U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-20-2016, 06:22 PM
 
6,307 posts, read 7,163,474 times
Reputation: 8048

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvvarkansas View Post
If it was shot later, I wonder why they didn't just tranquilize it and move it far away from civilization. We have a LOT of wilderness in this country.
There are a lot of things that need to be considered before an animal is relocated.

For example, many places will not do it because the cost is simply prohibitive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-20-2016, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
6,347 posts, read 3,526,055 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvvarkansas View Post
If it was shot later, I wonder why they didn't just tranquilize it and move it far away from civilization. We have a LOT of wilderness in this country.
Depending on where the cat was at the time, tranquilizing it might not have been a safe option. Tranquilizers don't work immediately, and if the cat was still near a populated area, attempting to tranquilize it might have risked human safety.

But there's also another problem: we actually DON'T have lots of wilderness in this country capable of supporting a mountain lion. That's why these young male cats (and if you research these incidents, the attacking cat is almost always a subadult male) end up in someone's backyard: the young cat has to leave his mother's territory because his father will kill him if he stays, but he isn't yet strong enough to displace a healthy and fully adult male holding a suitable territory, so he gets pushed out into a very fringe area where he unfortunately comes into contact with humans. Put him back in the wilderness in prime lion territory and either the same thing will happen again, or the resident male lion already living there will kill him. Either way, he's doomed. (If people didn't live on this continent, the unfortunate youngster's fate would be to starve to death, having been displaced into territory a lion simply can't survive in. With or without people, he's surplus - unfortunately for him. Nature isn't kind.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 06:34 PM
 
24,003 posts, read 31,258,887 times
Reputation: 28681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandon View Post
Shyguy, you really need to learn the difference between opinion and fact.

YOU think children are more important. Not everyone else does. My spirituality considers all life as equally sacred, and my beliefs don't require you to agree with me.
I don't share most of his views, but you can add me to the list of people that will choose human life (children OR adults) over animals, as far as what is more important, any day of the week.

Last edited by ChessieMom; 06-20-2016 at 07:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 06:38 PM
 
Location: Texas
42,336 posts, read 50,019,797 times
Reputation: 67259
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChessieMom View Post
I don't share many of his views, but you can add me to the list of people that will choose human life (children OR adults) over animals, as far as what is more important, any day of the week.
Yes.
In a who lives, who dies scenario, you pick the person over the animal.

That's not the same thing as annihilating everything on four legs that crosses your path.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Type 0.7 Kardashev
10,577 posts, read 6,869,365 times
Reputation: 37352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel View Post
Depending on where the cat was at the time, tranquilizing it might not have been a safe option. Tranquilizers don't work immediately, and if the cat was still near a populated area, attempting to tranquilize it might have risked human safety.

But there's also another problem: we actually DON'T have lots of wilderness in this country capable of supporting a mountain lion. That's why these young male cats (and if you research these incidents, the attacking cat is almost always a subadult male) end up in someone's backyard: the young cat has to leave his mother's territory because his father will kill him if he stays, but he isn't yet strong enough to displace a healthy and fully adult male holding a suitable territory, so he gets pushed out into a very fringe area where he unfortunately comes into contact with humans. Put him back in the wilderness in prime lion territory and either the same thing will happen again, or the resident male lion already living there will kill him. Either way, he's doomed. (If people didn't live on this continent, the unfortunate youngster's fate would be to starve to death, having been displaced into territory a lion simply can't survive in. With or without people, he's surplus - unfortunately for him. Nature isn't kind.)
This is correct.

Mountain lions typically have a range of 150-200 square miles. There are very, very few chunks of wilderness that big where there are no people. And the ones that do exist? Well, they probably already have mountain lions living there. Throw another one in? Just as you say, then another gets bumped out of that wilderness area. It just becomes someone else's problem.

Actually, humanely euthanizing individuals that attack people is excellent selective management. And it almost certainly is a more pleasant end than the cat would have met in the wild (injury, disease, starvation, etc.). It thereby helps the population.

But people get all googly-eyed over individual animals, fail to see the forest for the trees, and want to 'help' the individual regardless if that's good for the population.

Then they skip back to their safe and comfy suburban homes, where they stare out at their yards - which are almost sterile in terms of species diversity - and they smugly conclude that they're doing such a wonderful job of 'not disturbing any wild habitat'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 06:57 PM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
6,347 posts, read 3,526,055 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
This is correct.

Mountain lions typically have a range of 150-200 square miles. There are very, very few chunks of wilderness that big where there are no people. And the ones that do exist? Well, they probably already have mountain lions living there. Throw another one in? Just as you say, then another gets bumped out of that wilderness area. It just becomes someone else's problem.
Exactly. Even if the territory is perfect in every other way, just the presence of appreciable numbers of people will cause it to be a fringe area - because oddly enough most people won't tolerate large dangerous predators hanging about in their back yards, and (for the same reason, just in reverse) most mountain lions don't want to hang around anywhere near us.

But the larger problem, as far as young male lions is concerned, is fundamentally rooted in the species' reproductive biology. A male lion's territory is much larger than a female's, and on average overlaps the territories of three to five females. And he WON'T tolerate the presence of another male in his territory. But lion litters have an average 50:50 sex ratio. So if 50% of the cubs born every year are male, but the sex ratio of the adult cats is one male per 3-5 females, where do the excess males go? The answer, of course, is that they die young.

Quote:
Actually, humanely euthanizing individuals that attack people is excellent selective management. And it almost certainly is a more pleasant end than the cat would have met in the wild (injury, disease, starvation, etc.). It thereby helps the population.

But people get all googly-eyed over individual animals, fail to see the forest for the trees, and want to 'help' the individual regardless if that's good for the population.
Exactly. It's similar to all those people who wanted to "help" the young bison calf in Yellowstone, despite the fact that in the natural course of things the calf was meant to die. We can't build enough zoo cages to house all the cute, doomed animals of the world, even if we wanted to try.

Quote:
Then they skip back to their safe and comfy suburban homes, where they stare out at their yards - which are almost sterile in terms of species diversity - and they smugly conclude that they're doing such a wonderful job of 'not disturbing any wild habitat'.
Yes. (And I'll admit to being just as much a hypocrite in that regard as everyone else.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 07:19 PM
 
Location: San Diego
32,957 posts, read 30,215,777 times
Reputation: 17764
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post
This is correct.

Mountain lions typically have a range of 150-200 square miles. There are very, very few chunks of wilderness that big where there are no people. And the ones that do exist? Well, they probably already have mountain lions living there. Throw another one in? Just as you say, then another gets bumped out of that wilderness area. It just becomes someone else's problem.

Actually, humanely euthanizing individuals that attack people is excellent selective management. And it almost certainly is a more pleasant end than the cat would have met in the wild (injury, disease, starvation, etc.). It thereby helps the population.

But people get all googly-eyed over individual animals, fail to see the forest for the trees, and want to 'help' the individual regardless if that's good for the population.

Then they skip back to their safe and comfy suburban homes, where they stare out at their yards - which are almost sterile in terms of species diversity - and they smugly conclude that they're doing such a wonderful job of 'not disturbing any wild habitat'.
This has become a real problem in CA. They've made the big cats a protected species and they are stacking up on the few ranges we have in S Cal that have what they want, Deer, Turkeys etc. Way too many big cats here now. It's only a matter of time before more attacks. We're tracking something like 20+ in a range that should have just 2.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 07:34 PM
 
24,003 posts, read 31,258,887 times
Reputation: 28681
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4 View Post
Yes.
In a who lives, who dies scenario, you pick the person over the animal.

That's not the same thing as annihilating everything on four legs that crosses your path.
Of course not. That's cray cray.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 07:36 PM
 
4,749 posts, read 6,184,659 times
Reputation: 6713
Thanks to aredhel and unsettomati for the informative posts. So, it seems that humane euthanization is the best choice in these types of situations. As Angrytaxpayer points out, there seems to be a danger in trying to "protect" them too much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-20-2016, 07:45 PM
 
Location: Pacific Northwest
1,695 posts, read 1,513,674 times
Reputation: 3289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luvvarkansas View Post
Nope, I saw the post, and I agree that Shyguy was well within his rights to shoot the dog. The owner was
"repeatedly" told to keep the dog out of his yard. If your dog "means the world" to you, then you will keep it out of other people's yards, and you probably do. Obviously Shyguy's neighbor just didn't care enough about his dog to keep it out of harm's way.

And no, it's not ok to feel that your dogs are worth more than my kids. I would never feel that one of my pets was worth more than someone else's child. It's just not right. And that's why I keep suggesting therapy. Seriously.
Actually, I think anyone who expects other people to love random children they don't know over their own family members is the one who needs therapy. Why the Hell would YOUR kids, who I don't even KNOW matter more to me than my own dog that has been my companion through my darkest hours ? What you're saying is completely unreasonable.

Like a good dog owner when I adopted my dog I made a commitment to love and care for him, there was no "Put other people's children before him" clause.

But whatever. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top