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

eviewed scientific information, and public influence were used in development of
management plans. Considering these points, it could be argued that updating
management plans every 7-10 years or more may not effectively incorporate these
dynamic factors. In fact, 2 common criticisms agencies received regarding management
plans were that inadequate science was being used and public opinion was not being
addressed (Table 13). It should also be noted that, in some cases, legislation could force
social and political influence into the biological arena of cougar management; in
Washington, 16 legislative bills regarding cougar management have been introduced
since 1996 (Washington State Legislature, 2008). Overall, resolving these limitations
will likely take various approaches. For using science to develop in management plan,
we recommend agencies conduct field research in their jurisdictions. Despite the obvious
financial commitments, well-designed field research provides the best method for
evaluating cougar population. For assessing public opinion, agencies may want to refine
their survey protocols. Typically, agencies survey their public at periodic meetings with
a limited audience; a more balanced and representative approach may be to use a randomsampling
technique to assess public opinion. This would allow agencies to understand
public perceptions jurisdiction-wide and also gather information to create effective
outreach methodologies.
Table 13. Public comments and criticisms commonly received by agencies regarding cougar
management plans, by jurisdiction, as reported in a survey of North American wildlife agencies, 2008.
Jurisdiction Comments /Criticism Commonly Received Regarding the Cougar Management
Plan
Alberta The plan needs updating with information from current research and knowledge.
Arizona No response provided. No Management Plan
California Sportsmen want to hunt lions in CA, and law prohibits that. The public wants problem
lions moved, but our policy generally prohibits translocation.
Colorado We have 19 discrete Data Analysis Unit plans. Some interests complained that it
meant commenting on each and trying to get their staff to each meeting in many
different parts of the State. Other interests feel our biological parameters were too
restrictive. We made them that way in order to operate under conservative or
moderate assumptions given lack of information on the species. But generally, both
interests accept the plans.
Florida N/A, No Management Plan
Idaho That the management plan relies on age structure without knowing what the data really
mean.
Montana N/A, No Management Plan
Nevada We hunt too much or not enough. (see-saw aspect of anti-hunting vs. pro sportsmen
groups). We get criticism for not harvesting more lions.
New Mexico We don't have enough research into the actual population estimates of cougars and we
rely upon estimates to make management decisions
Oregon General opposition to the plan, inadequate science, insufficient data for decisionmaking,
dislike for active management, desire for more preservation/conservation,
desire for more aggressive management, general support for the plan.
South Dakota We constantly receive comments that our plan does not produce "raw data" collected
from ongoing research and surveys conducted by the Department.
Texas N/A, No Management Plan
Utah Too liberal, too conservative
Washington Not enough science being used. Frustration with legislation. Input into plans was
limited.
Wyoming No response provided
Proceedings of the Ninth Mountain Lion Workshop
226