How do you defend yourself against wildlife when hiking or approaching a climb?

Brian Scoggins wrote: Step 1: don't be an elk. Step 2: don't be alone. Step 3: don't be a fucking elk. You are more likely to get lovingly caressed by a grizzly bear (that's not sarcasm, I mean petting your hair and stuff) than to be attacked by wolves. Since 1915, there have been fewer than 100 wolf attacks on the entire continent. Most of those were by rabid wolves, and most of what's left were by habituated wolves. Wolves are NOT a threat to people. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_…

If you believe that wolves are no threat to people, then you guys are not only niece but delusional. Of course a wolf will go for normal prey first, but they are pack animals and very opportunistic. They can and do attack humans.

I used to be like you guys and had a romanticized view of nature. After you see it kill a person or two, you can no longer hold that viewpoint, at least not rationally.

Hey Pete, you've seen a couple of people get killed by wolves?

wa5.10 wrote:Glock 36.

Really? .45ACP? That's what you've got? If it must be semi-auto, something in 10mm flavor, full power with hardcast loads from Buffalo Bore. .45 is just asking for trouble.

Definitely skip the handgun. USFS did a study of the outcomes of handguns vs pepper spray for rangers defending themselves against bears. The rangers are full time professionals, required to train with and much more skilled with firearms than you're ever likely to get. Pepper spray use resulted in injury to the ranger about 10% of the time, sidearm about 50%.

It's not hard to understand why, if you think about it. Pepper spray is miserable, not unlike being skunked from a bear's perspective. Their instinct is to leave you alone. Shoot a bear though and you've just hurt it, triggered its fight response. Even the most powerful handgun in the hands of an expert is unlikely to kill a bear instantly. Yes, the bear may die - in a few minutes - but you're going to get mauled before it does.

Carry pepper spray, make noise, and be alert. And yes, stay well away from cow moose with calves. They hurt more people than bears do in Canada, almost every year.

For the most part and unless you are in Grizzly/ Bullwinkle country or trying to avoid rattle snakes at Lover's Leap (etc and so forth)--the only wildlife you really have to be concerned about is the human variety...especially the drunk ones.

#1 rule of the wild -- don't be an elk

Pete Spri wrote: If you believe that wolves are no threat to people, then you guys are not only niece but delusional. Of course a wolf will go for normal prey first, but they are pack animals and very opportunistic. They can and do attack humans. I used to be like you guys and had a romanticized view of nature. After you see it kill a person or two, you can no longer hold that viewpoint, at least not rationally.

Wolves are a threat to people in the same way as malfunctioning lawn furniture.

Since when is citing actual evidence being naive and delusional?
They can and do attack humans - indeed, they can and did about 80 times in the last 100 years, across all of north america. I would bet that you have a better chance of being killed and eaten by another human.

Nature kills people, yes, if by nature you mean gravity and weather. Fatal wildlife encounters are exceptionally rare.

Tom Sherman wrote: I live in an area where snake encounters are few and far between and usual of the non-venomous sort. I've had two encounters, both times with my dog. Both times my dog missed the snake. The second encounter, I was in a party of five plus two dogs. The three people and two dogs passed over a huge copperhead without noticing it. When I saw it it scared the shit outta me. More so that others had missed it. I feel like in certain areas, specifically around CT, when I am hiking I get in this snake-hunt mode. Inspecting every leaf, etc. which really takes away from the experience of being outdoors. I can easily see how one could not be so alert and bump into one of them. Two weeks ago, I met a climber who had a .40 Glock with him. I've always been anti-gun (maybe apathetic would be a better word), but I've always wanted something for camping backcountry. Now I have thoughts of getting a handgun for that scenario. Just seems like a huge liability though, especially for little return. In which percentage of black-bear encounters would a handgun actually be advantageous???

Tom, a gun for protection while camping back country in the North East? I think that is a little ridiculous myself. I used to see black bears all the time while hiking into and camping at Owls Cliff off the Kanc., sometimes while hiking in at night. They all ran away as fast as they could or flew up a tree. Just be sensible, be aware and make some noise so you don't come around a corner and surprise them up close in a berry patch or ant hill. The bears around here that I would be most wary of would be ones you might see near town or hanging around campgrounds.

Moose are more freaky to me because they are more unpredictable. Usually they also run off, but if not I try to just calmly give them a wide berth. Personally, I think you are more likely to blow your own brains out or shoot somebody else in a fit than really needing to use a gun to protect yourself, and as has been mentioned, if you aren't really practiced in stress situations you probably wont be able to use it effectively anyway (though everybody likes to think they can). This is all in New England, different than say Alaska

Sam Stephens wrote: Really? .45ACP? That's what you've got? If it must be semi-auto, something in 10mm flavor, full power with hardcast loads from Buffalo Bore. .45 is just asking for trouble.

First off, do you really think a 10 will do something a 45 won't? Its not like a bears skull is armor plated or extremely thick like a rams, and the heart isn't surrounded by anything a 45 couldn't break thru. If I ever had the need to defend myself from a natural predator, I wouldn't hesitate to use the gun I carry everyday. That's why I carry it. Would it ethically take down a griz, no way. Would it take down a griz if my life depended on it, yes.

Honestly, if you could handload your own rounds, you'd understand. Under 100 fps difference between the two, translates to muzzle energy differencial of 25 ft-lbf. In favor of the 45acp with a 180-185gr round. Check your external ballistics, don't rely on the guy at Walmart that sold you the .40 xdm.

Weight is always an issue, carrying a double stack or revolver is heavy, too heavy imo. I feel confident in carrying 7 rounds in a compact lightweight concealable package that weighs 758g loaded.

"My thought on guns are this, they are like condoms, I'd much rather have one and not need it, then not have one when I do." You can quote me on that.

Jonathan Cunha wrote:For the most part and unless you are in Grizzly/ Bullwinkle country or trying to avoid rattle snakes at Lover's Leap (etc and so forth)--the only wildlife you really have to be concerned about is the human variety...especially the drunk ones.

The biggest rattlesnake I have ever seen was lounging on the pavement at the Lovers Leap campground. Everything looks smaller from inside the car, and that thing was enormous!

To the topic at hand: seriously, wolves are very dangerous in Iran, India, Russia, places where you *aren't*. But the simple fact of the matter is that unless you are shagging the sheep while it gets attacked (yeah, I went there, that's how habituation happens), the wolves pose no threat to you.

In the northern Rockies at any rate, wolves feed on elk, and they seek out the weakest and easiest prey. If you don't look, act, or smell like an elk, they aren't going to risk a fight just to make sure. There's easier prey. In Alaska, they'll go the extra step of ascertaining whether or not you are an elk, and aren't a grizzly bear. Same reason.

Of course, if the locals are being shitheads, leaving out their garbage, feeding the local predators, that's a whole other story. But still, just like in Yosemite, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Don't act/smell like one of the humans that feed them, and they won't treat you like a food source.

wa5.10 wrote: First off, do you really think a 10 will do something a 45 won't?

For some reason, I though that a 10mm was the same as .45. Apparently my memory's going.

As for grizzly protection, unless your shot placement is dead-on *and* you've got room for the thing to die before it gets to you, all you've done is make the mauling a bit angrier. There's a reason folks who work in grizzly country are typically carrying rifles as their bear guns. No pistol is really reliable in those circumstances, and you've got to have ice-water in your veins if you're gonna rely on "shot placement" when you're staring down a bruin. Its like trying to hit the conductor of a freight train, while you're standing on the tracks.

Bells and pepper shit

After carrying the rope, rack, food, water, etc. I am absolutely not carrying anything else. Forget it.

I would never trust a .45 for bear protection. A .45 won't penetrate deep in a bears body. Likewise, it's hard to get heavy led cast bullets for a .45. Shooting a bear with a .45, trying to kill the bear with a heart shot is unrealistic in a defense situation. To stop a bear, you'll need to break its shoulder or disrupt the cns.

Likewise most .45 bullets are not hard cast. The .45 is a human round, not a gear or moose round and will not penetrate heavy bones. I'd rather use bear spray than piss off a big brownie with 3-4 rounds of .45.

I use .44 with alaska backpacker cartridges. 320 grain-far heavier with way more penetration than any .45 will ever have.i personally won't use any bullet lighter than. 300 grain in a hand gun. I've used bear spray on more moose than I can count, as well as on a couple of bears. I personally like to give a shot (with a gun) off when a big brown bear is bothering me, so it realizes that I have something that will ruin its day.

For camping I like two different guns- a 45-70 with a 500 grain round. I prefer those for areas when I'm next to the ocean or when it's raining a lot and I want water proof rounds. Otherwise I use a 12 gauge with brenneke black magic slugs. Again- these are hard cast led rounds so they remain intact and will punch through bone unlike cheap bulk bullets (which just break up and won't penetrate shoulders etc).

Just as a reference .45-70 is one of the only rounds to successfully take all big game animals in Africa-elephants and hippo included. In addition the 45-70 packs super small so it is much better to carry etc.

I personally have found that bear spray has enough force or propellant when it's deployed that unless it's a very strong cross wind, or head wind, it's perfectly effective.

And for people that say hand guns are useless- I completely disagree and from practical experience know that's not true. A person was attacked right by my house by a brown bear-killed it with a .44 and hard led bullets. Likewise, my neighbor just had a black bear break into his garage-shot it with a.44 and it subsequently died. If I was in the lower 48, I'd go with a .357-way less recoil and much more reliable and fool proof than any glock or acp.

I keep a watchful eye out for poison ivy, and I'm excellent at removing ticks.

I personally carry a 454 casull with a 338 lapua as a back up. Granted, the 20ish or so bear I've seen have all run when seeing me but I did survive a nasty encounter with an agitated chipmunk. Scary stuff.

youtube.com/watch?v=k0HgUBW…

Stay indoors, quit your job and play it safe. If youre scared of animals its a sign that you're not challenging yourself with climbing.

Humans are really bad at risk assessment.

You're a climber: if something is going to kill you on climbing trip, it's either gonna be the drive there, or, you know, the actual climbing a damn cliff part. It is not going to be an animal.

Someone up thread said 95% of the time you have nothing to worry about with animals. That's not (literally) true: i'm sure it's well over 99% of the time you have nothing to worry about.

With a few exceptions (Alaska being the big one), most American climbing is barely in the wild any way, so you really don't need to worry very much about defending yourself from wildlife. Just use common sense.

If you think you *need* a gun for the backcountry, you're really too scared for the backcountry, and some anti-anxiety classes might serve you better, to be brutally honest.

It's a free country, and you can throw a heavy handgun in your pack if you want, but i'd much rather use that weight for a #6 or a nice camera. Hella of a lot more useful.

Also: if that gun is going to actually help you in a crisis? You need to be wearing it like a damn cowboy in a holster: it can't be in your pack. You also need to have been spending a lot of time at the range. Are you starting to see how ridiculous it is to carry a gun to protect yourself from animals?

Brian Scoggins wrote:Guns are only useful if you spend so much time practicing with them that drawing, aiming, and firing becomes more natural than freezing up and/or wetting yourself. If you can't afford/justify the time and expense necessary for that, then if you have a gun, you're probably better off throwing it.

Eh, I could see that argument when dealing with human threats, but I don't feel like the mental hurtle of shooting a dangerous animal is nearly as high as shooting a dangerous human. But I have never done either, so who knows.