[pct-l] The weapons question

[richardl at ufp.com]

A legitimately attacking bear? So let me get this straight. We, uninvited, invade this bear's 'home' and we are carrying a weapon so that we can legitimately shoot and kill a bear trying to get our food. Umm, I think you have some entitlement showing. If youre worried about a bear attack, how about not going into bear country?

r

-----Original Message-----
From: ned at pacificcrestcustombuilders.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 10:10am
To: "Bill Burge" <bill at burge.com>, "pct list" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
Subject: Re: [pct-l] The weapons question

Late last night I wrote an email to a friend that I want to share here.

I refer to one attack that happened to me early in 1974 and partially 
re-tell of another that happened later that summer. If I had not had those 
experiences, especially the one which was physical, my thoughts or questions 
on this subject would be more theoretical rather than practical. When I 
worked as a Backcountry Wilderness Ranger for Sierra NF I associated with 
many stock packers and public with horses and llamas and many of them were 
responsibly armed to protect their animals. I didn't fear the weapon, I 
trusted the person, got to know them, and it was forgotten. However, it was 
reassuring to know that someone in the backcountry was around to protect me 
with sufficient force should I need it. With the rise of the mountain lion 
in the south and the grizzly and wolf in the north, the anti-weapons 
question still doesn't make sense.
________________


If I had been attacked and mauled (or worse) back in '74, I would hope that 
I would have had it within my rights to effectively and definitively fight 
off my attacker. As it is now, I believe, if I were to shoot and/or kill a 
legitimately attacking bear in a NP, I would be imprisoned, lose my freedom, 
for doing so. In a NP I have greater fear because of just that possibility.