In article ,
Phil Cook wrote:
On 03/05/2015 12:43, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2015 13:28:16 +0200, Michael Uplawski
wrote:

Wild boar definitely attack people without provocation. I've seen it happen
quite close to Toulouse.

I rather think they don't. Where boar are hunted they are likely to
associate the bipedal animal in its territory as a threat based on
past experience. It is probably that the people unthinkingly provoke
the animal by cornering it or getting between it and its young.

I have been walking and encountered wild boar. It was a sounder,
feeding, so I stood 200x away, made a noise, and waited until they
moved away. If they hadn't? I would have backtracked and used
another route. That is EXACTLY the same as what you do with the
more ferocious cattle and horses. And if you walk around a bush
and see one face to face? Back off, and let it do the same.
I have done that with several animals, including two Cape buffalo.

The reason that gunslingers are so much more likely to be killed
is that they fool themselves into thinking that they are the
reincarnation of Allan Quartermain, and bull straight ahead,
forcing the animal into a confrontation. Or they shoot an animal
that is 'threatening' them, only to discover that it was actually
defending the rest of its group. Guns are a sod-awful method of
defence, whether against humans or wild animals.

Oh, and you know what you have to do to stop a 'charging' grizzly
if you have a small gun like a .30-06? You drop to one knee, wait
until it is pretty close, and shoot it through the heart. Shooting
from an upright position will probably just wound it (it's skull
is pretty solid, though not in a class with Cape buffalo), as will
blazing away from a distance. And a wounded bear is a ****ed off
bear. Now, just how many gunslingers would REALLY be cool enough to
do that in an emergency?


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Sun, 03 May 2015 13:26:47 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

It is probably that the people unthinkingly provoke the animal by
cornering it or getting between it and its young.

Or appearing *to the animal* to be a threat to its young.

Maybe we ought to ban cows and calves from grazing in fields? There
are many cases of people being killed by cows when the people behave
stupidly near them.

Animals don't "just attack"(*). They'll be giving signs of some sort
that they ain't happy and you'd better back off. Trouble is many are
now so detached from the natural world that they don't recognise the
signs.

Oooo, look at that nice doggy showing me his teeth, here nice doggy
lets have a look at those lovely teeth. OW, WTF! The bloody thing
just bit me!

(*) Unless they see the target as prey and about the only animal that
really views humans as "prey" is the Tiger.

--
Cheers
Dave.

And who needs those effing bees anyway

Joking. Maybe.

--
Location: Lower Normandy (Orne), France
GnuPG/OpenPGP 4096R/3216CF02 2013-11-15 [expires: 2015-11-15]
sub 4096R/2751C550 2013-11-15 [expires: 2015-11-15]
[Next key will use elliptic-curve algorithm! :-) Get GnuPG!!]

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:

(*) Unless they see the target as prey and about the only animal that
really views humans as "prey" is the Tiger.

No, that's a myth, though it is one of the more likely to attack
people when it gets too ill to take other prey. The ones that did
(past) and do (present) are African leopards and Nile crocodiles /
Sal****er alligators. The former naturally prey on baboons, and
humans are similar, but they stopped doing that as soon as humans
became a threat (they are very intelligent). The latter see
EVERYTHING as prey!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Sun, 03 May 2015 15:19:40 +0200, Martin wrote:

The boar that tried to attack us came out of a corn field after we
stopped our car to help two young women who had overturned their car on
the old road between Toulouse and Carcassonne. We just beat it to our
car. It chased the car down the road. Nobody had done anything to
provoke it.

So over turning a car into the boars backyard isn't a provocation?

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 03 May 2015 09:59:59 +0100, Fuschia
wrote:

On Sun, 3 May 2015 08:30:52 +0100, (Larry Stoter) wrote:

Christina Websell wrote:

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...
Interesting reintroduction planned for specific areas, it's worked in
some
other areas of Europe and we certainly need something to control the
Deer.

http://www.lynxuk.org/

Absolutely NOT.

Oh, definitely yes.

Prefered prey is deer of which there are far to many in the UK - because
there are no natural predators - causing all sorts of habitat
destruction.

Reintroduction of Lynx is already happening in large parts of Western
Europe and seems to be going fairly well.

Lynx would be a marvellous addition to many ecosystems.

Lynx are without doubt lovely creatures.
But if there is an excessive deer population, wouldn't it be better
for humans to eat them rather than import wild animals to do the job?

Venison is delicious and much more healthy than most farm animals.

and culling by a trained marksman is surely more humane that being
chased, brought down and gored to death by a lynx.

I don't see the need for the re-introduction of species that have died
out from the UK, just because they used to be around decades or
centuries ago. Move on!

The lynx did not die out. It was hunted to extinction. There's a difference.

Steve

On 03/05/15 12:28, Michael Uplawski wrote:
On Sun, 03 May 2015 11:47:00 +0100,
Tim Watts wrote:

There is a simple solution to protecting yourself: don't be an
arsehole.

And if you get unlucky - let it attack you? No thanks.

There is a simple European truth to learn: You wern't and we aren't.
This „if the wolves attack your cows� thing and the „thanks to guns
there is less trouble“ thing isn't applicable in a hypothetic
environment.

The problem with lynx and other wild animals can only exist, where there
*are currently any such animals*. But we talk about them only in the
context of regions were they are *not*. This is a little useles, I
would guess. I do.

Michael


Well, whatever. I do not want to be meeting lynx, bears or wolves when I
go walking. I am very grateful this country has none left and I like it
that way...

On 03/05/15 13:51, David Hill wrote:
On 03/05/2015 11:48, Tim Watts wrote:
On 03/05/15 11:39, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 03 May 2015 10:52:52 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 03/05/15 10:35, Martin wrote:

There are plans to release bears and wolves too.


I take it you jest?

http://tinyurl.com/p5gaten and http://tinyurl.com/o6mqpsy

Give me strength.

Because if not, I'm getting a shotgun license.

http://tinyurl.com/lsljwlw



Anyone who thinks they can just go out and get a shotgun licence is
living in another world.
It not like it was in the 50's when you could go into the Post office
and but a shot gun licence for around 7/6d.
Now you have to apply to the police, saying why you want it, where you
will use the gun, where it will be kept, then you have an interview and
have to show your Gun cabinet.
You might like to read the following........
http://content.met.police.uk/Site/fi...msapplications

You're not very good at toungue in cheek are you?

On 03/05/15 12:10, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 03/05/15 11:36, Nick Maclaren wrote:

There are plans to release bears and wolves too.

I take it you jest?

Because if not, I'm getting a shotgun license.

As someone who has lived in environments with dangerous predators,
and who has experience with shotguns, that is, at best, clueless.
If you really want to **** off a large animal, pepper it with shot.

Yebbut the law prevents me from carrying anything much more substantial.

That'll be why in parts of Canada my relatives will take a gun on a walk
into the woods.

There are only two dangerous wild animals the bears and moose.
If they are such wimps as to be afraid of the infinitesimal risk,
and such idiots as to believe a gun is useful protection, then
they should be carrying at least a 0.3" calibre high-velocity
rifle.

For all I know they might have been. The specifics of which make and
model has never come up.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

That'll be why in parts of Canada my relatives will take a gun on a walk
into the woods.

There are only two dangerous wild animals the bears and moose.
If they are such wimps as to be afraid of the infinitesimal risk,
and such idiots as to believe a gun is useful protection, then
they should be carrying at least a 0.3" calibre high-velocity
rifle.

For all I know they might have been. The specifics of which make and
model has never come up.

And did you see my other posting, describing what they would need
to be able to do to use it in self-defence? The smart money is on
them being dumb Canucks.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:

Well, whatever. I do not want to be meeting lynx, bears or wolves when I
go walking. I am very grateful this country has none left and I like it
that way...

You do know that roe deer are more dangerous to humans than either
lynx or wolves, don't you? And that cattle are more dangerous than
even bears? And that, even off-road, vehicles are more dangerous
than any of those!

When walking, I have been 10x from a European wolf and 5x from a bobcat.
Lovely creatures, but both were so shy that they ran away as soon as
they saw me.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Sun, 03 May 2015 11:59:52 +0100, Nick Maclaren wrote:

In article ,
Chris Hogg wrote:
[]
and culling by a trained marksman is surely more humane that being
chased, brought down and gored to death by a lynx.

Ye gods and little fishes - just HOW many errors can you introduce into
a simple sentence? The most problematic deer are muntjac and roe, which
are woodland animals - dense cover in the first case - and both live in
densely populated areas, including suburbia (especially the former).
There are also damn-few people in the UK who know how to shoot safely
under such conditions - and a much larger pool of 'trained marksmen' who
are little better than official and trigger happy gunsels (e.g. police
firearms officers). We SO want such people firing high-velocity 0.24"+
rounds in such places!

Also, lynx do not have horns, are not cursory predators, and kill (like
most cats) by biting the throat, leading to a quick death or escape.
They also kill the old, ill and weak animals, reducing the number that
die a lingering death, unlike hunters who prefer healthy animals.

And, on another topic, lynx are very shy and almost never eat pets in
the areas where they coexist. I agree that the hysteria of the
seriously ignorant British public would be a major problem, as would the
objections of those who breed peasants, sorry, pheasants for slaughter.
And, no, I am not one of the "Don't shoot the little birdies" brigade -
I have done it myself, but not like that.

Our woodlands are facing a catastrophe, and so are many of the woodland
birds and animals, because of the uncontrolled deer population. In the
1950s, it was kept down by farm dogs roaming free at night (and shooting
them with shotguns), but they have got out of control since that
stopped. We desperately need lynx back, and we need them back NOW.


That's a good post, and I agree with all of it, so I didn't snip it.
Those of use that live with deer love them, but there need to be far
fewer.



--
Gardening in Lower Normandy

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...

On Sun, 3 May 2015 14:44:50 +0100, "shazzbat"
wrote:



"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
.. .

On Sun, 03 May 2015 09:59:59 +0100, Fuschia
wrote:

On Sun, 3 May 2015 08:30:52 +0100, (Larry Stoter) wrote:

Christina Websell wrote:

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...
Interesting reintroduction planned for specific areas, it's worked in
some
other areas of Europe and we certainly need something to control the
Deer.

http://www.lynxuk.org/

Absolutely NOT.

Oh, definitely yes.

Prefered prey is deer of which there are far to many in the UK - because
there are no natural predators - causing all sorts of habitat
destruction.

Reintroduction of Lynx is already happening in large parts of Western
Europe and seems to be going fairly well.

Lynx would be a marvellous addition to many ecosystems.

Lynx are without doubt lovely creatures.
But if there is an excessive deer population, wouldn't it be better
for humans to eat them rather than import wild animals to do the job?

Venison is delicious and much more healthy than most farm animals.

and culling by a trained marksman is surely more humane that being
chased, brought down and gored to death by a lynx.

I don't see the need for the re-introduction of species that have died
out from the UK, just because they used to be around decades or
centuries ago. Move on!

The lynx did not die out. It was hunted to extinction. There's a
difference.

Steve

My evidence: "Britain: It was thought that the lynx had died out in
Britain either about 10,000 years ago, after the ice had retreated, or
about 4,000 years ago, during a cooler and wetter climate change.
However, carbon dating of lynx skulls taken from the National Museums
of Scotland and the Craven caves in North Yorkshire show they lived in
Britain between 80 and 425 AD". From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_lynx

There have been other reported occurrences of Lynx in the UK in the
last century or so, but they were all considered to have escaped from
captivity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_big_cats

I'm not saying you're wrong, but your evidence is....?



" Lynx in Britain were wiped out in the 17th century"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx

Steve

On Sun, 03 May 2015 13:26:47 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

Wild boar definitely attack people without provocation. I've seen it
happen quite close to Toulouse.


Sorry, no. (I understand Phil didn't write this, I lost the attribution.)

There have been a couple of "wild boar attacks" during all the time I've
lived in France, but there are lots of boar here.

I rather think they don't. Where boar are hunted they are likely to
associate the bipedal animal in its territory as a threat based on past
experience. It is probably that the people unthinkingly provoke the
animal by cornering it or getting between it and its young.

That's exactly right. Boar are very intelligent and know people
represent a terrible danger. As a result they're usually very shy. But
in all species protective mothers can be dangerous.

I've lived with boar for 25 years. A lot of boar. The will come and dig
at night 50m from the house; but if they here either dog or human, they
bolt. I've had many encounters, if you use common sense there is no
issue of safety.



--
Gardening in Lower Normandy

In article ,
shazzbat wrote:
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
.. .

The lynx did not die out. It was hunted to extinction. There's a
difference.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but your evidence is....?

" Lynx in Britain were wiped out in the 17th century"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx

I will raise you The History of British Mammals by Derek Yalden.
The reference that Chris Hogg gave is the correct description of
current knowledge.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.