Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop

More documents

Recommendations

Info

150 MOUNTAIN LIONS AND BIGHORN SHEEP: FACING THE CHALLENGES CHRISTOPHER M. PAPOUCHIS, Mountain Lion Foundation, PO Box 1896, Sacramento, CA 95812, USA, email: cpapouchis@mountainlion.org JOHN D. WEHAUSEN, U.C. White Mountain Research Station, 3000 E. Line Street, Bishop, CA 93514, USA Abstract: Mountain lions (Puma concolor) and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) have coevolved as predator and prey. Bighorn sheep populations have declined over the past several centuries across their range due to a variety of anthropogenic causes, and have been the subject of extensive translocation efforts in recent years in an effort to reestablish populations in historic habitat. In the past several decades mountain lion predation has also been implicated in the decline of several populations of endangered bighorn sheep, including the federally listed Peninsular (O. c. cremnobates) and Sierra Nevada populations in California and state listed desert bighorn sheep (O.c. mexicana) populations in New Mexico. We hypothesize that this recent phenomenon has resulted from land and wildlife management practices that have affected both species. Restoring the natural relationship between mountain lions and bighorn sheep presents both biological and ethical challenges. We discuss the current status of management efforts, review several hypothesis of why predation has become a limiting factor for bighorn sheep recovery, and discuss current and potential management options. PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP
FACTORS AFFECTING DISPERSAL IN YOUNG MALE PUMAS JOHN W. LAUNDRÉ, Instituto de Ecologia, A.C, Km 5 a Carr. de Mazatlán s/n, C.P 34100, Durango, Dgo México, email: launjohn@prodigy.net.mx LUCINA HERNÁNDEZ, Instituto de Ecologia, A.C, Km 5 a Carr. de Mazatlán s/n, C.P 34100, Durango, Dgo México, email: lucina@fauna.edu.mx Abstract: Numerous studies have demonstrated that nearly all young male pumas disperse from their natal home range area while most females are philopatric. There are 2 hypotheses for the driving force behind dispersal in young male pumas. The first is the competition (aggression avoidance) model where dispersal is because of competition between young males and their fathers/incoming transient males for mates and resources. The second is the inbreeding model where young males are thought to disperse to avoid inbreeding with their mothers/sisters. Under each model, specific predictions can be made to test their validity. Under the competition model, we predict that there should be physical conflicts between sons and their fathers, including infanticide and that competitive ability should increase with age and thus, the longer time and further distance they are from their home area. Thus, dispersal distances should reflect their competitive ability, i.e. few males will establish territories close to their natal home range. Under the inbreeding avoidance model, we predict fewer physical conflicts (young males leave on their own), no inbreeding between fathers and daughters, which is genetically equivalent to sons mating with their mothers, and no males should establish their territories adjacent (1-2 home range diameters) to their natal home range. We tested these predictions with dispersal data from our study in southern Idaho/northwestern Utah and published data. We refuted the inbreeding model because resident males do fight and kill their male offspring, resident males do mate with their daughters, and there is a high percent of males that establish their territories within 2-4 HRDs of their natal home ranges. Our data supported the competition model with an increase in frequency of dispersal distances at >2 diameters. We conclude that young males are forced out of their natal home range by their fathers or incoming males who, by default, will be older and stronger. We propose that they continue to disperse until they gain enough weight and experience to successfully takeover a territory. Key Words: male pumas, dispersal, inbreeding, competition, Idaho, Utah Numerous studies have demonstrated that nearly all young male pumas disperse from their home range area while most females are philopatric (Ross and Jalkotzy1992, Sweanor et al. 2000). There are 2 hypotheses for the driving force behind dispersal in young male pumas that have been developed considering the various costs and benefits to dispersing vs philopatric behaviors (Shields 1987). The first is the competition model where dispersal is motivated by interference competition and aggression between young males and their fathers/incoming transient males for mates and resources (Dobson 1982, Moore and Ali 1984). The second is the inbreeding model where young males are thought to disperse to avoid inbreeding 151 Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop primarily with their mothers/sisters (Wolfe 1994). There have been extensive reviews and criticisms of both hypotheses and it continues to be a hotly debated topic (See Shields 1987 for a review). Relative to pumas, discussions of dispersal have primarily centered around dispersal ages and distances but little on the driving force behind dispersal, especially for young males. Sweanor (1990) reported on dispersal in male pumas in New Mexico and concluded that the likely driving force was competition among males. However, later, Logan and Sweanor (2001) concluded that male pumas were dispersing primarily to avoid inbreeding. Thus at this time it is uncertain which hypothesis might best explain dispersal in young male pumas.
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 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
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 138 and 139: 128 COUGAR TOTAL PREDATION RESPONSE
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 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?