You know what happened to Steve Irwin, well read this...

[Scorp guy]

It's probably instinct for them to strike at the center/main body of whatever is percieved as a threat, so that the barb will actually do some damage instead of just pissing off a predator.

that sems like a very good point

I agree witht he person saying that, this is just seemingly becoming more often because of the Steve Irwin attack. Nothing more.

 

[Khaz Rhoz Zek]

It's "ma'am," and, not necessarily. Put a leopard and a man in a room together and tell me who will walk out alive. Man would only be at the advantage if he had a weapon.

That would never happen naturally, so your point is moot. Man > all, madam.

 

[thisgal]

That would never happen naturally, so your point is moot. Man > all, madam.

If you think about it, it happens all the time. Maybe not under those circumstances, but it's happened. We go and swim in water that sharks live in, and people are completely perplexed; "Well, why would that animal attack me?!"

I vaguely remember an article about a man who had spent most of his life researching the behaviour of the grizzly bear. He knew so much about the creature that he thought it would be a good idea to go screw around with one. Okay, seriously though, it seems like this guy thought a full grown mother grizzly would actually care that he knew her inside and out, and therefore he was not a threat to her cubs and she should let him live. I think his funeral was closed casket.

Anyway, the only thing I've been trying to say is that I will always feel that all wild predatory animals are superior to me, regardless of how much I know about them or how little I fear them. My dad had an interesting comparison; "Any animal with a jaw powerful enough to remove one of your body parts is like a hot stove: watch it and study it all you want, but if you walk up to it and touch it, you're gonna get burned!"

 

[Ganoderma]

They are all defending themselves. Where it hits matters very little as long as it stops the predator. thats really all that matters, so yes it is a coincedence. I doubt it lines everything up and aims for the heart of an animal they rarely ever see.

 

[Down-Under]

Im in aussie so i heard alot about steves death i got a fright for a stingray last week but i stabed it before it got me

 

[TheImperator]

Oh man, this isnt a god sign, it appears that the Stingrays are planning an invasion on humankind. In the future...hyper evolved Stingrays will replace us. I hear a movie coming up! ;P

 

[ShadowBlade]

Put a leopard and a man in a room together and tell me who will walk out alive. Man would only be at the advantage if he had a weapon.

I wouldn't just put my money on the leopard.
Man, there are plenty of tough dudes out there, and human males are actually pretty tough compared to many other mammals.

We have a huge advantage in the 'Survival of the fittest'. As we are big, smart, and the capability of learning to defend ourselves very well.


We just kind of suck in the water. But so do Leopards.

 

[Ewok]

Stingrays are just naturally sinister I think, you can see it in there eyes. Like at public aquariums rays are always flicking water at people when they swim around the edges of those hands on aquariums. lol I'm only joking

 

[tattoo_rebel]

I think we don't know anything about stingrays , we study them for a while think we know everything about them, get overly confident about predicting their behaviour and alas! the results.

 

[236260]

Oh man, this isnt a god sign, it appears that the Stingrays are planning an invasion on humankind. In the future...hyper evolved Stingrays will replace us. I hear a movie coming up! ;P

Stingrays On a Train, starring Chris Tucker.

 

[Louise E. Rothstein]

You know what happened to Steve Irwin...

Dear Arachnopeon,

I disagree:humans can resist tuberculosis exposures that kill tigers.
Flocks of birds die of flu exposures that most humans don't die from.
Frogs die out after toxic chemical exposures that kill very few people.
For survival...disease resistance is at least as important as I.Q.

 

[ShadowBlade]

I believe in the "survival of the fittest" concept, and I also believe that the only advantage humans have over other animals is our IQ. At any other test of survival, we would lose.

There are things bigger and tougher then us, like male Rhino's, Elephants, and Polar Bears, that in a fight for life, they'd almost always win against male humans.

But, although some of us can survive in the wild, apparently some can't. You must also consider that in the 'survival of the fittest' Technology is our adaption to survive. It's improved our chances against the larger animals, diseases, and the elements. Our IQ is what's put us at the top.


However, I'm a Christian, and I don't need to wonder why we're the best.

 

[TheImperator]

Stingrays On a Train, starring Chris Tucker.

Hahahahaha! that's the funniest thing I've heard so far. I agree with Kaliningrad though, I've seen a few Stingrays in aquariums acting pretty evil towards people looking at them.

 

[Bill S]

Put a leopard and a man in a room together and tell me who will walk out alive....

First, the person's IQ would normally prevent this from happening - that's part of the advantage. People are usually smart enough to choose the context of the encounter - including location, conditions and weapons.

Man would only be at the advantage if he had a weapon.

Because man has the IQ to control that context, and to create and bring the weapon, he does have the clear advantage. I do believe that there are a lot more leopard "trophies" taken by man than the other way around - indicating empirically that human IQ may be the stronger advantage.

"Putting" two creatures in a container to see which is the best has a few flaws. Put a stingray and a man in a room together, and the stingray dries up and dies. Put them in a tank together and the man drowns. The real measure of advantage is in seeing which can dictate the terms of the meeting.

 

[Arietans]

To argue about which species is the best is just...... well..... silly.

Each animal will be in an advantage if you put it on its ground.

Without a weapon of some sort, no man can kill a rhino. Whereas the odds of a rhino killing a man if he is armed is signifcantly less.

Because man has the IQ to control that context

In a situation of two in a room. But I promise you the guys jumping the fence in Mozambique that get killed by lions will argue. They have the superior I.Q. , yet end up being dinner.

that's part of the advantage. People are usually smart enough to choose the context of the encounter - including location, conditions and weapons.

Do you know how many armed hunters get killed by wild animals? Or seriously injured. Ask a man that has tried to hunt a buffalo in Africa.

The real measure of advantage is in seeing which can dictate the terms of the meeting.

The animals here usually succeed in dictating that meeting place. Especially the predators. Its how they live.

But, although some of us can survive in the wild, apparently some can't. You must also consider that in the 'survival of the fittest' Technology is our adaption to survive.

No. In the bush common sense is. Learning from the animals is what keeps you alive. Technology is fine for a month or so. Try surviving in the Okavango for a year. Your technology will not beat time.

I disagree:humans can resist tuberculosis exposures that kill tigers.
Flocks of birds die of flu exposures that most humans don't die from.
Frogs die out after toxic chemical exposures that kill very few people.
For survival...disease resistance is at least as important as I.Q.

A crocodile can be ripped open, and keep living in filthy water and show no signs of an infection. A dog can survive a Sydney Funnel web bite. The list can go on and on.

I wouldn't just put my money on the leopard.

The leopard will kill you. Without a weapon you have no chance. Its stronger than you, and far more willing to kill.


This argument has no support on either side.

 

[ShadowBlade]

But, although some of us can survive in the wild, apparently some can't. You must also consider that in the 'survival of the fittest' Technology is our adaption to survive.

No. In the bush common sense is. Learning from the animals is what keeps you alive. Technology is fine for a month or so. Try surviving in the Okavango for a year. Your technology will not beat time

Technology WILL PREVAIL over nature in MANY situations and circumstances.

I know how to survive in the wild over here. Sure its not like there, but I could learn.
If I tried to survive by 'common sense' I'd kill to eat, or scavenge. I'd have to look for some source of water, etc..

If I tried to survive by Technology. I'd drive a tank into the Okavango, with a 50 cal. on top. I'd carry around a .357 magnum, and a rifle. Then with the tank, and whatever else I brought, I'd clear an area for a landing strip, and I could have any supplies I wanted airdropped in.


And if we can win against animals with weapons, thats perfectly fair in the 'Survival of the Fittest'. Our intelligence developed them.

 

[Arietans]

I know how to survive in the wild over here. Sure its not like there, but I could learn.
If I tried to survive by 'common sense' I'd kill to eat, or scavenge. I'd have to look for some source of water, etc..

If I tried to survive by Technology. I'd drive a tank into the Okavango, with a 50 cal. on top. I'd carry around a .357 magnum, and a rifle. Then with the tank, and whatever else I brought, I'd clear an area for a landing strip, and I could have any supplies I wanted airdropped in.

Surviving Africa's bush is not the easiest thing to do. Even with technology.

Drive a tank into a swamp? You have to be joking!
The Okavango is difficult to travel by boat.

As for guns, Botswana doesn't allow fire arms within its borders.

A landing strip? In an area covered with water?

 

[wicked]

Off topic- Since someone mentioned the leopard vs man, there is a book that may interest the survivalist/naturalist types. The Man Eating Leapard of Rudraprayag by Jim Corbett. The one I have is printed by Oxford India Paparbacks and I believe it is out of print, may take some digging or a trip to the library to find. Its not a fiction book, and that was one scary kitty.

On topic- I love stingrays. I doubt this story would have made national headlines if not for the tragic death of Steve Erwin. In the article I read(with a grain of salt) the man was stung while trying to remove the ray from the boat, which would put it in close proximity to his chest. You guys need to stop watching those late night B movies. ;P

 

[ShadowBlade]

Drive a tank into a swamp? You have to be joking!
The Okavango is difficult to travel by boat.

Okay, I don't know much about African geography. I didn't know it Okavango was all swamp. I thought alot of it was dry bush as well.

Either way, technology gives us the ability to dominate much of nature.
Is the Okavango really that difficult? Well, us HUMANS could give it a nice carpet bombing, or whatever else we wanted, and clear out a nice area to set up shop.

Maybe one sole human, with only the technology he could carry would have a hard time, but the human race could easily do it, by whatever means necessary.
We just don't want to. And I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD!!- Just to make that point.

 

[Arietans]

The Okavango is very difficult to travel. I lived in its centre for about a year. I took a groundsheet with me, and nothing else.

The Okavango is only dryish for a little part of the year. When the rains start falling in July it becomes Land of Water. The real nasties aren't leopards and lions, but ticks, mosquitoes and flies.

Off topic- Since someone mentioned the leopard vs man, there is a book that may interest the survivalist/naturalist types. The Man Eating Leapard of Rudraprayag by Jim Corbett. The one I have is printed by Oxford India Paparbacks and I believe it is out of print, may take some digging or a trip to the library to find. Its not a fiction book, and that was one scary kitty.

Leopards have no equal when it comes to intelligence and calculated ferocity in cats. While man eating leopards are very rare, they certainly have no difficulty killing one.