Cougars, Wolves and Sleuths of Bears: Oh My?!

Similar to "Lions, Tigers and Bears, Oh My!" From the iconic "Wizard of OZ" movie.  Well I have been driving a lot, like really a lot lately.  My device for portable music isn't working at the moment, so I find myself stuck with listening the radio for the time being.  I have discovered music with commercials really annoys me when I'm stuck sitting in traffic for some reason --not entirely sure why? As such, I have been listening to a lot of talk radio.  The entire gambit of talk radio, even sports talk radio.  Sports talk radio is actually pretty interesting once you get to know the stories and struggles behind the teams, players and competing strategies.  Anyway, this past Tuesday I was listening to a show broadcasting across the Pacific Northwest (PNW), the "Lars Larson Show." Lars and his guests on this particular show happened to be talking on the subject of a recent cougar attack on a woman, in Oregon, a few days back.  Unfortunately, I believe the woman lost her life in this attack --missed the intro part of the show.  The host also referenced another attack that occured near Tacoma, WA over the summer, where one biker lost his life and the other was seriously injured.  So that makes two fatalities by cougars, in the same proximal region, over the course of a few weeks.  That seems pretty statistically significant to me?  The radio host, Lars Larson, noted that wildlife management used to regularly control --actively limit-- the populations for apex predators, particularly cougars, but for whatever reason, the powers-that-be have decided these past few years "that we don't need to do this anymore."  Apparently, there hasn't been much scientific reason or study behind this policy change either, aside from citing statistics which had previously seemed to support the fact "that incidents of cougar attacks on humans are very rare."  The problem is that while such attacks may be statistically rare, in general --think, however, the recent string of attacks up here in PNW deviates from the statistical norm--  they usually wind up being fatal to the human part of the equation.  So the question becomes:  Is the death of an occasional human being an acceptable consequence of a do-nothing apex predator population control policy?  Or to my way of thinking, the question should be:  What exactly IS the upside of such a do-nothing policy?  I don't personally see any upside of such a policy, but then I have the opposite problem of most bureaucrats:  I actually tend to think, often times too much.  Moreover, I despise bureaucracy for the most part.  That bureaucracy is a necessary evil is not a notion I would readily subscribe to, but I digress.

Image Source

Anyway, while you're pondering the latter questions, you should also know the same brilliant bureaucrats behind abolishing population control measures for cougars have been working to repopulate the Grey Wolf population up here in the PNW.  That's not an entirely 'bad' thing.  The problem is that these bureaucrats have decided to go even further with respect to increasing apex predator populations in the PNW.  You see these same geniuses have also sent out feelers for having Grizzly bears imported into the Pacific Northwest as well.  Maybe the plan of these bureaucrats is to up the tourism ante by playing to outdoor adventure seeking adrenaline junkies:  "Come to the Pacific Northwest where we're taking hiking, camping and rock climbing to a whole new level!"?  Maybe the increase in apex predator population is meant to help curtail the human population?  The longterm ramifications of this kind of 'thinking' reminds me a bit of the new Netflix Original television series I have been watching in an effort to unwind in my free-time, "Zoo."  I have to wonder what are ramifications of having multiple unchecked apex predator populations up here in the PNW?  Will cougars attack other cougars as territories begin to infringe upon one another?  Similarly will apex predators attack one another cross species when hunting territories overlap? Which predators will dominate in such encounters? Morever, will the incidence of apex predators attacking humans likely increase given the unregulated increase of these predators?

Image Sources

Now I am pro-nature at heart.  I absolutely love nature, the untamed wild, being outdoors, hiking, etc.  I also believe in the sanctity of all LIFE.  That being said, sometimes we need to take steps in order to avoid dangerous interactions between human beings and untamed nature (e.g., cougars encountering humans along hiking trails).  If the population of cougars is kept within reasonable limits, I would agree that such encounters should be "rare"; however, the fact that we are no longer actively maintaining cougar populations concerns me.  Witness the cougar attacks up here, in PNW, within a matter of mere weeks of one another.  Hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts should be able to enjoy nature with a reasonable amount of certainty that they can be safe from animal attack while engaging in their various activities.  An ever-increasing and unchecked cougar population would seem to run counter to this objective of relative safety, right?

To my way of thinking, these bureaucrats should tread carefully with regards to introducing additional apex predators/not managing existing numbers for a number of reasons, a key reason being an issue near and dear to the hearts of liberal policy makers:  gun ownership.  If we keep heading down this do-nothing road for apex predator population control bureaucrats may wind up having to revisit dreaded gun ownership policies, because moving forward citizens will likely need a gun in order to safely venture out into the PNW wilderness where an ever increasing, unchecked apex predator population waits lurking in the shadows, ready to pounce.  What say you??? ... In any event, if you're living up in the Pacific Northwest consider yourself forewarned.  Forewarned is forearmed, be it armed with knowledge or otherwise (e.g., a gun, stick, whistle, horn, bells).  On this note, let me conclude with this parting thought:  Where exactly do you think you stand on the "food chain" and why?

[Btw, a group of bears traveling together is referred to as a "sleuth."  Obtained that piece of knowledge from the tv show "Zoo." This show addresses my concluding question above. It's a pretty cool show, thought provoking and action-packed.  They have three full seasons available to watch on demand.  If want to see a new apocalyptic take on the future that awaits us, have a look.  You might enjoy this show, as long the ideas behind the show remain within the realm of fiction, right?]

9/18/18 Talk radio on drive home today ... Apparently a New Mexico man out walking his dog along a trail was attacked by a bear.  The man is a hunter and happened to be caring his gun with him (a Glock 11).  According to the man, the bear "put his ears down and charged."  Fortunately, the man was able to position himself so that the bear took a hold of legs and not his head or arms.  This enabled him to reach for his gun and he shot the bear which wound up saving his life.  According to the host, the "moral of this story" is that "a Glock 11 will do the trick when it comes to taking down a bear."  Just FYI and you should also know, according to the host, this bear did not die.  The bear was wounded to the extent that he ceased his attack on the man who subsequently was able to survive, after Rangers found the man with unconscious bear's jaws still clamped around his leg.