On any given day I have no less than $10,000 in camera equipment strapped to me, and tend to like photographing locations at night that are some of our city's more diverse areas. I have a Florida license to carry concealed weapons and firearms, and usually do so when I am on location. I am professionally trained, and in fact I am a NRA certified firearms instructor and range safety officer. I find it reassuring when I am setting up a shot and encounter a group of curious urban outdoorsmen looking over my equipment. I would expect the same degree of comfort be afforded to individuals placing themselfs in the way of large, potentially dangerous wildlife to photograph.
I'm just wondering how many of us venture forth with some kind of personal protection device when get go on a photo shoot?
I carry an old .357 S&W police special when I call in predators in winter. I shoot the gun a lot, and am very familiar and comfortable with it. Dress in white camo, use a distressed rabbit call and try to lure wolves, coyotes, fox, mountain lion and lynx to the camera. Probably go the whole rest of my life without needing it, but if I've got a pack of five wolves trotting my way with "dying rabbit meal" in their heads, and they suddenly recognize I'm a human from 30 feet away and are heading right for me, I'd hate to be unarmed if they're unable or unwilling to change mental gears in time. A mountain lion is actually much the more dangerous threat than a wolf or group of wolves, and lion sightings are on the increase up here. I also bring bear pepper spray whenever I'm out in the woods. Again, probably never need to use it, but I'd hate to be without some type of added protection if that ONE TIME ever comes around.
Just curious, and I am not at all opposed to guns, - I'm wondering what your flashpoint is. If someone demands your gear, would you flash your weapon or first see if he'll just go away when he has the goods?
Personally I don't carry a firearm. I am not prepared to kill over camera gear and I am yet to hear of a violent thief who ventures into the wilderness in search of victims (kinda limits their chance of success, I would think).
Until recently, case law in the State of Florida required one to retreat if you could do so safely. Deadly force was never authorized for the purpose of protecting property; only human life. A bill recently signed by Governor Bush relieves a victim from the obligation to retreat even when it could be done safely. Whether I would use deadly force or the threat of deadly force against a camera thief depends on the circumstances. Is he armed or claiming to be armed? Has he threatened me with deadly force? Can I use it without placing myself or someone else in more danger? Does it appear that he will just go away if I leave him with the camera equipment? Threat assessment has to be made on a case by case basis. Every case comes with a unique set of circumstances that have to be evaluated on the spot. There are no pat answers.
Kelly
Posted by Richard Wong on June 9, 2006 at 11:27 AM
I don't carry weapons because carrying one means potentially killing someone is on the subconscious part of the mind. Personally I would be freaked out if I'm out with a buddy and find out he's packing heat. I can hold my own in a fight, so I have no desire to carry weapons.
So if you have someone at gunpoint and all of a sudden they start reaching for something from under their shirt, you pretty much have to plug them, don't you?
I cannot imagine anyone holding another individual at gunpoint unless that individual has already commited to the use of deadly force. That would be illegal under Florida's firearms laws, a 3rd degree felony known as brandishing. Shooting someone without first seeing what is coming out from under their shirt, and acertaining that it is indeed a threat of deadly force, would likely make you a guest of the State for 20 years under our 10/20/Life law.
John, you've raised some interesting points. They will provide me with some valuable food for thought while I'm out there working. My instict is to say you're stretching things and putting too fine a point on the "food from the hand." The odds that a creature coming in to the call will attack me are very low, tremendously low, I believe. And when you talk about the spirit of a guideline, you're inviting a somewhat different assessment of that "spirit" from every different human being. But I haven't had the time to really consider your thoughts in any depth, which I will do. In the end, I have little interest in how many people agree or disagree with my ethical decisions. It is up to me decide what I think is right and wrong. But your perspective has value to me, and it will be time well spent weighing my actions and philosophies in light of that perspective. Arrogance, the ultimate in self centered behavior, is easy to fall into. If the thoughts you've provided lead to a change in my outlook, that will be a great service, and I will thank you. It's quite possible that, after considering what you've said, I'll never take a gun out in that situation again. Is a photo ever worth risking the life of the subject, be it ant, flower or sentient being?
Posted by Lori Kincaid on June 10, 2006 at 9:02 AM
Just want to say Steve Foss' reply to John Christopher's comments was one of the best, most thoughtful replies I've ever seen on NPN to someone voicing a different opinion on a controversial subject. It's nice to see thoughtful discourse instead of a flame war.
As a follow-on, my philosophy in the field is modeled after the physician's hippocratic oath: First, do no harm. I'm out there to revel in and experience nature in all its disparate forms and certainly don't won't to harm the beauty I seek or upset the balance in any way.
Allow me to present yet a third perspective on why I don't carry a weapon, especially in the context of fear of wildlife. I'll preface this by saying I've had more than my fair share of firearm experience in the military and I personally have no strong feelings about guns. Honestly - I don't find them any more exciting than lawnmowers - use them when they are the right tool for the job and don't think about them too much otherwise.
Here goes:
Photography aside, part of my personal wilderness experience is being able to live simply, to forfeit any artificial safety afforded to me by man-made technology and to rely on my own skills to get me in and out safely. Hiking deep into the wilderness is very different from hiking the same distance on a marked trail in a park, and knowing there's a shower and clean bed at the end of the day is very different from planning for and setting up a camp site, stowing your food, rationing your water, and cooking your own meals in the field. By the same token - knowing you have the option of killing any living being that threatens you will change how you act, appreciate, and feel in a natural surrounding. It's like looking at scenery go by from the safety of an air-conditioned car's window rather than slogging on foot and feeling the crunch of earth under your feet, the scent of vegetation, and the sounds/silence of the place and its inhabitants. The more you rely on your own (limited) skills, the more intense the experience - you have more to consider, more to know and learn, more to enjoy, and yes - more to fear. You are much closer to your primal state and that in itself is an emotional state few people even know these days.
Reliance on unfair advantages is addictive. I remember the day I was discharged form the military, after having a rifle with me 24 hours a day for the previous few years, I felt very exposed and vulnerable just walking down the street. In that scenario I knew I was the one who was mal-adjusted and needed to re-learn to be a civillian again. By the same logic - going into the wilds, you need to re-learn how to be part of the natural environment - not how to hold unfair/superior power over it, but to live in harmony with it, to become part of it, to understand what the threats really are and learn to mitigate and avoid them rather than just assume you can shoot a threat when you see it. In my humble view - it's not only tremendously rewarding on a personal level, but it makes one a better human being too.
I cannot imagine anyone holding another individual at gunpoint unless that individual has already commited to the use of deadly force.
Are you going to have time to decide that someone is ready to use deadly force and break out your weapon? And once your weapon is out, they've seen that your ready to use deadly force, you've decided that they're ready to use deadly force, don't you have some sort of stand off now?
What happens if you are wrong about his intent, you have your gun out now, isn't that brandishing?
I'd sure hate to pull the trigger and then be wrong.
Well, yeah, you don't want to get into one of those, but what happens if you do? You see some big ol thug approaching with what you believe is a gun, you draw yours, (assuming you have it on a belt holster or something) he draws his, there you are.
Certainly, not everyone is as conscientious as maybe you two guys are but even still. So there I am, and you and another guy have guns pointed at each other... Tell you what, I'm running and you're on your own!
I don't know but my feeling is that if a gun is present I'm more likely to get shot by one nitwit or the other. If you're packing a gun, I'm giving you permission to effect the rest of my life. I may not agree with you're reading of the situation but after the bullets fly, I'm involved for the rest of my life.
By me going out with a gun owner, my feeling is that I'm in more danger than without a gun. If NO gun is present then there is simply NO chance I'll get shot. If guns ARE present then there is a change I'll get shot.
My point is that I don't want you or anyone else with a gun, to define my level of safety. If you want to go shot em up, great, I don't want to be involved in any shape form or matter. I don't want to see the stand off, I don't want to see someone get hit by a bullet, I don't want to be involved in the rescue of the bleeding bad or good guy, I don't want to have to be a witness, I want no part of it.
Tell me this, If you insist we take a gun, and I insist we don't, who wins? You don't feel safe without it, I don't feel safe with it. Who gives in or do we go our separate ways?
Posted by Richard Wong on June 10, 2006 at 6:00 PM
You, you, you.
If somebody is brandishing, then I'm busting out the wide angle at 2.8 to fill the frame. It's all about the decisive moment right? It could be my ticket to a dream job at the L.A. Times.
if I weren't armed with a camera, I'd likely feel more comfortable trying to disarm someone by hand and mind than with another gun because with two guns, there's almost total certainty somebody or both is going to die.
Very interesting thread with articulate posts. Some thoughts:
Carry a gun and you may very well be arming your attacker. Show a gun during a disagreement and you up the anti by several orders of magnitude. Shooting someone over camera gear would be the low point in a materialistic, self centered life. Baiting an animal and then killing it would prbably ruin your day and could sour photography for you for years.
My advice is from a song Johnny Cash used to sing: "Leave your guns at home son, don't take your guns to town."
Two guys standing out in the woods with guns pointed at each other is the very definition of nitwit.
Posted by Fred Stearns on June 11, 2006 at 1:13 PM
Way back in the olden days when I was a little boy, I was a member of an Explorer Troop that was associated with the NRA. Each Saturday, we went down to the local National Guard Armory to practice shooting. We used surplus M-1 rifles that were fitted to fire 22 LR shells. This was a controlled activity and proper handling and use of weapons was an important part of the sessions. There are two key points from this that I remember. These were presented as rules of good arms handling.
1. Never take out a weapon unless you intend to use it.
2. Never point a weapon at anything unless you intend to kill it.
Unfortunately, too many armed people do not know or do not care to follow these two points. That is what leads to trouble. Mark's two guys standing out in the woods have announced their intent to use their weapons. By pointing them at each other, they have announced their intent to kill each other. If they succeed, we can present them with their Darwin awards.
Fred, I'm with you on those two rules. I interpret them a bit differently, though, because self defense can mean showing you have the means to defend yourself without eventually having to use those means. That's the deterrance factor of pointing a gun at a would-be assailant and telling them to stop or you'll shoot. Now, when you pull a gun you'd better be ready to use it, and that has to be all thought through in advance. If you pull out a gun to defend yourself and showing it to the attacker doesn't deter the attack and you're not ready to shoot it at the attacker, then the attacker will take it from you, and may use it on you.
I use "you" generically.
So I would say:
1. Never take out a gun unless you are ready to use it.
2. Never point a weapon at anyone or anything alive unless you are ready to kill.
Posted by Paul Grecian on June 11, 2006 at 3:54 PM
Kelly's question also includes non-lethal protection. Frankly, I would find a non-lethal defense very desirable and have seen some reports of new methods but nothing really available to the public. Whether it be a stray dog, an aggressive bear or human, what are the options you consider? Actually, just having a phone gives me a certain level of comfort, but its not a practical "stick" and doesn't always give reception..
Paul
Posted by Fred Stearns on June 11, 2006 at 7:50 PM
Steve, I will accept your restatement. I agree with your scenario. Showing a weapon can result in serious or lethal consequences. Those should be thuroughly considered when a weapon, pistol, rifle, or arrow, is drawn.
I'm more surprised to read that if there are weapons to be carried, its more for protection against human than beast. In Canada, of course, we aren't allowed to carry handguns around with us on our person. Even shot guns aren't permitted unless its hunting season or you're going out to target practice or something, though I do know many who won't go 'into the woods' without one, law or not, but never once have I heard the reason to be protection against another threatening human so it was an interesting perspective for me to read it.
I carry a small cannister of pepper spray & a knife on my belt. But I also carry my first aid kit, a snake bite kit, mosquito juice & snacks & water. All for 'being prepared' but only for encounters of the wild kind. None of the options are lethal so if a bear decides to chew on my butt, a blast of pepper spray may not change his mind...but there is a chance it might. Although yelling my head off is more likely a reason for him to high-tail it. (black bear country, not grizzlies) I don't know if I would hike or explore differently if I was permitted to carry a gun. I'm just glad I don't have to pack the extra weight
Yes, I carry a defensive weapon made by Gitzo/RRS and if neccessary would not hesitate to use it. And yes, I am more afraid of humans than wild animals based on my experiences. My other defensive weapon has been used, successfully, several times and that is my brain. Awareness and avoidance have kept me and my camera equipment safe (my tires, well not so much) a few times over the last 25 years, even if it meant spending several hours hiding in the woods as my remotely parked car was "attended to" by biker-type thugs, even though I was carrying a handgun. I have not carried in many years, and no longer own any firearms because real life ain't like the movies. If someone comes at you with a gun drawn, you would be stupid (and shot) if you drew your weapon. If you have enough warning to draw a gun, you have enough warning to flee. Theoretically, there could be (and have been) encounters in which potential victims defend themselves, and in some areas of the world it might be prudent to carry a firearm for lions, tigers,or bears.
Also, many of the places we photograph (like National Parks) do not allow firearms.
I am personnally opposed to gun toting people in the backcountry, or anywhere else. It just couldn't lead to anything good. There, I said it. Couldn't agree with Mark more.
For what it's worth, a couple of Park Service backcountry rangers I know do not carry their issued weapons when hiking or backpacking away from their stations. Two I have spoken with say they have never been in a situation where a gun would have helped and never expect to be.
I have never felt the need to carry a weapon. Especially not while out enjoying nature photography. I have hiked and backpacked in Jasper, Banff, Yoho, Kootenay, Elk Island, Waterton, and Revelstoke National Parks where wildlife is plentiful. Encountering a grizzly or a cougar is always a possibility that is always in the back of my mind when I am out there but I think making my presence known by making enough noise like loud talking is sufficient. I have been within 10 feet of a grizzly without feeling threatened. Less with a black bear. And even been charged by a moose. All inadvertant encounters of course.
My personal protection is my brain, and I always have it with me when I go out. It's the #1 most effective weapon that anyone can carry. Why bother with inferior alternative weapons?
Guy said, paraphrasing the back country rangers: "For what it's worth, a couple of Park Service backcountry rangers I know do not carry their issued weapons when hiking or backpacking away from their stations. Two I have spoken with say they have never been in a situation where a gun would have helped and never expect to be."
You know, it's interesting. That's exactly how I feel, and I've been wandering in the woods for more than 30 years. But, though my outlook on what is likely is exactly the same as the rangers', I've looked at what COULD happen and have gone armed, rather than depending on what's LIKELY to happen. There's just no accounting for the differences between people.
John, if wolves go for the brains, I'm probably safe. Considering the size of my gut, it's the mountain lions I'd better worry about.
The staff at the International Wolf Center in Ely, in particular the curator there, use canned horn to stop wolf behavior the staff don't want. The horn in a can you see sometimes at sporting events and for marine use in boats. If the wolves are fighting and it gets too punitive and one of the animals is ganged up on and in danger of being severely injured or killed, and the staff see it happening, they'll take out the canned horn and let 'er rip. The wolves hate the loud noise and immediately desist. All cat species hate sharp piercing loud noises too, so such a thing could be a great alternative to a gun if a person worries about what COULD happen in the woods. And, come to think of it, such things might work in some situations in urban confrontation with other members of the most savage species in the world, too.
well -- this is certainly an interesting discussion. Actually, I have been thinking about acquiring a weapon. Not a gun - for me that would spell disaster. I don't have to ask anyone else, I just know for me - it ain't a choice.
But, I have been thinking about learning to handle a knife. Learning to handle and throw a 4-5 inch blade. This is not about brandishing it or showing off. Just gaining the skill to handle it ( which I am not sure about ) and having it in a holster inside my shirt.
I am a later middle -aged, not in such great shape female with very bad knees. (staying outside taking nature photos is my self-improvement plan).
The incident that started me thinking about this was an early morning kayak trip alone into a swamp area. I paddle a "foldable" kayak - ie, it's just a frame with fabric covering. I encountered a male on the return trip that made a point of countering my paddling to get to the side of the channel away from him. I realized that with a fabric kayak I was at a real disadvantage to someone meaning me ill. My response was to basically ignore him. I focused on some reeds as the most fascinating thing I had ever seen - some creature hidden inside. The man hovered for a while and then finally passed on by. Other than an original nod to say Hi, which didn't get a comfortable response from him, I made no notice of him. I just pretented indifference.
Still this did alarm me. If someone did continue to approach me in a manner showing they did not mean good, I might pull out a knife indicating that I would not go down easy! I don't frighten easily and have often found that a determined look will put off goons.
still, i would need to find an teacher, buy the correct knife.
Does anyone have these skills and could comment? would be appreciated.
Though I am licensed to do so, I do not carry a concealed weapon. However, if the situation ever arose where I had to in order to protect my family, I am very well prepared (with skills - physical and mental - and equipment) to do so.
If my job required me to walk dangerous urban streets, I would find a new job. If I lived in a crime-ridden neighborhood, I would move. But at the same time, if the state or locality in which I reside made it difficult or imposssible for me to make my own decision about firearms ownership, that would give me as much (if not more) reason to move.
In response to the original post, I never "carried" while out enjoying nature photography. The places I typically go have never given me reason to do so. If I lived in Alaska and spent time in bear country, I might carry a large caliber revolver with heavy bullets for use as an absolute last resort. But like Guy said, the skills of avoidance should carry the day 99% of the time.
Human predators while afield is a bit different, and I can sympathize with our fellow female members. Some of the stories I have heard may prompt me to carry a weapon, especially when "flying solo" far away from civilization, if I was in their shoes.
One final note, one that is almost impossible to communicate with the written word. Some would believe that the typical armed citizen is an "anti-social shooting accident" waiting to happen. Fot those who take responsible carrying of a firearm seriously (as they should), nothing could be further from the truth. As with any tool, proficiency brings confidence, and confidence brings objectivity and a clear mind under pressure. This clearness of mind is what actually deters many bad situations, because all predators have an uncanny sense for fear and confusion in their intended victims.
The confidence in knowing that you possess the skills, tools and mindset to successfully protect yourself is a huge deterence in itself. And as Guy will tell you, when you get really good at this you won't even need a gun.
I want to say that I appreciate everyone's opinion on this topic and I have a great deal of respect for each and every one that has posted a reply. This is not an easy subject to discuss, and like every Hot Topic discussion on this forum you have all taken the high road in expressing your opinions and ideas. I am so grateful to be a part of this magical experience where people can exchange ideas without flames, in a very civil manner, and learn something from each other.
In my initial post I wrongly extended my fears when I shoot at night in what I described as "diverse" areas to others that trek into the woods to shoot wildlife in its natural habitat. Honestly, I've never felt a need to arm myself in such a situation. On the other hand, I routinely place myself and my equipment in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Orlando; places populated with crack-whores, drug dealers, thieves, murderers and less desirable creatures. Stupid? Maybe. This is where the old buildings are that I want to photograph at night. One of the neighborhoods with the most interesting buildings, most historic buildings, is also a neighborhood where not a week goes by without a drug-related murder. I will be there doing my business when I choose, but I refuse to be a victim. I am prepared for two-legged predators.
Again thank you to all that participated, and those that share beyond this post.
Kelly, you have a lot more courage than I do! Ideally, finding an Orlando PO who is also a photography buff may be worth the effort - having an off duty cop with you during your inner city ventures would be a very nice insurance policy.
Ultimately, only you can judge whether the photos justify the risks.
Kelly, it's clear you are in a lot more danger in your chosen photographic environment than I am in mine. I have worked in Minneapolis and spent a lot of time in Chicago and Denver. I dislike large cities so much I'll do almost anything to avoid going into them. In retrospect, my occasionally carrying a pistol into the wilderness for safety issues seems fatuous compared with the level of likely violence you face where you go. I salute the dedication to your craft and the courage that takes you to those places.
When I was young, I counted on situational awareness and physical speed and agility to keep me out of trouble with dangerous animals (mostly homo sapiens males...every woman who's gone out in the wilds has no doubt had similar problems.) Back then, I was very fast across country (orienteering experience in the military) and also knew some dirty tricks for dealing with someone who grabbed hold. It never occurred to me to carry a firearm. (I kept imagining the embarrassing headlines--back then the papers were full of Vietnam vets going bonkers and shooting people. Just imagine the damage to my unit if it were "Female [branch:unit] veteran kills hunters..." I figured if I had to bludgeon someone with a branch, it wouldn't be taken as a militaristic insanity, but genuine self-defense.)
However--forty-odd years later--I am on the verge of changing my mind. Recently, increasing development in the several counties around us has meant the increasing population of large, aggressive dogs, which their owners (who bought these dogs for protection) often let run loose when the owner is not at home. Several people have been mauled by packs of dogs, and a few--including a woman only a few years older than me across the county, and a young, fit teenage girl only a few miles away-- have been killed by large, aggressive dogs roaming up to a mile or more away from their owner's property. It was the killing of this older woman that prompted me to consider carrying a firearm when I go out in the field. Though I carry a staff, which could certainly deter one dog, I'm not at all confident that I could fight off a pack. We have evidence that large loose dogs (not just coyotes) have come onto our property.
Considering everything else I'm usually carrying, the rifle is too heavy and bulky (and not the best for close-in work anyway), so I've considered getting a handgun. (My mother had two, and first taught me to shoot when I was quite young, but eventually got rid of hers because her house was broken into twice while she was at work and she was afraid the next burglar would find and use them.) Sprays designed to fend off a predator might work...but again, not if the pack had me surrounded, and in our frequently windy weather, I could end up disabling myself. (And, again from experience, I was in a bad situation with rural dogs once as a teenager--they were just like wolves in knowing how to work together.)
Haven't done it yet--for one thing, it's been so long since I fired a handgun that I need a good basic course before I get one, plus time and a safe place to practice. Haven't located that yet, within my driving distance and available time. But...I have no problem with shooting domestic animals on a rampage--dogs running sheep or cattle, dogs attacking people--or any animal that acts as if it has a neurological disease, such as rabies (we have shot sick raccoons to take for analysis to the state lab)--or an animal in distress (caught in a trap, tangled in a fence and too injured to survive.). So though my answer for now is "No, I don't carry," my answer in 6-12 months might be different.
Not to worry, John, I wouldn't have taken it personally. And it's not like a .357 round will carry from Ely to Washington, anyway.
And I agree with you. Knowing that you can put a round where you want to in a target is only the first step to accuracy, because paper targets don't move and aren't sprinting toward you with a meal or mayhem in their minds.
I'm surprised this thread turned to using handguns against animals. I doubt I could hit any attacking animal with a pistol. So what does that leave? "Opening up" on a predator that may be stalking?
I doubt a mountain lion has every attacked anyone who stood their ground. Predator cats simply must pounce if the prey turns. It's a very strong genetic response.
I've only been threatened by humans. Not sure what the best answer is there. In very remote areas, probably having a gun in hand but concealed, I guess. I know having very defined boundaries set up mentally before hand helps a lot.
If I were a woman I simply would not photograph in some areas. I think if I were a woman and in the wilderness I would simply shoot any guy who got within 50 feet of me.
The trouble with firearm training is that it teaches how to use a gun. An FBI agent I knew said his primary firearm skill was how NOT to use (or point) a gun. He had pride in the fact that in thirty years he had never pointed a gun at a suspect.
Posted by Harry Ogloff on July 3, 2006 at 11:29 PM
John, you are right on the money carrying a first aid kit. Also emergency supplies such as water, warm clothes, matches, candles and even a flare gun should all be manditory...especially if you are hiking alone. It is very easy to break an ankle and end up stranded when foul weather arives. Too many people in my neck of the woods ( British Columbia ) go out unprepared and need to have the search and rescue crew called out. A little education on the terrain and weather ahead of your trip goes a long way towards making it a safe trip.
Interesting discussion and point of views. To the first point I prefer to have a proper insurance, and I would rather hand over the gear than draw a gun. But then again I do live in Norway and I have never heard of anyone beeing involved in armed robbery in wilderness. But I do some travelling in Africa mostly to remote wilderness areas. I remember the first time on safari that I prefered that the ranger had guns with them. Now I do the opposite irrespective of we are on foot , boat or car. The reason is simply without the gun I feel that we are more attentive to the "personal perimeter" of the animal and do not take chanches that can stress the animal and be potentialy dangerous to us ....
John, can you put that in perspective of some other statistics, like:
1) Chances of getting assaulted in the first place (is it anecdotal or recurring with any significance?)
2) Chances of suffering/inflicting accidental death or injuries by your own weapon
3) Chances of successfully using a firearm in the event of a typical assault
My thinkikng is that if we took every anecdotal risk as deserving some extreme mitigating action we would all live in reinforced concrete rooms with padded walls and avoid pretty much any activity.
Shoot the first guy entering my 50 foot bubble!! In the crowded east, sounds like population control!!
My current wilderness interest is a "nature reserve" about 30 miles from my home. The entire preserve is 40 acres! I've been there 3 times. The first thing I pass leaving the area is a "bikers" bar with lots of bikes and bike owners, gives a "wild" feeling for sure.
I certainly won't go to this preserve on a regular schedule! Going at 6 am is probably safe enough. Ah, the joys of nature photography is NY.
It depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In any case not for the reason of protecting my camera equipment - that can always be replaced. The odds are in the majority of cases that you will never need a firearm but there are times and places where not having one would simply be foolish. Of course those not trained and familiar with firearms are probably better off either not frequenting dangerous territory or if they do to do so in the company of someone who is capable, experienced and armed.
In the vast majority of cases wildlife are not serious threats to humans nor are other humans. On the other hand there are places where I've traveled and photographed that not having protection would simply be downright foolish. Certain areas on the border between Mexico and the US in Arizona are dangerous. Drug runners frequent the area and have absolutely no qualms about taking human life. Arguments such as "I'm good in a fight" or "I don't need a weapon to defend myself - my brain is the best weapon" simply don't obtain. These argument come from people who have never been had the unfortunate experience of being shot (I have) and have never faced a person with a firearm or knife bent on taking their life.
Obviously, the counter argument is don't go to these places which you know are dangerous. That's an excellent suggestion. Most people who shoot Polar Bear such as from Terra Buggies or such in Churchill have absolutely no need for protection. On the other hand those who travel in some of these remote areas rife with Polar Bear via dog sled or by pickup or jeep on photo expeditions (I've done all the above) run the very real risk of becoming a meal.
There are areas in the back country of Alaska where backpacking or kayaking is dangerous for the unarmed photographer. A photo safari on foot in parts of Africa's bush or India's Tiger country can make you a potential meal. If you are not armed, you better be with a guide who is. Of course this doesn't apply to the vast majority of photographers who never venture further than a US National Park and who's photo expeditions are guided trips abroad.
It's all relative to your own habits and where and how you choose to travel. There are no canned answers - only what works for the individual.
The only time I felt threatened was at a local pond which was surrounded by wild flowers and covered in water lilies. There was only one other vehicle there and as I started down the trail around the pond the man who owned the vehicle followed and got closer and closer. Once I realized I was in danger, I turned to confront him and as I did my tripod made a wide swath that nearly caught him on the chin. Startled, he turned and left in a hurry. There is a use for a tripod after all! I think the most dangerous animal of all is man, especially armed.
Have Gun-Will Travel----I have delt with bears, gators, Eastern Diamondbacks, cottonmouth, and a few bugs big enough to carve steaks out of and have never felt the need to reach for a gun. But that gun has saved the lives of two Indians, and some white trash in the last 35 years by the display of a disportional amount of force at the right moment in time. If you don`t like guns the next time you hear glass breaking at two am in your home call dile-a-prayer. A gun is a tool, it is neither good or bad, you can kill using a shovel.
Posted by Don Miller on September 12, 2006 at 12:21 PM
I'm still wondering when we will have the first accidental 'shoot-out' between NPN members.
Very interesting and thought-provoking thread!
I have to say, as a women who is often out alone in pretty remote places shooting (urban and wild) , I'm far more concerned with 2-legged critters wanting to do me harm. I always have Mace and a large knife with me, and occasionally carry a handgun. The knife and mace are on my belt most of the time, and the gun in the backpack, requiring a bit of thought to use.
I would have no hesitation to use any and all of these, if the situation warranted.
I'm far more concerned with aggressive dogs and rotten people than being a wolf's lunch - that seems far remote to me.
Sandy R
Updated: During my recent trip to Nova Scotia in October 2010, we learned of a hiking solitary woman who was attacked and killed by a small group of coyotes. This appears to be the first documented death of an adult from coyotes.
Posted by Darren White on September 23, 2006 at 7:50 PM
wholly moly, this got lots of replies...and I am not gonna read all of them but I have often thought about this too....not so much for night shots of the city but more so because I often hike along in the forests and not so much because of other people.....but bears and cougars around here.....just like today I was up in the Mount Hood National Forest alone, early morning and I started feaking myself out thinking what would happen if I came upon a bear....what would I do....beat him off with my tripod....
I dont know.. this is a tough call....I say do whatever makes you feel safe and as long as its legal then your fine......
Say what you will, but the best video on utube is william shatner being robbed at gunpoint and he says here's my watch, here's my wallet, here's my gun, bang one in the knee, bang one in the left foot, bang on in the right foot. Robbery over.
Discussion
50 repliesI'm just wondering how many of us venture forth with some kind of personal protection device when get go on a photo shoot?
Personally I don't carry a firearm. I am not prepared to kill over camera gear and I am yet to hear of a violent thief who ventures into the wilderness in search of victims (kinda limits their chance of success, I would think).
Guy
Until recently, case law in the State of Florida required one to retreat if you could do so safely. Deadly force was never authorized for the purpose of protecting property; only human life. A bill recently signed by Governor Bush relieves a victim from the obligation to retreat even when it could be done safely. Whether I would use deadly force or the threat of deadly force against a camera thief depends on the circumstances. Is he armed or claiming to be armed? Has he threatened me with deadly force? Can I use it without placing myself or someone else in more danger? Does it appear that he will just go away if I leave him with the camera equipment? Threat assessment has to be made on a case by case basis. Every case comes with a unique set of circumstances that have to be evaluated on the spot. There are no pat answers.
Kelly
Vandit
I cannot imagine anyone holding another individual at gunpoint unless that individual has already commited to the use of deadly force. That would be illegal under Florida's firearms laws, a 3rd degree felony known as brandishing. Shooting someone without first seeing what is coming out from under their shirt, and acertaining that it is indeed a threat of deadly force, would likely make you a guest of the State for 20 years under our 10/20/Life law.
As a follow-on, my philosophy in the field is modeled after the physician's hippocratic oath: First, do no harm. I'm out there to revel in and experience nature in all its disparate forms and certainly don't won't to harm the beauty I seek or upset the balance in any way.
Lori
Here goes:
Photography aside, part of my personal wilderness experience is being able to live simply, to forfeit any artificial safety afforded to me by man-made technology and to rely on my own skills to get me in and out safely. Hiking deep into the wilderness is very different from hiking the same distance on a marked trail in a park, and knowing there's a shower and clean bed at the end of the day is very different from planning for and setting up a camp site, stowing your food, rationing your water, and cooking your own meals in the field. By the same token - knowing you have the option of killing any living being that threatens you will change how you act, appreciate, and feel in a natural surrounding. It's like looking at scenery go by from the safety of an air-conditioned car's window rather than slogging on foot and feeling the crunch of earth under your feet, the scent of vegetation, and the sounds/silence of the place and its inhabitants. The more you rely on your own (limited) skills, the more intense the experience - you have more to consider, more to know and learn, more to enjoy, and yes - more to fear. You are much closer to your primal state and that in itself is an emotional state few people even know these days.
Reliance on unfair advantages is addictive. I remember the day I was discharged form the military, after having a rifle with me 24 hours a day for the previous few years, I felt very exposed and vulnerable just walking down the street. In that scenario I knew I was the one who was mal-adjusted and needed to re-learn to be a civillian again. By the same logic - going into the wilds, you need to re-learn how to be part of the natural environment - not how to hold unfair/superior power over it, but to live in harmony with it, to become part of it, to understand what the threats really are and learn to mitigate and avoid them rather than just assume you can shoot a threat when you see it. In my humble view - it's not only tremendously rewarding on a personal level, but it makes one a better human being too.
Guy
Are you going to have time to decide that someone is ready to use deadly force and break out your weapon? And once your weapon is out, they've seen that your ready to use deadly force, you've decided that they're ready to use deadly force, don't you have some sort of stand off now?
What happens if you are wrong about his intent, you have your gun out now, isn't that brandishing?
I'd sure hate to pull the trigger and then be wrong.
Certainly, not everyone is as conscientious as maybe you two guys are but even still. So there I am, and you and another guy have guns pointed at each other... Tell you what, I'm running and you're on your own!
By me going out with a gun owner, my feeling is that I'm in more danger than without a gun. If NO gun is present then there is simply NO chance I'll get shot. If guns ARE present then there is a change I'll get shot.
My point is that I don't want you or anyone else with a gun, to define my level of safety. If you want to go shot em up, great, I don't want to be involved in any shape form or matter. I don't want to see the stand off, I don't want to see someone get hit by a bullet, I don't want to be involved in the rescue of the bleeding bad or good guy, I don't want to have to be a witness, I want no part of it.
Tell me this, If you insist we take a gun, and I insist we don't, who wins? You don't feel safe without it, I don't feel safe with it. Who gives in or do we go our separate ways?
If somebody is brandishing, then I'm busting out the wide angle at 2.8 to fill the frame. It's all about the decisive moment right? It could be my ticket to a dream job at the L.A. Times.
if I weren't armed with a camera, I'd likely feel more comfortable trying to disarm someone by hand and mind than with another gun because with two guns, there's almost total certainty somebody or both is going to die.
Carry a gun and you may very well be arming your attacker. Show a gun during a disagreement and you up the anti by several orders of magnitude. Shooting someone over camera gear would be the low point in a materialistic, self centered life. Baiting an animal and then killing it would prbably ruin your day and could sour photography for you for years.
My advice is from a song Johnny Cash used to sing: "Leave your guns at home son, don't take your guns to town."
1. Never take out a weapon unless you intend to use it.
2. Never point a weapon at anything unless you intend to kill it.
Unfortunately, too many armed people do not know or do not care to follow these two points. That is what leads to trouble. Mark's two guys standing out in the woods have announced their intent to use their weapons. By pointing them at each other, they have announced their intent to kill each other. If they succeed, we can present them with their Darwin awards.
I use "you" generically.
So I would say:
1. Never take out a gun unless you are ready to use it.
2. Never point a weapon at anyone or anything alive unless you are ready to kill.
Paul
I carry a small cannister of pepper spray & a knife on my belt. But I also carry my first aid kit, a snake bite kit, mosquito juice & snacks & water. All for 'being prepared' but only for encounters of the wild kind. None of the options are lethal so if a bear decides to chew on my butt, a blast of pepper spray may not change his mind...but there is a chance it might. Although yelling my head off is more likely a reason for him to high-tail it. (black bear country, not grizzlies) I don't know if I would hike or explore differently if I was permitted to carry a gun. I'm just glad I don't have to pack the extra weight
Also, many of the places we photograph (like National Parks) do not allow firearms.
Guy
Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada
Guy
You know, it's interesting. That's exactly how I feel, and I've been wandering in the woods for more than 30 years. But, though my outlook on what is likely is exactly the same as the rangers', I've looked at what COULD happen and have gone armed, rather than depending on what's LIKELY to happen. There's just no accounting for the differences between people.
John, if wolves go for the brains, I'm probably safe. Considering the size of my gut, it's the mountain lions I'd better worry about.
The staff at the International Wolf Center in Ely, in particular the curator there, use canned horn to stop wolf behavior the staff don't want. The horn in a can you see sometimes at sporting events and for marine use in boats. If the wolves are fighting and it gets too punitive and one of the animals is ganged up on and in danger of being severely injured or killed, and the staff see it happening, they'll take out the canned horn and let 'er rip. The wolves hate the loud noise and immediately desist. All cat species hate sharp piercing loud noises too, so such a thing could be a great alternative to a gun if a person worries about what COULD happen in the woods. And, come to think of it, such things might work in some situations in urban confrontation with other members of the most savage species in the world, too.
But, I have been thinking about learning to handle a knife. Learning to handle and throw a 4-5 inch blade. This is not about brandishing it or showing off. Just gaining the skill to handle it ( which I am not sure about ) and having it in a holster inside my shirt.
I am a later middle -aged, not in such great shape female with very bad knees. (staying outside taking nature photos is my self-improvement plan).
The incident that started me thinking about this was an early morning kayak trip alone into a swamp area. I paddle a "foldable" kayak - ie, it's just a frame with fabric covering. I encountered a male on the return trip that made a point of countering my paddling to get to the side of the channel away from him. I realized that with a fabric kayak I was at a real disadvantage to someone meaning me ill. My response was to basically ignore him. I focused on some reeds as the most fascinating thing I had ever seen - some creature hidden inside. The man hovered for a while and then finally passed on by. Other than an original nod to say Hi, which didn't get a comfortable response from him, I made no notice of him. I just pretented indifference.
Still this did alarm me. If someone did continue to approach me in a manner showing they did not mean good, I might pull out a knife indicating that I would not go down easy! I don't frighten easily and have often found that a determined look will put off goons.
still, i would need to find an teacher, buy the correct knife.
Does anyone have these skills and could comment? would be appreciated.
LG
If my job required me to walk dangerous urban streets, I would find a new job. If I lived in a crime-ridden neighborhood, I would move. But at the same time, if the state or locality in which I reside made it difficult or imposssible for me to make my own decision about firearms ownership, that would give me as much (if not more) reason to move.
In response to the original post, I never "carried" while out enjoying nature photography. The places I typically go have never given me reason to do so. If I lived in Alaska and spent time in bear country, I might carry a large caliber revolver with heavy bullets for use as an absolute last resort. But like Guy said, the skills of avoidance should carry the day 99% of the time.
Human predators while afield is a bit different, and I can sympathize with our fellow female members. Some of the stories I have heard may prompt me to carry a weapon, especially when "flying solo" far away from civilization, if I was in their shoes.
One final note, one that is almost impossible to communicate with the written word. Some would believe that the typical armed citizen is an "anti-social shooting accident" waiting to happen. Fot those who take responsible carrying of a firearm seriously (as they should), nothing could be further from the truth. As with any tool, proficiency brings confidence, and confidence brings objectivity and a clear mind under pressure. This clearness of mind is what actually deters many bad situations, because all predators have an uncanny sense for fear and confusion in their intended victims.
The confidence in knowing that you possess the skills, tools and mindset to successfully protect yourself is a huge deterence in itself. And as Guy will tell you, when you get really good at this you won't even need a gun.
In my initial post I wrongly extended my fears when I shoot at night in what I described as "diverse" areas to others that trek into the woods to shoot wildlife in its natural habitat. Honestly, I've never felt a need to arm myself in such a situation. On the other hand, I routinely place myself and my equipment in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Orlando; places populated with crack-whores, drug dealers, thieves, murderers and less desirable creatures. Stupid? Maybe. This is where the old buildings are that I want to photograph at night. One of the neighborhoods with the most interesting buildings, most historic buildings, is also a neighborhood where not a week goes by without a drug-related murder. I will be there doing my business when I choose, but I refuse to be a victim. I am prepared for two-legged predators.
Again thank you to all that participated, and those that share beyond this post.
Ultimately, only you can judge whether the photos justify the risks.
However--forty-odd years later--I am on the verge of changing my mind. Recently, increasing development in the several counties around us has meant the increasing population of large, aggressive dogs, which their owners (who bought these dogs for protection) often let run loose when the owner is not at home. Several people have been mauled by packs of dogs, and a few--including a woman only a few years older than me across the county, and a young, fit teenage girl only a few miles away-- have been killed by large, aggressive dogs roaming up to a mile or more away from their owner's property. It was the killing of this older woman that prompted me to consider carrying a firearm when I go out in the field. Though I carry a staff, which could certainly deter one dog, I'm not at all confident that I could fight off a pack. We have evidence that large loose dogs (not just coyotes) have come onto our property.
Considering everything else I'm usually carrying, the rifle is too heavy and bulky (and not the best for close-in work anyway), so I've considered getting a handgun. (My mother had two, and first taught me to shoot when I was quite young, but eventually got rid of hers because her house was broken into twice while she was at work and she was afraid the next burglar would find and use them.) Sprays designed to fend off a predator might work...but again, not if the pack had me surrounded, and in our frequently windy weather, I could end up disabling myself. (And, again from experience, I was in a bad situation with rural dogs once as a teenager--they were just like wolves in knowing how to work together.)
Haven't done it yet--for one thing, it's been so long since I fired a handgun that I need a good basic course before I get one, plus time and a safe place to practice. Haven't located that yet, within my driving distance and available time. But...I have no problem with shooting domestic animals on a rampage--dogs running sheep or cattle, dogs attacking people--or any animal that acts as if it has a neurological disease, such as rabies (we have shot sick raccoons to take for analysis to the state lab)--or an animal in distress (caught in a trap, tangled in a fence and too injured to survive.). So though my answer for now is "No, I don't carry," my answer in 6-12 months might be different.
Or not.
Elizabeth
And I agree with you. Knowing that you can put a round where you want to in a target is only the first step to accuracy, because paper targets don't move and aren't sprinting toward you with a meal or mayhem in their minds.
I doubt a mountain lion has every attacked anyone who stood their ground. Predator cats simply must pounce if the prey turns. It's a very strong genetic response.
I've only been threatened by humans. Not sure what the best answer is there. In very remote areas, probably having a gun in hand but concealed, I guess. I know having very defined boundaries set up mentally before hand helps a lot.
If I were a woman I simply would not photograph in some areas. I think if I were a woman and in the wilderness I would simply shoot any guy who got within 50 feet of me.
The trouble with firearm training is that it teaches how to use a gun. An FBI agent I knew said his primary firearm skill was how NOT to use (or point) a gun. He had pride in the fact that in thirty years he had never pointed a gun at a suspect.
1) Chances of getting assaulted in the first place (is it anecdotal or recurring with any significance?)
2) Chances of suffering/inflicting accidental death or injuries by your own weapon
3) Chances of successfully using a firearm in the event of a typical assault
My thinkikng is that if we took every anecdotal risk as deserving some extreme mitigating action we would all live in reinforced concrete rooms with padded walls and avoid pretty much any activity.
Guy
My current wilderness interest is a "nature reserve" about 30 miles from my home. The entire preserve is 40 acres! I've been there 3 times. The first thing I pass leaving the area is a "bikers" bar with lots of bikes and bike owners, gives a "wild" feeling for sure.
I certainly won't go to this preserve on a regular schedule! Going at 6 am is probably safe enough. Ah, the joys of nature photography is NY.
LG
It depends. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. In any case not for the reason of protecting my camera equipment - that can always be replaced. The odds are in the majority of cases that you will never need a firearm but there are times and places where not having one would simply be foolish. Of course those not trained and familiar with firearms are probably better off either not frequenting dangerous territory or if they do to do so in the company of someone who is capable, experienced and armed.
In the vast majority of cases wildlife are not serious threats to humans nor are other humans. On the other hand there are places where I've traveled and photographed that not having protection would simply be downright foolish. Certain areas on the border between Mexico and the US in Arizona are dangerous. Drug runners frequent the area and have absolutely no qualms about taking human life. Arguments such as "I'm good in a fight" or "I don't need a weapon to defend myself - my brain is the best weapon" simply don't obtain. These argument come from people who have never been had the unfortunate experience of being shot (I have) and have never faced a person with a firearm or knife bent on taking their life.
Obviously, the counter argument is don't go to these places which you know are dangerous. That's an excellent suggestion. Most people who shoot Polar Bear such as from Terra Buggies or such in Churchill have absolutely no need for protection. On the other hand those who travel in some of these remote areas rife with Polar Bear via dog sled or by pickup or jeep on photo expeditions (I've done all the above) run the very real risk of becoming a meal.
There are areas in the back country of Alaska where backpacking or kayaking is dangerous for the unarmed photographer. A photo safari on foot in parts of Africa's bush or India's Tiger country can make you a potential meal. If you are not armed, you better be with a guide who is. Of course this doesn't apply to the vast majority of photographers who never venture further than a US National Park and who's photo expeditions are guided trips abroad.
It's all relative to your own habits and where and how you choose to travel. There are no canned answers - only what works for the individual.
Best regards,
Lin
I have to say, as a women who is often out alone in pretty remote places shooting (urban and wild) , I'm far more concerned with 2-legged critters wanting to do me harm. I always have Mace and a large knife with me, and occasionally carry a handgun. The knife and mace are on my belt most of the time, and the gun in the backpack, requiring a bit of thought to use.
I would have no hesitation to use any and all of these, if the situation warranted.
I'm far more concerned with aggressive dogs and rotten people than being a wolf's lunch - that seems far remote to me.
Sandy R
Updated: During my recent trip to Nova Scotia in October 2010, we learned of a hiking solitary woman who was attacked and killed by a small group of coyotes. This appears to be the first documented death of an adult from coyotes.
I dont know.. this is a tough call....I say do whatever makes you feel safe and as long as its legal then your fine......