|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Feb 21, 2016 8:09:52 GMT -8
if you do make the shot and don't kill the animal and it runs off, YOU personally have a moral obligation to track it down and finish it off. If it was indeed a true attack I can't imagine many people saying... "oooohhh.. poor thing! I only wounded it so now I'm gonna spend extra effort to kill it." I would imagine now there is a greater chance of getting ambushed by the wounded animal. Wounded, in pain and in fear animals are at their most dangerous. For the most part they'll just be thankful it ran off. I'm not saying that you're wrong. One should probably take the time to finish what you started I just think about .01% of the people out there would have much pity on an attacking animal. A wounded top predator is a hazard to anyone it later encounters. It isn't about pity it's about cleaning up the mess your actions created, not running away from it. Alongside moral responsibility there may be legal(?). "I would imagine now there is a greater chance of getting ambushed by the wounded animal. Wounded, in pain and in fear animals are at their most dangerous" Precisely: a dangerous situation the shooter created, so the shooter should clean it up, not cowardly run away.
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on Feb 21, 2016 8:21:21 GMT -8
If it was indeed a true attack A true attack would involve contact and injury but most/all armed people will shoot before the animal ever reaches them. Until it actually does make contact, it could very well be a bluff, which some 99%+ bear charges are. This is where bear spray is far more effective than a gun. With spray it doesn't matter if it's a bluff or not, the animal is deterred and leaves unharmed. Wounded, in pain and in fear animals are at their most dangerous. Exactly. Now it's a wounded animal off in the brush which then endangers anyone and everyone else who might come along who has no idea there's a wounded animal is lurking in the brush because the shooter has already left. Barring a contact attack where the person is seriously injured and physically cannot track the animal, I have no sympathy for someone who wounds one for any reason and doesn't find and put it down.
|
|
|
Post by Coolkat on Feb 21, 2016 8:48:12 GMT -8
This is where bear spray is far more effective than a gun. With spray it doesn't matter if it's a bluff or not, the animal is deterred and leaves unharmed. You will find no argument from me there. I'm guessing that a spray has a far better chance of hitting it's target also.
|
|
|
Post by rodwha on Feb 21, 2016 9:09:24 GMT -8
"Precisely: a dangerous situation the shooter created, so the shooter should clean it up, not cowardly run away."
Well, actually, the attacking animal would have been the one that created the situation.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Feb 21, 2016 9:12:39 GMT -8
"Precisely: a dangerous situation the shooter created, so the shooter should clean it up, not cowardly run away." Well, actually, the attacking animal would have been the one that created the situation. The animal wounded itself? Remarkable. So you're for just walking (or running) away and leaving the situation for others to suffer the consequences and resolve? I agree with lonewolfe on that: clean up the mess yourself. Or carry and use the tools that won't risk that consequence in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by rodwha on Feb 21, 2016 9:18:56 GMT -8
"A true attack would involve contact and injury but most/all armed people will shoot before the animal ever reaches them. Until it actually does make contact, it could very well be a bluff, which some 99%+ bear charges are."
Given the opportunity I'd much prefer a hostile animal to go its own way and leave me and my family alone. However I'd not wait for an animal that's threatening my family to harm one before I acted. That being said some form of pepper spray is still likely going to be plenty effective and ideally the better choice. But even pepper spray isn't always 100% effective either.
I value my safety and that of my family's much more so than an animal. I'd not wait until someone was harmed before I acted if I felt certain an attack was imminent. That would be foolhardy in my opinion. And by no means am I talking about blasting at anything that makes a noise or moves.
Bears keep being mentioned and seems to become the focal point at times. The OP never specified, and the need for protection is broad.
|
|
|
Post by rodwha on Feb 21, 2016 9:19:48 GMT -8
"Precisely: a dangerous situation the shooter created, so the shooter should clean it up, not cowardly run away." Well, actually, the attacking animal would have been the one that created the situation. The animal wounded itself? Remarkable. So you're for just walking (or running) away and leaving the situation for others to suffer the consequences and resolve? I agree with lonewolfe on that: clean up the mess yourself. Or carry and use the tools that won't risk that consequence in the first place. Stop trying to put a spin on things. You know that's not what I said. Please stay focused on the topic.
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Feb 21, 2016 9:21:35 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Feb 21, 2016 9:24:19 GMT -8
The animal wounded itself? Remarkable. So you're for just walking (or running) away and leaving the situation for others to suffer the consequences and resolve? I agree with lonewolfe on that: clean up the mess yourself. Or carry and use the tools that won't risk that consequence in the first place. Stop trying to put a spin on things. You know that's not what I said. Please stay focused on the topic. So you nitpicked my post while not objecting to its actual point? Leaving the question: with which do you agree, resolving the situation of the wounded animal as a responsibility or just walking away from it endangering others and leaving it to others to resolve? Straightforward enough.
|
|
|
Post by rodwha on Feb 21, 2016 9:40:35 GMT -8
You pointed at the person protecting themselves as the cause, which wouldn't be true unless they provoked the animal to begin with. In the unspecified occurance it is implied that hikers and going about their hiking and aren't there to bother animals. Therefor if an attack takes place it was the animal who caused the situation.
As I said before it's a tremendous responsibility if you choose to carry a firearm.
Quite frankly one should ensure the animal is killed as humanely and quickly as possible. That is something I feel quite strongly about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2016 9:52:24 GMT -8
"Precisely: a dangerous situation the shooter created, so the shooter should clean it up, not cowardly run away." Well, actually, the attacking animal would have been the one that created the situation. I disagree. When I go into the woods, I feel that I have entered the domain of nature. A natural world that does not agree with the boundires of 'our' laws. In this natural world, to me, if I smell like food, look like food, and act like food then I must be food. When I am in the natural world, I have one of my knives attached to the outside of my pack and to the same attachment point is a mini binnner. The two items make a noise as I walk. I also wear 'noisy' synthetic cloths. I cook my food at a distance from camp. I hang my bear bag or Ursack, opposite from where I cook. At night, before I get out of the tent, I thump my tent walls to let 'things' know I am coming. Before stepping out of the tent, I shine the red light around to see if can spot a threat. I knock my boots out, in case critters got into my boots. Several days before we go out on a camping trip, my wife stops using her scented shampoo so she does not smell like a large sweet fruit. There are other steps we take to let the natural creatures know we are not food. If I am attacked by an animal then I or man has done something to encourage the attack, after all, I went into 'their' house.
|
|
|
Post by rodwha on Feb 21, 2016 9:56:15 GMT -8
"I have entered the domain of nature. A natural world that does not agree with the boundires of 'our' laws. In this natural world, to me, if I smell like food, look like food, and act like food then I must be food."
Hardly a provocative behavior.
|
|
tigger
Trail Wise!
Posts: 2,547
|
Post by tigger on Feb 21, 2016 10:21:37 GMT -8
We are in the home of the animals. Just being there, we are disturbing their abode and are the invasive species and a threat. Animals are doing just want animals do - protecting their territory, etc.
provocative enough
|
|
Westy
Trail Wise!
Diagnosed w/Post-Trail Transition Syndrome
Posts: 1,960
|
Post by Westy on Feb 21, 2016 11:08:00 GMT -8
Issuing a "Protection While Backpacking" CAPA to myself. Just ordered Backcountry Bear Basics: Mountaineers. My Corrective Action is to buy it and my Preventive Action is to read it. Thanks HSF for suggesting a literary solution.
|
|
BlueBear
Trail Wise!
@GoBlueHiker
Posts: 3,224
|
Post by BlueBear on Feb 21, 2016 11:12:58 GMT -8
As is typical in such discussions, there are some folks that prefer to find the best tool for the job.
Others choose the tool they want to carry, and then invent countless hypotheticals why it might be necessary for them to have. Cart before the horse, and all.
Meh.
|
|