Still-hunting the cougar is about the most thankless undertaking one could enter upon, yet there are occasions when a close observer may be able to kill one without extra trouble when out primarily for other game. The main requisite is time and a thorough acquaintance with the country. The cougar, after the young are grown up, does not remain in a comparatively small district for any length of time, but usually covers a much wider territory than the gray wolf, although the latter is universally known as a great wanderer. At irregular intervals, say from once in a fortnight to once in two months, depending on the region, it returns to the same district. Unlike the wolf, the cougar, in returning to and hunting over a district, does not usually go over the same trail and buttes he has used on the previous trip, but prefers to explore new ground on each occasion unless there is something unusual to attract him. If his tracks, therefore, are seen quite often on a certain lookout point, the hunter should be alert for the cause of attraction, generally a fallen tree, or an overhanging rock protecting a snug dry bed beneath from rain or snow, which are always situated on a wind-sheltered hillside facing south. When such a place is known, the hunter should scrupulously refrain from going near it, to avoid leaving any scent there; but he should observe the "nest" as often as he comes into its vicinity, and from a convenient distant point. If the "nest" has an occupant, it is better to let a bullet investigate before the hunter does so himself, for a cat is a cat, and if its suspicions are aroused, the devil cannot beat it in trickiness—it will vanish unobserved without the hunter knowing how it could have done so. I once shot one out of a bunch of three, and felt sure the remaining two were "my meat," yet not a spot of yellow of them did I see afterward, although every nook within three hundred yards of the surrounding country was seemingly open to my scouting.
This is tedious hunting, of course, and the number of cougars would not be appreciably lessened by the method; but one lion outwitted thus is worth perhaps, as a trophy of skill, a score killed by other means; and besides, it at least gives the still-hunter a chance.
Cougars do not respond readily to being called (by imitating the cries of a jack-rabbit); at least I have lured but one in eight or ten years, and missed it at that. Trapping them is as sure as gambling, i. e., there is never any certainty that one will get the lion, and as their existence is unquestionably obnoxious to sportsmen and stockgrowers alike, hunting them with dogs is a commendable method, since it insures their decrease, and to the tyro means a trophy.
Barnyard study is, undoubtedly, responsible for the conclusions advanced by some writers that the members of the cat family are the most perfect track makers, i. e., walkers. As a matter of fact, the trail of a wild cat cannot be compared, so far as perfection goes, with the trail of the wild dog. The cougar's tracks seldom register. He either oversteps with the hind foot the track made by the forefoot when in a hurry, or he does not step quite far enough to cover the forefoot track when leisurely walking, and the individual tracks do not stand so close to the center line of the trail as do those of the wolf. The roundness of the track, together with the inconspicuousness of the nail marks, even under the most favorable tracking conditions, makes the cougar track unmistakably different from that of a wolf. However, on hard ground the track of a bear and a lion may be easily taken for one another, though the latter contains but four toe-marks. But then every toe-mark is not often visible on hard ground.
With all predatory animals the rule holds good that the female track appears smaller than that of the male, even though the size of the animals be the reverse. For example, a male cougar measuring seven feet from tip to tip, will make a bigger track than a nine-foot-long female. Although with dividers and tapeline one might have difficulty to ascertain the difference, which at best would be very small to the eye, it is unmistakable, and one well acquainted with tracks can hardly make the error of mistaking a female track for that of a male. The latter always looks more substantial.
It is the same with the tracks of males and females of predatory animals as it is with a bunch of deer, or of a single one for that matter, after bucks have shed their horns. The initiated can tell accurately from the appearance of the animals which are bucks and which are does; yet if questioned how he knows it, he can scarcely answer. At best he will say, "Because it looks like one." The reason for my dwelling on this subject is by no means an idle one. During the early summer the ravages of "varmints" often become almost unbearable to stockmen, and since females, which have to provide for their offspring, are the worst offenders, it is well for anyone to be able to distinguish their tracks from those of males, in order to follow them only, as they are the only ones that will always with certainty lead to the den within a day's travel.
Predatory animals are, in the writer's opinion, not monogamous. While a male is often found with a family, the same male may be seen the next day with others of his kind miles away. I have noted this while following game on horseback. On the other hand, a male track may lead to several dens if followed far enough. On several occasions I have shot two or even three males of a species near a den within a week or so, the desire to kill the female being on every occasion responsible for the long-continued watch.
In following a track with the purpose of hunting up a den it makes but little difference whether the trail be fresh or old. A trail two weeks old, but made after a rain, is often more easily followed than a fresher one, and will as well lead to the den's vicinity, as the latter very often could not be followed at all on hard ground; and a back-trail often leads more quickly to the den than one leading ahead. Prevailing conditions of weather and lay of country should govern the tracker's choice of which trail to follow. He must know that he has to follow the back track if it comes from rough country, for the den is more likely situated there than elsewhere.
A den that contains young cougars is readily recognized by the superabundance of carcasses of game lying around its vicinity.
Certainly unless due regard is given to the extermination of predatory animals, it is impossible to bring a hunting preserve up to the highest standard, and for the same reason their unrestricted existence in the open hunting grounds can only be harmful. The time when predatory animals kept the number of other game in a healthy balance has passed, and the sportsman who kills half a dozen deer ought to have to his credit at least one member of the former tribe to offset his killing those of the latter. As few of the hunting fraternity attain this desirable result, I think those who kill as many or more marauders as they do useful game animals, ought to be hailed as benefactors to the sportsmen's fraternity. Sometimes, I am sorry to say, such an action is referred to as unsportsmanlike by those who would soon find the woods empty of desirable game if others gave no more attention to marauders than they do themselves.