Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop
Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop
Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE<br />
SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
15-17 MAY 2003 • THE VIRGINIAN LODGE • JACKSON, WYOMING<br />
Editors:<br />
Scott A. Becker<br />
Daniel D. Bjornlie<br />
Fred G. Lindzey<br />
David S. Moody<br />
Organizing Committee<br />
Scott Becker Ron Grogan<br />
Dan Bjornlie Fred Lindzey<br />
Tom Easterly Dave Moody<br />
Sponsored By:<br />
The Wyoming Chapter <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Wildlife Society<br />
Wyoming Game and Fish Department<br />
Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit<br />
© 2003<br />
Wyoming Game and Fish Department<br />
260 Buena Vista<br />
Lander, Wyoming 82520
Suggested Citation Formats<br />
Entire Volume:<br />
Becker, S.A., D.D. Bjornlie, F.G. Lindzey, and D.S. Moody. eds. 2003. <strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong>. Lander, Wyoming.<br />
For individual papers:<br />
Author’s name(s). 2003. Title <strong>of</strong> Paper. Pages 00-00 in S.A. Becker, D.D. Bjornlie, F.G.<br />
Lindzey, and D.S. Moody, eds. <strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong>.<br />
Lander, Wyoming.<br />
Purchasing Additional Copies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Proceedings</strong><br />
Please send a check made out to “Wyoming Chapter, TWS” for <strong>the</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> fifteen (15) US<br />
dollars to Tim Thomas, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, PO Box 6249, Sheridan, WY<br />
82801, USA; phone: (307) 672-7418; email: Tim.Thomas@wgf.state.wy.us. Information on<br />
different purchasing options may also be made through Tim.
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
Preface....................................................................................................................................................................vii<br />
In Memory<br />
Ian Ross ............................................................................................................................................................. viii<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> Status Reports<br />
Session Chair: Dave Moody, Wyoming Game and Fish Department<br />
STATUS OF MOUNTAIN LION POPULATIONS IN ARIZONA<br />
Brian F. Wakeling ....................................................................................................................................................1<br />
CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
Doug Updike............................................................................................................................................................6<br />
COLORADO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
Jerry Apker.............................................................................................................................................................14<br />
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION STATUS REPORT<br />
Mark Lotz and E. Darrell Land ..............................................................................................................................18<br />
IDAHO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
Steve Nadeau..........................................................................................................................................................25<br />
MONTANA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
Rich DeSimone and Rose Jaffe..............................................................................................................................29<br />
NEVADA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
Russell Woolstenhulme..........................................................................................................................................31<br />
NEW MEXICO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
Rick Winslow.........................................................................................................................................................39<br />
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
Mike Kintigh ..........................................................................................................................................................43<br />
MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT FOR TEXAS<br />
John Young ............................................................................................................................................................49<br />
UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
Craig R. McLaughlin .............................................................................................................................................51<br />
WASHINGTON COUGAR STATUS REPORT<br />
Richard A. Beausoleil, Donald A. Martorello, and Rocky D. Spencer..................................................................60<br />
WYOMING MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
Scott A. Becker, Daniel D. Bjornlie, and David S. Moody....................................................................................64<br />
CRYPTIC COUGARS – PERSPECTIVES ON THE PUMA IN THE EASTERN, MIDWESTERN, AND GREAT PLAINS<br />
REGIONS OF NORTH AMERICA<br />
Jay W. Tischendorf ................................................................................................................................................71<br />
MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT: BRITISH COLUMBIA – Abstract<br />
Matt Austin ............................................................................................................................................................87<br />
IMPROVING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT TRENDS: THE VALUE OF CONSISTENT<br />
MULTI-STATE RECORD KEEPING - Abstract<br />
Christopher M. Papouchis and Lynn Michelle Cullens .........................................................................................88<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> Interactions with Humans and Livestock<br />
Session Chair: Kenneth Logan, Colorado Division <strong>of</strong> Wildlife<br />
iii
LESSENING THE IMPACT OF A PUMA ATTACK ON A HUMAN<br />
E. Lee Fitzhugh, Sabine Schmid-Holmes, Marc W. Kenyon, and Kathy Etling ...................................................89<br />
A CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND APPRAISAL OF EXISTING RESEARCH RELATED TO INTERACTIONS BETWEEN<br />
HUMANS AND PUMAS – Abstract<br />
David J. Mattson, Jan V. Hart, Paul Beier, and Jesse Millen-Johnson ................................................................104<br />
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LAND TENURE SYSTEM, MOUNTAIN LION PROTECTION STATUS, AND LIVESTOCK<br />
DEPREDATION RATE – Abstract<br />
Marcelo Mazzolli .................................................................................................................................................105<br />
MOUNTAIN LION MOVEMENTS AND PERSISTENCE IN A FRAGMENTED, URBAN LANDSCAPE IN SOUTHERN<br />
CALIFORNIA – Abstract<br />
Seth P.D. Riley, Raymond M. Sauvajot, and Eric C. York..................................................................................106<br />
PUMA RESPONSES TO CLOSE ENCOUNTERS WITH RESEARCHERS – Abstract<br />
Linda L. Sweanor, Kenneth A. Logan, and Maurice G. Hornocker ....................................................................107<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> Genetics and Disease<br />
Session Chair: Deedra Hawk, Wyoming Game and Fish Department<br />
PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF FLORIDA PANTHER GENETIC ANALYSES – Abstract<br />
Warren E. Johnson, Darrell Land, Jan Mortenson, Melody Roelke-Parker, and Stephen J. O’Brien..................108<br />
GENETIC STRUCTURE OF COUGAR POPULATIONS ACROSS THE WYOMING BASIN: METAPOPULATION OR<br />
MEGAPOPULATION – Abstract<br />
Chuck R. Anderson, Jr., Fred G. Lindzey, and Dave B. McDonald ....................................................................109<br />
ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND EVOLUTION OF A COMMON COUGAR RETROVIRUS – Abstract<br />
Roman Biek and Mary Poss.................................................................................................................................110<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> Ecology<br />
Session Chair: Fred Lindzey, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit<br />
CHARACTERISTICS OF MOUNTAIN LION BED, CACHE AND KILL SITES IN NORTHEASTERN OREGON<br />
James J. Akenson, M. Cathy Nowak, Mark G. Henjum, and Gary W. Witmer...................................................111<br />
IMPACT OF EDGE HABITAT ON HOME RANGE SIZE IN PUMAS – Abstract<br />
John W. Laundré and Lucina Hernández.............................................................................................................119<br />
EFFECT OF ROADS ON HABITAT USE BY COUGARS – Abstract<br />
Dorothy M. Fecske, Jonathan A. Jenks, Frederick G. Lindzey, and Steven L. Griffin........................................120<br />
ECOLOGY OF SYMPATRIC PUMAS AND JAGUARS IN NORTHWESTERN MEXICO – Abstract<br />
Carlos A. Lopez Gonzalez and Samia E. Carrillo Percastegui.............................................................................121<br />
COUGAR ECOLOGY AND COUGAR-WOLF INTERACTIONS IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK: A GUILD<br />
APPROACH TO LARGE CARNIVORE CONSERVATION – Abstract<br />
Toni K. Ruth, Polly C. Buotte, Howard B. Quigley, and Maurice G. Hornocker................................................122<br />
EVALUATION OF HABITAT FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE ABUNDANCE OF PUMAS IN THE CHIHUAHUAN<br />
DESERT – Abstract<br />
Joel Loredo Salazar, Lucina Hernández, and John W. Laundré ..........................................................................123<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong>/Prey Dynamics<br />
Session Chair: Steve Cain, Grand Teton National Park<br />
ARE PUMAS OPPORTUNISTIC SCAVENGERS? – Abstract<br />
Jim W. Bauer, Kenneth A. Logan, Linda L. Sweanor, and Walter M. Boyce .....................................................124<br />
COUGAR-INDUCED INDIRECT EFFECTS: DOES THE RISK OF PREDATION INFLUENCE UNGULATE FORAGING<br />
BEHAVIOR ON THE NATIONAL BISON RANGE? – Abstract<br />
David M. Choate, Gary E. Belovsky, and Michael L. Wolfe ..............................................................................125<br />
iv
COUGAR PREDATION ON PREY IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK: A PRELIMINARY COMPARISON PRE- AND<br />
POST-WOLF REESTABLISHMENT – Abstract<br />
Toni K. Ruth, Polly C. Buotte, Kerry M. Murphy, and Maurice G. Hornocker ..................................................126<br />
FOUR DECADES OF COUGAR-UNGULATE DYNAMICS IN THE CENTRAL IDAHO WILDERNESS – Abstract<br />
Holly A. Akenson, James J. Akenson, Howard B. Quigley, and Maurice G. Hornocker....................................127<br />
COUGAR TOTAL PREDATION RESPONSE TO DIFFERING PREY DENSITIES: A PROPOSED EXPERIMENT TO TEST<br />
THE APPARENT COMPETITION HYPOTHESIS – Abstract<br />
Hugh Robinson, Robert Wielgus, Hilary Cruickshank, and Ca<strong>the</strong>rine Lambert .................................................128<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> Population Monitoring and Management<br />
Session Chair: Kerry Murphy, Yellowstone National Park<br />
CHARACTERISTICS OF COUGAR HARVEST WITH AND WITHOUT THE USE OF DOGS<br />
Donald A. Martorello and Richard A. Beausoleil................................................................................................129<br />
RESPONSE BY THREE LARGE CARNIVORES TO RECREATIONAL BIG GAME HUNTING ALONG THE YELLOWSTONE<br />
NATIONAL PARK AND ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH WILDERNESS BOUNDARY – Presentation Only<br />
Howard B. Quigley, Toni K. Ruth, Douglas W. Smith, Mark A. Haroldson, Polly C. Buotte, Charles C.<br />
Schwartz, Steve Cherry, Kerry M. Murphy, Dan Tyers, and Kevin Frey<br />
DEFINING AND DELINEATING DE FACTO REFUGIA: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION<br />
OF COUGAR HARVEST IN UTAH AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSERVATION – Abstract<br />
David C. Stoner and Michael L. Wolfe................................................................................................................136<br />
MONITORING CHANGES IN COUGAR SEX/AGE STRUCTURE WITH CHANGES IN ABUNDANCE AS AN INDEX TO<br />
POPULATION TREND – Abstract<br />
Chuck R. Anderson, Jr. and Fred G. Lindzey ......................................................................................................137<br />
MANAGEMENT OF COUGARS (Puma concolor) IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES – Abstract<br />
Deanna Dawn, Michael Kutilek, Rich Hopkins, Sulehka Anand, and Steve Torres ...........................................138<br />
DYNAMICS AND VIABILITY OF A COUGAR POPULATION IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST – Abstract<br />
Ca<strong>the</strong>rine Lambert, Robert B. Wielgus, Hugh S. Robinson, Donald D. Katnik, Hilary Cruickshank, and<br />
Ross Clarke ..........................................................................................................................................................139<br />
PROJECT CAT (COUGARS AND TEACHING): INTEGRATING SCIENCE, SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY IN<br />
DEVELOPMENT PLANNING – Abstract<br />
Gary M. Koehler and Evelyn Nelson...................................................................................................................140<br />
MONITORING MOUNTAIN LIONS IN THE TUCSON MOUNTAIN DISTRICT OF SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK,<br />
ARIZONA, USING NONINVASIVE TECHNIQUES – Abstract<br />
Lisa Haynes, Don Swann, and Melanie Culver ...................................................................................................141<br />
ESTIMATING COUGAR ABUNDANCE USING PROBABILITY SAMPLING: AN EVALUATION OF TRANSECT VERSUS<br />
BLOCK DESIGN – Abstract<br />
Chuck R. Anderson, Jr., Fred G. Lindzey, and Nate Nibbelink...........................................................................142<br />
EVALUATING MOUNTAIN LION MONITORING TECHNIQUES IN THE GARNET MOUNTAINS OF WEST CENTRAL<br />
MONTANA – Abstract<br />
Rich DeSimone ....................................................................................................................................................143<br />
PRESENCE AND MOVEMENTS OF LACTATING AND MATERNAL FEMALE COUGARS: IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE<br />
HUNTING REGULATIONS – Abstract<br />
Toni K. Ruth, Kerry M. Murphy, and Polly C. Buotte ........................................................................................144<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> Conservation<br />
Session Chair: Christopher Papouchis, <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> Foundation<br />
MYSTERY, MYTH AND LEGEND: THE POLITICS OF COUGAR MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM –<br />
Abstract<br />
Rick A. Hopkins...................................................................................................................................................145<br />
v
RECONCILING SCIENCE AND POLITICS IN PUMA MANAGEMENT IN THE WEST: NEW MEXICO AS A TEMPLATE<br />
– Abstract<br />
Kenneth A. Logan, Linda L. Sweanor, and Maurice G. Hornocker ....................................................................146<br />
COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION OF MOUNTAIN LIONS – Abstract<br />
Lynn Michelle Cullens and Christopher Papouchis.............................................................................................147<br />
PUMA MANAGEMENT IN WESTERN NORTH AMERICA: A 100-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE – Abstract<br />
Steven Torres, Hea<strong>the</strong>r Keough, and Deanna Dawn............................................................................................148<br />
USING COUGARS TO DESIGN A WILDERNESS NETWORK IN CALIFORNIA’S SOUTH COAST ECOREGION – Abstract<br />
Paul Beier and Kristeen Penrod ...........................................................................................................................149<br />
MOUNTAIN LIONS AND BIGHORN SHEEP: FACING THE CHALLENGES – Abstract<br />
Christopher M. Papouchis and John D. Wehausen ..............................................................................................150<br />
POSTER PRESENTATIONS<br />
Session Chair: Scott Becker, Wyoming Game and Fish Department<br />
FACTORS AFFECTING DISPERSAL IN YOUNG MALE PUMAS<br />
John W. Laundré and Lucina Hernández.............................................................................................................151<br />
COUGAR EXPLOITATION LEVELS AND LANDSCAPE CONFIGURATIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR DEMOGRAPHIC<br />
STRUCTURE AND METAPOPULATION DYNAMICS – Abstract<br />
David C. Stoner and Michael L. Wolfe................................................................................................................161<br />
ASSESSING GPS RADIOTELEMETRY RELIABILITY IN COUGAR HABITAT – Abstract<br />
Trish Griswold, James Briggs, Gary Koehler, and Students at Cle Elum-Roslyn School District ......................162<br />
USING GPS COLLARS TO DETERMINE COUGAR KILL RATES, ESTIMATE HOME RANGES, AND EXAMINE<br />
COUGAR-COUGAR INTERACTIONS –Abstract<br />
Polly C. Buotte and Toni K. Ruth ........................................................................................................................163<br />
FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE OF COUGARS AND PREY AVAILABILITY IN NORTHEASTERN WASHINGTON – Abstract<br />
Hilary S. Cruickshank, Hugh S. Robinson, Ca<strong>the</strong>rine Lambert, Robert B. Wielgus ...........................................164<br />
WHAT DOES TEN YEARS (1993-2002) OF MOUNTAIN LION OBSERVATION DATA REVEAL ABOUT MOUNTAIN<br />
LION-HUMAN INTERACTIONS WITHIN REDWOOD NATIONAL AND STATE PARKS – Abstract<br />
Gregory W. Holm ................................................................................................................................................165<br />
DEPREDATION TRENDS IN CALIFORNIA – Abstract<br />
Sarah Reed, Christopher M. Papouchis, and Lynn Michelle Cullens ..................................................................166<br />
THE DISTRIBUTION OF PERCEIVED ENCOUNTERS WITH NON-NATIVE CATS IN SOUTH AND WEST WALES, UK:<br />
RELATIONSHIP TO MODELED HABITAT SUITABILITY – Abstract<br />
A.B. Smith, F.E. Street Perrott, and T. Hooper....................................................................................................167<br />
PUMA ACTIVITY AND MOVEMENTS IN A HUMAN-DOMINATED LANDSCAPE: CUYAMACA RANCHO STATE<br />
PARK AND ADJACENT LANDS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA – Abstract<br />
Linda L. Sweanor, Kenneth A. Logan, Jim W. Bauer, and Walter M. Boyce .....................................................168<br />
MODELING OFFSPRING SEX RATIOS AND GROWTH OF COUGARS – Abstract<br />
Diana M. Ghikas, Martin Jalkotzy, Ian Ross, Ralph Schmidt, and Shane A. Richards .......................................169<br />
MOUNTAIN LION SURVEY TECHNIQUES IN NORTHERN IDAHO: A THREE-FOLD APPROACH – Abstract<br />
Craig G. White, Peter Zager, and Lisette Waits...................................................................................................170<br />
MOUNTAIN LIONS IN SOUTH DAKOTA: RESULTS OF A 2002 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY – Abstract<br />
Larry M. Gigliotti, Dorothy M. Fecske, and Jonathan A. Jenks ..........................................................................171<br />
CRITICAL COUGAR CROSSING AND BAY AREA REGIONAL PLANNING – Abstract<br />
Michele Korpos....................................................................................................................................................172<br />
List <strong>of</strong> Participants............................................................................................................................................173<br />
vi
PREFACE<br />
vii<br />
PREFACE<br />
The Wyoming Game and Fish Department took great pride in hosting <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong><br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong>, which was held in conjunction with <strong>the</strong> Thirty-Ninth North American<br />
Moose Conference and <strong>Workshop</strong> and <strong>the</strong> Fifth Western States and Provinces Deer and Elk<br />
<strong>Workshop</strong>. More than 190 people attended <strong>the</strong> mountain lion workshop representing 27 states, 3<br />
Canadian provinces, Mexico, Brazil, and <strong>the</strong> United Kingdom. Numerous state and federal<br />
agencies, tribal nations, private organizations, academia, and members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> general public were<br />
represented which attest to <strong>the</strong> varied and growing interest in mountain lions throughout North<br />
and South America.<br />
This workshop would not have been a success without <strong>the</strong> aid and cooperation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
contributors and participants. Financial support, equipment, and manpower provided by <strong>the</strong><br />
Wyoming Chapter <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Wildlife Society, <strong>the</strong> Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and <strong>the</strong><br />
Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at <strong>the</strong> University <strong>of</strong> Wyoming made this<br />
workshop possible. A special thanks goes to <strong>the</strong> members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> organizing committee for <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
aid with all aspects <strong>of</strong> pre- and post-workshop activities, to <strong>the</strong> session chairs for keeping <strong>the</strong><br />
workshop moving in a timely fashion, and to <strong>the</strong> invited speakers who gave thoughtful insight<br />
into past, present, and future mountain lion management practices and research techniques.<br />
Many thanks to <strong>the</strong> Western Association <strong>of</strong> Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) for<br />
sanctioning <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong>; from this point forward, all mountain lion<br />
workshops will be sanctioned by WAFWA.<br />
Finally, we would like to thank all <strong>the</strong> presenters in <strong>the</strong> oral and poster sessions for <strong>the</strong><br />
depth <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir research and <strong>the</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir presentations. As a result <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> efforts you all put<br />
forth, a standard has been set for presentations at future mountain lion workshops. Keep up <strong>the</strong><br />
great work!<br />
Scott Becker and Dave Moody<br />
<strong>Workshop</strong> Co-Chairs
IN MEMORY<br />
P. Ian Ross<br />
Born December 16, 1958 in Goderich, Ontario.<br />
Died June 29, 2003, age 44, near Nanyuki, Kenya.<br />
Ian was a true outdoorsman from <strong>the</strong> beginning, running a trapline while in high school in<br />
sou<strong>the</strong>rn Ontario. After graduating from <strong>the</strong> University <strong>of</strong> Guelph (1982), his first experiences<br />
with grizzly bears came in northwestern Alberta, where he studied <strong>the</strong> impacts <strong>of</strong> industrial<br />
development. It was <strong>the</strong> beginning <strong>of</strong> an illustrious 20-year career conducting research on large<br />
mammals in western Canada.<br />
He worked on cougars in southwestern Alberta from <strong>the</strong> early 1980’s until 1994. That project<br />
became one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> longest running research projects on Puma concolor in North America. The<br />
cougar project received national recognition on radio and television and Ian used that attention to<br />
foster a thoughtful and effective wildlife conservation message. He participated in <strong>the</strong> drafting<br />
<strong>of</strong> a management plan for cougars in Alberta as well as a conservation strategy for large<br />
carnivores in Canada. He was <strong>the</strong> senior author on 9 papers in peer-reviewed journals in<br />
addition to many o<strong>the</strong>r technical reports and popular articles.<br />
After <strong>the</strong> cougar project wrapped up, Ian conducted environmental impact studies in western and<br />
nor<strong>the</strong>rn Canada. He recently rewrote <strong>the</strong> grizzly bear status report for COSEWIC. He also<br />
worked tirelessly with The Wildlife Society-Alberta Chapter dealing with wildlife conservation<br />
issues. He served as President <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Chapter in 1997. Ian also continued to capture wildlife,<br />
including grizzly bears, for research projects, and in doing so assisted many graduate students<br />
with <strong>the</strong>ir research. He conducted his capture work using an exacting pr<strong>of</strong>essional approach<br />
while retaining an empathy for <strong>the</strong> wildlife he was pursuing. He cared for each individual and<br />
did his utmost to conduct captures in a humane manner.<br />
Ian was a committed and emotional friend and family man. Having no children <strong>of</strong> his own he<br />
was a hero to his young nieces, nephews and children <strong>of</strong> friends. He always remembered<br />
everyone’s birthdays. He hiked <strong>the</strong> foothills <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Rockies west <strong>of</strong> Calgary, as well as <strong>the</strong> U.S.<br />
desert southwest, <strong>the</strong> Canadian Arctic, Mexico and Africa. He loved to hunt and his dinner table<br />
was a testiment to his hunting prowess. His conservation ethic permeated all <strong>of</strong> his life. He did<br />
not consume needlessly and he encouraged all <strong>of</strong> us to do <strong>the</strong> same.<br />
In January 2003, Ian returned to field research when he joined Dr. Laurence Frank on <strong>the</strong><br />
Liakipia Predator Project, a project designed to find ways to allow for <strong>the</strong> coexistence <strong>of</strong> hyenas,<br />
lions, and leopards and people in <strong>the</strong> agricultural matrix that exists outside national parks in most<br />
<strong>of</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn Africa. Two days before his death he was on top <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world having collared his<br />
first leopard. On <strong>the</strong> evening he died Ian was tracking a radio-collared lion from a light aircraft.<br />
Searchers located its wreckage <strong>the</strong> next morning. Ian Ross died at <strong>the</strong> peak <strong>of</strong> his career, doing<br />
what he loved.<br />
By<br />
Martin Jalkotzy<br />
Arc Wildlife Services<br />
3527 - 35 Ave. SW<br />
Calgary, AB, T3E 1A2, Canada<br />
viii
ix<br />
IN MEMORY
STATUS OF MOUNTAIN LION POPULATIONS IN ARIZONA<br />
BRIAN F. WAKELING, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Game Branch, 2221 West<br />
Greenway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85023 USA<br />
Abstract: Arizona's mountain lion (Puma concolor) population numbers about 1,000-2,500 animals, and just over<br />
350 mountain lions were harvested through sport and depredation take in 5 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> last 6 years. Arizona bag limit is 1<br />
lion per person per year annually, except in a few units where multiple bag limits have been implemented; no<br />
multiple bag limit has been reached to date. Management for this big game animal is guided by strategic plan,<br />
species management guidelines, hunt guidelines, and a predation management policy. Management is currently<br />
under review by an internal team that is examining several predator species, including mountain lions. The internal<br />
review should be complete by <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> 2003. Public safety incident reports have increased substantially since<br />
1998.<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lion populations within<br />
Arizona remain robust and are currently<br />
estimated at 1,000-2,500 despite a prolonged<br />
drought throughout <strong>the</strong> southwestern United<br />
States. Portions <strong>of</strong> Arizona have received<br />
record low precipitation during 2002, and<br />
<strong>the</strong> decade <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1990s was <strong>the</strong> driest on<br />
records for several portions <strong>of</strong> Arizona.<br />
Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)<br />
populations have declined, and in 2003 <strong>the</strong><br />
Arizona Game and Fish Commission<br />
authorized <strong>the</strong> lowest number <strong>of</strong> permits for<br />
deer hunting since <strong>the</strong> limited-draw permit<br />
system was established in Arizona.<br />
Figure 1. Arizona mountain lion harvest<br />
trends excluding tribal lands, 1984-2002.<br />
1<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong><br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lion harvest has remained high, as<br />
annual statewide harvests have exceeded our<br />
strategic plan objectives (Arizona Game and<br />
Fish Department 2001) in 5 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> last 6<br />
years (Figure 1).<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lions are classified as big<br />
game by Arizona statute. Commission order<br />
has established <strong>the</strong> bag limit at 1 mountain<br />
lion per year, except in a few units.<br />
Successful hunters are required to report<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir harvest within 10 days and answer a<br />
series <strong>of</strong> standard questions. Beginning in<br />
July 2003, hunters will be asked to<br />
voluntarily provide a tooth, which may be<br />
used to estimate age through cementum<br />
annuli and determine gender using genetic<br />
techniques. The Department is investigating<br />
making <strong>the</strong> tooth submission mandatory.<br />
The management objectives for this species,<br />
as well as all big game species, are outlined<br />
in <strong>the</strong> agency strategic plan, Wildlife 2006<br />
(Arizona Game and Fish Department 2001)<br />
and species management guidelines. The<br />
strategic plan goals, objectives, and speciesspecific<br />
strategies for mountain lion<br />
management, that include:<br />
Objectives<br />
1. Maintain annual harvest at 250 to 300<br />
mountain lions (including depredation
2 STATUS OF MOUNTAIN LION POPULATIONS IN ARIZONA · Wakeling<br />
take).<br />
2. Provide recreational opportunity for<br />
3,000 to 6,000 hunters per year.<br />
3. Maintain existing occupied habitat and<br />
maintain <strong>the</strong> present range <strong>of</strong> mountain<br />
lions in Arizona.<br />
Species-Specific Strategies<br />
1. Maintain a complete database from all<br />
harvest sources, through a mandatory<br />
check-out system, including age, sex,<br />
kill location, etc. to index population<br />
trend.<br />
2. Conduct a hunter questionnaire<br />
biannually.<br />
3. Evaluate <strong>the</strong> management implications<br />
<strong>of</strong> population and relative density<br />
estimates.<br />
4. Implement hunt structures to increase<br />
and direct harvest emphasis toward<br />
areas with high lion populations, and<br />
where depredation complaints are<br />
substantiated, and evaluate <strong>the</strong><br />
effectiveness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se efforts.<br />
5. Determine population numbers and<br />
characteristics on a hunt-area basis.<br />
6. Increase public awareness <strong>of</strong> mountain<br />
lions and <strong>the</strong>ir habits, to reduce<br />
conflicts with humans.<br />
7. Implement <strong>the</strong> Department’s Predation<br />
Management Policy.<br />
In addition, management direction is<br />
provided by species management guidelines<br />
and hunt guidelines. In October 2000, <strong>the</strong><br />
Arizona Game and Fish Commission<br />
approved <strong>the</strong> predation management policy<br />
that provides <strong>the</strong> agency guidance as to<br />
when and how to engage in predation<br />
management.<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lion management has changed<br />
as a direct result <strong>of</strong> biological investigations<br />
into predation effects. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion<br />
predation is being documented as a factor<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
that may be regulating prey populations<br />
(Ballard et al. 2001) in some areas <strong>of</strong><br />
Arizona, to include bighorn sheep (Ovis<br />
canadensis) (Kamler et al. 2002) and<br />
pronghorn (Antilocapra americana)<br />
(Ockenfels 1994a, b). These prey<br />
populations are at low levels, and reducing<br />
predator populations is likely to allow those<br />
prey populations to increase in number<br />
(Ballard et al. 2001). The standard bag limit<br />
for mountain lions has been altered in<br />
specific areas to allow for <strong>the</strong> harvest <strong>of</strong> 1<br />
mountain lion per day until a predetermined<br />
number <strong>of</strong> mountain lions are removed that<br />
equal about 50-75% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> estimated<br />
mountain lion population within that unit, at<br />
which time <strong>the</strong> bag limit reverts back to <strong>the</strong><br />
standard bag limit <strong>of</strong> 1 mountain lion per<br />
calendar year. The only exception to this is<br />
in <strong>the</strong> southwestern portion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state<br />
where if even a single mountain lion is<br />
taken, <strong>the</strong> hunt area will be closed.<br />
Multiple bag limits were implemented in<br />
Units 13A and 13B in 1999, 16A South and<br />
18B South in 2001, 22 South in 1999, and<br />
Units 21 West, 28 South, and 37B North<br />
will be implemented this year. Research<br />
studies in Unit 22 South on bighorn sheep,<br />
that included investigations into nutrition,<br />
disease, and predation, indicate that <strong>the</strong><br />
multiple bag limit on mountain lions in that<br />
area, with increased effort by sportsmen to<br />
harvest mountain lions, seems to be<br />
positively influencing desert bighorn sheep<br />
recruitment and adult female survival. To<br />
implement a multiple bag limit on mountain<br />
lions, biologists must identify a prey species<br />
that has been reduced due to mountain lion<br />
predation (e.g., a declining population below<br />
management objectives) or a management<br />
action that is likely to be impacted by<br />
mountain lion predation (e.g., a planned<br />
translocation) to initiate and identify what<br />
management objectives must be met (e.g., 3<br />
years <strong>of</strong> 50:100 lamb:ewe ratios) before <strong>the</strong><br />
multiple bag limit is removed. Because this
is a relatively recent management approach<br />
in Arizona, refinements to implementation<br />
and new opportunities will undoubtedly<br />
develop. For instance, portions <strong>of</strong> Arizona<br />
have robust mountain lion populations that<br />
sustain large amounts <strong>of</strong> depredation<br />
removal (Cunningham et al. 1995) and may<br />
be able to provide recreational harvest at a<br />
higher level. These areas might provide<br />
opportunities to manage recreational harvest<br />
with multiple bag limits in <strong>the</strong> future, and<br />
attempt to transfer depredation take into<br />
recreational harvest.<br />
The Department has recently established<br />
an internal team to review management<br />
approaches for several predator species, to<br />
include mountain lions. This team will be<br />
reviewing social and biological issues and<br />
best management practices, and<br />
recommending possible changes to<br />
Arizona's management. This team will<br />
serve as an umbrella team for several<br />
subteams that will work on <strong>the</strong> biological<br />
basis for management, ga<strong>the</strong>r information on<br />
social acceptance, and conduct public<br />
outreach and education.<br />
DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lions are distributed<br />
throughout most <strong>of</strong> Arizona, in varying<br />
densities (Figure 2). This distribution was<br />
reevaluated in 2002 by Department<br />
biologists and wildlife managers, and<br />
although subtle changes have been noted in<br />
<strong>the</strong> densities <strong>of</strong> lions, little change to <strong>the</strong><br />
distribution was identified. This map is still<br />
undergoing refinement and should be<br />
considered a draft. Additional information<br />
used by <strong>the</strong> Arizona Game and Fish<br />
Department in managing mountain lion<br />
population trends includes harvest,<br />
depredation reports, and age and gender<br />
from mandatory hunter reports.<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lion population estimates are<br />
based on density estimates developed from<br />
research studies, literature, and pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
experience within Arizona habitats. These<br />
STATUS OF MOUNTAIN LION POPULATIONS IN ARIZONA · Wakeling 3<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
Figure 2. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion distribution and<br />
density estimates (draft) in Arizona<br />
excluding tribal lands, 2002.<br />
density estimates are reevaluated at<br />
infrequent intervals. Prior to 2002, <strong>the</strong> last<br />
reevaluation was conducted in 1993,<br />
although a few management units were<br />
reevaluated in 1998.<br />
HARVEST INFORMATION<br />
Licensed hunters may pursue mountain<br />
lions in Arizona if <strong>the</strong>y purchase a<br />
nonpermit tag prior to hunting. The annual<br />
bag limit is 1 lion, except for areas where a<br />
multiple bag limit is in place as discussed in<br />
<strong>the</strong> introduction. Strategic plan objectives<br />
for statewide harvests are based on historical<br />
harvest that removed about 10-15% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
estimated statewide population. Recently,<br />
harvest combined with depredation removal<br />
has exceeded <strong>the</strong> strategic plan objective<br />
(Table 1). Phelps (2003) reported data on<br />
harvest prior to 1998. Still, statewide<br />
harvest is probably
4 STATUS OF MOUNTAIN LION POPULATIONS IN ARIZONA · Wakeling<br />
Table 1. Arizona mountain lion harvest summary excluding tribal lands, 1998-2002.<br />
Total Harvest<br />
Sport<br />
Harvest<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
Gender <strong>of</strong> Sport<br />
Harvest<br />
Year<br />
Tags<br />
Issued Sport Depredation O<strong>the</strong>r b<br />
Using Dogs Male Female<br />
1998 6590<br />
1999 6885<br />
2000 7478<br />
2001 8109<br />
2002 7900 a<br />
289 52 1 192 150 136<br />
247 49 2 161 126 120<br />
276 53 0 193 133 141<br />
326 58 0 214 176 144<br />
263 50 5 175 154 115<br />
a<br />
2002 tags sold is preliminary.<br />
b<br />
Includes known kills o<strong>the</strong>r than sport or depredation (e.g., highway mortality, capture mortality, and illegal take).<br />
limits are established to take 50-75% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
mountain lions that occupy an area when <strong>the</strong><br />
aforementioned criteria are met. To date,<br />
none <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> multiple bag limits have been<br />
achieved.<br />
Arizona mountain lion seasons are<br />
currently open yearlong. About 7,900<br />
nonpermit tags were sold to hunters in 2002<br />
(Table 1). During 1998-2002, about 67%<br />
were taken with <strong>the</strong> aid <strong>of</strong> hounds, whereas<br />
24% were taken incidental to o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
activities. Currently, Arizona does not have<br />
a pursuit-only season.<br />
DEPREDATIONS AND HUMAN<br />
INTERACTIONS-CONFLICTS<br />
Complaints that come to <strong>the</strong> Arizona<br />
Game and Fish Department can take 1 <strong>of</strong> 2<br />
routes: nuisance wildlife or depredation.<br />
Nuisance complaints are dealt with through<br />
advice and education. Should a mountain<br />
lion pose a threat to public safety, <strong>the</strong><br />
Department will dispatch a wildlife manager<br />
to deal with <strong>the</strong> immediate situation,<br />
although we frequently contract with USDA<br />
APHIS Wildlife Services to conduct<br />
removal efforts. Between 1998 and 2002,<br />
312 public safety incidents have been<br />
reported involving mountain lions. The<br />
trend <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se reports over time has been<br />
steeply increasing (29 in 1998, 105 in 2002;<br />
Table 2). This increase in reports may be<br />
Table 2. Public incident reports that included<br />
mountain lions in Arizona excluding tribal<br />
lands, 1998-2002.<br />
Year<br />
1998<br />
1999<br />
2000<br />
2001<br />
2002<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Incidents<br />
Reported<br />
29<br />
43<br />
46<br />
89<br />
105<br />
attributed to mountain lions pursuing prey<br />
near residential areas (which may be<br />
exacerbated by drought conditions),<br />
increasing residential development in<br />
mountain lion habitat, and <strong>the</strong> public's<br />
greater familiarity with <strong>the</strong> reporting<br />
process. During that time, few mountain<br />
lions (
objectives for mountain lions and ranges<br />
between 49 and 58 mountain lions annually<br />
(Table 1). The actual number <strong>of</strong> depredation<br />
incidents by year is difficult to accurately<br />
ascertain.<br />
ONGOING RESEARCH<br />
Arizona is fortunate to have a Research<br />
Branch within our Wildlife Management<br />
Division that may focus on issues<br />
surrounding wildlife management. In <strong>the</strong><br />
past, this has included many studies directly<br />
relating to mountain lions and that we<br />
currently base much <strong>of</strong> our mountain lion<br />
management. Currently, <strong>the</strong> Department<br />
does not have any ongoing research directly<br />
aimed at mountain lion management,<br />
although a study in Unit 22 that includes <strong>the</strong><br />
impacts <strong>of</strong> mountain lions on desert bighorn<br />
sheep is being completed. Studies by o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
organizations involving urban mountain<br />
lions are in <strong>the</strong> initial phases near Flagstaff<br />
and Tucson.<br />
LITERATURE CITED<br />
ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT.<br />
2001. Wildlife 2006. Arizona Game<br />
and Fish Department, Phoenix.<br />
BALLARD, W.B., D.L. LUTZ, T.W. KEEGAN,<br />
L.H. CARPENTER, AND J.C. DEVOS, JR.<br />
2001. Deer-predator relationships: a<br />
review <strong>of</strong> recent North American studies<br />
with emphasis on mule and black-tailed<br />
STATUS OF MOUNTAIN LION POPULATIONS IN ARIZONA · Wakeling 5<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:99-<br />
115.<br />
CUNNINGHAM, S.C., L.A HAYNES, C.<br />
GUSTAVSON, AND D.D. HAYWOOD.<br />
1995. Evaluation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> interaction<br />
between mountain lions and cattle in <strong>the</strong><br />
Aravaipa-Klondyke area <strong>of</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>ast<br />
Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish<br />
Department Technical Report 17,<br />
Phoenix.<br />
KAMLER, J.F., R.M. LEE, J.C. DEVOS, JR.,<br />
W.B. BALLARD, AND H.A. WHITLAW.<br />
2002. Survival and cougar predation <strong>of</strong><br />
translocated bighorn sheep in Arizona.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Management<br />
66:1267-1272.<br />
OCKENFELS, R.A. 1994a. Factors affecting<br />
adult pronghorn mortality rates in central<br />
Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish<br />
Department Wildlife Digest Abstract 16,<br />
Phoenix.<br />
OCKENFELS, R.A. 1994b. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion<br />
predation on pronghorn in central<br />
Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist<br />
39:305-306.<br />
PHELPS, J. 2003. Status report on mountain<br />
lions in Arizona. Pages 8-10 in L. A.<br />
Harveson, P. M. Harveson, and R. W.<br />
Adams, eds. <strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Sixth<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong>, Texas Parks<br />
and Wildlife Department, Austin.
CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
DOUG UPDIKE, Wildlife Programs Branch, California Department <strong>of</strong> Fish & Game, 1812 9 th<br />
Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA, email: dupdike@dfg.ca.gov<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
California has a statewide mountain lion<br />
management plan. In 1990, mountain lions<br />
were legally classified as a “specially<br />
protected mammal” by <strong>the</strong> passage <strong>of</strong> a<br />
voter initiative (Proposition 117, June 1990<br />
ballot). Prior to that initiative, lions were<br />
classified as “game mammals.”<br />
The objectives for mountain lion<br />
management in California is to maintain<br />
healthy, wild populations <strong>of</strong> mountain lions<br />
for <strong>the</strong> benefit and enjoyment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> people<br />
in <strong>the</strong> State, to alleviate public safety<br />
incidents and reduce damage to private<br />
property (pets and livestock) by mountain<br />
lions. <strong>Mountain</strong> lions are not hunted in<br />
California, and <strong>the</strong>y may be killed only to<br />
preserve public safety, alleviate damage to<br />
private property or to protect listed bighorn<br />
sheep.<br />
Number<br />
350<br />
300<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
0<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> Depredation Permits (1972 - 2002)<br />
6<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong><br />
DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE<br />
<strong>Lion</strong>s are currently distributed<br />
throughout all suitable habitats within<br />
California. <strong>Lion</strong> numbers appear to be<br />
stable at an estimated 4,000 to 6,000 adults.<br />
The number <strong>of</strong> lions in California is<br />
based upon extrapolating densities<br />
determined with <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> radio collars.<br />
These studies have been conducted in<br />
various locations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State. The number<br />
<strong>of</strong> lions is determined by multiplying <strong>the</strong><br />
densities and <strong>the</strong> area represented by <strong>the</strong><br />
ecological province. The studies that<br />
provide local lion density data have been<br />
conducted over a period <strong>of</strong> a couple decades.<br />
Consequently, <strong>the</strong> Department recognizes<br />
<strong>the</strong> estimate has limited application.<br />
The Department issues depredation<br />
permits to property owners who have<br />
experienced damage from a mountain lion<br />
(Figure 1).<br />
1972<br />
1974<br />
1976<br />
1978<br />
1980<br />
1982<br />
1984<br />
1986<br />
1988<br />
1990<br />
1992<br />
1994<br />
1996<br />
1998<br />
2000<br />
2002<br />
Year<br />
Permits Issued<br />
<strong>Lion</strong>s Killed<br />
Figure 1. The number <strong>of</strong> mountain lion depredation permits issued and <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong><br />
lions that have been killed as a result in California, 1972-2002.
HARVEST INFORMATION<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lion hunting is prohibited in<br />
California. No lions have been taken by<br />
licensed hunters since 1972. It is also illegal<br />
for lions that have been legally taken in<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r states to be imported into California.<br />
DEPREDATIONS AND HUMAN<br />
INTERACTIONS/CONFLICTS<br />
The Department’s Public Safety<br />
Guidelines are attached. This policy is<br />
intended to guide <strong>the</strong> actions and decisions<br />
<strong>of</strong> Department personnel who respond to<br />
mountain lion incidents.<br />
A summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> human/lion<br />
incidents is provided in Table 1.<br />
We provide educational material to <strong>the</strong><br />
public to foster an understanding and<br />
appreciation <strong>of</strong> lions. A recent (May-June<br />
2000) issue <strong>of</strong> Outdoor California was<br />
devoted entirely to mountain lions. Most <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> articles are viewable at:<br />
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/coned/ocal/features.html<br />
In addition, we have produced a<br />
brochure, “Living with California <strong>Mountain</strong><br />
<strong>Lion</strong>s” which is viewable at:<br />
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/lion/index.html<br />
Depredation permits may be issued by<br />
<strong>the</strong> Department subject to <strong>the</strong> conditions<br />
found in Section 402, California Code <strong>of</strong><br />
Regulations, as follows:<br />
CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Updike 7<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
a. Revocable permits may be issued by <strong>the</strong><br />
department after receiving a report, from<br />
any owner or tenant or agent for <strong>the</strong>m, <strong>of</strong><br />
property being damaged or destroyed by<br />
mountain lion. The department shall<br />
conduct and complete an investigation<br />
within 48 hours <strong>of</strong> receiving such a<br />
report. Any mountain lion that is<br />
encountered in <strong>the</strong> act <strong>of</strong> inflicting injury<br />
to, molesting or killing livestock or<br />
domestic animals may be taken<br />
immediately if <strong>the</strong> taking is reported<br />
within 72 hours to <strong>the</strong> department and<br />
<strong>the</strong> carcass is made available to <strong>the</strong><br />
department. Whenever immediate<br />
action will assist in <strong>the</strong> pursuit <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
particular mountain lion believed to be<br />
responsible for damage to livestock or<br />
domestic animals, <strong>the</strong> department may<br />
orally authorize <strong>the</strong> pursuit and take <strong>of</strong> a<br />
mountain lion. The department shall<br />
investigate such incidents and, upon a<br />
finding that <strong>the</strong> requirements <strong>of</strong> this<br />
regulation have been met, issue a free<br />
permit for depredation purposes, and<br />
carcass tag to <strong>the</strong> person taking such<br />
mountain lion.<br />
b. Permittee may take mountain lion in <strong>the</strong><br />
manner specified in <strong>the</strong> permit, except<br />
that no mountain lion shall be taken by<br />
means <strong>of</strong> poison, leg-hold or metaljawed<br />
traps and snares.<br />
Table 1. Summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> human/lion incidents in California, 1995-2002.<br />
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002<br />
# <strong>of</strong> incidents 381 587 539 353 697 372 456 379<br />
# <strong>of</strong> safety<br />
incidents<br />
18 14 15 11 16 8 14 13<br />
take 9 7 11 12 10 7 11 13<br />
male 3 3 1 6 6 4 8 6<br />
female 3 1 6 6 3 3 3 5<br />
unknown 3 3 4 0 1 0 0 2<br />
# <strong>of</strong> sightings 191 346 340 214 382 174 240 224
8 CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Updike<br />
c. Permittee may take mountain lion in <strong>the</strong><br />
manner specified in <strong>the</strong> permit, except<br />
that no mountain lion shall be taken by<br />
means <strong>of</strong> poison, leg-hold or metaljawed<br />
traps and snares.<br />
d. Both males and females may be taken<br />
during <strong>the</strong> period <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> permit<br />
irrespective <strong>of</strong> hours or seasons.<br />
e. The privilege granted in <strong>the</strong> permit may<br />
not be transferred, and only entitles <strong>the</strong><br />
permittee or <strong>the</strong> employee or agent <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> permittee to take mountain lion.<br />
Such person must be 21 years <strong>of</strong> age or<br />
over and eligible to purchase a<br />
California hunting license.<br />
f. Any person issued a permit pursuant to<br />
this section shall report by telephone<br />
within 24 hours <strong>the</strong> capturing, injuring<br />
or killing <strong>of</strong> any mountain lion to an<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> department or, if<br />
telephoning is not practical, in writing<br />
within five days after capturing, injuring<br />
or killing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mountain lion. Any<br />
mountain lion killed under <strong>the</strong> permit<br />
must be tagged with <strong>the</strong> special tag<br />
furnished with <strong>the</strong> permit; both tags must<br />
be completely filled out and <strong>the</strong><br />
duplicate mailed to <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Fish and Game, Sacramento, within 5<br />
days after taking any mountain lion.<br />
g. The entire carcass shall be transported<br />
within 5 days to a location agreed upon<br />
between <strong>the</strong> issuing <strong>of</strong>ficer and <strong>the</strong><br />
permittee, but in no case will a permittee<br />
be required to deliver a carcass beyond<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
<strong>the</strong> limits <strong>of</strong> his property unless he is<br />
willing to do so. The carcass <strong>of</strong><br />
mountain lions taken pursuant to this<br />
regulation shall become <strong>the</strong> property <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> state.<br />
h. Animals shall be taken in a humane<br />
manner so as to prevent any undue<br />
suffering to <strong>the</strong> animals<br />
i. The permittee shall take every<br />
reasonable precaution to prevent <strong>the</strong><br />
carcass from spoiling until disposed <strong>of</strong> in<br />
<strong>the</strong> manner agreed upon under<br />
subsection (f) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se regulations<br />
j. The permit does not invalidate any city,<br />
county, or state firearm regulation.<br />
k. Permits shall be issued for a period <strong>of</strong> 10<br />
days. Permits may be renewed only<br />
after a finding by <strong>the</strong> department that<br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r damage has occurred or will<br />
occur unless such permits are renewed.<br />
The permittee may not begin pursuit <strong>of</strong> a<br />
lion more than one mile nor continue<br />
pursuit beyond a 10-mile radius from <strong>the</strong><br />
location <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> reported damage.<br />
CURRENT RESEARCH<br />
a. Population genetics <strong>of</strong> lions<br />
b. <strong>Lion</strong>/deer/bighorn sheep predator prey<br />
relationships in Inyo/Mono counties and<br />
San Diego County<br />
c. <strong>Lion</strong> movements and corridors in Los<br />
Angeles/Ventura counties<br />
d. Impacts <strong>of</strong> habitat conversions and<br />
transportation corridors or lion<br />
movements and habitat use.
PUBLIC SAFETY WILDLIFE GUIDELINES – 2072<br />
Consistent with Section 1801 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Fish<br />
and Game Code, <strong>the</strong>se Public Safety<br />
Wildlife Guidelines provide procedures to<br />
address public safety wildlife problems.<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lions, black bears, deer, coyotes,<br />
and large exotic carnivores that have<br />
threatened or Attacked humans are wildlife<br />
classified as public safety problems. Public<br />
safety wildlife incidents are classified into<br />
three types:<br />
A. Type Green (sighting)<br />
A report (confirmed or unconfirmed) <strong>of</strong><br />
an observation that is perceived to be a<br />
public safety wildlife problem. The mere<br />
presence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> wildlife species does not<br />
in itself constitute a threat.<br />
B. Type Yellow (threat)<br />
A report where <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
public safety wildlife is confirmed by a<br />
field investigation, and <strong>the</strong> responding<br />
person (law enforcement <strong>of</strong>ficer or<br />
Department employee) perceives <strong>the</strong><br />
animal to be an imminent threat to<br />
public health or safety. Imminent threat<br />
means <strong>the</strong>re is a likelihood <strong>of</strong> human<br />
injury based on <strong>the</strong> totality <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
circumstances.<br />
C. Type Red (attack)<br />
An attack by a public safety wildlife<br />
species on a human resulting in physical<br />
contact, injury, or death.<br />
These guidelines are not intended to<br />
address orphaned, injured, or sick wildlife<br />
that have not threatened public safety. To<br />
achieve <strong>the</strong> intent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se guidelines, <strong>the</strong><br />
following procedures shall be used.<br />
I. Wildlife Incident Report Form<br />
Fill out a Wildlife Incident Report<br />
Form (WMD-2) for all reports <strong>of</strong> public<br />
safety wildlife incidents. The nature <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> report will determine <strong>the</strong> response or<br />
CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Updike 9<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
investigative action to <strong>the</strong> public safety<br />
problem. For those reports that require a<br />
follow-up field investigation, <strong>the</strong><br />
Wildlife Incident Report Form will be<br />
completed by <strong>the</strong> field investigator. All<br />
completed Wildlife Incident Report<br />
Forms shall be forwarded through <strong>the</strong><br />
regional <strong>of</strong>fices to <strong>the</strong> Chief, WPB.<br />
II. Response to Public Safety Wildlife<br />
Problems<br />
The steps in responding to a public<br />
safety wildlife incident are diagramed<br />
below (Figure 3).<br />
Any reported imminent threats or<br />
attacks on humans by wildlife will<br />
require a follow-up field investigation.<br />
If a public safety wildlife species is<br />
outside its natural habitat and in an area<br />
where it could become a public safety<br />
problem, and if approved by <strong>the</strong> Deputy<br />
Director for <strong>the</strong> WIFD, it may be<br />
captured using restraint techniques<br />
approved by <strong>the</strong> Wildlife Investigations<br />
Laboratory (WIL). The disposition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
captured wildlife may be coordinated<br />
with WIL.<br />
A. Type Green (sighting)<br />
If <strong>the</strong> investigator determines that no<br />
imminent threat to public safety exists,<br />
Figure 3. Steps in responding to a public<br />
safety wildlife incident.
10 CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Updike<br />
<strong>the</strong> incident is considered a Type Green.<br />
The appropriate action may include<br />
providing wildlife behavior information<br />
and mailing public educational materials<br />
to <strong>the</strong> reporting party.<br />
B. Type Yellow (threat)<br />
Once <strong>the</strong> field investigator finds<br />
evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> public safety wildlife<br />
and perceives <strong>the</strong> animal to be an<br />
imminent threat to public health or<br />
safety, <strong>the</strong> incident is considered a Type<br />
Yellow. In <strong>the</strong> event <strong>of</strong> threat to public<br />
safety, any Department employee<br />
responding to a reported public safety<br />
incident may take whatever action is<br />
deemed necessary within <strong>the</strong> scope <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> employee's authority to protect<br />
public safety. When evidence shows that<br />
a wild animal is an imminent threat to<br />
public safety, that wild animal shall be<br />
humanely euthanized (shot, killed,<br />
dispatched, destroyed, etc.). For Type<br />
Yellow incidents <strong>the</strong> following steps<br />
should be taken:<br />
1. Initiate <strong>the</strong> Incident Command<br />
System. The Incident Commander<br />
(IC) consults with <strong>the</strong> regional<br />
manager or designee to decide on <strong>the</strong><br />
notification process on a case-bycase<br />
basis. Full notification includes:<br />
<strong>the</strong> field investigator's supervisor, <strong>the</strong><br />
appropriate regional manager, <strong>the</strong><br />
Deputy Director, WIFD, Chief,<br />
Conservation Education and<br />
Enforcement Branch (CEEB), Chief,<br />
WPB, WIL, Wildlife Forensics Lab<br />
(WFL), <strong>the</strong> designated regional<br />
information <strong>of</strong>ficer, and <strong>the</strong> local law<br />
enforcement agency.<br />
2. If full notification is appropriate,<br />
notify Sacramento Dispatch at (916)<br />
445-0045. Dispatch shall notify <strong>the</strong><br />
above-mentioned personnel.<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
3. Secure <strong>the</strong> scene as appropriate.<br />
Take all practical steps to preserve<br />
potential evidence. The IC holds<br />
initial responsibility and authority<br />
over <strong>the</strong> scene, locating <strong>the</strong> animal,<br />
its resultant carcass, and any o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
physical evidence from <strong>the</strong> attack.<br />
The IC will ensure proper transfer<br />
and disposition <strong>of</strong> all physical<br />
evidence.<br />
4. In most situations, it is important to<br />
locate <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fending animal as soon<br />
as practical. WIL may be <strong>of</strong><br />
assistance. The services <strong>of</strong> USDA,<br />
Wildlife Services (WS) can be<br />
arranged by <strong>the</strong> regional manager or<br />
designee contacting <strong>the</strong> local WS<br />
District Supervisor. If possible, avoid<br />
shooting <strong>the</strong> animal in <strong>the</strong> head to<br />
preserve evidence.<br />
5. If an animal is killed, <strong>the</strong> IC will<br />
decide on <strong>the</strong> notification process<br />
and notify Sacramento Dispatch if<br />
appropriate. Use clean protective<br />
gloves while handling <strong>the</strong> carcass.<br />
Place <strong>the</strong> carcass inside a protective<br />
durable body bag (avoid dragging<br />
<strong>the</strong> carcass, if possible).<br />
C. Type Red (attack)<br />
In <strong>the</strong> event <strong>of</strong> an attack, <strong>the</strong><br />
responding Department employee may<br />
take any action necessary that is within<br />
<strong>the</strong> scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> employee's authority to<br />
protect public safety. When evidence<br />
shows that a wild animal has made an<br />
unprovoked attack on a human, that wild<br />
animal shall be humanely euthanized<br />
(shot, killed, dispatched, destroyed, etc.).<br />
For Type Red incidents <strong>the</strong> following<br />
steps should be taken:<br />
1. Ensure proper medical aid for <strong>the</strong><br />
victim. Identify <strong>the</strong> victim (obtain<br />
<strong>the</strong> following, but not limited to:<br />
name, address, phone number).
2. Notify Sacramento Dispatch at (916)<br />
445-0045. Dispatch shall notify <strong>the</strong><br />
field investigator's supervisor, <strong>the</strong><br />
appropriate regional manager, <strong>the</strong><br />
Deputy Director, WIFD, Chief,<br />
CEEB, Chief, WPB, WIL, WFL, <strong>the</strong><br />
designated regional information<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer, and <strong>the</strong> local law<br />
enforcement agency.<br />
3. Initiate <strong>the</strong> Incident Command<br />
System. If a human death has<br />
occurred, an Enforcement Branch<br />
supervisor or specialist will respond<br />
to <strong>the</strong> Incident Command Post and<br />
assume <strong>the</strong> IC responsibilities. The<br />
IC holds initial responsibility and<br />
authority over <strong>the</strong> scene, locating <strong>the</strong><br />
animal, its resultant carcass, and any<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r physical evidence from <strong>the</strong><br />
attack. The IC will ensure proper<br />
transfer and disposition <strong>of</strong> all<br />
physical evidence.<br />
4. Secure <strong>the</strong> area as needed. Treat <strong>the</strong><br />
area as a crime scene. In order to<br />
expedite <strong>the</strong> capture <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fending<br />
animal and preserve as much onscene<br />
evidence as possible, <strong>the</strong> area<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> incident must be secured<br />
immediately by <strong>the</strong> initial responding<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer. The area should be excluded<br />
from public access by use <strong>of</strong> flagging<br />
tape or similar tape (e.g., "Do Not<br />
Enter") utilized at crime scenes by<br />
local law enforcement agencies. One<br />
entry and exit port should be<br />
established. Only essential<br />
authorized personnel should be<br />
permitted in <strong>the</strong> excluded area. A<br />
second area outside <strong>the</strong> area <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
incident should be established as <strong>the</strong><br />
command post.<br />
5. In cases involving a human death,<br />
WFL personnel will direct <strong>the</strong><br />
ga<strong>the</strong>ring <strong>of</strong> evidence. Secure items<br />
such as clothing, tents, sleeping bags,<br />
CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Updike 11<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
objects used for defense during <strong>the</strong><br />
attack, objects chewed on by <strong>the</strong><br />
animal, or any o<strong>the</strong>r materials which<br />
may possess <strong>the</strong> attacking animal's<br />
saliva, hair, or blood.<br />
6. If <strong>the</strong> victim is alive, advise <strong>the</strong><br />
attending medical personnel about<br />
<strong>the</strong> Carnivore Attack-Victim<br />
Sampling Kit for collecting possible<br />
animal saliva stains or hair that<br />
might still be on <strong>the</strong> victim. If <strong>the</strong><br />
victim is dead, advise <strong>the</strong> medical<br />
examiner <strong>of</strong> this evidence need. This<br />
sampling kit may be obtained from<br />
<strong>the</strong> WFL.<br />
7. It is essential to locate <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fending<br />
animal as soon as practical. WIL<br />
may be <strong>of</strong> assistance. The services <strong>of</strong><br />
WS can be arranged by <strong>the</strong> regional<br />
manager or designee contacting <strong>the</strong><br />
local WS District Supervisor. If<br />
possible, avoid shooting <strong>the</strong> animal<br />
in <strong>the</strong> head to preserve evidence.<br />
8. If an animal is killed, <strong>the</strong> IC will<br />
notify Sacramento Dispatch. Treat<br />
<strong>the</strong> carcass as evidence. Use clean<br />
protective gloves and (if possible) a<br />
facemask while handling <strong>the</strong> carcass.<br />
Be guided by <strong>the</strong> need to protect <strong>the</strong><br />
animal's external body from: loss <strong>of</strong><br />
bloodstains or o<strong>the</strong>r such physical<br />
evidence originating from <strong>the</strong> victim;<br />
contamination by <strong>the</strong> animal's own<br />
blood; and contamination by <strong>the</strong><br />
human handler's hair, sweat, saliva,<br />
skin cells, etc. Tape paper bags over<br />
<strong>the</strong> head and paws, <strong>the</strong>n tape plastic<br />
bags over <strong>the</strong> paper bags. Plug<br />
wounds with tight gauze to minimize<br />
contamination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> animal with its<br />
own blood. Place <strong>the</strong> carcass inside a<br />
protective durable body bag (avoid<br />
dragging <strong>the</strong> carcass, if possible).<br />
9. WFL will receive from <strong>the</strong> IC and/or<br />
directly obtain all pertinent physical
12 CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Updike<br />
evidence concerning <strong>the</strong> primary<br />
questions <strong>of</strong> au<strong>the</strong>nticity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
attack and identity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fending<br />
animal. WFL has first access and<br />
authority over <strong>the</strong> carcass after <strong>the</strong><br />
IC. WFL will immediately contact<br />
and coordinate with <strong>the</strong> county<br />
health department <strong>the</strong> acquisition <strong>of</strong><br />
appropriate samples for rabies<br />
testing. Once WFL has secured <strong>the</strong><br />
necessary forensic samples, <strong>the</strong>y will<br />
<strong>the</strong>n release authority over <strong>the</strong><br />
carcass to WIL for disease studies.<br />
10. An independent diagnostic<br />
laboratory approved by WIL will<br />
conduct necropsy and disease studies<br />
on <strong>the</strong> carcass. The WIL will retain<br />
primary authority over this aspect <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> carcass.<br />
D. Responsibilities <strong>of</strong> WIL<br />
WIL investigates wildlife disease<br />
problems statewide and provides<br />
information on <strong>the</strong> occurrence <strong>of</strong> both<br />
enzootic and epizootic disease in<br />
wildlife populations. Specimens<br />
involved in suspected disease problems<br />
are submitted to WIL for necropsy and<br />
disease studies. Most animals killed for<br />
public safety reasons will be necropsied<br />
to assess <strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong> health and whe<strong>the</strong>r<br />
<strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> disease may have caused<br />
<strong>the</strong> aggressive and/or unusual behavior.<br />
Type Yellow public safety animals<br />
killed may be necropsied by WIL or an<br />
independent diagnostic laboratory<br />
approved by WIL. Contact WIL<br />
immediately after a public safety animal<br />
is killed to determine where it will be<br />
necropsied. Arrangements are to be<br />
made directly with WIL prior to<br />
submission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> carcass to any<br />
laboratory.<br />
Type Red public safety animals<br />
killed will be necropsied by an<br />
independent diagnostic laboratory<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
approved by WIL. Contact WIL prior to<br />
submission <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> carcass to any<br />
laboratory to allow <strong>the</strong> Department<br />
veterinarian to discuss <strong>the</strong> disease testing<br />
requirements with <strong>the</strong> attending<br />
pathologist. A disease testing protocol<br />
has been developed for use with Type<br />
Red public safety wildlife.<br />
E. Responsibilities <strong>of</strong> WFL<br />
WFL has <strong>the</strong> statewide responsibility<br />
to receive, collect, examine and analyze<br />
physical evidence, issue reports on<br />
evidence findings, and testify in court as<br />
to those results. WFL's primary<br />
functions in public safety incidents is to<br />
verify or refute <strong>the</strong> au<strong>the</strong>nticity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
purported attack and to corroborate or<br />
refute <strong>the</strong> involvement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> suspected<br />
<strong>of</strong>fending animal.<br />
Type Yellow public safety animals<br />
killed may be examined by WFL<br />
personnel. The examination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
carcass will be coordinated with WIL.<br />
All Type Red public safety animals<br />
killed must be examined by WFL<br />
personnel or a qualified person approved<br />
by WFL supervisor using specific<br />
procedures established by WFL.<br />
If a human death occurs,<br />
coordination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> autopsy between <strong>the</strong><br />
proper <strong>of</strong>ficials and WFL is important so<br />
that WFL personnel can be present<br />
during <strong>the</strong> autopsy for appropriate<br />
sampling and examination. In <strong>the</strong> event<br />
<strong>of</strong> human injury, it is important for WFL<br />
to ga<strong>the</strong>r any relevant physical evidence<br />
that may corroborate <strong>the</strong> au<strong>the</strong>nticity <strong>of</strong><br />
a wildlife attack, prior to <strong>the</strong> treatment <strong>of</strong><br />
injuries, if practical. If not practical,<br />
directions for sampling may be given<br />
over <strong>the</strong> telephone to <strong>the</strong> emergency<br />
room doctor by WFL.<br />
F. Media Contact<br />
Public safety wildlife incidents
attract significant media attention. Issues<br />
regarding site access, information<br />
dissemination, <strong>the</strong> public's safety,<br />
carcass viewing and requests to survey<br />
<strong>the</strong> scene can be handled by a designated<br />
employee. Each region shall designate<br />
an employee with necessary ICS training<br />
to respond as a regional information<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficer to public safety wildlife<br />
incidents.<br />
Type Yellow public safety wildlife<br />
incidents may require <strong>the</strong> notification <strong>of</strong><br />
a designated employee previously<br />
approved by <strong>the</strong> regional manager or<br />
designee to assist <strong>the</strong> IC in responding to<br />
CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Updike 13<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
<strong>the</strong> media and disseminating<br />
information. The IC has <strong>the</strong> authority to<br />
decide if <strong>the</strong> designated employee<br />
should be dispatched to <strong>the</strong> site.<br />
All Type Red public safety wildlife<br />
incidents require that a designated<br />
employee, previously approved by <strong>the</strong><br />
regional manager or designee, to assist<br />
<strong>the</strong> IC in responding to <strong>the</strong> media and<br />
disseminating information, is called to<br />
<strong>the</strong> scene.<br />
The Department will develop and<br />
provide training for designated<br />
employees to serve as information<br />
<strong>of</strong>ficers for public safety wildlife<br />
incidents.
COLORADO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
JERRY A. APKER, Colorado Division <strong>of</strong> Wildlife, 0722 South Road 1 East, Monte Vista, CO<br />
81144, USA, email: jerry.apker@state.co.us<br />
MOUNTAIN LION CLASSIFICATION<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lion (Puma concolor) received<br />
no legal protection and were classified as a<br />
predator in Colorado from 1881 until 1965.<br />
During this time take <strong>of</strong> puma at any time,<br />
any place was encouraged by bounties and<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r laws. The first bounty was enacted in<br />
1881 at $10, in 1925 laws instructed game<br />
wardens to destroy predatory animals by<br />
trapping, poisoning, or hunting, and in 1929<br />
<strong>the</strong> bounty was increased to $50. For<br />
comparison <strong>the</strong> 1929 bounty, if <strong>of</strong>fered in<br />
2003 dollars, would be $540. The bounty<br />
was abolished in 1965, but some provisions<br />
for landowner take <strong>of</strong> a depredating puma<br />
remains in Colorado laws to this day. In<br />
1965, puma were reclassified as big game.<br />
Each Data Analysis Unit (DAU) within<br />
<strong>the</strong> State has a management plan developed<br />
with objectives for hunter harvest, game<br />
damage, and human-puma conflicts.<br />
Objectives are stated as <strong>the</strong> maximum level<br />
on a three-year running average.<br />
Implementation <strong>of</strong> DAU plans began in<br />
2001. Recent interest in annual puma kill<br />
revealed conflicting direction depending<br />
upon which objectives managers weighed<br />
most heavily. These conflicts pointed out a<br />
shortfall within <strong>the</strong> plans in that <strong>the</strong>y do not<br />
state a specific strategic goal for <strong>the</strong> DAU.<br />
Currently this must be inferred in <strong>the</strong> text <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> plan. Some DAUs are managed to<br />
suppress puma populations while o<strong>the</strong>rs are<br />
managed to maintain stable populations –<br />
recognizing <strong>the</strong> inherent difficulty in<br />
determining population changes. Within <strong>the</strong><br />
next year all management plans will be<br />
required to develop a strategic goal. We<br />
14<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong><br />
consider this an essential step for informing<br />
management decisions within a DAU about<br />
season structure and annual license<br />
allocation.<br />
In 1996 <strong>the</strong> Colorado Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Agriculture (CDA) was granted “exclusive<br />
jurisdiction over <strong>the</strong> control <strong>of</strong> depredating<br />
animals that pose a threat to an agricultural<br />
product or resource”. Thus, CDA has<br />
exclusive authority to determine <strong>the</strong><br />
disposition <strong>of</strong> an individual puma if it is<br />
depredating on livestock, while <strong>the</strong> Colorado<br />
Division <strong>of</strong> Wildlife (CDOW) retains<br />
authority to manage puma populations and<br />
all forms <strong>of</strong> recreational or scientific use.<br />
DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE AND<br />
MONITORING<br />
The state is divided into 21 DAUs for<br />
<strong>the</strong> purposes <strong>of</strong> puma management (Figure<br />
1). DAUs are assemblages <strong>of</strong> Game<br />
Management Units (GMUs) within which<br />
Figure 1. Data analysis Units and relative<br />
abundance <strong>of</strong> puma within each DAU in<br />
Colorado.
Figure 2. Areas <strong>of</strong> puma occupancy in<br />
Colorado.<br />
puma occupancy has been mapped (Figure<br />
2).<br />
Colorado does not regularly estimate<br />
puma populations because no reliable, cost<br />
effective sample based population<br />
estimation technique currently exists. A<br />
projection <strong>of</strong> possible population has been<br />
made based on densities reported in<br />
literature for intensively studied populations.<br />
Low and high densities were selected from<br />
study areas that had habitat types most<br />
similar to Colorado. Densities were <strong>the</strong>n<br />
applied by biologists to area <strong>of</strong> puma habitat<br />
within DAUs. Areas not considered puma<br />
habitats, such as extreme high elevations,<br />
intensively farmed land, cities, highways, or<br />
reservoirs, were first deleted. Biologists<br />
were allowed to apply more constrained<br />
densities based upon <strong>the</strong>ir knowledge <strong>of</strong><br />
prey abundance or relative puma abundance.<br />
Finally, biologists were asked to pinpoint<br />
<strong>the</strong> puma density most applicable to DAUs<br />
within <strong>the</strong>ir management responsibility.<br />
These exercises resulted in a crude projected<br />
puma population <strong>of</strong> 3,000 to 7,000, with<br />
3,500 to 4,500 most probable. Based upon<br />
<strong>the</strong> foregoing, each DAU is assigned a<br />
relative abundance rating <strong>of</strong> high, moderate,<br />
or low with intergrades where estimated<br />
puma density is close to break points. High<br />
COLORADO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Apker 15<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
abundance is assigned at DAU densities <strong>of</strong><br />
over 3 puma/100 km 2 , moderate abundance<br />
at 2 to 3 puma/100 km 2 , and low abundance<br />
at anything less than 2 puma/100 km 2<br />
(Figure 1).<br />
Hunter harvest and total mortality is<br />
examined at <strong>the</strong> DAU level to monitor<br />
mortality for crude indications <strong>of</strong> population<br />
change. Puma mortality is documented<br />
through mandatory checks <strong>of</strong> hunter kill and<br />
mandatory reports for non-hunter mortality<br />
and is kept in a database. The database for<br />
hunter kill has been kept since 1980, and for<br />
non-hunter mortality since 1991. Mortality<br />
data is examined on three and ten year<br />
running averages due to relatively high<br />
annual variation. Data on depredation<br />
claims since is also maintained in a<br />
database.<br />
HARVEST AND HUNTING<br />
REGULATION<br />
Since 1972 a quota system has been used<br />
to manage hunter distribution and kill. From<br />
1992 <strong>the</strong> quota has increased from 459 to<br />
790 in 2002. However, <strong>the</strong> quota does not<br />
represent <strong>the</strong> harvest objective since <strong>the</strong><br />
quota is never achieved. Through<br />
compilation <strong>of</strong> DAU management plan<br />
objectives <strong>the</strong> harvest objective for <strong>the</strong> state<br />
is about 350 puma. Annual license sales<br />
have also increased since 1992 from about<br />
900 to just over 1,700 in 2002. While both<br />
quotas and license sales have increased over<br />
<strong>the</strong> past 10 years, percent <strong>of</strong> quota<br />
achievement and success relative to license<br />
sales have declined gradually (Figure 3).<br />
These trends are expected with increased<br />
available hunting opportunity toward a<br />
cryptic species. With more potential hunters<br />
<strong>the</strong>re is an increased likelihood that <strong>the</strong>re<br />
will be proportionately more hunters with<br />
less experience and less commitment or<br />
impetus to harvest an animal. Some have<br />
speculated that <strong>the</strong> trends indicate that overharvest<br />
has occurred, however <strong>the</strong> female
16 COLORADO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Apker<br />
Percent Q. Achievement & Success<br />
90%<br />
80%<br />
70%<br />
60%<br />
50%<br />
40%<br />
30%<br />
20%<br />
10%<br />
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001<br />
% Quota Achievement % Harvest Success by licenses sold<br />
Quota # Licenses Sold<br />
1700<br />
1500<br />
1300<br />
1100<br />
Figure 3. Colorado license sales, quota,<br />
percent success and percent quota<br />
achievement for puma.<br />
component <strong>of</strong> hunter harvest has not<br />
increased substantially which would be an<br />
indicator <strong>of</strong> over-harvest.<br />
Criteria used to guide quota setting are<br />
as follows:<br />
1. Strategic objective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> DAU or<br />
group <strong>of</strong> GMUs within a DAU. If<br />
management is directed at<br />
maintaining a stable population, <strong>the</strong>n<br />
<strong>the</strong> following also apply.<br />
2. Population for <strong>the</strong> DAU is projected<br />
based upon low and high density<br />
potential. Off-take should not<br />
exceed a bracketed range <strong>of</strong> 15% <strong>of</strong><br />
low-end population estimate and 8%<br />
<strong>of</strong> high-end population estimate.<br />
3. Short (3 year) and long-term trend<br />
(10 years) in proportion <strong>of</strong> females in<br />
mortality should be stable or<br />
downward and not over 50%.<br />
4. Damage claim amounts on 3-year<br />
average should not exceed DAU<br />
objective levels.<br />
5. Catch per unit effort indice (effort <strong>of</strong><br />
houndsmen to harvest).<br />
900<br />
700<br />
500<br />
300<br />
100<br />
Quota or License #'s<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
Hunter harvest and total mortality<br />
figures for 2002 have not been completely<br />
tabulated at <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> this report. The<br />
average hunter harvest from 1992-1994 is<br />
308 with 41% female. The average hunter<br />
harvest from 1999-2001 is 365 with 45%<br />
female (Figure 4).<br />
Generally, from 1965 to <strong>the</strong> mid-late<br />
1970s seasons were mid fall through early<br />
spring. In <strong>the</strong> late 1970s through 1994<br />
seasons were liberalized, running almost<br />
continually through <strong>the</strong> year excluding late<br />
August – mid November deer or elk hunting<br />
seasons. Since 1995, seasons were revised<br />
to provide greater protection for pregnant<br />
females or females with dependent young,<br />
running on a calendar year basis from<br />
January 1 – March 31 and mid November –<br />
December 31. With a few exceptions <strong>the</strong><br />
bag limit has remained 1 per year <strong>of</strong> ei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
sex and some form <strong>of</strong> puma license has been<br />
required since 1965.<br />
Hunting with hounds is permitted with<br />
hunting pack size limited to 8 dogs. Almost<br />
all puma are harvested with <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong><br />
hounds. There is no pursuit only season.<br />
With certain technical restrictions on each,<br />
legal weapons for take include rifle,<br />
500<br />
450<br />
400<br />
350<br />
300<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
0<br />
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001<br />
Hunter Harvest<br />
- Male<br />
Hunter Harvest<br />
- Female<br />
Total<br />
Mortality<br />
Figure 4. Puma harvest and total mortality<br />
levels in Colorado.
handgun, shotgun, muzzleloading rifles,<br />
hand-held bows, and crossbows. It is illegal<br />
to kill a kitten or a female accompanied by<br />
kittens.<br />
DEPREDATION AND PUMA-HUMAN<br />
CONFLICT<br />
Colorado is liable for damage caused by<br />
big game, with certain limitations and<br />
restrictions. From 1972 until 2001 CDOW<br />
had to pay for damage by puma and black<br />
bear to any real or personal property. Black<br />
bear damage claims <strong>of</strong>ten included vehicles,<br />
buildings, appliances, etc., as well as<br />
livestock, but puma damage claims have<br />
been restricted to cattle, sheep, or o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
animals. Beginning in 2001, State liability<br />
was limited to agricultural products and<br />
property used in <strong>the</strong> production <strong>of</strong> raw<br />
agricultural products. Liability was also<br />
changed so that <strong>the</strong> State is not liable for<br />
more than $5,000 per animal.<br />
With <strong>the</strong> exception <strong>of</strong> 2000 <strong>the</strong> number<br />
<strong>of</strong> damage claims and <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> damage<br />
have declined since 1997 (Figure 5). High<br />
damage costs in 2000 were mostly due to 6<br />
claims for <strong>the</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> 8 exotic domestic<br />
animals such as alpaca, llama, and<br />
250000<br />
225000<br />
200000<br />
175000<br />
150000<br />
125000<br />
100000<br />
75000<br />
50000<br />
25000<br />
0<br />
1979<br />
1981<br />
1983<br />
1985<br />
1987<br />
1989<br />
1991<br />
1993<br />
1995<br />
Sheep Cattle O<strong>the</strong>r Stock<br />
Figure 5. Amount paid on claims for<br />
depredation by puma in Colorado.<br />
1997<br />
1999<br />
2001<br />
COLORADO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Apker 17<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
commercially owned elk. Procedures for<br />
handling damage claims are governed by<br />
statute, regulations, and a game damage<br />
procedures manual.<br />
The State has no specific policy<br />
document providing direction for handling<br />
puma-human conflicts. However, following<br />
a human fatality in 1991, DOW staff<br />
developed procedures that have generally<br />
been adopted. Encounters involving puma<br />
are categorized as sightings, encounter<br />
involving pets, aggressive behavior toward<br />
humans, or attack on humans. Agency<br />
responses to <strong>the</strong>se types <strong>of</strong> encounters vary<br />
from providing education and information to<br />
pursue-kill <strong>the</strong> puma. In <strong>the</strong> past 5 years,<br />
fewer than 5-10 encounters beyond sightings<br />
are documented each year.<br />
On average over <strong>the</strong> past 5 years about<br />
20 puma per year are killed for reasons o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
than hunting. Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se, 12 per year, are<br />
control actions on depredating animals. The<br />
remainders are <strong>the</strong> result <strong>of</strong> road kills or<br />
illegal kills. Less than 1 per year on average<br />
are killed due to human safety concerns.<br />
PUMA RESEARCH PROGRAMS<br />
There are no current research<br />
investigations being conducted on puma.<br />
The Division <strong>of</strong> Wildlife is in <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong><br />
hiring a research scientist specializing in<br />
carnivores with emphasis on puma initially.
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION STATUS REPORT<br />
MARK LOTZ, Pan<strong>the</strong>r Section Biologist, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission,<br />
566 Commercial Blvd., Naples, FL 34104-4709, USA, email: Mark.Lotz@fwc.state.fl.us<br />
E. DARRELL LAND, Pan<strong>the</strong>r Section Leader, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation<br />
Commission, 566 Commercial Blvd., Naples, FL 34104-4709, USA, email:<br />
Darrell.Land@fwc.state.fl.us<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
The Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r (Puma concolor<br />
coryi) has been classified as endangered by<br />
<strong>the</strong> state <strong>of</strong> Florida since 1958 and by <strong>the</strong><br />
federal government since 1967. Formerly,<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>rs inhabited <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>astern United<br />
States, ranging from sou<strong>the</strong>rn Florida to<br />
Arkansas and northward to Tennessee and<br />
South Carolina. Loss and fragmentation <strong>of</strong><br />
habitat coupled with unregulated killing<br />
over <strong>the</strong> past two centuries have reduced and<br />
isolated <strong>the</strong> pan<strong>the</strong>r to <strong>the</strong> point where only<br />
one population exists on approximately<br />
8,810 km 2 <strong>of</strong> habitat in south Florida (Maehr<br />
1990). The Florida Fish and Wildlife<br />
Conservation Commission (FWC) and <strong>the</strong><br />
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)<br />
are <strong>the</strong> two lead authorities involved in all<br />
aspects <strong>of</strong> Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r recovery and<br />
protection. O<strong>the</strong>r agencies involved in<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>r recovery include <strong>the</strong> Florida<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Environmental Protection,<br />
Florida Division <strong>of</strong> Forestry, National Park<br />
Service, South Florida Water Management<br />
District, as well as numerous nongovernmental<br />
organizations such as Florida<br />
Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife<br />
Federation, The Nature Conservancy, and<br />
<strong>the</strong> Florida Audubon Society. A recovery<br />
plan for <strong>the</strong> Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r was written in<br />
1981 with revisions in 1987 and 1995 with<br />
<strong>the</strong> objective <strong>of</strong> achieving three viable selfsustaining<br />
populations within <strong>the</strong> historic<br />
range. FWC initiated intensive research<br />
efforts in 1981 and <strong>the</strong>se studies continue<br />
18<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong><br />
today. By <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> 2002, FWC has<br />
handled 115 pan<strong>the</strong>rs for radio-telemetry<br />
studies and marked 142 neonate kittens at<br />
dens. FWC and many collaborators have<br />
published more than 200 papers and reports<br />
detailing pan<strong>the</strong>r life history, habitat use,<br />
mortality, dispersal, home range dynamics,<br />
biomedical findings, genetics, population<br />
modeling, and food habits.<br />
Florida pan<strong>the</strong>rs are threatened by<br />
demographic instability inherent in small,<br />
geographically isolated populations and<br />
erosion <strong>of</strong> genetic diversity from restricted<br />
gene flow and inbreeding. Genetic diversity<br />
is <strong>the</strong> basis for production <strong>of</strong> fit individuals<br />
as well as providing population elasticity in<br />
order to respond to changing environmental<br />
and habitat conditions. Historically, natural<br />
exchange <strong>of</strong> genetic material occurred<br />
among <strong>the</strong> Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r population in <strong>the</strong><br />
sou<strong>the</strong>astern United States and contiguous<br />
populations <strong>of</strong> P. c. cougar to <strong>the</strong> north, P.<br />
c. hippolestes to <strong>the</strong> northwest and P. c.<br />
stanleyana to <strong>the</strong> west (Young and Goldman<br />
1946). Genetic exchange between<br />
populations ceased as <strong>the</strong> coastal plain was<br />
gradually cleared and settled. Florida<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>rs steadily declined in abundance and<br />
distribution as a result. Inbreeding increased<br />
when potential breeders could no longer<br />
move among fragmented populations and<br />
<strong>the</strong> declining population size compounded<br />
demographic and genetic factors. A<br />
population viability analysis was conducted<br />
in 1992, which predicted <strong>the</strong> extinction <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r within 24-63 years (Seal<br />
1992) and lead to <strong>the</strong> creation <strong>of</strong> A Plan for<br />
Genetic Restoration and Management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Florida Pan<strong>the</strong>r (Seal 1994).<br />
Genetic restoration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Florida<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>r was implemented in 1995 with <strong>the</strong><br />
release <strong>of</strong> 8 female Texas cougars (P. c.<br />
stanleyana) into areas occupied by Florida<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>rs. Five <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 8 cougars produced a<br />
total <strong>of</strong> 20 <strong>of</strong>fspring and many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se<br />
<strong>of</strong>fspring have survived and reproduced.<br />
The genetic restoration plan identified a goal<br />
<strong>of</strong> incorporating a 20% introgression <strong>of</strong><br />
Texas puma genes into <strong>the</strong> pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
population and a preliminary assessment<br />
suggested that we may have achieved or<br />
slightly exceeded that level (Land and Lacy<br />
2000). As <strong>of</strong> January 2003, 5 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> original<br />
8 released Texas puma have since died and<br />
<strong>the</strong> remaining 3 females, thought to be<br />
reproductively senescent, were removed<br />
from <strong>the</strong> wild. We will continue monitoring<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>r genetic restoration by comparing<br />
reproductive performance, survival,<br />
phenotypic traits, and genetic characteristics<br />
among Texas and Florida descendants. Our<br />
goal is to develop a long-term management<br />
plan based on our study results to maintain<br />
genetic diversity, health, and long-term<br />
survival <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> south Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
population.<br />
DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE<br />
Florida pan<strong>the</strong>rs occupy a core range in<br />
south Florida primarily in Collier, Hendry,<br />
Lee, and Dade counties. Major public lands<br />
include Big Cypress National Preserve,<br />
Everglades National Park, Florida Pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
National Wildlife Refuge, Fakahatchee<br />
Strand State Preserve, Picayune Strand State<br />
Forest, and Okaloacoochee Slough State<br />
Forest. Large privately held ranches, used<br />
primarily for cattle and crop production, also<br />
constitute some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most important<br />
habitat for pan<strong>the</strong>rs. Verified evidence,<br />
through road-kills, photos, or tracks, has<br />
also been found in Glades, Sarasota, and<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
FLORIDA STATUS REPORT · Lotz and Land 19<br />
Palm Beach Counties within <strong>the</strong> past 2 years<br />
(Land et al. 2002, Shindle et al. 2001).<br />
However, <strong>the</strong>se have all been dispersed or<br />
transient males. No females have been<br />
documented outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> core range. One<br />
radio-collared male pan<strong>the</strong>r dispersed a<br />
straight-line distance <strong>of</strong> 224 km from his<br />
natal range (Maehr et al. 2002).<br />
The first Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r was radiocollared<br />
in 1981 by <strong>the</strong> Florida Game and<br />
Fresh Water Fish Commission (renamed to<br />
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation<br />
Commission in 2000). Throughout <strong>the</strong><br />
1980’s <strong>the</strong> population was estimated to be<br />
30-50 adults. The population has been<br />
increasing since about <strong>the</strong> mid 1990’s and<br />
today is estimated to be 80-100 adults. The<br />
release <strong>of</strong> Texas cougars for genetic<br />
restoration purposes in 1995 has contributed<br />
to this increase. Our population estimate is<br />
derived by counting currently radio-collared<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>rs and tallying observations <strong>of</strong><br />
uncollared pan<strong>the</strong>r sign encountered during<br />
yearly field activities.<br />
DEPREDATIONS AND HUMAN<br />
CONFLICTS<br />
FWC does not have a specific pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
depredation or o<strong>the</strong>r human conflict protocol<br />
in place, but we do have a nuisance black<br />
bear policy that could provide guidance.<br />
The nuisance bear policy involves<br />
addressing <strong>the</strong> source <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> problem,<br />
typically <strong>the</strong> removal or protection <strong>of</strong> bear<br />
attractants, prior to any stepwise progression<br />
<strong>of</strong> capture/handling <strong>of</strong> bears, removals, and<br />
ultimately, euthanasia. There have been no<br />
documented pan<strong>the</strong>r attacks on humans in<br />
Florida with only anecdotal accounts <strong>of</strong><br />
attacks prior to 1900 (Tinsley 1970). FWC<br />
regularly receives complaints about wildlife<br />
attacks on domestic livestock, many <strong>of</strong><br />
which are claimed to be pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
depredations. However, upon investigation,<br />
<strong>the</strong> vast majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se incidents involve<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r predators including black bear, bobcat,<br />
fox, raccoon, opossum, coyote, and
20 FLORIDA STATUS REPORT · Lotz and Land<br />
domestic dog. We are aware <strong>of</strong> three valid<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>r depredations that were reported to<br />
FWC. The first involved a pan<strong>the</strong>r that<br />
seized a small dog by <strong>the</strong> head and<br />
subsequently dropped <strong>the</strong> dog alive after <strong>the</strong><br />
owner appeared at <strong>the</strong> door. A second<br />
depredation involved <strong>the</strong> killing <strong>of</strong> small<br />
goats from a rural homeowner’s yard in an<br />
area occupied by pan<strong>the</strong>rs. These<br />
complainants were given advice on how to<br />
protect <strong>the</strong>ir pets/livestock and to date no<br />
fur<strong>the</strong>r depredations have been reported.<br />
The last case was more complicated because<br />
it involved pan<strong>the</strong>rs that were taking<br />
advantage <strong>of</strong> a hunting preserve that was<br />
newly created by <strong>the</strong> Seminole Tribe on<br />
tribal lands. Non-native ungulates were<br />
stocked in an area known to be occupied by<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>rs and predictably, <strong>the</strong> pan<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
preyed upon <strong>the</strong>se ungulates. FWC and <strong>the</strong><br />
USFWS could do very little to address <strong>the</strong>se<br />
depredations because <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Endangered<br />
Species Act and because <strong>the</strong> preserve was<br />
developed on areas used by pan<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
Although <strong>the</strong> tribe made a request for<br />
reimbursement <strong>of</strong> losses, no compensation<br />
was provided. Over time, <strong>the</strong> Seminole<br />
Tribe has adjusted <strong>the</strong> type <strong>of</strong> game animals<br />
that are stocked in <strong>the</strong> preserve, primarily<br />
stocking and selling wild hog hunts, and<br />
<strong>the</strong>se lower cost animals that are taken by<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>rs are less <strong>of</strong> a financial loss than <strong>the</strong><br />
various exotic deer species <strong>the</strong>y once<br />
stocked. Cattle ranchers apparently are<br />
unconcerned about potential pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
depredations based on <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong><br />
complaints, and FWC food habits work has<br />
revealed that cattle are rarely taken by<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>rs. The presence <strong>of</strong> feral hogs on<br />
cattle ranches provide an abundant, easily<br />
taken prey base that may obviate <strong>the</strong> need<br />
for pan<strong>the</strong>rs to tackle cattle.<br />
RESEARCH AND PUBLICATIONS<br />
Current Research<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
Florida Pan<strong>the</strong>r Genetic Restoration and<br />
Management<br />
This has been our focal study since 1995<br />
when 8 female Texas cougars were<br />
released to <strong>of</strong>fset <strong>the</strong> problems <strong>of</strong><br />
inbreeding. Genetic diversity and health<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r population needs<br />
to be restored to ensure survival, even<br />
with adequate habitat conservation and<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r enhancement measures. Genetic<br />
restoration is a direct and immediate<br />
action that will restore genetic variability<br />
and vitality for a healthier, more resilient<br />
population. The Plan for Genetic<br />
Restoration and Management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Florida Pan<strong>the</strong>r (Seal 1994) called for a<br />
20% introgression level <strong>of</strong> Texas genes<br />
throughout <strong>the</strong> population and<br />
preliminary analysis indicates we are on<br />
target. All Texas females have died or<br />
been removed. A minimum <strong>of</strong> 59<br />
intercross animals were produced and it<br />
is assumed that 44 still exist within <strong>the</strong><br />
population. Fifteen are radio-collared.<br />
This study was extended in order to<br />
collect and analyze critical samples from<br />
subsequent generations <strong>of</strong> Texas puma<br />
descendants. Our goal is to develop a<br />
long-term management plan based on<br />
our study results to maintain genetic<br />
diversity, health, and long-term survival<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> south Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r population.<br />
A final report is anticipated next year.<br />
Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Using GPS Radio-collars<br />
on Florida Pan<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
The use <strong>of</strong> GPS technology in wildlife<br />
applications has garnered much interest<br />
in recent years but <strong>the</strong> current state <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> technology and its applicability to<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>rs has yet to be determined.<br />
Among <strong>the</strong> objectives <strong>of</strong> this study are to<br />
compare and evaluate GPS and aerial<br />
telemetry relocations, calculate <strong>the</strong><br />
percentage <strong>of</strong> successful GPS<br />
relocations, and evaluate <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> GPS<br />
collars on Florida pan<strong>the</strong>rs and make
ecommendations for future use. We<br />
placed 4 GPS collars from Telemetry<br />
Solutions (1130 Burnett Avenue, Suite J,<br />
Concord, CA 94520) on pan<strong>the</strong>rs during<br />
our 2001-2002 capture season. Two<br />
were Posrec collars that stored data on<br />
board until <strong>the</strong> collar was retrieved and<br />
<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two were Simplex units that<br />
had <strong>the</strong> ability to transmit data for<br />
remote downloads as well as store-onboard<br />
capabilities. Additionally, each<br />
collar was equipped with a VHF beacon<br />
in order to detect and recover carcasses,<br />
pinpoint and visit dens, and enable<br />
comparisons between GPS locations and<br />
aerial VHF relocations. Each pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
equipped with a GPS collar was located<br />
thrice weekly during our regularly<br />
scheduled telemetry flights. All GPS<br />
collars have been recovered and we are<br />
currently evaluating data and<br />
performance. Two pan<strong>the</strong>rs wearing<br />
Posrec collars died 7 months after<br />
deployment, one Simplex model<br />
failed completely after only 4 months,<br />
and <strong>the</strong> remaining Simplex’s main<br />
battery failed after 6 months, disrupting<br />
GPS capabilities, but VHF function was<br />
maintained through <strong>the</strong> back-up battery.<br />
A final report is scheduled to be<br />
completed by <strong>the</strong> end <strong>of</strong> 2003.<br />
Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Using Remote Cameras to<br />
Survey Florida Pan<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
Most <strong>of</strong> what is known about Florida<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>rs, including population<br />
demographics, has come from radiotelemetry<br />
studies over <strong>the</strong> past 20 years.<br />
However, standardized survey<br />
techniques that estimate pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
population parameters with associated<br />
measures <strong>of</strong> statistical confidence and<br />
that document significant changes in<br />
<strong>the</strong>se parameters over time have not<br />
been applied. The objective <strong>of</strong> this study<br />
is to assess whe<strong>the</strong>r infrared-triggered<br />
camera surveys for pan<strong>the</strong>rs provide<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
FLORIDA STATUS REPORT · Lotz and Land 21<br />
adequate data for inclusion into capturerecapture<br />
models based on <strong>the</strong> Lincoln-<br />
Peterson estimator. Remote camera<br />
surveys could complement existing labor<br />
and cost-intensive survey methodology<br />
to provide a more accurate estimate <strong>of</strong><br />
pan<strong>the</strong>r population parameters and<br />
document significant changes in <strong>the</strong>se<br />
parameters over time. Passive infrared<br />
cameras (Cam Trakker, CamTrak<br />
South Inc., Watkinsville, GA) were<br />
deployed systematically on two areas<br />
within <strong>the</strong> current occupied range <strong>of</strong><br />
Florida pan<strong>the</strong>rs. The Florida Pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
National Wildlife Refuge provided an<br />
opportunity to assess camera survey<br />
methodology in a core area with a<br />
sample population <strong>of</strong> radio-collared and<br />
uncollared pan<strong>the</strong>rs. Long Pine Key<br />
within Everglades National Park<br />
provided an opportunity to assess<br />
camera survey methodology in a quasigeographically<br />
closed population <strong>of</strong><br />
radio-collared and uncollared pan<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
Cameras were systematically placed in<br />
each study area and trials <strong>of</strong> 15 and 30<br />
days were run with 15 and 30 cameras<br />
per session. Field work was completed<br />
in 2002 and a final report is expected<br />
later this year.<br />
Feasibility <strong>of</strong> Extracting Florida Pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
DNA from Scats<br />
Pan<strong>the</strong>r scats could potentially <strong>of</strong>fer <strong>the</strong><br />
safest and most cost effective tool for<br />
censussing numbers <strong>of</strong> pan<strong>the</strong>rs,<br />
measuring population genetic health, and<br />
identifying origins <strong>of</strong> Puma sign found<br />
outside <strong>of</strong> core pan<strong>the</strong>r areas. The<br />
purpose <strong>of</strong> this study is to evaluate <strong>the</strong><br />
use <strong>of</strong> pan<strong>the</strong>r scats as a source <strong>of</strong> DNA<br />
samples for on-going genetic<br />
monitoring. Existing tissue samples<br />
were used to calibrate and verify <strong>the</strong><br />
utility <strong>of</strong> extracting and analyzing DNA<br />
from scats. Scat collection routes were<br />
established along existing trails on four
22 FLORIDA STATUS REPORT · Lotz and Land<br />
areas and regularly surveyed by ATV.<br />
Over 400 km <strong>of</strong> trail were surveyed with<br />
scats encountered every 45 km on<br />
average. Additionally, scats were<br />
collected opportunistically during o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
field activities. Results are currently still<br />
being analyzed but microsatellite<br />
amplification <strong>of</strong> Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r DNA<br />
was successfully extracted in 60% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
samples. Although collecting pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
scat is labor intensive, utilizing DNA<br />
extracted from Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r scat holds<br />
promise as an unobtrusive technique to<br />
monitor <strong>the</strong> genetic health and individual<br />
makeup <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> population. A final report<br />
will be completed later this year.<br />
Pan<strong>the</strong>r Peripheral Area Survey<br />
The only verified breeding population <strong>of</strong><br />
Florida pan<strong>the</strong>rs is in <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
portion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state, south <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Caloosahatchee River and Lake<br />
Okeechobee, in <strong>the</strong> Big Cypress and<br />
Everglades physiographic regions. This<br />
population has been growing since <strong>the</strong><br />
mid 1990’s and so far 3 radio-collared<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>rs have crossed <strong>the</strong> river.<br />
Additionally, three uncollared pan<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
have been verified north <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> river in<br />
recent years: two by tracks and/or<br />
photos, <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r was road-killed. All <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>se have been males that dispersed<br />
from <strong>the</strong> core population. Only three are<br />
presumed to still be alive. Since resident<br />
male pan<strong>the</strong>rs typically encompass<br />
several females within <strong>the</strong>ir territory it is<br />
hypo<strong>the</strong>sized that searching <strong>the</strong>se ranges<br />
will afford <strong>the</strong> best opportunity <strong>of</strong><br />
finding o<strong>the</strong>r pan<strong>the</strong>rs if <strong>the</strong>y exist. This<br />
5-year study to determine <strong>the</strong> occurrence<br />
and status <strong>of</strong> pan<strong>the</strong>rs on peripheral<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir presently known range has<br />
entered its final year. Systematic sign<br />
surveys have been conducted in areas<br />
where two male pan<strong>the</strong>rs had established<br />
territories. No sign <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r pan<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
was found. A final report is scheduled<br />
for 2003.<br />
Effect <strong>of</strong> Genetic Introgression on<br />
Prevalence and Intensity <strong>of</strong><br />
Gastrointestinal Helminth Infections in<br />
Florida Pan<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
The effects <strong>of</strong> genetic restoration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r are being examined on<br />
many fronts. Complementing o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
projects, this study will indirectly assess<br />
<strong>the</strong> suspected improvement in immune<br />
function in intergrades by comparing<br />
gastrointestinal tract parasite burdens to<br />
that seen in original Florida pan<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
Concurrently we will assess <strong>the</strong> efficacy<br />
<strong>of</strong> field an<strong>the</strong>lmintic treatment <strong>of</strong><br />
pan<strong>the</strong>rs. Before introgression,<br />
gastrointestinal parasite burdens were<br />
assessed in 11original Florida pan<strong>the</strong>rs.<br />
Gastrointestinal tracts from a minimum<br />
<strong>of</strong> 7 pan<strong>the</strong>rs descended from Texas<br />
puma will be assessed by 2005 at which<br />
time a final report will be prepared.<br />
RECENT PUBLICATIONS<br />
CUNNINGHAM, M.W., M.R. DUNBAR, C.D.<br />
BUERGELT, B. HOMER, M. ROELKE-<br />
PARKER, S.K. TAYLOR, R. KING, S.B.<br />
CITINO, AND C. GLASS. 1999. Atrial<br />
septal defects in <strong>the</strong> Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Diseases 35(3): 519-<br />
530.<br />
DEES, C.S., J.D. CLARK, AND F.T. VAN<br />
MANEN. 2001. Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r habitat<br />
use in response to prescribed fire.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Management 65:141-<br />
147.<br />
DUNBAR, M.R., M.W. CUNNINGHAM, AND<br />
S.T. LINDA. 1999. Vitamin A<br />
Concentrations in Serum and Liver from<br />
Florida Pan<strong>the</strong>rs. Journal <strong>of</strong> Wildlife<br />
Diseases 35(2): 171-177.<br />
JANIS, M.W. AND J.D. CLARK. 2002.<br />
Response <strong>of</strong> Florida pan<strong>the</strong>rs to<br />
recreational deer and hog hunting.
Journal <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Management.<br />
66:839-848.<br />
KRAMER, P.C. AND K.M. PORTIER. 2001.<br />
Modeling Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r movements in<br />
response to human attributes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
landscape and ecological settings.<br />
Ecological Modeling 140:51-80.<br />
LAND, E.D., D.R. GARMIN, AND G.A. HOLT.<br />
1998. Monitoring female Florida<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>rs via cellular telephone. Wildlife<br />
Society Bulletin. 26(1): 29-31.<br />
LAND, E.D. AND R.C. LACY. 2000.<br />
Introgression level achieved through<br />
Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r genetic restoration.<br />
Endangered Species Update 17: 99-103.<br />
MAEHR, D.S. 1998. The Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r in<br />
modern mythology. Natural Areas<br />
Journal. 18(2): 179-184.<br />
MAEHR, D.S. AND J.P. DEASON. 2002.<br />
Wide-ranging carnivores and<br />
development permits: constructing a<br />
multi-scale model to evaluate impacts on<br />
<strong>the</strong> Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r. Clean Technologies<br />
and Environmental Policy. 3:398-406.<br />
MAEHR, D.S., R.C. LACY, E.D. LAND, O.L.<br />
BASS, JR., AND T.S. HOCTOR. 2002.<br />
Evolution <strong>of</strong> population viability<br />
assessments for <strong>the</strong> Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r: a<br />
multiperspective approach. Pages 284-<br />
311 in: Population Viability Analysis.<br />
University <strong>of</strong> Chicago Press, Chicago.<br />
MAEHR, D.S., E.D. LAND, D.B. SHINDLE,<br />
O.L. BASS, AND T.S. HOCTOR. 2002.<br />
Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r dispersal and<br />
conservation. Biological Conservation<br />
106:187-197.<br />
MANSFIELD, K.G. AND E.D. LAND. 2002.<br />
Cryptorchidism in Florida pan<strong>the</strong>rs:<br />
prevalence, features, and effects <strong>of</strong><br />
genetic restoration. Journal <strong>of</strong> Wildlife<br />
Diseases 38(4):693-698.<br />
ROTSTEIN, D.S., S. TAYLOR, J. HARVEY, J.<br />
BEAN. 1999. Hematologic effects <strong>of</strong><br />
Cytauxzoonosis in Florida Pan<strong>the</strong>rs and<br />
Texas Cougars in Florida. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Wildlife Diseases 35(3): 613-617.<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
FLORIDA STATUS REPORT · Lotz and Land 23<br />
ROTSTEIN, D.S., R. THOMAS, K. HELMICK,<br />
S. CITINO, S. TAYLOR, M. DUNBAR.<br />
1999. Dermatophyte infections in freeranging<br />
Florida Pan<strong>the</strong>rs (Felis concolor<br />
coryi). Journal <strong>of</strong> Zoo and Wildlife<br />
Medicine 30(2): 281-284.<br />
ROTSTEIN, D.S., S.K. TAYLOR, J. BRADLEY,<br />
AND E.B. BREITSCHWERDT. 2000.<br />
Prevalence <strong>of</strong> Bartonella henselae<br />
antibody in Florida pan<strong>the</strong>rs. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Wildlife Diseases 36(1):157-160.<br />
ROTSTEIN, D.S., S.K. TAYLOR, A.<br />
BIRKENHAUER, M. ROELKE-PARKER,<br />
AND B.L. HOMER. 2002. Retrospective<br />
study <strong>of</strong> proliferative papillary vulvitis<br />
in Florida pan<strong>the</strong>rs. Journal <strong>of</strong> Wildlife<br />
Diseases 38:115-123.<br />
TAYLOR, S.K., E.D. LAND, M. LOTZ, M.<br />
ROELKE-PARKER, S.B. CITINO, AND D.<br />
ROTSTEIN. 1998. Anes<strong>the</strong>sia <strong>of</strong> freeranging<br />
Florida pan<strong>the</strong>rs, 1981-1998.<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> American Association <strong>of</strong><br />
Zoo Veterinarians, Omaha, Nebraska.<br />
TAYLOR, S.K., C.D. BUERGELT, M.E.<br />
ROELKE-PARKER, B.L. HOMER, AND<br />
D.S. ROTSTEIN. 2002. Causes <strong>of</strong><br />
mortality <strong>of</strong> free-ranging Florida<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>rs. Journal <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Diseases<br />
38:107-114.<br />
LITERATURE CITED<br />
LAND, D., M. CUNNINGHAM, R. MCBRIDE,<br />
D. SHINDLE, AND M. LOTZ. 2002.<br />
Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r genetic restoration and<br />
management. Annual Report 2001-<br />
2002. Florida Fish and Wildlife<br />
Conservation Commission, Tallahassee.<br />
111pp.<br />
LAND, E.D. AND R.C. LACY. 2000.<br />
Introgression level achieved through<br />
Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r genetic restoration.<br />
Endangered Species Update 17: 99-103.<br />
MAEHR, D.S. 1990. The Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
and private lands. Conservation Biology<br />
4(2): 167-170.<br />
MAEHR, D.S., E.D. LAND, D.B. SHINDLE,<br />
O.L. BASS, AND T.S. HOCTOR. 2002.
24 FLORIDA STATUS REPORT · Lotz and Land<br />
Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r dispersal and<br />
conservation. Biological Conservation<br />
106:187-197.<br />
SEAL, U.S., AND WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS.<br />
1992. Genetic management strategies<br />
and population viability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Florida<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>r. Yulee, Florida: U.S. Fish and<br />
Wildlife Service.<br />
SEAL, U.S., editor. 1994. A plan for genetic<br />
restoration and management <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r (Felis concolor coryi).<br />
Conservation Breeding Specialist Group,<br />
Apple Valley, MN. 24pp.<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
SHINDLE, D., D. LAND, M. CUNNINGHAM,<br />
AND M. LOTZ. 2001. Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
genetic restoration and management.<br />
Annual Report 2000-2001. Florida Fish<br />
and Wildlife Conservation Commission,<br />
Tallahassee. 102pp.<br />
TINSLEY, J.B. 1970. The Florida Pan<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
Great Outdoors Publishing Company.<br />
St. Petersburg, FL.<br />
YOUNG, S.P. AND E.A. GOLDMAN. 1946.<br />
The puma – mysterious American cat.<br />
Dover Publications, Inc., New York.<br />
385pp.
IDAHO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
STEVE NADEAU, Wildlife Staff Biologist, Idaho Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and Game, 600 South<br />
Walnut, Box 25, Boise, Idaho 83707, USA, email: snadeau@idfg.state.id.us<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
<strong>Lion</strong>s were classified as big game<br />
animals in 1972. The 1990 <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong><br />
Management Plan, called for <strong>the</strong> reduction<br />
in harvest <strong>of</strong> female lions, and maintain a<br />
harvest <strong>of</strong> approximately 250 lions<br />
statewide. However, lion harvest peaked<br />
statewide in 1998 when 798 lions were<br />
harvested. Consequently, a new lion plan<br />
was developed to address <strong>the</strong> changes in <strong>the</strong><br />
populations and allow more hunting<br />
opportunity. Idaho completed <strong>the</strong> latest<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> Management Plan in 2002.<br />
The lion plan called for maintaining current<br />
lion distribution statewide as a goal.<br />
However, individual regions may adjust<br />
harvest to ei<strong>the</strong>r increase or decrease<br />
populations depending upon <strong>the</strong> objectives<br />
for that area. Seasons were made more<br />
lenient, running from August 30 – March 31<br />
in most units. In some areas, 2-lion bag<br />
limits were initiated. Hounds were allowed<br />
in most units, and non-resident hound<br />
hunting was expanded. Female quotas were<br />
still used in most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
state.<br />
HISTORY<br />
The legal status and public perception <strong>of</strong><br />
mountain lions in Idaho has changed over<br />
time. In <strong>the</strong> late 1800’s and early 1900’s,<br />
mountain lions and o<strong>the</strong>r predators such as<br />
wolf, coyote, grizzly and black bears were<br />
perceived as significant threats to livestock<br />
and human interests and were systematically<br />
destroyed. Between 1915 and 1941, hunters<br />
employed cooperatively by <strong>the</strong> State,<br />
livestock associations, and <strong>the</strong> Federal<br />
25<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong><br />
Government killed 251 mountain lions in<br />
Idaho; <strong>the</strong> take by private individuals is not<br />
known. During <strong>the</strong> period 1945-1958,<br />
bounties were paid for mountain lions in<br />
Idaho with an annual average <strong>of</strong> 80<br />
mountain lions turned in for payment<br />
(Figure 1). The 1953-54 winter period<br />
yielded <strong>the</strong> highest recorded bounty harvest<br />
<strong>of</strong> 144 mountain lions (Figure 1). Bounty<br />
payments ranged from $50 in <strong>the</strong> early<br />
1950’s to $25 per lion during <strong>the</strong> last 4 years<br />
<strong>of</strong> payments.<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lion sport harvest became<br />
increasingly popular after 1958. Average<br />
annual harvest was estimated at 142 lions<br />
from 1960 through 1971 (Figure 2). During<br />
this period <strong>the</strong>re were no restrictions or<br />
regulations on <strong>the</strong> harvest <strong>of</strong> mountain lions.<br />
An estimated 303 lions were harvested<br />
during <strong>the</strong> 1971-72 season.<br />
Research conducted by Maurice<br />
Hornocker in <strong>the</strong> Frank Church River <strong>of</strong> No-<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> <strong>Lion</strong>s Killed<br />
160<br />
140<br />
120<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
1950<br />
1951<br />
1952<br />
1953<br />
1954<br />
1955<br />
1956<br />
1957<br />
1958<br />
1959<br />
Figure 1. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion bounty records,<br />
1950 – 1959. From 1950-1954 bounty was $50<br />
per lion; 1955-1959 <strong>the</strong> bounty was $25 per<br />
lion.
26 IDAHO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Nadeau<br />
<strong>Lion</strong> Harvest<br />
350<br />
300<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
0<br />
1960<br />
1962<br />
1964<br />
1966<br />
1968<br />
1970<br />
1972<br />
1974<br />
1976<br />
Unregulated Harvest Regulated<br />
1978<br />
1980<br />
Figure 2. Unregulated mountain lion harvest<br />
from 1960-71, and regulated harvest from<br />
1972 -1981.<br />
Return Wilderness from 1964-1973 added<br />
significantly to our knowledge. As a result<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research, <strong>the</strong> mountain lion was<br />
reclassified as a big game species in 1972.<br />
Harvest was <strong>the</strong>n able to be regulated and<br />
resulted in some closed units, bag limits, and<br />
shortened seasons. Mandatory reporting<br />
was started in 1973, and a tag has been<br />
required since 1975.<br />
Populations <strong>of</strong> elk and deer continued to<br />
increase across <strong>the</strong> state during <strong>the</strong> 1980’s<br />
and early 1990’s, and <strong>the</strong> resulting mountain<br />
lion population did as well. The apparent<br />
increase in lion populations allowed <strong>the</strong><br />
department to increase opportunity for<br />
harvest. Harvest continued to increase as a<br />
result <strong>of</strong> liberalized seasons and increased<br />
populations and peaked in 1997 (Figure 3).<br />
DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE<br />
<strong>Lion</strong>s were distributed across most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
suitable habitat in <strong>the</strong> state (Figure 4).<br />
Management tended to keep lion<br />
populations at a low density in developed<br />
areas or areas with high road density.<br />
However, most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> areas that received<br />
high harvest lay adjacent to lightly roaded<br />
reservoir areas that seemed to continue to<br />
provide dispersing animals. Distribution<br />
900<br />
800<br />
700<br />
600<br />
500<br />
400<br />
300<br />
200<br />
100<br />
0<br />
1982<br />
1984<br />
1986<br />
1988<br />
1990<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
Harvest<br />
1992<br />
Year<br />
1994<br />
1996<br />
1998<br />
2000<br />
<strong>Lion</strong> Harvest<br />
Figure 3. Statewide mountain lion harvest.<br />
The year on <strong>the</strong> x-axis represents <strong>the</strong> date <strong>the</strong><br />
season started, i.e. seasons run from fall<br />
through spring.<br />
Figure 4. Statewide mountain lion harvest by<br />
management unit and lion DAU where<br />
rankings are based on lions harvested/100mi 2<br />
where very low=. 03, low=. 3-.5, moderate=.<br />
6-1.0, high=1.1-2.0, and very high=2.6-3.0.<br />
The shaded units have female lion quotas.
appeared to be somewhat stable, though<br />
overall abundance may be declining.<br />
Population estimates have not been<br />
made for Idaho in recent years, though some<br />
radio collaring mortality information in<br />
Idaho indicated a high rate <strong>of</strong> sustainable<br />
harvest in some areas. Given an estimated<br />
harvest rate statewide <strong>of</strong> approximately<br />
15%, we would estimate approximately<br />
4,600 lions (+ 2,000). Research has been<br />
ongoing to attempt to develop a population<br />
index, however, nothing has been finalized<br />
(Zager et al. 2002). All lions harvested must<br />
be reported. Pelts were tagged and a<br />
premolar was removed for aging. Prior to<br />
2000, lion ages were estimated using tooth<br />
drop measurements. Based on various tests,<br />
tooth sectioning replaced tooth drop as a<br />
more reliable estimate <strong>of</strong> age and has been<br />
used since 2000. For data analysis purposes,<br />
units were grouped by similar characteristics<br />
into Data Analysis Units (DAUs). Age data<br />
and harvest rates were used to attempt to<br />
identify population trends for a lion by<br />
DAU. Populations modeling using <strong>the</strong>se<br />
harvest data were used to estimate<br />
population demographics and relative<br />
abundance.<br />
<strong>Lion</strong> densities were highest in <strong>the</strong><br />
nor<strong>the</strong>rn part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state where white-tailed<br />
deer and elk were common. Harvest by<br />
DAU size was used to standardize and<br />
compare lion harvest rates and estimated<br />
lion abundance (Figure 4).<br />
HARVEST INFORMATION<br />
There were 99 big game management<br />
units in Idaho, which were grouped into 18<br />
mountain lion management DAUs (Figure<br />
4). The sou<strong>the</strong>rn part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state was<br />
predominantly managed under a female<br />
quota system, and <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
state was mostly general hunts with most<br />
seasons running from August 30 – March<br />
31. Quotas and seasons were set by unit or<br />
DAU, usually based on historical harvest<br />
rates, big game objectives, depredations,<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
IDAHO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Nadeau 27<br />
perceived lion population condition, lion<br />
hunter success rates and perceptions, public<br />
input, and commission desires.<br />
Biological objectives for lions were not<br />
well established by DAU, though age data<br />
were collected on all lions harvested. A<br />
minimum <strong>of</strong> 20% males 5+ years <strong>of</strong> age in<br />
<strong>the</strong> harvest was established as a test<br />
objective in some DAUs to adaptively<br />
manage populations by attempting to grow<br />
or reduce populations through harvest<br />
management, and monitor resultant age<br />
structures in <strong>the</strong> harvest. Regional wildlife<br />
managers in <strong>the</strong> state were given a great deal<br />
<strong>of</strong> flexibility to be able to set objectives for a<br />
given DAU. <strong>Lion</strong> harvest increased steadily<br />
through <strong>the</strong> 1980’s and 1990’s and peaked at<br />
798 mountain lions harvested in 1997. <strong>Lion</strong><br />
harvest declined in most areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state<br />
following <strong>the</strong> 1997 season despite a<br />
liberalized lion hunting season in most <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> state (Figure 3).<br />
Hunting with hounds accounted for<br />
about 80% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> annual lion harvest in<br />
Idaho. The rest <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> harvest occurred<br />
incidentally to o<strong>the</strong>r big game hunting<br />
(13%), spot and stalk (5%), or predator<br />
calling (1%). The use <strong>of</strong> electronic calls<br />
was allowed in 2 management units where<br />
predation was a concern and access was<br />
limited. Dogs were prohibited through<br />
much <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> general deer and elk rifle<br />
seasons. Pursuit with dogs was allowed in<br />
units with female quotas once <strong>the</strong> quota was<br />
reached. In a few <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se units, hunting for<br />
males was allowed once <strong>the</strong> female quota<br />
was reached.<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lion tag sales increased 25%<br />
from 1998–2002, and in 2002 were at an all<br />
time high <strong>of</strong> 20,640 total tags sold (Table 1).<br />
Reduced prices, increased nonresident sales<br />
<strong>of</strong> special tags, and liberalized seasons and<br />
nonresident hound hunter regulations all<br />
added to increased sales. Additionally, in<br />
some parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state outfitters were<br />
engaged to increase harvest <strong>of</strong> lions to help
28 IDAHO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Nadeau<br />
Table 1. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion tag sales in Idaho<br />
from 1998 through 2002.<br />
Year Resident<br />
Tags<br />
Nonresident<br />
Tags<br />
Total<br />
Tags<br />
Sold<br />
1998 16,196 351 16,547<br />
1999 17,072 813 17,885<br />
2000 18,369 961 19,330<br />
2001 18,561 888 19,449<br />
2002 19,757 883 20,640<br />
reduce predation problems on elk and<br />
bighorn sheep.<br />
DEPREDATIONS AND HUMAN<br />
CONFLICTS<br />
Currently, Idaho law allows for killing<br />
lions or bears that are in <strong>the</strong> act <strong>of</strong><br />
“molesting” livestock. This law also<br />
requires that lions killed in this fashion need<br />
to be reported to <strong>the</strong> Department. Idaho law<br />
also allows lions that are perceived as<br />
threats to human safety to be killed.<br />
Department policy provides that lions that<br />
have caused problems or have depredated<br />
should be captured and euthanized. Most<br />
depredations are reported to U.S. Wildlife<br />
Services and <strong>the</strong>y handle <strong>the</strong> removal.<br />
Policy also provides that lions that present a<br />
threat due to proximity to residential<br />
housing or o<strong>the</strong>r area <strong>of</strong> human habituation<br />
or activity should be moved or chased in a<br />
preemptive fashion. Depending on <strong>the</strong><br />
circumstance, if <strong>the</strong> animal has become<br />
habituated or caused problems, <strong>the</strong> lion can<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
be destroyed. Orphaned kittens are not<br />
rehabilitated for release back into <strong>the</strong> wild.<br />
Idaho averaged 3-4 safety related<br />
complaints annually from 1998-2002 and<br />
about 50% required capture or removal <strong>of</strong> a<br />
lion. There has been 1-recorded human<br />
injury in Idaho caused by lions, and that<br />
occurred in 1999 to a 13-year-old boy.<br />
<strong>Lion</strong> related depredations that required<br />
compensation averaged about 1-2 per year.<br />
Average annual compensation form 1998-<br />
2002 was $4717 for lion depredations on<br />
livestock. During that same time, 46 lions<br />
were removed due to depredation situations.<br />
RESEARCH<br />
The Department has been researching<br />
techniques for population monitoring in<br />
north central Idaho by conducting aerial<br />
track surveys (Gratson and Zager 2000), and<br />
a mark-recapture technique using rub<br />
stations and biopsy darts (Zager et al. 2002).<br />
These efforts are still preliminary in nature.<br />
LITERATURE CITED<br />
GRATSON, M.W., AND P. ZAGER. 2000. Elk<br />
ecology. Study IV. Factors influencing<br />
elk calf recruitment. Job No. 2. Calf<br />
mortality causes and rates. Federal Aid<br />
in Wildlife Restoration, Job Progress<br />
Report, W-160-R-26. Idaho Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Fish and Game, Boise.<br />
ZAGER, P., M.W. GRATSON, AND C. WHITE.<br />
2002. Elk ecology. Study IV. Factors<br />
influencing elk calf recruitment. Job No.<br />
2. Calf mortality causes and rates.<br />
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Job<br />
Progress Report. W-160-R-29. Idaho<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and Game, Boise.
MONTANA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
RICH DeSIMONE, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT<br />
59620, USA, email: rdesimone@state.mt.us<br />
ROSE JAFFE, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT 59620,<br />
USA, email: rjaffe@state.mt.us<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lions in Montana are classified<br />
as a big game species. Overall management<br />
direction is provided in <strong>the</strong> Montana Fish,<br />
Wildlife & Parks’ (MFWP) 1996<br />
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) –<br />
Management <strong>of</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong>s in<br />
Montana. According to <strong>the</strong> EIS, objectives<br />
concerning lion management are “… to<br />
maintain mountain lion and prey<br />
populations, to maintain mountain lion<br />
populations at levels that are compatible<br />
with outdoor recreational desires, and to<br />
minimize human-lion conflicts and livestock<br />
depredation”.<br />
DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE<br />
Figure 1. Montana mountain lion hunting districts.<br />
29<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong><br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lions are currently distributed<br />
over approximately 75% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state. <strong>Lion</strong>s<br />
have filled habitats in western and central<br />
Montana and are continuing to expand in <strong>the</strong><br />
eastern part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state. Montana does not<br />
estimate lion populations, however, trends<br />
are monitored through harvest/mortality<br />
data, tooth age information, damage/conflict<br />
reports, and information from houndsmen.<br />
HARVEST INFORMATION<br />
<strong>Lion</strong> harvest objectives are guided by<br />
balancing concern for human safety and<br />
demand for sport hunting. Montana’s 155<br />
deer and elk hunting districts are combined<br />
into 74 mountain lion hunting districts<br />
(Figure 1).
30 MONTANA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · DeSimone and Jaffe<br />
Table 1. Montana lion hunting statistics, 1998-2002.<br />
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002<br />
License sales<br />
Resident 5421 5886 5138 5116 6337<br />
Non-resident 510 519 493 421 281<br />
Total 5931 6405 5631 5537 6618<br />
<strong>Lion</strong> Quota<br />
Harvest<br />
868 758 661 620 581<br />
Female 417 335 293 252 188<br />
Male 351 319 291 257 219<br />
Unknown 8 0 0 0 0<br />
Total 776 654 584 509 407<br />
Harvest is regulated through quotas and<br />
only one lion can be taken per hunter per<br />
year. Quotas include any lion, male and<br />
female, and female sub quotas. During <strong>the</strong><br />
fall hunting season (last week <strong>of</strong> Oct<br />
through Nov), <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> dogs is not<br />
allowed. Harvest during <strong>the</strong> fall season has<br />
been in affect for 4 years and less than 10<br />
lions were harvested each year (Table 1).<br />
Hunting with dogs is allowed during <strong>the</strong><br />
winter season (Dec 1 – Apr 14) and accounts<br />
for over 95% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> harvest. Licensed<br />
hunters are also allowed to chase lions<br />
during <strong>the</strong> winter season. Recent legislation<br />
will allow <strong>the</strong> purchase <strong>of</strong> non-harvest chase<br />
licenses.<br />
DEPREDATIONS AND HUMAN<br />
INTERACTION/CONFLICTS<br />
MFWP’s <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> Depredation<br />
Table 2. Montana mountain lion incidents and removals, 1998-2002.<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
and Control Guidelines are used to deal with<br />
different types <strong>of</strong> incidents. Depending on<br />
<strong>the</strong> situation, management actions include<br />
education, relocation, and removal (Table<br />
2). Montana does not pay for losses<br />
attributed to lions.<br />
RESEARCH<br />
Garnet <strong>Mountain</strong>s – <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong><br />
Research, 1998 – present.<br />
The goal is to document <strong>the</strong> influence <strong>of</strong><br />
hunting on population characteristics and<br />
evaluate <strong>the</strong> ability <strong>of</strong> various survey<br />
techniques to detect trends in lion<br />
abundance.<br />
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002<br />
Incidents 1<br />
Public safety 41 18 37 30 20<br />
Depredation 2 58 44 35 37 29<br />
Total<br />
Removals<br />
99 62 72 67 49<br />
Public safety 20 2 3 5 2<br />
Depredation 30 20 20 11 14<br />
Total 50 22 23 16 16<br />
1<br />
Incident: A conflict between a human and lion that may have serious results (i.e. a lion killing a dog or a lion that must be<br />
forced to back down).<br />
2<br />
Depredation: Includes death <strong>of</strong> pets and death and injury <strong>of</strong> livestock.
NEVADA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
RUSSELL WOOLSTENHULME, Nevada Department <strong>of</strong> Conservation & Natural Resources,<br />
1100 Valley View Road, Reno, NV 89512, USA, email: rwoolstenhulme@ndow.org<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
The Nevada Division <strong>of</strong> Wildlife<br />
completed its Comprehensive <strong>Mountain</strong><br />
<strong>Lion</strong> Management Plan in January 1995.<br />
The Nevada Board <strong>of</strong> Wildlife<br />
Commissioners approved <strong>the</strong> plan in<br />
October <strong>of</strong> that year. The plan is scheduled<br />
for revision during 2003.<br />
The goals and objectives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mountain<br />
lion plan are to maintain lion distribution in<br />
reasonable densities throughout Nevada, to<br />
control mountain lions creating a public<br />
safety hazard or causing property damage,<br />
and to provide recreational, educational and<br />
scientific use opportunities <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mountain<br />
lion resource. Additional goals include<br />
maintaining a balance between mountain<br />
lions and <strong>the</strong>ir prey, and finally to manage<br />
mountain lions as a metapopulation.<br />
The mountain lion’s legal classification<br />
in Nevada was changed by regulation from<br />
unprotected (predator) to game animal in<br />
1965. The change in classification resulted<br />
in <strong>the</strong> requirement <strong>of</strong> a valid hunting license<br />
to hunt mountain lion, along with some<br />
restrictions in <strong>the</strong> method <strong>of</strong> take. This<br />
provision precluded <strong>the</strong> taking <strong>of</strong> lions at<br />
any time o<strong>the</strong>r than from sunrise to sunset<br />
and it also defined legal weapons as<br />
shotgun, rifle, or bow and arrow. The<br />
season was defined as ei<strong>the</strong>r sex, yearround,<br />
and no limit was set nor was a tag<br />
required. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion harvest<br />
management has changed substantially from<br />
1965 to <strong>the</strong> present.<br />
In 1968, a tag requirement was<br />
instituted, and although no limits were<br />
established, it became possible to record<br />
31<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong><br />
sport hunter harvest. Ano<strong>the</strong>r major change<br />
occurred in 1970, when a limit <strong>of</strong> one lion<br />
per person was set, and a six-month season<br />
was established. During that year, <strong>the</strong><br />
requirement that all harvested lions be<br />
validated by a representative <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Department within five days after <strong>the</strong> kill<br />
was also established. This regulation<br />
presented <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>the</strong> first real<br />
opportunity to collect biological data from<br />
<strong>the</strong> mountain lion.<br />
In 1972, <strong>the</strong> Nevada Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Wildlife initiated a study <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mountain<br />
lion as a part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Ruby-Butte deer project<br />
in eastern Nevada. The objective was to<br />
determine <strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong> lion populations<br />
within this high-density deer area, and, to<br />
evaluate <strong>the</strong>m in relation to deer<br />
populations. Within two years, this<br />
objective was changed to: a) establish<br />
population estimates <strong>of</strong> mountain lions by<br />
mountain range or management area<br />
statewide, b) establish basic habitat<br />
requirements, c) establish a harvest<br />
management program. From that period on,<br />
increased emphasis was placed upon lion<br />
capture and marking with <strong>the</strong> more<br />
sophisticated telemetry devices which were<br />
being manufactured. This program involved<br />
lion monitoring from both land and air and<br />
was instrumental in expanding our life<br />
history information base, as well as<br />
providing an approach toward estimating <strong>the</strong><br />
annual population status in key mountain<br />
ranges. The findings from this study were<br />
<strong>the</strong>n utilized in formulating an approach<br />
toward estimating statewide lion<br />
populations. This ten (10) year study formed
32 NEVADA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Woolstenhulme<br />
<strong>the</strong> basics for most management activities<br />
that have been implemented since<br />
publication <strong>of</strong> this study in 1983.<br />
In 1976, 26 mountain lion management<br />
areas were described statewide, and a<br />
harvest quota established for each to control<br />
<strong>the</strong> sport harvest. This “Controlled Quota<br />
Hunt” was <strong>the</strong> most restrictive season ever<br />
established for mountain lion in Nevada.<br />
In 1979, <strong>the</strong> “Controlled Quota Hunt”<br />
was modified utilizing six management<br />
areas whereby a harvest objective was<br />
established which allowed <strong>the</strong> hunting <strong>of</strong><br />
lions in each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> six areas until <strong>the</strong><br />
predetermined number <strong>of</strong> lion were taken.<br />
In 1981, <strong>the</strong> “Harvest Objective” hunting<br />
season concept was applied statewide.<br />
Initially this system required a hunter to<br />
obtain a free hunt permit for <strong>the</strong> opportunity<br />
to hunt in one (1) management area. In<br />
1994, hunters were allowed to obtain a free<br />
hunt permit that authorized <strong>the</strong> hunter to<br />
hunt in two (2) management areas until <strong>the</strong><br />
established harvest objective was reached.<br />
Both <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se permit systems allowed<br />
hunters to change management areas at will<br />
as long as <strong>the</strong> harvest objective had not been<br />
reached in <strong>the</strong> desired management area(s).<br />
In 1995, <strong>the</strong> hunt permit approach was<br />
modified to eliminate <strong>the</strong> physical issuance<br />
<strong>of</strong> a permit in favor <strong>of</strong> establishing a 1-800<br />
telephone number. This system allows<br />
hunters to hunt in any management area in<br />
which <strong>the</strong> harvest objective has not been<br />
reached. The hunter must, however, call <strong>the</strong><br />
1-800 number before starting to hunt to<br />
determine which management area(s) are<br />
still open to hunting.<br />
In 1997, changes were made to mountain<br />
lion regulations to increase mountain lion<br />
harvest, while maintaining <strong>the</strong> integrity <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> harvest objective limits system. Those<br />
changes included <strong>the</strong> reduction <strong>of</strong> tag fees,<br />
over-<strong>the</strong>-counter tag sales, increasing bag<br />
limits from one tag per hunter to two tags<br />
per hunter, and consolidation <strong>of</strong> some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
harvest unit groups.<br />
In 1998, Nevada’s sou<strong>the</strong>rn region was<br />
modified to provide for a year-round hunting<br />
season on mountain lions. The entire state<br />
went to a year-round season in 2001.<br />
New changes were made again for <strong>the</strong><br />
2003 season. These changes modified<br />
harvest unit groups from 24 groups<br />
throughout <strong>the</strong> state to three statewide<br />
regions corresponding with <strong>the</strong> Division’s<br />
three management regions. The mountain<br />
lion season continues to be year-round but<br />
season dates were changed to March 1 st <strong>of</strong><br />
each year to <strong>the</strong> last day <strong>of</strong> February,<br />
corresponding with <strong>the</strong> dates on a Nevada<br />
hunting license.<br />
DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lions seem well adapted to <strong>the</strong><br />
wide variety <strong>of</strong> habitat and environmental<br />
conditions that exist in Nevada. They have<br />
been observed to live or wander through<br />
almost every mountain range from <strong>the</strong><br />
Mojave Desert in extreme sou<strong>the</strong>rn Nevada<br />
to alpine forests at <strong>the</strong> highest elevations in<br />
<strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state. Distribution<br />
appears to be primarily influenced by prey<br />
availability, and has remained fairly<br />
consistent through time.<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lion populations are estimated<br />
utilizing a life table model (retrospective<br />
harvest/ mortality). The model utilizes<br />
known harvest/ mortality rates and<br />
recruitment rates (as determined from markrecapture<br />
and telemetry studies) to calculate<br />
a retrospective estimate <strong>of</strong> minimum viable<br />
population size needed to sustain known<br />
harvest rates over <strong>the</strong> same time period.<br />
Although no defined confidence limit is<br />
used during this process, our confidence in<br />
this model is relatively high based on <strong>the</strong><br />
fact that harvest rates have continued over<br />
time at a constant rate without signs <strong>of</strong><br />
extirpation, reduced harvest rates, or<br />
increased average age <strong>of</strong> harvested lion.<br />
Based on our current estimation methods,
NEVADA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Woolstenhulme 33<br />
Table 1. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion tag sales, sport hunter harvest, and hunter success by class <strong>of</strong> hunter.<br />
Tag Sales Harvest Hunter Success<br />
Year Resident Nonresident Total Resident Nonresident Total Resident Nonresident Total<br />
1998 643 124 767 73 67 140 11% 54% 18%<br />
1999 680 109 789 70 56 126 10% 51% 16%<br />
2000 883 169 1052 104 81 185 12% 48% 18%<br />
2001 838 98 936 103 58 161 12% 59% 17%<br />
2002 1030 202 1232 105 63 168 10% 31% 14%<br />
2003 1060 131 1191 89 39 128 8% 30% 11%<br />
Total 5,134 833 5,967 544 364 908 11% 44% 15%<br />
Average 856 139 995 91 61 151 11% 44% 15%<br />
lion populations within Nevada are between<br />
3000-4000 animals.<br />
HARVEST INFORMATION<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lions have been classified as a<br />
big game species since 1965. They have<br />
been hunted annually since that time. A<br />
Nevada resident mountain lion tag costs<br />
$25.00, and a Nevada nonresident mountain<br />
lion tag costs $100.00. On <strong>the</strong> average,<br />
nonresident hunters account for<br />
approximately 14% <strong>of</strong> tag sales, but harvest<br />
a greater proportion <strong>of</strong> lions than do resident<br />
hunters (Table 1). Total sport hunter harvest<br />
has averaged 151 lions per year for <strong>the</strong> last 6<br />
years (Table 2).<br />
The open season for hunting mountain<br />
lions in Nevada currently runs year-round<br />
(March 1 – last day <strong>of</strong> February) (Table 3).<br />
Table 2. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion harvest by harvest type and sex.<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
Any legal weapon may be used to harvest a<br />
mountain lion, and dogs may be used to hunt<br />
a mountain lion under <strong>the</strong> authority <strong>of</strong> a<br />
current State <strong>of</strong> Nevada hunting license and<br />
mountain lion tag. Because <strong>the</strong> mountain<br />
lion season is year-round no pursuit only<br />
season exists. A resident or a non-resident is<br />
eligible to obtain two mountain lion tags<br />
each year. A person who harvests a<br />
mountain lion in Nevada must, within 72<br />
hours after harvesting it, personally present<br />
<strong>the</strong> skull and hide to a representative <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
division for inspection. The representative<br />
shall affix a State <strong>of</strong> Nevada mountain lion<br />
seal permanently to <strong>the</strong> hide. A seal must be<br />
permanently affixed to <strong>the</strong> hide <strong>of</strong> a<br />
mountain lion before it can be possessed by<br />
an individual or removed from <strong>the</strong> state. It<br />
is unlawful to kill a female mountain lion<br />
Sport Hunter Harvest Depredation Take Total<br />
Year Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total<br />
1998 85 55 140 12 8 20 97 63 160<br />
1999 77 49 126 12 10 22 89 59 148<br />
2000 102 83 185 8 3 11 110 86 196<br />
2001 95 66 161 8 8 16 103 74 177<br />
2002 99 69 168 10 16 26 109 85 194<br />
2003 77 51 128 7 8 15 84 59 143<br />
Average 89 62 151 10 9 18 99 71 170
34 NEVADA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Woolstenhulme<br />
Table 3. Nevada <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> Units and Quotas 2003 – 2005.<br />
Unit Group<br />
UNIT 1 (Western Region)<br />
011 - 015, 021, 022, 031,<br />
032, 034, 035, 041 - 046,<br />
051, 181 – 184, 192, 194 -<br />
196, 201 - 206, 291<br />
2003-2004 Season<br />
Dates<br />
March 1, 2003 –<br />
Feb 29, 2004<br />
2003-2004<br />
Harvest Objectives<br />
114<br />
2004-2005 Season<br />
Dates<br />
March 1, 2004 –<br />
Feb 28, 2005<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
2004-2005<br />
Harvest Objectives<br />
033 Closed 0 Closed 0<br />
UNIT 2 (Eastern Region)<br />
061, 062, 064 – 068, 071 -<br />
078, 081, 101 – 108, 111 –<br />
115, 121, 131 – 134, 141 –<br />
145, 151, 152, 154, 155<br />
079*<br />
UNIT 3 (Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Region)<br />
161 - 164, 171 - 173, 211,<br />
212, 221 – 223, 231, 241 –<br />
244, 251 - 253, 261 - 268,<br />
271 – 272<br />
March 1, 2003 –<br />
Feb 29, 2004<br />
March 1, 2003 –<br />
Feb 29, 2004<br />
March 1, 2003 –<br />
Feb 29, 2004<br />
163<br />
4<br />
68<br />
March 1, 2004 –<br />
Feb 28, 2005<br />
March 1, 2004 –<br />
Feb 28, 2005<br />
March 1, 2004 –<br />
Feb 28, 2005<br />
280 – 284 Closed 0 Closed 0<br />
* Interstate hunt with Utah. Nevada and Utah hunters may hunt within open units in both states. Nevada hunters<br />
hunting in Utah must abide by Utah regulations.<br />
that is accompanied by a spotted kitten, or to<br />
kill or possess a spotted mountain lion<br />
kitten. It is also unlawful in Nevada to trap<br />
a mountain lion, if a mountain lion is<br />
accidentally trapped or killed, <strong>the</strong> person<br />
trapping or killing it shall report <strong>the</strong> trapping<br />
or killing within 48 hours to <strong>the</strong> division.<br />
The animal must be disposed <strong>of</strong> in<br />
accordance with state law.<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lion harvest objectives are<br />
calculated for each administrative region on<br />
a semi-annual basis using standardized<br />
methodology. Harvest objectives are<br />
calculated and recommended in order to<br />
achieve a specific management action over a<br />
short-term period (no more than two years).<br />
Management actions may be designed to<br />
increase, stabilize and maintain, or decrease<br />
mountain lion populations within each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
three administrative regions in Nevada.<br />
114<br />
163<br />
Calculations <strong>of</strong> harvest objectives by<br />
administrative region incorporate <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong><br />
scientific data to determine <strong>the</strong> current<br />
population trend and population density. A<br />
“political index” may be employed to adjust<br />
harvest objectives within smaller geographic<br />
areas (big game management areas) in order<br />
to achieve <strong>the</strong> desired management goal.<br />
Biologists make annual adjustments to<br />
harvest objective recommendations for each<br />
administrative region only after careful<br />
review <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> following data and information<br />
that is collected, assembled and distributed<br />
by <strong>the</strong> Game Bureau by October <strong>of</strong> each<br />
year.<br />
A. Data used to assess population trend,<br />
including, but not limited to:<br />
4<br />
68<br />
1) The current regional population<br />
model.
2) Sex, weight and age data from<br />
harvested mountain lions for <strong>the</strong><br />
previous recording period (March 1<br />
- February 28).<br />
B. Data used to assess population density,<br />
including, but not limited to:<br />
1) The current regional population<br />
model.<br />
2) Data showing <strong>the</strong> unit <strong>of</strong> effort to<br />
observe or harvest mountain lions.<br />
3) Average weight information,<br />
comparing weights <strong>of</strong> harvested<br />
animals by sex and cohort group to<br />
<strong>the</strong> long-term data set (1968 -<br />
2003).<br />
C. Data to quantify “bio-political”<br />
considerations, including, but not<br />
limited to:<br />
1) A summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> public safety<br />
complaint forms involving<br />
mountain lions as received by <strong>the</strong><br />
Bureau for <strong>the</strong> previous recording<br />
period.<br />
2) A report <strong>of</strong> damage to private<br />
property caused by mountain lions<br />
as annually prepared by ADC.<br />
3) A prey species accounting<br />
spreadsheet as prepared by <strong>the</strong><br />
region for <strong>the</strong> previous recording<br />
period. Adjustments from <strong>the</strong><br />
baseline harvest objective level for<br />
each administrative region will be<br />
recommended in order to achieve<br />
<strong>the</strong> short-term (two-year) goal <strong>of</strong><br />
maintaining, increasing, or<br />
decreasing mountain lion<br />
populations within <strong>the</strong> respective<br />
administrative region, utilizing<br />
harvest management as <strong>the</strong> primary<br />
tool to achieve <strong>the</strong> desired<br />
population goal.<br />
See Figure 1 for State <strong>of</strong> Nevada<br />
mountain lion hunt unit reference map.<br />
NEVADA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Woolstenhulme 35<br />
Figure 1. Nevada mountain lion hunt unit<br />
reference map.<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
DEPREDATIONS AND HUMAN<br />
INTERACTIONS/CONFLICTS<br />
The Nevada Division <strong>of</strong> Wildlife<br />
Comprehensive Management Plan<br />
specifically addresses policy and procedure<br />
for dealing with nuisance or problem<br />
mountain lions.<br />
The Division <strong>of</strong> Wildlife is responsible<br />
by statute for controlling wildlife causing<br />
damage to personal property or endangering<br />
personal safety. The Division also has a<br />
responsibility to provide sport-hunting<br />
opportunities to Nevada sportsmen. This<br />
protocol sets forth procedures to be followed<br />
in controlling and preventing lion damage,<br />
addressing public safety issues and<br />
responding to sport hunting opportunities.<br />
In carrying out this policy where mountain<br />
lion/human interactions are involved, agents<br />
shall have <strong>the</strong> discretion to choose <strong>the</strong> most
36 NEVADA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Woolstenhulme<br />
applicable management option, following<br />
guidelines outlined in this protocol. All<br />
efforts will be directed at <strong>the</strong> individual lion<br />
causing <strong>the</strong> problem.<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lion/human interactions have<br />
increased throughout <strong>the</strong> West and in<br />
Nevada in <strong>the</strong> last several decades. During<br />
<strong>the</strong> same period, <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> depredation<br />
complaints and <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> lions taken on<br />
depredation complaints has also increased.<br />
The Division desires to reduce multiple<br />
depredations from <strong>the</strong> same animal and<br />
prevent harm to humans.<br />
The Division recognizes three distinct<br />
categories <strong>of</strong> mountain lions involved in<br />
human/lion interactions.<br />
A. Nuisance <strong>Lion</strong> - a lion involved in a<br />
direct meeting with a human but did<br />
not exhibit aggressive behavior toward<br />
<strong>the</strong> human, a lion repeatedly observed<br />
in an area, or a situation where<br />
personal property is at risk.<br />
B. Depredating <strong>Lion</strong> - a lion that has<br />
injured or killed livestock or domestic<br />
pets.<br />
C. Dangerous or Aggressive <strong>Lion</strong> - a<br />
lion that has exhibited aggressive<br />
behavior towards humans. A lion that<br />
has an unnatural interest in humans<br />
without provocation and is perceived<br />
to be a threat to public safety. A lion<br />
located in a place or situation where<br />
human safety is <strong>of</strong> concern may be<br />
considered dangerous.<br />
Various management options are<br />
available to Division employees when a<br />
mountain lion conflict arises. The Division<br />
employee responding to or assigned to<br />
handle a lion/human conflict will have <strong>the</strong><br />
primary responsibility to assess mountain<br />
lion involvement in an incident and conduct<br />
<strong>the</strong> necessary investigation. Agents may be<br />
required to make an assessment "on <strong>the</strong><br />
spot" or if time permits make an assessment<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
with consultation.<br />
At all opportunities, <strong>the</strong> Division will<br />
provide educational and informational<br />
materials to individuals concerned with lion<br />
management and people-lion conflict<br />
prevention. These materials will include<br />
options for pet and livestock protection and<br />
avoidance <strong>of</strong> dangerous encounters with<br />
mountain lions. Site-specific education and<br />
prevention efforts will be made in historic<br />
conflict areas.<br />
A field response by ei<strong>the</strong>r a Division<br />
employee or his/her designated agent is<br />
required for all lion/human interactions<br />
involving <strong>the</strong> categories <strong>of</strong> lions defined.<br />
1. Nuisance <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong>s<br />
a. No management action combined<br />
with education effort.<br />
b. Deterrent methods combined with<br />
education effort.<br />
c. Capture, mark and relocate cougars<br />
if deterrent methods are<br />
unsuccessful or impractical. <strong>Lion</strong>s<br />
identified for relocation will be<br />
transported to <strong>the</strong> following release<br />
sites in priority order.<br />
1) Instate release locations within<br />
low conflict areas<br />
2) Out <strong>of</strong> state governmental<br />
agencies<br />
3) University or research facilities<br />
4) Zoological gardens or Zoos<br />
d. Nuisance lions will be destroyed if<br />
relocating or deterrent methods are<br />
unsuccessful or impractical.<br />
2. Depredation <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong>s<br />
a. No management action combined<br />
with education effort.<br />
b. Deterrent methods including<br />
prevention materials (if applicable)<br />
combined with education effort.<br />
c. Capture, mark and relocate cougars<br />
if deterrent methods are<br />
unsuccessful or impractical. <strong>Lion</strong>s
identified for relocation will be<br />
transported to <strong>the</strong> following release<br />
sites in priority order.<br />
1) Instate release locations within<br />
low conflict areas<br />
2) Out <strong>of</strong> state governmental<br />
agencies<br />
3) University or research facilities<br />
4) Zoological gardens or Zoos<br />
d. Depredating lions will be destroyed<br />
if deterrent methods or live capture<br />
is unsuccessful or impractical.<br />
3. Aggressive (Dangerous) <strong>Mountain</strong><br />
<strong>Lion</strong>s<br />
a. If a lion is dangerous because <strong>of</strong> its<br />
location and not its behavior it may<br />
be trapped, marked and relocated.<br />
If a lion is frequenting a city or<br />
town, it may be destroyed if capture<br />
methods fail or are impractical.<br />
<strong>Lion</strong>s identified for relocation will<br />
be transported to <strong>the</strong> following<br />
release sites in priority order.<br />
1) Instate release locations within<br />
low conflict areas<br />
2) Out <strong>of</strong> state governmental<br />
agencies<br />
3) University or research facilities<br />
4) Zoological gardens or Zoos<br />
b. If <strong>the</strong> mountain lion is dangerous<br />
because it has exhibited aggressive<br />
behavior toward humans or is<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rwise perceived to be a threat to<br />
human safety, or if <strong>the</strong> lion is<br />
involved in an attack on a human,<br />
destroy and necropsy <strong>the</strong> lion.<br />
<strong>Lion</strong>s exhibiting aggressive<br />
behavior in remote areas should not<br />
be killed but instead an aggressive<br />
publicity and educational campaign<br />
should be made to alert people <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> danger in <strong>the</strong> remote area and<br />
promote human avoidance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
area over <strong>the</strong> short-term.<br />
NEVADA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Woolstenhulme 37<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
c. A detailed narrative report on each<br />
incident involving handling <strong>of</strong><br />
dangerous lions will be prepared by<br />
<strong>the</strong> agent in control <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> incident<br />
and forwarded to <strong>the</strong> Supervising<br />
Regional Game Biologist.<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lion incidents involving<br />
attacks or injury to people will be<br />
immediately reported through <strong>the</strong><br />
chain <strong>of</strong> command to <strong>the</strong> Regional<br />
Manager, Administrator, Chief <strong>of</strong><br />
Game and Chief Game Warden.<br />
All lions destroyed will be reported<br />
on <strong>the</strong> 351-harvest form. A copy <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> detailed report, including any<br />
necropsy, coroner's report or o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
supporting information shall be sent<br />
to <strong>the</strong> Game bureau staff biologist<br />
responsible for mountain lions. A<br />
lion/human interaction form will be<br />
completed for each interaction.<br />
In those incidences where control<br />
becomes necessary, a regional list <strong>of</strong> persons<br />
who have requested consideration and are<br />
qualified to do control work, including<br />
private hunters/ trappers and outfitters/<br />
guides will be a source <strong>of</strong> control, as well as<br />
U.S.D.A. APHIS/ADC personnel.<br />
Hunters/trappers, outfitters/guides or<br />
U.S.D.A. agents will not initiate control<br />
unless requested to do so by <strong>the</strong> Division.<br />
Hunters or trappers may be authorized to<br />
control problem animals during open or<br />
closed seasons. The hunter or trapper will<br />
buy a license and tag for use during <strong>the</strong> open<br />
season until <strong>the</strong> hunter or trapper's tag is<br />
filled. The hunter may continue control<br />
work after <strong>the</strong> tag is filled only under <strong>the</strong><br />
authority <strong>of</strong> a depredation permit. Hunting<br />
during a closed season will be conducted<br />
only under <strong>the</strong> authority <strong>of</strong> a depredation<br />
permit. Depredation permits will only be<br />
issued to landowners/livestock owners for<br />
<strong>the</strong> control <strong>of</strong> specific depredating lions.<br />
Hunters or trappers may keep <strong>the</strong> lion if<br />
harvested under <strong>the</strong> authority <strong>of</strong> a valid
38 NEVADA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Woolstenhulme<br />
license and tag. All o<strong>the</strong>r lions become <strong>the</strong><br />
property <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State.<br />
The USDA, APHIS/ADC, may be<br />
contacted to do control work any time <strong>of</strong><br />
year. The APHIS/ADC agent shall attempt<br />
to control only <strong>the</strong> animal(s) causing<br />
damage. The agent will use discretion in <strong>the</strong><br />
control <strong>of</strong> young animals. All lions taken by<br />
APHIS/ADC are <strong>the</strong> property <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State.<br />
A mountain lion harvest report form is<br />
completed for all mountain lion mortalities.<br />
A mountain lion/human interaction form is<br />
completed for all lion/human interactions.<br />
Records <strong>of</strong> lion mortality and human/ lion<br />
interactions are kept in computer databases<br />
in Reno.<br />
RESEARCH AND PUBLICATIONS<br />
ERNEST, HOLLY B., WALTER M. BOYCE,<br />
VERNON C. BLEICH, BERNIE MAY, SAN<br />
J. STIVER, AND STEVEN G. TORRES. In<br />
Press. Genetic structure <strong>of</strong> mountain<br />
lion (Puma concolor) populations in<br />
California. Journal <strong>of</strong> Conservation<br />
Genetics.<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
This paper used 412 samples from<br />
California and 19 samples collected in<br />
western Nevada within 50 km <strong>of</strong> California.<br />
The work helped define <strong>the</strong> geographic<br />
ranges <strong>of</strong> mountain lion populations in<br />
California. Population structure differed<br />
greatly by region - mountain lions in many<br />
California regions have significant barriers<br />
to genetic interchange and <strong>the</strong>refore are very<br />
different from one population to ano<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
This paper, plus <strong>the</strong> work done for <strong>the</strong><br />
Nevada DOW report indicate that<br />
populations in Nevada tend not to have as<br />
much obstruction to genetic interchange as<br />
those in most ecological regions <strong>of</strong><br />
California, in general. This study shows that<br />
mountain lion management and conservation<br />
efforts should be individualized according to<br />
region and incorporate landscape-level<br />
considerations to protect habitat<br />
connectivity.<br />
A follow up study by Dr. Holly Ernest,<br />
on mountain lion genetic variation and<br />
phylogeography in Nevada is currently<br />
being finalized for future publication.
NEW MEXICO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
RICK WINSLOW, Large Carnivore Biologist, New Mexico Department <strong>of</strong> Game and Fish, P.O.<br />
Box 25112, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504, USA, email: Rwinslow@state.nm.us<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
The New Mexico Department <strong>of</strong> Game<br />
and Fish has almost completed<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> its cougar management<br />
plan. We are beginning to develop a new<br />
five-year plan.<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lions have been classified as<br />
protected big game animals in New Mexico<br />
since 1971 and are currently hunted<br />
throughout most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> occupied habitat in<br />
<strong>the</strong> state.<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lion management in New<br />
Mexico is multi-faceted. The department is<br />
attempting to develop a conservation<br />
strategy that allows both hunting and<br />
enjoyment <strong>of</strong> cougars by <strong>the</strong> non-hunting<br />
public. We also need to balance differing<br />
management issues: (1) depredation control<br />
to minimize economic losses to livestock<br />
operators, (2) minimizing human/cougar<br />
conflicts, (3) cougar removal where<br />
increasing deer and bighorn populations is<br />
<strong>the</strong> management priority.<br />
In 1999 we initiated a zone quota system<br />
for harvest management. Our zone quotas<br />
are based upon management decisions for<br />
ei<strong>the</strong>r increasing, maintaining stable, or<br />
decreasing lion populations.<br />
DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE<br />
Since <strong>the</strong>ir protection as a big game<br />
animal in 1971, mountain lions have steadily<br />
returned to suitable habitat throughout <strong>the</strong><br />
state. <strong>Mountain</strong> lions generally inhabit <strong>the</strong><br />
rougher country in New Mexico avoiding<br />
<strong>the</strong> low elevation desert areas and eastern<br />
plains. They do however occur in <strong>the</strong>se<br />
areas in conjunction with pockets <strong>of</strong> mule<br />
39<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong><br />
deer and areas <strong>of</strong> topographic diversity. Our<br />
current estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cougar population in<br />
New Mexico is approximately 2150 cougars<br />
derived by multiplying density estimates by<br />
(Logan et al. 1996) <strong>the</strong> estimated amount <strong>of</strong><br />
mule deer habitat. For regional estimates,<br />
we use a population model based on rates <strong>of</strong><br />
recruitment and mortality from Logan et al.<br />
(1996), quantity <strong>of</strong> habitat and population<br />
density.<br />
Since 1979, successful hunters have<br />
been required to present <strong>the</strong>ir cougar to a<br />
Department <strong>of</strong>ficial within 5 days <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
harvest to have <strong>the</strong> pelt tagged, a tooth<br />
collected for aging, sex verified, and o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
information ga<strong>the</strong>red. Reports <strong>of</strong> cougar<br />
depredation and damage are also kept.<br />
Harvest strategies have varied during <strong>the</strong><br />
32 years cougars have been classified as a<br />
game animal. In 1971 only <strong>the</strong> southwestern<br />
corner <strong>of</strong> New Mexico was open to cougar<br />
hunting with a bag limit <strong>of</strong> one cougar and a<br />
4-month season. More areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state<br />
were opened to cougar hunting and seasons<br />
leng<strong>the</strong>ned in subsequent years. From 1979<br />
to 1983 <strong>the</strong> season was 11 months long<br />
statewide with a bag limit <strong>of</strong> 2 cougars.<br />
In 1983 a bill was introduced to <strong>the</strong> New<br />
Mexico House <strong>of</strong> Representatives to return<br />
<strong>the</strong> cougar to its status prior to 1971 as a<br />
varmint. It was tabled but <strong>the</strong> legislature<br />
requested that <strong>the</strong> department ga<strong>the</strong>r more<br />
information on <strong>the</strong> cougar’s status. Evans<br />
(1983) investigated harvest trends and<br />
population estimates and determined that<br />
cougar populations had probably declined.<br />
His determination and public opinion
40 NEW MEXICO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Winslow<br />
resulted in more conservative harvest<br />
strategies.<br />
In 1984 <strong>the</strong> cougar season was shortened<br />
to 3 months in most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state, with longer<br />
seasons in units that had high numbers <strong>of</strong><br />
depredation complaints. From 1985 until<br />
1999 <strong>the</strong> season was 4 months long<br />
throughout <strong>the</strong> state with a bag limit <strong>of</strong> one<br />
cougar. In 1999 <strong>the</strong> state instituted a zone<br />
management system with harvest objectives<br />
and quotas. The season was extended to 6<br />
months throughout <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state<br />
with low-elevation bighorn sheep ranges<br />
open year round.<br />
In 2002, <strong>the</strong> cougar season remained at 6<br />
months with a 1 cougar bag limit throughout<br />
most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state with <strong>the</strong> following<br />
exceptions: year around hunting in selected<br />
desert bighorn sheep areas and Rocky<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> bighorn sheep areas in <strong>the</strong><br />
sou<strong>the</strong>rn part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state and on private<br />
property, and year round hunting in specific<br />
units in <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>astern corner <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state<br />
that have historically suffered high<br />
depredation losses. The bag limit was<br />
increased to 2 cougars in bighorn areas.<br />
Currently <strong>the</strong> state has 15 cougar<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
Figure 1. Cougar Harvest Management<br />
Zones in New Mexico during 2002-03.<br />
management zones (Figure 1). Each is<br />
managed through a quota system for<br />
increasing, decreasing or stable populations<br />
<strong>of</strong> cougar (Table 1). The ratio <strong>of</strong> males to<br />
females harvested generally equals 60:40<br />
Table 1. Cougar harvest objectives by management zone in New Mexico, 2002-03.<br />
Zone Game Management Units Included in Zone Harvest Objective<br />
A 2 and 7 14<br />
B 5 and 50-51 20<br />
C 43-46, 48-49, and 53-55 38<br />
D 41-42, 47, and 56-58 16<br />
E 9 and 10 16<br />
F 6 and 8 16<br />
G 13-14, and 17 17<br />
H 19, 20, and 28-29 3<br />
I 18, 30, 34, and 36-38 20<br />
J 15-16, 21, and 25 38<br />
K 22-24 22<br />
L 26-27 Unlimited<br />
M 31-33, and 39-40 5<br />
N 4 and 52 3<br />
O 12 3<br />
231 a<br />
a Not including unlimited areas.
(Table 2). Hunters tend to selectively<br />
harvest <strong>the</strong> larger male lions.<br />
Since sport hunting was implemented in<br />
1971, use <strong>of</strong> hounds has been allowed but<br />
cubs and females with cubs cannot be taken.<br />
At least 90% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> harvest is through hound<br />
hunting. There is no pursuit season.<br />
Approximately 2000 lion licenses are<br />
sold per year currently. This number has<br />
gone up during <strong>the</strong> past decade. There is no<br />
limit to <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> lion licenses sold per<br />
year.<br />
Since 1998 cougar depredation<br />
complaints have ranged from 28 to 45 per<br />
year with 1 to 20 cougars killed per year.<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lion depredation incidents are<br />
typically dealt with on a case-by-case basis<br />
NEW MEXICO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Winslow 41<br />
Table 2. Permits issued and cougars harvested in New Mexico, 1981-2003.<br />
Hunt Year<br />
Permits<br />
Issued<br />
Male Harvest<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
in New Mexico. Department policy is to<br />
resolve depredation and to minimize<br />
property damage, conflict and threat to<br />
human safety. When department or Wildlife<br />
Services investigation confirms a<br />
depredation incident, a depredation permit<br />
may be issued. Generally, ei<strong>the</strong>r snares or<br />
hounds are used to capture <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fending<br />
animal. <strong>Lion</strong>s involved in depredation<br />
incidents are destroyed. Landowners may<br />
also kill lions in defense <strong>of</strong> human safety or<br />
property. The sou<strong>the</strong>astern corner <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
state has a preventative control program,<br />
which is in effect in Unit 30 to reduce<br />
depredation on domestic sheep. The<br />
preventative control program destroyed 110<br />
mountain lions between 1989 and 1999 and<br />
Female<br />
Harvest<br />
Unknown Total Harvest<br />
1981-82 360 78 44 3 125<br />
1982-83 481 55 44 1 101<br />
1983-84 661 67 65 0 132<br />
1984-85 443 47 32 0 79<br />
1985-86 472 56 48 0 104<br />
1986-87 437 55 46 0 101<br />
1987-88 456 43 35 0 78<br />
1988-89 450 58 33 0 91<br />
1989-90 482 71 41 0 112<br />
1990-91 781 73 35 0 108<br />
1991-92 765 77 42 0 119<br />
1992-93 826 68 37 0 105<br />
1993-94 926 75 52 0 127<br />
1994-95 1145 87 61 2 150<br />
1995-96 842 74 45 0 119<br />
1996-97 980 114 62 1 177<br />
1997-98 974 108 58 2 168<br />
1998-99 1485 95 58 0 153<br />
1999-00 1702 98 58 0 156<br />
2000-01 NA 1 140 96 0 236<br />
2001-02 NA 1 127 91 1 219<br />
2002-03 NA 1 161 120 3 284 2<br />
1<br />
Not yet determined.<br />
2<br />
Numbers may not be complete.
42 NEW MEXICO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Winslow<br />
has continued in <strong>the</strong> years since.<br />
In situations where depredation cannot<br />
be confirmed, <strong>the</strong> district wildlife <strong>of</strong>ficer<br />
will <strong>of</strong>fer advice and suggestions as to how<br />
<strong>the</strong> complainant can avoid incidents with<br />
lions. <strong>Lion</strong>s captured for reasons o<strong>the</strong>r than<br />
depredation are relocated to ano<strong>the</strong>r area <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> state.<br />
Human safety incidents with lions are<br />
rare in New Mexico. Any lion involved in a<br />
human safety type <strong>of</strong> incident would be<br />
destroyed if caught.<br />
RESEARCH AND PUBLICATIONS<br />
Ligon (1926) conducted <strong>the</strong> first<br />
investigation on cougars in New Mexico and<br />
determined that <strong>the</strong>y were uncommon but<br />
preyed heavily upon domestic animals and<br />
deer. Hibben (1937) investigated lion<br />
biology in nor<strong>the</strong>rn and western portions <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> state. Prey use and movements in <strong>the</strong><br />
southwestern corner <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state were<br />
documented via radio telemetry in <strong>the</strong><br />
1970’s (Donaldson 1975, Johnson 1982).<br />
Cougar ecology in Carlsbad Caverns<br />
National Park, New Mexico and <strong>the</strong><br />
Guadalupe <strong>Mountain</strong>s National Park across<br />
<strong>the</strong> border in Texas was studied from 1982-<br />
85 (Smith et al. 1986). Ecology and<br />
population dynamics <strong>of</strong> cougars in <strong>the</strong> San<br />
Andres <strong>Mountain</strong>s <strong>of</strong> south central New<br />
Mexico were studied from 1985-95 (Logan<br />
et al. 1996). This was <strong>the</strong> most intensive<br />
investigation <strong>of</strong> desert-dwelling cougars<br />
ever conducted. Beausoleil (2001) reviewed<br />
historic and current status <strong>of</strong> mountain lions<br />
in New Mexico.<br />
LITERATURE CITED<br />
BEAUSOLEIL, R.A. 2001. Status <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> in New Mexico, 1997-<br />
2000. New Mexico Naturalist’s Notes<br />
3(1) pp. 33-47.<br />
DONALDSON, B. 1975. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion<br />
research. Final Report, Pittman<br />
Robertson Project W-93-17, Work plan<br />
15, Job 1. New Mexico Department <strong>of</strong><br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico<br />
USA.<br />
EVANS, W. 1983. The cougar in New<br />
Mexico: biology, status, depredation <strong>of</strong><br />
livestock, and management<br />
recommendations. Response to House<br />
Memorial 42. New Mexico Department<br />
<strong>of</strong> Game and Fish, Santa Fe, New<br />
Mexico USA.<br />
HIBBEN, F.C. 1937. A preliminary study <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> mountain lion (Felis oregonenis<br />
spp.). University <strong>of</strong> New Mexico<br />
Bulletin, Biological Series 5(3) 5-59.<br />
JOHNSON, J. 1982. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion research.<br />
Final Report, Pittman Robertson Project<br />
W-124-R-4, Job 1. New Mexico<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Game and Fish, Santa Fe,<br />
New Mexico USA.<br />
LIGON, J.S. 1927. Wild Life <strong>of</strong> New Mexico,<br />
Its Conservation and Management.<br />
Being a Report on <strong>the</strong> Game Survey <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> State, 1926 and 1927. State Game<br />
Commission Department <strong>of</strong> Game and<br />
Fish, Santa Fe, New Mexico.<br />
LOGAN, K.A., L.L. SWEANOR, T.K. RUTH,<br />
AND M.G. HORNOCKER. 1996. Cougars<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> San Andres <strong>Mountain</strong>s, New<br />
Mexico. Federal Aid in Wildlife<br />
Restoration, Project W-128-R, for New<br />
Mexico Department <strong>of</strong> Game and Fish,<br />
Santa Fe, New Mexico USA.<br />
NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND<br />
FISH. 1997. Long range plan for <strong>the</strong><br />
management <strong>of</strong> cougar in New Mexico.<br />
Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration<br />
Grant W-93-R-39, Project 1, Job 5. New<br />
Mexico Department <strong>of</strong> Game and Fish,<br />
Santa Fe, New Mexico USA.<br />
SMITH, T.E., R.R. DUKE, M.J. KUTILEK, AND<br />
H.T. HARVEY. 1986. <strong>Mountain</strong> lions<br />
(Felis Concolor) in <strong>the</strong> vicinity <strong>of</strong><br />
Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico and<br />
Guadalupe <strong>Mountain</strong>s National Park,<br />
Texas. Harvey and Stanley Associates<br />
Incorporated, Alvisa, Texas USA.
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
MIKE KINTIGH, Regional Supervisor, South Dakota Game, Fish & Parks, 3305 West South St.,<br />
Rapid City, SD 57702, USA, email: Mike.Kintigh@state.sd.us<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
South Dakota (SD) is currently<br />
developing a management plan for mountain<br />
lions. The second draft <strong>of</strong> this document is<br />
currently under review by South Dakota<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Game, Fish and Parks (SD<br />
GFP) staff. This document is also available<br />
to <strong>the</strong> public and interested parties for<br />
review and comment. A copy can be<br />
obtained by contacting Regional Supervisor<br />
Mike Kintigh (listed above) or Dr. Larry<br />
Gigliotti at 605-773-4231. This summer/fall<br />
SD GFP will be taking fur<strong>the</strong>r steps to<br />
solicit public comments on <strong>the</strong> management<br />
plan.<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong>s are currently classified<br />
as a State Threatened Species in SD.<br />
However, in July that classification will<br />
likely change significantly. Legislative<br />
action in January <strong>of</strong> 2003 closed a legal<br />
loophole by defining <strong>the</strong> lion as a big game<br />
animal. This action will facilitate <strong>the</strong><br />
removal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lion from <strong>the</strong> State’s<br />
Threatened Species List. Game<br />
Commission action is still required to<br />
finalize <strong>the</strong> delisting and this is expected to<br />
occur in early June. Forty-five days is<br />
required for any commission finalization<br />
actions to take effect and this will occur in<br />
mid July, after <strong>the</strong> legislative action<br />
becomes law on July 1, 2003.<br />
It is important to note that while <strong>the</strong> lion<br />
will be taken <strong>of</strong>f <strong>the</strong> threatened species list<br />
in South Dakota, it will actually gain<br />
additional protection under law by being<br />
defined as a big game animal. Criminal<br />
penalties will increase from class 2<br />
misdemeanors to class 1 misdemeanors,<br />
43<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong><br />
carrying higher fines and longer jail<br />
sentences.<br />
A misconception exists in that by<br />
classifying <strong>the</strong> lion as a big game animal a<br />
hunting season will immediately be<br />
implemented. This is absolutely false! The<br />
lion will continue to be fully protected as a<br />
big game animal with a continuously closed<br />
season until at some undetermined point<br />
when additional management decisions are<br />
made.<br />
South Dakota has many objectives<br />
concerning mountain lion management.<br />
They are as follows:<br />
A) Evaluate <strong>the</strong> Legal status <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> in SD by April 1,<br />
2003.<br />
B) Evaluate strategies for monitoring &<br />
censusing <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong><br />
populations in SD by 2005.<br />
C) Maintain a statewide database <strong>of</strong> Mt.<br />
<strong>Lion</strong> activity including sightings,<br />
human interactions, depredation<br />
events and lion mortality.<br />
D) Develop a list <strong>of</strong> Mt. <strong>Lion</strong> research<br />
needs. Evaluate and prioritize<br />
annually.<br />
E) Develop Mt. <strong>Lion</strong> population<br />
management methods that are<br />
consistent with established goals and<br />
objectives.<br />
F) Identify and describe suitable habitat<br />
areas and parameters for Mt. <strong>Lion</strong>s<br />
in SD by Sept. 2003.<br />
G) Develop a comprehensive Public<br />
Education strategy for informing and<br />
educating <strong>the</strong> Staff, citizens and
44 SOUTH DAKOTA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Kintigh<br />
visitors about Mt. <strong>Lion</strong>s and personal<br />
safety while in Mt. <strong>Lion</strong> country.<br />
H) Develop a public involvement plan<br />
for implementation during 2003 and<br />
2004 for inclusion in our<br />
management planning process.<br />
Over <strong>the</strong> last 10 years South Dakota has<br />
not significantly changed <strong>the</strong> way we<br />
manage lions. During this period <strong>of</strong> time<br />
<strong>the</strong>y remained on <strong>the</strong> State’s Threatened<br />
Species List and very little was done to<br />
manage <strong>the</strong>m o<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>of</strong>fering <strong>the</strong>m full<br />
protection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> law. Our awareness <strong>of</strong><br />
lions did increase significantly during this<br />
time as we observed a steady apparent<br />
increase in <strong>the</strong>ir numbers. In recent years an<br />
Action Plan was developed to guide staff in<br />
dealing with problem lions. This Action<br />
Plan is currently under revision and will be<br />
included in <strong>the</strong> overall Management Plan.<br />
We also created a system for documenting<br />
and tracking lion activity. More significant<br />
changes are looming on <strong>the</strong> horizon as we<br />
remove <strong>the</strong> lion from <strong>the</strong> Threatened Species<br />
List and focus on concerted effort to manage<br />
our lions.<br />
DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE<br />
<strong>Lion</strong>s are currently distributed<br />
throughout <strong>the</strong> Black Hills, which contains<br />
<strong>the</strong> most suitable habitat in South Dakota.<br />
Some evidence <strong>of</strong> breeding populations also<br />
exists in <strong>the</strong> Custer National Forest in<br />
Harding County, <strong>the</strong> Badlands <strong>of</strong> eastern<br />
Pennington County and on <strong>the</strong> Pine Ridge<br />
Reservation <strong>of</strong> Shannon, Jackson and Bennett<br />
counties.<br />
Reports <strong>of</strong> lion activity have been<br />
received across all <strong>of</strong> South Dakota.<br />
Verification <strong>of</strong> reports outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Black<br />
Hills has proven to be very difficult,<br />
especially east <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Missouri River. Most<br />
occurrences outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Black Hills have<br />
been associated with river drainages that<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
provide marginal habitat.<br />
The lion population in South Dakota<br />
appears to be still growing slowly at this<br />
time. Some uncertainty exists as to what <strong>the</strong><br />
carrying capacity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Black Hills for lions<br />
may be, though it is generally felt we are<br />
very close to that level now. Some evidence<br />
<strong>of</strong> dispersal from <strong>the</strong> Black Hills exists. To<br />
date we have only detected young males<br />
dispersing from <strong>the</strong> Black Hills. One young<br />
female was radio collared on <strong>the</strong> very edge<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Black Hills and some thought that she<br />
might disperse was expressed. She was<br />
poached before that determination was<br />
made.<br />
The cougar population in <strong>the</strong> Black Hills<br />
was estimated using program PUMA (Beier<br />
1993), incorporating parameters obtained<br />
from radio-collared cougars and habitat<br />
quality derived from a habitat-relation<br />
model. Annual home ranges were generated<br />
for 10 adult cougars monitored > 8 months,<br />
and spatial distribution <strong>of</strong> established males<br />
was analyzed using a home range overlap<br />
index. The area <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Black Hills was<br />
estimated at 8,400 km 2 , comprised <strong>of</strong><br />
6,702.9 km 2 <strong>of</strong> high quality and 1,697.1 km 2<br />
<strong>of</strong> lower quality habitat (based on a habitatrelation<br />
model developed for <strong>the</strong> species).<br />
Mean annual home range size <strong>of</strong> established<br />
adult male cougars (n = 3) was 809.2 km 2 ,<br />
and was significantly larger (P < 0.05) than<br />
that <strong>of</strong> adult females (n = 4), 182.3 km 2 .<br />
Based on sightings <strong>of</strong> family groups and<br />
radio-collared females, we documented up<br />
to 5 females occurring in established male<br />
ranges. Percent overlap for 3 established<br />
cougars averaged 33% (range = 18.0 -<br />
52.0%). Based on 5 population simulations,<br />
<strong>the</strong> total number <strong>of</strong> cougars in <strong>the</strong> Black<br />
Hills was estimated to be 127 to 149<br />
cougars; 46 to 49 adult females, 12 to 29<br />
adult males; 21 to 24 yearling females and<br />
males; and 45 to 48 female and male kittens.
HARVEST INFORMATION<br />
South Dakota has not had any form <strong>of</strong><br />
legalized mountain lion hunting since 1978.<br />
The future management <strong>of</strong> lions in South<br />
Dakota will include consideration <strong>of</strong> a<br />
hunting season as a management tool.<br />
Concerns about <strong>the</strong> impacts <strong>of</strong> hunting to <strong>the</strong><br />
stability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> population will weigh heavily<br />
when those decisions are made.<br />
DEPREDATIONS AND HUMAN<br />
INTERACTIONS/CONFLICTS<br />
South Dakota does operate with an<br />
“Action Plan For Managing <strong>Mountain</strong><br />
<strong>Lion</strong>/Human/Property Interactions.” An<br />
Action Plan was first developed in May <strong>of</strong><br />
1995 and has been revised since <strong>the</strong>n. This<br />
plan is included in <strong>the</strong> overall <strong>Mountain</strong><br />
<strong>Lion</strong> Management Plan, which is currently<br />
under development. For our agency,<br />
addressing “problem” lions is <strong>the</strong> most<br />
difficult aspect <strong>of</strong> maintaining a population<br />
<strong>of</strong> lions. Public emotions are strong and<br />
varied which results in many<br />
comments/opinions being expressed directly<br />
at <strong>the</strong> “Action Plan.”<br />
South Dakota’s Action Plan categorizes<br />
Human/<strong>Lion</strong> interactions into five types:<br />
1. Sighting - a visual observation <strong>of</strong> a<br />
lion or a report <strong>of</strong> lion tracks or o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
sign on unpopulated lands or rural<br />
areas within <strong>the</strong> Black Hills.<br />
2. Encounter - an unexpected direct<br />
neutral meeting between a human and<br />
SOUTH DAKOTA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Kintigh 45<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
a lion without incident (<strong>Mountain</strong> lion<br />
sightings in close proximity to homes,<br />
stables or livestock in rural areas and<br />
unpopulated lands outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Black Hills). A mountain lion is<br />
observed for <strong>the</strong> first time in close<br />
proximity or within residential<br />
developments and occupied<br />
recreational area.<br />
3. Incident - a conflict between a human<br />
and lion that may have serious results<br />
(e.g. a lion that must be forced to back<br />
down). Recurring observations <strong>of</strong> a<br />
lion in close proximity or within<br />
residential developments and<br />
occupied recreational areas.<br />
Livestock is killed in rural areas.<br />
4. Substantial public threat - a mountain<br />
lion that is observed within a city near<br />
areas where children are regularly<br />
congregated, killing wildlife/pets<br />
residential developments or occupied<br />
recreational areas or repeatedly killing<br />
livestock.<br />
5. Attack - when a human is bodily<br />
injured or killed by contact with a<br />
mountain lion.<br />
Each occurrence requires an<br />
understanding <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> circumstances and<br />
any history involved before an action is<br />
decided upon. In general, with every report<br />
<strong>of</strong> a lion a field investigation is highly<br />
encouraged by agency personnel (Table 1).<br />
Verification is key to any response.<br />
Table 1. Public Safety reports and resulting lion removals in South Dakota, 1998 – 2002.<br />
Year Number<br />
Reports<br />
Number<br />
Incidents<br />
Number<br />
Encounters<br />
Threatening<br />
Encounters<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Public<br />
Safety Incidents<br />
Number <strong>Lion</strong>s<br />
Removed<br />
1998 57 5 2 2 5 0<br />
1999 54 1 0 0 1 0<br />
2000 66 5 4 1 1 1<br />
2001 144 4 8 3 4 0<br />
2002 198 5 6 2 2 1
46 SOUTH DAKOTA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Kintigh<br />
Table 2. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion depredations, verified depredations, and resulting lion removals in South<br />
Dakota, 1998 – 2002.<br />
Year Number Depredations<br />
Number Depredations<br />
Verified<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
Number <strong>Lion</strong>s<br />
Removed<br />
1998 1 1 0<br />
1999 0 0 0<br />
2000 2 1 0<br />
2001 3 2 1<br />
2002 4 2 0<br />
Note – one lion has been removed due to livestock depredation in 2003 already.<br />
Personnel are encouraged to take every<br />
opportunity to educate <strong>the</strong> public regarding<br />
all aspects <strong>of</strong> living with lions. Each lion<br />
reporting person receives an agency<br />
produced brochure on <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong>s.<br />
Public education is emphasized at this time<br />
and every opportunity is taken.<br />
Keeping all options available to<br />
responding staff is very desirable to our<br />
agency. However, we will not pay for any<br />
damages incurred due to wildlife <strong>of</strong> any<br />
species.<br />
Relocation <strong>of</strong> problem lions was once<br />
considered, but, due to <strong>the</strong> geographically<br />
limited area <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Black Hills and <strong>the</strong><br />
existing lion population, it has been deemed<br />
an option that was unlikely to produce<br />
desirable results. Unusual circumstances<br />
may arise in which it may be attempted and<br />
<strong>the</strong> option has not been made totally<br />
unavailable.<br />
In rare cases, usually involving a single<br />
livestock producer, a permit has been issued<br />
for that individual to kill a lion that has been<br />
causing livestock depredation. Usually this<br />
only happens after agency efforts to remove<br />
<strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fending lion have failed.<br />
Our agency is equipped with a trio <strong>of</strong><br />
trained lion hounds managed by an<br />
experienced houndsman. In most situations<br />
that necessitate a lion removal, <strong>the</strong> action is<br />
lead by our houndsman. Our state trappers<br />
are also equipped with leg snares, which are<br />
generally only set around livestock kills as<br />
<strong>the</strong> houndsman prepares to arrive on scene.<br />
On a few occasions, when a lion was a<br />
concern, but did not warrant removal we<br />
have chased <strong>the</strong> lion with hounds to haze <strong>the</strong><br />
lion. On at least one occasion <strong>the</strong> lion was<br />
treed and a radio collar was fitted to increase<br />
our knowledge <strong>of</strong> its activity.<br />
In regards to livestock depredation, we<br />
currently investigate every report <strong>of</strong> this but<br />
take slightly different approaches to<br />
resolution depending upon <strong>the</strong> location.<br />
Livestock kills within <strong>the</strong> Black Hills<br />
typically require multiple kills before action<br />
to remove <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fending lion is initiated.<br />
We are hesitant to remove lions from <strong>the</strong><br />
limited quality habitat available in South<br />
Dakota (Table 2). Livestock depredation<br />
complaints on <strong>the</strong> plains <strong>of</strong> South Dakota,<br />
where limited habitat and a strong<br />
agricultural industry exists, are addressed<br />
much more decisively and quickly.<br />
RESEARCH AND PUBLICATIONS<br />
The Department <strong>of</strong> Wildlife and<br />
Fisheries Sciences at South Dakota State<br />
University is currently completing a 5-year<br />
research project on cougars in <strong>the</strong> Black<br />
Hills. The main objectives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> research<br />
were to 1) develop and evaluate a cougar<br />
habitat-relation model to predict <strong>the</strong> current<br />
distribution 2) estimate <strong>the</strong> population size,<br />
and evaluate survey techniques to document
population trend. A digital habitat relation<br />
model was constructed for cougars that<br />
ranked land in <strong>the</strong> Black Hills National<br />
Forest according to its suitability to cougars.<br />
The model was based on <strong>the</strong> distribution <strong>of</strong><br />
prey (white-tailed deer and mule deer),<br />
stalking topography (slopes), concealment<br />
habitat (riparian habitat), and anthropogenic<br />
characteristics (high-density residential<br />
areas, presence <strong>of</strong> highways). During <strong>the</strong><br />
winters <strong>of</strong> 1998 – 2001, we captured, radiocollared,<br />
and obtained weekly locations <strong>of</strong><br />
12 cougars in <strong>the</strong> Black Hills; locations <strong>of</strong><br />
cougars were used to validate <strong>the</strong> habitatrelation<br />
model. The cougar population in<br />
<strong>the</strong> Black Hills was estimated using program<br />
PUMA, incorporating parameters obtained<br />
from radio-collared cougars and habitat<br />
quality derived from <strong>the</strong> habitat-relation<br />
model. The total number <strong>of</strong> cougars in <strong>the</strong><br />
Black Hills was estimated to be 127 to 149<br />
cougars.<br />
A 3-month pilot study, testing <strong>the</strong><br />
efficacy <strong>of</strong> detecting cougars using scent<br />
lures (skunk essence, Powder River cat call)<br />
and camera stations was conducted in<br />
cooperation with <strong>the</strong> University <strong>of</strong> North<br />
Dakota. The camera-scent-station survey<br />
was not effective at detecting cougar<br />
presence. Zero photos <strong>of</strong> cougars were<br />
recorded although o<strong>the</strong>r species (whitetailed<br />
deer, Odocoileus virginianus, mule<br />
deer, O. hemionus, raccoon, Procyon lotor,<br />
red squirrel, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus,<br />
turkey vulture, Cathartes aura, free-ranging<br />
cattle, feral dogs, and bobcat, Lynx rufus)<br />
were detected, and cougars were known to<br />
be in <strong>the</strong> area during <strong>the</strong> survey. A snowtracking<br />
helicopter survey (Vansickle and<br />
Lindzey 1991) using a probability sampling<br />
technique was attempted during <strong>the</strong> winter<br />
<strong>of</strong> 2001-2002. Although cougar tracks <strong>of</strong> a<br />
radio-collared female and her 2 kittens could<br />
clearly be identified, wea<strong>the</strong>r conditions<br />
(poor snow conditions) did not permit <strong>the</strong><br />
survey to be completed. However, a<br />
SOUTH DAKOTA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Kintigh 47<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
database <strong>of</strong> consecutive winter daily<br />
locations <strong>of</strong> 3 male and 3 female cougars<br />
was established to aid in analyses <strong>of</strong> any<br />
future helicopter surveys.<br />
During <strong>the</strong> Fall 2002, a second 5-year<br />
study was initiated. The objectives <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
research are 1) to estimate survival and<br />
document causes <strong>of</strong> mortality <strong>of</strong> cougar<br />
kittens, 2) Determine longevity <strong>of</strong><br />
established radio-collared cougars 3)<br />
Document dispersal distances, routes, and<br />
destinations <strong>of</strong> subadult cougars, and 4)<br />
conduct snow tracking helicopter population<br />
survey to document population trends.<br />
Currently, 12 cougars (6 females, 6 males)<br />
including 2 subadult males are being<br />
monitored weekly from fixed wing aircraft<br />
using aerial radio-telemetry techniques.<br />
PUBLICATIONS<br />
FECSKE, D.M., J.A. JENKS, AND F.G.<br />
LINDZEY. 2001. Characteristics <strong>of</strong><br />
mountain lion mortalities in <strong>the</strong> Black<br />
Hills, South Dakota. <strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
6th <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong>, San<br />
Antonio, Texas: In Press.<br />
FECSKE, D.M., AND J.A. JENKS. 2001. The<br />
mountain lion returns to South Dakota.<br />
South Dakota Conservation Digest<br />
68(4):3-5.<br />
FECSKE, D.M., AND J.A. JENKS. 2001.<br />
Status report <strong>of</strong> mountain lions in South<br />
Dakota. <strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 6th<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong>, San Antonio,<br />
TX. In Press.<br />
FECSKE, D.M., J.A. JENKS, AND F. G.<br />
LINDZEY. 2003. Mortality <strong>of</strong> an adult<br />
cougar due to a forest fire in <strong>the</strong> Black<br />
Hills. The Prairie Naturalist 00:<br />
Submitted.<br />
GIGLIOTTI, L.M., D.M. FECSKE, AND J.A.<br />
JENKS. 2002. <strong>Mountain</strong> lions in South<br />
Dakota: A public opinion survey. South<br />
Dakota Department <strong>of</strong> Game, Fish, and<br />
Parks, Pierre, SD. 182 pp.<br />
LONG, E.S., D.M. FECSKE, R.A. SWEITZER,<br />
J.A. JENKS, B.M. PIERCE, AND V.C.
48 SOUTH DAKOTA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Kintigh<br />
BLEICH. 2003. Efficacy <strong>of</strong> photographic<br />
scent stations to detect mountain lions.<br />
Western North American Naturalist 00:<br />
In Press.<br />
LITERATURE CITED<br />
BEIER, P. 1993. Puma: a population<br />
simulator for cougar conservation.<br />
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:356-357<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
VAN SICKLE, W.D., AND F.G. LINDZEY.<br />
1991. Evaluation <strong>of</strong> a cougar population<br />
estimator based on probability sampling.<br />
Journal <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Management 55:738-<br />
743.
MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT FOR TEXAS<br />
JOHN YOUNG, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 3000 IH 35 South Suite 100, Austin, TX<br />
78612, USA, email: john.young@tpwd.state.tx.us<br />
Texas does not currently have a<br />
statewide management plan for mountain<br />
lions and <strong>the</strong> species is classified as nongame.<br />
Texas Parks and Wildlife<br />
Department (TPWD) non-game codes<br />
authorize <strong>the</strong> agency to establish hunting<br />
seasons, to close seasons, set bag limits,<br />
establish management zones, in o<strong>the</strong>r words,<br />
to utilize all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> management tools<br />
available for game species. With <strong>the</strong><br />
exception <strong>of</strong> a short list <strong>of</strong> non-game species<br />
<strong>of</strong> concern to TPWD, non-game species may<br />
be taken at any time <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> year in any<br />
numbers, which is <strong>the</strong> case for mountain<br />
lions at <strong>the</strong> present time. TPWD’s objective<br />
for mountain lions is to maintain a viable<br />
population, while minimizing human<br />
conflicts. No changes in mountain lion<br />
status have occurred in <strong>the</strong> past decade.<br />
DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE<br />
Based on confirmed sightings and<br />
mortality records mountain lions are most<br />
common in <strong>the</strong> Trans Pecos and <strong>the</strong> brush<br />
country <strong>of</strong> South Texas. Mortality records<br />
49<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong><br />
over <strong>the</strong> last 20 years combined with photos<br />
confirm at least <strong>the</strong> occasional presence <strong>of</strong><br />
lions in all o<strong>the</strong>r sections <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state; more<br />
information is needed to determine<br />
population levels. Based on sightings, and<br />
voluntarily reported mortalities dating back<br />
to 1983, mountain lion populations appear<br />
stable. Table 1 presents mountain lion<br />
mortality information by ecological region<br />
for <strong>the</strong> time frame 1998/99 to 2001/02<br />
Texas does not currently estimate mountain<br />
lion populations, opting to monitor <strong>the</strong><br />
species using sightings and mortality<br />
reports. The lack <strong>of</strong> a satisfactory<br />
scientifically rigorous method to estimate<br />
mountain lions has been <strong>the</strong> primary reason<br />
TPWD has not attempted to do so. Texas<br />
has recently provided funding to a<br />
university-based scientist to estimate<br />
mountain lion population size, structure, and<br />
habitat factors utilizing new, highly credible<br />
molecular genetics. The study will be<br />
conducted over <strong>the</strong> next 2 years and will<br />
provide an estimate for Texas’ mountain<br />
lion population.<br />
Table 1. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion mortalities by ecological region, September 1998 through September 2002.<br />
Ecological Region 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 20001/02<br />
Pineywoods 0 0 0 0<br />
Gulf Prairie & Marshes 0 3 0 0<br />
Post Oak Savannah 0 0 0 0<br />
Blackland Prairies 0 0 0 0<br />
Cross Timbers 0 0 0 1<br />
South Texas Plains 7 10 0 4<br />
Edwards Plateau 30 14 6 12<br />
Rolling Plains 0 0 0 0<br />
High Plains 0 0 0 0<br />
Trans-Pecos 92 60 64 48
50 TEXAS MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Young<br />
HARVEST INFORMATION<br />
Texas relies primarily on hunters, private<br />
landowners, and trappers to voluntarily<br />
report mountain lion kills. Texas also<br />
obtains an annual report from Texas<br />
Wildlife Damage Management Services<br />
(Table 1). There is an open season on<br />
mountain lions in Texas year-round. TPWD<br />
does not set harvest guidelines or bag limits<br />
for this species. <strong>Mountain</strong> lions may be<br />
taken by trap, shooting, hunting with dogs,<br />
aerial hunting, or M44. Records on <strong>the</strong><br />
number <strong>of</strong> lions harvested by different<br />
methods are not collected.<br />
TPWD does not have a predator incident<br />
manual/policy/guideline for mountain lions<br />
although such has been developed for black<br />
bear. In <strong>the</strong> past 10 years <strong>the</strong>re are only 3<br />
known public safety incidents in Texas<br />
related to mountain lion. Due to <strong>the</strong>ir rarity,<br />
TPWD does not formally record/collect<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
information on public safety incidents<br />
involving mountain lion. Depredation<br />
complaints received at TPWD are referred to<br />
Texas Wildlife Damage Management<br />
Services (TWDMS). In 2001/02 a total <strong>of</strong><br />
53 lions were killed by TWDMS personnel.<br />
Information on cougars removed by<br />
TWDMS prior to 2001/02 had been<br />
combined with o<strong>the</strong>r mortalities and has not<br />
been available separately.<br />
Individuals wishing to report a sighting<br />
or a problem with mountain lions are<br />
encouraged to contact TPWD. The<br />
department provides individuals<br />
experiencing depredation problems with <strong>the</strong><br />
number for <strong>the</strong>ir local TWDMS <strong>of</strong>fice for<br />
action. Relocation <strong>of</strong> mountain lions is<br />
discouraged but may be conducted by<br />
private organizations if <strong>the</strong>y acquire <strong>the</strong><br />
appropriate permits.
UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
CRAIG R. McLAUGHLIN, Utah Division <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Resources, 1594 W. North Temple, Salt<br />
Lake City, UT 84114, USA, email: craigmclaughlin@utah.gov<br />
Abstract: <strong>Mountain</strong> lions have been managed as a protected game species in Utah since 1967. In 1999 <strong>the</strong> Division<br />
<strong>of</strong> Wildlife Resources completed <strong>the</strong> Utah Cougar Management Plan, developed with <strong>the</strong> assistance <strong>of</strong> a publicbased<br />
Cougar Discussion Group that will guide management <strong>of</strong> cougars through 2009. Cougar harvests are<br />
managed under both harvest objective (quota) and limited entry strategies. The Division manages to sustain cougar<br />
densities on all management units except those that have approved predator management plans, where cougar<br />
harvests are increased to reduce cougar numbers and predation on big game. All cougar complaints are handled<br />
under <strong>the</strong> guidance <strong>of</strong> a Nuisance Cougar Complaints policy. Most cougar conflicts are handled through lethal<br />
control. Cougar habitat encompasses about 92,696 km 2 (35,790 mi 2 ). The statewide population was estimated at<br />
2,528-3,936 cougars in 1999 in conjunction with <strong>the</strong> Cougar Management Plan. Cougar harvests have ranged from<br />
492 to 373 annually since <strong>the</strong> 1997-1998 season. Both <strong>the</strong> hunting and pursuit seasons run from mid-December<br />
through June, although some units have extended or shortened seasons. Cougars have been implicated in 74-114<br />
separate depredation incidents per year since 1998, with livestock losses ranging from $53,700 to $97,700 per year.<br />
Harvest-based indicators <strong>of</strong> sustainable harvesting have not been met in recent years. Currently, management is<br />
operating on an individual-unit scale, where interpretation <strong>of</strong> harvest data is hampered by small sample sizes. In<br />
addition, <strong>the</strong> Division should develop a means to monitor both reproduction and survival. Harvest management<br />
should improve with understanding <strong>of</strong> cougar movements and dispersal, particularly between lightly hunted and<br />
heavily harvested cougar populations.<br />
51<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong><br />
Key words: Cougar, livestock damage, harvest, management plan, mountain lion, Puma concolor<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lions (Puma concolor), or<br />
cougars, were persecuted as vermin in Utah<br />
from <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> European settlement (in<br />
1847) until 1966. In 1967 <strong>the</strong> Utah State<br />
Legislature changed <strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong> cougars to<br />
protected wildlife and since <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>y have<br />
been considered a game species with<br />
established hunting regulations. The Utah<br />
Division <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Resources (UDWR)<br />
developed <strong>the</strong> Utah Cougar Management<br />
Plan in 1999 (UDWR 1999b) with <strong>the</strong><br />
assistance <strong>of</strong> a Cougar Discussion Group<br />
composed <strong>of</strong> representatives <strong>of</strong> various<br />
public interest groups. This plan will guide<br />
cougar management in Utah through 2009.<br />
Its goal is to maintain a healthy cougar<br />
population within existing occupied habitat<br />
while considering human safety, economic<br />
concerns and o<strong>the</strong>r wildlife species.<br />
Management objectives include: 1)<br />
maintaining current (1999) cougar<br />
distribution, with a reasonable proportion <strong>of</strong><br />
older age animals and breeding females,<br />
balancing population numbers with o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
wildlife species; 2) minimizing <strong>the</strong> loss in<br />
quality and quantity <strong>of</strong> existing critical and<br />
high priority cougar habitat; 3) reducing <strong>the</strong><br />
risk <strong>of</strong> loss <strong>of</strong> human life and reducing<br />
chances <strong>of</strong> injury by cougar; 4) maintaining<br />
a downward trend in <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> livestock<br />
killed by cougar; and 5) maintaining quality<br />
recreational opportunity for a minimum <strong>of</strong><br />
800 persons per year through 2009.<br />
Utah’s cougar harvests are controlled on<br />
specific geographic areas, or management<br />
units (Figure 1), using two harvest<br />
strategies: harvest objective and limited<br />
entry. Under <strong>the</strong> harvest objective<br />
strategy, managers prescribe a quota, or<br />
number <strong>of</strong> cougars to be harvested on <strong>the</strong><br />
unit. An unlimited number <strong>of</strong> licensed
52 UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · McLaughlin<br />
Figure 1. Wildlife Management Units used<br />
by Utah Division <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Resources to<br />
manage cougar harvests. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> units<br />
have been subdivided for additional control<br />
<strong>of</strong> harvests.<br />
hunters are allowed to hunt during a season<br />
that is variable in length, as <strong>the</strong> hunting<br />
season closes as soon as <strong>the</strong> quota is filled or<br />
when <strong>the</strong> season end date is reached. Under<br />
<strong>the</strong> limited entry strategy, harvests are<br />
managed by limiting <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> hunters<br />
on a unit. The number <strong>of</strong> hunters is<br />
determined based upon an expectation <strong>of</strong><br />
hunting success and <strong>the</strong> desired harvest size.<br />
Individuals are usually selected for hunting<br />
on <strong>the</strong> unit through a random drawing<br />
process.<br />
In 1996 <strong>the</strong> Utah Wildlife Board<br />
approved a Predator Management Policy<br />
(UDWR 1996) that allows UDWR to<br />
increase cougar harvests on management<br />
units where big game populations are<br />
depressed, or where big game has recently<br />
been released to establish new populations.<br />
Most predator management plans directed at<br />
cougars have been designed to benefit mule<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and bighorn<br />
sheep (Ovis canadensis). Cougar harvests<br />
have been liberalized where big game<br />
populations are far below objective (
Figure 2. Cougar habitat in Utah. All<br />
colored areas represent occupied cougar<br />
habitat.<br />
Wasatch <strong>Mountain</strong>s in nor<strong>the</strong>rn and central<br />
Utah.<br />
The last statewide cougar population<br />
estimates were developed in conjunction<br />
with <strong>the</strong> Utah Cougar Management Plan in<br />
1999 (UDWR 1999b). These estimates used<br />
extrapolations <strong>of</strong> cougar densities from<br />
published studies in <strong>the</strong> southwestern United<br />
States to: 1) <strong>the</strong> total area within all<br />
management units that comprise cougar<br />
range, and 2) <strong>the</strong> total amount <strong>of</strong> occupied<br />
cougar habitat within Utah. The habitat<br />
quality within each management unit was<br />
classified as ei<strong>the</strong>r high, medium or low<br />
based on vegetative characteristics, terrain<br />
ruggedness (following Riley 1998) and prey<br />
density. Cougar densities derived from<br />
research within Utah, California and New<br />
Mexico were associated with each habitat<br />
quality level (UDWR 1999b). High quality<br />
habitat was assigned a density range <strong>of</strong> 2.5-<br />
3.9 cougars/100 km 2 , medium quality<br />
UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · McLaughlin 53<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
habitat was assigned a density <strong>of</strong> 1.7-2.5<br />
cougars/100 km 2 and a density <strong>of</strong> 0.26-0.52<br />
cougar/100 km 2 was assigned to low quality<br />
habitat.<br />
The first statewide population estimate<br />
<strong>of</strong> 2,528-3,936 cougars resulted from<br />
summing unit population estimates. The<br />
number <strong>of</strong> cougars on each unit was<br />
estimated by first multiplying <strong>the</strong> total area<br />
contained within <strong>the</strong> unit by <strong>the</strong> highest<br />
density <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> range assigned to it, and <strong>the</strong>n<br />
by <strong>the</strong> lowest density <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> range assigned<br />
to it.<br />
For comparison, a second estimate <strong>of</strong><br />
2,927 cougars statewide was generated<br />
based upon mean cougar densities and total<br />
occupied cougar habitat within <strong>the</strong> state.<br />
Each management unit’s cougar population<br />
was estimated by extrapolating <strong>the</strong> mean<br />
cougar density assigned to <strong>the</strong> unit (based on<br />
<strong>the</strong> respective range indicated above) to <strong>the</strong><br />
amount <strong>of</strong> occupied cougar habitat within<br />
<strong>the</strong> unit, and unit estimates were summed to<br />
obtain <strong>the</strong> statewide figure. The two<br />
methods produced population estimates that<br />
show considerable agreement, but <strong>the</strong>y<br />
should be only viewed as general<br />
approximations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> statewide cougar<br />
population.<br />
Utah’s cougar population is monitored<br />
through mandatory reporting <strong>of</strong> all hunterharvested<br />
cougars, cougars that are killed on<br />
highways or in accidents and those taken by<br />
animal damage control programs (Table 1).<br />
Location <strong>of</strong> kill, sex and age (through a<br />
premolar for age estimation) are recorded<br />
for every cougar killed, and provide <strong>the</strong> data<br />
used to assess management performance in<br />
relation to established target values that<br />
serve as indicators <strong>of</strong> population status.<br />
“Rules <strong>of</strong> thumb”, expressed as threshold<br />
values <strong>of</strong> 1) a minimum percentage <strong>of</strong> older<br />
aged animals in <strong>the</strong> harvest, 2) a maximum<br />
percentage <strong>of</strong> females in <strong>the</strong> harvest, and 3)<br />
minimum adult survival were set to ensure<br />
that cougar densities are maintained within
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
Table 1. Utah cougar harvests, 1989-1990 thru 2001-2002.<br />
Total Percent Percent<br />
Percent Treed<br />
Hunters Harvest Adult Adult Sub-adult Sub-adult Sport Average Quota Percent Female+ ADC O<strong>the</strong>r Total Adult > per<br />
6 years Pursuit<br />
Year Afield Permits Objective Males Females Males Females Harvest Age Success Filled Females Sub-adult Harvest Mortality Mortality Survival old Day<br />
1989-90 478 527 123 44 23 27 217 41.2% 32.7% 43.3% 48 10 275 0.41<br />
1990-91 480 525 144 46 40 35 265 50.5% 30.6% 45.7% 38 22 325 0.49<br />
1991-92 485 525 128 51 32 30 241 45.9% 33.6% 46.9% 34 22 297 0.45<br />
1992-93 598 591 206 64 54 48 372 62.9% 30.1% 44.6% 53 42 467 0.49<br />
1993-94 575 659 165 87 51 49 352 53.4% 38.6% 53.1% 53 10 415 0.57<br />
1994-95 656 791 205 103 57 66 431 54.5% 39.2% 52.4% 54 24 509<br />
1995-96 787 872 160 105 109 78 452 3.5 51.8% 40.5% 64.6% 33 39 524 0.67 16.7% 0.48<br />
1996-97 1376 595 275 172 172 125 107 576 3.8 56.0% 88.3% 48.4% 70.1% 40 50 666 0.67 20.0% 0.33<br />
1997-98 1370 509 270 204 159 57 72 492 3.2 54.4% 79.6% 47.0% 58.5% 27 23 542 0.63 14.5% 0.36<br />
1998-99 1201 446 230 156 100 50 67 373 3.1 49.0% 64.0% 44.8% 58.2% 13 1 387 0.62 10.1% 0.29<br />
1999-00 817 343 304 194 106 64 71 435 2.9 60.0% 81.0% 40.7% 55.4% 25 9 469 0.57 9.7% 0.28<br />
2000-01 272 371 165 127 77 80 449 3.3 52.0% 35.4% 46.1% 63.3% 73 20 542 0.63 12.8% 0.37<br />
2001-02 258 339 159 108 55 71 393 2.9 45.5% 59.5% 12 7 412 0.61 9.0%<br />
Total 2181 1272 794 801 5048<br />
Average 802.1 531.8 298.2 167.8 97.8 61.1 61.6 388.3 3.2 52.6% 69.7% 39.8% 55.1% 38.7 21.5 448.5 62.7% 13.3% 0.41<br />
Performance Targets: 40.0% 65.0% 15.0% 0.38<br />
54 UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · McLaughlin
UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · McLaughlin 55<br />
Table 2. Confirmed livestock losses due to cougar depredation in Utah, FY1992 to FY2002.<br />
Total Cougar<br />
Fiscal Year<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> Confirmed Losses:<br />
Incidents Ewes Lambs Bucks Calf Goat O<strong>the</strong>r<br />
Confirmed<br />
Losses<br />
Value<br />
Losses<br />
Taken by<br />
WS<br />
1992 103 175 745 0 4 0 922 34<br />
1993 114 263 722 1 2 0 988 $94,644.00 53<br />
1994 115 258 646 5 6 0 915 $120,615.00 53<br />
1995 152 335 760 24 12 0 1130 $111,495.00 54<br />
1996 112 257 621 2 6 0 878 $79,277.00 33<br />
1997 110 375 531 20 11 0 937 $106,210.00 46<br />
1998 114 253 506 19 13 0 805 $97,703.00 27<br />
1999 69 244 406 18 4 0 730 $92,945.00 11<br />
2000 82 160 371 2 15 0 548 $60,750.00 22<br />
2001 74 136 361 12 3 1 587 $61,395.00 18<br />
2002 95 167 453 18 11 2 1 652 $53,748.42 74<br />
TOTAL 1140 2623 6122 121 87 3 1 8957 $825,034.00 351<br />
all management units, except where predator<br />
management plans are in place. Threshold<br />
values <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> harvest criteria were obtained<br />
from <strong>the</strong> literature and from past evaluations<br />
<strong>of</strong> cougar population dynamics in Utah. This<br />
approach is likely conservative, but it is<br />
justified based upon our limited knowledge<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> abundance <strong>of</strong> deer and alternate prey<br />
in Utah (UDWR 1999b). Ongoing research<br />
on 2 study sites, under <strong>the</strong> direction <strong>of</strong> Dr.<br />
Michael Wolfe (Utah State University), is<br />
supplying comparative data on <strong>the</strong> dynamics<br />
<strong>of</strong> cougars subjected to varying levels <strong>of</strong><br />
hunting harvest. This information should<br />
help <strong>the</strong> Division refine management criteria<br />
in <strong>the</strong> near future. The Division also<br />
monitors trends in numbers <strong>of</strong> cougar<br />
incident reports, which have fluctuated in<br />
recent years (Table 2). Attempts to reduce<br />
<strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> cougar management units that<br />
are subject to predator management plans<br />
have met with little success, mostly due to<br />
continued drought and deteriorating range<br />
conditions.<br />
HARVEST INFORMATION<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
Cougar hunting in Utah is regulated on a<br />
management-unit basis to address<br />
differences in cougar densities, hunter<br />
access and management objectives.<br />
Annually, <strong>the</strong> composition <strong>of</strong> each unit’s<br />
harvest is compared to performance targets<br />
that were selected to maintain cougar<br />
densities: 1) maintain an average <strong>of</strong> 15% or<br />
greater <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> harvest in older age classes<br />
(>6 years <strong>of</strong> age); 2) maintain total adult<br />
survival at or above 65%; 3) restrict <strong>the</strong><br />
female component to
56 UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · McLaughlin<br />
The harvest objective strategy is <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
used on units where managers want to<br />
ensure a substantial harvest. This strategy<br />
can result in hunter crowding and less hunter<br />
selectivity toward males, as many hunters<br />
take <strong>the</strong> first cougar <strong>the</strong>y encounter.<br />
Consequently, <strong>the</strong> harvest may be weighted<br />
toward young animals and females.<br />
Conversely, limited entry hunts allow<br />
managers to spread hunting effort over a<br />
longer time period and shift harvesting<br />
pressure toward adult males. This strategy<br />
is commonly used on management units that<br />
are readily accessible to hunters to minimize<br />
crowding and promote hunter selectivity for<br />
adult males.<br />
Since 2001, a few units have been<br />
harvested under a hybrid strategy, where<br />
both harvest objective and limited entry<br />
hunts are held. This approach attempts to<br />
produce a large harvest while encouraging<br />
some hunter selectivity. Under <strong>the</strong> hybrid<br />
strategy, a limited entry hunt is opened<br />
early, followed by a harvest objective hunt<br />
that is delayed until mid-winter. In <strong>the</strong> past,<br />
managers have used female sub quotas in<br />
conjunction with harvest objective strategies<br />
to protect females in <strong>the</strong> face <strong>of</strong> increased<br />
harvest pressure. This strategy has been<br />
discontinued because it biased <strong>the</strong> harvest<br />
sex composition toward females (through<br />
early closure when <strong>the</strong> sub quota was<br />
attained) and prevented meaningful<br />
evaluations <strong>of</strong> harvest sex composition<br />
under criterion 3 above.<br />
Each year, regional wildlife managers<br />
review <strong>the</strong> size and composition <strong>of</strong> harvests<br />
from individual units in relation to<br />
management rules <strong>of</strong> thumb and <strong>the</strong>n make<br />
recommendations for <strong>the</strong> forthcoming<br />
season. Often, <strong>the</strong>ir evaluations result in<br />
changes in <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> permits allocated,<br />
<strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> quotas and/or changes in harvest<br />
strategy. These regulation changes <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
result in year-to-year fluctuation in harvest<br />
strategy and hence harvest pressure. As a<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
result, variances in harvest size and<br />
composition are difficult to interpret. Total<br />
harvest has varied from 492 to 373 since <strong>the</strong><br />
1997-1998 season, with no definite trend<br />
(Table 1).<br />
Nearly all cougars harvested in Utah are<br />
taken with <strong>the</strong> aid <strong>of</strong> dogs. An individual<br />
hunter is restricted to holding ei<strong>the</strong>r a<br />
limited entry permit or a harvest objective<br />
permit per season, and must wait 3 years to<br />
reapply once he/she acquires a permit. The<br />
bag limit is 1 cougar per season and kittens<br />
and females accompanied by young are<br />
protected from harvest. Currently <strong>the</strong><br />
cougar-hunting season runs from December<br />
14, 2002 through June 1, 2003 on both<br />
limited entry and harvest objective units.<br />
However, some units are open year-round<br />
and some have earlier or later opening dates.<br />
Because harvest objective units close as<br />
soon as <strong>the</strong> objective (quota) is reached,<br />
hunters must call a toll-free number daily to<br />
ensure that <strong>the</strong> season in <strong>the</strong>ir hunt unit is<br />
still open.<br />
Pursuit (chase or no-kill) seasons<br />
provide additional recreational opportunities<br />
over most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State. The pursuit season<br />
generally runs December 14, 2002 through<br />
June 1, 2003, but specific units have yearround<br />
pursuit and a few units are closed to<br />
pursuit hunting. In recent years, <strong>the</strong> Division<br />
has sold about 600-700 cougar pursuit<br />
permits annually (Table 3).<br />
The Division began managing cougar<br />
harvests through statewide limited entry<br />
hunting in 1990 and increased numbers <strong>of</strong><br />
Table 3. Number <strong>of</strong> cougar pursuit permits<br />
sold in Utah, 1999-2002.<br />
Year Resident Non-Resident Total<br />
1999-2000 572 49 621<br />
2000-2001 595 59 654<br />
2001-2002 621 84 705<br />
Combined 1788 192 1980
UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · McLaughlin 57<br />
Table 4. Comparison <strong>of</strong> harvest characteristics for Utah management units that have predator<br />
management plans (designed to reduce cougar numbers) and units that are managed to sustain<br />
cougar populations.<br />
Criteria (Threshold for<br />
sustaining population)<br />
Predator Management Plan in Place<br />
1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002<br />
% Females ( 6 years (>15) 9.7 9.8 10<br />
Adult Survival (>0.65) 0.60 0.61 0.52<br />
Cougar treed/day (0.38) 0.24 0.16<br />
permits through 1995-1996 (Table 1). In<br />
1996-1997, additional harvest pressure was<br />
added by switching some management units<br />
to <strong>the</strong> harvest objective (quota) system and a<br />
record high <strong>of</strong> 1,376 hunters was afield<br />
(Table 1). Since <strong>the</strong>n, <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> hunters<br />
afield has declined nearly one-third. The<br />
hunting harvest has declined over <strong>the</strong> same<br />
period (Table 1).<br />
Units with predator management plans<br />
designed to reduce cougar densities produce<br />
harvests <strong>of</strong> similar composition to areas<br />
where <strong>the</strong> management objective is to<br />
sustain higher population densities (Table<br />
4). Throughout <strong>the</strong> State, <strong>the</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong><br />
harvest comprised <strong>of</strong> females has usually<br />
been above <strong>the</strong> prescribed threshold for<br />
maintaining cougar densities, <strong>the</strong> percent <strong>of</strong><br />
older aged cougars in <strong>the</strong> harvest has<br />
remained below <strong>the</strong> desired threshold level,<br />
adult survival is below <strong>the</strong> desired level, and<br />
<strong>the</strong> cougar treeing rate is below <strong>the</strong> value<br />
ascribed as an indicator <strong>of</strong> secure population<br />
abundance. Given <strong>the</strong> relative abundance <strong>of</strong><br />
de facto refugia for cougars in Utah<br />
(National Parks, wilderness and inaccessible<br />
tracts) and <strong>the</strong> species’ propensity to<br />
disperse long distances, current harvest<br />
prescriptions may not prove effective for<br />
attaining ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> State’s management<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
No Predator Management Plan<br />
1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002<br />
38 46 47<br />
7.6 12.3 9<br />
0.59 0.61 0.62<br />
0.30 0.24<br />
objectives (maintenance <strong>of</strong> population<br />
density, or substantial reduction in<br />
population density).<br />
Evaluation <strong>of</strong> Harvest Information<br />
The harvest-based criteria used in Utah’s<br />
cougar management system are based upon<br />
published research, and represent <strong>the</strong><br />
expectation <strong>of</strong> harvest statistics that are<br />
associated with sustained population<br />
densities. However, managers have not<br />
been able to fully meet all threshold values<br />
since <strong>the</strong> Cougar Management Plan was<br />
adopted in 1999. There may be several<br />
explanations for this difficulty, including <strong>the</strong><br />
geographic scale <strong>of</strong> management actions and<br />
differences in <strong>the</strong> vital rates <strong>of</strong> cougar<br />
populations within Utah.<br />
The proportion <strong>of</strong> mature (>6 years <strong>of</strong><br />
age) cougars in <strong>the</strong> harvest is used as an<br />
index <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> mature cougars in<br />
<strong>the</strong> underlying population. If this proportion<br />
declines below 15%, <strong>the</strong> management plan<br />
assumes that <strong>the</strong> harvest rate is<br />
unsustainable. However, scarcity <strong>of</strong> olderaged<br />
cougars in harvests could also result<br />
from light (sustainable) harvesting <strong>of</strong> a<br />
productive cougar population by<br />
nonselective hunters, where relatively few<br />
cougars are taken and <strong>the</strong> harvest is
58 UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · McLaughlin<br />
composed <strong>of</strong> mostly subadults and youngeraged<br />
adults.<br />
The proportion <strong>of</strong> adult females in <strong>the</strong><br />
harvest is assumed to increase with<br />
increasing harvest pressure, and <strong>the</strong><br />
threshold level chosen for sustainability in<br />
Utah (>40%) is based upon research from<br />
several western states. However, managers<br />
are evaluating small management units,<br />
some containing
understanding with UDWR. Their reports<br />
are compiled on a fiscal year basis (and<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore numbers/year differ from those<br />
reported in Table 1), and confirm livestock<br />
losses ranging from $53,700 to $97,700 per<br />
year since 1998 (Table 2). Cougars were<br />
implicated in 74-114 separate depredation<br />
incidents per year during this period, killing<br />
548-805 sheep, cattle and goats annually<br />
(Table 2).<br />
RESEARCH AND PUBLICATIONS<br />
UDWR is funding research conducted<br />
through <strong>the</strong> Utah State University, under <strong>the</strong><br />
direction <strong>of</strong> Dr. Michael Wolfe. This<br />
research has been ongoing on two study<br />
sites since 1995, and is directed at<br />
determining means <strong>of</strong> quantifying cougar<br />
populations and evaluating <strong>the</strong> effects <strong>of</strong><br />
harvesting on <strong>the</strong>m. Field research is<br />
currently underway by David Stoner, MS<br />
candidate.<br />
Recent Publications<br />
MAXFIELD, BRIAN D. 2002. Utah cougar<br />
harvest report 1998-1999. Annual<br />
UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · McLaughlin 59<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
performance report, Fed. Aid Project No.<br />
W-150-R-8. Publ. No. 02-07, Utah Div.<br />
Wildlife Res., Salt Lake City. 38 pp.<br />
MAXFIELD, BRIAN D. 2002. Utah cougar<br />
harvest report 1999-2000. Annual<br />
performance report, Fed. Aid Project No.<br />
W-150-R-8. Publ. No. 02-08, Utah Div.<br />
Wildlife Res., Salt Lake City. 41 pp.<br />
LITERATURE CITED<br />
RILEY, S.J. 1998. Integration <strong>of</strong><br />
environmental, biological, and human<br />
dimensions for management <strong>of</strong> mountain<br />
lions (Puma concolor) in Montaina. Ph.<br />
D. Diss., Cornell Univ. 158 pp.<br />
UDWR. 1996. Predator Management<br />
Policy. Utah Div. <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Res. Salt<br />
Lake City. UDWR. 1999a. Nuisance<br />
Cougar Complaints. Policy No.<br />
W5WLD-5. Utah Div. <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Res. 4<br />
pp.<br />
UDWR. 1999B. UTAH COUGAR MANAGEMENT<br />
PLAN. UTAH DIV. OF WILDLIFE RES. SALT<br />
LAKE CITY. 60 PP.
WASHINGTON COUGAR STATUS REPORT<br />
RICHARD A. BEAUSOLEIL, Bear / Cougar Specialist, Washington Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and<br />
Wildlife, 3515 Chelan Highway, Wenatchee, Washington, 98801, USA<br />
DONALD A. MARTORELLO, Bear, Cougar, and Special Species Section Manager,<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, Washington, 98501,<br />
USA<br />
ROCKY D. SPENCER, Dangerous Wildlife Specialist, Washington Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and<br />
Wildlife, 42404 North Bend Way SE, North Bend, Washington, 98045, USA<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
Cougar (Puma concolor) occur<br />
throughout most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> forested regions <strong>of</strong><br />
Washington State, encompassing<br />
approximately 88,497 km 2 or 51% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
State (Figure 1). Cougar became a protected<br />
big game species in 1966 and hunting<br />
seasons and harvest limits were established<br />
under <strong>the</strong> management authority <strong>of</strong><br />
Washington Department <strong>of</strong> Fish and<br />
Wildlife (WFDW). In 1967, <strong>the</strong><br />
Washington State Legislature passed a bill<br />
establishing a tag system in Washington. In<br />
1970, WDFW began mandatory reporting <strong>of</strong><br />
cougar kills and in 1979 inspection and<br />
sealing <strong>of</strong> cougar pelts was required for data<br />
collection. In <strong>the</strong> mid-1980’s WDFW began<br />
collecting cougar teeth for age analysis.<br />
Figure 1. Distribution <strong>of</strong> cougars (gray) and<br />
cougar management units in Washington.<br />
60<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong><br />
Currently, <strong>the</strong> statewide cougar management<br />
goal is to maintain healthy, self-sustaining<br />
cougar populations within each cougar<br />
management unit (CMU), except CMU 9,<br />
while minimizing <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> negative<br />
human-cougar interactions.<br />
HUNTING SEASONS AND HARVEST<br />
TRENDS<br />
Cougar seasons have changed<br />
significantly over <strong>the</strong> last several years<br />
(Figure 2). During <strong>the</strong> November 1996<br />
general election, Washington voters passed<br />
Initiative 655 (I-655) that banned <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong><br />
hounds for hunting cougar and bobcat, and<br />
<strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> bait and hounds for hunting black<br />
bear. In an effort to mitigate <strong>the</strong> anticipated<br />
decrease in cougar harvest (i.e., post I-655),<br />
permit-only seasons were replaced with<br />
general seasons, cougar seasons were<br />
leng<strong>the</strong>ned from approximately 6 weeks to 7<br />
and one-half months, and bag limit was<br />
increased from 1 to 2 cougar/year.<br />
Legislation was also passed that provided<br />
<strong>the</strong> authority to <strong>the</strong> Fish and Wildlife<br />
Commission to establish reduced costs for<br />
cougar and black bear transport tags, which<br />
<strong>the</strong>y did from $24 to $5 in 1996 (cougar tags<br />
can also be purchased as part <strong>of</strong> a big game<br />
package). The outcome <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se strategies is<br />
that <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> hunters purchasing a<br />
cougar tag in Washington has increased<br />
from 1,000 to 59,000. As a result, annual
350<br />
300<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
General Seasons<br />
Dogs Allowed<br />
Kill report required<br />
WASHINGTON COUGAR STATUS REPORT · Beausoleil et al. 61<br />
1979 - 1986<br />
1987 - 1995 1996 - 2002<br />
Figure 2. Cougar season structure and harvest in Washington, 1979-2002.<br />
cougar harvest during post I-655 years has<br />
increased slightly; however, <strong>the</strong> composition<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> harvest has changed dramatically.<br />
The majority <strong>of</strong> cougar harvested pre-I 655<br />
was done so with <strong>the</strong> aid <strong>of</strong> dogs, thus<br />
mostly males and older animals were taken.<br />
Since 1996, <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> cougars are<br />
harvested ei<strong>the</strong>r as opportunistic encounters<br />
by deer/elk and cougar hunters, or by using<br />
tracking and calling techniques. These<br />
harvest methods are not as selective as using<br />
dogs. Therefore, since 1996, hunters have<br />
harvested more females and younger<br />
cougars (see oral presentation titled Cougar<br />
Harvest Characteristics With and Without<br />
<strong>the</strong> Use <strong>of</strong> Dogs in this proceedings).<br />
POPULATION STATUS AND TREND<br />
ANALYSIS<br />
The status <strong>of</strong> cougar populations is<br />
currently estimated through computer<br />
population simulation models, harvest<br />
characteristics, and, to a lesser degree,<br />
trends in human-cougar interactions.<br />
Based on population reconstruction<br />
models, harvest age data, and statewide<br />
cougar habitat estimates (using GAP<br />
analysis), <strong>the</strong> cougar population in<br />
Permit Seasons<br />
Dogs Allowed<br />
I 655<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
General Seasons<br />
Dogs Banned<br />
Washington is likely between 2,400–4,000<br />
animals, and cougar population size is likely<br />
declining in a few areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state.<br />
Typically, <strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong> local or regional<br />
cougar populations are monitored via hunter<br />
effort and success, median age data, and<br />
percentage <strong>of</strong> females in <strong>the</strong> harvest; but<br />
only when viewed over several years with<br />
consistent harvest methods. Due to <strong>the</strong><br />
changes in harvest methods during <strong>the</strong> last<br />
several years (predominantly hound hunters<br />
during pre I-655 years versus entirely spotstalk<br />
hunters during post I-655 years), no<br />
reliable trend data exist to accurately assess<br />
regional cougar populations or exploitation<br />
levels. As such, new population monitoring<br />
efforts are beginning in 2003, where cougar<br />
density and adult female survival will be<br />
evaluated and monitored in key areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
State.<br />
HUMAN CONFLICT<br />
Human-cougar interactions are managed<br />
through public education, capture-removal,<br />
depredation permits, and public safety<br />
cougar removals. Since 1995, WDFW has<br />
recorded information on human-cougar<br />
interactions. Of particular concern is <strong>the</strong>
62 WASHINGTON COUGAR STATUS REPORT · Beausoleil et al.<br />
To address human safety<br />
To protect threatened and<br />
endangered species<br />
To prevent loss <strong>of</strong> domestic<br />
animals<br />
To increase game populations<br />
0 20 40 60 80 100<br />
Figure 3. During a general public opinion<br />
survey, <strong>the</strong> percent <strong>of</strong> Washington<br />
respondents that supported reducing<br />
predator numbers for specific purposes<br />
(Duda et al. 2002).<br />
increasing trend in human safety incidents,<br />
and pet and livestock depredations. When<br />
Washington citizens were asked about <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
attitudes regarding cougars, over 80%<br />
responded that reducing predator numbers<br />
for public safety is acceptable (Figure 3).<br />
Recognizing <strong>the</strong> widespread scope <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
issue and its importance to cougars and<br />
people in <strong>the</strong> future, current cougar<br />
management goals include maintaining<br />
sustainable cougar populations and reducing<br />
human-cougar interactions. In some cases,<br />
reducing cougar populations to a lower, but<br />
sustainable level may help achieve both <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong>se goals (Table 1). Given <strong>the</strong> recent<br />
Confirmed complaints<br />
1000<br />
900<br />
800<br />
700<br />
600<br />
500<br />
400<br />
300<br />
200<br />
100<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
0<br />
247<br />
495<br />
563<br />
927<br />
694<br />
936<br />
498<br />
378<br />
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002<br />
Year<br />
Figure 4. Total confirmed cougar complaints<br />
in Washington, 1995-2002 (includes human<br />
safety and pet/livestock incidents).<br />
history <strong>of</strong> high human-cougar interactions,<br />
WDFW developed a special cougar removal<br />
process to address cougar densities in areas<br />
with high levels <strong>of</strong> human-cougar<br />
interactions. Under rules adopted by <strong>the</strong><br />
Fish and Wildlife Commission, public safety<br />
cougar removals occurred in 17 Game<br />
Management Units from Dec 15 – Mar. 15,<br />
in both <strong>the</strong> 2001-2002 and 2002-03 seasons;<br />
in those seasons 109 and 76 cougar were<br />
identified for removal and licensed hunters<br />
Table 1. Cougar population objectives for each cougar management unit in Washington, 2002.<br />
CMU Geographic Area Population Objective<br />
1 Coastal Maintain a stable cougar population<br />
2 Puget Sound Reduce * cougar population to enhance public safety and protection <strong>of</strong> property<br />
3 North Cascades Maintain a stable cougar population<br />
4 South Cascades Maintain a stable cougar population<br />
5 East Cascades North Reduce * cougar population to enhance public safety and protection <strong>of</strong> property<br />
6 East Cascades South Maintain a stable cougar population<br />
7 Nor<strong>the</strong>astern Reduce * cougar population to enhance public safety and protection <strong>of</strong> property<br />
8 Blue <strong>Mountain</strong>s Maintain a stable cougar population<br />
9 Columbia Basin Unsustainable; not considered suitable cougar habitat<br />
* Implement cougar population reductions over a 3-year period and monitor annually.
emoved 67 and 54 animals, respectively<br />
(61% and 71% success rate, respectively).<br />
Confirmed human-cougar incidents<br />
decreased by 47% during <strong>the</strong> 2001 calendar<br />
year from 936 in 2000 to 498 and an<br />
additional 24% in 2002 to 378 (Figure 4).<br />
MANAGEMENT CONCLUSIONS<br />
The statewide cougar population appears<br />
to be declining at this time due to increased<br />
female harvest and objectives to address<br />
public safety and protection <strong>of</strong> property.<br />
Given <strong>the</strong> distribution <strong>of</strong> cougars in<br />
Washington and <strong>the</strong> projected growth <strong>of</strong><br />
human populations, interactions between<br />
humans and cougars will likely continue.<br />
WASHINGTON COUGAR STATUS REPORT · Beausoleil et al. 63<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
As such, <strong>the</strong> long-term future <strong>of</strong> cougar in<br />
Washington ultimately rests in our ability to<br />
co-exist. Therefore, management efforts<br />
should continue to look for ways to<br />
minimize human-cougar interactions,<br />
particularly at <strong>the</strong> local population level.<br />
LITERATURE CITED<br />
DUDA, M.D., P.E. DE MICHELE, M. JONES,<br />
W. TESTERMAN, C. ZURAWSKI, J.<br />
DEHOFF, A. LANIER, S.J. BISSELL, P.<br />
WANG, AND J.B. HERRICK. 2002.<br />
Washington residents’ opinions on and<br />
attitudes toward hunting and game<br />
species management. Harrisonburg,<br />
Virginia, USA.
WYOMING MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT<br />
SCOTT A. BECKER, Trophy Game Section, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 260 Buena<br />
Vista, Lander, WY 82520, USA, email: Scott.Becker@wgf.state.wy.us<br />
DANIEL D. BJORNLIE, Trophy Game Biologist, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 260<br />
Buena Vista, Lander, WY 82520, USA, email: Dan.Bjornlie@wgf.state.wy.us<br />
DAVID S. MOODY, Trophy Game Section Coordinator, Wyoming Game and Fish Department,<br />
260 Buena Vista, Lander, WY 82520, USA, email: Dave.Moody@wgf.state.wy.us<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
Management <strong>of</strong> mountain lions (Puma<br />
concolor) has changed markedly since <strong>the</strong><br />
nineteenth century. In 1882, <strong>the</strong> Wyoming<br />
Territorial government enacted legislation<br />
placing a bounty on mountain lions and<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r predators. This allowed for lion<br />
hunting throughout <strong>the</strong> year and no bag<br />
limits were enforced. In 1973, <strong>the</strong> mountain<br />
lion was reclassified as a trophy game<br />
animal, which made <strong>the</strong> Wyoming Game<br />
and Fish Department (WGFD) fiscally liable<br />
for confirmed livestock losses. The<br />
following year, <strong>the</strong> first hunting season was<br />
established that included <strong>the</strong> entire state as a<br />
single hunt area, a bag limit <strong>of</strong> 1 lion per<br />
year was enacted, kittens and females with<br />
kittens at side were protected, and hunters<br />
were required to present skulls and pelts <strong>of</strong><br />
harvested lions to <strong>the</strong> nearest WGFD<br />
District Office or local game warden.<br />
In 1997, <strong>the</strong> WGFD prepared a draft<br />
management plan for mountain lions, but <strong>the</strong><br />
plan has yet to be finalized. However, six<br />
main objectives outlined in <strong>the</strong> draft<br />
management plan continue to guide lion<br />
management objectives for <strong>the</strong> state <strong>of</strong><br />
Wyoming, <strong>the</strong>y are: 1) maintain mountain<br />
lion populations within suitable habitat<br />
throughout Wyoming; 2) provide mountain<br />
lion-related recreational opportunities; 3)<br />
minimize female lion harvest in areas where<br />
population stability or increase is desirable;<br />
4) minimize mountain lion depredation and<br />
64<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong><br />
lion/human interactions; 5) tailor<br />
management objectives to conditions present<br />
within each <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> Management<br />
Unit (MLMU) where possible; and 6)<br />
implement more specific, quantifiable<br />
objectives within each MLMU as<br />
information on <strong>the</strong> state’s lion population<br />
allows. Using <strong>the</strong>se objectives as<br />
guidelines, <strong>the</strong> WGFD attempts to balance<br />
recreational demand and harvest with <strong>the</strong><br />
biological needs <strong>of</strong> lion populations<br />
throughout <strong>the</strong> state.<br />
DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lions are distributed<br />
throughout nearly all habitats in Wyoming<br />
although densities are not uniform. <strong>Lion</strong><br />
densities are thought to be highest in <strong>the</strong><br />
Bighorn, Owl Creek, and Laramie mountain<br />
ranges (Wyoming Game and Fish<br />
Department 1997), while some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> lowest<br />
densities may be found in <strong>the</strong> grasslands <strong>of</strong><br />
nor<strong>the</strong>astern Wyoming. In <strong>the</strong> Bighorn<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong>s, Logan and Irwin (1985) found<br />
that mixed conifer and curl leaf mountain<br />
mahogany habitats were used most in<br />
relation to availability, whereas sagebrush<br />
grass habitat types were generally avoided.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Snowy Range <strong>Mountain</strong>s <strong>of</strong><br />
sou<strong>the</strong>astern Wyoming, lions were found at<br />
lower elevations during <strong>the</strong> winter and<br />
concentrated <strong>the</strong>ir use near <strong>the</strong> timber/prairie<br />
interface (Chuck Anderson, personal<br />
communication).
Figure 1. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion management units<br />
and hunt areas in Wyoming, 2002.<br />
WYOMING MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Becker et al. 65<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
HARVEST INFORMATION<br />
Data on mountain lions are ga<strong>the</strong>red<br />
annually among 28 hunt areas that are<br />
grouped into 5 MLMUs (Figure 1), <strong>the</strong><br />
boundaries <strong>of</strong> which encompass large areas<br />
with contiguous topographic features and<br />
are believed to encompass population<br />
centers. Each hunt area has a maximum<br />
annual mortality quota that varies from 2 –<br />
34, with 5 areas also having a maximum<br />
female mortality quota (Table 1). If ei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
quota is filled, <strong>the</strong> hunting season in that<br />
hunt area automatically closes. Currently,<br />
hunting seasons open on September 1 and<br />
close on March 31 for all hunt areas except<br />
Table 1. Wyoming mountain lion management units, hunt areas, season dates, and quotas for<br />
harvest year 2002.<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong><br />
Management Unit<br />
Nor<strong>the</strong>ast<br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>ast<br />
Southwest<br />
North-Central<br />
West<br />
Hunt Area Season Dates<br />
Annual Mortality<br />
Quota<br />
Annual Female<br />
Mortality Quota<br />
1 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 7<br />
24 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 2<br />
5 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 12<br />
6 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 34<br />
7 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 6<br />
8 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 8<br />
9 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 3<br />
25 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 3<br />
27 Sept. 1-Aug. 31 20<br />
10 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 6<br />
11 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 2<br />
12 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 6 3<br />
13 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 3<br />
16 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 6<br />
15 Sept. 1-Aug. 31 25<br />
21 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 25<br />
22 Sept. 1-Aug. 31 15<br />
23 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 15 8<br />
2 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 12 6<br />
3 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 8 4<br />
4 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 4<br />
14 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 9<br />
17 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 5<br />
18 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 12<br />
19 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 20<br />
20 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 15<br />
26 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 12 7<br />
28 Sept. 1-Mar. 31 3
66 WYOMING MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Becker et al.<br />
15, 22, and 27, in which year round seasons<br />
exist. Quotas begin at <strong>the</strong> start <strong>of</strong> each<br />
hunting season and include all legal and<br />
illegal hunting mortalities.<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lion data in Wyoming are<br />
limited to information obtained annually<br />
from harvest or o<strong>the</strong>r documented forms <strong>of</strong><br />
mortality. Since 1974, hunters have been<br />
required to present <strong>the</strong> skull and pelt <strong>of</strong><br />
harvested lions to a district game warden or<br />
biologist at <strong>the</strong> nearest WGFD regional<br />
<strong>of</strong>fice within 72 hours after <strong>the</strong> harvest.<br />
Information collected during <strong>the</strong>se<br />
inspections include: harvest date, location,<br />
sex, lactation status, estimated age, number<br />
<strong>of</strong> days spent hunting, whe<strong>the</strong>r or not dogs<br />
were used, and number <strong>of</strong> lions observed<br />
while hunting. Skulls and pelts must be<br />
presented in an unfrozen condition so teeth<br />
can be removed. Evidence <strong>of</strong> sex must<br />
remain naturally attached to <strong>the</strong> pelt for<br />
accurate identification.<br />
Legal shooting hours are from one-half<br />
hour before sunrise to one-half hour after<br />
sunset. The individual bag limit for lions is<br />
1 lion per hunter per calendar year, except<br />
for 1 hunt area in central Wyoming, where 1<br />
additional lion may be taken each calendar<br />
year. Kittens (
Total <strong>Lion</strong> Harvest<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
0<br />
78<br />
1993<br />
1994<br />
95 110<br />
145 144<br />
206<br />
214<br />
201<br />
186<br />
172<br />
1995<br />
1996<br />
1997<br />
1998<br />
1999<br />
2000<br />
2001<br />
2002<br />
Figure 2. Total Wyoming mountain lion<br />
harvest, 1993-2002.<br />
information into mountain lion harvest<br />
analyses in order to better assess mountain<br />
lion population trends. This will eventually<br />
aid in adjusting population objectives and,<br />
thus quotas, to ensure sustainable lion<br />
populations statewide.<br />
There has been a steady increase in<br />
harvest since 1993, which has leveled <strong>of</strong>f in<br />
recent years at around 200 (Figure 2). Since<br />
1993, <strong>the</strong> average percent <strong>of</strong> females in <strong>the</strong><br />
harvest has been 43%, ranging from 32% in<br />
1993 to 51% in 2000 (Figure 3). The<br />
percent <strong>of</strong> adults in <strong>the</strong> female harvest has<br />
steadily declined in <strong>the</strong> past 10 years, falling<br />
from around 70% adult females in 1993 and<br />
1994 to around 40% adults in 2001 and 2002<br />
(Figure 4). This decline in <strong>the</strong> past two<br />
years is likely due in part to a change in <strong>the</strong><br />
criteria used to classify adults and juveniles<br />
prior to <strong>the</strong> 2001 hunting season. Since<br />
1993, hunter effort has ranged from 3.3 to<br />
5.8 days per lion for an average <strong>of</strong> 3.9 days<br />
per lion. Ninety-two percent <strong>of</strong> all<br />
successful hunters in Wyoming harvested<br />
lions with <strong>the</strong> aid <strong>of</strong> dogs from 1993 – 2002.<br />
DEPEDATIONS AND HUMAN-LION<br />
INTERACTIONS/CONFLICTS<br />
Currently, Wyoming uses a statewide<br />
protocol for managing trophy game<br />
WYOMING MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Becker et al. 67<br />
Percent<br />
100%<br />
75%<br />
50%<br />
25%<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
0%<br />
1993<br />
1994<br />
1995<br />
1996<br />
1997<br />
1998<br />
1999<br />
2000<br />
2001<br />
2002<br />
Percent Females Percent Males<br />
Figure 3. Percent male and female mountain<br />
lion harvest in Wyoming, 1993-2002.<br />
depredations and interactions with humans.<br />
A depredating lion is defined as a lion that<br />
injures or kills livestock or domestic pets.<br />
In addition, 4 types <strong>of</strong> human/mountain lion<br />
interactions are defined by <strong>the</strong> WGFD, <strong>the</strong>y<br />
are 1) recurring sighting – repeated sightings<br />
<strong>of</strong> a particular lion; 2) encounter – an<br />
unexpected meeting between a human and a<br />
lion without incident; 3) incident – an<br />
account <strong>of</strong> abnormal lion behavior that could<br />
have more serious results in <strong>the</strong> future (e.g.,<br />
a lion attacking a pet, or a lion exhibiting<br />
aggressive behavior, without attack, toward<br />
Percent<br />
100%<br />
75%<br />
50%<br />
25%<br />
0%<br />
1993<br />
1994<br />
1995<br />
1996<br />
1997<br />
1998<br />
1999<br />
2000<br />
Adult Females Juvenile Females<br />
2001<br />
2002<br />
Figure 4. Percent adult and juvenile female<br />
mountain lion harvest in <strong>the</strong> total female<br />
harvest in Wyoming, 1993-2002.
68 WYOMING MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Becker et al.<br />
humans); and 4) attack – human injury or<br />
death resulting from a lion attack. Each<br />
incident is handled on a case-by-case basis<br />
and is dealt with accordingly based on <strong>the</strong><br />
location <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> incident, <strong>the</strong> threat to human<br />
safety, <strong>the</strong> severity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> incident, and <strong>the</strong><br />
number <strong>of</strong> incidents <strong>the</strong> animal has been<br />
involved in. Every effort is made to prevent<br />
unnecessary escalation <strong>of</strong> incidents through<br />
an ascending order <strong>of</strong> options and<br />
responsibilities:<br />
1) No Management Action Taken<br />
- Informational packets are provided<br />
to <strong>the</strong> reporting party that describe<br />
mountain lion natural history and<br />
behavior, damage prevention tips,<br />
and what to do in <strong>the</strong> event <strong>of</strong> an<br />
encounter.<br />
2) Deterrent Methods<br />
- Removal or securing <strong>of</strong> attractant<br />
- Removal <strong>of</strong> depredated carcass<br />
- Removal or protection <strong>of</strong> livestock<br />
3) Aversive Conditioning<br />
- Use <strong>of</strong> rubber bullets<br />
- Use <strong>of</strong> pepper spray<br />
- Use <strong>of</strong> noise making devices or<br />
flashing lights<br />
- Informational packets provided to<br />
<strong>the</strong> reporting party<br />
4) Trapping and Relocation<br />
- If <strong>the</strong> above efforts do not deter <strong>the</strong><br />
lion from <strong>the</strong> area, if public safety<br />
is compromised, if it is a first<br />
<strong>of</strong>fense, <strong>of</strong> if it has been a lengthy<br />
span <strong>of</strong> time between <strong>of</strong>fenses<br />
- Informational packets provided to<br />
<strong>the</strong> reporting party<br />
5) Lethal Removal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Animal by <strong>the</strong><br />
WGFD<br />
- If <strong>the</strong> above methods do not deter<br />
<strong>the</strong> lion, if public safety is<br />
compromised, or if <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>fending<br />
lion has been involved in multiple<br />
incidents in a short span <strong>of</strong> time<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
- Wyoming statute 23-3-115 allows<br />
property owners or <strong>the</strong>ir employees<br />
and lessees to kill mountain lions<br />
damaging private property, given<br />
that <strong>the</strong>y immediately notify <strong>the</strong><br />
nearest game warden <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
incident<br />
- <strong>Lion</strong>s that have been removed from<br />
<strong>the</strong> population will be used for<br />
educational purposes<br />
- Informational packets provided to<br />
<strong>the</strong> reporting party<br />
Education is a very important aspect <strong>of</strong><br />
human and mountain lion interaction<br />
prevention. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> WGFD works<br />
closely with hunters, outfitters,<br />
recreationalists, livestock operators, and<br />
homeowners in an attempt to minimize<br />
conflicts with trophy game animals. Every<br />
spring, <strong>the</strong> WGFD hosts bear and lion<br />
workshops throughout <strong>the</strong> state to inform <strong>the</strong><br />
public about bear and lion biology, front and<br />
back-country food storage techniques, and<br />
what to do in <strong>the</strong> event <strong>of</strong> an encounter with<br />
a bear or lion. In addition, numerous<br />
presentations are given throughout <strong>the</strong> year<br />
to civic, private, and school groups. Media<br />
outlets are also used to inform, and in rare<br />
incidents warn, <strong>the</strong> general public about bear<br />
and lion safety issues and any recent<br />
sightings.<br />
Even with all <strong>the</strong> educational efforts<br />
undertaken by <strong>the</strong> WGFD and preventive<br />
measures taken by <strong>the</strong> public, conflicts with<br />
mountain lions do occur. The number <strong>of</strong><br />
mountain lion conflicts have ranged from a<br />
low <strong>of</strong> 13 reported incidents in 2002 to a<br />
high <strong>of</strong> 64 reported incidents in 1997. There<br />
have been a total <strong>of</strong> 40 mountain lion/human<br />
interactions in Wyoming since 1996 with no<br />
major injuries or deaths reported.<br />
Wyoming statute 23-1-901 provides<br />
monetary compensation for confirmed<br />
livestock damage caused by mountain lions.<br />
The number <strong>of</strong> damage claims for <strong>the</strong> last 10<br />
years range from 11 in 1995 to 28 in 1998,
and payments made to claimants range from<br />
a low <strong>of</strong> $22,627 paid in 1999 to a high <strong>of</strong><br />
$44,071 paid in 1998 (Table 2). One<br />
hundred percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mountain lion<br />
damage claims paid in 2002 was for sheep<br />
depredations. From 1996 to 2002, 84% <strong>of</strong><br />
reported lion depredations in Wyoming have<br />
involved sheep, 6% have involved horses,<br />
6% unknown livestock species, and 4% have<br />
involved cattle. An average <strong>of</strong> 4.9 nuisance<br />
lions were removed annually in <strong>the</strong> last 10<br />
years while an average <strong>of</strong> 1 lion was<br />
translocated annually from 1996 – 2002 (no<br />
translocation data available prior to 1996).<br />
PUBLIC ATTITUDES<br />
In 1995, <strong>the</strong> WGFD contracted with <strong>the</strong><br />
Survey Research Center at <strong>the</strong> University <strong>of</strong><br />
Wyoming to determine attitudes and<br />
knowledge <strong>of</strong> Wyoming residents on<br />
mountain lions and mountain lion<br />
management (Gasson and Moody 1995).<br />
Over 71% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> approximately 500<br />
WYOMING MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Becker et al. 69<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
respondents believed lions were a benefit to<br />
Wyoming. Attitudes toward mountain lion<br />
hunting were generally supportive, with<br />
49.6% agreeing or strongly agreeing that<br />
mountain lion hunting should continue and<br />
29.3% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.<br />
The remaining respondents were ei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
neutral or did not answer. However, most<br />
(57%) disagreed or strongly disagreed that<br />
hunting lions with dogs should continue as a<br />
legal method <strong>of</strong> take. Only 25.3% <strong>of</strong><br />
respondents agreed or strongly agreed, while<br />
<strong>the</strong> remaining respondents were neutral or<br />
did not respond to <strong>the</strong> question. A large<br />
majority <strong>of</strong> respondents (80.7%) agreed or<br />
strongly agreed that mountain lion hunting<br />
seasons should be modified to avoid<br />
harvesting kittens or running females with<br />
kittens. A large majority <strong>of</strong> respondents<br />
(71%) were also opposed to <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> dogs<br />
to run and tree lions during non-harvest,<br />
chase seasons.<br />
Table 2. Wyoming ten-year mountain lion damage claim and translocation/removal history (all<br />
causes).<br />
Year # Claims $ Claimed $ Paid Translocations Removals<br />
1993 29 33,214.56 30,002.53<br />
0<br />
1994 26 30,498.51 24,646.00<br />
a<br />
5<br />
1995 11 40,634.67 34,594.67<br />
a<br />
4<br />
1996 14 28,540.96 24,947.95 0 6<br />
1997 20 28,935.16 28,761.50 1 10<br />
1998 28 56,171.39 44,070.79 2 5<br />
1999 21 32,307.63 22,627.43 2 6<br />
2000 20 42,352.69 30,773.59 0 5<br />
2001 15 38,322.79 25,592.46 1 6<br />
2002 13 35,870.99 32,075.05 0 2<br />
Mean 19.7 36,686.74 29,809.20 0.86 4.9<br />
a<br />
No data available.<br />
a
70 WYOMING MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Becker et al.<br />
RESEARCH AND PUBLICATIONS<br />
ANDERSON, C.R., JR., AND F.G. LINDZEY.<br />
2003. Estimating cougar predation rates<br />
from GPS location clusters. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Wildlife Management 67(2): 307-316.<br />
ANDERSON, C.R., JR., F.G. LINDZEY, AND<br />
N.P. NIBBELINK. In review. Estimating<br />
cougar abundance using probability<br />
sampling: an evaluation <strong>of</strong> transect<br />
versus block design. Journal <strong>of</strong> Wildlife<br />
Management 00(0): 000-000.<br />
ANDERSON, C.R., JR., AND F.G. LINDZEY.<br />
In press. Monitoring changes in cougar<br />
sex/age structure with changes in<br />
abundance as an index to population<br />
trend.<br />
ANDERSON, C.R., JR., F.G. LINDZEY, AND<br />
D.B. MCDONALD. In press. Genetic<br />
structure <strong>of</strong> cougar populations across<br />
<strong>the</strong> Wyoming Basin: metapopulation or<br />
megapopulation.<br />
ANDERSON, C.R., JR., AND F.G. LINDZEY.<br />
2000. A guide to estimating mountain<br />
lion age classes. Wyoming Cooperative<br />
Fish and Wildlife Research Unit,<br />
Laramie, Wyoming.<br />
GASSON, W., AND D. MOODY. 1995.<br />
Attitudes <strong>of</strong> Wyoming residents on<br />
mountain lion management. Planning<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
rep. #40, Wyoming Game and Fish<br />
Department, Cheyenne. 7 pp.<br />
WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT.<br />
1997. <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> Management<br />
Plan. Wyoming Game and Fish<br />
Department. 30 pp.<br />
WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT.<br />
1999. Protocol for managing aggressive<br />
wildlife/human interactions. Wyoming<br />
Game and Fish Department. 17 pp.<br />
WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT.<br />
2003. Annual mountain lion mortality<br />
summary: harvest year 2002. Trophy<br />
Game Section, Lander, Wyoming. 22<br />
pp.<br />
LITERATURE CITED<br />
GASSON W. AND D. MOODY. 1995.<br />
Attitudes <strong>of</strong> Wyoming residents on<br />
mountain lion management. Planning<br />
rep. #40, Wyoming Game and Fish<br />
Department, Cheyenne, 7 pp.<br />
LOGAN, K.A. AND L.L. IRWIN. 1985.<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> lion habitats in <strong>the</strong> Bighorn<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong>s, Wyoming. Wildlife Society<br />
Bulletin 13: 257-262.<br />
WYOMING GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT.<br />
1997. <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> Management<br />
Plan. Wyoming Game and Fish<br />
Department. 30 pp.
CRYPTIC COUGARS - PERSPECTIVES ON THE PUMA IN THE EASTERN,<br />
MIDWESTERN, AND GREAT PLAINS REGIONS OF NORTH AMERICA<br />
JAY W. TISCHENDORF DVM, Director, American Ecological Research Institute (AERIE),<br />
Post Office Box 1826, Great Falls, MT 59403, USA, email: TischendorfJ@Hotmail.com<br />
Abstract: The subject <strong>of</strong> cougars in eastern North America continues to intrigue and perplex wildlife biologists,<br />
managers, and nature enthusiasts. Almost uniformly considered extirpated throughout states and provinces in<br />
eastern and midwestern North America over a century ago, growing numbers <strong>of</strong> reports, some accompanied by<br />
incontrovertible evidence such as full specimens, blood, scat, track, or film documentation, suggest that Puma<br />
concolor is re-establishing, or has re-established, itself in some areas <strong>of</strong> this vast region. Similar evidence exists for<br />
<strong>the</strong> Great Plains. This paper, while probably raising more questions than it answers, examines <strong>the</strong> best and most<br />
current evidence for <strong>the</strong> occurrence <strong>of</strong> cougars in <strong>the</strong> East, Midwest, and Great Plains; discusses <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial status <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> species; and provides a perspective on <strong>the</strong> scientific, social, and political opportunities and challenges posed by<br />
this fascinating and compelling situation.<br />
71<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong><br />
Key words: cougar, recovery, East, Midwest, Great Plains, prairie, North America, Puma concolor<br />
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES<br />
The possible existence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> puma<br />
(Puma concolor) in eastern and midwestern<br />
North America today, approximately 100<br />
years since its supposed extirpation from <strong>the</strong><br />
region, is among <strong>the</strong> most provocative and<br />
exciting mysteries in <strong>the</strong> modern realms <strong>of</strong><br />
natural history, ecology, wildlife<br />
management, and conservation biology.<br />
Importantly, <strong>the</strong> story <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cougar in <strong>the</strong><br />
East, <strong>the</strong> ghost <strong>of</strong> North America, as it was<br />
dubbed by Bruce Wright, an early champion<br />
for its recovery, has far-reaching, global<br />
implications for carnivore conservation,<br />
continental ecological equilibrium, and<br />
perhaps most <strong>of</strong> all, our own fulfillment as<br />
stewards <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> planet (Wright 1959). To<br />
understand this yet unfolding story, several<br />
fundamental concepts need review:<br />
1. Throughout North America from <strong>the</strong><br />
Great Plains eastward, with <strong>the</strong><br />
exception <strong>of</strong> Florida, <strong>the</strong> puma was<br />
generally considered extirpated by <strong>the</strong><br />
early 1900s (Young and Goldman<br />
1946).<br />
2. Since that time, in virtually every state<br />
and every province across this vast<br />
region, scores <strong>of</strong> people, including<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional scientists, biologists,<br />
naturalists, and foresters, have been<br />
reporting observations <strong>of</strong> cougars or<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir sign (Wright 1972, Tischendorf<br />
and Henderson 1994).<br />
3. While many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se reports are<br />
unverifiable or erroneous, a surprising<br />
number have been confirmed, <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
with <strong>the</strong> details published in peerreviewed<br />
literature. This history <strong>of</strong><br />
confirmed reports since <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong><br />
supposed extirpation suggests, at a<br />
minimum, <strong>the</strong> periodic presence <strong>of</strong> freeranging<br />
cougars in <strong>the</strong> region.<br />
4. Several plausible explanations exist for<br />
<strong>the</strong>se cryptic cats: 1) continued<br />
existence <strong>of</strong> native pumas; 2)<br />
immigration <strong>of</strong> western cats; 3)<br />
presence <strong>of</strong> feral escaped or released<br />
captives (FERCs); or 4) combinations<br />
<strong>of</strong> any or all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se (Nowak 1976,<br />
Downing 1984).
72 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf<br />
From ecological, social, and political<br />
standpoints <strong>the</strong>re are three main questions<br />
that this paper seeks to answer. One, are<br />
<strong>the</strong>re cougars in <strong>the</strong> aforementioned region<br />
today? Two, if pumas are present, do <strong>the</strong>y<br />
represent a breeding population(s)? Finally,<br />
what is <strong>the</strong> future <strong>of</strong> Puma concolor east <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Rocky <strong>Mountain</strong>s? What truly does <strong>the</strong><br />
public want when it comes to large<br />
carnivore recovery or restoration in <strong>the</strong><br />
East? Possibilities here include active<br />
recovery, passive recovery (i.e., <strong>the</strong> animals<br />
establish viable populations on <strong>the</strong>ir own<br />
without active, direct human intervention),<br />
or overt efforts to preclude recovery.<br />
DISCUSSION<br />
Puma Presence, Populations, and <strong>the</strong> Big<br />
Picture Perspective<br />
To effectively understand <strong>the</strong> cryptic<br />
cougar situation, it is critical to maintain a<br />
big picture perspective (Tischendorf 1992c,<br />
1996a, b). Among <strong>the</strong> many who have<br />
commented on <strong>the</strong> subject over <strong>the</strong> years,<br />
and especially among those skeptical <strong>of</strong><br />
cougar presence or recovery east <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Rockies, this perspective, “from Nova<br />
Scotia to Nebraska” (Tischendorf 1996a:43),<br />
has <strong>of</strong>ten been lacking (Tischendorf 1992c;<br />
1996a, b). Such a perspective was,<br />
however, utilized by Bruce Wright and,<br />
more recently, by United States Fish and<br />
Wildlife Service (USFWS) researcher<br />
Robert Downing. Downing authored <strong>the</strong><br />
eastern cougar recovery plan and speculated<br />
on <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> an extremely low density,<br />
widely dispersed puma population in <strong>the</strong><br />
eastern United States (USA) (Downing<br />
1981, 1984; United States Fish and Wildlife<br />
Service 1982).<br />
Downing’s views, coupled with updated<br />
range information syn<strong>the</strong>sized by Allen<br />
Anderson and intensive independent review<br />
<strong>of</strong> 100 years’ worth <strong>of</strong> reports and<br />
documentation, led one author to<br />
subsequently suggest that <strong>the</strong>re were<br />
actually upwards <strong>of</strong> four loosely interrelated<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
puma populations in <strong>the</strong> East and Midwest<br />
(Downing 1981, 1984; Anderson 1983;<br />
Tischendorf 1993c). Each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se lowdensity<br />
puma populations was believed to<br />
consist <strong>of</strong> widely dispersed, widely roaming,<br />
and perhaps transient animals (Tischendorf<br />
1993c). These populations were believed to<br />
have <strong>the</strong>ir epicenters in <strong>the</strong> Canadian<br />
Maritimes-New England region, <strong>the</strong> Great<br />
Lakes-nor<strong>the</strong>rn Midwest region, <strong>the</strong><br />
Missouri-Arkansas-Oklahoma area, and <strong>the</strong><br />
Sou<strong>the</strong>ast.<br />
This <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> course remains unproven,<br />
although it was revisited at a previous<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong> by several <strong>of</strong> this<br />
author’s colleagues similarly associated with<br />
<strong>the</strong> West Virginia-based Eastern Cougar<br />
Foundation (ECF) (Bolgiano et al. 2000).<br />
Members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ECF, formed in 1999, are<br />
utilizing automatic cameras in an attempt to<br />
document consistent cougar presence or<br />
family groups that could support <strong>the</strong> above<br />
hypo<strong>the</strong>sis. The ECF (website at<br />
www.easterncougar.org) is notable in that it<br />
has been able to positively partner with<br />
several governmental agencies and share in<br />
<strong>the</strong> efforts to recover pumas in <strong>the</strong> East.<br />
Such critical cooperation is also<br />
demonstrated with <strong>the</strong> Eastern Cougar<br />
Network (ECN). This group’s website,<br />
www.easterncougarnet.org, is a nonadvocacy<br />
amalgamation <strong>of</strong> peer-reviewed<br />
contributions on <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>of</strong> cougars from<br />
essentially every state and provincial<br />
resource agency from <strong>the</strong> Great Plains<br />
eastward. The site thus serves effectively as<br />
a real-time source <strong>of</strong> scientifically based<br />
status information on <strong>the</strong> cat, and perhaps<br />
one day o<strong>the</strong>r predators including gray<br />
wolves (Canis lupus), black bears (Ursus<br />
americana), lynx (Lynx canadensis), and<br />
wolverines (Gulo gulo) east <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Rockies.<br />
Seemingly integral to <strong>the</strong> subject <strong>of</strong><br />
cougars east <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Rockies is <strong>the</strong> question<br />
<strong>of</strong> whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> species persisted in its native<br />
state beyond <strong>the</strong> days <strong>of</strong> its supposed
extirpation. In <strong>the</strong> big picture, however, if<br />
free-ranging pumas are present and<br />
behaving in wild puma ways, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
origin, whe<strong>the</strong>r from native eastern or<br />
western stock or sanctioned or unsanctioned<br />
releases, should not alter <strong>the</strong>ir proper<br />
management and may be irrelevant. While<br />
<strong>the</strong> cats in many confirmed puma reports are<br />
written <strong>of</strong>f as FERCs and denied<br />
consideration as legitimate ecological<br />
entities, <strong>the</strong> North American continent teems<br />
with a host <strong>of</strong> wildlife populations having<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir origins in captivity. These span <strong>the</strong><br />
spectrum from critically endangered species<br />
to non-native exotics raised like barnyard<br />
fowl and annually introduced solely for<br />
sporting opportunities. Yet <strong>the</strong>se former<br />
captives continue to benefit from <strong>of</strong>ficial<br />
recognition, management, and protection.<br />
Should mountain lions that happen to show<br />
up in areas where <strong>the</strong>ir presence is<br />
considered improbable be any different?<br />
Having said this, <strong>the</strong> historically<br />
consistent pattern <strong>of</strong> sightings and periodic<br />
confirmations, while circumstantial,<br />
suggests native pumas did persist in many<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir former midwestern and eastern<br />
range at least into <strong>the</strong> 1940s and 1950s.<br />
After World War II, however, ownership <strong>of</strong><br />
cougars and o<strong>the</strong>r wild, exotic, or novelty<br />
animals became part <strong>of</strong> mainstream<br />
Americana and some captive cougars likely<br />
ended up as FERCs. Unfortunately this<br />
phenomenon continues today and is not<br />
necessarily limited to <strong>the</strong> eastern USA. As a<br />
result, <strong>the</strong> ultimate origin <strong>of</strong> almost any freeranging<br />
puma today, even with genetic<br />
testing, may truly be indeterminate.<br />
Summary <strong>of</strong> Occurrence Records<br />
In keeping with a big picture perspective<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cryptic cougar subject, it is useful to<br />
review a sampling <strong>of</strong> bonafide puma reports.<br />
Examples <strong>of</strong> confirmed or highly credible<br />
reports, mostly peer-reviewed, follow.<br />
“Confirmed kill” indicates that a puma was<br />
killed and <strong>the</strong> incident documented both<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf 73<br />
photographically and by written or verbal<br />
elaboration <strong>of</strong> substantial details, or without<br />
photos but with written or verbal elaboration<br />
<strong>of</strong> substantial details by a pr<strong>of</strong>essional<br />
scientist or wildlife manager associated with<br />
or employed by a governmental natural<br />
resource agency or academic institution.<br />
“Reported kill” involves highly credible<br />
documentation by a natural resource<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>essional <strong>of</strong> a mountain lion being killed,<br />
but reflects a lack <strong>of</strong> substantial details.<br />
“Confirmed tracks” indicates that a track or<br />
tracks consistent with those <strong>of</strong> a puma were<br />
located and documented via measurements<br />
and/or photographs subsequently published<br />
in mainstream scientific or popular literature<br />
and thus widely available for independent<br />
scrutiny and au<strong>the</strong>ntication.<br />
Reported kill - Williston, North Dakota,<br />
1902 (Bailey 1926)<br />
Reported kill - Bears Paw <strong>Mountain</strong>s,<br />
Montana, 1910 (White 1967)<br />
Reported kill - Fontana Village area,<br />
Tennessee, 1920 (Linzey and Linzey<br />
1971)<br />
Confirmed kill - Mundleville, New<br />
Brunswick, 1932 (Wright 1972)<br />
Confirmed kill - Little Saint John Lake,<br />
Maine-Quebec border, 1938 (Wright<br />
1972)<br />
Confirmed kill - Madison, Saskatchewan,<br />
1939 (Clarke 1942)<br />
Confirmed kill - Pasquia Hills,<br />
Saskatchewan, 1948 (White 1963)<br />
Confirmed kill - Asheville, Alabama, 1948<br />
(Anonymous 1948)<br />
Confirmed kill - Mena, Arkansas, 1948<br />
(Lewis 1969, Nowak 1976)<br />
Confirmed kill - Sims, Arkansas, 1949<br />
(Sealander 1951)<br />
Confirmed kill - Black Hills, South Dakota,<br />
1958 (Mann 1959)<br />
Reported kills (2) - Newcastle, Wyoming,<br />
ca 1950s-1960s (Roop 1971)<br />
Reported kills (2) - Van Tassell, Wyoming,<br />
ca 1959-1960 (Roop 1971)
74 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf<br />
Confirmed kill - Keithville, Louisiana,<br />
1965 (Goertz and Abegg 1966)<br />
Confirmed kill - Edinboro, Pennsylvania,<br />
1967 (Doutt 1969)<br />
Confirmed carcass - Checotah, Oklahoma,<br />
1968 (Lewis 1969)<br />
Confirmed kill - Hamburg, Arkansas, 1969<br />
(Noble 1971)<br />
Reported kill - Ekalaka, Montana, ca 1970<br />
(Nowak 1976)<br />
Confirmed kill - Pikeville, Tennessee, 1971<br />
(Nowak 1976)<br />
Confirmed kill - Stead, Manitoba, 1973<br />
(Nero and Wrigley 1977)<br />
Confirmed kill - Cutknife, Saskatchewan,<br />
1975 (White 1976)<br />
Cougar reportedly trapped - Baca County,<br />
Colorado, 1976 (Boddicker 1980)<br />
Confirmed hematological evidence -<br />
Menominee County, Michigan, 1984<br />
(Bill Adrian, Colorado Division <strong>of</strong><br />
Wildlife, personal communication)<br />
Puma trapped, radio-collared, translocated<br />
to Black Hills - central South Dakota,<br />
1990 or 1992 (Ted Benzon and Ron<br />
Sieg, South Dakota Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Game, Fish and Parks, personal<br />
communication; Tischendorf and<br />
Henderson 1994) (Note: This cat was<br />
killed in <strong>the</strong> Black Hills in 1996 [Ron<br />
Sieg, South Dakota Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Game, Fish and Parks, personal<br />
communication])<br />
Confirmed kill - Golden Valley County,<br />
North Dakota, 1991 (Tischendorf and<br />
Henderson 1994)<br />
Confirmed kill - Pine Ridge area, Nebraska,<br />
1991 (Tischendorf 1992a, Tischendorf<br />
and Henderson 1994)<br />
Cougar trapped and translocated to<br />
Colorado - Worthington, Minnesota,<br />
1991 (Tischendorf 1992a, b)<br />
Confirmed kill - Lowery, South Dakota,<br />
1992 (Tischendorf and Henderson<br />
1994)<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
Confirmed kill - Lake Abitibi, Quebec,<br />
1992 (Tischendorf 1993a)<br />
Confirmed tracks - McKiel Lake, New<br />
Brunswick, 1992 (Tischendorf 1993b,<br />
Cumberland and Dempsey 1994)<br />
Confirmed kill - Texas County, Missouri,<br />
1994 (Hardin 1996, Bolgiano et al.<br />
2000)<br />
Confirmed kill - Mitchell, Nebraska, 1996<br />
(Frank Andelt, Nebraska Game and<br />
Parks Commission, personal<br />
communication)<br />
Confirmed kill - Floyd County, Kentucky,<br />
1997 (Bolgiano 2001)<br />
Confirmed kill - Randolph County, Illinois,<br />
2000 (Clark et al 2002)<br />
Confirmed kill - Duluth, Minnesota, 2001<br />
(Anonymous 2002)<br />
Confirmed kill - Harlan, Iowa, 2001<br />
(Anonymous 2002, Clark et al 2002)<br />
Confirmed kill - Callaway County,<br />
Missouri, 2003 (Graham 2003)<br />
Almost 30 years ago Nowak (1976:143-<br />
144) commented, “The sum <strong>of</strong> evidence<br />
suggests that native cougar populations have<br />
maintained <strong>the</strong>mselves in sou<strong>the</strong>astern<br />
Canada, within <strong>the</strong> former range <strong>of</strong> F. c.<br />
cougar (sic: should be couguar), and in <strong>the</strong><br />
Ozark Plateau and adjoining forests <strong>of</strong><br />
Arkansas, sou<strong>the</strong>rn Missouri, eastern<br />
Oklahoma, and nor<strong>the</strong>rn Louisiana.”<br />
Indeed, even if ecologically significant<br />
populations did not persist, <strong>the</strong> above list<br />
suggests it is doubtful that <strong>the</strong>se furtive<br />
felids were ever totally extirpated from <strong>the</strong><br />
vast, and in many cases relatively<br />
inaccessible, environs <strong>of</strong> this area.<br />
Relatively pristine areas within New<br />
Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba,<br />
for instance, could possibly have sustained<br />
individual pumas or even vestigial, remnant<br />
populations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se cats through <strong>the</strong> “Dark<br />
Age” <strong>of</strong> wildlife and habitat management<br />
late in <strong>the</strong> late 19 th and early 20 th centuries.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> USA, a number <strong>of</strong> areas could<br />
also have served as similar refugia. As late
as <strong>the</strong> mid-1940s, for instance, noted<br />
mammalogist Victor Cahalane<br />
acknowledged cougar presence in<br />
Shenandoah National Park and adjacent<br />
Blue Ridge country <strong>of</strong> Virginia (Cahalane<br />
1948). O<strong>the</strong>r plausible refuges include<br />
nor<strong>the</strong>rn Maine, <strong>the</strong> Adirondacks, <strong>the</strong><br />
Quabbin Reservoir area in Massachusetts,<br />
nor<strong>the</strong>rn Pennsylvania, <strong>the</strong> impenetrable<br />
sou<strong>the</strong>astern and sou<strong>the</strong>rn coastal swamps,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Great Smoky <strong>Mountain</strong>s area, <strong>the</strong><br />
Tennessee-Virginia-Kentucky-West<br />
Virginia border country, <strong>the</strong> dense<br />
northwoods <strong>of</strong> Michigan and Minnesota, <strong>the</strong><br />
Ozark and Ouachita <strong>Mountain</strong> complex <strong>of</strong><br />
Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, and <strong>the</strong><br />
Black Hills <strong>of</strong> South Dakota and Wyoming.<br />
White-tailed deer (Odocoileus<br />
virginianus) and mule deer (Odocoileus<br />
hemionus) irruptions in many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se same<br />
areas were identified circa 1940, confirming<br />
that within only a few generations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
puma’s supposed demise <strong>the</strong>se sites had an<br />
adequate prey base to sustain or attract <strong>the</strong><br />
species (Leopold et al. 1947). While an<br />
alternative argument is <strong>of</strong> course that <strong>the</strong><br />
irruptions resulted from lack <strong>of</strong> predators,<br />
irruptions were also noted in <strong>the</strong> Rocky<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong>s, where historically we know<br />
mountain lion populations may have been<br />
depleted but were never decimated.<br />
Indeed, in seminal biological<br />
publications as late as <strong>the</strong> mid-1970s and<br />
1980s several noted mammalogists and<br />
wildlife scientists postulated <strong>the</strong> continued<br />
presence <strong>of</strong> puma populations in <strong>the</strong>se very<br />
same areas (Cahalane 1964, Burt and<br />
Grossenheider 1976, Nowak 1976, Deems<br />
and Pursley 1978, Russell 1978, Hall 1981,<br />
Anderson 1983).<br />
None<strong>the</strong>less, such reports seemingly<br />
generated merely passing interest from<br />
mainstream science and remained largely <strong>of</strong>f<br />
<strong>the</strong> radar screen <strong>of</strong> wildlife biologists.<br />
Today, with <strong>the</strong> growing groundswell in<br />
conservation biology and corridor ecology,<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf 75<br />
scientists are more inclined to recognize <strong>the</strong><br />
importance and implications <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> presence<br />
<strong>of</strong> small, insular predator populations or<br />
even remnant, wandering, or dispersing<br />
individuals. Indeed, such enclaves or<br />
individuals may provide <strong>the</strong> necessary seed<br />
for recolonization or recovery.<br />
Natural resource agencies responsible<br />
for some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se above-mentioned areas<br />
today, such as <strong>the</strong> Black Hills, have in fact<br />
confirmed extant puma populations<br />
(Tischendorf and Henderson 1994).<br />
Additionally, for quite some time o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
states such as North Dakota, Minnesota,<br />
Wisconsin, Missouri, and Arkansas have<br />
acknowledged at least limited and sporadic<br />
puma presence (Sealander and Gipson 1973,<br />
Gerson 1988, Tischendorf and Henderson<br />
1994, Clark et al. 2002, Graham 2003,<br />
Heisel 2003). Michigan Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Natural Resources <strong>of</strong>ficials acknowledge <strong>the</strong><br />
presence <strong>of</strong> pumas in <strong>the</strong> Great Lakes State<br />
as well, and ongoing work <strong>the</strong>re at least<br />
suggests <strong>the</strong> possibility <strong>of</strong> a resident,<br />
breeding population (Johnson 2002,<br />
Zuidema 2002, Mike Zuidema, Michigan<br />
Department <strong>of</strong> Forestry, retired, personal<br />
communication). Given <strong>the</strong> habitat, cover,<br />
prey base, and presence <strong>of</strong> a thriving<br />
carnivore guild that includes populations <strong>of</strong><br />
wolves, bears, coyotes (Canis latrans),<br />
bobcats (Felis rufus), fishers (Martes<br />
pennanti), and probably an occasional lynx,<br />
it would perhaps be more surprising if<br />
Michigan did not have a resident puma<br />
population.<br />
The situation in <strong>the</strong> Prairie Provinces <strong>of</strong><br />
Canada, with <strong>the</strong>ir seemingly less<br />
sensational and less controversial approach<br />
to <strong>the</strong> cat, is similar, if not even more<br />
definitive. In Saskatchewan, <strong>the</strong> late Tom<br />
White documented <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> a small<br />
population <strong>of</strong> pumas filtering among <strong>the</strong><br />
coulees and more rugged reaches <strong>of</strong> this<br />
sprawling province (White 1982). The<br />
Yukon and Northwest Territories, and
76 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf<br />
Alaska as well, have a consistent history <strong>of</strong><br />
credible puma reports, suggesting occasional<br />
dispersal, while Manitoba Conservation<br />
continues to recognize a stable and perhaps<br />
growing puma population in that province<br />
(Cahalane 1964; Weddle 1965; Kuyt 1971;<br />
White 1982; Wrigley and Nero 1982; Robert<br />
W. Nero, Manitoba Museum <strong>of</strong> Man and<br />
Nature, retired, personal communication).<br />
Cougar Comeback<br />
Some researchers believe that pumas, as<br />
wolves did in <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn Rocky <strong>Mountain</strong>s<br />
in <strong>the</strong> 1980s, are in fact re-colonizing many<br />
areas in <strong>the</strong> Great Plains and central<br />
mountains eastward (Tischendorf and<br />
Henderson 1994). As is true for <strong>the</strong> Dakotas<br />
and Minnesota, most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> prairie states,<br />
including Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and<br />
Iowa acknowledge, if not resident <strong>the</strong>n<br />
transient occurrences <strong>of</strong> pumas (Tischendorf<br />
and Henderson 1994; Johnson 1998, 2000).<br />
The same is true for <strong>the</strong> eastern portions <strong>of</strong><br />
Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Texas,<br />
where, in some cases, sporadic puma<br />
presence has been noted for years but where<br />
documented occurrences <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se “prairie<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>rs” are clearly on <strong>the</strong> increase<br />
(Boddicker 1980; Berg et al. 1983; Johnson<br />
1998, 2000; Riley 1991; Roop 1971; Russ<br />
1997).<br />
Deer-rich riparian zones along river<br />
systems such as <strong>the</strong> Yellowstone, Missouri,<br />
North and South Platte, Arkansas, Canadian,<br />
Red, and Colorado River in Texas, can<br />
undoubtedly serve as effective corridors for<br />
puma immigration all <strong>the</strong> way to <strong>the</strong><br />
sou<strong>the</strong>astern Texas coast, Mississippi River,<br />
and beyond. Additionally, <strong>the</strong><br />
documentation <strong>of</strong> puma deaths along<br />
railroad tracks in Nebraska and Illinois<br />
suggests <strong>the</strong> possibility that railroad right<strong>of</strong>-ways<br />
and associated brush belts may also<br />
be effective pathways for pumas (Frank<br />
Andelt, Nebraska Game and Parks<br />
Commission, personal communication;<br />
Clark et al. 2002).<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
The same pattern <strong>of</strong> puma recolonization<br />
discussed above could be<br />
occurring from <strong>the</strong> mid-continent’s nor<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
reaches south and eastward. For instance,<br />
Manitoba’s puma population may be linked<br />
with Ontario to <strong>the</strong> east and nor<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan to <strong>the</strong><br />
south. Conversely, if low numbers <strong>of</strong> pumas<br />
have in fact inhabited some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se areas all<br />
along, <strong>the</strong>ir acknowledged presence today<br />
may be a function <strong>of</strong> both immigration and<br />
numerical local growth.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>ast, a similar phenomenon<br />
<strong>of</strong> range reestablishment may be taking<br />
place. This sentiment was first voiced by<br />
Canadian biologist Bruce Wright, famed<br />
World War II frogman-commando, Leopold<br />
student, early champion for <strong>the</strong> eastern<br />
cougar, and a strong advocate for eastern<br />
carnivore recovery (Wright 1959, 1972;<br />
Tischendorf 1996a; Allardyce 2001). It was<br />
Wright’s belief that throughout European<br />
man’s settlement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> region pan<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
persisted in <strong>the</strong> central highlands <strong>of</strong> New<br />
Brunswick and by <strong>the</strong> mid-1900s were, like<br />
<strong>the</strong> spokes <strong>of</strong> a wheel, re-populating and<br />
reclaiming <strong>the</strong>ir former range in <strong>the</strong> East.<br />
This belief, while perennially difficult to<br />
reconcile with <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> confirmed puma<br />
populations in New Brunswick, or anywhere<br />
else in <strong>the</strong> East outside <strong>of</strong> Florida, is<br />
exemplified by growing numbers <strong>of</strong> not<br />
simply puma reports, but <strong>of</strong> highly credible<br />
or even verified puma reports (Gerson 1988,<br />
Cumberland and Dempsey 1994, Snow<br />
1994, Stocek 1995, Bolgiano et al. 2000).<br />
These include specimens, scats, tracks, and<br />
videotapes depicting <strong>the</strong>se cats across a wide<br />
geographical zone extending essentially<br />
from Ontario to Newfoundland and<br />
southward to Georgia.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>ast USA, Maine and New<br />
York are perhaps <strong>the</strong> most promising in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> numbers <strong>of</strong> credible puma reports.<br />
One ra<strong>the</strong>r compelling report from Maine<br />
involved a shaken hunter who, at extremely
close range, came upon <strong>the</strong> gripping scene<br />
<strong>of</strong> what he described as a puma mortally<br />
ravaging a bobcat (Tischendorf 1994a). A<br />
sampling <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r data from Maine on file at<br />
<strong>the</strong> American Ecological Research Institute<br />
(AERIE) includes a hair sample<br />
confirmation from 1995, a track photograph<br />
from <strong>the</strong> mid-1990s, and a credible 2000<br />
report <strong>of</strong> what was thought to be a female<br />
puma and kitten. This author has also seen<br />
puma track photos taken by biologist George<br />
Matula <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Maine Department <strong>of</strong> Inland<br />
Fisheries and Wildlife at a deer yard during<br />
routine winter surveys circa 1984 or 1985.<br />
Credible New York puma reports on file<br />
with AERIE include <strong>the</strong> killing <strong>of</strong> a puma<br />
kitten by a bobcat hunter in <strong>the</strong> early 1990s<br />
and three believable sightings <strong>of</strong> individual<br />
pumas by pr<strong>of</strong>essional natural resource<br />
workers. All <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se events stem from <strong>the</strong><br />
vast Adirondack Park area and occurred<br />
during <strong>the</strong> 1990s.<br />
O<strong>the</strong>r areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>ast are not<br />
without <strong>the</strong>ir own intriguing data. In 1994,<br />
for instance, a group <strong>of</strong> 3 pumas was<br />
observed and tracked near <strong>the</strong> community <strong>of</strong><br />
Craftsbury, Vermont (Theodore Reed,<br />
Friends <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Eastern Pan<strong>the</strong>r, personal<br />
communication). Presumably an adult<br />
female with 2 kittens, a scat deposited by <strong>the</strong><br />
group was collected; subsequent analysis<br />
confirmed presence <strong>of</strong> puma hairs (Bonnie<br />
Yates, USFWS Wildlife Forensic<br />
Laboratory, personal communication). A<br />
hair sample from <strong>the</strong> remote and<br />
untrammeled Gaspe’ Peninsula in nor<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
Quebec was also recently confirmed as that<br />
<strong>of</strong> a puma by Marc Gauthier and his<br />
Canadian research team (Mark Dowling,<br />
Eastern Cougar Network, personal<br />
communication).<br />
Evidence <strong>of</strong> Breeding and Validity <strong>of</strong><br />
Sighting Reports<br />
The questions <strong>of</strong> confirmed puma<br />
breeding and actual puma numbers are<br />
problematic. In <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> systematic,<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf 77<br />
scientifically objective, replicable, and<br />
typically expensive multi-year studies, such<br />
as those involving mark and recapture<br />
techniques or radio telemetry, it is difficult<br />
to extrapolate population-level<br />
characteristics <strong>of</strong> any animal. And, as<br />
several speakers at this conference have<br />
noted, even with robust, million dollar<br />
studies, it is difficult to quantify puma<br />
populations. Even more difficult and more<br />
expensive is monitoring a puma population<br />
over substantial periods <strong>of</strong> time. What does<br />
this bode for eastern and midwestern<br />
resource agencies trying to decode <strong>the</strong> issue<br />
<strong>of</strong> cryptic cats that many seem to report but<br />
few can verify?<br />
Complicating <strong>the</strong> issue is <strong>the</strong> fact that<br />
agencies and <strong>the</strong>ir human constituency east<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Rocky <strong>Mountain</strong>s have limited<br />
exposure to large carnivores and <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
management. In this geographic area <strong>the</strong>re<br />
truly is a different mindset and comfort level<br />
towards research and management involving<br />
<strong>the</strong>se animals, especially those capable <strong>of</strong><br />
attacking and killing people. In <strong>the</strong> Black<br />
Hills <strong>of</strong> South Dakota, for instance, radiotracking<br />
<strong>of</strong> a young male puma in <strong>the</strong> early<br />
1990s was discontinued after only a short<br />
time due to concerns over liability if <strong>the</strong><br />
animal were implicated in damage to a<br />
human or to human property (Tischendorf<br />
and Henderson 1994).<br />
Again due to concerns over liability,<br />
Missouri <strong>of</strong>ficials are reluctant to approve<br />
any studies involving handling or marking<br />
<strong>of</strong> black bears, which are apparently<br />
repopulating <strong>the</strong> Show-Me-State (Lynn<br />
Robbins, Southwest Missouri State<br />
University, personal communication).<br />
Confounding <strong>the</strong> matter fur<strong>the</strong>r are <strong>the</strong><br />
controversial predatory and wide-ranging<br />
characteristics <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> animal and local<br />
uncertainty regarding its actual status as an<br />
endangered species versus a FERC. Not<br />
surprisingly <strong>the</strong>n, in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> puma in<br />
<strong>the</strong> East, Midwest, or prairies where it is
78 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf<br />
frequently perceived by natural resource<br />
agencies as a “species non grata”, few<br />
intensive prospective documentation efforts<br />
have ever been undertaken (Van Dyke1983,<br />
McGinnis 1988, Humphreys 1994). To this<br />
author’s knowledge, east <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Black Hills<br />
and north <strong>of</strong> Florida and sou<strong>the</strong>rn Georgia<br />
no free-ranging puma has ever been radioinstrumented<br />
or o<strong>the</strong>rwise marked and<br />
tracked.<br />
What we are left with in <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong><br />
pumas east <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Rockies are largely<br />
sighting reports and compilations <strong>of</strong> sighting<br />
reports. Such data are <strong>of</strong>ten met with<br />
incredulity, yet historically <strong>the</strong> scientific<br />
literature, particularly that related to<br />
carnivores, is replete with papers involving<br />
nothing more than sighting reports. Articles<br />
by Berg et al. (1983), involving pumas, and<br />
Quinn (1995), who worked with urban<br />
coyotes, are but two <strong>of</strong> many peer-reviewed<br />
examples <strong>of</strong> which this author is aware.<br />
Where people are reporting unknown or<br />
unsuspected animals, it <strong>of</strong>ten seems one is<br />
eventually killed and populations are<br />
subsequently substantiated, vindicating<br />
those who originally reported sightings.<br />
Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> survival <strong>of</strong> rare animals<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten depends on timely and critical<br />
decision-making. If sighting reports are <strong>the</strong><br />
best with which a researcher has to work,<br />
and particularly if some level <strong>of</strong> scientific<br />
rigor can be applied to <strong>the</strong>ir interpretation,<br />
as demonstrated by Quinn’s coyote research<br />
involving sighting reports in Washington, D.<br />
C., <strong>the</strong>n it is unscientific and ill advised to<br />
carte blanche ignore such reports (Quinn<br />
1995).<br />
In <strong>the</strong> case <strong>of</strong> colonization or repopulation,<br />
by definition <strong>the</strong>re is a temporal<br />
continuum <strong>of</strong> occurrence. Early in <strong>the</strong><br />
process, <strong>the</strong> animals in question are few.<br />
Colonization, re-colonization, or repopulation<br />
ends, if successful, with a selfsustaining<br />
population. The puma<br />
phenomenon east <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Rocky <strong>Mountain</strong>s is<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
presumably somewhere along this<br />
continuum. Evidence presented at this<br />
conference suggests puma presence in some<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> West, for instance east-central<br />
and eastern New Mexico, is on <strong>the</strong> same<br />
continuum (Rick Winslow, New Mexico<br />
Game and Fish Department, personal<br />
communication).<br />
The question <strong>of</strong> breeding is, <strong>of</strong> course,<br />
pivotal in <strong>the</strong> discussion <strong>of</strong> purported puma<br />
populations and presence. Here again,<br />
however, o<strong>the</strong>r than efforts to collect<br />
sighting reports, <strong>the</strong>re has been little formal,<br />
proactive modern research on <strong>the</strong> species in<br />
eastern North America so information on<br />
this topic is limited. None<strong>the</strong>less, some<br />
useful information can be derived from <strong>the</strong><br />
available data. In <strong>the</strong> 1970s or early 1980s,<br />
a string <strong>of</strong> credible eyewitness reports<br />
suggested <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> an adult puma and<br />
kitten(s) along <strong>the</strong> Blue Ridge Parkway<br />
(Robert Downing, USFWS, retired, personal<br />
communication). A carnivore biologist<br />
claims to have observed a family group <strong>of</strong><br />
pumas in nor<strong>the</strong>rn Minnesota in <strong>the</strong> 1970s<br />
(Bill Berg, Minnesota Department <strong>of</strong><br />
Natural Resources, retired, personal<br />
communication). More recently in<br />
Minnesota, breeding was also implied in <strong>the</strong><br />
case <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> female puma killed outside<br />
Duluth in 2001 (Anonymous 2002). In her<br />
company were two kittens, both later<br />
captured and placed into captivity (Mark<br />
Dowling, Eastern Cougar Network, personal<br />
communication). The cougar killed in Floyd<br />
County, Kentucky in 1997, cited earlier, had<br />
spotted pelage and was in <strong>the</strong> company <strong>of</strong> at<br />
least one o<strong>the</strong>r, larger cat, when it was<br />
struck by a car (Bolgiano 2001). A<br />
biological scientist observed a puma and<br />
several kittens in Missouri in <strong>the</strong> early<br />
1990s. This is one <strong>of</strong> several episodes,<br />
including <strong>the</strong> poaching <strong>of</strong> a cougar (Texas<br />
County, cited earlier) and <strong>the</strong> videotaping <strong>of</strong><br />
a puma at a deer kill that triggered a<br />
substantial increase in public and agency
awareness <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> puma in <strong>the</strong> state (Lynn<br />
Robbins, Southwest Missouri State<br />
University, personal communication). As<br />
noted above, recent credible reports <strong>of</strong><br />
females with kittens have also originated<br />
from both Vermont and Maine. Many o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
instances <strong>of</strong> apparent puma breeding in <strong>the</strong><br />
East were discussed by Wright (1972). Such<br />
isolated incidents are certainly not<br />
unequivocal pro<strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong> a puma population or<br />
breeding, but in <strong>the</strong> big picture <strong>the</strong>y do tend<br />
to support <strong>the</strong> belief that at least a few<br />
pumas are present and sporadic reproduction<br />
is occurring.<br />
Predator Parallels - Bobcat, Black Bear,<br />
Jaguar, and Coyote<br />
Many <strong>of</strong> those skeptical <strong>of</strong> puma<br />
presence in eastern North America cite <strong>the</strong><br />
vast suburbanization and urbanization <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
region as an effective limiting factor. Yet, if<br />
populations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> versatile puma can exist<br />
in human dense areas <strong>of</strong> California,<br />
Colorado, and Florida, <strong>the</strong> species could<br />
surely inhabit portions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> East and<br />
Midwest, especially given <strong>the</strong> high<br />
populations <strong>of</strong> deer, feral hogs, and o<strong>the</strong>r,<br />
mid-sized and smaller game found<br />
throughout <strong>the</strong> region. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
eastern carnivores including bobcats, black<br />
bears, and wolves are apparently acclimating<br />
to evolving habitats and human presence and<br />
expanding <strong>the</strong>ir populations and/or ranges<br />
(Stoll 1996). Benchmarking with <strong>the</strong>se<br />
species supports <strong>the</strong> contention that <strong>the</strong> even<br />
more elastic puma can do <strong>the</strong> same. A<br />
similar comparison can be made with <strong>the</strong><br />
jaguar (Pan<strong>the</strong>ra onca) in <strong>the</strong> West, which,<br />
while noted in <strong>the</strong> region only rarely for<br />
decades, has been probing borderland<br />
Mexico-Arizona-New Mexico habitat with<br />
increasing frequency in recent years (Brown<br />
and Lopez-Gonzalez 2000).<br />
The coyote provides an additional case<br />
study in relation to <strong>the</strong> possible existence <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> puma east <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Rocky <strong>Mountain</strong>s<br />
(Tischendorf 1994b). This adaptable, mid-<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf 79<br />
sized, quintessentially western carnivore<br />
arrived on <strong>the</strong> midwestern and eastern<br />
landscape as a veritable newcomer in<br />
approximately <strong>the</strong> 1960s and 70s (Gerry<br />
Parker, Canadian Wildlife Service, retired,<br />
personal communication). Similar to what<br />
transpires today with many puma reports,<br />
coyote presence was initially refuted or<br />
attributed to feral individuals or<br />
hybridization with dogs. In retrospect, <strong>the</strong>se<br />
assessments were not entirely correct. It is a<br />
convincing reflection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> regional habitat<br />
quality and prey base that so successfully<br />
has <strong>the</strong> species colonized <strong>the</strong> eastern half <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> continent it is today a thriving, legally<br />
trapped, hunted, and pursued game animal.<br />
If <strong>the</strong> puma is as adaptable as its history<br />
suggests, <strong>the</strong>n intuitively it is simply a<br />
matter <strong>of</strong> time before it follows <strong>the</strong> coyote’s<br />
lead.<br />
Biolegal Issues<br />
While current <strong>the</strong>ories support <strong>the</strong><br />
contention that North American pumas are<br />
genetically panmictic, <strong>the</strong> Endangered<br />
Species Act (ESA) specifically identifies<br />
only <strong>the</strong> subspecies P. c. couguar (<strong>the</strong><br />
supposed true “eastern puma”) and P. c.<br />
coryi (<strong>the</strong> “Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r” or more<br />
correctly “sou<strong>the</strong>rn puma” [Greenwell<br />
1996:18, 36]) as endangered (Florida<br />
Pan<strong>the</strong>r Interagency Committee 1993,<br />
Greenwell 1996, Culver et al 2000).<br />
Florida, with its mongrel mix <strong>of</strong> native,<br />
Texan, “Piper”, and illicitly released<br />
animals, has overcome this issue by working<br />
with <strong>the</strong> federal government to enact<br />
similarity <strong>of</strong> appearance protection laws for<br />
all <strong>of</strong> its pumas. Thus, Florida’s pumas,<br />
regardless <strong>of</strong> origin, now all fall under <strong>the</strong><br />
convenient, albeit taxonomically outdated<br />
umbrella moniker <strong>of</strong> “Florida pan<strong>the</strong>r”<br />
(Alvarez 1993).<br />
Elsewhere in <strong>the</strong> East and <strong>the</strong> Midwest<br />
<strong>the</strong>re exists much confusion and feline<br />
filibustering about what constitutes a puma<br />
meriting ESA protection versus one that can
80 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf<br />
be considered a western wanderer or<br />
escaped or released captive (Tischendorf<br />
1994b, Cardoza and Langlois 2002).<br />
Clouding <strong>the</strong> issue is <strong>the</strong> fact that much <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Midwest was considered original range<br />
<strong>of</strong> F. c. schorgeri, <strong>the</strong> supposed “Wisconsin<br />
puma” which technically fits nei<strong>the</strong>r into <strong>the</strong><br />
ESA nor <strong>the</strong> eastern cougar recovery plan <strong>of</strong><br />
1982, which in any case has never been<br />
implemented (Nowak 1976, Hall 1981,<br />
USFWS 1982).<br />
As Albert Einstein reportedly said,<br />
“Perfection <strong>of</strong> means and confusion <strong>of</strong> goals<br />
seem, in my opinion, to characterize our<br />
age.” More simply, sometimes <strong>the</strong> process<br />
can get in <strong>the</strong> way <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> purpose. Clearly,<br />
<strong>the</strong> Endangered Species Act is meant to<br />
protect rare animals. Equally apparent, <strong>the</strong><br />
puma from <strong>the</strong> Great Plains eastward is rare.<br />
Should <strong>the</strong> ESA unequivocally and<br />
ultimately serve as a tool to protect this li<strong>the</strong><br />
and golden ghost as it reestablishes itself<br />
across its original range? Or can <strong>the</strong> case be<br />
made that federal delisting, in concert with<br />
state or multi-state management plans and<br />
agreements, unencumbered by federal<br />
oversight, may more favorably serve <strong>the</strong><br />
puma <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Great Plains, Midwest, and<br />
East?<br />
The Jaguar Conservation Team<br />
(JAGCT), a diverse coalition <strong>of</strong> agencies<br />
and individuals working toge<strong>the</strong>r to develop<br />
and implement a sound plan for protecting<br />
and conserving jaguars in <strong>the</strong> Southwest,<br />
may serve as a template organization for<br />
those involved with puma recovery east <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Rocky <strong>Mountain</strong>s. Formed in 1997,<br />
prior to listing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> jaguar as an<br />
endangered species north <strong>of</strong> Mexico by <strong>the</strong><br />
USFWS, <strong>the</strong> JAGCT operates under a<br />
formal conservation agreement with <strong>the</strong><br />
USFWS and today functions as an ad hoc<br />
jaguar recovery team (Bill Van Pelt, Arizona<br />
Game and Fish Department, personal<br />
communication). In essence, <strong>the</strong> JAGCT<br />
attempts to preempt <strong>the</strong> potential for heavy-<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
handedness and long-distance directives <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> ESA by working locally with all its<br />
stakeholders to proactively find effective<br />
solutions to conflict (Bill Van Pelt, Arizona<br />
Game and Fish Department, personal<br />
communication).<br />
For now <strong>the</strong> future <strong>of</strong> eastern or<br />
midwestern pumas is largely tied to <strong>the</strong><br />
ESA. Certainly similarity <strong>of</strong> appearance<br />
semantics related to pumas and <strong>the</strong> ESA in<br />
Florida have symbiotically done much to<br />
pave <strong>the</strong> way for puma recovery elsewhere<br />
east <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Rockies. Still, if <strong>the</strong> ESA is to<br />
play a pivotal role, it clearly requires<br />
modification to recognize P. concolor in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> individuals and populations,<br />
without regard to an obsolete concept <strong>of</strong><br />
subspecies, as <strong>the</strong> rare animal that east <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Rocky <strong>Mountain</strong>s it truly is (Tischendorf<br />
1994c, 1995). Such modification would<br />
thus effectively resolve <strong>the</strong> unintentional but<br />
critical double standard for recovery that<br />
exists for pumas in Florida versus those<br />
elsewhere in <strong>the</strong> East and Midwest. Based<br />
on <strong>the</strong> powerful sou<strong>the</strong>rn precedent,<br />
similarity <strong>of</strong> appearance protection for all<br />
free-ranging non-nuisance pumas and<br />
potential puma populations today and<br />
tomorrow, not only in Florida, but those<br />
from <strong>the</strong> Great Plains eastward, would be a<br />
simple, logical, and consistent step<br />
(Tischendorf 1994c, 1995; Cardoza and<br />
Langlois 2002).<br />
In <strong>the</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn Rockies with <strong>the</strong> wolf,<br />
and in Florida with <strong>the</strong> puma, recovery has<br />
been facilitated by formal restoration efforts.<br />
It is questionable whe<strong>the</strong>r such<br />
governmentally sanctioned activities will be<br />
carried out to enhance natural cougar<br />
recovery in eastern or midwestern North<br />
America. Economic issues certainly exist,<br />
witness <strong>the</strong> budgets necessary for not only<br />
gray wolf and pan<strong>the</strong>r restoration, but those<br />
for o<strong>the</strong>r high-pr<strong>of</strong>ile endangered species<br />
like <strong>the</strong> red wolf (Canis rufus), black-footed<br />
ferret (Mustela nigripes), whooping crane
(Grus americana), California condor<br />
(Gymnogyps californianus), and peregrine<br />
falcon (Falco peregrinus).<br />
Additionally, given that <strong>the</strong> species in<br />
question is not just endangered but large,<br />
carnivorous, potentially hazardous to<br />
humans, and an effective ecological<br />
regulator <strong>of</strong> ungulates that figure<br />
prominently in a deeply entrenched hunting<br />
tradition, <strong>the</strong>re is certainly potential for<br />
controversy and conflict among various<br />
public constituencies.<br />
Still, <strong>the</strong>re are intriguing possibilities for<br />
<strong>the</strong> future <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> puma in eastern North<br />
America. Even despite <strong>the</strong> limitations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
ESA, given nothing more than appropriate<br />
deer management, can <strong>the</strong> once ubiquitous<br />
puma survive, re-populate, and thrive in <strong>the</strong><br />
East, Midwest, and Great Plains? Evidence<br />
presented in this paper tends to support this<br />
scenario.<br />
What truly are <strong>the</strong> public attitudes<br />
toward this widely ranging and exquisitely<br />
adaptable carnivore? Do agency attitudes<br />
mirror public sentiment? These critical<br />
human dimension wildlife topics would<br />
make excellent subject matter for a graduate<br />
student project.<br />
As pumas return to <strong>the</strong> Great Plains,<br />
Midwest, and East, <strong>the</strong>re will inevitably be<br />
conflict, as occurs in <strong>the</strong> West, with<br />
agricultural and suburban interests.<br />
Exemplifying this, uncannily, as this paper<br />
was being revised in October 2003, a freeranging<br />
young male puma, presumably<br />
dispersing from <strong>the</strong> west, was captured and<br />
placed into captivity after causing public<br />
unrest and alarm in urban Omaha, Nebraska.<br />
Meanwhile, in Iowa ano<strong>the</strong>r young male<br />
puma was shot and killed by a farmer.<br />
Can we as wildlife pr<strong>of</strong>essionals devise a<br />
new ESA or state-level paradigm for<br />
carnivore management, and specifically <strong>the</strong><br />
phenomenon <strong>of</strong> novel puma presence, that<br />
provides effective oversight for scientific,<br />
evidence-based decisions while allowing for<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf 81<br />
sensible managerial flexibility and creativity<br />
at <strong>the</strong> key stakeholders’ state and local<br />
level? Does <strong>the</strong> JAGCT, with its formal and<br />
proactive conservation agreement with <strong>the</strong><br />
USFWS, provide a workable model for this?<br />
Are <strong>the</strong>re in fact several low density,<br />
highly mobile puma populations and<br />
breeding foci in eastern and mid-western<br />
North America? This question remains<br />
unresolved, but <strong>the</strong> growing body <strong>of</strong><br />
evidence discussed herein suggests that this<br />
possibility should not be discounted.<br />
Finally, despite <strong>the</strong> substantial evidence<br />
to <strong>the</strong> contrary, if pumas are in fact absent<br />
from <strong>the</strong> landscapes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> prairies,<br />
Midwest, and East, what is <strong>the</strong> prognosis for<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir human-aided restoration in seemingly<br />
viable ecosystems like <strong>the</strong> Adirondack<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong>s, <strong>the</strong> prey-rich Alleghenies, <strong>the</strong><br />
Ozark or Ouachita <strong>Mountain</strong>s, or <strong>the</strong><br />
expansive nor<strong>the</strong>rn forests <strong>of</strong> Minnesota,<br />
Michigan, and Maine?<br />
Many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se and o<strong>the</strong>r questions were<br />
raised and addressed in detail at <strong>the</strong> historic<br />
“Eastern Cougar Conference, 1994” held in<br />
Erie, Pennsylvania in June 1994<br />
(Tischendorf and Ropski 1996). This was<br />
<strong>the</strong> first, and remains <strong>the</strong> only, formal<br />
conference ever devoted entirely to <strong>the</strong><br />
subject <strong>of</strong> pumas in eastern North America.<br />
A second conference is planned for<br />
Morgantown, West Virginia, in April 2004.<br />
This conference will roughly mark <strong>the</strong> tenth<br />
anniversary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> first ga<strong>the</strong>ring, providing<br />
a centralized forum for ongoing discussions<br />
and updates on research related to this<br />
intriguing subject.<br />
CONCLUSION<br />
In conclusion, 4 key points:<br />
1. Adaptable animals adapt and <strong>the</strong><br />
puma is one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most adaptable<br />
land mammals in <strong>the</strong> New World.<br />
2. There are no ecological reasons why<br />
<strong>the</strong> puma could not exist in eastern
82 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf<br />
North America today. Across much<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Great Plains, midwestern, and<br />
eastern portions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> continent <strong>the</strong><br />
evidence suggests that in low<br />
densities it does.<br />
3. Using <strong>the</strong> model <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> JAGCT, a<br />
diverse but integrated Conservation<br />
Team should be formed as soon as<br />
possible to promulgate appropriate<br />
changes to <strong>the</strong> ESA (including even<br />
possible delisting) and to critically<br />
evaluate <strong>the</strong> long dormant recovery<br />
plan for cougars in <strong>the</strong> East, which<br />
requires updating to reflect recent<br />
knowledge related to <strong>the</strong> puma east <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> Rocky <strong>Mountain</strong>s (Tischendorf<br />
1996b, Cardoza and Langlois 2002).<br />
4. As mankind enters this new<br />
millennium, return <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> puma to its<br />
former range in <strong>the</strong> Great Plains,<br />
Midwest, and East provides an<br />
opportunity for wildlife pr<strong>of</strong>essionals<br />
with limited firsthand experience with<br />
large carnivores to demonstrate <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
expertise in scientifically and<br />
sociologically managing this<br />
relatively secretive predator on <strong>the</strong><br />
many-faceted modern ecological<br />
interface <strong>of</strong> private and public lands,<br />
politics, and public opinion.<br />
In today’s anthropocentric world, <strong>the</strong><br />
puma, as is <strong>the</strong> case for large carnivores<br />
everywhere, is unfortunately a victim <strong>of</strong> its<br />
own three “E’s” - its evolution, its ecology,<br />
and its ethology. Widely ranging, oblivious<br />
to human-delineated boundaries, a large and<br />
potentially dangerous predator that preys<br />
effectively and efficiently on ungulates both<br />
wild and domestic, <strong>the</strong> puma is an<br />
irrefutable, anachronistic, and controversial<br />
symbol <strong>of</strong> our primeval wild.<br />
In <strong>the</strong> end, <strong>the</strong> message that emerges<br />
today for <strong>the</strong> puma in <strong>the</strong> East is this: even<br />
at its highest densities, few people will ever<br />
see a living, wild puma. Certainly we can<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
live without this great cat. Even more<br />
certainly, it can live without us. Enmeshed<br />
in controversy, entrenched in folklore,<br />
history, and legend, endangered across a<br />
huge portion <strong>of</strong> its historic range, <strong>the</strong> largely<br />
secretive puma presents us with <strong>the</strong> great<br />
challenge <strong>of</strong>, and <strong>the</strong> magnificent<br />
opportunity for, harmonious coexistence.<br />
Hopefully mankind will rise to this rare<br />
occasion to ensure that <strong>the</strong> puma is again a<br />
celebrated and wisely managed part <strong>of</strong> our<br />
Great Plains, midwestern, and eastern<br />
wildlife heritage.<br />
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS<br />
This paper is dedicated to <strong>the</strong> memory <strong>of</strong><br />
Frank C. Craighead, Jr., <strong>of</strong> Moose,<br />
Wyoming, whose life and career were an<br />
inspiration to a generation <strong>of</strong> wildlife<br />
biologists. Kerry Murphy and Randy<br />
Matchett served knowledgeably and capably<br />
as manuscript referees. A special thank you<br />
is extended to <strong>the</strong> Wyoming Game and Fish<br />
Department, coordinator and host for this<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong>.<br />
LITERATURE CITED<br />
ALLARDYCE, G. 2001. On <strong>the</strong> track <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
New Brunswick pan<strong>the</strong>r - <strong>the</strong> story <strong>of</strong><br />
Bruce Wright and <strong>the</strong> eastern pan<strong>the</strong>r.<br />
Privately published, Fredericton, New<br />
Brunswick. 145 pages.<br />
ALVAREZ, K. 1993. Twilight <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
- biology, bureaucracy, and failure in an<br />
endangered species program. Myakka<br />
River Publishing, Sarasota, FL. 501<br />
pages.<br />
ANDERSON, A. E. 1983. A critical review <strong>of</strong><br />
literature on puma (Felis concolor).<br />
Colorado Division <strong>of</strong> Wildlife, Denver.<br />
91 pages.<br />
ANONYMOUS. 1948. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion killed<br />
in St. Clair County. Alabama<br />
Conservationist. April issue. Page 11.<br />
ANONYMOUS. 2002. Cougar killed in<br />
Minnesota. Page 4 in Eastern Cougar
Foundation Newsletter, winter issue. 6<br />
pages.<br />
BAILEY. V. 1926. A biological survey <strong>of</strong><br />
North Dakota. North American Fauna<br />
#49. Washington D. C. Pages 144-146.<br />
BERG, R. L., L. L. MCDONALD, AND M. D.<br />
STRICKLAND. 1983. Distribution <strong>of</strong><br />
mountain lions in Wyoming as<br />
determined by mail questionnaire.<br />
Wildlife Society Bulletin 11(3):265-268.<br />
BODDICKER, M. L. 1980. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion.<br />
Prevention and control <strong>of</strong> wildlife<br />
damage. Great Plains Agricultural<br />
Council, Cooperative Extension Service,<br />
Kansas State University, Manhattan. 6<br />
pages.<br />
BOLGIANO, C., T. LESTER, AND D. MAEHR.<br />
2000. Field evidence <strong>of</strong> cougars in<br />
eastern North America. In L. A.<br />
Harveson, editor, <strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Sixth <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong>, San<br />
Antonio, TX. In press.<br />
BOLGIANO, C. 2001. Important<br />
confirmation: Spotted cougar kitten<br />
killed in Kentucky. Pages 1-2 in Eastern<br />
Cougar Foundation Newsletter, summer<br />
issue. 6 pages.<br />
BROWN, D. E. AND C. A. LOPEZ-GONZALEZ.<br />
2000. Search for el tigre. Defenders<br />
75(2):8-13.<br />
BURT, W. H. AND R. P. GROSSENHEIDER.<br />
1976. A field guide to <strong>the</strong> mammals. 3 rd<br />
edition. Houghton Mifflin Company,<br />
Boston. 289 pages.<br />
CAHALANE, V. H. 1948. The status <strong>of</strong><br />
mammals in <strong>the</strong> U. S. National Park<br />
system, 1947. Journal <strong>of</strong> Mammalogy<br />
29(3):247-259.<br />
CAHALANE, V. H. 1964. A preliminary<br />
study <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> distribution and numbers <strong>of</strong><br />
cougar, grizzly and wolf in North<br />
America. New York Zoological Society,<br />
New York. 12 pages.<br />
CARDOZA, J. E. AND S. A. LANGLOIS. 2002.<br />
The eastern cougar: A management<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf 83<br />
failure? Wildlife Society Bulletin<br />
30(1):265-273.<br />
CLARK, D. W., S. C. WHITE, A. K. BOWERS,<br />
L. D. LUCIO, AND G. A. HEIDT. 2002. A<br />
survey <strong>of</strong> recent accounts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
mountain lion (Puma concolor) in<br />
Arkansas. Sou<strong>the</strong>astern Naturalist<br />
1(3):269-278.<br />
CLARKE, C. H. D. 1942. Cougar in<br />
Saskatchewan. Canadian Field-<br />
Naturalist 56(1):45.<br />
CULVER, M., W. E. JOHNSON, J. PECON-<br />
SLATTERY, AND S. J. O’BRIEN. 2000.<br />
Genomic ancestry <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> American puma<br />
(Puma concolor). Journal <strong>of</strong> Heredity<br />
91(3):186-197.<br />
CUMBERLAND, R. E. AND J. A. DEMPSEY.<br />
1994. Recent confirmation <strong>of</strong> a cougar,<br />
Felis concolor, in New Brunswick.<br />
Canadian Field-Naturalist 108(2):224-<br />
226.<br />
DEEMS, E. F., JR. AND D. PURSLEY, editors.<br />
1978. North American furbearers:<br />
Their management, research and harvest<br />
status in 1976. International Association<br />
<strong>of</strong> Fish and Wildlife Agencies,<br />
Washington, D.C. 177 pages.<br />
DOUTT, J. K. 1969. <strong>Mountain</strong> lions in<br />
Pennsylvania? American Midland<br />
Naturalist 82(1):281-285.<br />
DOWNING, R. L. 1981. The current status<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cougar in <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
Appalachian. Pages 142-151 in<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Nongame and<br />
Endangered Wildlife Symposium, 13-14<br />
August, A<strong>the</strong>ns, GA.<br />
DOWNING, R. L. 1984. The search for<br />
cougars in <strong>the</strong> eastern United States.<br />
Cryptozoology 3:31-49.<br />
FLORIDA PANTHER INTERAGENCY<br />
COMMITTEE. 1993. Florida pan<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
getting a shot <strong>of</strong> fresh bloodlines. Fur-<br />
Fish-Game 90(12):10.<br />
GERSON, H. B. 1988. Cougar, Felis<br />
concolor, sightings in Ontario.
84 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf<br />
Canadian Field-Naturalist 102(3):419-<br />
423.<br />
GOERTZ, J. W. AND R. ABEGG. 1966.<br />
Pumas in Louisiana. Journal <strong>of</strong><br />
Mammalogy 47(4):727.<br />
GRAHAM, B. 2003. Cougar killed Monday<br />
in Missouri is more pro<strong>of</strong> big cats roam<br />
state, experts say. The Kansas City Star,<br />
13 August.<br />
GREENWELL, J. R. 1996. The place <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
eastern puma in <strong>the</strong> natural history <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
larger felids. Pages 9-37 in J. W.<br />
Tischendorf and S. J. Ropski, editors,<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Eastern Cougar<br />
Conference, 1994. American Ecological<br />
Research Institute, Fort Collins, CO.<br />
245 pages.<br />
HALL, E. R. 1981. The mammals <strong>of</strong> North<br />
America. 2 nd edition. John Wiley and<br />
Sons, New York. 1171 pages.<br />
HARDIN, S. E. 1996. The status <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
puma (Puma concolor) in Missouri,<br />
based on sightings. Unpublished M.S.<br />
<strong>the</strong>sis, Southwest Missouri State<br />
University, Springfield, MO.<br />
HEISEL, E. J. 2003. Cougars in Missouri -<br />
here for now, but future uncertain. Page<br />
1 in Eastern Cougar Foundation<br />
Newsletter, Spring issue. 6 pages.<br />
HUMPHREYS, C. R. 1994. Pan<strong>the</strong>rs <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
coastal plain. The Fig Leaf Press,<br />
Wilmington, NC. 200 pages.<br />
JOHNSON, K. 1998. Island habitats: A<br />
stronghold <strong>of</strong> carnivore biodiversity in<br />
agriculturally modified environments.<br />
Endangered Species Update 15(2):21-24.<br />
JOHNSON, K. 2000. Prairie lions.<br />
Wyoming Wildlife, February issue.<br />
Pages 13-19.<br />
JOHNSON, K. 2002. The mountain lions <strong>of</strong><br />
Michigan. Endangered Species Update<br />
19(2):27-31.<br />
KUYT, E. 1971. Possible occurrence <strong>of</strong><br />
cougar near Fort Smith, N.W.T. Blue<br />
Jay 29(3):142-143.<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
LEOPOLD, A, L. K. SOWLS, AND D. L.<br />
SPENCER. 1947. A survey <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> overpopulated<br />
deer ranges in <strong>the</strong> United<br />
States. Journal <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Management<br />
11(2):162-177.<br />
LEWIS, J. C. 1969. Evidence <strong>of</strong> mountain<br />
lions in <strong>the</strong> Ozarks and adjacent areas,<br />
1948-1968. Journal <strong>of</strong> Mammalogy<br />
50(2):371-372.<br />
LINZEY, A. V. AND D. W. LINZEY. 1971.<br />
Mammals <strong>of</strong> Great Smoky <strong>Mountain</strong>s<br />
National Park. University <strong>of</strong> Tennessee<br />
Press, Knoxville. 114 pages.<br />
MANN, T. 1959. The “phantom” <strong>of</strong> Elk<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong>. South Dakota Conservation<br />
Digest 26(1):3-5.<br />
MCGINNIS, H. J. 1988. Search for puma<br />
(Felis concolor subsp.) tracks on dirt<br />
roads in <strong>the</strong> National Space Technology<br />
Laboratories and Mississippi Army<br />
Ammunition Plant sites and surrounding<br />
restrictive easement area in Hancock<br />
County, Mississippi. Final report to <strong>the</strong><br />
Missisippi Wildlife Heritage Fund. 34<br />
pages.<br />
NERO, R. W. AND R. E. WRIGLEY. 1977.<br />
Status and habits <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cougar in<br />
Manitoba. Canadian Field-Naturalist<br />
91(1):28-40.<br />
NOBLE, R. E. 1971. A recent record <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
puma (Felis concolor) in Arkansas.<br />
Southwestern Naturalist 16(2):209.<br />
NOWAK, R. M. 1976. The cougar in <strong>the</strong><br />
United States and Canada. United States<br />
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington<br />
D. C. and New York Zoological Society,<br />
New York. 190 pages.<br />
QUINN, T. 1995. Using public sighting<br />
information to investigate coyote use <strong>of</strong><br />
urban habitat. Journal <strong>of</strong> Wildlife<br />
Management 59(2):238-245.<br />
RILEY, S. J. 1991. The cat with many<br />
names. Montana Outdoors 22(6):15-21.<br />
ROOP, L. 1971. The Wyoming lion<br />
situation. Wyoming Wildlife 35(12):16-<br />
21.
RUSS, W. B. 1997. The status <strong>of</strong> mountain<br />
lions in Texas. Pages 69-73 in W. D.<br />
Padley, editor, <strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Fifth<br />
<strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong>. Total pages<br />
not provided in proceedings.<br />
RUSSELL, K. R. 1978. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion.<br />
Pages 207-225 in J. L. Schmidt and D.<br />
L. Gilbert, editors, Big game <strong>of</strong> North<br />
America - ecology and management.<br />
Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 494<br />
pages.<br />
SEALANDER, J. A. 1951. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion in<br />
Arkansas. Journal <strong>of</strong> Mammalogy<br />
32(3):364.<br />
SEALANDER, J. A. AND P. S. GIPSON. 1973.<br />
Status <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mountain lion in Arkansas.<br />
Arkansas Academy <strong>of</strong> Science<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> 27:38-41.<br />
SNOW, D. 1994. A report <strong>of</strong> a cougar near<br />
Port Rexton, NF. Osprey 25(1):44-46.<br />
STENLUND, M. 1985. Popple leaves and<br />
boot oil - a wildlife biologist in nor<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
Minnesota. Heritage North, Grand<br />
Rapids, MN. 126 pages.<br />
STOCEK, R. 1995. The cougar, Felis<br />
concolor, in <strong>the</strong> Maritime Provinces.<br />
Canadian Field-Naturalist 109(1):19-22.<br />
STOLL, B. 1996. What - black bears in<br />
Ohio? Wild Ohio, spring issue. Pages<br />
2-3.<br />
TISCHENDORF, J. W. 1992a. O<strong>the</strong>r cryptic<br />
cougars. Page 3 in Eastern Pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
Update #1. American Ecological<br />
Research Institute, Fort Collins, CO. 6<br />
pages.<br />
TISCHENDORF, J. W. 1992b. Cougars in <strong>the</strong><br />
news. Pages 2-3 in Eastern Pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
Update #2. American Ecological<br />
Research Institute, Ft. Collins, CO. 6<br />
pages.<br />
TISCHENDORF, J. W. 1992c. Commentary:<br />
Cougars, cooperation, communication…<br />
Pages 3-4 in Eastern Pan<strong>the</strong>r Update #2.<br />
American Ecological Research Institute,<br />
Ft. Collins, CO. 6 pages.<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf 85<br />
TISCHENDORF, J. W. 1993a. Pan<strong>the</strong>rs<br />
elsewhere. Page 2-3 in Eastern Pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
Update #3. American Ecological<br />
Research Institute, Ft. Collins, CO. 8<br />
pages.<br />
TISCHENDORF, JAY W. 1993b. Pan<strong>the</strong>r<br />
status update. Pages 1-2 in Eastern<br />
Pan<strong>the</strong>r Update #3. American<br />
Ecological Research Institute, Ft.<br />
Collins, CO. 8 pages.<br />
TISCHENDORF, J. W. 1993c. Commentary:<br />
The changing perspective - what, or<br />
where, next? Pages 3-5 in Eastern<br />
Pan<strong>the</strong>r Update #3. American<br />
Ecological Research Institute, Ft.<br />
Collins, CO. 8 pages.<br />
TISCHENDORF, J W. 1994a. Are cougars<br />
back in <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>ast? AMC Outdoors<br />
60(10):21-23.<br />
TISCHENDORF, J. W. 1994b. A comment on<br />
<strong>the</strong> growing number <strong>of</strong> puma reports.<br />
Pages 2-3 in Eastern Pan<strong>the</strong>r Update #6.<br />
American Ecological Research Institute,<br />
Ft. Collins, CO. 7 pages.<br />
TISCHENDORF, J. W. 1994c. Eastern<br />
Cougar Conference, 1994. Page 3 in<br />
Eastern Pan<strong>the</strong>r Update #6. American<br />
Ecological Research Institute, Ft.<br />
Collins, CO. 7 pages.<br />
TISCHENDORF, JAY W. 1995. Texas cats<br />
join <strong>the</strong> sou<strong>the</strong>rn pan<strong>the</strong>r. Page 2 in<br />
Eastern Pan<strong>the</strong>r Update #7, American<br />
Ecological Research Institute, Ft.<br />
Collins, CO. 5 pages.<br />
TISCHENDORF, J. W. 1996a. Bruce Wright,<br />
<strong>the</strong> ghost cat, and o<strong>the</strong>r players. Pages<br />
39-45 in J. W. Tischendorf and S. J.<br />
Ropski, editors, <strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Eastern Cougar Conference, 1994.<br />
American Ecological Research Institute,<br />
Fort Collins, CO. 245 pages.<br />
TISCHENDORF, J. W. 1996b. Cats and<br />
dogma - search for <strong>the</strong> eastern puma.<br />
Predator Project Newsletter 7(4):8-9.<br />
TISCHENDORF, J. W. AND F. R. HENDERSON.<br />
1994. The puma in <strong>the</strong> central
86 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf<br />
mountains and Great Plains - a synopsis.<br />
Blue Jay 52(4):218-223.<br />
TISCHENDORF, J. W. AND S. J. ROPSKI,<br />
editors. 1996. <strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Eastern Cougar Conference, 1994.<br />
American Ecological Research Institute,<br />
Ft. Collins, CO. 245 pages.<br />
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE<br />
SERVICE. 1982. Eastern Cougar<br />
Recovery Plan. United States Fish and<br />
Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 17 pages.<br />
VAN DYKE, F. 1983. A western study <strong>of</strong><br />
cougar track surveys and environmental<br />
disturbances affecting cougars related to<br />
<strong>the</strong> status <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> eastern cougar (Felis<br />
concolor couguar). Ph.D. <strong>the</strong>sis, State<br />
University <strong>of</strong> New York, Syracuse, NY.<br />
245 pages.<br />
WEDDLE, F. 1965. The ghost cats <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Yukon. Defenders <strong>of</strong> Wildlife News<br />
40(5):53.<br />
WHITE, T. 1963. Cougars in Saskatchewan.<br />
Blue Jay 21(1):32-34.<br />
WHITE, T. 1967. History <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cougar in<br />
Saskatchewan. Blue Jay 25(2):84-89.<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
WHITE, T. 1976. Cougar shot at Cutknife,<br />
Saskatchewan. Blue Jay 34(3):181.<br />
WHITE, T. 1982. Saskatchewan cougar -<br />
elusive cat. Special Publication Number<br />
14, Saskatchewan Natural History<br />
Society, Regina. 80 pages.<br />
WRIGHT, B. S. 1959. The ghost <strong>of</strong> North<br />
America - <strong>the</strong> story <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> eastern<br />
pan<strong>the</strong>r. Vantage Press, New York. 140<br />
pages.<br />
WRIGHT, B. S. 1972. The eastern pan<strong>the</strong>r -<br />
a question <strong>of</strong> survival. Clarke, Irwin,<br />
and Company Limited, Toronto. 180<br />
pages.<br />
WRIGLEY, R. E. AND R. W. NERO. 1982.<br />
Manitoba’s big cat. Manitoba Museum<br />
<strong>of</strong> Man and Nature, Winnipeg. 68<br />
pages.<br />
YOUNG, S. P. AND E. A. GOLDMAN. 1946.<br />
The puma - mysterious American cat.<br />
The American Wildlife Institute,<br />
Washington, D. C. 358 pages.<br />
ZUIDEMA, M. 2002. Are <strong>the</strong>re mountain<br />
lions in Michigan? Fur-Fish-Game<br />
99(3):11-13.
MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT: BRITISH COLUMBIA<br />
MATT AUSTIN, Large Carnivore Specialist, Ministry <strong>of</strong> Water, Land and Air Protection, PO<br />
Box STN PROV GOVT, Victoria BC V8W 9M4, Canada, email:<br />
Matt.Austin@gems7.gov.bc.ca<br />
Abstract: <strong>Mountain</strong> lions are classified as “Big Game” in British Columbia under <strong>the</strong> provincial<br />
Wildlife Act. There is no provincial mountain lion management plan, however, <strong>the</strong>re is a species<br />
account within <strong>the</strong> provincial Wildlife Harvest Strategy. The harvest management goal for<br />
mountain lions is “to optimize population sustainability within ecosystems while allowing for<br />
options and opportunities associated with hunting and viewing.” <strong>Mountain</strong> lions occupy all<br />
suitable habitats within BC. The distribution <strong>of</strong> mountain lions has been expanding northward in<br />
recent years due deer population increases resulting from less severe winters. The current<br />
provincial mountain lion population estimate is 4,000-6,000 and likely declining after peaking in<br />
<strong>the</strong> late 1990s. Declines are related to <strong>the</strong> severe winter in 1996/97 that reduced deer<br />
populations. Population estimates are based on <strong>the</strong> “best guesses” <strong>of</strong> regional biologists based<br />
on anecdotal and harvest/conflict information. Confidence in <strong>the</strong> population estimate is low but<br />
we have greater confidence in <strong>the</strong> trend estimate. <strong>Mountain</strong> lion hunting is allowed under<br />
General Open Seasons in all but two nor<strong>the</strong>rn regions with negligible populations. There are no<br />
explicit harvest criteria or objectives aside from quotas for female harvest in one region. Both<br />
harvest and mortalities resulting from conflicts increased from 1985 until 1996 and <strong>the</strong>n declined<br />
through 2002. Conservation Officers respond to conflicts with mountain lions through<br />
education, translocation or destruction; compensation is not provided for losses. Known<br />
mountain lion attacks increased during <strong>the</strong> 20 th century, peaking in <strong>the</strong> 1990s.<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
87
88<br />
IMPROVING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT<br />
TRENDS: THE VALUE OF CONSISTENT MULT-STATE RECORD KEEPING<br />
CHRISTOPHER M. PAPOUCHIS, <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> Foundation, PO Box 1896, Sacramento, CA<br />
95814, USA, email: cpapouchis@mountainlion.org<br />
LYNN MICHELLE CULLENS, <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> Foundation, PO Box 1896, Sacramento, CA<br />
95814, USA, email: cullens@mountainlion.org<br />
Abstract: The sound management and conservation <strong>of</strong> mountain lions relies on comprehensive<br />
scientific data. Yet <strong>the</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> mountain lion research can be prohibitive and <strong>the</strong> results are <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
difficult if not impossible to extrapolate. Wildlife managers, field researchers, and conservation<br />
organizations would benefit from more complete and consistent records <strong>of</strong> validated mountain<br />
lion sightings, hunting mortalities, depredation incidents, and road kills. Scientists who have<br />
mined such data in <strong>the</strong> past have isolated important variables, generated important hypo<strong>the</strong>ses,<br />
and targeted future research. But <strong>the</strong>ir work is usually limited by funding, academic or agency<br />
agendas. Fur<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong>re is no long-term multi-state repository for mountain lion data. The task<br />
<strong>of</strong> data collection is made more difficult because <strong>the</strong>re is no multi-state standard, and <strong>the</strong>refore<br />
states collect and store data inconsistently. This presentation explores <strong>the</strong> potential for<br />
developing a multi-state database, and examines <strong>the</strong> existing state data sets in order to identify<br />
<strong>the</strong> essential variables that might be included.<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP
LESSENING THE IMPACT OF A PUMA ATTACK ON A HUMAN<br />
E. LEE FITZHUGH, Department <strong>of</strong> Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University <strong>of</strong><br />
California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616-8751, USA, email:<br />
elfitzhugh@ucdavis.edu<br />
SABINE SCHMID-HOLMES, Department <strong>of</strong> Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology,<br />
University <strong>of</strong> California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616-8751, USA<br />
MARC W. KENYON, Department <strong>of</strong> Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University <strong>of</strong><br />
California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616-8751, USA<br />
KATHY ETLING, 6830 St. Tropez Circle, Osage Beach, MO 65065, USA<br />
Abstract: We reviewed current data on puma (Puma concolor) attacks and near-attacks on humans to identify better<br />
ways for people to protect <strong>the</strong>mselves. Not since Paul Beier’s paper in 1991 has anyone documented, established<br />
criteria for validity, and analyzed puma attacks on humans, and much more data are now available. In attempting to<br />
examine human-puma behavioral interactions to 2003, <strong>the</strong> authors have collected accounts <strong>of</strong> 16 fatal and 92 nonfatal<br />
attacks that meet Beier’s criteria. In addition, we have an additional 32 fatal and 84 non-fatal attacks that failed<br />
to meet Beier’s criteria, ei<strong>the</strong>r for lack <strong>of</strong> physical contact, lack <strong>of</strong> verification, occurrence in Latin America,<br />
occurrence prior to 1890, or because <strong>the</strong>y were attacks on hunters. We also have accumulated 155 accounts <strong>of</strong><br />
behavioral interactions between pumas and humans at close proximity that did not result in an attack. We contrasted<br />
<strong>the</strong>se with incidents that resulted in an attack. We analyzed <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> Beier’s fatal:non-fatal attack ratio to predict<br />
missing incidents, and suspect that <strong>the</strong> criterion <strong>of</strong> validation may bias data for attacks prior to 1950. However,<br />
most <strong>of</strong> Beier’s statements and conclusions are confirmed. While <strong>the</strong> analysis is yet incomplete, this presentation<br />
includes highlights <strong>of</strong> our tentative analysis concerning common questions about puma attacks, illustrated by stories<br />
<strong>of</strong> real situations. Being aggressive and making loud noises helps protect people from a possible puma attack.<br />
Warning gunshots are much less effective than is yelling. Charging <strong>the</strong> puma seems to make it run away, but may<br />
result in some injury to <strong>the</strong> person who is charging. Groups <strong>of</strong> 5 people or more are relatively safe, but children in<br />
those groups may still be attacked. Hunters imitating animal sounds or smells may attract pumas, but <strong>the</strong>se<br />
situations usually do not result in serious injuries. People attacked while sleeping on <strong>the</strong> ground <strong>of</strong>ten receive only<br />
minor injuries because <strong>the</strong> puma runs away when <strong>the</strong> person or companions awake, yell, and resist. The strategies<br />
will usually work, but not always, because pumas have different personalities and seem to react differently to <strong>the</strong><br />
same situation.<br />
89<br />
<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Seventh</strong> <strong>Mountain</strong> <strong>Lion</strong> <strong>Workshop</strong><br />
Key words: Animal damage, attacks on humans, conflict with wildlife, cougar, human dimensions <strong>of</strong> wildlife<br />
management, mountain lion, pest control, predation, Puma concolor<br />
INTRODUCTION<br />
In this paper we use <strong>the</strong> common name<br />
“puma” to describe Puma concolor.<br />
Occasionally, when we quote o<strong>the</strong>r people,<br />
we retain <strong>the</strong>ir terminology, and <strong>the</strong>y <strong>of</strong>ten<br />
use “cougar” instead <strong>of</strong> “puma.” Beier<br />
(1991) analyzed 9 fatal and 44 non-fatal<br />
attacks by pumas on humans that occurred<br />
between 1890 and 1990 in <strong>the</strong> United States<br />
and Canada. In order to include an attack in<br />
his analysis, it must have been published,<br />
included statements from agency or medical<br />
personnel, and involved contact in which <strong>the</strong><br />
human was bitten, clawed, or knocked down<br />
by <strong>the</strong> puma. Excluded were situations<br />
involving captive pumas and in which<br />
people deliberately approached or harassed a<br />
puma. He found that 64% <strong>of</strong> victims were<br />
children, and only 13 <strong>of</strong> 37 (35%) <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se<br />
were alone, while 11 <strong>of</strong> 17 (65%) adult<br />
victims were alone when attacked. He also<br />
found that an aggressive response might<br />
avert and/or repel an attack. Yearlings and<br />
underweight cougars were most likely to
90 REDUCING PUMA ATTACKS · Fitzhugh et al.<br />
attack humans. Beier believed he had<br />
discovered all fatal attacks since 1890 that<br />
met his criteria, and all non-fatal attacks<br />
since 1970. Based on <strong>the</strong> ratio <strong>of</strong> fatal to<br />
non-fatal attacks during 1970-1990, he<br />
estimated that he had failed to identify about<br />
12 non-fatal attacks between 1890 and 1970.<br />
Beier documented an increase in frequency<br />
<strong>of</strong> attacks from <strong>the</strong> 1890-1969 period to<br />
1970-1990. While Beier did not tabulate<br />
“near-attacks,” he did analyze <strong>the</strong> victim’s<br />
actions that may have served to prevent <strong>the</strong><br />
attack. “Fighting back” and shouting loudly<br />
were actions that seemed to avert or repel<br />
attacks, as did waving arms, poking or<br />
hitting with sticks, throwing rocks, etc.<br />
Beier also reported an attempt at aversive<br />
conditioning <strong>of</strong> one puma, but it failed to<br />
prevent future aggression. We substantiated<br />
most <strong>of</strong> Beier’s findings and, because we<br />
have more data, we produced some<br />
additional tentative findings.<br />
We have accounts <strong>of</strong> a total <strong>of</strong> 224<br />
attacks by pumas on humans and 155<br />
behavioral interactions that did not result in<br />
an actual attack. The number <strong>of</strong> accounts<br />
through April 2003 that have information<br />
useful for analyzing any specific question is<br />
variable, but only 108 accounts meet Beier’s<br />
(1991) criteria. Of <strong>the</strong> 116 attacks that failed<br />
Beier’s criteria, 32 were fatal and 84 were<br />
non-fatal. Reasons for failure include lack <strong>of</strong><br />
physical contact, lack <strong>of</strong> verification,<br />
occurrence in Latin America, occurrence<br />
prior to 1890, or because <strong>the</strong>y were attacks<br />
on hunters. Beier’s strict criteria avoid<br />
errors <strong>of</strong> commission, but allow for many<br />
omissions. Because we are interested in<br />
behavior more than just counting attacks, we<br />
decided to relax <strong>the</strong> Beier limitations as long<br />
as accounts seemed plausible and contained<br />
useful information. Our intent is to analyze<br />
human and puma behavior in <strong>the</strong>se<br />
situations where data are available and<br />
compare attacks with encounters to try to<br />
provide better advice for people who come<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
face-to-face with a puma, or who want to<br />
prepare for that eventuality. We are still<br />
organizing <strong>the</strong> data, so this report is not <strong>the</strong><br />
final one, but we do have a few<br />
recommendations to make at this time, and<br />
we will make some observations about<br />
reliability <strong>of</strong> reports and frequency <strong>of</strong><br />
attacks in general.<br />
METHODS<br />
We defined “non-attack encounters” as<br />
behavioral interactions between pumas and<br />
humans at close proximity that do not result<br />
in an attack. We purposely did not define<br />
“close proximity” to place emphasis on<br />
“behavioral interactions.” We excluded<br />
incidents in which <strong>the</strong> puma was sighted and<br />
<strong>the</strong>n left, and included incidents in which <strong>the</strong><br />
puma and human exchanged multiple<br />
behaviors. “Close proximity” is necessary<br />
for this to occur, but <strong>the</strong> distance may vary,<br />
and we were more flexible regarding<br />
distance criteria than for behavioral criteria.<br />
If we believed we could learn from <strong>the</strong><br />
interaction, we included it. Most <strong>of</strong> our data<br />
are from published popular accounts,<br />
sometimes substantiated by an agency<br />
incident report. Etling (2001), in particular,<br />
solicited personal accounts from individuals<br />
in <strong>the</strong>ir own words, both before and after<br />
publication <strong>of</strong> her book. We categorized<br />
incidents in several ways to better analyze<br />
and evaluate <strong>the</strong> data. One mentioned in<br />
this paper is a category we called “attacks<br />
terminated by humans.” These are incidents<br />
in which a puma was shot while charging, or<br />
at least clearly intent on creeping up very<br />
close to a human in spite <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> person’s<br />
efforts to discourage such behavior. We<br />
have 20 such accounts, 10 <strong>of</strong> which are from<br />
hunters. In only 3 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> hunting accounts<br />
was it clear that <strong>the</strong> hunter was doing<br />
something that might attract a puma (e.g.,<br />
using deer scent, calling turkeys, etc.). Six<br />
accounts were <strong>of</strong> agency employees<br />
investigating previous encounters between<br />
humans and pumas.
We defined a child as a person under 13<br />
years <strong>of</strong> age, whereas Beier (1991) defined a<br />
child as being under 16. We differed from<br />
Beier because we believed that <strong>the</strong> younger<br />
age better represented when girls and boys<br />
reach adult size and behavior.<br />
We entered data into a spreadsheet and<br />
made inferences where <strong>the</strong>y were defensible.<br />
For example, when <strong>the</strong> victim fired a shot,<br />
and <strong>the</strong> attack was fatal to <strong>the</strong> victim, we<br />
inferred that <strong>the</strong> shot did not deter <strong>the</strong><br />
attacking puma, even though <strong>the</strong> account did<br />
not specifically say so. The matrix was<br />
organized with individual incidents in rows,<br />
separated into various categories such as:<br />
Beier fatal, Beier non-fatal, non-verified<br />
(o<strong>the</strong>rwise meeting Beier’s criteria), fatal<br />
prior to 1890, nonfatal prior to 1890, Latin<br />
American incidents, close encounters,<br />
provoked attacks, encounters while hunting,<br />
and 10 o<strong>the</strong>r categories. Columns included<br />
raw data and data coded into categories for<br />
analysis, all <strong>of</strong> which made 193 columns,<br />
including 147 columns <strong>of</strong> original data.<br />
Broad categories <strong>of</strong> data in columns<br />
included descriptions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> habitat and<br />
setting, identification and descriptions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
victims, and detailed descriptions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
incident, including a written description and<br />
data parsed into separate columns.<br />
Information sources, previous reported<br />
puma activities in <strong>the</strong> area, necropsy results,<br />
and injuries sustained by <strong>the</strong> victim(s) also<br />
were entered. An example <strong>of</strong> data sought<br />
and entered is in <strong>the</strong> partial questionnaire<br />
mentioned below.<br />
On a few recent occasions, when it was<br />
possible, we sent a 4-page questionnaire to<br />
<strong>the</strong> witness <strong>of</strong> an attack to get more detailed<br />
information. The questionnaire was generic<br />
and designed to help people remember detail<br />
without leading <strong>the</strong>m to specific answers.<br />
Thus, we did not ask whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> puma was<br />
pumping its rear feet up and down, but<br />
instead we asked what <strong>the</strong> puma was doing<br />
with its feet. Although <strong>the</strong> situations were<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
REDUCING PUMA ATTACKS · Fitzhugh et al. 91<br />
serious, <strong>the</strong> responses sometimes interacted<br />
with <strong>the</strong> generic nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questions in a<br />
humorous manner. A real example <strong>of</strong> a<br />
questionnaire we recently received from a<br />
man who gave permission to use it will<br />
illustrate both <strong>the</strong> detail <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questions and<br />
some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> humor that occasionally occurs.<br />
It also illustrates an incident that is not<br />
classified as an attack under <strong>the</strong> Beier<br />
(1991) criteria, because no contact was<br />
made. We have called it a “terminated<br />
attack.”<br />
To appreciate <strong>the</strong> humor, it helps to<br />
imagine <strong>the</strong> victim’s perspective on <strong>the</strong><br />
attack and his response to <strong>the</strong> “ivory-tower”<br />
nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questions that came from some<br />
stranger at a far-<strong>of</strong>f university. The victim<br />
was hunting deer in a remote area when he<br />
was charged from behind. The puma<br />
vocalized with a “growl-hiss” sound, which<br />
alerted <strong>the</strong> victim to <strong>the</strong> charge. He killed<br />
<strong>the</strong> puma during its charge, after missing his<br />
first shot. After <strong>the</strong> second shot <strong>the</strong> puma<br />
fell only 5.2 m (17 feet) from him. Here are<br />
a few <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> questions and <strong>the</strong> victim’s<br />
responses:<br />
How was <strong>the</strong> puma identified (what<br />
evidence or characteristics)?<br />
The cougar died, not much question that<br />
it was a cougar.<br />
Condition <strong>of</strong> teeth:<br />
Perfect teeth, no fillings.<br />
Condition <strong>of</strong> claws:<br />
Damned sharp.<br />
Did attack involve a fatality?<br />
Yes, <strong>the</strong> cougar.<br />
Puma posture and position <strong>of</strong> ears at time <strong>of</strong><br />
first sighting:<br />
The cat was charging me. I later<br />
measured <strong>the</strong> distance from where it<br />
started <strong>the</strong> charge, which was 86 feet. I<br />
don’t recall what position <strong>the</strong> ears were<br />
in. [86 feet is 26.2 m].<br />
What was puma doing with eyes and tail at<br />
time <strong>of</strong> first sighting?<br />
Tail seemed to be floating out behind <strong>the</strong>
92 REDUCING PUMA ATTACKS · Fitzhugh et al.<br />
cat.<br />
What was puma doing with its feet at time<br />
<strong>of</strong> first sighting?<br />
Bounding toward me.<br />
Victim behavior just after first sighting?<br />
Putting rifle to shoulder and firing.<br />
Were <strong>the</strong>re signs <strong>of</strong> aggression by puma?<br />
The cougar was charging me, full speed<br />
ahead, which seemed pretty aggressive to<br />
me at <strong>the</strong> time.<br />
Did victim fight back?<br />
Yes.<br />
How?<br />
I shot <strong>the</strong> puma in <strong>the</strong> throat/chest.<br />
Puma response:<br />
Puma rolled and died.<br />
Was puma injured by victim?<br />
Yes, severely.<br />
Quality <strong>of</strong> Data<br />
Some accounts are not included in this<br />
analysis. The 224 attacks and 155<br />
encounters we analyze do not include 14<br />
incidents for which we believe additional<br />
investigation is needed to validate <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
accuracy. Nor do we include 8 o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
incidents we suspect, but cannot prove, are<br />
duplicates <strong>of</strong> incidents included in <strong>the</strong> tally.<br />
In addition, we have 10 more reports that we<br />
decided not to use because <strong>the</strong>y included too<br />
little information or were <strong>of</strong> doubtful<br />
validity. Our data do include incidents that<br />
do not meet Beier’s criteria, but we kept<br />
those separate in order not to invalidate<br />
comparison with Beier’s (1991) findings. As<br />
we analyze data more completely, more <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> incidents may be excluded, primarily for<br />
lack <strong>of</strong> information. Our files also include<br />
several accounts that have recently come to<br />
our attention that are not yet entered in <strong>the</strong><br />
database and are not included in this paper.<br />
These latter data, and additional details from<br />
<strong>the</strong> accounts we have analyzed will be<br />
included in a later, more complete treatment.<br />
As already mentioned, we included all<br />
<strong>the</strong> accounts we have discovered, and we<br />
tried to estimate <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> each. The<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
editor <strong>of</strong> Outdoor Life, from 1897 to 1925,<br />
asked his readers to provide accounts <strong>of</strong><br />
puma attacks on humans. He <strong>the</strong>n tried to<br />
verify <strong>the</strong> accuracy <strong>of</strong> each account,<br />
generally without success. In each case, he<br />
was ei<strong>the</strong>r unable to locate <strong>the</strong> respondent,<br />
or <strong>the</strong> knowledgeable people from <strong>the</strong> area<br />
where <strong>the</strong> attack was supposed to have<br />
occurred claimed no knowledge <strong>of</strong> it<br />
(Anonymous 1925, cited by Beier 1991).<br />
During this same period, Forest and Stream,<br />
which became Field and Stream, also<br />
printed numerous personal accounts <strong>of</strong><br />
encounters with pumas. At this time, we<br />
have been able to locate only 1 reference to<br />
incidents that may have been confirmed<br />
(Marsh 1917), or failed confirmation, by<br />
Outdoor Life (Anonymous 1917). We are<br />
aware <strong>of</strong> one, and perhaps three fraudulent<br />
accounts in recent years, and we also<br />
questioned <strong>the</strong> validity <strong>of</strong> one unusual<br />
account that we later found had been<br />
confirmed by an agency. We recently tried,<br />
unsuccessfully, to obtain agency<br />
confirmation <strong>of</strong> an account, only later to find<br />
that <strong>the</strong> confirmation had been provided to<br />
Etling several years earlier. Therefore, <strong>the</strong><br />
verifications <strong>the</strong>mselves can be erroneous in<br />
ei<strong>the</strong>r direction. It is possible that we have<br />
analyzed a few spurious reports, but if so,<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir effect on our findings should be minor.<br />
We have placed our 379 useful incidents<br />
in categories <strong>of</strong> similar types <strong>of</strong> incidents<br />
and levels <strong>of</strong> reliability. The 108 fatal and<br />
non-fatal incidents that meet Beier’s (1991)<br />
criteria may be considered to be a complete<br />
count <strong>of</strong> well-defined and verified attacks.<br />
(See a more complete defense <strong>of</strong> this<br />
assumption in <strong>the</strong> results and discussion<br />
section). The few verified non-fatal<br />
incidents we may have missed would not<br />
affect group values in an important way.<br />
The 116 o<strong>the</strong>r attacks and 155 encounters<br />
represent nei<strong>the</strong>r a total count nor a<br />
statistical sample, nor do we know anything<br />
about <strong>the</strong> underlying statistical distribution
except that attacks by pumas on humans are<br />
rare. We know nothing <strong>of</strong> bias caused by<br />
missing data. We can speculate that missing<br />
cases may not have been considered<br />
important enough to report; <strong>the</strong>re may have<br />
been nobody to report to; fatal incidents may<br />
have been undiscovered; <strong>the</strong>y may have<br />
been reported and <strong>the</strong> records lost; <strong>the</strong>y may<br />
have been printed in obscure references that<br />
we did not find; we may have wrongly<br />
discarded some incidents recorded from<br />
word-<strong>of</strong>-mouth accounts, etc. Thus, we<br />
have a core <strong>of</strong> strictly defined data that we<br />
treat as a total count. These data are<br />
restricted by <strong>the</strong> verification criterion in<br />
such a way that <strong>the</strong> passage <strong>of</strong> time reduces<br />
opportunity for verification. The core exists<br />
in a matrix <strong>of</strong> less well-defined incidents,<br />
<strong>the</strong> statistical properties <strong>of</strong> which are<br />
unknown.<br />
At a finer level, even <strong>the</strong> welldocumented<br />
cases have many blank cells in<br />
<strong>the</strong> data matrix because specific items were<br />
unknown or not reported, and <strong>the</strong>re was no<br />
way to infer <strong>the</strong> information. In <strong>the</strong>se<br />
situations, we usually cannot assume <strong>the</strong><br />
nature <strong>of</strong> possible biases caused by missing<br />
data, if <strong>the</strong>y exist.<br />
To summarize, we have nearly total<br />
counts <strong>of</strong> incidents in Beier-quality<br />
categories, missing incidents in o<strong>the</strong>rs, and<br />
missing data in all incidents. The categories<br />
in which we can assume total counts may be<br />
subject to a time-related bias that may affect<br />
<strong>the</strong> statistical distribution <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> data. We<br />
have little a priori information to guide us.<br />
Therefore, we are restricted mostly to<br />
descriptive statistics and forming hypo<strong>the</strong>ses<br />
that may later be independently verified.<br />
We do use a Chi-square test to explore <strong>the</strong><br />
similarity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> distributions in three<br />
different categories, two <strong>of</strong> which we<br />
assume are total counts.<br />
Statistical Methods<br />
We have no a priori models or<br />
hypo<strong>the</strong>ses. We had believed that most, if<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
REDUCING PUMA ATTACKS · Fitzhugh et al. 93<br />
not all, puma attacks were predatory, but<br />
information provided by Sweanor et al.<br />
(personal communication) contradicts that<br />
belief. Thus, our analysis is exploratory,<br />
examining <strong>the</strong> data to find hypo<strong>the</strong>ses and<br />
descriptive models that may later be<br />
subjected to data collection and statistical<br />
interpretation. In <strong>the</strong> few cases where<br />
statistical testing was warranted, we report<br />
<strong>the</strong> test used along with <strong>the</strong> results, but for<br />
<strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> situations, descriptive<br />
statistics are <strong>the</strong> only analysis used.<br />
Never<strong>the</strong>less, we feel secure in drawing<br />
some conclusions about how to reduce risk<br />
<strong>of</strong> serious injury during a puma encounter.<br />
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION<br />
What Can We Tell About <strong>the</strong> Data?<br />
With respect to counting attacks and<br />
comparing frequencies, we can be a little<br />
more specific about statistical qualities <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> data. Like Beier (1991), we believe we<br />
have a near-complete count <strong>of</strong> verified fatal<br />
attacks from 1890 to 2003 in <strong>the</strong> U. S. and<br />
Canada. Authors <strong>of</strong> new books (Danz,<br />
1999, Deurbrouck and Miller 2001, and<br />
Etling 2001) did extensive new searches,<br />
and failed to find any fatal attacks that meet<br />
Beier’s criteria that were not included by<br />
Beier in his original list, or else occurred<br />
after his publication. The 108 attacks we<br />
analyze that meet Beier’s criteria include 7<br />
fatal and 38 non-fatal attacks that occurred<br />
after Beier published his list, and 9 fatal and<br />
54 non-fatal attacks that meet Beier’s<br />
criteria and occurred between 1890 and<br />
1991. On <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> additional information<br />
(personal communication, Dale Elliot to<br />
Etling, July 2000), we moved one <strong>of</strong> Beier’s<br />
non-fatal attacks (Bird and Sieh, Nevada,<br />
1971) to <strong>the</strong> “provoked attack” category and<br />
added 11 new non-fatal attacks between<br />
1890 and 1991. It is possible that attacks,<br />
even fatal ones, occurred in <strong>the</strong> U. S. that<br />
were never known, especially during <strong>the</strong><br />
depression years <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1930s and <strong>the</strong><br />
various gold rushes in localities in <strong>the</strong>
94 REDUCING PUMA ATTACKS · Fitzhugh et al.<br />
Table 1. Calculations <strong>of</strong> non-fatal attacks by pumas in <strong>the</strong> U.S. and Canada between 1890 and 1969<br />
that might not have been detected.<br />
Source<br />
Beier (1991)<br />
1970-1990<br />
Our data<br />
1970-2001<br />
Ratio NF/F<br />
from 1970<br />
onward<br />
× Fatal<br />
attacks 1890-<br />
1969<br />
= Calculated<br />
non-fatal<br />
attacks<br />
− Attacks<br />
detected<br />
1890-1969<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
= Calculated<br />
attacks not<br />
detected<br />
31÷5 = 6.2 4 25 13 12<br />
69÷12 = 5.75 4 23 21 2<br />
western U.S. It is certain that attacks<br />
occurred in Latin America for which no<br />
records are available. Written accounts <strong>of</strong><br />
attacks occur in some obscure publications,<br />
not susceptible to easy location. One<br />
example is <strong>the</strong> killing <strong>of</strong> Henry Ramsey in<br />
1876 (Hunter 1922:110). That account was<br />
found by scanning <strong>the</strong> table <strong>of</strong> contents <strong>of</strong> a<br />
county history that was in a fund-raising<br />
auction <strong>of</strong> “white elephant” donations. All<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se missing accounts would, <strong>of</strong> course,<br />
fail Beier’s criterion <strong>of</strong> verification, and<br />
perhaps o<strong>the</strong>r criteria as well. We believe<br />
we can use <strong>the</strong> 16 fatal attacks that meet<br />
Beier’s criteria as a complete count, not<br />
requiring statistical measures <strong>of</strong> variability.<br />
The 92 Beier-quality non-fatal attacks<br />
probably include a large majority <strong>of</strong> all nonfatal<br />
attacks (Table 1). They should be<br />
representative, and probably can be treated<br />
as a complete count. However, <strong>the</strong>y were<br />
not sampled according to a statistical design.<br />
The remaining 116 attacks and 155<br />
encounters have unknown statistical<br />
properties, with variable report quality and<br />
amounts <strong>of</strong> information.<br />
Beier (1991) estimated that he might<br />
have missed finding 12 non-fatal accounts<br />
between 1970 and 1990. He did this by<br />
assuming that he found all <strong>the</strong> accounts from<br />
1970 to 1990, and multiplying <strong>the</strong> ratio <strong>of</strong><br />
non-fatal to fatal attacks during that period<br />
by <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> fatal attacks from 1890 to<br />
1969. We discovered 8 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 12 missing<br />
accounts, and also 3 more between 1970 and<br />
1990, so we recalculated <strong>the</strong> potentially<br />
missing non-fatal accounts (Table 1). These<br />
were calculated through 2001, as <strong>the</strong> 2002<br />
data are yet incomplete. The analysis in<br />
Table 1 assumes a constant rate <strong>of</strong> attacks<br />
across years. Puma populations, prey<br />
populations, and <strong>the</strong> number, age, sex, and<br />
group size <strong>of</strong> people at risk may have<br />
changed considerably since 1890. These<br />
factors may affect <strong>the</strong> attack rate. Thus, <strong>the</strong><br />
calculation may be invalid to <strong>the</strong> degree that<br />
<strong>the</strong>se parameters have changed.<br />
Even if <strong>the</strong> analysis in Table 1 is valid,<br />
<strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> fatal attacks is small enough<br />
that a change in even one attack can alter <strong>the</strong><br />
calculation <strong>of</strong> non-detected non-fatal<br />
attacks. Because <strong>the</strong>re is a chance that we<br />
may have missed some fatal attacks prior to<br />
1970 (and especially prior to 1950 as<br />
discussed later), this is a tentative<br />
calculation that serves only to illustrate that<br />
<strong>the</strong>re likely are some incidents we have not<br />
found, but that number is relatively small.<br />
We will return to this topic later with respect<br />
to possible bias caused by Beier’s<br />
verification criterion.<br />
Comparing Verified and Unverified Data<br />
Figure 1 shows <strong>the</strong> relationship through<br />
time between <strong>the</strong> 15 Beier-quality fatal<br />
attacks, <strong>the</strong> 86 non-fatal attacks, and <strong>the</strong> 27<br />
non-verified, non-fatal attacks, 1890-1999.<br />
The Beier-quality non-fatal attack curve
Figure 1. A comparison <strong>of</strong> patterns <strong>of</strong> fatal<br />
and non-fatal attacks that conform to Beier’s<br />
(1991) criteria with non-verified non-fatal<br />
attacks.<br />
diverges from <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two beginning in<br />
1950. All three types <strong>of</strong> data have been<br />
subject to <strong>the</strong> same bias from a conscious<br />
increase in collecting attack reports<br />
beginning with Barnes (1960), our effort<br />
from 1984 (Fitzhugh and Gorenzel 1986),<br />
and intensive searches beginning about 1990<br />
(Beier 1991) and increasing in 1998-2001<br />
(Danz 1999, Deuerbrouck and Miller 2001,<br />
Etling 2001).The Beier-quality fatal attacks<br />
curve (Figure 1) began to exceed past levels<br />
in <strong>the</strong> 1970s, and increased even more in <strong>the</strong><br />
1990s. We confirmed that Beier<br />
documented all <strong>the</strong> verified fatal attacks<br />
since 1890, and Figure 1 shows that <strong>the</strong> nonverified,<br />
non-fatal attacks coincide closely<br />
with Beier-quality fatal attacks. The<br />
difference in <strong>the</strong> shape <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> curves in<br />
Figure 1 may be partly attributable to an<br />
increase in agency funding, staffing, and<br />
attention to puma incidents beginning in<br />
about 1950, allowing for more verification<br />
and recording <strong>of</strong> non-fatal incidents (Harley<br />
Shaw, personal communication). Thus, <strong>the</strong><br />
post-1950 non-verified data may be<br />
depressed because a greater proportion <strong>of</strong><br />
those incidents were verified than happened<br />
pre-1950. The post-1950 verified non-fatal<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
REDUCING PUMA ATTACKS · Fitzhugh et al. 95<br />
Figure 2. Non-fatal to fatal attack ratios.<br />
Bars represent a 20-year running average<br />
beginning with 1890-1909, 1900-1919, etc.,<br />
except that 1990 represents only 1990-1999.<br />
Includes only data that conform to Beier’s<br />
(1991) criteria. The zero value at 1890<br />
represents a 20-year period, 1890-1909, with<br />
no verified non-fatal attacks. The zero value<br />
at 1950 represents a 20-year period, 1950-<br />
1969, without fatal attacks. (N = 101; 15 =<br />
fatal, 86 = non-fatal.)<br />
data would have increased by <strong>the</strong> same<br />
amount.<br />
The proportional change in <strong>the</strong> Beierquality<br />
non-fatal attack curve after 1949,<br />
applied to higher numbers <strong>of</strong> non-fatal<br />
incidents compared with fatal incidents,<br />
magnifies <strong>the</strong> visual comparison between<br />
<strong>the</strong> curves, although prior to 1950 <strong>the</strong> nonfatal<br />
curve is only slightly higher than <strong>the</strong><br />
fatal curve. The effect <strong>of</strong> magnification can<br />
be removed by examining proportions<br />
directly, using non-fatal to fatal ratios by 20year<br />
periods (Figure 2). The 1960-1990<br />
ratios seem consistent, with an average<br />
value <strong>of</strong> 6.5. The 1890-1930 average is less,<br />
at 2.4 (including 1890-1909, when <strong>the</strong>re<br />
were no recorded non-fatal attacks), but is<br />
more variable. Only <strong>the</strong> 1940-1959 ratio<br />
seems unusually high, created by <strong>the</strong> first<br />
big increase in non-fatal attacks, which<br />
occurred during <strong>the</strong> 1950s, while no fatal<br />
attacks occurred 1950-1959. While non-
96 REDUCING PUMA ATTACKS · Fitzhugh et al.<br />
Table 2. The effect <strong>of</strong> including non-verified puma attack incidents on <strong>the</strong> non-fatal:fatal attack<br />
ratios before and after 1950, U. S. and Canada.<br />
Data 1890-1949 1950-1999 Difference<br />
Beier-quality only 6 ÷ 4 = 1.5 86 ÷ 12 = 7.2 5.7<br />
Beier-quality & all non-verified 16 ÷ 7 = 2.3 96 ÷ 13 = 7.3 5.0<br />
Beier-quality & non-verified non-fatal only 16 ÷ 4 = 4.0 96 ÷ 12 = 8.0 4.0<br />
fatal attacks did not decrease after that, fatal<br />
attacks increased starting in 1970, bringing<br />
<strong>the</strong> ratios down. Some <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> variation in<br />
Figure 2 is caused by zero values. The nonverified,<br />
non-fatal data (Figure 1) are<br />
approximately <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> same value as <strong>the</strong><br />
Beier-quality fatal data, and <strong>the</strong> curves are<br />
very similar, so we may be justified in<br />
combining <strong>the</strong> non-verified non-fatal data (n<br />
= 23) with <strong>the</strong> Beier-quality non- fatal data<br />
(n = 86). Four non-verified fatal attacks also<br />
were included with <strong>the</strong> 15 verified fatal<br />
attacks to be consistent. Ratios for <strong>the</strong><br />
periods before and after 1950 (Table 2)<br />
show that adding all non-verified incidents<br />
(fatal and non-fatal) increased <strong>the</strong> ratios<br />
slightly; ratios were even greater when only<br />
non-verified, non fatal incidents were added.<br />
The non-verified data also reduced <strong>the</strong><br />
differences between <strong>the</strong> earlier and later<br />
periods. If we assume that <strong>the</strong> underlying<br />
ratio <strong>of</strong> non-fatal to fatal attacks is<br />
consistent across years, it appears that<br />
excluding non-verified data changes <strong>the</strong><br />
ratios. The changes represent bias if we are<br />
justified in using <strong>the</strong> non-verified data.<br />
Beier’s (1991) calculation <strong>of</strong> ratios from<br />
1970-1990, to estimate missing non-fatal<br />
attacks prior to 1970, assumed a constant<br />
relationship. It seems logical that we have<br />
detected a larger proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> actual<br />
non-fatal attacks in recent years, and <strong>the</strong><br />
data seem to indicate that this is so (Figures<br />
1-3). However, some biological,<br />
demographic, and cultural differences may<br />
have caused a change in ratios not related to<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
reporting frequency. These changes have to<br />
do with changes in persecution <strong>of</strong> pumas,<br />
especially before, during, and after World<br />
Wars I and II, <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> people using<br />
puma habitat, changes in <strong>the</strong> degree <strong>of</strong> puma<br />
habituation to humans, changes in <strong>the</strong><br />
proportion <strong>of</strong> children versus adults exposed<br />
to pumas, and changes in <strong>the</strong> inclination or<br />
ability <strong>of</strong> people to report incidents. We<br />
believe <strong>the</strong> underlying non-fatal to fatal ratio<br />
may have changed about <strong>the</strong> middle <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
20 th century, but measurement <strong>of</strong> this<br />
potential change is confused by changes in<br />
Figure 3. Non-fatal to fatal attack ratios.<br />
Bars represent a 20-year running average<br />
beginning with 1890-1909, 1900-1919, etc.,<br />
except that 1990 represents only 1990-1999.<br />
Included are data that conform to Beier’s<br />
(1991) criteria and non-verified data, both<br />
fatal and non-fatal. The zero value at 1950<br />
represents a 20-year period, 1950-1969,<br />
without fatal attacks. (n = 128; 19 = fatal, 109<br />
= non-fatal.)
<strong>the</strong> rate <strong>of</strong> detection <strong>of</strong> attacks and changes<br />
in verification <strong>of</strong> detected attacks.<br />
We did subject <strong>the</strong> Beier-quality data to<br />
2 Chi-square comparisons with 27 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
accounts that were not verified, but met<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r Beier criteria. These are <strong>the</strong> same data<br />
shown in Figure 1. We used <strong>the</strong> Beierquality<br />
data as <strong>the</strong> observed value and <strong>the</strong><br />
non-verified non-fatal data, paired with <strong>the</strong><br />
Beier-quality data by decades, as <strong>the</strong><br />
expected value. The Beier- quality fatal data<br />
were not different from <strong>the</strong> non-verified,<br />
non-fatal data (χ 2 = 13.7, 10 df, P =
98 REDUCING PUMA ATTACKS · Fitzhugh et al.<br />
Figure 4. Puma responses to noise, including<br />
lethal shots from firearms (n = 133).<br />
to draw out <strong>the</strong> duration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sound. For<br />
example, a puma was recently stalking<br />
chickens in <strong>the</strong> yard <strong>of</strong> a lighthouse<br />
compound, with people around and active,<br />
in broad daylight. One man banged doors,<br />
without effect, <strong>the</strong>n got a .22 rifle and fired a<br />
shot into <strong>the</strong> ground without even causing<br />
<strong>the</strong> puma to flinch or look up. It was fixated<br />
on <strong>the</strong> chickens. The man <strong>the</strong>n fired 7-8<br />
shots rapidly into <strong>the</strong> ground, upon which<br />
<strong>the</strong> puma looked up and walked into <strong>the</strong><br />
nearby brush, but did not leave <strong>the</strong> area. It<br />
stayed on a nearby high area and watched<br />
while people put <strong>the</strong> chickens into a pen<br />
(Robert Hansen, Pacific Rim National Park,<br />
Vancouver Island, B.C., personal<br />
communication, 8 May, 2003). This<br />
indicates that <strong>the</strong> puma did not react to a<br />
single shot or to slamming a door, but did<br />
react to a subsequent rapid series <strong>of</strong> shots.<br />
We conclude that noise is effective, but<br />
<strong>the</strong> kind <strong>of</strong> noise makes a difference. The<br />
best deterrent in <strong>the</strong> event <strong>of</strong> a puma<br />
encounter is to yell or scream as loudly as<br />
possible. If you are going to shoot a gun,<br />
you should fire in rapid succession to<br />
frighten <strong>the</strong> animal away or shoot to kill <strong>the</strong><br />
puma.<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
What if You Charge <strong>the</strong> Puma?<br />
Our data include 6 accounts in which <strong>the</strong><br />
primary victim ei<strong>the</strong>r charged <strong>the</strong> puma and<br />
fought with it, or engaged in “mock lunges”<br />
toward <strong>the</strong> puma. In 3 cases in which<br />
people actually charged and made contact<br />
with <strong>the</strong> puma, <strong>the</strong> puma left <strong>the</strong> area,<br />
sometimes after a brief scuffle in which <strong>the</strong><br />
human suffered light degrees <strong>of</strong> injury. Two<br />
examples follow: a man heard a commotion<br />
in his back yard and went to investigate. He<br />
thought his Scottie dog was being attacked<br />
by a large German shepherd. It was really a<br />
mountain lion, but he didn’t realize it until<br />
he had jumped onto <strong>the</strong> attackers back.<br />
When <strong>the</strong> man realized it was a puma, he let<br />
go after a brief scuffle and <strong>the</strong> puma ran <strong>of</strong>f.<br />
The man received stitches for cuts behind<br />
his ear (Colorado Division <strong>of</strong> Wildlife<br />
2002). In <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r case, a man noticed a<br />
puma eating his daughter’s house cat, and<br />
decided to save <strong>the</strong> cat by wrestling with <strong>the</strong><br />
puma. The puma swatted <strong>the</strong> man in <strong>the</strong><br />
face, and <strong>the</strong> man <strong>the</strong>n decided to let go. The<br />
puma left with <strong>the</strong> house cat in its mouth<br />
(The New York Times 2002).<br />
Two cases involved repeated “mock<br />
lunges” by people causing <strong>the</strong> pumas to<br />
leave <strong>the</strong> area without attacking. In <strong>the</strong> first<br />
case, a woman came upon a puma crouched<br />
about 1.8 m (6 feet) away. It began to move<br />
toward her in a crouched position, growling.<br />
She lunged forward, holding arms wide and<br />
growled back at it. It retreated a bit, began<br />
to approach again. She growled and lunged<br />
again; <strong>the</strong> puma retreated again, not as<br />
startled as it was <strong>the</strong> first time. Then <strong>the</strong><br />
puma took a last glance and turned into <strong>the</strong><br />
forest. The woman walked backwards<br />
awhile, <strong>the</strong>n turned around and ran (Personal<br />
correspondence to K. Etling on 4 Dec, 2001,<br />
from K. Hogland).<br />
In <strong>the</strong> second example, a puma<br />
confronted 2 biology students ga<strong>the</strong>ring data<br />
in Alum Rock Park, San Jose, California.<br />
The women yelled and made <strong>the</strong>mselves
look bigger, but <strong>the</strong> cat continued to<br />
advance. One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> women snarled like a<br />
dog and “mock lunged,” and <strong>the</strong> puma ran<br />
into some bushes. A nearby rancher<br />
approached on horseback, accompanied by 2<br />
dogs. When <strong>the</strong>y directed <strong>the</strong>ir attention<br />
toward where <strong>the</strong> girls thought <strong>the</strong> puma<br />
was, it bounded <strong>of</strong>f (Linda Lewis, web site:<br />
, citing personal communications<br />
with Jessie Dickson, April 18-19, 2001).<br />
In probably <strong>the</strong> most dramatic example<br />
demonstrating puma behavior following<br />
human aggressiveness, a deer hunter and a<br />
puma were stalking <strong>the</strong> same deer when <strong>the</strong><br />
deer detected <strong>the</strong> puma and fled. From 27<br />
m (30 yards) away, <strong>the</strong> puma transferred its<br />
stalk to <strong>the</strong> hunter. The hunter hid behind a<br />
tree while <strong>the</strong> puma approached, crouching.<br />
As <strong>the</strong> puma got close <strong>the</strong> hunter jumped out<br />
and yelled. That puma left running (Ford<br />
1994). The puma obviously knew <strong>the</strong> hunter<br />
was behind <strong>the</strong> tree, but <strong>the</strong> hunter’s actions<br />
probably appeared to <strong>the</strong> puma as an attack<br />
coming from a hidden (ambush) position.<br />
The action successfully interrupted <strong>the</strong><br />
predatory stalking behavior and instigated a<br />
flight behavior.<br />
Is It Safer to Hike in Groups?<br />
Solitary people are 3 times as likely to<br />
be attacked or to have an encounter as<br />
people in pairs or larger groups (Figure 5).<br />
However, only groups <strong>of</strong> 5 or more seem<br />
fairly secure against attack. We were much<br />
less likely to find data on non-attack<br />
encounters than on attacks. Thus, <strong>the</strong><br />
relative levels <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> paired bars in Figure 5<br />
cannot be used to compare attack and nonattack<br />
encounters. We assumed that <strong>the</strong><br />
reporting rates for attacks and non-attacks<br />
are different but are not affected differently<br />
by group size. Figure 5 shows that <strong>the</strong><br />
relationship (but not absolute proportions) <strong>of</strong><br />
attack and non-attack encounters is similar,<br />
regardless <strong>of</strong> group size. The similar<br />
percentages within group size categories<br />
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP<br />
REDUCING PUMA ATTACKS · Fitzhugh et al. 99<br />
Figure 5. Relationship <strong>of</strong> human group size<br />
and age composition with type <strong>of</strong> encounter<br />
(n = 379).<br />
and <strong>the</strong> consistent pattern among <strong>the</st