Post by: nwwanderer on December 25, 2017, 09:57:04 AM
Post by: KFhunter on December 25, 2017, 10:24:32 AM
That's all I can tell you, no one knows what the population is with any credibility, yet we are allowed to hunt "14%" of a population that WDFW has no idea how big really is.
Post by: HighlandLofts on December 25, 2017, 11:18:34 AM
Post by: mfswallace on December 25, 2017, 04:46:48 PM
I have found no credible, current numbers for Washington. Oregon is claiming 6000, Vancouver Island claims the highest density on the planet and we seem to be stuck on the 2000- number. Where are we for the start of 2018? Thanks
U won't ever get any credible numbers from wdfw on predators :bash:
Post by: jasnt on December 26, 2017, 03:41:02 AM
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on December 26, 2017, 04:49:28 AM
Post by: UBA on December 26, 2017, 08:32:49 AM
After seeing 6 year to date. The population is way to high.
Post by: KFhunter on December 26, 2017, 09:50:54 AM
YOU CAN THANK WIELGUS FOR OUR RIDICULOUS COUGAR QUOTAS TOO!
What ever do you mean?
This biased farce of a "study" has led to our current cougar plan, and was under the direct supervision of a proven liar who should have been fired. Anything Weilgus has touched needs to be torched because it does not pass any scientific scrutiny.
https://news.wsu.edu/2012/09/25/wsu-research-results-in-new-management-plan/QuoteWSU research results in new management plan
PULLMAN, Wash. – Overharvest of cougars can increase negative encounters between the predator and humans, livestock and game, according to a 13-year Washington State University research project. Based on this, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife is implementing a new cougar management plan.
Starting in January, Washington will employ equilibrium management – hunters will remove no more than the surplus of animals that would be generated through natural reproduction.
This means that each of the state’s game management units will have a quota allowing for harvest of no more than 14 percent of that area’s cougars. Once the limit is filled, cougar hunting will be suspended for the year in that unit. Hunters will be allowed to take their tags to other units that haven’t reached the limit.
Teens mentally ‘not all there’
For years, cougar management operated on the presumption that every cougar shot meant one cougar less to prey on livestock, game and pets. But the 13-year study headed by Rob Wielgus, director of WSU’s Large Carnivore Conservation Lab, has overturned that presumption.
After years of data collection, researchers made a surprising observation. Whether hunters killed 10 percent or 35 percent of cougars, the population remained the same. The old paradigm of wildlife management would explain this by saying the remaining population increased reproduction to make up for hunting. But this was not the case.
In fact, reproductive success actually decreased. Data showed that adult males, “toms,” are intolerant of adolescent males and will kill them to maintain their territory and breeding rights. Juvenile males can only survive by avoiding adult males. When hunting removes most adult males, the adolescent males survive and cause all sorts of trouble.
While adult cougars tend to avoid humans and livestock, juveniles are less cautious: “They’re teenagers,” explained Wielgus. “They’re sexually mature, but mentally they’re not all there.”
Migration, reproduction, mortality
This is compounded by the fact that adolescent males have larger territories than mature toms, but don’t maintain exclusive territories as do adult males. Livestock and elk herds might have one mature tom in the area, but removing that tom could bring in three or four adolescents, multiplying troubles.
Without adult male protection of females and their litters, infanticide becomes a problem, as the young toms kill kits to bring the mother into heat and improve their breeding chances. The females try to protect their litters by moving higher in elevation, away from dangerous adolescent males, but also away from plentiful whitetail deer and into terrain occupied by less abundant prey such as mule deer, bighorn sheep and woodland caribou. Thus marginal game populations suffer.
Research methods included capturing cougars with hounds and attaching collars with global positioning system receivers and radio transmitters. The collars reported the cougars’ locations six times a day, allowing researchers to generate valuable data on cougar migration, reproduction, prey and mortality.
Wielgus’ graduate students on this multiyear project included: Don Katnik, Ph.D.; Catherine Lambert, M.S.; Hugh Robinson, Ph.D.; Hillary Cooley, Ph.D.; Kevin White, M.S.; Ben Maletzke, Ph.D.; Dana Morrison, M.S.; Jon Keehner, Ph.D.; and Kaylie Peebles, M.S.
The only merit this plan has is in states with hound hunting that target adult males and passes on subadults and females, that decreases the big dominant males that tend to kill sub adults. That is not the case in Washington, here, we do not kill or specifically target through selective harvest the big dominate males, here -most cats are killed by opportunity, which is mainly sub adults and females with a rare big male here and there. This whole study is not relevant to WA cougars.
After years of data collection, researchers made a surprising observation. Whether hunters killed 10 percent or 35 percent of cougars, the population remained the same.
Exactly! This, combined with our very limited hunting methods in WASHINGTON makes these quota's retarded. :bash: Hunters in WA kill whatever cat shows itself, we have no means or methods of selective harvest here in this state. The whole study is a farce.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 26, 2017, 09:55:38 AM
Post by: Limhangerslayer on December 26, 2017, 11:31:51 AM
Post by: Humptulips on December 26, 2017, 12:31:28 PM
WDFW has came out against any additional harvest methods.
Are they really supportive of predator harvest? It doesn't seem so.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 26, 2017, 01:59:14 PM
Post by: buckcanyonlodge on December 26, 2017, 02:10:07 PM
Post by: Humptulips on December 26, 2017, 05:03:53 PM
When did WDFW come out against any additional harvest methods? I think if HSUS and PAWS were supportive we could get some hound pursuit back, the state (WDFW) is not the problem in that regard.
I was told in a conference call 3rd week of December they could not support any type of a trapping season for cougar. They would support a pursuit season. Pursuit season is not additional means of harvest.
I am not aware of any other harvest methods the F&W Commission has the power to implement.
Post by: idaho guy on December 26, 2017, 05:27:51 PM
:dunno: without adult male protection? I am pretty sure the big toms will kill plenty of kittens to bring mom into heat? The whole basis of his study seems wrong. I am confused but yea pretty hard to write a management plan on something this screwed up
Post by: huntnphool on December 26, 2017, 05:31:40 PM
When did WDFW come out against any additional harvest methods? I think if HSUS and PAWS were supportive we could get some hound pursuit back, the state (WDFW) is not the problem in that regard.
I-655 is not under the control of HSUS and PAWS. It was voted on and passed by "the people" of Washington (King, Snohomish Counties).
To get hound hunting back will require A LOT more than their support. :twocents:
Post by: Limhangerslayer on December 26, 2017, 05:49:22 PM
Only 40% of CMAs that have quotas ever reach quota. I have proposed and have significant support for additional harvest methods to be allowed.
WDFW has came out against any additional harvest methods.
Are they really supportive of predator harvest? It doesn't seem so.
It might of came out wrong. Most of the good units on the eastside do get filled. Mainly because the quotas are ridiculously low. I hunt on a ranch a lot here by my house that every year we are seeing more and more cats every year. They just added the April season to make people feel warm and fuzzy but it doesn't do jack when a lot of the units close by the end of early season
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on December 26, 2017, 08:00:06 PM
Post by: Humptulips on December 26, 2017, 10:24:35 PM
I have no disagreement with anything you said. From looking at the stats on cougar kills it looks to me like areas that have snow, accessibility and have opener landscapes tend to have their quotas filled.Only 40% of CMAs that have quotas ever reach quota. I have proposed and have significant support for additional harvest methods to be allowed.
WDFW has came out against any additional harvest methods.
Are they really supportive of predator harvest? It doesn't seem so.
It might of came out wrong. Most of the good units on the eastside do get filled. Mainly because the quotas are ridiculously low. I hunt on a ranch a lot here by my house that every year we are seeing more and more cats every year. They just added the April season to make people feel warm and fuzzy but it doesn't do jack when a lot of the units close by the end of early season
That doesn't mean there are less cougar elsewhere. It means boot hunting is not effective in 60% of the State. Why not let another user group have a try at those unharvested quotas? A season could be crafted to not take away from other user groups so it is hard to understand why the Department will not support it.
Well, I can guess. In a meeting when I was giving my sales pitch, afterwards I heard this comment " We'll see what the Humane Society thinks of it". Somehow I knew I was sunk when I heard that.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 27, 2017, 12:56:46 AM
When did WDFW come out against any additional harvest methods? I think if HSUS and PAWS were supportive we could get some hound pursuit back, the state (WDFW) is not the problem in that regard.
I-655 is not under the control of HSUS and PAWS. It was voted on and passed by "the people" of Washington (King, Snohomish Counties).
To get hound hunting back will require A LOT more than their support. :twocents:
Never going to happen!
In 1996, nine counties out of the 39 in the state voted for keeping hounds & baiting, that means, in addition to the ones mentioned above, there were 28 other counties, statewide that voted to take hounds and baiting away.
https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/results_report.aspx?e=&c=&c2=&t=&t2=&p=&p2=655&y=
Can click on the circled link in the picture to see the breakdown by county for those interested
Post by: jasnt on December 27, 2017, 11:37:17 AM
that last part makes me sick!I have no disagreement with anything you said. From looking at the stats on cougar kills it looks to me like areas that have snow, accessibility and have opener landscapes tend to have their quotas filled.Only 40% of CMAs that have quotas ever reach quota. I have proposed and have significant support for additional harvest methods to be allowed.
WDFW has came out against any additional harvest methods.
Are they really supportive of predator harvest? It doesn't seem so.
It might of came out wrong. Most of the good units on the eastside do get filled. Mainly because the quotas are ridiculously low. I hunt on a ranch a lot here by my house that every year we are seeing more and more cats every year. They just added the April season to make people feel warm and fuzzy but it doesn't do jack when a lot of the units close by the end of early season
That doesn't mean there are less cougar elsewhere. It means boot hunting is not effective in 60% of the State. Why not let another user group have a try at those unharvested quotas? A season could be crafted to not take away from other user groups so it is hard to understand why the Department will not support it.
Well, I can guess. In a meeting when I was giving my sales pitch, afterwards I heard this comment " We'll see what the Humane Society thinks of it". Somehow I knew I was sunk when I heard that.
Post by: runamuk on December 27, 2017, 02:30:59 PM
They will always work against hunting.
Post by: Special T on December 27, 2017, 03:44:20 PM
Do you think you could get one in a cage trap? Would you think it's like trapping a bobcat?I have no disagreement with anything you said. From looking at the stats on cougar kills it looks to me like areas that have snow, accessibility and have opener landscapes tend to have their quotas filled.Only 40% of CMAs that have quotas ever reach quota. I have proposed and have significant support for additional harvest methods to be allowed.
WDFW has came out against any additional harvest methods.
Are they really supportive of predator harvest? It doesn't seem so.
It might of came out wrong. Most of the good units on the eastside do get filled. Mainly because the quotas are ridiculously low. I hunt on a ranch a lot here by my house that every year we are seeing more and more cats every year. They just added the April season to make people feel warm and fuzzy but it doesn't do jack when a lot of the units close by the end of early season
That doesn't mean there are less cougar elsewhere. It means boot hunting is not effective in 60% of the State. Why not let another user group have a try at those unharvested quotas? A season could be crafted to not take away from other user groups so it is hard to understand why the Department will not support it.
Well, I can guess. In a meeting when I was giving my sales pitch, afterwards I heard this comment " We'll see what the Humane Society thinks of it". Somehow I knew I was sunk when I heard that.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Humptulips on December 27, 2017, 05:46:12 PM
It is common to have them go in bobcat cages and steal the bait. All we need to trap them is the OK to do it and some bigger cages.Do you think you could get one in a cage trap? Would you think it's like trapping a bobcat?I have no disagreement with anything you said. From looking at the stats on cougar kills it looks to me like areas that have snow, accessibility and have opener landscapes tend to have their quotas filled.Only 40% of CMAs that have quotas ever reach quota. I have proposed and have significant support for additional harvest methods to be allowed.
WDFW has came out against any additional harvest methods.
Are they really supportive of predator harvest? It doesn't seem so.
It might of came out wrong. Most of the good units on the eastside do get filled. Mainly because the quotas are ridiculously low. I hunt on a ranch a lot here by my house that every year we are seeing more and more cats every year. They just added the April season to make people feel warm and fuzzy but it doesn't do jack when a lot of the units close by the end of early season
That doesn't mean there are less cougar elsewhere. It means boot hunting is not effective in 60% of the State. Why not let another user group have a try at those unharvested quotas? A season could be crafted to not take away from other user groups so it is hard to understand why the Department will not support it.
Well, I can guess. In a meeting when I was giving my sales pitch, afterwards I heard this comment " We'll see what the Humane Society thinks of it". Somehow I knew I was sunk when I heard that.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
One member had a picture of a small one he caught in a bobcat cage 15x15x36. I don't know how the door managed to close.
Post by: time2hunt on December 27, 2017, 06:04:27 PM
http://www.livetraps.com/live-traps/cougar-traps
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Humptulips on December 27, 2017, 06:32:49 PM
Easy and cheap to build.
http://www.livetraps.com/live-traps/cougar-traps
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It would not take that big of a trap.
Post by: huntnphool on December 27, 2017, 07:37:35 PM
When did WDFW come out against any additional harvest methods? I think if HSUS and PAWS were supportive we could get some hound pursuit back, the state (WDFW) is not the problem in that regard.
I-655 is not under the control of HSUS and PAWS. It was voted on and passed by "the people" of Washington (King, Snohomish Counties).
To get hound hunting back will require A LOT more than their support. :twocents:
Never going to happen!
In 1996, nine counties out of the 39 in the state voted for keeping hounds & baiting, that means, in addition to the ones mentioned above, there were 28 other counties, statewide that voted to take hounds and baiting away.
https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/results_report.aspx?e=&c=&c2=&t=&t2=&p=&p2=655&y=
Can click on the circled link in the picture to see the breakdown by county for those interested
My point exactly. ;)
Post by: lewy on December 27, 2017, 08:22:17 PM
Post by: follow maggie on December 27, 2017, 10:33:47 PM
Post by: hhack on December 27, 2017, 11:04:16 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 27, 2017, 11:22:15 PM
reading that list, it looks like every single county voted to ban it. Am I reading it wrong?
Yes, you are reading it wrong. Nine counties carried a "NO" vote, which meant they wanted to keep hounds and baiting.
They were:
Columbia
Douglas
Ferry
Garfield
Lewis
Lincoln
Okanogan
Pend Oreille
Stevens
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on December 27, 2017, 11:36:20 PM
Post by: follow maggie on December 28, 2017, 03:03:25 PM