If that's the case, it sounds to me like we need to hunt them even more...

USA Today is reporting that a survey conducted by the Mountain Lion Foundation, who opposes hunting of mountain lions, says that it doesn't affect the number of fatal mountain lion attacks:
No evidence proves sport hunting reduces fatal encounters between people and mountain lions, says a study out today that adds fuel to a debate over the trophy killings of big-game animals.

The study comes as mountain lion attacks on humans, while still rare, are increasing, and reported sightings more common, especially where suburbs and second homes have spread into lion habitat.

The study by the Sacramento-based Mountain Lion Foundation compared lion-people incidents in 10 states that permit hunting with data from California, which banned cougar hunting in 1972. Nine states — Idaho, Montana, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and New Mexico — had higher attack rates than California. Wyoming's was lower.

"Any state that claims sport hunting is anything more than recreation will have to prove it, because evidence just isn't there," foundation President Lynn Sadler says. At least two states, Oregon and South Dakota, used an argument that hunting reduces attacks to win approval for hunts, she says. The foundation opposes sport hunting of lions.

and..

South Dakota, which had its first hunt last year and wasn't included in the study, allowed only 25 lions or five breeding-age females to be killed.

Read it all here. I'd be curious to know what the survey showed about livestock and pet attacks in addtion to human attacks.

Fine, for those of you who don't want them hunted, please go out in the woods and find one. Then give it a big hug. You'll feel better about yourself, and strengthen my argument at the same time when it rips you limb from limb and gnaws on you. It's a predator for gosh's sake. It's in competition with us, as well as viewing us as food.

Until they're numbers are supressed sufficiently to cause them to remain in remote areas of the hills, I say it's time to break out the guns.

Comments

Anonymous said…
PP, this lion thing is straight out of the GOP playbook. Trot out the bogey man when times are tough (Not that they are or any SD GOPs other than Whalen). Claim the sky is falling, the communists, feminists, united nations, media, hollywood, gun haters, gays, judges and latinos are all out to get you and your gun and convert your children to gay liberal cnn watching, anti gun Angelina Pitt loving new worlders.
Anonymous said…
They ARE in remote areas in the hills. People are building homes in what was once their habitat. What's so difficult about that for you to comprehend?
Anonymous said…
Which is it? Are lion populations being threatened by sport hunting or is sport hunting no threat to their numbers?
PP said…
Well, they're not remote anymore.

Lock and load.
Anonymous said…
They are in remote areas in the Hills, but THEIR increasing population is forcing them to leave those places. They are spreading out. That's why lions are ending up in places like Yankton.
Anonymous said…
They aren't only in remote places, unless you consider Skyline Drive and Main Street in Deadwood to be remote places.

They are large, silent and deadly predators that see no difference between a deer or a jogger when they are looking for lunch.

Lock and load is right. And the more often you do it the safer we all are.
Anonymous said…
"They are large, silent and deadly predators that see no difference between a deer or a jogger when they are looking for lunch."

So how many joggers have they eaten for "lunch" in the last 50 years?
Anonymous said…
"Lock and load is right. And the more often you do it the safer we all are."

Why not kill 'em all? That's the best way to maximize safety, right?
Anonymous said…
Kill them all...and the gays and the judges too!
Anonymous said…
Mountain lions have killed and injured joggers in the Boulder, Colorado area on more than one occasion, so the possibility of mountain lions attacking humans elsewhere does exist.
We are farmers and animal lovers who don't hunt for sport, but if we spot a mountain lion stalking our calves or pets, it will be a dead mountain lion.
Anonymous said…
"So how many joggers have they eaten for "lunch" in the last 50 years?"

How many do they need to eat before you'll say we have a problem?

"Why not kill 'em all? That's the best way to maximize safety, right?"

Now that you mention it, that sounds like a really good idea!!!
Anonymous said…
"How many do they need to eat before you'll say we have a problem?"

More than zero.
Anonymous said…
"Now that you mention it, that sounds like a really good idea!!!"

We should kill all the deer too, since cars run into them and the drivers get hurt.

We should kill all the pheasants as well, since they might cause a driver to run off the road. Or they might get bird flu. Better safe than sorry.

What else should we exterminate? How about the bees. Some people are allergic. The honey just isn't worth it.

Now that I think about it, let's kill everything. That's the only safe bet.

Lock and load.
Anonymous said…
The idea of killing some deer, despite the sarcasm, isn't a bad idea. They need to be thinned out some way. As it is, people are hitting them on the road about every night around here. You don't even have to hit them; they run out of the ditch and into the side of cars.
Anonymous said…
I just talked to my neighbor who found mountain lion tracks in their ranch yard this morning and yesterday morning. They have three little kids big enough so they play outside most of the day. Not any more!!!

Their oldest son rode over a hill and met a lion while he was horseback a couple weeks ago. Game and Fish tells them not to worry, the season will start this fall and some hunter will probably get a shot at it!?!

Is this close enough for you to think maybe we are having a problem out here? Or do we have to wait until we lose a child?
Anonymous said…
anon 9:15 -
Shoot the darn thing, dispose of it, and keep quiet about it. That's a better than having it attack your livestock or kids.
Anonymous said…
"Is this close enough for you to think maybe we are having a problem out here?"

So someone on a RANCH (i.e., outside of town; i.e., in the wild) SEES a lion (or lion tracks) and THAT ALONE indicates a problem?
Anonymous said…
"So someone on a RANCH (i.e., outside of town; i.e., in the wild) SEES a lion (or lion tracks) and THAT ALONE indicates a problem?"

It sure as heck does!! Unless you haven't heard, they are really large predators that need a lot of meat to sustain themselves. We just don't happen to want that meat to be from our kids or our livestock.

If you want to protect the big kitty, catch it and take it home with you. I'm sure you'll both be very happy.
K said…
The idea of killing some deer, despite the sarcasm, isn't a bad idea. They need to be thinned out some way.

If only there were some natural preditor to take care of those deer...some sort of fast, meat-eating animal that lived in similar habitats...
Anonymous said…
So you'll only be satisfied when all the lions are dead and gone.
Anonymous said…
And you will only be satisfied when all our children and livestock become cat chow?
Anonymous said…
What's the chance of getting mountain lions to agree to feast only on deer and leave our calves, lambs and children alone? I'm all for it if any of you can guarantee the results.
Anonymous said…
The only way to guarantee it is to kill them all.

Lock and load.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th