View Single Post
Old 12-15-2011, 12:40 PM   #33
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
redhawk's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Originally Posted by Pumpkin QAAD View Post
I could've predicted your response verbatum, scary.

Which do you think is more likely (assuming Cougars in both locations), a cougar attack at the sturgis motorcycle festival in a town or on solo hikers along the NPT trail.

There are many more people that use the Adirondack park than the Black Hills. The nature of the use is very, very different. In the Black Hills people congregate at specific locations like Rushmore, whereas in the Daks the usage leans more to hiking / outdoors in small groups. Yes that happens in the Black Hills as well but that is not the primary attraction of tourists in the area. You said so yourself: tourist trap towns.

I know why you picked the Black Hills to start your argument, but there are other areas where there have been problems with the mountain lion populations such as California and Vancouver. It may be that the Black Hills are a better environment for that type of animal and the type of human activities being done than in say California.

I would definately agree with the argument that mountain lions do not perceive Humans (or livestock) as prey and attacks are extremely rare and a proactive management policy would even reduce the very rare incidents. I.E. sick or young lions being monitored. However, because it's working well in the Black Hills does not mean it will work as well in the Daks.

You should check out the facts before you jump in wuth a conclusion. The Black hills is a very popular hiking, camping and backpacking area. Harney Peak alone gets more daily traffic then all of the high peaks. There are a number of trails and also a lot of hiking in the less populous area of the Black Hills in Wyoming including the area around the Devils tower.

I know because I have hiked extensively in South Dakota, as a child, a teen and an adult.

And yes, my response is predictable, every time someone states the danger of the Apex predators to humans I merely ask for the numbers, which are extremely low compared to deaths from any other form of outdoor recreation. Hunting has the highest fatality rate from accidental shootings and there are far more deaths from snowmobile and ATV accidents as well as rock climbing and yes, backpacking. In addition, people are far more likely to be attacked by a coyote, a dog, another human or a rabid raccoon or skunk then by a wolf, cougar or bear.

So, I like to keep things in perspective because all too often judgement of Apex predators is based on ignorance and fear then on the actual facts.

So, In the everending search for the truth, based on history and fact I will always ask, how many humans have been killed. More often then not it's not more then one every ten years or so, which is a fact that has to be considered in the argument.

So you undesrtand exactly where I stand on this issue of reintroduction, I would love to see the predators return to the areas they used to inhabit, at least the areas that are still left. However, I am really not keen on the introduction because of the highly likely fatalities that would be perpetrated by the most prolific apex predator on earth, humans. So I oppose the reintroduction because of the danger to the animal, not to humans.
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote