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

Hunting may produce attractive sinks if dispersing individuals select habitats with abundant
resources (cover and prey) and high human-caused mortality (Delibes et al. 2001). Previous
research in Arizona (Cunningham et al. 2001, McKinney et al. in press) documented localized
areas with high human-caused mountain lion mortality, but it is uncertain whether these areas
represented sinks. If hunting is intense and widespread, heavy harvest pressures in areas of
abundant cover and food resources might produce attractive sinks for dispersing mountain lions,
thus maintaining or replenishing populations in sinks (Delibes et al. 2001, Novaro et al. 2005).
Identification of metapopulation structure and the existence of sources and sinks present
substantial challenges to mountain lion managers. These theoretical constructs require
considerable data to support their use. These data include estimates of animal density throughout
metapopulation habitat patches, documented existence of sources and sinks with differing levels
of abundance, estimates of population growth rates among areas within a metapopulation
structure (Logan and Sweanor 2001, CMGWG 2005), and population demographics estimates.
Using source-sink theory to manage mountain lion populations in Arizona would require a
significant investment to conduct the extensive research needed to manage lions based on
population-metapopulation dynamics.
Multiple Bag Limit Structures
Multiple bag limit hunt structures, used in Arizona since 1999, were established use hunters to
harvest 50–75% of the estimated mountain lions living within an area, thereby reducing
predation on a prey population. Multiple bag limits have not affected hunter harvest in a manner
that approached the estimated harvest necessary to influence predation (Table 4). Harvest of
mountain lions has differed little among management areas following the 1999 implementation
of multiple bag limit structures and harvest did not differ statistically following implementation.
The reason for this apparent lack of hunter response or change in hunter harvest within multiple
bag limits is unknown, but factors such as relative access to hunting areas, absence or presence
of snow conditions, methods of hunting, and perceived relative abundance of mountain lions
affect hunter choices of hunting areas.
Predominant vegetation types and relative abundance of mountain lions vary widely among units
where multiple bag limits apply. Multiple bag limits in Units 6AS, 13BS, and 27 are located in
mixed pinyon (Pinus spp.)-juniper (Juniperus spp.) and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)
forests which favor hunters under snow conditions. Hunters track mountain lions under these
conditions by driving roads and releasing hounds when sign is encountered. Lack of hunter
response to multiple bag limits in Units 6AS and 13BS may be due to perceived low-moderate
abundance of mountain lions in these areas, remoteness, and poor road access. In contrast, lack
of hunter response in Unit 27, where mountain lions are more abundant, might reflect limited
duration of snow conditions and ruggedness of terrain. Hunters concentrate in areas with
abundant, accessible roads during periods of snowfall but dwindle dramatically when the snow is
gone. Thus, use of forested areas by hunters during good snow conditions relies on ready access
and comparatively high abundance of mountain lions, while limitations of snowfall duration,
ruggedness of terrain, remoteness, and poor road access likely limit or reduce hunter response to
multiple bag limits.
Mountain Lion and Bear Conservation Strategies Report
20