Post by: smithkl42 on May 29, 2018, 08:57:56 AM
I'm asking because I've got three trail cameras out in the woods, and all three have caught cougars in the last couple months. More cougars than bears, in fact. Seems like the population is doing just fine, but I'd like more than anecdotal evidence...
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 29, 2018, 09:08:39 AM
Post by: boneaddict on May 29, 2018, 09:09:55 AM
Post by: Southpole on May 29, 2018, 09:13:03 AM
Post by: AL WORRELLS KID on May 29, 2018, 10:38:05 AM
Got to be some hungry Cats out there with more competition for food.
If they wont let us take them out, you may have to start Mountain Biking out of their reach!
Doug
Post by: vandeman17 on May 29, 2018, 10:46:37 AM
Not scientific by any stretch but just my observation.
Post by: jasnt on May 29, 2018, 07:57:40 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 29, 2018, 08:22:02 PM
Post by: bowhunterforever on May 30, 2018, 12:48:02 AM
More than double in my opinion:yeah: X2
Post by: huntnphool on May 30, 2018, 01:07:43 AM
In 1996, Washington voters passed an initiative, 655, to prohibit the use of hounds in hunting cougars.......... No Hounds = more Cougars.
Got to be some hungry Cats out there with more competition for food.
If they wont let us take them out, you may have to start Mountain Biking out of their reach!
Doug
Let us not forget the decision by WDFW, to implement the current program based off of a bogus study, conducted (concocted) by their ideological, money grubbing lap dog at WSU. :twocents:
Post by: buglebrush on May 30, 2018, 05:59:49 AM
I can say in the 15 years or so that I have been running trail cameras I have been getting more and more each year. I used to get really excited to have a "cat pic" as I would only get a few between all my cameras. Last couple years it is more common to have a least one cat pic on each soak versus not having one. I barely stop to look at them as I scan through my pics.
Not scientific by any stretch but just my observation.
I have 9 cameras out year round, and this is my experience as well. Also, I run other cameras in Idaho, and find far fewer cats there.
Post by: LHaub on May 30, 2018, 06:21:43 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 30, 2018, 08:10:34 AM
Cougar numbers have steadily increased over time. By the early 90's I was offering guaranteed 3 day cougar hunts, we would average seeing a little over 5 tracks per day and would pick only the largest to go after each day. The last full year of cougar hunting we caught 58 cougar and our 23 hunters harvested 23 cougar, we left all the others in the tree. The best day I had that year was 15 fresh tracks in one day, all in different areas, if we thought the same cat crossed the road 4 times we only counted it as 1 cat.
In the early 2000's when we had the public safety cougar removal season the cougar population seemed just as strong if not stronger. I can't say for exact sure because we only got a few of those tags to hunt for. It wasn't like i spent every day cougar hunting for two months like it used to be.
I have not done a full day of counting cougar tracks in WA for several years. But in the last 10 years it seems the population has increased further because now we count how many cougar we see while hunting other animals. It used to be about 1 cougar seen in 3 to 5 years during hunting seasons before they outlawed cougar hunting with dogs. Three years ago we saw 10 cougar, so far this year we've seen 2 cougar and a wolf, every year now we will see multiple cougar while out hunting other animals.
If I spend a day out bear hunting in WA I will see cougar tracks in the dust or mud about every day, it used to be unlikely to see cougar tracks in the dust or mud for a week. I also hunt in several other states and I can tell you there is some other states with good cougar hunting, Idaho seems to be the best, but nothing I've seen compares with the cougar hunting we had in NE Washington.
The one other place I've seen with an equivalent cougar population is California. I spent a few weeks guiding bear hunters in CA, I would see cougar tracks in the dust just about every day there too. I have heard Vancouver Island has a high cougar density but I've never spent time there looking for tracks to get a comparison. I've also heard that Oregon now has a similar population as California and WA, all three of these states have outlawed cougar hunting with hounds.
Post by: bigmacc on May 30, 2018, 04:04:34 PM
I must agree with those that are saying the population has more than doubled :bash: I seen 2 more this weekend in the Methow, a big collared cat up Boulder Creek and one up towards Ramsey Creek, hardly any deer except the ones that were hanging around peoples porches and gardens, just a real shame :'( I think that is around 25 that 4 of us have seen in the Methow over the last 5 years while either hiking, fishing, scouting or hunting. Sickening :bash:
Post by: wolfbait on June 11, 2018, 06:35:21 PM
I must agree with those that are saying the population has more than doubled :bash: I seen 2 more this weekend in the Methow, a big collared cat up Boulder Creek and one up towards Ramsey Creek, hardly any deer except the ones that were hanging around peoples porches and gardens, just a real shame :'( I think that is around 25 that 4 of us have seen in the Methow over the last 5 years while either hiking, fishing, scouting or hunting. Sickening :bash:
Last year a friend of mine got pics. of if I remember right 5 different cougar in one mile long drainage within three miles of Twisp, one of those cats showed to have kittens.
So far this year in the same drainage one very skinny cougar.
Growing up in the Methow we very seldom seen a cougar, now just like wolf sightings, it's no big deal.
My wife and I talk to one of Winthrop's vets, he said last winter he had a mamma cougar and three kittens winter in near his house all winter, he said he had a stuffed reindeer on his front porch decorated up, he said the cougar drug it off the porch and tore it all up.
The not so smart wolf-lovers etc. come up with the idea that the cougars were here first etc. etc., until fluffy gets ate off the front porch everything is cool. Fools.
How times have changed..
Post by: bigmacc on June 11, 2018, 08:04:09 PM
In the Methow its just a matter of time before what happened in North Bend starts happening in the Methow, only with more frequency I,m afraid. With more and more people moving there, more people using the valley for all kinds of recreation(cross country skiing, hiking, biking, birdwatching etc.) its going to happen and with less and less deer being available its a perfect storm for some horrible encounters with humans, they have to do something to reduce the cougar numbers in that valley. I have to agree with Wolfbait, its really not a big deal seeing them anymore, 20 years ago and more it was a real rarity and kind of neat to see one, if you were lucky you might see one every few years or even more, maybe every 5 years or so. Now they are common, about 50 deer per year are killed by each cat folks, 50 deer per year :bash: :bash:
Post by: Special T on June 11, 2018, 09:58:11 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: HighlandLofts on June 17, 2018, 08:17:25 PM
I've seen trail cam pics of female cougars with three kittens.
So how old does a cougar need to be to be considered an adult?
I'd day two years old, that's when mama kicks them out and gets knocked up again.
Post by: bigmacc on June 17, 2018, 09:30:34 PM
I just googled Washington state cougar population, two of the sites that I clicked on said there are between 1,900 and 2,100 adult cougars in the state.
I've seen trail cam pics of female cougars with three kittens.
So how old does a cougar need to be to be considered an adult?
I'd day two years old, that's when mama kicks them out and gets knocked up again.
I think 2000 cougars is way way low, for crying out loud I have friends that live in Snohomish and they are seeing them around town, Lots of security cam pics have been posted, I have relatives that live in Darrington who are seeing them, I have a friend who was just up Robinson creek over in the Methow and they seen what you described(4 cats traveling together). Its just my opinion but I think those estimates are conveniently(for the state) about 1000 to low.. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on June 17, 2018, 10:09:21 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Gringo31 on June 17, 2018, 10:13:32 PM
When I was a aspiring to get a degree in Wildlife at WSU I thought I recalled a guesstimated population of 4K. I was in school when they changed the hound laws. I recall them talking about harvest rates and (trying to remember correctly) but it was just over 200/year. The odd/interesting part was that harvest rates stayed the same after hounds were removed. I'm curious if anyone knows total harvest numbers over the years. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find.
I would venture to guess that the age of cougar harvested has decreased dramatically.
Post by: Timberstalker on June 17, 2018, 10:23:50 PM
I’ve seen claims stating it’s because the population increased.
Post by: jasnt on June 18, 2018, 05:09:07 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on June 18, 2018, 06:18:38 AM
Quote
If boot hunters can harvest as many cats as the hounds man did the population is quite high
I've thought that, but why didn't the hound guys get more? How many hound hunters really were there? Here are the numbers best I can find starting with 1997. I seem to recall 208 being used and I'm guessing 1996. I also recall it being within a couple cats different from the year prior when they had hounds.
I'm a little confused with some of these numbers they have categories like depredation and other take so....?
Anyway, I tried to put these on a sheet...
Post by: Gringo31 on June 18, 2018, 06:20:20 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bullcanyon on June 18, 2018, 06:22:56 AM
Post by: runamuk on June 18, 2018, 07:56:46 AM
Post by: jasnt on June 18, 2018, 10:11:47 AM
This is just my opinion but I bet if the department dropped the quotas completely we would harvest 5x the quotas the first year.
Post by: bearpaw on June 18, 2018, 10:27:43 AM
I just googled Washington state cougar population, two of the sites that I clicked on said there are between 1,900 and 2,100 adult cougars in the state.
I've seen trail cam pics of female cougars with three kittens.
So how old does a cougar need to be to be considered an adult?
I'd day two years old, that's when mama kicks them out and gets knocked up again.
I think 2000 cougars is way way low, for crying out loud I have friends that live in Snohomish and they are seeing them around town, Lots of security cam pics have been posted, I have relatives that live in Darrington who are seeing them, I have a friend who was just up Robinson creek over in the Methow and they seen what you described(4 cats traveling together). Its just my opinion but I think those estimates are conveniently(for the state) about 1000 to low.. :twocents:
They don't really know what the population is, all they can do is estimate based on age and harvest data. The last estimate I heard from a WDFW manager was between 3000 to 4000, I don't know what their current estimate is, they may not have a current estimate? With the new director and current commission I have to wonder if quotas will be reduced further. :dunno:
Post by: wolfbait on June 18, 2018, 11:04:03 AM
I just googled Washington state cougar population, two of the sites that I clicked on said there are between 1,900 and 2,100 adult cougars in the state.
I've seen trail cam pics of female cougars with three kittens.
So how old does a cougar need to be to be considered an adult?
I'd day two years old, that's when mama kicks them out and gets knocked up again.
I think 2000 cougars is way way low, for crying out loud I have friends that live in Snohomish and they are seeing them around town, Lots of security cam pics have been posted, I have relatives that live in Darrington who are seeing them, I have a friend who was just up Robinson creek over in the Methow and they seen what you described(4 cats traveling together). Its just my opinion but I think those estimates are conveniently(for the state) about 1000 to low.. :twocents:
They don't really know what the population is, all they can do is estimate based on age and harvest data. The last estimate I heard from a WDFW manager was between 3000 to 4000, I don't know what their current estimate is, they may not have a current estimate? With the new director and current commission I have to wonder if quotas will be reduced further. :dunno:
Like the wolves, the public will more then likely have to manage cougars, leave WDF&wolves completely out of the picture. :twocents:
Post by: bigmacc on June 18, 2018, 11:56:18 AM
I just googled Washington state cougar population, two of the sites that I clicked on said there are between 1,900 and 2,100 adult cougars in the state.
I've seen trail cam pics of female cougars with three kittens.
So how old does a cougar need to be to be considered an adult?
I'd day two years old, that's when mama kicks them out and gets knocked up again.
I think 2000 cougars is way way low, for crying out loud I have friends that live in Snohomish and they are seeing them around town, Lots of security cam pics have been posted, I have relatives that live in Darrington who are seeing them, I have a friend who was just up Robinson creek over in the Methow and they seen what you described(4 cats traveling together). Its just my opinion but I think those estimates are conveniently(for the state) about 1000 to low.. :twocents:
They don't really know what the population is, all they can do is estimate based on age and harvest data. The last estimate I heard from a WDFW manager was between 3000 to 4000, I don't know what their current estimate is, they may not have a current estimate? With the new director and current commission I have to wonder if quotas will be reduced further. :dunno:
I think your absolutely right bearpaw, I don't think they have any idea of how many there really are, I don't even think they are close, they could literally be off by thousands. An old friend of the family that is retired (from the Game Dept of old) said cougars are very hard to get even ballpark counts of, usually they are solitary, shy and evasive animals until they overpopulate and thats when the average person will start seeing them in places they usually are not seen, he said all these sightings that have been going on over the last few years should be sending a message that the population is booming and prey numbers are declining...He said that just like any animal, when they are hungry, starving or being pushed out of areas by other cats they will become desperate and act differently and show themselves in places they normally wouldn't. He even said that these encounters are just the tip of the iceberg as far as cougars go. He also says that all the reports, pictures, encounters, sightings etc. should be a signal to the powers to be that steps need to be taken to drastically reduce cougar numbers...Yes, he said drastically!
Post by: Gringo31 on June 18, 2018, 06:18:34 PM
Post by: Humptulips on June 18, 2018, 06:33:31 PM
I would be a tough job to reduce numbers without hounds. Quota needs to go.....they travel so much I'm not sure it would matter if an area was light one year due to "over harvest".
Good point!
I don't understand why we even have all these cougar management areas with quotas. No other animal in the State is managed this way. They are plentiful throughout the State so if one area goes over a couple they in-migrate from adjacent units. Seems overly complicated for no reason.
Post by: bigmacc on June 18, 2018, 07:28:53 PM
I would be a tough job to reduce numbers without hounds. Quota needs to go.....they travel so much I'm not sure it would matter if an area was light one year due to "over harvest".
Good point!
I don't understand why we even have all these cougar management areas with quotas. No other animal in the State is managed this way. They are plentiful throughout the State so if one area goes over a couple they in-migrate from adjacent units. Seems overly complicated for no reason.
Yep, when he said drastic measures he referred to eliminating quotas and going to a year round seasons, he said in areas close to more populated recreation areas etc. that the possibility of bountys should be considered. I said this in another thread but it really makes a person wonder why these predators and others are being so watched over?
Post by: buglebrush on June 20, 2018, 04:37:32 PM
I would be a tough job to reduce numbers without hounds. Quota needs to go.....they travel so much I'm not sure it would matter if an area was light one year due to "over harvest".
Good point!
I don't understand why we even have all these cougar management areas with quotas. No other animal in the State is managed this way. They are plentiful throughout the State so if one area goes over a couple they in-migrate from adjacent units. Seems overly complicated for no reason.
Yep, when he said drastic measures he referred to eliminating quotas and going to a year round seasons, he said in areas close to more populated recreation areas etc. that the possibility of bountys should be considered. I said this in another thread but it really makes a person wonder why these predators and others are being so watched over?
Because they intend to end OTC hunting. Predators are their most effective Ally.
Post by: KFhunter on June 20, 2018, 04:42:59 PM
I would be a tough job to reduce numbers without hounds. Quota needs to go.....they travel so much I'm not sure it would matter if an area was light one year due to "over harvest".
Good point!
I don't understand why we even have all these cougar management areas with quotas. No other animal in the State is managed this way. They are plentiful throughout the State so if one area goes over a couple they in-migrate from adjacent units. Seems overly complicated for no reason.
Yep, when he said drastic measures he referred to eliminating quotas and going to a year round seasons, he said in areas close to more populated recreation areas etc. that the possibility of bountys should be considered. I said this in another thread but it really makes a person wonder why these predators and others are being so watched over?
Because they intend to end OTC hunting. Predators are their most effective Ally.
...and grazing
...and logging
...and mining
...and anything that doesn't fit the idea of "pristine" wilderness (except bicycles, they're OK)
Post by: boneaddict on June 20, 2018, 04:46:55 PM
did I go there? Sorry, feeling kinda sarcastic tonight
Post by: wolfbait on June 20, 2018, 05:14:55 PM
I would be a tough job to reduce numbers without hounds. Quota needs to go.....they travel so much I'm not sure it would matter if an area was light one year due to "over harvest".
Same reason wolves were designated as a big game animal, when they should be hunted the same as coyotes etc..
Wyoming had the right idea.
WA is doomed if things don't get turned around, need to delist wolves federally so wolves can be shot on sight. :mgun:
And hound hunting for cats and bears returned to WA
Post by: jasnt on June 20, 2018, 05:45:12 PM
Post by: Humptulips on June 20, 2018, 09:35:32 PM
I would be a tough job to reduce numbers without hounds. Quota needs to go.....they travel so much I'm not sure it would matter if an area was light one year due to "over harvest".
Good point!
I don't understand why we even have all these cougar management areas with quotas. No other animal in the State is managed this way. They are plentiful throughout the State so if one area goes over a couple they in-migrate from adjacent units. Seems overly complicated for no reason.
Yep, when he said drastic measures he referred to eliminating quotas and going to a year round seasons, he said in areas close to more populated recreation areas etc. that the possibility of bountys should be considered. I said this in another thread but it really makes a person wonder why these predators and others are being so watched over?
Because they intend to end OTC hunting. Predators are their most effective Ally.
...and grazing
...and logging
...and mining
...and anything that doesn't fit the idea of "pristine" wilderness (except bicycles, they're OK)
Unless they are electric bicycles. :chuckle: Wait, what thread am I in?
Post by: HighlandLofts on June 20, 2018, 10:53:49 PM
Post by: W_Ellison2011 on June 21, 2018, 02:49:42 PM
Post by: Shawn Ryan on June 28, 2018, 03:33:57 PM
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2193/0022-541X%282006%2970%5B246%3ACPDAVI%5D2.0.CO%3B2
I have not found a link to the full study, but probably wouldn't understand it much better than I understand what is being presented in those two links.
Anybody have facts about the researchers and bias? Not opinions, but examples of bias. I'm always in favor of science, but not bogus science. Not saying this research is bogus or not bogus. If these studies are accurate, then a reduction in cougar population would best be accomplished by targeting females. I don't know how you do that, but that would be the obvious conclusion.
I have seen some of Brian Kertson's work for UW (Brian collaborated on the above cited research). He has collared a lot of western WA cats and studied their habits as they interact with people in the Cascade foothills. https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/94/2/269/909143, Very cool work; didn't see any anti-hunting bias in the portions of his work that I've read. I know some members on here know Brian personally and could comment on whether he has an anti-hunting bias.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 28, 2018, 03:51:49 PM
Been running a pile of trail cameras for over 10 years and had one cougar on camera up until 2 years ago. Now we're seeing multiple cats in several areas. I have a pair on camera 400yds from my back door. I know that's not scientific facts, but it is my first hand observation.Similar experience for me. I just had a big cat on the trail camera 75 yards behind my house yesterday...at 1pm!! I've never had daytime cat pics...makes me wonder just how bold they are getting with the lack of hunting pressure :dunno: I will go run my property on the atv tonight and see how many fans he got...I've had several hanging around lately.
Post by: huntnphool on June 29, 2018, 12:26:22 AM
Post by: Dysfunctional Vet on June 29, 2018, 06:49:32 AM
http://www.mountainlion.org/us/wa/library/WA-R-Wielgus-2015-PPT-Effects-of-Sport-Hunting-on-Cougar-Population-Community-and-Landscape-Ecology-HSUSconf.pdfThat’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.
Post by: runamuk on June 29, 2018, 07:35:39 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 29, 2018, 07:53:49 AM
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
:chuckle: 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!
Post by: idahohuntr on June 29, 2018, 09:23:26 AM
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 :chuckle: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
:chuckle: 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!
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.
Post by: Humptulips on June 29, 2018, 09:53:04 AM
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
Post by: KFhunter on June 29, 2018, 11:03:51 PM
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 :chuckle: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
:chuckle: 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!
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.
Post by: buglebrush on June 29, 2018, 11:16:03 PM
And WDFW used this **** to set our policy :bash:
Post by: jasnt on June 30, 2018, 05:36:43 AM
Post by: KFhunter on June 30, 2018, 04:32:58 PM
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 :DOH: 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:
Post by: Humptulips on June 30, 2018, 05:58:54 PM
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
Post by: KFhunter on June 30, 2018, 06:14:01 PM
"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 :twocents: 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.
Post by: KFhunter on June 30, 2018, 06:19:09 PM
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.
Post by: Humptulips on June 30, 2018, 07:47:51 PM
Post by: KFhunter on June 30, 2018, 08:05:57 PM
Post by: Humptulips on June 30, 2018, 10:56:54 PM
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. :)
Post by: KFhunter on June 30, 2018, 11:02:49 PM
Post by: jasnt on July 01, 2018, 06:33:48 AM
Post by: runamuk on July 01, 2018, 08:07:18 AM
Recent conversations with wdfw officers and others everyone knows our area has too many cats, but none of us can do more than try to fill our tags. Good luck that land is hard enough to hunt deer and elk, boot hunting cats is like looking for bigfoot. Except I do see lots of cat sign.
And my guests have even seen cats but usually at night in the no shooting zone (under special circumstances its been done before however so still not impossible). I think some of the problems also lie with the way the existing rules are used from gmu to gmu. There are loopholes in the law that can be used. Our hound guys stay reasonably busy, but could be so much busier and more effective.
Post by: Humptulips on July 01, 2018, 10:11:56 AM
14% of what though. No one has a clue exactly how many cats we have and it’s not like you can hope on a chopper and just go count them. We all know the population has grown drastically over the last 20 years, but how much? Have we ever had an accurate count on any predators in this state? Or any game for that matter. It will have to get much worse to get any changes in this state with the current gov. They want Washington to be California
My understanding there are ongoing studies that would come up with a population number based off DNA samples of harvested cougar. I know of a biologist working on the same thing for bobcats. I do not pretend to understand it. If DFW is married to a population estimate we will probably be forced into working with that and using their study to argue our case. I don't believe DFW personnel or the Commission are opposed to more liberal rules for cougar harvest but it needs to be defensible. Otherwise you get a repeat of what happened when they tried to raise the quota in the NE recently. Governor steps in and vetoes it or a bunch of lawsuits.
IMO though the seasons should not be based on a population estimate. No other game animal is managed that way. Populations should be estimated by trend. Going up, down or static. Those trends should be based off hunter success. and days afield. You have seen the same questions when you fill out your tag reports. More cats killed per days afield means there are more cats and the seasons should be liberalized. Inverse also applies but it needs to be a long trend. You cannot adjust seasons based on one years figures.
That still leaves out where we want the population to go. I'd bet down would be the consensus on here but there are those who will argue against that. We still need that defensible argument based on the science DFW accepts.
Post by: bearpaw on July 01, 2018, 10:22:56 AM
14% of what though. No one has a clue exactly how many cats we have and it’s not like you can hope on a chopper and just go count them. We all know the population has grown drastically over the last 20 years, but how much? Have we ever had an accurate count on any predators in this state? Or any game for that matter. It will have to get much worse to get any changes in this state with the current gov. They want Washington to be California
My understanding there are ongoing studies that would come up with a population number based off DNA samples of harvested cougar. I know of a biologist working on the same thing for bobcats. I do not pretend to understand it. If DFW is married to a population estimate we will probably be forced into working with that and using their study to argue our case. I don't believe DFW personnel or the Commission are opposed to more liberal rules for cougar harvest but it needs to be defensible. Otherwise you get a repeat of what happened when they tried to raise the quota in the NE recently. Governor steps in and vetoes it or a bunch of lawsuits.
IMO though the seasons should not be based on a population estimate. No other game animal is managed that way. Populations should be estimated by trend. Going up, down or static. Those trends should be based off hunter success. and days afield. You have seen the same questions when you fill out your tag reports. More cats killed per days afield means there are more cats and the seasons should be liberalized. Inverse also applies but it needs to be a long trend. You cannot adjust seasons based on one years figures.
That still leaves out where we want the population to go. I'd bet down would be the consensus on here but there are those who will argue against that. We still need that defensible argument based on the science DFW accepts.
Realistically, with the current political landscape, I think there is only one scenario that might encourage WDFW to reduce cougar numbers in any given area. They already do a few removals some years in very small problem specific areas.
- Rural areas identified by WDFW that are experiencing cougar threats/depredation on pets, livestock, or humans.
Post by: Bob33 on July 01, 2018, 10:47:51 AM
Post by: Humptulips on July 01, 2018, 10:53:50 AM
WDFW does not need the governor to approve limits for deer, elk, or any other big game animals. Why can't they legally manage cougars without the governor interfering?
I do not believe the Governor would have had grounds to step in had the Commission followed the Cougar Management Plan and the associated public input would have been taken.
Post by: Whitenuckles on August 15, 2018, 02:19:28 PM
Post by: mfswallace on September 16, 2018, 08:55:07 PM
By Salem Statesman Journal
What happens now?
In the wake of Oregon's first fatal attack by a cougar and the second deadly attack in the Northwest this year the question of how best to manage the state's big cat population has reached the forefront.
Even before a cougar attacked and killed 55-year-old hiker Diana Bober in Mount Hood National Forest last week, mountain lions were already in the public eye.
Their increasing numbers an estimated 6,600 statewide have pushed the predators closer to Oregon's population centers, officials said. That's led to a series of high-profile incidents in The Dalles, Ashland, Silverton and Dallas.
Complaints about cougars have tripled in the Willamette Valley since 2011. And the number of cougars killed due to human or livestock conflicts reached 169 animals in 2016, according to state records.
Hunters say they've seen the problem coming for years, ever since a ballot initiative in 1994 outlawed the use of hounds to hunt cougars.
They say it eliminated the most effective tool for managing cougar numbers and allowed the population to skyrocket.
"This is a statistical problem now," said Jim Akenson, a longtime cougar biologist now working for the Oregon Hunters Association. "The more cougars you have on the landscape, the greater the chance of a negative encounter. If their numbers continue to grow, you do worry about this happening again."
Akenson said reinstating hound hunting would not only bring cougar numbers down to healthier levels around 3,500 animals statewide, he said it would also reestablish a greater fear of humans in animals increasingly brazen about showing up in populated areas, he said.
Akenson said he'd take a county-by-county approach, looking to cap cougar numbers based on local conditions.
Environmental groups strongly disagree. They point out how rare fatal attacks by cougars are and say hunting causes more problems than it fixes.
"This is an absolute tragedy a person has died but we have to remember that this is very, very rare," said Dr. John W. Laundre, a professor at Western Oregon University and a board member of the environmental group Predator Defense.
This is Oregon's first confirmed fatal attack over a long history, he noted.
Three people have been killed in California and Colorado in cougar attacks, while two have died in Washington, including earlier this year, when a cougar attacked two mountain bikers near North Bend, killing one of them.
"If you look at it objectively, how few incidents occur really speaks to how well cougars live with us," Laundre said. "Deer kill far more people than cougars by being on the highway and getting hit by a car. Should we wipe out every deer seen near a road?"
In terms of management, hunting is actually among the worst ways to control a population, Laundre said.
Oregon sport hunters killed an average of 261 cougars each year during the past decade, according to state numbers, even as cougar numbers kept increasing.
"There's no evidence that hunting reduces cougar numbers," Laundre said.
Even worse, he said, "using sport hunting as a way of controlling them kills animals that aren't causing any problems, it disrupts the social order, so you have these young male cats that don't get the training they need."
Laundre suggested California's model, which removes mountain lions that cause problems but hasn't allowed sport hunting since 1990. California's population is estimated at between 4,000 and 6,000 animals.
Hunters say they could control the population, but need hounds to achieve that goal.
"The harvest of (cougars) would be doubled if hounds were allowed," Akenson said. "Plus, they impart a man-fear response from cougars that tends to keep cats more wary."
Cougars were once abundant in Oregon, but similar to other predators, such as wolves, that started to change with the arrival of settlers in the 1800s.
Before Oregon was even an official state, bounties were placed on cougars. The bounty was $10 per animal in 1911 and $25 by 1925.
"The most effective and devastating method was poison," Derek Broman, carnivore coordinator for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, told the Statesman Journal earlier this year.
The number of animals dropped sharply to an estimated 200 by the 1960s.
But, unlike wolves, cougars never went extinct in Oregon. A few pockets remained, mostly in the southwest and northeast.
"My belief is that unlike wolves, which are pack animals and easier to find, cougars are solitary and prefer really difficult terrain for humans," Broman said. "They likely persisted because there were pockets of them where humans just couldn't reach."
In 1967 cougars were declared a "game animal" and subject to regulation by state officials. Bag limits were established for hunting cougars, which allowed their numbers to rebound to around 2,000 animals by 1987, according to ODFW.
Should there be a statewide cap on cougars?
Once the number of cougars rebounded, their numbers continued to grow and expand into just about any place with a food source mainly, deer and elk.
The number of cougars increased at a consistent clip, growing steadily to today's estimated total of 6,600.
A big question has been whether the state should establish a hard cap on cougar numbers.
Broman told the Statesman Journal earlier this year that they project Oregon being able to support around 7,600 cougars statewide, although that wasn't a number they necessarily believe they'll reach.
"The arrival of wolves has brought a lot of uncertainty, so trying to pick a hard number right now would be tricky and might end up bring inaccurate in the future," Broman said.
For the moment, state officials haven't commented on whether the current situation will mean any change in cougar management policy going forward.
-- Zach Urness, Statesman Journal
Post by: wolfbait on September 18, 2018, 07:28:46 AM
https://ktvl.com/news/local/cougar-attacks-livestock-leaves-neighborhood-fearful