^^ but horns and spray just don't give you the hit that a gun packs. You look silly swaggering with a horn and spray. And some folks who can't afford a sports car just need the testosterone!

This isn't about protecting yourself. It's about wanting a toy you're not supposed to have.

A charging Grizzly *MAY* go through Bear Spray. That is true. You didn't look up the AK Fish & Game study did you Mr. Knight? Had you you would realize charging grizzlies have much better "luck" with firearms than Bearspray. LMFAO. Spreading undocumented and ludicrous assertions can get people killed Mr. Knight. With all due respect I SERIOUSLY suggest you think, if just a little bit, before posting next time.

FYI, the most probelmatic Grizzlies in the GYE are adolescent males, not sows. Your "arguments" are unsubstantiated and are unequicvocally and statistically erroneous given the reality of the historical record.

Bear spray works.. more often and as noted by AK F&G with unequivocally better results than firearms. Period. That is extent reality, not ignorant bravado, and why our hunting guides, including 2008s Wyoming Guide of the Year, take it with them on every hunt in our remarkably dense Grizzly habitat here.

Life is so much more rewarding when we rationalize with plausible premises within viable syllogisms. Thanks for the discussion folks.

Edit: FYI, Bearspray is not "mace." Whatever your limited empirical experience with Mace I encourage you too to actually absorb the statistical reality of this "debate." Please forgive my redundancy but these redundant falsehoods are of no service to anyone. I apologize for my arrogant tone but there is in fact no "argument" here.

EXCELLENT post....needs to be repeated.

I for one believe that back country hikers should be allowed to carry firearms, if for no other reason that defense against two legged predators.

Hypothetically, if a wild animal wanders into a residential zone from a nearby wooded area, should it not be okay to shoot them then? As we've observed from the original post, when the situation is reversed, they don't seem to have any reservations about killing us for infringing on their territory.

sure. I think its pretty silly unless its in extreme country but I can see the argument for carrying a rifle or shotgun way out in the rockies.

the trouble with that is, defining "back country".

deep wilderness - ok
suburban pennsy - no

I'm interested to see how that delineation could be made.

Fair enough. But suppose you had quite a few young children that lived on that block, possibly some that might be playing outside further down the street. Would you roll the dice and hope that animal control showed up before the animal decided to wander down that direction, or would you do what you had to do to make sure those children were safe?

I disagree about animals not being aware of potential danger, though. In fact, I'd say on the whole they're probably more aware than most people. They're more finely tuned into what's going on. Because they have to be for survival. Life and death is a daily routine thing in the wild.

Lack of ability or lack of willingness to handle any situation self-sufficiently can be a deadly weakness if exploited.

Just as people carry sidearms in towns, city's, and shopping shopping malls where it is legal, so would people in "suburban pennsy" if it were legal

Errr...no. I can afford a sports car, and I don't have any need for any extra testosterone. However, I have seen how worthless mace is on people, and I don't trust bear mace on a pissed off bear. Hate/rage can be one of the meanest things to stop, and a pissed bear has it in spades. Why do you think game wardens in Alaska carry shotguns/slugs or heavy-caliber rifles instead of just mace? Do you think that the state of Alaska has a testosterone defficeiency it is striving to fix by arming its game wardens?
I agree Mace could be a great first-line against bears, and would advocate it heavily except for the fact that if it DOESN'T work, the bear is so close that you don't have time to draw/aim/fire a weapon.
One of my friends has ADD, and 3-cans of mace and 4-cops later he stopped. Yeah. I know bear-mace is "stronger", but my 200# video-gamer friend wasn't exactly the Hulk either. Mace only works if someone is not in an altered state of mind, and according to one officer I spoke with, 3% of the population is totally unaffected by it. I am sure bears also differ in their response to bear mace

Edit: FYI, Bearspray is not "mace." Whatever your limited empirical experience with Mace I encourage you too to actually absorb the statistical reality of this "debate." Please forgive my redundancy but these redundant falsehoods are of no service to anyone. I apologize for my arrogant tone but there is in fact no "argument" here.

Where you live, people are carrying fireams in town, to shopping malls? If you think this is the case in the US, you'd be wrong. It is illegal in most places; Texas is an exception, and there may be one or two others. I know someone who is a gun enthusiast. He has several at home. Never carries one around with him. Uses them only on the shooting range.

As a hiker, I would be very unhappy and uncomfortable to be out in the woods and to have to assume every other hiker was armed. Too many people behave like fools, jump the gun and fire at anything that moves, etc. The reason for being in the wilderness is peace and quiet, peace of mind....get away from the nuts who want to shoot everything that moves.

If people were educated, thoughtful, knowledgeable and careful wilderness seekers, there would not be any horrible incidents in the wilderness. Think about it: how often do you hear of these events happening with seasoned, experienced hikers who are prepared and who did all the right things? It is usually the person who is out on a lark who hasn't done their homework first who gets in trouble.