Yup, I've been saying this for years.
There really are people that really believe that meat originates at the supermarket. And who will decry hunting as barbaric then dine on fine white veal.

The mans got a good point. These naive urban eco-nuts are gaining control and passing laws that ignore reality. I really would like to take an eco-tourist out on a bear hunt sometime. I hunt bears for the meat, and it's been my experience that some bears have no fear of humans. Of the last four bears I've killed, two of them were running at me. I suppose that if I were an eco-tourist, I'd have thought they just wanted me to pet them...

I'm having second thoughts about taking an eco-nut with me. I don't know if it would be ethical to shoot the bear before letting the eco-nut try petting...

Take a bow Jeff, that one was for you!

I was recently doing a lot of hiking in the national parks in the rockies.

Guns are banned but bear spray wasn't. Faced with a Grizzly, I'd prefer the gun I didn't have to the bear spray I did.

If some halfwit leftard want to get themselves killed, I'm all in favour of it. What I'm not in favour of is the same leftard halfwit getting me killed...

"Our own experience, in Canada and throughout the West, has been, that as a democratic polity urbanizes, the people and therefore the politics become increasingly batty, owing chiefly, I think, to the insulation of urban people from the basic facts of life."

Testify, my brother!

"as a democratic polity urbanizes, the people and therefore the politics become increasingly batty, owing chiefly, I think, to the insulation of urban people from the basic facts of life."

Is he saying that urban people are batty because they don't know much about rural people? Do rural people have a monopoly on "the basic facts of life?" And aren't rural people equally ignorant of urbanites? In a few generations it won't matter, because the rural population will have shrunk into oblivion. Then "batty" ideas will be "the basic facts of life" for everyone.

Our own experience, in Canada and throughout the West, has been, that as a democratic polity urbanizes, the people and therefore the politics become increasingly batty, owing chiefly, I think, to the insulation of urban people from the basic facts of life.

The demographics support this, look at all of the lefty moonbats concentrated in the urban centers of our coastal blue states. Their experience with nature is so limited, an organized nature hike in a city park at best. The realities of agriculture are lost on them too. Their absolute removal from the realites of food chain breds the myths they create. They shield their off-spring from unpleasantries of where their meat comes from. Pesticides have saved humanity from famine and malaria. No thought given to that reality in their organic utopia. Foraging for food for a few months would straighten out their minds.

I forget the name of the lame bear advocate that got up close and personal unarmed few years back and was mauled to death in Alaska, another dimwitted eco-groupie Darwin award winner. The poor dope was ironically probably lathered with mosquito repellent at the time of his demise. Dumb.

Do rural people have a monopoly on "the basic facts of life?"

You bet they do, having lived in both worlds.

Survival Factoid #23: When coming face to face with a Grizzly Bear and without a weapon remember this: You do not have to be able to outrun the bear... just the guy next to you.

Mark,

Slowly now. The basic facts of life can be roughly translated to the laws of nature. As in, life cycles, nature, etc.

The eco-leftards don't seem to be able to look at nature and see it for what it is. Nature is not a teddybear. Animals are not toys. Nature is nasty, brutal and short and western society's comfortable, insulated cities shield foolish, naive leftards from this reality.

The beauty of nature doesn't mean it is kind or just or benign. An animal will kill you for any number of reasons. They don't care about your feelings or your politics. They won't spare you cause you watched Al Gore's movie.

Our own experience, in Canada and throughout the West, has been, that as a democratic polity urbanizes, the people and therefore the politics become increasingly batty, owing chiefly, I think, to the insulation of urban people from the basic facts of life.

An additional truth is that urbanization makes men more effeminate.

Do rural people have a monopoly on "the basic facts of life?"

Until it's common place for the average urban dweller to be directly involved in killing something with their own hands, the answer is, and will remain, yes.

On the other hand, my closest encounter with a whole pack of hungry carnivores came in a Phoenix city park. Luckily Phoenix is in Arizona, so I was much better armed than the coyotes who interrupted my evening stroll. Seems they wanted to have a go at my dog, but decided discretion was the better part of valor.

Coyotes in Phoenix regularly eat pets. They rarely mess with humans. Now, if I could only get the deer around my place to have the same respect...

Kate, I killed a raccoon with my helmet once, does that count? ~:D

I shot a rattlesnake in the fenced part of my New Mexico yard once. It was as much to keep my dog safe. They have no natural fear of them. I killed a rabbit accidently with a stone there too, I threw a warning and against all odds hit it.

Before that I was a city dweller armed only with mouse traps.

"...owing chiefly, I think, to the insulation of urban people from the basic facts of life."

Hence the signs at Waterton telling people that mule deer are not like Bambi and will attack you. Their hooves are sharp and they bite, especially with a fawn in tow.

A relative working there relayed the story of a grizz who killed a deer in the town site. The eco-tourists were upset and asked the park attendant to "make it stop."

It's the Disneyfied view of nature.

The irony for urbanites, especially in Toronto (but qually available in most other large cities) raw nature lives right with them. In Toronto, the preserve is at Jane and Finch. This, in varying degrees, is what is over the fence and off in the bush of the rural dweller.

"naïve urban people who believe themselves competent to vote even on the laws of nature"

Wishful thinking raised to new heights...I wish he was exaggerating, but he is not. It's even worse in the insulated academic environment.

En passant, this certainly explains global climate alarmism...

If you're interested, I have seen a wild rabbit out in the backyard recently, and have heard credible rumours about a coyote taking a nighttime stroll down the street. Raccoons are a familiar sight to me, and I've not only seen big limbs fall off from trees, but I've also had to dispose of tree-fall waste (branches) myself.

Where do I live, you ask? Suburban Toronto. There are hints of the "green future" in this brief tale - and yes, I include the coyote in the hint bag. Perhaps some eco-joker will throw a few beavers into the Don River in the near future.

Regarding the tree waste: back in the aulden days, the unlucky property owner would've decided the tree itself was rotten and out would come the chainsaw, as would turf rolls later. Rather than blame the restrictive by-laws now in place, it is considered green-polite to blame the climate. It's ironic that, in greenie suburbia, the climate is now considered more of a movable object than City Hall is.

Environmentalists should demonstrate some responsibility and ensure their Birkenstocks can be digested by the poor little grizzly bears, it would be tragic if one of these bears became constipated due to the negligence of a self centred 'environmentalist'.

Despite being born and raised in the city, I'm fully aware meat doesn't originate from the supermarket. It comes from the meat factory.

There's your answer to expanding the decline of large predators...feed 'em dipshit PC touristas...solves their prey species problem and helps Darwin iron out the spike in mental defectives who have survived natural selection...let's get those safaris booked now !!

How about the "So Close to Nature You Can Smell It Tour" "Enjoy the Last of the Fall Colours as You Become One with Nature." Chain 'em out with bait pail for the bears....

Leftards are disconnected from reality, period. Any reality. If civilisation were ever to come to a grinding halt due to a natural or otherwise disaster, they would be the first of the herd to be culled, all the while mumbling "this can't be happening, this can't be happening".

I have yet to meet an NDP voter who has a grasp on real life.

A word of caution to unarmed envirotourists wishing to hike through bear country in order to commune with nature:

Hikers are advised wear noisy little bells
on their clothing so as not to startle bears that
aren't expecting them.

Hikers also advised to carry pepper spray with them in case of an encounter with a bear.

It is also a good idea to watch out for fresh signs of bear activity. Hikers should learn to recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear droppings.

Black bear droppings are smaller and contain lots of berries and squirrel fur. Grizzly bear droppings have noisy little bells in them and smell like pepper.

Those that claim that guns are not necessary have not been attacked by vicious wild animals and have never had to deal with pests that steal produce out of their gardens or livestock from their stables and chicken coops. The only way I would get close to a grizzly is with either a M1 Garand or a Marlin 1895 Guide gun in 45-70. It really boggles my mind when people say they want to go up to a bear and pet it, especially with all those horror stories of bear attacks that are so well known. It was pretty much the same mistake Timothy Treadwell made, and he deserves to be listed as a Darwin award winner for getting too close to those animals. I would recomment Bear Attacks: The Deadly truth by James Gary Shelton for additional reading as well.

Okay Bruce, you owe me a new keyboard. I guffawed my ice tea all over this one.

I think the article makes valid points about the naivety of many people who lack any real connection with nature. Without any appreciation for terrain, weather, water or simple hazards let alone any idea of what wildlife are present there are a lot of people who think they can just go.
I've observed numerous incidents of near fatal encounters between cocoon bred and hive raised fools and the natural environment that highlight this very thing.
The whole thing about the no guns idea is based on ignorance not respect, knowledge or intelligence.

If you need any examples of how little respect for nature the modern urbanite has just go look into day hikers who up the trail in Vancouver's Grouse Mountain dressed in shorts T-shirts and wearing sandals on their feet. More than one has got stuck after dark, lost/injured or died of falling and exposure on a simple walking path on the edge of a major urban area.
Not suggesting that guns are needed in this or most other environments but rather some small amount of sense.

As for more rugged environments.. if the guides carry guns they do it for a reason!

Hey "Caveman", are you that guy from the Boston Pizza commercials? Re: "If civilisation were ever to come to a grinding halt due to a natural or otherwise disaster, they would be the first of the herd to be culled, all the while mumbling "this can't be happening"

Let's hope that doesn't happen. If civilization comes to a grinding halt it'll be a bad day for most of us. I'll bet Cavemen do ok though.

Until that day, I'll continue to enjoy nature - in high definition on my big screen plasma TV, while drinking beer. It's almost like being there, only without the bugs. We have a big tree out front of the condo. The great outdoors. I can see it from my balcony.

How times have changed. When I worked in Nahanni National park some 30 years ago, the park guides would very strongly recommend that visitors brought a rifle with them. We had a few rifles in the camp but never took them with us as we had enough to carry already before we loaded up with plant and soil samples.

Now, whenever I go out in the bush I make sure I pack a rifle along. I like the M1 Garand as it will handle most anything I might run into, but it gets a bit heavy to carry by the end of the day. I've spent a lot of time in remote areas and never had a problem with a bear but I want to have the necessary tools to deal with a bear should one finally decide to attack me after all these years.

I don't particularly care whether the farm economy is food or fuel or titivation, what can't happen fast enough is getting these ag parasites off the public teat.

Bruce

Thanks for the best laugh I've had in a while.

Thank goodness a lot of non-common sense capitalists live in the cities, creating real wealth and paying taxes so that the common sense rural lifestyle can be continued through government subsidies. Here in Alberta, for example, the government apparently provides more money to individual farmers (through subsidies and other income support programs) than it does to welfare recipients. Rural municipalities get more than fair share too, in terms of income redistribution from governments as well as representatives in the legislature. And you can have that common sense champion from rural Alberta we have for a Premier - an indecisive rube if there ever was one.

As for converting farms from food production to fuel production, its just a matter of which gives the biggest subsidy to the producer. I say bring in the subsidized food products from Europe and the USA and let their taxpayers subsidize cheaper food for all of us.

And, yeah, I've seen enough farms in my day to know where food comes from (and what to watch out for when walking around). I need toilet paper daily, too, but I don't really care where it comes from or how its made either.

Let's not forget, oh rural ones, who originally created and voted in the CCF and NDP in Saskatchewan. It wasn't the city folk....

The best bear protection I know is a sawed-off 12 gauge auto loader(18 inch barrel, keep it legal). With a 5 or 6 pellet buckshot shell first, a shotgun slug second and another 5 or 6 pellet buckshot shell last. Never had to use it yet, but its light,easy to carry and I never camp or hike without it! I go were there are not too many national parks close by.

'capitalists live in the cities, creating real wealth and paying taxes'

Hey Mad Eye, I've been in all the cities in Alberta and I don't recall seeing any oil or gas wells in the cities. Didn't see any oilsands in them either.

How do youse big ciddy guys create all your 'real wealth'?

"With a 5 or 6 pellet buckshot shell first"

You're playing with your life.

3" slugs or stay home.

You got me, rockyt. But wait a minute, where did all that money come from -- you know, those billions of dollars to build the various plants and drill the wells -- couldn't have come from big ciddy investment houses (pension funds, insurance companies, stock exchanges and bond markets and all those sorts of places). And those engineers that crowd many of the office buildings in Calgary, the refineries in Sherwood Park and Fort Saskatchewan, the oilfield manufacturing in Red Deer and Edmonton (and all kinds of other places), they create no wealth at all. And those employees who build and operate those oilsands plants, just where do they happen to live?

It wasn't the city folk....

Posted by: Mad Eye Moody at August 8, 2007 9:11 PM
No,but it is the city folk who keeps electing these fools.

3" slug for a Grizz? No way. I live in Southern Alberta. Here only a 45/70 govt. will do to take down those monsters.

Slugs for Griz??
Unless you get within 10 feet there's No penetration dears..... that will get you killed!
Anyway the point was that the Nurse Nanny's want to dictate that no Guides or other tour members are going to be carrying or using guns as I read it!

Another point the article gets around to is that the same ignorant naivety that leads urban dwellers to fear guns lead them to believe that nature itself holds no risk for them.
The ultimate point is that these same kind of deluded fools are making decisions that affect the rest of us without having any perspective whatsoever of the consequences.

I'd add that that for the most part they don't give a shit either!!

eh.........you get the idea

"Another point the article gets around to is that the same ignorant naivety that leads urban dwellers to fear guns lead them to believe that nature itself holds no risk for them."
(OMMAG, 11:46PM)

I'm thinking they might want to take a stroll along the riverbank of the South Saskatchewan, right through the heart of Saskatoon, alone, around dawn; there have been 2 or 3 cougar sightings in the last couple months, I believe, just a short way from the U. of S.

I'm pretty sure a degree in sociology would frighten away those big cats... who needs a rifle?

Gee Doug, I live in Southwestern Alberta and would take the .73 calibre slug with the 1875 feet per second muzzle velocity over the .45 calibre 1350 fps 'Government' round any day.

Ommag, my line in the sand is 20ft. Much more and you're poaching.

What would happen if one of the eco-wackos ever ran into a grizzly bear a mountian lion or a wolf what would their reacting be? I dont know but the aniamsls reaction would be SOUPS ON

There are two primary industries: Mining and farming.

Modern society (at least the urban sector) has long since forgotten that it relies on the two primary industries for its survival. Both are kept at a minimum level of economic return on investment - just enough that the food and commodities supplies do not disappear entirely.

One can live without metals and minerals for an indefinite time. Living without food is a different matter.

The bumper sticker proclaiming “If you eat you are involved in agriculture” should be on every city bus.

Farm subsidies came about as governments avoided potential political problems that accompany rising food prices. The rise in food prices - due largely to bureaucratic interference of one kind or another - was disguised through taxation for everyone and everything, and returning some (small) portion to farmers as subsidies, to maintain a minimum return - enough to keep them producing food on a reasonably consistent and continuous basis. The ‘population’ continues to pay less than the cost of production of many items in the supermarket, but the short-fall is extracted in the form of taxes – so we pay the full cost plus a premium for the ‘supply management.’ The subsidies become ridiculous when farmers are paid NOT to grow certain crops – or butter is stored in unending accumulations. Marketing Boards go to great lengths to ensure their continued existence and do well in that regard, in spite of the inefficiency and inertia they introduce to the market.

Mining, on the other hand is allowed to boom and bust with only occasional financial 'assistance', perhaps in periodic recognition of the job multiplier effect (~12X). There is little general harm when the mining cycle is at a low, except the loss of expertise that comes with the necessity of finding alternative more secure employment.

My youngest daughter came home from school one day and said, “Dad, I’ve got a good one for you. The teacher was describing how to milk a cow. The kid at the next desk was grossed-out. She interrupted the lesson with ‘Yuk! How primitive! I’m glad that milk comes from the 7-11 now’”.

In the last 60 years Canada has gone from a rural society with over half the population on the land to the present condition with ~6% being classed as rural and that number is attained only through the convention of considering all villages with less than 5,000 inhabitants ‘rural’. It is not surprising that there is a general lack of understanding of Reality – in all its forms. A population raised on the left-wing CBC cartoons such as “The Racoons” is understandably ill-prepared to deal with real domesticated or wild animals physically or mentally.

Homer, I have to go out to pick up something for dinner.

Steak?

Mmmm, money's too tight for steak.

Steak?

Mmmmm, suuuuuuure...steak (rolls eyes)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i0X_PK7K6A

It seems 'off-topic' when discussing morons, but are there any handguns that would be useful for bear? Rifles/shotguns can be a pain to pack and carry. Handguns work well on drug dealing 'pillars of the community/honour students' in Toronto, just not sure about bear.

Since this is turning into a bear defense thread instead of an urbanite defense thread, I'll bite on the handgun question. The answer is yes, but really, no. Large calibre handgun (think heavy .45 or S&W500) might stop a blackie if you hit accurately in a vital spot, but the odds of doing that, as memories of friends and family are running through your last thoughts, are slim to none. You might get one well placed shot off in the 10 yards you'd have to be from the bear for accurate placement, but with the heavy recoil, you wouldn't get a second before the bear would be on you.
Two problems with a handgun for this - the first, just mentioned, is accuracy over distance, and the second, no matter how big the bullet, the energy from a handgun cartridge is low, compared to a rifle or shotgun. Better than nothing, perhaps.

For grizzlies, the handgun is for you, not the bear.

Ouch!

Bruce,

Brilliant.

Bear bells are useless. Bear spray will work most times but with Grizlies, they'll often come back and a second spray won't help you as the shock will have worn off.

Black bears are docile in comparason. They'll often ignore you completely unless they have a cub. I ran into a mother and cub in Yoho and after my 7 heart attacks, they just wandered away clearly not feeling threatened at all. If a bear feels her cub is threatened, the bear spray isn't likely to help. Spray will only help if the bear is only curious.

jet

****understandably ill-prepared to deal with real domesticated or wild animals physically or mentally.*****

Am, I to gather from that, that animals are not only stronger, butt also smarter than these fools:-))))))

Caveman wrote: "If civilisation (sic) were ever to come to a grinding halt due to a natural or otherwise disaster, they (urbanites) would be the first of the herd to be culled"

Ah, the ultimate rural fantasy. Unfortunately for you, the modern world rewards big city bankers, lawyers and consultants. Your hunting and gathering skills might get you cheers on this blog, but in the real world, they're a bit outdated.

WK makes some good points in his article. Most urbanites are out of their element in regards to nature and rural life. I would like to carry the observation further to include politics.

It makes as much sense for Torontonians to have the power to make decisions and pass laws on rural Sask as it would for rural Sask to make decisions and pass laws that affect Toronto. In both cases, the groups do not have a thorough enough grasp of the issues and challenges to make good decisions. But the former is precisely the problems that happens in Canada. The big eastern cities have enough seats to control the federal agenda. They then have elected governments that come up with policies that negatively effect life outside the cities. Policies like NEP, Kyoto, gun bans, etc.

Bear spray has to be used with great care, and preferably, with practice. The spray is directional and affected by wind. You have to hit the bear with it where it do some good, and you must be upwind. Having a full blast blowing back into your face, instead of the bear's, is not going to make for a good day. "Smell's like pepper..."

Mark wrote:"Ah, the ultimate rural fantasy. Unfortunately for you, the modern world rewards big city bankers, lawyers and consultants. Your hunting and gathering skills might get you cheers on this blog, but in the real world, they're a bit outdated."

As someone who actually knows something about SHTF scenarios, the fantasizer is you. City bankers, lawyers and consultants will be dog meat in real time. The only urbanites who may have a lock on their own survival are those with a chopper on the roof. The "city bankers, lawyers and consultants" will be lucky to even get home, and by the time they do, the hunter/gathers will have cleaned them out.

Mark, does "Katrina" mean anything to you? XD

"As someone who actually knows something about SHTF scenarios, the fantasizer is you. City bankers, lawyers and consultants will be dog meat in real time."

Maybe. But I remember that eight years ago a lot of wishful-thinking rural dwellers were saying that Y2K would put smug urbanites in their place. Cults also like to make these silly end of the world predictions every few years. Thankfully, the modern world keeps chugging along.

"Mark, does "Katrina" mean anything to you? XD"

Would better hunting and camping skills have helped the victims of Katrina? It seems that those people needed a bit more of the modern world (like more buses, better weather forecasting and stronger levies) not more experience living in nature. They weren't suffering from a lack of grizzly shooting skills.

Just to make a point about psycholical preparedness...

This! is what it takes to survive a wild animal attack!

Apologies for the spelling.... "psychological"
Yeesh............

I, for one, am willing to take a chance, and forego the bear attack survival training. The incidence of bear attacks in downtown Edmonton is pretty low, and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that there are no impending disasters that might cause Bears to attack me at some future date. (Aliens, on the other hand...)

If I'm wrong, I'll run away screaming at the top of my lungs. I figure it'll work as well as anything else, including kissing my butt goodbye.

""As someone who actually knows something about SHTF scenarios, the fantasizer is you. City bankers, lawyers and consultants will be dog meat in real time."

Maybe. But I remember that eight years ago a lot of wishful-thinking rural dwellers were saying that Y2K would put smug urbanites in their place. Cults also like to make these silly end of the world predictions every few years. Thankfully, the modern world keeps chugging along. "

Well, I actually participated in that event... While everybody else was new year's partying, I was monitoring a communications station, along with the OPP and several international disaster preparedness agencies, just in case. There was enough genuine concern that systems were mobilized. If you crank back to the NE hydro outage a few years ago (just about now, in fact) and were involved, you know that had that happened in the middle of winter, people in the GTA and the NE generally would have been in trouble. Gridlock was a serious issue for everybody, including emergency responders. The ice storm came close - had that scored a direct hit on Toronto, a lot of urbanites would have had serious trouble staying alive.

Would better hunting and camping skills have helped the victims of Katrina? It seems that those people needed a bit more of the modern world (like more buses, better weather forecasting and stronger levies) not more experience living in nature. They weren't suffering from a lack of grizzly shooting skills.

Yes they would have. There were plenty of buses. Buses don't swim or drive over large obstacle very well. The ones that weren't able to leave the impact area "lived in nature" or what there was of it for quite a while, and they lived by the gun, defending what they could. You apparently have no idea of what went on in Katrina. For a reminder of how fragile urbanity is: http://www.katrinadestruction.com/

Do rural people have a monopoly on "the basic facts of life?"

Until it's common place for the average urban dweller to be directly involved in killing something with their own hands, the answer is, and will remain, yes.
Posted by: Kate at August 8, 2007 3:55 PM

What a load of bull... the average rural dweller is as dependent on the supermarket and all the other conveniences of modern society as any urbanite. You are seriously deluded.

Mark, its always better to have a gun and not need it than need one and not have it. This logic seems lost on many Canadians who can't imagine ever needing one for any reason.

The pistol for bear medicine question is interesting. I've never seen a bear in the wild, just at the zoo. There's no pistol I know of other than a TC Contender chambered for a rifle cartridge could take down one of those monster grizzlies. .308 minimum. Even then you'd have to get him in the head or the heart.

Even a black bear runs 3-400 pounds, a .454 Casull or a .50 AE round would kill him, but maybe not before he chewed you up. It does you no good if he crawls off and dies of his wounds after he eats you head.

The thing to remember about pistols is that 3 out of 4 humans survive getting shot by them. Plenty of stories out there about guys taking multiple rounds of 9mm, .45 ACP or what have you and running away.

I personally know of three. Two were dirt bags shot with 9mm, the third was a guy trying for a Darwin Award. Shot himself through the abdominal aorta with a .38 and lived. Was perfectly fine actually, just had interesting scars.

So if a human can take a .38 through the main pipe and live, ain't no little .45 pistol going to stop a bear unless you nail it in the brain pan. The chances of hitting a charging bear in the head are pretty much zero.

Rifle. Definitely rifle, go with a .30 caliber hollow point hunting round minimum. I'd go bigger, but then I like a bigger gun. If figure if I'm going to have to shoot something I want to HURT it.

Those cracked urns from GREENPEACE wanted hurricanes named for the various companies they claimed were cuasing global warming which proves that the only ones who has anything to do with GREENPEACE are a bunch of crack-pots and wackos who have ben smoking way too much wacky weed