Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop

More documents

Recommendations

Info

74 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf Confirmed kill - Keithville, Louisiana, 1965 (Goertz and Abegg 1966) Confirmed kill - Edinboro, Pennsylvania, 1967 (Doutt 1969) Confirmed carcass - Checotah, Oklahoma, 1968 (Lewis 1969) Confirmed kill - Hamburg, Arkansas, 1969 (Noble 1971) Reported kill - Ekalaka, Montana, ca 1970 (Nowak 1976) Confirmed kill - Pikeville, Tennessee, 1971 (Nowak 1976) Confirmed kill - Stead, Manitoba, 1973 (Nero and Wrigley 1977) Confirmed kill - Cutknife, Saskatchewan, 1975 (White 1976) Cougar reportedly trapped - Baca County, Colorado, 1976 (Boddicker 1980) Confirmed hematological evidence - Menominee County, Michigan, 1984 (Bill Adrian, Colorado Division of Wildlife, personal communication) Puma trapped, radio-collared, translocated to Black Hills - central South Dakota, 1990 or 1992 (Ted Benzon and Ron Sieg, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, personal communication; Tischendorf and Henderson 1994) (Note: This cat was killed in the Black Hills in 1996 [Ron Sieg, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, personal communication]) Confirmed kill - Golden Valley County, North Dakota, 1991 (Tischendorf and Henderson 1994) Confirmed kill - Pine Ridge area, Nebraska, 1991 (Tischendorf 1992a, Tischendorf and Henderson 1994) Cougar trapped and translocated to Colorado - Worthington, Minnesota, 1991 (Tischendorf 1992a, b) Confirmed kill - Lowery, South Dakota, 1992 (Tischendorf and Henderson 1994) PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP Confirmed kill - Lake Abitibi, Quebec, 1992 (Tischendorf 1993a) Confirmed tracks - McKiel Lake, New Brunswick, 1992 (Tischendorf 1993b, Cumberland and Dempsey 1994) Confirmed kill - Texas County, Missouri, 1994 (Hardin 1996, Bolgiano et al. 2000) Confirmed kill - Mitchell, Nebraska, 1996 (Frank Andelt, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, personal communication) Confirmed kill - Floyd County, Kentucky, 1997 (Bolgiano 2001) Confirmed kill - Randolph County, Illinois, 2000 (Clark et al 2002) Confirmed kill - Duluth, Minnesota, 2001 (Anonymous 2002) Confirmed kill - Harlan, Iowa, 2001 (Anonymous 2002, Clark et al 2002) Confirmed kill - Callaway County, Missouri, 2003 (Graham 2003) Almost 30 years ago Nowak (1976:143- 144) commented, “The sum of evidence suggests that native cougar populations have maintained themselves in southeastern Canada, within the former range of F. c. cougar (sic: should be couguar), and in the Ozark Plateau and adjoining forests of Arkansas, southern Missouri, eastern Oklahoma, and northern Louisiana.” Indeed, even if ecologically significant populations did not persist, the above list suggests it is doubtful that these furtive felids were ever totally extirpated from the vast, and in many cases relatively inaccessible, environs of this area. Relatively pristine areas within New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba, for instance, could possibly have sustained individual pumas or even vestigial, remnant populations of these cats through the “Dark Age” of wildlife and habitat management late in the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries. In the USA, a number of areas could also have served as similar refugia. As late
as the mid-1940s, for instance, noted mammalogist Victor Cahalane acknowledged cougar presence in Shenandoah National Park and adjacent Blue Ridge country of Virginia (Cahalane 1948). Other plausible refuges include northern Maine, the Adirondacks, the Quabbin Reservoir area in Massachusetts, northern Pennsylvania, the impenetrable southeastern and southern coastal swamps, the Great Smoky Mountains area, the Tennessee-Virginia-Kentucky-West Virginia border country, the dense northwoods of Michigan and Minnesota, the Ozark and Ouachita Mountain complex of Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma, and the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) irruptions in many of these same areas were identified circa 1940, confirming that within only a few generations of the puma’s supposed demise these sites had an adequate prey base to sustain or attract the species (Leopold et al. 1947). While an alternative argument is of course that the irruptions resulted from lack of predators, irruptions were also noted in the Rocky Mountains, where historically we know mountain lion populations may have been depleted but were never decimated. Indeed, in seminal biological publications as late as the mid-1970s and 1980s several noted mammalogists and wildlife scientists postulated the continued presence of puma populations in these very same areas (Cahalane 1964, Burt and Grossenheider 1976, Nowak 1976, Deems and Pursley 1978, Russell 1978, Hall 1981, Anderson 1983). Nonetheless, such reports seemingly generated merely passing interest from mainstream science and remained largely off the radar screen of wildlife biologists. Today, with the growing groundswell in conservation biology and corridor ecology, PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf 75 scientists are more inclined to recognize the importance and implications of the presence of small, insular predator populations or even remnant, wandering, or dispersing individuals. Indeed, such enclaves or individuals may provide the necessary seed for recolonization or recovery. Natural resource agencies responsible for some of these above-mentioned areas today, such as the Black Hills, have in fact confirmed extant puma populations (Tischendorf and Henderson 1994). Additionally, for quite some time other states such as North Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Arkansas have acknowledged at least limited and sporadic puma presence (Sealander and Gipson 1973, Gerson 1988, Tischendorf and Henderson 1994, Clark et al. 2002, Graham 2003, Heisel 2003). Michigan Department of Natural Resources officials acknowledge the presence of pumas in the Great Lakes State as well, and ongoing work there at least suggests the possibility of a resident, breeding population (Johnson 2002, Zuidema 2002, Mike Zuidema, Michigan Department of Forestry, retired, personal communication). Given the habitat, cover, prey base, and presence of a thriving carnivore guild that includes populations of wolves, bears, coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats (Felis rufus), fishers (Martes pennanti), and probably an occasional lynx, it would perhaps be more surprising if Michigan did not have a resident puma population. The situation in the Prairie Provinces of Canada, with their seemingly less sensational and less controversial approach to the cat, is similar, if not even more definitive. In Saskatchewan, the late Tom White documented the presence of a small population of pumas filtering among the coulees and more rugged reaches of this sprawling province (White 1982). The Yukon and Northwest Territories, and
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:
22 FLORIDA STATUS REPORT · Lotz an
Page 34 and 35: 24 FLORIDA STATUS REPORT · Lotz an
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 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 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 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 82 and 83: 72 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf F
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 138 and 139:
128 COUGAR TOTAL PREDATION RESPONSE
Page 140 and 141:
130 CHARACTERISTICS OF COUGAR HARVE
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
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 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
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?