After this experience, I'm ready to ban all hunting with guns and limit it to more natural means, like bow & arrow hunting.  These people have no consideration for nature or for other people, who needs them?

Let's try a couple of seemingly unrelated examples. How would you feel about someone who wanted to bring back segregaton because they got robbed by a black guy once? Or someone who supported the "protection of marriage" ammendment because some drunk gay guy once hit on them a little too much?

The fact is, just like most blacks aren't robbers and most gays aren't whatever-you-call-someone-who-compulsively-commits-sexual-harrassment, most hunters aren't like the ones you met. I have a great many friends and family members who hunt regularly, and while it's not a passion of mine, I occasionally join them. You know why I do it? Because it's necessary to protect the ecosystem, because human activity that we're all guilty of has killed or driven away all the predators in the area. I also do it because there is no less cruel or more environmentally friendly way to produce meat. And in my experience, most hunters obey relevant laws, respect seasons and bag limits, don't hunt where they don't have permission, and make damn sure to be as considerate and as safe as humanly possible. And they hate people like ones you met at least as much as you do--because not only do these people ruin other hunters' experience just as much they did yours, but they also soil the reputation of hunters everywhere.

Furthermore, many hunters would be very passionate conservationists--for example, Theodore Roosevelt, whom some call the father of the modern conservation movement, was a huge hunter--but all the hostility in the environmental community alienates them. Do you think we'd have any trouble passing legislation to ban lead bullets in condor territory if hunters felt they'd get a lick of appreciation for their trouble? Do you think there wouldn't be thousands of hunters screaming to end deforestation if we could make them see how bad it's gotten? Since many hunters also fish, do you think they wouldn't be up in arms about water pollution and overfishing if we could get through to them? But why should they listen to a word we say, when all we ever do is make them out to be the enemy?

I'm sorry your camping trip got ruined by a few assholes. And I'm sorry about aerial gunning of wolves, and host of other evils committed by a fairly small minority of the hunter population. But don't let those things make you alienate thousands of decent people who might otherwise be our allies.

I read the article to mean that people are not allowed to carry loaded personal protection weapons in the parks; at least that is what the NRA lobbyist is suggesting.

What do you need protecting from in a national park that a pistol will help you with?! If you are attacked by anything bigger than a wolf (which don't attack people) a pistol will only annoy the large animal further.

What are the latest crime factors for national parks? Does anyone know? I thought that they were relatively safe as human predators can find easier "prey" in suburbia and the cities.

If you continue to do what you've always done you'll continue to get what you've always got. - Yogi Berra

You're not quite right about large predators. You can take down a black bear with a large handgun; bear in mind, Native Americans used to kill them with bows and arrows. That said, I'm told they almost never attack humans, and personal experience seems to corroborate that; we're too big and smell too much like predators to seem like an easy meal, and a black bear isn't usually interested in fighting for its food. That said, the "almost" in "they almost never attack" can be a doozy, so you can see why a person would want to be protected.

Grizzlies are a little more likely to attack; they've been the top of the food chain even in areas frequented by humans for tens of thousands of years, and they haven't had time to adapt to the relatively recent "people have guns" development yet. I honestly don't know how hard it is to kill a grizzly with a handgun, but I expect most people, if they had to choose, would rather bet their life on a gun's ability to kill a grizzly than their own ability to outrun one. (Also, I'm told grizzlies will chase you if you run, but might leave you alone if you freeze or play dead--but do not take that as expert advice. If you're going into grizzly country, do your homework first.)

In North America, that just leaves large cats; there are records of cougars attacking humans (caniscandida is thinking of a smart remark right now grin), but it's pretty rare. But a large cat, while far more than a match for a human, is not a match for a bear; it can be killed by anything that could kill a black bear.

As for the statistics about the less hairy, less pretty kind of predator... I'm kind of curious about that myself.

As things stand, unless it can be shown that allowing people to carry guns actually increases violent crime (or increases poaching enough to outweigh the safety factor), I'll risk alienating myself from all my fellow far-left liberals and say I'm in favor of allowing guns to be loaded. I've been in a confrontation with a black bear, and I have to say, in that moment, the pistol I was carrying was a considerable source of comfort.

Re defending oneself in a National Park:  If you're that scared of animals, do us a favor and stay home.  It is immoral to cause ecological harm just to make people feel safe (this is the same lame excuse for allowing cell phone towers to be built in National Parks).  We're all going to die at some point, and some of us will die young.  That's life, get over it.

You hate an inanimate object?

A firearm is a tool - no more, no less.

Hunters -- like skiers, backcountry hikers, soldiers, sailors and all of the Village People -- come in all types; some good, some not so good, some bad.

As I understand it, loaded and or accessible firearms are currently prohibited in National Parks. I believe hunting is banned in nearly all national parks, which does create some real wildlife management issues given the lack of other top of the chain predators in many areas.

The person that represents a threat with a firearm is not going to abide by the NPS rules.

Therefore, there is a certain reasonableness to allowing the rest of us who so choose to be able to defend ourselves. And, frankly, if someone chooses to defend themselves from being a part of the food chain, I think that is also reasonable. Feel free to sacrifice yourself.

I agree we all have to die sometime, and there is not doubt you are never more alive than when you are about to be eaten. Still, I'd rather hold that off.

I need to affirm the comment that hunters were largely who gave birth to the conservation movement. You might not like some of their motives, but you can't dismiss that simple truth. And most hunters I know have a much greater appreciation for wildlife and the natural world than the public at large. We need to quick trying to pick fights with them. If we are going to save this planet we need all the help we can get.

And finally, I'd bet a fair wager I've spent as much or not more time in the backcountry than you. If not, I'm impressed and envious.


JNB

Everyone hates inanimate objects, duh.  It's certainly healthier than hating living things.

Almost everyone hates some type of inanimate object.  Pollution is (usually) an inanimate object and most people hate pollution.

Other people hate taxes, or certain types of cars, or certain types of foods, or certain books, or clothes, or movies, etc.

Don't be so egotistical/hypocritical as to fault a person for havin' hate for an inanimate object.  Ya probably have many a hate for many inanimate objects youself.

Peace

So what do you think about wolf delisting and hunting-- here's my blog on it:  http://sierraclub.typepad.com/sportsmen/

  Nice blog.  I am happy to see someone with a well balanced philosophy with a voice.  My personal view of the wolf delisting is it will do more damage to nature.  As your blog points out, nature is in a delicate balance that is easily thrown out of whack.  While I am not a fan of hunting, I know others enjoy it and there is a place for responsible hunting.  I don't believe all hunting and fishing should be banned just because I don't like it.  Way too self-centered an idea.  I just ask to have national parks as a place without guns.  OT: Have you been to Glacier National Park?  What a spectacular place it is.

Rocky Mountain elk are some of the most glorious, elusive creatures in the world. I feel honored when I am even afforded an opportunity to shoot one. I also live in Montana in an area visited by many people every hunting season. You do get some jerks that have no respect for the land and leave their garbage and beer cans all over and I pick that stuff up whenever I come across it.

So thanks again, Pathos, for showing that we are not all the "enemy." I also like your comment about President Teddy Roosevelt he is one of my conservation heros.

"For as long as space endures, and for as long as living beings remain, until then may I too abide, to dispel the misery of the world." - Shantideva

I have done extensive backpacking in National Parks and some National Forests and have never seen the 'infestation' you are speaking of.  I am not saying they do not exist but it sounds like the issue is being blown out of proportion to support the conclusion.  Sorry, I just don't buy this kind of reasoning.

If ya bring a gun into a national park, ya either intend to hunt...or you're very paranoid as to believe that ya need protection in a national park.  And typically people who advocate for guns for protection in national parks also advocate for guns for protection on college campuses, schools, offices, sports complexes, and other facilities.

And, as I said before, if you're so paranoid that that think ya need a gun for protection in all those places...then ya probably shouldn't own a gun to begin with.  There's a very good possibility that type of paranoia may get some innocent bystander killed in some type of misunderstanding.

Peace

On the subject of hunting, I don't see any posts here that are anti-hunting.  I'm anti-gun for the reasons I gave above, but I think hunting animals for food, if done naturally (not guns!), not done to excess, and not done by too many people, is fine.

I have been in a lot parks and not seen the "infestation" of dope growers described in the right wing press.  Mostly some people want to carry a gun because they want to poach.  Others just like to carry gun because they fear bears.  Even in Alaska where I live, bears are an extremely minor threat. Hundreds of times more people get lost in the woods and die than get attacked by grizzly bears but I know people that won't go in the woods without a gun but never carry a lighter, compass or map.  They just like guns and go into withdrawals without em.  They can't understand the fact that millions of us feel threatened by guns.