Thread: Guns in National Parks

Originally Posted by littlesilverbladefromwale

Bear tastes good or so I'm told.
A shooting freind of mine (named Lynn ironicaly)has a relation somewhere in th US with access to bear hunting. He never misses an invite.

I've eaten bear meat before. I didn't like it at all.

It had a very gamey taste to it. The good thing? Once I ate the bear, I assumed his strength and power!

Originally Posted by jockeys

I generally don't bother with a gun when backpacking as nothing that is portable will damage a bear sufficiently. maybe one of the new .500mag pieces, but I usually just carry a can of the strongest bear mace I can find.

Likewise. Then again, I am unlikely to meet anything meaner'n a black bear in my neck of the woods.

In response to this thread generally, I have to say that, not having the benefit of an accurate poll, I would think most regular users of the National Parks (like myself) are probably not in favor of this law. Defending myself against aggressors (ursine, human or other) is not foremost in my mind when I am backpacking through our nation's beautiful unspoilt places. And if I get in a jam, my pepper spray should be weapon enough. I have to suspect that this law is being pushed by lobbyists with an agenda that has nothing to do with the NPs themselves. Thoughts?

Originally Posted by Blade Wielder

I've eaten bear meat before. I didn't like it at all.

Yes, but then again, you are just a monkey in a spacesuit.

Originally Posted by igitur55

Yes, but then again, you are just a monkey in a spacesuit.

Ape in a space suit.

Originally Posted by Blade Wielder

Ape in a space suit.

You're right. I didn't see the opposable thumbs. Please accept my apologies.

from a critter standpoint, I think yes it should pass. part of it is important for areas where a person hunting might pass through a state park from one NFS property to another. there are places where this happens. what does a hunter do? there are other things besides bears to be aware of too. when I'm in the mountains I usually carry a 45lc, first round is snake shot, remainder are "flying ashtrays".

the other side is the human danger. I think it is the same everywhere, and nowhere are predators happier than places where they know the honest cannot properly defend themselves. when I go hunting I worry sometimes about the other humans up there, never about the animals. (without fail, if I have a tag and a gun a bear will never come into camp, no matter where I store the food, what I cook etc.).

Red

Lions and Tigers and Bears oh my

Farthest thing from my mind, two legged predators would be my primary concern...

An animal attack is rare indeed and actually I would assume any wildlife risks being as I put myself into a wildlife situation...
But man made risks I would not assume and I would be armed in any other place I might be, so why shouldn't I be when out in nature....
Needless to say I haven't camped in a National Park in many, many, years just for this reason...
If you want to take away my rights, you obviously don't want me to visit....

I vote YES

bears? meh...

I have previously avoided all national parks due to this rule
you know that there is more to a "park" than just the woods right?

can you say campground?

homo sapiens is the Wile E. est of coyotes and the most dangerous predator the world has seen by far.


regards.....

So...where is the discussion of the fact that this was tacked onto a COMPLETELY 100% UNRELATED bill on credit card rules?

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

So...where is the discussion of the fact that this was tacked onto a COMPLETELY 100% UNRELATED bill on credit card rules?

Our busy legislators don't have time to actually discuss something as uncontroversial as guns--just slip into a bill that is sailing to approval, and nobody will notice. Seriously, this was a disgusting maneuver, and further shows the cowardice / venality / deviousness (as applicable; more than one may apply) of our representatives in Congress.