Parents of cyclist killed by mountain lion sue SoCal wilderness park

Status
Not open for further replies.
So Tory is basically a proponent of the Chinese way of limiting population growth, since he obviously doesn't understand that as humans become more numerous, they must spread out. Obviously this sometimes requires encroaching on the natural habitat of animals. Guess what? Until human population growth becomes ZERO, these situations are going to arise. I for one believe that human existence supersedes cougar existence. If you don't agree, I'm sure you already have the web address for PETA or some other similar group so I won't bother.

Some of you seem to have missed the point. People ARE going to build neighborhoods and towns and cities, or the population will suffocate itself. Therefore, animals suffer. I love animals as much as the next guy and I don't believe in needlessly killing or harming them, but in cases where people have moved into an area their safety is more important than the wellness of animals. Sucks for the animals, but the alternative is this type of situation - where people have no option other than getting eaten by wild animals due to stupid rules. That whole "the people shouldn't have been there" nonsense doesn't hold up in the real world unless you've got a better way of controlling population growth :rolleyes:

I'm open to suggestions.
 
I think this is intersting for the "you disarm me, so you should be responsible for my protection" aspects. The only problem if they had kept the suit is we would have all paid for it even if the relatives had won. How great would it be though if the government started losing lawsuits left and right for making crime free zones that they were unable to keep safe. All we need is to make these cases start sticking everytime in order for them to realize, "Hmmm, we can keep losing these suits and paying out money or we can make it legal for people to carry there." I can dream can't I?
 
double naught

ah yes old friend,thank you for your insight.
Every thread that you and I share always has similar insight.
you are just so much smarter then I am!
should I just quit now?,oh I know! from now on I will
send you a copy so you can tell me whether or not it meets your exacting standards :p
 
Still much ado about nothing

Gunsmith,

I guess it IS easier to criticize than start a new thread. The thing is...well, this thread never should've been started in the first place, at least no in this particular section, Legal and Political, remember? No lawsuit, so not really legal. No outcry here in Orange County (where the tragedy occured, and where I live) for any political solution, so no political.

And as for carrying in the wilderness area. Not a good idea, if you ever use the said firearm in the wilderness area where there are signs telling you that firearms are forbidden. For one thing, you'll have the "law" to deal with (hey we'll back to legal, so I suppose the thread is appropriate afterall). For another, unless you shot under a most dire circumstance, the public outcry about renegade "gun nuts" would make for additional ammunition for the antis.

In the same or similar circumstances as poor Mr. Reynolds, your having the firearm would not have helped. The news articles seem to indicate that Mr. Reynolds was crouched and bent over his bike, trying to fix it, and had presented his back to the mountain lion. The ranger interviewed theorized that the lion had initiated the attack by running up behind Mr. Reynolds and took him by the back of the neck. Maybe you might have fared better and shot the lion with several holes in your neck. Of course that would've involved remaining rational enough with a mountain lion hanging on your neck by his teeth, draw the firearm, reach behind you and shoot the mountain lion. If you can, then you're a better man than I.
 
My uncle's farm cats are outdoor cats, all year. They are remarkably more dangerous than housecats! You play with them and their claws are sharper. One cute pussy was playing with my headphones wire, I though it was cute, oh look a cat flossing with my headphones:) in less than a second I needed new headphones, cut wire:( A cat multiple times larger sawing through my vertebae no sound fun.

LiquidTension
"Until human population growth becomes ZERO"
- we're already there, yet middle-of-nowhere mansions and acreages keep springing up like mold on a loaf of bread. Birth/death ratio is actually negative, iirc.

"People ARE going to build neighborhoods and towns and cities, or the population will suffocate itself."
- I don't get that, we will be standing so close together we can't breath? It's a ludicous assertion, most of the world that isn't Antarctica has a population density several times North America, yet fancy new housing developments gobble up pristine land at exponentially expanding rate. The 'resort towns' and acreage villas are extravegances, symbols of opulence. You can argue people have a Right to build them, sure under 9&10, they Want to, they Desire they Crave the Covet, but there in no Need.

I think it would be cool to put big bubbles over one of each type of land, a mountain area, a boreal area, a grassland, and just leave them alone forever. Then you should have accessible areas where people are allowed to go, at their own risk. Then you have the cities with concrete and smog where people live, in our habitat we create. This idea that we make such a mess, pollute our cities and water and air, so we just move a few miles out and build houses there, and then that's ruined, so move farther... Really sucks.

My bad, it's illogical, maybe unconstitutional, but keep people in the cities. My prejudice, seen my relative's farming communities vote the farmers out; seen mining towns turn into commercialized resort towns were no honest man could afford a house, and the previous honest owners couldn't afford to pay the property taxes, and the new owners bulldoze the normal houses and build collosseums they only live in a few weeks a year (because they are Like Soo into nature!), and of course these nature lovers don't want to pay to upgrade the sewage system designed for a few hundred miners, they dump thousands of people's raw McSewage into rivers and streams.
Sorry, sorry, my problem, I'll hire a shrink.
 
no windhover you don't seem to understand

A firearm is a magic talisman which will always protect you :neener:
Recently here on thr there was a discussion about an Alaska guide on some TV show who prevented a grizz from attacking with an unloaded rifle with one bullet in his pocket :rolleyes:
as for your advice as to the ramifications of wilderness ccw in mountain lion ...did I ever advocate shooting unless it was a dire circumstance?
for the most part I avoid area's with bizzare unnatural laws that say lions may have teeth & claw but humans may not have guns. If I have to go there though, I bring a gun.
As far as the biker,who really knows? he was partially eaten. they may be trying to soften the blow to the parents. I do know that you stand a better chance of surviving a mountain lion attack by fighting back.

" Mr. Reynolds was crouched and bent over his bike, trying to fix it, and had presented his back to the mountain lion. The ranger interviewed theorized that the lion had initiated the attack by running up behind Mr. Reynolds and took him by the back of the neck. Maybe you might have fared better and shot the lion with several holes in your neck."

key word "theorized"- I theorize it's better to have a gun in a fight with a lion then not!

my first shot in his situation would be as close to the lion as I could get.
The report might startle him and alert the authorities that something was amiss.

I hope I never have to find out!
 
He probably never had a chance,

as the story states he was repairing the bike. My guess is that he was not only in Condition White, but so focused on the repair that he didn't know he was in danger until the moment of impact.

VERY tough break - but wasn't he on a trail bike in a wilderness area because he wanted to Experience Nature? :scrutiny:
 
Don't you know, if he had had a gun, the cat would have taken it away and used it against him.

Regarding the topic's on topicness, suomeone being attacked and half eaten by a lion in a place that forbids carry strikes me as quite legally and politically on topic.
 
Don't tell me you read "suffocate" in the literal sense. I know you have more sense than that :uhoh: Oh wait, you're using hyperbole to make a point instead of arguing the merits - oh nevermind.

As to your assertion that the death rate is higher in the US than the birth rate, it's amazing what a quick search will yield.

http://encarta.msn.com/media_461544073/U_S_Birth_and_Death_Rates.html
http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0100/et0100s7.html
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Populations.html

Of course the birth/death rate doesn't take into account immigration, which accounts for several million new souls in this country every year....
 
What merits? You made an unfounded statement, we're going to suffocate. Did I take the easy road and compare to 'breathing room', noo cause it's high road.

USA 2.07 children born/woman (2004 est.)

That's above 0%, but I wouldn't call it explosive... Overall western world is actually declining though.
All European Union countries put together: 1.48 children born/woman (July 2004 est.)

Australia: 1.76 children born/woman (2004 est.)
Canada: 1.61 children born/woman (2004 est.)
China*: 1.69 children born/woman (2004 est.)
France: 1.85 children born/woman (2004 est.)
Germany: 1.38 children born/woman (2004 est.)
Italy: 1.27 children born/woman (2004 est.)
Japan: 1.38 children born/woman (2004 est.)
Russia: 1.26 children born/woman (2004 est.)
United Kingdom: 1.66 children born/woman (2004 est.)
South Africa: 2.18 children born/woman (2004 est.)
Vatican: 0.00 children born/woman (2005 est.)
*=official CIA world factbook


As for deaths in nature, it's not glamorous but you'll find that deaths in nature aren't due to animals, most of the time. People get out of their element and aren't capable of surviving in the environment they venture into, dehydration, diarrhea, hunger, cold, wet, etc. Then of course its likely they would get eaten, but after they're dead or dieing. I hate to say it, but 99% of the time a firearms won't help you in the forest, maybe as a signal tool. At night in the midle of nowhere it sure does get creept though, wouldn't mind having a pistol, but I just keep telling myself werewolves aren't real;). If a knife won't do it probably nothing will.
 
No one has mentioned that mountain lion hunting is illegal in California. A proposition was passed in 1990 that ended all mountain lion hunting. Lion attacks have been on the increase since, and some folks (myself included) attribute the increase in attacks directly to the hunting ban. The lion population is booming. I've noticed a huge increase in the mountain lion tracks over the past 5 or more years when I'm out deer hunting in southern Cal.

The idea of using a proposition to manage wildlife instead of allowing the DFG to do its job is absurd. We now have an exploding mountain lion population, and increasing attacks by lions. There is a bill in the works here (AB 24; Mountain lions: license tags) to open up limited hunting for lions, but I'm not sure where it currently stands.

Neil
 
This is really just an application of the law of unintended consequences.

In addition to more lion/people attacks other prey species face additional pressure. A couple of years ago they investigated a decline in the number of desert big horn sheep. The sheep, already stressed due to habitat loss, were being hunted regularly by lions expanding into sheep territory. Dilemma - save the lion or save the sheep. State law prohibits hunting the lions. Uh-oh.

Knickers were in a twist for weeks if not months over this problem. I don't know how or if they resolved the issue. Likely they just blamed people and, unless professionally involved, moved on to something else. It dropped from the newspaper after the dilemma was recognized.

An aside - As a child living near Yellowstone we used to revel in the stupid things people did in the park. I had quite a collection before moving away. :eek:
 
An aside - As a child living near Yellowstone we used to revel in the stupid things people did in the park. I had quite a collection before moving away.
Click to expand...

I believe it was Edward Abbey who said, "There will always be people who can't read a map, light a fire, or pour p*ss out of a boot who want to go into the wilderness and kill themselves. They should be encouraged." :p
 
Wasn't there a problem with some grey wolves up north somewhere recently? They were bred and released, then started causing problems? That doesn't have anything to do with this situation, just a random thought.

Birthrate above 2.0/female + difference b/t birth and death rate being ~ 6/1000 + millions of immigrants = growing population. Until people start loving highrises more than yards, there will be conflict between man and beast due to expansion (or sprawl if you prefer). I don't have an answer for it, that's just the way it is for now.
 
Personally, I don't know why the parents don't sue the Church, the Church being the embodiment of God on earth and since God is responsible for everything on earth, the fault is with God.

And no, I don't think God or the Church should be sued. I just think the notion of the original suit is just plain stupid.

To paraphrase my boss, "There are inherent risks in going outside."
 
Wilderness Parks Don't Kill People - Mountain Lions Do

This stupid lawsuit is a classic example of wanting to have "someone" to blame. The plaintiffs' son was a grown man who took it upon himself to go riding out there with apparent free will in a place where hunting is illegal and therefore wild animals (some dangerous) have growing populations.

Just south of this park, in San Diego county, mountain lions have attacked hikers, bikers and yes, little kids. I for one do understand about habitat, etc. but I believe suing the Wilderness Park because California bans the hunting of predators is bass ackwards.
 
Of course, the ones to sue...

...are the fools who do not allow guns in these areas.

But this suit, before it was dumped, supports my tongue-in-cheek suggestion I've made a few times in the local papers that the land owner whose land a deer runs off from is responsible for the damage it does to passing cars. I love to suggest this in a bar late during happy hour when Bubba is fully loaded. [And not armed!]

They have started busting people in NYfor feeding deer because it supposedly attracts them to the area of roads. This has caused large areas of the swamps and woods to be planted to corn, winter rye and a host of other goodies for Bambi.

One guy keeps getting busted for feeding his goat herd that he bought as an excuse to dump feed on the ground so the deer would show up to be admired by his restaurant customers.

rr
 
Is there a reading comprehension problem???


Please read carefully: The lawsuit was dropped! The lawsuit was dropped! The parents of Mr. Reynolds is not suing anyone! And by the way, did I mention that the lawsuit was dropped?
 
So the lawsuit was dropped! Irrelevant... :rolleyes:

What is relevant is that a law suit was filed in the first place and the reasons for it.
 
*Sigh*

I was hoping I didn't have to write any long responses to this thread.

No. Not irrelevant. What I read so far were a lot of conjectures and rants without any concrete information.

First, the whole "wilderness" issue. Please note, the attack did NOT take place in the wilderness as many of you understood. They just call it that. Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park is in the heart of south Orange County, California, and bordering residential areas. High ticket houses, too. $600,000-$1,000,000 range. Beerslurpy had it right. The second attack took place within 500 yards of a residential tract. Google Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park and you will be treated with photographs of the "wilderness" with trails cut into them. This is no more wilderness than Central Park is a jungle. Website had new warnings posted now.

Second, there were numerous mountain lion sightings in that immediate area a few days prior to the attacks, and some concerned residents reported them to the authorities. The "authorities" did nothing, or did not act fast enough to investigate these sightings. Nor did they post signs of recent mountain lion sightings. Maybe these folks would've gone on biking even after the recent citing and new signs, or maybe not. We won't know since they weren't warned.

Hey, it's one thing to say, "you're a grown adult, be accountable to yourself." It's quite another when we don't have all the pieces necessary to make an informed decision.

The parents of Mr. Reynolds looked at these facts and decided to try to hold the "authorities" accountable. Now a show of hands for those of you (had you lost your offsprings in the same or similar circumstances) can honestly say he/she would NOT have at least considered a lawsuit. Or supposing that a little child in one of those residential tracts got mauled or killed. Remember, this was one bold bada** mountain lion. Killed and ate one adult male, and later the same day sprang from the bushes and jumped on the back of one female (a former marine) while she was on her mountain bike in a group. :what: No reason to believe this one would not have gone into residential area, if suitable happy meals on bikes were not immediately available. A second mountain lion, an 80-pound female, was run over by a car and killed, while a 110-pound male (this one had human remains in his stomach) was shot and killed.

Interestingly enough the lawsuit was dropped after "pressure" from Mr. Reynold's fellow mountain bike riders who pointed out that the lawsuit would have the potential unintended consequence of closing down the park, so the dropping of the lawsuits may not have had any "coming to senses" component to it, I must admit. Edited: evidently some of the emails to Mr. & Mrs. Reynolds in Missouri also pointed out that the mountain bikers are aware of dangers of "wilderness" and go willingly.



Edited to clarify how each mountain lion was killed. They were killed on the same day, in the same general area.
 
Last edited:
Hey, it's one thing to say, "you're a grown adult, be accountable to yourself." It's quite another when we don't have all the pieces necessary to make an informed decision.
Click to expand...

During WWI, George Marshall found a staff that was paralyzed -- they "didn't have enough information to make a decision." And they complained, "We weren't taught this way at Fort Benning."

Marshall in his memoirs said, "Right then I formed a resolution to get my hands on Fort Benning." And he did.

How many time in your life do you have "all the pieces necessary to make an informed decision?" Certainly no man contemplating marriage has that luxury!
 
Wow, when I started reading this thread I never expected some of these replies.

My take on the thread starters reasons for bringing this to our attention is that he was pointing out that victim disarmament zones aren't all urban. And that Goblins aren't all human. Presumably most people here believe having a gun to defend yourself is a constitutionally guaranteed right. Why does that right end if you are defending yourself against an animal :confused:

The law suit is a side issue, whether the guy was looking out for the cat or not is a side issue, whether he would have carried a gun or not is a side issue, whether you're more macho than him because you would have beaten the cat to death with the bike is a side issue.

I'm guessing if this guy had been killed in the parking lot of his workplace, because his employer outlawed guns, there would be a lot more people getting the point of this thread, i.e. rules that prevent you from defending yourself are bad. We should use every example, whether the BG is human or cat, to demonstrate this point.

By the way some of you talk about this it sounds like many of you would be fine with the following statement...

"Gee did you hear Bob got murdered by a mugger last night in (fill in your favorite victim disarmament zone, D.C. NYC, etc...)? Oh well, guess its just evolution in action. What does he expect living there? I mean he knew the government outlawed guns there right? So it was his fault for getting himself killed. He should just happily let the governent limit where he can safely go. The government should do nothing to change the gun laws" :what:
 
"Gee did you hear Bob got murdered by a mugger last night in (fill in your favorite victim disarmament zone, D.C. NYC, etc...)? Oh well, guess its just evolution in action. What does he expect living there? I mean he knew the government outlawed guns there right? So it was his fault for getting himself killed. He should just happily let the governent limit where he can safely go. The government should do nothing to change the gun laws"
Click to expand...

You miss the point. Muggers are humans and are held to human standards. Mountain lions are wild beasts, and simply follow their instincts.

Yes, it is an outrage that people are not allowed to carry weapons -- a clear violation of civil rights. But don't expect us to criminalize the cat for that!!
 
No you miss the point. Amazingly enough :banghead:

I didn't say criminalize the cat. I didn't say hunt the cat to extintion. Or any other straw man argument you might care to make.

What I said was... we should be allowed to defend ourselves... with guns... from attack by man or animal.

What is the major disconnect going on here :confused:

Why do you guys think cats trump the second ammendment :uhoh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
mtn lion shot near last attack,park re opens
Replies
1
Views
558
gunsmith
G
D
  • Locked
CO: Mountain lions in state's sights
Replies
12
Views
558
Dr.Rob
Dr.Rob
G
  • Locked
Another mountain lion attack in gun free utopia
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
gunsmith
G
D
  • Locked
When animals stalk humans, hunters should shoot back
Replies
2
Views
421
El Tejon
E
G
  • Locked
(CA) MTN Lion shot after attacking woman
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
carpettbaggerr
C
Back
Top