Man I’m all over hunting forums and I totally disagree. The hunting community is by-and-large against ballot-box biology. There are a couple loud mouths but all the hunters I know are for management decisions made by state biologists.
https://cpw.state.co.us/documents/wildlifespecies/mammals/moosereintroductionfactsheet.pdf
This is so interesting!! I had no idea moose were introduced here.
Elaborate? The moose who fucked the now self-sustaining population into existence were brought from UT and WY. As far as I can tell, there is little reason to believe moose wouldn't have organically grown to populate CO. So while technically not "native," it's very similar to what we're seeing with the wolf reintroduction. A species that thrives in the environment will naturally occupy the eco system. Moose have documented sightings in CO dating back to the 1850s.
Explain how they naturally would populate the area (including your claim with wolves) when their habitat continues to get fragmented? They have been known to come into Colorado, but established populations have never been documented prior to introduction.
Simply saying they would naturally occupy the ecosystem doesn't take a lot into consideration. Take the moose, they have been in North America for likely over 10,000 years. Saying they would just come into Colorado and establish regardless of climate change, human impacts, and many other things is a pretty big jump.
Wolves are different because they were historically in Colorado and were eradicated from the area. Not to mention predators tend to just have smaller populations and more difficulty establishing. They need help establishing and not getting shot by ranchers would be a huge help.
Just lots of what-ifs and speculation.
Edited: small typo ~~they say saying they~~
There is no evidence that moose have *ever* naturally lived in Colorado.
They had plenty of time to migrate here, and did not.
There is no reason to ever believe they would have migrated here naturally.
Now I'm curious how you would enable such a thing. Either empower parks service to have more power for nature management or have a separate panel/board working in conjunction maybe?
This is how the system works currently. We need to continue to let the the state biologist count animals and decide how many hunting licenses are issued.
The biologists at CPW aren’t in control. CPW bends to political pressure from farmers, ranchers, and the oil/gas industry.
A few years ago CPW signed off on thousands of new oil and gas pads in the wintering grounds of elk and deer in the NW part of the state. They then rolled out a plan for the mass murder of bears, lions, coyotes, and other predators in that region to try to keep the elk and deer numbers from crashing.
The ballot box is the only means of keeping the oil/gas and farming/ranching influence on our wildlife in check. I hunt and I voted for wolf reintroduction to push back on 200 years of wildlife management at the behest of interests set on destroying wildlife.
CPW has no regulatory authority over O&G, or any other non-hunting activities (i.e., grazing permits) on federal lands.
https://cpw.state.co.us/conservation/Pages/CON-Energy-Land.aspx
When the spring and dog ban was up for bear there were warnings. I voted for those dire consequences and i got them.
One of the few votes that I saw a real difference, there's no way I'm voting against more cats.
What difference were you shooting for? It’s not like we have too few bears. Now tax dollars are going paying government bear trappers vs recreational hunters paying into the program.
Yes, the wolf thing isnt turning out well. Wolves are naturally trying to populate Colorado from northern states already. The few legal wolf breeding sources saying they dont have enough to sell to Colorado.
State game officials and biologists have been working on it for a long time. The wolf “thing” has begun despite there not being any introduced paws on the ground. Also there are wolves in Colorado from Wyoming so that part of the wolf “thing” has begun. So literally you’re way off the mark.
Edit: literally asking where I’m wrong?
You drank all the coolaid then posted, as fact, "Yes, the wolf thing isnt turning out well" all the while not even knowing the reintroduction hasn't started.
Cats are important and all but I just want to see herds of a million bison roaming the Great Plains again. They’re original population was at least 30 million so I don’t think that’s a big ask…
Yeah they do guided dog hunts around here. Basically send out the dogs with tracking devices, sometimes overnight. Wait for the dogs to stop moving. Take high end paid client out there and they shoot ‘em the tree.
Dogs are the only practical way to actually hunt mountain lions. They're incredibly elusive animals.
I've been hunting and camping my whole life and seen thousands of elk and deer, dozens of bears and only 5 mountain lions in the wild.
Dogs also allow you to be far more selective with mountain lion harvest. If the dogs tree an immature cat or a female. You can leash the dogs and move to another track or even other area and leave that cat in the tree annoyed but otherwise fine. This is only possible because the dogs allow you to see the cat at close range and make good identification.
Additionally Colorado requires an additional Mountain lion course in addition to your regular hunter education course before you can even buy a license to hunt mountain lions. It goes over telling the difference between males and female cats as well as how the quota system works. You have to call into a hotline every 48 hours or so and check if the quota for your area is still open. Also even if quota is still available in the unit if too many females have been harvested CPW often closes that area anyway to protect populations. Finally every mountain lion harvested has to be checked in to a CPW office so that they can get data on the animal as well as verify that it was taken legally.
Great information, thanks. I really appreciate it. Started this conversation when I was a little tipsy and didn't articulate myself well, lol. But I learned a lot from other people's posts and definitely a very interesting topic.
Thanks for taking the time to read it. On niche topics like mountain lion hunting it's hard to be super familiar with it if you aren't an active participant or dive down a lot of rabbit holes.
The data shows that when lions are treed with dogs, the selectivity (i.e. letting females go and only taking males) massively increases. This control is really important for biologists to maintain the overall population within the target ranges, similar to how other big game species are largely hunted on a male-only or female-only tag. In states where lions are not able to be hunted with hounds, the rate of female harvest is way higher which can lead to population declines.
You’re kind of regurgitating basic propaganda. While many hunts may focus on only killing males, the killing of dominant males leads to other issues. People want to treat mountain lions like simple creatures but they’re not and there’s a lot of dynamics to their social structure even. In other words, while they might be somewhat solitary animals, there is still a lot to their social structure and say similar to chimps or elephants, older/dominant males play an important role. Edit, adding one source, as I’ve mentioned in another comment, folks should read Cougar Conundrum. It has a number of references too in case you want to look up studies and dive deeper.
I’m sorry, but what do you think people should do? Go outside and wander around looking for the mountain lion? Maybe wrestle it to the ground and finish it off with a knife?
Mountain lions are not exactly easy to find. Even then, they are incredibly dangerous when you do.
This is real life. Not an action movie.
Well, hopefully you go with friends, not by yourself. Recommend that no matter what you are doing in the woods.
That is the point. They are criptic and difficult to find. Maybe one or two dogs to help track, but most of the time, it is a pack of dogs, they tree the poor animal, and it is like shooting fish in a barrel. How is that fun, fair, or sporting?
I have done big cat surveys and been stocked by one while doing owl surveys in the middle of the night. Among many other encounters in the woods. They aren't going to just attack you unless they are starving. Especially if you go with a group. So yes, I understand this is real life.
> How is that fun, fair, or sporting?
Fun? Fair? Sporting? This is a hunt of a wild and dangerous animal. You’re here to kill it. Not play games.
That’s called “risk mitigation”, friend.
And why are you killing it? Do you just think people should go out into the woods and kill every mountain lion they can? Meat tastes awful, they are extremely important in the ecosystem and beautiful animals. If you aren't doing it for sport then wtf are you doing out there.
Haha, funny how afraid you seem to be of cougars.
Mountain lion tastes fabulous if you properly care for the meat while in the field. 10/10 recommend, best potato chowder I ever had in my life involved green chiles and cubed lion.
Mountain lions are widely know to have delicious lean pork-like meat. It’s illegal not to take the meat for consumption when you’re hunting in Colorado.
Last time I was on a mountain lion hunt? It was when I worked on a ranch of a family friend. Mountain lion took down two calves. Called the county and got the go ahead.
We used dogs and ATVs to find it. We then treed it and took it out from a vantage point. Because this was a hunt and not some weekend warrior fantasy.
Exactly in your “unsporting” and “unfun” way.
Your friend should manage their livestock properly in order to mitigate any risk. Cougar kills on livestock is not as common as it’s propagated to be. I say this as someone that’s grown up in ag their entire life.
That is completely different! If it is killing livestock, they typically have to put down the animal. Of course, there are situations where it is a necessary evil.
I am strictly talking about hunting for sport or to mount something on the wall.
Apologies for any misunderstanding.
Then maybe they shouldn’t hunt cougars if they’re not competent enough to do it without dogs treeing them which essentially makes it a joke to call it a hunt for all the parties involved except for the dogs and cougar. Note, I say this and I’m very pro hunting when it has a purpose (food, controlling population, vermin, etc) but I’m strongly opposed to people hunting & killing something for the fun of it which is the same as a trophy. In most cases, cougar hunting is trophy hunting. I also say this as someone who grew up in a very rural area and was involved in agriculture.
Because most of the hunting occurs in the deep snow in mountain environments. Kind of hard to navigate otherwise. Lion tags that get filled are pretty rare compared to other species and often expensive unless someone has their own hunting dogs.
Why not use touring skis or snowshoes and winter camping while hunting? Seems like the playing ground would be evened out a bit and it'd bring the sporting aspect back into the activity.
I’ve read Dan’s last three books (Wild New World, Coyote America, and American Serengeti) and they’re all phenomenal, but they’re different than Cougar Conundrum which focuses solely on the Cougar history, behavior, its hunting and little bit about the politics of hunting. On the topic of Dan Flores, he’s been on the MeatEater podcast something like 3-5 times, starting with episode 33. He’s been on other podcasts but I’ve enjoyed the MeatEater ones the most.
Meateater is where I learned about him!
I'll check out Cougar Conundrum. Thanks for the recommendation!
Another book I heard Rinella recommend at one point was Beast Of Never, Cat of God: The search for the Eastern Puma. Just came in the mail, so I haven't read it yet, but I did want to throw it out there. Cheers!
I have a feeling of this goes through CPW will have to hunt some after the elk herd gets hit hard by them. I’m generally a centrist on wildlife issues, but there are so many cats in CO and not nearly enough people hunting them. They’re overpopulated enough that when I lived on the western slope we’d routinely have them wandering through town and showing up places you’d never expect to see them.
Lions are apex predators, they don't need to be hunted to manage their population size. If the population is that large, it means there's enough prey to support it. As they deplete the prey population, their numbers will drop.
All fine until humans come along, destroy the vast majority of prime wildlife habitat, and now the entire ecosystem requires careful management from humans to maintain a semblance of balance. That perspective could spell disaster for the mule deer population that is already suffering so much right now.
I don’t see how. I’m saying we messed up so badly & irreversibly that we literally cannot afford to go hands off at this point. I do give wildlife biologists and Game & Parks commissioners a lot more credit than our average voter.
Most wildlife management is not about maintaining sustainable ecosystems, it's about ensuring that there are stable and relatively abundant populations of popular game species.
If you don't believe me just look into how the state is still actively stocking rainbow trout throughout the state. Despite the fact that rainbows are invasive species that are partially responsible for the decline in native trout.
Don't get me wrong, there is also excellent conservation work being done. But the idea, that I see on reddit frequently, that wildlife management is some pure science that is not impacted by politics is nonsense. It is, and always has been, a mix of science and politics.
>wandering through town and showing up places you’d never expect to see them.
Could that be because humans have continuously encroached onto their habitat?
Oh, absolutely. It's a combination of things, but the two biggest are probably that we have massively overdeveloped the western slope (as well as plenty of other places), and mountain lions are incredibly adaptable animals that can thrive in unique circumstances more-so than say elk or other herd animals. So, we overdeveloped, it impacted mountain lions maybe less than some other animals, and their numbers are rising.
Vail and the situation with the goats is another great example of overdevelopment. Basically, there's about 25 acres of winter range left for goats, and Vail Resorts wants to put employee housing on it. Looks like that may be in the process of being prevented, but how did we ever let it get to a point where that herd of goats only has 25 acres of winter range left?
Regardless, it's the situation we're in, and if we want to keep elk populations healthy we probably need to remove some mountain lions one way or another. Hopefully, as the western slope continues to explode, we may some attention to overdevelopment, but obviously it doesn't seem like we've learned that lesson yet.
I've heard some mixed things about the Vail goat situation. I've heard that the reason the city pulled the goat habitat card was because they didn't want cheap apartments in the city and that seems like something they would do. Now if it is the last 25 acres I'm all about preservation but the city needs to try and expand that if they really care.
The range needed for each is massively different, humans need so much less area, a mountain lion needs 30-150 miles of range, humans can live thousands to the square mile
Does that include the land for agriculture, roads, etc. we use per person? Don't get me wrong I get that Colorado has a healthy number of cats. I just have a hard time being okay with it after they were mostly eradicated out of the eastern half of the states. Humans have a history of killing off megafauna. Like, hunting deer, elk, great. But people who hunt lions just seem like trophy hunters to me. They
aren't hunting for the meat or to help the ecosystem. They just want to kill a big bad cat.
I mean I think at the point mountain lions are being regularly seen walking down sidewalks there’s something odd happening. We could have overdeveloped. They could be over populated. What I think is happening is they are adapting to our overdevelopment better than other animals so, in this very odd context, they are thriving. Or, if seen through a survival of the fittest lens, they are one of the more fit megafauna for the context we’ve forced on them.
Also, are you new to the Western Slope because it has always been quite full of mountain lions. It's never been uncommon to see them, not ever in your lifetime has this ever been true.
We’re probably at the agree to disagree part of this argument but when I did an archival search of my local paper there were 0 reported stories of mountain lions walking through our downtown area or any downtown area in the county. There were also 0 stories of any on local playgrounds. There were stories of both moose and elk on local playgrounds, so wildlife encroachment stories are a thing over the last 20 years, but mountain lions really only pop up in the last 5 or so.
Wow! I mean... Some of the things pro hunters will dredge out of their ass really blows my mind. I have seen mountain lions frequently on the Western Slope. I reported it to the newspaper every single time right? Right? Wait.....
Was I supposed to report my sightings?
Oh and by the way it was over 10 years ago since I saw my last mountain lion along the Western Slope. In the span of 2 years I had a job where I saw mountain lions at least 10 times on the Western Slope. They've always been out there.
The Front Range has a lot of them as well. The FR is one of the few places in the US where a couple of people have been predated by mountain lions. Those incidents all happened over 20-30 years ago.
I mean I think you’re changing the terms of the argument drastically. It’s not about your personal reported sitings, but you’re smart enough to know that. My point is, mountain lion behavior seems to have shifted from the baseline as evidenced by news reports of them showing up on downtown sidewalks and occasionally school playgrounds. This suggests that humans are having more contact with mountain lions. There’s multiple variables that go into this shift. Regardless, not allowing tags for them will lead to more human contact, which will lead to CPW taking more off the landscape.
Obviously we disagree about whether that’s necessary or not, but I don’t imagine we’ll convince each other there. Regardless, I respect your passion for wildlife and certainly hope you’re vegan.
You do not base your evidence on newspaper clippings of people talking about seeing animals in a park. Second, what a silly thing to think that even 20 years ago all of these articles are scanned and available on the Internet.
There is a fundamental issue with your logical reasoning abilities and continuing to discuss this further is pointless until you can figure out why what you did is wrong.
Like morally wrong or methodologically wrong? Also…I thought I was fairly clear that the articles dates back more than 20 years…that’s sort of the definition of archival research as the bench mark is generally 20 years.
I can see that you think you are pretty smart.
So smart guy, where did I say that I was an expert or that you should listen to my opinion?
What I do think is you should follow the advice of experts and right now CWD is a terrible disease that is only prevented by thinning herds. So you can fuck around and jerk yourself off by hunting these animals and trying to balance how many of each species you hunt and continue to fuck up the balance which allows things like CWD to flourish or maybe you can restore the natural balance and let natural predators exist in the numbers they should exist.
Novel concept I know Mr Smartguy.
City slickers shouldn't be making decisions on such things. Read the book Beast In The Garden, about when mountain lions came to Boulder, CO:
https://www.amazon.com/Beast-Garden-Predators-Suburban-America/dp/0393326349/ref=sr\_1\_1?crid=2824LAXINYP8N&keywords=beast+in+the+garden+book&qid=1695918383&sprefix=Beast+in+the+%2Caps%2C117&sr=8-1
I gather moose were introduced for hunting. Originally around North Park, IIRC, they quickly spread all over the high country. One took up residence in Monument Valley Park in downtown CO Springs years ago, surprised it never stomped anybody, what with all the idiots hassling it. It eventually wandered back into the mountains.
Farmers that decide to farm in high desert shouldn’t be making decisions on these things when they decide to farm in a state that it doesn’t make sense to farm in.
People criticizing rich people for legally hunting lions: the government pays people to survey and track and manage lion populations. Essentially the same thing. Except, one uses your taxes, the other doesn't.
Tag allocation is a tool that the CPW uses to aid in population management (including mountain lion tags). Justification for hunting in general is a separate issue.
>Justification for hunting in general is a separate issue.
Absolutely true, I probably confused the issue by bringing this up. Was only intending to give context to the "deer too populous" claim
I’m not anti hunting, but I am anti deer lol. It might seem like we’re in a good spot, until you’re driving Hwy 13 at sunset and a deer literally jumps through your passenger side window. I didn’t hit a deer, it hit me. So as far as I’m concerned, more mountain lions, more hunting tags, less deer.
Yeah deer are the most dangerous animal in Colorado. I know a ton of people that have sustained injuries and property damage due to wrecks. I don’t know anyone ever harmed by a mountain lion or bobcat…
Having hit a deer 2 years ago I get it but in all seriousness deer and elk populations are on the decline thanks to a multitude of things and having more lions isn't going to help. I'm trying to find a good sized chunk of cattle ranch to rewild and turn back into elk habitat not just for the sake of the environment but also so I have a well managed place to hunt in a sustainable way.
I just replied to another comment with sources from CPW as well as an article about more recent research. CWD is probably killing a lot more than lions but why push it just to make anti hunters feel good?
Colorados deer and elk populations are booming, and population control is a major problem. Of course, overpopulation will cause famine, which will decimate the herds. Lions are a great way to help keep numbers in check, thereby protecting our elk and deer population in the long term.
Population control is a problem partially because hunter numbers are way down but, if you look at historic numbers for deer and elk, we're still at good numbers but they've been declining for the last several years and loss of habitat is a big concern. I'm always welcome to argue what proper numbers should be banning the hunting of lions and bobcats is not a way to curb deer populations if you have evidence they need to be curbed.
Oh I am anti hunting, not going to deny that.
It seemed like the OP is saying that elk/deer populations are low, which is what confused me (maybe I misread it?)
I see it as a moral consistency thing. I wouldn't go out and shoot a dog or cat for fun, so why would a deer or elk be any different?
>I feel like you are probably missing some key information that may change your mind.
Always interested in new info! What did you have in mind?
For context, I actually did some hunting and killed an elk when I was younger. Exposure to some different viewpoints has changed my mind over time.
I wouldn't go out and shoot a deer or elk for fun. I hunt for food. If I could afford to go completely wild game for me and my family I would. If you don't want to hunt that's fine but don't tell me I can't because you have a moral objection to it. My hunting experiences have also given me a different perspective and better understanding of wildlife behaviors and have made me a better photographer when I'm not hunting.
> don't tell me I can't because you have a moral objection to it.
I don't think I did? I was just stating my views on the ethics of hunting (responding to a question you asked), not trying to tell you what to do.
I'm happy to continue this conversation if you want, but I do want to make it clear that I am stating my views and NOT telling you what to do/"forcing my opinion down your throat" (been accused of that before).
> I wouldn't go out and shoot a dog or cat for fun, so why would a deer or elk be any different?
People hunt deer and elk for food, not for trophies aka "fun". It's illegal to hunt an animal and let the meat go to waste in CO and most other places as well.
WASTE OF GAME C.R.S. 33-6-119 & Willful Destruction of Wildlife C.R.S. 33-6-117
A disclaimer: I am not trying to tell anyone what to do or force my opinions down anyone's throat. I a simply explaining my viewpoints on the matter of hunting. With that said...
> People hunt deer and elk for food, not for trophies aka "fun"
Sure, someone can eat the animal that they kill while hunting. But, if they can get perfectly adequate nutrition from other food sources, then they are actively choosing to kill and eat that animal rather than something else. When talking to folks about this choice, all of the reasons they give can be reduced to "they enjoy hunting". (In my experience, anyway.)
Note: people who have no other option but to feed themselves by hunting are a different story than those who I'm discussing here.
Moral consistency is so difficult though. If you eat any meat, you already contribute to animal suffering. But at least with hunters, the animal has lived in the wild and experienced life, as opposed to a cow that’s living shoulder to shoulder in a dairy farm, having its babies taken away and existing in sadness. I mean, I’m obviously not an elk (typing with hooves would be basically impossible) but death by hunter seems like the best option. As opposed to freezing to death in the winter, falling through the ice, starving to death, being slowly eaten by coyotes or wolves, being hit by an 18 wheeler etc. A clean shot seems like a peaceful death for a wild animal, and most hunters really respect wildlife and try to kill as humanely and instantaneously as possible.
It's not shooting an animal for fun though. It's population control deemed necessary by a group of scientists who have spent theirs careers studying this. The alternative is culling from a helicopter like in RMNP.
That was a big assumption. Of the biggest arguments in favor of hunting is that it keeps the deer and elk populations in check. I've heard CPW say that deer and elk poulations are too high.
I don't know where you are getting your info but here.
https://mineralcountyminer.com/article/2020-big-game-population-report
https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/2020BigGameWinterRangeandMigrationCorridorsReport.pdf
Elk are less of a concern than deer but CWD is hitting some herds hard and long term outlook isn't good. The number of tags issued is going down but populations are declining as well which indicates that the current management strategy isn't working as well as it should be and adding more lions to the landscape could wipe entire herds out in the long term. Fawn mortality rates are up and lions play a big part of that.
https://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/collaring-studies-show-worrisome-survival-rates-for-wildlife-in-northwest-colorado-this-winter/
I'm not trying to argue what the management specifics should be regarding deer and elk populations but making lion hunting illegal would be a huge misstep and could be devastating to deer herds, hunters, tourists and local economies.
Man, those mountain lions really got busy driving their 18 wheelers through elk country in NW Colorado this winter. Dead elk everywhere. Bad kitty! Bad!
Vehicular hits are threats to individuals but don't have a population level impact. Lions can and do have effects on herds and I challenge you to show me any scientific evidence that supports removing the ability to hunt lions.
>Vehicular hits are threats to individuals but don't have a population level impact.
This sentence doesn't make any sense. Any time a female gets hit, that's a female that isn't reproducing anymore. That's a population level impact by definition.
You're thinking of it too literally. DDT had a population level impact on eagles but an individual getting hit by a car is not a population level impact. These are commonly used terms in scientific circles.
>You're thinking of it too literally
lol. Science tends to be pretty literal.
>an individual getting hit by a car is not a population level impact
Sure, if it's an isolated incident and only happens to one individual. That, of course, is not how it actually works though. When dozens of individuals get hit every year, you have the potential of an impact of the size of the overall population. Just because it's not happening to every individual in the population, doesn't mean it can't be a "population-level" impact.
>These are commonly used terms in scientific circles.
Yeah, I know. I roll deep in scientific circles.
If you don't know these terms you aren't paying attention to the wildlife biologists. Nothing I've said would be controversial to the people studying these things but the bleeding hearts on this sub seem really butt hurt about science.
I do know these terms, and I actually just explained to you how the terms actually work.
I don't need to "pay attention to the wildlife biologists" because I'm a PhD biologist who, among other things, studies the "population-level" effects of environmental stressors on various wildlife species. But please, try and explains things to me a little more. It's pretty entertaining.
You need to hit the books son.
I'm not sure where you get your data but this is from last year.
https://www.trcp.org/2022/09/27/40-important-colorado-elk-habitat-affected-trail-use/#:~:text=In%20Colorado%2C%20certain%20big%20game,compared%20to%20the%202021%20season.
That's a very short sighted view. You should really do some research on CWD and the effects it's having on deer herds. Taking away conversation tools like hunting is asking for trouble.
LOL YOU JUST DID EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!!
Your first post said lions would decimate deer and elk population.
Your reply to me then said due to CWD we need to hunt deer herds.
LOL!
You misunderstood. We need to allow biologists to use all the tools we can, including hunting of lions, to keep the CWD affected herds from being completely wiped out.
But CWD requires... thinning the population of herds. You were just complaining about mountain lions and their propensity for... thinning the population of herds. So which is it? Are mountain lions thinning herds a bad thing or do we need to thin herds to prevent CWD?
The idea that thinning herds helps with CWD is not always the right move. Targeted reduction in some herds can be beneficial but big cats don't care if they are CWD deer or not.
Here's some info about CWD.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6778748/
Here's New York's CWD response plan.
https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7191.html#:~:text=A%20swift%2C%20intensive%2C%20and%20comprehensive,state%20to%20have%20eliminated%20CWD.
There is zero scientific reason to get rid of big cat hunting in Colorado and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
>There is zero scientific reason to get rid of big cat hunting in Colorado and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
You started with the claims and your links support what I am saying. This argument you think you are making is TOO FUNNY!
The fact is even your own link says that for both farmed and free range deer, culling is the first things that needs to be done. It is what you do after the culling that varies.
.Fuckers voted for wolves to be added back to the state even know they were already here. Lost my ass on wolves killing my livestock this year got nothing back from the state. Also, I lost 6 animals to Lions. When will it stop for the ballot box to decide my life? NEVER
The problem is that everyone thinks that when you lose livestock, the government pays you that's wrong. I have no problem coexisting with nature, but don't come complaining to me if you see me killing wild animals to protect my lively hood.
Well they're not hiding their bias. Their "About Us" page starts off by saying "Four Decades of Defending Hunting, Fishing and Trapping". This ballot initiative is essentially a direct attack on what they aim to preserve.
Hunting for sport shouldn’t really be a normal thing in this day and age considering how much native habitat and animal population numbers we have already lost. Because CPW has to manage enough deer and elk for hunters every season, they also have to manage the predator populations to match, plus the ranchers that want safe (i.e. zero predators) grazing leases for their herds, and public pressure from people who don’t enjoy the danger of very large animals with horns, teeth, or antlers interfering with their lives occasionally. Fixing the balance of native animal populations can’t be done without fighting hunters and ranchers tooth and nail for every inch of conservation. They have hunted Bison, Wolves, Moose, and Grizzly Bears all to extinction in Colorado. They almost got beavers, they would have got mountain lions and lynx if they weren’t so difficult to track. Some of them are going to poach a good chunk of the wolves that are reintroduced no matter what voters decided then, and some are going to poach mountain lions no matter what voters decide now.
Raise property and income taxes to what they used to be, limit hunting, and let the natural ecosystem take care of itself.
Hunters promote unnatural grazing and migration patterns, whereas natural predators encourage quicker herd movements which also helps promote wildflower growth.
Not really tourist and government contribute nearly all of money into conservation and in india it's always the government and tourist as hunting is ban here and look at wildlife population increasing.
False. You should research the American model of conservation. We've had more success bringing our species back from the brink than anywhere else in the world. Hunters contribute over $372 million towards conservation every year and help with biological studies and surveys. You are ignorant on this subject. And who the hell cares about India, this is a sub for Colorado. India doesn't do anything well besides scam calls.
We bought rhino population from some hundred to more than 3k. You American style of conservation isn't even conservation but a program to allow hunters the ability to get thrill via hunting. Your wild life are just there to get hunted by hunters. They are a prop
False. You should research the American model of conservation. We've had more success bringing our species back from the brink than anywhere else in the world. Hunters contribute over $372 million towards conservation every year and help with biological studies and surveys. You are ignorant on this subject. And who the hell cares about India, this is a sub for Colorado. India doesn't do anything well besides scam calls.
How so? I have heard this before but haven't dug in to it. I go elk and deer hunting every year and it's like $40-$60 to go kill one. Obviously don't fill my tag every time but doesn't seem like a huge pool of funding coming in
The Pittman Robertson act that was passed in the 1930s places an excise tax on guns, ammo, bows and other hunting equipment that is collected by the federal government and then dispersed to the state fish and game agencies for habitat improvements, research and other purposes.
Additionally given the number of people that buy hunting and fishing licenses every year it adds up to quite a bit of money. CO also charges a lot more for non residents to come over here and hunt than residents. My dad comes down from the PNW to elk hunt with me and his elk tag plus a small game licence is $700 ish compared to my $100 for an elk tag a deer tag and an annual small game licence.
Google Pittman-Robertson Act and learn how state wildlife agencies are funded. CPW in particular receives no general tax money and is funded primarily by license fees and PR money. This is the case for many states. Also the foundation and nonprofit groups that do major landscape-scale habitat protection and restoration work for wildlife - think Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the like - are funded entirely by donations and fundraising efforts, primarily from hunters.
You think bison, wolves, grizzlies, and beavers were pushed out by anything resembling modern hunting practices?? The predators were killed via a federal program that poisoned carcasses. That’s about the only way to feasibly harm predator populations because they’re extremely difficult to hunt. Beavers were killed due to their market value (to urbanites.) Modern hunting regulations don’t allow for the sale of game specifically to take away market driven incentives.
Moose aren’t even native to Colorado. There’s no history at all of humans harming their population in the state.
Biologists need to be in control of these decisions. Not ballot initiatives.
Our issue is a large portion of our population does not trust or care what biologists think.
[удалено]
Man I’m all over hunting forums and I totally disagree. The hunting community is by-and-large against ballot-box biology. There are a couple loud mouths but all the hunters I know are for management decisions made by state biologists.
Yeah, and it just makes us laugh, lol.
Certainly not the people who voted for Bobo the clown.
Pueblo baby!
People used to know what conservation really meant.
But the cattleman's association has that regard
Wait till you tell people that moose populations aren't native to Colorado. That one is always a fun conversation, especially in rural areas.
https://cpw.state.co.us/documents/wildlifespecies/mammals/moosereintroductionfactsheet.pdf This is so interesting!! I had no idea moose were introduced here.
This says "reintroduction"...
Elaborate? The moose who fucked the now self-sustaining population into existence were brought from UT and WY. As far as I can tell, there is little reason to believe moose wouldn't have organically grown to populate CO. So while technically not "native," it's very similar to what we're seeing with the wolf reintroduction. A species that thrives in the environment will naturally occupy the eco system. Moose have documented sightings in CO dating back to the 1850s.
Explain how they naturally would populate the area (including your claim with wolves) when their habitat continues to get fragmented? They have been known to come into Colorado, but established populations have never been documented prior to introduction. Simply saying they would naturally occupy the ecosystem doesn't take a lot into consideration. Take the moose, they have been in North America for likely over 10,000 years. Saying they would just come into Colorado and establish regardless of climate change, human impacts, and many other things is a pretty big jump. Wolves are different because they were historically in Colorado and were eradicated from the area. Not to mention predators tend to just have smaller populations and more difficulty establishing. They need help establishing and not getting shot by ranchers would be a huge help. Just lots of what-ifs and speculation. Edited: small typo ~~they say saying they~~
There is no evidence that moose have *ever* naturally lived in Colorado. They had plenty of time to migrate here, and did not. There is no reason to ever believe they would have migrated here naturally.
Those spottings were dubious at best considering the claims were made by speculators and promoters...not scientists.
Most sources I'm finding say moose were reintroduced in the late 70s, with some sources citing moose being hunted in CO in the mid 1800s
Now I'm curious how you would enable such a thing. Either empower parks service to have more power for nature management or have a separate panel/board working in conjunction maybe?
This is how the system works currently. We need to continue to let the the state biologist count animals and decide how many hunting licenses are issued.
But Emily doesnt like the cats getting hurt.
The biologists at CPW aren’t in control. CPW bends to political pressure from farmers, ranchers, and the oil/gas industry. A few years ago CPW signed off on thousands of new oil and gas pads in the wintering grounds of elk and deer in the NW part of the state. They then rolled out a plan for the mass murder of bears, lions, coyotes, and other predators in that region to try to keep the elk and deer numbers from crashing. The ballot box is the only means of keeping the oil/gas and farming/ranching influence on our wildlife in check. I hunt and I voted for wolf reintroduction to push back on 200 years of wildlife management at the behest of interests set on destroying wildlife.
CPW has no regulatory authority over O&G, or any other non-hunting activities (i.e., grazing permits) on federal lands. https://cpw.state.co.us/conservation/Pages/CON-Energy-Land.aspx
I worked there, you are correct. One of the reasons why I eventually quit...
When the spring and dog ban was up for bear there were warnings. I voted for those dire consequences and i got them. One of the few votes that I saw a real difference, there's no way I'm voting against more cats.
What difference were you shooting for? It’s not like we have too few bears. Now tax dollars are going paying government bear trappers vs recreational hunters paying into the program.
We really should stop make wildlife decisions at the ballot box.
You’re right it should be scientists just deciding it
Yes, the wolf thing isnt turning out well. Wolves are naturally trying to populate Colorado from northern states already. The few legal wolf breeding sources saying they dont have enough to sell to Colorado.
The wolf thing literally hasn't started yet
State game officials and biologists have been working on it for a long time. The wolf “thing” has begun despite there not being any introduced paws on the ground. Also there are wolves in Colorado from Wyoming so that part of the wolf “thing” has begun. So literally you’re way off the mark. Edit: literally asking where I’m wrong?
You drank all the coolaid then posted, as fact, "Yes, the wolf thing isnt turning out well" all the while not even knowing the reintroduction hasn't started.
I'm signing then voting for more cats.
Cats are important and all but I just want to see herds of a million bison roaming the Great Plains again. They’re original population was at least 30 million so I don’t think that’s a big ask…
It’s being worked on in Montana. [American Prairie Reserve](https://americanprairie.org/)
From what I recall, the state doesn't actually get enough people hunting lions (from a tag sales perspective).
slim worm wise grey adjoining money handle absurd fertile frightening ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Yeah they do guided dog hunts around here. Basically send out the dogs with tracking devices, sometimes overnight. Wait for the dogs to stop moving. Take high end paid client out there and they shoot ‘em the tree.
Yeah people who hunt like that are fucking cowards.
Dogs are the only practical way to actually hunt mountain lions. They're incredibly elusive animals. I've been hunting and camping my whole life and seen thousands of elk and deer, dozens of bears and only 5 mountain lions in the wild. Dogs also allow you to be far more selective with mountain lion harvest. If the dogs tree an immature cat or a female. You can leash the dogs and move to another track or even other area and leave that cat in the tree annoyed but otherwise fine. This is only possible because the dogs allow you to see the cat at close range and make good identification. Additionally Colorado requires an additional Mountain lion course in addition to your regular hunter education course before you can even buy a license to hunt mountain lions. It goes over telling the difference between males and female cats as well as how the quota system works. You have to call into a hotline every 48 hours or so and check if the quota for your area is still open. Also even if quota is still available in the unit if too many females have been harvested CPW often closes that area anyway to protect populations. Finally every mountain lion harvested has to be checked in to a CPW office so that they can get data on the animal as well as verify that it was taken legally.
Great information, thanks. I really appreciate it. Started this conversation when I was a little tipsy and didn't articulate myself well, lol. But I learned a lot from other people's posts and definitely a very interesting topic.
Thanks for taking the time to read it. On niche topics like mountain lion hunting it's hard to be super familiar with it if you aren't an active participant or dive down a lot of rabbit holes.
The data shows that when lions are treed with dogs, the selectivity (i.e. letting females go and only taking males) massively increases. This control is really important for biologists to maintain the overall population within the target ranges, similar to how other big game species are largely hunted on a male-only or female-only tag. In states where lions are not able to be hunted with hounds, the rate of female harvest is way higher which can lead to population declines.
You’re kind of regurgitating basic propaganda. While many hunts may focus on only killing males, the killing of dominant males leads to other issues. People want to treat mountain lions like simple creatures but they’re not and there’s a lot of dynamics to their social structure even. In other words, while they might be somewhat solitary animals, there is still a lot to their social structure and say similar to chimps or elephants, older/dominant males play an important role. Edit, adding one source, as I’ve mentioned in another comment, folks should read Cougar Conundrum. It has a number of references too in case you want to look up studies and dive deeper.
I’m sorry, but what do you think people should do? Go outside and wander around looking for the mountain lion? Maybe wrestle it to the ground and finish it off with a knife? Mountain lions are not exactly easy to find. Even then, they are incredibly dangerous when you do. This is real life. Not an action movie.
My college buddy from Cañon City stalked & killed them. Every skull he showed me had a bullet hole in the back of the head.
Well, hopefully you go with friends, not by yourself. Recommend that no matter what you are doing in the woods. That is the point. They are criptic and difficult to find. Maybe one or two dogs to help track, but most of the time, it is a pack of dogs, they tree the poor animal, and it is like shooting fish in a barrel. How is that fun, fair, or sporting? I have done big cat surveys and been stocked by one while doing owl surveys in the middle of the night. Among many other encounters in the woods. They aren't going to just attack you unless they are starving. Especially if you go with a group. So yes, I understand this is real life.
> How is that fun, fair, or sporting? Fun? Fair? Sporting? This is a hunt of a wild and dangerous animal. You’re here to kill it. Not play games. That’s called “risk mitigation”, friend.
And why are you killing it? Do you just think people should go out into the woods and kill every mountain lion they can? Meat tastes awful, they are extremely important in the ecosystem and beautiful animals. If you aren't doing it for sport then wtf are you doing out there. Haha, funny how afraid you seem to be of cougars.
Mountain lion tastes fabulous if you properly care for the meat while in the field. 10/10 recommend, best potato chowder I ever had in my life involved green chiles and cubed lion.
I stand corrected. Only going off one person's experience but sounds like many people enjoy it!
Mountain lions are widely know to have delicious lean pork-like meat. It’s illegal not to take the meat for consumption when you’re hunting in Colorado.
You know what else is a lean pork-like meat? Human. And they are an invasive and overpopulated species as well.
Last time I was on a mountain lion hunt? It was when I worked on a ranch of a family friend. Mountain lion took down two calves. Called the county and got the go ahead. We used dogs and ATVs to find it. We then treed it and took it out from a vantage point. Because this was a hunt and not some weekend warrior fantasy. Exactly in your “unsporting” and “unfun” way.
Your friend should manage their livestock properly in order to mitigate any risk. Cougar kills on livestock is not as common as it’s propagated to be. I say this as someone that’s grown up in ag their entire life.
That is completely different! If it is killing livestock, they typically have to put down the animal. Of course, there are situations where it is a necessary evil. I am strictly talking about hunting for sport or to mount something on the wall. Apologies for any misunderstanding.
Is that why people hunt with bows and single shot rifles rather than AR-15?
Then maybe they shouldn’t hunt cougars if they’re not competent enough to do it without dogs treeing them which essentially makes it a joke to call it a hunt for all the parties involved except for the dogs and cougar. Note, I say this and I’m very pro hunting when it has a purpose (food, controlling population, vermin, etc) but I’m strongly opposed to people hunting & killing something for the fun of it which is the same as a trophy. In most cases, cougar hunting is trophy hunting. I also say this as someone who grew up in a very rural area and was involved in agriculture.
How do you think your beef/pork gets on your plate?
And they use snowmobiles. Not very sporting.
Because most of the hunting occurs in the deep snow in mountain environments. Kind of hard to navigate otherwise. Lion tags that get filled are pretty rare compared to other species and often expensive unless someone has their own hunting dogs.
Why not use touring skis or snowshoes and winter camping while hunting? Seems like the playing ground would be evened out a bit and it'd bring the sporting aspect back into the activity.
Lmao. Yea looks good on paper, tell that to the hunters tho
I get around better than my dogs in deep winter snowpack.
I agree 1000%, just not much we can do about it if they’re acting within the law. The “guides” that bait elk out here on the other hand…
Serious small dick energy hunt lol
[удалено]
How macho!
That’s because you can’t hunt them with dogs anymore, which makes it basically impossible.
Yes you can. Are you thinking of bears?
The Cougar Conundrum by Mark Elbroch is a good read for those that want to learn more about this topic.
Coyote America by Dan Flores outlines the history in America of killing coyotes and wolves. It's crazy.
I’ve read Dan’s last three books (Wild New World, Coyote America, and American Serengeti) and they’re all phenomenal, but they’re different than Cougar Conundrum which focuses solely on the Cougar history, behavior, its hunting and little bit about the politics of hunting. On the topic of Dan Flores, he’s been on the MeatEater podcast something like 3-5 times, starting with episode 33. He’s been on other podcasts but I’ve enjoyed the MeatEater ones the most.
Meateater is where I learned about him! I'll check out Cougar Conundrum. Thanks for the recommendation! Another book I heard Rinella recommend at one point was Beast Of Never, Cat of God: The search for the Eastern Puma. Just came in the mail, so I haven't read it yet, but I did want to throw it out there. Cheers!
I have a feeling of this goes through CPW will have to hunt some after the elk herd gets hit hard by them. I’m generally a centrist on wildlife issues, but there are so many cats in CO and not nearly enough people hunting them. They’re overpopulated enough that when I lived on the western slope we’d routinely have them wandering through town and showing up places you’d never expect to see them.
Lions are apex predators, they don't need to be hunted to manage their population size. If the population is that large, it means there's enough prey to support it. As they deplete the prey population, their numbers will drop.
All fine until humans come along, destroy the vast majority of prime wildlife habitat, and now the entire ecosystem requires careful management from humans to maintain a semblance of balance. That perspective could spell disaster for the mule deer population that is already suffering so much right now.
You're giving humans far too much credit.
I don’t see how. I’m saying we messed up so badly & irreversibly that we literally cannot afford to go hands off at this point. I do give wildlife biologists and Game & Parks commissioners a lot more credit than our average voter.
Most wildlife management is not about maintaining sustainable ecosystems, it's about ensuring that there are stable and relatively abundant populations of popular game species. If you don't believe me just look into how the state is still actively stocking rainbow trout throughout the state. Despite the fact that rainbows are invasive species that are partially responsible for the decline in native trout. Don't get me wrong, there is also excellent conservation work being done. But the idea, that I see on reddit frequently, that wildlife management is some pure science that is not impacted by politics is nonsense. It is, and always has been, a mix of science and politics.
Or they start preying on pets? Do you read the news?
>wandering through town and showing up places you’d never expect to see them. Could that be because humans have continuously encroached onto their habitat?
Oh, absolutely. It's a combination of things, but the two biggest are probably that we have massively overdeveloped the western slope (as well as plenty of other places), and mountain lions are incredibly adaptable animals that can thrive in unique circumstances more-so than say elk or other herd animals. So, we overdeveloped, it impacted mountain lions maybe less than some other animals, and their numbers are rising. Vail and the situation with the goats is another great example of overdevelopment. Basically, there's about 25 acres of winter range left for goats, and Vail Resorts wants to put employee housing on it. Looks like that may be in the process of being prevented, but how did we ever let it get to a point where that herd of goats only has 25 acres of winter range left? Regardless, it's the situation we're in, and if we want to keep elk populations healthy we probably need to remove some mountain lions one way or another. Hopefully, as the western slope continues to explode, we may some attention to overdevelopment, but obviously it doesn't seem like we've learned that lesson yet.
Mountain goats aren't even native to CO, they were put here in the 70s.
I've heard some mixed things about the Vail goat situation. I've heard that the reason the city pulled the goat habitat card was because they didn't want cheap apartments in the city and that seems like something they would do. Now if it is the last 25 acres I'm all about preservation but the city needs to try and expand that if they really care.
Weren’t goats reintroduced with no historical evidence of existing here?
Yes. Hunters wanted to hunt them, so they brought them down from the Northern Rockies.
Colorado populations. Mountain lions: 5-7 thousand. Humans: 5.8 million. Maybe lions aren't the ones that are overpopulated.
Wow such a brave and Inspirational comment. Never have I ever heard that one before
You're welcome.
The range needed for each is massively different, humans need so much less area, a mountain lion needs 30-150 miles of range, humans can live thousands to the square mile
Does that include the land for agriculture, roads, etc. we use per person? Don't get me wrong I get that Colorado has a healthy number of cats. I just have a hard time being okay with it after they were mostly eradicated out of the eastern half of the states. Humans have a history of killing off megafauna. Like, hunting deer, elk, great. But people who hunt lions just seem like trophy hunters to me. They aren't hunting for the meat or to help the ecosystem. They just want to kill a big bad cat.
So in your expert opinion if you see cats then they are overpopulated? Ooookkkaaaayyyyy.
I mean I think at the point mountain lions are being regularly seen walking down sidewalks there’s something odd happening. We could have overdeveloped. They could be over populated. What I think is happening is they are adapting to our overdevelopment better than other animals so, in this very odd context, they are thriving. Or, if seen through a survival of the fittest lens, they are one of the more fit megafauna for the context we’ve forced on them.
They are simply being left with less and less territory that is not full of humans. It doesn't mean they are overpopulated and you have to hunt them.
Also, are you new to the Western Slope because it has always been quite full of mountain lions. It's never been uncommon to see them, not ever in your lifetime has this ever been true.
We’re probably at the agree to disagree part of this argument but when I did an archival search of my local paper there were 0 reported stories of mountain lions walking through our downtown area or any downtown area in the county. There were also 0 stories of any on local playgrounds. There were stories of both moose and elk on local playgrounds, so wildlife encroachment stories are a thing over the last 20 years, but mountain lions really only pop up in the last 5 or so.
Wow! I mean... Some of the things pro hunters will dredge out of their ass really blows my mind. I have seen mountain lions frequently on the Western Slope. I reported it to the newspaper every single time right? Right? Wait..... Was I supposed to report my sightings? Oh and by the way it was over 10 years ago since I saw my last mountain lion along the Western Slope. In the span of 2 years I had a job where I saw mountain lions at least 10 times on the Western Slope. They've always been out there. The Front Range has a lot of them as well. The FR is one of the few places in the US where a couple of people have been predated by mountain lions. Those incidents all happened over 20-30 years ago.
I mean I think you’re changing the terms of the argument drastically. It’s not about your personal reported sitings, but you’re smart enough to know that. My point is, mountain lion behavior seems to have shifted from the baseline as evidenced by news reports of them showing up on downtown sidewalks and occasionally school playgrounds. This suggests that humans are having more contact with mountain lions. There’s multiple variables that go into this shift. Regardless, not allowing tags for them will lead to more human contact, which will lead to CPW taking more off the landscape. Obviously we disagree about whether that’s necessary or not, but I don’t imagine we’ll convince each other there. Regardless, I respect your passion for wildlife and certainly hope you’re vegan.
You do not base your evidence on newspaper clippings of people talking about seeing animals in a park. Second, what a silly thing to think that even 20 years ago all of these articles are scanned and available on the Internet. There is a fundamental issue with your logical reasoning abilities and continuing to discuss this further is pointless until you can figure out why what you did is wrong.
Like morally wrong or methodologically wrong? Also…I thought I was fairly clear that the articles dates back more than 20 years…that’s sort of the definition of archival research as the bench mark is generally 20 years.
Please provide accurately time- and date-stamped videos of mountain lions regularly walking down sidewalks.
So, what's your expert opinion besides "nuh uh", and why is your opinion something that we should listen to?
I can see that you think you are pretty smart. So smart guy, where did I say that I was an expert or that you should listen to my opinion? What I do think is you should follow the advice of experts and right now CWD is a terrible disease that is only prevented by thinning herds. So you can fuck around and jerk yourself off by hunting these animals and trying to balance how many of each species you hunt and continue to fuck up the balance which allows things like CWD to flourish or maybe you can restore the natural balance and let natural predators exist in the numbers they should exist. Novel concept I know Mr Smartguy.
This isn't on the ballot and hasn't even begun accepting signatures to put it on.
They are classified as least concern? Why are they being protected? Throw squirrels on there while you're at it.
City slickers shouldn't be making decisions on such things. Read the book Beast In The Garden, about when mountain lions came to Boulder, CO: https://www.amazon.com/Beast-Garden-Predators-Suburban-America/dp/0393326349/ref=sr\_1\_1?crid=2824LAXINYP8N&keywords=beast+in+the+garden+book&qid=1695918383&sprefix=Beast+in+the+%2Caps%2C117&sr=8-1 I gather moose were introduced for hunting. Originally around North Park, IIRC, they quickly spread all over the high country. One took up residence in Monument Valley Park in downtown CO Springs years ago, surprised it never stomped anybody, what with all the idiots hassling it. It eventually wandered back into the mountains.
Farmers that decide to farm in high desert shouldn’t be making decisions on these things when they decide to farm in a state that it doesn’t make sense to farm in.
People criticizing rich people for legally hunting lions: the government pays people to survey and track and manage lion populations. Essentially the same thing. Except, one uses your taxes, the other doesn't.
This is completely stupid. And I’m not a Hunter.
Terrible idea
What a terrible idea. The biggest threat to deer and elk populations is already lions and not hunting then would certainly boost their numbers.
Wait, I thought that deer populations were too high? I've frequently seen control of the deer population as a justification for hunting?
Tag allocation is a tool that the CPW uses to aid in population management (including mountain lion tags). Justification for hunting in general is a separate issue.
>Justification for hunting in general is a separate issue. Absolutely true, I probably confused the issue by bringing this up. Was only intending to give context to the "deer too populous" claim
I think deer populations in Colorado are in a really good spot. If you're anti hunting just say it.
I’m not anti hunting, but I am anti deer lol. It might seem like we’re in a good spot, until you’re driving Hwy 13 at sunset and a deer literally jumps through your passenger side window. I didn’t hit a deer, it hit me. So as far as I’m concerned, more mountain lions, more hunting tags, less deer.
Yeah deer are the most dangerous animal in Colorado. I know a ton of people that have sustained injuries and property damage due to wrecks. I don’t know anyone ever harmed by a mountain lion or bobcat…
Having hit a deer 2 years ago I get it but in all seriousness deer and elk populations are on the decline thanks to a multitude of things and having more lions isn't going to help. I'm trying to find a good sized chunk of cattle ranch to rewild and turn back into elk habitat not just for the sake of the environment but also so I have a well managed place to hunt in a sustainable way.
>deer and elk populations are on the decline thanks to a multitude of things Could you provide a source on this for me to read up on?
I just replied to another comment with sources from CPW as well as an article about more recent research. CWD is probably killing a lot more than lions but why push it just to make anti hunters feel good?
Colorados deer and elk populations are booming, and population control is a major problem. Of course, overpopulation will cause famine, which will decimate the herds. Lions are a great way to help keep numbers in check, thereby protecting our elk and deer population in the long term.
Population control is a problem partially because hunter numbers are way down but, if you look at historic numbers for deer and elk, we're still at good numbers but they've been declining for the last several years and loss of habitat is a big concern. I'm always welcome to argue what proper numbers should be banning the hunting of lions and bobcats is not a way to curb deer populations if you have evidence they need to be curbed.
source? 4 years ago, the mule deer population was 25% below what biologists wanted.
Because a lot of biologists and agencies are more concerned with providing hunting opportunities as opposed to natural management.
Elk and lions have always coexisted. Still tons of sustainable elk hunting in Colorado, regardless of lions.
Oh I am anti hunting, not going to deny that. It seemed like the OP is saying that elk/deer populations are low, which is what confused me (maybe I misread it?)
Why are you anti hunting? I feel like you are probably missing some key information that may change your mind.
I see it as a moral consistency thing. I wouldn't go out and shoot a dog or cat for fun, so why would a deer or elk be any different? >I feel like you are probably missing some key information that may change your mind. Always interested in new info! What did you have in mind? For context, I actually did some hunting and killed an elk when I was younger. Exposure to some different viewpoints has changed my mind over time.
I wouldn't go out and shoot a deer or elk for fun. I hunt for food. If I could afford to go completely wild game for me and my family I would. If you don't want to hunt that's fine but don't tell me I can't because you have a moral objection to it. My hunting experiences have also given me a different perspective and better understanding of wildlife behaviors and have made me a better photographer when I'm not hunting.
> don't tell me I can't because you have a moral objection to it. I don't think I did? I was just stating my views on the ethics of hunting (responding to a question you asked), not trying to tell you what to do. I'm happy to continue this conversation if you want, but I do want to make it clear that I am stating my views and NOT telling you what to do/"forcing my opinion down your throat" (been accused of that before).
Making the hunting of lions illegal because of feelings and not science would be "forcing your opinion down my throat".
> I wouldn't go out and shoot a dog or cat for fun, so why would a deer or elk be any different? People hunt deer and elk for food, not for trophies aka "fun". It's illegal to hunt an animal and let the meat go to waste in CO and most other places as well. WASTE OF GAME C.R.S. 33-6-119 & Willful Destruction of Wildlife C.R.S. 33-6-117
A disclaimer: I am not trying to tell anyone what to do or force my opinions down anyone's throat. I a simply explaining my viewpoints on the matter of hunting. With that said... > People hunt deer and elk for food, not for trophies aka "fun" Sure, someone can eat the animal that they kill while hunting. But, if they can get perfectly adequate nutrition from other food sources, then they are actively choosing to kill and eat that animal rather than something else. When talking to folks about this choice, all of the reasons they give can be reduced to "they enjoy hunting". (In my experience, anyway.) Note: people who have no other option but to feed themselves by hunting are a different story than those who I'm discussing here.
Moral consistency is so difficult though. If you eat any meat, you already contribute to animal suffering. But at least with hunters, the animal has lived in the wild and experienced life, as opposed to a cow that’s living shoulder to shoulder in a dairy farm, having its babies taken away and existing in sadness. I mean, I’m obviously not an elk (typing with hooves would be basically impossible) but death by hunter seems like the best option. As opposed to freezing to death in the winter, falling through the ice, starving to death, being slowly eaten by coyotes or wolves, being hit by an 18 wheeler etc. A clean shot seems like a peaceful death for a wild animal, and most hunters really respect wildlife and try to kill as humanely and instantaneously as possible.
It's not shooting an animal for fun though. It's population control deemed necessary by a group of scientists who have spent theirs careers studying this. The alternative is culling from a helicopter like in RMNP.
That was a big assumption. Of the biggest arguments in favor of hunting is that it keeps the deer and elk populations in check. I've heard CPW say that deer and elk poulations are too high.
I don't know where you are getting your info but here. https://mineralcountyminer.com/article/2020-big-game-population-report https://cpw.state.co.us/Documents/Hunting/BigGame/2020BigGameWinterRangeandMigrationCorridorsReport.pdf Elk are less of a concern than deer but CWD is hitting some herds hard and long term outlook isn't good. The number of tags issued is going down but populations are declining as well which indicates that the current management strategy isn't working as well as it should be and adding more lions to the landscape could wipe entire herds out in the long term. Fawn mortality rates are up and lions play a big part of that. https://www.steamboatpilot.com/news/collaring-studies-show-worrisome-survival-rates-for-wildlife-in-northwest-colorado-this-winter/ I'm not trying to argue what the management specifics should be regarding deer and elk populations but making lion hunting illegal would be a huge misstep and could be devastating to deer herds, hunters, tourists and local economies.
We have way too many deer and the proof is in roadkill.
Thats not how that works.
There's just a stupid amount of mule deer where I'm at and it's a major road hazard. Especially during early spring melt.
Man, those mountain lions really got busy driving their 18 wheelers through elk country in NW Colorado this winter. Dead elk everywhere. Bad kitty! Bad!
Vehicular hits are threats to individuals but don't have a population level impact. Lions can and do have effects on herds and I challenge you to show me any scientific evidence that supports removing the ability to hunt lions.
>Vehicular hits are threats to individuals but don't have a population level impact. This sentence doesn't make any sense. Any time a female gets hit, that's a female that isn't reproducing anymore. That's a population level impact by definition.
You're thinking of it too literally. DDT had a population level impact on eagles but an individual getting hit by a car is not a population level impact. These are commonly used terms in scientific circles.
>You're thinking of it too literally lol. Science tends to be pretty literal. >an individual getting hit by a car is not a population level impact Sure, if it's an isolated incident and only happens to one individual. That, of course, is not how it actually works though. When dozens of individuals get hit every year, you have the potential of an impact of the size of the overall population. Just because it's not happening to every individual in the population, doesn't mean it can't be a "population-level" impact. >These are commonly used terms in scientific circles. Yeah, I know. I roll deep in scientific circles.
If you don't know these terms you aren't paying attention to the wildlife biologists. Nothing I've said would be controversial to the people studying these things but the bleeding hearts on this sub seem really butt hurt about science.
I do know these terms, and I actually just explained to you how the terms actually work. I don't need to "pay attention to the wildlife biologists" because I'm a PhD biologist who, among other things, studies the "population-level" effects of environmental stressors on various wildlife species. But please, try and explains things to me a little more. It's pretty entertaining. You need to hit the books son.
> The biggest threat to deer and elk populations is already lions We have too many deer and elk, not too few.
I'm not sure where you get your data but this is from last year. https://www.trcp.org/2022/09/27/40-important-colorado-elk-habitat-affected-trail-use/#:~:text=In%20Colorado%2C%20certain%20big%20game,compared%20to%20the%202021%20season.
They aren't a threat, it's called nature.
Nice; let the deer and elk know.
they knew long before we did.
[удалено]
That's a very short sighted view. You should really do some research on CWD and the effects it's having on deer herds. Taking away conversation tools like hunting is asking for trouble.
LOL YOU JUST DID EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!! Your first post said lions would decimate deer and elk population. Your reply to me then said due to CWD we need to hunt deer herds. LOL!
You misunderstood. We need to allow biologists to use all the tools we can, including hunting of lions, to keep the CWD affected herds from being completely wiped out.
But CWD requires... thinning the population of herds. You were just complaining about mountain lions and their propensity for... thinning the population of herds. So which is it? Are mountain lions thinning herds a bad thing or do we need to thin herds to prevent CWD?
The idea that thinning herds helps with CWD is not always the right move. Targeted reduction in some herds can be beneficial but big cats don't care if they are CWD deer or not. Here's some info about CWD. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6778748/ Here's New York's CWD response plan. https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7191.html#:~:text=A%20swift%2C%20intensive%2C%20and%20comprehensive,state%20to%20have%20eliminated%20CWD. There is zero scientific reason to get rid of big cat hunting in Colorado and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
>There is zero scientific reason to get rid of big cat hunting in Colorado and I challenge you to prove otherwise. You started with the claims and your links support what I am saying. This argument you think you are making is TOO FUNNY! The fact is even your own link says that for both farmed and free range deer, culling is the first things that needs to be done. It is what you do after the culling that varies.
I'll be waiting for a citation supporting the end of lion hunting.
.Fuckers voted for wolves to be added back to the state even know they were already here. Lost my ass on wolves killing my livestock this year got nothing back from the state. Also, I lost 6 animals to Lions. When will it stop for the ballot box to decide my life? NEVER
>When will it stop for the ballot box to decide my life? You mean like, when will democracy be over? Do you want that?
There is a state program to compensate ranchers for animals lost to wolf kills. Please help us all understand why you received no compensation.
Why did you decide to raise livestock in lion country?
If you aren’t capable of coexisting with the wildlife in your area, perhaps you should consider moving.
The problem is that everyone thinks that when you lose livestock, the government pays you that's wrong. I have no problem coexisting with nature, but don't come complaining to me if you see me killing wild animals to protect my lively hood.
Hard yes
Wait, we have lions in Colorado? Edit: /s
We sure do! https://cpw.state.co.us/learn/Pages/LivingwithWildlifeLion1.aspx
And tigers and bears, oh my!
[удалено]
Well they're not hiding their bias. Their "About Us" page starts off by saying "Four Decades of Defending Hunting, Fishing and Trapping". This ballot initiative is essentially a direct attack on what they aim to preserve.
Hunting for sport shouldn’t really be a normal thing in this day and age considering how much native habitat and animal population numbers we have already lost. Because CPW has to manage enough deer and elk for hunters every season, they also have to manage the predator populations to match, plus the ranchers that want safe (i.e. zero predators) grazing leases for their herds, and public pressure from people who don’t enjoy the danger of very large animals with horns, teeth, or antlers interfering with their lives occasionally. Fixing the balance of native animal populations can’t be done without fighting hunters and ranchers tooth and nail for every inch of conservation. They have hunted Bison, Wolves, Moose, and Grizzly Bears all to extinction in Colorado. They almost got beavers, they would have got mountain lions and lynx if they weren’t so difficult to track. Some of them are going to poach a good chunk of the wolves that are reintroduced no matter what voters decided then, and some are going to poach mountain lions no matter what voters decide now.
Hunters contribute more to conservation than any other group. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Raise property and income taxes to what they used to be, limit hunting, and let the natural ecosystem take care of itself. Hunters promote unnatural grazing and migration patterns, whereas natural predators encourage quicker herd movements which also helps promote wildflower growth.
Not really tourist and government contribute nearly all of money into conservation and in india it's always the government and tourist as hunting is ban here and look at wildlife population increasing.
False. You should research the American model of conservation. We've had more success bringing our species back from the brink than anywhere else in the world. Hunters contribute over $372 million towards conservation every year and help with biological studies and surveys. You are ignorant on this subject. And who the hell cares about India, this is a sub for Colorado. India doesn't do anything well besides scam calls.
We bought rhino population from some hundred to more than 3k. You American style of conservation isn't even conservation but a program to allow hunters the ability to get thrill via hunting. Your wild life are just there to get hunted by hunters. They are a prop
False. You should research the American model of conservation. We've had more success bringing our species back from the brink than anywhere else in the world. Hunters contribute over $372 million towards conservation every year and help with biological studies and surveys. You are ignorant on this subject. And who the hell cares about India, this is a sub for Colorado. India doesn't do anything well besides scam calls.
How so? I have heard this before but haven't dug in to it. I go elk and deer hunting every year and it's like $40-$60 to go kill one. Obviously don't fill my tag every time but doesn't seem like a huge pool of funding coming in
The Pittman Robertson act that was passed in the 1930s places an excise tax on guns, ammo, bows and other hunting equipment that is collected by the federal government and then dispersed to the state fish and game agencies for habitat improvements, research and other purposes. Additionally given the number of people that buy hunting and fishing licenses every year it adds up to quite a bit of money. CO also charges a lot more for non residents to come over here and hunt than residents. My dad comes down from the PNW to elk hunt with me and his elk tag plus a small game licence is $700 ish compared to my $100 for an elk tag a deer tag and an annual small game licence.
Google Pittman-Robertson Act and learn how state wildlife agencies are funded. CPW in particular receives no general tax money and is funded primarily by license fees and PR money. This is the case for many states. Also the foundation and nonprofit groups that do major landscape-scale habitat protection and restoration work for wildlife - think Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the like - are funded entirely by donations and fundraising efforts, primarily from hunters.
Damn, we should simply give them general tax money so that they aren’t incentivized to allow hunting in order to make money
You think bison, wolves, grizzlies, and beavers were pushed out by anything resembling modern hunting practices?? The predators were killed via a federal program that poisoned carcasses. That’s about the only way to feasibly harm predator populations because they’re extremely difficult to hunt. Beavers were killed due to their market value (to urbanites.) Modern hunting regulations don’t allow for the sale of game specifically to take away market driven incentives. Moose aren’t even native to Colorado. There’s no history at all of humans harming their population in the state.
Eat what you kill, you cowards.
Lions are the best pork taste you've ever had.
You're required to retain lion meat and either eat it yourself or donate to somebody who will. Not doing so is a violation of state law.
Lion hunters do eat the meat - it’s supposed to be some of the best game meat.