Home › Forums › Campfire Forum › Cougars, livestock and hunting
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
Well, once again it seems that “common-sense logic” is confused by the facts. Consider this extract from the abstract of a new research report in a leading peer-reviewed professional biological journal:
“Remedial sport hunting of predators is often used to reduce predator populations and associated complaints and livestock depredations. We assessed the effects of remedial sport hunting on reducing cougar complaints and livestock depredations in Washington from 2005 to 2010 (6 years). … Widespread indiscriminate hunting does not appear to be an effective preventative and remedial method for reducing predator complaints and livestock depredations.”
For those interested, here’s the link to the entire report. In order to keep our discussion on an informed level, please read at least the abstract before offering thoughts and comments.
My initial thought, curiosity, is if a similar phenomenon is at work regarding predators and natural (wild) prey. I have a couple of instances in mind.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0079713
-
You’re right Dave, it seems entirely counter intuitive. The explanation in the abstract gets traction in my mind though:
Peebles et al wrote: We suggest that increased young male immigration, social disruption of cougar populations, and associated changes in space use by cougars – caused by increased hunting resulted in the increased complaints and livestock depredations.
Reasonably compelling support of that suggestion can be found down in the discussion of results:
Peebles et al wrote: Very heavy hunting (100% removal of resident adults in 1 year) increased the odds of complaints and depredations in year 2 by 150% to 340%.
I wonder if this effect of dominant individual removal, leading to irregular predator behaviour is most significant in clever, learning predators like cats. A fascinating, counter intuitive consciousness raiser that’s for sure. Hopefully it leads to more comprehensive studies across varied predators and like you say, effects on wild prey as well (although I’m not sure how that could be measured).
Who needs fantasy/fiction when we have such a fascinating and mysterious reality eh?
Jim
-
That’s an excellent publication. I wonder, Dave, did you happen to read the new NatGeo article about cougars and then search for this article after it briefly mentioned these findings?
I take it you mean “the facts are confusing common sense” = killing more animals does not mean less complaints, is that what you were getting at? As mentioned in the NatGeo article, and what this publication suggests, is that cougar hunting tends to focus more on big tom cats. And that may be the root of the problem. I think, in general, more scientists and some hunters are realizing we cannot focus our harvest only on one sex-age class without a resulting shift in the animal’s demographics and behavior.
For example, California has been a buck only state for decades, and more and more hunters complain they don’t see as many big bucks as the used to. And that’s probably true, cause now we have does living until their upper teens and even into their twenties, not necessarily as reproductively successful as they used to be, and competing for food with the rest of the herd. Its clear to some folks that we should allow some does harvest to balance the sex ratio. But that won’t fly as long as our Wildlife Commission board is run by politicians instead of biologists.
I think this article is great, because it illuminates the direct result of our harvest-management plan, and that is something that really interests me. If we understand more about an animal, then our harvest plans can be better structured to have desirable results. For instance, with cougars, maybe we have to encourage hunters to take a mixed bag of females and males, instead of only big males.
Jim, you nailed it, in my opinion. The subadult cougars, A) do not have a home range yet, therefore, cannot hunt as efficiently (just like us, its harder to walk into new woods and kill a deer with a longbow, than in your backyard) and B) They are not yet very good at killing large prey; its challenging and there is probably a steep learning curve involved in bringing down an animal as big or bigger than you.
Dave, when you say the effects on wild prey, do you mean- how does harvesting mature toms and the resulting increase in younger male cougars effect wild prey populations? That indeed would be a good thing to study. There’s a lot more to it than just the ungulates. I’d bet those subadult cougars are eating lots of smaller prey like rabbits, squirrels, etc… and then having a greater effect on mesocarnivores than we now know.
-
Good observations and questions, gentlemen. My point in providing this link, bottom line, is to point out, again, how wrong hunters (and ranchers) often are, and at times even counter-productive to our own interests, when we jump on the bandwagon assumption that “the fewer predators, the more the game for us.” At best, most studied intense predator control problems simply have not worked. This same “available habitat is a magnet for life” explanation of why untargeted killing lions can actually increase predation, has also shown up for decades in coyote control studies. You kill ’em all off in an area and before you know it they’re back. Coyote “control” typically stimulates great increased reproduction as well as immigration from outside the ‘controlled’ area. Livable habitat begs to be occupied. The lamest “logical” argument by hunters along this line is common here in CO since baiting and hounding bears were banned in 1992 and bear problems have since increased in small towns and subdivisions. The “logical” but shallow-thinking and uninformed view is “We need to kill more bears to stop human-bear conflicts.” But hey, we don’t kill bears via sport hunting in towns and subdivisions, and garbage-raiding is a learned behavior. Until they open bear seasons in downtown Durango, no amount of bear hunting in the surrounding mountains will make a difference. Bear kill numbers are WAY up since the restrictions were imposed, as is the general population. “Garbage bear” problems are up because people keep moving into bear habitat, combined with an ongoing drought here that some years seriously smacks-down natural bear foods. Similarly, some lions learn to specialize in preying on livestock, while prefer to stick with their natural wild prey.. Helter-skelter lion hunting in the boonies won’t have any bearing on specialists livestock killers; they have to be specifically targeted.
In sum, far too much hunter “logic” is uninformed and wrong. Before anyone responds as if I am arguing against predator control, I am not. I am just saying that this study is one among many, across several predatory species, that says the same thing: general hunting of a predatory species rarely works to reduce predation, which we tend to want to think it does. I understand that those who enjoy predator hunting like to feel they are justified in killing animals they don’t intend to eat, because they are “helping the prey.” In some instances this is true, but in general it is not.
Life is exceedingly complicated, rendering most “obvious truths” and simple solutions suspect. I for one think it’s more fun than if it were all as predictable as we like to think.
-
Anonymous
December 3, 2013 at 1:53 pmPost count: 124colmike wrote: Dave
Well said–as usual–and to the heart of the matter.
Mike
Agreed, as usual.
However, if we look at the PRK (Peoplez Republik of Kalifornia) for what happens when there is an absolute ban on hunting, we get the other side of the coin. There the cougar population … err, the Felis concolor population (clarification due to location likely needed), Fc going forward – is completely unchecked. The human/Fc encounters are increasing and quite often with disastrous results for both sides. As with many other conservation efforts, we know what works (biology and ecology based game management including appropriate hunting) but we refuse to do it for a variety of selfish, self-serving, and politically motivated (science be damned) reasons. Pogo remains right.
-
I don’t think a ban on hunting is responsible for negative cougar-human interactions. As suggested in the article, cougar hunting may actually increase the population because territory holding male cats are targeted when hunting. When that male is removed, younger males emigrate to fill the void. Its often these younger males that cause problems too.
I my opinion, the seemingly increase in negative cougar-human interactions results from an ever-expanding suburban-wildland interface and the shrinking of wild places where cougars can run free. Most of the cougar incidents in CA have happened outside of big cities where people hike, bike, and horse ride frequently through cougar country.
Also, I emphasize seemingly increasing incidents, because for all the 38 million people that live in CA, and one of the highest cougar populations of any state, we have a proportionately low rate of incidents. The millions of people that recreate every weekend throughout the state in cougar country and never encounter a cat is testament to how infrequently people are killed or attacked by cougars.
This article only looked at cougar incidents and legitimate hunting. Clearly, if there are no cougars, then there will be no negative interactions. So we could focus hunting on female cougars and try to eradicate cougars from a state. And that should lower the number of incidents, because there won’t be any animals. But I don’t want to live in mountains devoid of large predators and would not support that management goal.
-
I disagree about non-hunting not causing problems. I’m a California native and know the state well. Up around the Redding/Shingletown area (as an example) back in the 70’s, Cougar problems were non-existent. Since the ban on hunting, the population in that area has just constantly gone up.
Today, I wouldn’t go into those woods, and especially at night, without at least a sidearm. My wifes relatives live in Shingletown and nearly everyone up there has lost a dog or a cat to a cougar. The cats will come down and take pets right off the deck of a house, they’ve been known to stalk people out walking their dogs. There’s just too many of them and they need to have their numbers (of both sexes) reduced.
I’m not sure what ‘rememdial’ hunting is as hunting these big cats is one of the toughest hunts you’ll usually ever have. Here in Nevada, you can buy a tag for ’em over the counter and cheap. There’s apparently quite a bit of hunting for them, but not much problem with nuisance cats.
The nuisance cats are usually the young toms. I had one that took up residence by my house. He’d even sit in the Cottonwood tree outside the garage. He’d scram if somebody came out, but he wouldn’t go far. He had a bad habit of being way to curious and was known for chasing dirt bike riders and joggers. He met his end when he attacked a couple of dogs at a nearby park and the owner used his sidearm to kill him.
The one thing I take away from the article is that ‘indiscriminate’ hunting doesn’t work to stop a problem. It has to be targeted at specific problem animals. What I really wonder though, is if in a place like California where they aren’t hunted, if even targeted hunting would reduce the problem?
-
I know this is said often here, largely by others than me, but it lifts my spirits every time I see folks outright disagree on an issue, yet express their differences politely, maturely, keeping the focus on the issue, rather than insulting those who disagree. Good stuff.
Loneviking–While I’ve not studied the California lion situation closely enough to have an informed opinion, it has always struck me as a unique situation where–given the large quantity of great lion habitat and large number of deer, then we start building homes in that habitat, thousands upon thousands, with pets running loose, there are going to be encounters and it’s a miracle there aren’t more. It may be that we can, as the study did, talk about “lions in general” for just about everyplace but CA, it being so unique. Do you think that’s possible? I recall decades ago when I lived there, same thing was happening with coyotes and probably still is. Closest thing I know as a parallel are a couple of microcosms here in CO, namely Boulder Canyon and Castle Rock, where much the same situations exist: prime deer and lion habitat being heavily in-roaded by humans, with occasional encounters the result. One size rarely fits all, but in general, generalities are valid, especially those resulting from long-term scientific research. Still, no matter how we feel about predator hunting, to have lion hunting outlawed in an entire state is simply idiot and the opposite of wildlife management. It’s one less tool in the manager’s toolbox.
-
So the ? is how do we get wildlife management back in the realm of science and out of politics. I know Forager and all of BHA are somewhat working to that end—but is there some way we can organize a united front that supports that goal?
New to this arena (only back on the trad hunt for 3yrs) but willing to support the attack. Comments or guidance.
Mike
-
loneviking wrote: I disagree about non-hunting not causing problems.
The one thing I take away from the article is that ‘indiscriminate’ hunting doesn’t work to stop a problem. It has to be targeted at specific problem animals. What I really wonder though, is if in a place like California where they aren’t hunted, if even targeted hunting would reduce the problem?
Loneviking, This is my main point in most predator hunting conversations. When people go on a lion hunt, they drive up into the mountains away from towns to shoot a cat. Usually, problems animals are around the towns, and sometimes on rural ranches. Folks aren’t going there to hunt cats. Those animals just get removed (aka killed) by Wildlife Services.
What could happen, is if you kept the wild-mountainous population really low (through liberal hunting quotas and killing females), then maybe less cats would wander down towards town and make their home there. This is just hypothetical, I don’t know if it would work or not. I’m just trying to see the other side.
I don’t oppose predator hunting, but I don’t think it should be how we fix the problem of “nuisance” animals. Its our behavior we need to change and our outlook about predators.
As to how we get science into wildlife management, well here in CA its the voting public and politicians and special interest groups that have passed some of our most controversial game laws, the state agency has no say at that point, science or not.
-
I find this very interesting, but have no answer. We don’t have a recognized population of lions anywhere near where I am in West Tennessee. I sure would love for Dr. Don Thomas to weigh in here. He seems to have given a lot of thought to lions and their hunting, and I always find his opinions thought-provoking.
Murray
-
I agree that California is a unique situation with no hunting having taken place in almost 40 years. And that’s where maybe it’s time to put science into play.
The wildlife biologists here in Nevada started collaring lions to figure out how many there were and improve on what was known of their behavior. I was told by one of their biologists that a big surprise was to find that some of the cats had learned to take down wild horses, and that was the main source for some of these cats. Apparently they learn how to take down an animal and then teach their offspring to do the same. It would be interesting to see if something similar is taking place within a subset of the California population in regards to peoples dogs and cats. Why not horses,cattle and sheep as well?
Limited hunting is another way to inject science. Our bear hunts here in Northern Nevada gave the wildlife experts a surprise. Hunters were dragging in bears that had never been tagged, never been seen and the numbers of unknown bears has led them to up the estimate of animals in the area.
Anyway, interesting thread and just some random thoughts of mine.
-
Murray–Since you asked… The findings described in the abstract really don’t surprise me. One of the major causes of mortality among cougars is other cougars, specifically mature toms killing kittens and young males. Eliminate the former and you’ll have more of the latter. Furthermore, after years of studying cat tracks I’ve found it unusual to see big tom tracks down in the lower country where livestock winter. The cats that cause most of the trouble are usually young males, and the selective harvest of mature males means more troublesome cats in just the terrain where they are most likely to cause trouble. In the West overall, livestock losses to (all) predators are in the range of 2-3%, which could be looked at as the cost of doing business. However, these losses are not randomly distributed. Most ranchers experience none and a few get clobbered. (I know one who lost 70 sheep to one cougar in one night.) But you’re really not going to do anything about that by targeting the cat population as a whole–that’s like trying to reduce our murder rate by putting every third man in jail. It makes far more sense to target the rare problem cat specifically and manage the rest by best science. And managing the population of any large mammal by killing only or mostly mature males doesn’t make any sense. The lion harvest should be broadened by sex and age structure, and MT is doing that by issuing more female permits than male permits in many areas. Personally, I’ve never hunted cougars because I wanted to reduce their population. I hunted them because I love the solitude of the mountains in the winter, eating sweet and sour mountain lion, training the dogs and listening to them run… you get the idea. Thanks for asking for my two bits worth. By the way, as a scientist who has reviewed a lot of journals, I was perplexed by my inability to determine exactly where this piece was published. What is PLOS? Is this truly an independent, refereed journal? Don
-
I appreciate the info about PLOS and have no reason to doubt them. It’s still odd that the abstract didn’t include the details of the original publication, as is standard in scientific literature. John LeCarre’s great fictional British intelligence agent John Smiley was fond of saying, “Informtation is no more valuable than its source.” And that was BEFORE the Internet. Don
-
December 9, 2013 at 1:34 pmPost count: 124
This situation brings up a rather interesting idea: What if the hunting weren’t “random”? Right now, the idea of hunting to control a population like cougars is done the same as it is for every other species; i.e., an “open season” with perhaps a quota. Yet, the science would seem to dictate a more targeted approach would be more beneficial and appropriate to controlling the population and eliminating the animals that are causing the underlying issues (livestock depredation, etc.).
What about a very limited and very targeted hunt instead, where the animal is not chosen at random but is specifically targeted for the biological management purpose, and the hunter either drawn at random through a lottery or one of a limited number to qualify and then drawn? The season then would not be dependent upon a calendar end date, but instead upon the taking of the specific animal. We have certainly shown the ability to target specific animals in other hunts (trophy hunting, for example) and in other capacities (elimination of specific animals that kill humans), so why not consider this target-specific method of a hunting season for species that ought to require it due to biology?
-
donthomas wrote: I appreciate the info about PLOS and have no reason to doubt them. It’s still odd that the abstract didn’t include the details of the original publication, as is standard in scientific literature. John LeCarre’s great fictional British intelligence agent John Smiley was fond of saying, “Informtation is no more valuable than its source.” And that was BEFORE the Internet. Don
I may misunderstand what you’re getting at, Don, but this article was first published in PlosOne; it is the original article. There is no print version, the online form is the publication. I’ve never read a medical journal or article, maybe its different, but I never see the name of a journal in an abstract in wildlife publications (somewhere on the page it will mention the journal, or you have the print version and already know what journal you are reading).
Interesting idea Forager. I could see it working well in specific cases and not in others. While I was working in Alberta, the provincial game agency was tired of getting complaints from ranchers in this one valley so they came in with a helicopter and wiped the pack out. That could be a case where they could’ve allowed hunters to do it (maybe not from the helicopter though). A depredating cat in the suburbs of southern CA would be a different scenario though.
-
December 9, 2013 at 3:32 pmPost count: 124
Ptaylor wrote: [quote=donthomas]I appreciate the info about PLOS and have no reason to doubt them. It’s still odd that the abstract didn’t include the details of the original publication, as is standard in scientific literature. John LeCarre’s great fictional British intelligence agent John Smiley was fond of saying, “Informtation is no more valuable than its source.” And that was BEFORE the Internet. Don
I may misunderstand what you’re getting at, Don, but this article was first published in PlosOne; it is the original article. There is no print version, the online form is the publication. I’ve never read a medical journal or article, maybe its different, but I never see the name of a journal in an abstract in wildlife publications (somewhere on the page it will mention the journal, or you have the print version and already know what journal you are reading).
Interesting idea Forager. I could see it working well in specific cases and not in others. While I was working in Alberta, the provincial game agency was tired of getting complaints from ranchers in this one valley so they came in with a helicopter and wiped the pack out. That could be a case where they could’ve allowed hunters to do it (maybe not from the helicopter though). A depredating cat in the suburbs of southern CA would be a different scenario though.
Actually, I think the cat in southern CA would be an ideal situation for a hunter – qualified and vetted – to target exactly that animal and remove it.
-
My apologies for the confusion over PLOS, with whom I have no argument at all. The info I sought simply required me to click on “About the Authors” or whatever it was. I am old enough to be set in my ways, and reading journals on line isn’t one of them. Peace. Selectively targeting livestock killing cats already takes place–I’ve been called out by game wardens on a number of them. However, it would be difficult to make that the ONLY legal cat hunting. (It would also be biologically unnecessary given the high cougar population in most parts of the West today.) Trouble is, raising, training, and maintaining good hounds is a huge commitment, and no one is going to do that on the off chance they will get a chase every couple of years. There’s another variable that hasn’t been discussed here–wolves. (There–I said the W-word.) Good science shows that in areas where these two high end predators overlap wolves displace cougars from about 50% of their kills. (That’s why cats run up trees even though a 90-pound female could kill a pack of dogs any time she felt like it.) Cougar biologists were perturbed when this interaction wasn’t even considered in the initial wolf ESAs. Point is, wolves in mountains also displace cougars to lowland terrain. I’m just sayin’… Don
-
Here’s the link (or URL so you can copy and paste it) to an article about a cougar eating a wolf. Kind of a neat story, though probably unusual.
-
Quite unusual. Not long ago I followed a female cat track until two yearling kittens joined it, then on to a spot where the female had killed a mule deer. Study of the tracks in the surrounding area showed that a coyote had approached the kill site from downwind, looking for an easy meal. Mom and kittens enjoyed coyote for desert. It’s rough world out there! Don
-
Some years ago we were at Yellowstone watching a grizzly eat an elk it had killed. After gorging itself for a few hours the bear took a nap on top the substantial remains. A coyote came in at a run, grabbed a huge chunk of meat almost from beneath the sleep bear and ran off with it. The bear raised its groggy head and watched the coyote go, too full-bellied and content to give chase.
Along this line, a Yellowstone grizzly bio whose name most here would know, once told me about seeing the “top predator” hierarchy revolve according to hunger. When a grizzly is hungry, it can take meat away from a whole pack of wolves. On the other hand he’d seen a bunch of coyotes run a grizzly off a carcass after it had fed. And so on with lion, wolves, bears and coyotes … the hungry fight more ferociously than the sated.
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.