I get a common dream (not quite a nightmare, but not very fun) where I get attacked by a cat. The thing doesn't start off feral, but becomes like that pretty quickly. It's jumping for the head and neck, digging it's claws and teeth into me, I have to rip at it legs and throw it around the room to defend myself. I eventually win but I'm quite bloodied and pained.
I get this dream about twice a year, it's like it some weird evolutionary memory. The funny thing is I'm not the slightest bit scared of cats in the waking hours. I prefer dogs, but I get along with cats pretty well.
But I can definitely see how a cat going feral on you would be quite unpleasant.
The conversation, simply put, is whether or not you believe that a "pack of humans" can scare/keep off a pack of these dogs away from their food long enough for real help to arrive.
... That is exactly what I've been saying the whole time.
I DO NOT THINK ONE GUY CAN TAKE ON 11 DOGS.
The weight I got was from the first two results on google.
I think people are grossly underestimating humans when it comes to fighting off or scaring an animal. I'm not talking about a fight to the death here.
How are you missing the part where trained zoo keepers with tools needed to eventually resort to having a cop shoot one of the dogs to get rid of it? People aren't underestimating humans, they're looking at precisely what happened and making logical conclusions.
How are you missing the part where trained zoo keepers with tools needed to eventually resort to having a cop shoot one of the dogs to get rid of it? People aren't underestimating humans, they're looking at precisely what happened and making logical conclusions.
The zoo keepers were not in a full out brawl for survival.
Like you said, they had all the proper tools. They didn't go in there looking at it like it was a life or death situation. They went in, saw that one of the dogs wouldn't listen and decided "screw it" and shot the mutt. They weren't looking to take on the dog in hand to hand combat, they weren't trying to save the kid at that point. They were looking to do this with as little effort and danger as needed.
The zoo keepers were not in a full out brawl.
Like you said, they had all the proper tools. They didn't go in there looking at it like it was a life or death situation. They went in, saw that one of the dogs wouldn't listen and decided "screw it" and shot. They weren't looking to take on the dog in hand to hand combat.
I'm pretty sure they were doing everything they possibly could to get the dogs away from the child, which is exactly the scenario you put forth.
And how exactly is the presence of tools making this less of a "full out brawl"? If anything it escalates things in favor of the humans
Pound for pound, human's are terrible at melee combat. A full grown man cannot even handle a single German Shepherd (which is marginally bigger than one African Painted Dog).
Pish posh, WE can poke the dogs in the eyes, karate chop their jugulars and even pull their tails! We can also wave our arms around and go "BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA". I pretty sure that would scare away even the fiercest pack of dogs.
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
I'm pretty sure they were doing everything they possibly could to get the dogs away from the child, which is exactly the scenario you put forth.
You don't know what "get away from the child" means. Does that mean enough room to grab the body (again, without risking the health of anyone else) and take it out? Does that mean clear the habitat completely?
It sure as hell didn't mean jump in there, and risk thier lives to get the kid out of there as quick as possible regardless of the keepers health, which is the scenerio I put forward.
... That is exactly what I've been saying the whole time.
I DO NOT THINK ONE GUY CAN TAKE ON 11 DOGS.
The weight I got was from the first two results on google.
I think people are grossly underestimating humans when it comes to fighting off or scaring an animal. I'm not talking about a fight to the death here.
Wild animals are all about intimidation and actively avoid conflict. When you live in a world of no medi-care and an infected cut could kill you, you pick your fights very, very carefully.
If a man jumped over that rail, got to the boy first and started waving his arms around, screamed at the dogs, threw a rock or two, etc., then there is a very real chance the dogs would have backed off long enough for the zoo keepers to keep things under control. Humans may not be that tough, but we have all the tools needed to be excellent bluffers (tall, loud, we can control our emotional state and throw stuff).
nature is all about balls.
The Following User Says Thank You to Matata For This Useful Post:
Yes you are. You're not getting out of the enclosure after jumping in and these pack animals aren't going to stop attacking you until you're dead (well, even then they won't stop) or all of them are dead. Now maybe there is a chance you survive (not without life altering injuries) the first couple of minutes and in that time some former marine sniper that now works for the Zoo comes in and takes down all eleven dogs without shooting you in the process. But I certainly wouldn't bet on it.
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
You don't know what "get away from the child" means. Does that mean enough room to grab the body (again, without risking the health of anyone else) and take it out? Does that mean clear the habitat completely?
It sure as hell didn't mean jump in there, and risk there lives to save the kid regardless of the keepers health.
As I asked puckluck earlier, I assume you were an eye witness?
I can't even keep track of what the scenario is anymore, you've created this bizarre blend of hypothetical and reality.
Wild animals are all about intimidation and actively avoid conflict. When you live in a world of no medi-care and an infected cut could kill you, you pick your fights very, very carefully.
If a man jumped over that rail, started waving his arms around, screamed at the dogs, threw a rock or two, etc., then htere is a very real chance the dogs would have backed off long enough for the zoo keepers to keep things under control. Humans may not be that tough, but we have all the tools needed to be excellent bluffers (tall, loud, we can control our emotional state and throw stuff).
nature is all about balls.
The kicker is these aren't wild animals, they see humans every day.
The conversation, simply put, is whether or not you believe that a "pack of humans" can scare/keep off a pack of these dogs away from their food long enough for real help to arrive.
If they had to, perhaps they'd have a good chance, but that's not really the way you first started arguing the point. At first you seemed to be more asking 'why didn't somebody do something?' Not phrasing some ridiculous hypothetical which would never happen. For why people didn't do anything we provided many good points based on the story and facts.
1. It all happened too quickly.
2. It is a very dangerous situation, unlike other situations where someone may have a better chance of saving a child. Getting it out of the way of traffic, apprehending a potential abductor, etc.
3. It is a very weird situation, one where a humans fight or flight response would probably be far more unpredictable and favor the wild animals.
4. While there may have been one person there to help, the required 'pack' as you later refined your argument to, probably wouldn't have been there.
5. Because of the entry of the child in the pen, the animals were already in a prey and feeding state, making things more dicey for well meaning humans no matter how smart and scary.
It kinda just feels like you keep refining the frame of your argument. If you want to reduce it to a crazy hypothetical which has nothing to do with the situation and probably would never happen then yeah, it's a different story. But if you are asking why someone or some people didn't do anything here, we've already answered your question very well many times over.
The Following User Says Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
Wild animals are all about intimidation and actively avoid conflict. When you live in a world of no medi-care and an infected cut could kill you, you pick your fights very, very carefully.
If a man jumped over that rail, got to the boy first and started waving his arms around, screamed at the dogs, threw a rock or two, etc., then there is a very real chance the dogs would have backed off long enough for the zoo keepers to keep things under control. Humans may not be that tough, but we have all the tools needed to be excellent bluffers (tall, loud, we can control our emotional state and throw stuff).
nature is all about balls.
These aren't really wild animals though, they live their lives around people and loud humans created noises. "Scaring them off" would likely be 100x different then trying to scare off animals in the wild.
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
Fyodor Dostoevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
The Following User Says Thank You to kipperfan For This Useful Post:
I understand what he initially tried to say thinking that a diversion even at risk of serious personal injury could have saved the kid. I just think hes wrong. For a whole host of reasons.
Not the least of which, if a toddler fell that distance he probably has spinal or head injuries and shouldnt be moved, so jumping in afterwards even assuming that Superman could 'Gimli-toss' the kid back up and over the rail and then somehow magically thwart a pack of killer animals, the kid probably still dies.
Either way, I think your scenario and all various permutations thereof are implausible and that this kid, unfortunately, was done for the second he went over. Based on everything I've heard and read I just cant see it being plausible that there was any form of miracle-scenario where this child could have been saved.
With the exception of course of 'not precariously balancing a toddler on the protective guardrail of a carnivorous dog enclosure.'
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
I can't believe that the mom didn't jump in after the child out of pure instinct. Thats a tiny drop.
Really it's 11 dogs that are smaller then a Golden Retriever. Not that anyone besides the mom had time to react but 4 or 5 men jump in there and they would have probably backed off.
Followed by this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by polak
If it was my kid or sibling then yes I would. I wouldn't even think twice. I'm pretty sure it would be an instant reaction. I'm not a parent but I have a sister that is 13 years younger then me and I know that if that happend to her I would be in there before she hit the ground.
I understand that it all probably happend to fast for bystandards to react but hypothetically, I don't think a group of guys would have too much trouble scaring those things off. You don't need to kill them or anything. Grab the kid and GTFO. Also, the keepers and maybe other bystandards would be in there pretty quick once they saw someone else go in and an adult would survive a mauling a lot longer then a toddler.
My scenerio has always been the same. A few guys jumping in and scaring the dogs off for long enough to either get out, or for help to arrive.
After this post, Realtor1 made a good point about all the different variables in the situation which I agreed with. Then the argument shifted into whether or not my scenerio was possible at all at which point some people started to think that I ment a Mortal Combat Special: 1 person vs 11 dogs.
Finally. Can we get bad to "tearing apart" the mother?
Last edited by polak; 11-06-2012 at 03:55 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to polak For This Useful Post:
These aren't really wild animals though, they live their lives around people and loud humans created noises. "Scaring them off" would likely be 100x different then trying to scare off animals in the wild.
Not to mention all of the examples provided mearly involved startling random animals in random places. This kid fell into the dogs' territory. Good luck scaring a pack of wolves away from a kill within their den. This is essentially what you'd be doing.
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
