FORT COLLINS, Colo. (AP) - A man shot and killed a 130-pound mountain lion that attacked his dog outside the family's home near Buckhorn Canyon in the Arapahoe National Forest. Andy and Tammie Onslow said they heard a "horrible ruckus" outside their front door, grabbed their guns and ran outside to see their dog, a 100-pound malamute named Denali, being dragged over some rocks.

"We just saw the back end of our dog flip off the rocks about 15 feet down," Tammie Onslow said. "The huge mountain lion was laying on top of her with her head in its mouth."

The first time Andy Onslow tried to shoot the cat, nothing happened; there was no shell in the gun's chamber. He grabbed another gun and fired.

The lion escaped into the forest, while Denali began walking back to the family's property, her only visible injury a torn ear that a Loveland veterinarian later stitched up.

The Onslows later learned the lion had died and Denali had been hit by a bullet, but the dog wasn't seriously injured.

Andy Onslow said wildlife officials told him the 9- to 11-year-old lion had been fitted with a radio collar because of a record of other human encounters in the past three weeks.

Why didn't the wildlife officials do their job three weeks ago and dispose of the cat since they knew it was a nuisance or take it way back to the mountains and then track it to see if it was seeking to go back to where humans were at? What's the use of the collar if no one is tracking the animal?

They didn't do their job as, you and I see it, because they think that that lion has more rights than you do. I'm sure they felt justified in giving that lion "just one more chance".
I bet there would have been less paperwork to do if that lion had killed the dog, or one of those than the other way around.

Colorado has a 2 strike policy and, from what I can tell, they stick to it.

Killing every cat that has an "encounter" with a person is asinine.

Muley Stalker - Did you honestly read the entire story??? Wouldn�t a record of other human encounters equate to more than two strikes before this incident?

"Andy Onslow said wildlife officials told him the 9- to 11-year-old lion had been fitted with a radio collar because of a record of other human encounters in the past three weeks."

I know we can't tell from the story, but I'd be interested in knowing what wildlife officials classify as "encounters".

Eat-my-dog encounter? Walk-across-my-horse-pasture encounter?

- TJM

Yep, the definition of "encounters" is the key here.

That aside, this family moved into a home next to a national forest with mountain lions in it. Their dog wanders into the forest and finds one.
Gee, what a surprise...

If you don't like sharks, stay outta the ocean.

Yes, I read the entire story and "a record" is still singular, last I checked. Obviously encounters is plural, but knowing how seriously the two strike policy is taken, I'm reading between the lines here (yeah, I know) and betting that a couple people saw the cat hanging out and called the DOW. "Encounters," singular or plural, are not punishable by death.

If the "human encounter" had resulted in contact, the cat would have been killed rather than collared (no 2 strike rule there). Simple as that.

Let me clarify, killing every cat that has been seen more than once is asinine. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Trust me, I have dealt with the Colorado DOW on issues pertinent to mountain lions and livestock/pets -- if there were a second case of the same lion eating fifi, the old girl would have been killed. If there were a single case of lion/human contact , she'd of been killed. No questions asked.

Yup!

And this opens up the topic of another MAJOR pet peave of mine: moving into the mountains, "baiting" deer in with gardens and bird feeders (and by correlation, baiting mountian lions into developments, which of course won't allow deer hunting) and then pissing and moaning when fido gets 'et.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

I'm sure the DOW in most states realize this but maybe few humans who live in what used to be prime lion country don't.

Lions cover a huge territory and young males often are killed by dominant toms or forced into areas closer to encroaching human habitation where they can kill, eat, survive.

Kill one 'problem' lion and it's just a matter of time before another makes that piece of land part of his territory to hunt in IF the area has game and cover..

Only way to slow that is to remove the human-supplied game( pets, livestock and small wandering kids and lone hikers etc) from those areas..which ain't gonna happen easily or at all.

Deer that live close in and eat the rose bushes and gardens in suburbia also will always be a draw..

Catch, collar and transport problem bears or lions even a hundred miles and often they show up in the same place where captured a few days or weeks later..jim

Jim,

To elaborate on your point, there are "good" lions that live in close proximity to humans that you DO NOT want to eliminate. These are the ones who stick to natural prey and for the most part, remain unseen.

Take him out and that leaves the door open for another lion to move in and the next one might not be a "good" lion.

Now couple the amazing deer populations that have artificially been pumped up in a lot of rural areas, and you shrink the size of the typical cat's range. In most areas, they are at their carrying capacity. These animals are NOT endangered. Throw a boatload of food in an area and there are going to be prey animals that move in because they simply can not find "natural" (read no/few humans <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />) habitat to inhabit.

I have read that the adult mtn lion will kill about 50 deer per year..Deer or something else..That's a bunch of deer, particularly in the wide west..
So even with optimum food availability, the lion will still have a large territory..Maybe not 100 sq miles for the tom, but 50 sq miles or more.
Toms don't much tolerate another tom overlapping their territory either.The ladies territories will overlap...but once the young males are out on their own, they will be a traveling..or die at the fang and claws of the dominant tom.
Concerning the good lions who don't consider fluffy of the toddler as game..That can change as a cat gets older and less able to hunt the deer or elk..Once the old lions find that the pet or stray dog or cat or goat-llama, sheep etc is far easier to kill than a deer they continue.
Momma lions teach their young ones well..and IF momma raises her cubs in country close to human habitation-livestock etc, chances are they will get a taste of hunting and eating game which makes them problem lions at a young age..jim

I agree. As far as the cat is concerned this is just meatloaf on the hoof. Here's another story.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4745059,00.html

I am not saying every cat that has human encounters should be shot. I am just saying if they knew it to be a problem cat that had multiple encounters take it way up into the mountains and let it go there. That is what they do with problem bears in PA, they take them to the big woods up north and let them go. That way the people who choose to live in the big woods get one more friend to visit with. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Ken,

I obviously don't know the details of this case. Typically, they do relocate the suspect animal away from the problem area IF it's caused any trouble.

FWIW, I wasn't reacting to your post so much as 2crow's. While I don't always agree with our DOW policies, this is one area where I agree with them AND feel like they typically take the common sense approach to implementation.

I haven't dug up the details yet, but the bear I shot last year during the fall ML season had been eartagged as a "first strike" bear and had been relocated.

Running into me was strike two (grin)!

Scott,
sounds like it could not have happened to a nicer bear <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
tom

For a good read on mountain lions clashing with civilization, check out The Beast in the Garden by David Baron.

Its nonfiction, but reads like a thriller and examines the growing mountain lion population along the Front Range in Colorado. The book centers on the 1991 fatal attack on an 18 year old jogger in Idaho Springs.

A sunset walk up a mountain trail after reading this will heighten your senses. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Just got back in from an evening run on a mountain trail. Have to admit, the conversation today had me just a wee bit more aware of my surroundings (grin).

Don't think it could be said any better that that.

Just read Baron's book and it is an eye opener for this Easterner.

I think if you read the story the owner of the property is not pissing and moaning about anything.

Lions don't have rights.

People have rights. States have rights and powers. Nations have rights and powers.

Rights, by their very nature, are a human thing.

Lions do not have rights.

anthropomorphizing

look it up

It is just common sense to shoot a mountain lion if it has your dog in it's jaws. Same as it is common sense that mountain lions should not be shot on sight or just because you see one in the yard.