PWD BK W7000-893 Proceedings.CDR - Mountain Lion Foundation

68
sixth Mountain Lion w o r k s h o p
LONG TERM POPULATION TRENDS OF MOUNTAIN LIONS
IN SOUTHEASTERN IDAHO AND NORTHWESTERN UTAH
JOHN W. LAUNDRÉ*, Instituto de Ecología, A.C. Centro Regional Chihuahua, Km. 33.3 Carr. Chihuahua-
Ojinaga, CD Aldama, Chih 32900 and Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello,
ID 83209
LUCINA HERNÁNDEZ, Instituto de Ecología, A.C. Centro Regional Chihuahua, Km. 33.3 Carr. Chihuahua-
Ojinaga, CD Aldama, Chih 32900.
Abstract: Between 1987 and 2000 we studied
2
mountain lions (Puma concolor) in a 2000 km area
in southeastern Idaho and northwestern Utah.
Each winter we spent extensive time in the field
trapping lions and also interacted with other lion
hunters in the area. Based on our field efforts and
the information provided by others, we were able
to obtain a reliable estimate of the minimal number
of lions present in our area. We found that numbers
of adult lions varied in a cyclic pattern, reaching
a high in 1996 and then declining again. The
REGULATING HUNTING OF MOUNTAIN LIONS:
A METAPOPULATION APPROACH
JOHN W. LAUNDRÉ*, Instituto de Ecología, A.C. Centro Regional Chihuahua, Km. 33.3 Carr. Chihuahua-
Ojinaga, CD Aldama, Chih 32900 and Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University,
Pocatello, ID 83209
LUCINA HERNÁNDEZ, Instituto de Ecología, A.C. Centro Regional Chihuahua, Km. 33.3 Carr. Chihuahua-
Ojinaga, CD Aldama, Chih 32900.
TIM CLARK, Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Box 2705, Jackson, WY 83001
Abstract: Traditionally there are three methods of
regulating mountain lion (Puma concolor) harvest.
The first is no control (unlimited in time and
numbers or unlimited in numbers within a specific
season) and relies on low hunter effort/success to
prevent over harvest. The second is a permit
system that specifies a certain number of permits
which are assigned via a lottery system. The third is
a quota system where the taking of a certain
number of females closes the season. Of these
approaches, the least defendable to a court
challenge is the first because it has no safeguard to
prevent over harvest. Although the second two
methods provide protection to the base population
(permit numbers and quota levels can be
changed), the degree of protection is strongly
dependent on accurate assessments of population
increase in lions was attributed to the high deer
numbers in the area while the decline was a result
of high winter mortality of deer in 1994. As harvest
levels were relatively constant over the time, the
decline was attributed to low recruitment of young
individuals in 1996-1998 and additional mortality
due to starvation. Our data suggest that lion
numbers are self regulated and controlled by the
deer population, with the survival of young
individuals being the most susceptible to declines
in deer numbers.
levels of lions. As accurate assessment techniques
have yet to be developed, these two methods are
also susceptible to court challenges. We propose a
fourth management approach that incorporates
the metapopulation concept of source and sink
populations. Source populations would consist of
areas (hunting units) where the take of lions would
be prohibited except for damage control. Sink
populations would be areas open to hunting.
Dispersal of individuals from the source populations
would replenish sink populations. This system
of management would insure a secure base level
population regardless of the hunting pressure
exerted in the sink areas. Such a system also does
not rely on accurate estimates of population levels.
An example of this approach is presented and
discussed.