OT: Lion/Hiker near miss

01-26-2007, 07:01 AM

Wow. Scary!
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Glad he got away alive.

Matt

01-26-2007, 07:15 AM

"MattB" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> Wow. Scary!
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> Glad he got away alive.
>
> Matt
"After the attack, game wardens closed the park about 320 miles north of San
Francisco and released hounds to track the lion. They later shot and killed
a pair of lions found near the trail where the attack happened.

The carcasses were flown to a state forensics lab to determine if either
animal mauled the man"

How sad that they blatantly killed two lions neither of which may have
attacked the man. Too bad they don't treat murderers that way....might be
less murders.

Gary (population control)

01-26-2007, 07:31 AM

GeeDubb wrote:
>
> "MattB" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>> Wow. Scary!
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>
>> Glad he got away alive.
>>
>> Matt
> "After the attack, game wardens closed the park about 320 miles north of
> San Francisco and released hounds to track the lion. They later shot and
> killed a pair of lions found near the trail where the attack happened.
>
> The carcasses were flown to a state forensics lab to determine if either
> animal mauled the man"
>

That is absolutely ridiculous.
They should be prosecuted.
It's obviously revenge, given
the odds of actually finding
the same lion. Last time I
checked, mountain lions were
predators in "nature". . .
which a park should represent
.. . . sheesh.

01-26-2007, 07:51 AM

cc wrote:
> GeeDubb wrote:
>>
>> "MattB" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>> Wow. Scary!
>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>>
>>> Glad he got away alive.
>>>
>>> Matt
>> "After the attack, game wardens closed the park about 320 miles north
>> of San Francisco and released hounds to track the lion. They later
>> shot and killed a pair of lions found near the trail where the attack
>> happened.
>>
>> The carcasses were flown to a state forensics lab to determine if
>> either animal mauled the man"
>>
>
> That is absolutely ridiculous. They should be prosecuted. It's obviously
> revenge, given the odds of actually finding the same lion. Last time I
> checked, mountain lions were predators in "nature". . . which a park
> should represent . . . sheesh.

I think they are more concerned about the lion having a taste for human
blood. Still, they could have tranquilized the animals, rather than
kill htem to do the tests.

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

01-26-2007, 08:01 AM

cc wrote:
> GeeDubb wrote:
>
>>
>> "MattB" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>
>>> Wow. Scary!
>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>>
>>> Glad he got away alive.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> "After the attack, game wardens closed the park about 320 miles north
>> of San Francisco and released hounds to track the lion. They later
>> shot and killed a pair of lions found near the trail where the attack
>> happened.
>>
>> The carcasses were flown to a state forensics lab to determine if
>> either animal mauled the man"
>>
>
> That is absolutely ridiculous. They should be prosecuted. It's obviously
> revenge, given the odds of actually finding the same lion. Last time I
> checked, mountain lions were predators in "nature". . . which a park
> should represent . . . sheesh.

Maybe. I'd think with dogs tracking them there is more likelihood of
getting the right one(s) would at least be better than just shooting the
first ones they could get.
I also see your point about nature, but like it or not humans have
pretty much removed themselves from the food chain. I see flaws with
doing this in terms of how things "should" play out, but if it was me,
my friends or my family involved, I'm less concerned with how the food
chain was designed to work.

Matt

01-26-2007, 09:54 AM

On Jan 26, 11:15 am, "GeeDubb" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> "MattB" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in messagenews:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...> Wow. Scary!
> >[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> > Glad he got away alive.
>
> > Matt"After the attack, game wardens closed the park about 320 miles north of San
> Francisco and released hounds to track the lion. They later shot and killed
> a pair of lions found near the trail where the attack happened.
>
> The carcasses were flown to a state forensics lab to determine if either
> animal mauled the man"
>
> How sad that they blatantly killed two lions neither of which may have
> attacked the man. Too bad they don't treat murderers that way....might be
> less murders.
>
> Gary (population control)

Just out of curiosity, anybody know what happens to the carcasses?
Buried next to the parking lot? Eaten? Thrown in a dumpster? Entrails
sent to the four corners?

/s

01-26-2007, 10:49 AM

MattB wrote:
> cc wrote:
>> GeeDubb wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "MattB" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>>
>>>> Wow. Scary!
>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>>>
>>>> Glad he got away alive.
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>
>>> "After the attack, game wardens closed the park about 320 miles north
>>> of San Francisco and released hounds to track the lion. They later
>>> shot and killed a pair of lions found near the trail where the attack
>>> happened.
>>>
>>> The carcasses were flown to a state forensics lab to determine if
>>> either animal mauled the man"
>>>
>>
>> That is absolutely ridiculous. They should be prosecuted. It's
>> obviously revenge, given the odds of actually finding the same lion.
>> Last time I checked, mountain lions were predators in "nature". . .
>> which a park should represent . . . sheesh.
>
> Maybe. I'd think with dogs tracking them there is more likelihood of
> getting the right one(s) would at least be better than just shooting the
> first ones they could get.
> I also see your point about nature, but like it or not humans have
> pretty much removed themselves from the food chain. I see flaws with
> doing this in terms of how things "should" play out, but if it was me,
> my friends or my family involved, I'm less concerned with how the food
> chain was designed to work.

Even in the case where we are encroaching on their habitat with our
residences, it is debatable whether we should engage in the "search and
destroy" method of elimination of "rogue" wild animals. It is a much
more compelling case, however, than doing the same thing to animals that
behave as animals when we are supposedly visiting their habitat. The
animal kingdom is dangerous. Kill or be killed. The only way to
eliminate that danger is to eliminate the animals. Is that what we
should do?

cc

01-26-2007, 10:50 AM

Ride-A-Lot wrote:
> cc wrote:
>> GeeDubb wrote:
>>>
>>> "MattB" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>>> Wow. Scary!
>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>>>
>>>> Glad he got away alive.
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>> "After the attack, game wardens closed the park about 320 miles north
>>> of San Francisco and released hounds to track the lion. They later
>>> shot and killed a pair of lions found near the trail where the attack
>>> happened.
>>>
>>> The carcasses were flown to a state forensics lab to determine if
>>> either animal mauled the man"
>>>
>>
>> That is absolutely ridiculous. They should be prosecuted. It's
>> obviously revenge, given the odds of actually finding the same lion.
>> Last time I checked, mountain lions were predators in "nature". . .
>> which a park should represent . . . sheesh.
>
> I think they are more concerned about the lion having a taste for human
> blood. Still, they could have tranquilized the animals, rather than
> kill htem to do the tests.
>

The concept of an animal with a "taste for human blood" seems to be one
motivated by an attempt to rationalize revenge. Animals are creatures
that operate on the necessity for survival.

01-26-2007, 11:13 AM

cc wrote:
> MattB wrote:
>
>> cc wrote:
>>
>>> GeeDubb wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "MattB" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>>>
>>>>> Wow. Scary!
>>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>>>>
>>>>> Glad he got away alive.
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "After the attack, game wardens closed the park about 320 miles
>>>> north of San Francisco and released hounds to track the lion. They
>>>> later shot and killed a pair of lions found near the trail where the
>>>> attack happened.
>>>>
>>>> The carcasses were flown to a state forensics lab to determine if
>>>> either animal mauled the man"
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is absolutely ridiculous. They should be prosecuted. It's
>>> obviously revenge, given the odds of actually finding the same lion.
>>> Last time I checked, mountain lions were predators in "nature". . .
>>> which a park should represent . . . sheesh.
>>
>>
>> Maybe. I'd think with dogs tracking them there is more likelihood of
>> getting the right one(s) would at least be better than just shooting
>> the first ones they could get.
>> I also see your point about nature, but like it or not humans have
>> pretty much removed themselves from the food chain. I see flaws with
>> doing this in terms of how things "should" play out, but if it was me,
>> my friends or my family involved, I'm less concerned with how the food
>> chain was designed to work.
>
>
> Even in the case where we are encroaching on their habitat with our
> residences, it is debatable whether we should engage in the "search and
> destroy" method of elimination of "rogue" wild animals. It is a much
> more compelling case, however, than doing the same thing to animals that
> behave as animals when we are supposedly visiting their habitat. The
> animal kingdom is dangerous. Kill or be killed. The only way to
> eliminate that danger is to eliminate the animals. Is that what we
> should do?
>
> cc

Definitely debatable, and I understand your logic. BUT, humans tend to
want to modify their environment to suit their needs or preferences.
It's just a fact whether you agree it's the right thing to do or not.

So what would be worse, these guys hunting down a couple of lions and
claiming to have eliminated the offending one, or the general public
deciding we don't want these dangerous creates to exist anymore and
killing them all? I'd go with the former.

We have a growing population of mountain lions around here. There have
been many sightings (I've only seen tracks so far) and no reported
conflicts yet. I'm hoping that the sheer volume of open space and prey
animals here will help keep them hunting their traditional prey. But as
a father, I'm genetically programmed to protect my offspring. If I ever
thought my son was potential prey I wouldn't hesitate to do whatever I
could to protect him. I'm not a hunter, but I would definitely kill a
lion I thought was an immediate threat, given the chance (although I may
need something better than my Leatherman).

Matt

01-26-2007, 02:57 PM

cc wrote:
> Ride-A-Lot wrote:
>> I think they are more concerned about the lion having a taste for
>> human blood. Still, they could have tranquilized the animals, rather
>> than kill htem to do the tests.
>>
>
> The concept of an animal with a "taste for human blood" seems to be one
> motivated by an attempt to rationalize revenge. Animals are creatures
> that operate on the necessity for survival.

Mountain lions, unlike most other wild predators, view humans as
potential food. They are dangerous, which in a way makes their territory
worth visiting.

It's either us or them.

About 10 years ago, a Utah senior citizen was (allegedly) attacked while
alone. He grabbed a large rock and (allegedly) single-handedly killed
the cougar. Brought the carcass back. IIRC, he didn't show any signs of
injury consistent with a fight.

I ride/hike alone in mountain lion country myself. If a lion takes me,
it'll eat well for a while. But if I take the lion, I'll have a hell of
a story.

--
Lynn Wallace

If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
speaking German now.