I recently saw a VERY heated thread on another site about carrying firearms while backpacking. Has anyone here ever had to use a gun for defense in the backcountry? The gun carrying argument was for safety from wildlife. I've read accounts where charging grizzlies haven't been fazed by a blast from a 12-gauge, though. Grizzlies, cougars, and wild boars are the only American wildlife I can think of that would warrant defense by firearm. The anti-gun argument was that when you enter the backcountry you are invading the home of these animals and have no right to harass them, you are now part of the food chain, blah, blah.
Just so you know, I am impartial and not trying to start a fight here.

The gun posts have a way of starting heated controversy no matter what intention the original poster has ; )

i hate to get this thread going (cause i know where it will go!), but i'll relate a chat i had with a guy in ashland while hiking the pct.

he couldn't believe i was out hiking without a gun to protect myself in the wilderness. i told him that the things i was most concerned about were stream crossings, hypothermia, heat stress, or an injury from a fall. and that i wouldn't be able to shoot any of those things. (i guess i could shoot the stream crossing, but that wouldn't help much).

i think on a scale of risk assessment, the risks in the backcountry that can be mitigated by carrying a gun pale in comparison to lots of other ones. i'd rather carry a pound more of food, water, plb, knife, fire starter, or anything else.

i also think back to a dayhike i was on a few years ago, and went past a family (husband, wife, and two kids). he had this huge handgun and ammo clips on his belt. he said he was ready for bears and mountain lions. we hiked in and back out, and passed them on the way out as it was getting dark. they were out of water, and had no jackets or other layers in the cold of the evening, and they weren't doing too well. i was thinking "dang ya brought the gun and plenty of ammo to protect your family against mountain lions, but didn't think to bring jackets, water, food, etc. for a long dayhike."

anyway, just a coupla thoughts.

Find out what the local folks do. They could tell you if you'd be better served by a warm hat or an avalanche beacon and shovel, or a shotgun.

I notice the Rangers in US National Parks carry guns, but not for non-human wildlife. I have even seen backcountry rangers with heavy duty belts and service sidearms and cheerleader batons and government bug zapperz. Poor over-burdened functionaries. (Don't taze me bro!) (Editorial Comment: But us submitizens have nothing to worry about when our delegated servants take on the role of masters. The US Constitution, void where prohibited by law).

Risk assessment involves both probability and consequence. Whereas even most police officers in the US never draw their weapon in the line of duty, I think the probability of needing a gun is low unless you are a Stop-N-Rob store clerk or wear bacon scented cologne.

As other posters have noted, the utility of a firearm on a trekking trip is fairly low, and the weight opportunity cost is high. There are instances and places where it might be indicated for self-sufficiency and peace of mind, but it is low on the a-priori-ity list. On the other hand, when one needs a gun, one usually needs one very badly and very quickly.

Along the southern border for instance where drug smugglers have been known to attack those who come across their path, for fear of having their load ripped off. Organ Pipe National Monument is festooned with warning signs about wandering off into roadless areas that smugglers frequent.

In national parks and monuments it isn't legal to have an operational and accessable firearm. Consequently when this question is asked the informal 'don't ask, don't tell' mentality is likely to be invoked.

One reason people carry guns on hikes is because they live, work and drive in areas where being armed is a daily prudent habit, and like any piece of safety equipment a sidearm should be dealt with consistently and always under the control of the operator. Leaving one in a car creates a theft opportunity. When a gun isn't slung or holstered it should be in secure storage, which most vehicles aren't.

Having a gun no more makes one armed than owning a piano makes one a musician. Too many people approach guns as a magical talisman. Mindset, situational awareness, and disciplined practical training are the software that is more important than the hardware. A sane operator generally won't choose to go anywhere armed that he wouldn't go disarmed. That may not apply to US Marines.

Nope - never carried one; probably never will. Every thing I learned about guns I learned playing cowboys and indians with pop-guns. This was before this activity became unacceptable in the eyes of the PC (including my own). That provides all the information about my age that I'm likely to provide :~)

That said, there are places that I'd seriously consider learning how to use and carry one. To Dave's point, it makes sense to take your cues from the locals. The thing that springs to mind is actually bear predation. British Columbia?

I know and know of several canoists who had some fairly significant scares from polar bears in the watersheds feeding western Hudson Bay... many parties there carry at least one shotgun.

Generally I don't think that it's worth getting your knickers in too much of a twist about these kind of questions - the ones who protest too vehemently have let their dogma run over their brain function. More kindly - in my vast experience of being wrong, it's usually because I've said "never" or "absolutely."

When hiking or backpacking? No. There are many lifetimes worth of great spots for such activities where the need for defensive firearms are non-existent. I deliberately and selectively avoid all the other areas. While the mossies, assorted camp robbers, and chippies may be infuriatingly numerous at times, they just don't rise to the threat level required for firearms.

When building fence or checking on livestock all alone on my ranch in the backcountry near Yellowstone? Yes. In three years, I met only one bear - a cub - only to be met with the sudden realization that having taken my gunbelt off during the drive in, I had inexplicably neglected to put it on again before leaving my truck - a clear case of rectal-cranial-inversion.



Wandering Bob

Edited by wandering_bob on 12/13/2007 18:40:02 MST.

Regarding encounters with smugglers:
I have met smugglers in the backcountry several times - not planned meetings, by the way! - and have talked with them more than once. My experience is that contrabandistas just want to go on about their business. A backpacker or paddler is not a threat to them. The last thing a moonspinner needs is to call attention to himself. Also, they tend to use familiar routes and don't want a bunch of folks out there searching for your cadaver.

On the other hand, the ubiquity of cell phones might change the nature of these encounters if smugglers start to worry that wilderlings will use their phones to fink them out. I suspect the extent of this may be having to surrender the phone or maybe just the battery.

In my humble opinion being what it is. I don't bring a firearm. I practice stealth camping where it is less likely I will run into the predatory hiker hunting bear in the woods. I have on occasion run into the predatory, horseback riding group of drunks with guns on the trails. Where there is at least one mule for the kegs and wisky. I have been threatened, pushed, and otherwise bothered.

My solution is to take my old (feeling ancient) escape and evasion infantry training into use. Run, hide, use cover, direction change, and head for a place where the horses might not want to go. Guess what. I only did that once. And it was because I had a big mouth. I don't even think they chased me. But I would tell you they did back then.

I have had bears in yosemite walk right behind my head while sleeping outside. Guess what they didn't bug me. I have no experience in Yosemite or Alaska. I would choose to carry a firearm there. Maybe.

On a good note, to those who like to pack them. There are carbon fiber framed .357s now. They are expensive, and still not too light. Plus they didn't waranty the frames for very long when I looked a few years back.

All I know is humans are the most dangerous animal on this planet and the bears. They are just hungry.

Have fun!!!

Its interesting hearing this debate from a different coutry, like Australia.

Here, its illegal to carry a gun unless you have a license to do so and reason to. You never see anyone armed-only policemen. The only time you ever see civilians armed is if you are out bush and they are actually in the process of hunting or controlling vermin-like farmers or proffesional hunters.

We dont have grizzlies or polar bears though. To be honest, I would consider carrying a pistol in serious grizzly country in Nth America if it was recommended to me by experienced locals. But that would be the only reason, and I would avoid it if prudent bear-safe baehaviour allowed it. I guess I will find out what decision I make when I get there.

But if the guns are being carried by people who dont even think about the basic essentials for a day-hike, it sounds like they are gun-totin' yokels who dont really understand the wilderness, and shouldnt be in there anyway.

(I think to most aussies, the "Pro-gun Lobby" (etc) in the US is almost comical.)

I have lead backpacking groups every summer since 1987 and most always get the "gun" question. Never have had to deal with anything bigger than the occasional, curious Black Bear. There have been many times I wished I'd had a shotgun to keep the squirrels at bay.

Always, when legal. Not because of the chance of needing it is high; but instead because the consequence of not having it when needed are high. It's one extreme corner of the risk-assesment matrix.
The typical scenario I plan to avert is the one you occasionally read about in the news; you know, 'two campers found murdered in their tent on the beach', etc..
I have years of training in its use and hope I will never need to use it. My choice is a Beretta Vertec.

Where I currently live there is no such thing as the 2nd Amendment. This leads to a safer society, certainly, but only because 99.99% of bad guys dont ALREADY have guns here.

Bear: "Don't taze me bro!"

A previous poster joked about tazers, but I wonder if they would be useful for bear protection? I guess you had better have a very high power model and a real good aim b/c there is only one shot. More than one bear could be bad.

For human protection, they are proven to work (unless you catch one of those invincible pcp/meth users, uhoh!). Again, you better have a good aim.

Of course, tazers have many of the legal problems that guns do, but they are light (18oz for a lazer scope tazer) and could save your life (and the bear's).

On second thought, maybe the Beretta 92 IS the way to go.

Edited by HechoEnDetroit on 12/13/2007 22:27:02 MST.

First, I have to agree with the poster above that criticized guns for their weight. For the vast majority of situations, I'd be hard pressed to think of a worse way to spend a few pounds in my pack.

Exceptions? Sure.

Protection from Wildlife - polar (not grizzly) bear country. People are roughly seal sized and with the disappearing sea ice, a polar bear could surely chose to make a meal out of me and I'd quickly chose my endangered rear end over his.

Protection from People - Darien Gap... no, not even then. A lone hiker with a pea shooter would only assure their own arrest by the authorities, or remove any doubt that their more heavily armed muggers/kidnappers would just write them off (kill them) and then take whatever they darn well pleased.

I'll grant them (guns) to those so inclined for certain large predator mammals, but not bandits, and certainly not psychopaths. If joe-shmoe thugs are really a concern, go somewhere else. If you're worried about a psychopath, you're a looney-toon. I defy anyone to give anything more than a handful of scary anecdotes to substantiate this risk - and here's the real challenge - even one example of such an encounter where having a gun solved the whole thing. Irrational fear, ineffective solution.

If you really want to have a gun with you into the backcountry, get some use out of it. Go hunting.

Edited by dsmontgomery on 12/14/2007 00:32:16 MST.

I agree with the Polar bear argument. If you've ever seen pictures of a mauling you'd want the whole army with you. Certain parts of Iceland a gun is apparently recommended gear for strolls outside the house.

Taser?

Here in the South West I've run into a number of people who are armed when hiking .... especially in some of the wilderness areas of New Mexico. I've never heard of anyone needing to use one unless they were hunting and either needed to put their kill out of it's misery or to fend off predators (bears and/or Mountain Lions) that were attracted to the gut pile when the hunter was cleaning his kill.

I've run into some unsavory people on the trail, especially being so close to the beginning of the underground railroad from Mexico, and it's not uncommon to see signs from where people on their way north have camped for the night out in the wilderness. In fact, I was woke up one night, where me and a buddy had camped at an established campsite on a trail near Austin, Texas, by a guy who had wandered right into our camp in the middle of the night and started a fire in the fire ring because he was freezing to death. Would things had been different if there had only been myself there instead of two of us? I know he certainly looked like a rough one.

I don't know ....

I know of a number of ladies who solo in some pretty rugged country that always carry a handgun with them for their safety ... but none of them take carrying a weapon lightly ... it's only with a lot of forethought and soul searching that they carry.

My personal opinion is that I think that Bear Spray is more effective and a much lighter weight option than a handgun against animals. OF the two legged variety a small handgun may be advantagous in some places, but then again ... stealth camping away from established campsites and well away from trailheads, combined with the bear spray may be a better option??? I've taken to stealth camping in ways that you'd never know I was there unless you were beating around in the brush after dark (not many people are inclined to do this) and tripped over my tent and you'd never know I was ever there once I've left.

If you do decide to carry I do implore you to please take the time to get some professional training and practice, practice, practice. Nothing would make me more nervous than someone hauling a gun around that didn't know what they were doing or was too quick on the trigger.

I never carried a weapon of anykind ( no, a knife insnt a weapon) into the backcountry. But it woulndnt bother me in the least if I meet/saw someone who did. Its their right and none of my or anyone elses buisness why. There arnt many stories to point too as examples where a gun sucessfully prevented a violent assalt because no one is going to report "oh, today a woman protected her self with her gun so ... um nothing happend... on to our next story..."

I don't know if a gun would help or not. It would provide comfort, etc...but if someone is going to attack you and your life will be on the line you may not be able to defend yourself with a gun. Someone may disarm you, so to speak, by chatting you up around your fire and then going in for the kill when your back is turned or they may ambush you on the trail. Either option a gun wouldn't help. And, there was a time in high school when about five of us were attacked by two redneck farmers that claimed we were trespassing even though we were car camping on a public boat landing on a major river. They shot over our heads and threatened to call the cops, which we ended up leaving and doing. They went to jail, but if we had had a gun and shot back, it might have turned into a tragedy for all concerned, even though plinking a few rednecks might be kinda nice. But for solo acts and women I do think that some sort of defensive measure is called for in certain "special" circumstances. Smith and Wesson makes a few ultralight .38 caliber revolvers which are very nice as well as a line of "Lady Smith" pistols which are very light and a bit smaller for those with munchkin hands.

Well, I think alot of the hiking world hasn't heard of the tragedy in Pisgah National Forest in western NC. I've linked to the story or you can find your own source by just googling "Pisgah Murder" and clicking on the news button at the top. I started hiking less than 5 miles from the murder about 3 weeks or so after it happened. Scary to think that they still haven't found the bastards....

http://www.blueridgenow.com/article/20071115/NEWS/711150334

Edited by bobbycartwright on 12/17/2007 16:27:44 MST.

No not when I'm hiking. I have no reason to. Useless weight. If it's my time to go by a rouge bear, then so be it. I shall bang on my pot with my spoon. The most trouble I've had with bears include me being silly enough to leave 3 really nice trout out in the Never Summer's, gone. They were breakfast too. Oh well.

Now, I have hiking the Kekekabic and carried a .410, not for protection but for hunting. Mmm grouse. A grouse a night is nice. Pleasant fall hunting is hiking for me. It never matters whether you shoot something, just that you're out.

It turns out there are some very lightweight guns like this 9.4oz Kel-Tec (loaded) available for sale.

Edited by HechoEnDetroit on 12/16/2007 19:36:23 MST.

Boy, do I hate to get into this, but...

Any gun that is light enough to pack is too light for safe protection. It may have some intimidation value against someone who doesn't know better, but it will tend to produce false confidence. Anyone who knows what they are doing can take it away and do unwelcome things with it. As to the 9.4 ounce toy. Believe me, please; it will not stop more than an enraged chipmunk - provided it could hit it. Mabe if you threw it.

"Ultralight peashooter" is a very appropriate name!

About the only effect that .32 caliber popgun is going to have on a bear is to gain you his full and undivided attention; probably NOT something you'd enjoy.

I've had professional guides tell me that if you shoot a black bear, the odds are 50/50 that he'll charge rather than run away. With a grizzly, it's 100/0.

And a Taser..........how do you plan to get those tiny contacts through all that fur and into his skin? Answer - you won't, and the electrical charge won't reach him.

Bottom line: Leave Yoggy alone and he'll return the favor. Why look for trouble?

Edited by wandering_bob on 12/16/2007 21:38:50 MST.

"Any gun that is light enough to pack is too light for safe protection"

---I'm definitely not an expert but these kinds of weapons are very accurate at close range (Kel-Tec P32= 1 inch groups @ 7 yards). The .32 auto cartridge has a deep history with law enforcement as well as military personnel. It is still popular as a secondary weapon, especially with undercover officers.

That being said, of course the .32 won't have the stopping power of a .38 or a 9mm but, if the shooter is accurate, it can still be very deadly. Also, because this gun is "wimpy", shooters experience much less recoil, enabling successive shots to be fired with more accuracy (especially nice for shooters with weak arms).

Also, I think most everyone will agree that the utility of a gun is very low in the backcountry, unless you are hunting or in polar bear country. So if a person chooses to pack a gun, one of the small and light ones may be worth consideration. Obviously the weight penalty is reduced but also, because they are so compact, they can be kept "at hand" much easier, even covertly (ie: concealed) if need-be.
It's clear that some people choose to pack guns in illegal areas (like ALL national parks), but what good is a gun if you cannot access it quickly?


For comparison I have calculated the general "power factors" of the Beretta 92 (9mm) vs the 15.5oz (loaded) Kel-Tec PF-9 (9mm).
PF= bullet weight * muzzle velocity.

Berreta 92: 124 gr * 1250 fps = 155,000
Kel-Tec PF-9: 115 gr * 1298 fps = 149,270

We can see that the 15oz gun can really stand up with a big boy here. Also, because the gun shoots at a higher velocity, penetration and fragmentation may be better. Couple that with hollow point expanding ammo and you have a serious lightweight weapon.

Edited by HechoEnDetroit on 12/17/2007 15:55:40 MST.

Interesting discussion. Having a weapon is one thing. Having it available and ready for use in a surprise incident in a few seconds is something else. Knowing how to use it and packing it in a ready mode is still another.

If you look at the potential threats and the needed protocol to deal with them, I have to wonder whether it's worth it.

"About the only effect that .32 caliber popgun is going to have on a bear is to gain you his full and undivided attention"
---There is no denying that, but why shoot a bear if it isn't charging/attacking you?

"I've had professional guides tell me that if you shoot a black bear, the odds are 50/50 that he'll charge rather than run away. With a grizzly, it's 100/0."
--- Again, a person would have to be stupid to shoot a bear that is not attacking/charging. And IF a bear were to charge, I would advocate firing a warning shot or two if there is time (and better options are exhausted). I have seen video of a fishing group who were charged by a mother grizzly. She was with cubs and a quick shot from a gun caused her to abort and back off from the human intruders. In addition, most black bear experts advocate fighting black bears IF they do attack. In this rare case I would definitly rather use a compact gun than a knife or fists, but hopefully bear spray and warning shots could be utilized prior to such a terrible event.

"And a Taser..........how do you plan to get those tiny contacts through all that fur and into his skin? Answer - you won't, and the electrical charge won't reach him."
---Admittedly, this was just a silly musing, but since you mentioned it, I decided to look it up. I found that a tazer can penetrate up to 2 inches of clothing! This is, of course, probably measured at close range etc, and so who knows if it would work? I wouldn't bet my life on it.

"Bottom line: Leave Yoggy alone and he'll return the favor. Why look for trouble?"
---Agreed! Don't totally discount the discussion though. What about two legged problems?

Bottom lines:
1. Human and animal attacks DO occur in the backcountry.
2. Some people choose to pack guns, legally, illegally, or both.
3. One day it might pay off to be properly trained and equipped , but that would be a very rare event indeed.
4. IF a person chooses to pack, there are important tradeoffs to consider btw weight, power, and usability.

Edited by HechoEnDetroit on 12/16/2007 22:59:51 MST.

Deadly is one thing ... stopping a charging bear is something else all together.

Don't kid yourself .... any handgun that will stop a 400 plus pound charging black bear, or a Griz twice that size is going to be substantially larger than a .32.

If you decide to trust your life to even a 9mil, well, good luck.

You may kill the bear, that's true, but it will take him a long time to bleed out, and a very upset bear, full of little holes, is not something I'd like to spend any time with. A large cat will, so I've heard, always attack when wounded.

Even a 12 gauge is questionable in my mind.

Pepper spray, on the other hand, has an excellent record of stopping very large charging animals dead in their tracks.

Detroit,
The formula for bullet energy is (V in feet*V in feet*bullet weight in grains)/ 450400 = energy in foot pounds. So, no, the .32 does not stand up to the 9mm in any way, shape or form. I have seen people survive being shot near the heart at close range with .380 and even .357 magnum - before returning fire - and then surviving the incident. So please disabuse yourself of the concept of "stopping power." It is highly relative. Some of the other respondents have given good answers to this issue, so I will get out while the getting's good.

Vick is right about stopping power.

Even a cannon is useless if you can't or don't hit the target with it.

It takes a cool head and a steady hand to place a bullet in a lethal spot in something that weighs 400+ pounds, has three inch claws and teeth, and which is closing the distance between you at 40 mph, all the while retaining control of your anal sphincter.

What most folks don't even consider is knowing WHERE are the lethal spots in the target animal. Furthermore, those spots keep moving up and down as the animal bounds toward you.

Up here hand guns are illegal, so no, I don't carry one. For me, hiking is time off/vacation/fun, so I wouldn't really relate guns with hiking. When I go on vacation, I don't worry about shooting someone or something. If I did, I would select a different activity.
As for bears, there are plenty up here - see them all the time up north. I clap my hands and tell'em to "go-on, get goin'"...they run. If not, then I always figured we'd drop the gloves - may the best mammal win.
And since no one here carries a handgun, I always thought that my "crotch kick" was quite impressive - so us Canadians wear jocks in the wilderness.;)
Steve

Adding my two cents worth...

If you feel you have to have a gun in your kit make sure:

1. You have the proper training on how to use it.
2. Its readly available to use. A gun in your pack is useless if you need to use it.

ANY gun will be more effective against the two legged varity of animal than a four legged one. So a .32 might be all you need. But having a gun with you can give you a false sense of security.

Mark:
I agree with most of your points. Also, I'm NOT advocating carrying a gun at all, I'm merely exploring the idea of packing one. I also agree that pepper spray may be the best option for a bear attack.


Vick:
I was calculating a power factor which is very similar to bullet energy. Since you mentioned it, I calculated energy below (EDIT: I was actually comparing 9mm to 9mm in the first place):
Bullet energy as defined by Wikipedia is E = m • v2 / (2 • 32.1739 • 7000)
So for the Beretta 92 (124 gr, 1250 fps): 124 * 1250^2 =
193750000/450434.6= 430.14
And for the Kel-Tec 9mm (115 gr, 1298 fps)= 115 * 1298^2=
193752460/450434.6= 430.15
You can see that the guns are practically identical here!

Bob:
I agree.

I think almost anyone can agree that a small gun is of limited utility when confronting a bear (esp. a griz), and that bear spray is the way to go. That being said, it is a fact that there is still inherent utility in packing a gun, for bear but especially for human attacks.

There are documented stories (which I accidentally erased the links to) where people have repelled bear charges by scaring them with gun blasts. A man even killed a 750lb Grizzly with 5 shots from a .45Mag.

Edited by HechoEnDetroit on 12/17/2007 15:57:18 MST.

Yes and no.
Do I carry in NP's? No. I would not break the laws here.

Do I have a CCL? Yes. Do I train with my husband? Yes. Have I taken classes on shooting and carrying concealed? Yes.

I don't take my right to carry lightly. If you haven't seen it, you should check out The Safepacker setup. It is designed to be attached to your backpack and is made for many pieces. It allows immediate access. I should also point out that Camelbak makes a series of daypacks for people who carry as well. You won't find them in REI, but oh well.

I am very pro gun rights and will talk about it to almost every female friend and hiking partner I go out with. I have gotten a couple so far to take classes and one even fell in love with the Safepacker. We have matching ones now.

Is it UL? Not by any means. I am fully aware that when I do choose to carry I am carrying 2-3 lbs of weight that has one purpose. I carry an officer size Kimber 45 with laser rubber grips and an an extra magazine loaded.

I carry for many reasons but one is that it leaves my husband with peace of mind. He has never stood in my way for hiking and told me to not go. If he is not there to protect his family he would want me to do the same. Hence I carry on trips with my son.

Would I use what I carry? I hope I never have to. I also carry pepper spray as well, that is my first line of defense.

Then again, unlike many of the men here, I am 5'4". And I have met many a shady character out there. The reason I took up taking classes was due to meeting a real winner on the trail in 2002 or so. The man would not leave my kid and I alone, following us on the trail until we shook him by running for our lives and beating him simply by speed!

hey steve, no offense but if i were to be shot, i'd rather it be by a .32acp or a 9mm. very little interior damage and not alot of stopping power. steve cooper, the gun guru of arizona's gunsite ranch is a die hard .45acp fantatic and i have to agree with him that there is little better for a self defense handgun than the 1911 model colt service pistol. also, the s&w .38 that i reccomended

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=11101&storeId=10001&productId=14772&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=15704&isFirearm=Y

is capable of carrying a .38+P load, which is basically a standard .38 bullet with extra juice, making it comparable to a .357. many people become complacent with their handguns solely due to a high magazine capacity and will never realize that:

#1, the primary object of a confrontation is to avoid it, and if that is not possible then
#2, to win said confrontation with as little effort (less trigger pulling, ie...using a respectable caliber) and as efficiently as possible with the best weapon most suited for defense.

talk to some military guys that were in the service in the 80's when the government switched from the .45acp which had been in service since before 1911, to the 9mm 92f beretta. there were servicemen that threatened resignation if they were ever going to be forced to carry the 9mm into a combat situation. and the arguement that 9mm is widely carried by police isn't valid, just look at all the dumb things cops do and see if you could trust them to make the correct decision about their own weaponry.

fyi i don't even own a gun but i've used them since i was old enough to walk yet it's probably been a decade since i've fired one. my dad is a former marine/gun nut and that's where i got all of my gun experience.

i pity the fool that thinks i'm gonna be the next victim on the trail, alreay been in a few of those situations in the urban jungle and i don't have too much fear of anyone in the wilderness. broken bones, sprained ankles and hypothermia are something else....

Edited by bobbycartwright on 12/18/2007 06:19:05 MST.

After an encounter mtn biking with a cougar I carry a 44spl [not magnum].
Staring down a full grown cat clad in lycra with a rock in my hand is not a repeat life experience.

Bobby, no offense taken! I don't own a gun either but I have became more interested as this thread has progressed. That little S&W sure is good lookin. Watch out though, because a horde of people are about to jump down your throat and say that a .38+P won't stop a bear.

In my opinion most situations where a gun might be useful a can of pepper spray is a better option. This includes potentially violent bear and human encounters. My wife does a lot of solo hiking and it gives me piece of mind that she carries big can of bear mace. Bear mace is my primary protection when in grizzly country. This includes the Northern Rockies and most of Alaska. Even when riffle hunting I carry a can of bear mace.

Most bear encounters can be resolved without bear mace or a firearm. I am a believer in being hyper-aware and making lots of noise. Every bear encounter I have had, except one, the bear fled as soon it sensed human. I was once bluffed charged by a black bear.

That said when in the high arctic I do carry a firearm for protection against barren land grizzlies and polar bears. Barren land grizzlies and polar bears can be aggressive and are known to consider humans as food. When guiding it is my responsibility to provide safety for my clients and I carry a 12 gage shotgun with slugs. On light-weight personal trips in the high artic I prefer a S&W titanium .44 mag with 310 grain bullets. Besides the weight saving a revolver is more assessable in many situations. When carrying a fire arm, I or someone I am with also carries bear mace. Anyone that decides to carry a firearm should enroll in a hunter safety course or equivalent safety training. Additionally, many hours of target practice are needed.

The situations that I question the limitations of bear spray include being attacked in a tent and an upwind bear encounter. Having a bear attack while in a tent has occurred in the arctic. It would be a highly unlikely event in the Rocky Mountains. Nonetheless deploying bear spray from inside a tent seems problematic.

Almost every bear encounter I have had involved a bear that was up wind and did not smell my presence. Had I needed to deploy bear spray I am concerned that it may have blown back at me. This could result in me becoming disabled instead of the bear. With a 12 gage or .44 this would not be an issue. However, I personally would rather mace a bear then shoot a bear.

Edited by forrestmccarthy on 12/17/2007 19:52:29 MST.

"Staring down a full grown cat clad in lycra with a rock..."
Pyeyo, you get the cahones award!


For those that want to carry, it looks like there is something closer to a 'sure fire answer': The Barrett 82A1, with 11,098 ft lbs of energy is about as good as you're going to do. If the heavy version 30.9 lbs is too heavy, they do have a lightweight version under 30 lbs. Maybe there'll make an ultralight version....;)


Assuming you can shoulder, release safety, aim and fire and hit the target. If you miss, you get 9 more shots, maybe...

Short of that, it's probably pepper spray or the 'Shield-o-Jesus'.

In you're tent I think you're SOL.

Edited by eaglemb on 12/17/2007 21:09:23 MST.

Oh boy do we really need to carry fire arms out there......Noooooooo. Just my two cents worth. I'm from the big city and I would rather take my chances un-armed in the Sierra's versus walking around the 10th largest city at night. Bear protection? Really. By the time you actually get to defense mode and reach for you firearm it might just be too late. I am not a anti gun person, just that by reading this post I think most of these posts are stemmed from paranoia. Interesting post. Lol.

Ken: Do you ever pause to think that for some of us it isn't about bears? I have little fear of bears. When I carry it isn't for that reason.

Yes, I do fear two legged creatures. At my age I have had plenty of reasons to not trust men. You can call me paranoid if you want. I prefer to call myself trained and self sufficient.

I would like to compliment all the participants for maintaining a reasonable and respectful conversation on a "hot-button" topic that tends to wreak havoc in most other internet forums.

Good job, folks!

Respectfully,
Michael

In Canada, carrying a hand gun is illegal. Would I carry one if I could... No. Do I carry bear spray, yes but I only started carrying it when my kids started hiking with me (my wife asked me to carry it... it made her feel better). I've never used the spray although I have had it out a few times ready to fire. I mention this because I know from experience, that unless a bear is very close to me and aggressive (close is subjective... I estimate I have a 10-15 ft comfort zone), I won't waste the spray by firing it off when I'm too far away. This brings up what I see as the biggest gun issue... when would you shoot a bear if you were carrying a gun? Would you shoot him if he stole your pack? Would you shoot him for a bluff charge? Thirty feet? Forty? Grizzly bears are an endangered species and need protecting... that said, I hate seeing them on the trail (sorry, one of nature's experiences that I just can't appreciate) but I certainly respect their right to be there and don't want them shot!

The thought that guns are carried on trails to protect you against two legged animals scares the hell out of me! Now I'm the target based on your interpretation of my behaviour! Yikes!!

Mike, I would hedge you don't have a lot of experience with firearms or with concealed carry. Simply put: a person who has gone through the process of getting a CPL in their state is someone who respects guns and the use of them. Yes, if you carry you fully know that using one will do what it is designed to do. You also know how much of a right it is to be able to arm yourself. You have let the government look at you, you are fingerprinted.

A good example was a homeless man in Seattle this past year. He had a nut job attack him for no reason in the middle of downtown at lunchtime and nearly killed him in a brutal attack of being kicked and punched. The homeless man had a CPL and was carrying. He shot and killed the nut job attacking him. That is justified use of force.

Deadly force is something to be used when you feel your life is in dire danger. That is not something that is taken lightly by law abiding citizens. In most cases of justifiable use of deadly force you rarely read or hear about it. It simply isn't news to the media.

Sorry Sarah, I don't buy it.

I would be willing to bet that if the concealed weapon was replaced with concealed pepper spray in all of the self defence cases you can think of, the situation would have been defused without the killing. The same also applies for the safety in the woods scenario as well, although I think our fear of being "eaten" creates the passion in this argument. We are at much greater risk in many of our other (daily) activities than we are in the woods but the thought of being devoured makes bear encounters seem more serious. By the way, no experience with concealed weapons but I used to hunt but gave it up... I still kill fish though :)

That is fine, I'll accept your views if you accept I have my own view of the big picture.
I carry pepper spray as well and consider it my first line of defense against both animals and humans. But I do not consider pepper spray to be a sub for firearms. There are cases where it is the only thing that will stop what is happening.
In NP's though I carry pepper spray as that is all I am allowed to have.

Btw, I do find it odd that you cannot bring personal pepper spray with yourself when you go into Canada. Why is that I have wondered. Not only can I not have a firearm, I cannot bring my trusted pepper spray. Hence, I have not been back to Canada in about 7 years.

Sarah - Sorry to here you haven't been to Canada for a long time, you are missing out on some incredible hiking!

As for Canadian gun laws, I'm no expert but I do know that we have a very mixed up system. To say that you can't bring a gun into Canada for protection isn't exactly true. Hand guns are definitely prohibited but if you are going to a remote area and want to take a rifle or shotgun for protection (against wild animals) then my understanding is that you could obtain a permit for that. That said, you can't take a gun into our National Parks and the wildlife there has more rights than you do.

The pepper spray thing in Canada is really weird... if the pepper spray says that it's for personal protection it's illegal. If it's labelled as bear spray it's OK (maybe not at the border...) but you could certainly buy it at a sporting good or hunting store without any trouble.

I certainly respect your right to do whatever you have to do to feel safe in your backcountry travels (as long as it's legal and doesn't harm the wilderness). I am curious though... where do you keep your gun when you are carrying a pack? How can you keep it available, concealed and out of the way (or do you not worry about concealing it?)?

The perceived threat from various wild animals is the usual reason given for these discussions. However, I strongly suspect that the true (and politically incorrect) reason is fear of other people. After all, we can reasonably expect to see far more humans than bears and cougar on any trail that most of the folks on this forum will ever hike.

Bad past experiences notwithstanding, I find it regrettable and alarming that some folks have such a high anxiety level regarding their fellow man that they feel the need to arm themselves everywhere they go.

With the possible exception of some near-road shelters along the AT, the bad guys don't generally go into the woods. It has been my experience that those I have met on the trail are at the far end of the curve on the opposite side - helpful and sympathetic to the extreme.

It has been said before, but firearms - concealed or otherwise - are illegal in the National Parks (yes, there are exceptions for private and commercial packers travelling with livestock), and elsewhere if your concealed carry permit is not issued by the local governmental jurisdiction. Just what are you going to do with the gun LEGALLY when you enter one of these areas? If you think the rangers are death on bear canisters, see what happens when they find a firearm.


Wandering Bob

Some Alaskan National Parks allow firearms for self defense
from bears.

A percentage of people and animals are unaffected by
pepper spray.

Canada charges (US citizens) a hefty fee to bring your own gun to the party.

The Forest Service in parts of Alaska requires and issues
pepper spray and firearms to their employees.

Most people I have met on the trail carrying weapons, unless
hunting, appeared to be less prepared with other gear and
clothing than the average hiker. I remember one young fellow
who had a rifle, a large hunting knife, a pit bull, and
looked scared out of his wits, hiking near Sonora pass in the
Sierra.

Bob: If you are carrying a firearm and have to cross in and out of a NP it is easy. All you need to do is disassemble your firearm, taking the slide off. It needs to be stored separately from your ammo. Better is to also have a gun lock through it (the cable kind). When we are driving through NP's but on to elsewhere we break our handguns down, store the ammo separately and keep the handgun parts in our portable safe we have in our vehicles. And that is perfectly fine. The firearm needs to be rendered unusable. It is not illegal to have a firearm with you in a NP in this case - but it had better be unusable and always have the ammo stored separately no matter what. If in a car, the trunk is your best bet for storing it.

Mike: for carrying? That is easy to do. You can buy items such as The Safepacker that goes on your pack. It looks like a map case or a man-purse. It has an efficient draw time as it sports a velcro closure on one side. It also serves to protect the firearm as well. If you didn't know what it was (and the majority don't) you would not know the person is carrying. And that is the point of course - proper concealed carrying means no one knows you are carrying. For those who might think that no one is carrying, then they really don't know how to look at clothing and packs ;-)

Nope. And I'm still kicking after 34 years of rambling around in the mountains. Plus, the fact that so many people apparently do makes me feel even better about hiking off trail a lot of the time. Like Mike W., I am uneasy at the prospect of being targeted based upon someone else's interpretation of my behavior. Especially if they're having a bad day.

A young prospector and an old prospector are flying in to a remote camp. The young prospector takes out a .357 handgun and starts loading it. The old prospector says "What's that for?"

"Bears"

"Well as soon as you can, you should file down the front sight. It's an old timer's trick."

"Really?" Replies the young man. "Why should I do that?"

"Because it will hurt less when the bear shoves that thing up your @ss."



... I don't want to write an editorial, so here are a couple of comments on the discussion point-form:

-I'm from Canada, where we have a) no handguns allowed anywhere except shooting ranges and on the hips of police officers, and b) large predatory bears. We can't carry rifles in our parks, which is where most of the hiking is.

-Having a gun and believing that you could kill any attacking animal if necessary *will* change *your* attitude. It's inevitable. Having *no gun* and believing that only your wits will keep you alive is more likely to keep you out of harm's way than traipsing around the woods thinking you're Dirty Harry, able to kill anything that threatens you at your discretion. Shooting a charging bear is hard; killing one before it gets to you happens mostly in movies.

-If you're observant and calm enough to see an animal early, anticipate an attack, draw your gun, make it ready to fire, aim it, fire accurately, aim again, fire again, and have 2+ rounds on target before the attack gets to you, you are observant enough to avoid the attack anyway.

-Conversely, if you're inattentive enough that you surprise an animal and cause it to attack you, you do not have the time or the reflexes necessary to use your gun. You are a piece of walking bear fodder, and what's worse is that the gun will boost your confidence artificially making you even more vulnerable. You are safer not to delude yourself into thinking that there will be some kind of Hollywood-style standoff between you and the bear. You are not Anthony Hopkins; you are Timothy Treadwell!

Scenario 1)
Approaching a thicket, at dusk, haven't been making noise. Recognize the possibility that you might surprise a bear, draw and arm pepper spray, cough loudly, lift your head up, use your ears, and above all use your eyes, and walk around the corner slowly. Bear is 20 feet away, you stop and speak calmly and then back away or else stop a bluff-charge with pepper spray and then move away. No gun, no problem.

Scenario 2)
Watching your feet, tired from the day, trying to get to camp before rainstorm, charge cluelessly around a corner into an unexpected thicket. Bear is as surprised as you are, and by the time you see it it's in full charge. An adult Grizzly can outrun a quarter horse. EPIC FAIL, gun or no gun.

In scenario 1), having a gun isn't necessary or useful. Pepper spray is more likely to avert a possible charge since it doesn't have to be accurate. For the gun to have been useful, you would have had to have drawn it and taken the safety off when you first saw the thicket anyway -- which you didn't and wouldn't do unless you want to get shot by a hiker coming the other way!!

In scenario 2), the inattentiveness that caused a bear attack is the same inattentiveness that prevents you from being able to stop the charge with your gun. Bears don't charge from 500 yards away, after all: you would need time to realize there's danger, produce the gun, and make enough holes in the bear that you're out of danger. Likelihood of that is 0, unless you're paying enough attention *anyway* that you didn't cause the bear to attack in the first place.

It's a catch-22.

Brian

Here is a video of a group of bowhunters who are charged by bear. One quick warning shot w/ a revolver turns the bear back.

Edited by HechoEnDetroit on 12/18/2007 22:41:41 MST.

A perfect example: he didn't shoot the bear, he just made a loud noise. A bear banger would have done the same thing, but been even closer to the bear and with a bigger visual flash to add to the effect.

The only thing that saved those hunters was alertness; their wits.

They were ready for the possibility of a bear encounter, and were able to respond. No shooting of a bear required, and no shooting of a bear with a handgun would have worked. And that was a charge from a long way off.

If they had needed to kill that bear to stop the charge, they couldn't have: not in the time they had, and not with the gun they had. They would have been dead meat had it not been for their wits.

Here's a hunter who shot a charging bear with a _big-bore Alaskan bear hunting rifle._ Note the speed of the charge and how long *both* bears lived after *huge* energy was delivered to centre mass. (Especially the first one!)

Now imagine this charge coming from 20 feet instead of 200 and ask yourself if you could save yourself from it using the tiny energy of a handgun. The answer is no.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZnsL7-UdGc

Brains, and only brains, will protect you from bears.

I've seen the video before and here are my thoughts...

These guys saw the bears well in advance but still approached very close to them (makes great video and... we've got guns)... as Brian pointed out, if you want to avoid trouble with bears, keep away from them!

I personally think the guy tried to shoot the bear but missed. He said he fired a shot into the water but also said the bear was 8 feet away which would indicate either he is a very brave gambler or a bad shot in a panic situation... I'm betting on the latter and he got lucky. At the speed that bear was moving I think the warning shot would have been his last shot if the bear had held it's course.

I also think that a blast of bear spray may have been just as effective but that we will never know since they chose to use a gun. I'm glad the bear wasn't killed because of their stupidity.

"A bear banger would have done the same thing, but been even closer to the bear and with a bigger visual flash to add to the effect."
---I don't know how I feel about bear bangers. There doesn't seem to be any range control, so you might end up putting the "bang" behind the bear. Would that send the bear towards the shooter? They also seem pretty slow to shoot. In addition, they could cause a fire in drought struck areas.

"The only thing that saved those hunters was alertness; their wits."
---and....... their noise making/flashing device (gun)

"These guys saw the bears well in advance but still approached very close to them "
---Maybe they should have paddled back up the river? I doubt they were hoping for an encouter here.

Maybe bear spray would have worked here, but what if the bear was upwind?
ALL forms of bear protection have advantages/disadvantages. No one is trying to convince anyone to use a gun (esp for bear protection), so lets try to be objective here.

Scenario 3, you been hiking for two days on the edge of the
arctic ocean with a polar bear following you. The first night
you spent in a cabin. The second night you will have only a tent.

Scenario 4, dropped off by plane on the tundra in Alaska, day 3 a brown bear spots you from 2 miles away and starts running toward you to see what you are.


Both of these happened to friends. They had neither
spray or arms.

In S3 they decided to hike
back to the cabin and had to wait there several days till the polar bear got tired of waiting and left. Without that
cabin, they didn't know what might have happened.

In S4 the bear
came into camp, but lost interest after checking things out.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0510/whats_new/anwr_grizzly_attacks.html

"Thompson, the river guide who found the Huffmans' campsite, believes that a floorless tent, an electric fence, and a loaded pistol (that doesn't need to be cocked) might help future campers."

I winter in Glenwood, NM, and summer in Denali Park, AK. I have put in many miles hiking in Alaska, and most of the time I have not carried a gun, while backpacking, and of course it's not legal in the NP.

On the other hand, I was awoken in the middle of the night about 5 years ago in the Chiricahuas, while sleeping on the ground with no tent, by a rabid fox. Short version, I killed it with my hands (it bit holes in my thermarest), but had to shell out $3k for rabies shots. It may be that I have weird karma with rabies or foxes, but two weeks ago two friends and I were out walking near Glenwood when we encountered ANOTHER rabid fox, which a promptly shot. From my experience, it is MUCH better to have a gun in this situation than not.

Disclosure: I like guns and have used them my entire life. I often carry a custom .45 ACP while doing casual walking, but I have a very light-weight .380 I take when doing serious trips. I wouldn't be w/o it down here, but to each his own. The .380 wouldn't do much for bears (though still better than nothing, IMO), but works great for anything up to human size.

Alan, what is the make/model and weight of your fav .380?

Yeah, the female half of this couple owned land a quarter mile from me in AK. They had a shotgun with them, never had the time to pop a cap. If a predatory bear decides to take you out when you're asleep, it will...BUT! this happens very very rarely. We've never had a single person killed by a bear in Denali Park. A few chewed up, though...

It's the cheapest of the UL .380's, the Smith and Wesson SW380. I'd have to look it up, but I think it's about 11 oz, plus whatever ammunition you put in it. You can get a smaller, lighter Seecamp, but they cost a fortune. I have not used or seen the KelTec .380, but know it's very light as well. BTW, I have not taken very good care of my .380, cleaned it once in 7 years, and it has always functioned perfectly. More than I can say for my .45 Kimber...

"Scenario 3, you been hiking for two days on the edge of the
arctic ocean with a polar bear following you. The first night
you spent in a cabin. The second night you will have only a tent.

Scenario 4, dropped off by plane on the tundra in Alaska, day 3 a brown bear spots you from 2 miles away and starts running toward you to see what you are."

***

-up north it's a different game. You are the prey and when you are seen, you are often hunted. My old man was a prospector in the NWT and has two great stories about shooting bears in camp -- one through the wall of the shthouse he was hiding in because the bear was trying to take the door off.

But I think this thread is about carrying a small-bore handgun while backpacking in the Continental US.

By the way, has anyone mentioned that shooting an angry bear with almost any handgun will probably a) enrage it, and b) sentence it to a lingering death several hours after it has finished with your carcass? No one has stated that they carry a long-barrel .44 magnum or one of those big "hunting" handguns. Everyone seems to carry liquor store-robbery pistols with the intention of penetrating many inches of fat and heavy bone with them and still delivering enough energy or tissue damage to somehow stop a charging bear.

Shooting a large animal with a small-calibre arm is cruel, inhumane, and ineffective. Up here there are minimum muzzle energy minimums for hunting various game. If a ranger caught you unloading your .45 ACP or 9mm into a poor bear, I wonder if the ranger might euthanize you after he euthanized your bear for you.

Brian

PS Dave, I received my royal blue 10x10 silnylon pyramid last night -- it's a work of art.

I dont own any guns myself, but I dont get the argument that if you carry a gun it will make you overconfident. This is like the old argument that driving with a seatbelt makes you drive more recklessly. Its not an either or, you can be careful and carry a gun at the same time Im sure.
It facinates me how Hollywood has made guns such a magical fetish object: it can make the good violent, the carefull reckless, ect.
I dont belive for a second that anyone in a defensive situation would preffer to be unarmed at the time.

I shot a problem bear with a pistol, (cast bullet in the brain) and afterwards got all sorts of beanbags, rubber and plastic slugs, cracker rounds, everything I could find for a shotgun that would work as aversive conditioning, so I wouldn't have to shoot any more bears. I really like bears. With only a few exceptions, I don't think it's worth carrying a gun for bears, unless one is guiding. Or hunting, and I have absolutely no interest in hunting bear.BTW, there are no records of bears attacking large groups of people (can't remember the threshold number, sorry).

Here is advise on dealing with bears in one park in Alaska.

It includes a PDF file about which land and parks allow firearms. Part of Denali does for example.


http://www.nps.gov/wrst/planyourvisit/close-encounters-what-to-do.htm

My Back country freind and I met at a long range rifle competition 17 years ago. He is a hopeless redneck (Arizona duh). He won't go out in the wilderness unless he is carrying. Right now he is the best backpacking friend I can afford, so it's his rules on this. Arizona is a polite society partly because many people are carrying weapons, and have training to employ them; and niether are visible to an uneducated eye. The gentleman who posted about the habit, and practice associated with firearms use is IMO correct in thinking. A weapon is only a very dangerous (it's purpose) gadget and without training, and profecient skill it is not a solution to anything.
That being said, many little boys and little girls here, think of firearms or archery as the source code for dietary protein. Many schools here close on the opening day of deer season. I suppose if that were the purpose of the trip a guy would carry.
A part time resident of N. Arizona who'd have reason to know, once said to me in old age..... beware a man with only one gun, they're familiar with each other. If you do carry, of course overlearn how to use your weapon. And then tell me how you can cope with reduce or justify the weight of it..... I can't yet.

Interesting thread

Are there any figures on how many backpackers get killed by bears each year in the US

Tony.

Zero, most years. In Alaska, since 1900, I believe 1 by Polar, less than 10 by black, and less than 50 by Brown.

Either BPL print magazine or Backpacker magazine said nobody (or no backpacker) has been killed by a bear in California (of course a mauling could still be horribly bad). I read this in the last year.

David - Thanks for the link, it included a link to this one that gives some very interesting stats on guns vs bear spray as a deterent as well as bear attack statistics. It's a great read!

http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/pepperspray/pepperspray.htm

Hi everyone,

Very interesting posts and thread! After reading through, I've noticed that there does seem to be a gender gap in the perception of threat. I had wondered about it, but now I believe it to be true (not implying error on either side, just pointing out something). Women, especially of smaller stature who hike solo including me, may feel the need to arm themselves more than men - even men of the same stature. The perceived threat is from humans, not so much from bears.

Is this a good thing? It depends on the woman (or yes, the man) who carries. A firearm is a tool just like any other piece of equipment that goes in your pack. If you don't know how to use it properly, don't know the pros and cons of using it, and don't feel comfortable with the complicated decision tree associated with using it while under stress, LEAVE it at HOME!!!

I appreciate your posts, Sarah, and understand your decisions. I agree with you fellows that a gun isn't likely to make a difference that other noises or that pepper spray wouldn't make in most instances. And I agree that most people I've met on the trail were some of the best people I've ever met anywhere. And I agree that a gun is in no way a substitute for awareness, prudence, or good-sense and stealth hiking practices. But I am also aware that as a female of smaller stature, hiking solo I APPEAR to be more of a target for anyone who IS out there looking for a victim. A gun is ALWAYS my last resort for protection, but I am also ALWAYS armed. My gun will be concealed, so I don't provoke unnecessary trouble, I won't be waving it around in the hopes that the sight of it will scare others off, and I won't be looking for trouble, but it will be in easy reach at all times.

I am very capable of avoiding and/or difusing situations, and so far I have never had to use my firearm even in everyday situations in the "civilized" world. If, however, an aggressor (human) gives me no other option but to choose between them or me, I will choose my survival over theirs every time. That is the ONLY situation for which I carry a firearm. (So don't worry Mike, it doesn't sound like you'll be in my line of fire :) Want to steal my pack? Fine, take it. Think it's funny to intimidate the woman alone in the wilderness? Ha, ha, you win, now go away.

I may never be hurt and need a locator beacon either, but if I'm travelling alone in an unfrequented area it might not be a silly precaution, right? To me, carrying a firearm is a similar precaution. I must reiterate, though, ONLY because I have taken the time to gain experience with and temperance regarding the use of my firearm long before I decided to add it to my kit.

"Arizona is a polite society partly because many people are carrying weapons, and have training to employ them"

Canada is a polite society for the opposite reason! Very few people aside from the mentally ill and immigrant gangs tend to shoot one another. And we still find it in our hearts to be nice to one another.

I think we are getting to the root of what the thread is about. It hadn't occurred to me that the main motivation for "packing" in the bush is to shoot other people. But I suspect it is. Excuse my ignorance.

For most Canadians, even the police, the idea of having to pull out a gun to get safely from point A to B is reserved for Afghanistan. For us, the idea that we might have to engage in gunplay to get from the grocery store to the video store or from the trailhead to the viewpoint is surreal. But we're spoiled that way.

With respect: When gun+hiking proponents here imagine having a gun battle in the forest, is it with an animal or with a person? Or are you just so used to depending on your gun for feelings of security in town that you feel naked without it? This is a very interesting subject.

Thanks, Jane, for bringing perspective to this discussion.

I agree with your observations, which I do not see as in anyway urging folks to shoot other folks.

To preach a bit, freedom & survival do appear to require, inter alia, personal responsibility & common sense.

Those who lack the above qualities would best stay away from the wilderness altogether -- with or without a gun.

Surely there's a study somewhere disclosing that stupidity & irresponsibility kill more folks than anything else.

JRS

I must say just that there is this conversation going on is scary in itself. If there is this much controversy about whether to use a gun or not, just imagine the amount of hysteria out there. To think that I might be walking on a trail and there is someone there who is carrying a gun who already is frightened enough about men or whatever, and perhaps doesn't know what to do in a certain situation and so she or he shoot before asking... I'm certainly not willing to put my life on the line for such people.

So far the discussion seems to only be from the point of view of those people who are carrying a gun, about their responsibility, skill, and training. That's all very fine, but there is always the other side of the barrel, too. The one who is being shot at. Their lives, most especially if they have done nothing wrong but the gun carrier misinterprets the situation, are just as precious as those of the gun carrier.

The thing is you can go on forever with a discussion like this and never come to a conclusion. There are just too many variables and too big a chance for something to go terribly wrong. You can have all the training in the world and still make a mistake. That is why guns are outlawed in most countries, not because guns in themselves are dangerous, but because people are.

Per government survey of animal-caused deaths for BC, Canada, from 1969 to 1997:

"The most dangerous animal, in terms of fatalities, was the horse, accounting for slightly over 35% of animal caused deaths."

And furthermore:

"If all species, both wild and domesticated, are taken into account, the number of animal caused MVAs [motor vehicle accidents] is more than twice as great as non-vehicle deaths caused by any single species."

Source: Vital Statistics Agency of B.C. Ministry of Health at http://www.vs.gov.bc.ca/stats/quarter/q1_2_98/index.html

JRS

Right on, Brian!! Oh so freakin' right on. I'm getting to like you Canadians better and better all the time. I went through a decision making process a few years ago when unpleasant bear activity was inching uncomfortably close to my main route into the southern Sierra. There had been several injuries, one area was closed to camping, etc. In true American fashion, my first reaction was "I gotta get me a gun!!". Upon further reflection, conversations with a law enforcement friend, a bit of reading, and some soul searching which revealed that I just didn't have the "Dirty Harry gene", I reached the same conclusions for the same reasons you posted above. What I did do was up my fitness level to the point where I could burn right on through the bear activity belt the first day out and went cold food for the first several days. No problems, no carrying something which was contrary to my very nature, and a deep satisfaction in knowing that I have not chosen a path that requires me to constantly be prepared to kill to survive. I think it would have radically altered my whole way of being in an area that is, literally, sacred to me. From a purely human point of view, it's nice to know I'm not alone.

Miguel, I couldn't agree with you more.

I sincerely wish I felt secure enough with the judgement of all other people to not feel the need to be armed. From what I'm reading, perhaps this is mostly an American insanity??? We seem to have inherited a gun-toting mentality from the Wild West and we've gone off into a sort of neverland from there. I wholeheartedly agree that it's not a good idea. But I also am pragmatic enough to realize that the ratio of idiots/trouble-seekers to nice people in my society is not the best. I've run into enough of them personally to know. And my dad has been a cop all my life, so I've grown up hearing true stories about the person who was in the wrong place when someone else decided to cause trouble. Purdence is highly valued in my book.

But the unfortunate truth is also that this argument can be waged for every implement from a firearm to a rock to a sharp stick. In the hands of the wrong person it's a real problem. Yes, a firearm is lightyears ahead of the rock and stick to cause damage, but you get my point. I'm wondering: Miguel and those of you from Canada, does no one truly run into serious problems with other humans in the wilderness? Are there no rapes or murders? Do physically larger people, or do people with weapons other-than-guns not play predator on those perceived as weaker? Is this truly an American agressiveness/sickness? Does being in a gunless society change everyone's perceptions of carrying them? Does it make anyone who would carry a gun seem extreme? Yes, guns take everything to the next level, but do you not have violent crime? If so, how is it different enough that the thought of being armed bothers you?

I also agree that the thought of gun-waving, wide-eyed and jumpy hikers makes me shudder too. I feel that life IS precious. But, for me at least, unless you're physically threatening me to the point I fear for my life AND advancing on me to almost within arms reach, I probably won't feel the need to defend myself with my sharp stick or my firearm :) I'm interested to hear your stories of how threatening people are handled one-to-one in your societies.

"not because guns in themselves are dangerous, but because people are." Funny thing, Miguel, that's exactly what the NRA claims, but look at the situation here in the USA: ~30,000 firearm deaths/year. My own feeling is that this goes way beyond firearms. One can find a karate or tae kwon do dojo in almost any neighborhood; flipping someone off for a bonehead driving move can get your head kicked in, literally; in a depressingly large number of schools, teachers work in fear of being attacked by students; look at the advertisements for movies and you will find a significant number portraying a lithe young women in a tight skirt with low neckline waving a Dirty Harry type pistol menacingly, or an Arnold Schwarzenegger type troglodyte cradling a seriously ominous automatic rifle.
In short, this is a society besotted with violence. Firearms are just the most efficient way to go about committing mayhem. Until we, as a society, get a handle on the root causes of this situation, I fear us forum members, AND the poor bears, are in for an uncomfortable ride.

Here (in Australia) you can't take guns, fixed blades or dogs into our national parks.
Police and certain security guards carry guns.
it sounds like we are similar to Canada in our 'gun-ness' or lack thereof.
Speaking tot the question pose above to non-gun societies.

Our local population spends a lot of the summer swimming at the beach... Sharks don't respond to banging a spoon and pan. We just accept that we are entering their turf.
Though not predatory (except rare reports of tiger snakes and the more rare but famous dingo episode) our outdoors are host to all number of deadly things.
Around town people try to kill me every other day with 'bigbore weapons'. Usually accidently but sometimes with intent. I ride a motorcycle through peak hour traffic most days during semesters. All that keeps me safe is alertness and acuity - pre empting the situation lets me avoid the killers and their heavy weaponry.
I have never had to resort to physical violence on the rare occassions when threatened by others.

It looks like the relience on guns for peace of mind is societal. From the outside, carrying a gun for personal protection appears to require a lot of energy for that one-off, maybe, one-time possibility. Banishing oneself from areas because one can't 'carry' whilst there is like not enjoying a swim at beach for fear of sharks and not using the roads for fear of an MVA although the latter is much more likely.
Looking at from the outside one has to ask do 'gun societies' own guns or do their guns own them?

Oh I forgot, we have some reports of yowies (bigfoot) in the areas where I hike. From the sketches they look big and threatening, but carrying a working camera seems to make them avoid you - possibly a case where point and shoot actually does remove the danger. In this case the real threat is more likely in the head of the believer.

Sarah, I might need to a retraction on part of my post and possibly a small apology. Your situation is quite different than mine. Knowing how this world is and how male dominated it is, women are in a much different position in the wilderness. Even more so when you have your children with you. All bets are off.
Sorry.

But most of us, or at least me, hiking in the Sierra's the only need for protection is a tarp and sunblock to avoid getting sunburnt. Kidding. There are many interesting people out there and you know, whatever it takes to make us feel comfortable out there then good. I just don't see the need for myself to carry a firearm in the wilderness. I do own a .38 calliber for protection at home. I just don't see the need to carry one in the wilderness. Maybe if I was solo in the Ventana Wilderness I would MAYBE consider it and that would be about it. I really on my "street smarts" to get me through life and I have made it through 43 years with some interesting happenings around me.

Folks if you need to carry a gun in the mountains... go ahead. I won't


BUT let me post this question folks. How many people on trails in remote places are looking for someone to prey on. Second, Black Bears are not dangerous if you leave them alone. Sure a death happens every now and then. But that is soooo far and few between that it is almost non existant. I would be more afraid of a montain lion, but there located more in the lower eleveations. Just a thought.

Edited by kennyhel77 on 12/19/2007 22:08:56 MST.

From everything I have read here, it is the non-gun owners who are fearful of guns and mostly seem to have the belief that all who have them are going to shoot them off randomly at any given minute.
And there is the rub: that is paranoia in itself.

A gun is nothing more than a tool. It isn't going to fire itself, and if properly holstered is quite safe.

Before you ask (and some of you have) am I a scared person, or paranoid? No.

I will admit I am skeptical of human nature. It is called your 6th sense, something that many men either do not have or don't turn on. I don't go into bad neighborhoods, I don't camp down FS roads on the side of the road, I don't stop at rest areas on the highways at night, I lock my car doors and my house. I don't talk to strange men. While I am a friendly person, I am not known for talking to men on the trail if I am alone. I wear sunglasses when hiking alone so my eyes are not visible to others. When they say your eyes are the window to your soul that is very true. Men, take time to look at peoples faces! This is something most women do naturally: you read body language, and eyes don't lie well. You meet a man on the trail who is smiling with hatred in his eyes, you keep moving. Same in town.

Simply put, I don't take risks that I don't have to. I don't put myself into situations that could be very bad. Yet, you cannot always avoid evil.

I chose years ago to give myself every advantage I could have. If I was a man, the naysayers would say I was compensating for shortcomings. Would I be able to beat off a grown man? No.

I think of what happened to a lady I know years ago: they had a couple drunk men follow them into their camp and were abusive to them. The ladies ended up having to hide in the trees for hours waiting for them to pass out so they could run. Why should they have had to suffer that? The men were verbally threatening them with rape and that they were going to beat them when they found them. Simply put, most likely if they had openly shown a weapon (without unholstering it, hand on it) the men would have backed off. Men like that know they have nothing to fear from small women.

This year on a local trail in King county a lady was attacked and dragged off the trail by a man trying to rape her. She was saved by screaming, a couple out hiking heard her. Worse? She had her baby with her! It was in a stroller and had flipped over. The rapist didn't even have respect for a freaking baby!

This past spring on a trip with two of my lady friends we encountered two very shady men on a trail - where the road in is well known for meth labs in the past. They were not dressed for hiking by any means, and were standing on both sides of the trail, staring at us as we came along. When your 6th sense is screaming that loud you get moving. Something was not right there by any means.

In 2003 I nearly blundered into a scene where a man was being assulated by other men on a trail. By the language I heard ahead it was a drug deal gone bad and they were teaching the guy a lesson. I had my 6 year old with me! I grabbed him and took off cross country running for my life through the woods.

The truth is this: Most of the readers responding here are men, not women. I have my reasons for carrying and they have little to do with fear. By saying it is fear driving our decision you are saying our beliefs mean nothing. There is nothing paranoid about being prepared. As you might have noticed I have encountered many a thing that set me off, but neither was I waving my firearm around - but it was there if I needed it. The person who carries to protect them selves isn't going to bring attention to their firearm until it is needed. That is something those who don't have firearm experience don't understand.

I take life very seriously and consider it to be fragile. I also support this countries right to bear arms.

Very well spoken, Sarah. Although I've never carried a firearm when backpacking, that's just a choice I make at the time I set out. Fortunately, our Constitution gives Americans the right to make that choice.

If guns should be banned because there are some folks who use them irresponsibly, seems the same can be said as to vehicles, fattening foods, alchohol, climbing, and just about any other activity that can create risk to self and others - even backpacking - when undertaken irresponsibly.

The problem is not with guns, but with those who would use them foolishly -- or for crimes. Banning guns doesn't ban the fool or the criminal who can, and will, carry anyway.

JRS

If I understand yor situation correctly (and I may not), Living in Canada do you have a choice in carrying firearms? Maybe I misunderstand but, your government does not allow you to choose for yourself on this subject, true? If you are not legally afforded a choice how could you really vote to carry or not to carry....? Dont you sort of HAVE to say "no carry" because you aren't allowed to?

Isn't it true that those that don't have a choice better get comfortable with big brother choosing the right way for you? The idea that subjects, are restricted in their personal decisions... that are free to citizens to decide for themselves.. makes me uneasy.

Sometimes I think that the extra canister of fuel, or duplicate navigation methods are also motivated on some level by fear.... maybe my whole interest in all things wild is somehow tied to this...also.


I don't carry, or own a gun, and cannot imagine how the weight of steel and lead could fit into my pack, for what I'm doing it is bizzarley heavy and out of the question, for what I percieve to be negligible risk..... but I do appreciate that those that percieve that risk differently and I respect thier right (American) to choose to carry a weapon, according to their own risk assesment...

Let the Mommies feel safe too.

Maybe it signifies a greater trust in others that they would decide and behave huanely to allow them to carry if they want to.... is it possible that we trust in people MORE by allowing people to carry if they feel threatened?... maybe it is more fearful to not trust momy's with a side arm. I applaud all of you in your pursuit of self determination, and self reliance. and further would wish all of you the greatest possible freedoms to choose exactly how to effect this self reliance by: methods, or tactics and even the gear of your choice. Power to all of you in this wonderfully human quest to exist with independence.

You all inspire me.... in different ways.

thanks

Jane -

I thought I'd answer your question regarding problems with violence in the wilderness here in Canada. One of the reasons that I first responded to this thread is that I was a bit surprised to hear that violence in the wilderness was a problem in the U.S.! Canada, like the U.S. is very large so I can't speak on behalf of the nation but I personally have never experienced or even heard of a problem in back country travel in any of the areas that I have walked into... the thought has never even crossed my mind.

Regarding guns -- don't get the wrong idea, we still have lots of guns in Canada but they are for hunting not for killing each other. The Government made our anti-handgun laws because it’s what the people of Canada wanted and I am happy to say that I never have to think about somebody drawing a gun on me… the chances are so slim that it doesn’t bear consideration… I like that.

My concern and comments on this forum are with regard to your ability to react sensibly under pressure. All the training and forethought in the world can’t prepare you for what you will do when you are scared in a real world situation. Every person on this forum has wondered at one time or another, how they would react if they came face to face with a bear or were threatened by some other dangerous creature while backpacking or hiking. The fact is, you just don’t know until it finally happens. We all read the articles on what to do but statistics show that many people panic and do the wrong thing. If you panic and blast somebody with bear spray they are not going to be too happy with you but they will be alive to complain about it… as will a bear. I still have not seen a real life situation mentioned on this forum that couldn’t have been handled with a can of spray instead of a hand gun. This is an important point on a forum that aspires to light weight gear… first rule: look at it… do you need it?... can you replace it with something lighter that accomplishes the same thing? If killing is your bottom line then you need the gun. If surviving a bad situation is the point then bear spray is the answer, leave the gun at home.

"If I understand yor situation correctly (and I may not), Living in Canada do you have a choice in carrying firearms? Maybe I misunderstand but, your government does not allow you to choose for yourself on this subject, true? If you are not legally afforded a choice how could you really vote to carry or not to carry....? Dont you sort of HAVE to say "no carry" because you aren't allowed to?

"Isn't it true that those that don't have a choice better get comfortable with big brother choosing the right way for you? The idea that subjects, are restricted in their personal decisions... that are free to citizens to decide for themselves.. makes me uneasy."



No. Gun carrying isn't allowed in our cities and in parks, but everywhere else it's fine. (Your government doesn't allow you to carry in many parks either, right?) Handguns aren't allowed here, but then again handguns are almost never suitable or even capable of defending people against predatory animals. They're designed for killing other people, period.

We also have the right to carry any size of (single-edged, non-automatic) knife anywhere we want, including in town. You, on the other hand, are restricted by blade length and other factors in many or most states right?

The gun is a tool here, and never a device to protect private citizens from each other. And it works out fine. Our gun users are composed of a large population that feeds itself almost completely off the land, and of course farmers and ranchers and wildlife officers depend on their rifles all year long. Lots of people hunt, too.

We also DO have criminals, ethnic gangs, biker gangs, gang wars, drug addicts, and the mentally ill. (Not as many per capita, of course.) I live in the home invasion capital of North America, and Surrey is the vehicle theft capital of North America.

We just look at guns differently. When someone barricades himself in a house with hostages, our police just talk to him and wait. No SWAT teams, no tear gas, no shots fired, no police or bystanders or hostages hurt by stray bullets. Usually the suspect isn't even hurt. Time and again I see news stories of standoffs between a distraught person and the police and think "if that guy was in the US, he'd be dead by now and lots of people would have been close to the hail of lead. He's pretty lucky he decided to go nuts up here instead."

In fact, if ever a police officer is killed in the line of duty it's a national tragedy and it's in the news for days.

In the UK, it's one step further: even the cops don't have guns. It's another way of approaching the problem, and statistically innocent citizens are far safer in countries that don't allow guns than in ones that do.

Your government still "nannies" you about automatic weapons, right? If you were "truly" free to arm yourselves, you'd be free to walk around with full-auto AR-15s and RPGs, and put turret-mounted 50-cal's and miniguns on your vehicles.

That sounds absurd, right? Well, then, you know how it sounds to a Canadian to suggest carrying a 9mm down a hiking trail.

The merits and failures of gun control seems to be a bit off the topic of an individual's decision to carry or not carry where that option is legally available.

But, anyway, here's more fuel for the off-topic fire:

http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=saf.htm

A lot more here, too:

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/firearms/control.html

And all over the internet by googling "gun crimes canada".

JRS

It seems that people are trying to make a non problem into a problem. We dont have a real problem with hand gun violence. I know that sounds silly, but most Americans know full well that the vast amount of violence and crime involving guns are confined largley to the blackmarket drug trade and gangs. When we hear about someone on the news who was shoot we all know what town/neigborhood its most likely in. Honest, we American dont have firefights with our neighboors and yet HUGE numbers of people own guns. You all need to stop watching so much American TV!
Leftwing groups have been after guns for decades but even thier own studys contradict them. There is no link between violence/crime and gun ownership.

Regarding any link between crimes and violence on the one hand and gun ownership on the other hand, it's ironic that most stats now appear to show that crimes and violence go up in countries where gun ownership is more restricted.

Seems violent criminals find it easier to select victims where gun ownership is prohibited or greatly restricted.

In that respect, there is a link between crime and guns. Just not the link that gun control supporters recognize.

JRS

Sarah,

I have read your recent posts on carrying a gun into the wilderness and I totally agree with your point of view.

You have obviously thought this through and are doing what you feel is best for your personal comfort and safety while out in the back country.

I say this in jest, but you sound like a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association.

Charles

Mike W. and Brian James, thanks for your answers and insights into Canadian ways of thinking. It's always interesting to see my culture through other eyes.

"All the training and forethought in the world can’t prepare you for what you will do when you are scared in a real world situation."

I keep hearing this line every time I read a thread about firearms. This is a cliche, and a poor one at best.

By your logic, every policeman, soldier, Marine or any other professional carrying a weapon is useless until after they have been in multiple firefights. This absolutely is NOT the case.

I was fortunate to have undergone about two years of training as a Marine before the first time I heard shots fired in anger. But many of the younger Marines with me had been in service less than a year. They still acquitted themselves admirably BECAUSE of extensive training and foresight. That which is done repeatedly and well becomes natural, even in that first real encounter.

The idea that training is useless is a rationalization designed to provoke someone to simply give up. True, it is possible someone may still hesitate at a critical moment. But with proper training, the likelihood is greatly reduced.

With proper forethought, judgement can be honed in when NOT to employ a firearm, a skillset which seems completely neglected by those who are either afraid of firearms or reject that they could ever be useful. Concealed carry permits are not issued out like candy. They require classes in which a large percentage of time is based on understanding the law and helping citizens establish a degree of prudence on when NOT to use firearms.

I don't carry in the backcountry. I'm a big guy. Nobody has ever harrassed me on the trail. But the theme I continuously hear about "the weapon will be used against you" or "you won't be able to use it when you need it" shows classic propaganda designed to replace a woman's legitimate concerns with fear-mongering to prevent her from carrying.

If you're concerned, get your training, and be careful out there.

Hi Shawn,
How many people in the civilian population who choose to carry a concealed weapon receive anything close to the kind of training you had in the Marines?
For all of you who remember how this thread originated, I would strongly recommend watching the YouTube clip(Brian supplied the URL in a previous poast) about those bear hunters who were forced to shoot a charging grizzly sow before making a final decision about carrying a pistol to defend against bears. Pretty sobering; I mean, those guys were packing some serious firepower and it still got dicey.
As for carrying for bigger game, we're never going to sort that one out under current interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. People are going to do what they think they need to do, reasonably or otherwise. As far as I'm concerned it is just one more hazard to be aware of in my comings and goings, at home and, it now seems, in the backcountry as well. Guess I should have figured it out 10 years or so ago when I first noticed backcountry rangers wearing sidearms down in the Sierra. They were doing it for a reason. Sad to say, Sarah and Jane, you've probably got a point; but I sure hope you never have to use your weapon, because once you have taken a human life, justifiably or not, you will never be the same.

Here you go: 4 hunters, well-armed, ready for a lion, safeties off, shooting to kill. Count how many shots are fired, and notice that the kill shot isn't made until the lion is running away.

Dirty Harry(s) versus lion

Now tell me how *you* would shoot under that kind of pressure. Unless you are a soldier or have shot a charging animal, you have no idea. (Training or not.)

Training can boost your odds upwards from zero, but remember that handguns are nowhere near as accurate as rifles and are harder to aim at any range other than point-blank. And with a handgun, you have a tiny effective target on an animal *or* a man. He would have to almost be on you before you had a chance of taking him.

These guys were *sure* they had the upper hand, with their big guns and fancy hunting suits, standing in a group and blazing away. And it was dumb luck by quick-reacting guide that saves a life here.

Imagine if that guide hadn't been directly in the path of the lion, with a round chambered, ready for the shot?

I counted six misses, with three on target and only the third hit from a nine-shot sequence stopping the animal. All with big-bore safari rifles in the hands of people who had been expecting a charging animal since they had eaten breakfast that morning.

I say it again: you're the safest if you *never*, ever, even for a second, believe that you have or can get the upper hand. You will be less likely to die that way, pure and simple.

Quite an extraordinary topic on a backpacking site… ‘only in the US of A!’ as I think you folks like to say …

What is fascinating is the way fairly similar cultures deal with essentially the same challenges. Europe and most countries where Europeans societies have spread eg North America, share similar culture and make up the most of the developed world… yet only in the US do citizens feel that arming themselves is the ‘normal’ response to the challenges/problems of their society. You folks even have a term for it – to ‘carry’. As in, “I choose to carry.” It is understood that person is armed and the noun can be left out of the sentence! The ‘normalness’ extends to a simple walk in the woods where some folks often(?!) choose to carry a firearm to handle the challenges faced there…

In the US the way of solving some of society’s challenges is to arm yourselves. No other first world country has anywhere near the level of firearm ownership as the US – 90 weapons per 100 residents.

Yet, according to OECD data, the US at 15.94 deaths per 100,000 of population, has by far and away the highest firearm-related death rate for a 1st world country. To give that figure perspective, Canada has 4.78… my home country - Australia, has 2.94, and England at 0.46… Sadly the very thing that every society wants – a safer and more secure one – seems to have eluded the US.

I’ll finish my 2cents worth about differing ways to solve the same challenge with a story I read a few years ago of a fellow who lived in a rattlesnake prone area in the US. He was a respected member of his community and apparently carried 2 large calibre revolvers in holsters by his side because of this threat/challenge/problem. Australia is blessed with the deadliest snakes by venom, by amount of poison, by aggressiveness, by sneakiness, by ugliness – you name it. I am a farm boy, grew up around guns and have been around for a number of winters… yet I have never heard of anyone carrying a firearm because of the snake problem…

Lucky one of the Harrys didn't get wasted when that lion went right through the group. A couple of rifles were definitely pointed in the right(wrong?) direction. One synapse misfire in the heat of battle and there could have been one less "Harry". .44 Magnums, anyone?

This U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fact sheet (PDF) sums up bear protocol pretty well.

I feel pretty clear on this issue. If someone does pack in an area where they can expect to encounter bears (or other aggressive animals), it should be their responsibility to also carry bear spray (out of respect for the bear and oneself). I know I would regret shooting a bear, and will try wholeheartedly to prevent it, but I won't rule it out.

In almost all cases, the bear spray should be used prior to a firearm. The firearm could fire warning shot(s) simultaneously and/or prior to bear spraying. The firearm also could then be utilized if/when a bear got too close for comfort. Things aren't always so cut-and-dry, as we all know, so if an animal attacks one in a tent or in an otherwise confined space, it would be a tough call because the bear spray could affect the shooter as well.

A person has a duty to know what they may encouter as well as the appropriate avoidance and deterrence techniques for those respective threats. There is plenty of info out there which details how to act around bears, big cats, humans, rabid animals, hogs, etc. In the end, if you do have a close encouter, hopefully no shots are fired. A previous poster noted that bear spray could have solved anything mentioned on this forum. IMO, you never know, and a firearm is another tool in the box.


" ‘only in the US of A!’ as I think you folks like to say …"
---or 'only in the US and A' as Borat says

Oh, and yes, 'carrying' is a term for having a gun on one's person. There is also: being strapped, being heated, packin', holdin', toten', etc. We have all kind of USA slang(check out urbandictionary.com).

Edited by HechoEnDetroit on 12/20/2007 18:33:30 MST.

I once had a permit to carry because my wife had a stalker and they broke into my house on several occasions.

The training required to purchase a pistol for leagal carry in the woods versus the legal permit to carry for protection I found vastly different. I took all levels of pistol training in MN (mid 90s) even though they would have waved the first class because of my military experience (DD214).

I found the training and rules a challenge because of how the infantry trained me to use a pistol and the way law enforcement officers trained me. The 2 rounds per engagement rule, only, engaging the chest, and then head as a last resort is what we used. They told me point blank that firing 3 rounds (2 in the chest and 1 in the head) would get me arrested, even in a self defence situation, because military training has the intent to kill. You need to have the intent or self protection.

First, it was a very hard habbit for 'me' to stop. It took several thousand rounds through my pistol before I felt better and safe with the idea.

Another instructor told me this was not just the protection of your life. It is the protection of the quality of your life (read no jail and no death of self or loved ones).

The instructors said it wasn't that we would be in the wrong for killing the individual with a 2 in the chest and 1 in the head action. Firearms kill. But the wrong statement and intent to kill (ie. head shot) or the wrong interpretation of the correct or 'right action' could land you in jail. Remember: Anything you say, can, and will be used against you in a court of law.

We did cover the fact that an engagement could be with someone using body armor. So the head shots may become or be a neccesity. But the body armor is part of your defense. Go figure.

I just want to give all of the people watching this something to think about and get them to really consider training. Engaging someone or involving the firearm in a confrontation with another human element is serious business and not to be taken lightly. I can tell by the great thread that most of you know this already. this is directed at those who don't have the experience or training.

Have fun and be safe!!!!

Why do non Americans care so much whether we have guns or not? Weve been 'bearing" arms for almost 300 years and no one ever had a problem with it. All the numbers people post lack context. America has a serious drug problem that fuels a huge illegal drug market. Thats where all this so-called "gun" violence is comming form. I still dont buy for a second the idea that every one can just use their wits to out smart thier armed attacker every time- its just silly. Why do we want to go back to Mideval times? Where might makes right. The gun used to be hailed as the great equalizer. The peasent could blow the night off his horse, all his expensive training and equipment went down the tubes- one of the most beutiful moments in western history.
Only someone who lives a sheltered life could tell vunreable peolpe that they are paraniod and cant handle/solve problems like a civilized person. America has a drug problem not a gun problem.
This is also a fundamental difference in philosophy-
Most countrys belive that freedom can be abused so it should be restricted, we say live free or die. The risks of hand guns is just part of life no different than living with the risk of Grizzlys or car accidents.

Edited by MAYNARD76 on 12/20/2007 19:47:23 MST.

Shawn -

If you can honestly tell me that as a Marine you would chose a 1st year rookie over a seasoned vet as your partner on patrol, then I will admit it's a cliché and that I'm wrong.

I instructed martial arts for 25 years and have seen what fear can do to a well trained person... and martial arts are just a game. The training you received as a Marine is not a game and it's based on constant conditioning to provide you with the skills required to do a single job. I really respect that. Hand gun certification and target practice aren't in the same league.

My comments have been inspired by the fact that many backpackers in the U.S. believe it is necessary to carry a gun to ensure their personal safety on your back country trails. The fact still remains that there are some very nervous individuals on your trails that are packing concealed hand guns and I'm sorry if that freaks me out but it does. I'm glad that I only have to worry about the grizzly bears up hear in Canada...

Edited by skopeo on 12/21/2007 00:20:34 MST.

Mike, I would have to assume your comment about "The fact still remains that there are some very nervous individuals on your trails that are packing concealed hand guns and I'm sorry if that freaks me out but it does. I'm glad that I only have to worry about the grizzly bears up hear in Canada..." is somewhat aimed at me.

As you might note: I am fine with not carrying in NP's and I obey all laws, so yes, I can be separated from my 3 lb package. I daily go into the US Post Office and the public school, both places where firearms are not allowed. I am fine not carrying in those places. I may not agree with the laws, but I will respect them.

I'd rather question how many people feel safe when they are not in reality. It is not being nervous or paranoid but rather being aware of your surroundings. That has nothing to do with weapons. It is listening to your inner voice.

Like today: I had a guy (we call them COG's...creepy old guys) who wouldn't leave me alone at the local Starbucks. Do men ever think of how they invade other people's personal space? The guy wouldn't back off and was within a couple inches of me. I didn't feel threatened by him as I was in public, but elsewhere? I would have had my pepper spray in my hands just in case. Lets see, he felt the need to tell me how I should take yoga so I could be more limber. Ewwwww. That is pretty common in what many women face daily! While his creepiness there was handable, what do you tell women to do when they have this happen on the trail? Should women never hike alone? Even in pairs they are not safe. Should we not have choices? In many ways I wish that men had to go through what women do a couple times in their lives. And to be small as well.
I don't buy that Canada's cities are any safer (Vancouver, BC? Yikes!)and that neither are their trails. Less traveled maybe. Rather, it is the view of the person.

Sarah, eloquent post at the top of page 5 here brought this discussion back to weapons as protection while backpacking, thanks. Those are exactly the situations where having a firearm is better than the alternative.
It is one thing to kill for self defense or food; killing something purely for the 'enjoyment' of killing sickens me. Those 4 or 5 idiots with high powered rifles in the video linked above are total cowards and I wish the lion had got a piece of them before it was gunned down. Better yet the "great" white hunters would have shot themselves in the crossfire.

I'm with Sarah, although I like to shoot long range at steel plates, compete with a pistol, and shoot the occasional bird. I also have a CHL, and carry pretty often. That being said, I think it's pretty pointless to carry a gun for any of the animals you'd find in the US. And they're too heavy, if they'd work. I would carry pepper spray. Now I will carry a gun for protection from non-animal threats, depending on the area I'm in. Depends on if it's one of the areas where the Border Patrol told me I was crazy to not be armed. I'll still run from trouble, but I'm going to have a choice.

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=44d94f6e-11cd-46b6-84c4-3f48d8df838b

I own firearms and believe in an individual's right to do so.

That being said, I don't carry anything backpacking. I've yet to come across a situation where I think one would make me safer, but I'm only speaking for myself here- I understand Sarah's position.

I do want to reiterate/expand on this point, though:
If you choose to carry a firearm for defense, regardless of where you are (trail, home, whatever), you'd better be VERY well trained with that weapon. According to a former SpecOps instructor that I've recieved handgun training from, in times of extreme crisis/fear our IQ's immediately drop and capacity for creative thought goes out the window pretty quickly. You will resort to what you have trained for. And if you didn't train for it, odds are, you'll likely freeze or do something stupid (and probably be killed if we're talking about defense vs. another armed individual). You can never count on just "figuring out" a situation without training, especially if things are happening very fast. Again, this is coming from a special forces soldier that has seen duty in many parts of the world, most recently Iraq in the early 90's.

I don't believe that possessing a firearm for defensive purposes without intensive training makes one "safer"- in fact, drawing or having a gun in hand and not really being comfortable with it is, in all probability, only going to make a situation worse.

Can you shoot from multiple positions? With your weak hand? Can you shoot at multiple/moving targets? In low light/darkness? How fast can you draw and double-tap, both on target? How about reloading? How fast can you clear a jam? Do you have the terrible habit of keeping your finger on the trigger (panic-boom-oops, wrong target)? Do you understand the legal aspects of using deadly force in this country, when it is/is not justified?
In my opinion, this is just scratching the surface of what it takes to be even semi-competent with a gun.

"Training" is not popping off a few hundred rounds at the range now and then.

If the above-mentioned doesn't apply to your competency with a gun (I'm not directing this at anyone in particualar- I hold myself to the same standard), I think you should strongly consider whether or not that gun would even be of "benefit" to have.

Wow, a very serious subject, eh?

Please be safe everyone; I truly wish nobody here ever has to defend themselves from anything.

Woman missing since New Years in GA

Edited by HechoEnDetroit on 01/03/2008 14:23:46 MST.

If that guy harmed the female hiker, I hope they string him up by his you-know-what >:(

Sorry to have to make this a first post here but...

The search and rescue effort for 24 year old Merideth Emerson is now a recovery effort. A drifter has been charged with kidnap with bodily harm in the case. There are elements tying him to the last mentioned murder of the older couple hiking.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=4091406&page=1

A one in a million chance of something like this happening. I still choose to carry protection from two legged snakes in the woods. I wish that Meridith had. May God be with her and her family.

Codger

I'm interested to know why you havn't considered offerings from Kel-Tec industries. They make small autos from 7oz on up. And, you know, it's mostly about shot placement, and not neccessarily caliber.

It's more about shot placement than caliber. A torso/head shot with a .32 hydrashock will incapacitate anyone but someone on PCP or maybe Mr. Hines. Also, the ammo is really lite, so go ahead, shoot them several times.

Anyone want to invalidate this?

Yes, I carry a 5.9oz North American Arms revolver, I also have a concealed carry permit. My goal whenever carring a weapon is that no one ever know except the target and by the time the target knows it is to late. when hiking, I carry it in my front pants pocket so it can be fired without removing it from my pocket.
I spent a few years in special ops and am always on the watch for situations that could prove perilous.It is a simple and casual move to put ones hand in ones pocket if the situation warrents. I have never had to use my weapon on the trail and no one in the party ever knows that I am carring it.
Where I see people get into trouble is when they use a weapon to threaten. This can open the door for a myriad of problems including being taken away and used on themselves.

I agree with Craig that training and practice is the most important part of self defense. If you do not have the training and wherewithal to use a weapon effectively, it could very well be the death of you.

http://www.northamericanarms.com/magnum.html

I think the latest Rambo movie shows how special-ops training is required to use the weapon properly in a really threatening scenario.
I don't carry.

Best comment on this whole thread:

Craig Wisner said - "I don't believe that possessing a firearm for defensive purposes without intensive training makes one "safer"- in fact, drawing or having a gun in hand and not really being comfortable with it is, in all probability, only going to make a situation worse."

Just look up law enforcement statistics. Many gun crimes are commited against people using their own guns. The simple fact is, most people cannot pull the trigger when it comes down to it. Of course, everyone argues with this and says stuff like "if I was me, my family, my friends, I could pull the trigger no problem." But the problem is, 100% of people say that, yet crime statistics say otherwise.

I am a gun owner, and a proud supporter of the second amendment. I train in tactical shooting and defensive shooting. I am probably one of the few people in this thread who is trained to defensively use a gun if the situation presented itself. Do I carry in the backcountry? - nope... it is a waste of weight.

Using your head, trusting your 6th sense as some of the female posters have stated, hiding, running away, etc... are all infinately more effective than shooting back.

Edited by fden23 on 03/14/2008 15:17:33 MDT.

“I am probably one of the few people in this thread who is trained to defensively use a gun if the situation presented itself.”

Somewhat arrogant and condescending.

I am sure that I am not the only vet in this forum that has had no choice but to defend themselves. I do agree that it is no easy thing to pull the trigger, and that without proper training, carrying a weapon makes you more dangerous, not only to yourself but to those around you. I carry a pee shooter (5 shot 22 mag derringer at 5.9 oz) to allow me the option to distract if confronted by greater numbers. I have put more than 2000 rounds down range at varying distances and continue to every month to stay current.

If you have not had to shoot at a target that is shooting back, I pray you never have to.

Edited by djjmikie on 03/14/2008 16:59:26 MDT.

Those who are going to take them will, legal or not. Always been that way always will stay this way, in the US anyway. I'd worry more about being ganged up on,stabbed, strangled or clubbed from behind myself. All are way quieter than a gun. And keeping with the ultralight theme they all weigh less as well;-)

"Somewhat arrogant and condescending"

Call it what you want. I was only trying to qualify my background in gun knowledge as being more than just another guy who happens to own a gun. You know from your training in special ops that simply owning a gun does not make you proficent in its use any more than holding a sewing needle makes you proficient in sewing a dress.

I can tell by your original post that you and I agree on the following statement: Most gun owners think going to the range once a year qualifies them to defend themselves in life or death situations, and those of us that have studied combat know that is self deception.

I can happily tip-toe around this subject, but I prefer to be bluntly honest when it comes to life or death situations. People who carry with the intent to defend themselves need to truly understand what that means, or statistically speaking they will most likely make the situation worse, not better, if they do choose to use it. This goes for CCW in the city or in the backcountry.

Edited by fden23 on 03/14/2008 22:53:18 MDT.

"Regarding any link between crimes and violence on the one hand and gun ownership on the other hand, it's ironic that most stats now appear to show that crimes and violence go up in countries where gun ownership is more restricted."

Not ironic, just not true.

I'm going to guess that this is a reference to the crime wave that, according to the NRA, supposedly hit Australia when we banned semi-auto longarms (for the record, handguns have always been tightly controlled here). Unfortunately that NRA campaign was a complete lie - the last time this came up in a gun thread I looked into the official Australian stats and there hadn't been a rise in crime of any type at all after the rules were tightened.

And when you think about it, do the people who believe those stories from the NRA think that prior to the ban on semi-autos that we all wandered Melbourne or Sydney with Ruger 9mm semi-autos slung over our shoulders?

The truth is that about the most popular thing the Howard government ever did here was tighten the gun rules - it had broad popular support which is how the Federal government got the State governments to introduce consistent gun laws.

Finally, it's really common here to see news stories about shop owners fighting off robbers armed with knives etc with anything handy - recently, with a can of flyspray! I don't think that'd happen if the crooks had handguns ...

Frank—
I do agree with what you have said and that the need for it to be understood is easily life or death for many.

Well, a proper wilderness gun would be something like a Marlin .450 and there's no concealing such artillery...not your typical piece of UL gear; the thing weighs 10 pounds.

Handguns, you say? Hmmmm. Most handguns are just ridiculous against bears, though in competent hands (capable and willing) pistols and revolvers of adequate caliber do have some value as deterrents against human predators.

In my view folks should just leave their guns at home in the safe. Better alternatives to the firearm for the hiker are the taser and/or spray devices.

If you must carry in the woods may I suggest that you make a study of terminal ballistics first. This will better inform your decision as to what caliber gun to carry (hint: it's not going to be a 9mm) and will likely dissuade you from spending the $1,000 that a sufficient gun actually costs.

Naw, leave the guns home. Just go for that walk. You know, lighten up.

Edited by BenWaller on 12/20/2008 08:26:31 MST.

Don't take your guns to town, son; leave your guns at home Bill. I think the old sad song's refrain went something like that. Good advice for the backpacker, too, IMO. As John said, the real thing is pricey and expensive, and willing and capable hands are in short supply. A wise(and tough) old Indian once told me when I was considering acquiring a gun: "If you're gonna carry a gun, Son, you'd better be ready to use it". How many of us REALLY are, when it comes down to it? My 2 cents...

What you fail to realize is that other hikers need guns to maximize their backcountry experience. Think about all the places you would not consider trekking without a gun... Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Rwanda... places of intense natural beauty that we would otherwise be afraid to go! Bears? pssh.. no big deal if you have the right tools. Here is my current 3-season go to setup.

I know what you're thinking - there are far lighter guns out there than an AKM. But thing is, I can carry less ammo in my pack because Soviet surplus ammo is available in almost any town in the third world! I can buy as I go to save weight. The only problem I have is the weapon sometimes bangs against my pack and puts dents in my caldera cone.

Edited by pbrown19 on 12/20/2008 18:59:01 MST.

Phil, that made me laugh out loud....Nice!

Sharp eyes, fast brain, fast tongue, fast feet will keep you out of trouble in the vanishingly rare case where you are actually in danger.

Phil B,

Outstanding! LOL - you are prepared for...




Dec 4th 2008 | ST LOUIS
From The Economist print edition

AUTUMN is a time for country walks, and, if you are that way inclined, for a spot of bang-bang. But hunters and hikers alike are liable to come face to face with a nasty surprise: a growing number of feral hogs, the destructive descendants of domesticated animals, are stalking America.

During its short and brutal life, a feral hog may grow to become a monster of several hundred pounds, covered with bristly hair and fronted with a set of fierce, killing tusks. One hog shot in Georgia in 2004 lives on in legend as Hogzilla because of the claim, disputed by some, that it was 12 feet long (almost four metres) and weighed 1,000lb (about 450kg).

There are thought to be between 4m and 5m feral hogs at large in America, spread across 38 states. The biggest population is in Texas, but states from Florida to Oregon are infested and worried. Feral hogs destroy the habitats of plants and animals, spread diseases, damage crops, kill and eat the eggs and young of wildlife and sometimes menace people with their aggressive behaviour.

The problem originated with the Spanish conquistadors, who took herds of pigs with them as they marched across the American continent. Stragglers reverted to their wild state. Much later “sportsmen” began releasing hogs into reserves for commercial hunting. More recently still declining pork prices have induced farmers to turn some of their stock loose rather than continue feeding them. Pigs produce so many piglets that a feral herd can double or even triple within as little as a year.

Governments and individuals across the country are getting involved. In 2000 Missouri adopted a shoot-on-sight policy with no restrictions on time or place. Other states are encouraging the trapping, poisoning and snaring of the beasts. “Hog dogs” have been trained to track down the herd for hunters. In many states aerial hunting from helicopters has been employed as a pricey but effective solution. But the creatures are intelligent and adaptable, so these efforts are not keeping pace with the exploding feral hog population. Missouri recently made it a crime to knowingly release pigs from confinement. However, the herds continue to grow and spread. Take care.