South Dakota Mountain Lion Public Opinion Poll

Analysis of Public Opinions towards 

Mountain Lion Management in South Dakota 

Larry M. Gigliotti 

This document is a companion report to the South Dakota Mountain 

Lion Management Plan: 2003 - 2012 

Division of Wildlife 

South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks 

June 2005 

Improving the quality of human life through effective 

management of South Dakota’s fish and wildlife resources.

About this Document 


The purpose of this report is to document the nature and extent of public opinion towards 

the South Dakota mountain lion plan. Almost all of the comments concerning the 

mountain lion plan centered on the proposed mountain lion season. A simplified model 

is proposed consisting of four general management actions. The diversified range of 

public comments can be classified under one of the four general management actions. 

Most of the South Dakota public can support a mountain lion season in general, however, 

most of the controversy is in the details/structure of a mountain lion hunting season. 

This report first provides some statistics summarizing citizens' attitudes attending the 

public meetings followed by a simplified framework for understanding the range of 

attitudes towards mountain lion management in South Dakota. The next section is my 

initial attempt to identify questions, concerns and issues raised by the public. The 

appendices contain the entire public comments received by GFP (to the best of my 

ability) regarding mountain lion management in South Dakota. Reading these comments 

will provide a detailed qualitative understanding of public opinion concerning mountain 

lion management in South Dakota. 

This document is a companion report to the South Dakota Mountain Lion Management 

Plan. Its main value will be in helping to address the education and public involvement 

objectives in the plan. GFP biologists and managers need to refine and expand the initial 

set of questions, concerns and issues I have identified in this report and to provide more 

in-depth and complete responses to these questions, concerns and issues. This is an ongoing 

aspect of this initial public involvement effort.

Table of Contents 

Public Meetings ...................................................................................................... 1 

Analysis of Public Comments..................................................................................9 

Development of a General Attitude Model towards Mountain Lion 

Management.....................................................................................................9 

A Qualitative Analysis of the General Attitude Model towards Mountain 

Lion Management Illustrated Using Selected Comments from the Public....10 

Appendix A – Summary South Dakota Mountain Lion Management Plan: 

2003 - 2012 –This summary plan was provided to all meeting participants 

at the beginning of each meeting. .....................................................................23 

Appendix B – Short response form provided to meeting participants..................28 

Appendix C – Comments from participants in the public meetings on mountain 

lion management in South Dakota....................................................................31 

Appendix D – Questions from participants in the public meetings on mountain 

lion management in South Dakota....................................................................71 

Appendix E – Comments/Questions from Stevens High School students ...........78 

Appendix F –Web responses on the S.D. mountain lion plan. .............................81 

Appendix G – Comments received by e-mail on the South Dakota mountain 

lion management plan.....................................................................................107 

Appendix H – Letters (typed) received concerning the South Dakota mountain 

lion management plan.....................................................................................119 

Appendix I – Three rather lengthy comments (scanned) received concerning 

the South Dakota mountain lion management plan. .......................................132

Analysis of Public Opinions towards 

Mountain Lion Management in South Dakota 

Public Meetings 

Game, Fish and Parks (GFP) held twenty public meetings around the state in 

April and May of 2005 related to management of mountain lions in South Dakota (Table 

1). A total of 747 people attended these meetings and 364 completed a short survey 

provided at the meeting (Appendix A and B). In addition, 87 students from Stevens High 

School in Rapid City provided responses to the survey (Steve Griffin gave a presentation 

on mountain lions to some Stevens High School classes on April 22, 2005). 

The draft mountain lion management plan was also available on GFP's web page 

including the ability to provide comments via the Internet at: 

http://www.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/MountainLions/MtLionIndex.htm 

Table 1. Attendance at the public meetings (and survey response) on management 

of Mountain Lions in South Dakota. 

City Date (2005) Attendance Survey Response 

Hot Springs April 11 80 45 

Rapid City April 12 180 70 

Spearfish April 14 135 66 

Custer April 15 120 55 

Sioux Falls April 18 21 14 

Brookings April 19 23 11 

Yankton April 20 25 13 

Huron April 21 2 2 

Mobridge April 25 12 5 

Pierre April 26 16 7 

Chamberlain April 27 12 11 

Winner April 28 15 9 

Martin April 29 6 3 

Bison May 2 13 6 

Faith May 3 6 4 

Buffalo May 4 33 20 

Wall May 6 11 3 

Watertown May 9 15 8 

Aberdeen May 10 8 4 

Mitchell May 11 14 8 

Total 747 364

Mountain Lion Management in South Dakota Analysis of Public Comment 


Most of the public meeting participants (78%) enjoy having mountain lions in 

South Dakota, however, most (68%) do worry about possible problems caused by 

mountain lions (Table 2). The main difference between the public meeting participants 

and the high school students was that the students had a much higher percent of no 

opinion responses. This would be expected because public meetings tend to attract 

people that only have an interest in the topic (and thus most likely an opinion). This 

same difference was observed in the comparison of the public meeting participants with a 

sample of the general public and a sample of Black Hills deer hunters (Table 3). 

Most of the public meeting participants (78%) support having a mountain lion 

season (Table 4). The high school student sample also had high support for a mountain 

lion season (64%) although about 19% were neutral compared to only 2% of the public 

meeting participants. Overall, support for a mountain lion season was high for all samples 

surveyed (Table 5). 

Overall, about two-thirds of the public meeting participants and resident Black 

Hills deer hunters had some level of interest in hunting mountain lions in South Dakota 

with about 40% being very interested (Table 6). 

Most participants evaluated the public meetings as good (36%) to excellent (53%) 

(Table 7). Also, many participants provided very positive comments concerning the 

public meetings. (Good job John Kanta!) 

Males comprised about 78% of the public meeting participants that completed the 

mountain lion opinion survey (87% of the students that completed the mountain lion 

opinion survey were male) (Table 8). Mean age of the public meeting participants that 

completed the mountain lion opinion survey was 53.9 years (mean age of the students 

that completed the mountain lion opinion survey was 16.2 years) (Table 9). 

2



Table 2. General attitude toward mountain lions in South Dakota comparing 

participants at the mountain lion public meetings with a sample of students from the 

Stevens High School in Rapid City. 

Attitude towards Mountain Lions in South Meeting High School 

Dakota 

Participants Students 

Number Percent Number Percent 

I enjoy having mountain lions AND I do not 

worry about problems they may cause. 

I enjoy having mountain lions BUT I do 

116 32.1% 27 31.0% 


I do not enjoy having mountain lions AND I 

167 46.3% 30 34.5% 

do worry about problems they may cause. 

I do not enjoy having mountain lions BUT I 

77 21.3% 8 9.2% 

do not worry about problems they may cause. 

I have no particular feelings about mountain 

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 

lions regardless of problems caused or not 

caused by them 

1 0.3% 22 25.3% 

Total 361 100% 87 100% 

Enjoy mountain lions 

SUMMARY RESULTS 

283 78.4% 57 65.5% 

Do not enjoy mountain lions 77 21.3% 8 9.2% 

No opinion 1 0.3% 22 25.3% 

Worry about problems caused by lions 244 67.6% 38 43.7% 

Do not worry about problems caused by lions 116 32.1% 27 31.0% 

No opinion 1 0.3% 22 25.3% 

3



Table 3. General attitude toward mountain lions in South Dakota comparing four 

groups (South Dakota residents from a 2002 general public survey 1 , 2004 resident Black 

Hills deer hunters 2 , with the participants at the mountain lion public meetings and the 

sample of students from the Stevens High School in Rapid City). 

Attitude towards Mountain Lions in South 

Dakota 

4 

General 

Public 

Deer 

Hunters 

2005 

Meetings Students 

I enjoy having mountain lions AND I do not 


I enjoy having mountain lions BUT I do 

24.8% 25.5% 32.1% 31.0% 


I do not enjoy having mountain lions AND I 

38.2% 44.0% 46.3% 34.5% 

do worry about problems they may cause. 

I do not enjoy having mountain lions BUT I 

13.1% 17.0% 21.3% 9.2% 

do not worry about problems they may cause. 

I have no particular feelings about mountain 

3.9% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 

lions regardless of problems caused or not 

caused by them 

20.0% 12.0% 0.3% 25.3% 

Total Number 1,093 1,836 361 87 

Enjoy mountain lions 

SUMMARY RESULTS 

63.0% 69.5% 78.4% 65.5% 

Do not enjoy mountain lions 17.0% 18.5% 21.3% 9.2% 

No opinion 20.0% 12.0% 0.3% 25.3% 

Worry about problems caused by lions 51.3% 61.0% 67.6% 43.7% 

Do not worry about problems caused by lions 28.7% 27.0% 32.1% 31.0% 

No opinion 20.0% 12.0% 0.3% 25.3% 

1 Gigliotti, L. M., D. M. Fecske, and J. A. Jenks. 2002. Mountain lions in South Dakota: 

A public opinion survey. HD-9-02.AMS. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, 

Pierre, SD. 182 pp. 

2 Gigliotti, L. M. 2005. 2004 Black Hills deer hunter survey. HD-3-05.AMS. South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre, SD. 288 pp.



Table 4. Support for a mountain lion season comparing participants at the mountain 

lion public meetings with a sample of students from the Stevens High School in Rapid 

City. [I would support a mountain lion season if the state acquires data that the mountain 

lion population is healthy and could sustain a prescribed level of harvest.] 

Meeting High School 

Attitude – Support for a mountain lion 

5 

Participants 

Students 

season … Number Percent Number Percent 

Strongly Agree (+3) 239 67.5% 34 39.5% 

Moderately Agree (+2) 25 7.1% 15 17.4% 

Slightly Agree (+1) 13 3.7% 6 7.0% 

Neutral / No Opinion (0) 6 1.7% 16 18.6% 

Slightly Disagree (-1) 5 1.4% 4 4.7% 

Moderately Disagree (-2) 6 1.7% 2 2.3% 

Strongly Disagree (-3) 60 16.9% 9 10.5% 

Total 354 100% 86 100% 

Mean 1.65 1.20 

95% C.I. 1.41 – 1.89 0.77 – 1.63 

SUMMARIZED RESULTS Number Percent Number Percent 

AGREE 277 78.2% 55 64.0% 

NEUTRAL / NO OPINION 6 1.7% 16 18.6% 

DISAGREE 71 20.1% 15 17.4% 

Total 354 100% 86 100%



Table 5. Support for a mountain lion season comparing four groups (South Dakota 

residents from a 2002 general public survey 1 , 2004 resident Black Hills deer hunters 2 , 

with the participants at the mountain lion public meetings and the sample of students 

from the Stevens High School in Rapid City). [I would support a mountain lion season if 

the state acquires data that the mountain lion population is healthy and could sustain a 

prescribed level of harvest.] 

Attitude – Support for a mountain lion 

season … 

6 

General 

Public 

Deer 

Hunters 

2005 


Strongly Agree (+3) 30.6% 55.7% 67.5% 39.5% 

Moderately Agree (+2) 26.0% 20.3% 7.1% 17.4% 

Slightly Agree (+1) 15.1% 11.2% 3.7% 7.0% 

Neutral / No Opinion (0) 14.2% 7.0% 1.7% 18.6% 

Slightly Disagree (-1) 2.6% 1.5% 1.4% 4.7% 

Moderately Disagree (-2) 4.0% 1.1% 1.7% 2.3% 

Strongly Disagree (-3) 7.5% 3.1% 16.9% 10.5% 

Total 1,081 1,846 354 86 

Mean 1.26 2.06 1.65 1.20 

95% C.I. 1.15 – 

1.37 

1.99 – 

2.12 

1.41 – 

1.89 

0.77 – 

1.63 

SUMMARIZED RESULTS 

AGREE 71.7% 87.2% 78.2% 64.0% 

NEUTRAL / NO OPINION 14.2% 7.0% 1.7% 18.6% 

DISAGREE 14.1% 5.7% 20.1% 17.4% 

Total 1,081 1,846 354 86 

1 Gigliotti, L. M., D. M. Fecske, and J. A. Jenks. 2002. Mountain lions in South Dakota: 

A public opinion survey. HD-9-02.AMS. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, 

Pierre, SD. 182 pp. 

2 Gigliotti, L. M. 2005. 2004 Black Hills deer hunter survey. HD-3-05.AMS. South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre, SD. 288 pp.



Table 6. Interest in a mountain lion season comparing four groups (2004 resident 

and nonresident Black Hills deer hunters 1 , with the participants at the mountain lion 

public meetings and the sample of students from the Stevens High School in Rapid City). 

[If South Dakota had a mountain lion season, ho interested would you be to have an 

opportunity to hunt mountain lions in South Dakota?] 

Interest in a mountain lion season 

(scale) 

Resident 

Hunters 

7 

Nonresident 

Hunters 

2005 


Not Interested (0) 23.6% 31.9% 34.6% 34.5% 

Slightly Interested (1) 16.5% 23.1% 7.0% 9.2% 

Moderately Interested (2) 18.6% 19.4% 14.8% 16.1% 

Very Interested (3) 39.3% 24.4% 41.6% 31.0% 

No Opinion (missing) 2.1% 1.3% 2.0% 9.2% 

Total 1,846 160 358 87 

Mean 1.75 1.37 1.65 1.48 

95% C.I. 1.70 – 1.18 – 1.51 – 1.19 – 

1.81 1.55 1.79 1.77 

1 

Gigliotti, L. M. 2005. 2004 Black Hills deer hunter survey. HD-3-05.AMS. South Dakota 

Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre, SD. 288 pp. 

Table 7. Evaluation of the public meetings by participants. 

Evaluation (score) Number Percent 

Very Poor (-2) 2 0.7% 

Poor (-1) 4 1.5% 

Fair (0) 25 9.3% 

Good (+1) 95 35.4% 

Excellent (+2) 142 53.0% 

Total 268 100% 

Mean / 95% C.I. 1.38 1.29 – 1.48 

Table 8. Gender of meeting participants (compared with the student sample). 

Meeting Participants High School Students 

Gender Number Percent Number Percent 

Male 281 77.8% 74 87.1% 

Female 80 22.2% 11 12.9% 

Total 361 100% 85 100%



Table 9. Age of meeting participants (compared with the student sample). 

Meeting Participants High School Students 

Age Range Number Percent Number Percent 

10 – 19 7 2.0% 86 100% 

20 – 29 19 5.4% 0 0% 

30 – 39 35 9.9% 0 0% 

40 – 49 55 15.5% 0 0% 

50 – 59 104 29.4% 0 0% 

60 – 69 87 24.6% 0 0% 

70 – 79 40 11.3% 0 0% 

80 – 89 5 1.4% 0 0% 

90 – 99 2 0.6% 0 0% 

Total 354 100% 86 100% 

Mean / 95% C.I. 53.9 52.4 – 55.5 16.2 15.9 – 16.4 

Median / Mode 55.0 54 16.0 16 & 17 

Range 10 – 98 14 – 19 

8



Analysis of Public Comments 

Development of a General Attitude Model towards Mountain Lion 

Management 

There are four major, over-riding themes related to attitudes towards mountain lion 

management in South Dakota. Three are relatively straight-forward while one attitude 

has significant internal divergent view-points, namely the "support for a mountain lion 

season." Overall, most (about 85%) of the public can accept the general attitude of 

"support for a mountain lion season." 

General Mountain Lion Management Attitude Model 

No lions should be killed 

Status Quo – GFP removes (kills) problem lions 

Support for a mountain lion season 

Prohibit the use of dogs 

Allow mountain lion hunting with dogs 

Kill all lions 

First this model is illustrated using actual comments received from the public. A 

complete list of comments received from the public can be found in Appendix 

(Appendices C – I). Next, a general list of questions/concerns/issues will be identified (in 

conjunction with this attitude model) and some initial short answers provided by myself 

will be provided. This report should be followed by development of more completed 

responses provided by GFP staff biologists and managers. 

Current plans call for an evaluation of the mountain management action adopted 

by the GFP Commission. One evaluation will be a scientific public opinion survey 

concerning mountain lion management in South Dakota. If the mountain lion 

management action includes a lion season then the evaluation will also include a survey 

of hunters. 

9



A Qualitative Analysis of the General Attitude Model towards 

Mountain Lion Management Illustrated Using Selected Comments from 

the Public 

No Lions Should Be Killed 

Approximately 15-20% of the general public have this attitude, although many people 

holding this attitude can also support the "status quo position of GFP removing (killing) 

lions that pose a problem. Below are five example statements from people holding this 

position. 

• I am adamantly, seriously, unequivocally, undoubtedly one hundred percent opposed 

to any and all hunting and killing of any and all mountain lions in the state, especially 

in the Black Hills. Of late there have been complaints from a man who allowed his 

clipped winged geese to stroll around unprotected to the delight of a mountain lion, 

but to his call for a hunt. This man's thoughtlessness should not compute into a death 

sentence for a cougar. Complaints also from a woman who lost her dog to a lion. This 

too is no excuse for a hunt. We are encroaching on the lion's space not the other way 

around. People need to be educated about how to take care of their animals and 

themselves without requiring the taxpayers and the lions to be responsible for their 

own irresponsibility. Even if these people had had a weapon, they should only have 

shot in the direction of the lion to scare it off not to kill it. 

• I do not believe there should be a hunting season on mountain lions. Nor do I believe 

they should be "shot" when they are found in any city or town. They should be darted 

& relocated if anything is done to them. We have not had any mountain lions around 

here for a long time because they were killed off or their habitat was taken from them. 

They are finally starting to make a comeback & now people want to start destroying 

them all over again. Don't we endanger enough species the way it is!!! Why can't we 

just leave them alone to live? I believe their main food source is deer; not people. 

Their not going to jump out of a tree at you, like the way old westerns use to portray 

them doing. Just let them live. 

• They (mountain lions) should be saved not hunted down like bad animals. I know that 

this is not always possible, but they should not be killed just because they killed. 

10



• I strongly oppose your mountain lion management plan. Here are my reasons: 

First, I do not believe we need to "manage" lions at this time. Your own 

spokesmen point out that collared Black Hills lions normally disperse without our 

help, sometimes to as far away as Oklahoma. Judging from the number of prey 

animals I see every day (sometimes I count more than 100 deer along the roadside 

between Custer and Rapid City,) I don't believe that we have too many lions. In fact, I 

think you game managers should cut back on the hunting of bobcats, coyotes and 

other predators. We need these animals to keep deer and other prey animal 

populations healthy and to control the proliferation of prairie dogs and other rodents. 

Second, your provision to exempt females "with kittens present" will do no good. 

I'm sure your game biologists must know that mother cougars normally do not take 

their small kittens with them when they hunt. If you look at Wyoming's record, 

where a large portion of the harvest has been female, you can expect that hunting here 

will result in many cubs starving to death. 

Third, it's a known fact that sport hunting increases the number of sub-adult lions. 

As you know, it is these young animals which most often become the problem lions. 

You don't need a degree in zoology to be able to conclude that killing females will 

result in increased numbers of sub-adults not yet proficient in hunting their natural 

prey who then might turn to killing livestock or even people. 

Fourth, I think you should realize that there are a lot of us out here who for ethical 

or religious reasons object strongly to hunting and killing animals for "sport." I read 

recently that a humane organization has labeled South Dakota second only to Alaska 

as one of the most brutal states in the nation when it comes to the treatment of 

animals. I'm afraid that it's probably true, and I, for one, am not proud of that. 

I do support one part of your plan I would like to see an end to hunting bobcats 

with dogs. I have lived in Custer for four years and I ride or hike almost every day, 

yet I have never seen a bobcat here. 

• I own a cottage in Spearfish Canyon, at the mouth of Dead Ox Canyon, 

approximately 4 miles SW of Cheyenne Crossing. I am opposed to a hunting season 

for the Mountain Lion, and especially with the use of dogs to hunt. I have owned this 

property since 1970 and to this day I have never seen a mountain lion in SD. I hope 

to, and more importantly I enjoy the thought of knowing they may be roaming the 

area. Why is it always necessary to shoot everything that moves in the forest? With 

the technologies available today we should be able to have a better method of 

counting and determining the numbers of animals in the area. I hope that the SD GFP 

can come up with a better plan to manage wildlife and not be influenced by a few 

homeowners that are worried that their cat and dogs will be a lunch for the mountain 

lions. IF you move into the woods you have to become a part of the environment and 

not try to change it to a suburban neighborhood. 

11



Questions/Concerns/Issues Raised by the Public 

No lions should be killed 

Many people holding this position often mentioned the use of non-lethal solutions 

like sterilization, trap and transfer, non-lethal lion chases and harassment, restricting 

development into lion habitat, and just learning to live with mountain lions. 

• Sterilization 

• Trap & Transfer 

• Non-lethal lion chases & harassment 

• Restricting Development into Lion Habitat 

• Learning to Live with Lions 

Sterilization - does not address the lions currently causing problems and is not an 

effective strategy for free ranging populations. 

Trap and Transfer - for this strategy to work GFP would need a place to relocate the 

lions. We do not have any suitable habitat in South Dakota that is not already occupied 

by lions. Some limited attempts at trap and transfer have been used in the Black Hills. 

One example of aversion training and trap & transfer attempts in the Black Hills: 

In this case - Don Edgers of Custer - reported several sightings of a lion at his ranchette. 

Eventually, evidence was present that the lion was killing domesticated Canada geese and 

Dept. action was needed. Our first effort was a chase/collar effort. It was intended to 

provide some aversion training to the lion and be able to track it's movements better. The 

lion was a 1.5 year old female. It was captured, collared and released at the capture sight. 

About 2 months later it was back in Edgers pen killing geese. After this we went back in and 

captured the lion about 5 miles NE of Edgers place and transported it 18 linear miles (to the 

farthest point we could go given the winter road conditions) to the NW. It was dumped in the 

Moon area. We monitored the lion for about 1 month as it slowly worked it's way back to 

Edger's. When it came back to his ranch and killed another goose - he actually caught it in 

the goose pens in his own live trap. We killed it in the trap at that time. 

Non-lethal lion chases & harassment - no evidence that this would work when the lion 

population is above carrying capacity. 

Restricting development into lion habitat - a good idea, but GFP has no authority to do 

this. 

Learning to live with lions - the mountain lion plan includes an education component that 

addresses this topic and it will always be a component of the management plan. The 

management plan calls for managing lions at a prescribed level and thus a component of 

the plan still calls for citizens to learn to live with mountain lions in South Dakota. 

12




It is impossible to estimate the number of South Dakota citizens holding this position 

based on our current attitude information. Many people that can support this position can 

also support either the "no lions should be killed" position or can support a mountain lion 

season under certain circumstances. Many holding this position believe that mountain 

lions can be classified as "good" lions and "problem" lions. Below are five example 

statements from people holding this position. 

• The current plan giving GF&P authority to deal with problem mountain lions is the 

best program and any public hunting season should be abandoned. People would kill 

lions that are not a problem and cause unnecessary hardship to the species as a whole. 

A public hunting season would also create revenue which would quickly be justified 

as economically vital to people such as outfitters. A Pandora's box will open if a 

hunting season is allowed and would insure mountain lion hunting would be here to 

stay. 

A public ban of feeding wildlife and requiring domesticated animals in the Hills 

to be properly fenced should be a mandate. This was brought up at the Rapid City 

meeting and GF&P's reply was that people would hate them even more if they were 

the ones to propose legislation. However unpopular this action may be to some 

people, the ultimate goal is the management of Mountain Lions. The GF&P 

management program must make people be partially responsible for the reduction of 

human/lion encounters. Otherwise, this would just be a plan with no other objective 

than to allow people to hunt mountain lions. Please keep the current plan and do not 

allow the public hunting of mountain lions in the Black HIlls. 

• 1. Not knowing which of the lions are the problem makers, it would seem foolish to 

me to kill several in hopes of solving any part of the problem. 

2. With more rural homes being built in the Hills people will have to become more 

responsible and intelligent when living among wild animals. We cannot feed any wild 

animals that the mountain lions can prey upon. I don't feel that lions are predators of 

humans unless drawn into an fear type situation brought about by careless humans. 

3. It appears that most of the proponents of the lion season are people that consider 

killing wild animals a "sport" and really have little concern for the seriousness of the 

situation. 

4. I would like to see the further removal (live or dead) of any mountain lion based 

on a per need basis with serious consideration of each situation and just what brought 

the lion into the problem area. We should if at all possible relocate the lions to remote 

areas where they can live without fear of death by shooting. 

5. Let's not enact a hunting season just to pacify a minority – a couple of incidents 

and the lust some hunters have to track and kill. Patience to construct an intelligent 

plan will result in a better balance of man and nature in the long run. 

13



• Since there is still so many unanswered questions on this population it seems the best 

thing to do is have you - the Game Fish and Parks Department - be responsible for 

removing lions. You are privy to the GPS and other telemetry data ( this includes sex, 

age and distribution data especially the distribution of lions whose ranges interface 

with residences), you have the use of dogs, and you can hunt in areas off limits to the 

public. This way you could remove a lion or two at a time and monitor the effects. At 

$10 a lion this is not about the money, obviously. But the potential exists for some 

major screw-ups and dishonesty. Managing a top predator is risky all the way around 

and I think you need to demonstrate that removing a few animals or sub adult males is 

going to help the situation before opening it up to hunters that may shoot at anything. 

By nature of their location, i.e., where the deer and elk are hunters are apt to target 

lions whose ranges do not present a potential problem. Also if these animals are in 

fact above carrying capacity then there should be some "self" regulation already 

taking place possibly beyond emigration. Have you taken this in to consideration? 

• I read in this morning's paper that a state trapper had to neutralize a cat in Deadwood. 

I thought that the correct procedure was done well by the State of SD. I was 

wondering if more of that could be done by the SD GF&P? It seems reasonable to me 

that since the state already has the people and dogs that can identify these animals 

with help of the public, why not have the SD GF&P continue to do execute cats as 

needed? I am all for the state to continue its precision and using its tools and 

resources. It is true that the SD GF&P can not remove all critical cats, but surely 

wouldn't SD GF&P be able to go out and remove 20 cats? This is just a thought. I 

liked reading the idea that the SD GF&P took care of a cat that could have later on 

been problematic. Good job. 

• I do not think SD needs a mountain lion season at this time. I think eliminating 

problem animals like the GFP is doing now is adequate. I think the BIG problem is 

the Rapid City Journal. I subscribe to the Journal and cannot believe how many times 

mountain lions make the front page, usually the headlines. Reporting all the sightings 

stirs people's emotions and creates "Letters to the Editor" which in turn stirs more 

emotions. I just cannot believe mountain lion sightings in the Black Hills should be 

front-page news! I think someone from the department should have a personal visit 

with the Publisher, and ask if he could instruct his reporters to "lay off" for a while. 

14





The basic issue with this group is that people have the belief that there are "good" 

lions and "bad" lions. People raised the concern that a general hunting season might 

eliminate some of the "good" lions and not take out the "bad" lions. Some people have 

theorized that if a "good" mother lion is removed her kittens may grow up to become 

"bad" lions. There are two problems with this line of thinking. First, only removing the 

problem lions only treats the symptoms, not the cause of the problem, namely that the 

mountain lion population is above carrying capacity. This means that every year GFP 

will need to deal with a high level of problem lions. And, since before an action is taken, 

people have to have had a negative incident, which means that over time public opinion 

towards mountain lions will likely drop. 

The second problem with the concept of a "bad" lion vs. a "good" lion is that this 

concept is largely a myth. Most problem lions become problem lions due to being forced 

into occupying habitats with a relatively high density of people living there. Removing 

mountain lions anywhere in the Black Hills ecosystem will make room for future 

recruitment that can move into those un-occupied and high-quality habitats rather than 

habitats than will cause a mountain lion to become a problem lion. Mountain lions are 

one of the most territorial animals in the country; thus un-occupied, high-quality lion 

habitat will quickly become filled from recruitment. If only problem lions are removed 

(probably due to a case where the number of animals exceeds the carrying capacity) then 

the only habitat available for recruitment will be habitats in which the lions will become 

problem lions. In almost all cases it is the habitat that a lion is forced to occupy that 

makes them a problem lion, not an inherent characteristic of being a "bad" lion. 

The main question that needs to be answered for this group is why the status quo 

is not the best option for dealing with mountain lions at this time, i.e., when mountain 

lions are at or above the optimal carrying capacity of the environment. As stated above, 

the status quo option treats the symptom of the problem (lions numbers at the carrying 

capacity), not the cause of the problem. Removing lions only after they are causing 

problems will mean that people must first experience a problem before any action is done 

(reactive rather than being proactive). This means that people will experience an annual 

15



high level of lion problems and that GFP will have a high annual expense of dealing with 

these problems. Over time mountain lions will become regarded as a pest species rather 

than an important predator in the ecosystem. The only solution will be to management 

mountain lions at a level slightly below the optimal carrying capacity of the environment. 

Some people have suggested that the solution would be to remove people from good 

mountain lion habitat. While this solution would probably allow a higher number of 

mountain lions to live in South Dakota it is not a practical solution. 

It must also be noted that a mountain lion season will not eliminate all mountain 

lion problems. One reason is that some people live in or near high quality mountain lion 

habitat and thus there will always be some level of mountain lion problems. Also, some 

mountain lions are just prone to travel and will occasionally move into areas where they 

get into trouble with people. The goal will to maintain the number of problems to a 

tolerable level. The mountain lion plan hypothesizes that maintaining the mountain lion 

population at about 80-85% of carrying capacity will strike a good balance between 

maintaining a viable and ecologically significant mountain lion population with a 

tolerable level of lion complaints. 

16



Support for a Mountain Lion Season 

The vast majority (85% or more) of South Dakota citizens can support a mountain 

lion season provided the mountain lion population could sustain a prescribed level of 

harvest. However, there are many divergent views regarding the details of how the 

season should operate. The main over-riding divergent viewpoints center on using dogs 

vs. no dogs (some example statements from people holding each view is listed below). 

Some less controversial issues involve… 

• the price of a license (many feel that $10 is too cheap and that a mountain lion 

license should cost more). 

• nonresident hunters (some residents expressed concern about competing with 

nonresident hunters). 

• directing the hunters to kill only "problem" lions (for example, a hunter would 

be pre-selected to accompany GFP staff as they chase a problem lion with 

their hounds and then let the hunter shoot the lion when it is treed). 

• the timing of the season (concern that lion hunters would interfere with deer 

and elk hunters). 

• the harvest quota (ranging from too few to too many). 

• limiting the season to the Black Hills (some have expressed interest in 

including West River in the season proposal). 

• opposition to trophy hunting (animals should not be hunted unless the hunter 

intends to eat the meat harvested). 

Prohibit the Use of Dogs 

• I absolutely love the Mt. Lion season proposal. You have my support 100%, 

especially the banning the use of dogs/bait. The quota system and allowing anyone to 

purchase a tag is a tremendous opportunity. Especially for those willing to accept the 

challenge of actually hunting Mt. Lions one on one. I know personally that there 

have been a couple of instances where I have come upon smoking fresh lion tracks. 

Had I been in possession of a tag, it would have provided a challenging opportunity. 

I relish the day I have the opportunity to hunt Mt. lions on their terms. 

• I enjoy hunting and fishing. I am in support of a mountain lion season. To me waiting 

for some dogs to tree a mountain lion and then shooting a terrified cat out of a tree is 

NOT hunting. What about the safety factor of shooting at an animal without a 

background to stop the bullet in case of a miss. I realize using dogs to tree the cats is 

17



the most productive way to harvest the cats. I feel only a select few would benefit 

from using dogs, the wealthy and the dog guides. I have hunted in the hills for thirty 

some years and have never seen a mountain lion, but I would buy a license with the 

chance of seeing a mountain lion. Otherwise keep up the good work. 

Allow Mountain Lion Hunting with Dogs 

• I believe that the only way to harvest the number of lions you want you need to have 

DOGS in this. All you are doing is proposing the opportunistic killing of a big game 

animal. Where is the sport in this. With dogs you have time to study the lion, you can 

sex it, age it and see if it is suckling young. I also have concerns about hunters taking 

bad shots at a lion and wounding it. We all know if a lion is wounded it still has to 

hunt to survive and they will look for the easiest prey they can find. I just hope it ain't 

a child. I have spoken to a lot of the Conservation Officers and they believe that dogs 

should be used. I also think that if the public can't use hounds then the Game, Fish 

and Parks should not be able to use their hounds to catch problem lions they should 

have to get them the same way that you want the public to harvest them. I have been 

to 4 of the meetings and believe that the public support for hounds is there the people 

that didn't want any lions harvested sided with the houndsmen by the end of the 

meetings. 

• I am a houndsmen, and I spend a lot of time in the woods. I can tell you that the 

amount of lion sign is everywhere. A season is needed to gain control of the cats. 

The proposed season will do very little to help, and it might make more problems. 

The use of hounds is the only way to effectively hunt a lion. I believe you already 

know that because the GFP uses dogs. If you truly want to manage lion hound 

hunting must be a part of the plan. Every other state that has al ion season uses dogs. 

Why would SD be any different? OR and WA have tried not using dogs and are now 

both going back. If you are not going to allow dogs for lions fine but do not take 

away our bobcat hunting!!!!!!!! If you would only listen to your own houndsman you 

would get the truth about dogs. I have attended 2 meetings and I don't think dogs are 

as controversial as you think. PLEASE COMMON CENTS AND MANAGE LIONS 

NOT SIDE STEP THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 


Support for a mountain lion season 

While the vast majority of South Dakota citizens can support a mountain lion 

season there is a large disagreement on the details of how the season should be structured. 

One controversy centers on the use of dogs for hunting lions. One of the guiding 

18



principles that GFP applied when developing a mountain lion season was to provide 

maximum participation and opportunity. Using dogs is very efficient. To reach a quota 

of 20 mountain lions only 20 hunters would be able to have an opportunity to hunt. This 

would require having an annual drawing and having thousands of hunters being 

unsuccessful and collecting preference points for a hunt that they may never have an 

opportunity to participate in due to the large number of interested hunters and the small 

number of tags available every year. Another option could allow dogs with unlimited 

entry but closing the season when the quota is reached. This option results in a very short 

season as everyone heads out the first day for fear that the season will soon be closed. 

This type of season structure results in a high number of female lions being killed 

because after treeing a lion hunters are reluctant to pass it by if it is a female because the 

season may close before they can tree a male lion. 

A big issue with hunting with dogs is trespass. Once the dogs starting chasing a 

lion there is no way to keep them from crossing over private land. Lion hunters using 

dogs claim that this is usually not a problem because most of the time they don't get 

caught trespassing and when they do most of the time they only get a stern verbal 

warning. 

Based on the types of comments received it appears that there are a number of 

hunters that think they can run lions with their "regular" dogs. Hunting lions with dogs 

requires dogs specially trained to run lions and the handler also needs to have experience 

running dogs on lions. A mountain lion season with dogs may need to include some type 

of certification that the hunter and his/her hounds are experienced/trained to run mountain 

lions. 

Question: Why did the initial 2005 experimental mountain lion season not include 

the use of dogs? 

• The first point to make is that GFP is not opposed to considering the use of dogs for 

mountain lion hunting in the future. However, for the first year it was decided to go 

with one simple season design to evaluate the impact of harvesting some mountain 

lions. Once some things are learned about the impact of harvesting lions on the South 

Dakota mountain lion population more complex season designs can be developed that 

include some harvest by using dogs. 

• For the first year the goal was to provide a maximum number of hunters an 

opportunity to hunt mountain lions and using dogs would not meet this goal. 

Mountain lions are an important species in the Black Hills ecosystem and providing 

19



hunting opportunities for a large number people will provide a large support base for 

good mountain lion management. 

Some other questions concerning the details of a mountain lion season in South Dakota 

are listed below. 

Question: Why was the price of a mountain lion license only $10? 

• A decision was made to keep the price low to allow a maximum number of hunters to 

participate. Also, without using dogs the harvest rate will be very low, i.e., most 

hunters will not harvest a lion. It is the same concept of only charging $1 for a lottery 

ticket that may be worth millions, because the probability of getting a lion without 

using dogs will be very low. One concept could be a $10 license for hunting a lion 

and a $50 tag for the hunters that end up harvesting a lion. 

• At $10 for a mountain lion license it should generate enough revenue to partially pay 

for the annual research expenses. One year of research costs about $60,000 not 

including GFP staff assistance. 

Question: Why were nonresidents given an opportunity to hunt mountain lions? 

• The season structure was unlimited, i.e., the number of nonresident hunters did not 

exclude a resident an opportunity to go mountain lion hunting. Also, it was expected 

that the number of nonresident hunters would be very low. 

Question: Why not develop a season that directs the hunters to kill only "problem" 

lions (for example, a hunter would be pre-selected to accompany GFP staff as they 

chase a problem lion with their hounds and then let the hunter shoot the lion when 

it is treed). 

• This solution was considered and evaluated early in the process and it was determined 

that the logistics were too complex for it to provide the quick response that is needed 

when a mountain lion is identified as a problem. Also, the goal is to manage the lion 

population at about 80-85% of the carrying capacity. This means that for the first 

year or so more than just problem lions need to be harvested. 

Question: Why have the mountain lion season overlap with the elk and deer 

seasons? 

• The concern is based on a perception that thousands of new hunters will flood the 

woods to participate in the new mountain lion season. We don't think that this will 

happen, but the number of participants is one piece of information that we will learn 

from this proposed lion season. We think that most lion hunters will be hunters with 

an elk or deer license that will simply add the lion license in case the opportunity 

arises to shoot a lion. This is the way that Washington operates their mountain lion 

season and is very successful. 

20



Question: How was the quota of 20 lions determined? 

• Carrying capacity for the South Dakota portion of the Black Hills is about 140 lions. 

Twenty lions would bring that down to about 85% of the carrying capacity. It is 

assumed that the number of lions dying or being removed prior to the hunt are from 

the annual surplus. Overall, the quota is very conservative. 

Question: Why was the proposed season limited to the Black Hills? 

• We only have research information for the Black Hills. Lions causing problems on 

the prairie will continued to be handled by GFP and the season in the Black Hills may 

reduce the number of lions causing problems on the prairie, but more research is 

needed at this time. 

Question: Will hunters harvesting a mountain lion be required to use (eat) the meat 

harvested (we have a wanton-waste regulation in South Dakota)? 

• Hunters hunt for a variety of reasons and harvesting a trophy is important to a small 

segment of hunters. However, the question of wanton-waste applied to mountain 

lions has not yet been addressed by GFP. 

Kill All Lions 

Based on survey results this attitude may represent about 10% of the South Dakota 

public. These people also support a mountain lion season, although their preference is for 

the elimination of mountain lions from South Dakota. Below are two example statements 

from people holding this position. 

• Kill them all – We don't need lions. They can easily be controlled by killing them, all 

of them. If they come into our state from other places, kill them too. Deer are a rather 

nice animal but when they, because of large numbers, become a nuisance and a threat, 

they should be controlled. Three people in South Dakota, and over 100 in our nation 

were killed during 2004 because of deer on our roads. This is a situation that 

shouldn't exist. All deer should be removed from our roads and highways. A large 

deer kill, perhaps 80 percent, would probably be necessary at first. The remaining 

deer would be kept behind fences, as are cattle, horses and buffalo. Also, they would 

belong to the people who own and operate the land. This is the way it should have 

always been. These people would be free to allow or not allow hunting, to charge or 

not charge for hunting privileges. They would be required, though, to keep the deer 

behind fences. The Game, Fish & Parks would no longer have any control or 

jurisdiction as regards lions and deer. 

21



• Mountain Lions don't have any place in South Dakota. I just wanted to make that 

statement clear so there wouldn't be any question as to my thoughts on this matter. 

This state is still primarily an agricultural state. We have large numbers of cattle, 

sheep and horses. And to this mix you have children, joggers, campers, hikers and 

citizens in general who could be hurt or killed by these mountain lions. We have put 

a bounty out on predators to get rid of them in the past, because predators and humans 

do not share the same understanding of life. We are starting our 5th year of a drought 

here in western South Dakota, along with a depressed economy. I'm thinking if South 

Dakota Game Fish And Parks had to reimburse South Dakota land owners for loss in 

livestock, grazing and crop production, and possibly human life, South Dakota Game 

Fish and Parks would have a much better grasp on game management. 


Kill all lions 

People holding this attitude do not see any benefits from mountain lions and/or 

only view mountain lions as dangerous or causing economic damage. People holding this 

position support a mountain lion season with their major concern being that not enough 

mountain lions will be harvested. Since mountain lions are a valuable component of the 

ecosystem and this fact is recognized by a significant majority of the public this 

management action is simply not an option that will receive further consideration. 

22

Mountain Lion Management in South Dakota Appendix A – Summary Plan 


Appendix A 

Summary – South Dakota Mountain Lion Management 

Plan: 2003 - 2012 

This summary plan was provided to all meeting participants at the 

beginning of each meeting. 

23



Summary 

South Dakota Mountain Lion 

Management Plan: 2003 - 2012 

Mountain Lion Management Goal 

Goal for mountain lion management in South Dakota is to monitor and maintain 

mountain lion populations and habitats consistent with ecological, social, aesthetics and 

economic values of South Dakota citizens while addressing the concerns and issues of 

both residents and visitors of South Dakota. 

Objectives: 1. Management 

2. Monitoring 

3. Research 

4. Education 

5. Public Involvement 

24



Guiding philosophies of Game, Fish and Parks related to 

mountain lions: 

WE BELIEVE… 

• that wildlife, including mountain lions, contributes significantly to the quality of life 

in South Dakota and therefore must be sustained for future generations. 

• that mountain lions play an important role in the ecosystem. 

• in providing for and sustaining the diversity of our wildlife heritage for present and 

future generations. 

• in management of mountain lions in accordance with biologically sound principles. 

• that having mountain lions in South Dakota will require the Division of Wildlife to 

implement education and involvement strategies related to safely living with 

mountain lions. 

• in providing accurate and timely information to the public concerning mountain lions 

in South Dakota. 

• that both the Division of Wildlife and the public have a responsibility to learn to live 

with mountain lions in a way that maintains a viable mountain lion population in 

South Dakota while dealing with problems that mountain lions may cause. 

• that the future of mountain lions in South Dakota depends on a public that 

appreciates, understands and supports mountain lions. 

Outline for an Experimental Mountain Lion Season in 2005 

Biological information that supports having a mountain lion season: 

Fecske's (2003) research suggests that the current mountain lion population in the 

Black Hills is around its carrying capacity (although the carrying capacity concept is not 

an absolute, fixed number as many different dynamic factors are involved). Best 

estimates for the current Black Hill mountain lion population put the number of mountain 

lions at 165 lions of all ages. Some additional evidence that the Black Hills mountain 

lion population is at carrying capacity is based on sighting trends and confirmed lion 

mortalities. There was a 57% increase in mountain lion sightings from 2003 to 2004 and 

a significant jump in mortalities in 2004 (Figure 1). 

Number 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

Total Lion Reports 

2001 2002 2003 2004 

Figure 1. Mountain lion reports filed and moralities in South Dakota 2001-04. 

25 

Number 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

Lion Deaths 

2001 2002 2003 2004



Suggested experimental mountain lion season for 2005: 

GFP will recommend a mountain lion hunting season design based on a limited 

harvest quota system. It is felt the quota system will give us the most control over the 

harvest, being able to stop harvest as soon as management quotas are met. The proposed 

quota would be 20 lions: 

Quota for the 2005 Experimental Mountain Lion Season 

Guiding Principle = Conservative Harvest 

• Population maintenance goal 80-85% of carrying capacity (still allows 

population growth) 

• current estimate of lions in the Black Hills = 165 (140 in S.D. Black Hills) 

• 2005 experimental harvest quota 14% of 140 = 20 lions 

Season Dates: October 1 – December 31, 2005 

• The season will end when the quota of 20 is reached or on December 31, 2005, 

whichever comes first. 

• It will be the hunter's responsibility to stay informed of the status of the quota and 

season end date. GFP will provide notification to hunters via media outlets, the GFP 

web page and a recorded message on an 800-number. 

Open Area: Black Hills Fire Protection District (start at the Wyoming border follow 

I90 to Rapid, then down 79 to the Cheyenne river, then the Cheyenne river to Wyoming) 

(Excluding Custer State Park, Wind Cave, Jewel Cave and Mt. Rushmore) 

Licenses: Unlimited resident & nonresident 

• One license per hunter (a person may harvest only one lion per season) 

• Resident fee: $5 + $5 surcharge = $10 

• Nonresident fee: $45 + $5 surcharge = $50 

Requirements and Restrictions: 

• Use of dogs not allowed / Trapping not allowed / Baiting not allowed 

• Harvest of mountain lions with kittens present or spotted lions (kittens) not allowed 

• Only firearms and archery equipment currently described in ARSD and SDCL as 

legal for the taking of deer/antelope are allowed (includes muzzleloaders) 

• Mandatory check within 24 hours of harvest at the Rapid City Regional office of the 

Game, Fish and Parks 

• A lion trapped, must be released and may not be pursued for 24 hours after it’s 

release. 

• Hunting hours: ½ hr before sunrise to ½ hr after sunset 

Related Rule changes: 

• Bobcat season in the Black Hills closed to the use of hounds. 

26



Suggested experimental mountain lion season as it relates to the overall 

management goals and objectives for mountain lions: 

The proposed experimental mountain lion season is consistent with the South 

Dakota Mountain Lion Management Plan's goal and fits under Objective 1 in Version 05- 

2 of the plan. The specific objectives of the experimental mountain lion season are to 

answer some management questions (to help set effective and appropriate hunting 

seasons if decisions are made to use hunting seasons as a management tool) and 

biological questions (to determine the impact of hunting seasons on the mountain lion 

population). The most important season objective will be to determine if a prescribed 

mountain lion season can reduce the amount of human-lion conflicts while still 

maintaining a healthy, viable mountain lion population in the Black Hills. 

Based on the proposed mountain lion season we will be seeking answers to the 

following management and biological questions. 

Management Questions: 

1. How many days does it take to reach the quota using the prescribed lion season? 

2. How many hunters participated in the hunt? 

3. What kinds of law enforcement problems resulted from the mountain lion season? 

4. Hunter attitudes (satisfactions and evaluations) of the hunt and public attitudes 

towards the hunting season and mountain lions in general. 

5. Did this season reduce the amount of mountain lion problems (measured by sightings, 

conflicts with humans, number of lions that GFP had to remove)? 

Biological Questions: 

1. Age structure and sex of mountain lions harvested. 

2. Potential impact on both mountain lion populations and behavior (territory size and 

structure). 

Complete Mountain Lion Plan 

visit South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks' web page: 

http://www.sdgfp.info/Index.htm 

Your questions and opinions appreciated! 

Developing the mountain lion management plan has 

included input from South Dakota citizens and will continue 

to do so. Please use the citizen opinion insert sheet to 

provide your opinions about mountain lions in South Dakota 

and any questions you have and/or comments you want GFP 

to consider. Questions and comments can also be submitted 

on our web page. 

27

Mountain Lion Management in South Dakota Appendix B – Response Form 


Appendix B 

Short response form provided to meeting participants. 

28



Mountain Lion Management Plan and 

Experimental Mountain Lion Season – 2005 

OPINIONS – COMMENTS – QUESTIONS 

OPINIONS: 

1. Many different feelings exist towards mountain lions. Generally, which one of the 

following statements best reflects how you feel about lions living in South Dakota? 

Please check () only ONE of the following statements. 

1. I enjoy having mountain lions AND I do not worry about problems they may 

cause. 

2. I enjoy having mountain lions BUT I do worry about problems they may 

cause. 

3. I do not enjoy having mountain lions AND I do worry about problems they 

may cause. 

4. I do not enjoy having mountain lions BUT I do not worry about problems 

they may cause. 

5. I have no particular feelings about mountain lions regardless of problems 

caused or not caused by them. 

2. I would support a mountain lion season if the state acquires data that the mountain 

lion population is healthy and could sustain a prescribed level of harvest. 

Strongly Moderately Slightly Neutral or Slightly Moderately Strongly 

Agree Agree Agree No Opinion Disagree Disagree Disagree 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

3. If South Dakota had a mountain lion season, how interested would you be to have an 

opportunity to hunt mountain lions in South Dakota? 

1. NOT INTERESTED 

2. SLIGHTLY INTERESTED 

3. MODERATELY INTERESTED 

4. VERY INTERESTED 

5. NO OPINION 

Information About Yourself: 

4. Are you a South Dakota resident? NO YES___________________county 

5. What is your age and gender? __________years MALE FEMALE 

29



Please use this space for 

providing comments about 

mountain lion management in 

South Dakota. 

Do you have any questions about mountain lions that you would like 

GFP to answer? Questions you provide will be used to develop a list of frequently 

asked questions, for which GFP will provide answers on the GFP web page. 

Your evaluation of this meeting: ___________________City ______________Date 

Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent No Opinion 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Comments can be sent to: 

30 

Mountain Lion Plan Comments 

Game, Fish and Parks Department 

523 E. Capitol 

Pierre, SD 57501

Mountain Lion Management in South Dakota Appendix C 

Larry M. Gigliotti Comments from Public Meetings 

Appendix C 

Comments from participants in the public meetings on mountain lion 

management in South Dakota 

31



Comments from Hot Springs 

1. I believe that for successful management you need trapping and hound 

hunting. Change their title to big game/furbearer like Wyoming and Montana. 

2. I think 20 lions are not nearly enough to bring the lions down to a manageable 

to a manageable level. I also like deer better than cats. 

3. I believe the approach you are taking to this hunting opportunity is the best 

method. Start conservatively – change as needed. I will aggressively hunt 

mountain lions by tracking and calling if given the opportunity. 

4. Season should overlap the “snow cover season” of late winter to allow the 

possibility of sportsmen to deliberately hunt by tracking on foot. Southern 

Black Hills typically has little or now snow cover in the fall. I strongly 

support the concept of a season that prohibits use of hounds. 

5. I am in favor of a lion season. I feel we need to address a growing lion 

population. 

6. I believe there are way too many lions in the Black Hills and there are a lot of 

too friendly ones. If they allow hunting they should let the hunters use dogs, 

so they can get some results. 

7. I like the season as you have it set now. As simply a recreational hunter, 

without hounds, it provides easy access for anyone interested in giving it a try. 

I do believe hounds would be a more efficient means of killing the quota, but 

the goal is not just to do that. A combined season is the best alternative to 

have anyone hunt for the first two months, and then have hounds complete the 

quota. The data aspect of having a hunt may be even a more important aspect 

of having the hunt. 

8. I believe wildlife is pursuing a sound management plan, and I am glad to see 

that hunting/sportsmen are involved. Personally, I don’t see hounds as a fair 

chase hunting method, but also see no problem giving them a time and place 

when other hunters are not out in the field. 

9. I think the ranchers should be on the list to have licenses for the mountain 

lion. 

10. We do not need large predators, that is the niche for humans, top predator of 

all. If prey animals need more predation, hunters are fully capable of doing 

the job. If it saves just one human life, it is worth wiping them out. Just ask 

the survivors in California, Colorado and other states. If it means having to 

eat more elk and venison, I’m willing. 

32



11. Numbers of hunters on private land should be limited. 

12. Need to harvest lions, should be trapped and/or hunted. Hound use should be 

limited, allowing trappers and game callers equal opportunity. 

13. Use hounds and traps. Landowner should be able to get a license. 

14. If using appropriate methods to determine which has to be hunted, I would 

strongly approve of it. 

15. Mountain lions are an important part of nature in the Black Hills. If a hunting 

season is implemented. I would be in favor of taking only problem lions. The 

chance of killing a female with immature kittens is too great if an open season 

is put into place. 

16. The “Black Hills lion unit” needs to be enlarged to include the prairie area 

neat to the Black Hills where there will be encroachment by the young male 

lions. 

17. I would like to see the GF&P people have very strict rates on hunting these 

lions, and would like to see only the more professional experienced hunters be 

allowed to hunt, especially in the Black Hills. I do feel ranchers and 

landowners should have the rights to protect their livestock and themselves 

from any lion threats. 

18. I’ve had four horses attacked by lions in recent years. Two were scratched up, 

one colt killed, and one had a rider who suffered a broken arm last September. 

Three in the last two years, and I only live one and one-forth mile north of Hot 

Springs. I considered this proof of a growing population of lions and a 

growing problem. My greatest concern is that children will become victims. 

We must cut into the lion population and make the survivors more fearful of 

man. I expect you agree and I would like to be of assistance in reaching this 

goal. I also think we need dogs to be successful. 

19. It’s too bad GF&P has to pay the political correctness game with the public. 

20. Kill the males so the babies don’t starve. 

21. Any hunters knowing for sure the sex of the lion before killing so there won’t 

be only kittens starving or any kittens turning renegade. I like your Mountain 

Lion Management Goal. 

22. Good Luck – sounds like it’s worth a try. 

33



23. I have ranched in this area all my life. Lions have increased by 10 times in the 

past five years! I don’t let my children go anywhere along day or night! 

Them lions are not afraid of people! You need to kill the lions that are close 

to people! Random hunting will not do this! 

24. No out-of-state hunters. 

25. If nothing is done about the lion population in South Dakota, not just the 

Black Hills, it is obvious that it is only a matter of time until some innocent 

child is taken by a lion. If they will come in a yard and take a small dog, 

that’s getting past time to take action. These people that don’t think these 

predators like lions and wolves are a problem is the same as saying our 

ancestors are stupid. They had to reduce these predators to survive or a lot of 

us wouldn’t even be here. 

26. I personally feel we should kill them all and make it a safer place to live. One 

of these days you will have a picture of a lion carrying away a small child like 

you saw in the paper the other day when the lion ate the little dog. I have 

lived here in Fall River County 79 years and we got along fine the first 60 

years without any lions. We can get along real well without them. 

27. The argument or contention that the number of people living in cat country is 

directly related to the number of encounters and not the huge increase in lion 

numbers is false. Hunter numbers remain fairly constant over the years as 

sightings and encounters have increased tremendously in only 10 years. 20 

years ago it was rare (very rare), 10 years ago it was expected. Presently it is 

uncontrolled. Deer populations suffer. Humans are in undue danger. A 

wildlife resource is unused. Hunters should have a chance to hunt lions. 

Hound hunting and trappers should be permitted to ensure that the season 

quota is met. Get after it before we end up like California. A Wyoming 

warden told me nine years ago that we better get after the cat population 

yesterday. 

28. A mountain lion season is long overdue. I feel you will have a tough time 

getting your quota of 20 animals with the restrictions you have on the hunt! 

In some areas I have hunted for years, I have seen deer populations drop 

dramatically. In these areas, there have been frequent sightings and signs of 

lions. Problem lions have been showing up monthly, instead of annually. It is 

time to regulate the population of lions, just like you control other big game 

populations. Twenty is only a small step in the right direction. 

29. I’m concerned about the pattern of mountain lions becoming more habituated 

to humans and frequenting areas of human habitation. They seem to be 

34



loosing any concern or fear of humans in the Black Hills area. It seems 

similar to Boulder, CO, 10 to 20 years ago, that development into attacks on 

humans and the death and eating of a young man (an extreme case, but nonethe-less, 

possible) – see the book “The Beast in the Garden”, by David Baron. 

Also, see the California study on the coyote’s stages of going from scared of 

human to being aggressive towards humans. 

30. There definitely needs to be a season set up for the mountain lion, but if you 

do not allow hunting them with dogs, you are defeating your purpose to 

control the population, and instead are filling the coffers of GF&P by charging 

$10 per application. I have no problem with the fee as long as you would be 

able to hunt them with dogs, but seeing a mountain lion by walking the Black 

Hills is going to be slim and none. Again you are defeating your purpose by 

not allowing dogs to hunt with. 

31. Shoot the lion if it kills cattle or if it threatens humans only! 

32. There is a lot of lions in the Black Hills, and they do need managed and 

controlled. Need the use of dogs to hunt them. If a survey is taken statewide 

(Sioux Falls, etc.), will have just environmentalist answer surveys and not 

those people having problems. Use your heads. Lions have got to be 

managed. 

33. I think we have a lot (too many), and that is why we see them getting pushed 

out to other towns like Yankton, SD. They are eating other things besides 

their normal habitat. 

34. NO non-resident/out-of-state hunters. 

35. If there is too many lions, yes they should be brought under control, but if 

there is an equal balance of lions, then leave them alone. I have waited for 

years to see mountain lions in this county and I do not want to see them leave. 

I do not agree on out-of-state hunters to be able to hunt them. 

36. I think predators should be a part of South Dakota’s environment. They are 

an historical part of that environment and provide a natural control on their 

prey species. Lions should only be removed when they become a problem 

with human encounters or livestock kills. 

35



Comments from Rapid City 

37. Have a “Trophy Hunt” with hounds and have more control of sex, types, and 

age of lions. Use informed hunters that can hunt lions appropriately. 

38. Like your hunting plan. 

39. Management is necessary. Do the right thing! 

40. No one has mentioned what impact a lion season would have on other species 

in the Black Hills, such as deer. If the primary predator (other than man) of 

the deer is reduced will be looking at an overpopulation of deer (which we 

already have). When nature takes over, then disease usually moves in an culls 

the overpopulation. Some of these diseases can sometimes be transmitted to 

domestic animals. It seems that whenever man decides to “manage” nature he 

really can screw it up. 

41. There are too many and they are not afraid of people in our area. We don’t 

see many, if any other wildlife on the roadways. We’re afraid to walk and 

afraid to let dogs out at all. 

42. With the recent increase in lion/human encounters, I’m afraid it is only a 

matter of time before someone is injured or killed. I strongly support a 

limited hunting season that would instill a little more fear of man in the lions 

and better control their numbers. They are a beautiful animal and I don’t want 

to see them eliminated, just controlled and have an increased fear of man. 

43. No dogs for hunting while hunting deer or elk. Hunt cats in December, 

January and February when you can track them. 

44. We have problems with lions and livestock. We have one documented kill on 

our ranch. Two times we have had problems we contracted GF&P. One time 

too much overtime. One time dogs feet to sore. We need a season on the 

prairie. The lion is the same as the coyote on the prairie. 

45. A lion hunt is needed as a management tool. The quota to kill 20 per year 

without hounds is wishful thinking. Let at least one-half of the quota go to a 

hound chase. 

46. Read the book – “The Beast in the Garden.” 

47. I strongly believe that we need a lion season with hounds this year. If lions 

aren’t dealt with and the habitat is full, there will be a threat to humans. 

36



48. I personally am against trophy hunts with hounds. I am not one who could 

afford $5,000 for a trophy hunt, but I would still like to utilize this resource. I 

also feel that if a cat is in your home living area long enough to take out, it 

should be legal with the turning over of the carcass with explanation. 

49. Cats on the prairie must be addressed by allowing cats to be shot by the 

hunting method adopted in the Black Hills. The kill must be reported. The 

entire animal including the pelt should be turned over to GF&P for their 

research and disposal. Trapping may be the most selective and least 

controversial method to take. 

50. I feel that there is a definite need for lion management in the Black Hills. I 

also have faith that the professionals in the GF&P will do what they think is 

the best for management of the lions. 

51. I believe we should have a season because the lion population will support a 

season. We should have a quota, and we should try and hunt the problem 

lions with dogs. 

52. I believe a lion tag should be at least $100 - $150. 25 tags maximum per year. 

I believe dogs should be allowed to hunt and tree lions. 

53. We need an effective season, which seems to require hounds. 

54. I don’t necessarily agree with the hunting season, but I do think we need to do 

something effective to manage all these mountain lions. Why would it be bad 

if you saw a mountain lion and shot it? 

55. We are courting a tragedy by not managing/harvesting mountain lions. Lions 

do not presently view humans as a threat and will not avoid contact unless 

hunted. The Black Hills are “human habitat”, as well as lion habitat. 

56. GF&P are already killing one every other month. It just makes sense to 

harvest some of them. In many instances it seems they have lost or have no 

fear of humans. I am afraid that a child will be attacked possibly in the near 

future. I have seen mountain lions while I was deer hunting. One mountain 

lion dragged a dead deer up under my home deck, just off Sheridan Lake 

Road. They are beautiful animals and some should be harvested by hunters. 

57. This looks more like a source of revenue than a hunting season. Use a 

depredation license by hunters. Do not let outfitters sell the hunts, which will 

let it be a rich person’s luxury. Do a drawing that anyone can afford. 

37



58. I do not think lions should be hunted in a hunting season. They should only 

be removed if they are man hunters in the city. Most are not a problem at all. 

I have lions on my property and they are not a problem. 

59. First, is the proposed hunting season pre-mature and based on human 

pressure? Secondly, the current policy of dealing with problem animals seems 

to work fine and also allows effective interaction/education of the public. 

60. I do not believe a hunting season for mountain lions should be allowed in 

South Dakota! 

61. I do not believe that the population has come to the point where we need a 

hunting season for mountain lions. If the estimate is correct with vast open 

areas of South Dakota, surely there’s enough room for both people and lions. 

Early education for the young children in schools to teach children on what 

they should do if they encounter a mountain lion. SD GF&P – I believe has a 

great handle on the population by keeping an eye on lions that continue to 

wonder into areas where they become a “pest”. 

62. I would prefer that we not have a hunting season at all. If a season is 

established, then dogs should not be used, as your management plan indicates. 

Treeing a lion with dogs and then shooting it is “target practice” – not 

hunting! The book, “The Beast in the Garden”, is excellent. It gives a history 

of how man was attempting to exterminate the cougar completely. It details 

the problems caused by man’s movement into lion habitat, feeding deer so 

they hang around homes, etc. There is not an option for problem lions now – 

“positive ID” of one necessitates removal as GF&P is doing. People in other 

states live with bear, cougars, and wolves – what is wrong with us? It is time 

we all take responsibility for out actions. If we move to our “little piece of 

paradise”, we must realize we are invading wildlife and their piece of 

paradise. All wildlife is important! 

I’m against hunting, but I feel the GF&P did a very good job fielding all the 

questions/opinions/comments. A very controversial issue – kept under control 

at this meeting. 

63. Education: It’s great that you are willing to go and visit with groups that ask 

you to speak. However, you are educating people that are already aware of 

mountain lions. Inside and outside of towns in the Black Hills. We are all 

living in mountain lion country. Whether people live in town or out of town, 

they hunt, fish, camp, hike and picnic in lion country. How about posted signs 

at parks and picnic areas about how to “stay safe”. Run ads in the newspaper 

and work with teachers on a school district basis. After all, many schools take 

38



field trips in the Black Hills (kids and tourists get lost on Harney Peak and 

sleep in the woods every year). 

I’m glad that a season is coming into play. One thing I’d like to see added is 

hounds, so lions are afraid of people. At least for part of the season. 

64. The main reason we moved to the Black Hills from New Jersey is to enjoy the 

outdoors, a less populated area, and especially the local wildlife. We love 

seeing the deer, turkeys, coyotes, and we would love seeing the lions. We 

have a potential of forest fire, but we don’t clear-cut the Black Hills to prevent 

it. Killing more lions in the name of “sport” to prevent sightings and 

occasional lions in populated areas seems like hysterical management. Do 

more study to find a better management tool! 

65. I don’t feel we need a mountain lion season. In 2004, there were 25 killed in 

all categories. Continue this method, eliminate the problem lions and leave 

the ones alone that are behaving like mountain lions should – not creating 

problems! The hype by the dog hunters is driven by one thing – money! 

Please no season and no hounds! 

66. I am opposed to the hunting season because of the possibility of killing 

females that may have kittens or be pregnant. There kittens would either die 

or end up being “problem cats”. I support GF&P removing the cats that cause 

trouble. I also support ranchers on the prairie being able to shoot lions. 

67. Continue to harvest only problem animals. What sport is it to tree a lion and 

then shoot it out of a tree? No prairie cat hunting! 

68. Can we issue licenses for hunters to shoot “problem” mountain lions 

supervised by GF&P? This would be a 80+% sure kill. People would be 

willing to pay for the privilege. 

69. It is inevitable that there will be a hunting season, but don’t allow dogs! 

Hunting outfitters will tree a lion and then call a client who will fly in from 

the East Coast for his trophy lion. That is humanity at its lowest form. 

Female lions are in motherhood 75% of the time, so if a female is killed, a 

litter of kittens will die too. 

70. Mountain lions are a big problem for landowners in the livestock business. 

Numbers must be lowered to reduce problems. Don’t forget that the livestock 

industry is still the largest industry in Western South Dakota, and should have 

the cooperation of the Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 

39



71. If the population needs to come down – depredation tags are a good idea. 

Don’t agree with hunting season. Should not be unlimited tags. Suggest if 

needed targeted hunts with people who know how to sex cats. You need more 

substantial facts and figures. Maybe you need to look at Montana’s program. 

72. Nonresidents should not be able to hunt. Do need a limited dog hunt. Why 

not statewide. The price is too low. This would bring too many hunting, just 

try to kill and not hunt. 

73. We do need a hunting season to run in conjunction with Wyoming’s season. I 

hope it would be a lottery system for South Dakota resident hunters only – 

same as elk! Whether some people like it or not, there is only so much 

habitat. Where they are hunted in Wyoming, they need to be managed for a 

good healthy population and to instill some fear of man in them or respect of 

man. Thank you for this meeting! 

74. I don’t mind lion season. However, I want a healthy lion population to remain 

in the Black Hills. If the state does decide to use dogs, then there should be a 

limit to the number of licenses given out. I would hope that the hunting 

season is not a yearly thing, but only used when needed because of the high 

numbers. Half hounds, half not sounds good or no hounds. 

75. Since we have an abundance of mountain lions in South Dakota, has anyone 

researched the possibility of relocating the excess number of cats to another 

area? Perhaps another state or even Canada/Mexico would want to raise a 

declining population or reintroduce the cats into an area where they once 

lived, but no longer exist. Since you are already trapping cats to put a 

tracking collar on them, then relocate them. Having a hunting season on the 

cats with a limit of 20 kills isn't acceptable for the following reasons: 

• Relying on the hunter’s honesty in reporting kills and checking daily to 

see how many have been taken. There are too many hunters who aren’t 

that honest. 

• Cats aren’t encroaching on people’s territory’ rather people have 

encroached into the cat’s territory. If people aren’t prepared to adapt to 

living with the cats, they shouldn’t move into the cat’s territory. 

• Hunters aren’t going to eat the cats like hunters eat deer, elk, turkeys, etc. 

The only thing they’re going to do is throw them away or mount them for 

a trophy. To us that’s NOT being a sportsman. If you’re not going to eat 

what you hunt, such as a beautiful animal like the mountain ion, then 

DON”T hunt it! 

40



• As a firm believer in preserving our wildlife, we don’t believe in killing 

animals or destroying their habitat because they are a “problem” for a few 

people. 

76. I believe the increase in lion sightings is due to humans invading the lion 

habitat. A season, to me, would not necessarily help the problems. We are 

diminishing their habitat. If you live in lion country, then be prepared to deal 

with it. Be cautious with your pets and livestock. It should be a selective hunt 

if you have a season. 

77. I think that we should have a split lion season in the Black Hills – 10 tags for 

hunting with dogs ($100), and 10 tags in general ($10). I also think that 

outside the Black Hills that landowners should have the right to shoot lions 

that are around livestock and/or buildings. No license needed – no fines. We 

should have trapping season for lions on the prairie with no limit. 

78. I believe that lions should stay around because they have a purpose just like 

you and me. When they are gone, they are gone, but that is not up to us to 

decide when they are gone. Let these magnificent animals stay where God put 

them. We are the ones that have invaded on their territory. If anything else, 

they are the ones who own this land and we do not have the right to terminate 

these animals. 

79. Legislate to fine people who continue to feed wildlife after a sighting in their 

area. Since we don’t know what impact a hunting season will have, we should 

start with a smaller quota. Although, personally I feel we should only be 

killing problem cats. This issue should be studied further before we go at 

hunting to this extent. When females are killed we create more young 

“problem” cats that haven’t been thoroughly trained to hunt naturally. Sounds 

like a vicious cycle. We also need to be stressing education by starting with 

grade school children on how to live safely with and appreciate our wildlife. 

80. Dispersal is key to the management plan, in and out of the Black Hills. This 

includes the increase of mountain lion and human populations. A trial hunting 

season may be useful, with or without dogs. Given the results analyzed, 

trapping may be more selective. (Need a pursuit season ultimately). First and 

foremost, the management plan’s mission is to maintain the ecosystem. 

81. Please – no mountain lion season! 

• You are, or should be, aware of the scientific reasons a lion hunting season 

should not take place: the difficulty of being able to differentiate between 

the males and females of the species, the length of time the kittens need to 

be with their mother, no proof of the exact number of lions in the Black 

41



Hills, the loss of habitat area, the relatively small hunting area in the Black 

Hills, etc., etc. 

• There is absolutely no reason this magnificent animal should be pursued 

by hunters, even without the use of hound! (Using hounds and the manner 

in which hounds are trained is certainly another matter bordering upon 

animal abuse and cruelty!) Those animals that would be hunted and killed 

are not the lions that are the “problem” lions. The mountain lions hunted 

would be the trophy lions, and look at what has happened to our deer 

population when only the older, larger deer have been taken. Our deer 

population is now a much smaller, “puny” specie than we had in the past! 

The mountain lions help control the deer population and generally select 

those smaller deer. 

• Also, setting the proposed number of lions to be removed at 20 is 

ridiculous. Sure, I am aware of how the formula was determined, but – 

my gosh! Last year more lions than that were killed due to various other 

forms! When do we as humans take responsibility for protecting our 

wildlife? So far this year, I have found three poached elk, one deer, and a 

coyote. After deer hunting season, the woods are a shambles with litter; 

animal carcasses and innards, beer cans, and other “crap” left behind by 

so-called sportspersons! Are there no hunter ethics? Is shooting a 

pursued, tired and frightened mountain lion perched in a tree a sport? It is 

like the buffalo hunt in Custer State Park which is no more than a 

fundraiser, and I am a great fan of Custer State Park, but we need to tell it 

like it is! With the road network in the Black Hills, most hunters can drive 

within feet of where they intend to make a kill. Then they get out their 4wheeler 

to load their trophy. This combined with all the “gadgets” hunters 

use does not seem to be very “sporting”! 

• Why not simply have a list of those individuals who want to “kill” a 

mountain lion and give these people the opportunity to “take out” a 

documented problem lion? That would solve two concerns – the 

troublesome lion would be removed, and the hunter’s ego or “kill” 

mentality would be satisfied! Certainly, the GF&P should charge for this 

privilege and it should be more than a slap on the paws you naughty lion, 

fee of $10. In these days of budget cuts and woe are the GF&P coffers, 

charge at least $100 for a resident license to be put on this list to remove 

the pesky mountain lion. If a person’s name is not selected, too bad! This 

is another way a lottery can benefit our great state! 

• The “hearings” regarding the proposed mountain lion season have been 

appreciated. At the Custer session, much good information was traded, 

although I did feel that the group making the presentation was leaning 

toward instituting a season on the lions. Hopefully, these sessions were 

42



not just a “formality” as many people state, with the decision to have a 

season already decided upon! Please – let’s use common sense, 

compassion, and scientific data, and not politics! Humans and this 

majestic mountain lion – another of God’s beautiful creations – can live in 

harmony! 

• Please, oh please – NO MOUNTAIN LION HUNTING SEASON IN 

SOUTH DAKOTA! 

82. I lived all my life on Alkali Creek, which is 10 miles east of the Ft. Meade 

National Cemetery. I went to the Rapid City lion meeting to better understand 

people’s attitudes about mountain lions. After listening to the attitude of 

many people at the meeting, I feel fortunate not be on the GF&P staff. I also 

came away from the meeting with a feeling of panic as to what lies ahead for 

those of us in the livestock business. 

It appears that hunting is not a good way to control the population, because a 

rifle hunter can’t discriminate as to age, sex, or if it’s a nursing female. Dogs 

don’t seem to be the answer because it would violate someone’s property 

rights, especially some homeowner in the Black Hills. Opposition was strong 

against an outfitter bringing someone with a dog to hunt the lion. He might 

make too much money off it and local people can’t participate because their 

pocket books aren’t deep enough. 

We in the livestock business that have ranches along rivers and streams are 

just beginning to see the results of lion over-population in the Black Hills. 

I hope that GF&P people realize that almost all of South Dakota real estate is 

in private lands. You need good relations with the agriculture community to 

keep your operating budget in tact. You have always helped the agriculture 

community in the past. You will be hearing more from us, please listen. 

83. 1. Allow dogs for hunting – more successful. 

• This permits identification opportunity to decrease loss of locating females 

or immature juveniles, and kittens. 

• Identify hound owners and allow them to hunt with licensed hunters. 

• Utilize hound owners for reporting: 

• Sex and age of kills; 

• Sex (probable) and age (estimated) killed; and 

• Cats breed or identified and not killed. 

2. Hound owners, if identified and monitored, allows for better reporting, and 

regulation of the numbers of lions killed. Therefore, better management and 

communication to call off hunt when quota is reached. 

43



• Please keep wildlife management scientific, as is your reputation. Try to 

keep politics out of management from the governor’s office on down. 

84. I hope that there has been enough research and study done before a hunting 

season happens. I feel that some people have lost respect for nature and 

wildlife and I hate to see anything destroyed, unless it is sick or threatening. I 

do feel that there needs to be more public education for common sense 

information for people to be safe. Find ways to learn to live in lion country. 

Please don’t let people strap them on top of cars when they are killed. 

85. I think the low price is good for the hunting season, that any SD resident 

should be able to get it (educated hunters only). I think that this season (Black 

Hills hunt) should go ahead and there should be an evaluation of its effects, 

and the quota adjusted accordingly. I don’t think trophy hunting should occur 

for at least five years and dependent upon the effects of the in-state hunting 

quota. If a trophy season occurs, it shouldn’t be more than ¼ of the quota, 

rather it should be by lottery and that the winner(s) should be able to (if they 

want) use dogs. I also think from being here tonight and hearing opinions of 

others, that the mountain lion issue in other parts of the state would be 

addressed by studying those populations and decide if there needs to be a 

season out there. I also think that the money from the licenses should 

specifically go to support studies of mountain lion (genetics, movement, and 

behavior) education and purchase of habitat. I think you need to provide more 

information on how (by studies and statistics) the quota was developed. 

86. People should not be allowed to hunt everything, let something be precious. 

If you use hounds, you'll bring anti-hunting groups into South Dakota. They 

have more organizations and companies with lobbying power and way more 

money. I have watched tapes of bear hunters using dogs and it can be 

inhumane, especially if the hunter has an abusive anti-animal attitude. I don't 

agree with regular license or trophy hunting that could create a too lucrative 

opportunity for illegal guiding and poaching. There will be more headaches 

for conservation officers because only 20 tags. I do not think we need to put 

the fear back into lions, they are naturally afraid, that's why they are 

nocturnal. That's old thinking that caused people to extricate them from the 

state. I would like to see this animal not be a game animal. I think the rate of 

human construction and growth will have an effect on cat territory in the 

future and we could easily have the same problem as India or other places. 

Good power point presentation, I appreciate the work of your biologists, 

SDSU faculty, students and officers. 

87. The proposed season & hunting rules for this season will NOT give you any 

answers or data relative to the questions asked in the summary. There is no 

44



way that the arbitrary shooting of lions will do any good. It does not 

discriminate, it does not teach the general lion population aversion and is a 

poor plan. You asked for the comments to be written...the meeting offered 

very good opinions, why the hell wouldn't you record them? What is the point 

of having a forum like this, a room full of interested parties, and then making 

their comments essentially not count unless they write them down. They gave 

you their comments, you write them down. I'm glad you held a meeting at all. 

88. Many farmers and ranchers want to eliminate GF&P so they can sell the 

game, but they are not embarrassed to take the subsidiaries and enjoy the 

agricultural tax rates -- subsidized by the tax-payer who cannot afford to hunt 

– but pay high property taxes for residential or non-owner occupied tax rates. 

89. Thanks for putting up with so much grief. You are doing a pretty good job – 

let the biologists make the rules – not the outfitters, commercial hunting 

operators or the legislators. We didn't have a lion problem 20 years ago. You 

guys are really brave to face this crowd. 

90. When I was at this meeting in Rapid City, I had to bit the hell out of my 

tongue to keep from telling some of the people the difference between 

stupidity and responsibility. Between those flatlanders who want to live in the 

Black Hills with no wildlife and those outfitters who want to charge you 

$5,000 to hunt a cat with dogs while I’m deer hunting, left me thinking that 

we have a larger problem than the mountain lions in the Black Hills. It’s time 

for people to take a little initiative and learn about the big cats and how to live 

with them and yet have a viable management program (such as this one) to 

help control the population. 

Outlaw the feeding of other game animals around populated areas. Confiscate 

all feeding bins and food, and issue fines for doing this and maybe even the 

young lions will stay away from people. 

91. It sounds like you don't need a season if enough are being hit by cars, problem 

animals being shot by GFP and other deaths. I'd rather see people pay for and 

license and then have a lottery draw for a smaller number of hunters who 

actually hunt. Similar to the Elk season. It scares me to have so many hunters 

shooting up the Black Hills. I have had to deal with inappropriate hunters and 

I don't want to deal with more. Thank you for putting up with the hunters who 

were rude and outspoken with their opinions. 

45



Comments from Spearfish 

92. The mountain lion population needs to be managed due to the concern for 

human safety and the lion’s lack of fear around humans. 

93. I think chances are pretty slim of killing a lion without using hounds. 

94. The dynamic balance of the natural world is clearly out of whack. In addition, 

increasing development of mountain lion territory creates pressure on their 

food supply. It is humans that are invading lion territory, not the other way 

around. Creating an artificial predator by allowing hunting of the lions is one 

way to control this situation, but it is not the only way and it may or may not 

be the best way. What do those scientists who have studied these creatures 

say? Sane thinking should prevail. 

95. I would like to see a mountain lion season where dogs could be used. I’m 

afraid we would have injured cats and then dangerous situations for all. 

Management is necessary for all wildlife. I am concerned about children. 

The lions have no fear of humans now. 

96. I think there must be a season on the lion to keep from preying pets and 

maybe human lives. I also feel you should be able to protect your livestock 

from them. Running them with dogs is a plus so they are not so bold as to 

come into town or ranch buildings. A season of 20 cats a year is a good 

number to work on. I think your meeting was very well done, with all the 

facts that were there. 

97. Mountain lions need to be more afraid of people and people’s houses. At 

present, they appear to be not afraid. Not good. This can lead to something 

very unpleasant occurring. 

98. Use of dogs would develop a respect for humans and dogs. Every home has a 

barking dog. When a dog barks the cats would be more apt to avoid entering 

that close to homes and farmyards. We need to get them to respect and try 

and avoid human encounters. Keep up the good work and set a management 

system to stay in control of numbers. 

99. I agree with game management. I feel there should be a higher quota. I feel 

there are more mountain lions in the Black Hills than you are telling the 

public. 

100. We have lions and have had lion kills in our county. We want them gone 

and we would rather have a bounty on them or at least let them be killed like 

you do coyotes and fox - with only a general hunting license to kill them as 

you would any other dangerous predator. 

46



101. I would suggest that regardless of cost, that GF& P continue to handle 

problem lions. I don’t see a major problem at this point with mountain lions 

that would call for a wide-scale lion-hunting season. I would suggest more 

action on public education and research. Don’t limit yourselves to seeking 

input from the minority (however vocal) that hunts. I think that having 

mountain lions in South Dakota is important and makes our state special. 

102. Have a season. Why wait until someone is killed. People have said lock 

up livestock to protect them. This would be very rough on livestock, as it 

would cause lots of sickness, especially if you have to put them in barns or 

sheds. I feel that there are lots more lions in the Black Hills than you say. 

Especially with the “no kills” in 2004. 

103. Hunt with dogs. Have the season separate from the elk/deer seasons. 

Hunting season for residents only. 

104. Great job, best of luck with it. Find a way to use hounds. 

105. As a former WL/Fish biologist @ Hamly Rd (Hill City – USDAFS) in the 

late 1980’s and early 1990’s – the FS was already managing habitat for an 

existing mountain lion population. Numerous sightings and confirmations 

were noted in the Hill City to Custer area. Research from Dr. Fred Lindzy 

(University of Wyoming) and Dr. Maurice Hornocker (University of Idaho) 

was utilized on a research brief I wrote to support mountain lion habitat 

management at that time. After moving and continuing a career in WL in 

Oregon and Wyoming it was interesting to note the differences between states 

with mountain lion seasons and those without. Oregon had a major mountain 

lion season utilizing hounds until it’s citizens voted it down about 1994. 

Following the elimination of the hunting season a noted increase in mountain 

lion/human interaction occurred in the Bend and Prineville, Oregon areas. It 

was noted by us biologists this was the “people’s choice” due to the vote by 

the people in Oregon at the time. As a former wildlife biologist with some 

research into mountain lions and their habitat, I support appropriate 

management and considerable research base. Your department is on the fight 

track and a mountain lion season to maintain a viable, healthy and safe for 

human mountain lion population. P.S. I sympathize where you as a 

department are at with public meetings. After surviving meetings on 

goshawks and mountain pine beetles and the public – it’s difficult to maintain 

your composure, professionalism and sanity. 

106. I have seen cats in the Black Hills since 1988. I have worked for the 

Forest Service and as a deputy sheriff in Lawrence County up to 1998. On 

night patrol in the county it was not uncommon to see cats several times a 

47



month. At home on the ranch in Whitewood, I have had an injured horse 

attacked by a cat as well as several neighbors losing calves and colts to cats. 

The cats seem to have no fear of humans and I believe that a season will help 

with the problem. 

107. I strongly agree with the proposed season and hope it can be started yet 

this year. 

108. I am NOT in favor of indiscriminate lion hunts. We have had resident 

lions for over 40 years. We have never lost a domestic animal to the lion to 

our knowledge. If our dominate lion/lions are removed – the ones teaching 

their young to be respectful and prefer the over abundance of wild life. 

Normally wild life populations will balance their numbers according to the 

availability of food. Mother Nature usually takes care of over populations 

with diseases. Example: blackhead in large numbers of congregated turkeys. 

109. Go for it. 

110. I think it would be fair to have a hunting season, but it should be only SD 

residents and no hunting where you pay big money to hunt. No dogs to find 

lions. 

111. It should be fair to have a hunting season, but only SD residents. No out 

of state people and no hunting where you have to pay to hunt with or without 

dogs. 

112. You do lack management big time. I agree with the red-faced man. 

113. We have invaded the mountain lions’ territory; therefore we need to learn 

to live with them. If a lion season is allowed, trained hunters should do it 

only. Most hunters would shoot anything that moves. 

114. Information is the key. So we know what to expect. Using caution at 

dusk and dawn when cats have been spotted in our area. 

115. I live in the Black Hills and I don’t think it is a problem (the lions). I see 

no rush in having a hunting season. If lions are scared of dogs, the people 

concerned about lions should have dogs for protection. The number killed by 

vehicles or GF&P should reduce the hunting quota. GF&P shouldn’t be 

killing lions. I don’t think it teaches them a lesson. I live in the Black Hills 

and know the risks. I have a pet. If a lion would attack him, I wouldn’t call 

the GF&P. We are always protecting people from themselves. They elected 

to live in the Black Hills (or ranch) and they should know the risks. GF&P 

should move/relocate lions to other areas instead of killing them. Since 

48



GF&P kills lions, it looks to me that you already have a hunting season. You 

should make the lions fear humans. 

116. I am a landowner and have livestock (305 cows and 10 horses). If you are 

going to have lions, I want to get paid for any of the animals that get killed by 

lions. A cow can be replaced real easy, but my horses and my family cannot. 

I believe a lawyer can prove that and give you some publicity you do not 

want. I have seen 2 lions east of Sturgis on my property and it is pretty tough 

to tell my kids that there isn’t anything I can do but voice my opinion. If you 

are going to have lions on public property that is fine, but when they are being 

pushed off of public land and onto private land, then the landowner should be 

able to do something. There will be a day when someone will be killed by a 

lion in South Dakota. Are you prepared for it and what will you do? 

117. Do not believe season should be open to out of state hunters. There could 

possibly be a special permit for landowners with livestock for year around 

protection of stock and only allowing one or two kills a year. 

118. Continue your studies! It is obvious that mountain lion populations are 

high. They have to be regulated prior to an adverse human/lion confrontation. 

I do question if hunting them with hounds would not be the best answer if you 

were targeting males. When animal populations are high sometimes females 

should be harvested. Have a season, continue the studies and then have future 

informational public meetings. 

119. I would like to see the lion season run at a different time than the deer and 

elk season. And use dogs for a higher success rate. Also I have talked to 

several people who have spotted lions that haven’t reported them. So there 

are more lions than we can calculate. 

120. Humans are moving into lion country – just like the whites took over 

North America. We didn’t want the Indians so we massacred them. It didn’t 

work then and this will not work. If you live in lion country, it is a risk you 

take. Don’t attract lions to your home by feeding deer and turkeys! We can’t 

just kill every animal that gets in our way. 

121. No problem was defined – sightings are not a problem. No positives were 

discussed (re: mountain lions). We are overrun with deer under management 

for ? years. We need to live with predators. Get over the kill mentality. This 

meeting was about dogs or no dogs – the hunting will go on. This was a 

meeting for hunters only. 

49



122. I do support the season, but I do think there should be a limit on the 

number of females harvested. Also, if you are not going to allow dogs a later 

season would be better for tracking purposes. 

123. I do not believe sufficient studies have been done to warrant a hunting 

season. The estimate of 165 is just that – and estimate. If the season is 

instituted, the cost of licenses should be much higher than $10.00. I am 

opposed to any hunting season at this time. Perhaps this issue should be 

brought to a public vote. 

124. Let the GF&P do their jobs. They are excellent stewards of our game 

resources and their proposed hunt is exciting and welcome. 

125. Terrible, just like your deer and elk management. Also, the proposed fees, 

both resident and non-resident, are ridiculously low. 

126. I’m in favor of a season. I would like to see it expanded to the prairie 

also. 

127. On an open hunt – any cats without spots – we will tend to shoot a female 

with kittens, 7 to 10 months old that still haven’t learned all of their hunting 

skills. These will grow to be your problem cats. Let’s let the hounds bay and 

put fear of man and dog into the cats. If you have a kill season and it comes 

up short of your quota, let’s have a short trial season with hounds, “photo 

shoot only”, to put the man and dog fear into the lions. Protect human life. 

128. I feel there are more lions out on the prairie. There are fall calves killed 

by lions and they were told that the rancher didn’t know the difference 

between lion tracks and coyote tracks. We all know the differences. I feel 

you had better start helping ranchers out about this subject instead of 

punishing the ranchers for shooting the problem lion, because the cattle are 

ranchers lively hood. 

129. We have a dominant male in our area. I would hate to see him destroyed 

as he is keeping the bad ones out. If we have a problem it should be solved. 

My main concern is some child will be next. Relocation does not work. 

130. I am an international environmental media consultant dedicated to 

promoting public participation in decision making, so I appreciate the 

scheduling of hearings on this issue. On a personal level, I was born and 

raised in Custer County where the last Back Hills bear was shot to death. That 

was a century ago and the natural population is still extinct. Shooting 

mountain lions could lead to a similar unnatural reduction of a species 

important to the food chain. When I can afford to, I now reside in what is left 

50



of rural Lawrence County. I am concerned that my cherished pet dog would 

be killed in the unlikely case of an encounter with a mountain lion. But a 

hunting season would be even more dangerous to my dog. In fact, adding any 

more hunting to that which already exists around here would increase the 

already high danger of hunting. It is the guns and the hunters that constitute 

the threat to humans and other living things. I am not opposed to hunting as a 

natural resource management technique. But it is inappropriate in this case 

for many reasons. No proof exists that hunting mountain lions will improve 

safety or habitat. The lion population tells us that the natural food chain has 

been re-established where it was broken and couldn’t sustain the larger 

predators. We should be glad, protect the lions, and promote their habitat 

restoration. They were here before humans. They are welcome back. Take a 

look at what we are doing right that has resulted in their return. Continue that. 

If continued studies show habitat too lacking for them, move them to other 

areas before they are extinct or endangered for repopulating. Additionally, no 

lion should be killed because of, or after, killing another being. That does not 

teach the lion population a lesson. Cats don’t understand capital punishment. 

Let the public coffers compensate ranchers for livestock lost to wild cats. 

Who are we to decide the mountain lion population should be held down to 

15-20% less than nature’s carrying capacity? Why don’t we limit human 

population and influx to a lower percentage for habitat management reasons? 

That would be the same logic. Call around further and you will find places to 

repopulate. Do not approve a hunting season. Come up with alternative 

proposals and hold more hearings on them. I would support a lawsuit against 

any eventual approval of a mountain lion hunting season. The whole issue 

stems from humans’ impact on wildlife and range. It’s our fault when there’s 

wildlife habitat change like this, so we should try and save as many of the 

other species as we can, rather than punish them. The GF&P could help by 

teaching self-defense rather than wasting lions. The proposed hunt is helpful. 

It will probably not put anymore hunters in the Black Hills but may not take 

enough animals without hounds, but no extra hunters, not hunting with 

hounds, difficult harvest are all “politically correct” concepts, limiting 

opposition to the hunt. Include incidental kills, depredation kills, maybe up 

the quota to 30-40. Run the hunt as proposed. After only a few have been 

killed by December 31st, sell licenses for more money and run hounds for 

them to get to your quota. The higher cost would allow more active 

participation in the hunt and raise money. Above all, have some sort of hunt 

and learn from it. 

131. My opinion of stories and facts. From 1876 deer were sparse. In 1910 a 

settler, rancher and uncle hunted for two weeks to find a deer to shoot. In 

1935 deer were thicker than present time and were controlled by lions and 

coyotes. Now we have too many of both. 

51



132. I think you are doing exactly the right thing with the mountain lion hunt. I 

especially like the fact that you propose no hounds to be used. That isn’t 

hunting, it’s following and shooting. I also appreciate the fact that prior elk 

license holders can apply for second drawing antlerless permits. Now if you 

require landowner elk license holders to harvest the animal on their land and 

get the forest service to ban off road vehicle travel and four wheelers, I’ll be 

happy. 

133. No hounds are a good thing. 

134. I like to hike in the Black Hills and I don’t feel safe anymore. I believe 

there should be management and would like to see more than 20 taken out 

during a hunting season. 

135. I commend the GFP for realizing that South Dakota does have a problem 

with the mountain lion population and at least trying to deal with it with a 

common sense proposal. Common sense tells me the only reasonable solution 

is to reduce the number of mountain lions is to have a season. I do not believe 

the number of lions harvested will meet the quota without using dogs to hunt 

them. I pray something will be done to address the problems of the mountain 

lions before someone is injured or killed. Thank you for your meetings to 

voice our concerns and opinions. I like the idea of using dogs to insure a 

successful harvest and making the cats fear man. 

136. I do a lot of walking in the Black Hills near Sturgis. I never worry while 

hiking. I see tracks almost every time I am out when there is snow on the 

ground. I think the department is doing a good job. 

137. I heard about this third meeting by accident. Please look into better 

publicity for “information” meetings, such as lion safety while hiking. More 

people watch the local news on TV than have time to read a newspaper. This 

works better BEFORE than after. Look into future marking (ear notch or tag) 

of females when found as kittens to reduce the percentage of females shot in 

the future. There is no need to extensively mark all females – reduce, not 

eliminate. Harvest more of them. Good luck pleasing at least a few. 

138. Will use your web site for comments. Thanks for putting up with all of us. 

139. I will not waste money on a license if hounds are not used. I will continue 

hunting Wyoming so I can use my hounds. I am strongly opposed to taking 

hounds away from bobcat hunting. 

140. GF&P is concerned that some people are “offended” by the use of dogs. 

There are many things that I am offended by that are perfectly legal. Peoples’ 

52



personal opinions should not be pulled into consideration when addressing 

management decisions. 

141. Cat dogs need to be used to meet the quota. Cat dogs need to be used to 

cut down the numbers of wrongful killings. Like sex, age, etc. I would like to 

see a dog season when no rifle or archery season is on. I would also like a 

season for lions outside of the Black Hills area. A small number taken in west 

river areas. Example – north of I 90 to the North Dakota line. Let’s manage 

the Black Hills for deer and elk, not mountain lions. I want mountain lions 

around, but let’s keep their numbers low. I would have liked to have seen 

one or two experts from lion states to ask questions to, such as hunting fees, 

dog usage, season dates, hunting methods, etc. States such as Wyoming, 

Montana and Utah. States that have existing hunting seasons. 

142. I would like more management zones rather than just a Hills wide area. 

Perhaps a Hills quota with northern and southern sub-quotas. Also, maybe a 

later hound season in addition to the proposed October – December season 

with no dogs. I also think that the non-resident price is way too inexpensive. 

Other than that, I hope you get your plan implemented and wish you much 

success. 

Comments from Custer 

143. There currently is not sufficient data to determine a program. There needs 

to be three studies, not just one. 

Remove problem animals only and use licensed hunters to do this, not GF&P 

personnel. 

If season is held, use a means to determine sex and age of animal before 

removal. Remove only if sex and age of animal is beneficial to the lion 

population and maximize the safety to human residents. 

144. Since we have too many deer and elk, which is their primary food source, 

and we don’t have enough hunters for deer and elk; I feel that shooting the 

predator will make the problem worse. If we had a mountain lion problem, 

we would see more “problem lions” in the Black Hills, with the increasing 

number of people living and visiting here, but we don’t. I don’t consider 

sightings a “problem”. 

145. In my opinion we have a problem coming at us like a “Mac” truck. 

53



146. I am all for a season, but without hounds; females with kittens, kittens and 

small cats will be killed. Using hounds lets the hunter be selective in the 

harvesting. 

147. I am more concerned about the state taking away our bobcat hunting with 

hounds than I am about the lions (this is BS). This has nothing to do with 

mountain lions. It’s illegal to run lions with hounds now, so if they do have 

the season like they want, it will still be illegal. Why do you feel you have to 

take this away from us? 

148. My suggestion to you, the GF&P, is when you pass out your yearly annual 

hunting and fishing handbooks, also pass out mountain lion handbooks. 

Providing educational facts on lion safety, lion facts and general information, 

I feel is a good idea. The places these are distributed, the more people that 

would be educated. 

149. I am in favor of a season that would put the fear of humans in more lions. 

Whatever the GF&P thinks. My kids do not roam the Black Hills like they 

used to. I know lions are on their mind, though I tell them not to worry. I like 

the way you have the season set but, if we hunters can’t fill the quota after 

Dec. 31, let the boys with the dogs finish the quota in January. 

150. A bit biased toward lion season! Thanks for providing an opportunity for 

this exchange. 

151. An unlimited (number of licenses) hunting season is irresponsible. There 

will be no control on what lions or how many will be taken. The GF&P will 

lose all control of the situation. I do not support any kind of hunting. The 

GF&P should maintain control and do the control of the problem lions 

themselves. More education of people needs to be done to live responsibly 

with the animals. 

152. Problem lions would not be targeted under this plan. Not enough data! 

Consider hunting units near problem areas, like closer to Rapid City. I fear 

hunters more than lions. Too many road hunters! 

153. No season. No dogs. Educate people -- we’re in the lion country, they 

were here first—live with them. No unlimited license, this will be slaughter. 

Need more research; this is a knee-jerk reaction slanted towards season only. 

154. Let lions regulate themselves. If there is a season, dogs should be 

allowed. Let GF&P (Animal Damage Control) deal with the problematic 

lions. Educate the people of the Black Hills, if you want to live in the Black 

54



Hills learn to deal with the animals including, elk, deer, coyotes and yes, 


155. I have worked in CSP for many years & have observed eight lions in the 

wild. I am thrilled to see them! I believe I lost one small animal to a lion, 

however, I have no proof. I do think lions make for healthy regulation of 

herds, but should not be counted on for population reductions. 

I’m really ambivalent about a season. It seems like it should provide for a 

comfortable space for replacement lions. However, the season does seem 

primarily recreational. I’d rather target the number, get it done (with dogs) 

and then let them be. I’m not in favor of an unlimited recreational hunt. Let 

hunters remove problem lions with dogs. 

156. With a season or without, you need to educate the public on what to do in 

case of an encounter. 

157. I’m strongly against letting out-of-state residents have a license to hunt 

mountain lions, at least until we have the season and the number to be killed 

figured out! 

The season should run the same time as the bobcat season. Only residents that 

live within “open area”, Black Hills Fine Protection District, should be 

allowed to get a license. We live with the lions year round. 

The use of dogs should be allowed, but not mandatory. Try unlimited licenses 

to start out with. May have to change it to a drawing. 

158. The meeting was a good exchange of information. We do have a lion 

problem. It well become more serious as numbers increase. Thank you 

GF&P for all your efforts in addressing and studying the problem. 

159. I support a management plan that includes hunting. The unlimited hunting 

license plan may encourage many more hunters than the Black Hills can 

safely accommodate…also the low proposal fee would encourage a lot (too 

many) of hunters. I believe something needs to be done to put fear into lions, 

like hunting, or allowing dogs to run the cats. The plan with collected data 

need to address the lion to people ratio. More sightings do not necessarily 

mean more lions, but more sightings from more people. I don’t favor nonresident 

licenses. I favor something that prohibits feeding deer, which attracts 

lions to inhabited areas. Concurrent deer/elk, lion hunting would seem to 

overload the woods with hunters. I would prefer to see lion hunting after deer 

& elk seasons. 

55



160. Use hounds, so none or a few females with kittens would be killed, limit 

the season mostly to males. 

161. We do not support an open hunting season on lions in the Black Hills. We 

do support a controlled hunt. That is maintaining a list of hunters (preferably 

with dogs) that could hunt problem lions. If a hunting season is approved find 

a way to direct the hunters to problems animals. 

162. I am strongly opposed to a hunting season. Your current practice of 

removing problem lions only seems to me to be the best way to manage 

mountain lions. A hunting season would result in orphaned cubs, which 

would then die. It is a fact that hunting increases the number of sub-adult 

lions, the very animals most likely to become a problem animal. I felt the 

“facts” presented were aimed to support a lion season and were not impartial. 

163. Leave the bobcat season alone! 

164. There should not be any licenses sold for a lion season! You certainly 

should not use dogs to find the lions! What is fair about that? Do you 

honestly think hunters will restrict the limit to 20? Get a life! 

165. I don’t want cats competing with the deer population that is available to 

me as a deer hunter. I do want a lion-hunting season without the use of dogs. 

Dogs are expensive. 

166. Let locals in the Black Hills do the hunting. We do not need out-of-state 

or East River people. 

167. I do not worry about Mountain lions doing things that they are not 

supposed to do. It is rare and encounters are far and few. However, every 

population needs a healthy counter balance and humans are the only predators 

to control the over-growth of the population. They are beautiful and 

dangerous and should be regulated like any other big game animal. 

168. Thank you for your presentation. 

169. If people choose to live in the natural habitat area of the lions they should 

be prepared to adapt to accommodate the lion presence. If lions need to be 

relocated they should be taken far enough away that they will establish a new 

hunting area and not return to the area where they were live trapped. The 

lions should not be hunted! This area was their native land before humans 

intruded. The possibility of a hunting season also opens this area to more fire 

danger caused by the presence of hunters in the wilderness areas. 

56



170. There needs to be a season, but let the hunters use dogs if they want! 

171. Allow residents the option of using hounds. Do not open the season to 

non-residents hunters. 

172. My only concern is that the population data is: 

• Only based on a couple of years of data. 

• Probably has high level of variability. 

• Could drastically change during a single year. 

Hunting season does not look like a viable management option to the 

current situation. 

173. I am concerned that the “healthy” lion population is dictated by increases 

in human development and population. Also, with two young children, I feel 

it’s my responsibility to watch them closely, not have every predator hunted 

away. 

174. We do not have adequate research for hunting. If we kill 20 and other 

moralities increase –then do we then harvest 40, 50, 60? Why does increased 

mortality man increased population? This is not a direct correlation and not 

science. Sightings are not scientific data. 

175. Should use hounds for “problem lions”. No out-of-state hunting season 

for quota. Educate hunters. 

176. Keep licenses for South Dakota residents only. Count the juveniles left in 

the wild to starve and the fetuses in the total bag numbers. 

177. I would like to see more research before any season is approved. 

178. I do not want a mountain lion hunting season established in South Dakota. 

I believe that additional hunters in the field would cause an increase in the 

probability of injury or death due to accidental discharge of firearms. 

179. Give license only for those problem lions. Public safety will not be 

improved by a lion season – sub-adults left by females harvested are more apt 

to be a problem. I feel that GF&P is already committed to a hunting season in 

response to pressure from individuals who enjoy killing. The “seeking input” 

from the community is a charade. The season as proposed could result in 

many more lions taken than 20 with as many licenses as you plan on issuing. 

Statistics based on sightings are virtually useless due to the increase in 

population and greater time spent on trails. 

57



180. Allow hounds to be used. Thank you for providing this forum. I also 

appreciate that you are studying this and using the proper science to make a 

determination of a season. 

181. I think we should let the GF&P make the decision to hunt them and not 

the city people moving here that does not know the mountains. 

182. I know there have been mountain lions in the Black Hills for many years. 

Although, I have never seen one, I have seen tracks, heard them growl and 

smelled them. We lost a sheep and also a few young pigs from them. 

Our children and we truly enjoy hiking, picking flowers, building forts and 

hunting in the Black Hills. We now are very concerned about our children 

doing these things. 

Controlling problem lions as is being done in South Dakota now is a good 

thing, but a lion season I think would help bring them to a better number so 

there would not be so many problem lions. I feel that an unlimited number of 

$10.00 licenses are going to put way too many hunters out there with lion 

fever. I think hunters should have a guide with dogs so they can get close 

enough to determine if they are shooting a mother lion with kittens, a young 

cat or what. Orphan kittens will either starve to death or possibly become 

problems, as they have not been taught to hunt by their mother. Making 

yourself big and making a lot of noise may work, but I’ll tell you when you 

are faced with a large animal that wants to hurt you, it is pretty hard to stand 

and face them. 

183. I believe it is only a matter of time before there is an encounter with a lion 

and a human with resulting tragic consequences. Lions have no natural 

enemies in the Black Hills and their numbers can only increase with a 

decreasing amount of habitat. 

184. Recommend GF&P continue current practice of dealing with problem 

lions, while continuing research studies. 

185. I do not support a season at this time due to lack of scientific data or 

studies of the lions. I strongly believe that a list of residents, West River 

hunters, should be used to go with GF&P personnel to take out problem lions. 

Fees should be adequate to support this solution. 

58



Comments from Sioux Falls 

186. I feel that South Dakota should take advantage of the opportunity to hunt 

lions. I believe the most effective way is with hounds. I have heard many of 

the arguments (pro & con). I think the state should work out a plan to allow 

this. The harvest of a cat out of a tree is selective; quick shot in the trees is 

not. Part of living in the Black Hills is putting up with the traditions of 

hunting. 

187. We have way too many in South Dakota. 

188. 1. Glad you are looking at it. 

2. Very glad you are not allowing the use of hounds. 

3. Coffee shop talk has less resistance toward out-of-state hunters than to 

allow the use of hound hunting. 

4. As a Black Hills landowner, I would be opposed to the use of hounds. 

5. I would speculate that most folks who would hunt lions would want to 

mount it. Would it be feasible to allow the use of a .17 center-fire to 

avoid pelt damage? 

6. Use hounds for problem animals, not for sport. 

189. Like very much the low cost of a tag. I think harvest may be difficult 

without snow. Somewhat concerned that harvest may be concentrated 

(possibly need units)? 

190. Think you’re on the right track. 

191. I support the mountain lion hunting season, especially because we are at or 

above carrying capacity of the Black Hills. If we do not eliminate some lions, 

I am afraid we will have a continued rise in the number of mortalities and 

other problems involving humans and domestic animals. I like the idea of the 

quota system and would buy a license if hunting Black Hills deer or elk. 

192. If and when we have a season, I’d like it to be very controlled. I do not 

want these cats shot off. It is nice to have them in our state, and I’d like them 

to survive. 

193. I confirmed mountain lion sightings in Lyman and Jones counties beck in 

the 1960’s when I was the game warden there. I am happy that they are now a 

game animal and will be managed as such. 

59



Comments from Brookings 

194. Looks like science supports a season. License purchased prior to season if 

one deer applicant wants to hunt cat, all in envelope need to (prevents party 

hunting). Cats will benefit from hunting. If cats enjoy a diet of porcupine, 

then West River folks should appreciate the cats as the porcupines kill a lot of 

trees on the prairie. Great presentation. 

195. I am glad to see GF&P actively seeking to manage the lions. I endorse a 

hunting season in the Black Hills and possibly a more aggressive control 

strategy outside the Black Hills area. 

196. I don’t worry about “problems” with them, but I’m aware of the public 

tolerance issue, especially in the Black Hills. Let’s try to manage the 

populations and provide the public with another recreation opportunity. 

197. I would think that the current proposal is a good starting point. I would 

wait and see how it works (your current proposal) before doing anything 

different. 

198. Sounds like a great management plan. This presentation is an excellent 

opportunity for public input and opinion. 

199. Please use dogs and limited licenses promoting no cripples. 

200. I think the plan is a good start. Please keep up the good work. I do wish 

hounds would be considered. 

201. Get rid of them, as they are costly to farmers and ranchers. Unless, you 

are going to pay for damages – to say nothing about a human life. 

Comments from Yankton 

202. Very good. However, I’m concerned about their movement to more 

populated areas. 

203. The population of mountain lions is widely dispersed as a “territory” issue. 

Unless these animals/or a particular animal start stalking humans, the loss of 

an occasional cat or dog should be tolerated. I think the notion of wiping out 

a species, just because of an occasional rogue animal in that species is wrong 

headed. If I see a mountain lion on my deck eating (for example) suet, I don’t 

think I would report that sighting, if I though it would provoke a panic 

mentality. 

60



204. I feel the overpopulation in the Black Hills merits a hunting season to keep 

them from leaving to come out on the prairie and to eastern South Dakota. 

205. Could the population hold true to have a season each year. 

206. Having attended your information session in Yankton on April 20 th , and 

having reviewed the proposed mountain lion season, I appreciate the 

opportunity to express my views of the proposal. 

I believe that establishing a mountain lion season is a solution without a real 

problem. The “problem” , as explained by SD Game, Fish and Parks staff, is 

that cougars are reaching the carrying capacity of the Black Hills, and are 

beginning to migrate onto the plains. We were assured that GFP’s decisions 

are based on science. What science indicates that cougars should be confined 

to the Black Hills, since their natural range includes most of the continent, 

including the plains, wooded areas and rivers of South Dakota? 

I suspect that GF&P is yielding to pressure from livestock and hunting 

lobbies, and to irrational fears. The three perspectives most forcefully 

expressed at the Yankton meeting were. 

1. A rancher insisted, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that a mountain lion 

had attacked his horses. 

2. A Yankton resident expressed fear that lions would attack people. 

3. A hunter complained that he should be allowed to kill a lion in Yankton 

County too, if one should show himself. 

I find all of these views fallacious. 

• Livestock depredation is rare, as you know, and when it occurs, owners 

are compensated. 

• In the 166-year history of South Dakota, there is no documented case of a 

cougar killing a person. 

• I don’t oppose hunting for food, but I doubt most would-be lion hunters 

want to eat lions. I think they want a trophy; perhaps they need to prove 

their manhood to themselves or their friends by killing something more 

powerful and more beautiful than themselves. In this pursuit, GF&P and 

many wildlife experts are enablers. Your spokesperson repeatedly used 

the work “harvest” to describe the killing of cougars. We can harvest only 

what we plant. The creator “planted” cougars here, as surely as he planted 

people. Let’s at least drop the euphemism, and use the honest word, 

“kill.” 

So, if there’s a problem, I think it’s a people problem, not a cougar problem. 

As I pointed out at the Yankton meeting, South Dakota’s “right to farm” law 

61



requires anyone who wishes to build a residence in rural farm country to sign 

a waiver; a statement of understanding that he or she may have to put up with 

odors, dust, noise, and even chemical contamination. Yet, people build homes 

in the middle of Black Hills lion country, fail to protect their pets and 

domestic animals, and expect the state to kill any lion they perceive as a threat 

to them or their animals. Perhaps we need a right to life law for wild animals, 

or at least we need to educate people that if they choose to live in wild 

country, they must accommodate themselves to nature, rather than expecting 

the state to sanitize the wilderness and make it resemble downtown. 

There are other moral issues involved. We don’t allow killing of deer or other 

animals during the birthing and nursing season. Since cougars breed year 

around, and since it is not possible to determine the sex of a cougar from a 

distance, nursing mothers will be shot and their kittens will starve to death. 

Or if the kittens are old enough to survive, they won’t have a mother to each 

them to hunt their natural prey. They will survive as they can; they will be 

more likely to prey upon domesticated animals, and to come into contact with 

people. 

At bottom, the problem is myopic management, man’s perennial insistence on 

controlling every aspect of nature – in isolation – without regard to principles 

of natural balance. In over 50 years of close observation, I have seen many 

examples of both mindless and malevolent disruption of nature’s balance, 

whether it is the conversion of diverse native prairie to monoculture, efforts to 

exterminate coyotes or prairie dogs, or plans to “harvest” mountain lions 

because somebody has concluded pseudo-scientifically that lions belong on a 

particular reservation, sort of like Indians. 

Kill all the coyotes, and the rabbit population explodes. Kill as the rabbits and 

prairie dogs, and coyotes will find something else to eat. Kill lions that 

venture out of the Black Hills and the rest of South Dakota remains out of 

natural balance – too few predators and excess prey. But what is strangest to 

me is that some of the same people who want to eliminate prairie dogs want to 

kill coyotes from airplanes, apparently oblivious to the inherent contradiction. 

And now we have the simultaneous cries in the Black Hills of “too many 

lions,” and “too many deer.” Go figure. Incidentally, we have an excess of 

deer in southeast South Dakota too, or perhaps it’s too few coyotes and 

cougars. 

Of one thing I am convinced: we have too many people driven by ignorance, 

fear and the love of killing, and too few who are willing to acknowledge and 

accept man’s place in the balance of nature. 

62



Comments from Mobridge 

207. I agree on everything the department is doing with the mountain lions. 

However, I would hope you would change your stance on not allowing dogs 

to hunt them. 

208. I would like to see a season and would enjoy; even out of the Black Hills 

area, maybe a few a year. 

209. GF&P should wait until after the first season to see if hounds should be 

used. 

Comments from Pierre 

210. I would like to see the season as proposed today. I think if you turn it over 

to the hound men, the rest of the population (human) would loose. What 

about a limited number of tags, say 5 for hounds? 

211. I think a person needs dogs to find the lions. Also to have a certain 

number of tags to give out, instead of just 20 kill, and have the hunters call in 

the office every day. 

212. Would like to have more information about surrounding states. 

213. South Dakota needs to have a season on lions, but I don’t feel the plan 

they have is a very good one. I don’t agree with the unlimited licenses to 

residents, and definitely not to nonresidents. I feel there should be a drawing 

for the mountain lion license, just as there is for elk, mountain goat, or big 

horn sheep. Once the license is drawn for, the hunter should have the option 

to take the mountain lion any way he or she is able (calling, hounds). 

When I attended the meeting the man speaking said they were trying to take a 

low impact approach to a lion season. I don’t feel that by having every deer 

or elk hunter in the woods, packing a lion tag and having lion on the brain, is 

going to help. I believe you will kill a lot of females or non-target animals, 

which will not stop the problems with the lion-human incidents, and you will 

harm the lion population for future years and accomplish nothing, except 

making a little money off a great animal. 

63



Comments from Chamberlain/Oacoma 

214. I would very much enjoy a mountain lion season, with or without dogs. It 

would be a challenge that I’m up for! 

215. I think your proposal makes good sense. If the season does not harvest 

what you would like, then you can explore other methods, i.e., hounds. 

216. Nonresident tags should not be available. Resident season only! 

Nonresident tags, if available, should at least cost as much as a nonresident 

deer tag. Lion season should be all West River, not just limited to the Black 

Hills fire protection area. One per person, per year – once in a lifetime. Kill 

one and you are done (residents only)! Season dates should be from October 

1st through January 31st. If season is all West River, this would give West 

River deer hunters who are hunting the deer season extensions an opportunity 

to shoot one if they see one. 

217. Not a problem that I can see. Only seen once in 45 years I have lived in 

Lyman County. Seen only one along the Jim River in Sanborn County before 

that, that makes two. However, I have seen their tracks several times. Seen 

these tracks in snow in the Black Hills many times. We have so many deer, 

we need the cougar to control the deer. The only lion I’d like to see killed is a 

problem lion causing a threatening situation of destroying livestock or 

threatening people. 

218. I support SD GF&P 110%. Should GF&P think mountain lions need 

some management, I support that and would like to support and participate in 

management of cats. I feel South Dakota has an excellent deer population 

statewide that supports mountain lions anywhere in South Dakota. I feel SD 

GF&P is correct at its current plan and action. If you do not allow hound 

hunters, you will make bow hunters happy – you are correct with your 

approach. Hound hunters chasing cats during other big game seasons that 

overlap would cause problems. 

64



Comments from Winner 

219. Consider statewide hunting. 

220. I think the season should be statewide. 

221. Should be opened statewide! Nonresident fees should be comparable to 

our Border States! 

222. Outlying the Black Hills – monitor the major rivers and creeks outside the 

Black Hills (Belle Fourche, Cheyenne, White (Little and Big), Keyapaha, and 

Oak). I think that they (lions) have an “interstate” roadway out of the Black 

Hills – east along creeks and rivers, as they hunt the deer on the prairie. Cattle 

raisers along these areas are subject to the predation. 

Comments from Martin 

223. A hunting season for mountain lions in West River should not happen . . . 

until data is collected that is sufficient to determine the existing population 

and the number that can be harvested . . . and still maintain a viable 

population. 

Comments from Bison 

224. Make out-of-state licenses pay more. I like the no dog issue until the 

quota is never met. I will be down in the Black Hills to try and call one. They 

are beautiful animals. 

225. Get rid of the devils. 

226. I firmly believe hounds should be used for lion hunting. 

227. Raise nonresident fees. Too much activity during other big game 

activities as it is. 

65



Comments from Faith 

228. I do not mind lions, so long as they do not have more protection on our 

property than we do. Thus, if I see a roaming lion, I would like to know I 

wouldn’t be in trouble for shooting it on our property. 

Comments from Buffalo 

229. I do believe that you should use hounds so you could be more selective. 

Also, the season would not last three months and cause more problems with 

people who do not like cat seasons. I also believe that you could see a lot of 

wounded lions, which will become a problem. I do believe that the prairie 

should be allotted some lion licenses. 

230. I think a hunting season is a good idea. I like the low cost of the license, 

unlike deer licenses. 

231. If I see one I’ll get it, if possible. Possibly saw only one in lifetime! 

Hounds should be used if available. 

232. Have a prairie (West River) season. 

233. You need to allow hounds in the lion hunting – more protection for female 

lions, instead of a long range shot and not being able to identify. Actually, 

more humane in the long run. You need to allow hunting on the prairies also; 

not just the Black Hills. We’ve had several mountain lion sightings in 

Harding County in the past five years. 

234. We need to use dogs or we won’t manage this problem. 

235. Please consider letting hunters use hounds at least in the later half of the 

season. The use of hounds would give a better harvest, and a more selective 

harvest. Also, consider adding a prairie unit to the season. We’ve got the 

lions and would like to hunt them. 

236. Season must have dogs and traps to maintain season. 

237. I think it will be necessary to allow the use of dogs if the quota is to be 

filled. 

238. Hunting with hounds is the only effective way of hunting lions. 

239. Without dogs, there is no management. 

66



240. Mountain lions need to be controlled. I would prefer having a bounty on 

them and use hounds, traps, snares, or whatever it takes to get them. They 

also need to be controlled year around, day or night with no special season. 

We also need to be able to hunt them here in the northwest corner of the state 

on the prairie. 

241. Permit para-planes and allow the use of hounds. Hunt lions like coyotes. 

They need to be listed as a predator and hunted like coyotes. 

242. We need a prairie season. As a landowner and rancher, I don’t want any 

lions; they will at some point kill livestock. 

243. Just attended the lion meeting in Buffalo, SD on May 4 th . I have lived in 

Harding County for 78 years, most of them without lions. I have never seen 

one and don’t need to. I think it’s a total waste of time and money to have nay 

kind of plan. My grandfather came to the Black Hills (Whitewood area) in 

1776, and I don’t believe he even saw one. He was a hunter, and hunted and 

shot many deer. This could be stopped now – this year. Get rid of the few 

that are there in the Black Hills before someone gets killed by one, and 

everyone would be better off. 

244. Thank you for this opportunity to provide input regarding the South 

Dakota Mountain Lion Management Plan. Initially, I believed my input at 

this meeting would focus upon the proposed 2005 experimental Mountain 

Lion Hunting Season in the Black Hills. 

Fortunately, the SD GF&P have made its working draft of the Mountain Lion 

Management Plan available to the public on the Internet. I have read the 

proposed Mountain Lion Management Plan in its entirety. I believe this plan 

is well researched, well thought-out, and a sound management plan. 

I have a unique perspective on the mountain lion: 

• Living on the Montana border, I have experience with mountain lion 

hunting in that state; 

• I have a verified mountain lion kill; and, 

• I have first hand knowledge of how GF&P responds to a mountain lion 

incident. 

I live on a ranch 10 miles northwest of Camp Crook, South Dakota. The 

ranch is in both South Dakota and Montana. I reside in a rural area with 

excellent mountain lion habitat. My view towards wildlife is best described as 

a conservationist with the belief that a balanced ecosystem is essential. 

67



Our informal ranch management plan incorporates the management of 

wildlife on our property. The entire South Dakota ranch is designated as 

walk-in hunting. This enables us to keep antelope and deer numbers in 

balance, reduces the economic loss to crops and hay associated with high 

numbers of foraging wildlife, and helps to decrease livestock death loss by 

promoting adequate wildlife numbers to feed predators. 

Getting back to mountain lions. I live in an area that offers great lion habitat. 

I had a Quarter Horse foal killed by a mountain lion on April 25, 2005. I had 

a lot of mixed emotions with this kill. I like horses – and I like mountain 

lions. I hated to lose this filly, but the lion was only doing what is its nature: 

hunting and killing to survive. The suspect lion is likely a 1-2 year old Tom 

looking to establish its own territory. 

In retrospect, I realize those qualities, which make this pasture great for 

foaling, also make it, great lion habitat. I have changed my management plan 

and will now foal in a different pasture. I didn’t “give up” nor did I “let the 

lion win.” It is no different than deer that eat alfalfa hay and high fencing – 

keep the easily accessible food source difficult to get to and the wildlife will 

go elsewhere. 

When I informed the Conservation Officer Brian Meiers of the lion kill, he 

was at the ranch immediately and informed us of GF&P policies regarding 

“problem lions” and took corrective action in accordance with procedures 

beginning on page 20 of the Mountain Lion management Plan. I should have 

reported the suspected mountain lion kill earlier, but waited until lion tracks 

were found. Now that I have read the Mountain Lion Management Plan, I 

would immediately contact the conservation officer. 

Our ranch insurance policy covers livestock loss of this nature once the kill is 

verified. 

I had the opportunity to visit with a lot of people regarding the lion kill and 

have too often heard, “If it was on my place, I’d shoot, shovel, and shut up.” 

To those individuals who feel that way, I encourage you to report mountain 

lion sightings, attacks, kills, etc. to your conservation officer. If GF&P does 

not have accurate information from which to make sound decisions, you won’t 

have an effective Mountain Lion Management Plan. 

To the SD GF&P, I applaud your efforts on the Mountain Lion Management 

Plan. I have only the following recommendations: 

• Study home ranges outside the Black Hills using the same methodology as 

the SDSU Black Hills study. This will provide statewide data and help 

68



determine if established lion populations exist outside the Black Hills. 

The Cave Hills, Slim Buttes, Short Pines, and Long Pines areas offer great 

mountain lion habitat and should receive priority for studies. 

• Continue your public outreach and education program, especially to 

individuals living on or near lion habitat. I have not seen any of your 

outreach materials and would have benefited from the information. 

• I suggest South Dakota Mountain Lion Hunting Guidelines also include 

the following: 

• Allow the use of dogs. Without dogs, a cat doesn’t tree; therefore, a 

cat’s gender and/or lactation status cannot be easily determined prior 

to harvesting. Using dogs will decrease the odds of harvesting a 

lactating female. If a lactating female is harvested, her kittens will 

likely perish. 

• Allow hunting outside the Black Hills if the data supports an 

established population. 

Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions. (Photographs were 

attached to these comments). 

Comments from Wall 

245. We must use hounds. 

246. Let the hunter use dogs. Include the area west of the Missouri River in 

season. 

247. No season – state regulate. 

Comments from Watertown 

248. Superb presentation with outstanding information and research data. 

Presenter was very well educated and very knowledgeable with questions. 

69



Comments from Aberdeen 

249. Great to have a season, but I would only buy a license if dogs would be 

allowed. This provides for a more productive harvest. 

250. Never use dogs! Too much time in court. 

251. I support SD GF&P on their current approach on establishing a 

management program in South Dakota on mountain lions. Mountain lions 

need to be managed so its population stays in check with geography, food, and 

people population. I think GF&P has successfully done enough research to 

get to this point, however, this program needs to continue. I hope GF&P 

keeps moving forward with this, however SD GF&P sees fit. 

Comments from Mitchell 

252. Need a season with hounds – big mistake not to allow dogs. Will 

encourage people to shoot along roads and highways, rather than hunt off-road 

with hounds. Also, increased risk to hunters. No nonresidents. 

253. Keep the season for residents only, by drawing if necessary. 

254. Hounds should be allowed to run lions. 20 licenses should be drawn in 

South Dakota, instead of a quota. The hunter drawn should be able to choose 

the method of how to kill the lion. 

255. I believe that the licenses should not be unlimited. Maybe a drawing, like 

the elk licenses. Management should be watched very closely. If numbers are 

down, the season should be closed. Just go slow with this process. Limit to 

20 tags – (3) out-of-state. 

70

Mountain Lion Management in South Dakota Appendix D 

Larry M. Gigliotti Questions from Public Meetings 

Appendix D 

Questions from participants in the public meetings on mountain lion 


71



Questions from Hot Springs 

1. What important part does the mountain lion play in the Black Hills 

ecosystem? 

2. Why would anyone in their right mind want to keep something around that 

endangers life and peoples’ livestock? Show me someone who has a better, 

safer life because there are mountain lions sneaking around on their property. 

Lions have been seen on my ranch and I don’t like it! 

3. Will cougar hunters be allowed to cross private property? Will cougar hunters 

be allowed to shoot females with kittens? 

4. What about other cats (like not just mountain lions)? What about a bear 

sighting, if there is one. Then what? 

5. What is the current result of the GF&P mountain lion study funded in 1999? 

Questions from Rapid City 

6. Why not use hounds? Why not make it a trophy hunt? 

7. When are kittens normally born? How long do they normally stay with their 

mother? 

8. Do we know how many cats for sure? Are the Black Hills truly saturated? 

9. I would like them to explain more about how they’re going to prevent going 

over the quota? 

10. How valid is your population numbers? More mountain lions tend to be 

where more people are, because that’s where the deer (food) are. 

11. I have been told by a GF&P retiree that he believes the department imported 

and released mountain lions in past? Please comment. 

12. If you were to allow hunting with dogs, how would you stop them from going 

across private land? The BHNF has such intermingled ownership – crossing 

private land could easily get someone killed. There are not any areas in the 

SD Black Hills that can safely accommodate this type of hunting – WY has a 

different situation. 

13. Do you get positive ID before destroying a lion thought to be a problem lion? 

Have some been killed that were not the problem one? 

72



14. The one question is why? You want to protect people, and if this hunting 

season is put in order, there will be more deaths than killings. 

15. How fast is the mountain lion population increasing in the Black Hills, 

Laramie Mountains, Big Horns and Canada, just north of us? 

16. How many lions have been killed in North Haines Elk Vale area between 

October 2004 and present? 

17. If you were on a walk – how about a starter pistol (like for track). Is that a 

crazy idea? Would it startle and frighten the animal, or would it antagonize 

them? 

18. When did the population begin to significantly increase? Shouldn't the 

harvest be much higher since you have an established "colony" and influx 

from the west and Canada? How many of the reported sightings are in the 

Rapid City limits and or in residential areas of the Black Hills? 

19. Lions were reintroduced, numbers increased under the oversight of GF&P. 

Where do the dollars that funded this program and all the research come 

from? Do hunters finance this through their license fees (game/fish) or do 

organizations like PETA or Sierra Club finance them? General tax fund? 

Whoever pays should decide. 

Questions from Spearfish 

20. How can one protect your property and family in the event a lion would be 

living in the area? 

21. What number, as a percentage of the total volume, of mountain lions is 

actually responsible for the recent headlines? What are most recent statistics 

regarding livestock losses, compared to natural attrition and /or other 

predators? 

22. Why does this plan for out of state hunters? I feel it should be state residents 

only. 

23. If a lion is threatening our livestock or people can we shoot it without getting 

in trouble? 

24. How can landowners best protect cattle, etc. from possible lion problems? 

73



25. Would there be a way of allowing the hunters to go after specific problem 

animals like deer depredation hunts? 

26. Collars – How do growing animals not get choked? Can they hang up on 

brush/branches? Do they make a lion more violent? 

27. Don’t you think humans are the problem, not the lions? If there are so many 

lions, why are there so many deer? Whose ego are you trying to satisfy? 

Why can’t the male lions be neutered? 

28. Why not use hounds? Are they more humane than stressing an animal 

chasing it? 

29. With the abundant population, why would it be such a problem to lose some 

females? 

30. What is the relationship of this plan to the deer, turkey and other wildlife? 

31. Do damage control and road kill lions count towards the proposed 20 lion 

hunter harvest quota? 

32. Are lion killed deer/elk considered bait? 

33. What are the approximate SD miles of habitat and where are the main 

breeding areas? 

34. What is the estimate number of lions in the Black Hills by gender? 

35. Is there a danger to playing children due to yelling, etc.? 

36. How are you going to be sure female lions that are shot don’t have kittens and 

what do you do if that happens? Are you just going to let the kittens die? 

37. Why do we need mountain lions in the Black Hills, period? 

38. How do you put up with the radicals? 

39. How will you control the “wild, drunk, frat-boy” type hunters wanting to kill 

cats? Have there been any genetic studies on our mountain lion population? 

Are they inbred? How will hunting affect their genetics? Have any other 

states done genetics studies? How can you guarantee a viable population for 

the future if there haven’t been any genetics studies? 

74



Questions from Custer 

40. Does the home range of a lion become smaller with more lions living here and 

abundant deer supply? 

41. How can you control a hunt like what is proposed? 

42. Would a reduced deer herd affect the lion population? 

43. Why is Wyoming allowed to kill lions in South Dakota? 

44. How does a hunter tell which gender he’s hunting? 

45. Why not watch for natural population fluctuations? Why aren’t mapped lion 

territories published? 

46. How will hunters stop problem lions? What will you do with kittens if 

nursing mother is killed? Will you kill the kittens? Why did Custer have 

meeting in a place full of “hunting trophies” rather than a neutral ground? 

47. How many lions? 

48. Is the purpose to raise money or to manage the lion population? 

Questions from Sioux Falls 

49. How many deer do mountain lions kill each year? 

50. What is the reproduction percentage, as compared to a possible harvest of 

14%? 

51. What legal protections can one carry to ward them off, if confronted? Type of 

Type of alarm or buzzer? Light effective (flashlight)? 

52. If you are hunting turkeys, you may call in a lion. Is it legal to shoot it if you 

feel you’re endangered? This could be either season (fall or spring). 

75



Questions from Brookings 

53. How many attacks historically have come from lions that weren’t seen? 

54. Because of the lion season and their trophy status, will this promote illegal 

taking of mountain lions (baiting, trapping, or use of dogs? 

55. What is the penalty for lions taken illegally? Is it practical to base season 

quota on hunter responsibility (are all hunters going to be responsible)? 

56. Why harvest only 20 lions in your proposed season? 

Questions from Yankton 

57. Would you give help to hunters (training schools)? 

Questions from Pierre 

58. Has anyone looked at whether human interaction with lions decreased once 

they are hunted (any other states)? In other words – learn to fear humans. 

Questions from Chamberlain/Oacoma 

59. How will GF&P deal with hunters who get a lion license and shoots a radio 

collared mountain lion? Would that data be available to that hunter (available 

after the kill so the hunter can find out past history of the cat’s travel), or 

would radio collared cats be off limits? 

Questions from Buffalo 

60. Why not use traps? 

61. Why not use dogs? 

62. Why after our forerunners sport millions of dollars and innumerable manhours 

to get rid of them, does the GF&P feel a burning need to grow the 

population up to “saturation level”? 

76



Questions from Aberdeen 

63. Allowing out-of-state hunters to hunt puma? 

64. Can someone get a mountain lion tag only, or do they also need a big game 

tag to also have a mountain lion tag in the Black Hills? 

Questions from Mitchell 

65. Why are you eliminating hunting with dogs and eliminating bobcat hunting? 

66. Why not hunt with hounds? 

77

Mountain Lion Management in South Dakota Appendix E 

Larry M. Gigliotti Comments/Questions from Students 

Appendix E – Comments/Questions from Stevens High School 

students (4/22/05) Comments were made before they heard the talk by Steve 

Griffin 

COMMENTS: 

1. I believe that they are threatening our pets, BUT if we kill them off we will have 

problems with deer more than we already have. 

2. I want to hunt them with my trailing dogs. 

3. I think a mountain lion season would be great. 

4. Great idea! 

5. It would be fun. 

6. I strongly support a lion season. 

7. Manage and do a good job. 

8. I think the season would be great for hunters in our community only if the lion 

population was adequate to the type of season. 

9. We should get rid of them, at least more than 20 – more like 30 or 35 because we 

don't need them here in the Black Hills. Think of the people that live in the Black 

Hills or around the Black Hills that are worried about the mountain lions in the 

neighborhood or around them. Maybe the people are afraid to go out and work on 

their lawns or gardens or maybe to play around in the yards with their family. 

10. I don't think we need to manage them since we're the ones making homes in their 

territory. They were here first and people knew that when they chose to build or live 

there. They eat deer and deer are more out of control than they are so that's pretty 

cool. 

11. I don't think mountain lions are as big a problem as deer. 

12. Good job. 

13. I think the season should be postponed until more is known about the mountain lion 

population. After it is known for sure that males and females are balanced and that 

they have taken permanent residence in the Black Hills. The season is a good idea. 

14. I believe the use of hounds will be needed to reach 20 lions and to be able to scare 

mountain lions and give them a fear of people and dogs. 

15. Mountain lions are cool. 

78



16. From a hunters point of view it is a good idea. 

17. Do it. 

18. I think we do need some management plan. 

19. I believe that we need to start a healthy management program for the mountain lions. 

20. I agree that is a good plan. Something needs to be done. Some adults in the hills may 

no longer trust their children playing outside alone. 

21. I think it would be beneficial to let hunters use hounds. They should have to get the 

hounds certified before the season, that way, only hunters who have hounds and are 

experienced with them can use them. 

22. I think we should let them be then when everything begins to get kind of out of 

control then do something. But they are not doing anything right now. 

23. Housing development in the hills should be restricted, especially in areas where lions 

have become a problem. The more people living in the hills area, the more likely 

there will be some sort of interaction between lion and human. 

24. I believe the public is over reacting about this. We have shared this land with 

mountain lions for hundreds of years. Now that their population is increasing, we 

should be glad that they are thriving. 

25. We shouldn't hunt the mountain lions on how many sightings there has been, and on 

how many deaths. About 10 years ago the mountain lion population was to where 

they were rarely visible to the humans. Now that we are starting to see them a little 

more doesn't mean we should start killing them. If people want to move into the 

Black Hills and live where the wildlife, like the mountain lions, then that’s their fault 

because the lions have made there habitat there. So I strongly disagree on hunting 

these animals. 

26. Being mountain lions are predators, and must kill to survive, people must be more 

open-minded to the cougar. As a part of living in this area, one must learn to live 

with the wildlife. Cougars are opportunistic hunters, and rely on these opportunities 

to survive. We keep moving further and further into their habitat. So people need to 

accept the fact that it is a possibility for a lion to kill a pet or livestock. I personally 

live in the Nemo area, and I have no problem with the growing mountain lion 

population. 

27. I think a hunting season would be really fun. 

79



28. I live right on the edge of the hills and have never heard, seen or ever heard of a 

mountain lion. I don't think there are as many as everyone thinks. But if there is a 

large population I would support the idea of a hunting season. 

QUESTIONS: 

1. When is the season starting? 

2. Where and when can I get a license? 

3. How often do lions mate? How big are their talons? How much does a mountain lion 

brain weigh? 

4. Would the boundaries be Black Hills National Forest or would it extend onto the 

prairie? 

5. Exact amount of mountain lions in the area? 

6. Are the licenses going to be on our property of just the Black Hills only? That would 

be bad because we have 3 mountain lions on our property and we want to get them 

out for our cows' sake. 

7. Dangers? 

8. How will you make sure only 20 mountain lions are killed? 

9. How many people have actually been injured by mountain lions? 

10. If mountain lions are getting over populated by how many sightings, how do you 

know that it can be the same one that the other person might have seen? 

11. Have there been any confirmed cases of attacks on humans in South Dakota? 

12. What is the best way to track a mountain lion? 

13. Have they ever killed a person in the Black Hills over the past 10 years? 

80

Mountain Lion Management in South Dakota Appendix F 

Larry M. Gigliotti Web-based responses 

Appendix F – Web responses on the S.D. mountain lion management plan. 

Comment #1 -- Black Hawk, SD 

Hello, 

I am a member of the Mountain Lion Foundation and would like to forward you to their website. They 

are based in CA and have had quite a bit of experience in handling the topic of lions. Please note that they 

have extensive information available for government and public awareness. I plan on attending the RC 

meeting to bring this info to the table so hopefully we can all live in harmony. Also, I am forwarding you 

my email correspondence with them so you may obtain additional info for your and the public's use. Thank 

you for your consideration in keeping our Mtn. Lion population protected. 

www.MountainLion.org 

************************************************************************************** 

Hi Chris, 

Thank you for contacting me and for planning to take the time to attend this meeting. 

Attached are two fact sheets that will provide you with background information regarding mountain lions 

and the effects of sport hunting. The second was written in response to the recent hunting bill (AB 24) 

proposed in California - but the facts are the same for every state. 

They are also available on the Mountain Lion Foundation website: 

http://mountainlion.mediatools.org/objects/browse-objects.acs?object_type_id=123 

The Mountain Lion Foundation worked with 4-H and FFA groups in California to develop a predator-proof 

livestock enclosure. We have built several of these with these groups to protect their livestock and to 

provide a model for the community. The basic (most cost efficient) plans are available on 

our website for free. Many people have downloaded these plans and adjusted them for their animals - some 

turn out to be quite elaborate - then send us photos. If you know of anyone who would benefit from these 

plans, please send them to this webpage or print the plans for them: 

http://www.mountainlion.org/publications.asp 

Let me know how it goes on Tuesday. I will be keeping our members and supporters up to date on what is 

happening there - and in Oregon and Washington. California and New Mexico have put their hunting bills 

aside, for now. 

Have you subscribed for our e-mail updates? You can do that on our website or from the link below. 

Thanks again for your time and efforts! 

For the lions, 

Subscribe to receive free cougar updates: 

http://visitor.constantcontact.com/optin.jsp?m=1100357188761&ea= 

Mountain Lion Foundation 

Saving America's Lion 

916-442-2666 ext 110 

www.mountainlion.org 

81



Comment #2 -- Rapid City, SD 

Anchorage Alaska has a population of 250,000 people. Over 1,000 moose live in and around the city. It is 

not unusual for a grizzly or black bear to be seen in the city limits. I played golf in Anchorage and there 

was a large bull moose browsing along the edge of fairway. We simply gave it a wide berth. The people 

there are largely educated about moose and bear and how to behave in their territory. There is no panic or 

quick execution if a moose is in someone's back yard. 

South Dakota Game Fish and Park have acted correctly and quickly when problem lions arise. I do not 

believe a hunting season is called needed. l. There is no real accurate mountain lion population statistics. 

In 2004 the Rapid City Journal often cited an estimated 140 lion in the Black Hills. Some 25 lions died last 

year under a variety of circumstances. Now the RCJ is citing 160 lions in their articles on lions. No one 

really knows, and I realize not an easy animal to count. 

South Dakota is one of the largest least populated states in the union. If they cannot find room to live here 

then where? If Alaskans can be trained how to behave around potentially dangerous animals then so can 

we. GF&P personnel have their time wasted by lion calls that turn out to be house cats, sheep, dogs and 

fox. Educate the public, count the lions, NO hunting season, and when out on a hike don't beat rattlesnakes 

to death and be aware one is in lion country. I find that exciting and one's senses develop a new awareness. 

That is what makes one feel alive. 

Good Luck, 


I attended the meeting in Rapid City on 4/12. It was good to hear different opinions about the proposed 

Mountain Lion season. I still feel that until more information is available about the actual Mountain Lion 

population size, I am opposed to a Mountain Lion season. I am very supportive of GFP's efforts to educate 

the public about Mountain Lions and what to do if one is confronted. I personally have never seen one. I 

hike a lot in the Black Hills. You are handling this difficult task very professionally. Not easy to keep 

every one happy. 


Since there is still so many unanswered questions on this population it seems the best thing to do is have 

you - the Game Fish and Parks Department - be responsible for removing lions. You are privy to the GPS 

and other telemetry data (this includes sex, age and distribution data especially the distribution of lions 

whose ranges interface with residences), you have the use of dogs, and you can hunt in areas off limits to 

the public. This way you could remove a lion or two at a time and monitor the effects. At $10 a lion this is 

not about the money, obviously. But the potential exists for some major screw-ups and dishonesty. 

Managing a top predator is risky all the way around and I think you need to demonstrate that removing a 

few animals or sub adult males is going to help the situation before opening it up to hunters that may shoot 

at anything. By nature of their location, i.e., where the deer and elk are hunters are apt to target lions whose 

ranges do not present a potential problem. 

Also if these animals are in fact above carrying capacity then there should be some "self" regulation already 

taking place possibly beyond emigration. Have you taken this in to consideration? 

82



Comment #5 -- Hill City, SD 

It is a proven and well know fact that the most efficient and effective way to harvest Mt. Lions is with 

hounds. Also with the use of hounds in lion hunting one has the means to be selective in what is harvested 

and what is not. If the dogs tree a mother lion that may have or does have kittens the dogs can be pulled off 

the tree and the mother left to raise her young. That would likely not be the case if a hunter would happen 

to stubble upon one. Chances are good that if that same mother and kittens were happened upon, that lion 

might be shot quickly, before on realizes it has young. Kittens that are orphaned if old enough to survive, 

usually turn into "problem lions". Another benefit of being able to harvest older mature males is that when 

you remove an older dominant male from an area it makes room for some younger sub adult males to 

establish a territory were it couldn't have before, and keeps them from trouble areas such as towns. Other 

states such as Montana have a non hound season followed by a hound, season if there are still lions on the 

quota to be filled. All other western states that have a lion season allow hounds, or are reopening a hound 

season. I strongly feel that hounds are needed in SD to have a safe successful Mt lion season. I also ask that 

if this season passes with out hounds please do not make it illegal to use hounds to hunt bobcats in the hills, 

myself and others feel in would be discriminating against houndsmen to outlaw hounds for bobcats in the 

hills.....but continue to allow trapping for bobcats in the hills. Thank You 


I enjoy hunting and fishing. I am in support of a mountain lion season. To me waiting for some dogs to tree 

a mountain lion and then shooting a terrified cat out of a tree is NOT hunting. What about the safety factor 

of shooting at an animal without a background to stop the bullet in case of a miss. I realize using dogs to 

tree the cats is the most productive way to harvest the cats. I feel only a select few would benefit from 

using dogs, the wealthy and the dog guides. I have hunted in the hills for thirty some years and have never 

seen a mountain lion, but I would buy a license with the chance of seeing a mountain lion. Otherwise keep 

up the good work. 


I believe the GFP has done a thorough job researching the mtn. lion situation in the Black Hills 

and now needs to act. I have hunted deer and turkey in the Black Hills for over 20 yrs. and have noticed a 

huge increase in mtn. lion activity over the last 5 yrs. This has included tracks scrapes and one sighting. 

The lion, which my son and I briefly saw later, proved to had been following us for 100 yards or more. This 

was evidenced by tracks in the snow on top of ours 

as we walked back to our truck at the end of a days deer hunt. In my opinion the game dept. should allow 

the use of dogs to hunt to instill some fear of humans in the cats. This would make a quota of 20 cats more 

attainable and give the game dept. valuable research data that would help in future management. Its my 

opinion that hunting mtn. lions will not in any way 

harm the population but only help manage the lions which would be safer for all who live and visit the 

Black Hills. I would like to mention that i have no great desire to hunt or shoot a mtn. lion but think that 

they be made to fear and avoid human contact by dog assisted hunts. 

83



Comment #8 -- Spearfish, SD 

The personnel who ran the Spearfish mtn lion meeting were very professional, very peaceful, despite a 

couple of quite aggressive, derogatory attendees who seemed to have little grasp of biology, science, etc 

and had a planned agenda when they spoke. Your personnel certainly did not give them any reason to 

figure they hadn't been heard. I like the proposed plan. It will raise some money for the state. Hopefully 

most of the deer hunters will give the $10 fee. I personally have no desire to shoot a mtn lion(I've seen 2, 

neither in the season you propose) but will give the money for the permit in case it should become 

necessary to do so. Also if it helps manage the lions I'm OK with $10. However I remain quite skeptical 

that there will be 20 lions killed by incidental hunters without hounds. Butplease do the season as you 

propose as it involves a lot of the public. It also will raise some money. But as one lady asked, what 

happens if the quota is not reached by Dec 31? I propose that you then sell high dollar hunts, perhaps 

similar to the trophy buffalo hunts in the park. I don't know what would be an appropriate fee but it could 

be in 4 figures and involve hounds. Only sell,probably by lottery, the number of permits it would take to 

complete your quota for the year, let the season run from Jan 1 until the quota is filled. It would not 

involve that many hunters, would allow adequate supervision of the hunters and their guides(perhaps 

provided by the GFP) and tend to insure that only males would be taken. It could be a good fund raiser for 

the dept and assist in the management of a wonderful big game animal that enhances the out door 

experience in the Black Hills. 

Final comment--You have 2 very good CO's in our area(probably all of your CO's are good) that I would 

like to mention. Apland and Eastman are very well respected by both the land owners and the hunters. I 

suspect that the antihunters probably are hard pressed to object to them also. 

Thank you for the mtn lion meetings and to become more aggressive about managing these creatures. 


Sirs, Just came from your presentation here in Spearfish regarding lion hunting. It was a very good 

presentation, well done! I think your approach to lion management by having public meetings is a great 

idea. I've hunted, (calling), coyotes for about thirty yrs. now, have never seen a lion, only tracks. I shoot 

around 35 coyotes a season. I would like to make a suggestion for the lion season. Have your regular 

season like your planning without dogs up until about Dec. 1, then after that allow dogs till season end. I 

think you will be very disappointed with the harvest numbers if dogs are not used for part of the season. 

After all, 20 harvested is the goal and would be good management practice. That's all I got, good luck with 

the plan. 

Comment #10 -- Sioux Falls, SD 

I like the idea. I have a cabin in Jenny Gultch. I've seen cats out there for the last 20 yrs. I've seen as many 

as three cats in one day. Don't screw this up as bad as you do the drawings for Elk permits. Just think of the 

money GFP can generate from this proposal. 

84




I believe a mountain lion season is a good idea but I definitely think that it would be a big mistake to have 

it coincide with the deer and elk season. For one thing people like me who have been putting in for a elk tag 

for 11 years and finally draw surely don't want to have people out there chasing around lions when you are 

in the middle of your hunt for deer or elk. Also I think that using dogs is the way to go because lions are 

primarily nocturnal and that is another reason it should be run at a different time. 

One other thing that was brought up at the Spearfish meeting was some people were in favor of charging 

a higher fee for the lion tag I strongly disagree to that. I already feel that we are to high priced on big game 

tags in South Dakota turkey tags are really outrageous for what you get. I think if there are going to be an 

unlimited number of lion tags at $10.00 that is plenty of revenue for the Game, Fish & Parks. 


1. Not knowing which of the lions are the problem makers, it would seem foolish to me to kill several in 

hopes of solving any part of the problem. 

2.With more rural homes being built in the hills people will have to become more responsible and 

intelligent when living among wild animals. We cannot feed any wild animals that the mountain lions can 

prey upon. I don't feel that lions are predators of humans unless drawn into an fear type situation brought 

about by careless humans. 

3.It appears that most of the proponents of the lion season are people that consider killing wild animals a 

"sport" and really have little concern for the seriousness of the situation. 

4. I would like to see the further removal (live or dead) of any mountain lion based on a per need basis with 

serious consideration of each situation and just what brought the lion into the problem area. We should if at 

all possible relocate the lions to remote areas where they can live without fear of death by shooting. 

5.Let's not enact a hunting season just to pacify a minority---a couple of incidents and the lust some hunters 

have to track and kill. Patience to construct an intelligent plan will result in a better balance of man and 

nature in the long run. 


The opinion sheet handed out at the recent public meetings are well prepared and should be available on 

this web site for ease of providing comments. I will respond here using the sheet format. 

1. I enjoy having mountain lions and I do not worry about problems they may cause. 

2. I disagree with a mountain lion season at this time. 

3. I would not be interested in a mountain lion season. 

4. I am a South Dakota resident. 

5. I am a male, 55 years of age. 

Written Comments: After attending the meeting in Rapid City, I was more concerned about the behavior of 

some of the attending people than an attack from a mountain lion. Some of those people should not be 

allowed to walk the streets. 

The GFP did a nice job with the meeting on Tuesday in Rapid City. 

85




1. I enjoy having mountain lions around and I don't worry about them. 

2. I do not support a mountain lion season 

3. I am not interested in a mountain lion season. 

4. I am a South Dakota resident. 

5. I am a female 53 years of age. 

Written comments: People need to take responsibility for their actions when they place pets and livestock 

in mountain lion territory. The mountain lion should not suffer because people fail to properly secure their 

animals. 

Comment #15 -- Potomac Falls, VA 

I believe that if a mountain lion were to attack any livestock or people they then could be shot with a 

tranquilizer gun and be relocated to different grounds. Please don't let your fear rule your decisions in 

preserving this crucial balance of nature. Don't forget it is us who intrude on THEIR land... Please think 

globally and act locally. Thank you. 

Comment #16 -- Custer, SD 

I am a male 60 year old SD resident, . I attended the meeting on 4/15/05 in Custer. It was a good meeting. 

I feel very strongly that living in the Black Hills also means living with wild life. I have lived here since 

1985 and have seen 3 lions in all that time. I am aware when I am in the woods but it is not something that 

I worry about. After all if you swim in the ocean and get attacked by a shark do you blame the shark? I 

would not be in favor of a season on lions at this point in time. I would have to see a lot more data on the 

subject and definitely would not be in favor at any time of using hounds. There is just too much private 

property in the hills to allow such a practice. I am not against hunting. It is a sport that I very much enjoy, 

so I am not against hunting lions as a matter of principle. Landowners and visitors alike have to take 

responsibility for their own welfare when they enter areas that support large predators. It seems like some 

people expect life to be totally risk free. I would guess that the odds of getting mugged in a big city are 

much greater than being attacked by a lion. I don't expect that I would ever have the desire to hunt a lion. I 

would much rather see some kind of a pool of hunters that would obtain a license and use it only to kill a 

problem lion. 

Comment #17 -- Tippecanoe, IN 

They should be saved not hunted down like bad animals. I know that this is not always possible, but they 

should not be killed just because they killed. 

Comment #18 -- Lelystad, Netherlands 

Please save the mountain lions??? 

86



Comment #19 -- Hamill, SD 

Having been lucky enough to see a mountain lion on 3 separate occasions [once on the prairie and twice in 

the hills]. I really am looking forward to maybe having the opportunity to hunt them. After reading all of 

the reports and surveys I feel that the Game Fish and Parks has done a very good job of coming up with the 

best method of managing the mountain lion in both the lions and the residents best interest. Thank you 


I strongly feel that we need to have a mountain lion season. They are a problem and are starting to migrate 

out of the Black Hills into other parts of the state and into other states. The only way that we will be able to 

control the lions that the state wants killed (males) is to use hounds. If a houndsman like myself trees a lion 

that is a female or a spotted cat we can and will let it go. Houndsman have no desire to kill females or 

spotted cats. If you let all of the elk and deer hunters hunt lions yes they might kill 8 of the 20 but I bet that 

7 of them will be females and spotted cats and half of them will be shot in the guts because if you do see 

one chances are it will be running and not present a good shot. The biggest problem that I heard at the 

Custer meeting was people are scared of stray bullets well I guess there is only one solution for that don't 

let everyone that wants a tag have one and don't let nonresidents have a tag. The state has over 700 elks 

tags given out every year and you don't let non-residents have those. Now we all know that non-residents 

hunting elk in South Dakota will be the next thing the state does, after you try and close bobcat season to 

houndsmen. When the trappers are the people that are killing all of the bobcats. 


Dear Game, Fish and Parks Directors, 

I strongly oppose your mountain lion management plan. Here are my reasons: 

First, I do not believe we need to "manage" lions at this time. Your own spokesmen point out that collared 

Black Hills lions normally disperse without our help, sometimes to as far away as Oklahoma. Judging from 

the number of prey animals I see every day (sometimes I count more than 100 deer along the roadside 

between Custer and Rapid City,) I don't believe that we have too many lions. In fact, I think you game 

managers should cut back on the hunting of bobcats, coyotes and other predators. We need these animals to 

keep deer and other prey animal populations healthy and to control the proliferation of prairie dogs and 

other rodents. 

Second, your provision to exempt females "with kittens present" will do no good. I'm sure your game 

biologists must know that mother cougars normally do not take their small kittens with them when they 

hunt. If you look lt Wyoming's record, where a large portion of the harvest has been female, you can 

expect that hunting here will result in many cubs starving to death. 

Third, it's a known fact that sport hunting increases the number of sub-adult lions. As you know, it is these 

young animals which most often become the problem lions .You don't need a degree in zoology to be able 

to conclude that killing females will result in increased numbers of sub-adults not yet proficient in hunting 

their natural prey who then might turn to killing livestock or even people. 

Fourth, I think you should realize that there are a lot of us out here who for ethical or religious reasons 

object strongly to hunting and killing animals for "sport." I read recently that a humane organization has 

labeled South Dakota second only to Alaska as one of the most brutal states in the nation when it comes to 

the treatment of animals. I'm afraid that it's probably true, and I, for one, am not proud of that. 

I do support one part of your plan I would like to see an end to hunting bobcats with dogs. I have lived in 

Custer for four years and I ride or hike almost every day, yet I have never seen a bobcat here. 

Comment #22 -- Pierre, SD 

For once I think you have a good idea in regards to unlimited licenses with a limited harvest 

87



Comment #23 -- Spring Lake, MN 

Mountain Lion Management Plan: I own a cottage in Spearfish Canyon, at the mouth of Dead Ox Canyon, 

approximately 4 miles SW of Cheyenne Crossing. I am opposed to a hunting season for the Mountain Lion, 

and especially with the use of dogs to hunt. I have owned this property since 1970 and to this day I have 

never seen a mountain lion in SD. I hope to, and more importantly I enjoy the thought of knowing they may 

be roaming the area. Why is it always necessary to shoot everything that moves in the forest? With the 

technologies available today we should be able to have a better method of counting and determining the 

numbers of animals in the area. I hope that the SD GFP can come up with a better plan to manage wildlife 

and not be influenced by a few homeowners that are worried that their cat and dogs will be a lunch for the 

mountain lions. IF you move into the woods you have to become a part of the environment and not try to 

change it to a suburban neighborhood. Respectfully submitted... 

Comment #24 -- Salem, SD 

IT'S ABOUT TIME!!!! It has been very evident that there is a PROBLEM with the lion population in the 

Black Hills. With the number of lions being killed, it only makes sense to have a season to harvest lions to 

maintain a population within the carrying capacity of the hills, as it is quit apparent that the lion population 

has exceeded the carrying capacity of the hills. Why not add funding to the state/GFP (from license 

fees)??? 

The concern that I have with the proposed hunting season is the restriction on hound use. How will a 

hunter be able to harvest a lion???? PURE LUCK. Of the sightings reported, how many would have given 

the opportunity to make an ethical/quality shot on the animal??? My guess would be non of them!!!! 

My perception of this plan is: the GFP is try to make a plan to make a lot of money (selling a $10 tag to all 

elk and deer hunters) with very limited number of harvested animals. I can only hope that my fellow 

hunters will see this and not fall into the trap. 

If GFP truly wants to see the effects of harvesting 20 lions, give up (hunters) a reasonable means of 

harvesting them. 

If the financial benefit is a big deal, charge more and eliminate the average "Joe" that is just going to drive 

around and call himself a "hunter" and get upset because they never saw a lion. 

It's going to take dogs to harvest cats!!!!!!! 

Comment #25 -- Sioux Falls, IA 

I do not believe there should be a hunting season on mountain lions. Nor do I believe they should be "shot" 

when they are found in any city or town. They should be darted & relocated if anything is done to them. 

We have not had any mountain lions around here for a long time because they were killed off or their 

habitat was taken from them. They are finally starting to make a comeback & now people want to start 

destroying them all over again. Don't we endanger enough species the way it is!!! Why can't we just leave 

them alone to live. I believe their main food source is deer; not people. Their not going to jump out of a 

tree at you, like the way old westerns use to portray them doing. Just let them live. 

88




I am assuming that one of the goals of the mountain lion management plan is to reduce negative 

interactions between people and mountain lions. I believe that harvesting random animals (vs. guilty lions) 

may serve to increase these negative interactions. It seems inevitable that some of the lions harvested will 

be females with young. Is it possible that the juvenile lions will become “delinquents” due to being 

orphaned? Certainly young lions spend a considerable amount of time with their mothers. If this time is 

cut in half, will the young lions become desperate in their selection of prey due to their lack of skills? This 

scenario could lead to the selection of an increased amount of domestic animals (or humans) because of 

their ease in capture. I don’t want to get carried away, but I don’t believe this possibility is far-fetched or 

negligible. I am not anti-hunting when it serves an ecological purpose. Even if the hunt was simply for 

recreational purposes and not have any deleterious effects, I would not be questioning it. However, if this 

management plan could have the proposed negative outcome, I believe it would trump any recreational 

purposes. 

Comment #27 -- Sioux Center, IA 

I sent you an e-mail via another web url. I keep track o cougar in NW Iowa and some on your easternmost 

border. http://homepages.dordt.edu/~mahaffy/mtlion/mtlionshort_intro.html I just printed out and looked 

at your proposal. I have also read Fecske thesis and talked with the Black hill's wild life officials. They 

believe 

that the Black Hills is at carrying capacity. Since it is the nearest resident population that is documented 

and a probable source for many of the dispersing males in this area, I think opening up some male 

territories 

in the Black Hills would be good. I also think you have done a good job of aggressively removing problem 

cats. 

In the past the weakest part of the state has been in communication with the public compared to 

Nebraska. However, I just noticed that your Statewide report is linked to your webpage and it really 

gives the public a good feel for what the Game officials have done (good job). Perhaps when you list 

reports 

you might indicate that reports (as opposed to confirmation - print evidence) will be inflated after an 

incident 

and generated more frequently in urban areas. Nebraska used to map all the good reports but was finding 

most of them from Lincoln or Omaha area. When they switched to just confirmations they had more 

in the west which reflects the population. 

Could you send me a copy of your brochures. I just did an extensive review of the literature. I think your 

brochure may generalize diet a little too much from the Black Hill's. I will be happy (once exams are in) 

to give you my feedback. 

I am giving a talk at the Sioux Fall's Zoo this afternoon. 

89




The current plan giving GF&P authority to deal with problem mountain lions is the best program and any 

public hunting season should be abandoned. People would kill lions that are not a problem and cause 

unnecessary hardship to the species as a whole. A public hunting season would also create revenue which 

would quickly be justified as economically vital to people such as outfitters. A Pandora's box will open if a 

hunting season is allowed and would insure mountain lion hunting would be here to stay. 

A public ban of feeding wildlife and requiring domesticated animals in the Hills to be properly fenced 

should be a mandate. This was brought up at the Rapid City meeting and GF&P's reply was that people 

would hate them even more if they were the ones to propose legislation. However unpopular this action 

may be to some people, the ultimate goal is the management of Mountain Lions. The GF&P management 

program must make people be partially responsible for the reduction of human/lion encounters. Otherwise, 

this would just be a plan with no other objective than to allow people to hunt mountain lions. Please keep 

the current plan and do not allow the public hunting of mountain lions in the Black Hills. 

Comment #29 -- Lennox, SD 

It is my understanding that there will be an unlimited sale of Mountain Lion (ML) tags available with an 

annual harvest limited to 20 ML's. It is also my understanding that these harvests will be limited to the 

Black Hills Fire Protection District. While I agree with having a ML season and I believe this is the proper 

way to manage the season, I think by limiting the legal area for harvest to the Black Hills is to restrictive. 

In my opinion, the legal harvest area should encompass the entire state. By doing this, it would promote 

the sale of more ML tags (most likely deer hunters buying them in the off chance of an encounter) and 

produce more income for the GF&P. It would also make sense--since most ML outside the Black Hills 

would/could be considered problem lions--that these animals are the ones that should be harvested. It also 

would seem that most ML's not in the Black hills would be migrant males, so the possibility of harvesting a 

reproducing female would be limited. It seems like a win/win situation. Thank you for your consideration 

and allowing me to comment. I would appreciate any comments back considering these thoughts. I can be 

reached by email at: mamt1@iw.net Thank you, 


I am a hunter that enjoys hunting in the Hills. I have had the pleasure of seeing a lion a couple of times. I 

for one do not see a need for the season on the lions. I base this belief only on the fact that they are not a 

bother to me and I have no recollection of an attack on a human. However if the carrying capacity is being 

exceeded then I believe that the State should respond as it would with any other big game animal. I guess 

that there are a lot of people who believe there should be a season on the lion because they are becoming a 

danger to the humans who live in the area. I do not support this reason as a factor in the decision for a 

season or not. I would like to hear your reason for not allowing dogs to be used. I would guess that if you 

used dogs you could regulate better the sex, age, location, ect. of the lions being taken. I’m not sure if you 

respond to these comments or not, if you do I am curious, if not thanks for taking the time to hear my point 

of view. Thank You. 


I like the idea of the quota system and no dogs. Would like at least for the first year to keep it open to only 

South Dakota residents to give us a chance to get up to speed with hunter from near by states that have been 

hunting Mountain Lions for years. 

90



Comment #32 -- Brandon, SD 

I am in favor of the proposed hunting season and will buy a license if the season does in fact take place. I 

would also be in favor of the season extending to the entire West River. It seems to make sense that if a 

male has a range of 300 square miles that the open hunting territory be somewhat larger than the Black 

Hills. Furthermore, the fee should be higher. It is a big game animal, make it at least as much as a turkey 

license. Thank you for considering my comments 


After attending the Meeting in Pierre on April 26th, I realized that their is a small group of individuals who 

would like to see dogs used to control the lion population in the Hills. Their intent is obvious, they have 

the dogs and want to be able to offer their services for a price. 

After having a close encounter of my own with a large male lion in 2002, I have paid close attention to the 

issue in the Hills. I would like to share with you a perspective that was passed on to me by a northern hills 

resident and hunting guide. He lives one mile from the Wyoming line and is familiar with the lion season in 

the neighboring Wyoming unit. 

His theory was that the mountain lion has only one predator, its own species. The adult dominant males 

control the population by killing lion kittens and will either kill or run out of the Hills any other subadult 

male that may enter it's territory. He believed that if dogs were used exclusively in attempt to control the 

population, that it could actually have the reverse affect. Traditionally, the hunters with dogs want only 

males and the biggest males they can find. This would hold especially true if they were guiding a client 

who had paid big dollars for a cat hunt. By removing the dominant big males you have increased the infant 

survival rate, and allowed younger males to establish numerous small "home ranges", with the increasing 

and sustained female population. 

This is only a theory. But I believe that it has some substance and felt it worthwhile to share with you. 

I support the proposed plan because it allows ALL residents to participate if they so desire. Thank You 

Comment #34 -- Meadow, SD 

Mountain Lions don't have any place in South Dakota. 

I just wanted to make that statement clear so there wouldn't be any question as to my thoughts on this 

matter. This state is still primarily an agricultural state. We have large numbers of cattle, sheep and horses. 

And to this mix you have children, joggers, campers, hikers and citizens in general who could be hurt or 

killed by these mountain lions. We have put a bounty out on predators to get rid of them in the past, 

because predators and humans do not share the same understanding of life. We are starting our 5th year of 

a drought here in western South Dakota, along with a depressed economy. I'm thinking if South Dakota 

Game Fish And Parks had to reimburse South Dakota land owners for loss in livestock, grazing and crop 

production, and possibly human life, South Dakota Game Fish and Parks would have a much better grasp 

on game management. 

91




I was at the April 12 meeting in Rapid City and heard a lot of opinions pertaining to the proposed Mountain 

Lion Management Plan. I agree with what appeared to me to be the majority of the people present that we 

need to manage the lions and that the best way to do that is a regulated hunting season. This will not only 

help to keep the cats at or near the carrying capacity of the land, but will also generate revenue for the 

continued study of the animals. This I believe to be very important as I asked a biologist at that meeting if 

you were now studying lions on the prairie or planned to do so in the future. He told me you were planning 

to do studies on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation but do not have the money to do it right now. 

I am concerned, however, about the split between the people of wealth and those who say they cannot 

afford to pay an outfitter to guide them. My concern pertains to all hunting in South Dakota, but for now I 

will stick with the issue at hand. 

Many people at the meeting said they can't afford to hire a guide to hunt lions so hunting with hounds 

shouldn't be allowed. While I agree that people without these means are vital to the future of hunting and 

wildlife management, I believe it to be no different for them to try and keep the affluent from pursuing 

those hunting methods they can afford than it is for the wealthy to price the rest of us out of hunting. 

That having been said I propose this option: Instead of a quota of 20 lions killed from hunters buying 10 

dollar over the counter tags, make the quota 17 or 18 cats for the "over the counter " hunters and issue 2 or 

3 tags by lottery draw for a greatly increased price (100 to 200 dollars) and with a 5 dollar non-refundable 

application fee for those hunters who can afford to hire a guide. Then allow the hound hunters only the last 

month of the season to chase the cats. If I remember your proposed season correctly (October through 

December?)that would put the hound hunters in the woods after the deer/lion hunters have left. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment! 

Comment #36 -- Interior, SD 

I am a resident of Jackson County and an outdoorsman that enjoys the abundant wildlife of our State, but I 

also understand the need to manage these wildlife populations through harvest and other means available. 

Based on your data of lion sightings, road kills, and the research being accomplished by the SDSU graduate 

student, it is apparent that the lion habitat in the Black Hills is saturated and a harvest season is warranted. 

The season as proposed to harvest 20 individuals may not be realized without the use of dogs. The 

opportunistic take by hunters without the use of dogs will be minimal and not fully reach your harvest goal. 

If the Department continues with this proposal as is, perhaps they could implement into the mandatory call 

in system (to check the quota figures) for the hunters in which you post the locations and times of the most 

recent public sightings of lions. This would give potential hunters a place to start hunting and looking for 

sign, would potentially increase the odds of harvest if the lions are still in the area, and might address 

"problem cats" that are near residential areas. 

For future management of the lion population in South Dakota, it is my hope that the Department develops 

an annual census method for lions with the results used to establish the harvest quota numbers based on that 

annual estimated density. I believe that the method currently used for the bobcat season, in which the 

previous years harvest information is used to estimate the current population and to establish the associated 

harvest numbers, is flawed and runs the risk of creating additive mortality to a population in a given year 

that could potentially reduce breeding pairs to the point that no, or very little, recruitment would occur and 

the population would again be harvested the following year based on the previous years fill rate. Basically, 

the establishment of harvest numbers would be a year (or at least an age class) behind what the actual 

population is. If this same approach is utilized for lions there is the risk that down the road the population 

could be under harvested (without the use of dogs) or over-harvested (due to the unlimited numbers of 

tags/hunters in the field) and the Department would be faced with reactive decision making to address the 

issue. 

92



Comment #36 Continued. 

If, on the other hand, a reliable lion census technique was developed on an annual basis before the 

establishment of the season harvest quota numbers, the Department would be proactively addressing 

population fluctuations closer to the time that they are occurring as opposed to a year, or season, later. 

Since there is currently excellent data coming out of SDSU research in the hills right now on the lion 

season, it would be an opportune time to establish a census method that reflects the known, or assumed lion 

population density. This census could utilize some type of line transect, scent station, or fecal surveys that 

could establish a relative density. This relative density measure could be used as a annual indicator of the 

population status. This data could be used in association with the data compiled on road kills, public 

sightings, documented dispersals out of the hills, and the previous years harvest numbers to reflect the 

population status and thus establish the yearly harvest quota to reach compensatory mortality and not move 

into the additive mortality that would decline a potentially fragile and isolated population. 

Also, the Department should look further into the establishment of a West River Season in conjunction with 

(or addition to) the Black Hills season. Allowing the harvest of dispersing lions (which more than likely 

are the juvenile males from the Hills) that are utilizing the riparian corridors, Badlands, and prairies of 

West River South Dakota would open up this available habitat for future dispersal and leave a "core" 

population in the Hills. I believe that the use of dogs in a prairie unit of West River would increase the 

chances of reaching the harvest numbers, would target the juvenile males of the population that are 

traditionally the "problem" animals, and would provide greater opportunities for hunters to fill a tag. 

As a hunter myself, I am neutral as to the use of dogs to chase and harvest lions. Currently the Department 

allows the use of dogs to hunt upland gamebirds, waterfowl, coon, bobcats and coyotes in the State so I am 

curious as to why the current proposal does not allow dogs to harvest lions. I can understand the 

Departments position of having to deal with private landowner issues and the controversy with animal 

rights organizations, but the bottom line is that your Department is tasked with the management of lions in 

the State and from my perspective the use of dogs would be the most efficient means to accomplish those 

goals and not have a double standard for this species. At the least, the Department should allow for a 

"chase season" on lions in which dog hunters could train their dogs to tree lions but not harvest them 

without the fear of fines or loss of hunting privileges for harassment of wildlife. This chase season could 

potentially be used as a conditioning device for lions to fear dogs and avoid residential areas where dogs 

and people are present. 

Looking at the current trends of the popularity of hunting in the US and private landowner hunting guide 

services, it is my fear that down the road this establishment of a lion season in South Dakota will become 

one more in the list of opportunities for deep pocket, out-of-state hunters to come in and take a hunting 

opportunity away from a SD resident that has the desire and interest to hunt lions, but lacks the funds to 

compete with wealthy out-of-staters in a bidding war for hunting opportunities. I is my hope that the 

Department will be conscious of the tradeoffs between the financial gains of catering to out-of-state hunters 

and the lost opportunities to residents that live, work, and exist with the wildlife of this State. Thank you 

for the opportunity to comment on this draft plan. 

Comment #37 -- Walcott, ND 

I support the opening of a mountain-lion harvest season in SD. I'm encouraged to see SD GF&P is 

investing the time and research to ensure that we maintain a healthy population of lions on (at least) our 

public lands. I like the science of keeping the population at 85% of carrying capacity to keep the lions and 

their prey in a healthy balance. Good luck to the state of SD - having a huntable population of Mt Lions is 

an excellent barometer with which to measure conservation success(s)! I'll look forward to reading stories 

of hunter success. 

PS: Taking input from the public is great. I'm glad you are putting forward invitations to the public to 

comment on your proposal. It is also important, in my view, that you continue discussion thru the calm and 

deliberate debate with biologists and wildlife experts as you finalize your proposal - don't limit your 

decision to the emotionally charged public arena - consider all input and do what is best for your state, and 

our national 'wild' treasures. 

93




I am in favor of the hunt, 20 as proposed , but would like to see the guys with the dogs included in the hunt. 

I think we could have 15 for the hills (gun hunters) and 5 for the prairie. The next year have 5 dog permits 

in the hills and 10 gun permits for the hills and 5 guns for the prairie. If the hills limits are not met by the 

15th of December of each year then let the dog hunters fill your limit. I do feel the dog hunters should be 

treated as fairly as the gun hunters should each year. 

I spent about 1500 miles on my ATV in the hills last year and never went over 10 mph and have yet to see 

the lion and spent 12-15 days deer hunting last fall and the only sign I have found was a few tracks and a 

den or two. I am not sure the quota will be filled by the gun hunters, sightings yes , but to get a good shot 

is something else? Also safety must be a big concern. I hope people aren't out there just shooting at the 

first thing that moves, weather it be a elk or a deer and when they go and check out there sighting there is a 

person laying on the ground??? Just some thoughts and I hope to see you in the hills and enjoy them as 

much as my friends and I do. 


I absolutely love the Mt. Lion season proposal. You have my support 100%. Especially the banning the 

use of dogs/bait. The quota system and allowing anyone to purchase a tag is a tremendous opportunity. 

Especially for those willing to accept the challenge of actually hunting Mt. Lions one on one. 

I know personally that there have been a couple of instances where I have come upon smoking fresh lion 

tracks. Had I been in possession of a tag, it would have provided a challenging opportunity. I relish the 

day I have the opportunity to hunt Mt. lions on their terms. 

Comment #40 -- Micthell, SD 

Just returned home from your information meeting on your proposed lion season. I am hoping that the GFP 

will stop and go at this plan a little slower. Opening this as unlimited licenses is going a little to far. I'm 

afraid having that many people out there shooting, that we are going to have to many injured cats and 

unneeded or unknown deaths. Why not issue 40 license to be drawn for a lion season. If the hunter is 

successful this will be a once in lifetime license. The unsuccessful hunters' name will be put back in the 

drawing with preference. My idea is to kind of model it after the elk drawing. Only allow 1 nonresident for 

each district. The nonresident license should also be substantially more, as other states require nonresidents 

to pay a lot more. Instead of $50 you may want to charge $250 instead. By allowing 40 license the 

percentage of success you probably would come close to your quota of 20. If you go over your quota you 

can always issue less license the following year. Please look at this option and go a little slower with your 

version. Thank You 


I am a houndsmen, and i spend a lot of time in the woods. I can tell you that the amount of lion sign is 

everywhere. A season is needed to gain control of the cats. The proposed season will do very little to help 

,and it might make more problems. The use of hounds is the only way to effectively hunt a lion. I believe 

you already know that because the GFP uses dogs. If you truly want to manage lions hound hunting must 

be a part of the plan. Every other state that has a lion season uses dogs. Why would SD be any different? 

OR, WA have tried not using dogs and are now both going back. If you are not going to allow dogs for 

lions fine but do not take away our bobcat hunting!!!!!!!! If you would only listen to your own houndsman 

you would get the truth about dogs. I have attended 2 meetings and I don't think dogs are as controversial as 

you think. PLEASE COMMON CENTS AND MANAGE LIONS NOT SIDE STEP THE 

PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

94



Comment #42 -- Mitchell, SD 

I enjoy having mountain lions and I DO NOT worry about problems they may cause. I strongly agree in a 

mountain lion season if data proves the population is healthy. I am moderately interested in a hunt if a 

season is OK. I am a SD resident, live in Mitchell and own land in Brule County south of Chamberlain, am 

57 years old and a male. 

Lions certainly have a place in the system. Under no circumstances should they be eliminated. I do not 

worry about what 'might' happen. Disease and vehicles will control the population if it gets too large and I 

feel that hunters should play a part in controlling the population before disease does. 

The meeting on the experimental mountain lion season that was held in Mitchell on the 11th. of May was 

very informative and conducted very professionally. John, Arden and Andy conducted them selves in the 

most professional manner in-spite of the very pointed questions and comments. 

Keep up the good work. 

SD GF&P is doing a very good job for the citizens and hunters in SD and I am not just talking about 


Comment #43 -- Mitchell, SD 

I have read over the plan and I am very satisfied that all the proper information has been gathered on the 

lions status. I am also in support of a hunting season. However I do not agree with the $10.00 license fee. 

I believe it should be higher, possibly $50.00. I am also against issuing licenses to nonresidents. I live in 

Mitchell and have been run out good pheasant hunting areas by nonresidents who do not respect our state 

or our wildlife. I feel if these licenses are offered to nonresidents our Black Hills will be over run while the 

residents are enjoying their Elk or Deer hunts. Finally, I feel that all the additional regulations that have 

been proposed for the season are fair. Keep up the good work. 

Comment #44 -- Pringle, SD 

I believe that the only way to harvest the number of lions you want you need to have DOGS in this. All you 

are doing is proposing the opportunistic killing of a big game animal. Where is the sport in this. With dogs 

you have time to study the lion, you can sex it, age it and see if it is suckling young. I also have concerns 

about hunters taking bad shots at a lion and wounding it. We all know if a lion is wounded it still has to 

hunt to survive and they will look for the easiest prey they can find. I just hope it ain't a child. I have 

spoken to a lot of the Conservation Officers and they believe that dogs should be used. 

I also think that if the public can't use hounds then the Game, Fish and Parks should not be able to use their 

hounds to catch problem lions they should have to get them the same way that you want the public to 

harvest them. I have been to 4 of the meetings and believe that the public support for hounds is there the 

people that didn't want any lions harvested sided with the houndsmen by the end of the meetings. 

Comment #45 -- Morristown, SD 

I fully support a season for Mountain Lions in SD. I support this action as a hunter, landowner, rancher, 

and President of NorthWest Shooters (a small hunting/shooting organization in NW South Dakota based 

out of Morristown). I would love to see such a season and one that would allow the use of dogs. This is 

the most effective way to hunt cats and would do the most good in management of the species. I do not 

support a season set up and modeled after that of the SD Elk though. I would suggest a completely 

different approach, much like that of the bear season in WY. 

95




Please take this into serious consideration so that we don't create another failed hunting opportunity like 

that of which the Elk Season Drawing has become. In WY, there are unlimited tags sold, to whoever wants 

to purchase one. Then the Game and Fish sets the target number for the amount of bears that it wants 

harvested. It is up to each hunter to make sure that they check and see if that number has been filled in 

their unit and if it has, then the season is closed. Hunters have a specific time frame in which they have to 

"check in" their bears after they have successfully bagged one, so that it can be recorded. When the target 

number has been reached, the season is closed in that unit. This information is available at the Game and 

Fish offices in WY, from Conservation officers, and on their website, which is updated on a regular basis. 

It makes it very easy to find out whether or not the season is still open and if the target number has been 

reached. I believe this would be a better system than that of the limited draw with preference points. All 

that will create is another season that will have 10 to 15 years of waiting behind it with a 5 dollar 

application fee to mention. That is $50 to $75 dollars up front before you even get a tag in most situations, 

not to mention the unreasonable resident fee one has to pay when they do finally draw a tag. PLEASE 

DON'T MAKE THIS A RICH MANS SPORT LIKE THE ELK SEASON HAS BECOME. 

I would set the resident fees at no more than $35.00 for a cat tag and sell either unlimited tags with a target 

harvest number or set a limit on the tags. Either way please do not make them more than $35.00, so that 

everyone can afford to hunt these great animals. With an unlimited number of tags like that, most everyone 

who wants to hunt will, and you will most likely make more money that way than having an unreasonably, 

expensive resident tag like elk. I would also sell them over the counter without an application process. 

One would have to produce a SD drivers license to prove residency or another form of PICTURE ID from 

SD. The number of license can be easily tracked nowadays as well. I would also offer them over your 

website as well. 

I strongly suggest this method of running the season and tags, rather than a limited draw with an application 

process. This is much more simple and easy for the hunters and gives everyone a fair chance. Buy a 

license and go hunting until season is closed period!!! No preference points, years of waiting, etc. Just 

good old fashioned, inexpensive, hunting. 

Please consider this proposal and pass it on to those in charge of the decision making. It could also help 

ease the tension right now in the state between G,F, and Parks and hunters and landowners maybe as well, 

with a simple, un-controlling, season. I know this may be a hard concept for those in the Game Fish and 

Parks department, not to control every aspect of getting a tag and "raping" the resident with a high tag fee, 

but it would be the smart choice. I know it may help me to think that they are at least willing to start 

changing. Until I see some change, SD Lockout has my full support, and they will until something finally 

happens in Pierre. Wake up, the Game Fish and Parks Department is severely hurting hunting in our state 

with it's outrageous resident tag fees across the board. It is not a pro-active group in supporting hunting for 

the everyday person with children. They are moving more and more toward a Pro Fee Hunting agenda and 

this is a problem. 

Well enough, I just wanted to have this proposal considered in the Mt. Lion Season. I think it is better, 

simple, and easier for everyone to be involved. Also it will give ANYONE a chance to chase one of the 

most intelligent animals around, as residents. The key to this though is unlimited tags, and affordable tag 

fees!!!!!! If the tags are above $35.00, it won't work. I know I won't even bother to try if it is run like the 

elk season in this state. What an example of a failed system. Sure it may get the elk harvested, but so few 

get to even participate in a lifetime. What a shame. 

96



Comment #46 -- Morristown, SD 

I have just finished looking at the proposed season and see that some of the comments I have already made 

are already being proposed, and this is good. In fact I saw that the price would only be $10.00 which I 

think is fantastic and would strongly suggest going with. 

I was a little upset though, to see that a non resident is also able to buy a tag. WHY? They have to place 

here in SD being included in a new season that is just experimental. They can't hunt elk and that season has 

been here for many years. I see no need to include non residents in our new season and would highly 

recommend that part of the proposed season be taken out. NO NONRESIDENTS. This should be 

something that only residents of SD should be able to experience the first time out. This would be very 

unfair to those who may be hunting cats for the first time ever, to have to compete with an out of stater that 

has been hunting cats for years, but wants to come to SD and get an "easy" one. Let's be realistic the first 

season is going to be great, and will be easier to hunt. After the first year, the lions will catch on and it they 

will just get smarter as the seasons are held. They are not dumb, and to let a non resident come in and take 

part in this chance, is just insane!!!!! 

Also why not dogs? This is a great tool in hunting cats and very effective. I thought the whole idea of 

having a season is to actually harvest them. Why wouldn't you want to give the hunters every tool possible 

to accomplish this in fair chase. Dogs are still fair chase in my opinion and should be allowed. It is no 

different than using them to hunt coyotes and should be allowed in the cat season. 

Comment #47 -- Sioux Falls, SD 

Mountain Lion Management Plan------ It is about time GF&P cut to the chase and implemented a 

mountain lion season to instill some fear of humans in these animals. I have observed one in the wild and it 

walked away with the attitude of "What the hell are you doing here"?--- south of Deadwood along highway 

385. Do we have to experience a child death or someone being stalked and attacked on the Mickleson trail 

to get the message???? The season should be limited to South Dakota residents initially and dogs should be 

permitted. Anything less than the use of dogs is a waste of time. Treeing the animal would give some 

chance of sexing the animal before shooting and be a reply to the "don't shoot the female" concerns........this 

issue is totally political with more concern about politics and votes from a MINORITY--- tree hugger 

groups. Take politics out of GF&P decisions and implement a real management plan. 

Comment #48 -- Mobridge, SD 

I attended the meeting held in Mobridge. I just wanted to say that the information presented was very 

interesting. I feel that a season is a good idea, maybe the number of lions won't be killed that you are 

expecting to be but I think that it will bring many hunters to the Hills area for those 3 to 4 months when the 

season is open and that will in turn help the economy of the region. 

I personally will purchase a tag if the season is proposed and plan on applying for a deer tag also. 

Thank you for the meetings held throughout the state and for the opportunity to hopefully harvest a 

mountain lion! 

97



Comment #49 -- Deadwood, SD 

I have lived in Deadwood for 48 years, became aware of the mountain lion in the 1980's. Have recently, 

2001 moved to the Main St. address where evidence of the mountain lion was more noticed with sightings 

and tracks. I have seen one crossing the street in early evening and neighbors have seen a mother and cub 

playing in their yard in the early morning. Most of us in the neighborhood have dogs and cats and have yet 

to have any missing. 

With out an identifiable mark on each of the mountain lions, how does one know how many lions there are 

moving in and out of Deadwood and surrounding community, and which lion is more frequent than the 

next. 

I believe the sales of private, National Forest and mining properties allowing for development in areas that 

have not been occupied for decades by year round homes have pushed ALL wild-life out of their natural 

habitat. This has forced them into larger territorial boundaries and into the denser populated areas of towns 

making them more visible. I am waiting for the day when the Black Hills cycles back into a real winter 

when we get snow, 6" to 12" a week, and a couple of 2 to 3 footers a season and those people cannot get 

out of their homes or even get home. 

Until there is a more positive census of Mountain Lions, a hunting season or tracking and shooting each 

individual cat when sighted is unjustifiable. 

Comment #50 -- Lead, SD 

You know my bias and my agenda very well. i want only problem cats removed, preferably after SD fine 

tunes "problem" cat to include: stalking, aggressive posture, found on a depredation site of pet or 

livestock...do not rely on sightings, they mean nothing! i do not want any organized hunt, period. I have 

contacted all the congress, commission, governor and others i deem important officials. I have just sent a 

letter with a proposal regarding a "experiment season" to 10 of the best cougar experts in this country and 

Canada and just returned as did your people from Leavenworth, WA after attending the 8th annual 

mountain lion conference. There is no expert alive that will agree with your proposed hunt after knowing 

the amount of research you have done and knowing that only 55 of the sightings were verified and that only 

2 of the reported livestock sightings were real. All things considered we have a very limited population and 

very few real conflicts. Media hysteria and hype and what appear to be questionable motives along with 

pressure from certain congress people are driving this quest for a season...not facts! Public education 

coupled with your continued rapid response to problems is all that is needed and is more than adequate...a 

rapid response team could be set up East River as well. good luck... 


I am opposed to a hunting season on mountain lions at this time. I believe that recreational hunters would 

focus on animals in the backcountry and not the problem animals that are near homes/communities. If 

lethal control is warranted, it should be done by professionals under SDGFP supervision or employ. 

I think that relocations should also be investigated. I think that mountain lions populations should expand 

out into other public lands such as Custer National Forest, the National Grasslands. Badlands National 

Park, State owned lands and/or BLM lands where appropriate habitat exists. 


This is my second comment letter and is about protection of pets. According to your draft mountain lion 

plan, a substantial public threat exists if a mountain lion kills a pet in an occupied recreational area (page 

20) and "recreation area" is "Any place where people congregate on a regular basis or for an extended 

period, such as picnic areas, hiking trails, swimming beaches, etc." (page 20). 

98




We have lots of public land in this state, some of which t exists in substantially in a wild condition. I don't 

think it is reasonable to expect a wild mountain lion or other predator to differentiate between a dog or a 

coyote or a fox that is running along a trail or sniffing in the woods near a campsite. I do not think a lion 

killing a free roaming pet equivocates to a threat to people. 

I believe that persons who bring their pets out onto the public land, assume some risk for that pets well 

being; the pet could get lost in a strange place or be eaten by predators. Multiple use law allows for 

wildlife and recreation and grazing as a multiple use/sustained yield on forest lands. Support of 

domesticated pets is not one of the multiple uses that forest service lands are supposed to provide, that I am 

aware of, especially if providing for the pets safety conflicts with wildlife uses. 

Comment #53 -- Deadwood, SD 

I live with mountain lions in my yard. That they, (there appear, from the frequent tracks, to be at least two 

different lions), are careful to remain out of sight, though I know they watch us and our little horse 

operation, tells me that they are, for the time being, content to take the numerous deer and other wild game 

in our valley, rather than our stock, pets, or us. This could change, one of the cats could suddenly become a 

problem here. Until that time it is FOOLISH to hunt these cats. At present they are our best insurance that 

no problem cat moves into this territory, and that any young born here learn how and what to hunt. 

The last thing we need back here is a hunting season that takes lions at random, which opens this territory 

to new cats that may not live so harmoniously with us, and could easily orphan cats old enough to hunt, but 

inexperienced enough to hunt something other than their usual fare. If the very real possibility that one of 

these lions becomes a problem, if, then it seems to me that GFP personnel, or a professional in GFP's 

employ, should be the one to deal with the lion problem. We had a state trapper out here to deal with a 

feral dog, which proved too wily for him too, but it did not make us believe we needed a hunting season on 

dogs so we could safely live out here in the Hills 

For years I lived in northern Minnesota where problem bears were dealt with in a reasonable manner - 

either removed to the north end of a logging road, or, in rare instances, shot by the Minn. DNR. Twice the 

DNR removed bears from my immediate area, never did they need to shoot a bear. I don't know what 

removal options are for lions, but it seems like this should be an option of first choice if there is a lionless 

area where a problem cat might adapt and return to hunting it's more normal prey. I'll tell you, the shoot 

first policy makes us wonder if we would even report a lion predation on our horses or dogs. If I thought 

shooting the lion was the LAST resort, then calling GFP would be an obvious choice. As it is - we'd have 

to think about it. 

Beyond the FACT, that there is no animal better suited to cull the local deer herds, thereby best 

strengthening those herds. Beyond the fact that the lions belong here, that I chose to live in lion country 

and should be prepared for what that can mean. I have to tell you, I like that there is something out there, 

right there in fact, that keeps me both humble and alert. I like that there is something essentially wild right 

out my door, that the wilderness is right there. It seems to me that particularly the lions and elk in this 

valley are the essence of this place, are the essence of what remains of the idea of wilderness - even if this 

would never qualify as wilderness proper. 

So, shoot ONLY problem mountain lions as an absolute last resort; do it professionally. Remove them first 

if possible. Do NOT let a hunting season disturb the balance that exists. We do not have problem cats, and 

don't need them. Do NOT make a sport of treeing lions with dogs and shooting them from their perches - 

hunting is a much better thing than that. And, be sure all is being done to educate the public so that new 

people moving into the Hills understand just where they are choosing to live, so they even perhaps 

understand and accept that their llamas and donkeys loose in the timber are reasonable prey for a big cat. 

99



Comment #54 -- Gaithersburg, MD 

These comments are from The Humane Society of the United States. Please note that I faxed these 

comments to 605-773-6245 but when I called at 4:30 Mtn Time to confirm that the fax was received, 

nobody answered. So I am pasting the comments below just to be sure that they are received by the 

deadline. Thanks. 

1 June 2005 

South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks 

523 E. Capitol Avenue 

Pierre, SD 57501 

Transmitted via Mail and Facsimile (605-773-6245) 

Re: Mountain Lion Management Plan 

To Whom It May Concern: 

On behalf of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and our more than 9 million members and 

constituents, including more than 16,000 residing in South Dakota, I appreciate this opportunity to 

comment on the Draft South Dakota Mountain Lion Management Plan (“Draft Plan”). 

The Draft Plan contains many positive elements and represents a commendable effort to address the 

concerns and values of diverse stakeholders. However, some of the provisions of the Draft Plan are in need 

of improvement. In general, we suggest that South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks (SDGFP) should examine 

whether some of the Draft Plan’s objectives are driven more by values than by science. We understand that 

values must enter into the equation in wildlife management, but we question whether SDGFP is accurately 

separating values from science and whether the balance between values and science in the Draft Plan is 

appropriate. Perhaps more importantly, the Draft Plan, despite consideration for public education, may not 

sufficiently provide for the level of public outreach and education that will be needed for the effective 

prevention and resolution of human-lion conflicts (including livestock conflicts). The effective prevention 

and resolution of conflicts is of primary importance for human safety, lion population sustainability, 

ecological balance, and for achieving continued and increasing tolerance for lions among South Dakota 

residents and visitors. Below, we briefly offer specific suggestions for consideration in the next version of 

the Draft Plan. 

Population Size and Existing Research Results 

The Draft Plan refers repeatedly to several years of research on mountain lions conducted by researchers at 

South Dakota State University, but little information is provided in the Draft Plan regarding the methods or 

results of this research. In particular, the Draft Plan (p. 5) indicates that, in 2003, “Fecske estimated the 

mountain lion population in the Black Hills to be 127 – 149 adults, with an estimated carrying capacity of 

152 mountain lions (adults and kittens). The current assumption is that the Black Hills mountain lion 

population is at 165 (range: 164 – 171)….” The term “adults” is not defined in this discussion of lion 

population size, but we assume this term refers to adults and subadults, while “kittens” refers to young-ofthe-year. 

The Draft Plan does not indicate the method used to derive the population estimate, and does not 

indicate whether the population estimate ranges provided represent a particular confidence interval (e.g. 

90% or 95% CI) or some other measure of error in the estimate. While some of this detail may not affect 

comments by many members of the public, this information would be useful to scientists who wish to 

comment on the plan. It is important to provide the methods used in population estimation because some 

wildlife population estimates in other states have been based on methods that are potentially highly 

unreliable (e.g. methods that rely heavily upon sightings by people not trained in identifying a particular 

species or its sign). 

100




The most important omission here is the lack of information regarding the method for estimating carrying 

capacity of South Dakota habitats for lions. Elsewhere, the Draft Plan (Attachment D, p. 41), indicates that 

additional evidence that the lion population in a portion of South Dakota is at carrying capacity is the 

increase in sightings and in confirmed lion mortalities. However, as acknowledged in the Draft Plan, lion 

sightings and mortalities can increase for a variety of reasons, including increasing human population 

density, increasing road density, increasing lion population (whether or not it is at or even near the carrying 

capacity), increasing occurrence of lions where they are more likely to be sighted by people (e.g. due to 

increased presence of deer in residential areas), etc. A single year of noticeably increased sightings and 

mortalities is not necessarily evidence of an increasing lion population and is certainly not evidence that 

lions are at carrying capacity. Furthermore, the “57% increase in mountain lion sightings from 2003 to 

2004” cited in Attachment D is apparently in reference to all sightings, not just the approximately 28% of 

these sightings (for 2004) that were confirmed. As is acknowledged earlier in the plan, people commonly 

mistake bobcats, dogs, and foxes for mountain lions; therefore, the Draft Plan should focus on the 

confirmed sightings, not total “sightings.” 

The next version of the Draft Plan must provide more detail regarding methods of estimating lion 

population size and methods of determining carrying capacity. The next version of the plan must also 

provide some information regarding the problems inherent in attempts to estimate population size and 

carrying capacity, which are touched on only briefly in this version of the plan. 

Additionally, it is not clear why an experimental hunting season would be the only way to extend the 

research on South Dakota’s lions. If there is some reason why research cannot continue without an 

experimental hunting season, this is likely to bias both the SDGFP and the public toward a hunting season 

that may be unnecessary at best, or unsustainable at worst. This would not appear to represent wildlife 

management based on sound science. The next version of the Draft Plan must indicate why research 

cannot continue in the absence of a hunting season; if research can continue without a hunt, this would be 

important for the public to know, so this must be clarified. 

Based on the limited information provided regarding population size, we believe that a statewide 

population of around 165 individuals, which includes a number of young animals with lower survival 

(primarily lions less than one year old), is quite a small population of lions and necessitates a precautionary 

approach to mountain lion management. Importantly, the Draft Plan does not include an estimate of the 

effective population size (number of reproductive adults); effective population size is the crucial 

demographic used in determining population viability, which in turn affects the sustainability of activities 

such as hunting. The Draft Plan (e.g. p. 43) suggests that the lion population is viable, but provides no 

basis for this assertion. Therefore, the next version of the Draft Plan must provide a scientifically derived 

estimate of effective population size. 

Conflicts with Mountain Lions 

While the Draft Plan refers several times to the importance of educating the public in how to safely live and 

recreate in lion country (e.g. Objective 4 and Attachment A), we believe that this effort should be the focus 

of lion management in South Dakota—for the sake of human safety and welfare, as well as lion 

conservation and welfare—and much is lacking from the Draft Plan in this respect. In particular, the public 

must be provided with the information necessary to prevent many conflicts with lions from occurring in the 

first place. Having such information readily available may also help increase public tolerance for lions and 

change exaggerated fears and perceived conflicts into a healthy respect for these animals. 

101




The objectives of the response protocol (Attachment A, p. 19) include, as long-term objective 3, to 

“(e)ncourage individuals to assume a share of responsibility for wildlife conflicts, particularly where their 

actions contribute to conflict potential.” This is a very reasonable and valuable goal but it must be fleshed 

out. Such responsibility should be shouldered by individuals including those living in new developments 

that encroach on lion habitat, as well as livestock producers who may not have had to worry about 

depredations from lions until relatively recently. And, for these individuals to assume this responsibility, a 

greater effort is needed to disseminate information regarding means of safely coexisting with lions. The 

responsibility assumed by pet owners and livestock producers in particular should include all feasible nonlethal 

means of preventing the loss of domestic animals to lions. For pet owners, it is important to closely 

supervise any pets allowed outdoors, to keep cats indoors if at all possible, to avoid feeding any wildlife as 

this may ultimately attract lions (even bird food can attract rodents which may, in turn, attract lions), and to 

remove any other potential attractants that my draw lions or their prey onto properties where lions may then 

encounter vulnerable pets. For livestock producers, information must be provided on sound livestock 

husbandry methods, such as the use of livestock guarding dogs, ways in which fencing can be improved 

(increased height, use of electric wires), the importance of providing more human supervision of livestock 

or of bringing the most vulnerable livestock inside a barn or lighted pen near human dwellings at night. 

Other means of protecting livestock include the use of frightening devices to deter lions from livestock 

holding areas. 

The Draft Plan indicates that a brochure is provided to individuals who have reported a mountain lion 

sighting, encounter, or other incident, as well as to the general public at certain types of events. However, 

first, it is not clear what the content of the brochure is, and second, this method of distribution of 

educational materials is not likely reaching the people that most need the information. Educational 

materials regarding means by which conflicts with lions can be most effectively prevented and reduced 

should additionally be distributed at agricultural events such as field days or farm workshops and to 

businesses that cater to livestock producers, such as feed stores. To reach pet owners, educational materials 

should be available at pet food stores, animal shelters, and veterinary clinics. To ensure that parents 

understand how to reduce any real or perceived risks to their children, educational materials could also be 

provided through schools. 

The Draft Plan (p. 11) includes, as an “information need” the public desire for compensation for losses of 

livestock to lions. It is not clear from the Draft Plan whether SDGFP is considering making such 

compensation in the future. Regardless of decisions regarding compensation, we urge the SDGFP to 

consider proactive assistance to livestock producers to help prevent the loss of livestock due to lions, rather 

than focusing on compensation for losses that have already occurred. We strongly suggest that SDGFP 

consider a cost-sharing program by which livestock producers would be assisted with the cost of parts 

and/or labor for implementing non-lethal strategies for preventing or addressing livestock losses to lions. 

The Draft Plan acknowledges (Attachment D, p. 41) that lions that kill livestock may do so because they 

are sub-dominant transients that have not established a territory of their own. This is even more reason to 

inform livestock producers and pet owners of the means by which depredations by lions can be prevented 

using non-lethal means and, if not preventable, resolved on a case-by-case basis. It is not a justification for 

hunting because sport hunters will not necessarily have the motivation, skill, or knowledge to target 

transient or sub-dominant lions that are causing problems. 

We appreciate that the Draft Plan makes the distinction between real and perceived impacts of lions on 

humans and their property, as well as the indication that mountain lion attacks on people are very rare. 

This information is important as it helps the public to make a rational determination as to the need for 

particular management strategies. 

102




The response protocols (Attachment A, p. 19) refer to a need to “(e)xplore responsible and humane 

methods of controlling problem mountain lions” (long-term objective 4). This is certainly a reasonable 

goal, but the next version of the Draft Plan should indicate which methods may be used for such control, 

what criteria will be used to select the most humane methods (or the methods that minimize pain and 

distress of affected lions), and how control of problem mountain lions will be conducted so as to target only 

the lion responsible for the damage or threat to human safety. 

The Draft Plan refers at least twice to “incidents” in which lions have been observed killing wildlife and it 

is not clear whether such incidents occurred in residential areas or if there was otherwise a problem 

associated with what appears to be normal mountain lion predatory behavior. The next version of the Draft 

Plan must clarify that such occurrences are natural phenomena and do not, in themselves, represent a 

“problem.” It appears that this is simply one of the categories of “sightings” recorded for information and 

monitoring purposes, and that SDGFP may only consider natural predatory behavior (directed toward wild 

prey) to be problematic if it occurs in close proximity to residential areas. The next version of the Draft 

Plan should clarify, if it is true, that these sightings, as well as other sightings of lions occurring in lion 

habitat and engaging in activities that do not threaten humans or property, are recorded for informational 

purposes only and are not indications that the lions so observed necessarily constitute a problem or risk. 

On a related note, the Draft Plan (p. 10) does refer to the need to be prepared to discuss impacts of 

mountain lions on big game populations, but it is not clear what the content of such education and outreach 

efforts would include. Certainly concerned hunters and others should be reminded that prey animals differ 

from large carnivores in that they have evolved traits—such as speed, crypsis, other predator avoidance 

strategies, and life history traits—to sustain a certain amount of predation that, until very recently, would 

have occurred due to a full suite of large carnivores including lions. In addition, concerned individuals 

should be provided with information from previous research showing that native carnivores are almost 

never responsible for declines in their natural prey; when predation can be linked with prey population 

declines this generally occurs only when the prey population has been suppressed due to anthropogenic 

factors such as an exotic disease, habitat loss or degradation, or over-hunting. 

Experimental Hunting Season 

Objective 1 of the Draft Plan (p. 13) includes the development of a hunting season framework for mountain 

lions as a strategy. We suggest that this strategy should be modified: rather than implementing an 

“experimental” hunting season, this strategy should implement an investigation into the feasibility of a 

hunting season and the potential impacts of a hunting season on the small lion population, on public 

tolerance for lions, and on the incidence of conflicts with lions. This investigation should use the existing 

scientific literature, as well as raw data from other states, to form conclusions. 

The Draft Plan (Attachment D, p. 42) suggests that a “mountain lion season may be a more effective 

solution for dealing with problems caused by mountain lions” but offers no evidence in support of this 

statement and does not clarify what alternative hunting would be “more effective” than. We understand 

that any upcoming lion season would be “experimental” in that it would provide information for future 

management. However, it appears that the decision to have a lion hunting season has already been made 

and has been made based on very little information about the lion population (most of which is not 

provided in the Draft Plan). Perhaps more importantly, the SDGFP does not appear to have taken into 

account the utter lack of evidence for the effectiveness of sport or recreational hunting in reducing conflicts 

with carnivores. A recent literature review suggests that hunting is not an effective strategy in reducing 

conflicts, primarily because hunters do not target the individual carnivores responsible for damage. 

103




Moreover, the Draft Plan (p. 42) suggests that hunting can be useful because of the cost required for a 

reactive, as opposed to proactive, strategy for addressing conflicts. First, it would be a mistake for SDGFP 

to assume that opening a lion hunting season will mean that the agency can do away with a reactive 

strategy for addressing conflicts. Second, a “proactive” strategy can involve primarily non-lethal methods, 

such as those described above for preventing conflicts with lions (as well as lethal control of individual 

lions that cannot be deterred by non-lethal methods or that pose a risk to human safety). These methods are 

meant to control (or prevent) the damage, rather than the lion population as a whole; there is evidence of 

the effectiveness of many of these non-lethal methods, whereas we are aware of no evidence of the 

effectiveness of sport hunting in preventing or reducing conflicts. 

The Draft Plan (p. 42) also indicates that an experimental lion hunting season can help extend research on 

South Dakota’s lions. But there is no indication why SDGFP cannot conduct research on the effectiveness 

of non-lethal means of preventing and reducing conflicts (again, along with targeted lethal control as 

described in the response protocols). 

The Draft Plan suggests that public tolerance for lions may be increased if a hunting season is established. 

We have heard this suggestion frequently and understand the concern that underlies this notion; however, 

we have never seen convincing evidence that allowing the hunting of a wildlife species will result in 

increased tolerance for that species. One could just as easily guess that allowing hunting of lions may 

decrease tolerance for the animals because allowing individuals to hunt animals about which they already 

hold strong negative views may simply worsen those negative views. 

The Draft Plan (p. 43) suggests that “(i)f mountain lions can be hunted without harming their population [a 

hunting season] would be appropriate and responsible action for GFP to take.” This is not sufficient 

justification for a lion hunting season. SDGFP must demonstrate that a lion hunting season would be more 

than a waste of wildlife for the sake of funding wildlife management. To be justifiable, a hunt must serve a 

legitimate wildlife management function. The SDGFP has not demonstrated (using existing scientific 

literature or data from other states) that hunting lions will reduce conflicts; SDGFP has not demonstrated 

that allowing hunting will increase public tolerance for lions; and the SDGFP has not demonstrated a need 

for reducing the lion population. It is clear that this plan is meant to represent wildlife management based 

on science, but unfortunately we have yet to see much evidence that science has been used in the 

development of this plan, other than vague reference to population estimates and hand-waving regarding 

carrying capacity. Certainly the Draft Plan ignores most existing literature on predator-prey dynamics, 

effective means of preventing conflicts with lions, or the effects of hunting on populations of large 

carnivores. 

The Draft Plan (p. 43) suggests that a mountain lion hunt would result in lion mortality that is 

compensatory with other causes of lion mortality. Once again, no evidence is presented to support the 

notion that hunting would be compensatory rather than additive. This must be corrected in the next version 

of the plan. 

On p. 45, the Draft Plan suggests that the proposed quota in an experimental lion hunting season would be 

20 lions and suggests that this would represent 14% of the Black Hills population. However, the 

population estimate used appears to include lions of all ages, including kittens that have a much higher risk 

of mortality due to causes not related to hunting. In addition, it’s not clear whether the quota takes into 

account the potential for dependent kittens to be orphaned when females are killed by hunters. It is difficult 

to determine the sex of a lion, and nearly impossible to determine whether a female has dependent kittens. 

The Draft Plan (p. 1) references what appears to be a popular book for the notion that kittens as young as 

six months or less can survive on their own under some conditions. We are aware of no systematically 

collected, peer-reviewed, and published data to support this notion. The next version of the draft plan must 

clarify the percentage of the adult/subadult population that would be targeted in an experimental hunt; it 

must indicate whether hunters will be encouraged or required to avoid killing females; it must indicate how 

hunting would impact the lion population, not just through adult and subadult mortality, but also through 

the orphaning of kittens not likely to survive on their own. 

104




We do not believe that sport hunting of mountain lions in South Dakota at this time will be necessary or 

effective in addressing legitimate wildlife management concerns and we strongly question the proposal to 

allow sport hunting of lions. However, if SDGFP proceeds with an experimental lion hunting season, we 

agree that the use of dogs, trapping, and baiting should not be allowed. These hunting methods are 

unnecessary, unsporting, and have the potential to result in increased pain and distress of affected lions. 

Additional Concerns 

The Draft Plan (e.g. p. 9) refers to the importance of using science in making management decisions. 

While we certainly agree that it is crucial to use the best available science when making wildlife 

management decisions, it is also important to understand that science cannot actually make those 

management decisions. Science can predict what might occur under different management scenarios, and 

science can assess the outcome of wildlife management techniques. For example, science can help us 

predict whether particular management techniques will significantly reduce human-wildlife conflicts, e.g. 

based on previous research in other systems or modeling; science can also assess the effectiveness of a 

management technique in increasing or decreasing wildlife population size (e.g. through population 

estimates conducted before and after the management). But science, by definition, cannot actually tell 

wildlife managers what to do. These decisions are based on values. We understand that SDGFP is of 

course aware of what science can and cannot do, but the public is often unfortunately led to believe (from a 

variety of sources, such as the media) that science can dictate how we ought to manage a wildlife 

population, when this is not the case. We urge SDGFP to clarify the role of science in the next version of 

the Draft Plan. 

We agree with Objectives 2, to maintain a statewide database of mountain lion activity and with Objective 

3, the development of a list of mountain lion research needs. However, with respect to Objective 3, we 

caution SDGFP not to implement predator control in the guise of “research,” as has been done in some 

other western states with mountain lion populations. When evaluating recommendations for lion research, 

SDGFP should take note of the proposed funding source and any conflict of interest that the funder or 

recommender may have. Further, SDGFP should take note of whether particular research questions have 

already been addressed, in full or in part, which may obviate the need for additional research that would use 

up limited funding and staff time, and result in removal of mountain lions that have not been implicated in 

any damage or conflict incidents from what is already a small population. 

We agree with Objective 4, except for suggested improvements in public outreach and education as 

described above. We also agree with Objective 5 except that, in reference to periodic public surveys, 

Strategy A uses a deer hunter survey as an example. Hunters are likely to differ from the general public in 

their attitudes towards lions and lion management. Therefore, while we agree with the value of periodic 

public surveys, we would not consider surveys of only certain clearly defined stakeholder groups to be a 

good representation of “public” attitudes. This is not to say that hunters should not be surveyed when the 

opportunity arises, only that other segments of the public must also be surveyed. 

Finally, we agree with the importance of involving state legislators in lion management planning. The 

most reasonable, scientifically supported, and socially acceptable elements of a wildlife management plan 

can be instantly undone by state legislation. We urge the SDGFP not to assume that any particular 

management strategy, such as a hunt, will protect lions from harmful legislation. 

105




Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter. Please add both addresses below to 

your mailing list for future versions of this plan and other planning documents related to mountain lion 

management, conservation, and control in South Dakota. 

Sincerely, 

Bette Stallman, Ph.D. David Pauli 

Wildlife Scientist Director 

Wildlife and Habitat Protection Northern Rockies Regional Office 

The Humane Society of the U.S. The Humane Society of the U.S. 

700 Professional Drive 490 North 31st Street, Suite 215 

Gaithersburg, MD 20879 Billings, MT 59101 

106

Mountain Lion Management in South Dakota Appendix G 

Larry M. Gigliotti Comments received via e-mail 

Appendix G – Comments received by e-mail on the South Dakota mountain lion 

management plan. 

Comment #1 -- Worthing, SD (1-6-05) 

As a citizen of South Dakota and someone who considers himself as fairly informed about wildlife, I find 

myself concerned with the increasing number of reports of cats in the eastern portion of the state. I have 

even heard from several people on a number of occasions that cats have been transplanted to East River 

counties. Is this true? 

If it is true, I think the public needs to been informed before the fact, not after. If it is not true I think that 

the GF&P needs to dispel the tails that are flying around. 

While out coyotes hunting today I talked to a young man, mid 20's, that said someone in the 

Chancellor/Parker area lost two horses to predation. A friend of mine that lives North of Lennox said that 

his brother in-law saw a cat in a creek bottom on his land a few weeks ago. One again, if they have been 

transplanted on moved on their own into the East River area I think that information needs to be made 

public so the public can be prepared to deal with possible attack on their children or pets. 

I would appreciate some sort of response to the above concerns and a copy of the report sent to me at: 

Response 

There are a few mountain lions that are now roaming around in the eastern part of the state. None of 

these cats have been transplanted. All these cats have wondered in from other areas, most likely the 

Black Hills. GFP would have no desire to locate cats any place outside of the Black Hills. Cats living 

outside of the Black Hills are more likely to cause problems for people and livestock and we then 

would need to remove the cat. GFP has a special team of tracking dogs for the sole purpose of tracking 

down "problem" cats and eliminating them. Anyone observing mountain lions (except in the Black 

Hills forested areas away from people) should report the incident to a local GFP Conservation Officer. 

The officer will make a determination of whether the cat represents a possible threat and if necessary 

will take action to remove the cat. When GFP learns of a mountain lion in a particular area that 

information is released to the news media. GFP's position has been well communicated to the public 

numerous times and we will continue to do so, but the rumors never seem to end. 

I'll be sending the report that you requested in today's mail. 

Comment # 2 -- ? (4-11-05) 

I do not think SD needs a mountain lion season at this time. I think eliminating problem animals like the 

GFP is doing now is adequate. I think the BIG problem is the Rapid City Journal. I subscribe to the Journal 

and cannot believe how many times mountain lions make the front page, usually the headlines. Reporting 

all the sightings stirs peoples emotions and creates "Letters to the Editor" which in turn stirs more 

emotions. I just cannot believe mountain lion sightings in the Black Hills should be front page news! I think 

someone from the department should have a personal visit with the Publisher, Bill Masterson, and ask if he 

could instruct his reporters to "lay off" for a while. 

This is my .02 worth. 

107



Comment # 3 -- Pierre (4-11-05) 

*Since I will be unable to attend the meetings on the proposal to allow some hunting of mountain lions, I 

would like to send you a few comments by e-mail. I think that it is an excellent proposal to allow some 

hunting of the animals. I'm sure you will hear a lot of opposition from the "antis", but I hope you will go 

through with your proposal. There is no doubt that there are too many lions in the HIlls, the way they are 

spreading to other areas. Some hunting will perhaps make them more wary of humans and possibly help 

prevent attacks on humans, which is bound to happen eventually. 

Please don't let all the noise you will hear from the opposition prevent you from carrying out your proposal. 

Comment # 4 -- ? (4-11-05) 

As a landowner in the Black Hills that joins forest service land near Silver City, I would never be in favor 

of an open season on mt. lions; I find your logic perplexing and your proposed season where there is no 

"limit" on the actual number of lions killed is ridiculous. I also would be opposed to hunters near my home 

shooting at lions while deer or elk hunting. This project seems ill-conceived and perhaps a way to keep 

tourists (hunters) in the Black Hills more of the year. Please reconsider this poorly thought out plan and 

leave the lions well enough alone! 

Comment # 5 -- ? (4-12-05) 

I wasn't able to make it to the meeting in Rapid City, but wanted to voice my opinion on the matter. I 

strongly agree with having a mountain lion season. There is no better way to control the booming 

population. You could trap them, tranquilize them, etc., and relocate them, but where will you relocate 

them? Wherever you take them this same thing will happen in the years to come. I don't know about how 

often they are able to reproduce and what the male to female ratio is here in the Black Hills, but hunting is a 

very effective way by maintaining a healthy population. As far as the hunt goes, I would suggest having 

each successful applicant who is lucky enough to draw a tag go with a GFP officer as a guide. That way 

you would know when you have reached your quota, which mountain lions are acceptable to shoot, and to 

add a much-needed positive relationship with the hunting community. I hardly ever hear or see a good 

thing that the GFP has done. Maybe that's just the way the media wants to portray the GF&P, but I think 

that would be a decent start. I have had both positive contacts with GF&P officials (in Rapid City) and 

more negative contacts (1 individual in Angostura (Duane). He'll get after you for nothing and try and start 

something over nothing. I'm sure a lot of other people, including non-sportsmen feel the same way if they 

have a contact like this. It has been my experience that people remember the negative contacts more than 

the positive one's. So I think something as small as taking people out on a mountain lion hunt would be a 

great start towards re-building what should be a positive relationship with GF&P officials and sportsmen 

and women. I think by having an official guide the hunts would have a higher success rate and a better 

public image for the hunt. I can see why some are against it. A bunch of inhumane nuts with guns running 

around the woods looking for a harmless cat that doesn't provide any meat for the table or any other valid 

reasons for taking it's life. By having a guided hunt it is more like we're helping the environment and taking 

a prized trophy animal at the same time. I just thought I would give my input and say that my family and I 

would support a mountain lion season. 

Please pass this on to the appropriate people. Thank you for your time. 

108



Comment # 6 -- Rapid City (4-12-05) 

I was unable to go to the meeting in Rapid City regarding the proposal for mountain lion hunting but would 

still like to comment that I support the proposal for hunting of lions. 

Comment # 7 -- ? (4-18-05) 

I recently attended a GF& P mtg in Rapid City regarding the possible moutain lion hunt. After reflecting on 

the information presented and the questions raised by the public, I am of the following opinion. I feel that 

for the time being there should not be a hunt for the mt. lions in the HIlls. 

1. The study should continue-- I don't think it is long enough -- two years is too short. Information from 

other areas of the US might be helpful but our situation might be different. 

2. The drought may have an unforeseen impact on the wildlife population in general. We already have a 

fire in the Hills -- this type of activity will more than likely have an adverse affect upon the lion population. 

The lack of water may be one of the causes for so much migration. 

3. I feel that in general, there is a lack of respect for nature by many people living in and around the Hills. I 

see it in the speeds with which they drive in the Hills, trash left behind, ATV driving everywhere with no 

regard for erosion , wildlife etc. Potential Walmarts defacing the scenic beauty of the Hills. People need to 

be educated and made aware that we want to leave something behind for future generations. Some people 

may be in favor of a lion hunt only to satisfy their own idea of fun. 

4. I feel that if it is determined that some management of the lion population is necessary -- hire 

professionals to carry it out humanely. 

5. A public hunt could have some really negative consequences: An inexperienced hunter may shoot other 

wildlife mistaking it for lions, ( Keep your golden retrievers penned up)They will have problems 

determining female or male lions-- turning young orphaned lions into potential problem lions. Is this idea 

for the right reasons? Or is it just a ploy for tourism and business??? Is the public hunt going to really 

decrease the problem lion population or increase it? 

6. Please educate the public who is living in lion territory to avoid unpleasant encounters. Your brochure is 

nice but last week was the first time I had ever seen it. I teach in a school-- maybe have them available to 

PTA's etc. I think that realtors should have them to hand out to new homeowners in the Hills . Also have 

them check out www.mountainlions.org -- this web site gives valuable info to residents who are sharing the 

same area with lions. Maybe the HIlls have reached a human population saturation point-- We are supposed 

to be the most intelligent life form on the planet -- let's use our powers to find a solution of which future 

generations can be proud. 

PS Do you have any plans for orphaned lions -- Or do they just turn up as problem lions? Can they be 

turned into some sanctuary? I thought one of your missions was also to protect wildlife not just to hunt 

them. Let's not have a repeat of the moose incident. If you have to dispose of an animal after everything 

else has been exhausted then have trained professionals take care of it. I come from a family who has many 

avid hunters. They don't hunt in the Hills now because it is too crowded and overrun with homeowners etc. 

I think that you will bring a world of heat upon our state if you have a public hunt. I can only imagine that 

wildlife organizations will be publicly decrying this. What about the Native American population.? This 

will be just one more example of mismanagement of their lands. 

I know you are facing a tough issue but I think that education, proceeding with enough study and caution 

should rule over personal eagerness to have another type of animal to hunt. It wasn't that long ago that 

mt. lions were on the endangered species list. I hope the plan is not to have them end up on that list again. 

Hey, I don't want to run into a lion either but if they need to be managed let's do it humanely. Let's go 

through every possible plan first before a public hunt. 

109



Comment # 8 -- St. James, MN (4-18-05) 

I have been following the current situation with the lions as I hunt the Hills and have many friends out there 

that really have the wrong handle on this thing. I also see that from the commission agenda that there is 

consideration for a Hills hunt for these cats & you're going to include non-residents. I believe the number 

thrown around is 20 harvested cats or is it 20 tags??? Will the numbers break down 20 for residents & then 

2 for the non-residents?? 

I read where you can't use dogs or bait & you over lapped the deer season saying that the deer hunters will 

be shooting most of these cats. I agree 100% if you can't bait or use dogs then odds are those in the field 

have the best opportunity to harvest one of the cats. BUT, will the tag be a true party tag??? If the law 

governs the taking of the cat by the tag holder then good luck. But, if the taking is like the annual breaking 

of your deer "group" law then sure the cats probably will be taken during deer season. 

You have "group" hunting up to 20 people but then only allow each hunter in that group to take his or her 

deer. How will the "group" law pertain to this cat season???? Makes no difference to me as I won't be 

applying for the $50 tag but if the hunt takes place during deer season then I'm assuming it operates under 

deer hunting rules. Thanks. 

Also, is there any talk of increasing the resident deer tags, in turn increasing our chances of hunting??? 

Comment # 9 -- Sioux Center, IA (4-22-05) 

Please pass this on to your cougar folks. I live in NW Iowa only 15 minutes from your eastern border. I 

have an interest and have been recording and even making reports of dispersing cougar in our area. See 

http://homepages.dordt.edu/~mahaffy/mtlion/mtlionshort_intro.html 

May I say that I like South Dakota's policy as I see it in effect concerning mountain lions. I have read 

Dorothy. F.'s thesis and talked to your officials in the Black Hills. I know you think the Black Hills is at or 

close to carrying capacity at least for resident cats. I like the idea of a limited harvest in that area. It should 

open up some territories for males which otherwise would disperse. Some will always disperse, but I do 

like the idea of letting some of the potential male dispersers be able to find territory in the BlackHills. 

I also commend you for your policy of being aggressive in removing (killing) cats that end up in urban 

areas (helps cut down the potential of human cougar interaction) or cats that develop a taste for livestock or 

pets. Of course it helps that you have a hounds man you can call on. Such policies increase the potential of 

us living with the cougar in our midst with a bit less potential of human cougar interaction. Unfortunately 

Iowa legislature refused to let cougar in Iowa be classified as game animals without a season and as far I 

know they have no plan (but the cats also no legal status). However, when one ends up in Sioux City as one 

almost did a few weeks ago there is no thought out plan of action. 

Your policy I think could be better in informing the public more of where you know cougar to have been. I 

just read a newspaper report on your meeting in Yankton and it appears that too many folks think you deny 

that cougar are in the area. A lot of that might be reactions to local officials but don't undersell the public. 

After all they are or will be the first ones to see and or encounter the cougar. I think Nebraska has been one 

of the best states in being very forthright with the public. Take a look at the map of cougar distribution 

(information from state agencies) on the eastern Cougar Net. Anyone who knows something about cats 

knows that there are at least as many dispersing through South Dakota as North Dakota or Nebraska but 

maps based on information from the state gives a wrong impression. See 

http://www.easterncougarnet.org/prairiestates.html I know it is complicated by the fact that you have 

researchers studying them, but it gives uniformed public the wrong idea. 

110



Comment # 10 -- ? (4-23-05) 

I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed mountain lion hunting season. 

On of the issues driving this season appears to be fears that, if mountain lions are not hunted, the 

consequence will be human fatalities. California has thousands of mountain lions and tens of millions of 

people. We have hundreds of lions and less than a million people. In the last 100 years, California has had 

6 humans killed by lions. The likelihood of human fatality appears to be extremely low. 

SDGF&P has estimated the mountain lion is at carrying capacity in the Black Hills at 165 individuals, 140 

within the boundaries of the state of South Dakota. It is their desire to manage for 85% of carrying 

capacity and this leads to a quota of 20 lions. Last year 26 lions were killed in the absence of a hunting 

season, already in excess of the quota. The arithmetic is a little too simple. What's being disregarded here 

is recruitment. Recruitment data should be included in the plan; otherwise, it's not possible to tell how 

appropriate the quota is. 

This issue would benefit from less emotion and more science. 

Comment # 11 -- Rapid City (4-24-05) 

After attending the Rapid City meeting, I have some concerns and suggestions about the proposed Mt. Lion 

Hunting season. Is it really necessary? 

If you allow anyone with a hunting license to purchase a Mt. Lion license, I’m afraid that we will have 

every Tom, Dick and Harry shooting at anything that moves. Many of these people will have no real 

hunting experience. An improvement would to limit it to those lucky enough to have a Black Hills Deer 

permit. 

Would it be better to issue 20 Mt. Lion licenses, with dogs allowed, limited to a few days and each one for 

a specific geographical area similar to the deer permits? This would allow you t target specific areas and 

from the results know what the Mt. Lion distribution is. If this done before the deer hinting season there 

would only be a few hunters out reducing the chance of accidental shootings. 

To give hunters a chance for a lion kill, why not sell licenses to kill problem lions? A reasonable fee could 

be charged. If, when called the permit holder will have a set time (6 hours?) to respond. If he or she can’t 

respond in the required time that name would go to the bottom of the list. 

Comment # 12 -- ? (4-29-05) 

I am adamantly, seriously, unequivocally, undoubtedly one hundred percent opposed to any and all hunting 

and killing of any and all mountain lions in the state, especially in the Black Hills. Of late there have been 

complaints from a man who allowed his clipped winged geese to stroll around unprotected to the delight of 

a mountain lion, but to his call for a hunt. This man's thoughtlessness should not compute into a death 

sentence for a cougar. Complaints also from a woman who lost her dog to a lion. This too is no excuse for a 

hunt. We are encroaching on the lion's space not the other way around. People need to be educated about 

how to take care of their animals and themselves without requiring the tax payers and the lions to be 

responsible for their own irresponsibility. Even if these people had had a weapon, they should only have 

shot in the direction of the lion to scare it off not to kill it. Thank you, 

111



Comment # 13 -- Custer (4-29-05) 

Please—no mountain lion hunting season!!!!! 

You are, or should be, aware of the scientific reasons a lion hunting season should not take place: the 

difficulty of being able to differentiate between the males and females of the species, the length of time the 

kittens need to be with their mother, no proof of the exact number of lions in the Black Hills, the loss of 

habitat area, the relatively small hunting area in the Black Hills, etc., etc. 

There is absolutely no reason this magnificent animal should be pursued by hunters, even without the use 

of hounds! (Using hounds and the manner in which hounds are trained is certainly another matter bordering 

upon animal abuse and cruelty!!) Those animals that would be hunted and killed are not the lions that are 

the “problem” lions. The mountain lions hunted would be the trophy lions, and look at what has happened 

to our deer population when only the older, larger deer have been taken. Our deer population is now a much 

smaller, “puny” specie than we had in the past! The mountain lions help control the deer population and 

generally select those smaller deer. 

Also, setting the proposed number of lions to be removed at 20 is ridiculous. Sure, I am aware of how the 

formula was determined, but—my gosh!! Last year more lions than that were killed due to various other 

forms! When do we as humans take responsibility for protecting our wild life? So far this year, I have 

found three poached elk, one deer, and a coyote. After deer hunting season, the woods are a shambles with 

litter, animal carcasses and innards, beer cans, and other “crap” left behind by so-called sportspersons! Are 

there no hunter ethics? Is shooting a pursued, tired and frightened mountain lion perched in a tree a sport? 

It is like the buffalo hunt in Custer State Park which is no more than a fundraiser, and I am a great fan of 

Custer State Park, but we need to tell it like it is! With the road network in the Black Hills, most hunters 

can drive within feet of where they intend to make a kill. Then they get out their 4-wheeler to load their 

trophy. This combined with all the “gadgets” hunters use does not seem to be very “sporting”! 

Why not simply have a list of those individuals who want to “kill” a mountain lion and give these people 

the opportunity to “take out” a documented problem lion?? That would solve two concerns—the 

troublesome lion would be removed, and the hunter’s ego or “kill” mentality would be satisfied! Certainly, 

the GFP should charge for this privilege, and it should be more than a slap on the paws you naughty lion, 

fee of $10. In these days of budget cuts and woe are the GFP coffers, charge at least $100 for a resident 

license to be put on this list to remove the pesky mountain lion. If a person’s name is not selected, too bad! 

This is another way a lottery can benefit our great state! 

The “hearings” regarding the proposed mountain lion season have been appreciated. At the Custer session, 

much good information was traded, although I did feel that the group making the presentation was leaning 

toward instituting a season on the lions. Hopefully, these sessions were not just a “formality” as many 

people stated, with the decision to have a season already decided upon!! The newest member of GFP 

Commission stated that he was “new to politics at this level”. Please—let’s use common sense, 

compassion, and scientific data, not politics! Humans and this majestic mountain lion—another of God’s 

beautiful creations—can live in harmony!! 

Please, oh please—NO MOUNTAIN LION HUNTING SEASON IN SOUTH DAKOTA!!! 

P.S. 

Quote from the April 28, 2005, Rapid City Journal by Mike Kintigh: “But if hunters were unable to fill the 

lion quota without the use of hounds, which track and tree lions for hunters, GF&P might reconsider.” This 

certainly does sound like the decision to have a mountain lion hunting season has already been determined 

and the big question is whether or not to use hounds! ‘Bout time to call in the PETA organization on both 

issues (lion season and hound training methods), huh, rather than have South Dakotans handle South 

Dakota concerns! 

112



Comment # 14 -- Rapid City, SD (5-4-05) 

First, a request. As I read the survey results section on mountain lions, I noticed there isn't any information 

about the number of lions that hunters reported seeing this year. Would it be possible to get this 

information? Incidentally, I believe that with the amount of lions being seen by so many people (according 

to the news), a lion season is definitely a must. I also like the idea of establishing a lion season as a matter 

of luck, instead of hunting them with dogs, since theoretically anyone could harvest one without having to 

pay a sizeable sum of money to hire someone with hounds. 


I am hopeful that this is read and given consideration as other input is considered. 

I live to be in the outdoors. An outdoor experience for myself and family includes sitting, hiking, camping, 

mountain biking, running and kayaking. Since I was old enough to do so, I have been an avid wildlife 

tracker and observer. I have taken trips to various places/states/countries for the purpose of tracking and 

observing various species. I live to be in the outdoors. An outdoor experience may include hours of running 

or hiking or days of camping. I am outside all year round. I am in the Black Hills Forest at least 5 days a 

week and spend an average of 20 hours outside in addition to full time work. I may hike or run with a light 

on my head in the early morning or late evening or may be out in the daytime hours. If I spend the entire 

day outside, it is a good day. 

When we moved to the Black Hills 5 years ago, I was fascinated by the presence of mountain lions. I have 

had the honor of tracking, hearing vocalizations and observing young and adult lions in various locations in 

the Hills. Absolutely beautiful animals. I have never had a negative encounter and believe it is because I am 

educated and use appropriate principles with my activities. I look forward to continuing to watch the lions 

and their activities for years to come. 

I spend my time with others who also love the experience of the outdoors. We have never had a negative 

encounter and none of the people I know have experienced a negative encounter. They share a love of the 

outdoors. Some of them are also hunters, some are not. 

As there is discussion about lion behavior, populations and hunting, I would like to submit my comments: 

1. The public is grossly undereducated. People are talking about lions everywhere. They are afraid. 

These are often people who do not go outside often. 

2. People who live within the limits of Rapid City exercise management of their pets. People who 

live in the Hills or outside the city limits feel they can let their cats, small and large dogs run freely 

and safely. This is not logical if one understands wildlife and pet behavior. They become angry 

and fearful when their pets are injured or disappear. Lions should not be judged based on this 

behavior of humans and pets. In addition, I find this behavior dangerous to humans and a greater 

threat than lions. 

3. I carry various items for personal protection: a tree limb, pepper spray, boat horn and knife. I have 

had numerous negative experiences with dogs running freely in the forest and have had to use 

these items for personal protection and safety. Again, I have never had a negative lion experience. 

My greatest concerns and fears in the forest are dogs and men. 

4. As people continue to move into lion's territory, they should be required to exercise certain 

principles. The public requires education. People who live in wildlife habitat should be required to 

follow rules, just a people are in other areas of the country and world. If they do not, they 

experience risks. 

5. The Rapid City Journal has caused fear and panic with the public. Many people would shoot a lion 

simply because they exist and saw it. They consider their presence a threat. A coworker told me he 

and his wife will not hike Harney Peak anymore due to fear of lions. Many people who use the 

Hills for recreational hiking are afraid to go outside or camp out. 

113




6. The Game and Fish department has been grossly negligent in education of the public. I understand 

that you have tremendous responsibility. 

7. Lions will manage themselves based on territory. I have seen this occur near my home. A young 

lion tried to hunt in new territory and was killed by the adult lion who lives in the area of our 

home. 

8. I have read the facts and results of lion research. It does not seem logical to have a lion hunt. 

9. Just because hunters want to hunt and kill should never justify a lion hunt. 

10. Why aren't wildlife shown in the media and to visitors as creatures with specific characteristics 

and are beautiful to see, watch and understand? The game and fish exists to perpetuate, conserve, 

manage, protect and enhance. There does not seem to be a problem with lions. There is fear and 

ignorance. In addition, there are hunters who like to hunt and kill. 

11. I am hopeful that the Game and Fish acts responsibly. I do not think the lion population will 

support a hunt. It is a potential threat to the conservation of this species. There will continue to be 

accidents, lions managing themselves, and people will continue to shoot them. I spend a 

tremendous amount of time in appropriate fashion and locations for the honor of seeing signs of 

behavior of lions. 

12. I find the current consideration of lion hunting an embarrassment to the State of South Dakota and 

Game and Fish. The Game and Fish has not spent any comparable amount of time on educating 

the public as they have on meetings about potential hunting. 

13. My dream is to observe preservation, conservation, protection and enhancement of the uniqueness 

the Black Hills has to offer. So many of these are at risk as human nature and populations evolve. 

14. I do not want to share my knowledge and experiences in detail with the Game and Fish 

Department because I feel it is betrayal to my honorable experiences with the forest and wildlife. I 

do not consider or trust the possible use of my knowledge and experiences will be in agreement 

with #13 at this time. 

Thank you for considerations of my comments, 

Comment # 16 -- Sioux Falls, SD (5-11-05) 

I just wanted you to know how I feel about the Mt. Lion season that the GF&P has proposed. 

I really don’t understand how they came up with the idea of having a season without the use of hounds. 

This to me and many other sportsman is one of the most absurd things we have heard. Everyone knows that 

the only sound way to manage cats is with the use of hounds as is why every state that has cats that has a 

season allows the use of hounds because it’s the only way to manage what is harvested. With the use of 

hounds you can tree them and then have time to look and see if they are an adult male or female or a female 

with kittens which is what we want to do to, safely manage the population and keep the Mt. Lions balanced 

between males and females. This is the only way to keep the heard healthy and manageable. 

The way the season is proposed is a good way to get the heard unbalanced because of the way they have it. 

The way it is worded is lions with kits not allowed. This is good but females don’t always travel with there 

kits which can stay with the adult for up to 2 years. So what this means is someone out deer/elk hunting 

see’s a cat and usually only a glimpse takes a shot (you ever hear of anyone seeing a small one ,no there 

always huge) and they find it and it’s a small one, now what. Do they tag it or try to hide it? 

Another thing is they only get a short glimpse of this cat and usually just about dark and they shoot and just 

wound it and go looking for it when its getting dark. Now you have a wounded cat and that’s a major 

problem and if its just wounded and gets away now you have a wounded cat out looking for food and hurt 

so now its going to look for an easy meal like a pet or other domestic pet and the same goes if they shoot a 

female and kill it and it has young kittens so they being inexperienced hunters will go look for the same 

sort of easy meals. To me this is were a hunter with hounds has a very big advantage over a guy out deer 

hunting. He has the tools to harvest a cat or leave it unharmed. The only way to tell the sex of a Mt. Lion is 

when he is in a tree and have time to study it for a few minutes . 

114




I like the idea of having a season for Mt. Lion but think the GF&P need to rethink the way it is proposed. If 

they allow 20 cats to be taken in the Black Hills they need to divide the hills into smaller units so all the 

cats are not taken just in one area . They need to have some taken out of each area like the northern and the 

southern parts. 

What I would like to have you consider is giving the deer hunters half of the tags during the month of 

November (deer season) and after that give the hound hunters the other half and what’s left from the deer 

hunters thus giving everyone a chance . Myself I would rather have a chase only season and get these cats 

afraid of dogs and humans which has been proven to work in other states. I personally don’t care if I ever 

harvest another cat as I do it only for the sport . I would not want to have a hound season during the deer 

season for obvious reasons. 

The GF&P and all sportsman know the best way to take Mt. Lions is with the use of hounds is with dogs 

that’s why the State owns there own hounds and when there’s a problem lion they know they have to use 

hounds and that’s why they have them, just read the paper or watch the news and they tell you a state 

trapper with hounds got another one. 

If you have any questions or want to read a book I have on Mt. Lions and Game management on them 

please let me know. Thanks 

Comment # 17 -- ? (5-11-05) 

I read in this mornings paper that a state trapper had to neutralize a cat in Deadwood. I thought that the 

correct procedure was done well by the State of SD. I was wondering if more of that could be done by the 

SD GF&P? It seems reasonable to me that since the state already has the people and dogs that can identify 

these animals with help of the public , why not have the SD GF&P continue to do execute cats as needed? I 

am all for the state to continue its precision and using its tools and resources. It is true that the SD GF&P 

can not remove all critical cats, but surely wouldn't SD GF&P be able to go out and remove 20 cats? This is 

just a thought. I liked reading the idea that the SD GF&P took care of a cat that could have later on been 

problematic. Good job. I also am suspicious of the infamous "live trap" that the SD uses. I think it is ideal 

and can understand it has a cumbersome size and then having an ideal site can be tough to find as well. 

However, I suspect maybe a wolf or two or common dog may have been trapped. And can understand the 

State of SD would not to say anything about such an incident. I know I sure would not mention anything if 

I caught a wolf in one. I firmly believe that a limited number of wolves do currently exist in the Black 

Hills. Have you ever thought about doing some sort of vague address to the public about the existing of 

wolves in the Hills? There are allot of people that certainly agree that wolves are part of the whole 

ecosystem in the Hills. Have I ever saw a wolf in the Hills? Back in 2001, in Pettigrew Gulch I did. I have 

trapped and hunted coyotes in the Black Hills and western SD since 1982. And I know that this animal I 

saw in 2001, had too long of legs, larger head, bigger body, and larger tail for a coyote and just was to big 

for a coyote. I seriously considered shooting this animal but did not when I realized I would be shooting a 

wolf illegally in SD and feared legal trouble. I do not think this was a big dog either, it did not match that 

description. And it sure was not a mountain lion, either. I just think that something should be said to 

address the issue that it is certainly possible to see a wolf in the Black Hills of SD, but unlikely currently 

(to prevent public panic, but have set in place for when time comes to address issue). Enough Said. I will 

not say another word about your live trap or wolves in the Black Hills. 

I would like to know how the DNA turned out on the cats when your data is complete. Keep up the good 

work. Thank you for your time. 

115



Comment # 18 -- Britton, SD (5-31-05) 

In regards to the season on mountain lion. First off I think licenses should be purchased ahead of time. So 

that people cannot shoot a lion and then purchase a license later. Second i agree the quota will not be filled, 

Due to the nature of the cats. Personally, I think the season should be open to hound hunters, as in 

Wyoming and Montana. This should put the fear of man and dogs in the cat. At the least, a pursuit season 

for houndsmen. This would also put the fear of man in them. How about this, to be fair to all hunters open 

season to rifle hunters first, or earlier in season. Followed by houndsmen later. Of course subject to quota. 

I'm Jim Hagen and i live near Britton S.D. I've been a houndsmen since 1978. I have hunted mountain lion, 

bobcat, and bear with hounds. If I can be of any assistance to you please contact me at 

hagenfarms@sbtc.net. 


PRAIRIE HILLS AUDUBON SOCIETY 

P.O. Box 792 

Rapid City, SD 57709 

605-787-6466 or 787-6779 

phas.wsd@rapidnet.com 

The Prairie Hills Audubon Society Board of Directors has adopted the following position on your 2005 

proposal for a mountain lion hunting season in the Black Hills: 

That no hunting season on mountain lions should be established in the Black Hills or in any part of South 

Dakota and that problem mountain lions be removed* by trained GF&P employees or professional hunters 

under GF&P's supervision. 

*By "removed" we refer to both lethal and non-lethal means of removing "problem" animals from an area 

where they are considered a problem. Prairie Hills Audubon Society submits the following specific 

comments on your April 2005 Draft South Dakota Mountain Lion Management Plan, Version 05-2 and 

proposed hunting season. 

1. Insufficient research has been conducted on lion behavior and population trends in the Black Hills to 

justify a hunting season; 

2. Rather than hunting "problem" lions near urban areas, we believe most recreational hunters would be 

harvesting those in the back country, thus taking lions that may pose little or no threat to humans or 

domestic animals; 

3. As "problem" lion's home ranges will overlap with the public/private interface and/or wildland/urban 

interface, when "problem" lions are hunted by recreational hunters, there will likely be safety and trespass 

issues, with recreational hunters tracking and shooting lions on and around private property. It is more 

appropriate for SDGFP employees to handle their removals; 

4. Because of the extreme difficulty in distinguishing male/female lions, many females would likely be 

killed, leaving cubs to starve and yearlings without adequate training to hunt appropriate prey; which may 

result in depredations to livestock by these yearlings, thus actually increasing human/lion conflicts. 

5. A large percentage of "problem" lions are young males. During a recent hunting season in the Black 

Hills of Wyoming, at least half of the lions taken were females; 

6. Using estimated population figures, nearly 17% of lions were killed last year in South Dakota (17% 

25/150 in 2004), plus 15 more hunted or poached in the Black Hills of Wyoming; therefore, we feel that the 

lion population is already being sufficiently controlled; 

7. Dispersion into outlying areas is a natural pattern for mountain lions, and not necessarily the result of 

overpopulation; 

116




8. The Plan fails to adequately discuss the distribution and stocking levels of mountain lions in other areas 

of the state besides the Black Hills. It fails to adequately discuss habitat needs of the mountain lion and 

evaluate where such habitat exists in the state. It fails to discuss the mountain lion population on other 

public lands in SD such as Custer National Forest or Badlands National Park or Nebraska National Forest 

or Dakota Prairie National Grasslands or BLM or other federal or state public lands. It fails to discuss 

wildlife management plans of Tribes; 

9. It fails to adequately discuss the connectivity issues between populations in the Black Hills and 

elsewhere in the state or region. It fails to adequately disclose the effect of the proposed hunting season on 

the reestablishment of or the viability of or the stocking levels of mountain lion populations outside of the 

Black Hills; 

10.. The hunting season will detract from the pool of available transplants and lions who would naturally 

disperse to areas which may be currently under-stocked with mountain lions. GFP should aggressively seek 

new public lands in which to promote viable populations of mountain lions. Top predators are necessary for 

fully functioning and healthy native ecosystems; 

11. Despite human encroachment on their habitat, mountain lions remain reclusive animals that pose 

minimal threat to humans or livestock; 

12 The Draft Plan on about page 20 discussed "occupied recreational areas" ". We believe caution should 

be used when linking a lions activities near a "occupied recreation areas" with the concept of "substantial 

threat". The Plan defines hiking trails as "occupied recreational areas". There are many miles of hiking 

trails in the Black Hills, some of which are in back country or wilderness or inventoried roadless areas; 

12. No evidence exists showing that livestock depredation declines in areas where mountain lions are 

hunted, which appears to be the motivating force behind the proposed season. In fact, lions killed by sport 

hunting are not necessarily the same ones causing depredation loss; 

13, Increase in deer populations are perceived as a problem by some home owners or communities in the 

Black Hills; mountain lions are one of the major predators that helps regulate deer populations and their 

activities could reduce some conflicts between home owners and deer; 

14. If a season is permitted, we believe that the figure of 20 mountain lions per year is too high and will 

suppress the population. We believe the plan for regulating and establishing the cut off of the season is 

inadequate and could result in excessive take beyond the quota set; 

15. According to a public opinion survey conducted by SDSU and the Department of Game, Fish and Parks 

in 2002, "most of the public (72%) agreed with the statement, "the presence of mountain lions is a sign of a 

healthy environment." We believe that many Black Hills residents consider the presence of mountain lions 

a sign of a healthy environment and an asset that deserves protection, we certainly do; 

16. We may send additional comments in subsequently. 

Comment # 20 -- ? (6-9-05) 

The South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks (GF&P) has removed the mountain lion from the 

threatened species list, now you intend to open a hunting season on them because ranchers and farmers 

claim the animals are preying on livestock. There may be as many as 150 lions in the isolated habitat of the 

Black Hills, and the you aim to "harvest" 20 of them between October and the end of December. To meet 

this goal, you hope to sell special licenses to thousands of hunters for $10 apiece that will allow them to 

shoot mountain lions. 

This proposal poses a serious danger not only to mountain lions, but to other animals as well, both wild and 

domestic. According to your own investigations, many hunters can't tell a mountain lion from a golden 

retriever, a house cat, a bobcat or a fox, so this plan will put many endangered animals and beloved 

companion animals at grave risk. In addition, most hunters can't distinguish between male and female 

mountain lions in the field, so many kittens will be orphaned and die when their mothers are shot. 

Ultimately, the indiscriminate killing of mountain lions will not protect livestock or create a safer 

environment for humans. 

Could you please withdraw this proposal to harvest mountain lions. 

117



Comment # 21 Special Note: John Cooper received 352 copies of this e-mail from around the 

country ( including some e-mails from other countries): 

Dear Secretary Cooper, 

Please reconsider your proposal to open a hunting season on mountain lions in South Dakota. 

Implementing this plan would pose a serious danger not only to mountain lions, but to other animals as 

well, both wild and domestic. The GF&P's own investigations indicate that many hunters can't tell a 

mountain lion from a golden retriever, a house cat, a bobcat or a fox, so this plan will put many endangered 

animals and beloved companion animals at risk. In addition, most hunters can't distinguish between male 

and female mountain lions in the field, so many kittens will be orphaned and die when their mothers are 

shot. 

Cougars have as much right to exist on this land as the farmers and their cattle. We have encroached on 

their land. 

Ultimately, the indiscriminate killing of mountain lions will not protect livestock or create a safer 

environment for humans, but some alternative and more humane approaches could. For example, the 

application of aversion techniques (such as those that use collars for livestock that repel mountain lions, 

who kill by biting their victims' necks) could potentially stop mountain lions from preying on domestic 

animals. In addition, promoting good animal husbandry (such as keeping livestock indoors at night) could 

prevent many attacks. 

I urge you to take measures that will effectively protect wildlife, livestock, and the human population of 

South Dakota. 

118

Mountain Lion Management in South Dakota Appendix H 

Larry M. Gigliotti letters (typed) received 

Appendix H – Letters (typed) received concerning the South Dakota mountain 

lion management plan. 

= = = 1. = = = 

I see where the Fish & Game are going to have twenty Mountain Lions killed off, 

why only twenty, why not forty or more? I am ninety years old and the only good lion I 

ever saw was a dead one. I am sure you know what they live on. If the State doesn’t 

want to pay a bounty on them, at least have a long season. I am for protecting most 

wildlife but not all. About ten years ago in a picnic area of the Badlands there was a 

rattlesnake. One of the Rangers there gathered the snake up in a cardboard box and 

turned it loose, that is just plain stupid. Protecting wildlife sometimes goes too far. 

= = = 2. = = = 

This letter is to encourage you to advise the Game, Fish & Parks Commission to 

postpone the proposed sport hunting season on mountain lions presently under 

consideration. My reasons for making this request are: 

No agency has ever determined an exact number of mountain lions in the Black 

Hills. It is my understanding that these animals disperse into outlying areas not 

because of overpopulation, but simply because it is their nature. 

No evidence exists showing that livestock depredation declines in areas where 

mountain lions are hunted, which appears to be the motivating force behind the 

proposed season. In fact, lions killed by sport hunting are not necessarily the 

same ones causing depredation loss. 

We have far too many deer in the Black Hills now, and eliminating one of their 

major predators (mountain lions) by sport hunting will only serve to increase the 

deer population. 

A large percentage of problem lions are young males. During a recent hunting 

season in the Black Hills of Wyoming, at least half of the lions taken were 

females. Since females are either pregnant or nursing seventy-five percent of the 

time, many kittens were left to starve. Females raise their young alone, and keep 

them for up to two years. Young orphaned adults have not learned effective 

hunting skills or how to select appropriate prey, which leads them to seek the easy 

prey of livestock. Restricting sport hunting to males alone would not work 

because it is virtually impossible to identify males from females. 

In 2002, a survey done by Game, Fish & Parks showed that 80.7 percent of the 

public agreed with the statement, “by following some simple precautions, people 

can safely live in areas occupied by mountain lion.” I believe that a majority of 

Black Hills residents consider the presence of mountain lions a sign of a healthy 

environment and an asset that deserves protection. 

Please give serious thought to postponing a sport hunting season on mountain 

lions until more scientific studies have been done and public sentiment has been more 

carefully considered. Thank you. 

119



= = = 3. = = = 

I am writing this letter to strongly encourage you to advise the GF&P 

Commission to postpone establishing a hunting season on mountain lions in the Black 

Hills. My primary objections are: 

Those lions taken by hunters would not necessarily be the same ones responsible 

for livestock depredation. Six of the seven lions killed by GF&P in the Hills in 

2004 and 2005 for depredation were two-year old males. Yet during the 2005 

hunting season in the Black Hills of Wyoming, 50% of the lions taken were 

female. Since female lions are either pregnant or have dependent young 75% of 

the time (offspring stay with mothers up to 18 months), killing them leaves 

orphaned kittens to starve, and young, untrained adults more likely to seek easy 

prey (livestock). Reducing the lion population to a large percentage of 

inexperienced young lions will only serve to exacerbate the depredation problem. 

GF&P based their lion population estimate on a single study, and thus it cannot be 

considered conclusive; there may be far fewer lions in the Hills than determined 

by that estimate. According to recent surveys done by SDSU and your own 

Department, a large percent of Black Hills’ human residents consider the presence 

of mountain lions an asset rather than a detriment. No empirical studies have 

been done that show that hunting lions decreases depredation or effectively 

reduces conflict with humans. 

The two major threats to self-sustaining lion populations are habitat loss and 

overkill, which includes hunting (legal and illegal), accidents and predator 

control. Dispersion into outlying areas is a natural pattern for mountain lions, and 

not a result of overpopulation of the species. 

Despite human encroachment on their habitat, mountain lions remain reclusive 

animals that pose minimal threat to humans or livestock. Simply by their nature, 

these animals would suffer tremendous stress as a result of hunting encroachment 

into what remains of their “safe” habitat. 

Thank you for your attention to this letter. I will very much appreciate your 

consideration of my comments in your important upcoming decision regarding the future 

of mountain lions in the Black Hills. 

= = = 4. = = = 

I urge you to consider the possibility of a future mountain lion hunting season 

with great thoughtfulness and care. I am confident you will do that, but the shrill clamor 

from a small part of the hunting community, demanding immediate action, may make it 

difficult for you to remain dispassionate. Sadly, some of our otherwise rational friends 

and neighbors firmly believe that if a wild creature has feathers, fur or scales, then it was 

made to kill. Sometimes their demands can be illogical and shortsighted, so all possible 

motivations must be considered. 

120



There is no doubt, or dispute, that some lions will necessarily die. The policies 

followed to date, by GFP, have been thoughtful and appropriate. They have been based 

on threat and depredation, and likely need to be continued, under the same strict 

guidelines. Action, in the past, has been taken only after the problem, if any, was 

examined carefully. I hope you take the next steps only after equally careful study. 

Although it would be logistically difficult, a compromise that might be examined would 

be to auction or otherwise award, in advance, “shooting rights”, to be exercised when it is 

determined that a troublesome lion must be exterminated. Substantial revenues could be 

realized thereby. It would likely also reduce the chances of killing a lioness with cubs, 

which would surely happen in a conventional season as it is very difficult to determine a 

lion’s sex in a hunting environment. At any one time, seventy-five percent of lionesses 

are pregnant or have dependant young. 

The risk to humans, worldwide, has been slight; lions try to avoid people. The 

lion population is, admittedly, not accurately known in South Dakota. All you have at 

this point is an estimate. Nor does research provide evidence that there is a 

correspondence between lion populations and frequency of attacks against humans. 

Research has likewise shown that determining minimally accurate population counts will 

require at least three careful studies, spread two or three years apart. I hope you will try 

to comply with those established findings and recommendations. 

Thank you for your attentions. Your task is not simple. 

= = = 5. = = = 

I moved to the Black Hills almost 12 years ago because I love living “out West.” 

The scenery is gorgeous, the weather is delightful, and the wildlife are a never-ending 

source of joy and wonderment: coyotes, deer, porcupine, wild turkeys, big horn sheep, 

elk, antelope, mountain goats, eagles. But where are the buffalo, bears, moose, and 

timber wolves that once roamed this area? 

I have always been particularly fond of cats. It is my feeling they are God’s most 

graceful creation. What I really want to see one day is a mountain lion in his habitat. 

Not in a book, or a zoo, or on a PBS television special -- in real life. And some day I 

would hope our grandchildren (and their grandchildren) could also experience that thrill. 

I am writing to express concern over the proposed hunting season on mountain 

lions. It is my fear that the small population here in the Black Hills (which is already 

being killed at an alarming rate) cannot sustain a hunting season. Please do not rush 

heedlessly into this without taking sufficient time to study the situation thoroughly. You 

cannot make a responsible decision without adequate information. 

And, in the meantime, we need to start educating people on how to coexist with 

these beautiful creatures. If you have a pet or livestock that you value, then take 

measures to protect it. Let’s learn what to do if we encounter a cougar. And how to 

discourage (or at least not encourage) them from entering our personal space. If money is 

the primary motivator, why not start touting South Dakota as a “haven for wildlife.” 

There must be a way we can all live in harmony. 

Please -- for the sake of future generations of humans and mountain lions, we 

cannot afford to act hastily without considerable forethought. Extinct is irreversible. 

Thank you for giving this matter your time and consideration. 

121



= = = 6. = = = 

I am writing as part of a public comment to express great concern about the 

proposed hunting season for mountain lions in South Dakota. Quite aside from the fact 

that we have invaded, developed and created havoc in their natural habitat, the research 

simply does not support the concept of a lion hunting season as a reasonable practice for 

managing lions to avoid human/lion conflict and interaction. 

Game, Fish and Parks personnel have appropriately destroyed problem lions when 

problems have arisen – and these have been primarily young males. To open a season 

that might cause the destruction of dominant, male lions, or females, would most likely 

increase depredation and other problems. Dominant males seek to escape human 

elements and hunt appropriately. Female lions may have young kittens with them (up to 

18 months). Destroying the female forces the kittens to hunt without training, and they 

are often the one hunting livestock and pets. 

There is simply no South Dakota research with adequate data or enough data 

points to support lion hunting. Experts in the field with research behind them do not feel 

that hunting lessens, may even increase, depredation losses. Why would we recklessly 

propose hunting without any real knowledge of the situation – only hysteria on the part of 

some. 

If we must hunt problem lions, then let licenses be issued for hunters who come as 

requested and hunt with Game, Fish and Parks personnel. 

I know that you are trying to serve South Dakota in the best possible way, but as a 

native of this State, I am appalled that we seem to react, rather than research and create 

rational plans of action, for lions or other issues that have long-term consequences for 

South Dakota and its environment. 

= = = 7. = = = 

I’m a houndsman from Bruce, South Dakota. I’m writing to express my dismay 

over the State no longer talking about the use of tracking animals on mountain lions. 

What ever happened to the “no kill” tracking animal hunting season idea on lions? A 

rifle only season will be a dangerous free-for-all. A wounded predator is a dangerous 

animal. Tracking hounds tree the predator, allowing for a clean kill. It’s more humane, 

safer, more exciting, and more in line with the American tradition. Please reconsider and 

allow tracking hounds on mountain lions. 

= = = 8. = = = 

I have a plan that would ensure strong genetic diversity for Mountain Lions, 

which is what we all want. It would ensure that the mature lions would keep their 

territories in the Black Hills. Mature lions are better hunters and don’t have to prey on 

domestic animals. My plan is to transplant about six young lions each year into the 

Custer National Forest in Northwest South Dakota. This would include the North Cave 

Hills, South Cave Hills, and Slim Buttes. There might be a couple of lions up there 

already but there is lots of room and few people problems. Show ranchers how to use 

guard dogs. The rivers and the Custer National Forest would keep the fragmented 

122



populations in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota connected ensuring 

genetic diversity. The Little Missouri flows from just north of the Black Hills into the 

North Dakota Badlands, which has a few lions, I believe. This plan requires effort and 

expense, but there is nothing more inhuman than a trophy-hunting season on these great 

predators. In British Columbia they have unregulated hunting of lions but they also still 

have some of the most violent and frequent lion /human encounters in North America. In 

Washington and Oregon 60% of the hunting deaths are female. At any given time, 75% 

of adult female lions are either pregnant or have dependent young. 

We have very intelligent and creative biologists in South Dakota and we can show 

other Western states that we don’t have to destroy a healthy and vital Mountain Lion 

population. 

= = = 9. = = = 

South Dakota Mountain Lion Management Plan: I am writing this with high 

hopes that you will at least consider letting us hunt lions with hounds. When you wanted 

to study the cats, hounds were used to tree them, so you could collar them. Just this week 

a State Trooper used dogs to catch a lion near or in Deadwood South Dakota. 

The reasons are many why hound hunting should be allowed. First, and foremost, 

the hunter would have a lot better look at the cat, while it is treed, which would let you 

determine if it was an adult cat. I believe that about 75% or more can be sexed if you 

know what to look for, while treed. It has been proven that hounds are a very valuable 

asset in the pursuit of mountain lions. 

As to status, in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, and many other Western 

states, the big cat is a very “sought after” “trophy”, that brings a hefty price for a valued 

tag. It would be terrible to let non-residents even take a single tag. We don’t allow them 

to take Bobcat or even Raccoons, why would we ever consider letting non-residents hunt 

cats with such a limited number being allotted? 

As to season dates, even with hounds, it is far better hunting when snow is on the 

ground, way better tracking. I understand that you want it open during Elk and Deer 

season, as that’s when the majority of hunters are in the field, but I don’t think very many 

cats will ever be taken by blind luck. Even if they are able to snipe a few, odds are good 

it will be the young and dumb who fall to this type of hunting. I think that November 1 st 

through March 1 st would be a far better time frame, as snow may or may not be present 

even then, as I writing this 05-12-05, it is snowing in the Black Hills, but they had little 

or no snow all winter. At least their pelt would be prime. 

As to the cost, I’m not sure, but it is either $1,000.00 or $5,000.00 fine for taking 

a cat right now, and you better have tooth marks, unless of course, you work for the 

Game & Fish! 

I believe that $100.00 for a resident and, God forbid you do allow non-residents to 

acquire a tag, it should cost at least $300.00 - $1,000.00 and once in a lifetime for nonresidents. 

I like the idea of having separate units, with a quota of cats for each unit, when 

the unit fills, the season ends. I was in Wyoming and Montana hunting cats and that is 

how they do it. I hunted with Bob Morosak and Bill Ziegler both of Sheridan Wyoming. 

123



Both are professional big game outfitters, they would be very good people to talk to about 

how they do it in Wyoming and Montana. 

As to problem cats, cats doing depredation, could be taken almost immediately 

with hounds! 

You could have a pool of houndsmen, who are willing to go at a phone call; there 

are houndsmen in every part of our State! 

If you really want to harvest a few big cats, hounds are your best bet; otherwise, 

we’re back to blind luck, or, if you feel lucky, you could try calling. While calling is 

good for Coyotes and Bobcat, to a lesser degree, would you really want a Mountain Lion 

hunting you? 

While I’m not against trapping, again, a trap can’t sex a cat. I don’t know too 

many people who would want to try to release a lactating female, or even a kitten. That 

could get real western, real quick! 

I hope you will consider us, South Dakota houndsmen, as the better alternative for 

hunting the big cats. 

If hounds were allowed, you would have to let houndsmen train their dogs, 

sometime during the off-season as well, with absolutely no kills, during training season. 

You wouldn’t want to take a grown Lab or Pointer out hunting on opening day if they 

have never been started in the fine art of hunting! We all go to school for years, a hound 

isn’t that much different, they are a lot like kids. It all takes time. 

During the training season (and especially during the kill season) hounds would 

put the fear of man and dog back in an unmatched predator (who at present isn’t really 

afraid of humans or towns -- of course, its not their fault that man has himself to blame 

for moving into every open meadow in the Hills!). 

Thank you for reading this. I hope I’ve swayed you to consider some or all of my 

thoughts. 

To put such a pitiful amount of $10.00 or $50.00 would be a slap in the face, to 

such a graceful, big game animal, and if the tags were unlimited, over the counter, it 

would open the door for poaching. 

They could wait until they shot a cat before even buying a license; I can’t see any 

good coming from that! 

We have to apply for everything else, why should mountain lions be any 

different? They are not Varmints! 

Thank you. 

P.S. Consider the value you put on the Prairie Dog, or Black-footed Ferret! A 

Mountain Lion deserves to be put high up, on our trophy, big game, in South Dakota in 

comparison. This is a true, trophy animal, please don’t belittle it. Those Minnesotans 

already rape our fishing and hunting. If you’re going to let them hunt or fish in our State, 

MAKE THEM PAY!! South Dakota residents pay the first or second highest resident 

fees in the U.S., and non-residents pay the lowest out of State license fee in the U.S. 

Who are you working for? South Dakota State and sportsmen, or Minnesota $? If it’s 

the latter – fine – MAKE THEM PAY! 

Allowing non-residents to hunt in our State is a real sore spot with all South 

Dakota sportsmen! It used to be non-residents couldn’t hunt deer East River, a very good 

idea! I believe we wouldn’t have such strained relations between landowners and 

sportsmen if the almighty buck were taken out of the equation! If West River ranchers 

124



couldn’t sell our State’s deer for $1,500.00 - $2,500.00 per deer to non-residents, they 

might actually want hunters to reduce deer herds. It would help considerably if our 

government made it law that we could hunt all C.R.P., waterbank, and water easement in 

the State, sportsmen, taxpayers, and the government pay for all this set aside, they get 

paid to do nothing! 

Every other business in our State, either makes it, or they’re out of business, 

except the welfare recipients who farm and ranch, every year there’s another welfare 

program for those poor, broke, farmers and ranchers. 

And oh my, they cry, because they have to feed the wildlife of South Dakota, so 

do we just lay down and pay? Or, do we quit all government programs, and let them 

stand on their own feet? The only ones crying are the ones in trouble, who, without 

government welfare – C.R.P. – Pik – and a host of other programs, would have to fold! 

So be it! Go to town and get a job! 

The main thing non-residents want is our fish, pheasants, and turkeys. Let’s limit 

them to this, and MAKE THEM PAY! It’s pretty sad when you are a lifetime resident of 

a State, and it still takes 3 – 10 years to pull a deer tag. Let them ruin their own State's 

hunting. South Dakota sportsmen have paid enough! 

= = = 10. = = = 

After attending a couple of the SDGFP meetings regarding a cougar hunting 

season, I want to send you a copy of the flyer I prepared, documented, and distributed. 

This is a complex issue, however, so much of the work being done here at, I 

assume, taxpayer expense has already been done and is available for the asking. 

One major objective by SDGFP…stated in their Management Plan: 2003 – 2012 

regarding the proposed experimental “lion season” and listed as, “the most important 

season objective will be to determine if a prescribed mountain lion season can reduce the 

amount of human/lion conflicts…”, has no scientific basis. 

It has been proven beyond a shadow of any doubt that hunting does NOT decrease 

conflicts and does NOT increase public safety. (Logan, Hopkins, Anderson) 

The question then remains WHY hunt, as killing off cougars can actually cause 

more problems than already exist! 

There are only two reasons to ever use general hunting as a “tool” and I have 

listed them. 

I ask you to please vote against ANY organized hunt as the current policy of 

removing only “problem cats” is more than adequate for the SD mountain lion 

population. 

Finally, I would like to make an effort to personally thank the FOUR people who 

took the time to recognize my efforts…I had hoped for more from my elected officials. 

Thanks to: Senator Koucek, Representatives Murschel and Dr. Van Etten and Dr. 

Gigliotti, I appreciate your interest. 

125



= = = 11. = = = 

My wife and I hike a lot in the southern Black Hills and Do wish to comment on 

Mountain Lion management. 

I do not hunt big game so am not motivated by personally wanting to hunt one. 

However, we think a hunting season would be appropriate and perhaps make more sense 

than other forms of management. 

From what we’ve seen and heard firsthand the lion population is WELL PAST the 

safety level for humans or domestic animals. We believe it’s just a matter of time before 

a child or hiker or jogger is attacked. 

We live six miles west of Custer near an old logging road that frequently exhibits 

Mountain Lion tracks and other signs, like a deer kill pulled away in the snow two 

winters ago. No other tracks except the lion. This was about 200 yards from a house – 

most of the tracks appear 200 – 300 yards from houses. 

Many local residents are beginning to fear hiking or allowing their children out as 

much and are likewise warning visitors to the Black Hills. 

Please consider a strong management plan whatever it entails. Thanks. 

= = = 12. = = = 

My wife and I own and operate a campground that borders the Black Hills 

National Forest four miles North of Hill City. There is presently a Mountain Lion 

visiting the campground regularly. 

When our camping season opens in the next few days and I have to tell our guests 

not to allow their children to play outside or they may be carried off by a Mountain Lion, 

you can imagine how many will refuse to stay with us. On the other hand, if I don’t tell 

them and they are attacked, I’ll probably go to jail. 

I believe this threat must be eliminated. It is unfair to expect campers to spend 

their vacations in fear. 

The Lions don’t pay tazes – we do! 

= = = 13. = = = 

I am a homeowner who lives outside of the Custer city limits and I would like to 

express my views regarding the Mountain Lions. 

My daughter and I have encountered a lion (on Forest Service land) and although 

we left the area a little shaken we never felt that our lives were in danger. We must 

realize that when we live in the country there will be wild animals, so precautionary 

measures should be taken for pets, livestock, etcetera. 

If a lion does become a nuisance animal (city or livestock) the GFP should deal 

with each animal as the problem arises. 

To sum it up, I am opposed to any hunting of Mountain Lions as I feel the hunters 

and their equipment are more of a disturbance than the lions. 

126



= = = 14. = = = 

This is to comment on the Mountain Lion management plan for South Dakota. 

I have hunted Bobcat with hounds since 1954. In 1959, I started hunting 

Mountain Lions in several western states, and occasionally still do. I have a dog or two 

that think they know how. 

With my experience I think it’s almost impossible to get a desirable harvest 

without using hounds. 

In my home County of Gregory, Mountain Lions are seen several times a year. 

It’s only a short time when some people will demand something be done about the big 

cats here. I personally haven’t seen any sign here and I sure look. 

I have no problem the big cats being here and they don’t like beef. 

I’m a retired rancher and would help in this part of South Dakota. 

= = = 15. = = = 

I am opposed to the proposed lion-hunting season in the Black Hills. 

165 lions is not a large number for the entire Black Hills including the Black Hills 

of Wyoming. And, 7% of hunters is also not a large number of hunters who had an 

opportunity to shoot a lion while hunting. 

The proposal calls for lions with kittens not to be shot. Kittens do not always 

accompany their mother when she is hunting. The kittens may be in a den awaiting their 

mother’s return; and, if the mother is shot, then what of the kittens? 

I agree that the proposal not allow trapping, baiting, or the use of hounds in lion 

hunting. And, why a 20 animal quota? Why not 12 as in Wyoming? I believe a better 

alternative to lion-hunting would be education seminars in Black Hills cities. 

Hikers and wanderers in the forest should be made aware of the possible lion 

activity in their immediate area. 

Although I have an Edgemont address (Postal regulations) I live in West Custer 

County. When I leave my house, especially at night, I carry a spotlight and a firearm and 

spot the entire area for possible lion presence. If a lion has killed pets or livestock, then 

of course this lion should be eliminated – and when a lion is seen in a residential area, 

then the resident should contact authorities and Game, Fish, and Parks could remove the 

lion from the area. 

Most hunters who enter the forest generally abide by all the laws. However, if a 

lion season is passed then there are those persons who are not true hunters who will go 

into the woods just “to shoot a lion”; then, nothing in the forest will be safe. 

I do not support a lion-hunting season in the Black Hills. 

= = = 16. = = = 

As a life-long sportsman of this State; I am writing in support of a regulated 

hunting season to control Mountain Lion numbers in the State of South Dakota. I do, 

however, have one major objection to the proposal being discussed: the proposed fees. A 

$10 resident and a $50 non-resident license fee is ridiculously low. A Mountain Lion is a 

127



premier big game animal and deserves a fee schedule commensurate with Big Horn 

Sheep, Elk, or Mountain Goats. If the principle is to sell as may chances as possible at a 

low cost, then the type of hunter you will attract will be one ill-prepared to hunt a 

Mountain Lion, but one willing to buy a license to “get a shot” at a Mountain Lion. I 

don’t think that is what we want for a Mountain Lion season that will be under the 

microscope. If a Mountain Lion is shot, it should be required to be checked by a Warden 

within 24 hours. If the license fee is not fully commensurate with other big game 

animals, then a trophy fee should be charged for the kill. 

Let’s give these premier big game animals the respect they deserve when setting a 

fee schedule. 

= = = 17. = = = 

I would like to comment on the proposed management plan. 

I feel the present method of handling conflicts with humans or livestock is 

probably the best. A season on these large cats would not solve anything in regard to 

predation problems. If studies show there are enough cats to open districts for some 

removals, I think it would be feasible. This would and should be viewed only as a 

sporting venture and not as a cat-human conflict solving venture. 

A possible approach to a season may be to take so many cats from two units, the 

northern hills and the southern hills. When the quota is reached in each, the season 

would close. 

I might add that if the GF&P were to deny hunting with trail hounds, it would be 

impossible to remove any cats to speak of. It all depends how serious the State is about 

removing some of the Mountain Lion numbers through hunting. 

= = = 18. = = = 

Dear Governor Rounds, 

With the decision regarding a season on mountain lions drawing near, I am 

writing in the hopes that you will put politics and thoughts of lion trophies side and give 

serious consideration to the issues involved which will impact lions, the people living in 

lion habitat and the ecosystem as a whole. I have been studying lions and related issues 

for many years now and will be attending my third mountain lion workshop this May in 

Washington. I speak with experts in the field on a regular basis. The reason I dedicate 

my time is because I believe there are real solutions to lion related problems out there. 

But in order to discover solutions and implement them, takes a combination of paying 

close attention to science, creativity, a true desire to solve problems and a recognition that 

mountain lions are valuable members of the ecosystem. 

Since lions were nearly eliminated from South Dakota during the bounty years, 

their numbers have increased primarily due to immigration from the Big Horn Mountains 

and protection afforded by the state. We now have a healthy and viable population in the 

Black Hills. Due to the elusive nature of lions, estimating a lion population is far from 

precise and models and extrapolations are used to ascertain an estimate. Because of this, 

experts have stated that long term trends are needed to truly understand what is 

128



happening with lion numbers. No doubt lion numbers have increased since the bounty 

years but it has taken a long time for their numbers to rise. If lion numbers are severely 

reduced again, they may have increasing difficulty coming back to viable numbers 

especially when you consider that the western states are the fastest growing areas in terms 

of human populations. Increased numbers of people mean an increase in roads, loss of 

habitat, and a general intolerance for these animals. 

In addition, Ken Logan, a leading authority on mountain lions and co-author of 

Desert Puma, states in his book that a common myth amongst western wildlife managers 

is that male cougars disperse due to a saturated habitat. He states that this is clearly false 

and that male lions will even disperse out of a population that is suppressed. 

We need to manage lions conservatively at this time because we do not yet have 

enough information to make the best decisions. So far, we have only one lion estimate 

with the next estimate expected next year, according to researcher Dan Thompson. 

Experts such as Ken Logan and Rick Hopkins agree that three estimates spread three 

years apart are needed at minimum. Why spend time and money on research if we are 

not willing to wait for sufficient data? 

I believe management is needed but a conventional season on lions which is 

actually a random removal of lions will do little to decrease depredation or increase 

human safety unless the population was reduced to a very low level which would be 

detrimental to the long term survival of lions. There is no indication that sport hunting 

lions increases human safety or decreases depredation. Please consider targeting problem 

lions only at this point in time. An on call list of hunters or hounds men could be 

generated which would include those people interested in shooting a lion for a trophy. I 

know that this would involve short notice but if the first hunter on the list was 

unavailable, then he would lose his place on the list. This approach has many 

advantages. For example, it minimizes the orphaning of kittens. Eight out of nine lions 

removed by the Department of Game, Fish and Parks in 2004 and 2005 have been young 

males. These are the animals most likely to cause conflict. Interestingly, in states such 

as Washington and Oregon where hunting with hounds is not allowed, there is a 

disproportionate harvest of females harvested, that being 60%. In states where hounds 

are used, 45-48% of the harvest are female lions. I'm sure that most ethical hunters do 

not strive to orphan young animals to starve to death but this will occur in the case of 

lions because they have their young throughout the year and 70-75% of adult females are 

either pregnant or have dependent young. The kittens do not travel with their mothers 

much in the first year. Male lions do not display antlers and it is simply not possible to 

consistently determine the sex of a lion especially from a distance. As a veterinarian, I 

helped collar lions for two years and I know that we often made mistakes when trying to 

guess the sex of a lion in a tree. Killing females with kittens that are older but yet 

dependent on their mothers may result in increased risks to people and further conflict as 

they may desperately prey on easier and inappropriate targets. 

A second advantage of removing problem lions only, is that the big trophy males 

will not be targeted. These animals are genetically the most fit and they play an 

important role by removing a great number of younger dispersing males. Without the big 

males, more young males will be present and the younger males are most involved in 

conflict. 

129



A third advantage is that this approach still offers some sport opportunity. One 

criticism has been the people who live a distance from the Black Hills will be less able to 

participate. In this case, doing the right thing cannot always include everyone. The 

people who must live with these animals and take extra care and precaution are the ones 

who should have the advantage in this case. 

Lastly, I believe that people will be more tolerant of hounds crossing their private 

property, which they will inevitably do, if they knew that it was in an effort to remove a 

particular high risk animal. 

In 2004, there were 25 lion mortalities, only five of which were removed due to 

conflict. Adding another 20 lion mortalities due to hunting with the inevitable deaths of 

significant numbers of kittens does not make sense at this time when current estimates for 

the Black Hills of South Dakota are approximately 145 lions. Targeting problem lions 

plus education does make sense. In addition, ranchers residing outside prime lion habitat 

where prey is limited and where lions are more likely to kill livestock, could possibly be 

given the right to shoot problem lions if necessary. 

Please keep the risks of living in lion habitat in perspective. Twenty people die in 

our nation every year due to fatal dog attacks and yet we are not removing dogs over 40 

pounds. Two people have died in the Black Hills over the last 10 years due to hunting 

accidents and yet we value our right to hunt and assume risk. People have been injured 

or killed by buffalo in the park and yet we do not take the moral high ground and say we 

must remove the buffalo so that no further deaths will occur. Instead we realize that the 

risks are low and continue to enjoy them in our park. 

Please consider these options for the welfare of lions and for the people living in 

lion country. 

= = = 19. = = = 

I read with a great deal of interest the feature article in the Custer County 

Chronicle dated April 20 reporting the results of the meeting sponsored by SDGFP 

concerning the mountain lion problem in the Black Hills. From the article it appears to 

me that SDGFP is trying to find a happy medium solution to the problem. Gentlemen, 

there is no such thing! 

The fact is there are too many lions in the Black Hills, and the obvious solution is 

to significantly reduce their population. The plan of SDGFP is to have an experimental 

hunting season with a harvest of only 20 lions, yet the restrictions imposed almost assures 

a harvest less than that. No dogs, no baiting, counting pregnant females as multiple kills 

are all counterproductive to the goal/need to reduce the number of lions. 

Sharon Seneczko offers no remedy whatsoever, but seeks to disguise the problem 

with more studies on mountain lion habits. In effect it's a delaying tactic while the lion 

population grows and albeit the problem. If anyone needs to know more about the habits 

of mountain lions, read the book "Cat Attacks" by Jo Deurbrouck & Dean Miller, a copy 

of which will be donated to the Custer Library. This book is a tale of lessons learned in 

other states. Why does South Dakota have to learn the hard way? Black Hills lions are no 

different than anywhere else. 

130



Since moving to Custer from Sioux Falls 10 years ago, I have witnessed the 

various agencies struggle with those measures which would reduce forest fires, which 

would slow down the pine beetle infestation, which would stem the prairie dog sprawl, 

and now gratuitous proposals to deal with mountain lion problems. 

Was the Michelson Trail built just to be unsafe because of mountain lions? Must 

I stay out of the woods and stop picking raspberries? Ironically, as I write this letter over 

breakfast, I'm enjoying a piece of toast with peanut butter and Black Hills raspberry jam. 

Think about it and go do the right thing! 

131

Mountain Lion Management in South Dakota Appendix I 

Larry M. Gigliotti letters (scanned) received 

Appendix I 

Three rather lengthy comments (scanned) received concerning mountain lion 


132



Page -133



Page -134



Page -135



Page -136



Page -137



Page -138



Page -139



Page -140



Page -141



Page -142



Page -143



Page -144



Page -145



Page -146



Page -147



Page -148



Page -149



Page -150



Page -151



Page -152



Page -153



Page -154



Page -155



Page -156



Page -157



Page -158



Page -159

South Dakota Mountain Lion Public Opinion Poll

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?