Nepali elephant kills 12 people...and lives!

No not self defense Thomas. I was just referring to the policy (usually done by wildlife officials IIRC) of killing predators after they kill a human--even one who made a dumb mistake in approaching/molesting the animal.

I meant it mostly tongue in cheek, but it is something to think about.
 
MauiRob said:
No not self defense Thomas. I was just referring to the policy (usually done by wildlife officials IIRC) of killing predators after they kill a human--even one who made a dumb mistake in approaching/molesting the animal.

I meant it mostly tongue in cheek, but it is something to think about.
Click to expand...

No, I dissagree, I am not for killing animals for the sake of killing animals; but, allowing a known predator to roam in an area of human habitation is just setting things up for an unfortunate incident. For those who want to preserve these dangerous wild animals, I would suggest opening your wallets to buy a suitably large track of land; putting an impenetrable fence around it; then, making any tree hugging hiker that's stupid enough to wander in there post an insurance bond to cover the replacement cost of the animal and their own recovery and burial.

State parks are for people; preserves are animals; and we should never confuse the two.

n2s
 
State parks are just for people? Hmmm.

What about National parks?

I went to Yellowstone and Grand Teton--plenty of bears (black AND Grizzly). watched an idiot crouch down on one knee 6ft from a feeding black bear and click his picture with a disposable camera. So, should we shoot that bear if he attacks? What about the person who stumbles on mama grizzly and her cubs and gets mauled even killed? Whose fault was that?

Isn't it the person's responsibility to know the area's wildlife and plan accordingly--including in that plan the amount of risk they are willing to assume?
 
What about "public land"?
public land, in U.S. history, land owned by the federal government but not reserved for any special purpose, e.g., for a park or a military reservation. Public land is also called land in the public domain.
This land is for Americans to witness and enjoy or heritage, not for kicking out the animals so a mountain biker or hiker doesn't have to worry about his/her safety.
There was more people killed by a crazed milk truck driver in PA, in one day than has been killed by mountain lions in 15 years.
 
sogguy said:
What about "public land"?
public land, in U.S. history, land owned by the federal government but not reserved for any special purpose, e.g., for a park or a military reservation. Public land is also called land in the public domain.
This land is for Americans to witness and enjoy or heritage, not for kicking out the animals so a mountain biker or hiker doesn't have to worry about his/her safety.
There was more people killed by a crazed milk truck driver in PA, in one day than has been killed by mountain lions in 15 years.
Click to expand...

right on!

in australia, most of the cool indigenous animal life is protected by law. *especially* deadly poisonous snakes. VERY strict laws. i'm told they have signs some places remind people of this in "parks" that read like "warning: this area abounds with DEADLY POISONOUS SNAKES, they are protected by law, you are not"... hee hee hee.

of course, austrlians don't much like rabbits. or pigs. or dogs. shoot at will. also: SOME kangaroos breed *real* fast. controlled hunts. crocs? dems tasty. not :) still, those get hunted too.

here, a simple rat snake, basking in the sun, probably having had a few nice rats, almost got killed because some stupid hysterical person saw a snake near the entrance to the building, and they were working up people to go on a snake hunt, and get someone to DO something about it. i said "oh, that rat snake? it's it pretty? i just took pictures. they eat rats. they are NOT poisonous. they're also protected by law, $15,000 fine." okay, i lied about the fine :> there probably is a fine, just not $15,000 ;) pretty snake, not a threat to anyone, in fact, a help, and they want to kill it in irrational stupid fear. bah :)

oh, someone told me today that it's pretty much illegal as hell to gather wild bird feathers if you find one fallen on the ground! eagle feathers... sure, i can buy that, but a single bluejay feather? er. turkey and turkey buzzard feathers? errrrr. hawk feathers? oiy. i guess the fear/problem is proving that you didn't shoot the bird and pluck them for profit. but no, a single feather, and off to the pound with ya and a big big fine.
 
MauiRob said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15796526/?GT1=8717

Now here is a different kind of animal vs. human story. Animal kills 12 people and is allowed to live.

I wish California would look at this and give the cougars a break.
Click to expand...

When mountain lions first started reappearing here in Iowa after a 110 year absence I figured I wouldn't bother them if they didn't bother me. The first four years of having them on our place proved uneventful - some tracks, an occasional spotting, and stressed out deer. Last winter one was hunting our pets within 200 feet of our front door and we lost a calf to one this spring. A friend from church found a 12-point buck with its spine eaten out stashed up in a tree. The local town kept kids in school at recess for awhile as one was living in the cemetery next door and using the sand trap at the golf course as a litter box. Luckily it is legal to kill them in Iowa - they seem to be multiplying quickly and don't have much fear of man. I am all for restoring wildlife habitat and have planted thousands of trees and acres of native grass over the years. But when a large carnivore moves into a populated area there has to be some kind of control.

Sorry for ranting - the subject of cougars just hits close to home. I think my blood pressure goes up a couple points every time I see Ted's avatar. :)
Lloyd
 
MauiRob said:
State parks are just for people? Hmmm.

What about National parks?

I went to Yellowstone and Grand Teton--plenty of bears (black AND Grizzly). watched an idiot crouch down on one knee 6ft from a feeding black bear and click his picture with a disposable camera. So, should we shoot that bear if he attacks? What about the person who stumbles on mama grizzly and her cubs and gets mauled even killed? Whose fault was that?

Isn't it the person's responsibility to know the area's wildlife and plan accordingly--including in that plan the amount of risk they are willing to assume?
Click to expand...

I'll cut a deal with you. The day I am allowed to hike through Yellowstone armed with a big game rifle; is the day you can release as many big furry critters as you like. Releasing dangerous animals on an unarmed population is a bit like throwing Christians into the colosseum. It is alot of fun to watch the animals; but, a rather cruel thing to do to the people. If you want to release them then you have to have the means to deal with those that get too close; and, a means to continuely inspire a fear of mankind.

n2s
 
Why would you want to carry a big game rifle? Since 1916 there have been fewer than 20 deaths in Yellowstone by wild animals, compare that with Jacksonville, Fl where if they have fewer than 20 a month they feel good.
Wild animals are not RELEASED in or around urban area's, they do occur naturally (boy+girl=baby), they were here first, we are the intruder. For those that do not want to risk an incounter with a wild animal, I suggest they confine themselves to New York City, Washington DC or LA where a crazed blue Jay or grey squirrel are the dangerous animals locally, you may want to watch out for gang members and drug addicts!
I do agree that when predatory animals are in conflict with humans, a mountain lion stalking Fido, they should be moved (destroyed if really needed)and if the numbers are that great a trophy hunt started to put hunting pressure on the animals to relocate themselves.
My fears are that in the near future we will only be able to see native american wildlife in books or zoo's.

Dick
 
Plus, what a jogger every once in a while compared to the majesty of the cougar.

Just kidding. Dang.
 
Just think, 11 people might still be alive right now if they would have put down that elephant after it killed one person.

They let a rogue elephant kill people for six weeks, and then only cut off the tusks at that point? Stupidity knows no bounds.
 
IMHO, it's on the shoulders of the human (rather than the predator) to know how things work. Generally speaking, they were here before we were. If a cougar eats me on a hunting trip I don't consider it to be the cougar's fault. It's my fault, for not taking proper precautions in an area where cougars are getting froggy.

Along the same lines, if a wolf eats me I don't want my family suing the state of WA; I want them out killing wolves. The state didn't eat me. Does that make sense?
 
Rat Finkenstein said:
Just think, 11 people might still be alive right now if they would have put down that elephant after it killed one person.

They let a rogue elephant kill people for six weeks, and then only cut off the tusks at that point? Stupidity knows no bounds.
Click to expand...

That might be considered stupid in America I agree.

But In Nepal the Hindus belive they if a 2 year old is bitten by a snake & dies its the due karma of the previous incartation of the child for some miss dead in their paste life .

To try & put western,christian concepts {often called values to make it sound moral & correct} {man built in Gods image, ruling the animals & world..} into other cultres doesnt work. never has , never will.

Just look at colonalism or the history of any occupied country.Past or present. It doesnt work.{ Unless you annhilate the total population of course.}

The Nepalis generaly accept life & nature , not lay down the law to it. Thats probably why many of them are such loving genourous people.

To thier mind your comment would probably show your lack of understanding of the universal picture.

That said if it was in my neighbourhood, Id drop it like a stone.


But Its Nepal & should be done thier way to thier concept of life . Not ours.

Spiral
 
Or see just the world in different terms?

As I said,

" In Nepal the Hindus belive they if a 2 year old is bitten by a snake & dies its the due karma of the previous incartation of the child for some miss dead in their past life .

To try & put western,christian concepts {often called values to make it sound moral & correct} {man built in Gods image, ruling the animals & world..} into other cultres doesnt work. never has , never will."

They value thier children, but they look at the world with very differnt eyes to Christian society dominated belief systems..



Spiral
 
There was an article in our paper today where they had shot the elephant with a tranquilizer, to what the final purpose it didn't say. There might be something on the news sites.
 
Yep they tranquilized it and cut its tusks then relocated it away from people IIRC...

I'm not saying they made the right choice. I just thought it was an interesting example of the other end of the tolerance spectrum. from oh, maybe the people who shot the aligator before the fish and wildlife people could even get there (in Montana IIRC?).

I don't know. I guess I believe we share the earth with the animals, that its not just ours. We are the exploding population who keeps moving further and further into what was once theirs... Kind of reminds me of the justification for killing the first people here in the U.S. doesn't it? We kept expanding and taking and taking and then when the Indians struck back to try and survive they were dangerous "savages" that threatened OUR safety. Something to think about....
 
MauiRob said:
Yep they tranquilized it and cut its tusks then relocated it away from people IIRC...

I'm not saying they made the right choice. I just thought it was an interesting example of the other end of the tolerance spectrum. from oh, maybe the people who shot the aligator before the fish and wildlife people could even get there (in Montana IIRC?).

I don't know. I guess I believe we share the earth with the animals, that its not just ours. We are the exploding population who keeps moving further and further into what was once theirs... Kind of reminds me of the justification for killing the first people here in the U.S. doesn't it? We kept expanding and taking and taking and then when the Indians struck back to try and survive they were dangerous "savages" that threatened OUR safety. Something to think about....
Click to expand...

We can always go the Chinese way and forcefully sterilize women after the first kid. I am not really into meaningless self-hate. I do know that given a choice; I will put people ahead of animals 100% of the time. Extinctions are the flip side of progress; the more man thrives the greater the pressure on the rest of the eco-system. That is the natural way of things; and some day we too will become a rare species existant only in zoos or books.

n2s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top