Post by: Kain on February 14, 2012, 12:17:19 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 14, 2012, 12:30:38 PM
Post by: Houndhunter on February 14, 2012, 12:35:01 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 14, 2012, 12:52:53 PM
Post by: Kain on February 14, 2012, 12:57:21 PM
My concerns with this season is not really the length or an early/late season but how they come up with the quota for each unit. Basically there is some new study out that says that cougar populations and male/female/age ratios remain stable as long as hunting harvest is kept below 12% of population. Obviously this makes cougar population estimate critical in determining the quotas for each unit. As far as I can tell from the 2011 status report they are still using the populations estimates from 2003.
Before our cougar season was stolen from us in 2008, hunter harvest of cougars averaged right around 200 cats per year. With an estimated population of 2000 cats state wide that only reaches 10%. If you take out the 45-50 cats taken by pilot hound hunters that put boot hunter harvest well below the 12% mark. My questions are going to be why is our season not being restored to pre 2008 levels. I dont have a problem with them shutting down a unit if too many cougars are taken from it but the odds are very slim that that will happen and they are making this season way more complicated than it really has to be. They are making it much more restricted in length and number of permits than is necessary. And they have not updated the estimated population in almost 10 years.
Post by: KillBilly on February 14, 2012, 12:57:49 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=80186.0 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=80186.0)
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=78275.0 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=78275.0)
Post by: Kain on February 14, 2012, 01:08:25 PM
Kain, isn't there still a list of wants and wishes from the cougar committee?
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=80186.0 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=80186.0)
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=78275.0 (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?topic=78275.0)
The link above was about the small game season but yes none those changes made it to the season setting process. Unless you count the change to crow season which stole the month of Jan and added to Oct. (If I read it correctly.)
The cougar committee wanted a longer general season without permits and weapons restrictions. It was a huge success getting it this far and it looks like we are getting almost everything we asked for.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 14, 2012, 01:12:51 PM
Post by: fair-chase on February 14, 2012, 01:43:20 PM
1. Second Cougar Tags. Since there will be no "over harvest" due to the fact that cougars will be managed on an individual GMU basis, there is no reason why you could not allow a second cougar to be taken by a hunter. This will also alleviate some of the lost revenue from the now cancelled special permit category.
2. Points dispersion. Anyone having left over points in the cougar category should be allowed to move those points into any category he/she sees fit. Though I could be swayed either way wether or not to allow them to go into OIL tag categories.
3. GMU 105 quota seems far below objective. I would ask for someone to take a second look and justify why only 2 cougars should come out of that unit when it has been a historically high production unit.
4. Grace period. When shutting down an area for cougar hunting via internett or hotline there needs to be a grace period. Due to the nature of terrain and remoteness, hunters do not always have access to check in on a daily basis and therefore this would be inevitably setting someone up for failure as they could unintentionally "overharvest" a GMU. I suggested a 7-10 day grace period in my original proposal/suggestions but apparently it was not adopted.
Post by: Kain on February 14, 2012, 01:49:30 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 14, 2012, 01:50:51 PM
Quote
2. Points dispersion. Anyone having left over points in the cougar category should be allowed to move those points into any category he/she sees fit. Though I could be swayed either way wether or not to allow them to go into OIL tag categories.
:yike: :bdid:
I do agree with the other three points.
Post by: Curly on February 14, 2012, 02:04:58 PM
But I know WDFW would never entertain such a suggestion, so I won't even suggest it to them.
Post by: Kain on February 14, 2012, 02:19:12 PM
I'd like to see them allow the use of a deer tag or elk tag for cougars. Or just give out free cougar tags with the purchase of deer or elk tags.
But I know WDFW would never entertain such a suggestion, so I won't even suggest it to them.
I think they pretty much do this already.
Individual tags
Bear tag $22
Cougar Tag $22
Deer Tag $42.90
Elk Tag $48.40
---------------------------
Total $135.30
Combo License for all four $93.50
Post by: Curly on February 14, 2012, 02:30:26 PM
I'd like to see them allow the use of a deer tag or elk tag for cougars. Or just give out free cougar tags with the purchase of deer or elk tags.
But I know WDFW would never entertain such a suggestion, so I won't even suggest it to them.
I think they pretty much do this already.
Individual tags
Bear tag $22
Cougar Tag $22
Deer Tag $42.90
Elk Tag $48.40
---------------------------
Total $135.30
Combo License for all four $93.50
What if you didn't want all 4? For the first time ever last year I didn't buy a bear tag or cougar tag; I only bought deer and elk because of the crappy economy and trying to save money wherever I could.
Post by: Kain on February 14, 2012, 02:39:51 PM
I'd like to see them allow the use of a deer tag or elk tag for cougars. Or just give out free cougar tags with the purchase of deer or elk tags.
But I know WDFW would never entertain such a suggestion, so I won't even suggest it to them.
I think they pretty much do this already.
Individual tags
Bear tag $22
Cougar Tag $22
Deer Tag $42.90
Elk Tag $48.40
---------------------------
Total $135.30
Combo License for all four $93.50
What if you didn't want all 4? For the first time ever last year I didn't buy a bear tag or cougar tag; I only bought deer and elk because of the crappy economy and trying to save money wherever I could.
Deer and elk tag cost 82.50 for $11 more you get a bear and cougar tag. That is about as good as your gonna get. I hear ya about trying to save money though. I cut waterfowl and pheasant out.
Post by: Kain on February 14, 2012, 02:40:37 PM
I would like to see it go back to the way it was years ago, permit only statewide!
I assume you mean for hounds. ?
Post by: Kain on February 14, 2012, 05:20:09 PM
Nope Permits only statewide for everyone just like it used to be. Everyone makes such a fuss over lions, they think they are killing all the deer. When coyotes kill many more. Yeah there are alot of lions in this state but not as many as the deer and elk hunters make it seem. just my :twocents:
Do you think the harvest levels are too high? How many cougars do you think should be harvested each year?
We have had a permit system in place for the last three years for half the season. The success rate was so low (less than one percent) that there was just no way to justify it. That is a major reason they are getting rid of it. I dont know why anyone would want to go to system like that for the whole season. They would have to issue soo many permits to meet harvest goals that they would be giving everyone that applied a permit anyways....unless you think they are harvesting too many cougars.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 14, 2012, 05:25:37 PM
Post by: Kain on February 14, 2012, 05:42:22 PM
I don't know if harvest numbers are too high, but I think the wrong cats are getting killed in WA. Boot hunters are killing subadults and females far more regulalry than hound hunters. Aside from hound hunting, I cannot think of a single thing thatnthe WDFW should do differently for cougar management.
I dont know if it is the wrong animals. Boot hunters take a ratio of cats that matches the population. There are more females and sub adults to take that is why the harvest reports show those numbers. Most sources say there is three or four female home ranges for every adult male. Yet boot hunters harvest around a 50/50 ratio of male and females. If the overall goal is to keep populations stable then boot hunters do their part.
If you believe the WDFW it is the older males that keep the population age and male/female ratios in check so the boot hunters taking the subadults (that would be killed anyways) is exactly the animals they want to be taken. They are also the population that is most likely to cause human conflicts. From what I can deduce from my research there are around 743-822 kittens born every year after adjusting for mortality rates. Hunters only kill around 200 historically. That means that it is not humans that limit cougar populations at all but cougar fighting, available prey and territory
If you want to target specific animals hounds are obviously the best choice.
Post by: wraithen on February 14, 2012, 06:15:51 PM
Nope Permits only statewide for everyone just like it used to be. Everyone makes such a fuss over lions, they think they are killing all the deer. When coyotes kill many more. Yeah there are alot of lions in this state but not as many as the deer and elk hunters make it seem. just my :twocents:
I've hunted a gmu that has no evidence of coyotes whatsoever but I've had cougar vocals in earshot half the time. Close vocals at that.
Post by: luvtohnt on February 14, 2012, 06:33:42 PM
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
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on February 14, 2012, 06:41:10 PM
Have him explain what happens if say a quota is 7-9, and they reach 7... and the kills are mostly juvenile cats... will they allow the season to continue after Jan 1st, since the majority was juvenile kills? Dave Ware was questioned about this at our meeting last weekend.
Next I'd like to know why GMU 335 which has a very high cougar population has such a low quota? This was brought up by the Cattlemans association member of the GMAC and I don't think he ever got a real answer.
Post by: Kain on February 14, 2012, 06:51:08 PM
Kain,
Have him explain what happens if say a quota is 7-9, and they reach 7... and the kills are mostly juvenile cats... will they allow the season to continue after Jan 1st, since the majority was juvenile kills? Dave Ware was questioned about this at our meeting last weekend.
Next I'd like to know why GMU 335 which has a very high cougar population has such a low quota? This was brought up by the Cattlemans association member of the GMAC and I don't think he ever got a real answer.
Great points. Like I said earlier this is my biggest concern is how they come up with these quota numbers. He is going to explain the science behind all of this. Like Pianoman mentioned there is a goal of 14% and +/- of 2 percent. And in the season proposal it gives the Director the option to extend the season if the numbers are not met. I assume it also gives him the option to extend the season even if they are met if, like you said, the harvest was made up of mostly males. I will also ask him if they will consider recent complaints and incidence reports in each unit to allow a late season even if the quota is met.
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2012, 08:12:16 PM
I have guided cougar hunters in GMU's 101, 105, 108, 111, 113, 117, 121, and 124 since 1977. In one season, 1995 we shot 23 cougar and left 25 cougar in the tree. Most were killed in 101, 105, 108, 111, 113. I know all these units like the back of my hand, I have been on virtually every mountain in most of these units. I know 105 especially well and have killed 2 to 5 cougar a year for many years, year after year in that unit. There were plenty of other doggers than us who hunted those units and they killed cats too. My point is that the numbers they suggest are just idiotic.
Historically 8 to 30 cats were killed in each of these units each year. You cannot go by the recent years harvest records they are flawed by not having adequate seasons. Tell WDFW you want to see harvest statistics from 1980 to 1996. These units need 8-25 cats killed annually in each unit just to somewhat keep up with recruitment.
There are probably 7 to 14 females raisng kittens in GMU 105 right now. Most likely 1 or 2 females with kittens in the Moraski area, 2 to 4 females with kittens from sheep to flat creek area, 1 or 2 females with kittens in the fifteen mile area, 1 or 2 females with kittens in the Barstow area, 1 or 2 females with kittens in the First Thought and Pierre Lake area, 2 to 3 females with kittens in the Deep Creek Summit lake and Churchill area. This estimate does not include females without kittens, sub-adults, or toms.
(If needed I could break down by drainage a good estimate of how many cougar are in each unit)
Here are sensible and very conservative quotas for NE Washington's GMU's.
GMU 101...18 cougar - no more than 9 females (this is a huge unit that has cougar throughout)
GMU 105.....8 cougar - no more than 4 females
GMU 108.....8 cougar - no more than 4 females
GMU 111...14 cougar - no more than 9 females (there is a real surplus of females in this unit)
GMU 113...14 cougar - no more than 7 females
GMU 117...14 cougar - no more than 7 females
GMU 121...10 cougar - no more than 5 females
GMU 124.....8 cougar - no more than 4 females
FYI - There are several drainages in NE WA where I have taken 3 or 4 large adult toms out in a 1 or 2 month season. Contrary to textbook belief, toms commonly inhabit the same areas, harvest records prove that.
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2012, 08:23:28 PM
Kain,
Have him explain what happens if say a quota is 7-9, and they reach 7... and the kills are mostly juvenile cats... will they allow the season to continue after Jan 1st, since the majority was juvenile kills? Dave Ware was questioned about this at our meeting last weekend.
Next I'd like to know why GMU 335 which has a very high cougar population has such a low quota? This was brought up by the Cattlemans association member of the GMAC and I don't think he ever got a real answer.
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. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on February 14, 2012, 08:26:01 PM
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.
Post by: Kain on February 14, 2012, 09:09:11 PM
Kain,
Have him explain what happens if say a quota is 7-9, and they reach 7... and the kills are mostly juvenile cats... will they allow the season to continue after Jan 1st, since the majority was juvenile kills? Dave Ware was questioned about this at our meeting last weekend.
Next I'd like to know why GMU 335 which has a very high cougar population has such a low quota? This was brought up by the Cattlemans association member of the GMAC and I don't think he ever got a real answer.
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. :twocents:
You are correct. Martorello told us that they purposely allowed excessive harvest in some pilot program units as an experiment to see what effect it would have on populations. They found that the population basically stayed the same. Only the age structures changed. Boot hunting harvest is soo low that I doubt we could have any significant effect on populations or age/male/female ratios at all. Even with a year round season. Most cougars are harvested as incidental encounters during deer and elk seasons. The amount that would be harvested out of those season would be very small.
Post by: Kain on February 14, 2012, 09:14:12 PM
Post by: luvtohnt on February 15, 2012, 07:35:35 AM
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. :twocents:
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. :twocents: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
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 15, 2012, 07:56:57 AM
Post by: luvtohnt on February 15, 2012, 08:04:53 AM
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
Post by: luvtohnt on February 15, 2012, 08:09:00 AM
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
Post by: bearpaw on February 15, 2012, 09:09:13 AM
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. :twocents: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. :twocents: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. :twocents:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 15, 2012, 10:22:51 AM
http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/07-0352.1I 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.
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
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.
Post by: luvtohnt on February 15, 2012, 11:14:38 AM
What is wrong with Robert Wielgus?
Brandon
Post by: Cougeyes on February 15, 2012, 11:52:56 AM
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.
Post by: Cougeyes on February 15, 2012, 11:59:53 AM
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.
Post by: Cougeyes on February 15, 2012, 12:03:39 PM
Here's another link and possibly the one luvtohunt was referring to. Discusses population dynamics and declining populations in some areas.
Post by: bearpaw on February 15, 2012, 12:51:18 PM
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. :twocents:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 15, 2012, 01:04:55 PM
Particularly since hunters killed MORE unmarked cats in the "lightly hunted" area than they did in the 'heavily hunted' area... what gives?Thanks Kevin- it would make sense if a higher proportion of the cats were collared, leaving less uncollared cats to the hunters.
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.
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?
Post by: Cougeyes on February 15, 2012, 02:23:19 PM
Post by: luvtohnt on February 15, 2012, 02:37:07 PM
Quote
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!!
Quote
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. :twocents:
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
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on February 15, 2012, 04:29:32 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 15, 2012, 04:42:19 PM
Does anyone here know exactly how the WDFW determines cougar populations in WA?
They don't. (Seriously)
Post by: Kain on February 15, 2012, 04:47:20 PM
Does anyone here know exactly how the WDFW determines cougar populations in WA?
They don't. (Seriously)
:yeah:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00433/wdfw00433.pdf Page 85
Quote
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
Quote
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
Post by: bearpaw on February 15, 2012, 06:09:11 PM
Quote
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!!
By using the quotas they can control the kill in each unit. If they bring back hound hunting, they can control how many females or males are killed. The study showed that heavy hunting reduced male populations, and that can be controlled. My point was that if you increase the cougar harvest as needed in each unit you could also control emmigration to other units. The study itself showed that reducing the male population did not reduce reproduction, they say immigrating young toms kill the kittens. If you reduce the male population there will be fewer young males leaving and moving into the other units. Manage males regionally and manage females by GMU. Simple enough if you really are looking for a solution.
Historic records prove the quotas I suggested will not be detrimental to the population.
I am suspitious because I don't think the guys doing the study wanted a solution that involved hunting and that is fairly apparent by their comments.
Post by: luvtohnt on February 15, 2012, 06:39:29 PM
Brandon
Post by: wraithen on February 15, 2012, 07:30:17 PM