Cougar population in WA state over time?

[Dysfunctional Vet]

http://www.mountainlion.org/us/wa/library/WA-R-Wielgus-2015-PPT-Effects-of-Sport-Hunting-on-Cougar-Population-Community-and-Landscape-Ecology-HSUSconf.pdf

That’s an interesting article/report. It leaves me with more questions.
As it states, hunting pressure up=more predation on live stock and pets. So when hound hunting was allowed were there more live stock and pet predation?
Answering immigration or emigration or both seems like an idk answer. Immigration is the intent to move to another country and emigration is the intent to move to a new location. 1 chart shows immigration as moving in a population and emigration is leaving a population.
 In most scientific papers they will include definitions of terms. Letting you know how theses terms are being used.
 I’m not trying to bash this paper, I find wildlife biology fascinating and enjoy trying to understand the life of big game animals. Especially, predatory cats.

[runamuk]

Any time you see HSUS attached to animal studies you need to know their agenda is no human use or ownership of animals. They are anti hunting, anti farming, anti pet ownership and they fund domestic terrorist groups like ALF.

[bearpaw]

http://www.mountainlion.org/us/wa/library/WA-R-Wielgus-2015-PPT-Effects-of-Sport-Hunting-on-Cougar-Population-Community-and-Landscape-Ecology-HSUSconf.pdf

   What a joke!

A predator lover using science to further his political agenda! IMO no different than the false lynx study in Colorado, Weigus' research is what Washington has based cougar management on in Washington! The resulting increased cougar population statewide since voters outlawed hound hunting has cougar living in residential backyards because that's the only place for the expanding population to go, mule deer and blacktail numbers are struggling, and the number of livestock, pet, and human attacks by cougar has multiplied substantially. The reduced boot hunting opportunity in the last decade has compounded the situation. It doesn't matter what the the paper he created says, there is no denying the actual history and where we are at today with the burgeoning cougar population!

runamuk hit the nail on the head regarding HSUS and Wielgus is loved by them!

[idahohuntr]

http://www.mountainlion.org/us/wa/library/WA-R-Wielgus-2015-PPT-Effects-of-Sport-Hunting-on-Cougar-Population-Community-and-Landscape-Ecology-HSUSconf.pdf

   What a joke!

A predator lover using science to further his political agenda! IMO no different than the false lynx study in Colorado, Weigus' research is what Washington has based cougar management on in Washington! The resulting increased cougar population statewide since voters outlawed hound hunting has cougar living in residential backyards because that's the only place for the expanding population to go, mule deer and blacktail numbers are struggling, and the number of livestock, pet, and human attacks by cougar has multiplied substantially. The reduced boot hunting opportunity in the last decade has compounded the situation. It doesn't matter what the the paper he created says, there is no denying the actual history and where we are at today with the burgeoning cougar population!

runamuk hit the nail on the head regarding HSUS and Wielgus is loved by them!

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.  His hypothesis that more hunting = more cougars and cougar complaints might make sense if the geographic scope was limited to one GMU in the middle of the state, surrounded by a bunch of GMU's with no hunting.  In the real world though - there is not an unlimited supply of cougars to immigrate in to areas...if the cat in the neighboring GMU is shot...its going to have a hard time emigrating to a new spot 

The notion that higher levels of harvest = higher cougar numbers and greater complaints/human interactions is the kind of crap a professor dreams up just to be a contrarian academic. 

[Humptulips]

There are some conclusions to be made from the study that I think we might just embrace.

First of all the immigration/emigration findings. In my mind this has zero effect on population. I mean the State cougar population as a whole is not going  up or down because of this. Taken in the smaller study areas maybe but for the entire State cougar may move around but any population change Statewide is going to be related to reproduction and survival rate. What it does tell us if we knock the population down in an area, cougar are going to move in from less harvested areas to fill the gap. Seems sound and makes a good case for doing away with all these smaller cougar management areas and their associated quotas.

Second it predicts a 14% harvest rate by hunting to be optimum to maintain a static population. We have never reached that since hound hunting was stopped. I do not expect we will reach that number on a Statewide basis given our hunting options. That makes a pretty good argument for doing away with the quotas all together and controlling the harvest via season length much like we do other big game. Incidentally that also predicts that our population will have grown significantly given that there has been less then a 14% harvest  for 22 years. Exactly what we have all been saying is happening. Let us say an average of 7% increase per year which is not a bad number. That predicts our cougar population to have grown by a factor of about 3. One could make the case that that is too many and the harvest should go above 14% for a while to put things back in balance.

Third is that targeted harvest by sex and age group would be best to manage predation ie, females predate on mule deer at a higher frequency because of where they go to get away from males when raising their young. It is not possible to selectively harvest given our hunting options but it might make sense to increase hunter opportunity in areas more apt to be frequented by mule deer then white tails.
It makes a better case for targeted harvest which argues we need hound hunting and or trapping as harvest methods. Those are the only ways you are going to get a close enough look to select for sex or age.

The conclusions of the study do not take into account a constantly increasing cougar population.
1. Hunting does not equal less cougar
It does not if the harvest is held below 14% for 22 years
2. Hunting does not equal less predation
 That makes sense if the population is static which it is not
3.Hunting does not equal less depredations
See #2
4.Hunting does not equal less complaints
See #2

[KFhunter]

http://www.mountainlion.org/us/wa/library/WA-R-Wielgus-2015-PPT-Effects-of-Sport-Hunting-on-Cougar-Population-Community-and-Landscape-Ecology-HSUSconf.pdf

   What a joke!

A predator lover using science to further his political agenda! IMO no different than the false lynx study in Colorado, Weigus' research is what Washington has based cougar management on in Washington! The resulting increased cougar population statewide since voters outlawed hound hunting has cougar living in residential backyards because that's the only place for the expanding population to go, mule deer and blacktail numbers are struggling, and the number of livestock, pet, and human attacks by cougar has multiplied substantially. The reduced boot hunting opportunity in the last decade has compounded the situation. It doesn't matter what the the paper he created says, there is no denying the actual history and where we are at today with the burgeoning cougar population!

runamuk hit the nail on the head regarding HSUS and Wielgus is loved by them!

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.  His hypothesis that more hunting = more cougars and cougar complaints might make sense if the geographic scope was limited to one GMU in the middle of the state, surrounded by a bunch of GMU's with no hunting.  In the real world though - there is not an unlimited supply of cougars to immigrate in to areas...if the cat in the neighboring GMU is shot...its going to have a hard time emigrating to a new spot 

The notion that higher levels of harvest = higher cougar numbers and greater complaints/human interactions is the kind of crap a professor dreams up just to be a contrarian academic.

His study makes a tiny bit more since in a hound area (ID) where the big toms are targeted, but the study makes no since in WA.

It's still junk science though.

[buglebrush]

Talk about a nutty professor!   

And WDFW used this **** to set our policy

[jasnt]

It is bad science and the professor probably knows it. I’d bet the anti’s are in his back pocket.

[KFhunter]

It is bad science and the professor probably knows it. I’d bet the anti’s are in his back pocket.

Hell ya the professor knows it, he opened with truths we all know to be self evident like    then he spent the whole study trying to debunk and spin those no brainer truths.


According to Weilgus these "traditional" statements are all outdated and false...
hunting goes up  = cougar population goes down (hunting has a direct result on population totals)

hunting goes up  = predation goes down  (less deer/elk being eaten by cougar)

hunting goes up  = complaints and depredations goes down (less cats means less sheep, horses and pets (and people) being attacked or killed)[/size]



It doesn't take a moron to see that hunting can reduce overall populations in areas where hound hunting is allowed or encouraged, and that hunting will alleviate some pressure on deer/elk and the education of cats due to being chased by hounds will make them avoid areas with human activity. In Washington though we're only allowed to boot hunt which throws all of this out the window because so few cats are being taken by boot hunters and the cats that ARE taken have less fear or caution around people thus they need to be removed.  In WA we really need coyote rules for Cougar.
If you have a cat looking at you from 50 or 100 yards away then that cat needs to be killed as it doesn't have enough fear, it's kitten will have a smidgen less fear, and those kittens even a smidgen less fear so on and so forth until you have a cats following people around checking em out, then worse actually thinking humans could be prey and they start prey testing people.

generational learning. 

but weilgus knows all this, the fraud weilgus takes all this information and massages it to say what he wants it to say, that increased hunting of lions makes more lions, that hunting lions = more deer/elk being eaten and that by hunting lions we're creating more depredations on livestock and people.  According to Weilgus hunting = bad!

absolute lunacy, and WDFW bought it. hook line and sinker, hell they swallowed the whole boat.



These are the truisms Weilgus sought to debunk:

[Humptulips]

Although I would say his conclusions are faulty I do not believe you are exactly stating his conclusions. Furthermore I think his conclusions have some validity if taken narrowly.
Let's got through them,

1. Hunting does not equal less cougar
  This is his biggest mistake. Given the small study areas and the constraints on hunting in the State he is no doubt correct. He predicts in his study a 14% increase every year given natural increase. You have to prune that increase every year just to stay even. If you do in a small study area like he worked with, cougar from other areas move in to fill the gap. He said as much in the study. No amount of hunting is going to equal less cougar given our constraints because we cannot even harvest that 14% needed to just stay even.

2. Hunting does not equal less predation
    Well, yes if the cougar population remains constant or is increasing. Actually seems very logical. More cougar is going to equal more predation. No amount of hunting will change that if you cannot harvest enough to reduce the population wholesale. Exactly what we are seeing.
3.Hunting does not equal less depredations
See #2
4.Hunting does not equal less complaints
See #2

[KFhunter]

It seems we are in agreement, here's what I wrote:

"hunting can reduce overall populations in areas where hound hunting is allowed or encouraged, and that hunting will alleviate some pressure on deer/elk and the education of cats due to being chased by hounds and will make them avoid areas with human activity"

and:

"In Washington though we're only allowed to boot hunt which throws all of this out the window because so few cats are being taken by boot hunters"


The whole study is a farce because we hunters can't really target the large males and take them like they can in other states.  A precious few big males do occasionally get taken but it's a small drop in the bucket of over populated mt lion in WA.  Weilgus' whole premise is that the big males will take care of the cougar problem for us and taking them out upsets the balance...but again, we can't target the big males, and this theory is disproved anyways because other state where big males are regularly taken aren't suffering from increased conflict due to hunting.

My personal  is that because it's so hard to hunt or manage cougar in WA with our rules means we need very liberal quotas or even no quotas at all, coyote rules in the bulk of the state and the cougar would still thrive.  There just isn't that many people chasing them. 

[KFhunter]

The bulk of our deer/elk populations is near agriculture, which hound hunters traditionally had good access.   Ranchers loved hound hunters, they kept their ewes and calves safe.


I got a rancher just up the road who has a cat killing his sheep right now, he'd love a hound hunter to help him out, but this being WA voting out hounds and all we just need coyote rules for cougar, then I'd go help him out.  I'd sit at night over a carcass.   

[Humptulips]

I guess the problem I see with dissing all of his work is that I see the real opportunity to use a lot of it in our favor.

[KFhunter]

I'd be in favor of tossing out the baby with the bath water and going back to no quotas and a long season.

[Humptulips]

I'd be in favor of tossing out the baby with the bath water and going back to no quotas and a long season.

The argument can be made for those things using his study. His conclusions are that cougar will move into an area that has a harvest of over that 14% so all those cougar management areas along with their quotas have no value. In fact there is a good argument to be made even areas closed to hunting will contribute to populations in huntable areas so they should be included in any State Management objectives. That would include things like Parks and Military Reservations.
Also you can argue that if that 14% number is not being reached the State should do more to encourage harvest and that is just to maintain a stable population.

 Preferred size of the population is a separate issue I do not see addressed in his study but one can argue if the 14% harvest level has not been reached it stands to reason the population has grown and a harvest above 14% would be necessary to bring the population down to historic levels..

At least to me that adds up to long seasons and no quotas.