What's worse for Oregon big game, wolves or cougars?

[Joe]

With all this talk about wolves and what their impacts will be to the big game populations of Oregon I have been wondering which will have the most negative impact when it's all said and done.

Cougars have not been effectively managed in nearly 20 years and it's estimated their populations have risen from 3,000 to over 6,000. At this point there is little hope that situation will be turned around and the impacts have been drastic for some blacktail/mule deer, bighorn sheep and elk herds.

Right now it is estimated we have 25+ wolves in Oregon. That number isn't enough to get them off the protected lists and it will probably take around 100 to meet criteria for beginning to manage them. (this is just a guess and obviously there is no guarantee they will ever be managed once they reach recovery level but that is the plan in theory)

My guess is wolves are going to cause so much havoc to ranchers in our highly developed state they will never really get to the numbers the mountain states have reached and this though tends to have me thinking they won't ever make a huge impact but that is just my and a wild guess. Only time will tell.

So what do you all think? Will the thousands of cougars left unchecked have a greater impact than the new population of wolves? Obviously any unchecked predator populations are not good for game numbers but which should the hunters of Oregon be more concerned with?

[afp]

If there were only four breeding packs, I'd say cougars would be the bigger threat. However, as the Montana debacle showed us, there will be more like 400 breeding packs and the damage from the wolves will be much worse.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by afp

If there were only four breeding packs, I'd say cougars would be the bigger threat. However, as the Montana debacle showed us, there will be more like 400 breeding packs and the damage from the wolves will be much worse.

I would agree that if wolves are left unchecked like cougars are here they would be the demise of all hunt able populations of game and the question of which predator is worse would be meaningless.

The good news is Montana and Idaho are taking steps to manage their overabundance of wolves and unless there are more lawsuits they should be able to reduce numbers with trapping etc whereas we are clearly unable to manage cougars at this point with the tools available. The scary part of the question is will Oregon do the right thing with wolves once the time comes given our huge population of anti-hunting ignorant city dwellers.

[freeflyinmane]

Having hunted in Idaho since 1992 and saw first hand the devastation to elk numbers from wolves, they are hands down the worst. They kill unknown numbers of pregnant cows just to eat the fetus of some, many are left untouched. I doubt I will hunt in Idaho much longer. It has bee documented that wolves will steal kills from Cougars thus causing some loss in their numbers.

[SteelhdNut]

I also believe that as for the time being; until the wolves proliferate enough to become the dominant predator; cougars are more of an issue currently. There are as many as 2-3 cats per 20 square miles in regions with high populations of big game; Due to nocturnal habits, most are never seen or witnessed.
Wolves have a great survival rate, unless some determining factor keeps them in check. They can have large litters, and can have more then one litter a year; and several litters throughout a females lifetime !
Cougars might have one or two kittens every third season at best; and maybe three litters in a females lifetime.
The big felines also are not known for sport killing, and are very particular about their hunting methods (which makes them so efficient-and scary); Wolves will kill anything of opportunity, and once they are focused, they are relentless killing machines !
Wolves can cover huge vast distances in search of food; while a cougar rarely roams outside it's claimed territory.
It won't take very long, but for now, the big cats get my vote.

[Rimrocks]

Well written.

It would be interesting to see the Poll Results if the wolf verbage was modified to just wolves in general assuming the wolves were not held to just the 4 breeding packs and they expanded like in Idaho......

[rob allen]

Humans and loss of habitat to humanity

[baltz526]

I'm unable to answer the poll. I think it has the wrong questions. It is not whats worse anymore, The major damage has been done to the deer herds, by the exploded cougar population. That had been driven by the voter ban on managing them. Cougar populations will now crash or self regulate from lack of prey. The damage is done in a lot of the state. The wolf is more of a threat to the small elk population left after decades of opportunity tags and agriculture cow tags. The wolf has little habitat to range in oregon, that has no major human habitation. Public exceptance of the wolf is not on the upswing. Political change can have a dramatic effect on unjust experiments like the wolf.

[Bait Bucket]

Originally Posted by rob allen

Humans and loss of habitat to humanity

You sound like Prince Philip. "Kill more humans." But he's crazy......

[fishin' is livin']

Originally Posted by rob allen

Humans and loss of habitat to humanity

I will take "c" also....

[Keta]

Originally Posted by rob allen

Humans and loss of habitat to humanity

If you look beyond your preconceived prejudice you might notice that modern game management practices have brought back many animal populations, the whitetail deer is a good example, bison not so much but they are coming back. Habitat loss is still a big problem but unmanaged or mismanaged wolf population will be far worse.

[flipperdog]

I have a great idea, maybe we can later hunt them with dogs. ie. Borzoi's, Irish wolfhounds, or Russian Wolfhounds. New litters on the way. I could be very wealthy and fish in Alaska!! Nah!! Oregon doesn't like dogs doing that kind of thing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOOLOOLLLOOLLOOLOOOLLLOOLOOlllLOL

[TTFishon]

Originally Posted by rob allen

Humans and loss of habitat to humanity

You beat me to it. That's how I feel too.

[fair hooker]

Originally Posted by rob allen

Humans and loss of habitat to humanity

That hits the nail on the head. The poll needs a third choice.

Hunters should be a huge force united in advocating for protection and restoration of habitat but are instead distracted and divided by age old and misguided attempts to demonize predators.

[blueduck]

Originally Posted by baltz526

I'm unable to answer the poll. I think it has the wrong questions. It is not whats worse anymore, The major damage has been done to the deer herds, by the exploded cougar population. That had been driven by the voter ban on managing them. Cougar populations will now crash or self regulate from lack of prey. The damage is done in a lot of the state. The wolf is more of a threat to the small elk population left after decades of opportunity tags and agriculture cow tags. The wolf has little habitat to range in oregon, that has no major human habitation. Public exceptance of the wolf is not on the upswing. Political change can have a dramatic effect on unjust experiments like the wolf.

There's a lot of true to what you said. Mule Deer have been really damaged by the largely unchecked cougar population. Maybe the cat population crashes eventually, but the Muleys are so depressed in some areas that they are not resilient enough to recover to any great degree anytime soon.

As long as ODFW continues to overexploit the elk herds that chronically do not meet their Management Objectives the wolves will likely be a really ugly impact until public sentiment allows effective management. But overall, I really think the worst predator is ODFW. They continue to manage to the lowest aspiratons and regularly achieve them. Let's kill a bunch of spikes as a management technique when we don't meet objectives.

[nobrownline]

There are countless studies showing the wolves will put the cougars in check. Cougar numbers are declining across the states with growing wolf numbers.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by nobrownline

There are countless studies showing the wolves will put the cougars in check. Cougar numbers are declining across the states with growing wolf numbers.

Countless studies? Could you show us one? The area I hunt in Idaho is thick with cougars and wolves AND coyotes! It isn't supposed to be like that from what I read on the internet.

[Rank Amateur]

All the studies I looked at basically said that cougars are forced into a different niche, but continued to co-exist. As far as wolves killing cougars, really, they climb trees? Of the studies that I read, it seemed a draw, sometimes the wolf got the short end of the stick also, one on one a big cat was more than a lone wolf could handle. Once they both run out of prey, they both will suffer population set backs, that is if they don't move to domestic food sources.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by rob allen

Humans and loss of habitat to humanity

When most of our game populations were at their very lowest point our human population was less than 10% of what it is today! That line of thinking just doesn't hold any water. If we want surplus game animals to hunt and eat we need to control predators. Uncontrolled predators will keep game populations well below huntable numbers. Sure the predator numbers will decline once they run out of food but there will still be plenty around to hold populations very low. It is called a Predator Pit and many parts of our desert are already there.

Originally Posted by fair hooker

That hits the nail on the head. The poll needs a third choice.

Hunters should be a huge force united in advocating for protection and restoration of habitat but are instead distracted and divided by age old and misguided attempts to demonize predators.

The primary reason we've had the abundance of big game we have enjoyed in this country IS because hunters have advocated for protection.

It has nothing to do with "demonizing" predators. There is absolutely no debate that our current cougar population is destroying some game herds here in Oregon. One example is the Hart Mt refuge...prior to the hound ban there were 600 bighorn sheep living in the refuge and about 30 a year were trapped to reintroduce in areas that needed sheep. Today there are less than 100 sheep on the refuge and zero are being used for transplants plus the number of tags has been slashed. There is no problem with the habitat and the only protection needed is predator removal but the USFW will not allow a single cougar to be killed!

[afp]

Well said Joe!!

[flipperdog]

When are we going to be a part of the ecosystems we inhabit!?? They like to think of their world without people in it.

[Rimrocks]

Originally Posted by rob allen

Humans and loss of habitat to humanity

Perhaps in Urban area's, but in rural area's where the majority of the big game reside the Human has had amazingly positive impact on them. In fact it could be argued that Humans are the best advocate for Big Game.

The question as presented above does not primarily focus on Urban impacts of Big Game. Wolf and cougar populations are not primarily centered around The Pearl District or Multnomah County.


Humans need a place to live too and Human efforts have had amazingly positive results on our Big Game populations in rural areas. Some suburban areas are actually loaded with Big Game who thrive on Human habitat.

[Fifthgenhunter]

Just because it hasn't been mentioned...

The type of weather during birth for the big game animals has the LARGEST effect on populations.

Sure the wolves, coyetes, bears and cougars eat the young, but bad weather is by far the most trouble for the critters during birth!

Other than that I'd say there are more lions and wolves!

[Groovy]

[QUOTE will Oregon do the right thing with wolves once the time comes.[/QUOTE]

The answer is no. Oregon has a proven track record of ideology rather that common sense when it comes to predator control.Measure 18 is a prime example of that.

[Noodler]

Originally Posted by Rimrocks

Wolf and cougar populations are not primarily centered around The Pearl District or Multnomah County.


Humans need a place to live too and Human efforts have had amazingly positive results on our Big Game populations in rural areas. Some suburban areas are actually loaded with Big Game who thrive on Human habitat.

They may not be in the Pearl, but don't forget that the Springwater heads right out to Hood. Powell Butte has even been visited by cats already. These small patches of forested land are teaming with game and an opportunistic cat or wolf could probably sustain itself for a while. Heck Forest Park is a mere stones throw from the Pearl and NW Trendythird Ave. and it has deer and elk in it.

Humans needing a place live is part of the reason we find ourselves in this predicament. We have an overabundance of residential and commercial construction, yet we continue to build not reclaim. Further encroachment on these wild lands is our biggest problem, not the wolves and the cougars. This encroachment and poor game management will be the downfall of big game hunting in OR.

[blueduck]

Originally Posted by Noodler

They may not be in the Pearl, but don't forget that the Springwater heads right out to Hood. Powell Butte has even been visited by cats already. These small patches of forested land are teaming with game and an opportunistic cat or wolf could probably sustain itself for a while. Heck Forest Park is a mere stones throw from the Pearl and NW Trendythird Ave. and it has deer and elk in it.

Humans needing a place live is part of the reason we find ourselves in this predicament. We have an overabundance of residential and commercial construction, yet we continue to build not reclaim. Further encroachment on these wild lands is our biggest problem, not the wolves and the cougars. This encroachment and poor game management will be the downfall of big game hunting in OR.

Human encroachment certainly does have an impact, but I believe that many younger cats are likely to get pushed toward populated areas by lack of available territories when there is a robust population of cats. Because of their shy and reclusive nature, given the choice, most cats prefer areas well removed from human development, but that's not what we are seeing. There is quite a bit of human/cat interaction around the periphery of our development. How much is from our expansion and how much is from the burgeoning cat population is anybodys guess.

Once dominant cats have established a territory they tend to be very intolerant of other cats trying to make a living in the same area. Older males will stiffly defend their areas and have been known to kill and/or consume juvenile cats or females during non-breeding times. I think this dynamic shuffles the population around a bit and increases incidental contact with people, mostly with immature cats.

We have about twice the number of cats seeking to establish territories than we had in 1995. It is about available habitat, but I believe that with a lower cat population the prime establishment areas wouldn't be under as much pressure. We are pushing into them with development, but they are pushing into us as well.