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.
AT: 2007-2019 (45 sections)
JMT: 2013
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.
AT: 2007-2019 (45 sections)
JMT: 2013
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.
It is what it is.
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.
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.
Ah, my bad. Read that wrong - you only said a couple bears were killed (rather, two). Sorry 'bout that!
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.
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.
The park killed two when the AT hiker in tent was attacked and bitten a couple years ago.
DNA showed neither was guilty.
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
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).
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?"
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.