the summer 2008 “State in Crisis”: Washington by Chris Papouchis n Washington, as in many western U.S. states, the management of cougars has become highly politicized. Since voters approved a 1996 ballot initiative that banned the hunting of cougar with dogs, a major turf war has been waged over cougar policy. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, anticipating declines in hunting opportunities and revenues as a result of the hound ban, increased the number and reduced the cost of cougar hunting tags and extended the duration of the hunting season. Rural politicians led a backlash against the initiative in the state legislature, arguing that the ban resulted in an increased rate of conflicts and compromised public safety. Today, public opinion surveys and media articles indicate that Washington residents are strongly divided about how cougars should be managed, and who should be allowed to influence cougar policy. This past April, WDFW released its plan for cougar management in the state through 2015. One of WDFW’s stated goals for cougar management is to “pre- serve, protect, perpetuate, and manage cougar and their habitats to ensure healthy, productive popula- tions.” Yet, the plan provides no discussion or analysis of the impacts of habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation on cougar populations in the state, or how the human-caused mortality will influence cougar population viability and metapopulation dynam- ics. Moreover, it provides no inventory of areas that serve, or could serve, as cougar refugia that would serve as biological savings accounts for cougar populations. In point of fact, the management plan contains no substantive discussion of how WDFW plans to meet its goal of conserving cougar populations. Furthermore, although the plan stated that “Science is the core of wildlife management, the basis for achieving the agency’s man- date, and the foundation of this plan,” key aspects of the strategy for cougar management are not supported by the best available scientific information. Notably, the plan provided no scientific evi- dence to support WDFW’s claims that hunting and other cougar population reduction techniques improve public safety, reduce cougar-livestock conflicts, or enhance deer and elk populations. Moreover, the plan does not incorporate or even mention the findings of several Washington State University studies that suggest WDFW’s management strategies are not meeting their stated objectives. For example, one WSU study found that at a time when some residents and politicians in Northeastern Washington thought that cougar popula- tions and conflicts were increasing occurred during a period that cougar numbers were in fact declining. This and other studies in Washington suggests that there is a disconnect between the best available science, public perception of cougar populations, and current manage- ment strategies, which is highly problem- atic for our prospects for conserving cougar populations in Washington. In short, there is a pressing need to improve cougar management in Washington so that it reflects the best available scientific information, addresses the diverse value demands of the public, and ensures the long-term conservation of cougar populations throughout their range. 3 4 Cougars Moving East Orphaned Kittens in Jackson Hole 6 11 9th Annual Mountain Lion Workshop Contest Winner C OUGAR F UND I Photo: Kenton Rowe
12
Embed
20327 Newsletter:20327 Newsletter 7/18/08 4:44 PM Page 2 ... · stretched across the scene as they assess the fatal result of several rounds of bullets fired by the police on this,
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
the summer 2 0 0 8
“State in Crisis”:Washington
by Chris Papouchis
n Washington, as in many western U.S. states, the managementof cougars has become highly politicized. Since voters approved a 1996 ballot initiative that banned the hunting of cougar withdogs, a major turf war has been waged over cougar policy. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, anticipatingdeclines in hunting opportunities and revenues as a result of thehound ban, increased the number and reduced the cost of cougarhunting tags and extended the duration of the hunting season.Rural politicians led a backlash against theinitiative in the state legislature, arguingthat the ban resulted in an increased rateof conflicts and compromised public safety.Today, public opinion surveys and mediaarticles indicate that Washington residentsare strongly divided about how cougarsshould be managed, and who should beallowed to influence cougar policy.
This past April, WDFW released its planfor cougar management in the statethrough 2015. One of WDFW’s statedgoals for cougar management is to “pre-serve, protect, perpetuate, and managecougar and their habitats to ensure healthy, productive popula-tions.” Yet, the plan provides no discussion or analysis of theimpacts of habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation on cougarpopulations in the state, or how the human-caused mortality willinfluence cougar population viability and metapopulation dynam-ics. Moreover, it provides no inventory of areas that serve, or
could serve, as cougar refugia that would serve as biological savings accounts for cougar populations. In point of fact, the management plan contains no substantive discussion of howWDFW plans to meet its goal of conserving cougar populations.
Furthermore, although the plan stated that “Science is the core ofwildlife management, the basis for achieving the agency’s man-date, and the foundation of this plan,” key aspects of the strategyfor cougar management are not supported by the best availablescientific information. Notably, the plan provided no scientific evi-dence to support WDFW’s claims that hunting and other cougarpopulation reduction techniques improve public safety, reducecougar-livestock conflicts, or enhance deer and elk populations.Moreover, the plan does not incorporate or even mention thefindings of several Washington State University studies that suggest WDFW’s management strategies are not meeting their
stated objectives. For example, one WSUstudy found that at a time when someresidents and politicians in NortheasternWashington thought that cougar popula-tions and conflicts were increasingoccurred during a period that cougarnumbers were in fact declining. This andother studies in Washington suggests thatthere is a disconnect between the bestavailable science, public perception ofcougar populations, and current manage-ment strategies, which is highly problem-atic for our prospects for conservingcougar populations in Washington.
In short, there is a pressing need to improve cougar managementin Washington so that it reflects the best available scientific information, addresses the diverse value demands of the public,and ensures the long-term conservation of cougar populationsthroughout their range.
Over-hunting in some areas coupled with an everincreasing human presence in cougar habitat has resultedin cougars being displaced and venturing into areas—suchas suburban or even urban neighborhoods—that theywould traditionally prefer to avoid.
Because cougars are an often misunderstood and misrepre-sented species, the Cougar Fund strives to ensure theintegrity of information dispersed on the species in hopes of promoting a better understanding of the animal. It is with these efforts in mind that the Cougar Fundcomments on media stories involving cougars. There have been several human encounters this year, some of which ended with relocation, while others ended with the cougar being killed.
One of the most recent and nationally visible incidentsinvolving a cougar in an urban area was the Chicagocougar that was killed this April in the Roscoe Villageneighborhood. However, as many have expressed, thisunfortunate scenario could have ended in a much differentway. The Cougar Fund agrees that in cases where a catis directly threatening humans, lethal removal is absolutelyappropriate and necessary to protect the people involved.
Yet, to pose an alternative scenario, when cougars areseen in California, a state with healthy cougar populationsthat does not allow sport hunting, local authorities workwith the state game agency and trained professionals such as local vets and animal control to remove the cougar from the area by tranquilizing and relocating it.The numerous sightings and reports to local Chicagoauthorities in the hours leading up to the cougar’s deathsuggest that there was time to weigh alternatives thatwould have avoided ending the cougar’s life. With somany police officers available to offer protection to them-selves and those around them, tranquilizing the cat shouldhave been considered first, lethal force second.
By nature, cougars are reclusive, preferring to avoid contact with humans at all costs. They even avoid othercougars, except during mating season. Cougar and human interactions are extremely rare, but may occur as humansventure further into cougar habitat, despite the fact thatviable cougar populations were hunted to extinctionthroughout the east. Cougars are a self-regulating species,determined by food, habitat and social order. The greatestcause of mortality amongst cougars is human-related.
Only 19 people have been killed by cougars since 1900.Compare this with a statistic from the National SafetyCouncil which averages around 50 deaths each year bycontact with “wasps, bees, and hornets” or the over 5,500pedestrian-automobile deaths each year.
Life, be it in the city or in the wilderness, is never with-out risks. That such a reminder would be accompanied bythis unfortunate outcome is not lost on those who valuethe presence of an intact and healthy ecosystem completewith large carnivores such as cougars. While we makeour choices and arrive at our conclusions as individuals, sotoo do we as individuals contribute to a society that willcollectively decide whether or not to leverage toleranceand understanding with the facts at hand.
While there is the possibility of increased sightings innon-traditional areas, the Cougar Fund does not wish topropagate the sentiment that cougars are rapidly spreadingeastward or into urban areas as has been suggested bysome media coverage. Rather we would reiterate thatcougars are a self-regulating and highly reclusive species.A single cougar requires a minimum of 50-100 square milesto breed, raise young, hunt and survive, however, thatneed for space does not necessarily mean cougars will continue to move eastward or into urban areas.Sound cougar management policy and increased humancare when present in cougar country will help ensuresafety for both people and cougars.
Jackson Hole, a place where people who are wild about
snow struggle to make a living and their wild cousins
struggle simply to live through the cold dark months.
It has been a long, deep winter. A paradox of delight
at the “best powder ever” and despair as news of three
known starvation related cougar mortalities and an
illegal matriarch kill surfaced within our relatively small
geographic area.
Thus the scene was set for the seemingly more positive
news of a rescue and placement operation when three
cougar kittens were left orphaned and wandered into
residential Wilson in mid-March.
It doesn’t take much for wildlife savvy Jacksonites to
notice cougar kittens in their backyards, and soon
Wyoming Game and Fish Department officials were
on their way to investigate. Two kittens were captured
together and transported to the Sybille Research Facility
in Wheatland, WY before their more elusive sibling was
located and secured.
In Wyoming, as in most states, the state run Game and
Fish Agency has jurisdiction over that state’s wildlife
unless it is a migratory bird or an endangered species, in
which case USFWS has authority. While the decision
for what to do is exclusively theirs, the staff at the Game
and Fish Office in Jackson once again extended the hand of respect and cooperation to the Cougar Fund byseeking the Cougar Fund’s input in finding the best possible situation for the orphans. By coincidence, theChahinkapa Zoo in North Dakota had recently contactedthe Cougar Fund requesting leads about possible orphansbecause of the death of its male cougar. Too young tosurvive by themselves and too habituated to people bytheir short sojourn around the Wilson township to begood candidates for rehabilitation, after establishing thatthis facility met G&F requirements it became clear thatthe next stop for the trio after Wheatland would be thezoo in North Dakota.
This is the kind of story that we have come to expect,
living as we do, “on the edge of wildness”, but it is not
necessarily one with the archetypal “happy ending” as
no one would ever argue that captivity is the preferred
option for any wild creature.
When I first started to research the subject, the idea was
to explore what options, if any, existed as destinations
for the cougar orphans. I wanted to identify the hierarchy
of decision making, and to give you an idea of what life
in the care of humans was going to be like. I discovered
that the task was not going to be nearly as straightfor-
ward as it seemed. What follows is an attempt to put
into some perspective the complex and often chaotic
interweaving of systems, regulations, or lack thereof, and
AnOrphanedKitten’sJourney
by
Penny Maldonado
This is the kind of story that we have come to expect, living as we do, “on the edge of wildness”, but it is not necessarily
Arizona: Cougars have been legislativelyclassified as a big game animal in Arizona since 1970.The State currently maintains a harvest of between250-300 cougars each year and maintains a bag limitquota for cougars in areas with translocated bighornsheep or declining bighorn sheep and mule deer to encourage site specific sport harvest by hunters. The state reports that new regulations for the stateinclude a required carcass check-out by all successfulcougar hunters, collection of a tooth for aging and a reduction of the hunting season from 12 to 9months. There is also a new wildlife conflictresponse protocol, which aims to increase consistencyin management and public safety by breaking cougar behavior down into 2 categories: acceptableor unacceptable.
California: There is no sport-hunting season for Cougars in the state of California. In 1990cougars were legally classified as a “specially protected mammal” by the passage of a voter initiative (Proposition 117). Prior to that initiative,from 1987-1990, cougars were classified as “gamemammals,” although no hunting season was conduct-ed during that time. Cougars may only be killed if a depredation permit is issued after sight verification and with a request from the landowner.The number of depredation permits had dropped off, but increased again in 2007. The number of public safety threats posed by cougars was very low and incidents have fallen. Officials state that an informed public was the most effective solution to combating the fear of a cougar encounter.
Colorado: Since 1965, cougars have been classifiedas Big Game in Colorado. Harvest is managed using aharvest limit quota system without female sub-quotas.Hunters may take one lion of either sex each season.Officials believe that quotas that are too low leadhunters to be less selective, therefore caring lessabout which sex they take. New gender identificationeducation aids hunter’s ability to refrain from takingfemales. Colorado is working to manage successfullyat the urban wild-land interface and balance diver-gent perspectives towards lion management.
Florida: Although the Florida panther has longbeen considered a unique subspecies of cougar, agenetic study of cougar mitochondrial DNA findsthat many of the supposed subspecies are too similarto be recognized as distinct, which results in theclassification of the Florida Panther as one species,the North American Cougar Puma concolor.Biologists estimate roughly 80-100 Florida panthersremain in the wild, and a majority of them live in the southwest portion of Florida. SouthernFlorida is a fast-developing area, and declining habitat threatens this species. The two highest causesof mortality for the Florida panther are automobileinjuries and aggression between panthers for territory. The primary threats to the population as
a whole include habitat loss, habitat degradation, and habitat fragmentation. There is no record of aFlorida panther attacking a person.
Idaho: The Idaho Department of Fish & Gamebelieves that the hound hunting of cougars stillaccount for 80% of all cougar mortality. Recently the state made it mandatory for hunters to submit atooth from all harvested animals to document age.Cougar populations appear to be more closely tied to elk and deer populations than originally thought,since as elk populations in North Central Idahodeclined, so to did the harvest of lions. There hasbeen more interest and concern regarding theorphaning of kittens in the state, as well as sightingsof cougars in urban settings.
Montana: The total harvest of cougars inMontana in 2007 was 309, which represent a slightincrease. 70% of cougar permits offered were filledwith 20% of those being female. The Missoularegion will begin using limited entry permit huntingfor cougars in 2008. This limited entry partly aimsto reduce the large number of non-resident huntersin MT, which has resulted in gross over-commercial-ization of the species. This year the state hired acougar conflict specialist, which has proven extreme-ly helpful. The number of cougars in the state,whether raised or lowered, did not positively or neg-atively affect conflicts throughout the state. Thiscoming year, MT is planning on completing and pub-lishing the Garnet Mountain Puma Research Projectand updating the 1996 Puma Management Plan.
Nevada: The state notes that the addition oflocally abundant alternative prey such as elk,bighorn sheep, and wild horses, the lion populationcontinues to remain stable to increasing, despite adecrease in deer numbers beginning in the late 1980s.Since 2003 DNA in the form of muscle samples havebeen collected from harvested cougars, as well as the first premolar to determine age. Legislation wasproposed, then defeated in 2007 that declared anopen season on cougars with no restriction on how,when or how many cougars could be killed. Nevadais the only state that maintains a policy of refundingthe cost of tags to “unsuccessful” hunters.
New Mexico: The New Mexico Departmentof the Game & Fish states that a variety of huntingstructures over the years has evolved into the current dual hunting season of yearlong seasons(April – March) on private lands and a 6 months(October – March) season on public lands. The baglimit is one cougar; exceptions include a two cougarbag limit and yearlong seasons on public lands incertain management units. In 1999, the Departmentinitiated a zone management structure with harvestlimits, which continues today. The Department con-tinues to look at habitat-based models for improvedprecision and management utility.
North Dakota: As of August 2007, the North Dakota Game & Fish Department expanded the state’s hunting season and createdtwo new zones for hunting cougars – one zone with a limit of five (5) cougars and the other with no restrictions on how manycougars can be killed at all! Statewide, 6 cougars (one male and five females) were killed and 10 cougars (7 males and 3 females) died from non-harvest mortality. Only 4 years ago did the state acknowledge that there might be viable cougar populations, which are only based on sightings from the public. It was then that the NDG&F implemented an “experimental” hunting season with a statewide limit of five. Cougars killed by the department or private landowners, as well as road kill, incidental deaths by trapping or lions taken onIndian lands are not counted towards harvest objective quotas.
Oregon: A law signed on June 27th, 2007 brought back hound-hunting of cougars which essentially overturned a measureenacted by voters in 1994 that prohibits the use of packs of houndsto hunt cougars. The new law permits the agency to train citizens to act as "agents" on its behalf, and to use their hounds to huntcougars. If the number of cougars drops to 3,000 or less, as deter-mined by surveys, then the hunts will stop. The goal of this newlaw in conjunction with Oregon’s Cougar Management Plan is tokill cougars that might attack people or livestock. Scientists say thenew law may have the opposite of its intended effect. Hunting inthat state actually led to more cougars--and more complaints aboutproblem animals. In recent months, the state has made changes inrecording and reporting harvest information. Hunting rates are up,coincidental with deer and elk harvests, however more deer and elkhunters have been targeting cougars because Oregon offers the“sports pac” license, which grants tags for black bear, a generalcougar tag, one elk, one deer, upland game bird validation, Oregonwaterfowl validation, spring turkey and combined angling harvesttag for $130. Residents are charged $10.00 for a general cougar tag.
South Dakota: In 2005, the South Dakota Game, Fish & Parksremoved the cougar from the state’s threatened and endangeredspecies list. Now, despite the lack of data and scientific evidence thatreflects actual population numbers, a legislative committee approvedthe SDGF&P Commission’s plan to increase the number of cougarsthat can be killed to 35, with no more than 15 females being shot. In 2006, the maximum number of lions that could be killed was 25,with no more than 8 females shot. Only residents are able to obtaina license at a fee of $15.00.
Texas: There is currently an open season on cougars in Texas.Texas Parks & Wildlife do not have population estimates and rely on sighting, whether verified or not. The state claims that the population of cougars in Texas is steadily increasing, despite the loss of habitat and fragmentation that is occurring throughoutthe state. Long-term effective population size for cougars in Texaswas estimated to be 5,607 animals using ecological niche modeling to estimate distribution.
Utah: The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources states that in1999, the Division completed the Utah Cougar Management Plan.This plan was developed with the assistance of a public basedCougar Discussion Group, which will guide management for cougars through 2009. The Division manages to sustain cougar densities on all management units except those that have approved
predator management plans. After an informal survey of 453 cougar hunters in the state, they found most hunters surveyed felt the cougar population was down. All cougar complaints are handled under the guidance of a Nuisance Cougar Complaint policy. Most cougar conflicts are handled through lethal control.
Washington: On March 13, 2008, Washington House Bill 2438was signed allowing a cougar pursuit/ kill season with dogs to con-tinue for 3 additional years, for a total of 7 years as part of a contin-uing pilot program. Washington claims it is currently conductingresearch on a variety of projects including population size, survival,and change in predation events. In addition, the state conducted apublic opinion survey of resident attitudes towards cougars/ manage-ment. Currently there is a proposed test (sex/ age ID) on the tablebefore licenses are granted, which can be taken on-line. Reportedly26 orphaned kittens were confirmed in the last four years.
Wyoming: In 2006 the Wyoming Game & Fish revised thecougar management plan by incorporating scenarios aimed at adap-tively managing specific hunt areas and management units related tosource, sink or stable population levels. Wyoming now delineates31 hunt areas that are grouped into 5 management units. Beginningin hunt year 2007, all human caused mortalities now count towardsthe annual quota. The Department does not estimate cougar popula-tions; rather, population trends are assessed through sex and agecomposition of harvest data. While field research provided by out-side organizations indicated a decline in female populations, as wellas a decline in recruitment in northwest Wyoming, the Departmentdid not implement a lower female sub quota or reduce hunt quotasto reflect the data. The Wyoming Game & Fish conducts statewideinformation and education related to living in cougar country annu-ally and provides cougar specific hunter education on their website.
If you have updated information in your state, we would be interested in hearing from you.
D I R EC T ION S1. Place cookie dough in freezer at least 1 hour.
2. Heat oven to 350°F. Cut cookie dough into 24 slices. On ungreased cookie sheets, place slices 3 inches apart. For ears, press 2 pecan halves onto top of each cookie, overlapping edge of cookie. For eyes and nose, press in candy pieces. For whiskers, place 2 pretzel pieces on each side of nose; press in slightly.
3. Bake 11 to 13 minutes or until golden brown. Cool 1 minute; remove from cookie sheets to cooling racks.
*High Altitude (3500-6500 ft): Bake 9 to 11 minutes.
Cougar Kitten Cookies
The Cougar Fund would like to recognize our two long time “Monthly Giving Circle” members, Ms. Charlotte Heldstab and Mrs. Shirley Galle. Each month, these members generously give to show their support for our
programming as we continue our work and extend our efforts to the growing need for sound science in wildlife
management and the spirit of a well-educated public who can demand such expertise from those officials charged with
conserving our wildlife resources. Every gift counts in the effort to help “Protect Americas’ Greatest Cat™.”
To join the Cougar Fund or renew your membership, please visit www.cougarfund.org or call 307.733.0797
Listening to CougarListening to Cougar was published in December 2007 to an
enthusiastic response from readers and wildlife lovers all over the country. A Spanish language version is being developed, and the book is now in it’s third printing, with
a paperback edition due to come out this autumn.
The storytellers in this collection of essays are outdoor enthusiasts, biologists, spiritualseekers, writers—even hunters. Some speak from personal contact with mountain lions;others explore the animal’s role in nature and American Indian folklore. Whatevertheir genesis, the stories all promote peaceful co-existence by appealing to human tolerance and understanding ofwhat this animal’s absence would mean to the ecosystem and to the human soul. - Santa Fe - New Mexican
Contributors include: Rick Bass, Marc Bekoff, Janay Brun, Julia B. Corbett, Deanna Dawn, J. Frank Dobie, Suzanne Duarte, Steve Edwards, Joan Fox, Gary Gildner, Wendy Keefover-Ring, Ted Kerasote, Christina Kohlruss, Barry Lopez, BK Loren, Cara Blessley Lowe, Steve Pavlik, David Stoner, and Linda Sweanor.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Cara Blessley Lowe President & Co-Founder