Wolf caught snatching a chicken near Colville

[idahohuntr]

I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems ..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball?

"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? "

Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.

They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?

Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. 

You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.

Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.

I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...

From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...

"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.

Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html

And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...

"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/

See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.

So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing?   

You are wrong again. 

Maybe you need to give up on getting your wildlife data from the Seattle Times. 

Since 2008 WDFW has dropped the quotas in traditional cougar producing units to very low levels, lower than ever before. Compare the current harvest data for all the traditional high cougar producing units to previous data.

The only reason harvest data gathered on a statewide basis is near previous harvest levels is because WDFW has allowed cougar to populate into many more areas of the state. Many cougar are being taken in units that previously held few, if any cougars. A good percentage of the cougar harvest is coming from areas that were not previously producing much if any cougar harvest, which means far fewer cougar are being taken in the traditional high cougar producing areas.

This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana.

No, I'm not wrong. The numbers don't lie, the state has harvested just as many as it always has if not more. Just not in the areas you want to see it. So don't go saying the state isn't harvesting as many cats as they used to because that really isn't true. Now on a unit by unit basis, that's a different story and a different discussion.

Isn't Bearpaw arguing that the state agencies are lying about the numbers though?


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[CavemantheHunter]

I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems ..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball?

"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? "

Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.

They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?

Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. 

You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.

Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.

I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...

From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...

"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.

Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html

And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...

"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/

See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.

So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing?   

Or could it possibly be that with the elimination of hound hunting years ago, the cougar population has exploded exponentially? With the drastically increased population, it has made it easier (still not effective) for boot hunters to kill what looks like a decent number of cats, until you compare the number of cats taken to the total cat population. I can promise you that if the number of cats harvested today with boot hunters appears similar to the harvest numbers from when hound hunting was allowed, it is because there are a ton more cats today. And if there are that many more cats, it is quite obvious that it is negatively affecting the big game population.

[AspenBud]

I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems ..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball?

"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? "

Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.

They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?

Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. 

You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.

Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.

I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...

From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...

"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.

Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html

And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...

"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/

See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.

So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing?   

Or could it possibly be that with the elimination of hound hunting years ago, the cougar population has exploded exponentially? With the drastically increased population, it has made it easier (still not effective) for boot hunters to kill what looks like a decent number of cats, until you compare the number of cats taken to the total cat population. I can promise you that if the number of cats harvested today with boot hunters appears similar to the harvest numbers from when hound hunting was allowed, it is because there are a ton more cats today. And if there are that many more cats, it is quite obvious that it is negatively affecting the big game population.

No argument there, but the question you have to ask is why is there the explosion in numbers? Were cats getting killed and not reported before the ban? I'd actually believe that given how much more efficiently you can track down a cougar with dogs. Or is there more prey? Saying it's because the state isn't harvesting as many as they used to is obviously a blatant distortion of the facts if not an outright lie. The harvest might not be where people want it, but the cats are getting taken. So why are there so many more cats? What has changed? Or has the number stayed the same (I confess I haven't checked) but there are more in areas that people don't want them?

[snowpack]

Be kind of my guess.  In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each.  One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas.  Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development.  (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)

[bearpaw]

I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems ..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball?

"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? "

Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.

They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?

Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. 

You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.

Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.

I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...

From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...

"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.

Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html

And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...

"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/

See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.

So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing?   

You are wrong again. 

Maybe you need to give up on getting your wildlife data from the Seattle Times. 

Since 2008 WDFW has dropped the quotas in traditional cougar producing units to very low levels, lower than ever before. Compare the current harvest data for all the traditional high cougar producing units to previous data.

The only reason harvest data gathered on a statewide basis is near previous harvest levels is because WDFW has allowed cougar to populate into many more areas of the state. Many cougar are being taken in units that previously held few, if any cougars. A good percentage of the cougar harvest is coming from areas that were not previously producing much if any cougar harvest, which means far fewer cougar are being taken in the traditional high cougar producing areas.

This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana.

No, I'm not wrong. The numbers don't lie, the state has harvested just as many as it always has if not more. Just not in the areas you want to see it. So don't go saying the state isn't harvesting as many cats as they used to because that really isn't true. Now on a unit by unit basis, that's a different story and a different discussion.

Isn't Bearpaw arguing that the state agencies are lying about the numbers though?


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Actually I asked WDFW pointedly at the Colville wolf meeting about cougar numbers. They said probably close to 4,000 in the state. We used to have about 2,000 in the state, I think that was fairly honest, so numbers have doubled. The point is that WDFW is under managing the high population of cougars that we now have.

We have twice as many cougars today but we are taking fewer than we did when there were 2000 cougars. In units where there was little or no previous harvest, those areas are now accounting for a good portion of the harvest, so certain people can say harvest has stayed the same statewide, but in reality harvest is lower in the traditional producing cougar areas.

The current cougar population could easily provide twice as much recreational opportunity for hunters without population decline. We would need three times the harvest to get cougar numbers back to a level that has fewer impacts on other wildlife.

Here's the bigger problem, WDFW doesn't want to properly manage bear, cougar, or wolves, they are all breeding and we have more of them every year, any ideas how this will result?

[CavemantheHunter]

I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems ..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball?

"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? "

Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.

They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?

Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. 

You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.

Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.

I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...

From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...

"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.

Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html

And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...

"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/

See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.

So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing?   

Or could it possibly be that with the elimination of hound hunting years ago, the cougar population has exploded exponentially? With the drastically increased population, it has made it easier (still not effective) for boot hunters to kill what looks like a decent number of cats, until you compare the number of cats taken to the total cat population. I can promise you that if the number of cats harvested today with boot hunters appears similar to the harvest numbers from when hound hunting was allowed, it is because there are a ton more cats today. And if there are that many more cats, it is quite obvious that it is negatively affecting the big game population.

No argument there, but the question you have to ask is why is there the explosion in numbers? Were cats getting killed and not reported before the ban? I'd actually believe that given how much more efficiently you can track down a cougar with dogs. Or is there more prey? Saying it's because the state isn't harvesting as many as they used to is obviously a blatant distortion of the facts if not an outright lie. The harvest might not be where people want it, but the cats are getting taken. So why are there so many more cats? What has changed? Or has the number stayed the same (I confess I haven't checked) but there are more in areas that people don't want them?

To answer that question, I would refer you to Bearpaw's previous post: "
You are wrong again. 

Maybe you need to give up on getting your wildlife data from the Seattle Times. 

Since 2008 WDFW has dropped the quotas in traditional cougar producing units to very low levels, lower than ever before. Compare the current harvest data for all the traditional high cougar producing units to previous data.

The only reason harvest data gathered on a statewide basis is near previous harvest levels is because WDFW has allowed cougar to populate into many more areas of the state. Many cougar are being taken in units that previously held few, if any cougars. A good percentage of the cougar harvest is coming from areas that were not previously producing much if any cougar harvest, which means far fewer cougar are being taken in the traditional high cougar producing areas.

This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana."

I'm assuming that the harvest numbers for boot hunters on the few years immediately following the banning of hound hunting were fairly low. And then giving the cats several years to reproduce and spread without harvesting with hounds exponentially exploded their populations. Now, years later, the quotas seem similar, but the areas in which a lot of today's harvests are coming from are areas that didn't use to have many cats. The cats have spread to the point that total harvest numbers look good to the blind eye, but if you compare total cats taken to total cats present, I bet the number would scare you.

[AspenBud]

I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems ..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball?

"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? "

Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.

They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?

Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. 

You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.

Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.

I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...

From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...

"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.

Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html

And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...

"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/

See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.

So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing?   

You are wrong again. 

Maybe you need to give up on getting your wildlife data from the Seattle Times. 

Since 2008 WDFW has dropped the quotas in traditional cougar producing units to very low levels, lower than ever before. Compare the current harvest data for all the traditional high cougar producing units to previous data.

The only reason harvest data gathered on a statewide basis is near previous harvest levels is because WDFW has allowed cougar to populate into many more areas of the state. Many cougar are being taken in units that previously held few, if any cougars. A good percentage of the cougar harvest is coming from areas that were not previously producing much if any cougar harvest, which means far fewer cougar are being taken in the traditional high cougar producing areas.

This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana.

No, I'm not wrong. The numbers don't lie, the state has harvested just as many as it always has if not more. Just not in the areas you want to see it. So don't go saying the state isn't harvesting as many cats as they used to because that really isn't true. Now on a unit by unit basis, that's a different story and a different discussion.

Isn't Bearpaw arguing that the state agencies are lying about the numbers though?


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Actually I asked WDFW pointedly at the Colville wolf meeting about cougar numbers. They said probably close to 4,000 in the state. We used to have about 2,000 in the state, I think that was fairly honest, so numbers have doubled. The point is that WDFW is under managing the high population of cougars that we now have.

We have twice as many cougars today but we are taking fewer than we did when there were 2000 cougars. In units where there was little or no previous harvest, those areas are now accounting for a good portion of the harvest, so certain people can say harvest has stayed the same statewide, but in reality harvest is lower in the traditional producing cougar areas.

The current cougar population could easily provide twice as much recreational opportunity for hunters without population decline. We would need three times the harvest to get cougar numbers back to a level that has fewer impacts on other wildlife.

Here's the bigger problem, WDFW doesn't want to properly manage bear, cougar, or wolves, they are all breeding and we have more of them every year, any ideas how this will result?

The bold part is simply not true. They might be under harvesting cats, and again you have to ask why  the explosion has happened, but what you are saying there is not true. This state harvests just as many cats now as it did 60 years ago, at least if you base it on reported kills. If more were getting harvested and not being reported before, well, you see what that is apparently getting everyone now.

If you want to argue they need to up the numbers, I'll buy that.

[AspenBud]

Be kind of my guess.  In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each.  One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas.  Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development.  (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)

A lot of those developed areas were wild/undeveloped back in the 20's and 30's.

[bearpaw]

Be kind of my guess.  In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each.  One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas.  Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development.  (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)

Actually bounties went through the 50's and ended in the 60's. That was why we had the mule deer boom years until cougars multiplied to high levels in the mid 80's and then mule deer started a serious decline. I knew several of the NE WA bounty hunters, Cougar Sam, Bert Edwards, and others. They had some interesting stories.

[AspenBud]

Be kind of my guess.  In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each.  One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas.  Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development.  (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)

Actually bounties went through the 50's and ended in the 60's. That was why we had the mule deer boom years until cougars multiplied to high levels in the mid 80's and then mule deer started a serious decline. I knew several of the NE WA bounty hunters, Cougar Sam, Bert Edwards, and others. They had some interesting stories.

Yep, and the state was actually getting more cats reported as harvested after the hound ban than they were when the bounty existed. Why?

[bearpaw]

Be kind of my guess.  In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each.  One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas.  Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development.  (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)

Actually bounties went through the 50's and ended in the 60's. That was why we had the mule deer boom years until cougars multiplied to high levels in the mid 80's and then mule deer started a serious decline. I knew several of the NE WA bounty hunters, Cougar Sam, Bert Edwards, and others. They had some interesting stories.

Yep, and the state was actually getting more cats reported as harvested after the hound ban than they were when the bounty existed. Why?

I can tell you specifically why, but I would rather see you post your reasoning so everyone can have another laugh! 

[AspenBud]

Be kind of my guess.  In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each.  One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas.  Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development.  (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)

Actually bounties went through the 50's and ended in the 60's. That was why we had the mule deer boom years until cougars multiplied to high levels in the mid 80's and then mule deer started a serious decline. I knew several of the NE WA bounty hunters, Cougar Sam, Bert Edwards, and others. They had some interesting stories.

Yep, and the state was actually getting more cats reported as harvested after the hound ban than they were when the bounty existed. Why?

I can tell you specifically why, but I would rather see you post your reasoning so everyone can have another laugh! 

I don't find this to be a particularly funny argument. You want to blame a state agency for the actions of people who failed to report what they were actually doing or were outright poaching. WDFW can only set limits if they have data to prove that something is or is not working. Historically the harvests they set today have always worked and yet magically the population of cats has exploded. My, I wonder how that happened.

[bearpaw]

I watched a program last night about the wallowa area in NE oregon,elk populations are dropping and the conclusion they seem to be arriving at is cougar and bears are killing calves at an alarming rate...Now toss in the wolves in that area which of course dont cause many problems ..and the were not mentioned I might add...cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball?

"cullling bears and cougars seem to be where oregon might go with their problem,why and when will wa state get on the ball? "

Never, would be your correct answer, Rasbo. WDFW won't even admit they have a bear/cougar problem. Remember Oregon and WA came out with the first wolf pack in 70 years the very same day, Oregon's wolves showed up in the middle of cattle country and look at ODFG and the USFWS's record of confirming livestock kills,, and then look at WDFW. As pitiful as ODFG confirmed wolf kills are, WDFW is far worse.

They can admit they have a problem with bear and cougars all they want, but the citizens of this state tied their hands. What part of the initiative process don't you understand?

Actually that's not very true at all. The voters only tied WDFW hands on hounds and baiting. The WDFW themselves have limited boot hunting of cougars to ridiculously low quota levels in most units that need twice as many cougar taken. WDFW has full control of bear seasons and could easily harvest more bear in every unit if they desired. The high numbers of bear and cougar are definitely the product of WDFW policy. 

You and I both know the best way to reduce bear and cougar numbers is with hounds. Even with increased harvests hunters are at a disadvantage in this state.

Again not correct. WDFW purposefully limited boot hunting of cougar because they said too many cougars were being taken. They also have limited bear seasons in areas where they wanted more bear.

I stand corrected about hunter effectiveness, but then upon closer examination it looks like what you're saying is a little misleading from the perspective of harvests...

From the Seattle Times article below, I believe it's from around 2008...

"The number of cats killed by hunters in Washington has climbed in recent years, exceeding levels in the 1950s when the state paid a $75 bounty to encourage eradication.

Before 1996, hunters killed an average of 156 cougars a year. Since the initiative, the harvest rate increased more than 40 percent, to an average of 225 animals a year.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004285453_cougar16m.html

And then this from WDFW a year or two ago...

"Last year, hunters harvested 156 cougars statewide, up from 145 in 2011 and 108 in 2010. Ware said the number of cougars harvested this season is expected to be similar to last year. "

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/dec2613a/

See, now here's the problem. People read that and see that limits, at least for a while, were increased and more cats were harvested. Then they see that in recent years the harvest has been at least close to or right at what it was when hound hunting was still going on.

So are you trying to say that we weren't harvesting enough cats as far back as the 1950's? Because it looks an awful lot like the state has been harvesting as many, or more, than we were back then. Or do you have some other information I'm missing?   

You are wrong again. 

Maybe you need to give up on getting your wildlife data from the Seattle Times. 

Since 2008 WDFW has dropped the quotas in traditional cougar producing units to very low levels, lower than ever before. Compare the current harvest data for all the traditional high cougar producing units to previous data.

The only reason harvest data gathered on a statewide basis is near previous harvest levels is because WDFW has allowed cougar to populate into many more areas of the state. Many cougar are being taken in units that previously held few, if any cougars. A good percentage of the cougar harvest is coming from areas that were not previously producing much if any cougar harvest, which means far fewer cougar are being taken in the traditional high cougar producing areas.

This attempt to hide the real numbers of cougars and lack of harvest is more or less the same reasoning and method used by wolfers to hide the impacts of wolves on elk in Idaho and Montana.

No, I'm not wrong. The numbers don't lie, the state has harvested just as many as it always has if not more. Just not in the areas you want to see it. So don't go saying the state isn't harvesting as many cats as they used to because that really isn't true. Now on a unit by unit basis, that's a different story and a different discussion.

Isn't Bearpaw arguing that the state agencies are lying about the numbers though?


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Actually I asked WDFW pointedly at the Colville wolf meeting about cougar numbers. They said probably close to 4,000 in the state. We used to have about 2,000 in the state, I think that was fairly honest, so numbers have doubled. The point is that WDFW is under managing the high population of cougars that we now have.

We have twice as many cougars today but we are taking fewer than we did when there were 2000 cougars. In units where there was little or no previous harvest, those areas are now accounting for a good portion of the harvest, so certain people can say harvest has stayed the same statewide, but in reality harvest is lower in the traditional producing cougar areas.

The current cougar population could easily provide twice as much recreational opportunity for hunters without population decline. We would need three times the harvest to get cougar numbers back to a level that has fewer impacts on other wildlife.

Here's the bigger problem, WDFW doesn't want to properly manage bear, cougar, or wolves, they are all breeding and we have more of them every year, any ideas how this will result?

The bold part is simply not true. They might be under harvesting cats, and again you have to ask why  the explosion has happened, but what you are saying there is not true. This state harvests just as many cats now as it did 60 years ago, at least if you base it on reported kills. If more were getting harvested and not being reported before, well, you see what that is apparently getting everyone now.

If you want to argue they need to up the numbers, I'll buy that.

Wrong again, you need to recheck your info. 

The state really doesn't know how many cats were harvested 60 years ago. It was handy for you to go back that far and cherry pick outdated incomplete data to cite so that you could justify the reduced cougar harvest we have seen in recent years. 

The WDFW cougar population estimate used to be 2000 cougars, they now say 4000, like it or not, the cougar population has doubled in WA. FACT....

It's obvious you are only on this forum to push your propaganda to try and prevent hunting of predators, why don't you find another place to spew your rubbish? 

I never argued that there weren't more cats. Just your harvest numbers. You're lying when you say we are harvesting fewer or you are conceding many more were taken than reported.

The thing is, if more cats were taken than reported the state has no idea what is going on. In other words that means for decades they based their targets on numbers that weren't real because of people not reporting what they were doing. If you want to blame today's dilemma on anyone, look in the mirror, not at the state.

That's pretty brazen to call me a liar while at the same time you're trying to cherry pick antique data from decades ago and use that to refute current data. 

Sorry Abud, it doesn't float.

[bearpaw]

Be kind of my guess.  In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each.  One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas.  Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development.  (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)

Actually bounties went through the 50's and ended in the 60's. That was why we had the mule deer boom years until cougars multiplied to high levels in the mid 80's and then mule deer started a serious decline. I knew several of the NE WA bounty hunters, Cougar Sam, Bert Edwards, and others. They had some interesting stories.

Yep, and the state was actually getting more cats reported as harvested after the hound ban than they were when the bounty existed. Why?

I can tell you specifically why, but I would rather see you post your reasoning so everyone can have another laugh! 

I don't find this to be a particularly funny argument. You want to blame a state agency for the actions of people who failed to report what they were actually doing or were outright poaching. WDFW can only set limits if they have data to prove that something is or is not working. Historically the harvests they set today have always worked and yet magically the population of cats has exploded. My, I wonder how that happened.

Wrong again Abud, they have reduced harvest in most traditional cougar producing units. You need to try and keep your facts straight please.

[AspenBud]

Be kind of my guess.  In the 20's and 30's there were bounties on the cougars and some of the houndsmen were getting 50-60 cats annually each.  One of the differences between the old days and these days with cougars, the houndsmen would take the FS roads farther in the backcountry (after the wolves/cougars were hit hard) and were seeking out the cougars in hard to reach areas.  Most of the cougars I hear taken now are close to some kind of development.  (Around farms vs forty miles in on FS roads that are now decommissioned.)

Actually bounties went through the 50's and ended in the 60's. That was why we had the mule deer boom years until cougars multiplied to high levels in the mid 80's and then mule deer started a serious decline. I knew several of the NE WA bounty hunters, Cougar Sam, Bert Edwards, and others. They had some interesting stories.

Yep, and the state was actually getting more cats reported as harvested after the hound ban than they were when the bounty existed. Why?

I can tell you specifically why, but I would rather see you post your reasoning so everyone can have another laugh! 

I don't find this to be a particularly funny argument. You want to blame a state agency for the actions of people who failed to report what they were actually doing or were outright poaching. WDFW can only set limits if they have data to prove that something is or is not working. Historically the harvests they set today have always worked and yet magically the population of cats has exploded. My, I wonder how that happened.

Wrong again Abud, they have reduced harvest in most traditional cougar producing units.

So what? The state still harvests the same number of cats overall unless you want to include unreported cats, in which case you can't blame the state for data they don't have.

When the state averages about 165 reported cats a year as harvested going back decades you can't say they aren't harvesting as many as they used to. That is a lie. You can however say they aren't taking as many relative to the increased population.