Cougars in Oregon

[DefianceOrBust]

If there are 5700 cougars in Oregon, then the density is 6 cougars per 100 square mile (for the entire state).

I no longer find that difficult to believe.

We've all heard that home ranges are approximately 100sqmi. That is for males. And is an average. However, female home ranges are much smaller, 1/3rd to 1/4th that area. In addition to being smaller, female home ranges overlap. For example, ODFW's 2006 CMP reports:

In northeast Oregon, cougar home ranges varied between 39 - 175 km2 (15 - 68 mi2, n = 17) for females and 167 - 436 km2 (64 – 168 mi2, n = 8) for males (80% kernel home range estimates, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, unpublished data).

Those figures are for NE Oregon. The current (since 2000) perspective on home range size is that the primary determinant is not territoriality, but prey abundance.

Other pieces of the puzzle include the generalization that females bread serially without pause, and Oregon litter size is 2.8 kits/litter.

So within a female home range, there are 4 all-age cougars (mother+kits+father = 1 + 2.8 + 1*0.33).

Using the NE Oregon female home range estimates of 15-68 sqmi, the density is 24 to 6 all-age cougars per 100 sqmi.

So another way to look at the ODFWs population estimate is that 5700 all-age cougars represents a state-wide average of 1.5 breeding pairs per 100 sqmi. That seems reasonable to me given the map below and the all-cause mortality maps I posted earlier.

The map below has three grey-scale regions, each covering approximately 1/3 of the state. Based on the NE Oregon figure of 24 - 6 per 100mi, suppose the average density in the entire dark region is 18 all-age cougars for 100 sqmi. Then if there were zero cougars in the other 2/3rds of the state (middle and light regions), then the statewide average would 6 per 100 sqmi, or 5700 total.

[raven]

RJ,

You were reading the report incorrectly -- they cannot count with any accuracy, which means they extrapolate worse. From DOB's cite:

ODFW 2006' Cougar Management Plan: http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/cou ... -Final.pdf

Formulas provided in Science (Carbone C., and J. L. Gittleman, 2002. A common rule for
the scaling of carnivore density. Science 295: 2273-2276) were used to calculate the maximum
number of cougars that could be supported by the primary prey, deer and elk, in Oregon.
Assuming the average weight of all cougars is 110 lbs, the maximum number of cougars that
could be supported by the ~121,000 elk and ~560,000 deer in Oregon is 7,644 (95% confidence
interval for this estimate was 3,496 – 17,045)(the presence of secondary prey species would
make this estimate higher). This compares favorably to a statewide population estimate of 5,101
in 2003 and a maximum population estimate of 7,628, as stated in the 2006 CMP.

I chuckled at the breadth of the 95% CI: 3,496 – 17,045

First, point estimates of ungulates were used as truths on the input side as the mean in a logarithmic distribution that just happens to have .5 and 2 times as the bounds on the 95% confidence interval.
Second, apply that band to cougars at a 5500 point estimate and the 95% range is 2750-11000. Is 11000 believable? No, then you have to question the choice of distribution and the methodology.
Third, the average weight is a key number, but let's leave out its variance.
Fourth, apply the bounds to each category of ungulates, then apply the cougar estimating procedure to the 95% confidence limits. Almost any cougar population might pass muster.

All these numbers are is cover for a story -- better than no numbers, but the quality of the numbers has to be understood as evidence that the "science" is not up to the task of management.

Last, I do consider hunting with dogs to be a form of cruel punishment. Both for the cougar being chased and the survivor guilt of the ones who were not chased, but heard the chase. It forces unnatural movement patterns with unknown ecological impacts.

That group of cats together is evidence of an unstudied social life that humans have largely destroyed through culling key individuals repeatedly. There is evidence that before guns were introduced to North America black bears had massive gatherings at times -- more than 100 individuals were counted traveling together by an early explorer. His Indian guide (Algonquin?) agreed that more than 50 was a large number.

[retired jerry]

Ahhh... you're opposed to dog hunting

Even if the estimates are innaccurate, it's better than just throwing up your hands

Are you saying we should have no hunting?

[backcountryhunter]

What is the big deal here with cougars?...and a little while back it was wolves?

So what? There are wild animals in the wild. And some pretty secretive ones that can eat you if they choose to. Deal with it.

My two best friends, hiking and hunting partners are both retired wildlife biologists. 1 from ODFW and the other from US Fish and Wildlife Service. We talk about this stuff all the time. Population models kind of bore me.

What I do not appreciate though is certain individuals on this forum suggesting that they were/ are liars and dishonest by "cooking" the books on wildlife population numbers. These folks are scientists that take their work in the field very seriously.

Has anyone contacted Whitaker or Jackson regarding the 2006 Cougar Management Plan? Probably not.

[DefianceOrBust]

BCH - If I am not mistaken, I think his main point is that coming up with a single number estimate for the state's cougar population involves a huge amount of judgment, perhaps even more judgment than science. Sure, the scientific component may be first rate, but the impossibility/paucity of good data forces a significant amount of judgment, and that amount of judgement opens up a wide gap through which bias and politics may (or may not) creep in. The problem is forced by citizens/officials/reporters wanting a single number, being unsatisfied with a range, such as 4000-10000 cougars.

[Lumpy]

I have no doubt that the vast majority of true scientists are careful in their work, and even more careful in presenting their theories. But, never forget that there are people involved that have science degrees (political science degrees some of them) that politicize the issue, some for the benefit of the animal, some for the benefit of man.

If true scientists could replace politicians, I'd be OK with that for the most part. Replace some other "leaders", too, while they're at it. Yeah, fact based and peer reviewed law and policy, that was open to being proven wrong and reinvestigate the issues? That could work well I think. But it will never happen.

[Aimless]

All these numbers are is cover for a story

This is the equivalent of saying that the end result (the "story") was arrived at first and the numbers arrived at secondarily, to support the desired story. This speaks to motive and you've not presented any evidence to support this conclusion. Your evidence in this thread so far could just as easily be interpreted as ODFW using the resources at their disposal to arrive at the best estimates they could in order to meet a legal requirement to manage a population in the best way achievable. The key here being the resources at their disposal.

The experiment that would prove your conclusion would be to give ODFW unlimited resources to conduct the most thorough and accurate cougar count that human ingenuity could devise. If they refused to conduct that count or refused to release their findings or refused to act on them, then you could say that a predetermined "story" was taking precedence over the facts. I expect that ODFW would be delighted to have unlimited resources and would conduct that count with zest and determination.

[DefianceOrBust]

Some posts about hunting cougars using dogs:

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showpost ... stcount=17
A Tree hound is a hound which has been breed to tree treeing game, coons, Bobcats, Lynx, Bear and squirels.
If a dog doesn't have the ability to be a stay put tree hound he will be no good to you as a big game hound.
First decide which breed you like then buy the best you can from an established breeder who owns proven tree hounds.
Next buy a very good shocking system and never i say never let him or her chase deer.
Start running drags with scent, short at first then longer, hang your scented hide low in the tree the first few times then higher and higher.
If your dog doesn't perform well lock him up for a few days to think about it then try him again.
At the tree tie your dog and incourage him to bark at the scented hide, shake the hide, if he trees for ten minutes lower the hide and let him have a chew, Next time let him tree longer and then longer.
Introduce your dog to other hounds so he becomes confortable with other dogs because it can get pretty hairy at the tree if he is a chewer jumper or ill in anyway.

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showpost ... stcount=20
I only believe in using barn cats at one stage in a hounds life. 12-14 weeks old turn him loose were he can see the Big male barn cat clearly, Believe me the cat will not get hurt and he might not run, Imprinting your young hound to the cat scent at this stag is important but most importantly he will gain a huge amount of respect and hate by being beat up by the barn cat.
If you train with barn cats too much your dog wont give cougars any respect and there life will be short lived. First time you bay up a big cat that wont tree your hound will just bale in for a chew and die a sudden death.
They don't need live animals to be good.
I travel all over every year to field trials and night coon hunts, Good hounds are consistant if they do well at the field trials and night hunts generally they do well in hunting season for bear and cougar, now a bobcat, lynx dog that consistantly trees is at the top of the list when it comes to hound hunting ability.

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showpost ... stcount=22

First, lion hunting is not for the weak of heart in any way. A lion is the most effective killer that prowles the woods and can kill your part time hound/ couch dog in a heartbeat. Your pointer faces very little danger in a bird hunt,every lion hunt has the potential to be deadly. A dog that shows no respect to a lion will surely be killed when faced with a lion that refuses to tree. Dogs that don't have the ability to bay a lion will probably not last long either,it only takes a few minutes of silence for a Lion to go from treed to dog killer.

Starting from scratch it can be a very difficult and disappointing process trying to train hounds for Lion. Could you be unsuccessful at something for several years and still continue? So,unless you start with trained hounds or have someone with trained hounds to help, it will be difficult, very difficult. Having no previous experience with hounds further compounds the process. Then you need the equipment,vehicles,trackers,trainers,boxes and experience. Then you have to ice in your veins for the day you have to come home and tell your wife and kids that a Lion killed their pet.

and another

http://www.huntingbc.ca/forum/showthrea ... ost1407437
Be prepared to spend some $$$$$ as you will need tracking collars, and shock collars and lots of time working you dogs on obediance before ever going hunting.

[raven]

DOB has my motives right.

Aimless, the agencies often mix research with politics. Both in the studies they fund and the ways they right them up. Sometimes research is done by a team and the summary is written by the principal investigator in a way that is hard to support when you read the details. I've disagreed with conclusions based on the evidence supplied many times. If a researcher at an agency comes up with numbers that do not support the agency's point of view, do you think the report will be released? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you. And in the sciences -- any science -- studies that reach unexpected conclusions rarely get heard or published.

Harlan Bretz, the fellow who developed the theory of the release of ice age Lake Missoula as the generator of the Columbia Gorge was castigated because everyone knew at the time that no geological processes were cataclysmic.

Careful honest research in the case of lion populations leads to highly variable outcomes. Washington versus Oregon population density, for example.

RJ, I'm against hunting with dogs, with cameras, with bait and with snares. And I'm against preferentially taking the fittest and most curious animals. I suspect hunts should be rotated among units, because the pressure always being in the sane patterns affects animal distribution and grazing. What we have is a legacy system built upon a time of no restrictions and relatively few roads. If you remember, the original contention in "game management" was to get rid of all predators and to take only male ungulates. Many areas became over-browsed and carrying capacities dropped. Without predators the landscape changed botanically and in other ways.

When the Indian tribes held lands, they couldn't hunt as intensely and game refuge areas existed near boundaries of tribe control because of the threat posed by hunters of the neighboring tribe. Animals and seeds dispersing from the refuges repopulated over-exploited areas.

I think we need something like that today -- maybe a five year plan for the rotation of hunting areas, with no cameras being used in an area for the previous year before a hunt, so the hunters disperse throughout the area in their search for game.

RJ, are you in favor of hunting with drones? It will come, if it hasn't already.

[retired jerry]

We definitely don't want to kill just the most genetically fit Cougars. It seems like it's difficult to find Cougars, so the most genetically fit ones will be more likely to evade.

I have never killed any animals except a couple fish, but if someone else does without adversely affecting long term sustainability, then I'm okay with it. Don't tell me the gruesome details - of hunting or the lives of wild animals.

Drones? I don't know. As long as it doesn't effect long term sustainability?

But I'm open minded to everyone's position and willing to change my opinion.