My boss in Wisconsin was an avid hunter and a good shot. I always remember his comment was you were supposed to shoot the bear in the shoulder first to slow him down. Otherwise, you were lunch. Regards, Bob S.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 6:36 PM, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > Legalities aside, seems to me if you don't shoot to kill first shot, you're > in trouble. Wounding one will just piss him/her off. > > Cheers, > frank > > --- Original Message --- > > From: [email protected] > Sent: November 11, 2012 11/11/12 > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: OT: Election Commentary > > Many years ago, while planning my first visit to Alaska - a month long > backpack trip with my then 5 year old son & wife, centered around 2 weeks in > Denali National Park - I investigated having a weapon with me knowing full > well that we would be in Grizzly bear country. > > Some of my findings - > A gun of any kind is not legally allowed in any U.S. National Park > You can't legally transport a gun thru Canada > You had better be a damm good marksman, with nerves of steel, if you expect > to immobilize a Grizz at close range with any hand held pistol/rifle. > Better to adhere to the known 'rules' about travel in bear country and not > be caught unaware. > > We did have a great experience on our month long trip in Alaska, did see > many bears & ran into a guy in the park with a sawed off shotgun that he > kept slung over his shoulder who advised it was only to stun a bear if/when > he ran into one. > > Kenneth Waller > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "mike wilson" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: OT: Election Commentary > > > On 10/11/2012 16:12, mike wilson wrote: >> On 10/11/2012 11:37, P. J. Alling wrote: >>> Unpleasant though in may be ya got to think about this stuff. >> >> Have to agree with P.J. about this. There was an incident last year(?) >> when a guy was walking no more than a mile or so from his house and was >> attacked by an old, dying (of starvation) Grizzly. It may have been a >> gummy bear but it was 6-800lbs of hungry omnivore determined to have an >> easy meal. Only because he was carrying a particularly powerful handgun >> (and managed a lucky hit with one of the three rounds he managed to >> fire) did he survive. Humans are still the huntee in some parts of the >> continent. > > A link for those interested. > http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/08/31/man-kills-charging-bear-with-454-casull/ > >> >>> >>> On 11/10/2012 1:08 AM, Tim Bray wrote: >>>> Damn we’re a cheery bunch. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 9:06 AM, P. J. Alling >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> AK47 or the equivalent, unless it's fully automatic isn't good enough >>>>> for a >>>>> bear of any kind. Just not accurate enough, and the AR-15 derived >>>>> competition isn't powerful enough. Really only good against >>>>> varmints up to >>>>> 200 pounds, with poor slope armor on their skulls. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11/8/2012 11:03 PM, Stan Halpin wrote: >>>>>> Don't forget that real men have an AK-47 or equivalent in the woods >>>>>> with >>>>>> them, no mere grizzly would be an issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> stan >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 8, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Miserere <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah John, Scandinavia is for girly men. I want to live poor and die >>>>>>> young, hopefully at the hands (paws?) of a grizzly bear in the woods >>>>>>> (where I'm forced to live because I can't afford a house and there is >>>>>>> no help from the government for scientists living below the poverty >>>>>>> line). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> —M. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> \/\/o/\/\ --> http://WorldOfMiserere.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://EnticingTheLight.com >>>>>>> A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8 November 2012 14:02, John Sessoms <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> From: DagT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can agree with you there, being relatively conservative by >>>>>>>>> Norwegians standards. One reason why republikanske are not very >>>>>>>>> popular around here is that they usually don't seam to know much >>>>>>>>> about the world outside the US. And in the previous election they >>>>>>>>> used Skandinavia as an example of a system they didn't want :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just compare The US to Scandinavia ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Scandinavia = Denmark; Finland; Norway; Sweden (Numbers from OECD): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Healthcare cost as percent of GDP: >>>>>>>> US 17.4% - Denmark 11.5%; Finland 9.2%; Norway 9.2% Sweden 10% >>>>>>>> Healthcare cost per capita: >>>>>>>> US $7,960 - Denmark $4,348; Finland $3,226; Norway $5,352; Sweden >>>>>>>> $3,722; >>>>>>>> Infant mortality (deaths per 1,000 live births before their first >>>>>>>> birthday): >>>>>>>> US 6.8 - Denmark 4.4; Finland 3.0; Norway 3.1; Sweden 2.4 >>>>>>>> Life expectancy at birth (Total Population): >>>>>>>> US 78.7 - Denmark 79.3; Finland 80.2; Norway 81.2; Sweden 81.5 >>>>>>>> Life expectancy at age 65 (Males): >>>>>>>> US 17.7 - Denmark 17.0; Finland 17.5; Norway 18.0; Sweden 18.2 >>>>>>>> Percentage of persons living with less than 50% of median >>>>>>>> equivalised >>>>>>>> household income: >>>>>>>> US 17.3% - Denmark 6.1%; Finland 7.9%; Norway 7.8%; Sweden 8.4% >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Easy to see why we wouldn't want anything like *THAT* for the U.S. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
