Free: Contests & Raffles.
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".
Quote from: bearpaw on February 14, 2012, 08:26:01 PMQuote from: luvtohnt on February 14, 2012, 06:33:42 PMI 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.BrandonBrandon 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.pdfIn 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. Quote from: bearpaw on February 14, 2012, 08:23:28 PMIf 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
Quote from: luvtohnt on February 14, 2012, 06:33:42 PMI 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.BrandonBrandon where did you get that info. The proposal they released that I saw said 2 cougar for GMU 105.
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
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.
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/07-0352.1http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/08-1805.1http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00256.x/fullHere are a couple of recent findings from NE WashingtonBrandon
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
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.
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.
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.
Does anyone here know exactly how the WDFW determines cougar populations in WA?
Quote from: WAcoyotehunter on February 15, 2012, 04:29:32 PMDoes anyone here know exactly how the WDFW determines cougar populations in WA?They don't. (Seriously)
No reliable estimate of statewide cougar abundance isavailable for Washington. In 2003, two techniqueswere used to provide an approximate range ofstatewide cougar abundance. A rough estimate frompopulation reconstruction indicated that the minimumnumber of cougars in Washington might be around900 animals. An extrapolation across the state withthe highest cougar density reported in the literaturesuggested the maximum number of cougars inWashington might be around 4,100 animals. Since2003, 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).
Distribution and abundanceCougar (Puma concolor) occur throughout most of theforested regions of Washington State, encompassingabout half of the State (Fig. 1). There is no reliableestimate of statewide cougar abundance. However,cougar population size has been estimated in threeproject areas in eastern Washington; extrapolation fromthose projects corresponds to roughly about 1,900 to2,100 animals (excluding kittens) statewide