From: joan@koala.berkeley.edu ()
Subject: Re: guns in backcountry? no thanks
Organization: U.C. Berkeley
Lines: 40
NNTP-Posting-Host: koala.berkeley.edu

In article <C5Lrpq.50o@idacom.hp.com> guy@idacom.hp.com (Guy M. Trotter) writes:
>
>Hi,
>
>In Canada, any gun that enters a National Park must be sealed (I think it's a
>small metal tag that's placed over the trigger).  The net result of this is
>that you _can't_ use a gun to protect yourself from bears (or psychos) in the
>National Parks.  Instead, one has to be sensitive to the dangers and annoyances
>of hiking in bear country, and take the appropriate precautions.
>
>I think this policy makes the users of the National Parks feel a little closer
>to Nature, that they are a part of Nature and, as such, have to deal with
>nature on it's own terms.
>
>Guy

Hello,

	I understand this philosophy.  The bears are a national
treasure, the area is their sanctuary and people who enter it
do so at their own risk.  It is better that that rare human be
killed by a bear than that bears be provoked or shot by unbear-savvy
visitors.  The bears aren't having a population explosion, humans
are so it is better that a human be killed than endanger the bears.
I don't agree with this philosopy, but I understand it.

	The psychos are a bit different.  They are not a national
treasure but I suppose the decision has been made that to "allow"
provision for defense against them would also "allow" provision
for defense against bears.  Again, I suppose it has been decided
that it is better for the rare human to be killed by a psycho than
to take a chance on threatening the bears.

	Personally, I wouldn't go into an area where I would be
"managed" so as to reduce my safety ..... but ... come to think
of it I guess I live in a managed wilderness myself :-)

Joan V  


