Dog mauled while defending owners against mountain lion

dorokusai

snow wrote: »

I doubt anyone here is either but it doesnt take an ethologist to know the behavior exhibited by this particular animal is not natural to the species and that once they start seeing humans as prey they dont stop.



REGARDS SNOW

Oh, I'm sorry, it only takes a moron to guess about animal behavior with no real knowledge about the subject. Whew, no offense but now I can finally have a jury capable of deciding my fate.

snow

dorokusai wrote: »

Oh, I'm sorry, it only takes a moron to guess about animal behavior with no real knowledge about the subject. Whew, no offense but now I can finally have a jury capable of deciding my fate.

No guesses here, based on what was originally published in the original news story everything I said was well established facts. And no you will not find me accusing you of being a moron, a pain in the **** perhaps at times but certainly not a moronic one.



REGARDS SNOW

ben62670

I'll call him a moron. He has hurt my feelings, and I love him...

tom t

sal, cut the grass

dorokusai

Snow - I qouted you but didn't really care about the response. You should read more, post less.

snow

dorokusai wrote: »

Snow - I qouted you but didn't really care about the response. You should read more, post less.

take your own advice and STOP POSTING THEN. you have 10 times as many posts as I do here on this forum and besides you said you wanted 6 more pages of BS



REGARDS SNOW

snow

ben62670 wrote: »

I'll call him a moron. He has hurt my feelings, and I love him...

Ben you are entitled to love whoever you want but please no pics



REGARDS SNOW

shawn474

Just a question here, but by the responses in the first 6 pages, should we now euthanize the dog for displaying erratic and irrational behavior in attacking a now innocent and unassuming mountain lion who protected itself and fled the scene?

I'm just asking.......(with extreme sarcasm and irony)

ben62670

The dog obviously has issues. Euthanize the evil SOB and the owners. Poor kitty.

snow

shawn474 wrote: »

Just a question here, but by the responses in the first 6 pages, should we now euthanize the dog for displaying erratic and irrational behavior in attacking a now innocent and unassuming mountain lion who protected itself and fled the scene?

I'm just asking.......(with extreme sarcasm and irony)

I thought you were done posting? certainly something needs to be done with the owner for lying to officals anyhow.



REGARDS SNOW

shawn474

I am finished now, Case closed.

Now on to save the whales.............................:D;)

BlueFox

exalted512 wrote: »

A 100 pound can easily take about anything it wants to...
-Cody

If it wanted to, my 10 lb cat could do some decent damage.

shadowofnight

Bad Hoagie...Bad Hoagie.....see now its gonna come out that the " Black shepard mix " description was to demonize the cat....when in reality Hoagie has a dark side. "Mix" was just a way to hide his pit bull side of the family

ben62670

I like pie. Minced meat cougar pie with extra raisins.

POIDOG

Sorry guys, believe what you may, But,as a dog trainer,allow me to provide some insight. Dogs only attack when hungry or threatened. I don't think he was interested in eating the kitty! And the articles presented are very inconclusive.

You got to ask yourself, why was the cat hanging around the bathroom? Taking back his habitat?

I bow to the moral superority of the human bashers and look forward to my camp sing-along with lions. I hope they don't eat me!:p

tonyb

Or is the question...why were the humans hanging around the cats bathroom??
Hmmmm....

ben62670

My **** cat was scratching out on my back door
Scratched so long poor **** got sore
Sore ****..ooohhhh
Sore..**** ooohhh
Just a friendly little cat

My **** cat was sittin on the front step
Sat so long poor **** got wet
Wet ****...ohhhhh
Sore, wet..****
Just a friendly little cat

My **** cat was playing out on the back lot
Played so long poor **** got hot
Hot ****..ohhhh
Sore, wet, hot...****..
Just a friendly little cat

My **** cat was rocking in the rocking chair
Rocked so long he lost his hair
Bald ****...ohhh
Sore, wet, hot, bald...****
Just a friendly little cat

My neighbor and I out at the clothes line
I said to my neighbor won't you look at mine
My ****..oohhhhhh
Sore, wet, hot, bald ****
Just a friendly little cat

My neighbor stole my kitty
But I did see
I said to my neighbor set my **** free
Free ****
Sore, wet, hot, bad free ****
Just a friendly little cat
Here kitty kitty kitty kitty kitty.

Danny Tse

shadowofnight wrote: »

" State wildlife officials said today that a dog involved in a battle with a mountain lion in the Cleveland National Forest was likely the aggressor and there was no evidence that the cougar had targeted the canine’s owners. "

“As far as we can tell, the dog went after the lion, and the lion turned around and attacked the dog,” said Kevin Brennan, a wildlife biologist for the department of fish and game. “There isn’t any evidence to believe there are any public safety issues. If a mountain lion attacks a human being or attempts to attack a human being, we treat that as a public safety incident, and we have to destroy the animal. That’s not what happened here.”

Just saw the story on the local CBS affiliate 11pm news....nothing was mentioned about the dog being the aggressor. All I saw was the dog being stitched back together and the owner was in tears about his dog. Poor doggy.

I think what happened was the dog sniffed out the mtn. lion and the big cat acted upon its natural instinct. This is my guess and I am sticking by it.

shawn474

Of course there was nothing mentioned on the local news about the dog being the aggressor......what's the better story? Dog saves owners from ferocious mountain lion or vicious dog attacks mountain lion? You can't argue that the first story reported pulls at the heart strings and is a better story. It's the nature of media.

POIDOG, seriously? Inconclusive? The first articles written were vague and sensationalized. The new articles seem pretty conclusive to me. Before you were singing the praises of the wildlife "experts" making the decision to put the cat down because they know more about it than we do. Now those same experts come out with new information and you want to dispute it because you're a dog trainer?:rolleyes: Please man. All those "wildlife experts" state that there is not a public safety issue. This is a case of humans and wildlife coexisting / sharing the land (just like you supported) until it was attacked and defended itself. Some people just like to argue no matter the facts.

Dogs ONLY attack when hungry or provoked? Let's not forget that dogs compete for their territory (house, yard, attention of their owner) and will defend that to their ability. I don't see you point............then again, we are agreeing to disagree.

shawn474

Obviously this is something we are pretty passionate about. One last thought; when the mountain lion supposedly attacked the dog, everyone is ready to condemn it and execute it. Now that we KNOW that the dog displayed the aggression and erratic behavior, we are ready to condone it and defend the dog (who is very brave by the way).

As far as there still being a problem with a mountain lion so close to a campground; well that supports my belief that we have encroached too far. People, they were camping in the wilderness where encounters with wildlife are part of the intrigue. This was a peaceful encounter, until (by the experts statements) the dog attacked. The lion defended itself and ran away, just like it should. It didn't turn into a maneater and maul the campground.

What exactly then is the justification to say that there is something wrong with the mountain lion. That it should know better or have more fear when around humans? OK, so whats an acceptable range of distance for the wildlife. I'd like to know next time I am camping what my circle of trust is. Why don't we turn every national park, preserve and sanctuary into a zoo and fence the animals out of the areas where human contact could potentially occur. Should we dart or kill every potentially dangerous animal within a 100 yard radius just because they have the audacity to WALK so close to us? It's a joke really.

Lord Vader

I believe the facts are still the same as first reported. I watched the owner of the dog state that the cat came after them first, and I believe him because he was there... I believe what is really going on here is the park service is looking for a reason to not go after the cat and this is a way to do so..... Makes me wonder what kind of dirt the cat has on the rangers, compromising photos perhaps?

snow

shawn474 wrote: »

Of course there was nothing mentioned on the local news about the dog being the aggressor......what's the better story? Dog saves owners from ferocious mountain lion or vicious dog attacks mountain lion? You can't argue that the first story reported pulls at the heart strings and is a better story. It's the nature of media.

POIDOG, seriously? Inconclusive? The first articles written were vague and sensationalized. The new articles seem pretty conclusive to me. Before you were singing the praises of the wildlife "experts" making the decision to put the cat down because they know more about it than we do. Now those same experts come out with new information and you want to dispute it because you're a dog trainer?:rolleyes: Please man. All those "wildlife experts" state that there is not a public safety issue. This is a case of humans and wildlife coexisting / sharing the land (just like you supported) until it was attacked and defended itself. Some people just like to argue no matter the facts.

Dogs ONLY attack when hungry or provoked? Let's not forget that dogs compete for their territory (house, yard, attention of their owner) and will defend that to their ability. I don't see you point............then again, we are agreeing to disagree.

I thought you were off to save the whales or sumthin

shawn474 wrote: »

Obviously this is something we are pretty passionate about. One last thought; when the mountain lion supposedly attacked the dog, everyone is ready to condemn it and execute it. Now that we KNOW that the dog displayed the aggression and erratic behavior, we are ready to condone it and defend the dog (who is very brave by the way).

As far as there still being a problem with a mountain lion so close to a campground; well that supports my belief that we have encroached too far. People, they were camping in the wilderness where encounters with wildlife are part of the intrigue. This was a peaceful encounter, until (by the experts statements) the dog attacked. The lion defended itself and ran away, just like it should. It didn't turn into a maneater and maul the campground.

What exactly then is the justification to say that there is something wrong with the mountain lion. That it should know better or have more fear when around humans? OK, so whats an acceptable range of distance for the wildlife. I'd like to know next time I am camping what my circle of trust is. Why don't we turn every national park, preserve and sanctuary into a zoo and fence the animals out of the areas where human contact could potentially occur. Should we dart or kill every potentially dangerous animal within a 100 yard radius just because they have the audacity to WALK so close to us? It's a joke really.

These same experts were politcally motivated earlier according to you and now of course they are the good guys now that there not going to kill the kitty

I wouldndt be too worried about the circle of trust thing either because according to your own statement we have as humans have encroached too far and being a good citizen you wouldndt go camping anyways because that would make you part of the problem. As mentioned earlier read up a little bit on normal mountain lion behavior and most of your questions will be answered.



REGARDS SNOW

shawn474

snow, you have an uncanny ability to be antagonizing and patronizing.:p The facts are that I said that the park service intially made their statement to appease the public and make it known that they were acting; not just standing idly by. Also, I do camp, hike and enjoy the outdoors. I also understand that their is an inherent risk with doing so and take necessary precautions.

You can spin my words any way you like. Whatever floats your boat man. I just love the fact that you guys are clinging to PRELIMINARY reports that have since become unfounded. Have you considered that the owners of the dig wanted to sensationalize the story for their 15 minutes of fame? Happens all the time; I don't know for sure because I wasn't there either. But the investigators have released new FACTS to dispute the initial reports. Vader, SO now you're saying that these honorable rangers (when they were talking about hunting and killing the lion) have all of the sudden had a change of heart and turned into tree hugging conservationists who rather than kill a lion would endanger the lives of humans?! Talk about fence sitting. Believe what you will and I'll believe what I will. I'll leave it at that and bow out. Off my soapbox.............but not before i say nah-nee, nah-nee, boo-boo!!!!!:p:D

ben62670

Kill the bad kitty. It is better to be safe than food.

AudioGenics

beware of undomesticated predatory wild animals when visiting their natural habitats.

POIDOG

shawn474 wrote: »

You can spin my words any way you like. Whatever floats your boat man. I just love the fact that you guys are clinging to PRELIMINARY reports that have since become unfounded. Have you considered that the owners of the dig wanted to sensationalize the story for their 15 minutes of fame? Happens all the time; I don't know for sure because I wasn't there either. But the investigators have released new FACTS to dispute the initial reports. Vader, SO now you're saying that these honorable rangers (when they were talking about hunting and killing the lion) have all of the sudden had a change of heart and turned into tree hugging conservationists who rather than kill a lion would endanger the lives of humans?! Talk about fence sitting. Believe what you will and I'll believe what I will. I'll leave it at that and bow out. Off my soapbox.............but not before i say nah-nee, nah-nee, boo-boo!!!!!:p:D

You, sir, are truly a work of art, spinning facts to justify your perverse sense of justice. For example, the headlines for the LATimes blog uses the term "likely". Enlighten me as to when this term moved from being an opinion to a fact?

Also, I never claimed to be an expert, you did. Hey but thanks for the promotion. Your expert claimed it may be or it may not be, we don't know? Hey Conclusive enough for me. Also, you imply to be somewhat of an expert on the subject because you camp and hike. Please:rolleyes:

ryanjoachim

Biologist Kevin Brennan of the California Department Fish and Game, said Fish and Game officials are not searching today for the mountain lion, which was estimated to weigh about 100 pounds, because they do not consider the confrontation "a public safety situation."

"The dog had attacked the mountain lion," Brennan said today

I just wanted to point that part out to Mr. Snow (the man who refused to think that there was ANY reason for the cat to attack the dog).

Welcome to the grey world sir, black and white is dead.

shawn474

POIDOG, if you LIKELY read past the article title, it explains the account of the attack. If you read more closely or did more research, you LIKELY would realize that you are wrong and just have too much trouble inserting your foot into your mouth.

I claim that I hike and camp. I also claim to respect the environment. I've never once claimed to be an expert; just because I refute your opinion (and in the process prove you wrong) doesn't make me an expert on the situation. It does, however, show that I am willing to listen to both sides, gather eveidence and formulate an opinion that happens to be based on fact. You, on the other hand, chose blindly to cling onto your belief that no how, no way could possibly be skewed or wrong in any possibility. :rolleyes:

POIDOG

No sir, you are not willing to listen. The article claims no eyewitness, only speculation.
Ask yourself this question, if the lion provides no danger, then why was the campground shut down?

Finally Shawn, quit making up s**t about me.

ryanjoachim

POIDOG wrote: »

No sir, you are not willing to listen. The article claims no eyewitness, only speculation.
Ask yourself this question, if the lion provides no danger, then why was the campground shut down?

Finally Shawn, quit making up s**t about me.

How about because the dog injured the cat? And injured animals can be dangerous?

Or they shut down the park when news of the attack first hit, and are just now getting the actual facts?