Officials at Denali National Park and Preserve have released no new details or information regarding the fatal shooting of a grizzly bear by a hiker on Friday in the 6-million-acre park south of Fairbanks.
Park officials on Tuesday still had not released the name of the hiker who shot the bear, and rangers are investigating the shooting to determine if it was justified, according to park spokeswoman Kris Fister. She did not say if the park service was contemplating criminal charges against the shooter.
A new law passed by Congress in February made it legal to carry firearms in the area of the park where the bear was shot but illegal to discharge them. Rangers said it was the first known instance of a grizzly bear being shot by a visitor in the wilderness portion of Denali, formerly called Mount McKinley National Park.
Without the gun, would this have been one of the extremely rare bear killings that happen every once in a while? Or, like it could happen in any DGU, did the shooter exaggerate the danger afterwards to justify his actions?
They said this was the first reported incident since the new law. I wonder how many unreported incidents there have been, how many road signs and trees now have bullet holes in them.
What's your opinion? Is the right to carry guns in National Parks doing more good than harm? Is this story an example of that?
Please leave a comment.
"They said this was the first reported incident since the new law. I wonder how many unreported incidents there have been, how many road signs and trees now have bullet holes in them."
ReplyDeleteReally? You are worried about trees with bullet holes when there have been hundreds of bear attacks in North America, most of them in National Parks or National Forests.
We must close the bullet hole loophole.
how many road signs and trees now have bullet holes in them.
ReplyDeleteI'll take hundreds of road signs with holes in them (which is mere conjecture on your part anyway) over a dead hiker any day.
Hundreds?
ReplyDeleteIf you take a look at most of these bear attacks, it seems it was merely Darwinism at work.
You had cases where people were trying to keep wild bears as pets or were feeding them or any number of stupid things.
We'll probably see more dead wildlife as gunloons show us how masculine they are.
--JadeGold
Are the female firearms owners included? Does JG consider them "masculine" because they frighten him?
ReplyDeleteWe'll probably see more dead wildlife as gunloons show us how masculine they are.
ReplyDeleteYeah, because gun owners are intentionally provoking bears, mountain lions and other dangerous wildlife just so they can confront them and shoot to kill and assert their manly dominance!
Is anything you say grounded in reality? Ever? I think, as Joe and I pointed out to you before, that you live in an alternate reality.
Tennessee Bud, Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your coming by.
ReplyDeleteI accidentally deleted one of yours, though. I don't remember which post it was for or what it said only that I clicked too fast on the "Reject" button. I remember there was nothing objectionable to it. (I must have thought it was Mike W. or Weer'd.)
Please forgive the mistake and if you feel like, resend it. I promise to be more careful.
Have you ever seen something killed by a bear, Mike?
ReplyDeleteI have. It isn't a pretty death, and it isn't a quick one.
I for one will not return to bear territory without either a gun or a slow fat man.
Anonymous, Is this latest comment a hint as to your true, or at least your other internet identity?
ReplyDeleteI think I can guess now.
???
ReplyDeleteIt tells you that I am not fat, that I do not live in bear country but have visited it (Alaska), and that I do not own a gun.
What you can draw from this is beyond me.
Ohhh! I get it now. Heh heh!
ReplyDeleteSorry, I haven't watched TV in so long, I'd forgotten all about Colbert.