quote:

Originally posted by Hot Core:

quote:

Originally posted by H T:
Boy, there sure are a lot of experts out there who want to tell you how to manage your hunting lease in a way they'll approve of. ...

Hey HT, Smells a lot like Ultra-Leftist Radical-Liberal DEMOCRAT PETA fools. Always trying to impose "their thoughts" on everyone as if they are somehow morally superior.

They offer no sane supportive argument about "why" their way is best, because their foolishness falls apart when discussed with "logic" thrown in. But they want to tell everyone if it isn't done "their way" then all other ways are wrong.

They sure have a lot to learn.
---

Concerning hunting, as long as the Method is legal - I'm for it.

I guess that my many years of hunting and killing animals, conducting timber sales (killing trees), a Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Forest Wildlife Management, being published in a scientific wildlife management journal, and 15 years of professional conservation work has put me in the

quote:

Ultra-Leftist Radical-Liberal DEMOCRAT PETA fools.

category.

Yet someone who is basing managment decisions on a 7 year-old deer census is using "logic". And, after some remembering, Eland Slayer is admittedly only 17-18 years old. https://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tp.../144102443#144102443 Not to say that anyone so young isn't entitled to an opinion, but I've been doing wildlife management almost longer than he has been alive.

That aside, if his population "estimates" are correct (say 600 deer), there are only 3.33 per deer. To get to a moderately healthy threshold of 10 acres per deer he would have to kill off 400 deer. These sorts of situations are what lead to "mature" deer you can stuff in a 10 gallon cooler with 6 mo old fawns that weigh 20 lbs. They can't nibble on cedars and "grass" and sustain healthy body weights - thus the reason for all the protein supplements.

BTW, I'm not writing from across the country - lived in Texas all my life and I've hunted the Hill Country and seen the "habitat".

Wendell,

If you'd like to discuss wildlife management at the Dallas Safari Club next year, I'll buy you a drink. Maybe you can sell me a hunt.

Regards.

Redlander,

Yes, I am 18 years old. What does that have to do with anything? Surely your not implying that just because of my age, I can't be right. I wouldn't go quite as far as Hot Core in putting you in the same category as PETA members (what an insult). However, I would say you are somewhat left winged and liberal in comparison to most other people in the hunting world.

I assure you, these "estimates" are pretty close and yes that does mean we have only 3.33 acres per deer. If you read my other responses on this thread, you will see my descrition of our place. There are virtually NO Cedars. Maybe you misunderstood. Yes, we have a few too many deer and we are working on that, but we certainly don't need to take off 400 deer. Here is what I said regarding the habitat on our place:

quote:

The majority of the Hill Country has lots of rocky hills with little grass and is absolutely overrun with cedar (which is completely useless to Whitetail except for cover). We probably only have 100 cedars on the entire 2,000 acres (Thank God). Luckily, we have over a mile of frontage on the Llano River, which flows year round. We have an abundance of "South Texas" type brush with lots of legumes (beans, peas, etc...) and forbes. We also have live oaks, post oaks, mesquite, persimmons, elm trees, and other stuff. We have great diversity of whitetail food.

If you are really such an expert on Whitetail habitat, you should know these types of foods are greatly superior to those found in 99% of the Hill Country (excluding the Elm trees). The entire ranch, apart from a 100 acre cleared field is covered with the brush and other vegetation described above. Also, even though deer are browsers, they DO also eat some grass.

Yes, we do have big mature deer, even if you don't believe it. The largest buck killed last year was an 8-pointer that scored 146 B&C and weighed 225 lbs (yes 225). This wouldn't be possible in the Hill Country if our deer were unhealthy. Also last year, right accross the fence from where that buck was killed, the neighbor killed a 13-pointer that scored nearly 160 B&C and also weighed close to 200 lbs.

Once again, if you would have read my other posts, you would know that we are not basing management decisions on a 7 year old deer census. We are basing them on our biologists suggestions as well as our own observations.

So, you are free to have your opinion, but I am also free to not agree with it.

Redlander, I'll take your drink and we can talk about whatever you want as long as I am drinking your whisky!

I would have to disagree with you Allan. I don't know how many times you have watched a mountain lion kill something in PA, but I liken land based predator prey relationships to that of fish.

The bait fish that doens't swim right, is disoriented, or is injured gets whacked by a bigger fish. Anybody who is a good fisherman knows this, and I have watched this same behavior with coyotes and wolves. The elk or deer with the gimp in its step or slightly different look gets whacked. I guess I've never seen a drunk robin though...

Where did the PETA reference come from? Funny how someone who is an avid hunter gets this label!

Why not tell everyone what your real goal is Wendell? Maximum sustained antler growth to line your pockets?? How much do you get for a doe?

Our growing culture of "fast food" deer, elk, whatever, is going to be the end of hunting as we know it. We only have ourselves to thank. Then when you have misinformed folks saying "something with pointy teeth may be around, I had better kill it because I don't know anything about it and it is scary" just shows our own ignorance and intolerance for the natural world. Hunters may not give a shit if someone told them this, but those folks who have no opinion about hunting one way or the other, this mentality may push them the wrong way.

Hell, if you think differently, why not just go hunt with Jimmy Houston...

I guess here in Wyoming where we have free ranging wildlife, (that we don't need to dump supplemental feed or protein supplements too) I think we value our wildlife a little differently than folks in other parts of the country. Heck, we already have 180 class whitetail, 220 class mule deer, 390 class bull elk, 180 class sheep, 90" antelope...just think if we put the protein blocks to em!

MG

Actually, I do belong to PETA!

People for the Eating of Tasty Animals!

MG

quote:

Originally posted by Madgoat:
I would have to disagree with you Allan. I don't know how many times you have watched a mountain lion kill something in PA, but I liken land based predator prey relationships to that of fish.

The bait fish that doens't swim right, is disoriented, or is injured gets whacked by a bigger fish. Anybody who is a good fisherman knows this, and I have watched this same behavior with coyotes and wolves. The elk or deer with the gimp in its step or slightly different look gets whacked. I guess I've never seen a drunk robin though...

MG

Wolves may go after a moose or elk that's limping, Lions can spot a limp in a herd of Zebras when human eyes cannot seperate the zebras from one another.

But solitary predators behave somewhat differently...

I've seen a coyote grab a wounded rabbit and head for other parts without a second thought that it MIGHT be a trap...

but I've watched a bobcat look REAL suspiciously
at another wounded rabbit in nearly the same spot... the truth is that the solitary cats are neurotic and suspicious beyond most people's ability to understand.

Since you like fish analogy how about comparing bobcats to a trout looking suspiciously aththat hand tied fly you are presenting to it....

Granted I've taught a few cats that at certain times of the day that dead or wounded squirrels
can fall out of the sky... but generally they are more suspicious than that.

Cats (in general) are ambush hunters and who gets killed ammounts more to luck than the cat "choosing" a particular target.

they set up their ambush and the first deer that walks into their kill zone is the one that gets wacked, not the weak, sick or lame, just
whoever is the first to show up....

Will cats stalk? Yes, but again it's targets of oppertunity, the typical cat in a "balanced"
envrionment will want to eat far more than
nature wull usually provide in the way of sick lame and lazy, so many of the cats kills will fit into an entirely different catagory of prey... unlucky.

Yes, most cats will take an obviously "weak"
animal if presented with one, but I doubt as many as a third of all cat kills were anything
other than in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I will waste no more of my time trying to convince you, I'll just part with telling you if you believe otherwise you don't know very much about cat behavior....



AllanD

quote:

I don't know how many times you have watched a mountain lion kill something in PA,

Probably not much since it's highly doubtful PA has any.

Madgoat (and others):

Unfortunately for those of us who love hunting, the majority of the USA is not like the "mountains of Wyoming", where I imagine, you have a bazillion pristine acres where you can enjoy "180 class whitetail, 220 class mule deer, 390 class bull elk, 180 class sheep, 90" antelope" which have seen comparitivly little hunting pressure. (You are indeed a lucky guy!)

But in areas of the country where the population density (of people) is higher, we have an entirely different situation. After decades of little or no wildlife management, we see deer populations that are WAY above what the habitat can sustain, doe to buck ratios of 10 to 1, periodic deer die-offs, and severe habitat degredation.... unless the deer herd is "managed". This results from decades of high hunting pressure on bucks and a reluctance to harvest does. I can understand that "manipulating" the deer herd can sound reprehensible to folks who live in areas where there are enormous areas of undisturbed land, where the wildlife can continue to exist as it has for centuries...but in parts of the country where there are lots of folks who like to hunt (thank goodness) and a there is only a finite amount of reasonable habitat, things have to be handled differently. I know you can understand that different parts of the country are not the same, based on your comments to the folks in PA.

Try to understand that those of us who live where things are different from where you live are not evil, or trying to do away with "hunting as we know it". We are doing our best to preserve hunting for future generations, within the constraints that population growth, hunting pressure, habitat destruction, and urban sprawl present to us.

quote:

Originally posted by Skinner.:

quote:

I don't know how many times you have watched a mountain lion kill something in PA,

Probably not much since it's highly doubtful PA has any.

I wrote this JUST FOR YOU:

quote:

Originally posted by AllanDeGroot:
In the UNLIKELY event that anyone here will concede the following point:
That Cat behavior is cat behavior and that mountain lions don't behave materially differently than domestic cats except in choosing the size of their prey proportional to their own size....

I should refrain from suggesting that the collective wisdom about cat behavior so far displayed by the participants of this topic
(excepting myself) could be easily written inside a matchbook with a dull crayon... But I guess I just don't have sufficient strength of character to deny myself the joy of saying it...

AllanD

Once again I am amazed........



Its funny how no one cares about a predator until its eating something WE want to eat.

Thousands of predator-prey relationships exist in the world where human interference is minimized....funny, those species haven't been wiped out by the nasty predator yet.

Predator removal does not result in an increase in the prey population unless the predator is the limiting factor-- even then the dynamics of both populations (the predator and the prey) are altered in ways which WE may find undesirable in the future.

Be very careful what you wish for.

IV

Hi guys

Do you think a mountain lion will kill other predatores like coyotes, like I have heard wolves do?

Johan

308:

this is from the Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept website:

"Mountain Lions are relatively uncommon, secretive animals. They are carnivores that prey on a variety of animals; some favorites include deer and wild hogs. Other prey animals included in the Mountain Lion's diet are rabbits, jackrabbits, javelinas, and rodents. Some lions occasionally kill livestock or dogs."

I would assume that if they will kill a dog, they would take a coyote if they had the chance.

I do hunt all predators we have around here, both wild and domestic.

However, I find that hunting in an area where big, wild predators are around is much more exciting even though there might be less and more weary game animals. I did hunt in areas with puma, wolves and black bear and really liked it.

This is freaking great. One question, just me but dont mountian lions ambush thier prey not run it down? If so they take what ever animal walks close enough or can be stalked better due to its position in the herd. They dont care which one looks like he is walking funny or might be sick. They go by who was dumb enough to be caught.

quote:

Originally posted by SwiftShot:
This is freaking great. One question, just me but dont mountian lions ambush thier prey not run it down? If so they take what ever animal walks close enough or can be stalked better due to its position in the herd. They dont care which one looks like he is walking funny or might be sick. They go by who was dumb enough to be caught.

Swift Shot!

Your assumptions are correct. but a sick animal is more likely to be "dumb enough to be caught" i.e. "less wary" then a healthy alert animal.

465H&H

So if we asume that mountain lions will kill coyotes, that would otherwise kill deer...

See my point? Still, hunting cogar must be just as fun as hunting deer in my eyes. Even if I eat most of what I kill I'm still a sports hunter.

Go lion hunting, but make sure you leave some for next year as well is my two cents...

Johan

quote:

Surely your not implying that just because of my age, I can't be right. I wouldn't go quite as far as Hot Core in putting you in the same category as PETA members (what an insult). However, I would say you are somewhat left winged and liberal in comparison to most other people in the hunting world.

Eland Slayer,

What I'm implying is that you have neither the education nor life experience to have as good a grasp on wildlife and habitat managment as you might think. Check back with this post in ten years and see if you don't agree. I know that I've learned a lot since finishing my education. And I would suggest to you to do some in depth reading and reflection on the place of predators in the environment and our roles in the scheme of the environment. I am not saying that I've never killed a predator (I have), but my thoughts on extinguishing them are much different than many "hunters" in the world. I think they have a place and that the world is a bit richer and more exciting because they are here. Much of Africa, Alaska (where I'm going to hunt this fall), and Canada wouldn't be quite as exciting to go and hunt if not for the danger element. I'm sure my senses will be much more in tune with the environment because I KNOW that if I slip up or miss something, I may end up as bear scat.

Now, will I be happy if a mnt. lion kills one of my cows or calves (which I have), or a black bear (which are beginning to move back to East Texas) tears the crap out of my hunting cabin? No. But neither am I willing have them completely eliminated to avoid such events. I also know that focusing on predator control for wildlife management is short-term, short-sighted, time intensive, and expensive; that habitat management and population managment (through harvest restrictions/targets) is where the real action takes place in wildlife management. I know that hunters and wildlife managers have made the popular argument that, since there isn't enough predation, hunting is NECESSARY to proper ungulant management in NA. Now, when there are predator that seem to be taking back part of their role, hunters and managers are left with what argument to justify hunting programs. We must have intellectual honesty in our debates on hunting, and I think acceptance of some level of predation, or the electorate (largely urban) will not be as supportive of hunting on the whole. Especially if they continue to perceive "hunters" as loutish, close-minded, beer-swilling boobs. And that is what comes across when someone says, "hey, that cougar is going to eat one of MY deer." That attitude does not play well with the general population, and without the support of the general puplic hunting is indeed doomed as we know it.

As far as left winged and liberal - I consider myself educated and thoughful. But i would call someone who voted for Bush, listen to Rush and Hannity, has read the Fair Tax Book, is an NRA member, member of The Wildlife Society, member of Ducks Unlimited, has mounted game in their home AND office, a concealed carry permit, more guns than I can afford (which sit around in more corners of the house than my wife likes), a deposit on a DIY hunt in Alaska, owns a pickup and an ATV, and really likes tequila straight exactly the poster child for left-wing and liberal.

I suggest, if you really want to learn about wildlife managment, get to a good university. Stephen F. Austin State University (College of Forestry), Texas A&M, Texas A&M at Kingsville, Sul Ross, even Sam Houston State (or whatever they're calling themselves now) are good places to start. Remember that all the hunting magazines, hunting shows, and ranch hands leave a little bit to be desired when it comes to "expert" advice on wildlife management.

Redlander,

I do appreciate all your imput. I just don't want anyone on here thinking that I'm just the average, smart-ass, pot-smoking teenager because I'm none of those things. I'm nowhere near average, I try not to be too much of a smart-ass, and I sure as HELL never touch any drugs. I am starting college at Sam Houston State University in August. I am majoring in General Business.

I have never stated that I want to kill all mountain lions. I only want to kill the one on our place. End of story.

ES: you sound like you've got your head screwed on straight to me. Don't let the old farts get you down (and I bet I'm older than you, Redlander ) If there is anything that the shooting sports desperately need it's young blood....we're glad you are with us!

Maybe it's just me, but it sure sounds like the days of good habitat on this property are numbered if the deer population is not reduced.

That being said, and knowing very little about mountain lion behavior, is it possible that with the excess of deer (because of the ideal habitat described) that the lion has found itself a veritable grocery store that he never has to leave? Would a lion be less likely to stick around if the population on this property was about the same as adjoining properties?

While I'm sure that a mt. lion could kill the big bucks as well as the fawns, one must give credit to the prey - the big bucks didn't get big for nothin' - they are more wary and less likely to become prey than most of the deer population (except during the rut!).

I would suggest that if you want to learn about wildlife management, listen to the professors at the College with a grain of salt, and listen to the ranch hand closely, he's been there.
Most professors were taught from the same book, what if that book was wrong?
Predator/prey relationship has been well documented by professors and ranchhands. You will see everything from "Kill all the damn predators," to "Oh No, don't kill a predator, they keep the balance of nature intact."
Both are of course incorrect. Somewhere in the middle is the answer.

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:
GaryVA,

Wow, an actual, well thought out reply to a complex question. Your views are interesting and intelligent!. A pleasant surprise. We agree on a lot of things, almost everything you say has merit, however, somehow we come to different conclusions.

As long as we can weed our way through the mud slinging, this is an important topic worthy of a discussion and a healthy debate.

As to your observation on how we agree on lots of things but somehow come to different conclusions; How's this version of Aldo as penned by Posewitz:

"It is a curious thing that something as private, and at times as solitary, as hunting attracts the attention of so many people with different points of view".

As to me, I'm the product of parents who were born and raised on their individual multi-generational family farms. My dad's side made most of their money in timber and my mother's side made their money in a mixture of cattle, hogs and tobacco. Both sides of my family lived off the land. We were fortunate that the later generations were able to attend college. Most studied Agriculture and Natural Resources taking their knowledge back to the farm. Some of my family went on to have careers teaching this stuff. I had an upbringing in a family that was deeply rooted in being self-sufficient off the land.

As to cattle production, my family's operation has been recognized nationally by The American Angus Association for our superior angus cows based upon our recorded performance traits that are economically important to efficient beef production. So I guess the college paid off and we know how to get "Maximum Sustained Yield" from a piece of land when it comes to domestic cattle.

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:

There are some false assumptions in your thinking as well as some of the others.

1. The overall message you post is that ranchers " ...dump tons of feed to support overpopulated deer herds ... " That is not really the case with a managed piece of property. Yes, ES has this problem, but he has a plan to fix it. Ranchers typically.......

In the production of domesticated animals you can increase the carrying capacity of a given spot of land by artificially adding more food than the land can bear. You can go farther to near maximum sustained capacity if you eliminate any predation. Cattle production, fish farming, etc., etc. has this down to a science to artificially pump up these huge carrying capacities.

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:

2. Gary, you said " ... Turning wildlife deer management into the production model such as used by cattle ranchers and fish farmers is motivated by short term commercial and political goals at the cost of the long term health and well being of our wildlife itself. ... "

I am sorry sir, but you couldn't be any more wrong.

My wildlife management goals..... .

At the point our forefathers had brought much of our wildlife to a near total loss in their areas of settlement, was born the belief that wildlife could and should be restored. This effort was almost without exception driven by hunters. Many great men such as Theodore Roosevelt, Grinnell, Darling, Leopold, etc. helped carve this effort into a model of wildlife management that is backed by science and has proved the test of time. Main ethical staples born out of this wildlife management model are:

- wildlife belongs to all people.
- all people should have opportunity to hunt.
- predators and predation belongs to the natural system.
- the natural habitat and its natural wildlife should be restored and conserved.
- hunters have a responsibility to respect and care for all wildlife.
- artificiality and/or domestication in wildlife for the purpose of hunting is unethical and wildlife should be free-ranging wild animals.

"The recreational value of game is inverse to the artificiality of its origin" -Aldo Leopold from his 1933 text Game Management.

Managing the natural habitat and its natural wildlife to include a balance of natural predators and predation is a proven ethical model to maintain a sustained yield of huntable wildlife on a long term basis. It helps preserve this wildlife (to include the predators) for hunters and non-hunters alike for generations to come.

Trying to take the extreme-predator control/elimination maximum sustained yield model used for commercial domesticated production goes too far. It is not backed by the scientific data collected and goes fly in the face of many of the founding principles of wildlife management. In the areas that you see this method used you'll see that the governing bodies have gone against their own experts and data because of lobbying by larger commercial operations. My own family is guilty of this to eliminate any natural predation to our livestock to increase commercial productivity.

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich

Gary, you said " ...Though we have lost some animals forever due to poor stewardship by some of our ancestors, the animals we hunt today are the results of conservation efforts of recreational hunters who stopped the market hunting and commerce in wildlife from our past. ...

I certainly hope you are not comparing the game rancher to the market hunters who had no concern for the future of wildlife.

It is in the deer managers best interest...... .

"We in the elk industry are raising and selling a premium consumer product. We sell meat, antlers, hides, or if someone would like to come and harvest a beautiful mature bull with a huge rack, we sell those too. I fail to understand how this constitutes "prostituting" our hunting heritage anymore than going to the grocery store to buy a Thanksgiving turkey. I don't think I have to remind you how our founding fathers got their turkey."

The above statement came from the president of the ND Elk Growers Association in an effort to promote and legalize commercial hunting in Montana of domesticated production elk on elk farms in enclosed areas. The public stepped in and voted this practice illegal.

There are numerous such controversial issues taking place all over the country involving an ethical issue of domesticating and/or artificially manipulating wildlife for the purposes of commercial hunting. The privatization and commercialization of wildlife and the loss of wild habitats are probably the two greatest dangers to our rights to hunt. This is from w/in our own hunting community not from any animal rights groups.

quote:

Originally posted by Wendell Reich:

The USA is a huge wildlife farm. The State and Federal governments manage the wildlife like an enormous ranch.......

The only difference between the government doing this and a concerned private landowner is that the landowner is far more concerned about the numbers and will manage it better.

Clearly the rules and management for most wildlife are made by the state. In regards to migratory animals and such, it's a cooperative management effort by both the federal government and the state. The way this system is structured the regulations can be adjusted as a result of year to year varying factors that effect production. Wildlife management on private property should follow the same guidelines as public property.

As to ES:

You will continue to learn for as long as you hunt. With this learning, practicing and time, you will find that your values will change.

As to trophy deer:

"Implicit in the idea "trophy" is that the game pursued is a wild, free-ranging animal and that other hunters have not been completely restricted from its pursuit. Also implicit in the trophy concept is that the animal is the natural product of the land. Practices such as stimulating antler growth with mineral blocks, hormones, or other substances is beyond acceptable ethical practice, and diminishes the value of all trophies" - Beyond Fair Chase, The Ethic and Tradition of Hunting.

Best of luck!
G

GaryVA,

Thanks for the long and informative post. I do aggree with you that I will continue to learn as long as I hunt. However, my values are definitely not going to change in the way you might think. It is obvious you are against high-fenced hunting. Well, I am all for high-fenced hunting. I have hunted several species of exotics and I also worked on a 7,000+ acre high fenced ranch last summer as a ranch hand/assistant ranch manager. In fact, my family and I are beginning to look for a piece of property between 500-1000 acres to buy and high fence to have as our own family hunting grounds and we will probably also have some exotics. We will plant hundreds of acres of food plots and also feed a balanced protein supplement year round. In your quote from "Beyond Fair Chase, The Ethic and Tradition of Hunting", it states that "practices such as stimulating antler growth with mineral blocks, hormones, or other substances, is beyond acceptable ethical practice, and diminishes the value of all trophies". This has to be one of the most incorrect views on hunting I have ever heard. People must realize, we don't feed supplements to only improve antlers. We are improving the overall health of bucks, does, and fawns. A buck won't grow large antlers until his bodily needs are met. Any additional nutrition, which is not needed for the body, then goes into making his rack bigger. Large racks are simply a product of deer with superior health. Also, I guess planting any kind of food plots is also "against the rules" according to that quote, right? I couldn't disagree more. But, that's why I'm proud to live in Texas, because we are free to manage our wildlife as we see fit. I'm sure Wendell will aggree with me on this.

"pearls before swine" Sad -

quote:

Originally posted by Redlander:
"pearls before swine" Sad -

Redlander,

I didn't intend to "preach" but if you are my "receptive audience"; your words ring w/ experience and wisdom, we need more young hunters to seek out persons such as yourself to be mentors.

G

Gary,

Well, different ideas and beliefs, but similar goals. That is what is important.

Aldo was right. " ... so many people with different points of view ... "

Maybe we just disagree in what constitutes ethical hunting? Maybe you are just opposed to the fence alltogether?

I do not know, but it was an interesting discussion. Maybe each of us and some others will take something positive from it.