Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop

PROCEEDINGS OF THE

SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP 15-17 MAY 2003 • THE VIRGINIAN LODGE • JACKSON, WYOMING

Editors: Scott A. Becker Daniel D. Bjornlie Fred G. Lindzey David S. Moody Organizing Committee Scott Becker Ron Grogan Dan Bjornlie Fred Lindzey Tom Easterly Dave Moody Sponsored By: The Wyoming Chapter of the Wildlife Society Wyoming Game and Fish Department Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit

 2003 Wyoming Game and Fish Department 260 Buena Vista Lander, Wyoming 82520

Suggested Citation Formats Entire Volume: Becker, S.A., D.D. Bjornlie, F.G. Lindzey, and D.S. Moody. eds. 2003. Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop. Lander, Wyoming. For individual papers: Author’s name(s). 2003. Title of Paper. Pages 00-00 in S.A. Becker, D.D. Bjornlie, F.G. Lindzey, and D.S. Moody, eds. Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop. Lander, Wyoming. Purchasing Additional Copies of the Proceedings Please send a check made out to “Wyoming Chapter, TWS” for the amount of fifteen (15) US dollars to Tim Thomas, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, PO Box 6249, Sheridan, WY 82801, USA; phone: (307) 672-7418; email: [email protected]. Information on different purchasing options may also be made through Tim.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface.................................................................................................................................................................... vii In Memory Ian Ross ............................................................................................................................................................. viii

Mountain Lion Status Reports Session Chair: Dave Moody, Wyoming Game and Fish Department STATUS OF MOUNTAIN LION POPULATIONS IN ARIZONA Brian F. Wakeling ....................................................................................................................................................1 CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT Doug Updike ............................................................................................................................................................6 COLORADO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT Jerry Apker.............................................................................................................................................................14 FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION STATUS REPORT Mark Lotz and E. Darrell Land ..............................................................................................................................18 IDAHO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT Steve Nadeau..........................................................................................................................................................25 MONTANA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT Rich DeSimone and Rose Jaffe..............................................................................................................................29 NEVADA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT Russell Woolstenhulme..........................................................................................................................................31 NEW MEXICO MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT Rick Winslow.........................................................................................................................................................39 STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT Mike Kintigh ..........................................................................................................................................................43 MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT FOR TEXAS John Young ............................................................................................................................................................49 UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT Craig R. McLaughlin .............................................................................................................................................51 WASHINGTON COUGAR STATUS REPORT Richard A. Beausoleil, Donald A. Martorello, and Rocky D. Spencer..................................................................60 WYOMING MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT Scott A. Becker, Daniel D. Bjornlie, and David S. Moody....................................................................................64 CRYPTIC COUGARS – PERSPECTIVES ON THE PUMA IN THE EASTERN, MIDWESTERN, AND GREAT PLAINS REGIONS OF NORTH AMERICA Jay W. Tischendorf ................................................................................................................................................71 MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT: BRITISH COLUMBIA – Abstract Matt Austin ............................................................................................................................................................87 IMPROVING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT TRENDS: THE VALUE OF CONSISTENT MULTI-STATE RECORD KEEPING - Abstract Christopher M. Papouchis and Lynn Michelle Cullens .........................................................................................88

Mountain Lion Interactions with Humans and Livestock Session Chair: Kenneth Logan, Colorado Division of Wildlife

iii

LESSENING THE IMPACT OF A PUMA ATTACK ON A HUMAN E. Lee Fitzhugh, Sabine Schmid-Holmes, Marc W. Kenyon, and Kathy Etling ...................................................89 A CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND APPRAISAL OF EXISTING RESEARCH RELATED TO INTERACTIONS BETWEEN HUMANS AND PUMAS – Abstract David J. Mattson, Jan V. Hart, Paul Beier, and Jesse Millen-Johnson ................................................................104 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LAND TENURE SYSTEM, MOUNTAIN LION PROTECTION STATUS, AND LIVESTOCK DEPREDATION RATE – Abstract Marcelo Mazzolli .................................................................................................................................................105 MOUNTAIN LION MOVEMENTS AND PERSISTENCE IN A FRAGMENTED, URBAN LANDSCAPE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA – Abstract Seth P.D. Riley, Raymond M. Sauvajot, and Eric C. York..................................................................................106 PUMA RESPONSES TO CLOSE ENCOUNTERS WITH RESEARCHERS – Abstract Linda L. Sweanor, Kenneth A. Logan, and Maurice G. Hornocker ....................................................................107

Mountain Lion Genetics and Disease Session Chair: Deedra Hawk, Wyoming Game and Fish Department PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF FLORIDA PANTHER GENETIC ANALYSES – Abstract Warren E. Johnson, Darrell Land, Jan Mortenson, Melody Roelke-Parker, and Stephen J. O’Brien..................108 GENETIC STRUCTURE OF COUGAR POPULATIONS ACROSS THE WYOMING BASIN: METAPOPULATION OR MEGAPOPULATION – Abstract Chuck R. Anderson, Jr., Fred G. Lindzey, and Dave B. McDonald ....................................................................109 ECOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE AND EVOLUTION OF A COMMON COUGAR RETROVIRUS – Abstract Roman Biek and Mary Poss .................................................................................................................................110

Mountain Lion Ecology Session Chair: Fred Lindzey, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit CHARACTERISTICS OF MOUNTAIN LION BED, CACHE AND KILL SITES IN NORTHEASTERN OREGON James J. Akenson, M. Cathy Nowak, Mark G. Henjum, and Gary W. Witmer...................................................111 IMPACT OF EDGE HABITAT ON HOME RANGE SIZE IN PUMAS – Abstract John W. Laundré and Lucina Hernández.............................................................................................................119 EFFECT OF ROADS ON HABITAT USE BY COUGARS – Abstract Dorothy M. Fecske, Jonathan A. Jenks, Frederick G. Lindzey, and Steven L. Griffin........................................120 ECOLOGY OF SYMPATRIC PUMAS AND JAGUARS IN NORTHWESTERN MEXICO – Abstract Carlos A. Lopez Gonzalez and Samia E. Carrillo Percastegui.............................................................................121 COUGAR ECOLOGY AND COUGAR-WOLF INTERACTIONS IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK: A GUILD APPROACH TO LARGE CARNIVORE CONSERVATION – Abstract Toni K. Ruth, Polly C. Buotte, Howard B. Quigley, and Maurice G. Hornocker................................................122 EVALUATION OF HABITAT FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE ABUNDANCE OF PUMAS IN THE CHIHUAHUAN DESERT – Abstract Joel Loredo Salazar, Lucina Hernández, and John W. Laundré ..........................................................................123

Mountain Lion/Prey Dynamics Session Chair: Steve Cain, Grand Teton National Park ARE PUMAS OPPORTUNISTIC SCAVENGERS? – Abstract Jim W. Bauer, Kenneth A. Logan, Linda L. Sweanor, and Walter M. Boyce .....................................................124 COUGAR-INDUCED INDIRECT EFFECTS: DOES THE RISK OF PREDATION INFLUENCE UNGULATE FORAGING BEHAVIOR ON THE NATIONAL BISON RANGE? – Abstract David M. Choate, Gary E. Belovsky, and Michael L. Wolfe ..............................................................................125

iv

COUGAR PREDATION ON PREY IN YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK: A PRELIMINARY COMPARISON PRE- AND POST-WOLF REESTABLISHMENT – Abstract Toni K. Ruth, Polly C. Buotte, Kerry M. Murphy, and Maurice G. Hornocker ..................................................126 FOUR DECADES OF COUGAR-UNGULATE DYNAMICS IN THE CENTRAL IDAHO WILDERNESS – Abstract Holly A. Akenson, James J. Akenson, Howard B. Quigley, and Maurice G. Hornocker....................................127 COUGAR TOTAL PREDATION RESPONSE TO DIFFERING PREY DENSITIES: A PROPOSED EXPERIMENT TO TEST THE APPARENT COMPETITION HYPOTHESIS – Abstract Hugh Robinson, Robert Wielgus, Hilary Cruickshank, and Catherine Lambert .................................................128

Mountain Lion Population Monitoring and Management Session Chair: Kerry Murphy, Yellowstone National Park CHARACTERISTICS OF COUGAR HARVEST WITH AND WITHOUT THE USE OF DOGS Donald A. Martorello and Richard A. Beausoleil ................................................................................................129 RESPONSE BY THREE LARGE CARNIVORES TO RECREATIONAL BIG GAME HUNTING ALONG THE YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK AND ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH WILDERNESS BOUNDARY – Presentation Only Howard B. Quigley, Toni K. Ruth, Douglas W. Smith, Mark A. Haroldson, Polly C. Buotte, Charles C. Schwartz, Steve Cherry, Kerry M. Murphy, Dan Tyers, and Kevin Frey DEFINING AND DELINEATING DE FACTO REFUGIA: A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF COUGAR HARVEST IN UTAH AND IMPLICATIONS FOR CONSERVATION – Abstract David C. Stoner and Michael L. Wolfe................................................................................................................136 MONITORING CHANGES IN COUGAR SEX/AGE STRUCTURE WITH CHANGES IN ABUNDANCE AS AN INDEX TO POPULATION TREND – Abstract Chuck R. Anderson, Jr. and Fred G. Lindzey ......................................................................................................137 MANAGEMENT OF COUGARS (Puma concolor) IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES – Abstract Deanna Dawn, Michael Kutilek, Rich Hopkins, Sulehka Anand, and Steve Torres ...........................................138 DYNAMICS AND VIABILITY OF A COUGAR POPULATION IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST – Abstract Catherine Lambert, Robert B. Wielgus, Hugh S. Robinson, Donald D. Katnik, Hilary Cruickshank, and Ross Clarke ..........................................................................................................................................................139 PROJECT CAT (COUGARS AND TEACHING): INTEGRATING SCIENCE, SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY IN DEVELOPMENT PLANNING – Abstract Gary M. Koehler and Evelyn Nelson ...................................................................................................................140 MONITORING MOUNTAIN LIONS IN THE TUCSON MOUNTAIN DISTRICT OF SAGUARO NATIONAL PARK, ARIZONA, USING NONINVASIVE TECHNIQUES – Abstract Lisa Haynes, Don Swann, and Melanie Culver ...................................................................................................141 ESTIMATING COUGAR ABUNDANCE USING PROBABILITY SAMPLING: AN EVALUATION OF TRANSECT VERSUS BLOCK DESIGN – Abstract Chuck R. Anderson, Jr., Fred G. Lindzey, and Nate Nibbelink...........................................................................142 EVALUATING MOUNTAIN LION MONITORING TECHNIQUES IN THE GARNET MOUNTAINS OF WEST CENTRAL MONTANA – Abstract Rich DeSimone ....................................................................................................................................................143 PRESENCE AND MOVEMENTS OF LACTATING AND MATERNAL FEMALE COUGARS: IMPLICATIONS FOR STATE HUNTING REGULATIONS – Abstract Toni K. Ruth, Kerry M. Murphy, and Polly C. Buotte ........................................................................................144

Mountain Lion Conservation Session Chair: Christopher Papouchis, Mountain Lion Foundation MYSTERY, MYTH AND LEGEND: THE POLITICS OF COUGAR MANAGEMENT IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM – Abstract Rick A. Hopkins...................................................................................................................................................145

v

RECONCILING SCIENCE AND POLITICS IN PUMA MANAGEMENT IN THE WEST: NEW MEXICO AS A TEMPLATE – Abstract Kenneth A. Logan, Linda L. Sweanor, and Maurice G. Hornocker ....................................................................146 COMMUNITY-BASED CONSERVATION OF MOUNTAIN LIONS – Abstract Lynn Michelle Cullens and Christopher Papouchis .............................................................................................147 PUMA MANAGEMENT IN WESTERN NORTH AMERICA: A 100-YEAR RETROSPECTIVE – Abstract Steven Torres, Heather Keough, and Deanna Dawn............................................................................................148 USING COUGARS TO DESIGN A WILDERNESS NETWORK IN CALIFORNIA’S SOUTH COAST ECOREGION – Abstract Paul Beier and Kristeen Penrod ...........................................................................................................................149 MOUNTAIN LIONS AND BIGHORN SHEEP: FACING THE CHALLENGES – Abstract Christopher M. Papouchis and John D. Wehausen ..............................................................................................150

POSTER PRESENTATIONS Session Chair: Scott Becker, Wyoming Game and Fish Department FACTORS AFFECTING DISPERSAL IN YOUNG MALE PUMAS John W. Laundré and Lucina Hernández.............................................................................................................151 COUGAR EXPLOITATION LEVELS AND LANDSCAPE CONFIGURATIONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR DEMOGRAPHIC STRUCTURE AND METAPOPULATION DYNAMICS – Abstract David C. Stoner and Michael L. Wolfe................................................................................................................161 ASSESSING GPS RADIOTELEMETRY RELIABILITY IN COUGAR HABITAT – Abstract Trish Griswold, James Briggs, Gary Koehler, and Students at Cle Elum-Roslyn School District ......................162 USING GPS COLLARS TO DETERMINE COUGAR KILL RATES, ESTIMATE HOME RANGES, AND EXAMINE COUGAR-COUGAR INTERACTIONS –Abstract Polly C. Buotte and Toni K. Ruth ........................................................................................................................163 FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE OF COUGARS AND PREY AVAILABILITY IN NORTHEASTERN WASHINGTON – Abstract Hilary S. Cruickshank, Hugh S. Robinson, Catherine Lambert, Robert B. Wielgus ...........................................164 WHAT DOES TEN YEARS (1993-2002) OF MOUNTAIN LION OBSERVATION DATA REVEAL ABOUT MOUNTAIN LION-HUMAN INTERACTIONS WITHIN REDWOOD NATIONAL AND STATE PARKS – Abstract Gregory W. Holm ................................................................................................................................................165 DEPREDATION TRENDS IN CALIFORNIA – Abstract Sarah Reed, Christopher M. Papouchis, and Lynn Michelle Cullens ..................................................................166 THE DISTRIBUTION OF PERCEIVED ENCOUNTERS WITH NON-NATIVE CATS IN SOUTH AND WEST WALES, UK: RELATIONSHIP TO MODELED HABITAT SUITABILITY – Abstract A.B. Smith, F.E. Street Perrott, and T. Hooper....................................................................................................167 PUMA ACTIVITY AND MOVEMENTS IN A HUMAN-DOMINATED LANDSCAPE: CUYAMACA RANCHO STATE PARK AND ADJACENT LANDS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA – Abstract Linda L. Sweanor, Kenneth A. Logan, Jim W. Bauer, and Walter M. Boyce .....................................................168 MODELING OFFSPRING SEX RATIOS AND GROWTH OF COUGARS – Abstract Diana M. Ghikas, Martin Jalkotzy, Ian Ross, Ralph Schmidt, and Shane A. Richards .......................................169 MOUNTAIN LION SURVEY TECHNIQUES IN NORTHERN IDAHO: A THREE-FOLD APPROACH – Abstract Craig G. White, Peter Zager, and Lisette Waits...................................................................................................170 MOUNTAIN LIONS IN SOUTH DAKOTA: RESULTS OF A 2002 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY – Abstract Larry M. Gigliotti, Dorothy M. Fecske, and Jonathan A. Jenks ..........................................................................171 CRITICAL COUGAR CROSSING AND BAY AREA REGIONAL PLANNING – Abstract Michele Korpos....................................................................................................................................................172

List of Participants ............................................................................................................................................173

vi

PREFACE

PREFACE The Wyoming Game and Fish Department took great pride in hosting the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop, which was held in conjunction with the Thirty-Ninth North American Moose Conference and Workshop and the Fifth Western States and Provinces Deer and Elk Workshop. More than 190 people attended the mountain lion workshop representing 27 states, 3 Canadian provinces, Mexico, Brazil, and the United Kingdom. Numerous state and federal agencies, tribal nations, private organizations, academia, and members of the general public were represented which attest to the varied and growing interest in mountain lions throughout North and South America. This workshop would not have been a success without the aid and cooperation of the contributors and participants. Financial support, equipment, and manpower provided by the Wyoming Chapter of the Wildlife Society, the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and the Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Wyoming made this workshop possible. A special thanks goes to the members of the organizing committee for their aid with all aspects of pre- and post-workshop activities, to the session chairs for keeping the workshop moving in a timely fashion, and to the invited speakers who gave thoughtful insight into past, present, and future mountain lion management practices and research techniques. Many thanks to the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) for sanctioning the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop; from this point forward, all mountain lion workshops will be sanctioned by WAFWA. Finally, we would like to thank all the presenters in the oral and poster sessions for the depth of their research and the quality of their presentations. As a result of the efforts you all put forth, a standard has been set for presentations at future mountain lion workshops. Keep up the great work! Scott Becker and Dave Moody Workshop Co-Chairs

vii

IN MEMORY

P. Ian Ross Born December 16, 1958 in Goderich, Ontario. Died June 29, 2003, age 44, near Nanyuki, Kenya. Ian was a true outdoorsman from the beginning, running a trapline while in high school in southern Ontario. After graduating from the University of Guelph (1982), his first experiences with grizzly bears came in northwestern Alberta, where he studied the impacts of industrial development. It was the beginning of an illustrious 20-year career conducting research on large mammals in western Canada. He worked on cougars in southwestern Alberta from the early 1980’s until 1994. That project became one of the longest running research projects on Puma concolor in North America. The cougar project received national recognition on radio and television and Ian used that attention to foster a thoughtful and effective wildlife conservation message. He participated in the drafting of a management plan for cougars in Alberta as well as a conservation strategy for large carnivores in Canada. He was the senior author on 9 papers in peer-reviewed journals in addition to many other technical reports and popular articles. After the cougar project wrapped up, Ian conducted environmental impact studies in western and northern Canada. He recently rewrote the grizzly bear status report for COSEWIC. He also worked tirelessly with The Wildlife Society-Alberta Chapter dealing with wildlife conservation issues. He served as President of the Chapter in 1997. Ian also continued to capture wildlife, including grizzly bears, for research projects, and in doing so assisted many graduate students with their research. He conducted his capture work using an exacting professional approach while retaining an empathy for the wildlife he was pursuing. He cared for each individual and did his utmost to conduct captures in a humane manner. Ian was a committed and emotional friend and family man. Having no children of his own he was a hero to his young nieces, nephews and children of friends. He always remembered everyone’s birthdays. He hiked the foothills of the Rockies west of Calgary, as well as the U.S. desert southwest, the Canadian Arctic, Mexico and Africa. He loved to hunt and his dinner table was a testiment to his hunting prowess. His conservation ethic permeated all of his life. He did not consume needlessly and he encouraged all of us to do the same. In January 2003, Ian returned to field research when he joined Dr. Laurence Frank on the Liakipia Predator Project, a project designed to find ways to allow for the coexistence of hyenas, lions, and leopards and people in the agricultural matrix that exists outside national parks in most of southern Africa. Two days before his death he was on top of the world having collared his first leopard. On the evening he died Ian was tracking a radio-collared lion from a light aircraft. Searchers located its wreckage the next morning. Ian Ross died at the peak of his career, doing what he loved. By Martin Jalkotzy Arc Wildlife Services 3527 - 35 Ave. SW Calgary, AB, T3E 1A2, Canada

viii

IN MEMORY

ix

STATUS OF MOUNTAIN LION POPULATIONS IN ARIZONA BRIAN F. WAKELING, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Game Branch, 2221 West Greenway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85023 USA Abstract: Arizona's mountain lion (Puma concolor) population numbers about 1,000-2,500 animals, and just over 350 mountain lions were harvested through sport and depredation take in 5 of the last 6 years. Arizona bag limit is 1 lion per person per year annually, except in a few units where multiple bag limits have been implemented; no multiple bag limit has been reached to date. Management for this big game animal is guided by strategic plan, species management guidelines, hunt guidelines, and a predation management policy. Management is currently under review by an internal team that is examining several predator species, including mountain lions. The internal review should be complete by the end of 2003. Public safety incident reports have increased substantially since 1998. Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop

Mountain lion harvest has remained high, as annual statewide harvests have exceeded our strategic plan objectives (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2001) in 5 of the last 6 years (Figure 1). Mountain lions are classified as big game by Arizona statute. Commission order has established the bag limit at 1 mountain lion per year, except in a few units. Successful hunters are required to report their harvest within 10 days and answer a series of standard questions. Beginning in July 2003, hunters will be asked to voluntarily provide a tooth, which may be used to estimate age through cementum annuli and determine gender using genetic techniques. The Department is investigating making the tooth submission mandatory. The management objectives for this species, as well as all big game species, are outlined in the agency strategic plan, Wildlife 2006 (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2001) and species management guidelines. The strategic plan goals, objectives, and speciesspecific strategies for mountain lion management, that include:

INTRODUCTION Mountain lion populations within Arizona remain robust and are currently estimated at 1,000-2,500 despite a prolonged drought throughout the southwestern United States. Portions of Arizona have received record low precipitation during 2002, and the decade of the 1990s was the driest on records for several portions of Arizona. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) populations have declined, and in 2003 the Arizona Game and Fish Commission authorized the lowest number of permits for deer hunting since the limited-draw permit system was established in Arizona.

Objectives 1. Maintain annual harvest at 250 to 300 mountain lions (including depredation

Figure 1. Arizona mountain lion harvest trends excluding tribal lands, 1984-2002.

1

2 STATUS OF MOUNTAIN LION POPULATIONS IN ARIZONA · Wakeling

take). 2. Provide recreational opportunity for 3,000 to 6,000 hunters per year. 3. Maintain existing occupied habitat and maintain the present range of mountain lions in Arizona. Species-Specific Strategies 1. Maintain a complete database from all harvest sources, through a mandatory check-out system, including age, sex, kill location, etc. to index population trend. 2. Conduct a biannually.

hunter

questionnaire

3. Evaluate the management implications of population and relative density estimates. 4. Implement hunt structures to increase and direct harvest emphasis toward areas with high lion populations, and where depredation complaints are substantiated, and evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts. 5. Determine population numbers and characteristics on a hunt-area basis. 6. Increase public awareness of mountain lions and their habits, to reduce conflicts with humans. 7. Implement the Department’s Predation Management Policy. In addition, management direction is provided by species management guidelines and hunt guidelines. In October 2000, the Arizona Game and Fish Commission approved the predation management policy that provides the agency guidance as to when and how to engage in predation management. Mountain lion management has changed as a direct result of biological investigations into predation effects. Mountain lion predation is being documented as a factor

that may be regulating prey populations (Ballard et al. 2001) in some areas of Arizona, to include bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) (Kamler et al. 2002) and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) (Ockenfels 1994a, b). These prey populations are at low levels, and reducing predator populations is likely to allow those prey populations to increase in number (Ballard et al. 2001). The standard bag limit for mountain lions has been altered in specific areas to allow for the harvest of 1 mountain lion per day until a predetermined number of mountain lions are removed that equal about 50-75% of the estimated mountain lion population within that unit, at which time the bag limit reverts back to the standard bag limit of 1 mountain lion per calendar year. The only exception to this is in the southwestern portion of the state where if even a single mountain lion is taken, the hunt area will be closed. Multiple bag limits were implemented in Units 13A and 13B in 1999, 16A South and 18B South in 2001, 22 South in 1999, and Units 21 West, 28 South, and 37B North will be implemented this year. Research studies in Unit 22 South on bighorn sheep, that included investigations into nutrition, disease, and predation, indicate that the multiple bag limit on mountain lions in that area, with increased effort by sportsmen to harvest mountain lions, seems to be positively influencing desert bighorn sheep recruitment and adult female survival. To implement a multiple bag limit on mountain lions, biologists must identify a prey species that has been reduced due to mountain lion predation (e.g., a declining population below management objectives) or a management action that is likely to be impacted by mountain lion predation (e.g., a planned translocation) to initiate and identify what management objectives must be met (e.g., 3 years of 50:100 lamb:ewe ratios) before the multiple bag limit is removed. Because this

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

STATUS OF MOUNTAIN LION POPULATIONS IN ARIZONA · Wakeling 3

is a relatively recent management approach in Arizona, refinements to implementation and new opportunities will undoubtedly develop. For instance, portions of Arizona have robust mountain lion populations that sustain large amounts of depredation removal (Cunningham et al. 1995) and may be able to provide recreational harvest at a higher level. These areas might provide opportunities to manage recreational harvest with multiple bag limits in the future, and attempt to transfer depredation take into recreational harvest. The Department has recently established an internal team to review management approaches for several predator species, to include mountain lions. This team will be reviewing social and biological issues and best management practices, and recommending possible changes to Arizona's management. This team will serve as an umbrella team for several subteams that will work on the biological basis for management, gather information on social acceptance, and conduct public outreach and education. DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE Mountain lions are distributed throughout most of Arizona, in varying densities (Figure 2). This distribution was reevaluated in 2002 by Department biologists and wildlife managers, and although subtle changes have been noted in the densities of lions, little change to the distribution was identified. This map is still undergoing refinement and should be considered a draft. Additional information used by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in managing mountain lion population trends includes harvest, depredation reports, and age and gender from mandatory hunter reports. Mountain lion population estimates are based on density estimates developed from research studies, literature, and professional experience within Arizona habitats. These

Figure 2. Mountain lion distribution and density estimates (draft) in Arizona excluding tribal lands, 2002. density estimates are reevaluated at infrequent intervals. Prior to 2002, the last reevaluation was conducted in 1993, although a few management units were reevaluated in 1998. HARVEST INFORMATION Licensed hunters may pursue mountain lions in Arizona if they purchase a nonpermit tag prior to hunting. The annual bag limit is 1 lion, except for areas where a multiple bag limit is in place as discussed in the introduction. Strategic plan objectives for statewide harvests are based on historical harvest that removed about 10-15% of the estimated statewide population. Recently, harvest combined with depredation removal has exceeded the strategic plan objective (Table 1). Phelps (2003) reported data on harvest prior to 1998. Still, statewide harvest is probably 8 months, and spatial distribution of established males was analyzed using a home range overlap index. The area of the Black Hills was estimated at 8,400 km2, comprised of 6,702.9 km2 of high quality and 1,697.1 km2 of lower quality habitat (based on a habitatrelation model developed for the species). Mean annual home range size of established adult male cougars (n = 3) was 809.2 km2, and was significantly larger (P < 0.05) than that of adult females (n = 4), 182.3 km2. Based on sightings of family groups and radio-collared females, we documented up to 5 females occurring in established male ranges. Percent overlap for 3 established cougars averaged 33% (range = 18.0 52.0%). Based on 5 population simulations, the total number of cougars in the Black Hills was estimated to be 127 to 149 cougars; 46 to 49 adult females, 12 to 29 adult males; 21 to 24 yearling females and males; and 45 to 48 female and male kittens.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

SOUTH DAKOTA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Kintigh 45

HARVEST INFORMATION South Dakota has not had any form of legalized mountain lion hunting since 1978. The future management of lions in South Dakota will include consideration of a hunting season as a management tool. Concerns about the impacts of hunting to the stability of the population will weigh heavily when those decisions are made. DEPREDATIONS AND HUMAN INTERACTIONS/CONFLICTS South Dakota does operate with an “Action Plan For Managing Mountain Lion/Human/Property Interactions.” An Action Plan was first developed in May of 1995 and has been revised since then. This plan is included in the overall Mountain Lion Management Plan, which is currently under development. For our agency, addressing “problem” lions is the most difficult aspect of maintaining a population of lions. Public emotions are strong and varied which results in many comments/opinions being expressed directly at the “Action Plan.” South Dakota’s Action Plan categorizes Human/Lion interactions into five types: 1. Sighting - a visual observation of a lion or a report of lion tracks or other sign on unpopulated lands or rural areas within the Black Hills. 2. Encounter - an unexpected direct neutral meeting between a human and

a lion without incident (Mountain lion sightings in close proximity to homes, stables or livestock in rural areas and unpopulated lands outside of the Black Hills). A mountain lion is observed for the first time in close proximity or within residential developments and occupied recreational area. 3. Incident - a conflict between a human and lion that may have serious results (e.g. a lion that must be forced to back down). Recurring observations of a lion in close proximity or within residential developments and occupied recreational areas. Livestock is killed in rural areas. 4. Substantial public threat - a mountain lion that is observed within a city near areas where children are regularly congregated, killing wildlife/pets residential developments or occupied recreational areas or repeatedly killing livestock. 5. Attack - when a human is bodily injured or killed by contact with a mountain lion. Each occurrence requires an understanding of all the circumstances and any history involved before an action is decided upon. In general, with every report of a lion a field investigation is highly encouraged by agency personnel (Table 1). Verification is key to any response.

Table 1. Public Safety reports and resulting lion removals in South Dakota, 1998 – 2002. Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Number Reports 57 54 66 144 198

Number Incidents 5 1 5 4 5

Number Encounters 2 0 4 8 6

Threatening Encounters 2 0 1 3 2

Number of Public Safety Incidents 5 1 1 4 2

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

Number Lions Removed 0 0 1 0 1

46 SOUTH DAKOTA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Kintigh

Table 2. Mountain lion depredations, verified depredations, and resulting lion removals in South Dakota, 1998 – 2002. Year

Number Depredations

Number Depredations Verified

1998 1 1 1999 0 0 2000 2 1 2001 3 2 2002 4 2 Note – one lion has been removed due to livestock depredation in 2003 already.

Personnel are encouraged to take every opportunity to educate the public regarding all aspects of living with lions. Each lion reporting person receives an agency produced brochure on Mountain Lions. Public education is emphasized at this time and every opportunity is taken. Keeping all options available to responding staff is very desirable to our agency. However, we will not pay for any damages incurred due to wildlife of any species. Relocation of problem lions was once considered, but, due to the geographically limited area of the Black Hills and the existing lion population, it has been deemed an option that was unlikely to produce desirable results. Unusual circumstances may arise in which it may be attempted and the option has not been made totally unavailable. In rare cases, usually involving a single livestock producer, a permit has been issued for that individual to kill a lion that has been causing livestock depredation. Usually this only happens after agency efforts to remove the offending lion have failed. Our agency is equipped with a trio of trained lion hounds managed by an experienced houndsman. In most situations that necessitate a lion removal, the action is lead by our houndsman. Our state trappers are also equipped with leg snares, which are

Number Lions Removed 0 0 0 1 0

generally only set around livestock kills as the houndsman prepares to arrive on scene. On a few occasions, when a lion was a concern, but did not warrant removal we have chased the lion with hounds to haze the lion. On at least one occasion the lion was treed and a radio collar was fitted to increase our knowledge of its activity. In regards to livestock depredation, we currently investigate every report of this but take slightly different approaches to resolution depending upon the location. Livestock kills within the Black Hills typically require multiple kills before action to remove the offending lion is initiated. We are hesitant to remove lions from the limited quality habitat available in South Dakota (Table 2). Livestock depredation complaints on the plains of South Dakota, where limited habitat and a strong agricultural industry exists, are addressed much more decisively and quickly. RESEARCH AND PUBLICATIONS The Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences at South Dakota State University is currently completing a 5-year research project on cougars in the Black Hills. The main objectives of the research were to 1) develop and evaluate a cougar habitat-relation model to predict the current distribution 2) estimate the population size, and evaluate survey techniques to document

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

SOUTH DAKOTA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Kintigh 47

population trend. A digital habitat relation model was constructed for cougars that ranked land in the Black Hills National Forest according to its suitability to cougars. The model was based on the distribution of prey (white-tailed deer and mule deer), stalking topography (slopes), concealment habitat (riparian habitat), and anthropogenic characteristics (high-density residential areas, presence of highways). During the winters of 1998 – 2001, we captured, radiocollared, and obtained weekly locations of 12 cougars in the Black Hills; locations of cougars were used to validate the habitatrelation model. The cougar population in the Black Hills was estimated using program PUMA, incorporating parameters obtained from radio-collared cougars and habitat quality derived from the habitat-relation model. The total number of cougars in the Black Hills was estimated to be 127 to 149 cougars. A 3-month pilot study, testing the efficacy of detecting cougars using scent lures (skunk essence, Powder River cat call) and camera stations was conducted in cooperation with the University of North Dakota. The camera-scent-station survey was not effective at detecting cougar presence. Zero photos of cougars were recorded although other species (whitetailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, mule deer, O. hemionus, raccoon, Procyon lotor, red squirrel, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, turkey vulture, Cathartes aura, free-ranging cattle, feral dogs, and bobcat, Lynx rufus) were detected, and cougars were known to be in the area during the survey. A snowtracking helicopter survey (Vansickle and Lindzey 1991) using a probability sampling technique was attempted during the winter of 2001-2002. Although cougar tracks of a radio-collared female and her 2 kittens could clearly be identified, weather conditions (poor snow conditions) did not permit the survey to be completed. However, a

database of consecutive winter daily locations of 3 male and 3 female cougars was established to aid in analyses of any future helicopter surveys. During the Fall 2002, a second 5-year study was initiated. The objectives of the research are 1) to estimate survival and document causes of mortality of cougar kittens, 2) Determine longevity of established radio-collared cougars 3) Document dispersal distances, routes, and destinations of subadult cougars, and 4) conduct snow tracking helicopter population survey to document population trends. Currently, 12 cougars (6 females, 6 males) including 2 subadult males are being monitored weekly from fixed wing aircraft using aerial radio-telemetry techniques. PUBLICATIONS FECSKE, D.M., J.A. JENKS, AND F.G. LINDZEY. 2001. Characteristics of mountain lion mortalities in the Black Hills, South Dakota. Proceedings of the 6th Mountain Lion Workshop, San Antonio, Texas: In Press. FECSKE, D.M., AND J.A. JENKS. 2001. The mountain lion returns to South Dakota. South Dakota Conservation Digest 68(4):3-5. FECSKE, D.M., AND J.A. JENKS. 2001. Status report of mountain lions in South Dakota. Proceedings of the 6th Mountain Lion Workshop, San Antonio, TX. In Press. FECSKE, D.M., J.A. JENKS, AND F. G. LINDZEY. 2003. Mortality of an adult cougar due to a forest fire in the Black Hills. The Prairie Naturalist 00: Submitted. GIGLIOTTI, L.M., D.M. FECSKE, AND J.A. JENKS. 2002. Mountain lions in South Dakota: A public opinion survey. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Pierre, SD. 182 pp. LONG, E.S., D.M. FECSKE, R.A. SWEITZER, J.A. JENKS, B.M. PIERCE, AND V.C.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

48 SOUTH DAKOTA MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Kintigh

BLEICH. 2003. Efficacy of photographic scent stations to detect mountain lions. Western North American Naturalist 00: In Press. LITERATURE CITED

VAN SICKLE, W.D., AND F.G. LINDZEY. 1991. Evaluation of a cougar population estimator based on probability sampling. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:738743.

BEIER, P. 1993. Puma: a population simulator for cougar conservation. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:356-357

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT FOR TEXAS JOHN YOUNG, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 3000 IH 35 South Suite 100, Austin, TX 78612, USA, email: [email protected] Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop

over the last 20 years combined with photos confirm at least the occasional presence of lions in all other sections of the state; more information is needed to determine population levels. Based on sightings, and voluntarily reported mortalities dating back to 1983, mountain lion populations appear stable. Table 1 presents mountain lion mortality information by ecological region for the time frame 1998/99 to 2001/02 Texas does not currently estimate mountain lion populations, opting to monitor the species using sightings and mortality reports. The lack of a satisfactory scientifically rigorous method to estimate mountain lions has been the primary reason TPWD has not attempted to do so. Texas has recently provided funding to a university-based scientist to estimate mountain lion population size, structure, and habitat factors utilizing new, highly credible molecular genetics. The study will be conducted over the next 2 years and will provide an estimate for Texas’ mountain lion population.

Texas does not currently have a statewide management plan for mountain lions and the species is classified as nongame. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) non-game codes authorize the agency to establish hunting seasons, to close seasons, set bag limits, establish management zones, in other words, to utilize all of the management tools available for game species. With the exception of a short list of non-game species of concern to TPWD, non-game species may be taken at any time of the year in any numbers, which is the case for mountain lions at the present time. TPWD’s objective for mountain lions is to maintain a viable population, while minimizing human conflicts. No changes in mountain lion status have occurred in the past decade. DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE Based on confirmed sightings and mortality records mountain lions are most common in the Trans Pecos and the brush country of South Texas. Mortality records

Table 1. Mountain lion mortalities by ecological region, September 1998 through September 2002. Ecological Region Pineywoods Gulf Prairie & Marshes Post Oak Savannah Blackland Prairies Cross Timbers South Texas Plains Edwards Plateau Rolling Plains High Plains Trans-Pecos

1998/99 0 0 0 0 0 7 30 0 0 92 49

1999/00 0 3 0 0 0 10 14 0 0 60

2000/01 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 64

20001/02 0 0 0 0 1 4 12 0 0 48

50 TEXAS MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · Young

HARVEST INFORMATION Texas relies primarily on hunters, private landowners, and trappers to voluntarily report mountain lion kills. Texas also obtains an annual report from Texas Wildlife Damage Management Services (Table 1). There is an open season on mountain lions in Texas year-round. TPWD does not set harvest guidelines or bag limits for this species. Mountain lions may be taken by trap, shooting, hunting with dogs, aerial hunting, or M44. Records on the number of lions harvested by different methods are not collected. TPWD does not have a predator incident manual/policy/guideline for mountain lions although such has been developed for black bear. In the past 10 years there are only 3 known public safety incidents in Texas related to mountain lion. Due to their rarity, TPWD does not formally record/collect

information on public safety incidents involving mountain lion. Depredation complaints received at TPWD are referred to Texas Wildlife Damage Management Services (TWDMS). In 2001/02 a total of 53 lions were killed by TWDMS personnel. Information on cougars removed by TWDMS prior to 2001/02 had been combined with other mortalities and has not been available separately. Individuals wishing to report a sighting or a problem with mountain lions are encouraged to contact TPWD. The department provides individuals experiencing depredation problems with the number for their local TWDMS office for action. Relocation of mountain lions is discouraged but may be conducted by private organizations if they acquire the appropriate permits.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT CRAIG R. McLAUGHLIN, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 1594 W. North Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84114, USA, email: [email protected] Abstract: Mountain lions have been managed as a protected game species in Utah since 1967. In 1999 the Division of Wildlife Resources completed the Utah Cougar Management Plan, developed with the assistance of a publicbased Cougar Discussion Group that will guide management of cougars through 2009. Cougar harvests are managed under both harvest objective (quota) and limited entry strategies. The Division manages to sustain cougar densities on all management units except those that have approved predator management plans, where cougar harvests are increased to reduce cougar numbers and predation on big game. All cougar complaints are handled under the guidance of a Nuisance Cougar Complaints policy. Most cougar conflicts are handled through lethal control. Cougar habitat encompasses about 92,696 km2 (35,790 mi2). The statewide population was estimated at 2,528-3,936 cougars in 1999 in conjunction with the Cougar Management Plan. Cougar harvests have ranged from 492 to 373 annually since the 1997-1998 season. Both the hunting and pursuit seasons run from mid-December through June, although some units have extended or shortened seasons. Cougars have been implicated in 74-114 separate depredation incidents per year since 1998, with livestock losses ranging from $53,700 to $97,700 per year. Harvest-based indicators of sustainable harvesting have not been met in recent years. Currently, management is operating on an individual-unit scale, where interpretation of harvest data is hampered by small sample sizes. In addition, the Division should develop a means to monitor both reproduction and survival. Harvest management should improve with understanding of cougar movements and dispersal, particularly between lightly hunted and heavily harvested cougar populations. Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop Key words: Cougar, livestock damage, harvest, management plan, mountain lion, Puma concolor

maintaining current (1999) cougar distribution, with a reasonable proportion of older age animals and breeding females, balancing population numbers with other wildlife species; 2) minimizing the loss in quality and quantity of existing critical and high priority cougar habitat; 3) reducing the risk of loss of human life and reducing chances of injury by cougar; 4) maintaining a downward trend in the number of livestock killed by cougar; and 5) maintaining quality recreational opportunity for a minimum of 800 persons per year through 2009. Utah’s cougar harvests are controlled on specific geographic areas, or management units (Figure 1), using two harvest strategies: harvest objective and limited entry. Under the harvest objective strategy, managers prescribe a quota, or number of cougars to be harvested on the unit. An unlimited number of licensed

INTRODUCTION Mountain lions (Puma concolor), or cougars, were persecuted as vermin in Utah from the time of European settlement (in 1847) until 1966. In 1967 the Utah State Legislature changed the status of cougars to protected wildlife and since then they have been considered a game species with established hunting regulations. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) developed the Utah Cougar Management Plan in 1999 (UDWR 1999b) with the assistance of a Cougar Discussion Group composed of representatives of various public interest groups. This plan will guide cougar management in Utah through 2009. Its goal is to maintain a healthy cougar population within existing occupied habitat while considering human safety, economic concerns and other wildlife species. Management objectives include: 1) 51

52 UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · McLaughlin

Figure 1. Wildlife Management Units used by Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to manage cougar harvests. Some of the units have been subdivided for additional control of harvests.

hunters are allowed to hunt during a season that is variable in length, as the hunting season closes as soon as the quota is filled or when the season end date is reached. Under the limited entry strategy, harvests are managed by limiting the number of hunters on a unit. The number of hunters is determined based upon an expectation of hunting success and the desired harvest size. Individuals are usually selected for hunting on the unit through a random drawing process. In 1996 the Utah Wildlife Board approved a Predator Management Policy (UDWR 1996) that allows UDWR to increase cougar harvests on management units where big game populations are depressed, or where big game has recently been released to establish new populations. Most predator management plans directed at cougars have been designed to benefit mule

deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). Cougar harvests have been liberalized where big game populations are far below objective ( per 6 years Pursuit Success Filled Females Sub-adult Harvest Mortality Mortality Survival old Day Quota Percent Female+

ADC

Other

Total

Adult

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

Males

Females

Harvest

1989-90

478

527

123

44

23

27

217

41.2%

32.7%

43.3%

48

10

275

0.41

1990-91

480

525

144

46

40

35

265

50.5%

30.6%

45.7%

38

22

325

0.49

1991-92

485

525

128

51

32

30

241

45.9%

33.6%

46.9%

34

22

297

0.45

1992-93

598

591

206

64

54

48

372

62.9%

30.1%

44.6%

53

42

467

0.49

1993-94

575

659

165

87

51

49

352

53.4%

38.6%

53.1%

53

10

415

0.57

1994-95

656

791

205

103

57

66

431

54.5%

39.2%

52.4%

54

24

509

1995-96

787

872

160

105

109

78

452

3.5

51.8%

40.5%

64.6%

33

39

524

0.67

16.7%

0.48

1996-97

1376

595

275

172

172

125

107

576

3.8

56.0% 88.3%

48.4%

70.1%

40

50

666

0.67

20.0%

0.33

1997-98

1370

509

270

204

159

57

72

492

3.2

54.4% 79.6%

47.0%

58.5%

27

23

542

0.63

14.5%

0.36

1998-99

1201

446

230

156

100

50

67

373

3.1

49.0% 64.0%

44.8%

58.2%

13

1

387

0.62

10.1%

0.29

1999-00

817

343

304

194

106

64

71

435

2.9

60.0% 81.0%

40.7%

55.4%

25

9

469

0.57

9.7%

0.28

2000-01

272

371

165

127

77

80

449

3.3

52.0% 35.4%

46.1%

63.3%

73

20

542

0.63

12.8%

0.37

2001-02

258

339

159

108

55

71

393

2.9

45.5%

59.5%

12

7

412

0.61

9.0%

2181

1272

794

801

5048

531.8

298.2

167.8

97.8

61.1

61.6

388.3

39.8%

55.1%

38.7

21.5

448.5

62.7%

13.3%

0.41

65.0%

15.0%

0.38

Total Average

802.1

Performance Targets:

3.2

52.6% 69.7%

40.0%

54 UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · McLaughlin

Table 1. Utah cougar harvests, 1989-1990 thru 2001-2002.

UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · McLaughlin 55

Table 2. Confirmed livestock losses due to cougar depredation in Utah, FY1992 to FY2002.

Fiscal Year

Number of Confirmed Losses:

Total Confirmed

Incidents Ewes Lambs Bucks Calf Goat Other

Losses

Value Losses

Cougar Taken by WS

1992

103

175

745

0

4

0

922

1993

114

263

722

1

2

0

988

$94,644.00

53

1994

115

258

646

5

6

0

915

$120,615.00

53

1995

152

335

760

24

12

0

1130

$111,495.00

54

1996

112

257

621

2

6

0

878

$79,277.00

33

1997

110

375

531

20

11

0

937

$106,210.00

46

1998

114

253

506

19

13

0

805

$97,703.00

27

1999

69

244

406

18

4

0

730

$92,945.00

11

2000

82

160

371

2

15

0

548

$60,750.00

22

2001

74

136

361

12

3

1

587

$61,395.00

18

2002

95

167

453

18

11

2

1

652

$53,748.42

74

TOTAL

1140

2623

6122

121

87

3

1

8957

$825,034.00

351

all management units, except where predator management plans are in place. Threshold values of the harvest criteria were obtained from the literature and from past evaluations of cougar population dynamics in Utah. This approach is likely conservative, but it is justified based upon our limited knowledge of the abundance of deer and alternate prey in Utah (UDWR 1999b). Ongoing research on 2 study sites, under the direction of Dr. Michael Wolfe (Utah State University), is supplying comparative data on the dynamics of cougars subjected to varying levels of hunting harvest. This information should help the Division refine management criteria in the near future. The Division also monitors trends in numbers of cougar incident reports, which have fluctuated in recent years (Table 2). Attempts to reduce the number of cougar management units that are subject to predator management plans have met with little success, mostly due to continued drought and deteriorating range conditions.

34

HARVEST INFORMATION Cougar hunting in Utah is regulated on a management-unit basis to address differences in cougar densities, hunter access and management objectives. Annually, the composition of each unit’s harvest is compared to performance targets that were selected to maintain cougar densities: 1) maintain an average of 15% or greater of the harvest in older age classes (>6 years of age); 2) maintain total adult survival at or above 65%; 3) restrict the female component to 15)

9.7

9.8

10

7.6

12.3

9

Adult Survival (>0.65)

0.60

0.61

0.52

0.59

0.61

0.62

Cougar treed/day (0.38)

0.24

0.16

0.30

permits through 1995-1996 (Table 1). In 1996-1997, additional harvest pressure was added by switching some management units to the harvest objective (quota) system and a record high of 1,376 hunters was afield (Table 1). Since then, the number of hunters afield has declined nearly one-third. The hunting harvest has declined over the same period (Table 1). Units with predator management plans designed to reduce cougar densities produce harvests of similar composition to areas where the management objective is to sustain higher population densities (Table 4). Throughout the State, the proportion of harvest comprised of females has usually been above the prescribed threshold for maintaining cougar densities, the percent of older aged cougars in the harvest has remained below the desired threshold level, adult survival is below the desired level, and the cougar treeing rate is below the value ascribed as an indicator of secure population abundance. Given the relative abundance of de facto refugia for cougars in Utah (National Parks, wilderness and inaccessible tracts) and the species’ propensity to disperse long distances, current harvest prescriptions may not prove effective for attaining either of the State’s management

0.24

objectives (maintenance of population density, or substantial reduction in population density). Evaluation of Harvest Information The harvest-based criteria used in Utah’s cougar management system are based upon published research, and represent the expectation of harvest statistics that are associated with sustained population densities. However, managers have not been able to fully meet all threshold values since the Cougar Management Plan was adopted in 1999. There may be several explanations for this difficulty, including the geographic scale of management actions and differences in the vital rates of cougar populations within Utah. The proportion of mature (>6 years of age) cougars in the harvest is used as an index of the presence of mature cougars in the underlying population. If this proportion declines below 15%, the management plan assumes that the harvest rate is unsustainable. However, scarcity of olderaged cougars in harvests could also result from light (sustainable) harvesting of a productive cougar population by nonselective hunters, where relatively few cougars are taken and the harvest is

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

58 UTAH MOUNTAIN LION STATUS REPORT · McLaughlin

composed of mostly subadults and youngeraged adults. The proportion of adult females in the harvest is assumed to increase with increasing harvest pressure, and the threshold level chosen for sustainability in Utah (>40%) is based upon research from several western states. However, managers are evaluating small management units, some containing 9 and up to 20 HRDs, this finding also does

not support the inbreeding avoidance hypothesis. If a young male was dispersing primarily to avoid inbreeding, we would not predict such long distance dispersals where animals passed up what would appear to be ample suitable habitat in their dispersal movements. The only explanation for such long distance dispersals is they had to continue to travel because they were outcompeted by resident males or transients that had traveled further than themselves. Eventually, they would gain weight and experience enough to successfully compete for a territory (Sweanor 1990). Sweanor (1990) originally suggested that male residency times, the polygynous mating system, and male dispersal distances in pumas argued against inbreeding avoidance being the main driving force in dispersal of young male pumas. However, after presenting further evidence of aggression among male pumas and inbreeding between fathers and daughters, Logan and Sweanor (2001) concluded that inbreeding avoidance was likely the main driving force behind male puma dispersal. Their argument centered on the assumption that young males should only disperse far enough to “avoid” competition. We contend that with 15 - 18 % of puma populations being primarily transient males (Hemker et al. 1984, Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Spreadbury et al. 1996, Laundré and Clark 2003), no dispersing male ever has the luxury of avoiding competition for a territory. They concurred with the presence of these transients and observed that new males were constantly coming into their population and concluded from this that competition must be “tolerable”. They further argued that under the competition hypothesis, however, most of the male recruits in their growing population should have been offspring of the area. Because in their study most male recruits came from outside, they argued that this refuted the

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

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

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.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

DISPERSAL IN MALE PUMAS · Laundré and Hernández 159

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 30:11831192. HEMKER, T.P., F.G. LINDZEY, AND B.B. 1984. Population ACKERMAN. 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

approach. Animal Conservation 6:159170. 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 50:648654. 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.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

160 DISPERSAL IN MALE PUMAS · Laundré and Hernández

ROBINETTE, W.L., J.S. GASHWILER, AND O.W. MORRIS. 1961. Notes on cougar productivity and life history. Journal of Mammalogy 42:204-217. ROELKE, M.E., J.S. MARTENSON, AND S.J. O’BRIEN. 1993. The consequences of demographic reduction and genetic depletion in the endangered Florida panther. Current Biology 3:340-350. ROSS, P.I. AND M.G. JALKOTZY. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:417426. SEIDENSTICKER, J.C. IV, M.G. HORNOCKER, W.V. WILES, AND J.P. MESSICK. 1973. Mountain lion social organization in the Idaho Primitive area. Wildlife Monographs # 35. The Wildlife Society. SHIELDS, W.M. 1987. Dispersal and mating systems: investigating their causal connections. Pages 3-24 in B.D. Chepko-Sade and S. T. Halpin editors. Mammalian Dispersal Patterns the Effects of Social Structure on Population Genetics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. SITTON, L.W. AND R.A. WEAVER. 1977. California mountain lion investigations with recommendations for management.

Report to the California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California, USA. SPREADBURY, B.R., K. MUSIL, J. MUSIL, C. KAISNER, AND J. KOVAK. 1996. Cougar population characteristics in southeastern British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management. 60:962-969. SWEANOR, L.L. 1990. Mountain lion social organization in a desert environment. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA. SWEANOR, L.L., K.A. LOGAN, AND M.G. HORNOCKER. 2000. Cougar dispersal patterns, metapopulation dynamics and conservation. Conservation Biology 14:798-808Waser, P. M. 1985. Does competition drive dispersal? Ecology 66:1170-1175. WASER, P.M. 1987. A model predicting dispersal distance distributions. Pages 251-256 in B.D. Chepko-Sade and S. T. Halpin editors Mammalian Dispersal Patterns the Effects of Social Structure on Population Genetics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. WOLFE, J.O. 1994. More on juvenile dispersal in mammals. Oikos 71:349352.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

161

COUGAR EXPLOITATION LEVELS AND LANDSCAPE CONFIGURATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR DEMOGRAPHIC STRUCTURE AND METAPOPULATION DYNAMICS DAVID C. STONER, Utah State University, Dept. of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Sciences, 5230 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84322-5230, USA, email: [email protected] MICHAEL L. WOLFE, Utah State University, Dept. of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Sciences, 5230 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT, 84322-5230, USA, email: [email protected] Abstract: Currently eleven states and two Canadian provinces utilize sport hunting as the primary mechanism for managing cougar (Puma concolor) populations. However the impacts of sustained harvest on demographic structure and population persistence are not well understood. Additionally, the range of non-biological factors influencing the rate of population recovery has not been thoroughly examined. We have been monitoring the cougar populations on Monroe Mountain in south-central Utah, and in the Oquirrh Mountains of north-central Utah since 1996 and 1997, respectively. The critical management distinction between these sites is the degree of exploitation. The Monroe population is subjected to heavy annual hunting pressure and is characterized demographically by a younger age distribution, low survivorship, low fecundity, and declining density. In contrast, the population inhabiting the northeastern slope of the Oquirrhs is subjected to little or no hunting pressure and exhibits an older age distribution, relatively high survivorship and fecundity, a stable density, and a high emigration rate. Due in part to these differences, the Oquirrh and Monroe populations appear to exhibit source and sink dynamics within the regional metapopulation. Therefore the temporal scale of population recovery may depend on the interaction between the dominant harvest regime and the degree of landscape connectivity with neighboring patches. Aside from harvest, the interaction between patch configuration and anthropogenic fragmentation may be highly influential in the long-term prognosis for these populations. We discuss the implications of these demographic distinctions in light of enumeration uncertainties, habitat fragmentation, and landscape structure.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

162

ASSESSING GPS RADIOTELEMETRY RELIABILITY IN COUGAR HABITAT TRISH GRISWOLD JAMES BRIGGS GARY KOEHLER STUDENTS AT CLE ELUM-ROSLYN SCHOOL DISTRICT, Cle Elum, Washington Abstract: Studies evaluating the effectiveness of GPS radiotelemetry have shown that the positional accuracy and rate of GPS fixes declines with increased forest canopy coverage (D’Eon, Serrouya, Smith, and Kochanny, 2002. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30(2):430-439). Since GPS collars are being used to mark and monitor cougars (Puma concolor; Koehler and Nelson, 7th Mountain Lion Workshop), students, faculty, and volunteers at the Cle Elum-Roslyn Middle School, Washington, tested GPS location accuracy as part of Project CAT (Cougars and Teaching). We fitted domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) with the same GPS collars used to mark cougars and locational accuracy was measured in areas of known cougar habitat. GPS fixes were recorded and compared with UTM coordinates obtained from hand-held GPS receivers and 7.5minute topographic maps. Environmental factors, vegetation types, and physiographic parameters were recorded. It was felt that the dogs would closely approximate cougar movement patterns and give an index of reliability of GPS fixes for free-ranging cougars. While previous studies have addressed the reliability of GPS collar fixes, none have tested reliability of data collected in the rapidly suburbanizing ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and Douglas fir (Pseudosuga menziesii) forests of the eastern Cascade Mountains. This project gives the middle school students an opportunity to participate in the school-wide educational effort of cougar ecology. Students proposed and tested hypotheses and analyzed the data.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

163

USING GPS COLLARS TO DETERMINE COUGAR KILL RATES, ESTIMATE HOME RANGES, AND EXAMINE COUGAR-COUGAR INTERACTIONS POLLY C. BUOTTE, Research Assistant and GIS Specialist, Wildlife Conservation Society, 2023 Stadium Dr. Suite 1A, Bozeman, MT 59030, USA, email: [email protected] TONI K. RUTH, Associate Conservation Scientist, Wildlife Conservation Society, 2023 Stadium Dr. Suite 1A, Bozeman, MT 59030, USA, email: [email protected] Abstract: Single-species approaches to large carnivore conservation limits our understanding of carnivore assemblages and interactions at a community level and obtaining data on wide ranging, secretive species such as cougars and wolves can be particularly challenging. Beginning in 2001, we collaborated with the Yellowstone Wolf Project and Interagency Grizzly Bear Team in applying GPS technology to examine patterns of resource use among cougars, wolves, and grizzly bears. In this paper, we address three topics relative to future analysis of GPS data on all three carnivores: 1) the efficacy of finding cougar-killed elk and deer carcasses through GPS locations, 2) differences in home range estimation from GPS versus VHF locations with implications to analysis of species overlap; and 3) interaction between two cougars with implications to addressing spatial-temporal interactions between cougars, wolves, and bears. We deployed store-on-board GPS collars (GPS Generation II, Telonics, Inc.) on two adult male cougars (M137 and M127) during the winter of 2001. Male M137’s collar acquired 612 GPS locations between Feb 11 and June 13, with a successful fix rate of 59.9%. Male M127’s collar acquired 370 GPS locations between Feb 27 and May 1, with a successful fix rate of 73.4%. Each collar was programmed to attempt a GPS fix every third hour, or eight times per day. We identified clusters of locations by calculating distance moved between consecutive GPS locations and by selecting groups of locations within 200 meters of each other. Identified clusters were located and searched in the field utilizing a hand-held GPS. For cougar M127, we additionally documented kill rate via intensive daily ground-based VHF telemetry sampling between March 5 and April 10. Both ground and GPS methods yielded four kills during that time span. To examine differences in identification of home ranges we calculated home ranges using fixed kernel analysis. Male M137’s GPS data included a disjunct area of approximately 15 km2 that was not identified from VHF locations. Preliminary analysis of interaction indicated two times when both cougars were at the same location, after which the subordinate male M127 moved away from the dominant male M137. During winter 2003, we deployed 5 Televilt Simplex GPS collars on cougars. The collars allow for remote downloads of data and are programmed to acquire locations simultaneous to locations of GPS collared wolves. Our goals during the next two years are to: 1) develop correction factors for both ground-based and GPS collected kill rates and, in collaboration with the Yellowstone Wolf Project and the Interagency Grizzly Bear Team to, 2) quantify spatial-temporal interactions between cougars, wolves and bears via subsequent moves analyses and utilize these data to develop a predictive model of carnivore movement and landscape use.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

164

FUNCTIONAL RESPONSE OF COUGARS AND PREY AVAILABILITY IN NORTHEASTERN WASHINGTON HILARY S. CRUICKSHANK, Large Carnivore Conservation Lab, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, PO Box 646410, Pullman, WA 99164, USA, email: [email protected] HUGH S. ROBINSON, Large Carnivore Conservation Lab, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, PO Box 646410, Pullman, WA 99164, USA, email: [email protected] CATHERINE LAMBERT, Large Carnivore Conservation Lab, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, PO Box 646410, Pullman, WA 99164, USA, email: [email protected] ROBERT B. WIELGUS, Large Carnivore Conservation Lab, Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, PO Box 646410, Pullman, WA 99164, USA, email: [email protected] Abstract: Within the last ten years, a major change in the population structure of deer in western North America has taken place. Mule deer populations are sharply declining, while white-tailed deer populations are increasing. Researchers have suggested that cougar predation is a possible reason for the decline. The purpose of this project is to investigate cougar predation in a community where substantial populations of white-tailed deer, mule deer, and cougars overlap. We are testing two alternative hypotheses of cougar prey selection. H1, or the apparent selection hypothesis, states that equal selection by cougars for white-tailed deer and mule deer, but a higher reproductive rate by white-tailed deer is causing a decline in the mule deer population. H2 proposes that higher selection by cougars for mule deer is causing a decline in the population. Preliminary results suggest H2. The effect of predation on prey is determined by two factors: 1) functional response, and 2) prey availability. Functional response of cougars is quantified by the number of kills, per cougar, per unit time, and prey availability provides an estimate of the number and distribution of each prey species. The combination of these two factors may offer a more complete understanding of cougar prey selection. This research is in support of a larger study, which will use the apparent competition theory to examine alternative cougar management strategies.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

165

WHAT DOES TEN YEARS (1993-2002) OF MOUNTAIN LION OBSERVATION DATA REVEAL ABOUT MOUNTAIN LION–HUMAN INTERACTIONS WITHIN REDWOOD NATIONAL AND STATE PARKS? GREGORY W. HOLM, Wildlife Biologist, Redwood National Park, 219 Hilton Rd., Orick, CA 95519, USA, email: [email protected] Abstract: Mountain lions (Puma concolor) occur throughout Redwood National and State Parks (RNSP) and most other portions of northwest California. However, because they are not often observed, RNSP biologists have always been interested in recording mountain lion observations within the park. Prior to 4 mountain lion attacks in California between 1992-94, 2 resulting in fatalities, RNSP mountain lion observations were not compiled in a timely, consistent, or easily accessible manner. Since 1993, RNSP biologists have attempted to document and verify all mountain lion observations using a standard reporting form and database. Three hundred and seven mountain lion observations have been recorded within RNSP from 1993-2002 (mean ≅ 31; range 19-53). Most were observed between May and October during daylight hours, and involved a single mountain lion. While most observations (54%) involved a mountain lion near a road while people were in a vehicle, the remaining observations (46%) occurred while people were on trails or at other park facilities. The ultimate response of most mountain lions (68%) encountered on trails was to avoid humans, yet twenty percent of trail encounters involved some level of curiosity by the mountain lion towards humans. Although no human attacks were reported, there were 8 reports of aggressive behavior towards humans, 6 reports of following humans, and 1 report of a dog on a leash getting attacked. The observation data does not accurately reflect the actual distribution or timing (seasonally or daily) of mountain lion activity, and should be interpreted with caution due to inherent problems with observer experience, and report quality and verification. However, the information does allow managers to quickly identify when and where mountain lion-human interactions have occurred, and more effectively focus management actions to prevent or reduce future mountain lion-human interactions within RNSP.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

166

DEPREDATION TRENDS IN CALIFORNIA SARAH REED, Mountain Lion Foundation, PO Box 1896, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA CHRISTOPHER M. PAPOUCHIS, Mountain Lion Foundation, PO Box 1896, Sacramento, CA 95812, USA, email: [email protected] LYNN MICHELLE CULLENS, Mountain Lion Foundation, PO Box 1896, Sacramento, CA 95812, USA, email: [email protected] Abstract: Since 1972 more than 1,600 California mountain lions have been killed under depredation permits. The number of lions killed annually has increased, with a peak of 149 lions killed in 2000. Although some permits are issued for losses incurred by traditional, economically viable, open range livestock operations, incidents on ranchettes and "hobby farms" are increasing. We evaluate trends in depredation permitting, including analysis of depredation events geographically, by parcel size and size of herd, and relative to human population and development trends. We conclude with new approaches to mountain lion conservation that stress science to establish a factual basis for dialogue, community involvement, and developing partnerships with diverse stakeholders.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

167

THE DISTRIBUTION OF PERCEIVED ENCOUNTERS WITH NON-NATIVE CATS IN SOUTH AND WEST WALES, UK: RELATIONSHIP TO MODELED HABITAT SUITABILITY A.B. SMITH, Exotic Cat Group, Geography Department, University of Wales Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK, email: [email protected] F.A. STREET PERROTT, Exotic Cat Group, Geography Department, University of Wales Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK T. HOOPER, Exotic Animals Register, 85 Risedale Road, Ashton Vale, Bristol BS3 2RB, UK Abstract: Reports of perceived encounters with exotic cats in the British countryside have greatly increased in recent years. The species described (notably melanistic leopards, pumas and lynxes) were widely bred in the UK prior to the 1976 Dangerous Wild Animals Act, and do not correspond to those most familiar to the general public (such as lions, tigers and cheetahs). Some of them are still being illegally imported or reared for ‘canned hunts’. Following the recent discovery of leopard tracks in West Wales, and calls for action by Members of the UK Parliament and the Welsh National Assembly, the Welsh Agriculture Department has officially begun to collect statistics on sightings and livestock kills. In this independent study, we have analysed a database of 170 georeferenced encounter reports obtained from the police, news media and members of the public. In the absence of confirmatory DNA, physical or photographic evidence, encounter reports require very careful screening for reliability, based on the characteristics of the witness(es); the validity of the identification, taking into account perceived cat size and shape (morphotype) and behaviour; indicators of scale, distance and lighting conditions; and the suitability of the habitat. The distributions of potential habitats within South and West Wales have been modelled with a GIS using standard habitat characteristics, such as prey-species presence, disturbance levels, geomorphology and land-use data. The spatial pattern of encounters does not show the clustering that might be expected if they represent a purely sociological phenomenon. Instead, the distributions of specific morphotypes appear to be closely related to the degree of habitat suitability, thereby strengthening the case for the presence of nonnative cat species in the UK.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

168

PUMA ACTIVITY AND MOVEMENTS IN A HUMAN-DOMINATED LANDSCAPE: CUYAMACA RANCHO STATE PARK AND ADJACENT LANDS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LINDA L. SWEANOR, Wildlife Health Center, University of California - Davis, Southern California Puma Project Field Station: P.O. Box 1114, Julian, CA 92036, USA, email: [email protected] KENNETH A. LOGAN, Wildlife Health Center, University of California - Davis, Southern California Puma Project Field Station: P.O. Box 1114, Julian, CA 92036, USA, email: [email protected] JIM W. BAUER, Wildlife Health Center, University of California - Davis, Southern California Puma Project Field Station, P. O. Box 1203, Julian, CA 92036, USA, email: [email protected] WALTER M. BOYCE, Wildlife Health Center, University of California - Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA, email: [email protected] Abstract: Although puma attacks are exceedingly rare, statistics indicate dangerous encounters between humans and pumas are on the rise. In California there have been 7 verified puma attacks resulting in 2 human deaths during the last 10 years; 2 of those attacks and 1 death occurred in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park (CRSP). Because of the high number of reported puma sightings in CRSP each year (range = 18-50 from 1993-2002) and the large, increasing number of human visitors (over 500,000 people visited the 50-square-mile park in 2001), park authorities were concerned about the potential for further dangerous puma-human encounters. A study was initiated in January 2001 to understand puma behavior relative to human activity, to help minimize conflicts between pumas and humans, and to assist the development of long-term conservation strategies for pumas in the CRSP area. Specific objectives of the project were to: determine the number and characteristics of pumas using CRSP; map puma home ranges and determine important puma habitats and their juxtaposition relative to human use areas; examine puma movements (e.g., daily, seasonal) relative to areas of human activity (e.g., trails, roads, campgrounds); examine puma diet to determine what prey species are most important as puma food and to what extent, if any, domestic animals contribute to their diet; and use the data to formulate management recommendations. To obtain information on puma home ranges, movements and behavior, and to find prey killed by pumas, independent and adult pumas are being captured and fitted with Televilt GPS collars. As of March 2003, 11 pumas (6 adult males, 5 adult females) had been captured in and around CRSP and fitted with GPS collars. To date, collars have yielded over 6400 locations. Additionally, human use of trails is being measured seasonally by placing infrared counters (TrailMaster monitors) along 4 trail systems within CRSP. This paper reports on project progress to date.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

169

MODELING OFFSPRING SEX RATIOS AND GROWTH OF COUGARS DIANA M. GHIKAS, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada, email: [email protected] MARTIN JALKOTZY, Arc Wildlife Services Ltd., 3527-35th Avenue S.W., Calgary, AB T3E 1A2, Canada, email: [email protected] IAN ROSS, Arc Wildlife Services Ltd., 3527-35th Avenue S.W., Calgary, AB T3E 1A2, Canada RALPH SCHMIDT, Arc Wildlife Services Ltd., 3527-35th Avenue S.W., Calgary, AB T3E 1A2, Canada SHANE A. RICHARDS, Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive N.W., Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada Abstract: We further examined data from the Sheep River cougar study conducted in southwest Alberta from 1981-94. We asked is there evidence of an equal or constant offspring sex ratio, or do sex ratios vary over time, as a function of the mother's age, geographic location or population size. Logan and Sweanor (2001) analysed offspring sex ratios as a function of mother's age and found that sex ratios of first litters were significantly different from subsequent litters and 1:1. Logan and Sweanor (2001) suggested that offspring sex ratios might be influenced by the mother's physical state (i.e., young mothers produce less-costly females so energy can be allocated to growth). We investigated possible relationships between offspring sex ratios and cougar growth, and whether growth varied by sex and geographic location. The study area was divided into east and west locations based coarsely on prey abundance and cougar mortality. Probabilistic models were formulated for the sex-ratio analysis. A deterministic model based on the flexible Richards curve (Maehr and Moore 1992) was used to predict mass growth. Model predictions that were the most parsimonious with the data were identified using corrected Akaike Information Criterion. Parameters were estimated using maximum log-likelihood. The most parsimonious model predicted that offspring sex ratios vary yearly. Evidence was not strong for sex ratios varying as a linear function of mother's age. The growth model predicted that females attain 91-92 % of adult mass by 25-26 mos, indicating that growth is largely completed prior to first reproduction ( x =30.0 ± 1.8 mos SE, Ross and Jalkotzy 1992). In years with poor resource conditions, the mother's physical state may result in more female offspring being reared than male. Predicted mean mass at age of independence for male and female offspring was 48.8 kg and 34.1 kg, respectively, inferring males are more costly to rear. The growth model that varied by sex only had the highest weight of evidence; adding geographic location did not result in a more parsimonious model. All growth models were unable to accurately estimate birth mass, which was also found by Maehr and Moore (1992). LITERATURE CITED Logan, K. A., and L.L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert Puma: Evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press, Washington. Maehr, D.S., and C.T. Moore. 1992. Models of mass growth for 3 North American cougar populations. J. Wildl. Manage. 56: 700-707. Ross, P.I., and M.G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 56: 417-426.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

170

MOUNTAIN LION SURVEY TECHNIQUES IN NORTHERN IDAHO: A THREE-FOLD APPROACH CRAIG G. WHITE, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 1540 Warner Avenue, Lewiston, ID 83501, USA, email: [email protected] PETER ZAGER, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 1540 Warner Avenue, Lewiston, ID 83501, USA, email: [email protected] LISETTE WAITS, Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843, USA, email: [email protected] Abstract: Management of mountain lions (Puma concolor) in Idaho relies largely on harvest data. This type of data is limited in scope and relays little information to the manager regarding population trend or density. Intensive radio telemetry studies involving capture and recapture can provide an estimation of density but are expensive. Currently researchers are exploring techniques to index or estimate population size by identifying individuals by their DNA. We outline three different techniques to “capture” and “recapture” mountain lion hair and/or tissue for DNA analysis: biopsy darts, rub tree stations, and legally harvested lions. Techniques are being implemented on two study areas in north-central Idaho, the Lochsa/North Fork of the Clearwater River and the South Fork of the Clearwater River. Efforts by both volunteer houndsmen and hired houndsmen over 1½ lion harvest seasons have resulted in ≥15 DNA samples from lion treed and released. Over the same period ≥15 DNA samples have been turned in from legally harvested lions. In 2002, we placed 51 rub stations and recorded 42 visits over the 3 sampling periods. Seventeen of the visits resulted in ≥1 hair. Preliminary results indicate that 1 visit was from a lion, 7 visits were by bear, and 7 visits were possibly a lion or bear, and 2 visits by other species. Improvements to the techniques are ongoing. This study will allow us to identify individuals in the mountain lion populations within our study areas and thus obtain a minimum population size. Number of captures each year will serve as an index of population trend. We will also explore the use of capture-recapture modeling to estimate population sizes. Our approach attempts to limit resources expended in capturing and marking animals, while still providing an index and potential population estimate within our study areas.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

171

MOUNTAIN LIONS IN SOUTH DAKOTA: RESULTS OF A 2002 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY LARRY M. GIGLIOTTI, Planning Coordinator/Human Dimensions Specialist, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks, 523 E. Capitol, Pierre, SD 57501, USA, email: [email protected] DOROTHY M. FECSKE, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Box 2140B, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007, USA, email: [email protected] JONATHAN A. JENKS, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Box 2140B, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD 57007, USA, email: [email protected] Abstract: Mountain lions (Puma concolor) are a state threatened species in South Dakota, although there is an established breeding population in the Black Hills. The Department of Game, Fish and Parks (GFP) is currently funding a multi-year research project through South Dakota State University to learn more about the status of mountain lions. The information will be used by GFP to develop a mountain lion management plan. Public opinion and understanding of mountain lions will be a critical component for developing and implementing a management plan. This public opinion survey was the first step in developing the social component (human dimensions) of the plan. The survey was conducted in the early spring of 2002. Of 1,783 deliverable questionnaires mailed to South Dakota residents, 1,114 usable questionnaires were returned for a total return rate of 62.57%. A one-page survey of non-respondents also was conducted; of those, 103 (19.5%) were returned. Overall, the majority of respondents (>50%) believed that presence of mountain lions was an indication of a healthy environment, lions and hunters did not compete for deer, if people modified a few behaviors they could coexist with lions, and lions should be able to exist wherever they occurred in South Dakota. Survey results were used to develop an attitude model to provide a framework for understanding public opinion of mountain lions. The model was intuitive, but derived empirically using a cluster analysis procedure from respondents’ answers to 12 questions. The model represented a continuum of attitudes ranging from strongly supportive of to strongly disliking mountain lions. Based on the model, 22.7% of the respondents were strongly pro-lion, 33.7% slightly pro-lion, 11.3% neutral, 22.5% slightly contra-lion, and 9.8% of the respondents strongly contra-lion. Cluster names were descriptive of the general attitudes held toward mountain lions in South Dakota, and responses provided to other questions in the survey were used to further describe each clustergroup.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

172

CRITICAL COUGAR CROSSING AND BAY AREA REGIONAL PLANNING MICHELE KORPOS, Live Oak Associates, Inc., 6830 Via Del Oro, Suite 205, San Jose, CA 95119, USA, email: [email protected] Abstract: The goal of this presentation is to illustrate the need for habitat conservation and regional planning on behalf of cougars (Puma concolor), which play an integral role in the health of their ecosystems. As a keystone species, “further degradation of [cougar] habitat connectivity will lead to cascading impacts down through successively lower trophic levels…” (Jigour 2000). County borders are human constructs with no ecological relevance. It can be assumed certain cougar home ranges overlap San Mateo, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties (California), while others may overlap Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz Counties. These counties contain the Santa Cruz Mountains, and the Gabilan and Diablo Mountain Ranges. The challenge is to maintain land connections between large patches of intact habitat through open communication among county agencies and through regional planning efforts. By developing land on a project-by-project basis, counties promote habitat fragmentation. Left unchecked, human development in and around the Santa Cruz Mountains will continue to fragment cougar habitat, leading to geographic isolation, and the eventual demise of our local population. Maintaining large tracts of land and providing connections through less hospitable landscapes are critical to ensuring the future health of cougar populations and the wildlife that share their ecosystems. LITERATURE CITED Jigour, V. 2000. Correspondence to Rusty Areias, Director, Department of Parks and Recreation, dated 31 January 2000.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 173

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Holly Akenson Taylor Ranch Field Station, Univ. of Idaho HC 83 Box 8070 Cascade, ID 83611 USA 888-842-7547 [email protected]

Matt Austin BC Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection PO Box 9374 Victoria, BC V8V 1N4 Canada 250-387-9799 [email protected]

Jim Akenson Taylor Ranch Field Station, Univ. of Idaho HC 83 Box 8070 Cascade, ID 83611 USA 888-842-7547 [email protected]

Dave Avey Wyoming Game and Fish Department 3030 Energy Lane, Suite 100 Casper, WY 82604 USA 307-473-3420 [email protected]

Kevin Allred 373 East 300 South Burley, ID 83318 USA 208-678-3681

David Baron 2338 18th Street Boulder, CO 80304 USA 303-443-2341 [email protected]

Chuck Anderson Wyoming Coop. Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Box 3166, University Station Laramie, WY 82071 USA 307-766-2091 [email protected]

Jim Bauer Univ. of California-Davis, Wildlife Health Center PO Box 1203 Julian, CA 92036 USA 760-767-4331 [email protected]

Jerry Apker Colorado Division of Wildlife 0722 South Road 1 East Monte Vista, CO 81144 USA 719-587-6922 [email protected]

Rich Beausoleil Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 3860 Chelan Hwy Wenatchee, WA 98801 USA 509-679-3858 [email protected]

Fred Armstrong Guadalupe Mountain National Park HC 60 Box 400 Salt Flat, TX 79847 USA 915-828-3251 [email protected]

Scott Becker Wyoming Game and Fish Department 260 Buena Vista Lander, WY 82520 USA 307-332-2688 [email protected]

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

174 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Chris Beldon Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 4005 South Main Street Gainesville, FL 32601 USA 352-955-2230 [email protected]

Roger Bredehoft Wyoming Game and Fish Department 1017 Reynolds Laramie, WY 82070 USA 307-745-4402 [email protected]

William Betty Eastern Puma Research Network 49B Punch Bowl Trail West Kingston, RI 02892 USA 401-789-4026 [email protected]

Jim Briggs Cle Elum-Roslyn School District - Project CAT 2694 SR 903 Cle Elum, WA 98922 USA

Roman Biek Fish and Wildlife Biology Program University of Montana Missoula, MT 59812 USA 406-243-6193 [email protected]

Doug Brimeyer Wyoming Game and Fish Department PO Box 67 Jackson, WY 83001 USA 307-733-2321 [email protected]

Mario Biondini Department of Animal and Range Sciences North Dakota State University Fargo, ND 58105 USA 701-231-8208 [email protected]

Lara Brongo Auburn University 1925 Trexler Court Raleigh, NC 27606 USA 334-332-1124 [email protected]

Dan Bjornlie Wyoming Game and Fish Department 260 Buena Vista Lander, WY 82520 USA 307-332-2688 [email protected]

Howard Buffet Howard G. Buffet Foundation PO Box 4508 Decatur, IL 62521 USA 217-429-3988 [email protected]

H. Webb Blessley The Cougar Fund 910 Baja Laguna Beach, CA 92651 USA 702-275-7820 [email protected]

Polly Buotte Wildlife Conservation Society Box 299 Gardiner, MT 59030 USA 406-848-7683 [email protected]

Steven Bobzien East Bay Regional Park District 4422 Rockwood Avenue Napa, CA 94558 USA 510-544-2347 [email protected]

Clint Cabanero South Coast Wildlands Project PO Box 2493 Monrovia, CA 91016 USA 626-599-9585 [email protected]

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 175 Steve Cain Grand Teton National Park PO Box 170 Moose, WY 83012 USA 307-739-3485 [email protected]

Jeff Davis Wildlife Services PO Box 131 Olancha, CA 93549 USA 760-937-6788

Franz Camenzid Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance PO Box 2835 Jackson, WY 83001 USA 307-733-9417 [email protected]

Deanna Dawn University of California – Davis 20231 Blauer Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 USA 408-741-5156

David Choate University of Notre Dame 107 Galvin Life Science Center Notre Dame, IN 46556 USA 574-631-0949 [email protected]

Rich DeSimone Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 1420 East 6th Avenue Helena, MT 59620 USA 406-444-0358 [email protected]

Stacy Courville CSKT – Wildlife Management Program PO Box 278 Pablo, MT 59855 USA 406-883-2888 [email protected]

Leonard Two Eagle Rosebud Sioux Tribe Game, Fish, and Parks PO Box 291 Parmelee, SD 57566 USA 605-747-2289 [email protected]

Hilary Cruickshank Washington State University PO Box 651 Rossland, BC V0G 1Y0 Canada 250-362-3310 [email protected]

Dorothy Fecske South Dakota State University Box 2140B Brookings, SD 57007 USA 605-688-6121 [email protected]

Michelle Cullens Mountain Lion Foundation PO Box 1896 Sacramento, CA 95812 USA 916-442-2666 [email protected]

Lee Fitzhugh University of California – Davis One Shields Drive Davis, CA 95616 USA 530-752-1496 [email protected]

Chris Daubin Wyoming Game and Fish Department 1205 Mary Anne Riverton, WY 82501 USA 307-856-4982 [email protected]

Flora Fitzhugh 913 Purdue Drive Woodland, CA 95695 USA 530-668-1138

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

176 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Steve Fitzwater National Trappers Association PO Box 106 Dubois, ID 83423 USA 208-745-6664 [email protected]

Larry Gilbertson Nevada Division of Wildlife #60 Youth Center Road Elko, NV 89801 USA 775-777-2302

Gary Fralick Wyoming Game and Fish Department PO Box 1022 Thayne, WY 83127 USA 307-883-2998 [email protected]

Carlos Lopez Gonzalez Escuela de Biologia-Facultad de Ciencias Naturales Universidad Autonoma de Queretaro Apdo. Postal 184 Queretaro, Queretaro 76010 Mexico 442-215-4777 [email protected]

Steve Galentine U.S. Department of Agriculture 29469 East Vine Avenue Escalon, CA 95320 USA 209-605-4934 [email protected]

Chelsea Gordon Cle Elum-Roslyn School District – Project CAT 2694 SR 903 Cle Elum, WA 98922 USA

Emily Garding Grand Canyon National Park Box 129 Grand Canyon, AZ 86023 USA 928-638-7648 [email protected]

Kevin Grady Boulder County Open Space 1933 Geer Canyon Drive Boulder, CO 80302 USA 720-406-9178 [email protected]

Jacquie Gerads North Dakota Game and Fish Department 100 North Bismarck Expressway Bismarck, ND 58501 USA 701-328-6613 [email protected]

Steve Griffin South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks 3305 West South Street Rapid City, SD 57702 USA 605-394-2391 [email protected]

Diana Ghikas University of Calgary 2500 University Drive NW Calgary, AB T3E 1A2 Canada 403-299-2797 [email protected]

Torey Griswold Cle Elum-Roslyn School District – Project CAT 2694 SR 903 Cle Elum, WA 98922 USA

Glenn Gibbons Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Authority PO Box 570 Kyle, SD 57752 USA 605-455-2584 [email protected]

Trish Griswold Cle Elum-Roslyn School District – Project CAT 2694 SR 903 Cle Elum, WA 98922 USA

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 177 Carolyn Grygiel Natural Resources Management North Dakota State University Fargo, ND 58105 USA 701-231-8180 [email protected]

Dee Dee Hawk Wyoming Game and Fish Lab PO Box 3312, University Station Laramie, WY 82071 USA 307-766-6313 [email protected]

Kerry Gyekis Writer/Private Consultant Forester RR 1, Box 213 Morris, PA 16938 USA 570-723-8251 [email protected]

Lisa Haynes University of Arizona 133 West 2nd Street, Rear Tucson, AZ 85705 USA 520-320-1841 [email protected]

Keto Gyekis 107 Woods Trail Delton, MI 49046 269-623-3240 [email protected]

Lucina Hernández Instituto de Ecologia, A.C. Km 5 a Carr. de Mazatlán s/n Durango, Dgo C.P 34100 México +52-618-812-1483 [email protected]

Jon Hanna Arizona Game and Fish Department 7200 E. University Mesa, AZ 85207 USA 480-981-9400

Greg Hiatt Wyoming Game and Fish Department PO Box 186 Sinclair, WY 82334 USA 307-324-7927 [email protected]

Kevin Hansen Yosemite National Park PO Box 434 Yosemite, CA 95389 USA 209-372-8870

Ryan Hill Cle Elum-Roslyn School District – Project CAT 2694 SR 903 Cle Elum, WA 98922 USA

Jan V. Hart USGS – Southwest Biological Research Center PO Box 5614, NAU Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USA 928-556-7466 [email protected]

Mary Hindelang Michigan Tech University 40032 N. Lower Worham Road Chassell, MI 49916 USA 906-523-4014 [email protected]

John Hart Hartwood Natural Resource Consultants 1390 Curt Gowdy Drive Cheyenne, WY 82009 USA 307-778-3993 [email protected]

Dave Hoerath Boulder County Parks and Open Space 5305 Spine Road, Unit B Boulder, CO 80306 USA 303-516-9364 [email protected]

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

178 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Mollie Hogan The Nature of Wildlworks PO Box 109 Topanga, CA 90290 USA 310-455-0550 [email protected]

Rose Jaffe Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks PO Box 200701 Helena, MT 59620-0701 USA 406-444-1276 [email protected]

Greg Holm Redwood National Park PO Box 7 Orick, CA 95555 USA 707-464-6101 [email protected]

Lynn Jahnke Wyoming Game and Fish Department PO Box 6249 Sheridan, WY 82801 USA 307-672-7418 [email protected]

Bernie Holz Wyoming Game and Fish Department PO Box 850 Pinedale, WY 82941 USA 307-367-4353 [email protected]

Martin Jalkotzy Arc Wildlife Services Ltd. 3527 – 35 Ave SW Calgary, AB T3E 1A2 Canada 403-240-3361 [email protected]

Mike Hooker Wyoming Game and Fish Department 260 Buena Vista Lander, WY 82520 USA 307-332-2688 [email protected]

Jesse Millen-Johnson Bates College Box 486 Lewiston, ME 04240 USA 207-674-2927 [email protected]

Rick Hopkins Live Oak Associates, Inc. 6830 Via del Oro, Suite 205 San Jose, CA 95119 USA 408-281-5885 [email protected]

Don Jones Zion National Park State Route 9 Springdale, UT 84767 USA 435-772-0212 [email protected]

Betsy Howell 525 Benton Port Townsend, WA 98368 USA 360-379-0582 [email protected]

Tom Keegan Idaho Department of Fish and Game PO Box 1336 Salmon, ID 83467 USA 208-756-2271 [email protected]

Neil Hymas Wyoming Game and Fish Department Box 368 Cokeville, WY 83114 USA 307-279-3466 [email protected]

Sean Kelly Utah Division of Wildlife Resources PO Box 606 Cedar City, UT 84720 USA 435-691-5701 [email protected]

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 179 Marc Kenyon University of California – Davis 7548 Event Way Sacramento, CA 95842 USA 916-320-6654 [email protected]

Caroline Krumm CSU – Colorado Division of Wildlife 317 W. Prospect Fort Collins, CO 80524 USA 970-215-3759 [email protected]

Heather Keough Utah State University 6991 S. Hwy 165 Hyrum, UT 84319 USA 435-881-2856 [email protected]

Pamela Kyselka Navajo Nation – Department of Fish and Wildlife PO Box 1480 Window Rock, AZ 86515 USA 928-871-6451 [email protected]

Brian Kertson Washington Coop. Fish and Wildlife Research Unit 23427 NE 28th PL Sammamish, WA 98074 USA 425-941-0278 [email protected]

Carl Lackey Nevada Division of Wildlife 1060 Mallory Wy. Carson City, NV 89701 USA 775-720-6130 [email protected]

Sharon Kim Zion National Park State Route 9 Springdale, UT 84767 USA 435-772-0212 [email protected]

Catherine Lambert Washington State University 1712 NW Lamont St. Pullman, WA 99163 USA 509-335-4084 [email protected]

Mike Kintigh South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks 3305 W. South Street Rapid City, SD 57702 USA 605-394-2391 [email protected]

Melanie Lambert The Summerlee Foundation 716 W. Tejon, Suite 9 Colorado Springs, CO 80903 USA 800-256-7515 [email protected]

Gary Koehler Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife PO Box 102 Cle Elum, WA 98922 USA 509-260-0477 [email protected]

Darrell Land Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 566 Commercial Blvd. Naples, FL 34104-4709 USA 239-643-4220 [email protected]

Andrea Kortello University of Idaho PO Box 4297 Banff, AB T1L 1E7 Canada 403-762-5339 [email protected]

John Laundré Instituto de Ecologia, A.C. Km 5 a Carr. de Mazatlán s/n Durango, Dgo C.P 34100 México +52-618-812-1483 [email protected]

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

180 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Cheryl Le Drew Lotek Wireless Inc. 115 Pony Drive Newmarket, ON L3Y 7B5 Canada 905-836-6680 [email protected]

Tom Mangelson The Cougar Fund Box 122 Jackson, WY 83001 USA 307-733-6179 [email protected]

Fred Lindzey Wyoming Coop. Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Box 3166, University Station Laramie, WY 82071 USA 307-766-5415 [email protected]

Marcie Maras Cle Elum-Roslyn School District – Project CAT 2694 SR 903 Cle Elum, WA 98922 USA

Kenneth Logan Colorado Division of Wildlife 2300 South Townsend Avenue Montrose, CO 81401 USA 970-252-6013 [email protected]

Beth Marker Cle Elum-Roslyn School District – Project CAT 2694 SR 903 Cle Elum, WA 98922 USA [email protected]

Mark Lotz Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 566 Commercial Blvd. Naples, FL 34104-4709 USA 239-735-0773 [email protected]

Gary Matson Matson’s Lab PO Box 308 Milltown, MT 59851 USA 406-258-6286 [email protected]

Cara Blessley Lowe The Cougar Fund Box 122 Jackson, WY 83001 USA 310-562-4021 [email protected]

David Mattson USGS – Southwest Biological Research Center PO Box 5614, NAU Flagstaff, AZ 86011 USA 928-556-7466 [email protected]

Marissa Luchau Cle Elum-Roslyn School District – Project CAT 2694 SR 903 Cle Elum, WA 98922 USA

Roy McBride Livestock Protection Co. Box 178 Ochopee, FL 34141 USA 239-695-2287

Lisa Lyren US Geological Survey 1147 E. 6th Street Corona, CA 92879 USA 909-735-0773 [email protected]

Helen McGinnis Eastern Cougar Foundation PO Box 300 Harman, WV 26270 USA 304-227-4166 [email protected]

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 181 Craig McLaughlin Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 1594 W. North Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84114 USA 801-538-4758 [email protected]

Don Morgan Southern Hills Animal Clinic Box 67 Pringle, SD 57773 USA 605-673-3503

Daryl Meints Idaho Department of Fish and Game 1515 Lincoln Road Idaho Falls, ID 83401 USA 208-525-7290 [email protected]

Susan Morse Keeping Track Inc. Wolfrun 55A Bentley Lane Jericho, VT 05465 USA

Stephanie Middlebrooks Rosebud Sioux Tribe Box 300 Rosebud, SD 57570 USA 605-747-2289 [email protected]

Kerry Murphy Yellowstone National Park PO Box 168 Yellowstone National Park, WY 82190 USA 307-344-2393 [email protected]

Michael Middleton Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Ave SE Auburn, WA 98092 USA 360-802-2202 [email protected]

Steve Nadeau Idaho Department of Fish and Game 600 South Walnut St., Box 25 Boise, ID 83707 USA 208-334-2920 [email protected]

Jessica Montag University of Montana 2224 West Sussex Missoula, MT 59812 USA 406-243-6611 [email protected]

Sharon Negri Wild Futures 353 Wallace Way Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 USA 206-780-9718 [email protected]

Dave Moody Wyoming Game and Fish Department 260 Buena Vista Lander, WY 82520 USA 307-332-2688 [email protected]

Evelyn Nelson Cle Elum-Roslyn School District – Project CAT 2694 SR 903 Cle Elum, WA 98922 USA

Shane Moore Box 2980 Jackson, WY 83001 USA 307-733-8862 [email protected]

Mark Nelson Wyoming Game and Fish Department 500 Western Hills Blvd. Cheyenne, WY 82009 USA 307-638-8354 [email protected]

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

182 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Ryan Nelson Cle Elum-Roslyn School District – Project CAT 2694 SR 903 Cle Elum, WA 98922 USA

Christopher Papouchis Mountain Lion Foundation PO Box 1896 Sacramento, CA 95812 USA 916-442-2666 [email protected]

Jesse Newby Wildlife Conservation Society Box 299 Gardiner, MT 59030 USA 406-848-7683 [email protected]

Steve Pavlik 4149 E. Waverly Street Tucson, AZ 85712 USA 520-327-0708 [email protected]

M. Cathy Nowack Cat Tracks Wildlife Consulting PO Box 195 Union, OR 97883 USA 541-562-1057 [email protected]

James Pehringer USDA – Wildlife Services 1302 Johnson Thermopolis, WY 82443 USA 307-272-3638

Jim Olson Wyoming Game and Fish Department 1737 Hillcrest Evanston, WY 82930 USA 307-789-3285 [email protected]

Kristeen Penrod South Coast Wildlands Project PO Box 2493 Monrovia, CA 91016 USA 626-599-9585 [email protected]

Anne Orlando UC Davis – Agronomy and Range Science 1 Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616 USA 530-758-1204 [email protected]

Howard Quigley Beringia South 3610 Broadwater Street, Suite #111 Bozeman, MT 59715 USA 406-556-2199 [email protected]

Krishna Pacifici North Carolina State University 1925 Trexler Court Raleigh, NC 27606 USA 919-233-1477 [email protected]

Dick Ray Rocky Mountain Wildlife Park 4821 A Hwy 84 Pagosa Springs, CO 81147 USA 970-264-5546

Doug Padley Santa Clara Valley Water District PO Box 41306 San Jose, CA 95160 USA 408-265-2607 [email protected]

Tyler Riblett Cle Elum-Roslyn School District – Project CAT 2694 SR 903 Cle Elum, WA 98922 USA

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 183 Wendy Reith Utah State University 1143 Capitol Street Ogden, UT 84401 USA 435-797-4482 [email protected]

Toni Ruth Wildlife Conservation Society Box 299 Gardiner, MT 59030 USA 406-848-7683 [email protected]

Seth Riley Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area 401 W. Hillcrest Drive Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 USA 805-370-2358 [email protected]

Corey Rutledge Cougar Fund, Inc. PO Box 4068 Cheyenne, WY 82003 USA 307-632-0554 [email protected]

Wendy Keefover-Ring Sinapu 4990 Pearl East Circle, Ste. 301 Boulder, CO 80301 USA 303-447-8655 [email protected]

Tom Ryder Wyoming Game and Fish Department 260 Buena Vista Lander, WY 82520 USA 307-332-7723 [email protected]

Krissy Robertson The Cougar Fund Box 122 Jackson, WY 83001 USA 307-733-0797 [email protected]

Tony Salandro 5302 N. La Canada Drive Tucson, AZ 85704 USA 520-690-1794 [email protected]

Hugh Robinson Washington State Univ. – Dept. of Natural Resources PO Box 646410 Pullman, WA 99164-6410 USA 250-362-2271 [email protected]

Mike Sawaya Wildlife Conservation Society Box 299 Gardiner, MT 59030 USA 406-848-7683 [email protected]

Kirk Robinson Western Wildlife Conservancy 68 S. Main Street, 4th Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84101 USA 801-575-7107 [email protected]

Ralph Schmidt ARC 3108A – 14 St. NW Calgary, AB T3E 1A2 Canada 403-289-1164 [email protected]

Thiele Robinson PO Box 665 Wilson, WY 83014 USA 307-734-1356 [email protected]

Sharon Seneczko, DVM Southern Hills Animal Clinic RR 1, Box 93F Custer, SD 57730 USA 605-673-4996

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

184 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Harley Shaw The Juniper Institute PO Box 486 Hillsboro, NM 88042 USA 505-895-5385 [email protected]

John Steuber USDA – Wildlife Services 2800 N. Lincoln Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73105 USA 405-521-4039 [email protected]

Benj Sinclair Teton Science School PO Box 7580 Jackson, WY 83002 USA 307-733-2623 [email protected]

David Stoner Utah State University 5230 Old Main Hill Logan, UT 84322-5230 USA 435-797-7125 [email protected]

Nick Smallwood Oglala Sioux Parks and Recreation Authority PO Box 570 Kyle, SD 57752 USA 605-455-2584 [email protected]

Linda Sweanor Univ. of California-Davis, Wildlife Health Center 1980 Stan Drive Montrose, CO 81401 USA 970-252-1928 [email protected]

Alaric Smith Geography Dept., University of Wales Swansea Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP United Kingdom +44(0)7770 542086 [email protected]

Scott Talbott Wyoming Game and Fish Department 3030 Energy Lane, Suite 100 Casper, WY 82604 USA 307-473-3400 [email protected]

Nick Smith Box 101 Quemado, NM 87829 USA 505-773-4845

Pete Taylor City of Boulder Open Space and Mtn. Parks Dept. PO Box 791 Boulder, CO 80306 USA 303-413-7621

Russell Sparkman Fusionpark Media Inc. PO Box 160 Langley, WA 98260 USA 360-341-2020 [email protected]

Daniel Thompson South Dakota State University Box 2140B Brookings, SD 57007 USA 605-688-6121 [email protected]

Rocky Spencer Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 24916 255th Pl. SE Ravendale, WA 98051 USA 206-799-3134

Ron Thompson Arizona Game and Fish Department Box 1588 Pinetop, AZ 85935 USA 928-367-4342 [email protected]

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 185 Jay Tischendorf, DVM American Ecological Research Institute PO Box 1826 Great Falls, MT 59403 USA 406-453-7233 [email protected]

Bill Wall SCI Foundation 501 2nd Street NE Washington, DC 20002 USA 202-543-8733 [email protected]

Bob Trebelcock Wyoming Game and Fish Department 260 Buena Vista Lander, WY 82520 USA 307-332-2704 [email protected]

Craig White Idaho Department of Fish and Game 1540 Warner Avenue Lewiston, ID 83501 USA 208-799-5010 [email protected]

Hank Uhden Wyoming Department of Agriculture 2219 Carey Cheyenne, WY 82002-0100 USA 307-777-6574 [email protected]

Kevin White Cle Elum-Roslyn School District – Project CAT 2694 SR 903 Cle Elum, WA 98922 USA

David Vales Muckleshoot Indian Tribe 39015 172nd Avenue SE Auburn, WA 98092 USA 360-802-2202 [email protected]

Rob Wielgus Washington State Univ. – Dept. of Natural Resources PO Box 646410 Pullman, WA 99169-6410 USA 509-335-2796 [email protected]

Brady Vandeburg Wyoming Game and Fish Department PO Box 286 Kaycee, WY 82639 USA 307-738-2455 [email protected]

Rick Winslow New Mexico Department of Fish and Game One Wildlife Way Santa Fe, NM 87507 USA 505-476-8046 [email protected]

Winston Vickers Univ. of CA – Davis, Institute of Wildlife Studies 125 Via Waziers Newport Beach, CA 92663 USA 949-929-8643 [email protected]

Greg Winston Box 505 Wilson, WY 83014 USA 307-690-8161 [email protected]

Brian Wakeling Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 W. Greenway Road Phoenix, AZ 85023 USA 602-789-3385 [email protected]

Lisa Wolfe Colorado Division of Wildlife 317 W. Prospect Fort Collins, CO 80526 USA 970-472-4312 [email protected]

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP

186 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Patricia Woodruff The Juniper Institute PO Box 486 Hillsboro, NM 88042 USA 505-895-5385 [email protected]

Duggin Wroe Colorado Division of Wildlife 29 Mountain Meadow Road Laramie, WY 82070 USA 307-760-8111 [email protected]

Russell Woolstenhulme Nevada Division of Wildlife 1100 Valley Road Reno, NV 89512 USA 775-688-1992 [email protected]

Renan Yanish USGS PO Box 923 East Helena, MT 59635-0923 USA 406-227-5140 [email protected]

Anthony Wright Utah Division of Wildlife Resources PO Box 495 Price, UT 84501 USA 435-650-4016 [email protected]

Eric York Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area 401 W. Hillcrest Drive Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 USA 805-370-2363 [email protected]

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP