# How are Mountain Lion populations determined?



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I'd like to get some good info from you experts out there on the big cats. I have a basic understanding of population studies, but would love to hear some easy to understand info. Any thoughts on how game agencies determine populations? Are houndmen used to assist any population counts? If so, how? Thanks!


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

If you don't like or suspect the way big game counts are done you'll really think the way they estimate cougar populations is questionable. IMO I think they could do a much better job if they wanted to. The other thing is the UDWR has shy'd away from releasing figures or maybe even compiling them.

Last I checked *It was done on a formula based on acreage and perceived quality of habitat and available prey.*

Last published estimated put the statewide population from 2000 to 3000 cougar. :shock: So they really have a handle on it. :roll: Nobody believes this is a good estimation for today's population. (not even me) It's probably much lower than last estimates since there prey base has also decreased substantially.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Oh the latest quasi estimate for cougar populations is coming from harvest reporting of young cats being killed. 

So if lots of young cats are being harvested that means populations are low.

And a houndsman will tell you if the unit goes HO and is not fulfilled that too means that the population is low. Even though if you buy a HO tag you couldn't get a houndsman to take you out. 

And that's all I have to say about that. Sorry Stillhunterman I couldn't help myself.

o-||


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Iron Bear said:


> And that's all I have to say about that. Sorry Stillhunterman I couldn't help myself.
> o-||


LOL....no worries IB. I understand and empathize with your passion. I'm down with a nasty flu bug and reading long winded hard to understand, mathematically oriented reports helps me go to sleep.  I'm in the process of reading lots of info on cougar predation, predator and prey relationships and dynamics and to tell you the truth, so far in every single publication I've gone through from Montana, Colorado, Idaho, and Utah, none of those agencies have any more than a rough mathematical guess as to what the cougar populations are.

Now I did read something that said a much closer estimate can be made, but it is very time consuming, difficult, and takes lots of money to complete. So, seems we will be stuck with the other methods of population estimates. From the Utah 2008 Mountain Lion Status Report, the first mountain lion estimates were 2528-3936 by one method. A second population estimate of 2927 was arrived at by another method. Kinda similar in numbers.

Now normally I would pretty much agree with you not believing the numbers due to the reduction of the cat's prey base Iron Bear, but keep in mind that with the introduction of substantial elk numbers, the mountain lion easily falls back onto a secondary prey base without having to ebb and flow with prey numbers; they can remain fairly static with minimal fluctuations until the main prey source returns to higher numbers.

Bringing in the female/cubs ratio thingy kinda dumbfounds me at the moment, using those numbers to come to a population basis. Now, I also understand the managing dynamics are based on trends and such, not specifically population numbers. But that being said, how can we base these trend management styles on an estimated population base that might be off by as much as 50 percent? Makes a feller dizzy trying to think about it. Thoughts?


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

Unfortunately, mountain lions don't lend themselves to cheap, easy yet accurate population estimates. Biologists can't rent a helicopter for a day and count the number of lions standing on the ridgelines. The best they can do is guess using the acerage/habitat,prey model as IB mentioned. Houndsman surveys, harvest data, public comments, and the biologist's own intuition are used to get an idea of population trends, but everything is based on the acerage model.

Actual cougar population numbers are less significant, IMO, than population trends when it comes to managing the species. Hard numbers would be nice to have, but more important is whether the cougar population is increasing or decreasing in an area when it comes down to appropriating tags.

There is a lot of frustration on all sides of the lion debate about the difficulty in obtaining accurate population numbers. But, if anybody can come up with a better method that is cheap, easy, and accurate, I'm sure the DWR would love to hear about it.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

They could do what the houndsmen do, wait for snow, cover every canyon ,ridgeline, 
all the wintering big game areas.......EVERY FREAK'in square inch!

Most hounds men know almost every animal in any particular unit,
if they spend enough time 8)  

Thoughts :?: 
I've been running lions for 25 years, the cat numbers are the LOWEST right now
I've ever witnessed over that time period, cat numbers are WAAAY down..End of story.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I don't think it's possible to get a handle on the actual cougar population unless houndsman do it. 

As far as population trends and relation to prey base. I agree and understand that a cougar that eats deer regularly will switch prey as needed. Which would result in a short term lag in population decrease as primary prey base was decreased. But as a whole I don't believe as a species cougar have switched over to elk and in return avoided a population decrease. 

To back up my opinion. I don't think a cats kill rate is based on pounds of meat per kill. I believe they 1. Kill when they get the opportunity. 2. Kill when the last kill has been disturbed or is getting rotten. So what I am getting at is if a cougar's main diet was elk then it would probably kill nearly 50 elk per yr just like it does deer. I just don't think there are that many elk to feed the cougar. I rarely find dead elk about like I do deer. I estimate the cougars take in Utah, to be nearly 100,000 deer per yr or more. We just don't have the elk to do that. 

I don't have the figures at hand and cant remember the yrs but Monroe's elk herd crashed several yrs back. Like in half. IMO the timing made it plausible that what we are talking about occurred. The deer herd bottomed out and the cats turned to elk.

I'm sure cougar proponents are going to be reading this thread plenty. I ask you to read my signature. I am a reasonable man. I love all forms of wildlife, all be it not equally. My utopia consists of a win win for all sportsman. Even the houndsman.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Kevin D said:


> Actual cougar population numbers are less significant, IMO, than population trends when it comes to managing the species. Hard numbers would be nice to have, but more important is whether the cougar population is increasing or decreasing in an area when it comes down to appropriating tags.


Boy you sure hit the nail on the head with this statement. I wish we could put a sticky note on the forehead of every sportsmen and have them read this for a month straight every time they look in the mirror. This applies to ANY species.

Having hard numbers would do nothing more than satisfy curiousity. The science of managing game populations based on trends is very good and is sound science. The only fallacy is how individuals choose to interpret it and apply it. It is complex but if you understand it the method is extremely sound. The complexity can be used though to cloud issues and further agendas.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

So you would defer to houndsman to indicate the trend? That's scientific. We should do that with all species.

And when you're trying to manage for 100,000 deer hunters Mr UWN "average Joe" advocate. You better get a handle on something that kills around half of the annual recruitment equivalent.

I'd like a post it put on head of the DWR biologist and some of you guys head that reads *Mother nature never accounted for you and your hunt. So if you try to emulate her plan kiss your hunt goodbye.* Sorry all species cant win here.

Or maybe things are just the way they want them to be. :?


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> So you would defer to houndsman to indicate the trend? That's scientific. We should do that with all species.
> 
> And when you're trying to manage for 100,000 deer hunters Mr UWN "average Joe" advocate. You better get a handle on something that kills around half of the annual recruitment equivalent.
> 
> ...


IB I'm not all that interested in going blow to blow with you using quick witted rhetoric. It's boring.

You and I both know that what you posted above isn't even close to how it all works.

We both know that human intervention threw everything out of whack and human input will always be needed to conserve what we have left. Finding the right balance is extremely complex and the variables are always changing. The fact that we are always one step behing in finding balance speaks much more to the complexity of these issues than is does the stupidity of those trying to accomplish this task. But we have more now because of those efforts than if we would've sat back and did nothing.

We also both know that conservation and balance is much more complex than simply citing prey vs predator populations numbers. You can choose to lob heckles from the back of the room or help find real solutions. Your choice.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I'm comfortable with my statements.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Kevin D said:


> Unfortunately, mountain lions don't lend themselves to cheap, easy yet accurate population estimates. Biologists can't rent a helicopter for a day and count the number of lions standing on the ridgelines. The best they can do is guess using the acerage/habitat,prey model as IB mentioned. Houndsman surveys, harvest data, public comments, and the biologist's own intuition are used to get an idea of population trends, but everything is based on the acerage model.
> 
> Actual cougar population numbers are less significant, IMO, than population trends when it comes to managing the species. Hard numbers would be nice to have, but more important is whether the cougar population is increasing or decreasing in an area when it comes down to appropriating tags.
> 
> There is a lot of frustration on all sides of the lion debate about the difficulty in obtaining accurate population numbers. But, if anybody can come up with a better method that is cheap, easy, and accurate, I'm sure the DWR would love to hear about it.


Thanks for the input Kevin. The frustration that exists, as you say, is part of the reason for me starting this thread, and to bring about a bit of information on the whole process. There are many factors involved in wildlife management, and with mountain lions being such an elusive and solitary species, it makes many things more difficult. I understand and acknowledge the management aspect of population trending, as I said in my first post, but I would like this thread to delve a bit deeper than that.



goofy elk said:


> They could do what the houndsmen do, wait for snow, cover every canyon ,ridgeline,
> all the wintering big game areas.......EVERY FREAK'in square inch!
> 
> Most hounds men know almost every animal in any particular unit,
> ...


Thanks goofy. The idea you believe cat numbers are way down is NOT the end of the story, it just may be the beginning. Open your mind up to a bit of investigation here, and let's see if you houndsmen and others can provide a bit of enlightenment to the various aspects of cat populations and ultimately their viable management.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> Kevin D said:
> 
> 
> > Actual cougar population numbers are less significant, IMO, than population trends when it comes to managing the species. Hard numbers would be nice to have, but more important is whether the cougar population is increasing or decreasing in an area when it comes down to appropriating tags.
> ...


Frankly bullsnot, the stickly note should be attached to your own forehead. :shock: Those who understand the basic aspects of wildlife management understand the strategies and and design behind population trends and it's utilization. The fact that whenever a question regarding "population counts" is brought up, your own "agenda" of pushing this management tecnique above all other information is not doing justice to the full scope of biological factors that exist to allow the "trend management" philosophy and implementation to even exist. My post is intended as an informational one, and as it should, population trend management will be part of it.

To dismiss one's quarry as to how population numbers are obtained and utilized isn't quite where I wanted this to go. Like you said, wildlife management is a complex issue, and agenda's to pigion hole thinking does it no good. Let's think outside the box a bit, and see where it goes.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Now here is a question for you: Are the cougar numbers down in ALL areas of the state? or just in most? etc? I ask this because I recently was introduced into this world of hunting. It was thrilling and intense to say the least. I was able to hunt and kill a mature tom cougar on a HO unit the first day we tried. Not only did we cut the track at the beginning of the morning, we also jumped a second, larger tom while chasing my cat! We only covered a series of ridges and canyons that were about 3 miles long and 2 wide. Seems awful small to have had two mature toms running around (and given the sign all over this area, they had been hanging out for a while). So is this particular HO doing well, and others are not? Was this total random luck?


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Iron Bear said:


> I don't think it's possible to get a handle on the actual cougar population unless houndsman do it.
> 
> As far as population trends and relation to prey base. I agree and understand that a cougar that eats deer regularly will switch prey as needed. Which would result in a short term lag in population decrease as primary prey base was decreased. But as a whole I don't believe as a species cougar have switched over to elk and in return avoided a population decrease.
> 
> ...


I also believe that a balance eco system is very important, and eliminating one critter completely to enhance another is simply not a good way to manage. A couple of questions to all:

1.How can cougar populations be sampled to measure mean crowding? And is that even a neccessity?

2.What is the proper quadrant size to measure?

3.How can we determine whether cougars even react to crowding? I think this speaks to their distribution and ultimately population counts...but maybe not?

Thanks for keeping things informational and civil even though this is a highly emotional subject. 

Kevin/goofy: Here is a study that speaks to what you two are talking about, especially utilizing houndsmen to help in the tracking during snow periods. A bit difficult to follow the math, but the results in population determinations are interesting. Are these methods along the lines you guys would think viable and current?

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/Ru ... ndance.pdf


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

johnnycake said:


> Now here is a question for you: Are the cougar numbers down in ALL areas of the state? or just in most? etc? I ask this because I recently was introduced into this world of hunting. It was thrilling and intense to say the least. I was able to hunt and kill a mature tom cougar on a HO unit the first day we tried. Not only did we cut the track at the beginning of the morning, we also jumped a second, larger tom while chasing my cat! We only covered a series of ridges and canyons that were about 3 miles long and 2 wide. Seems awful small to have had two mature toms running around (and given the sign all over this area, they had been hanging out for a while). So is this particular HO doing well, and others are not? Was this total random luck?


Good question, and one I hope to be able to evaluate during this fact finding venture! :mrgreen:


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I guess another question would be if lion populations are much lower than the figures we have from the DWR original estimates, why would that be? Hunters haven't killed that many over the years have they, or have they? And if they have, are the trend management techniques utilized flawed?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well johnny, There are a few spots that lions in Utah are doing well, one of which is
right a long the Wasatch front, from Draper north to bountiful. More there than anywhere.

Now to answer your question about the Henry's, You picked the right year to fall into it!
This has bee a banner year for lion harvest there, 5 total so far for 2012/13.....
Hasn't been that good down on the Henry's since I cleaned them out in 2002-05...

Now if you look at the last 4 years you'll understand why it was so good for you.

In 2011 , there was only one female harvested off the Henry's.
2010 was worse, Zero lions harvested.
2009 there was 1 tom and 1 female come off that range, 2008 was the same , 2 cats.

So this year , there's been as many killed in just the last few weeks as there was since 2007..

2002 was a good year, caught the snow just right one time and cut 19 cats from Star spring
CG north through Pennell pass/ Horn to Apple brush flat, Yes 2002 was the last year there was,
A lot , of cats on the Henry's, I suspect it will slow back down for a few years again.....


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

johnnycake said:


> Now here is a question for you: Are the cougar numbers down in ALL areas of the state? or just in most? etc? I ask this because I recently was introduced into this world of hunting. It was thrilling and intense to say the least. I was able to hunt and kill a mature tom cougar on a HO unit the first day we tried. Not only did we cut the track at the beginning of the morning, we also jumped a second, larger tom while chasing my cat! We only covered a series of ridges and canyons that were about 3 miles long and 2 wide. Seems awful small to have had two mature toms running around (and given the sign all over this area, they had been hanging out for a while). So is this particular HO doing well, and others are not? Was this total random luck?


Here is the test to determine how big of a factor luck was in your hunt JC, go out the next weekend, and the weekend after, and maybe a few more more weekends after that, and see if you get the same results. My guess is that if you spent an entire season on the unit and not just a day or two, you'd realize how incredibly lucky you were.

It's probably been 4 years or more since I hunted down in your country Goofy, so I don't have a feel what's going on with your lion population. I know our lion population on the Cache hit rock bottom about 5 or 6 years ago after more than a decade of harvest objective. Since we've gone back to being a draw unit, more hunters have been passing on the females and our lion population has actually improved somewhat. I have almost regained a sense of optimism that I can find something to run when I head out the door in the morning.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Down were I am Kev, Manti-Nebo-Wasatch, is a mixed bag now...WAS AWESOME for
a long time. Now, The Wasatch is doing doing the best by far, still LE only...

Nebo was split into 2 units 7 years ago, Nebo,West face was HO hunting. 
No one hunted STEEP Nebo mountain, We cleaned it out , there were a lot of cats..

Long story short, they turn Manti and the entire Nebo units to split/HO hunting...
Only took 2-3 years and the cats are thinned out considerably.....
Really sucks watching a species being hammered to almost nothing, and then listen
to deer hunters blame the demise of deer on lions.....Hard to hold back when you/I know
it's total BS....


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

I can see this thread is going nowhere fast, too bad, there is much that can be learned and expressed if given half a chance.

Thanks for the pm goofy. I would much prefer comments and discussions be made here, so readers can get the full benefit.

You should know me by now, I am the least combative person I know with a great deal of latitude in most things, and for the most part try to keep emotions out of my posts, but sometimes it happens. ;-) I have never questioned your knowledge of hunting cats, or what you feel are numbers of cats in various units, but you are hard headed at times.

My point of the post is to learn a bit more for myself, and provide information to those who don't have it. It's a highly emotional issue with mud slinging on both sides. What I want to establish is how populations of cats are established, how accurate that is, and how those populations are kept viable through management of population trends. Also, I want folks to understand how and why the division does what it does, and why the houndsmen do/say what they do, wash it all together and come out to some semblance of understanding.

I don't know of ANY conservationist or biologist that blames the demise of the mule deer on cats specifically, none, period. What I do know, is nearly all of them understand that with a depressed deer herd, cats can and do keep that herd suppressed to a point it can remain static for years, especially if other factors such as habitat come into play.

You know and I know that if a deer herd is healthy, it can and will sustain a viable, hunt-able population of predators, cats, bears, yotes, etc., and continue to flourish. But where do we as hunters draw the line? We have to have the right knowledge with which to base our opinions, otherwise why make the effort? It irks me to no end to have such dissension between the various hunter/method groups; it's no way to gain meaningful headway. To that end, let me ask you this: Do you think the DWR having a Predator Management Policy that increases the number of lion tags in areas where mule deer and sheep are below objectives is a good idea or a bad one?


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

I'll answer your question Stillhunterman, How are lion populations determined?

They are determined and controlled by hounds men!

Hounds men out there complaining about no lions have no one to blame but themselves..

I, for one am complaining about low lion populations, so, there for I'm not Helping/guiding
any more lion hunts until thing change, and haven't for 2 years now........

Another note,,I also have 9 lion bonus points right now, and I may very well never use them...


----------



## BLACKEYE (Feb 1, 2012)

How about any aggressive lion harvest advocate answer me this.

SHOW ME THE RESULTS?

I sure hear a ton of deer hunters still crying on here!

Since the mid 90's the harvest objective free for all on lions has been on. Led by the group "$portsmen for Wealthy" whom countless times I heard "this is the an$wer". 

Now they have a new an$wer.

Goofy glad to hear you wised up "let em be"!


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

stillhunterman said:


> Do you think the DWR having a Predator Management Policy that increases the number of lion tags in areas where mule deer and sheep are below objectives is a good idea or a bad one?


We were under a predator management plan here on the Cache for a number of years. The number of lion tags issued went from 7 draw tags annually to 30 harvest objective tags. The first couple years it was a cougar slaughter up here, we had guides from literally all over the west (this was pre guide licensing days) show up to hammer the herd. Soon, however, the harvest of lions fell off as there was hardly anything left to kill. The next few years the vast majority of the harvest objective tags went unfilled.

What was the effect on the deer herd with so many cougar taken off the unit?? Nada. About the time deer numbers were beginning to show signs of improvement, a harsh winter would come along and wipe out any gains. There were some years during this time where the winter kills were piled up so high that there weren't enough scavengers to clean up the carcasses.

Here's the thing stillhunterman, nearly all houndsman are deer and elk hunters too. Most of us would be willing to sacrifice a few lions if we seen this as an effective way to restore mule deer herds. But this hasn't been the case. In areas such as the Cache where an aggresive predator management plan (at least with cougars) has been implemented, results have been disappointing. Killing out the lions has failed to bring deer herds back to management objectives.

So from a houndsman's perspective, not only don't we have any deer, but now we don't have any lions either. It has turned out to be a lose-lose scenario.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Exact same thing for the sheep management areas on Timp, Cascade, and West face nebo.

Went to HO lion hunting, Killed that vast majority of cats, Sheep have died off to the point
they are now NON-huntible sheep units......A loose, loose management scenario...

Now we have 3 units close to urban areas with NO sheep and NO lions :evil:


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

In regards to cougar population studies, I participated in a USU/DWR back in 1997 and again in 1998. In it, the Cache unit was subdivided into 25 different areas with a different houndsmen assigned each small area for an intensive two weekend hunt before the kill season opened. The idea was to saturate the area with hound doggers and collect DNA samples from as many cougar as possible to later compare with the lions checked in during the normal harvest.

The first year we were given a sticky mouse pad, kinda like fly paper except designed for rodents, to stick to the cougar and hopefully pull out a wad of hair including follicles. Unfortunately, these sticky rodent traps were not designed for colder temperatures (the study was in early December) so extracting hair samples that included the hair follicles proved impossible. As I recall, only 4 lions were captured that first year and I was in on two of them....and though I tried, I don't think I was able to collect a usable DNA sample off of either one of them.

The next year we were given a long pole with a biopsy needle we could attach to the end. The idea was to poke the lion and the biopsy needle would remove a small amount of tissue that could then be analyzed. I even had a biologist with me that first day when I caught a small tom, and try as we may, we never could get the biopsy needle to grab the piece of tissue like it was supposed to. That poor lion had more holes in him than a pin cushion before we finally gave up.

After that, I think they gave up on the study. Few lions were caught during the time period for a variety of reasons and even fewer useful DNA samples were collected. It does demonstrate how difficult it is to do a thorough population estimate on cougar.


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

Kaibab, Pine Valley, Zions, Morgan county, Henry's, Panguitch, Alton, Heaston, Deseret and any other self respecting CWMU.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

stillhunterman said:


> [Frankly bullsnot, the stickly note should be attached to your own forehead. :shock:


Haha, ok. The reality is there is no cost effective way to do it. Period. This is your thread and we can talk all day long about hard population numbers if you like but that's the reality. That is the whole reason why trends became the accepted science rather than using hard numbers.

PS - I didn't mean to be insulting and I wasn't directing my statement at you, rather I was just trying to be direct.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

Iron Bear said:


> I'm comfortable with my statements.


That's fine but if you read the cougar management plan there are all kinds of factors used to determine the trend and health of a cougar population and to balance prey vs predator.

1 - Average age of harvest
2 - Sex of harvest
3 - Average number of trees per day
4 - Adult mule deer doe mortality (mortality gets above 15% then more aggressive quotas are put in place)

Based on the above criteria and the numbers over the past few years I was say that Goofy and Blackeye are probably right and the cats in this state have taken an absolute beating and it hasn't helped the deer population one bit. We are harvesting a high number of females and they are young. That tells biologists that cat populations are weak. The males that are being harvested are young. The average number of trees per day is way down. Adult doe mortality is based on radio collared deer, not hunters surveys, not houndsman surveys but hard data.

Every unit is different and there are exceptions but by and large that's the truth.

Deer populations trends are not based on hunter surveys, that's only a small piece of the pie. Like the cat plan there are many complex factors that determine deer numbers and management strategies.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I honestly don't think anyone has a clue to the overall population. Trends, probably. But real numbers-- like counting needles in a hay stack. I'd wager the cat population is down from the 1990s, but then so is the prey base. Porcupines, rabbits, deer, etc... all down so why not the predator also.

In the early 2000s the UDWR pounded the cats from Alpine to Provo Canyon in an effort to save sheep. They killed over 40 cougars in a year's time on that small area. The biologists I talked with had no idea there were that many cats there. And after they slaughtered the cats the deer herd rebounded (of course predators are not the only answer). Too bad the Front Nursery Cougar population moves cats onto surrounding areas so easily. 

You have the experienced houndsmen who say they won't kill any and you have the new guys who don't have the experience to catch them.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Interesting info goofy. That is definitely worth noting. Personally, having killed a cougar now, I have no desire to kill one again. Chase one down? Heck yeah! that was a riot! It was a neat way to see a version of catch and release hunting as a possibility.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Kevin D said:


> stillhunterman said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think the DWR having a Predator Management Policy that increases the number of lion tags in areas where mule deer and sheep are below objectives is a good idea or a bad one?
> ...


Sorry for the delay in replying, been fighting some nasty bugs. I appreciate your comments Kevin, and understand them. A couple things on my mind: It really is frustrating that two hunting groups can't seem to come to a satisfactory compromise, ending this emotional battle. I certainly understand that both sides have big dogs in the fray, but at some point a little bit of give and take (voluntary) has to come into play.

Most deer hunters I talk to are absolutely certain that if the game and fish departments wage an all out war on predators, the deer herds will rebound. Unfortunately that isn't quite the case. Although lions are a part of the mule deers problem of rebounding, they are probably not the major cause, although that is still to be determined, as is the case with coyotes. And the lion hunters are so sure the population is in the tanks, many refuse to kill any more cats, skewing the kill numbers and giving the impression of major declines in numbers. Another thought is the actual lion numbers: In order to maintain a comprehensive "trend management plan", the population baseline should be as accurate as possible, and it isn't, period. Sure, there is no cost effective way of determining that population, but cost effective is a relevant term. Can it be done? Yep. Will it be costly? Yep. Should it be done? Yep. Here is a Peer Reviewed Summary taken from the 'Evaluation of Cougar Population Estimators in Utah' :

"Summary
*Despite extensive research there remains no single reliable and
cost-effective technique for estimating cougar abundance. *Track
estimators performed poorly as individual indices of population
size; however, proportional changes over time were well related to
similar proportional changes in indices. *No single method other
than costly capture and radiotelemetry study provides a panacea to
the problem of enumerating cougar populations.* Conservative
application of indices derived from multiple techniques will
provide the most confidence in short-term management decisions;
however,* better estimates require an initial population estimation
period employing marking techniques to establish a baseline for
comparison in subsequent years. *Despite the allure of lower-cost
index measures, the lack of sensitivity to population changes by
indices, particularly over time scales involved in management
decisions (e.g., annual harvests), warrants considerable caution in
their application. Where surveys of any form are not possible,
alternative approaches may be used to assist in guarding against
uncertainty in management decisions. For example, careful timing
of hunting seasons to protect young cougars and females, limiting
the level of females harvested, and monitoring the age and sex
class of animals in the harvest may help prevent population
declines (CMGWG 2005). In addition, 2 large-scale options have
been proposed that recognize the interconnected but patchy
distribution of cougar populations: a metapopulation approach
(Laundre´ and Clark 2003, Stoner et al. 2006) and zone
management (Logan and Sweanor 2001, CMGWG 2005). A
metapopulation approach considers the spatial arrangement and
connectivity of subpopulations to allow for several to serve as
sources or refuges relative to more heavily hunted sinks. Zone
management extends this functionally to larger regions, which are
adaptively managed for hunting, for control (i.e., predator
reduction), or as a refuge. Monitoring plans that target specific
populations within these frameworks for more accurate estimation
may provide a reasonable compromise."

It seems to me by knowing a more precise estimation of our lion population, a more comprehensive management program could be initiated that would benefit all involved. Who is to say the numbers are off by as much as 50 percent? They very well could be, given all the population estimate indicators I've read. And if that's so, along with the hounds-men reducing the number of kills, and other management strategies involved, there might be way more cats than folks realize, or, there may be way LESS cats.

We just keep going round and round and everyone is busting out the emotional rants. Where do we go from here? Is it worth it to find the funds to establish a much more accurate baseline of lion populations here in Utah? Is it worth it to both deer and lion hunters? Seems to me it just might be, even if just to reduce the irresponsible emotional bantering between the groups.

I think Iron Bear has some legitimate concerns, and is too often bashed for expressing them. Initially, the UCMP was to incorporate lion populations to establish a quality recreational opportunity for a minimum of 800 'persons' through 200(and by the way, the very first Utah Cougar Management Plan was formed in 2009, just 13 short years ago ). Does anyone think that has been accomplished? Are those 800+ 'persons' less important that the 100,000 deer hunters? Or the 200,000 deer more important than the 2000 lions? Lot's to think about here it seems to me, and NOTHING is black and white as some seem to always elude to.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> stillhunterman said:
> 
> 
> > [Frankly bullsnot, the stickly note should be attached to your own forehead. :shock:
> ...


It's all good.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Kevin D said:


> In regards to cougar population studies, I participated in a USU/DWR back in 1997 and again in 1998. In it, the Cache unit was subdivided into 25 different areas with a different houndsmen assigned each small area for an intensive two weekend hunt before the kill season opened. The idea was to saturate the area with hound doggers and collect DNA samples from as many cougar as possible to later compare with the lions checked in during the normal harvest.
> 
> The first year we were given a sticky mouse pad, kinda like fly paper except designed for rodents, to stick to the cougar and hopefully pull out a wad of hair including follicles. Unfortunately, these sticky rodent traps were not designed for colder temperatures (the study was in early December) so extracting hair samples that included the hair follicles proved impossible. As I recall, only 4 lions were captured that first year and I was in on two of them....and though I tried, I don't think I was able to collect a usable DNA sample off of either one of them.
> 
> ...


Interesting info Kevin, thanks. I have a hunch things have changed a bit since back then in relation to how these studies and techniques go. Sorry the one you participated in went in the crappers. Hopefully, some good info was learned on what NOT to do on future studies.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Another thought, most folks don't take into concideration,is that lion's (and bears)
only reproduce ,generaly, every 2 to 3 years... This is important when looking 
at lion population numbers. And their ability to recover form surpressed numbers.


----------



## bullsnot (Aug 10, 2010)

stillhunterman said:


> Although lions are a part of the mule deers problem of rebounding&#8230;.


I'm not sure that's the case. I think there may be some exceptions to this rule but in short cat populations have been hugely decreased in some areas and have shown no positive reaction in deer numbers. 


stillhunterman said:


> And the lion hunters are so sure the population is in the tanks, many refuse to kill any more cats, skewing the kill numbers and giving the impression of major declines in numbers.


I suppose this is possible but the reality is when we look at the numbers they tend to support houndsmen assertions that cat numbers are very low. Biologically speaking we are killing a lot more females than the plan calls for. The goal is that 17%-20% of the harvest be females. The last few years the female harvest average statewide has been around 30%-33%. Well above the target harvest. The age of those females and males harvested are very young. Many of the cats killed are likely cats that are out looking for new territories. When we kill a high number of these types of cats this tells biologists that the resident population of cats is either very small or non-existent. Killing lots of females as well indicates that cat populations are low because it is so difficult to find a tom since toms represent a much smaller portion of the population than females do.


stillhunterman said:


> Another thought is the actual lion numbers: In order to maintain a comprehensive "trend management plan", the population baseline should be as accurate as possible, and it isn't, period. Sure, there is no cost effective way of determining that population, but cost effective is a relevant term. Can it be done? Yep. Will it be costly? Yep. Should it be done? Yep. Here is a Peer Reviewed Summary taken from the 'Evaluation of Cougar Population Estimators in Utah' :
> It seems to me by knowing a more precise estimation of our lion population, a more comprehensive management program could be initiated that would benefit all involved. Who is to say the numbers are off by as much as 50 percent?


I don't completely disagree with you. In a perfect world knowing exactly what your population is would be the best way to manage them along with all other species. What I do disagree with is that it is feasible and critical that we do determine hard population numbers. At least not now. We know that cougar numbers are way down. And its not just about raw numbers, its about a "healthy" population meaning there are enough members of each age class and sex to have a sustainable population. 
Also included in your quoted literature was this:
"For example, careful timing
of hunting seasons to protect young cougars and females, limiting
the level of females harvested, and monitoring the age and sex
class of animals in the harvest may help prevent population
declines (CMGWG 2005)."
As I mentioned above these indicators are in the current management plan and results collected show that cougar populations are dwindling.


stillhunterman said:


> We just keep going round and round and everyone is busting out the emotional rants. Where do we go from here? Is it worth it to find the funds to establish a much more accurate baseline of lion populations here in Utah? Is it worth it to both deer and lion hunters? Seems to me it just might be, even if just to reduce the irresponsible emotional bantering between the groups.


Is it worth spending a whole bunch of money to prove what we already know? This is the same argument we have with deer. They only way some people can win the argument is to say the science is hogwash. So if we use more science to prove the existing science is right then what stops those same people from saying your new science is hogwash? They can still claim the numbers have been doctored and that the process is still flawed. 


stillhunterman said:


> I think Iron Bear has some legitimate concerns, and is too often bashed for expressing them. Initially, the UCMP was to incorporate lion populations to establish a quality recreational opportunity for a minimum of 800 'persons' through 200(and by the way, the very first Utah Cougar Management Plan was formed in 2009, just 13 short years ago ). Does anyone think that has been accomplished? Are those 800+ 'persons' less important that the 100,000 deer hunters? Or the 200,000 deer more important than the 2000 lions? Lot's to think about here it seems to me, and NOTHING is black and white as some seem to always elude to.


IB has some valid concerns if the facts that he bases them on were correct. Many of his views go back to what I said above and he just says the science is hogwash so that he has the room to make his concerns be true. He believes that there is a conspiracy out there to limit the deer population, or at least deer hunting opportunity for humans, as a way to make hunting more profitable for a few by limiting supply against a growing demand. He believes that with less cougars more humans would have the ability to hunt. Yet when myself and others make the point that predation is not the same as hunting and predation has its place in the balance of things he will come back with rhetoric rather than addressing the point. 
Hunters only harvest bucks during a short period of the year. Some predation is needed to weed out sick and weak animals all year long and of both sexes to keep disease from spreading and weaker animals from procreating. This keep animals that likely won't make it through the winter from eating forage that stronger animals could be eating. This makes the overall population stronger. The key is managing the cougar and the deer in harmony in a way that keeps the balance healthy and still maximizes hunting opportunity of mule deer. That is a tall order, no doubt but in short after all these words the simple truth is that science tells us that killing more cats in Utah is not going to help deer numbers in Utah. Even if we knew exactly how many cats had. My mind is open and I'm willing to change that opinion in the face of more compelling evidence.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Spot on Bull! You've got it right. 
Glad your on the RAC committee were it makes a difference,you understand the issues, and know what is truly going on with lions in Utah.. :O||: 

Now, let's do something with the deer and elk herds on Nebo


----------



## Iron Bear (Nov 19, 2008)

I wonder how them uneducated boys got the deer population to explode back in the 30's to 70's. 

I wonder how states east of the Mississippi can afford to harvest 500X the animals then out west despite 50X the population. And 1/10th the acreage. No public land in Pennsylvania but 3 times as many hunters as Utah. Are they all elites, wealthy? Nope they are necessary to control the population. Because Penn state doesn't have 1 cougar for every 100 deer. That would put that cougar population about 10,000 in Penn. Do that and tell the 300,000 deer hunters who harvested over 300,000 deer last yr in Penn state that 10,000 cougar are a nonfactor in why they cannot harvest 300,000 deer anymore.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^HABITAT, HABITAT, HABITAT, HABITAT!!!!!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's why the deer 'exploded' from the 30's right up through the early 80's.................


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Spot on Bull! You've got it right.
> Glad your on the RAC committee were it makes a difference,you understand the issues, and know what is truly going on with lions in Utah.. :O||:


I second that bullsnot........I'm comforted to know there are those in decision making circles that can see through all the smoke and hot air and understand the issue without all the emotion. Thanks.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

bullsnot said:


> > I'm not sure that's the case. I think there may be some exceptions to this rule but in short cat populations have been hugely decreased in some areas and have shown no positive reaction in deer numbers.
> 
> 
> My bad, my statement was a bit general so your response is understandable. Biologists and game departments believe potential exists for predators (including cougars) to limit mule deer herds from growing/rebounding when certain conditions exist, hence, some game agencies including Utah have established PMP's (predator management plans) to mitigate as best they can these perceived threats. "Manage cougar populations to reduce predation on big game herds that are chronically below objective when cougar predation is a potentially limiting factor to herd growth recovery." That was all I was eluding to.
> ...


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

Sorry about the separate posts, I am too wordy :shock:. This new format is giving me fits but I will learn it in time.

Bullsnot quotes:



> This is the same argument we have with deer. They only way some people can win the argument is to say the science is hogwash. So if we use more science to prove the existing science is right then what stops those same people from saying your new science is hogwash? They can still claim the numbers have been doctored and that the process is still flawed.


I really don't care to 'win the argument'. And I never said anything about 'the science being hogwash'. On the contrary, I believe it will be the science that ultimately determines which direction our hunting heritage takes. It's my deepest hope and wish that it is the wildlife that "wins the argument", and that we as hunters can benefit by that 'win'. Thankfully, the wildlife biological scientific community doesn't think as you assert above. If they did, the UDWR would not have implemented so many changes into the current plan that were missing from the first one (much of which is based on new studies that shed light on passed misconceptions and new developments). 


Scientific knowledge builds itself upon the successes and failures of studies. Wildlife biology is learning with each and every one that is completed. They can cross previous things off the list and add new one to the knowledge base as study progresses. 

But I do understand why you would say what you did. How do biologists know what to believe? Which studies can be relied upon? Peer reviewed?
It can be a dilemma. 

Take for instance the Kaibab predator study and it's consequences. Here is a portion of what Dr. Charles E. Kay said:


"&#8230;There are two other messages that readers need to take to heart. Just because something is published in a learned journal does not mean it is correct or even that it is not a scientific fraud. Consensus is the antithesis of science. Science progresses by testing hypotheses with data collected in the real world. Moreover, one should never trust models or modelers unless one first understands all the underlying assumptions, which unfortunately and often not stated - such as neither Caughley nor Leopold ever mentioning Native Americans, though, the unspoken and unwritten assumption was that native people could be ignored. Once you understand all the basic assumptions and the math involved, then you need to go through the computer codes line by line, as all sort of things can be hidden in the actual computer program. And finally, a detailed sensitivity analysis needs to be conducted and fully reported.



You also need to consider if the modeler has a larger, often hidden, political agenda. Then and only then might you be able to put some credence in the model, or the model's output. How Caughley was able to publish different variations of his model in the learned journals that he did, without any of the model's major defects having been brought to light, until now, is certainly an indictment of the scientific process, as practiced in modern times. But then it appears that everyone had his or her own political agenda, all of which involved shading the truth. Unfortunately, some biologists have become as adept at spinning "the facts" as politicians." 



It's a pretty interesting take on the Kaibab deal. It's ramifications are still being felt today, and will probably continue to last for decades&#8230;or more. 

http://www.idahoforwildlife.com/Cha...inciddent-myths-lies and scientific fraud.pdf











> Hunters only harvest bucks during a short period of the year. Some predation is needed to weed out sick and weak animals all year long and of both sexes to keep disease from spreading and weaker animals from procreating. This keep animals that likely won't make it through the winter from eating forage that stronger animals could be eating. This makes the overall population stronger. The key is managing the cougar and the deer in harmony in a way that keeps the balance healthy and still maximizes hunting opportunity of mule deer. That is a tall order, no doubt but in short after all these words the simple truth is that science tells us that killing more cats in Utah is not going to help deer numbers in Utah. Even if we knew exactly how many cats had. My mind is open and I'm willing to change that opinion in the face of more compelling evidence.


I hear what you are saying Kris. We've sat in on the same meetings and generally have the same basic thoughts. I also understand the need for predators (cougars) in our eco system. Yes they provide a more balanced system; even though we will never achieve a truly balanced system while humans have the effect they do on that same system. Predators do indeed, kill the weak and the sick, and help the spread of disease. They also kill the healthy. 




I agree it's a tall order to come to a common agreement. As you know, predation is a highly emotional subject, always has been always will be. Social issues drive predation management just as hard as biology does, unfortunately. The wildlife game agencies have one tough job, no doubt. But, as John (the dwr bio speaking at the last WB emergency cougar meeting) said, and I'm paraphrasing here: Unfortunately wildlife biology in today's world sometimes means having to favor one animal population over another&#8230; Unfortunately I think he is right.


Actually, science tells us that reducing predator (cougar) numbers MAY NOT have a positive affect on growing mule deer numbers. That same science tells us that in certain situations, in POSSIBLE combination with other factors, reducing cougar populations MAY help reduced mule deer numbers grow. The science at this point is inexact, but is making great headway. 


To make claims with "absolute" assertions as to what the science does and does not prove as you've done several times in this post, provides a breeding ground of turmoil and mistrust in the hunting community. We need to be cautious, as the biologists are, when interpreting the 'science'.



Finally, after all these words, I stand by my belief that the better the information wildlife biologists have, the better they can do their job. If that means finding the money to quell their own stated concerns with regards to more accurate cougar population numbers, then I'm all for it. 

We all want the same thing, it's just a matter as to how we get there I guess. Those groups who seek to end our hunting heritage use many of the same studies our wildlife biologists do to push their own agendas. They also do their own in much the same manner as the Kaibab study I referenced above.

 For the good of our wildlife, for the good of our heritage, and for the good of hunters everywhere, I hope we can find the money and solidarity so the science continues to where we learn new and better ways to protect our wildlife and our future therein, and stop focusing on symptoms of a much larger problem.


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Well, Anyone cut any lion tracks since the new season opened?


----------



## Kevin D (Sep 15, 2007)

goofy elk said:


> Well, Anyone cut any lion tracks since the new season opened?


The couple times I've been out I haven't cut anything, I've been mostly catching up on my duck hunting though. I do know of a couple toms that have hit the ground here locally, one on the Cache unit and one on the Ogden unit. Both were around 140 lbs, nice young cats but nothing huge. With the weather turning more conducive to cat hunting, I'm going to start hitting it harder though.

How about yourself??


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

Tell you what Kev, SLIMEST picking's I've EVER SEEN!,,, In 25 YEARS!

Now, the snow hasn't been the best, But there has been enough,
I've coverd a couple hundered miles now and cut ONE juvanile female ...
Whoopde-do.:-x.:sad:..........

Even more surpising, Whatching the deer herds I'm watching, 
DAILY going on 2 months now, usually, I can pick out a cat track or two 
in the dirt, OR find a kill in the amount of time I've spent ..........
This year, NOTHING so far...................Sell the dogs.:sad:.,,Unfortunatly...


----------



## goofy elk (Dec 16, 2007)

OMG,,,,, Cut another juvenile female today....Whoopee...:-|//


----------



## sunshine12 (Apr 16, 2009)

would have love to cut a juvenile female this weekend! have some young dogs that need the experiance


----------

