by Brian Jenkins » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:45 am
by mrchad9 » Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:00 am
Another friend of the victim, Tom Bihn, of Port Angeles, said he personally had several unsettling encounters with the goat he believes injured Boardman, 63. "He aggressively charged toward me," said Bihn. "He charges up to you, stops six to 12 feet away, snorts and scratches the ground to indicate he's in charge."
Park officials acknowledge that the goat that gored Boardman in the thigh and then stood over him to prevent others from coming to his aid was among several goats which, over the past four years, have become increasingly aggressive.
by OJ Loenneker » Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:07 am
Bombchaser wrote: Oh and then there's the wolves that have moved down into the Oregon Cascades now too.
by Brian Jenkins » Tue Oct 19, 2010 4:25 pm
by Bruno » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:03 pm
mrchad9 wrote:[..] if this is how the NPS manages wildlife, I can see why folks should be able to be armed should they choose.[...]
by mrchad9 » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:04 pm
Bruno_Tibet wrote:mrchad9 wrote:[..] if this is how the NPS manages wildlife, I can see why folks should be able to be armed should they choose.[...]
Hu? It might sound a bit oversimplifying, but in a National Park you need to manage humans and their activities. You basically don't manage wildlife, wildlife will manage itself.
by Arthur Digbee » Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:50 pm
Bruno_Tibet wrote:mrchad9 wrote:[..] if this is how the NPS manages wildlife, I can see why folks should be able to be armed should they choose.[...]
Hu? It might sound a bit oversimplifying, but in a National Park you need to manage humans and their activities. You basically don't manage wildlife, wildlife will manage itself.
by Bruno » Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:06 pm
mrchad9 wrote:Bruno_Tibet wrote:mrchad9 wrote:[..] if this is how the NPS manages wildlife, I can see why folks should be able to be armed should they choose.[...]
Hu? It might sound a bit oversimplifying, but in a National Park you need to manage humans and their activities. You basically don't manage wildlife, wildlife will manage itself.
Sounds like you've never been to Yosemite.
by mrchad9 » Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:15 pm
Bruno_Tibet wrote:mrchad9 wrote:Bruno_Tibet wrote:Hu? It might sound a bit oversimplifying, but in a National Park you need to manage humans and their activities. You basically don't manage wildlife, wildlife will manage itself.
Sounds like you've never been to Yosemite.
Your assumption is correct.
This is probably why I am completely amazed how people can talk over 4 pages on government liability regarding an accident happening in a NP and involving a human and a wild animal. Sounds like the definition of a National Park ranges from “no human intervention” to “Disneyland-style animal/natural park”... For what it is worth, Wikipedia is enlightening regarding this cultural gap. Here the first words of the “National Park” article for Wikipedia in different languages (roughly translated):
French: A national park is a territory defined by decree, in which fauna flora and the natural environment are generally protected from the human activities.
Italian: A national park is a protected territory, declared as such by a national government, which is preserved through specific norms from the human development and pollution.
Spanish: a national park is a category of protected area with a specific legal status which allows to protect and preserve the richness of its flora and fauna.
English: A national park is a reserve of natural or semi-natural land, declared or owned by a government, set aside for human recreation and enjoyment [...]
I guess the NP park you mentioned is an example where human recreation and enjoyment is given number one priority... Worldwide, the concept of National Park however gives more emphasis on the protection of fauna/flora/environment from the humans rather than the enjoyment for the human. Anyway, two can be partially combined as long as the humans are carefully managed...
by Bruno » Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:26 pm
Arthur Digbee wrote:Bruno_Tibet wrote:mrchad9 wrote:[..] if this is how the NPS manages wildlife, I can see why folks should be able to be armed should they choose.[...]
Hu? It might sound a bit oversimplifying, but in a National Park you need to manage humans and their activities. You basically don't manage wildlife, wildlife will manage itself.
The well-known species are intensively managed in most national parks in the Lower 48. Alston Chase's Playing God in Yellowstone is probably the most famous book on this but there are many more.
On Olympic's goats, see Lyman's White Goats, White Lies. But read it with a grain of salt.
by Bruno » Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:32 pm
mrchad9 wrote:Well said Bruno. I like this post- like so many you have put up in the past. Interesting comparison you have done between the countries, and I have to agree with it as well. This is why I am against national parks in the US. Much more in favor of national forests and wilderness areas.
by lcarreau » Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:43 am
Vitaliy M wrote: Was it this goat?
Bruno_Tibet wrote:This is probably why I am completely amazed how people can talk over 4 pages on government liability regarding an accident happening in a NP and involving a human and a wild animal. Sounds like the definition of a National Park ranges from “no human intervention” to “Disneyland-style animal/natural park”...
by Bombchaser » Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:59 am
OJ Loenneker wrote:Bombchaser wrote: Oh and then there's the wolves that have moved down into the Oregon Cascades now too.
Umm..... Not in the Oregon Cascades. Ranchers are saying they have spotted them in the Blues and Wallowas... But the USDA is not confirming this. many people confuse Coyotes for Wolves.
by Arthur Digbee » Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:55 pm
by Sierra Ledge Rat » Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:08 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests