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

Table 4. Agency use of cougar population estimates, by jurisdiction, as reported in a survey of
North American wildlife agencies, 2008.
Jurisdiction
Used for
Information
Purposes
Used to Refine
Cougar
Management Plan
Used to Adjust
Sport Harvest
Levels/Quotas
Proceedings of the Ninth Mountain Lion Workshop
Used to Evaluate Management
Decisions Regarding
Ungulate Populations
Alberta X
Arizona X X
California X
Colorado X X X
Florida X
Idaho X
Montana 1
Nevada X X X X
New Mexico X X X X
Oregon X X X
S. Dakota X X X
Texas X
Utah X X X X
Washington X X X X
Wyoming 1
1 No estimates made
Cougar Database Management
When asked what type of information is collected from hunter harvest, 87% of agencies
reported they collect gender, kill date, and kill location, 80% collected the number of
licenses sold, hunter effort, and kill type (i.e., modern firearm, archery, etc), and 73%
collected a tooth or estimated the age class of the cougar killed (Table 5). Thirty-three
percent of agencies recorded body condition, 27% collected gum line recession, and 1
agency (7%) recorded lactation status of females.
When asked what type of information is collected on depredations, 14 agencies provided
a response. Of those, 100% recorded the number of annual depredations, 93% collected
date and location, and 86% collected gender and age of cougar involved (if dispatched),
and 50% collected information on the contributing factors that may have led to the
depredation (i.e., feeding wildlife, husbandry practices, free-ranging livestock, etc.)
(Table 6). Sixty-seven percent of agencies recorded sighting information (i.e., date and
location) but only investigated them if it was an issue of public safety.
In Mexico, researchers kept a localized database on hunting mortality (gender, kill date,
kill location, and kill type) and depredations (date, location, contributing factors, gender
if killed, and species attacked) in the Jalisco and Oaxaca regions.
210