ATC hate

wayupnorth

wayupnorth

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Location
Northern Alberta
I was sitting at work the other day with a new partner, young fella.
real nice guy, we had a lot to talk about as he hunts a lot and guides on his off days for some hunting places.
he has a trap line.
I ask him if he has his ATC for wilderness carry since he has a trap line.
nope.
i'm just flabbergasted by that!
why wouldn't you get your wilderness carry if you could!!!

to make things worse, my regular partner comes in and join in the conversation - he is listed a a co-owner on his grandfathers or dads trap line and as such can get his wilderness ATC as well, but nope, does not have it.

what the heck!

is wilderness ATC ones of those things that you want because you can't have?
and if you can have it you don't want it?

i'm so confused.

as a paramedic in the North i have seen a lot of people (over 30 years of work) mauled by black bears and grizzlies and i'll admit that is something i do NOT want to have happen to me!
if they said i could wilderness carry i would be packing.
 
I didn't quite get that your acquaintances hate handguns from what you wrote. Do they carry rifles or just nothing at all?

More disinterest than hate in my experience. My neighbour has her trappers license but no handgun. A 22 rifle to her is adequate - light enough and safer for dispatch and she just doesn't want to bother though she's not against the idea.
 
wayupnorth said:
i'm just flabbergasted by that!
why wouldn't you get your wilderness carry if you could!!!
Click to expand...
Because it's more hoops to jump through and some people don't feel like bothering.

DaveMachine said:
Carrying a handgun in the bush shouldn't require a permission slip.
Click to expand...
QFT

If I can legally carry a rifle or shotgun in that location then there is no reason I shouldn't be able to carry a handgun as well.


Mark
 
What are all the stupid rules on 'how' to carry ?

as far as 'why not' , thousands of outdoor enthusiasts don't feel the need to carry any type of protection, let alone jump through the hoops for a handgun atc , not the same as being a 'handgun enthusiast'
 
https://www.ammoland.com/2023/11/ha...umented-incidents-98-effective/#axzz8fWJtBQN5
---
Analysis of documented defensive shootings indicates that handguns are highly effective against bears, with a 98% success rate across over 170 documented incidents where only a handgun was used. Success is defined as the bear stopping its attack, whether it was killed or fled the scene.

Key Statistical Findings​

  • Overall Effectiveness: Out of 146 cases involving only handguns, there were 3 failures and 3 indeterminate outcomes, resulting in a 98% success rate (140 successes).
  • Shot Counts: The most common resolution involved one shot (19.4% of known cases for brown/grizzly bears). However, larger species like brown, grizzly, and Kodiak bears (Ursus arctos) tend to require more shots per case compared to black or polar bears.
  • Warning Shots: Warning shots were used in a minority of cases; they were successful in deterring bears roughly 50% of the time but were never relied upon as the sole stopping mechanism in the majority of aggressive encounters.

Species-Specific Data​

  • Brown/Grizzly/Kodiak Bears: Data from 109 cases shows these bears are more robust, often requiring multiple rounds. 76.3% of these cases were resolved with six shots or fewer.
  • Black/Polar Bears: These cases generally required fewer shots, with most known-shot-count incidents resolved with six shots or fewer.
  • Failures: The few recorded failures often involved smaller calibers (e.g., .22 LR) or improper shot placement. One notable failure involved a .22 LR against a polar bear, which resulted in a human fatality.

Caliber Recommendations​

Experts and data suggest that while many calibers can succeed, larger, heavier rounds are preferred for reliability:

  • Popular Choices: .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, 10mm Auto, and .45 ACP are widely cited as effective balances of power and manageability.
  • Heavy Calibers: Calibers like .454 Casull or .475 Linebaugh are considered highly reliable but are often criticized for being heavy and having excessive recoil.
  • Avoid: .22 rimfire is generally discouraged due to low stopping power, with documented failures in polar bear encounters.
Note: These statistics are derived from documented incidents reported to sources like Ammoland and analyzed by researchers like Dean Weingarten. The data is subject to selection bias, as incidents without dramatic outcomes or injuries are less likely to be recorded.
---

Would I still rather have a rifle? Yes.

Would I also like to have a pistol while I'm gutting an animal and my rifle is out of the way? Also yes.
 
Kevin32 said:
Handgun really isn't enough grizzly deterrent.

Even if I could, Id probably choose one of those short shotguns or a bears leg 45-70
Click to expand...
Maybe. Maybe not Tuesdays bear defence threads will decide..lol

The side arm is accessible at all times is my way of thinking. Checkin traps and hauling gear around keeps the hands full.
Holsteres pistols are far more convenient then a slung firearm. Id still be deploying a bear banger if possible. Before firing my 10mm without hearing pro. Never mind the fivehundo.
 
Carry a rifle. No common sense left in canada under the current administration and mind set.
Bear bangers and /or flashbangs if he doesn't want to sling the rifle. Some of the takedown levers (like the chiappa alaskan) are small enough too
 
boxhitch said:
What are all the stupid rules on 'how' to carry ?
Click to expand...
I can't say what the carry rules are, but back when I was involved in designing/building/certifying the CDTSA Milo range (2013ish?) I got to talk to a couple of the guys from the Alberta CFO's office while we were inspecting the range after construction.

The one guy mentioned that he was the person responsible for dealing with ATC requests for animal protection and he said there was a course required that included shooting with the handgun you plan to carry and you had to be proficient with it in order to pass and get the ATC. He specifically said that he felt responsible for the safety of people that carry and wouldn't let people make their own decisions about their safety. He absolutely believed that people shouldn't be allowed to make their own choices and that he knew better.

Both were clearly gun guys that were happy to see a new range be built, but they were also pedantic bureaucrats that felt all our insane rules were necessary and important. And this was in Alberta. I can't imagine how bad this would be in one of the more commie provinces.

Kevin32 said:
Handgun really isn't enough grizzly deterrent.
Click to expand...
That isn't the point. The issue is that we are not allowed to choose for ourselves what tool we carry for animal protection. If you make a bad choice and the bear eats you that is your problem and only your problem.


Mark
 
mmattockx said:
That isn't the point. The issue is that we are not allowed to choose for ourselves what tool we carry for animal protection. If you make a bad choice and the bear eats you that is your problem and only your problem.


I can't say what the carry rules are, but back when I was involved in designing/building/certifying the CDTSA Milo range (2013ish?) I got to talk to a couple of the guys from the Alberta CFO's office while we were inspecting the range after construction.

The one guy mentioned that he was the person responsible for dealing with ATC requests for animal protection and he said there was a course required that included shooting with the handgun you plan to carry and you had to be proficient with it in order to pass and get the ATC. He specifically said that he felt responsible for the safety of people that carry and wouldn't let people make their own decisions about their safety. He absolutely believed that people shouldn't be allowed to make their own choices and that he knew better.

Both were clearly gun guys that were happy to see a new range be built, but they were also pedantic bureaucrats that felt all our insane rules were necessary and important. And this was in Alberta. I can't imagine how bad this would be in one of the more commie provinces.


Mark
Click to expand...
More gun owning Liberal Bag-Lickers who have drank the poison Kool-Aide!...........:oops::(

Shocker!..........:(

This ideology is becoming a disease in the firearms community.....:(

Plenty of these same losers here on Gunnutz.......:oops:
 
mmattockx said:
I can't say what the carry rules are, but back when I was involved in designing/building/certifying the CDTSA Milo range (2013ish?) I got to talk to a couple of the guys from the Alberta CFO's office while we were inspecting the range after construction.

The one guy mentioned that he was the person responsible for dealing with ATC requests for animal protection and he said there was a course required that included shooting with the handgun you plan to carry and you had to be proficient with it in order to pass and get the ATC. He specifically said that he felt responsible for the safety of people that carry and wouldn't let people make their own decisions about their safety. He absolutely believed that people shouldn't be allowed to make their own choices and that he knew better.

Both were clearly gun guys that were happy to see a new range be built, but they were also pedantic bureaucrats that felt all our insane rules were necessary and important. And this was in Alberta. I can't imagine how bad this would be in one of the more commie provinces.


That isn't the point. The issue is that we are not allowed to choose for ourselves what tool we carry for animal protection. If you make a bad choice and the bear eats you that is your problem and only your problem.


Mark
Click to expand...
I totally agree with the proficiency testing, too many loose wingnutz out there that have no respect for the rules of safe handling let alone being able to hit a barn
But the freedom of choice should be available to everyone

In BC iirc carry rules are gun must not be concealed and to be holstered and drawn with minimal chance of muzzle sweeping someone else
 
boxhitch said:
I totally agree with the proficiency testing, too many loose wingnutz out there that have no respect for the rules of safe handling let alone being able to hit a barn
But the freedom of choice should be available to everyone

In BC iirc carry rules are gun must not be concealed and to be holstered and drawn with minimal chance of muzzle sweeping someone else
Click to expand...
Hence why cross draw holsters are not allowed......;)
 
boxhitch said:
I totally agree with the proficiency testing
Click to expand...
I don't. How much proficiency is enough? Who decides that? This just gives the government an easy way to exclude people. It's dangerous to give the government any tool to deny people firearms.

People don't shoot wildlife in self defense in populated areas, it is in wilderness areas where there is far less danger of someone being hit by a stray round, which makes the proficiency question far less important than in heavily populated urban areas.


Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom