Killing pumas doesn't lessen attacks
By Adam Tanner

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 minimise 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."

Hmmm, I shot a big Tom in Colorado a couple of years ago and, to my knowledge, that cat hasn't attacked anyone or thing since I pulled the trigger.

Those weirdo conservation freaks are so stupid! The whole premise of their conclusion is ridiculous. And I suppose the study they funded is totally objective? It is shame that kind of crap is given ink. But then, look at the bunch of whiney-ass pansies we have for media.

The Mountain Lion Foundation (who conducted the study) is the organization that put the ban on Mt. Lion hunting on the ballot in California and in the same proposition obtained funding from the taxpayers to further their goals. Notice that the article does not include anything about the methodology of the study, the views of the group conductinng and funding the study or any other relevant information that would allow you to see through the sham. Of course the media asks none of the right questions and just runs with it. The goal of this organization is to one by one through ballot initiatives to "protect" various game animals; cause predator populations to increase and eliminate the prey species (deer) so that all hunting will be placed in jeopardy. Until the hunting and true conservation community gets together to propose an initiative that would for once and for all put the management of all wildlife back in the hands of the department of fish and game and real game biologists, we will continue down this slippery slope. The banning of the hunting of black bears in Ca is next on the list, along with the introduction of wolves. There has been mounting sentiment for this type of approach as cats move more and more into the urban/rural interface and into such such places as the Oakland/Berkeley hills and Marin County. This organization knows that they are about one or two attacks on some hiker, jogger or biker in these areas (and whoa to them if it's a child) away from an outcry and backlash. Hence this "study" as a preemptive strike. It doesn't do us much good to rant and rave on these forums, hunters and sportsmen need to join forces and raise the money to put the right kind of initiatives on the ballot.

Weirdo conservation freaks aren't stupid. They know lots...it's just that what they know is wrong. You're right---they shouldn't be given the ink to be printed.
If even I can see through their simpleminded arguments, then anybody should be able to. Unfortunately, some people believe only what they allready want to, and these idiotic "studies" reinforce their ...uh...stupidity.

The "writer" (and I use that term loosely) probably has an agenda as well. Instead, he should learn to use proper punctuation and to balance the input regarding the issues. The story was poorly written and is as blatantly full of BS as the "study" which it cites.

I just looked at the "study"; it's about as "scientific" as something a first grader would dream up. The basic conclusion is that based on attacks per 1MM population, attacks in California are much less likely to occur. Of course California also has 10 to 15 times or more the population of any other western state. Of course they will have less attacks per 1MM in population. They also cite as their sources all of their own "internal" experts for the conclusions they reach, such as "contrary to popular thought, sports hunting of mountain lions may actually increase the liklihood of attacks on humans and livestock", of course with no supporting data. What a joke.

quote:

Killing pumas doesn't lessen attacks
By Adam Tanner

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
.....

BS..............

OK, I think most rational people will agree that the organization hasn't exactly conducted a study that could be called "scientific". I think we'd all agree that they are also simply trying to bring attention to themselves. I don't like their mission or message, but I think we'd all agree that even the N.R.A. comes up with some pretty interesting studies or statements every now and then.

The real blame here lies with the "reporter". He either put in less than the minimum effort to assemble an unbiased story, or chose to make the story a political statement.

(Adam Tanner, the listed reporter, appears to work for Reuters News Service)

These people are very smart. Remember, perception is reality.

If you can get 50+% of the voting public to believe something, then it's true.

If I understand it correctly, the only thing you can conclude correctly from that study is that there are few cougar attacks in Greater Los Angeles. Who'd have thunk? JMO, Dutch.

We should join this organization, PETA, Sierra, etc. in order to be kept abreast of what is being planned. As Barney says,"Nip it, just nip it in the bud". I admit it is very difficult to sit quietly through some of the meetings, but you can sometimes torpedo some of the anti hunter goals and activities.

YOu know that's a good idea. They join our organizations and use our info against us...we should do the same.

the chef

Only if one can do it for free and get them to send you lots of free stuff.

More then one Anti's 800 number costs them lots of money when pro hunters shooters call it lots and request tons of info.

Even better call it more then once give them fake address so they spent lots of money on postage that goes no where.

I just read that article in "USA Today" on the plane yesterday. As soon as I saw the group was from SF, I knew I was about to be fed some BS from a liberal special interest group.

I say let the mt. lions kill the dumb boneheads one by one. Sooner or later someone will put 2 and 2 together.

quote:

"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.

That sounds like a reliable source, if you are a friggin Liberal.....

So with that analogy... we can assume that the discharge of firearms at criminals and and the killing of them has nothing to do with the reduction of crime and it is only being done as" ramdom shooting of criminals for fun".....

Vote for Peta, Vote for Gore, Vote for Kerry!!!
Disarm a citizen, Save a Criminal!

More lions for commiefornicatia! Feed em Liberals and hope they don't get indigestion.

Huh? The hell it doesn't..

One of the other grad students in my department is very familiar with this study, surprisingly, this study is good news for cougar hunters and guides heres why:

First, When they refer to "sport hunting" they are talking about areas where most of the "hunting" of the cougars is done by elk/deer hunters who buy a tag for an extra $10-$20 on top of the normal deer/elk tag fees. Washington (for example) did away with hound hunting via citizen initiative a few years back, thus, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Department began "promoting" the incidental take of cougars by deer/elk hunters by lowering the cost and encouraging every hunter-- "buy this tag for an extra $10 and if you see a cougar-- shoot it." So, now that the tag is about 1/5th what it used to cost, almost every hunter who hits the woods now has a cougar tag in their pocket. As most of us know, randomly running into a cougar while deer/elk hunting is pretty rare. But, "on paper" there are 5 times the cougar hunters now than there were 10 years ago. The number of hunters is up and the success rate (due to the loss of hound hunting) is way down-- you do the math. In a nutshell, I believe when this is explained in its proper context, states will realize that managing wildlife through citizen initiative is stupid and that this study "is what it is"-- to me its further evidence that cougars need to be hunted in a much more controlled manner and that means, hound hunting. It is easier to use hunting as a management tool if success rates are greater and have less stochasticity to them (in this case hound hunting is far more stable than the so called "sport hunting".

Just something to think about.

IV