Bear kills dog in shenandoah
Care to link to a reputable source?
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
http://wtvr.com/2016/08/04/bear-kill...national-park/
a simple Google search turned up many more if ya need them...
Why do you not consider the reference in post #1 reputable.Originally Posted by Sarcasm the elf
56391120.jpg
..........
"Though I have lost the intimacy with the seasons since my hike, I retain the sense of perfect order, of graceful succession and surrender, and of the bold brilliance of fall leaves as they yield to death." - David Brill
Sounds like the story from the NPS is that hiker was walking with two leashed dachshunds when it encountered the bear with cubs. Then, the hiker fled (they don't say if he's/she dropped the leash). The trailing dachshund was then fatally injured by the bear.
This would be a very different scenario than a couple of off-leash dachshunds taking on a bigger challenge than they were up to.
https://m.facebook.com/shenandoahnps...61833317175407
Not my job
Feel free to do own research
It's not your job to post on whiteblaze either, so if you're going to do so on your free time why not put in the extra bit of effort to link to an actual news source and not an editorial blog article that, based on the photo doesn't know the difference between a yellow lab and a dachshund.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
My father's wife sends me a variety of emails containing glurges, false flag articles, out of context events, and flat out lies. She has a certain worldview that she's trying to promote, and her idiot friends send her this crap and she gets all wound up and believes every single bit of it.
Sometimes I'll respond with a Snopes.com link refuting the email, but I've learned she doesn't want the truth, she wants to be secure in her world view. Is she a horrible person for spreading misinformation? Yeah, pretty much, but it's still up to me to do the additional research on my own and decide on the facts, context and general truth.
It's a good habit to check the source, confirm facts and generally examine the information you receive from any source. On a public forum, it can be enough to state that I find this information suspect and am unable to confirm it through reputable sources. Sometimes even mostly reputable media sources pick up on false stories, and are later made to look silly for covering it. I find it best not to immediately demand that the person go through this process for me, because frankly, I trust my own research methods more than I trust others'.
A lot of sources often include a "helpful picture" of something only vaguely related.It's not your job to post on whiteblaze either, so if you're going to do so on your free time why not put in the extra bit of effort to link to an actual news source and not an editorial blog article that, based on the photo doesn't know the difference between a yellow lab and a dachshund.
Last edited by Puddlefish; 08-11-2016 at 09:27.
Dude, chill. Sarcasm the Elf, not. Just Angry Elf.It's not your job to post on whiteblaze either, so if you're going to do so on your free time why not put in the extra bit of effort to link to an actual news source and not an editorial blog article that, based on the photo doesn't know the difference between a yellow lab and a dachshund.
Not angry just Snarky.
Muddywaters and I are both strongly opinionated people, we butt heads on this site on occasion and in all honesty we likely both find it entertaining.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
It's not your job to post on whiteblaze either, so if you're going to do so on your free time why not put in the extra bit of effort to link to an actual news source and not an editorial blog article that, based on the photo doesn't know the difference between a yellow lab and a dachshund.
You don't understand what an internet forum is apparently
Not your personal news service that must adhere to your ideal of real journalism.
The blog cited the news and offered commentary on dogs in national parks. This is dog forum. Anyone who knows how to use Google can have more info from a major news service in 3 seconds, if they feel it makes it .....more legitimate.
Last edited by MuddyWaters; 08-11-2016 at 10:09.
[QUOTE=TNhiker;2085995]http://wtvr.com/2016/08/04/bear-kill...national-park/
Well there goes the saying "Don't poke the bear......."
Perhaps you could have put in a bit of extra effort to confirm the news, since you're the one concerned about the legitimacy of the blog post, and avoid all of the confrontation here. On top of that, is it more likely that this blog decided to fabricate an article and quote a park superintendent or that the article is meant to inform others about a factual event?It's not your job to post on whiteblaze either, so if you're going to do so on your free time why not put in the extra bit of effort to link to an actual news source and not an editorial blog article that, based on the photo doesn't know the difference between a yellow lab and a dachshund.
Clearly this is evidence of a conspiracy that warrants a heated debate.
"Park Superintendent Jim Northup said "We are very sad to learn about this dog that died as a result of injuries from an encounter with a bear in the park. This is a very rare event, and we offer our condolences to the dog's family".
"Though I have lost the intimacy with the seasons since my hike, I retain the sense of perfect order, of graceful succession and surrender, and of the bold brilliance of fall leaves as they yield to death." - David Brill
I feel for the other dog. If they were together long it will be like losing a spouse to you or me
Again it's the idiot dog owner that hauls arse at the sight of a bear instead of standing their ground....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm well aware of what an internet forum is and more importantly I aware of the actual rules for the the Dogs On the Appalachian Trail forum. Which begins with "This forum was created for the purpose of discussing how to responsibly hike the trail with a dog. The purpose of the forum is not to debate the whole topic of dogs on the trail."
I'm also well aware of the incident, I read about it in a real news source the day after it happened. What you posted was not a news article, more accurately it was an anti-dog editorial which included one paragraph and one short quote about incident as a backdrop for the authors rant about how dogs should be banned from the park, you are more than intelligent enough to have knowingly picked up on that distinction. If that blog article had been reposted it's entirety in this forum it would have been deleted for violating forum rules since this is not the place to discuss people's opinions about how (as the blog author states) "I don't understand why Shenandoah National Park continues to allow dogs in the backcountry."
Had you chosen to post a link to one of the several actual articles about the incident that would be one thing, instead you decided to slip an anti-dog rant into the dog forum. This isn't the place for it and you've been around here long enough to know that.
Last edited by Sarcasm the elf; 08-11-2016 at 21:16.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
Threads like these are what make me generally avoid posting. So much negativity im sorry I read it.
Keep in mind that many of us have known each other online or in person for years. We may bicker among each other but we try to be more polite to newcomers.
Any way, how about this to lighten the mood?
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote