What do you guys think? How long will it last with out additional cougar removals?
What do you guys think? How long will it last with out additional cougar removals?
I think those #'s could be a little deceiving...what year did the hunter increase happen?Heppner Elk harvest numbers-bulls harvested.
2005- Archery=57 Rifle=312 369 total
2006-Archery=67 Rifle=260 327 total
2007-Archery=130 Rifle=255 385 total
2008-Archery=163 Rifle=348 511 total
2009-Archery=207 Rifle=466 673 total
2010-Archery=130 Rifle=427 557 total
These are just the bull numbers and it is impossible to tell what is going on with any cow harvest since the department finds it too hard to publish that data.
Hunter numbers have also increased in these bull hunts, the rifle hunts by 151 hunters and the archers by 239 hunters.
Overall the cougar removal appears to be a success, but like all you have said, how long will it last. Is the 2010 data the beginning of the slide? Time will tell.
The cougar reduction was during the '06-'07, '07-'08 & '08-'09 winters. It was a shame the department did not stick to the goal of removing 30 cougars per year, they only took 53 over the three years.
Thanks. Good to see that tag increase doesnt account for the majority harvest increase.Here is the total hunters bow, hunt 1 & 2 and the spike hunt. Success rates round up from.005
'05 3,443 hunters 369 bulls= 11% success rate.
'06 3,349 hunters 327 bulls= 10% success rate.
'07 3,765 hunters 385 bulls= 10% success rate.
'08 3,995 hunters 511 bulls= 13% success rate.
'09 4,371 hunters 673 bulls= 15% success rate.
'10 3,835 hunters 557 bulls= 15% success rate.
Archers #'s are the biggest fluctuating factor, from a low of 741 in '06 to 1492 in '09. As you can see though, total number of bulls taken has increased as has the success rates. You can see the big jump in bull numbers in '08, that is after two years of cougar removal. Hunter numbers may be a factor in '09, but one can see the bull numbers are still running high in '10 with fewer hunters which indicates bull recruitment is substantially increased over the past.
Yep, but it doesn't explain this.Thanks. Good to see that tag increase doesnt account for the majority harvest increase.
All very interesting. These discussions of predation, MO's, tag numbers, population structures, buck/doe ratios, hunter success, population modeling, disease, poaching, habitat, and so on are all topics worthy of review and discussion. I think we all realize that there are a myriad of interdependent factors that in some way adversley effect the dynamics of our wildlife polulations.Some things to think about:
1. Utah's latest estimate of it's Cougar population is approximately 3,000 (low range of 2,500, high range of 3,900).
2. Utah harvests approximately 15% of their Cougar population each year. (average 440 over past years).
3. Utah's deer population is slightly more than 300,000, and decreasing.
4. Oregon's management objective for Cougars is 3,000, very close to the current Utah population.
5. Oregon's mule deer population is around 210,000, 70% of Utah's.
Now, assume that Oregon somehow reduces their Cougar population to MO, around 3,000, why do we think that will result in an increasing Mule Deer population? If that were to be true, it would seem likely that the Utah population would be increasing dramatically, given the much higher deer population as compared to the cougar population.
Obviously, there are other factors, coyote and other predators, habitat, poaching, etc. As points of information, Utah spends around $ 500,000 per year on helicopter coyote control, and has spent $ 70,000,000 dollars on habitat improvement projects over the past 5 years. In spite of all that, their deer population is in decline.
There is one area where Utah and Oregon are very similar: low buck ratios, and high buck harvest rates. Interestingly, Utah Wildlife Board has voted to cut 13,000 buck tags between 2011 and 2012, and raise the statewide buck ratio to 18 bucks/100 does. Assuming they follow through, it will be interesting to see what happens to their overall populations in a few years.
Scoutdog