Legalities aside, seems to me if you don't shoot to kill first shot, you're in trouble. Wounding one will just piss him/her off.
Cheers, frank --- Original Message --- From: kwal...@peoplepc.com Sent: November 11, 2012 11/11/12 To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> Subject: Re: OT: Election Commentary Many years ago, while planning my first visit to Alaska - a month long backpack trip with my then 5 year old son & wife, centered around 2 weeks in Denali National Park - I investigated having a weapon with me knowing full well that we would be in Grizzly bear country. Some of my findings - A gun of any kind is not legally allowed in any U.S. National Park You can't legally transport a gun thru Canada You had better be a damm good marksman, with nerves of steel, if you expect to immobilize a Grizz at close range with any hand held pistol/rifle. Better to adhere to the known 'rules' about travel in bear country and not be caught unaware. We did have a great experience on our month long trip in Alaska, did see many bears & ran into a guy in the park with a sawed off shotgun that he kept slung over his shoulder who advised it was only to stun a bear if/when he ran into one. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike wilson" <m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com> Subject: Re: OT: Election Commentary On 10/11/2012 16:12, mike wilson wrote: > On 10/11/2012 11:37, P. J. Alling wrote: >> Unpleasant though in may be ya got to think about this stuff. > > Have to agree with P.J. about this. There was an incident last year(?) > when a guy was walking no more than a mile or so from his house and was > attacked by an old, dying (of starvation) Grizzly. It may have been a > gummy bear but it was 6-800lbs of hungry omnivore determined to have an > easy meal. Only because he was carrying a particularly powerful handgun > (and managed a lucky hit with one of the three rounds he managed to > fire) did he survive. Humans are still the huntee in some parts of the > continent. A link for those interested. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/08/31/man-kills-charging-bear-with-454-casull/ > >> >> On 11/10/2012 1:08 AM, Tim Bray wrote: >>> Damn we’re a cheery bunch. >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:06 AM, P. J. Alling >>> <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> AK47 or the equivalent, unless it's fully automatic isn't good enough >>>> for a >>>> bear of any kind. Just not accurate enough, and the AR-15 derived >>>> competition isn't powerful enough. Really only good against >>>> varmints up to >>>> 200 pounds, with poor slope armor on their skulls. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11/8/2012 11:03 PM, Stan Halpin wrote: >>>>> Don't forget that real men have an AK-47 or equivalent in the woods >>>>> with >>>>> them, no mere grizzly would be an issue. >>>>> >>>>> stan >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 8, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Miserere <miser...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yeah John, Scandinavia is for girly men. I want to live poor and die >>>>>> young, hopefully at the hands (paws?) of a grizzly bear in the woods >>>>>> (where I'm forced to live because I can't afford a house and there is >>>>>> no help from the government for scientists living below the poverty >>>>>> line). >>>>>> >>>>>> —M. >>>>>> >>>>>> \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com >>>>>> >>>>>> http://EnticingTheLight.com >>>>>> A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8 November 2012 14:02, John Sessoms <jsessoms...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>> From: DagT >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can agree with you there, being relatively conservative by >>>>>>>> Norwegians standards. One reason why republikanske are not very >>>>>>>> popular around here is that they usually don't seam to know much >>>>>>>> about the world outside the US. And in the previous election they >>>>>>>> used Skandinavia as an example of a system they didn't want :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just compare The US to Scandinavia ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Scandinavia = Denmark; Finland; Norway; Sweden (Numbers from OECD): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Healthcare cost as percent of GDP: >>>>>>> US 17.4% - Denmark 11.5%; Finland 9.2%; Norway 9.2% Sweden 10% >>>>>>> Healthcare cost per capita: >>>>>>> US $7,960 - Denmark $4,348; Finland $3,226; Norway $5,352; Sweden >>>>>>> $3,722; >>>>>>> Infant mortality (deaths per 1,000 live births before their first >>>>>>> birthday): >>>>>>> US 6.8 - Denmark 4.4; Finland 3.0; Norway 3.1; Sweden 2.4 >>>>>>> Life expectancy at birth (Total Population): >>>>>>> US 78.7 - Denmark 79.3; Finland 80.2; Norway 81.2; Sweden 81.5 >>>>>>> Life expectancy at age 65 (Males): >>>>>>> US 17.7 - Denmark 17.0; Finland 17.5; Norway 18.0; Sweden 18.2 >>>>>>> Percentage of persons living with less than 50% of median >>>>>>> equivalised >>>>>>> household income: >>>>>>> US 17.3% - Denmark 6.1%; Finland 7.9%; Norway 7.8%; Sweden 8.4% >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Easy to see why we wouldn't want anything like *THAT* for the U.S. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
