[dr_who_2]

So, what do you think? Should people be allowed to carry weapons in national parks? Would a pistol have been enough to at least scare a grizzly away?

[Jack Black]

Thanks to the gun-banning greenies NO GUNS IN NATIONAL PARKS. What a travesty. This is a law all sane people just violate, I'm afraid to say.

[jocon307]

"Would a pistol have been enough to at least scare a grizzly away?"

Well I am just truly a city girl, but my understanding is that you don't want to rely on scaring them.

[spanalot]

"So, what do you think? Should people be allowed to carry weapons in national parks? Would a pistol have been enough to at least scare a grizzly away?"

A very lucky shot with a pistol could do it - otherwise 300 magnum is minimal for reliable short range protection.

[eddie willers]

Grizzly spoor has little bells and smell like pepper.

[Spktyr]

Um... a pistol is not for scaring the bear off. Pissed off bears do not scare.

You use the major caliber pistol to try to STOP the bear (which usually means headshots if you can make them) when it charges you. Bears are faster, stronger, and heavier than man.

[PzLdr]

With cubs present, No. But it might save your life. Ruger makes a model called the ALASKAN. Not lightweight, two inch barrel. But it comes in 454 Casull or 480 Ruger.Close in, it can't hurt.

[ImpeachandRemove]

I know a fellow who put a griz that was attacking a fellow hiker to flight with a blast of pepper spray. This was on the Grantite Park Chalet trail in Glacier, a notorious griz location. The stuff works pretty well and is easy to bring into contact with target... you can see the jet of spray very well and just move it a little if you are off target. This is the stuff to carry on all trails in Glacier Park. Outside the park I would recommend carrying a pistol of caliber .357 or larger in addition to pepper spray. Personally I would use the pepper spray first. Grizzle bears are very tough to bring down with a pistol shot.

[carlr]

Guess it would be better than nothing but you would need a clean head(brain)shot.This is not likely on a charging bear.
You need something that can stop the animal with a shot to its vitals and even that wont put it down on the spot.
I don`t have a handgun but to anyone in the know,would any handgun,not a Thompson or equivalent have the penetration necessary to dispatch a bear short of extremely close in the skull?

[Richard-SIA]

No guns "allowed", so I NEVER visit "National Park's"!

I have found that there is plenty of uncrowded land to play on where I DO go armed, when no one points the nice places out by making "Parks" out of them they are usually not so overused.

Bears are the least of the problem outside AK, thugs, druggies and rapist are all very fond of the "NO GUNS" NP law!

Remember the three women killed at Yosemite a couple of years ago?
No guns for them, just rape and death.

Boycott any place that does not allow you to go armed, every time you can.

[RFEngineer]

" Should people be allowed to carry weapons in national parks"

So, you gotta go through a metal detector before going hiking in national parks in your neck of the woods or something?

[therut]

Absolutely. I will never go to a national park for this reason. I do not go to places where I am disarmed.

[SunnySide]

"So, what do you think? Should people be allowed to carry weapons in national parks? Would a pistol have been enough to at least scare a grizzly away?"

I have a mixed opinion about this sort of thing. I feel that America needs and should retain a healthy balance of natural wild life preserves and sanctuaries "away" from large populations of people. And people who choose to venture into wild animal territories for fun and sport should stop being so ignorant and lazy about possible encounters with wild animals. I would bring a gun/rifle into the outbacks of Canada and like places in America and probably bring a gun into American camp areas to protect myself from a crazy person(s) more than wild animals and use a mega dose of mace on a charging bear UNDER 400 lbs.

The seemingly clueless and careless people remind me of that joke,
"How many morons does it take to screw in a light bulb(eureka!)."

[ExtremeUnction]

So, what do you think? Should people be allowed to carry weapons in national parks? Would a pistol have been enough to at least scare a grizzly away?

I would always carry in the wilderness. Another man is my worst fear. But my automatic, although probably inadequte against this kind of bear, is worth a try.

[henderson field]

People should definitely be allowed to carry a gun in national parks and other federal land where now prohibited. There have been too many attacks, not only by grizzlies but by mountain lions. A .45 Long Colt should stop a grizzly with a well-placed hit, and it certainly would a cougar.

[tamalejoe]

So, what do you think? Should people be allowed to carry weapons in national parks? Would a pistol have been enough to at least scare a grizzly away?

A 41 or 44 magnum revolver is more than enough to kill a grizzly.

[marktwain]

So, what do you think? Should people be allowed to carry weapons in national parks? Would a pistol have been enough to at least scare a grizzly away?

The evidence is now clear. There have been many cases where a pistol has successfully been used in self defense against both black and grizzley bears. A year or so ago, a hiker in Alaska killed a charging grizzley with a .44 mag, and in the famous Treadwell case, I believe it was a State Trooper that killed one of the killer bears when it came at him, with a .40 cal semi auto.

[righttackle44]

"Would a pistol have been enough to at least scare a grizzly away?"

Actually, I think the question is, "Would two .22 bullets in each of the bear's eyes and several pumped into his midsection at least have slowed him down."

[ctdonath2]