Meeting with Dr. Martolrello (WDFW Carnivore Specialist)

[luvtohnt]

http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/07-0352.1

http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/08-1805.1

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00256.x/full

Here are a couple of recent findings from NE Washington

Brandon

[luvtohnt]

I would also like to see the population estimate protocol tightened up.  I think a regional population estimate would make far more sense than the one they use developed in Kittitas County.  It really is comparing apples to oranges up here.  We need to develop a more comprehensive 'available habitat' model and then a better guess at the total number.  This is particularly important considering that everyone is beating this "12% harvest drum".

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00433/wdfw00433.pdf

Starting on page 99, it appears they have done some work regionally in eastern Washington. They worked on population during the hound hunting in the north east, and I know currently they are in the Blue Mountains working on population dynamics.

Brandon

[bearpaw]

I think this current (proposed plan) is by far the best option we have had since the hound ban.

I am not sure where fair-chase got the info about GMU 105 because the plan I was reading has new CMU's (Cougar Management Unit's). 105 would be in Unit 7 Which has a 10 female quota. This would achieve the goal of managing the cougars at a 2007 level. Unit 7 has been overharvested for several years, that is why it produces good. There was a doctoral student who did population analysis of cougars in the northeast, and the population is in a massive sink. If I can find the link I will post it.

I believe this method will be ideal for preventing the "source" and "sink" populations they want to avoid. It also allows for better management of cougars in certain areas based more geographical barriers, rather than trying to manage the entire state the same way.

Brandon

Brandon where did you get that info. The proposal they released that I saw said 2 cougar for GMU 105.

I saw Kain's other post with the actual proposed seasons, and see that GMU 105 has only 2 (females). I included the link below for the document I was reading.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00433/wdfw00433.pdf

In all honesty I think this is the first step towards bringing hounds back to Washington. Once this program is unsuccessful because boot hunters generally can't control what they take, the only logical move from here is to go back to permit with hounds in order to manage cougar numbers correctly.

If you kill young cougar or toms you are not impacting the population much. The cougar that really matter are your 3 to 10 year old females, they are the reproductive backbone of the population.

There is some truth in this statement, but you have to remember that if you kill to many of the <3 year old females you will have a sudden drop in overall poulation. So realisticly you need to target females >8 years old and males of all age classes.

I just noticed that the document I was reading talks about everything being based on female harvest. However in the proposed language of the new regulations it says nothing about females. It makes me wonder if they forgot some language referring to female quotas! The only other thing I can see is that they want population numbers in the NE to matching those in 2007, this may also explain the low quota number to start.

Brandon

Thanks for the link. I see they have proposed 10 females in all the NE, that is utterly ridiculous and irresponsible. We need to take that many out of any two units up here, and we historically have taken more than that. I could lay out a list of drainages in this whole NE corner with a reasonably close estimate of the females in this area. A 10 female quota is an insult.

I totally agree about the sub-adults, we obviously don't want to kill them all. My main point was that you need to take care of the breedable females to preserve a population. But, if you have too many cats, you need to kill some females. We have some areas with too many cats, the same is true about cougar as with wolves. There are more than WDFW knows.

WDFW used a couple houndhunters to try and determine the cougar population in GMU 105 and they thought they had them all accounted for within a certain area. But I can tell you that there are more cats there than a couple hound doggers can find. When you have a good night and cats move, they move in about every drainage. A couple hunters only get to a couple drainages that day and can never see all the cats that moved throughout the area. A lot of those cats will not cross another drainage for maybe a month or two if they have good hunting where they are at. It would take 6-8 hound hunters working closely together to really nail down the cougar population in GMU 105. WDFW simply does not know how many cats are in GMU 105 or most any other GMU.

The kill numbers I proposed are easily supported in those GMU's by recruitment and with a female sub-quota, you will not over harvest. At a time when we need to help the NE deer herds, mule deer included, they want to protect cats more than ever before. Sure I want to see hound hunting back, but I don't want to further destroy the deer herd to prove that point. I explained specifically why GMU 105 needs more cougar taken, area by area, and historic records of GMU 105 will show far more cougar harvested than proposed. Now if they told us that they proposed the lower harvest because of the cat study and wanting to preserve the cat population for the study that would be different, but don't insult the intelligence of people who know what this unit has for cats by proposing a 2 cat limit.

Hunters are giving up a lot of opportunity in NE WA to try and help our deer herds. It's about time WDFW does something about our ridiculous predator populations. People here are getting more and more fed up about this lack of responsible management.

[WAcoyotehunter]

http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/07-0352.1

http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/08-1805.1

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00256.x/full

Here are a couple of recent findings from NE Washington

Brandon

I have read and re-read these studies several times over the last couple years and I cannot come up with any definitive information that supports the "outcome" of the study.  Particularly since hunters killed MORE unmarked cats in the "lightly hunted" area than they did in the 'heavily hunted' area... what gives?  They also observed almost 2x as many kittens in the Heavily hunted area... I think there are some smoke and mirrors in this study and I am not inclined to take the advise of Robert Wielgus without very real scrutiny- but that's just me.

We captured and marked 103 cougars in the two
study sites (57 in HH, 46 in LH) between January 2002
and December 2007. Hunters killed 50 unmarked
cougars (nine females, 13 males in HH; 14 females, 13
males, one of unknown sex in LH), and one uncollared
female in LH was killed by a vehicle collision. We
observed 26 unmarked kittens (six females, two males,
nine of unknown sex in HH; three females, four males,
two of unknown sex in LH) traveling with collared
females.

[luvtohnt]

I have only briefly read the papers, and definitely see your point I will read in more detail and see what I come up with. I was more just showing that they have been in the NW and have an understanding of the population.

What is wrong with Robert Wielgus?

Brandon

[Cougeyes]

Particularly since hunters killed MORE unmarked cats in the "lightly hunted" area than they did in the 'heavily hunted' area... what gives?

Hunters probably killed more unmarked cats in the lightly hunted area because it had a stable population and overall more cougars and is considered a source population for other areas.  On the flip side, the heavyily hunted area had lower density, was considered a sink population and just had fewer cougars to begin with so most cats were able to be collared in this area compared to the lightly hunted area. 

[Cougeyes]

I think this current (proposed plan) is by far the best option we have had since the hound ban.

I believe this method will be ideal for preventing the "source" and "sink" populations they want to avoid. It also allows for better management of cougars in certain areas based more geographical barriers, rather than trying to manage the entire state the same way.

Brandon

I'm pretty sure this is the main reason behind the change. 

[Cougeyes]

http://www.mendeley.com/research/cougar-population-dynamics-viability-pacific-northwest/

Here's another link and possibly the one luvtohunt was referring to.  Discusses population dynamics and declining populations in some areas.

[bearpaw]

http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/08-1805.1

Reading through this paper shows that heavy hunting will reduce cougar populations and light hunting does not have as much effect on cougar populations. Please excuse me, but isn't this one of the main purposes of hunting, to control populations?

They make the claim that heavy hunting will result in cats from neighboring units moving in. Of course that happens, less competition. If you want to reduce the incidence of that occuring you simply increase the hunting pressure in the units the cats are coming from.

It appears to me the people who wrote this up were trying to justify reductions in cougar hunting by skewing their analisys and comments of the data. Essentually the data proves that hunting accomplishes the desired effect, it reduces cougar populations. The heavier you hunt, the more the cougar population will be reduced.

The study also shows that if you are not achieving the desired population reduction due to immigration from surrounding areas, you may need to hunt surrounding areas more. If there are fewer cougar in the neighboring areas, this study indicates there will likely be less immigration.

I can also see that this study shows the need for hound hunting to give managers the ability to target male or female segments of the overall cougar population to more carefully control numbers and population growth. Hound seasons can be set to remove a specific number of male or female cougar from a GMU.

I am definitely suspect of the persons involved in this study and their comments regarding the data. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

Particularly since hunters killed MORE unmarked cats in the "lightly hunted" area than they did in the 'heavily hunted' area... what gives?

Hunters probably killed more unmarked cats in the lightly hunted area because it had a stable population and overall more cougars and is considered a source population for other areas.  On the flip side, the heavyily hunted area had lower density, was considered a sink population and just had fewer cougars to begin with so most cats were able to be collared in this area compared to the lightly hunted area. 

Thanks Kevin- it would make sense if a higher proportion of the cats were collared, leaving less uncollared cats to the hunters.

I also wonder if hound hunters were intentionally not harvesting collared cats in the units.  Were both the "HH" and "LH" units open to hound hunting during the study?

[Cougeyes]

No, the heavy hunted area was up in NE where hounds could be used.  The lightly hunted was in Kittitas county where hound hunting was not allowed. 

[luvtohnt]

Bearpaw, why the suspicion?

They make the claim that heavy hunting will result in cats from neighboring units moving in. Of course that happens, less competition. If you want to reduce the incidence of that occurring you simply increase the hunting pressure in the units the cats are coming from.

Managers have to be careful though because the immigration causes kitten mortality to increase drastically. So if they increase quotas in the neighboring area and the immigrant males kill kittens you essentially create 2 neighboring sink populations (especially since our regulations run in 3 year cycles). Having a possible net result of total collapse, and closure of cougar hunting in the areas. We all know how hard it is to reopen some kinds of hunting after they are closed!!

I can also see that this study shows the need for hound hunting to give managers the ability to target male or female segments of the overall cougar population to more carefully control numbers and population growth. Hound seasons can be set to remove a specific number of male or female cougar from a GMU.

Again I think the new seasons are the first step towards the WDFW forcing science rather than public input to bring hound hunting back as the most effective management tool for cougars. 

Cougeyes,
Based on the abstract that appears to be the paper I read some time ago.

WAcoyote,
That study ran from January 2002 through December 2007. The LH unit was in Kittitas county and was not open for hound hunting. I think this is why they considered it lightly hunted.

Brandon

[WAcoyotehunter]

Does anyone here know exactly how the WDFW determines cougar populations in WA?  It really matters if the agency pushes the 12% maximum harvest level.  I thought I had some information about that but cannot find it now...

[bobcat]

Does anyone here know exactly how the WDFW determines cougar populations in WA?

They don't. (Seriously)

[Kain]

Does anyone here know exactly how the WDFW determines cougar populations in WA?

They don't. (Seriously)

 

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00433/wdfw00433.pdf  Page 85

No reliable estimate of statewide cougar abundance is
available for Washington. In 2003, two techniques
were used to provide an approximate range of
statewide cougar abundance. A rough estimate from
population reconstruction indicated that the minimum
number of cougars in Washington might be around
900 animals. An extrapolation across the state with
the highest cougar density reported in the literature
suggested the maximum number of cougars in
Washington might be around 4,100 animals. Since
2003, cougar population size has been assessed in three project areas in Washington. Currently,
the best available estimate of statewide abundance is from an extrapolation from those projects,
corresponding to about 1,900 to 2,100 animals (excluding kittens).

According to the 2011 status report they are still using these numbers from 2003.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01327/wdfw01327.pdf

Distribution and abundance
Cougar (Puma concolor) occur throughout most of the
forested regions of Washington State, encompassing
about half of the State (Fig. 1). There is no reliable
estimate of statewide cougar abundance. However,
cougar population size has been estimated in three
project areas in eastern Washington; extrapolation from
those projects corresponds to roughly about 1,900 to
2,100 animals (excluding kittens) statewide