Should I be able to sue antis?

[OregonEric]

Since the antis came up with ballot measure 18 in Oregon, (which ended the use of dogs in hunting cougars) the population of these lions has skyrocketed. Since there is no other way to effectivly control cougars, if I were to be attacked while hunting, jogging, or any other activity in areas where measure 18 is in effect, do you think that I would have a legal case aganist the groups that initiated this ballot measure? How would it be different from the anit's sueing gun companies?

[AGCHAWK]

OregonEric, although I see your point and agree that it's no different that ANYONE sueing a gun manufacturer when one of thier firearms are used in a crime I certainly don't think it flies (In either case). Now that's just my personnal opinion and I can certainly see the other side of it.
I just think it up to the individual, when wandering through these animals' home, to be attentive and watchful to minimize the chances of an attack occuring (however slim the chances are. After all, you have a better chance of getting hit by a train).
Is it any different than someone breaking into a home, getting shot by the homeowner, and then sueing that same homeowner for it because the gun wasn't registered? You may laugh but it's happened before.
I know that the law has caused the populations in these areas to grow rather quickly (We have the same issue is Washington) but I still can't endorse filing a lawsuit if your attacked while "in the brush". I do agree that the law needs to be looked at again though.
This subject, in a round-about sort of way, reminds me of these people who build homes in the country to "get back to nature" and then complain to the game department when bears and cougars start wandering too close to thier homes, pets, kids, etc. If you want to enjoy nature, enjoy EVERYTHING that comes with it.
Good question though.....thanks.

[shedhunter]

I voted simply yes because I believe that every group has its ugly side, yet they all mean well. Hunting is the same thing. We are a group of guys that want to enjoy wildlife and harvest an animal year after year. We don't intend to infuriate folks, but we do! I say that if you were attacked then yea, sue. But only because the law passed because of the "anti's" and in turn, the law raised the number of cougars, thus making them hunt other non-traditional food scources like PEOPLE! Yum! If anyone deserves to be eaten its the extreme environmental anti-hunting type! Thats my explaination.

[MuleyMadness]

Do you have the "RIGHT" to sue. Yes!! Of course you due. Would you win the lawsuit? I doubt it. And I personally would never file the lawsuit if it happened. That's if I was alive after the cougar attack.

I think this country has become "sue happy". Sure some cases are legit and needed, but garbage; it's ridiculous the reasons people sue these days. That is unfortunate they have banned the dogs from tracking the cougars. Cougars can and will wipe out a deer herd if left out of control. Even with the aid of dogs they can still do severe damage if not kept under control.

I didn't give much thought into this, after re-reading your original post a few times. Crud who knows? Maybe you would have a case against them. I know this is a big problem everywhere and we know of the recent cougar attacks in California. Just keep voicing our opinions, suppor the NRA and other organizations that think logically.

My 2 cents.

[WYMULEYMAN]

oregoneric,
good poll man, i voted yes for the same reason that most people already stated. however, winning the lawsuit could be a different story. i personally am so sick and tired of these dang tree hugging hippies! they have no clue about animal control. although i think that mother nature in the big picture plays the biggest role, we as humans sometimes must step in and help her out now and again. the same goes for the massive elk dieoff we experienced here in wyoming this past winter. all the tree hugging sobs are trying to blame hunters, ranchers, and everything else. even after the state lab explained what the cause was.

[jkhunterid]

I voted no just on general principles. They sue us, you sue them, group a sues group b and so on and so on ect. I think without the ability to sue for any or no reason is what got us here in the first place.

[mule man]

ya wow that would deffinatly be a interesting case non the less i agree and think suing them would work