Mountain Lion and Bear Conservation Strategies Report, AGFD, Jan ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 3. Example of a zone, based on historical harvest data, that could be established to manage female mountain lion harvests using a limit system. zones (Logan and Sweanor 2001) encompassing units in Arizona that are located outside the zone limit area. Role of Sources and Sinks in Zone Management Metapopulations involve local subpopulations occupying discrete, suitable patches of habitats that interact via dispersal of individuals moving through a matrix of suitable and unsuitable habitats, buffer against extirpation by gene flow among subpopulations, or contribute to post- Mountain Lion and Bear Conservation Strategies Report 18
extirpation recolonization (Baguette 2004). Movement among suitable habitat patches is not routine under true metapopulation dynamics. Metapopulation theory has become a common framework in conservation biology, yet its use remains somewhat contentious and uncertain (Baguette 2004, Hanski 2004, McCullough 1996). Metapopulation analysis may be the current approach to many modern wildlife conservation and management issues (McCullough 1996), but little analysis has been conducted for mountain lions. Although the metapopulation approach is often suggested for management of large mammals, little empirical support for metapopulation dynamics has been found (Elmhagen and Angerbjörn 2001). A metapopulation approach might be interesting for large mammals when there are discrete breeding subpopulations that have different growth rates and demographic fates, rather than subpopulation turnover (Elmhagen and Angerbjörn 2001). The two keys to the present concept of metapopulations of mountain lions are: 1) spatially discrete distributions and 2) a non-trivial probability of extinction in ≥1 patches of localized habitats (i.e., subpopulations). Isolation of populations through fragmentation by human-related activities is the major conservation concern (McCullough 1996). Existence of metapopulations of mountain lions has been based on estimates of abundance on scattered mountain ranges and speculated occurrence of sinks and sources (Laundré and Clark 2003), but estimates of relative abundance and population size are influenced by the spatial extent of study areas (Smallwood 1997). Other research identified metapopulations based on evidence of dispersers between mountain ranges separated by unsuitable habitat and considerations of postulated gene flow between these ranges (Sweanor et al. 2000). Mountain lion research lacks well-supported comparisons of abundance, population growth rates, or demographic fates of animals between subpopulations within estimated metapopulation structures. We therefore conclude that existence of and relevance of metapopulations and source-sink structures to mountain lion management has been based on weak inference and limited scientific data. The relevance of source-sink hypotheses and metapopulation dynamics remains theoretical when applied to mountain lion populations. Sources and sinks were defined originally in terms of birth, death, emigration, and immigration (Pulliam 1988). Although the concept of source-sink dynamics has become widely appealing in wildlife ecology and management, application of the theory and the ability to estimate source-sink dynamics in natural populations has proved to be very difficult (Novaro et al. 2005, Runge et al. 2006). Studies concentrating solely on adult survival produce erroneous conclusions regarding sinks when they ignore data on natality, emigration, and immigration (Runge et al. 2006). These data are presently unavailable for most mountain lion populations. Genetic analyses failed to demonstrate population subdivisions within Arizona (Sinclair et al. 2001, Anderson et al. 2004, McRae et al. 2005)., although gene flow between and within northern regions (Utah, Colorado) and southern regions (Arizona, New Mexico) appeared to be strongly limited by distance, particularly in the presence of habitat barriers such as open deserts and grasslands (McRae et al. 2005). Thus, existence of mountain lion metapopulations in Arizona is unclear and speculative. Mountain Lion and Bear Conservation Strategies Report 19
Page 1 and 2: ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT MO
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 5 and 6: MOUNTAIN LION AND BEAR CONSERVATION
Page 7 and 8: 6. Incorporate geospatial analyses
Page 9 and 10: MOUNTAIN LION AND BEAR CONSERVATION
Page 11 and 12: HUNTING AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNIT
Page 13 and 14: Harvest 500 400 300 200 100 0 1989
Page 15 and 16: analysis by sex of harvested mounta
Page 17 and 18: Limited Entry-Limit Management Syst
Page 19: Table 3. Arizona units, mean harves
Page 23 and 24: In comparison, multiple bag limits
Page 25 and 26: Figure 4. Distribution of reported
Page 27 and 28: 2. Maintain open hunting where fema
Page 29 and 30: successfully raise litters at four
Page 31 and 32: Table 5. Total black bear hunter ha
Page 33 and 34: Mountain Lion and Bear Conservation
Page 35 and 36: Table 8. Female black bear harvest
Page 37 and 38: 4. Continue to collect genetic mate
Page 39 and 40: Arizona’s human population is exp
Page 41 and 42: immediately released. Marked animal
Page 43 and 44: deVos 2005). We recommend that effo
Page 45 and 46: Figure 9. Human-caused bear conflic
Page 47 and 48: A Category III bear is generally de
Page 49 and 50: and relocated away from the initial
Page 51 and 52: Although each of these studies conc
Page 53 and 54: To date, we have placed spread spec
Page 55 and 56: Administrative Removal In an on-goi
Page 57 and 58: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Page 59 and 60: Table 10. Percent frequency of occu
Page 61 and 62: northern regions of North America,
Page 63 and 64: Management Strategies 1. Continue t
Page 65 and 66: Mountain lion depredation harvest 1
Page 67 and 68: Livestock depredation by mountain l
Page 69 and 70: 2000, Riley and Malecki 2001). Avai
Page 71 and 72:
Table 11. Summary of Arizona bear h
Page 73 and 74:
SUPPORTING INFORMATION Descriptions
Page 75 and 76:
harvest and depredation kill databa
Page 77 and 78:
LITERATURE CITED Alexander, S. M.,
Page 79 and 80:
Bulletin 19:403-412. Beier, P. 1993
Page 81 and 82:
Delibes, M., P. Gaona, and P. Ferre
Page 83 and 84:
poster presentation), 9th Western B
Page 85 and 86:
Linnell, J. D. C., J. Odden, M. E.
Page 87 and 88:
Mountain Lion Foundation. 2007. Liv
Page 89 and 90:
Sawyer, H., and F. Lindzey. 2002. A
Page 91:
Winslow, R. 2005. New Mexico mounta
show all

Mountain Lion and Bear Conservation Strategies Report, AGFD, Jan ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?