Electric Bear Fence

Seems like bear cannisters are a big experiment. How will they impact bear behavior, over time? Will they make hikers safer or less so?

I worry about the scenario where a bear finds a can, smells food inside, and spends a frustrating 15-30 minutes trying to get in, but can’t. The bear probably goes into an appetite frenzy…and then notices, hey, there’s something else nearby that smells the same…coming from that tent.

Maybe, crazy as it sounds, we should be hanging bear cans to lessen the possibility of the bear playing with it.

?

Interesting commentary, but it is a strange mixture of fact, rumor, and pure speculation. It jumps back and forth among grizzly bears, black bears, and Alaska brown bears, Eastern and Western bears — often lumping them all together. According to Herrero, the total number of people killed by bears is divided about equally between black and grizzly bears. It surprised me too. The grizzly attacks tend to be defensive, though of course not all of them are. The black bear attacks appear to be mostly predatory attacks by occasional psycho bears. Bears seem to be a lot like people. <g>

Alaskan fatalities are still another story. The bears sound like they are more aggressive in general, but there are not very many fatal cases to generalize from. The Treadwell case is unusual, but so was Treadwell.

As I recall, few or none of the fatal attacks have been in California, at least not in my lifetime. I have been backpacking in the Cascades and Sierra for over half a century, and I see bears from time to time. In the past 10 or 12 years, I have managed three to five trips in the Sierra each summer, and I camp near fresh bear tracks or scat fairly often. I have been using canisters for almost ten years now and have never had a bear even tip one over. A friend who also hikes a lot had his chewed on once in the middle 1990’s, when they were still a new device, but not since. While there may be rare cases of bears spending a lot of time trying to get into a canister and even an occasional success, my experience is that most bears have learned that they are not food, no matter what they smell like. They are NOT like cars, most of which are easy to open [for bears]. I think canisters have been a fantastic success.

Ryan asks “Are we sensationalizing . . .?” I would say “Yes, in the extreme.” Most of the grizzly fatalities I have read about in the Lower 48 did not even involve eating their victims. There are no such cases on the West Coast. The East seems to make everyone a bit meaner, including black bears. <g>

Ryan discusses pepper spray and electric fences. Others mention guns, and the Park people sometimes use rubber bullets. I suspect that more of all of these could help keep the bears afraid of people. Note that the wonderful 44 Magnums probably do more for confidence than safety. Unless you are an expert with a hand gun, youprobably won’t even hit a charging bear with a hand gun, and compared to a shotgun, a 44 Magnum hand gun is a pop gun. Herrero recommends a shotgun when needed for protection against grizzly or Alaskan bears, but with all the obvious caveats about hikers blasting everything in sight.

But Ryan seems to have a second agenda dear to the heart of the fanatic ultralighters — “Don’t make us carry bear canisters.” The paragraph about what MIGHT happen in the Sierra as a result of using canisters is a combination of non sequiturs and the wildest speculation, and is counter to any facts I am aware of. Instead, how about setting up roving check points on the PCT and arresting every hiker without proper food protection. Then, maybe ALL the bears would leave us alone, as MOST of them do now. <g>

Donald, good comments. A few responses.

>> but it is a strange mixture of fact, rumor, and pure speculation.

Agree 100%. Bottom line is that there is precious little data to work with. I’ve tried to ditch the rumor part of it, but not the speculation. That’s intentional.

>> The grizzly attacks tend to be defensive

The ones I mention specifically in the editorial were predatory. I’m not real concerned about defensive attacks by grizzlies. You really can’t do much to “manage” that aside from hiking in large groups and making a bunch of noise, not hiking at dusk/dawn/night etc. One purpose of the editorial was to ask the question: “can we manage predatory attacks better?”

>> Alaskan fatalities are still another story. The bears sound like they are more aggressive in general…

In the ANWR and interior, maybe. Based on what I’ve read, they don’t seem any more or less hostile than bears in Glacier or Yellowstone. They are truly “wild” bears. All of these populations (AK interior, MT) are quite aggressive, relative to AK coastal bears, which tend to be well fed (salmon) and quite docile (at least until the salmon quit running, but by that time most tourists and hikers are gone anyway). They are very tolerant of humans, not because they are used to them, but because they aren’t really a threat to their food source.

>> but there are not very many fatal cases to generalize from.

Yes, we “need” more data, unfortunately :)

>> As I recall, few or none of the fatal attacks have been in California

That’s right.

>> I have been using canisters for almost ten years now and have never had a bear even tip one over.

You are going to the right places then. The areas I’m speaking about are primarily those backcountry locales where habituated bears live.

>> I think canisters have been a fantastic success.

Success, if it’s measured by keeping bears from food, I agree. I’m posing the question for discussion (and not necessarily advancing the position) that canisters *may* have a habituation downside, a theory supported by long term observation at those camps in the Sierras where habituated bears are active.

>> Most of the grizzly fatalities I have read about in the Lower 48 did not even involve eating their victims.

Most fatalities are defense attacks, not predation. Predation fatalities nearly always results in the bear eating their victim.

>> But Ryan seems to have a second agenda dear to the heart of the fanatic ultralighters — “Don’t make us carry bear canisters.”

No, no, not at all, actually. I’m happy to carry a canister where it’s required. 2 lbs is really not that big of a deal if it means keeping your going by saving your food.

>> The paragraph about what MIGHT happen in the Sierra as a result of using canisters is a combination of non sequiturs and the wildest speculation

Yes, agreed. I do want to foster open discussion that is a little out of the box, however.

Good points, thank you.

Ryan

This is a very interesting topic. Although there are general rules for “bear country” not all bear country is the same. Dr. Jordan was right on when he noted the difference between the Coastal bears and Interior bears. They behave differently. Although there is still alot of research being done, there are about 3 cases where a bear in the Interior specifically targeted people for food.

The Hula Hula attack was an interesting one. The Huffmans were well practiced in bear country and took many precautions to prevent attacks. They were not tourist that didn’t have a clue. It is a very sad attack. Are Alaskan bears more aggressive in general? It depends and alot of these comments stated earlier are “speculation.” The predatoary bear attack is not normal for Alaska (although it has happened and will continue to happen) and worries alot of biologist. The 9 year old bear from the Hula Hula attack was taken to the Fairbanks Fish and Game office.

Having used portable electric fences, they certainly have their place. I used them in camp while doing research for Fish and Game. One a side note, this is not “new” technology. Electric fences have been used for years in Alaska. I don’t see, however using them my self while backpacking.

One note about pepper spray in Canada (response to another post), in Alaska if you are backpacking and start in Alaska and backpack into Canada you can carry pepper spray. You cannot, however drive to Canada with that pepper spray.

So do we fear enough for our lives that we need a gun? It depends I guess. I have taken guns and pepper spray. We possessed guns in field camp and pepper spray. One interesting thing is pepper spary versus guns. Research shows no significant difference between those carrying guns and those carrying pepper spray that got attacked. A gun will not do any good if you don’t know how to use it, nor will pepper spray. Although pepper spray is easy to use, when faced with fear it can be difficult. (Although don’t test spray your pepper spray!)
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/brownbears/pepperspray/pepperspray.htm

If you do have a gun and have killed a predatory bear in Alaska, you have to pack out the hide, claws, and skull and turn this into to the Fish&Game Office … I guess that would ruin you base weight, not to mention skinning a bear is a messy process that we might not be prepared to do with our “ultralight” knives. I have used pepper spray on an attacking bear and it has not worked to get rid of the bear. (To be used effectively, pepper spray must hit the eyes and nose of the attacking bear).

Interesting enough, there haven’t been attacks on groups sized 6 or more.

A good article published in the ADN (Anchorage Daily News) can be found here:
http://www.adn.com/outdoors/craig_medred/story/6717777p-6605075c.html

Let’s face it: predaceous attacks are rare. As long as we are doing all that we can, we shouldn’t fear. Part of the lure of bear country is the fact that everything isn’t controlled, if we want protection and peace we can go to the zoo where animals are caged. When we go to the backcountry, we are no longer the big guys on the food chain and we have to respect that.

I think humans are generally extremely bad at sorting out risks. Especially when the risk of a spectacular, messy death is involved.

A hiker is far more likely to die from bee stings than from a bear attack. But you don’t see anyone carrying bee repellent (even if such a thing exists). You don’t see National Parks giving handouts and videos about “bee safe camping” (although the alliterative possibilities are quite impressive).

Other than the fact that humans are very bad at math and statistics, why is this so?

I think it is mostly because bears are kind of cool. Let’s face it, they are the most interesting large animal a hiker in North America is likely to see. We have a complicated kinship relationship with them, and they are a symbol of untamed America on a par with the buffalo and bald eagle (by the way, I saw an eagle this morning just down the hill from my house — the steelhead are running and it was feeding well — made my morning). We humans have coexisted with bears for our entire history, and the body count has been enormously in the human’s favor.

It is a great and wonderful thing to see a bear out in the wild. Kind of a privilege, too. Most of the time I suspect the bears are well clear of us before we even have a chance to see them (I’d steer well clear of humans too if I were any bear). I’d miss them if they were gone.

If the point of being in the wilderness is maximum safety (which it can’t possibly be!), it is logical to start with the risks that are most likely to end in painful death. So we’d need to get rid of thunderstorms and bees before we started on the bears…

I’d agree with Ryan’s assertion that present bear management policies might well be making for bigger bear problems down the road. I think that is a very safe prediction based on the track record of the agencies involved. The NPS and Forest Service are staffed with nice, well-meaning people (most of the time). But they have a profound history of well-intentioned mismanagement.

I think humans are generally extremely bad at sorting out risks. Especially when the risk of a spectacular, messy death is involved.

A hiker is far more likely to die from bee stings than from a bear attack. But you don’t see anyone carrying bee repellent (even if such a thing exists). You don’t see National Parks giving handouts and videos about “bee safe camping” (although the alliterative possibilities are quite impressive).

Other than the fact that humans are very bad at math and statistics, why is this so?

I think it is mostly because bears are kind of cool. Let’s face it, they are the most interesting large animal a hiker in North America is likely to see. We have a complicated kinship relationship with them, and they are a symbol of untamed America on a par with the buffalo and bald eagle (by the way, I saw an eagle this morning just down the hill from my house — the steelhead are running and it was feeding well — made my morning). We humans have coexisted with bears for our entire history, and the body count has been enormously in the human’s favor.

It is a great and wonderful thing to see a bear out in the wild. Kind of a privilege, too. Most of the time I suspect the bears are well clear of us before we even have a chance to see them (I’d steer well clear of humans too if I were any bear). I’d miss them if they were gone.

If the point of being in the wilderness is maximum safety (which it can’t possibly be!), it is logical to start with the risks that are most likely to end in painful death. So we’d need to get rid of thunderstorms and bees before we started on the bears…

I’d agree with Ryan’s assertion that present bear management policies might well be making for bigger bear problems down the road. I think that is a very safe prediction based on the track record of the agencies involved. The NPS and Forest Service are staffed with nice, well-meaning people (most of the time). But they have a profound history of well-intentioned mismanagement.

My backpacking territory extends throughout the Southwest (Colorado to California). Being outdoors is my passion. I feel fortunate to have encountered many wild animals including black bears, big horn sheep, wolfs, cougars even diamond backs in their natural environments without ever an incident. I feel that has something to do with having a serious respect for all wildlife. I also feel canisters, electric fences and guns will never replace common sense.

Roger, that’s absolutely right.

The Wilderness would be a more boring place without a few objective dangers. We can make up all the subjective ones we want.

Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh cool!

Lots of interesting comments since I posted my original thoughts. Kevin, if you’re interested in documentation about incidents in SEKI, the White Mountain RS in Bishop is a good place to start. That’s where I picked up most of my info. Also one second hand report from a friend of a guy that got bear-handled in Mitre Basin(he went back with a .357 after he got out of the hospital-don’t know how he fared). Ken, I agree; I, too, will take my chances. But I have never carried a canister and so far so good. My strategy is to be where they ain’t, which is in the remoter parts of Sequoia NP. I have gotten away with it so far by camping high and dry where there’s nothing to attract bears, including other humans. I call it “coyote camping”. As for Bearikade failure, according to the folks at Wilson’s Eastside Sports, even properly closed canisters have distorted enough to spring the lids. Don’t know if that’s valid, but they seem generally to be pretty knowledgeable. Keep the good comments coming, this is a subject near and dear to my heart and general sense of self preservation. Bottom line: They’re bigger, faster, meaner and plenty smart. Interesting odds.

Ryan,
I suggest you contact the Park’s biologist at Sequoia Kings NP if you are looking for more real world data. They would be happy to talk to you if you explained the purpose. The park has been using bear cans for at least 15 years and as far as I know (at least as of 2002 when I last worked there) has never had a failure of a can except due to human error, such as not seating or latching the lid properly. They have also tried wiring entire cars with electricity with little long term effects. Sure the bears didn’t like it but they soon just learned to avoid that make and model of car. This is similar to how the bears seem to have learned that bear cans can not be opened and they don’t bother with them any more. When bear cans first went into use bears would spend hours trying to get into them, but now it is rare even in highly used areas for bears to spend any time playing with a can and most often will not even touch them. The Sequoia website is http://www.nps.gov/seki they have some info on the site and you can find there main contact phone number there. Hope you find it usefull.

Anyone have experience backpacking solo in grizzly country? Wondering if chances of attack are really greater when solo.

Yes, the majority of my backpacking (distance wise at least) in the Yellowstone area is solo.

I’ve seen many more grizzlies while solo or with a single partner than as part of a group of 3 or more. Why? To speculate: while solo or with a partner, we’re making less noise, generally. Less on-trail conversation. In addition, while solo or with a partner, I hike earlier and later in the day, and most (80%+) of my grizzly encounters and sightings have been in the magic hours of 5 am to 9 am.

On the flip side, both times I’ve had seemingly predatory bears enter a camp, I was in a group of 4-6 people. The bear I talked about above that was after the gut pile of a recently shot elk, there were three of us.

I have more than once been false-charged by grizzlies…not at all pleasant. Still sometimes I “pack” when out there, sometimes not…that’s when I’m alone…when I have the kids along, I take a very large bear preventer…call me a wuss if you want.. to me it is no different from taking an avalanche probe in winter, or a spare tire for that matter. Bill

I have more than once been false-charged by grizzlies…not at all pleasant. Still sometimes I “pack” when out there, sometimes not…that’s when I’m alone…when I have the kids along, I take a very large bear preventer…call me a wuss if you want.. to me it is no different from taking an avalanche probe in winter, or a spare tire for that matter. Bill

The discussion may or may not be far out of the box IMHO, Ryan. Recent events in the upper part of the Bubbs Creek drainage, between Vidette Meadows and Forrester Pass show an ominous trend. While no actual bear predation of humans has occurred, yet, there have been several injuries in recent years, and earlier this year Center Basin was closed to overnight camping due to extremely aggressive bear behavior resulting in at least one injury. And this is in an area where park rangers rigorously enforce regulations requiring the use of canisters. Bluff charging has occurred in this area. It seems to me that the bears, or at least a subset of the population is edging closer and closer to “the Line”. I, personally, have avoided this area for years now in favor the remoter reaches of Sequoia NP, where there are very few people and even fewer bears, canister free, and so far unscathed.

The discussion may or may not be far out of the box IMHO, Ryan. Recent events in the upper part of the Bubbs Creek drainage, between Vidette Meadows and Forrester Pass show an ominous trend. While no actual bear predation of humans has occurred, yet, there have been several injuries in recent years, and earlier this year Center Basin was closed to overnight camping due to extremely aggressive bear behavior resulting in at least one injury. And this is in an area where park rangers rigorously enforce regulations requiring the use of canisters. Bluff charging has occurred in this area. It seems to me that the bears, or at least a subset of the population is edging closer and closer to “the Line”. I, personally, have avoided this area for years now in favor the remoter reaches of Sequoia NP, where there are very few people and even fewer bears, canister free, and so far unscathed.

Good article and comments.

I just want to add that Treadwell and his girlfriend were far from smart and did things that any bear aware person would not do.

Camping on a known bear path and singing to an advancing large male grizzly makes Treadwell my “Darwin Award” winner for all time. His girlfriend paid the price as well for his stupidity.

I don’t blame the bear in this case.

You certainly did foster discussion — lots more interesting comments from you and others.

Re the areas I go, most are popular High Sierra areas. Many are higher than bears tend to go, but I read stories that bears have been moving higher following food sources [Our food? Us? <g>]. However, many of my campsites are in prime, habituated bear territory. For example, in 1996, I camped in the hardened campsite area just SE of the Muir Trail Ranch. Other hikers told me a bear was visiting each camp site every night [and probably doing pretty well]. There were plenty of fresh tracks. Canisters were not nearly as common then, but the bear ignored mine [the old 3 lb Garcia model]. On the same trip, I rounded a bend above McClure Meadow and came upon a big old bear sitting in the middle of the trail a few yards ahead, watching some horse packers setting camp across a small meadow. He seemed to be speculating on what he would find there for dinner. He moved
grudingly when I yelled about my superior right to the trail, but only went a few yards off and continued watching the packers. My point is that there have been plenty of habituated bears for many years, but they [most] seemed to learn very quickly that canisters were not food sources. By contrast, I was in Vidette Meadows in 1999, where they have the large, steel bear boxes. We were not bothered at Lower Viddette, but a bear apparently spent a long night trying to get into a box at Upper Viddette. Go figure.

I should add that I am definitely not a stealth camper. It seems to work fine for a small number of skilled campers, but it would be a disaster if everyone tried to do it.

The main thing that has struck me about your [and other’s]canister concerns re bear behavior is that the same arguments seem to apply to ALL other forms of safe guarding food, except possibly negative reinforcement.

Hanging hiding, or otherwise protecting food seems to present all the same problems, except that the bears get a better ratio of intermittent reinforcement. This makes it more likely that they will persist in going after hikers’ food. While we are speculating, which seems more likely to be POed, the bear that never gets food from people or the one that usually does, but can’t get yours on a given night? Part of the Sierra bear problem is that much of our camping is at elevations where there are trees, but none large enough to hang food properly, so bears have learned to go after anything in a tree and many have learned to get even properly hung food.

Similarly, in Tom Kirchner’s example of bluff-charging bears in Center Basin, bear canisters do not strike me as the obvious culprit. Tom, are you [or Ryan] suggesting that we make our food easier for the bears to get so they won’t become frustrated? How about dropping our food and running if we see a bear coming toward us? <g> And while Center Basin is not really off the beaten path, it is not one of the most heavily used Sierra areas. Your post sort of suggests there is a group of bears that is becoming agressive there. True? Or is a single clever rogue?

FWIW, I just checked the Wild Ideas [Bearakade] website

http://www.wild-ideas.net/news/news.html

They claim no food has ever been lost to a bear, and have a picture of a September 2005 sign [supposedly from the Tyndall Ranger] describing an agressive bear NORTH of Forester Pass that has been opening Bear Vault canisters and swiped one person. Could this be the same story? If it is only one of several such bears, maybe it is a “trend.”

My sense is the opposite of Tom’s. Sixty years ago, when I first started camping in the National Parks and Forests, bears were MUCH more habituated and there were many incidents in the heavily used areas [car camps]. Back country bears routinely raided food, and they gradually got smarter as we learned better ways to protect the food. However, I have seen nothing to suggest to me that they are getting closer to “the Line” in terms of attacking people as prey, certainly not as a result of using canisters. Again, what alternative do you propose? We either give them our food, or we frustrate them a bit. And I don’t think many bears are actually frustrated by canisters, at least not for long.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have my own agenda, and that is what set me off. I am anti the anti-canister movement. I have it from a usually reliable source <g> that some of the PCT through hikers and other ultralighters have been advocating ignoring the canister requirements. I am sure some get away with it without losing food. There is a problem [from the bears’ perspective] — so many hikers, so little time. However, it only takes an occasional reinforcement to keep the bears looking to humans for food. IMHO, the anti-canister approach is an anti-social effort by a small group who just don’t care if risking their food has consequences for everyone else. It is a little bit like people who want to race their cars on the public roads.

Don Horst

Hi Don,
Sorry if I was unclear about the bluff charging. It has occurred more than once in the general area of Upper Bubbs Creek-Kearsarge Pass on to Center Basin according to ranger postings at trail heads and White Mtn RS. Dropping packs and running is probably what the bears have in mind. Then they can rummage around for trailfood, etc. They have no way of knowing when they charge that the foor is in a canister. I am not suggesting that we make our food more available to avoid PO’ing the bears. That would only compound the problem. What I fear is that as the canister program becomes increasingly effective, the bears, deprived of what has become a significant food source, may cross the line and go after a very available and even richer food source-us backpackers. Speculation, to be sure, but the stakes are high so worth considering. I, personally lean in the direction of negative reenforcement which could run the gamut from some form of electro shock or chemical unpleasantness to periodically shooting a FEW of the critters to reinstill a healthy fear of humans that has morphed into viewing them as a food source down through the years.

What it might take is closing a goodsized area (probably not a whole park or wilderness area) for a season. Sure some bears will travel elsewhere and make trouble there. Some will start living on natural foods again. Many will starve. Evolution in action.

It seems that the Sierras are kind of a uniquely bizarre area when it comes to human-bear interaction. There have been enough bears dependent on poorly stored food for so long that there are quite a few more bears than can be supported from native food sources alone (I’ve heard that in some parts of Yosemite they estimate that there are FIVE times as many bears as they would expect from available food source (except for hikers and campers).

Sure, there would be some enormous complaints about prohibiting camping (and possibly even day trips) for an entire year. But it would solve the problems we are talking about here. After that reasonable food storage techniques should be sufficient to keep the bears out of people’s food. So predation should or would disappear as a risk.

I remain sceptical about bears having more predatory behavior toward humans than they used to. I would need some statistics to believe it. I can easily believe that there are more bear attacks now than 100 years ago, but there are also many more people in the backcountry than there were then. I’d have to see how the number of attacks per backpacker has changed. Although there are cases of bears attacking humans to eat them, my understanding is that these are still pretty rare. Most attacks occur in places where bears are used to having access to easy human food. The bears become habituated, look for the food, and sometimes injuries occur in the process. I doubt bears are seeing humans as an easy new food source all of a sudden. Any bear that kills a human gets cement shoes anyway so I don’t see how the behavior or gene(s) for it would be propagated.

I remain sceptical about bears having more predatory behavior toward humans than they used to. I would need some statistics to believe it. I can easily believe that there are more bear attacks now than 100 years ago, but there are also many more people in the backcountry than there were then. I’d have to see how the number of attacks per backpacker has changed. Although there are cases of bears attacking humans to eat them, my understanding is that these are still pretty rare. Most attacks occur in places where bears are used to having access to easy human food. The bears become habituated, look for the food, and sometimes injuries occur in the process. I doubt bears are seeing humans as an easy new food source all of a sudden. Any bear that kills a human gets cement shoes anyway so I don’t see how the behavior or gene(s) for it would be propagated.

Hi David,
I think you have put your finger squarely on the problem: More bears than the natural environment can support due to readily available food from backpackers for the last few decades. What I am concerned about is what the bears appear to be edging toward as this artificial food source dries up as the canister/bear box program ramps up. Closing off a large area might be worth trying, but I suspect the hue and cry from commercial interests, not to mention the backpacking community would make it politically impossible.

I also remain skeptical, about predation becoming more likely and about more human food available to bears. There may well be more human food in the back country than there was in the 1950’s, but overall, there was MUCH more human food available 60 years ago. People used to watch the bears chowing down at the garbage dumps. In the back country, I don’t know the statistics. My sense is that trailhead quotas have kept the number of hikers fairly stable in recent years. Before quotas, it seemed like there were often more hikers than there are now. The number camping in the car campgrounds has certainly decreased since they started designating specific campsites. It used to be a free for all in Yosemite Valley — crowd in as many campers as could find a spot to pitch a tent.

It also seems like the bear resistant garbage cans in populated areas and the improved protection of backpacking food must have cut the human food supply a lot in the last three decades. Does anyone know real numbers?

Maybe continuing with food protection and adding negative reinforcement would help. How about developing bear spray booby traps to attach to our canisters at night?

Don

And I was just kidding about the “drop your food and run” solution.

I have done most of my hiking in Alaska where encounters with bears are very common. Over ninety per cent of the time grizzlies will run off once they become aware of your presence. I have been charged only once and it was memorable (no harm to me or the bear). My personal choice is to carry a pistol, .454 Casull, loaded with hardcast 330 grain lead slugs. A rifle is cumbersome and with a long sight radius no good at short range, a shotgun is somewhat better but too heavy. Ruger is making a short barrel version of the Super Redhawk in .454 casull called the Alaskan and which should be ideal for backpacking. As for lying on the ground curled up in fetal position to take the brunt of a bear attack, forget it. Recovery time from a bear mauling, if you survive, can take months of reconstructive surgery. Bears will go for the head and face so figure on some significant plastic surgery. To carry a gun is definitely a personal choice, one which I have made and I sleep better for it.