lawmakers gave the thumbs-up to allowing loaded guns in parks.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

So don't go there. Or if you would like to observe the animals in their wild habitat, don't do it in the form of an activity that will make the animal more likely to attack you.

It's a park, not a wildlife preserve.

The park is operated and maintained (and in many cases purchased) with tax dollars, paid by those people who wish to use the park for their recreation. It is understood in the status of the land (as a park) that it is intended for recreational use by average citizens.

If you want the land to be an area where wildlife lives undisturbed, then you ought to close it off to human traffic completely. That's not what's happening here, though.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

So don't go there. Or if you would like to observe the animals in their wild habitat, don't do it in the form of an activity that will make the animal more likely to attack you.

Pretty arrogant really.

That is a along a public road. Do you have any idea how many back country mountain roads in CO go through parks, National Forests, etc? I suppose you will tell me I should do my cycling on I-25, and I-70.

So if they ban jumping at your favorite DZ, you won't have a problem finding somewhere else to jump, right?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[quade 4]

Quote

It's a park, not a wildlife preserve.

Actually, they're both and more.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

It's a park, not a wildlife preserve.

Actually, they're both and more.

The specific park in question (the one with the sign posted in the attachment) seems to be operated by the City of Boulder, and does not appear to have any status (or intention) as a wildlife refuge.

I may be misunderstanding, or Boulder may actually operate municipal wildlife sanctuaries, but I don't see any indication of that on the sign.

Regardless, if it came down to an animal, no matter how cute, or how endangered, or how deep in a wildlife refuge, about to maul a human, I'd shoot the animal to stop it.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So don't go there. Or if you would like to observe the animals in their wild habitat, don't do it in the form of an activity that will make the animal more likely to attack you.

Pretty arrogant really.

If a mountain lion attacks someone, the police or the game warden folks are going to shoot the lion. It doesn't really make much of a difference if the would be victim does the shooting instead, other than someone might not get mauled or killed.

I know gun haters and PETA types prefer dead people, but they're not in charge.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

if it came down to an animal, no matter how cute, or how endangered, or how deep in a wildlife refuge, about to maul a human, I'd shoot the animal to stop it.

But would SkyDekker shoot the animal to save you? Even if you tossed him the gun with which to do it?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

But would SkyDekker shoot the animal to save you? Even if you tossed him the gun with which to do it?

Naturally I would and really has no bearing on this conversation.

Nor does banning have anything to do with this conversation.

The issue is the two different views. One is, I'll go wherever the hell I want to and will shoot my way out of trouble. Second is: I am going to try and avoid a situation in which I am putting myself at a higher danger level of a mountain lion attack.

I find option one arrogant and option two more in line with common sense, especially when it comes to a recreational activity.

Also don't see this as an issue of gun control. Even if you are allowed to carry your gun in the park, I would hope that people behave more along the line of option two and less along the line of option one.

You guys have a constitutional right to arm yourself and I have absolutely no issue with that. Just don't always agree with the arguments brought forward and will voice my opinion when I feel that is the case.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The issue is the two different views. One is, I'll go wherever the hell I want to and will shoot my way out of trouble. Second is: I am going to try and avoid a situation in which I am putting myself at a higher danger level of a mountain lion attack... Even if you are allowed to carry your gun in the park, I would hope that people behave more along the line of option two and less along the line of option one.

If your position is that hikers should stay out of all places where dangerous animals exist, I disagree.

If your position is that hikers who go in places where there are dangerous animals should not be allowed to be armed for self defense, then I disagree again.

If your position is that hikers who go in places where there are dangerous animals, and are attacked by those animals, then they "got what they deserve", I disagree yet again.

That would be like saying that if you decide to risk your life by jumping out of an airplane, then you don't deserve to have a reserve parachute, and if you do it anyway and get hurt, you deserve what you got, and earn no sympathy.

Finally, there's no reason to believe that they won't behave as your "option #2". They've been doing it in State parks all along, without any problem. It was also done in National parks for three months without problem, before the Bush order was reversed in court. And millions of people carry concealed in normal society where two-legged predators exist, also without any problems. So I don't understand what all the concern is about for the relative tiny amount of land made up by National parks, compared to everywhere else where guns are carried. They're no different than anyplace else where people already carry guns, without causing any problems.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

If you had followed the thread you would have noticed that I was directing my post to the issue of people engaging in activities that put them at hightened risk and not regular hikers.

In this particular case it was regarding biking, which does put you at a hightened risk of attack by a mountain lion.

[billvon 3,120]

>That would be like saying that if you decide to risk your life by jumping out
>of an airplane, then you don't deserve to have a reserve parachute, and if
>you do it anyway and get hurt, you deserve what you got, and earn no
>sympathy.

More like jumping out of an airplane with crap gear during a thunderstorm, and telling people "I'll be fine - I have an AAD and that will keep me safe!"

Yes, such a person is sort of an idiot. Skydivers should keep themselves out of dangerous situations and should not rely on their AAD's to save them - and if they do something so stupid, and get hurt, it's a predictable outcome.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>That would be like saying that if you decide to risk your life by jumping out
>of an airplane, then you don't deserve to have a reserve parachute, and if
>you do it anyway and get hurt, you deserve what you got, and earn no
>sympathy.

More like jumping out of an airplane with crap gear during a thunderstorm, and telling people "I'll be fine - I have an AAD and that will keep me safe!"

Yes, such a person is sort of an idiot. Skydivers should keep themselves out of dangerous situations and should not rely on their AAD's to save them - and if they do something so stupid, and get hurt, it's a predictable outcome.

I think we're grossly overstating the risk of being attacked by a mountain lion. Like shark attacks, you're far more likely to be struck by lightning, even if you don't fly up in a plane next to a thundercloud and jump out.

Anyone willing to jump out of airplanes can't be so afraid of lions that they would not ride a bike. But prudence would suggest being prepared for the rare, bad situations on a cost/benefit basis. Carrying a pistol is pretty easy. Wearing full body armor is not, and would not make sense for the low probability of needing it.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

More like jumping out of an airplane with crap gear during a thunderstorm, and telling people "I'll be fine - I have an AAD and that will keep me safe!"

Hiking in a park is analagous to jumping crap gear in a thunderstorm? What parks are you hiking in?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,120]

>Hiking in a park is analagous to jumping crap gear in a thunderstorm?
>What parks are you hiking in?

I was replying to John, who said:

"If your position is that hikers should stay out of all places where dangerous animals exist, I disagree."

So the situation are "hiking in a park where dangerous animals exist" vs. "jumping near a thunderstorm." In both cases, avoidance rather than adding a gadget that will "protect" you is the better idea.

[billvon 3,120]

>Anyone willing to jump out of airplanes can't be so afraid of lions that
>they would not ride a bike.

And anyone willing to hike in the forest can't be so afraid of lightning that they wouldn't use an umbrella. But that's getting a bit away from the point.

Devices that 'keep you safe' be they AAD's or guns are great if they are used as a backup. If they are used to make one feel safe enough to go hiking near the bear's den, or safe enough to jump next to a thunderstorm, they will harm rather than help the person.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

So the situation are "hiking in a park where dangerous animals exist" vs. "jumping near a thunderstorm." In both cases, avoidance rather than adding a gadget that will "protect" you is the better idea.

So we should all avoid Yosemite, where there are plenty of dangerous bears?

Which parks do _not_ have potentially dangerous animals in them?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,120]

>So we should all avoid Yosemite, where there are plenty of dangerous
>bears?

Just as we should all avoid the Midwest and the East Coast when skydiving, since plenty of dangerous thunderstorms exist there.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Anyone willing to jump out of airplanes can't be so afraid of lions that
>they would not ride a bike.

And anyone willing to hike in the forest can't be so afraid of lightning that they wouldn't use an umbrella. But that's getting a bit away from the point.

not nearly as digressive as those sharks in Yosemite, but it's a much more interesting thread now

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

So the situation are "hiking in a park where dangerous animals exist" vs. "jumping near a thunderstorm." In both cases, avoidance rather than adding a gadget that will "protect" you is the better idea.

So we should all avoid Yosemite, where there are plenty of dangerous bears?

Supposedly the Valley deer have killed more people than the bears.

and then of course, we have the park rangers chasing down basers.

[ryoder 1,590]

Let's drop this myth that the dangerous animals are all confined to an isolated place where no one needs to go.
They go where ever they damned well please, and blatantly ignore park/forest boundaries.

Here in the CO Front Range we have coyotes in the flat areas, and lions and bears in the mountains. But the lions and bears sometimes visit the flats as well. In my city 10 miles from the mountains a lion was shot several years ago. I have seen coyotes just two blocks from my house, and a group of them attacked a woman in town a couple months ago.

In the last two years there have been two collisions between bears and cyclists on public roads, and in the one case the bear got agitated and acted like it was going to attack. A year ago, a friend of mine was jogging in a Boulder park, and narrowly avoided becoming cat-food. Several years ago a small child got separated from his family, and was killed by a cat. Just google for: boulder mountain lion attack

The city of Boulder has been acquiring huge parcels of land for years, forming a ring of parks/open-space that surround the town, and extend *way* beyond the city limits. There are many public roads passing through these parks/forests that are used daily by citizens just as any other road is used, to get to/from places of business and home.

This isn't NYC. If you are going to be outdoors, and not inside a vehicle, you are at risk.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.