Why Cougars can't stay in MN too long.

[Duffman]

I will say, cougars are at the top of my list for animals to fear in the MN woods, second would be a moose in rut or protecting calves. The wolf doesn't even make my top ten.

[Surface Tension]

Wish I had National Geo. I refuse to pay for the shopping channels and my C band dish sits idle since well, take over and all. Capitalism you know.

It something that I thought about a long time ago.

By my reply its sounds like I mad at someone. I'm not but I am enthusiastically passionate about the topic.

Wolves are off topic but the kitty cats came from a wild cat too.

Meow

[Elia]

Quote:

It comes down to genetics. Remove a wolf that feels confident close to man that wolf is out of the gene pool.

When repeated over and over a selective process begins. You have less wolves that don't fear man and you end up with wolves that because they kept their distance fear man.

I'm no geneticist, but a wolf, cougar, or...whatever, can't pass "confidence" on to its offspring. The only traits one organism can pass to subsequent generations are physical traits. This is fact. Everything else is "learned" behavior.

Wolves, cougars, or..whatever, that lose their fear of man are the same ones most likely to die before their time. Dead animals pass along no traits. Shoot an animal that doesn't fear man, and the lesson dies with it. (On this same topic, how could any hunter know that the specific animal he shot was "unafraid" of man?)

Top line predators have been living with humans for millions of years. Any argument for hunting them that's based on the premise of reinstilling their "fear of humans" is nonsense.

[Duffman]

Frank......

Sorry, I was just assuming. They had the "how dogs became domesticated" show on this week, and you desribed their findings to a "t".

And yes, you can breed "behavior" out of an animal, the Russians have done this with the silver fox in a suprisingly quick time/number of generations. Also shown on the same program. Behavior is both passed on and learned.

As for the dog/wolf issue, that's always been a concern for this dog owner. As it should be in wolf territory, I don't care how many wolves are shot, it will never alter a wolves attitude towards a dog.

One of the few documented mountain lion sightings in MN was within a mile of where I sit. Another was within 4 miles and that cat was killed. If anything, this suburbanite should be worrying about mountain lions long before those out in the sticks should. Then again, I don't have wolves running around my backyard. Maybe there is something to the theory.

[Surface Tension]

Duff, Fox In Russian, I saw that show on PBS!

Very interesting wasn't it.

The behavior part I already had down. Its no different then bringing out desirable traits in dogs.

We've been told all along dogs are descendants of wolves but always wondered about the extremes in the breeds. Just in a few generations the physical characteristics were astounding.

I've seen the weird the coloration in ranch furs and this explains it but now I wonder if that was intended.

IMO its not desirable.

"I'm no geneticist, but a wolf, cougar, or...whatever, can't pass "confidence" on to its offspring. The only traits one organism can pass to subsequent generations are physical traits. This is fact. Everything else is "learned" behavior."

Then you say.

"How can you possibly take dominion over a creature that cant understand the concept? "

I don't know if your contradicting yourself but I didn't mention confidence. I did say aggression and that can be proven. Lets take a Rottweiler and Golden Retriever for example.

While poor breeding can mess things up as far as what is intended for the breed but I can tell you which one in general I'd like to deal with under some circumstances.

Learned behavior and conditioning are the same thing.

How do you teach a pup Lab that it will have a good disposition and temperament?

You can't, you have to breed that into them by selective breeding. You can teach them things but the disposition and temperament was greed into them.

Let a pack of dogs run the streets for 30 years and you don't know what you'll end up with. It will be different then what you started with.

[JayinMN]

Quote:

20 - 30 years ago as wolves expanded their range, there were really no lions crossing into MN. Well now they do via SD BlackHills and ND Badlands. They do not last long in MN. Wolves push them out or kill them before they can establish a territory.

Can you find me one confirmed case of a cougar being killed by wolves in Minnesota or any research on cougar/wolf relationships in MN? I find it interesting that the majority of confirmed cougars in Minnesota are found in the center of wolf country. Bemedji, Two Harbors, Wolf Lake, Floodwood to name a few. It certianly contradicts your assumptions because I would think if wolves were driving cougars out they would have never made it as far as Two Harbors. Bobcats and lynx do fine with wolves in their territories, but a cougar who is much more capable of defending itself wouldn't? Now if wolves drove them away why are they not being found and breeding in the wolfless parts of the state. There is likely to be more deer in the southern part of the state as well, which means more food. I don't think your hypothesis is adding up.

Quote:

The researcher also showed a map of cougar movements in Yellowstone both before and after wolf reintroduction. Whereas cougars were spread out over the landscape prior to wolf reintroduction, afterward, the cats’ territory constricted to areas with steeper terrain.

Despite their formidable size, strength, agility, and claws, cougars are still no match for a pack of wolves. “It appears that the advantage is to the wolf,” Quigley said, explaining that wolves are continuously moving and exploring new territory, making an encounter with a cougar much more likely.

Where wolves killing cougars is not all that rare, he’s only confirmed one instance where a cougar killed a wolf.

“There is some very strong repulsion happening,” said Quigley. “The jury is still out, but two years from now if no females fill in the Buffalo Valley, I’m going to point to wolf effects.”

You cut and pasted a few lines out of the whole article and obviously did no further research beyond this one paged article. Here are few facts that have since been learned after this article was written in 2007. Of the 6 research animals that "left" the valley. 4 of them were killed in the valley by hunters only two left on their own. No relation to wolves there. Of the females that left, at least one of her radio collared young died in the valley of the plague that is affecting all cougars out there. Its likely any other young cougars in the valley also could have died from the plague as well. Perhaps the females moved to try to rear their next litter in a different place. Generally when a female dies its young will take over the territory or if she is alive she will share her territory or shift it for her off spring to inhabit till they create there own. These females lost their young. Since the article was written adult females have moved into the Valley and succumbed to the disease suggesting it wasn't the wolves after all.

Howard Quigley, the quoted scientist has published other research papers about cougars and wolf interactions. In one of his research papers, one wolf pack occupied the territory of 5 cougars. The only thing that has been found from this research is cougars do lose the kills occasionally to wolves, have stayed closer to protective cover and both species will occasionally prey on one another. The cougars have not left their territories because of wolves.

There has been far more then one confirmed case of a cougar killing a wolf. I am sure he was referring to the buffalo valley research area when that statement was made. When they brought wolves to Yellowstone a cougar climbed into the wolves enclosure and killed a female. There are at least three other wolves from the park who were killed by cougars as well. In the grand scheme of things that is a pretty small area.

Minnesota has never historically been a strong point for cougars. That is why they are not numerable here today.

[brittman]

Hey JayMN I was just trying to spark some discussion (food for thought), but obviously not the expert you are. I should have said MAYBE this is why cougars cant stay in MN long.

Bobcats (not many lynx in MN) survive just like fisher, coyotes, and fox do ... by realizing they are not the biggest fish in the see and watching their backs.

And actually there are probably more confirmed cougar sightings in the Twin Cites metro than where you speak of.

The area we hunt had a confirmed lion. It moved on when the resident wolf pack decided tp locate near its main use areas.

The point here is lions cannot become established because the wolf packs will not allow the female lion to establish a territory.

We all know the DNR desired to hide all the confirmed lion kills don't we But they could not hide the Bemidji car kill lion could they??

[brittman]

I don't have the news clip in front of me, but the author did attribute the increased cougar kill rate (by humans) to wolves. The wolves pushed the lions into territory that made them more vulnerable to hunters.

Has there been a general decline in Bobcats in MN ?? Maybe this is why Lynx just can get going in MN:

Quote:

Few interactions between lynx and wolves have been documented in North America. Erkki Pulliainen, a researcher at the Univeristy of Helsinki, found that wolves and lynx in Finland seem to be enemies and that they do not share territories. In Hungary and Finland, lynx numbers tend to increase in an area when wolf numbers in that area decrease.

Steve Grooms (Advisory Board International Wolf Center):

Quote:

a Cougar is no match for a Wolf Pack. For this reason, Cougars tend to utilize the more hilly, mountainous and marshy sections of habitat whereas wolves seek out the flatlands as their first choice of homeground. Cougars also enjoy Valley living but the Wolf packs make things tougher for them so they take advantage of their "stealth and spring" hunting techniques to bag Elk and deer in high Country.....

The lions are very rarely killed by the wolves, but they also do not stay ...

[nolte]

Wolves and Cougars shouldn't be lumped together in a converation when talking about MN. The most MN will ever have for lions will be a transient population that wanders in and out. That's about it. Sure there are reports each year of sightings and such, but the overall numbers of lion in MN at a given time will be very, very low. Wolves on the other hand are very prevalent in most areas of N MN.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but wolves will NOT tolerate coyotes in the same area. They search them out and kill them. You can look quite awhile in heavy wolf populated areas to find coyote tracks.

On the topic of how wolves interact with lions, my friends in MT and ID have hunted them for a lot of years. They said that the wolves have pushed the lions up into higher/steeper areas where wolves aren't. It might be just to have less conflict to hunt or possibly better game populations.

Problem wolves need to be removed. If they are not, they will keep causing problems and teach that behavior to their offspring to perpetuate the situation.

[brittman]

Ummmm, Did you look at all the posts ???

That was the focus of the entire thread, lions and wolves don't mix well and lions remain transient because the wolf packs won't let them settle into MN.

40 years ago no lions bred and raised young in ND badlands (well at least very few). Eventually they took hold and now have a huntable population that kicks out transient young in every direction.

[nolte]

Ummmm, Did you look at all the posts ???

That was the focus of the entire thread, lions and wolves don't mix well and lions remain transient because the wolf packs won't let them settle into MN.

Yes, I did. And I don't believe that it is the wolves that keep the lions away. Our habitat isn't ideal for lions, so why would they travel away from better habitat to come here. The ones that do seem to end up here are young males that are wandering outside their home range. If hunting and management continues in their home range, most likely they will end up back there.

Lions don't propagate nearly as rapidly as wolves do, so populations can't grow nearly as fast. Also, tom lions routinely prey on kittens thus making kitten survival much lower. I think lion populations out west are much lower than people realize. Take a look at harvest statistics for different states and they are not very high. If anyone would like a good read on lions and lion behavior, check out "Soul Among Lions" by Harvey Shaw. It's a very good read.

If given the choice, I'd take having stable lion population 10 times over a rapidly growing wolf population. Wolves and Lions might both be top predators, but their impacts and habits are much different. Just my opinion.

[sdpikehntr]

Interesting Post. I have not read much on the lion populations or expansions, but I have expirenced first hand the impact they have on other spieces in their enviroment.

I have been hunting the Black Hills region in SD for almost 10 years now. When I fisrt started hunting out there the cat population was very low, to the point there was no season. 3 years ago we hunted out there and the GF&P claimed less than 150 cats in the hills region, I saw no sign of cats (tracks or scat) in a 5 day hunt and I was seeing around 10 to 20 deer per day hiking the hills. Now, I just got back from a hills hunt, and I saw 1-3 deer per day, more cat tracks than deer tracks and cat scat with bone chips and deer hair in it was found several times a day. Not to mention, the Turkey population in the area we hunt is gone, 3 years ago we were seeing turkeys in groups of 5-10 birds and there were at least 5 groups of them, now this year we didn't even see a bird.

I Understand that weather may play a roll, but the weather has not been bad over the past few winters, nor has the summer been dry. Now the GF&P only claim 250 cat in the hills, I find it hard to believe that only an icrease of 100 cats would make a different on deer numbers like this. I saw a 75% decrease in deer numbers and I believe it is due to the cat population and the area we hunt I saw a 100% decrease in turkey numbers, also believed due to cats.

These are effective hunters and have been introduced into the enviroment recently, the wildlife that is currently in the area has not had a chance to adapt to their new preditor, therefore they are being taken down on numbers. I for one would like to see the population in cats decreased and see the deer numbers. It is scarey to see the impact these animals have.

[Musky Buck]

Saw a killed lion on ksax news the other night in pope county i believe, a guy had video of the lion about a mile from where it was killed, dnr or some "expert" said footage was a house cat but cmon the video you could tell from head to tail it was about 6-7feet long, 4 days later it's killed how I'm assuming a deer hunter last weekend but now oh yes I guess it is a cougar on that camera etc. now that he's dead and was found.

[JayinMN]

ND Fish and Game

Quote:

History in North Dakota

Mountain lions (Puma concolor), also commonly known as cougars, panthers, and pumas, historically occurred in western North Dakota. They were found in the badlands, Killdeer Mountains, and along the Missouri River in the late 1800s. At that time, lions and their prey weren't protected from indiscriminate killing. By the early 1900s mountain lions were extirpated, or gone from the state. From that time until 1958, the North Dakota Game and Fish Department did not document any mountain lions in the state. From 1958, when a cougar was sighted near Killdeer, to 1991, Department biologists confirmed 11 reports. In 1991, after a young female lion was shot in a barn near Golva, the state legislature classified lions as a furbearer, with a closed season. From 1991-2003, the number of confirmed reports (26) more than doubled from the previous 33 years. Since the turn of the century, lion sightings, including family groups, continue to be reported in North Dakota. Most of the verified sightings occur in the badlands.

Minnesota was never historically a strong hold for cougars and that is likely why we never will.

[brittman]

Minnesota historically lacked cougars because it had a solid population of wolves. JAyMN: Thanks for backing the title of my thread, why cougars can't stay in MN too long !!! Obvious they were not able to become established in MN even before the loggers and French trappers first appeared on MN landscape.

From your source more info

Quote:

Dorthy Fecske, NDG&F Furbearer Biologist

Mountain lions continue to expand their range eastward across the continent, and these large felids recently have reclaimed a portion of their former

range in North Dakota. Although mountain lions historically were

considered scarce in the open prairie country, portions of North Dakota contained suitable habitat. According to historic records, lions were found

along the Little Missouri River inthe North Dakota badlands, Killdeer

Mountains, and Missouri River Breaks in the 1800s.

Long, long time ago, Prairie Dakota lacked also cougars when the wolves ran along side the Bison.

NoDak G&F had a tough time admitting the cougar population was viable even though they were shooting them to protect the bighorn lambs. Now that there is a season on the lions, the quota (limit) is usually filled before the season date ends.

MN will continue to see more transient, wondering lions with the ND badlands and SD Blackhillis lions populations running at all time highs.

[Far-I]

shoot them both. just my opinion

your opinion is outdated.

[JayinMN]

Sorry you misinterpreted the information provided as backing the wolf theory.

We will continue to see more transients but just like ever other state in the U.S that gets visits from transient cougars we will probably never see a breeding population.

Cougars already exist where there are wolves and they will continue to exist there with the wolves. That is a fact that can't be disputed, they are living in the same ranges at this very moment.

There are many more factors to a cougar establishing a breeding population then just wolves. Below are two maps, one of the cougars range in the US and one of wolves range. You can see some states like, Iowa, Missouri and Arkansas have had their fair share of confirmed cougars and it appears more of them then Minnesota. Where are their breeding populations? Why are cougars not taking over the rest of the Dakotas instead of walking to Minnesota and beyond? These are all wolfless areas so obviously there is some other factor to cougars moving on. Now if the wolves in MN are really driving the cougars out of the state they should be taking over the rest of the U.S. The wolves range is pretty much limited to a few states, cougars have a far larger range. Also the United states cougar population is estimated around 30000 and the wolf is around 10000. There are three times as many cougars in the states then there are wolves and with a large range they should be expanding at a alarming rate into wolfless areas if wolves are the deciding factor. The small population of cougars in Florida, haven't gone anywhere in the last 26 years since they were provided protection. There is evidence of them moving north but no new ranges have been established. There are no wolves in Florida. Wolves play very little if any part of cougars expanding their range.

Cougars range

Gray Wolf Range

[BobT]

It should also be mentioned that prior to European settlement, cougars' range included virtually the entire 48 lower states.

[brittman]

Jay - the wolves are changing the lions behavior in the Yellowstone area. Lions do better where wolves do not live. Lions are expanding at an alarming rate, but when they try live in an area where they are to exposed to humans they tend to die or are harassed and move on.

Of course wolves are not a primary factor for lions establishing a new territory across most of the United States - to think they are would be silly. Your arguements are drifting out of scope and out of context. Remain focused on where lions and wolves cross paths.

Farm country is difficult for any large predator to become established long term. The animal feels to exposed ... and they are. In ND they are unprotected and are killed. The lion in Alexandria area showed up a few times then showed up dead. I assume the red dots are killed lions and blue dots observed lions?

Repeat in a condensed form: HUMANS are the primary force preventing lions from expanding their range.

The northern MN woods offers large continuous blocks of relatively isolated habitat. Lions would establsih themselves there if they could ... maybe a few have?? Wolves keep them moving on?

[JayinMN]

Quote:

Of course wolves are not a primary factor for lions establishing a new territory across most of the United States - to think they are would be silly.

Thank you. You just contradicted the title of your own thread.

[brittman]

Contradictions - absolutely not Jay - I said "in MN too long". Most of the US does not have wolves, but MN does - right?

Wolves live in how many states in the US? Is it 6 now (not including Alaska)?

MN, WI, MI, MT, WY, and Idaho. Limited populations in 4 of those 6 states. Thus it would be silly to think that lions are limited in population in states such as CA, AZ, CO, FL ...........

MN also has remote habitat that humans do not penetrate that often. Wolves restrict lions ability to become established in those regions. In the MN transition areas and farm country - it is man that is the primary enemy.

You are arguing just to argue and it ain't working. Maybe the lion that was killed in Alex tried to live in LOW county but wolves pushed them south to the point that it was exposed and killed by humans.

[JayinMN]

Reread the whole thread, I am not arguing just to argue. In fact I am actually getting sick of this thread. If you honestly believe wolves are keeping cougars from inhabiting MN thats your opinion but until you can provide some proof of that I am not going to buy it. You are starting to flip flop previous things you have already said.

Wolves and cougars share territories where their ranges overlap and will continue to do so that is a non disputable FACT.

[Lunker]

I'm sure there is a correlation between cougars and deer, but there are plenty of areas where they could survive where there are not wolves. I think for now the main reason is that they have to travel so far from their core population areas(SD) that most of the animals we see are just roaming. There may be plenty of prey for them here but not other cougars to start breeding. Eventually we'll get a few that will stay and start breeding, and we will have a start. That is if they don't get shot first.