell, it just said he was lunged at.
So why not contact the poor fellow and invite him to thr where he can learn these great skills you and Joe share?
again, how do you know he was not stalked by the bear?
He could have been taking pics of a bear a mile away and this one came up from behind him.
The article does not say he was doing a treadwell, it just said he was lunged at.
gunsmith
member
DNS
DNS , you have a long history of following my threads and nit picking at what ever measley little thing you can, now Joe is doing the same thing...did you bite him?
DNS , you have a long history of following my threads and nit picking at what ever measley little thing you can, now Joe is doing the same thing...did you bite him?
gunsmith
member
it looks like you guys may be on to something!
Bear attack victim previously acquitted of going near bears...
Bear attack victim previously acquitted of going near bears
(Stations: UPDATES to add that victim was acquitted in 2005 of willfully approaching within 100 yards of bears in Yellowstone; edits to conform.) YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, Wyo. (AP) The Montana man who was attacked by a grizzly bear in Yellowstone National Park was acquitted in 2005 of purposely getting too close to bears in the park.
The victim of yesterday's attack was 57-year-old Jim Cole, a writer and photographer from Bozeman. Cole writes about bears, and has survived a bear attack once before.
Cole was acquitted in June 2005 of willfully approaching within 100 yards of bears in Yellowstone. Cole said at the time that he came upon the bears inadvertently, snapped a few pictures, and backed away slowly.
Cole suffered severe facial injuries in yesterday's attack. He's at the Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center, where he's listed in fair condition.
The National Park Service says Cole has published books on the lives of grizzly bears in Montana, Wyoming and Alaska. He was injured by a grizzly bear in Glacier National Park in September 1993.
(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights
Bear attack victim previously acquitted of going near bears...
Bear attack victim previously acquitted of going near bears
(Stations: UPDATES to add that victim was acquitted in 2005 of willfully approaching within 100 yards of bears in Yellowstone; edits to conform.) YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, Wyo. (AP) The Montana man who was attacked by a grizzly bear in Yellowstone National Park was acquitted in 2005 of purposely getting too close to bears in the park.
The victim of yesterday's attack was 57-year-old Jim Cole, a writer and photographer from Bozeman. Cole writes about bears, and has survived a bear attack once before.
Cole was acquitted in June 2005 of willfully approaching within 100 yards of bears in Yellowstone. Cole said at the time that he came upon the bears inadvertently, snapped a few pictures, and backed away slowly.
Cole suffered severe facial injuries in yesterday's attack. He's at the Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center, where he's listed in fair condition.
The National Park Service says Cole has published books on the lives of grizzly bears in Montana, Wyoming and Alaska. He was injured by a grizzly bear in Glacier National Park in September 1993.
(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights
Joe Demko
Member
Gunsmith,
If you saw a mountain lion cross the road in front of you, he wasn't stalking you. Growing up in the wilds of rural western Pennsylvania, I can tell you that much. Now you occasionally see coyotes and try, unsuccessfully it would seem, to shoot them. You've expressed worry about attacks on humans by wild animals several times in two different threads over the last couple days and become testy with those of us who do not share your fear.
Consider the following data:
1. In the years since 2000, there have been less than 20 fatal bear attacks by bears of any species.
2. Verified coyote attacks on humans are rare with only a single known fatality.
3. In the US and Canada together, there is an average of about 4 mountain lion attacks per year.
4. 25 people were killed by domestic dogs in the US in 2006 and nearly 5 million were bitten.
5. In 2005, the most recent available data, nearly 17,000 people were murdered by other people.
I'm still not sure what point you have in posting these articles, completely (or nearly so) free of any comment or other original input from you. I do know, however, that your chances of getting killed by another human or by a domestic dog are so much greater than your chances of being killed by a grizzly bear that the bears aren't worth worrying about. Especially if, like almost everybody in the US, you live where there are no grizzly bears. Maybe I'm missing your point, though, so why not be a sport and re-state it in very small words so I can understand it?
If you saw a mountain lion cross the road in front of you, he wasn't stalking you. Growing up in the wilds of rural western Pennsylvania, I can tell you that much. Now you occasionally see coyotes and try, unsuccessfully it would seem, to shoot them. You've expressed worry about attacks on humans by wild animals several times in two different threads over the last couple days and become testy with those of us who do not share your fear.
Consider the following data:
1. In the years since 2000, there have been less than 20 fatal bear attacks by bears of any species.
2. Verified coyote attacks on humans are rare with only a single known fatality.
3. In the US and Canada together, there is an average of about 4 mountain lion attacks per year.
4. 25 people were killed by domestic dogs in the US in 2006 and nearly 5 million were bitten.
5. In 2005, the most recent available data, nearly 17,000 people were murdered by other people.
I'm still not sure what point you have in posting these articles, completely (or nearly so) free of any comment or other original input from you. I do know, however, that your chances of getting killed by another human or by a domestic dog are so much greater than your chances of being killed by a grizzly bear that the bears aren't worth worrying about. Especially if, like almost everybody in the US, you live where there are no grizzly bears. Maybe I'm missing your point, though, so why not be a sport and re-state it in very small words so I can understand it?
The "onto something" would have been speculation on their part at best.
However, he's not recorded as stating how did he "run into" the bears this time. Either way, I wish him the best.
I love the outdoors and there are few things that scare me. Bears and poisonous snakes, primarily. Cougars only because you'd never know they're there. A good dog will "take care of" two of the three. Maybe. I'm not sure that a sow will not charge you and the dog. The more I think about it all the dog could do is harass the bear which may be enough for you to beat feet.
However, he's not recorded as stating how did he "run into" the bears this time. Either way, I wish him the best.
I love the outdoors and there are few things that scare me. Bears and poisonous snakes, primarily. Cougars only because you'd never know they're there. A good dog will "take care of" two of the three. Maybe. I'm not sure that a sow will not charge you and the dog. The more I think about it all the dog could do is harass the bear which may be enough for you to beat feet.
Joe, statisically, I agree with you. I DO enjoy the outdoors and some of the places I go into your stats are meaningless; there are no other persons around except for our own party.
There are poisonous snakes, bears, coyotes, badgers and cougars. I'm not sure anyone has been successfully attacked by a badger, but the stats mean nothing (especially the "how many have been killed by" stat). Having seen several individual's wounds from a bear attack, shark attack and wild boar attack is enough to chill your soul. It matters not if you're killed. Being assaulted by a large, powerful animal is plenty reason to have a healthy amount of respect and concern.
Just my 2 cents.
There are poisonous snakes, bears, coyotes, badgers and cougars. I'm not sure anyone has been successfully attacked by a badger, but the stats mean nothing (especially the "how many have been killed by" stat). Having seen several individual's wounds from a bear attack, shark attack and wild boar attack is enough to chill your soul. It matters not if you're killed. Being assaulted by a large, powerful animal is plenty reason to have a healthy amount of respect and concern.
Just my 2 cents.
gunsmith
member
Have I ever claimed to be a good hunter? ever?
Where have I expressed "worry", my main concern is that unconstitutional laws prevent "the people" from enjoying their rights.
I become "testy" when folks obfuscate my POV.
You can not seem to understand self deprecating humor, to be quite honest, I have shot at a few rabbits and yotes...yup...I missed!
Big deal! so what! I wasn't trying that hard anyway and was using a Glock 22 from a considerable distance, your the great white hunter and I am a humble new yorker, does that satisfy whatever cyberstalking bug you have that has crawled up inside your nether regions?????
Now please read this part again!
Where have I expressed "worry", my main concern is that unconstitutional laws prevent "the people" from enjoying their rights.
REALLY! OMG! WOW! GOLLY! GEE WHIZ MISTER !!! THANKS!!
Now can you tell me where bears who are in the woods drop their excrement?
Where have I expressed "worry", my main concern is that unconstitutional laws prevent "the people" from enjoying their rights.
I become "testy" when folks obfuscate my POV.
You can not seem to understand self deprecating humor, to be quite honest, I have shot at a few rabbits and yotes...yup...I missed!
Big deal! so what! I wasn't trying that hard anyway and was using a Glock 22 from a considerable distance, your the great white hunter and I am a humble new yorker, does that satisfy whatever cyberstalking bug you have that has crawled up inside your nether regions?????
Now please read this part again!
Where have I expressed "worry", my main concern is that unconstitutional laws prevent "the people" from enjoying their rights.
REALLY! OMG! WOW! GOLLY! GEE WHIZ MISTER !!! THANKS!!
Now can you tell me where bears who are in the woods drop their excrement?
gunsmith
member
Joe you are ignoring the point , not missing it
Please see post 41 in this thread, it answers your question.
I guess I can not assume you bother to read the thread you comment in, so here is what I have said in at least two post now
So again, just to be clear Joe, you are not missing any points what so ever you are ignoring them.
Your a big fan of Michael Moore, aren't you?
Please see post 41 in this thread, it answers your question.
I guess I can not assume you bother to read the thread you comment in, so here is what I have said in at least two post now
So again, just to be clear Joe, you are not missing any points what so ever you are ignoring them.
Your a big fan of Michael Moore, aren't you?
- Status