|
|
|
|
|
| Protection From Predators
Posted: 11/3/2009 6:38:41 PM |
Hunting is not a sport until you give the animal a gun.Mavco, you were in Coyote territory so I hope that they gave you something to think about. Culling animals is too good a name, call it what it is a SLAUGHTER. Very Cowardly, Very Very Cowardly.
This posting is about protection and not hunting. Many good suggestions have been made about ways to protect yourself other than by using a firearm. If you would be so kind, go back and read my post about "NOT BEING IN FAVOR OF A CULL". Also, I have never referred to my hunting activities as a sport. I am a food harvester, not a trophy hunter either. Having said that, please feel free to contribute something relevant to the subject of the thread. | |
|
| Protection From Predators
Posted: 11/3/2009 10:03:09 PM | | Another suggestion that has a possibility of working when you fail to stop a bear or whatever with your gun, spray, air-horn, and frantic screaming for your life; is to attempt to punch, or hit it with a blunt hard object really hard in the nose. Like a dog that has a possibility to deter them, four legged animals have a very sensitive nose. I've talked to a guy who did this and had success. Those that didn't have success don't do much talking, so their opinion is mute. | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:57:30 AM |
2 - If firearms did not protect in these situations, bear spray would not have either That is actually not true. According to many, many studies, you are more likely to survive if you are using bear spray as opposed to a gun in the event of an attack.
I have no way to possess bear or pepper spray. I checked and you actually do... there are forums for Nova Scotia hunting and wildlife that discuss this... all you have to do is search.
A reminder that this post is about protection provided by sidearms for people traveling in the woods in Canada and the U.S., not militants in a cave in the Middle East. You mean that the bears in Canada think differently than those of the Middle East? Or is it that guns fire differe
ntly here than there? The incident is relevant to this discussion... at least from where I'm sitting it is...
With 50,000 plus Nova Scotians out in all their glory since October 30th, no one has been hurt at this point. Add 10,000 Torontonians and give them guns and then you can have a real study group to review. Seriously... it's not the hunters that are an issue, it's the skittish hikers that I would be terrified of if they were allowed to carry sidearms while hiking. That would have me staying out of the bush more than a pack of rabid wolves. | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:33:45 AM | This discussion has the tone of necessity... as if it's necessary to be in these situations.
It's a choice. It's a hobby.
Big difference.
(No need to give all the examples of when it is not a choice/hobby, because those are not the times that are being referred to in this thread, and you'd just be getting away from the issue.) | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:45:57 AM | With 50,000 plus Nova Scotians out in all their glory since October 30th, no one has been hurt at this point. Give them time, give them time. That's not even a week. Maybe the Canadians are a bit more careful, but I've seen several reports from different states, all with double digit hunting injuries per year. It didn't take me long to find the 5 reports I posted in an earlier message.
Most hunters may not be shooting people, but a few manage it. Even Dick Cheney managed to mistake one of his fellow hunters for a quail and shot him! The point of this thread is about arming another segment of the 'outdoors' population and if such an action will save lives. If Nova Scotia is a fair sample, maybe 1 in 5,000 of those hunters will harm someone this season. If the 10,000 Toronto hikers are as 'experienced' as the hunters, you can add in at least a couple more people hurt. If they just pack a gun for protection and haven't much experience using it, especially in a tense situation (like bushes rustling at the side of the path, maybe), who knows how many people will get hurt? | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 9:08:12 AM | | ^^^Cheney didn't mistake him for a bird. He was shooting at a bird, and the lawyer was behind it. People tend to focus on the negative instead of the positive. How many hunters/hikers have been saved from having a sidearm on them? Take away the firearms, and you now have those injuries/deaths that wouldn't have otherwise occured. | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 9:27:09 AM |
Cheney didn't mistake him for a bird. He was shooting at a bird, and the lawyer was behind it. People tend to focus on the negative instead of the positive.
Alright, so he didn't mistake a lawyer for a quail. But he was so keen to take a shot at the quail that he did so without being cautious of who was in the line of fire?
He shot another hunter through carelessness, there is no way to put a "positive" spin on that. Unless of course, you assume that any lawyer hit with buckshot is a positive outcome. | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 9:49:14 AM | | ^^^ If you read the details the lawyer had left the hunting party and returned unannounced in high grass. | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 9:57:16 AM | your right.....there is no way to put a positive spin on a hunting..or any accident...........thats why its called an accident.
it just amazes me that the people who are terrified about guns and use accidents to ban them jump into cars every day and dont think a thing about it.......same with getting into a shower...........both of which are .statistically......much much more dangerous that guns......at least as far as accidents go | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 11:15:29 AM |
If you read the details the lawyer had left the hunting party and returned unannounced in high grass.
All the more reason why hikers should not be armed. If hunters are unable to pick a human being out of high grass, the likelihood of an armed hiker reacting appropriately is significantly less. Still, lawyers do not look like quail, even in tall grass. My friends and I were able to drive off a group of coyotes with a whip and harsh language, no gun was had nor was it required. Just girls too!
But now showering is riskier than hunting? C'mon now, what are they are risk for? Getting soap in their eyes? I would bet that any genuine showering accident (slip and fall) is a lot more survivable than a hunting accident. And, to be fair to both showerer-ers and hunters, we would need to express the incident rate as a percentage of the total population of people showering, versus the total population of people hunting, presumably only during hunting season? Besides, most people accept showering as a necessary hygiene - this is a dating site, nobody is going to admit to not bathing regularly, and we accept the risk that we might stumble into/out of the shower/bathtub. With the exception of some indigenous populations, most people don't need to hunt, and most people in most countries can get by fine without guns.
It would be unfair to say there are 100,000 showering accidents per year over 6 billion people, when hunters don't comparise a comparable population stat, and probably don't hunt during the entire year either.
Inneresting..........do you have stats that compare apples to apples? I'd still prefer to take my chances with a bar of soap in the shower, versus an armed hiker in the bush. Although I will be the first to admit that a lawyer appearing unannounced in my shower might produce a similarly undesirable response. | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 11:36:13 AM |
Seriously... it's not the hunters that are an issue, it's the skittish hikers that I would be terrified of if they were allowed to carry sidearms while hiking. That would have me staying out of the bush more than a pack of rabid wolves.
I agree 100%.
I'd still prefer to take my chances with a bar of soap in the shower, versus an armed hiker in the bush. Although I will be the first to admit that a lawyer appearing unannounced in my shower might produce a similar response.
  | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 3:20:37 PM | I checked and you actually do... there are forums for Nova Scotia hunting and wildlife that discuss this... all you have to do is search.
I am a member of novascotiahunting.com (Mavhunter) The discussions you refer to are about the legality of possession of bear spray because a lot of people are not sure. Below is a link to a news story of a man charged with illegal possession of a weapon in Halifax, Nova Scotia in October. The weapon named - bear spray.
http://www.nscrime.com/page/3
Bear spray can be purchased in Nova Scotia those that can lawfully possess it. If it is for sale, it can always find its way into the wrong hands. A lot like drugs,booze, and smokes find their way to 16 year olds. Just because you sell it, doesn't make it legal for all.
It is not legal in Saskatchewan either:
http://www.mjtimes.sk.ca/News/Local/2009-10-16/article-132453/Bail_granted_for_man_charged_in_bear_spray_incident/1
You mean that the bears in Canada think differently than those of the Middle East? Or is it that guns fire differently here than there? The incident is relevant to this discussion... at least from where I'm sitting it is...
And here for your reading pleasure is the news item about the Muslims killed by the bear. It states that the men had no chance to defend themselves. AK47's or bear spray, they'd be just as dead. Sounds pretty plain and simple to me. We are also taking about some Darwin award winners who chose a bear's den to hide in, not hikers in a provincial park.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/11/03/2009-11-03_bear_mauls_kills_two_highranking_muslim_separatists_hiding_out_in_cave_in_kashmi.html
That is actually not true. According to many, many studies, you are more likely to survive if you are using bear spray as opposed to a gun in the event of an attack.
It the cases I based that statement on, the people killed did not have time to react whether they had bear spray or not. I am not arguing the effectiveness of bear spray with this statement. I am saying that if you let your guard down or are unprepared, dead you can be. | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 3:36:31 PM |
It didn't take me long to find the 5 reports I posted in an earlier message.
Of the four links posted, two were from 2008 and one was from 2009. Three involved fatalities. One of the links was incorrect. There is no argument from me that there have been and will be hunting fatalities. The stats though are improving due to better licensing requirements, awareness, and training. I never said that there have been no fatalities in N.S. and I pointed out the two that have happened in the last 15 years.
Even though graduated drivers licenses have reduced injuries and fatalities on Nova Scotia highways, the daily news stories about people getting killed in cars continue on. Yet the same people that decry the carry and use of sidearms for protection still get in their cars and head for work everyday. Sounds a bit like prejudice to me. | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 3:56:45 PM |
All the more reason why hikers should not be armed. If hunters are unable to pick a human being out of high grass, the likelihood of an armed hiker reacting appropriately is significantly less. Still, lawyers do not look like quail, even in tall grass. My friends and I were able to drive off a group of coyotes with a whip and harsh language, no gun was had nor was it required. Just girls too
For the last time, he wasn't shooting at the person. He was shooting at the bird. The person wasn't easily seen and thats how the accident happened. If you're birdwatching, and one flys away as you're trying to take a picture, your not going to look at the grass while trying to take the picture. Same concept | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 4:44:28 PM | With 50,000 plus Nova Scotians out in all their glory since October 30th, no one has been hurt at this point. I'm not entirely clear on how you know this for sure; in fact, you don't. You know what has been reported. That's it. Even so, I'm not sure that 4 days without injury or death is an indicator of anything.
I stand by the fact that hunting in Nova Scotia is one of the safest recreational activities there is. Before you jump on that statement do some checking into incidents per 100,00 participants in other recreation activities such as softball, hockey, and downhill skiing for example ...
First of all, there are MANY "recreational activities" that are safer than hunting. C'mon now, no one should have to actually say that. Activities with firearms are inherently less safe then those without weapons. I'm not sure exactly what aspect you're comparing to softball or hockey, but if you're implying that a softball is "less safe" then a bullet, you're not thinking clearly. Checking stats of "incidents per 100,000 participants" might not tell the whole story. Lethality is relevant as well, and it comes across to me as disingenuous to ignore it.
One nail you did hit on the head: "Recreational activity." It isn't necessary to shoot a predator in the woods during a recreational activity. There's something called assumption of risk. That's at the heart of this issue on this thread, and something that few people care to acknowledge. | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 5:26:26 PM | I'm not entirely clear on how you know this for sure; in fact, you don't.
My bad! You're right, I apparently don't. But thank you for having me check my facts. It appears that there are between 60, 000 to 80,000 hunters in Nova Scotia and those numbers do not include the native population that does not require a Wildlife Resources Card and can in fact and in fact do hunt all year round.
From out own Provincial Government website:
http://www.gov.ns.ca/natr/wildlife/wresourcescard.asp
First of all, there are MANY "recreational activities" that are safer than hunting. C'mon now, no one should have to actually say that. Activities with firearms are inherently less safe then those without weapons. I'm not sure exactly what aspect you're comparing to softball or hockey, but if you're implying that a softball is "less safe" then a bullet, you're not thinking clearly. Checking stats of "incidents per 100,000 participants" might not tell the whole story. Lethality is relevant as well, and it comes across to me as disingenuous to ignore it.
Why in the name of heaven does everyone associate safety during hunting activities with getting shot or killed. I am talking about safety period. Everything from getting accidentally shot, to breaking a leg falling from a tree stand, to suffering a concussion in a mid field collision during a softball game. Ask any emergency room nurse how many people show up with all sorts of injuries from hockey, soccer, softball, and even curling, yes curling. People die while participating in these sports too. Then ask them how many show up for hunting related injuries. Getting injured is getting injured.
Now you want to talk about a recreational activity that makes hunting look like playing checkers in the park, look no farther than Equestrian events. A quick search turned up this gem of a study from British Columbia. The five year study determined that there were 33,000 riders involved with and average admission to hospital of 390 riders a year. There was and average 3 deaths a year or roughly 1/10,000. Ban horses I say! Ban them all! Oh the humanity!!!!!!!
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/1/59.abstract
If you want a safe recreational activity, try checkers in the park but watch out for those competition Frisbee's flying around. | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 5:36:57 PM |
Ban horses I say! Ban them all! Oh the humanity!!!!!!!
To CheshireCatalyst,
No offense intended. This is very tongue in cheek and I have no problem with people riding horses. I know you love and respect horse. | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:47:02 PM |
Why in the name of heaven does everyone associate safety during hunting activities with getting shot or killed. This question was already answered. Are you waiting for a different response? | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:11:48 PM |
There was and average 3 deaths a year or roughly 1/10,000
Equestrian activities are inherently dangerous. The only difference is that usually our wrecks only involve the actual rider (and unfortunately, the horse as well). Fortunately we don't have too many wrecks that involve 3rd parties. But 3rd parties often get us hurt via snowmobiles and cars........
Now, just a short PSA to anyone driving on the road and approaching a horse and rider......
City people driving their cars in the country often don't understand that horses on the road are "vehicles" by definition of the Highway Traffic Act, and they behave carelessly or lack caution around horses who can get frightened by cars driving past them too quickly or too close. Which is probably why most of us try not to go on the roads. We can fall off well enough by ourselves, thank you very much.
Yet another reason reason why city people should stay at home (I kid). | |
|
| Protection From Predators
Posted: 11/5/2009 12:19:26 PM | Wow, "chew on this." LMFAO. Touche. I was not aware of this product, thanks for the information. As far as I know the only products regulated for sale in my area, the GYE, are Counter Assault, UDAP, and Frontier, all labeled as Bearpspray, not "Bear Mace." You should however realize this "mace" you refrenced comes in a 9 oz container with far more pressure and a higher concentration of "mace" in the mix than the little one or two ounce canisters of "mace" women carry in their purses. If you still don't believe me I'm doing a lot of travelling in the next couple of months and could give you a personal demonstration. If after that you still held this irrational kenning I would indeed "chew" on it. LOL.
As to how "humane" it is: The AK F & G study which none of you have offered a substatial let alone any rebuttal to clearly shows it "bothers" the bear enough for them to leave the sprayer uninjured with far greater frequency than if the "attacked" had used a firearm. Please, somebody, give me a bonafide rebuttal here?
So given your concern with the "humane" nature of bearspray I take it you feel you need to kill the bear? You can't just prevent a violent confrontation and let the bear on its way, even though in so doing you dramatically raise your odds of surviving uninjured? You like shorter odds? LMFAO.
For those of you willing to reason this out please don't take my word for it. Google the AK F&G study I've refrenced multiple times that unequivocally trumps the ludicrous and entirely delusional [IMHO and WADR] if not libelous assertions we've seen here. | |
|
| Protection From Predators
Posted: 11/5/2009 2:18:29 PM |
You should however realize this "mace" you refrenced comes in a 9 oz container with far more pressure and a higher concentration of "mace" in the mix than the little one or two ounce canisters of "mace" women carry in their purses.
Very true, it comes out in a pretty powerful spray - nothing like an pffft from a perfume atomizer.
Part of the reason it works better than a bullet in many cases is due to the fact that bears have a better sense of smell than a bloodhound. To have your sense of smell obliterated (not to mention your eyesight) is probably debilitating to a bear. As I mentioned in a previous post, I once used it on an angry staffordshire terrior and there was no doubt that he was temporarily rendered unable to continue attacking me.
For the last time, he wasn't shooting at the person. He was shooting at the bird. The person wasn't easily seen and thats how the accident happened. If you're birdwatching, and one flys away as you're trying to take a picture, your not going to look at the grass while trying to take the picture. Same concept
You know, it really doesn't make any difference what he was or wasn't aiming at. While there is certainly a voluntary assumption of risk on the part of any hunter, the person doing the shooting is ultimately liable. If you shoot someone, you lose. A physician attending a gunshot wound victim, such as the lawyer, has to report the case to law enforcement where the incident occurred. Now, Dick may have picked up the medical bills and a nice case of single malt Scotch to smooth the lawyer's "ruffled feathers," but he is still liable from a civil standpoint, if not a criminal standpoint. Mind you, if the lawyer had shot Cheney, I'm sure he'd be on his way to Gitmo...........
I don't use the same degree of caution when I take pictures because I know that laser beams aren't shooting out the end of the camera lens. Nobody gets maimed when I take a picture, so I can point the camera anywhere....
Tootles....... | |
|
| Protection From Predators
Posted: 11/5/2009 4:17:11 PM | From a Brigham Young University study, comparing the effectiveness of bear spray to guns:
Cited here:
http://byunews.byu.edu/archive08-mar-bearspray.aspx
"Concerned about hikers' and campers' persistent doubts that a small can of liquid pepper spray could stop half a ton of claws, muscle and teeth, Smith and colleagues analyzed 20 years of bear spray incidents in Alaska, home to 150,000 bears. He found that the spray effectively halted aggressive bear behavior in 92 percent of the cases, whether that behavior was an attack or merely rummaging for food. Of all 175 people involved in the incidents studied, only three were injured by bears, and none required hospitalization. Smith and his research team report their findings in the April issue of the Journal of Wildlife Management.
"People working or recreating in bear habitat should feel confident they are safe if carrying bear spray," Smith said.
Smith's previous research found that guns were effective about 67 percent of the time. Shooting accurately during the terrifying split seconds of a grizzly charge is extremely difficult, he pointed out, and his data shows that it takes an average of four hits to stop a bear. In addition, firearms are prohibited in national parks like Glacier and Denali, popular with hikers and also with bears." | |
|
| Protection From Predators
Posted: 11/5/2009 4:59:33 PM |
Wow, "chew on this." LMFAO. Touche. I was not aware of this product, thanks for the information. As far as I know the only products regulated for sale in my area, the GYE, are Counter Assault, UDAP, and Frontier, all labeled as Bearpspray, not "Bear Mace." You should however realize this "mace" you refrenced comes in a 9 oz container with far more pressure and a higher concentration of "mace" in the mix than the little one or two ounce canisters of "mace" women carry in their purses. If you still don't believe me I'm doing a lot of travelling in the next couple of months and could give you a personal demonstration. If after that you still held this irrational kenning I would indeed "chew" on it. LOL.
As to how "humane" it is: The AK F & G study which none of you have offered a substatial let alone any rebuttal to clearly shows it "bothers" the bear enough for them to leave the sprayer uninjured with far greater frequency than if the "attacked" had used a firearm. Please, somebody, give me a bonafide rebuttal here?
So given your concern with the "humane" nature of bearspray I take it you feel you need to kill the bear? You can't just prevent a violent confrontation and let the bear on its way, even though in so doing you dramatically raise your odds of surviving uninjured? You like shorter odds? LMFAO.
For those of you willing to reason this out please don't take my word for it. Google the AK F&G study I've refrenced multiple times that unequivocally trumps the ludicrous and entirely delusional [IMHO and WADR] if not libelous assertions we've seen here
Here's a few products for you to compare. Take not if the SHUs
Bearspray that you mentioned Click on one of the bottles for the product breakdown http://www.udap.com/product.htm
Some more info on it http://www.udap.com/Bearspecifications.htm
One of the "weaker" sprays made for people
http://foxlabs.com/pepperspray.shtml
Size of the canister isnt really any concern if it works like you claim. Also note that bear sprays tend to be foggers which means that the sprayer will likely get a dose of it too. Sure I'd let you spray, just let me pic the location and film it. I've been sprayed before so know what to expect.
As far as it being humane, I never mentioned it other than to point out that the biggest difference is that it has to past test that shows that its humane for bears. There's no guarantee with spray. If the bear keeps coming a firearm will do more to slow it down/stop it than spray will. It will also allow you to do so at a safe distance | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/5/2009 10:13:20 PM | He shot another hunter through carelessness, there is no way to put a "positive" spin on that. Unless of course, you assume that any lawyer hit with buckshot is a positive outcome.
I agree..no exsuse for Cheney...hmm, I wonder if****had his hunting license revoked like anyone else would? FYI...I doupt he shot him with "buckshot", they were hunting birds.
All the more reason why hikers should not be armed. If hunters are unable to pick a human being out of high grass, the likelihood of an armed hiker reacting appropriately is significantly less. Still, lawyers do not look like quail, even in tall grass. My friends and I were able to drive off a group of coyotes with a whip and harsh language, no gun was had nor was it required. Just girls too!
A hiker who is armed is not out with the intent to shoot anything. The handun serves the same purpose as the spray does, a tool for self defense. By your reasoning (taken from above quote) I would not want hiker have spray either. Cnances are I'll walk throught the bushes and get an eye full of that shit from some scared city shit. What's with this thing about coyotes? They are skitish creatures, I've ran them of plenty of times by just saying "skiddadle"...no whip (talk about cruelity) or harsh words needed. I've also ran a cougar of by just telling it in a loud voice to "git" and taking a step towards it. Most of these animals are "wild" they don't like human contact and believe it or not, they are more afraid of you than you of them.
Yet another reason reason why city people should stay at home (I kid).
Even though your kidding, I would suggest they confine themselves to the cities at least (I don't kid). | |
|
| Protection From Pedators
Posted: 11/5/2009 11:21:25 PM |
What's with this thing about coyotes? They are skitish creatures, I've ran them of plenty of times by just saying "skiddadle"...no whip (talk about cruelity) or harsh words needed.
You misunderstood. They were pacing around the horses at night time, causing them to get hyper and risk injuring themselves or us, or breaking free and running off in the darkness. We can't risk losing a horse in a 2,200 acre forest at night time, so I make no apologies for using harsh language and cracking a whip at them to scare them off.
Besides, lunge whips aren't used to hit anything, but if we had to, we would use them for that purpose if the coyotes didn't retreat. But the coyotes were in character that night, they took the hint and we didn't have to.
Lunge whips aren't to be confused with bull whips or whips borrowed from torture museums - they are used as an extension of your arm when training a horse. Like other long whips, they make a loud cracking noise when they recoil and that's what scares the coyotes. It'd make you sit up and take notice too. So it's all about the sound, and not the impact.
I'm sure you've heard the sound they make, especially if you've watched westerns or have a favourite dominatrix. | |
|
|
| Page 6 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
