Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop

More documents

Recommendations

Info

88 IMPROVING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT TRENDS: THE VALUE OF CONSISTENT MULT-STATE RECORD KEEPING CHRISTOPHER M. PAPOUCHIS, Mountain Lion Foundation, PO Box 1896, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA, email: cpapouchis@mountainlion.org LYNN MICHELLE CULLENS, Mountain Lion Foundation, PO Box 1896, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA, email: cullens@mountainlion.org Abstract: The sound management and conservation of mountain lions relies on comprehensive scientific data. Yet the cost of mountain lion research can be prohibitive and the results are often difficult if not impossible to extrapolate. Wildlife managers, field researchers, and conservation organizations would benefit from more complete and consistent records of validated mountain lion sightings, hunting mortalities, depredation incidents, and road kills. Scientists who have mined such data in the past have isolated important variables, generated important hypotheses, and targeted future research. But their work is usually limited by funding, academic or agency agendas. Further, there is no long-term multi-state repository for mountain lion data. The task of data collection is made more difficult because there is no multi-state standard, and therefore states collect and store data inconsistently. This presentation explores the potential for developing a multi-state database, and examines the existing state data sets in order to identify the essential variables that might be included. PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP
LESSENING THE IMPACT OF A PUMA ATTACK ON A HUMAN E. LEE FITZHUGH, Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616-8751, USA, email: elfitzhugh@ucdavis.edu SABINE SCHMID-HOLMES, Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616-8751, USA MARC W. KENYON, Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology, University of California, Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616-8751, USA KATHY ETLING, 6830 St. Tropez Circle, Osage Beach, MO 65065, USA Abstract: We reviewed current data on puma (Puma concolor) attacks and near-attacks on humans to identify better ways for people to protect themselves. Not since Paul Beier’s paper in 1991 has anyone documented, established criteria for validity, and analyzed puma attacks on humans, and much more data are now available. In attempting to examine human-puma behavioral interactions to 2003, the authors have collected accounts of 16 fatal and 92 nonfatal attacks that meet Beier’s criteria. In addition, we have an additional 32 fatal and 84 non-fatal attacks that failed to meet Beier’s criteria, either for lack of physical contact, lack of verification, occurrence in Latin America, occurrence prior to 1890, or because they were attacks on hunters. We also have accumulated 155 accounts of behavioral interactions between pumas and humans at close proximity that did not result in an attack. We contrasted these with incidents that resulted in an attack. We analyzed the use of Beier’s fatal:non-fatal attack ratio to predict missing incidents, and suspect that the criterion of validation may bias data for attacks prior to 1950. However, most of Beier’s statements and conclusions are confirmed. While the analysis is yet incomplete, this presentation includes highlights of our tentative analysis concerning common questions about puma attacks, illustrated by stories of real situations. Being aggressive and making loud noises helps protect people from a possible puma attack. Warning gunshots are much less effective than is yelling. Charging the puma seems to make it run away, but may result in some injury to the person who is charging. Groups of 5 people or more are relatively safe, but children in those groups may still be attacked. Hunters imitating animal sounds or smells may attract pumas, but these situations usually do not result in serious injuries. People attacked while sleeping on the ground often receive only minor injuries because the puma runs away when the person or companions awake, yell, and resist. The strategies will usually work, but not always, because pumas have different personalities and seem to react differently to the same situation. 89 Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop Key words: Animal damage, attacks on humans, conflict with wildlife, cougar, human dimensions of wildlife management, mountain lion, pest control, predation, Puma concolor INTRODUCTION In this paper we use the common name “puma” to describe Puma concolor. Occasionally, when we quote other people, we retain their terminology, and they often use “cougar” instead of “puma.” Beier (1991) analyzed 9 fatal and 44 non-fatal attacks by pumas on humans that occurred between 1890 and 1990 in the United States and Canada. In order to include an attack in his analysis, it must have been published, included statements from agency or medical personnel, and involved contact in which the human was bitten, clawed, or knocked down by the puma. Excluded were situations involving captive pumas and in which people deliberately approached or harassed a puma. He found that 64% of victims were children, and only 13 of 37 (35%) of these were alone, while 11 of 17 (65%) adult victims were alone when attacked. He also found that an aggressive response might avert and/or repel an attack. Yearlings and underweight cougars were most likely to
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: 38 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 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 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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?