Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop

More documents

Recommendations

Info

158 DISPERSAL IN MALE PUMAS · Laundré and Hernández competition hypothesis. It is unclear as to what they meant by “tolerable competition” but at any level of competition within its natal home range, a young male will be at a competitive disadvantage to his father or any new male immigrant; they will, by default, all be older and larger. Thus, under the competition hypothesis, we would expect no young males to compete successfully with their fathers or any older immigrant male that arrives to their home area. Consequently, we would predict that young males would all have to disperse, which is what all studies have found. Their chances of competing for a home range 1 HRD from their natal area is still low but greater than zero because they are now slightly older and bigger and we would predict that some, not many, might establish territories that close to their natal home range. This is supported by the data presented, 2 out of 48 dispersing males set up territories within the first HRD. The further they disperse in time and space, the more competitive they should be and we would predict that they would start winning the competition for territories. Thus rather than refuting the competition model, the fact that Logan and Sweanor (2001) found only 6 males in 10 years born in the area setting up territories within the study area starting at ≈ 2.5 HRDs, actually supports and would have been predicted by the competition hypothesis. Consequently, we contend that all the data presented by Logan and Sweanor (2001) concur with Sweanor’s (1990) original conclusion to reject the inbreeding hypothesis and provide strong support for the competition model. In conclusion, after our analysis, we also concur with Sweanor’s (1990) original assessment and rejected the inbreeding model because resident males do fight and kill their male offspring as well as younger transients, resident males do mate with their daughters, and dispersal distances were found to best fit that predicted by the PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP competition model. 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 weight and experience enough to successfully takeover a territory. What we propose is that the avoidance of inbreeding is very likely not the driving force behind dispersal in young male pumas but rather, likely is a serendipitous consequence of dispersal driven by competitive interactions. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The data from our study was gathered with the financial and logistic support of the following foundations and agencies: ALSAM Foundation, Boone and Crockett Club, Earthwatch Institute, Idaho State University, National Rifle Association, The Eppley Foundation, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, The Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Mazamas, The Merril G. and Emita E. Hasting Foundation, Patagonia, Inc., SEACON of the Chicago Zoological Society, The William H. and Mattie Wattis Harris Foundation, and Utah Division of Wildlife. We would like to thank the many Earthwatch volunteers without whose help this work would not have been accomplished. We thank J. Linnell and M. Culver for their helpful comments on this manuscript. We also thank the various researchers whose published data we used in our analysis. It is through research efforts like theirs that we are able to advance our understanding of puma ecology and behavior. Lastly, we especially thank Kevin Allred and Ken Jafek. It is only through their tireless enthusiasm and willing use of their tracking dogs that our study was possible.
LITERATURE CITED ANDERSON, A.E., D.C. BOWDEN, AND D.M. KATTNER. 1992. The puma on the Uncompahgre plateau, Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife Technical Publication No. 40. ASHMAN, D.J., G.C. CHRISTENSEN, M.L. HESS, G.K. TSUKAMOTO AND M.S. WICHERSHAM. 1983. The mountain lion in Nevada. Nevada Department of Wildlife Report W-48-15, Reno, Nevada, USA. BARONE, M.A., M.E. ROELKE, J. HOWARD, J.L. BROWN, A.E. ANDERSON, AND D.E. WILDT. 1994. Reproductive characteristics of male Florida panthers: Comparative studies from Florida, Texas, Colorado, Latin America, and North American Zoos. Journal of Mammalogy 75:150-162. BEIER, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:228-237. DOBSON, F.S. 1982. Competition for mates and predominant juvenile male dispersal in mammals. Animal Behavior 30:1183- 1192. HEMKER, T.P., F.G. LINDZEY, AND B.B. ACKERMAN. 1984. Population characteristics and movement patterns of cougars in southern Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:1275-1284. HORNOCKER, M.G. 1970. An analysis of mountain lion predation upon mule deer and elk in the Idaho Primitive area. Wildlife Monographs # 21, The Wildlife Society. LAUNDRÉ, J.W. AND L. HERNÁNDEZ. 2002. Growth curve models and age estimation of young cougars in the northern Great Basin. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:849-858. LAUNDRÉ, J.W. AND T.W. CLARK. 2003. Managing puma hunting in the western United States: through a metapopulation DISPERSAL IN MALE PUMAS · Laundré and Hernández 159 PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP approach. Animal Conservation 6:159- 170. LINDZEY, F.G., B.B. ACKERMAN, D. BARNHURST, T. BECKER, T.P. HEMKER, S.P. LAING, C. MECHAM, AND W.D. VANSICKLE. 1989. Boulder-Escalante cougar project. Final Report Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. USA. LINDZEY, F.G., W.D. VAN SICKEL, B.B. ACHERMAN, D. BARNHURST, T.P. HEMKER, AND S.P. LAING. 1994. Cougar population dynamics in southern Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:619-624. LOGAN, K.A., L.L. IRWIN, AND R. SKINNER. 1986. Characteristics of a hunted mountain lion population in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:648- 654. LOGAN, K.A. AND L.L. SWEANOR. 2001. Desert Puma Evolutionary Ecology and conservation of an Enduring Carnivore. Island Press, Washington D.C, USA. MAEHR, D., E.D. LAND, AND J.C. ROOF. 1991. Social ecology of Florida panthers. National Geographic Research and Exploration 7:414-431. MCBRIDE, R.T. 1976. The status and ecology of the mountain lion (Felis concolor) of the Texas-Mexico border. Thesis, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, Texas, USA. MILLER, G.L. AND B.W. CARROLL. 1989. Modeling vertebrate dispersal distances: alternatives to the geometric distribution. Ecology 70:977-986. MOORE, J. AND R. ALI. 1984. Are dispersal and inbreeding avoidance related? Animal Behaviour 32:94-112. MURPHY, K.M. 1998. The ecology of the cougar (Puma concolor) in the northern Yellowstone ecosystem: Interactions with prey, bears, and humans. Dissertation. University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA.
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?