Nepali elephant kills 12 people...and lives!

sogguy said:
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
Click to expand...

i pretty strongly feel that we should cut back on expanding the human race, and figure out how to make room for, and peace with the animals. if one of them kills, make a place in a zoo. that's it. life in prison. same for people. no chance of parole. sorry. we don't necessarily owe it to them to give them a sex change operation for free (really happens!) or many other amenities. hey! maybe put all the prisoners in the same prison :)

there ARE way too many people, way too many explotations of the environment, and sooner or later, things will collapse. imagine the economy when people cannot just throw away their dinner plates and buy news ones 3-5 times a day.

bladite
 
Talking about Cougars without me!??

Why anyone would say; 'They were here first', or, 'we're trespassing in their living room" (quotes mine,) is unfathomable to me. I don't know who was 'here' first, or where 'here' is, but I do know the history of animals and life on earth is adaptation or death. We are animals. That's a good thing. We want to keep as much as possible of all life here on earth. But:

Cougars are not endangered in Calfornia, and were not at the time of the first hunting ban, per Calif's own Fish and Game Department study, the one which was not allowed to be releaseduntil after the votes were counted on the hunting ban initiative.

The good thing about Cougars is they are adaptable to be in a lot of places. Hunting tends to keep them careful around people. That's a good thing. They are not in danger of disapearing in the Continental US or Canada.

Someday we're going to have to make a decision about how many human births to allow vs animal births. But that day is not here now, and there should always be proper predator control.

Unless of course the terrorists nuke the earth. In which case mankind's animal husbandry failure or success may never see the light of day. Chances are though, Cougar will perish with us, and the Enlightened Cockroach inherit.


munk
 
Since 1916 there have been fewer than 20 deaths in Yellowstone by wild animals, >>>>>>>> Sogguy

yeah, and most of them have occured in the last 20- 30 years. There have been way too many fools feeding the nice Buffalo, but predator attacks in my opinion are going to go up sharply in the years to come. Statements like this do not reflect the recent upswing. It looks better politically for the animal if you go back a hundred years or so, when attacks were much rarer due to over hunting and more open space, less big cities, less people.
We're looking at more frequent attacks because:

*no consistant game managment policies, or political ones iinstead.
*increased loss of habitat
*more people
*no fear of people

I wouldn't want to live in a world without risk and beauty, but I think we all should have the right to defend ourselves from any animal.


munk
 
not2sharp said:
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
Click to expand...

State parks have animals in them, longer than people have been there. State parks are for people to walk around in, with animals and trees, insects, birds, etc.

The state park designation just has legal meaning, you can and can't do certain things in them. Animals are shoved out of the parks and don't read our laws.

If you get attacked in the wild by an animal (rare indeed and more dangerous to be in the city at night or driving on the roads), it's just nature and her beasts doing their thing. If you get bit by a shark in the ocean, it's OK, you're in their territory. Let the exlporer beware. You've got to realize you're in their territory and be aware or just stay in your camper shell and view the scenery. It's par for the course.

Afraid of shark attack, then don't go into the water. If you're attacked, you're in the sharks home and are part of the food chain. If you're in the wilds, don't be surprised that you may actually see a wild animal.
 
We have irretrievably modified nature, for example by surpressing rabies to some extent. The only issue is the degree to which we change things.

As always, it's most often whose "ox is being gored." Those losing arms to sharks -- or a child to a puma -- typically have a different prospective.
 
With isolated pockets of wilderness, we've altered the environment. Managing the overflow numbers of carnivores is up to us. It is not 'their living room,'. The idea we trespass in their neighborhoods is absurd. Where men are to be found, that is where men live. IF a mugger attempts to take your wallet, he can be shot. IF a cougar attempts to take your child, he can be shot. Places which artificially restrict these natural laws, this intrinsic justice, typically have high numbers of problem cougars and wanted felons.


munk
 
I agree with you Munk.

Don't let people hunt the parks. that allows the animals a relatively safe zone.

However, we should be allowed to defend ourselves. After all, we're not declawing and "detoothing" the cougars and grizzlies. so why should we a nearly defenseless species without our tools/weapons be asked to walk into dangerous places unarmed?

Defending yourself is different than the folks who go out after a shark attack and kill a dozen sharks so we can feel safe. Scientists have found (for example with the Tiger sharks in Hawaii) that often the offending shark is LONG gone by the time the fishing boats come to get their vengence.
 
It is good for animals to know they have a safe place, and for them to know if they attack humans bad things will happen to them.





munk
 
Sogguy, NYC ? wild animals ?. Well they had coyotes this year in NYC. There is also a recent article about the rise in rabies in Staten Island !! And feral dogs ? they have them too !!
 
I've been living in a suburb of Atlanta for a while now. I've watched things changed, and I have done my best to live close to Mother Earth, no matter where I live.

It's been interesting to watch the people here. Urban sprawl is happenning everywhere. Large plots of land are getting converted into high priced McMansions. The developers lust for more.

Meanwhile, the wildlife that has been here for ages suddenly have no place to go, and there natural prey is gone as well. Now, Coyotes come into the suburbs to catch local pets at night, and hawks have started snatching up cats. And the people continue to blame the animals. Always looking outside themselves.
 
Some of my childhood took place in Southern Calif. The area was always under developement. Fields and stream bottoms disapeared, Orange groves disapeared. I remember one butterfly hatching event that was spectacular; millions of specimens, and I wondered if I'd ever see anything like it again. There were houses now where there had been fields. I didn't think it could be the same. And it wasn't.


munk
 
I always carry a gun,99% of the time I never need it I know when to be careful..

Now about that 1% I am glad I have a gun then?

Oh hell yea.

Carry the gun-just don't be stupid with it.
 
ERdept said:
Afraid of shark attack, then don't go into the water. If you're attacked, you're in the sharks home and are part of the food chain. If you're in the wilds, don't be surprised that you may actually see a wild animal.
Click to expand...

I was just going to say the same thing... now if animals encroach on land that has long been populated by people, however... I think animal control departments should, theoretically, always be equipped with tranquilizer guns with the means to non-lethally disable anything from a racoon to an elephant for relocation to another area, far from humans. Unfortunately, a lot of animal control units are underfunded and this isn't always an option, and in the rare event that something goes wrong...

Anyway, if I heard there was a killer animal in the area, I'd do my best to stay the hell away if possible.

Easy for me to talk though. The chances of me getting attacked by any large species is pretty slim in my area. Probably the worst possible scenario around here from my experience would be a bull moose trampling you in your car during their mating season, but its rare that you see them on the road in these parts.
 
People in National parks are not allowed to carry firearms, with very few exceptions. ( a park in Alaska)

If you insist upon reintroducing a land shark like the wolf, then be prepared to lose livestock and deer and elk populations, unless there is hunting permitted of wolves. It is called Game management.
Cougars hunted maintain a healthy pop and a healthy respect for man. This reduces incidents of attack.
Removing one or two individuals by non lethal means for relocation rarely works and is not cost effective. Many relocated animals are later put down because of further attacks upon people.

munk
 
munk said:
Removing one or two individuals by non lethal means for relocation rarely works and is not cost effective. Many relocated animals are later put down because of further attacks upon people.
Click to expand...

Poo. So much for that idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top