Community Chat

[Suzy CurlyQ]

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

My G-d reading some of the replies on this thread. This was a wild animal in her home. So because she acted as a wild animal will if feeling threatened she should be killed. No wonder this world is going down the drain. We are the Stewards maybe some of you should get your heads out of your .... and figure out what that means. 

Animals were not put on this planet for us to just destroy because they get in the way. How disgusting.

---

Wait a minute who said that animals were put here for us to destroy because they get in the way? I certainly did not say this. I do not feel that animals are for the usage of man and only this.  If an animal crosses the line then yes something should be done. This is good stewardship too. She ate a human being whom she probably stalked. And if they had not done something then this would probably have turned into a more than one man eating situation. As the wildlife officials said that eating a human and then caching his body for later is not usual defensive actions. 

[AngusandBuddhasMom]

ITA occasionalrain. This has been turned into the fault of the bear daring to be where the supposed intelligent human decided to walk. How stupid of the bear to be in her own habitat. SMH at some people who perceive this world to only belong to us.

[AngusandBuddhasMom]

---

@Suzy CurlyQ wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

My G-d reading some of the replies on this thread. This was a wild animal in her home. So because she acted as a wild animal will if feeling threatened she should be killed. No wonder this world is going down the drain. We are the Stewards maybe some of you should get your heads out of your .... and figure out what that means. 

Animals were not put on this planet for us to just destroy because they get in the way. How disgusting.

---

Wait a minute who said that animals were put here for us to destroy because they get in the way? I certainly did not say this. I do not feel that animals are for the usage of man and only this.  If an animal crosses the line then yes something should be done. This is good stewardship too. She ate a human being whom she probably stalked. And if they had not done something then this would probably have turned into a more than one man eating situation. As the wildlife officials said that eating a human and then caching his body for later is not usual defensive actions. 

---

I did not name you but since you wrote the above I will address it. Did Mr. Wildlife mention there had been drought in the area and that this animal may have been stocking for the future? No he wants to throw the animal under the bus. 

Animal crosses the line? Nature vs. Man really ? When we use guns and arrows against Nature and this animal crossed the line. No you can not come up with a reasonalble argument infavor of the slaughter of this animal because of the irresponsible stupidity of this human and the kneejerk reation of her murder.

[Suzy CurlyQ]

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@Suzy CurlyQ wrote:

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

My G-d reading some of the replies on this thread. This was a wild animal in her home. So because she acted as a wild animal will if feeling threatened she should be killed. No wonder this world is going down the drain. We are the Stewards maybe some of you should get your heads out of your .... and figure out what that means. 

Animals were not put on this planet for us to just destroy because they get in the way. How disgusting.

---

Wait a minute who said that animals were put here for us to destroy because they get in the way? I certainly did not say this. I do not feel that animals are for the usage of man and only this.  If an animal crosses the line then yes something should be done. This is good stewardship too. She ate a human being whom she probably stalked. And if they had not done something then this would probably have turned into a more than one man eating situation. As the wildlife officials said that eating a human and then caching his body for later is not usual defensive actions. 

---

I did not name you but since you wrote the above I will address it. Did Mr. Wildlife mention there had been drought in the area and that this animal may have been stocking for the future? No he wants to throw the animal under the bus. 

Animal crosses the line? Nature vs. Man really ? When we use guns and arrows against Nature and this animal crossed the line. No you can not come up with a reasonalble argument infavor of the slaughter of this animal because of the irresponsible stupidity of this human and the kneejerk reation of her murder.

---

This is not normal behavior or there would be hikers eaten every single day at Yellowstone. I am saying that there has to be reasonableness. Where would she go? Who would take a maneating bear? If they were to put her in the backcountry she would just seek out humans to eat since they are easy prey. What really did you want them to do? So quit saying that the wildlife officials are murderers as I am so sick of hearing this. We are lucky to have people who dedicate thier lives to this profession and manage these parks for us. They probably saved your life for if they had left this bear there you probably would have been on it's next menu for "stocking up". 

[sierrasaurus]

Has anyone here heard of the Tsavo lions, and read the actual account not just the movie. Those lions killed and ate tons of people, now was that natural? Should they have been spared? No!! Animals do not eat humans, that is not natural. We have never been on the menu. Sure occasionally something like this happens, but it is very rare, otherwise you would hear about them eating us all the time. When a bear attacks someone they usually leave them and not consume them. This bear and her cubs would of become a problem if everyone thought "oh it's just natural for them to eat us, let her be". Also I can't stand when people say we trespass on their territory so it's now all our falt. Yes, a bear has a territory, but in that territory are other animals living like elk or cougars or even us. Just like when you have property you dont want other people traipsing on, yet coyotes or deer or squirrels live on it as well. What I'm saying is each specific species has their own territory but in that territory is many other species. We are not aliens from another planet, we live here just like they do. We are not gonna live in floating houses off the ground and eat tofu for the rest of our days.

[AngusandBuddhasMom]

---

@sierrasaurus wrote:

Has anyone here heard of the Tsavo lions, and read the actual account not just the movie. Those lions killed and ate tons of people, now was that natural? Should they have been spared? No!! Animals do not eat humans, that is not natural. We have never been on the menu. Sure occasionally something like this happens, but it is very rare, otherwise you would hear about them eating us all the time. When a bear attacks someone they usually leave them and not consume them. This bear and her cubs would of become a problem if everyone thought "oh it's just natural for them to eat us, let her be". Also I can't stand when people say we trespass on their territory so it's now all our falt. Yes, a bear has a territory, but in that territory are other animals living like elk or cougars or even us. Just like when you have property you dont want other people traipsing on, yet coyotes or deer or squirrels live on it as well. What I'm saying is each specific species has their own territory but in that territory is many other species. We are not aliens from another planet, we live here just like they do. We are not gonna live in floating houses off the ground and eat tofu for the rest of our days.

---

 They were a specific species of lion that ate or killed 21 people not tons and tons as was reported by Colonel Patterson who exaggerated his claims. They also  have been able to tell from the skeletel remains of the 2 lions that one of the two had a diseased mouth and tooth infection. Which would of inhibited his ability to kill natural prey. And that because of a cattle plague there was  shortage of food in the area of where they hunted and lived. Which was where they were building a railroad. This also happened back in 1898.

We still do not have maruading pacs of bears killing people. And yes we are in their territory. 

[sierrasaurus]

Colonel Patterson did not say tons and tons, he said, and I quote from the book "they had devoured between them no less than 28 Indian coolies, in addition to scores of unfortunate African natives of whom no record was kept." And even if these lions had a problem they still should of been taken care of, 28 people is a big number. Also, we are always in somethings territory, most of this country has bears. What I mean is that even though we may be in their territory they usually dont hunt and eat us. In their territory are countless other animals that have their own little territories, just like we have our own territories. Most bear attacks happen when bear is startled or you come to close to their cubs. What I'm saying is when an animal puts us on their menu, of which we are never on, it becomes a problem. 

[Suzy CurlyQ]

---

@AngusandBuddhasMom wrote:

---

@sierrasaurus wrote:

Has anyone here heard of the Tsavo lions, and read the actual account not just the movie. Those lions killed and ate tons of people, now was that natural? Should they have been spared? No!! Animals do not eat humans, that is not natural. We have never been on the menu. Sure occasionally something like this happens, but it is very rare, otherwise you would hear about them eating us all the time. When a bear attacks someone they usually leave them and not consume them. This bear and her cubs would of become a problem if everyone thought "oh it's just natural for them to eat us, let her be". Also I can't stand when people say we trespass on their territory so it's now all our falt. Yes, a bear has a territory, but in that territory are other animals living like elk or cougars or even us. Just like when you have property you dont want other people traipsing on, yet coyotes or deer or squirrels live on it as well. What I'm saying is each specific species has their own territory but in that territory is many other species. We are not aliens from another planet, we live here just like they do. We are not gonna live in floating houses off the ground and eat tofu for the rest of our days.

---

 They were a specific species of lion that ate or killed 21 people not tons and tons as was reported by Colonel Patterson who exaggerated his claims. They also  have been able to tell from the skeletel remains of the 2 lions that one of the two had a diseased mouth and tooth infection. Which would of inhibited his ability to kill natural prey. And that because of a cattle plague there was  shortage of food in the area of where they hunted and lived. Which was where they were building a railroad. This also happened back in 1898.

We still do not have maruading pacs of bears killing people. And yes we are in their territory. 

---

THAT is my point! If it were natural for bears to eat humans you bet with their intelligence there WOULD BE packs of bears killing people. There would be. But why do they not do this? It is the LAW OF NATURE. 

[AngusandBuddhasMom]

---

@sierrasaurus wrote:

Colonel Patterson did not say tons and tons, he said, and I quote from the book "they had devoured between them no less than 28 Indian coolies, in addition to scores of unfortunate African natives of whom no record was kept." And even if these lions had a problem they still should of been taken care of, 28 people is a big number. Also, we are always in somethings territory, most of this country has bears. What I mean is that even though we may be in their territory they usually dont hunt and eat us. In their territory are countless other animals that have their own little territories, just like we have our own territories. Most bear attacks happen when bear is startled or you come to close to their cubs. What I'm saying is when an animal puts us on their menu, of which we are never on, it becomes a problem. 

---

OK first off I can't believe you would write such a derogatory term as you did above regardless if this Colonel wrote it or not. His book was proved to be untrue at best by scientist in 2001 and more recently. 

And you again miss the point that I explained in my prior post. Given the "but for" factor these animals would not of hunted humans. You want to gloss over the fact that in the case of the lions and this unfortunate bear. We were stepping into their territory. Disregarding what was going on in their world and then crying wolf when they reacted as a wild animal will react given the conditions that both sets of animals were working under. The lion-no food and hungry. The Bear defending her young may have had a high hormonal count since she still had young babies. 

Nope disregard everything treat the animals like the throw aways that they are in this world and move on.

Its our land our home and darn it these stupid beast need to know whose in charge.