Not a sermon but.....

[Marco]

John,
I do tend to fish in VERY remote areas where encounters could be more likely and obviously more dangerous. My ending thought on this is: I own, I can, there just MAY be a need, so WHY NOT?

I do also carry the UDAP canister which, if there were circumstance and time , I would use first.



This is my new "fail safe" combo. The S&W 629 44 mag and the Nacho seasoning
And I almost forgot THIS encounter of a tiger and snow leopard, thankfully they were asleep

Mark
PS: My vest also contains a whistle with compass ( Cracker Jack prize but...)

[Marco]

My above post also displays a shortcoming in the new format. I posted in wrong thread and wanted to delete and repost- NO CAN DO. Is it me or....
Also when comment on a post, there is NO way to preview.

Mark

[Sully]

Here's what I use..and my wife has an identical model

[JohnScott]

Marco -

Regarding previewing your post ----

If you hit the "go advanced" option in the lower right corner of the reply box, you have the option to preview.

John

P.S. If you were addressing your comments to me, I will respond after you confirm that.

[Kerry Stratton]

Handguns are nice and easy to carry but if I am looking for personal protection from 2 and 4 legged critters I think my weapon of choice would be a short barrelled pump 12 ga. shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot slung across my back.

Do any know of the 21 foot rule?

[pszy22]

No doubt, once deployed the shot gun would be a very good deterrent.

re: the 21 foot rule. Was just curious, do you think you can respond quicker using the shotgun? I don't have much experience deploying a shot gun, so I don't have much of a feel for it. As a follow up question, once the intruder is in close, which option is the most maneuverable, which is best for retention? I'm currently without opinion, was wondering what y'all thought.

[Kerry Stratton]

I don't know if I could swing a shotgun from behind my back quicker than I could unholster a handgun. My choice of weapon comes from the standpoint of I have already determined the threat before it has reached 21 feet and the weapon is at ready. From that point on I don't want to have to worry about how good my aim is and I want enough fire power to stop whatever the threat is as quickly as possible. I am not in this to see how good a marksman I am. From another point of view; I have been hunting, hiking and fishing in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska for 50 years and have never needed a weapon for personal defense.

[Lake Erie High Ball]

Handguns are nice and easy to carry but if I am looking for personal protection from 2 and 4 legged critters I think my weapon of choice would be a short barrelled pump 12 ga. shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot slung across my back.

Do any know of the 21 foot rule?

I know it and live by it.

21 feet is a reactionary gap for attacks with edged weapons. Meaning that if an attacker is within 21 feet with an edged weapon you can not react fast enough with a side arm to defend yourself.

[aged_sage]

In the FWIW arena; an acquaintance and his fishing buddies made that dream trip to Alaska back in the mid-'70's, arriving at camp late one afternoon. Before they left camp the next morning, each was issued a fully loaded .44 magnum in a shoulder holster in case any of the grizzlies wanted to get friendly. They carried them everyday; and justifiably so, as his photos showed unbelievable numbers of bears also "fishing" the area. They were thick as fleas on a Redneck's coonhound.

I have it from very reliable sources that instead of carrying Bear Spray, many of the 'locals' in Montana and Wyoming who frequent grizzly territory carry a can of wasp spray instead, as it has a range of twenty feet, or possibly more, as opposed to about 10 feet for the bear spray. Just what i have been told!

[JohnScott]

John,
I do tend to fish in VERY remote areas where encounters could be more likely and obviously more dangerous....

Mark -

My own take on the "remote" thing has been, for the past sixteen years during which I have spent a lot of time in remote places, the more remote the place is the safer it is, whether you phrase the potential danger in terms of animals or humans.

If you go past the point where most folks don't go, the threat level drops to zero, for all practical purposes. Not because there are so few people around, but because there simply are no victims around. People who prey on people just are not going to go places devoid of victims. Conversely, if your outdoor experience is in places with lots of folks, and that includes most national park settings, remote or otherwise, the human predators go there expecting to find victims, and likely will. Most human attacks on humans in outdoor settings that I hear about are in national and state parks, not out in the truly wild national forests or BLM lands of the west, for example.

When it comes to animals, the less accustomed they are to humans, the more likely they will flee. ( Probably the most dangerous thing in the wild, and it is very rare to the best of my knowledge, are packs of feral dogs. They know not to fear humans. ) Wild critters that can be dangerous - bears, cougar, wolves - consistently leave the area when they become aware of humans, and the more remote the location, the stronger that prospect is.

I think Kerry made the point that most of us Westerners would make - in his fifty years, he has never needed a weapon for personal defense. In my case, in the past sixteen years hiking and camping and fishing in the Western States, the only two or three times I felt threatened were in places heavily trafficked, the least remote places and definitely not the most remote places. I do play it very close to the vest where I expect bears and cougar to be, especially if I am by myself, and I have aborted a few outings because of recent large animal activity that I became aware of.

Anyway, I have nothing against guns and law abiding people who carry them. At the same time, I am virtually certain that I would not go into a remote setting with someone packing a pistol because I would be concerned about being accidentally shot, and especially so if that person thought he was going to or was trying to use it on a wild critter.

John