In New Mexico, state-endangered desert bighorn sheep declined to fewer than 170 individuals with mountain lion predation determined to be the principal mortality factor (Rominger and Weisenberger 1999, Rominger et al. 2004).

Mortality data (Rominger et al. 2004) combined the evidence in New Mexico of the subsidized predator prediction, resulted in near unanimity among concerned groups and agencies that culling mountain lions to mitigate the high level of mortality was required to avoid extinction of this state-endangered species. 

Between 1985 and 1999, mountain lions were not culled to protect endangered desert bighorn sheep in New Mexico (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, personal communication 2007). Between 1992 and 1999, approximately 85 percent of the known-cause mortality of radiocollared desert bighorn sheep was attributed to mountain lion predation (Rominger et al. 2004). Concern about the cascading effects of a subsidized mountain lion population on the faunal biodiversity in the New Mexico portion of the Chihuahuan desert, particularly state-endangered desert bighorn sheep, resulted in an agency decision to reinstitute culling of mountain lions in five desert bighorn sheep ranges. A combination of translocation and significantly higher survival rates of radiocollared  adults has resulted in the desert bighorn sheep population in New Mexico increasing from fewer than 170 in 2001 to more than 400 in 2007 (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, personal communication 2007).

Conclusions

The geographic range of mountain lions is larger than any big-game mammal in North and South America (Logan and Sweanor 1999).

A better understanding of the cascading effects of subsidized mountain lion populations and the effects of harvest regimes on mountain lion populations, may change both societal perspectives and perspectives of management agencies responsible for these populations. It is important for society, and for scientists, to recognize that societal perspectives and scientific understanding change with time and with increased knowledge.

Role of State Wildlife Agencies in Managing Mountain Lions

Terry M. Mansfield

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Boise, Idaho

Introduction

Mountain lions (Puma concolor) are the most widely distributed obligate carnivore in North America. The species' range generally overlaps that of their primary prey, mule and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus sp.) yet they also rely on a wide range of large and small mammals as alternate prey. Historically, mountain lions occupied diverse habitats throughout much of the United States. Intensive predator-control programs, intended to protect livestock and to restore big-game populations during 1900 to 1965 significantly reduced populations over much of the range. And, mountain lions were extirpated from large areas of the Midwest and eastern regions of the country. In general, populations now appear to be stable to increasing throughout most of the western United States; although densities are not uniform. There is evidence of mountain lions recently recolonizing areas in the Midwest and in eastern regions of the country.

The history of mountain lion management in the United States reflects extreme shifts in public policy and in state wildlife agency management programs over the last 100 years. Although reliable estimates of distribution and abundance are not available prior to the 1970s for most states, it is likely that both the distribution  and abundance of mountain lions were reduced and suppressed between 1900 and 1965. This trend resulted primarily from intense efforts by state and federal agencies to protect livestock and to aid in the recovery of native ungulates based on their value to hunters. Liberal hunting seasons and methods of take, incentives to hunters in the form of bounties, and employment of government hunters were widely used to reduce mountain lion numbers in much of the western United States until the 1960s.

The practice of employing government lion hunters generally ended in the 1950s, and state-sponsored bounty payments for killing lions, common in the West from 1910 to 1960, ended in the early 1970s.

In the case of mountain lions, the states have authority over their management, with the exception of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coreyi) which is listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

There are also public concerns related to threats mountain lions may pose to public safety. In California, where there have been 11 verified mountain lion attacks on humans since 1985, 3 of which resulted in death of the victims, the state wildlife agency has been forced to devote considerable staff time and funds to developing and implementing emergency response capabilities (S.Torres, personal communication 2006). The real and perceived threats to public safety cannot be ignored by state wildlife agencies, regardless of relative risk, since they directly influence mountain lion management policy and most agencies have a public safety related mandate.

Legal Status of Mountain Lions in the West

The individual states have responsibility for managing mountain lions on behalf of the people, and the wildlife agencies are generally the custodians for all wildlife within each state. However, the specific legal status of mountain lions is defined in the laws for each state. In addition, commissions or administrative wildlife agencies generally have authority to adopt management plans, policies and regulations to implement, interpret and make specific state laws, including hunting seasons, limits and methods of take.

By 1975, western states had terminated bounties and had designated mountain lions as either big-game or trophy-game species. In a number of states over the last 30 years, sociopolitical processes forced wildlife agencies to study the mountain lion populations, to report on findings and to recommend conservation and management methods to policy makers.

Science-based Management to Achieve Goals and Objectives

So what is the appropriate role of the state wildlife agency in managing mountain lions based on science?

In California, emphasis is placed on protecting important habitat, on responding to public safety incidents and on improving public awareness of mountain lions as the state wildlife agency tries to deal with the pressures caused by a human population of over 35 million. By contrast, in Idaho with a human population of less than 1.5 million, there is more emphasis placed on providing diverse hunting opportunities and on managing mountain lions in conjunction with prey species, including bighorn sheep, deer and elk.

Public policy goals for mountain lion management can either assist or hinder the state wildlife agency in implementing science-based management of the species. If the policies provide a strong mission statement for the agency, if the agency has a well qualified professional staff and if adequate funding is provided, the environment for science-based adaptive management is enhanced. However, if a state's public-policy goals for mountain lion management are not clear, if it lacks well qualified professional staff or if it lacks adequate funding to implement a balanced program, effective science-based management of mountain lions cannot be expected.

Management in Response to State Holder Values

In general, state wildlife agencies respond to public input and stakeholder values regarding wildlife, including mountain lions. Stakeholder values are generally reflected in the state's laws and policies regarding mountain lion management, het they may not represent the full range of current public values as human demographics are changing rapidly in the western states. There may also be lag time in public values translating to laws and policies through the normal legislative and commission processes. This delay can also result from the influence of special-interest stakeholders and political pressure to resist change.

Summary

The role of state wildlife agencies in managing mountain lions involves a combination of factors unique to each state, including laws, policies, an agency's mission and stakeholder values. Recently, a working group published Cougar Management Guidelines (Guidelines; Beck et al. 2005) in an effort to synthesize and organize available information on management of the species. Although the western state wildlife agencies recognize that these Guidelines contain useful information, the process used to develop them and the final product raised concerns related, primarily, to failure of the authors to incorporate agency recommendations for changes to the draft document they were asked to review.

At the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility for managing mountain lions rests with the individual state wildlife agencies. The challenge facing each agency is how best to adaptively implement science-based management while maintaining viable populations in conjunction with prey species and responding to stakeholder demands for sustainable hunting opportunities and minimizing conflicts with humans involving livestock damage and public safety.

Managing Predator-Prey Systems: Summary Discussion

Mark S. Boyce

University of Alberta

Edmonton, Alberta

Robert L. Byrne

Safari Club International Foundation

Washington, D.C.

Introduction

Many studies have demonstrated population consequences of predators on prey populations, but how managers should use this information is not easy to decide. Predator control can be effective at enhancing survival and recruitment in populations of prey, but certain methods for controlling predators sometimes meet with fierce resistance from the public.

Conflict with predators

Public reaction is often intense when predators kill pets, and cougar and wolf predation on dogs is relatively common and apparently increasing (Treves et al. 2002; Beck et al. 2005) Likewise, humans themselves are occasionally killed by large carnivores, triggering fear and resentment towards offending animals (Packer and Kissui 2007).

With expansion of cougar and wolf populations in North America during the past decade, wildlife managers are faced with a new dimension in trying to manage big game populations in the face of predation levels that did not exist in previous decades.

Conclusions

 Keeping wolf and cougar populations in check might require reducing alternate prey (Gibson 2006; Wielgus 2007). Control of abundant mule deer populations in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California might be required in addition to reductions in cougar numbers to prevent extirpation of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep populations (Gibson 2006).

We believe that wildlife managers have not fully taken advantage of the opportunity to involve hunters and trappers in harvesting predators, and we need to understand how to use these people more effectively in predator management (Hammill 2007). Even though large numbers of predators are taken by hunters and trappers, they often are not very effective at achieving predator control (Zager et al. 2007) because predators are not removed from populations where predator control is most needed.