Bowsite.com

San Francisco’s, Los Angeles, Portland, Denver, Boulder...it’s all the same. Big cities deciding policies for the entire state...

All cats are curious. Hungry cats are curious about how different creatures might taste and how much trouble they'd be to take down.

There's a good book out there called Cat Attacks - not exactly the sort of thing that everyone wants to read before heading off to bed, but it definitely changed my attitude about them.

I agree with David. For some reason they rarely attack humans. This is lucky for us.

FL needs a cat that will eat released boas and anacondas...

Are you the David Neils that's the founder of Wild Nature Media?? Thanks, Ed

Remember about 7-8 years ago some female jogger was killed by a lion in California? She was a mom of 2 very young children. The state hired a hunter to track and kill the lion. Well turns out the lion had 2 kittens and they were captured alive for some dumb reason.

Well there were fundraisers for the deceased mothers husband and kids, as well as the lions kittens.

These same people you guys hope wake up raised something like 5 or 6 times more money for the kittens...

Michael

CA spends a great deal of money to take out lions every year. That you allow hunters to do what they were born to do to complete their lifestyle and take their proper place in wildlife management..... even though the lions are going to be "controlled" after the fact anyway, they would rather the lions come into town and eat fluffy and maybe a couple joggers first..... they state so all the time. They rather the animals be eradicated than hunted.

The first step of becoming a liberal/anti-hunter is to eliminate any and all logic, reason and reality from the thought process.

And in the world of Eat or Be Eaten, that makes us Food. Sooner or later.

JMO, letting a cat investigate you without giving it a reason to decide to leave Humans alone is a bad idea. It may not come back to bite you, but the next person may not be so fortunate.

I’m not saying we should shoot them on sight, but if I had one inside of bear spray range, I’d surely use it, and if I were carrying a firearm, I’d put a round into the dirt close enough to sting.

Bowhunting is scarier; Barry Wensel drilled one out of the air, mid-leap as it came at him. I don’t think I could afford to wait that long, so whaddya do?

Regardless of the wildlife species, an habituated animal is always a human problem, never a wildlife problem. But it's the wildlife that are "put down" because of human laziness, stupidity, and ignorance.

Fewer lions (wolves, yotes and bears as well) wouldn't help recovery of mule deer and blacktail in places they are struggling to make a come back? Or are we being told to hang on and wait the decades it may take to do so (if at all) with no predator management? Or be told to rely on states to do so at taxpayer expense? With a side order of anti-hunter politics?

I would disagree about the "lines" never intersecting if you are talking about a time line. As predators increase, prey populations decrease, then swing back the other way in time as the predator starves out to a low enough number for the prey to recover. They intersect/cross all the time as one is rising population and the other is decreasing. Wolf introduction is a prime example, don't see how those numbers would be deniable. Those cats kill a good amount of game as well, and year round. The only snapshot in time there is a "balance" is as they cross with one population raising and the other decreasing.

One population rise or decline preceding or following the other is not a parallel line unless you're hand picking different times on the line in the future or past to make it so. Not both as the present. They are population swings using the same measure/place in time.

I see no reason or need to stand and watch those swings as a disinterested party. It is completely unnecessary. Proven so by wildlife biologists and modern game management.... when allowed to do so.

Common sense and the truth is to liberals as salt is to a slug.

And why shouldn’t you? Of course I’m assuming that they’re in season and that you’ve got a tag in your pocket. That’s one of only 2 reasons I would think twice about it: no tag, or offspring in tow. A calf or a fawn can make it through the winter if it has made weight, but predators need more parental care if they’re going to make it, and I don’t see any sense in trying to eradicate them.

Houndy - I know you didn’t ask for my opinion on this issue, but if you’re interested in a discussion…

Perhaps my information is a bit out of date, but I am of the understanding that taking out the big,, mature males is likely to increase the overall cat population because one big, bad old Tom can control a very large territory which might otherwise be divided by several (say three or four) younger males. So taking out a “trophy class“ Tom is likely to increase the resident population density and presumably the birth rate in that area as well, as the chance of a female going un-bred is reduced.

And the higher birth rate will of course lead to more young cats dispersing and wandering into human-settled areas where they will eventually cause problems.

On the other hand, hunters taking such cats as they run across while pursuing deer or elk are going to take a much more randomly-selected sample of the population... although it’s likely that they will end up getting a lot more of the younger, bolder/more curious, less man-shy individuals. So maybe it’s not a more “random” sample, but actually skewed towards the individuals that are most likely to cause problems.

A Houndsan such as yourself, on the other hand, probably makes a better living by helping his clients take out the largest, wariest and most elusive Toms.

I’m sure a lot of people would then jump to the conclusion that hound hunting is the worst possible option because of the impacts on the population dynamics… But on the other hand, I’d expect that you don’t tree very many big, mature Toms without (in the process) convincing a lot of younger cats (both male and female) that humans are definitely to be avoided. AND the impact of taking out the Boss is offset by the efficiency.

So the question becomes “Do we want to manage our Lions as a larger population of younger, bolder individuals, or as a smaller population of older, wiser and warier individuals?”

Personally, I cannot foresee hiring anyone to take me on a hound hunt. It’s not so much because of all the dubious and/or outright damnable practices that I’ve read about over the years (the bad actors are always the ones who get the most attention while honest folk causing no problems never make the news); it’s just that I don’t think it’s for me.

So, since I WOULD be interested in taking a cat someday, I guess my chances are better without hound-hunting being legal. As are my chances of accidentally cow-calling one in and getting mauled, and there being no houndsmen left to track down the troublemaker.

So - again, not that you asked - where do I come out on this one? Keep at it, man. It’ll probably guarantee that I’ll never have a lion skull in my man cave, but that’s kind of like my choosing not to buy a lottery ticket...