This weekend, a man and a woman hiking through Denali National Park shot and killed a grizzly bear that emerged from a nearby thicket. The man, who was in the lead, was carrying a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol drew the weapon when he and his partner heard a rustling in the brush. According to a release from the park, the bear came running at the couple, at which point the man fired “approximately nine rounds” in the general direction of the animal. The bear then supposedly turned around and disappeared back into the brush from which it had come.
The couple continued hiking roughly 1.5 miles through the park until they encountered a park employee, who called in the incident and conducted a brief interview. The bear’s body was later found about 100 feet from the pistol casings.
Since February, it was been legal to carrying firearms in National Parks, although it is still illegal to discharge them, according to park officials. The case is currently under investigation, and Park wildlife biologists and rangers are attempting to determine whether the shooting of the animal was justified or not.
Regardless of legality, it’s questionable whether or not killing an animal in its natural habitat is morally OK. Ultimately, hikers, backpackers and the like should respect the wilderness and the wildlife they very well may encounter while strolling through their territory. Killing them, even in self defense, is no doubt a questionable subject.
[Via: National Parks Traveler]
[Photo Via: Alaskan Dude]
Killing in self-defense is questionable, MY A$$!
And those who would carry in the parks are NOT automatically the same cretins who shoot up roadsigns. Your instincts are screwed up Doug.
To those who advise other methods such as bear spray, noise, and avoidance, those are all good options, but I still would want at least a .454 Casull gun for backup in case the other methods fail.
Here’s a thought: what does a rattlesnake do when we corner it? Does it not rattle, and take up a defensive position, ready to strike with a potent weapon? If you then grab that snake, does it not actually strike? Just so, we should have the ability to strike back with a potent weapon against a bear who is aggressive. Or are we less than the rattlesnake? And not all bear charges are bluffs. How do we know which is which? And worse, some bears actually prey on people as food. The Polar Bear is notorious for this.
Finally, for those who say we should stay out of the parks if we fear bears, perhaps it’s YOUR turn to stay out of the parks if you get your panties in a bunch over our guns. We’re getting tired of being treated like second-class citizens by the likes of you “oh, so moral” people.
“Killing them, even in self defense, is no doubt a questionable subject.”
That is just ridiculous! Laughable, even. Any human has the right to defend themselves from becoming the meal of any animal. End of story.
since when is self defense questionable?
let’s not forget that the right to arms is constitutional.
Please explain why it is “morally questionable” to want to defend yourself against an animal?
Is it different in your mind because it’s an animal?
Are we not part of the same eco system?
Do other animals not have methods of self defense against attacks?
Why isnt it morally questionable when a bee stings someone or when poison ivy causes a rash?
I suppose if you were all alone in a back alley and someone attacked you with a knife you would not fight back in your own defense, instead let your attacker do his will with impunity.
Self defense is a natural right, every being on the planet, even animals have a right(duty) to self preservation.