Climate change could be causing cougar attacks: expert CanWest News Service

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

CANMORE, Alta. -- A combination of warm winters and Alberta's population boom is causing a recent jump in cougar attacks, says a spokesman for the government agency that collects cougar-related data.

 

The province's cougar population has jumped this year because recent warm winters have pushed up the population of deer, elk and moose -- the cougars' natural prey, said Darcy Whiteside with Alberta Sustainable Resource Development.

 

"These are natural fluctuations," Whiteside said on Wednesday.

 

"But they're compounded by the fact that municipalities are expanding into natural areas. A lot more people are living, camping and hiking in those areas, too."

 

Wildlife officials spent Tuesday tracking a hungry and possibly sick cougar that attacked a family dog in Canmore, Alta. While the cougar hasn't been found, the dog is recovering at a veterinary clinic with severe head injuries after it was attacked and carried away by the cat.

 

No humans have been mauled by cougars in Alberta since 2005, but the number of sightings has jumped: as of Aug. 2, 136 sightings were reported. That's already 17 more than the total sightings in 2006, and 19 more than in 2005, said Whiteside.

 

"Fish Creek Park, for example, is very close to the built-up area of Calgary,"Whiteside said of natural areas where cougars were spotted this summer.

 

And because cougars don't hibernate over the winter, Albertans should expect encounters with the cats to continue, Whiteside said.

 

 

In British Columbia, a 12-year-old boy was camping with his family in the interior on Aug. 1, when he was mauled by a big cat. The attack left him with 200 stitches in his head.

 

 

The month before, a woman was forced to fend off an aggressive cougar that had been stalking her as she hiked alone on a popular trail in Kooney National Park, B.C.

 

More than 90% of all fatal North American cougar/human encounters since 1890 have taken place on Vancouver Island. Seven people have been killed by cougars between 1890 and 1990.

 

Most recently, 30-year-old Frances Frost was skiing on the Cascade Trail, 12 kilometres from Banff, when she was killed by a cougar in January 2001.

 

In 1996, Cindy Parolin was killed while defending her young son who had been knocked off a horse by a cougar in Princeton, 250 kilometres east of Vancouver.

 

A cougar also killed an eight-year-old boy in 1992 in a schoolyard in Kyoquot, B.C., on the northwest side of Vancouver Island.

 

 

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...a33&k=51234

 

 

 

 

 

 

Luckily, global warming has also decreased polar bear attacks. So which do you want, more cougar maulings or more polar bear maulings?

I would take more polar bear attacks, because they're cuter

Luckily, global warming has also decreased polar bear attacks.

 

Don't be so sure of yourself.

Global Warming has increased by overeating... I should sue Exxon-Mobile for the health risks of obesity.

In a century or so (once all of this completely debunked and Al Gore is long dead), I can only imagine the harsh things that will be said about a certain population of our current generation of scientists.

Let's hope you're right then. Otherwise, we're in a lot of trouble. I would prefer to take the cautious route and believe the 99% of scientists that support the Global Warming theory.

In a century or so (once all of this completely debunked and Al Gore is long dead), I can only imagine the harsh things that will be said about a certain population of our current generation of scientists.

Let's hope you're right then. Otherwise, we're in a lot of trouble. I would prefer to take the cautious route and believe the 99% of scientists that support the Global Warming theory.

99 percent of the scientists? Really? And which theory are you talking about? You should be more specific.

it would be the one...where...get ready for it...the earth is warming at an alarming rate because of our own stupidity and self destructive tendencies...but hey...i guess its just ridiculous to think that burning something that took millions of years to make and releasing those toxins into the atmosphere is just so absurd that we will just do nothing...like we always have...its funny to have the most obvious human problem in the history of life and we cant even recognize it...

In a century or so (once all of this completely debunked and Al Gore is long dead), I can only imagine the harsh things that will be said about a certain population of our current generation of scientists.

Let's hope you're right then. Otherwise, we're in a lot of trouble. I would prefer to take the cautious route and believe the 99% of scientists that support the Global Warming theory.

99 percent of the scientists? Really? And which theory are you talking about? You should be more specific.

it would be the one...where...get ready for it...the earth is warming at an alarming rate because of our own stupidity and self destructive tendencies...but hey...i guess its just ridiculous to think that burning something that took millions of years to make and releasing those toxins into the atmosphere is just so absurd that we will just do nothing...like we always have...its funny to have the most obvious human problem in the history of life and we cant even recognize it...

 

The Earth was obviously flat 500 years ago.

In a century or so (once all of this completely debunked and Al Gore is long dead), I can only imagine the harsh things that will be said about a certain population of our current generation of scientists.

Let's hope you're right then. Otherwise, we're in a lot of trouble. I would prefer to take the cautious route and believe the 99% of scientists that support the Global Warming theory.

99 percent of the scientists? Really? And which theory are you talking about? You should be more specific.

it would be the one...where...get ready for it...the earth is warming at an alarming rate because of our own stupidity and self destructive tendencies...but hey...i guess its just ridiculous to think that burning something that took millions of years to make and releasing those toxins into the atmosphere is just so absurd that we will just do nothing...like we always have...its funny to have the most obvious human problem in the history of life and we cant even recognize it...

 

The Earth was obviously flat 500 years ago.

 

 

flat earth society ftw

Cougar attacks? I don't get it. How does global warming cause older women to throw themselves at me?

99% of scientists don't blindly accept "global warming" like posted above.

 

Climate change? Umm....sure, maybe......if you trust the temperature records.

Cougar attacks? I don't get it. How does global warming cause older women to throw themselves at me?

 

:lol I was thinking the same thing

99% of scientists don't blindly accept "global warming" like posted above.

 

Climate change? Umm....sure, maybe......if you trust the temperature records.

 

 

not to say it isn't there but I don't know how many people heard about all this

 

Link to story about Y2K bug affecting NASA's temperature data

 

I wasn't sure that site was legit so I looked and found this referenced on NASA's site Here in the first paragraph

There are also different definitions of scientists. Physicists are often considered different (and more respected) than computer model-ers.

Umm - except physicists are often the computer modelers [ANSYS? IntelliSense? MATLAB?]. In this day and age, it's nearly impossible to be a scientist and not rely on computer modeling, analysis, or simulation to some degree.

 

Doesn't change the fact that you are right about the major point - global warming is not accepted by 99% of scientists, no matter what Al Gore says. And I say this as someone who DOES believe in GW [i think it's happening but that there's no way to prove how much of it is caused by human activities].

hi...im jimmyjack...and all i use it lowercase letters and periods....i never give any sources for any of my claims...and i type in a holier than thou manner...even though...th...at i am an idiot.

 

 

And by the by, in no relation to the topic, I heard that the womens menstrual period causes bear attacks.

 

anchormanftw.

I heard that the womens menstrual period causes bear attacks.

:o

 

Get out of this thread! There will be no talk about bear attacks in here! :crying

hi...im jimmyjack...and all i use it lowercase letters and periods....i never give any sources for any of my claims...and i type in a holier than thou manner...even though...th...at i am an idiot.

 

 

And by the by, in no relation to the topic, I heard that the womens menstrual period causes bear attacks.

 

anchormanftw.

hi...im iceman and think i have the right to be the internet message board grammar police...and if you need a source for global warming...try A. common sense B. talking to someone with common sense C. the million or so websites that give pretty damn reliable information as to why our earth is slowly but surely warming up...but hey...its ok...the only thing you provide to this board is coming on here from time to time to name call...because your argument is surely that much better than mine or anyone elses...when you resort to name calling...it makes you look like the idiot

 

but since you really, really want sources...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science...=nyt-classifier

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

 

tell me something "iceman"...did you want more sources than that? or are you just going to pass off their information as biased against republicans because big business cant go along the regular business of trying to f***everyone out of their money? no...this is not a partisan problem...and its disgusting that is how people have gone about choosing how much they believe in global warming if it would help them get re-elected or your party leaders re-elected...you know what made up my mind...70 degrees in massachusetts in january is not normal, its not normal that we havent had any rain in 3 weeks...this is only what i can see...places all around the world are being deeply effected by global warming and yet i know that we wont do a damn thing about it until its too late...and that is what is discouraging to me...that we have every opportunity to lessen the effects of Global Warming...yet we sit and wait like someone just told us our country is under attack

lol..... jimmy used wikipedia as a source...lol

lol..... jimmy used wikipedia as a source...lol

epa.gov is pretty good, though. :thumbup

lol..... jimmy used wikipedia as a source...lol

A. first site that came up when i ran a search

B. there is still credible information on there but you have to sift through portions of BS

Extract from epa.gov

 

The addition of greenhouse gases and aerosols has changed the composition of the atmosphere. The changes in the atmosphere have likely influenced temperature, precipitation, storms and sea level (IPCC, 2007). However, these features of the climate also vary naturally, so determining what fraction of climate changes are due to natural variability versus human activities is challenging.

lol..... jimmy used wikipedia as a source...lol

A. first site that came up when i ran a search

B. there is still credible information on there but you have to sift through portions of BS

 

 

Look, you sound like a tool and everyone knows it heres. I don't mean to bust your bubble. Most of the time you're leaning so far left on your claims even FutureGM has to back away from you. But whatever, that's your opinion. But at the very least, use correct grammar. Type like someone who's not an idiot.

lol..... jimmy used wikipedia as a source...lol

A. first site that came up when i ran a search

B. there is still credible information on there but you have to sift through portions of BS

 

 

Look, you sound like a tool and everyone knows it heres. I don't mean to bust your bubble. Most of the time you're leaning so far left on your claims even FutureGM has to back away from you. But whatever, that's your opinion. But at the very least, use correct grammar. Type like someone who's not an idiot.

im sorry...i learned to not care what most people thought when i was 8 years old...and i dont lean so far left...fact is...no one hass all the miracle answers and the partisinship in this country is what is ruining it...and look...im not writing you a paper...i dont work for a newspaper, so im not going to write like i do...is that ok mr grammar nazi? if it bothers you that much...i implore you to ignore me, otherwise say something constructive or move along to a message board that cares about proper grammar

In a century or so (once all of this completely debunked and Al Gore is long dead), I can only imagine the harsh things that will be said about a certain population of our current generation of scientists.

Let's hope you're right then. Otherwise, we're in a lot of trouble. I would prefer to take the cautious route and believe the 99% of scientists that support the Global Warming theory.

I wish I kept the link to the journal article, but there is something like 45% of climate scientists either explicitly or implicitly support the man-made climate change theory in their published papers...meaning, there statistically is no consensus.

 

Furthermore, it is complete nonsense to say the cautious route is necessarily the best one...because, what is the cautious route??? Is the route where we burn as much oil as we like and save people from freezing and starving to death more cautious than shaking a very expensive stick at an unknown problem? I would say so.

 

Kind of reminds me of this picture:

Here's my official position on this matter...

 

Getting off of foreign oil is not a bad thing. I do feel that a major reason why we are refraining from pulling out of the Middle East and letting it go to hell is because of the oil there. High prices of gasoline are likely due to political tension, not lack of supply. The amount of oil available in Alaska is almost negligible and it probably is hardly even worth extracting. Inventing a new technology should not be in the interests of cutting emissions, but simply avoiding the Middle East. Ethanol isn't feasible and is probably just a ploy to placate environmentalists. There is money to be made in developing new fuels and this is the main reason why the oil companies hold most of the patents. There is perhaps little reason for federal funding for this reason.

 

For that reason, we are simply lingering about. Building new nuclear reactors should be a priority for heating homes, buildings, and operating machinery.

 

Totally agree with these points 100%

Someone has been reading my diary!

Here's my official position on this matter...

 

Getting off of foreign oil is not a bad thing.

Agreed. [1970's anyone?]

 

I do feel that a major reason why we are refraining from pulling out of the Middle East and letting it go to hell is because of the oil there.

Agreed. [not the ONLY reason, but a MAJOR reason]

 

High prices of gasoline are likely due to political tension, not lack of supply.

Agreed. [also perception of supply and OPEC need/want for $$]

 

Inventing a new technology should not be in the interests of cutting emissions, but simply avoiding the Middle East.

Agreed. [though cutting emissions is a HUGE benefit and should be taken into consideration - ever been to LA on a smog day?]

 

Ethanol isn't feasible and is probably just a ploy to placate environmentalists.

Agreed. [do you know how much corn it would take to handle our power needs?! We don't have that kind of acreage]

 

Here's where some argument can be made:

There is money to be made in developing new fuels and this is the main reason why the oil companies hold most of the patents.

There is a TON of money to be made from ALTERNATE energy sources [not just fuel]. Solar, wind, hydro, geo, fuel cells, etc. should all be explored based on geographic area and application.

 

There is perhaps little reason for federal funding for this reason.

I would argue that federal and state funding for these types of projects is increasing at a very respectable rate. We just received a $2 million grant for nanotech research that will work in concert with new alternate energy applications. GE has also granted us millions of dollars for research in support of their wind turbine division.

 

Here's where I beg to differ:

Building new nuclear reactors should be a priority for heating homes, buildings, and operating machinery.

Nuclear power is typically not a good option. Obviously, there's the concern of a melt down [though HIGHLY unlikely]. Then you have the terrorist concerns [maybe slightly more likely than a melt down]. However, until we have cold fusion reactors [or catalytic treatment technology], the byproduct of nuclear power is radioactive waste. Who wants to volunteer to have that dumping ground in their town?

 

No, if you are using turbines anyway [that is, after all, what ACTUALLY generates the power in a nuclear reactor] why not use better forms of hydro? When most people think of hydro, they think of the huge dams [Niagara, Hoover, Grand Coulee, Chief Joseph?] that were built in the 40?s, 50?s or 60?s. These turbines are WAY less efficient than newer technologies and still power huge sections of the grid [Hoover has overflow power AFTER feeding Vegas!]. Imagine instead of building dams, there are a couple of power stations built along rivers? If you put multiple smaller turbines on end in the river, you can take advantage of natural currents and run until the earth runs out of water!

 

So, now that we have our grid powered, how do we ?fuel? our vehicles? Obviously, people immediately jump to electric cars. Sure, you could just plug your car in to the grid [being fed by hydro] and always have super clean energy. Until your battery dies. The single biggest problem with electric vehicles is that there is no good way to store electricity. Batteries lose efficiency and die and then you have to dispose of some nasty left over parts.

 

An OLD technology that people are looking at in a new light is compressed air. Imagine an engine that runs off of bursts of air rather than bursts of explosive gas. The only byproduct of an engine like this is cooler air. Think about it, the exhaust can be piped back in to your vehicle for free AC! Fuel stations would be replaced with cascade systems and air compressors. You could fill your car, your scba, and your scuba tank at the same spot.