Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop

We defined a child as a person under 13
years of age, whereas Beier (1991) defined a
child as being under 16. We differed from
Beier because we believed that the younger
age better represented when girls and boys
reach adult size and behavior.
We entered data into a spreadsheet and
made inferences where they were defensible.
For example, when the victim fired a shot,
and the attack was fatal to the victim, we
inferred that the shot did not deter the
attacking puma, even though the account did
not specifically say so. The matrix was
organized with individual incidents in rows,
separated into various categories such as:
Beier fatal, Beier non-fatal, non-verified
(otherwise meeting Beier’s criteria), fatal
prior to 1890, nonfatal prior to 1890, Latin
American incidents, close encounters,
provoked attacks, encounters while hunting,
and 10 other categories. Columns included
raw data and data coded into categories for
analysis, all of which made 193 columns,
including 147 columns of original data.
Broad categories of data in columns
included descriptions of the habitat and
setting, identification and descriptions of the
victims, and detailed descriptions of the
incident, including a written description and
data parsed into separate columns.
Information sources, previous reported
puma activities in the area, necropsy results,
and injuries sustained by the victim(s) also
were entered. An example of data sought
and entered is in the partial questionnaire
mentioned below.
On a few recent occasions, when it was
possible, we sent a 4-page questionnaire to
the witness of an attack to get more detailed
information. The questionnaire was generic
and designed to help people remember detail
without leading them to specific answers.
Thus, we did not ask whether the puma was
pumping its rear feet up and down, but
instead we asked what the puma was doing
with its feet. Although the situations were
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP
REDUCING PUMA ATTACKS · Fitzhugh et al. 91
serious, the responses sometimes interacted
with the generic nature of the questions in a
humorous manner. A real example of a
questionnaire we recently received from a
man who gave permission to use it will
illustrate both the detail of the questions and
some of the humor that occasionally occurs.
It also illustrates an incident that is not
classified as an attack under the Beier
(1991) criteria, because no contact was
made. We have called it a “terminated
attack.”
To appreciate the humor, it helps to
imagine the victim’s perspective on the
attack and his response to the “ivory-tower”
nature of the questions that came from some
stranger at a far-off university. The victim
was hunting deer in a remote area when he
was charged from behind. The puma
vocalized with a “growl-hiss” sound, which
alerted the victim to the charge. He killed
the puma during its charge, after missing his
first shot. After the second shot the puma
fell only 5.2 m (17 feet) from him. Here are
a few of the questions and the victim’s
responses:
How was the puma identified (what
evidence or characteristics)?
The cougar died, not much question that
it was a cougar.
Condition of teeth:
Perfect teeth, no fillings.
Condition of claws:
Damned sharp.
Did attack involve a fatality?
Yes, the cougar.
Puma posture and position of ears at time of
first sighting:
The cat was charging me. I later
measured the distance from where it
started the charge, which was 86 feet. I
don’t recall what position the ears were
in. [86 feet is 26.2 m].
What was puma doing with eyes and tail at
time of first sighting?
Tail seemed to be floating out behind the