View Full Version : FYI for you Puma hunters in California

August 8, 2006, 09:16 PM
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Sport hunting of mountain lions in the American West does not reduce the number of attacks by the animals, also called cougars and pumas, against man and livestock, said a study released on Tuesday

"Sport hunting is nothing more than the random shooting of mountain lions for fun, it does not reduce attacks on people or livestock, as far as we can tell from any of the evidence," said Lynn Sadler, president of the Sacramento, California-based Mountain Lion Foundation which initiated the study.

"What we would like to see is that states manage them according to science, and not just some, you know, idea that you can somehow randomly shoot them for fun and cause anybody or anything to be any safer," she said in an interview.

About a dozen Western U.S. states have thousands of mountain lions living in the wild, Sadler said. All except California allow controlled hunting of lions, with some agencies citing the protection of man and livestock as a reason for the practice.

The new study by Christopher Papouchis compared the number of attacks in California with states allowing hunting, and said it took into account the human population and size of the mountain lion habitat. It is posted online at www.pumaconservation.org.

Many Western wildlife management experts say species such as bears, mountain lions and deer show more caution around humans if they are hunted and more aggressiveness if they are not.

"Hunting of lions is one way to regulate lion populations so you minimize those types of conflicts," said Larry Peterman, chief of field operations at the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife & Parks.

"We get occasional conflicts with livestock; we have very few conflicts with people," he said. "We certainly think it's an effective management tool."

But Papouchis' study disagreed. "If sport hunting actually reduced attacks, then states with sport hunting should have had relatively fewer attacks than California," Papouchis said in a statement. "That was not the case."

I just thought it was a "interesting" study. the anti hunting venom seems to drip off every quote from Ms. Sadler.

August 8, 2006, 09:19 PM
Yep. Consider the source: www,pumaconservation.org

August 8, 2006, 11:21 PM
Are they trying to tell us that a study paid for by the Mountain Lion Society, an anti-hunting group, came to the conclusion that sport hunting does not affect attacks on humans and livestock - I just can't believe it. :rolleyes:

August 8, 2006, 11:48 PM
Most people that can read know better than to trust any "conservation" group.

Hunting causes the animals to compensate by having more young, and less starvation related abortions during winter.

August 9, 2006, 08:30 AM
i haven't tryed getting those tags yet. wouldn't mind asking one with my 338 if it still wants to kill livestock or people:D

August 9, 2006, 12:53 PM
If sport hunting doesn't affect the number of attacks on humans and livestock, how come the states with the most restrictive mountain lion hunting regs have the most attacks? Before California outlawed mountain lion hunting (1990 IIRC), there were very few reported attacks. Maybe she is advocating bounty hunting again! We know that works!

August 9, 2006, 01:40 PM
Scorch, that's the whole point. You're incorrect in that assessment, they would say. There IS NO correlation, *according to* them and their "study", between sport hunting or lack thereof, and increased/reduced attacks. Just depends on whether you believe their "study". I'd wager than a true scientist could shred the study's methodology & conclusion(s) into little bits in short order. Clearly, it's suspect from get-go, having been commissioned (paid for) by them. If I was the study-conductor, I might tend to find a result that my sponsor wanted me to find; that might lead to more studies paid for with more study dollars! For that matter, more likely the study conductor is nothing more than a sham entity which is really just an arm of the organization. Seems that the easiest way to manipulate their data would come in this area:

took into account the human population and size of the mountain lion habitat

See? First, what's the human population got to do with it? They somehow adjusted for the population of California, and with its huge population, concluded that attacks are decreasing on a per-capita basis (nevermind that they're actually increasing in raw numbers). But then again, perhaps it is valid to use population as a factor, under the logic that the more population, the more likely human-animal encounters will occur. BUT, did they properly adjust for this and use reasonable bases for their adjustments or not?

Second, the "size of the mountain lion habitat". Well, again, this can be skewed/manipulated by an unsrupulous or errant researcher. Is the habitat considered mountain lion accurately their habitat? Does it take into account that mountain lions roam far and wide? Are they calling urban and suburban areas that are surrounded by ML habitat, also calling these areas habitat (and finding no attacks, because whaddya know, MLs don't live in cities). The devil is in the details!

August 9, 2006, 07:22 PM
There have been numerous studies to indicate that the dead pumas are much more likely to attack.

Zombie pumas if you will.:cool:

August 10, 2006, 09:00 AM
......Sacramento, California based Mountain Lion Foundation which initiated the study.

Now there's an objective and unbiased source.:rolleyes: