Effects of Sport Hunting on Cougar Population, Community, and Landscape Ecology
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 07. 2024
- Presented by Washington State University professor of wildlife ecology and Large Carnivore Lab director Dr. Rob Wielgus at the 2012 International Conference of the Wildlife Society. "This presentation offers 15 years of research in 15 minutes," says Dr. Wielgus.
- Věda a technologie
An excellent summary of the research directed by Dr. Wielgus. Should be viewed by all interested in cougar management.
This was also suggested in the book "Cougar, ecology and conservation". I just think that if you didnt hunt them at all, populations would saturate and not cause more trouble than they do now anyways. Regarding that 60% of U.S. populations are extinct already this is a measurement i would deem reasonable...
Great presentation - relatively easy for any casual watcher to understand the research presented. Great to have science backing new 'mental food to chew on" surrounding traditional hypotheses we've sort of accepted as truths.
Thanks a lot for posting this video.
Very enlightening and thought provoking. Thank you for posting. I am a hunter. So, if I understand this presentation, at least for the population studied, a 14% harvest rate is sustainable in terms of ML population level, as well as minimizing impacts on endangered species due to the females not having to go to higher elevations to avoid teenage males while kittens are young.
a7neu: At a recent conference, I asked Dr. Wielgus what happens to those trouble-making teen-aged males when there is no hunting. "The adult males kill them," he said. That's why cougars are able to self-regulate their populations.
Exactly, the males do not do well injured in bush and it is natural.
"What is significant about the destruction of this pack is that the Profanity Peak wolves roamed national forest lands. These are our lands. They belong to all Americans and are part of our national patrimony." (They were hunting on THEIR hunting grounds)
"In essence, domestic livestock grazing public lands are compromising the food resources of public wildlife so that ranchers can turn a private profit." (indeed)
And for those who think the story ends with the university's attempts to discredit Dr. Rob Wielgus: "However, Donny Martorello with the Washington Fish and Wildlife recently validated Wielgus assertions. In an email..."
Read on:
www.thewildlifenews.com/2016/09/06/the-profanity-peak-pack-lost-of-wolves-and-academic-freedom/
I'm confused - if there was no hunting in any MU, what would happen to the emigrants? Wouldn't they succumb to density dependent factors, making hunting compensatory?
A fifteen-year long study tends to even out year-to-year variations. Peer-review panels tend to even out inter-lab Kool-Aid drinking. Wielgus puts his data out there; I for one would like to see your data that refutes his assumptions or hypotheses. Or, are we to assume that questions in and of themselves are sufficient to debunk published reports? Additionally, you could request the data sets to perform your own statistical analysis, and then publish your refutations in a peer-reviewed journal.
The sources of Wielgus' statements are at the bottom of the slides. Presumably these are peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals. Google to see publications listed under his name, Robert B. Wielgus. The Large Carnivore Conservation Laboratory is getting another study ready for publication, on the effects of sport hunting on cougar reports and livestock depredations.
Wielgus made the headline-grabbing claim that a rancher had intentionally released some of his cattle to be killed by wolves - so that the state would then kill the wolves.
“Robert Wielgus, director of the Large Carnivore Conservation Lab at Washington State University, has radio-collared 700 cattle and dozens of wolves, including animals in the Profanity Peak pack, as part of his ongoing study of conflicts between wolves and livestock in Washington. He also camera-monitors the Profanity Peak pack’s den.
“‘This livestock operator elected to put his livestock directly on top of their den site; we have pictures of cows swamping it, I just want people to know,’ Wielgus said in an interview Thursday.”
However, a week later, Professor Wielgus’ bosses said, umm, never mind, letting the public know that “statements by a Washington State University researcher that a rancher turned out his cattle on top of a wolf den were inappropriate and inaccurate.
So tell me why a biologist that is willing to fabricate claims should be trusted?
So his superiors didn't want the university to become involved with the incident... They were trying to back-pedal.. How can you conclude that his claims were fabricated?
I'm more inclined to believe someone who poured years of time and energy into understanding this, over their boss who makes a quick statement to keep the university out of the flames.
A quote (link below)- "In essence, domestic livestock grazing public lands are compromising the food resources of public wildlife so that ranchers can turn a private profit."
I understand taking measures when the wolves are actively hunting on private pasture, but they were hunting on our public lands, on their hunting grounds.
Also, WDFW validated the researchers claims after the university tried to discredit him- "However, Donny Martorello with the Washington Fish and Wildlife recently validated Wielgus assertions."
Link:www.thewildlifenews.com/2016/09/06/the-profanity-peak-pack-lost-of-wolves-and-academic-freedom/