Posted on 03/13/2010 3:24:18 PM PST by george76
We recently looked at the growing threat posed by the presence of violent drug gangs on pubplic land, such as national parks, and the wisdom of no longer mandating that park visitors be rendered unable to defend themselves from that danger.
While the greatest threat of violence is undoubtedly posed by rogue humans, a recent tragedy reminds us that sometimes, lethal danger walks on four legs.
we were constantly told that wild places like national parks are "oases of peace in a violent society," and thus having a means of self-defense in such places is unnecessary.
Some of our national parks contain quite a lot of wolves, and "the extremely low risks" would be of cold comfort while being torn apart when one does find oneself on the wrong end of that low risk.
Here in Missouri and Illinois, of course, wolves aren't a factor. Missouri does have, on the other hand, quite a lot of coyotes, like the ones that killed young Canadian folksinger Taylor Mitchell.
With a firearm, enough training and practice to gain proficiency, and the will to resist and prevail, a visitor to our national parks can protect herself from any assailants, whether on two legs or four.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
You walked...
Maybe the jogger was more interesting because he was running.
Glad you’ve never been unlucky. But, man, it was mostly just luck.
I wouldn’t want to take on a “pack” of wolves much less one with a bag of grenades.....much less a select fire EBR and help........ they want ya they will get ya !
Now there's a headline that starts out on the wrong foot.
For example, I have some land near me that is owned by the federal Bureau of Reclamation and managed by the state of CA because it's not currently being used for the purpose the fed acquired it. Can I carry a holstered, unloaded weapon on such public land?
They don't stay in the parks, either. They don't care about some srbitrary line.
Dumb a**.
Any fed land that hasn’t been declared a national park or game reserve dose not restrict the carrying of firearms on it, to the best of my knowledge. In my area of CA there is a lot of small parcels such as you describe and hunters I know carry and hunt on them frequently.
Take a walk alone through Central Park at midnight. The wolves are already there. No fur bearing creatures need be imported.
When I was a child, I was taught that wolves would never attack people, and have never attacked people.
Then I got old enough to research for myself, and found that was a bald faced lie. Wolves, like any predator, will hunt and kill people if given a chance.
Just like cougars were presented as harmless, till they started eating joggers for lunch.
I do not know about your situation in CA, but many carry loaded and use on BLM, USFS...land in Colorado.
BLM and USFS generally has been less of a worry than NPS. No telling what is in a back pack.
Too many city liberals still believe the Disneyland view of wildlife.
Hence the old joke about little brass bells scaring away bears and wolves.
It's hard for an urban public to wrap its "brains" around pack behavior. To wolves in search of a kill, everything is expendable, including each other. Hence, they will attack without regard for the losses because, they're food too.
‘Let 500 hungry wolves loose in Central Park, and forbid New Yorkers to “harrass” them in any way, then do let the wolves loose in every left wing legislature filled with “critter” lovers starting with NY, California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico and Colorado. Then, take the wolves to DC and let them lose in the Democrat caucus rooms for the $inate and Hou$e. Then, let them roam and hunt in the EPA buildings and National Park Buildings in DC.”
Then, let the wolves loose in Sierra Club and Peta meetings.
How do those wolf introductions work out with newborn
calves?
Yes, it is a beautiful animal.
I don’t know that I’d want to live with them, with them having special protections prohibiting me from protecting my life and property.
Thanks to you both.
Exactly!
Their reintroduction to the lower 48 at the insistence of the econuts is a huge problem in cost to the American taxpayer, depredation of wildlife that will cost the states dollars they’d otherwise take in from sportsmen and the danger to humans.
Our ecosystem seems to have worked just fine without the wolf since the 1930s. The econuts unfortunately got the ear of the FWS and some politicians in DC and it’ll be very expensive in more ways than one.
So, don’t they need to now go out and exterminate that wolf pack?
Humans are not on the normal list of prey. Now that this pack has eaten a human being, they are going to consider people part of their entree. That is very dangerous. Fish and Wildlife needs to be very aggressive in attempting to exterminate this pack of wolves before they start dragging children off into the woods.
This is a serious problem.
>The predator class of forest fauna perceives a jogging or running human as food making a getaway and react accordingly.<
You appear to be the only one here who understands that the predator class will attack anything it thinks is afraid and fleeing from them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.