Oregon’s assumptions on cougar hunting misplaced
By George Wuerthner, 5-02-11
 |
|
 | |
|
INTRODUCTION
Oregon, like many western states, allows cougar hunting. Part of the justification for hunting is the assumption that killing cougars will reduce livestock losses and increase public safety. There is, however, growing scientific evidence that suggests that sport hunting is more likely to increase cougar predation on livestock and may even increase the likelihood of cougar attacks on humans.
BACKGROUND ON COUGAR ISSUE
The Oregon legislature’s wants to expand cougar hunting in the state. Under present law, Oregon allows cougars to be killed 365 days of the year. If you kill a cougar, you can get a second license to go kill another. Under these generous hunting seasons and bag limits, cougar kills increased fourfold between 1995 and 2010. For instance, in 2009 almost 500 cougars were killed in Oregon. (By comparison in California where there is no cougar hunting, only 102 cougar were killed, primarily under permit for livestock depredation).
Now the Oregon legislature is trying to pass legislation allowing hound hunting of cougars—which has been banned twice by public referendum. The Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) supports this change, and has been trying for years to increase cougar kills, arguing that the population has doubled since the original ban on hound hunting. Some cougar biologists question ODFW’s methods for calculating these population estimates. See Dr. Wielgus comments here www.predatordefense.org/docs/cougars_biologist_weighs_in_November_2010.pdf
Regardless of the actual number of cougars in Oregon, ODFW suggests that a growing cougar population is a threat to public safety (or is the real reason for cougar control to reduce cougar take of elk and deer while using public safety as a Trojan Horse to justify even greater cougar killings?).
Here’s what ODFW is not telling Oregon citizens.
HUNTING INCREASES CONFLICTS BETWEEN COUGARS AND HUMANS
First, a bevy of research shows that hunting skews cougar populations (as well as other predators) towards younger animals which are more likely to attack people and livestock. Thus hunting exacerbates the likelihood of human conflicts.
The reason is that in unhunted populations, dominant male cougar kill young males. Young males are less skillful hunters and are more “brazen” and bold. Thus the more young males in a population, the more likelihood you will have depredations on livestock and the rare attack on humans. One does not get to be an old male cougar by being an ineffective hunter and/or either brazen or bold. Thus cougar hunting is more likely to create social chaos by killing the dominant males that control cougar social structure, permitting a greater number of young males to survive.
California is a good control since it is the only state with any significant cougar population where hunting is banned. No sport hunting of cougars has effectively occurred since 1972. The human population of California is 38 million or approximately 10 times the population of Oregon (3.8 million) and California’s human population is more widely dispersed into cougar habitat than Oregon (due to Oregon’s strict land use laws). California also has 17% of the West’s suitable cougar habitat-- more than twice as much cougar habitat as Oregon. http://www.mountainlion.org/sport_hunting.asp
Thus one would expect-- all things being equal-- that California’s much higher human population and greater cougar habitat would lead to much higher number of human conflicts, and livestock depredations than Oregon. But in reality the opposite is true. California has the lowest per capita cougar attacks on human in the West, and a low level of livestock depredations as well.
Comparisons between California and Washington also show the same trends. For 2009, the last year for Washington data, there were 1528 cougar “incidents” in the state Incidents are defined as a livestock depredation, sighting in someone’s yard, etc. Washington has an aggressive hunting season. Washington has an estimated 2000-2,500 cougars.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement/cougar_reports/index.php
By comparison in California where there is no cougar hunting, there are an estimated 4000-6000 cougars (as much as three times as many as in Washington) and with six times the human population of Washington, and far more of the state covered with sprawl, yet there were less than 400 incidents a year in recent years--less than a third of the number reported in Washington where cougars are hunted. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/lion/trends.html
Oregon, which has year round cougar hunting, presently kills 3-4 times as many cougars a year as California, yet it has many, many more complaints and livestock depredations. Are Oregon cougars just craftier than their California cousins--and better able to attack livestock than in the Golden State? Or is something else going on here?
Even if cougar hunting were effective at reducing cougar populations that does not mean it will result in fewer conflicts. Dr. Robert Wielgus found that as the cougar population in his Washington study area was declining due to hunting, while complaints and documented conflicts were increasing.
SPORT HUNTING INEFFECTIVE AT TARGETING PROBLEM COUGAR
Part of the explanation for this is that sport hunting is ineffective at killing the very cougars most likely to be in conflict--i.e. those living on the fringes of human settlements. Most hunters hunt the larger blocks of public land. They do not hunt people’s backyards. Hound hunters aren’t going to chase cougars through rural neighborhoods or through subdivisions. So even if hunting did reduce cougar populations, it doesn’t necessarily mean it reduces the threat of cougar attacks or conflicts because the cougars living in closest proximity to humans are the ones least likely to be killed by hunting.
Plus good cougar habitat is always filled. If a dominant male cougar controls the territory, he will kill or at least intimidate other young male cougars and keep them away from his territory. If that dominant male territory overlaps with rural neighborhoods, he will reduce conflicts with humans. On the other hand, if that male is killed by hunters, it opens up the territory to young males. And if the young males continue to be killed by hunters, preventing that area from ever being occupied and controlled by older male, then hunting will continuously create conflict by assuring that young males are abundant in that area. The very opposite of what cougar hunting proponents suggest is their goal.
COUGAR ATTACKS ON PEOPLE EXTREMELY RARE
Finally, the public safety threat is greatly exaggerated. It’s much to do about nothing. The likelihood of a cougar attack is extremely small. There have only been 23 fatal cougar attacks in all of North America between 1890 and 2010 That is because cougars as a rule just don’t attack people. --that is even with the social disruption that hunting and predator control creates. That is because cougars as a rule just don’t attack people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_cougar_attacks_in_North America .
HUNTERS BIGGER THREAT TO HUMAN SAFETY
Hunters are a bigger threat to human safety than cougars. Indeed, there are hundreds of people shot every year by hunters and there are more hunting fatalities in a single year than cougars have killed in a hundred years. It could be argued that the ODFW by increasing hunting for cougars has put Oregon citizens at greater risk of death from hunters than from cougars, For instance, in 2007 there were 19 fatalities in North America (NA) from hunting and zero from cougars. In 2006 there were 27 deaths in NA from hunters and zero from cougars. In 2005, there were 41 deaths from hunters, and zero from cougars.
http://6fbd21e64bc817fd097aa54148bd3dab37bc10ee.gripelements.com/documents/Incidents/HIC2007summary.pdf 19 fatalities 200 non-fatal
http://6fbd21e64bc817fd097aa54148bd3dab37bc10ee.gripelements.com/documents/Incidents/HIC2006summary.pdf 27 fatalities 219 non-fatal
http://6fbd21e64bc817fd097aa54148bd3dab37bc10ee.gripelements.com/documents/Incidents/HIC2005summary.pdf 41 fatal 364 non-fatal
If legislators in Oregon were genuinely concerned about public safety they would consider two things. One is that hunting increases the likelihood of cougar attacks on humans and increases livestock depredations since it skews cougar populations towards younger age classes which are more likely to attack people. But again keeping in mind that even with skewed cougar populations, the likelihood of anyone being attacked, much less killed by cougars is exceedingly small.
Statistically, hunters are in fact, a greater threat to public safety than cougars. Personally I am not worried about my personal safety due to hunting, because even the fatalities from hunting are exceedingly small and insignificant. But by comparison, cougar attacks and fatalities are even rarer.
Bio: George Wuerthner is a wildlife biologist, and predator ecologist. He is a former hunting guide and hunts elk and deer.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
What a pile of useless propaganda and the obvious attempt to blame hunting is hilarious.
Isn't it interesting that the author didn't mention Idaho? Every state he mentioned has taken actions to eliminate any effective cougar management. If he wants to use a state as "control", pick one that has not changed to an ineffective method of management.
His little pitch about hound hunters fails to recognize that they are the only real effective means of managing cats, and since they keep the back country from over populating, they also keep down the need of cats moving into urban areas seeking food and habitat.
Just more cherry picked and twisted information to further a predator worshipers agenda.
Lets see, how many states even have cougars? Yet this spin meister uses NATIONAL stats to attempt to bolster up his position, it would almost be funny if is wasn't such a sad attempt.
Surface areas of these states:
California, 163,695 sq. mi.
Idaho, 83,570 sq. mi.
Washington, 71,300 sq. miles
It seems the author wants to compare apples and oranges in his little attempt to twist the facts. His 'control' is nothing like the the other comparisons he wishes to make. So, if he wishes to compare this little issue, perhaps he should pitch out Cal since it is over twice as large and compare the two states that are about the same size and have completely different management practices. One effective, Idaho and one ineffective, Washington.
Nice try at the propaganda piece though.
Isn't it interesting how these people always attempt to give themselves credentials that they think will bolster their credibility while at the same time failing to mention the true intent of their agenda?
This guy if nothing more that an anti-hunting, anti-ranching, anti-management, anti-resource development, anti-human activist. Perhaps he should mention that in his bio......
you didn't really think the haters would comprehend this did you?
I doubt you are disappointed.
http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2010/09/connect-dots.html
http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2010/11/fertility-vaccine-pending-for-wild.html
Two points. Oregon is justifying its hound hunting to make the "front country" safe--not the backcountry. The problem with hunting is that it's indiscriminate and most of it occurs far from the fringes of towns--thus the very cougar that "might" be a public safety threat are not going to be removed by hunting--unless there were special permits given for hunting in very specific locations--but this is not what the Oregon legislature is considering.
Secondly, hound hunters do not "keep the backcountry from overpopulating with cougars" as you suggest. The ecological story is that cougars keep the backcountry from overpopulating. Mature male cougars typically kill younger males. These social interactions maintain a cougar density relative to the prey base.
In fact, killing mature animals (as is typical of those using hounds to hunt cougars) tends to INCREASE the number of cougar since where once there may have been one mature male, you will often find the same territory occupied by 2-4 younger males.
The only part of your comment that I agree with is that hounds are the best way to find and kill a particular animal--i.e. the surgical removal of a cougar that is deemed to be a problem.
But that is completely different than the indiscriminate killing that results from most hunting.
Once again you can try and twist whatever you wish, but the facts speak for themselves. Your anti-hunting slant is more than obvious as is your failed belief in 'natural balance'. The simple fact remains that hunting does indeed keep nature in our limited ecosystems in balance.
Your science has failed and the only ones who don not see that are the ones still preaching it. If this failed wolf project did nothing else, it has exposed that fact beyond a doubt.
By keeping the back country populations below saturation, the country around civilization is rarely inhabited by cats.
So yes, I know the "ecological story", but it is just that.....a story.
1. If killing 6,762 cougars over a 44-year time period once almost wiped out the cougar population in Oregon, why does ODFW believe that killing 7,468 cougars over the past 43+-years of regulated cougar hunt hasn't produced similar results?
2. If a regionally-close state (Washington) has the same cougar hunting restrictions, as well as analogous cougar hunting policies (without the additional administrative removal plan), and that state's policies and actions have resulted in a significant reduction in their cougar population, why does ODFW believe that similar results are not taking place in Oregon?
George has made an impressive and factual statement with reliable backup information. Oregon Cougar Action Team (http://www.OreCat.org) endorses George and his data as correct.
Furthermore, Calif. has a $100 Million annual Black Market poaching issue that OR is not immune from. According to ODFW and OSP, more cougar are poached than legally taken, more deer are poached than legally taken including elk. Poachers steal wildlife into the millions of dollars from Oregonians each year. Add 10 to 15% for the poaching not found and then double it for administrative costs. HB 2337 and any other cougar/wolf Bill are about Sports hunting and not about livestock or public safety -at all! Already the NRA, BigGameHoundsMen and PredatorMastors are treating HB 2337 and others as a Sports Hunting Bill on their websites! See most recent article in the Oregonian dated May 1, 2001, "Police: Accused poachers "liked to kill"". Visit http://www.OreCat.org and go to the button with the House Bill numbers, scroll to the end and you will find all the Legislative email addresses of the Senators and Reps. Email them. Ask them to vote NO!
We already have a cougar safety program that kills 3000 cougar a year and Bill 2971 that allows hunters to kill cougar using hounds. Poaching cougar exceeds legal kills of cougar. We are killing more cougar after M18 than before! ODFW changed their cougar hunting policy after M18 & extended cougar hunting season to one year, lowered the tag costs, added them into a package deal, and regardless that no one had been hurt or killed by cougar in Oregon in the last 100 years, started a Public Safety mandatory kill of 3000 cougar a year!
Oregonians need an unbiased outside peer review done on our cougars and the voters need to vote again. Don't support politicians who support trickery, poor management policy and animal abuse.
1) I do not hate predators, but neither do I worship them
2) I am anything but uneducated, although you might want to think so. I too have read your story books written by the likes of Caughley and Sinclair.
Has anyone ever stopped to think about a few things consider their worship of modern wildlife biology? First, 95+% of what they have come up with has been created (yes, created is the correct word)after the implementation of the North American hunting model was implemented. And second, extinction is a very natural part of unmanaged ecosystems. You simply can not logically try to implement a non-management scheme, and then attempt to save every animal from extinction.
The welfare biologist who continually try to create this opposite and illogical outcome do so for one reason, job security. Outome based science, is not science at all, which begs the following question......Cui Bono
I admire your willingness to speak the truth to us all even when you know so many out there don't want to learn and be shown information that doesn't meet their world-view. You continue to stick your neck out on issues, where there will be vehement backlash. Facts speak for themselves. Thanks for bringing them to light again and again.
You have one thing correct, my 'world view' and Georges couldn't be further apart.
I believe in the freedoms of this nation that were brought about by the constitution of this nation and the republic for which it formed. I have little use for those who work to undermine it through elitism and propaganda that were created out of foundations formed by the Rothschild's (global warming) and the Rockefeller's (environmentalism) both of which George advocates for. I have seen little of his work that wasn't twisted and skewed to push this agenda. He and his buddy Dave Foreman can keep it, I on the other hand will continue to expose it for exactly what it is.......bunk. If your eyes are so closed or your intelligence so lacking as to not be able to see through that reality, that is on you, the realities of this misguided agenda will be coming to a head soon enough.
Once again I ask.....cui bono. Or does no one want to attempt answering it?
Ask a few of those people who have been attacked in california how they feel about an overabundance of cougars.
More dribble from the environmental nuts who want to rule the world and in the process rule the rest of us.
I'll bite. Your "world view" sounds like a paranoid Tea Party Bagger. And apparently some of you on this blog have nothing better to do than rant and rave and make asses out of yourselves. Save your breath from responding to me as I have unsubscribed from reading further comments. If you want to see a bunch of "nuts" look in the mirror. Your rants are all fluff - nothing to back them up. At least George provided science citations which you claim is bunk but can't provide anything to refute it. none of you have. Go back an get your high school diplomas......
Nice ad hominem, that does nothing but expose your 'pro'gressive agenda. I wonder if your department would be so accepting of your comments here?
But no, I do not play into the created left/right paradigm of the current politics of this nation. The two headed dragon has enough fools feeding their respective heads.
And yet another grasp at the academic credentials. What, you don't get someone who didn't buy the indoctrination hook, line and sinker?
You might want to keep you taxpayer funded job, I doubt you'd make it out here in the private world where one has to produce.
Sadly when one has no real world experience before attending the indoctrination camps of higher education, one has no idea they are being fed a line of BS and rarely question what they are being fed. Me, on the other hand challenged my profs in their materials, although they hated it, it at least kept them a little honest and they tended to present their theories as theories and not the fact they attempted to in the beginning. I am sure they appreciated my graduating so they could get back to their previously scheduled program.
Don't you find it just a little troubling that you spend your entire career trying to prove what they presented as fact. A true scientist wouldn't follow that path, but question it instead.
A former employee of MTFWP? And now the E.D. of the Conservation Congress. Seems you have the same problem as the author in presenting your bio.
The Conservation Congress: Another eco group dodging taxes through the guise of a non-profit. An 'Organization which receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public 170(b)(1)(A)(vi).' Who's main objective it seems is promoting non-management and closing of public lands.
Like I asked before.....To who's benefit?
Furthermore, cougars are kinda territorial. Like George points out, the old kitty kats kill the young kitty kats. So the young kitty cats book out of Dodge, down to, um, Estacada or Springfield?
Whatever --
I understand that the Deep Ecology mindset entails a noninterferential approach to the environment. Great, promote that all you want, Geo, and maybe someday the world will be like you want. But wrong is wrong.
I agree that hound hunting is the best way to surgically remove an animal. And if you read what I have said closely I am not opposed to surgical removal of specific animals.
What I am suggesting is that most hunting is not surgical. Yes hunters may accidentally get an offending animal that is a genuine threat to either livestock or people, but the vast majority of cougars that are killed are not in that category.
That might not be a concern, except that hunting by ignoring the social ecology of predators actually makes things worse--increasing the number of young cougars--the ones most likely to attack livestock and people.
Sport hunting and an operation to remove an individual offending animals is the difference between carpet bombing and the Navy Seals that just got Osama.
That is complete BS and you know it....carpet bombing? Can you get any more dramatic?
The fact is, hound hunting serves many purposes that make it very useful in management. It keeps wild animals wild, it allows for observation before harvest, and it allows for walking away from the animal unharmed.
But in the end, you are still trying to deny the reality that over saturation of the population creates the need for young cats to disperse, and eventually that dispersal will put them in contact with humans.
The bottom line remains, if they are having problems with cougars in town, they are over populated. If your theory was correct, which it is not, Idaho would have a complete mess concerning cougars. But the truth is, we do not.
Or better yet, tree every cat and then stick a shoot-no-shoot RFID chip in its butt for the hunter to scan?
That's not workable, and we all know it....so therefore you don't want any practical hunting at all except maybe the random-chance, low-return surprise in the brush.
I wish I had a time machine for you, Geo.
Dave all you have to do is go to California to see how it works. In California, if there is a "problem" with a cougar (keep in mind most problems are self created by poor livestock husbandry and could be avoided), the specific animal causing the problem is killed.
That is surgical removal. California has been doing this successfully for decades. It works.
There are studies dealing with wolves, cougars, coyotes and bears that all demonstrate the same basic idea--hunting creates more conflict by disrupting the social organization of these social animals.
State wildlife agencies are not recognizing this research. They treat predators as if they are just cogs in a wheel--numbers. But when it comes to predator managing for "populations" is the crudest means of management and as the research demonstrates--ineffective.
From what I have seen, state wildlife agencies do not even acknowledge that social chaos is a possible problem. Is this "professional?"
Next, the notion that a higher population of predator causes fewer problems / depredations is another charade to the n'th degree. 2005 was the last year that Wisconsin was under their approved wolf plan population goal of 350 wolves due to numerous law suits. That year they had $30,106 dollars in confirmed /paid depredation or $86.00 per wolf per year. Last year, 2010 with a population of 705 wolves they had $203,943 in confirmed depredation……… Please look up the numbers on the Wisconsin DNR web site if you like . Under: Mammals Gray Wolf . One can argue that the 350 wolves back in 2005 were in better habitat than last year’s count of 705. So adding an additional 355 wolves to the mix in Wisconsin has added an additional $173,837 in confirmed / paid depredation or $490 per wolf per year just for confirmed depredation costs. So in adding an additional 355 wolves to original 350 has increased the cost per wolf from $86 to $490 per wolf per year just for confirmed depredation. George, they claim the same " self regulating predator" garbage here in the Great Lakes Region. You and I both know that Wisconsin is now saddled with a huge expense cleaning up after this predator, just like California is with the mountain lion! One wonders why California is broke! We all know it's because they have too many George Wuerthner running the show!
Blah, Blah, Blah about Wisconsin. Deer cost the state over a million per year in agricultural damage. Deer/auto collisions, state wide, I emphasize state wide, this includes rural areas, have come down since wolf numbers have increased. This saves money for everybody in the state of Wisconsin. Wolves, no fatal attacks
Michigan averages 62,000 deer auto collisions per year. In lower Michigan one has a 1 in 163 chance to hit a deer. In the UP it is 1 in 63 as per populations of the area. 16 year average death due to deer auto collisions is 7 per year with 1,999 injuries. Wolves, no fatal attacks
Minnesota: 2008 estimated 1,218,000 deer. 9 deaths from auto deer collisions... 360 injuries. Wolves, no fatal attacks.
You're the one who brought up wolves.
Back to cougars, you answer the question. In the states with cougar populations, over the years, what/who has caused more human deaths, cougars or other hunters?
The use of national statistics perhaps might be more a case of using readily available data. Barry could certainly shed light on the stats by posting the hunter-caused deaths in just the states that have cougar populations and URLs where the rest of us could check his sources. I know in Washington State that since 1995 bow-hunters have killed at least two more humans than cougars were able to kill in Washington.
http://tdn.com/news/local/article_21c8d8be-bd21-11df-aee2-001cc4c03286.html
Hunters have killed one more hiker in Washington State than have cougars in the past five years. http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/BREAKING-NEWS/TEEN-AGE-HUNTER-CHARGED-INbr-SHOOTING-DEATH-219
Even mountain goats in Washington have been more deadly than cougars in the past few years: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013189753_olympicpark18m.html
A mystery to me is that with well over 50,000 cougar tags sold annually in Washington over the past decade, cougars haven’t killed a single one of those hunters. Surely, at least one hunter stooped over, unaware of a cougar’s presence, and could have been easily dispatched. Perhaps the odor of gun metal and macho hunter camouflage scents repel cougars, or, maybe they just don’t like us at all and would like to stay clear?
“Ask a few of those people who have been attacked in california how they feel about an overabundance of cougars.”
I’m not sure what weight that argument carries. Ask a few families who have had a member killed by a hunter how they feel about hunters. Drunk drivers? Cell-phone-using drivers? Radiation poisoning? Police brutality? Airliner crashes? Family dogs? Smoking related cancers? Deer? Vehicle malfunctions? Medical malpractice? Choked on food?
“Nice ad hominem … You might want to keep you taxpayer funded job, I doubt you'd make it out here in the private world where one has to produce.”
Wow! I wish that I had questioned my professors enough to understand the import of this persuasive argument about cougar management with its subtle point/counter-point logic.
An attack by any wild animal can be horrific, and death by hunter is just as tragic, but the small numbers of hunters remaining in the US should attempt to get more realistic in their arguments if they want to see hunting perpetuated into the future. Fear is getting so tiring as an argument foundation, and the “I know more than the predator-hugging scientists” just lacks a certain je ne c’est quoi even sourcing from college book-learned statistically savvy predator-eradicating specialists commenting on this article. It’s a fact!
Non sibi sed patriae.
Unfortunately, if people actually take the time to go through the links provided as, well as most other outcome based studies that has been presented by the anti crowd in the last 25 years it becomes pretty obvious, it is not science. I called out the author for his bias and his attempt to compare apples and oranges. Notice how he never included any states that have a productive hunting model for cats. His anti-hunting bias is blatantly obvious and his bio is completely deceptive. He portrays to be one thing, but it another. That is not the attempted middle ground, unbiased article he wants it to be, but a propaganda piece. Academia has undermined itself and they have no one to blame but themselves..We are just seeing the outcome of the warning Eisenhower presented in his farewell speech about government owned 'science'.
And btw.....it is pretty delusional to see ant death in nature as "tragic", death is a part of nature at every level. Walt Disney wasn't making documentaries, and although humans see death with an emotional response, when in nature, emotion has nothing to do with it. And fear is a huge reach, but nice try.
Did you actually serve in the Navy, or just jack their motto? When presented from a military standpoint, it is just and has a relevant meaning. When presented from a citizens standpoint it is a misguided belief in the collective over individual rights. Context is everything.
One thing I do not do, is believe any garbage fed to me without researching it myself, even if it is what I may want to hear.
And you are correct, I am far past the tea party. The people I believe in names were those such as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin etc. etc. Those folks gave the common man the greatest gift anyone with power has given to them, and that I admire and it is those values I fight to maintain. It is sad that their one question of whether or not we were capable of even governing ourselves is proving to fulfill their fears that we were not.
Now ask me if the opinion of the anti-hunting, anti-human, anti-cattle, anti-freedom, pro big nanny state government people that run around this blog matters to me in the end. But I think even a shallow thinker such as yourself can figure that one out.
And if you want to claim I have lost credibility, so be it, that is you 'opinion'. But, all it really says to me is that your have not done your homework. Government funded, and therefore government controlled science has lead to exactly the outcome that Eisenhower said it would, but you keep on believing it. Then go research who is the money behind the government.
Here are a few to start with besides the two mentioned above....Koch and Soros..........and most of you probably think those two are on opposite sides. But.....I digress. Now back to your created biological outcome based studies.
Yeah, LT, USN, seven years (66-73), flew the F4 Phantom II, about 1500 hours in type, 320 carrier traps.
I believe, Barry, that in this thread you attack the person, not the facts nor ideas. I've been researching cougars a while, and the article seems consistent with the science, including science not directly involving mountain lions. I've been fortunate to have short conversations with some big guns in the trophic sciences, and my take away is that we shouldn't be so cavalier in hunting predators. Puma concolor has existed in the Americas for millions of years, and in spite of hunter hype, did not over-populate nor hunt to extinction deer and elk. Cougars are a part of a finely balanced system, and adjusted to Homo sapiens entry onto NA about 10,000 years ago. They didn't seem to wipe out those early arrivals, either.
Some scientists have suggested that in states where cougars have been extirpated and deer are a problem, say Pennsylvania, there should be consideration of year-round deer hunting to provide a more ecologically balanced pressure on the deer--similar to what cougars and wolves accomplish. In other areas, it's better to let apex predators manage the problem. Lyme disease probably made its westward trek because deer populations weren't controlled. Many predator lovers support consumer hunting (ungulates). Keystone species provide environmental services that benefit hunters, and it's probably time to reconsider the moral of the story of the golden goose.
Maybe Idaho has fearless people, but in eastern Washington, some seem to believe there's a cougar in every school yard. In posts on various sites, I often read my rural neighbors telling my urban neighbors that if they move to the country, they should expect to see wild animals. Maybe those posting should move to the westside if cougars are such a problem. We have them too, but they usually stay away from the schoolyards. Of course, going downtown late at night might teach some real fear of predatory types.
Putting in 'tragic' for human death by wildlife stops, or at least slows, the "hates people" flames. 'Fear' a long reach? No, that is exactly what is sold: "We are trying proactively to avoid a tragedy. This is a safety issue." Well, at least it's not for oil, or spreading democracy, but it is a fear-based hard sell.
Also, why do so many hunters say they need hounds, so they'll know what they're shooting? I always thought that the rule was that if you don’t know, don’t shoot.
I see you steered clear of the fact that at 350 wolves have historically depredated at a rate of $86 per wolf per year & the next 350 has historically depredated at a rate of $490 per wolf per year! (keep in mind this is only CONFIRMED depredation and does not include depredation management and non-confirmed depredation). Do ya think we’re going to have $1000 dollar wolves running around Green bay Milwaukee and Madison by the time we get some proper management?
There are a lot of dangerous things on the road (and driving down the road) that make it a dangerous place. That includes tourist driving down the interstate to get to Yellowstone and the Lamar Valley. Should we prohibit all wolf hungers driving their Subaru down to Lamar Valley for it dangerous to us all! I’m sure that prohibiting tourism in general via car would save more lives than the car/deer collisions. Also, being that you’re from Minnesota you are probably aware that in states like Wisconsin & Minnesota it is much easier to blame your crash on a deer than the fact that you were on the cell phone. We had a prosecution in Wisconsin recently (from Wausau?) where the officer could not find a single deer track in the snow for over 100 yards in any direction!
Bob, What is it, selective reading! Open both eye and read a post where I have the source & the argument. You and your ilk continue to smack around the rancher / farmer with your non-sense. California is by all means certainly not the state that sets the standard or is a good example to follow for wildlife advise….not even close! Their philosophy of optimum predators at maximum taxpayer expense is a joke! Lets hire depredation managers & cougar biologist instead of High School teachers and Prison Wardens has gotten that state exactly what they deserve!
Yes, I saw your admonition for the ilk herd here to look up stats on the DNR site. Why not make it easy with a Universal Resource Locator so we get the same page that you are looking at?
Your arguments of value of dead wildlife shows a wonderful sense of commerce and a lack of science. Back in the 80's when exportation of manufacturing jobs caused my ilk concern, we were vilified because the US was going to be a service economy. Well, we see the result of that. Concern about acid rain? No big deal, although maple syrup was about $14/gallon then, now it's about $60/gallon. Gasoline? Go back and read President Carter's 'Malaise' speech (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-crisis/). Gosh, if we had tightened our belts a bit then, instead of seeing the sunrise of consumption and greed, we might not have to pay $4/gallon for fuel today, and might have stayed out of a few wars.
How does this relate to cougars? Scientists are telling us about trophic collapse today, and in 20 or 30 years, we'll see the problems we helped to create by arguing today about whether deer kill more or fewer people per year than Subaru-driving tourists in the Lamar valley.
It's been a long time since I've used them, but I'm pretty sure the correct signoff to you would be Secret Fighter Pilot Code 1 ;>)
You probably should fact check the California stats on human-cougar conflict directly after the hunting ban took place--before you print. What a sorry piece of reporting.
However, you ought to add strength to your words by telling us about your own holdings. What do you raise, what's your herd size, and how big is your ranch? For that matter, maybe you're like me and you're a landowner with multiple holdings. Tell us about your personal experiences. How many head have you lost to predators and under what circumstances? I've been relatively lucky myself raising longhorns for the roughstock, lean beef, and "slowfood" markets. Not too many predator problems with these animals and I've had some success selling heifer fresheners and herd cows to area cattlemen who raise northern purebred stock. They put some of my longhorns in their herds and don't lose heifers or first calves anymore and, if the calf can stand, the longhorns teach the herd to keep it with them and predators don't seem to want to come in among those horns. But, enough about me, tell us about your operation.
My interest in wolves and predators stem from a few things...... one is that my cousins & I have hunted the Northern Yellowstone Elk herd regularly north of the park in Slough Creek. Seeing the extermination of that herd has been hard and quite the motivator. I've also follow extensively the Clam Lake Elk herd here in Wisconsin & it disgust me the effect wolves have on that highly studied and well documented herd. I've seen wolves three times, once in Canada on a caribou hunt. Another on my wife land behind her grandma's house in Marathon Co WI... My wife and I saw what we thought at the time were two huskies in 2003, hind sight says they were wolves. 2010 on a Waupaca Co shed antler hunt I came up on a remote field & had a wolf moving about on the other end of the field... We have trail camera pictures of wolves in and about the Shawano Co property & here at our house!
Last but not lease, I recall arguing with my cousin up in Slough Creek in 1995 about wolves in Yellowstone..... Where I told him what kind of trouble can a 100 wolves get into in and about Yellowstone. Boy was I wrong!
"trophic sciences", and herein lays the crux of the problem. Trophic cascade is anything but proven science, quite the contrary actually.
There is only one true science, and that is mathematics, period. It is the only science that requires proof before a theroy can be built upon. This in effect creates a system that is not a house of cards.
The current wildlife biology 'science' is just that house of cards. Most of it relies on unproven theories that are stacked upon other unproven theories and continually presented as fact. Most of it relies on the belief that humans are a "problem" in nature and every effort should be made to eliminate any human intervention or participation in nature. It relies on a mentality that somehow what ecosystems we have left will act outside of and independently of the human created world around it, even though that human world has eliminated the complete ecosystems that were here before we were. It leaves out critical factors and places fallacies in the holes. Most of it is use to push and agenda, and not find actual truths.
Science, is suppose to search out the truth through through and repeatable studies, and be accepting of whatever answer is shown through those studies. Yet we see quite the opposite. One study that was 'searching' for the extremely high mortality rates on elk calves in Yellowstone was conducted for a 90-120 day period in the spring, which just 'incidentally' coincided with the only real time period that bears prey on elk calves. The outcome of that study concluded that bears are the major factor of elk calf predation and wolves have little no no effect on them.
Well, anyone with more than three working brain cells can see through that propaganda. By conducting such a short term and narrowly focused 'study', impeccably timed and ignoring the majority of the year, the outcome was a sure thing. They pardoned their wolves and made the bear the bad guy. Of course we now know that wolves are the major contributor to elk mortality across the board in YS, yet there are still those who reference that bear outcome. The old adage is, put it out there for the advocates to grab on to and it will stick, true or not.
The same can be said for the cattle predation 'studies', they use a national percentage to dilute their local numbers. It is not hard to dilute such numbers when livestock inhabits 50 states, and wolves 7. The cattle predation numbers in areas inhabited by wolves are far higher than they will ever admit, because it does not shine brightly on their agenda, truth be damned.
The same can be said about the consideration of the hunting model in the U.S., it has been proven to work, but again, it does not fit the agenda, so more outcome based studies are created to show it in a bad light. That, my fellow American, is NOT science. It is agenda driven bile, funded by advocates and government to push their specific agenda's. We can talk peer review (nothing more than one like minded fool patting another on the back and saying "good job") like is has some real validity, but it doesn't, it is corrupt clear to the core, including it's academic foundation.
Just as Wall St. has corrupted the academic presentation of economics to push it's deregulation agenda in spite of the evidence of the destruction it presents to our nation. The environmental movement has done the same to academic presentation of wildlife biology. It is no longer science, it is agenda driven activism.
When people such as the author present a story as was presented here, and as I pointed out, compares apples and oranges, yet he presents a bio claiming he is a hunter and an ex guide, yet leaves out he is really and earth firster from way back, it automatically reeks of the agenda driven activism. Then upon looking more into his past we find just about nothing about hunting, but a ton on activism that is driven toward the anti-human, anti-cattle, anti-hunting agenda he didn't want anyone to really know about. It becomes apparent beyond a doubt that little he says can truly be taken seriously in a conversation since it will obviously be presented not with a slant, but complete bias.
I am not saying that every biologist out there is corrupt and activist driven, but one hell of a lot of them are. And everyone of them distracts from and works to destroy real science and they have done a huge amount of damage to the validity of wildlife biology. Like I stated before, I do not hate the predator, but neither do I worship them or believe they are the answer to every ecological issue we have, because they simply are not.
I just wonder, just how in the world do you equate dealths by lion with deaths by hunting? The George idea is to eliminate hunting so lions can feast?
People have been killed by guns for centuries. and will continue to in the future. Get rid of the guns and knives, clubs, etc will be used, but of course the stronger physically in society will have the upper hand. No equilizers then.
Which of course, appears to be the great Georgie hypothesis. Eliminate all hunting.
First, take the people off the land. Do it by eliminating grazing on public land, then gradually buy out all the private land. Eliminate all roads so that only people like Georgie can view and enjoy the area. Keep out the guides and dissallow all hunting/fishing outdoor activities.
Just like ol Jonny Marvel. No compromise, nothing. Kick the people out.
Claiming to be a "reformed guide and hunter". Uh huh. Somehow by putting that statement into print is suppose to make him more believable.
Look at the science, he says. I guess you only need to look at the science George wants to present. Funny how he knows so much yet the people who work for the various fish and games know nothing. Is it not rather ironic how young lions seem show up in townships after being chased out of good habitat by older lions? What is so wrong with taking some lions and opening up areas for youger lions to colonize? Whats wrong with a private individual hunting a few lions with dogs and making a profit at it?
I am no lion hunter, have no aspirations of being one either, but do feel my fellow montanans (or people in other states) who do have as much right to hunt lions as I do to hunt deer or you to eat vegetables.
It is sad and bad business for people like george to push such an agenda.
You ought to be thankful Mike, for the people who stand up for you (if indeed you are a rancher, possibly a "hobby rancher?", We are getting more and more of these). I never met or worked for a rancher that has your attitude. Good luck with that.
Barry and Reality, nice posts. I learned a bit more.....
I shot a dandy Tom turkey yesterday here in Black Creek WI...... weighed 26 lbs on my cousin's scale! 1 1/8" spurs"
George's 'maximum predators at maximum taxpayer, rancher and game herd expense science' would say that we should outlaw fox hunting in this area. Don't give a hoot what the landowners of the area want! I'm sure there is some science that would say that the amount of turkey doodoo around the local roasting trees in this area are unhealthy for the ironwood trees the agenda driven biologist say are diminishing in our area. But, every local landowner knows that cleaning your woods of ironwood trees makes room for more desirable maple, ash & oak. Soooo, the enviro-nazi's and their anti-hunting buddies will team up to save the environment and our beloved ironwood by stopping that barbaric practice of fox hunting! All, in the name of making Outagamie Co more like the days of Lewis & Clark .... because it's their country too!
I don't know if you are serious in your comments, but assuming you don't get it, I'll explain it again. I'm not suggesting we get rid of hunting. I was trying to put into perspective the relative dangers of cougar attacks compared to the dangers of hunting in terms of accidents and fatality.
As I said, I don't worry much about being shot while I am hunting because the risk is pretty low. For the same reason I don't worry about being attacked by a cougar--because the risk is even lower.
There is an exaggerated and unrealistic fear of cougar attacks being promulgated by those interested in shooting them.
Idaho also uses hounds, Idaho also has a very healthy population of cats, Idaho also has a very low incident of cat attacks. So, like WY it seems the hunting model speaks for itself if one is only willing to look.
Predator management is sound management, over protected predators is what is proving to be a failure. You can be the most ardent anti-hunter if you like, but it will not change the facts. The author seems to intentionally dismiss states with sound hunting management and attempts to compare only those who don't. Bias anyone?
I suppose someone who questions his own manhood would think any of this has to do with 'proving' anything. Perhaps a look in the mirror should be considered. Or do you have something relevant to add?
Hunters are a bigger threat to human safety than cougars. Indeed, there are hundreds of people shot every year by hunters and there are more hunting fatalities in a single year than cougars have killed in a hundred years. It could argued that the ODFW by increasing hunting for cougars has put Oregon citizens at greater risk of death from hunters than from cougars, For instance, in 2007 there were 19 fatalities in N. America from hunting and zero from cougars. In 2006 there were 27 deaths in N.America from hunters and zero from cougars. In 2005 there were 41 deaths from hunters, and zero from cougars.
So true George. Not one person can debunk these facts.
And hunters say that hunting cougars makes them fear humans right and causes far less human/cougar problems right?
George, its not the rant of killing cougers for sport with me. I don't have a problem with a local fella going out and treeing some cougars for some rich out of stater. If he can make a few bucks doing it, why not? We have lots of cougars in the west and will regardless of if they are hunted or not. A "renewable resource" if you equate to that
It has more to do with control from outside. I don't see where you have a right to tell me or my country man how to live. Nobody is hunting cougars to extinction.
From what I gather your "california plan" is not working so well. Several bighorn species are being eliminated in that state due to courgar predation. So now they can "surgically" remove those with taxpayer funded wildlife people? Why not a few local hound hunters? You can even sell licences then and fund the program!
I know most of you don't like the bubbas of the world that you associate with hunting. So you educate them like they do with hunter safety, gun safety, archery safety, etc.
Looked up that california ban....52% to 48%. Not much of a margin for passing a ban on cats and I can bet the people who live in the areas with lions voted against it.
Just like the wolves and the buffalo issue. The people who decide should be the ones who have to put up with the problems.
So why aren't there more Human-Cougar conflicts in Wyoming ? In fact, in the last 120 years, only 23 people have died from Cougar attacks everywhere. None in Wyoming. I'm having trouble recalling any instance of a Wyoming person being harmed by a Cougar.
I cannot accept the claim by some here that it is hunting that keeps the Cougars at bay and diminished conflicts. That would be to give credit by default when other factors are simply not known or delineated. It's hard to prove a negative.
I used to also be a hunter and a guide, like George, but I quit doing all that because of the increasingly awful company I was keeping. The last straw came in the early 1990's when I was associated with a cabal of Cougar hunters and their hounds. Even though they were licensed professional outfitters, they made exceptions for Cougars and hunted them purely for blood sport and ego using hellbent witless hounds and rank snowmobiles. These same outfitter types were also renegades, illegals and pirates through and through who thought they were bulletproof. Until they got caught by Fish & Wildlife agents for poaching trophy Bighorn rams.
What I do know is people die from all kinds of animal encounters, including two guys killed by Grizzles within 75 miles of me last year alone , when there had been no other grizzly kills of humans since 1975. We have lost young men to rodeo bulls, however, and rank horses always take a few. Attacks and deaths by domestic dogs are astronomical by comparison. Many more folks die from bee stings, snake bites, and lightning striked than North America's largest feline carnivore, erroneously called a " Lion " . It's not a Lion at all.
George wrote a good article.
The Comments are typically running in circles and going nowhere, but with an acidic PH from the usual reagents of rhetoric ( You know who you are )
I wrote this on behalf of my male Siamese Flamepoint cat asleep on the chair, whom I took in off the streets 7 years ago. I let him remain a real cat and go outdoors as often as he wishes. He constantly reminds me of what it means to be a feline carnivore and has done his chores in managing the birds and rodents. I see a lot of Cougar in him. And every domestic dog is a wolf...
Man has hunted cougars for centuries and cougars are doing fine, I'm going to keep hunting wild life so get over it.
Dewey, I quit guiding to, the urban "hunter" drones made me puke.
I bet my Manx can whoop yer male Siamese Flamepoint cat.
1991 - 2000
http://www.cougarinfo.org/attacks2.htm
I make to much money sitting here during trading hours.
Is that what you really do ? Try to get pro-wolf forums debauched ?
I am not the issue, and I am not anti-hunter.
I rate hunters on an individual basis, but in all honesty they aren't doing much these days to earn respect and lead by example in the field or on these forums, are they ? My entire life ( 60 years) has been spent in Cody WY with and around hunters since my earliest memories. It's gotten pretty pathetic in the hunting circles. I guess my experieintial observation is your " anti-hunting rhetoric" but please allow me the courtesy of a constructive disagreement of considered opinion without taking it personal and slinging mud. It looks bad on you, since none of it is sticking to me....
I have lived long enough to say I have seen the Good Old Days of elk hunting. But those were quite some time ago.
And yes, I really am a piece of work. But how would you know ?
Sure Dewey, none of your ilk ever do anything that would cause commenting to be closed.
I work alone. My opinions are entirely my own. I do not belong to nor send money to any organizations--- pro-wolf/pro-predator/pro-genuine wildlife conservation or otherwise.
I am an environmentalist . Small "e". Always have been. Homo sapiens environmentalis. (Just doing my part to keep your ilk from further wrecking the planet.... )
You on the other hand have been directly responsible for Brad closing Comments here at NewWest several times. Always on the wolf stories.
I'm checking out of this thread now. I have better things to do with my time than cogitate the intellectually challenged emotionally driven ...
BC wouldn't agree with that comment. I'm not surprised that you believe this. Afterall, you are a hunter who cares very little for the truth and you will justify hunting however you can.
There is no way to justify it as anything but an excuse for nerds and wimps to pretend they are real men pitting themselves against creatures of nature which have been brought to the brink of extinction by the infection of earth by homo sapiens. And are only hanging on at all as a result of efforts by other homo sapiens.
It has been generations since hunting was a necessary part of sustenance. Yet few discussions of this nature ever pass without some hunter justifying it as a need for protein...
Well you're welcome, we hunters built up the prey base for your social ecological experiment known as wild predator management, someday maybe that theory will prove it self, you know, like 70+ years of state managed wild life proved itself thus justifying your partial hands off ongoing experiment.