Killing wolves to protect livestock doesn’t work in long run

[Alchase]

Correlation does not imply causation, the only way those numbers would make sense is if the total population radically exceeded the ability of the land to sustain those wolf numbers by  factor of 75%.
Then the 25% left would be sustainable.

[Alchase]

Fuzzy logic, killing the wolves in the Smackout pack would cause the wolves of the Lookout pack to kill more livestock,

Uhm ya...............

[villageidiot]

Wow!  This makes a lot of sense.  We need to try it in Seattle.  Any human that kills another human should not be killed himself but let continue to do what he does.  By taking out this human killer we would be creating a problem and more killers will take his place.  So if we use this brilliant theory we can now allow all human killers inSeattle to continue killing because this is the best way to stop them killing.
  It's amazing anybody would even bring this idiotic idea up.  WOW!

[RadSav]

Wonder if this is the same fool that sold the WDFW a bill of goods on the cougar situation.  "Killing mature toms just leads to more cats."  Nice to see they are doubling down on the rhetoric.  Of course all this BS is true to an extent as long as your base line is limited.  Expand the time line and that base line holds more truth and results reflect more of an appropriate conclusion.

[Humptulips]

Isn't this the same guy responsible for our cougar management plan?

RadSav beat me to the post by 12 seconds

[idahohuntr]

There are many inherent problems when using an opportunistic data set like this.  One glaring issue I did not see addressed is the temporal scale and how that may have influenced results...25% reductions did not occur until de-listing, most of the lethal control actions by state agencies occurred as the population was expanding, so corresponding up ticks in depredation the following year may be unrelated to lethal actions by the state in the previous year.  They do provide some other lines of evidence and supporting research that attempts to explain why removing a few animals may be counter-productive...but in the news clip WDFW says:

By removing the resident animals, you might exacerbate the situation” in the long-term.  But that doesn’t reduce the short-term value of killing wolves to halt ongoing livestock attacks, Pierce said.

As usual, a little bit of science which will be exploited by both sides - DoW will say this means you shouldn't kill any wolves; the other side will say go big or go home. 

[AspenBud]

Wonder if this is the same fool that sold the WDFW a bill of goods on the cougar situation.  "Killing mature toms just leads to more cats."  Nice to see they are doubling down on the rhetoric.  Of course all this BS is true to an extent as long as your base line is limited.  Expand the time line and that base line holds more truth and results reflect more of an appropriate conclusion.

Something strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.

[pianoman9701]

The only thing interesting about this article is the smell. First of all, Canadian wolf studies in MT, a state with 1/3 fewer wolves in their plan, twice the area,  and 1/8th the human population has very little to do with WA's situation. Secondly, the last statement is the most revealing - kill 25% of the population and attacks on livestock decrease. In our case, had the plan included geographical and topographical requirements for acceptable wolf habitat, we wouldn't be having these problems because wolves in the wrong place would be shot or moved. If we removed 25% of the wolves in this state now, mainly from the areas of most human/wolf conflict, the animals would start getting the message very fast - stay deep in the woods away from the humans. Unfortunately, the WDFW has been lying with the enviro-freakos for so long on this issue, they're impotent to take the corrective steps necessary to curb the depredation.

[WAcoyotehunter]

Wonder if this is the same fool that sold the WDFW a bill of goods on the cougar situation.  "Killing mature toms just leads to more cats."  Nice to see they are doubling down on the rhetoric.  Of course all this BS is true to an extent as long as your base line is limited.  Expand the time line and that base line holds more truth and results reflect more of an appropriate conclusion.

Something strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.

it's compensatory loss. It's not strange at all. Hunters kill subadults that would have died anyway

[headshot5]

Something strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.

What doesn't add up?  Their are more cats now then ever.  We have a less effective tool to hunt them, but the sheer # of cougars in the state allows the less effective hunting method to take as many cougars as the previous method did when there was a smaller population.  However, the % we hunters are taking now to the overall population is much less than when hound hunting was legal.   

 

[mountainman]

Something strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.

What doesn't add up?  Their are more cats now then ever.  We have a less effective tool to hunt them, but the sheer # of cougars in the state allows the less effective hunting method to take as many cougars as the previous method did when there was a smaller population.  However, the % we hunters are taking now to the overall population is much less than when hound hunting was legal.   

 

[AspenBud]

Something strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.

What doesn't add up?  Their are more cats now then ever.  We have a less effective tool to hunt them, but the sheer # of cougars in the state allows the less effective hunting method to take as many cougars as the previous method did when there was a smaller population.  However, the % we hunters are taking now to the overall population is much less than when hound hunting was legal.   

 

I understand the percentages relative to the overall population side of the debate. But in terms of recorded harvests the records pretty clearly show the state harvests as many or more cougars now than before the ban and that's been the case almost from the beginning. WDFW knew they had a problem and flooded the state with cougar tags post ban. Or that's my understanding at least. Handing out tags to any hunter who wants one may be less efficient, but less effective?What's on paper says otherwise.

My guess is where hounds shine is when they are run, be it for hunting or training. It keeps the cats out of site more. Without the dogs the cats are more willing to show themselves.

[idaho guy]

Something strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.

What doesn't add up?  Their are more cats now then ever.  We have a less effective tool to hunt them, but the sheer # of cougars in the state allows the less effective hunting method to take as many cougars as the previous method did when there was a smaller population.  However, the % we hunters are taking now to the overall population is much less than when hound hunting was legal.   

 

I understand the percentages relative to the overall population side of the debate. But in terms of recorded harvests the records pretty clearly show the state harvests as many or more cougars now than before the ban and that's been the case almost from the beginning. WDFW knew they had a problem and flooded the state with cougar tags post ban. Or that's my understanding at least. Handing out tags to any hunter who wants one may be less efficient, but less effective?What's on paper says otherwise.

My guess is where hounds shine is when they are run, be it for hunting or training. It keeps the cats out of site more. Without the dogs the cats are more willing to show themselves.


No that is not it. Headshot already answered your question. After you removed hounds you removed the most effective tool for managing lions and the population exploded. You are killing more cats randomly because you are over run with cats and people are seeing more and shooting them because there are way more! Large toms definitley kill sub adults in their territory but hunters most likely are killing way less percentage wise than the total population vs what was killed as a percent with hounds.

[AspenBud]

Something strange is going on with cougars. There are more cats now than before the hound ban, yet we kill as many or more mountain lions now state wide than we did before the hound ban. Something doesn't add up with that.

What doesn't add up?  Their are more cats now then ever.  We have a less effective tool to hunt them, but the sheer # of cougars in the state allows the less effective hunting method to take as many cougars as the previous method did when there was a smaller population.  However, the % we hunters are taking now to the overall population is much less than when hound hunting was legal.   

 

I understand the percentages relative to the overall population side of the debate. But in terms of recorded harvests the records pretty clearly show the state harvests as many or more cougars now than before the ban and that's been the case almost from the beginning. WDFW knew they had a problem and flooded the state with cougar tags post ban. Or that's my understanding at least. Handing out tags to any hunter who wants one may be less efficient, but less effective?What's on paper says otherwise.

My guess is where hounds shine is when they are run, be it for hunting or training. It keeps the cats out of site more. Without the dogs the cats are more willing to show themselves.


No that is not it. Headshot already answered your question. After you removed hounds you removed the most effective tool for managing lions and the population exploded. You are killing more cats randomly because you are over run with cats and people are seeing more and shooting them because there are way more! Large toms definitley kill sub adults in their territory but hunters most likely are killing way less percentage wise than the total population vs what was killed as a percent with hounds.

The percentage take relative to the actual population is certainly lower than when hounds were allowed to run. But that's not the argument. The actual number of lions killed every year hasn't really changed since the ban, if anything more have been shot, or at least reported as such. Either the dogs were scaring the cats or some unreported killing was going on prior to the ban...or both.

I'd like to see hounds back in WA, but that doesn't mean I don't find the current situation a bit curious.   

[mkcj]

Here is the published paper,
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0113505
 
And as you read it you will see it is nothing more than if's, maybe, could be, possibly and might, as to come up with a conclusion that he wanted. There is no way you can do a study on state wide date to get results of what a pack will do if hunted, but what is interesting is a study referenced in the end of the study from Canada that states


"By contrast, Bjorge and Gunson (1985) found reducing the population from 40 to 3 wolves in 2 years in Alberta (a 10 fold reduction to near extirpation) resulted in a decline of livestock depredations for two years - followed by subsequent recolonization and increased depredations thereafter. Tompa (1983) also found that lethal control prevented conflict for more than a year in some areas of British Columbia. It should be noted that these 2 studies examined wolf control and livestock depredations at a fine scale (grazing allotment or wolf pack territory or management zone)."