Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

They just said on tv that a black lab saved 2 people from a mountain lion attack in California. What will it take for those peop

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • idahooutdoors
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • steve182
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rezavoirdog
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • ken.mcloud
    replied
    idahooutdoors-

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ken.mcloud
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • ken.mcloud
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jim in Mo
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • ken.mcloud
    replied
    Beekeeper-

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Beekeeper
    replied
    Mr. Mcloud,

    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • hjohn429
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • idahooutdoors
    replied
    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....

    Leave a comment:


  • ken.mcloud
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • ken.mcloud
    replied
    Beekeeper-

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • idahooutdoors
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • idahooutdoors
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Welcome!

Collapse

Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

Right Rail 1

Collapse

Top Active Users

Collapse

There are no top active users.

Right Rail 2

Collapse

Latest Topics

Collapse

Right Rail 3

Collapse

Footer Ad

Collapse
Working...
X