windschatten wrote:
A 25 kg cat?
er....46 kg (100 lbs / 2.2). That might be emaciated for a cougar, but 100 lbs of tooth and claw hell-bent are eating you is plenty when you don't have any kind of weapon of your own. A mountain bike (although it looked more like a touring bike in the video) is a pretty poor weapon, Its pretty fucking heavy to wave around as a club. And given that it is mostly "air"...it's not much better as a shield.
It would probably act as a deterrent, for something that was "just curious", but clearly that's about it.
Quote:
First,
They should not have proceeded in an area that was ideal for an ambush after they had the first encounter.
Should have backed off and when safe turned around.
None of the articles I've read have stated which direction they "went" after the first encounter. Just that they started to get back on their bikes. Nor have they stated an elapsed time between the first and the second. The Ranger in the news video said they talked about it for a couple minutes before getting on their bikes....and then the second attack occurred.
So as near as I can tell you are assuming that they didn't turn around, or that they already passed a safe place to do so (if they didn't turn around). None of which appears to have been documented anywhere that I've read or watched.
Quote:
Second,
With a bike, you have a weapon. If a dog/bear/cougar attacks, put the bike between you and the animal. Use what you have!
Which is exactly what they did in the first attack. the details of the second attack (on the second victim) haven't been documented anywhere that I can tell. However, the officials ON SCENE who apparently interviewed the survivor clearly state that they DID EVERYTHING RIGHT. So, somehow you know better than Wildlife Rangers do, who spoke to the victim, from your couch based on a news story or two?
Nice VICTIM BLAMING.
Quote:
Third,
Me and You make lots of assumptions with "arterial spray" and me about the non-severity of his injuries (although he was able to ride 2 miles and make calls).
He was airlifted, underwent surgery, and was listed in critical condition until being upgraded the following day---none of those things imply "non-severity". His head was entirely within the mouth of the cougar and he was shaken, before the other victim "ran away" and the cougar let go and chased/attacked/killed him. That much has been reported. The details of the second victim's death, sequence of events, timing, etc have not.
So you are presuming there was something that he could have done, and that his injuries were sufficient to allow him to do that. However, no one ON SCENE has suggested such an interpretation of the events.
Quote:
Look, I am not super human, but it is trainable to first think and then act.
And there is always enough time (unless the other human is in pieces or you are in the blast zone).
Sure its trainable. How? By exposing people to nearly-real simulated situations and coaching the non-instinctive behaviors into them...after making the instinctive error many times. It is NOT trained by "thinking it through on your couch." or by staying at a Holiday Inn Express.
Quote:
Sure, I could have ended up dead too in a situation like that, but that doesn't negate the fact that the outcome from what we know was entirely avoidable.
.
We do not know any such thing. Exactly what is an area "ideal for an ambush"? The last time there was a fatal ambush in WA was in 1924. The last time someone was killed by a cougar ANYWHERE IN THE USA was 2008. The data available to the general public on what constitutes what you've declared just isn't there. And, no one has suggested that THIS AREA is as you have characterized it.
edited for grammar.