Much has been made of efforts to reintroduce wolves and grizzly bears into areas where they have all but vanished in the Lower 48 over the past generation, and now that wolves appear firmly established in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, environmentalists are furious that people have been allowed to hunt them in two of those states.
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation has been working hard to reveal the downside of wolf expansion in Montana, where they were worried about wolves way back in 2002.The wolf controversy is in federal court right now.
Grizzly bears and wolves are also known to wander around Washington State in certain areas. There are wolves in the Methow Valley of Okanogan County, a situation that alarms local cattlemen and the state’s deer hunters, because of the potential that wolves will decimate the mule deer herd. This column believes that allowing wolves to gain a foothold here in Washington – considering what has been documented in Montana and Idaho – is a bad idea, for various reasons. Others will no doubt disagree.
At the end of 2009, Montana had at least 525 wolves, while Idaho had about 850 and Wyoming had 320. Those numbers could be low by 10 percent to 30 percent, Lane said. Montana and Idaho each offered wolf hunting seasons last year, and hunters were able to kill 73 and 185 wolves, respectively.
Some theorize that introduction of wolves is part of a long-term sinister plan to significantly reduce the size of elk and deer herds, thus reducing and ultimately eliminating hunting seasons because hunters would compete with the poor, hungry wolves for the remaining deer and elk. What do you think? Answer below.
Wolf advocates, and bear protectionists are much like mountain lion saviors. They understandably don’t want their favorite animals harmed, claim these predators only take down weak animals and so rarely attack people that it’s a non-issue. Recent current events say otherwise; the bear, wolf or cougar attack is darned important to the person it happens to. Mountain lions have killed people in California. Most assuredly, grizzly bears have attacked and killed or mauled people, as was the recent case just outside Yellowstone National Park, where a 70-year-old man was killed by a grizzly; read what Evergreen State hunters think about this here. And has anyone forgotten the horrible demise of self-styled naturalist Timothy Tredwell (whose story is told in Grizzly Man, a documentary that has appeared on television) in Alaska a few years ago?
The attack happened Thursday in the same place where two researchers with the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team had examined a large adult male grizzly earlier that day, Park County Sheriff Scott Steward said Friday…. The victim was Erwin Frank Evert, 70, who went hiking around 12:45 p.m. from his cabin in the Kitty Creek drainage.
Earlier this year, a wolf pack killed Alaska school teacher Candice Berner and five years ago, another wolf pack killed a man in Saskatchewan; so much for the argument that wolves don’t attack people. Even if it's rare, it has happened.
Witness the recent fatal shooting of a grizzly by a hiker in Alaska’s Denali National Park. He used a .45-caliber semiautomatic pistol when the bear reportedly charged his female companion. Some argue this may have been a “false charge,” but they do that from the comfort of the cheap seats, where it is easy to analyze what someone else did with a split second to make a life-or-death decision.
The names of the hikers have not been released, pending investigation into the justification of the shooting. According to the press release issued by Fister, it is legal to carry a firearm in the original Mt. McKinley portion of the park where the incident occurred, but it is not legal to discharge it.
A few weeks ago, I tossed a challenging question to two different forums, TheHighRoad.us and Northwest Hikers (nwhikers.net): Would you shoot a wolf in self-defense? I hadn’t originally planned to write about the reactions, but last week’s Yellowstone incident, and the Denali shooting changed that.
As the likelihood increases for human-predator interaction, this is a legitimate question, one that a lot of people are not prepared to answer; a problem I didn’t have on either forum, where cooperation from the participants was pretty interesting.
Carnegie was 22 when he died in November 2005 near Points North Landing,
On a work term for a company at the mining exploration camp, located about 750 kilometres northeast of Saskatoon, Carnegie went for a walk and didn't come back…Searchers later found his body surrounded by wolves. Sask.
Remember, wolves and grizzly bears are listed as endangered in most of the Lower 48 states. Plugging one can get a person in a lot of trouble if investigators convince a prosecutor that it was not necessary.
Q: If confronted in the wilds by an aggressive wolf pack or grizzly bear, would you kill the animal(s)?
Q: Do you believe that it is prudent to carry a firearm in the back country, even inside a national park, or just bear spray?
Please post answers below, take your time and be thoughtful.
===============================================
BULLETIN: There was no Supreme Court ruling issued today on the Second Amendment Foundation’s case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. Only two dates remain on the court’s calendar for reporting decisions, this Thursday, June 24 and next Monday, June 28.
===============================================
For more info: Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.
PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forums
More from Gun Rights Examiners
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Detroit: Rob Reed | Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Tucson: Chris Woodard
And Don’t forget to visit:
And don’t forget:
Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner John Longenecker has started a newsletter titled "The Liberty News/Safer Streets." I've read it and it's good.
If you'd like to receive it regularly, click HERE:
Comments
Hi Dave. Moving last month from the Cascade Mountains of Washington to the Rocky Mountains of Montana, I've already had this argument numerous times. This issue is extremely hot here in MT, and most people would never admit that they'd kill a wolf in self defense bc they don't want the argument with the enviros. Well, I WILL. If one of those things come near me, I will defend myself and aim to kill. These enviros seem to think they have the right to declare my life not as worthy as a wolf, bear or mountain lion. They are wrong. Just Who and what do they think they are? As a teenager, I was out hiking and confronted by TWO HUGE mountain lions. (Rangers said they must have been related as they rarely travel in pairs.) If I would not have been armed, I would have been ripped to shreds and, most certainly, dead. To answer your questions, YES AND YES. Bear spray? Get real. That stuff will just tick them off more than they already are. The ignorant Enviros have no right to make me a victim
yes, self defense would prompt me to kill wolf, grizzly bear, cougar.
I don't currently carry a pistol in the backcountry as I am typically hunting with a weapon, but the more active I get in archery & muzzleloader the more I think about packing a sidearm for self defense.
Your comments about being in a heap of trouble would be accurate though and defense costs in court could mount to a significant number, which is something people should be aware of. The situation is far from over after pulling the trigger.
Your question is a leading one. It would take a real whacko to say "no, I'd sacrifice myself to the wolf." The real issue, I think, is that most people don't know enough about wolves (or bears, or cougars) to know whether it actually poses a threat, and how to avoid it in the first place.
I think the difference between "greenies" and "gunnies" is which species gets the benefit of the doubt when the scat hits the fan. That might be a more revealing line of discussion.
Whacker said "Your comments about being in a heap of trouble would be accurate though and defense costs in court could mount to a significant number, which is something people should be aware of. The situation is far from over after pulling the trigger."
My response..... I will NEVER sacrifice my life to a grizzly, wolf or mountain lion simply because I am afraid of the big bad lawyers. They're going to have to prove that my life is not worth as much as the wolf that tried to jump and kill me.
Let them try.
Yes and Yes. I always carry a firearm in hostile, predator-infested areas such as Portland. I also carry a handgun in the wilderness, even though it is much safer there. I would be able to determine if a bear, cougar or wolf posed an immediate threat to me or another innocent person. If shooting an animal in self defense puts me in jeopardy from the legal system, I would likely not report the incident.
Self Defense is a right that is pre-existing and protected of all life. Wolves have teeth and claws (among other animals) to defend themselves against other animals, and they can and have killed other members of their own species. Why are humans treated any differently than wolves in this regard?
I myself have a spiritual affinity for wolves and coyotes. My husband has a spiritual affinity for cougars. This is partly due to our creed and religious beliefs. I have a Wolf calendar behind me. That doesn't mean that either one of us would have a problem with dealing with an animal attacking us one on one, or in a pack, if by using a firearm or a crossbow.
Yes and Yes. I am a vegetarian and carry a firearm pretty much everywhere I go, urban jungle or forest wilderness. I am too old to run, and would use my firearm to protect myself and my family. I would only shoot at predators... be they two legged or four.
Indeed, why would someone even report shooting a predator if they knew it could land them in federal prison, bankruptcy and wrath from the enviros? When I shot those two mountain lions there was nobody around. I took them to the Ranger's station, but if I wouldn't have done that nobody would have known. I only did it so they would be aware those things were out there. I doubt very much I would report such a kill today, knowing how rabid people can get over the issue.
yes and yes. no question.
If I am in fear for my life or the life of my family members I am using lethal force against the animal (human or otherwise) producing that menace.
Anything else is commentary.
You better believe I'd shoot either if I was attacked. Much better them than me. BTW, I usually carry a .357 when I'm out in the boonies.
Yes and yes, prosecution for illegally killing an animal in defense of life and limb isn't even a legitimate concern.
Yes, I would defend myself and I believe it is not only prudent to carry a firearm but is foolish to not do so in the back country. When working in remote wilderness I always carry a handgun capable of stopping the largest predator I could possibly encounter.
Q: If confronted in the wilds by an aggressive wolf pack or grizzly bear, would you kill the animal(s)?
A: yes i would.
Q: Do you believe that it is prudent to carry a firearm in the back country, even inside a national park, or just bear spray?
A: Carry as much gun as you can comfortably handle.
yes and yes, When in the woods I carry a 44 mag. I was a professional guide in Idaho and Mt for many years.
I was less than 10 miles from where the grizzly attacked the old man inside the park.
It's kinda funny during our stay my daughter age 20 noticed I always had my black fanny pouch with me, and asked me why I always had it.
I explained that Even though I may be tried by 12 it was better then being carried by 6.
My wife on the other hand always made sure that I was packing before she could relax and enjoy the delights of Yellowstone.
It is the same question of why do you buy insurance if you do not expect to crash your car, you buy insurance because you might crash and the smart person always cares to plan for the unexpected.
I'd pull a Rick Perry, and take it out without thinking twice. Two or four legged predators beware.
Dave, I'd kill a nun carrying a baby holding a kitten if I was convinced they were a threat to my safety and there was no other way to extract myself from the situation.(and what a situation that would be!) I live in PA where our most dangerous critters are black bears, coyotes and the occasional 2-legged crazies, and I never enter the woods unarmed. When it comes to my life and safety and the lives and safety of my family, every other creature on this earth is WAY down the totem pole. I just think it's stupid to not take simple precautions to increase your own safety. A pistol weighs less than two pounds and can be carried fairly unintrusively. And it's not just about carrying a gun. I also carry a small first aid kit, some high calorie granola bars, water, matches, appropriate clothing, a multitool, a cell phone, a compass and a flashlight. I've never experienced it, but I'd imagine that dying in the woods because you weren't adequately prepared would suck.
Q1 Yes
Q2 Yes
As for the lawyers, my spin on the saying "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six." is: "Alive and in a world of sh** still beats the hell out of dead."
The question isn't whether or not I would shoot a predator which posed a threat to my safety or the safety of others but what would I shoot it with?
I haven't been bear hunting or anywhere near bears outside of a zoo but I would carry both firearm,or archery tackle depending on the hunt AND pepper spray as a layered defense.If the pepper spray didn't work,as has happened often,then I would resort to using deadly force in self defense.
After reading the comments,I wonder if the columnist was hoping for a lot of "No" answers and how the current response is being handled.
YES & YES
NO animals life is any where near as precious as human life PERIOD . And instant lead poisoning has a much higher success rate than bear spray .
Also no sane thinking person would purposely go tramping around known bear or wolf sites ( they are not cuddly cute animals they are wild animals and act as such ) so if you go there remember ' YOU are the intruder in their home ! '. But if you must go there " BE ARMED FOR IT or become bear poo"
Wolves and bears are alpha predators, and humans are physically weak. We substitute technology for strength and teeth.
Q1) Yes.
Q2) Yes. I believe it prudent to be armed always. In town it's a 9mm. In the Woods it's a .44 Mag or a stompin' long gun.
Yes and yes. I don't ever go out my door unarmed. Predators may be encountered anywhere on the planet. The "right" to life and liberty is pointless if you are not prepared to defend yourself.
I've had people tell me that wolves and so forth were "here first" and that the solution is some sort of mass human depopulation. I always suggest they go ahead and do that... starting with themselves. Somehow, that never seems to appeal to them.
Geeewhiz.....
Do we really have to offer an opinion on something so basis as protecting your life or that of another?
We really are raising imbeciles! Fortunately, nature has a cure for that because people that STUPID, become lunch!
Unfortunately, their isn't anyway to drop them off in a imbecile hostile environment w3ithout going to jail.
Maybe we could organize a contest, and turn off the electric fences that protect them, while they sleep and give their interviews during documentaries about how safe they "feel".
Yes. Shoot, shovel and shut the hell up.
Nah... I'd capture the poor innocent critter and send it to Central Park, where Mayor Bloomburg and his merrie band of anti-gun rat-huggers can embrace it...
like patski from pa. where i live its black bear and eastern coyote, encounters are not frequent but yes to both questions. i don't go into the woods looking for trouble, but i carry an m1911a1 .45 just in case something, or somebody else is. my mama didn't raise me to be lunch.
Yes; Yes.
No government in the World has the LEGITIMATE authority to deny anyone their fundamental, creator-given right to keep and BEAR arms, "loaded and available for immediate use in case of chance confrontation" with dangerous animals which includes people - especially JBTs of government.
The lack of "no" answers is most probably due to the demise of those so inclined if they go out and about in the wild. Which I think is appropriate. Nothing like reaping the rewards of your opinion.
hey dave ,i hnow your brother frank well as we used to work together,as for your questions , i have spent most of my life in the woods and i can tell you that some animals will try to try and bluff but you mever can tell when they are atacking to kill or just to scare the hell outa ya .so when i am in the woods for any reason i am going to be packing enough gun.
Hell yes to both questions, but I only have a hunting knife at the moment. Im ready for that up close and personal encounter..till death do us part. Hiya Dave!
Q1: Without hesitation.
Q2: You would be foolish not to.
I live in south eastern Washington, and we have 2 different confirmed wolf sightings less than 5 miles from my house and place of work. We also have sighted black bear and cougars within short range of here.
As far as I am concerned, if a bear/wolf/etc. is close enough for me to see it, and my sidearm to be used on it, my life is in imminent I am going to empty my clip into it.
Hmm, that was supposed to say "imminent danger" oops!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!