Why Register?Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.
Welcome to Field & Stream!
Question by Del in KS. Uploaded on May 06, 2009
I just saw a thing one a "celebrity's" dog being taken by a coyote there too.
But they don't care, I think it would take(GOD FORBID), several children being taken, and then the'll just go after the one that does it instead of thinning them out. You know to them(cats) we're just two legged deer that can't run that fast.
They probably never will Del. They are up to their ears in breakfast cereal (fruits,nuts,and flakes). It is a shame too because California is a beautiful state, in addition to the time I spent in southern California in the San Diego/Camp Pendelton area, I have spent time with my Dad in the Barstow area as well as the northeastern part around Bridgeport and Yosemite area's. I have never been to a state where the voices of so many good, reasonable people are drowned out by the screaming leftists.
Unfortunately California is the Home of the most irrational group of leftists immaginable. Animals are more important than people, have more rights there.
Why Del would you ask? Those folks know that humans do nothing but intervene the wildlife's territory and we are a bother. What a joke!
It makes me sick and as many times as I've been there to visit my friend it's so hard to hold my tongue, as you may know.
It would take a mountain lion eating a politician but they taste like snake oil and BS so most cats have better sense.
i don't believe in mountain lion hunting too much. it's kinda like shooting a pheasant off the ground. you drive up in ur truck, roll down the window, and pop the thing like it was meant to happen. relating to mountain lion hunting, you tree it with ur dogs, you walk up to the tree, and shoot it from 25 yards. doesn't seem right to me.
I know that everyone assumes that hunting a predator will strengthen that predator's "fear of man". It just doesn't seem that obvious to me. Does anyone know of any scientific studies that conclude this?
Obviously if you set up a hunting program to dramatically reduce predator populations below their natural levels, density will go down, and so will encounters with humans. This is not really what I'm talking about.
If you assume that a hunting program allows the predator to maintain healthy population levels, then will it reduce attacks? Its an interesting question, and I'm not saying I know the answer to it.
I can think it through though:
It seems to me that there would be two possible reasons:
1)Individuals "learn" to fear people
This seems highly unlikely since any individual that "learns" that humans should be feared is killed before he has the opportunity to pass that information along.
2)The members of the population who don't fear humans would be weeded out, leaving only ones that do.
This seems more likely, sort of an evolutionary approach. It is however based on the assumption that most of the individuals taken by hunters are taken because they weren't afraid of man. Most kills don't exactly happen when a lion strolls up to a hunter while he is walking through the woods. So, this too seems rather unlikely.
What do you think?
IDK its retarded that they dont legalize it. But I probobly wouldnt go. well maybe I wouuld a couple of times.......ok i would go.
Have you ever hunted mountain lion? You know not of which you speak young man... Maybe if got away from a key board and actually participated you wouldn't be quite so opinionated...
The problem with large predators, especially those that are largely loners (females with cubs being the exception) is that they don't commune with a pack or pride, thus the pride does not collectively learn of danger from experience, much as a young child does by touching a hot stove. You are correct in your assumption the these cats must have some learning experience to convince them humans can inflict bodily harm. If I understand your questions(s) correctly, the mere fact that you would assume that they would some how "communicate" suggests anthropomorphic qualities that such animals simply do not posess.
These big cats as a matter of course hunt for their own survival. Large predators, like all animals (man included) have a genetic predisposition to conserving energy. They (we) don't work any harder in their natural environment than they have to. That means that prey is often chosen by how easy it is to catch. Domestic animals including pampered pooches and house cats don't put up much of a fight and don't posess really effective teeth and claws. They are also not bred for predator avoidance. This fact also applies very well to the California "Jogger", "Hiker" and "Walker". Their daily routes take them repeatedly through big cat habitat (literally by the clock) and a large predator soon comes to recognize them as an easy, relatively hairless, fangless and clawless source of protein. They are simply making the best of the situation and working as big predators always have, They take the weak, sick and defenseless.
Reid, you defenitly have never hunted cats with dogs in the Mountain West. It is far from easy, and if anything one of the toughest challenges in the woods. Pursuing cats in the mountains in the deep of winter is grueling, they often run into big steep country, and while they stay on top of the snow, you are often bucking it up to your waist. Not to mention the huge amounts of time, effort, and money put in to having good dogs. If you think you just let the dogs out, stroll up to a tree, and shoot a cat, your sorely mistaken. Once in awhile you may luck out with an easy tree, but for the most part you have to go to the extreme to get it done.
As far as California is concerned, a lack of predator control through hunting, means no predator control. We also should all know by now that these people hold an animals life above that of a human, and always blame any attack on the human victim, and hold all others blameless.
The "pass the information along" statement was mostly a rather poor attempt at humor (i.e. "a dead man tells no tales")
I realize that mountain lions don't really communicate between individuals with the exception of mothers teaching their cubs. Though the point still holds since a dead mother would not be able to teach her cubs to steer clear of humans.
I never denied that mountain lions will attack people or domestic animals (such a denial would be quite foolish)
I'm not against a well managed hunting program.
The point of my post was this:
If you assume that the hunting program maintains healthy population levels, can anyone explain how hunting would decrease the frequency of attacks?
I'm not saying that it definitely wouldn't, the reasoning just doesn't seem clear to me.
As for the person who left me negative feedback-
(I REALLY doubt it was beekeeper or Idahooutdoors)
You are a coward and likely an ignorant one!
I calmly stated a well thought out opinion and even stated that I didn't know the true answer.
one of two scenarios is possible:
1) You saw that my post was not a single-sentence liberal bash, decided that reading it would take too much effort and then gave it negative feedback for not simply saying "Yeah! Liberals suck! PETA hugs bunnies!"
2) You firmly believe and commonly state that hunting predators reduces human attacks. You have just assumed this to be true and never given it any deep thought. Faced with my thoughts, you were too cowardly to confront your own preconceptions so you just gave my post negative feedback instead of confronting the issue.
...so which is it?
Ken, I gave you a positive comment to even out the negative whomever out there dealt you. I like the fact you come from different directions on topics, it makes for valuable debate, to many go with the flow types in this country anymore, good to argue points even if you don't truely agree, making a decision with half the info is ignorant.
I don't know if hunting helps reduce lion attacks, but I do know this. Idaho has lots of lions, lots of lion hunting, few lion attacks. California has lots of lions, no lion hunting, lots of lion attacks. Only one variable in this equation is different............... it could be that vegetable eating Californians tast better than meat eating Idahoans, but since cats are meat eaters I doubt this is true........food for thought....
I agree. Kalifootlick needs to ledpeople hunt the mountain lions. I can't wait until one of those cats takes one of the governators dogs and kills it, even though I like dogs.
The predator prey relationship is indeed a complicated one. There are many factors and variables that affect the "balance" of such natural relationships.
As I stated in the previous post, domestic animals and to a certain extent people become prey due to abundance and ease of capture by large predators. Once a predator learns that poodles and people are an easy meal history is due to repeat itself, especially in a target rich, interspersed habitat such as the Golden State. Such a habit is easily passed onto offspring my a mother cougar with cubs. A predator lives off of its neighbors if you will.
There is but one way to reverse that situation on a permanent basis. Eliminate the predator and reduce thier numbers. In the case of large predators this has proven to be very effective. I realize my next statement is some what farcical, but when have you heard of a Cougar preying on humans in the eastern part of the US where they have been largely extirpated?
I don't believe in killing off any animal for doing what nature intended it to do; however, the situation in California does in my opinion warrant some type of cougar population reduction and or control. If this is not done, I fear that depredation of pets and humans will continue to escalate as more big cats learn about the easy meals behind the chain link fences and on the walking trails.
As for the demerit levied against you, I am the one responsible. I don't agree with your statement and I gave you a thumbs down as that is an option provided by the masters of this blog. I did read your post completey, infact several times over. I have been given a "thumbs down" on this blog for so much as posting a photo of two of my friends hunting quail. I doubt that individual was coward nor were they ignorant. I would suppose that they were merely not fans of quail hunting!
I Sir am no coward, if someone judges me ignorant, so be it. That is their opinion. I do not have to share in it as I do not have to share in the opinion which you rendered above.
I suggest that if one can not withstand the heat, one should not enter into the kitchen!
As I said, the cordial tone of yours and idahooutdoors' posts led me to [erroneously] assume that neither of you left the negative feedback. Since you two were the only ones who had commented, this meant I thought that someone left the negative without providing any opposing argument, hence the "ignorant coward" comment.
I made some false assumptions and I apologize, I do not think that you are ignorant or a coward.
Perhaps I am wrong, but I have always taken the negative feedback as a tool to be used when someone says something offensive, dangerous, blatantly false, etc... I personally do not use them when someone simply states an opinion that I disagree with.
Again, my interpretation of their purpose could be wrong.
An unsuccessful chase on a cougar is as good or better than a kill. It will put the fear of man in him/her, especially if it continues time and again. And I do feel the mother of a litter of cubs can somehow convey to her young to avoid man.
as for the topic at hand-
I don't think we are really in disagreement on my original post. I stated up front that my "analysis" (I use the word VERY loosely) was based on the assumption that the hunting program maintained a healthy predator population. I even stated that lowering predator populations would certainly reduce population density and thereby reduce attacks.
You stated that if the hunting program decreased predator populations, this would decrease attacks, I wholeheartedly agree. I was considering the case where the hunting program did not significantly reduce the population. Would that still reduce attacks?
It appears as though we are actually in agreement on this part of the debate, however, I must have done a poor job of conveying my point.
Once this is established the real question is whether or not we should be holding predator populations dramatically below their natural levels?
Are the marginal gains to the safety of the outdoors worth the long term ecological damage? Are the outdoors even supposed to be safe?
->these are really side issues to this debate. I'd be happy to open up another question if people are interested?
When I mentioned a scientific study I was talking about one very similar to the California - Idaho comparison that you talked about.
As I'm sure you already know a scientific study could produce much more certain results that your comparison.
There are many other variables that need to be measured. How many lions per square mile? how many people per square mile? how many of the person-lion interactions turned violent?
It would probably have to be conducted over large tracts of land like parks or national forests so that cities didn't skew the results.
I'm not saying that your conclusion is invalid, just that we would need to put some numbers to it before we based any decisions on it.
for instance, It is probably safe to assume that California's parks get more people traffic than the Idaho backcountry. It may even be the case that because of the hunting, Idaho lion densities are much lower.
Like I said, your conclusion could be right, I just don't think we could be sure without some actual numbers.
Mountain Lion hunting, from what I heard, is rigorous and some of the toughest hunting you'll do. Mountain Lions also have a huge hunting territory. I believe that they CAN range between a 20-40 mile radius from their den! I've only seen 1 large tom during bow season, that was enough to explain the lack and complete void of any sign or sight of deer, elk, or antelope in the 12 square-mile tract of land me and my friends were hunting! Man, all I can say is watch out and be careful when your outdoors!
California has a perfect mix of habitat, population and lack of hunting that allows these predators to exist and hunt effectively nearly in the backyards of those who wish to protect them. It's an interesting situation.
Jim in Mo. makes a good point about unsuccesful hunts instilling fear in the cats, i my humble opinion.
I should have also mentioned, if you want to see a Kitty photo, go to my profile as I posted a pic of one that was walking down a mountian trail in front of me last spring stalking my buddy who was ahead of me in the same trail. We were spot and stalk bear hunting at the time, due to the noise from the overflowing creek below I was afforded the opportunity to take some great pics while using my buddy as bait. The whole story is on my photo blog idahooutdoors.blogspot.com
Fieldandstream.com is part of the Field & Stream Network, a division of Bonnier Corporation.
Copyright © 2012 Bonnier Corp. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.