First Cougar in Louisiana in 30 years .. killed already.
Discussion
37 replies
Posted by Carl Donohue on December 4, 2008 at 1:11 AM
Hey Folks,
The first bonafide cougar sighting in 30 years, apparently. Of course, it's dead already.
Text and video.
"This is the first one, in 30 years in wildlife and fisheries that I've had a bonafide cougar sighting in Louisiana that I can say "yes, this is a cougar," Steve Herbert with the Lousiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries said.
Once they got the call, Bossier City Police secured the area and made sure people remained in their homes. But that didn't end the situation. It ended once the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries arrived.
"We decided we were going to attempt to dart the cat. And see if we could take it out by sedating it. Unfortunately when we darted it, the cat made moves that he was going to come down the tree and come out into the neighborhood. We thought it was a public risk, so we had Bossier PD take it out," Herbert said.
Remember how often we hear "a fed (name your species) is a dead (name your species)"? Well, that's cause the folks who say that tend to be the ones who generally kill said species.
They're lucky that this is a cougar most likely come over from Tx, and not a Florida Panther (subspecies on the endangered list of the ESA). I'd suggest writing Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Carl Donohue on December 4, 2008 at 1:12 AM
Hey folks,
Here's the article. Video accompanying might not be something everyone wants to watch. Sorry.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Jim DeWitt on December 4, 2008 at 2:22 AM
A few years ago, a cougar came down the Stikine River from British Columbia into Alaska. It's last mistake. The Alaskan who killed it said, "I didn't know what it was, so I shot it." Says it all, really.
Hey Carl, this unfortunately happens with some regularity here in California. As far as I'm concerned, police officers whose beat is the urban/wild interface should be trained to acceptably handle wildlife encounters. Killing them is not acceptable, and the risk to humans is always greatly exaggerated.
Will we ever learn to live peacefully with our wild neighbors?
Posted by Mike DiRenzo on December 4, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Now that I've watched the video, Carl, I'm even more disturbed and angry. That cat never stood a chance; you can hear the gunfire well before the cat ever left that tree limb. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries and the Bossier City Police need some training, and the local residents need to get over their irrational fears.
I think this quote summarizes nicely how humans approach living peacefully with wildlife:
"...I hate that it happened, but oh well"
Posted by Bruce Palla on December 4, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Let's put those idiots in a tree and after we dart them, if they make a "dangerous" move we can take them out too!! A bunch of B.S. as far as excuses go, these people are only perpetuating the stereotype of ignorant red-neck.
Posted by Carl Donohue on December 4, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Hey Jim,
'.. so I shot it' is classic. I know sharks and bears will test something new out by biting it, if they're unsure what it is. Maybe this mentality is in our genes. Time to go shopping for some new pants, I think. :)
Michael, yes, the 'Oh well' said it all. I wonder how they expected the animal to respond to being hit with a dart. Seemed to me the shots were a little too close behind the darting - IMO, of course.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Terry Sohl on December 4, 2008 at 11:21 PM
We've had several such incidents in South Dakota in the past few years.
It really wasn't until the last decade that there's been widespread acknowledgement of a healthy Mountain Lion population in the Black Hills. The first reaction once studies showed 150 or so Mountain Lions in the Hills?
Let's have a hunting season!!!
Sure, why not? Who'll miss a few or a few dozen out of such a "huge" population!! Argh. To make matters worse, there have been multiple incidents of having to rescue cubs and find homes after idiot hunters here shot their mother.
The fact that anyone, ignorant of a large cat's reactions, should worry about the safety of their children, and be satisfied that a supposed menace was removed, shouldn't be sneered at. "Oh well" is no worse than "Inshallah" in my mind.
I reserve my scorn for the officials who were way too quick on the trigger, and who should have been trained to know better. There is no reason on God's green earth the cougar couldn't have been darted adequately. It was a sitting duck in that tree. Shame on them!
Posted by Jim Salge on December 5, 2008 at 5:54 PM
What always bothers me about stories like this is that they inevitably end with a line similar to the one here...
"In the last ten years, three people have been killed by mountain lions, with 27 attacks." acting like it justifies the end, and attempts to propagate the idea that they are dangerous and agressive animals.
Three!
That leaves well over 300,000,000 of us that haven't been attacked by mountain lions, despite millions of people who live near, recreate near, or at times found themselves in proximity to cougars.
It's sad...
Posted by Jim Erhardt on December 5, 2008 at 10:00 PM
Sad, so sad. this just makes me sick. But what can you expect from ignorance.
Posted by Wayne Jones on December 6, 2008 at 2:03 AM
I’d like to offer a different view of this situation for you to consider. It’s a lot easier to criticize the people with the responsibility for taking action than it is to be there and do your duty. Some of the responses from NPN members were surprisingly and disappointingly insensitive, and I’m not just talking about the suggestion to shoot people. (That was obviously not serious, but some of the other replies were.)
Coming from a state where a young child was killed by a black bear not so long ago, and where wildlife officials must spend a significant amount of time (and funding) on negative interactions between humans and wildlife, including increasing cases of bears breaking into homes and coyotes killing family pets (a similar situation exists with mountain lions and pets in parts of the west), you must understand that many citizens demand protection, even from perceived threats that are actually rare, and could have been avoided if they had taken steps to coexist with wildlife. Most wildlife agencies put a lot of effort into public education urging people to adopt practices to avoid wildlife problems, but such advice is not always heeded. Those of you who continue to feed birds when bears are not hibernating, and who continue to feed pets outdoors will understand that failure to avoid contributing to wildlife problems is not always a simple matter of ignorance, either.
Could you attempt to place yourselves in the shoes of others before being so critical? Imagine what the public reaction would be if that dart were not effective, and the cougar escaped into the neighborhood. (Even the best training can’t eliminate errors and equipment malfunctions.) I should not have to remind you of the pressures on officials to avoid that, even at the cost of sacrificing an animal.
Now imagine that you live in that neighborhood, and have young children or even pets there. Even knowing how very rare attacks by wild animals are, how many of you would be critical of those officials for NOT removing the cougar one way or the other? Those of us with access to the statistics of how rare such incidents are can quote those figures all we want, but if a local child were to be the fourth cougar fatality, would you like to explain to the parents your demand to avoid killing the animal at all cost?
The public – ignorant or not – demands protection from government agencies, even from perceived threats that are very unlikely to pose significant dangers. Having known and worked with wildlife officials across North America for decades, I can assure you that those on the scene would much rather have captured the cougar alive. However, their responsibility to protect people (to whom they must answer) puts them under tremendous pressure to avoid the worst possible outcome, even if it is an extremely unlikely one.
By the way, to understand that last statement, you need to understand that “worst possible outcome” to most of the public is a human fatality (however unlikely), not the death of the mountain lion. I don’t expect this plea for understanding to have any effect on those of you whose replies indicate that you value the life of an individual animal more than the life of an individual human. This is not an attempt to get anyone to change their values. However, I suspect that some others would have responded differently had you adequately considered the pressures and points of view of those who actually had to live through this incident.
I sympathize with the law-enforcement people who have public (human) safety as their first priority. But the cougar looked to me to be at least somewhat ataxic when it was shot (and killed). I wish the police marksman had waited. Everyone in the neighborhood had been ordered indoors, the narration said, as the camera swung from the wildlife/police to the couple standing outside their house. They had been told to stay indoors. It was easier to kill the cougar than to get the humans to do what public-safety officials told them. "Oh, well." What else can you say?
Posted by Wayne Jones on December 6, 2008 at 2:31 PM
It was easier to kill the cougar than to get the humans to do what public-safety officials told them.
Rosemarie, You certainly understand my point that people don't always do what is recommended, and they don't take kindly to "orders" about what to do on their own property. That's another factor that adds to the complex and uncontrollable set of pressures on responders. Among the outcomes of dealing with wildlife that people insist be removed from their property are...
1. Tranquilize the animal and relocate it. -- You are a hero.
2. Fail to tranquilize it, and it escapes into the neighborhood, possibly wounded. -- You are inept or worse.
3. Fail to tranquilize it, and you have to kill it. -- You are bloodthirsty butchers.
4. Fail to tranquilize it, and shoot at it while it flees between houses, and you end up shooting toward the houses and people. -- You are a menace to the community. Trained officers will avoid this, for very obvious reasons, and this is one area where most public protection agencies do get good training.
Most people who work for wildlife agencies have devoted thier lives to wildlife conservation and doing what it right, rather than just doing what is "easy." For some reason, there is extremely intense competition for these jobs where everything they do is very likely to be criticized by some segment of the public. At the end of the day, the rewards of such service are mostly knowing that you have done your best to do what is right, even though there is seldom a consensus among the public about what really is right.
Posted by Steve Foss on December 6, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Well considered remarks, Wayne. Regardless of where a person stands on an issue, it's hard not to respond to a thoughtful, in-depth voice of experience and reason.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on December 6, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Steve, I whole heartedly agree - thanks Wayne for offering a different perspective!
Posted by Carl Donohue on December 6, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Rosemarie, You certainly understand my point that people don't always do what is recommended, and they don't take kindly to "orders" about what to do on their own property. That's another factor that adds to the complex and uncontrollable set of pressures on responders. Among the outcomes of dealing with wildlife that people insist be removed from their property are...
1. Tranquilize the animal and relocate it. -- You are a hero.
2. Fail to tranquilize it, and it escapes into the neighborhood, possibly wounded. -- You are inept or worse.
3. Fail to tranquilize it, and you have to kill it. -- You are bloodthirsty butchers.
4. Fail to tranquilize it, and shoot at it while it flees between houses, and you end up shooting toward the houses and people. -- You are a menace to the community. Trained officers will avoid this, for very obvious reasons, and this is one area where most public protection agencies do get good training.
hey Wayne,
While there's some truth to this statement above, we're not talking here about a generalized scenario - this is specific to what actually happened. It's not quite as simple as "3. Fail to tranquilize it, and you have to kill it. -- You are bloodthirsty butchers. " .. The shots that killed the cat were fired within seconds of the tranq dart. What possible reaction did the 'officials' expect other than what the cat did? It stood up moved, turned, and they fired. They didn't even have a net placed under the cat, which, had they effectively knocked it unconscious, they'd have needed. They had 5 hours to set this up and tranquilize the animal, something those in "wildlife management" do all the time. They didn't 'fail to tranquilize it', they failed to allow the tranq to even take place.
My feelings on what happened are not based on some idealistic rule of thumb, as you portray here, but on what actually happened. What actually happened was, in my opinion, inexcusable. Fwiw, I showed this video to a friend of mine who works in wildlife management for the F&WS and he too found it appalling. We can always defend the principle of such agencies, and on occasion they do good work. They even frequently have reasonable intention; but in this particular instance they were irresponsible and did a poor job (IMO). There's nothing untoward or unreasonable about being critical of that. A mountain lion, the first seen in the area in 30 years, lost its life because of sloppy work.
The public – ignorant or not – demands protection from government agencies, even from perceived threats that are very unlikely to pose significant dangers. Having known and worked with wildlife officials across North America for decades, I can assure you that those on the scene would much rather have captured the cougar alive. However, their responsibility to protect people (to whom they must answer) puts them under tremendous pressure to avoid the worst possible outcome, even if it is an extremely unlikely one.
They also have a responsibility to the wildlife and the landbase - that's a key part of their purpose for existence. And part of their responsibility is to educate the public LA, D of W&F website. What lesson have they given here beyond reinforcing the same old, tired mantra of 'it's OK to destroy that which we're unsure of'. This kind of thinking is precisely what the problem is with our entire environmental situation, be it local, regional, national or global. There was a thread on here about killing snakes, and it essentially boils down to exactly the same mentality. The loss of old growth forest, decreased and polluted water sheds, species extinctions, global warming, etc, etc, are ALL functions of this mindset - 'people first, everything else, at best, a distant second'. One day we'll realize, I expect, that we can't maintain an existence alone, without those we share this planet with. While we continue to kill anything and everything that somebody takes a dislike to, or fears as some kind of obstacle to their own pursuit of wealth, for example, we'll simply be taking yet more steps on the same continuum, and the world becomes a poorer place.
Much of our socialization comes to us from those in authority. Law Makers set the standards for us to follow, particularly on issues like this one. Is it any wonder when we see this kind of thing happen that a typical reply is 'Oh well'? Where does that attitude stem from? How do we change that? How do we make that kind of person to instead exclaim 'what a tragedy'?
If we (including 'wildlife management officials') don't take greater steps towards promoting that we re-learn how to live WITH our fellow creatures, particularly the big, bad ones, the opportunity to do so becomes lessened, as those creatures continue to disappear, and our existence will instead be without. It'll be a lonely old planet one day.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Wayne Jones on December 7, 2008 at 1:04 AM
We can always defend the principle of such agencies, and on occasion they do good work. They even frequently have reasonable intention...
Carl,
Even though the degree to which we appreciate wildlife agencies may differ, it’s good to see we share some common ground. I knew that all along.
One point I shortened quite a bit, but I hope still got through in my first response was that people do make mistakes. When that happens, there are lots of bad results, including my list of negative consequences and the public reactions to them (in my second response). Criticizing a mistake may do some good, but attributing a bad result to ignorance and irresponsible attitudes on the part of nearly everyone on Earth other than the critic is a not a formula for accomplishing anything positive.
In my second reply I tried to clarify that, noting from experience that people who work in wildlife agencies in general are people not so different from the rest of us who care about wildlife and other natural resources. Making generalizations that characterized all wildlife workers, police, and even most of the general public in the same class as the idiot who said "I didn't know what it was, so I shot it" is unfair to a the vast majority of people.
Specifically -- I still think that those involved the incident did not set out with the intention of killing the mountain lion (just my opinion based on years of experience with people who – with very few exceptions – have good intentions).
In general -- I still maintain that most people have at least some interest in conserving natural resources and improving our environment. Heated rhetoric and name-calling can only serve to prevent them from uniting to support those good causes.
You were critical of the specific event, and certainly not without reason. I was critical of the generalizations made in response to your post, that seemed to divide people into two opposing camps, assuming that most “other people” are ignorant, uncaring, and share a mindset that the environment does not matter. When it comes to our desire to do good things, maybe we are not quite as different as you might think. It’s my belief that striving for understanding and searching for common ground will be more productive than assuming that everyone is against us. To have a positive effect on the world, you need many allies. You will not find many allies if you insult nearly everyone, assuming they are your enemies. In that spirit, I end my responses to this post.
Posted by Carl Donohue on December 7, 2008 at 8:42 PM
" Criticizing a mistake may do some good, but attributing a bad result to ignorance and irresponsible attitudes on the part of nearly everyone on Earth other than the critic is a not a formula for accomplishing anything positive.
Hey Wayne,
If the situation illustrates, reinforces and helps perpetuate prevailing attitudes that are part of the problem, then I think reasonable criticism must be part of the the 'formula for accomplishing positive change'.
Your closing commentary is one of effective strategy, and your arguments not without reasonable support. I'd say, simply, that no one particular method brings large-scale change, and I doubt any of us here have a monopolistic understanding of how best to pursue it.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Stan Rose on December 8, 2008 at 7:58 PM
I have to agree with Carl 100%. As he says, this is not the product of having to make "tough decisions" it's the product of a foolish, ignorant mindset. So much fear of a lone animal that has made no agressive moves, so little concern for the neighborhood idiots driving their cars at 2X the speed limit through a residential neighborhood. I value human life way more than animals, but this was pathetic, and all too common unfortunately.
Posted by Larry Fischer on December 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM
If it is the first cougar, where did it come from?
With no mate it won't reproduce.
Probably one released by a well-meaning person who somehow obtained it as a cub.
That's the problem, folks.
In Kansas there are rumors of cougars. One was killed on interstate 70 last year between Lawrence and Kansas City. So when I'm walking in the forest and I'm attacked what kind of press will come of that? One might retort that most animals are more frightened of us than we are of them. I won't disagree but it is the unexpected that is always surprising. And that's when people get hurt.
So what do we do. Stop traffic in Kansa? Stop firearm ownership in the swamps?
Too many things are overstated and done emotionally.
The fact is that certain wild creatures simply cannot co-exist with humans in an intimate fashion.
If one want so savor the wild, one has to live in the wild and live wildly.... Talk to Hank Pennigton who talks the talk and walks the walk....
Sorry if this offends but I just get tired of the animals coming out on top, esp. when the California mother who was mauled to death by a couger several years ago received less attention that the cougar. Even the cubs of the cougar received over $20,000 in donations. The children of the mother received about 1/10th of that figure. Greenies and bunny huggers go so far before they lose credibillity.
the fisch
Posted by Steve Foss on December 16, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Larry, I for one am not at all offended. I cherish a world where we have wilderness and wild animals and remote places, and will continue to push through my photos and my words for the preservation of such environments.
I moved to Ely so I could be right next door when I wanted to walk, canoe, hunt, fish and photograph in the wilderness.
Some folks I've run across place the welfare of animals above that of people. I used to work in the environmental movement, and invariably the people I met there who felt that way were charged emotionally over the issue and did not respond to positions based on logic, reason or direct experience. I quit trying to explain my points of view pretty fast. I don't expect someone to change their mind based on what I say, but when asked to comment I do expect the respect shown by listening and thinking over my point of view. That respect was absent so, because we were teammates with the common goal of preserving the environment but had individual differences in how we appreciated the environment, I decided to focus on the common ground and ignore the potential for strife.
I think we would all do well to search out and celebrate common ground rather than emphasize differences and criticize those with different value systems. When I find people inclined to quickly and harshly judge the actions of others, I try to avoid contact with those people in the future. That's not always possible, but when I can do it, it keeps my life more peaceful. When I can't, I've developed the ability to capitalize on the many opportunities to keep my mouth shut.
Peace begins on a personal level.
And directly on point (some of these perspectives have already been mentioned), whether the animal was a released pet or was wild, its location indicates it was habituated to people, and when large predator species with a history of attacking and eating people become habituated to us, bad things happen. In this case, a bad thing happened to the cougar before it could (not for sure would, but could) happen to a person. To dart and move the animal would have been best case, no doubt, but if I'm standing there with a gun and I believe the dart won't work and the animal starts to jump down, I'm going to worry a lot more about the potential for fear and panic in the neighborhood, not to mention the possibility of attack, then I am about that individual animal.
Of course, these are just the opinions of one peaceful man who finds he tires more rapidly of strife with every passing year.
Posted by Larry Fischer on December 16, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Steve,
You said it much more eloguently than I.
Respectfully,
Larry
Posted by Stan Rose on December 18, 2008 at 1:42 AM
Youve made some good points, Steve, but i must confess when someone lables a person who buys a wild animal as a cub, then releases it into a populated area as "well-meaning", then labels everyone who deplores what ensued as "greenies and bunny huggers" i find it hard to find common ground.
Also, I disgaree that you must assume the animal was "habituated to people" simply because it was found in a populated area. In the CO front range as in many areas where suburban sprawl meets relative wilderness, its quite common for cougars and bears to make there way to suburban neighborhoods, sometimes just wandering, sometimes looking for food. Some that are managed to be relocated return, some don't.
Its not a question of "putting animals before people" or who "comes out on top". It's an understanding that once we've lost respect for nature and wilderness, we all lose! I would hope that we could all find common ground there.
Posted by Steve Foss on December 18, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Finding common ground CAN be difficult.
I've had hunters call me a greenie or a tree-hugger and then get all surprised when I bought them a beer and sat down to discuss hunting tactics for white-tailed deer as well as sharing stories from my past hunts, like hunters do.
I've also had anti-hunting animal rights folks call me a Neandertal and then get all surprised when I bought them a beer and sat down to discuss the ins and outs of global warming and the Endangered Species Act as well as recounting how, as a member of Clean Water Action, I helped get environmental champion U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., elected.
Usually, we bring our preconceptions about others into any conversation, and it can take a bit of effort on both sides to toss those conceptions (most usually misconceptions) out the window and just listen to each other as individual people.
As for your statement: "It's an understanding that once we've lost respect for nature and wilderness, we all lose! I would hope that we could all find common ground there," I agree completely! There. Common ground found, and nobody had to spend any money on beer.
Look at the number of Mountain lion problems they have had since they stopped hunting them ( a lot ) in the California . There was only one documented death before that . My wifes girlfriend/ jogging partner was killed and eaten by one in Cool California since the ban on hunting them . They did the right thing in this video .
Posted by Stan Rose on December 21, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Yeah, that's it, its the hunting ban in '72 that has caused the rise in fatalities from 3 to I believe 6 in California. It's allowed the out-of-control mountain lion population (i have seen one wild mountain lion despite probably 300+ days hiking/backpacking in cougar country) to get so bad that the number of cougar fatalities from automobile collisions has risen into the hundreds. We need more autos on the road, that auto figure should at least equal the hundreds more killed by poachers, poisonings, etc. Maybe if we expand suburban sprawl some more we can get the job done right. Those dang animals always come out on top!
Honestly, I can't say whether or not they did the "right thing" in this particular case, so my "pathetic" reaction to it might be overstated. Looking at a video without more context is not a way to make good jugements--i wasnt there and wasnt facing the pressures that the officials were, so i shouldn't be so hasty to judge. But given the widespread misunderstanding of the "problem" and the unfortunate way we have dealt with it, i stand by my criticism of the procedure, and the outcome.
Posted by Larry Fischer on December 22, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Stan,
Nothing really matters to any of us until that 300+ days... plus one... when there is an encouter that is terminal for one... or for both.
Fact: Some animals simply cannot live near civilization.
So we are going to control animals or we are going to control people. The latter is often called tyranny.
I've walked a few weeks in Alaska by myself. It requires a different mindset to what most people have. I, too, have to constantly remind myself of this. If one wants to really become alive, I call it being "aware", then, by all means, do venture into the wild where you are NOT necessarily at the top of the food chain, even with a rifle.
The slightest noise or disturbance can possibly mean something. Modern mankind has to struggle with this level of awareness, and after a few hours most fall back into a stroll-in-the-park mentality. And that usually occurs on 300+ days plus one...
Sure, most people don't have encounters. Those that do... make the news.
Hope you have a safe Christmas, and a joyous one.
the fisch
Posted by Stan Rose on December 23, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Larry, "We dont need to control anybody--We need to learn to exercize more self-control!
What is civilization? Is it everything outside a designated "Wilderness Area"?? Should we exterminate every predator that falls outside that zone? I must confess, im not optimisitc about our ability to control suburban sprawl and the resulting loss of habitat and wildlife corridors--even Carl disagrees with me when it comes to the threat of overpopulation
Anyhow, i believe a part of the answer is education--so that fewer people fall back to that "stroll-in-the-park" mentality, resulting in less headlines. We might be able to agree on that. I wish you a very Joyous Holiday as well-S
Posted by Don Miller on December 23, 2008 at 7:27 AM
We had a cougar in Chicago this last spring. One TV station shot a video clip of the animal running behind an officer who was looking for it.
I wish they could have tranquilized it. But in a dense neighborhood, next to a school, they had no way to contain the animal while a dart gun was found. In the real world the Chicago police are never going to have access to large mammal tranquilizer guns and training how to use these devices.
We do have coyotes all over the place now. Other than killing small dogs in their territory, these animals are hardly noticed. They seem to travel along the river systems which are bordered by continuous county parks.
Posted by Larry Fischer on December 23, 2008 at 8:10 AM
Stan, I agree we need to "exercise more self control".
But consider, that will NOT happen. Why? That's basically the function of religion and I don't see too many religions succeeding in that area. Why then would people exert self control when it come to this topic???
Education? Always a noble effort but increasingly falling on population self-absorbed who care not about anything except I-pods and their appearance. And, based on test scores compared to foreign countries, not learning nor wanting to learn.
A civilization in decline. Ah, the way of Rome--history repeats itself.
Time to withdraw and walk the walk rather than talk the talk, especially if the "natural" world is sought. I don't think many will do that. I could be wrong. What do you think?
the fisch
Posted by Stan Rose on December 23, 2008 at 3:37 PM
I dont even have a cellphone, and i prefer a compass to gps, so whatdo i know about civilization? I think walking the walk is a good idea, maybe a small group of us can branch off and do that, getting Fox to run a reality show on our venture, then maybe it will catch on and become a trend
Posted by Carl Donohue on December 23, 2008 at 5:26 PM
hey Folks,
here's a video a neighbor shot when my rmmte called him and said 'there's a grizzly bear walking down our street' - right out the front door (I wish he hadn't pursued the bear QUITE so quick in the car, but that's what happens when folks get a camera in the hand).
This is about 75 yards from the main highway through Anchorage - the Fish and Game folks estimated something like over 40 grizzly bears in the Campbell Creek basin this summer. That's right through midtown Anchorage.
Not everything needs to be shot simply because it's big and scary.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Larry Fischer on December 27, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Stan, you and a few others (Carl and Hank P. and Steve F. I would think) on the "forum" appear to be more into "walking the walk".
To those of you who do, I personally think your opinions mean more that most who sit behind their TV or video games and pronounce condmenation. A lot of what you speak about is what I've termed, "hard, cold and lonely".
But in moments of solace with nature there is no way, even with a photo or video, to pass along the ambiance one absorbs, or to make laws for others. These are the "good ol' days"..........
I have a Silva with a really old leather case.
the fisch
Posted by Larry Fischer on December 29, 2008 at 12:26 PM
Stan,
Thanks for the heads up. In the great scheme of things there is always f/1.2 to f/64, eh...
This probably want get read, but maybe ignorance is not the correct word that I should have used. I still hate to see these animals killed instead of relocated. If I looked out and saw a cougar sitting in a tree at my back door, the first thing I would do is pass out, and if that cat wasn't relocated ( which would be my first choice) or killed, I would never go outside again, and the next day I would be packing up and moving. Thats why I will never live in bear, wolf, or cat country. I just go for a visit and photographing sessions. The shame is that the human population in the United Stated has increased to the point that the much needed hunting ground needed by wild animals is now being inhabitated by us humans. It's still sad tho that the poor misguided cat was killed tho instead of being relocated to a reservation for wild animals, you know, kinda like the indians when we took over their hunting ground.
Discussion
37 repliesThe first bonafide cougar sighting in 30 years, apparently. Of course, it's dead already.
Text and video.
"This is the first one, in 30 years in wildlife and fisheries that I've had a bonafide cougar sighting in Louisiana that I can say "yes, this is a cougar," Steve Herbert with the Lousiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries said.
Once they got the call, Bossier City Police secured the area and made sure people remained in their homes. But that didn't end the situation. It ended once the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries arrived.
"We decided we were going to attempt to dart the cat. And see if we could take it out by sedating it. Unfortunately when we darted it, the cat made moves that he was going to come down the tree and come out into the neighborhood. We thought it was a public risk, so we had Bossier PD take it out," Herbert said.
Remember how often we hear "a fed (name your species) is a dead (name your species)"? Well, that's cause the folks who say that tend to be the ones who generally kill said species.
They're lucky that this is a cougar most likely come over from Tx, and not a Florida Panther (subspecies on the endangered list of the ESA). I'd suggest writing Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.
Cheers
Carl
Here's the article. Video accompanying might not be something everyone wants to watch. Sorry.
Cheers
Carl
Will we ever learn to live peacefully with our wild neighbors?
I think this quote summarizes nicely how humans approach living peacefully with wildlife:
"...I hate that it happened, but oh well"
'.. so I shot it' is classic. I know sharks and bears will test something new out by biting it, if they're unsure what it is. Maybe this mentality is in our genes. Time to go shopping for some new pants, I think. :)
Michael, yes, the 'Oh well' said it all. I wonder how they expected the animal to respond to being hit with a dart. Seemed to me the shots were a little too close behind the darting - IMO, of course.
Cheers
Carl
It really wasn't until the last decade that there's been widespread acknowledgement of a healthy Mountain Lion population in the Black Hills. The first reaction once studies showed 150 or so Mountain Lions in the Hills?
Let's have a hunting season!!!
Sure, why not? Who'll miss a few or a few dozen out of such a "huge" population!! Argh. To make matters worse, there have been multiple incidents of having to rescue cubs and find homes after idiot hunters here shot their mother.
I reserve my scorn for the officials who were way too quick on the trigger, and who should have been trained to know better. There is no reason on God's green earth the cougar couldn't have been darted adequately. It was a sitting duck in that tree. Shame on them!
"In the last ten years, three people have been killed by mountain lions, with 27 attacks." acting like it justifies the end, and attempts to propagate the idea that they are dangerous and agressive animals.
Three!
That leaves well over 300,000,000 of us that haven't been attacked by mountain lions, despite millions of people who live near, recreate near, or at times found themselves in proximity to cougars.
It's sad...
Coming from a state where a young child was killed by a black bear not so long ago, and where wildlife officials must spend a significant amount of time (and funding) on negative interactions between humans and wildlife, including increasing cases of bears breaking into homes and coyotes killing family pets (a similar situation exists with mountain lions and pets in parts of the west), you must understand that many citizens demand protection, even from perceived threats that are actually rare, and could have been avoided if they had taken steps to coexist with wildlife. Most wildlife agencies put a lot of effort into public education urging people to adopt practices to avoid wildlife problems, but such advice is not always heeded. Those of you who continue to feed birds when bears are not hibernating, and who continue to feed pets outdoors will understand that failure to avoid contributing to wildlife problems is not always a simple matter of ignorance, either.
Could you attempt to place yourselves in the shoes of others before being so critical? Imagine what the public reaction would be if that dart were not effective, and the cougar escaped into the neighborhood. (Even the best training can’t eliminate errors and equipment malfunctions.) I should not have to remind you of the pressures on officials to avoid that, even at the cost of sacrificing an animal.
Now imagine that you live in that neighborhood, and have young children or even pets there. Even knowing how very rare attacks by wild animals are, how many of you would be critical of those officials for NOT removing the cougar one way or the other? Those of us with access to the statistics of how rare such incidents are can quote those figures all we want, but if a local child were to be the fourth cougar fatality, would you like to explain to the parents your demand to avoid killing the animal at all cost?
The public – ignorant or not – demands protection from government agencies, even from perceived threats that are very unlikely to pose significant dangers. Having known and worked with wildlife officials across North America for decades, I can assure you that those on the scene would much rather have captured the cougar alive. However, their responsibility to protect people (to whom they must answer) puts them under tremendous pressure to avoid the worst possible outcome, even if it is an extremely unlikely one.
By the way, to understand that last statement, you need to understand that “worst possible outcome” to most of the public is a human fatality (however unlikely), not the death of the mountain lion. I don’t expect this plea for understanding to have any effect on those of you whose replies indicate that you value the life of an individual animal more than the life of an individual human. This is not an attempt to get anyone to change their values. However, I suspect that some others would have responded differently had you adequately considered the pressures and points of view of those who actually had to live through this incident.
Rosemarie, You certainly understand my point that people don't always do what is recommended, and they don't take kindly to "orders" about what to do on their own property. That's another factor that adds to the complex and uncontrollable set of pressures on responders. Among the outcomes of dealing with wildlife that people insist be removed from their property are...
1. Tranquilize the animal and relocate it. -- You are a hero.
2. Fail to tranquilize it, and it escapes into the neighborhood, possibly wounded. -- You are inept or worse.
3. Fail to tranquilize it, and you have to kill it. -- You are bloodthirsty butchers.
4. Fail to tranquilize it, and shoot at it while it flees between houses, and you end up shooting toward the houses and people. -- You are a menace to the community. Trained officers will avoid this, for very obvious reasons, and this is one area where most public protection agencies do get good training.
Most people who work for wildlife agencies have devoted thier lives to wildlife conservation and doing what it right, rather than just doing what is "easy." For some reason, there is extremely intense competition for these jobs where everything they do is very likely to be criticized by some segment of the public. At the end of the day, the rewards of such service are mostly knowing that you have done your best to do what is right, even though there is seldom a consensus among the public about what really is right.
hey Wayne,
While there's some truth to this statement above, we're not talking here about a generalized scenario - this is specific to what actually happened. It's not quite as simple as "3. Fail to tranquilize it, and you have to kill it. -- You are bloodthirsty butchers. " .. The shots that killed the cat were fired within seconds of the tranq dart. What possible reaction did the 'officials' expect other than what the cat did? It stood up moved, turned, and they fired. They didn't even have a net placed under the cat, which, had they effectively knocked it unconscious, they'd have needed. They had 5 hours to set this up and tranquilize the animal, something those in "wildlife management" do all the time. They didn't 'fail to tranquilize it', they failed to allow the tranq to even take place.
My feelings on what happened are not based on some idealistic rule of thumb, as you portray here, but on what actually happened. What actually happened was, in my opinion, inexcusable. Fwiw, I showed this video to a friend of mine who works in wildlife management for the F&WS and he too found it appalling. We can always defend the principle of such agencies, and on occasion they do good work. They even frequently have reasonable intention; but in this particular instance they were irresponsible and did a poor job (IMO). There's nothing untoward or unreasonable about being critical of that. A mountain lion, the first seen in the area in 30 years, lost its life because of sloppy work.
They also have a responsibility to the wildlife and the landbase - that's a key part of their purpose for existence. And part of their responsibility is to educate the public LA, D of W&F website. What lesson have they given here beyond reinforcing the same old, tired mantra of 'it's OK to destroy that which we're unsure of'. This kind of thinking is precisely what the problem is with our entire environmental situation, be it local, regional, national or global. There was a thread on here about killing snakes, and it essentially boils down to exactly the same mentality. The loss of old growth forest, decreased and polluted water sheds, species extinctions, global warming, etc, etc, are ALL functions of this mindset - 'people first, everything else, at best, a distant second'. One day we'll realize, I expect, that we can't maintain an existence alone, without those we share this planet with. While we continue to kill anything and everything that somebody takes a dislike to, or fears as some kind of obstacle to their own pursuit of wealth, for example, we'll simply be taking yet more steps on the same continuum, and the world becomes a poorer place.
Much of our socialization comes to us from those in authority. Law Makers set the standards for us to follow, particularly on issues like this one. Is it any wonder when we see this kind of thing happen that a typical reply is 'Oh well'? Where does that attitude stem from? How do we change that? How do we make that kind of person to instead exclaim 'what a tragedy'?
If we (including 'wildlife management officials') don't take greater steps towards promoting that we re-learn how to live WITH our fellow creatures, particularly the big, bad ones, the opportunity to do so becomes lessened, as those creatures continue to disappear, and our existence will instead be without. It'll be a lonely old planet one day.
Cheers
Carl
Carl,
Even though the degree to which we appreciate wildlife agencies may differ, it’s good to see we share some common ground. I knew that all along.
One point I shortened quite a bit, but I hope still got through in my first response was that people do make mistakes. When that happens, there are lots of bad results, including my list of negative consequences and the public reactions to them (in my second response). Criticizing a mistake may do some good, but attributing a bad result to ignorance and irresponsible attitudes on the part of nearly everyone on Earth other than the critic is a not a formula for accomplishing anything positive.
In my second reply I tried to clarify that, noting from experience that people who work in wildlife agencies in general are people not so different from the rest of us who care about wildlife and other natural resources. Making generalizations that characterized all wildlife workers, police, and even most of the general public in the same class as the idiot who said "I didn't know what it was, so I shot it" is unfair to a the vast majority of people.
Specifically -- I still think that those involved the incident did not set out with the intention of killing the mountain lion (just my opinion based on years of experience with people who – with very few exceptions – have good intentions).
In general -- I still maintain that most people have at least some interest in conserving natural resources and improving our environment. Heated rhetoric and name-calling can only serve to prevent them from uniting to support those good causes.
You were critical of the specific event, and certainly not without reason. I was critical of the generalizations made in response to your post, that seemed to divide people into two opposing camps, assuming that most “other people” are ignorant, uncaring, and share a mindset that the environment does not matter. When it comes to our desire to do good things, maybe we are not quite as different as you might think. It’s my belief that striving for understanding and searching for common ground will be more productive than assuming that everyone is against us. To have a positive effect on the world, you need many allies. You will not find many allies if you insult nearly everyone, assuming they are your enemies. In that spirit, I end my responses to this post.
Hey Wayne,
If the situation illustrates, reinforces and helps perpetuate prevailing attitudes that are part of the problem, then I think reasonable criticism must be part of the the 'formula for accomplishing positive change'.
Your closing commentary is one of effective strategy, and your arguments not without reasonable support. I'd say, simply, that no one particular method brings large-scale change, and I doubt any of us here have a monopolistic understanding of how best to pursue it.
Cheers
Carl
With no mate it won't reproduce.
Probably one released by a well-meaning person who somehow obtained it as a cub.
That's the problem, folks.
In Kansas there are rumors of cougars. One was killed on interstate 70 last year between Lawrence and Kansas City. So when I'm walking in the forest and I'm attacked what kind of press will come of that? One might retort that most animals are more frightened of us than we are of them. I won't disagree but it is the unexpected that is always surprising. And that's when people get hurt.
So what do we do. Stop traffic in Kansa? Stop firearm ownership in the swamps?
Too many things are overstated and done emotionally.
The fact is that certain wild creatures simply cannot co-exist with humans in an intimate fashion.
If one want so savor the wild, one has to live in the wild and live wildly.... Talk to Hank Pennigton who talks the talk and walks the walk....
Sorry if this offends but I just get tired of the animals coming out on top, esp. when the California mother who was mauled to death by a couger several years ago received less attention that the cougar. Even the cubs of the cougar received over $20,000 in donations. The children of the mother received about 1/10th of that figure. Greenies and bunny huggers go so far before they lose credibillity.
the fisch
I moved to Ely so I could be right next door when I wanted to walk, canoe, hunt, fish and photograph in the wilderness.
Some folks I've run across place the welfare of animals above that of people. I used to work in the environmental movement, and invariably the people I met there who felt that way were charged emotionally over the issue and did not respond to positions based on logic, reason or direct experience. I quit trying to explain my points of view pretty fast. I don't expect someone to change their mind based on what I say, but when asked to comment I do expect the respect shown by listening and thinking over my point of view. That respect was absent so, because we were teammates with the common goal of preserving the environment but had individual differences in how we appreciated the environment, I decided to focus on the common ground and ignore the potential for strife.
I think we would all do well to search out and celebrate common ground rather than emphasize differences and criticize those with different value systems. When I find people inclined to quickly and harshly judge the actions of others, I try to avoid contact with those people in the future. That's not always possible, but when I can do it, it keeps my life more peaceful. When I can't, I've developed the ability to capitalize on the many opportunities to keep my mouth shut.
Peace begins on a personal level.
And directly on point (some of these perspectives have already been mentioned), whether the animal was a released pet or was wild, its location indicates it was habituated to people, and when large predator species with a history of attacking and eating people become habituated to us, bad things happen. In this case, a bad thing happened to the cougar before it could (not for sure would, but could) happen to a person. To dart and move the animal would have been best case, no doubt, but if I'm standing there with a gun and I believe the dart won't work and the animal starts to jump down, I'm going to worry a lot more about the potential for fear and panic in the neighborhood, not to mention the possibility of attack, then I am about that individual animal.
Of course, these are just the opinions of one peaceful man who finds he tires more rapidly of strife with every passing year.
You said it much more eloguently than I.
Respectfully,
Larry
Also, I disgaree that you must assume the animal was "habituated to people" simply because it was found in a populated area. In the CO front range as in many areas where suburban sprawl meets relative wilderness, its quite common for cougars and bears to make there way to suburban neighborhoods, sometimes just wandering, sometimes looking for food. Some that are managed to be relocated return, some don't.
Its not a question of "putting animals before people" or who "comes out on top". It's an understanding that once we've lost respect for nature and wilderness, we all lose! I would hope that we could all find common ground there.
I've had hunters call me a greenie or a tree-hugger and then get all surprised when I bought them a beer and sat down to discuss hunting tactics for white-tailed deer as well as sharing stories from my past hunts, like hunters do.
I've also had anti-hunting animal rights folks call me a Neandertal and then get all surprised when I bought them a beer and sat down to discuss the ins and outs of global warming and the Endangered Species Act as well as recounting how, as a member of Clean Water Action, I helped get environmental champion U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., elected.
Usually, we bring our preconceptions about others into any conversation, and it can take a bit of effort on both sides to toss those conceptions (most usually misconceptions) out the window and just listen to each other as individual people.
As for your statement: "It's an understanding that once we've lost respect for nature and wilderness, we all lose! I would hope that we could all find common ground there," I agree completely! There. Common ground found, and nobody had to spend any money on beer.
Honestly, I can't say whether or not they did the "right thing" in this particular case, so my "pathetic" reaction to it might be overstated. Looking at a video without more context is not a way to make good jugements--i wasnt there and wasnt facing the pressures that the officials were, so i shouldn't be so hasty to judge. But given the widespread misunderstanding of the "problem" and the unfortunate way we have dealt with it, i stand by my criticism of the procedure, and the outcome.
Nothing really matters to any of us until that 300+ days... plus one... when there is an encouter that is terminal for one... or for both.
Fact: Some animals simply cannot live near civilization.
So we are going to control animals or we are going to control people. The latter is often called tyranny.
I've walked a few weeks in Alaska by myself. It requires a different mindset to what most people have. I, too, have to constantly remind myself of this. If one wants to really become alive, I call it being "aware", then, by all means, do venture into the wild where you are NOT necessarily at the top of the food chain, even with a rifle.
The slightest noise or disturbance can possibly mean something. Modern mankind has to struggle with this level of awareness, and after a few hours most fall back into a stroll-in-the-park mentality. And that usually occurs on 300+ days plus one...
Sure, most people don't have encounters. Those that do... make the news.
Hope you have a safe Christmas, and a joyous one.
the fisch
What is civilization? Is it everything outside a designated "Wilderness Area"?? Should we exterminate every predator that falls outside that zone? I must confess, im not optimisitc about our ability to control suburban sprawl and the resulting loss of habitat and wildlife corridors--even Carl disagrees with me when it comes to the threat of overpopulation
Anyhow, i believe a part of the answer is education--so that fewer people fall back to that "stroll-in-the-park" mentality, resulting in less headlines. We might be able to agree on that. I wish you a very Joyous Holiday as well-S
I wish they could have tranquilized it. But in a dense neighborhood, next to a school, they had no way to contain the animal while a dart gun was found. In the real world the Chicago police are never going to have access to large mammal tranquilizer guns and training how to use these devices.
We do have coyotes all over the place now. Other than killing small dogs in their territory, these animals are hardly noticed. They seem to travel along the river systems which are bordered by continuous county parks.
But consider, that will NOT happen. Why? That's basically the function of religion and I don't see too many religions succeeding in that area. Why then would people exert self control when it come to this topic???
Education? Always a noble effort but increasingly falling on population self-absorbed who care not about anything except I-pods and their appearance. And, based on test scores compared to foreign countries, not learning nor wanting to learn.
A civilization in decline. Ah, the way of Rome--history repeats itself.
Time to withdraw and walk the walk rather than talk the talk, especially if the "natural" world is sought. I don't think many will do that. I could be wrong. What do you think?
the fisch
here's a video a neighbor shot when my rmmte called him and said 'there's a grizzly bear walking down our street' - right out the front door (I wish he hadn't pursued the bear QUITE so quick in the car, but that's what happens when folks get a camera in the hand).
Video
This is about 75 yards from the main highway through Anchorage - the Fish and Game folks estimated something like over 40 grizzly bears in the Campbell Creek basin this summer. That's right through midtown Anchorage.
Not everything needs to be shot simply because it's big and scary.
Cheers
Carl
To those of you who do, I personally think your opinions mean more that most who sit behind their TV or video games and pronounce condmenation. A lot of what you speak about is what I've termed, "hard, cold and lonely".
But in moments of solace with nature there is no way, even with a photo or video, to pass along the ambiance one absorbs, or to make laws for others. These are the "good ol' days"..........
I have a Silva with a really old leather case.
the fisch
Thanks for the heads up. In the great scheme of things there is always f/1.2 to f/64, eh...
the fisch