Canada Lynx delisting

[JimmyHoffa]

And takes away some of the greeny ability to close down land and other things--like logging and the spotted owl or marbled murrelet.

[WAcoyotehunter]

[quote author=Humptulips

Are you kidding? Lynx were never and will never be of significant numbers in WA. To say they are not recovered ignores the fact that we are on the fringe of their range. There will never be more lynx in WA. It is that way in all lower 48 States that have lynx.

[/quote]
There may not have been as many lynx in WA as in BC, but there were lots more than we have today.  It was a sustainable population.  Interesting stuff in the WDFW document about lynx trapping, one guy in Ferry Co. Killed 23 in a season in the mid 70's, that kind of harvest makes me think there were more than a few around.

I'm curious why you think there could not be more lynx in WA? 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00394/wdfw00394.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjJ8_Pz_NHYAhVQ2mMKHdpOAVUQFjABegQIEhAB&usg=AOvVaw2aQQ0T2inw0yzV8Xn8f1vL

[Okanagan]

I'm curious why lynx seem scarce on the US side of the border, in the Paysayten Wilderness, for example, when they are quite common on the Canadian side of the line a very few miles away and sometimes in the same watershed, such as the Paysayten River canyon.  I've rambled on both sides of the border through that country and have often found lynx tracks on the Canadian side, and seen two up there over the years, both quite close to the border.  Lynx tracks are about as common as cougar tracks in the same area, not nearly as abundant as bobcat tracks in that region.

On the US side, I only recall one lynx track, in NE Whatcom County.  I tracked it in an inch of fresh snow one morning on the trail up Crater Mountain, around the rim in sub alpine.  But I have not hiked the Paysayten country much in the past 15 years. 

[Skyvalhunter]

They don't like the smell Wa outputs. Smells like tree huggers

[Humptulips]

[quote author=Humptulips

Are you kidding? Lynx were never and will never be of significant numbers in WA. To say they are not recovered ignores the fact that we are on the fringe of their range. There will never be more lynx in WA. It is that way in all lower 48 States that have lynx.

There may not have been as many lynx in WA as in BC, but there were lots more than we have today.  It was a sustainable population.  Interesting stuff in the WDFW document about lynx trapping, one guy in Ferry Co. Killed 23 in a season in the mid 70's, that kind of harvest makes me think there were more than a few around.

I'm curious why you think there could not be more lynx in WA? 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00394/wdfw00394.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjJ8_Pz_NHYAhVQ2mMKHdpOAVUQFjABegQIEhAB&usg=AOvVaw2aQQ0T2inw0yzV8Xn8f1vL
[/quote]

The answer is habitat. We don't have it or at least not much of it. Even in the areas considered to be lynx habitat there has never been a lot of them. It is quite possible they would disappear if it were not for dispersal from Canada.

[KFhunter]

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/12518/0

[WAcoyotehunter]

[quote author=Humptulips

Are you kidding? Lynx were never and will never be of significant numbers in WA. To say they are not recovered ignores the fact that we are on the fringe of their range. There will never be more lynx in WA. It is that way in all lower 48 States that have lynx.

There may not have been as many lynx in WA as in BC, but there were lots more than we have today.  It was a sustainable population.  Interesting stuff in the WDFW document about lynx trapping, one guy in Ferry Co. Killed 23 in a season in the mid 70's, that kind of harvest makes me think there were more than a few around.

I'm curious why you think there could not be more lynx in WA? 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00394/wdfw00394.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjJ8_Pz_NHYAhVQ2mMKHdpOAVUQFjABegQIEhAB&usg=AOvVaw2aQQ0T2inw0yzV8Xn8f1vL

The answer is habitat. We don't have it or at least not much of it. Even in the areas considered to be lynx habitat there has never been a lot of them. It is quite possible they would disappear if it were not for dispersal from Canada.
[/quote]
You're absolutely right, they need habitat.  So I suppose it depends on us to protect that habitat and it rarely happens out of the goodness of our hearts, protection of the species (it's habitat) is the only way to help them. 

[KFhunter]

Why do we need to protect fringe animals?  Animals that are robust in other areas of the country?  Lynx are thick from Canada all the way up through Alaska, and our pockets of lynx on the bottom fringe of their range aren't anything special, they're the same animals.   

Lot of their habitat is already protected by other means, and according to the study they need multi layered forests and new growth forests.  Our recent fires will provide that and logging will provide the rest, perhaps by over protecting the forest we've shot the lynx in the foot by not logging and managing our forests.   We certainly haven't hunted or trapped them to dwindling numbers, so it's got to be habitat.  If they were thicker in the 70's then ask whats different from the 70's to now?   Logging. (or rather lack of)

[Katmai Guy]

Why do we need to protect fringe animals?  Animals that are robust in other areas of the country?  Lynx are thick from Canada all the way up through Alaska, and our pockets of lynx on the bottom fringe of their range aren't anything special, they're the same animals.   

Lot of their habitat is already protected by other means, and according to the study they need multi layered forests and new growth forests.  Our recent fires will provide that and logging will provide the rest, perhaps by over protecting the forest we've shot the lynx in the foot by not logging and managing our forests.   We certainly haven't hunted or trapped them to dwindling numbers, so it's got to be habitat.  If they were thicker in the 70's then ask whats different from the 70's to now?   Logging. (or rather lack of)

  they still log in Canada.  Nothing grows in old growth forests except moss and mushrooms, no brush, no little critters that eat or hid in brush, no big predators that eat little critters. Not to hard to figure out, logging helps a multitude of animals, not logging Might only help a little owl?   Over simplification of course, but possible.

[Southpole]

Maybe there's too much competition with Washington's other beloved predators  . Why would I choose to go hunt an area with 1000 other hunters when I could choose to hunt just as good, maybe better, of an area with maybe 100 other hunters in the woods. 

[KFhunter]

Maybe there's too much competition with Washington's other beloved predators  . Why would I choose to go hunt an area with 1000 other hunters when I could choose to hunt just as good, maybe better, of an area with maybe 100 other hunters in the woods.

You bring up a good point, the lower 48 states have a lot of bobcat that overlap marginal lynx areas.  They both eat snowshoe hare, and our Washington concrete snow enables both species to chase the same game.  Lynx have the advantage in deep fluffy snow, but our snow is only fluffy for a very short time limiting that evolutionary advantage of the Canadian lynx. 

[Humptulips]

The way I look at it if WA was a great place for lynx we would have a lot of them. There are a few here and more dispersing from Canada so we have the potential but something is not right so there never gets to be a lot of them.
I'm glad the USF&W service is talking about delisting. There are a lot higher priorities and we won't get sued if we catch one in a cage trap.

[TeacherMan]

We are not even in their range. There will never be a viable huntable population here and that’s okay.

[hunter399]

I would like to see the wall come down on logging , or setting aside forest land for there recovery, but at the same time keep them listed and protected ,In not gonna kill off a small population just cause they don't or can't recover due to all kinds of factors.so that's how I stand.

Pro logging ,tree thinning,forest mangement.
Pro keeping lynx listed.

[KFhunter]

I would like to see the wall come down on logging , or setting aside forest land for there recovery, but at the same time keep them listed and protected ,In not gonna kill off a small population just cause they don't or can't recover due to all kinds of factors.so that's how I stand.

Pro logging ,tree thinning,forest mangement.
Pro keeping lynx listed.

My remark about getting taller cages was tongue in cheek, no one is thinking about killing off the lynx, that's ludicrous.   We're talking about federal delisting, that's a long, LONG ways away from actually hunting or trapping them. 

We don't need to "set aside" forest land for their recovery, that would hurt the population.  Lynx (if you took the time to read about them) prefer new growth and multi-layered forest because that's what the rabbits like.   Rabbits don't like old growth crap that nothing grows under, old growth forest doesn't have yummy branches on the ground for hares, if you wanted to help the lynx then talk about logging and controlled burns, snowshoe love lodge pole pine and they like them small and young with branches right on the floor. 
They eat it, then partially digest it, then eat it again right out of their own anus, sort of like a cow chews it's cud. 

So no, we don't need to set aside anything.  We need to slash and burn and log and send the older lodge pole to the paper mills for news paper and paper towels and let new lodge pole grow to keep the rabbit numbers up.   And we need to cage more bobcat in lynx territory, and of course cougar needs reduced as well.   Even taking big male lynx would help them rebound so they kill less kits.   

This is all very simple, but the stuff I talk about doesn't help lock up more wilderness and control people access to the woods.


I for one would love to see far more lynx, they kill wolves.