Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop

More documents

Recommendations

Info

128 COUGAR TOTAL PREDATION RESPONSE TO DIFFERING PREY DENSITIES: A PROPOSED EXPERIMENT TO TEST THE APPARENT COMPETITION HYPOTHESIS HUGH ROBINSON, Large Carnivore Conservation Lab, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, PO Box 646410, Pullman, WA 99614-6410, USA, email: hsrobins@wsunix.wsu.edu ROBERT WIELGUS, Large Carnivore Conservation Lab, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, PO Box 646410, Pullman, WA 99614-6410, USA, email: wielgus@wsu.edu HILARY CRUICKSHANK, Large Carnivore Conservation Lab, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, PO Box 646410, Pullman, WA 99614- 6410, USA, email: hcruicks@mail.wsu.edu CATHERINE LAMBERT, Large Carnivore Conservation Lab, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, PO Box 646410, Pullman, WA 99614-6410, USA, email: lambertcath@wsu.edu Abstract: Mule deer populations throughout the west are declining whereas white-tailed deer populations are increasing. We compared abundance, fetal rate, recruitment rate, and causespecific adult (≥1 yr. old) mortality rates of sympatric mule and white-tailed deer in south-central British Columbia to assess the population growth of each species. White-tailed deer were three times as abundant (908±152) as mule deer (336±122) (± 1SE). Fetal rates of white-tailed deer (1.83) were similar to mule deer (1.78) (t = 0.15, df = 13, P = 0.44) as was recruitment of whitetailed deer (56 fawns:100 does) and mule deer (38 fawns:100 does) (χ 2 = 0.91, df = 1, P=0.34). Annual adult white-tailed deer survival (SWT = 0.81) was significantly higher (z = 1.32, df = 1, P = 0.09) than mule deer survival (SMD = 0.72). The main source of mortality in both populations was cougar predation. The lower survival rate of mule deer could be directly linked to a higher predation rate (0.17) compared to white-tailed deer (0.09) (z = 1.57, df = 1, P = 0.06). The finite growth rate (λ) of mule deer was 0.88 and 1.02 for white-tailed deer. We suggest that the disparate survival and predation rates are caused by apparent competition between the two deer species, facilitated through a shared predator; cougar. The apparent competition hypothesis predicts that as alternate prey (white-tailed deer) densities increase, so do densities of predators, resulting in increased incidental predation on sympatric native prey (mule deer). Apparent competition can result in population declines and even extirpation of native prey in some cases. Such a phenomenon may account for declines of mule deer throughout the arid and semi-arid West where irrigation agriculture is practiced. We are in year two of a proposed five-year study. We will test the apparent competition hypothesis by conducting a controlled, replicated “press” experiment in 2 treatment and 2 control areas in North-eastern Washington by reducing densities of white-tailed deer and observing any changes in cougar predation on mule deer. Washington Fish and Wildlife personnel using annual aerial surveys and/or other trend indices will monitor deer densities. Predation rates and population growth rates of deer will be determined using radio telemetry. Changes in cougar functional (kills/unit time), aggregative (cougars/unit area), numerical (offspring/cougar), and total (predation rate) responses on deer will also be monitored using radio telemetry. Results will be used to determine the effect of increased white-tailed densities on cougar predation of mule deer. PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP
CHARACTERISTICS OF COUGAR HARVEST WITH AND WITHOUT THE USE OF DOGS DONALD A. MARTORELLO, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091, USA, email: martodam@dfw.wa.gov RICHARD A. BEAUSOLEIL, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 3515 State Highway 97A, Wenatchee, WA 98801, USA, email: beausrab@dfw.wa.gov Abstract: Prior to 1996, dogs were used to harvest the majority (99%) of cougar during recreational hunting seasons in Washington State. However, in 1996 Voter Initiative 655 banned the use of dogs to aid in the harvest of cougar. As a result, harvest methods shifted to spot and stalk, predator calling, and incidental encounters between deer and elk hunters and cougar. We examined the sex and age structure of harvested cougar and compared these data between seasons with (selective harvest) and without the use of dogs (non-selective harvest). We detected a significant increase in percent female cougars in the total harvest, from 42% to 59% during selective versus nonselective seasons (T = -7.85, P < 0.0001). We also found that non-selective harvest seasons had significantly more 2 2 juvenile male ( χ = 98.1790, d.f. = 10, P < 0.0001) and female ( χ = 66.5116, d.f. = 10, P < 0.0001) cougars compared to selective seasons. We then used program RISKMAN to evaluate the potential impacts to population growth (finite rate of increase) from changes we observed in harvest vulnerability of specific sex and age classes. Our sensitivity analysis suggests that changes in female adult and cub survival are the most influential parameters to population growth and the increased harvest of female cougars in non-selective harvest methods decreased the finite rate of increase by about 0.01–0.02. Harvest methods that increase the relative harvest vulnerability of these cohorts have a greater potential for impacting population growth. In Washington State, the current level of cougar harvest and increased vulnerability of females and juvenile cougar have likely increased the risk of impacting population growth. 129 Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop Key Words: Voter Initiative 655, selective harvest, non-selective harvest, Washington, cougar, Puma concolor, RISKMAN INTRODUCTION In Washington State, cougar (Puma concolor) hunting regulations and harvest levels have changed dramatically during the last decade (Table 1). Pivotal to these changes was Voter Initiative 655 (I-655), which banned the use of dogs for hunting cougar in Washington in 1996. Prior to I- 655, hunters used dogs to take about 99% of the harvested cougar. Recognizing that using dogs was more effective than spotand-stalk or predator calling methods to harvest cougar, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) instituted several changes in an effort to maintain harvest levels similar to pre-initiative seasons; including lengthening the season from about 86 to 227 days, increasing the annual bag limit from 1 to 2 cougars/hunter, and decreasing the cost of a cougar transport tag from $24 to $10. Both prior to and since I-655, wildlife managers in Washington used harvest characteristics to assess the status of the living cougar population. Managers monitored trends in total harvest, harvest success, percent females in the harvest, and median ages of harvested males and females. Using harvest information alone to assess a living population is fraught with problems. The value of harvest information becomes even more suspect when the harvest methods change, because the relationship between trend data and the
Page 1 and 2:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN
Page 3 and 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface..........
Page 5 and 6:
COUGAR PREDATION ON PREY IN YELLOWS
Page 7 and 8:
PREFACE vii PREFACE The Wyoming Gam
Page 9:
ix IN MEMORY
Page 12 and 13:
2 STATUS OF MOUNTAIN LION POPULATIO
Page 14 and 15:
4 STATUS OF MOUNTAIN LION POPULATIO
Page 16 and 17:
CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REP
Page 18 and 19:
8 CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS R
Page 20 and 21:
10 CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS
Page 22 and 23:
12 CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS
Page 24 and 25:
COLORADO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPOR
Page 26 and 27:
16 COLORADO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS RE
Page 28 and 29:
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVAT
Page 30 and 31:
20 FLORIDA STATUS REPORT · Lotz an
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
26 IDAHO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPOR
Page 38 and 39:
28 IDAHO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPOR
Page 40 and 41:
30 MONTANA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REP
Page 42 and 43:
32 NEVADA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPO
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
40 NEW MEXICO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS
Page 52 and 53:
42 NEW MEXICO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS
Page 54 and 55:
44 SOUTH DAKOTA MOUNTAIN LION STATU
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
50 TEXAS MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPOR
Page 62 and 63:
52 UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT
Page 64 and 65:
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
WASHINGTON COUGAR STATUS REPORT RIC
Page 72 and 73:
62 WASHINGTON COUGAR STATUS REPORT
Page 74 and 75:
WYOMING MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT
Page 76 and 77:
66 WYOMING MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REP
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
72 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf F
Page 84 and 85:
74 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf C
Page 86 and 87:
76 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf A
Page 88 and 89: 78 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf f
Page 90 and 91: 80 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf b
Page 92 and 93: 82 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf N
Page 94 and 95: 84 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf C
Page 96 and 97: 86 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf m
Page 98 and 99: 88 IMPROVING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF M
Page 100 and 101: 90 REDUCING PUMA ATTACKS · Fitzhug
Page 110 and 111: 100 REDUCING PUMA ATTACKS · Fitzhu
Page 112 and 113: 102 REDUCING PUMA ATTACKS · Fitzhu
Page 114 and 115: 104 A CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND APPRAISA
Page 116 and 117: 106 MOUNTAIN LION MOVEMENTS AND PER
Page 118 and 119: 108 PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF FLORIDA
Page 120 and 121: 110 ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND EVO
Page 122 and 123: 112 MOUNTAIN LION BED, CACHE AND KI
Page 130 and 131: 120 EFFECT OF ROADS ON HABITAT USE
Page 132 and 133: 122 COUGAR ECOLOGY AND COUGAR-WOLF
Page 134 and 135: 124 ARE PUMAS OPPORTUNISTIC SCAVENG
Page 136 and 137: 126 COUGAR PREDATION ON PREY IN YEL
Page 140 and 141: 130 CHARACTERISTICS OF COUGAR HARVE
Page 146 and 147: 136 DEFINING AND DELINEATING DE FAC
Page 148 and 149: 138 MANAGEMENT OF COUGARS (PUMA CON
Page 150 and 151: 140 PROJECT CAT (COUGARS AND TEACHI
Page 152 and 153: 142 ESTIMATING COUGAR ABUNDANCE USI
Page 154 and 155: 144 PRESENCE AND MOVEMENTS OF LACTA
Page 156 and 157: 146 RECONCILING SCIENCE AND POLITIC
Page 158 and 159: 148 PUMA MANAGEMENT IN WESTERN NORT
Page 160 and 161: 150 MOUNTAIN LIONS AND BIGHORN SHEE
Page 162 and 163: 152 DISPERSAL IN MALE PUMAS · Laun
Page 172 and 173: 162 ASSESSING GPS RADIOTELEMETRY RE
Page 174 and 175: 164 FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE OF COUGARS
Page 176 and 177: 166 DEPREDATION TRENDS IN CALIFORNI
Page 178 and 179: 168 PUMA ACTIVITY AND MOVEMENTS IN
Page 180 and 181: 170 MOUNTAIN LION SURVEY TECHNIQUES
Page 182 and 183: 172 CRITICAL COUGAR CROSSING AND BA
Page 184 and 185: 174 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Chris Beld
Page 186 and 187: 176 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Steve Fitz
Page 188 and 189:
178 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Mollie Hog
Page 190 and 191:
180 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Cheryl Le
Page 192 and 193:
182 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Ryan Nelso
Page 194 and 195:
184 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Harley Sha
Page 196:
186 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Patricia W
show all

Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?