You find yourself in the cretaceous

[Treedbear]

...
Fun tyrannosaur fact: Everything we know about these most famous of dinosaurs comes from a mere 50 known specimens, most of them very incomplete; many mysteries remain about this elusive former apex predator, including of course the famous debate over whether they were predators at all. (My sympathies in this matter are clear, sorry John if you're reading this!)

Adult T-rex were probably few and far between. Bigger worry is the babies and roaming packs of raptors.

 

[Politesse]

So the cretaceous would be a safe place for a mammal to stroll around in, with no fear or risk of predation? Just make a bit of noise to scare the animals and all is well?

I, of course, not only didn't say that, but said quite the opposite.

However, we are not prey to any Cretaceous animal, by instinct or experience on their part; I suspect they wouldn't know what to make of us initially. But what happens next might depend on unknown factors. Some predators in the modern world will hunt unknown organisms, others will only hunt organisms with whom they have an ancestral prey relationship, for others it might depend on season or the availability of their usual prey. We have very little comprehensive knowledge of the diet of any Cretaceous animal.

 

[skepticalbip]

How much lasting damage would such a trip to the Cretaceous do if the time chosen was the week before the impactor?

In that case what does it matter what gun you bring? You'll starve to death anyway.

Only if you know what's coming and can find suitable shelter (there isn't much.) Otherwise you'll die in the fire.

But, as usual, Politesse didn't address the question. The 'concern' being asked about was Politesse's assertion that those on the expedition to the Cretaceous would destroy the ecosystem of the Cretaceous, which would be disasterous.

 

[Politesse]

...
Fun tyrannosaur fact: Everything we know about these most famous of dinosaurs comes from a mere 50 known specimens, most of them very incomplete; many mysteries remain about this elusive former apex predator, including of course the famous debate over whether they were predators at all. (My sympathies in this matter are clear, sorry John if you're reading this!)

Adult T-rex were probably few and far between. Bigger worry is the babies and roaming packs of raptors.

Now, Utahraptors, those were truly terrifying animals. Giant, sharp, fast.

 

[Politesse]

Only if you know what's coming and can find suitable shelter (there isn't much.) Otherwise you'll die in the fire.

But, as usual, Politesse didn't address the question. The 'concern' being asked about was Politesse's assertion that those on the expedition to the Cretaceous would destroy the environment of the Cretaceous, which would be disasterous.

I suspect the impact would be neglible against the backdrop of that event, not the least of which because of their own dismal odds of long term survival.

 

[DBT]

So the cretaceous would be a safe place for a mammal to stroll around in, with no fear or risk of predation? Just make a bit of noise to scare the animals and all is well?

I, of course, not only didn't say that, but said quite the opposite.

However, we are not prey to any Cretaceous animal, by instinct or experience on their part; I suspect they wouldn't know what to make of us initially. But what happens next might depend on unknown factors. Some predators in the modern world will hunt unknown organisms, others will only hunt organisms with whom they have an ancestral prey relationship, for others it might depend on season or the availability of their usual prey. We have very little comprehensive knowledge of the diet of any Cretaceous animal.

You didn't say it, but it is implied in your many of your remarks...noise maker being sufficient, etc.

We probably would not appear to be like their typical prey, but is a dinosaur all that discerning? We are not the usual prey of sharks or crocodiles, etc, but that doesn't stop them from attacking humans who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Obvious" to you maybe because you steered it in that direction. You are the only one I have seen that insists that the idea is to hunt down dinosaurs.

What can I say, I'm a skeptical guy, especially when people are pushing bullshit to promote idiotic social agendas.

As for your theoretical arctic expeditions, I'd be interested in any actual source to support the idea that guns are or should be your primary strategy for polar bear defense.

For some actual advice on dealing with polar bears, try:

https://www.fws.gov/alaska/alaska/pages/marine-mammals/polar-bears/Safety-in-polar-bear-habitat

Note that although all of these sources acknowledge a possible a possible role for firearms, they also treat this as the least effective means of keeping yourself safe in the Arctic. The public, not biologists, are the ones obsessed with rifles as bear defense, and the prevalence of guns in the north country is as much a problem as it is a solution, especially for someone concerned about ecological questions. You want to be smart, don't get into a bad situation to begin with. There are more than four million people living in the arctic, and three or four of them are seriously attacked by polar bears each year - literally, a one-in-a-million chance. If you're the one in a million, you have already made mistakes, and the gun is likely among those mistakes unless you are very good with it and more than a bit lucky. If you are, you may still find yourself in hot water with the law, and I certainly won't think much of you. So-called "defense kills" are way out of proportion with the number of human kills by bears, and many believe predation by humans to be the most significant threat polar bears face in the wild today. Not the other way around.

Firearms are the last resort, not the least effective.

And you can't conclude anything from the ratio of kills. It's not a sporting competition that's supposed to give equal chances! If a situation goes bad (and an encounter with a hungry polar bear very well might go bad) a properly-prepared group should basically always not be harmed. Dead humans should only happen if someone is unaware of the bear.

 

[Politesse]

So the cretaceous would be a safe place for a mammal to stroll around in, with no fear or risk of predation? Just make a bit of noise to scare the animals and all is well?

I, of course, not only didn't say that, but said quite the opposite.

However, we are not prey to any Cretaceous animal, by instinct or experience on their part; I suspect they wouldn't know what to make of us initially. But what happens next might depend on unknown factors. Some predators in the modern world will hunt unknown organisms, others will only hunt organisms with whom they have an ancestral prey relationship, for others it might depend on season or the availability of their usual prey. We have very little comprehensive knowledge of the diet of any Cretaceous animal.

You didn't say it, but it is implied in your many of your remarks...noise maker being sufficient, etc.

We probably would not appear to be like their typical prey, but is a dinosaur all that discerning? We are not the usual prey of sharks or crocodiles, etc, but that doesn't stop them from attacking humans who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So if you were randomly transported back to the year, say, 1965... what would you estimate to be your odds of being eaten by either a shark or a crocodile while there?

 

[bilby]

You didn't say it, but it is implied in your many of your remarks...noise maker being sufficient, etc.

We probably would not appear to be like their typical prey, but is a dinosaur all that discerning? We are not the usual prey of sharks or crocodiles, etc, but that doesn't stop them from attacking humans who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So if you were randomly transported back to the year, say, 1965... what would you estimate to be your odds of being eaten by either a shark or a crocodile while there?

DBT lives in Australia, so I would say the odds were quite high

 

[Politesse]

"Obvious" to you maybe because you steered it in that direction. You are the only one I have seen that insists that the idea is to hunt down dinosaurs.

What can I say, I'm a skeptical guy, especially when people are pushing bullshit to promote idiotic social agendas.

As for your theoretical arctic expeditions, I'd be interested in any actual source to support the idea that guns are or should be your primary strategy for polar bear defense.

For some actual advice on dealing with polar bears, try:

https://www.fws.gov/alaska/alaska/pages/marine-mammals/polar-bears/Safety-in-polar-bear-habitat

Note that although all of these sources acknowledge a possible a possible role for firearms, they also treat this as the least effective means of keeping yourself safe in the Arctic. The public, not biologists, are the ones obsessed with rifles as bear defense, and the prevalence of guns in the north country is as much a problem as it is a solution, especially for someone concerned about ecological questions. You want to be smart, don't get into a bad situation to begin with. There are more than four million people living in the arctic, and three or four of them are seriously attacked by polar bears each year - literally, a one-in-a-million chance. If you're the one in a million, you have already made mistakes, and the gun is likely among those mistakes unless you are very good with it and more than a bit lucky. If you are, you may still find yourself in hot water with the law, and I certainly won't think much of you. So-called "defense kills" are way out of proportion with the number of human kills by bears, and many believe predation by humans to be the most significant threat polar bears face in the wild today. Not the other way around.

Firearms are the last resort, not the least effective.

And you can't conclude anything from the ratio of kills. It's not a sporting competition that's supposed to give equal chances! If a situation goes bad (and an encounter with a hungry polar bear very well might go bad) a properly-prepared group should basically always not be harmed.

If by prepared you only mean "has a gun", this is an absurd claim. Fully-armed hunters are not infrequently injured by the bears they are hunting.

 

[Politesse]

You didn't say it, but it is implied in your many of your remarks...noise maker being sufficient, etc.

We probably would not appear to be like their typical prey, but is a dinosaur all that discerning? We are not the usual prey of sharks or crocodiles, etc, but that doesn't stop them from attacking humans who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So if you were randomly transported back to the year, say, 1965... what would you estimate to be your odds of being eaten by either a shark or a crocodile while there?

DBT lives in Australia, so I would say the odds were quite high

What is "high", numerically?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've never been attacked by predator, because that is an avoidable problem.

It is sometimes avoidable. More so if you live in and stay in an area where there are no predators that prey on humans.

Of which there would be none in the Cretaceous, initially, though a Cretaceous animal might, in theory, decide to add us to the list.

In all probability we would be on the list by default. There's no reason for the main predators of the Cretaceous to be specialized hunters. We are pretty much off the list of most of Earth's predators because evolution has taught them to classify us as alpha predators.

 

[Politesse]

In all probability we would be on the list by default. There's no reason for the main predators of the Cretaceous to be specialized hunters. We are pretty much off the list of most of Earth's predators because evolution has taught them to classify us as alpha predators.

Can you justify either of these claims?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We probably would not appear to be like their typical prey, but is a dinosaur all that discerning? We are not the usual prey of sharks or crocodiles, etc, but that doesn't stop them from attacking humans who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Actually, sharks generally don't think too much of us. That's why many people survive shark attacks--the shark bites and decides it doesn't like the meal.

Alligators/crocodiles are not selective, they'll try to eat anything that's not too big.

 

[DBT]

DBT lives in Australia, so I would say the odds were quite high

What is "high", numerically?

It depends on where you are....if you choose to swim in a Croc infested river or creek, your chances of being taken are quite high.

 

[Politesse]

DBT lives in Australia, so I would say the odds were quite high

What is "high", numerically?

It depends on where you are....if you choose to swim in a Croc infested river or creek, your chances of being taken are quite high.

The OP only secified a continent, and a significantly larger one. So how likely, droppped at some random point in Oceania, are you to be eaten by a crocodile or shark?

 

[skepticalbip]

We probably would not appear to be like their typical prey, but is a dinosaur all that discerning? We are not the usual prey of sharks or crocodiles, etc, but that doesn't stop them from attacking humans who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Actually, sharks generally don't think too much of us. That's why many people survive shark attacks--the shark bites and decides it doesn't like the meal.

Alligators/crocodiles are not selective, they'll try to eat anything that's not too big.

Is there anything that crocodiles see as too big? They do take gnus... it is just a matter of ripping off parts small enough to swallow after they drown the gnu.

 

[bilby]

DBT lives in Australia, so I would say the odds were quite high

What is "high", numerically?

Around one in a million for deaths due to sharks in Australia in 1965; About one in fifty million for crocodiles.

Which is a LOT higher than in most countries.

Bear attacks are also pretty common, as this chart shows:

 

[DBT]

It depends on where you are....if you choose to swim in a Croc infested river or creek, your chances of being taken are quite high.

The OP only secified a continent, and a significantly larger one. So how likely, droppped at some random point in Oceania, are you to be eaten by a crocodile or shark?

The OP is related to conditions in the Cretaceous and the likelihood of attack in that environment. Which may, I guess, be comparable to the wilds of Africa before human technology came into the picture. Would you not consider the possibility of Lion attack, for instance?

 

[Politesse]

Around one in a million for deaths due to sharks in Australia in 1965; About one in fifty million for crocodiles.

I'll take those odds.