Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46
  1. #1

  2. #2
    92.8% complete Berserker's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, VA
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,002
    Images
    1

    Default

    What I found interesting in that article is that it insinuates that they don't know for 100% sure it was a cougar, but yet they are currently out hunting and will kill all cougars in the area hoping the DNA of one of them matches the DNA of the suspected cougar that attacked the woman. Am I missing something here? Seems like a knee jerk reaction considering they apparently don't have all the facts. Either the article is inaccurate or they are jumping the gun.

    My condolences go out to the victim's family.
    JMT - 2013

  3. #3
    GSMNP 900 Miler HooKooDooKu's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-25-2007
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Age
    51
    Posts
    3,792
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Berserker View Post
    What I found interesting in that article is that it insinuates that they don't know for 100% sure it was a cougar, but yet they are currently out hunting and will kill all cougars in the area hoping the DNA of one of them matches the DNA of the suspected cougar that attacked the woman. Am I missing something here? Seems like a knee jerk reaction considering they apparently don't have all the facts. Either the article is inaccurate or they are jumping the gun.

    My condolences go out to the victim's family.
    From the point of view of public safety... no they are not jumping the gun.
    If they wait to hunt for the cougar, it's more likely the cougar "will get away". The article already explains holding any cougar they might capture is not practical, and cougars are not an endangered species. When you then add that cougars don't exactly live in dense populations, it makes sense that in trying to protect the public, they would kill any cougar in the area until they find the (likely) cougar responsible.

  4. #4
    92.8% complete Berserker's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, VA
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,002
    Images
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HooKooDooKu View Post
    From the point of view of public safety... no they are not jumping the gun.
    If they wait to hunt for the cougar, it's more likely the cougar "will get away". The article already explains holding any cougar they might capture is not practical, and cougars are not an endangered species. When you then add that cougars don't exactly live in dense populations, it makes sense that in trying to protect the public, they would kill any cougar in the area until they find the (likely) cougar responsible.
    Ok, I'll buy that. I don't know a lot about cougars, but the fact that they are not endangered I reckon makes this ok...I guess. Only thing that still bothers me about it is that they suspect it was a cougar. I'm sure they have a pretty high confidence level from the injuries that it was a cougar, but killing cougars based on circumstantial evidence and not factual evidence still seems a little dicey in my opinion. But again, I don't know much about cougars, so maybe this is the typical response on the West coast to a suspected cougar attack.
    JMT - 2013

  5. #5
    Registered User JPritch's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-03-2017
    Location
    Lynchburg, VA
    Age
    39
    Posts
    326

    Default

    This seems to happen a lot after bear attacks. And from my memory, it seems they rarely get the actual bear involved in the attack, and some innocent bear gets 86'd.
    "In every walk with Nature, one receives far more than he seeks"....John Muir

  6. #6
    GSMNP 900 Miler HooKooDooKu's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-25-2007
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Age
    51
    Posts
    3,792
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Berserker View Post
    ... killing cougars based on circumstantial evidence and not factual evidence still seems a little dicey in my opinion...
    Sounds like their evidence is a bit stronger than "I think it MIGHT have been a cougar", but not quite strong enough to say "here's the proof it was a cougar".

    And JPritch is correct about the assessment of bears... except I wouldn't say "rarely get the actual bear"... but he's definitely right that additional "innocent" bears get killed in the process.
    As an example, if I recall correctly, I teenager was attacked in GSMNP while sleeping in a hammock a few years ago... at least two bears were shot and killed before the park service knew they had killed the "correct" bear.

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    02-01-2016
    Location
    Chattanooga, Tennessee
    Posts
    554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HooKooDooKu View Post
    As an example, if I recall correctly, I teenager was attacked in GSMNP while sleeping in a hammock a few years ago... at least two bears were shot and killed before the park service knew they had killed the "correct" bear.
    If you're thinking about the father-son team from Ohio in 2015, the kid wasn't killed, but was mauled pretty skillfully. Dad fought off the bear, they hiked out, and the kid survived.

    https://abcnews.go.com/US/teen-detai...ry?id=31673101

    Your broader point is fair, though.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    02-01-2016
    Location
    Chattanooga, Tennessee
    Posts
    554

    Default

    Ah, my bad. Read that wrong - you only said a couple bears were killed (rather, two). Sorry 'bout that!

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Time Zone View Post
    ....... the kid wasn't killed, but was mauled pretty skillfully......
    I assume “skillful” was some kind of autocorrect, but if not, what is a “skillful” mauling.

  10. #10
    GSMNP 900 Miler HooKooDooKu's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-25-2007
    Location
    Birmingham, AL
    Age
    51
    Posts
    3,792
    Journal Entries
    1
    Images
    5

    Default

    Yea, the point about the Ohio father-son story was that there was only one bear that attacked, but at least two bears were killed... obviously one of the two bears was "innocent". I'm sure there's other similar stories when the park service has determined that a "problem bear" needed to be put down.


    And unless something changes in the current story, the only recorded fatal bear attack in GSMNP so far is the lady that was killed in 2000 in the Elkmont area of the back country.

  11. #11

    Default

    a lot of innocent bears are killed by hunters each year, so they aren’t going to worry about an extra bear or two when it comes to public safety. They could tranquilizer them though.

  12. #12
    MuddyWaters's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-05-2011
    Location
    state of confusion
    Posts
    9,168
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    The park killed two when the AT hiker in tent was attacked and bitten a couple years ago.
    DNA showed neither was guilty.
    "Inevitably, a long distance hiker must choose between travelling light, and not travelling at all." - Earl V. Shaffer

  13. #13

    Default

    This thread is about a possible cougar attack.
    The thread about a possible bear attack is here:
    https://whiteblaze.net/forum/showthr...er-Found/page3

  14. #14
    MuddyWaters's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-05-2011
    Location
    state of confusion
    Posts
    9,168
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gpburdelljr View Post
    This thread is about a possible cougar attack.
    The thread about a possible bear attack is here:
    https://whiteblaze.net/forum/showthr...er-Found/page3
    Its called thread drift...
    But the line is about killing animals that were innocent. Bears just examples.
    "Inevitably, a long distance hiker must choose between travelling light, and not travelling at all." - Earl V. Shaffer

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MuddyWaters View Post
    Its called thread drift...
    But the line is about killing animals that were innocent. Bears just examples.
    I know what thread drift is, but if people want to change the subject they should start a new thread. The title of this thread isn’t Killing Animals that are ‘Innocent’. Feel free to start one.

  16. #16
    MuddyWaters's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-05-2011
    Location
    state of confusion
    Posts
    9,168
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gpburdelljr View Post
    I know what thread drift is, but if people want to change the subject they should start a new thread. The title of this thread isn’t Killing Animals that are ‘Innocent’. Feel free to start one.
    And this has nothing to do with appalachian trail, nor was it in the straight forward forum
    "Inevitably, a long distance hiker must choose between travelling light, and not travelling at all." - Earl V. Shaffer

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MuddyWaters View Post
    And this has nothing to do with appalachian trail, nor was it in the straight forward forum
    Whoops, I put it in the General forum, thinking that was for general non trail specific topics. I still think people should stay on topic, especially when it is easy enough to start a thread specifically about a topic they are interested in, rather than going off topic. But, I suppose some people are incapable of staying on topic.

    To get back on topic, does anyone have any comments about the possible cougar attack (not bear attacks, or attacks by any other animals).

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    09-08-2014
    Location
    Georgia
    Age
    66
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Here's a comment-If the biker or the hiker had carried some sort of weapon there is a good chance they would have survived.My 4 inch Mora does not weigh much and might have fit the bill.So the question in my mind is "why would anyone go out in cougar country totally defenseless?"

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    12-19-2005
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Five Tango View Post
    Here's a comment-If the biker or the hiker had carried some sort of weapon there is a good chance they would have survived.My 4 inch Mora does not weigh much and might have fit the bill.So the question in my mind is "why would anyone go out in cougar country totally defenseless?"



    How you know that she wasn't carrying a weapon?

  20. #20
    MuddyWaters's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-05-2011
    Location
    state of confusion
    Posts
    9,168
    Journal Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gpburdelljr View Post
    Whoops, I put it in the General forum, thinking that was for general non trail specific topics. I still think people should stay on topic, especially when it is easy enough to start a thread specifically about a topic they are interested in, rather than going off topic. But, I suppose some people are incapable of staying on topic.

    To get back on topic, does anyone have any comments about the possible cougar attack (not bear attacks, or attacks by any other animals).
    Backpackers arent usually attacked.
    Cats attack stealthily from behind, and go for the neck of their prey
    Most efficient energy expenditure for predator.
    The typical pack, prevents the cat from seeing hikers necks

    Dayhikers and UL hikers with tiny packs, may not be so fortunate.
    "Inevitably, a long distance hiker must choose between travelling light, and not travelling at all." - Earl V. Shaffer

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
++ New Posts ++

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •