Monday, April 30, 2007

A Grisly Tale

Glacier National Park, Mont. — JOHAN looked up. Jenna was running toward him. She had yelled something, he wasn't sure what. Then he saw it. The open mouth, the tongue, the teeth, the flattened ears. Jenna ran right past him, and it struck him — a flash of fur, two jumps, 400 pounds of lightning.

It was a grizzly, and it had him by his left thigh. His mind started racing — to Jenna, to the trip, to fighting, to escaping. The bear jerked him back and forth like a rag doll, but he remembered no pain, just disbelief. It bit into him again and again, its jaw like a sharp vise stopping at nothing until teeth hit bone. Then came the claws, rising like shiny knife blades, long and stark.

You have to get way deep into the story to find this:
The name badge said Katie. She wore the green and gray uniform of the park service. She had slid down the slope, balancing a medical kit and a shotgun in her hands...

Get that? The only person who had a gun was an "Only One," and she arrived way after the fact.

Why?

Why the hell do you think?



(Click on image to enlarge)

Yet they knew bears could represent a danger to humans, and still they impose and enforce this anti-human life policy.

The conclusion is inescapable: The National Parks Service--and their political masters--would rather see you and your loved ones horribly mauled--even eaten alive--than armed.

More thoughts on bears and anti-defense outrages..

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

If I go into the park's back country, I will carry at least a .454, and to HELL with park regs!

Anonymous said...

Actually, as long as the National Park Service doesn't try to impose its rules outside the park boundaries, I don't see the problem.

Think of the park as a zoo--only without the walls and moats. When you go into the park, you are going into the bear pit, into the bear's designated home, and you go at your own risk, just like any other home invader.

Don't like it, stay the hell out. Nobody makes you go into the bear pit.

Anonymous said...

dj, I will not buy that one! That park is mine as much as it is yours, and I will go into it if I wish, and I will not go unarmed. If you want to be bear bait like that guy in Alaska, go for it! But I will not be any lower than the top of the food chain!

Remember, our gov't is inviting us in there, so they have no right to say we can't use weapons to defend ourselves. They can prohibit hunting if they like, and that's fine. But defense against being hunted must not be outlawed.

David Codrea said...

And the school is government property--don't like it, stay the hell out.

And the street is government property. Don't like it, stay the hell out.

And the sidewalk...

And the park...

And the beach...

And the library...

Tell me something, dj: where does govt get the enumerated and delegated authority to ban guns anywhere, when the supreme law of the land specifically forbids them from infringing?

Anonymous said...

Another thing: It's more proper to liken a bear's den to our homes, not the whole park. The whole park would be more akin to our cities and such. And, while I partake in nature's predator-prey relationships when I hunt, we are different from animals in certain ways. Even if we're being hunted, we can fight back. If you encounter a rattlesnake, and do not retreat, will that snake not bite you in self-defense? Of course it will! Do National Parks outlaw fangs and venom for rattlesnakes? Of course not! Neither should they outlaw gun possession if we would carry for our own defense.

Anonymous said...

David, crotalus, methinks you are arguing with an idiot.

David Codrea said...

Now, now...

I want to hear him out.

Anonymous said...

SA, methinks you are right. But it helps me clarify what I think, so it's still a good thing.

Anonymous said...

David, thanks for hearing me out.

["Bears" should be taken here as standing in for wild predators generally.]

Let me clarify: I'm suggesting that certain parks remain gun-free not because they're government territory, but because they're bear territory (if not their home).

I'll also emphasize my opening: "As long as the National Park Service doesn't try to impose its rules outside the park". So, if a bear (or other animal) comes onto your property, you absolutely have the right to defend yourself there, with any tool that comes to hand. No good simply placing bears (or other predators) off-limits everywhere.

Outlawing fangs, claws, etc.: Hey, I'm not saying you can't fight back--just that you can't fight back with anything other than your own fangs and claws. (I do see the argument that fighting back with a tool is, in a sense, fighting back with your brain.)

As to the government inviting us there: OK, how about reserves where we're simply forbidden to go? I like that a lot less than being able to go wherever I want, but with some restrictions in certain well-defined areas.

How about this: the most popular areas of the park, certain trails, certain attractions, are designated human areas, where human law prevails. (And remember, the bears don't get to negotiate this, have no choice in the matter, and cannot choose to arm themselves. We set the boundaries and the rules unilaterally.) But some areas are set-asides where you may go if you wish, but no firearms--and no rescue teams. You're on your own.

Excellent point about proper authority to ban guns in parks. Does the government actually have authority to ban guns anywhere? If not, the rule should be rescinded--and I get to tour military bases, Area 51, the NSA, the Mint....

There's also the very real problem of being defenseless against human predators, who, as we all know, will happily ignore the rules anyway.

Finally, I do recognize that right now the emphasis should be on forcing governments to recognize the RTKB. Once that's done, though, and we're down to defining boundaries similar to the sedition, obscenity, and slander exceptions to free speech, giving the bears some limited territory where we fight on their terms seems reasonable to me.

Otherwise, it seems to me, we're falling into the trap of trying to create a world with rounded corners and padded edges everywhere.

David Codrea said...

I'll meet you this far, dj: I'll agree to set-aside zones where no unauthorized personnel are allowed to trespass (providing there is adequate oversight of the government by We the People to ensure it is legitimate), but I won't go for "no defense zones". I have no problem keeping certain areas off limits--or curtailed from free wandering with access points where observation is possible but contact is not. But these really need to be justified based on a demonstrable need, and should be more of an exception than a rule.

That way, if you go into a prohibited area, it truly is as if you crawled over the barrier at a zoo into the bear exhibit--the charge is not for having a gun--it's for being where you're not allowed. And if you do that AND injure the animal, you ought to be prosecuted.

This is also why the Area 51 example gets problematic--you can't be there in the first place. No one is suggesting that there aren't appropriate areas with legitimate security concerns--military bases, prisons, etc., but parks where people camp and hike don't meet that test.

But back to the parks, before we get too far afield--I'm not suggesting hunting in no hunting zones, or even that you shouldn't be prosecuted for killing an animal in defense if it turns out you provoked the attack through stupidity or negligence. Where I'm coming from is another term for "Gun Free" zones is "You're not allowed the means to defend your life" zones. Seeing as how our government has been "instituted among men to secure the blessings of liberty," I don't see where disarming us complies with that charter.

Anonymous said...

David, it seems that our disagreement here (aside from the problem of constitutional authority, which I admit cannot be wholly separated out) is a choice between unrestricted movement (my preference), and unrestricted tool use (yours).

I'm actually pretty happy with your solution, provided that I can become "authorized" with sufficient training or experience, and with the caveat that I'm on my own there at my own risk. I don't want to see a situation where only government employees are allowed to go off-trail.

Otherwise, I'm willing to let this be one of those points where reasonable folk may honestly disagree. (And I hope I've adequately demonstrated that I'm not an idiot.)

One more point: I'm absolutely against allowing the bears to pick the territory: in other words, if a bear shows up in my backyard, my backyard doesn't automatically get appended to the nearest bear park. (I'm thinking here of the notoriously flexible definition of "wetlands".)

It's just that we humans get almost the entire planetary land mass; I find I can't begrudge the bears a few thousand (carefully defined) square miles where they get to set the rules.

Kent McManigal said...

djmoore is anthropomorphizing the bears. They are not sapient beings and can't therefore set any rules. We can protect them, but not as a betrayal to our own individual lives. My having a gun with me in no way violates anyone's rights (not even the bears, if they had rights). No one has the "right" to tell me what I can or can't have with me regardless of what the authoritards believe.

Fits said...

The bear, a small one at that or the story would have had a tragic ending for sure, had every right to be there. So did the hikers. The bears right ends where their skin begins. Then all bets are off and it's kill or be killed. To go unprotected, bringing one of your children along, to me is unimaginable.

Anonymous said...

You didn't convince me. Hunting and not allowing yourself to be killed and eaten are two entirely different things.

I have spent a lifetime with tools of lethal capability. I will die owning some. No, all of them are not ordinarily thought of as weapons. I am not compelled to kill a damn thing just because I can. However, I am prepared to see that same doesn't happen to me.

I find your position dishonest, because you knew that was the issue, and you chose to portray it as predators of amusement practicing extinction against another helpless and friendly, docile species. Oh, and I don't hunt anymore, haven't since 1972, but I am still not willing to let a bear eat me.

As for U.S. Parks, I own them. That's right, me. I am the owner. So are 300 million other Americans and we have rights that "shall not be infringed".

There is no argument, I take that back. There is no honest argument to the contrary.

So no, you didn't convince me. Mestillthinks.

Anonymous said...

straightarrow, I absolutely understand this is about self-defense, not hunting. My point is that the bear is acting in self-defense, as best it knows how. As far as it's concerned, we are the threat, and it has absolutely no way of understanding just how great a threat an armed human is. If it did, it would stay the hell away from us.

Are you willing, as I am, to go along with David's suggestion that certain areas be set aside where you are not allowed to enter without appropriate training? That works for me if the training results in humans being much less likely to provoke an attack. I also like his idea that if you kill a bear, it gets investigated, and god help you if you provoked the bear by being stupid or inattentive.

The problem is exactly that, unlike the bear, we are sentient, we do understand the situation, we can make choices. In many ways, the bear is at our mercy. Only in a direct, physical confrontation does the bear have any advantage at all.

I agree these rules shouldn't be in effect everywhere in all parks. I agree that the Park service is currently working in jackboot mode with regard to firearms, and that this is unacceptable. I agree, to get a bit off topic, that there should be generous provisions for hunting in many parks.

I'm willing to let this point go until the RKBA is firmly established, until even the Park Service sells ammo and camo at the ranger stations and gift shops, and will hire out rangers as guides for hunting expeditions.

I'm just thinking that it's not entirely a bad thing for there to be places where, if you choose to go there, you agree to go pretty much with the same armament the bear has: what you were born with.

Anonymous said...

dj, I gotta agree with David on this one. I believe that I am two things in one. I am an animal, as are all human beings. But, I am also created in the image of God, with an eternal soul, so I am more than an animal. Both aspects of my humanity apply in my self-defense. Nobody is saying that if I have a gun, I have to shoot a bear just because I can. But since a national park isn't off-limits, like a zoo with all its barriers is, then I should be free to carry.

Kent McManigal said...

When I evolve the teeth, claws, and strength of a bear, I will consent to meet them strictly on their terms. Until then I will make use of the tools and methods that my species has developed to even the odds of survival.

Anonymous said...

Aw this is getting way too serious guys...especially when you are missing the finest part of the story.....Proof of the following joke....How fast do you have to go to outrun a bear???? One step faster than your companion!!!! Note that the woman ran up to and right past her boyfriend, essentially making him a chew toy!

On another note many years ago I was studying to be a one of the Park Service types(until I learned what leftists most of them were). One of the professors was a past Nat Park Service back country ranger. He told us, on the day he 1st showed up for work at Yellowstone, he was handed a revolver. No prior gun experience, no training, nada. He stuck it in the bottom of his pack and never took it out for the several years he worked there. Is anyone here really thinking the NPS is going to be able to protect you. Chances are the ranger in this incident barely knew how to avoid shooting herself much less use a shotgun defensively.

Anonymous said...

Oops, I actually read the whole story....change boyfriend to father!!!!