Mountain lion,live and let live,CA


PDA






gunsmith
June 28, 2004, 10:27 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/27/INGTO7A93B1.DTL
Imagine, for a moment, that you are a mountain lion living in the foothills above Mountain View or Palo Alto. Let's say a couple of years ago, you were born along with one or two siblings. Now you are young adults. All you want to do is get away from mom and the rest of the family.

Unfortunately for you, either other mountain lions or, more likely, a ranch or estate owner, has taken all of the view lots and creekside properties in the mountains behind you. So where do you go? Down. Down to the suburbs, cities and towns between Interstate 280 and the bay.

You soon find your life imperiled. Not only by police officers with no training in wild animal control, but by the very same things that endanger all of the humans down here. Drunk drivers and distracted drivers. Muggings, random gunfire, gang shootouts. Pit bulls.

As the mountain lion, you have to negotiate this extremely hostile environment created by the mammals that walk on two legs. Yet, those mammals consider you the threat.

The truth is that every year exponentially more people are killed or injured by one of the hazards of modern life mentioned above than have ever been harmed by a mountain lion. The Department of Fish and Game has verified a total of 12 mountain lion attacks on humans since 1890 -- and just half of these proved fatal.

Every time there is a spate of mountain lion encounters, embittered trophy hunters like to blame 1990's Proposition 117. That initiative, which voters passed into law, placed a permanent ban on sport hunting of mountain lions.

Now, mountain lions suddenly are everywhere -- from Morgan Hill to the East Bay. It seems possible that any day now, someone will come home to find one lounging on the couch, eating an It's-It and watching the Animal Channel.

No one wants to be mauled or have their soft organs dined on by a mountain lion. But encounters with cougars are hardly a surprise when about half of California is considered mountain lion habitat. In all likelihood, the tawny predators are simply looking to get away from their own tribe.

Many people do want to live in or near an ecosystem that is healthy enough to support and maintain a broad range of creatures, not only deer and raccoons. They want the wilds to be just that -- wild. There's something reassuring about knowing that our environment can sustain something besides chemically grown lawns, SUVs and shopping malls.

In California, humans managed to kill off all of the wolves and grizzly bears in the early 20th century. To see what remains of bighorn sheep populations, you need to hike into remote parts of the Sierra or the Anza- Borrego Desert. Elk are confined in remnant populations on a few state and federal lands. Resurrecting the California condor has cost millions of dollars. There are lots of black bears, but they are mostly confined to wooded mountain habitat.

The mountain lion is the last large animal in California that exists in healthy numbers and that inspires wonder, awe and, yes, a little fear. It simply needs to be understood and respected for what is -- a powerful, often hungry, predator.

It also matters that the mountain lion is a major member of the food chain. In recent years, explosions of deer populations in the East have caused an increase in car accidents and deer-borne diseases. According to the Insurance Information Institute, over 20,000 deer were involved in car-related accidents in New Jersey in 2001 or the 51,000 such accidents in Georgia.

One reason deer populations keep growing is that the eastern cougar, along with the timber wolf, was trapped and shot out of existence 100 years ago, except for an inbred remnant population dying out in the swamps of Florida. There is nothing left to control deer except hunters and car bumpers.

If we rid ourselves of the state's last major wild predator, we would be left with a burgeoning deer population likely to spread Lyme disease via ticks and mayhem via our roadways. As it is now, a deer in the road is much more likely to cause an auto accident than a mountain lion is to attack a hiker.

The answer, some hunters might say, is to go at both deer and mountain lions with both barrels blazing. Yet, renewed mountain lion hunting well might eventually wipe the felines out, as it did the gray wolf in almost all of North America.

There is a simpler, less bloodthirsty solution. As with distracted and drunk drivers, as with dangerous pit bulls, what will keep people safe is education and responsibility.

What begins with the smacking of feline lips over a horse or two on the outskirts of town can quickly evolve into the big cats attempting to pick off their domesticated cousins from the back porch of a house just off El Camino Real. The fat tabby that roams the neighborhood should be kept inside. That goes for many pet dogs as well, especially around dawn and dusk, the times mountain lions are most likely to be searching for food.

Certainly, we aren't going to keep children inside, nor should we. This is why law enforcement officers in cities and suburbs bordering mountain lion habitat must have tranquilizing equipment on hand and must kill mountain lions that truly endanger people, just as the law requires.

This is how we should deal with the very rare mountain lion that becomes too neighborly.

John Fall is an East Bay writer.

If you enjoyed reading about "Mountain lion,live and let live,CA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
capt_happypants
June 28, 2004, 10:33 PM
Let me know when this guy become Mountain Kitty Kat Chow.

Darwin, take him away!

Das Pferd
June 28, 2004, 10:33 PM
So whats your point? Hes right. We dont need to kill every mountain lion there is just because it threatens your cat or dog.

4v50 Gary
June 28, 2004, 10:36 PM
What really needs to be done is to train the mountain lions to co-habitate with one another (other mountain lions) like their African counterparts. Let them live in groups (prides) and let the prides hunt and dine together in a strong showing of community. Yes, I'm proposing we send social workers into the foothills to retrain these animals to socialize better with one another.

This will allow the mountain lion to require less land and so there will be fewer encounters between people and mountain lions.

Short of that, we should take that wussy writer and send him out with a tranquilizer gun. After he pops a cat and gets mauled to death for his trouble, we can removed the sedated animal to the wilderness and set it free.:D

sendec
June 28, 2004, 10:43 PM
Frankly, I think I'd prefer cougars to people. I'm not sure I see a problem. We breed like bunnies. A few of us get eaten, it's that circle of life thing.

Ya want a "safe" wilderness, visit Disney's Animal Kingdom.

Das Pferd
June 28, 2004, 10:45 PM
"Predator" paranoia is just as ignorant and misled as anti gun paranoia. Supported by absolutely nothing and promoted by those who are uneducated about the subject.

Standing Wolf
June 28, 2004, 10:47 PM
The Department of Fish and Game has verified a total of 12 mountain lion attacks on humans since 1890 -- and just half of these proved fatal.

I guess that makes it okay to keep the serfs disarmed.

natedog
June 29, 2004, 12:06 AM
simply needs to be understood and respected for what is -- a powerful, often hungry, predator.

Those that carry, backpacking, day to day, or other, certainly do respect the animals....which is why they carry. They respect that they are a predatory animal, and take steps to minimize their risk. One of those steps is carrying.

rayra
June 29, 2004, 01:24 AM
LOVE the timing on that nonsense article. Hilarious. Coming several weeks AFTER the attack in the area discussed. And the SAME DAY that article / spew is published, there was another cougar-human incident in the Sequoia Nat'l Forest just north of the huge McNally fire area (of two yrs ago). The woman lost an eye and the other is damaged. her hiking companions heard her cries and drove the animal off with a knife and rocks. Rangers later tracked it by the blood trail and killed it.

The article is lame compared to the fresh incident - http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040627.wlion20627/BNStory/International/


lastly, I legally Open Carry with a handgun when hiking in the Angeles Nat'l Forest north of L.A.. There was a cougar sighting at horse stables on the norhtern fringe of my particular suburb a couple years ago, they are rattlesnakes are in the area. And my hiking / dog-walking area is several miles up-country from civilization. Going armed is the only smart thing to do.

rayra
June 29, 2004, 01:59 AM
One other comment about the statistical games being played in that first article - 'only 15 attacks in 110yrs'. Gee that doesn't sound so bad. Nevermind that there have now been three major incidents in the last 6 months alone. Sort of blows away the excusatory stat, doesn't it?

MBane666
June 29, 2004, 02:11 AM
Oh gosh, you wanna go jogging or biking up here in Lion Country, Colorado, you need to haul your butt out of Condition White and pay a little attention—lions are not ghosts! I've changed running or biking paths because I couldn't rationalize trucking through country that had everything but a Golden Arches for Pussycats sign. When I've suggested to other people that they might want to rethink their recreational pathways, I've gotten Happy Boulder Lectures on the sanctity of all animals...cool...Darwinism in action.

That said, I always carry in the backcountry--a gun where it's legal, and *something* (ASP, big honkin' knife, hiking staff, bear spray, etc.) where it's not. And heck, I know a lot of people--including *at least* one movie director--who'd make great kittie kibble!

Michael B

O.F.Fascist
June 29, 2004, 03:41 AM
I have no problem with someone shooting an animal in self defense, just as I have no problem with someone shooting a human in self defense.

That being said I hate it when an animal, like a mountain lion, kills or attacks someone and gets away then people go out and hunt it down and kill it for revenge.

If the animal is no longer in the area and threatening people then let it go.

This would also help out with gun rights. As long as there are dangerous animals out there then all people living in those areas will be more likely to be packing, instead of just the lynch mob that goes after the cat.

gunsmith
June 29, 2004, 04:12 AM
No respected member of THR has ever advocated "killing all predators".
The editorial is incredibly lame drivel.

All we are saying is give self defense a chance!

The editorial lies about the attacks. Overall attacks on the continent of North America is higher then the ones the author quoted (wrongly) about USA his stats are for CA only but he implies otherwise.
If you take a common sense scientific look at Mtn Lion attacks you would notice an alarming increase in both fatal and non fatal attacks on people in North America since the begining of the 1990's (10 fatal attacks and 40 non fatal attacks)
http://www.gf.state.az.us/w_c/mtn_lion_attacks.shtml
2 young women in california have had half their faces ripped off their skull this year-not fatal so it's not big news.
When examining problems concerning dangerous animals in N.America you should look at Canada and Mexico as well as the USA to do otherwise is foolish because cougars and bear aren't restricted by borders.

The purpose of the editorial was strictly anti hunter and anti gun propaganda.

The writer of the editorial has hunter paranoia,we do not suffer from the delusion that nature is not "Red in tooth and claw".

Attitudes like the one projected by the writer cause more suffering for wildlife then they prevent.
We are inviting Cougars into our neighborhoods. By preventing hunting of deer and encouraging them to forage in our yards we have invited Cougars to amble about looking for food. By preventing Californians from hunting Cougars we have dramatically increased their number while at the same time teaching them not to fear humans. If the cougars that have had to be put down this past year (4 or 5 in the SF Bay area) were afraid of people they wouldn't have had to be shot because they wouldn't have been walking around elementary schools etc.
Cougars in NV,AZ, and other western states that have hunting seasons for big cats have less human attacks then CA,Cougars there are smarter then CA Cougars-they avoid the most dangerous predator of all -mankind.

God gave the lions teeth and claws,he gave mankind (with the exception of some CA politicians) brains.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
June 29, 2004, 05:31 AM
Predator" paranoia is just as ignorant and misled as anti gun paranoia. Supported by absolutely nothing and promoted by those who are uneducated about the subject.


Sounds like a Timothy "bear scat" Treadwell quote. :D

sendec
June 29, 2004, 08:43 AM
I have'nt heard anyone on this board say that hikers should not have the means to defend themselves, I certainly carry when out in the woods (and am far more concerned about 2 legged varmints than 4 legged ones). You have to treat the animals with the respect they deserve.

It is the responses to attacks that get me because they seem to run to extremes from one side to the other. I think the situation is a lot more complex than we give it credit for. I concur fully that the figures quoted are suspect and that incidents are increasing. But that's the price we pay for going where the cats are, and I'm fine with that. I'll keep the pets indoors and be ready to defend myself in the woods, or not go there at all. Like wise, problem cats need to be dealt with firmly, public response not withstanding.

ryoushi
June 29, 2004, 09:51 AM
Well if you ever see a cougar in the wild consider yourself lucky, they are magnificent creatures. I think the article was in response to the cougar that was shot by a sherriffs deputy in Palo Alto, CA. The whole thing was caught on videotape and from what I remember that cat hadn't attacked anybody yet but was shot on sight. I think the situation could have been handled better.

Of course when we are hiking we are heeled. My wife and I have happened upon a mountain lion twice in the Sequoia National Forest and it gets your heart to pounding in both cases the cat was sprawed out like a big tabby sunning itself and when we came along it got up and walked off. Both times the cats looked well fed and in perfect shape. Both times we watched our backs the rest of the day.

It's funny the people that call for a hunting season on cats use the attacks to justify hunting them. But here in PRK the areas where the attacks occur most of the time are too developed to allow hunting. And don't think the mountain lion is not hunted. Cattle ranchers who graze their beef on the cheap on public land shoot the cougars when they think they can get away with it.

only1asterisk
June 29, 2004, 10:12 AM
I've never seen a cat in the wild, only tracks. They are beautiful animals and I can see where people could respect that. But the fact is that we are the only control on their population. Limited hunting is the only way to do that. We create inviting suburban buffets for cats, bears, coyotes and ferals. When anyone tries to do anything about it, the cry goes out:

"You can't kill them for doing what they do and plus they're sooo cute."

If it's ok for cougars to kill humans then turnabout in fair play.


David

mete
June 29, 2004, 10:23 AM
They should check their facts first. There are lions in the east Vermont admits to it , NJ has introduced them others have too. Some states NY,PA etc refuse to admit it though. Vermont has done dna tests on scat .Search 'easter cougar research '.

gunsmith
June 29, 2004, 02:00 PM
mete, Easter Cougar,eh? I guess thats why easter bunnies are on the decline:neener:

Yes the editorial was about the Palo Alto Lion.
It had to be put down. If you view the video tape of the shooting you would see that the cat was sitting in a tree with a childs swing on it I think there were two small children living there. Also school was about to let out and tranquilizing it is not considered safe when so many people and children are in harms way as the cat becomes aggressive for a 1/2 hour before succumming to the tranquilzer.
I am not advocating hunting big cats in suburbia,I advocate hunting the deer in suburbia. Having deer in your burb is advertising to big cats that they should "have at". Anyone (hunter) familiar with the Palo Alto area could safely remove deer,especially bow hunters. On the other side of hway 280 is vast water district land,hardly any people there lots of deer and some Cougar.
The fact is unless we allow some hunting of Cougar they will continue to have no fear of man untill we have to put them down for attacking us.The Palo Alto PD did the right thing in this case. A big cat was wandering thru a neighborhood full of children and lounging in the yard of a house with 2 small kids. They stopped the threat.They did the right thing.
Imagine if they had waited for a tranq gun and it malled some kids,or they tranqed it and it malled some kids. Police in the bay area are dammed if they do or dammed if they don't.

Cosmoline
June 29, 2004, 02:12 PM
No hunters are advocating that Cougar be destroyed completely. So the article is simply wrong about that. The numbers can be controlled through increased hunting, however.

But in the end I'm satisfied with the current situation. We just need to add about 5,000 exported Alaksa brownies to the mix and California will soon be cleaned out.

Frohickey
June 29, 2004, 02:38 PM
That article is a bunch of tripe.

If hunters had their way, they would allow mountain lion hunting again, but only to the point that there is a sustainable number of mountain lions to be hunted/harvested every year. So, it is very far from the annihilation of the species that John Fall believes it to be.

Hunters like to hunt. Every year, every season, as often as they can. That means they want hunting to continue, every year, every season. If you hunt a species to extinction, you can't hunt anymore after that.

sendec
June 29, 2004, 03:52 PM
It's the poodles, dammit. The problem seems to be that the cats are moving towards easy pickens and are winding up in areas where hunting could be problematic from a political and a practical standpoint. If the kitties would stay up in the backwoods and chew on rural deer, hunting would be an option. They are doing the same thing deer have done, move into the suburbs where there is abundant food and little risk. Thinning the suburban deer could help, but think how well that would go over. And then when the poodles and pomeranians start disappearing........

I agree that the police did the right thing in dropping the tree-sitter. Unfortunately, these incidents are going to increase because we have accidently done such a good job of building excellent habitat for the cats.

JOE MACK
June 29, 2004, 08:01 PM
:scrutiny: What with the referendum on hunting mountain lion in the state, the population is rising past the environment's ability to sustain them in the wild away from civilization. Cats have VERY large individual territories for hunting and young cats are pushed out. Also, animals are quite the creatures of habit. Once they find easy pickings, they continue to exploit the situation. Just like the maneating leopards now panicking a part of India. People are also breeding like lemmings and need space that was once the habitat of predators. These "wannabe" country folk are a large part of the problem since they plant vegetation the ungulates like and throw meat scraps out, and leave fluffie's food out on the porch.

If hunting is going to drive these animals to extinction, why are we hunting the heck out of the whitetail deer and populations in some areas are out of control? Unbeknownst to the ignoramous that wrote the article, controlled hunting is good for game and predator population dynamics. Overpopulation of anything (including humans) is bad news. This yutz has probably never seen a zebra lunched on live by African lions, a calf pulled newborn from its mother and eaten while mom is hamstrung, etc. Mother nature is a real bitch and these city-dwellers have no idea or can get a clue about it. :banghead:

5pins
June 29, 2004, 08:28 PM
You soon find your life imperiled. Not only by police officers with no training in wild animal control, but by the very same things that endanger all of the humans down here. Drunk drivers and distracted drivers. Muggings, random gunfire, gang shootouts. Pit bulls.

Muggings. When was the last time a mountain lion was mugged?

Cosmoline
June 29, 2004, 08:59 PM
LOL. That's a good one. There was a young male moose in a downtown Anchorage park where I used to walk a few winters back. He'd always posture and swing his head at me, sometimes blocking the trail. I figured he was a street moose gone bad and tossed some change at him.

dairycreek
June 30, 2004, 01:11 PM
By "kind of" I mean cougars can't be hunted with dogs. So in theory they can be hunted. In practical terms your chances of bagging a cougar without dogs is just about zero. As in other places that have passed no hunting/limited hunting laws the cougar population has increased dramatically.

Let's say a couple of years ago, you were born along with one or two siblings. Now you are young adults. All you want to do is get away from mom and the rest of the family.

This quote from the original post is all too true. Cougars are very territorial animals and as the young cougars leave they will range to find their own territory. But, as others have pointed out, while cougars increase in population, available range land does not increase. Hence, cougars in search of their own territory more and more come into conflict with humans. And they are dangerous animals! Make no mistake about that! They do kill humans and that is unacceptable. On the other hand , each year many cougars get killed by automobiles and, to me, that is also unacceptable.

It seems that the cougar population needs to be controlled in the same way that deer, elk, antelope, and sheep populations are controlled. And rigorously controlled hunting (with dogs) is a necessary part of that calculus if the cougars are not to become an endangered speciesl I think that there is no other answer. Good shooting;)

halvey
June 30, 2004, 01:22 PM
Imagine, for a moment, that you are a mountain lion living in the foothills above Mountain View or Palo Alto. Let's say a couple of years ago, you were born along with one or two siblings. Now you are young adults. All you want to do is get away from mom and the rest of the family. :rolleyes: Isn't this exactly what humans do? We move out of the house of our parents? So we need a house right? So we build one. Probably on the outskirts of the city BECAUSE ALL THE OTHER HOUSES ARE BEING LIVED IN!!!

Rickstir
June 30, 2004, 02:05 PM
By-the-by, there is a cougar attack on a deer video-taped by a conservation agent in MO. Just last week a police officer in Bourbon, MO (my favorite town) filmed a black bear walking down a highway. But Smokey the Bear wouldn't hurt us, would he? There was a cougar big enough to fill the tailgate of a full-size pickup hit and killed by a car just south of Jefferson City in the center of the state.


The late John O'Conner, hunting editor for Outdoor Life for years, once wrote that if a predator taste human flesh, it becomes the preferred food. Evidently we are pretty good tasting. So I don't think tracking down an offending cat is revenge, it is future self-defense for the next meal.

sendec
June 30, 2004, 02:49 PM
I am asking this in good faith because I really do not know: Do cougars have to be hunted with dogs? I think some forms of hunting like with dogs or over bait sometimes mystify non-hunters like myself and could be misunderstood. Are dogs used for a specific reason?

(My questions are regarding sport hunting only, "rogue" wildlife could be hunted with an Apache gunship as far as I'm concerned)

Frohickey
June 30, 2004, 03:22 PM
I am asking this in good faith because I really do not know: Do cougars have to be hunted with dogs? I think some forms of hunting like with dogs or over bait sometimes mystify non-hunters like myself and could be misunderstood. Are dogs used for a specific reason?


Yes, you *can* hunt cougars without dogs. You *can* hunt them over bait, stalk them, etc. Please look at History of dogs (http://www.dogpark.com/index.php?id=32,0,0,1,0,0), and tell us what the first use of dogs were.

The history of domestic dogs began 20,000 years ago, when Mesolithic Man first began to use dogs while hunting.

If cats hunted, they would be man's best friend too. But they don't. :p

capt_happypants
June 30, 2004, 06:04 PM
Even if humans taste awful, a smart predator quickly learns that humans have no sense of smell, terrible hearing, limited vision, and poor speed.

An animal that has attacked humans, IMO, needs to be killed immediately.

But California seems hell-bent on turning their state into a giant walking buffet for our feline friends.

gunsmith
July 2, 2004, 06:27 PM
From what I hear,you need dogs. They chase kittykitty up a tree and you shoot the kittykat with a small round like a .22 (don't want to ruin the pelt)
kittykitty dies after a while (ruptured lung?).

I wouldn't be able to hunt this way my self. I would worry that the dogs would get bit by the cat,and it just seems unsportsmanlike in my humble opinion.

(Please you guys don't hate me-it's just an opinion! I am only active in RKBA. Would never vote for or encourage anti hunter leglislation.

God willing I should be able to do some camping in NV later this year. I will pick up a mtn lion tag and if I happen to see a kittykitty around when I'm hiking or camping I'll take it (if it's kittykitty season) if I can.

I tried to shoot rabbit with my glock last time I went camping out there but the dang things wouldn't cooperate and stand still when I was shooting at it

Pug Puppy
August 4, 2004, 12:35 PM
When some liberal's precious little Shazbond or Moonbeam gets mauled, they'll be screaming for air strikes on the mountains of that area, "for the children."
I think a better approach would be to allow people to use deadly force against these beasts, only when human lives, pets, or livestock are menaced.

bobby68
January 6, 2005, 06:09 AM
that is my concern... the children. living in california with peoplewho will endanger your children in many different ways is the larger problem. the moutain lion aspect is just a facet of the larger problem.. but yes, i'd be more concerned about my own kids being endangered because someone else thinks that cougars need more room.

DnPRK
January 6, 2005, 10:42 AM
Misguided "environmentalists" refuse to recognise that animals continue to reproduce until their food supply is exhausted, then they starve to death. Cockroaches, rats, coyotes and mountain lions are all subject to the realities of the food chain. Blaming human encroachment just shows how ignorant the "environmentalists" are.

Frohickey
January 6, 2005, 02:58 PM
Environmentalists are the ones that pushed for wolf reintroduction in some of the western states. And the criteria for a 'documented' wolf attack on humans make is so that wolf attacks are underreported. Wolf Attack criteria (http://www.natureswolves.com/human/aws_wolfattacks.htm)

The wolf has to be killed, examined and found to be healthy.
It must be proven that the wolf was never kept in captivity in its entire life.
There must be eyewitnesses to the attack.
The person must die from their wounds (bites are generally not attacks according to the biologists)

So, by the time people start noticing the problems these animals cost, the 'eco-scientists' can point to their data and say there is no such problem. :eek:

Satch
January 6, 2005, 03:10 PM
Reminds me of about 2 years ago about some guy and his wife who would go up to Alaska and live in Grizzy Bear country with them all summer. He even went to schools in the lower 48 telling kids that they were an almost docile animals in their area. People up there told him to be careful but he said he wasn't a bit worried. He done this for several years untiiilll----you get the rest I b :rolleyes: elieve.

jefnvk
January 6, 2005, 04:04 PM
6 month old thread, BTW.

Any animal that attacks people needs to be destroyed. If a dangerous animal is found in a ppulated area, it needs to be relocated, if possible. If it makes threatening gestures, it needs to be destoyed. Animals are not people, nor are they on a level with people. I am not advocating shooting a predator on sight, but if it becomes necessary, some people need to learn the difference.

308win
January 6, 2005, 04:10 PM
It seems that the cougar population needs to be controlled in the same way that deer, elk, antelope, and sheep populations are controlled. And rigorously controlled hunting (with dogs) is a necessary part of that calculus if the cougars are not to become an endangered speciesl I think that there is no other answer.

I agree but without the dogs. I know that cougars are nocturnal and secretive animals but if one doesn't have the skill and discipline to hunt them on their ground with the advantage of a firearm only then one shouldn't be hunting them.

But California seems hell-bent on turning their state into a giant walking buffet for our feline friends.

From what I know of California this seems like a workable economic solution to me. :neener:

torpid
January 6, 2005, 04:55 PM
Aw, hell- these animals are doomed eventually, anyway:

1) Build brand new subdivision in formerly remote hillside area.
2) Mountain lions somehow magically appear in new subdivision.
3) Cull said mountain lions to protect the kids.
4) Surviving lions retreat to more remote areas.
5) (Repeat cycle from #1 until eventually no more "predator problem" exists).

Whee!

thorn726
January 6, 2005, 05:00 PM
Yes the editorial was about the Palo Alto Lion.

TOTAL BS. i saw that video.
the lion wasnt doing anything but sit in a tree .

he could have been tranquilzed, but rather than wait at all, the cops showed up, looked for about 2 sec, and blew the lion out of the tree.

all the people were so scared, just ready to kill it, a bunch of soccer moms.

there was no attack, no anything but a big cat resting in a tree .

got to love the mountaimn lion attack signs around here=

"try to appear larger"
"dont run, try to fight it off!"

if the lion had shown any action , i would not be mad, but they just didnt want to deal with it , and just killed it.
SENSELESS

Rickstir
January 6, 2005, 05:05 PM
Just like the Wild Turkey, if you ever want to ensure a speicies survival, put a hunting season on it and watch how the hunters make sure there is enough to go around. Back in the 60s in MO, it was very hard to find a wild turkey, now you can't swing a dead cat and not hit one. Conservation is a large part in ethical hunting, and hunting is an important part of conservation. Don't expect the libs to get that last line.

cookekdjr
January 6, 2005, 05:11 PM
Just like the Wild Turkey, if you ever want to ensure a speicies survival, put a hunting season on it and watch how the hunters make sure there is enough to go around. Back in the 60s in MO, it was very hard to find a wild turkey, now you can't swing a dead cat and not hit one. Conservation is a large part in ethical hunting, and hunting is an important part of conservation. Don't expect the libs to get that last line.

Actually, I'm a liberal and I love your post. Most folks opposed to hunting just don't understand the big picture. Your line "if you ever want to ensure a speicies survival, put a hunting season on it and watch how the hunters make sure there is enough to go around" says it all.

brian roberts
January 6, 2005, 06:15 PM
ah, well, you won't have to worry much longer, West Virginia traded some Turkeys to Wyoming for coyotes on a 1-1 ratio. i just talked to a guy in Louisiana, & he told me that in his part of the state, there isn't a quail, woodcock, or pheasant around, & if they are, they're mighty quiet about it. he said the same thing, they started impoting coyotes, he said it was because the pulp companies wanted something to get rid of the deer, that were eating the new, tender little pines when they came up. its my understanding the game departments won't admit to these "importations" when asked. i was also told the same thing's happening in Pennsylvania, & the pheasant population's been DECIMATED as a result. need to buy some more camo, digital calls, suppressors, maybe??? :rolleyes:

308win
January 6, 2005, 06:22 PM
West Virginia traded some Turkeys to Wyoming for coyotes on a 1-1 ratio

Now that makes a lot of sense since WVA is surrounded by states with large coyote populations. If this is true no wonder the people here in AH HIA like to tell WVA jokes.

30Cal
January 6, 2005, 06:47 PM
I saw a lion out back about a month ago here on the south side of El Toro in Morgan Hill as I was hauling my 4 mo old daughter. It was about 40yds from us and about 120yds from the back porch. We're on the fringe of subdivision territory but still mainly country. My daughter made a squeek and the cat perked up, so I took a fairly direct route back to the house. 2 weeks back I found a ton of tracks and beat feet back to the ranch. I don't like the idea of being on the TV news.

I normally tote a little something on the hip, but that reinforced the idea some. It's nice to have options.

Ty

Art Eatman
January 6, 2005, 07:26 PM
Hunting mountain lions with dogs? Hey, that's really easy, if "easy" means you can run up and down mountains for three or four miles, up to maybe twelve or fifteen miles. "All" ya gotta do is stay within hearing distance of a running, barking, dog, okay?

Or, you can take a bunch of table scraps--fish, steak bones, etc.--and set it all out. Adding a dead rabbit won't hurt. Last, sprinkle a half a pack of bulk catnip from the pet-center of your grocery store. Do all this when the nearly-full moon rises just before sunset.

Go to your bait about an hour or so before sundown. Sit back and wait. Maybe you'll be lucky; maybe not.

Lions come to wounded-rabbit calls, also. Some guys were sitting in a pickup, blowing happily with their Burnham Brothers caller. The truck shifted on the springs, and a great hairy paw reached in through the opened back window. Calling can sometimes be exciting.

:), Art

Frohickey
January 6, 2005, 07:36 PM
Reminds me of about 2 years ago about some guy and his wife who would go up to Alaska and live in Grizzy Bear country with them all summer. He even went to schools in the lower 48 telling kids that they were an almost docile animals in their area. People up there told him to be careful but he said he wasn't a bit worried. He done this for several years untiiilll----you get the rest I b elieve.

That would be Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend.

308win
January 6, 2005, 07:56 PM
Hunting mountain lions with dogs? Hey, that's really easy, if "easy" means you can run up and down mountains for three or four miles, up to maybe twelve or fifteen miles. "All" ya gotta do is stay within hearing distance of a running, barking, dog, okay?

I watched enough of an Outdoor Life Channel piece on hunting mountian lions with dogs to become anti hunting large game with dogs for the rest of my life. It seems that this guide took 'sportsmen' lion hunting by turning dogs with GPS collars loose on a recent lion track and bringing the 'sport' back in the morning to shoot what they treed. Something should be shot but not the lion IMHO; I vote for the guide and the 'sportsman'. :fire:

Sindawe
January 6, 2005, 07:56 PM
If a dangerous animal is found in a ppulated area, it needs to be relocated, if possible. If it makes threatening gestures, it needs to be destoyed.

That in populated areas, right? If its in the wilds, I have to disagre. IMAO its incumbent apon the people who venture in the wildlifes homes to have some clue about the animals habits, tracks and threat displays telling the people to back off, they are too close. The signs that large, dangerous predators give is no longer a mystery. Heck, even sharks use body language, and I've learned to read it from nature programs, and I'm no ichthyologist.

tex_n_cal
January 6, 2005, 08:11 PM
I still think that if they like lions, they should really like Siberian Tigers. Therefore I vote that CA breed a few hundred of them, and turn them loose throughout the state. They will control the wild boar, they'll Darwinize idiots, they'll drive a few million people out of an overcrowded state, they'll put the elephant seals in their place, they'll look cool hanging out at the beach, and they'll turn all the remaining people into gun owners.


:evil:

Sven
January 7, 2005, 12:02 AM
My town was named for the mtn lions up here back in the day. Now its skunks, deer and coyotes.

Hey kitty kitty...

http://www.imageseek.com/sven/gallery/albums/870_wingmaster/full.sized.jpg

Art Eatman
January 7, 2005, 01:05 AM
308win, don't confuse one who uses dogs to kill a lion with a person who's a fair-chase hunter. That's likening one who uses guns to hold up a bank with you or me as being law-abiding shooters.

That said, if a specific lion which is a problem-predator can be caught by using a GPS and suchlike, find and dandy. But predator control isn't the same as fair-chase hunting.

Art

yorec
January 7, 2005, 02:08 AM
There are several other reasons that hunting lions with dogs is superior to other methods. The ability to sex a lion is difficult to come by - they don't have antlers or large hangin down things between thier legs. Sometimes it can take a mighty good bit of looking to know whether you've got a male of female - this is important when the area you are hunting has a quota favoring males over female being taken. Obviously shooting a lion that's come to your call (you're only going to see the front of them, maybe the side as they move, but not the tell-tale black spot under and behind) or that've you've spotted a brief flash of one along some deserted trail you're hiking, or even over a pile of fishgut "bait" you've laid out, will not allow a hunter to select with certainty the sex of lion that will most help the lion conservation effort in his state.

(Uh, case ya didn't know - males are to be shot in preference to females to preserve breeding stock)

Also dogs can tree a lion for the hunter who can then choose whether to shot or not to shoot in the first place for any other reason - wants a bigger one, having too much fun lets find another, that doesn't look like the monster that ate Fi Fi, Hey Joe I just called the quota hotline and it's full - the season's over... And there is nothing wrong with hunting for pictures if you love lions like I do - Catch and Release big game style!!! :D

Problem lions can also be tracked and caught with dogs for removal by G&F agents using tranquilizers or just to run them back up into the hills out of the suburbs. They'll get the hint that everytime they come down for a little Fi Fi snack, them crazy dogs show up - lets get back up into the hills and hunt deer again.

And if ya don't think it's sporting - come on out. I'll take ya, you'll learn. Bring a bunch a cash - I'm not spending my money on gas to find your lion, feel lucky I'm donating my time, dogs, truck, and experience. (guides cost lots o' money to boot, but I'm just a hobby hunter ;) ) Be ready to hike on slopes that require all four limbs to ascend - it may not actually be a 12 mile hike, but you're gonna feel like it was. Don't plan on being back in a few hours - it's probably gonna take a few days to cut the fresh tracks once we locate a lion's territory - so pack a lunch and dinner each day we're gonna be gone. (At least you can eat breakfast 'fore we head out.) And no - I'm not gonna let my dogs sit around waiting for you to get up to them in the morning - cat's do maul dogs often and sometimes severely. So be ready to move if we get lucky. It isn't legal to shoot lions with a .22 here, so don't bring a li'l gun - it's gotta be larger than a .357 mag. Wear good boots and warm closes - something you'd want to have on if you had to run a marathon in a blizzard, eh?

Tongue in cheek aside - lion hunting isn't easy unless you pay some outfitter a mint to lead you by the hand (carry ya on his back?) and pamper ya all the way in, out, and home AND he has all the tools, equipment, transportation, talented dogs, and experience to make the most of it all. I don't care for pampering hunts regardless of the species, I'm too much of a do-it-yourselfer. Some folks do though - good for them - they're still hunting the only way they know how and as long as it's done as part of a management program, it's still beneficial.

yorec
January 7, 2005, 02:19 AM
Oh - one more thang, the collars...

There are probably GPS collars available, undoubtably in the future they will be more common. But right now, I know of no collar that runs of a GPS system. They run on a radio signal - a telemetry system.

This system is limited to a few miles depending on the type of collar and conditions the collar goes through. A ten mile rated collar may only send a signal a couple of miles from a deep canyon loaded with old growth timber. Likely that canyon will be several miles from the nearest road - that's where you're lion will head. So telemetry collar deffinately have limitations - it's not like you can just kick your dogs out and forget about them until some alarm talls ya they've got one - it doesn't work that way.

What the collar do, and do very well - is give people a chance to catch up to thier fleet footed dogs when the chase goes on into deep back country, past legal hunting time, or into land that is off limits like private property. Then the hunters can gauge where the dogs are headed and move to cut them off and hopefully end the hunt. But most of the time folks won't be able to out run thier dogs and the collars will just help 'em find lost dogs... Speaking of which, not all hounds are created equal and some will loose the trail and become lost. Abandoning a dog, talented or no, in the middle of winter in a snowstorm up in the high country just ain't in my nature. Thank heaven for telemetry collars.

If you enjoyed reading about "Mountain lion,live and let live,CA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!