Backpacking, bears and a Glock 20

YokoWenis' Glock 20

I was poking around the Internets the other day for some tips and general research on backpacking and the like. It’s a good way to uncover a useful packing strategy or two and uncover unique gear. There are a lot of innovative backpackers out there, especially in the light and fast crowd. Plus, in the same way most of us form political perspectives, it’s good to have what you espouse justified by complete strangers on the web.

Once on YouTube, I click across the video you can see here, posted by YokoWenis. (Embedding was not enabled, so you’ll need to head over there.)

Everything seems normal in the first few minutes as he displays and explains his gear choices. He’s clearly an experienced backpacker, buys everything Backpacker tells him to and seems to be someone with who you could talk trail. (Although I’m no fan of Mountain House meals, pocket showers or pack covers.) And then, at the 5:20 mark, the record scratches. His next piece of gear, which he calls “the fun stuff,” is a semi-automatic handgun. With two magazines.

The video description suggests this specific packing breakdown is for a trip to the Tetons, an area popular with brown and black bears. Although, the big ones are much more prevalent in the national park entity directly to the north of the videographer’s destination mountain range. Nevertheless, it appears that bear protection is why he’s carrying it. In the comments section, he also mentions “weirdoes” on the trail. I couldn’t agree more on that point.

Twenty seconds later it gets even better. “Oh, I’m going with six guys and we’re all packing guns.”

That’s seven handguns. S-E-V-E-N. On one trip.

Before you go getting all NRA on me, a disclaimer: I’m not anti-gun. I was raised by a cop and my brothers hunted. We had guns in the house for most of my youth. I believe firmly that if a gun was loaded, locked in a secret room and never interacted with by a human for 20 years, two decades later that gun would not be responsible for a single death.

What I am against is seven jackasses hunting bear in the same backcountry where I spend time. No, they’re not hunting? I can’t really think of any other reason to substitute a fucking phalanx of handguns for pepper spray and common sense unless someone in the group is hoping, even a little bit, that he gets the chance to unholster his sidearm. On second thought, I’ll acquiesce. Let’s call it, “hunting light.”

You could win me over with an argument for carrying one gun, especially if you were in Alaska, where man’s position on the food chain is somewhere between seal meat and dumpster pizza. I would have even less of a reason to ridicule if you were hiking alone in very remote areas of bear-heavy regions. What I will not do for a second is even attempt to comprehend reasoning for seven pistols in a single group of backpackers. Hey, Marshall Givens, you know the bears are un-armed, right?

Other than those pesky arguments for personal safety (you can’t tell me that a group carrying seven guns is not going to spend a significant amount of time discussing the merits of each, which will no doubt lead to a number of impromptu show-and-tell sessions), guns in bear country tend to coincide with a lack of concern for bear camping etiquette. On this I realize I may be wrong, perhaps these guys are master bear tacticians. Or, maybe they know shit about camping in bear country so they carry handguns. It could be that.

Lastly, handguns do little to protect you against charging bears. I know this because I read. Oh, and the Mormons did a little study on it.

Again, one gun is reasonable if you’re alone. I maintain it should remain a last resort though, as in, not until things reach threat-level Timothy Treadwell.

There is not one sound argument—not one—for every member of a seven-team backpacking excursion to have a gun. I get it though, it’s your right. Ultimately, that wins the argument every time. But get a grip fellas.

And lastly, the guns in national parks law can’t get over-turned fast enough. Have you seen some of the idiots who visit our national parks?

 

 

 

Opponents of backcountry use fees in Great Smoky Mountains National Park are wrong

Photo by QT Luong -  Terragalleria.com

I can understand the frustration of having to pay for something that was once free. But normally that’s reserved for things like coffee refills or extra hot sauce on a taco.

Great Smoky Mountains National Park is the system’s busiest. It’s perpetually jammed with day-trippers detouring off of I-40 along the border of Tennessee and North Carolina—a very legitimate and enjoyable way to visit a national park. However, the deluge of traffic means that Rangers and park officials have to deploy more resources for costly road maintenance, traffic flow concerns, smog studies and the bevy of other problems that arise when too many Americans are in one place at the same time.

Great Smoky Mountains National Park does not charge an entrance fee. And lest we forget, the entire parks system is intrinsically under-funded. So there’s that.

Earlier this year, park officials introduced the idea of a fee for backcountry use similar to many of the system’s most populous natural wonders, like Zion and the Grand Canyon. The fees being proposed are nominal and are broken into a general reservation cost and a fee per person, or maybe a fee per night. Plus, sites could be reserved online (a tremendous convenience) and be accessed by a 24-hour call center. Yes, the park gets that busy.

The Knoxville News-Sentinel reports that 2010 estimates suggest 79,480 people slept under the park’s backcountry stars. That’s down from a peak of over 100,000 in 1996. It’s still a football stadium of people using trails, fire rings, bear boxes and hopefully (?) Leave No Trace principles. I’m not sure if that number also includes Appalachian Trail hikers, who would also have to pay to camp. (I assume that aspect of the fee plan will become the most troublesome for the park. You can read more about that on National Parks Traveler.com.)

A gentleman hiker from Tennessee, let’s call him John Quillen, because that’s his name, is not so happy about the proposal. He’s been raising a fuss since the plan’s inception.

I encourage Mr. Quillen to consider all the additional tasks the two backcountry Rangers proposed as part of the fee plan would handle besides pestering campers for their permit numbers, such as bear activity monitoring (one bruin per square mile), site maintenance and finding hikers bewildered by rhododendron, among many other duties above, beyond, across from, underneath and out of reach of their job description. These are things that would improve Quillen’s enjoyment of the park and, if it’s any consolation to him, they would still be significantly under-paid.

Mr. Quillen filed a Freedom of Information Act request to view the public comments made about the fee plan. Having once worked in a position responsible for accepting and managing citizen interest in a North Carolina public institution, I can attest firmly that more often than not, these documents do nothing to aid one’s stance against something. In short, there’s never a smoking gun. Area 51 won’t be uncovered in the paperwork, I assure you. Yet, people demand them, as is their right, with a “well, I’ll show you” demeanor and a reminder of who works for who. (Every time I heard the “I pay your salary” line in conjunction with the most haughty of these requests, I simply suggested that it would be best for them to hold off on paying me this month, because they won’t be getting their board meeting minutes or budget summaries anytime soon.)

I never complain about paying $15 to camp in the desolate landscapes of the Grand Canyon. And I wouldn’t complain about paying double that to sleep in the rich, ink-blackened forested tunnels of the Great Smokies. How could you?

The incredibly diverse woods and wildlife of the Smoky Mountains are tucked between towns like Cherokee, NC and Gatlinburg, TN, two of the most egregious testaments to tourist traps on the eastern seaboard. How could you put a price on the value of escaping for a weekend to their most inimical environments?

We’re lucky our national parks continue to exist as they do. The fight to keep them pure in their purpose and accesible for us to enjoy is waged every day. If I need to pay a few bucks to keep that fight in our corner, show me where to sign. I hope Mr. Quillan is willing to join me for a few rounds.