Never thought I'd port over a post I made on the Alaska forum here, but its pertinent to the discussion (from
http://www.city-data.com/forum/alaska/15...tdoor.html )
The following was in response to a question about what kind of gun is best protection against wildlife in Alaska. It is pertinent because you could substitute "pit bull" "pig" or "derranged person" and the answer would be the same:
With the exception of a very few areas I would recommend no gun at all unless you are hunting. 14 years exploring Alaska and I've never needed a gun. I've had a few close encounters over the years and used the most powerful weapon- my brain. While camping my dogs keep the bears away and alert me when they get close but while hiking dogs can make it worse if they take off after a bear, get hurt, and then run back to you (with bear in tow). Dogs seem to work best when there is a "base". I did know a guy who's dog was killed by wolves but it probably wouldn't have happened if he was around or the dog wasn't tied up. Another downside to dogs is that they always find every porcupine around (bring a leatherman). The places that are truly dangerous should probably be explored with a guide. And they will bring the gun if its needed. But if you are set on getting one, I would recommend a hand gun, and don't take it out into the woods until you are proficient at using it. And when you do have a "situation" it will probably be over before you get your gun drawn, though you may feel more confident having it available I haven't seen any statistics that a gun actually improves safety. It's just one more thing to haul around, try to protect, and be worried that the "bear" you hear in the woods is actually another hiker but you don't realize it until you're pointing a gun at them. Not a great way to meet, especially if adrenaline is pumping and your finger is on the trigger. I have guns in the house, I am pro-gun rights, but in my experience bears, wolves etc will go out of their way to avoid you and I always considered carrying a gun to be too big of a hassle to be worth it. There are a lot more stories of gun accidents than bear maulings. Again, there are some areas in Alaska where carrying a gun should be a requirement, but what is it, like 1% of the state? You could live here 100 years and still not have enough time to see the other 99%. I've only met one person who was mauled by a bear and he was carrying a gun when it happened. It wasn't strapped to his hip, it was in his hands. The event was over before he had a chance to aim, and he lost both his eyes in the mauling. Did the gun give him false confidence that led to the mauling? If you feel the need to turn around or leave an area you should do it- don't believe that a gun is going to protect you. Everybody I know who carries a gun does it out of machismo, not common sense. I used to carry pepper spray (a smaller can, not an actual "bear spray") because its light, easy to carry, not going to accidentally shoot somebody etc... but everytime I had an encounter was the only times I had forgotten to take it. Now I don't even bother with that. I'm far more likely to die or get injured on the drive to the trailhead than I am to get injured by wildlife in the woods. Heck, I'm more likely to get hurt in a fall or die of a heart attack out hiking than having a bear usher me into the afterlife. To me, the hassle isn't worth it. And if you don't already have one, is spending all that money on something you're never going to need really worth it? (or may actually make you more likely to get attacked due to mistaken sense of protection) The odds of getting mauled by a bear are 1 in 2 million (if you are in bear country). The odds of getting struck by lightening is 1 in a million (if you are in lightening country). If you don't walk around with a grounded lightening rod, why would you walk around with a gun when your odds are 2x more likely to be struck by lightening? Probably because walking around with a grounded lightening rod doesn't make your "rod" seem bigger.
"From 1980 to 2002, more than 62 million people visited Yellowstone, spending roughly 17 million camping hours in the park, according to Kerry A. Gunther of the park's Bear Management Office. Over that time, 32 were injured in encounters with bears, resulting in a ratio of 1.4 injuries per year from bear attacks.
Thus, one's chances of being hurt by a bear at Yellowstone (assuming a similar number of camping hours per year) are approximately 1 in 2 million.
By comparison, the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year are 1 in a million, according to figures provided by the National Weather Service. And the chance of being struck by lightning over the course of an 80-year lifespan is 1 in 10,000. " The chances of being affected (10 people affected for every 1 person struck) by lightening is 1 in a 1,000 over your lifetime.
I would say the Yellowstone figures are actually high- meaning more chance to get attacked there than in Alaska. The bears in Yellowstone are largely habituated to humans and have lost their natural fear of us. If you need to boost your machismo, go buy a big powerful gun that makes you feel safe. Just don't turn off your brain when you're out in the woods because of it. That rustling sound you hear in the woods as you reach for your big gun might be me. I understand I'm probably more likely to get shot in the woods than get killed by a bear- doesn't mean I want it to happen.
Read more:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/alaska/15...z1u8CxsBYG
]
]
