
Hello,

	I understand this philosophy.  The bears are a national
treasure, the area is their sanctuary and people who enter it
do so at their own risk.  It is better that that rare human be
killed by a bear than that bears be provoked or shot by unbear-savvy
visitors.  The bears aren't having a population explosion, humans
are so it is better that a human be killed than endanger the bears.
I don't agree with this philosopy, but I understand it.

	The psychos are a bit different.  They are not a national
treasure but I suppose the decision has been made that to "allow"
provision for defense against them would also "allow" provision
for defense against bears.  Again, I suppose it has been decided
that it is better for the rare human to be killed by a psycho than
to take a chance on threatening the bears.

	Personally, I wouldn't go into an area where I would be
"managed" so as to reduce my safety ..... but ... come to think
of it I guess I live in a managed wilderness myself :-)