Dan Ashe: former USFWS director, “useful idiot” for the anti-hunting movement

[bayoublaster7527]

Just another article from a nationally-acclaimed “Hunter-Conservationist” parroting more disinformation on behalf of the anti-hunting CATS campaign. Former USFWS Director Dan Ashe publicly endorses Colorado Prop 127 to ban mountain lion hunting. Does he realize that he is be used by the openly anti-hunting community as a “useful idiot” and reputable “hunter”? I also saw some of his prior media events with TRCP. Apparently he doesn’t believe sportsmen’s group should waste their time on issues like “right to hunt and fish”. What a disgrace.

Mountain lions are our natural allies • Colorado Newsline

A former U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director weighs in on the ethics and practical costs of mountain lion trophy hunting.

coloradonewsline.com

 

[Deleted member 16864]

Are mountain lions still protected in the Missouri breaks?

 

[Bonasababy]

Didn't read but depending on his stance, his take on enshrining rights to hunting and fishing is not wrong.

People often don't look behind to the impacts...rights can't be regulated or taken away. Passing such measures....if not clearly worded to expressly allow regulation of hunting/fishing and enforcement of laws pertaining to them....could be disastrous.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

My major concern is his stance on Prop 127 in completely ignoring the negative long term implications and terrible precedent it will set. All laid out many times on this forum in various threads. Your assertion that rights can’t regulated or taken away is false in my estimation. Numerous examples of other rights being limited ie can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater, felons can’t vote or own firearms, current existing gun control laws, etc. Most constitutional rights are not completely absolute. What’s even more shocking is that numerous states have “right to hunt and fish” laws or constitutional amendments and each of those states has a whole pamphlet of hunting and fishing laws and regulations. Sort of discredits that whole argument. This is a straw man argument consistently used by anti-hunting factions to further their campaign to eliminate hunting.

 

[Nameless Range]

Think of a bad management proposal, and there's a good chance CWD could be used to justify it. Not saying CWD isn't an issue, just that, from ending predator hunting to massively hammering already thin ungulate herds, it's used as a reason of persuasion.

What the hell is "Trophy Hunting"? Where is the definition so that I can understand it? I think if we were to replace the symbol with the substance, the definition for it is simply "hunting and trapping certain animals certain folks don't want hunted and trapped".

 

[trb]

I’d encourage you to read the contrasting opinion piece that @Bluffgruff posted on the other prop 127 thread.

Lion hunting isn’t trophy hunting because trophy hunting is illegal in Colorado • Colorado Newsline

Well regulated hunting is a crucial tool in managing Colorado's wildlife populations, including the mountain lion.

coloradonewsline.com

 

[Ben Lamb]

Attack ideas, not people.

 

[trb]

Attack ideas, not people.

As always, you’re right. Editing my post.

 

[Bow Bullet]

Think of a bad management proposal, and there's a good chance CWD could be used to justify it. Not saying CWD isn't an issue, just that, from ending predator hunting to massively hammering already thin ungulate herds, it's used as a reason of persuasion.

What the hell is "Trophy Hunting"? Where is the definition so that I can understand it? I think if we were to replace the symbol with the substance, the definition for it is simply "hunting and trapping certain animals certain folks don't want hunted and trapped".

From the text of 127

(2) AS USED IN THIS SECTION:19
(a)(I) “TROPHY HUNTING” MEANS INTENTIONALLY:20
(A) KILLING, WOUNDING, PURSUING, OR ENTRAPPING A MOUNTAIN LION, BOBCAT, OR LYNX; OR21
(B) DISCHARGING OR RELEASING ANY DEADLY WEAPON, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 18-1-901(3)(e), AT A MOUNTAIN LION, BOBCAT, OR22
LYNX.23

 

[Bonasababy]

My major concern is his stance on Prop 127 in completely ignoring the negative long term implications and terrible precedent it will set. All laid out many times on this forum in various threads. Your assertion that rights can’t regulated or taken away is false in my estimation. Numerous examples of other rights being limited ie can’t shout “fire” in a crowded theater, felons can’t vote or own firearms, current existing gun control laws, etc. Most constitutional rights are not completely absolute. What’s even more shocking is that numerous states have “right to hunt and fish” laws or constitutional amendments and each of those states has a whole pamphlet of hunting and fishing laws and regulations. Sort of discredits that whole argument. This is a straw man argument consistently used by anti-hunting factions to further their campaign to eliminate hunting.

Funny then how game wardens and professionals who manage our fish and game cried out in alarm over legislation that would have enshrined a right in my state. You really think those people are part of some "anti-hunting faction"? Thankfully our legislature listened. We ended with solid legislation recognizing the valued traditions that should "forever be preserved", with language expressly requiring management and regulation...without the word "right".

There's a host of complaints about things on this board that could easily be made worse with an enshrined right in place.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

CPW investigating killing of mountain lion by Canon City man claiming self-defense

cpw.state.co.us

On the other hand… sometimes lions are assholes.

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Funny then how game wardens and professionals who manage our fish and game cried out in alarm over legislation that would have enshrined a right in my state. You really think those people are part of some "anti-hunting faction"? Thankfully our legislature listened. We ended with solid legislation recognizing the valued traditions that should "forever be preserved", with language expressly requiring management and regulation...without the word "right".

There's a host of complaints about things on this board that could easily be made worse with an enshrined right in place.

Sounds like a great outcome if you were able to get legislation passed that recognized valued traditions, such as hunting, forever to be preserved. Congratulations, that is an incredible accomplishment. If those biologists and game wardens wanted language that expressly required management and regulation, then no they would not be a “anti-hunting” faction. Unfortunately, the state of play in Colorado is that our valued traditions (hunting) are not preserved and are currently under attack through ballot initiatives.

 

[RoughCountry]

Colorado is full of California thinking people. They ruined California now they have 3/4 of Colorado shot. New Mexico is so screwed with liberals, criminals and homeless we are probably next.

 

[brocksw]

Think of a bad management proposal, and there's a good chance CWD could be used to justify it. Not saying CWD isn't an issue, just that, from ending predator hunting to massively hammering already thin ungulate herds, it's used as a reason of persuasion.

Even within that scope of a conversation there is nuance, a lot of nuance. By that I mean, even though there seems to be evidence that predators select for CWD positive animals, and do play some role in prevalence suppression. That has not been the case across the board. See the nearly completed Arkansas study which I have posted info about on HT before. Predation on CWD animals was the same as non detect animals at that stage of the study.

Mike Miller has also looked into this for mule deer.

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

“Predators have been proposed as a potential biological control mechanism for CWD in cervid populations, and there is some evidence that cougars select for CWD‐infected mule deer (Krumm et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2008). Nevertheless, Miller et al. (2008) found that CWD prevalence in mule deer remained high even under high rates of selective cougar predation.”

I have no doubt that, on a landscape level, predators have impacts on CWD infected animals. But from what I’ve seen there’s very little evidence, that any predator will do that all on their own in any real substantial way. Or that by stopping hunting of that predator will directly lead to more effective CWD predation in that population.

If we look at where CWD prevalences are highest, or grow the fastest, there is a short list of commonalities, none of which I can see are tied to predators.
1. Where it has been the longest (CO, WY)
2. High density populations of deer. Think Wisconsin down to Arkansas along the Mississippi, where deer populations figure into the millions of deer and have some of the highest densities per square mile of any places in the world.
3. Baiting has remained on the landscape in widespread usage. Kansas, Sask, Texas.

Dan Ashe’s statements on this particular subject, in my opinion, seem to be akin to the statements I hear on the other side of the CWD issue from the conspiracy theory folks. A shred of truth taken without any real context and a lack of understanding of the research that has been done on the topic.

In some sense I get it. Dan is likely not all that immersed into the world of CWD. It appears he’s taking subject matter headlines and study titles, and then applying those concepts linearly with broad brush strokes. Failing to analyze the work in totality in context, with nuance.

That is all to say, I agree that this is a poor argument for ending mountain lion hunting, and it does more damage to the CWD discussions. A lose lose for hunting and wildlife.

 

[jonny898]

Even within that scope of a conversation there is nuance, a lot of nuance. By that I mean, even though there seems to be evidence that predators select for CWD positive animals, and do play some role in prevalence suppression. That has not been the case across the board. See the nearly completed Arkansas study which I have posted info about on HT before. Predation on CWD animals was the same as non detect animals at that stage of the study.

Mike Miller has also looked into this for mule deer.

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

“Predators have been proposed as a potential biological control mechanism for CWD in cervid populations, and there is some evidence that cougars select for CWD‐infected mule deer (Krumm et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2008). Nevertheless, Miller et al. (2008) found that CWD prevalence in mule deer remained high even under high rates of selective cougar predation.”

I have no doubt that, on a landscape level, predators have impacts on CWD infected animals. But from what I’ve seen there’s very little evidence, that any predator will do that all on their own in any real substantial way. Or that by stopping hunting of that predator will directly lead to more effective CWD predation in that population.

If we look at where CWD prevalences are highest, or grow the fastest, there is a short list of commonalities, none of which I can see are tied to predators.
1. Where it has been the longest (CO, WY)
2. High density populations of deer. Think Wisconsin down to Arkansas along the Mississippi, where deer populations figure into the millions of deer and have some of the highest densities per square mile of any places in the world.
3. Baiting has remained on the landscape in widespread usage. Kansas, Sask, Texas.

Dan Ashe’s statements on this particular subject, in my opinion, seem to be akin to the statements I hear on the other side of the CWD issue from the conspiracy theory folks. A shred of truth taken without any real context and a lack of understanding of the research that has been done on the topic.

In some sense I get it. Dan is likely not all that immersed into the world of CWD. It appears he’s taking subject matter headlines and study titles, and then applying those concepts linearly with broad brush strokes. Failing to analyze the work in totality in context, with nuance.

That is all to say, I agree that this is a poor argument for ending mountain lion hunting, and it does more damage to the CWD discussions. A lose lose for hunting and wildlife.

Honestly, I don’t think predator hunts alone would make much of a difference. Sure, they go after the weak or sick animals, but with something like CWD, it’s way bigger than just that. There’s got to be other factors at play, and just letting predators do their thing isn’t going to fix the whole issue.

 

[brocksw]

A pretty good write up back in 2022 from a couple folks at the wildlife Federation.

Predator Impacts on the Spread of Chronic Wasting Disease - The National Wildlife Federation Blog

There are several challenges and considerations in making predictions about the impacts of predation on the prevalence and spread of CWD.

blog.nwf.org

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Dan Ashe is a smart guy. I know him personally. His intentions are good and he is a sportsman himself. If you have an issue with his position, it might be because you lack information or have a biased agenda. But it's probably not because he is poorly informed. He is a lifelong wildlife biologist who is the son of a wildlife professional. How many here can say that.

 

[brocksw]

Dan Ashe is a smart guy. I know him personally. His intentions are good and he is a sportsman himself. If you have an issue with his position, it might be because you lack information or have a biased agenda. But it's probably not because he is poorly informed. He is a lifelong wildlife biologist who is the son of a wildlife professional. How many here can say that.

From the article:
“There is good science that lions will selectively prey on CWD-infected animals, and that makes sense, because infected animals would be weaker and easier to kill. And what we can observe is that where there are no lions, there are higher rates of CWD-infected animals, and where there are lions, there are low levels of CWD infection, or none at all.”

From an actual scientific study

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

“Predators have been proposed as a potential biological control mechanism for CWD in cervid populations, and there is some evidence that cougars select for CWD‐infected mule deer (Krumm et al., 2010; Miller et al., 2008). Nevertheless, Miller et al. (2008) found that CWD prevalence in mule deer remained high even under high rates of selective cougar predation.”

As someone who has been immersed in the depths of the CWD discussion for quite some time, I was not happy to see Dan use that argument. It’s a weak argument, not guided by science, not driven by data. He’s making rash generalizations without context and without nuance, in defense of a hunting ban.

While Dan may be a very competent wildlife biologist, a great guy, and a sportsmen, he is not a veterinarian or CWD researcher. And he is certainly not levitating above the rest us. I don’t mean that to be personal, but none of us are infallible.

I would have less of a problem with his argument if it was simply an argument to have and keep predators on the landscape. Again, they do play a role and have some positive impacts on CWD. But I have seen ZERO research showing that a prohibition on Mountain Lion hunting will result in quantifiable and meaningful improvements in CWD prevalence. I have seen, and shared above, work from one of the leading CWD researchers in the nation that directly refutes that.

Please provide any work that contradicts the published work and article I’ve shared in this thread.

 

[TheTone]

Dan Ashe is a smart guy. I know him personally. His intentions are good and he is a sportsman himself. If you have an issue with his position, it might be because you lack information or have a biased agenda. But it's probably not because he is poorly informed. He is a lifelong wildlife biologist who is the son of a wildlife professional. How many here can say that.

Seems he should be informed enough then to leave species management to wildlife professionals and not the whims of voters swayed by fancy campaigns, lies and spendy ad campaigns

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

Seems he should be informed enough then to leave species management to wildlife professionals and not the whims of voters swayed by fancy campaigns, lies and spendy ad campaigns

He is a wildlife professional. More so than anyone commenting on this thread.