How sad - VT College loss of life

[bschurman]

Lets see to recap-- Justin A carries a knife, an expandable baton and a gun.

If Jim Croce were a carver he'd say the following in this post:

And they say you don't tug on Superman's cape

You don't spit into the wind

You don't pull the mask off an 'ole Lone Ranger

And you don't mess around with Justin A

Anyone who carries a weapon should be prepared to have that weapon taken and used against them.

Have you ever felt that threatened that you need to carry that kind of weaponry?

[C5 Golfer]

Anyone who carries a weapon should be prepared to have that weapon taken and used against them.

Have you ever felt that threatened that you need to carry that kind of weaponry?

Have read his post on page 5? --- were damn lucky to have him still with us. He has held off muggers, fought off people with a bike, killer coyotes, hungry wolves all the while maintaining a perfect carve. Damn -- Pres Bush is looking for people just like him! The scariest thing I have ever encountered in my 60 years is raising two teenagers

[skategoat]

Have read his post on page 5? --- were damn lucky to have him still with us. He has held off muggers, fought off people with a bike, killer coyotes, hungry wolves all the while maintaining a perfect carve. Damn -- Pres Bush is looking for people just like him! The scariest thing I have ever encountered in my 60 years is raising two teenagers

C5, that made my day.

[carvedog]

Since we are so far gone off the original thread, I will add my two bits here being an Idaho guy.

The only proponent of large decreases I am aware of is the Governor of IDaho. he is responsible for the 1/2 figure. I personally believe it was a political stunt that he has since retracted or moderated. Landowners just want to be able to protect their property without reprisal. Currently it is legal to kill a wolf if it is killing livestock BUT..

I have several issues with wolf reintroduction here in Idaho.

1)We had wolves here before the Canadian Gray wolf was reintroduced.

2) The Canadian wolf is almost 30% larger than the rocky mtn wolf that was here.

3) We now have a population of almost 1,100 wolves here in central Idaho alone. Far beyond the target recovery number of 500-600 animals.

4) It some areas deer fawn predation has approached 95%. With elk calf predation not far behind.

5) The Gov suggestion ( I think he is an a$$ for the most part BTW) was to bring the population into line with what was suggested by biologists as a good sized sustainable popualation.

Whoever suggested putting up a fence to keep a wolf out has maybe been hitting the hookah a little too much. Not that there is anything wrong with that. We already have had several mtn lion attacks on kids etc.

I guarantee it is only a matter of time before these wolves out eat their territory and then when they get hungry enough they will start eating people.

That said the last time I was in what was once my favorite elk hunting area I saw a large male wolf and heard the rest of the pack calling back and forth. It was actually pretty cool.

Idahoans don't want to eliminate these animals eliminated but they are starting to get out of control.

[Dr D]

Since we are so far gone off the original thread, I will add my two bits here being an Idaho guy.

I have several issues with wolf reintroduction here in Idaho.

1)We had wolves here before the Canadian Gray wolf was reintroduced.

2) The Canadian wolf is almost 30% larger than the rocky mtn wolf that was here.

3) We now have a population of almost 1,100 wolves here in central Idaho alone. Far beyond the target recovery number of 500-600 animals.

4) It some areas deer fawn predation has approached 95%. With elk calf predation not far behind.

5) The Gov suggestion ( I think he is an a$$ for the most part BTW) was to bring the population into line with what was suggested by biologists as a good sized sustainable popualation.

Whoever suggested putting up a fence to keep a wolf out has maybe been hitting the hookah a little too much. Not that there is anything wrong with that. We already have had several mtn lion attacks on kids etc.

I guarantee it is only a matter of time before these wolves out eat their territory and then when they get hungry enough they will start eating people.

That said the last time I was in what was once my favorite elk hunting area I saw a large male wolf and heard the rest of the pack calling back and forth. It was actually pretty cool.

Idahoans don't want to eliminate these animals eliminated but they are starting to get out of control.

Amen

I hunt the Frank Church wilderness and have for 20 years. The last two years I was there I saw not one elk and lots and lots of Wolves. ITs a shame to lose the balance we have had for so many years.

On a side note we had a pair of wolves living on my folk's place in the late eighties and early nineties. According to the biologists there were no wolves in MT at the time.

here's one for skategoat:eplus2:

[Justin A.]

Lets see to recap-- Justin A carries a knife, an expandable baton and a gun.

Not all at once duh....that would be ridiculous...all I'd need is a pair of handcuffs and I could play vigilante which is not the goal.

I carry the knife primarily as a utility tool...it just sits in my pocket and comes out if I need to open something like those stupid plastic bubble packages that things come in sometimes, like electric razors and whatnot...it's just there to use as a tool.

The baton comes out when I'm out on my bike, that's it...it's just not practical to carry a gun in spandex...I've been leaving the baton at home more and more and just carrying my pocketknife, because again, it's a handy thing to have, weighs less than the baton, is smaller than the baton, and I can use it as a tire lever in a pinch.

And the gun has already been explained much more than I believe is nessicary.

[Justin A.]

Have read his post on page 5? --- were damn lucky to have him still with us. He has held off muggers, fought off people with a bike, killer coyotes, hungry wolves all the while maintaining a perfect carve.

Hell, you're right...I did do all that while carving! I get off my snowboard and get my ass beaten though, I think I need to start following the snow so I never need to get off the board!.

BTW: No wolves where I live yet, but they're coming back (finally) and I've never fought one off and I hope I don't have to.

[Dr D]

As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw - responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. - unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender.

<o:p></o:p>

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

<o:p></o:p>

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available - for the year 2005 - show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

<o:p></o:p>

(Story continues below)

<o:p></o:p>

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

<o:p></o:p>

This was not what some predicted.

<o:p></o:p>

In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city . soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.

<o:p></o:p>

Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.

<o:p></o:p>

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime . and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.

<o:p></o:p>

The Reuters story went on to report: "Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer."

<o:p></o:p>

Virginia Tech, like many of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so-called "gun-free zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence - especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible.

<o:p></o:p>

Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.

justina I love the dead horse smiley

<o:p></o:p>

[roscoe]

Taking them off of the endangered list puts the various states in charge of management. Local control would reduce tension on landowners and any hunting seasons would be limited and highly controled much as mtn lions are handled currently. We have to many of those to so in the long run the only change would be farmer john can shoot when he sees one killing a cow without fear of losing his freedom or his farm.

Well the part about only allow John to shoot a wolf attacking his cows isnt totally true - it would open up the population to a lot more hunting and killing than it is right now. I have no problem with a farmer defending his livestock, that is clearly within his legal/ethical rights.

By delisting the wolves not only would some forms of hunting, but also stringent population control methods would be implemented in which entire packs are not relocated, but instead gunned down.

Also, the numbers from the scientists were numbers that would be allow a population to persist - not the IDEAL number of wolves. The difference is based on the idea of the "critical number" - which is the least number of organisms a population needs to survive, or on "carrying capacity" - most number of organisms an ecosystem can sustain. So what the scientists did is one of two things. They could have either suggested a population somewhat higher than the critical number (which would allow the population some insurance, in case of disease/predation/etc); OR they chose a population approximately one half of the carrying capacity - which allows for the best reproductive succes.

what I'm trying to say here is that while their numbers were GOALS, higher population numbers don't indicate that we should try to decrease the population, just that the reintroduction has been effective.

Predation:

elks: Most of their juvenile deaths are not due to wolves. majority of calf deaths are due to density dependent factors (availability of food) and other predators (bears and mountain lions). For adults, density dependent factors (food) are the biggest cause of death; wolves accounted for 35% of adult deaths. In total, the study concludes wolves are killing elk, but are not the major predator/cause of death.

Deer: One study concluded that Wolves prefer Elk over deer as their prey and that while they are clearly preying on deer, they kill more elk. A lot of the present deer decline has to do with depdent factors (food) and other habitat issues. However, they do conclude that with present wolf predation rates + these other factors + hunting the population is declining too quickly.

However, the thing about all population-dynamic models, is that if deer/elk continue to decrease, the wolf population will decrease, then deer/elk increase, then wolves increase, and this cycle keeps going (resembles sin on the graph). This occurs for just about every species in the wild, it rarely every turns into a linear/flat relationship b/c there are always outside disturbances that will cause one of the two populations to decrease, thereby causing the other population to increase or decrease depending on the situation. So, while declining elk/deer populations is not good, it is expected (especially with recent habitat change that limits food + habitat acquisition) and nothing new.

**Also, something really important to note, is that the last time they tried to delist the wolves ('03/'04) the courts (in '05) declared it illegal and they stayed on the lists -- personally, I hope this happens again.

I am not against population control when wolves encroach areas with high human population/attack livestock/etc, but delisting the wolves creates too many problems in my opinion

[Dr D]

elks: Most of their juvenile deaths are not due to wolves. majority of calf deaths are due to density dependent factors (availability of food) and other predators (bears and mountain lions). For adults, density dependent factors (food) are the biggest cause of death; wolves accounted for 35% of adult deaths. In total, the study concludes wolves are killing elk, but are not the major predator/cause of death.

Deer: One study concluded that Wolves prefer Elk over deer as their prey and that while they are clearly preying on deer, they kill more elk. A lot of the present deer decline has to do with depdent factors (food) and other habitat issues. However, they do conclude that with present wolf predation rates + these other factors + hunting the population is declining too quickly.

I am not against population control when wolves encroach areas with high human population/attack livestock/etc, but delisting the wolves creates too many problems in my opinion

The plural of ELK is ELK not ELKS

what we are saying is the studies are wrong. we live here in the middle of it. The wolves are killing the elk which are their prefered prey. They are supposed to kill only old bulls (according to biologists) they are killing everything under 2 yrs of age in some areas. They shift back and forth on their preferences and this years study of yellowstone wolves showed them eating young elk instead of the "normal" old bull population.

They aren't effecting the deer population at all. There is some predation to be sure but whitetail deer seem to be ideally suited to prosper anyway. Mule deer populations are drying up due to overpopulated mtn lions. You only have to meet one of the counters in the woods to understand that the studies will never be right. They are by in large young college grads with little or no wilderness experience sent out with a preassumed result inorder to confirm said result. the grizzly bear counter I met last summer would have had trouble finding her way across the street let alone far enough afield to actually count a predator population.

As for population control or the killing of wolves found to be killing cattle, It just doesn't happen while they are listed. I don't think there needs to be a hunting season for them but they need to be delisted so the states can control the populations without cowtowing to washington.

long story short most if not all of that expensive education is flawed if not out and out wrong and is near useless in the real world. College is supposed to teach objective thinking not indoctrinate.

please don't take that as a personal attack its just a sad observation and personal experience of college education in general.

[roscoe]

where are you getting your "correct" data from?

the fact of the matter is that these studies I cite use scientific methods thats have at least 95% accuracy in counting the populations of predators/prey, and can therefore determine the amount of deaths that are attributed to the wolf population. While the scientist you may know might be an idiot, or might just not be able to function in the real world, does not mean that every scientists is an idiot, nor does it mean she cannot perform valuable scientific research.

The studies I cited found that in elk populations in Northern Idaho, only 35% of elk mortality is due to wolves. I'm not arguing that the populations are not decreasing, but rather that your arguments do not support your conclusion - that wolves should be delisted. As I said, it's not a bad thing for elk populations to decrease until they reach that "critical level" I mentioned early. Once elk/deer populations decrease significantly, the aforementioned trend of wolf decrease ALWAYS occurs. If wolves are still increasing in your area, that means that elk/deer have not decreased significantly enough to cause that trend of wolf decrease.

The introduction of wolves and their predation of elk/deer mean the return to NATURAL cycles of predation, with NATURAL increases and decreases in elk - of course with human disturbances added in. the real problem is not the wolf, it is the HUMAN. WE destroy their habitat and food source, and then add insult to injury by hunting them.

how is it indoctrination when I do my own research, look at multiple scientific sources, and come to conclusions from the information presented by those sources? I understand you are making general statements about education (no intended/taken) - but how can you claim with no data presented that other scientists and I are wrong?

[Dr D]

where are you getting your "correct" data from?

the fact of the matter is that these studies I cite use scientific methods thats have at least 95% accuracy in counting the populations of predators/prey, and can therefore determine the amount of deaths that are attributed to the wolf population. While the scientist you may know might be an idiot, or might just not be able to function in the real world, does not mean that every scientists is an idiot, nor does it mean she cannot perform valuable scientific research.

The studies I cited found that in elk populations in Northern Idaho, only 35% of elk mortality is due to wolves. I'm not arguing that the populations are not decreasing, but rather that your arguments do not support your conclusion - that wolves should be delisted. As I said, it's not a bad thing for elk populations to decrease until they reach that "critical level" I mentioned early. Once elk/deer populations decrease significantly, the aforementioned trend of wolf decrease ALWAYS occurs. If wolves are still increasing in your area, that means that elk/deer have not decreased significantly enough to cause that trend of wolf decrease.

The introduction of wolves and their predation of elk/deer mean the return to NATURAL cycles of predation, with NATURAL increases and decreases in elk - of course with human disturbances added in. the real problem is not the wolf, it is the HUMAN. WE destroy their habitat and food source, and then add insult to injury by hunting them.

how is it indoctrination when I do my own research, look at multiple scientific sources, and come to conclusions from the information presented by those sources? I understand you are making general statements about education (no intended/taken) - but how can you claim with no data presented that other scientists and I are wrong?

I merely note that we collectively know about 5% of what we think we know. I also point out that the data responsible for the studies you cite is heavily weighted by statistical analysis and not on hard numbers. The data itself is of the nature that requires hours upon hours in a wilderness environment that the people responsible for collecting it are ill suited to endure. The largest group of people in the closest contact with the wolf populations are the ones that live and work among them. Hunting guides and the like. Farmers and ranchers report data regularly that is poo pooed and ignored. Hunters report what they see and are told they msut be mistaken the study says ---

I am telling you that the conclusions of the studies you cite are not what we see on a daily basis here in real life. A little Objective thought brings me to the conclusionm that the study is flawed. I suspect from my interactions with the people tasked with collecting the data that they aren't savvy enough in the woods to know a tree from a bears ass or at least not savvy enough to realize that the ridge they are sitting on might not be the only hang out for the local elk herd. I have yet to see a game warden look at a kill and say yep that was a wolf alright. so either they are activley hiding the facts or they don't know wolf sign when they see it. gross negligence or conspiracy your choice. I can go on and on as can anyone who farms and ranches or interacts with nature in the west. suffice it to say that I don't agree with the accuracy of your study. For that I am truly sorry:rolleyes:

I reitterate my statement concerning don't believe it just because its in print and on the tv. go see for yourself.

[carvedog]

the fact of the matter is that these studies I cite use scientific methods thats have at least 95% accuracy in counting the populations of predators/prey, and can therefore determine the amount of deaths that are attributed to the wolf population.

These must be the same modified bean counters that determined that there were no viable populations of wolves in the first place when they decided to "reintroduce" a foreign species to Idaho in the first place.

In spite of irrefutable evidence to the contrary such as sightings, howling, pups present in certain areas etc.

Not sure how anyone can get within 5% of the actual population of any predator that occupies a range that varies from one little chunk of Idaho at 2.5 million acres, up to 20-30 million acres if you count some of the major areas of the Yellowstone to Yukon greater habitat corridor.

Living in the east you may have more faith in these studies and gov. officials but what I have actually seen with my own two eyes is a lot of hypothetical extrapolation and numbers manipulation.

There are some good people out there trying to do the right thing for wildlife. I don't think bringing in a foreign species was or is.

And don't have a cow man, have an elk.

[Dr D]

Defenders Creed

I accept and understand that human predators exist. Criminal or terrorist, they take advantage of our civilized society to prey upon the weak. They represent evil and must be confronted and defeated.

I believe that self-defense is a moral imperative, and that illegitimate force and illegal violence must be met with righteous indignation and superior violence.

I will not rely on others for the security of myself, my family and my community.

I proudly proclaim that I run with a like-minded pack. I do not amble through life with the mind-numbed herd.

I will train with my chosen weapons, maintain them and carry them in a condition of readiness at all times.

I will be mentally prepared and physically equipped to effectively respond to an attack or emergency.

I will constantly test myself against realistic standards to discover my strengths and weaknesses. I will turn weakness into strength.

I will seek to learn new skills and techniques, and then teach what I have learned to other members of the pack.

Be it with firearm or blade, empty hand or blunt object, I will hit my enemies hard, fast and true.

I will live a quiet and unobtrusive life, but I will develop and retain the capacity for swift and decisive violence.

I recognize that I am the modern equivalent of the traditional Minuteman, and that I may be called to service at any time against heavily armed enemies. I will respond effectively.

I accept that I am a pariah among some of my countrymen, and a quaint anachronism to others. I will not hold their ignorance against them.

I will win, or die trying.

I swear this creed before God, my family and my fellow citizens.

Author Unknown

Emphasis mine

[C5 Golfer]

Defenders Creed

I believe that self-defense is a moral imperative, and that illegitimate force and illegal violence must be met with righteous indignation and superior violence.

I will live a quiet and unobtrusive life, but I will develop and retain the capacity for swift and decisive violence.

I swear this creed before God,

Author Unknown

Emphasis mine

While I might agree with some of this -- I personally would take out the word Violence in 2 of the sentences and replace it with the word Defense. -- It just sounds better to me. I can be Defensive if pushed but Violence is not in me.

And I could probably do many of these without swearing before a God. Don't feel that would do me much good.

But Dr D -- we are not to far apart in our thinking.

[Recon]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dr D]

While I might agree with some of this -- I personally would take out the word Violence in 2 of the sentences and replace it with the word Defense. -- It just sounds better to me. I can be Defensive if pushed but Violence is not in me.

And I could probably do many of these without swearing before a God. Don't feel that would do me much good.

But Dr D -- we are not to far apart in our thinking.

No violence in me either just the capacity for it if needed:biggthump

These aren't my words but they fit my thinking so I passed them on. They are remnants of the greatest generation I would guess.

[Justin A.]

No violence in me either just the capacity for it if needed:biggthump

These aren't my words but they fit my thinking so I passed them on. They are remnants of the greatest generation I would guess.

And they live on in my worst generation (sad but true) in me and many others.

[C5 Golfer]

No violence in me either just the capacity for it if needed:biggthump

These aren't my words but they fit my thinking so I passed them on. They are remnants of the greatest generation I would guess.

Hey, Dr D --I think this is the guy who wrote those words.

Looks like a fine peice for a Montana outing.

[bobdea]

and tell me why the cougars are over populated?

If I'm not mistaken it's primarily due to the lack of wolves, their main competitor

[Dan]

and tell me why the cougars are over populated?

Could it be due to an oversupply of their natural prey - young bucks with white backwards facing baseball caps?

[kipstar]

As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw - responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. - unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting - as a victim, attacker or defender.

<o:p></o:p>

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

thank god you are not a statistician. Anyway, perhaps in the interests of learning a bit about maths, you should try a similar exercise by giving guns to everyone in say, south Central or Harlem.

That could be kind of cool.

Almost every statistic on either side of the pro and anti gun sides are twisted beyond comprehension. I trust you are all ready to overthrow the government with your concealed pistols and stuff :_)

[roscoe]

Sorry to bring this up after so long - finals and papers are killing me...

I also just realized my answers are in the quoted stuff - inside the **'s - in case you missed that

These must be the same modified bean counters that determined that there were no viable populations of wolves in the first place when they decided to "reintroduce" a foreign species to Idaho in the first place.

In spite of irrefutable evidence to the contrary such as sightings, howling, pups present in certain areas etc.

*I dont know about prior # of wolves in Idaho - but its likely that the scientists know more than you or I, and figured out that for some reason, the few wolves living in Idaho were not a VIABLE population as you say (important to note that yea they are a population, but whether they are viable and will persist is a different thing - goes back to critical #) - so they were probably lone wolves, not forming a pack, etc. something like that. so they'd introduce a "foreign" species because it would be 10x harder to get the few wolves already living their to mate and form packs, if they're not doing it already*

Not sure how anyone can get within 5% of the actual population of any predator that occupies a range that varies from one little chunk of Idaho at 2.5 million acres, up to 20-30 million acres if you count some of the major areas of the Yellowstone to Yukon greater habitat corridor.

*this is based on statistics and the fact that wolves live in packs. When you're talking about bears/lone predators its harder b/c they live alone, but wolves live in packs (once there are more than a few of them around) so when you find a pack, you know that that 1 pack is the only pack in the surrounding 50+ mile radius. They are very territorial, so you will rarely have territories overlapping a lot, and never have 2 packs in the same area*

Living in the east you may have more faith in these studies and gov. officials but what I have actually seen with my own two eyes is a lot of hypothetical extrapolation and numbers manipulation.

*I dont get how east/west would really have anything to do with it (unless we're talking about Beef (biggie-tupac? anyone?))...we have predators (granted, not as many/as big) and they use the same type of counting strategies to determine numbers. Also, jw (this is NOT a burn), but what experience do you have with scientists/data/statistics - again, not trying to say your stupid/etc, jw what you're background/connection is*

There are some good people out there trying to do the right thing for wildlife. I don't think bringing in a foreign species was or is.

*the difference between the rocky and canadian wolves versus the Idaho wolves that they introduced is about nil - reintroducing wolves means a return to MORE natural processes*

And don't have a cow man, have an elk. *haha good point!*

[roscoe]

and tell me why the cougars are over populated?

If I'm not mistaken it's primarily due to the lack of wolves, their main competitor

agreed. Lots of prey + not that many wolves (except in certain areas where they have enough territory for a full pack to roam/hunt) means lots of other predators, since most of those other predators dont live in packs and dont have territory ranges that are as big as wolves

example - cougar's close cousin, fishercats, can live in my town because they need almost no land for their range. Same with coyotes in the 1-2 acres of woods behind my house.

[C5 Golfer]

and tell me why the cougars are over populated?

If I'm not mistaken it's primarily due to the lack of wolves, their main competitor

I am sure there are many reasons why but here are a couple of reasons.

1. We are reaching further and further in to the forests with our homes around here in WA state. With that, Cougars are becoming more and more accustomed to living with humans - they had to - there is no place left for them.

2. The deer population, cougars main diet, is increasing in huge numbers in populated areas. I have come home some evenings and have had to honk my horn to get a deer out of my driveway as he eats my roses. So with increasing the deer population the cougar population goes in parallel.

3. Hunting regs have changed which lowered the cougar harvest killed by hunters.

I would seriously doubt the wolve population or lack there of has much to do with cougar population in urban areas. Sioux City Iowa has had cougars in the city recently, Samamish Washington has been seeing cougars in the housing areas-- I doubt that is due to lack of wolves.

Too many people taking up too much of the cougar territory is more of the issue.

anyway my 2 cents..