Just reading in our national on-line news, tragic event. I note it said the husband always carried a gun of some sort and obviously put it to good use when he himself was charged but really wonder that everyone living in that country would not be carrying and proficient in the use of a gun. Husband's gun was of no use to the mother and child.
Posts: 4102 | Location: Rolleston, Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: 03 August 2009
Originally posted by p dog shooter: Might have been other guns in the house but I believe they are suppose to be locked up and separated from the ammo.
Most likely no handguns available as they are very hard to get a use permit in Canada.
Taking care of a child and carrying a long gun is hard.
Could be that the wife didn't believe in armed self-defense.
Could be she brought into the thinking bears are not a problem.
Could be she just thought no bears would be out and about at this time of year.
I saw fresh bear tracks yesterday. A bear that isn't denned up at this time of the year in the northland should be viewed with great respect.
Could be they were just unarmed Grizzly-food out for a stroll in the woods, ... and didn't realize that fact until it was too late.
In those habitats, wise folks typically go about armed. Now if Canuk laws caused the Mom to go out there unarmed, then that's on the stupid-ass legislators. They got her and her baby killed.
All The Best ...
Posts: 813 | Location: Texas | Registered: 15 October 2015
lot of people should just have thoughts and prayers to the family and should not comment on our firearms laws and whot do in wilderness area will it be firearms or ammo ...
Originally posted by medved: lot of people should just have thoughts and prayers to the family and should not comment on our firearms laws and whot do in wilderness area will it be firearms or ammo ...
A terrible shame any way you look at it! Imagine what that poor kid has to live with for the rest of his life. Thoughts & prayers from ALASKA!!
i disagree with his comment and i posted there to tell him:
it is getting worse. some are using that tragic event to push their business agenda. i really liked Jim Shockey but it went too far especially knowing that during the plan on grizzly management nor him nor his business partner came to talk. i hope he has documented his request for a bear to be killed because being too dangerous ...
to sum up dancing on the graves is not something people should do because they are campaigning or want more hunt on their area ...
I agree with Shockey's opinions here and have said much the same thing for several years as the Grizzly population in BC is increasing and incidents happen frequently.
I am retired at 72, but, spent much of my working life as a solo worker in the BC/AB bush and for months on end with no breaks. My first of dozens of Grizzly encounters was 62+ years ago and I am opposed to ANY "bans" on scientific management of these animals.
I agree with Shockey's opinions here and have said much the same thing for several years as the Grizzly population in BC is increasing and incidents happen frequently.
I read Shockey's comments I think he was spot on.
Bears do what bears do because they are bears.
Posts: 20293 | Location: wis | Registered: 21 April 2001