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