Mountain Lion Study

CrimsonArrow

Very Active Member
Feb 21, 2011
717
88
Minnesota
This article shows that if we let the cougar population get out of control, there won't be any game left for us. California won't have a deer left in a few years.
 

kidoggy

Veteran member
Apr 23, 2016
5,057
2,611
53
idaho
interesting.they are bigger pigs then I was aware of.

we should exterminate them all:rolleyes:;)
 

tdub24

Veteran member
Dec 15, 2011
1,179
62
Carlin, NV
I find it interesting that the males kill more moose and elk than deer during the summer months and the females kill more deer.
 

kidoggy

Veteran member
Apr 23, 2016
5,057
2,611
53
idaho
could be in part that the females are smaller . plus they they have the kittens so seek easier game ,while teaching them to hunt.


males , being males seek a challenge in the summer but in winter just take the easy kill
 

Timberstalker

Veteran member
Feb 1, 2012
2,242
2
Bend, Or
Oregon has done a study too, no hounds since 1992. Result= a lot less deer. Strikingly similar to the study California has been doing. My point is studies are worthless unless people actually apply the data.
 
Last edited:

kidoggy

Veteran member
Apr 23, 2016
5,057
2,611
53
idaho
Oregon has done a study too, no hounds since 1992. Result= a lot less deer. Strikingly similar to the study California has been doing. My point is studies are worthless unless people actually apply the data.
california does apply the data. it is an anti hunting state. what better way to get rid of hunters then to first get rid of the game they hunt??
 

tdub24

Veteran member
Dec 15, 2011
1,179
62
Carlin, NV
Oregon has done a study too, no hounds since 1992. Result= a lot less deer. Strikingly similar to the study California has been doing. My point is studies are worthless unless people actually apply the data.
I agree, hopefully all of our department of wildlife divisions are open to such data and can incorporate the data into the planning.
 

kidoggy

Veteran member
Apr 23, 2016
5,057
2,611
53
idaho
lions may eat more then wolves but wolves KILL MORE THEN LIONS!
have seen this firsthand so don't bother with a piechart .
I concede they both do a lot of killing but at lest we didn't have to spend billions to bring back lions to a region where they were not wanted against the wishes of those who actually live in said region.

instead of comparing how much a lion and wolf eat,which will never do anything to help the ungulates, I propose we kill as many as we can of each.
 
Last edited:

BuzzH

Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
499
84
But there's a lot more lions in MT, ID, and WY than there are wolves...do the math. Same with OR, CA, CO, NV, NM, UT, AZ, etc. etc.
 

kidoggy

Veteran member
Apr 23, 2016
5,057
2,611
53
idaho
But there's a lot more lions in MT, ID, and WY than there are wolves...do the math. Same with OR, CA, CO, NV, NM, UT, AZ, etc. etc.
so what. if they are all dead it no longer matters. your post does make my point though on how silly it was to reintroduce the wolves.

the lions are thriving on their own.
if the lions are such grand killers ,why were the wolves needed to "balance" the ecosystem????

by your own argument the reintroduction of wolves served no positive purpose . they are merely tools to be used then thrown away by the antis after they succeed in shutting down hunting and gun ownership for good.
 
Last edited:

BuzzH

Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
499
84
It may be so what to you...but in most of the West, its good for people to realize the impacts that lions have on big-game.

Not so you, or anyone else, can scream "kill them all" from the roof-tops, but to recognize the impacts and manage accordingly. Good to have solid data to weigh options and guide management...way better than knee-jerk (over) reaction. At least in my experience.
 

kidoggy

Veteran member
Apr 23, 2016
5,057
2,611
53
idaho
It may be so what to you...but in most of the West, its good for people to realize the impacts that lions have on big-game.

Not so you, or anyone else, can scream "kill them all" from the roof-tops, but to recognize the impacts and manage accordingly. Good to have solid data to weigh options and guide management...way better than knee-jerk (over) reaction. At least in my experience.
the "so what" was directed to your claim that wolves are better then lions for the ungulates because lions eat more. and I pointed out ,so what, both are bad.
but we both know you knew what I meant.
you can call it knee jerk but my statement is still true.

the only purpose the reintroduction of wolves served, is the ultimate destruction of hunting.
 
Last edited:

BuzzH

Active Member
Apr 15, 2015
499
84
the "so what" was directed to your claim that wolves are better then lions for the ungulates because lions eat more. and I pointed out ,so what, both are bad.
but we both know you knew what I meant.
you can call it knee jerk but my statement is still true.

the only purpose the reintroduction of wolves served, is the ultimate destruction of hunting.
If that's how you interpreted my post, that's on me that the message wasn't clear...not what I was trying to say regarding knee jerk reaction.

Too often, there is knee jerk reactions to wildlife management in general. Solid data and research help to ensure that doesn't happen.

It makes a whole bunch of sense to understand what's going on before we make decisions regarding wildlife management. Classic case is the lion study conducted in the Bitterroot...it was assumed by most (me included) that wolves were impacting calf elk the most...turned out that wasn't true.

I'm all about getting the horse in front of the cart...makes management much more effective, more cost effective, and actually leads you to a desired result.

Also, for the record, if the purpose of reintroducing wolves was to end hunting (which it wasn't)...consider that failed policy and mission not close to accomplished.

Gave myself and others another species to hunt though...
 

kidoggy

Veteran member
Apr 23, 2016
5,057
2,611
53
idaho
If that's how you interpreted my post, that's on me that the message wasn't clear...not what I was trying to say regarding knee jerk reaction.

Too often, there is knee jerk reactions to wildlife management in general. Solid data and research help to ensure that doesn't happen.

It makes a whole bunch of sense to understand what's going on before we make decisions regarding wildlife management. Classic case is the lion study conducted in the Bitterroot...it was assumed by most (me included) that wolves were impacting calf elk the most...turned out that wasn't true.

I'm all about getting the horse in front of the cart...makes management much more effective, more cost effective, and actually leads you to a desired result.

Also, for the record, if the purpose of reintroducing wolves was to end hunting (which it wasn't)...consider that failed policy and mission not close to accomplished.

Gave myself and others another species to hunt though...
sure ,sure but at what cost ! most would rather have the wolves gone and the elk back.

it is not yet accomplished but it is far from a failed mission.
even you can't honestly deny that the wolves are nothing but a money maker for the antis.

guess this probly isn't the place to discuss it though since this is a lion study thread.
 
Last edited: