http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/ ... s/C38/L38/
By George Wuerthner, 7-24-07
The Oregon legislature recently passed a controversial bill that will facilitate the killing of several thousand cougars in the state. In what seems like a throw back to the last century, the state is set to kill more than a third of its cougars.
The new law would permit the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to “deputize” hunters so they can use hounds in order to ramp up the killing of cougars (euphemistically called “harvest”). This new law was crafted to circumvent a twice-passed citizen imitative that bans use of hounds for “sport” hunting of cougars. Oregon never outlawed cougar hunting—just the killing of cougars with the aid of hounds. In 2006 the state’s total hunter and “management” kill was 442 animals. However, in the eyes of the ODFW not enough cougars were being killed. Hunting with hounds is more effective, and since ODFW newly adopted cougar plan calls for slaughtering up to 2000 of the secretive animals, the agency wanted a more efficient means of killing the big cats, hence its strong support for the new legislation.
Most people are outraged by the thought of some cretin, whom I will not glorify with the term hunter, following a pack of radio collared hounds to a treed cat, and then blasting the cougar from its perch. The killing of animals like cougars, wolves, prairie dogs, and other animals that are not providing meat on the table is seen as bloodthirty and unnecessary by a growing majority of Americans—including Oregon residents—which is why they have twice banned the practice. Finding little public support for such practices, ODFW tries to hide its real predator persecution motives behind a veneer of public safety concerns by suggesting it has to kill more than a third of the state’s cougar population to reduce public anxiety over potential cougar attacks. Never mind that ODFW has been beating the drums about a “growing” threat from cougars in order to create a public mandate for predator control.
If the department were genuinely interested in reducing human-cougar conflicts it would be arguing against any cougar hunting at all. Most top predators, including cougars, are territorial social animals. Research has demonstrated that it is primarily young, inexperienced animals that are responsible for the majority of human-cougar conflicts and incidences. There is good reason for this, since young animals tend to be inexperienced hunters, they are more likely to attack domestic livestock or even humans. Plus younger animals are more mobile, thus likely to set up a territory in or near human settlements—the kind of marginal habitat that older, more experienced cougars avoid. Thus indiscriminate hunting of cougars (as well as other predators like wolves) will invariably skew the population towards younger age classes. This creates more human/predator conflicts and by happy coincidence sets up a self reinforcing feedback for ever more “control.” Any competent biologist knows about these social interactions, yet we never hear the ODFW explaining to the public how cougar persecution might exacerbate, rather than decrease, risk for human/cougar conflicts.
Furthermore, the threat to human life from cougars is greatly exaggerated. There has never been a single human death as a result of cougar attack in Oregon, and the likelihood of any lethal attacks is extremely small. In the past hundred years in North America there has been about 100 documented attacks on humans, with only 18 fatal. By contrast in 2006 there were 26 fatal attacks on people by dogs alone. And 219 people died as a result of horse-related accidents. A department that was genuinely interested in addressing public concerns would be launching a massive educational campaign to reduce public anxiety. But instead the ODFW has reinforced public apprehension by suggesting that “yes, we had better reduce cougar populations before someone dies.”
California makes a good contrast to Oregon’s approach to cougar management. In California all sport hunting for cougars has been banned since 1972. Though the state has 34 million people and five times the livestock as Oregon, only 120 California cougars are killed each year to deal with public concerns about livestock or human threats.
ODFW suggests that some elk and deer herds are not growing, and may even be declining—and conveniently placing the blame upon the “growing” cougar population. However, they fail to acknowledge that in nearly all circumstances that such ungulate declines are due to degraded habitat quality and/or loss—for instance increased road densities from logging that facilities higher hunter success, changes in vegetation due to fire suppression, competition with domestic livestock for forage, new subdivisions (increasingly built in cougar habitat), and so on. Instead of addressing these issues, the department hides behind the predator scapegoat.
Where predators are reducing ungulate populations, something that they can do on occasion, an intelligent response would be to ask, “what ecological benefit might be the consequence?” In the case of predator induced declines in ungulate numbers, an intelligent department that was professional would point out how vegetative communities benefit from a reduction in heavy exploitation by herbivores, which in turn benefits both plant communities and ungulates in the long term. But ODFW is silent when it comes to good ecological science. Nor does the department talk about other positive ecological effects of predators including the tendency of deer and elk to spread themselves out on the landscape or how they kill different age classes of prey animals from hunters—both of which have significant ecological consequences.
I want to acknowledge that there are many very fine biologists who do work for ODFW as well as other state Fish and Wildlife agencies. I know many of them first hand, and they work hard to promote good ecological care of the land and its wildlife. Many of them are uncomfortable with the increasingly hostile attitudes that their own agencies are displaying towards predators. There are also hunters, such as myself, who are opposed to predator control for a host of ethical and biological reasons. Unfortunately you would never know any countervailing perspective exists amongst the hunting community.
Whether it is Wyoming’s plan to kill wolves as “predators” , a designation that offers no limits on numbers killed or closed season, or Idaho’s goal to reduce wolves by up to 2/3, or Oregon’s proposed cougar slaughter, what we are seeing is a throwback back to the good old days when predators were seen as nothing more than an obstacle to “better” hunting. I predict if hunters are not careful, and don’t start speaking out against predator persecution and the 19th century practices of state wildlife agencies, they will find that a growing number of Americans will just vote to ban all hunting, not just that directed at killing predators.
George Wuerthner is a former Montana hunting guide, a wildlife biologist, and author of 34 books on natural history and environmental issues who still kills (as opposed to harvest), on occasion, elk and deer. He finds the best hunting is where there are dense populations of wolves and cougars since other hunters avoid these areas, convinced predators have discriminated elk and deer herds.
Oregon’s Cougar Slaughter—A Return to the Dark Ages
-
Melanie Hampton
- Open Mouth
- Posts: 921
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:13 pm
- Location: Oregon
- Location: Currently hunting Southern Oregon
I bet he is a member of the Sierra Club....
It really is stupid stuff like this that makes me view most people with a bad taste in my mouth.. They are like lemmings.. One jumps so they all do because it must be right......
It really is stupid stuff like this that makes me view most people with a bad taste in my mouth.. They are like lemmings.. One jumps so they all do because it must be right......
Melanie Hampton
Home of OutWest Hounds
You've only got 3 choices in life
give in, give up, or give it all you got.
http://www.outwesthounds.com
Home of OutWest Hounds
You've only got 3 choices in life
give in, give up, or give it all you got.
http://www.outwesthounds.com
-
treeing walkers
- Bawl Mouth
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:53 pm
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: washington
that guy is just as full of it as the other guy that is in oregon. If he was a real guide he would know that you eat lion, some of the best meat on wild animal there is. And never hunted with hounds obviously. following the radio signal ?? I only use my collars when the dogs are gone and had not heard them in a while. to find my dogs. If they are running and trailing and then start treein you don't need the collar. you just listen to the hounds they will tell you where they are at. He also says he hunts where their is packs of wolves my a$$. I would like to see him go into a packs territory and kill an elk skin it gut it and quarter up the meat and pack it out. I got a 100 on it he would not make it very far in that process before he too got ran off by the wolfs. People like him that try to sell the public on all this brainwashing crap and usally works. One of you Montana hunters need to get an article re-butting what he says to be true. Tell the public the truth and how it is. Tell the public we are hunters and we do have a sport. We don't just get to throw dogs down and 10 min. later cougar treed and then shoot it. takes years of training alot of time discipline and patience. not like deer or elk hunting where you buy a rifle and go kill a deer or elk. I know a 10 year old boy that shot his own deer last year, I have never heard of a 10 year old boy running and treeing a lion by himself !!! Need to get an article in that same paper telling them how it is on our side, how 98 % of us hound hunters are hard working family people. would help anybody in need. good old fashion values. we are not the killing slaughter monsters all the antis say we are. Hell to prove a point I'll let any anti out there hunt my dogs with my supervision. I want to see how easy it is to tree anything. I'll even let 'em borrow all my gear and truck and give 500 to any anti out there that can get me a cat in the tree, if it is so easy then should be getting tons of email after this. 
Last edited by treeing walkers on Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If It Wasn't For Hounds, Beer, and Kids I Would Be A Wealthy Man
-
treeing walkers
- Bawl Mouth
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:53 pm
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: washington
-
Ike
-
treeing walkers
- Bawl Mouth
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:53 pm
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: washington
Here is a few of the comments made about this article. if you notice I'm the only hound hunter giving a response. The other people are non hunters and they don't agree with this idiot.
Comments
By Craig Moore, 7-24-07
George, I'm not sure where you get your 2000 figure. See: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hu ... me/cougar/
Looks like 777 is tops if all quotas are filled. Did the law change this?
Regarding the methodology of hound hunting. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have hunted game birds with dogs and found it very sporting. I don't hunt mountain lions but I know others who do. The meat is delicious that I have tried. I don't know why anyone would waste this game meat or any game meat. If you don't eat it, don't shoot it is the motto I live by. I think the game laws in most states reflect this ethic.
By George Wuerthner, 7-24-07
Craig:
The Oregon Cougar plan currently estimates the state's cougar population at more than 5,000 animals. I won't get into how these population estimates may be nothing more than a number pulled from the sky, but suffice to say that they believe there to be at least that many animals in the state. There may well be fewer cougar, and it's possible there's more.
In any event, the plan calls for reducing cougars to no less than 3000 animals--which is the estimate they have made for the population when the current ban on hound hunting was first initiated. Take 3000 from 5000 and you get 2000.
Why is 3000 chosen? It's not based on anything biological either. Just a number essentially pulled from a hat.
As for eating cougars, yes I've heard it's not bad tasting, however, be honest about it--most people who shoot a cougar do not eat the meat. It's about the "trophy."
As for everyone is entitled to their opinion--that's my point. The opinion of the majority of people in Oregon is that use of hounds to kill cougars is not acceptable. Twice the voters of Oregon passed laws against hound hunting of cougars. I feel safe in suggesting that most people do not support this kind of activity.
When hunters continue to support what might be called marginal activites that are unpopular with the general public like prairie dog shooting, chasing cougars with hounds to blast them from trees, slaughter of wolves, shooting elk at game farms, and so forth, they turn more and more people away from support of hunting in general. Given that the number of individuals who hunt continues to drop, hunters can ill afford to lose public support. It could be the hunter's worse enemy isn't PETA or any other animal rights group as often potrtayed, but its own community unwilling to censure practices that do not have significant public support.
By Craig Moore, 7-25-07
George, I saw the 3000 number as a loose target because, as you suggest, the ability to estimate cat numbers is less than accurate. My point about the quotas from the ODFW is that there is an attempt to regulate all mountain lions deaths by district from both hunting and non-hunting means. Hunting seems to make up less than half of the 777 targeted for 2007. Putting aside the use of dogs it seems the hunting rules and quotas per the ODFW site seem to be a fairly responsible attempt to regulate the game animal. Who pushed the bill that had bi-partisan support?
By Jon Way, 7-25-07
Great article George,
I agree with all of your points. Making extreme comments like hounding lions, slaughtering wolves and praire dogs, really does make the hunting community look bad.
Don't think it happens only out west. In Massachusetts, where I am from, our state is trying to increase eastern coyote hunting despite a super minority that participates in the activity. They seem to be deliberately ignoring my data from my 10 year study on the creature about their social, family-oriented nature.
If you are interested in some wildlife in the east, I welcome you to my webpage: http://www.easterncoyoteresearch.com. Included in that page is my book, Suburban Howls, a 338 page account of my 10 year experience tracking them.
best, Jon Way
http://www.easterncoyoteresearch.com
By George Wuerthner, 7-25-07
Craig:
The ODFW is trying to manage cougars because it wants to increase elk and other species hunters like to shoot, but it hides behind the pubilc safety justification. In its cougar plan the first few pages are nothing but reports of studies about people liking cougars, but also wanting them to be killed if they are near their homes, etc. etc. etc. But instead of suggesting that these concerns can be taken care of by judical and surgical control of individual cougars, the ODFW uses this generalized public concern for safety as the main rationale for its cougar plan which will kill cougars across the landscape--not just those that might be venturing into the edges of communities.
Furthermore, ODFW is ignoring that top predators are different from other wildlife like elk and deer. First they have a significant ecological influence on wildlife and plant communities. And these top predators are very social and you can't just "manage" them as if they are numbers--which wildlife agencies tend to do. There's a ton of evidence that top predators have social interactions that greatly affects their distribution as well as their potential impacts on humans. By ignoring this social component, ODFW and other state agencies doing the same thing with predators, are enacting self serving regulations that create social inbalances that begets more management.
By Craig Moore, 7-25-07
George, I just can't get past the ODFW website with the info on mountain lion quotas and allowed methodologies. I just don't see a conspiracy there or a lack of professional game management. I also don't follow your distinction between game animals whether they be predator or non-predator. Both are edible and a trophy depending on a hunter's personal values. I understand your revulsion for hound hunting but I can't make a distintion in my mind for hunting upland game birds with pointers and setters. To each his own and according to the law. What is important to me is that WE hunters stick together in promoting our field sport interest. Nothing protects a species more than making it a prized game animal as everyone who has a stake in the resource works to protect and ensure its health. Just my opinion.
By George Wuerthner, 7-25-07
The problem is that you are assuming the ODFW practiced good biologically sound techniques to arrive at its quotes and plan. This is not the place for an indepth debate on the agency, but suffice to say outside peer reviewers of the cougar plan, including some of the top cougar and population biologists in the country, had many problems with the underlying assumptions and questionable data, techniques and methods used by the agency to arrive at their conclusions. I'll leave it at that.
By Craig Moore, 7-26-07
Again, going back to the ODFW website the quotas are by district and incorporate both hunting and non-hunting lion deaths. That nunber for 2007 is 777 and less than half of that will be through hunting as per the record for the previous years. In Texas where the lions are not even a game animal what I read is that the numbers are at record high numbers. So even where there is no management plan it looks like lion numbers respond to their environment and food sources, not hunting practices. See: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... cf417.html
Also, from what I have read Oregon has NOT opened the state to wide open hound hunting of lions and bears, but will continue with a clarified exception process. Or at least that's what the governor says.
As I see it the real issues regarding mountain lions for any state are:
1. Should mountain lions be designated as a game animal and managed?
2. Should hunting be allowed for mountain lions?
3. What methods of hunting should be allowed?
4. What quotas should be set to insure a healthy continuing resource?
Just my 2 cents.
By Treeing Walkers, 7-26-07
George Wuerthner,
I think what you are promoting is not the truth. From what I read about what you have said you don't seem like you know much of what you speak. From what you say sounds like you really don't know much about the sport of hound hunting. Hound hunters have one of the most skilled and dedicated hunting sports out there. It takes alot of hard work, time, effort and patience to get a dog trained. Unlike most other sport hunting done with dogs, big game hound hunting takes a very skilled trainer to get results. Not just any body can go buy a hound puppy and raise and train that pupy to become a hunting dog. And for you saying "whom I will not glorify with the term hunter, following a pack of radio collared hounds to a treed cat, and then blasting the cougar from its perch." There is very little truth in that statement. The radio collars are for when the hounds are lost or can not be located. They are a human tool. The collars are to bring our beloved hounds back home safe and not be lost out in the wilderness for days till they get found. If you had every hound hunted you would know this. When the hounds take a track you can listen to them bay the whole time and know where they are going by their voice, not collar. Then for your statement about blasting it from its perch, is it not the same as when you are out deer/elk hunting and you see your "TROPHY" and you shoot it from its dinner table ?? That is why it is called hunting. Hound hunters are very cautious and knowledgeable on what they choose to harvest. They don't just shoot everything that trees, 98% of hound hunters out there today don't harvest 5% of the game they tree. We conserve game not slaughter it. It's a sport not a slaughter fest. Most of all hound hunters are law abiding citizens that are hard working have families and a life too. We as hound hunters believe in old time fashions of life, respect and always give a helping hand to someone in need.
As far as eating cougar. Every hunter that can still hunt cougar legally with hounds, does eat every piece of meat on it. Its the same as deer/elk hunters of course there is some sort of trophy as you would say but just because of that fact does not mean you don't eat it. If you where a real true guide you would have known this fact of hunting and would not of said that.
ODFW suggests that some elk and deer herds are not growing, and may even be declining—and conveniently placing the blame upon the “growing” cougar population.
That is more than likely true. A mature cougar will eat 2-3 deer or 1-2 elk a week to stay alive. A cougar only eats what it has killed and will not eat any spoiling meat. So if you add up those numbers you will see where the ODFW is coming from with their statement.
Your estimated 2000 cougar slaughter number is also found to be false. Their quota for 2007 is in dead 777. They say they would like to get the cougar numbers down by 2000 in years not in one but several.
"I predict if hunters are not careful, and don’t start speaking out against predator persecution and the 19th century practices of state wildlife agencies, they will find that a growing number of Americans will just vote to ban all hunting, not just that directed at killing predators."
That is also a false assumption you have made. Just because people predator hunt does not mean that the American people will ban all of hunting because of the predators. The predators need to have a population control on them as well. If nobody predator hunted then all your deer/elk numbers would not be there. Predators have nothing in the wild that controls them except for age. They need to be controlled as with all game to help preserve all of our hunting sports.
I think before you try and brain wash the public any more than you have you should do a little more research on the subject and tell the truth !! Don't just throw out numbers and ideas that have no proof to back them up with. Its a sport and their is a lot of people that enjoy it. We are not killers, we are not inhuman at what we do. We are just normal American citizens that believe in good old fashion values and ethnic hunting practices. We are not monsters like you want the public to believe. We are a group of American citizens that had our hunting privileges striped away from us with no real reason except a bunch of lies and incorrect information. One day the public will realize they made a huge mistake by being forced to vote on something that striped hundreds of thousands of hard working American citizens rights away for mis lead information.
By Marion, 7-26-07
George, just because you don't like something does not mean it is bad. I am very alarmed at the lengths soem will go to to try to impose their wishes and predjudices on other people. It becomes more alarming when erroneous facts are presented as fact. As in your numbers. This seems to be rather common among those with a heavy environmental agenda.
A lot of folks do a lot of things I don't care for, but I do not have the right to try to force them not to, in fact I don't hunt, but I do eat the meat my family brings home. Everyone of us is a unique individual and we have different standards for everything, forcing others to fit our own personal agenda just won't work.
By conservationalist, 7-26-07
George,
I'm fairly alarmed that you claim to be a hunter. First I don't believe you are who you say you are. Did you drop out of Hunter Education? Perhaps you should re-take that class.. Pay special attention to the Conservation topics. Hunters Pay and play more of a Positive Role in conservation than anyone else. It seams that you have forgotten this cougars are no different. I challenge you to find a wildlife division that disagree's with this.
I'm sure you can give us the "top Cougar bioligist" that the HSUS, and Seirra. Perhaps you forgot they have an agenda and perhaps the $$ has play a role into
IMO Your views and the way you write comes directly from extreme animal activist. Your words are not words of a hunter. Please don't pretend to be one of us to make your point, You are merely a wolf dressed as a sheep.
Hunters In oregon, (not anti hunters) protected the cougar by classify them as a big game animal from bounty.
We fought to have them correctly managed as a game animal for sound managment, The #1 tool in every wildlife department has help manage wildlife is Hunters.
I urge you to find one instance, were Sport hunting has caused harm to a wildlife population in the united states?
You don't understand the concept of conservation and a hunters in proper conservation. I've tought students who know more about conservation than you do.
I urge you to re-take hunter education. Perhaps you should stay out of the woods if you truely are "a hunter"..Your definately not a good example of a Hunter with good conservation ethics.
Suffice to say your "killing" talk and lack of conservation would certainly not be welcome at my campfire.
By Craig Moore, 7-26-07
Conservationalist, I found George's rhetorical hyperbole way over the top and well beyond factual support. However, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I find it helpful to use a campfire, a little whiskey, and calm talk as a means to change opinions, not harden them. George, is welcome at my camp any time for some warmth, lubrication, and friendly persuasion so long as the night is long, the whiskey flows and the embers glow.
Comments
By Craig Moore, 7-24-07
George, I'm not sure where you get your 2000 figure. See: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hu ... me/cougar/
Looks like 777 is tops if all quotas are filled. Did the law change this?
Regarding the methodology of hound hunting. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have hunted game birds with dogs and found it very sporting. I don't hunt mountain lions but I know others who do. The meat is delicious that I have tried. I don't know why anyone would waste this game meat or any game meat. If you don't eat it, don't shoot it is the motto I live by. I think the game laws in most states reflect this ethic.
By George Wuerthner, 7-24-07
Craig:
The Oregon Cougar plan currently estimates the state's cougar population at more than 5,000 animals. I won't get into how these population estimates may be nothing more than a number pulled from the sky, but suffice to say that they believe there to be at least that many animals in the state. There may well be fewer cougar, and it's possible there's more.
In any event, the plan calls for reducing cougars to no less than 3000 animals--which is the estimate they have made for the population when the current ban on hound hunting was first initiated. Take 3000 from 5000 and you get 2000.
Why is 3000 chosen? It's not based on anything biological either. Just a number essentially pulled from a hat.
As for eating cougars, yes I've heard it's not bad tasting, however, be honest about it--most people who shoot a cougar do not eat the meat. It's about the "trophy."
As for everyone is entitled to their opinion--that's my point. The opinion of the majority of people in Oregon is that use of hounds to kill cougars is not acceptable. Twice the voters of Oregon passed laws against hound hunting of cougars. I feel safe in suggesting that most people do not support this kind of activity.
When hunters continue to support what might be called marginal activites that are unpopular with the general public like prairie dog shooting, chasing cougars with hounds to blast them from trees, slaughter of wolves, shooting elk at game farms, and so forth, they turn more and more people away from support of hunting in general. Given that the number of individuals who hunt continues to drop, hunters can ill afford to lose public support. It could be the hunter's worse enemy isn't PETA or any other animal rights group as often potrtayed, but its own community unwilling to censure practices that do not have significant public support.
By Craig Moore, 7-25-07
George, I saw the 3000 number as a loose target because, as you suggest, the ability to estimate cat numbers is less than accurate. My point about the quotas from the ODFW is that there is an attempt to regulate all mountain lions deaths by district from both hunting and non-hunting means. Hunting seems to make up less than half of the 777 targeted for 2007. Putting aside the use of dogs it seems the hunting rules and quotas per the ODFW site seem to be a fairly responsible attempt to regulate the game animal. Who pushed the bill that had bi-partisan support?
By Jon Way, 7-25-07
Great article George,
I agree with all of your points. Making extreme comments like hounding lions, slaughtering wolves and praire dogs, really does make the hunting community look bad.
Don't think it happens only out west. In Massachusetts, where I am from, our state is trying to increase eastern coyote hunting despite a super minority that participates in the activity. They seem to be deliberately ignoring my data from my 10 year study on the creature about their social, family-oriented nature.
If you are interested in some wildlife in the east, I welcome you to my webpage: http://www.easterncoyoteresearch.com. Included in that page is my book, Suburban Howls, a 338 page account of my 10 year experience tracking them.
best, Jon Way
http://www.easterncoyoteresearch.com
By George Wuerthner, 7-25-07
Craig:
The ODFW is trying to manage cougars because it wants to increase elk and other species hunters like to shoot, but it hides behind the pubilc safety justification. In its cougar plan the first few pages are nothing but reports of studies about people liking cougars, but also wanting them to be killed if they are near their homes, etc. etc. etc. But instead of suggesting that these concerns can be taken care of by judical and surgical control of individual cougars, the ODFW uses this generalized public concern for safety as the main rationale for its cougar plan which will kill cougars across the landscape--not just those that might be venturing into the edges of communities.
Furthermore, ODFW is ignoring that top predators are different from other wildlife like elk and deer. First they have a significant ecological influence on wildlife and plant communities. And these top predators are very social and you can't just "manage" them as if they are numbers--which wildlife agencies tend to do. There's a ton of evidence that top predators have social interactions that greatly affects their distribution as well as their potential impacts on humans. By ignoring this social component, ODFW and other state agencies doing the same thing with predators, are enacting self serving regulations that create social inbalances that begets more management.
By Craig Moore, 7-25-07
George, I just can't get past the ODFW website with the info on mountain lion quotas and allowed methodologies. I just don't see a conspiracy there or a lack of professional game management. I also don't follow your distinction between game animals whether they be predator or non-predator. Both are edible and a trophy depending on a hunter's personal values. I understand your revulsion for hound hunting but I can't make a distintion in my mind for hunting upland game birds with pointers and setters. To each his own and according to the law. What is important to me is that WE hunters stick together in promoting our field sport interest. Nothing protects a species more than making it a prized game animal as everyone who has a stake in the resource works to protect and ensure its health. Just my opinion.
By George Wuerthner, 7-25-07
The problem is that you are assuming the ODFW practiced good biologically sound techniques to arrive at its quotes and plan. This is not the place for an indepth debate on the agency, but suffice to say outside peer reviewers of the cougar plan, including some of the top cougar and population biologists in the country, had many problems with the underlying assumptions and questionable data, techniques and methods used by the agency to arrive at their conclusions. I'll leave it at that.
By Craig Moore, 7-26-07
Again, going back to the ODFW website the quotas are by district and incorporate both hunting and non-hunting lion deaths. That nunber for 2007 is 777 and less than half of that will be through hunting as per the record for the previous years. In Texas where the lions are not even a game animal what I read is that the numbers are at record high numbers. So even where there is no management plan it looks like lion numbers respond to their environment and food sources, not hunting practices. See: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... cf417.html
Also, from what I have read Oregon has NOT opened the state to wide open hound hunting of lions and bears, but will continue with a clarified exception process. Or at least that's what the governor says.
As I see it the real issues regarding mountain lions for any state are:
1. Should mountain lions be designated as a game animal and managed?
2. Should hunting be allowed for mountain lions?
3. What methods of hunting should be allowed?
4. What quotas should be set to insure a healthy continuing resource?
Just my 2 cents.
By Treeing Walkers, 7-26-07
George Wuerthner,
I think what you are promoting is not the truth. From what I read about what you have said you don't seem like you know much of what you speak. From what you say sounds like you really don't know much about the sport of hound hunting. Hound hunters have one of the most skilled and dedicated hunting sports out there. It takes alot of hard work, time, effort and patience to get a dog trained. Unlike most other sport hunting done with dogs, big game hound hunting takes a very skilled trainer to get results. Not just any body can go buy a hound puppy and raise and train that pupy to become a hunting dog. And for you saying "whom I will not glorify with the term hunter, following a pack of radio collared hounds to a treed cat, and then blasting the cougar from its perch." There is very little truth in that statement. The radio collars are for when the hounds are lost or can not be located. They are a human tool. The collars are to bring our beloved hounds back home safe and not be lost out in the wilderness for days till they get found. If you had every hound hunted you would know this. When the hounds take a track you can listen to them bay the whole time and know where they are going by their voice, not collar. Then for your statement about blasting it from its perch, is it not the same as when you are out deer/elk hunting and you see your "TROPHY" and you shoot it from its dinner table ?? That is why it is called hunting. Hound hunters are very cautious and knowledgeable on what they choose to harvest. They don't just shoot everything that trees, 98% of hound hunters out there today don't harvest 5% of the game they tree. We conserve game not slaughter it. It's a sport not a slaughter fest. Most of all hound hunters are law abiding citizens that are hard working have families and a life too. We as hound hunters believe in old time fashions of life, respect and always give a helping hand to someone in need.
As far as eating cougar. Every hunter that can still hunt cougar legally with hounds, does eat every piece of meat on it. Its the same as deer/elk hunters of course there is some sort of trophy as you would say but just because of that fact does not mean you don't eat it. If you where a real true guide you would have known this fact of hunting and would not of said that.
ODFW suggests that some elk and deer herds are not growing, and may even be declining—and conveniently placing the blame upon the “growing” cougar population.
That is more than likely true. A mature cougar will eat 2-3 deer or 1-2 elk a week to stay alive. A cougar only eats what it has killed and will not eat any spoiling meat. So if you add up those numbers you will see where the ODFW is coming from with their statement.
Your estimated 2000 cougar slaughter number is also found to be false. Their quota for 2007 is in dead 777. They say they would like to get the cougar numbers down by 2000 in years not in one but several.
"I predict if hunters are not careful, and don’t start speaking out against predator persecution and the 19th century practices of state wildlife agencies, they will find that a growing number of Americans will just vote to ban all hunting, not just that directed at killing predators."
That is also a false assumption you have made. Just because people predator hunt does not mean that the American people will ban all of hunting because of the predators. The predators need to have a population control on them as well. If nobody predator hunted then all your deer/elk numbers would not be there. Predators have nothing in the wild that controls them except for age. They need to be controlled as with all game to help preserve all of our hunting sports.
I think before you try and brain wash the public any more than you have you should do a little more research on the subject and tell the truth !! Don't just throw out numbers and ideas that have no proof to back them up with. Its a sport and their is a lot of people that enjoy it. We are not killers, we are not inhuman at what we do. We are just normal American citizens that believe in good old fashion values and ethnic hunting practices. We are not monsters like you want the public to believe. We are a group of American citizens that had our hunting privileges striped away from us with no real reason except a bunch of lies and incorrect information. One day the public will realize they made a huge mistake by being forced to vote on something that striped hundreds of thousands of hard working American citizens rights away for mis lead information.
By Marion, 7-26-07
George, just because you don't like something does not mean it is bad. I am very alarmed at the lengths soem will go to to try to impose their wishes and predjudices on other people. It becomes more alarming when erroneous facts are presented as fact. As in your numbers. This seems to be rather common among those with a heavy environmental agenda.
A lot of folks do a lot of things I don't care for, but I do not have the right to try to force them not to, in fact I don't hunt, but I do eat the meat my family brings home. Everyone of us is a unique individual and we have different standards for everything, forcing others to fit our own personal agenda just won't work.
By conservationalist, 7-26-07
George,
I'm fairly alarmed that you claim to be a hunter. First I don't believe you are who you say you are. Did you drop out of Hunter Education? Perhaps you should re-take that class.. Pay special attention to the Conservation topics. Hunters Pay and play more of a Positive Role in conservation than anyone else. It seams that you have forgotten this cougars are no different. I challenge you to find a wildlife division that disagree's with this.
I'm sure you can give us the "top Cougar bioligist" that the HSUS, and Seirra. Perhaps you forgot they have an agenda and perhaps the $$ has play a role into
IMO Your views and the way you write comes directly from extreme animal activist. Your words are not words of a hunter. Please don't pretend to be one of us to make your point, You are merely a wolf dressed as a sheep.
Hunters In oregon, (not anti hunters) protected the cougar by classify them as a big game animal from bounty.
We fought to have them correctly managed as a game animal for sound managment, The #1 tool in every wildlife department has help manage wildlife is Hunters.
I urge you to find one instance, were Sport hunting has caused harm to a wildlife population in the united states?
You don't understand the concept of conservation and a hunters in proper conservation. I've tought students who know more about conservation than you do.
I urge you to re-take hunter education. Perhaps you should stay out of the woods if you truely are "a hunter"..Your definately not a good example of a Hunter with good conservation ethics.
Suffice to say your "killing" talk and lack of conservation would certainly not be welcome at my campfire.
By Craig Moore, 7-26-07
Conservationalist, I found George's rhetorical hyperbole way over the top and well beyond factual support. However, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I find it helpful to use a campfire, a little whiskey, and calm talk as a means to change opinions, not harden them. George, is welcome at my camp any time for some warmth, lubrication, and friendly persuasion so long as the night is long, the whiskey flows and the embers glow.
If It Wasn't For Hounds, Beer, and Kids I Would Be A Wealthy Man
-
BarF4 Ranch
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:13 pm
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: Arizona
These people just don't understand. They think we kill all for the fun of it.
It has become a sport that is hunting. But what they forget or probley just don't know is that GOD gave us dominion over the animals of the air the sea & ground and said for us to be stewards of the land & animals.
So if you had 100 acers and that land would only hold 20 cow's you wouldent put 40 out there. That wouldent be a good steward. So what i am saying is if the grass is short and theres to many cow's you have to cull. And that is what i see here.People dont understand that you have to manage herds wether it be cow's lions,elk,deer,bear,antelope thats being a steward of the land.
And its not just about the saftey of the people but is also for the saftey of the animals.Again you put 40 cow,s on somthing that will onley hold 20 your going to have some hungry cow,s reall soon. And thats the way i see it for all animals.
It has become a sport that is hunting. But what they forget or probley just don't know is that GOD gave us dominion over the animals of the air the sea & ground and said for us to be stewards of the land & animals.
So if you had 100 acers and that land would only hold 20 cow's you wouldent put 40 out there. That wouldent be a good steward. So what i am saying is if the grass is short and theres to many cow's you have to cull. And that is what i see here.People dont understand that you have to manage herds wether it be cow's lions,elk,deer,bear,antelope thats being a steward of the land.
And its not just about the saftey of the people but is also for the saftey of the animals.Again you put 40 cow,s on somthing that will onley hold 20 your going to have some hungry cow,s reall soon. And thats the way i see it for all animals.
Norm
-
southwestwalkers
- Open Mouth
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:27 pm
- Location: Arizona
- Facebook ID: 100000302850031
- Location: Williams, Arizona
-
cecil j.
- Open Mouth
- Posts: 550
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:00 am
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: olympia wa 98501
- Contact:
Re: Oregon’s Cougar Slaughter—A Return to the Dark Ages
Buddyw wrote:http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/ ... s/C38/L38/
By George Wuerthner, 7-24-07
The Oregon legislature recently passed a controversial bill that will facilitate the killing of several thousand cougars in the state. In what seems like a throw back to the last century, the state is set to kill more than a third of its cougars.
The new law would permit the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to “deputize” hunters so they can use hounds in order to ramp up the killing of cougars (euphemistically called “harvest”). This new law was crafted to circumvent a twice-passed citizen imitative that bans use of hounds for “sport” hunting of cougars. Oregon never outlawed cougar hunting—just the killing of cougars with the aid of hounds. In 2006 the state’s total hunter and “management” kill was 442 animals. However, in the eyes of the ODFW not enough cougars were being killed. Hunting with hounds is more effective, and since ODFW newly adopted cougar plan calls for slaughtering up to 2000 of the secretive animals, the agency wanted a more efficient means of killing the big cats, hence its strong support for the new legislation.
Most people are outraged by the thought of some cretin, whom I will not glorify with the term hunter, following a pack of radio collared hounds to a treed cat, and then blasting the cougar from its perch. The killing of animals like cougars, wolves, prairie dogs, and other animals that are not providing meat on the table is seen as bloodthirty and unnecessary by a growing majority of Americans—including Oregon residents—which is why they have twice banned the practice. Finding little public support for such practices, ODFW tries to hide its real predator persecution motives behind a veneer of public safety concerns by suggesting it has to kill more than a third of the state’s cougar population to reduce public anxiety over potential cougar attacks. Never mind that ODFW has been beating the drums about a “growing” threat from cougars in order to create a public mandate for predator control.
If the department were genuinely interested in reducing human-cougar conflicts it would be arguing against any cougar hunting at all. Most top predators, including cougars, are territorial social animals. Research has demonstrated that it is primarily young, inexperienced animals that are responsible for the majority of human-cougar conflicts and incidences. There is good reason for this, since young animals tend to be inexperienced hunters, they are more likely to attack domestic livestock or even humans. Plus younger animals are more mobile, thus likely to set up a territory in or near human settlements—the kind of marginal habitat that older, more experienced cougars avoid. Thus indiscriminate hunting of cougars (as well as other predators like wolves) will invariably skew the population towards younger age classes. This creates more human/predator conflicts and by happy coincidence sets up a self reinforcing feedback for ever more “control.” Any competent biologist knows about these social interactions, yet we never hear the ODFW explaining to the public how cougar persecution might exacerbate, rather than decrease, risk for human/cougar conflicts.
Furthermore, the threat to human life from cougars is greatly exaggerated. There has never been a single human death as a result of cougar attack in Oregon, and the likelihood of any lethal attacks is extremely small. In the past hundred years in North America there has been about 100 documented attacks on humans, with only 18 fatal. By contrast in 2006 there were 26 fatal attacks on people by dogs alone. And 219 people died as a result of horse-related accidents. A department that was genuinely interested in addressing public concerns would be launching a massive educational campaign to reduce public anxiety. But instead the ODFW has reinforced public apprehension by suggesting that “yes, we had better reduce cougar populations before someone dies.”
California makes a good contrast to Oregon’s approach to cougar management. In California all sport hunting for cougars has been banned since 1972. Though the state has 34 million people and five times the livestock as Oregon, only 120 California cougars are killed each year to deal with public concerns about livestock or human threats.
ODFW suggests that some elk and deer herds are not growing, and may even be declining—and conveniently placing the blame upon the “growing” cougar population. However, they fail to acknowledge that in nearly all circumstances that such ungulate declines are due to degraded habitat quality and/or loss—for instance increased road densities from logging that facilities higher hunter success, changes in vegetation due to fire suppression, competition with domestic livestock for forage, new subdivisions (increasingly built in cougar habitat), and so on. Instead of addressing these issues, the department hides behind the predator scapegoat.
Where predators are reducing ungulate populations, something that they can do on occasion, an intelligent response would be to ask, “what ecological benefit might be the consequence?” In the case of predator induced declines in ungulate numbers, an intelligent department that was professional would point out how vegetative communities benefit from a reduction in heavy exploitation by herbivores, which in turn benefits both plant communities and ungulates in the long term. But ODFW is silent when it comes to good ecological science. Nor does the department talk about other positive ecological effects of predators including the tendency of deer and elk to spread themselves out on the landscape or how they kill different age classes of prey animals from hunters—both of which have significant ecological consequences.
I want to acknowledge that there are many very fine biologists who do work for ODFW as well as other state Fish and Wildlife agencies. I know many of them first hand, and they work hard to promote good ecological care of the land and its wildlife. Many of them are uncomfortable with the increasingly hostile attitudes that their own agencies are displaying towards predators. There are also hunters, such as myself, who are opposed to predator control for a host of ethical and biological reasons. Unfortunately you would never know any countervailing perspective exists amongst the hunting community.
Whether it is Wyoming’s plan to kill wolves as “predators” , a designation that offers no limits on numbers killed or closed season, or Idaho’s goal to reduce wolves by up to 2/3, or Oregon’s proposed cougar slaughter, what we are seeing is a throwback back to the good old days when predators were seen as nothing more than an obstacle to “better” hunting. I predict if hunters are not careful, and don’t start speaking out against predator persecution and the 19th century practices of state wildlife agencies, they will find that a growing number of Americans will just vote to ban all hunting, not just that directed at killing predators.
George Wuerthner is a former Montana hunting guide, a wildlife biologist, and author of 34 books on natural history and environmental issues who still kills (as opposed to harvest), on occasion, elk and deer. He finds the best hunting is where there are dense populations of wolves and cougars since other hunters avoid these areas, convinced predators have
I absolutely dissagree with that full artical by knowledge and by of being on the west coat sence 47-89 and then by the hunters I still know who live in Ca./ore. and let me tell ya its a bunch of hooie ! Absolutely wrong!
Let me ex-lane that in 63-64 when they outlawed killing lion in Ca. they had a ligitemate reason because of the cattlemans assco. 50.00 bounty on each lion, and $ 50.00 also on each unborn citten if she was pregnet in here! $ 50.00 each cub also was given/ there was just way too many lion and the cattlemens assco. had payed hunters,trapers,houndsmen, anyone who brought on in !
Within 15 yrs the mtn lion in Ca. (64-79) reestablished its self fully every weres in the Ca woods and then by 89 they was absolutely over runnen the state and folks was getten hunt, goat ranchers pig farmers,turyey rancher on and on in cludeing sheep hurds=all taken big losses. It all but wiped out the mule deer & black tail deer off the lower sierras an black tail deer on the coast range mtns.
Also there came in too the coast range mtns. in the 60`s wild bore pigs and ferrell hogs and they thrived and was yet another source of food for lion & bear alike over on the coast range mtns. Not enoughf, hey they introduced wild turkey on the coast range mtns in the later 70`s and it took of well to/ the lion sure loved them now also! Well when the big Pacific Coast range mtn burnt for 100 dredds of miles/ the game left=guess were it went (ore) daa...that a no brainer !?
Thers wild pig,wild turkey,deer and Elk from Ca./Ore./wa. and now they way over populated lion is flexxing his dominance too really have bigger litters and they are way too many and upsetting the balance of nature and food chain just keeps comeing cause hogs,deer,turkey,elk are doind a numbers thing also were talkind well over the leight of California + the leight of Ore. + the leight of wa. and there is 2 mtn ranges they migrate bib game trail along and cross between the Pacific coast range mts into the Casscades and accrost too the Sierra Nevadda/ 100,000 miles may in all that mtns area you couldnt hurt the dencity of lions now by givring an open season (1 per bag limit taken per houndsman and boot hunter) no way no how/ I call any man who says it will kill em back out wrong! A fire, an valcanno euruption maybe get them scattered awy but not mortallity died-off.No hound hunter wants too kill of the females an babys hell that just crazzyness, and the reason ya don`t hear bout huge lion is because there is so many they have imbred down alot in weight and hights and leights/ lion inner breed when there is too many and it stunts the growth over a short time! They proved that around chinna camp Ca. out of monterey Ca and lions there got adult sized between 90-110 lbers in the 63 erra.! Ya better think about it and make a good hound hunters plann or all your going too see in lion kills is by preditation work handedout to but a select few houndsmen/ thats a fact and its not right our tax dollars says we should be a member of the able too hunt & take for harvest/ 1 lion a yr, if its not enoughf harvested too meet DFG needs/ then make it 2 harvested per yr by houndsmen/ no cubs,no sows/ just toms around 100 lbs & up !
discriminated elk and deer herds.