Animal Cruelty Laws In Washington

...because it came up at lunch today...
Wash. Rev. Code 16.52.011 et. seq.
Sentencing Provisions: 16.52.200
Animal Cruelty in the First Degree: 16.52.205
Animal Cruelty in the Second Degree: 16.52.207

Teramotos wrote:...Exceptions are made for “game laws”, killing of venomous reptiles, protection of life, limb or property, killing animals for food, scientific research, animal husbandry, and rodeo.

That's perfect, isn't it? We'll fall under 'killing animals for food' and of course comply with all the "game laws" rules. There might be even better states, but if WA would work, do Moose live in our state? What can we find in our state... Elk? Can we get permits/to hunt Bear?

Wanted, highly experienced hunters capable of locating, tracking, subduing and transporting very large animals that are native to the Pacific NW. Examples include Wild Cats, Black Bears, Brown Bears, Mountain Lions, and Elk. If you can locate and capture Big Foot easily, even better. Contact Brad and he'll give you the details.

In the state of Washington, there are
Brown Bears - Grizzly Bears that can be as large as 8 ft tall and 1,000+ lbs live in the Olympics
Black Bears - Males can be as large as 5 ft tall and weigh 300+ lbs.
Elk and Moose - Bulls can be as large as 5 ft tall, 8 ft long and weigh 700 lbs to 1,500 lbs.
Wild Boars - can be 5 ft long and weigh 300+ lbs.
Cougars - can be up to 200 lbs but most are about 150 lbs with several very large cats shot and killed on Fort Lewis this year.
Timber Wolves - can be up to 125 lbs, bigger than many large fighting dogs
Great White Sharks do live in the waters of the PNW - the largest Great Whites can be 20 ft long and 5,000 lbs. (more than 2 tons)
Killer Whales - males can be as large as 26 ft long and weigh up to 22,000 lbs in extreme cases (that's 10 tons)

Unarmed, or even with a baton, even if I were a black belt in TKD and having bested other men who out weighed me by more than 100 lbs and are also trained martial artists, I don't think I'd have a chance against anything on the list except maybe (and I stress maybe) the Timber Wolf.

I know I can kill a Great White Shark with a baton....in the dessert.

Teramotos wrote:...I don't think I'd have a chance against anything on the list except maybe (and I stress maybe) the Timber Wolf.

Ah, but you're talking mono a mono. I'd guess you agree with me that with 4 peers at least as capable as you (i.e., in this scenario* also black belts in TKD), your party could take any land animal on your list, and reasonably safely too armed only with batons and no armor. Is that right?
*In my scenario, they may or may not be trained in TKD but will have training in stick fighting to varying degrees.

Teramotos wrote:Cougars - can be up to 200 lbs but most are about 150 lbs with several very large cats shot and killed on Fort Lewis this year.

That's perfect! These are implied as legal and deemed necessary killings by someone, right? Fort Lewis has plenty of guns, but what do neighboring communities do? Would it be hard to wait for news of a problem Cougar sighting and do what someone else was going to do anyway, especially if we plan on feasting on the kill? It seems reasonably simple to accomplish anyway.

We can pretty easily find footage of Cougars on the kill to play up their ferocity. I'll bet we can pretty easily play up the danger & risk element of the hunt to far more than what I think it actually is. I'm fairly sure a party of 5 could very safely kill a Cougar, and I'm also fairly sure there are a few people who won't believe the risk factor can be anything but extremely high no matter how many times they see it done.

Someone may take a claw slash or bite, either of which are capable of being very deep, but no single hit is likely to be lethal. If you can count on your party members to help, anyway, no one should take more hits than that. If someone takes a hit they can fall back & there's still 4 more party members to fight the Cougar.

I'd also guess a trained team of 5 (coed) with only batons and no armor, could have many 'clean' hunts in a row with no one sustaining any injuries, except maybe light scratches or the like. In fact, I'd guess a hunt where a Cougar scores a hit at all would be unusual.

Brad wrote Ah, but you're talking mono a mono. I'd guess you agree with me that with 4 peers at least as capable as you (i.e., in this scenario* also black belts in TKD), your party could take any land animal on your list, and reasonably safely too armed only with batons and no armor. Is that right?

"...reasonably safely??" I don't agree that any five men w/o armor, armed only with batons, can take down a 1,000 lb Grizzly with reasonable safety. I've chased off a few racoons from the back yard, fought off dozens of dogs when I was a paper boy (and gotten bit like over 10 times, some really deep), had to grab and subdue the neighbor's house cat and smash a wasp hive, but that's about it as far as fighting off animals. A single blow from a bear's claw is potential death as would be getting gored by a boar's tusk or the horns of an elk or moose. A penetration wound of as shallow as 4" to a vital organ, like the liver, can cause enough internal bleeding to kill a man in less than 10 minutes. I don't know about what the other guys think, but whenever you're fighting wild animals, there's always going to be a reasonable level of risk.

Any of you guys reading this think that you (all of you reading this), could take down any of the animals on the list with "minimal" risk is you were armed only with a 36" metal baton and four other guys just like you? If so, I wanna hear from you. I've never fought a cougar before, but if they're any faster than the 15 lb housecat I had to grab who tore my heavy jacket to shreds, there's no way someone can be expected to block every one of the cat's claw attacks, not to mention a pounce where it's biting for your neck too! I think you're underestimating the fighting power of these animals and overestimating the fighting power of your average human.

As a side note, someone as skilled as Challen Mills armed with a Katana might fall into the category of being able to defeat SOME of the animals on the list with lower risk of injury to the humans. I'll let Ken make that call as he's seen his son and others like him in action. As for me, I wouldn't feel real safe unless I had an M-4 with 60 rds and a 9mm with 30 rounds for backup. Against the Grizzly, I'd want a Spas-15 Semi-Auto 12 Gauge with 00 shot and slugs and I still wouldn't feel safe!

as far as I can tell, only two people have been killed by cougars in North America and in both cases the cougar pounced and sunk its jaws into the person's neck, breaking their spine. In Africa, hundreds of people have been killed by lions since 1900, many of them being armed adult males. Lions are much bigger than cougars of course.

The have been about 100 cases of bears killing people in the last hundred years in North America, many of them armed hunters. It appears that (deer) hunters are the most likely people to encounter bears. There are quite a number of cases of large Brown bears killing two or three people (and running off others) in a single attack. In several of these cases, the people were even armed with fire arms.

Since 1900, wolves have killed several hundred people, mostly children and teens. The few adult men that have been killed were similar to the cougar attacks, the wolf leaps and bites you in the neck. Most of these attacks happened in India and parts of Asia.

Elk and Moose kill about 20 people in the United States every year, but that's because we hit them with our cars. About 10 people a year are seriously injured by elk and moose, mostly because they anger them or scare them and then get trampled. In cases where people tried to fight an elk or a moose, they are usually serious injured by kicks, not the horns. It appear that if you run away and change direction fast enough, you can usually avoid getting hurt by a moose.

Kind of disturbing how much time your spending on this topic.

I'm naturally curious...

I'm curious how this came up during lunch. Not exactly your typical lunch conversation material.

...had lunch with Brad and he took the position that five humans armed with metal police batons could (easily?) take down any large animal and that we could do this within the law and it could be very, very, profitable to do so.

I'm not addressing profitability, my own feelings on killing animals for (primarily) entertainment (yes, I acknowledge that the dead animal will be consumed by the combatants), or some of the logistical issues (just how do you transport a 1,250 lb live elk and where do you put it and what do you feed it?). I'm attempting to investigate just how dangerous some of these animals really are and I'm taking the position that not just any five people armed with clubs can easily kill any animal on the list without unreasonable risk of death or serious injury.

Easily one of the dumbest lunch conversations we've ever had.

Teramotos wrote:...I'm taking the position that not just any five people armed with clubs can easily kill any animal on the list without unreasonable risk of death or serious injury.

No one's taking the opposing position. "Any" includes a hell of a lot of non-combatant speds. I'm talking about a handpicked coed group that is trained in stick fighting.

Teramotos wrote:as far as I can tell, only two people have been killed by cougars in North America...

The have been about 100 cases of bears killing people in the last hundred years in North America...

Since 1900, wolves have killed several hundred people, mostly children and teens...

Yes, the mightiest beasts of the wild are worthy foes. Given that, they are perfect to illustrate the power of stick fighting when we put together teams that all handily defeats them.

...had lunch with Brad and he took the position that five humans armed
with metal police batons could (easily?) take down any large animal and
that we could do this within the law and it could be very, very,
profitable to do so.

Seriously?

OK, as a previous hunter let me try to address several points in that statement.

Legality: You would have to hunt these animals during their open season IF any. Wolves for sure don't since we only have 2 packs in WA and Killer Sharks are on the endangered species list.

Profitability: Hunting of most wild game is not very profitable. I'm not sure where you would make the money? Selling the hides or meat? Much easier ways of making money. This of course bars any exotic animals such as Walrus for ivory etc but those are strictly enforced and you can't hunt them.

Feasibility: There are only two animals on that list that I would
remotely say that a baton would have a chance of killing. The wolf and
the cougar. Neither of which you are going to get in a spot to hit.
This is a wild animal; you don't call one out to fight to the death.
If you even manage to see either one of the animals and then come
waving large sticks at it, it will most likely run away. For the rest
of the animals their hides, fat, and bones are too thick and dense for
a baton to do any real damage.

Stupidity: What in the 9 hells would cause a person to try and kill an animal with a 36" metal baton when there are guns available? That is like trying to eat Chinese food with toothpicks for chopsticks. Even that analogy isn't right since eventually you would finish your dinner and this plan simply wouldn't work.

Brad wants to film it like a reality show.

...yep, someone has to go out and capture the animals who would then be put in a confined arena against the human team.

Ugh, that means you would have to place them in small cages to get them to fight. Basically the same thing as the Gladiator combats of Rome. If the cages were large, I think the animals would still try to run away

In the case of Bears, Moose, and Elk several of your people would be critically injured or dead before they called the fight in favor of the animal.

For Boars no one would probably die but there would be multiple injuries. Read about boar hunting one of these days, it was a brutal sport and even by manipulating the boars to charge straight into huge spears, people still died because they would charge right through them.

For Cougars it would be extremely bloody and quite possibly fatal for your team. Ever back a house cat into a corner? They wouldn't be going for the jugular cause that is a hunting strategy of theirs but they would be slashing and clawing the snot out of you. Even with multiple people trying to hit simultaneously from different directions I think the cat is too fast.

And finally we come to the one where it might be even. You might be able to take down a solitary wolf in cage combat with batons. They don't usually hunt solo, you can actually hurt it with the batons, and the wolf wouldn't be going for kills because it isn't hunting.

Now here is my disclaimer: You would never be able to do this legally and even if you somehow did the outrage would be tremendous. I like my sport but watching 5 guys kill a wolf with batons? Really? And even in the ones where the animals actually won you would have to put them down because now they are people killers. Yet again pretty sick.

Sorry Brad just a bad idea in general.

Chris wrote: Basically the same thing as the Gladiator combats of Rome.

Yep, and I asked Brad if he was copying the arenas from Rome and Ross asked Brad if he had seen the movie Gladiator.

Chris wrote: In the case of Bears, Moose, and Elk several of your people would be critically injured or dead before they called the fight in favor of the animal.

Yep, I agree with Chris 100% on this. Five experts with batons are not going to be able to take out a 1,000 lb + animal, especially a Grizzly Bear, w/o multiple members of the team getting killed or seriously injured.

All the injuries related to boars I found on line were non-fatal, but many were serious. Mostly slashes to the legs, broken legs, dislocated knees, and the like. Like I said before, I could barely handle the 15 lb house cat. Call me a whimp, but a 150 lb cougar is doing to get in its licks in a fight. The reactions of your average cat have got to be way faster than your average human.

There's got to be a better way to demonstrate the lethal potential of stick fighting than killing caged animals.

Chris wrote: Sorry Brad just a bad idea in general.

Yeah, I guess that is what I've been trying to say but in my own nature, I need 10x more words than everyone else.

Krystoff wrote:...And even in the ones where the animals actually won...

The animals won't win. It's a competition of 4 teams of 20. The 'reality show'-esque part is the early stages of the tournament where everyone in the 4 teams spar against each other to determine which final 5 from each team gets to represent them on the hunt. It'll be 5 person teams of tournament champion finalists from each team. All the teams will return with prize in tow. It'll really only seem dangerous.

We can carefully pick our quarry, thoroughly research & prepare for the hunt and fight, only go hunting when fully prepared, and each season work our way towards different, deadlier foes.

"There's got to be a better way to demonstrate the lethal potential of stick fighting than killing caged animals."

True. We want the hunt to be in their natural surround if possible, but if the animals are deemed to need to be put down anyway, because they're encroaching on urban territories or whatever, now we're both doing a community service by going in and ridding the dangerous threat that needed to be addressed anyway, and trapping the animal in favorable terrain. (I'd have to say trained Humans on the hunt would have a terrain advantage in any urban setting...)

We'd want to use maps & research and herd the quarry to the terrain where it can't easily get away. The other 15 members of each team can help with all the anxilary stuff. But you're right, we can come up with much better than 'killing caged animals'. I want it to exhibit nature, the environment, and create awareness for movements, projects to improve the ecosystems we film in.

"In the case of Bears, Moose, and Elk several of your people would be critically injured or dead before they called the fight in favor of the animal."

Yes, that'll be a lot of people's opinion initially, I'd guess. That's one of the many (haven't revealed all of them yet! :-) ) things that will create major buzz. The kills will seem much more impressive to most than they actually will be. It will cement the effectiveness of the style in lots of minds.

Plus, we can 'cheat'. The first tournament, we can choose the easiest to take down dangerous animal, say the Cougar by early consensus, and save the giant Grizzly Bears, et. al. for "future seasons"... :-)

Was alcohol being consumed at this lunch?

Trevor wrote:Was alcohol being consumed at this lunch?

"This is either madness, or sheer genious!"
"It's amazing how often those two coincide."

Yes, it's 'outside the box' thinking, but it can make us all extremely successful. How much can a season's worth of tv shows potentially make? (...and what is the average profits/costs for producing a reality show, anyone have educated guesses?)

First it has to be pitched, preferably with a few clips of what the show will be like. Tens of thousands of shows are pitched. If it gets accepted then you make a pilot (a full example of a show). It only costs a few million dollars to make a pilot. Thousands of pilots get produced, and only a handful see air time.

Alternatively you can produce the show yourself on a local cable channel and hope it catches on by word of mouth. It's possible it might be picked up by a network.

Ross wrote:...Alternatively you can produce the show yourself on a local cable channel and hope it catches on by word of mouth. It's possible it might be picked up by a network.

Yes, we want to produce everything, but instead of local cable channel, I want it viewable on the internet. It'll catch on by word of mouth, especially with help from mainstream medias, since they'll love interviewing PETA for their take/response to the hunt etc, that'll be sure to get some media coverage.
One of the other public controversy aspects of the tournament, like RA Salvatore's Bi' nelle dasada, where the Elves practice in the nude, some matches are scored by removing clothing over arms and legs. (as in Animatrix swordfight) That'll be the second round of matches, and I suspect the women's matches generate some buzz. I want custom designed sparring uniforms with removeable sleeves and pant legs... something that makes the ladies look smokin' hot!

...In case it doesn't go without saying, we want to fill all the teams with the young, sexy & beautiful as well as talented martial artists. All the team members are spokespeople for the tournament and MA style so they all need to also have high Cha.

Trevor wrote:Was alcohol being consumed at this lunch?

Brad might have been on something before I picked him up. I think he's continuing to smoke whatever it was as he continues the posts.

Oh man... and just where are you going to find all these smoking hot young women trained in martial arts and baton fighting that are willing to bare their bodies, risk getting stabbed, and willing to risk their lives fighting wild animals? There are over 160 students in my Tae Kwan Do school. Over 70% of them I would guess are male. Of the 45 or so female students, I'd say 60% are under the age of 15 and 20% are over the age of 45. That leaves about nine that might fit your ideal. Yeah, I can envision all nine. A few are heavier than you'd want; leaves six. One is super short (but she's a black belt), One is near the older end of the scale (but is also a black belt) and is very broad and strong (not the slender hollywood model body), four are what I would think would be possible candidates for your show. They're all under 30, in good physical shape, hold advanced belts in TKD (but only one of the four is a black belt) and they're all very, very good fighters; two are asian, two are white. I don't think a single one of these young women would ever consider something like you're thinking about (I think I know all four somewhat from being in class with them for 22 months now). It is strongly stressed during class that we never use our martial arts to hurt anyone (or anything) unless it is absolutely necessary and I think all four of them would hold to that. Also, none of them knows any stick fighting but all four do know knife defense if that's worth anything.
So, there you have it, the largest TKD school in the state of Washington and there'd be zero (0) female candidates for the show.

Teramotos wrote:Oh man... and just where are you going to find all these smoking hot young women trained in martial arts...

We do it by eliminating this unnecessary caveat. She needs to be physically fit and athletic, but does not need any martial arts training at all.

Teramotos wrote:...are willing to bare their bodies, risk getting stabbed, and willing to risk their lives fighting wild animals?

To the former, I'm thinking dancers, college athletes & the like. If it can give them enough exposure and/or compensation, it's not too rare a find if we see a hottie with a lot of her clothes off somewhere.

To the latter, it's more theoretical than actual since each team is 10:10 men & women and of the 5 from each team that will get to hunt, I'm guessing 4 or more likely all 5 of them will be men. So this doesn't have to be a requisite at all. (It does for the men members of the teams though.)

I'm getting the feeling Brad is used to hiring women.

Hey, has anyone heard of something called "noodling"?

I was watching the animal channel yesterday and they had a show featuring this sport. Guys wade into the glades with just their pants & no equipment to fish for giant catfish. They wade in & wiggle their fingers underwater, the catfish think they're worms and bite their hands, then the 'noodlers' try to shove thier arms as far down the giant catfish's throat as they can, and then capture (and eventually eat) the catfish trying to eat their arm!

Noteworthy to mention that giant catfish have teeth, and every noodler who caught one had cuts all over hands and arms. Some of the bigger ones were almost as long as a person! (and all of them big enough to engulf a Human arm in their mouth...)

Yes, they talked about how they could easily do the same thing with a boat & fishing pole, but they do it this way for the added sport of catching them bare handed! It was one of the crazier things I've seen! :-)


If a cougar wanders into an urban area (and endangers the kiddies!), I'm even more sure we can find people crazy enough to take it on as a group in armed melee. These are animals that according to Stu's research, we currently shoot presently anyway, too.


If WA state currently is averaging 2 cougar kills a year because of this, we don't even have to hunt for one, just wait for one to encroach into an urban area. Easy peasy! :-)

VAST difference between a catfish and a cougar. Here is the first excerpt I found on Google when I searched for Catfish teeth.

... it is quite
safe to put your hand (and arm) into a catfish's mouth as the teeth are
soft and only occasionally scratch ...

I will try one more time.

It is completely illegal to do what you want to do. I'm not sure what the exact law states but I am sure that it must be done in a humane way. No way is beating the animal to death with batons and taping it a humane way to kill an animal..

In order to do what you want to do you will have had to capture the animal and place it in a cage (with a top) so that it can't escape. You will NEVER catch a cougar or other wild animal in an urban setting. There is too much space and too many ways for them to escape. No governmental agency is going to let you capture a wild animal and THEN place it in a cage to beat it to death. The government would have to be involved because it is their agencies responsible for wild animals in urban areas.

If you somehow managed to get past all the legal and logistical hurdles you now have a wild, caged, and cornered animal that you are trying to beat to death with 36" batons. There is a reason why primitive man used spears and not clubs to kill wild animals. Once you get in reach of the animal he will hurt someone and very badly.

It's just a very bad idea.

Krystoff wrote:

It is completely illegal to do what you want to do...

Chris, you are ignoring what Stu posted quoting WA state laws verbatem (see very first post in this thread):

"Exceptions are made for “game laws”, killing of venomous reptiles, protection of life, limb or property, killing animals for food, scientific research, animal husbandry, and rodeo."

We would qualify legally under no less than (3) exceptions of animal cruelty laws; "game laws", "protection of life, limb, or property", and "killing animals for food". Your opinion on the law contradicts the written words in the actual law. Are you really saying what Stu posted is false?

As far as killing caged animals, no one wants that. That's hardly a sport.

Where your opinion does seem to have merit is getting a Cougar to engage instead of run away. But the reason these cougars are shot every year is because they can and do attack Humans. If they're wandering into urban settings, they're likely hungry & desperate. We would also have numbers to trap it, and can even use scents, meats, to entice it to engage.

And if Cougars are too wiley, Moose are clearly plenty easy to engage. There are many instances of Moose engaging Humans... they're pretty fearless (& for good reason!) In any case, regarding engaging a worthy animal, we have the whole animal kingdom to choose from. I'm sure we can find one that can work.

This continues to be the dumbest conversation we've ever had.

Krystoff wrote:

... it is quite
safe to put your hand (and arm) into a catfish's mouth as the teeth are
soft and only occasionally scratch ...

Sensationalism! The tv show I watched made it seem like cuts & scratches are inevitible. They showed lots of noodler's arms all cut up (none of them deep cuts though...).

Didn't see the laws that Stu posted but what I said contradicts none of the points.

Game laws are very specific about when and where you are allowed to hunt game and if I recall correctly most urban areas are no hunting. Protection of life, limb, or property doesn't apply since you are placing yourself in the harm's way and there isn't property damage. Food is definitely not an issue since this is nowhere near a subsistance killing.

A statute from WA state as far as euthanasia is concerned (basically what you are proposing) is:
Washington Administrative Code §246-887-050 Sodium pentobarbital for animal euthanasia.
Washington only allows sodium pentobarbital.

What you are proposing is also very similar to an already illegal sport; bullfighting.

As far as a moose goes, I really doubt you could kill a moose with a baton. They are just too big. Think about it, they charge each other with their antlers over and over in rutting season.

Hunting prohibitted in urban areas: With firearms, this makes sense, since you don't want people shooting near your house. That's not an issue in this case though. It may be a case similar to bear hunting where you need to enter a lottery to get the proper hunting permits, but it absolutely is hunting, which is legal, we just won't be using a gun.

Protection of life, limb, & property: The reason cougars are shot each year in WA state is to protect the local communities, not the hunters going after them. They are still being protected whether they are killed with a bullet or a baton just the same.

Food: But no one hunts for strickly substanence in this day & age, yet hunting and fishing are very popular sports. The noodlers have access to grocery stores too, but prefer to feast on meals caught with their bare hands. This is no different (except in scope of potential harm, of course).

Bullfighting: Excellent analogy! Yes, this is a sport that's illegal here in WA, but not only legal, but immensely popular in many other countries around the world. More testimony that, logistics out of the way, there would be a market for viewership.

And what are the main objections to bullfighting (from the more reasonable anyway... not counting PETA types)? Isn't it that the bulls are bled before hand & that it's not really a sport, but just a showy slaughter? No bull has ever survived a bull fight that I know of.

We'll circumvent many of these objections since we will be hunting free animals, who definately have a chance. (In fact, a lot of your argument is that that they have too great a chance for the safety of the athlete.)

Killing a Moose: Well it certainly won't be easy, but it depends on where you land the blow. A baton can generate plenty of power to shatter it's skull if you can strike to the temple. Yes, that's a pretty big if that you get the shot in accurately, especially with it's anters interfering, but no question a full swing to the temple would do the trick. Most any of those Human Weapon shows can tell you the power that can be generated and how much impact bone can withstand.

I knew it was illegal to hunt with a baton I just couldn't find it earlier. Per the WA department of fish and wildlife regulations on page 58 it says:

It is illegal to:

Hunt game birds or game animals with anything other than a firearm, a bow and arrow, or by falconry. Bullfrogs may only be taken by angling, hand dip netting, gigging, and bow and arrow.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/hunter/huntregs2009.pdf

If you take a look in there, it will show you the different hunting areas and the big game zones are very specific. Even if hunting was legal with a baton, you can only hunt in designated areas and specific times.

Cougars are killed by government officials in those communities not by hunters. To be able to claim protection personally you have to be able to prove you were protecting yourself or your family.

Absolutely people hunt for subsistence these days, my family was one of them. However it seems to be limited to Alaska in my < 1 min Google search which is where I was living at the time. My point was you wouldn’t be able to use the subsistence exception as a way around the legal hurdles. The noodlers need to pay attention to the law
as well and the law varies state by state on noodling.

Not sure on the main objections to bullfighting or why it is illegal here in the US. I do know the American Humane society would be fighting you every step of the way. Even if the animals have a chance, it is still cruelty to animals.

There is NO chance that a baton can shatter the skull of a
moose. Nature has purposefully made them extremely thick because baton
like structures (read antlers) hit them repeatedly in the head. According to Encyclopedia Brittanica:

Moose have killed humans. In Siberia, hunters armed with muzzle-loading guns feared wounded moose far more than they feared the large brown bear. Due to the thick skin on its head and neck and its dense skull, an attacking moose could not be readily stopped with a small, round rifle ball of soft lead.

If a muzzle loader can’t really penetrate a moose’s skull, your baton certainly won’t. I know you don’t really understand how large a moose really is but they are larger than horses and built very differently. They have most of their weight up front on their fore legs and shoulders with extremely thick neck and skull to support their massive antlers.

As a note I keep responding to this because I can't believe that you still think that it is a good idea. Of course someone out there would watch it but that's because there are some sick individuals out there.

I'm sure Michael Vick would love to invest in your idea Brad.

Awesome! Thanks for the link! It's a hundred pages so I didn't read it yet, but I saved it to my computer so I can read it at my leisure. That's great!

Yes, Cougars are killed by Gov't officials. But there must be some way to become deputy agents in this.

I know how big a Moose is, 1,400# to 2,000# big, much taller than a person, and known to attack people more than any other animal in the animal kingdom, I believe.

Note: "Can't be readily stopped" means that it's not a sure thing is all. We know very well people have successfully hunt Moose with firearms.

Chris wrote: As a note I keep responding to this because I can't believe that you still think that it is a good idea. Of course someone out there would watch it but that's because there are some sick individuals out there.

Okay, for the record, I think this is not a good idea and I keep replying for the same reason Chris does. A cougar has sharp claws and I'm taking the position that there is a high risk of one or more of the human attackers getting clawed and seriously injured. Cornering an animal or tricking it by any method to stand and fight it out with five humans armed with clubs so that the animal ends up getting blugeoned to death is not humane.

I'm not sure how long the antlers of a moose are, but I think they are plenty long enough to give the moose a very good chance of hitting an attacker; or at the very least making it very difficult for the attacker to hit with a percise strike to just the right point to kill the moose in the skull, even if such a thing is remotely possible. I just find it hard to believe that a Master with a baton could be confident enough to land such a killer blow on a charging moose with little chance of injury to himself, let alone people who have had just a couple months of baton training and perhaps not even any other martial arts training.

But, it is all possible, and if done, would definately garner respect for the simplicity & power of the baton fighting style. With the whole animal kingdom to choose from, we can find an animal to legally hunt, and if successful, that hunt would be very impressive.

Teramotos wrote:A cougar has sharp claws and I'm taking the position that there is a high risk of one or more of the human attackers getting clawed and seriously injured...

Sure, but how much of your knife fighting training assumes you have a reach weapon? (Compared to a knife or a claw, a 31" (not 36"- I think 31" is the longest they come) baton has a reach advantage).

...too good. I just came from class and today's special topic was a 30 minute refresher on knife fighting. Learned some new moves and got to practice the ones I already know. Here's the kicker; all the moves we practiced in class worked pretty darn good, perfect in many cases, in practice when your partner sets, then attacks (with the knife) in the exact manner you're expecting so that you can practice the counter move that is being illustrated by the Master.
It got a little harder, but not too much, when the attacker could choose from any of three (basic) knife attacks; overhead stab, forward thrust, or right to left middle slash. You could read pretty quickly which attack was coming and perform the appropriate counter. However, your defense just totally fell apart when the attacker with the knife was allowed to do any kind of attack they wanted. Of the 40 students in class (75% being advanced students) only 5 or 6 were able to actually avoid being stabbed. It would take a very strong set of circumstances before I could believe that having 31" of reach would be enough of an advantage to eliminate any significant chance of the baton attackers being seriously injured. I can easily imagine a baton swinging and missing and then a leap and slash by the cougar. I can also easily imagine a baton swing and the attacker falling on loose dirt and then being pounced upon. Okay, and you can also hit the cougar as it is moving in; but you don't hit it in a vital place or it's a glancing blow and then the cat is inside your reach and I don't like the odds of fists against claws...

My point is, combat, especially in dire situations, has a significant element of chance and it would be very difficult to design a senario where all factors are controlled to the degree where the humans always beat up and kill the animal w/o significant risk of serious injury. If it got to the point where the humans weren't at risk and you were merely executing the animal, well, that's just wrong. Conversely, what would the ramifications be once human participants started getting seriously injured or even killed? Would third parties begin to enforce some kind of regulations on these hunts (assuming that the initial one ever happened in the first place)?

Brad,
Might be time for you to take a hike in Discovery Park... :-)

http://www.king5.com/topstories/stories/NW_090309WAB-seattle-cougar-KS.144e77888.html

Teramotos wrote:...My point is, combat, especially in dire situations, has a significant element of chance and it would be very difficult to design a senario where all factors are controlled to the degree where the humans always beat up and kill the animal w/o significant risk of serious injury...

Agreed. Combat is a fluid thing. But you point it out like it's a bad thing. It's not. To your later point, it is supposed to be sporting. When I first started taking Kendo, and people would tell me about the samurai and glamourize the Samurai saying of "one stroke, one kill", I thought the same thing you're saying. That's not combat, that's just murdering peasants (and disgusting).

And again, this risk will always seem much, much greater than it really is (to the average layman).

Plus, we can carefully pick a quarry to minimize risk. And whatever we pick, we'll be specifically training to sucessfully encounter it. The risk will absolutely be real, (unlike armored samurai v peasants) but still much more theoretical than actual.

Teramotos wrote:...I can also easily imagine a baton swing and the attacker falling on loose dirt and then being pounced upon. Okay, and you can also hit the cougar as it is moving in; but you don't hit it in a vital place or it's a glancing blow and then the cat is inside your reach and I don't like the odds of fists against claws...

Of course. Combat never is perfectly predictable. You plan for contingencies and prepare. I.e., falling is a predictable scenario and there are counters... Rolls, kip-ups, and most importantly, teammates stepping in. Yes, it's still a bad situation, but hardly "game over". Cat inside the gaurd? We still have teammates, and it won't be fists, but the back end of the batons. (That's what I'd use anyway, over fists...)

But you're right in that actually applying martial training in lethal situations is nothing like memorizing forms or katas... I think I've shared my opinion of forms enough, and this is one reason why.

Teramotos wrote:...Conversely, what would the ramifications be once human participants started getting seriously injured or even killed? Would third parties begin to enforce some kind of regulations on these hunts (assuming that the initial one ever happened in the first place)?...

My guesses (as any answer is of course speculation): to the former question, instant free press & publicity. Outrage from some who would never watch nor participate anyway, intrigue for others, and, depending on how fluke the accident was, excitement for others to learn more about the sport (even though most all will not wish to take it to that degree of actual combat). To the latter, we can jump through whatever hoops we need to with waivers et. al. before hand.

Interesting factiod I saw on TV: 3 people died boxing in '05, and none in '06, '07, & '08. An average of 15 people die each year skydiving. The most dangerous sport there is... Fishing! 137 people died while fishing last year alone. No other sport was even close. That said, it is not a bad idea to fish. Not for this fact alone.

Brad, I seriously doubt you'll ever be able to create a reality show with live actors.

But, it may be possible to create simulations. There are several reality type shows, Myth Busters and Weapons of War comes to mind, that run simulations on weapons.

You can have trainers wear special gear that can measure a creatures attacks. You can also use cameras to measure their speed/reflexes.

Similar tests can be done on the martial artist and different weapons.

Then all of the data can be put into a program and different combat scenarios can be run.

The suspense/action of the show could be handled through narration of the show and camera shots of the animal/weapon testing.

Yes! I'm sure we could do all of that... and maybe more! :-)