Proceedings of the Ninth Mountain Lion Workshop - Carnivore ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Does Rural Development Fragment Puma Habitat? Anne M. Orlando, Department of Plant Science, University of California Davis, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA, and California Department of Fish and Game, Region 2 Headquarters, 1701 Nimbus Road, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 USA, crazedpuma@gmail.com Steve G. Torres, Wildlife Investigations Laboratory, California Department of Fish and Game, 1701 Nimbus Road, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 USA, storres@dfg.ca.gov Walter M. Boyce, Wildlife Health Center, University of California Davis, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA, wmboyce@ucdavis.edu Evan H. Girvetz, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, and Information Center for the Environment, University of California Davis, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA, ehgirvetz@ucdavis.edu Emilio A. Laca, Department of Plant Science, University of California Davis, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA, ealaca@ucdavis.edu Montague W. Demment, Department of Plant Science, University of California Davis, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA, mwdemment@ucdavis.edu In western North America, human population has been increasing and many rural areas rapidly urbanizing (Theobald 2005, U.S. Census Bureau 2006), encroaching upon available habitats for large mammals. Highways, agricultural, and suburban development threaten to fragment quality habitat and undermine the viability of wildlife populations (Andren 1994, Noss et al. 1996, Crooks 2002). Many rural areas have been transformed by low-density “exurban” development, characterized by 2- to 16 + -ha (5- to 40 + -acre) residential subdivisions (Duane 1996, Theobald 2005). Puma (Puma concolor) sightings and depredations on pets and livestock indicate pumas use developed rural areas (CDFG 2006), but the habitat value of these areas is questionable. Habitat fragmentation may occur at different hierarchical scales, potentially creating patches of low-quality habitat within individuals’ home ranges (Andren 1994), producing a “source-sink” condition at the population level, or disrupting landscape-level connectivity, which is essential for sustaining fragmented subpopulations (Hansson 1991). In a source-sink system, offspring produced in quality, “source” areas disperse into “sink” areas of mixed or low-quality habitat, associated with high mortality or inadequate resources, and unable to independently support populations (Pulliam 1988). Areas of coastal southern California have reached a critical point of fragmentation in which remaining high-quality source areas are too small to sustain viable puma populations, and have become separated by dense development and highway systems (Hunter et al. 2003, Riley et al. 2005, Beier et al. 2006). We initiated a study in a rapidly developing rural region to examine whether low-density rural development functionally fragmented puma habitat. We asked whether rural development was likely to create demographic sinks, by analyzing puma survival and dispersal in undeveloped timberlands (hereafter, undeveloped zone) versus exurbanizing Proceedings of the Ninth Mountain Lion Workshop 124
ural areas (hereafter, developed zone) of the same region. We tested whether anthropogenic and natural barriers limited puma movements and, thus, connectivity within landscapes. Finally, we examined whether developed-zone pumas preferentially used or avoided diminishing size-classes of residential property parcels within animals’ home range areas. We asked whether pumas’ use of parcels by size differed between day and night, suggesting responses to human activity levels. We focused on this wideranging species to identify threats to habitat connectivity likely to impact local wildlife communities (Noss et al. 1996, Terborgh et al. 1999), and to facilitate regional conservation planning. Study area We conducted this study in Sierra, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado and Amador counties, in California’s western Sierra Nevada Mountains and foothills. The western portion of these adjoining rural counties borders the agricultural Central Valley and the Sacramento metropolitan area. Elevation ranges from sea level in the west to over 2500 m at the Sierra Nevada crest. River canyons running roughly east-west separate mountain ridges in the higher elevations. Most private and residential lands are in the western foothills, characterized by oak-dominated (Quercus sp.) woodlands and chaparral. Eastward, vegetation transitions with rising elevation to conifer forests. This area is primarily nonresidential timberlands, networked by logging roads. An urban/wildland interface corresponding to housing density on private versus public lands, typically national forests, transected our study area and was used to define the “developed” versus “undeveloped zone” (Fig. 1). Most of the counties’ areas provide puma habitat, excluding only valley agricultural lands, urban areas, and the high elevation zones of the Sierra crest. The area supports populations of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), black bear (Ursus americana) and puma, but represents a region of ecological concern. Large, contiguous regions at high elevations are protected from land conversion as national forests, wilderness and other public land designations, while other areas are privately managed timberlands. In contrast, the western foothills are largely privately owned. Traditional grazing land is being converted to ranchette-style settlement, or other uses such as vineyards and orchards. The area is intersected north-south by high-traffic highways US Route 50 and I-80, which serve as corridors for development emanating from the Sacramento metropolitan area. Placer County had the fastest growing human population in California with a projected 27.6% increase from 2000 to 2005 (US Census Bureau 2007). Population increased by 9.6%, 13.1%, and 6.9% in Amador, El Dorado, and Nevada Counties respectively, during the same period. In Nevada County, the amount of undeveloped land zoned for residential or commercial development was 3.5 times the county’s developed land area (Walker et al. 2003). Over 60% of El Dorado County’s undeveloped private land was zoned for residential (0.4 to 8-ha or 1- to 20-acre) or exurban (8- to 16-ha or 20- to 40acre) development (Stoms 2004). In Placer County, 93% of the foothills were privately Proceedings of the Ninth Mountain Lion Workshop 125
Page 1 and 2:
Proceedings of the Ninth Mountain L
Page 3 and 4:
IN REMEMBRANCE There are giants who
Page 5 and 6:
Distinguished Service Awards Mauric
Page 7 and 8:
North Dakota Dorothy Fescke .......
Page 9 and 10:
Evaluation of noninvasive genetic s
Page 11 and 12:
Survival and ages of cougars harves
Page 13 and 14:
Preface Chronology of Mountain Lion
Page 15 and 16:
9 th Mtn. Lion Workshop Agenda Coug
Page 17 and 18:
10:35-10:55 Estimating lion populat
Page 19 and 20:
Movements of a female cougar on the
Page 21 and 22:
State and Province Mountain Lion St
Page 23 and 24:
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Lions
Page 25 and 26:
somewhat stable, though overall abu
Page 27 and 28:
Idaho Cougar Ages 2002 2003 2004 20
Page 29 and 30:
and that occurred in 1999 to a 13-y
Page 31 and 32:
the approximately 15 other bills in
Page 33 and 34:
for Project CAT; his primary focus
Page 35 and 36:
Oregon Mountain Lion Status Report
Page 37 and 38:
cougar seasons are 10 months long (
Page 39 and 40:
Population Status and Trend Status
Page 41 and 42:
California Mountain Lion Status Rep
Page 43 and 44:
Number (i) The permit does not inva
Page 45 and 46:
The steps in responding to a public
Page 47 and 48:
during the attack, objects chewed o
Page 49 and 50:
Montana Mountain Lion Status Report
Page 51 and 52:
Red Desert basin. Mixed conifer and
Page 53 and 54:
Table 1. Wyoming mountain lion mana
Page 55 and 56:
(Fig. 4). Approximately 90% of all
Page 57 and 58:
- Use of rubber bullets - Use of pe
Page 59 and 60:
Literature Cited Anderson, C.R., JR
Page 61 and 62:
Genetic Monitoring A recent study b
Page 63 and 64:
Literature Cited Anderson, C. R., F
Page 65 and 66:
Mule deer and bighorn sheep hunting
Page 67 and 68:
In 1981, the Harvest Objective hunt
Page 69 and 70:
more than 10% of Nevada’s 286,298
Page 71 and 72:
Future Research The Department is c
Page 73 and 74:
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW
Page 75 and 76:
Figure 1. Wildlife Management Units
Page 77 and 78:
Figure 2. Cougar habitat in Utah. A
Page 79 and 80:
Table 1. Utah cougar harvests, 1989
Page 81 and 82:
while encouraging some hunter selec
Page 83 and 84:
State’s management objectives (ma
Page 85 and 86: Stoner, D. C., W. Reith, M.L. Wolfe
Page 87 and 88: Figure 1. Colorado mountain lion Da
Page 89 and 90: Percent Q. Achievement & Success 65
Page 91 and 92: in which we request voluntary reduc
Page 93 and 94: Figure 6 is preliminary information
Page 95 and 96: humans, predation on pets, hobby st
Page 97 and 98: Arizona Mountain Lion Status Report
Page 99 and 100: Hunt Regulations Since the 8 th Mou
Page 101 and 102: The AZGFD supports the Cooperative
Page 103 and 104: South Dakota Mountain Lion Status R
Page 105 and 106: National Park [TRNP], Three Affilia
Page 107 and 108: Mountain lion carcasses were weighe
Page 109 and 110: Figure 2. Verified mountain lion lo
Page 111 and 112: In 2007, eleven mountain lions (n =
Page 113 and 114: increases or expansion. The overall
Page 115 and 116: Florida Mountain Lion Status Report
Page 117 and 118: interactions. Six categories of int
Page 119 and 120: cases (a large breed dog, miniature
Page 121 and 122: Interactions with Humans at the Urb
Page 123 and 124: Demographic and Landscape Influence
Page 125 and 126: Challenges and Opportunities Facing
Page 127 and 128: Caloosahatchee River will be depend
Page 129 and 130: Prospects for Mountain Lion Persist
Page 131 and 132: Habitat Use and Movements Proceedin
Page 133 and 134: Daily Movement Distances of Florida
Page 135: Refining the Use of GPS Telemetry C
Page 139 and 140: owned, of which over 50% were zoned
Page 141 and 142: Garmin ® (Garmin Ltd.) GPS units.
Page 143 and 144: the steplength and turnangle distri
Page 145 and 146: Table 1. Collar performance, time m
Page 147 and 148: depredation on goats newly introduc
Page 149 and 150: Paths derived from puma movement pa
Page 151 and 152: Table 6 and Fig. 3 display the perc
Page 153 and 154: even mortality from a heavily explo
Page 155 and 156: parcels) and non-preferred habitat
Page 157 and 158: CDFG 2000. California Department of
Page 159 and 160: Stralberg, D. and B. Williams. 2002
Page 161 and 162: Multi-Carnivore and Prey Interactio
Page 163 and 164: subadults, and kittens, the study p
Page 165 and 166: Cougar Home Range Shifts and Appare
Page 167 and 168: iomass, or directly when cougars ar
Page 169 and 170: Mountain Lion Movement Patterns in
Page 171 and 172: Genetics and Disease Proceedings of
Page 173 and 174: and CO2 rifles and biopsy darts (bo
Page 175 and 176: Estimation of the Bottleneck Size i
Page 177 and 178: A Preliminary Retrospective on the
Page 179 and 180: Population Estimation and Dynamics
Page 181 and 182: Dynamics and Demography of a Centra
Page 183 and 184: The Idaho Backcountry: Is it Still
Page 185 and 186: Study Areas and Methods We selected
Page 187 and 188:
We calculated the proportion of res
Page 189 and 190:
Warren Adult Female Sub Female Sub
Page 191 and 192:
Harvest Rate Change Four long-term
Page 193 and 194:
had increased to over 25% of the co
Page 195 and 196:
editor. Proceedings of the Third Mo
Page 197 and 198:
Censusing Pumas by Categorizing Phy
Page 199 and 200:
Education and Social Issues Proceed
Page 201 and 202:
The Land of the Living Dead Comes A
Page 203 and 204:
Science and Education Working Toget
Page 205 and 206:
Her dad was a cougar hunter, so Eve
Page 207 and 208:
The Gray Whales’ Migration Journe
Page 209 and 210:
11) How do we manage real-time GPS
Page 211 and 212:
harvest is not allowed. This reflec
Page 213 and 214:
Key Concepts: Mountain Lion Managem
Page 215 and 216:
Dispersal Movements of Subadult Cou
Page 217 and 218:
Cougar Management Protocols: a Surv
Page 219 and 220:
Response percent Response percent 1
Page 221 and 222:
Table 2. Cougar population status b
Page 223 and 224:
Table 5. Responses to what informat
Page 225 and 226:
Rating average 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.
Page 227 and 228:
Throughout the US and Canada, appro
Page 229 and 230:
Percent Percent 100 90 80 70 60 50
Page 231 and 232:
Table 8. Agency responses to what c
Page 233 and 234:
the incident rated highest (67%). O
Page 235 and 236:
Brochures/pamphlets/factsheets News
Page 237 and 238:
In terms of education and outreach
Page 239 and 240:
Population Status A vital prerequis
Page 241 and 242:
agencies towards a standardized lan
Page 243 and 244:
Literature Cited Anderson, C. R., a
Page 245 and 246:
6) How does your agency solicit non
Page 247 and 248:
19a) Hunting information Number of
Page 249 and 250:
Game Warden/Conservation Officer Pr
Page 251 and 252:
Cougars are not relocated when invo
Page 253 and 254:
Other (explain) 45) What approaches
Page 255 and 256:
Poster Session Proceedings of the N
Page 257 and 258:
Generating an Index of Relative Abu
Page 259 and 260:
Movements of a Female Cougar on the
Page 261 and 262:
Survival and Ages of Cougars Harves
Page 263 and 264:
Intra-specific Variation in Cougar
Page 265 and 266:
Cougars in British Columbia: Conser
Page 267 and 268:
Cougar-Induced Vigilance in Ungulat
Page 269 and 270:
List of Participants First Name Las
Page 271 and 272:
First Name Last Name Affiliation Ci
Page 273:
First Name Last Name Affiliation Ci
show all

Proceedings of the Ninth Mountain Lion Workshop - Carnivore ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?