wildness is unpredictable, often with tragic consequences

[Raya]

I would just change the thread title to read "Wildness is sometimes unpredictable, and very occasionally with tragic consequences." I mean, this is very nearly a "freak" story.

I've spent a lot of time in the woods, and I understand that occasionally animals will act in a way that seems unpredictable to humans; but I don't see it being "often" with tragic consequences. Somehow, to me, that makes it sound much more likely and menacing that it really is in my experience.

The majority of time, when you hear of an animal/human interaction that turned out badly for the human, it does have a predicable cause. i.e. camping with food not hung or otherwise stowed properly; separating an animal from its young; taunting, feeding, or otherwise inappropriately engaging animals; running into them with motor vehicles; walking too quietly through their habitat and surprising them, etc.

[Perry J]

Raya, you and others are correct. My point is why not be prepared? The odds of an attack are much greater for those that spend a great deal of time in the forests.

[Raya]

Hi Perry,

I didn't mean to imply that one should not be prepared; I agree that it's wise to be prepared. I was more responding to the thread title, which I thought was misleading.

I have carried bear spray in certain areas, and I make noise on certain trails so as not to surprise "anyone." I also hang my food when camping and/or use bear boxes if provided. I try to stay alert.

All that said, I tend to worry about people much more! If I'm thinking of boondocking in my trailer, it's not animals that make me have second thoughts (sadly).

Raya

[Penney H. & Mike E.]

I did not mean to imply anything with the title of the post, it is just what I wrote in the moment. I am fully aware that animal encounters such as Bob's are the exception, not the rule. I will say that 'unpredictable' behavior in animals can have tragic outcomes.

Carol your experience was very scary! I know how I felt when I encountered the cougar in the woods right behind our house, I felt very vulnerable, actually I barely felt or thought anything, I just walked forward, hoping he was not waiting for me. Afterwards I had all sorts of feelings! Shock mostly! I too would be happy not to see another cougar, at least not that close, and preferably when I'm in a car, but not one like yours! (my first cougar sighting was one leaping across a road in front of my car)

This topic has become very 'hot', I only wanted to share the sadness and tragedy of Bob's death as a reminder to us all not to take Nature for granted. I am sure most folks on this forum do not.

Penney

[Raya]

Hi Penney,

Okay, thanks for clarifying. It was the "often" in the title that made me want to reply. I think the thread title can set the tone for the post (since it's the first thing you read before you click, and it tells you what the post is going to be about). Maybe that's one reason it became a bit "warm."

Raya

[Carol H]

Sorry if my post seemed hot. It *really* wasn't meant to be. I was just concerned that people are wanted to see some of these animals in the wild but that they may not be aware that some of the animals may not be as predictable as the wilderness books say.

Penney I feel your fear! LOL I have other first hand knowledge of much worse situations - one of them only ended well due to a quick thinking neighbour will a real good aim with an axe but in that case the animal was being predictable.

Raya I agree the post heading may be a bit misleading.

[peterh]

Just a quick, non-judgmental thought here about handguns, rifles and what they're good for.

Interestingly, Lynne and I had a discussion about handguns and rifles while camping recently. She was curious what I thought of her having a gun when she was out camping on her own. Just to be clear, I have owned guns in the past and expect I will own them again in the future now there are no children in the house. I am neither a handgun opponent or proponent, but I am pragmatic about what a gun, as a tool, is and is not good for.

As a form of protection, a handgun's chief advantage is it's very portable. That said, handguns are not all that good at protecting you from close-quarter encounters with large wildlife. They simply don't have enough stopping power to drop an animal at close quarters before it can do big damage to you.

An animal charging at you has already committed itself to performing some sort of dominance display, defensive act, or predatory act. Like a human with surging adrenalin, an animal in this state of mind is already braced to potentially feel pain, and is less sensitive to it. Shooting an animal in this state of mind at close range will not stop it in its tracks, and may actually do more to piss it off and increase its level of aggression. (See Cornered Cat - A long gun for home defense.)

Second, the local authorities may not take kindly to your shooting a park animal, and may come to a very different point of view about the threat you were under than the one you may have had as you discharged your weapon.

When an animal has committed itself to aggression, what you need is something that overwhelms something other than its traditional pain pathways, attack other senses that compromise its ability to be aggressive. This is what pepper spray/mace/bear spray do. They go after the eyes and sense of smell and change the mindset of the animal in a way that ordinary pain can not.

A good can of Bear Spray will repel most any animal -- bear, elk, ram, cat, dog, human -- and does not require that you both regularly train with and maintain a gun.

[Roger C H]

I see several aspects to this man vs animal discussion.

1. There are more people than there were. More people means more parks, more people on trails and more chance for man/animal contact.

2. People are more outdoor oriented. Along with more people, more of the people are attracted to the outdoors again increasing m/a contact.

3. Along with more people, there are more animals. Despite what certain animal rights groups say, there are more deer in the US now than when the pilgrims landed. This is because there are less predators and more open areas that grow the type of browse that deer eat.

4. Animals are less afraid of people. In the last several years hunting has been curtailed in large measure. Witness the ban on using dogs to hunt bear in Washington State. Therefore, animals have less run-ins with hunters, persons able to defend themselves, and are less likely to have experienced having been shot at by those strange looking two legged creatures. This is also contributing to a rise in the number of predatory animals, bears, cougars, etc.

5. Along with this, people have less real notions of what wild animals are about. They suffer from the "Disney syndrome" where all animals are 'cute' and not to be feared. I remember watching in horror in Yellowstone NP as a woman, with a toddler in tow, chased after a cow moose with a calf. I suppose she wanted to get a picture of her child with the 'cute animals.' Luckily for her, the moose and her calf just moved on.

6. More people take their dogs walking. Dogs like to chase things like squirrels, cats and rabbits. Bears and cougars are not like these. The dog may try to chase them but when they don't run and reverse the roles becoming the chaser, the dog returns to you for protection, with the critter they stirred up following close behind.

7. There is a reason our ancestors eliminated so many of the large predators on this continent, it is because they are large predators and to them we, and our domestic animals, are lunch.

[Byron Kinnaman]

Originally Posted by Roger C H

I see several aspects to this man vs animal discussion.

1. There are more people than there were. More people means more parks, more people on trails and more chance for man/animal contact.

2. People are more outdoor oriented. Along with more people, more of the people are attracted to the outdoors again increasing m/a contact.

3. Along with more people, there are more animals. Despite what certain animal rights groups say, there are more deer in the US now than when the pilgrims landed. This is because there are less predators and more open areas that grow the type of browse that deer eat.

4. Animals are less afraid of people. In the last several years hunting has been curtailed in large measure. Witness the ban on using dogs to hunt bear in Washington State. Therefore, animals have less run-ins with hunters, persons able to defend themselves, and are less likely to have experienced having been shot at by those strange looking two legged creatures. This is also contributing to a rise in the number of predatory animals, bears, cougars, etc.

5. Along with this, people have less real notions of what wild animals are about. They suffer from the "Disney syndrome" where all animals are 'cute' and not to be feared. I remember watching in horror in Yellowstone NP as a woman, with a toddler in tow, chased after a cow moose with a calf. I suppose she wanted to get a picture of her child with the 'cute animals.' Luckily for her, the moose and her calf just moved on.

6. More people take their dogs walking. Dogs like to chase things like squirrels, cats and rabbits. Bears and cougars are not like these. The dog may try to chase them but when they don't run and reverse the roles becoming the chaser, the dog returns to you for protection, with the critter they stirred up following close behind.

7. There is a reason our ancestors eliminated so many of the large predators on this continent, it is because they are large predators and to them we, and our domestic animals, are lunch.

1. Agree

2. Nope... Up until the recently the majority of the population lived in the country. As little as 60 to 80 years ago one of the major sources of meat a family ate was hunted wild game. Predator/human contact was very common.

3. Wrong again. Without the pressure of man there was many many more animals. Some extinct or neat extinct now. Example wolves.

4. Correct, well almost. Without the killing of those that come into contact with humans the fear is bred out, NOT the experience of being shot at.

5. Very true, along with have NO understanding of the animal and expected behavior. Before you go into the wilderness you need to understand how animals are likely to behave, including differences at different times of the year.

6. Very true. I'll add more thing to this, many encounters where a person gets hurt is when a dog is attacked and the owner tries to intervene. The attitude that a dog is like a kid can cause a lot of problems. Leave the dog at home.

7. Wrong again. Humans have never been lunch, dinner, or breakfast as the norm for any predators in the US. Predators were killed to extinction because sheep herders and cattlemen didn't want to loose even one animal. Most of the time the predators were wrongly accused. Again Wolves is great example.

[Carol H]

Roger I see you have found one of my fav warnings signs. The last part is used on a lot of signs in areas that Grizzly bears frequent. Nothing like a bit of humor to drive home a serious point.

[Roger C H]

1, 4, 5, & 6 left out since we agree on them.

2. While this is true, most outdoor persons were on farms where farmers kept predator populations down, not out in the woods miles from town like today.

3. I disagree. 1900 500,000 deer. Today, 20 million deer. (Couldn't find pilgrim stats.)
Deer Population Facts
Growth in numbers of prey yields growth in the number of predators.

7. Tell that to Scott Lancaster, Mark Jeffrey Reynolds,
List of fatal cougar attacks in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robin Kochorek, George Tullas, Timothy Treadwell, Amie Huguenard,
List of fatal bear attacks in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Admittedly, many of the attacks were brown and grizzley bears in Alaska. However, whether you like it or not, we are 150+ pounds of meat.

[Byron Kinnaman]

Originally Posted by Roger C H

1, 4, 5, & 6 left out since we agree on them.

2. While this is true, most outdoor persons were on farms where farmers kept predator populations down, not out in the woods miles from town like today.

3. I disagree. 1900 500,000 deer. Today, 20 million deer. (Couldn't find pilgrim stats.)
Deer Population Facts
Growth in numbers of prey yields growth in the number of predators.

7. Tell that to Scott Lancaster, Mark Jeffrey Reynolds,
List of fatal cougar attacks in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robin Kochorek, George Tullas, Timothy Treadwell, Amie Huguenard,
List of fatal bear attacks in North America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Admittedly, many of the attacks were brown and grizzley bears in Alaska. However, whether you like it or not, we are 150+ pounds of meat.

2. The population kept down was the segment that had lost some or all their fear of man. NOT the overall population.


3. Reread linked article. Your misreading and comparing white-tail deer to the entire us deer population. I've never see a white-tail deer, but I've hunted and seen lots of mule and black-tail deer.


7. Reread my statement. Look for the word "norm". If those figures are the norm people aren't playing the woods. Now a startling set of numbers Annual US Highway Fatalities from 1957

I think we need to spend more time trying to prevent auto deaths than worry about predators.
Then there's this one. http://washingtonceasefire.org/resou...ath-statistics In which people are willing to kill people to protect their right to kill people.
Which should be feared more the wild predator or.............

[Roger C H]

Found this article which supports my contention that we have more animals:

Staying on track: DNR monitors migrating black bears | wisconsinoutdoorfun.com | Wisconsin Outdoor Fun Wisconsin Hunting, Fishing, Camping| Wisconsin Hiking, Biking, ATV

The race of deer you see depends on where you live. I assume that same factors that apply to white-tailed deer also apply to black-tailed and muleys. I may be wrong on this, but don't think so.

I reference Wisconsin because I used to live (and camp) there and there are persons on this blog who still do. I also glance at Wisconsin paper websites for genealogical purposes and therefore run into these articles. Even if the DNR is incorrect by two, that still means bear populations have doubled in 20 years.

Also notice the comment on wolves.

Re: The comment on guns and hunters in this blog. Some states, I understand, are faced with possibly having to hire hunters to keep animal populations down. They use the meat to feed inmates in prisons and other state institutions. Bear steaks, anyone? I never tasted bear. I have tasted elk, deer and bison...

On the auto fatalities: True, true. But we were talking about being attacked by a wild animal whilst camping. I suppose one is probably more likely to be killed in an auto accident on the way to camping than by a wild animal however, there is some primordal fear about being chased down and eaten vs being killed in an auto accident.

BTW I am NOT upset. This is merely an interesting discussion bringing in different points of view.

BTW 2: On the television playing in the background, they were just talking about ANOTHER bear attack.

Woman Attacked by Bear in Gig Harbor - KCPQ

[Carol H]

To try and reduce the number of auto accidents involving deer in my area our local District came up with some signs that they hoped we might actually look at rather than the standard deer crossing signs of the past that no one seems to notice.

[Cyndi B.]

We just about got a bear one night inbetween Gillet and Oconto Falls in September with the truck. I have eaten bear. You cook it like pork because they are garbage eaters.

[Cyndi B.]

A farmer in Red Wing, MN ran over a bear with his combine. Better then it getting it with the corn head.

[CharlynnT]

There is a new theory that wildlife may have followed the people who came to North America via the Bering Strait, rather than the other way around.
It's still "following the food source": I mean, we humans leave cleared trails and tend to drop a few bones and bread crumbs along the way.
So I don't know who was here first, and who is encroaching on who, just that it is very tricky to try to live with each other.

[peterh]

Originally Posted by CharlynnT

There is a new theory that wildlife may have followed the people who came to North America via the Bering Strait, rather than the other way around.
It's still "following the food source": I mean, we humans leave cleared trails and tend to drop a few bones and bread crumbs along the way.
So I don't know who was here first, and who is encroaching on who, just that it is very tricky to try to live with each other.

Wildlife of all sorts is abundant on both sides of the Strait, and animals appear in the geologic record of both sides well before the appearance of man. I think it's rather likely that many animals crossed in both directions both before and after mankind made its trek.

[Carol Christensen]

Some of you may remember the cougar attack at Prairie Creek Redwoods SP in northern CA in 2007. The attack did not take place in the wilderness but on a trail not far from the Elk Prairie campground headquarters, one of my very favorite campgrounds, and fairly close to a highway. A retired couple was hiking on the trail when a young cougar attacked the husband who was 70. His wife, 65, saved his life by fighting off the animal.

Outlook good for man attacked by mountain lion

[Davie B]

Originally Posted by CharlynnT

There is a new theory that wildlife may have followed the people who came to North America via the Bering Strait, rather than the other way around.
It's still "following the food source": I mean, we humans leave cleared trails and tend to drop a few bones and bread crumbs along the way.
So I don't know who was here first, and who is encroaching on who, just that it is very tricky to try to live with each other.

I recommend the book, 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, by Charles Mann. I'm about 1/2 way through it. It's an enlightening read.