Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Huck
Hi Huck-

Posted by Huck:
"...I say some level of risk in life is acceptable, whether we're discussing tobacco, guns, bears, sports, or many other things..."


Risk and subsequently obtaining the skills and tools required to meet that risk are what bring enjoyment to life. You raise a great sports analogy.

While not bragging, I'm an accomplished skier and have successfully tackled extremely challenging trails on several continents. Is risk involved? Absolutely. The key is the preparation to maximize the chances for a favorable return on risk investment. My physical conditioning is solid. Equipment like boots, bindings, and skis are modern, top-quality, and well-tuned. I would never attempt the difficult terrain I've done any other way.

My belief is that the same applies with bears. While I don't actively seek them while hiking, I totally respect them and consider them a beautiful part of nature. At the same time, I maintain that due to our superior intelligence, we should embrace tools developed to preserve our safety and well-being in the field.

Getting bitten, clawed, or killed by a bear is an awfully steep price of admission to outdoorsmanship. Bears must also learn a healthy respect for the potentially-lethal dangers posed by mankind. This is why I think a scheduled bear hunt and the presence of armed humans brings a very healthy balance back to nature.

~ Blue Jays ~

157 posted on 11/23/2004 9:23:44 AM PST by Blue Jays (Rock Hard, Ride Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies ]


To: Blue Jays
I don't disagree with you in theory. Personally, I think the risk of a bear attack is so low that I don't care at all about going into the NJ woods without a gun. It's actually sort of laughable to me to think someone wouldn't feel safe enough to hike around on hiking trails. Whatever.

I totally agree people should learn what they need to learn. That's not just how to kill bears, but also how to co-exist with them. As for the population, like I say, I recognize that we humans need to control animal populations. I have no issue with that. But when people come on here and suggest that ANY risk of ANY bear attack means we need to hunt, well, that's just insane and I am against that sort of idiocy.

I just read on the NH website, the last time a black bear killed a person was 1794. I don't know what it is in NJ, but whatever it is, it is low enough for my taste. We had a growing bear population. No question. But I am not in favor of accomodating the milque toasts in Morris County who are too chicken to live within 40 miles of black bears. If I get to vote on it, I'll vote for rugged individualism, not scared suburban lamos.

159 posted on 11/23/2004 9:32:24 AM PST by Huck (The day will come when liberals will complain that chess is too violent .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson