According to the Missouri Dept. of Conservation, the "Show-Me State" deer population is estimated to be 1.4 million with hunters killing nearly 300,000 deer annually, about 21% of the herd............ Per State Deer biologists, management in Missouri attempts to stabilize deer populations at levels that are within the biological carrying capacity of the land and below the cultural carrying capacity of Missouri citizens....................A survey of Cape Girardeau's whitetail deer population presented to the city council Monday night found an average density of 37 deer per square mile -- an amount the Missouri Department of Conservation said is similar to densities seen elsewhere in the state where communities have taken action to reduce the herd.................Readers of this blog are aware that prior to European colonization(in Missouri this took place with fervor in the late 19th century), Whitetail Deer averaged somewhere between 6 and 15 deer per square mile East of the Mississippi River................It is truly sad that state biologists pay lip service to biological carrying capacities while in actuality catering to deer hunter request for deer "as far as the eye can see" ...........Chronic Wasting Disease and Hemorrhagic Disease would likely be of very small concern if Wolves and Pumas were back in Missouri woodlands allowing only the biggest, fastest and boldest deer to survive alongside them...........Ironically, under these biologically optimum conditions, when hunters did "get their deer", it would be one of size............It would be a credit to their hunting skills rather than shooting em where they stand in the current Missouri environment, which accurately labeled is a "peanut gallery deer smorgasboard"

 How will Missouri's deer hunting be this fall?

kansascity.com

Missouri deer hunters have prospered as the herd has grown.

Missouri deer management

The Missouri Department of Conservation is known nationally as a pioneer in deer management. Today, it continues to be a leader in its management techniques. Here's a look at some of the ways wildlife biologists have reacted over the years.

•  During pre-settlement times, deer thrived in Missouri, especially in the northern part of the state, where the soil was fertile and habitat was varied.

•  By the last half of the 19th century, European settlers arrived in Missouri, and the clearing of forest land, unlimited market hunting, and farming caused the deer population to crash.

•  In 1925, there were thought to be only 400 deer remaining in the state. The Missouri State Legislature closed the deer season and a restoration project was started. Deer were brought in from Michigan and were stocked in Ozark refuges. By 1931, deer season was reopened, but it resulted in a very low harvest, an indication that the population was still struggling.

•  The Missouri Conservation Commission was formed in 1937, with one of its priorities to restore the deer herd. The hunting season was closed from 1938 to 1943, and a major restoration project was launched, with deer from northern states and refuges within Missouri stocked across the state.

•  By 1944, the deer population had grown to 15,000 and a limited hunting season was opened. In that first modern hunt, 7,557 hunters took 585 deer in a two-day season.

•  With carefully controlled hunting and continued stocking efforts, the Missouri deer population grew quickly. In the early days, hunters were restricted to bucks only. But as deer numbers grew, emphasis was shifted to the harvest of does as a way to control the size of the herd.

•  As the deer population exploded in the 1980s and 1990s, hunting regulations grew more liberal as wildlife biologists tried to keep whitetail numbers from growing too large in some areas, particularly the northern part of the state.

•  Today, hunters shoot almost 300,000 deer each season in Missouri, and the state is recognized as one of the nation's top hunting destinations.

•  Management is still needed, though. Deer populations have dropped this year because of an outbreak of disease last year, the cumulative effects of liberal hunting regulations in northern Missouri, and a prolonged drought. Thus, biologists have reacted by shifting regulations again.

Information provided by the Missouri Department of Conservation

Talk to Jerry Norman, who lives in the north-central part of the state, and he'll tell you he is worried. An avid deer hunter, he has taken some trophy bucks on his land over the years. But he just isn't seeing the deer he once did.

"It's noticeable," said Norman, 68, who lives north of Wheeling, Mo. "Our deer numbers are way down."

Now talk to Jason Caldwell, who lives outside the town of Dudley, Mo., in the Bootheel. He is seeing more deer than ever before and is excited about the prospects of the future.

"I'd say we're seeing 30 to 40 percent more deer than we have in the last five to six years," he said. "Our county (Stoddard) never has been known for its deer hunting, but I think that's changing.

"We're just seeing a lot more deer down here."

An isolated contrast? Hardly. More than ever before, Missouri's deer picture is fragmented.

Gone are the days when wildlife biologists could issue sweeping generalities when talking about hunting prospects.

After a year in which more than 10,000 deer were lost

 to a severe outbreak of hemorrhagic disease, coupled with the long-term effects of liberal hunting regulations in parts of the state, the aftermath of two years of drought, and efforts to control the budding threat of Chronic Wasting Disease, deer populations vary greatly across the state.

Wildlife biologists say Missouri still has a sizable population of deer and that hunting should be fair this fall. But they acknowledge that whitetail numbers are down.

"The effects of the hemorrhagic disease can be very localized," said Emily Flinn, wildlife biologist for the Missouri Department of Conservation. "In some cases, there can be a drastic difference in deer numbers within one county.

"The deer hunting could be very good on one farm, and poor on another not that far away."

The bottom line: The once-robust deer herd in Missouri is facing challenges like never before. And the wildlife biologists managing that herd are facing challenges, too.

"I think the days of statewide deer management are over," Flinn said. "We're seeing so many different factors affecting deer on a regional, even local, landscape, that it's become more and more challenging to manage populations."

The boom days — and the fall

The problem for hunters such as Norman is that they still have vivid memories of the glory days.

They weren't so long ago. In the 1990s, deer populations were booming in northern Missouri. So much so that the Department of Conservation had to liberalize hunting regulations to reduce numbers.

Norman remembers days when he would see many deer from the tree stand he was sitting in. And he went into each season with realistic hopes of shooting a big buck.

He has 12 mounts of big whitetails that he, his wife and his grandson took off his land.

"I used to take the entire month of November off to hunt deer," he said. "I would hunt with my bow and rifle."

Eventually, the Department of Conservation liberalized the regulations to the point that rifle hunters could take unlimited numbers of antlerless deer in the county in which Norman hunts. Then came periods of drought alternated with harmful floods. And to top it off, the outbreak of hemorrhagic disease, which hit hard in Norman's hunting area, took its toll.

The result? A tainted paradise.

"It's not like it used to be," Norman said. "We had hunters who really took advantage of that regulation that allowed people to take as many does as they wanted.

"We could see our deer numbers go down. I wish they would do away with that."

The Department of Conservation acknowledges that deer populations in northern Missouri have been on the decline for the last decade. Biologists estimate deer numbers have fallen by 10 percent over the last decade in the northwest region alone.

"Part of it had to do with the increased antlerless hunting opportunities," Flinn said. "And then with the antler-point restrictions (requiring hunters to shoot only bucks with at least four points on each side of their racks), more people were shooting antlerless deer.

"But we've also seen a change in habitat. More cover is being removed for agriculture. Then you add a severe outbreak of hemorrhagic disease, and it takes a toll."

The Department of Conservation did change regulations this year, removing the measure allowing firearms hunters to take unlimited numbers of antlerless deer and reducing that number to two in 12 counties — Atchison, Bates, Caldwell, Callaway, Carroll, Dallas, Howard, Laclede, Ray and Vernon and parts of Boone and Cass.

But biologists believe that is only a start, not a cure-all in those areas. They cite surveys that show most hunters take only one deer per season.

Flinn said it could take several years for whitetail populations to rebound in areas that were hit hard by the hemorrhagic disease.

"If deer numbers are down in a particular area, and everyone in the area continues to shoot as many does as they have in the past, what starts out as a moderate reduction in deer numbers can turn into a big reduction," Flinn said in a news release. "By the time hunters realize what has happened, deer numbers are down so much that it may take a few years to get back to where they were."

The big concern

Wildlife biologists know that deer herds will bounce back from the outbreak of hemorrhagic disease.

Missouri was the epicenter of the disease, which occurs in droughts when deer are concentrated around water sources and are infected by disease-carrying midges. But there was little problem with the disease this year. And though hunters will undoubtedly see the effects of last year's losses, past experience has shown biologists that the deer populations do slowly recover.

Of a bigger concern right now is the discovery of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in northeast Missouri. The disease can spread quickly among deer herds and is always fatal to those animals infected.

The disease has already caused widespread fatalities in other states such as Wisconsin, and wildlife biologists worry that something similar could play out in Missouri in a worst-case scenario.

CWD was first discovered in Missouri in 2010 and 2011 in captive deer at private hunting operations in Linn and Macon counties. Eleven deer with CWD have been found at those facilities. What worries wildlife biologists is that they have found CWD in 10 free-ranging deer within two miles of that captive-deer operation.

So far, 38,000 free-ranging deer have been tested for the disease, and only those in northwestern Macon County and northeastern Linn County have been found with CWD. The Department of Conservation is taking aggressive measures to see that the disease doesn't spread. That includes liberalizing hunting regulations in the containment zone, removing antler restrictions, restricting feeding of deer in an effort to discourage whitetails from congregating in one area, placing new requirements on existing captive-deer operations and not allowing new operations to get started.

Though CWD isn't believed to be a threat to humans, it is highly contagious to deer and can even be transmitted through carcasses and even deer's contact with infected soil.

A series of public meetings across the state in September and early October addressed everything from the proper disposal of carcasses to the handling of deer meat.

"We need the public's help with this," said Jason Sumners, a deer biologist for the Department of Conservation. "The landowners in the containment zone have been great. They have sacrificed in reducing deer numbers on their land.

"But we're asking for help from everybody in the state so that we don't inadvertently spread this disease. We have to be proactive."

And now for the bright side

Even with the onset of these problems, Missouri still has plenty of deer.

Hunters took 309,929 deer in the 2012-13 season, the third highest on record and the highest total since 2006. Bow hunters set a record when they took 51,008 whitetails.

Much of that harvest was bolstered by a substantially higher kill in southern Missouri, where hunters benefited from a poor acorn crop, which forced deer to come out of the deep woods to feed in more open fields where they were more visible to hunters.

Hunters such as Caldwell certainly are encouraged.

"We're seeing a lot of young bucks and does, which is good for our future," he said. "And that's with no special management like planting food plots or anything. We're just letting nature take its course."

But that isn't to say that everything is status quo statewide. Flinn and Sumners predict a reduced harvest this year, the result of a continued drop in deer numbers in northern Missouri and an improved acorn crop in the Ozarks, which will keep deer in the deep woods where they are less vulnerable to hunters.

"We have seen a decline in deer numbers in some areas, but we still have a lot of deer," Sumners said. "I don't know if we'll ever have the numbers we did when the population was growing so fast.

"I think hunters are going to have to expect a new 'normal.'"

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/19/4561717/missouri-deer-present-ever-changing.html#storylink=cpy

According to a study by University of New Hampshire professor of wildlife ecology John A. Litvaitis, the population of bobcats, especially in the southeastern part of the state is recovering tremendously..................Between 1990 and 2004, Litvaitis mapped out 91 bobcat sightings almost entirely in the central and western regions of the state.......... But from 2010 to 2012, he's found 411 such reports, including a healthy smattering throughout the southeast........There has been no Bobcat hunting and trapping in the state since 1989 and Litvaitis feels that the "Bobs" have taken advantage of these protections and have begun to build back their numbers after 200 years of persecution(bounties on Bobcats were instituted on Bobcats in 1809 and ran continually through 1973) ..................Above and beyond hunting and trapping, land use patterns in New England also contributed to spikes and falls of Bobcats------ Until the late 1800s more than 50% of the state was cleared for agricultural fields........... At that time, transportation systems enabled farmers in the Midwest to get their goods to eastern markets................ As a result, New England farmers could no longer compete and many farms were abandoned.......... As these cleared fields grew into shrublands and young forests, a number of wildlife species became more abundant............ Ruffed grouse, woodcock, and New England cottontails reached their greatest densities ever in the early 1900s and bobcats likely benefited from the abundance of prey............ In time, these forests matured and game populations thinned, once again knocking down Bobcat populations to very low levels..........

Bobcat sightings on the rise in

SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE 

UNH professor says wildcat population has grown over the years

A bobcat was recently spotted outside a Hampton Falls home.

HAMPTON FALLS — If you're dressing up as Peter Cottontail
 for Halloween, you might want to think about another costume,
because a number of bobcat sightings have been reported recently.

Deborah Regan of River Road said her husband spotted one of
the typically 15- to 35-pound wildcats this summer. Then about
a month later, another resident of the small neighborhood of about
 12 houses saw one.

"I've lived all around New Hampshire and I've lived way out in
the country and I've camped and I've hiked and I've never seen
 a bobcat (in those locations)," Regan said. "So to see one six feet
 from my house kind of floored me."

That encounter happened just last Friday around 4 p.m., when
Regan and her husband observed the animal moving around their yard.

"We were like little kids we were so excited," she said, noting that
 she's something of a nature enthusiast.

She expected that the cat "would have seemed more wary or cautious
 or crouching, but it wasn't," she said. Instead, it strolled around in a
 "very casual manner" and "made us wonder maybe it's walked
through our yard many times before."

Regan isn't too concerned about the safety of her family — that is,
 except for the feline member.

"On the one hand, I find it very exciting. On the other hand, I have
a cat that goes out and we haven't let her out since then, which she's
 not too happy about," she said, adding that she advised her neighbors
 who own outdoor cats to err on the side of caution as well.

according to a study by University of New Hampshire professor
of wildlife ecology John A. Litvaitis, the population of bobcats,
 especially in the Seacoast area, is recovering tremendously.

On a UNH Web site, Litvaitis compiles information about bobcat
sightings and asks people to send in their own information. Between
 1990 and 2004, he has mapped out 91 bobcat sightings almost
 entirely in the central and western regions of the state. But from
 2010 to 2012, he's found 411 such reports, including a healthy
smattering throughout the Seacoast.

"Recent observations suggest that they are becoming more
 abundant in the southeastern portion of the state, where they
 were scarce," the site states.

Between 1809 and 1973, there was a bounty on bobcats that was
 occasionally repealed and reinstated. By 1989, bobcats populations
were at low levels, harvesting closed and has stayed that way since.
 "Now, after 20 years of protection, have their populations rebounded?

 Numerous observations by hunters, trappers and naturalists seem to
indicate that this is the case," Litvaitis said on his Web site, which
endeavors to determine exactly how well bobcats have responded
to protection measures.

Bobcats typically eat cottontail rabbits, deer, snowshoe hares,

 gray squirrels and other small mammals. Regan said she'd seen
 an abundance of rabbits in and around her yard earlier this
summer; however, they seem to have mostly disappeared,
she said, perhaps because of the bobcats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Hampshire Bobcat Management History

The table below provides an overview of our efforts to manage bobcats in New Hampshire for the past 200 years. Clearly, our historical relationship with bobcats was based on incomplete knowledge and a sense that these animals limited game and livestock populations. Bounties were used to encourage hunters and trappers to kill bobcats and other predators, including wolves.

Management of Bobcats in New Hampshire, 1809 - Present.

Period	Management Activity
1809 –1828	No closed season, $3 bounty per bobcat, repealed in 1829.
1829 – 1831	No closed season, no bounty.
1832 – 1895	No closed season, $1 bounty per bobcat, repealed in 1895.
1896 – 1914	No closed season, no bounty.
1915 – 1918	No closed season, $2 bounty per bobcat.
1919 – 1921	No closed season, $5 bounty per bobcat.
1922	No closed season, $10 bounty per bobcat.
1923 – 1926	No closed season, $20 bounty per bobcat.
1927 – 1928	No closed season, $10 bounty per bobcat.
1929 – 1960	No closed season, $20 bounty per bobcat.
1961 – 1965	No closed season, bounty varied from $10 - $20. End of township-based bounty program.
1966 – 1967	No closed season, no funds appropriated for state-based bounty program.
1968 – 1973	No closed season, state-based bounty program varied from $10 to $20 per bobcat. Bounty program terminated in 1973.
1974 – 1976	Regulated hunting and trapping seasons.
1977 – 1979	Hunting and trapping seasons closed.
1980 – 1988	Hunting and trapping seasons re-established. Periodic closure of both seasons in portions of southeastern New Hampshire.
1989 – Present	Hunting and trapping seasons closed.

Although it was occasionally repealed and then reinstated, the bounty on bobcats existed from 1809 to 1973.

Two hunters that probably killed four bobcats in one week. This picture provides an impression of how abundant bobcats once were in New Hampshire. We don't know exactly when or where the picture was taken - we're guessing about 1950. Does anyone recognize these two gentlemen?

Annual harvests submitted for payment varied tremendously, especially during the early 1900s. However, there was an abrupt increase from 1915 to 1930 when harvests rose from 93 to 358. They remained relatively high and eventually peaked at 421 in 1959.

But even more surprising than the rapid increase in abundance was the rapid decline. Only 25 bobcats were submitted for bounty payment in 1966. By 1970, payment was made on only 10 bobcats and the program was terminated in 1973.

A 200-year summary of bobcat harvest in New Hampshire. Such information is quite rare, and it gives us a better understanding about the animal today.

So, what might have been responsible for the apparent rise and subsequent fall among bobcat populations in New Hampshire? There are several possible explanations. First, trapper harvests can be influenced by commercial demand for fur. However, the value of bobcat pelts in New Hampshire and elsewhere was consistently low until the mid 1970s – usually less than $10. Prices increased rapidly until the mid 1980s when some pelts sold for more than $100. However, this rise in commercial value happened after the sharp decline in harvests and pelt value does not explain why populations increased in the early 1900s.

There is some speculation that expanding populations of coyotes had a detrimental effect on bobcats within the state. Bobcats and coyotes are known to consume similar prey. so the potential for competition is there. But again, much of the decline in bobcat numbers occurred in the early 1960s before coyotes were abundant.

The final explanation may be the most revealing. Using simple models of forest succession, we have found that the abundance of young forests in New Hampshire followed a pattern similar to the abundance of bobcats. Until the late 1800s, more than 50% of the state was cleared for agricultural fields. At that time, transportation systems enabled farmers in the Midwest to get their goods to eastern markets. As a result, New England farmers could no longer compete and many farms were abandoned. As these cleared fields grew into shrublands and young forests, a number of wildlife species became more abundant. Ruffed grouse, woodcock, and New England cottontails reached their greatest densities ever in the early 1900s and bobcats likely benefited from the abundance of prey. In time, these forests matured and game populations thinned. Our models indicated that much of the productive game habitat was declining rapidly by 1960. Because the abundance of young forests explains both the rapid rise and rapid decline of bobcat populations, it seems to be the most logical factor responsible for the patterns we have observed.

So, what happened next to bobcats. The bounty program was terminated in 1973 and in response to high prices, the hunting and trapping seasons were closed from 1977 through 1979. Seasons were re-opened in 1980, but portions of the state were periodically closed to any harvests. By 1989, it seemed that bobcats were still at a fairly low level of abundance and all harvests were stopped. Now, after 20 years of protection, have their populations rebounded? Numerous observations by hunters, trappers, and naturalists seem to indicate that this is the case. With our project, we plan to determine how well they have responded to protection.

COUGAR REWILDING'S Christopher Spatz calls out Nebraska 's Game & Parks Commissioner Stacy Swinney for overiding the sentiment of his citizenry and creating a Puma management Plan that all but snuffs out the ability of our most eastern most Puma breeding population(outside Florida) to "spread it's wings and eventually have "pioneer cats wandering into the midwest and eastern states.............His killing quota goal, by raising the take to 18% - 27% of the estimated population of 15-22 solitary Pumas in the Pine Ridge National Forest is sheer madness and lunacy............Note that most biologists consider that a kill quota of 14% of a Puma population the limit of sustainability prior to population decline setting in............. Why is Mr. Swinney allowed to get away with this unscientific and genocidal killing policy?

No Exit: Nebraska Shuts Another Door East

MOUNTAINLION.ORG

Guest Commentary by Christopher Spatz, President of the Cougar Rewilding Foundation

Cougar Rewilding Foundation President Chris Spatz discusses Nebraska's recent mountain lion policy changes. The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC) has adopted an outdated anti-mountain lion stance with virtually no public support. With science and local residents backing the need to protect this tiny budding colony of lions, why is the NGPC pushing so hard to eradicate the species? Nebraska's zero tolerance policy may prevent the lion from reclaiming not only the Prairie, but the entire eastern seaboard.

'We need to chase these animals and make them afraid of us'...

Nebraska Game Parks Commissioner Stacy Swinney

This summer has seen another Prairie game commission deny science on its way to launching a fear-driven — there's no other way to describe it — cougar hunting season, and the New York Times distort the promise of cougar recolonization by playing the beguiling menace card while failing to report on management developments in the Prairie States.

If you've kept up with our blog or Facebook pages, you know that Nebraska Game and Parks (NGP) Commissioners in May reviewed public testimony and written comments to the state's first proposed cougar hunting season, a proposal that would have taken an arguably sustainable (if sustainable, we might support it) two males or one female from the estimated 15-22 cats now calling the Pine Ridge National Forest in the Nebraska panhandle home.Though an easy majority of public testimony from the Panhandle and written comments to the plan, taken together, opposed the hunting measure, Commissioners ordered their biologists to rewrite the agency's proposal.

The revised 2013 Recommendations for a Mountain Lion Hunting Season released in July doubled the Pine Ridge take and split the hunting season in two, making sanctuary regions with developing cougar presence, the Keya Paha and Upper Platte, while opening up 85% of the rest of Nebraska (habitat considered unsuitable by NGP) to an unlimited, year-round hunt. After hearing testimony on the revision in Lincoln, and reviewing another 90 written comments, Commissioners passed the new proposal unanimously on July 26th.

Aside from the nominal nod to provide a recreational opportunity for 100 lottery hunters, the expressed management goal, by raising the take to 18% - 27% of the estimated population (14% of mortalities, matching the average reproduction rate, is considered the limit of sustainability), is to reduce those 20ish cats in the federally owned Pine Ridge National Forest. Why?

The Recommendations conclude with this sentence:
"The Commission intends to manage mountain lion populations over time with consideration given to social acceptance, effects on prey populations, depredations on pets and livestock, and human safety."

Problem is, NGP has conducted no public attitude surveys to measure the social acceptance of cougars, the effects of cougar predation on prey species appear nowhere in any of the agency's deer reports, nor has there been any documented incidents of pet, livestock or human predation in 20 years of cougar dispersal/recolonization in Nebraska. Absent any examples in the Recommendations of the "considerations" purportedly informing the Commissioners' intention to manage cougars, one wonders on what evidence they based their decision to launch an inaugural hunt.
Apparently, that decision turned not on prey impacts or human safety or 20 years without a predation incident in Nebraska of any kind, but on fear. Although state regulation already permits anyone to defend livestock, property and themselves from cougars, testimony by Panhandle residents in May who reported living in fear was weighted more heavily than written comments and testimony prior to the final vote in Lincoln, testimony that ran 7-2 against the hunt (one Commissioner testified in favor). Of the roughly 90 written comments submitted, only 3 supported the hunting measure (and just 2 were from hunters). At least 57 of the more than 80 opposed resided in Nebraska (some provided no address). Since public testimony and written comments were the only instruments cited to gauge the Recommendations' "social acceptance," it would appear that the acceptance for cougars among Nebraskans from these limited samples already approaches the kind of majority percentages we see in states with long established cougar populations.

But if you listen to Commissioner Stacey Swinney, who mentions an escalation (without examples or data) from "mountain lion concerns to mountain lion issues to mountain lion problems," fewer than 20 residents near Pine Ridge set the cougar hunting policy for the entire state of Nebraska. A responsive state game commission might counter public fears with public education (solid material NGP has already produced, some of it specifically for the Commissioners), not an inaugural predator hunting season fed by fear and grounded in boogeyman scare tactics.

Instead, and despite mentioning testimony citing the Washington State University (WSU) studies on the destabilizing effects of cougar sport hunting that the Cougar Rewilding Foundation and other advocates provided the Commission, it appears to NGP Commissioners that sacrificing breeding females and trophy toms is the only way to counter public fear. Why?

Not because it can minimize a record of absent conflicts. Taking out the animals that cause the least amount of trouble — trophy toms and moms achieve breeding age by avoiding pets, livestock and people, behavior females teach their young — will give constituents the impression that NGP is "doing something."

This is a frequent refrain, the entrenched fantasy among game managers, hunters, and ranchers that it's simply a matter of time before conflicts rise and a child is picked off, ignoring both decades of actual experience and 21st century peer-reviewed cougar management. So, the reflex masquerading as management goes, fight fear with fear and start killing, though random removal by hunting cannot select for problem individuals: a dead cat learns nothing. (A detailed search yielded not a single study demonstrating that hunting works as a livestock deterrent or public safety measure). Taking out problem individuals at the source remains the most effective control. Since a cougar has yet to be implicated in Nebraska in any kind of pet, livestock or human depredation, where does Commissioner Swinney's perceived cougar problem come from? Perhaps the manner in which Nebraska handles its residential cougar incidents, a number of which have occurred in towns and cities in the Panhandle, has something to do with it.

19 cougars have been taken out since 1999 under Nebraska's "zero tolerance" residential policy (p. 10, 4.4.1). None were implicated in an attack or depredation. These are typically young, dispersing cats temporarily sidelined in a neighborhood or near a ranch, treed by a dog (a treed cat is seeking refuge; it's afraid) or bedded down, suddenly sighted and reported to the authorities, when all hell breaks loose. The cat becomes cornered in a maelstrom of people, media, and first-responders, lights spinning and sirens wailing, ending in a hail of gunfire, an often widely reported scene that reinforces the impression that protecting the public from cougars requires nothing short of a SWAT team. It doesn't. Some state cougar managers and the experts who collaborated on Cougar Management Guidelines understand that — unless the cat has been implicated in a depredation — the safest thing to do is pull back the public and the media, create escape routes for the cat and wait it out, before hazing or tranquilizing if the cat fails to move on its own (see Kertson's perceived risk vs actual risk).

Discharging firearms amid residences is the last thing responsible first-responders need to do. Just ask New Jersey Fish and Wildlife and its army of municipal first-responders, who routinely handle suburban black bear complaints under strict management protocols (p. 17-20). But letting cougars go with little incident doesn't appear heroic, isn't simply the best, safest practice, doesn't leave the impression that officials are "doing something." Even tranquilized, captured cats are automatically killed for simply showing up in a Nebraska municipality. Clear, experienced heads can and do handle marooned cougars without spectacle.

Under the new hunting policy, Nebraska Game and Parks may soon find itself tracking down and euthanizing orphaned kittens, while devoting increasing time and increasing resources to pet, livestock and human conflicts caused by targeting trophy adults. They may find themselves dealing with the management consequences of destabilization detailed by WSU, the kind of consequences South Dakota has been corralling for several years. Incidents the WSU research predicts like this one, where a female with kittens may have sought refuge along the residential interface from roving subadult males bent on killing the kittens of breeding toms taken for trophy.

And, with an open season declared across 85% of the rest of the Nebraska — matching similar policies in the Dakotas and Texas — leaving all but Kansas and Oklahoma (states where breeding has yet to occur) providing protection on the Plains, the stage is set for a virtual dispersal gauntlet across the Prairie States.

          January 1, 2014: year-round, unlimited kill-zones across 3/4 of the Prairie States

Yet, this widening firewall goes unreported by one news source after another — including the New York Times — who continue to describe eastward recolonization as a done deal.
Portraying the immanence of an eastern recovery fraught with conflict, Guy Gugliotta's A Glamorous Killer Returns burnishes its feline fatale headline by guilding the record of cougar conflict: the suggestion of "emigrants" attacking people; there are no documented attacks east of the Rockies since the middle of the 19th century.

"Increasing numbers make them harder to manage — and harder for people to tolerate;" No, as both WSU and California have determined, less cougar management is more, and every public attitude survey we've looked at in states coexisting with cougars show that the public likes having cougars around by wide majorities.

Gugliotta also suggests that a handful of resident cougars (who can purportedly "wreak havoc on other wildlife") caused the bighorn population in Arizona's 665,000 acre Kofa National Wildlife Refuge to drop from 800 in 2000 to 400, where the population has hovered since 2006: cougar impacts on the Kofa bighorns remain in dispute after years of conflicting research.
Finally, Gugliotta hacks up this gasping chestnut, "There are increasing reports of sightings in 11 Midwestern states." Every cougar biologist and state game agency (including 15 years from our own monitoring) knows that sightings are no indicator of presence.

Even confirmations from physical evidence (shy of distinct individual markers) are no litmus test for density. A single cat can leave multiple sign across hundreds of miles, like this one wearing a radio collar who tripped random remote cams across northern Wisconsin and the Michigan Upper Peninsula, leaving the impression of multiple cats on the landscape.

More significantly, the number of mortalities and captures—concrete indicators of individual cats—east of the source colonies has begun to drop. As we noted last year, mortalities and captures had risen every year since 2000, peaking in 2011, when we recorded 16 such incidents.

                      Cougar mortalities and captures outside of existing range: 2011

However, as we predicted, that number dipped for the first time in 2012, to 9, including one from December in Osage County, Oklahoma (p. F-3) that we learned of this Spring, a female removed by Wildlife Services for calf depredation. She was the lone female documented east of the source populations in 2012, and only the second female to have turned up in Oklahoma. Again, no females, no recovery.

In more than 20 years of dispersal, a wild female or kittens have yet to be documented in a Midwestern state east of the prairie colonies. That fact went unreported by Gugliotta (we contacted the Times regarding its nest of errors; we received no response), and continues to go entirely unnoticed by journalists and game officials, and unmentioned even by our friends and colleagues at the Cougar Network (CN). With all due respect, CN's glutted map featuring every confirmation since 1990 and widely cited, dated data (ending in '08) haven't accounted for the sharp rise in colony hunting quotas backed by open seasons on the eastern prairies, and remain the primary sources for the illusion of eastward recolonization.

Mortalities and captures tend to spike in the second half of each year. So far, in 2013 there have been 2. Despite recalibrating last year its Black Hills' estimate up to a controversial 300 cats, South Dakota's 2013 female hunting subquota of 70 fell short by 1/2 — the fourth consecutive year they failed to reach the female subquota (scroll to 5:00 for harvest graph; combined WY/SD Black Hills' harvest impacts at 18:00). The Black Hills' population is getting hammered on both sides of the Wyoming/South Dakota state line. It's no stretch to suggest that the number of cougars being killed, captured and confirmed East will continue downward.

An unfettered generation of cougar dispersal East is passing, a generation that couldn't put a female or kittens near the Great Lakes or in the Ozarks.

With the source colonies being pounded into population sinks, Prairie States bent on stopping eastern pioneers dead in their tracks are slamming the door on the most promising alpha predator recovery story in the world.

In the United States, it's a story half-finished.

Christopher Spatz

Maps by John Laundré

 Christopher Spatz

Christopher Spatz is a former psychiatric social worker and a director of the Gunks Climbers' Coalition.He writes and lectures about the natural history of the Catskill Mountains and the Shawangunk Ridge where he lives in southern New York State, and where he caught the spell of the fabled eastern cougar.

The Cougar Rewilding Foundation (CRF) is a nonprofit whose mission is to facilitate the recovery of the cougar in suitable wild habitat east of the Rocky Mountains. CRF promotes recovery of breeding populations of cougars through natural recolonization and mandated restorations to the central, southeastern and eastern United States, advocating responsible management in habitat where cougars are recovering. CRF also believes in full legal protection of all cougars living wild east of the Rockies, regardless of origin.

To help raise awareness for their cause, the Cougar Rewilding Foundation conducts public education programs by preparing cougar education modules and lesson plans, exhibiting at outdoor and conservation events, and giving presentations to interested groups.

CRF also conducts habitat and public attitude surveys, as well as evaluates evidence and conducts investigations in collaboration with wildlife agencies to document cougar presence along their expanding range into eastern habitat.

Michael Kellett of RESTORE THE NORTH WOODS and along with his colleague Jym St.Pierre are doing yeomans advocacy work up in Maine seeking to create what will be known as MAINE WOODS NATIONAL PARK.......BURTS BEES co-founder turned Philanthropist, Roxanne Quimby is working shoulder to shoulder with RESTORE to make this vision for Maine a reality

North Woods still qualify for

 national park status

Bangor News

Letter to the editor

The letter ("Does North Woods meet criteria for
 national park?," Sept. 28) asking whether

 the national park proposed by Roxanne Quimby
 has "natural characteristics" that qualify it

 for National Park System designation, raises fair
 questions.

In 1937, a reconnaissance team sent by the
 National Park Service director did an intensive

 survey of the region around Katahdin. The team
 recommended the designation of a

 327,978-acre national park that included not only
 Katahdin, but also the lands proposed 

by Roxanne Quimby for national park designation.

In its report, the team wrote that it "unanimously agrees"
 that the proposed national park

 "is of national geologic and biologic importance and that
 it possesses outstanding 

supplemental scenic and historic values, all of which taken 
collectively, qualify the

 area for national park and monument system purposes."

The area proposed by Roxanne Quimby as a new national
 park qualified three-quarters 

of a century ago, and it still meets the criteria today. Of 
course, the significance of 

the proposed national park land is enhanced by being 
adjacent to Baxter State Park and Katahdin.

 Indeed, the protection of this area would benefit Baxter
 Park by buffering it from development

 and including areas that were not originally included in 
Baxter State Park.

As for the question whether a new national park would 
attract more visitors to the region,

 several studies project a significant increase in visitation,
 because a national park would

 greatly raise the public profile of the area and offer 
high-quality education and recreation

 programs. The national park brand is so well regarded
 that it serves as a visitor magnet.

A new national park in the Katahdin region would be 
an environmental, economic and 

recreational boon to the area and to all of Maine.

Lois Winter

Portland, Maine

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quimby adds more than 11,000 acres 

to land holdings

Bangor news

Roxanne Quimby

By Kevin Miller,bangordailynews.com

Conservationist Roxanne Quimby has purchased another
11,000 acres east of Baxter State
 Park, expanding her already-sizable land holdings in the
Katahdin region and potentially
 adding another wrinkle to the debate over her national park plan.

Quimby’s nonprofit land conservation foundation, Elliotsville
Plantation Inc., announced
Wednesday that Quimby had bought 11,291 acres south of
Shin Pond in T4 R7 and T5 R7.
The land, which Quimby purchased from the timberland and
 development company Lakeville
Shores Inc., includes substantial acreage on both sides of the
 Seboeis River as well as Peaked
Mountain. A press release from Elliotsville Plantation Inc. said
 the property is notable for its
white-water canoeing, wild brook trout fishery, upland forests
 and wetlands.

A co-founder of the Burt’s Bees natural beauty products line,
 Quimby has used her wealth to
 purchase more than 100,000 acres of forestland in Maine.

The vast majority of Quimby’s land — including the most recent
 purchase — is located in the
Katahdin region north of Millinocket and east of Baxter State
 Park. And it’s in that region that
 Quimby has made her boldest and most hotly debated move
yet: a proposal to donate 70,000
 acres to the federal government for the creation of a new
North Woods National Park.

The Seboeis River tract is not part of the 70,000 acres Quimby
 hopes will become Maine’s
second national park — a desire that is far from being fulfilled
 given the opposition to federal
 land ownership among some residents. But in the news release
 announcing the acquisition,
Elliotsville Plantation Inc. suggested that the new land south of
 Shin Pond could play a role as
Quimby seeks to build public support for her park plan.

The foundation said Quimby will allow hunting, snowmobiling
 and other traditional uses
 on the land for one year.“Long term, the acquisition will be part
 of EPI’s larger plan for
 multiple-use motorized recreation, hunting and sustainable
working forest east of the East Branch
 [of the Penobscot River] to balance EPI’s proposed donation
 of 70,000 acres west of
the East Branch for a national park,” the release stated.

Mark Leathers, a resource consultant at James W. Sewall Co.
who works with Quimby,
could not be reached for comment on Wednesday. However,
  Quimby reportedly has 
offered area snowmobile clubs five years of access to trails on
 her property in exchange
 for their support for a feasibility study of her national park
 proposal.

The Bowlin-Matagammon-Shin Pond Snowmobile Club is
among
the groups weighing
 Quimby’s offer. The club grooms several scenic trails
 within Quimby’s new tract as well
 as part of the ITS 114 snowmobile trail that extends into
 the land, according to club secretary
 Terry Hill, who also runs Shin Pond Village campground
 and cottages.

Hill declined to comment on Quimby’s new land acquisition
 before her club’s Oct. 20
meeting during which members will discuss whether to
support a park feasibility study
 in return for five years of guaranteed access to trails on
 Quimby land.
Bob Meyers, executive director of the Maine Snowmobile
Association, said the more
 land Quimby owns in the region “the more of a wedge she
 has” to put under local
snowmobile clubs.

“It has put them in a terrible situation,” Meyers said.
While there has been talk about a North Woods national park
 for more than a decade,
 Quimby’s latest proposal has changed the debate considerably
 in a region where “Ban
Roxanne” bumper stickers once were commonplace.
Quimby has picked up support from business groups, local
 governments and residents
 for at least a feasibility study by proposing a 70,000-acre park,
 a fraction of the size
of the 3.2 million-acre park originally put forward by the group
RESTORE: The North Woods.

Additionally, Quimby convinced some former naysayers that her
 proposal is at least worth
considering through her offers to donate 30,000 acres to the state
 for recreational land open
 to hunting and snowmobiling as well as her promise to create a
$20 million endowment for
the national park. Only Congress, the White House or the U.S.
 Department of the Interior
can request a park feasibility study, and then only Congress can
create a new park.
Others, however, remain staunchly opposed to the federal
government owning any land in a
region often described as Maine’s “timber basket.” So it was
 not surprising that some did not
 welcome the news that Quimby had purchased additional land
 in the region.

Millinocket Town Manager Eugene Conlogue, a vocal opponent
 of Quimby’s national park
 plan, said the latest purchase is just “her expanding her reach
 into this area.”
“That’s too bad. That’s a real blow,” he added. “Roxanne is
trying to impose her vision on
 how woods should be on an area that is based on the forest
 products industry. We do not
 welcome her taking land out of that industry.”

Supporters of Quimby’s proposal, on the other hand, predict
that a new national park would
 bring tourists and economic development to a region that is
 losing population and has struggled
to keep open its two paper mills. They also praise Quimby
for her willingness, in recent years,
to reach compromises with snowmobile clubs and sportsmen’s
 organizations on use of her land.

This year(2013) Resource Managers in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska fear that too many female Brown(Grizzly) Bears have been killed by hunters and car collisions............With Grizzlies being slow reproducers of cubs, the 22 female brown bears(33 percent of the 66 Bears killed) are more than double previously established female kill limits..............Adult Female Bears hold the key to long term perpetuation of the species,,,,,,the primary driver of brown bear population dynamics" said refuge supervisory wildlife biologist John Morton.......... "Losing so many adult female bears will have immediate negative impacts on this population"

Agency halts grizzly 

hunts in Kenai refuge

lubbockonline.com

By DAN JOLING

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Sport hunting of grizzly bears
 ended Saturday
 in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge because too many
 bears have
been killed this year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
 announced Friday.

The emergency closure took effect at 12:01 a.m. Saturday
 on the nearly
3,125-square mile refuge that takes up much of the
 northern and central
 areas of the peninsula south of Anchorage, the agency said.

More than 10 percent of Kenai Peninsula grizzlies were
 killed this year,
 the agency said.

Grizzly deaths by humans on the Kenai have reached at least
 66 bears, the agency said. Hunters killed at least 43 brown
bears in spring and summer hunting seasons. Another 23 were
killed by people defending property or their lives, by illegal
hunting, by vehicles or by the agency destroying problem
bears, the agency said.

The bears on the Kenai and other Alaska coastal regions
rich with salmon are referred to as brown bears to distinguish
them from smaller interior and northern Alaska grizzlies.

The entire population on the peninsula was 624, according to
the best estimate available, said refuge manager Andy
 Loranger.

"This level of mortality is not scientifically sustainable,"
Loranger said.

A state wildlife official said he was disappointed by the
decision.

"The current harvest of bears this year is not unexpected
and does not represent a viability concern," Doug
Vincent-Lang, director of the Alaska Division of Wildlife
Conservation, said in a statement. "Once again, we are
 faced with overreach by the federal government into the
management of Alaska's wildlife."

The seven-member citizen state Game Board, which sets
 bag limits and seasons for game animals, has taken an
aggressive stand to expand human consumption of
 moose and caribou by killing wolves, black bears and grizzly bears.

Grizzlies are slow to reproduce.

The federal agency said at least 22 female brown bears,
or 33 percent of the known mortalities, were killed in 2013,
more than double previously established limits.

"Survivorship of adult female bears has been shown to be
 the primary driver of brown bear population dynamics,"
said refuge supervisory wildlife biologist John Morton
in the announcement. "Losing so many adult female
 bears will have immediate negative impacts on this
 population."

Actual bear deaths by humans are higher than the documented numbers, he said, and must be considered when setting harvest levels.

The emergency closure lasts for 30 days. Public hearings likely will be scheduled before more permanent measures are put in place, Morton said.