https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/986e8fa3d279936b112602923cb4ea98.pdf fb76b46f0d77b22b4defccc4bb96249a PDF Text Text East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Colorado East Slope Mountain Lion (Puma concolor) Management Plan November 2024 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Approved by the Parks and Wildlife Commission on November 15, 2024 Principal Staff Authors Jonathan Boydston- Policy and Engagement Specialist Lance Carpenter- Northeast Region Senior Wildlife Biologist Julie Stiver- Southeast Region Senior Wildlife Biologist Mark Vieira- Carnivore and Furbearer Program Manager 1 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Executive Summary Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) manages mountain lions (Puma concolor) on the East Slope of Colorado to conserve, protect and enhance lions for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the state’s citizens and visitors. CPW’s goal is to ensure that lions continue to exist in stable numbers on the East Slope of our state for their scientific, ecological and intrinsic value and for current and future generations to enjoy through hunting and occasional observation. This lion management plan provides the framework for how CPW will achieve this goal in the Northeast and Southeast CPW Administrative Regions and replaces existing lion management plans for populations in Data Analysis Units (DAUs) L-4, L-12, L-11, L-16, L-17 and L-19. This East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan is written to address the concern that CPW’s six DAU plans for the East Slope of Colorado, five of which were written in 2004, are each individually too small in spatial scale to properly manage solitary, low-density, wide-ranging carnivores like lions (Logan and Runge 2021). This plan increases the size of the management unit at which analysis and evaluation will occur to a more appropriate scale: the pooled CPW Administrative Northeast and Southeast Regions. As under the current lion management framework, hunter harvest will continue to be allocated across groups of Game Management Units (GMUs), but the size of most of these groups will be increased. This plan incorporates the best available lion science published in the peer-reviewed literature, which strengthens integral parts of the framework of this plan. A strong body of research and management citations support the monitoring thresholds included in this plan. In addition, this plan outlines the process of annual review, evaluation, and adjustment to management. It also borrows heavily from the basic framework established under the West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan, which has proven to be a successful model for lion management in Colorado since approval in 2020 and implementation in 2021. East Slope (L-ES) DAU Objective: The management objective across the entire East Slope is to maintain a stable lion population. This would mean lion population levels will remain similar to what we see today. This replaces historical objectives in the six individual DAUs, two of which were managed for suppression of the population. Allocating allowable harvest mortality across harvest limit groups provides managers the flexibility to distribute harvest limits to meet local management needs, while L-ES DAU-scale thresholds ensure the maintenance of population stability at the larger scale. Annual Data Collection and Monitoring Thresholds Two annual monitoring thresholds are established in this plan and will be evaluated independently for the entire East Slope: 1) Adult Female Harvest Composition Threshold: Adult female composition in total L-ES DAU harvest will not exceed 22% in any year a. Adult females are ≥3 years old or a female of any age that shows evidence of past nursing 2 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting 2) Total Human-Caused Mortality Threshold: The 3-year average of total reported human-caused mortality will not exceed 17% of the extrapolated abundance index from the resource selection function for the L-ES DAU a. Human-Caused Mortality sources include hunter harvest, depredation or control removal of lions, lions killed by vehicles, etc. Previous 2024-2025 East Slope DAUs (L-4, L-11, L-12, L-16, L-17 & L-19) harvest limits total: 208 lions 2025-2026 East Slope (L-ES) harvest objective: 160 lions. This harvest objective will be in place for 2025-2026 to allow the completion of the 10th and final year of the Upper Arkansas lion research project. This is an initial reduction in DAU-wide harvest limits of 48 lions (23%) from 2024-2025 levels 2026-2027 East Slope (L-ES) harvest objective: 155 lions. This is a reduction of 53 lions (25%) from 2024-2025 levels Current East Slope (L-ES) total human-caused mortality threshold: 214 lions Annual evaluation of adult female harvest composition allows assessment of population trajectory based on the selective nature of hound hunting and the proportional abundance of each age/sex class on the landscape. Limiting adult female harvest also acts to protect the component of the population responsible for reproduction. The use of a total humancaused mortality threshold acknowledges the biological importance of other known humancaused lion mortality factors beyond harvest (Logan and Runge 2021) and sets a ceiling for the maximum acceptable mortality that interacts with information derived from adult female composition evaluations. By complementing different aspects of our understanding of lion population performance across the East Slope, these monitoring thresholds interact and balance each other during annual analysis. If either threshold is exceeded, this plan lays out clear and supportable steps that will be taken with harvest management to keep the population trajectory from a decline. This plan also articulates future research needs and programmatic improvements to statewide harvest reporting that will be evaluated as part of the initial implementation of this plan. Additionally, CPW will initiate lion density estimation work on the East Slope as part of this plan to help inform our population projections. 3 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Management Plan Public Engagement: Given the technical complexities of lion management and the need to inform the general public about the species, CPW staff held eight public meetings before drafting the East Slope plan and releasing it to the public for feedback. Six in-person meetings across the Southeast and Northeast Regions and two virtual meetings were held in February and March 2024. Approximately 700 members of the public attended the eight meetings. The meetings were interactive, with activities such as lion biology trivia, opportunity for discussion, and time for participants to ask questions and hear responses from CPW subject matter experts. Attendees discussed topics such as implications for harvest limits, female harvest thresholds, lion ecology and human-lion interactions. The draft plan was available online for public review and input for 30 days beginning on May 15th, 2024. Input was gathered and reviewed by CPW staff as part of the planning process prior to the final draft plan being presented to the Parks and Wildlife Commission to consider for approval. 181 individuals shared public input during the 30 day period. Five stakeholder organizations also provided input. Additionally, CPW staff solicited a peer review of the draft plan as well as an academic review by independent, objective professionals in the field. Appendices to this plan should be referenced for comprehensive explanations on the following topics: Appendix A: Mountain Lion Life History, Ecology and Monitoring Appendix B: Mountain Lion Management History in Colorado and the East Slope Appendix C: Mountain Lion Resource Selection Function Model Appendix D: Literature Cited Appendix E: Public Engagement and Input on East Slope Mountain Lion Plan Acknowledgments: The development of this East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan involved the active participation of many people whose professional expertise, knowledge and perspectives were invaluable for critical review and numerous suggestions to improve the content including Northeast and Southeast Senior Wildlife Biologists and their Area Wildlife Biologist staff, Northeast and Southeast Region Area Wildlife Managers and District Wildlife Managers, Regional and Deputy Regional Managers, Terrestrial Programs and Mammals Research staff, Policy and Planning staff, and many others with CPW too numerous to individually mention here. We also thank the Nevada Department of Wildlife and Dr. Jerry Belant with Michigan State University for accommodating our solicitation for independent reviews and comments on this plan. All of the above professionals had many other projects and activities that were balanced against the time needed to develop and attend the public meetings, engage in internal CPW discussions and comment on the draft plan. Colorado Parks and Wildlife thanks all of you. 4 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Colorado East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan Table of Contents East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan Goal and Strategy 6 Management Plan Update & Revision Process 9 Lion Harvest Terminology, Regulations Process and Hunting Seasons 9 Data Collection Scales and Monitoring Thresholds 11 Regional Data Analysis Units 12 Annual Data Collection 14 Adult Female Harvest Composition Threshold Development 14 Total Human-Caused Mortality Threshold Development 17 Annual Management Thresholds 19 Voluntary Female Harvest Reduction Outreach 21 Harvest Limit Reductions 22 Lion Population Resiliency 22 Resiliency to Mortality 22 Source Population Refuges 23 Zone Management 25 East Slope Regional Summaries and Issues 25 East Slope (L-ES) Lion DAU Harvest Limit Groups and Harvest Limits 31 Public Input Process 35 Lion Density Monitoring and Future Research Needs 35 Lion Density Monitoring 35 Future Research Needs 36 Appendix A….Mountain Lion Life History, Ecology, and Monitoring Appendix B….Mountain Lion Management History in Colorado and the East Slope Appendix C….Colorado Mountain Lion Resource Selection Function Model Appendix D….Literature Cited Appendix E…. Public Engagement and Input on East Slope Mountain Lion Plan 5 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan Goal and Strategy On the East Slope of Colorado, Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s (CPW) aim for mountain lion (Puma concolor; hereafter lion) management is to conserve, protect, enhance, and manage lions for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the citizens of Colorado and its visitors. The broad goal laid forth in this plan by CPW is to manage for a stable lion population, while allowing for management flexibility at smaller scales. This plan puts forth a strategy to allow management flexibility at the harvest limit group scale, while regulating lion mortality with thresholds designed to maintain stable lion numbers at the larger East Slope (L-ES) Data Analysis Unit (DAU) scale. At small scales, lions experience great variation in rates of abundance, survival, mortality, immigration, and emigration and therefore while management assumptions about those parameters are quite important, inference at smaller scales is challenging (Logan and Runge 2021). At larger scales, however, it is more likely that differences in initial population density assumptions result in relatively small changes in population growth rate, and uncertainty about dispersal may not be as influential (Robinson et al. 2015). A review of these and other aspects of lion biology and ecology is provided in Appendix A. With implementation of this plan, we will transition from the six historic lion DAUs on the East Slope to a single DAU comprised of all lion habitat in both the CPW Northeast and Southeast Administrative Regions (Figure 1). This new L-ES DAU will be the management unit of interest, analysis and reporting. Figure 1. CPW’s four statewide Administrative Regions 6 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Since the implementation of the West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan in 2020, internal CPW and external stakeholders interested in lion management have requested an updated lion plan to cover the East Slope. Completion of this new plan would satisfy Goal I, Objective A, Strategy 1 of CPW’s Strategic Plan to “complete timely revisions and amendments of management plans to ensure plans are up to date per 10-year periods (CPW Strategic Plan and 2024-2026 Operational Plan). The further need for this plan is demonstrated as follows: ● Larger management scales (such as pooling of present DAUs) are most relevant to lion biology and most appropriately support management inferences from mortality and composition data ● Significant advancements in geographic information systems (GIS) modeling, lion monitoring metrics, density estimation and population trajectory information have been published in the peer-reviewed literature over the last 20 years, and need to be incorporated into lion management ● Eliminating objectives that aim to reduce lion populations at DAU scales and enacting thresholds that ensure populations remain stable at current levels throughout their range on the East Slope to assure the important ecological role this apex predator plays among the state’s species ● All but one of the existing East Slope lion DAU plans are 20 years old and this plan will leverage updates into one plan ● Without updated East Slope lion management plans, managers setting annual harvest limits are challenged with aligning metrics and objectives in historic plans against contemporary management practices. One example of an improvement would be moving from a total female harvest proportion threshold to an adult female harvest proportion threshold ● Provide consistency with West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan thresholds recently adopted in 2020 Value of Mountain Lions to the Ecology and Function of East Slope Ecosystems Colorado is fortunate to have a robust prey base and quality lion habitat with sufficient hiding and stalking cover in a large portion of the state. CPW’s conservation-based management practices have made Colorado home to the nation’s largest elk herd and strong mule deer and white-tailed deer populations (CPW unpublished data, 2024). By both informal and empirical estimates, Colorado’s lion population is as strong as it has ever been since the mid-1900s when predators were persecuted through unregulated take. Population recovery began in 1965 following lions being classified as a big game species. Knowledge about the public’s historic and present values toward wildlife, including lions, can assist with agency planning and management decision-making (Teel et al. 2005, Manfredo et al. 2018, Dietsch et al. 2019). As recommended by Carlson et al. (2023), CPW has embraced the restoration of carnivore biodiversity, reflecting some of the emerging values and desires from the state’s expanding constituencies at the wildlife stakeholder table. Many of our state’s citizens value abundant lion populations in appropriate habitats simply for their intrinsic value and ecological role. 7 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting In the case of lions, which now occupy all available lion habitat in Colorado in strong numbers (Vieira, January 2024 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission meeting), their presence at current densities helps contribute to the state’s biodiversity. Researchers have demonstrated their possible role as a keystone species in contribution to nutrient cycling via their foraging strategy (Peziol et al. 2023, Monk et al. 2024). Particularly in less productive environments, lion-killed carcasses generate nutrient hotspots on the landscape, which contribute to ecosystem functions (Monk et al. 2024). Peziol et al. (2023) suggest a contribution made by lions to landscape-level heterogeneity in nutrient distributions, which fosters trophic cycling between lions, their prey and both species’ space-use of habitat. Lions, as apex predators, may also play a role in augmenting agency management efforts to control chronic wasting disease (CWD) in ungulate populations. Lions can selectively remove CWD infected mule deer (Krumm et al. 2010, Fisher et al. 2022) and in doing so may help reduce prion burdens in the environment (Baune et al. 2021, Fisher et al. 2022, Miller and Wolfe 2022). However, no field studies have shown evidence of predation reducing CWD prevalence, presumably due to insufficient predation rates of infected individuals (Miller et al. 2008, DiVivo et al. 2017). Published simulations that modeled a predation-linked reduction in prevalence (Wild et al. 2011, Brandell et al. 2022) required rates of predation (Heffelfinger and Krausman 2023; Table 7.3) and selection for infected individuals that are above what has been observed (DiVivo et al. 2017). Colorado’s robust lion populations can play an ecological role in disease dynamics, but direct harvest management of ungulate herds by CPW is the primary and most practical method for addressing CWD prevalence reduction objectives. Beyond the predator-prey dynamic, lions may also provide benefits to a large number of other species across their overall range. In their review, LaBarge et al. (2022) documented lions directly or indirectly interacting with 534 other species across their entire hemispheric range. They argue that protection and restoration of lion populations helps to link energy and nutrients across disparate trophic levels, benefiting a huge suite of species beyond just lions. Even within lion communities themselves, emerging research has observed intricate and complex social strategies employed by these usually solitary carnivores to successfully thrive on the landscapes they inhabit (Elbroch et al. 2017). Additionally, common, abundant species tend to have large, widespread ranges (Lawton 1993). Therefore, a species like lions may serve as an umbrella species for guiding wider landscape conservation efforts. Recently established lion populations in places like the North Dakota Badlands and the Nebraska Panhandle (Knopff et al. 2014, Winkel et al. 2023) are the result of successful conservation efforts in states like Colorado, where robust populations provide opportunities for dispersing individuals to recolonize historic lion range. This East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan directs CPW to manage for a stable lion population and intends to sustain lion numbers similar to what we see today. This stable objective was selected to promote the ecological role that lions play in our state, reflect the intrinsic value of this species by safeguarding their existence in abundance on the landscape, 8 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting offer culturally important and statutorily mandated hunting opportunity (Colorado Revised Statutes 33-1-101(1 & 4)), and provide managers with tools to address human-lion conflicts and human-safety issues. The myriad benefits provided by Colorado’s lion population described above are not mutually exclusive of each other. A successful management plan can balance all these diverse objectives. Management Plan Update & Revision Process This plan initiates a long-term management framework for the entire East Slope for approximately the next 10 years. Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s management plans are based on credible scientific information, informed by and responsive to the diversity of public interests and concerns, and readily available to the public. Management plans provide an accountability mechanism for agencies that manage lions as a public trust resource. However, management plans that persist over long periods risk becoming unresponsive to new scientific evidence or may outlast changing perspectives of citizens or resource management demands. A common criticism of management plans is that they are overly restrictive and unresponsive to either changing management conditions or to newer information. The challenge is to create guidance that is firm enough to truly guide management, but that is also adaptive to new scientific information, new opportunities to test management applications, and new demands placed upon the agency. Periodic review and examination of new scientific information relevant to the management assumptions contained in this plan will be conducted as needed over the 10 years of this plan. Following the third year of management under the East Slope plan, CPW will conduct a thorough evaluation of data and assumptions associated with lion harvest and mortality, threshold performance and harvest limit groupings. CPW staff will present those results to interested stakeholders. Lion Harvest Terminology, Regulations Process and Hunting Seasons Harvest Limit Groups: The term to describe the pool or grouping of Game Management Units (GMUs) that are combinedunder one harvest limit will be called a “harvest limit group”. In the past, harvest limit groups have been as small as one GMU or up to eight or more GMUs. Under this plan, the size of most harvest limit groups will increase, as each group will include more GMUs than under past plans. Under CPW’s 2024-2025 regulations, the six East Slope lion DAUs have a total of 21 harvest limit groups. In 2026-2027, under the East Slope plan, we are proposing a single DAU with six harvest limit groups. L-ES DAU Harvest Objective and Harvest Limit: CPW will establish an annual “DAU harvest objective” for the entire East Slope L-ES DAU. The harvest objective is not a level CPW is trying to achieve, but a numerical ceiling of the annual number of lions that hunters can harvest across the entire DAU. Lion managers divide the harvest objective among the harvest limit groups into allocated harvest limits. In other words, the sum of the harvest limits on the East Slope is equal to the L-ES DAU harvest objective. CPW will continue to use the term 9 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting “harvest limit” for each harvest limit group. Initial recommendations for harvest limits under the East Slope plan are provided in a later section of this document. In accordance with lion regulations, the annual harvest limit accounting will begin on April 1 and end on March 31 (license year). Only hunter harvest (lions associated with take on a lion license) will be counted and deducted from the harvest limit. Harvest limits are set annually after wildlife managers consider harvest, composition and total mortality data from the previous year relative to the DAU’s objective. While DAU harvest limits and harvest limit group composition are traditionally reviewed annually, CPW intends to maintain the proposed lion harvest limits and harvest limit groups static for an initial 3-year period to allow sufficient time for any management efforts to yield results. For example, if efforts are applied to decrease lion abundance in a local area, Anderson and Lindzey (2005) suggest that a 3-year period is necessary to detect changes. Other studies suggest that a time period between three and five years is the minimum time for recovery of previously suppressed populations (Logan and Sweanor 2001, Anderson and Lindzey 2005, Stoner et al. 2006, Robinson and DeSimone 2011, Logan and Runge, 2021). One exception to this initial stability in harvest limits would be if management thresholds are exceeded and management action is needed. Another exception would be if the assumptions made using 2020-2022 averages to predict harvest and non-harvest human-caused mortality for setting the first year’s harvest limits in development of this plan were found to be different once the plan was implemented. Finally, the need to conduct the 10th and final year of the Upper Arkansas lion research project in 2025-2026 will require some changes in harvest limits under the first year of the plan. These harvest limits are laid out in the section on Harvest Limits beginning on page 30. Annual Lion Regulations Process: This East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan continues to follow CPW’s regulatory process and timeline. The annual regulatory cycle for lions occurs in two stages. The first stage includes regulations related to season dates, open GMUs or harvest limit groups, method of take, and harvest reporting requirements. The second stage involves the establishment of annual harvest limits by harvest limit groups. Mountain Lion Regulation Development Process for Seasons, Method of Take, Other Provisions: ● July-September: internal considerations, conceptual development, regional review meetings ● October: issues considered at internal regulation review meetings ● November: issues/draft regulations presented for consideration at the Parks and Wildlife Commission meeting ● December: regulation language modified pursuant to November meeting outcomes ● January: final adoption action by the Parks and Wildlife Commission Mountain Lion Regulation Development Process for Harvest Limits and April Seasons: ● June-July: analysis of harvest, total mortality, and adult female harvest composition 10 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting ● ● ● September-November: internal development of harvest limit recommendations, regional review meetings, harvest limits by harvest limit group considered at internal regulation review meetings January: final adoption action by the Parks and Wildlife Commission on harvest limits and April seasons along with final approval of all other lion provisions February: publication of online Mountain Lion brochure Every 5 years, CPW’s big game season structure (BGSS) is evaluated, which may affect lion seasons. There are multiple stages of BGSS, including issue identification, information gathering, public outreach, development of recommended changes, drafting of regulations, and final structure and approval by the Parks and Wildlife Commission. The approved 20252029 Big Game Season Structure is compatible with all aspects of this East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan. Lion Hunting Seasons: Two distinct lion hunting seasons occur during the April 1- March 31 license year. Both seasons will be maintained in this plan, but use of an April season will not initially be employed for at least the first three years of this plan. The two seasons have different purposes, but each will operate within the context of the harvest limit system. 1. April Lion Season: The season will run from April 1-30 in specific harvest limit GMU groups, annually. The use of dogs as a hunting aid is allowed. This is primarily an additional opportunity season in locations where harvest limits may not be routinely achieved during the regular season. If this hunting opportunity is not compatible with other management considerations or local issues, then an April season will not be initiated. The utilization of an April season is determined annually for each harvest limit group and will continue to be available under the East Slope plan following the first three years of plan implementation. 2. Regular Lion Season: Begins the day after the close of 4th rifle deer and elk season and continues through March 31, annually. The use of dogs as a hunting aid is allowed. The bulk of lion harvest is expected during this time and the majority of hunter days will occur in this season. Lion hunting opportunities are available during each license year until harvest limits are reached in each harvest limit group, at which point that harvest limit group will be closed for the remainder of the license year. Methods of Take: The use of dogs shall be allowed as an aid to take lions as prescribed within the foregoing April and Regular seasons. The use of mouth-operated predator calls is allowed. Electronic calls are illegal for all big game, including lions. Legal rifles, shotguns, crossbows, handguns, and archery equipment are allowed. Data Collection Scales and Monitoring Thresholds Lions occupy large spatial scales in terms of home ranges and dispersal patterns. They regularly live, move, and disperse across previously used DAU boundaries, CPW Administrative Region boundaries and state lines. Consequently, monitoring mortality and female 11 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting composition at small scales is hampered by small sample sizes and large amounts of annual variation. As noted by Logan and Runge (2021), larger regions for lion management are more appropriate to the scale of lion movements and demographics. At the historic DAU scales on the East Slope, the difference between a couple animals of one gender or age class to another could meaningfully alter harvest composition proportions and resulting conclusions about management trajectory in some units. For example, using the most recent age class data from 2020-2022, total annual lion mortality was less than 45 animals for five out of six East Slope DAUs. When samples of each individual DAU’s harvest were divided among the four age/gender classes (adult female, subadult female, adult male, and subadult male) the composition of any one class often would be represented by only 5-10 individual lions, causing year to year compositional proportions to commonly vary by 20-30%. This amount of variation in harvest composition confounds data interpretation, making it difficult for wildlife managers to evaluate the effects of different harvest levels on lion population trajectories at the smaller DAU scale used in 2024-2025. Many lion biologists across the West suggest managing lion populations with respect to sourcesink dynamics (CMGWG 2005, Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2006, Cooley et al. 2009a, Robinson and DeSimone 2011, Jenks et al. 2011, Logan 2019, Logan and Runge, 2021). Source areas are areas that have low harvest or mortality levels that allow for increased production and survival of dispersing lions that move to other source areas and into sink areas where management objectives or other human causes create higher rates of lion mortality. Thus, source areas retain a capacity for population resiliency region-wide. This approach allows for considerable flexibility in applying variable harvest rates spatially and temporally. This would be in contrast to a management framework with little flexibility where harvest is attempted to be apportioned evenly across the landscape as outlined by Beausoleil et al. (2013). This plan incorporates source-sink dynamics by allocating lion harvest mortality across the entire East Slope at a level appropriate for a stable population objective, while allowing harvest pressure to vary within more local areas defined by harvest limit groups. Regional Data Analysis Units The history of lion management in Colorado, and more specifically on the East Slope, is provided in Appendix B. This appendix includes an overview of harvest management, methods of hunting, game damage, and a human-lion conflict discussion, all within the historical DAUspecific management structure. A map showing the six historic lion DAUs is also included in Appendix B. Under this new plan, the East Slope DAU (L-ES) will be comprised of one large DAU, corresponding to all lion habitat within the combined CPW Northeast and Southeast Administrative Regional boundaries instead of the historic DAU scale (Figure 2). This new L-ES lion DAU is comprised of previous lion DAUs L-4, L-11, L-12, L-16, L-17 and L-19. 12 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Figure 2. The location of the new East Slope Data Analysis Unit L-ES within Colorado. The six historic DAUs have existing management plans that were written in 2004, except for L-19, which was updated in 2019. Four of the six plans have objectives of maintaining a stable lion population. Two of the plans, DAUs L-12 (North Central Front Range) and L-17 (SE Plains), have “suppression” objectives primarily to reduce lion populations due to concerns over high rates of game damage and human-lion conflicts. The new L-ES DAU stable management objective will replace all historic DAU objectives in the areas governed by those six previous plans. L-99 (Northeastern Plains) is not a formal DAU (Figure 2). The area within L-99 is not included in L-ES because it is poor quality lion habitat and only occasionally experiences dispersing lions, and therefore is not included in the East Slope plan. As part of this East Slope plan development, eight GMUs in southeastern Colorado (historically part of L-17) which are largely shortgrass prairie and do not contain lion habitat, were moved into L-99. These GMUs did not belong in a harvest limit group of GMUs that included a viable lion population. While this reorganization is administrative and has no impact on lion mortality or data analysis, L-99 will now include all of the GMUs in that group in 2024-2025, along with GMUs 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 132, 139 and 145 (Figure 2). Analysis of both the historic L-99 and the new proposed L-99 with the inclusion of these eight GMUs, shows that both groups have a 5-year average harvest of zero lions. 13 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Annual Data Collection All known lion mortalities in Colorado are recorded during a mandatory check process. For harvest mortalities, every hunter is required to report their harvest within 48 hours and present the hide and head for inspection within five days. During this mandatory check, biological data is collected including sex, evidence of past nursing/breeding status, and age information, including extraction of a premolar for cementum aging (Table 1). Table 1. Cementum (premolar tooth) aging guidelines Cementum Age 0-12 months old 1-2 years old 3 years and older Female of any age that shows evidence of past nursing Age Class Kitten Subadult Adult Adult Lion mortality data are used to evaluate age and sex composition of harvest, distribution of harvest and non-harvest lion mortalities, indices of population trajectory, and to account for and set harvest limits. Due to standard time delays in cementum analysis, the current harvest composition analysis always lags one harvest year behind regulatory cycles. Harvest data can be used in many different ways. The age of reproductive females can be useful to examine the reproductive potential of lion populations (Stoner 2004, Anderson and Lindzey 2005). Populations maintaining older-age females have higher reproductive potential, and thus resiliency, than populations where adult female survival is lower. Additionally, recording the distribution of lion harvest and other recorded human-caused mortalities allows assessment of potential source areas where little or no lion mortality occurs, and sink areas where lion mortalities may be relatively high. This type of spatial information may be used to help inform harvest limits that are established by harvest limit groups. As recommended by Beausoleil (2017) and Murphy et al. (2022), we approached all demographic metrics referenced in this management plan with standardization in mind. Since most recent literature focuses on metrics defined by “independent” lions, that is the common standard we have used in all data, thresholds, and models presented in this plan (Murphy et al. 2022). Independent lions are defined as animals that are not dependent on their mother; this includes subadult lions (independent, but have not produced young) and adult lions (Table 1). Logan and Runge (2021) found that female lions in Colorado averaged closer to three years rather than two years old when they birthed their first litter. The adult age class is defined as a cementum tooth age of 3 years and older, or a female of any cementum tooth age showing signs of having nursed. See Appendix A for details on lion life history. Kittens are considered dependent lions, and as such are not legal for harvest and are not included in demographic metrics and thresholds. Adult Female Harvest Composition Threshold Development Both the survival rate and relative abundance of adult female lions, as the reproductive component of a population, are important considerations for managers. For instance, in the 14 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Garnet Mountains of Montana during an un-hunted period, 71% of the growth rate in the population was related to reproduction (maternity and kitten survival), while adult female survival accounted for only 22% of the population growth rate. When hunting was added, only 17% of the growth rate in the population was related to reproduction, while adult female survival became more influential and accounted for 40% of the population growth rate. Monitoring and population modeling efforts in this population indicated that when accounting for all forms of known human-caused mortality, adult female annual survival needs to be at least 80% to prevent a decrease in the resident lion population level (Robinson and DeSimone 2011) and therefore limits on adult female harvest mortality would be needed to prevent declines. Logan and Runge (2021) state that lion populations have a greater tendency to decline when annual adult female survival rates are ≤0.78 and tend to increase at ≥0.86. Recent research findings are presented below reviewing adult female harvest composition and population trajectory. Wildlife managers have the ability to limit lion population growth using hunter harvest (Robinson and DeSimone 2011). On the Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado, during the 5-year lion hunting phase of a research project, adult females comprised 23% of the total cumulative harvest. In this study, lion harvest was considered additive mortality and lion survival rates and independent lion abundance declined, primarily for the male population segment, when compared to the preceding reference phase with no lion hunting (Logan 2015, Logan and Runge 2021). In southern Idaho and northern Utah, Laundre et al. (2007) tested the effects of changes in prey abundance on lion population dynamics. Through their monitoring of the change in population size and social-age class structure, they suggest that an annual harvest of 15 to 20% of resident (adult) females would not reduce a population. Anderson and Lindzey (2005) conducted an experimental population reduction and recovery in the Snowy Range of Wyoming to examine how various gender and age classes are exposed in hunter harvest when a population is increasingly exploited. Because of the differences in daily movement distances, it was assumed that under equal gender ratios, males are more vulnerable to hound hunting, which relies on discovery of tracks in snow. Increasing hunting pressure exposes different genders and age classes until they are relatively less available, subsequently exposing the next most vulnerable sex/age class. Sex and age classes of lions exhibit different and relatively predictable movement patterns, where males move longer distances than females and subadults generally move longer distances than adults (Barnhurst 1986, Anderson 2003). Conceptually, the likelihood of a specific sex or age class of lion being harvested would reflect its relative abundance in the population and its relative vulnerability based on daily movement patterns. The least vulnerable individuals (adult females) should become prominent in the harvest only after the population has been reduced in size by removal of more vulnerable/available lions. Harvest progression of a higher density population would be expected to shift from subadults to adult males and finally to adult females as more vulnerable or targeted individuals are removed and the population is reduced 15 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting in size (Anderson and Lindzey 2005). Selectivity in harvest where hunters select males over females, or perhaps subadults, is possible from experienced hunters using hounds by examining track characteristics or live animals prior to harvest. Selective harvests may delay or change the order of expected harvest progression, but this relationship should still hold as larger males are removed and the least vulnerable and most biologically important compositional class (adult females) becomes exposed as abundance of other more selected age/sex classes decline. Anderson and Lindzey (2005) tested these predictions by applying varying levels of hunter harvest and found harvest composition to be predominantly subadults for a high-density population with low harvest levels, shifting to adult males as harvest levels increased, and then a shift from adult males to adult females with continued high harvest as the population declined. Likewise, Cooley et al. (2009b) noted that adult females increased in harvest composition when hunting increasingly removed other age/sex classes in a population. When harvest levels were reduced, the composition of the harvest returned to primarily subadults. The male segment of the reduced population recovered within two years, primarily due to male immigration from other populations and the female segment within three years from an increased number of females producing young within the population (Anderson and Lindzey 2005). They concluded that the population appeared to support a harvest composed of 10-15% adult females. When adult female composition in hunter harvest reached approximately 25%, the population began to decline. The results of these studies suggest that setting an L-ES DAU composition threshold of between 20-25% adult females in hunter harvest will maintain the East Slope goal of managing for a stable population. Therefore, CPW selected a maximum annual threshold of 22% adult female harvest composition because it represents a mid-range value based on these independent research efforts. If this threshold is exceeded, the population would likely begin to decline. Because the goal is to not exceed this threshold and to maintain a stable population size, adult female harvest composition will be examined annually and management actions will be enacted to reduce female and/or overall harvest if this threshold is exceeded in any single year. Applying our new monitoring scale to historic data, the composition of adult females in total harvest over the last five years has ranged from 11-16% across the East Slope (Table 2). These statistics suggest that under recent and fairly consistent harvest levels during this period, the East Slope population has not undergone a decline. In accordance with this plan, data will be evaluated annually to inform management, but voluntary female and overall harvest reduction steps will be required only if the monitoring threshold of 22% is exceeded. Table 2. East Slope (NE and SE CPW Regions) adult female harvest composition and sample size of interpreted age class (N) for the last five years (2018-2022). Data include all legal harvest mortalities for lions with known sex/age classifications for all GMUs in each region. East Slope DAU (L-ES) 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 16% 143 15% 116 12% 125 11% 131 15% 117 Adult Female Composition in Total Harvest N 16 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting It should also be noted that less selective methods of harvest are likely to result in harvest composition that reflects the relative abundance of the four age-gender classes. Consequently, significant use of non-selective methods at any broad scale will confound harvest composition analysis. Hound harvest relies on a portion of hunters selecting against taking females based on track size or identification of gender while the lion is bayed, but non-selective methods take lions of each compositional class in the same relative abundance that they are encountered, so much higher rates of female harvest would be expected. Nonselective hunting methods have been shown in Oregon and Washington to have higher adult and subadult female harvest rates when compared to hound hunting (Martorello and Beausoleil 2003). A further discussion on these implications is presented in the “Methods of mountain lion hunting” section in Appendix B. The East Slope plan does not propose the implementation of any new non-selective hunting methods. Use of electronic calls are not legal for big game hunting, including the take of lions. Total Human-Caused Mortality Threshold Development Clarification of terminology is an important precursor to the discussion of the total humancaused mortality threshold. Natural forms of mortality (drowning, starvation, disease, intraspecific strife, injury, etc.) are sometimes documented by our mandatory check system, but such natural mortality will not be included in the total human-caused mortality analysis. The primary human-caused mortality factors include hunter harvest, removal of depredating lions by CPW, landowners, and federal Animal and Plant Health Inspections Service/Wildlife Services agents (APHIS/WS), and lions killed by vehicles. As recommended by Logan and Runge (2021) and others, CPW considers all known human-caused lion mortality factors yearround when setting a sustainable total human-caused mortality threshold. The only exception of recorded human-caused mortality sources that is not included in the mortality analysis is for lions that are killed by CPW because they are determined to be dangerous lions pursuant to CPW Administrative Directive OW-13 (formerly W-20), Human-Mountain Lion Incidents. Our reasoning for not including these kills in our calculations related to mortality thresholds is that regardless of lion population trajectory or any other management condition, CPW, as a matter of policy, would always take lethal action on lions that are determined to be a threat to public safety. Therefore, including them in calculations of total mortality thresholds is irrelevant. Additionally, the number of lions that are killed because they are determined to be dangerous has historically been a very small number. For example, during the three license years of 2020-2022, the entire East Slope averaged less than one lion annually reported as being killed by CPW as a result of having attacked or exhibited threatening behavior towards people. Lions removed in accordance with Administrative Directive OW-13 are specifically identified by agency recording protocols to ensure human-lion conflict mortalities with this classification are clearly enumerated, as they will be excluded from analysis in all mortality totals. Comparing the rate of population growth against population reduction from harvest can give managers information on what human-caused mortality levels would maintain a stable population. Recent research findings are presented below that helped inform this plan’s total human-caused mortality threshold. 17 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting The growth rate for a population, or intrinsic rate of population growth, can be described as the rate biologists expect a population to grow in the absence of additive human-caused mortality. In Washington, the intrinsic growth rate for three different lion populations (Selkirk Mountains, Kettle Falls, and Cle Elum) was 14% (+-2%) (Beausoleil et al. 2013). In Montana, the expected intrinsic growth rate of a modeled population through two years was 15% when the results from a protected area and an adjacent hunted area were combined (Robinson and DiSimone 2011). Laundre et al. (2007) observed a lion population increase of 7% during a growth phase that correlated with an increasing deer population on the border of Idaho and Utah. In New Mexico, Logan and Sweanor (2001) observed population growth rates of 5% and 17% for two 4-year periods, averaging 11% for the entire 7-year period for a lion population segment protected from hunting. Furthermore, Logan and Sweanor observed higher growth rates of 21% to 28% for an experimentally manipulated population segment that was substantially reduced in abundance and then protected to allow it to increase. Their research indicates that lion population growth rates are highly variable and most likely density dependent (Logan and Sweanor 2001). Examined differently in Wyoming, experimental control and recovery of a population determined that a harvest rate of 18% of independent lions allowed recovery of the population that had been intensively harvested in two previous years (Anderson and Lindzey, 2005). On the Uncompahgre Plateau in Colorado, a lion population that was protected from hunting for five years and subsequently subjected to regulated hunting for five years yielded evidence that the marked lion population grew during the non-hunting period when total human-caused annual mortality was 7% or less and began to decline when total human-caused annual mortality was 27% and continued to decline at rates of 24-29% (Logan and Runge 2021). The discrete threshold at which population decline began could not be measured. The authors do note that inference should be made to population-scale harvest and human-caused mortality rates, as rates observed at a smaller scale are biased and represent underestimates (Logan and Runge 2021). Although growth rates and mortality or harvest rates in expanding populations may act as surrogates for determining maximum sustained yield (the highest sustainable annual rate of removal), caution should be applied in this comparison. Stochastic events can change the assumed population size and may result in over-harvest, and thus are falsely assumed to be supported over the longer term (Caughley and Sinclair 1994). Whether one looks specifically at Colorado data or examines the span of the 6 reported population growth rates and three reported mortality thresholds, a 16-17% annual total mortality rate is an appropriate range to manage for population stability. Therefore, this plan will use a maximum human-caused mortality threshold of 17% of Colorado’s East Slope projection of possible lion abundance. This extrapolated lion abundance index is based on a resource selection function (RSF) model that was applied to each GMU in DAU L-ES to generate an initial representation of how many lions could be in the population and the corresponding maximum human-caused mortality threshold (Table 3). For more information 18 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting about the abundance index extrapolation and the supporting RSF model as applied to the East Slope, see Appendix C. Table 3. East Slope total human-caused mortality threshold in relation to 2020-2022 total humancaused mortality data in L-ES. East Slope DAU (L-ES) 17% Annual Total HumanCaused Mortality Threshold 2020 Total HumanCaused Mortality 2021 Total HumanCaused Mortality 2022 Total HumanCaused Mortality 3-year Total HumanCaused Mortality Average 214 lions 209 lions 196 lions 177 lions 194 lions The RSF model developed for Colorado’s lion population provides a probability of lion presence across the state and allows application of various densities to those probability classes to generate a projection of possible lion abundance. The RSF extrapolation that is generated is not a representation of actual lion population size, but rather the relative probability of resource selection by a lion population. It provides a method to derive a maximum mortality threshold at a given scale, which if exceeded, would lead to the reasonable conclusion that lion populations are experiencing a decline. The numerical value that is derived as a threshold from this analysis will not be exceeded on a 3-year running average for the DAU. While not necessarily a management target, the human-caused mortality threshold represents the maximum acceptable amount of annual recorded humancaused mortality in the L-ES DAU. The entirety of lion habitat within the NE and SE Administrative Regions are covered in the analysis for L-ES. The total human-caused mortality threshold in Table 3 may or may not change over the lifespan of this East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan. This threshold could change during the course of revisions based upon new scientific evidence, density estimates that refine the RSF, or related updates to the RSF model that may occur during periodic plan review. As described in greater detail in the Lion Density Monitoring section of this plan, CPW plans to initiate lion density estimation work on the East Slope during the life of this plan, similar to what is being done on the West Slope, to allow validation and refinement of densities applied to the RSF. More specific historic data on harvest and non-harvest mortality is available in Appendix B, History of Mountain Lion Management in Colorado and the East Slope. Annual Management Thresholds The East Slope Lion Management Plan extends the management framework used on the West Slope that evaluates annual lion mortality data against selected thresholds that are scientifically supportive of a stable lion population. All GMUs with lion habitat in the Northeast and Southeast CPW Administrative Regions will be managed in a pooled framework 19 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting under a single DAU (L-ES). The following mortality monitoring thresholds will be evaluated in an interactive manner. 1. Proportion of adult female composition of total hunter harvest in L-ES will not exceed 22% in any single year. Adult females are defined as three years or older, or any age if the female shows evidence of previous nursing as determined from nipple characteristics (Table 1) 2. Total human-caused mortality will not exceed 17% of the extrapolated abundance index for L-ES (Table 3, also Appendix C) based on a 3-year running average The adult female harvest composition threshold and total human-caused mortality threshold are intended to interact and inform each other. Therefore, if either threshold is exceeded, a management response to reduce mortality will be required and implemented during harvest objective setting the following year. If the 22% adult female threshold is exceeded in any single year (suggesting a decline in the population) the following actions will be taken: ● ● The L-ES harvest objective (and human-caused mortality threshold) used in that year will be reduced by 1% of the extrapolated abundance index. This represents a decrease from 17% to 16% of the RSF extrapolation and would create a lower harvest rate and lower human-caused mortality threshold CPW will also enact a voluntary female harvest reduction outreach process that includes: i. Publishing a request for hunters to voluntarily reduce female harvest in the CPW Mountain Lion Hunting brochure ii. Reporting harvested lion gender, similar to the Available Harvest Limit Report, so that in-season female harvest or female proportion by GMU is available to the public iii. Notifying hunters using the online Available Harvest Limit Report to identify harvest limit groups where CPW is voluntarily asking for reductions in female harvest iv. Contacting lion hunters directly to inform them of the voluntary request If the 17% total human-caused mortality threshold is exceeded or the 22% compositional threshold is exceeded for a second consecutive year, then a 5% reduction of the DAU’s harvest objective (and mortality threshold) will be implemented the following year. This would be in addition to the reduction of the human-caused mortality threshold from 17% to 16% applied the first year. The total human-caused mortality threshold continues to be independent of the adult female composition threshold. Both these thresholds represent possible inflection points, that if exceeded, could push the population trajectory towards decline. Either one provides a feedback mechanism to modify the common currency of human-caused lion mortality which CPW can control; harvest limits. 20 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Each time a reduction in the harvest objective is triggered by exceeding thresholds, the intention is that this reduction will be maintained using the recalculated DAU harvest objective for a minimum of three years. In some cases, if the annual female composition or 3year average total human-caused mortality return to levels below the thresholds before that time, increases in harvest objectives may be considered. The annual harvest objective incorporates non-harvest mortality in development of acceptable harvest mortality levels, so as to not exceed the total human-caused mortality threshold. As such, the harvest objective will always be lower than the total human-caused mortality threshold and will likely fall in the annual harvest range of 12-16%, bracketing the 14% harvest off-take level as recommended by Beausoleil et al. (2013). The L-ES harvest objective will be nearer to the lower end of that range to accommodate the high proportion of other known human-caused mortalities (see Regional Summary section for more details). Using the historic averages of recorded non-harvest human-caused mortality to derive the remaining available harvest off-take, we expect the initial annual harvest rate in L-ES to be approximately 12% of the projected population. Voluntary Female Harvest Reduction Outreach If the adult female harvest composition threshold of 22% is exceeded, the first action should be to reduce adult female harvest. While differentiating subadult females from adult females before harvest may be difficult, Colorado’s lion hunters have a proven track record of being able to decrease harvest pressure on females in general, when requested by CPW (Apker 2008). From 2005-2007, CPW in collaboration with hound hunting groups, conducted training workshops about the biology and life history of lions as well as the importance of females to sustaining populations. The lion regulation brochure also provided similar written information. In the 2007-2008 lion season, CPW implemented a mandatory lion hunter education requirement. This course provides training information to hunters about lion ecology and hunters must pass an exam demonstrating the ability to identify lion gender characteristics. Subsequently, the average total statewide female composition in harvest declined from about 44% in the 10 years before 2005 to about 40% in the most recent five years. It is important to note this was a reduction in all female age classes, not just adults. As part of this lion management plan, CPW intends to engage with lion hunters via the brochure, the online harvest limit report, and make informal field contacts to request voluntary reductions in female harvest if the annual adult female composition exceeds the 22% threshold. It would not be practical to ask for reductions just in adult females since age class determination in the field is much more challenging than gender determination. Additionally, age class determination for final DAU-wide annual analysis can only be completed when tooth cementum age results are available, which lag at least 3 months behind the close of the season. Evaluation of adult female versus subadult female composition can only be done after the season has concluded. This hunter outreach would 21 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting likely decrease overall female harvest (all ages), but adult females would be part of that reduction, and we expect this to move composition trajectory in the desired direction. To proactively increase hunter knowledge about the in-season level of female take and allow them to act accordingly before any voluntary outreach, CPW will also be undertaking a redesign of our lion harvest limit recording system. The specific focus will be on initiating a way to report “preliminary” data on total female harvest, along with total lion harvest, by GMU. This would be similar to, and improve upon, the Available Harvest Limit Report that is online and required for hunters to check before they hunt each day. This improvement to our online published report has been requested by both lion hunters and lion advocates as part of the early conversations surrounding an East Slope plan. Harvest Limit Reductions The harvest limit reduction will be applied to the harvest objective total in the regulatory cycle immediately following management thresholds being exceeded, as outlined above. Any such reduction in the harvest objective due to exceeding either threshold is mandatory and is a reduction minimum. Each time a reduction is applied to the DAU harvest objective, it will generally be maintained for three years; however, there may be cases when it is sustained for less than that period. For example, if during annual evaluations, the total human-caused mortality or adult female compositional proportion returns below the management threshold, and is anticipated to stay below the threshold, managers may consider increasing the harvest objective. Nothing precludes managers from implementing larger reductions of the harvest objective and harvest limit that are determined desirable or necessary to accelerate the lion population response. CPW will base its management steps on empirical data from previously observed populations and models developed in Colorado. The following section presents an evaluation quantifying areas of minimal lion mortality on the East Slope and outlining the extent of source areas and large-scale lion resiliency to harvest. Further, the application of monitoring thresholds is appropriate to guard against longer term impacts to populations on the East Slope and ensure population stability at that scale. Lion Population Resiliency Resiliency to Mortality Upon reaching the age of independence, lions (particularly males) disperse, which helps to maximize genetic interchange, allowing populations to be resilient against high harvest or rates of removal, as vacated ranges are continuously being re-occupied by immigrants. Natural replacement of mortalities or otherwise vacated home ranges occurs differently between male and female lions. Vacated ranges of resident females are typically re-occupied by their independent-age daughters, adjacent resident females, and some immigrant females (Laing and Lindzey 1993, Logan and Sweanor 2001). In contrast, male dispersal from natal areas appears to occur regardless of resident adult male densities (Hemker et al. 1984). Consequently, vacated ranges of resident males are typically re-occupied by immigrant males, 22 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting some coming from long distances. Logan and Sweanor (2001) documented this in New Mexico and numerous Colorado studies have recorded the long distances moved by dispersing lions as well as the sex bias in dispersal distance (Anderson et al. 1992, Ken Logan, CPW, personal communication 2018, Mat Alldredge, CPW, personal communication 2023). Source Population Refuges In several studies, lion populations subjected to temporary intensive harvest by > 40% over one to six year periods have been demonstrated to recover within three to five years (Ashman 1976, Logan and Sweanor 2001, Anderson and Lindzey 2005, Robinson et al. 2008, Logan 2015). In two such studies, the lion populations were completely protected from hunting for a period of time (Logan and Sweanor 2001, Logan 2015, Logan and Runge 2021). It is also important to understand that in addition to reductions in known human-caused mortality, recovery was facilitated by immigrants coming from proximal source areas (Logan and Sweanor 2001, Anderson and Lindzey 2005, Robinson et al. 2008, Cooley et al. 2011, Logan and Runge 2021). These results confirm that with adequate source populations in sufficient proximity to provide dispersal immigration combined with native recruitment, lion populations can be resilient when localized harvest rates exceed recruitment (Anderson and Lindzey 2005, Robinson et al. 2008, Cooley et al. 2009a, Cooley et al. 2011, Logan and Runge 2021). These observations about lion resiliency and ability to rely on adjacent source populations are derived from research areas that range in size from the average GMU in Colorado (~1,500 km2) to the largest GMU at about 7,500 km2. The management thresholds of this plan will be monitored at a large scale; therefore, if the thresholds are exceeded and are unmitigated, then longer-lasting negative impacts to the lion population should be expected. At this scale, male immigration is likely to be capable of re-occupying vacant habitat (Logan and Runge 2021). In contrast, female immigration would likely occur initially along the boundary with adjacent DAUs or adjacent states, if intensive lion mortality were not also occurring in those locations. Some amount of female immigration may also occur from refuge areas (i.e., areas of high quality lion habitat with limited harvest as a result of land ownership or other access restrictions), but this alone may not be sufficient to offset continued high levels of mortality. The following map of Colorado’s L-ES DAU (Figure 3) shows what could be considered refuge zones or source areas where lion harvest is low to non-existent. Using the same RSF habitat model (Appendix C) employed within this plan in developing the total mortality threshold, we compared the top 50% of lion habitat in the new proposed DAU to the most recent 10 years of lion harvest mortality. All lion harvest mortalities from 2013-2022 were mapped and a mortality surface was created using ArcGIS, delineating a surface with more than three harvest mortalities per 1,000 km2 per year. Areas of L-ES that fell below this threshold were considered as having no significant level of harvest (0-3 harvested lions/1,000km2/year) (Table 4). For comparison, Wyoming’s statewide management plan considers a “source” hunt area to have an annual human-caused mortality level of below 5 lions/1,000 km2, and defines a “stable” hunt area as having annual human-caused mortality between 5-8 lions/1,000 km2 (Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2006). As shown in Figure 2 and Table 4, only a small fraction of lion habitat in L-ES exceeds an annual harvest of 8 lions/1,000 km2. In fact, only 23 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting 8% of the high-quality habitat in L-ES meets the qualification that Wyoming uses to classify a population “sink” (>8 lions harvested/1,000 km2/year). Figure 3. Upper 50%-100% percentile of quality lion habitat from Colorado’s resource selection function model and 2013-2022 lion harvest mortality surface from the East Slope (L-ES Data Analysis Unit). The 17,326 km2 of higher quality lion habitat, as generated from the top two strata in the RSF, was overlaid with a harvest mortality surface to evaluate the total amount of quality lion habitat in the L-ES DAU where no significant lion harvest occurs. The area of quality habitat with modeled moderate to higher lion densities and yet a low or non-existent level of harvest totaled 8,156 km2, or just over two million acres across the East Slope (Figure 3 and Table 4). This includes high-quality habitat within a National Park and several Monuments, Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service Wilderness areas, closed military lands, protected municipality open spaces and natural areas, areas with little significant snowfall making lion harvest difficult, and many large tracts over 1,000 acres of unhunted private land. 24 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Table 4. Comparison of high quality lion habitat and harvest density on Colorado’s L-ES DAU. Total Area of L-ES DAU Total Area of L-ES DAU with defined lion habitat of any quality Total High Quality Lion Habitat Total High Quality Habitat with ≤ 3 harvested lions/1000 km2/year “source zone” 70,858 km2 50,909 km2 17,326 km2 8,156 km2 Total High Quality Habitat with >8 harvested lions/1000 km2/year “sink zone” 1,441 km2 Zone Management While the East Slope plan is not explicitly managing for defined source and sink areas or formally employing “zone” management across the DAU (Logan 2019, Logan and Runge 2021), the exercise described above is illuminating. It shows that in addition to monitoring mortality and harvest composition thresholds to ensure viability of lion populations, Colorado’s L-ES lion population benefits from 47% of its highest-quality lion habitat having virtually no lion harvest. These zones are functioning as refuges from harvest mortality. The fact that these robust source areas exist in abundance at large spatial scales and are well distributed across the East Slope affirms an additional safeguard in CPW’s lion management strategy. The source areas promote a supply of immigrant lions and bolster recruitment, supporting population viability and resiliency across the entire landscape, as suggested by Logan and Runge (2021). The functional impact of having 47% of the DAU’s best habitat as a refuge zone, even if these areas are not explicitly defined by this plan or in regulations, cannot be overstated. While not formally designed this way, this East Slope plan provides an overall population-level framework for a stable lion population while allowing manager flexibility to address local priorities that may require more or less harvest (Logan and Runge 2021, Erwin et al. 2023). Significant portions of the landscape are available to lions as “source” zones that offset any “sink” zones that are implemented through management or occur due to hunter harvest patterns. As an example, Robinson and DeSimone’s (2011) initial analysis of the Blackfoot watershed in Montana suggested that an area as small as 12% of a larger landscape (in this study defined as the 8,000 km² watershed) without hunting mortality could act as a viable source with increased survival rates and ability to produce emigrants to other, more heavily harvested areas. East Slope Regional Summaries and Issues Public Education and Community Outreach on Coexistence with Lions The vast majority of the state’s citizens live on the East Slope and within the L-ES DAU. Therefore, a robust public education campaign to create an informed citizenry on human-lion coexistence remains vital in Northeast and Southeast Regional management. CPW will continue to build and rely on partnerships with local governments, municipalities and organizations to find additional means of reducing conflicts. CPW continues to use various public information resources to provide information to communities and highlight the 25 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting importance of living responsibly with all wildlife, including lions. This includes dedicated webpage video and written content on Living with Lions and how to live in Lion Country. Common CPW recommendations include bringing pets in at night, not leaving pets unattended or tethered in yards, using fully enclosed outdoor kennels, use of outdoor lights, removing brush and grasses when landscaping, securing hobby livestock in enclosed barns/sheds and removing deer and elk food sources near homes that may attract prey species, which in turn brings lions closer to homes. Human-Lion Conflict Appendix B (History of Mountain Lion Management) provides a more thorough discussion of recent literature evaluating the relationship between lion harvest and human-lion conflict rates. However, a review of the current scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of population scale management to effect reductions in human-lion conflicts is equivocal (Human-Cougar Interactions Science Review Team- Washington 2022). Data from Colorado do not suggest a relationship between high lion harvest and increased conflicts, but rather just the opposite. Areas in L-ES with the highest harvest rates (Figure 3), do not correlate with the areas of highest reported human-lion conflicts. In fact, as shown in Figure 5 of Appendix B, most areas of high human-lion conflict in Colorado have very little or no harvest at all. Nearly all of the published research investigating relationships between harvest or removal of lions and human-lion conflict has been correlative or observational. The Southeast Regional Summary in the section below provides more details on CPW’s Upper Arkansas River research project, which employs a study design that permits manipulation of the system, making inference and predictions from results much stronger than many other commonly referenced studies. Regional Summary: Northeast The CPW Northeast Administrative Region is composed of lion habitat quality ranging from highly productive to severely impacted by human development. The highest quality lion habitat occurs along the foothills transitional zones of the Front Range. The Northeast Region portion of L-ES is composed of 55% private property (3.3 million acres private, 2.8 million acres public). A recent study conducted by CPW west of Boulder estimated lion densities at 4.1 independent lions/100 km² (see Appendix A for details). Productive habitats are generally characterized by broken topography, rocky terrain, shrubland, and ponderosa pine forest vegetation. Those areas also overlap the range of lions' principal food sources, mule deer, elk, and bighorn sheep. Human population density in Colorado is highest in the Northeast Region. Development occurring in the Northeast Region causes substantial landscape level impacts, including to lion habitats. Large, expanding cities, including Denver and its surrounding suburbs, as well as Boulder, Longmont, Loveland, and Fort Collins are all within the Northeast Region. The high human population in the region has resulted in substantial human-lion conflicts (see Human Safety and Conflict below). Lion habitat is also less productive at higher elevations in the western portions of the Northeast Region and lower elevations east of the foothills. Mountain lion management plans completed in 2004 implemented stable population size 26 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting management strategies in the northernmost and southernmost areas of the Northeast Region (west of I-25, formerly L-4 and L-11), while aiming to reduce lion populations in the central portion of the Region (west of I-25, formerly L-12). Over the last three years, the Northeast Region has accounted for approximately 13% of the reported total statewide human-caused lion mortality. From 2020-2022, hunter harvest throughout the Northeast Region averaged 47 lions annually. Total human-caused lion mortality over the same period averaged 83 lions annually. Human Safety and Conflict: Northeast Humans and lions share the same landscape in much of the Northeast Region in L-ES. Lions typically avoid people and are primarily active at times when humans are not. Nevertheless, co-occupancy may result in conflicts between people and lions including predation on deer or other wildlife in close proximity to human development. Human-lion incidents vary and run a continuum from mere sightings, depredation on pets or hobby livestock to rare human attacks resulting in human injury or death. Despite the Northeast Region having the smallest area of available lion habitat of the four CPW Regions in the state, half of the documented human-lion attacks occurred in the Northeast Region. Since 1990, CPW has documented 25 statewide lion attacks on humans that resulted in injury. Eleven of those attacks occurred in the Northeast Region. During the same timeframe, two confirmed human fatalities and one suspected human fatality from lion attacks were reported in the state. One of the confirmed fatalities and the suspected fatality were in the Northeast Region, while the remaining confirmed fatality was on the boundary of the Northeast and Northwest Regions in Rocky Mountain National Park. In addition to lion attacks/injuries, the number of annual control kills of lions has nearly doubled in the Northeast Region in the last decade, averaging nine annually from 2013-2017 up to 17 from 2018-2022. Given the current human population size along the Front Range and the anticipated population growth in the future, human-lion conflicts will likely increase, especially in areas of increasing human development in occupied lion habitat. Finally, as Colorado’s human population grows, the opportunity to effectively harvest lions is reduced because lion hunting is difficult in a landscape with small parcels of ownership due to high housing density and limits on access. Opinions vary on appropriate lion abundance in suburban and ex-urban communities. Considerable agency effort is directed toward providing people with information on lion management and how to live with lions, and these efforts will continue in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, CPW prioritizes human safety above lion occupancy, especially in areas of residential development. In areas where conflicts between humans and lions are of increasing concern, specific management strategies may be necessary to find an appropriate level of human safety and tolerance for lions. The tools CPW uses to manage human-lion conflicts begin with outreach and education of communities and landowners to understand how to live, recreate and own pets or livestock in lion habitat, but may also 27 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting include hazing, translocation or euthanasia of the lion. Appendix B provides a broader discussion on human-lion conflicts and human safety. Regional Summary: Southeast Lion management in CPW’s Southeast Administrative Region is complex due to the mixture of rural and urban areas, recreation pressures, property ownership, climatic conditions, and habitat types found in the region. All indications suggest lion populations are robust in southeast Colorado. The region has highly productive lion habitat in most areas west of I-25 and the canyons and mesas east of I-25. This quality habitat provides quality lion hunting opportunities in many parts of the region, and most lion hunters use hounds or hire professional hound handlers to pursue the species. Many residents in the Southeast Region value lions and appreciate the ecosystem functions they provide, including interactions with prey populations. However, other residents are concerned about human safety and loss of livestock and pets to lions. Over the last three years, the Southeast Region has accounted for approximately 18% of the reported total statewide human-caused lion mortality. From 2020 to 2022, hunter harvest across the Southeast Region averaged 94 lions annually. Total human-caused lion mortality over the same period averaged 113 lions annually. In remote rural southeastern Colorado communities, the main concern posed by mountain lions is livestock depredation. Additionally, in other parts of the region, large ranches have been broken into 40-acre parcel subdivisions, leading to higher human densities, increased hobby farms, and a loss of historical knowledge on coexisting with large carnivores. These small parcels are also not suitable for lion hunting with hounds. Lion depredation in these areas has shifted from mainly cattle and sheep to alternative livestock, including goats, llamas, and alpacas. Closer to urban areas, the primary concern with lion management is depredation on pets and predation on wildlife in close proximity to development. Most of the land ownership in the Region, particularly east of I-25, is privately held. The L-ES DAU portion of the Southeast Region has 70% of the surface or 8 million acres in private ownership (3.5 million acres are public). Many residents are farmers and ranchers whose livelihoods depend on livestock production. To mitigate the concerns over lion game damage issues on livestock, GMUs east of I-25 (formally lion DAU L-17) were historically managed to suppress lion populations. This corresponded with harvest limits set high enough to allow for the management of conflict lions through hunting. However, lion hunting with hounds is challenging in this area due to access requirements on private land and the lack of persistent snow during the hunting season. The area west of I-25 and south of the Arkansas River is excellent lion habitat and has been managed for stable lion populations in the former lion DAUs L-16 and L-19. Snowfall during the hunting season in this part of southeastern Colorado occurs more frequently compared to the lower elevation areas east of I-25. This allows hunters the ability to pursue lions with 28 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting hounds starting with snowfalls in late November or early December. Long-time residents and CPW field staff believe lion populations are increasing in this area based on the frequency of sightings and the ability to fill harvest limits quickly. Additionally, lions are likely dispersing into this part of Colorado from New Mexico and possibly from the highly productive lion habitat in the canyons and mesas east of I-25. The northern part of the area, which was in the historic L-16 DAU, was managed for an increasing lion population from 2016-2022 as part of the Upper Arkansas research study. Lion densities are thought to be increasing in this area as well. Starting in the 2023-2024 season, lion harvest limits were increased in the L-16 DAU in accordance with research protocol. The area west of I-25 and north of Highway 50 was the historic L-11 lion DAU, managed for a stable lion population. Vegetative communities within this landscape are varied and correspond to a wide range of elevations, which yields differences in lion densities. Snowfall in the area can be sporadic and may initiate later than other parts of the Southeast Region. The northern and western portions of the unit have relatively lower-density lion habitats compared to the high-elevation Sawatch Range and lower-elevation South Park. The highestdensity lion habitat is found in the southern and eastern parts of the area, including the Arkansas River drainage and the topographically varied landscape of the Pikes Peak Region. The landscape is anchored by the Pikes Peak Massive, from which the erosive properties of drainages like Beaver Creek have carved a vast system of steep-sided canyons. Human densities in this area are also highest in the areas with high-density lion habitat, including the communities of Salida, Cañon City, and the Colorado Springs metropolitan area. Lion hunting opportunities are available throughout the unit, but can be challenging due to the mixture of public and private properties and unpredictable snowfall. Additionally, human recreation pressure is increasing, bringing humans and lions together in wildland settings. Conflicts are expected to rise throughout this area as the human population expands. We anticipate the ability to manage lion conflict through hunter harvest will become increasingly difficult in the future. Human Safety and Conflict: Southeast Human-lion conflicts in the Southeast Region include verified lion attacks on humans, aggressive behavior by lions, depredation on pets and livestock, and predation on deer and other wildlife in close proximity to development. Human-lion conflict numbers are lower in the Southeast Region than in the Northeast Region. However, conflicts still receive media attention and occur throughout much of the administrative Region. Conflicts are most common where human densities are highest. Many wildlife officers and long-time residents of the Region believe human-lion incidents, including conflicts and sightings, have increased since the previous lion management plans were enacted in 2004 and 2019. This perspective aligns with a known increase in low-density housing communities (ranchette developments) throughout much of the Region. These communities fragment habitat, reduce opportunity for lion management via hunting and also increase the potential for human-lion conflict with the presence of hobby livestock. Additionally, hound handlers, wildlife officers, and long-time residents all report an increase in the lion population throughout the Southeast Region. 29 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting As in the Northeast Region, when responding to human-lion conflicts, CPW wildlife officers follow Administrative Directives OW-2 Predator Attack on Humans, OW-13 Human-Mountain Lion Incidents, CPW Regulations Chapter W-17 Damage Caused by Wildlife, and other procedures prescribed by regulations and state statutes. Responses to human-lion conflicts in the Southeast Region begin with education, but may include hazing, translocation or euthanasia of the lion. Appendix B provides a broader discussion on human-lion conflicts and human safety. Upper Arkansas River Research Project: Southeast CPW has a decade-long lion-deer research project underway in the Upper Arkansas River drainage. It is the largest scale predator-prey project of its kind conducted in North America. The study was initiated in the winter of 2016-2017, and spanned the areas from Leadville to Cañon City (deer DAU D-16 and parts of the former lion DAU L-11) and Poncha Springs to Walsenburg (deer DAU D-34 and the former lion DAU L-16). Fieldwork for the project will conclude at the end of the winter of 2025-2026. For this study, CPW has investigated: 1) mule deer survival response to changes in lion harvest, 2) cause-specific mortality of lions, and 3) the relationship between human-lion conflict and changes in lion harvest levels. These questions are being rigorously examined through a manipulative crossover study design that allows greater inference than purely correlative studies. In this design, the lion harvest limit was set higher in D-16 (24-45 lions) than D-34 (15 lions) for the project's first three years. Following the first three years, the harvest limit was reduced to 12 lions in D-16 and kept low in D-34 at 15 lions for four years. In the final three years of the project, the harvest limit in D-34 has been increased to 35 lions, while the harvest limit for D-16 will be maintained at 12 lions. As part of the project, CPW has measured lion densities in both study areas (D-16 and D-34). This adds opportunistically to a data stream, along with similar enumeration efforts on the West Slope, to confirm and align observed lion densities with abundance index projections generated from the RSF output. Most importantly, when published, this study will add to managers’ knowledge about how changes in lion harvest, lion density and lion immigration may or may not affect levels of human-lion conflict. 30 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting East Slope (L-ES) Lion DAU Harvest Limit Groups and Harvest Limits Harvest Limit Groups Due to the Upper Arkansas lion research project, it will take two license years to enact the new harvest limit groups proposed in this plan. In 2026-2027, the L-ES DAU will initially comprise six harvest limit groups (Figure 4a), which is a reduction from the 21 harvest limit groups that comprise the six DAUs on the East Slope in 2024-2025 (Figure 4b). These harvest limit groups represent an increase in group size over previous groupings, particularly in the NE Region, but all other historic harvest management processes at the harvest limit group scale remain intact. Additionally, these six harvest limit groups will remain static for at least three years under the East Slope plan to allow hunter behavior and hunting pressure to stabilize under this new structure. Figure 4a. GMUs in the new L-ES proposed harvest limit groups for 2026-2027. Each harvest limit group is colored differently. 31 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Figure 4b. GMUs in each historic (2024-2025) harvest limit group compared to the new L-ES proposed harvest limit groups for 2026-2027 (Fig. 4a). Each harvest limit group is colored differently. L-ES Harvest Objective The six current DAUs on the East Slope have a 2024-2025 sum of harvest limits of 208 lions (Table 5). Applying the new L-ES stable objective mortality threshold to the RSF lion abundance index requires a reduction in these historic East Slope harvest limits. Because the Upper Arkansas research project will conclude in 2025-2026, the first year the entire L-ES DAU will fall under the new total human-caused mortality threshold is 2026-2027. The DAU’s total human-caused mortality threshold is 214 lions (Table 3). To derive a maximum allowable harvest level (DAU harvest objective), we needed to consider historic non-harvest human-caused mortality in the new DAU. The most recent 3-year average of all lion mortality data on the East Slope from 2020-2022 yielded an annual average non-harvest human-caused mortality rate of 27.7% (see Figure 2 in Appendix B). Allocating this assumed average to nonharvest human mortality sources leaves a maximum of 155 lions available for harvest each year (Table 6). This will be the initial L-ES harvest objective for the first three years of the plan, while incorporating the necessary Upper Arkansas harvest levels in 2025-2026. Therefore, the new L-ES sum of harvest limits for 2026-2027 represents a 26% reduction, or 53 lion decrease, from the current level in the six DAUs in 2024-2025 (Table 5). Table 7 provides 32 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting hunt code level detail on the harvest limit groups required in 2025-2026 to maintain the final year of the Upper Arkansas study design. Since lion mortality data are reviewed annually as part of harvest limit setting, changes in non-harvest mortality can affect the DAU harvest objective each year. The harvest objective may increase and decrease as the adult female proportion and total human-caused mortality thresholds are evaluated after the initial three years of implementation. Table 5. Historic Northeast and Southeast Region (Data Analysis Units L4, L-11, L-12, L16, L-17 & L-19) mountain lion harvest limit groups, harvest limits, and the 2020-2022 average annual harvest. Harvest limit group huntcode LE007O1R LE008O1R LE009O1R LE019O1R LE020O1R LE191O1R LE048O1R LE049O1R LE050O1R LE059O1R LE511O1R LE029O1R LE038O1R LE039O1R LE046O1R LE051O1R LE104O1R LE461O1R LE069O1R LE123O1R LE085O1R List of GMU(s) in harvest limit group 2024-2025 Harvest Limit 3-year Average Annual Harvest 7 8 9 19 20 191 48, 56, 481, 561 49, 57, 58, 581 50, 500, 501 59, 591 511 29 38 39, 391 46 51 104, 105, 110 461 69, 84, 86, 691, 861 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142 85, 140, 851 1 4 3 5 9 8 10 12 10 7 4 2 7 7 6 7 5 7 35 0.7 4.3 1.0 4.3 5.7 5.3 8.3 12.3 7.3 3.7 4.7 0 4.7 2.0 2.7 4.7 3.0 1.7 16.0 25 13.7 34 35.0 208 141.1 TOTAL 33 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Table 6. L-ES Data Analysis Unit mountain lion harvest limit group name, associated Game Management Units, and harvest limits for 2025-2026 and 2026-2027. Harvest Limit Group Name List of GMUs in harvest limit group 2025-2026 Harvest Limit 2026-2027 Harvest Limit I-70 North 7, 8, 9, 19, 20, 29, 38, 191 28 28 Eastern Plains 104, 105, 110, 128, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147 22 22 I-70 South 39, 46, 50, 51, 391, 461, 500, 501 19 19 Upper Arkansas 48, 49, 56, 57, 58, 481, 561, 581 10 + 12 (See Table 7) 30 Rampart 59, 511, 591 9 9 Greenhorns-Spanish Peaks 69, 84, 85, 86, 691, 851, 861 25 + 35 (See Table 7) 47 160 155 TOTAL Table 7. L-ES Data Analysis Unit mountain lion harvest limit group names, associated Game Management Units and harvest limits for 2025-2026 required for study design of final year of Upper Arkansas lion research project. Harvest Limit Group Name Upper Arkansas Greenhorns-Spanish Peaks List of 2025-2026 GMUs in harvest limit group huntcode 2025-2026 Harvest Limit LE048O1R (48, 56, 481, 561) 10 LE049O1R (49, 57, 58, 581) 12 LE085O1R (85, 851) 25 LE069O1R (69, 84, 86, 691, 861) 35 April Season Historically, the April season has contributed very little to East Slope lion harvest. However, this season does provide an additional management tool along with a hunting and hound training opportunity, particularly in areas of southeastern Colorado that receive only occasional winter snow. For the first three years of the East Slope plan, April seasons will be closed in the DAU to allow harvest and hunter behavior under the new structure to stabilize. April seasons will be considered annually beginning in the 2028-2029 season. 34 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Public Input Process CPW staff held several public meetings before drafting the East Slope plan and releasing it to the public for feedback. Following public meetings around the East Slope on lion management in February and March 2024, the Draft East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan was published on the Engage CPW website on May 15, 2024. A 30 day public input period on the draft plan was open through June 14, 2024. 181 individuals shared public input during the 30 day period. Five stakeholder organizations also provided input. Additionally, CPW staff solicited a peer review of the draft plan as well as an academic review by independent, objective professionals in the field. A detailed summary of public engagement and input is provided in Appendix E. Following the public input period, members of the public were encouraged to submit comments on the plan directly to the Parks and Wildlife Commission for their consideration. Lion Density Monitoring and Future Research Needs Lion Density Monitoring Developing robust estimates of current lion density in survey areas around Colorado will help improve and refine assumptions made in the RSF model. Empirically-derived estimates will also serve to confirm projected lion densities that are being applied as part of the current West Slope and proposed East Slope plans to generate the total human-caused mortality threshold. This type of rigorous lion abundance monitoring is recommended by Beausoleil et al (2016), Alldredge et al. (2019), Murphy et al (2019), Logan and Runge (2021) and others. Additionally, Colorado’s present and future density estimation study design structure addresses many of the biases described by Murphy et al. (2022) in many past studies enumerating lion populations. Beginning in the winter of 2020-2021, CPW initiated work in survey areas on the West Slope that are representative of lion habitat and that reflect a gradient of lion hunting pressure, land ownership and habitat types. A spatial mark-resight density estimation protocol was employed, which produces more precise estimates of lion numbers than mark-recapture efforts used in the past (Alldredge et al. 2019, Murphy et al. 2019, Murphy et al. 2022). This survey technique relies on remote game cameras distributed across the survey area to “resight” lions from repeated photos over time. A proportion of lions in the population are “marked” using GPS collars and eartags labeled with unique visual identifiers. The proportion and capture pattern of known marked lions versus unmarked individuals allows estimation of density. Spatial data acquired from GPS collars addresses geographic closure and improves density estimates based on the proportion of time each collared lion spent on the survey area (Alldredge et al. 2019, Murphy et al. 2019). This correction tends to reduce overall density estimates, but results in a more accurate estimate. To achieve a desired precision so the estimates are meaningful in the context of evaluating the RSF, each survey area is ~2,000 km2 and requires marking and maintaining a sample of approximately 20-25 independent lions going into the resight period each year. Each survey area is divided into ~25 km2 cells and a remote game camera and call box is installed in each cell. Resight sampling occurs for a 35 �East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting minimum of eight weeks during mid-January to mid-March. This time period was chosen because bears are not active during these months and most of the lion harvest is completed by this time. Therefore, estimated initial lion densities will represent a post-hunt estimate on winter range, similar to the techniques and procedures currently being employed in CPW’s Upper Arkansas research project. Involvement of local hound handlers in each study area have proven invaluable to the success of lion captures in these projects. There is some level of uncertainty around the density or abundance point estimate obtained in all lion population enumeration in Colorado or in the literature. By pursuing field studies that directly measure lion numbers in Colorado, across varying habitat types, landownership patterns and harvest levels, CPW can align population projections with the most appropriate empirical data. As enacted under the West Slope lion plan, CPW intends to expand lion density monitoring studies on the East Slope upon implementation of this plan. Initial areas identified for these studies include: 1) the canyons, mesas, and plateaus south of Highway 50 and east of I-25 in southeastern Colorado, and 2) the southern portion of the Greenhorns-Spanish Peaks Harvest Limit Group (GMUs 85 & 851). Including one or both of these areas in our density estimation work will serve to support and align CPW’s RSF modeling process and its resulting abundance projections to more accurately reflect current lion population status across habitats and land ownership types on both West and East Slopes. Future Research Needs Numerous avenues of potential research exist into the future in Colorado. Some are already underway, others require commitment of significant resources that are outside the framework of this plan, and others may be best evaluated after several years of implementing this East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan. Below are several topics that have been identified as future research needs. ● Investigate and update research on public perceptions and opinions about lion management including a formal human dimensions survey of Coloradans ● Update and realign the statewide Resource Selection Function model using all the additional lion habitat use and density information gathered in the last 10 years ● Evaluate changes in available ungulate and lion habitat on the East Slope under continuing human development during the life of the plan to determine if adjustments to the Resource Selection Function strata are required ● Evaluate presumed source and sink locations to determine if predictions reflect functionality 36 �Appendix A: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Colorado East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan Appendix A Mountain lion life history, ecology, and monitoring Introduction: This review of current scientific literature begins by briefly describing where and how lions live in Colorado, including a review of lion densities and predator-prey relationships. Lastly, a summary is provided of both commonly used field and harvest index-driven methods to monitor lion populations. Distribution The historic range of the mountain lion (Puma concolor; hereafter lion) was the largest of any terrestrial mammal in the Western Hemisphere, with the exception of humans (Logan and Sweanor 2001). The lion continues to range from the southern tip of South America to northern British Columbia (Logan and Sweanor 2001) but was apparently extirpated from the eastern US and Canada, with the exception of southern Florida, by the late 1800s to early 1900s. Between the mid-1960s and the early 1990s, lion populations increased in many western states, and their distribution expanded to Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota. In Alberta, Canada, lion distribution has expanded to the north and east from 1991 to 2010 (Knopff et al. 2010). The Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group [CMGWG] (2005) and Fecske et al. (2011) suggest that population recovery and expansion may be due in part to reclassifying lions from unregulated predator status to game animal (which has regulated human off-take since 1965), science-based management practices, increases in prey abundance, restricted uses of pesticides since the 1970s, and increased human tolerance for large carnivores. On the East Slope of Colorado, lions occupy nearly all timbered or tall shrub-covered habitats west of Interstate 25 (I-25). Quality lion habitat on the East Slope is well-connected from the Wyoming border south to the New Mexico border (see Figure 3 in Appendix C). East of I-25, there are resident lion populations beginning around Castle Rock, southeast of Denver to an area known as the Black Forest, which has varied topography, timber with tall shrub cover and abundant deer and elk populations. Additional lion populations exist in the canyons, mesas, and plateaus south and east of Pueblo. Dispersal patterns and genetic evidence suggest that most western US lion populations are well connected (Culver et al. 2000, Sinclair et al. 2001, Anderson et al. 2004). Extreme movements of male lions in excess of 1,000 km have been documented (Thompson and Jenks 2005). These long-range movements provide a very effective means of genetic transfer and population maintenance to lion populations in distant regions. Gene flow among lion populations in the Central Rocky Mountains suggests this region exists as one large lion population with rapid genetic exchange among suitable habitat patches throughout the region 1 �Appendix A: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting (Anderson et al. 2004). Consequently, little or no genetic population substructuring has been found in Colorado (Sinclair et al. 2001, McRae 2004, Trumbo et al. 2019). Habitat Use The broad geographic distribution of the lion in North America attests to its ability to persist in natural habitats wherever there is adequate prey and cover (CMGWG 2005). Previous lion habitat studies in the western US suggest lions select conifer, deciduous timber, riparian, and tall shrub habitat types at mid-high elevations in steep or rugged terrain (Logan and Irwin 1985, Laing 1988, Koehler and Hornocker 1991, Williams et al. 1995, Dickson and Beier 2002). Tall vegetation or rugged terrain sufficient for concealment provides the necessary hiding and stalking cover for securing prey and raising young (CMGWG 2005). Lions may be found in climates ranging from arid, desert regions to temperate rainforests of the Pacific Coast. Vast, open areas with little hiding cover and the severely cold winter temperatures of northern climates may restrict lion use (Pierce and Bleich 2003). Despite the lion’s broad distribution and adaptability, habitat fragmentation associated with human development can negatively impact lion populations (Beier 1993, Vickers et al. 2015). In southern California, major highways were implicated in restricting the size and configuration of lion home ranges and limiting gene flow in populations by constraining dispersal patterns (Riley et al. 2006, Dellinger et al. 2020). Evaluation of genetic information and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) location data from a monitored lion population in northern Colorado (Alldredge 2015, Trumbo et al. 2019) showed high gene flow through wellconnected habitats in contrast to results from California (Riley et al. 2006, Gustafson et al. 2022). The magnitude of the human population in the Greater Los Angeles Area (~20,000,000) may explain the differences in observations. Nevertheless, increased construction of roads and homes in lion habitat may reduce the amount and quality of habitat available to lions and their primary prey [e.g., deer and elk], but may increase the number of alternative prey sources [raccoon, fox, domestic pets and hobby livestock] (Moss et al. 2019). Moreover, medium to low-density ex-urban development in parts of Colorado serve as refugia for mule deer and can experience higher densities of mule deer than those found in similar public land habitats (Colorado Parks and Wildlife Terrestrial Section unpublished data). This is likely the case in significant portions of the East Slope, where high human densities bring pets and hobby livestock into the wildland-urban interface, where mule deer are often protected from hunting pressure. Lions can exist at high densities in these areas where high natural prey density meets higher anthropogenic prey item availability (Alldredge et al. 2019). Lion Social Structure and Reproduction The social behavior of lions likely evolved to maximize individual survival and reproductive success (Logan and Sweanor 2001). Lions are solitary carnivores exhibiting a polygynous breeding strategy where dominant males typically breed with females that reside within their home range (Murphy 1998, Logan 2019). Resident males aggressively defend their territories against male intruders, whereas females allow more overlap, but express mutual avoidance (Lindzey et al. 1989, Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Logan and Sweanor 2001, Logan 2019). The size of female home ranges tend to be large enough to provide sufficient prey for themselves and 2 �Appendix A: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting their young (~50-100 km2, 20-40 mi2), while male home ranges tend to be larger (~150-300 km2, 60-120 mi2), overlapping several females, apparently to maximize their reproductive success (Murphy 1998). Home ranges found in Colorado vary widely, from 309 km2 for females and 503 km2 for males on the Uncompahgre Plateau (Anderson et al. 1992) to 188 km2 for females and 253 km2 for males on the Southern Ute Indian Nation in southwestern Colorado (Koloski 2002). In recently completed research on the Uncompahgre Plateau and along the East Slope north of Denver, home range sizes were similar to, if not slightly larger than, those reported by Murphy (1998)(Ken Logan, CPW, personal communication 2015, Mat Alldredge, CPW, personal communication 2020, Logan and Runge 2021). Young females commonly express philopatric behavior (remain in their natal range) upon independence, but males typically disperse from their natal range (Anderson et al. 1992, Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Lindzey et al. 1994, Logan and Sweanor 2001). Lion densities are low relative to other large mammals ranging from about 1 independent (>12-18 months old and self-sufficient) lion/100 km2 (38.6 mi2) in arid climates (Ashman 1976, Lindzey et al. 1994) to nearly 5 independent lions/100 km2 in generally more mesic areas (Currier et al. 1977, Hopkins 1989, Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Robinson et al. 2008, Cooley et al. 2009b, Proffitt et al. 2015, Alldredge et al. 2019) (Table 1). Both Whittaker and Wolfe (2011) and Murphy et al. (2019) point out that density estimates are strongly influenced by the methods used to assess the population size in a given area. This may help explain why more recent non-invasive techniques and spatially-explicit models have yielded density estimates on the higher end of the previously observed ranges in some cases. 3 �Appendix A: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Table 1. Mountain lion densities reported or derived from surveyed areas in the western United States and Canada, 1986-2023. All densities reported as the number of lions per 100 km 2. Location Washington Vicinity NE- Wash. Survey Area Independent Total Number Size Mountain Mountain Survey (km2) Lion Density Lion Density Years Notes 9 Hunted 2878 2.2 2.1-2.6 Idaho SE Idaho ~900 Colorado Boulder 800 Colorado Middle Park 2050 Colorado Gunnison Basin 2000 Washington NE- Wash. 1252 Monroe Mts 1300 Oquirrh Mts Utah Wyoming Snowy Mts 2 Genetic SCR Loonam et al. 2020 4.1 3 Lightly hunted Alldredge et al. 2019 2.1- 2.8 2 Post-hunt Vieira, CPW 2023 3.7 1 Post-hunt Vieira, CPW 2023 4 Space to event model McMurry et al. 2023 1.2-3.2 9 Hunted 480 2.5-2.9 8 Unhunted 383 2.4 439 3.4 1 1700 1.2-3.2 Pre-treatment. Then thru 2 Anderson and Lindzey treatment yrs followed by 3 2005 recovery yrs. 3.2-6.5 3.9 Wyoming Bighorn Mts 741 1.8-2.3 Montana Bitterroot Mts 2625 4.5-5.2 Washington NE-Wash. 735 Montana Blackfoot drainage 7908 5 Garnet Mts. 915 Hunted. Kittens defined as <24mos comprised 50% of Logan et al. 1986 the pop. 1 Hunted Proffitt et al. 2015 5.0 6 Hunted, Kittens <12mos = 30% of the population Robinson et al. 2008 3.7 (2.3-5.7) 6.7 (3.1-11.0) 1 Hunted Russell et al. 2012 11 2.2 San Andreas Mts West-central 2059 1.5-2.1 Yr 1 Unhunted, Kittens <12mos = 30% of population across all years of study After 3 yrs Hunted Robinson and DeSimone 2011 After 3 yrs Hunted w/refugia in part of area 3.6 New Mexico Stoner et al. 2006 2 3.5-4.6 4.0 Montana Reference Beausoleil et al. 2016 1.7-4.3 7 Simulated hunting effect Logan and Sweanor 2001 655 3.6 (3.0-4.2) 5 Lightly hunted NE 772 3.5 (2.8-4.2) 5 Heavily hunted Oregon NE Oregon 225 4.2-5.0 1 Hunted Davidson et al. 2014 Utah South-central 1900 0.4-0.9 0.6-1.4 9 Unhunted Lindzey et al. 1994 Utah/Idaho SE-ID & NW-UT 1700 1.0-2.1 1.6-2.8 15 Hunted Laundre et al. 2007 8 Hunted. Kittens/“juveniles” defined Ross and Jalkotzy as <24 mos. are not 1992 included in the average independent density 2 Unhunted, but hunted prior to study. Kittens/“juveniles” defined Spreadbury et al. as <24 mos. = 50-58% of 1996 population and are not included in the independent density Washington Alberta British Columbia Sheep River SE-BC 780 540 2.6 1.5-1.7 2.7-4.7 3.5-3.7 4 Cooley et al. 2009b �Appendix A: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Female lions typically produce their first litter at 2-3 years of age (Anderson 1983, Ashman et al. 1983, Logan and Sweanor 2001) and may breed at any time of the year, but exhibit defined seasonal birth pulses. Logan and Runge (2021) found that the average age females in their study produced a first litter was two years and eight months. Data on 66 Colorado kitten birthdates show litters were only born from March to September during this same 10year study (Logan and Runge 2021). Data from seven lion studies in western North America indicate that May through October are the peak months for lion parturition (CMGWG 2005). Gestation lasts 82-96 days and lions typically produce two to four young (Logan et al. 1986, Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Logan and Sweanor 2001). Kittens are usually weaned at 2–3 months and typically remain with the female for 12–18 months before becoming independent (Pierce and Bleich 2003). Food Habits and Prey Relationships Lion diets consist primarily of large vertebrate prey species. Throughout much of North America, deer comprise the majority of lion diets (Pierce and Bleich 2003), but other large ungulates such as elk (Cervus canadensis), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), moose (Alces alces), and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) may also be consumed (Ross and Jalkotzy 1996, Ross et al. 1997, Murphy 1998, Anderson and Lindzey 2003). In states with feral horse populations, equids are also a prey source (Andreasen et al. 2021). Although lions primarily subsist on large ungulates, small mammals, including porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum), skunks (Mephitis mephitis and Spilogale gracilis), raccoons (Procyon lotor), lagomorphs (hares and rabbits), ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), and beavers (Castor canadensis) may also supplement lion diets. Other carnivores, including bobcats (Lynx rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans), have also been recorded. Lions also occasionally prey on domestic livestock and pets. Sheep and goats are the most commonly killed domestic livestock, but lions also kill cattle, horses, and pets, including dogs and cats (CMGWG 2005, Moss et al. 2016). Scavenging is also a more important contributor to lion diets than was believed 20-30 years ago (Knopf et al. 2010, Blecha et al. 2015). Scientific efforts reveal the complexity of predator-prey relationships, yet many people are not well-versed in this understanding (Murphy et al. 2011). A fundamental understanding of predation consequences is required to meet societal goals for prey and predator populations (Gassaway et al. 1992). Failure to correctly apply the key principles of predator-prey interactions invites management mistakes, can misspend money (Kie et al. 2003) and may erode public confidence in management agencies. These points stress the importance of reviewing and incorporating the most current and relevant scientific information regarding predator-prey relationships into management. In single-prey systems, predation by lions and other predators is not believed to widely trigger declines of prey or depress prey populations for extended (>15 years) time periods (Ballard and Van Ballenberghe 1997, Ballard et al. 2001). However, if extreme weather or other disruptions significantly lower prey numbers below maximum sustained yield (Figure 1) predation may delay the prey’s density-dependent response and prolong low numbers. This effect may occur if the expected drop in lion numbers naturally lags behind that of the 5 �Appendix A: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting primary prey (Logan and Sweanor 2001, CMGWG 2005, Laundré et al. 2006), as is common for population cycles of Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) in Canada and Alaska. The density-dependence model of mortality should be highly familiar to students of wildlife management in North America because it is a foundational principle for hunting many game populations. Under this paradigm of wildlife management, hunters take animals that may die from other causes (“compensatory” mortality), but they are only removing this surplus of animals from the population. When wildlife agencies determine that additional mortality is necessary to manage wildlife populations, harvest and license levels are increased to allow hunters to take more animals. This regulated increase in harvest to reduce population size is then considered “additive” mortality (NFRTC 2001, CPW Hunter Education 2014). Figure 1. Density dependence: the relationship between the number of prey recruited and the density of the prey population. At low prey numbers mortality tends to be additive. At high prey numbers mortality tends to be compensatory. (Murphy et al. [2011] derived from McCullough [1979], Bailey [1984], and Bowyer et al. [2005]). Under some circumstances, in multiple prey systems, lions may have sustained limiting effects on their large or mid-sized prey (Berger and Wehausen 1991, Sweitzer et al. 1997, Krausman and Shackleton 2000, Ballard et al. 2001, Kinley and Apps 2001, Novaro and Walker 2005, Wittmer et al. 2005). At the extreme, lion predation, often acting in concert with other factors, also may reduce the viability of small or declining prey populations and mammalian diversity (Sweitzer et al. 1997, Ernest et al. 2002, Wittmer et al. 2005). These situations often involve a mix of primary and alternate prey (wild or exotic), as well as human-induced changes in plant communities that collectively help maintain lion numbers. In these situations, predator populations that would normally decrease as their prey populations are reduced, are supported by other, more numerous prey populations (Pierce and Bleich 2003). In most of Colorado, it is likely that lion predation functions primarily within the multiple prey model; on the Uncompahgre Plateau and the northern Front Range, lions preyed on mule deer and elk, and in the northern Front Range, small prey played a significant role in lion diets (Blecha et al. 2015, Moss et al. 2016). 6 �Appendix A: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting The potential impacts of lions on prey populations are largely dependent on the condition of the prey and their habitat. In areas where prey habitat is in good condition, prey body condition will also be greater. Thus, more individuals in the prey population are likely to survive in the absence of predation. However, in prey populations where individuals are in poor condition due to poor forage quality, those individuals are more likely to die regardless of predation. Therefore, lion predation on ungulates in good physical condition is more likely to be additive to other causes of mortality. Conversely, lion predation on ungulates in poor physical condition (that is, ungulates in populations that exceed Kecol [ecological carrying capacity]) is more likely to be compensatory (Logan and Sweanor 2001)(Figure 1). In addition, healthy prey populations likely exhibit higher reproductive rates and are more likely to offset predatory regulation by producing more young than are consumed by predators. Ungulate populations exhibiting the characteristics of limitation by predation (Table 2) may benefit from increased lion harvest. Prey populations limited mainly by habitat conditions will not likely benefit from increases in local lion harvest except during the initial phases of habitat recovery, allowing more rapid response of the prey population to improved forage conditions. Additionally, in situations where abundant alternate prey are lacking, a decline in lion numbers will naturally follow the decrease in the ungulate population regardless of lion harvest levels (CMGWG 2005). Table 2. Characteristics of ungulate-prey populations regulated by predation and populations regulated by forage conditions (CMGWG 2005, page 15). Life history characteristic Physical condition of adult females Population size mainly affected by predationb better Population size mainly affected by forage poorer Pregnancy rate of adult females higher lower Pause in annual production by adult females less likely more likely Yearlings pregnanta usually seldom Corpora lutea counts of adult femalesa higher lower Litter sizea higher lower Age at first reproduction for females younger older Weight of neonates heavier lighter Mortality of young additive compensatory Age at extensive tooth wear older younger Diet quality higher lower aSome species of ungulates may show limited variability in these characteristics. bThese traits will be evident in any population far below carrying capacity, even if it experiences no predation. The manager should have evidence that predation is a limiting factor before concluding that reducing predation would increase ungulate recruitment. The extent to which lion predation influences the abundance of ungulate populations seems to depend upon the ungulate population size, its productivity, the quality of its habitat, the presence of alternate prey, and lion abundance. Most notably, lion predation can suppress the growth of small, island-like populations of bighorn sheep (Ross et al. 1997, Kamler et al. 2002, Rominger et al. 2004a, Rominger et al. 2004b). In addition, the effect of lion predation on a small population of bighorn sheep can be influenced by the presence of more abundant 7 �Appendix A: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting prey, such as mule deer, that is more important to provisioning the lions on the same range (Johnson et al. 2013). Lions have annually removed an estimated 15-20% of the mule deer population on the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona (Shaw 1980), 8-12% of the mule deer population on the Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado (Anderson et al. 1992), and 2-3% of elk and 3-5% of mule deer in the northern Yellowstone Ecosystem (Murphy 1998). Yet, the mere presence of predation does not necessarily indicate that an ungulate population is limited by predators. Nor does lion predation necessarily indicate suppression or regulation of the prey population (Ballard et al. 2001). For example, in the Chihuahua desert of southern New Mexico, where neither lions or mule deer were hunted, Logan and Sweanor (2001) revealed that the effect of lion predation on a population of deer was conditional upon deer habitat quality as influenced by weather. Lion predation apparently slowed the growth rate of the deer population but did not stop it from growing during good habitat years. The data indicated that lion predation was partially additive and partially compensatory as the deer population grew, but it was strongly compensatory as the deer population declined during drought. In California, Pierce et al. (2012) examined the relative strengths of predation, mostly by lions, and habitat quality on a mule deer population and found that predation slowed but did not prevent deer population growth when food was not limiting the deer. They concluded that deer mortality during a time when the deer population declined and was at (or near) winter range carrying capacity, was mostly compensatory. However, during the time when the deer population was rebounding from a low phase and not limited by food, lion predation was likely additive mortality. Researchers in the New Mexico and California studies identified a period when lion abundance lagged behind the deer population decline, and that it was during this time that lion predation had the strongest effect. They suggested that the lag period for lion numbers following deer declines could be four to eight years (Laundre et al. 2007, Pierce et al. 2012). Other investigations of mule deer population trends have demonstrated population expansion and contraction to be highly correlated with the availability and quality of forage (Clements and Young 1996, Peek et al. 2002). The severity of winters in the current and previous years was the most influential predictor of deer population growth rates in Idaho (Hurley et al. 2011). In that study, lion control increased fawn:doe ratios, but did not affect deer population growth. Several recent studies support a conclusion that the potential abundance of mule deer is determined mainly by the nutritional quality and availability of forage and not by lion predation (Bishop et al. 2005, Bender et al. 2007, Hurley et al. 2011, Pierce et al. 2012, Montieth et al. 2014). Monteith et al. (2014) suggested a path forward utilizing a model that predicts expected population demographic rates from measuring nutritional carrying capacity (NCC). Their approach focuses on the capacity of the habitat and reduces the need to estimate population abundance. The degree that predation is compensatory or additive can be assessed by comparing the estimated NCC for survival and recruitment of young based on the predictive model (Monteith et al. 2014) to those same demographic rates measured empirically in that system. This would be useful for quantifying the effects of predation and 8 �Appendix A: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting provides a basis for determining the likely efficacy of predator control to enhance ungulate populations. Bergman et al. (2015) examined the published evidence on mule deer population management and concluded that herds in Colorado are most likely limited by the quality of available winter range habitat and that the influence that lion predation may have on mule deer population dynamics (that is, variation in growth rates) is poorly understood. Considering the extent of lion habitat in Colorado and the conservative approach to lion harvest strategies, they hypothesize that lion predation on mule deer is probably weakly additive. In the Upper Arkansas River, CPW researchers stopped investigating the impact of lion predation on deer survival in 2023 because the first six years of data showed deer survival was relatively high and predation mortality attributed to lions was relatively low, even under different levels of harvest pressure on lions (CPW Mammals Wildlife Research Report, 2024). Even in a system where lion predation is primarily compensatory, hunters may be in competition with lions for preferred prey (i.e., mule deer). If demand for mule deer is high (hunter interest) and access to the resource is constrained (limited licenses), then deer dying from other means can be seen by some, as lost hunting opportunity. Lion predation can be viewed as competition for access to the resource. The conflict here results from the tension between a short-term desire for hunting opportunities and a long-term view of population management of both lions and mule deer. Ultimately this is not a matter of biological capacity or ecological function; these considerations are outside the bounds of a value-driven decision regarding mule deer and lion management. If lions are perceived as competitors for a limited resource such as mule deer, some may seek reductions in lion numbers to lessen this competition. Determining allocation of deer mortality levels to hunters and how much deer mortality from predation is acceptable is not a decision that science can make. It is a valuebased decision, which must be left to evaluation in the social, and not biological, realm. The body of evidence suggests that in most cases, efforts to reduce the impact of lion predation on mule deer are likely to be expensive and the effect, if any, is likely to be relatively short-lived. Such efforts are also likely to be unpopular with some non-hunting segments of the human population. Mountain Lion Population Monitoring Although lion populations have previously been monitored with intensive capture efforts over relatively small areas, reliable and affordable techniques to monitor lion populations for large-scale management programs are lacking. The two main approaches to lion population monitoring are field methods and harvest data analysis. Field methods may obtain information directly about lion abundance, demographics and vital rates and/or population trend, whereas harvest data analysis can provide indications of population trends. 9 �Appendix A: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Field Methods Field methods pertain to efforts by biologists to gather data on lions directly or indirectly via evidence they leave in the environment. Some methods are used to estimate lion numbers, while others are indices to relative lion abundance. A recent review of work related to lion density estimates and related biases is provided in Murphy et al. (2022). The lion abundance estimation methodology that CPW has used the last 8 years (spatially-explicit mark-resight) is described first in the section below, but both mark-recapture and camera-only techniques are employed in a number of recent studies in the literature. Spatially-explicit Mark-resight: Colorado Parks and Wildlife research and management staff have employed a mark-resight population sampling method for abundance estimation of lions since 2017 (Alldredge et al. 2019, Mat Alldredge and Mark Vieira, CPW, personal communication 2024). Initial work demonstrated that results are valid, have acceptable confidence intervals on estimates, and can be conducted at a reasonable cost at a management scale such as the Upper Arkansas study area. As part of the West Slope lion management plan, CPW initiated lion density monitoring studies using this approach in Middle Park (2020-2022) and the Gunnison Basin (2021-2023). This technique now provides reference densities in various locations with diverse habitat quality to allow testing and improvements of our resource selection function (RSF) model. This approach uses a game call to lure lions to a site where a game camera records photos of the animal. A portion of the lion population in the study area is “marked” with GPS collars and eartags before the camera deployment, so both capture probabilities and rigorous density estimates are obtained while addressing study area closure issues that typically plague lion studies (Mat Alldredge and Jon Runge, CPW, personal communication 2024). This recent work in Colorado using the spatially-explicit method described above is fundamental in generating site-specific abundance or density estimates. Given the importance of numerical density assumptions in the existing RSF model, CPW continues the commitment of conducting rigorous estimates of density in multiple survey areas of western Colorado. As part of this East Slope plan, CPW will begin implementing additional density monitoring in the L-ES Data Analysis Unit (DAU). These future density estimates will be used in addition to existing estimates from recent Colorado research to further align and improve our understanding of lion populations in the state. Complete Enumeration: Very intensive field efforts to capture, tag and radio-collar lions along with GPS/radio-tracking to discern movements of unique individuals to combine with ground-tracking and harvest information have historically provided the most reliable estimates of lion abundance in specified study areas (CMGWG 2005). This method produces high-quality data on sex and age structure, survival, agent-specific mortality, reproduction, emigration, and other animal movements that generally cannot be obtained with the other methods. This method is the most expensive and is impractical for lion management on a broader landscape scale beyond a small study area where spatial closure can be assured. 10 �Appendix A: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Where abundance estimates are the primary parameter of interest, such as a DAU or other management-level population scale, attempts at complete enumeration are impractical. Mark-Recapture: Chapman’s 1951 modification of the Lincoln-Peterson (L-P) estimator (Pollock et al. 1990) was used in an effort to estimate lion numbers in Wyoming (Anderson and Lindzey 2005) and Utah (Choate et al. 2006). The Wyoming effort used a captured and marked sample of lions at the beginning of each sampling period and used lions killed by hunters and observed by researchers after the hunting season as the recaptured sample. Population estimates had 90% confidence intervals ±20-39% of the estimates (n = 5). The Utah study derived population estimates by determining the identity of lions detected from their tracks on snow as either marked or unmarked by using radio-telemetry or by pursuing the animal to capture and observe it. The estimates tended to track the changes in the reference population adequately. But, estimates were on average negatively biased by 17 ± 14%, and 95% confidence intervals were widely variable from ± 0 to 50% of the estimates (n = 7, Monroe Mts., Choate et al. 2006). Multiple capture occasions can be designed into the mark-recapture field operations with the intent to achieve greater precision in population estimates and allow more mark-recapture-type models to be applied in terms of modeling the data (e.g., variations in capture probability by animal type, time, observer, and incorporation of covariates) (Amstrup et al. 2005). These methods are suitable for intensive research on a specified study area, especially to establish a reference for local population abundance and attendant effects of manipulation and experimentation. Russell et al. (2012) gathered genetic samples from lions one winter in a management unitsize area (7,908 km2) in Montana. They used a combination of a non-invasive method (backtracking to collect hair samples) and treeing and biopsy darting lions to genotype individuals, and used spatial capture-recapture models to estimate abundance. Their lion density estimates, including all lions (i.e., adults, subadults, and kittens) varied by model structure, ranging from 3.7 lions/100 km2 (95% CI=3.6-5.7) from a base model (including an effect of distance on detection probability) to 6.7 lions/100 km2 (95% CI=3.1-11.0) from a full model (including effects of distance, sex, survey effort, and distance x sex on detection probability). Proffitt et al. (2015) also gathered genetic samples from lions one winter in a 2,625 km2 area spanning two lion management units in Montana. They treed and biopsy darted lions to genotype individuals to estimate abundance using spatial capture-recapture models and predicted habitat use as a covariate. They estimated a median density of independent lions (i.e., adults and subadults only) from 4.5 lions/100 km2 (95% CI= 2.9-7.7) to 5.2 lions/100 km2 (95% CI=3.4-9.1). In northeastern Washington, biopsy dart sampling of the population when integrated with hunter harvest data was able to detect a population decline across multiple years that was noted in independent mark-recapture efforts in the same research area (Beausoleil et al. 2016). Wyoming and South Dakota have applied this technique to estimate annual lion abundance. Their experience suggests that it can be effective if a sufficiently high number of marks and recaptures can be obtained on a multi-year basis (Daniel Thompson, Wyoming Game and Fish, personal communication 2024). 11 �Appendix A: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Davidson et al. (2014) surveyed a 220 km2 area with scat detection dogs over a 4-week period in Oregon. The dogs found lion scats that were used in DNA analysis to genotype individuals. Individual capture histories were used in four capture-recapture models to estimate total lion abundance. Density estimates including all lions (adults, subadults, and kittens) were: 4.6 lions/100 km2 (95% CI=3.8-8.3) for the Huggins model, 4.8 lions/100 km2 (95% CI=4.2-7.8) for the Multiple Detection Poisson model, 4.2 lions/100 km2 (95% CI=3.3-5.3) for the CAPWIRE model, and 5.0 lions/100 km2 (95% CI=3.2-7.7) for the Spatially Explicit Capture-Recapture model. Photographic Rates as an Index to Lion Abundance: Photographic rates of lions might provide a non-invasive index for assessing trends in lion abundance. Such an approach has been used with tigers and showed camera days per tiger photo correlates with independent estimates of tiger density (Carbone et al. 2001). In addition, photographic rates (i.e., leopard photos/100 trap-nights) were an index to snow leopard abundance (McCarthy et al. 2008). Advances in this method of just using cameras have recently been evaluated for direct density estimation in lions, where a different analytical approach is used to handle the fact that lions don’t possess individual “marks” on their pelage. Loonam et al. (2020) reported success in estimating the density of two lion populations in Idaho from 2016-2019 using camera-only based methods and comparing those results to more conventional genetic spatial capture-recapture models. They estimated lion density using both time-to-event and space-to-event models which employ remote cameras and did not require any marking or handling of the population. Both of these methods compared well to capture-recapture models, and offer several advantages particularly when estimating densities over large study areas with low-density species, like lions. McMurry et al. (2022) provide a density estimate obtained in Washington using a space-to-event modeling approach and compare that to previously obtained lion densities from the state. This type of work suggests that camera-only approaches are cheaper and prove themselves easier in providing density estimates without loss in precision over capture-recapture efforts that require obtaining genetic samples or handling animals. Alternative Field Methods These methods are not commonly used in present lion field work but are provided for reference as they have been historically included in methodology. Helicopter-Based Track Probability Sampling: This method involves detecting and following lion tracks in ideal snow conditions along transects from a low-flying helicopter to estimate lion numbers. It is intended for general lion management purposes in representative areas, but still requires field validation for estimator precision. Results of this approach applied to lions in the wild have been reported twice in the literature and with mixed results. Field operations and data quality (i.e., bias) are limited by the difficulty in meeting conditions to observe lion tracks from a helicopter, including: 1-2 nights after snowfall with no wind to cover tracks or crust snow, dense vegetation canopy, helicopter availability, and avoidance of unstable weather and physical obstacles that makes such low-flying dangerous (Van Sickle and 12 �Appendix A: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Lindzey 1991, Anderson 2003, Choate et al. 2006). One study in Utah used this method in one survey and reported an accurate but imprecise lion population estimate when compared to a reference population (i.e., 14.2 ± 6.3 standard error, Van Sickle and Lindzey 1991). In another Utah study, investigators observed poor accuracy, poor precision, and inconsistent biases. Some estimates of the lion population were grossly overestimated by 120 to 284% (using the Becker 1991 method) and exhibited poor precision with standard errors of 25-55% of the reference density (Choate et al. 2006). Adjusted population estimates using Anderson’s (2003) correction for low movement lengths derived from computer simulations resulted in underestimates of 26 to 88% of the reference population. In addition, Anderson’s (2003) modification using random track lengths resulted in inconsistent biases of ±22-59% of the reference population (Choate et al. 2006). Ground-Based Track Surveys: This method is intended for use as a trend indicator in representative areas for general lion management purposes. Track surveys have been used to monitor lion populations in California (Smallwood 1994, Smallwood and Fitzhugh 1995) and Arizona (Cunningham et al. 1995). This method requires transect sampling areas where lion tracks are detectable and provides presence-absence data with confidence interval estimates. Beier and Cunningham (1996) reported that sampling 140 and 110 8-km-long transects would be required to detect 30% and 50% population declines, respectively (80% power, α = 0.05). The difficulty in implementing track surveys is ensuring that transects are well distributed throughout the population in areas where access may be limited and also the unpredictability of favorable tracking conditions. The level of effort required to detect useful population changes likely limits the application of this method to once every few to several years. Researchers in Utah applied summer track surveys and found statistically significant relationships (P<0.03) between winter lion density and summer-time track-finding frequency (i.e., no. track sets/km searched). The investigators concluded that ground-based track surveys are the least expensive and might be the most efficient method, and offered two suggestions for improvement. First, winter track counts would be more efficient than summer track counts because the tracking substrate is superior and should increase track detection rates. Second, because removal of lions during a hunting season may bias survey results, track surveys should be conducted prior to a hunting season to more closely relate the index to the population of interest (Choate et al. 2006). Harvest Data Harvest data pertains to information gathered on hunter-killed lions and hunters by the managing agency. Methods based on these data are intended for general lion management as an indicator of population trends. Relationships of Lion Harvest to Population Abundance: Researchers in Wyoming developed and validated this method on an experimentally manipulated reference lion population (Anderson and Lindzey 2005). The researchers found that the sex and age composition of the harvest varied predictably with lion population size because the likelihood of a specific sex or age class of lion being harvested (with the use of hounds) was a product of the relative abundance of particular sex and age classes in the population and their relative vulnerability 13 �Appendix A: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting to harvest. Wolfe et al. (2015) revealed other potentially useful indices to abundance. The percent of permits filled and the minimum abundance index were positively correlated. The percent of individuals in the harvest >6 years old was positively correlated with annual survival, annual adult male survival, and annual female survival. There was a negative relationship between the annual number of female lions in the harvest and the annual lion survival rate. Likewise, there was a negative relationship between the annual proportion of females in the harvest and the annual lion survival rate. Catch-Per-Unit Effort: Researchers in Utah quantified catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) of their research teams and hunters for each year as the number of days to capture a lion. In each case, they found that CPUE was a poor predictor of lion population size (Choate et al. 2006). However, using a data set over a longer period of time, Wolfe et al. (2016) found a strong relationship between the number of lions treed per day during the pursuit season and the index of minimum annual lion abundance. 14 �Appendix B: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Colorado East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan Appendix B Mountain lion management history in Colorado and the east slope Historical Management, Game Damage and Conflicts: This section provides a description of the history of lion management in Colorado. This appendix also provides a review of recent game damage and human-lion conflict information. Data from Colorado is provided, illustrating that areas of high human-lion conflict are not areas of high harvest. Mountain Lion Management History Lion management throughout the range of this species is challenging because of the secretive nature and naturally low densities typical of this solitary large carnivore, and the rugged terrain these animals typically inhabit. Consequently, no statewide “census” of lion populations has ever been attempted in Colorado or the East Slope. Historical lion research in Colorado has focused on smaller geographic areas involving population segments where intensive, expensive studies have revealed information for reference values on abundance, sex and age structure, fecundity, survival, mortality factors, predation, depredation, behavioral patterns, movements, dispersal, and effects of hunting. Current research in the Upper Arkansas study area on Colorado’s East Slope using newly validated techniques will provide some data types as described previously, but at much larger scales and with the ability to draw more rigorous conclusions due to the strengths of the study design. Similarly, as part of the West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan (approved by the Parks and Wildlife Commission in 2020), CPW committed to measuring lion density at meaningful scales in two West Slope study areas each year for the duration of that plan. This approach uses the updated spatial mark-resight approach and has already produced several density estimates in different habitats since 2020. Therefore, research and management work across the state over the last decade have contributed to a much more robust knowledge of lion populations across different habitats, harvest pressures and land ownership. Due to this work, CPW has projected an approximate statewide lion population of 3,800-4,400 independent lions (not including dependent kittens). Agencies charged with lion management attempt to address the desires of the public, whose values vary and sometimes compete between maintaining abundant populations, providing hunting opportunity, and minimizing the potential for human-lion conflicts. Lions have been classified as a big game species since 1965 in Colorado. Prior to 2000, Colorado had not formulated any plans for lion management. In 1999, the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) formed the Predator Management Advisory Committee, to provide policy advice to DNR and its subordinate agency, the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW, presently CPW). This group helped develop brief plans that set annual hunter harvest and total mortality objectives based on the preceding 3-year average levels in 25 distinct 1 �Appendix B: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting geographic areas called Data Analysis Units (DAUs). By 2003, these plans were deemed too generic, inflexible and lacked a credible scientific basis. During 2004, a new planning effort was completed, producing 19 separate lion DAU plans for the state. This more comprehensive planning effort provided statewide direction and management sideboards related to habitat models, population extrapolations, and mortality off-take rates. The plans mentioned game damage caused by lions and human conflicts associated with lions, but management objectives were firmly focused on supportable mortality amounts. In 2020, a process for updating and consolidating the 13 West Slope DAUs and their respective plans was initiated. The result was a single lion management plan covering the entire West Slope and creating two DAUs. The PWC approved this plan in September of 2020, and it was implemented for the April 2021-March 2022 lion season. This left the six remaining East Slope DAUs with individual DAU plans, with five of the six written as part of the planning effort in 2004. The long-term increase in Colorado’s lion population is likely a result from a combination of regulating human-caused mortality of lions since 1965 and recovery in mule deer and elk numbers following lows observed in the early 1900’s. Consequently, lion harvest limit allocations and the amount of harvest have generally increased since 1980 (Figure 1) across the state. However, the 2004 DAU management plan updates did result in a decrease in statewide harvest limits. An emphasis of these plans was to reduce hunter harvest of females in select DAUs. Therefore, in 2007, a mandatory lion hunter education course was instituted to help increase the focus of harvest on male lions. As a result, the composition of female lions in harvest declined, and the combined effect of the reduced harvest limits and the emphasis on reducing female mortality caused an initial decrease in the total amount of hunter harvest. Research has revealed the importance of focusing on adult female harvest composition, as opposed to the overall female harvest mortality. The compositional monitoring threshold incorporated in the East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan focuses on adult female proportions in harvest versus the total female proportion that was previously a standard objective in the 2004 lion DAU management plans. 2 �Appendix B: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Figure 1. Annual mountain lion harvest by gender, total mortality, and total harvest limit in Colorado from 1980-2022/23. Note transition from calendar year to winter year in 2007. Non-harvest, human-caused mortality has also increased statewide since the late 1980s (Figure 1) and in recent years on the East Slope (Figures 2 and 3). Some have attributed this to increasing lion populations. However during the past 30+ years the human population, related development, volume of automobile traffic, and the amount of outdoor recreation in Colorado have also increased considerably. It is likely that a combination of factors contribute to the increases in non-harvest lion mortality, including better documentation of these types of mortality in more recent decades. 3 �Appendix B: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Figure 2. Historic East Slope harvest by sex, total human-caused mortality and proportion of females (adult and subadult) in harvest. Figure 3. Annual non-harvest human-caused mountain lion mortality in the East Slope from 2012-2022. The 2004 lion DAU management plans were based on a series of assumptions about lion population size and the population responses to varying mortality levels. The plans noted that information was lacking about how populations responded to these assumptions, as was the ability to collect valid information that could detect population changes in a timely and 4 �Appendix B: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting effective manner. This led to implementation of two long-term research projects in Colorado designed to evaluate lion management assumptions, inform management decisions, and quantify actual population responses to management actions. Research activities were completed on the Uncompahgre Plateau in 2014. Colorado Parks and Wildlife Technical Publication Number 54 reports final project findings which have been incorporated into this plan (Logan and Runge 2021). On the northern Front Range, CPW’s work on estimating abundance, diet composition, and age class from non-invasive sampling has also yielded a number of publications (Alldredge 2015, Blecha et al. 2015, Moss et al. 2016, Alldredge et al. 2019a, Alldredge et al. 2019b). Of particular relevance to the East Slope lion plan, this line of research evaluated lion demographic and behavioral characteristics in a significantly human-altered environment. Colorado Parks and Wildlife is currently in the ninth year of a 10-year lion research project in the Upper Arkansas area of southeastern Colorado with the final year of research harvest study design occurring in 2025-2026. This project will build knowledge of predator-prey dynamics, improved density estimates, evaluate lion population composition structure under different harvest regimes and shed light on the relationship of human-lion conflicts under varying lion harvest and abundance scenarios. Within the East Slope plan, provisions have been made to allow for future periodic evaluation and updating so that the plan can incorporate knowledge gained from the Upper Arkansas project and other research that may be conducted in the future. Harvest Management The regulation of hunting for lions in the western states typically follows one of three harvest strategies: general seasons, limited entry and harvest limit/quota systems (CMGWG 2005). 1) General seasons allow unlimited hunting of lions of either sex, and the only restrictions include the number of licenses issued and/or bag limit allowed per hunter (typically one per season), and timing and length of the hunting season. General seasons provide the highest hunting opportunity, but likely result in uneven hunting pressure (i.e., accessible areas are heavily hunted and inaccessible areas are not), which limits control over the amount, composition, and distribution of the harvest. 2) Limited entry programs restrict the number of hunters per hunt area through a limited license allocation, using either first-come-first-serve or lottery license sales. This approach is most restrictive in terms of hunter opportunity, but it can be useful to disperse hunting pressure, control harvest levels, and may increase the opportunity for hunters to be selective (increasing male harvest) in areas where hunting pressure is low. 3) Harvest limit/quota management limits the total harvest and/or number of female lions harvested from defined areas. The hunting season closes in an area once the harvest limit has been met. Hunters are required to monitor the status of the hunting season by checking a website before hunting to determine if an area is open or closed to hunting. Advantages to this approach are that hunting opportunity remains high and the amount and distribution of harvest can be regulated. Potential disadvantages of harvest limit/quota management include the number of hunters per hunt area is unlimited until 5 �Appendix B: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting harvest limits are filled and desired harvest may be exceeded if more than one lion is harvested the same day the limit is reached. Also, a high amount of competition among hunters/outfitters for the lions available under the harvest limit can result in decreased harvest selection, increasing the amount of females in harvest. Female sub-quotas can be used to support a management objective of maintaining harvest levels with reduced impact on the lion population. Advantages include the ability to stop harvest based on a female objective, while problems include illegal non-reporting of harvested females to avoid closing units and sacrificing hunter opportunity to pursue males once the smaller female sub-quota is achieved. Colorado has managed lion hunting recreation with a harvest limit or quota system since before 1980. As originally conceived, the “quota” is the maximum amount of harvest allowable within a specific geographic area. Once the “quota” is met, the hunting season for that area is closed for that year. Lion hunting licenses are unlimited, but hunters must check an online harvest limit report to determine if the harvest limit group of game management units (GMUs) they wish to hunt remains open to hunting. The harvest limit/quota system optimizes hunting opportunity while limiting hunting harvest to acceptable levels on an annual basis. Historically in Colorado, “quotas” have traditionally been set higher than actual harvest objectives, because the full quota may not be achieved each year. This has occurred because of several factors: hunting conditions are not always conducive to harvest, some hunters intentionally deferring harvest opportunities to continue hunting throughout the entire season and the constraints of guided hunts as the primary mechanism to obtain harvest in some areas. However, under the West Slope plan and this proposed East Slope plan, harvest limits align more with the harvest objective. Using the name “harvest limit” instead of “quota” gives a more accurate description of how this term functions within a harvest limit group. Historic “quotas” in Colorado were not synonymous with the harvest objective, though the term has been mistakenly believed to be one and the same. When quotas went unfilled, it created an erroneous perception for some that management was failing to achieve the desired harvest. The upper end of harvest objectives and the total mortality limits codified in the 2004 lion DAU management plans were intended to be the maximum amount of acceptable annual mortality; a value not to be exceeded. The contrast of perception and intention surrounding these terms has contributed to some of the debate about lion management goals. In 2013, an April lion season (April 1-30) was implemented to provide hunting opportunity in locations where harvest objectives were not being achieved during the regular season. In these areas, an additional season provides extra hunting opportunity and hunter harvest still within the lion DAU management plan objectives. In its original design, the April season was intended to be a simple extension of the existing lion season structure. The “regular” lion season opens after the last day of the 4th deer and elk season; typically around the third week of November and runs through March 31. However, because Colorado’s license year is April 1 – 6 �Appendix B: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting March 31, administrative and logistical requirements resulted in the establishment of a regular and an April season harvest limit, which has caused confusion in when, where, and why seasons would be open in April and what the objectives would be. Prior to 2019, CPW used the 3-year running average of residual harvest limit from the regular season and set that amount on an annual basis as the harvest limit for the April season to function as an extension of the regular season. Harvest during 2016-2018 April seasons averaged less than 10 lions each year. Beginning in 2019, to more efficiently manage the lion regulatory cycle and remove confusion over how April harvest limits were set, CPW combined the numeric harvest limits from the April and regular seasons into one single annual harvest limit. Statewide April lion harvest from 2019-2022 has averaged 4.8 animals per year. Since the status of April seasons was evaluated annually for each DAU, the number of open April seasons has changed each year during that period with fewer open April harvest limit groups resulting in a lower April harvest. All hunter harvest of lions must be reported as part of a mandatory check process required in some form since before 1980. In 1989, the agency included a requirement that all discovered non-hunt mortality must also be documented through the mandatory check process. Data collected at the mandatory check include: harvest date, location (legal description, Universal Transverse Mercator location, and hunt area), sex, lactation history (whether or not females have ever nursed young based on nipple characteristics; Anderson and Lindzey 2000), estimated age from tooth wear and degree of staining, collection of teeth for cementum annuli aging, number of days spent hunting, and hunting method. Trainer and Golly (1992) reported 76% agreement ≤1 year of annuli ages compared using blind tests of two premolars from the same lion (n = 426; 92% agreement for lions <4 years old), and annuli age comparisons of known age lions were 95% accurate (within one year; Trainer and Golly 1992, Anderson 2003). In 2019, the recording system used for these mortality reports was revised to collect data from these mandatory checks primarily on a tablet or phone application. This mandatory reporting system is the most accurate way of accounting for human-caused mortality, so while time-consuming for staff to implement, it provides CPW with high-quality data. Lion carcasses or pelts harvested by hunters may be frozen, which can reduce the collection of teeth or the ability to inspect evidence of gender. Washington noted that hound hunters correctly determined the gender of lions at bay about 70% (57-88%) of the time, whereas agency personnel correctly determined the gender of lions during mandatory checks 87% (71-90%) of the time (Beausoleil and Warheit 2014). They recommended better training of agency staff and education with hunters to improve the credibility of data that is important to management purposes. In Colorado, hunter education on gender identification is part of the mandatory mountain lion hunter education course. Agency staff are trained annually on the data collection process from mandatory inspections. In addition to mortality data, CPW compiles data on human-lion conflicts and game damage claims, and gauges social concerns through public meetings, contacts with the public, hunter surveys, and public attitude surveys. 7 �Appendix B: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Methods of Mountain Lion Hunting Lion hunting in Colorado is accomplished primarily by tracking and baying lions using trained hunting dogs (i.e., hunting with hounds). However, harvest may also occur through opportunistic encounters (spot and stalk) or by calling lions using non-electronic predator calls (mouth calls). The majority of lions harvested annually in Colorado are taken by hunting with hounds (typically >95%). Compared to 20-35 years ago, recent technological advancements have changed guided hound hunting. Collar technology on hounds allows a hound handler to release hounds and track them on a hand-held GPS device. Collars may be equipped to detect when the dogs have a lion at bay. This allows for examination of the closest or easiest path for the hunter to approach the bayed lion without engaging in foot pursuit from the release of hounds to the point of bay. Collars contribute significantly to improved hound safety, by helping locate dogs that have been lost during a chase and emitting an audible tone to signal dogs to return to the hunter if they are approaching an unsafe situation. All-terrain vehicles (ATVs), snowmobiles, cell phones, and digital radios all combine to make hound-hunting lions more efficient than in past decades. Some groups and individuals are concerned about the use of dogs as a hunting method for lions, and some states have banned hunting with hounds through voter initiatives (e.g., Oregon, Washington). In 2005, CPW hired Corona Research to survey the attitudes of Coloradans about issues related to lions. Some key elements related to lion hunting include: a) An overwhelming majority of Coloradans thought it was important for lions to exist, even if they never saw one, and it was important for them and future generations to have lions; b) Coloradans were split about hunting lions, with 47 percent in support of legal and regulated hunting and 41 percent opposed; and c) 46 percent disagreed that lion hunting should be banned, while 34 percent agreed with a ban. These results provide a broader representation of the attitudes of Coloradans about lion conservation and hunting, well beyond the traditional constituents that agency personnel more frequently contact during the process of structuring hunting management. In states where hunting with hounds has been prohibited, opportunistic lion hunting (during big game seasons or predator calling) can result in harvest levels similar to, or higher than before the bans. States in which lion hunting with hounds has been prohibited typically compensate for substantially decreased success rates by reducing the price of a license, increasing the number of licenses, and easing mechanisms by which licenses can be obtained. Results from Washington (Martorello and Beausoleil 2003) revealed that opportunistic lion hunting is less selective of sex and age class than hunting with hounds and female lions are more vulnerable to harvest from opportunistic hunting than from hound hunting. Relative female harvest levels increased from 42% to 59% when hunting with hounds was banned in Washington (mean annual harvest before hound hunting ban = 157 and after hound hunting ban = 199). In Oregon, similar increases in the proportion of females in harvest were observed, and within seven years, total harvest amounts regularly exceeded harvest amounts prior to the ban on hound hunting (Don Whittaker, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, personal communication 2015). 8 �Appendix B: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Lion harvest data from the three most recent years in Colorado suggest that hunters using the services of an outfitter are more selective in the harvest of females (37% F) than hunters not using an outfitter (46% F). In comparing the methods of hunting lions in Colorado using statewide 2012-2022 data, the use of hounds appears to noticeably improve hunter selectivity regarding female take (38% F hound hunters compared with 54% F for opportunistic hunting). This suggests that applying mechanisms to expand hunting seasons without the use of hounds would likely result in an increase in the absolute amount of and composition of females in harvest. In addition, if opportunistic hunting harvest increased and hunting with hounds was reduced, we would expect an increase in the number of dependent young being orphaned due to hunting because of the apparent increased vulnerability and the higher proportion of females harvested with non-selective methods (Martorello and Beausoleil 2003). Differences in the composition and amount of females in hunter harvest are likely a combination of a hunter’s ability to determine gender (while a lion is treed or at bay), but are also related to differences in lion vulnerability between hunting methods. Anderson (2003) observed that nightly movement distances from GPS data averaged over three times longer for male lions than for females (mean end-point distance = 4.6 km versus 1.5 km, 2.9 mi versus 0.9 mi). These longer distance movements expose males more than females to hunting methods involving tracking (i.e., hunting with hounds). Opportunistic hunters who do not track lions while hunting are more likely to harvest the more abundant sex, typically females, because relative abundance and chance encounters drives harvest vulnerability. Mountain Lion Conflicts There are two broad categories of human-lion conflicts: game damage and human safety. Game damage primarily refers to the economic costs of lion depredation on domestic livestock. Human safety primarily refers to the concerns and the real or perceived risks to human safety that lions may pose. State law provides allowance for the public to kill a lion that is considered a threat to people’s safety or to livestock [Colorado Revised Statute §33-3106(3): Nothing in this section shall make it unlawful to trap, kill, or otherwise dispose of bears, mountain lions, or dogs without a permit in situations when it is necessary to prevent them from inflicting death, damage, or injury to livestock, real property, a motor vehicle, or human life]. Animals killed under the authority of this provision must still be reported within five days of death to CPW and the state of Colorado retains legal possession of such animals; consequently, CPW can obtain information on the number of such mortalities. If lions are killed in the summer and/or in remote locations or are too badly decomposed, obtaining gender or tooth samples is difficult and less data are generally collected on such animals. The broadest tool CPW uses regularly to address human-lion conflicts is public education. Providing public educational resources will continue to be a prominent agency tool under the East Slope plan. Education is done both proactively, as a staple when staff interacts with the public in lion habitat or on lion-related issues, and reactively in contacts with the public after a specific human-lion conflict. There are several pamphlets, brochures, videos and educational tools that CPW produces to educate the public on actions they can take to reduce human-lion conflicts. These steps include improved animal husbandry practices for livestock 9 �Appendix B: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting producers, employing guard animals and removing vegetation from near homes that attract deer and elk or provide hiding cover for lions. This agency educational effort also focuses on how to recreate in lion habitat and steps to take if you encounter a lion. Temporary signage is often used to inform the public about areas where lions have been recently seen and to further educate citizens and visitors about the need to take common-sense precautions, particularly with pets and children in these areas. Beyond the overarching goal of public education on co-existence, immediate agency responses to game damage and human safety conflicts in Colorado are primarily aimed at individual animals involved in the conflict. The actions that can be applied to an individual lion involved in either conflict behavior are broad and are usually determined on a case-by– case basis. Intervention techniques include capture and translocation, lethal removal, and onsite hazing. Hazing can involve harassment with trained dogs and less-lethal projectiles fired at the animal. This has not precluded the agency from applying larger scale management efforts to address such conflicts. Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s current lion management plans for two of the six East Slope management areas have an increased harvest objective to suppress the lion population (DAUs L-12 and L-17). Figure 4 shows the location of Colorado’s eight current mountain lion DAUs. Figure 4. Mountain lion Data Analysis Units for 2024-2025 season. 10 �Appendix B: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Some recent research suggests that management targeting an area for increased harvest (rather than an individual conflict animal) may not be effective because of rapid immigration from adjacent source populations (Robinson et al. 2008, Cooley et al. 2009b). These authors postulate that it is possible that the increased presence of younger immigrant animals, social disruption of lion populations, and spatial changes in use patterns of immigrants that result from increased harvest may all contribute to increases in human conflicts and game damage (Peebles et al. 2013). A correlative study in British Columbia found that when accounting for human density and habitat productivity, harvest levels comprised the most correlated variable to conflict numbers (Teichman et al. 2016). Unfortunately, this study did not account for underlying lion densities, which could strongly relate to harvest levels, and defined conflict in very broad terms, including roadkill, livestock depredation and perceived risks from sightings. Similar to Peebles et al. (2013), the authors of this study looked at the relationship between conflicts and mortality at very large scales and collapsed data from large spatial scales for purposes of the analysis. In contrast, an Oregon lion population study found an inverse relationship between conflict lion mortalities and lion harvest (Hiller et al. 2015). The authors present an analysis showing that under high lion population densities, the number of lions killed due to livestock conflicts decreased as harvest density increased. Their results indicated that hunter harvest may be a valuable tool in managing livestock conflicts in circumstances when agency managers can increase prey populations, increase hunter harvest on lions, and reduce the vulnerability of livestock. To date, the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of population scale management to effect reductions in conflicts is equivocal (Human-Cougar Interactions Science Review Team- Washington 2022). Data from Colorado do not suggest a positive relationship between high lion harvest and increased conflicts, but rather just the opposite. Areas of highest harvest removal, as shown in Figure 3 of the East Slope Lion Management Plan, do not correlate with areas of highest non-agricultural conflicts. Many areas of high human-lion conflict in Colorado have very little or no harvest at all (Figure 5). 11 �Appendix B: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Figure 5. Statewide map of Colorado’s average annual lion harvest by GMU (2019-2023 calendar year) and average human-lion conflict levels reported to CPW during that same period shown by increasing circle size. Laundre and Papouchis (2020) used the example of California, a state without a legal lion hunting season, to test various assumptions that some might make about the role harvest plays in managing conflict, depredations and deer numbers. As in some other studies, the issue of scale of analysis is important. Pooling data on lion population size, human population size, conflicts and harvest across entire states for comparison, as done in this study, ignores other significant differences between states, and more importantly, does not account for the context of those data categories within each state. Research in Colorado regarding the effects of harvest and lion population density suggest management to reduce conflict has varied results and is not solely linked to harvest. Few, if any studies, have been able to look at the value of small-scale, localized harvest or agency removals of lions involved in human-lion conflicts, and then make conclusions about that impact on quantifiable reporting of humanlion conflicts (Human-Cougar Interactions Science Review Team-Washington 2022). As recommended by the authors of the Human-Cougar Interactions Science Review Team for Washington (2022), the ongoing research project in the Upper Arkansas area of Colorado represents a unique manipulative experiment, and as such, will allow stronger inferences on relationships between harvest and overall mortality to conflict levels. 12 �Appendix B: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Game Damage Colorado has been liable for monetary losses caused by lions to livestock since the 1920s. However, it wasn’t until the 1970s that game damage laws and liability were first codified in statute. Liability for damage caused by wildlife is governed by Colorado Revised Statute §333-103. Regulations establishing the process for submitting a claim and the process whereby a livestock producer can prove their claim and the livestock value were first established in the mid-1970s. Consequently, CPW has a long history of damage payments related to lion depredation on livestock. However, records regarding claim numbers, location, dates, and amounts were not accurately maintained until the 1990s. In 1996, the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) was granted “exclusive jurisdiction over the control of depredating animals that pose a threat to an agricultural product or resource.” Thus, the CDA has exclusive authority to determine the disposition of an individual lion if it is depredating on livestock, while the CPW retains authority to manage lion populations, body parts, and all forms of recreational or scientific use. A Memorandum of Agreement between the CDA and CPW provides operational guidance for both agencies. This aids both agencies in implementing their management authority and helps ensure documentation of agriculture-related lion deaths and the legal disposition of carcasses. As a matter of policy, any lion that is involved in a depredation incident shall be destroyed if it can be captured or identified. In 2002, the Colorado legislature limited the State’s liability for damage caused by lions to livestock or personal property used in the production of raw agricultural products and further limited liability to not more than $5,000 per head of livestock. As a consequence of this change, non-agricultural personal property claim payments have been eliminated. Over the last six years in the GMUs of the L-ES DAU, the annual number of lion damage claims submitted to CPW has ranged from five to 23 (Table 1). Over that same period, total paid claims have averaged $16,600 per year indexed to 2022 dollars. Monetary values are adjusted by the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) to reflect 2022 dollar amounts. Table 1. Number of mountain lion damage claims submitted to CPW from 2017-2022 by livestock type in the L-ES DAU. Unlike on the West Slope where domestic sheep depredation accounts for the largest share of monetary compensation paid annually, in the East Slope DAU “other stock” represents 73% of the payment dollars over the last six years (Figure 6). The other stock classification includes llamas, alpacas, guanacos, angora goats, chickens, and other livestock typically considered hobby stock animals. Because they are often highly valuable, damage claim amounts for 13 �Appendix B: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting hobby stock are often higher on a per claim basis compared to domestic sheep used in large scale production. Total Paid Lion Game Damage Claims in L-ES by calendar year (indexed to 2022 dollars) $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 2017 2018 Sheep 2019 Other stock 2020 2021 2022 Cattle Figure 6. DAU L-ES compensation paid for mountain lion damage from 2017 to 2022. Monetary values are adjusted to 2022 dollars. Human Safety Lion attacks on humans across North America are rare, but their frequency has increased in recent decades (Beier 1991, Torres et al. 1996, CMGWG 2005). This has also been found in Colorado. Lion attacks on humans occur primarily in the summer season (June-August), which likely correlates with the increased amount of outdoor recreation activity that occurs in Colorado lion habitat (Figure 7). Mattson et al. (2011) evaluated 386 human-lion encounters, including 29 fatal and 171 non-fatal injury attacks on humans, documented in the U.S. and Canada between 1890-2008 to determine the important risk factors in such encounters. They found that young female lions (≤2.5 years) were more likely to be involved in an attack on people than adult lions. Their examinations show that attacks on people are extraordinarily low-frequency, but high consequence events that are difficult to anticipate or prevent. They noted that aggressive behavior (yelling, throwing objects, charging, or discharging firearms) by people involved in close encounters with lions lessens the likelihood that the lion will attack. Unfortunately, several states have documented their first fatal human attacks over the last several years. Washington, Oregon and California have each recorded a fatal lion attack on a human in the last six years. 14 �Appendix B: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Figure 7. Seasonality of mountain lion attacks on humans in Colorado (1990-2023). CPW Administrative Directive OW-13 Human-Mountain Lion Incidents, establishes the agency procedures for dealing with general conflicts that may develop between humans and lions. This policy directs that agency management responses to a specific conflict between people and a lion or lions will be directed at the individual lion(s) involved and not at the population management scale. Administrative Directive OW-2 Predator Attacks on Human(s), details the manner in which the agency will respond to an attack by a lion (and any other predator) on a person. Both of these administrative directives allow for lion relocation under certain circumstances and provide direction for when that may happen. However, it is also the policy of CPW per these administrative directives that a lion will be euthanized when it’s determined to be dangerous because of its behavior, whereas a lion that is dangerous because of its location may be euthanized or relocated. The determination of relative risk due to location or behavior presented by the individual lion will be made by the Regional staff involved with addressing the incident. Per these administrative directives, CPW employees are required to document human-lion conflicts via a conflict recording system. Lions lethally removed under Administrative Directive OW-13 will be recorded as such in the Wildlife Incident recording application. The reports generated from this process document essential information about the date, time, location, type of conflict, number of people, and animals involved, and the circumstances of the conflict. Along with the mortality recording system, this wildlife (including human-lion conflict) recording system was revised in April 2019 to provide an electronic recording system that is consistent, standardized and used across the state to record each human-lion interaction reported to CPW. Due to the previous recording system using hardcopy paper forms across the state to record incidents, developing historically accurate and precise 15 �Appendix B: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting enumerations of conflicts is difficult. The new web and mobile-based application currently in use is providing much more consistent and accurate data. Two separate public opinion surveys in Colorado have revealed that the majority of Colorado citizens prefer that the agency apply non-lethal conflict management tools, except in the case of attacks on people (Zinn and Manfredo 1996, Corona Research 2005). However, when considering the location of an attack on a person, respondents equivocate; 49% opposed destroying a lion involved in an attack if the person was recreating in lion habitat (Corona Research 2005). These results and those previously mentioned regarding public opinions about lion hunting suggest that the public is quite divided in their perspectives about lions. Nevertheless, the Corona survey indicates that the public strongly supports active management of lions and encourages responsible behavior by people to manage human-lion conflicts. 16 �Appendix C: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Colorado East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan Appendix C Mountain lion resource selection function model Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) modeled statewide lion winter habitat using a resource selection function (RSF) approach, which compares where species are present to habitat that is available on the landscape. We used the RSF’s final output to establish a total humancaused lion mortality threshold for the new East Slope DAU, L-ES. The winter period is defined as December-February, and all lion locations used in our model correspond to those dates. We used 2,470 male and 1,603 female mortality locations documented through mandatory checks from 2000-2013 as our presence sample in the model. We created a list of 18 variables considered important to how lions choose habitat in Colorado (Table 1). We then removed variables that were highly correlated with each other. This resulted in 6 variables chosen for model development, including distance to mule deer winter range, elevation, low vegetation, short shrub, tall shrub, and slope (highlighted in Table 1). We generated an equal number of random locations (n = 4,100) within lion habitat documented in CPWs species activity maps (http://gisweb/webmaps/sam/sam.html) and used these as the “available” sample. Table 1. Variables originally considered for development of the 2020 Colorado statewide winter mountain lion habitat resource selection function (RSF) model. Variable NE aspect SE aspect SW aspect NW aspect Distance to mule deer winter range Distance to elk winter range Distance to bighorn winter range Elevation Urban Suburban Bare Low vegetation Short shrub Tall shrub Forest Water Slope TRI (roughness) Keep or Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Keep Remove Remove Keep Remove Remove Remove Keep Keep Keep Remove Remove Keep Remove Why Removed Correlation with another aspect Correlation with another aspect Correlation with another aspect Correlation with another aspect Correlation with mule deer distance No contribution to model Less than 1% of landscape Less than 1% of landscape Less than 1% of landscape Correlated with elevation and TRI Less than 1% of landscape Correlated with slope and elevation Using ArcMap 10.1 (ArcGIS 10.1; Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA), a continuous predictive surface was created that represented the relative probability of lion presence in winter across the entire state of Colorado (Figure 1). However, with a goal of projecting a potential lion abundance across appropriate habitat in L-ES, a probability of lion presence surface has limited practical use. Harvest rates and mortality thresholds are based on projections of lion numbers or population projections; therefore, a process was used to 1 �Appendix C: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting convert from relative probability of lion presence into projected lion abundance. The process started with stratifying the statewide prediction surface into 4 categories: Strata 1 probability of lion winter presence = 1-25%, Strata 2 probability of lion winter presence = 2650%, Strata 3 probability = 51-75%, Strata 4 probability = 76-100% (Figure 1). Figure 1. Original 2020 modeled statewide mountain lion winter habitat with the probability of lion presence stratified into four categories of increasing probability. This represents the initial model applied in the East Slope lion plan, before evaluation of non-lion habitat within L-ES. In a final step, three independent datasets were used for model validation: 164 winter lion predation sites on mule deer documented through CPW mule deer survival monitoring, 14,793 GPS locations from 33 female and 9 male lions researched on the Uncompahgre Plateau from 2004-2015, and 58,593 GPS locations from 45 female and 32 male lions researched in the Northern Front Range west of Denver-Longmont, CO from 2007-2015. For each validation set, we assigned each spatial data point to one of the four categories of the relative probability surface that was above zero. Then we determined the percentage of those points that were within the two highest stratas, which corresponded to >50% relative probability of presence. We found that 86% of the Uncompahgre GPS locations were within Stratas 3 and 4 of our model, 82% of northern Front Range GPS locations were within Stratas 3 and 4, and 73% of the deer predation sites were within Stratas 3 and 4. We assumed that lions exist in greater density in the two strata with high probability of presence and lower densities in the two strata with lower probability of winter lion 2 �Appendix C: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting occurrence. The top two strata of the RSF model represent “high quality” winter lion habitat for the purposes of the L-ES plan population resiliency source-sink analysis. Results from this initial statewide modeling effort indicate that lions are selecting areas on the landscape that are closer to mule deer winter range, at lower elevations, within steeper slopes, and within tall shrub habitats compared to all habitat classes available to them. Lions were less likely to be located within low vegetation or short shrub habitats compared to the availability of that habitat class on the landscape. Adjustments for non-lion habitat in L-ES Unlike on the West Slope, which is effectively all lion habitat, application of the statewide RSF on the East Slope DAU required a rigorous examination of how this model should incorporate marginal habitat east of Interstate I-25 (hereafter I-25) that does not support breeding resident lion populations. Additionally, the footprints of large municipalities along the I-25 corridor in L-ES presented a similar issue because their effective probability of permanent or resident lion presence was also near zero. L-ES areas that were modeled to encompass lion habitat originally followed the same probabilities of presence stratifications presented in the RSF; and were considered in the same manner as in the West Slope Plan, whereby Strata 1 probability of lion winter presence = 1-25%, Strata 2 probability of lion winter presence = 26-50%, Strata 3 probability = 51-75%, Strata 4 probability = 76-100% (Figures 1 & 2). The four strata used in the 2020 statewide RSF made intuitive sense, where the lowest occurrence probability strata (Strata 1) had a low, but still measurable and biologically meaningful lion presence (Figures 1 & 2). However, the grasslands on the southeast plains and municipal boundaries along I-25 were largely classified under Strata 1 in the RSF, but we knew these areas had no resident lions. Maintaining these areas in Strata 1 over-projects lion occurrence, so we needed a strata that reflected a lion presence probability of zero. Therefore, we elected to re-stratify the prediction surface of L-ES into five categories instead of the original four from the statewide RSF model (Figure 2). This includes a new strata (Strata 0), which is an expansion of how this model was used in the West Slope Lion Plan (West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan, Appendix C, 2020). 3 �Appendix C: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Figure 2. Adjustments made to original 2020 modeled statewide mountain lion winter habitat with the probability of presence stratified into five categories of increasing probability applied to the L-ES DAU. The new gray Strata 0 represents a zero probability of lion occurrence. For this East Slope RSF modeling exercise, we converted portions of municipalities west of I25 and grasslands east of I-25 originally assigned to Strata 1 into polygons representing Strata 0. Because these areas are not lion habitat and have no viable lion population, CPW determined that Strata 0 would be applied on these surfaces to represent a winter lion occurrence probability of 0%. Staff expertise, observations, and harvest and mortality location data substantiate that there were effectively no permanent lion populations in these areas; the probability of lion presence on this prediction surface should be zero. These areas east of I-25 and large municipalities may at times have lions documented moving through the area and occasional roadkills or human-lion conflicts. However, areas of Strata 0 are defined as not having a breeding, resident population of lions living within that surface year-round. As guided by policy, CPW will continue to manage occasional dispersing lions traveling through those areas on a case by case basis, usually allowing the lion to move on its own, as long as human-lion conflicts or safety issues do not occur. 4 �Appendix C: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Mountain lion population projection There are several alternate approaches to deriving a lion abundance index extrapolation for the L-ES DAU. One would be to assume that at some low level of habitat selection probability, these areas are functionally not lion habitat; or, alternatively predetermine that some portions of Colorado are not winter habitat and exclude them from the model. Then one has to assign some assumed density smoothed over the remaining area. Although we had to take this step for defining Strata 0, this approach has two problems; there will always be some debate about what is excluded and if a lion is ever observed in excluded habitat, then the model is deemed a failure. Applying some even density in all the remaining habitat fails at very large scales because it is likely to result in too many lions in low probability locations (e.g. eastern plains areas or high altitudes) and too few in high probability locations (e.g. deer winter range, in tall shrubland/forested areas, with high topographic relief). Another approach is to apply a continuous range of lion density from near zero to some upper limit that corresponds with the RSF model prediction surface of 0.2% to 99.7%. The challenge with this approach is selecting what the lower and upper density should be and this seemed no better than the stratification approach that we selected. For the stratification approach, we calculated the amount of habitat by RSF strata (Strata 04) across the entire L-ES DAU (Table 2). Then we applied assumed independent lion densities to each RSF stratum to generate an extrapolated abundance index. We calculated 17% of this extrapolated abundance to determine the maximum total human-caused mortality threshold presented in the East Slope lion plan. An interdisciplinary team of managers and biologists in CPW examined lion densities reported in the literature (Table 1 in Appendix A) and considered habitat quality, prey base, abundance of alternative prey, vegetation characteristics, and the RSF model outputs to arrive at the selected density values to apply. We did make one adjustment to this approach of applying varying densities across the five probability strata. Since a lion density estimate from within L-ES was recently published in the literature, we applied this best available data source for lion density from the Front Range Cougar Study (Alldredge et al. 2019) to the study area’s surface footprint. Additionally, in 465 km2 of mule deer winter concentration range abutting the study area, which was regularly used by GPS collared lions from the project, we also applied the published density. 5 �Appendix C: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Table 2. Amount of area (km2) within each RSF strata as applied in the L-ES DAU. Strata 0= Zero Density Strata 1 = Low Density Strata 2 = MedLow Density Strata 3 = Med-High Density Strata 4 = High Density Boulder Study Area Boulder Study Mule deer winter concentration area 19,952 km2 21,087 km2 11,967 km2 10,573 km2 5,570 km2 1,244 km2 465 km2 Grand Total L-ES DAU= 70,858 km2 The winter-range independent lion densities applied in each strata were selected based on observed lion densities in the literature (Table 1, Appendix A). Particular weight was given to density estimates from the most recent studies in Colorado, including estimates from the northern Front Range in L-ES (Alldredge et al. 2019), and projects that used more modern and rigorous estimation methods including mark-recapture (Proffitt et al. 2015, Beausoleil et al. 2016). These newer techniques estimate capture probabilities and address study area closure. In contrast, past methods of radio-collaring what was assumed to be all the lions in a study area could never account for these issues and were less statistically robust. The following independent lion densities were applied to each RSF stratum (Figure 3): Strata 0: 0.0 independent lions/100 km2. This is a new stratum applied to the 2020 statewide RSF model for this East Slope extrapolation. While the original exercise considered Strata 1 as the lowest quality or lowest probability of lion occurrence strata, evaluation for the East Slope lion plan specifically required this new stratum, where a density of 0 lions/100 km2 is applied. Using local knowledge from field staff, GIS spatial data, and satellite imagery, we converted all original 2020 statewide model outputs of any strata to this Strata 0 along the I-25 municipal corridor due to high human presence and no permanent resident lion populations in these areas. This includes Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, Boulder, Castle Rock, and Pueblo municipal boundaries. We also incorporated the greater Denver and Colorado Springs Metro areas and portions of smaller adjoining municipalities with significant development that lack appropriate lion habitat. On the northern Front Range, we also converted the agriculture interface east of Highway 287 in Larimer and Boulder counties and small agricultural and industrial carve-outs west of Highway 287 between Fort Collins and Loveland. Additionally, much of the shortgrass prairie and agricultural areas of southeastern L-ES east of I-25, and the grasslands east and southeast of Denver were converted to Strata 0. However, permanent and reproducing lion populations occur in the canyons, mesas, and plateaus south 6 �Appendix C: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting of Highway 50 and east of I-25 in southeastern Colorado. Lions also inhabit the Black Forest area south of Denver, but east of I-25. Therefore, we continued to include these areas with lion habitat in the RSF-applied density area. In both cases, we drew a polygon with the appropriate topographical features to delineate areas with lion habitat. The topographical features were drawn from aerial imagery and terrain roughness layers that showed the steeper slopes and more rugged terrain that supports lions. We augmented the polygon by overlaying lion mortality locations and the Basinwide Vegetation layer, specifically identifying areas with pinon-juniper in southeastern Colorado and areas of ponderosa pine and oakbrush in the Black Forest. Strata 1: 1.0 independent lions/100 km2.This stratum represents lower-quality winter-range. While some lower lion density is documented in these areas from harvest and other mortality locations as well as visual observations, lion use is low and densities are well below average levels from studies in better habitat. This is the largest stratum, in terms of area, in L-ES. Strata 2: 2.5 independent lions/100 km2. This stratum represents a mid-level quality of habitat where lion densities are expected to exist in moderate numbers due to variables like slope, elevation and distance to deer winter range. Strata 3 and Strata 4: 4.2 independent lions/100 km2. These two strata represent better lion habitat on the East Slope and as such, each represent a smaller portion of the new proposed DAU. Prey densities are very high in these strata as they largely include deer winter range and high-quality lion habitat. The relatively high density applied in these strata is supported by recent work in quality lion habitat both in Colorado (4.1 independent lions/100 km2, Alldredge et al. 2019) and in other western Rocky Mountain states (4.5-5.2 independent lions/100 km2, Proffitt et al. 2015). Boulder Study area and associated mule deer winter concentration: 4.1 independent lions/100 km2. The Front Range Cougar Project documented a density of 4.1 independent lions/100 km2 (95%CI= 2.4- 5.8 independent lions/100 km2)(Alldredge et al. 2019) in northern L-ES, and we applied this density within that project footprint. We also applied the same 4.1 independent lions/100 km2 density to 465 km2 of mule deer winter concentration area immediately adjacent to the north and south of the project boundary, extending north to Highway 34 and south extending to Highway 285. Because this adjacent mule deer winter concentration area is similar habitat to the Front Range Cougar Project area and was regularly occupied by GPScollared lions during the study, we find it appropriate to apply the measured density of 4.1 independent lions/100 km2 there as well. 7 �Appendix C: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Figure 3. Resource selection function (RSF) winter habitat model of the L-ES DAU and applied lion densities. Areas outside of most municipal boundaries west of I-25 were assigned lion occurrence probabilities (and corresponding densities) as generated from the statewide RSF in Figure 1. Polygons of habitat east of I-25 with negligible lion occurrence due to non-lion habitat were assigned a 0% lion occurrence probability (gray). The cumulative L-ES average independent lion density from the entire DAU’s footprint generated from the RSF after strata densities shown above were applied is 1.8 independent lions/100 km2. Since there are 19,000 km2 of zero-density lion habitat in the DAU (Strata 0, Table 2), if we remove Strata 0 and consider only Strata 1-4 and the Boulder study area/mule deer winter concentration area surface as actual lion habitat (50,906 km2, Table 2), the resulting projected estimate of L-ES lion density in suitable habitat is 2.47 independent lions/100 km2. This average point estimate of ~2.5 independent lions/100 km2 as an extrapolated density across all of the East Slope is strongly supported by numerous studies reporting lion densities 8 �Appendix C: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting (Table 1, Appendix A). We acknowledge that viewing lion densities from published studies as an estimated numeric range instead of just a point estimate, is important. Point estimates from lion density studies are often the focus for management applications, but these values should be evaluated in the context of the variability shown by the confidence intervals on the estimates provided by study authors. Nearly all GMUs or landscapes on the East Slope have contributions from at least four of the five strata and therefore will always have a total projected density well below the density of 4.2 lions applied in only the highest quality habitat. For instance, Alldredge et al.’s 2019 study measured 4.1 independent lions/100 km2 (2.4-5.8/100 km2 95% CI) around Boulder, while the RSF extrapolation density in the GMU encompassing the study area only projected a density of 2.6 independent lions/100 km2. As expected from any model, some projected RSF densities are higher and some are lower than empirically-derived densities in study areas of the same geographic area. CPW also has several other empirical data streams to allow confirmation that at broad scales, our approach of using an RSF model to predict lion occurrence followed by applying stratified lion densities is biologically supported and justified. Our multiple years of lion density estimation as part of the Upper Arkansas research project, along with two lion density monitoring areas on the West Slope, allow a comparison of contemporary measured lion densities against predicted densities from the RSF model in those same areas. These studies have occurred over varying harvest levels, landownership patterns and lion habitats, strengthening their value for inference or comparison. The RSF projected abundances at the study area scale have generally been the same, or lower, than those measured using spatial mark-resight protocols, suggesting our DAU population projection and resulting human-caused mortality threshold could be conservative. Measured post-hunt lion density in Middle Park in 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 was 2.1-2.8 independent lions/100 km2 (95%CI= 1.2-3.6/100 km2, 1.3-5.2/100 km2, respectively) (CPW preliminary data), while the RSF projection modeled 2.7/100 km2 in that same 2,000 km2 study area. In the first year of available results from the Gunnison Basin study area (20222023), CPW measured 3.7 independent lions/100 km2 (95%CI= 1.6-7.4/100 km2) (CPW preliminary data), while the modeled RSF results projected a density of only 2.7/100 km2. While part of a greater research project that will be peer-reviewed and published, independent lion densities measured as part of the Upper Arkansas research project also bracketed the modeled density projection from the RSF for the study area footprint (Mat Alldredge, unpublished CPW data). An RSF model provides a temporal snapshot of what populations could be using densities and model variables applied at that time. That is why CPW’s commitment to begin obtaining temporally and spatially relevant density estimates as part of the West Slope and East Slope plans is important. An even more comprehensive modeling approach could be considered by developing an Integrated Population Model (IPM) for Colorado’s lion population. Given that lion populations are likely best modeled at a statewide level, our future intention would be to 9 �Appendix C: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting use the research demographic data currently being collected from the various study areas to populate an IPM. We believe an IPM could become a useful tool in later years after we have obtained density estimates and ancillary data from radio-collared animals in a number of representative study areas and habitats. As mentioned in Future Research Needs in the East Slope plan document, we expect that within 2-3 years CPW should have sufficient data to undertake this approach. 10 �Appendix D: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Colorado East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan Appendix D Literature cited Alldredge, M. 2015. Cougar demographics and human interactions along the urban-exurban Front Range of Colorado. Federal Aid Report 204-W-R4, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Alldredge, M. W., T. Blecha, and J.H. Lewis. 2019. Less invasive monitoring of cougars in Colorado’s Front Range. Wildlife Society Bulletin 43(2):222–230. Alldredge, M. W., F. E. Buderman, and K. A. Blecha. 2019. Human–cougar interactions in the wildland–urban interface of Colorado's front range. Ecology and Evolution. 00:1–17. Amstrup, S. C., T. L. McDonald, and B. F. J. Manly. 2005. Handbook of capture-recapture analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Anderson, A. E. 1983. A critical review of literature on puma (Felis concolor). Special Report No. 54. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, USA. Anderson, A. E., D. C. Bowden, and D. M. Kattner. 1992. The puma on Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife Technical Publication No. 40. Anderson, C. R., Jr. 2003. Cougar ecology, management, and population genetics in Wyoming. Dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA. Anderson, C. R., Jr., and F. G. Lindzey. 2000. A photographic guide to estimating mountain lion age classes. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Laramie, USA. Anderson, C. R., Jr., and F. G. Lindzey. 2003. Estimating cougar predation rates from GPS location clusters. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:307-316. Anderson, C. R., Jr., and F. G. Lindzey. 2005. Experimental evaluation of population trend and harvest composition in a Wyoming cougar population. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:179188. Anderson, C. R., Jr., F. G. Lindzey, and D. B. McDonald. 2004. Genetic structure of cougar populations across the Wyoming Basin: metapopulation or megapopulation. Journal of Mammalogy 85:1207-1214. 1 �Appendix D: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Andreasen, A. M., K. M. Stewart, W. S. Longland, and J. P. Beckmann. 2021. Prey specialization by cougars on feral horses in a desert environment. Journal of Wildlife Management 85:1104-1120. Apker, J. 2008. Colorado mountain lion status report. Pages 74-84 in Toweill D. E., S. Nadeau and D. Smith, editors. Proceedings of the Ninth Mountain Lion Workshop May 5-8, 2008, Sun Valley, Idaho, USA. Ashman, D. L. 1976. Mountain lion investigations. Perf. Rep., P-R Proj. W-48-7, Study S&I, Job 5 and Study R-V, Job 1. Nevada Fish and Game Department, Reno, NV, USA. 19pp. reported in Anderson, A. E. 1983. A critical review of literature on puma (Felis concolor). Special Report No. 54. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, USA. Ashman, D., G. C. Christensen, M. L. Hess, G. K. Tsukamoto, and M. S. Wickersham. 1983. The mountain lion in Nevada. Nevada Game and Fish Department, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-14-15, Final Report. Bailey, J. A. 1984. Principles of wildlife management. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA. Ballard, W. B., and V. Van Ballenberghe. 1997. Predator-prey relationships. Pages 247-273 in A. W. Fransmann and C. C. Schwartz, editors. Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA. Ballard, W. B., D. Lutz, T. W. Keegan, L. H. Carpenter, and J. C. de Vos. 2001. Deer– predator relationships: a review of recent North American studies with emphasis on mule and black-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:99-115. Barnhurst, D. 1986. Vulnerability of cougars to hunting. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, USA. Baune, C., L. L. Wolfe, K. C. Schott, K. A. Griffin, A. G. Hughson, M. W. Miller, B. Race. 2021. Reduction of chronic wasting disease prion seeding activity following digestion by mountain lions. mSphere 6:e00812-21. Becker, A., D. D. Bjornlie, F. G. Lindzey, and D. S. Moody. 2003. Proceedings of the 7th Mountain Lion Workshop. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Jackson, USA. Beausoleil, R. A., G. M. Koehler, B. T. Maletzke, B. N. Kertson, and R. B. Wielgus. 2013. Research to regulation: Cougar social behavior as a guide for management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:680-688. 2 �Appendix D: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Beausoleil, R. A. and K. I. Warheit. 2014. Using DNA to evaluate field identification of cougar sex by agency staff and hunters using trained dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39:203-209. Beausoleil, R. A., J. Clark., and B. T. Maletzke. 2016. A long-term evaluation of biopsy darts and DNA to estimate cougar density: an agency-citizen science collaboration. Wildlife Society Bulletin 40:583-592. Beausoleil, R. A. 2017. Standardization of cougar population metrics. Page 35 in McLaughlin, C. R. and M. Vieira, editors. Proceedings of the 12th Mountain Lion Workshop. May 15-18, 2017. Estes Park, Colorado, USA. Beier, P. 1991. Cougar attacks on humans in the United States and Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:403-412. Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars. Conservation Biology 7:94-108. Beier, P., and S. C. Cunningham. 1996. Power of track surveys to detect changes in cougar populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:540-546. Becker, E. F. 1991. A terrestrial furbearer estimator based on probability sampling. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:730-737. Bender, L. C., L. A. Lomas, and J. Browning. 2007. Condition, survival, and cause-specific mortality of adult female mule deer in north-central New Mexico. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1118-1124. Berger, J., and J. D. Wehausen. 1991. Consequences of a mammalian predator-prey disequilibrium in the Great Basin Desert. Conservation Biology 5:244-248. Bergman, E. J., P. F. Doherty, G. C. White, and A. A. Holland. 2015. Density dependence in mule deer: a review of evidence. Wildlife Biology 21:18-29. Bishop, C. J., J. W. Unsworth, and E. O. Garton. 2005. Mule deer survival among adjacent populations in southwest Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:311-321. Blecha, K., R. Boone, and M. Alldredge. 2015. Puma foraging in an urban to rural landscape. Federal Aid Report W-204-R4 Cougar Demographics and Human Interactions Along the UrbanExurban Front Range of Colorado, Appendix IV. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Bowyer, T. B., D. K. Person, and B. M. Pierce. 2005. Detecting top-down versus bottom-up regulation of ungulates by large carnivores: implication for conservation of biodiversity. 3 �Appendix D: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Pages 342-361 in J. C. Ray, K. H. Redford, R. S. Steneck, and J. Berger, editors, Large carnivores and the conservation of biodiversity. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA. Brandell, E. E., P. C. Cross, D. W. Smith, W. Rogers, N. L. Galloway, D. R. MacNulty, D. R. Stahler, J. Treanor, and P. J. Hudson. 2022. Examination of the interaction between agespecific predation and chronic disease in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Journal of Animal Ecology 91:1373–1384. Braun, C. E. 1991. Proceedings of the 4th Mountain Lion Workshop. 1991. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, USA. Carbone, C., S. Christie, T. Coulson, N. Franklin, J. R. Ginsberg, M. Griffiths, J. Holden, K. Kawanishi, M. F. Kinnaird, R. Laidlaw, A. Lynam, D. W. Macdonald, D. Martyr, C. McDougal, L. Nath, T. O'brien, J. Seidensticker, D. J. L. Smith, M. Sunquist, R. Tilson, and W. N. Wan Shahruddin. 2001. The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals. Animal Conservation 4:75-79. Carlson, S. C., J. A Vucetich, L. M. Elbroch, S. Perry, L. A. Roe, T. Butler, and J. T. Bruskotter. 2023. The role of governance in rewilding the United States to stem the biodiversity crisis. BioScience 73:879-884. Caughley, G., and A. R. E. Sinclair. 1994. Wildlife ecology and management. Blackwell Science, Malden, Massachusetts, USA. CPW [Colorado Parks and Wildlife]. 2014. Colorado hunter education manual. Kalkomey Enterprises, Inc. Dallas, Texas, USA. CPW [Colorado Parks and Wildlife]. 2024. CPW Wildlife Research Reports; Mammals. Pages 3335. Fort Collins, CO. USA. Choate, D. M., M. L. Wolfe, and D. C. Stoner. 2006. Evaluation of cougar population estimators in Utah. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 782–799. Clements, C. D., and J. A. Young. 1996. A viewpoint: rangeland health and mule deer habitat. Journal of Range Management 50:129-138. Cooley, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, G. M. Koehler, and B. T. Maletzke. 2009a. Source populations in carnivore management: cougar demography and emigration in a lightly hunted population. Animal Conservation 12:321–328. Cooley, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, G. M. Koehler, H. S. Robinson, and B. T. Maletzke. 2009b. Does hunting regulate cougar populations? A test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis. Ecology 90:2913-2921. 4 �Appendix D: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Cooley, H. S., K. D. Bunnell, D. C. Stoner, and M. L. Wolfe. 2011. Population management: Cougar hunting. Pages 111-134. in J. A. Jenks, editor. Managing cougars in North America. Jack H. Berryman Institute, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. Corona Research, Inc. 2005. Public opinions and perceptions of mountain lion issues. Report to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado, USA. Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group. 2005. Cougar management guidelines. WildFutures, Bainbridge Island, Washington, USA. Culver, M., W. E. Johnson, J. Pecon-Slattery, and S. J. O’Brien. 2000. Genomic ancestry of the puma (Puma concolor). Journal of Heredity 91:186-197. Cunningham, S. C., L. A. Haynes, C. Gustavson, and D. D. Haywood. 1995. Evaluation of the interaction between mountain lions and cattle in the Aravaipa-Klondyke region of southeast Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department Technical Report No. 17. Currier, M. J. P., S. L. Sheriff, and K. R. Russell. 1977. Mountain lion population and harvest near Canon City, Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife Spec. Rep. No. 42. CDOW, Fort Collins, CO, USA. 12pp. Davidson, G. A., D. A. Clark, B. K. Johnson, L. P. Watts, and J. R. Adams. 2014. Estimating cougar densities in northeast Oregon using conservation detection dogs. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:1104-1114. Dellinger J. A., K. D. Gustafson, D. J. Gammons, H. B. Ernest, and S. G. Torres. 2020. Minimum habitat thresholds required for conserving mountain lion genetic diversity. Ecology and Evolution 10:10687–10696. Dickson, B. G., and P. Beier. 2002. Home-range and habitat selection by adult cougars in southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:1235-1245. Dietsch, A. M., M. J. Manfredo, L. Sullivan, J. T. Bruskotter, and T. L. Teel. 2019. A multilevel, systems view of values can inform a move toward human-wildlife coexistence. Pages 21–44 in B. Frank, J. A. Glikman, and S. Marchini, editors. Human-wildlife interactions: turning conflict into coexistence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. DeVivo. M. T., D. R. Edmunds, M. J. Kauffman, B. A. Schumaker, J. Binfet, T. J. Kreeger. 2017. Endemic chronic wasting disease causes mule deer population decline in Wyoming. PLoS ONE 12(10): e0186512. 5 �Appendix D: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Elbroch, L. M., M. Levy, M. Lubell, H. Quigley, and A. Caragiulo. 2017. Adaptive social strategies in a solitary carnivore. Science Advances 3:e1701218. Ernest, H. B., E. S. Rubin, and W. M. Boyce. 2002. Fecal DNA analysis and risk assessment of mountain lion predation of bighorn sheep. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:75-85. Erwin, J. A., K. A. Logan, D. R. Trumbo, W. C. Funk, and M. Culver. 2023. Effects of hunting on mating, relatedness, and genetic diversity in a puma population. Molecular Ecology 00:1– 18. Fecske, D. M., D. J. Thompson, and J. A. Jenks. 2011. Cougar ecology and natural history. Pages 15-40 in J. A. Jenks, editor. Managing cougars in North America. Jack H. Berryman Institute, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. Fisher, M. C., R. A. Prioreschi, L. L. Wolfe, J. P. Runge, K. A. Griffin, H. M. Swanson, and M. W. Miller. 2022. Apparent stability masks underlying change in a mule deer herd with unmanaged chronic wasting disease. Communications Biology 5. Gassaway, W. C., R. D. Boertje, D. V. Grangard, D. G. Kelleyhouse, R. O. Stephenson, and D. G. Larsen. 1992. The role of predation in limiting moose at low densities in Alaska and Yukon and implications for conservation. Wildlife Monographs No. 120. Gustafson K. D., R. B. Gagne, M. R. Buchalski, T. W. Vickers, S. P. D. Riley, J. A. Sikich, J. L. Rudd, J. A. Dellinger, M. E. F. LaCava, and H. B. Ernest. 2022. Multi-population puma connectivity could restore genomic diversity to at-risk coastal populations in California. Evolutionary Applications 15(2):286-299. Hansen, K. 1992. Cougar, the American lion. Northland Publishing, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. 129 pp. Heffelfinger, J. R. and K. P. Krausman. 2023. Ecology and management of black-tailed and mule deer in North America. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Hemker, T. P., F. G. Lindzey, and B. B. Ackerman. 1984. Population characteristics and movement patterns of cougars in southern Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:12751284. Hiller, T. L., J. E. McFadden-Hiller, S. R. Jenkins, J. L. Belant, and A. J. Tyre. 2015. Demography, prey abundance, and management affect number of cougar mortalities associated with livestock conflicts. Journal of Wildlife Management 79:978-988. Hopkins, R. A. 1989. Ecology of the puma in the Diablo Range. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, USA. 6 �Appendix D: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Hornocker, M., and S. Negri, editors. 2010. Cougar: Ecology and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 304 pp. Human-Cougar Interactions Science Review Team. 2022. Human-cougar interactions: A literature review related to common management questions. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington, USA. 78 pp. Hurley, M. A., J. W. Unsworth, P. Zager, M. Hebblewhite, E. O. Garton, D. M. Montgomery, J. R. Skalski, and C. L. Maycock. 2011. Demographic response of mule deer to experimental reduction of coyotes and mountain lions in Southeastern Idaho. Wildlife Monographs No. 178. Jenks, J. A., editor. 2011. Managing cougars in North America. Jack H. Berryman Institute, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. Johnson, H. E., M. Hebblewhite, T. R. Stephenson, D. W. German, B. M. Pierce, and V. C. Bleich. 2013. Evaluating apparent competition in limiting the recovery of an endangered ungulate. Oecologia 171:295-307. Kamler, J. F., R. M. Lee, J. C. deVos, Jr., W. B. Ballard, and H. A. Whitlaw. 2002. Survival and cougar predation of translocated bighorn sheep in Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:1267-1272. Kie, J. G., R. T. Bowyer, and K. M. Stewart. 2003. Ungulates in western forests: habitat requirements, population dynamics, and ecosystem processes. Pages 296-340 in C. Zabel and R. Anthony, editors. Mammal community dynamics: management and conservation in the coniferous forest of western North America. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA. Kinley, T. A., and C. D. Apps. 2001. Mortality patterns in a subpopulation of endangered mountain caribou. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:158-164. Knopff, K. H., A. A. Knopff, and M. S. Boyce. 2010. Scavenging makes cougars susceptible to snaring at wolf bait stations. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:644-653. Knopff, K.H., N. F. Webb, and M. S. Boyce. 2014. Cougar population status and range expansion in Alberta during 1991–2010. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 38:116-121. Koehler, G. M., and M. G. Hornocker. 1991. Seasonal resource use among mountain lions, bobcats, and coyotes. Journal of Mammalogy 72:391-396. Koloski, J. H. 2002. Mountain lion ecology and management on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. M. S. Thesis. Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie. 7 �Appendix D: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Krausman, P. R., and D. M. Shackleton. 2000. Bighorn sheep. Pages 517-544 in S. Demarais, and P. R. Krausman, editors, Ecology and management of large mammals in North America. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. Krumm, C. E., M. M. Conner, N. T. Hobbs, D. O. Hunter, and M. W. Miller. 2010. Mountain lions prey selectively on prion-infected mule deer. Biology Letters 6:209–211. LaBarge, L. R., M. J. Evans, J. R. B. Miller, G. Cannataro, C. Hunt, and L. M. Elbroch. 2022. Pumas Puma concolor as ecological brokers: a review of their biotic relationships. Mammal Review 52:360-376. Laing, S. P. 1988. Cougar habitat selection and spatial use patterns in southern Utah. Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA. Laing, S. P. and F. G. Lindzey. 1993. Patterns of replacement of resident cougars in southern Utah. Journal of Mammalogy 74:1056-1058. Laundré, J. W., L. Hernandez, and S. G. Clark. 2007. Numerical and demographic responses of pumas to changes in prey abundance: Testing current predictions. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:345-355. Laundré, J. W. and C. Papouchis. 2020. The Elephant in the room: What can we learn from California regarding the use of sport hunting of pumas (Puma concolor) as a management tool? PLoS ONE 15(2): e0224638. Lawton, J. H. 1993. Range, population abundance and conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 8:409-413. Lindzey, F. G., B. B. Ackerman, D. Barnhurst, T. Becker, T. P. Hemker, S. P. Laing, C. Mecham, and W. D. Van Sickle. 1989. Boulder-Escalante cougar project. Final Report. Utah Division of Wildlife Research, Salt Lake City, USA. Lindzey, F. G., W. D. Van Sickle, B. B. Ackerman, 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., and L. L. Irwin. 1985. Mountain lion habitats in the Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:257-262. Logan, K. A., L. L. Irwin, and R. Skinner. 1986. Characteristics of a hunted mountain lion population in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:648–654. 8 �Appendix D: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Logan, K. A., and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press, Washington, D. C., USA. Logan, K. A. 2010. Puma population structure and vital rates on the Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado. Federal Aid Project W-204-R1 report. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Logan, K. A. 2015. Assessing the effects of hunting on a puma population on the Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado. Federal Aid Project W-204-R4 report. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Logan, K. A. 2019. Puma Population Limitation and Regulation: What Matters in Puma Management? Journal of Wildlife Management 83:1652-1666. Logan, K. A., and J. P. Runge. 2021. Effects of hunting on a puma population in Colorado. Wildlife Monographs 209:1–35; DOI: 10.1002/wmon.1061 Loonam, K. E., D. E. Ausband, P. M. Lukacs, M. S. Mitchell, and H. S. Robinson. 2020. Estimating abundance of an unmarked, low-density species using cameras. Journal of Wildlife Management 85:87-96. Manfredo, M. J., L. Sullivan, A. W. Don Carlos, A. W. Dietsch, T. L. Teel, A. D. Bright, and J. Bruskotter. 2018. America’s wildlife values: the social context of wildlife management in the U.S. National report from the research project entitled “America’s Wildlife Values.” Fort Collins, Colorado. Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. Martorello, D. A., and R. A. Beausoleil. 2003. Cougar harvest characteristics with and without the use of hounds. Pages 129-135 in S. A. Becker, D. D. Bjornlie, F. G. Lindzey, and D. S. Moody, editors. Proceedings of the 7th Mountain Lion Workshop. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, USA. Mattson, D., K. Logan, and L. Sweanor. 2011. Factors governing risk of cougar attacks on humans. Human-Wildlife Interactions 5:135-158. McCarthy, K. P., T. K. Fuller, M. Ming, T. M. McCarthy, L. Waits, and K. Jumabaev. 2008. Assessing estimators of snow leopard abundance. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1826– 1833. McCullough, D. R. 1979. The George Reserve deer herd: population ecology of a K-selected species. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 9 �Appendix D: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting McMurry, S., A. K. Moeller, J. Goerz, and H. S. Robinson. 2023. Using space to event modeling to estimate density of multiple species in northeastern Washington. Wildlife Society Bulletin 47. McRae, B. H. 2004. Integrating landscape ecology and population genetics: conventional tools and a new model. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. Miller, M. W. and L. L. Wolfe. 2023. Chronic wasting disease. In Wildlife Disease/Health and Conservation. D. A. Jessup, R. W. Radcliffe (eds.). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Monk, J. D., E. Donadio, and J. A. Smith. 2024. Predation and biophysical context control Long-Term carcass nutrient inputs in an Andean ecosystem. Ecosystems 27:346–359. Monteith, K. L., V. C. Bleich, T. R. Stephenson, B. M. Pierce, M. M. Conner, J. G. Kie, and R. T. Bowyer. 2014. Life-history characteristics of mule deer: effects of nutrition in a variable environment. Wildlife Monographs No.186. Moss, W. E, M. W. Alldredge, and J. N. Pauli. 2016. Quantifying risk and resource use for a large carnivore in an expanding urban–wildland interface. Journal of Applied Ecology 53:371– 378. 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, USA. Murphy, K. M., M. S. Nadeau, and T. K. Ruth. 2011. Cougar-prey relationships. Pages 41-70 in J. A. Jenks, editor. Managing cougars in North America. Jack H. Berryman Institute, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. Murphy, S. A., R. A. Beausoleil, H. Stewart, and J. J. Cox. 2022. Review of puma density estimates reveals sources of bias and variation, and the need for standardization. Global Ecology and Conservation 35:e02109. Murphy, S. M., D. T. Wilckens, B. C. Augustine, M. A. Peyton and G. C. Harper. 2019. Improving estimation of puma (Puma concolor) population density: clustered cameratrapping, telemetry data, and generalized spatial mark-resight models. Scientific Reports 9:4590. Novak, M., J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard and B. Malloch. 1987. Mountain Lion. Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Ontario Trappers Association, Toronto, Canada. 10 �Appendix D: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Novaro, A. J., and R. S. Walker. 2005. Human-induced changes in the effect of top carnivores on biodiversity in the Patagonian Steppe. Pages 268-288 in J. C. Ray, K. H. Redford, R. S. Steneck, and J. Berger, editors, Large carnivores and the conservation of biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Peebles, K. A., R. B. Wielgus, B.T. Maletzke, and M. E. Swanson. 2013. Effects of remedial sport hunting on cougar complaints and livestock depredations. PLoS ONE 8(11): e79713. Peek, J. M., B. Dennis, and T. Hershey. 2002. Population trends of mule deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:729-736. Peziol, M., L. M. Elbroch, L. A. Shipley, R. D. Evans, and D. H. Thornton. 2023. Large carnivore foraging contributes to heterogeneity in nutrient cycling. Landscape Ecology 38:1497–1509. Pierce, B .M. and V. C. Bleich. 2003. Mountain Lion. Pages 744–757 in G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman, editors. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. 2nd edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Pierce, B. M., V. C. Bleich, K. L. Monteith, R. T. Bowyer, and W. P. Smith. 2012. Top-down versus bottom-up forcing: evidence from mountain lions and mule deer. Journal of Mammalogy 93:977-988. Pollock, K. H., J. D. Nichols, C. Brownie, and J. E. Hines. 1990. Statistical inference for capture-recapture experiments. Wildlife Monographs 107:3–97. Proffitt, K. M., J. F. Goldberg, M. Hebblewhite, R. Russell, B. S. Jimenez, H. S. Robinson, K. Pilgrim, and M. K. Schwartz. 2015. Integrating resource selection into spatial capturerecapture models for large carnivores. Ecosphere 6(11): 239. Riley, S. P. D., J. P. Pollinger, R. M. Sauvajot, E. C. York, C. Bromley, T. K. Fuller, and R. K. Wayne. 2006. A southern California freeway is a physical and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores. Molecular Ecology 15:1733–1741. Robinson, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, H. S. Cooley, and S. W. Cooley. 2008. Sink populations in carnivore management: cougar demography and immigration in a hunted population. Ecological Applications 18:1028–1037. Robinson, H. S. and R. M. DeSimone. 2011. The Garnet Range mountain lion study: characteristics of a hunted population in west-central Montana. Final Report, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Wildlife Bureau, Helena, MT. 102 pp. 11 �Appendix D: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Robinson, H. S., T. Ruth, J. A. Gude, D. Choate, R. M. DeSimone, M. Hebblewhite, K. Kunkel, M. R. Matchett, M. S. Mitchell, K. Murphy, and J. Williams. 2015. Linking resource selection and mortality modeling for population estimation of mountain lions in Montana. Ecological Modeling 312:11–25. Rominger, E. M., H. A. Whitlaw, D. L. Weybright, W. C. Dunn, and W. B. Ballard. 2004a. The influence of mountain lion predation on bighorn sheep translocations. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:993-999. Rominger, E. M., R. S. Winslow, E. J. Goldstein, D. L. Weybright, and W. C. Dunn. 2004b. Cascading effects of subsidized mountain lion populations in the Chihuahuan Desert. Page 103 in Carnivores 2004: expanding partnerships in carnivore conservation. Defenders of Wildlife 2004 Carnivore Conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Ross, I. P., and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:417–426. Ross, I. P., and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1996. Cougar predation on moose in southwestern Alberta. Alces 32:1-8. Ross, I. P., M. G. Jalkotzy, and M. Festa-Bianchet. 1997. Cougar predation on bighorn sheep in southwestern Alberta during winter. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:771–775. Russell, R. E., J. A. Royle, R. DeSimone, M. K. Schwartz, V. I. Edwards, K. P. Pilgrim, and K. S. McKelvey. 2012. Estimating abundance of mountain lions from unstructured spatial sampling. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:1551-1561. Seidensticker, J. C., and M. G. Hornocker, W. V. Wiles, and J. P. Messick. 1973. Mountain lion social organization in the Idaho Primitive Area. Wildlife Monographs No. 35. Shaw, H. G. 1980. Ecology of the mountain lion in Arizona. Final Report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-78-R, Work Plan 2, Job 13. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, USA. Shaw, H. G. 1983. Mountain lion field guide. Arizona Game and Fish Department Special Report No. 9. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, USA. Sinclair, E. A., E. L. Swenson, M. L. Wolfe, D. C. Choate, B. Gates, and K. A. Crandall. 2001. Gene flow estimates in Utah cougars imply management beyond Utah. Animal Conservation 4:257-264. 12 �Appendix D: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwest Naturalist 39:67-72. Smallwood, K. S., and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion, Felis concolor californica, population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259. 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. Stoner, D. C. 2004. Cougar exploitation levels in Utah: implications for demographic structure, metapopulation dynamics, and population recovery. Thesis, University of Utah, Logan, USA. Stoner, D. C., M. L. Wolfe, and D. M. Choate. 2006. Cougar exploitation levels in Utah: Implications for demographic structure, population recovery, and metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1588-1600. Sweitzer, R. A., S. H. Jenkins, and J. Berger. 1997. Near-extinction of porcupines by mountain lions and consequences for ecosystem change in the Great Basin Desert. Conservation Biology 11:1407-1417. Tanner, E., A. White, P. Acevedo, A. Balseiro, J. Marcos, and C. Gortázar. Wolves contribute to disease control in a multi-host system. 2019. Scientific Reports 9. Teel, T. L., A. A. Dayer, M. J. Manfredo, and A. D. Bright. 2005. Regional results from the research project entitled “Wildlife Values in the West.” Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit, Project Report No. 58. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Teichman, K.J., B. Cristescu, and C. T. Darimont. 2016. Hunting as a management tool? Cougar-human conflict is positively related to trophy hunting. BMC Ecology 16:44. Thompson, D. J., and J. Jenks. 2005. Long-distance dispersal by a sub-adult male cougar from the Black Hills, South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:818-820. Torres, S. G., T. M. Mansfield, J. E. Foley, T. Lupo, and A. Brinkhus. 1996. Mountain lion and human activity in California: testing speculations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:451-460. Trainer, C. E., and N. E. Golly. 1992. Cougar age and reproduction. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, USA. Trumbo, D. R., P. E. Salerno, K. A. Logan, M. W. Alldredge, R. B. Gagne, C. P. Kozakiewicz, S. Kraberger, N. M. Fountain-Jones, M. E. Craft, S. C. Carver, H. B. Earnest, K. R. Crooks, S. 13 �Appendix D: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting VandeWoude, and W. C. Funk. 2019. Urbanization impacts apex predator gene flow but not genetic diversity across an urban-rural divide. Molecular Ecology 28:4926–4940. Van Sickle, W. D., and F. G. Lindzey. 1991. Evaluation of a cougar population estimator based on probability sampling. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:738-743. Vickers T.W., J. N. Sanchez, C. K. Johnson, S. A. Morrison, R. Botta,T. Smith, B. S. Cohen, P. R. Huber, H. B. Ernest, and W. M. Boyce. 2015. Survival and mortality of pumas (Puma concolor) in a fragmented, urbanizing landscape. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131490. Whittaker, D. and M. L. Wolfe. 2011. Assessing and monitoring cougar populations. Pages 71110 in J. A. Jenks, editor. Managing cougars in North America. Jack H. Berryman Institute, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. Wild, M. A., N. T. Hobbs, M. S. Graham, and M. W. Miller. 2011. The role of predation in disease control: a comparison of selective and nonselective removal on prion disease dynamics in deer. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 47:78–93. Williams, J. S., J. J. McCarthy, and H. D. Picton. 1995. Mountain lion habitat use and food habits on the Montana Rocky Mountain front. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 1:16-28. Winkel, B.M., C.K. Nielsen, E.M. Hillard, R. Sutherland, and M. LaRue. 2023. Potential cougar habitats and dispersal corridors in Eastern North America. Landscape Ecology. 38:59-75. Wittmer, H. U., B. N. McLellan, D. R. Seip, J. A. Young, T. A. Kinley, G. S. Watts, and D. Hamilton. 2005. Population dynamics of the endangered mountain ecotype of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:407-418. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Mountain Lion Management Plan. 2006. Trophy Game Section (Management/Research Branch), Wyoming Game & Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming. Wolfe, M. L., E. M. Gese, P. Terletzky, D. C. Stoner, and L. M. Aubry. 2016. Evaluation of harvest indices for monitoring cougar survival and abundance. Journal of Wildlife Management. 80:27-36. Zinn, H. C. and M. J. Manfredo. 1996. Societal preferences for mountain lion management along Colorado’s Front Range. Project report No. 28. Report for the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. 14 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Colorado East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan Appendix E Public Engagement and Input on East Slope Mountain Lion Plan Following guidance from the Parks and Wildlife Commission in January 2024 to create an East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan, CPW staff coordinated a public engagement process including informational, educational and public input opportunities. Public meetings were held throughout the East Slope and virtually prior to CPW writing the draft plan. Following publication of the draft plan, CPW staff sought input from the general public, impacted stakeholders, peer agency biologists, and academics. The perspectives heard from members of the public at the informational meetings and the feedback shared during the draft plan input process were considered by CPW staff when formulating the final draft plan. Public Meetings on the East Slope Plan Given the technical complexities of mountain lion management and the need to inform the general public about the species, CPW staff opted to hold several public meetings before drafting the East Slope plan and releasing it to the public for feedback. This strategy aligns with the State of Colorado’s Community Partnership Principle1 of providing the public with easily understandable data and information before asking them to provide feedback. Six in-person meetings across the Southeast and Northeast regions and two virtual meetings were held in February and March 2024 (Table 1). The events were well publicized and approximately 700 members of the public attended the eight meetings. The meetings were a chance for CPW staff to present information on mountain lions in Colorado, describe the rationale for developing an East Slope plan, and hear from the public about their perspectives on mountain lions around their community. Attendees were able to learn more about mountain lion biology, research, and interactions with humans from CPW biologists and wildlife managers. Both the in-person and virtual meetings were interactive, with activities such as lion biology trivia, opportunity for discussion, and time for participants to ask questions and hear responses from CPW subject matter experts. 1: See: https://sites.google.com/state.co.us/colorado-equity-alliance/home/tools-resources 1 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Table 1: East Slope Lion Plan Public Meetings and Estimated Attendance Meeting Location Date Estimated Attendance Evergreen 2/22/2024 39 Trinidad 2/23/2024 60 Florence 2/26/2024 160 Golden 2/26/2024 130 Livermore 2/27/2024 120 Virtual #1 2/29/2024 85 Virtual #2 3/6/2024 70 Colorado Springs 3/7/2024 46 Estimated TOTAL Attendance 710 Input and Inquiries Received at Meetings Implications for Harvest Limits A topic discussed by several attendees related to how shifting the management unit to a larger regional scale would impact harvest limit areas. Attendees asked whether harvest limits would be set at smaller geographic scales or if limits would be set at the regional level. Currently, hunter harvest limits are allocated across GMUs. Under this approach, lion harvest limits are capped at small geographic scales. When the harvest limit is reached in that GMU, or in a group of GMUs, no additional harvest is permitted in that area. Under the new East Slope plan, like the West Slope plan, hunter harvest limits will continue to be allocated across GMU groups. The East Slope plan proposes new GMU harvest limit groupings and harvest limits to maintain a stable population goal. Any changes to GMU groupings and harvest limit allocations will be proposed by the Division for approval by the Commission as part of the normal rulemaking process for lion hunting regulations. Female Harvest Thresholds Members of the public also frequently discussed the proposed adult female harvest threshold with CPW staff and inquired about how female harvest is regulated. Some attendees discussed how neighboring states manage female harvest and what lessons could be learned from those approaches. Other attendees, when presented with information on female harvest thresholds, expressed general concern over the potential for orphaning juvenile lions that might still be dependent on an adult female. Attendees who raised such concerns generally disagreed with any lion hunting, more so than specific female harvest thresholds proposed for the East Slope plan. 2 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Human-Lion Interactions Information on interactions between mountain lions and humans, and how CPW responds to various types of lion reports, was presented to attendees who were encouraged to consider and share their own perspectives on human-lion interactions. Attendees also had the opportunity to learn more from CPW staff about how to live with lions in their community. Frequently asked questions about lion interactions included when to report mountain lions to CPW, whether and how CPW uses information on sightings, and how to prevent conflicts with lions such as attacks on pets and livestock. Other inquiries and feedback related to mountain lion population dynamics, such as reports of increased lion sightings, questions about how many lions live in a particular area, and queries about how CPW measures lion numbers. Public Input Period on Draft Plan The Draft East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan was published on the EngageCPW website on May 15, 2024. A 30 day public input period on the draft plan was open through June 14, 2024. CPW Staff publicized the draft plan public input opportunity through several communication channels, including regional and statewide social media, advertisements at area offices and parks, multiple statewide news releases, and earned media coverage. Additional announcements were sent directly to interested individuals and impacted stakeholders. Individuals contacted included public meeting attendees, virtual meeting registrants, members of CPW roundtables, stakeholder organizations, and recent mountain lion license holders. CPW staff also met with stakeholder organizations, who expressed interest in discussing their support for and/or concerns with the draft plan, and CPW roundtables. The communications through CPW channels and directly to stakeholders led to widespread attention on the plan. During the 30 day draft plan public input period, the EngageCPW page on the East Slope Lion Plan was visited by 1,673 individuals, with nearly 80% of visitors engaging with materials on the site (e.g., the draft plan and public meeting materials). Input from Peer Agency Biologists and Academics CPW staff solicited a peer review of the draft plan as well as an academic review by independent, objective professionals in the field. The feedback shared is attached to this appendix and the institutions that submitted input are listed below. ● ● Nevada Department of Wildlife, Pat Jackson, Predator Management Staff Specialist Michigan State University, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Dr. Jerrold Belant, Boone and Crockett Chair in Wildlife Conservation 3 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Input from Organizations Five stakeholder organizations provided input to CPW staff on the draft East Slope plan during the 30 day public input period. The feedback shared is attached to this appendix and the organizations that submitted input are listed below. ● ● ● ● ● Arkansas Valley Audubon Society Boulder County Parks and Open Space Colorado Nature League Mountain Lion Foundation Safari Club International Input Received from General Public Input Statistics In total, 181 individuals shared public input during the 30 day period. Members of the public who shared input through EngageCPW were geographically representative of the East Slope region’s population. The geographic distribution of input was also reflective of locations chosen for in-person meetings (Table 1). Population centers such as Denver, Boulder, Colorado Springs, and Fort Collins were well represented in the feedback, but public input was also received from individuals in smaller communities along the entirety of the East Slope. A limited number of individuals from outside the East Slope participated in the public input opportunity (6% of submissions originated from the West Slope of Colorado, and 2% originated from outside the state). Summary of Input from General Public Input on the draft plan represented a diversity of opinions and human-wildlife value orientations. While a significant proportion of input provided specific suggestions for the draft plan, a greater proportion of submissions voiced either general support for the plan, or general opposition to lion hunting. General Opposition to Mountain Lion Hunting. The most common theme heard in public input (116 of 181 submissions; 64% of total) was not directly related to draft plan specifics, but rather focused on general opposition to mountain lion hunting. This feedback often expressed value-based concern over the harvesting of mountain lions. Hunting with the aid of hounds was also opposed by several of the commenters, who questioned the practice on ethical grounds (16% of total). Another concern mentioned frequently (40% of total) related to the proposed ballot initiative concerning the hunting of mountain lions and other species, and suggested that the East Slope plan be tabled. This feedback was not directly responsive or applicable to the outreach process asking for input on the specifics of the draft East Slope lion plan. A limited number of individuals cited more specific concerns when giving feedback in opposition to mountain lion hunting. For example, 11 comments (6% of total) discussed 4 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting perceived issues with female lion harvest generally or CPW’s ability to regulate female harvest through harvest thresholds. However, the specific female harvest threshold proposed in the draft plan was not raised as part of this input against lion hunting. Most concerns expressed over the harvest of female lions, like concerns related to mountain lion hunting generally, voiced opposition to any harvest whatsoever rather than specific harvest or mortality thresholds. Some commenters (3% of total) suggested that CPW spend more resources on studying mountain lion population dynamics. Support for Draft Plan. Of the 181 submissions, 27 individuals (20%) mentioned some level of support for the draft plan. Individuals who commended the plan often cited a perception that CPW is well suited to conserve wildlife populations and that the plan is based on sound science (9% of total input). Others felt that the inclusion of mountain lion hunting as a management tool is appropriate (6% of total input). Additionally, 4% of total input centered around the necessity of managing wildlife populations broadly, or lion population management specifically. A common theme between the input supporting the draft plan related to perceptions and observations of healthy, robust mountain lion populations on the East Slope. Plan Specific Suggestions. Specific suggestions related to the draft plan were not as recurring as input supporting the draft plan or opposing mountain lion hunting generally. Suggestions also tended to diverge based on the commenter’s perception of mountain lion hunting. Common themes seen in the suggestions are listed below. All of the common themes listed below were mentioned in approximately 4% or less of the total input: ● ● ● ● ● Recommendations related to harvest limits and Game Management Unit groupings under the new East Slope plan. Input encouraging CPW to consider high prevalence of mountain lion conflict (depredation, etc.) in certain areas when planning for an overall stable population. Suggestions to increase focus on public education about coexistence strategies. Feedback advocating for conservation of mountain lion habitat and habitat corridors. Recommendation to use/grow the mountain lion population to combat Chronic Wasting Disease in ungulate populations. 5 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting STATE OF NEVADA ALAN JENNE Director DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE JORDAN GOSHERT 6980 Sierra Center Parkway, Suite 120 CALEB MCADOO Reno, Nevada 89511 Deputy Director Phone (775) 688-1500 • Fax (775) 688-1595 MIKE SCOTT JOE LOMBARDO Governor Deputy Director Deputy Director June 21, 2024 Mr. Mark Vieira Colorado Parks and Wildlife 317 W. Prospect Fort Collins, CO 80526 RE: Review of the East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan submitted by Colorado Parks and Wildlife Dear Mark, Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide input on Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan. As a wildlife biologist, predator manager, and Predator Management Staff Specialist at the Nevada Department of Wildlife, I am pleased to see this draft Plan encompasses all critical aspects of successful mountain lion conservation and management. My recommendations are as follows: Colorado East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan 1. Page 2, paragraph 1-3; this executive summary does a great job specifying the need for this Plan and what this Plan provides. 2. Page 7, bullet 3; this plan does not address what Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s (hereafter CPW) plans would be should the East Slope Lion Plan lead to population increases. Consider adding a paragraph on management should the population transition from stable to increasing. 3. Page 9, paragraph 1; this Plan references a “periodic review.” Consider defining what a periodic review is or specify how often this Plan will be reviewed. 4. Page 24, only paragraph; please provide a size or range of sizes for “large tracts of unhunted private land.” 5. Page 25, paragraph 1; define “larger landscape.” 6. Page 26, first portion; include “known” prior to “human-caused mortality.” Make this addition throughout the document. 7. Page 27, paragraph 5; specify what proportion of land ownership is privately held. 6 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Appendix A 8. Page 1, paragraph 3; for context include another map or reference an existing one. 9. Page 11, paragraph 3 and 4; consider moving these to page 9 and placing above the “Field Methods” section. I commend CPW for providing alternative field methods for the reader, however placing existing methods between alternative methods is confusing. Appendix B 10. Page 8, paragraph 2 and page 16, paragraph 2; I commend the authors for referencing surveys and incorporating human dimensions into this appendix. That said, I recommend the tone of page 8, paragraph 2, mimic page 16, paragraph 2. Page 8 is very detail oriented; it is outside the need of this Plan. 11. Page 11, paragraph 2; “Data from Colorado do not suggest a positive relationship between high lion harvest and increased conflicts, but rather just the opposite.” I expect readers and stakeholders will find this interesting and I recommend moving this sentence to the front of the appendix and also providing a paragraph of additional context. 12. Page 13, paragraph 4; provide the definition of the word “indexed” and the rational as to why funds were indexed. Appendix C 13. Follow the bibliography format used in The Journal of Wildlife Management, and combine the Literature Cited and References sections. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Pat Jackson Predator Management Staff Specialist Nevada Department of Wildlife 775-688-1676 7 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting 9 June 2024 Mark Vieira Carnivore and Furbearer Program Manager Terrestrial Programs Unit Colorado Parks and Wildlife 317 West Prospect Fort Collins, CO 80526 Dear Mr. Vieira, I have had the opportunity to review the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Colorado East Slope Mountain Lion (Puma concolor) Management Plan and corresponding appendices that was developed by you and your team. Below I provide the following general comments for your consideration during the revision process for this plan. I recognize this plan largely follows the previous plan for Colorado’s West Slope and congratulate CPW for mirroring that effort, as from what I can ascertain, the earlier plan has been quite effective in management of mountain lions. 1. I applaud CPW for considering diverse societal and ecological aspects in this plan as it is critical for management of all species, particularly large carnivores. College of Agriculture and Natural Resources 2. I appreciate the flexibility and adaptive framework for managing harvests, both spatially and temporally. This is absolutely necessary as managing species like mountain lions is difficult compared to many others and considering potential dynamics too in social values surrounding large carnivores, ability to adapt is even more important. This is of particular importance in areas of higher human-mountain lion conflicts. DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE 480 Wilson Road, Room 13 Natural Resources Bldg. East Lansing, MI 48824 517/355-4478 FAX: 517/432-3502 3. Regarding social values and acceptance of mountain lions, as identified in the plan, I encourage a human dimensions survey following completion of this plan to further ensure that goals and objectives are aligned with Coloradans. 4. I did not adequately understand the rationale for the April season. It was stated that few mountain lions are harvested during this season. Also, there is an independent regulation development process for April seasons. As lions harvested need to be reported within 48 hours and furs inspected within 5 days, my question is why is there a unique April season at all? As units are managed until specific adult female mortality rates ae achieved, would it not be more simplistic and easier to manage by having a single season and closing units when harvest goals are achieved? 5. Though acknowledged in the plan, I suggest there could be greater recognition of uncertainty in extrapolating lion densities beyond areas of original inference. There are numerous factors that can alter species abundance, including many factors not indexed 8 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting in the current model. This would not detract from the plan overall, but would demonstrate greater transparency in the limitations of this approach. I emphasize this does not negate the value of using this approach. 6. The uncertainty mentioned above could be considered exacerbated by not propagating error in density estimates from survey areas. For example, Alldredge et al. (2019. Wildlife Society Bulletin 42:222–230). Estimated mountain lion density in a 800-km2 area of Colorado’s Front Range at 4.1 independent individuals/100 km2 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.4–5.8). I could not find that this uncertainty (i.e., CI) was incorporated into the habitat density model. 7. I do not mean to be overly critical of points 5–6 as I recognize the difficulties in abundance estimation of low-density species across large spatial extents. Considering the data available, I likely would have recommended something similar. Too, I acknowledge that there are additional studies in progress or planned that will undoubtedly improve abundance estimates and habitat-density relationships and commend CPW for this effort. 8. I appreciate integrating the concept of source-sink population dynamics into your management framework. This is of particular importance for ensuring ‘populations’ in areas experiencing comparatively high harvests can be sustained. I note that source areas appear to be those with annual harvests <3 lions/1000 km2. Considering data from (Alldredge et al. 2019) that estimated 4.1 mountain lions/100 km2 (95% CI = 2.4–5.8), it appears that current areas considered to have source populations with the highest levels of harvest could contribute little to a source effect. 9. I encourage consideration of statistical population reconstruction as an additional estimator of lion abundance. It appears that the annual number of lions harvested could be adequate for this model type and make this a useful tool. Considering that all harvested lions are sexed and aged, that there are likely estimates of number of hunters (e.g., via license sales) as well as reasonably standardized harvest seasons across years, I would encourage your consideration of this. Of note too is that the single best auxiliary data to improve these models is independent estimates of survival, which you have through various GPS-based collaring projects. Thank you for the opportunity to review this plan and provide comments. Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Jerrold L. Belant Boone and Crockett Chair in Wildlife Conservation 9 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Arkansas Valley Audubon Society Input on Draft East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan Arkansas Valley Audubon Society (AVAS), serving all of southern Colorado and the San Luis Valley, applauds the goal of the East Slope Lion Management Plan “to maintain stable mountain lion populations in the region by defining and implementing clear annual thresholds for killing adult female lions and for total human-caused mortality. But we are ambivalent about using hunting as a means of managing mountain lions. Hunter numbers are in steady decline and have been for years. Hunters make up about 5% of the population of Colorado. CPW says they want to ensure a healthy self-sustaining mountain lion population while allowing hunting of lions for meat. That argument is specious. It’s clear that most hunters’ motivation is to obtain lion skins and lion heads as trophies. CPW maintains that this plan attempts to minimize conflicts with people where communities have spread on to lion habitat. Degradation of habitat amid Colorado’s out-of-control commercial and residential development are the real threats to wildlife. Adding hunting pressure with hounds, electronic calls, and shooting a treed lion hardly qualifies as sporting, let alone ethical practice. We hope that Colorado wildlife officials are not sacrificing lions and ecosystem balance in a commercial tilt toward hunters. A wise former hunter once said, “Leave mountain lions alone. Let them make their own population level.” Additionally, "The intrinsic value of lions, and all wildlife, the emergence of non-consumptive users as a force to be reckoned with, and the values of Coloradoans are moving the discussion to include ethics and morality in dealing with Colorado's iconic wildlife." Thank you. Peg Rooney, President AVAS 10 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting 11 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting June 13, 2024 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commissioners 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 Re: East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan Dear Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commissioners, On behalf of the Colorado Nature League, a coalition of conservationists, scientists, sportspersons, and nonprofit organizations, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Draft East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan. We commend Colorado Parks and Wildlife for taking a unified, science-driven approach to managing this vital species across the East Slope region. We support most aspects of the proposed plan and recognize that the agency has moved towards a more conservative approach to mountain lion management over the last few years. Many concerns that environmental, conservation, and animal welfare groups have voiced in the past are now incorporated into management strategy. We appreciate CPW’s meaningful stakeholder engagement and believe that the East Slope proposal demonstrates the agency’s desire to manage mountain lions responsibly for the long-term benefit of Colorado. Below, we have listed the strengths of the current proposal and some areas we believe could be improved upon. Strengths: ● Updated, Evidence-Based Thresholds: CPW continues to rely on its expert researchers and a vast body of peer-reviewed literature to help set management thresholds and goals. The agency is collecting more useful data, like age data, so that we can better understand impacts of harvest on the total population. ● Stable Population Goal: This new plan manages for a stable population over the entire East Slope, replacing current management goals for population suppression. This is a positive shift that recognizes mountain lions’ ecological importance and helps protect them well into the future. 12 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting ● No April Season for the First Three Years: There will be no April season for at least the first three years, which is a prudent measure to protect mountain lions during a sensitive time of year. ● Harvest Objective Aligned with Best Practices: The harvest objective will likely fall within the annual harvest range of 12-16%. Beausoleil et al. (2013) recommend a 14% harvest off take for reduced conflicts. Conservation groups often cite this study as a good harvest goal, and we are very pleased that Colorado will now be within this range. ● Acknowledgment of Ecosystem and Other Benefits of Mountain Lions: The plan acknowledges the benefits of protected mountain lion populations, including ecological, combating chronic wasting disease (CWD), cultural, intrinsic, and social benefits. It also incorporates recent advances in mountain lion population research. ● Expansion of Mark-Resight Density Estimate Study: We applaud CPW’s intention to expand their density estimate study to the East Slope. We are very excited about this study and look forward to the data that will support updated density and population estimates. This data is invaluable to a science-based management strategy. Areas for Improvement: ● Population Monitoring and Thresholds: Recent studies suggest mountain lion populations are particularly susceptible to adult female mortality. To better account for the species' low reproductive rates and ensure population stability, we recommend lowering the thresholds to 15% for adult female harvest. Research by Logan and Runge (2021) found that a 23% adult female harvest led to a population decline. Anderson and Lindzey (2005) concluded that a population could support a 10-15% female harvest without decline, while Laundre (2007) asserted that a 15-20% adult female harvest would not lead to a population decline. Furthermore, higher harvest rates can disrupt cougar social structures, leading to increased human-lion conflicts and livestock depredation (Maletzke et al., 2014). ● Human-Lion Conflict Prevention: While the plan addresses conflicts and game damage, we encourage increased investment in proactive measures like public education programs and non-lethal deterrents to promote coexistence and reduce conflicts. Recent research supports the effectiveness of non-lethal methods in preventing conflicts and maintaining stable, non-problematic mountain lion populations (Peebles et al., 2014; Teichman et al., 2016). 13 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting Conclusion: The Draft East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan is a significant step forward, and we appreciate CPW's commitment to science-based management. By adopting more conservative thresholds, increasing investment in conflict prevention and research, and engaging stakeholders, CPW can better ensure the long-term sustainability of mountain lion populations while balancing ecological, scientific, and recreational values. Sincerely, Colorado Nature League Colorado Nature League (CNL) protects, conserves, and restores Colorado’s native wildlife and habitats through science-based, innovative, collaborative solutions. CNL represents over 150,000 Coloradans dedicated to preserving the state's iconic wildlife. 14 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting MOUNTAIN LION FOUNDATION Saving America’s Lion Our mission is to ensure America’s lion survives and flourishes in the wild. June 14th, 2024 RE: East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan Submitted via: dnr_cpw_planning@state.co.us Dear members of the Commission, We write to you on behalf of our Colorado members, regarding the upcoming decision on the Draft Eastern Slope Management Plan.1 While it is generally unnecessary to hunt mountain lions from an ecological or human safety standpoint,2, 3, 4 if they are to be hunted the draft plan has many management strengths. These include combining smaller data analysis units into one larger unit defined as the Eastern Slope. We are also pleased to see that the department is recommending mountain lion population stability across the eastern slope as opposed to reduction, by maintaining human caused mortality below known intrinsic growth rates for the species. Beyond the specifics of the management plan, we commend the department for its engagement with the public and focus on conserving mountain lions as a valuable part of the ecosystem. We recommend the following changes to the draft plan: 1) Close mountain lion hunting in GMUs for the season when the adult female 1 Draft East Slope mountain lion plan: May 10 2024. 2024. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. https://engagecpw.org/23267/widgets/82723/documents/55235 2 Wallach, A.D., Izhaki, I., Toms, J.D., Ripple, W.J. and Shanas, U. 2015. What is an apex predator?. Oikos, 124: 1453-1461. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.01977 3 Laundre´ JW, Papouchis C. 2020. The Elephant in the room: What can we learn from California regarding the use of sport hunting of pumas (Puma concolor) as a management tool? PLoS ONE 15(2): e0224638. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0224638 Editor: Julio Cesar de Souza, Universidad 4 Cooley, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, G. M. Koehler, H. S. Robinson and B. T. Maletzke. 2009. Does hunting regulate cougar populations? A test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis. Ecology 90(10): 2913-2921. Board of Directors Bob McCoy ∙ Chair Chris Tromborg, PhD ∙ Vice Chair Donald Molde, MD ∙ Secretary Bruce Rylander ∙ Treasurer Toby Cooper Elizabeth Sullivan Fauna Tomlinson Executive Director Brent Lyles Honorary Board Robert Bateman Gordon P. Getty Sandy Lerner Robert Redford Dr. George Schaller Robert Wagner 15 Post Office Box 1896 Sacramento, CA 95812 www.mountainlion.org info@mountainlion.org (916) 442-2666 Saving America’s Lion Since 1986 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting threshold or total caused human mortality threshold is reached. 2) Adjust the age classifications for mountain lions in Colorado 3) Structure management strategy to avoid the formation of sinks 1) Close mountain lion hunting in GMUs for the season when the adult female threshold or total caused human mortality threshold is reached. The current draft states that adult female harvest shall not exceed 22% of the harvest in any given year, and that the 3-year average for total human caused mortality shall not exceed 17% of the population estimate. While total human caused mortality for lions will be limited to 17%, harvest objectives will be lower to account for non-harvest mortality causes for lions. If these thresholds are exceeded, the following year limits will be reduced by one percent. If these limits are exceeded in a second year, it will be reduced by five percent in the following year. Each year if harvest objectives are exceeded in a unit in a season, that unit will close. The plan does not propose that units close if the adult female harvest threshold is exceeded in each season. The draft proposes that once the adult female threshold is reached, CPW will ask hunters to voluntarily avoid harvesting females. While many hunters may take efforts to avoid the harvesting of female mountain lions, research shows that even experienced hunters under ideal conditions often misidentify a mountain lion’s sex5, so this approach is likely to lead to unintentional overharvest of females. We suggest that the plan be amended so that units close when adult female harvest thresholds are exceeded. There is no risk to “under harvesting” mountain lions from an ecological or human/livestock conflict standpoint.6,7 However there are negative implications from overharvesting mountain lions both for the lion population and the local ecology, especially females.8 We recommend the department adopt a preventative approach, by closing the season in units where the 22% adult female threshold is exceeded or when total caused human mortality exceeds 17% in any Beausoleil, R. A., & Warheit, K. I. 2015. Using DNA to evaluate field identification of cougar sex by agency staff and hunters using trained dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 39(1), 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.493 6 Cooley, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, G. M. Koehler, H. S. Robinson and B. T. Maletzke. 2009. Does hunting regulate cougar populations? A test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis. Ecology 90(10): 2913-2921 7 Treves, A., Krofel, M., & McManus, J. 2016. Predator control should not be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(7), 380-388. 8 Robinson, H. S. and R. DeSimone. 2011. The Garnet Range Mountain Lion Study: Characteristics of a Hunted Population in West-Central Montana. Final Report. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks. Helena, MT 5 Mountain Lion Foundation Comments: CPW East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan 16 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting single year. 2) Adjust the age classifications for mountain lions in Colorado The current draft plan only considers mountain lions greater than three years old as adult mountain lions (as well as any females showing signs of nursing). We suggest that the plan amend these age categories to consider animals greater than two years old as adult mountain lions, as the average age of first reproductive for mountain lions is two and a half years old. 9 We believe these changes will help prevent the overharvest of adult females, and more accurately representing the harvest of adult animals in the state. 3) Structure management strategy to avoid the formation of sinks The draft management plan currently focuses on source-sink management for a stable metapopulation. This management strategy is viable for maintaining population sizes for mountain lions,10 however it does not account for demographic structures in populations. Areas with high levels of human caused mortality—sinks—for carnivores have in some cases been linked to increased levels of conflict with humans. 11 Additionally, these sinks may paradoxically have denser mountain lion populations, if they are comprised of younger males with large, overlapping home ranges.12 These sink populations may be associated with a greater level of conflict between mountain lions and infanticide of kittens both due to increased density and the number of inexperienced young males.13 This area of research into mountain lion management requires more research, but the evidence we do have suggests that avoiding the creation of sinks through hunting regimes may help reduce some of the risks that may occur for both mountain lion populations and the human communities they overlap with. Thus, management strategies that evenly distribute human caused mortality below the intrinsic growth rate has been recommended as an alternative 9 Ross, P. I., & Jalkotzy, M. G. 1992. Characteristics of a Hunted Population of Cougars in Southwestern Alberta. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 56(3), 417–426. https://doi.org/10.2307/3808853 10 Laundré, John, and Tim W. Clark. 2003. Managing puma hunting in the western United States: through a metapopulation approach. Animal conservation forum. Vol. 6. No. 2. Cambridge University Press. 11 Peebles, K. A., Wielgus, R. B., Maletzke, B. T., & Swanson, M. E. 2013. Effects of remedial sport hunting on cougar complaints and livestock depredations. PLoS one, 8(11), e79713. 12 Maletzke, B. T., Wielgus, R., Koehler, G. M., Swanson, M., Cooley, H., & Alldredge, J. R. 2014. Effects of hunting on cougar spatial organization. Ecology and Evolution, 4(11), 2178-2185. 13 Wielgus, R. B., Morrison, D. E., Cooley, H. S., & Maletzke, B. 2013. Effects of male trophy hunting on female carnivore population growth and persistence. Biological Conservation, 167, 69-75. Mountain Lion Foundation Comments: CPW East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan 17 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting strategy.14 We suggest that the department change the management plan to adopt a harvest strategy where all GMUs have mortality thresholds below the proposed 17% limit, and source populations are still preserved. We recommend the preservation of source populations to buffer against stochastic events, inaccuracies in monitoring, and unintentional overharvest of mountain lions. We believe this approach will best avoid the potential risks associated with the formation of sinks and excessive mortalities in mountain lion populations. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Eastern Slope Management Plan, and for the extensive efforts made by CPW staff and Commission to engage the public and utilize contemporary science on mountain lion management in the development of the East Slope Mountain Lion Managment Plan. Please include these comments in the official record regarding this decision. Sincerely, 14 Beausoleil, R. A., Koehler, G. M., Maletzke, B. T., Kertson, B. N., & Wielgus, R. B. 2013. Research to regulation: Cougar social behavior as a guide for management. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 37(3), 680-688. Mountain Lion Foundation Comments: CPW East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan 18 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting 14 June 2024 Colorado Parks and Wildlife c/o dnr_cpw_planning@state.co.us 6060 Broadway Denver, CO 80216 Re: Draft Colorado East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan Dear Director Davis: Safari Club International (SCI) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Colorado East Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan. In general, SCI supports updating the East Slope Mountain Lion Plan, given that some of the individual unit plans are 20 years old. SCI supports the Draft Plan’s continued reliance on regulated hunting to manage lions and to provide a hunting opportunity for this healthy and growing population. But SCI does not agree with the stated “concern” that the six previously identified Data Analysis Units are too small to properly study or manage mountain lions, despite the wide-ranging nature of the species. SCI generally supports Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s (CPW) goal to manage the East Slope mountain lion population for “stability,” which is reflected throughout the Draft Plan. Mountain lions are the most widely distributed mammal in the Western Hemisphere. Colorado’s mountain lion population is stable and likely increasing, especially into new areas. As Ring camera footage from the City of Boulder demonstrates, mountain lions can and do successfully range into human-dominated landscapes, suggesting they are more-than-healthy on the East Slope. But Colorado’s human population on the Front Range is also rapidly expanding, thus a stable population objective is most appropriate to maintain a healthy lion population and maintain social tolerance for the species. As we have seen in the last few years in Colorado, Arizona, Washington State, and more, mountain lion attacks can and do occur. SCI emphasizes that CPW’s decisions must be made on the best available science and for the benefit of long-term mountain lion conservation. Where decisions need to be made to ensure the long-term health of predator and prey populations and ecosystems, as well as to reduce human-wildlife conflict, CPW may need to make decisions that are less popular with the public but serve CPW’s mission. While being inclusive of the views of diverse Colorado stakeholders is a laudable goal when it comes to taking public input, CPW’s decisions need to be made on the basis of sound science and for the benefit of mountain lion populations and human populations that interface with mountain lions. It is CPW’s job to responsibly manage wildlife at a level that promotes acceptance and public safety—which means the appropriate level of mountain lion harvest is CPW’s recommendation, based on best available science, and should not be subject to public opinion. Safari Club International – Washington DC Office 501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Tel 202 543 8733 • www.safariclub.org 19 �Appendix E: November 14-15, 2024 PWC meeting SCI generally supports the use of mortality thresholds that provide CPW with some flexibility. It is important to note that significant mountain lion mortality occurs, whether hunting happens or not. In California, which banned mountain lion hunting by voter initiative in 1990, up to 100 mountain lions are lethally controlled to address human-wildlife conflicts each year. One-to-two lions are killed by vehicle strikes every week. Therefore, it is important to manage mountain lions to maintain a stable population, and to consider total mortality in making management decisions. As SCI supports maintaining a stable mountain lion population, SCI strongly opposes the proposed reduction of the 2026-2027 East Slope (L-ES) harvest objective to 155 lions, a reduction of 53 lions (25%) from 2024-2025 levels. SCI supports continuing to maintain the harvest limit of 208 lions, given that 47 percent of high-quality mountain lion habitat in the East Slope area has no harvest at all. The “assumed” threshold for 2026 and forward appears to be too low, given the stability of the mountain lion population under the current harvest objective. SCI respectfully requests that CPW reconsider this reduction in harvest objective, as it seems to unnecessarily reduce hunting opportunity with little actual impact on mountain lion populations. SCI supports the use of hounds in mountain lion hunting and CPW’s emphasis on controlling the offtake of female mountain lions (whether higher or lower, depending on management objectives). Hunting with hounds allows for greater selectivity in the sex and age class of the harvested lion. Finally, SCI strongly supports CPW’s attention to using the best available science, including new research, in the Draft Plan. SCI and its four Chapters in the Centennial State are pleased to help support CPW’s research goals and would be happy to discuss ways that we can contribute to mountain lion conservation with CPW. SCI is dedicated to protecting the freedom to hunt, and we appreciate every opportunity to collaborate with CPW. SCI is always first for hunters. Sincerely, W. Laird Hamberlin Chief Executive Officer Safari Club International Safari Club International – Washington DC Office 501 2nd Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002 • Tel 202 543 8733 • www.safariclub.org 20 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/1ce6bb21a99075af8bc23430749a19a2.pdf 1adcc3561fd08fcee2de133847ddff06 PDF Text Text West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Colorado Parks and Wildlife COLORADO WEST SLOPE MOUNTAIN LION (Puma concolor) MANAGEMENT PLAN Northwest and Southwest Regions September 2020 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Approved by the Parks and Wildlife Commission on September 2, 2020 1 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Executive Summary Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s (CPW) aim for mountain lion management on the West Slope of Colorado is to preserve, protect, enhance and manage mountain lions for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the state’s citizens and visitors. CPW strives to ensure that mountain lions continue to exist in relatively stable numbers in western Colorado for current and future generations to enjoy through hunting, occasional observation, and for their scientific, ecological and aesthetic value. This mountain lion management plan provides the framework for how CPW will achieve this goal in the Northwest and Southwest CPW Administrative Regions and replaces all existing West Slope Data Analysis Unit (DAU) lion management plans. This West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan operates with the assertion that CPW’s thirteen DAU plans in western Colorado, each written in 2004 to describe a single lion population, are too small in spatial scale to properly manage solitary, low-density, wideranging carnivores like mountain lions. In many cases, sample sizes of mountain lion mortality data have been too small to reduce uncertainty in management conclusions and have not effectively informed past DAU objectives. This plan increases the size of the management unit at which analysis and evaluation will occur to a more appropriate scale: the CPW Administrative Northwest and Southwest Regions. As under recent lion management, hunter harvest will continue to be allocated across groups of Game Management Units (GMUs), but the size of each of these groups will be increased. This plan incorporates recent developments in mountain lion research that have been published in the peer-reviewed literature over the last 16 years. Many of these advancements are discussed in this document and some provide integral parts of the framework of this plan. The monitoring thresholds included in this plan are supported by a strong body of research and management citations. In addition, this plan outlines the process of annual review, evaluation, and adjustment to management. Regional Objectives: The management objective in both Regions is to maintain a relatively stable mountain lion population. This replaces historic objectives in the thirteen individual DAUs, two of which are managed for suppression of the population. Allocating allowable harvest mortality across the Region provides local managers flexibility in distribution of harvest limits, while Regional thresholds ensure the maintenance of population stability at the larger scale. Regional Annual Data Collection and Monitoring Thresholds Two annual monitoring thresholds are established in this plan and will be evaluated independently for each West Slope Region: 1) Adult Female Harvest Composition Threshold: Adult female composition in total harvest will not exceed 22% in any year in each Region, excluding the Glenwood Special Management Area 2 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 2) Total Human-Caused Mortality: The 3-year average of total human-caused mortality will not exceed 17% of the extrapolated abundance index from the resource selection function for each Region, excluding the Glenwood Special Management Area The following totals do not include the Glenwood Special Management Area Northwest Region total human-caused mortality threshold: 269 lions Southwest Region total human-caused mortality threshold: 284 lions Proposed 2021-2022 Northwest Region harvest objective: 243 Proposed 2021-2022 Southwest Region harvest objective: 185 Historic 2018-2019 Northwest Region harvest limits: 317 Historic 2018-2019 Southwest Region harvest limits: 194 Annual evaluation of adult female harvest composition allows assessment of what the population trajectory might be based on the selective nature of hound hunting and the proportional abundance of each age/sex class on the landscape. Limiting adult female harvest also acts to protect the component of the population responsible for reproduction. Use of a total human-caused mortality threshold acknowledges the biological importance of other human-caused lion mortality factors beyond harvest and sets a ceiling for that maximum acceptable mortality that interacts with information derived from adult female composition evaluations. By complementing different aspects of our understanding of mountain lion population performance in each Region, these monitoring thresholds are designed to interact and modulate each other during annual analysis. If either threshold is exceeded, this plan lays out clear and supportable steps that will be taken with harvest management to return the population trajectory to a stable one. Additionally, as part of the West Slope plan, CPW will begin the initiation of a mark-resight lion density monitoring program. Survey areas on the West Slope would be used to confirm and align observed lion densities with abundance index projections generated from Regional resource selection function output. Exceptions to Monitoring Thresholds: Retaining viable mountain lion populations for future generations, like with any other big game species, does not require populations to exist at their maximum potential. In GMUs 43, 44, 45 and 444 near Glenwood Springs, human safety and social tolerance levels is a higher management priority than lion abundance. This is balanced with the overarching goal at the much larger Northwest Regional scale, of maintaining a stable lion population. Consequently, this plan establishes the Glenwood Special Management Area (SMA) with its own management objectives and where the Regional monitoring thresholds will not be applied. Evaluation of techniques and efficacy of reducing human-lion conflicts in the SMA will be conducted under an adaptive management framework. 3 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Management Plan Public Involvement: In developing this plan, CPW gathered input from the public in various ways. To inform elements of the plan specific to the Northwest and Southwest Regions, CPW held 12 public meetings on the West Slope as well as a virtual Facebook event designed for any interested member of the public that couldn’t attend the in-person meetings. This draft plan was posted on the CPW webpage along with a comment link for 6 weeks to collect additional public input. Outreach was also conducted directly to impacted land management agencies, county commissions, Habitat Partnership Program committees and stakeholder groups interested in lion management. Appendices to this plan should be referenced for comprehensive explanations on the following topics: Appendix A: Mountain Lion Life History, Ecology and Monitoring Appendix B: Mountain Lion Management History in Colorado and the West Slope Appendix C: Mountain Lion Resource Selection Function model Appendix D: Literature Cited and References Appendix E: Mountain Lion Plan Public Process and Results Acknowledgments: The development of this West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan involved the active participation of many people, whose professional expertise, knowledge, experience, and perspectives were invaluable for critical review and numerous suggestions to improve the content including Area Wildlife Managers, District Wildlife Managers, Terrestrial Biologists, Regional Managers, Terrestrial Section Staff, Researchers and Human Dimensions Specialists, and many others too numerous to individually mention here. We also thank the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for their independent review and comments on this plan. All of the above professionals had many other projects and activities that were shuffled, juggled, shifted and some, perhaps, remained unfinished for the time everyone applied to reviewing and improving this plan. Colorado Parks and Wildlife thanks all of you. 4 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Colorado West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan Table of Contents West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan Goal and Strategy --------------------------------- 6 Lion Harvest Terminology, Regulations Process and Hunting Seasons -------------------------- 6 Harvest Limit Groups ................................................................................ 6 Regional Harvest Objectives and Harvest Limit ................................................. 7 Annual Lion Regulations Process................................................................... 7 Lion Hunting Seasons ................................................................................ 8 Methods of Take ..................................................................................... 8 Regional Data Collection Scales and Monitoring Thresholds -------------------------------------- 9 West Slope Mule Deer Strategy and Lion Plan Relationship ................................... 9 Regional Data Analysis Units ...................................................................... 10 Annual Data Collection............................................................................. 11 Adult Female Composition Threshold ............................................................ 12 Total Human-Caused Mortality Threshold ....................................................... 15 Annual Management Thresholds ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 17 Voluntary Female Harvest Reduction Outreach ................................................ 18 Harvest Limit Reductions .......................................................................... 19 Lion Population Resiliency ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 20 Resiliency to High Mortality ....................................................................... 20 Source Population Refuges ........................................................................ 20 Zone Management .................................................................................. 22 West Slope Regional Summaries ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 23 Northwest Regional Summary ..................................................................... 23 Southwest Regional Summary ..................................................................... 30 Management Plan Update & Revision Process------------------------------------------------------- 35 Public Planning Process --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35 Lion Density Monitoring and Future Research Needs ---------------------------------------------- 36 Lion Density Monitoring ............................................................................ 36 Future Research Needs ............................................................................ 36 Appendix A….Mountain Lion Life History, Ecology, and Monitoring Appendix B….History of Mountain Lion Management in Colorado Appendix C….Colorado Resource Selection Function Appendix D….Literature Cited and References Appendix E….Mountain Lion Plan Public Process and Results 5 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan Goal and Strategy On the West Slope of Colorado, Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s (CPW) aim for lion management is to preserve, protect, enhance, and manage mountain lions for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the citizens of Colorado and its visitors. The broad goal laid forth in this plan by CPW in both the Northwest and Southwest Administrative Regions is to manage for relatively stable mountain lion populations, while allowing for management flexibility at smaller scales. This plan puts forth a strategy to allow management flexibility at the harvest limit group scale while regulating lion mortality with thresholds designed to maintain stable lion numbers at the larger Regional geographic scale. At small scales, lions experience great variation in rates of abundance, survival, mortality, immigration, and emigration and therefore while management assumptions about those parameters are quite important, they can be inaccurate. At larger scales however, it is more likely that differences in initial population density assumptions result in relatively small changes in population growth rate, and uncertainty about dispersal may not be as influential (Robinson et al. 2015). A review of these and other aspects of lion biology and ecology is provided in Appendix A. With implementation of this plan, we will transition from the 13 historic lion Data Analysis Units (DAUs) on the West Slope to the CPW Administrative Regions (Southwest and Northwest) as the management unit of interest, analysis and reporting. The need for this West Slope plan is demonstrated as follows:  Larger management scales (such as Regions) are most relevant to lion biology and most appropriately support management inferences from mortality and composition data  Significant advancements in geographic information systems (GIS) modeling, lion monitoring metrics, density estimation and population trajectory information have been published in the realm of peer-reviewed literature over the last 15 years, and need to be incorporated into current and future management  Existing lion management plans are outdated as all but one West Slope lion DAU have plans over 15 years old and this plan will leverage updates into one plan  Without updated West Slope lion management plans, managers setting annual harvest limits are challenged with aligning metrics and objectives in historic plans against concerns over various aspects of plans that many have deemed to have lost relevance Lion Harvest Terminology, Regulations Process and Hunting Seasons Harvest Limit Groups: The term to describe the pool or grouping of West Slope Game Management Units (GMUs) that are joined together under one harvest limit will be called a “harvest limit group”. In the past, harvest limit groups have been as small as one GMU or up to 5 or 6 GMUs. Under this plan, the size of harvest limit groups will increase, as each group will include more GMUs than under past plans. 6 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Regional Harvest Objectives and Harvest Limit: CPW will establish annual “Regional harvest objectives” for the Northwest and Southwest Regions independently. However, the term harvest objective makes less sense and could create confusion at the smaller harvest limit group scale. Therefore, at the harvest limit group scale, we will continue to use the term “harvest limit” to describe the distribution of the Regional harvest objective across smaller geographic areas of the Region on an annual basis. In this context, the sum of the harvest limits within each Region is equal to the Regional harvest objective. Regional summaries included later in this plan provide further discussion on specific recommendations for the first 3 years of the plan. As with current lion regulations, the annual harvest limit accounting will begin on April 1 and ends on March 31 (license year). Only hunter harvest (lions associated with take on a lion license) will be counted and deducted from the harvest limit. During the Regional harvest objective and harvest limit setting process, wildlife managers consider the estimated amount of non-harvest mortality that contributes to total human-caused mortality. While Regional harvest limits and harvest limit group composition are reviewed annually, it is CPW’s intent that both will be largely static for the first 3 years of this plan on the West Slope. An exception to this stability in harvest limits would be if management thresholds are exceeded and management action is needed. Maintaining these new lion harvest limits for periods of ≥3 years will allow sufficient time for any management efforts to yield results. For example, if efforts are applied to decrease lion abundance in a local zone, Anderson and Lindzey (2005) suggest that a 3-year period is necessary to detect results. Other studies suggest that a time period between 3 and 5 years is the minimum time for recovery of previously suppressed populations (Logan and Sweanor 2001, Anderson and Lindzey 2005, Stoner et al. 2006, Robinson and DeSimone 2011). Annual Lion Regulations Process: This West Slope Lion Management Plan continues to follow CPW’s current regulatory process and timeline. The annual regulatory cycle for mountain lions occurs in two stages. The first stage includes regulations related to season dates, open GMUs or harvest limit groups, method of take, and harvest reporting requirements. The second stage involves the establishment of annual harvest limits by harvest limit groups. Mountain Lion Regulation Development Process for Seasons, Method of Take, Other Provisions:  July-September: internal considerations, conceptual development, regional review meetings  October: issues considered at internal regulation review meetings  November: issues/draft regulations presented for consideration at the Parks and Wildlife Commission meeting  December: regulation language modified pursuant to November meeting outcomes  January: final adoption action by the Parks and Wildlife Commission 7 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Mountain Lion Regulation Development Process for Harvest Limits:  June-July: analysis of harvest and total mortality, adult female harvest composition and Glenwood SMA lion management objectives  September-November: internal development of harvest limit recommendations, regional review meetings, harvest limits by harvest limit group considered at internal regulation review meetings  January: final adoption action by the Parks and Wildlife Commission on harvest limits along with final approval of all other lion provisions  February: publication of online mountain lion brochure Every 5 years, CPW’s big game season structure is re-evaluated. During this structural review process, public input is solicited, with three hearing stages that include issue identification and examination, drafting of regulations, and final structure and approval by the Parks and Wildlife Commission. The approved 2020-2024 big game season structure is compatible with all aspects of this West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan. Lion Hunting Seasons: Currently, two distinct seasons occur during the April 1- March 31 license year. Both seasons will be maintained in this plan, but use of an April season won’t initially be employed in either Region outside of the Glenwood Special Management Area. The two seasons have different purposes, but each will operate within the context of a harvest limit system. 1. April Lion Season: The season will run from April 1-30, annually. The use of dogs as a hunting aid is allowed. This is primarily an additional opportunity season in locations where harvest limits may not be routinely achieved during the regular season. If conflicts with other resource management issues are anticipated or if harvest opportunity is not compatible with other management considerations, then an April season will not be initiated. The utilization of an April season is determined annually for each harvest limit group. 2. Regular Lion Season: Begins the day after the close of 4th rifle deer and elk season through March 31, annually. The use of dogs as a hunting aid is allowed. The bulk of lion harvest is expected during this time and the majority of hunter days will occur in this season. Lion hunting opportunity is unlimited during each license year until harvest limits are reached in each harvest limit group, at which point that harvest limit group will be closed for the remainder of the license year. Methods of Take: The use of dogs shall be allowed as an aid to take lions as prescribed within the foregoing April and Regular seasons. The use of mouth-operated predator calls is allowed. Legal rifles, shotguns, crossbows, handguns, and archery weapons are allowed. Under specific circumstances, as outlined in the SW and NW Regional summary sections, electronic calls will be legal in certain harvest limit groups. 8 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Regional Data Collection Scales and Monitoring Thresholds Lions occupy large spatial scales in terms of home ranges and dispersal patterns. They regularly live, move, and disperse across previously used DAU boundaries, CPW Administrative Region boundaries and even state lines. Consequently, monitoring mortality and female composition at small scales is hampered by small sample sizes and large amounts of annual variation. As noted by Logan and Runge (2020), larger regions for puma management are more appropriate to the scale of puma movements and demographics. At the historic DAU scales on the West Slope, the difference between a few animals of different gender or age classes could alter harvest composition and conclusions about management trajectory in some units. For example, from 2016-2018, annual total lion mortality was less than 40 animals for 9 out of 13 previous West Slope DAUs. When samples of each individual DAU’s harvest were divided among the four age/gender classes (adult female, subadult female, adult male, and subadult male) the composition of any one class often would be represented by only 4 or 5 individual lions, causing year to year compositional proportions to commonly vary by 20-30%. This amount of variation in harvest composition confounds data interpretation, making it difficult for wildlife managers to evaluate the effects of different harvest levels on mountain lion population trajectories at the previous DAU scale. Many lion biologists across the West suggest managing lion populations with respect to sourcesink dynamics (CMGWG 2005, Cooley et al. 2009a, Robinson and DeSimone 2011, Jenks et al. 2011, Logan 2019). Source areas are managed for the production of dispersers that move to other source areas and into sink areas where management objectives call for greater lion mortality. Thus, source areas retain a capacity for population resiliency region-wide. This approach allows for considerable flexibility in applying variable harvest rates spatially and temporally. This would be in contrast to a management framework with little flexibility where harvest is attempted to be apportioned evenly across the landscape as outlined by Beausoleil et al. (2013). The West Slope plan incorporates source-sink dynamics by allocating lion harvest mortality across the Northwest and Southwest Administrative Regions at a level appropriate for a stable population objective, while allowing harvest pressure to vary within more local areas defined by harvest limit groups. West Slope Mule Deer Strategy and Lion Plan Relationship Due to recent declines in mule deer populations across the West Slope, CPW embarked on a comprehensive public engagement and planning effort in 2014 to develop a West Slope Mule Deer Strategy to guide future management actions to help western deer herds increase towards objectives. The goal of the West Slope Mule Deer Strategy states that together with the public and stakeholders, CPW will work to stabilize, sustain and increase mule deer populations in western Colorado and, in turn, increase hunting and wildlife-related recreational opportunities. Relative to mountain lions, one of the seven strategies outlined in the Mule Deer Strategy is to implement lion reductions where predation has been shown to be limiting deer survival. This West Slope lion plan provides the flexibility, if needed, to allocate lion harvest at the harvest limit group scale within a Region to implement higher local harvest 9 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 rates consistent with the priorities of the Strategy, while still managing to the Regional objective. Regional Data Analysis Units The history of mountain lion management in Colorado, and more specifically on the West Slope, is provided in Appendix B. This appendix includes an overview of harvest management, methods of hunting, game damage, and a human-lion conflict discussion all within the historical DAU-specific management structure. A map showing the 13 historic mountain lion DAUs is also included in Appendix B. Under this new plan, the West Slope will be comprised of two Data Analysis Units, corresponding to the CPW Northwest (NW DAU) and Southwest (SW DAU) Administrative Regional boundaries instead of the historic DAU scale (Figure 1). The Northwest (NW) Region lion DAU is comprised of the previous lion DAUs of L-1, L-2, L-3, L-5, L-6, L-7 along with GMU 40 (previously in L-22) and GMUs 41, 42 and 421 (previously in L-9). The Southwest (SW) Region lion DAU is comprised of the previous lion DAUs of L-20, L-21, L-23, L-24, L-25 along with GMUs 52, 53, 63, 411 and 521 (previously in L-9), GMUs 60, 61, 62, 64, 65 (previously in L-22), GMU 82 (previously in L-16) and GMU 83 (previously in L-19). The 13 historic DAUs have existing management plans that were written in 2004, with the exception of L-3, which was originally written in 2004 but amended in 2012. Eleven of the 13 plans have DAU population objectives of maintaining a “stable” lion population. Two of the plans, DAUs L-7 (White River) and L-9 (Grand Mesa/ North Fork), have “suppression” objectives that were largely implemented to reduce lion populations due to high rates of game damage (livestock depredation). The new NW and SW Regional management objectives will replace all historic DAU objectives in the areas governed by those 13 historic plans. 10 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Figure 1. The location of the two West Slope Regional monitoring areas within Colorado. Annual Data Collection All known lion mortalities in Colorado are recorded during a mandatory check process. In the case of harvest mortalities, every hunter is required to report their harvest within 48 hours and present the hide and head for inspection within 5 days. During this mandatory check, biological data is collected including sex, evidence of past nursing/breeding status, and age information, including extraction of a premolar for cementum aging (Table 1). Table 1. Cementum (premolar tooth) aging guidelines Cementum Age 0-12 months 1 year or 2 years old 3 years and older Female of any age that shows evidence of past nursing Age Class Kitten Subadult Adult Adult Lion mortality data are used to evaluate age and sex composition of harvest, distribution of harvest and non-harvest lion mortalities, indices of population trajectory, and to account for and set harvest limits. Due to standard time delays in cementum analysis, the current harvest composition analysis is always retrospective information, lagging one harvest year behind regulatory cycles. 11 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Harvest data can be used in many different ways. The age of reproductive females can be useful to examine the reproductive potential of lion populations (Stoner 2004, Anderson and Lindzey 2005). Populations maintaining older-age females have higher reproductive potential, and thus resiliency, than populations where adult female survival is lower. Additionally, recording the distribution of lion harvest and other human-caused mortalities allows assessment of potential source areas where little or no lion mortality occurs, and sink areas where lion mortalities may be relatively high. This kind of spatial analysis may be used to help inform harvest limits that are established by harvest limit groups. As recommended by Beausoleil (2017), we approached all demographic metrics referenced in this management plan with standardization in mind. Since most recent literature focuses on metrics defined by “independent” lions, that is the common standard we have used in all data, thresholds, and models presented in this plan. Independent lions are defined as animals that are not dependent on their mother; this includes subadult lions and adult lions. See Appendix A for details on mountain lion life history. Kittens are considered dependent lions, and as such are not legal for harvest and are not included in demographic metrics and thresholds. Adult Female Composition Threshold Both the survival rate and relative abundance of adult female lions, as the reproductive component of a population, are important considerations for managers. For instance, in the Garnet Mountains of Montana during an un-hunted period, 71% of the growth rate in the population was related to reproduction (maternity and kitten survival), while adult female survival accounted for only 22% of the population growth rate. When hunting was added, only 17% of the growth rate in the population was related to reproduction, while adult female survival became more influential and accounted for 40% of the population growth rate. Monitoring and population modeling efforts in this population indicated that when accounting for all forms of known human-caused mortality, adult female annual survival needs to be at least 80% to prevent a decrease in the resident lion population level (Robinson and DeSimone 2011) and therefore limits on adult female harvest mortality would be needed to prevent declines. Recent research findings are presented below reviewing adult female harvest composition and population trajectory. Wildlife managers, through the use of hunting harvest, have the ability to limit lion population growth (Robinson and DeSimone 2011). On the Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado, during the 5-year lion hunting phase of a research project, adult females comprised 23% of the total cumulative harvest. In this study, lion harvest was considered additive mortality and lion survival rates and independent lion abundance declined when compared to the preceding reference phase with no lion hunting (Logan 2015, Logan and Runge 2020). 12 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 In southern Idaho and northern Utah, Laundre et al. (2007) tested the effects of changes in prey abundance on lion population dynamics. Through their monitoring of the change in population size and social-age class structure, they suggest that an annual harvest of 15 to 20% of resident (adult) females would not reduce a population. Anderson and Lindzey (2005) conducted an experimental population reduction and recovery in the Snowy Range of Wyoming to examine how various gender and age classes are exposed in hunter harvest when a population is increasingly exploited. Because of the differences in daily movement distances it was assumed that under equal gender ratios, males are more vulnerable to hound hunting, which relies on discovery of tracks in snow. Increasing hunting pressure exposes different genders and age classes until they are relatively less available, subsequently exposing the next most vulnerable age class. Sex and age classes of lions exhibit different and relatively predictable movement patterns, where males move longer distances than females and subadults generally move longer distances than adults (Barnhurst 1986, Anderson 2003). Conceptually, the likelihood of a specific sex or age class of lion being harvested would reflect its relative abundance in the population and its relative vulnerability based on daily movement patterns. The least vulnerable individuals (adult females) should become prominent in the harvest only after the population has been reduced in size by removal of more vulnerable/available lions. Harvest progression of a higher density population would be expected to shift from subadults to adult males and finally to adult females as more vulnerable or targeted individuals are removed and the population is reduced in size (Anderson and Lindzey 2005). Selectivity in harvest where hunters select males over females or perhaps subadults is possible from experienced hunters using hounds by examining track characteristics or live animals prior to harvest. Selective harvests may delay or change the order of expected harvest progression, but this relationship should still hold as larger males are removed and the least vulnerable and most biologically important compositional class (adult females) becomes exposed as abundance of other more selected age/sex classes decline. Anderson and Lindzey (2005) tested these predictions by applying varying levels of hunter harvest and found harvest composition to be predominantly subadults for a highdensity population with low harvest levels, shifting to adult males as harvest levels increased, and then a shift from adult males to adult females with continued high harvest as the population declined. Likewise, Cooley et al. (2009b) noted that adult females increased in harvest composition when hunting increasingly removed other age/sex classes in a population. When harvest levels were reduced, the composition of the harvest returned to primarily subadults. The male segment of the reduced population recovered within 2 years, primarily due to male immigration from other populations and the female segment within 3 years from an increased number of females producing young within the population (Anderson and Lindzey 2005). They concluded that the population appeared to support a harvest composed of 10-15% adult females. When adult female composition in hunter harvest reached approximately 25%, the population declined. The results of these studies suggesting that setting Regional composition thresholds of between 20-25% adult females in hunter harvest will maintain the Region goals of managing 13 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 for a stable population. A threshold of 22% adult female harvest composition was selected because it represents a mid-range value based on these independent research efforts. Using cementum data and breeding status to classify adult females, we can infer that if our threshold is exceeded, the population in question would likely begin a decline. Because the goal is to not exceed this threshold and risk moving into a decline phase, adult female harvest composition will be examined annually and management actions will be enacted to reduce female and/or overall harvest if this threshold is exceeded in any single year. Applying our new Regional monitoring scales to historic data, the composition of adult females in total harvest over the last 6 years has ranged from 9-20% in the NW Region and 1418% in the SW Region (Table 2). These statistics suggest that even under increasing harvest levels over this period, neither Regional population has undergone a decline. In accordance with this plan, data will be evaluated annually to inform Regional management, but voluntary female and overall harvest reduction steps will be required only if the monitoring threshold of 22% is exceeded. The Glenwood SMA, described in greater detail in the NW Summary section, is the only area excluded from the annual harvest composition analysis in either Region. Table 2. Northwest and Southwest Regional adult female harvest composition and sample size of interpreted age class (N) for the last 6 years (2013-2018). Data include all legal harvest mortalities for lions of known sex/age for all GMUs in each region. 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Northwest Region Southwest Region Adult Female Composition in Total Harvest N Adult Female Composition in Total Harvest N 20% 172 9% 163 16% 172 17% 201 19% 203 17% 205 14% 107 14% 118 18% 115 17% 141 16% 125 16% 131 It should also be noted that less selective methods of harvest are likely to result in harvest composition that reflects the relative abundance of the 4 age-gender classes. Consequently, significant use of non-selective methods at any broad scale will confound harvest composition analysis. Hound harvest relies on a portion of hunters selecting against taking females based on track size or identification while bayed, but non-selective methods take lions of each compositional class in the same relative abundance that they are encountered, so much higher rates of female harvest would be expected. Because of this, we conclude that any other season or method of take besides hound hunting, such as electronic calls, that is largely non-selective of age-gender classes should be reserved only for areas where substantially increased harvest and population impact is desired. This would include the Glenwood SMA or areas where control removals are high but hound hunter harvest has not been successful due to limited snow. Non-selective hunting methods have been shown in Oregon and Washington to have higher female harvest rates when compared to hound hunting. A further discussion on these implications is presented in the “Methods of mountain lion hunting” section in Appendix 14 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 B, but electronic calls, as a non-selective method of harvest, would only be allowed in the areas prescribed in this plan. Total Human-Caused Mortality Threshold Clarification of terminology is an important precursor to the discussion of the total humancaused mortality threshold. Natural forms of mortality (drowning, starvation, disease, intraspecific strife, injury etc.) are sometimes documented by our mandatory check system, but such natural mortality will not be included in the total human-caused mortality analysis. The primary human-caused mortality factors includes hunter harvest, removal of depredating lions by CPW, landowner, and federal Animal and Plant Health Inspections Service/Wildlife Services agents (APHIS/WS), and lions killed by vehicles. The only exception of human-caused mortality sources that is not included in the mortality analysis is for lions that are killed because they are determined to be dangerous lions pursuant to CPW Administrative Directive W-20. Our reasoning for not including these kills in our calculations related to mortality thresholds is that regardless of lion population trajectory or any other management condition, CPW as a matter of policy would always take lethal action on lions that are determined to be a threat to public safety. Therefore, including them in calculations of total mortality thresholds is irrelevant. Additionally, the number of lions that are killed because they are determined to be dangerous is typically a very small number. For example, from 2016-2018 less than 10 lions annually were reported killed statewide as a result of having attacked or exhibited threatening behavior towards people. Lions removed in accordance with Administrative Directive W-20 are specifically documented as such to ensure conflict lion mortalities with this classification are clearly enumerated, as they will be excluded from analysis in all mortality totals. Comparing the rate of population growth against population reduction from harvest can give managers information on what mortality levels would maintain a stable population. Recent research findings are presented below that helped inform CPW’s total human-caused mortality threshold. The growth rate for a population, or intrinsic rate of population growth, can be described as the rate biologists expect a population to grow in the absence of additive human-caused mortality. In Washington, the intrinsic growth rate for 3 different lion populations (Selkirk Mountains, Kettle Falls, and Cle Elum) was 14% (+-2%) (Beausoleil et al. 2013). In Montana, the expected intrinsic growth rate of a modeled population through 2 years was 15% when the results from a protected area and an adjacent hunted area were combined (Robinson and DiSimone 2011). Laundre et al. (2007) observed a lion population increase 7% during a growth phase that correlated with an increasing deer population on the border of Idaho and Utah. In New Mexico, Logan and Sweanor (2001) observed population growth rates of 5% and 17% for two 4-year periods, averaging 11% for the entire 7-year period for a lion population segment protected from hunting. Furthermore, Logan and Sweanor observed higher growth rates of 21% to 28% for an experimentally manipulated population segment that was substantially reduced in abundance and then protected to allow it to increase. Their research indicates 15 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 that lion population growth rates are highly variable and most likely density dependent (Logan and Sweanor 2001). Examined differently in Wyoming, experimental control and recovery of a population determined that a harvest rate of 18% of independent lions allowed recovery of the population that had been intensively harvested in two previous years (Anderson and Lindzey, 2005). On the Uncompahgre Plateau in Colorado, a lion population that was protected from hunting for five years and subsequently subjected to regulated hunting for five years yielded evidence that the marked lion population grew during the non-hunting period when total human-caused annual mortality was 7% or less and began to decline when total human-caused annual mortality was 27% and continued to decline at rates of 24-29% (Logan and Runge 2020). The discrete threshold at which population decline began could not be measured. The authors do note that inference should be made to population-scale harvest and human-caused mortality rates, as rates observed at a smaller scale are biased and represent underestimates (Logan and Runge 2020). Although growth rates and mortality or harvest rates in expanding populations may act as surrogates for determining maximum sustained yield (the highest sustainable annual rate of removal), caution should be applied in this comparison. Stochastic events can change the assumed population size and may result in over-harvest, and thus are falsely assumed to be supported over the longer term (Caughley and Sinclair 1994). Whether one looks specifically at Colorado data or examines the span of the 6 reported population growth rates and 3 reported mortality thresholds, a 16-17% annual total mortality rate is an appropriate range to manage for population stability. Therefore, this plan will use a maximum human-caused mortality threshold of 17% of Colorado’s projection of possible lion abundance. This extrapolated lion abundance index is based on a resource selection function (RSF) model that was applied to each Region to generate an initial representation of how many lions could be in the population and the corresponding maximum mortality threshold (Table 3). For more information about the abundance index extrapolation and the supporting RSF model as applied to the NW and SW Regions, see Appendix C. The RSF model developed for Colorado’s lion population provides a probability of lion presence across areas of each Region and allows application of various densities to those probability classes to generate a projection of possible lion abundance. The RSF extrapolation that is generated is not a representation of actual lion population size, but rather the relative probability of resource selection by a lion population. It provides a method to derive a maximum mortality threshold at a given scale, which if exceeded, would lead to the reasonable conclusion that lion populations are experiencing a declining trend. The numerical value that is derived as a threshold from this analysis will not be exceeded on a 3-year running average in either Region. While not necessarily a management target, the total mortality threshold represents the maximum acceptable amount of annual human-caused mortality in each Region. 16 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Table 3. Regional total human-caused mortality thresholds in relation to 2016-2018 total human-caused mortality data. The Regional mortality threshold for the NW Region does not include lion population or mortality contributions from the Glenwood Special Management Area (GMUs 43, 44, 45, 444). Historic mortality data for the SMA is provided on a separate line. Monitoring Area Northwest Region Glenwood SMA Southwest Region 17% Annual Total HumanCaused Mortality Threshold 269 NA 284 2016 Total HumanCaused Mortality 228 27 180 2017 Total HumanCaused Mortality 232 11 168 2018 Total HumanCaused Mortality 245 22 184 3-year Total HumanCaused Mortality Average 235 20 177 The total mortality thresholds in Table 3 may or may not change over the lifespan of this West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan. Thresholds may change during the course of revisions based upon new scientific evidence, density estimates that refine the RSF, or related updates that may occur during periodic plan review. Colorado Parks and Wildlife will prioritize lion density estimation in future work planning to allow validation and refinement of densities applied to the RSF. The Glenwood SMA, which is described in greater detail in the Northwest Region Summary section, will be the only area excluded from annual threshold requirements in either Region. More specific historic data on harvest and non-harvest mortality is available in the Regional Summary sections of this document and in Appendix B; History of Mountain Lion Management in Colorado. Adjustments to this human-caused mortality threshold is informed by the adult female compositional threshold. Direction of population trajectory as indicated by annual compositional evaluation provides a feedback mechanism to modify the common currency of human-caused lion mortality, which are harvest limits. Annual Management Thresholds The West Slope Lion Management Plan initiates a new management framework that evaluates annual lion mortality data against selected thresholds that are scientifically supportive of a stable lion population. The NW and SW Administrative Regions will be independently managed, and the Glenwood Special Management Area is excluded from evaluation against the NW thresholds. The two following mortality monitoring thresholds will be evaluated in an interactive manner. 1. Proportion of adult female (cementum age of 3 years or older, or any age with evidence of nursing) composition of total hunter harvest will not exceed 22% in any single year. 17 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 2. Total human-caused mortality will not exceed 17% of the extrapolated abundance index (see RSF in Appendix C and Table 3) based on a 3-year running average. The adult female harvest composition threshold and total human-caused mortality threshold are intended to interact and inform each other. Therefore, if either threshold is exceeded, a management response to reduce mortality will be required and implemented in Regional harvest objective setting the following year. If the 22% adult female threshold is exceeded in any single year (suggesting a decline in the population) the following actions will be taken:   Regional harvest objective (and mortality threshold) used in that year will be reduced by 1% of the extrapolated abundance index. This represents a decrease from 17% to 16% of the RSF and would create a lower harvest rate and lower mortality threshold. CPW will also enact a voluntary female harvest reduction outreach process that includes: i. Publishing a request for hunters to voluntarily reduce female harvest in the CPW Mountain Lion Hunting brochure ii. Notifying hunters using the online Available Harvest Limit Report to identify harvest limit groups where CPW is voluntarily asking for reductions in female harvest iii. Contacting lion hunters directly to inform them of the voluntary request If the total human-caused mortality threshold is exceeded or the 22% compositional threshold continues to be exceeded past one year, then a 5% reduction of the Regional harvest objective (and mortality threshold) will be implemented the following year. The humancaused mortality threshold continues to be independent of the female composition threshold. Each time a reduction in Regional harvest objective is triggered by exceeding thresholds, the broad intention is that this reduction will be maintained using the recalculated Regional harvest objective for a minimum of 3 years. In some cases, if the annual female composition or 3-year average total mortality return to levels below the thresholds before that time, increases in Regional harvest objectives may be considered. Annual Regional harvest objectives, outlined further in the West Slope Regional Summaries section of this plan, incorporate non-harvest mortality rates in development of acceptable harvest mortality levels so as not to exceed the total human-caused mortality threshold. As such, Regional harvest objectives will always be lower than total human-caused mortality thresholds and will likely fall in or near the annual harvest range of 12-16%, bracketing the 14% harvest off-take level as recommended by Beausoleil et al. (2013). Voluntary Female Harvest Reduction Outreach If the adult female composition threshold of 22% is exceeded, the first action should be to reduce adult female harvest. While differentiating subadult females from adult females before 18 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 harvest may be difficult, Colorado’s lion hunters have a proven track record of being able to decrease harvest pressure on females when requested by CPW. From 2005-2007, CPW, in collaboration with hound hunting groups, conducted training workshops about the biology and life history of mountain lion as well as the importance of females to sustaining populations. The lion regulation brochure also provided similar written information. In the 2007-2008 lion season, CPW implemented a mandatory mountain lion hunter education requirement. This course provides training information to hunters about mountain lion ecology and hunters must pass an exam demonstrating the ability to identify lion gender characteristics. Subsequently, the average total female composition in harvest declined from about 44% in the 10 years before 2005 to about 37% in the 14 years since. It is important to note this was a reduction in all female age classes, not just adults. As part of this West Slope plan, CPW intends to engage with lion hunters via the brochure, the online harvest limit report, and make informal field contacts to request voluntary reductions in female harvest if and when Regional annual adult female composition exceeds the 22% threshold. It would not be practical to ask for reductions just in adult females since age class determination in the field is much more challenging than gender determination. This outreach would likely decrease overall female harvest (all ages), but adult females would be part of that reduction, and we expect this to move composition trajectory in the desired direction. Harvest Limit Reductions Harvest limit reductions of 5% will be applied to the Regional harvest objective total in the regulatory cycle immediately following management thresholds being exceeded, as outlined above. Any such reduction in Regional harvest objective due to exceeding either threshold, outside of the Glenwood SMA, is mandatory and is a reduction minimum. Each time a reduction is applied to the Regional harvest objective, it will generally be maintained for 3 years. There may be cases where the 3-year total mortality or annual adult female compositional proportion returns below the management threshold before that time where increases in Regional harvest objectives will be considered. Nothing precludes managers from implementing larger reductions of Regional harvest objectives and harvest limits that are determined desirable or necessary to accelerate the lion population response. The management steps CPW will take are based on empirical data in previously observed populations and on models developed in Colorado. The following section presents an evaluation quantifying Regional areas of minimal lion mortality and outlining the extent of source areas (Figure 2) and large-scale lion resiliency to harvest. Further, the application of monitoring thresholds is appropriate to guard against longer term impacts to populations on the West Slope and ensure population stability at that scale. 19 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Lion Population Resiliency Resiliency to High Mortality Upon reaching age of independence, mountain lions disperse to maximize genetic interchange, which also serve to make populations resilient against high exploitation or rates of removal as vacated ranges are continuously being re-occupied by immigrants. Natural replacement of mortalities or otherwise vacated home ranges occurs differently between male and female lions. Vacated ranges of resident females are typically re-occupied by their independent-age daughters, adjacent resident females, and some immigrant females (Laing and Lindzey 1993, Logan and Sweanor 2001). In contrast, male dispersal from natal areas appears to occur regardless of resident adult male densities (Hemker et al. 1984). Consequently, vacated ranges of resident males are typically re-occupied by immigrant males, some coming from long distances. Logan and Sweanor (2001) documented this in New Mexico and numerous studies have recorded the long distances moved by dispersing lions as well as the sex bias in dispersal distance (Anderson et al. 1992, Ken Logan, CPW, personal communication 2018). Source Population Refuges In several studies, lion populations subjected to temporary intensive exploitation by > 40% over 1 to 6 year periods have been demonstrated to recover within 3 to 5 years (Ashman 1976, Logan and Sweanor 2001, Anderson and Lindzey 2005, Robinson et al. 2008, Logan 2015). In two such studies, the lion populations were completely protected from hunting (Logan and Sweanor 2001, Logan 2015). It is also important to understand that in addition to reductions in human-caused mortality, recovery was facilitated by immigrants coming from proximal source areas (Logan and Sweanor 2001, Anderson and Lindzey 2005, Robinson et al. 2008, Cooley et al. 2011). These results confirm that with adequate source populations in sufficient proximity to provide dispersal immigration combined with native recruitment, lion populations can be resilient when localized harvest rates exceed recruitment (Anderson and Lindzey 2005, Robinson et al. 2008, Cooley et al. 2009a, Cooley et al. 2011). These observations about lion resiliency and ability to rely on adjacent source populations are derived from research areas that range in size from the average GMU in Colorado (~1,500 km2) to the largest GMU at about 7,500 km2. The management thresholds of this plan will be monitored at a large, regional scale; therefore, if the thresholds are exceeded and are unmitigated, then longer-lasting negative impacts to the lion population should be expected. At this scale, male immigration is likely to be capable of re-occupying vacant habitat. In contrast, female immigration would likely occur initially along the boundary with adjacent Regions or adjacent states if intensive lion mortality is not also occurring in those locations. Some amount of female immigration may occur also from refuge areas within Regions (i.e., areas of high quality lion habitat with limited harvest as a result of land ownership or other restrictions of access), but this alone may not be sufficient to support continued mortality in excess of sustainable levels. 20 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 The following map of Colorado’s West Slope (Figure 2) shows what could be considered refuge zones or source areas where lion harvest is low to non-existent. Using the same RSF (Appendix C) habitat model employed within this document in developing Regional total mortality thresholds, we compared the top 50% of lion habitat in the NW and SW Regions to the most recent 10 years of lion harvest mortality. All lion harvest mortalities from 2009-2018 were mapped and a mortality surface was created using ArcGIS, delineating a surface with more than 3 harvest mortalities per 1,000 km2 per year. Areas of the West Slope that fell below this threshold were considered as having no significant level of harvest (0-3 harvested lions/1,000km2/year)(Table 3). For comparison, Wyoming’s statewide management plan considers a “source” hunt area to have an annual human-caused mortality level of below 5 lions/1,000 km2, and defines a “stable” hunt area as having annual human-caused mortality between 5-8 lions/1,000 km2(Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 2006). As shown in Figure 2 and Table 4, only a small fraction of lion habitat on the West Slope exceeds an annual harvest of 8 lions/1,000 km2. In fact, less than 15% of the high-quality habitat in the NW Region and only 1% of the high-quality habitat in the SW Region meet the qualification that Wyoming uses to classify a population “sink” (>8 lions/1,000 km2/year). Even if this analysis expands to consider all mortality sources beyond harvest, the proportions in each classification do not change significantly. The 46,844 km2 of higher quality lion habitat as generated from the top two strata in the RSF, was overlayed with a harvest mortality surface to evaluate the total amount of quality lion habitat on the West Slope of Colorado where no significant lion harvest occurs. The area of quality habitat with modeled moderate to higher lion densities and yet a low or non-existent level of harvest totaled 22,850 km2 or over 5.6 million acres across the NW and SW Regions (Figure 2 and Table 4). This includes high-quality habitat within National Parks and Monuments, Bureau of Land Management Wilderness areas, protected municipality open spaces and natural areas, areas with little significant snowfall making lion harvest difficult, and large tracts of unhunted private land. Table 4. Comparison of high quality lion habitat in each Region and harvest density. Northwest Region: Southwest Region: Total Area Total High Quality Lion Habitat Total High Quality Habitat with ≤ 3 harvested lions/1000 km2/year “source zone” Total High Quality Habitat with >8 harvested lions/1000 km2/year “sink zone” 58,910 km2 24,234 km2 9,265 km2 3,576 km2 64,678 km2 22,610 km2 13,585 km2 261 km2 21 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Figure 2. Upper 50%-100% percentile quality lion habitat from Colorado resource selection function model and 2009-2018 lion harvest mortality surface from the West Slope. Zone Management While the West Slope lion plan is not explicitly managing for defined source and sink areas or employing “zone” management across the two Regions (Logan 2019), the exercise described above is illuminating. It shows that in addition to monitoring mortality and harvest composition thresholds to ensure viability of Regional lion populations, Colorado’s West Slope lions benefit from 49% of the Northwest and Southwest Regions highest-quality lion habitat having virtually no lion harvest. These zones are functioning as refuges from harvest mortality. The fact that these robust source areas exist in abundance at large spatial scales and are well distributed across the West Slope affirms an additional safeguard in CPW’s lion management strategy. The source areas promote a supply of immigrant lions and bolster recruitment, supporting population viability and resiliency across the entire landscape. The functional impact of having 49% of the West Slope’s best habitat as a refuge zone, even if those areas are not explicitly defined by this plan or in regulations, cannot be overstated. Significant portions of both Regions are available to lions as “source” zones that offset any “sink” zones that are implemented through management or occur due to hunter harvest 22 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 patterns. As an example, Robinson and DeSimone’s (2011) initial analysis of the Blackfoot watershed in Montana suggested that an area as small as 12% of a larger landscape that was without hunting mortality could act as a viable source with increased survival rates and ability to produce emigrants to other, more heavily harvested areas. West Slope Regional Summaries Northwest Regional Summary Introduction and History The Northwest Region contains large areas of highly productive mountain lion habitat. The highest quality mountain lion habitat occurs in western and southern portions of the Region, particularly in areas around Dinosaur National Monument in Moffat County, in the Piceance Basin in Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties, in the Bookcliffs and Roan Plateau in Rio Blanco, Garfield and Mesa Counties, and east into Eagle County. These areas are characterized by rocky terrain and pinyon-juniper woodland vegetation. They overlap the largest, and historically most productive, mule deer herds in Colorado. Lion habitat becomes less productive at higher elevations in the central and northeastern portions of the Region. Mountain lion management plans completed in 2004 call for a management strategy of stable mountain lion numbers throughout most of the Region, with the exception of the White River and Grand Mesa areas, which were previously managed to suppress mountain lion numbers. The Northwest Region has annually accounted for approximately 40% of statewide mountain lion mortality, with most of that mortality occurring as hunter harvest. Hunter harvest across the entire Northwest Region averaged 228 mountain lions annually in the 2016-2018 time period. Total human-caused mountain lion mortality over the same period averaged 258 lions annually. These recent rates of mountain lion harvest and total human-caused mortality represent historic highs. Non-livestock related lion conflict calls have increased in several areas of the Region within the past several years, particularly in Steamboat Springs, Eagle County and the Roaring Fork Valley (including Aspen). Conflicts include prolonged trail closures due to lion activity, depredation of pets and hobby livestock, and the June, 2016 mauling of a young child by a younger lion near Aspen. Northwest Regional Monitoring Metrics Lion populations will be managed for a Regional objective of a stable population. CPW will monitor total human-caused mortality and adult female composition in harvest annually. The two monitoring thresholds are: 1) The adult female composition in total hunter harvest at the Regional scale will not exceed 22% in any given year, excluding the Glenwood SMA. 2) The total human-caused mortality at the Regional scale will not exceed 17% of the RSF extrapolation, excluding the Glenwood SMA, on a 3 year average. In the Northwest Region, this equates to a Regional total human-caused mortality threshold of 269 lions. 23 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Regional Harvest Objective Evaluation of both monitoring metrics indicates that there is room for a modest increase in mountain lion harvest in the Northwest Region while continuing to manage for a stable mountain lion population consistent with the provisions of the West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan. Excluding the Glenwood SMA, mountain lion harvest in the Northwest Region between 2016 and 2018 averaged 212 lions annually. Given the flexibility to achieve a slightly higher harvest rate within the framework on the West Slope plan, the Northwest Region intends to increase the harvest rate of mountain lions above levels achieved in 2016-2018. It is CPW’s intent to maximize the use of licensed hunters in achieving lion management objectives within the Northwest Region. Mountain lion mortality attributed to control actions and other non-harvest events within the Region comprises a small portion of total annual human-caused mortality. Lion management conducted pursuant to this Northwest Regional plan will strive to maintain non-harvest lion mortality at a low level, with the remaining mortality directed toward harvest. The Northwest Region harvest objective for 2021-2022 in GMUs excluding the Glenwood SMA will equal 243 lions annually (approximately 15% of the lion abundance index in those GMUs in the RSF). This Regional harvest objective will be divided among four harvest limit groups, as shown in Table 4. The NW Region harvest objective projects average non-harvest mortality as being similar to the most recent 3-year average. Human Safety and Conflict Human populations and lion populations show direct overlap in much of Colorado. In some instances, this overlap occurs in areas of relatively high human densities and development. Lions typically avoid people and are primarily active at times when humans are not. Nevertheless, co-occupancy of habitats may result in conflicts between people and lions. These human-lion incidents vary and run a continuum from mere sightings, depredation of or altercations with pets or hobby livestock, to human attack and injury or fatality. Given the current human population in Colorado and the anticipated population growth in the future, lion conflict levels will likely increase, especially in those areas where people continue expansion of human developments into occupied lion habitat. In addition, as this expansion occurs, the opportunity to effectively harvest lions is reduced because the traditional form of lion hunting (use of hounds) is largely incompatible with increasing human occupancy. Opinions vary on appropriate lion abundance in suburban and ex-urban communities. Considerable agency effort is directed toward providing people information for managed coexistence with lions and these efforts will be continued for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, CPW places human safety above lion occupancy, especially in areas of human residential development, where conflict has, or is expected to occur. In areas where conflicts between humans and lions are of increasing concern, special management may be necessary to find an appropriate level of tolerance for lions. CPW proposes the use of a Special 24 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Management Area (SMA) to address primarily non-agricultural issues in ex-urban areas where an increasingly robust lion population is coming in conflict with increasingly high rates of human occupancy and land use. Appendix B provides a broader discussion on human-lion conflicts and human safety. In this plan, only one area has been identified on the West Slope for needing a SMA, and that is the community surrounding Glenwood Springs in the NW Region. The need, objectives and monitoring goals in the Glenwood SMA are described later in the NW Regional Summary. Harvest Limits Until now, mountain lion seasons and harvest in the Northwest Region was distributed at small scales, predominantly, to individual GMUs. For example, in 2017 and 2018, 33 separate mountain lion hunting harvest limit groups were used. All GMUs in the Northwest Region have been open for mountain lion hunting, except GMU 471, although that unit will be open in the 2020-2021 hunting season. Recent harvest distribution is presented in Table 5. This West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan aggregates harvest limits into four harvest limit groups that include all GMUs within the Region, except those included within the Glenwood SMA (Figure 3, Table 6). Figure 3. NW Region harvest limit groups for 2021-2022 lion season. 25 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Table 5. Historic Northwest Region 2018 mountain lion harvest limit groups, harvest limits, and the 2016-2018 average annual harvest (rounded to nearest whole number). List of GMU(s) in harvest limit group 2018 Harvest Limit 3-year Average Harvest 1, 2 3, 301 4, 5, 14, 214, 441 7 5 13 4 1 14 6, 16, 17, 161, 171 4 3 10 11 12 13, 131, 231 15 18, 27, 28, 37, 181, 371 21 22 23 24 25, 26, 34 30 31 32 33 35, 36, 361 40 41 42 43 44 45 47 201 211 421 444 15 17 19 23 5 12 17 17 18 7 7 11 17 7 17 9 7 5 10 7 6 1 1 8 29 10 7 6 8 16 11 5 10 14 17 14 6 6 6 11 4 7 9 7 3 8 5 6 0 1 4 7 10 5 26 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Table 6. Northwest Region mountain lion harvest limit group name, GMUs and harvest limit for 20212022. Harvest Limit Group Name GMUs Harvest Limit L-30 West Hwy 13 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32, 201, 211, 301 91 L-31 East Hwy 13 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 33, 131, 214, 231, 441 80 L-32 Upper Colorado River 6, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, 36, 37, 161, 171, 181, 361, 371 38 L-33 Lower Colorado River 40, 41, 42, 47, 421, 471 34 Glenwood Special Management Area (SMA) 43, 44, 45, 444 33 April Season Historically, the Northwest Region has had very limited lion hunting opportunities during the month of April. Typically, most harvest limits were filled during the regular lion season from late November through March. In some areas, April seasons haven’t been utilized to minimize impacts on other wildlife such as breeding and nesting sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse. The NW Region will initially implement this plan with all April seasons closed, with the exception of the Glenwood SMA harvest limit group. Opening April seasons could be an option for other harvest limit groups in the future if there is a need. Electronic Calls CPW will create regulations to make electronic calls legal for mountain lion hunting within the Glenwood SMA (GMUs 43, 44, 45, and 444). Electronic calls have proven to be an effective means in attracting lions to a hunter’s location, although harvest from this method is less selective than with hound hunting. By bringing the lion to the hunter through the use of calls, hunters can control where the lion is harvested, thereby allowing hunters to hunt small pieces of private or public property. Electronic calls would also enable hunters who do not have access to hounds the opportunity to harvest a lion. Additionally, the use of electronic calls would better enable CPW to address conflict lions near residential areas and reach harvest goals. Glenwood Special Management Area The Glenwood SMA is comprised of GMUs 43, 44, 45 and 444 (Figure 3). This area encompasses most of the Roaring Fork valley and portions of the Eagle valley south of Interstate 70. Mountain lions have historically existed in these areas; however field observations and reported incidents over the past decade have all indicated a significant increase in both the number and severity of human-lion conflicts. Managers have become concerned that the 27 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 frequency of these conflicts is likely to result in human injuries or fatalities. Conflicts are likely high in the Glenwood SMA because local winter ranges occupied by mule deer within these GMUs are located in close proximity to urban and suburban areas, with additional areas containing substantial exurban housing development. Human activity levels within mountain lion habitats are high year-around. The combination of small parcel private land ownership, relatively dense human housing, and high degree of winter recreation all make the GMUs within this SMA difficult to hunt with hounds, which limits the impact that lion harvest can have on management. Lion management within this area will be governed by the management needs, objectives and monitoring metrics stated below. The NW Regional goal of managing for a stable lion population is compatible with the independent objective of reducing human-lion conflict in these 4 GMUs. Harvest, total mortality and adult female composition levels within the Glenwood SMA are exempt from both NW Regional monitoring thresholds. However, the RSF extrapolated abundance index within GMUs 43, 44, 45 and 444 will also be excluded from calculations of the total humancaused mortality threshold for the Region (Table 2). In other words, both lion mortality and contributions to projected Regional abundance index from the Glenwood SMA will be excluded from any calculations or analysis of the Regional monitoring thresholds. Glenwood SMA Need and Rationale: Public reports of mountain lions in the Glenwood SMA were rare 10-20 years ago. Now reports number in the hundreds annually and come from a variety of groups and members of the community. Mountain lion reports have also changed in nature during this period from occasional sightings in the backcountry to videos and photos of lions basking on front porches in neighborhoods, roaming between vehicles on highways, and casually walking in the middle of the day down sidewalks. Reports of lions generally increased in winter and early spring when snow concentrated prey species in lower elevations nearer human development, more recently however, reports are now received year-round. Changes in lion habituation to humans have been reported as well. Many calls report mountain lions that appear to have lost their fear of humans when confronted and exhibit behaviors consistent with being “habituated” to humans. The duration of time that lions have tolerated being close to urban and suburban settings has also increased, now lasting upwards of several weeks in some cases. Hazing efforts by CPW staff, landowners and other agencies have been largely unsuccessful in displacing lions from these settings in most cases, similar to the results of research documented by Alldredge et al. (2019). Colorado Parks and Wildlife is statutorily liable for damage to livestock and has historically incorporated game damage objectives in lion management plans. Recorded game damage in and around the SMA has increased in the last 10 years when compared to the previous decade. From 1998 to 2008, there were 11 mountain lion damage claims paid in the local area, at a cost of $3,936. From 2009 to 2019, there were 21 mountain lion damage claims paid for a cost of $38,870. During these same 10 years however, the number of commercial livestock producers has decreased while hobby livestock owners appear to have increased. 28 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Agency staff has increased public awareness to help reduce incidents through posting signs in residential areas, presenting information at homeowners association meetings, coordinating responses with local law enforcement agencies, providing recommendations to planners and developers with measures aimed at protecting residents and pets, providing information through traditional media, posting information on social media and teaching lion safety principles in annual school programs. Despite these efforts, CPW has needed to increase the frequency of use of hazing techniques, in addition to more efforts targeting individual conflict mountain lions for removal. Glenwood SMA Goals and Objectives: The goal of the SMA is to address human safety concerns by reducing human-lion conflicts, reduce lion occupancy in developed areas of high human use and to provide maximum hunting opportunity. Hunter harvest will be the primary tool for addressing an increasing mountain lion population and associated increasing conflicts. Harvest management tools such as longer and additional hunting seasons and permitting the use of electronic calls will help increase harvest and may allow for targeted harvest in areas of high conflict. Management tools will also include public education and strategic removal of individual lions that are dangerous by location or behavior. This SMA approach will be evaluated in an adaptive management framework to allow testing of some of the questions surrounding mitigating tools, including high harvest, heightened public education and management of individual animals in conflict situations, that will be used to reduce human-lion conflicts (Appendix B). Harvest: The harvest limit in the four GMUs that comprise the SMA will be established at a level high enough that this SMA harvest limit group offers maximum hunting opportunity throughout the regular and April lion seasons(>25% harvest mortality, no human-caused mortality threshold and no adult female threshold). Public Education: Public education on human wildlife coexistence remains paramount. CPW will continue to build and rely on partnerships with local governments, municipalities and organizations to find additional means of reducing conflicts. CPW continues to use various public information resources to provide information to communities and highlight the importance of living responsibly with wildlife. Common CPW recommendations include bringing pets in at night, not leaving pets unattended or tethered in yards, using fully enclosed outdoor kennels, use of outdoor lights, removing brush and grasses when landscaping, securing hobby livestock in enclosed barns/sheds and removing deer and elk food sources near homes that may attract prey species. Individual Conflict: CPW continues to consider removal or translocation of individual lions, based on case-by-case specifics, as a main tool to mitigate human-lion conflict. This is particularly true in developed areas of the SMA where using a licensed hunter to harvest the individual lion is not practical. 29 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 SMA Objective Monitoring and Adaptive Management Managing for a sustained reduction in human-lion conflicts will be monitored by various mechanisms. Information will be assessed over time to account for variations in external conditions, such as weather, which may alter the number of conflicts but cannot be controlled or replicated by staff. CPW staff collects human-lion incidents and records them in a system that can be referenced to evaluate progress towards the goal of reducing conflicts. CPW will use these records to measure increasing or decreasing trends in mountain lion conflict reports within the SMA. To further evaluate that CPW is accomplishing the goal of reducing conflicts, staff will monitor the amount of time spent by officers in response to calls specific to lions and measure for increasing or decreasing trends. Management direction will continue towards a decreasing population until social metrics show a multi-year reduction in human mountain lion conflicts. Given that the West Slope plan and Glenwood SMA strategy will guide management for at least the next 10 years, evaluation of success at reaching goals and objectives related to decreased human-lion conflict in the SMA will occur at an interim point, approximately 5 years into plan implementation. This formal evaluation will assess whether the number of recorded annual human-lion conflicts have been on a trend of reduction over that time. If this evaluation shows that the approach used in the first 5 years did not successfully produce a declining trend in conflicts, then adaptively, a different strategy with reduced levels of harvest will be employed for the second 5 years. Additionally, harvest limit fulfillment will be evaluated annually, with a particular focus on the success of each method and season in reaching harvest goals. The use of electronic calls will be a novel management tool, so assessing its efficacy in contributing to harvest will also be considered. Southwest Regional Summary Introduction and History The Southwest Region has a variety of habitat and mountain lion prey abundance, and therefore a variety of lion densities likely ranging from marginal to very high. The Southwest Region has the lowest human population of CPW’s four administrative regions. Much of the Southwest Region is public, agricultural or rural residential land. However, population clusters in the Uncompahgre, Gunnison, Dolores, San Juan and Animas river valleys overlap lion habitat and do experience occasional human-lion conflicts. Urban and exurban developments may provide attractants to lions such as residential deer, dogs at-large, and hobby livestock, as well as refuge areas where traditional hunter harvest is difficult. Human-mountain lion interactions can vary from sightings of lions, to depredation incidents on pets or livestock to human attacks. Lions involved in these interactions are categorized in agency Directive W-20 as nuisance lions, which are frequently seen near people, kill and cache prey near homes, or as depredating lions which kill livestock, or dangerous lions. Lions 30 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 may be considered dangerous due to their location or their behavior. The Southwest Region will prioritize human safety when handling potentially dangerous human-lion interactions. Number and locations of nuisance, depredating, or dangerous lions are highly variable from year to year and are unpredictable. Southwest Regional Monitoring Metrics Lion populations will be managed for a Regional objective of a stable population. This will maintain viable lion populations and sustainable harvest compatible into the future. We will manage for a relatively stable Regional mountain lion population, and quality hunting opportunities with a diverse age and sex distribution in the harvest. The two monitoring thresholds are: 1) The adult female composition in total hunter harvest at the Regional scale will not exceed 22% in any given year. 2) The total human-caused mortality at the Regional scale will not exceed 17% of the RSF extrapolation on a 3-year average. In the Southwest Region, this equates to a Regional total human-caused mortality threshold of 284 lions. Regional Harvest Objective For the first three years of the Regional plan, the SW Regional hunter harvest objective will be set as approximately 11% of the RSF extrapolated abundance. Using this approach, the Regional annual harvest objective is calculated to be 185 lions, and total human-caused mortality is projected to be 219 lions. This is well below the mortality monitoring threshold. This Regional harvest objective is a decrease from the pooled harvest limit of 194 (Table 7) that existed prior to the development of the West Slope Lion Management Plan. However, due to the great flexibility afforded to hunters by the large geographic harvest limit groups (as opposed to many small GMU-level limits, many of which were never achieved), we expect annual hunter harvest to increase from 147 lions to approximately 185 lions. Harvest limit changes are likely to occur in harvest limit groups that consistently reach harvest limits. In addition, this Regional harvest objective is substantially below the SW maximum total humancaused mortality threshold of 284 lions. This Regional harvest objective may incrementally increase and decrease as the adult female proportion and total human-caused mortality thresholds are monitored after the initial 3 years of implementing this plan. Hunting opportunity in the Southwest Region is allocated to harvest limit groups (Figure 4 and Table 8) that differ from historic harvest limit groups (Table 7). Harvest limit allocations will be manipulated to create a balance between maintaining a viable lion population and staying below acceptable levels of conflicts with humans and livestock. On the large landscape level of the Southwest Region, harvest limits will be set to provide a broad spectrum of lion ages and densities on the landscape, as well as addressing hunter opportunity and satisfaction. 31 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Harvest Limit Mountain lion harvest limit groups were delineated according to the need to distribute harvest geographically while recognizing the landscape scale of mountain lion movements. The units are large enough to manage mountain lions on a landscape scale, group Game Management Units with similar geography, habitat, human cultural use, and regulation (method of take, April season, hunter harvest vs non-harvest mortality). This led to the creation of seven harvest limit groups in the Southwest Region loosely identified as the Dolores Canyon, Uncompahgre, North Fork, Gunnison Basin, San Luis Valley North, San Juan, and San Luis Valley South. Each harvest limit group will initially have a harvest limit greater than the current 3-year average harvest mortality. When summed across the Region, harvest is expected to increase approximately one-third of the difference between the 2019-2020 total harvest and the human-caused mortality threshold. This strategy will be evaluated for several years, at which time harvest limits may be adjusted to remain below the adult female monitoring thresholds while strategically maximizing harvest. As necessary, harvest limit groups and harvest limits may be adjusted at any time during the life of this management plan. Figure 4. SW Region harvest limit groups for 2021-2022 lion season. 32 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Table 7. Historic Southwest Region 2018 mountain lion harvest limit groups, harvest limits, and the 2016-2018 average annual harvest (rounded to nearest whole number). GMU 2018 Harvest Limit 3- year Average Harvest 52,411 53,63 54,55,551 60 61 62 64 65 66,67 68,681,682 70 East 70 West 71,711 72 73 74,741 75 76,79,791 77 78 80 81 82 83 521 751,771 10 10 7 5 10 9 5 7 8 7 11 11 10 7 14 6 4 5 6 5 5 5 6 10 6 5 6 10 8 1 10 9 2 6 9 5 6 6 9 3 6 5 2 5 7 5 5 2 3 9 6 3 33 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Table 8. Southwest Region mountain lion harvest limit group name, GMUs and harvest limits for 20212022. Harvest Limit Group Name L-50 Dolores Canyon L-51 Uncompahgre L-52 North Fork L-53 Gunnison Basin L-54 San Luis Valley North L-55 San Juan L-56 San Luis Valley South GMUs Harvest Limit 60, 61, 70W, 72, 73 31 62, 64, 65, 70E, 71, 711 48 411, 52, 53, 63, 521 31 54, 55 ,66, 67, 551 18 68, 76, 79, 82, 681, 682, 791 16 74, 75, 77, 78, 741, 751, 771 23 80, 81, 83 18 April Season Under this plan, the Southwest Region will initially close all harvest limit groups during the April hunting season each year. In the recent past, there have been several GMUs open for hunting in April including 70, 71, 72, 73, and 711. Several of these are proposed to have expanded opportunity via electronic calls (see below), while others are included in L-51, which has typically achieved harvest limits during the November-March period. The remaining GMUs in the Southwest Region have traditionally not had an April season because the units have met the harvest objective in the November-March time period or wildlife managers recognize potential conflict with Gunnison sage-grouse during a critical period of their breeding season. Electronic Calls Colorado Parks and Wildlife will create regulations to make electronic calls legal for mountain lion hunting in harvest limit group L-50 (GMUs 60, 61, 70W, 72, and 73). Although large portions of the Region are comprised of public property, mountain lion hunting with hounds is difficult in areas of small property ownership patterns in Montezuma, Dolores, and Montrose Counties. Much of the low elevation deer and elk winter range in this area has poor or nonexistent snow-tracking conditions in most winters and is therefore difficult to hunt with hounds, though it is still excellent lion habitat. L-50 is made up of a checkerboard pattern of public and private land; this can make accessing some of the public land difficult without permission from a landowner. Keeping hound pursuits only on the property that hunters have permission to hunt can also become quite challenging due to the smaller parcel size of both private and public property. Consequently, there is a limited amount of opportunity for lion hound hunting in these areas. Most of these GMUs rarely, if ever, meet their harvest limit. The result has been an increase in lion sightings and conflicts. The hunting public has an 34 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 interest in harvesting lions in these area; hunters just need a method that would give them an opportunity that currently does not exist. Electronic calls have proven to be an effective means in attracting mountain lions to a hunter’s location, although harvest from this method is less selective than with hound hunting. By bringing the lion to the hunter through the use of calls, hunters can control where the lion is harvested, thereby allowing hunters to hunt small pieces of private or public property. Electronic calls would also enable hunters who do not have access to hounds the opportunity to harvest a lion. Additionally, the use of electronic calls would better enable CPW to address conflict lions near residential areas and reach harvest objectives. We can measure success by identifying electronic call-assisted harvest locations closer to suburban/urban areas, increased harvest, and a reduction in conflicts. Adult female harvest composition in these units will be monitored to see if harvest proportions increase above 22% in any year; harvest limits and methods will be reevaluated if this threshold is exceeded. Management Plan Update & Revision Process As is appropriate with lions, this plan initiates a long-term management framework for the entire West Slope. Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s management plans should be based on credible scientific information, informed by and responsive to the diversity of public interests and concerns, and readily available to the public. Management plans provide an accountability mechanism for agencies that manage lions as a public trust resource. However, management plans that persist over long time periods risk becoming unresponsive to new scientific evidence or may outlast changing perspectives of citizens or resource management demands. A common criticism of management plans is that they are overly restrictive and unresponsive to either changing management conditions or to newer information. The challenge is to create guidance that is firm enough to truly guide management but that is also adaptive to new scientific information, new opportunities to test management applications, and new demands placed upon the agency. Periodic review and examination of new scientific information relevant to the management assumptions contained in this plan should be conducted as needed. Public Planning Process A more complete description of the public process and summaries of feedback received on the West Slope lion plan are included in Appendix E. Public outreach efforts, designed to inform the public of the proposed planning process and collect input, began in January of 2020. Twelve in-person public meetings were hosted across the by CPW staff beginning in February 2020. Approximately 584 individuals attended the in-person presentations with 360 attendees providing written survey feedback. The agency also conducted a Facebook Premier event featured a recording of the same presentation given at West Slope in-person meetings and included a recorded question and answer session to common themes we heard from earlier meetings. Over 32,000 views were recorded in the first full day of the video being 35 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 posted. The draft West Slope lion management plan and associated appendices were posted to the CPW mountain lion webpage on CPW’s website on March 12, 2020 and closed on April 30, 2020 (~ 6 weeks) for public review and commenting. During this draft plan review period, 1,855 formal public comments were received. Lion Density Monitoring and Future Research Needs Lion Density Monitoring Developing robust estimates of current lion density in survey areas on the West Slope will help improve and refine assumptions made in the RSF model. Empirically-derived estimates will also serve to confirm projected cumulative Regional abundances in the range of 2-3 independent lions/100 km2 that are being applied as part of the West Slope plan to generate the total human-caused mortality threshold. Beginning in 2020-2021, CPW will identify two survey areas on the West Slope that are representative of quality lion habitat and that reflect a gradient of lion hunting pressure. A spatial mark-resight density estimation approach will be used, which produces more precise estimates of lion numbers than mark-recapture efforts used in the past (Alldredge et al. 2019, Murphy et al. 2019). This survey technique relies on remote game cameras distributed across the survey area to “resight” lions from repeated photos over time. A proportion of lions in the population are “marked” using GPS collars labeled with unique visual identifiers. The proportion and capture pattern of known marked lions versus unmarked individuals allows estimation of density. Spatial data acquired from GPS collars addresses geographic closure and improves density estimates based on the proportion of time each collared lion spent on the survey area (Alldredge et al. 2019, Murphy et al. 2019). This correction tends to reduce overall density estimates, but results in a more accurate estimate. To achieve a desired precision so the estimates are meaningful in the context of evaluating the RSF, each survey area would likely be around ~2,000 km2 and will require handling and marking approximately 20-25 independent lions. Each study area will be divided into around eighty 25 km2 cells and a remote game camera and call will be installed in each cell. Resight sampling will occur for a minimum of 8 weeks during February and March. This time period was chosen because bears will not be active at this time and most of the cougar harvest will be completed at this time. Therefore, estimated lion densities will represent a post-hunt estimate on winter range, similar to the techniques and procedures currently being employed in CPW’s Upper Arkansas research project. These West Slope survey area densities will serve to support and align CPW’s RSF modeling process and its’ resulting abundance projection outputs to accurately reflect lion population status currently in the field. Future Research Needs Numerous avenues of potential research exist into the future in Colorado. Some are already underway, others require commitment of significant resources that are outside the framework of this plan, and others may be best evaluated after several years of implementing this West 36 �West Slope Mountain Lion Plan: Sept 2, 2020 Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan. Below are several topics that have been identified as future research needs.  Investigate and update research on public perceptions and opinions about lion management in Colorado.  Further evaluate the hypothesis that the social disruption caused by intensive lion harvest or removal of adult males is related to increases in human-lion conflicts.  Evaluate presumed source and sink locations to determine if predictions reflect functionality. 37 �Appendix A: Sept 2, 2020 Colorado West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan APPENDIX A MOUNTAIN LION LIFE HISTORY, ECOLOGY, AND MONITORING Introduction: This review of current scientific literature begins by briefly describing where and how lions live in Colorado, including a review of lion densities, and predator-prey relationships. Specific attention is devoted to lion predation on mule deer because of a high level of interest in these relationships and how they might relate to recent declines in mule deer populations. Lastly, a summary is provided of both commonly used field and harvest index-driven methods to monitor lion populations. Distribution The historic range of the mountain lion (Puma concolor) was the largest of any terrestrial mammal in the Western Hemisphere, with the exception of humans (Logan and Sweanor 2001). The lion continues to range from the southern tip of South America to northern British Columbia (Logan and Sweanor 2001) but was apparently extirpated from the eastern US and Canada, with the exception of southern Florida, by the late 1800s to early 1900s. Between the mid-1960s and the early 1990s, lion populations increased in many western states and they expanded their distribution into Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota. In Alberta, Canada, lion distribution has expanded to the north and east during the past two decades (Knopff et al. 2010). The Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group [CMGWG] (2005) and Fecske et al. (2011) suggest that population recovery and expansion may be due in part to reclassifying lions from unregulated predator status to game animal (which has regulated human off-take since 1965), science-based management practices, increases in prey abundance, restricted uses of predicides since the 1970s, and increased human tolerance for large carnivores. On the West Slope of Colorado, lions occupy most timbered and tall shrub covered habitats. In comparison to other Rocky Mountain States, western Colorado possesses high-quality, wellconnected lion habitat with the capacity to support high lion abundance. The relatively highquality habitat on the West Slope is due in part to an abundance and diversity of lion prey species, coupled with optimal vegetation and topographic structure. Dispersal patterns and genetic evidence suggest that lion populations throughout most of the western US are well connected (Culver et al. 2000, Sinclair et al. 2001, Anderson et al. 2004). Extreme movements of male lions in excess of 1,000 km have been documented (Thompson and Jenks 2005). These long-range movements provide a very effective means of genetic transfer and population maintenance to lion populations in distant regions. Gene flow among lion populations in the Central Rocky Mountains suggests this region exists as one large lion population with rapid genetic exchange among suitable habitat patches throughout the region 1 �Appendix A: Sept 2, 2020 (Anderson et al. 2004). Consequently, little or no genetic population structuring has been found in Colorado (Sinclair et al. 2001, McRae 2004). Habitat Use The broad geographic distribution of the lion in North America attests to its ability to persist in natural habitats wherever there is adequate prey and cover (CMGWG 2005). Previous lion habitat studies in the western US suggest lions select conifer, deciduous timber, riparian, and tall shrub habitat types at mid-high elevations in steep or rugged terrain (Logan and Irwin 1985, Laing 1988, Koehler and Hornocker 1991, Williams et al. 1995, Dickson and Beier 2002). Tall vegetation or rugged terrain sufficient for concealment provides the necessary hiding and stalking cover for securing prey and raising young (CMGWG 2005). Lions may be found in climates ranging from arid regions of desert environments to temperate rainforests of the Pacific Coast. Vast, open areas with little hiding cover and severely cold winter temperatures of northern climates may restrict lion use (Pierce and Bleich 2003). It may be that the basin bottom of a few mountain “parks” on the West Slope meet this description. Despite the lion’s broad distribution and adaptability, habitat fragmentation that is associated with human development can negatively impact lion populations (Beier 1993, Vickers et al. 2015). In southern California, major highways were implicated in restricting the size and arrangement of lion home ranges and restrict gene flow in populations by constraining dispersal patterns (Riley et al. 2006). Genetic analysis and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) location data for a monitored lion population in northern Colorado did not demonstrate any similar results as Riley et al. (2006) found in California (Alldredge 2015). The magnitude of the human population in the Greater Los Angeles Area (>20,000,000) may explain the differences in observations. Nevertheless, increased construction of roads and homes in lion habitat may reduce the amount and quality of habitat available to lions and their primary prey [e.g., deer and elk], but may increase the number of alternative prey sources [raccoon, fox, domestic pets and hobby livestock]. Moreover, medium to low density ex-urban development in parts of Colorado serve as refugia for mule deer and can experience higher densities of mule deer than those found in similar public land habitats (Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Terrestrial Section unpublished data). Lion Social Structure and Reproduction Social behavior of lions likely evolved to maximize individual survival and reproductive success (Logan and Sweanor 2001). Lions are solitary carnivores exhibiting a polygynous breeding strategy where dominant males typically breed with females that reside within their home range (Murphy 1998). Resident males aggressively defend their territories against male intruders, whereas females allow more overlap, but express mutual avoidance (Lindzey et al. 1989, Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Logan and Sweanor 2001). Size of female home ranges tend to be large enough to provide sufficient prey for themselves and their young (~50-100 km2, 20-40 mi2), while male home ranges tend to be larger (~150-300 km2, 60-120 mi2), overlapping several females, apparently to maximize their reproductive success (Murphy 1998). Home ranges found in Colorado vary widely; from 309 km2 for females and 503 km2 for males on the Uncompahgre Plateau (Anderson et al. 1992) to 188 km2 for females and 253 km2 for males on 2 �Appendix A: Sept 2, 2020 the Southern Ute Indian Nation in southwestern Colorado (Koloski 2002). In recently completed research on the Uncompahgre Plateau and along the Front Range northwest of Denver, Colorado home range sizes are similar to, if not slightly larger than, those reported by Murphy (1998)(Ken Logan, CPW, personal communication 2015, Mat Alldredge, CPW, personal communication 2020). Young females commonly express philopatric behavior (remain in their natal range) upon independence, but males typically disperse from their natal range (Anderson et al. 1992, Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Lindzey et al. 1994, Logan and Sweanor 2001). Lion densities are low relative to other large mammals ranging from about 1 independent (>12-18 months old and self-sufficient) lion/100 km2 (38.6 mi2) in arid climates (Ashman 1976, Lindzey et al. 1994) to nearly 5 independent lions/100 km2 in generally more mesic areas (Currier et al. 1977, Hopkins 1989, Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Robinson et al. 2008, Cooley et al. 2009b, Proffitt et al. 2015) (Table 1). Whittaker and Wolfe (2011) point out that density estimates are strongly influenced by the methods used to assess the population size in a given area. This may help explain why in some cases, more recent non-invasive techniques and spatially-explicit models have yielded density estimates on the higher end of the previouslyobserved range. 3 �Appendix A: Sept 2, 2020 Table 1. Mountain lion densities reported or derived from surveyed areas in the western United States and Canada, 1977-2019. All densities reported as the number of lions per 100 km 2. Location Washington Vicinity NE- Wash. Survey Area Independent Total Number Size Mountain Mountain Survey (km2) Lion Density Lion Density Years Notes 9 Hunted 2878 2.2 2.1-2.6 Colorado Boulder 800 4.1 3 Lightly hunted Alldredge et al. 2019 Colorado Canon City 1950 4.8 (1.8-7.7) 1 Hunted Currier et al. 1977 Monroe Mts 1300 1.2-3.2 9 Hunted Oquirrh Mts 480 2.5-2.9 8 Unhunted 383 2.4 439 3.4 1 1700 1.2-3.2 Pre-treatment. Then thru 2 Anderson and Lindzey treatment yrs followed by 3 2005 recovery yrs. Utah Wyoming Snowy Mts Wyoming Bighorn Mts 741 1.8-2.3 Montana Bitterroot Mts 2625 4.5-5.2 Washington NE-Wash. 735 Montana Blackfoot drainage 7908 5 Garnet Mts. 915 Hunted. Kittens defined as <24mos comprised 50% of Logan et al. 1986 the pop. 1 Hunted Proffitt et al. 2015 5.0 6 Hunted, Kittens <12mos = 30% of the population Robinson et al. 2008 3.7 (2.3-5.7) 6.7 (3.1-11.0) 1 Hunted Russell et al. 2012 11 2.2 San Andreas Mts West-central DeSimone 2011 Logan and Sweanor 2001 7 Simulated hunting effect 655 3.6 (3.0-4.2) 5 Lightly hunted NE 772 3.5 (2.8-4.2) 5 Heavily hunted Oregon NE Oregon 225 4.2-5.0 1 Hunted Davidson et al. 2014 Utah South-central 1900 0.4-0.9 0.6-1.4 9 Unhunted Lindzey et al. 1994 Utah/Idaho SE-ID & NW-UT 1700 1.0-2.1 1.6-2.8 15 Hunted Laundre et al. 2007 8 Hunted. Kittens/“juveniles” defined Ross and Jalkotzy as <24 mos. are not 1992 included in the average independent density 3.5-3.7 2 Unhunted, but hunted prior to study. Kittens/“juveniles” defined Spreadbury et al. as <24 mos. = 50-58% of 1996 population and are not included in the independent density 1.7-3.5 8 Hunted, Seidensticker et al. Kittens/“juveniles” defined 1973 as <24 mos. Alberta Sheep River 780 British Columbia SE-BC Idaho Idaho Primitive 520 Area 540 1.5-2.1 After 3 yrs Hunted 1.7-4.3 Washington 2059 Yr 1 Unhunted, Kittens <12mos = 30% of population across all years of study Robinson and After 3 yrs Hunted w/refugia in part of area 3.6 New Mexico Stoner et al. 2006 2 3.5-4.6 4.0 Montana Reference Beausoleil et al. 2016 2.6 1.5-1.7 2.7-4.7 4 Cooley et al. 2009b �Appendix A: Sept 2, 2020 Female lions typically produce their first litter at 2-3 years old (Anderson 1983, Ashman et al. 1983, Logan and Sweanor 2001) and may breed at any time of the year, but exhibit seasonal birth pulses. Data from 7 lion studies in western North America indicate that May through October are the peak months for lion parturition (CMGWG 2005). Gestation lasts 82-96 days and lions typically produce 2 to 4 young (Logan et al. 1986, Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Logan and Sweanor 2001). Kittens are usually weaned at 2–3 months and typically remain with the female for 12–18 months before becoming independent (Pierce and Bleich 2003). Food Habits and Prey Relationships Lion diets consist primarily of large vertebrate prey species. Throughout much of North America, deer comprise the majority of lion diets (Pierce and Bleich 2003), but other large ungulates such as elk (Cervus canadensis), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), moose (Alces alces), and pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) may also be consumed (Ross and Jalkotzy 1996, Ross et al. 1997, Murphy 1998, Anderson and Lindzey 2003). Although lions primarily subsist on large ungulates, small mammals including porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum), raccoons (Procyon lotor), lagomorphs (hares and rabbits), ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), and beavers (Castor canadensis) may also supplement lion diets. Lions also occasionally prey on domestic livestock and pets. Sheep and goats are the most commonly killed domestic livestock, but lions also kill cattle, horses, and pets including dogs and cats (CMGWG 2005). Scavenging is also a more important contribution in lion diets than was believed 20-30 years ago (Knopf et al. 2010, Blecha et al. 2015). Scientific efforts reveal the complexity of predator-prey relationships, yet many people are not well versed in this understanding (Murphy et al. 2011). A fundamental understanding of predation consequences is required in order to meet societal goals for prey and predator populations (Gassaway et al. 1992). Failure to correctly apply the key principles of predatorprey interactions invites management mistakes, can misspend money (Kie et al. 2003) and may erode public confidence in management agencies. These points stress the importance of reviewing and incorporating into management the most current and relevant scientific information regarding predator-prey relationships. In single prey systems, predation by cougars and other predators is not believed to widely trigger declines of prey or depress prey populations for extended (>15 years) time periods (Ballard and Van Ballenberghe 1997, Ballard et al. 2001). However, if extreme weather or other perturbations significantly lower prey numbers below maximum sustained yield (Figure 1) predation may delay the prey’s density-dependent response and prolong low numbers. This effect may occur if the expected drop in cougar numbers naturally lags behind that of the primary prey (Logan and Sweanor 2001, CMGWG 2005, Laundré et al. 2006), as is common for population cycles of Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) and snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) in Canada and Alaska. The density dependence model of mortality should be one that is highly familiar to hunters in North America because it is a foundational principle for hunting many game populations. Under this paradigm of wildlife management, hunters take animals that may die from other causes (“compensatory” mortality), but they are only removing this surplus of animals from the population. It is only when wildlife agencies determine that 5 �Appendix A: Sept 2, 2020 additional mortality is necessary to manage wildlife populations that harvest and license levels are increased to allow hunters to take more animals. This regulated increase in harvest to reduce population size is then considered “additive” mortality (NFRTC 2001, CPW Hunter Education 2014). Figure 1. Density dependence: the relationship between the number of prey recruited and the density of the prey population. At low prey numbers mortality tends to be additive. At high prey numbers mortality tends to be compensatory. (Murphy et al. [2011] derived from McCullough [1979], Bailey [1984], and Bowyer et al. [2005]) Under some circumstances, in multiple prey systems, cougars may have sustained limiting effects on their large or mid-sized prey (Berger and Wehausen 1991, Sweitzer et al. 1997, Krausman and Shackleton 2000, Ballard et al. 2001, Kinley and Apps 2001, Novaro and Walker 2005, Wittmer et al. 2005). At the extreme, cougar predation, often acting in concert with other factors, also may reduce the viability of small or declining prey populations and mammalian diversity (Sweitzer et al. 1997, Ernest et al. 2002, Wittmer et al. 2005). These situations often involve a mix of primary and alternate prey (wild or exotic) as well as humaninduced changes in plant communities that collectively help maintain cougar numbers. In these situations, predator populations that would normally decrease as their prey populations are reduced are supported by other, more numerous prey populations (Pierce and Bleich 2003). In most of Colorado, it is likely that lion predation functions primarily within the multiple prey model; on the Uncompahgre Plateau and the northern Front Range areas lions preyed on mule deer and elk, and in the northern Front Range small prey played a significant role in lion diet (Blecha et al. 2015, Moss et al. 2016). The potential impacts of lions on prey populations are largely dependent on the condition of the prey and their habitat. In areas where prey habitat is in good condition, prey body condition will also be greater. Thus, more individuals in the prey population are likely to survive in the absence of predation. However, in prey populations where individuals are in poor condition due to poor forage quality, those individuals are more likely to die regardless of predation. Therefore, lion predation on ungulates in good physical condition is more likely 6 �Appendix A: Sept 2, 2020 to be additive to other causes of mortality. Conversely, lion predation on ungulates in poor physical condition (that is, ungulates in populations that exceed Kecol [ecological carrying capacity]) is more likely to be compensatory (Logan and Sweanor 2001)(Figure 1). In addition, healthy prey populations likely exhibit higher reproductive rates and are more likely to offset predatory regulation by producing more young than are consumed by predators. Ungulate populations exhibiting the characteristics of limitation by predation (Table 2) may benefit from increased lion harvest. Prey populations limited mainly by habitat conditions will not likely benefit from increases in local lion harvest except during the initial phases of habitat recovery allowing more rapid response of the prey population to improved forage conditions. Additionally, in situations where abundant alternate prey are lacking, a decline in lion numbers will naturally follow the decrease in the ungulate population regardless of lion harvest levels (CMGWG 2005). Table 2. Characteristics of ungulate-prey populations regulated by predation and populations regulated by forage conditions (CMGWG 2005, page 15). Life history characteristic Physical condition of adult females Population size mainly affected by predationb better Population size mainly affected by forage poorer Pregnancy rate of adult females higher lower Pause in annual production by adult females less likely more likely Yearlings pregnanta usually seldom Corpora lutea counts of adult femalesa higher lower Litter sizea higher lower Age at first reproduction for females younger older Weight of neonates heavier lighter Mortality of young additive compensatory Age at extensive tooth wear older younger Diet quality higher lower aSome species of ungulates may show limited variability in these characteristics. bThese traits will be evident in any population far below carrying capacity, even if it experiences no predation. The manager should have evidence that predation is a limiting factor before concluding that reducing predation would increase ungulate recruitment. The extent to which lion predation influences the abundance of ungulate populations seems to depend upon the ungulate population size, its productivity, the quality of its habitat, the presence of alternate prey, and lion abundance. Most notably, lion predation can suppress the growth of small, island-like populations of bighorn sheep (Ross et al. 1997, Kamler et al. 2002, Rominger et al. 2004a, Rominger et al. 2004b). In addition, the effect that lion predation can have on a small population of bighorn sheep can be influenced by the presence of more abundant prey, such as mule deer, that is more important to provisioning the lions on the same range (Johnson et al. 2013). Lions have annually removed an estimated 15-20% of a mule deer population on the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona (Shaw 1980), 8-12% of a mule deer population on the Uncompahgre Plateau, 7 �Appendix A: Sept 2, 2020 Colorado (Anderson et al. 1992), and 2-3% of elk and 3-5% of mule deer in the northern Yellowstone Ecosystem (Murphy 1998). Yet, the mere presence of predation does not necessarily indicate that an ungulate population is limited by predators. Nor does lion predation necessarily indicate suppression or regulation of the prey population (Ballard et al. 2001). For example, in the Chihuahua desert of southern New Mexico where neither the lions nor the mule deer were hunted, Logan and Sweanor (2001) revealed that the effect of lion predation on a population of deer was conditional upon deer habitat quality as influenced by weather. Lion predation apparently slowed the rate of growth of the deer population, but did not stop it from growing during good habitat years. The data indicated that lion predation was partially additive and partially compensatory as the deer population grew, but it was strongly compensatory as the deer population declined during the drought. In California, Pierce et al. (2012) examined the relative strengths of predation, mostly by lions, and habitat quality on a mule deer population and found that predation slowed but did not prevent deer population growth when food was not limiting the deer. They concluded that deer mortality during a time that the deer population declined and was at (or near) winter range carrying capacity, was mostly compensatory. However, during the time when the deer population was rebounding from a low phase and not limited by food, lion predation was likely additive mortality. Researchers in the New Mexico and California studies identified a period when lion abundance lagged behind the deer population decline, and that it was during this time that lion predation had the strongest affect. Evidence indicates that the lag period for lion numbers following deer declines could be 4 to 8 years (Laundre et al. 2007, Pierce et al. 2012). Other investigations of mule deer population trends have demonstrated population expansion and contraction highly correlated with the availability and quality of forage (Clements and Young 1996, Peek at al. 2002). Winter severity of the current and previous year’s winters were the most influential predictors of deer population growth rates in Idaho. In that study, lion control was able to increase fawn:doe ratios, but did not affect deer population growth (Hurley et al. 2011). A number of recent studies support a conclusion that the potential abundance of mule deer is determined mainly by the nutritional quality and availability of forage and not by lion predation (Bishop et al. 2005, Bender et al. 2007, Hurley et al. 2011, Pierce et al. 2012, Montieth et al. 2014). Monteith et al. (2014) suggested a path forward through a model that predicts expected population demographic rates through measuring nutritional carrying capacity (NCC). Their approach focuses on the capacity of the habitat and reduces the need to estimate population abundance. The degree that predation is compensatory or additive can be assessed by comparing the estimated nutritional capacity for survival and recruitment of young based on the predictive model developed by Monteith et al. (2014) to those same demographic rates measured empirically in that system. This would be useful for quantifying the effects of predation and provides a basis for determining the likely efficacy of predator control to enhance ungulate populations. Bergman et al. (2015) examined the published evidence about mule deer population management and concluded that herds in Colorado are most likely limited by the quality of 8 �Appendix A: Sept 2, 2020 available winter range habitat and that the influence that lion predation may have on mule deer population dynamics (that is, variation in growth rates) is poorly understood. Considering the abundance of lion habitat in Colorado and the conservative approach to lion harvest strategies, they posit that lion predation on mule deer is probably weakly additive. Even in a system when lion predation is primarily compensatory, hunters may be in competition with lions for preferred prey (i.e. mule deer). If demand for mule deer is high (hunter interest) and access to the resource is constrained (limited licenses), then deer dying from other means can be seen, at least by some, as lost hunting opportunity. Lion predation can be viewed as competition for access to the resource. The conflict here results from the tension between a short-term desire for hunting opportunity and a long-term view of population management of both lions and mule deer. Ultimately this isn’t a matter of biological capacity or ecological function; these considerations are outside the bounds of what must ultimately be a value-driven decision regarding mule deer and lion management. If lions are perceived as competitors for a limited resource such as mule deer, some may seek reductions in lion numbers to lessen this competition. Determination of how much deer mortality from hunters and how much deer mortality from predation is acceptable is not a decision that science can make. It is a value-based decision, which must be left to evaluation in the social, and not biological, realm. The body of evidence suggests that in most cases, efforts to reduce lion predation impacts to mule deer are likely to be expensive and the effect, if any, is likely to be relatively shortlived. Such efforts are also likely to be unpopular with some non-hunting segments of the human population. Mountain Lion Population Monitoring Although lion populations have previously been monitored with intensive capture efforts over relatively small areas, reliable and affordable techniques to monitor lion populations for large-scale management programs are lacking. The two main approaches to lion population monitoring are field methods and harvest data analysis. Field methods may obtain information directly about lion abundance, demographics and vital rates and/or population trend, whereas harvest data analysis can provide indications of population trends. Field Methods Field methods pertain to efforts by biologists to gather data on lions directly or indirectly via evidence they leave in the environment. Some methods are used to estimate lion numbers, while others are indices to relative lion abundance. Complete Enumeration: Very intensive field efforts to capture, tag and radio-collar lions along with GPS/radio-tracking to discern movements of unique individuals to combine with ground-tracking and harvest information have provided the most reliable estimates of lion abundance in specified study areas (CMGWG 2005). This method produces high-quality data on 9 �Appendix A: Sept 2, 2020 sex and age structure, survival, agent-specific mortality, reproduction, emigration, and other animal movements that generally cannot be obtained with the other methods. This method is the most expensive and is impractical for lion management on a broader landscape scale, where only abundance estimates are of focal interest, such as the historic Data Analysis Unit (DAU) or Regional scale on the West Slope of Colorado. Mark-Recapture: Chapman’s 1951 modification of the Lincoln-Peterson (L-P) estimator (Pollock et al. 1990) was used in an effort to estimate lion numbers in Wyoming (Anderson and Lindzey 2005) and Utah (Choate et al. 2006). The Wyoming effort used a captured and marked sample of lions at the beginning of each sampling period and used lions killed by hunters and observed by researchers after the hunting season as the recaptured sample. Population estimates had 95% confidence intervals ±19-37% of the estimates (n = 5). The Utah study derived population estimates by determining the identity of lions that they detected from their tracks on snow as either marked or unmarked by using radio-telemetry or by pursuing the animal to capture and observe it. The estimates tended to adequately track the changes in the reference population. But, estimates were on average negatively biased by 17 ± 14%, and 95% confidence intervals were widely variable from ± 0 to 50% of the estimates (n = 7, Monroe Mts., Choate et al. 2006). Multiple capture occasions can be designed into the mark-recapture field operations with the intent to achieve greater precision in population estimates and allow more mark-recapture-type models to be applied in terms of modeling the data (e.g., variations in capture probability by animal type, time, observer, and incorporation of covariates) (Amstrup et al. 2005). These methods are suitable for intensive research on a specified study area, especially to establish a reference for local population abundance and attendant effects of manipulation and experimentation. Russell et al. (2012) gathered genetic samples from lions one winter in a management unitsize area (7,908 km2) in Montana. They used a combination of a non-invasive method (backtracking to collect hair samples) and treeing and biopsy darting lions to genotype individuals, and used spatial capture-recapture models to estimate abundance. Their lion density estimates, including all lions (i.e., adults, subadults, and kittens) varied by model structure, ranging from 3.7 lions/100 km2 (95% CI=3.6, 5.7) from a base model (including an effect of distance on detection probability) to 6.7 lions/100 km2 (95% CI=3.1, 11.0) from a full model (including effects of distance, sex, survey effort, and distance x sex on detection probability). Proffitt et al. (2015) also gathered genetic samples from lions one winter in a 2,625 km2 area spanning two lion management units in Montana. They treed and biopsy darted lions to genotype individuals to estimate abundance using spatial capture-recapture models and predicted habitat use as a covariate. They estimated median density of independent lions (i.e., adults and subadults only) from 4.5 lions/100 km2 (95% CI= 2.9-7.7) to 5.2 lions/100 km2 (95% CI=3.4, 9.1). In northeastern Washington, biopsy dart sampling of the population when integrated with hunter harvest data was able to detect a population decline across multiple years that was noted in independent mark-recapture efforts in the same research area (Beausoleil et al. 2016). Wyoming and South Dakota have applied this technique for estimating annual lion abundance. Their experience suggests that it can be effective if a 10 �Appendix A: Sept 2, 2020 sufficiently high number of marks and recaptures can be obtained on a multi-year basis (Daniel Thompson, Wyoming Game and Fish, personal communication 2015). Davidson et al. (2014) surveyed a 220 km2 area with scat detection dogs over a 4-week period in Oregon. The dogs found lion scats that were used in DNA analysis to genotype individuals. Individual capture histories were used in 4 capture-recapture models to estimate total lion abundance. Density estimates including all lions (adults, subadults, and kittens) were: 4.6 lions/100 km2 (95% CI=3.8, 8.3) for the Huggins model, 4.8 lions/100 km2 (95% CI=4.2, 7.8) for the Multiple Detection Poisson model, 4.2 lions/100 km2 (95% CI=3.3, 5.3) for the CAPWIRE model, and 5.0 lions/100 km2 (95% CI=3.2, 7.7) for the Spatially Explicit Capture-Recapture model. Colorado Parks and Wildlife research staff have been experimenting with a non-invasive markresight population sampling method that holds promise for abundance estimation (Mat Alldredge, CPW, personal communication 2020). Initial work demonstrates that results are valid, have acceptable confidence intervals on estimates, and can be conducted at a reasonable cost. Therefore, this mark-resight methodology using “marked” GPS-collared lions and remote game cameras is currently being implemented on a management scale as part of CPW’s Upper Arkansas research project. This technique can provide reference densities in a variety of locations with diverse habitat quality and also will allow testing of resource selection function models. This non-invasive approach uses a call to lure lions to a site where a game camera records photos of the animal. A portion of the lion population in the study area is “marked” with GPS radiocollars before the camera deployment, so both capture probabilities and rigorous density estimates are obtained (Mat Alldredge, CPW, personal communication 2020). This recent advances in Colorado using the spatially-explicit method described above will be fundamental in generating site-specific abundance or density estimates. Given the importance of numerical density assumptions in the existing resource selection function model, CPW commits to conducting robust estimates of density in multiple survey areas of western Colorado. These will be used in addition to existing estimates from recent Colorado research to further align and improve our understanding of lion populations in the state. Helicopter-Based Track Probability Sampling: This method involves detecting and following lion tracks in ideal snow conditions along transects from a low-flying helicopter to estimate lion numbers. It is intended for general lion management purposes in representative areas, but still requires field validation for estimator precision. Results of this approach applied to lions in the wild have been reported twice in the literature and with mixed results. Field operations and data quality (i.e., bias) are limited by the difficulty in meeting conditions to observe lion tracks from a helicopter, including: 1-2 nights after snowfall with no wind to cover tracks or crust snow, dense vegetation canopy, helicopter availability, and avoidance of unstable weather and physical obstacles that makes such low-flying dangerous (Van Sickle and Lindzey 1991, Anderson 2003, Choate et al. 2006). One study in Utah used this method in one survey and reported an accurate but imprecise lion population estimate when compared to a 11 �Appendix A: Sept 2, 2020 reference population (i.e., 14.2 ± 6.3 standard error, Van Sickle and Lindzey 1991). In another Utah study, investigators observed poor accuracy, poor precision, and inconsistent biases. Some estimates of the lion population were grossly overestimated by 120 to 284% (using the Becker 1991 method) and exhibited poor precision with standard errors of 25 to 55% of the reference density (Choate et al. 2006). Adjusted population estimates using Anderson’s (2003) correction for low movement lengths derived from computer simulations resulted in underestimates of 26 to 88% of the reference population. In addition, the application of Anderson’s (2003) modification using random track lengths resulted in inconsistent biases of ±22-59% of the reference population (Choate et al. 2006). Ground-Based Track Surveys: This method is intended for use as a trend indicator in representative areas for general lion management purposes. Track surveys have been used to monitor lion populations in California (Smallwood 1994, Smallwood and Fitzhugh 1995) and Arizona (Cunningham et al. 1995). This method requires transect sampling areas where lion tracks are detectable and provides presence-absence data with confidence interval estimates. Beier and Cunningham (1996) reported that sampling 140 and 110 8-km-long transects would be required to detect 30% and 50% population declines, respectively (80% power, α = 0.05). The difficulty in implementing track surveys is ensuring that transects are well distributed throughout the population in areas where access may be limited and also the unpredictability of favorable tracking conditions. The level of effort required to detect useful population changes likely limits the application of this method to once every few to several years. Researchers in Utah applied summer track surveys and found statistically significant relationships (P<0.03) between winter lion density and summer-time track-finding frequency (i.e., no. track sets/km searched). The investigators concluded that ground-based track surveys are the least expensive and might be the most efficient method, and offered 2 suggestions for improvement. First, winter track counts would be more efficient than summer track counts because the tracking substrate is superior and should increase track detection rates. Second, because removal of lions during a hunting season may bias survey results, track surveys should be conducted prior to a hunting season to more closely relate the index to the population of interest (Choate et al. 2006). Photographic Rates as an Index to Lion Abundance: Photographic rates of mountain lions might provide a noninvasive index for assessing trends in lion abundance. Such an approach has been used with tigers and showed camera days per tiger photo correlates with independent estimates of tiger density (Carbone et al. 2001). In addition, photographic rates (i.e., leopard photos/100 trap-nights) were an index to snow leopard abundance (McCarthy et al. 2008). This method has yet to be fully evaluated for lions, where individual identification without the use of “marks” is not possible as lions don’t possess uniquely identifying coats or spotting patterns. Harvest Data Harvest data pertains to information gathered on hunter-killed lions and hunters by the managing agency. Methods based on these data are intended for general lion management as an indicator of population trends. 12 �Appendix A: Sept 2, 2020 Relationships of Lion Harvest to Population Abundance: Researchers in Wyoming developed and validated this method on an experimentally manipulated reference lion population (Anderson and Lindzey 2005). The researchers found that the sex and age composition of the harvest varied predictably with lion population size because the likelihood of a specific sex or age class of lion being harvested (with the use of hounds) was a product of the relative abundance of particular sex and age classes in the population and their relative vulnerability to harvest. Wolfe et al. (2015) revealed other potentially useful indices to abundance. The percent of permits filled and the minimum abundance index were positively correlated. The percent of individuals in the harvest >6 years old was positively correlated with annual survival, annual adult male survival, and annual female survival. There was a negative relationship between the annual number of female lions in the harvest and annual lion survival rate. Likewise, there was a negative relationship between the annual proportion of females in the harvest and annual lion survival rate. Catch-Per-Unit Effort: Researchers in Utah quantified catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) of their research teams and hunters for each year as the number of days to capture a lion. In each case, they found that CPUE was a poor predictor of lion population size (Choate et al. 2006). However using a data set over a longer period of time, Wolfe et al. (2016) found a strong relationship between the number of cougars treed per day during the pursuit season and the index of minimum annual lion abundance. 13 �Appendix B: Sept 2, 2020 Colorado West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan APPENDIX B MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT HISTORY IN COLORADO AND THE WEST SLOPE Historical Management, Game Damage and Conflicts: This section provides a description of the history of lion management in Colorado. This appendix also provides a review of recent game damage and human-lion conflict information. Mountain Lion Management History Lion management throughout the range of this species is challenging because of the secretive nature and naturally low densities typical of this solitary large carnivore, and the rugged terrain it typically inhabits. Consequently, no statewide “census” of lion populations has ever been attempted in Colorado or the West Slope. Lion research in Colorado has focused on relatively small geographic areas involving population segments where intensive, expensive studies have revealed information for reference values on abundance, sex and age structure, fecundity, survival, mortality factors, predation, depredation, behavioral patterns, movements, dispersal, and effects of sport-hunting. Current research in the Upper Arkansas study area on Colorado’s Eastern Slope using newly validated techniques will provide data types described previously, but at much larger scales and with the ability to draw more rigorous conclusions due to the strengths of the study design. Agencies charged with lion management attempt to address the desires of the public, whose values vary and sometimes compete between maintaining abundant populations, providing hunting opportunity, and minimizing the potential for human-lion conflicts. Lions have been classified as a big game species since 1965 in Colorado. Prior to 2000, Colorado had not formulated any plans for lion management. In 1999, the Executive Director of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) formed the Predator Management Advisory Committee, for the purpose of providing policy advice to DNR and its subordinate agency, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). This group helped develop brief plans that set annual hunter harvest and total mortality objectives based on the preceding 3year average levels in 25 distinct geographic areas called Data Analysis Units (DAUs). By 2003 these plans were deemed too generic, inflexible and lacking a credible basis. During 2004, a new planning effort was completed producing 19 separate DAU plans for the state. This more comprehensive planning effort provided statewide direction and management sideboards related to habitat models, population extrapolations, and mortality off-take rates. The plans mentioned game damage caused by lions and human conflicts associated with lions, but management objectives were firmly focused on supportable mortality amounts. The long-term increase in Colorado’s lion population likely resulted from a combination of regulating human-caused mortality of lions since 1965 and increases in mule deer and elk populations. Consequently, lion harvest limit allocations and the amount of harvest have increased since 1980 (Figures. 1) both across the state and in more recent years in the two West Slope Regions (Figures 2 and 3). The 2004 DAU management plans and analysis suggested that similar 1 �Appendix B: Sept 2, 2020 harvest could be obtained with substantially lower harvest limits. An emphasis of these plans was to reduce hunter harvest of females in select DAUs. Therefore, in 2007 a mandatory lion hunter education course was instituted to help increase the focus of harvest on male lions. As a result, female lion harvest composition declined and the combined effect of the reduced harvest limits and the emphasis on reducing female mortality caused an initial decrease in the total amount of hunter harvest. Recent research has revealed the importance of focusing on adult female harvest composition, as opposed to the overall female harvest mortality. The compositional monitoring threshold incorporated in this West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan focuses on adult female proportions versus the total female proportion that was previously a standard objective in the 2004 lion DAU management plans. 900 Statewide Lion Harvest, Total Mortality, and Harvest Limit 1980 -'18/'19 800 700 600 Hunting Season Transition - Calendar to Winter 500 400 300 200 100 0 Hunter Harvest - Male Hunter Harvest - Female Harvest Limit Total Mortality Figure 1. Annual mountain lion harvest by gender, total mortality, and total harvest limit in Colorado from 1980-2018. Note transition from calendar year to winter year in 2007. 2 �Appendix B: Sept 2, 2020 Figure 2. Historic Northwest Region harvest by gender, total mortality and proportion of females (adult and subadult) in harvest. This includes all historic GMUs in the NW Region, including those now in the Glenwood SMA. Figure 3. Historic Southwest Region harvest by gender, total mortality and proportion of females (adult and subadult) in harvest. Non-harvest, human-caused mortality has also increased statewide since the late 1980s (Figure 1) and in more recent years on the West Slope (Figures 2 and 3). Some have attributed this to increasing lion populations. However during the past 30+ years the human population, related 3 �Appendix B: Sept 2, 2020 development, volume of automobile traffic, and the amount of outdoor recreation in Colorado have also increased considerably. It is likely that a combination of factors contribute to the increases in non-harvest lion mortality, including better documentation of these forms of mortality in more recent decades. NW Region Human-caused Mountain Lion Mortality 2000-2018 35 30 NW Other Human-caused NW Roadkill NW Landowner 25 NW CPW NW APHIS 20 15 10 5 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Figure 4. Non-harvest human-caused mountain lion mortality in the Northwest Region from 2000-2018. 40 35 SW Region Human-caused Mountain Lion Mortality 2000-2018 SW Human-caused SW Roadkill SW Landowner 30 25 SW CPW SW APHIS 20 15 10 5 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Figure 5. Non-harvest human-caused mountain lion mortality in the Southwest Region from 2000-2018. 4 �Appendix B: Sept 2, 2020 The 2004 lion DAU management plans were based on a series of assumptions about lion population size and the population responses to varying levels of mortality. The plans noted that information about how populations actually responded to these assumptions was lacking, as was the ability to collect valid information that could detect population changes in a timely and effective manner. This led to implementation of two long-term research projects in Colorado designed to evaluate lion management assumptions, inform management decisions, and quantify actual population responses to management actions. On the Uncompahgre Plateau, research activities were completed in 2014. Subsequent data analysis and evaluation have concluded, and CPW Technical Publication Number 54 reports final project findings which are incorporated into this plan (Logan and Runge 2020). On the northern Front Range, research has concluded on estimating abundance, diet composition, and age class from non-invasive sampling. Additionally, this research evaluated lion demographic and behavioral characteristics in a significantly human altered environment. Colorado Parks and Wildlife is currently in the third year of a 9-year lion research project in the Upper Arkansas area of southeastern Colorado. This project will build knowledge of predator-prey dynamics, improved density estimates, evaluate lion population composition structure under different harvest regimes and shed light on the relationship of human-lion conflicts under varying lion harvest and abundance scenarios. Within this plan, provisions are made to allow for future periodic evaluation and updating so that the plan can incorporate knowledge gained from this and other research that may be conducted in the future. Harvest Management Regulation of hunting for lions in the western states typically follows 1 of 3 harvest strategies including general seasons, limited entry, and harvest limit/quota systems (CMGWG 2005). 1) General seasons allow unlimited hunting of lions of either sex, and the only restrictions include the number of licenses issued and/or bag limit allowed per hunter (typically 1 per season), and timing and length of the hunting season. General seasons provide the highest hunting opportunity, but likely result in uneven hunting pressure (i.e., accessible areas are heavily hunted and inaccessible areas are not), which limits control over the amount, composition, and distribution of the harvest. 2) Limited entry programs restrict the number of hunters per hunt area through a limited license allocation, using either first come first serve or lottery license sales. This approach is most restrictive in terms of hunter opportunity, but can be useful to disperse hunting pressure, control harvest levels, and may increase the opportunity for hunters to be selective (increasing male harvest) in areas where hunting pressure is low. 3) Harvest limit/quota management limits the total harvest and/or number of female lions harvested from defined areas. The hunting season closes in an area once the harvest limit has been met. Hunters are required to monitor status of the hunting season by checking a website prior to hunting to determine if an area is open or closed to hunting. Advantages to this approach are that hunting opportunity remains high and the amount and distribution of harvest can be regulated. Potential disadvantages of harvest limit/quota management include the number of hunters per hunt area is unlimited until harvest limits are filled and desired harvest 5 �Appendix B: Sept 2, 2020 may be exceeded if more than 1 lion is harvested the same day the limit is reached. Also, a high amount of competition among hunters/outfitters for the lions available under the harvest limit can result in decreased harvest selection, increasing the amount of females in harvest. Female sub-quotas can be used to support a management objective of maintaining harvest levels with reduced impact on the lion population. Advantages include the ability to stop harvest based on a female objective, while problems include illegal non-reporting of harvested females to avoid closing units and sacrificing hunter opportunity to pursue males once the smaller female sub-quota is achieved. Colorado has managed lion hunting recreation with a harvest limit or quota system since before 1980. As originally conceived, the “quota” is the maximum amount of harvest allowable within a specific geographic area. Once the “quota” is met, the hunting season for that area is closed for that year. Lion hunting licenses are available in unlimited numbers, but hunters must check an online harvest limit report to determine if the harvest limit group of game management units (GMUs) they wish to hunt remains open to hunting. The harvest limit/quota system optimizes hunting opportunity while limiting hunting harvest to acceptable levels on an annual basis. In most DAUs in Colorado, historic “quotas” have historically been set higher than actual harvest objectives, because the full quota may not be achieved each year. This has occurred because of several factors: hunting conditions are not always conducive to harvest, the behavior of hound hunters not filling the quota to facilitate the opportunity to pursue lions and train their dogs throughout the entire season, and in some areas the constraints of guided hunts as the primary mechanism to obtain harvest. Using the name “harvest limit” instead of “quota” gives a more accurate description of how this term functions within a harvest limit group. Historic “quotas” in Colorado have not been synonymous with the harvest objective, though the term has been mistakenly believed to be one and the same. When quotas went unfilled it created an erroneous perception for some that management was failing to achieve the desired harvest. The upper end of harvest objectives and the total mortality limits codified in the 2004 lion DAU management plans were intended to be the maximum amount of acceptable annual mortality; a value not to be exceeded. The contrast of perception and intention surrounding these terms has contributed to some of the debate about lion management today. In 2013, an April lion season (April 1-30) was implemented to provide hunting opportunity in locations where harvest objectives were not being achieved during the regular season. In these areas, an additional season provides extra hunting opportunity and hunter harvest within the previous lion DAU management plan objectives. In its original design, the April season was intended to be a simple extension of the existing lion season structure. The “regular” lion season opens after the last day of the 4th deer and elk season; typically around the middle of November through March 31. However, because Colorado’s license year is April 1 – March 31, administrative and logistical requirements resulted in establishment of a regular and an April season harvest limit, which has caused confusion in when, where, and why seasons would be open in April and what the objectives would be. Prior to 2019, CPW used the 3-year running average of residual harvest limit from the regular season and set that amount on an annual basis as the harvest limit for the April season in order to function as an extension of the regular season. Harvest during 2016-2018 April 6 �Appendix B: Sept 2, 2020 seasons averaged less than 10 lions in each year. Beginning in 2019, to more efficiently manage the lion regulatory cycle and remove confusion over how April harvest limits were set, CPW combined the numeric harvest limits from the April season and regular season into one single annual harvest limit. All hunter harvest of lions must be reported as part of a mandatory check process required in some form since before 1980. In 1989, the agency included a requirement that all discovered non-hunt mortality must also be documented through the mandatory check process. Data collected at the mandatory check include: harvest date, location (legal description, Universal Transverse Mercator location, and hunt area), sex, lactation history (whether or not females have ever nursed young based on nipple characteristics; Anderson and Lindzey 2000), estimated age from tooth wear and degree of staining, collection of teeth for cementum annuli aging, number of days spent hunting, and hunting method. Trainer and Golly (1992) reported 76% agreement ≤1 year of annuli ages compared using blind tests of 2 premolars from the same lion (n = 426; 92% agreement for lions <4 years old), and annuli age comparisons of known age lions were 95% accurate (within 1 year; Trainer and Golly 1992, Anderson 2003). In 2019, the recording system used for these mortality reports was overhauled and data are now collected on a computer or mobile application as opposed to a paper form. This mandatory reporting system is the most accurate way of accounting for human-caused mortality, so while time consuming for staff to implement, it attains quality data. Lion carcasses or pelts harvested by hunters may be frozen, which can reduce the collection of teeth or the ability to inspect evidence of the gender. Washington noted that hound hunters correctly determined the gender of lions at bay about 70% (57-88%) of the time, whereas agency personnel correctly determined the gender of lions during mandatory checks 87% (71-90%) of the time (Beausoleil and Warheit 2014). They recommended better training of agency staff and education with hunters to improve the credibility of data that is important to management purposes. In Colorado, hunter education on gender identification is part of the mandatory mountain lion hunter education course. Agency staff is trained annually on the data collection process from mandatory inspections. In addition to mortality data, CPW compiles data on human-lion conflicts and game damage claims, and gauges social concerns through public meetings, contacts with the public, hunter surveys, and public attitude surveys. Methods of Mountain Lion Hunting Lion hunting in Colorado is accomplished primarily by tracking and baying lions using trained hunting dogs (i.e., hunting with hounds). However, during lion seasons, harvest may also occur through opportunistic encounters (spot and stalk) or by calling lions using predator calls (mouth calls). The majority of lions harvested annually in Colorado are taken by hunting with hounds (typically >95%). Compared to 20-35 years ago, recent advancements in technologies has dramatically changed the manner of guided hound hunting, which is the primary way most lions are harvested in Colorado. Collar technology on pursuit hounds allow an outfitter to release hounds and track them on a computer or hand held GPS device. Collars may be equipped to detect when the dogs have a lion at bay. This allows for examination of the closest or easiest path for the hunter and guide to approach the bayed lion without actually engaging in foot pursuit from the 7 �Appendix B: Sept 2, 2020 release of hounds to the point of bay. All-terrain vehicles (ATVs), snowmobiles, cell phones, and digital radios all combine to make hound hunting lions more efficient than in past decades. Some groups and individuals are concerned about the use of dogs as a hunting method for lions, and some states have banned hunting with hounds (e.g., Oregon, Washington). In 2005, CPW hired Corona Research to survey attitudes of Coloradans about issues related to lions. Some key elements related to lion hunting include: a) An overwhelming majority of Coloradans thought it was important for lions to exist, even if they never saw one, and it was important for them and future generations to have lions; b) Coloradans were split about hunting lions, with 47 percent in support of legal and regulated hunting and 41 percent opposed; and c) 46 percent disagreed that lion hunting should be banned, while 34 percent agreed with a ban. These results provide a broader representation of attitudes of Coloradans about lion conservation and hunting, well beyond the traditional constituents that agency personnel more frequently contact during the process of structuring hunting management. As we recommend in the Research Needs portion of the planning document, a more updated survey in the near future would be useful to evaluate if those sentiments reported above have changed among citizens. In states where hunting with hounds has been prohibited, opportunistic lion hunting (during big game seasons or predator calling) is capable of obtaining similar or higher harvest levels as before the bans. States in which lion hunting with hounds has been prohibited typically compensate for substantially decreased success rates by reducing the price of a license, increasing the number of licenses, and easing mechanisms by which licenses can be obtained. Results from Washington (Martorello and Beausoleil 2003) revealed that opportunistic lion hunting is less selective of sex and age class than hunting with hounds and female lions are more vulnerable to harvest from opportunistic hunting than from hound hunting. Relative female harvest levels increased from 42% to 59% when hunting with hounds was banned in Washington (mean annual harvest before hound hunting ban = 157 and after hound hunting ban = 199). In Oregon, similar increases in the proportion of females in harvest were observed, and within 7 years, total harvest amounts regularly exceeded harvest amounts prior to the ban on hound hunting (Don Whittaker, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, personal communication 2015). Lion harvest data from Colorado suggest that hunters using the services of an outfitter are more selective in the harvest of females (36% F) than hunters not using an outfitter (44% F). In comparing the methods of hunting lions in Colorado, the use of hounds appears to improve hunter selectivity regarding females (37% F hound hunters compared with 55% F for opportunistic hunting). This suggests that applying mechanisms to expand hunting seasons absent the use of hounds is likely to result in an increase in the absolute amount of and composition of females in harvest. In addition, if opportunistic hunting harvest increased and hunting with hounds was reduced, we would expect an increase in the number of dependent young being orphaned due to hunting because of the apparent increased vulnerability and the higher proportion of females harvested with non-selective methods (Martorello and Beausoleil 2003). Differences in the composition and amount of females in hunter harvest are likely a combination of a hunter’s ability to determine gender (while a lion is treed or at bay), but are also related to differences in lion vulnerability between hunting methods. Anderson (2003) observed that nightly 8 �Appendix B: Sept 2, 2020 movement distances from GPS data averaged over 3 times longer for male lions than for females (mean end-point distance = 4.6 km versus 1.5 km, 2.9 mi versus 0.9 mi). These longer distance movements expose males more than females to hunting methods where tracking is involved (i.e., hunting with hounds). Opportunistic hunters who do not track lions while hunting are more likely to harvest the more abundant sex, typically females, because relative abundance and chance encounters drives harvest vulnerability. Mountain Lion Conflicts There are two broad categories of human-lion conflicts: game damage and human safety. Game damage primarily refers to the economic costs of lion depredation on domestic livestock. Human safety primarily refers to the concerns about and the real or perceived risks to human safety that may be posed by lions. State law provides allowance for the public to kill a lion that is considered a threat to people’s safety or to livestock [Colorado Revised Statute §33-3-106(3): Nothing in this section shall make it unlawful to trap, kill, or otherwise dispose of bears, mountain lions, or dogs without a permit in situations when it is necessary to prevent them from inflicting death, damage, or injury to livestock, real property, a motor vehicle, or human life]. Animals killed under the authority of this provision must still be reported within 5 days of its death to CPW and the state of Colorado retains legal possession of such animals; consequently, CPW is able to obtain information on the number of such losses. If lions are killed in the summer and/or in remote locations or are too badly decomposed, obtaining gender or tooth samples is difficult and less data are generally collected on such animals. The broadest tool CPW uses regularly to address mountain lion conflicts is public education. Providing the public educational resources will continue to be a prominent agency tool under the West Slope lion plan. Education is done both proactively, as a staple when the staff interact with the public in lion habitat or on lion-related issues, and reactively in contacts with the public after a specific human-lion conflict. There are a number of pamphlets, brochures, videos and educational tools that CPW produces to educate the public on actions they can take to reduce human-lion conflicts. These steps include improved animal husbandry practices for livestock producers, employing guard animals and removing vegetation from near homes that attract deer and elk or provide cover for lions. This agency education also focuses on how to recreate in lion habitat and steps to take if you encounter a lion. Temporary signage is often used to inform the public about areas where lions have been recently seen to further educate about the need to take commonsense precautions, particularly with pets and children in these areas. Immediate agency responses to game damage and human safety conflicts in Colorado are primarily aimed at individual animals involved in the conflict. The actions that can be applied to an individual lion involved in either conflict behavior are broad and are usually determined on a caseby–case basis. Intervention techniques include capture and translocation, lethal removal, and onsite hazing. Hazing can involve harassment with trained dogs and non-lethal projectiles fired at the animal. This does not preclude the agency from applying larger scale management efforts to address such conflicts. Colorado Parks and Wildlife previously identified 2 West Slope management areas in which the objective was increased harvest to suppress the lion population (DAUs L-7 and L9). Figure 6 shows the location of current mountain lion DAUs in Colorado. 9 �Appendix B: Sept 2, 2020 Figure 6. Current mountain lion Data Analysis Units for 2020 season. Some recent research suggests that management targeting an area for increased harvest (rather than an individual conflict animal) may not be effective because of rapid immigration from adjacent source populations (Robinson et al. 2008, Cooley et al. 2009b). These authors postulate that it is possible that the increased presence of younger immigrant animals, social disruption of lion populations, and spatial changes in use patterns of immigrants that result from increased harvest may all contribute to increases in human conflicts and game damage (Peebles et al. 2013). A correlative study in British Columbia found that when accounting for human density and habitat productivity, harvest levels comprised the most correlated variable to conflict numbers (Teichman et al. 2016). Unfortunately, this study did not account for underlying lion densities, which could strongly relate to harvest levels and defined conflict in very broad terms, including roadkill, livestock depredation and perceived risks from sightings. Similar to Peebles et al. (2013) the authors of this study looked at the relationship between conflicts and mortality at very large scales and collapsed data from large spatial scales for purposes of the analysis. In contrast, an Oregon lion population study found an inverse relationship between conflict lion mortalities and lion harvest (Hiller et al. 2015). The authors present an analysis showing that under high lion population densities, the number of lions killed due to livestock conflicts decreased as harvest density increased. Their results indicated that hunter harvest may be a useful tool in managing livestock conflicts in circumstances when agency managers can increase prey populations, increase hunter harvest on lions, and reduce vulnerability of livestock. To date, the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of population scale management to effect reductions in conflicts is equivocal. In fact, data from Colorado do not suggest a relationship between high lion harvest and increased conflicts, but rather just the opposite. Areas of highest harvest removal as 10 �Appendix B: Sept 2, 2020 shown in Figure 2 of the West Slope Lion Management Plan document do not correlate with highest non-agricultural conflicts and many areas of high conflict in Colorado have, in fact, very little or no harvest. Laundre and Papouchis (2020) used the example of California, a state without a legal lion hunting season, to test various assumptions that some might make about the role harvest plays in managing conflict, depredations and deer numbers. As in some other studies, the issue of scale of analysis is important. Pooling data on lion population size, human population size, conflicts and harvest across entire states for comparison, as done in this study, ignores other significant differences between states, and more importantly, does not account for context of those data categories within each state. Research in Colorado regarding the effects of harvest and lion population density suggest management to reduce conflict has varied results and is not solely linked to harvest. Few, if any studies, have been able to look at the value of small-scale, localized harvest or agency removals of lions involved in human-lion conflicts, and then make conclusions about that impact on quantifiable reporting of human-lion conflicts. Monitoring goals in the Glenwood SMA, should allow evaluation of the full suite of management tools and their efficacy in reducing conflicts. Both the ongoing research project in the Upper Arkansas area and the proposal for the Glenwood SMA are manipulative treatments, and as such, will allow stronger inferences on relationships between harvest and overall mortality to conflict levels. Game Damage Colorado has been liable for monetary losses caused by lions to livestock since the 1920s. However, it wasn’t until the 1970s that game damage laws and liability were first codified in statute. Liability for damage caused by wildlife is governed by Colorado Revised Statute §33-3-103. Regulations that establish the process for submitting a claim and the process whereby a stock producer can prove their claim and value of the stock were first established in the mid-1970s. Consequently, CPW has a long history of damage payments related to lion depredation on livestock. However, records were not accurately maintained regarding claim numbers, location, dates, and amounts until the 1990s. In 1996 the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) was granted “exclusive jurisdiction over the control of depredating animals that pose a threat to an agricultural product or resource.” Thus, CDA has exclusive authority to determine the disposition of an individual lion if it is depredating on livestock, while the CPW retains authority to manage lion populations, body parts, and all forms of recreational or scientific use. A Memorandum of Agreement between the CDA and CPW provides operational guidance for both agencies. This aids both agencies in implementing their management authority and helps assure documentation of agriculture-related lion deaths and the legal disposition of carcasses. As a matter of policy, any lion that is involved in a depredation incident shall be destroyed if it can be captured or identified. In 2002, the Colorado legislature limited the State’s liability for damage caused by lions to livestock or personal property used in the production of raw agricultural products and further limited liability to not more than $5,000 per head of livestock. As a consequence of this change, non-agricultural personal property claim payments have been eliminated. 11 �Appendix B: Sept 2, 2020 Over the last 15 years on the West Slope, the annual number of lion damage claims submitted to CPW has ranged from 18 to 65. In the 5 most recent years, claims have averaged 44 per year. Domestic sheep depredation accounts for the largest share of monetary compensation paid annually over the past 5 years, averaging just over 50% of all claim payments on the West Slope (Figure 6 and Table 1). Other stock account for just over 40% of annual claim payments over the past 5 years, but involve relatively few numbers of animals, outside of goats (Table 1). The exotic stock classification includes llama, alpaca, guanaco, angora goats, and other livestock that typically are considered hobby stock animals. Because they are often highly valuable, damage claim amounts for exotic stock are often higher on a per claim basis compared to other livestock. The total monetary amount of damage paid on Colorado’s West Slope has been less than $100,000 in 14 of the last 15 years (Figure. 6). Using the last 15 years of data, West Slope lion damage payments average less than $61,000 per year; during the most recent 5 years damage payments have averaged $65,000 per year. Nearly two thirds of all lion game damage occurs from May through September. This largely coincides with the time that domestic sheep are on Bureau of Land Management and United States Forest Service summer grazing allotments and may also be the time that hobby stock are more commonly allowed to remain outside at night instead of held within barns as during winter months. On open range and even in pastures outside of homes, stock such as sheep or hobby animals would be more vulnerable to lion depredation during milder seasons. Total Paid Lion Game Damage Claims on Colorado's West Slope (indexed to 2018 dollars) $120,000 $105,000 $90,000 $75,000 $60,000 $45,000 $30,000 $15,000 $0 Cattle Other Stock Sheep Figure 6. West Slope compensation paid for mountain lion damage in Colorado from 2004 through 2018. 12 �Appendix B: Sept 2, 2020 Table 1. Number of animals submitted in mountain lion damage claims to CPW from 2004-2018 by Region and animal type. REGION 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Northwest Captive Wildlife 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cattle 1 1 0 3 5 8 4 3 2 0 4 5 1 2 2 Exotic Stock 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 5 Goats 0 0 0 11 8 1 29 15 4 4 0 8 6 3 29 Horses 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 Other Animals 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Poultry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheep 132 26 126 192 333 279 116 111 35 84 197 155 17 5 127 Swine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Grand Total 133 28 128 207 347 289 151 153 42 89 204 168 30 10 168 Southwest Captive Wildlife 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 3 1 3 0 0 Cattle 1 2 0 1 5 9 2 2 2 11 4 0 1 2 1 Exotic Stock 0 0 0 Goats 5 15 Horses 0 2 Other Animals 0 Poultry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 3 13 12 16 48 24 32 20 40 20 45 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 9 6 60 27 0 30 74 0 35 62 Sheep 33 27 15 50 89 101 63 17 68 86 68 40 9 42 47 Swine 0 0 0 12 2 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 2 0 6 Grand Total 39 46 16 127 99 135 84 101 146 127 137 135 55 99 161 13 �Appendix B: Sept 2, 2020 Human Safety Lion attacks on humans across North America are rare, but their frequency has increased in recent decades (Beier 1991, Torres et al. 1996, CMGWG 2005). This has also been found in Colorado. Lion attacks on humans occur primarily in the summer season (June-August), which likely correlates with the amount of outdoor recreation activity that occurs in Colorado lion habitat (Figure. 7). Mattson et al. (2011) evaluated 386 human-lion encounters, including 29 fatal and 171 non-fatal injury attacks on humans, documented in the U.S. and Canada to determine the important risk factors in such encounters. They found that young females (≤2.5 years) were more likely to be involved in an attack on people than adult lions. Their examinations show that attacks on people are extraordinarily low-frequency, but high consequence events that are difficult to anticipate or prevent. They noted that aggressive behavior (yelling, throwing objects, charging, or discharging firearms) by people involved in close encounters with lions lessens the likelihood that the lion will attack. Unfortunately, several states have documented their first fatal human attacks over the last several years. Figure 7. Seasonality of mountain lion attacks on humans in Colorado . CPW Administrative Directive W-20 Human-Mountain Lion Interactions, establishes the agency procedures for dealing with general conflicts that may develop between humans and lions. This policy directs that agency management responses to a specific conflict between people and a lion or lions will be directed at the individual lion(s) involved and not at the population management scale. Administrative Directive OW-2 Predator Attacks on Human(s), details the manner in which the agency will respond to an attack by a lion (and any other predator) on a person. Both of these administrative directives allow for lion relocation under certain circumstances and provide direction for when that may happen. However, it is also the policy of CPW per these administrative directives that a lion will be euthanized when it’s determined to be dangerous because of its behavior, whereas a lion that is dangerous because 14 �Appendix B: Sept 2, 2020 of its location may be euthanized or relocated. The determination on relative risk due to location or behavior presented by the individual lion will be made by the Regional staff involved with addressing the incident. Per these administrative directives, CPW employees are required to document human-lion conflicts via a conflict recording system. Lions lethally removed under Administrative Directive W-20 will be recorded as such on the conflict report. These reports document essential information about the date, time, location, type of conflict, number of people, and animals involved, and the circumstances of the conflict. Along with the mortality recording system, this human-lion conflict recording system was overhauled in April 2019 to provide an electronic recording system that is consistent, standardized and used across the state to record each human-lion interaction reported to CPW. Due to the previous recording system using hardcopy paper forms across the state to record incidents, developing historically accurate precise enumerations of conflicts is difficult. The new web and mobile-based application currently in use is expected to provide much more consistent and precise data. Two separate public opinion surveys in Colorado have revealed that the majority of Colorado citizens prefer that the agency apply non-lethal conflict management tools, except in the case of attacks on people (Zinn and Manfredo 1996, Corona Research 2005). However, when considering the location of an attack on a person, respondents equivocate; 49% opposed destroying a lion involved in an attack if the person was recreating in lion habitat (Corona Research 2005). These results and those previously mentioned regarding public opinions about lion hunting suggest that the public is quite divided in their perspectives about lions. Nevertheless, the Corona survey indicates that the public strongly supports active management of lions as well as encouraging responsible behavior by people to manage human-lion conflicts. 15 �Appendix C: Sept 2, 2020 Colorado West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan APPENDIX C Mountain Lion Resource Selection Function Model Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) modeled lion winter habitat using a resource selection function (RSF) approach, which compares where species are present to habitat that is available in the landscape. The winter period is defined as December-February and all lion locations used in our model correspond to those dates. We used 2,470 male and 1,603 female mortality locations documented through mandatory checks from 2000-2013 as our presence sample in the model. We created a list of 18 variables considered important to how lions choose habitat in Colorado (Table 1). We then removed variables that were highly correlated with each other, like distance to deer and elk winter range. This resulted in 6 variables chosen for model development, including distance to mule deer winter range, elevation, low vegetation, short shrub, tall shrub, and slope (highlighted in Table 1). We generated an equal number of random locations (n= 4,100) within lion habitat documented within CPWs species activity maps (http://gisweb/webmaps/sam/sam.html) and used these as the “available” sample. Table 1. Variables originally considered for development of the 2020 Colorado winter mountain lion habitat resource selection function (RSF) model. Variable NE aspect SE aspect SW aspect NW aspect Distance to mule deer winter range Distance to elk winter range Distance to bighorn winter range Elevation Urban Suburban Bare Low vegetation Short shrub Tall shrub Forest Water Slope TRI (roughness) Keep or Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Keep Remove Remove Keep Remove Remove Remove Keep Keep Keep Remove Remove Keep Remove Why Removed Correlation with another aspect Correlation with another aspect Correlation with another aspect Correlation with another aspect Correlation with mule deer distance No contribution to model Less than 1% of landscape Less than 1% of landscape Less than 1% of landscape Correlated with elevation and TRI Less than 1% of landscape Correlated with slope and elevation Using ArcMap 10.1 (ArcGIS 10.1; Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA), a continuous predictive surface was created that represented the relative probability of lion presence in winter across Colorado. However, with a goal of projecting a potential lion abundance across the West Slope, a probability of lion presence surface has limited practical use. Harvest rates and mortality thresholds are based on projections of lion numbers or population projections, so we needed to take steps to convert from relative probability of lion presence into projected lion abundance. Therefore, we elected to stratify the prediction 1 �Appendix C: Sept 2, 2020 surface into 4 categories: strata 1 was where the probability of lion winter presence = 1-25%, strata 2 probability of lion winter presence 26-50%, strata 3 probability 51-75%, strata 4 probability 76-100% (Figure 1). Figure 1. Modeled mountain lion winter habitat with the probability of presence stratified into four categories of increasing probability. In a final step, three independent datasets were used for model validation: 164 winter lion predation sites on mule deer documented through CPW mule deer survival monitoring, 14,793 GPS locations from 33 female and 9 male lions researched on the Uncompahgre Plateau from 2004-2015, and 58,593 GPS locations from 45 female and 32 male lions researched in the Northern Front Range west of Denver-Longmont, CO from 2007-2015. For each validation set, we assigned each validation point to one of the 4 categories of the relative probability surface and determined the percentage of those points that were within the two highest stratas which correspond to > 50% relative probability of presence. We found that 86% of the Uncompahgre GPS locations were within stratas 3 and 4 of our model, 82% of northern Front Range GPS locations were within stratas 3 and 4, and 73% of the deer predation sites were within stratas 3 and 4. 2 �Appendix C: Sept 2, 2020 Results from the modeling effort indicate that lions are closer to mule deer winter range, at lower elevations, within steeper slopes, and within tall shrub habitats compared to the habitat available. Lions were less likely to be located within low vegetation or short shrub habitats compared to the habitat available in the landscape. We stratified the model results into 4 strata related to the probability of lion presence in winter. We assumed that lions exist in greater density in strata with high probability of presence and assigned decreasingly lower densities in the two strata with lower probability of winter lion occurrence. The top two strata of the RSF model represent “high quality” winter lion habitat for the purposes of the West Slope management plan source population analysis. There are several alternate approaches to deriving a lion abundance index extrapolation. One would be to assume that at some low level of habitat selection probability these areas are functionally not lion habitat; or, alternatively predetermine that some portions of Colorado are not winter habitat and exclude them from the model. Then one has to assign some assumed density smoothed over the remaining area. This approach has two problems; there will always be some debate about what is excluded and if a lion is ever observed in excluded habitat then the model is deemed a failure. Applying some even density in all the remaining habitat fails at regional scales because it is likely to result in too many lions in low probability locations (e.g. eastern plains areas or high altitudes) and too few in high probability locations (e.g. deer winter range, in tall shrubland/forested areas, with high topographic relief). Another approach is to apply a continuous range of lion density from near zero to some upper limit which corresponds with the RSF model prediction surface of 0.2% to 99.7%. The challenge with this approach is selecting what the lower and upper density should be and this seemed no better than the stratification approach that we selected. We calculated the amount of habitat by strata in each of the monitoring scales (NW and SW Regions (Table 2)). Ultimately, we applied assumed independent lion densities to each stratum to generate an extrapolated abundance index from which we calculated 17% to determine the maximum Regional total human-caused mortality thresholds presented in the West Slope plan. An interdisciplinary team of managers and biologists in CPW examined lion densities reported in literature (Table 1 in Appendix A) and considered habitat quality, prey base, abundance of alternative prey, vegetation characteristics, and the RSF model outputs. The winter-range independent lion densities listed below and applied in each strata were selected based on observed lion densities in the literature (Table 1, Appendix A) with particular weight given to density estimates from the most recent study in Colorado (Alldredge et al. 2019), and projects that used more modern and rigorous estimation methods including mark-recapture (Proffitt et al. 2015, Beausoleil et al. 2016). These newer techniques estimate capture probabilities and address study area closure while past methods of radio-collaring what was assumed to be all the lions in a study area could never account for these issues and were less statistically robust. As part of the West Slope plan, CPW will begin 3 �Appendix C: Sept 2, 2020 to conduct mark-resight lion density surveys in representative habitats in western Colorado to allow further refinement of RSF assumptions, densities and projections. The following densities were applied to each RSF stratum: Strata 1: 1.0 independent lions/100 km2. This strata represents lower-quality winter-range. While some lower lion density is documented in these areas from harvest and other mortality locations as well as visual observations, lion use is low and densities are well below average levels from studies in better habitat. Strata 2: 2.5 independent lions/100 km2. This strata represents a mid-level quality of habitat where lion densities are expected to exist in moderate numbers due to variables like slope, elevation and distance to deer winter range. This is the largest strata, in terms of area, on the West Slope. Strata 3 and Strata 4: 4.2 independent lions/100 km2. These two strata represent better lion habitat on the West Slope and as such, each represent a relatively small portion of each Region. Prey densities are very high in these strata as they largely include deer winter range and high-quality habitat. The relatively high density applied in these strata is supported by recent work in quality lion habitat both in Colorado (4.1 independent lions/100 km2, Alldredge et al. 2019) and in other western Rocky Mountain states (4.5-5.2 independent lions/100 km2, Proffitt et al. 2015). The NW and SW cumulative Region-wide average independent lion densities generated from the RSF after strata densities were applied are 2.9 lions/100 km2 and 2.6 lions/100 km2, respectively. This range of 2.6-2.9 independent lions/100 km2 as an extrapolated density across all of the West Slope is strongly supported by numerous studies reporting lion densities. Viewing lion densities as a numeric range is important, as point estimates from lion density studies are often the focus for management applications, but these values should be evaluated in the context of the variability shown by the confidence intervals. Any GMU or landscape on the West Slope has contributions from all 4 strata and therefore will always have a total projected density well below the density of 4.2 lions applied in only the highest quality habitat. The independent lion densities derived from this extrapolation process in 12 GMUs in Colorado, which represent a range of medium to high winter lion habitat quality, mostly ranged from 2.5 to 3.5 lions/100 km2; a few were as low as 2.2 lions/100 km2 and one was 3.8 lions/100 km2. As expected from any model, some projected RSF densities are higher and some are lower than empirically-derived densities in study areas of the same geographic area. However, when evaluated across all GMUs in each region, the average densities of independent lions projected from the RSF are supported by Colorado projects and densities from similar habitats in other states (see Table 1 in Appendix A). For instance, Alldredge et al. (2019) documented a density of 4.1 lions/100 km2 in a study area on the Front Range, while the RSF extrapolation density in the GMU encompassing the study area only projected a density of 2.6 lions/100 km2. 4 �Appendix C: Sept 2, 2020 An RSF model provides a temporal snapshot of what populations could be using densities and model variables applied at that time. That is why a commitment to obtain temporally and spatially relevant density estimates throughout the duration of the West Slope plan is important. An even more comprehensive modeling approach could be considered by developing an Integrated Population Model (IPM) for lions on the West Slope or Colorado. Given that Regional lion populations likely are best modeled at a statewide level, our future intention to revise Front Range lion plans, and the current limitations on West Slope demographic data needed to populate an IPM, we believe an IPM could become a useful tool in later years but only after we have obtained density estimates and ancillary data from radio-collared animals. Table 2. Amount of area (in km2) within each strata, delineated by existing DAUs on the West Slope. Only the portions of the existing DAUs that are within each Region are displayed. REGION NW LIONDAU W of I-25 Strata 2 Strata 3 Strata 4 L-1 Total 60 2389 1000 599 L-2 Total 1957 4073 1068 193 L-22 Total 80 426 588 833 L-3 Total 2121 1848 220 3 L-5 Total 1688 3447 1008 44 L-6 Total 2476 3974 2428 1506 L-7 Total 2644 5888 5613 6912 L-9 Total 630 956 865 1369 11655 23000 12791 11460 L-16 Total 1441 749 492 137 L-19 Total 1179 1423 564 74 L-20 Total 6695 4771 1663 358 L-21 Total 2836 4661 1662 137 L-22 Total 1306 2238 2791 2679 L-23 Total 1452 2157 1929 1850 L-24 Total 1705 1156 1042 943 L-25 Total 2880 3034 2610 1511 L-9 Total 868 1490 1175 1046 20363 21679 13929 8734 NW Total SW SW Total Strata 1 5 �Appendix D: Sept 2, 2020 Colorado West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan APPENDIX D LITERATURE CITED AND REFERENCES LITERATURE CITED Alldredge, M. 2015. Cougar demographics and human interactions along the urban-exurban Front Range of Colorado. Federal Aid Report 204-W-R4, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Alldredge, M. W., T. Blecha, and J.H. Lewis. 2019. Less invasive monitoring of cougars in Colorado’s Front Range. Wildlife Society Bulletin 43(2):222–230. Alldredge, M. W., F. E. Buderman, and K. A. Blecha. 2019. Human–cougar interactions in the wildland–urban interface of Colorado's front range. Ecology and Evolution. 00:1–17. Amstrup, S. C., T. L. McDonald, and B. F. J. Manly. 2005. Handbook of capture-recapture analysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Anderson, A. E. 1983. A critical review of literature on puma (Felis concolor). Special Report No. 54. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, USA. Anderson, A. E., D. C. Bowden, and D. M. Kattner. 1992. The puma on Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife Technical Publication No. 40. Anderson, C. R., Jr. 2003. Cougar ecology, management, and population genetics in Wyoming. Dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA. Anderson, C. R., Jr., and F. G. Lindzey. 2000. A photographic guide to estimating mountain lion age classes. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Laramie, USA. Anderson, C. R., Jr., and F. G. Lindzey. 2003. Estimating cougar predation rates from GPS location clusters. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:307-316. Anderson, C. R., Jr., and F. G. Lindzey. 2005. Experimental evaluation of population trend and harvest composition in a Wyoming cougar population. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:179-188. Anderson, C. R., Jr., F. G. Lindzey, and D. B. McDonald. 2004. Genetic structure of cougar populaions across the Wyoming Basin: metapopulation or megapopulation. Journal of Mammalogy 85:1207-1214. Ashman, D. L. 1976. Mountain lion investigations. Perf. Rep., P-R Proj. W-48-7, Study S&I, Job 5 and Study R-V, Job 1. Nevada Fish and Game Department, Reno, NV, USA. 19pp. reported in Anderson, A. E. 1983. A critical review of literature on puma (Felis concolor). Special Report No. 54. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, USA. 1 �Appendix D: Sept 2, 2020 Ashman, D., G. C. Christensen, M. L. Hess, G. K. Tsukamoto, and M. S. Wickersham. 1983. The mountain lion in Nevada. Nevada Game and Fish Department, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-14-15, Final Report. Bailey, J. A. 1984. Principles of wildlife management. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA. Ballard, W. B., and V. Van Ballenberghe. 1997. Predator-prey relationships. Pages 247-273 in A. W. Fransmann and C. C. Schwartz, editors. Ecology and Management of the North American Moose. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., USA. Ballard, W. B., D. Lutz, T. W. Keegan, L. H. Carpenter, and J. C. de Vos. 2001. Deer– predator relationships: a review of recent North American studies with emphasis on mule and black-tailed deer. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:99-115. Barnhurst, D. 1986. Vulnerability of cougars to hunting. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, USA. Beausoleil, R. A., G. M. Koehler, B. T. Maletzke, B. N. Kertson, and R. B. Wielgus. 2013. Research to regulation: Cougar social behavior as a guide for management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:680-688. Beausoleil, R. A. and K. I. Warheit. 2014. Using DNA to evaluate field identification of cougar sex by agency staff and hunters using trained dogs. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39:203-209. Beausoleil, R. A., J. Clark., and B. T. Maletzke. 2016. A long-term evaluation of biopsy darts and DNA to estimate cougar density: an agency-citizen science collaboration. Wildlife Society Bulletin 40:583-592. Beausoleil, R. A. 2017. Standardization of cougar population metrics. Page 35 in McLaughlin, C. R. and M. Vieira, editors. Proceedings of the 12th Mountain Lion Workshop. May 15-18, 2017. Estes Park, Colorado, USA. Beier, P. 1991. Cougar attacks on humans in the United States and Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:403-412. Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars. Conservation Biology 7:94-108. Beier, P., and S. C. Cunningham. 1996. Power of track surveys to detect changes in cougar populations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:540-546. Becker, E. F. 1991. A terrestrial furbearer estimator based on probability sampling. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:730-737. Bender, L. C., L. A. Lomas, and J. Browning. 2007. Condition, survival, and cause-specific mortality of adult female mule deer in north-central New Mexico. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1118-1124. 2 �Appendix D: Sept 2, 2020 Berger, J., and J. D. Wehausen. 1991. Consequences of a mammalian predator-prey disequilibrium in the Great Basin Desert. Conservation Biology 5:244-248. Bergman, E. J., P. F. Doherty, G. C. White, and A. A. Holland. 2015. Density dependence in mule deer: a review of evidence. Wildlife Biology 21:18-29. Bishop, C. J., J. W. Unsworth, and E. O. Garton. 2005. Mule deer survival among adjacent populations in southwest Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:311-321. Blecha, K., R. Boone, and M. Alldredge. 2015. Puma foraging in an urban to rural landscape. Federal Aid Report W-204-R4 Cougar Demographics and Human Interactions Along the Urban-Exurban Front Range of Colorado, Appendix IV. Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Bowyer, T. B., D. K. Person, and B. M. Pierce. 2005. Detecting top-down versus bottom-up regulation of ungulates by large carnivores: implication for conservation of biodiversity. Pages 342-361 in J. C. Ray, K. H. Redford, R. S. Steneck, and J. Berger, editors, Large carnivores and the conservation of biodiversity. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA. Carbone, C., S. Christie, T. Coulson, N. Franklin, J. R. Ginsberg, M. Griffiths, J. Holden, K. Kawanishi, M. F. Kinnaird, R. Laidlaw, A. Lynam, D. W. Macdonald, D. Martyr, C. McDougal, L. Nath, T. Obrien, J. Seidensticker, D. J. L. Smith, M. Sunquist, R. Tilson, and W. N. Wan Shahruddin. 2001. The use of photographic rates to estimate densities of tigers and other cryptic mammals. Animal Conservation 4:75-79. Caughley, G., and A. R. E. Sinclair. 1994. Wildlife ecology and management. Blackwell Science, Malden, Massachusetts, USA. CPW [Colorado Parks and Wildlife]. 2014. Colorado hunter education manual. Kalkomey Enterprises, Inc. Dallas, Texas, USA. Choate, D. M., M. L. Wolfe, and D. C. Stoner. 2006. Evaluation of cougar population estimators in Utah. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 782–799. Clements, C. D., and J. A. Young. 1996. A viewpoint: rangeland health and mule deer habitat. Journal of Range Management 50:129-138. Cooley, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, G. M. Koehler, and B. T. Maletzke. 2009a. Source populations in carnivore management: cougar demography and emigration in a lightly hunted population. Animal Conservation 12:321–328. Cooley, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, G. M. Koehler, H. S. Robinson, and B. T. Maletzke. 2009b. Does hunting regulate cougar populations? A test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis. Ecology 90:2913-2921. Cooley, H. S., K. D. Bunnell, D. C. Stoner, and M. L. Wolfe. 2011. Population management: Cougar hunting. Pages 111-134. in J. A. Jenks, editor. Managing cougars in North America. Jack H. Berryman Institute, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. Corona Research, Inc. 2005. Public opinions and perceptions of mountain lion issues. Report to the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado, USA. 3 �Appendix D: Sept 2, 2020 Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group. 2005. Cougar management guidelines. WildFutures, Bainbridge Island, Washington, USA. Culver, M., W. E. Johnson, J. Pecon-Slattery, and S. J. O’Brien. 2000. Genomic ancestry of the puma (Puma concolor). Journal of Heredity 91:186-197. Cunningham, S. C., L. A. Haynes, C. Gustavson, and D. D. Haywood. 1995. Evaluation of the interaction between mountain lions and cattle in the Aravaipa-Klondyke region of southeast Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department Technical Report No. 17. Currier, M. J. P., S. L. Sheriff, and K. R. Russell. 1977. Mountain lion population and harvest near Canon City, Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife Spec. Rep. No. 42. CDOW, Fort Collins, CO, USA. 12pp. Davidson, G. A., D. A. Clark, B. K. Johnson, L. P. Watts, and J. R. Adams. 2014. Estimating cougar densities in northeast Oregon using conservation detection dogs. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:1104-1114. Dickson, B. G., and P. Beier. 2002. Home-range and habitat selection by adult cougars in southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:1235-1245. Ernest, H. B., E. S. Rubin, and W. M. Boyce. 2002. Fecal DNA analysis and risk assessment of mountain lion predation of bighorn sheep. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:75-85. Fecske, D. M., D. J. Thompson, and J. A. Jenks. 2011. Cougar ecology and natural history. Pages 15-40 in J. A. Jenks, editor. Managing cougars in North America. Jack H. Berryman Institute, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. Gassaway, W. C., R. D. Boertje, D. V. Grangard, D. G. Kelleyhouse, R. O. Stephenson, and D. G. Larsen. 1992. The role of predation in limiting moose at low densities in Alaska and Yukon and implications for conservation. Wildlife Monographs No. 120. Hemker, T. P., F. G. Lindzey, and B. B. Ackerman. 1984. Population characteristics and movement patterns of cougars in southern Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management 48:12751284. Hiller, T. L., J. E. McFadden-Hiller, S. R. Jenkins, J. L. Belant, and A. J. Tyre. 2015. Demography, prey abundance, and management affect number of cougar mortalities associated with livestock conflicts. Journal of Wildlife Management 79:978-988. Hopkins, R. A. 1989. Ecology of the puma in the Diablo Range. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, USA. Hurley, M. A., J. W. Unsworth, P. Zager, M. Hebblewhite, E. O. Garton, D. M. Montgomery, J. R. Skalski, and C. L. Maycock. 2011. Demographic response of mule deer to experimental reduction of coyotes and mountain lions in Southeastern Idaho. Wildlife Monographs No. 178. Jenks, J. A., editor. 2011. Managing cougars in North America. Jack H. Berryman Institute, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. 4 �Appendix D: Sept 2, 2020 Johnson, H. E., M. Hebblewhite, T. R. Stephenson, D. W. German, B. M. Pierce, and V. C. Bleich. 2013. Evaluating apparent competition in limiting the recovery of an endangered ungulate. Oecologia 171:295-307. Kamler, J. F., R. M. Lee, J. C. deVos, Jr., W. B. Ballard, and H. A. Whitlaw. 2002. Survival and cougar predation of translocated bighorn sheep in Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:1267-1272. Kie, J. G., R. T. Bowyer, and K. M. Stewart. 2003. Ungulates in western forests: habitat requirements, population dynamics, and ecosystem processes. Pages 296-340 in C. Zabel and R. Anthony, editors. Mammal community dynamics: management and conservation in the coniferous forest of western North America. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York, USA. Kinley, T. A., and C. D. Apps. 2001. Mortality patterns in a subpopulation of endangered mountain caribou. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:158-164. Knopff, K. H., A. A. Knopff, and M. S. Boyce. 2010. Scavenging makes cougars susceptible to snaring at wolf bait stations. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:644-653. Koehler, G. M., and M. G. Hornocker. 1991. Seasonal resource use among mountain lions, bobcats, and coyotes. Journal of Mammalogy 72:391-396. Koloski, J. H. 2002. Mountain lion ecology and management on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. M. S. Thesis. Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie. Krausman, P. R., and D. M. Shackleton. 2000. Bighorn sheep. Pages 517-544 in S. Demarais, and P. R. Krausman, editors, Ecology and management of large mammals in North America. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. Laing, S. P. 1988. Cougar habitat selection and spatial use patterns in southern Utah. Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA. Laing, S. P. and F. G. Lindzey. 1993. Patterns of replacement of resident cougars in southern Utah. Journal of Mammalogy 74:1056-1058 Laundré, J. W., L. Hernandez, and S. G. Clark. 2007. Numerical and demographic responses of pumas to changes in prey abundance: Testing current predictions. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:345-355. Laundré, J. W. and C. Papouchis. 2020. The Elephant in the room: What can we learn from California regarding the use of sport hunting of pumas (Puma concolor) as a management tool? PLoS ONE 15(2): e0224638. Lindzey, F. G., B. B. Ackerman, D. Barnhurst, T. Becker, T. P. Hemker, S. P. Laing, C. Mecham, and W. D. Van Sickle. 1989. Boulder-Escalante cougar project. Final Report. Utah Division of Wildlife Research, Salt Lake City, USA. 5 �Appendix D: Sept 2, 2020 Lindzey, F. G., W. D. Van Sickle, B. B. Ackerman, 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., and L. L. Irwin. 1985. Mountain lion habitats in the Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13:257-262. Logan, K. A., L. L. Irwin, and R. Skinner. 1986. Characteristics of a hunted mountain lion population in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:648–654. Logan, K. A., and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press, Washington, D. C., USA. Logan, K. A. 2010. Puma population structure and vital rates on the Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado. Federal Aid Project W-204-R1 report. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Logan, K. A. 2015. Assessing the effects of hunting on a puma population on the Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado. Federal Aid Project W-204-R4 report. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Logan, K. A. 2019. Puma Population Limitation and Regulation: What Matters in Puma Management? Journal of Wildlife Management 83:1652-1666. Logan, K. A., and J. P. Runge. 2020. Effects of hunting on a puma population in Colorado. Technical Publication Number 54. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Martorello, D. A., and R. A. Beausoliel. 2003. Cougar harvest characteristics with and without the use of hounds. Pages 129-135 in S. A. Becker, D. D. Bjornlie, F. G. Lindzey, and D. S. Moody, editors. Proceedings of the 7th Mountain Lion Workshop. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, USA. Mattson, D., K. Logan, and L. Sweanor. 2011. Factors governing risk of cougar attacks on humans. Human-Wildlife Interactions 5:135-158. McAlpine, C. A., J. R. Rhodes, M. E. Bowen, D. Lunney, J. G. Callaghan, D. L. Mitchell, and H. P. Possingham. 2008. Can multiscale models of species’ distribution be generalized from region to region? A case study of koala. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:558-567. McCarthy, K. P., T. K. Fuller, M. Ming, T. M. McCarthy, L. Waits, and K. Jumabaev. 2008. Assessing estimators of snow leopard abundance. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:1826–1833. McCullough, D. R. 1979. The George Reserve deer herd: population ecology of a K-selected species. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. McRae, B. H. 2004. Integrating landscape ecology and population genetics: conventional tools and a new model. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. 6 �Appendix D: Sept 2, 2020 Monteith, K. L., V. C. Bleich, T. R. Stephenson, B. M. Pierce, M. M. Conner, J. G. Kie, and R. T. Bowyer. 2014. Life-history characteristics of mule deer: effects of nutrition in a variable environment. Wildlife Monographs No.186. Moss, W. E, M. W. Alldredge, and J. N. Pauli. 2016. Quantifying risk and resource use for a large carnivore in an expanding urban–wildland interface. Journal of Applied Ecology 53:371–378. 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, USA. Murphy, K. M., M. S. Nadeau, and T. K. Ruth. 2011. Cougar-prey relationships. Pages 41-70 in J. A. Jenks, editor. Managing cougars in North America. Jack H. Berryman Institute, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. Murphy, S. M., D. T. Wilckens, B. C. Augustine, M. A. Peyton and G. C. Harper. 2019. Improving estimation of puma (Puma concolor) population density: clustered cameratrapping, telemetry data, and generalized spatial mark-resight models. Scientific Reports 9:4590. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-40926-7 Novaro, A. J., and R. S. Walker. 2005. Human-induced changes in the effect of top carnivores on biodiversity in the Patagonian Steppe. Pages 268-288 in J. C. Ray, K. H. Redford, R. S. Steneck, and J. Berger, editors, Large carnivores and the conservation of biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Peebles, K. A., R. B. Wielgus, B.T. Maletzke, and M. E. Swanson. 2013. Effects of remedial sport hunting on cougar complaints and livestock depredations. PLoS ONE 8(11): e79713. Peek, J. M., B. Dennis, and T. Hershey. 2002. Population trends of mule deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 66:729-736. Pierce, B .M. and V. C. Bleich. 2003. Mountain Lion. Pages 744–757 in G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman, editors. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. 2nd edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Pierce, B. M., V. C. Bleich, K. L. Monteith, R. T. Bowyer, and W. P. Smith. 2012. Top-down versus bottom-up forcing: evidence from mountain lions and mule deer. Journal of Mammalogy 93:977-988. Pollock, K. H., J. D. Nichols, C. Brownie, and J. E. Hines. 1990. Statistical inference for capture-recapture experiments. Wildlife Monographs 107:3–97. Proffitt, K. M., J. F. Goldberg, M. Hebblewhite, R. Russell, B. S. Jimenez, H. S. Robinson, K. Pilgrim, and M. K. Schwartz. 2015. Integrating resource selection into spatial capturerecapture models for large carnivores. Ecosphere 6(11): 239. 7 �Appendix D: Sept 2, 2020 Riley, S. P. D., J. P. Pollinger, R. M. Sauvajot, E. C. York, C. Bromley, T. K. Fuller, and R. K. Wayne. 2006. A southern California freeway is a physical and social barrier to gene flow in carnivores. Molecular Ecology 15:1733–1741. Robinson, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, H. S. Cooley, and S. W. Cooley. 2008. Sink populations in carnivore management: cougar demography and immigration in a hunted population. Ecological Applications 18:1028–1037. Robinson, H. S. and R. M. DeSimone. 2011. The Garnet Range mountain lion study: characteristics of a hunted population in west-central Montana. Final Report, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Wildlife Bureau, Helena, MT. 102 pp. Robinson, H. S., T. Ruth, J. A. Gude, D. Choate, R. M. DeSimone, M. Hebblewhite, K. Kunkel, M. R. Matchett, M. S. Mitchell, K. Murphy, and J. Williams. 2015. Linking resource selection and mortality modeling for population estimation of mountain lions in Montana. Ecological Modelling 312:11–25. Rominger, E. M., H. A. Whitlaw, D. L. Weybright, W. C. Dunn, and W. B. Ballard. 2004a. The influence of mountain lion predation on bighorn sheep translocations. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:993-999. Rominger, E. M., R. S. Winslow, E. J. Goldstein, D. L. Weybright, and W. C. Dunn. 2004b. Cascading effects of subsidized mountain lion populations in the Chihuahuan Desert. Page 103 in Carnivores 2004: expanding partnerships in carnivore conservation. Defenders of Wildlife 2004 Carnivore Conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. Ross, I. P., and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:417–426. Ross, I. P., and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1996. Cougar predation on moose in southwestern Alberta. Alces 32:1-8. Ross, I. P., M. G. Jalkotzy, and M. Festa-Bianchet. 1997. Cougar predation on bighorn sheep in southwestern Alberta during winter. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:771–775. Russell, R. E., J. A. Royle, R. DeSimone, M. K. Schwartz, V. I. Edwards, K. P. Pilgrim, and K. S. McKelvey. 2012. Estimating abundance of mountain lions from unstructured spatial sampling. Journal of Wildlife Management 76:1551-1561. Seidensticker, J. C., and M. G. Hornocker, W. V. Wiles, and J. P. Messick. 1973. Mountain lion social organization in the Idaho Primitive Area. Wildlife Monographs No. 35. Shaw, H. G. 1980. Ecology of the mountain lion in Arizona. Final Report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-78-R, Work Plan 2, Job 13. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, USA. 8 �Appendix D: Sept 2, 2020 Sinclair, E. A., E. L. Swenson, M. L. Wolfe, D. C. Choate, B. Gates, and K. A. Crandall. 2001. Gene flow estimates in Utah cougars imply management beyond Utah. Animal Conservation 4:257-264. Smallwood, K. S. 1994. Trends in California mountain lion populations. Southwest Naturalist 39:67-72. Smallwood, K. S., and E. L. Fitzhugh. 1995. A track count for estimating mountain lion, Felis concolor californica, population trend. Biological Conservation 71:251-259. Spreadbury, B. R., K. Musil, J. Musil, C. Kaisner, and J. Kovak. 1996. Cougar population characteristics in southeastern British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 60:962969. Stoner, D. C. 2004. Cougar exploitation levels in Utah: implications for demographic structure, metapopulation dynamics, and population recovery. Thesis, University of Utah, Logan, USA. Stoner, D. C., M. L. Wolfe, and D. M. Choate. 2006. Cougar exploitation levels in Utah: Implications for demographic structure, population recovery, and metapopulation dynamics. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1588-1600. Sweitzer, R. A., S. H. Jenkins, and J. Berger. 1997. Near-extinction of porcupines by mountain lions and consequences for ecosystem change in the Great Basin Desert. Conservation Biology 11:1407-1417. Teichman, K.J., B. Cristescu, and C. T. Darimont. 2016. Hunting as a management tool? Cougar-human conflict is positively related to trophy hunting. BMC Ecology 16:44. Thompson, D. J., and J. Jenks. 2005. Long-distance dispersal by a sub-adult male cougar from the Black Hills, South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:818-820. Torres, S. G., T. M. Mansfield, J. E. Foley, T. Lupo, and A. Brinkhus. 1996. Mountain lion and human activity in California: testing speculations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:451-460. Trainer, C. E., and N. E. Golly. 1992. Cougar age and reproduction. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Corvallis, USA. Van Sickle, W. D., and F. G. Lindzey. 1991. Evaluation of a cougar population estimator based on probability sampling. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:738-743. Vickers T.W., J. N. Sanchez, C. K. Johnson, S. A. Morrison, R. Botta,T. Smith, B. S. Cohen, P. R. Huber, H. B. Ernest, and W. M. Boyce. 2015. Survival and mortality of pumas (Puma concolor) in a fragmented, urbanizing landscape. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0131490. Whittaker, D. and M. L. Wolfe. 2011. Assessing and monitoring cougar populations. Pages 71110 in J. A. Jenks, editor. Managing cougars in North America. Jack H. Berryman Institute, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, USA. Williams, J. S., J. J. McCarthy, and H. D. Picton. 1995. Mountain lion habitat use and food habits on the Montana Rocky Mountain front. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 1:16-28. 9 �Appendix D: Sept 2, 2020 Wittmer, H. U., B. N. McLellan, D. R. Seip, J. A. Young, T. A. Kinley, G. S. Watts, and D. Hamilton. 2005. Population dynamics of the endangered mountain ecotype of woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:407-418. Wyoming Game and Fish Department Mountain Lion Management Plan. 2006. Trophy Game Section (Management/Research Branch), Wyoming Game & Fish Department, Lander, Wyoming. Wolfe, M. L., E. M. Gese, P. Terletzky, D. C. Stoner, and L. M. Aubry. 2016. Evaluation of harvest indices for monitoring cougar survival and abundance. Journal of Wildlife Management. 80:27-36. Zinn, H. C. and M. J. Manfredo. 1996. Societal preferences for mountain lion management along Colorado’s Front Range. Project report No. 28. Report for the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. 10 �Appendix D: Sept 2, 2020 REFERENCES Cougar: Ecology and Conservation. 2010. M. Hornocker and S. Negri, editors. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Cougar, the American lion. 1992. K. Hansen. Northland Publishing, Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. Mountain Lion. 1987. M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, editors. Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Ontario Trappers Association, Toronto, Canada. Mountain lion field guide. 1983. H. G. Shaw. Arizona Game and Fish Department Special Report No. 9. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, USA. Proceedings of the 4th Mountain Lion Workshop. 1991. C. E. Braun, editor. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, USA. Proceedings of the 7th Mountain Lion Workshop. 2003. A. Becker, D. D. Bjornlie, F. G. Lindzey, and D. S. Moody, editors. Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Jackson, USA. 11 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 Colorado West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan APPENDIX E WEST SLOPE MOUNTAIN LION PLAN PUBLIC PROCESS AND RESULTS Summary of Outreach Efforts The West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan went through an extensive public outreach process, which was designed to inform the public of the proposed plan and collect input. Our outreach included a series of in person public meetings, a Facebook premier event, the posting of the plan on the CPW website for a 6 week review period, and outreach to local governments and interest groups. A list and timeline of these outreach efforts can be found in Table 1. Outreach for the draft plan began in January of 2020 with 12 in-person public meetings hosted by CPW across the Western Slope. Approximately 584 individuals attended the inperson presentations. The audiences were encouraged to complete surveys after the session. Surveys from the West Slope meetings were completed by 360 members of the public. Three in-person public meetings were planned on the Front Range; however, COVID-19 gathering limitations prevented these meetings from occurring. Therefore, to reach broader audiences geographically, CPW hosted a Facebook Premier event on April 16, 2020. The Facebook Premier event featured a pre-recorded presentation that was consistent with the presentation given at West Slope in-person meetings and a recorded question and answer session. The question and answer recording was developed from common themes identified during the West Slope public meeting process. Staff remained online to engage with viewers for a 5-hour window after the video premiered. Over 32,000 views were recorded in the first twenty-two hours of the video being posted. The draft management plan and associated appendices were posted to the CPW mountain lion webpage on March 12, 2020 for public review. The formal public comment period opened on CPW’s website on March 12, 2020 and closed at midnight on April 30, 2020 (~ 6 weeks). CPW’s standard for posting draft management plans on the web is 30 days, but this extended posting was offered to ensure that the draft plan was available to review and comment after the Facebook Premier event occurred. During the draft plan review period, 1,855 formal public comments were received. Of the formal comments from within Colorado, 80% were associated with zip codes from the East Slope and 20% from the West Slope. The formal public comment period also made accommodations for communities and individuals who do not use the internet by providing the option for those communities to submit their feedback via paper forms. CPW made direct outreach contacts to Boards of County Commissioners, the Habitat Partnership Program, federal agencies, and other stakeholder groups from January through April 2020. In total, seven press releases were produced by CPW Public Information Officers to highlight all public input opportunities. The 1 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 cumulative press releases were successfully delivered 4,081 times to media outlets and public members who signed up to receive CPW press releases directly. Table 1. Stakeholder Outreach Efforts Location or Audience Description Notes Mesa County Board of County 1/9/2020 Commissioners Proposal Discussion USFS Grand Mesa Ranger District, USFS Rifle Ranger District, BLM Grand Junction Field Office Present 1/20/2020 Colorado Cattlemen's Association Proposal Discussion Reid DeWalt spoke at the midwinter convention USFS Holy Cross & Sopris Ranger 2/1/2020 Districts Proposal Discussion 2/1/2020 BLM Lower Colorado River Office Proposal Discussion 2/10/2020 Steamboat Springs West Slope Public Meeting 2/10/2020 Gunnison West Slope Public Meeting 2/11/2020 Kremmling West Slope Public Meeting 2/11/2020 Norwood West Slope Public Meeting 2/12/2020 Glenwood Springs West Slope Public Meeting 2/13/2020 Delta West Slope Public Meeting 2/18/2020 Gypsum West Slope Public Meeting 2/19/2020 Meeker West Slope Public Meeting 2/19/2020 Grand Junction West Slope Public Meeting 2/20/2020 Rifle West Slope Public Meeting 2/20/2020 Durango West Slope Public Meeting Grand Mesa Habitat Partnership 2/20/2020 Program Committee Proposal Discussion 2/21/2020 Alamosa West Slope Public Meeting BLM Grand Junction Field Office staff present Garfield County Board of County 3/1/2020 Commissioners Requests for Discussions Several requests were sent in March & April 3/4/2020 BLM Grand Junction Field Office Coordination Meeting Proposal Discussion CPW & proposed plan listed as an agenda item Summit County Board of County 3/23/2020 Commissioners Emailed Press Release & Public Comment Period Info Emailed reminder of comment period close on 4/28/2020 Grand County Board of County 3/23/2020 Commissioners Emailed Press Release & Public Comment Period Info Emailed reminder of comment period close on 4/28/2020 3/23/2020 BLM Kremmling Field Office Emailed Press Release & Public Comment Period Info 3/23/2020 USFS Emailed Press Release & Public Comment Period Info Verifying which offices Lyle contacted 2 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 BLM Grand Junction & Silt Field 3/25/2020 Offices CPW Formally Requested Input USFS Grand Mesa & Rifle Ranger 3/25/2020 Districts CPW Formally Requested Input Meeting was to discuss the contents of the draft plan and Virtual meeting with special interest take feedback from these groups that included Humane groups. The groups followed Society of the United States, Wild with a formal comment 4/3/2020 Earth Guardians, and the Sierra Club letter. 4/8/2020 Montezuma County BOCC Email with link to plan and requesting input Backcountry Hunters and Anglers4/8/2020 SW Colorado Email with link to plan and requesting input Southwest Livestock Growers 4/8/2020 Association Email with link to plan and requesting input 4/8/2020 San Juan Citizens Alliance Email with link to plan and requesting input La Plata County Living with Wildlife 4/8/2020 Advisory Board Email with link to plan and requesting input 4/10/2020 Montrose County BOCC email plan and invite to Facebook event Eagle County Board of County 4/14/2020 Commissioners Proposal Presentation Pitkin County Board of County 4/14/2020 Commissioners Proposal Presentation 4/14/2020 BLM Kremmling Field Office Proposal Discussion La Plata County Living with Wildlife 4/14/2020 Advisory Board Proposal Discussion 4/16/2020 Facebook Event Online Proposal Presentation, Replaced front range meetings Live Q&A due to COVID19 4/21/2020 Colorado Outfitters Association Email with link to plan and requesting input 4/21/2020 USFS Aspen-Sopris Ranger District Proposal Discussion Mesa County Board of County 4/22/2020 Commissioners Proposal Presentation 4/22/2020 USFS Sulphur Ranger District Coordination Meeting Proposal Discussion 4/22/2020 La Plata County BOCC Discussion with BOCC 4/23/2020 BLM Kremmling Field Office Proposal Discussion Hinsdale, Mineral, Rio Grande, Alamosa, Costilla, Conejos and Saguache Board of County 4/27/2020 Commissioners Emailed Links to all relevant information along with a reminder to comment and provide support letters. Email presented plan to BOCC and asked to reach out with comments or concerns Personal call to Bill Mills All mailing list Personal call to Bill Mills 3 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 4/27/2020 USFS Divide Ranger District Emailed Links to all relevant information along with a reminder to comment and provide support letters. 4/27/2020 BLM San Luis Valley Field Office Emailed Links to all relevant information along with a reminder to comment and provide support letters. 4/27/2020 San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council Emailed Links to all relevant information along with a reminder to comment and provide support letters. Gunnison Board of County 4/27/2020 Commissioners Chair Phone discussion on lion management plan and support Hinsdale County Board of County 4/27/2020 Commissioners Email exchange with BOCC chair 4/27/2020 Gunnison Wildlife Association Phone discussion on lion mgmt plan and support Dolores County Board of County 4/27/2020 Commissioners Emailed Links to all relevant information along with a reminder to comment and provide support letters. Archuleta County Board of County 4/27/2020 Commissioners Emailed Links to all relevant information along with a reminder to comment and provide support letters. Personal call with Jonathan Houck-BOCC supports CPW as wildlife mgmt professionals in CO Call with GWA President Cody Dyce, they will submit letter of support 4 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 West Slope Public Meeting Details Beginning in February 2020, CPW hosted twelve in-person public meetings across the West Slope. Over 584 individuals attended these meetings. A PowerPoint presentation was given at each meeting, after which CPW answered questions and circulated a survey to capture feedback. A total of 360 surveys were submitted at the end of the discussions across all meetings. Attendees who provided usable email addresses were provided a follow-up email when the formal comment period opened online. The most commonly asked questions answered by staff in these in-person meetings are listed below. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. How was the percent adult female threshold determined? Why only adult females? Why is a female sub-quota not recommended in this plan? Why aren’t gender-specific lion tags issued? Will pursuit tags ever be available? Will private land vouchers be considered, that don’t contribute to hunter harvest? What if the population estimates projected by the Resource Selection Function are not accurate? 7. Is the current population ideal for maintaining at a stable level? 8. With these larger Harvest Limit Groups, aren’t wildlife managers concerned that specific game management units may experience over-harvest or under-harvest? 9. Is CPW aware of the British Columbia & Washington peer-reviewed mountain lion research papers that describe social chaos in hunted mountain lion populations? 10. Why aren’t non-lethal methods used to manage problem mountain lions? 5 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 West Slope Public Meeting Survey & Results The five questions posed on the survey, with results, are as follows. 1. How do you interact with mountain lions? Choose your primary interest. a. Lion Hunter b. Deer/Elk Hunter c. Landowner d. Agricultural Producers e. Wildlife Enthusiast f. Other: ________ Figure 1. Proportion of Responses to Survey Question 1 2. Managing mountain lions on a landscape scale is appropriate for the species. a. Scale of 1-5. 1: Strongly Disagree 5: Strongly Agree Figure 2. Proportion of Responses to Survey Question 2 6 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 3. This plan allows wildlife managers more flexibility to manage lions. a. Scale of 1-5. 1: Strongly Disagree 5: Strongly Agree. Figure 3. Proportion of Responses to Survey Question 3 4. This plan allocates harvest limits to meet local needs while maintaining a stable mountain lion population across the West Slope of Colorado. a. Scale of 1-5. 1: Strongly Disagree 5: Strongly Agree Figure 4. Proportion of Responses to Survey Question 4 5. Do you have any comments or concerns on mountain lion management to relay to wildlife managers? a. Open for written responses. 7 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 Facebook Premier Event Details CPW’s Facebook Premier went live on April 16, 2020, at 3 p.m. Colorado Parks and Wildlife staff pre-recorded the same presentation provided to West Slope Public Meeting attendees along with responses to common questions identified from the West Slope meetings. After the event premiered at 3 p.m., staff were available until 8 p.m. for live responses to all comments with questions pertaining to mountain lion management. This event was hosted in lieu of in-person Front Range meetings (which were canceled due to COVID-19 gathering restrictions). Analytics of the Facebook Premier event were evaluated when the video had been posted for twenty-two hours. In total, 3,767 engagements with the materials were recorded. A total of 427 comments were on the post at hour twenty-two, which included the responses from CPW. Formal Online Public Comment Period Details The draft West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan and Appendices were posted to the CPW lion webpage on March 12, 2020 for formal comments and closed at midnight on April 30, 2020. A Google Form was used to capture all comments. Each respondent’s zip code was a required component for all comments. No formal questions were asked of those that had reviewed the plan; space was provided for open-ended feedback on elements of the management plan. A total of 1,855 comments were submitted during this review period. The public comment period garnered worldwide attention. The intent of this comment period was to collect input on elements of the proposed West Slope Mountain Lion Plan. Many of the comments received did not comment on the plan itself; rather, they were philosophical comments about the ethics of mountain lion hunting. Mountain lion hunting in Colorado is regulated per Chapter W-02, Article VI of CPW’s Regulations. The question of whether or not hunting mountain lions in Colorado should continue was not posed to the public and should be addressed through other channels. Comments to this effect were put into the “N/A” category. Some comments did mention specific lion plan elements while expressing that the commenter was against mountain lion hunting; these comments were included in the comment statistics & common themes below. Comment Statistics  35% of the online comments either had no text attached, were incoherent, or did not relate to the management plan itself  Of the comments associated with Colorado zip codes, approximately 80% were from the East Slope  Of the comments associated with Colorado zip codes, approximately 20% were from the West Slope Approximately 14% of the online public review comments had “form letter” elements identified, which indicates that the proposed management plan came to their attention through a mailing list with prompts, or was cut and pasted from a common source. 8 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 Common Themes CPW staff examined all of these comments to identify commonality between comments and general themes. The top themes are listed below. Of additional note was the widespread request for robust mountain lion community education programs. The word “education” was mentioned 128 times in comments received. 1. Not Applicable, Incoherent, or blank: 652 comments or 35% 2. Form elements identified (indicating the comment period came to their 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. attention through a mailing list): 259 comments or 14% Against trophy hunting, against mountain lion hunting, or against all hunting: 475 comments or 25% Against suppression or mountain lions, against harvest increases, or against the Glenwood Springs SMA: 406 comments or 22% Against the use of electronic calls: 323 comments or 17% Against April mountain lion harvest, concurrent seasons, or extended seasons: 184 comments or 10% Supportive of this plan & lion hunting: 139 comments or 7% Supportive of increased mountain lion harvest, mountain lion population reduction, or the Glenwood Springs SMA: 61 comments or 3% Requested more research on mountain lions on the West Slope of Colorado: 101 comments or 5% 9 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 Analysis of Public Feedback Feedback from the in-person West Slope public meetings contrasted with the feedback received during the online comment period. A range of stakeholders attended the in-person meetings outside of the sportsmen community; 16% identified as primarily “wildlife enthusiasts” over options including hunters, agricultural producers, or others. The West Slope Public Meeting section provides an analysis of audience identification and complete percentages of survey answers compiled. More than half of all attendees agreed or strongly agreed with the following statements: 1. Managing mountain lions on a landscape scale is appropriate for the species. (57% agree & strongly agree) 2. This plan allows wildlife managers more flexibility to manage lions. (69% agree & strongly agree) 3. This plan allocates harvest limits to meet local needs while maintaining a stable mountain lion population across the West Slope of Colorado. (67% agree & strongly agree) Of the 1,855 comments received during the formal online comment period, 318 were from zip codes associated with West Slope addresses (living within the proposed management plan boundary). A total of 1,324 comments were from zip codes associated with East Slope addresses and an additional 213 comments were either out of state or invalid for mapping (perhaps submitted incorrectly and some comments in this category were international). Sociological differences were detected based on the location of the commenter. Those who don’t live within the plan boundary tended toward protectionist mindsets. Those who live with the mountain lions that are managed within this plan boundary offered different feedback that generally trended toward a management mindset. Local Support for the Glenwood Springs Special Management Area (SMA) While some members of the communities surrounding the Glenwood Springs SMA have expressed concerns, the majority of local opinions received regarding the management practices proposed in the Glenwood Springs SMA were supportive. The surveys circulated at the public meetings held in Glenwood Springs and Gypsum indicate that residents generally agree with the goals of this proposed lion management plan. Concepts proposed in the management of the SMA were strongly driven by input from residents and local governments that have expressed concerns both in the number and severity of human-lion conflicts in this area over the past decade. This was demonstrated and supported by the many written comments on these surveys that referenced increased human-lion interactions and the need for increased mountain lion management efforts. Letters of support for this special management area have been collected from individual residents, homeowner associations, Boards of County Commissioners, and stakeholder groups that focus on landscapes in or adjacent to the Glenwood Springs SMA. 10 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 CPW’s Response to Public Input During the formal comment period, some stakeholders expressed a desire for this draft plan to be peer-reviewed by a professional wildlife management agency. To accommodate this request, the draft West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan was shared with technical staff involved with lion management and research at the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife. Derek Broman formally commented that “as a wildlife biologist, large carnivore manager, and representative of a state wildlife agency, I’m very pleased to see that this draft plan incorporates all relevant components of contemporary lion conservation and management.” This review is included, in full, in Figure 5 on page 12 of this appendix. Respondents also requested surveys that produced more solid mountain lion density estimates for the West Slope. In response, CPW has committed to beginning lion density surveys in 2021. Developing robust estimates of current lion density in survey areas on the West Slope will help improve and refine assumptions made in the RSF model (Appendix C). A further explanation of this proposed density monitoring approach is provided on page 36 of the draft West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan. The strategy proposed in the Glenwood SMA to reach of the objective of reducing human-lion conflicts was also modified to fit an adaptive management framework. Currently-proposed tools would be employed for the first half of the West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan, followed by an evaluation. This review would assess success of management actions, including higher harvest limits, to reach objectives of reduced conflicts. However, following an adaptive management framework evaluation, if data suggest that higher harvest, along with other tools, haven’t been successful in reducing conflicts, then a different management scenario will be employed after the evaluation. CPW will also increase public education programs across West Slope communities to better educate residents who live in mountain lion habitat on how to decrease the chances of negative interactions. These educational programs will be developed through collaboration between CPW’s NW & SW Region Staff, CPW’s Creative Services and Marketing Department, and CPW’s Education Department. The educational media & materials produced by this collaboration will be distributed to West Slope schools, boards of county commissioners, home owner associations, and other avenues as identified by the above team. Local field staff will continue to engage with communities at every opportunity (providing school programs, working with partner organizations on educational programming, etc.). It is worth noting that mountain lion advocacy groups agreed with the metrics proposed in this plan. While the Humane Society and their partners are “generally opposed to the hunting of mountain lions in Colorado and beyond,” they “support CPW’s efforts to improve management of mountain lions, as well as implementing mortality thresholds, including a 17% total humancaused mortality limit and a 22% adult female mortality limit.” The letter is included, in full, on page 40 of this appendix. 11 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 Figure 5. Agency Peer Review of the draft West Slope Mountain Lion Management Plan 12 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 13 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 14 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 Letters Received Independently of the Formal Public Comment Period The letters listed below are included, in full, after Table 2. Table 2. Name Region Agency/Group/Board USFS Rio Grande SW Agency USFS Sulphur RD NW Agency USFS White River NF Super. NW Agency BLM NW District NW Agency Mesa County BOCC NW Board Montezuma County BOCC SW Board La Plata County BOCC SW Board Rio Blanco County BOCC NW Board Archuleta County BOCC SW Board Eagle County BOCC NW Board Minturn Town Council NW Board Red Sky Ranch HOA NW Board Single Tree Property Owners Association NW Board Eagle Ranch Wildlife Committee NW Board Back Country Hunters & Anglers NW Group RMEF - Eagle County NW Group Safari Club International N/A Group Human Society of the United States & Partners N/A Group 15 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 16 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 17 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 18 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 19 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 20 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 21 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 22 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 23 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 24 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 25 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 26 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 27 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 28 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 29 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 30 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 31 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 32 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 33 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 34 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 35 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 36 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 37 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 38 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 39 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 40 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 41 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 42 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 43 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 44 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 45 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 46 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 47 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 48 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 49 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 50 �Appendix E: Sept 2, 2020 51 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/02bf62be1ad4ef6d4ddd00d709a7a37b.pdf 849447fea0a1c9fb1f0598d1992a7b6e PDF Text Text 201 5 L-1 2 1 L-2 4 3 MOFFAT 40 t u 10 11 231 Meeker _ [ 23 22 24 32 31 § ¦ ¨ _ [ 42 70 § ¦ ¨ _ [ 421 41 MESA 43 PITKIN 37 JEFFERSON391 46 521 L-9 LAKE 48 60 61 MONTROSE 63 285 57 t 56 u Salida _ [ _ [64 tu 50 L-21 551t 50 u 67 65 24 t u 110 _ [ 112 111 68 119 121 120 Pueblo L-16 682 124CROWLEY u _t [ 125 84 § ¦ ¨ 25 SAN JUAN HINSDALE 71 MINERAL 160 t u 73 Durango75 751 _t [ u ALAMOSA t u 83 771 84 t u 78 CONEJOS L-17 285 t u COSTILLA 142 134 85 ARCHULETA 130 132 350 t u 133 160 LA PLATA L-25 PROWERS 146 135 HUERFANO 77 160 741 L-20 Monte Vista RIO GRANDE _ [ 80 74 _ [ BENT 861 791 Lamar 50 t u 129 128 82 79 76 127 126 160 PUEBLO CUSTER 385 t u KIOWA OTERO 711DOLORES 122 FREMONT SAGUACHE 40 t u CHEYENNE 591 86 66 550 t u 113 118 69 117 116 115 LINCOLN EL PASO 581 59 KIT CARSON 70 § ¦ ¨ 123 681 385 t u 109 ELBERT 512 TELLER 58 _ [ 561 L-23 491 L-24 t u 107 114 691 OURAY MONTEZUMA 106 25 § ¦ ¨ L-11 481 GUNNISON Gunnison 54 70 491 t u 103 104 Colorado Springs Montrose SAN MIGUEL 36 t u 51 PARK CHAFFEE L-22 62 102 105 511 55 YUMA 100 ARAPAHOE DOUGLAS 50 49 101 WASHINGTON 85 t u 461 501 24 t u 47 471 53 160 t u 39 45 52 411 DELTA 72 70 § ¦ ¨ _ [ 70 CLEAR CREEK § ¦ ¨ L-12 SUMMIT 385 t u ADAMS Denver 38 500 70 Grand Junction § ¦ ¨ _ [ DENVER L-6 44 444 MORGAN 98 97 Brush 99 BROOMFIELD 371 36 EAGLE Glenwood Springs 96 36 29t u GILPIN 30 40 BOULDER 287 L-5 28 35 34 t u 85 t u t u _ tu [ 95 951 94 18 40 34 33 70 t u GRAND 26 25 GARFIELD WELD 34 20 Hot Sulphur Springs RIO BLANCO 21 27 181 15 93 PHILLIPS _ [ 36 t u 12 91 LOGAN t u 34 t u 34 89 Fort Collins L-4 t u 131 211 L-7 171 17 88 87 SEDGWICK 85 LARIMER 19 _ [ 13 9 191 JACKSON 14 Steamboat Springs16 ROUTT 40 t u 8 7 6 L-3 441 214 301 92 90 161 LAS ANIMAS L-19 141 81 851 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE - Mtn. Lion DAUs 25 § ¦ ¨ 140 147 138 136 139 137 160 t u BACA 160 t u 144 143 145 April 2005 �201 5 L-1 2 1 L-2 4 3 MOFFAT 13 10 11 40 231 23 22 21 33 34 32 L-6 42 444 37 45 44 30 421 41 MESA 43 PITKIN 471 521 L-9 47 L-12 461 LAKE L-22 61 63 GUNNISON Gunnison 54 56 L-21 561 57 285 50 551 50 67 65 LINCOLN 113 119 121 Pueblo 124CROWLEY SAN JUAN 125 MINERAL 129 128 25 491 74 Durango 75 160 L-20 Monte Vista RIO GRANDE 83 741 771 84 78 L-17 CONEJOS 285 COSTILLA 142 134 85 ARCHULETA 350 133 ALAMOSA 77 160 130 135 160 LA PLATA L-25 73 132 146 HUERFANO 80 751 PROWERS BENT 861 791 Lamar 50 84 82 79 76 127 126 160 PUEBLO L-16 385 KIOWA OTERO HINSDALE 122 120 86 682 40 CHEYENNE 591 69 CUSTER 117 116 115 123 681 68 550 71 160 111 118 59 SAGUACHE 711DOLORES L-24 112 FREMONT L-23 491 581 Salida 66 70 MONTEZUMA 110 512 691 OURAY 72 114 24 EL PASO 58 64 MONTROSE 385 KIT CARSON 70 TELLER L-11 481 55 109 ELBERT Colorado Springs Montrose SAN MIGUEL 107 25 511 CHAFFEE 60 106 51 PARK DELTA 53 62 104 105 52 411 103 85 50 49 102 ARAPAHOE DOUGLAS 501 24 48 ADAMS 36 JEFFERSON391 46 YUMA 100 DENVER 500 70 Grand Junction 40 39 101 WASHINGTON 99 Denver 38 70 70 CLEAR CREEK SUMMIT 70 385 MORGAN 85 BROOMFIELD 371 EAGLE 70 31 36 98 97 Brush 287 29 36 40 35 96 34 94 18 95 951 20 L-5 28 Glenwood Springs GARFIELD WELD GILPIN 25 PHILLIPS 34 GRAND Hot Sulphur SpringsBOULDER 26 24 93 Fort Collins 34 27 181 15 L-7 RIO BLANCO 171 34 12 91 L-4 36 Meeker 89 85 LARIMER 131 211 88 87 SEDGWICK LOGAN 19 17 9 191 JACKSON 14 Steamboat Springs 16 ROUTT 40 8 7 6 L-3 441 214 301 92 90 161 138 136 139 137 160 BACA LAS ANIMAS L-19 141 81 851 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE - Mtn. Lion DAUs 25 140 147 160 144 143 145 April 2006 �201 5 L-1 2 1 L-2 4 3 MOFFAT 13 10 11 40 231 23 22 21 33 34 32 L-6 42 30 40 461 421 41 MESA 43 PITKIN 471 521 L-9 47 LAKE L-22 61 Montrose GUNNISON Gunnison 54 56 L-21 561 57 285 50 551 50 67 65 68 SAN JUAN HINSDALE 71 MINERAL 491 74 Durango 75 160 L-20 Monte Vista RIO GRANDE 129 128 25 771 84 L-17 160 CONEJOS 285 COSTILLA 142 134 83 78 130 350 133 ALAMOSA 85 ARCHULETA 132 146 135 77 160 PROWERS BENT HUERFANO 80 751 Lamar 50 861 791 127 126 125 84 82 LA PLATA L-25 73 741 160 L-16 682 124CROWLEY 160 PUEBLO CUSTER 385 KIOWA Pueblo 86 79 76 122 120 OTERO 711DOLORES L-24 121 591 69 SAGUACHE 550 119 123 681 40 CHEYENNE FREMONT L-23 MONTEZUMA LINCOLN 117 116 115 113 118 59 Salida 66 70 491 581 691 OURAY 72 111 EL PASO 58 64 MONTROSE SAN MIGUEL 110 512 112 TELLER L-11 481 CHAFFEE 60 114 24 Colorado Springs 63 385 KIT CARSON 70 25 511 55 109 ELBERT 51 PARK DELTA 53 62 107 105 50 49 106 85 52 411 104 DOUGLAS 501 24 48 103 ARAPAHOE JEFFERSON391 46 500 70 Grand Junction 102 36 L-12 39 37 45 44 444 70 CLEAR CREEK YUMA 100 ADAMS Denver 38 101 WASHINGTON 99 DENVER SUMMIT 70 385 MORGAN 85 BROOMFIELD 371 EAGLE 70 31 36 98 97 Brush 287 29 36 40 35 96 34 94 18 95 951 20 L-5 28 Glenwood Springs GARFIELD WELD GILPIN 25 PHILLIPS 34 GRAND Hot Sulphur SpringsBOULDER 26 24 93 Fort Collins 34 27 181 15 L-7 RIO BLANCO 171 34 12 91 L-4 36 Meeker 89 85 LARIMER 131 211 88 87 SEDGWICK LOGAN 19 17 9 191 JACKSON 14 Steamboat Springs 16 ROUTT 40 8 7 6 L-3 441 214 301 92 90 161 138 136 139 137 160 BACA LAS ANIMAS L-19 141 81 851 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE - Mtn. Lion DAUs 25 140 147 160 144 143 145 April 2007 �201 5 L-2 2 1 4 3 L-1 MOFFAT Steamboat Springs16 ROUTT 40 £ ¤ _ ^ 13 10 40 £ ¤ 11 L-3 JACKSON 14 214 441 211 231 RIO BLANCO _ ^ 22 21 33 Glenwood Springs 42 40 _ ^ MESA 44 421 43 L-9 41 PITKIN 48 471 55 63 _ ^ 50 £ ¤ 54 L-21 57 551 61 OURAY 50 £ ¤ 67 65 68 682 72 L-24 160 £ ¤ 491 £ ¤ SAN JUAN HINSDALE 71 76 Pueblo 124 ¤ ^£ _ CROWLEY PUEBLO 125 _ ^ 80 128 L-25 75 751 160 £ ¤ LA PLATA _£ ^ ¤ Durango 741 78 160 ARCHULETA 771 £ ¤ 84 81 CONEJOS 285 £ ¤ 130 132 350 £ ¤ 133 £ ¤ L-19 PROWERS 146 135 160 77 _ ^ BENT HUERFANO ALAMOSA Lamar 50 £ ¤ 129 84 § ¦ ¨ 127 126 160 25 385 £ ¤ KIOWA 123 Monte Vista791 122 120 861 L-20 RIO GRANDE 40 £ ¤ 121 591 82 79 MINERAL 74 73 119 OTERO DOLORES MONTEZUMA 113 EL PASO FREMONT L-16 117 116 115 LINCOLN CUSTER L-23 491 £ ¤ 111 118 86 SAGUACHE 550 £ ¤ 112 CHEYENNE 581 69 66 110 _ ^ 691 681 70 711 512 24 £ ¤ 59 _ ^ 561 KIT CARSON 70 § ¦ ¨ 114 Colorado Springs 58 385 £ ¤ 109 ELBERT 25 § ¦ ¨ Salida _ ^ 107 105 TELLER 285 £ ¤ 56 GUNNISON Gunnison 103 106 L-12 85 £ ¤ L-11 62 Montrose64 SAN MIGUEL 104 511 481 £ ¤ ARAPAHOE 50 PARK 49 _ ^ 51 DOUGLAS 501 CHAFFEE MONTROSE 461 102 36 JEFFERSON 46 DELTA 53 60 391 YUMA WASHINGTON 100 ADAMS Denver DENVER 39 37 52 L-22 38 70 CLEAR CREEK § ¦ ¨ 24 £ ¤ LAKE 47 101 99 BROOMFIELD 500 521 411 287 £ ¤ 36 385 £ ¤ _ ^ 85 £ ¤ £ ¤ 29 SUMMIT 45 L-6 444 30 70 Grand Junction § ¦ ¨ 70 § ¦ ¨ MORGAN 98 97 Brush 96 951 £ 34 ¤ 94 28 371 EAGLE _ ^ 70 § ¦ ¨ 32 31 34 36 95 £ ¤ GILPIN 35 WELD 34 BOULDER 40 L-5 25 GARFIELD _ £¤ ^ 93 PHILLIPS 36 £ ¤ 18 Hot Sulphur Springs GRAND 26 24 23 181 27 15 91 LOGAN _ ^ 34 £ ¤ 20 89 £ ¤ Fort Collins 171 17 88 87 SEDGWICK 85 LARIMER L-4 19 131 Meeker 9 191 34 £ ¤ 12 L-7 8 7 6 301 92 90 161 85 L-17 134 138 142 136 137 139 BACA LAS ANIMAS 83 COSTILLA 141 140 851 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE - Mtn. Lion DAUs 25 § ¦ ¨ 147 160 £ ¤ 160 £ ¤ 144 143 145 April 2008 �201 5 L-2 2 1 4 3 L-1 MOFFAT 301 Steamboat Springs16 ROUTT _ ^ 13 11 40 £ ¤ 211 12 RIO BLANCO _ ^ 22 21 33 Glenwood Springs 42 30 70 Grand Junction § ¦ ¨ _ ^ MESA 36 70 § ¦ ¨ 44 43 37 45 PITKIN 47 48 DELTA 53 60 63 62 Montrose64 _ ^ MONTROSE 50 £ ¤ L-21 551 OURAY 70 711 SAN MIGUEL 67 DOLORES L-24 160 £ ¤ 491 £ ¤ 68 550 £ ¤ 682 73 L-12 85 £ ¤ 107 512 105 KIT CARSON _ ^ 59 70 § ¦ ¨ 112 111 LINCOLN 113 118 119 124 ¤ ^£ _ 160 CROWLEY 129 128 § ¦ ¨ SAN JUAN 71 76 L-20 RIO GRANDE L-25 75 751 160 £ ¤ LA PLATA _£ ^ ¤ Durango 741 _ ^ 80 77 ARCHULETA 771 £ ¤ 84 ALAMOSA 81 CONEJOS 285 £ ¤ 350 £ ¤ 133 £ ¤ 85 _ ^ PROWERS L-17 134 142 136 132 146 130 135 HUERFANO 160 L-19 78 160 861 Monte Vista791 MINERAL Lamar 50 £ ¤ BENT 82 79 HINSDALE 127 126 125 PUEBLO 25 385 £ ¤ KIOWA Pueblo 84 122 120 123 CUSTER 40 £ ¤ CHEYENNE 121 591 69 117 116 115 EL PASO FREMONT L-16 24 £ ¤ 110 385 £ ¤ 109 114 581 58 103 ELBERT Colorado Springs 86 SAGUACHE 106 OTERO 74 MONTEZUMA 57 681 66 104 TELLER 691 L-23 491 £ ¤ 72 50 £ ¤ £ ¤ ARAPAHOE 25 § ¦ ¨ _ ^ 561 _ ^ 51 DOUGLAS Salida _ ^ 61 65 461 102 36 JEFFERSON 46 L-11 285 £ ¤ 56 GUNNISON Gunnison 391 511 481 55 DENVER YUMA WASHINGTON 100 ADAMS Denver 50 PARK 49 CHAFFEE L-22 38 101 99 BROOMFIELD 385 £ ¤ _ ^ 85 £ ¤ 287 £ ¤ 501 24 £ ¤ LAKE 471 54 39 98 97 Brush MORGAN £ ¤ 70 CLEAR CREEK § ¦ ¨ SUMMIT 96 36 500 521 52 371 EAGLE L-6 444 41 411 35 34 421 L-9 29 93 95 951 £ 34 ¤ 94 BOULDER 40 28 WELD £ ¤ GILPIN _ ^ 70 § ¦ ¨ 32 31 40 L-5 25 GARFIELD _ £¤ ^ 91 LOGAN 34 36 £ ¤ 18 SEDGWICK PHILLIPS _ ^ Hot Sulphur Springs GRAND 26 24 23 181 27 15 89 £ ¤ Fort Collins 34 £ ¤ 20 88 87 85 LARIMER L-4 19 34 £ ¤ 231 9 191 171 17 131 Meeker L-7 14 214 441 L-3 JACKSON 92 90 8 7 6 40 £ ¤ 10 161 137 138 139 BACA LAS ANIMAS 83 COSTILLA 141 140 851 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE - Mtn. Lion DAUs 25 § ¦ ¨ 147 160 £ ¤ 143 144 April 2009 160 £ ¤ 145 �201 5 4 2 L-1 1 3 MOFFAT L-2 Steamboat Springs 16 ROUTT 40 £ ¤ _ ^ 13 10 40 £ ¤ 11 211 231 _ ^ L-7 21 361 22 25 33 GARFIELD Glenwood Springs 32 34 42 SUMMIT 444 70 Grand Junction § ¦ ¨ MESA _ ^ 421 41 40 PITKIN 43 L-9 24 £ ¤ LAKE 47 471 521 PARK 48 49 53 GUNNISON 62 MONTROSE 63 Montrose64 L-22 60 55 _ ^ 50 £ ¤ 61 CHAFFEE L-21 551 67 65 68 SAN JUAN 71 118 MINERAL L-20 £ ¤ 160 LA PLATA 75 751 Durango L-25 741 _£ ^ ¤ § ¦ ¨ 771 78 £ ¤ 84 CONEJOS 81 285 £ ¤ 130 132 135 350 £ ¤ 133 £ ¤ COSTILLA PROWERS 146 L-17 138 160 83 _ ^ BENT OTERO HUERFANO ALAMOSA Lamar 50 £ ¤ 129 142 134 85 ARCHULETA 125 128 25 127 126 CROWLEY 84 77 160 124 ¤ _£ ^ 160 L-16 385 £ ¤ KIOWA Pueblo PUEBLO 122 120 123 Monte Vista 791 _ ^ 80 121 591 861 RIO GRANDE MONTEZUMA 119 82 79 76 74 73 EL PASO 86 HINSDALE DOLORES 711 40 £ ¤ CHEYENNE FREMONT 682 117 LINCOLN 113 _ ^ CUSTER 550 £ ¤ L-23 160 £ ¤ 681 111 116 115 112 59 SAGUACHE SAN MIGUEL L-24 110 69 66 70 491 £ ¤ 561 24 £ ¤ Colorado Springs 581 58 _ ^ 50 £ ¤ KIT CARSON 70 § ¦ ¨ 114 512 TELLER Salida _ ^ 105 25 § ¦ ¨ 50 385 £ ¤ 109 ELBERT 691 OURAY 72 285 57 £ ¤ 56 54 Gunnison 107 DOUGLAS L-11 481 106 85 £ ¤ 52 DELTA 103 ARAPAHOE 104 511 411 102 £ ¤ DENVER 51 501 YUMA ADAMS 36 L-12 JEFFERSON 500 30 100 _ ^ 391 461 101 WASHINGTON 36 Denver £ ¤ 46 385 £ ¤ _ ^ 99 BROOMFIELD CLEAR CREEK 70 § ¦ ¨ 39 MORGAN 98 97 Brush 96 £ ¤ 85 £ ¤ 287 £ ¤ GILPIN 37 45 951 34 94 38 371 70 § ¦ ¨ EAGLE 44 29 95 £ ¤ BOULDER 28 36 L-6 _ ^ 70 § ¦ ¨ 31 35 WELD 34 36 £ ¤ 40 L-5 PHILLIPS 20 _ £¤ ^ GRAND 93 91 LOGAN _ ^ 34 £ ¤ 18 89 £ ¤ Fort Collins L-4 Hot Sulphur Springs 26 24 23 181 27 15 88 87 SEDGWICK 85 171 17 131 Meeker RIO BLANCO 19 34 £ ¤ 12 9 191 LARIMER L-3 14 214 441 8 7 6 JACKSON 301 92 90 161 LAS ANIMAS 141 L-19 851 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE - Mtn. Lion DAUs 25 § ¦ ¨ 140 136 137 139 BACA 147 160 £ ¤ 144 143 145 April 2010 160 £ ¤ �5 201 L-2 2 1 4 3 L-1 301 MOFFAT JACKSON Steamboat Springs 16 ROUTT 40 £ ¤ 10 40 £ ¤ 11 211 231 Meeker RIO BLANCO _ ^ L-7 22 21 33 Glenwood Springs 32 42 MESA 421 70 § ¦ ¨ CLEAR CREEK 521 PARK 48 49 60 MONTROSE 63 62 Montrose64 _ ^ 50 £ ¤ 61 L-21 551 67 65 68 SAN JUAN 71 MINERAL L-20 £ ¤ 160 LA PLATA 75 751 Durango L-25 741 _£ ^ ¤ 121 124 ¤ _£ ^ 160 128 _ ^ 80 133 £ ¤ COSTILLA 78 ARCHULETA £ ¤ 84 CONEJOS 81 130 285 £ ¤ 132 350 £ ¤ 138 160 L-19 83 PROWERS 146 135 L-17 142 134 85 160 _ ^ BENT OTERO HUERFANO ALAMOSA Lamar 50 £ ¤ 129 § ¦ ¨ 127 125 84 25 385 £ ¤ 126 CROWLEY PUEBLO Monte Vista 791 122 KIOWA Pueblo 77 771 119 120 861 RIO GRANDE MONTEZUMA 160 £ ¤ 118 82 79 76 74 73 EL PASO 123 L-16 40 £ ¤ CHEYENNE 591 682 117 LINCOLN 113 _ ^ 86 HINSDALE DOLORES 711 £ ¤ 110 111 116 115 112 CUSTER 550 £ ¤ L-23 L-24 681 24 £ ¤ Colorado Springs FREMONT SAGUACHE SAN MIGUEL 491 114 69 66 70 491 £ ¤ 561 KIT CARSON 70 § ¦ ¨ 59 _ ^ 50 £ ¤ 105 512 581 58 385 £ ¤ 109 ELBERT 25 § ¦ ¨ 50 Salida _ ^ 106 51 691 OURAY 72 285 57 £ ¤ 56 103 107 TELLER CHAFFEE 54 Gunnison £ ¤ DOUGLAS 481 55 _ ^ 104 L-11 53 102 ARAPAHOE 511 411 YUMA ADAMS 85 £ ¤ 501 24 £ ¤ LAKE 47 471 GUNNISON L-22 461 100 36 391 46 52 DELTA DENVER JEFFERSON 37 45 101 WASHINGTON 36 Denver £ ¤ L-12 39 385 £ ¤ _ ^ 99 BROOMFIELD GILPIN MORGAN 98 97 Brush 96 £ ¤ 85 £ ¤ 287 £ ¤ 38 SUMMIT 951 34 94 500 PITKIN 43 L-9 41 40 36 44 29 95 £ ¤ BOULDER 371 EAGLE L-6 444 30 _ ^ 34 _ ^ 70 § ¦ ¨ 31 35 WELD 34 36 £ ¤ 40 £ ¤ 93 PHILLIPS 20 _ ^ 28 91 LOGAN _ ^ 34 £ ¤ 18 L-5 361 GARFIELD Fort Collins Hot Sulphur Springs 26 24 25 70 Grand Junction § ¦ ¨ 181 27 15 GRAND 23 19 171 131 89 £ ¤ LARIMER 17 88 87 SEDGWICK 85 34 £ ¤ 12 9 191 L-4 _ ^ 13 8 7 6 L-3 14 214 441 92 90 161 LAS ANIMAS 851 COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE - Mtn. Lion DAUs 25 § ¦ ¨ 141 140 136 137 139 BACA 147 160 £ ¤ 144 143 145 April 2011 160 £ ¤ �5 201 L-2 2 1 4 3 L-1 301 MOFFAT JACKSON Steamboat Springs16 ROUTT 40 £ ¤ 10 40 £ ¤ 11 211 231 Meeker RIO BLANCO _ ^ L-7 22 21 361 33 GARFIELD Glenwood Springs 32 42 MESA 421 70 ¦ ¨ § 47 521 LAKE 63 _ ^ 50 £ ¤ 61 67 SAN JUAN 71 118 MINERAL L-20 74 £ ¤ LA PLATA 75 751 Durango L-25 741 _£ ^ ¤ 124 ¤ _£ ^ 160 Monte Vista791 _ ^ 80 £ ¤ COSTILLA 78 ARCHULETA £ ¤ 84 OTERO CONEJOS £ ¤ 285 81 PROWERS 132 146 130 133 £ ¤ L-17 134 142 350 138 160 L-19 83 _ ^ BENT 135 85 160 Lamar 50 £ ¤ 128 HUERFANO ALAMOSA 127 125 129 ¦ ¨ § 385 126 CROWLEY 84 25 £ ¤ KIOWA PUEBLO L-16 122 120 Pueblo 77 771 121 591 861 RIO GRANDE 160 119 82 79 76 MONTEZUMA 160 EL PASO FREMONT 682 40 £ ¤ CHEYENNE CUSTER 68 117 LINCOLN 113 _ ^ 86 66 491 £ ¤ 110 111 116 115 112 Colorado Springs 69 HINSDALE DOLORES 711 24 £ ¤ 123 681 550 73 561 551 65 L-23 £ ¤ _ ^ 50 £ ¤ KIT CARSON 70 § ¦ ¨ 59 Salida £ ¤ 491 512 581 58 SAGUACHE SAN MIGUEL L-24 285 _ ^ L-21 70 72 £ ¤ 57 56 105 385 114 691 OURAY £ ¤ 511 £ ¤ 109 ELBERT TELLER CHAFFEE 54 Gunnison 107 85 £ ¤ 25 § ¦ ¨ 481 103 106 51 PARK 55 £ ¤ 104 50 49 102 _ ^ DOUGLAS 24 £ ¤ YUMA ADAMS ARAPAHOE L-11 53 L-22 461 100 36 JEFFERSON 501 48 411 62 Montrose64 60 DENVER 391 46 385 101 WASHINGTON 36 Denver £ ¤ L-12 39 37 45 471 GUNNISON MONTROSE GILPIN £ ¤ _ ^ 99 BROOMFIELD CLEAR CREEK 52 DELTA 287 38 SUMMIT MORGAN 98 97 Brush 96 £ ¤ 85 £ ¤ £ ¤ 500 PITKIN 43 L-9 41 40 36 44 40 £ ¤ 951 34 94 BOULDER 29 95 £ ¤ 36 £ ¤ 371 EAGLE L-6 444 30 _ ^ 34 _ ^ 70 § ¦ ¨ 31 35 WELD 34 20 _ ^ 28 93 PHILLIPS _ ^ 34 £ ¤ 18 L-5 91 LOGAN Fort Collins Hot Sulphur Springs 26 24 25 70 Grand Junction ¦ ¨ § 181 27 15 GRAND 23 19 171 131 89 £ ¤ LARIMER 17 88 87 SEDGWICK 85 34 £ ¤ 12 9 191 L-4 _ ^ 13 8 7 6 L-3 14 214 441 92 90 161 LAS ANIMAS 141 136 BACA £ ¤ 160 851 COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE - Mtn. Lion DAUs 25 ¦ ¨ § 140 139 147 144 143 145 April 2012 £ ¤ 160 137 �5 201 L-2 2 1 4 3 L-1 301 MOFFAT JACKSON Steamboat Springs16 ROUTT 40 £ ¤ 10 40 £ ¤ 11 211 231 Meeker RIO BLANCO _ ^ L-7 22 21 361 33 GARFIELD Glenwood Springs 32 42 MESA 421 70 ¦ ¨ § 47 521 LAKE 63 _ ^ 50 £ ¤ 61 67 SAN JUAN 71 118 MINERAL L-20 74 £ ¤ LA PLATA 75 751 Durango L-25 741 _£ ^ ¤ 124 ¤ _£ ^ 160 Monte Vista791 _ ^ 80 £ ¤ COSTILLA 78 ARCHULETA £ ¤ 84 OTERO CONEJOS £ ¤ 285 81 PROWERS 132 146 130 133 £ ¤ L-17 134 142 350 138 160 L-19 83 _ ^ BENT 135 85 160 Lamar 50 £ ¤ 128 HUERFANO ALAMOSA 127 125 129 ¦ ¨ § 385 126 CROWLEY 84 25 £ ¤ KIOWA PUEBLO L-16 122 120 Pueblo 77 771 121 591 861 RIO GRANDE 160 119 82 79 76 MONTEZUMA 160 EL PASO FREMONT 682 40 £ ¤ CHEYENNE CUSTER 68 117 LINCOLN 113 _ ^ 86 66 491 £ ¤ 110 111 116 115 112 Colorado Springs 69 HINSDALE DOLORES 711 24 £ ¤ 123 681 550 73 561 551 65 L-23 £ ¤ _ ^ 50 £ ¤ KIT CARSON 70 § ¦ ¨ 59 Salida £ ¤ 491 512 581 58 SAGUACHE SAN MIGUEL L-24 285 _ ^ L-21 70 72 £ ¤ 57 56 105 385 114 691 OURAY £ ¤ 511 £ ¤ 109 ELBERT TELLER CHAFFEE 54 Gunnison 107 85 £ ¤ 25 § ¦ ¨ 481 103 106 51 PARK 55 £ ¤ 104 50 49 102 _ ^ DOUGLAS 24 £ ¤ YUMA ADAMS ARAPAHOE L-11 53 L-22 461 100 36 JEFFERSON 501 48 411 62 Montrose64 60 DENVER 391 46 385 101 WASHINGTON 36 Denver £ ¤ L-12 39 37 45 471 GUNNISON MONTROSE GILPIN £ ¤ _ ^ 99 BROOMFIELD CLEAR CREEK 52 DELTA 287 38 SUMMIT MORGAN 98 97 Brush 96 £ ¤ 85 £ ¤ £ ¤ 500 PITKIN 43 L-9 41 40 36 44 40 £ ¤ 951 34 94 BOULDER 29 95 £ ¤ 36 £ ¤ 371 EAGLE L-6 444 30 _ ^ 34 _ ^ 70 § ¦ ¨ 31 35 WELD 34 20 _ ^ 28 93 PHILLIPS _ ^ 34 £ ¤ 18 L-5 91 LOGAN Fort Collins Hot Sulphur Springs 26 24 25 70 Grand Junction ¦ ¨ § 181 27 15 GRAND 23 19 171 131 89 £ ¤ LARIMER 17 88 87 SEDGWICK 85 34 £ ¤ 12 9 191 L-4 _ ^ 13 8 7 6 L-3 14 214 441 92 90 161 LAS ANIMAS 141 136 BACA £ ¤ 160 851 COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE - Mtn. Lion DAUs 25 ¦ ¨ § 140 139 147 144 143 145 April 2013 £ ¤ 160 137 �5 201 L-2 2 1 4 3 L-1 301 MOFFAT JACKSON Steamboat Springs16 ROUTT 40 £ ¤ 10 40 £ ¤ 11 211 231 Meeker RIO BLANCO _ ^ L-7 22 21 361 33 GARFIELD Glenwood Springs 32 42 MESA 421 41 40 36 70 ¦ ¨ § 44 29 47 LAKE 521 53 55 63 62 Montrose64 60 _ ^ L-22 50 £ ¤ 61 67 65 SAN JUAN 71 MINERAL L-20 118 £ ¤ L-25 741 _£ ^ ¤ 124 ¤ _£ ^ 160 _ ^ £ ¤ 78 ARCHULETA £ ¤ 84 CONEJOS £ ¤ 285 81 130 132 L-17 £ ¤ 350 138 160 COSTILLA PROWERS 146 135 133 L-19 83 _ ^ BENT OTERO 142 134 85 160 Lamar 50 £ ¤ 128 HUERFANO ALAMOSA 127 125 129 ¦ ¨ § 385 126 CROWLEY 84 25 £ ¤ KIOWA PUEBLO Monte Vista791 122 120 Pueblo 77 771 121 591 861 80 LA PLATA 75 751 Durango 119 82 RIO GRANDE MONTEZUMA 160 EL PASO FREMONT L-16 40 £ ¤ CHEYENNE 59 682 79 76 74 160 LINCOLN 113 CUSTER 68 117 116 115 _ ^ 86 66 491 £ ¤ 110 111 Colorado Springs 69 HINSDALE DOLORES 711 73 114 112 385 KIT CARSON 70 § ¦ ¨ 123 681 550 L-23 £ ¤ 561 105 24 £ ¤ £ ¤ 109 ELBERT 512 581 58 _ ^ 50 £ ¤ £ ¤ 491 511 Salida 551 107 25 § ¦ ¨ SAGUACHE SAN MIGUEL L-24 285 _ ^ L-21 70 72 £ ¤ 57 56 103 106 85 £ ¤ 691 OURAY £ ¤ 104 TELLER CHAFFEE 54 Gunnison £ ¤ ARAPAHOE 50 481 YUMA 102 _ ^ 51 PARK 101 100 36 391 L-11 GUNNISON MONTROSE 36 Denver £ ¤ L-12 461 385 ADAMS DOUGLAS 24 £ ¤ 49 411 99 JEFFERSON 46 £ ¤ _ ^ WASHINGTON DENVER 501 48 471 287 GILPIN 37 45 MORGAN 98 97 Brush 96 BROOMFIELD CLEAR CREEK 70 § ¦ ¨ 39 SUMMIT 34 £ ¤ 85 £ ¤ £ ¤ 38 52 DELTA 40 £ ¤ 95 951 94 BOULDER 500 PITKIN 43 L-9 £ ¤ 36 £ ¤ 371 EAGLE L-6 444 30 _ ^ 34 _ ^ 70 § ¦ ¨ 31 35 WELD 34 20 _ ^ 28 93 PHILLIPS _ ^ 34 £ ¤ 18 L-5 91 LOGAN Fort Collins Hot Sulphur Springs 26 24 25 70 Grand Junction ¦ ¨ § 181 27 15 GRAND 23 19 171 131 89 £ ¤ LARIMER 17 88 87 SEDGWICK 85 34 £ ¤ 12 9 191 L-4 _ ^ 13 8 7 6 L-3 14 214 441 92 90 161 LAS ANIMAS 141 136 BACA £ ¤ 160 851 COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE - Mtn. Lion DAUs 25 ¦ ¨ § 140 139 147 144 143 145 April 2014 £ ¤ 160 137 �5 201 L-2 2 1 4 3 L-1 301 MOFFAT JACKSON Steamboat Springs 16 ROUTT 40 £ ¤ 10 40 £ ¤ 11 211 231 Meeker RIO BLANCO _ ^ L-7 22 21 361 33 GARFIELD Glenwood Springs 32 42 MESA 421 41 40 36 70 ¦ ¨ § 44 29 47 LAKE 521 53 55 63 62 Montrose64 60 _ ^ L-22 50 £ ¤ 61 67 65 SAN JUAN 71 68 MINERAL L-20 74 £ ¤ 160 EL PASO 118 £ ¤ 160 LA PLATA 75 751 Durango L-25 741 _£ ^ ¤ 121 124 ¤ _£ ^ 160 Monte Vista 791 _ ^ 78 £ ¤ 84 CONEJOS OTERO £ ¤ PROWERS 132 146 130 HUERFANO £ ¤ L-17 £ ¤ 350 133 138 160 285 81 _ ^ BENT 135 COSTILLA ARCHULETA Lamar 50 £ ¤ 128 LAS ANIMAS L-19 83 142 134 85 160 127 125 129 ¦ ¨ § 385 126 CROWLEY 84 25 £ ¤ KIOWA PUEBLO L-16 122 120 Pueblo 77 771 119 861 80 40 £ ¤ CHEYENNE 82 RIO GRANDE MONTEZUMA 73 _ ^ 581 ALAMOSA 117 116 115 LINCOLN 113 591 682 79 76 491 111 Colorado Springs 86 HINSDALE DOLORES 711 £ ¤ 110 112 CUSTER 550 L-23 L-24 512 69 681 £ ¤ 491 114 24 £ ¤ 385 KIT CARSON 70 § ¦ ¨ FREMONT SAGUACHE SAN MIGUEL 105 123 66 70 £ ¤ 511 £ ¤ 109 ELBERT 59 _ ^ 561 551 107 85 £ ¤ 25 § ¦ ¨ 58 103 106 51 Salida 50 £ ¤ £ ¤ 691 OURAY 72 285 _ ^ L-21 _ ^ TELLER £ ¤ 57 56 102 104 50 CHAFFEE 54 Gunnison YUMA ARAPAHOE L-12 461 481 101 100 36 391 L-11 GUNNISON MONTROSE 36 Denver £ ¤ PARK 385 ADAMS DOUGLAS 24 £ ¤ 49 411 99 JEFFERSON 46 £ ¤ _ ^ WASHINGTON DENVER 501 48 471 287 GILPIN 37 45 MORGAN 98 97 Brush 96 BROOMFIELD CLEAR CREEK 70 § ¦ ¨ 39 SUMMIT 34 £ ¤ 85 £ ¤ £ ¤ 38 52 DELTA 40 £ ¤ 95 951 94 BOULDER 500 PITKIN 43 L-9 £ ¤ 36 £ ¤ 371 EAGLE L-6 444 30 _ ^ 34 _ ^ 70 § ¦ ¨ 31 35 WELD 34 20 _ ^ 28 93 PHILLIPS _ ^ 34 £ ¤ 18 L-5 91 LOGAN Fort Collins Hot Sulphur Springs 26 24 25 70 Grand Junction ¦ ¨ § 181 27 15 GRAND 23 19 171 131 89 £ ¤ LARIMER 17 88 87 SEDGWICK 85 34 £ ¤ 12 9 191 L-4 _ ^ 13 8 7 6 L-3 14 214 441 92 90 161 141 136 BACA £ ¤ 160 851 COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE - Mtn. Lion DAUs 25 ¦ ¨ § 140 139 147 144 143 145 April 2015 £ ¤ 160 137 �5 201 L-2 2 1 4 3 L-1 301 MOFFAT JACKSON Steamboat Springs 16 ROUTT 40 £ ¤ 10 40 £ ¤ 11 211 231 Meeker RIO BLANCO _ ^ L-7 22 21 361 33 GARFIELD Glenwood Springs 32 42 MESA 421 41 40 36 70 ¦ ¨ § 44 29 47 LAKE 521 53 55 63 62 Montrose64 60 _ ^ L-22 50 £ ¤ 61 67 65 SAN JUAN 71 68 MINERAL L-20 74 £ ¤ 160 EL PASO 118 £ ¤ 160 LA PLATA 75 751 Durango L-25 741 _£ ^ ¤ 121 124 ¤ _£ ^ 160 Monte Vista 791 _ ^ 78 £ ¤ 84 CONEJOS OTERO £ ¤ PROWERS 132 146 130 HUERFANO £ ¤ L-17 £ ¤ 350 133 138 160 285 81 _ ^ BENT 135 COSTILLA ARCHULETA Lamar 50 £ ¤ 128 LAS ANIMAS L-19 83 142 134 85 160 127 125 129 ¦ ¨ § 385 126 CROWLEY 84 25 £ ¤ KIOWA PUEBLO L-16 122 120 Pueblo 77 771 119 861 80 40 £ ¤ CHEYENNE 82 RIO GRANDE MONTEZUMA 73 _ ^ 581 ALAMOSA 117 116 115 LINCOLN 113 591 682 79 76 491 111 Colorado Springs 86 HINSDALE DOLORES 711 £ ¤ 110 112 CUSTER 550 L-23 L-24 512 69 681 £ ¤ 491 114 24 £ ¤ 385 KIT CARSON 70 § ¦ ¨ FREMONT SAGUACHE SAN MIGUEL 105 123 66 70 £ ¤ 511 £ ¤ 109 ELBERT 59 _ ^ 561 551 107 85 £ ¤ 25 § ¦ ¨ 58 103 106 51 Salida 50 £ ¤ £ ¤ 691 OURAY 72 285 _ ^ L-21 _ ^ TELLER £ ¤ 57 56 102 104 50 CHAFFEE 54 Gunnison YUMA ARAPAHOE L-12 461 481 101 100 36 391 L-11 GUNNISON MONTROSE 36 Denver £ ¤ PARK 385 ADAMS DOUGLAS 24 £ ¤ 49 411 99 JEFFERSON 46 £ ¤ _ ^ WASHINGTON DENVER 501 48 471 287 GILPIN 37 45 MORGAN 98 97 Brush 96 BROOMFIELD CLEAR CREEK 70 § ¦ ¨ 39 SUMMIT 34 £ ¤ 85 £ ¤ £ ¤ 38 52 DELTA 40 £ ¤ 95 951 94 BOULDER 500 PITKIN 43 L-9 £ ¤ 36 £ ¤ 371 EAGLE L-6 444 30 _ ^ 34 _ ^ 70 § ¦ ¨ 31 35 WELD 34 20 _ ^ 28 93 PHILLIPS _ ^ 34 £ ¤ 18 L-5 91 LOGAN Fort Collins Hot Sulphur Springs 26 24 25 70 Grand Junction ¦ ¨ § 181 27 15 GRAND 23 19 171 131 89 £ ¤ LARIMER 17 88 87 SEDGWICK 85 34 £ ¤ 12 9 191 L-4 _ ^ 13 8 7 6 L-3 14 214 441 92 90 161 141 136 BACA £ ¤ 160 851 COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE - Mtn. Lion DAUs 25 ¦ ¨ § 140 139 147 144 143 145 April 2016 £ ¤ 160 137 �5 201 L-2 2 1 4 3 L-1 301 MOFFAT JACKSON Steamboat Springs 16 ROUTT 40 £ ¤ 10 40 £ ¤ 11 211 231 Meeker RIO BLANCO _ ^ L-7 22 21 361 33 GARFIELD Glenwood Springs 32 42 MESA 421 41 40 36 70 ¦ ¨ § 44 29 47 LAKE 521 53 55 63 62 Montrose64 60 _ ^ L-22 50 £ ¤ 61 67 65 SAN JUAN 71 68 MINERAL L-20 74 £ ¤ 160 EL PASO 118 £ ¤ 160 LA PLATA 75 751 Durango L-25 741 _£ ^ ¤ 121 124 ¤ _£ ^ 160 Monte Vista 791 _ ^ 78 £ ¤ 84 CONEJOS OTERO £ ¤ PROWERS 132 146 130 HUERFANO £ ¤ L-17 £ ¤ 350 133 138 160 285 81 _ ^ BENT 135 COSTILLA ARCHULETA Lamar 50 £ ¤ 128 LAS ANIMAS L-19 83 142 134 85 160 127 125 129 ¦ ¨ § 385 126 CROWLEY 84 25 £ ¤ KIOWA PUEBLO L-16 122 120 Pueblo 77 771 119 861 80 40 £ ¤ CHEYENNE 82 RIO GRANDE MONTEZUMA 73 _ ^ 581 ALAMOSA 117 116 115 LINCOLN 113 591 682 79 76 491 111 Colorado Springs 86 HINSDALE DOLORES 711 £ ¤ 110 112 CUSTER 550 L-23 L-24 512 69 681 £ ¤ 491 114 24 £ ¤ 385 KIT CARSON 70 § ¦ ¨ FREMONT SAGUACHE SAN MIGUEL 105 123 66 70 £ ¤ 511 £ ¤ 109 ELBERT 59 _ ^ 561 551 107 85 £ ¤ 25 § ¦ ¨ 58 103 106 51 Salida 50 £ ¤ £ ¤ 691 OURAY 72 285 _ ^ L-21 _ ^ TELLER £ ¤ 57 56 102 104 50 CHAFFEE 54 Gunnison YUMA ARAPAHOE L-12 461 481 101 100 36 391 L-11 GUNNISON MONTROSE 36 Denver £ ¤ PARK 385 ADAMS DOUGLAS 24 £ ¤ 49 411 99 JEFFERSON 46 £ ¤ _ ^ WASHINGTON DENVER 501 48 471 287 GILPIN 37 45 MORGAN 98 97 Brush 96 BROOMFIELD CLEAR CREEK 70 § ¦ ¨ 39 SUMMIT 34 £ ¤ 85 £ ¤ £ ¤ 38 52 DELTA 40 £ ¤ 95 951 94 BOULDER 500 PITKIN 43 L-9 £ ¤ 36 £ ¤ 371 EAGLE L-6 444 30 _ ^ 34 _ ^ 70 § ¦ ¨ 31 35 WELD 34 20 _ ^ 28 93 PHILLIPS _ ^ 34 £ ¤ 18 L-5 91 LOGAN Fort Collins Hot Sulphur Springs 26 24 25 70 Grand Junction ¦ ¨ § 181 27 15 GRAND 23 19 171 131 89 £ ¤ LARIMER 17 88 87 SEDGWICK 85 34 £ ¤ 12 9 191 L-4 _ ^ 13 8 7 6 L-3 14 214 441 92 90 161 141 136 BACA £ ¤ 160 851 COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE - Mtn. Lion DAUs 25 ¦ ¨ § 140 139 147 144 143 145 April 2017 £ ¤ 160 137 �5 201 L-2 2 1 4 3 L-1 301 MOFFAT JACKSON Steamboat Springs16 ROUTT 40 £ ¤ 10 40 £ ¤ 11 211 231 Meeker RIO BLANCO _ ^ L-7 22 21 361 33 GARFIELD Glenwood Springs 32 42 MESA 421 41 40 36 70 ¦ ¨ § 44 29 47 LAKE 521 53 55 63 62 Montrose64 60 _ ^ L-22 50 £ ¤ 61 67 65 SAN JUAN 71 MINERAL L-20 118 £ ¤ L-25 741 _£ ^ ¤ 124 ¤ _£ ^ 160 _ ^ £ ¤ 78 ARCHULETA £ ¤ 84 CONEJOS £ ¤ 285 81 130 132 L-17 £ ¤ 350 138 160 COSTILLA PROWERS 146 135 133 L-19 83 _ ^ BENT OTERO 142 134 85 160 Lamar 50 £ ¤ 128 HUERFANO ALAMOSA 127 125 129 ¦ ¨ § 385 126 CROWLEY 84 25 £ ¤ KIOWA PUEBLO Monte Vista791 122 120 Pueblo 77 771 121 591 861 80 LA PLATA 75 751 Durango 119 82 RIO GRANDE MONTEZUMA 160 EL PASO FREMONT L-16 40 £ ¤ CHEYENNE 59 682 79 76 74 160 LINCOLN 113 CUSTER 68 117 116 115 _ ^ 86 66 491 £ ¤ 110 111 Colorado Springs 69 HINSDALE DOLORES 711 73 114 112 385 KIT CARSON 70 § ¦ ¨ 123 681 550 L-23 £ ¤ 561 105 24 £ ¤ £ ¤ 109 ELBERT 512 581 58 _ ^ 50 £ ¤ £ ¤ 491 511 Salida 551 107 25 § ¦ ¨ SAGUACHE SAN MIGUEL L-24 285 _ ^ L-21 70 72 £ ¤ 57 56 103 106 85 £ ¤ 691 OURAY £ ¤ 104 TELLER CHAFFEE 54 Gunnison £ ¤ ARAPAHOE 50 481 YUMA 102 _ ^ 51 PARK 101 100 36 391 L-11 GUNNISON MONTROSE 36 Denver £ ¤ L-12 461 385 ADAMS DOUGLAS 24 £ ¤ 49 411 99 JEFFERSON 46 £ ¤ _ ^ WASHINGTON DENVER 501 48 471 287 GILPIN 37 45 MORGAN 98 97 Brush 96 BROOMFIELD CLEAR CREEK 70 § ¦ ¨ 39 SUMMIT 34 £ ¤ 85 £ ¤ £ ¤ 38 52 DELTA 40 £ ¤ 95 951 94 BOULDER 500 PITKIN 43 L-9 £ ¤ 36 £ ¤ 371 EAGLE L-6 444 30 _ ^ 34 _ ^ 70 § ¦ ¨ 31 35 WELD 34 20 _ ^ 28 93 PHILLIPS _ ^ 34 £ ¤ 18 L-5 91 LOGAN Fort Collins Hot Sulphur Springs 26 24 25 70 Grand Junction ¦ ¨ § 181 27 15 GRAND 23 19 171 131 89 £ ¤ LARIMER 17 88 87 SEDGWICK 85 34 £ ¤ 12 9 191 L-4 _ ^ 13 8 7 6 L-3 14 214 441 92 90 161 LAS ANIMAS 141 136 BACA £ ¤ 160 851 COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE - Mtn. Lion DAUs 25 ¦ ¨ § 140 139 147 144 143 145 April 2018 £ ¤ 160 137 �5 201 L-2 2 1 4 3 L-1 301 MOFFAT JACKSON Steamboat Springs 16 ROUTT 40 £ ¤ 10 40 £ ¤ 11 211 231 Meeker RIO BLANCO _ ^ L-7 22 21 33 GARFIELD Glenwood Springs 32 42 MESA 421 70 ¦ ¨ § 44 29 47 LAKE 521 55 63 62 Montrose 64 60 _ ^ L-22 50 £ ¤ 61 SAN JUAN 71 MINERAL L-20 118 L-25 741 _£ ^ ¤ 124 ¤ _£ ^ 160 _ ^ 78 £ ¤ 84 CONEJOS 130 £ ¤ 132 £ ¤ L-17 £ ¤ 350 138 160 285 81 PROWERS 146 135 133 L-19 83 _ ^ BENT OTERO HUERFANO COSTILLA ARCHULETA Lamar 50 £ ¤ 128 142 134 85 160 127 125 129 ¦ ¨ § 385 126 CROWLEY 84 25 £ ¤ KIOWA PUEBLO ALAMOSA 122 120 Pueblo 77 771 121 591 861 80 £ ¤ 119 FREMONT Monte Vista791 40 £ ¤ CHEYENNE 82 RIO GRANDE LA PLATA 75 751 Durango LINCOLN 113 EL PASO 682 79 76 117 116 115 _ ^ 581 L-16 68 74 160 111 CUSTER MONTEZUMA 160 110 112 Colorado Springs 86 66 491 £ ¤ 512 24 £ ¤ 385 KIT CARSON 70 § ¦ ¨ 114 69 HINSDALE DOLORES 711 105 123 681 550 73 561 67 65 L-23 £ ¤ _ ^ 50 £ ¤ £ ¤ 491 511 £ ¤ 109 ELBERT 59 SAGUACHE SAN MIGUEL £ ¤ 107 85 £ ¤ 25 § ¦ ¨ 58 103 106 51 Salida 551 70 L-24 285 £ ¤ 691 OURAY 72 £ 57 56 ¤ _ ^ L-21 _ ^ TELLER CHAFFEE 54 Gunnison 102 104 L-11 53 YUMA ARAPAHOE 50 481 101 100 36 391 PARK 411 GUNNISON MONTROSE 36 Denver £ ¤ L-12 461 385 ADAMS DOUGLAS 24 £ ¤ 49 99 JEFFERSON 46 £ ¤ _ ^ WASHINGTON DENVER 501 48 471 287 GILPIN 37 45 MORGAN 98 97 Brush 96 BROOMFIELD CLEAR CREEK 70 § ¦ ¨ 39 SUMMIT 34 £ ¤ 85 £ ¤ £ ¤ 38 52 DELTA 40 £ ¤ 95 951 94 BOULDER 500 PITKIN 43 L-9 41 40 36 £ ¤ 36 £ ¤ 371 EAGLE L-6 444 30 _ ^ 34 _ ^ 70 § ¦ ¨ 31 35 WELD 34 20 _ ^ 28 93 PHILLIPS _ ^ 18 L-5 91 LOGAN Fort Collins 34 £ ¤ Hot Sulphur Springs GRAND 361 25 70 Grand Junction ¦ ¨ § 181 27 15 26 24 23 19 171 131 89 £ ¤ LARIMER 17 88 87 85 34 £ ¤ 12 SEDGWICK 9 191 L-4 _ ^ 13 8 7 6 L-3 14 214 441 92 90 161 LAS ANIMAS 141 136 BACA £ ¤ 160 851 COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE - Mtn. Lion DAUs 25 ¦ ¨ § 140 139 147 144 143 145 April 2019 £ ¤ 160 137 �5 201 L-2 2 1 4 3 L-1 301 MOFFAT JACKSON Steamboat Springs16 ROUTT 40 £ ¤ 10 40 £ ¤ 11 211 231 Meeker RIO BLANCO _ ^ L-7 22 21 33 GARFIELD Glenwood Springs 32 42 MESA 421 70 § ¦ ¨ 44 29 47 LAKE 521 55 63 62 Montrose64 60 _ ^ L-22 50 £ ¤ 61 L-21 _ ^ 65 SAN JUAN 71 160 £ ¤ 681 _ ^ L-20 118 741 _£ ^ ¤ 160 ARCHULETA OTERO 160 £ ¤ 78 CONEJOS 81 285 £ ¤ 132 138 142 134 85 84 £ ¤ 130 LAS ANIMAS 851 COLORADO PARKS AND WILDLIFE - Mtn. Lion DAUs 25 § ¦ ¨ L-17 350 £ ¤ 133 L-19 83 PROWERS 146 135 HUERFANO COSTILLA 160 _ ^ BENT 861 _ ^ Lamar 50 £ ¤ 129 § ¦ ¨ 127 125 128 25 385 £ ¤ 126 CROWLEY 84 77 771 124 ¤ ^£ _ PUEBLO ALAMOSA 122 KIOWA 82 80 L-25 121 120 Pueblo 682 RIO GRANDE £ ¤ 119 591 Monte Vista791 40 £ ¤ CHEYENNE EL PASO 86 79 76 117 116 115 LINCOLN 113 FREMONT L-16 68 MINERAL LA PLATA 75 751 Durango 111 CUSTER MONTEZUMA 73 110 112 Colorado Springs 69 66 74 160 24 £ ¤ 123 HINSDALE DOLORES 711 £ ¤ 561 551 550 £ ¤ L-23 L-24 _ ^ 50 £ ¤ KIT CARSON 70 § ¦ ¨ 59 SAGUACHE SAN MIGUEL 491 512 581 58 Salida 67 70 72 285 57 £ ¤ 56 105 114 691 OURAY 491 £ ¤ 511 385 £ ¤ 109 ELBERT TELLER CHAFFEE 54 Gunnison 107 85 £ ¤ L-11 53 106 25 § ¦ ¨ 481 103 ARAPAHOE 104 51 PARK 411 102 _ ^ 391 50 49 YUMA 36 £ ¤ DOUGLAS 24 £ ¤ 100 ADAMS 36 Denver £ ¤ L-12 461 101 WASHINGTON 99 JEFFERSON 46 385 £ ¤ _ ^ DENVER 501 48 471 GUNNISON MONTROSE GILPIN 37 45 MORGAN 98 97 Brush 96 BROOMFIELD CLEAR CREEK 70 § ¦ ¨ 39 SUMMIT 34 £ ¤ 85 £ ¤ 287 £ ¤ 38 52 DELTA 40 £ ¤ 95 951 94 BOULDER 500 PITKIN 43 L-9 41 40 36 £ ¤ 36 £ ¤ 371 EAGLE L-6 444 30 _ ^ 34 _ ^ 70 § ¦ ¨ 31 35 WELD 34 20 _ ^ 28 93 PHILLIPS _ ^ 18 L-5 91 LOGAN Fort Collins 34 £ ¤ Hot Sulphur Springs GRAND 361 25 70 Grand Junction § ¦ ¨ 181 27 15 26 24 23 19 171 131 89 £ ¤ LARIMER 17 88 87 85 34 £ ¤ 12 SEDGWICK 9 191 L-4 _ ^ 13 8 7 6 L-3 14 214 441 92 90 161 141 140 136 137 139 BACA 147 160 £ ¤ 144 143 145 April 2020 160 £ ¤ ������ https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/47ed023af13c8599be07fde419949371.pdf 25ad6d78f8b68b2c26594e5274f4b4c7 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-1 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 1, 2, & 201 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife West Region By: Jeff Madison Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Meeker, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT DAU L-1 is located in the far northwestern portion of the state. It is bounded on the north and west by the state line, on the west the Little Snake River, and on the south by the Yampa River. The DAU matches the area of the Cold Springs deer and elk DAUs. The topography and vegetation varies from sagebrush steppes in the eastern portion of Unit 2 to mountainous, subalpine areas in the west near the state lines. Steep, sandstone canyons dominate the central part of the DAU. The entire DAU is year round occupied lion range. No formal estimate of the lion population has been made. It is believed, determined by indicators such as sightings, tracks, and harvest rate that the population numbers have increased over the last 10 years. TOTAL LION HARVEST OBJECTIVE: The harvest has varied from 1 to 9 the last 10 years with average of 5. The current harvest quota is 12 lions, which has been raised only slightly since 1994 when the quota was 10. The quota is seldom reached in large part because of the difficulty of hunting the rugged terrain in the DAU. A breakdown by individual units is given below. Unit 1 & 2 - These units include the sage and pinyon-juniper breaks of Sand Wash and Vermillion Creek areas and the higher elevation areas of Douglas and Wild Mountains. These are managed with a combined quota of 6. Unit 201 - This unit consists of Cold Springs Mountain and the open sage areas to the east. The current quota is 6. In that the quota has been raised in recent years and is seldom reached, there is no compelling reason to change in the near future. Considering the refuge effect of the more rugged sections of the DAU, there is little concern that this population could be compromised by over harvest at this level of hunting effort or quota. Current quotas are more than meeting sportsman demand and should be held constant at 12 for the DAU. December 4, 2000 �TOTAL LION DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: Levels of game damage are very low in recent years. Necessary damage harvest is usually 0 with 1 taken in some years. Cattle grazing is spread across the DAU at fairly low levels. Sheep grazing is concentrated in the higher elevation areas of 2 and 201 in the summer and in the east portion of Unit 2 in the winter. Most damage by lions in the DAU is to sheep. Increased quotas of recent years have made no change in the level of damage. Damage levels should be held below $5,000 annually with the most effective control being the harvest of individual animals involved in damage. NUISANCE LION COMPLAINTS: There are no reports of lion-human conflicts in the last few years. Tolerance of aggressive or acclimated lions in this area is low; therefore lions that show these tendencies are quickly taken out of the population. The goal for nuisance complaints should very low, less than 2 annually with action taken with the individual lions as problems occur. LION PREDATION ON OTHER WILDLIFE: In July, 1999, the Colorado Wildlife Commission approved a Mammalian Predator Policy which calls for predator control actions when it is determined that the predator species is inhibiting the ability of the Division to attain management objectives for other wildlife populations. Currently, studies related to deer fawn summer mortality and both fawn and adult winter mortality indicate that mountain lions are not a major factor in deer population regulation. Elk populations are currently well above objectives in these DAUs with elk survival rates extremely high. Antelope populations are also at or above objective. Sport hunting is the primary method of lion population control and will continue to be used to harvest lion at a level that will allow maximum hunter opportunity and maintain a healthy, viable lion population. Individual animals that cause excessive damage to livestock, damage to personal property, or pose a threat to human health and welfare will be removed as necessary. No control action, other than sport harvest, is anticipated to benefit deer, elk, or antelope. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/33be028ce2064390996e55edf775c68a.pdf 8ab9980d8abf50b0fb4e58e5595c5a79 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-1 Game Management Units 1, 2, 201 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Northwest Region By: Darby Finley Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Meeker, Colorado November 2004 1 �DESCRIPTION OF DAU, HABITAT, AND PAST MANAGEMENT Location and Habitat DAU L-1 is located in the extreme northwestern portion of the state (Fig. 1). It is bounded on the north and west by the state line, on the east by the Little Snake River, and on the south by the Yampa River. The DAU matches the area of the Little Snake deer DAU and the Cold Springs and Green River elk DAUs. The DAU consists of three GMU’s 1, 2, and 201. The topography and vegetation varies from sagebrush steppe and pinyon-juniper breaks in the eastern portion of GMU 2 to mountainous, subalpine areas in the west near the state lines in GMU’s 1 and 201. The central part of the DAU is dominated by steep, sandstone canyons. The major geographic features in the DAU include Sandwash Basin, Vermillion Creek, and Douglas, Cold Springs, Diamond, and Wild Mountains. The entire DAU is year round occupied lion range. The DAU is 4048.3 km2 in size with land primarily in the control of the BLM (75.9%), private (8.8%), National Park Service (8.1%), State lands (6.0%), and USFWS (1.2%). Figure 1. Mountain lion DAU L-1 boundary. MANAGEMENT HISTORY Statewide lion season dates are from January 1st until March 31st and from the 1st day after the close of the regular deer and elk seasons until December 31st. New harvest quotas begin on January 1st of each year. The first mountain lion management guidelines report for L-1 (CDOW 1999) stated, “No formal estimate of the lion population has been made.” Indicators used to determine relative population 2 �numbers of lions in the initial plan were sightings, tracks, and harvest rates. According to the initial plan, based on these observations during the 1990’s it was believed that lion numbers were increasing. Past management goals, while not specifically documented in the initial DAU plans (called management guidelines) for L-1, were to maintain lion populations at a stable level. It is stated in the first lion management plan, “…… in recent years the quota for L-1 has been raised and is seldom reached thus, there is no compelling reason to change in the near future.” In the last year (2003-2004) the CDOW has developed a better defined approach to lion management. The first approach is termed managing for a stable-increasing population. The second is termed management designed to suppress a population. In 2003, the CDOW and Colorado Wildlife Commission indicated that the management strategy for DAU L-1 would be characterized as a population with a management goal of stable. Harvest and Management Statistics The CDOW has assembled pertinent management data since 1980. Data includes harvest, quotas, success rates, and harvest by sex of animal. Information is also available that includes similar information for animal damage control kills and other mortality such as road kills. Sport harvest quotas for DAU L-1 have doubled in the past 25 years. In 1980, the harvest quota was 8 lions for the entire DAU. In 1982, the DAU quota was reduced to 6 and separate quotas were assigned by GMU. Units 1 and 2 had a combined quota of 3 lions and Unit 201 also had a quota of 3. From 1985-1997 the sport harvest quota for the DAU was 10 mountain lions per year. The current DAU harvest quota is 12 mountain lions per year. GMU’s 1 and 2 are currently managed with a combined harvest quota of 6 mountain lions. The current harvest quota for GMU 201 is also 6 lions. The 10 year average combined harvest for GMU’s 1 and 2 has been 4 lions, compared to a 10 year average of 1 lion killed in GMU 201 (Figure 2). The quota was raised from 10 to 12 in 1998. The DAU quota has never been met over the past 10 years. Harvest has varied from 1 to 10 over the last 10 years with an average of 7. The female portion of the DAU-wide harvest has averaged 58% for the last 5 years and 55% for the last 10 years. Total quota achievement has averaged 38% for the last 5 years and 46% for the last 10 years (Figure 3). Quotas are seldom reached due to the difficulty of hunting the rugged terrain in the DAU. 3 �5 yr avg (1999-2003) harvest relative to current (2004) quotas 7 Harvest Quota 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1, 2 201 Game Management Unit 5 year avg harvest 2004 Quota Figure 2- Five year average harvest quota compared to current (2004) quota. Mountain Lion DAU L-1 % Quota Achievment 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 % Quota Achievment Figure 3- Percent quota achievement for L-1 from 1992 to 2003. Mountain Lion Populations The L-1 lion population projection is based primarily on 2 factors; defining the area of suitable lion habitat within the 4,048.3 km2 DAU and applying a probable lion density for that same area. Due to their low density, secretive nature and the subsequent lack of quality field methods for estimating population sizes for lions as outlined by researchers (Anderson 1983, Logan and Sweanor 2001), the L-1 estimate could not be based on quantitative field observations within the DAU. It is however, based on a synthesis of lion densities from other published studies in the western U.S. as 4 �well as geographic information systems (GIS) data on habitat and spatial variables. In L-1, winter range lion habitat is defined as areas below 10,500 ft. in elevation. Due to the fact that L-1 transitions from lesser quality lion habitat in the east to higher quality lion habitat in the mid to high elevation portions of the DAU, probable lion density estimates were applied to the areas of varying degrees of quality habitats. While lion harvest locations are clearly not random, they can be used as a confirmation to assess habitat where lions are found. Reported harvest locations over the last decade from mandatory hunter check forms occurred almost entirely within the habitat boundaries described above and shown in Figure 4. In almost all cases in Colorado, lion habitat overlaps with the range of their principle food sources, mule deer and elk. Visual inspection of overall deer and elk ranges, is an essential duplicate of the lion habitat as defined above. Figure 5 shows mule deer and elk winter range, which is only a portion of the overall deer and elk range, in relation to overall lion range. This is also the area where on a localized scale within the DAU, lion densities would be expected to be the highest. Given the constraints and exclusions outlined above, the total area of winter lion habitat used in population projection calculations was 3,593.5 sq. km. (Figure 4). Figure 4- The mapped northwest region analysis of lion density estimates based on winter range defined as areas below 10,500 feet. Areas were mapped based on probable lion density estimates applied to areas of varying degrees of quality habitats. Based on a comprehensive review of lion research literature, Logan and Sweanor (2001) offer a range of lion densities observed on projects from throughout the western United States. Given the similarities between Colorado and states/provinces such as Wyoming, New Mexico, Alberta, British 5 �Colombia and Idaho, densities were extrapolated from those studies to arrive at a low density estimate of 2.0 lions/ 100 km2 and a high density estimate of 4.6 lions/100 km2 in L-1. Multiplying these high and low densities by a given area of lion habitat creates a range of population sizes. Age structure within the total L-1 population was also calculated based on a formula generated from the existing lion literature (Logan and Sweanor 2001). Both Logan and Sweanor (2001) and Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) reported that kittens, or dependent young, comprised approximately 33-34% of the total population. The calculated population point projection as based on overall analysis of available lion habitat and prey densities is 174. For the point projection estimate, we mapped areas of high, medium, and low lion densities and used these data to estimate lion populations. Overall, habitat in L-1 can be subjectively rated as being high to intermediate in quality based on terrain, vegetation, and historic lion harvest as well as known preferred lion habitats in Colorado. Figure 5- Mule deer and elk winter range in DAU L-1 mapped with overall mountain lion range. Although current literature supports the range from 2.0 to 4.6 lion per 100 km2, there is reason to believe that prey densities and prey species composition in Colorado is higher and different than those described in the supporting reports. Colorado’s elk populations are the highest anywhere in the United States and provide alternate prey for the lion’s principle food base of mule deer. In 2004, Colorado is initiating an intensive (approximately 10 years) mountain lion population study on the Uncompahgre Plateau to document lion densities. However, until this or other information is available, we will continue to use the standard prey densities presented here in our population estimates. We suspect our lion densities maybe significantly higher than those reported in other studies and we think when more accurate numbers for Colorado are developed, our current lion population estimates will be demonstrated to be low. 6 �Table 1. Estimated mountain lion population in DAU L-1 based on total DAU acreage. Population Range Low density High density Point projection Population Estimate 81 186 174 Males 21 48 45 Females 21 48 45 Subadults 11 26 25 Cubs 28 64 59 Total 81 186 174 Estimates of male and female winter home range size vary widely between studies in western North America. Males clearly have larger home ranges, often with minimal overlap of other males, while females tend to have smaller home ranges with a tolerance for more same-sex overlap. In many cases one male’s home range boundaries will include several female ranges. Female winter home range estimates between some study areas span an order of magnitude; in British Columbia winter ranges were observed at 28 sq. km., in Idaho 90 sq. km. and in Utah 207 sq. km. Male estimates on winter range in Idaho were 126 sq. km. while researchers in Utah again observed much larger home ranges averaging 503 sq. km. The current and past research in Colorado has generated overall annual home range estimates which don’t allow comparison to be made for winter range calculations. Population Management Alternatives and Outcomes Harvest Potential Using the portion of the projected population that is huntable (adults and sub-adults), an acceptable level of total mortality within a DAU can be estimated. Logan and Sweanor (2001) suggest that the level of hunting and non-hunting mortality can be gauged relative to the rate of population growth. They further suggest that managers can use the rate of growth documented at 11% by Logan as an acceptable annual mortality assuming managers have a reliable estimate of the lion population and that the population is increasing. Neither of the parameters is known definitely in L-1. Thus, it is important to be conservative when generating a harvest level estimate the lion population can support. Current CDOW guidance is to use 8-15% of the huntable population to provide a range of acceptable harvest for populations managed for sustained recreational opportunity and a stableincreasing lion population. Logan and Sweanor have documented the high resiliency of lion populations and have recorded a 28% growth rate in a treatment area following a period of high lion removal rates. Thus, the CDOW suggests that for a huntable population with sustained recreational opportunity and a stable lion population to apply a harvest rate of 12%. Currently there are two principle management options available for mountain lion management guidelines: stable-increasing and suppression. Stable-increasing Population Managementguidelines for stable-increasing population management would be defined as managing a lion population for 8% of the high and 15% of the low total mortality levels of the adult population. Suppression Management- guidelines for suppression management includes a total mortality range of the adult population of 15-28%.. The operating population projection outlined in this document is approximately 115 harvestable lions (174 total), however, as more refined data analysis tools become available, or as research results from studies currently underway in Colorado are analyzed, population projections will be refined and reassessed. Since L-1 is being managed for a stable population, it is current DOW 7 �management direction that the total lion mortality be within 8-15% of the total legal population (adult and subadult) to be considered management directed at maintaining a stable to increasing lion population. Using a projection of 115 legally harvestable lions, this off-take range corresponds to an annual removal of 9 (8%) to 17 (15%) lions. Given the 10-year average harvest is 7 (6%) lions, the current level of sport harvest in L-1 would suggest a stable to increasing population. The current average 5-year harvest is 5 lions, which is a 4.3% harvest rate. This rate of removal is lower than the 12% rate used for a stable-increasing population. Thus, indications are that the current management has tended to allow for a stable-increasing population in this DAU. Non-hunting Mortality Objective – Annual Estimate The total mortality objective for L-1 has typically been the same as the hunter harvest objective. Two non-hunting mortalities have been observed in the past 10 years. In the event increased lion mortality from non-hunter sources (roadkills, damage kills) is observed over several subsequent years, the future hunter mortality objectives will be modified to reflect the predicted losses in the population due to non-hunting factors. GAME DAMAGE OBJECTIVE Game damage levels should be held below $5,000 annually with the most effective control being targeted harvest of individual animals involved in damage. Levels of game damage in L-1 are very low. Cattle grazing is spread across the DAU at fairly low levels. Sheep grazing is concentrated in the higher elevation areas of 2 and 201 in the summer and in the eastern portion of Unit 2 in the winter. Most damage by lions in the DAU is to sheep. There has been one sheep damage claim in the past 5 years at an average annual cost of $1456. Increased quotas have not had an effect on the level of damage. Barriers and Strategies - Game damage should be managed by targeting offending lions on an as needed basis. The CDOW has an effective working relationship with Wildlife Service including a contract for annual damage control assistance. Claims can be minimized through effective communication with landowners and CDOW. Monitoring - Monitoring of game damage claims will occur on an annual basis. Significant increases in game damage may induce harvest objective changes. Most likely the GMU quota will be amended to focus harvest in the area of damage. HUMAN / LION CONFLICT OBJECTIVES: Objective Level There is no formal number of allowable human/lion conflicts outlined for L-1, however, the goal for nuisance complaints should be low. The potential for human encounters with lions in L-1 is extremely low. There has been one report of lion-human conflict in the last few years when a lion killed a dog near a residence in Brown’s Park. Tolerance of aggressive or acclimated lions in this area is low, therefore lions that show these tendencies are quickly removed from the population. Education of the public on how to live in lion country appears to be the most successful method of reducing both depredation and non-depredation conflicts. A survey and project summary report by Zinn and Manfredo (1996) studied societal preference for Mountain Lion management along the Front Range of Colorado. The study measured people’s beliefs, opinions, preferences and behaviors towards mountain lions. Although the CDOW lacks similar data from the west slope, several conclusions are still pertinent and advisable. The 8 �summary report recommends, “Education and public information regarding mountain lions and their interactions with humans should continue to be a key component of the CDOW’s mountain lion management strategies” Zinn and Manfredo (1996). The report also indicates that “education may serve to widen the range of acceptable management options available to wildlife managers” Indications are that the public tends to believe that capture and relocation of mountain lion is a ready option, while at the same time they do not accept frightening lion with rubber bullets or scare devices as an option. Educational information should help the public better understand other control options available including increased lion hunting and controlled mountain lion hunts. This survey also reinforced the idea that the CDOW’s information campaign regarding living with lions has been successful. Barriers & Strategies- CDOW will continue to provide the public information on human safety and how to live with lions. This is will be accomplished through programs, printed literature, and through informal contact by local district managers. As needed, the CDOW will continue to conduct workshops for public agencies, law enforcement personnel, and concerned public groups. Monitoring - Human interactions will be accomplished through annual review of the CDOW’s conflict reports. Specific instances will be handled according to the CDOW policy. Key Management Issues – Public input on lion management was sought as part of this DAU plan revision process. Scoping meetings were held in Grand Junction and Craig. Comments were collected from the public on what lion management issues were most important to them Appendix A. This information will be used as a portion of the decision process in the selection of a preferred management strategy for L-1. Preferred Management Strategy – Stable to Increasing --The preferred management strategy for L-1 is to manage lions at an annual mortality rate, including hunting and non-hunting, in a range between 8% and 15% of the huntable population. This rate of removal would be considered a stable to increasing population and uses the population point projection of 174 lions as the basis for the recommendation. Hunter harvest objectives, regulated by the current quotas system, will be established annually based on previous year’s harvest success and other mortality factors. The long-term goal is to maintain healthy lion populations that can sustain annual sporting harvest. The five and 10 year average annual harvest has been 5 lions in the DAU. Table 2. Number of lions harvested at variable mortality rates under stable to increasing management. Annual Mortality Rate 8% Hunter Harvest Total Mortality 9 Non-hunt Mort. 0 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 10 12 13 14 15 0 0 0 0 0 9 14% 15% 16 0 17 0 �Total Mortality DAU Harvest 9 Objective 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 Mountain lion populations appear fairly resistant to moderately high levels of harvest as indicated by Anderson’s (2003) research. The caveat being, that “adjacent populations facilitate recovery through immigration and that adult female survival provides female recruitment” Anderson (2003). Anderson (2003) also stated, “The most likely factor to inhibit cougar population reduction from harvest is limited hunter access creating local refuges. In these situations, inaccessibility will dictate the degree of resiliency in that population to hunter harvest…” With the above caveat in mind, a geographic review of DAU L-1 shows the existence of large areas where no lion hunting or very limited lion hunting occurs. The more rugged sections of the DAU and Dinosaur National Monument provide a large area along the southern border of the DAU. Monitoring- Anderson’s (2003) study of the sex and age characteristics of cougar populations documented that, “population decline followed predictable removal patterns of the more vulnerable/ abundant classes until the least vulnerable class, adult females were most abundant in the harvest”, and that, “Moving from harvests consisting primarily of sub-adults to adult males and finally to adult females suggests previous population decline” Therefore, if the percentage of adult females in the harvest begins to increase, and the average age of females in the harvest begins to decline, then harvest adjustments would be warranted until male lions and sub adult lions comprised the majority of the harvest, which would indicate a recovering lion population. Population monitoring will be accomplished primarily from data collected as a part of the mandatory check of lions harvested. The estimated age of the animal will be determined using techniques outlined by Anderson and Lindzey (2000). Specifically, priority should be given to evidence of previous lactation, annuli aging of premolars, presence of a canine ridge and presence or absence of foreleg bars (Anderson 2003). Literature Cited Anderson, C.R. 2003. Cougar ecology, management, and population genetics in Wyoming. University of Wyoming, Larimie, WY. 124 pp. Anderson, A. E. 1983. A critical review of literature on puma. Colorado Division of Wildlife Special Report Number 54. Lindzey, F. 1988. Mountain lion in Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Trappers Association. Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, DC. Ross, P. I. and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(3):417-426. Zinn, H. C. and M. J. Manfredo. 1996. Societal preferences for mountain lion management 10 �along Colorado’s Front Range. Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit Report No. 28, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 11 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/e048045f18cac3642bd453b5e0629a35.pdf 5cf6d711e0f39445aa4d08f6c4d7f689 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-2 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 3, 301, 4, 441, 5, 14, & 214 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife West Region By: Jeff Madison Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Meeker, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT DAU L-2 is located in northwest portion of the state, north of the towns of Maybell, Craig, and Steamboat Springs. The DAU is bounded on the west by the Little Snake River, on the north by the Colorado-Wyoming state line, on the east by the continental divide, and on the south by the Yampa River. The DAU roughly matches the Bears Ears deer and elk DAUs. The topography and vegetation ranges from mountainous, alpine areas in the east to rolling sage flats in the west. No formal estimate of the lion population has been made. Many people believe that the population numbers may have increased over the last 10 years. TOTAL LION HARVEST OBJECTIVE: The harvest varies between 2 to 12 the last 10 years with average of 8. The current harvest quota for the total DAU is 22 lion. This has increased by more than double in the last 5 years. The recent increase in quota is primarily attributable to requests by the Colorado Department of Agriculture. Past quotas have been reached in some units but the overall quota has not been reached. Concern has been expressed by some DWMs that an increasing portion of the harvest is young males and females. A breakdown by individual units is given below: Unit 3 & 301 - Lower elevation, open sage ground with limited areas of good lion habitat. Managed together with a current quota of 5. Unit 4 north & 5 - Foothills transition zone dominated by mountain shrub types. Good lion habitat with year round populations except in the higher eastern portions. Managed together with a current quota of 12 lions. This quota has increased steadily, up from 3 in 1994. Unit 4 south & 441 - This is a fairly high elevation unit with low lion numbers during the winter season. The current quota is 5 and few are taken annually. December 4, 2000 �Unit 14 & 214 - High elevation units with few lions at any time of year. There is no quota for these units. With the recent increases in harvest quotas and considering that the current quota is not been attained, no increase is recommended. This area has a high potential for game damage and lion-human conflict; a high lion population is not desirable. There is also concern about the level of predation the lion population exerts on the deer herd. Current quota numbers should be sufficient to achieve desired harvest in this population. TOTAL LION DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: There is a high level of grazing by sheep and cattle in this DAU and a commensurate concern over present and potential damage levels. Annual damage costs have ranged between $5,000 to $32,000, with the high level in 1987. There seems to be no correlation between higher quota numbers and the level of damage. Damage harvest is usually 0 with none recorded the last 4 years. Use of a damage investigator to quickly verify kills and the prompt removal of problem lions should be used with the goal to hold the 3-year average damage costs below $20,000. NUISANCE LION COMPLAINTS: There are no reports of lion-human conflicts in the last few years. As mentioned earlier, the number of sightings and tracks in and near areas of development have increased and there is potential for lion numbers to present a problem, especially in the areas of unit 3 and 301. Tolerance of aggressive or acclimated lions in this area is low; therefore lions that show these tendencies are quickly taken out of the population. Education\information in areas of potential conflicts should be used to keep the number of complaints low, with a goal of no more than 5 annually. LION PREDATION ON OTHER WILDLIFE: In July, 1999, the Colorado Wildlife Commission approved a Mammalian Predator Policy which calls for predator control actions when it is determined that the predator species is inhibiting the ability of the Division to attain management objectives for other wildlife populations. Currently, studies related to deer fawn summer mortality and both fawn and adult winter mortality indicate that mountain lions are not a major factor in population regulation. Elk populations are currently well above objectives in these DAUs with elk survival rates extremely high. Antelope populations are also at or above objective. Sport hunting is the primary method of lion population control and will continue to be used to harvest lion at a level that will allow maximum hunter opportunity and maintain a healthy, viable lion population. Individual animals that cause excessive damage to livestock, damage to personal property, or pose a threat to human health and welfare will be removed as necessary. No control action, other than sport harvest, is anticipated to benefit deer, elk, or antelope. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/bd702b67d3fb8499ee79640dac2f989a.pdf d74d51ff4cd942856f8727343e7d3c00 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-2 Game Management Units 3, 301, 4, 5, 441, 14, 214 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Northwest Region By: Darby Finley Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Meeker, Colorado November 2004 DESCRIPTION OF DAU, HABITAT AND PAST MANAGEMENT �Mountain lion Data Analysis Unit (DAU) L-2 is located in northwest portion of the state, north of the towns of Maybell, Craig, and Steamboat Springs. The DAU is bounded on the west by the Little Snake River, on the north by the Colorado-Wyoming state line, on the east by the continental divide, and on the south by the Yampa River (Fig. 1). The DAU includes Yampa and Little Snake River drainages. The DAU consists of seven GMU’s 3, 301, 4, 441, 5, 14, and 214. Habitat varies from sagebrush steppe in the western and central portions of the DAU to mountainous, alpine habitats in the east. The extreme northern and southern portions of the DAU are composed of sage and pinyon-juniper breaks. The central portion of the DAU composed of large expanses of rolling sagebrush communities is poor quality lion habitat. However, the mountainous alpine habitats in the eastern portions of the DAU and the sage/pinyon-juniper breaks in the south southwestern portions of the DAU are good to very good lion habitat. The DAU is 7,175 km2 in size with the primary land status being private (50.4%). The rest of the DAU includes US Forest Service (25%), BLM (19%), and state lands (5.6%). Figure 1. Mountain lion DAU L-2 boundary. MANAGEMENT HISTORY Statewide lion season dates are from January 1st until March 31st and from the 1st day after the close of the regular deer and elk seasons until December 31st. New harvest quotas begin on January 1st of each year. The first mountain lion management guidelines report for L-2 (CDOW 1999) stated, “No formal estimate of the lion population has been made.” Indicators used to determine relative population numbers of lions in the initial plan were sightings, tracks, and harvest rates. According to the initial plan, based on these observations during the 1990’s it was believed that lion numbers were increasing. 2 �Past management goals, while not specifically documented in the initial DAU plans (called management guidelines) for L-2 were to maintain lion populations at a stable level. It is stated in the first lion management plan, “…… in recent years the quota for L-2 has been raised mostly due to public request and not CDOW recommendation. Past quotas have been reached in some units but the overall quota has not been reached. Concern has been expressed by some DWM’s that an increasing portion of the harvest is young males and female.” In the last year (2003-2004) the CDOW has developed a better defined approach to lion management. The first approach is termed managing for a stable-increasing population. The second is termed management designed to suppress a population. In 2003, the CDOW and Colorado Wildlife Commission indicated that the management strategy for DAU L-2 would be characterized as a population with a management goal of stable. Harvest and Management Statistics The CDOW has assembled pertinent management data since 1980. Data includes harvest, quotas, success rates, and harvest by sex of animal. Information is also available that includes similar information for animal damage control kills and other mortality such as road kills. Sport harvest quotas for DAU L-2 have increased more than 10 fold since 1992 when a quota was first established for the DAU. From 1992-2004 the sport harvest quota for the DAU has increased steadily from 2 lions per year in 1992 to 22 lions per year in 2004. The DAU quota has been met once over the past 10 years. In 1992, GMU’s 4, 441, and 5 were the only units in the DAU with a harvest quota of 2 lions. The DAU harvest has varied from 2 to 12 lions over the last 10 years with an average of 8. Most of the lions harvested in the DAU are taken in GMU’s 4N and 5. Currently, all GMU’s, with the exception of GMU’s 14 and 214, have harvest quotas. GMU’s 3 and 301 are lower elevation, rolling open sagebrush communities with limited areas of good lion habitat. Units 3 and 301 are currently managed with a combined harvest quota of 5 mountain lions. GMU 4 is split north and south. The northern half of GMU 4 and 5 is composed of foothills transition zone dominated by mountain shrub. It is good lion habitat with year round populations except in the higher eastern portions. Units 4 north and 5 have a combined quota of 12 lions. GMU’s 4 south and 441 are fairly high elevation units with low lion numbers during the season. Units 4 south and 441 have a combined quota of 5 lions. The 10 year average combined harvest for GMU’s 3 and 301 has been 2 lions, compared to an average of 5 lions harvested in GMU 4 north and 5. On average, 1 lion has been taken in GMU 4S/441 in the past 10 years. The female portion of the total DAU harvest has averaged 25% for the last 5 years and 40% for the last 10 years. Total quota achievement has averaged 26% for the last 5 years and 54% for the last 10 years (Figure 2). 3 �Harvest Quota 5 year average (1999 - 2003) Harvest Relative to Current (2004) Quotas 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 3, 301 4N, 5 4S, 441 Game Management Unit 5 year avg harvest 2004 Quota Figure 2- Five year average harvest quota compared to current (2004) quota. Mountain Lion DAU L-2 % Quota Achievement 140% % Achievement 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 20 03 20 02 20 01 20 00 19 99 19 98 19 97 19 96 19 95 19 94 19 93 19 92 0% Year % of quota achievement Figure 3- Percent quota achievement for L-2 from 1992 to 2003. Mountain Lion Populations The L-2 lion population projection is based primarily on 2 factors; defining the area of suitable lion habitat within the 7,175 km2 DAU and applying a probable lion density for that same area. Due to their low density, secretive nature and the subsequent lack of quality field methods for estimating population sizes for lions as outlined by researchers (Anderson 1983, Logan and Sweanor 2001), the L-2 estimate could not be based on quantitative field observations within the DAU. It is however, based on a synthesis of lion densities from other published studies in the western U.S. as well as geographic information systems (GIS) data on habitat and spatial variables. In L-2, winter range lion habitat is defined as areas below 10,500 ft. in elevation. Due to the fact that L-2 transitions from lesser quality lion habitat in the west to higher quality lion habitat in the mid 4 �to high elevation portions of the DAU in the east, probable lion density estimates were applied to the areas of varying degrees of quality habitats. While lion harvest locations are clearly not random, they can be used as a confirmation to assess habitat where lions are found. Reported harvest locations over the last decade from mandatory hunter check forms occurred entirely within the habitat boundaries described above and shown in Figure 4. In almost all cases in Colorado, lion habitat overlaps with the range of their principle food source, mule deer and elk. Visual inspection of overall deer and elk range, is an essential duplicate of the lion habitat as defined above. Figure 5 shows mule deer and elk winter range, which is only a portion of overall deer and elk range, in relation to overall lion range. This is also the area where on a localized scale within the DAU, lion densities would be expected to be the highest. Given the constraints and exclusions outlined above, the total area of winter lion habitat used in population projection calculations was 4,784.5 km2 (Figure 4). Figure 4- The mapped northwest region analysis of lion density estimates based on winter range defined as areas below 10,500 feet. Areas were mapped based on probable lion density estimates applied to areas of varying degrees of quality habitats. Based on a comprehensive review of lion research literature, Logan and Sweanor (2001) offer a range of lion densities observed on projects from throughout the western United States. Given the similarities between Colorado and states/provinces such as Wyoming, New Mexico, Alberta, British Colombia, and Idaho, densities were extrapolated from those studies to arrive at a low density estimate of 2.0 lions/100 km2 and a high density estimate of 4.6 lions/100 km2 in L-2. Multiplying these high and low densities by a given area of lion habitat creates a range of population sizes. Age structure within the total L-2 population was also calculated based on a formula generated from the existing lion literature (Logan and Sweanor 2001). Both Logan and Sweanor (2001) and Ross 5 �and Jalkotzy (1992) reported that kittens, or dependent young, comprised approximately 33-34% of the total population. The calculated high and low projections as well as the best point projection, based on overall analysis of available lion habitat, prey densities and sustained harvest levels, are given below. Overall, habitat in L-2 can be subjectively rated as being low to high in quality based on terrain, vegetation, and historic lion harvest as well as known preferred lion habitats in Colorado. Figure 5- Mule deer and elk winter range in DAU L-2 mapped with overall mountain lion range. Although current literature supports the range from 2.0 to 4.6 lion per 100 km2, there is reason to believe that prey densities and prey species composition in Colorado is higher and different than those described in the supporting reports. Colorado’s elk populations are the highest anywhere in the United States and provide alternate prey for the lion’s principle food base of mule deer. In 2004, Colorado is initiating an intensive (approximately 10 years) mountain lion population study on the Uncompahgre Plateau to document lion densities. However, until this or other information is available, we will continue to use the standard prey densities presented here in our population estimates. We suspect our lion densities may be significantly higher than those reported other studies and we think when more accurate numbers for Colorado are developed, current lion population estimates will be demonstrated to be low. Table 1. Estimated mountain lion population in DAU L-2 based on total DAU acreage. Population Range Population Estimate 144 Low density Males 38 6 Females Subadults Cubs 38 20 48 Total 144 �High density Point projection 330 255 86 66 86 66 46 36 112 87 330 255 Estimates of male and female winter home range size vary widely between studies in western North America. Males clearly have larger home ranges, often with minimal overlap of other males, while females tend to have smaller home ranges with a tolerance for more same-sex overlap. In many cases one male’s home range boundaries will include several female ranges. Female winter home range estimates between some study areas span an order of magnitude; in British Columbia winter ranges were observed at 28 sq. km., in Idaho 90 sq. km. and in Utah 207 sq. km. Male estimates on winter range in Idaho were 126 sq. km. while researchers in Utah again observed much larger home ranges averaging 503 sq. km. The current and past research in Colorado has generated overall annual home range estimates which don’t allow comparison to be made for winter range calculations. Population Management Alternatives and Outcomes Harvest Potential Using the portion of the projected population that is huntable (adults and sub-adults), an acceptable level of mortality within a DAU can be estimated. Logan and Sweanor (2001) suggest that the level of hunting and non-hunting mortality can be gauged relative to the rate of population growth. They further suggest that managers can use the rate of growth documented at 11% by Logan as an acceptable annual mortality assuming managers have a reliable estimate of the lion population and that the population is increasing. Neither of the parameters is known definitely in L-2. Thus, it is important to be conservative when generating a harvest level estimate the lion population can support. Current CDOW guidance is to use 8-15% of the huntable population to provide a range of acceptable harvest for populations managed for sustained recreational opportunity and a stableincreasing lion population. Logan and Sweanor have documented the high resiliency of lion populations and have recorded a 28% growth rate in a treatment area following a period of high lion removal rates. Thus, the CDOW suggests that for a huntable population with sustained recreational opportunity and a stable lion population to apply a harvest rate of 12%. Currently there are two principle management options available for mountain lion management guidelines: stable-increasing and suppression. Stable-increasing Population Managementguidelines for stable-increasing population management would be defined as managing a lion population for 8% of the high and 15% of the low total mortality levels of the adult population. Suppression Management- guidelines for suppression management include a total mortality range of the adult population of 15-28%. The operating population point projection outlined in this document is approximately 168 harvestable lions (255 total population estimate), however, as more refined data analysis tools become available, or as research results from studies currently underway in Colorado are analyzed, population projections will be refined and reassessed. Since L-2 is being managed for a stable population, it is current DOW management direction that the total lion mortality be within 815% of the total legal population (adult and subadult) to be considered management directed at maintaining a stable to increasing lion population. Using a projection of 168 legally harvestable lions, this off-take range corresponds to an annual removal of 13 (8%) to 25 (15%) lions. Given the 10-year average harvest is 8 (4.8%) lions, the 7 �current level of sport harvest in L-2 would suggest a stable to increasing population. The current average 5-year harvest is 6 lions, which is a 3.6% harvest rate. This rate of removal is lower than the average 12% rate used for a stable to increasing population. Thus, indications are that the current management has allowed for a stable to increasing population in this DAU. Non-hunting Mortality Objective – Annual Estimate The total mortality objective for L-2 has typically been the same as the hunter harvest objective. Two non-hunting mortalities have been observed in the past 10 years. In the event increased lion mortality from non-hunter sources (roadkills, damage kills) is observed over several subsequent years, the future hunter mortality objectives will be modified to reflect the predicted losses in the population due to non-hunting factors. GAME DAMAGE OBJECTIVE Game damage levels should be held below a 3 year average of $20,000 annually with the most effective control being targeted harvest of individual animals involved in damage. In the past 10 years game damage levels in L-2 have been very low (Figure 6). There is a high level of grazing by sheep and cattle in this DAU and a commensurate concern over potential damage levels. Annual damage costs have ranged from $6,000 to $26,000 in the past 10 years, with the highest level occurring 1995. No damage claims have been paid in the past 5 years. There seems to be no correlation between higher quota numbers and the level of damage. It is likely the number of damage claims has decreased since 1995 due to reductions in domestic sheep numbers in the DAU. The number of ranches claims declined because the CDOW started doing a better job of investigation of claims and hired claims investigators to verify losses to lions. The CDOW is not responsible for damage caused by coyotes and it was thought that some paid claims may have been due to losses by coyotes. The Colorado Wildlife Commission began a more detailed analysis of claims to further substantiate loose caused by mountain lions. Damage harvest has been 0 with none recorded in the last 10 years. 8 �Indexed Annual Lion Damage Payments 1980 - 2003 Indexed Claim Amount 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980 0 Year Figure 6. Amount (dollars) of domestic sheep damage claims paid annually in DAU L-2 between 1980 and 2003. Barriers and Strategies - Game damage should be managed by targeting offending lions on an as needed basis. The CDOW has an effective working relationship with Wildlife Service including a contract for annual damage control assistance. Claims can be minimized through effective communication with landowners and CDOW. Monitoring - Monitoring of game damage claims will occur on an annual basis. Significant increases in game damage may induce harvest objective changes. Most likely the GMU quota will be amended to focus harvest in the area of damage. Use of a damage investigator to quickly verify kills and the prompt removal of problem lions will be used with the goal to hold the 3 year average damage costs below $20,000. HUMAN / LION CONFLICTS OBJECTIVE: Objective Level - There is no formal number of allowable human/lion conflicts outlined for L-2, however, the goal for nuisance complaints should be low. The potential for human encounters with lions in L-2 has increased in recent years as a result of the development of mountain subdivisions and development around Craig, Hayden, and Steamboat Springs. Tolerance of aggressive or acclimated lions in this area is low, therefore lions that show these tendencies are quickly removed from the population. Education of the public on how to live in lion country appears to be the most successful method of reducing both depredation and non-depredation conflicts. A survey and project summary report by Zinn and Manfredo (1996) studied societal preference for Mountain Lion management along the Front Range of Colorado. The study measured people’s beliefs, opinions, preferences and behaviors towards mountain lions. Although the CDOW lacks similar data from the west slope, several conclusions are still pertinent and advisable. The summary report recommends, “Education and public information regarding mountain lions and their interactions with humans should continue to be a key component of the CDOW’s mountain lion 9 �management strategies” Zinn and Manfredo (1996). The report also indicates that “education may serve to widen the range of acceptable management options available to wildlife managers” Indications are that the public tends to believe that capture and relocation of mountain lion is a ready option, while at the same time they do not accept frightening lion with rubber bullets or scare devices as an option. Educational information should help the public better understand other control options available including increased lion hunting and controlled mountain lion hunts. This survey also reinforced the idea that the CDOW’s information campaign regarding living with lions has been successful. Barriers & Strategies- CDOW will continue to provide the public information on human safety and how to live with lions. This is will be accomplished through programs, printed literature, and through informal contact by local district managers. As needed, the CDOW will continue to conduct workshops for public agencies, law enforcement personnel, and concerned public groups. Monitoring - Human interactions will be accomplished through annual review of the CDOW’s conflict reports. Specific instances will be handled according to the CDOW policy. Key Management Issues – Public input on lion management was sought as part of this DAU plan revision process. Scoping meetings were held in Grand Junction and Craig. Comments were collected from the public on what lion management issues were most important to them Appendix A. This information will be used as a portion of the decision process in the selection of a preferred management strategy for L-2. Preferred Management Strategy – Stable to IncreasingThe preferred management strategy for L-2 is to manage lions at an annual mortality rate, including hunting and non-hunting, in a range between 8% and 15% of the huntable population. This rate of removal would be considered a stable to increasing population and uses the population point projection of 255 lions as the basis for the recommendation. Hunter harvest objectives, regulated by the current quotas system, will be established annually based on previous year’s harvest success and other mortality factors. The long-term goal is to maintain healthy lion populations that can sustain annual sporting harvest. The current five-year average annual harvest has been 6 lions in the DAU. The 10-year average harvest has been 8 lions. Mountain lion populations appear fairly resistant to moderately high levels of harvest as indicated by Anderson’s (2003) research. The caveat being, that “adjacent populations facilitate recovery through immigration and that adult female survival provides female recruitment” Anderson (2003). Anderson (2003) also stated, “The most likely factor to inhibit cougar population reduction from harvest is limited hunter access creating local refuges. In these situations, inaccessibility will dictate the degree of resiliency in that population to hunter harvest…” Table 2. Number of lions harvested at variable mortality rates under stable to increasing management. Annual Mortality Rate 8% 9% 10% 11% 10 12% 13% 14% 15% �Hunter Harvest Total Mortality 13 Non-hunt Mort. Total Mortality 13 DAU Harvest Objective 0 15 17 18 20 22 0 0 0 0 0 15 17 18 20 22 24 0 25 0 24 25 Unlike surrounding DAUs, there are no known significant refuge areas existing in L-2. While it is likely that recruitment to this area from Dinosaur National Monument and areas in surrounding DAU’s occurs, management of this DAU should consider this lack of refuge areas and remain conservative. Otherwise, the potential for significant over-harvest exists. Monitoring- Anderson’s (2003) study of the sex and age characteristics of cougar populations documented that, “population decline followed predictable removal patterns of the more vulnerable/ abundant classes until the least vulnerable class, adult females were most abundant in the harvest”, and that, “Moving from harvests consisting primarily of sub-adults to adult males and finally to adult females suggests previous population decline” Therefore, if the percentage of adult females in the harvest begins to increase, and the average age of females in the harvest begins to decline, then harvest adjustments would be warranted until male lions and sub adult lions comprised the majority of the harvest, which would indicate a recovering lion population. Population monitoring will be accomplished primarily from data collected as a part of the mandatory check of lions harvested. The estimated age of the animal will be determined using techniques outlined by Anderson and Lindzey (2000). Specifically, priority should be given to evidence of previous lactation, annuli aging of premolars, presence of a canine ridge and presence or absence of foreleg bars (Anderson 2003). Literature Cited Anderson, C.R. 2003. Cougar ecology, management, and population genetics in Wyoming. University of Wyoming, Larimie, WY. 124 pp. Anderson, A. E. 1983. A critical review of literature on puma. Colorado Division of Wildlife Special Report Number 54. Lindzey, F. 1988. Mountain lion in Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Trappers Association. Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, DC. Ross, P. I. and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(3):417-426. 11 �Zinn, H. C. and M. J. Manfredo. 1996. Societal preferences for mountain lion management along Colorado’s Front Range. Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit Report No. 28, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 12 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/29a187f6ad3a2c9ffdd05113850ca2a0.pdf 8541cf23fa28225c3a6068b2f6993f69 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-3 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 6, 16, 161, 17, & 171 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife West Region By: Jim Hicks Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist BACKGROUND This DAU encompasses all of Jackson County. Currently there is a low-density population of mountain lions in North Park. Sightings are reported, but rare. There is no harvest, no game damage, and no conflicts reported. There is interest in hunting lion in North Park, and lion season was opened in 2000 with a quota of 3. As of the date of this document there has been no hunter harvest. Two lion kittens were killed by a motor vehicle south of Walden. RECOMMENDATION: Continue the hunting seasons in North Park with a quota of 3. Interview lion hunters to gather information on the lion population. Mountain lions are a predator on deer, elk, and bighorn sheep. This is a natural relationship and no control measures are determined to be necessary at this time. Sport hunting harvest shall be maintained to provide recreational opportunity. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/2818fbed628b719ba7c803bcbcc4fe1e.pdf 7dae0c538d9414b2a1e00ddddb79ff53 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES LION DAU L-3 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 6, 16, 161, 17, & 171 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) Northwest Region By: Jim Hicks, Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Kirk Snyder & Josh Dilley, District Wildlife Managers November, 2004 1 �DESCRIPTION OF DAU, HABITAT AND PAST MANAGEMENT Location and Habitat Mountain lion Data Analysis Unit (DAU) L-3 is located in North Central Colorado just east of the Continental Divide adjacent to Wyoming (Fig. 1). DAU L-3 encompasses all of Jackson County, commonly called North Park. DAU L-3 is all of the North Platte River drainage in Colorado. Habitat varies from large expanses of sagebrush with wide riparian-river areas in the center of North Park at 8,000 feet elevation, to aspen and lodgepole pine habitat, then to spruce-fir habitat and up to the alpine habitat. Mule deer are the primary prey species of mountain lion. Elk can be an important prey species in some areas. Mule deer primarily inhabit the aspen, lodgepole pine, and riparian habitat in the summer and the sagebrush and aspen habitats in the winter. The DAU is 1,619 square miles in size with land primarily under control by Federal land management agencies including Bureau of Land Management (18.3%), US Forest Service (32.1%), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1.7%), various state agencies (11.9%) and private landowners (36.0%). Figure 1. Mountain lion DAU L-3 boundary Management History The first hunting season conducted for mountain lion in North Park was in 2000. The public requested the mountain lion season. There is a low-density population of mountain lion in North Park. The average harvest over the last four years has been 2 lion per year from an average quota of 3 permits per year. There has been no reported livestock damage or other conflicts attributed to mountain lion. 2 �Approximately 90% of the deer in North Park migrate out of the DAU in the winter to Wyoming and Middle Park. It is assumed that part of the lion population migrate with the deer. There is a large population of elk within North Park in the winter and those lion that are successful in killing elk probably remain during the winter. The key management issue is determining the number of mountain lion that remain in the DAU during the winter mountain lion hunting season. The CDOW has documented, through a radio collared deer study that the majority of the deer population migrate out of the DAU in the winter. The mountain lion hunting season is in the winter, so many of the lion that would be in North Park during the summer are not part of the huntable population in Colorado. Harvest Statistics The mountain lion season in Colorado starts the day after the end of the regular deer and elk rifle season (mid-November) and continues through March 31 the following year. New harvest quotas start on January 1. The harvest statistics for DAU L-3 over the first four years of the mountain lion seasons are shown in Table 1. The harvest has been declining over the four years of lion hunting and hunters are finding it difficult to locate mountain lion. Table 1. L-3 harvest data 2000-2004. GMUs: 6, 16, 161, 17, 171 DAU Harvest Quota % of Quota Achievement Hunter Harvest - Male Hunter Harvest - Female Total Hunter Harvest % of Female in Harvest 2000 3 100% 2 1 3 33% 2001 3 100% 1 2 3 67% 2002 5 40% 1 1 2 50% 2003 3 33% 0 1 1 100% MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Population Estimate The population estimate for the L-3 DAU is based on two factors; defining the area of suitable mountain lion winter range habitat and determining a probable density of mountain lion. Due to their low relative density, secretive nature and the subsequent lack of quality field methods for estimating population sizes for lions as outlined by researchers (Anderson 1983, Logan and Sweanor 2001), the L-3 estimate could not be based on quantitative field observations within the DAU. The population estimate is based on mountain lion density research from studies in the western U.S. (Anderson, 1983, Logan and Sweanor, 2001) as well as geographic information systems (GIS) data on habitat and spatial variables. Based on a comprehensive review of lion research literature, Logan and Sweanor (2001) offer a range of lion densities observed on projects from throughout the western United States. Given the similarities between Colorado and states/provinces such as Wyoming, New Mexico, Alberta, British Colombia and Idaho, densities were extrapolated from those studies to arrive at a low density estimate of 2.0 lions/100 km2 and a high density estimate of 4.6 lions/100 km2 in L-3. In addition the CDOW used these data to develop a medium population density of 3.0 lion per 100 km2. Multiplying these high, medium and low densities by a given area of lion habitat generates a population estimate. 3 �Although current literature supports the range from 2.0 to 4.6 lion per 100 km2, there is reason to believe that prey densities and prey species composition in Colorado is somewhat higher and different than those described in the supporting reports. Colorado’s elk populations are the highest anywhere in the United States and provide alternate prey for the lion’s main food base of mule deer. Colorado is initiating, in 2004, an intensive (approximately 10 years) mountain lion population study on the Uncompahgre Plateau to document lion densities. However, until this or other information is available, we will continue to use the standard lion densities presented here in our population estimates. We suspect our prey densities are higher, to much higher than those reported in other studies and we think when the more precise numbers for Colorado are developed, our current lion population assessments will be demonstrated to be low estimates. Considering the restrictive amount of winter range in North Park and the migratory nature of the deer, the population calculation based on the amount of winter range of their prey species best represents the population of mountain lion in North Park. Estimating the population is based on the area of winter range of main prey species at different puma densities (Figure 3). Vegetation maps, WRIS winter range maps, harvest locations, and the knowledge of field personnel were used to identify the mountain lion habitat and determine the density. There are an estimated 1,144.5 Sq. Kilometers of Winter Range in DAU L-3 The map depicts winter range areas and the lion densities (Fig. 2). Based on these calculations the mountain lion population estimate for North Park DAU L-3 is a range of 23 to 53 lion. Figure 2- The mapped northwest region analysis of lion density estimates based on winter range defined as areas below 10,500 feet. Areas were mapped based on probable lion density estimates applied to areas of varying degrees of quality habitats. Wyoming Game and Fish estimates their North Platte mountain lion population to be approximately 50 4 �lion. From that population they plan to harvest about 15 lion per year. They are trying to suppress their lion population because they allowed it to increase for Anderson’s study. Wyoming has good information on their mountain lion population in the North Platte Valley, because of the research study, a study that we can utilize. They also have approximately 26,000 deer wintering in the North Platte Valley compared to the 600 deer we estimate are wintering in North Park. Table 2. Estimated mountain lion population in DAU L-3 based on deer,elk, and bighorn sheep winter range. Population Range Low density High density Point Projection Population Estimate 23 53 23 Males 6 14 6 Females 6 14 6 Subadults 3 8 3 Cubs 8 17 8 Total 23 53 23 The calculations shown in Table 2 are an estimate of the population of mountain lion in North Park, 23 to 53 lion. Based on Wyoming’s estimate of 50 lion for a much larger area with a much larger deer population, and considering North Park’s harsher winters, 53 lion would seem too high. It is not believed that North Park has a high density of lion represented by the 4.6 lion per 100 sq. kilometers. Because of the migratory patterns of the mule deer, the moderate density of lion, 34 lion, would be reasonable for the summer population of mountain lion in DAU L-3. The low density of lion, 2.0 per 100 sq. kilometers or 23 mountain lion, best represents the winter or huntable population of lion in North Park. The age structure for the winter North Park mountain lion population estimate was also calculated based on a formula generated from the existing lion literature (Logan and Sweanor 2001). Both Logan and Sweanor (2001) and Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) reported that kittens, or dependent young, comprised approximately 33-34% of the total population. It is difficult to obtain data on adult sex ratios, but literature indicates that a 1:1 ratio is a reasonable estimate. Adult Males 6 Adult Females 6 Subadults 3 Kittens 8 Total 23 Population Management Alternatives and Outcomes Harvest Potential Using the portion of the projected population that is huntable (adults and sub-adults), an acceptable level of overall mortality within a DAU can be estimated. Logan and Sweanor (2001) suggest that the level of hunting and non-hunting mortality can be gauged relative to the rate of population growth. They further suggest that managers can use the rate of growth documented at 11% by Logan as an acceptable annual mortality assuming managers have a reliable estimate of the lion population and that the population is increasing. Neither of the parameters is known definitely in L-3. Thus, it is important to maintain conservative caution when generating an estimate of a harvest level that the population can support. Current CDOW guidance is to use 8-15% of the huntable population to provide a range of acceptable harvest for populations managed for sustained recreational opportunity and a stable-increasing lion population. Logan and Sweanor have documented the high resiliency of lion populations and have recorded a 28% growth rate in a treatment area following a period of high lion removal rates. Thus, the CDOW suggests that for population control, managers may have to apply rates of removal at or exceeding 28% of the population for a period of several years to suppress a population. The best estimate of lion population is this DAU is 23 animals. The estimated number of huntable lion is 15, which excludes kittens. 5 �Two management options are available for mountain lion management guidelines: stable-increasing and suppression. Stable-Increasing Population Management Using a harvest rate of 12% (average of 8% and 15%) applied to a huntable population of 15 lion would result in an annual harvest of 2 male and female lion. Average harvest over the last 4 years would fall within this range. Suppression Management A suppression management strategy results in a decline in the overall numbers in a population, rather than the population remaining stable or increasing. Since Logan indicates that a harvest rate of up to 28% can suppress a population and 12% (range of 8%-15%) will allow it to be stable to increasing, a range between 15+% and 28% would tend to decrease a population. Using a harvest rate of 28% applied to a huntable population of 15 would result in an annual harvest of 5 mountain lion. Non-hunting Mortality – Annual Estimate Non-hunting lion mortality has remained low to non-existent. The current expectation is that non-hunting mortality will be maintained at that level for the foreseeable future. Therefore, this estimate will be integrated into the preferred management strategy for this DAU. If increased lion mortality from nonhunter sources is observed over several subsequent years, then future hunter mortality objectives will be modified to reflect the predicted impacts to the population due to this factor. Game Damage Objectives Damage to livestock by lion has been very low with no claims in the last 5 years. It is expected that this level will continue. If it occurs, game damage should be managed by targeting offending lions on an as needed basis. The CDOW has an effective working relationship with the United State Wildlife Services agency including a contract for annual damage control assistance. Claims can be minimized through effective communication with landowners and CDOW. Monitoring Monitoring of game damage claims will occur on an annual basis. Significant increases in game damage may induce harvest objective changes. Most likely the GMU quota will be amended to focus harvest in the area of damage. Human Conflict Objectives There is no formal number of allowable human/lion conflicts outlined for L-3. Human conflicts with mountain lion in this DAU have been rare with no specific incidents recorded. Education of the public on how to live in lion country appears to be the most successful method of reducing both depredation and non-depredation conflicts. A survey and project summary report by Zinn and Manfredo (1996) studied societal preference for Mountain Lion management along the Front Range of Colorado. The study measured people’s beliefs, 6 �opinions, preferences and behaviors towards mountain lions. Although the CDOW lacks similar data from the west slope, several conclusions are still pertinent and advisable. The summary report recommends, “Education and public information regarding mountain lions and their interactions with humans should continue to be a key component of the CDOW’s mountain lion management strategies” Zinn and Manfredo (1996). The report also indicates that “education may serve to widen the range of acceptable management options available to wildlife managers” Indications are that the public tends to believe that capture and relocation of mountain lion is a ready option, while at the same time they do not accept frightening lion with rubber bullets or scare devices as an option. Educational information should help the public better understand other control options available including increased lion hunting and controlled mountain lion hunts. This survey also reinforced the idea that the CDOW’s information campaign regarding living with lions has been successful. Barriers & Strategies CDOW will continue to provide the public information on human safety and how to live with lions. This is will be accomplished through programs, printed literature, and through informal contact by local CDOW district wildlife managers. As needed, the CDOW will continue to conduct workshops for public agencies, law enforcement personnel, and concerned public groups. Monitoring Monitoring of mountain lion – human interactions will be accomplished through annual review of the CDOW’s conflict reports. Specific instances will be handled according to CDOW policy. Key Management Issues Public input on lion management was sought as part of this DAU plan revision process with no specific input received. CDOW management concerns revolve around maintenance of healthy lion populations that include a range of age classes, sex ratios in balance with lion social habits, and reproduction and survival rates that are adequate for maintenance of a population. Management of hunting opportunity is an important issue since this activity has the greatest single impact on a lion population. The potential exists that populations may be over-harvested if annual harvest quotas are not balanced with biological potential of the population. Therefore, adherence to management strategies developed in this plan as well and the collection of annual harvest and other pertinent biological data is essential for sound management. Game damage, as discussed earlier in this plan, is an ongoing issue that must be addressed in a balanced approach and in a cooperative manner with livestock operators. A secondary goal for this DAU would be to estimate the mountain lion population of the North Platte River Valley in combination with the Wyoming Game and Fish Department by developing a model of the interstate mountain lion population as was done with mule deer. This model would be based on the Ph.D study Charles Anderson completed on mountain lion in the North Platte Valley of Wyoming in 2003. Preferred Management Strategy – Stable to Increasing Population The preferred management strategy for L-3 is to manage lion at an annual mortality rate, including hunting and non-hunting, in a range between 8% and 15% of the huntable population. This rate of removal would be considered managing for a stable to increasing population and uses the population 7 �point projection of 23 (15 huntable) lion as the basis for the recommendation. Hunter harvest objectives, regulated by the current quotas system, will be established annually based on previous year’s harvest success, the number of lions harvested in the DAU and other non-hunting mortality factors. The non-hunting mortality should be included in the total mortality recommended for the DAU. The process of setting quotas outside the DAU plan allows for flexibility in setting annual harvest objective in response to changing factors affecting the lion population. The present quota system will remain in effect. This quota system allocates a limited number of licenses to each game management unit and once the quota is filled in the GMU it is closed to further hunting. The long-term goal is to maintain healthy lion populations that can sustain annual sporting harvest while maintaining very low damage levels and near zero human conflict levels. Emphasis on mountain lion management will be placed on the lion population within the DAU rather by GMU. Total DAU harvest should be the guiding factor influencing annual mortality, since research has shown lion populations are a landscape wildlife species and not confined to smaller geographic areas such as a single GMU. The current four-year average annual harvest has been 2 lion in the DAU. Mountain lion populations appear fairly resistant to moderately high levels of harvest as indicated by Anderson’s (2003) research. The caveat being, that “adjacent populations facilitate recovery through immigration and that adult female survival provides female recruitment” (Anderson 2003). Anderson also stated, “The most likely factor to inhibit cougar population reduction from harvest is limited hunter access creating local refuges. In these situations, inaccessibility will dictate the degree of resiliency in that population to hunter harvest…” With the above caveat in mind, a geographic review of DAU L-3 shows the existence of limited areas where no lion hunting or very limited lion hunting occurs. It is also felt that due to the light hunting pressure on the front range foothills, north and west of Fort Collins, significant numbers of lion move into L-3 from the east. Monitoring Anderson (2003) in his study of the sex and age characteristics of cougar populations documented that, “population decline followed predictable removal patterns of the more vulnerable/ abundant classes until the least vulnerable class, adult females were most abundant in the harvest”, and that, “Moving from harvests consisting primarily of sub-adults to adult males and finally to adult females suggests previous population decline” Therefore, if the percentage of adult females in the harvest begins to increase, and the average age of females in the harvest begins to decline, then harvest adjustments would be warranted until male lions and sub adult lions comprised the majority of the harvest, which would indicate a recovering lion population. Population monitoring will be accomplished primarily from data collected as a part of the mandatory check of lions harvested. The estimated age of the animal will be determined using techniques outlined by Anderson and Lindzey (2000). Specifically, priority should be given to evidence of previous lactation, annuli aging of premolars, presence of a canine ridge and presence or absence of foreleg bars (Anderson 2003). 8 �Literature Cited Anderson, C.R. 2003. Cougar ecology, management, and population genetics in Wyoming. University of Wyoming, Larimie, WY. 124 pp. Anderson, A. E. 1983. A critical review of literature on puma. Colorado Division of Wildlife Special Report Number 54. Lindzey, F. 1988. Mountain lion in Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Trappers Association. Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, DC. Ross, P. I. and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(3):417-426. Zinn, H. C. and M. J. Manfredo. 1996. Societal preferences for mountain lion management along Colorado’s Front Range. Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit Report No. 28, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 9 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/05937325833c207968a80425bc2d7788.pdf dc036bdb14e5a00c88ec69c1341e73cc PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION DATA ANALYSIS UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN Northern Front Range: DAU L-4 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 7, 8, 9, 19, 191, & 20 Northeast Region Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife By: Mark Vieira Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Date: September 20, 2004 �DESCRIPTION OF DAU, HABITAT AND PAST MANAGEMENT LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHY, CLIMATE, LAND USE, LAND STATUS Mountain lion Data Analysis Unit (DAU) L-4 is located within Larimer and northern Boulder counties in north-central Colorado (Fig. 1). It is made up of Game Management Units (GMUs) 7, 8, 9, 19, 20 and 191. The boundaries of L-4 are formed by the Wyoming state line to the north, on the west by the Jackson County line and the Continental Divide through Rocky Mountain National Park, and on the east by I-25. The southern boundary is defined by Colorado 52, US 36, Boulder Co. Rds 34, 94, 81, 106 and 95 (Lefthand Canyon Dr), 102 (Brainard Lake Rd) and the ridgeline from Brainard Lake to Pawnee Peak. Towns and cities within the DAU include Fort Collins, Loveland, Estes Park, Lyons and Longmont. Excluding the smaller towns of Estes Park and Lyons, most populated areas fall on the far eastern edge of the DAU, and represent the area that is considered urbanized with some limited agriculture. The major drainages found in L-4 include the Cache La Poudre, Big Thompson, St. Vrain and Laramie Rivers. Figure 1. Habitat varies from the ponderosa pine-mountain mahogany-shrub foothills community at approximately 1,500 meters (5,000 ft.) in elevation to spruce-fir stands in progressively higher terrain ending with alpine tundra or high mountain peaks at over 4,270 meters (14,000 ft.) in Rocky Mountain National Park on the far southwestern edge of the DAU. The lower and middle elevations of the DAU are very good lion habitat, with the higher areas being intermediate in quality. Areas east of US highway 287 between Fort Collins and Longmont are not suitable lion habitat due to urbanization. However, due to the proximity of low-elevation deer and elk herds in the foothills just west of US 287, the northern Front Range urban corridor quickly transitions to quality lion habitat 2 �within a few miles of the west sides of Loveland, Longmont and Fort Collins. The DAU is 7,757 sq. km. in size with land primarily under control by US Forest Service (36.5%), National Park Service (8.7%), various state agencies (3.9%) and private landowners (49.2%). HISTORY Legal status Mountain lions received no legal protection and were classified as a predator in Colorado from 1881 until 1965 (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). During that time take of mountain lions was encouraged by bounties and other laws. In 1965, mountain lions were reclassified as big game animals and hunting seasons were created. The bounty was abolished, but some provisions for landowner take of a depredating lion remains in Colorado law to this day. The Division of Wildlife (DOW) also became fiscally liable for agricultural and livestock damage caused by lions. Hunting season and quotas From 1992-2004 the harvest quota in L-4 has been 42 mountain lions per year. Season dates are from January 1st until March 31st and from the 1st day after the close of the regular deer and elk seasons until December 31st. New harvest quotas begin on January 1st of each year. While quotas have very rarely been met over the last 15 years in any GMU in L-4, GMUs 8 and 191 represent the units that come the closest to being filled (Figure 2). The female portion of the DAU-wide harvest has averaged 41% for the last 5 years and 43% for the last 10 years (Figure 3). Total quota achievement has averaged 44% for the last 5 years and 48% for the last 10 years (Figure 4). This similarity between the long-term and short-term harvest trends potentially indicates a sustainable level of harvest. Harvest or Quota 5 yr. avg. (1999-2003) harvest relative to current (2004) quotas Figure 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 5 year avg. harvest 2004 quota 7 8 9 19 20 191 Game Management Unit 3 �Percent females in L-4 harvest over last 10 years (with linear trend line) Figure 80% % females in harvest 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year L4 Quota Achievement Figure 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 % achievement % of quota achievement KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES A major management issue in this area is the need to maintain a stable mountain lion population while considering human conflicts and game damage. Public open houses were held in Fort Collins and Denver as part of the scoping process for public input. In addition to the comments that were received at the open houses, several comments were submitted by mail. The comments were considered in developing strategic goals and management objectives. Most of the public comments were in favor of maintaining a healthy population, but others stated that there are too many mountain lions and that harvest should be increased in order to reduce conflicts. Because of the 4 �dense human population and associated residential developments, hunting of mountain lions is difficult in many of the areas where conflicts occur. Therefore, even if an increase in harvest could be achieved (which is improbable based on the fact that in current years the DAU quota has remained over 50% unfilled), it is unlikely to reduce conflicts. STRATEGIC GOALS: The strategic goal in L-4 is to maintain the current level of lion density, perpetuating a biologically sustainable population level. The DAU is being managed for a ‘stable’ lion population. This goal was chosen due to consideration of desires expressed in the public scoping process, results from public surveys (Zinn and Manfredo 1996, Manfredo et al. 1998), and the fact that in L-4 there is no correlation between damage/conflicts and harvest levels. Game damage and other conflicts will be managed on an individual basis. The DOW will continue to monitor lion harvest and non-hunting mortality sources, engage in incorporating data from pertinent research as it becomes available and persist in refining and improving current knowledge of local mountain lion populations and management. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES: Prey densities Predator populations depend on their prey base and it is likely their numbers are correlated with prey densities. While localized herds within L-4 may have increased in some cases according to CDOW deer and elk population models (e.g. GMU 20 elk), overall ungulate populations have been stable to decreasing in the DAU over the last 10 years. In 1993 there were approximately 19,00020,000 deer in the 2 deer DAUs within L-4, since then the population has decreased, numbering just under 13,000 by 2003. In parts of L-4, particularly in the north-central areas, much of this reduction in the deer herd has been by design as part of chronic wasting disease management. Elk populations have increased slightly from 6,700 in 1993 to 8,000 in 2003. These population estimates are in some cases a reflection of quadrat-based sampling, but mostly are derived from computer population modeling using observed classification and harvest data. As with any model, the population is not known with certainty, but the estimates are based on the best information available. Prey numbers in L-4, relative to some studies in other areas of the west, are moderate to high. While most of the literature on mountain lions doesn’t include actual estimates of deer density, parts of L-4 directly along the Front Range can be argued to have deer densities exceeding those found by Logan and Sweanor (2001) in the San Andres Mountains of New Mexico, and likewise may have lion densities at the higher end of the spectrum. On the other hand, parts of L-4 that are grasslands or have undergone deer population reductions support lower levels of lions, deer and elk. Relative to other parts of the Colorado Front Range overall L-4 ungulate densities are moderate with localized areas of high concentration. PROCESS FOR DETERMINING MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES The L-4 lion population projection is based primarily on 2 factors; defining the area of suitable lion habitat within the 7,757 sq. km. DAU and applying a probable lion density for that same area. Due to their low density, secretive nature and the subsequent lack of quality field methods for estimating population sizes for lions as outlined by researchers (Anderson 1983, Logan and Sweanor 2001), 5 �the L-4 estimate could not be based on quantitative field observations within the DAU. The population projection is however, based on a synthesis of lion densities from other published studies in the western US as well as geographic information systems (GIS) data on habitat and spatial variables. In L-4, winter range lion habitat is defined as areas below 2,900 meters (9,500 ft.) in elevation and not included within the boundaries of a municipality (i.e. Fort Collins, Loveland). This potential habitat was further refined with a GIS vegetation coverage to only include the forest/shrub and grassland community. Due to the fact that L-4 also straddles a transitional zone between good lion habitat in the foothills and poor lion habitat in the human-impacted plains, the area that is both south of Harmony Rd and east of Hwy. 287 was excluded from the surface area used in lion habitat calculations (Berthoud, eastern Loveland, etc). Most of this area is predominantly suburban housing developments, commercial developments and limited agriculture. The level of human use of the area is such that sustained occupancy by mountain lions is exceedingly rare. While lion harvest locations are clearly not random, they too can be used as a confirmation to assess habitat where lions are found. Reported harvest locations over the last decade from mandatory hunter check forms occurred almost entirely within the habitat boundaries described above and shown as lion habitat in Figure 5. 6 �Figure 5. In Colorado, lion habitat overlaps with the range of its principle food sources, mule deer and in many cases, elk. Visual inspection of overall deer and elk range, excluding urban and plains deer, is an essential duplicate of the lion habitat as defined above. This prey habitat boundary provides the basis for the 2,900 meter (9,500 ft) elevational limit used in winter range projections. Figure 6 shows mule deer and elk winter range. The foothills transitional zone can be seen in a north-south band outlined by the presence of quality deer winter range. This is also the area where on a localized scale, lion densities would be expected to be the highest. Given the constraints and exclusions outlined above, the total area of winter lion habitat used in population projection calculations was 5,570 sq. km. (Figure 5). 7 �Figure 6. Based on a comprehensive review of lion research literature, Logan and Sweanor (2001) offer a range of lion densities observed on projects from throughout the western United States. Given the similarities between Colorado and states/provinces such as Wyoming, New Mexico, Alberta, British Colombia and Idaho, densities were extrapolated from those studies to arrive at a low density estimate of 0.02 lions/sq.km. and a high density estimate of 0.046 lions/sq.km in L-4. Multiplying these high and low densities by the given area of lion habitat (5,570 sq. km.) creates a range of population sizes. Age structure within the total L-4 population was also calculated based on a formula generated from the existing lion literature (Logan and Sweanor 2001). Both Logan and Sweanor (2001) and Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) reported that kittens, or dependent young, comprised approximately 33-34% of the total population. Overall habitat in L-4 can be rated as being from very good to intermediate in quality. Based on overall analysis of quality of lion habitat, prey densities (as outlined in the sub-section above) and sustained harvest levels, a population point projection calculated from an intermediate lion density (0.036 lions/sq.km) was developed and is further classified below (Table 1). Kittens were projected to account for 33% of the population and were therefore subtracted from the legally harvestable population. Calculated high and low projections are also provided in Table 1. Table 1. 8 �Projected Population Low density High density Point projection Adult 58 136 104 Subadults 15 34 27 Cubs 38 86 69 Total 111 256 200 MORTALITY OBJECTIVES (5yr average) Total Mortality Objective Annual total mortality objectives are closely tied to projected lion population levels. The operating population projection outlined in this document is approximately 131 legally harvestable lions (104 adults and 27 subadults), however as more refined data analysis tools become available, or as research results from studies currently underway in Colorado are analyzed, population projections will be refined and reassessed. Since DAU L-4 is being managed for a stable population, a mortality level at or below the population’s rate of increase is needed to produce stable or increasing numbers. An annual total mortality of 8-15% of the legal population (adult and subadult) can be considered to be the biologically sustainable off-take range to maintain a population (J. Apker, 2004, unpublished CDOW report). Logan and Sweanor (2001) observed an 11% annual rate of increase in the reference area of their study. The authors also documented the relatively high resiliency of lion populations when they recorded a 28% annual rate of growth in the treatment area following a period with a high rate of removal. Although the rate of increase in L-4 is not known, it is expected to exceed the 11% observed by Logan and Sweanor (2001) due to increased overall prey densities relative to their study area. Using a projection of 131 legally harvestable lions, this off-take range corresponds to an annual removal of from 11 (8%) to 20 (15%) lions from all mortality sources. This maximum off-take level of 15% is believed to be sustainable in L-4. Typically, all documented lion mortality in L-4 has come from harvest. However, in 2003 there were 6 known lion mortalities from non-hunter sources; this is unusually high, as the 10-year average is essentially zero. If increased lion mortality from non-hunter sources (roadkills, damage kills) is observed over several subsequent years, then future hunter mortality objectives will be modified to reflect the predicted losses in the population due to non-hunting factors. Hunter Harvest Objective The hunter harvest objective for L-4 has typically been the same as the total mortality objective. Few non-hunting mortalities have been observed, so in recent years it has been unnecessary to lower the hunter harvest objective to compensate for these other presumably additive losses. Given that the 10-year harvest average is 20 lions (15% off-take), the current level of harvest in L-4 would fall at the upper threshold appropriate for maintaining a stable population. Barriers and Strategies DOW is assisting in sponsoring educational seminars designed to help lion hunters understand current regulations, provide techniques to classify lions to age and sex while in the field, and understand the outcomes that different harvest scenarios may have on a population. Monitoring 9 �All known dead lions, from both harvest and non-harvest sources, are checked by DOW staff to obtain biological information. The quality of these data are being improved by further training of service center staff that may check lions and the development of a key for assisting in determining lion age. Precise estimation of age to within 2-3 years can be accomplished by examination of tooth eruption and wear (Anderson and Lindzey 2000). The proportion harvested of each gender will continue to be closely monitored on an annual basis to assure that female mortality rates are not impacting the sustainability of the population. Beginning in 2002, a Colorado State University/DOW/US Geological Survey graduate research project was initiated to examine the prevalence of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in lion-killed deer and elk to investigate if cougars were preying selectively on CWD positive animals. As a secondary product of this study, informal data on collared lion movement and survival is being collected and shared with the local DOW biologist. A sample of radio-collared mule deer in L-4 are also being monitored during the follow-up portions of deer survival and movement studies that are being conducted in the area. Mortality causes of radio-collared deer are recorded as part of the data collection process and can be used as an informal way to evaluate and track levels of lion predation. While these studies were designed to gather information on deer, and as such can’t provide any statistically significant data on lions, they can contribute anecdotally to our knowledge about local lion predation. Beginning in 2000, deer numbers in parts of L-4 were reduced, principally by hunter harvest, as a management strategy aimed at reducing and slowing the spread of CWD, a fatal brain disease of deer and elk. Quadrat-based deer population estimates in the northern part of the DAU confirm that the Larimer County portion of the herd has undergone an approximate 20% decrease during the last 3 years; this in turn may have an effect on lion movement, dispersal, survival and depredation rates. GAME DAMAGE: BARRIERS AND STRATEGIES Damage payments have averaged $2,639 per year for the last 5 years or $3,086 for the last 3 years (based on available data through 2003). Damage payments in L-4 seem to follow a boom or bust cycle, whereby payments are low for several years, and then jump significantly in one year with a number of costly claims (Fig. 7). A relatively new occurrence in L-4 is the proliferation of hobby livestock ranches. Relative to more traditional livestock operations (horse and cattle), these hobby ranches typically raise smaller breeds of animals (llama, alpaca, goat, etc). Many times these animals are more concentrated, potentially making the pen or small pasture they are in a productive target for a depredating lion. Educating landowners of livestock practices to minimize this potential is the primary means of reducing this type of conflict. 10 �Number of claims displayed above bars $16,000 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 5 9 4 6 4 03 20 02 00 01 20 Year 20 99 20 98 19 97 19 96 19 95 19 94 19 4 0 0 19 19 Figure 1 2 5 93 Indexed claim am ount Indexed yearly lion damage payments 1993-2003 BARRIERS AND STRATEGIES The CDOW will utilize hunters whenever possible to harvest depredating lions. Biologists and DWMs will continue to inform and educate the public on ways to prevent or minimize damage to domestic animals. Due to reduced deer densities in L-4 as part of CWD management, concerns over the potential increase in lion predation on livestock have emerged as an issue with some landowners. Through the winter of 2003-2004, there has been no significant documented increase in lion depredation. However, in great part to reflect these emerging concerns, a Habitat Partnership Program Committee (HPP) was initiated in 2002 in Larimer County. GMUs 7, 8, 9, and 191 are included in the Northern Larimer County HPP, potentially providing a streamlined option for landowners to receive compensation for verified losses due to lion depredation. MONITORING As stated in the Mortality Objectives section, the opportunity to informally receive data on lion kills or depredation events as part of the current CSU/DOW/USGS lion study in L-4 can be of assistance in recording/corroborating game damage claims. HUMAN / LION CONFLICTS: As development at the edge of the suburban fringe proceeds, human encounters with lions will continue to occur. Education of the public on how to live in lion country appears to be the most successful method of reducing both depredation and non-depredation conflicts. The results from a 1996 survey of Denver-area Front Range residents’ attitudes towards mountain lions provide information on how people who live in lion country view these animals (Zinn and Manfredo 1996, Manfredo et al. 1998). Overall attitudes toward mountain lions across metropolitan and suburban communities were very similar with approximately 80% of respondents in all cases having a “positive attitude” toward lions. This survey also reinforced the idea that the DOW’s information campaign regarding living with lions has been successful; a majority of the sample endorsed the 11 �strategy recommended by the DOW for human behavior during a mountain lion encounter. The only known fatal incident in recent time near L-4 was a 1997 attack on a child in Rocky Mountain National Park; this was west of the DAU, outside the L-4 boundary. BARRIERS AND STRATEGIES CDOW biologists, DWMs and service centers will continue to provide the public information on human safety and how to live with lions. This is done through programs as well as printed literature. As needed, the CDOW will continue to conduct workshops for public agencies, law enforcement personnel, and concerned public groups. RESTRICTED HARVEST/REFUGE AREAS The mosaic of various landowners and land management agencies in L-4 with different philosophies or regulations regarding lion hunting has created a patchwork of areas within the DAU where lion hunting is restricted or not allowed at all. While the total effective size of these areas is difficult to estimate due to their non-contiguous nature, it is clear that there are significant pieces of land within the DAU that are lion habitat and are not subject to hunting mortality. As the large ranches in L-4 become subdivided or purchased by cities, counties and non-governmental organizations, areas of no hunting mortality or restricted harvest will likely only continue to increase in number and size. It may be that areas such as Rocky Mountain National Park, Larimer and Boulder County Open Space properties and ranches that do not allow hunting are providing a source of immigrating lions that helps support the population given the current level of harvest. These potential sources of inflow to the population will continue to be further identified as more information becomes available on the role they may play in sustaining population stability. SUMMARY: The goal for L-4, as supported by public input, is to maintain a stable lion population. Harvest in L-4 over the last 10 years has been significantly less than the quota level (48%). The 10-year average off-take of approximately 20 lions falls at the upper boundary for the recommended total mortality allowable to maintain a stable population. Game damage and human-lion conflicts will be managed by targeting individual mountain lions. A threat to maintaining the population in the stable range may occur if total mortality sources increase significantly above 20 lions for a number of years or adult females begin to comprise a larger proportion of the harvest. As new information on mountain lion population management, densities and off-take ranges (particularly data from Colorado) becomes available, mortality objectives and population projections will be improved. LITERATURE CITED Anderson, A. E. 1983. A critical review of literature on puma. Colorado Division of Wildlife Special Report Number 54. Anderson, C. R., and F. G. Lindzey. 2000. A photographic guide to estimating mountain lion age classes. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Laramie, Wyoming. 12 �Fitzgerald, J. P., C. A. Meaney, and D. M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History and University of Colorado Press. Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, DC. Manfredo, M. J., H. C. Zinn, L. Sikorowski and J. Jones. 1998. Public acceptance of mountain lion management: a case study of Denver, Colorado, and nearby foothills areas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26 (4): 964-970. Ross, P. I. and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(3):417-426. Zinn, H. C. and M. J. Manfredo. 1996. Societal preferences for mountain lion management along Colorado’s Front Range. Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit Report No. 28, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 13 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/27e0a9217c877ace63539c17e0c1ce52.pdf aa00c63ae4100ade9438c5a620168380 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-4 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 7, 8, 9, 19, 191, & 20 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Northeast Region By: Steven F. Steinert Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT DAU L-4 is located in the north-central part of Colorado. It includes the three major drainages of the Cache La Poudre, Big Thompson, and Laramie Rivers. Habitat varies from ponderosa pine-shrub foothills at approximately 5,000 feet in elevation to high mountain peaks at nearly 13,000 feet. Much of the area is good mountain lion habitat. HARVEST OBJECTIVE: The sport harvest quota is 42 mountain lions per year. Season dates are from January 1st until March 31st and from the 1st day after the close of the regular deer and elk seasons until December 31st. New harvest quotas begin on January 1 each year. Sport hunting quotas are usually met in GMUs 20 and 191, but seldom in the other GMUs. Female harvest often equals or exceeds male harvest. The average harvest by sex over the last 10 years has been nearly equal with a total of 101 females and 111 males harvested during this period. • Continue with the current quota; 42 within the DAU. Deer populations, which provide the primary prey base, may continue to decrease in this DAU due to Chronic Wasting Disease. • This fact, as well as decreasing habitat, would lend one to believe the lion population is at best stable in this DAU. GAME DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: Game damage should not exceed $2,000 per year based on a three-year average. Damage has averaged approximately $1,600 per year for the past 10 years. Target specific animals causing damage. Utilize hunters whenever possible to harvest problem lions. Continue to inform the public on ways to prevent or minimize damage to domestic animals. HUMAN / LION CONFLICTS OBJECTIVE: Two human fatalities from lion attacks have occurred in Colorado since 1980. The second of these was in 1997 in Rocky Mountain National Park. This incident occurred just December 4, 2000 �outside the L-4 boundary. Seven lion-human conflicts without injury were reported in 1998. This is 16% of all conflicts reported statewide. Continue to provide public information on human safety. This should be done through programs as well as printed literature. Conduct workshops for public agencies, law enforcement personnel, and concerned user groups. SUMMARY: Management harvest objectives should stay at the current quotas. This allows for essentially unlimited hunting within the DAU. Game damage is minimal and seldom exceeds $1,600. Damage usually occurs to individual domestic animals such as llamas, sheep, dogs, and horses. We will continue to assist the public in various ways to keep human / lion conflicts to a minimum. With mule deer populations at a low level, public concern over predation of deer by mountain lion has escalated. Colorado Division of Wildlife is currently conducting a deer mortality study in L-4. Results from two years of data show deer mortality by mountain lions to be approximately 15 %. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/6a825aac4a8179d0015d0dea6bbd3cef.pdf 79af575a3b0d76ad27b47de487601d56 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-5 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 18, 181, 27, 28, 37, & 371 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife West Region By: Chuck Wagner Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Hot Sulphur Springs, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT This DAU encompasses Grand and Summit Counties - an area commonly referred to as Middle Park. The mountain lion season was closed in this area from the mid-1970s until 1994. HARVEST OBJECTIVE: A total of 23 mountain lions have been killed in this DAU since 1994, including three taken for damage control and two road-kills. The sex ratio of the sport harvest has been ten males and eight females. For the period 1996-98 sport harvest has averaged nearly five animals per year. The initial harvest quota for this DAU in '94 was two animals; it was raised to four in '96 and again to five in '97. From 1994 through 1998, harvest quotas have been met every year. In 1998, the harvest quota was raised to eight lions and in 1999 to 10. The primary objective for this DAU is to maintain a healthy and viable mountain lion population. Recreational opportunities involving mountain lions - both sport harvest and watchable wildlife opportunities - will be balanced against game damage payments, human conflicts, and performance of deer and elk herds. The Middle Park deer herd and the William’s Fork and Troublesome elk herds are presently above population objectives outlined in DAU plans, indicating that mountain lions have not significantly exploited numbers of these two prey species. The DOW will attempt to stabilize this mountain lion population near its present size through sport hunting. Harvest quotas are expected to remain in the range of 8-15 lions per year in the near future. Quotas may be increased in the event that goals for either game damage or incidents are exceeded, or other problems are noted. Ideally, at least one third of the harvest should consist of females to limit the reproductive potential of the population. DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: Since FY 87-88 a total of $15,429 in damage payments has been made for claims involving horses, sheep, and other livestock. During the last three fiscal years, damage payments have averaged $3,160.33 annually. Game damage payments of less than $3,500 for this DAU, averaged over the previous three years, will not result in a revised harvest strategy by DOW (any payments for high-priced exotic animals, show animals or breeding stock will not be considered within this ceiling). December 4, 2000 �CONFLICTS: Prior to 1990, there were few reports of mountain lions being sighted. However, encounters and conflicts have increased significantly in recent years, with several serious incidents occurring within Rocky Mountain National Park (which lies within GMU 18). In July 1997, a 10-yr old boy hiking ahead of his parents on the North Inlet trail in RMNP was attacked and killed by an adult female mountain lion - only the second fatal lion attack on record for Colorado. In two other incidents in RMNP, lions attempted attacks on joggers (one victim was scratched and another escaped by climbing a tree to reach the roof of a log cabin). Several encounters have occurred outside the National Park where hunters have been confronted by lions; in 1996, an elk hunter shot and killed a mountain lion that ran toward him, then crouched and hissed. Given the increasing development in Grand and Summit Counties, up to three mountain lion incidents with humans over a three-year period would be expected. Encounters with mountain lions will also increase as recreation on public lands grows. DOW will be pro-active in educating the public on how to avoid these types of problems through newspaper articles, informational materials disseminated from the Area 9 Office and Denver headquarters, radio announcements, personal contacts from DWMs, technicians and biologists, and public seminars. However, attacks on humans are not acceptable and immediate action will be taken to destroy an offending mountain lion. Although DOW has no authority to manage wildlife in RMNP, it will provide appropriate assistance to the National Park Service whenever possible. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/20b156ade2768c73d6e0ad2faf3bf577.pdf e94fd17ce5632627f7bed35d280e3a12 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR MIDDLE PARK: DAU L5 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 18, 27, 28, 37, 181, and 371 NORTHWEST REGION Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife By: Andy Holland Terrestrial Biologist Hot Sulphur Springs, Colorado November 2004 �DESCRIPTION OF DAU AND HABITAT Middle Park mountain lion Data Analysis Unit (DAU) L5 includes all of Summit County, most of Grand County, and a small portion of Routt County (Figure 1). It is bounded on the north, east, and south by the continental divide and on the west by the Gore Range. The lower elevations of Middle Park are dominated by sagebrush steppe. Plant communities progress through mountain shrub, aspen, Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, and spruce-fir as elevation increases. Property is administered in Middle Park in the following proportions: 55% U. S. Forest Service, 26% privately owned, 9% Bureau of Land Management, 6% National Park Service, and 3% State of Colorado. Figure 1. Geographical location and GMU’s of lion DAU L5 2 �KEY MANGAGENT ISSUES Mountain lion hunting season was closed in L5 from the mid 1970’s until 1994. The current management objective for L5 is to use harvest quotas in the range of 8 to 15 to manage for a stable to increasing mountain lion population. The Middle Park mountain lion population may receive considerable immigration from more lightly hunted populations to the east. STRATEGIC GOALS The present management goal for this population is to manage for a stable to increasing mountain lion population to provide recreational opportunity and maintain mountain lions in their niche as predators of deer and elk. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Historical Information- A harvest quota of 2 was set when mountain lion hunting was re-established in 1994. Over the last 10 years it has been raised incrementally to the current quota of 12 where it has been for 4 years. It is generally felt that this population has increased over that time. Over the last 10 years 96% of the L5 harvest quota has been achieved and the 5 year average is 105% quota achievement. On average, 40% and 38% of the harvest has been female over the last 10 and 5 years respectively. Thus far 70 mountain lions have been harvested, 1 was killed by the CDOW as a result of a human fatality from lion attack, 0 were killed by Wildlife Services, 0 were killed by landowners, 7 were killed in human conflict situations, and 2 road kills have been documented. All 6 Game Management Units (GMU’s) in this DAU 3 �are in a single hunt code, meaning individual GMU’s do not have their own sub quotas. The GMU’s with the majority of the mountain lion harvest are 18 and 28 and thus far 31 and 30 have been harvested in each GMU respectively. Mule deer and elk are the primary prey for mountain lions. In a New Mexico study area, where elk are absent, Logan and Sweanor (2001) found that mule deer comprised 91% of mountain lion kills and 92% of biomass consumed. Mountain lions killed 35% of radio-collared deer in this New Mexico study area (Logan and Sweanor 2001). The Middle Park mule deer population DAU D9, which corresponds to the same geographic area as the L5 lion population, is one of 4 intensive mule deer monitoring areas in Colorado. This herd contains 90 radio-collared does and 60 radio-collared fawns annually for survival estimation, cause of mortality estimation, and seasonal habitat use and movement mapping. Over the 6 years of this study, 1% of the radio-collared fawns died from mountain lion predation (3 mortalities out of 328 fawn winters) and 2% of the radio-collared does died from mountain lion predation (6 mortalities out of 485 doe years). For reference, mountain lion predation has a similar impact on this deer herd as automobile collisions which account for 3% of radio-collared fawn mortalities and 1% of radio-collared doe mortalities. While mountain lions and automobile collisions are significant sources of mortality annually, availability of winter habitat is generally considered to be the primary long term limiting factor the Middle Park mule deer population. Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) is a refuge for mountain lions because no hunting is allowed in the park. No deer or elk winter range exists in RMNP within L5 4 �boundaries so the majority of mountain lions likely follow migrating deer and elk either out of the RMNP to the west where they are hunted or to the eastern portions of RMNP and the Estes Park area where they may or may not be hunted. Therefore, very few mountain lions are in RMNP on the western slope (L5) during the mountain lion season. No other areas are thought to exist in DAU L-5 large enough to act as refuges. A refuge would need to have light enough hunting pressure to protect lions over most of their home range, thereby acting as a source for other areas within the DAU. Process- The CDOW, through the DAU planning process, attempts to manage mountain lions by first estimating population size, then a goal for an overall population trend is determined, and finally harvest quotas are set to manage for that trend. Population estimation- L5 population size was evaluated in three different ways. This was accomplished by applying a low mountain lion density to total area of the DAU under 3,200 m (10,500 ft), by applying high density to area identified as deer or elk winter range within the DAU, and finally by applying high densities to areas that are identified as deer or elk winter range and low densities to areas not identified as winter range that are below 3,200m (10,500 ft). Deer and elk winter ranges are assumed to have the highest mountain lion densities because these are their primary prey species. A high density of 4.6 mountain lions per 100 km2 (39 mi2) was applied in these areas based on densities estimated by Logan et al. (1986) on winter range in the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming. In L5, 1,813 km2 (700 mi2) were classified as deer or elk winter range. A density of 2 mountain lions per 100 Km2 (39 mi2) was assigned to areas not identified as 5 �deer or elk winter range that could potentially harbor mountain lions in winter. The area encompassed by this designation was 2,753 km2 (1,063 mi2). This criterion was chosen to recognize that these areas contain mountain lions but at a much lower density because large mammal prey base is lacking. It was assumed that no mountain lions exist above 3,200 m (10,500 ft) elevation in winter. Based on these methods and assumptions the mountain lion population in L5 is estimated at between 84 and 138 animals (Table 1). Table 1. Comparison of L5 population estimates based of 3 methods of calculation. Method Area (km2) Density Population Estimate Total DAU area below 4,566 2.0 lions per 100 km2 91 Deer and elk winter range 1,813 4.6 lions per 100 km2 84 1,813 4.6 lions per 100 km2 138 Other below 3,200 m-low 2,753 2.0 lions per 100 km2 3,200 m –low density in DAU – high density Winter range – high CDOW prefers the combined high and low density approach because it incorporates existing information about mountain lion densities on similar winter ranges and acknowledges that mountain lions do winter in areas where no deer and elk are found (Figure 2). 6 �Figure 2. Mountain Lion DAU L5 showing areas mapped as high mountain lion density in red and areas mapped as low mountain lion density shown in blue. To date there are no mountain lion density estimates available from studies within Colorado. When this information does become available the CDOW suspects we may have higher mountain lion densities than those documented because of very high deer and elk densities in many areas of western Colorado. Population estimates will be continually revised as better information becomes available. Population age structure - Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) found an age structure of 48% adults, 19% subadults, and 34% kittens in a moderately hunted mountain lion population and Logan and Sweanor (2001) found an age structure of 56% adult, 10% subadult, and 34% young in New Mexico. Based on theses studies we assume that hunted mountain 7 �lion populations are comprised of approximately 52% adults, 14% subadults, and 34% kittens, or dependent young. Accounting for age structure, the L5 population consists of an estimated 91 harvestable mountain lions (Table 2). Table 2. Projected age structure of L5 mountain lion population based on Logan and Sweanor (2001) and Ross and Jalkotzy (1992). ________________________________________________________________________ Adults Subadults Cubs Total 72 19 47 138 ________________________________________________________________________ Mortality Objective and Harvest Quota – Because quota achievement in L5 is typically 100%, CDOW treats the DAU quota and DAU harvest objective as one in the same. Therefore, the mountain lion quota is the number of mountain lions that we expect to be harvested. The current L5 management objective is to manage for a stable to increasing lion population using an annual harvest quota from 8 to 15. Logan and Sweanor (2001) documented an 11% rate of population growth rate and suggested an 11% adult mortality rate as a guideline when managing for a stable to increasing population provided that managers have reliable population estimates and that the population is on an increasing trend. This rate includes harvest, other human mortality, and natural mortality. Adult survival rates were 91% for males and 82% for females (Logan and Sweanor 2001). The CDOW assumes that some mountain lion populations in Colorado may be able withstand a higher harvest rate, such as 15%, because of higher prey densities than San Andres Mountains of New Mexico where 8 �Logan and Sweanor (2001) conducted their research. However, this formula must be used cautiously because we do not have reliable estimates of L5 population size. Previous harvest levels should be taken into account as another tool for evaluating mountain lion quotas. Immigration and recruitment of local progeny contributed about equally to growth of the adult segment in the aforementioned population (Logan and Sweanor 2001). On average males dispersed 101 km (62 mi) and females dispersed 28 km (17 mi) (Logan and Sweanor 2001). The CDOW suspects that Middle Park may receive considerable immigration from Front Range populations that are less heavily hunted. These dispersers would buffer this population from the impacts of harvest and may help explain why this population has appeared to increase under the current harvest regime. Current radiocollaring efforts on the eastern slope may provide information on dispersal rates to western Colorado. Applying this 15% mortality objective to the estimated 91 adults and subadults the L5 population can sustain 14 adult and subadult mortalities per year. This accommodates the recent harvest objectives of 10 to 12 while accounting for 2 to 4 human caused and natural mortalities per year. The CDOW documents approximately 1 non-hunting human caused mountain lion mortality annually in Middle Park. A quota of 15 may be appropriate under the current management prescription of stable to increasing if mountain lion numbers continue to increase. Experience has shown that managing within this harvest quota range should accomplish the population objective of stable to increasing. 9 �Harvest Mortality Objective Range: 8-15 Monitoring- CDOW will continue to monitor harvest, age and sex structure of the harvest, and sightings and sign of mountain lions in L5. The CDOW will continue to monitor other, non-hunting, human caused mortality rates to account for other impact to mountain lion populations. Over the last 10 years there have been 2 cases of mountain lions being killed for control purposes in L5. The CDOW has not yet studied mountain lions in L5 to allow estimation of natural mortality rates but natural mortality rates must be considered when determining an acceptable total DAU mortality. Strategies- Monitored population and harvest indices will be evaluated annually to determine appropriate quota recommendations. GAME DAMAGE Fortunately, mountain lion game damage claims have been rare in Middle Park. During the last 10 years only 2 claims have been paid. In 2000, $800 was paid for depredation of a lama and in 2001, $120 was paid for depredation of a ewe. The CDOW will continue to monitor mountain lion damage claims and consider game damage when setting harvest quotas. 10 �HUMAN CONFLICTS Prior to the 1990 there were few mountain lion sightings. However, there were several conflicts during the 1990’s with several serious incidents occurring within Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP). In July 1997, a 10-year old boy hiking ahead of his parents on the North Inlet trail in RMNP was killed by an adult female mountain lion, only the second fatal mountain lion attack in Colorado. Lions attacked joggers in two other incidents in RMNP as well, one victim was scratched and another escaped uninjured. Outside RMNP, hunters have been confronted by and subsequently killed mountain lions in 1996 and 2003. CDOW will continue to be proactive in educating the public on how to avoid encounters. However, conflicts with mountain lions will likely continue because of increasing development and recreational use in Middle Park. Attacks on humans are not acceptable and immediate action will be taken to destroy an offending mountain lion in theses unfortunate instances. 11 �LITERATURE CITED Logan, K. A., L. L. Irwin, and R. Skinner. 1986. Characteristics of a hunted mountain lion population in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 50 (4): 648-654. Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, DC. Ross, P. I. and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 56 (3): 417-426. 12 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/9c915956fbe980d9b6b3153bf376242d.pdf 71c46f00a123805c1f58a4cf447f8e0d PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION DATA ANALYSIS UNIT L-6 MANAGEMENT PLAN GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 15, 25, 26, 34, 35, 36, 43,44,45,47,444,471 NORTHWEST REGION Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife By: John Broderick Wildlife Biologist Glenwood Springs, Colorado November 2004 �DESCRIPTION OF DAU, HABITAT AND PAST MANAGEMENT Location DAU L -6 is located in west-central Colorado just west of the Continental divide. (Figure 1) I- 70 bisects the DAU from east to west. The north-west portion of the DAU contains Figure 1 all the lands that drain into the lower Colorado River from Gore canyon to Glenwood 2 �canyon (GMU’s 15, 25, 26, 34, and 35). The south- western potion of the DAU comprises of the area drained by the Roaring Fork, Crystal, and Frying Pan Rivers (GMU’s 43, 44, 47,444 and 471). The south-eastern portion of the DAU includes the area drained by the Eagle River including Gypsum creek and Brush creek (GMU 44); the Lake creeks and Homestake creek (GMU 45). Finally the north-east portion of the DAU includes the west half of the Gore Mountains, Red and White Mountain and the Piney river drainage (GMU 36). The total area of L-6 is approximately 11,978 square kilometers. (4624 sq. miles). The DAU is approximately 74% public land, 25 % private property, and 1% state land board (Figure 2). L-6 Land Status SLB 1% PVT 25% PVT DOW DOW 0% FS 56% BLM FS BLM 18% SLB Figure 2 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land represents 18 % of the public land with the United States Forest Service managing the other 56 %. The private lands are concentrated along the I- 70 corridor and along the Roaring fork and Crystal rivers. Habitat This DAU contains a complete range of mountain lion habitat. The lower canyons (5700 ft. elev.) and side drainages of the Colorado River from Canyon Creek to Gore Canyon; the lower elevations along the Piney River; and the lower drainages below Red and White Mountain is considered to be excellent terrain for mountain lion in that it is bisected by numerous canyons and rugged terrain that meets year around lion requirements for food and cover. The south side of the DAU contains some excellent mountain lion habitat in the canyons on the lower Roaring Fork and Crystal River drainages, lower Frying Pan River, and the lower Eagle River area (south of the Eagle 3 �River from Dotsero to the town of Eagle). At the other extreme is the high elevation spruce fir sub-alpine fir and alpine tundra habitats of the Gore, Sawatch and Elk mountain ranges which puma infrequently occupy. Mountain lion are primarily associated with the lower elevation habitats in the DAU among the rocky, steep canyons. The vegetation in these areas varies in relation to altitude and aspect, but is typical of high desert vegetative communities. Pinion-juniper woodlands dominate the landscape. Gamble's oak, serviceberry, mountain mahogany interspersed with aspen and Douglas fir pockets are common in the unit. Mountain shrub- sagebrush communities are typical in the medium elevations of the DAU. The higher elevations contain spruce-fir and alpine tundra habitats Human development With the exception of the Interstate 70 corridor, the northern portion of the DAU has not experienced the tremendous growth in land development compared to other areas in the mountains. There are a few small towns and communities that include Burns, Wolcott, McCoy, State Bridge, Toponas, Yampa and Radium. The southern portion of the DAU however, has experienced a tremendous growth in land development. Some of the highest human densities in the mountains occur in this area along the I-70 corridor and in the Roaring Fork Valley. Major towns in this part of the DAU include - Vail, Avon, Eagle, Gypsum, Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, Basalt, Snowmass Village and Aspen. Research shows mountain lions inhabit large geographic areas due to the innate characteristics and social habits of the species. Therefore, this Lion Data Analysis Unit (DAU) L-6 combines two previous lion DAU’s (L- 6 and L-10) into one large area. Utilizing a geographically larger DAU area increases the probability that the boundaries of the management area encompass the actual life processes of the puma population. Increasing the geographic area to a size similar to the area in which the life history of puma population unfolds increases the veracity of the base line data which the CDOW collects. The larger geographic scale of analysis is especially appropriate for Puma management in relation to: Analysis and monitoring of population trends, estimation of lion and prey densities, assessment of management actions, and preservation of refuge areas. Further, the dispersal of juveniles and the immigration of transients signifies the importance of considering lion populations management on a regional basis (Logan, et al. 1986). MANAGEMENT HISTORY Historically, this area supported a large mule deer population. Since the mid-1960's, deer numbers have declined but have had a cyclic behavior. This area still supports good populations of mule deer compared to other areas of the state. Elk populations have been steadily increasing since the turn of the century. DAU L-6 contains three entire Elk DAU’s (E-12, 15, 16), and a portion of E-6 (White River Elk herd). DAU L-6 contains five entire deer DAU’s (D-8, 13, 14, 43, 53). Prior to 1965 mountain lions were an unprotected species in Colorado. Mountain lion could be killed at any time and for any reason. In fact, bounties where paid for lion carcasses. In 1965 mountain lion were classified as a big game animal in Colorado. Thus, a license was required to hunt lions and annual seasons and quotas were established. Until the early 1980’s the interest and participation in mountain lion hunting 4 �was minimal. Since the mid 1980’s the number of hunters in DAU L-6 has increased to approximately sixty per year. Harvest and Management Statistics The CDOW has assembled pertinent management data going as far back as 1980. Data includes harvest, quotas, success rates, and harvest by sex of animal. Similar information is also available for animal damage control kills and other mortality such as road kills. Presently, season dates for lion hunting are from January 1st until March 31st and from the 1st day after the close of the regular deer and elk seasons until December 31st. New harvest quotas begin on January 1st of each year. Mountain lion annual harvests as well as quotas have increased substantially over the last 25 years. In the early 1980’s only 5 puma were harvested from the entire area defined by L-6, but by the year 2000, as many as 20 lion where being harvested annually. The most recent 5-year average for puma harvested in this DAU is 24 lion, with the 10-year average harvest equaling approximately 22 lion. The percent of female lion harvested has a 5 and 10 year average of 41%. Populations The L-6 lion population projection is based primarily on two factors; defining the area of suitable lion habitat within the 4624 sq. miles of the DAU and applying a probable lion density for that same area. Based on a comprehensive review of lion research literature, Logan and Sweanor (2001) offer a range of lion densities observed on projects from throughout the western United States. Given the similarities between Colorado and states/provinces such as Wyoming, New Mexico, Alberta, British Colombia and Idaho, densities were extrapolated from those studies to arrive at a low density estimate of 0.02 lions/sq.km. and a high density estimate Lion habitat within DAU of 0.046 lions/sq.km. In almost all cases in Colorado, lion habitat overlaps with the range of their principle food source, mule deer. However, in western Colorado, elk provide an additional prey based for lion. Anderson (2003) documented elk being a significant prey item, especially for adult male lion. Recently, elk research projects conducted by CDOW in the Rifle area and field observations by CDOW personnel and outfitters confirm elk kills by lion are not unusual. The lion population estimate for DAU L-6 was determined by delineating the area of the DAU classified as winter range for deer, elk and bighorn sheep. A high lion density estimate was attributed to this area (1617 sq. miles). The area of the DAU above 10,500 feet (1517 sq miles) was excluded from the analysis because puma infrequently occupy or utilize these high mountain habitats, where snow accumulations limit the presence of a prey base. A medium lion density was attributed to the area of the DAU that was below 10,500 feet in elevation, was not considered winter range, but still contained lion habitat (1169 sq. miles). Finally a low lion density was attributed to the remaining habitat within the DAU (320 sq. mile). The calculated population projection from this analysis of available lion habitat (Figure 4) in L-6 was determined to be approximately 301 lion. 5 �Figure 4 Population Management Alternatives and Outcomes Harvest Potential Logan and Sweanor (2001) and Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) reported that kittens, or dependent young, comprised approximately 33-34% of the total population. Given this information, an estimate of the huntable population of lion in the Dau would be 202 lion. (301* 33%= 99 juveniles, 301-99=202 independent lion). Using the portion of the projected population that are independent (adults and sub-adults) lion, an acceptable level of mortality within a DAU can be estimated. An annual harvest of 8-15% of the total legal population (adult and sub adult) would be considered biologically sustainable (Logan and Sweanor (2001). Table one illustrates the various harvest scenarios for L-6. Annual Rate Mortality 8% 12% 15% 18% 20% Hunter Harvest 15 23 29 35 39 Non-hunt Mort. 1 1 1 1 1 6 �Total Mortality 16 24 30 36 40 Table 1. Number of lion harvested at variable mortality rates. Cougar populations appear fairly resistant to moderately high levels of harvest as indicated by Anderson’s (2003) research. The caveat being, that “adjacent populations facilitate recovery through immigration and that adult female survival provides female recruitment” (Anderson 2003). Anderson (2003) also stated, “The most likely factor to inhibit cougar population reduction from harvest is limited hunter access creating local refuges. In these situations, inaccessibility will dictate the degree of resiliency in that population to hunter harvest…” Refuge areas A geographic review of Dau L-6 shows five wilderness areas (Hunter Frying pan, Holy Cross, Maroon Bells, Flattops, and Gore) totaling approximately 511 square miles; one BLM area (King Mountain) managed for non – motorized recreation totaling 19 square miles; and another seventeen parcels, totaling 300 square miles, of roadless public land identified in the White River National Forest Plan 2002. Large portions of the wilderness areas are suitable habitat for mountain lion, and much of the acreage identified in the White River Forest Plan, as roadless, are mid to low elevation lands that also contain good mountain lion habitat. Monitoring Population monitoring will be accomplished primarily from data collected as a part of the mandatory check of lions harvested. The estimated age of the animal will be determined using techniques outlined by Anderson and Lindzey (2000). Specifically, priority should be given to evidence of previous lactation, annuli aging of premolars, presence of a canine ridge and presence or absence of fore leg bars (Anderson 2003). Anderson (2003) in his study of the sex and age characteristics of cougar populations documented that, “population decline followed predictable removal patterns of the more vulnerable/ abundant classes until the least vulnerable class, adult females were most abundant in the harvest”, and that, “Moving from harvests consisting primarily of sub adults to adult males and finally to adult females suggests previous population decline” Therefore, if the percentage of adult females in the harvest begins to increase, and the average age of females in the harvest begins to decline then harvest restrictions would be warranted until male lions and sub adult lions comprised the majority of the harvest, indicating a recovering lion population. Game Damage Objective Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the number and dollar amount of game damage claims over time in DAU L-6. The 5-year average for the number of mountain lion claims is 2. The 10-year average is 3 claims. The 5-year average for the dollar amount paid for mountain lion damage is $905.00 dollars. The 10-year average is $2,179.00 dollars. In certain 7 �years the damage to domestic sheep by lion can approach $10,000.00 dollars. Number of Claims Paid 10 # of claims 8 6 4 2 19 79 19 81 19 83 19 85 19 87 19 89 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 20 01 20 03 0 Years Figure 5 Dollar amount paid for Mountain Lion damage 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 dollars 3000 2000 1000 19 79 19 81 19 83 19 85 19 87 19 89 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 20 01 20 03 0 years Figure 6 Game damage will be managed by targeting offending lions on an as needed basis. The CDOW has an effective working relationship with Wildlife Service including a contract for annual damage control assistance. Most claims can be minimized and or mitigated through effective communication with the livestock operators, landowners and CDOW. Monitoring of game damage claims will occur on an annual basis. Significant increases in game damage may induce harvest objective changes. Most likely the GMU quota will 8 �be amended to focus harvest in the area of damage. Key Management Issues – An issue raised by the publics reviewing mountain lion management in Colorado has centered upon the ability of CDOW to manage cougar populations in the context of a “metapopulation” As defined by McCullough (1996), “a metapopulation is a population distributed in subpopulations across a set of suitable habitat patches typically isolated in a matrix of unsuitable habitat, in which each sub population in each patch has a non trivial probability of extinction. Anderson (2003) investigated the genetic structure of cougar populations across the Wyoming basin to include genetic samples from cougars as distant as southwest Colorado. The conclusions of his research indicate that, “Cougars in the central Rocky Mountains exhibit high gene flow and low structure presumably because high male dispersal suffices to maintain connectivity between subpopulations”. Further, Anderson states, “our findings in the central Rocky Mountains are more consistent with a large panmictic cougar population exhibiting rapid interchange among subpopulations.” CDOW believes that managing mountain lion populations on a large geographic scale which incorporates refuge areas, and maintains healthy sex and age ratios among the lion populations will be sufficient to preserve genetic viability among Colorado’s puma population. Another management issue raised by the general public concerns mountain lion –human interactions. There is the potential that as the human population increases, along the I70 corridor and in the Roaring fork valley the potential for human –mountain lion interaction will increase. Preferred Management Strategy – Stable increasing The preferred management strategy for L-6 is to maintain an acceptable annual mortality rate, including hunting and non-hunting, in a range between 8% and 15% of the huntable population. This rate of removal would maintain or possibly increase the population of mountain lions. Quotas will be determined annually based on harvest success and other mortality factors. The long-term goal in L-6 is to maintain a healthy sustainable puma population while providing continued opportunity for sport harvest, minimizing humanlion conflicts and mitigating domestic livestock loss by lion. Literature Cited Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, DC Logan, et al. 1986). Zinn, H. C. and M. J. Manfredo. 1996. Societal preferences for mountain lion management along Colorado’s Front Range. Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit Report No. 28, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Anderson, C A. Jr. 2003. Cougar Ecology Management and Population Genetics in Wyoming. Ph. D., Dissertation Department of Zoology and Physiology. Anderson, C.R., and F.G. Lindzey. 2000 A photographic guide to estimating cougar age classes. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Larimie, Wyoming, USA. 9 �Ross, P.I., M.G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:417-426 10 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/2c3adea45be6491d717d22e0e3bfd780.pdf a1161f3b601925df7afe60ec01f43761 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION DATA ANALYSIS UNIT L-6 MANAGEMENT PLAN GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 15, 25, 26, 34, 35, 36, 43,44,45,47,444,471 NORTHWEST REGION Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife By: John Broderick Wildlife Biologist Glenwood Springs, Colorado November 2004 �DESCRIPTION OF DAU, HABITAT AND PAST MANAGEMENT Location DAU L -6 is located in west-central Colorado just west of the Continental divide. (Figure 1) I- 70 bisects the DAU from east to west. The north-west portion of the DAU contains Figure 1 all the lands that drain into the lower Colorado River from Gore canyon to Glenwood 2 �canyon (GMU’s 15, 25, 26, 34, and 35). The south- western potion of the DAU comprises of the area drained by the Roaring Fork, Crystal, and Frying Pan Rivers (GMU’s 43, 44, 47,444 and 471). The south-eastern portion of the DAU includes the area drained by the Eagle River including Gypsum creek and Brush creek (GMU 44); the Lake creeks and Homestake creek (GMU 45). Finally the north-east portion of the DAU includes the west half of the Gore Mountains, Red and White Mountain and the Piney river drainage (GMU 36). The total area of L-6 is approximately 11,978 square kilometers. (4624 sq. miles). The DAU is approximately 74% public land, 25 % private property, and 1% state land board (Figure 2). L-6 Land Status SLB 1% PVT 25% PVT DOW DOW 0% FS 56% BLM FS BLM 18% SLB Figure 2 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land represents 18 % of the public land with the United States Forest Service managing the other 56 %. The private lands are concentrated along the I- 70 corridor and along the Roaring fork and Crystal rivers. Habitat This DAU contains a complete range of mountain lion habitat. The lower canyons (5700 ft. elev.) and side drainages of the Colorado River from Canyon Creek to Gore Canyon; the lower elevations along the Piney River; and the lower drainages below Red and White Mountain is considered to be excellent terrain for mountain lion in that it is bisected by numerous canyons and rugged terrain that meets year around lion requirements for food and cover. The south side of the DAU contains some excellent mountain lion habitat in the canyons on the lower Roaring Fork and Crystal River drainages, lower Frying Pan River, and the lower Eagle River area (south of the Eagle 3 �River from Dotsero to the town of Eagle). At the other extreme is the high elevation spruce fir sub-alpine fir and alpine tundra habitats of the Gore, Sawatch and Elk mountain ranges which puma infrequently occupy. Mountain lion are primarily associated with the lower elevation habitats in the DAU among the rocky, steep canyons. The vegetation in these areas varies in relation to altitude and aspect, but is typical of high desert vegetative communities. Pinion-juniper woodlands dominate the landscape. Gamble's oak, serviceberry, mountain mahogany interspersed with aspen and Douglas fir pockets are common in the unit. Mountain shrub- sagebrush communities are typical in the medium elevations of the DAU. The higher elevations contain spruce-fir and alpine tundra habitats Human development With the exception of the Interstate 70 corridor, the northern portion of the DAU has not experienced the tremendous growth in land development compared to other areas in the mountains. There are a few small towns and communities that include Burns, Wolcott, McCoy, State Bridge, Toponas, Yampa and Radium. The southern portion of the DAU however, has experienced a tremendous growth in land development. Some of the highest human densities in the mountains occur in this area along the I-70 corridor and in the Roaring Fork Valley. Major towns in this part of the DAU include - Vail, Avon, Eagle, Gypsum, Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, Basalt, Snowmass Village and Aspen. Research shows mountain lions inhabit large geographic areas due to the innate characteristics and social habits of the species. Therefore, this Lion Data Analysis Unit (DAU) L-6 combines two previous lion DAU’s (L- 6 and L-10) into one large area. Utilizing a geographically larger DAU area increases the probability that the boundaries of the management area encompass the actual life processes of the puma population. Increasing the geographic area to a size similar to the area in which the life history of puma population unfolds increases the veracity of the base line data which the CDOW collects. The larger geographic scale of analysis is especially appropriate for Puma management in relation to: Analysis and monitoring of population trends, estimation of lion and prey densities, assessment of management actions, and preservation of refuge areas. Further, the dispersal of juveniles and the immigration of transients signifies the importance of considering lion populations management on a regional basis (Logan, et al. 1986). MANAGEMENT HISTORY Historically, this area supported a large mule deer population. Since the mid-1960's, deer numbers have declined but have had a cyclic behavior. This area still supports good populations of mule deer compared to other areas of the state. Elk populations have been steadily increasing since the turn of the century. DAU L-6 contains three entire Elk DAU’s (E-12, 15, 16), and a portion of E-6 (White River Elk herd). DAU L-6 contains five entire deer DAU’s (D-8, 13, 14, 43, 53). Prior to 1965 mountain lions were an unprotected species in Colorado. Mountain lion could be killed at any time and for any reason. In fact, bounties where paid for lion carcasses. In 1965 mountain lion were classified as a big game animal in Colorado. Thus, a license was required to hunt lions and annual seasons and quotas were established. Until the early 1980’s the interest and participation in mountain lion hunting 4 �was minimal. Since the mid 1980’s the number of hunters in DAU L-6 has increased to approximately sixty per year. Harvest and Management Statistics The CDOW has assembled pertinent management data going as far back as 1980. Data includes harvest, quotas, success rates, and harvest by sex of animal. Similar information is also available for animal damage control kills and other mortality such as road kills. Presently, season dates for lion hunting are from January 1st until March 31st and from the 1st day after the close of the regular deer and elk seasons until December 31st. New harvest quotas begin on January 1st of each year. Mountain lion annual harvests as well as quotas have increased substantially over the last 25 years. In the early 1980’s only 5 puma were harvested from the entire area defined by L-6, but by the year 2000, as many as 20 lion where being harvested annually. The most recent 5-year average for puma harvested in this DAU is 24 lion, with the 10-year average harvest equaling approximately 22 lion. The percent of female lion harvested has a 5 and 10 year average of 41%. Populations The L-6 lion population projection is based primarily on two factors; defining the area of suitable lion habitat within the 4624 sq. miles of the DAU and applying a probable lion density for that same area. Based on a comprehensive review of lion research literature, Logan and Sweanor (2001) offer a range of lion densities observed on projects from throughout the western United States. Given the similarities between Colorado and states/provinces such as Wyoming, New Mexico, Alberta, British Colombia and Idaho, densities were extrapolated from those studies to arrive at a low density estimate of 0.02 lions/sq.km. and a high density estimate Lion habitat within DAU of 0.046 lions/sq.km. In almost all cases in Colorado, lion habitat overlaps with the range of their principle food source, mule deer. However, in western Colorado, elk provide an additional prey based for lion. Anderson (2003) documented elk being a significant prey item, especially for adult male lion. Recently, elk research projects conducted by CDOW in the Rifle area and field observations by CDOW personnel and outfitters confirm elk kills by lion are not unusual. The lion population estimate for DAU L-6 was determined by delineating the area of the DAU classified as winter range for deer, elk and bighorn sheep. A high lion density estimate was attributed to this area (1617 sq. miles). The area of the DAU above 10,500 feet (1517 sq miles) was excluded from the analysis because puma infrequently occupy or utilize these high mountain habitats, where snow accumulations limit the presence of a prey base. A medium lion density was attributed to the area of the DAU that was below 10,500 feet in elevation, was not considered winter range, but still contained lion habitat (1169 sq. miles). Finally a low lion density was attributed to the remaining habitat within the DAU (320 sq. mile). The calculated population projection from this analysis of available lion habitat (Figure 4) in L-6 was determined to be approximately 301 lion. 5 �Figure 4 Population Management Alternatives and Outcomes Harvest Potential Logan and Sweanor (2001) and Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) reported that kittens, or dependent young, comprised approximately 33-34% of the total population. Given this information, an estimate of the huntable population of lion in the Dau would be 202 lion. (301* 33%= 99 juveniles, 301-99=202 independent lion). Using the portion of the projected population that are independent (adults and sub-adults) lion, an acceptable level of mortality within a DAU can be estimated. An annual harvest of 8-15% of the total legal population (adult and sub adult) would be considered biologically sustainable (Logan and Sweanor (2001). Table one illustrates the various harvest scenarios for L-6. Annual Rate Mortality 8% 12% 15% 18% 20% Hunter Harvest 15 23 29 35 39 Non-hunt Mort. 1 1 1 1 1 6 �Total Mortality 16 24 30 36 40 Table 1. Number of lion harvested at variable mortality rates. Cougar populations appear fairly resistant to moderately high levels of harvest as indicated by Anderson’s (2003) research. The caveat being, that “adjacent populations facilitate recovery through immigration and that adult female survival provides female recruitment” (Anderson 2003). Anderson (2003) also stated, “The most likely factor to inhibit cougar population reduction from harvest is limited hunter access creating local refuges. In these situations, inaccessibility will dictate the degree of resiliency in that population to hunter harvest…” Refuge areas A geographic review of Dau L-6 shows five wilderness areas (Hunter Frying pan, Holy Cross, Maroon Bells, Flattops, and Gore) totaling approximately 511 square miles; one BLM area (King Mountain) managed for non – motorized recreation totaling 19 square miles; and another seventeen parcels, totaling 300 square miles, of roadless public land identified in the White River National Forest Plan 2002. Large portions of the wilderness areas are suitable habitat for mountain lion, and much of the acreage identified in the White River Forest Plan, as roadless, are mid to low elevation lands that also contain good mountain lion habitat. Monitoring Population monitoring will be accomplished primarily from data collected as a part of the mandatory check of lions harvested. The estimated age of the animal will be determined using techniques outlined by Anderson and Lindzey (2000). Specifically, priority should be given to evidence of previous lactation, annuli aging of premolars, presence of a canine ridge and presence or absence of fore leg bars (Anderson 2003). Anderson (2003) in his study of the sex and age characteristics of cougar populations documented that, “population decline followed predictable removal patterns of the more vulnerable/ abundant classes until the least vulnerable class, adult females were most abundant in the harvest”, and that, “Moving from harvests consisting primarily of sub adults to adult males and finally to adult females suggests previous population decline” Therefore, if the percentage of adult females in the harvest begins to increase, and the average age of females in the harvest begins to decline then harvest restrictions would be warranted until male lions and sub adult lions comprised the majority of the harvest, indicating a recovering lion population. Game Damage Objective Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the number and dollar amount of game damage claims over time in DAU L-6. The 5-year average for the number of mountain lion claims is 2. The 10-year average is 3 claims. The 5-year average for the dollar amount paid for mountain lion damage is $905.00 dollars. The 10-year average is $2,179.00 dollars. In certain 7 �years the damage to domestic sheep by lion can approach $10,000.00 dollars. Number of Claims Paid 10 # of claims 8 6 4 2 19 79 19 81 19 83 19 85 19 87 19 89 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 20 01 20 03 0 Years Figure 5 Dollar amount paid for Mountain Lion damage 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 dollars 3000 2000 1000 19 79 19 81 19 83 19 85 19 87 19 89 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 20 01 20 03 0 years Figure 6 Game damage will be managed by targeting offending lions on an as needed basis. The CDOW has an effective working relationship with Wildlife Service including a contract for annual damage control assistance. Most claims can be minimized and or mitigated through effective communication with the livestock operators, landowners and CDOW. Monitoring of game damage claims will occur on an annual basis. Significant increases in game damage may induce harvest objective changes. Most likely the GMU quota will 8 �be amended to focus harvest in the area of damage. Key Management Issues – An issue raised by the publics reviewing mountain lion management in Colorado has centered upon the ability of CDOW to manage cougar populations in the context of a “metapopulation” As defined by McCullough (1996), “a metapopulation is a population distributed in subpopulations across a set of suitable habitat patches typically isolated in a matrix of unsuitable habitat, in which each sub population in each patch has a non trivial probability of extinction. Anderson (2003) investigated the genetic structure of cougar populations across the Wyoming basin to include genetic samples from cougars as distant as southwest Colorado. The conclusions of his research indicate that, “Cougars in the central Rocky Mountains exhibit high gene flow and low structure presumably because high male dispersal suffices to maintain connectivity between subpopulations”. Further, Anderson states, “our findings in the central Rocky Mountains are more consistent with a large panmictic cougar population exhibiting rapid interchange among subpopulations.” CDOW believes that managing mountain lion populations on a large geographic scale which incorporates refuge areas, and maintains healthy sex and age ratios among the lion populations will be sufficient to preserve genetic viability among Colorado’s puma population. Another management issue raised by the general public concerns mountain lion –human interactions. There is the potential that as the human population increases, along the I70 corridor and in the Roaring fork valley the potential for human –mountain lion interaction will increase. Preferred Management Strategy – Stable increasing The preferred management strategy for L-6 is to maintain an acceptable annual mortality rate, including hunting and non-hunting, in a range between 8% and 15% of the huntable population. This rate of removal would maintain or possibly increase the population of mountain lions. Quotas will be determined annually based on harvest success and other mortality factors. The long-term goal in L-6 is to maintain a healthy sustainable puma population while providing continued opportunity for sport harvest, minimizing humanlion conflicts and mitigating domestic livestock loss by lion. Literature Cited Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, DC Logan, et al. 1986). Zinn, H. C. and M. J. Manfredo. 1996. Societal preferences for mountain lion management along Colorado’s Front Range. Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit Report No. 28, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. Anderson, C A. Jr. 2003. Cougar Ecology Management and Population Genetics in Wyoming. Ph. D., Dissertation Department of Zoology and Physiology. Anderson, C.R., and F.G. Lindzey. 2000 A photographic guide to estimating cougar age classes. Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Larimie, Wyoming, USA. 9 �Ross, P.I., M.G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:417-426 10 �L-6 DAU Plan Amendment July 2011 Because of the increasing number of lion sightings and livestock/pet/bighorn sheep conflicts in lion DAU L-6, Area personnel believe that the lion density in the DAU is higher than estimated previously in the original 2004 DAU plan. The lion population estimate and harvest objectives are reexamined in this L-6 DAU plan amendment. Lion population estimate In the current (2011) estimate, we included areas up to 11,500 feet elevation as potential lion habitat and we used averages of population densities and age/sex composition from published demographic studies of mountain lions in multi-prey systems (Table 1; Seidensticker et al. 1973, Logan et al. 1986, Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Spreadbury et al. 1996, Logan and Sweanor 2001, Cooley et al. 2009, Robinson and DeSimone 2011). Areas within deer, elk, and bighorn sheep winter range that are below 11,500 feet elevation (4,150 km2) were considered high quality lion habitat and were assumed to have a lion density of 4.5 lions/100km2. Areas not within winter range and up to 11,500 feet elevation (4,631 km2) were considered medium quality lion habitat with an assumed lion density of 3.5 lions/100 km2. Areas classified in the Basinwide habitat cover type map as developed, agricultural, rangeland, and other open habitat types (values 1-6, 9-11, 12, 13, 19, 20, and 96-99) that were below 11,500 feet (762 km2) were considered low quality lion habitat with an assumed lion density of 2.0 lions/100 km2. Areas classified as water (value 114) in the Basinwide map, as well as areas above 11,500 feet, totaled 871 km2 and were considered non-habitat for lions. See Figure 1 for a map of lion habitat quality in L-6. These densities, extrapolated to the foregoing areas, yield a projected population of 365 total lions. Assuming 61% of the population to be independent (adult and subadult) lions (Table 1), an estimated 223 independent lions are available for harvest. Harvest objective Based on the estimate of 223 adult and subadult lions in the population, at an 8-15% total mortality rate, which is described in the DAU plan as an assumed sustainable mortality rate for stable/increasing management, 16 to 31 lions (average of 24) could be harvested annually (Table 3). Under a more liberal harvest strategy, assuming a total mortality rate of 12-15%, the annual harvest would be 24 to 30 lions (average 28) (Table 3). To attempt to address localized lion conflict issues by managing the overall DAU population size through harvest, we chose the more liberal harvest mortality rate of 12-15% as a harvest objective. Whether this approach will lead to fewer lion conflicts is yet unknown. Therefore, we will monitor the level of human conflicts and game damage claims on an annual basis. Sex and age composition of the harvest will continue to be monitored to determine whether an increase in harvest results in a change in the age and sex composition of harvest, which may be suggestive of changes in population size (Anderson and Lindzey 2005). Page | 1 �Literature Cited Anderson, C. R. and F. G. Lindzey. 2005. Experimental evaluation of population trend and harvest composition in a Wyoming cougar population. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:179-188. Cooley, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, G. M. Koehler, H. S. Robinson, and B. T. Maletzke. 2009. Does hunting regulate cougar populations? A test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis. Ecology 90:2913-2921. Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert Puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA. Logan, K. A., L. L. Irwin, and R. Skinner. 1986. Characteristics of a hunted mountain lion population in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:648-654. Robinson, H. S. and R. M. DeSimone. 2011. The Garnet Range Mountain Lion Study: Characteristics of a Hunted Population in West-central Montana. Final report, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Wildlife Bureau, Helena, MT. 102 pp. Ross, P. I. and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:417-426. Seidensticker, J. C., M. G. Hornocker, W. V. Wiles, and J. P. Messick. 1973. Mountain lion social organization in the Idaho Primitive Area. Wildlife Monographs No. 35. 60 pp. 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. Page | 2 �Location Area km2 Adult M Adult F Subadults Kittens % kittens low 2 high 6 low 0 high 5 low 1 high 7 low 17% high 33% mean 25% Total lions/100 km2 low high mean 1.2 4.0 2.6 Source Idaho 520 low high 3 3 Wyoming Alberta 741 780 3 4 3 5 7 8 9 12 1 2 7 10 13 6 17 18 54% 30% 47% 40% 51% 35% 3.2 2.6 4.9 5.8 4.0 4.2 British Columbia New Mexico (TA) New Mexico (RA) Washington (NE) Washington (Central) Montana 540 1 2 4 4 2 4 11 11 61% 52% 57% 3.3 3.9 3.6 703 4 6 3 9 0 5 3 15 30% 43% 36% 1.4 5.0 3.2 1356 7 11 6 16 1 5 6 23 30% 42% 36% 1.5 4.1 2.8 722 2.1 4.8 3.5 Seidensticker et al. 1973 Logan et al. 1986 Ross and Jalkotzy 1992 Spreadbury et al. 1996 Logan and Sweanor 2001 Logan and Sweanor 2001 Cooley et al. 2009 655 2.5 4.8 3.6 Cooley et al. 2009 30% 2.2 3.6 4.0 Robinson and DeSimone 2011 43% 39% 2.2 4.5 3.5 57% 61% 915 average: 37% % independent lions: 63% Table 1. Lion age/sex composition and population densities in multi-prey systems of the western U.S. Page | 3 �Habitat quality Area_km2 Assumed lion density (lions/100 km2) Estimated number of lions of all age classes High 4,150 4.5 187 Medium 4,631 3.5 162 Low 731 2.2 16 Non-habitat 871 0 0 L-6 total 10,383 365 Estimated number of adult & subadult lions (assuming 61% of total population) 223 Table 2. Estimated lion population in DAU L-6. Mortality type 8% 12% 15% Total mortality (2011 recalculation) Non-hunt mortality objective Harvest Objective (2011 recalculation) 18 27 33 Average annual mortality at 8-15% range 26 3 15 3 24 3 30 3 23 Annual Mortality Rate Average annual mortality at 12-15% range 30 3 27 Old harvest objective (200515 23 29 22 2010/11 seasons) Table 3. Total mortality and harvest mortality at various annual mortality rates. The past harvest objective was based upon 8-15% mortality, or 15-29 lions harvested (average 22 lions). The new harvest objective calculation would be an average of 24 lions harvested (based on a 8-15% total mortality) or 28 lions harvested (based on a more liberal harvest of 12-15% total mortality) Page | 4 �Figure 1. Lion habitat quality in DAU L-6. High quality habitat is considered ato be areas within deer, elk, and bighorn sheep winter range below 11,500 feet elevation. Medium quality habitat is areas outside of big game winter range and below 11,500 feet. Low quality habitat is considered areas of urban development and open rangeland below 11,500 feet. All areas above 11,500 feet are considered nonhabitat. Page | 5 �Page | 6 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/2bb7e21be233bef3e85926a0cffdfcfe.pdf c457c4d9599b24f97f12db12ab870fb6 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-6 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 15, 25, 26, 34, 35, & 36 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife West Region By: Gene Byrne Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Glenwood Springs, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA, HABITAT, AND PAST MANAGEMENT This lion unit is located in the lower Colorado River drainage in west central Colorado. It is composed of six Game Management Units (GMU) that include GMUs 15, 25, 26, 34, 35, & 36. The CDOW designation of this lion area is L-6. The unit is considered to be good mountain lion habitat. Some of the topography is considered to be excellent terrain for mountain lion in that it is bisected by numerous canyons and rugged terrain that meets year around lion requirements for food and cover. The better mountain lion habitat in the DAUs includes all of the lower elevations in GMU 35 (Castle Peak), the lower canyons and side drainages of the Colorado River from Canyon Creek to Gore Canyon, and the lower elevations along the Piney River and the lower drainages below Red and White Mountain. Mountain lion are primarily associated with the lower elevation habitats with lots of rocky, steep canyons. The vegetation in these areas varies in relation to elevation and aspect, but is typical of high desert vegetative communities. Pinyon-juniper woodlands dominate the landscape. At higher elevations, the vegetation becomes more diverse as annual precipitation increases. Mountain shrubland and aspen woodlands are intermixed with sagebrush communities and are found in the medium elevations in the DAU. Historically, this area supported a large mule deer population. Elk populations have been steadily increasing since the turn of the century. Since the mid-1960's, deer numbers have declined but have had a cyclic behavior. This area still supports good populations of mule deer compared to other areas of the state. With the exception of the Interstate 70 corridor area in GMUs 35 and 36, the area has not experienced the tremendous growth in land development compared to other areas in the mountains. There are no major towns in the DAU, only a few small towns and communities that include Burns, Wolcott, McCoy, State Bridge, Toponas, Yampa, and Radium. The large resorts of Vail, Avon, and Steamboat border the DAU and do encroach into this DAU. Human conflicts with mountain lion in the DAU have been rare but random December 4, 2000 �observations of mountain lion are on the increase along with road kills, game damage harvest, and animal damage control harvest. Also, all of the GMUs in this DAU are showing an increase in the number of licenses and the sport harvest. While the CDOW does not conduct any lion density surveys in this DAU, these increases are believed to be indicative of an increasing trend of mountain lion in this area. Domestic sheep graze some of the National Forest land in GMU 15, 34, 35, & 36, and lion depredation can be a problem. Each year, approximately 1-2 lions are killed by woolgrowers to protect their domestic sheep. ISSUES: There are four main issues regarding this lion population. These include (1) livestock damage (predator losses) to domestic sheep populations, (2) impacts or perceived impacts to mule deer populations, (3) the maintenance of a secure population of mountain lions and (4) an apparent increase in the lion population. 1. Claims paid for domestic sheep losses to mountain lion have averaged about $3,160 over the last three years. Since 1987, there have been claims submitted to CDOW for reimbursement that total $15,429. The average for these 11 years is $1,402. The highest losses were in 1996 when claims totaled $8,723. No claims were submitted in 7 of the last 12 years (1987-88 through 1998-99). 2. Mule deer populations have shown a general decline in this lion DAU, but the magnitude of the impact to the deer herd by lion are unknown. Lion could be a factor in this decline. Elk can be negatively impacted by lion depredation but are currently at or above the population objective. 3. The CDOW is concerned about maintaining a viable lion population that is generally in balance with habitat, prey base, and societal values. Heavy harvest of adult males may influence territorial relationships and may cause an increase in lion populations above levels that would be found in naturally regulated or unhunted populations. It may be possible that by increasing the harvest on adult males, more kittens survive. This could be the underlying cause of the increase in the lion population in this area. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: Lion license quotas will be regulated in an effort to achieve the unit objective. Presently, the harvest quota is divided into 4 units in the DAU: GMUs 15; 25, 26 & 34; 35; and 36. The CDOW plans to continue with this harvest management system. The average harvest for mountain lions in the DAU for the last three years (1995-97) has been 18 animals. The harvest has increased in the last 10 years, in 1989 the harvest was 4 lion and by 1998 the harvested increased to 25 (14 males and 11 females). The license quota has increased every year since 1993. In 1989-92 the quota was 9. In 1999 the quota was 30, and was raised to 35 in 2000. Hunter success rates have also increased. In 1989 the success rate was 44%; in 1997 the success rate was 61% - four more lions were killed than the allowed quota. This was probably a result of administration and notification errors. The sex ratio of the harvest has varied somewhat, but has not changed greatly over the years, about 2 males: 1 female. The preferred management recommendation is to maintain license quotas at the present level. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/916ec458d305b4477ad2944e5b345f50.pdf 6a95424c9ec666fe22dbbd659f7bcad0 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION DATA ANALYSIS UNIT L-7 MANAGEMENT PLAN GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 10, 11, 211, 12, 13, 131, 231, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32 and 33 Northwest Region Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife By: Van Graham, Darby Finley and Jim Hicks Terrestrial Wildlife Biologists November 2004 �DESCRIPTION OF DAU, HABITAT AND PAST MANAGEMENT Location and Habitat Mountain lion Data Analysis Unit (DAU) L-7 is located in Northwest Colorado within Mesa, Garfield, Rio Blanco, Moffat and Routt Counties (Figure 1). The DAU includes the Colorado, White and Yampa River drainages. Habitat varies from the cold desert communities at approximately 4,600 feet in elevation to high mountain peaks at nearly 12,000 feet in the Flattop Wilderness Area near Meeker. The habitat is considered to be some of the best mountain lion habitat in Colorado. The DAU is 8,129 square miles in size with land primarily under control by Federal land management agencies including Bureau of Land Management (48.2%), US Forest Service (12.9%), National Park Service (1.4%), various state agencies (2.9%) and private landowners (34.6%). Figure 1. Mountain lion DUA L-7 boundary and GMUs. It is composed of 15 Game Management Units and is one of the largest lion DAUs in the state. 2 �In order to more efficiently manage the lion population in this area, the CDOW has combined two lion DAUs in to one large unit. L-7 is now composed of old lion DAUs L-7 and L-8. Previously, L-7 did not include GMUs 30, 31, 32, and 33. Mountain lion social habits and movement patterns did not fit well with the old southern boundary of L-7 that was essentially the divide between the Colorado and White River drainages. Lion movements across the top of the Bookcliffs and the Roan Plateau allowed for significant interchange of lion in this area. We feel the new DAU will provide for better management of lion in this area. The decision was made to apply the old designation of L-7 to the new DAU boundaries. Presently, CDOW is not using the designation L-8 to apply to any lion population. MANAGEMENT HISTORY: Statewide lion season dates are from January1 through March 31 and from the first day after the close of the regular deer and elk seasons until December 31. New harvest quotas begin on January 1 of each year. According to the first mountain lion management guidelines report for L-7 (CDOW 1999), “No formal estimate of the lion population has been made in the DAU (old D-7 boundary). It is believed that, determined by indicators such as sightings, tracks, and harvest rate, the population has increased over the last 10 years. This may be, in part, driven by the higher removal rate of mature males, thus losing the natural population control influence they exert.” Past management goals, while not specifically documented in the initial DAU plans (called management guidelines) for old L-7 and L-8, were to maintain lion populations at a stable levels. In some portions of the DAU, lion damage to domestic livestock has been significant and damage control kill was as high as 26 lion in 1992. Much of the damage has been done to domestic sheep. In the initial plan there were some comments regarding a “concern that the increased quotas have de-stabilized the population, actually increasing numbers of young lions which are more prone to cause (livestock damage) problems. Considering the recent large increases and the lack of those quotas being met, no changes should be sought in the near future with quotas by unit being held at the present level.” Mountain Lion Management Approach In the last year (2003-2004), the CDOW has developed a defined approach to management of lion populations. The first strategy is termed managing for a stableincreasing population. The second is termed management designed to suppress a population. In 2003, the CDOW and Colorado Wildlife Commission indicated that the management strategy for the DAU L-7 would be characterized as a population with a management goal of suppression. Harvest and Management Statistics The CDOW has assembled pertinent management data going as far back as 1980 (Appendix A). Data includes harvest, quotas, success rates, and harvest by sex of animal. Information is also available that includes similar information for animal damage control kills and other mortality such as road kills. 3 �Mountain lion annual harvest (Figure 2) as well as quotas (Figure 3) has increased substantially over the last 25 years. Eleven lions were harvested in 1980 and the number increased to a high of 144 in 1998. In 2003, the harvest was 81 lion. Average harvest for the most recent five years was 92 animals and for the most recent 10 years was 102. Quotas have also increased over the last 25 years. The DAU harvest quota was 37 in 1980 and 191 in 2004. The highest quota of 196 occurred in 1999 and 2000. Female lion have composed approximately 43% of the total harvest for the last 5 years. Fifty-four percent of the lion harvest was female in 1998, which was the highest ever recorded. Populations The L-7 lion population projection is based primarily on two factors; defining the area of suitable lion habitat within the 8,129 square miles DAU and applying a probable lion density for that same area. Due to their low relative density, secretive nature and the subsequent lack of quality field methods for estimating population sizes for lions as outlined by researchers (Anderson 1983, Logan and Sweanor 2001), the L-7 estimate could not be based on quantitative field observations within the DAU. It is however, based on a synthesis of lion densities from other published studies in the western U.S. as well as geographic information systems (GIS) data on habitat and spatial variables. 160 140 Lions Harvested 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Figure 2. Mountain lion harvest in DAU L-7, 1988-2003. 4 �250 Quota 200 150 Series1 100 50 20 04 20 02 20 00 19 98 19 96 19 94 19 92 19 90 19 88 19 86 19 84 19 82 19 80 0 Year Figure 3. Mountain lion quotas in DAU L-7, 1980-2004. In almost all cases in Colorado, lion habitat overlaps with the range of their principle food source, mule deer. However, in western Colorado, elk provide an additional prey base for lion. Recently, elk research projects conducted by CDOW in the Rifle area and field observations by CDOW personnel and ranchers confirm elk kills by lion are not unusual. Mule deer, elk and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep winter range (Figure 4) encompass much of the DAU. Deer and elk populations in this DAU are, in much of the DAU, at or above long-term DAU population objectives. Given the constraints and exclusions outlined above, the total area in the population projection calculations was 7,939.5 mi2. Based on a comprehensive review of lion research literature, Logan and Sweanor (2001) offer a range of lion densities observed on projects from throughout the western United States. Given the similarities between Colorado and states/provinces such as Wyoming, New Mexico, Alberta, British Colombia and Idaho, densities were extrapolated from those studies to arrive at a low density estimate of 2.0 lions/100 km2 and a high density estimate of 4.6 lions/100 km2 in L-7. In addition the CDOW used these data to develop a medium population density of 3.0 lion per 100 km2. Multiplying these high, medium and low densities by a given area of lion habitat generates a population estimate. Although current literature supports the range from 2.0 to 4.6 lion per 100 km2, there is reason to believe that prey densities and prey species composition in Colorado is somewhat higher and different than those described in the supporting reports. Colorado’s elk populations are the highest anywhere in the United States and provide alternate prey for the lion’s main food base of mule deer. Colorado is initiating, in 2004, an intensive (approximately 10 years) mountain lion population study on the Uncompahgre Plateau to document lion densities. However, until this or other information is available, we will continue to use the standard lion densities presented here in our population estimates. We suspect our prey densities are higher, to much higher than those reported in other studies and we think when the more precise numbers for Colorado are developed, our current lion population assessments will be demonstrated to be low estimates. 5 �Age structure within the total L-7 population was also calculated based on a formula generated from the existing lion literature (Logan and Sweanor 2001). Both Logan and Sweanor (2001) and Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) reported that kittens, or dependent young, comprised approximately 33-34% of the total population. It is difficult to obtain data on adult sex ratios, but literature indicates that a 1:1 ratio is a reasonable estimate. In our population for D-7, male harvest is slightly higher than female. However, due to the nature of males in a lion population, they may be somewhat more susceptible to natural mortality. The calculated population point projection as based on overall analysis of available lion habitat and prey densities is 859 lion (Table 1). For the point projection estimate, we mapped areas of high, medium and low lion densities and used these data to estimate the population (Figure 4). Overall habitat in L-7 can be subjectively rated as being excellent to good due to terrain, vegetation, and historic lion harvest as well as known preferred lion habitat in Colorado. We also determined a possible population range of between 946 and 411 lion based on total acreage in the DAU below 10,500 ft elevation and high and low lion densities. Table 1. Estimated mountain lion population in DAU L-7. Population Range Population Males Females Subadults Cubs High Density 946 248 248 129 322 Low Density 411 108 108 56 140 Point Projection 859 225 225 117 292 In L-7, winter range lion habitat is defined as areas below 10,500 ft. in elevation and does not include those seasonal habitat areas which are unavailable to lion during winter month where snow accumulations limit the presence of a prey base. The only area in L7 above 10,500 feet is in the Flattops Wilderness area east of Meeker. Snow accumulations in that area eliminate the prey base of deer and elk during the most severe portions of the winter forcing lion to move to lower elevations. Estimates of male and female winter home range size vary widely between studies in western North America. Males clearly have larger home ranges, often with minimal overlap of other males, while females tend to have smaller home ranges with a tolerance for more same-sex overlap. In many cases one male’s home range boundaries will include several female ranges. Female winter home range estimates between some study areas span an order of magnitude; in British Columbia winter ranges were observed at 28 km2 in Idaho 90 km2 and in Utah 207 km2. Male estimates on winter range in Idaho were 126 km2 while researchers in Utah again observed much larger 6 �home ranges averaging 503 km2. The current and past research in Colorado has generated overall annual home range estimates which don’t allow comparison to available winter range calculations. Figure 4. Mountain lion density estimates across DAU L-7. Population Management Alternatives and Outcomes Harvest Potential Using the portion of the projected population that is huntable (adults and sub-adults), an acceptable level of overall mortality within a DAU can be estimated. Logan and Sweanor (2001) suggest that the level of hunting and non-hunting mortality can be gauged relative to the rate of population growth. They further suggest that managers can use the rate of growth documented at 11% by Logan as an acceptable annual mortality assuming managers have a reliable estimate of the lion population and that the population is increasing. Neither of the parameters is known definitely in L-7. Thus, it is important to maintain conservative caution when generating an estimate of a harvest level that the population can support. Current CDOW guidance (J. Apker, pers. comm..) is to use 8-15% of the huntable population to provide a range of acceptable harvest for populations managed for sustained recreational opportunity and a stable-increasing lion population. Logan and Sweanor have documented the high resiliency of lion populations and have recorded a 28% growth rate in a treatment area following a period of high lion removal rates. Thus, the CDOW suggests that for population control, managers may have to apply rates of removal at or exceeding 28% of the population for a period of 7 �several years to suppress a population. The best estimate of lion population is this DAU is 859 animals. The estimated number of huntable lion is 567, which excludes kittens. Two management options are available for mountain lion management guidelines: stable-increasing and suppression. Stable-Increasing Population Management Using a harvest rate of 12% (average of 8% and 15%) applied to a huntable population of 567 lion would result in an annual harvest of 68 male and female lion. Suppression Management A suppression management strategy results in a decline in the overall numbers in a population, rather than the population remaining stable or increasing. Using a harvest rate of 28% applied to a huntable population of 567 would result in an annual harvest of 159 mountain lion. The current average 5-year DAU harvest is 92 lion, which is a 16.2% harvest rate. This rate of removal is 35% greater than 12% rate used for a stable-increasing population. Thus, indications are that the current management has tended to suppress the population in this DAU. However, the suppression intensity tends to be less aggressive than the upper suggested limit of 28%. Non-hunting Mortality – Annual Estimate Non-hunting lion mortality has varied over the years. For the last five years, the average has been four per year. This has been equally divided between damage control and other mortality. Other mortality mostly includes road kill lion. Non-hunting mortality has been as high as 33 lions in 1992. Twenty-six of these were killed during damage control programs, almost entirely for domestic sheep losses. The current expectation is that non-hunting mortality will be maintained within the fiveyear average for the foreseeable future. Therefore, this estimate will be integrated into the preferred management strategy for this DAU. If increased lion mortality from nonhunter sources is observed over several subsequent years, then future hunter mortality objectives will be modified to reflect the predicted impacts to the population due to this factor. Game Damage Objective Game damage payments in L-7 have been some of the highest in Colorado for a number of years. The largest portion of the damage has been to domestic sheep. The 5-year average claims totals $22,562, with 95.5%, 2.9% and 1.5% of the losses attributed to sheep, other livestock, and cattle, respectively. In 1997, claims were paid totaling $119,853. That year 922 domestic sheep were killed by lions. 8 �The number of damage claims has decreased dramatically since 1995. In 2003 there were only two claims filed. It is likely that this decrease is, in large part, due to reductions in domestic sheep numbers in the DAU. The number of claims also has declined because the CDOW started doing a better job of investigation of claims and hired claims investigators to verify losses to lions. The CDOW is not responsible for damage caused by coyotes and it was thought that some paid claims may have been due to losses by coyotes. The Colorado Wildlife Commission began a more detailed analysis of claims to further substantiate damage caused by mountain lions. Figure 5. Sheep and lamb production in the United States in recent years, U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. 9 �120000 100000 Dollars 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 95 96 97 98 99 0 1 2 3 Year Figure 6. Amount (dollars) of domestic sheep damage claims paid annually in DAU L-7 between 1995 and 2003. Number of claims Damage Claims 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 95 96 97 98 99 0 1 2 3 Year sheep cattle other Figure 7. Number of game damage claims filed from 1995-2003. Barriers and Strategies Game damage should be managed by targeting offending lions on an as needed basis. 10 �The CDOW has an effective working relationship with the United State Wildlife Services agency including a contract for annual damage control assistance. Claims can be minimized through effective communication with landowners and CDOW. Monitoring Monitoring of game damage claims will occur on an annual basis. Significant increases in game damage may induce harvest objective changes. Most likely the GMU quota will be amended to focus harvest in the area of damage. Human Conflict Objectives There is no formal number of allowable human/lion conflicts outlined for L-7. Human conflicts with mountain lion in this DAU have been rare but random observations of mountain lion are on the increase. Road kill lion along the I -70 corridor and along Highway 13 have occurred in the past. As the human population increases, along the I70 corridor human - mountain lion interaction will likely increase. Education of the public on how to live in lion country appears to be the most successful method of reducing both depredation and non-depredation conflicts. A survey and project summary report by Zinn and Manfredo (1996) studied societal preference for Mountain Lion management along the Front Range of Colorado. The study measured people’s beliefs, opinions, preferences and behaviors towards mountain lions. Although the CDOW lacks similar data from the west slope, several conclusions are still pertinent and advisable. The summary report recommends, “Education and public information regarding mountain lions and their interactions with humans should continue to be a key component of the CDOW’s mountain lion management strategies” Zinn and Manfredo (1996). The report also indicates that “education may serve to widen the range of acceptable management options available to wildlife managers” Indications are that the public tends to believe that capture and relocation of mountain lion is a ready option, while at the same time they do not accept frightening lion with rubber bullets or scare devices as an option. Educational information should help the public better understand other control options available including increased lion hunting and controlled mountain lion hunts. This survey also reinforced the idea that the CDOW’s information campaign regarding living with lions has been successful. Barriers & Strategies CDOW will continue to provide the public information on human safety and how to live with lions. This is will be accomplished through programs, printed literature, and through informal contact by local CDOW district wildlife managers. As needed, the CDOW will continue to conduct workshops for public agencies, law enforcement personnel, and concerned public groups. Monitoring Monitoring of mountain lion – human interactions will be accomplished through annual review of the CDOW’s conflict reports. Specific instances will be handled according to 11 �CDOW policy. Key Management Issues Public input on lion management was sought as part of this DAU plan revision process. Scoping meetings were held in Craig on 8/11/2004 and Grand Junction on 8/12/2004. This information will be used as a portion of the decision process in the selection of a preferred management strategy for L-7. Comments received from the public meeting are presented in Appendix B. The CDOW also provided forms for those wishing to submit written comments. A PowerPoint presentation was made by CDOW which provided background information similar to the information contained in this management plan. Those attending the public meetings were interested in maintain viable mountain lion populations across the state. There was common support for a female sub-quota which would limit the harvest of adult females in the DAU. Generally, lion hunters feel the current harvest levels are not too high, but there is concern about possible over-harvest in GMU 22. The concern in GMU 22 is that the high harvest has adversely impacted the lion population there and hunters support a CDOW recommendation for a reduction in the quota in this GMU. GMU 22 is easily hunted due to the number of roads which provide good access for hunters. Some lion hunters are concerned about out-of-state hunters adversely impacting populations due to their indiscriminate harvest, harvest of young females and poor hunting ethics. Further, the out-of-state hunters have no connection to the land and no real interest in the maintenance of viable populations. CDOW management issues are similar to pubic issues. CDOW concerns revolve around maintenance of healthy lion populations that include a range of age classes, sex ratios in balance with lion social habits, and reproduction and survival rates that are adequate for maintenance of a population. Management of hunting opportunity is an important issue since this activity has the greatest single impact on a lion population. The potential exists that populations may be over-harvested if annual harvest quotas are not balanced with biological potential of the population. Therefore, adherence to management strategies developed in this plan as well and the collection of annual harvest and other pertinent biological data is essential for sound management. Game damage, as discussed earlier in this plan, is an ongoing issue that must be addressed in a balanced approach and in a cooperative manner with livestock operators. Preferred Management Strategy – Moderate Suppression The preferred management strategy for L-7 is to manage lion at an annual mortality rate, including hunting and non-hunting, in a range between 15% and 20% of the huntable population (Table 2). This rate of removal would be considered light to moderate suppression and uses the population point projection of 859 (567 huntable) lion as the basis for the recommendation. 12 �Hunter harvest objectives, regulated by the current quotas system, will be established annually based on previous year’s harvest success, the number of lions harvested in the DAU and other non-hunting mortality factors. The non-hunting mortality should be included in the total mortality recommended for the DAU. The process of setting quotas outside the DAU plan allows for flexibility in setting annual harvest objective in response to changing factors affecting the lion population. The present quota system will remain in effect. This quota system allocates a limited number of licenses to each game management unit and once the quota is filled in the GMU it is closed to further hunting. The long-term goal is to maintain healthy lion populations that can sustain annual sporting harvest while maintaining low damage levels and near zero human conflict levels. Emphasis on mountain lion management will be placed on the lion population within the DAU rather by GMU. Total DAU harvest should be the guiding factor influencing annual mortality, since research has shown lion populations are a landscape wildlife species and not confined to smaller geographic areas such as a single GMU. The current five-year average annual harvest has been 92 lion in the DAU. The 10-year average harvest has been 102 lion. Mountain lion populations appear fairly resistant to moderately high levels of harvest as indicated by Anderson’s (2003) research. The caveat being, that “adjacent populations facilitate recovery through immigration and that adult female survival provides female recruitment” (Anderson 2003). Table 2. Number of lion harvested at variable mortality rates under a suppression management strategy. Annual Mortality Rate 15% 16% 17% 18% 19% 20% 28% Hunter Harvest 81 87 92 98 104 109 155 Non-hunt Mort. 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Total Mortality 85 91 96 102 108 113 159 Anderson (2003) also stated, “The most likely factor to inhibit cougar population reduction from harvest is limited hunter access creating local refuges. In these situations, inaccessibility will dictate the degree of resiliency in that population to hunter harvest…” With the above caveat in mind, a geographic review of DAU L-7 shows the existence of large areas where no lion hunting or very limited lion hunting occurs. Dinosaur National 13 �Monument provides a large area along the northern border of the DAU. In GMUs 30 and 31 the BLM has closed large areas in the Bookcliffs to winter travel for protection of wintering deer and elk and in some areas for protection of wild horses. These areas include the Little Bookcliffs and the Coal Canyon areas. Privately owned Parachute Creek offers a large area where very little lion hunting occurs. Large portions of the Flattops wilderness areas are suitable habitat for mountain lion, and much of the acreage identified in the White River Forest Plan, as designated as roadless areas and is mid to low elevation lands that also contain good mountain lion habitat. Monitoring Anderson (2003) in his study of the sex and age characteristics of cougar populations documented that, “population decline followed predictable removal patterns of the more vulnerable/ abundant classes until the least vulnerable class, adult females were most abundant in the harvest”, and that, “Moving from harvests consisting primarily of subadults to adult males and finally to adult females suggests previous population decline” Therefore, if the percentage of adult females in the harvest begins to increase, and the average age of females in the harvest begins to decline, then harvest adjustments would be warranted until male lions and sub adult lions comprised the majority of the harvest, which would indicate a recovering lion population. Population monitoring will be accomplished primarily from data collected as a part of the mandatory check of lions harvested. The estimated age of the animal will be determined using techniques outlined by Anderson and Lindzey (2000). Specifically, priority should be given to evidence of previous lactation, annuli aging of premolars, presence of a canine ridge and presence or absence of foreleg bars (Anderson 2003). Literature Cited Anderson, A. E. 1983. A critical review of literature on puma. Colorado Division of Wildlife Special Report Number 54. Anderson, C. R. 2003. Cougar ecology, management, and population genetics in Wyoming. Dept. of Zoology. Graduate School dissertation, University of Wyoming. Lindzey, F. 1988. Mountain lion in Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Trappers Association. Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, DC. Ross, P. I. and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(3):417-426. Zinn, H. C. and M. J. Manfredo. 1996. Societal preferences for mountain lion management along Colorado’s Front Range. Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit Report No. 28, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 14 �Appendix A. Quota, harvest and other mortality statistics for DAU L-7, 1980-2003. DAU L-7 GMUs: 10, 11, 211, 12, 13, 131, 231, 21, 22, 23, 24.30,31,32,33 1980 GMU 10 Harvest Quota 5 GMU 11 Harvest Quota 3 GMUs 11, 211 Harvest Quota GMU 211 Harvest Quota GMUs 12,13 Harvest Quota 1 GMU 12 Harvest Quota GMU 13 Harvest Quota GMU 13 W of Hayden Divide Rd Harvest Quota 1981 5 3 1982 6 5 1983 6 5 1984 6 5 1985 6 5 1986 4 4 1987 4 4 1988 4 1989 4 3 1990 4 6 1991 4 8 1992 4 8 1993 5 8 1994 5 8 1995 5 10 1996 6 10 1997 6 12 1998 8 16 1999 14 16 2000 14 16 2001 14 16 2002 14 16 2003 14 16 2004 5-Yr AVG 10-Yr. Avg 14 16 3 2 6 2 6 4 6 4 6 6 6 6 8 11 13 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 6 4 8 5 10 13 18 18 18 18 18 18 12 8 16 12 10 16 12 10 16 12 5 16 12 5 16 12 5 16 12 5 16 5 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 6 8 8 10 12 5 3 12 5 2 8 4 8 6 14 18 20 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 7 2 15 10 10 15 8 2 15 10 10 15 10 3 15 12 10 17 10 3 15 12 10 17 10 3 15 12 10 17 10 3 15 12 10 17 10 3 15 12 10 17 10 3 15 12 10 17 10 3 15 12 10 17 129 92% 72 47 119 39% 1 0 1 3 3 6 76 50 126 40% 141 84% 63 55 118 47% 7 3 10 2 3 5 72 61 133 46% 183 79% 69 75 144 52% 0 0 0 0 1 1 69 76 145 52% 196 59% 53 62 115 54% 2 1 3 1 1 2 56 64 120 53% 196 42% 45 37 82 45% 1 1 2 0 0 0 46 38 84 45% 191 46% 52 35 87 40% 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 35 87 40% 191 49% 64 30 94 32% 1 2 3 3 1 4 68 33 101 33% 191 42% 44 37 81 46% 0 0 0 0 0 3 44 37 84 46% 191 #REF! 193 48% 172.5 67% #REF! #REF! 92 43% 102 44% #REF! 2 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 2 53 41 95 43% GMU 13 E of Hayden Divide Rd (add 131 in '99) Harvest Quota GMU 21 Harvest Quota GMUs 22,23 Harvest Quota GMU 22 Harvest Quota GMUs 23, 24 Harvest Quota GMU 23 Harvest Quota GMU 24 Harvest Quota GMU 30 Harvest Quota GMU 31 Harvest Quota GMU 32 Harvest Quota GMU 33 Harvest Quota DAU Harvest Quota % of Quota Achievement total male total female Total Hunter Harvest % of Female in Harvest Total Control Kill - Male Total Control Kill - Female Total Control Kill Total other mortality - male total other mortality -female Total Other Mortality DAU Total Mortality - Male DAU Total Mortality - Female DAU Total Mortality % of Female in Total DAU Mortality 6 4 6 4 6 4 4 4 6 5 8 4 4 4 37 30% 4 7 11 64% 4 7 11 64% 40 78% 19 12 31 39% 19 12 31 39% 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 8 4 10 10 8 6 10 10 8 6 10 10 8 6 10 10 56 75% 24 18 42 43% 63 63 63 52 57% 22 14 36 0 0 0 39% Data Not Available by DAU 24 18 42 43% 6 5 6 5 8 6 10 8 22 0 0 14 0 0 36 39% Data Not Available by DAU 6 5 8 6 10 8 0 0 53 0 0 0 6 5 6 5 6 5 8 6 10 8 8 6 10 8 8 6 10 6 8 6 10 8 8 6 10 8 11 6 10 10 11 6 10 10 7 2 15 10 10 15 54 72% 27 12 39 31% 55 65% 23 13 36 36% 0 0 0 1 1 2 24 14 38 37% 59 83% 31 18 49 37% 1 0 1 1 0 1 33 18 51 35% 65 71% 25 21 46 46% 1 2 3 1 0 1 27 23 50 46% 67 82% 36 19 55 35% 7 6 13 0 5 7 43 30 75 41% 82 87% 43 28 71 39% 1 0 1 0 3 3 44 31 75 41% 84 101% 52 33 85 39% 4 2 6 0 3 4 56 38 95 40% 116 81% 53 41 94 44% 4 4 8 2 4 6 59 49 108 45% 27 12 39 31% 15 44% � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/27f43a0577e04f2848f0bd9a48a0a085.pdf 32ea78bc31ecc442d9c1327712b0e86f PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-7 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 1O, 11, 211, 12, 13, 131, 231, 21, 22, 23, & 24 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife West Region By: Jeff Madison Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Meeker, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT The area of DAU L-7 is most commonly known as the White River drainage. The DAU corresponds roughly to the White River, Blue Mountain, and north portion of the Roan Plateau deer herds. The topography and vegetation range from mountainous, high alpine areas in the east to deep sandstone canyon country in the far, western portion of the DAU. No formal estimate of the lion population has been made in the DAU. Many people believe the population has increased over the last 10 years. This may be, in part; driven by the higher removal rate of mature males, thus losing the natural population control influence they exert. TOTAL LION HARVEST OBJECTIVE: Harvest has increased steadily from 12 in 1988 to 86 in 1998. The harvest quota increased from 24 in 1988 to 133 in 1998. The quota was raised to 137 in 2000. Much of this increase is attributable to recommendations from the Colorado Department of Agriculture. Past quotas have been reached in some units but the overall quota has not been reached. A breakdown by individual big game management units is given below: Unit 10 - This unit is dominated by sandstone canyon country along the Yampa River in Dinosaur National Park. This area is closed to any hunting by National Park Service regulation and so serves as a large refuge for lion. The current quota is 14, which is up from 5 just 5 years ago. Because of the rough terrain in the open, occupied portions of the unit, harvest is usually 1 or 2 lions. Unit 11 - The quota in 2000 is 16. Unit 211 - The quota in 2000 is 17. Unit 12 - The quota was raised to 18 in 1999, which is up from 4 in 1994. The quota has been filled in most years to date. The DWM is concerned that most lions are being taken in a small part of the unit (winter access December 4, 2000 �difficulty) and that lion taken are increasingly yearlings and females (70% in 1998). The increasing quota has not reduced damage to date. Unit 13 (West of the Hayden Divide Road) - The quota in 2000 is 12. Unit 13 (East of the Hayden Divide Road) & 131 – The quota in 2000 is 5. Unit 21 -The quota in this unit has doubled in the last 5 years, rising to 16. This is a unit of good access and continuous lion habitat. The quota does not fill at the higher level. Unit 22 - This unit has been the mainstay of the DAU in terms of numbers and harvest over the years. Access across the unit is very good and the year round population of lions is relatively high. The quota has gone from 5 to 26 in the last 10 years. The quota was not filled until the end of March in 1998, and not filled in 1999. The female portion of the harvest has risen to 55%. Unit 23 - Unit 23 was split from unit 22 in 1993 and given a separate quota, which has increased to 10. The quota has not been filled in the last few years. Unit 24 - This is a high country unit with few, if any, lion remaining during the season. The quota is 3 lion and none are usually taken. Unit 131 & 231 - High country units with few lions. There has not been a quota in 231. Unit 131 was added to Unit 13 with a combined quota of 5. Overall, the DAU has supplied an abundance of lion hunting opportunities for many years and that should continue. There is concern that the increased quotas have de-stabilized the population, actually increasing numbers of young lions, which are more prone to cause problems. Considering the recent large increases in quotas and the lack of those quotas being met, no changes in quotas are anticipated in the near. TOTAL LION DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: DAU L-7 has some of the highest domestic sheep numbers in the state so the level of lion damage to sheep is a major concern. Damage costs have been between $3,000 and $102,000 with the highest cost in the last few years. The damage harvest has varied from 1 to 19 with an average of 6 per year. Quotas have been increased greatly in this DAU over the last ten years. This has been in large part, in response to concerns of levels of game-damage. There is also increasing sportsman concern over the effect of lion on the deer population. To date the increases in quotas have not reduced the amount of damage. An investigator has been used in the DAU to identify lion damage kills and verify numbers and this should be continued. Lions causing damage should be targeted directly by Wildlife Services personnel. These actions will be used to keep the 3-year average below a maximum of $60,000. NUISANCE LION COMPLAINTS: There are no reports of lion-human conflicts in last few years. Tolerance of aggressive or acclimated lions in this area is low and problem lions are quickly removed from the population. December 4, 2000 �There have been increases in sightings and sign in most areas, so the potential for problems have grown, especially in areas of growing rural development. Education\information in newly developing areas and removal of nuisance\dangerous lions will be used to keep the number of complaints below 10 annually. LION PREDATION ON OTHER WILDLIFE: In July, 1999, the Colorado Wildlife Commission approved a Mammalian Predator Policy which calls for predator control actions when it is determined that the predator species is inhibiting the ability of the Division to attain management objectives for other wildlife populations. Currently, studies related to deer fawn summer mortality and both fawn and adult winter mortality indicate that mountain lions are not a major factor in deer population regulation. The 1980-1990 fawn survival studies noted a very low predation rate on deer. Elk populations are currently well above objectives in these DAUs with elk survival rates extremely high. Antelope populations are also at or above objective. Sport hunting is the primary method of lion population control and will continue to be used to harvest lion at a level that will allow maximum hunter opportunity and maintain a lion population. Individual animals that cause excessive damage to livestock, damage to personal property, or pose a threat to human health and welfare will be removed as necessary. No control action, other than sport harvest, is anticipated to benefit deer, elk, or antelope. However, it should be noted that the significant increase in quotas and harvest from 1990-2000 did not appear to reduce lion / livestock conflicts. Further study is needed to clarify the relationship between damage and harvest. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/8eb2e0d5c2ae3fd270a81ae0ed98019a.pdf 514190bac28fc572ac7da86e5620d2b2 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-8 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 30, 31, 32, & 33 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife West Region By: Van K. Graham Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Grand Junction, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT This lion unit is located in the Bookcliffs/Roan Plateau area of west central Colorado and includes portions of Mesa and Garfield Counties. This DAU has the 3rd highest harvest in the state, ranks 5th in damage claims and 20th in complaints. TOTAL LION HARVEST OBJECTIVE: From 1988 to 1998, this DAU has averaged a harvest of 26 lions per year, with a range of 8-42. During the last three years the harvest has averaged 40 lion. During the last 10 years, the proportion of females in the harvest averaged 40%, and ranged from 28-54%. Sport harvest accounted for 98% of the harvest in the last 10 years, while non-sport harvest has ranged from 0-2 per year. The objective total harvest for this DAU should be a maximum of 40 as a 3-year average, with a sport harvest objective of 39 lion as a 3-year average. The preferred management recommendation is to maintain license quotas at the present levels for at least 5 years and monitor harvest rates, damage claims, and nuisance problems. The quota for 2000 is 54. TOTAL LION DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: From 1988 to 1998, this DAU averaged $4,825 in claims; however, damage claims were filed in 7 of 10 years. The average claim amount for 7 years when damaged occurred is $6,892. The majority of losses were to domestic sheep. Claims have also been filed for cattle and horses, but these have been substantially less than those filed for sheep. The DAU's lion population should be managed to keep damage payments below $10,000 per year based on a 3-year average. When this number is exceeded, appropriate action can be taken, such as 1) hiring an investigator to assess losses and 2) initiate control of offending animal(s) by Wildlife Services, and 3) consider an increase in annual lion harvest quotas. When appropriate, efforts should be made to target offending lions in areas where damage occurs. This can be accomplished by landowners in conjunction with Colorado State Department of Agriculture guidelines for damage control. December 4, 2000 �NUISANCE LION COMPLAINTS: This DAU has had no nuisance lion complaints filed since 1997. Prior to 1997 CDOW did not keep records of lion nuisance complaints in a formal manner. Lion nuisance complaints should be kept to no more than 10 per year. Nuisance objectives are based on allowable levels, when threshold level is reached; remedial actions can be used to ameliorate problems. Remedial actions should follow mountain lion action plans as adopted by CDOW. On September 10, 1999 the Colorado Wildlife Commission approved a mammalian predator management policy. The purpose of the policy is to provide the Division direction in managing predator populations and to provide guidance when control methods are being considered. The Division, when feasible, will rely on sport hunting as the primary method to take predators. When necessary, as part of this management plan, control programs to reduce predator populations will be applied and authorized according to guidelines outlined in the Division's Predator Management Policy. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/daf1a98536946b1590e519d518904366.pdf 2f1e7fb14bcf7426acc9fd55dd93017b PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION DATA ANALYSIS UNIT L-9 MANAGEMENT PLAN GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 41, 411, 42, 421, 52, 521, 53, 63 Northwest and Southwest Regions Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife By: Van Graham and Brandon Diamond Terrestrial Wildlife Biologists November 2004 �DESCRIPTION OF DAU, HABITAT AND PAST MANAGEMENT Location and Habitat DAU L-9 is located in the Grand Mesa and North Fork of the Gunnison River areas of westcentral Colorado. It is bounded on the north by the Colorado River; on the east by the Divide Creek and Crystal River divide, the Muddy Creek and Crystal River-divide, the North Fork of the Gunnison and the Gunnison River divide and Curecanti Creek; and on the south and west by the Gunnison River, Colorado Highway 92 and Colorado Highway 50. L-9 is located within portions of Mesa, Garfield, Gunnison, Montrose and Delta Counties (Figure 1). Pinyon-juniper woodlands and sagebrush are the dominant vegetation types at lower elevations in the DAU. Oakbrush, serviceberry, and aspen woodlands dominate mid-elevations. Spruce/fir forests are found at the higher elevations. The DAU includes the Colorado and Gunnison River drainages. Habitat varies from the cold desert communities at approximately 4,600 feet in elevation around Grand Junction to high mountain peaks at nearly 13,000 feet in the Raggeds and West Elk Wilderness Areas near Paonia. Black Mesa in the Crawford area is located in the southern portion of the DAU. The DAU covers 3,243 square miles with land primarily under control by Federal land management agencies including Bureau of Land Management (18.2%), U.S. Forest Service (43.6%), National Park Service (0.6%), various state agencies (0.8%) and private landowners (36.8%). The DAU is composed of eight Big Game Management Units. In order to more efficiently manage the lion population in this area, the CDOW has reconfigured two adjacent lion DAUs; deleting GMU 64 from L-9 and placing it in DAU L-22. The CDOW feels that this is a more realistic boundary with the Gunnison River being somewhat of a movement barrier for lions. Mountain lion social habits and movement patterns did not fit well with the old boundary. We feel the new DAU will provide for better management of lion in this area. This decision did not change the current CDOW DAU descriptors (L9 and L-22) used to identify the DAUs. Harvest data as well as other biological information used to manage the population were adjusted to reflect this boundary change in both DAUs. -1- �Figure 1. Mountain lion DUA L-9 boundary. MANAGEMENT HISTORY: Statewide lion season dates are from January1 through March 31 and from the first day after the close of the regular deer and elk seasons until December 31. New harvest quotas begin on January 1 of each year. -2- �The mountain lion harvest objective, as stated in the first management plan (which included GMU 64) for this DAU (12/2000), was as follows: TOTAL MOUNTAIN LION HARVEST OBJECTIVE: The mountain lion sport harvest in the DAU has steadily increased during the past 11 years (1988-1998). The harvests from 1988 to 1992 ranged from 0 to 7 annually, whereas, the harvests from 1993 through 1998 have ranged from 18 to 36 (1997). There have been 6 reported damage harvests in the DAU during the past 11 years. The harvest quota was 36 in 1996 and 1997 and the quota was filled in 1997. The quota was increased to 44 in 1998 and 25 lions were harvested. The quota was increased again in 1999 to 49, and to 51 in 2000. The initial plan indicated “The current quota seems to be meeting the sportsmen's demands without any adverse impacts to the mountain lion population. Therefore, the annual quota should be maintained at 51. The Division of Wildlife will rely on sport hunting as the primary method to control mountain lion populations in the DAU”. Past management goals, while not specifically documented in the initial DAU plans (called management guidelines) for L-9, were to maintain lion populations at a stable levels. Mountain Lion Management Approach In the last year (2003-2004) the CDOW has developed a defined approach to management of lion populations. The first approach is termed managing for a stableincreasing population. The second is termed management designed to suppress a population. In 2003, the CDOW and Colorado Wildlife Commission indicated that the management strategy for the DAU L-9 would be characterized as a population with a management goal of suppression. Harvest and Management Statistics The CDOW has assembled pertinent management data going as far back as 1980 (Appendix A and B). Data includes harvest, quotas, success rates, and harvest by sex of animal. Information is also available that includes similar information for animal damage control kills and other mortality such as road kills. Mountain lion annual harvest as well as quotas has increased substantially over the last 25 years. No lions were harvested in 1980 and the number increased to a high of 37 in 2002. In 2003, the harvest was 34 lion. Average harvest for the most recent five years was 29 animals and for the most recent 10 years was 25. -3- �40 Lions Harvested 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Year Figure 2. Lion harvest in DAU L-9 (statistics not available 84-87). Quota Quotas have also increase over the last 25 years. The DAU harvest quota was 5 in 1980 and 45 in 2003. 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Year Figure 3. Mountain lion quotas in L-9, 1980-2003. Generally, quotas have increased in a response to demand for licenses. CDOW field managers have felt that the lion population was supporting the increased harvest with no negative impacts to the population. Female lion have composed approximately 36% of the total harvest for the last three years and 43.8% for the last 10 years. Sixty-four percent of the lion harvest was female in 1998, which was the highest recorded. -4- �Populations The L-9 lion population projection is based primarily on two factors; defining the area of suitable lion habitat within the 3,243 square miles DAU and applying a probable lion density for that same area. Due to their low relative density, secretive nature and the subsequent lack of quality field methods for estimating population sizes for lions as outlined by researchers (Anderson 1983, Logan and Sweanor 2001), the L-9 estimate could not be based on quantitative field observations within the DAU. It is however, based on a synthesis of lion densities from other published studies in the western U.S. as well as geographic information systems (GIS) data on habitat and spatial variables. In almost all cases in Colorado, lion habitat overlaps with the range of their principle food source, mule deer. However, in western Colorado, elk provide an additional prey base for lion. Recently, elk research projects conducted by CDOW in the Rifle area and field observations by CDOW personnel and ranchers confirm elk kills by lion are not unusual. Mule deer, elk and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep winter range (Figure 4) encompass much of the DAU. Deer and elk populations in this DAU are, in much of the DAU, at or above long-term DAU population objectives. Given the constraints and exclusions outlined above, the total area in the population projection calculations was 3,120 mi2. Based on a comprehensive review of lion research literature, Logan and Sweanor (2001) offer a range of lion densities observed on projects from throughout the western United States. Given the similarities between Colorado and states/provinces such as Wyoming, New Mexico, Alberta, British Colombia and Idaho, densities were extrapolated from those studies to arrive at a low density estimate of 2.0 lions/100 km2 and a high density estimate of 4.6 lions/100 km2 in L-9. In addition the CDOW used these data to develop a medium population density of 3.0 lion per 100 km2. Multiplying these high, medium and low densities by a given area of lion habitat generates a population estimate. Although current literature supports the range from 2.0 to 4.6 lion per 100 km2, there is reason to believe that prey densities and prey species composition in Colorado is somewhat higher and different than those described in the supporting reports. Colorado’s elk densities and populations are the highest anywhere in the United States and provide alternate prey for the lion’s main food base of mule deer. Colorado is initiating, in 2004, an intensive (approximately 10 years) mountain lion population study on the Uncompahgre Plateau to document lion densities. However, until this or other information is available, we will continue to use the standard lion densities presented here in our population estimates. We suspect our prey densities are higher, to much higher than those reported in other studies and we think when the more precise numbers for Colorado are developed, our current lion population assessments will be demonstrated to be low estimates. Age structure within the total L-9 population was also calculated based on a formula generated from the existing lion literature (Logan and Sweanor 2001). Both Logan and Sweanor (2001) and Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) reported that kittens, or dependent young, comprised approximately 33-34% of the total population. It is difficult to obtain data on adult sex ratios, but literature indicates that a 1:1 ratio is a reasonable estimate. In our population for L-9, male harvest is slightly higher than female. However, due to the nature of males in a lion population, they may be somewhat more susceptible to natural mortality. -5- �The calculated population point projection as based on overall analysis of available lion habitat and prey densities is 316 lion (Table 1). For the point projection estimate, we mapped areas of high and medium lion densities and used these data to estimate the population (Figure 4). Overall habitat in L-9 can be subjectively rated as excellent to good due to terrain, vegetation, and historic lion harvest, as well as known preferred lion habitat in Colorado. We also determined a possible population range of between 372 and 162 lion based on total acreage in the DAU below 10,500 ft elevation and high and low lion densities. Figure 4. Mountain lion DAU boundaries and density estimates for L-9. In L-9, winter range lion habitat is defined as areas below 10,500 ft. in elevation and does not include those seasonal habitat areas which are unavailable to lion during winter month where snow accumulations limit the presence of a prey base. The only areas in L-9 above 10,500 feet are on Grand Mesa, in the Raggeds and West Elk Wilderness areas. Snow accumulations in that area eliminate the prey base of deer and elk during the most severe portions of the winter forcing lion to move to lower elevations. -6- �Table 1. Estimated mountain lion population in DAU L-9. Population Range Population Males Females Subadults Kittens High Density 372 97 97 51 127 Low Density 162 42 42 22 55 Point Projection 316 83 83 43 108 Estimates of male and female winter home range size vary widely between studies in western North America. Males clearly have larger home ranges, often with minimal overlap of other males, while females tend to have smaller home ranges with a tolerance for more same-sex overlap. In many cases one male’s home range boundaries will include several female ranges. Female winter home range estimates between some study areas span an order of magnitude; in British Columbia winter ranges were observed at 28 km2 in Idaho 90 km2 and in Utah 207 km2. Male estimates on winter range in Idaho were 126 km2 while researchers in Utah again observed much larger home ranges averaging 503 km2. The current and past research in Colorado has generated overall annual home range estimates which don’t allow comparison to available winter range calculations. Population Management Alternatives and Outcomes Harvest Potential Using the portion of the projected population that is huntable (adults and sub-adults), an acceptable level of mortality within a DAU can be estimated. Logan and Sweanor (2001) suggest that the level of hunting and non-hunting mortality can be gauged relative to the rate of population growth. They further suggest that managers can use the rate of growth documented at 11% by Logan as an acceptable annual mortality assuming managers have a reliable estimate of the lion population and that the population is increasing. Neither of the parameters is known definitely in L-9. Thus, it is important to maintain conservative caution when generating an estimate of a harvest level that the population can support. Current CDOW guidance is to use 8-15% of the huntable population to provide a range of acceptable harvest for populations managed for sustained recreational opportunity and a stable-increasing lion population. Logan and Sweanor have documented the high resiliency of lion populations and have recorded a 28% growth rate in a treatment area following a period of high lion removal rates. Thus, the CDOW suggests for population control, managers may have to apply rates of removal at or exceeding 28% of the population for a period of several years to suppress a population. The best estimate of lion population is this DAU is 316 animals. The estimated number of huntable lion is 209, which excludes kittens. Two management options are available for mountain lion management guidelines: stable-increasing and suppression. -7- �Stable-Increasing Population Management Using a harvest rate of 12% (average of 8% and 15%) applied to a huntable population of 209 lion would result in an annual harvest of 25 male and female lion. Suppression Management A suppression management strategy results in a decline in the overall numbers in a population, rather than the population remaining stable or increasing. Since Logan indicates that a harvest rate of 28% can suppress a population and 12% (range of 8%15%) will allow it to be stable to increasing, a range between 15+% and 28% would tend to decrease a population. Using a harvest rate of 28% applied to a huntable population of 209 would result in an annual harvest of 58 mountain lion. The current average 5-year DAU harvest is 29 lion, which is a 13.8% harvest rate. This rate of removal is 15% greater than 12% rate used for a stable-increasing population. Thus, indications are that the current management has tended to suppress the population in this DAU. However, the suppression intensity is very light and could be considered at levels near stable to increasing and is not close to the upper limit of 28%. Non-hunting Mortality – Annual Estimate Non-hunting lion mortality has varied over the years. For the last five years, the average has been one per year. This mortality has been mostly due to damage control efforts. Only two lion deaths have been attributed to other mortality in the last 10 years. Nonhunting mortality has only been as high as two lions in any one year. The current expectation is that non-hunting mortality will be maintained within the fiveyear average for the foreseeable future. Therefore, this estimate will be integrated into the preferred management strategy for this DAU. If increased lion mortality from nonhunter sources is observed over several subsequent years, then future hunter mortality objectives will be modified to reflect the predicted impacts to the population due to this factor. Game Damage Objective Game damage payments in L-9 have mostly occurred in livestock other than sheep and cattle (Appendix B). The 5-year average claims totals $8,446 with 89.4%, 6.3% and 4.2% of the losses attributed to other livestock, cattle and sheep, respectively. In 2000, claims were paid totaling $23,927. That year three claims for five animals totaled $22,469. In 2000 and 2001, claims for alpacas totaled $12,500 and $22,000, respectively. Damage losses to sheep were as high as $2,695 in 1993, but have averaged $356 for the past five years. Cattle losses have averaged, for the last five years, $535. -8- �Number of claims 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 19 79 19 81 19 83 19 85 19 87 19 89 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 20 01 20 03 0 Year Figure 5. Number of game damage claims filed from 1995-2003. Barriers and Strategies Game damage should be managed by targeting offending lions on an as needed basis. The CDOW has an effective working relationship with the United State Wildlife Services agency including a contract for annual damage control assistance. Claims can be minimized through effective communication with landowners and CDOW. Monitoring Monitoring of game damage claims will occur on an annual basis. Significant increases in game damage may induce harvest objective changes. Most likely the GMU quota will be amended to focus harvest in the area of damage. Human Conflict Objectives There is no formal number of allowable human/lion conflicts outlined for L-9. Human conflicts with mountain lion in this DAU have been rare but random observations of mountain lion are on the increase. As the human population increases, human mountain lion interaction will increase. Education of the public on how to live in lion country appears to be the most successful method of reducing both depredation and non-depredation conflicts. A survey and project summary report by Zinn and Manfredo (1996) studied societal preference for Mountain Lion management along the Front Range of Colorado. The study measured people’s beliefs, opinions, preferences and behaviors towards mountain lions. Although the CDOW lacks similar data from the west slope, several conclusions are still pertinent and advisable. The summary report recommends, “Education and public information regarding mountain lions and their interactions with humans should continue to be a key component of the CDOW’s mountain lion management strategies” Zinn and Manfredo (1996). -9- �The report also indicates that “education may serve to widen the range of acceptable management options available to wildlife managers” Indications are that the public tends to believe that capture and relocation of mountain lion is a ready option, while at the same time they do not accept frightening lion with rubber bullets or scare devices as an option. Educational information should help the public better understand other control options available including increased lion hunting and controlled mountain lion hunts. This survey also reinforced the idea that the CDOW’s information campaign regarding living with lions has been successful. Barriers & Strategies CDOW will continue to provide the public information on human safety and how to live with lions. This is will be accomplished through programs, printed literature, and through informal contact by local CDOW district wildlife managers. As needed, the CDOW will continue to conduct workshops for public agencies, law enforcement personnel, and concerned public groups. Monitoring Monitoring of mountain lion – human interactions will be accomplished through annual review of the CDOW’s conflict reports. Specific instances will be handled according to CDOW policy. Key Management Issues Public input on lion management was sought as part of this DAU plan revision process. A public scoping meetings was held in Grand Junction on 8/12/2004 to solicit input for this management plan. Comments were also taken for DAU L-7 at this meeting. Comments received from the public meeting are presented in Appendix C. The CDOW also provided forms for those wishing to submit written comments. A PowerPoint presentation was made by CDOW which provided background information similar to the information contained in this management plan. Those attending the public meetings were interested in maintain viable mountain lion populations across the state. There was common support for a female sub-quota which would limit the harvest of adult females in the DAU. Generally, lion hunters feel the current harvest levels are not too high. Some lion hunters are concerned about out-of-state hunters adversely impacting populations due to their indiscriminate harvest, harvest of young females and poor hunting ethics. Furthermore, it was thought that the out-of-state hunters have no connection to the land and no real interest in the maintenance of viable populations. CDOW management issues are similar to pubic issues. CDOW concerns revolve around maintenance of healthy lion populations that include a range of age classes, sex ratios in balance with lion social habits, and reproduction and survival rates that are adequate for maintenance of a population. Management of hunting opportunity is an important issue since this activity has the greatest single impact on a lion population. The potential exists that populations may be - 10 - �over-harvested if annual harvest quotas are not balanced with biological potential of the population. Therefore, adherence to management strategies developed in this plan as well and the collection of annual harvest and other pertinent biological data is essential for sound management. Preferred Management Strategy – Low Suppression The preferred management strategy for L-9 is to manage lion at an annual mortality rate, including hunting and non-hunting, in a range between 15% and 19% of the huntable population. This rate of removal would be considered low suppression and uses the population point projection of 316 (209 huntable) lion as the basis for the recommendation. Hunter harvest objectives, regulated by the current quotas system, will be established annually based on previous year’s harvest success and other mortality factors. The long-term goal is to maintain healthy lion populations that can sustain annual sporting harvest while maintaining low damage levels and near zero human conflict levels. Emphasis on mountain lion management will be placed on the lion population within the DAU rather by GMU. Total DAU harvest should be the guiding factor influencing annual mortality, since research has shown lion populations are a landscape wildlife species and not confined to smaller geographic areas such as a single GMU. Table 2. Number of lion harvested at variable mortality rates under a suppression management strategy. Annual Rate Mortality 15% 16% 17% 18% 19% 28% Hunter Harvest 30 32 35 37 39 58 Non-hunt Mort. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total Mortality 31 33 36 38 40 59 The current five-year average annual harvest has been 29 lion in the DAU. The 10-year average harvest has been 25 lion. Mountain lion populations appear fairly resistant to moderately high levels of harvest as indicated by Anderson’s (2003) research. The caveat being, that “adjacent populations facilitate recovery through immigration and that adult female survival provides female recruitment” (Anderson 2003). Anderson (2003) also stated, “The most likely factor to inhibit cougar population reduction from harvest is limited hunter access creating local refuges. In these situations, inaccessibility will dictate the degree of resiliency in that population to hunter - 11 - �harvest…” With the above caveat in mind, a geographic review of DAU L-9 shows the existence of areas where no lion hunting or very limited lion hunting occurs. One of these areas, Black Canyon National Park provides a large area along the southern border of the DAU. Monitoring Anderson (2003) in his study of the sex and age characteristics of cougar populations documented that, “population decline followed predictable removal patterns of the more vulnerable/ abundant classes until the least vulnerable class, adult females were most abundant in the harvest”, and that, “Moving from harvests consisting primarily of subadults to adult males and finally to adult females suggests previous population decline” Therefore, if the percentage of adult females in the harvest begins to increase, and the average age of females in the harvest begins to decline, then harvest adjustments would be warranted until male lions and sub adult lions comprised the majority of the harvest, which would indicate a recovering lion population. Population monitoring will be accomplished primarily from data collected as a part of the mandatory check of lions harvested. The estimated age of the animal will be determined using techniques outlined by Anderson and Lindzey (2000). Specifically, priority should be given to evidence of previous lactation, annuli aging of premolars, presence of a canine ridge and presence or absence of foreleg bars (Anderson 2003). Literature Cited Anderson, A. E. 1983. A critical review of literature on puma. Colorado Division of Wildlife Special Report Number 54. Anderson, C. R. 2003. Cougar ecology, management, and population genetics in Wyoming. Dept. of Zoology. Graduate School dissertation, University of Wyoming. Lindzey, F. 1988. Mountain lion in Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Trappers Association. Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, DC. Ross, P. I. and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(3):417-426. Zinn, H. C. and M. J. Manfredo. 1996. Societal preferences for mountain lion management along Colorado’s Front Range. Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit Report No. 28, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. - 12 - �Appendix A. Quota, harvest and other mortality and management statistics for DAU L-9, 1980-2003. GMUs: 41, 411, 42, 421, 52, 521, 53, 63 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 3-Yr AVG 10-YR AVG GMU 41 Harvest Quota 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 GMU 411 Harvest Quota 2 2 2 2 2 2 GMUs 411, 52, 521 Harvest Quota 10 10 10 10 10 GMUs 411, 52 Harvest Quota 2 2 2 2 2 2 10 10 10 10 10 GMU 42 Harvest Quota 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 8 8 8 10 GMU 421 Harvest Quota 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 5 6 8 8 8 8 8 GMU 521 Harvest Quota 6 6 6 6 6 6 GMUs 53, 63 Harvest Quota 1 1 2 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 DAU Harvest Quota 5 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 28 28 28 29 36 41 43 43 43 45 44 % of Quota Achievement 0% 11% 11% 44% 30% 0% 18% 9% 42% 92% 46% 46% 79% 110% 61% 54% 47% 70% 86% 76% 67% 69% Hunter Harvest - Male 0 0 0 2 3 0 2 1 4 10 8 9 12 13 8 14 15 21 17 15 18 Hunter Harvest - Female 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 4 10 19 14 8 5 9 20 19 11 Total Hunter Harvest 0 1 1 4 3 0 2 1 5 11 13 13 22 32 22 22 20 30 37 34 34 24.5 % of Female in Harvest 0% 100% 100% 50% Data Not Available by DAU 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 9% 38% 31% 45% 59% 64% 36% 25% 30% 54% 56% 36% 44% # Hunters (From Surveys) 1 5 7 12 12 N/A 25 6 17 28 27 39 51 51 76 37 N/A BY DAU % Success 0% 20% 14% 33% 25% 8% 17% 30% 40% 49% 33% 43% 63% 29% 59% 37% Control Kil - Male 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Control Kil - Female Data unreliable 1980 - 1988 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 Total Control Kil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 Other Mortality - Male 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Mortality - Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Other Mortality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DAU Total Mortality - Male 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 2 4 11 8 9 12 14 8 14 15 22 17 15 18 DAU Total Mortality - Female 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 5 10 20 14 8 7 10 21 19 13 DAU Total Mortality 0 1 1 4 3 0 3 2 5 12 13 14 22 34 22 22 22 32 38 34 31 % of Female in Total DAU Mortality 0% 100% 100% 50% Data Not Available by DAU 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 8% 38% 36% 45% 59% 64% 36% 32% 31% 55% 56% 39% 45% - 13 - �Appendix B. Game damage claims and amounts for L-9, 1979-2003. DAU L-9 Sheep Cattle Other Stock GMUs: 41, 411, 42, 421, 52, 521, 53, 63 # of Claims Paid # of Sheep Amount Paid Indexed Amount # of Claims Paid # of Cattle Amount Paid Indexed Amount # of Claims Paid # of Animals Amount Paid Indexed Amount DAU - # of Claims DAU - Amount Paid DAU - Indexed Amount 1979 1980 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1981 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 717 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 717 0 1982 1983 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 1250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1250 0 1984 1985 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1986 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1987 1988 1989 3 23 2635 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2635 0 1 2 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 152 0 1990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 14 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1991 1992 1993 2 15 911 0 4 6 3270 0 0 0 0 0 6 4181 0 2 9 589 0 1 1 500 0 0 0 0 0 3 1089 0 5 37 2695 0 0 0 0 0 2 304 1160 0 7 3855 0 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 5 23 2082 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 6000 0 7 8082 0 3 6 570 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 450 0 4 1020 0 3 5 434 0 1 1 175 0 2 101 3000 0 6 3609 0 1 1 92 0 1 4 500 0 0 0 0 0 2 592 0 2 2 1 8 6 7 672 504 602 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 150 954 420 0 0 0 2 3 1 3 5 1 2810 22469 12500 0 0 0 5 7 3 3632 23927 13522 0 0 0 2002 2003 5-Yr AVG 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 356 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 1 1150 0 535 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 7556 0 0 0 2 0 3 1150 0 8446 0 0 0 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/188567b3bfd8cd39d45e0aba6c8bad2d.pdf cbb406372c1324840a2f006627516459 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-9 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 41, 411, 42, 421, 52, 521, 53, 63, & 64 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife West Region By: Don Masden Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Gunnison, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT DAU L-9 is located in the Grand Mesa and North Fork of the Gunnison River areas of west central Colorado. It is bounded on the north by the Colorado River; on the east by the Divide Creek and Crystal River divide, the Muddy Creek and Crystal River-divide, the North Fork of the Gunnison and the Gunnison River divide and Curecanti Creek; and on the south and west by Colorado Highway 50. Pinyon-juniper woodlands and sagebrush are the dominant vegetation types at lower elevations in the DAU. Oakbrush, serviceberry, and aspen woodlands dominate mid-elevations. Spruce/fir forests are found at the higher elevations. The entire DAU is considered to be yearlong mountain lion range. TOTAL MOUNTAIN LION HARVEST OBJECTIVE: The mountain lion sport harvest in the DAU has steadily increased during the past 11 years (1988-1998). The harvests from 1988 to 1992 ranged from 0 to 7 annually, whereas, the harvests from 1993 through 1998 have ranged from 18 to 36 (1997). There have been 6 reported damage harvests in the DAU during the past 11 years. The harvest quota was 36 in 1996 and 1997 and the quota was filled in 1997. The quota was increased to 44 in 1998 and 25 lions were harvested. The quota was increased again in 1999 to 49, and to 51 in 2000. The current quota seems to be meeting the sportsmen's demands without any adverse impacts to the mountain lion population. Therefore, the annual quota should be maintained at 51. The Division of Wildlife will rely on sport hunting as the primary method to control mountain lion populations in the DAU. MOUNTAIN LION DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: Mountain lion damage claims over the past 11 fiscal years (198788 to 1998-99) have averaged $2,169 per year. The highest claims totaling $8,184 occurred in 1995-1996. The claims in other years have been low to well below average. Damage claims should be held below $3,000 annually with the most effective control being the harvest of individual offending animals. HUMAN / MOUNTAIN LION CONFLICT COMPLAINTS: Human-lion conflicts in the DAU have remained low. December 4, 2000 �Lions that exhibit aggressive behavior or show lack of fear for humans should immediately be removed from the population. MOUNTAIN LION / UNGULATE INTERACTION: It is well established that mountain lions prey on mule deer and elk. Studies currently underway in several areas of Colorado indicate that mountain lion predation is not a significant factor in regulating deer or elk populations. Elk populations are generally above objective in the DAU. No specific control measures other than sport hunting and the take of individual animals causing damage or posing a threat to human safety will be used to control mountain lions in this DAU. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/722c93d6a6e3d68ca4c77f791ea1fd60.pdf fb9f73824b899067cfb3f08da81adfc4 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-10 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 43, 44, 444, 45, 47, & 471 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife West Region By: Gene Byrne Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Glenwood Springs, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA, HABITAT AND PAST MANAGEMENT This lion unit is located in the Roaring Fork River and Crystal River drainages of west central Colorado. It is composed of six Game Management Units (GMU) that include GMUs 43,44, 444, 45, 47, & 471. The CDOW designation of this lion area is L-10. The unit is considered to be fair mountain lion habitat. Some of the topography is excellent terrain for mountain lions. The best areas are bisected by numerous canyons and rugged terrain, holding adequate prey meet yearlong lion requirements for food and cover. These areas include the canyons on the lower Roaring Fork and Crystal River drainages, lower Frying Pan River, and the lower Eagle River area (south of the Eagle River from Dotsero to the town of Eagle). Mountain lions are primarily associated with the lower elevation habitats with rocky, steep canyons. The vegetation in these areas varies in relation to elevation and aspect, but is typical of high desert vegetative communities. Pinyon-juniper woodlands dominate the landscape. At higher elevations, the vegetation becomes more diverse as annual precipitation increases. Mountain shrubland and aspen woodlands are intermixed with sagebrush communities, which are found in the higher elevations in the DAU. Gambel's oak, serviceberry, mountain mahogany interspersed with aspen and Douglas fir pockets are common in the unit. Historically, this area supported a large mule deer population. Elk populations have steadily increased since the turn of the century and now exceed mule deer populations. Since the mid-1960's deer numbers have been in a steady decline but have had a somewhat cyclic behavior. The area has experienced a tremendous growth in land development and some of the highest human densities in the mountains occur in this area along the 1-70 corridor and in the Roaring Fork Valley. Major towns in the DAU include - Vail, Avon, Eagle, Gypsum, Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, Basalt, Snowmass Village, and Aspen. Human conflicts with mountain lions in this DAU have been rare but random observations of mountain lions are on the increase along with road kills, game damage harvest, and animal damage control harvest. December 4, 2000 �Also, GMUs such as 44,444, and 45 have not had many lions in the past and now it appears the lion populations are increasing. Domestic sheep graze some of the National Forest land in GMU 43, 444, 45, and 36 and lion depredation can be a problem. Each year several lions are killed by woolgrowers to protect their domestic sheep. ISSUES: There are three main issues regarding this lion population, these include; 1) livestock damage (predator losses) to domestic sheep populations, 2) impacts or perceived impacts to mule deer populations, and 3) the maintenance of a secure population of mountain lions. 1. Domestic sheep losses by lions have averaged about $699 over the last three years. Since 1987, there have been claims submitted to CDOW for reimbursement that total $10,648. The average for these 11 years is $968. The highest losses were in 1988-89 when claims totaled $6,305. No claims were submitted in 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94. 2. Mule deer populations have shown a general decline in this lion DAU but the magnitude of the impact to the deer herd by lions is unknown. Lions could be a factor in this decline. Elk can be negatively impacted by lion depredation but are currently at or above the population objective. 3. The CDOW is concerned about maintaining a viable lion population that is generally in balance with habitat, prey base and societal values. Over harvest of adult males may influence territorial relationships and may cause an increase in lion populations above levels that would be found in naturally regulated and unhunted lion populations. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: Lion license quotas will be regulated in an effort to achieve the unit objective. The average harvest for mountain lions in the DAU for the last three years has been 3 animals. The harvest has increased in the last 10 years; in 1989 the harvest was 1 lion. The license quota has been maintained at 7 from 1992-97. In 1998 the quota was increased to 9, and to 10 in 1999. Hunter success rates have also increased. In 1989 the success rate was 16%; in 1997 the success rate was 28%. The sex ratio of the harvest has varied somewhat but has not changed greatly over the years. The preferred management recommendation is to maintain license quotas at the present levels (10 licenses in 1999) for 5 years. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/117b51e5e4c43255dea13a049492a650.pdf 04995129fae6f7007dae8583d9a0ea28 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION DATA ANALYSIS UNIT L-11 MANAGEMENT PLAN GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 48, 49, 50, 56, 57, 58, 59, 481, 500, 501, 511, 512, 561, 581, 591 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife By: Brian Dreher Jack Vayhinger Terrestrial Wildlife Biologists 1 �DESCRIPTION OF DAU, HABITAT AND HISTORICAL MANAGAMENT Mountain lion (Puma concolor) data analysis unit (DAU) L-11 includes all of Teller, Lake and Chaffee counties and portions of El Paso, Pueblo, Fremont, Park, Saguache, and Jefferson counties in central Colorado (Figure 1). The overall area of the DAU is approximately 14,087 km2 (5,439 mi2). This area includes the metropolitan Colorado Springs area and associated urban interface. Vegetative communities within the DAU are varied and correspond to a wide range of elevations. The western extent of the DAU contains high altitude elevations exceeding 14,000 feet and is associated with sub alpine and alpine vegetation. The north-central portion of the DAU includes South Park associated with high meadow grasslands. The southern portion of the DAU in the Arkansas River valley is composed of pinion/juniper vegetation. Additional vegetative communities include gamble oak, mountain shrub, and aspen. The land ownership within the DAU is mixed with 2,350 mi2 (41.0%) private, 2,171 mi2 (37.9%) United States Forest Service, 634 mi2 (11.1%) Bureau of Land Management, 323 mi2 (5.6%) State of Colorado, 5 mi2 (0.1%) United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 243 mi2 (4.2%) Department of Defense, and 9 mi2 (0.1%) National Park Service. Figure 1. Mountain lion DAU L-11 in Colorado Key Management Issues There are two primary management issues in L-11. The most important is to maintain a biologically sustainable lion population while accounting for multiple uses. Humans 2 �possess a variety of values for mountain lions (Zinn and Manfredo 1996). Therefore, management decisions must account for these multiple values and include an assessment of harvest, human conflicts and game damage. Public open houses were held in Colorado Springs, Salida, Canon City, and Hartsel to gather public comment about the management plan for L-11. Comments were submitted in writing both at the open houses and by mail. Most comments supported continued hunting and some comments regarded an excess of lions that should be controlled through harvest. Other comments urged the importance of better population information about mountain lions. Refer to Appendix A for actual comments. The second management issue includes the necessity of public education about mountain lion biology, management and successful coexistence. Increased residential development throughout L-11, especially Colorado Springs and the surrounding areas, has increased the incidence of human/mountain lion interactions. Therefore, an effort must be made to inform residents about mountain lions. STRATEGIC GOALS: The overall goal of the CDOW is to maintain a healthy, self sustaining mountain lion population that is in balance with available habitat. In addition, to minimize game damage complaints and maintain an environment that supports a rich, vegetative and wildlife community that will support a self-sustaining mountain lion population. Based on this overall goal and input from the public DAU L-11 is to be managed for a stable mountain lion population. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES: Historic Information Mortality Harvest is the largest source of documented mountain lion mortality in L-11. Mountain lion hunting season is open from January 1st through March 31st and from the 1st day after the close of the regular deer and elk seasons to December 31st. The number of mountain lions that can be harvested is regulated by a quota, which reflects the maximum number of lions that can be harvested in L-11. This quota is divided among the game management units (GMU’s) in L-11 (Figure 1). The harvest quota of mountain lions in L-11 has changed through the years. From 1993-1995 the quota was 77 mountain lions, 1996 the quota was 83 mountain lions and from 1997-2003 the quota has remained constant at 89 mountain lions (Figure 2). Historically, hunter harvest has been determined by winter snow conditions. Harvest goes up in years with more snow and goes down in drier years. Quotas have traditionally been set above expected harvest levels to allow more harvest in the occasional years that receive more snowfall resulting in increased hunting opportunity. The number of mountain lions harvested has varied through the years, but from 19932003 the lion quotas have never been reached (Figure 2). The percentage of quota achievement averaged 27% for the last 5-years and averaged 32% for the past 11-years (Figure 3). Mountain lion harvest has also varied among the different GMU’s within L-11 with GMU 58 having the largest harvest over the past 10 years (Table 1). The closest year that mountain lion harvest came to reaching the quota from 1993-2003 was in 1994 when 56% of the harvest quota was achieved with the harvest of 43 mountain lions in L11. 3 �100 90 80 Number of Mountain Lions 70 60 Harvest Total Mortality Quota 50 40 30 20 10 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Figure 2. Mountain lion harvest, total mortality and harvest quota in L-11 from 19932003. Total mortality includes both harvest and other documented mortalities such as road kills and control kills. 60% Percent of Quota Achieved 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Year Figure 3. Percent of the mountain lion quota achieved from 1993-2003 in L-11. 4 2003 �Table 1. Number of mountain lion harvested by sex (males/females) in L-11 by GMU from 1994-2003. GMU Year 10 Yr.Total 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 Males Females 48 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0 0 481 0/1 1/1 0/0 0/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/1 0/0 0/0 56 0/0 0/1 1/1 0/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/1 561 0/1 1/0 2/0 0/2 0/0 1/0 1/0 1/2 0/0 2/0 49 1/2 2/0 1/0 1/0 3/0 1/0 3/1 2/0 0/0 2/2 57 1/0 0/2 1/0 0/2 1/0 1/1 3/4 1/2 0/0 3/2 58 2/5 6/4 4/8 5/2 2/1 3/3 3/3 2/1 4/3 7/2 581 2/0 2/0 5/0 1/1 3/0 3/0 3/4 3/2 5/0 2/6 59 2/3 3/0 1/0 1/1 2/0 2/1 1/0 1/0 3/2 3/3 591 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 511 4/0 1/0 2/1 0/0 2/0 0/1 2/1 0/0 1/2 1/2 512 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 50 0/0 0/2 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 500 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 501 2/0 1/2 0/2 1/0 2/0 2/0 1/2 1/1 2/1 2/1 Total DAU by sex 14/12 17/12 17/12 9/10 15/1 13/6 17/15 11/9 15/8 24/19 DAU Total 26 29 29 19 16 19 32 20 23 43 1 2 8 16 11 38 29 19 0 13 0 1 0 14 - 4 4 5 5 13 32 13 10 0 7 0 2 0 9 - Mountain lion population modeling suggests that the harvest of female mountain lion is the most sensitive indicator of changes in mountain lion population size. Therefore, it is important that the proportion of females in the harvest be monitored. The proportion of female mountain lions in the L-11 harvest has varied from 25% to 68% in 1993-2003 with the highest proportion of 68% in 1993 (Figure 4). Current CDOW management direction includes monitoring the proportion of female harvest, and that if the proportion of females in the harvest exceeds 50%, then the harvest should be further analyzed to determine if reductions in harvest should occur to reduce both the number and proportion of females killed in the DAU. The proportion of female mountain lions in the L-11 harvest has averaged 40% for the past 5-years and 43% for the past 11-years. Therefore, current female harvest proportions are acceptable for a stable or increasing population objective. 5 �80% 70% Proportion of Females 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Figure 4. Proportion of female mountain lions in the harvest in L-11 from 1993-2003. Refuge Areas Logan and Sweanor (2000) suggest that a sustainable lion harvest is supplemented by refuge areas where no harvest is occurring. A spatial quantification of these refuge areas was made using harvest locations from 1997-2002. These harvest locations were buffered by the home range (male 357 km2; female 195 km2) according to the sex of the animal harvested. Refuge areas were then classified as areas outside of these buffered harvest locations (Figure 5). Over 50% of the DAU had low to no harvest during 19972002. Those areas provide functional refuges from harvest that contribute lions to the population in areas with higher harvest intensities. The presence of these refuge are a result of areas having very little to no road access to facilitate hunting, high human residential densities which prohibit the running of lions by dogs and/or low lion densities which attract little hunter interest. Areas supporting medium to high lion densities while having no or very low harvest include the Front Range of El Paso, Teller and northeastern and eastern Park counties (high human residential densities). In addition, southern Park and northern Fremont counties (low road densities limit hunter access) and western Chaffee County (private lands and rugged terrain hinder hunting with dogs) have no hunter harvest. The absence of harvest within these areas with high to moderate lion densities serve to supplement lion populations in close proximity where harvest is occurring. Low lion populations occur in central Park county, northwestern Pueblo county and the higher elevations of Lake and Chaffee counties. Lion populations in these areas are low enough that they probably provide little supplement to the adjacent areas of higher harvest. 6 �Figure 5. Home range buffered mountain lion harvest locations and intensity of harvest, 1997 through 2002 for L-11. Game Damage The diet of the mountain lion consists of a variety of prey species, which have been documented to occasionally include domestic livestock. Colorado Division of Wildlife statute 33-3-104 establishes the liability of the state for damage documented and confirmed as mountain lion damage to livestock. The number of game damage claims attributed to mountain lions in L-11 and the amount paid from these claims from 19932003 has varied from 0 claims up to 3 claims totaling $3,970 in 2003 (Figure 6). The monitoring of game damage claims will continue and hunter harvest will be encouraged in situations where lions are causing damage during the hunting season. 7 �$4,500 $4,000 $3,500 Amount Paid $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Figure 6. Indexed amount ($) of mountain lion damage claims paid in L-11 from 19932003. Human / Mountain Lion Conflict Humans possess a variety of values towards mountain lions. A survey conducted by Zinn and Manfredo (1996) showed that the majority (approximately 80%) of Colorado Springs residents surveyed possessed a positive attitude towards mountain lions. However, these positive attitudes changed when the question pertained to the surveyed resident’s attitude when the mountain lion was in close proximity to their home with approximately 40% having a positive attitude toward such an occurrence. Since 1999, the number of mountain lion reports has varied with the largest number in year 2000 with 64 reports (Figure 7). These reports range from mountain lion sightings to complaints including depredations of domesticated pets. Education of the general public about mountain lions in L-11 has occurred for many years. This education will continue in the future to inform the public about mountain lion biology, management, and ways to successfully coexist. 8 �80 70 60 Number of Reports 50 40 30 20 10 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Figure 7. Number of mountain lion conflict reports taken by the Colorado Springs office of the Colorado Division of Wildlife from 1999-2003. PROCESS Currently, no research is being conducted in L-11 to estimate mountain lion abundance. Therefore, we projected the mountain lion population using available mountain lion habitat and density estimates from the scientific literature. Hemker et al. (1984) found that lion densities were limited by mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) populations in a Utah study area. Much of the previous research estimating mountain lion density has not evaluated prey densities as they correspond to mountain lion population densities. Therefore, a correlation between prey densities in research studies and prey densities in L-11 are not possible. However, vegetation classifications in previous research projects are similar with the vegetation in L-11 and these measured densities were used for population projections. L-11 is a large DAU and has a variety of vegetative types (Figure 8). Therefore, we did not use a single mountain lion density to project the population size in L-11. Rather, we divided L-11 into two habitat types, high elevation habitats and foothills habitats. In addition, we excluded the grasslands, urban areas and areas above 11,000 feet in elevation. 9 �Figure 8. Vegetative types in mountain lion DAU L-11. Much of the area in L-11 is composed of foothills vegetation types that include pinion/juniper, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and gamble oak (Quercus gambelii). Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) measured lion densities for a hunted mountain lion population in a foothills life zone to be a maximum of 4.5-4.7 lions/100 km2 for one year in their Alberta, Canada study area. Therefore upper and lower bounds of this density estimate were used for purposes of population projection in the foothills vegetation types. We refer to the lion density in these foothills areas as high lion density areas in Figure 9. The western boundary of L-11 is the continental divide, which is associated with high elevation vegetation including spruce/fir (Figure 9). In addition to the spruce/fir vegetation in L-11 we also included some ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) at higher elevations. Spreadbury et al. (1996) found mountain lion densities of 3.5-3.7lions/100 km2 in a rugged study area that included the continental divide in southeastern British Columbia. In addition, Spreadbury et al. (1996) found that elk (Cervus elaphus) was the most common ungulate in their study area. Also present were mule deer, bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), and mountain goats (Oreamnos americanus). These prey species are also consistent with the prey species found in the high elevation areas of L-11. We used the upper and lower bounds of the mountain lion density found by Spreadbury et al. (1996) in our population projections for high elevation areas. We refer to the high elevation habitats as moderate lion density areas in Figure 9. 10 �Figure 9. Projected mountain lion density in L-11 related to foothills (high lion density) and high elevation (moderate lion density) vegetative communities. Areas in L-11 that are not believed to be primary lion habitats were excluded. These included alpine areas above 11,000 feet in elevation, grassland vegetation of South Park, the riparian and agricultural lands around the city of Salida, and the grassland and agricultural lands around Canyon City extending northward to Colorado Springs (Figure 9). These are areas in which lions are sighted, but we believe the core of mountain lion home range is not likely to occur in these areas. Dickson and Beier (2002) found that mountain lion home ranges overlapped, but did not totally reside in grassland habitats. After applying the amount of area in both categories of vegetation to the density estimates, we projected the population at 431 to 452 mountain lions in L-11. Kittens cannot be legally harvested in Colorado. Therefore, we subtracted kittens to derive a harvestable population. Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) found that kittens and dependent juveniles on average comprised 33% of the population. Applying this percentage to our population projections, we find that between 289 and 303 mountain lions are legally harvestable. MORTALITY OBJECTIVES: Management Strategy We will set our mortality objective at or below 15% of the projected population. Hunter harvest will be monitored and harvest quotas will be adjusted as needed to account for non-harvest sources of mortality. We will closely monitor the harvest of female mountain lions and account for this information in setting harvest quotas. As population 11 �information specific to Colorado becomes available through scientific research it will be applied to make more rigorous decisions about management of lions in L-11. Total Mortality Objective Range For our population management objective of a stable mountain lion population in L-11, it is suggested that the total mortality not exceed the populations’ rate of increase. Logan and Sweanor (2001) found that a lion population in New Mexico to have an 11% rate of increase. Currently, the rate of increase of mountain lions in L-11 is unknown, but the densities of prey in L-11 are believed to be substantially higher than that in Logan and Sweanor’s study area. Therefore, a mortality level of 15% in L-11 is considered sustainable (Apker, pers comm.). Applying this mortality level to the projected population range of 289 to 303, would equate to an average mortality of 43 to 45 lions per year for a stable population. Hunter Harvest Objective Range For the large geographic size of L-11 the number of non-harvest mountain lion mortalities is low. The average non-harvest mortality in L-11 has been 3 lions for the past 5 years. Subtracting this average from the total mortality objective results in 40 to 42 mountain lions that can be harvested per year in L-11. Barriers and Strategies Increased development and urbanization will continue to be a barrier in obtaining the mortality objective in L-11. These factors result in increased human/lion conflict, other causes of mortality such as road kills and decrease geographic area in which lions can be actively hunted. The Division of Wildlife will continue to provide comments on developments and continue to educate the public about the biology and management of mountain lions. Monitoring There is currently a mandatory registration of all harvested mountain lions and many non-harvest mortalities are also checked by CDOW personnel. This mandatory registration and checks of non-harvest mortalities provides an opportunity to collect biological information such as age and sex. Collecting this biological information can help us to better understand the age and sex structures of harvested and non-harvest lion mortalities and will be used to monitor mountain lion mortality. Proportion of females in the harvest has been monitored for a number of years as an indicator of over harvest. This monitoring will continue and will be used to make decisions about future harvest quotas. PUBLIC COMMENTS In addition to the public open houses that we held in a scoping exercise to gather public input on the lion DAU plan (referred to at the beginning of the plan), we also sent out copies of the lion DAU plan to those publics whom participated in the public meetings and other interest groups. We provided a comment period for the draft DAU plan from 23 July – 13 August 2004. Written public comments from this period are contained in Appendix B. 12 �LITERATURE CITED Dickson, B. G., and P. Beier. 2002. Home-range and habitat selection by adult cougars in southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 66(4): 1235-1245. Hemker, T. P., F. G. Lindzey, and B. B. Ackerman. 1984. Population characteristics and movement patterns of cougars in southern Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management 48(4): 1275-1284. Logan, K.A. and L.L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, DC, USA. Ross, P. I., and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 56(3): 417-426. 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(4): 962-969. Zinn, H. C., & Manfredo, M. J. (1996). Societal Preferences for Mountain Lion Management along Colorado's Front Range. (Project Report No. 28). Project for the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit. 13 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/ecd22cbf9eb7291736feacdf08b9944e.pdf 114c8d4a6381f2d9e826bc7e69d6c73f PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-11 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 48, 481, 49, 56, & 561 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Southeast Region By: Jack Vayhinger Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Salida, Colorado INTRODUCTION: The goal of the Division of Wildlife is to maintain a healthy, self-sustaining mountain lion population that is in balance with its habitat with a minimum of game damage and nuisance complaints. This management plan establishes guidelines for lion management in the upper Arkansas River Valley. Lion hunting and harvest will be adjusted as necessary to achieve the unit objective. DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT This management unit is located in the upper Arkansas River Valley, from the headwaters downstream to Salida on the west side of the river and downstream to Johnson Village on the east side of the river. It also includes a small part of the South Platte drainage west and south of Fairplay in South Park. It includes game management units 48, 481, 49, 56, and 561. Elevation ranges from 7,000’ to 14,433’, the highest point in Colorado. Approximately 79% of the 1,493 square miles in this unit are public lands. Habitat quality ranges from poor to good, largely depending on elevation, aspect, vegetative stands, and prey populations they support. Habitat types include riparian, pinion-juniper woodland, semi-desert shrubland, grassland, montane shrubland, mountain meadow, montane forest, subalpine forest, and alpine tundra. Some of this area is not considered good lion habitat because of high altitude, low prey density and lack of hunting cover. Land use in this unit is primarily agricultural or recreational/forest use. Agricultural use is primarily livestock grazing or grass and alfalfa hay production. Recently a large amount of private land has been converted to seasonal or year-round residential land use. Much of this conversion has occurred at lower elevations impacting the better quality habitat for prey species and thus mountain lions. Recreational activities, which primarily occur on public land, include camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, off road vehicle use, snowmobiling, and skiing. December 4, 2000 �SPORT HARVEST OBJECTIVE: The sport harvest should not exceed 8-15 lions on a 3-year floating average. Harvest over the last 10 years has averaged 5 per year ranging from 0 to 9. The 3-year floating average has ranged from 4 to 7 over the same time period. The current population is believed to be stable to increasing and can support a larger harvest on a sustained basis. The current quota of 18 includes 10 in GMUs 48, 481, 49, 50, and 500 and 8 in GMUs 56 and 561. 50 and 500 are in L-13 but included in the quota system for hunting purposes. These quotas have not been reached and allow unlimited lion hunting opportunity. PRESCRIPTIONS: If sport harvest exceeds the three-year floating average, the annual quota will be reduced. We will also attempt to redirect hunting pressure by informing the public of other areas where an increase in harvest is desired. DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: Damage caused by mountain lions should not exceed $1,000 per year on a 3-year floating average. There have been no damage payments in this DAU over the last ten years. PRESCRIPTIONS: If damage caused by lions exceeds the objective we will focus management activities on the individual lions causing damage. Whenever possible, licensed hunters will be used to remove lions causing damage. Wildlife Services will be requested to remove lions involved in significant livestock depredations. HUMAN/LION CONFLICT OBJECTIVE: Lion conflict reports should not exceed 5 per year. During the last two years there have only been 2 reports submitted. PRESCRIPTIONS: If conflict reports exceed the annual objective, information will be provided to the public, livestock owners, land use agencies, and law enforcement agencies on how to reduce or eliminate conflicts. Site inspections will be conducted and reporting parties will be advised on how to avoid conflicts. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/fdea73482cf2d40ab2be263ea7974069.pdf 6a8be4b6ec139f4c414d28ad240da2f7 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-12 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 29, 38, 39, 391, 46, 461, 51, & 104 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Northeast Region By: Janet George Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Denver, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT DAU L-12 is located in north central Colorado. It surrounds the Denver-Boulder metropolitan area and contains the urban interface areas west and south of the metro area. It is bounded on the west by the Continental Divide, on the north by Lefthand Canyon and the Brainard Lake Road, on the east by the Great Plains and the south by the Douglas-El Paso County line and the South Platte River. This lion DAU is very diverse in many respects. Elevation ranges from approximately 5,200 feet in the east to over 14,000 feet on the west. Vegetation includes short grass prairie, Gambel's oak, montane and subalpine forests, and alpine tundra. The DAU contains Colorado's largest urban center and it also contains 2 wilderness areas. No estimate or studies of the lion population have been done in this DAU. It is believed that lion numbers have been stable over the last 10 years. There is adequate prey including deer, elk, and other mammals to support a healthy lion population. TOTAL LION HARVEST OBJECTIVE: The harvest has ranged from 3 to 15 over the last 10 years with an average of 9. The current quota is 61. The quota is seldom met in any of the GMUs due to the suburban land ownership patterns. This makes hunting lions with hounds difficult in most areas that lions occupy during the winter hunting season. Since quotas are seldom met, there is no reason to increase them. The lion population appears healthy so there is no reason to decrease quotas. The current quota allows for unlimited lion hunting opportunity. The quota for 2000 is 61. LION DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: Game damage payments have averaged $1,455 per year during the last 3 years. Damage has been as high as $11,621 in 1990-91. Damage has been paid for a variety of livestock and pets. The damage objective should be $1,500. If this objective is exceeded, actions should be taken to reduce damage payments. Actions could include; increase education on methods people can take to protect their livestock and pets, and target individual lions causing damage for removal by trap and transplant or by lethal December 4, 2000 �means. Increasing hunter harvest would not be effective. Quotas are not met currently, so in effect, lion hunting is unlimited in this DAU. During the winter lion hunting season, the highest density of deer, and presumably lions, are on Open Space and private land and not available to hunters. LION-HUMAN CONFLICTS: DAU L-12 has had the highest number of reported lion-human conflicts in Colorado for the last 2 years. There were 30 reported in 1998 and 14 in 1997. This is not surprising because this DAU has the greatest number of people of any DAU in the state. The goal should be to keep lion-human conflicts to fewer than 25 per year. Continuing education efforts and targeting individual lions that are causing conflicts will achieve this. LION IMPACTS ON OTHER WILDLIFE: Lions have few, if any, negative impacts on other wildlife species in this DAU. Deer populations are at, or slightly above, objectives in 2 of the 3 deer DAUs and observed fawn:doe ratios have exceeded 60:100 in recent years. Although deer numbers are below objective in D-17, the deer population has been increasing in recent years. The highest deer densities, and presumably, lion densities, are found in the first few hogbacks west of the plains and urban areas. Very few hunting opportunities for any species occur in this area due to large holdings of open space in Boulder and Jefferson counties and the suburban pattern of the private land. Lion predation on elk is desirable in this DAU because elk populations have been increasing and are at or above objective. There is evidence of lion predation on bighorn sheep, especially ewes and lambs, in unit S32. This is also acceptable because the bighorn population has been increasing and is slightly above objective. It has been challenging to remove adequate numbers of ewes due to low success rates for ewe hunters and the declining availability of acceptable transplant sites. History has proven many times, that overpopulation of bighorn leads to large-scale die-offs. There is evidence that lions also prey on raccoons. There is no concern for declining raccoon populations and they often are considered nuisance species by landowners. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/bf2df21287edf490fc6866bda74dd97d.pdf 5b15a3b842bbed8a3f401495b73ccd8c PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR North-Central Front Range: DAU L-12 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 29, 38, 39, 391, 46, 461, 51, & 104 Colorado Division of Wildlife Denver, Colorado October 21, 2004 �DESCRIPTION OF DAU, HABITAT, AND PAST MANAGEMENT LOCATION, TOPOGRAPHY, CLIMATE, LAND USE, LAND STATUS Data Analysis Unit (DAU) L-12 is located in north central Colorado (Figure 1). It is made up of game management units (GMUs) 29, 38, 39, 46, 51, 104, 391, and 461. The total area of this DAU is 9980 square kilometers (2,466,152 acres). It includes the Denver-Boulder metropolitan area and contains the urban interface areas west and south of the metro area. It is bounded on the west by the Continental Divide, on the north by Lefthand Canyon and the Brainard Lake Road, on the east by the Kiowa-Bennett Road and on the south by the Douglas-El Paso County line, the South Platte River and Highway 285. Figure 1. Map of DAU L-12. DAU L-12 includes all or part of the following counties: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Clear Creek, Douglas, Denver, Elbert, Jefferson, and Park. This DAU extends from the continental divide to the eastern plains and from the Palmer Divide to central Boulder County. The DAU ranges in elevation from under 1,600 meters (5,100 feet) in the east to over 4,300 meters (14,000 feet) in the west. 2 �The western part of DAU L-12 is mountainous and includes many heavily forested areas, high alpine tundra, rocky outcroppings, shrubs, and open grasslands. The southern part is midelevation grasslands, shrubs such as scrub-oak and mountain mahogany, and open ponderosa pine forest. Willows are found in riparian areas throughout the DAU. The center of the DAU is urban, including the Denver metropolitan area and surrounding areas. These areas are experiencing increasing development and are becoming more densely populated. The northern and eastern parts of the DAU are predominantly agricultural or short grass prairie with some cottonwood-willow riparian areas along small perennial or intermittent streams and larger rivers such as the South Platte. Land ownership in the DAU is 25% state and federal public lands and 75% private or city/county open space (Figure 2). The western and southern parts of DAU L-12 have good to excellent habitat for mountain lions. The central urban area is not suitable for mountain lions, although occasionally mountain lions are seen there. The northeastern portion of the DAU is mostly agricultural and generally not suitable mountain lion habitat. It is likely that some mountain lions have established home ranges in the southern part of the DAU where grasslands are interspersed with ponderosa pine forests and oak brush. Two interstate highways, I-25 and I-70, run through the center of the DAU. Several other highspeed highways and roads are found within lion habitat. These roads are sources of mortality and possible barriers to mountain lion movement. Other potential barriers to movement are urban areas such as Denver and Boulder. 3 �Figure 2. Land ownership in DAU L-12. KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES A major management issue in this area is maintaining an acceptable number of mountain lions while minimizing human conflicts and game damage. Public open houses were held in Fort Collins and Denver as part of the scoping process for public input. In addition to the comments that were received at the open houses, several comments were submitted by mail. The comments were considered in developing management objectives. Most of the public comments were in favor of maintaining a stable mountain lion population, but others believe that there are too many mountain lions and that we should increase harvest in order to reduce conflicts. Because of the large human population, hunting of mountain lions is very restricted in most of the areas where conflicts occur. Therefore, even if an increase in harvest could be achieved (which is improbable based on the fact that in current years the DAU quota has remained over 50% unfilled) it would be unlikely to reduce conflicts. Land use The Front Range of Colorado has experienced a large amount of development in the last ten to fifteen years. Mountain lion habitat is being converted into residential subdivisions throughout much of the DAU as development extends outward from the Denver and Boulder metropolitan areas. Much of the residential development in the DAU has occurred in areas that are prime 4 �wildlife habitat. In some parts of the DAU, homes are on moderately sized acreages which continue to provide suitable habitat for large prey such as deer and elk. Deer and elk hunting is reduced in many of these areas because of safety concerns or because hunting is socially unacceptable. Some of the counties and cities have developed open space programs that set aside land for recreation and wildlife habitat, but do not allow hunting. Ungulate populations are difficult to control under these circumstances. As a result of the abundant prey, mountain lions continue to use these areas. HISTORY Legal status Mountain lions received no legal protection and were classified as a predator in Colorado from 1881 until 1965 (Fitzgerald et al. 1994, p. 368). During that time take of mountain lions was encouraged by bounties and other laws. In 1965, mountain lions were reclassified as big game animals and hunting seasons were created. The bounty was abolished, but some provision for landowner take of depredating lions remains in Colorado law to this day. The Division of Wildlife also became fiscally liable for agricultural and livestock damage caused by lions. Human-lion conflicts Human-mountain lion conflicts are not new to this DAU. Conflicts arise when lions are seen in residential areas, attack and sometimes kill pets or livestock, act aggressively toward people, or actually attack people. In 1991, a high school student was killed by a mountain lion near Idaho Springs. In response, lion harvest quotas were increased, but the full quota for the DAU has never been reached (Figure 3). The fatal attack also led to a human dimensions study of opinions on lion management on the Front Range. The results of the survey showed that most people value mountain lions as part of the ecosystem. The study concluded that it was important to most people to know that mountain lions exist on the Front Range. About 80% of all respondents reported having a positive attitude toward mountain lions (Zinn and Manfredo, 1996). 5 �Mountain lion quota and harvest in L-12 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 quota total harvest Figure 3. Mountain lion quotas and harvest in L-12 from 1980 to 2003 Past harvest, quotas, and other mortality The harvest has ranged from 4 to 18 over the last 10 years, with an average of 11. The average harvest since 1980 is 9, and the average harvest in the last five years is 14. The current DAU quota is 61. The quota is seldom met in any of the GMUs due to the suburban land ownership patterns and parks and open space where hunting is not allowed. Both hunter harvest and known non-hunting mortality have been increasing over the past 15 years (Figure 4). The percentage of females that have been killed is also increasing (Figure 5). An average of 54% of mountain lions harvested by hunters in the last 5 years has been females, and 59% of the total mortality was female. 6 �L-12 mortality 20 18 16 14 12 nonhunting mortality 10 hunter harvest 8 6 4 2 0 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Figure 4. Hunting and non-hunting mountain lion mortality in L-12. L-12 pe rce ntage of fe male s in harv e st and mortality 80% 70% 60% 50% % female mortality %female harvest 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Figure 5. Percentage of female in harvest in L-12 from 1989 to 2003 7 �STRATEGIC GOALS The strategic goal for DAU L-12 is to suppress the mountain lion population. Mountain lion hunting will be managed in accordance with this goal. This goal was selected by the Director of the Division of Wildlife due to concerns about potential public confusion regarding mountain lion harvest and populations relative to human conflicts. The Division will continue to collect and analyze both biological and public opinion information related to mountain lion management and use new information to reevaluate goals and management strategies. Mountain lion harvest has fluctuated significantly from year to year, so it is not possible to predict future harvest with certainty. However, hunting quotas will be set based on recent average harvest at a level that will not reduce hunting opportunity or expected harvest. In addition, lions causing game damage and other conflicts will be managed on an individual basis. Often times individual lions are causing conflicts and damage so increased general harvest will not effectively address these problems. The DOW will continue to monitor lion harvest and nonhunting mortality, engage in incorporating data from pertinent research as it becomes available, and persist in refining and improving current knowledge of local mountain lion populations and management. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Prey densities Predator populations depend on their prey base and it is likely their numbers are correlated with prey densities. According to CDOW deer and elk population models, large ungulate populations have increased in L-12 over the past 10 years. In 1990 there were approximately 11,600 deer in the 2 deer DAUs within L-12, and since then the population has increased steadily to just under 16,000 in 2003. There are also additional deer within lion habitat in the southern end of GMU 104 which is in a third deer DAU that primarily falls outside L-12. As with any model, the population is not known with certainty, but it is our estimate based on the best information we have. Based on this estimate, the density of deer in these DAUs is approximately 2.55 deer/km2. Most of the literature on mountain lions does not include actual estimates of deer density, but Logan and Sweanor provided a model of the deer population in their study area in the San Andres Mountains of New Mexico. The density there ranged from approximately 0.36 deer/km2 to 0.78 deer/km2. The study area lacked elk, but did have other prey such as peccary. The density of mountain lions in the San Andres Mountains ranged from 2.0 to 4.3 lions/100 km2. It is possible that DAU L-12 can support a higher mountain lion population than other areas because of the abundant prey populations on the Front Range of Colorado. It is not surprising that DAU L-12 supports a higher prey density than some other habitats. Artificial landscapes, which are fertilized and irrigated, provide highly palatable forage for deer and elk. In addition, illegal feeding of deer, elk and other wildlife contribute to higher prey densities. Raccoons, skunks, and other small mammals are also common in residential areas, and occur at higher densities than in native habitats. These animals can serve as alternate prey for mountain lions. Therefore, the highest prey densities are in the same areas as high human densities. 8 �PROCESS FOR DETERMINING MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES No scientific population estimation studies have been conducted in L-12. In the absence of a science-based population estimate, the lion population of this DAU was projected by applying lion density estimates from 3 studies in other areas most similar to the lion habitat in L-12. Three previous studies have provided reliable estimates of lion density in hunted populations in habitats similar to that of L-12. Logan et al. (1986) studied a hunted population of lions in the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming from 1981 to 1983. This study estimated the density on winter range (late October to mid April) to be 3.5 to 4.6 lions per 100 km2. Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) studied a hunted population in southwestern Alberta from 1981 to 1989. This study estimated the density on winter range (December through April) to be 2.7 to 4.7 lions per 100 km2. Logan and Sweanor (2001) estimated lion densities on an annual basis instead of on winter range due to the desert habitat they worked in. The population projection for L-12 was based on winter range instead of on annual range because 2 estimates were available for winter range while only one was available for annual range. The outer limits of the estimated density range from Logan et al. (1986) and Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) were used to construct the preliminary range, 2.7 to 4.7 lions per 100 km2, for population in L-12. This range was then narrowed to 3.7 to 4.7 lions per 100 km2 (i.e., moderate to high density) in recognition of the abundance of prey and high quality of lion habitat in L-12 (Ken Logan, personal communication). The density range of 3.7 to 4.7 lions per 100 km2 was applied to the estimated area of mountain lion winter range in L-12. For the purposes of this DAU plan, lion winter range was defined as non-urban, forest and shrub areas below 2895 meters (9,500 feet). This elevation was selected based on the upper bound of mule deer winter range, lower bound of spruce/ fir vegetation, and locations of lion kill sites by hunters. Lions are known to shift their seasonal range in response to seasonal shifts of prey species. Although mountain lions are occasionally found at higher elevations during the winter, they normally restrict their movements to lower elevation areas where prey species concentrate in the winter (Seidensticker et al. 1973). Using GIS mapping functions, the lion winter habitat in L-12 was calculated to be 3,394 km2 (838,678 acres). The area included in this calculation is shown in Figure 6. Previous studies have shown that grasslands do not support high densities of mountain lions (Dickson 2002). However, low densities of lions do occur in portions of grassland habitat in L-12. These small numbers of lions are accounted for in the population projection by incorporating the forested areas that are adjacent to and interspersed within the grasslands of this DAU. 9 �Figure 6. Mountain lion habitat in L-12. Green indicates area occupied by mountain lions in winter. The prey density of 4.7 lions per 100 km2 reported by Ross and Jalkotzy, which is one of the highest observed, was selected as the most reasonable for L-12. This density was chosen because of the high populations of ungulates and alternate prey in the DAU. We also believe that this density is appropriate because we eliminated marginal habitat, which might support a few lions, from the land base that was used to calculate an expected population. Based on a density range of 4.7 lions per 100 km2, and a winter range of 3,394 km2, the population projection for L-12 is 160 lions. Kittens cannot legally be hunted in Colorado. Therefore, the number of lions that can be legally hunted was determined by subtracting the kittens from the total population projection. Logan and Sweanor (2001) reported that kittens comprised 34 % (±10%) of the population in a study area with simulated hunting pressure. Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) found that 33% of the population, on average, was dependant juveniles and kittens. Assuming that the age structure of the L-12 population is similar to the populations cited above, the projected population of L-12 contains 107 legally harvestable lions. MORTALITY OBJECTIVES Management strategy 10 �Harvest objectives will be set on an annual basis in accordance with the goal of suppressing the mountain lion population. We will attempt to reach the harvest objective by setting annual quotas for the game management units (GMUs) within the DAU. Quotas will be set based on recent average harvest, so that the expected harvest will not fall below current levels. We will monitor hunter harvest and other mortalities and adjust our harvest objectives and quotas as needed annually. Total Mortality Objective A mortality level at or below a population’s rate of increase leads to stable or increasing populations, while a mortality level exceeding the rate of increase will suppress a population. Logan and Sweanor (2001) observed an 11% rate of increase in the reference area of their study. The authors also documented the relatively high resiliency of lion populations when they recorded a 28% rate of growth in the treatment area following a period with a high rate of removal. Although the rate of increase in L-12 is not known, it is expected to be at least 11% and likely greater due to the substantially more abundant prey in L-12 than in Logan and Sweanor’s study. In order to be certain that a population is suppressed, harvest should exceed 28% of the population. In DAU L-12, this would equate to a harvest objective of 30 lions. Harvest over the last 5 years averages 14 mountain lions, which is 13% of the projected population. Total mortality averages 22 lions, which is 21% of the projected population. Current hunting quotas are unnecessarily high, even with suppression as a goal. Hunting quotas for the DAU have never been met in the past 24 years (Figure 3) and quotas are seldom met in any of the GMUs. As a result, hunting in this DAU has been effectively unlimited. If the current quotas were met, it could result in over half of the projected huntable population being harvested. Even with the current quotas the total mortality has only exceeded 28% of the projected population once (in 2003) partly due to unusually high nonhunting mortality in that year. Therefore, we may not be able to meet an objective of harvesting 28% of the population. A more reasonable goal will be to keep quotas high enough that hunting opportunity will not be reduced and that will not result in a lower expected harvest. Hunter Harvest Objective Over the last 5 years in L-12, an average of 7 lions per year have died as a result of non-hunting mortality, including car collisions and control kills. Given a total mortality objective of 30 lions per year, an average of 23 lions should be harvested annually in L-12. This estimate is based on the best current information. As new information or better methods for collecting and analyzing data become available, we will reassess and adjust population projections, total mortality and harvest objectives. Total mortality and harvest of lions, as well as the proportion of female lions in the harvest will be monitored annually and objectives adjusted accordingly. Barriers and Strategies to Achieving Mortality Objectives Urbanization, increasing roads and traffic, and the resulting loss of habitat are the most important barriers to achieving objectives for this DAU. Increasing human activity is a factor in the increase in mountain lion mortality in recent years. Much of the mortality is due to road kills. These factors are difficult to control. The Division of Wildlife comments on land use proposals, and will continue to do so, but counties and municipalities have the ultimate authority to make 11 �decisions involving land use. We will continue to educate people about the impacts of habitat loss and fragmentation on mountain lions and other wildlife. Expanding development in recent years has precluded mountain lion hunting from large areas of L-12. Even with this trend, harvest in the past 5 years is well above the average for the past 25 years. Some speculate that this is due to a higher mountain lion population, but many other factors could affect harvest, including the number of hunters, hunter effort, access to land for hunting, and weather conditions. Monitoring Hunter harvested mountain lions are required to be registered with CDOW staff. We will continue to collect biological information from these lions, as well as lions that are killed by other causes. In addition to the data that we already collect, we should attempt to age harvested lions as precisely as possible. Age can be estimated to within 2-3 years by examining tooth eruption and wear (Anderson and Lindzey 2000). We can improve our knowledge of the mountain lion population by collecting better data on age and sex structure of known mortalities. Additional information from hunters, such as the number of cats seen and treed, could also be useful. As results from other studies become available, the information will be used to modify our mountain lion management objectives and strategies. GAME DAMAGE The number of mountain lion damage claims in L-12 has increased since the early '90s. There is some indication of an upward trend from 1990-2003, but the number of claims varies from year to year (Figure 7). The 5-year average of damage claims is approximately $5,000. Most of the damage claims are not on cattle or sheep, but on "other" livestock such as horses, llamas, alpacas and goats. Because these kinds of livestock can be kept on small plots of land and an individual mountain lion might be responsible for depredation while others do not kill livestock, changes in the amount of lion hunting at the GMU or DAU level would not be an effective method to control damage. Game damage and human conflicts should be addressed through education and by targeting the individual animal that is causing the damage. The primary means of reducing game damage is to educate landowners about livestock practices to minimize the potential for lion depredation. Depredating lions could be removed by agency personnel or by hunters directed to specific depredating lions. Game damage claims will continue to be investigated and recorded. We will continue to track the amount of game damage claims and the amount paid for game damage. We will also continue to record mountain lion complaints and actions taken to reduce damage or conflict. 12 �L-12 dam age 10000 5 9000 2 Indexed Amount Paid 8000 7000 6000 5 1 5000 5 4000 3000 4 2000 1000 5 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Figure 7. Mountain lion damage in DAU L-12. Numbers above bars represent the number of claims paid in that year. HUMAN / LION CONFLICTS Increasing human density in mountain lion habitat is a factor in the number of human-mountain lion encounters and conflicts. As development at the edge of the suburban fringe proceeds, human encounters with lions will continue. Education of the public on how to live in lion country appears to be the most successful method of reducing conflicts. The results from a 1996 survey of Denver-area Front Range residents' attitudes toward mountain lions provided information on how people who live in lion country view these animals (Zinn and Manfredo 1996, Manfredo et al. 1998). Overall attitudes toward mountain lions across metropolitan and suburban communities were very similar, with approximately 80% of respondents in all cases having a "positive attitude" toward lions. Many of the people surveyed lived in the L-12 DAU. This survey also reinforced the idea that the DOW's information campaign regarding living with lions has been successful. A majority of the sample endorsed the strategy recommended by the DOW for human behavior during a mountain lion encounter. RESTRICTED HARVEST/ REFUGE AREAS The mosaic of various landowners and land management agencies in L-12 with different philosophies or regulations regarding lion hunting, in addition to the variety of human activities and housing densities, has created a patchwork of areas within the DAU where lion hunting is restricted or not allowed at all. While the total effective sizes of these hunting refuges is difficult to estimate due to their non-contiguous nature, it is clear that there are significant pieces of land within the DAU that are lion habitat and are not subject to hunting mortality. As the large 13 �ranches in L-12 become subdivided or purchased by cities, counties and non-governmental organizations, areas of no hunting mortality or restricted harvest will likely only continue to increase in number and size. However, as traffic increases on existing roads and as new roads are built nonhunting mortality may reduce the effectiveness of these potential refuge areas. Areas such as southern Boulder County and parts of Jefferson and Douglas Counties, where hunting access is limited, might be providing a source of immigrating lions that helps support the population given the current level of harvest and other mortality. These potential sources of inflow to the population will continue to be further identified as more information becomes available on the role they may play in sustaining population stability. SUMMARY DAU L-12 has good habitat and abundant prey that can support high mountain lion densities. High levels of human activity, roads, and traffic can act as sources of mortality or barriers to mountain lion movement. The goal for this DAU is to suppress the mountain lion population. Total lion mortality and female mortality has been increasing in recent years. Based on the population projection for L-12 which was estimated from population rates of increase found in published lion studies, as well as the high proportion of females in the harvest, the recent average hunter harvest and total mortality may be approaching the levels necessary to suppress the population. Game damage and human-lion conflicts will be managed by targeting individual mountain lions, rather than using general hunting. Ongoing research and improved monitoring might yield new information about mountain lion populations. When new information becomes available we will use it to adjust our population projection, total mortality and harvest objectives. LITERATURE CITED Anderson, C.R., Jr., and F.G. Lindzey. 2000. A photographic guide to estimating mountain lion age classes. Wyo. Coop. Fish & Wildl. Res. Unit., Laramie. 2pp. Dickson, B.G. and Beier, P. 2002. Home-range and habitat selection by adult cougars in southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 66(4):1235-1245. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meaney, and D.M. Armstrong. 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History and University of Colorado Press. Logan, K.A., L.L. Irwin, and R. Skinner. 1986. Characteristics of a hunted mountain lion population in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 50(4):648-654. Logan, K.A. and L.L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, DC, USA. Manfredo, M. J., H. C. Zinn, L. Sikorowski and J. Jones. 1998. Public acceptance of mountain lion management: a case study of Denver, Colorado and nearby foothills areas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26 (4): 964-970. Ross, P.I. and M.G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(3):417-426. 14 �Seidensticker, J.C., M.G. Hornocker, W.V. Wiles, and J.P. Messick. 1973. Mountain lion social organization in the Idaho Primitive Area. Wildlife Monographs No. 35. Zinn, H. C., & Manfredo, M. J. (1996). Societal Preferences for Mountain Lion Management along Colorado's Front Range. (Project Report No. 28). Project for the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit. 15 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/395c82839c7e39fff0b35c33e1644eaf.pdf ab286734c433e5a044f551c13ab633bf PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-13 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 50, 500, & 501 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Northeast Region By: Janet George Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT DAU L-13 is located in central Colorado. It includes South Park and the mountains surrounding it. This lion DAU includes one of Colorado's intermountain parks. Elevation ranges from approximately 7,500 feet along the South Platte River near Cheeseman Reservoir to over 13,000 feet on the Continental Divide. Vegetation includes mountain grasslands, subalpine forests, riparian, and alpine tundra. No estimate or studies of the lion population have been done in this DAU. It is believed that lion numbers have been stable over the last 10 years. Deer numbers are relatively low in this DAU, but elk and mountain sheep are also present. There has been some lion predation on the mountain sheep population, but it has not been enough to effect mountain sheep population trends. This DAU probably has relatively low mountain lion numbers considering low deer densities, a mountain sheep population declining due to disease, low harvest of lions, and low frequency of lion tracks. TOTAL LION HARVEST OBJECTIVE: The harvest has ranged from 2 to 4 lions annually over the last 10 years with an average of 3. The current quota is 20 and is never filled. Since quotas are not filled, there is no reason to increase them. The current quota allows for unlimited lion hunting opportunity. LION DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: Game damage payments have been low in this DAU, averaging under $350 per year. The damage objective should be to keep damage under $1,000 per year. If this objective is exceeded, actions should be taken to reduce damage payments. Actions could include; increase education on methods people can take to protect their livestock and pets, and target individual lions causing damage for removal by trap and transplant or by lethal means. Increasing hunter harvest is not a method to reduce lion damage or lion-human conflicts. Quotas are not met currently, so in effect, lion hunting is unlimited in this DAU. Hunters will be used to remove lions causing damage or conflicts whenever possible. December 4, 2000 �LION-HUMAN CONFLICTS: Lion-human conflicts are very low in DAU L-13. No conflicts have been reported in the last 2 years. This is probably due to low lion density and a moderate, although increasing, human population. The goal should be to keep lion-human conflicts low and under 5 per year. This may become a challenge as the human population increases in the next decade. If conflicts increase, then the situation will be reviewed to determine how to reduce conflicts. LION IMPACTS ON OTHER WILDLIFE: There is little, if any, negative impacts on other wildlife species in this DAU. Lion densities are believed to be low. There is evidence of lion predation on the Tarryall bighorn sheep herd. However, mortality due to lion predation is insignificant in comparison to the pneumonia die off that has occurred in this sheep herd in the last 2 years. The deer herd in the area is small due to habitat characteristics. High elevation grassland and timbered habitats favor elk and bighorn sheep over deer. Little is known about the effect of lion predation on deer in this DAU. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/ac61647805b5b96371647a515aa88376.pdf 9a8c2b24796e2745dc182a2d063e8d76 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-14 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 59, 591, 511, & 512 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Southeast Region By: Bob Davies Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Colorado Springs, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT DAU L-14 is located west of Interstate 25, north and south of Colorado Springs, Colorado and is included within portions of the Pike National Forest. It ranges in elevation from about 5,200 feet northwest of Pueblo, Colorado to over 14,000 at the summit of Pikes Peak. Vegetation, topographic slope and aspect, and terrain vary widely from foothill shortgrass and shrubland to alpine tundra. Favorable lion habitat occurs where there are canyons and arroyos with shrubland and Gambel’s oak, and rolling forest land of Ponderosa pine and aspen mixed with open montane grasslands. The DAU includes GMUs with two subGMUs designated 512 and 591. GMU 512 is comprised entirely of the United States Air Force Academy and no lion hunting is permitted on Academy land at this time. GMU 591 is comprised entirely of the Fort Carson Army Base and lion hunting is possible but very limited due to Army training activities. SPORT HARVEST OBJECTIVE: The sport harvest objective is 27 mountain lions based on the current quota. PRESCRIPTIONS: If the sport harvest exceeds the quota: Re-evaluate the harvest quota and population estimate to ensure the quota is the proper number. Set the quota at the proper level to meet the current parameters of management. Redirect hunting pressure to other areas. GAME DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: Damage caused by mountain lion should not exceed $1,000 per year based on a 3-year average. Damage has averaged $170 per year for the last 11 years. PRESCRIPTIONS: Target specific animals that are causing damage problems. Increase public information efforts to minimize damage problems. HUMAN/LION CONFLICT OBJECTIVE: There is one conflict that has occurred, in 1998. The human/conflict goal is to have fewer that 5 per year. We do receive 50 or so complaints or reports of lions in populated areas, of which 95% are dog or other animal tracks. December 4, 2000 �PRESCRIPTIONS: If human/lion conflicts increase, then increase the number of public information programs and efforts to the general public Increase temporary employee time to address problem areas. Provide additional workshops for the public, public agencies, and law enforcement personal. SUMMARY: Intent is to stay with the current quota, which allows for essentially unlimited hunting opportunity. Human/lion conflicts are few, but likely to increase due to human population increases and increasing numbers of people recreating in lion habitat. There is little likelihood of high dollar amounts in damage claims as there is not much livestock industry in L-14. Damage problems are with individuals with small numbers of sheep, goats, camel and llama. Harvest is predicted to stay the same or decrease due to fewer areas to hunt lion as a result of increasing human development. There are no reasons to indicate that mountain lions are not a major factor in regulating deer or elk populations. Elk populations in this mountain lion DAU are stable or increasing and deer populations in some areas are declining while other areas have an increasing number of deer. Sport hunting will be utilized to harvest lions at a level that will allow maximum hunter opportunity and maintain a healthy lion population. Individual animals that cause excessive damage to livestock, personal property or pose a threat to human health or welfare will be removed as necessary. Control activity, other than sport harvest, is not anticipated to benefit deer or elk populations. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/fc2b6c86702188bb1113e53a95868328.pdf 50fce2014bf4c0d20fdd5552d39c19fa PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-15 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 57, 58, & 581 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Southeast Region By: Jack Vayhinger Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Salida, Colorado INTRODUCTION The goal of the Division of Wildlife is to maintain a healthy, self-sustaining mountain lion population that is in balance with its habitat with a minimum of game damage and nuisance complaints. This management plan establishes guidelines for lion management in the central Arkansas River Valley. Lion hunting and harvest will be adjusted as necessary to achieve the unit objective. DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT This management unit is located on the north side of the Arkansas River, from Salida downstream to Colorado Highway 67 approximately 4 miles east of Canon City. It includes game management units 57, 58, and 581. Altitude ranges from 5,400' to 7,000'. Approximately 41% of the 1,833 square miles in this unit are public lands. Habitat quality ranges from poor to excellent, largely depending on altitude, aspect, the resulting vegetative stands and the prey populations they support. Habitat types include riparian, pinion-juniper woodland, semidesert shrubland, grassland, montane shrubland, mountain meadow, montane forest, subalpine forest, and alpine tundra. Except for the portion of the unit in the open part of South Park, this area is good to excellent lion habitat supporting a good population of lions. Land use in this unit is primarily agricultural or recreational/forest use. Agricultural use is primarily livestock grazing with a small amount of grass and alfalfa hay production. Recently a large amount of private land has been converted to seasonal or year-round residential land use. Much of this conversion has occurred at lower elevations impacting the better quality habitat for lions and prey species. Recreational activities, which primarily occur on public land, include camping, hiking, hunting, fishing, and off-road vehicle use. SPORT HARVEST OBJECTIVE: The annual sport harvest should not exceed 25-30 lions on a 3-year floating average. Harvest over the last 10 years has averaged 20 per year ranging from 11 to 28. The 3-year floating December 4, 2000 �average has ranged from 14.0 to 27.7 over the same time period. The current population is believed to be stable to increasing and can support a larger harvest on a sustained basis. The current annual quota is 34 for this DAU. This quota has not been reached and currently allows unlimited lion hunting opportunity. PRESCRIPTIONS: If sport harvest exceeds the 3-year floating average, the annual quota will be reduced. We will also attempt to redirect hunting pressure by informing the public of other areas where an increase in harvest is desired. DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: Damage caused by mountain lions should not exceed $1,000 per year on a 3-year floating average. There have only been two years with damage payments over the last ten years ($747 and $2,127). The three-year floating average has ranged from $0 to $958. Non-sport harvest has removed 5 lions in the last 10 years. PRESCRIPTIONS: If damage caused by lions exceeds the objective, we will focus management activities on the individual lions causing damage. Whenever possible, licensed hunters will be used to remove lions causing damage. Wildlife Services will be requested to remove lions involved in significant livestock depredations. HUMAN/LION CONFLICT OBJECTIVE: Lion conflict reports should not exceed 5 per year. During the last two years there have been no reports submitted. PRESCRIPTIONS: If conflict reports exceed the annual objective, information will be provided to the public, livestock owners, land use agencies and law enforcement agencies on how to reduce or eliminate conflicts. Site inspections will be conducted and reporting parties will be advised on how to avoid lion conflicts. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/2ea38f5cb850576b2903b00e00b8b63d.pdf f1ef64bd04791d77708fa4ccd860255d PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-16 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 69, 691, 82, 84, 86, & 861 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Southeast Region By: Stan Abel Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Pueblo, Colorado INTRODUCTION This management area plan will establish management guideline objectives for mountain lion populations in the northeastern San Luis Valley, Wet Mountain Valley, and Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Lion hunting and harvest will be adjusted when necessary in an effort to achieve the unit objective. The goal of the CDOW is to maintain a healthy, self-sustaining population of mountain lion that is in balance with available habitat, minimize nuisance complaints, minimize game damage complaints and also maintain an environment that supports a rich, vegetative and wildlife community that will maintain a self-sustaining lion population. Current studies related to deer fawn summer mortality and both fawn and adult winter mortality indicate that mountain lions are not a major factor in population regulation. While there may be isolated geographical areas of significant mountain predation, these isolated areas do not contribute significantly to population control in the entire deer DAU. Elk populations are currently at high levels and in the elk DAUs located within L-16 are either at or slightly above population objective. Survival rates for both adult and calf elk are high. Sport hunting will be used to harvest the lion population at a level that will allow maximum hunter opportunity and maintain a healthy, viable population of lions. Individual animals that cause excessive damage to livestock, personal property or pose a threat to human health and welfare will be removed as necessary. No control action, other than sport harvest, is anticipated to benefit deer or elk populations. DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT This lion unit is located in the northeastern San Luis Valley, Wet Mountain Valley, and Sangre de Cristo Mountains. It is composed of six Game Management Units (GMU) that include GMUs 69, 82, 84, 86, 691, and 861. The CDOW designation of this lion Data Analysis Unit is L-16. It is bounded on the north by US Highway 50; on the east by I-25; on the south by Colo. 69, the Sangre de Cristo Divide, the Alamosa-Costilla County Line, and US Highway 160; on the west by Colo. 17 and US Highway 285. Drainages include the Arkansas River, Huerfano River, Grape Creek, Texas Creek, and San Luis Creek. December 4, 2000 �Vegetative communities vary with elevation and aspect, but exhibit typical alpine tundra, mountain shrub land, sub-alpine conifer, montane conifer, montane shrub, Great Basin desert shrub, and plains grassland. This DAU supports one of the highest lion harvests in eastern Colorado. HARVEST SUMMARY: 1988 through 1997 Total harvest 252 Sport harvest 230 Total males in harvest 151 Total females in harvest 101 10-year average annual harvest 25 1997 Harvest quota for all Units except unit 82 1997 Harvest quota for Unit 82 42 10 HUNTER SUCCESS: 1997 ............................31% 1996 ............................32% 1995 ............................37% 1994 ............................31% HARVEST OBJECTIVE: · · · Maintain current harvest quota for 3-5 years. Monitor harvest rates for continued stabilization. Maintain existing harvest levels over time with existing harvest quota. DISCUSSION: · · Mountain Lion sightings by field officers and the public have increased by 50% over the last 5 years. There is no indication there are fewer lions now than in the last ten years. GAME DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: Damage caused by mountain lions should not exceed $2,500 on a 3-year floating average basis. PRESCRIPTIONS: · · · · · Focus on individual lion(s) causing damage. Direct Wildlife Services to remove lions in significant livestock depredations. Capture and re-locate offending lion. Monitor and educate. Destroy mountain lion. December 4, 2000 �· Utilize services of outfitter, licensed hunter harvest is preferred if conditions allow. HUMAN/LION CONFLICT OBJECTIVE: An estimate of 10 reports per year will be used as an average based on field input. An objective of 10 human/lion reports per year is recommended. Long-term documentation of human/lion conflict does not exist or is inaccurate due to variable reporting rates. Mountain Lion sightings and human/lion conflicts are increasing annually. There are several factors that contribute to this increase. · · · · · Rapid growth along the Front Range. Residential encroachment. Growing prey base in rural residential areas. More frequent interaction. Fragmented land use, increase in hobby farms. PRESCRIPTIONS: · · · · · Document reports of human/lion conflict. Confirm and document lion sightings. Provide information to the public, livestock owners, and land use agencies. Conduct site visits; offer professional advice and literature. Consider non-lethal options, case by case. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/09b3e57ae845ee8cc16918daf35645e3.pdf ae2b2267031cb9aa14c6fb57a4e0b8ac PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR Lion DAU L-16 Game Management Units 69, 82, 84, 86, 691 and 861 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Southeast Region By: Allen Vitt Terrestrial Biologist, Pueblo �DESCRIPTION OF DAU, HABITAT, AND PAST MANAGEMENT Mountain lion (Puma concolor) Data Analysis Unit (DAU) L-16 is located in the northeastern San Luis Valley, Wet Mountain Valley, and the Sangre de Cristo and Wet Mountains and comprises Game Management Units (GMU) 69, 82, 84, 86, 691, and 861 (Figure 1). It covers 9370 km2 (3612 mi.2) ranging in elevation from 1,450 meters (4,640 ft.) where the Arkansas River flows under I-25 to 4,483 meters (14,345ft.) at the top of Mount Blanca in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Topography ranges from rolling hills to ridges and valleys to steep alpine slopes and cliffs. Precipitation ranges from 45+ cm (18 in.) at higher elevations to less than 15 cm (6 in.) in the lower elevations, mainly in the form of winter snows and spring and summer rains. Mountain lion DAU L-16 is bounded on the North by US highway 50; on the east by I-25; on the south by Colorado Highway 69, Huerfano County Roads 555 (Muddy Creek Road), 570 and 572 (Pass Creek Road), the Sangre de Cristo Divide, the AlamosaCostilla County line and Colorado Highway 160; and on the west by Colorado Highway 160 and Colorado Highway 17. Drainages include portions of the Arkansas River, Huerfano River, Grape Creek, St. Charles River, San Luis Creek and Texas Creek. Figure 1. Mountain Lion DAU 16 location and boundaries. Of the 9370 km2 in L-16, land ownership is as follows: Private - 5453 km2 (58.2%); State of Colorado (Division of Wildlife, State Land Board, Department of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Etc.) - 628 km2 (6.7%); U. S. Forest Service - 2146 km2 (22.9%); Bureau of 2 �Land Management - 993 km2 (10.6%); and National Park Service - 150 km2 (1.6%). Land ownership in the DAU is shifting from private landownership to the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve and a new National Wildlife Refuge. These changes have not been finalized at the current time and will affect landownership breakdowns in the future. Vegetative communities include alpine tundra, sub-alpine fir, montane conifer, montane shrub, mountain grassland, great basin shrub, and plains grassland. Predominate land use in L-16 is agriculture with livestock grazing occurring on public and private lands. Irrigated hay meadows are common in the Wet Mountain Valley while row crops are uncommon and generally confined to very small farms at lower elevations. Geologically the Sangre de Cristo range is not highly mineralized. Thus there is currently little mining in the area, although extensive mining occurred in GMU 691 but has ceased since the first part of the 20th century. Human occupancy is scattered among river valleys and in the major population centers of Pueblo, Canon City, Florence, Salida, Alamosa, Rye, Walsenburg and Colorado City located along the perimeter of the DAU. Cities within the interior include Westcliffe, Silver Cliff, Crestone and Beulah. Human recreation is centered in the San Isabel National Forest and the Sangre de Cristo wilderness areas. Also the Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve offer increasing human activity within the region. Due to poor economic conditions within the ranching community, several large ranches have been sold to developers and communities based on 40 acre lots are quickly impacting large expanses of the region, further reducing mountain lion hunting access. Several area ranches have been placed in conservation easements protecting these areas from future development. STRATEGIC GOALS The goal of the CDOW is to maintain a rich, vegetative and wildlife community that is in balance with the available habitat, which will minimize game damage complaints and support a self sustaining mountain lion population. This DAU is being managed for a stable population. POPULATION PROJECTION No scientific studies to estimate mountain lion populations have been conducted in L-16. In the absence of a science-based population estimate, the mountain lion population of this DAU was projected by applying density estimates from studies in other areas similar to L-16 to the effective mountain lion habitat in L-16. In doing so, we have estimated a population to better determine an acceptable off-take range to maintain the population. Two scientific studies that were conducted in similar habitat were used to establish a density range for L-16. Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) studied a hunted population in southwestern Alberta from 1981 to 1989. This study estimated the density on winter range (December through April) to be 2.7 to 4.7 lions per 100 km2 (40 mi.2). Logan et al. (1986) studied a hunted population of mountain lion in the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming from 1981 to 1983. This study estimated the density on winter range (late October to mid April) to be 3.5 to 4.6 mountain lion per 100 km2. The outer limits of the estimated density range from Logan et al. (1986) and Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) were 3 �used to construct the preliminary range, 2.7 to 4.7 lions per 100 km2, for the population. This range was then narrowed to 3.5 to 4.7 lions per 100 km2 (i.e., moderate to high density) in recognition of the abundance of prey and high quality of lion habitat in L-16. A GIS analysis of vegetative types was used to determine area of effective mountain lion habitat (Figure 2). Figure 2. GIS interpretation of habitat types. Areas that were determined to be very low density habitat such as the rabbit-brush and greasewood flats of unit 82 on the San Luis Valley floor were excluded from the population projection. Urban areas such as the towns Pueblo, Canon City, Florence, Salida, Alamosa, Rye, Walsenburg and Colorado City; along with the small portions of unit 84, which contain grassland dominated landscapes, were also excluded from the projection. These areas are not devoid of mountain lion but were determined to be such a low density that it would artificially inflate the population projection. Since most population estimates were based on winter range estimates we also excluded areas with an elevation above 3,350 meters (11,000 ft.) (Figure 3). Using these parameters we determined that the effective mountain lion habitat is approximately 6433 km2. 4 �Figure 3. Mountain lion density projection for DAU L-16. Using a the low density population estimate of 3.5 mountain lion/100 km2 found by Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) applied to the amount of effective mountain lion habitat in L-16, we arrive at a low density population estimate of 225 mountain lion within L-16. Using a high density population estimate of 4.7 mountain lion/100 km2 found by Logan, et al. (1986) in the Bighorn Mountains in Wyoming to the same amount of mountain lion habitat, we arrive at a high density population of 302 mountain lion within L-16. Thus we project a mountain lion population of between 225 and 302 mountain lion within L-16. The CDOW has initiated a mountain lion study in 2004. Hopefully, population projections will be further refined from this study to further increase our knowledge of mountain lions in Colorado. These population projections will be updated as future information becomes available, with the possibility of raising or lowering the current population projections. We believe the mountain lion population is closer to the high density population estimate due to the high prey density (especially elk), and the high quality mountain lion habitat found within the DAU. HARVEST SUMMARY 5 �The hunter harvest in L-16 has ranged from 17 to 28 lions a year over the last 10 years with an average of 23 (Table 1). YEAR 10 Yr. Total GMU 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 Males Females 69 3/4 2/2 1/5 1/0 0/4 8/3 7/5 3/3 3/1 3/3 31 30 82 2/0 0/0 2/2 0/1 1/1 0/0 2/2 2/0 1/0 2/0 12 6 84 2/0 4/2 3/4 7/2 3/6 3/3 5/5 2/3 3/2 3/0 35 27 86 5/2 6/6 9/2 5/5 5/5 1/3 2/2 7/5 4/2 7/1 51 33 691 0/1 2/0 0/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 0/0 3 2 861 0/1 0/1 0/5 0/0 1/1 2/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 3 8 DAU Total 12/8 14/11 15/19 13/8 10/17 14/9 16/14 14/11 12/5 15/4 by sex DAU 20 25 34 21 27 23 30 25 17 19 Total Table 1. Number of mountain lions harvested by sex (males/females) in L-16 by GMU from 1994-2003. The percentage of females in the harvest has remained fairly constant (Figure 4), with the ten year average percentage of females in the harvest being 41% and a five year average of 45%. PERCENT OF FEMALES IN HARVEST L-16 60% 56% 50% 50% 50% 47% 45% 44% 43% 42% 40% 38% 41% 40% 39% 38% 29% 30% 22% 20% 10% 0% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 YEAR Figure 4. Percent of females in total harvest. 6 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 5-Yr AVG �The harvest quota has remained constant in units 82 over the period from 1990-2003. The quota for units 69, 84, 86, 861 was 25 in 1990 and was increased to 40 in 1992. In 1996 the quota was increased by 2 to 42 and remains there in 2003(Figure 5). Mountain lion hunting in this DAU remains very good with some of the highest mountain lion harvests in eastern Colorado. MOUNTAIN LION MORTALITY L-16 60 50 40 Hunter Harvest Total Mortality 30 Quota 20 10 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 5-Yr AVG YEAR Figure 5. Mountain lion harvest and Quotas. ANNUAL OFF-TAKE OBJECTIVE Since the management objective of this DAU is to maintain a stable population, a sustainable off-take range must be estimated based on the adult population projection for the DAU. We determined age structure of our population projection by applying the age structures found in current literature to our population projection. The age structure found in the Logan and Sweanor (2001) study was 56% adult, 10% subadult, and 34% cub. Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) found an age structure of 48% adult, 19% subadult, and 33% cubs. Averaging these results gave us an age structure of 52% adult, 14% subadult, and 34% cubs or stated as a ratio 100 adult: 26 subadult: 35 cub. Using this ratio we arrive at a low density population composed of 117 adults: 32 subadults: 76 cubs, and a high density composition of 157 adults: 42 subadults: 103 cubs. Since Colorado regulations do not allow for the harvest of kittens the harvestable portion of the population is comprised of the adult and subadult portions of the 7 �population. Therefore L-16 has an estimated harvestable mountain lion population between 149 (low density population) and 199 (high density population). Experimental removal of adult lions has demonstrated that a lion population following a high rate of removal can show a rate of growth of 28%. This occurred during a year of reduced prey availability from drought and poor habitat conditions (Logan and Sweanor, 2001), showing a great degree of lion population resiliency. Apker (pers. comm.) has suggested that a removal rate of 8-15% of the harvestable population will maintain a stable or increasing population. Since this population is being managed for a stable population, we have determined that the maximum off take should be limited to 15% of the harvestable population. This gives us an annual off-take range of 22 to 30 mountain lion in L-16. The 5-year average % of females in the harvest is 45%, with 2003 being 40%, or 8 female mountain lion out of a total harvest of 20. Female harvest has exceeded 50% of the total harvest, 2 of the last ten years and exceeded 55% of the total harvest, 1 of the last 5 years. The highest recorded percentage of females in the total harvest peaked in 2001 at 56%. If hunter harvest remains high and female percentages climb above 45% of allowable off-take then CDOW may need to reduce the quota to assure that harvest meets population goals. Other mortality factors including road-kills and damage control have averaged 2.0 mountain lion over the last five years. Current harvest levels have not met quota objectives and the additional mortality has been accommodated by the current quota. With quota numbers being reduced, additional mortality may result in a need to reduce quotas to maintain population objectives. Additional monitoring and possible quota reductions will be required if total known mortality exceeds annual off-take objectives. DISCUSSION Mountain lion sightings by field officers and the public have increased by 50% over the last 5 years. There is no indication that there are fewer mountain lions now than in the last ten years. Published mountain lion population estimates are derived from studies in areas that have a lower prey density, especially a lower elk density than is currently available to mountain lion in L-16. It is possible that mountain lion densities in L-16 are higher than current published population densities. Therefore in projecting the population we used the higher densities reported in literature. We also intend to maintain the population to the best of our ability at current levels. Thus in order to do so and in recognition that there are higher prey densities in L-16 than in other studied populations we propose using the upper end of off-take we would consider allowable for stable-increasing lion population management. The allowable harvest may be adjusted annually when better population estimates are developed, total mortality, hunter harvest, and percent female of harvest and mortality are analyzed. REFUGE AREAS Using harvest data from 1999-2003, a GIS analysis of harvest location was performed to establish refuge areas in L-16 (Figure 6). Harvest locations were clustered along Colorado Highway 50 and the Arkansas River Canyon in areas that have vehicular access, with a few scattered harvests in other locations. To determine effective refuge areas, each harvest location was assigned a buffer associated with the average home 8 �range of its gender. The buffers were 357 km2 (138 mi2) for male lions and 195 km2 (75 mi2) for female lions. It was determined that harvest locations, with the associated buffered area, overlapped most of the effective lion habitat in the DAU. Possible refuge areas in L-16 include the Great Sand Dunes National Park and portions of effective habitat along the Wet Mountain Valley. Figure 6. Mountain Lion Harvest Locations and Intensity of Harvest for L-16 GAME DAMAGE The increasing human demographic trend from a ranching community to development of former ranches into subdivisions based on 40 acre parcels has led to the increase in “Hobby Farms” and the loss of historical knowledge on how to coexist with large carnivores. Mountain lion damage has shifted from mainly livestock predation to alternative livestock including llamas, alpacas and domestic pets in addition to traditional livestock. When mountain lions became listed as game animals the Division of Wildlife became financially liable for livestock and agricultural damage caused by mountain lions. The payments have averaged $873.00 per year (5 year average) in L-16 with annual payments following a boom and bust cycle (Figure 7). 9 �MOUNTAIN LION DAMAGE PAID PER YEAR IN L-16 $6,000 5185 $5,000 $4,000 2845 $3,000 1845 $2,000 1501 1410 1240 873 $1,000 650 382 424 200 0 0 1993 1994 0 0 $0 1990 1991 1992 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 5-Yr AVG YEAR Figure 7. Mountain lion damage paid per year Each different mountain lion depredation situation is based on a unique set of circumstances and each requires a different solution. Strategies to reduce mountain lion depredation will be based on educational programs. Each event will be handled differently based on the circumstances with several different management strategies concentrating on the offending individual. Strategies include the utilization of Wildlife Services to remove the offending individual, capture and relocation. In situations where there is an open season, strategies may utilize the services of an outfitter with a licensed hunter to remove the individual. This is the preferred alternative. HUMAN/MOUNTAIN LION CONFLICT Human/mountain lion conflicts are increasing annually due to rapid human population growth along the Front Range, residential encroachment into mountain lion habitat, a growing prey base in rural residential areas, and fragmented land use with the increase of hobby farms. Long term documentation of human/mountain lion conflict does not exist or is inaccurate due to variable reporting rates. To provide accurate information to the public, reports of human/mountain lion conflicts should be documented according to current division guidelines. Sightings should be confirmed and if necessary a site visit should be conducted to offer advice and literature. Sightings should be recorded according to area supervisor policy, but should not be documented on a conflict form. SUMMARY 10 �The goal for L-16, which is supported by public input, is to maintain a stable population. Harvest levels have remained static with no average increase in female harvest implying that current harvest levels are sustainable over the long term. The high winter prey base located in this area has the possible effect of a higher mountain lion density than has been found in current mountain lion population studies and suggests that the mountain lion population is at the higher population densities. Therefore we suggest that an annual off-take range of 15% will allow us to maintain a stable population. Annual review of non-hunting mortality, hunter harvest and percentage of females in the harvest will allow managers to evaluate harvest recommendations within this off-take range. This DAU plan was based on the best possible information available at the time it was written. However as better techniques and new information becomes available it will be incorporated into the plan. LITERATURE CITED Logan, K.A., L.L. Irwin, and R. Skinner. 1986. Characteristics of a hunted mountain lion population in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 50(4):648-654. Logan, K.A. and L.L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert mountain lion: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, DC, USA. Ross, P.I. and M.G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(3):417-426. 11 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/da50b59db7d3b8fa5bc21f45b67f9ba9.pdf 507fea37e526e72903f15335a953ded9 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-17 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 128, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 136, 141, 142, & 147 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Southeast Region By: Stan Abel Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Pueblo, Colorado INTRODUCTION This management area plan will establish management guideline objectives for mountain lion populations in southeastern Colorado. Lion hunting and harvest will be adjusted when necessary in an effort to achieve the unit objective. The goal of the CDOW is to maintain a healthy, self-sustaining population of mountain lion that is in balance with available habitat, minimize nuisance complaints, minimize game damage complaints and also maintain an environment that supports a rich, vegetative and wildlife community that will maintain a self-sustaining lion population. Current studies related to deer fawn summer mortality and both fawn and adult winter mortality indicate that mountain lions are not a major factor in deer population regulation. Sport hunting will be used to harvest the lion population at a level that will allow maximum hunter opportunity and maintain a healthy, viable population of lions. Individual animals that cause excessive damage to livestock, personal property or pose a threat to human health and welfare will be removed as necessary. No control action, other than sport harvest, is anticipated to benefit deer or elk populations. DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT This lion unit is located on the eastern plains of Colorado. It is composed of ten Game Management Units (GMU) that include GMUs 128, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 136, 141, 142, and 147. The CDOW designation of this lion Data Analysis Unit is L-17. It is bounded on the north by the Arkansas River; on the east by Colo. 101, the Bent-Las Animas improved road, the Bent-Las Animas County line, and Colo. 109; on the south by US Highway 160; on the west by I-25. Vegetative communities include short grass prairie (Comanche National Grasslands), riparian, and desert. December 4, 2000 �Agricultural practices include mostly open range cattle grazing with some irrigated hayfields and row crops in riparian areas. The Purgatoire, Apishipa, and Huerfano River canyons provide significant habitat for lion prey species. These eastern units have supported minimal lion harvest over time and permission to hunt is often difficult to obtain. HARVEST SUMMARY: 1988 through 1997 10-year average annual harvest Total harvest 4 Sport harvest 4 Total males in harvest 3 Total females in harvest 1 0.4 Harvest quota is set by a grouping of Game Management Units. Several units (123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 132, 138, 139, 145, & 146) do not occur in an established mountain lion DAU and are included with the units for L17 for setting the harvest quota. L-18 Units (137, 143, & 144) are also included for the purposes of setting a harvest quota, however harvest for L-18 is separated. 1997 harvest quota for L-17 except units 128, 133, and 134 1997 harvest quota for Units 128, 133, and 134 10 4 There have been a total of 4 lions killed in this DAU over the last 10 years. HARVEST OBJECTIVE: · · · · Maintain current harvest quota for 3-5 years. Monitor harvest rates. Monitor unit of harvest for contribution to total harvest. Maintain existing harvest levels over time with existing harvest quota. DISCUSSION: · · · The large number of units in this DAU obviously covers a lot of ground. Mountain lions utilize canyon lands, which provide the best habitat and prey base. Certain units may contribute a high percentage of total harvest, however at the current harvest rates it is unlikely to be detrimental to the lion population. There is no indication there are fewer lions now than in the last ten years. GAME DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: Two damage claims were filed in this DAU for the last ten years, one for $50 and the other for $1,895. The infrequent occurrence of claims makes an average damage objective difficult. Using the highest claim from 1996-1997, mountain lion damage should not exceed $2,000 in any given year. December 4, 2000 �PRESCRIPTIONS: · · · · · Focus on individual lion causing damage. Direct Wildlife Services to remove lions in significant livestock depredations. Capture and re-locate offending lion. Monitor and educate. Utilize licensed hunter if conditions allow. HUMAN/LION CONFLICT OBJECTIVE: The number of human/lion conflicts in this DAU has not been documented. They are presumed to be very low based on the number of claims and low harvest rates. An occasional offending lion could account for several complaints in one year. An estimate of 4 human/lion conflict reports per year is the recommended objective. PRESCRIPTIONS: · · · · · Document reports of human/lion conflict. Confirm and document lion sightings. Provide information to the public, livestock owners, and land use agencies. Conduct site visits; offer professional advice and literature. Consider non-lethal options, case by case. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/316ef17b52f7f36281ef984b79182043.pdf fef9d64d260e69f7065a2bc03dcd4cbf PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU-L17 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 128, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 141, 142, 143, 144, & 147 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Southeast Region By: Jeffrey A. Yost Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Lamar, Colorado July 2004 �DESCRIPTION OF DAU, HABITAT, AND PAST MANAGEMENT Location, Topography, Climate, Land Status Mountain Lion (Felis concolor) Data Analysis Unit (DAU) L-17 is located in south east Colorado (Figure 1). Boundaries for L-17 include; the Arkansas River on the north; Hwy 101 and Hwy 287 on the east; the Oklahoma state line, New Mexico State line and Hwy 160 on the south; and on the west by Interstate 25. For harvest quota purposes game management units (GMU’s) 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, and 147 are combined. However, only GMU’s 128, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 141, 142, 143, 144, & 147 are officially part of the DAU. The additional units are found on the fringes of acceptable lion habitat and are included in the quota to allow a licensed hunter to take a lion during an open season if one does show up in an outlying unit. Figure 1 – The Geographic Location and Boundaries of Lion DAU L-17 The DAU covers approximately 18,357.6 square kilometers and ranges in elevation from 975 meters at the Kansas state line to 1830 meters on the higher mesas near Kim. The geography of Mountain Lion DAU L-17 DAU is varied and includes; cedar breaks, canyon lands, short grass prairie, agriculture and pasture lands. There are several major drainages across the DAU with the primary one being the Arkansas River. Others include the Purgatoire, Apishapa, and Cucharas; which all flow into the main-stem Arkansas. Carrizo Creek flows across the furthest southeast portion of the DAU eventually joining the Cimarron River in Oklahoma. The climate of the area is characterized by long, hot dry summers and mild winters. Annual precipitation ranges from 25.4 – 43.8 centimeters with most occurring as spring rain and midsummer monsoons. Severe thunderstorms and occasional severe blizzards are normal 2 �occurrences. Typically winter snows tend to melt rapidly making for poor or short term tracking conditions. L-17 DAU is primarily private land with 78.6% in private ownership. The majority of public land within the DAU is found on the Comanche National Grasslands (8.1%) and is administered by the United States Forest Service. There are limited amounts of land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management (0.4%) and the State Land Board (7.8%) with grazing rights leased to private ranchers. The Department of Defense manages 5.2% of the lands in L-17. History Land use, both public and private, is almost exclusively agricultural and has not changed significantly in recent times. Livestock grazing occurs on private land, the Comanche National Grasslands, BLM, and SLB properties. Farming methods consist of both dry-land and irrigated cropping; with alfalfa, wheat, corn and milo being the predominant crops produced. The total acres of dry-land farming have decreased since the mid 1980’s, with up to 30% of eligible land in some counties enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). CRP has provided a “refuge” for many species of wildlife. Deer have adapted quite well to the cover offered in CRP fields. This may be one factor in the spread of whitetail deer throughout the DAU. Development is not currently a significant threat to lion habitat although developers are moving into eastern portions of Las Animas County. The lion population appears to have been increasing steadily in the DAU over the past several decades. According to local accounts very few lions were sighted in the area until recent years. Colorado Division of Wildlife lion harvest records show the same trend with very few lions killed by hunters until the early 1990’s. Harvest has been on an increasing trend since that time. Some of this may be explained by increased hunting pressure and guides using hounds when conditions are favorable to track cats. Quotas and Harvest In 2002 mountain lion DAU’s L-17 and L-18 were combined to simplify regulations and because the lions in this area likely interchange with one another a significant amount making them, for all intents, the same population. Thus the following harvest and quotas for this DAU are a combination of old L-17 and old L-18 combined into new L-17. The quota for L-17 has ranged from 7 in 1990 to 14 in 2004. The biggest factor for the increase is a doubling of the old L-18 quota from 5 lions to 10 lions in 1998. The quota increased then as a strategy to alleviate increasing lion complaints from landowners. The closest the quota has come to being met was 64%, or 9 cats of 14 in the quota, taken in 2003 when snow conditions were favorable for harvest (Figure 2). The five-year average harvest is five lions (Figure 3). 3 �Figure 2 - Percent Quota Achieved Through Hunter Harvest in L-17 100% 90% 80% Percent Achieved 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Figure 3 - L-17 Quoata, Annual Harvest, & Five-Year Average 1999-2003 15 ta uo Q ta uo Q ta uo Q ta uo Q ta uo Q 14 13 12 11 10 9 Harvest 8 7 Harvest 3 Harvest Av er ag e Av er ag e Av er ag e 4 Av er ag e 5 Av er ag e 6 Harvest 2 1 Harvest 0 1999 2000 2001 Harvest Quota 2002 2003 Average KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES The two most important issues in managing mountain lions in L-17 are suppressing the lion population to balance real and perceived damage concerns from the public and to maintain a viable, healthy lion population. The human population in L-17 is comprised mainly of farmers and 4 �ranchers whose livelihood depends on livestock production and, in some cases, income from big game hunting. In remote rural communities such as these the threat posed by mountain lions to livestock is very real and many believe too many lions may negatively affect the viability of their operations. Mountain lions do prey on deer, elk, and occasionally livestock. Damage claims attributed to lions are on the increase. From July 03–June 04 two damage claims totaled $7,335.00 (Figure 4). Figure 4 - Amount Paid Annually in Lion Damage Claims In L-17 $8,000 $7,000 Dollar Amount $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Amount Paid Trend Line Comments were received from the public through a series of public meetings held along the southern front range of Colorado. All of the comments received concerning L-17 came from landowners and hunting guides who either live in or hunt in this DAU. All comments from the public indicated a strong desire to keep quotas at the current level with management objectives set locally. Many comments reflected concern that lions are not over hunted but still kept in check. This point was brought home by efforts of the Hounds-man’s Association to educate their members and hunters on sexing lions before they are harvested to reduce female take (Figure 5). 5 �Figure 5 - Total Female Harvest Compared To Quota 15 Quota Quota Quota Quota Quota Quota Quota 15 Females Harvested Compared To Quota 14 13 12 11 10 Quota Quota Quota Quota 10 Quota 9 8 7 6 5 5 Female Female 3 Female Female Female Female Female Female 1992 1993 1994 1995 4 Female 2 Female Female 1 Female 0 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Quota Female STRATEGIC GOALS The strategic management goal in L-17 is to maintain a biologically sound, self sustaining, lion population in balance with available resources while minimizing conflicts and game damage complaints. The DAU is being managed for a suppressed lion population in order to reduce those complaints. The CDOW will continue to monitor lion harvest through mandatory lion harvest checks, document non-hunting mortality, and use new information on lion management as it becomes available to improve on current lion management techniques. Adjustments to the lion management plan will be made as this new information becomes available. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES Management objectives for L-17 have been determined by estimating the density of lion habitat in the area and then projecting a population based on the amount of area covered by specific habitat types and lion prey densities found within those habitats. Due to the remoteness of this DAU, the limited amount of public land, and low human population density found here, few lion sightings are reported. Generally reports of lions come in as mandatory checks, damage reports to livestock ,or tracks observed by ranchers. No scientific studies have been completed in L-17 to determine a population estimate. 6 �Population Projection Lacking lion population information specific to this area, population projections are based on previous work (Anderson 1983, Logan and Sweanor 2001) in similar habitat types. Due to the relatively low elevation of this DAU there is no substantial difference between winter and summer range of deer and elk, the primary prey species of lions. However, there is a significant difference in vegetation types and topography. Primary vegetation types are pinion/juniper interspersed with mountain shrub, and shortgrass prairie. In order to estimate the number of square kilometers of various cover types geographic information system (GIS) data was used to produce vegetation maps of the DAU (Figure 6). Figure 6 – GIS Vegetation Map of L-17 From the GIS data two distinct areas were delineated on the maps (Figure 7). The first area is comprised of pinion/juniper and mountain shrub communities including canyon lands. The second is shortgrass prairie and fringe areas. Two separate lion densities are assigned to these areas in order to come up with an overall lion population estimate. The pinion/juniper area is designated as moderate lion density (green on map) while the shortgrass/fringe area (light purple on map) is assigned very low lion density based on work by Logan and Sweanor, 2001. Typically shortgrass prairie is not considered lion habitat, however, this is a high desert prairie interspersed with 7 �canyons, intermittent juniper trees, and drainages which do harbor good numbers of deer and small numbers of lions. Figure 7 – Estimated Lion Density in L-17 Based On Habitat Type and Quality Using mountain lion age structure information (Ross and Jalkotzy, 1992 and Logan and Sweanor, 2001) lion population demographics are estimated to contain 52% adult lions, 14% sub-adults, and 34% kittens. Applying these percentages to the combined moderate and very low population projections from the GIS maps produces the following (Table 1). Table 1 - Mountain Lion Population Estimate in L-17 Based on Moderate and Very Low Lion Density Estimates Lion Density Moderate Very Low Sq. Kilometers Density Estimate (100 sq. km) 5,710.0 3.0 3,799.3 0.6 Lions 171 23 Total Lions 194 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If the lion population is actually higher than estimated in the very low density area and a low estimate is used in place of very low the following population density is obtained (Table 2). 8 �Table 2 - Mountain Lion Population Estimate in L-17 Based on Moderate and Low Lion Density Estimates Lion Density Moderate Low Sq. Kilometers Density Estimate (100 sq. km) 5,710.0 3.0 3,799.3 2.0 Lions 171 76 Total Lions 247 ______________________________________________________________________________ Using the projections from Table 1 and Table 2 the lion population density is estimated to range from 194 - 247 lions spread over 9,509.3 square kilometers. Multiplying these numbers by the demographic percentages above gives the following lion population breakdown (Table 3). Table 3 – Population Projections with Moderate/Very Low & Moderate/Low Lion Densities Moderate and Very low Moderate and Low 194 x .52 = 101 Adults 247 x .52 = 128 Adults 194 x .14 = 27 Sub-adults 247 x .14 = 35 Sub-adults 194 x .34 = 66 Kittens 247 x .34 = 84 Kittens 194 Total lions 247 Total lions _______________________________________________________________________________ _ MORTALITY OBJECTIVE Total Mortality Objective The total mortality objective is the total annual lion mortality including hunter harvest, road kills, accidents, and game damage kills. In the case of L-17 total mortality is comprised mainly of hunter harvest and the occasional damage kill. The DAU has few paved roads and a low number of county roads through the best lion habitat, thus there are very few road kills. The off-take range for a stable lion population is 8-15% of the legally harvestable population (Logan and Sweanor, 2001). To suppress the population an off-take of at least 16-18% is needed. In Colorado the harvestable population is comprised of adult and sub-adult cats, no kittens. Using the previous estimates from Table 3 above gives the moderate to very low category a legal harvest number of 128 cats and the moderate to low category a legal harvest of 163 cats. Using 17% as the median percentage (16-18) for suppression off-take produces a total mortality range of 22-28 lions. Hunter Harvest Objective The hunter harvest objective for L-17 is the same as the total mortality objective due to the low number of non-hunter mortalities in the DAU. In order to suppress the lion population in L-17 the 9 �harvest objective will be 22 legal lions calculated from the “Moderate to Very Low” population estimate (128 lions x 17% = 21.76). Even though the current quota of 14 has never been filled through hunter harvest or thorough non-hunter mortality combined with harvest mortality, to suppress the population much greater harvest is needed. The highest number of lions taken in a single calendar year was nine in 2003. The percentage of females in the harvest has averaged 45% over the past five years (Figure 7). This number used as a percentage can seem fairly high until the total number of females actually harvested per year is looked at. In the case of lion DAU’s with low harvest numbers such as L-17 harvest of a single female lion can be 100% of the harvest, such as in 1999 when that very thing happened (Figures 8 and 9). Furthermore, the five-year average harvest for females is less than 2 females per year (Figure 9). Figure 8 - L-17 Percent Female Lion Harvest And Five-Year Average 120% 1.00 100% Percent 80% 0.57 60% Five-Year Average, 0.45 40% 0.33 0.33 20% 0.00 0% 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Five-Year Average Percent Female Harvest 10 Female Harvest Trend �Figure 9 -Total Female Harvest 5 4 Females Harvested 4 3 3 2 5 Yr Ave 1 1 1 0 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year 5 Yr Ave Female Harvest HARVEST SUMMARY Lion harvest in L-17 averaged less than four lions per year over the past 10 years with the annual male harvest 2.2 lions and the female average 1.2 lions (Table 4). Harvest can fluctuate greatly on an annual basis and is highly dependent on snow and tracking conditions. In years with several good snows that remain on the ground for several days harvest increases. In years with little snow, or snow that melts rapidly, harvest decreases correspondingly. Table 4 - Mountain Lion Harvest by Sex (Males/Females) in L-17 by GMU 1994-2003 Year 10 Year Total GMU 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 1994 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1995 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1996 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1997 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1998 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1999 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 11 2000 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 2001 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 2002 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 2003 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 Males 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Females 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 Sex Total DAU Total 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 1/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 2/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 1/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 2/3 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 0/1 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 1/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 2/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 4/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 2/2 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/1 1/0 1/0 1/2 4/1 2/0 0/1 2/1 3/4 3/0 6/3 1 1 3 5 2 1 3 7 3 9 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 1 Mean 2.2 Mean 3.4 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 1 Mean 1.2 Potential Refuge Areas Several areas of the DAU can be considered potential refuges for lions. These include large tracts of land where lion hunting is not possible, the terrain is very difficult to traverse, lion density is very low, or a combination of these factors. A spatial map of L-17 shows harvest points for lions from 1997-2002. The majority of harvest points occur in GMU’s 136 and 143. Pinon Canyon and the western portion of the DAU show very little to no harvest (Figure 10). The United States Army’s Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site occupies all of game management unit 142 and is excellent lion habitat with very restrictive public access. Fort Carson only allows hunters on the property during specific times of the year and only during specific hours each day. Additionally, no public access is allowed during training exercises at Pinon Canyon. These restrictions make it difficult for lion hunters to access the property at optimal hunting times and to get all their dogs back to the vehicles by closing time each day. The western half of L-17 is, for all intents, a refuge area for lions due to the relatively low density of lions and the corresponding lack of lion hunting pressure there. Comments from lion hunters at public meetings indicate it is very difficult terrain to hunt lions with lots of open space and a low density of large trees. The lion prey base in the western half of the DAU consists of deer, some elk, and potentially antelope (several landowners have found evidence of lions killing antelope around flat topped mesas interspersed with pinon and juniper trees). While a population of lions does indeed occur here, harvest is minimal at best in this large portion of the DAU. 12 �Figure 10 - Map of lion harvest in L-17 with locations of male/female harvest (1997-2002), intensity of harvest, and lack of harvest in potential refuge areas for lions. 13 �GAME DAMAGE AND HUMAN/LION CONFLICT As noted earlier livestock damage from lions in this area is a highly contentious issue and should be given serious consideration when developing lion management plans and setting harvest 14 �objectives. This issue has been addressed under the Mammalian Predator Management Policy of the Colorado Wildlife Commission (September 1999) and by CDOW game damage policy. Damage claims have been on an increasing trend in L-17 over the past several years (See Figure 4). Because of the low human population in L-17 there are very few human/lion conflict issues. The conflicts that occur are generally either game damage related or public perception that lions are suppressing local populations of deer and bighorn sheep. SUMMARY The goals established for L-17 are to suppress the lion population in order to reduce livestock damage claims and human conflicts, minimize lion predation on bighorn sheep and mule deer, and maintain a healthy self sustaining lion population. Hounds-men and outfitters are promoting the benefits of reducing female lion harvest and methods to identify male lions in the field. The current quota of 14 lions for L-17 could be raised to 22, but given the low historic harvest level the quota will be left at 14 for now. This will allow for a greater off-take in the future if the harvest level begins reaching 14. This level of harvest should help reduce lion numbers and lion-human conflicts while maintaining a healthy lion population. The CDOW will continue to monitor all known lion mortalities statewide and mandatory checks of harvested lions will be used to gather biological information on all harvested cats. As new information on lion biology and management becomes available it will be incorporated into future updates of lion management plans. LITERATURE CITED Anderson, A. E. 1983. A critical review of literature on puma. Colorado Division of Wildlife Special Report Number 54. Logan, K. A. and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, DC. Ross, P. I. and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(3):417-426. 15 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/2be1670604fcf9887eb1bd62c0fa6340.pdf 8c4938f68f4262973cbe874d0be824a8 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU-18 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 137, 143, & 144 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Southeast Region By: Jeffrey A. Yost Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Lamar, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT Data Analysis Unit (DAU) L-18 is located in extreme southeast Colorado in Baca and Las Animas counties. For harvest quota, game management units (GMUs) 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 132, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, and 147 are combined. L-18 has the 3rd lowest average lion harvest in the state with approximately 2 lions harvested every 3 years for the period 1987-1998 (less than 1% of statewide total). Lion game damage complaints for the same period were also less than 1% of statewide total. There were 4 lion/human conflicts reported for 1997, 9% of the statewide total. However, these 4 reported conflicts in 1997 represent 50% of the game damage reports for the 12-year period 1987-1998, and should not be taken to represent the annual average statewide percent of lion/human conflicts, but rather a year specific occurrence. Although L-18 covers three GMUs, the actual area of core lion habitat within the DAU is quite limited, occurring mainly in the piñon-juniper canyons of these units. Lions do occasionally appear in all areas of the GMUs, but do not permanently reside throughout them. Lions are mainly carnivorous, but grass and other vegetation can comprise up to 11 % of their diet. The main prey items of mountain lions are deer, elk, and porcupines. Lions do prey on other wildlife species when available such as rabbits and other small game and non-game wildlife. It is doubtful whether lion densities are high enough in this sparse habitat to have a significant impact on other wildlife populations. Elk populations are currently increasing in this region while deer numbers are either holding their own or somewhat reduced. If it were scientifically shown that lion depredation was holding deer populations down, further lion harvest through sport hunting would be recommended. Livestock damage from lions in this area is not highly documented, however it should be given serious consideration when developing lion management plans. This issue has been addressed under the Mammalian Predator Management Policy of the Colorado Wildlife Commission (September 1999) and by CDOW game damage policy. TOTAL LION HARVEST OBJECTIVE: From 1987 to 1998 this DAU averaged 2 lions harvested every 3 years, with a range of 0-4 per year. During the same period the proportion of females in the harvest averaged 25% (2 lions), and ranged from 0 to 100%. Sport harvest accounted for 62% (8 lions) of the total harvest, while nonsport harvest accounted for 38% (5 lions) and ranged from 0-4 lions killed per year. December 4, 2000 �TOTAL HARVEST OBJECTIVE: Harvest objective will be 2 lions/year. TOTAL LION DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: All lion damage claims for the period 1987-1998 occurred during the 1997-1998 fiscal year. Management of L-18 for lion game damage should be addressed on a case by case basis due to the low lion density and small number of damage claims reported annually. When damage is reported the incident should be investigated by the CDOW as soon as possible after the initial report and specific action taken at that time to remedy the situation. This may involve disposing of the offending lion(s) and for compensation to the owner, depending on the situation. NUISANCE LION COMPLAINTS: Nuisance lion complaints for L-18 are rare. Most complaints come in the form of a lion sighted by the public, not necessarily of a lion actually being a real nuisance to humans. With this low number of complaints, the individual complaint should be investigated on a case by case basis, as is recommended for game damage situations. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/7bf6dbfb68380306211e9bec4724c9ab.pdf 57e86abc7d1fb4d4c80a521d9534e3c0 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-19 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 83, 85, 851, & 140 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Southeast Region By: Stan Abel Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Pueblo, Colorado INTRODUCTION This management area plan will establish management guideline objectives for mountain lion populations in the southeastern San Luis Valley, Purgatoire and Huerfano River Valleys, and Mesa de Maya. Lion hunting and harvest will be adjusted when necessary in an effort to achieve the unit objective. The goal of the CDOW is to maintain a healthy, self-sustaining population of mountain lion that is in balance with available habitat, minimize nuisance complaints, minimize game damage complaints and also maintain an environment that supports a rich, vegetative and wildlife community that will maintain a self-sustaining lion population. DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT This lion DAU is located in the southeastern mountains of Colorado, including the eastern San Luis Valley, southern Sangre de Cristo Mountains, Purgatoire, Huerfano, and Apishipa Canyons, and Mesa de Maya of Unit 140. It is composed of four Game Management Units (GMU) that include GMU’s 83, 85, 140, and 851. The CDOW designation of this lion Data Analysis Unit is L-19. It is bounded on the north by US Highway 160, the Alamosa-Costilla County Line, Pass Creek Road, and Colo. 69; on the east by I-25, US Highway 160, and Colo. 389; on the south by the New Mexico line; on the west by the Rio Grande River. Drainages include the Rio Grande River, Huerfano River, Cuchara River, and Purgatoire River. Predominant vegetative communities include alpine tundra, sub-alpine conifer, montane conifer, montane shrub, Great Basin desert shrub, and plains grassland. Agriculture is the predominant land use in L-19. Livestock grazing occurs on private and public lands. Irrigated and dryland farming is primarily alfalfa and grass hay. A large percentage of these units is privately owned property and permission to hunt is often difficult of obtain. Large land holdings are being sold to development and large tracts of land traditionally used December 4, 2000 �by lion hunters are being lost for hunting access. HARVEST SUMMARY: 1988 THROUGH 1997 10-year average annual harvest Total harvest Sport harvest Total males in harvest Total females in harvest 1997 harvest quota for all Units except unit 83 1997 Harvest quota for Unit 83 127 113 66 61 11.3 30 10 HUNTER SUCCESS: 1997 .......................60% 1996 .......................47% 1995 .......................29% 1994 .......................41% HARVEST OBJECTIVE: · · · Maintain current harvest quota for 3-5 years. Monitor harvest rates for continued stabilization. Maintain existing harvest levels over time with existing harvest quota. DISCUSSION: · · Mountain lion sightings by field officers and the public are higher than they have been in any of the previous 10 years. There is no indication there are fewer lions now than in the last ten years. GAME DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: Damage caused by mountain lions should not exceed $1,735 on a 3-year floating average basis. PRESCRIPTIONS: · · · · · · Focus on individual lion(s) causing damage. Direct Wildlife Services to remove lions in significant livestock depredations. Capture and re-locate offending lion. Monitor and educate. Destroy mountain lion. Utilize services of outfitter, licensed hunter harvest is preferred if conditions allow. December 4, 2000 �HUMAN/LION CONFLICT OBJECTIVE: An estimate of 12 reports per year will be used as an average based on field input. An objective of 12 human/lion reports per year is recommended. Mountain lion sightings and human/lion conflicts are increasing annually. There are several factors that contribute to this increase. · · · · · Rapid growth along the Front Range. Residential encroachment. Growing prey base in rural residential areas. More frequent interaction. Fragmented land use, increase in hobby farms. PRESCRIPTIONS: · · · · · Document reports of human/lion conflict. Confirm and document lion sightings. Provide information to the public, livestock owners, and land use agencies. Conduct site visits; offer professional advice and literature. Consider non-lethal options, case by case. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/e9a091e146eaf50e17c87142b4f45725.pdf 6b65304e32622a730cc25f75fe611791 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR Lion DAU L-19 Game Management Units 83, 85, 140, 851 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Southeast Region By: Allen Vitt Terrestrial Biologist, Pueblo July 2004 �DESCRIPTION OF DAU, HABITAT, AND PAST MANAGEMENT Mountain lion Data Analysis Unit (DAU) L-19 is located in south-central Colorado and comprises Game Management Units (GMU’s) 83, 85, 140, and 851. It covers 8577 km2 (3321 mi.2) ranging in elevation from 1,678 meters (3,860 ft.) from where San Francisco Creek flows under Colorado Highway 160 to 4,483 meters (14,345 ft.) at the top of Blanca Peak in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains (Figure 1). Topography ranges from gentle rolling hills to ridges and valleys to steep alpine slopes and cliffs. Precipitation ranges from 50+ cm (20 in.) at higher elevations to less than 15 cm (6 in.) in the lower elevations, mainly in the form of winter and spring snowfall and late summer thunderstorms. Mountain lion DAU L-19 is bounded on the North by US highway 160, the AlamosaCostilla County line, Pass Creek Road, and Colorado 69; on the east by I-25, US highway 160, and Colo. 389; on the south by the New Mexico state line; and on the west by the Rio Grande River. Drainages include the Apishapa River, Culebra Creek, San Francisco Creek (Las Animas County), Rio Grande River, Trinchera Creek (Las Animas County), Trinchera Creek (Costilla County), Huerfano River, Cucharas River, Sangre de Cristo Creek and the Purgatoire River. Figure 1. Location and boundaries of Lion DAU 19. 2 �Of the 8577 km2 in L-19, land ownership is as follows: Private – 7719 km2 (90%); Division of Wildlife 172 km2 (2%); U. S. Forest Service - 275 km2 (3.2%); Bureau of Land Management -112 km2 (1.3%); Colorado State Parks 43 km2 (0.5%); National Wildlife Refuge – 43 km2 (0.5%) and Colorado State Land Board –172 km2 (2%). Predominate vegetative communities include alpine tundra, sub-alpine conifer, montane conifer, montane shrub, great basin desert shrub, and plains grassland. Land use is predominately agriculture, with livestock grazing occurring on public and private lands. Irrigated and dry land farming produces grass hay and alfalfa. Early Spanish lands grants resulted in large tracts of land being held by one owner and large ranches still persist. Human occupancy is scattered among river valleys and the large towns of Trinidad and Walsenburg located in GMU’s 140, 851 and 85. Recreation is limited to National Forest campgrounds, associated lakes and recreation areas. Currently three ranches located in L-19 are enrolled in the Division of Wildlife’s Ranching for Wildlife Program which provides for public recreation and wildlife habitat improvement on private lands. Mountain lion are not a species that is provided for recreation on the enrolled properties, but mountain lion hunting is leased on most of these ranches by private outfitters. Early 20th century energy development is evident by the presence of large coal mines and numerous coke ovens scattered among the canyons. Coal mining has virtually disappeared from the landscape except for a strip mine in the early stages of reclamation located in GMU 851. Current energy demands for the area include wells in the La Veta area producing CO2 shipped to Texas oilfields, and coal-bed methane production affecting extensive parts of GMU’s 85 and 851. Due to poor economic conditions within the ranching community, several large ranches have been sold to developers, and communities based on 40 acre lots are quickly impacting large expanses of the region, further reducing mountain lion hunting access. Several area ranches have been placed in conservation easements protecting these areas from future development. STRATEGIC GOALS The goal of the CDOW is to maintain a rich, vegetative and wildlife community that is in balance with the available habitat, which will minimize game damage complaints and support a self sustaining mountain lion population. The DAU is being managed for a stable mountain lion population. POPULATION PROJECTION No scientific studies to estimate mountain lion populations have been conducted in L-19. In the absence of a science-based population estimate, the mountain lion population of this DAU was projected by applying density estimates from studies in other areas similar to L-19 to the effective mountain lion habitat in L-19. In doing so, we have estimated a population to better determine an acceptable off-take range to maintain the population. Two scientific studies that were conducted in similar habitat were used to establish a density range for L-19. Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) studied a hunted population in southwestern Alberta from 1981 to 1989. This study estimated the density on winter range (December through April) to be 2.7 to 4.7 lions per 100 km2 (40 mi.2). Logan et al. 3 �(1986) studied a hunted population of mountain lion in the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming from 1981 to 1983. This study estimated the density on winter range (late October to mid April) to be 3.5 to 4.6 mountain lion per 100 km2. The outer limits of the estimated density range from Logan et al. (1986) and Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) were used to construct the preliminary range, 2.7 to 4.7 lions per 100 km2, for the population. This range was then narrowed to 3.5 to 4.7 lions per 100 km2 (i.e., moderate to high density) in recognition of the abundance of prey and high quality of lion habitat in L-19. A GIS analysis of vegetative types was used to determine area of effective mountain lion habitat (Figure 2). Figure 2. GIS Interpretation of habitat types Areas that were determined to be very low density habitat such as the rabbit-brush and greasewood flats of unit 83 on the San Luis Valley floor were excluded from the population projection. Urban areas such as the towns of Trinidad and Walsenburg; along with the small portions of units 85, 851 and 140, which contain a grassland dominated landscape, were also excluded from the projection (Figure 3). These areas are not devoid of mountain lion but were determined to be such a low density that it would artificially inflate the population projection. Since most population estimates were based on winter range estimates we also excluded areas with an elevation above 3,350 meters (11,000 ft.). Using these parameters we determined that the effective mountain lion habitat is approximately 6280 km2. 4 �Figure 3. Lion density projection for Lion DAU 19. Using a the low density population estimate of 3.5 mountain lion/100 km2 found by Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) applied to the amount of effective mountain lion habitat in L-19 we arrive at a low density population estimate of 220 mountain lion within L-19. Using a high density population estimate of 4.7 mountain lion/100 km2 found by Logan, et al. (1986) in the Bighorn Mountains in Wyoming to the same amount of mountain lion habitat, we arrive at a high density population of 295 mountain lion within L-19. Thus we project a mountain lion population of between 220 and 295 mountain lion within L-19. The CDOW has initiated a mountain lion study in 2004. Hopefully, population projections will be further refined from this study to increase our knowledge of mountain lions in Colorado. These population projections will be updated as future information becomes available, with the possibility of raising or lowering the current population projections. We believe the mountain lion population is closer to the high density population estimate due to the high prey density (especially elk), and the high quality mountain lion habitat found within the DAU. HARVEST SUMMARY The hunter harvest in L-19 has ranged from 7 to 38 lions a year over the last 10 years with an average of 22 (Table 1). 5 �YEAR 2000 1999 2/5 6/0 3/5 1/4 1/0 1/2 1/1 9/4 10 YR. Total 1995 1994 Males Females 1/1 0/0 23 31 1/0 2/0 44 44 1/1 1/4 16 21 0/2 2/0 27 20 GMU 2003 2002 2001 1998 1997 1996 83 2/5 3/2 1/10 3/2 3/3 2/3 85 8/10 7/5 8/12 1/2 6/1 7/5 140 2/2 3/1 1/3 2/0 2/2 2/6 851 0/4 7/3 2/1 2/0 2/2 2/3 DAU Total 12/21 20/11 12/26 7/11 17/10 8/4 13/8 13/17 3/4 5/4 by Sex DAU 33 31 38 18 27 12 21 30 7 9 Total Table 1. Number of mountain lions harvested by sex (males/females) in L-19 by GMU from 1994-2003. Harvest averaged between 5 and 10 lions a year until 1996 when several new outfitters started operating in the area (Figure 4). In years with good snowfall amounts, hunter harvest has approached the quota limit of 40, and overall has shown an increasing trend. MOUNTIAN LION MORTALITY L-19 45 40 35 30 25 Hunter harvest Total Mortality Harvest quota 20 15 10 5 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Figure 4. Mountain lion harvest and quotas. With the increase in harvest, the percentage of females in the harvest has also increased with a high of 68% of the total harvest being females in 2001 (Figure 5). Ten year average percentage of females in the harvest is 50% with a five year average of 54%. 6 - - �Harvest quotas have remained constant in units 85, 140 and 851 at 30 over the period from 1990-2003. The quota for unit 83 was initially 10 then was dropped down to 5 in 1991. In 1997 the quota was increased back to 10 and remains there in 2003. Current mountain lion hunting in this DAU remains limited though very good. A number of large ranches have contracted hunting experiences with professional outfitters. Percent females in harvest 80% 68% 70% 64% 61% 60% 57% 57% 50% 45% 44% 44% 40% 38% 40% 33% 31% 30% 29% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Year Figure 5. Percent females in total harvest. ANNUAL OFF-TAKE OBJECTIVE Since the management objective of this DAU is to maintain a stable population, a sustainable off-take range must be estimated based on the adult population projection for the DAU. We determined age structure of our population projection by applying structures found in current literature to our population projection. The age structure found in the Logan and Sweanor (2001) study was 56% adult, 10% subadult, and 34% cub. Ross and Jalkotzy (1992) found an age structure of 48% adult, 19% subadult, and 33% cubs. Averaging these results gave us an age structure of 52% adult, 14% subadult, and 34% cubs or stated as a ratio 100 adult: 26 subadult: 35 cub. Using this ratio we arrive at a low density population composed of 114 adults: 31 subadults: 75 cub, and a high density composition of 153 adults: 41 subadults: 100 cub. Since Colorado regulations do not allow for the harvest of kittens, the harvestable portion of the population is comprised of the adult and subadult portions of the 7 �populations. Therefore L-19 has an estimated harvestable mountain lion population between 145 (low density population) and 194 (high density population). Experimental removal of adult lions has demonstrated that a lion population following a high rate of removal can show a rate of growth of 28%. This occurred during a year of reduced prey availability from drought and poor habitat conditions (Logan and Sweanor, 2001), showing a great degree of lion population resiliency. Apker (pers. comm.) has suggested that a removal rate of 8-15% of the harvestable population will maintain a stable or increasing population. Since this population is being managed for a stable population, we have determined that the maximum off take should be limited to 15% of the adult population. This gives us an annual off-take range of 22 to 29 mountain lion in L-19. The 5-year average % of females in the harvest is 54%, with 2003 being 64%, or 21 female mountain lion out of a total harvest of 33. Female harvest has exceeded 50% of the total harvest, 5 of the last ten years and exceeded 60% of the total harvest 3 of the last 5 years. The highest recorded percentage of females in the total harvest peaked in 2001 at 68% (Figure 4). This trend suggests that hunters may have to expend more effort to locate adult male lions for hunter harvest and thus the harvest level experienced over the past 5 years is probably not consistent with maintaining a stable population. If hunter harvest remains high and the proportion of females in harvest continues to exceed 45% of allowable off-take then CDOW will have to reduce the quota to assure that harvest meets population goals. The CDOW and local hounds-men realize the implications of female harvest and have initiated an education effort to help educate hunters on identifying females while they are in the tree. Their intent is to decrease the amount of females in the harvest and protect that portion of the population. Other mortality factors including road-kills and damage control have averaged 1.4 puma over the last five years. Current harvest levels have not met quota objectives and the additional mortality has been accommodated by the current quota. With quota numbers being reduced, additional mortality may result in a need to reduce quotas to maintain population objectives. Additional monitoring and possible quota reductions will be required if total known mortality exceeds annual off-take objectives. DISCUSSION Mountain lion sightings by field officers and the public are higher then they have been in any of the previous 10 years, and there is no indication that there are fewer mountain lion now than in the last ten years. Published mountain lion population estimates are derived from studies in areas that have a lower prey density, especially a lower elk density than is currently available to mountain lion in L-19. It is possible that mountain lion densities in L-19 are higher than current published population densities. Therefore in projecting the population we used the higher densities reported in literature. We also intend to maintain the population to the best of our ability at current levels. Thus in order to do so and in recognition that there are higher prey densities in L-19 than in other studied populations we propose using the upper end of off-take we would consider allowable for stable-increasing lion population management. The allowable harvest may be adjusted annually when better population estimates become available, total mortality, hunter harvest, and percent female of harvest and mortality are analyzed. 8 �REFUGE AREAS Using harvest data from 1999-2003, a GIS analysis of harvest locations was performed to establish refuge areas in L-19 (Figure 6). Harvest locations were clustered around the large ranches that allow lion hunting, with a few scattered harvests in other locations. To determine effective refuge areas, each harvest was assigned a buffer associated with the home range of its gender. The buffers were 357 km2 (138 mi2) for male lions and 195 km2 (75 mi2) for female lions. It was determined that harvest locations, with the associated buffered area, overlapped most of the effective lion habitat in the DAU. Possible refuge areas in L-19 include portions of the Culebra Mountain Range of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, areas northwest of Trinidad in the canyons west of Interstate 25, and the Silver and Sheep Mountain areas of northern Huerfano County. Portions of these areas were excluded from the density estimate due to low lion densities. Several large ranches in L-19 do not allow hunting, and may provide enough area for several female home ranges. This may provide some level of refuge, but it is not known how effective these areas are with the large home ranges associated with mountain lions. Figure 6. Mountain Lion Harvest Locations and Intensity of Harvest for L-19. GAME DAMAGE The increasing population trend from a ranching community to development of former ranches into subdivisions based on 40 acre parcels has led to the increase in “Hobby 9 �Farms” and the loss of historical knowledge on how to coexist with large carnivores. Mountain lion damage has shifted from mainly livestock depredation to alternative livestock including llamas, alpacas, and domestic pets in addition to traditional livestock. When mountain lions became listed as game animals the Division of Wildlife became financially liable for livestock and agricultural damage caused by mountain lions. The payments have averaged $1440.00 per year (five year average) in L-19 with annual payments following a boom and bust cycle (Figure 7). Each different mountain lion depredation situation is based on a unique set of circumstances and each requires a different solution. Strategies to reduce mountain lion depredation will be based on education programs. Each event will be handled differently based on the circumstances with several different management strategies concentrating on the offending individual. Strategies include the utilization of Wildlife Services to remove the offending individual, capture and relocation. In situations where there is an open season, strategies may utilize the services of an outfitter with a licensed hunter to remove the individual. This is the preferred alternative. MOUNTAIN LION GAME DAMAGE PAID PER YEAR L-19 $3,000 2525 2485 $2,500 2354 2090 $2,000 1700 $1,500 1440 1431 1375 $1,000 834 650 $500 400 90 0 0 0 $0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 5-Yr AVG YEAR Figure 7. Mountain lion game damage paid by year. HUMAN/MOUNTAIN LION CONFLICT Human/mountain lion conflicts are increasing annually due to rapid human population growth along the Front Range, residential encroachment into mountain lion habitat, a growing prey base in rural residential areas, and fragmented land use with the increase of hobby farms. 10 �To provide accurate information to the public, reports of human/mountain lion conflicts should be documented according to current division guidelines. Sightings should be confirmed and if necessary a site visit should be conducted to offer advice and literature. Sightings should be recorded according to area supervisor policy, but should not be documented on a conflict form. SUMMARY The goal for L-19, which is supported by public input, is to maintain a stable population. Harvest levels are approaching quota limits as well as showing an increase in females in the total harvest. In an effort to protect the female portion of the population, programs are underway to educate local hounds-men and outfitters on the benefits of harvesting only male mountain lions and methods to identify male lions in the field. The high winter prey base located in this area has the possible effect of a higher mountain lion density than has been found in current mountain lion population studies. This suggests that the mountain lion population is at the higher population densities. Therefore we suggest that an annual off-take range of 15% will allow us to maintain a stable population. Annual review of non-hunting mortality, hunter harvest and percentage of females in the harvest will allow managers to evaluate harvest recommendations within this off-take range. This DAU plan was based on the best possible information available at the time it was written. However as better techniques and new information becomes available it will be incorporated into the plan. LITERATURE CITED Logan, K.A., L.L. Irwin, and R. Skinner. 1986. Characteristics of a hunted mountain lion population in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 50(4):648-654. Logan, K.A. and L.L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert mountain lion: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, DC, USA. Ross, P.I. and M.G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(3):417-426. 11 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/2bc4862a44c15a562eb7706497f84437.pdf 6b7935cd5f0ae0f339243ca744bd09f0 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR Lion DAU L-19 Game Management Units 83, 85, 140, 851 Colorado Parks and Wildlife Southeast Region January 2019 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY GMUs 83, 85, 140 and 851 Land Ownership: 90% Private, 5% Federal (USFS or BLM), 2% State Land Board, 2% CPW Strategic Goal: Previous. Stable Recommended: Stable Harvest objective: Previous: 22-28 2019 Recommended: 39 Total mortality objective: Previous: 29 2019 Recommended: 41 Monitoring Metric: Previous: None Recommended: ≤20% adult female in harvest STRATEGIC GOAL The strategic goal of this plan is to manage for a stable mountain lion population while maximizing recreational hunting opportunities. This will be measured by not exceeding a monitoring threshold of 20% adult female in the harvest on a 3-year running average. ISSUE IDENTIFICATION During the scoping process for this plan, we identified three issues of concern to both CPW staff and stakeholders: 1) Game Damage, 2) Human Conflict, and 3) current levels of harvest do not appear sufficient to limit population growth. Through scoping and other examinations of data and harvest from L-19, we believe the mountain lion population can sustain a higher harvest while still being maintained as a stable population. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT APPROACH Four independent research projects indicate total harvest comprised of 20-25% adult females provide an inflection point for population trajectory, as proportions of harvest exceeding 2025% adult females are associated with declining population trends; harvests comprised of lower proportions of adult females in harvest were not associated with population declines (Logan 2015, Robinson and DeSimone 2011, Laundre et al. 2007, Anderson and Lindzey 2005). In L-19, the proportion of adult females in the harvest has remained low, averaging only 10% during 2014-2016 (Figure 1). During this time, harvest averaged 34.3 lions (Figure 2). This suggests that recent harvest limits in L-19 may have been too conservative to limit population growth. We are using an adaptive management approach to better understand how changing lion harvest affects population trajectory. To determine whether we are meeting the Plan’s strategic goal of stable lion management, the proportion of adult females in the harvest will be used as our monitoring metric with the overall goal of not exceeding 20% on a 3-year running average. Given that we are currently under the 20% metric, we propose for the 2019 season (April 2019 – March 2020) an initial increase in the harvest limit of 5 lions with a new harvest limit of 39 lions. In subsequent years, we will make decisions annually about whether to maintain, increase, or decrease the harvest limit for the following season based on the proportion of adult females in the harvest relative to the management threshold. i �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan HARVEST SUMMARY From 2008-2017, hunter harvest in L-19 ranged from 12 to 36 lions, with an average of 25 harvested lions per year (Figure 2). The most recent 3-year average harvest is 33 lions and the average total mortality is 35. Ten-year average percentage of adult females in the harvest is 18% with a 3-year average of 10% (Figure 1). Figure 1. Percentage of adult females in total harvest: 2009-2016. Adult female is defined as a female with tooth cementum age 3 years or older. Figure 2. L-19 Mountain lion mortality: 2008-2017. This Mountain Lion Management Plan was approved by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission on January 10, 2019 ii �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... i DESCRIPTION OF DAU AND HABITAT ..................................................................... 1 DAU MANAGEMENT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ....................................................... 3 L-19 Harvest History ..................................................................................... 3 PUBLIC OUTREACH ......................................................................................... 5 ISSUE IDENTIFICATION ..................................................................................... 5 Game Damage ............................................................................................ 5 Human Conflict .......................................................................................... 6 Current Population Status .............................................................................. 7 CPW Staff and Public Field Observations .......................................................... 7 Harvest Limit Achievement .......................................................................... 7 New Population Projection: Static Mountain Lion Abundance Index .......................... 7 PROPOSED MANAGEMENT GOAL ......................................................................... 10 STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE AND MONITOR STRATEGIC GOAL .......................................... 12 Strategic Goal ........................................................................................... 12 Monitoring ............................................................................................... 12 Management Decisions ................................................................................. 13 STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS MANAGEMENT CONCERNS .................................................. 13 Game damage and human conflict ................................................................... 13 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................ 14 APPENDIX A - Press Release for Public Meeting ....................................................... 15 APPENDIX B – Feedback from Trinidad Public Meeting ............................................... 16 APPENDIX C – Description of Colorado Resource Selection Function ............................... 18 iii �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Percentage of adult females in total harvest: 2009-2016. Adult female is defined as a female with tooth cementum age 3 years or older. ................................................ ii Figure 2. L-19 Mountain lion mortality: 2008-2017. .................................................. ii Figure 3. Location and boundaries of L-19. ............................................................ 2 Figure 4. Landownership in L-19......................................................................... 2 Figure 5. Vegetative communities in L-19. ............................................................ 3 Figure 6. L-19 Mountain lion harvest, total mortality, and harvest limits: 2008-2017. ......... 4 Table 1. Number of mountain lions harvested by gender (males/females) in L-19 by GMU from 2008-2017.................................................................................................... 5 Figure 7. Mountain lion game damage paid by year in L-19: 2008-2017. .......................... 6 Table 2. Output of resource selection function projecting a static independent harvestable lion abundance index in L-19. ............................................................................ 9 Figure 8. Percentage of adult females in harvest: 2009-2016. Adult female is defined as a female with tooth cementum age 3 years or older. Tooth collection began in 2009............ 12 Table C.1. Variables originally considered for development of the Colorado winter mountain lion habitat resource selection function model. ...................................................... 18 Table C.2. Mountain lion winter habitat model variables with the corresponding coefficients and odds ratios. ........................................................................................... 19 iv �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan DESCRIPTION OF DAU AND HABITAT Mountain lion Data Analysis Unit (DAU) L-19 is located in south-central Colorado and comprises Game Management Units (GMU’s) 83, 85, 140, and 851 (Figure 3). It covers 3,321 mi2 (8,577 km2) ranging in elevation from 3,860 ft. from where San Francisco Creek flows under Colorado Highway 160 to 14,345 ft. at the top of Blanca Peak in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Topography ranges from gentle rolling hills to ridges and valleys to steep alpine slopes and cliffs. Annual precipitation ranges from 20 inches at higher elevations to less than 6 inches in the lower elevations, mainly in the form of winter and spring snowfall and late summer thunderstorms. DAU L-19 is bounded on the north by US highway 160, the Alamosa-Costilla County line, Pass Creek Road, and Colorado 69; on the east by I-25, US highway 160, and Colo. 389; on the south by the New Mexico state line; and on the west by the Rio Grande River. Drainages include the Apishapa River, Culebra Creek, San Francisco Creek (Las Animas County), Rio Grande River, Trinchera Creek (Las Animas County), Trinchera Creek (Costilla County), Huerfano River, Cucharas River, Sangre de Cristo Creek and the Purgatoire River. Over 90% (3,000 mi2) of L-19 is privately owned (Figure 4). The remaining parts of the DAU are managed by the following agencies: U.S. Forest Service - 109 mi2 (3.3%); State Land Board – 69 mi2 (2.1%); Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) – 59 mi2 (1.8%); Bureau of Land Management – 52 mi2 (1.6%); U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – 18 mi2 (0.5%) and City or County - 7 mi2 (0.4%). Predominate vegetative communities include alpine tundra, sub-alpine conifer, montane conifer, montane shrub, great basin desert shrub, and plains grassland (Figure 5). Land use is primarily agriculture, with livestock grazing occurring on public and private lands. Irrigated and dry land farming produces grass hay and alfalfa. Early Spanish lands grants resulted in large tracts of land being held by one owner and large ranches still persist. Human occupancy is scattered among river valleys and the large towns of Trinidad and Walsenburg located in GMU’s 85, 140 and 851. Public use for hunting, hiking, biking, camping, and fishing is limited to national forests, public campgrounds, and recreation areas. Currently three ranches in L-19 are enrolled in the CPW’s Ranching for Wildlife Program (RFW), which provides public recreation and wildlife habitat improvement on private lands. Mountain lion is not an enrolled species on RFW properties, but mountain lion hunting is leased on most of these ranches by private outfitters. Several large ranches have been sold as housing developments, and communities based on 40acre lots are quickly impacting large expanses of the region, further reducing mountain lion hunting access. Several area ranches have been placed in conservation easements preserving these habitats. 1 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan Figure 3. Location and boundaries of L-19. Figure 4. Landownership in L-19. 2 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan Figure 5. Vegetative communities in L-19. DAU MANAGEMENT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND L-19 Harvest History Harvest limits (previously called quota) in L-19 have been divided between two huntcodes, one that includes GMUs 85, 851 and 140 (LE085O1R) and the second that is valid for GMU 83 (LE083O1R). The DAU harvest limit from 1990 through 2003 was as high as 40 lions, 30 for LE085O1R and 10 LE083O1R. Historic harvest averaged between 5 and 10 lions a year until 1996 when several new outfitters started operating in the area. This resulted in a sustained increase in harvest. In 2004, a new mountain lion management plan was approved for L-19 (Vitt 2004). The goal of the 2004 plan was to maintain a rich vegetative and wildlife community that was in balance with the available habitat, which would minimize game damage complaints and support a self-sustaining mountain lion population. The 2004 L-19 plan specified that we would manage for a stable mountain lion population. Harvest limits do not always reflect the harvest objective for a DAU. When harvest is below the harvest objective, we often allocate a higher harvest limits than reflected in the harvest objective. This is often done in units like L-19 with multiple huntcodes to distribute harvest and hunting opportunity between the geographic areas. As harvest approaches the harvest objective, limits are often reduced to ensure harvests do not exceed the harvest objective. 3 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan Under the 2004 plan, the population projection was 145 to 194 harvestable lions. We set a harvest objective of 22 to 28 lions with total mortality objective of 29 to maintain a stable population. Following approval of the plan, the harvest limits for 2005 were reduced to 30, with 24 allocated to LE085O1R and 6 for LE083O1R. Hunters harvested 11 lions in the entire DAU under that limit. In 2005, we increased the harvest limit for LE083O1R by 1; the DAU harvest limit remained at 31 until 2011. Historically when setting harvest limits in L-19, we used 5-year running averages to estimate predicted harvest for the following season. For the 2011 season, the 5-year running average harvest for L-19 was 14 lions, well below the DAU harvest objective of 28. Per CPW staff and landowner requests, we increased harvest limits for LE083O1R to 10 so the overall harvest limit for L-19 was 34 lions. Prior to 2014, neither the total mortality or harvest mortality thresholds were met. However, beginning in 2014, harvest mortality in L-19 (36 lions) exceeded the harvest objective of 28 lions (Figure 6 and Table 1). Limits were not changed because the 5-year running average remained below the total mortality objective. Following the 2015 season, we achieved a 5year running average harvest of 28 which met the harvest objective and exceeded the total mortality objective for the first time. Starting in 2016 on a statewide basis, status quo harvest limits were recommended pending the development of a statewide lion plan and therefore, changes were not made to the L-19 harvest limit. The total mortality and harvest objectives were exceeded in 2016 and 2017. Exceeding the mortality thresholds in the 2004 plan has allowed us to examine assumptions made in the existing plan, the optimal duration of time used to calculate mortality (5-year average) and the need for additional monitoring metrics for mountain lion management. These will be examined below. Figure 6. L-19 Mountain lion harvest, total mortality, and harvest limits: 2008-2017. 4 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan Table 1. Number of mountain lions harvested by gender (males/females) in L-19 by GMU from 2008-2017. 10 Year Average 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Harvest GMU 083 Total 4 4 6 3 7 5 9 9 10 5 6.2 Female 2 1 3 1 5 3 6 3 5 1 3.0 Male 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 6 5 4 3.2 Total 3 4 5 12 11 12 14 11 14 13 9.9 Female 0 1 2 4 5 5 3 3 8 6 3.7 Male 3 3 3 7 6 7 11 8 6 7 6.1 Unknown 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 Total 2 0 0 0 0 2 6 2 1 5 1.8 Female 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0.5 Male 2 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 4 1.3 Total 5 4 6 7 7 6 7 10 10 9 7.1 Female 0 3 3 2 4 1 3 5 5 3 2.9 Male 5 1 3 5 3 5 4 5 5 6 4.2 Grand Total 14 12 17 22 25 25 36 32 35 32 25.0 085 140 851 PUBLIC OUTREACH A public meeting was held on September 5, 2018 in Trinidad, Colorado at the Trinidad State Junior College. The press release for this meeting can be found in Appendix A. The 27 people in attendance were encouraged to leave written feedback on this proposed plan. Written comments can be found in Appendix B. In addition, this plan was placed on the CPW website for a 24-day review from September 14 October 8, 2018. No feedback was received during the comment period. ISSUE IDENTIFICATION Based on CPW staff observations, public comments, and feedback from public meetings, we have identified three issues that need to be addressed by this plan: 1) Game Damage, 2) Human Conflict, and 3) current management does not appear to be limiting population growth. Game Damage In some parts of L-19, large ranches have been developed into 40-acre parcel subdivisions, which has lead to a higher human population, an increasing number of hobby farms, and a loss of historical knowledge on how to coexist with large carnivores. Mountain lion damage has 5 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan shifted from mainly cattle and sheep depredation to alternative livestock including llamas, alpacas, and domestic pets (See Appendix B). When mountain lions became listed as game animals, CPW became financially liable for livestock and agricultural damage caused by mountain lions. CPW has paid an average of $1,518 per year over the last 10 years (2008-2017) in lion-caused game damage in L-19; annual payments have predominantly been low with occasional spikes (Figure 7). Payments in 2014 were the highest in all 23 years reviewed; 4 separate claims for “other stock” totaled $7,560 that year. Lion Damage Claims Paid in L-19 2008-2017 Dollar value indexed to 2016 dollars $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 Cattle Other Stock Sheep Figure 7. Mountain lion game damage paid by year in L-19: 2008-2017. Human Conflict Anecdotal evidence from CPW field staff suggests that human conflict has been increasing in L-19. Human conflict with lions can be found throughout L-19, but is more common where human densities are the highest. In addition, the region has observed the increase of lower density housing communities (ranchette developments) that both fragment habitat and also increase the potential for conflict with the presence of hobby livestock. Human interaction with lions includes sightings, roadkills, depredation on pets and livestock, and predation on deer and other wildlife in close proximity to development (Appendix B). Human concerns over these conflicts are varied with some people being very concerned about interaction, or potential interaction, and others valuing lions in the ecosystems where they reside. 6 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan Current Population Status We have several supporting indicators to suggest that the L-19 lion population is higher than presented in the 2004 management plan, including CPW staff and public field observations, harvest limit achievement, and a new more-robust method of population projection. CPW Staff and Public Field Observations As stated above, CPW staff and observations from landowners, hunters, and outfitters suggest the lion population is increasing (Appendix B). Additionally, the lion population in L-19 may be augmented by dispersal of lions from three adjacent units where lion harvest is limited. First, to the north of L-19, CPW initiated a long term research project in 2016 to examine how changes in mountain lion densities affect mule deer demographics (Alldredge et al. 2016). For the first 6 years (2016-2021) of this study, mountain lion densities in the study area will be allowed to increase. Second, to the south, there is a very large ranch located in New Mexico where lion harvest is restricted. Third, to the east, there is a system of canyons that consists of lion habitat. Harvest is this area has historically been limited because of the lack of persistent snowfall. These 3 factors may all be contributing to increased and sustained immigration into L-19, which may explain the quick achievement of harvest limits in recent years. Harvest Limit Achievement Harvest limit achievement is also suggesting that the L-19 lion population is larger than presented in the 2004 plan. After three years of harvest limit achievement (2014-2016), the 2017 quota in GMUs 85, 140, and 851 was met 11 days after the season opened. New Population Projection: Static Mountain Lion Abundance Index CPW has developed a statewide resource selection function (RSF) model to project a potential static lion abundance index within management areas of Colorado (Appendix C). The static abundance index extrapolation is not a representation of actual population size of lions in a given area, but rather the relative probability of resource selection by an animal population at a snap shot in time with the assumptions used at that time. It is a way to derive a mortality limit and/or harvest levels that are appropriate for an area with each given management scenario or goal. The model stratifies resource selection results into 4 strata related to the probability of lion presence in winter based on a suite of predictive variables that have been examined with Colorado-specific lion data. The model assumes that lions exist in greater density in strata with high probability of presence and at decreasingly lower densities in the next three strata, based on lower probabilities of winter lion occurrence. The RSF model generated the amount of habitat by strata in each GMU in L-19 (Table 2). The model then applies assumed independent lion densities to each stratum to arrive at an extrapolated abundance index. An interdisciplinary team of managers and biologists in CPW examined lion densities reported in literature and considered habitat quality, prey base, abundance of alternative prey, vegetation characteristics, and the RSF model outputs and decided that the following density of independent (legally-harvestable) lions per 100 km2 would be applied to each strata: 7 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan Strata 0 (extra-low), East of Interstate 25: 0.1 lions/100 km2 Strata 1 (low), West of Interstate 25: 1.0 lions/100 km2 Strata 2 (medium-low): 2.5 lions/100 km2 Strata 3 (medium-high): 3.5 lions/100 km2 Strata 4 (high): 5.0 lions/100 km2 The literature used to develop these lion densities was evaluated using reported density estimates for independent lions. As such the RSF-generated static lion abundance index does not include kittens or dependent young in the projection and would represent an approximation of the legally-harvestable lion abundance in L-19. It also is static, or nonchanging, by its very nature. Projections are generated from assumptions, densities and conditions at the time the model is run and unless they are updated, result in fixed lion abundance indexes over time. Under this plan the static abundance of independent harvestable lions is projected to be 239 in L-19 (Table 2). When compared to the approach taken for the 2004 plan, this more detailed approach suggests that more harvestable lions exist within the DAU (145-194 lions projected in 2004 plan). 8 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan Table 2. Output of resource selection function projecting a static independent harvestable lion abundance index in L-19. Relative probability of lion occurrence in RSF habitat strata Extra Low Strata Low Strata M-Low Strata M-High Strata High Strata Km2 of each RSF habitat strata in L-19 467 1743 2581 2238 1573 Assumed lion density per km2 in each RSF strata 0.001 0.01 0.025 0.035 0.05 Project lion abundance index in each RSF strata in L-19 0 17 65 78 79 Total projected independent harvestable lion abundance index in L-19 239 Mountain lions 9 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan PROPOSED MANAGEMENT GOAL The 2004 L-19 mountain lion management plan was based on the best available information at the time it was written. Since then, additional information has become available to help inform lion management decisions. In this plan, we are retaining the stable management objective. However, we are updating harvest limits to reflect the current state of knowledge regarding the lion population in L-19. We will employ a novel adaptive management framework using cementum tooth age analysis and gender of harvested animals to evaluate and adjust harvest limits over time to achieve the goal of stabilizing the lion population. The foundation for this concept and approach is presented below. Wildlife managers, through the use of hunting harvest, have the ability to limit lion population growth (Robinson and DeSimone 2011). On the Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado, during the 5-year population decline phase of the research project, adult females comprised 23% of the total cumulative harvest (Logan 2015). In this study, lion harvest was considered additive mortality and male lion survival rates declined when compared to the preceding reference phase with no lion hunting. In the Garnet Mountains of Montana, lion hunting harvest was found to be an additive source of mortality, not compensatory. In the un-hunted period, 71% of the growth rate in the population was related to reproduction (maternity and kitten survival) while adult female survival accounted for only 22% of the population growth rate. Hunting reversed this; increasing the reliance on adult female survival accounted for 40% of the variation in population growth and reproduction accounted for only 17%. Monitoring and population modeling efforts in this population indicated that when accounting for all forms of known human-caused mortality, adult female mortality greater than 20% is likely to cause a decrease in the resident lion population level (Robinson and DeSimone 2011). In southern Idaho – northern Utah, Laundre et al. (2007) tested the effects of changes in prey abundance on lion population dynamics. Through their monitoring of the change in population size and social-age class structure, they suggest that an annual harvest of 15 to 20% of resident (adult) females would not reduce a population. Anderson and Lindzey (2005) conducted experimental population reduction and recovery in the Snowy Range of Wyoming to examine how various gender and age classes are exposed in hunter harvest when a population is increasingly exploited. Because of the differences in daily movement distances they predicted that males would be more vulnerable to hound hunting, which relies on discovery of tracks in snow. Increasing hunting pressure exposes different genders and age classes until they are relatively less available, subsequently exposing the next most vulnerable age class. Sex and age classes of lions exhibit different and relatively predictable movement patterns, where males move longer distances than females and subadults (1-2.5 years old) generally move longer distances than adults (Barnhurst 1986, Anderson 2003). In the absence of hunter selection, the likelihood of a specific sex or age class of lion being harvested would reflect its relative abundance in the population and its relative vulnerability based on daily movement patterns. Thus, where hound hunting methods are applied, those lions that typically move longer distances would most likely be detected first (males/subadults). The least vulnerable individuals (adult females) should become prominent in the harvest only after males become scarce in the population. Anderson and Lindzey (2005) tested these predictions by applying varying levels of hunter harvest to the Snowy Range mountain lion population. In a high-density population with low harvest rates, 10 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan they found that the composition of lions in the harvest was dominated by subadults. As harvest levels increased, the composition shifted to adult males. As predicted, with a continued high harvest, the composition shifted to adult females as the population started to decline. Likewise, Cooley et al. (2009) noted that adult females increased in harvest composition when hunting increasingly removed other age/gender classes in a population. When harvest levels were reduced, composition of the harvest returned to primarily subadults. The male segment of the reduced population recovered within 2 years due to male immigration from other populations and the female segment within 3 years from an increased number of females producing young within the population (Anderson and Lindzey 2005). They concluded that the population appeared to support a harvest composed of 10-15% adult females. When adult female composition in hunter harvest reached about 25%, the population declined. An examination of these four independent studies suggests that a threshold of 20-25% adult female in the harvest is an inflection point in a population trajectory. Given our desire to manage L-19 for a stable population and due to the relatively small scale of this DAU, we are proposing to set a ceiling of 20% adult females in hunter harvest. We believe that harvest proportions maintained below this ceiling will not suppress the L-19 population. Because there can be a high degree of annual variation due to sample size, environmental conditions that alter hunting strategies and hunter success, we will use a 3-year running average when examining adult female hunting harvest mortality proportions. The 3-year average was selected because prior experience suggested that a 5-year average was too long to be adequately responsive to changes in both the mountain lion population and hunter harvest. Starting in 2009, CPW began collecting premolars for cementum ring aging analysis to examine the age of lions at harvest. We defined an adult female as a female with tooth cementum age 3 or older. In L-19 from 2009-2016, the average proportion of adult females in the harvest was 18% and ranged from a low of 9% to a high of 44% (Figure 8). At the time this plan was drafted, the 2017 cementum age data were not available. The most recent 3-year average (2014-2016) is 10% and reflects a period where harvest limits were met. Based on our current proportion of adult females in the harvest, the current harvest limits are likely below the threshold that would initiate a population decline. Thus, we can increase harvest limits while still maintaining a stable lion population in L-19. 11 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan Figure 8. Percentage of adult females in harvest: 2009-2016. Adult female is defined as a female with tooth cementum age 3 years or older. Tooth collection began in 2009. STRATEGIES TO ACHIEVE AND MONITOR STRATEGIC GOAL Strategic Goal The strategic goal of this plan is to manage for a stable mountain lion population while maximizing recreational hunting opportunities. This will be measured by not exceeding a monitoring threshold of 20% adult female in the harvest on a 3-year running average. Given that the current harvest limits (34 total for L-19) are being achieved and the proportion of adult females in the harvest remains below the 20% threshold, an increase of 5 in the harvest limit is warranted and expected to retain a stable population trend. In addition to harvest, we also need to account for other sources of human-caused mortality, which averaged 1.5 lions over the past ten years. Therefore, the harvest mortality objective will be initially set to 39 lions and the total human-caused mortality objective will be 41 lions. Monitoring The harvest limit achievement and proportion of adult females in the harvest will be monitored annually. Due to high year-to-year variation in both of these metrics due to small samples, environmental conditions, and hunter success, we will base management decisions on the 3-year running averages of the percent adult female in harvest. This will be calculated by summing the total adult females (and unknowns) in the harvest over each 3-year window, divided by the total number of lions harvested over that same 3-year period. 12 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan Management Decisions We are using an adaptive management approach to better understand how changing lion harvest affects population trajectory. To determine whether we are meeting the Plan’s strategic goal of stable lion management, the proportion of adult females in the harvest will be used as our monitoring metric with the overall goal of not exceeding 20% on a 3-year running average. Given that we are currently under the 20% metric, we propose for the 2019 season (April 2019 – March 2020) an initial increase in the harvest limit of 5 lions with a new harvest limit of 39 lions. In subsequent years, we will make decisions annually about whether to maintain, increase, or decrease the harvest limit for the following season based on the proportion of adult females in the harvest relative to the management threshold. This plan represents a new approach to managing lions in Colorado and therefore close monitoring will be required to determine the efficacy of this strategy for managing other lion DAUs. STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS MANAGEMENT CONCERNS Game damage and human conflict Each mountain lion depredation and conflict situation is based on a unique set of circumstances, requiring an individualized solution. Agency responses will be based on education programs to reduce mountain lion depredation and conflict. Each event will be addressed using several different management strategies that focus on the individual lion. Strategies could include using Wildlife Services staff to capture and euthanize the lion. Additionally, CPW actions may run a continuum from public outreach and education to euthanizing the offending lion. In situations where there is an open season, strategies may utilize the services of an outfitter with a licensed hunter to remove the individual offending lion. For the duration of this plan, we will be evaluating game damage and human conflict events to assess trends in response to our management prescriptions. 13 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan LITERATURE CITED Allderdge, M., B. Dreher, A. Vitt, and J. Grigg. 2016. Mule deer population response to cougar population manipulation. Federal Aid Project No. W-265-R Study Plan, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Ft. Collins, USA. Anderson, C. R., Jr. 2003. Cougar ecology, management, and population genetics in Wyoming. Dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA. Anderson, C. R., Jr., and F. G. Lindzey. 2005. Experimental evaluation of population trend and harvest composition in a Wyoming cougar population. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:179188. Barnhurst, D. 1986. Vulnerability of cougars to hunting. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, USA. Cooley, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, G. M. Koehler, H. S. Robinson, and B. T. Maletzke. 2009. Does hunting regulate cougar populations? A test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis. Ecology 90:2913-2921. Laundré, J. W., L. Hernandez, and S. G. Clark. 2007. Numerical and demographic responses of pumas to changes in prey abundance: Testing current predictions. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:345-355. Logan, K. A. 2015. Assessing the effects of hunting on a puma population on the Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado. Federal Aid Project W-204-R4 report. Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. Logan, K. A., and J. P. Runge. 2018. Effects of hunting on a puma population in Colorado. Manuscript submitted for publication. McAlpine, C. A., J. R. Rhodes, M. E. Bowen, D. Lunney, J. G. Callaghan, D. L. Mitchell, and H. P. Possingham. 2008. Can multiscale models of species’ distribution be generalized from region to region? A case study of koala. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:558-567. Robinson, H. S. and R. M. DeSimone. 2011. The Garnet Range mountain lion study: characteristics of a hunted population in west-central Montana. Final Report, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Wildlife Bureau, Helena, MT. 102 pp. Vitt, A. E. 2004. Mountain Lion Management Guidelines for Lion DAU L-19. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Pueblo, Colorado. 13 pp. 14 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan APPENDIX A - Press Release for Public Meeting Aug. 23, 2018 Public opinion sought as CPW updates goals for managing mountain lion population TRINIDAD, Colo. – If you want to have a voice in how Colorado Parks and Wildlife manages the mountain lion population in the areas around Trinidad, your time has arrived. CPW is revising its population management plan that will guide the agency as it sets harvest objectives over the next 10 years. As part of the process, the wildlife agency has scheduled a public hearing at 6 p.m., Wednesday, Sept. 5 at Trinidad State Junior College. CPW is inviting hunters, ranchers and the general public to speak out on its management plan and influence policies governing the population. The targeted mountain lion population spans Game Management Units 85, 851 and 140 – essentially from Walsenburg and La Veta Pass south along the Sangre de Cristo Divide to New Mexico and east of Trinidad along Colorado Highway 160 to Highway 389. CPW has a goal of updating objectives in its herd management plans every 10 years. The existing management plan, also called a Data Analysis Unit or DAU, for the herd was approved in October 2005. Public feedback is being sought on whether to maintain the current objectives for the next 10 years. Under the existing management objectives, hunters seem to be generally happy and CPW has not received a tremendous number of complaints about game damage. If you disagree with those observations, please speak up. Your opinions and evidence could cause CPW to take a different approach in revising this plan. BOX: What: Colorado Parks and Wildlife to host a public hearing on its 10-year mountain lion population management plan When: 6 p.m., Wednesday, Sept. 5 Where: Student Center, Pioneer Room, Trinidad State Junior College, 600 Prospect St, Trinidad, CO 81082 15 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan APPENDIX B – Feedback from Trinidad Public Meeting Written comments from the September 5, 2018 meeting in Trinidad received as of September 7, 2018. Names and contact information, if provided, have been removed. Twenty-seven people attended the meeting. • 1 2 3 4 • • • • • • • • • • • 5 6 • • • Suggestions: • Work w/ subdivision presidents and boards to allow lion hunting • Increase female percentage • Increase total quota • Split units in Quota up 85/851/140 • Control sub-adult harvest: Special license for experienced hunters who can differentiate adults and sub adults with different or additional quota. Experience: • I have seen many deer. Elk, and sheep kills from lions in the past 3 years, more than the previous than in the past 10. Same for seeing lions w/out dogs. • In the past 3 years I have seen tracks in the dirt archery hunting and have not in previous years. • Lions on game cams much more common in last few years Raise the quota for annual hunts. April thru March more female adults. Some developed areas want the wildlife but not the wild with these places. Quit feeding the deer and turkey! They have helped to make an increase lion population due to the deer coming to feed. These cats are being squeezed out of ground and getting less afraid of people. Consider a male quota and a female quota. Also, I would like to see a process to stop the youth cats from being killed? Is there a way to limit young cats from being killed! Lion quotas need to be increased in units 140, 85, 851. I also think that the lion quotas should be broke up separately for the 3 units. I feel by giving all 3 units 85, 851, 140 separate quotas will be better for managing the lion population. Putting these 3 units together you can have an over kill within a population of lions. I feel the 3 unit 85, 851,140 should have at least 12 lions per unit. I feel it could easily go to 36 lions in these 3 units. In unit 140 in Frisco pass and Sugarite Ranch the population has increased. Have seen more kills than ever. Bear are on the increase also. This year during calving season I know we lost 2 calves in the Spring to bear didn’t turn in. Having watched lion population over the last 14 years there is no doubt the population is increasing. We would like to see an increase in the quota and separate quota for each unit. 16 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan 7 • 8 • • 9 10 11 12 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 13 • • • • • I feel like population is increasing yearly. I would like to see an increase in the quota. I live SE of La Veta where I own 700 acres adjacent to my dad’s 5,000 acres. I spend a lot of time out on foot horseback managing the land, livestock and trails. I can vouch that there are a lot of cats out there. One just killed one of my ducks and I just about stepped on his tail in my high fenced coop. I’ve also hit one on my ranger (side by side) on a ranch road. There are fresh tracks every day on my training trails where I ride. P.s. if cats start killing my foals it will be a serious problem. Would like to see quota increased. Would like to be able to hunt in April. Maybe not have GMU 83 as part of the GMU. See a little increase in number of females or bigger increase in total number of lions taken. Put 140 in separate unit. Put limit on harvesting young cats. Up quota 5 – 7 cats. Raise quota. Break up units quota wish. Also with the turkey, deer, elk population: What happens when we take too many cats. Less females wanted killed, that means more toms that are killed that otherwise would have killed a percentage of kittens to control the population. Most times lactating females can be seen when hair is missing around the tits, and if you need to verify by re treeing that lion for a better look. But how many would do that? With weather conditions on the East of 25 plains why not open those areas year round – the hunting conditions would be the kill factor. Increase female killing. Only let mature cats be harvested. Split the units up and up quotas. Have DOW talk to subdivisions to let hunters in. More people seeing cats now than ever. 17 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan APPENDIX C – Description of Colorado Resource Selection Function Colorado Parks and Wildlife modeled statewide lion winter habitat using a resource selection function (RSF) approach which compares where species are present to habitat that is available in the landscape. The winter period is defined as December –February and all lion locations used in our model correspond to those dates. We used 2,470 male and 1,603 female mortality locations documented through mandatory checks from 2000-2013 as our presence sample in the model. We created a list of 18 variables considered important to how lions choose habitat in Colorado (Table C.1). We first calculated Pearson Correlation coefficient ® for all the variables in program R and removed variables with high correlation to other variables (r > 0.65). Between paired variables, the variable kept is the one thought to be most biologically relevant. This resulted in 6 variables chosen for model development which included distance to mule deer winter range, elevation, low vegetation, short shrub, tall shrub, and slope. We standardized these variables (mean=0, SD=1; McAlpine et al. 2008) to directly compare our coefficients for variables measured at different scales. We generated an equal number of random locations (n= 4,100) within lion habitat documented within CPWs species activity maps (http://gisweb/webmaps/sam/sam.html) and used these as the “available” sample. Both the presence locations and the available locations were buffered based on the sex of the harvest location. These buffers were 3.2 km diameter to represent mean winter daily movement distances for male lions and 2.0 km for females (K. Logan and M. Alldredge, CPW, personal communication 2015). We used a binomial generalized linear model with a logit link with all 6 variables using the glm package in the program R (Development Core Team 2014). We calculated odds ratios from the resulting coefficients using exp(β i )(Table C.2). Table C.1. Variables originally considered for development of the Colorado winter mountain lion habitat resource selection function model. Variable NE aspect SE aspect SW aspect NW aspect Distance to mule deer winter range Distance to elk winter range Distance to bighorn winter range Elevation Urban Suburban Bare Low vegetation Short shrub Tall shrub Forest Water Slope TRI (roughness) Keep or Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Why Removed Correlation with another aspect Correlation with another aspect Correlation with another aspect Correlation with another aspect Keep Remove Correlation with mule deer dist Remove Keep Remove Remove Remove Keep Keep Keep Remove Remove Keep Remove No contribution to model Less than 1% of landscape Less than 1% of landscape Less than 1% of landscape Correlated with elevation and TRI Less than 1% of landscape Correlated with slope and elevation 18 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan Table C.2. Mountain lion winter habitat model variables with the corresponding coefficients and odds ratios. Model Variable coefficient odds ratio Elevation - 0.410 0.66 Low vegetation - 0.476 0.62 Short shrub - 0.147 0.86 Tall shrub 0.273 1.31 Distance to mule deer winter rangea - 0.500 0.61 slope 0.338 1.40 a the negative value for distance means that harvest locations are closer to the range; i.e. mountain lion harvest locations are located nearer to mule deer winter range. The final coefficients were used to create a prediction surface in ArcMap 10.1 (ArcGIS 10.1; Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, CA). We applied the logic equation in the following form to create the relative probability of presence of lions in winter across Colorado: w * ( xi ) = exp( B0 + B1 x1 + ... + Bn xi ) 1 + exp( B0 + B1 x1 + ... + Bn xi ) Where observations i=1…η, β 0 is the mean intercept and β η are the estimates for covariates χ i. The logistic function was used to create a probability of presence surface with values between 0 and 1 across the study area for winter occupancy (1=high, 0=low). The model produced a continuous surface which represented the relative probability of lion presence in winter across Colorado. From a management perspective, the continuous surface output has limited practical value. Therefore, we elected to stratify the prediction surface into 4 categories: strata 1 probability of lion winter presence = 0.01-0.25, strata 2 probability of lion winter presence 0.26-0.50, strata 3 probability 0.51-0.75, strata 4 probability 0.76-1. In a final step, three independent datasets were used for model validation: 164 winter lion predation sites on mule deer documented through CPW mule deer survival monitoring, 14,793 GPS locations from 33 female and 9 male lions researched on the Uncompahgre Plateau from 2004-2015, and 58,593 GPS locations from 45 female and 32 male lions researched in the Northern Front Range west of Denver-Longmont, CO from 2007-2015. For each validation set, we assigned each validation point to one of the 4 categories of the relative probability surface and determined the percentage of those points that were within the two highest stratas which correspond to > 50% relative probability of presence. We found that 86% of the Uncompahgre GPS locations were within stratas 3 and 4 of our model, 82% of northern Front Range GPS locations were within stratas 3 and 4, and 73% of the deer predation sites were within stratas 3 and 4. Results from the coefficients indicate that lions are closer to mule deer winter range, at lower elevations, within steeper slopes, and within tall shrub habitats compared to the habitat available. Lion were less likely to be located within low vegetation or short shrub 19 �L-19 Mountain Lion Management Plan habitats compared to the habitat available in the landscape. Based on the odds ratios, the most important variable for lions is to be close to mule deer winter range (Table C.2). The densities derived from this extrapolation process in 12 GMUs in Colorado subjectively representing a range of medium to high winter lion habitat quality mostly ranged from 2.5 to 3.5 lions/100 km2; a few were as low as 2.2 lions/100 km2 and one was 3.8 lions/100 km2. The RSF extrapolation density within Uncompahgre Plateau research area was 3.1 lions/100 km2 which compares reasonably to the maximum estimated density of 3.4 lions/100 km2 after five years of no hunting and 2.2 to 3.3 lions/100 km2 (average of 2.7) after 4 years of hunting (Logan and Runge 2018). When averaging across all four applied strata densities in L-19, the DAU-wide extrapolated lion density yielded a mean of 2.7 lions/100 km2. 20 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/854a0c9cf10c78006f3e019a7b0f22c5.pdf c647ad10ff49a2aa111f432b932aa6f4 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION DATA ANALYSIS UNIT L-20 MANAGEMENT PLAN GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 68, 681, 76, 79, 80 & 81 Southwest Region Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife By: Charles Wagner Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist August, 2004 �DESCRIPTION OF DAU, HABITAT AND PAST MANAGEMENT Mountain Lion Data Analysis Unit (DAU) L-20 is located in southern Colorado on the west side of the San Luis Valley (Fig. 1). The Continental Divide forms the western boundary of the unit, the New Mexico border is the southern boundary, and the unit extends north to Poncha Pass. Total area is 13,469 km2 (5,207 miles2). The DAU includes some extremely rugged terrain in the San Juan Mountain Range, rising to over 14,000 feet in elevation at San Luis Peak; the La Garita Mountains and Cochetopa Hills are also found here. The Rio Grande River has its headwaters in this unit. Other major drainages include the Conejos and Alamosa Rivers, and La Jara, La Garita, Carnero, Figure 1 and Saguache Creeks. La Garita Wilderness Area, South San Juan Wilderness Area and most of the Weminuche Wilderness Area fall within the boundary. The floor of the San Luis Valley, rising from 7,500 feet in elevation, is a high desert which is intensively farmed for potatoes, barley, alfalfa and other commercial crops where it can be irrigated—generally making for unsuitable mountain lion habitat. L-20 is comprised of the following Game Management Units (GMUs): 68, 681, 76, 79, 80 and 81. Portions of Rio Grande, Conejos, Mineral, Hinsdale and Saguache Counties make up the DAU. Two-thirds of the DAU is public land. The USDA Forest Service is the largest landholder, with 50.9% of the total. The privately owned land is ranched, farmed, or utilized as home sites and private recreation areas. The Bureau of Land Management 2 �manages 13.0% of the land, followed by the State of Colorado at 3.5% and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Monte Vista National Wildlife Refuge) at 0.4%. The unit’s sizable ungulate populations provide a substantial prey base for mountain lions. Post-season elk numbers are presently estimated around 18,500, with a population objective of 12,500. Mule deer are near their population objective of 21,000 after making a slow recovery following a period of decline. Bighorn sheep herds in the area include the Conejos Canyon, Alamosa River, Natural Arch, Bellows Creek, Bristol Head, Rio Grande Box, San Luis Peak and Trickle Mountain herds, although all have experienced die-offs over the last several decades and probably don’t number over 400500 animals at present. The comparative prey density index value for the whole DAU, based on a 5-yr. average deer and elk post-season population estimate, is 7. This index value ties L-20 for fifth among eight lion DAUs wholly or partially in southwestern Colorado and falls below mid-point of the range of 0.5 - 19 for different DAUs in the state of Colorado. Among 21 lion DAUs in Colorado, L-20 ranks 17th in documented off-take during the period 1980-2003. With DAU size factored in, L-20 ranks 19th among DAUs with a total off-take of 0.67 mountain lions per 100 km2 over the same period. Use of the quota system to manage mountain lion hunting in Colorado first began in 1972. Hunting should stop once the quota has been reached, but there have been occasional problems with administration of the system in the past. Presently, hunters desiring to hunt lion within a given unit are required to check a central message board by phone the night prior to the day they intend to hunt. Lions harvested in a unit are required to be checked at a Division of Wildlife office within 48 hours. The quota in L-20 started out at one in 1980, when GMU 68/681 was the only open area. GMU 80 opened in 1981 with a quota of three; GMU 81 opened the following year, with a quota of two; GMU 76 opened in 1986 with a quota of one; and GMU 79 opened in 1987, with a quota of one. Since all GMUs in the DAU have been open to hunting, the quota has ranged from 11 to 13, and the entire DAU has never closed to hunting, except for 1980 (figure 2). 3 �Lion Quotas in L-20 14 200% 180% 12 Quota 160% 10 140% 8 120% 100% 6 80% 4 60% 40% 2 20% 0% 19 19 8 0 19 8 1 19 8 2 8 19 3 19 8 4 19 8 5 19 8 6 8 19 7 8 19 8 19 8 9 19 9 0 9 19 1 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 9 19 5 9 19 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 9 20 9 20 0 0 20 0 1 20 0 2 03 0 Quota % Quota Achievement Figure 2 Annual harvest has ranged from 0 to 11 mountain lions between 1980 and 2003 in L-20 (figure 3, for years 1989-2003). During the period 1999 through 2003, harvest has averaged 8.2; and during the period 1994 through 2003, harvest averaged 7.1. Other mortality, such as control kills or vehicle collisions has only amounted to four animals between 1980 and 2003, compared to legal harvest of at least 105. Percent female lions in the harvest has averaged 48% over the past three years, and the five-year average female harvest and ten-year harvest have been 49% and 46% respectively (figure 4). 4 �Lion Mortality in L-20 14 12 10 8 Total Harvest Total Mortality 6 Harvest Quota 4 2 03 02 20 01 20 00 20 99 20 98 19 97 19 96 19 95 19 94 19 19 93 92 19 91 19 90 19 19 19 89 0 Figure 3 Percent Female Lions in Harvest DAU L-20 67% 70% 60% 57% 60% 50% 50% 55% 50% 50% 50% 50% 40% 40% 33% 33% 40% 40% 33% 30% 22% 20% 10% 0% 0% 0% % Female Figure 4 5 02 20 00 20 98 19 96 19 94 19 92 19 90 19 88 19 86 19 84 19 82 19 19 80 0% �Along with this gradual increase in the annual harvest, reports from houndsmen and observations of Division of Wildlife (CDOW) field personnel indicate that the population has probably increased over the past three to five years. Under Colorado law, CDOW is liable for damage caused to livestock by mountain lions. Damage claims processed in L-20 have only averaged 0.2 per year over the past five years with an average monetary value of $200. Two claims in 1997 amounted to $1836, constituting the highest amount claimed (figure 5). Lion Dam age Claim s in L-20 $2,000 2 $1,500 # of Claims Amt. Paid $1,000 4 $500 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 79 19 80 19 81 19 82 19 83 19 84 19 85 19 86 19 87 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 $0 Figure 5 ISSUES A public meeting was held in Monte Vista to gain public involvement in the DAU plan revision process for L-20. Ten members of the public attended and three persons submitted written comments. Two issues were identified: (1) houndsmen reiterated their position that they would like to maintain or increase hunting opportunity (i.e., no net loss in the statewide quota); and (2) predation on mule deer and bighorn sheep may be depressing those populations. Houndsmen also like the current method of breaking out quotas into four blocks for L-20: GMUs 68/681, GMUs 76/79, GMU 80 and GMU 81. A public meeting was held earlier in Alamosa to discuss management of lion DAUs on the east side of the San Luis Valley. One person attending that meeting was very adamant that mountain lions were predating too many deer, and that lion populations ought to be suppressed for that reason. Another concern submitted by e-mail from that earlier meeting was outdoor recreationists feeling threatened by the presence of mountain lions, and as a consequence not being able to enjoy their backcountry experience. 6 �STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT GOALS The strategic goal for DAU L-20 is to maintain a stable and healthy mountain lion population though manipulation of the harvest. This has been the goal in the past and no input gathered during public participation for the plan revision indicated a change is warranted or desired. Achievement of this goal will be accomplished through adaptive management: monitoring data collected on the harvest and other mortality, and adjusting quotas as needed. If significant changes occur in the ungulate prey base, this may also call for changes in the allowable annual off-take. The current population projection discussed in the next section is based on the best science, and as new information becomes available from additional studies, it will be incorporated into management. Game damage and human conflicts are sporadic, relatively minor occurrences which are best managed on a case by case basis, with any removal actions directed toward individual offending animals. MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES It is extremely difficult to obtain an accurate estimate of how many mountain lions are in a given area. In most instances, CDOW will not have the resources to develop a precise population estimate for a given area, much less track this accurately over an extended period of time. Without intensive field work, the only other method of assessing potential size of the population is to rely on density information previously collected and published in the literature from other localities. Using this information, along with Geographic Information Systems (GIS), managers can estimate how much similar habitat exists over the area of interest and project a possible population. Based on mark-recapture radio telemetry studies conducted in North America in habitat types similar to those found in western Colorado, we could expect to find mountain lions in densities at least as high as 4.6/100 km2 given the prey rich environment found in Colorado. A density of 3.0 mountain lions/100 km2 has been representative of moderate densities in other areas, with 2.0 mountain lions/100 km2 characterizing low density habitat. Since L-20 is not considered to have the best mountain lion habitat in Colorado, densities lower than these levels might be expected. A GIS analysis of potential habitat in L-20 was conducted using information in CDOW’s Wildlife Resource Information System (WRIS). Initially, areas of intensive agriculture on the valley floor and those areas above timberline which do not constitute suitable mountain lion habitat were excluded from the analysis. Suitable habitat was then subdivided into areas believed capable of supporting higher mountain lion densities, such as mule deer winter range, areas where moderate mountain lion density might be expected, such as higher elevation areas used by wintering elk, and areas of low prey density capable of only supporting low mountain lion densities. Under this scenario, 4995.5 km2 was designated relatively higher density, 3991.2 km2 moderate density, and 435.2 km2 relatively lower density (figure 6). If standard densities of 4.6, 3.0 and 2.0 are applied to the various strata, a possible population of 358 individuals would be projected for the DAU. Based on relatively fewer prey in this DAU compared to other areas in Colorado, this latter projection likely represents the upper limit of the possible mountain lion population in this DAU. Using more conservative estimates of 3.0 lions/100 km2 for high density habitat, 2.0 lions/100 km2 for moderate density and 1.0 lions/100 km2 for low density, a possible mountain lion population of 234 individuals is projected for DAU L-20. 7 �Figure 6 Annual growth rates as high as 28% have been documented for a protected mountain lion population following a period of significant suppression (Logan and Sweanor, 2001). Since this recovery was observed in a relatively prey sparse environment, a similar or perhaps more dramatic response could be expected in the prey rich environment of western Colorado. When the goal is maintaining a stable or increasing mountain lion population, we believe limiting total mortality to between 8% to 15% of the adults and subadults in the population will allow us to meet the management goal (Apker, pers. comm.). If mortality from other sources (i.e., control kills and road kills) is significant, this would need to be factored in along with the harvest. Several studies have documented age and sex structure of mountain lion populations (Logan and Sweanor, 2001; Ross and Jalkotzy, 1992). The average age structure reported in these studies yield 52% adult, 14% subadult and 34% cub. If we consider 66% of the population legal for harvest, and using a conservative removal rate of 8% of the adults/subadults, then a sustainable removal rate for L-20 would be 12.4 individuals per year for our more conservative population projection discussed above. The 5-year documented average harvest rate of 8.2 mountain lions is below the calculated allowable removal rate, as is the highest recorded harvest of 11 mountain lions. An alternative method of assessing current management is to estimate a mountain lion density needed to support the documented annual removal rate of 8.2 adults/subadults over the portion of L-20 deemed suitable mountain lion habitat. Using the conservative 8% rate, this would require 1.65 mountain lions per 100/km2, which is well within the projected 8 �probable lion density in the DAU. Thus it appears from a habitat-based population projection, our past and proposed management of mountain lions in this DAU is reasonably conservative given unknowns about actual mountain lion populations. The best information currently available indicates the percentage of females in the harvest should be kept below 50% on average to maintain adequate recruitment of young into the population. Since harvest in this unit is approaching this level with the current annual loss of 7 or 8 individuals from this population, this may indicate managers should proceed cautiously if increasing the annual removal rate. REFUGE AREAS The presence of refugia, where mountain lions are protected from human-induced mortality, could impact the allowable annual mortality in any DAU. These areas might act as a source area for emigrating animals which could then relocate in territories previously occupied by harvested animals. In order to be totally effective, any refugia would need to be large enough to encompass home ranges of numerous mountain lions—such refugia would ideally need to be at least 2,000 to 3,000 km2 in size, with 1,000 km2 being the lower limit for effectiveness (Logan, pers. comm.). Reported harvest over the past ten years has not been spread uniformly across the DAU (figure 7). Harvest is uncommon along the Continental Divide and in designated wilderness areas at higher elevation, where access is more difficult and few large prey items are available during the winter. The lower foothill regions generally contain more private property intermingled with public land, which makes it difficult or impossible to trail mountain lions with hounds for any distance; thus, fewer hunter kills might be expected in these areas also. The other large area with no harvest shown is within GMU 81. This is probably due more to a combination of low lion density, low harvest and lack of reported harvest location, rather than any significant access limitation. Refuges do not appear to be a factor in the management of mountain lions in L-20. Furthermore, so long as harvest in this DAU is taking place at a rate well below the sustainable level, refugia are not an issue. 9 �MORTALITY OBJECTIVE Habitat projections of the mountain lion population in L-20 suggest an allowable annual off-take in the range of 12 to 23 adults/subadults based on a conservative removal rate of 8% and a more liberal 15% rate. In the past, 97% of the mortality in the unit has been hunting mortality, which can be controlled through harvest quotas. If unusual nonhunting mortality should occur at any time, the following year’s quota could be reduced to compensate for this loss. The DAU will likely continue to be managed with subquotas based on blocks of GMUs. The larger these subquotas can be, the less individual hunting opportunity will be affected and the less potential for hunter overcrowding caused by subquotas closing adjacent units. The question is, how much can these be increased without causing an undesirable shift in population composition, or exceeding the rate at which the population can replace its losses. Since we are dealing with a relatively unknown quantity, caution is warranted. Any increase in the quota should be done slowly and incrementally, so the response can be closely monitored. SUMMARY The mountain lion population in L-20 is stable or increasing, based on evaluation of harvest data from 1980-2003 and anecdotal evidence. CDOW and interest groups desire to maintain the current population; however, some members of the public may not be supportive of an increase in population. Population projections based on mountain lion densities from studies in other localities and available habitat in L-20 suggest the 5year annual off-take average of 8.2 mountain lions can be increased to about 12 mountain lions annually and remain consistent with the DAU goal. 10 �LITERATURE CITED Logan, K.A. and L.L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert mountain lion: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, DC, USA. Ross, P.I. and M.G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56(3):417-426. 11 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/3b46b3f14348e9afe9e7bc2c9137c1a1.pdf 1d7e6ce866fe0115ed8f65292477f5e6 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-20 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 68, 681, 76, 79, 80, & 81 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife Southeast Region By: David Kenvin Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Monte Vista, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF DATA ANALYSIS UNIT, HABITAT, AND PAST MANAGEMENT: Mountain lion DAU L-20 is located in south central Colorado on the west side of the San Luis Valley. The primary drainages are the Rio Grande, Conejos River, and Saguache Creek. The DAU consists of six game management units 68, 681, 76, 79, 80, and 81. The DAU is considered to be only fair to poor lion habitat. It is generally bordered on the east by agricultural lands at lower elevation. As the elevation increases from east to west from 7,500 feet to over 13,000 feet, the vegetation changes from pinion-juniper to aspen and Douglas fir, to spruce-fir to alpine along the continental divide. Lions generally inhabit the lower elevation areas of the DAU but may be found at higher elevations preying on both elk and deer at any time of the year. Historically the area supported a higher mule deer population than at present. The decline in mule deer was evident in the 1970's and became more pronounced in the 1980's and 1990's. Currently mule deer are at low population levels in this DAU. Elk populations in the DAU peaked in the late 1980's and have declined somewhat with more liberal antlerless hunting opportunities. It appears that lions utilize elk as the primary prey species in this DAU. The sport hunting harvest over the last ten years has increased form a low of 0 in 1989 to a high of 9 in 1994. The average sport harvest is 4 lions per year. The 1999 quota in the DAU was 13. There is some lion depredation on livestock but it is somewhat sporadic. From 1990 to 1998 there was a total of $1,836 in game damage claims. The depredations included sheep, goats, and cattle. Claims averaged $305 per year with a range of $145 to $525. ISSUES: · · Outfitters want quotas raised despite the fact the quotas are not currently met. The CDOW wants to maintain a viable lion population in the DAU that is in balance with the habitat, prey and social values. December 4, 2000 �· Some people believe that mountain lions are suppressing deer and elk populations. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: Sport hunting will be the primary management tool to insure healthy and viable mountain lion populations and to provide for maximum hunter opportunity. Recent studies have indicated that predation by mountain lions on deer and elk is not a major factor in population regulation, however, there are no studies from this DAU. The preferred management recommendation is to maintain license quotas at or below present levels for 5 years to monitor harvest levels and hunter success for the following reasons: · · Current quotas are not met. Damage is not excessive and within acceptable levels. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/2bc6396e49f7dbfec21dd5101223c4ea.pdf 4bb3ab9dc9b7ae32cac2f9bb708d833f PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-21 Game Management Units 54, 55, 551, 65, 66, & 67 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife West Region By: Don Masden Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Gunnison, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT DAU L-21 is located in the upper Gunnison River Basin, Lake Fork of the Gunnison, Cimarron Rivers and the east side of the upper Uncompaghre River Valley. It is bounded on the north by US Highway 50, Curecanti Creek, the North Fork of the Gunnison River and Gunnison River divide and the Gunnison-Pitkin County line; on the east by the Continental Divide; on the south by the Continental Divide, the Hinsdale-San Juan County line and the Ouray-San Juan County line; and on the west by the Ouray-San Miguel County line, Colorado Highway 62 and US Highway 550. A wide variety of habitat types occur within the DAU. The upper Gunnison Basin is a high mountain valley with sagebrush and aspen woodlands being the dominant vegetative types at lower elevations. Lodgepole pine and spruce/fir dominate higher elevations. Pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, oakbrush, and serviceberry dominate the lower elevations in the Cimarron and Uncompaghre River areas. Aspen woodland is found at the intermediate ranges and spruce-fir dominant the higher elevations. TOTAL MOUNTAIN LION HARVEST OBJECTIVE: The average annual mountain lion sport harvest in the DAU during the past 11 years (1988-1998) was 6. The high harvest of 12 lions occurred in 1996. There have been 8 reported damage harvests in the DAU over the past 11 years. The harvest quota was 17 in 1996 and 1997 and was increased to 22 for 1998 and 1999. The current quota seems to be meeting the sportsmen's demands without any adverse impacts to the mountain lion population and with no significant increase in the number of damage lion harvests. Therefore, the annual quota should be maintained at 22. The Division of Wildlife will rely on sport hunting as the primary method to control mountain lion populations in the DAU. MOUNTAIN LION DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: Mountain lion damage claims over the past 12 fiscal years (198788 to 1998-99) ranged from $0 to $1,499 annually (average $603). Annual damage claims should be held below $2,000 with the most effective control being the harvest of individual offending animals. December 4, 2000 �HUMAN/MOUNTAIN LION CONFLICT COMPLAINTS: Human/lion conflicts in the DAU have remained low. Lions that exhibit aggressive behavior or show lack of fear for humans should immediately be removed from the population. MOUNTAIN LION INTERACTION WITH OTHER WILDLIFE SPECIES: It is well documented that mountain lions prey on mule deer and elk. It is not known what effect lions are having on deer and elk in the Gunnison Basin at this time. Sport hunting will be used to harvest mountain lions. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/db0f3ddab798b7ee68c3b29d3e5fe1ee.pdf 93c14c8485a82b3c7623898820a8576d PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES for LION DAU L-21 Game Management Units 54, 55, 551, 66, 67 Southwest Region Prepared For: Colorado Division of Wildlife By: Brandon Diamond Terrestrial Biologist Gunnison, Colorado October 2004 �Description of DAU Data Analysis Unit (DAU) L-21 consists of the upper Gunnison River Basin and the Lake Fork of the Gunnison River drainage. Portions of Gunnison, Hinsdale, and Saguache counties are represented within the DAU. The unit is bound on the west and north by US Highway 50, Curecanti Creek, the North Fork of the Gunnison River/Gunnison River divide and the Gunnison-Pitkin County line; on the east by the Continental Divide; on the south by the Continental Divide and Hinsdale-San Juan County line; and on the west by the Hinsdale-San Juan County line, Hinsdale-Ouray County line, and the Big Blue Creek/Little Cimarron River divide. Many prominent mountain ranges and wilderness areas occur within the DAU, as well as the largest reservoir in Colorado, Blue Mesa. Population centers in L-21 include Gunnison, Crested Butte, and Lake City (Figure 1). Figure 1 DAU Boundary Change DAU L-21 has consisted of Game Management Units (GMUs) 65, 66, 67, 54, 55, & 551. For the purposes of this and future DAU plans, GMU 65 has been removed from L-21 and added to L-22. DAU boundaries are somewhat subjective because animal movements will to some extent be unpredictable. However, it was determined that based on local knowledge of lions in GMU 65 that linking it to L-22 made biological and administrative sense. Therefore, data analyses in this plan do not include GMU 65. - 1 - �Landownership/Topography Within the DAU, elevations range from approximately 7,200 feet at Morrow Point Reservoir, to over 14,000 feet on numerous mountain peaks. Variable topographic features including riparian corridors, deep broken canyons, vast sloping expanses of forest, and high elevation subalpine and alpine valleys provide a mosaic of habitats for mountain lions and their primary prey species, mule deer and elk. L-21 encompasses approximately 9,328 square kilometers (3,588mi2) and more than 80 percent of the DAU is public land (Table 1). A small percentage of the DAU is administered by the National Park Service at Curecanti National Recreation Area, which consists primarily of Blue Mesa Reservoir. L-21 USFS 5197 km2 BLM 2418 km2 Private 1609 km2 State 104 km2 Table 1 The majority of the land within this DAU is considered suitable mountain lion habitat. Areas such as Blue Mesa Reservoir and concentrated urban areas are not considered suitable lion habitat. Although it is probable that lions cross high-elevation alpine areas periodically while moving between drainages within their overall home ranges, they typically will not spend significant amounts of time hunting in that environment due to the overall lack of suitable stalking cover and comparatively low prey availability. Therefore, those areas above 11,000 feet were not considered high quality lion habitat for the purpose of this DAU plan. Climate/Vegetation Diverse habitat types occur within the DAU along an elevational gradient (Table 2). Wetland/riparian areas, irrigated hay meadows, and artificially seeded rangelands occur at lower elevations. The upper Gunnison Basin is a high mountain valley dominated by big sagebrush at lower elevations. Mixed-mountain shrub communities comprised of serviceberry, chokecherry, mountain-mahogany, and oak are found at slightly higher elevations with occasional pockets of aspen, Douglas fir and Ponderosa pine. Higher elevations are dominated by Lodgepole pine and Engelmann spruce/Subalpine fir forests. Large expanses of alpine tundra occur within the DAU at the highest elevations. Annual precipitation ranges from 10 in/yr at lower elevations to greater than 50 in/yr in the higher mountains. The average annual high temperature is 55 degrees F. Table 2. ECOLOGICAL TYPES OF THE GUNNISON BASIN (Johnston 2001) Zone Alpine Dominants Gravity and Soil Elevation Elevation Soil Moistur on north on south Temperatu e and east and west re Regime( slopes, ft slopes, ft Regime(s) s) freeze-thaw >11,800 >12,200 ft Pergelic, - 2 - �Subalpine Montane Mountain Shrub PiñonJuniper* processes, mostly very low herbaceous plants such as curly sedge, alpine avens, tufted hairgrass Subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, aspen, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, bristlecone pine, mountain big 9,70010,10012,300 sagebrush, Thurber fescue, 11,800 planeleaf and Wolf willows, Idaho fescue Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, aspen, Arizona 9,1009,400fescue, big sagebrush, Saskatoon 10,700 11,100 serviceberry, blue and serviceberry willows Douglas-fir, big sagebrush, muttongrass, Utah serviceberry, 7,600-10,100 Gambel oak, yellow-Geyer-Bebb willows, narrowleaf cottonwood Missing Missing Cryic Cryic Frigid Frigid Mesic Wyoming big sagebrush, Indian Foothillsricegrass, Needle-and-thread, <8,400 Mesic Semidesert Rocky Mountain juniper, Shrub narrowleaf cottonwood * Piñon-Juniper is sparsely represented in the Upper Gunnison Basin. Aridic (Torric) Aridic (Torric) Prey Species/Abundance Mountain lions have an array of prey species available to them within L-21. Mule deer and elk are abundant and widely distributed, while moose, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn antelope occur in localized areas. When snow accumulates in late fall, big game populations typically migrate to lower elevations where they will concentrate until spring. Mountain lion movements are dictated by prey availability, and therefore lions will move down in elevation during winter following ungulate herds. Lion diets can also include a variety of small mammals and birds depending on season and availability. Other carnivores that are found in L-21 include black bear, bobcat, lynx, coyote, and red fox. History/Management As with many predatory species in Colorado, mountain lion management has historically been controversial. In 1881, the state established a bounty system for lions, which was repealed in 1885 but then reestablished in 1929. The bounty system stayed in place until 1965 when mountain lions were reclassified as big game animals (Currier et al. 1977). Currently, the Colorado Division of Wildlife is responsible for mountain lion management in the state, with most management actions focused on providing sustained recreational hunting opportunities while attempting to minimize livestock depredation. - 3 - �Since before 1980, the primary tool used to regulate lion hunting in Colorado has been the quota system. The quota system is designed to balance a high degree of hunting opportunity with control over the number of animals killed by hunters. DAU’s are assigned a numeric quota which represents the maximum allowed hunter harvest throughout a given year. Within the past ten to fifteen years quotas have increased statewide from 382 in 1990 to 790 in 2004. In Colorado, it is illegal for a hunter to take a lion kitten, or a female lion with kittens. Otherwise, a hunter may legally take a mature lion of either sex. Concern has arisen recently that the current quota system may not be guarding against harvest at unsustainably high rates, and that it could allow for high levels of female harvest on an annual basis. A quota system makes this level of removal possible, though improbable. Regardless, some people perceive the quota as our harvest objective and believe failure to achieve it suggests some management failure. Conversely, other publics also perceive the quota as a harvest objective, and as such, irresponsibly high and a clear threat to the long-term sustainability of lion populations. These concerns are sometimes compounded by the lack of current biological information regarding mountain lion population estimation and demographics. Lions are secretive, solitary animals that inhabit remote country. Presently, no credible and cost effective means of sampling lion populations exists. Therefore, state wildlife agencies have no way of estimating lion populations at local or statewide levels. Research being initiated in southwestern Colorado by the Colorado Division of Wildlife is aimed at improving techniques for evaluating lion population characteristics. L-21 Management History/Statistics Quotas Changes in lion quotas have occurred in L-21 during the last ten years (Table 3). In 1994, the quota was set at 10. In 1998, the quota was increased to 15, and it is currently set at 15 for the 2004 hunting season. Historic quota increases in L-21 were likely based on increased observations of mountain lions and lion sign by hunters, livestock producers, and Division of Wildlife field personnel, as well as a series of years where damage claims for livestock exceeded socially tolerable levels. Table 3. L-21 Quotas by Year 1994-2004 Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Quota 10 10 10 7 15 1999 15 2000 15 2001 15 2002 15 2003 15 2004 15 From 1994 to 2003, the average quota achievement (Total Harvest/Quota) was 49%. Over the last five years, the average quota achievement was 37% (Figure 2). Annual hunter harvest may be correlated with many factors, but is not necessarily an indicator of mountain lion densities or population trends. Hunter selectivity and tracking conditions often play key roles in determining annual harvest within a DAU. - 4 - �100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 % Achievement L-21 Quota Achievement Year % Quota Achievement Figure 2 Harvest Annual hunter harvest in L-21 has also fluctuated since 1994. From 1994-2003, annual harvest has averaged 6 lions. The 1999-2003 annual harvest also averaged 6 lions. No lions were harvested in 1994, while a high harvest of 11 occurred in 2003 (Figure 3). Take of female lions, expressed as a percentage of the total annual harvest, has averaged 38% over the last ten years, and 36% from 1999-2003. Excluding 1994, because no lions were killed that year, the lowest percentage of female lions taken annually by hunters was 18% in 2003, while 75% of the harvest was comprised of females in 1996. There were 57 lions harvested during the last ten years in the DAU, of which 24 were female (42%). Lion Harvest 1994-2003 12 Total Harvest 10 8 6 4 2 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 0 Year male Figure 3 - 5 - female �Game Damage Game damage claims in L-21 have been paid during two of the last ten years. The largest payment of $1,330 was made in 1996, while no claims were paid during 1994, 1995, or 1998-2003 (Figure 4). The ten year average damage claim payment is $295. No apparent trend exists in L-21 for lion damage claim payments over the last ten or twenty years. It is likely that many factors contribute to annual lion depredation on domestic livestock, and the Division of Wildlife and Wildlife Services will continue to investigate claims on a case-by-case basis. $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 Dollar Amount L-21 Indexed Yearly Damage Payments 1994-2003 Year Figure 4 L-21 Population Projection A population estimate is derived from sampling some aspect of a population. Because there is no credible and cost effective means of sampling lion populations, there is no way to estimate local populations. Therefore, instead of estimating we project a possible population. The first step in this process was to select a lion density or density range reported in scientific literature. Mountain lion population and density estimates have been determined using mark/recapture radio telemetry analysis within various study areas throughout the western United States and Canada. Between June 1981 and July 1983, Logan et al. (1986) conducted a study in the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming to evaluate mountain lion population characteristics. The study area encompassed 741 km2 on the west slope of the Bighorns and consisted of “rugged, deep canyons separated by broad plateaus and ridges.” Elevations within their study area ranged from 4,620-8,250 ft. Ungulate prey species found within the study area included abundant mule deer, scattered elk, and pronghorn. Based on the capture-recapture of 46 mountain lions, snow tracking, radio telemetry, and harvest data, they estimated winter lion densities within the study area to be between 3.5 and 4.6 lions/100km2. Plant communities, topographic features, and prey species available in this study area appear to be comparable to those found in the upper Gunnison and Lake Fork River drainages. However, in terms of overall prey densities, lion habitat in L-21 subjectively appears to support a larger ungulate prey base than the Wyoming study area. Therefore, actual lion densities within the DAU are likely at the upper end of the range reported for the Bighorn Mountains in Wyoming. - 6 - �The second step in projecting the population in L-21 was to approximate the amount of suitable lion habitat within the DAU using Geographic Information System (GIS) software. As previously stated, the majority of L-21 is considered suitable lion habitat. Large bodies of water such as Blue Mesa Reservoir were excluded, as were urban centers and areas above 11,000 feet in elevation. The total amount of suitable lion habitat in L-21 based on this analysis was approximately 7,398 km2. To refine the population projection for L-21, suitable lion habitat within the DAU was divided into two sub-categories which were evaluated during the winter months when big game animals and mountain lions are concentrated at lower elevations. Winter lion densities were applied as follows: Sub Category 1Traditional mule deer, elk, & bighorn sheep winter ranges. These areas are considered the highest density mountain lion habitats, and the 3.5-4.6 lions/100km2 density estimate range was applied. Sub Category 2Suitable lion habitats below 11,000 ft that fall outside of traditional mule deer, elk, and bighorn sheep winter ranges. The assumption here is that low density ungulate populations, primarily elk, occur within this band that provide a food source for mountain lions residing at low densities. The lowest density estimate reported in scientific literature was .6 lions/100km2 for a Utah population (Lindzey et al. 1994). This estimate was applied to the area contained in sub category 2 (Figure 5). - 7 - �Figure 5 Applying the reported winter density estimates to these sub-categories yields a projected population range for mountain lions in L-21 (Table 4). Table 4. Projected Mountain Lion Population Range, L-21 Sub-category 1 4301 km2 3.5 151 lions (low) lions/100km2 4.6 198 lions (high) lions/100km2 Sub-category 2 3097 km2 .6 lions/100km2 19 lions Population Range = 170-217 The upper Gunnison and Lake Fork drainages are considered above average mountain lion habitat in terms of quality and quantity, with abundant prey and stalking cover. A projected population of 170-217 is thought to be a reasonable, conservative estimate of lion numbers in DAU L-21. From a biological sustainability and wildlife law enforcement standpoint, it is important to understand the sex and age composition of the lion population within a DAU. These characteristics are particularly important for a lion population that is subjected to annual hunting seasons where certain age classes are not legally available to hunters. The lion population in L-21 may be broken into three age classes: adults (males and females at sexual maturity), subadults (independent, non-breeding), and cubs (dependent young) (Logan and Sweanor 2001). Averages derived from research in Alberta and New Mexico describe a lion population as being comprised of 52% adults, 14% subadults, and 34% cubs (Ross and Jalkotzy 1992, Logan and Sweanor 2001). Using these estimates, the projected lion population in L-21 would consist of 88-113 adults, 24-30 subadults, and 58-74 cubs. Strategic Goal Maintain a stable mountain lion population in L-21 that accommodates a sustained level of sport hunting and harvest. Lions causing damage or that pose human health or safety risks will be dealt with on an individual basis. Mortality Objectives Hunter Harvest Objective Annual hunter harvest objectives are based on the projected population estimate and demographics. Because cubs are not legally available for sport harvest in Colorado, they must be omitted from the huntable population. After excluding cubs, the huntable population in L-21 would consist of 112-143 lions (adults and subadults). The strategic goal of this plan is to maintain a stable lion population within the DAU. In order to maintain a stable population, research has indicated that an annual removal level of 815% would be sustainable based on observed growth rates of intensively monitored lion - 8 - �populations (J. Apker, 2004 Unpublished CDOW report), and Western Colorado’s substantial ungulate prey base. For L-21, given the unknowns about local population vital rates, an annual harvest rate of 10% (11-14 lions), would likely ensure a biologically stable lion population. Monitoring Annual hunter harvest will be monitored and evaluated with subsequent management actions based on two parameters: 1. The 5-year average number of hunter harvested lions should not exceed 14. 2. Female lions should not make up more than 50% of the 5-year average harvest. Management actions may require reevaluation beyond this threshold in order to reduce female harvest. Barriers & Strategies The 5-year average harvest in L-21 of 6 lions is substantially below the harvest objective set forth in this plan despite the yearly quota of 15. Mountain lion hunting is a relatively specialized form of hunting that in most cases requires the use of trained dogs in order to be successful. Many hunters purchase a lion license each year with the intent of opportunistically taking a lion during a chance encounter, but the probability of being successful is realistically quite low because of the cryptic, solitary nature of these animals. Avid houndsmen enjoy pursuing lions throughout the season and not all lions that are caught are killed. Many experienced lion hunters attempt to selectively harvest mature toms. Tracking conditions are also unpredictable and become less favorable during light snow years. For these reasons, it will be difficult to achieve the harvest objective on a regular basis. However, the primary method for removing lions from the L-21 population will continue to be through licensed hunters during the established season. Total Mortality Objective Sources of non-hunter mortality include road-kills and nuisance or livestock depredating lions that must be destroyed. The total mortality objective for L-21 will essentially mirror the hunter harvest objective of 11-14 lions. Non-hunter mortality in this DAU is rare, and has averaged zero over the last 5 years. If the 5-year average total mortality within the DAU exceeds 21 lions (15% of the projected high range huntable population estimate), adjustments may be considered to hunter harvest objectives in order to maintain strategic goal parameters. Total mortality objectives should be achieved using the established mountain lion hunting season structure. L-21 Refuge/Source Areas Of interest to wildlife managers are locations within a DAU that are considered potential refuge or “source” areas for mountain lions. These areas are often inaccessible to hunters, and therefore allow lions to live and reproduce in a virtually undisturbed environment. When lion numbers reach carrying capacity within these source areas animals will disperse into adjacent habitat, maintaining lion densities in surrounding areas. These areas are important to consider as they may influence annual hunter success rates, lion population densities, and achievement of DAU plan objectives locally and in adjoining DAU’s. Future analyses of these potential source areas may be - 9 - �beneficial for lion management throughout Colorado. While examining lion harvest locations for L-21, potential source and refuge areas may be identified within the DAU. In general, these consist of wilderness and adjacent roadless areas. The West Elk Wilderness and surrounding area, drainages originating from the southwestern flank of the Fossil Ridge Wilderness, and the northeastern portion of the La Garita Wilderness area all may be serving as refuge areas for mountain lions. In most cases, hunters rely heavily on road systems to efficiently search for lion tracks. The lack of roads in these areas paired with extremely rugged terrain has likely contributed to the historic lack of harvest. A source area within the West Elk region may be contributing to L-9 (North Fork Valley and Grand Mesa) lion populations via emigration of juvenile lions. Another area within L-21 that may act as a refuge during the annual hunting season is the Almont Triangle State Wildlife Area. By regulation, the SWA is closed to public access from late December through the end of March. Local lion hunters tend to avoid hunting in the area surrounding the Almont Triangle during the closure because of the potential for dogs to track a lion from adjacent public lands onto the closed area. This SWA is probably not acting as a source for local lion populations, but it may serve as a refuge during the annual hunting season. It is also worth mentioning that within L-21 sagebrush dominated valleys make up a significant portion of deer and elk winter range. These habitats occur at lower elevations where road access is generally not as limited, but stalking cover for mountain lions is. Lions move through these areas while traveling within their home ranges, but overall densities are lower than areas with more broken topography and tree cover. Lack of historic harvest within these areas is likely due to lower lion densities, and diminished tracking efficiency for hunters. These areas include Gold Basin, Lost Canyon, Cabin Creek, Flat Top Mountain, and the area surrounding Old Agency. Game Damage Objectives Objective Level No game damage claims have been paid in L-21 during the last five years. However, depredation by mountain lions is unpredictable and has occurred in the DAU periodically over the last twenty years. Using the claims paid during 1996 and 1997 as a reference, a reasonable damage objective level for L-21 would be to maintain the five-year average payment at or below $2,000 for the DAU. Lions causing damage will be dealt with on an individual basis by Division of Wildlife Personnel and/or a USDA Wildlife Services agent. If livestock depredation is occurring during the annual lion hunting season, licensed hunters may be utilized to assist in harvesting the lion(s) causing damage. Human Conflict Objectives In L-21, documented human/mountain lion conflicts are rare to absent during most years. Division of Wildlife field personnel and office administrators report very few concerns and/or complaints regarding mountain lion interactions on an annual basis. Most calls regarding lions that do come through the CDOW Gunnison Service Center are in reference to lion sightings, particularly when they are seen in proximity to human developments. The areas surrounding Gunnison and Crested Butte have experienced significant human population growth during the last ten years and lion sightings are likely to continue as human developments encroach into outlying areas where lions are likely to inhabit. Colorado Division of Wildlife personnel will continue to provide guidance and - 10 - �site recommendations to local residents to help prevent negative mountain lion encounters. In the event that a lion becomes a threat to human safety, CDOW personnel will take immediate action to kill or remove the offending animal. Summary The projected huntable population of mountain lions in L-21 is 112-143 animals. An annual harvest of 11-14 lions will provide ample hunting opportunity while promoting a biologically stable lion population. Total mortality will be evaluated on an annual basis and management adjustments considered if 5-year average hunter harvest exceeds 14 lions, 5-year average total mortality exceeds 21 lions, and/or females make up more than 50% of the 5-year average harvest. Game damage claims have been submitted in two of the last ten years, and the 5-year average claim amount should be kept below $2,000. Human development in the DAU continues to occur in outlying areas inhabited by lions. Nuisance complaints have been minimal, but education and guidance by local Division of Wildlife personnel will continue to be important in order to help minimize negative lion/human encounters. Literature Cited Currier, M.P.J., S.L. Sheriff, and K.R. Russell. 1977. Mountain lion population and harvest near Canon City, Colorado, 1974-77. Colo. Div. Wildl. And Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit Spec. Rep. 42. 12pp. Johnston, B.C.. 2001. Ecological types of the Gunnison Basin. USDA Forest Service Tech. Rep. R2-RR-2001-01. 858pp. Lindzey, F.G., W.D. Van Sickle, B.B. Ackerman, D. Barnhurst, T.P. Hemker, S.P. Laing. 1994. Cougar population dynamics in southern Utah. J. Wildl. Manage. 58(4):619-624. Logan, K.A., L.L. Irwin, and R. Skinner. 1986. Characteristics of a hunted mountain lion population in Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 50(4): 648-654. Logan, K.A. and L.L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, D.C. Ross, P.I., and M.G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 56(3): 417-426. - 11 - � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/fa9e370bcd6f2b88970b4c00be47e6e6.pdf 40bf95291c4bc9a7bada2e54da20351a PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION DATA ANALYSIS UNIT L-22 MANAGEMENT PLAN GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 40, 60, 61, 62, 64 & 65 Southwest Region Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife By: Bruce Watkins Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist October 2004 1 �DESCRIPTION OF DAU, HABITAT AND PAST MANAGEMENT Located in southwestern Colorado, mountain lion Data Analysis Unit (DAU) L-22 is comprised of Game Management Units (GMUs) 40, 60, 61, 62, 64 and 65 and encompasses 10,935 km2 (4,222 miles2) (Fig. 1). Portions of Montrose, Delta, San Miguel, Ouray, Gunnison, and Mesa Counties make up the DAU. The DAU includes many prominent geographical features including the Uncompahgre Plateau, Pinion Mesa, Paradox Valley, the west side of the Gunnison Gorge, and the northern San Juan Mountains. All or parts of the Uncompahgre Wilderness Area, Mt Sneffels Wilderness Area, Lizard Head Wilderness Area, Black Canyon National Park, and the Colorado National Monument occur within L-22. Elevation varies from less than 4,600 feet along the lower Dolores River to over 14,300 feet at Uncompahgre Peak. Major drainages include the Uncompahgre, San Miguel, Dolores, and Gunnison Rivers. Figure 1. DAU L-22. Boundaries of L-22 were changed in 2004 by adding Units 64 and 65 to the DAU. Addition of these units was based primarily on deer and elk movement patterns that indicate greater connectivity of these units with the Uncompahgre Plateau than with the North Fork or Gunnison Basin units. Lions hit by cars on US Hwy 550 between Montrose and Ridgway and on US Hwy 50 east of Montrose suggest that lions follow similar movement patterns. 2 �Land ownership in L-22 is 38% BLM, 33% private, 28% USFS, 1% National Park Service, and < 1% state (Figure 2). Rapid development in high quality mountain lion habitat is occurring around Montrose, Ridgway, Telluride, Ouray, Pinion Mesa, and Gateway. Much of the Uncompahgre Valley north of Montrose is irrigated agricultural land and is intensively farmed for sweet corn, alfalfa, onions and other commercial crops. DAU L-22 supports large populations of mule deer and elk. L-22 posthunt deer and elk numbers in 2002 were estimated to be approximately 55,000 and 20,000, respectively. In addition, an estimated 300-400 bighorn sheep occur in L-22 including desert bighorn sheep in Units 40 and 62, and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep in Units 64 & 65. A small number of pronghorn reside in Unit 62. Estimated ungulate prey density across the whole DAU based on estimated posthunt deer, elk, and bighorn sheep populations in 2002 was almost 11 animals per km2 (28/mi2 )of winter range. Much of L-22 is considered to be good to excellent mountain lion habitat with a high degree of topographic relief and a diversity of plant communities ranging from desert shrub to alpine tundra. The DAU includes many deep, rugged canyons and large areas of pinyon/juniper woodlands and mixed mountain shrub/Gambel oak. Figure 2. Land ownership and the CDOW lion study area in DAU L-22. CDOW Lion Study 3 �CDOW is planning to begin a mountain lion study in the southern parts of Units 61 and 62 in November 2004 (see Fig. 2). The purpose of this study is to quantify various lion population parameters and evaluate methods for monitoring lion population status. The study will involve 5 years of protection followed by 5 years of liberal harvest. The study area includes approximately 850 mi2 in L-22 and approximately 60 mi2 in L-23 (Unit 70). The area is bounded by CO Hwy 384 at Delta, 25 Mesa Road and USFS road 503 to Nucla, CO Hwy 97 to CO Hwy 141 to CO Hwy 145 to Placerville, CO Hwy 62 to Ridgway, US Hwy 550 to Montrose, and US Hwy 50 to Delta. Between November 11, 2004 and March 31, 2009 the study area will be closed to all mountain lion hunting and pursuit. In addition, all of Units 61and 62 will be closed to the sport harvest of collared or ear-tagged mountain lions from this study. Any lion in the study that is depredating on livestock or presenting a risk to human safety will be managed on a case-by-case basis as has been the CDOW policy in the past. Quota & Harvest History From 1929 to mid-1965, mountain lions in Colorado were classified as a predator and a bounty system was used (Anderson et al. 1992). In mid-1965 mountain lions were reclassified as a big game animal in Colorado and subsequently a quota system was adopted to manage harvest, a mandatory check system was initiated to monitor harvest, and the state became liable for damage to real or personal property caused by mountain lions. From 1980-2003, the annual quota in L-22 ranged from 14 in 1981 to 66 in 1996-2003. During this same period, annual harvest ranged from 10 in 1981 to 48 in 1994. Harvest usually closely followed the quota until 1995 when the quota was raised to 63 (Fig. 4). Quota achievement decreased from an annual average of 86% from 1990-1994 to 45% from 1999-2003 (Fig. 5). 4 �L-22 Lion Mortality 70 y = -0.3554x2 + 6.0946x + 18.175 R2 = 0.5436 60 NUMBER 50 40 30 20 10 03 20 02 20 01 00 20 20 99 19 98 19 97 19 95 96 19 94 19 19 93 19 92 19 91 19 89 90 19 19 19 88 0 YEAR Total Hunter Harvest DAU Total Mortality DAU Harvest Quota Poly. (DAU Total Mortality) Figure 3. Hunter lion harvest, total lion mortality, and harvest quota for DAU L-22, 1988-2003. Three year (2001-2003), 5 year (1999-2003), and 10 year (1994-2003) average annual harvests were 32, 30, and 38, respectively. Harvest and total mortality peaked between 1992-1998 (Avg harvest = 44; Avg total mortality = 46). The increase in harvest up to the mid-1990’s followed by a decline in harvest concurrent with an increase in quotas suggests that the high harvest in the mid-1990’s might have suppressed the lion population in L-22. From 1981-1988, Unit 62 was closed to sport hunting of mountain lions while a mountain lion study was being conducted (Anderson et al. 1992). The high harvests in L-22 during the 1992-1998 period are largely due to high harvest in Unit 62 that might have resulted from a carryover of lions from this study period (Appendix 1). Lion hunting success is very dependent on snow conditions and a succession of mild winters between 1999 and 2003 could have also reduced harvest success during this period. 5 �L-22 Quota Achievement 70 100% 90% 60 80% Quota 50 70% y = -0.0265x + 0.8808 R2 = 0.5215 60% 40 50% 30 40% 30% 20 20% 10 10% 0% 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 0 YEAR DAU Harvest Quota % Quota Achievement Linear (% Quota Achievement) Figure 4. Percent quota achievement and fitted trend line for DAU L-22, 1988-2003. Between 1989-2003, 96% of the known mortality was from harvest (544 lions), 2% was from control kills of depredating and nuisance lions (10 lions), and 2% was from other mortality (e.g., road kills) (13 lions). On average, non-harvest mortality has accounted for 1.5 lions per year. There has been a slight upward trend in the percentage of females in the harvest from 1988-2003. Based on regression analysis, this increase in females in the harvest has gone from a predicted value of 39% in 1988 to 47% in 2003. Three year (2001-2003), 5 year (1999-2003), and 10 year (1994-2003) average female harvest percentages were 46%, 46%, and 45%, respectively. 6 �Percent Female Lions in L-22 Harvest 70% 60% y = 0.0046x - 8.8084 R2 = 0.0957 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 YEAR % Female in Harvest Linear (% Female in Harvest) Figure 5. Percentage of female lions in the harvest and fitted trend line for DAU L-22, 1988-2003. Between 1992-2003, individual units in L-22 contributed to the overall harvest as follows: Unit 40 (13%), Unit 60 (7%), Unit 61 (33%), Unit 62 (27%), Unit 64 (10%), Unit 65 (9%). All units in L-22 have shown a decreasing harvest trend with the exception of Unit 61 which has shown a slight increase (Table 1 and Appendix 1). This trend could indicate a movement of lions into Unit 61 from surrounding GMUs during the winter months. The majority of the elk on the Uncompahgre Plateau and the majority of deer on the north half of the Plateau winter in Unit 61. Unit 61 is a popular unit to hunt because of the large amount of public land, good road access, and the general south facing aspect that results in less snow accumulation. Table 1. Harvest trend, quota achievement trend, and % female in harvest trend for each GMUt in L-22 and for L-22 total, 1989-2003. No change = <5% change, Slight = 525% change, Moderate = 26-50% change, Large = >50% change. QUOTA GMU/DAU HARVEST TREND ACHIEVEMENT % FEMALE IN TREND HARVEST TREND Slight Decrease Moderate Decrease Moderate Increase 40 Moderate Decrease Large Decrease Moderate Decrease 60 Slight Increase No Change Moderate Increase 61 Large Decrease Large Decrease No Change 62 Large Decrease Large Decrease Large Decrease 64 Slight Decrease Moderate Decrease Moderate Decrease 65 Large Increase up 7 �to 1995; Large Decrease After 1995 L-22 Large Decrease Slight Increase Between 1997 and 2003, 56% of the lions killed in Unit 61 were reported to have been taken within the boundaries of the proposed CDOW mountain lion study area. During the same time period, 49% of the lions killed in Unit 62 were reported to have been taken within the boundaries of the study area. For the entire DAU, 28% of the known mortality occurred within the study area boundaries from 1997-2003. Damage & Nuisance History Since 1965, CDOW is statutorily liable for damage to real and personal property caused by mountain lions. Sheep depredation is the primary damage caused by mountain lions in L-22 (Fig. 6). From 1995-2003, depredation on sheep accounted for 58% of the damage payments; depredation on cattle accounted for 2%; and depredation on other livestock (primarily camelids) accounted for 40%. During this period, 2 to 13 claims were approved per year (Avg = 6/yr). An average of $5,172/yr was paid by CDOW each year from 1995-2003 for lion damage in L-22. The 5 year average (1999-2003) claim amount indexed to base year 2000 was $6,360/yr. Claims for camelids are infrequent but can carry a high dollar value per animal. In 2001, Colorado’s statutory liability for bear and lion damage to livestock was limited to $5,000 per animal and payments for damage to personal property was limited to property used in the production of agricultural products. 14000 INDEXED $ PAID 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 03 20 02 20 01 20 99 00 20 19 98 19 96 97 19 19 95 19 94 19 92 93 19 19 91 19 90 19 89 19 19 88 0 YEAR Sheep Cattle Other Stock Figure 6. CDOW payments for lion damage in DAU L-22 indexed to base year 2000. Data prior to 1995 do not include Units 64 & 65. 8 �ISSUES Public issues surrounding mountain lion management in L-22 include concerns about (1) maintaining adequate lion hunting opportunity, (2) preventing overharvest, (3) lion predation suppressing big game populations, particularly mule deer, (4) lion depredation on domestic livestock, and (5) human and pet safety. The primary purpose of this plan is to balance Issues No. 1 and No.2. Issue No. 3 is not supported by available data from L-22. The Uncompahgre Plateau (Units 61 and 62) has been the focal point for mule deer research in Colorado since 1997. This research has involved over 1,200 radio-collared does and fawns and has indicated that mountain lion predation is not a major factor limiting the deer population on the Uncompahgre Plateau (Bishop et. al 2003, Pojar and Bowden 2004, B. E. Watkins, Unpublished data). These studies have found that approximately 4% of adult does, 4% of fawns over 6 months age, and 3% of fawns between birth and 6 months of age are killed by mountain lions. Overall, 75-88% of the non-hunting mortality in does and fawns in these studies has been due to causes other than lion predation (e.g., coyote predation, malnutrition, disease, vehicle collisions, fences). The impact of lion predation on adult buck survival in L-22 is unknown. Issues No. 4 and No. 5 are only indirectly addressed by this plan because relationships between lion density and livestock depredation or human conflicts are not well established. This management plan will not restrict the removal of individual lions depredating on livestock or lions that pose a threat to public safety. There has never been a documented lion attack on a human in L-22 and loss of pets to lions is uncommon. STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT GOALS The strategic goal for DAU L-22 is to maintain a stable mountain lion population by managing sport harvest. L-22 is one of the leading DAUs in the state for lion harvest and the CDOW will manage the lion population for sustainable hunter harvest. Past and current damage claims, nuisance complaints, and human safety concerns in L-22 do not justify suppressing the lion population. Individual offending lions will continue to be managed on a case-by-case basis. POPULATION PROJECTION Estimating lion population numbers is very difficult due their low density, large home ranges, and secretive nature. The CDOW does not currently have the ability to accurately estimate mountain lion populations over large areas. In lieu of population estimation, wildlife managers must rely on population projections using density information from other locations published in the scientific literature. These density estimates were derived from mark-recapture studies using radio-collared lions. Population projection is accomplished by mapping lion density polygons (e.g., high, medium, low, and zero density zones) within the DAU based on lion habitat suitability and prey density. Density estimates that appear most applicable to each density polygon are then selected from the literature and applied to each area and a total lion population is projected. 9 �Lion habitat in L-22 was classified into four different density zones using information in CDOW’s Wildlife Resource Information System (WRIS). Areas above 11,000 feet in elevation were considered to be zero density areas and were excluded from the analysis. The remaining area amounted to 10,624 km2 of potential lion habitat (97 % of the DAU). High density mountain lion areas corresponded with previously delineated deer, elk, and bighorn sheep winter ranges based on WRIS data (7021 km2) (Fig. 7). High density areas primarily represent pinyon/juniper woodlands, mixed mountain shrub/Gambel oak/ponderosa pine, and agricultural-wildland interphase areas. A spatial analysis of lion harvest in L-22 indicated that approximately 95% of the lion harvest between 1997 and 2002 occurred in the area classified as high density lion habitat. The Uncompahgre Valley, from approximately 5 miles south of Montrose to Delta, and desert shrub areas along the Gunnison River were classified as low lion density (913 km2) zones. Much of this area is characterized by irrigated agricultural lands, urban and rural development, or Mancos shale foothills. Although no sport harvest has occurred in these areas in recent years, they were not omitted as potential lion habitat based on occasional confirmed lion sightings, road-kills, and control kills that have occurred in the Uncompahgre Valley. The Uncompahgre Valley also supports a sizeable resident deer population, especially along the Uncompahgre River, that could provide a prey base for lions. All remaining areas below 11,000 feet in elevation that were not classified as high or low density were classified as moderate lion density (2690 km2). These areas are generally above 8,000 feet in elevation and are typically covered by aspen and spruce/fir forests. Although WRIS big game winter range does not occur in the moderate density zone, a considerable number of elk can winter in this zone during mild to normal winters. Approximately 5% of the lion harvest from 1997-2002 occurred in this zone. Hunter access during the lion hunting season is limited in this zone due to snow. 10 �Figure 7. L-22 big game winter range and lion density zones used for population projection. The next step in projecting the population is to select credible, representative density estimates reported in the scientific literature and apply these to each density polygon. Lion densities reported in lion habitat in western North America, usually determined on winter range, have varied from 0.6 to 4.7 lions per 100 km2 (Logan and Sweanor 2000). Anderson et al. (1992) reported a minimum lion density of 1.1 lions/100 km2 in Unit 62 in 1987. However, the authors point out that this estimate is certainly low because it is only based on the number of lions radio-collared and uncollared lions were observed. Lion densities estimated in Wyoming (Logan et al. 1986), Alberta (Ross and Jalkotzy 1992), and New Mexico (Logan and Sweanor 2001) appear to be the most applicable to L-22. Based on these studies, high lion density was considered to have 3.5 to 4.6 lions/100 km2, moderate density was considered to have 2.5 to 3.4 lions/100 km2, and low density was considered to have 1.7 to 2.4 lions/ km2. Applying these densities to the habitat polygons results in a projected lion population in L-22 of 329 to 435 lions. Based on available evidence, L-22 appears to have considerably higher prey populations of deer and elk than the study areas cited above. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the habitat might support a lion population more towards the upper end of the projected population range. Using lion densities of 4.6/100 km2 for high density, 11 �3/100 km2 for moderate density, and 2/100 km2 for low density results in a point projection of 422 lions of all ages. The final step in projecting the population is to calculate a population structure. Studies of hunted lion populations in New Mexico (Logan and Sweanor 2001) and Alberta ((Ross and Jalkotzy 1992) reported that cubs made up, on average, 34% of the population. On this basis, the adult and subadult population in L-22 would range between 217 and 287 with a point projection of 279. MORTALITY OBJECTIVE Harvest Potential The rate of population growth documented in lion populations can be used as the basis for establishing the level of sustainable off-take due to hunting and non-hunting mortality. Although annual population growth rates as high as 28% have been documented in previously hunted lion populations after they are protected (Logan and Sweanor 2001), most reported population growth rates have been considerably lower. Logan and Sweanor (2001) found the annual rate of population growth in a mountain lion population in the San Andres Mountains in New Mexico (an area of low to moderate prey density) was 11% and suggested that this rate could be used as a basis for estimating the sustainable off-take if a lion population does not appear to be declining. If population status is unknown (almost all cases), Logan and Sweanor (2001) recommended 8% harvest of the adult male segment of the population and no harvest of females as initial, maximum harvest rates. Based on a review of the literature, the CDOW has recommended an annual off-take rate within the range of 8-15% of the projected adult and subadult population to manage for stable lion populations (J. Apker, 2004 Unpublished CDOW report). The CDOW also recommends keeping the proportion of females in the harvest below 50% to maintain adequate recruitment of young into the population. For the purpose of this plan, 12% was selected as the preferred sustainable off-take rate of the projected adult and subadult population. Although it is possible that a higher harvest rate might be supported, 12% represents a conservative compromise given many unknowns. For example, in addition to known mortalities, unknown mortality undoubtedly occurs in L-22. Natural causes of mortality include intraspecific strife, infanticide/cannibalism, disease, and starvation; in some studies these causes have contributed significantly to overall mortality (Logan & Sweanor 2000). In addition, an unknown number of illegal kills can also contribute to overall mortality (Anderson et al. 1992). Using a 12% mortality rate, the allowable annual off-take would be in the range of 26 to 35 adults/subadults with a point projection of 33. Based on harvest mortality making up 96% of total known mortality, annual sport harvest off-take would be 25 to 33 with a point projection of 31. In comparison, the 3 year, 5 year, and 10 year average annual harvests for L-22 were 32, 30, and 38, respectively. Refuge Areas 12 �Lion harvest is well distributed throughout DAU L-22. Based on an analysis of lion harvest locations between 1997 and 2003, no large areas (i.e., > 1000 km2) exist within the DAU where net lion production would regularly be expected to exceed humancaused lion mortality and thereby serve as a consistent source of dispersing lions for other segments of the metapopulation. Smaller areas within the DAU (100-250 km2) where hunting is restricted due to hunting closures, travel limitations, or private land that could potentially serve as minor source areas include Black Canyon National Park and the Gunnison Gorge area, the area in and around Colorado National Monument, the high San Juan Mountains including the Uncompahgre Wilderness, and private land on the south end of the Uncompahgre Plateau and in the Cerro Summit and Cimarron areas. Based on their large home range sizes, these areas could provide refuge to only a few lions. Management Objectives Management objectives for L-22 are 1) to maintain the annual off-take between 26-34 lions per year on a 3-year average and 2) to manage for less than 50% of the harvest to be made up of female lions on a 3-year average. Three year averages were selected to allow for more responsive management in relation to the CDOW lion study. If annual known mortality exceeds 35 lions on a 3 year average or females make up more than 50% of the harvest on a 3 year average, quotas will be reduced. From 2005 to 2009, the annual off-take objective for L-22 will be reduced proportional to the percentage of the DAU off-take that has occurred in the proposed lion study area between 1997 and 2003 (i.e., 28%). During this period the objective will be to maintain the annual off-take between 19-24 lions per year on a 3 year average. This off-take objective will include control kills within the study area but will not include capture and handling related mortality as a result of the lion research. If off-take exceeds this objective on a 3 yr average, quotas will be reduced accordingly in the remainder of the DAU. The allowable annual off-take objectives could change if significant changes occur in the ungulate prey base or better information becomes available for projecting the population and calculating sustainable off-take. SUMMARY The objective for L-22 is to manage for a stable lion population. The calculated sustainable, annual harvest off-take in L-22 is projected to be between 25 to 33 adult and subadult lions. This is lower than the average high harvest (44/yr) that occurred between 1992-1998 which might have suppressed the population and been supported by carryover of lions resulting from previous low quotas and an 8 year lion hunting ban in Unit 62. The average L-22 lion harvest for the last 5 years (30/yr) falls within the calculated sustainable annual harvest off-take. During the CDOW lion study on the Uncompahgre Plateau from 2005-2009, the annual off-take objective will be 19-24 lions on a 3 year average. Lion density is expected to increase on the south half of the Uncompahgre Plateau as a result of a planned hunting closure in the study area and a high rate of dispersal of males out of the study area is anticipated. In 2010, it is planned that the study area will be opened to liberal harvest of lions and the annual off-take objective will be adjusted accordingly. Information from the study up to that time will be used to guide subsequent off-take recommendations. 13 �LITERATURE CITED Anderson, A.E., D.C. Bowden, and D. M. Kattner. 1992. The Puma on the Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado. Colo. Div. of Wildl. Technical Publ. No. 40. 116 pp. Bishop, C.J., G. C. White, D. J. Freddy, and B. E. Watkins . 2003. Effect of Nutrition and Habitat Enhancements on Mule Deer Recruitment and Survival Rates. Colo. Div. of Wildl., Wildlife Research Report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-153-R-4, Progress Report. Fort Collins, CO, USA. Logan, K.A., L.L. Irwin, and R. Skinner. 1986. Characteristics of a hunted mountain lion population in Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 50(4):648-654. Logan, K.A. and L.L. Sweanor. 2000. Puma. Pages 347-377 in S. Demarais and P. R. Krausman, eds, Ecology and management of large mammals in North America. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA. Logan, K.A. and L.L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press. Washington, DC, USA. Pojar, T.M. and D.C. Bowden. 2004. Neonatal mule deer fawn survival in west-central Colorado. J. Wildl. Manage. 68(3):550-560. Ross, P. I., and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 56(3): 417-426. 14 �APPENDIX 1 L-22 Lion Harvest, Quotas, Quota Achievement, % Females in Harvest for each Unit, 1989-2003. Unit 40 Lion Harvest 14 y = -0.0629x + 5.4091 12 R2 = 0.0177 NUMBER 10 8 6 4 2 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Harvest 1998 1999 Quota 2000 2001 2002 2003 Linear (Harvest) Unit 40 Quota Achievement 14 80% y = -0.0238x + 0.5958 R2 = 0.2776 12 70% 60% QUOTA 10 50% 8 40% 6 30% 4 20% 2 10% 0% 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Quota 1998 1999 % Quota 2000 2001 2002 2003 Linear (% Quota) Unit 40 % Female in Harvest 120% 100% y = 0.0179x - 35.153 2 R = 0.1019 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 15 2004 �Unit 60 Lion Harvest 7 y = -0.1748x + 3.803 R2 = 0.1338 6 NUMBER 5 4 3 2 1 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Harvest 1998 1999 2000 Quota 2001 2002 2003 Linear (Harvest) Unit 60 Quota Achievement 6 140% y = -0.035x + 0.7606 R2 = 0.1338 5 120% 100% 4 80% 3 60% 2 40% 1 20% 0 0% 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 YEAR Quota % Quota Linear (% Quota) Unit 60 % Female in Harvest 120% 100% 80% 60% y = -0.0142x + 28.825 R2 = 0.016 40% 20% 0% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 16 �NUMBER Unit 61 Lion Harvest 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 y = 0.1538x + 11.667 R2 = 0.028 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Harvest 1997 1998 1999 2000 Quota 2001 2002 2003 Linear (Harvest) Unit 61 Quota Achievement 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 140% y = 0.0002x + 0.8582 R2 = 7E-06 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1992 1993 1994 1995 Quota 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 % Quota 2001 2002 2003 Linear (% Quota) Unit 61 % Female in Harvest 70% 60% 50% y = 0.0137x - 27.041 R2 = 0.2015 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 17 �Unit 62 Lion Harvest NUMBER 20 y = -0.958x + 16.561 R2 = 0.6674 15 10 5 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Harvest 1998 1999 2000 Quota 2001 2002 2003 Linear (Harvest) Unit 62 Quota Achievement 20 140% y = -0.0801x + 1.1708 R2 = 0.7159 15 120% 100% 80% 10 60% 40% 5 20% 0 0% 1992 1993 1994 1995 Quota 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 % Quota 2001 2002 2003 Linear (% Quota) Unit 62 % Female in Harvest 90% 80% y = -0.0001x + 0.6692 70% R2 = 4E-06 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 18 �Unit 64 Lion Harvest 10 y = -0.2972x + 5.8485 R2 = 0.1453 Number 8 6 4 2 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Harvest 1997 1998 1999 2000 Quota 2001 2002 2003 Linear (Harvest) Unit 64 Quota Achievement 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 120% y = -0.08x + 1.1136 R2 = 0.5036 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Quota 1998 1999 % Quota 2000 2001 2002 2003 Linear (% Quota) Unit 64 % Female in Harvest 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1990 y = -0.0492x + 98.712 R2 = 0.4488 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 19 �Unit 65 Lion Harvest 8 7 y = -0.0874x + 3.9848 R2 = 0.0332 NUMBER 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Harvest 1998 1999 Quota 2000 2001 2002 2003 Linear (Harvest) Quota Unit 65 Quota Achievement 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 120% y = -0.0373x + 0.797 R2 = 0.1756 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Quota 1998 1999 % Quota 2000 2001 2002 2003 Linear (% Quota) Unit 65 % Female in Harvest 120% 100% 80% y = -0.0126x + 25.681 R2 = 0.0226 60% 40% 20% 0% 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 20 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/8ccc72280fe7fa91df29000506a1041e.pdf 92471679fd1ce5cb5df50a4c9306698a PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-22 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 40, 60, 61, & 62 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife West Region By: Van K Graham Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Grand Junction, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT This lion unit is located within the Uncompaghre Plateau area of west central Colorado and includes portions of Mesa, Montrose, Delta, Ouray, and San Miguel Counties. This DAU has the 2nd highest harvest in the state, ranks 4th in damage claims and 6th in complaints. TOTAL LION HARVEST OBJECTIVE: From 1988 to 1998, this DAU has averaged a harvest of 31 lions per year, with a range of 10-43. During the last three years the harvest has averaged 38 lions. During the last 10 years, the proportion of females in the harvest averaged 40%, and ranged from 30-53%. Sport harvest accounted for 97% of the harvest in the last 10 years, while non-sport harvest has ranged from 0-3 lions per year. The total harvest objective for this DAU should be a maximum of 38 as a 3-year average, with a sport harvest objective of 37 lions as a 3-year average. The preferred management recommendation is to maintain license quotas at the present levels for at least 5 years and monitor harvest rates, damage claims, and nuisance problems. The quota in 2000 is 51. TOTAL LION DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: From 1988 to 1998, this DAU averaged $4,527 in claims. The majority of losses were domestic sheep. Claims have also been filed for cattle and pigs, but these were substantially less than those filed for sheep. In 1992-93 one claim for damage to captive wildlife totaled $3,625 and in 199394 a claim in the amount of $8,500 was paid for damage to exotic domestic animals. The population should be managed to keep DAU wide damage payments below $8,000 per year based on a 3year average. When this number is exceeded, appropriate action can be taken such as 1) hiring an investigator to assess losses and 2) initiate control of offending animal(s) by Wildlife Services, and 3) consider an increase in annual lion harvest quotas. Efforts should be made to target offending lions in areas where damage occurs. This can be accomplished by landowners in conjunction with Colorado State Department of Agriculture guidelines for damage control. Established CDOW lion damage procedures should be followed to December 4, 2000 �address individual mountain lion damage situations. NUISANCE LION COMPLAINTS: This DAU has had six nuisance lion complaints filed since 1997. Prior to 1997, CDOW did not keep records of lion nuisance complaint in a formal manner. Lion nuisance complaints should be kept to no more than 10 per year. Nuisance objectives are based on allowable levels, when the threshold level is reached; remedial actions can be used to ameliorate problems. Remedial actions should follow Mountain Lion Actions Plans as adopted by CDOW (June 9, 1992). On September 10, 1999 the Colorado Wildlife Commission approved a Mammalian Predator Management Policy. The purpose of the policy is to provide the Division direction in managing predator populations and to provide guidance when control methods are being considered. The Division, when feasible, will rely on sport hunting as the primary method to take predators. When necessary, as part of this management plan, control programs to reduce predator populations will be applied and authorized according to guidelines outlined in the Division's Predator Management Policy. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/e02612efb3fda3c8c7709097c078b190.pdf 220ece75bdf9faf3fef343263ce9d6f6 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION DATA ANALYSIS UNIT L-23 MANAGEMENT PLAN GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 70, 71, & 711 Dolores-Norwood Area Southwest Region Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife By: Scott Wait Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist August, 2004 �Components of a Puma Management Plan DAUs are assemblages of Game Management Units (GMUs) within which puma occupancy has been mapped. Each DAU has a brief management plan with objectives for hunter harvest, game damage, and human-puma conflict, and objectives are stated as the maximum level on a three-year running average. I. Biological Basis and Framework for Management in Colorado Puma Population Estimation (Static) Colorado does not regularly estimate puma populations because no reliable, cost effective sample based population estimation technique currently exists. A projection of possible population has been made based on densities reported in literature for intensively studied populations. Low and high densities were selected from study areas that had habitat types most similar to Colorado. Densities were then applied by biologists to area of puma habitat within DAUs. Areas not considered puma habitat, such as extreme high elevations, intensively farmed land, cities, highways, or reservoirs, were first deleted. Biologists were allowed to apply more constrained densities based upon their knowledge of prey abundance or relative puma abundance. Finally, biologists were asked to pinpoint the puma density most applicable to DAUs within their management responsibility. Puma densities are driven by two main factors, abundance of available primary prey and quality of habitat for puma hunting behaviors. Given the temporal and spatial variability of these two factors, complicated time and space models for predicting puma densities have yet to be developed. Therefore, a population estimation method at this time should be static (I.e.: a snapshot in time) and should bracket the population between probable high and low numbers. Therefore, Colorado will use ranges reported from credible scientific literature for intensive mark and recapture studies on puma. When low densities for puma are reported in the literature it is usually from study areas of relatively low productivity in terms of primary prey. Conversely, high densities for puma are reported from study areas that are relatively rich in available primary prey and are relatively densely vegetated and/or have high topographic relief. These characteristics of high prey populations and productivity in productive and diverse habitats are supportive of the primary factors that drive puma densities. Estimating static population should consider the general make up of a population. For puma this includes adult male, adult female, subadults, and cubs. A simple algebraic equation expresses the population: static population = total adults+ subadults + cubs, and total adults = male adults + female adults In application, a static population is derived by extrapolating density ranges reported in literature to DAU land area. Two density ranges give high and low end densities. Logan and Sweanor (2001) found density ranged from 2.0 to 4.3 puma/100 km2 in the San Andres Mountains in New Mexico, whereas Logan, et.al. (1986) found density ranged from 3.5 to 4.6 puma/100 km2 in the Bighorn Mountains in Wyoming. Therefore, we use a range of 2.0 to 4.6 puma/100 km2 . Nearly all puma studies have estimated densities on winter range only (winter range of the prey species being used as a surrogate of puma winter range), so the previous density estimates should only be applied to winter range areas. For estimating the component make up of a puma population, two intensive mark recapture studies have used similar age classifications comparable to harvest data collected in Colorado. 2 �These were both conducted in moderately hunted populations or emulation of hunting effects. The age structure of these studies were 56% adult, 10% subadult, and 34% cubs (Logan and Sweanor, 2001), and 48% adult, 19% subadult, and 34% cubs (Ross and Jalkotzy, 1992, in Alberta). The average of these yield 52% adult, 14% subadult, 34% cub, or stated as a ratio 100 adult: 26 subadult: 65 cub. In populations that are heavily hunted, one would predict that the relative proportion of adults to be decreased. Conversely, a lightly hunted population should see a larger relative proportion of adults. Estimating sex composition of the adult population assumes a 1:1 ratio male to female. This is based upon numerous intensive studies in scientific literature that found no significant difference between the number of adult male and female in the studied populations. Actual data almost always show slightly more females than males in the populations, however this is frequently offset by a lower number of females actually available for breeding. Finally, local biologists examine the estimated number of puma in DAUs and make adjustments based upon their knowledge of various qualitative habitat conditions. Conditions such as intensive agriculture, subdivision development, prairie, and relative prey density are types of factors that may influence puma populations. Consideration of these numbers in some cases help to tighten the range of the population estimation. It is important to note that the CDOW does not attempt to quantify habitat quality in any numeric fashion and due to the high cost of implementing intensive mark-recapture does not implement population estimation efforts on regular basis. Information to monitor population trends is gathered via mandatory harvest checks and is analyzed on a DAU basis. II. Data and trends for the Dolores-Norwood Puma Data Analysis Unit in Colorado The Dolores-Norwood Puma DAU (L-23) is in southwest Colorado (Figure 1), and includes most of San Miguel and Dolores Counties as well as parts of Montezuma and Montrose Counties. The unit ranges from <6000 feet at the Utah stateline to a few peaks over 14,000 feet. Nearly all of the DAU is considered moderate or high puma density habitat, and there are significant populations of primary prey species deer and elk, and smaller populations of desert bighorn sheep. 3 �Figure 1. Location and mapped attributes of L-23, the Dolores-Norwood Puma DAU. The cross-hatched area is mapped as deer, elk, or desert sheep winter range, and therefore high density for pumas, and other areas up to 11,000 feet elevation are mapped as moderate density for pumas. A. Harvest and mortality data and trends The sport harvest quota has remained the same at 33 since 1998, doubling since 1994, while the harvest has remained in the range of 20-21 usually (Figure 2). Concurrently, the female proportion of the harvest has generally been below 40% throughout the period, except in the period of high harvest in the early to mid 1990’s (Figure 3). The age data for these females is unreliable, but high harvest of females, and specifically adult age females, could be used as an indicator that the reproductive segment of the population is being impacted, and therefore the population is being suppressed. Even if the age structure of the harvested females was largely sub-adult, non-breeding females, the recruitment of breeding females is being suppressed. 4 �Figure 2. Puma mortality and harvest quota in DAU L-23. L-23 Mortality and Quota 1980-2003 DAU Harvest Quota Harvest Mortality 20 02 20 00 19 98 19 96 19 94 19 92 19 90 19 88 19 86 19 84 19 82 19 80 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Total Mortality Mortality due to control of depredating puma and other factors (Figure 2) has been relatively low (< 10% of harvest) throughout the period. Likewise, the proportion of females killed in control actions has generally been <50% (Figure 3). B. Evaluating the DAU in terms of habitat quality/population density, estimation of puma population For the purposes of estimating a static puma population in this DAU, we use the density estimates discussed previously, which are derived by averaging the density estimates from surrounding states where intensive studies have been completed. Until information is available from the new study in Colorado, this is the best information available. The range of puma density from these states is 2.0/100 square kilometers in low density to 4.6/100 square km in a high density. This DAU is relatively good habitat for puma (as compared to the broad spectrum of habitats occupied by puma throughout their range), therefore the actual population (density) would be expected to be near the upper density seen in other good habitat areas. Portions of the DAU, however, have been altered or naturally would be expected to have a lower density. Pumas have very large territories, that incorporate a wide variety of habitats and human developments. This procedure results in static population estimates ranging from 141-324 puma in the DAU (Table 1). 5 �Figure 3. Female proportion of harvest and total mortality and quota achievement, L-23. Female Mortality and Quota Achievement in L-23 160% 140% % Female Harvest Mortality % Female Total Mortality % Quota Achievement 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 20 01 19 98 19 95 19 92 19 89 19 86 19 83 19 80 0% To generate point estimates for the population, rather than the range developed previously, deer and elk winter ranges below 11,000 were mapped as “high density puma habitat (4.6/100km2)” and all other areas were mapped as “moderate density puma habitat (3.0/100km2)”. This results in an estimate of 233 puma in deer and elk winter ranges and 66 puma elsewhere, totaling 299 puma (Table 1). Table 1. Low and High density puma population estimates for the Dolores-Norwood DAU of Colorado, L-23. Km2 Relative Low High L-23 Puma Density Density Dolores-Norwood Density (2/100 km2) (4.6/100 Area km2) Total for DAU 7038 141 324 Ungulate winter 4840 High 299 range 2198 Moderate Given this range in density projections for the DAU, then that number can be further broken down into approximate numbers of adults, sub-adults, and cubs. This once again uses average proportions derived from various studies conducted in other states and various habitats. These studies have found that adults are 52% of the population, sub-adults 14%, and cubs 34%. Applying these data to the previous population estimates results in the projections in Table 4. Therefore, the puma population in this DAU should be comprised of 73-168 adults, 20-45 subadults, and 48-110 cubs. Because the point estimate is over 90% of the upper estimate of the range, the actual population might be expected to be in the upper 25% of these ranges, therefore most likely the demographic breakdown might be 126-168 adults, 34-45 sub-adults, and 82-110 cubs (Table 2). Finally, based on the long term research conducted in New Mexico through increase and decline phases of puma population and prey densities, Logan and Sweanor (2001) have 6 �suggested several guidelines of acceptable mortality for managing for stable, increasing or decreasing puma populations (Table 3). Some of their guidelines have been modified for application in Colorado because of the significantly higher prey densities found here versus in their study area of the San Andres Mountains (Table 3). For this purpose, the huntable population is comprised of all subadults and all adults, or approximately 160-213. Table 2. Demographic breakdown of projected puma population in the Dolores-Norwood area of Colorado, DAU L-23. L-23 Adults Subadults Cubs Huntable DoloresPopulation Norwood Area Low Density 73 20 48 93 High Density 168 45 110 213 75th percentile 126 34 82 160 Table 3. Guideline removal rates for puma populations under different strategic goals. Strategic population Permissible removal rates (all mortality) goal Increase 8% of huntable population Stable 15% of huntable population Decrease 28% of huntable population An additional consideration is whether any “refuge” areas may exist within the DAU. In order to have population level effects, a refuge must be very large (maybe greater than 1000 km2), and this size area rarely exists. For the purposes of this DAU Plan, areas that might provide protection (refuge) for one or a few breeding females and a male (greater than 100 km2) might be considered sufficient to replenish areas temporarily vacant of resident puma. In order to represent these areas, harvest mortality from the mid 1990’s to present can be used to determine areas with low harvest where puma would be expected. These areas of low harvest usually occur because of poor access for lion hunters, but may occur for additional reasons. The distribution of harvest in this DAU is fairly evenly distributed in areas considered deer, elk, or bighorn sheep winter range, with concentrations near Norwood, Dry Creek Basin and to the west, Disappointment Valley, and the Dolores River below Dolores. Areas with relatively lower harvest are west of the middle portion of the Dolores River, the Glade, Lone Cone, and west of Telluride. These four areas are widely distributed. The Utah portion adjacent to this DAU is currently heavily hunted. Each of the above four identified areas could be large enough to protect a single resident female, and might function as small refuges to provide for dispersal into more heavily hunted areas. Game Damage Considerations Damage payments have averaged $299 (Figure 4) in the last 5 years. This DAU has not had significant numbers of claims in 20 years, usually 0-2 claims per year. In addition, the value of claims has been relatively low, with the last large claim filed in 1996. Since then, the State Legislature limited the State’s liability to $5000 per individual unit of livestock loss. The yearly average 1990-2003 is <$1000, and forms the basis for the recommended Management Objective. Damage payments seem to follow a pattern of extreme ups and downs (Figure 2), with most years much lower than a few very high years. A relatively new occurrence is the proliferation of hobby livestock ranches. Relative to more traditional livestock operations, these hobby ranches typically raise smaller breeds of livestock (llama, alpaca, goat, etc). Many times, 7 �these animals are more concentrated and of a higher per unit value. Educating landowners of livestock practices to minimize this potential is the primary means of reducing this type of conflict. Figure 4. Indexed value of puma depredation claims in L-23, Southwest Colorado, 1990-2003. Indexed value of depredation claims, L-23 $7,000 $6,274 $6,000 $5,372 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 20 20 $0 $299 0 5Yr 3 AV G $0 02 $0 01 $640 00 20 99 $0 98 19 19 97 $0 96 $0 95 19 94 93 19 19 92 91 19 19 90 $0 19 $856 $0 19 $133 20 $1,329 $1,238 $1,000 19 $2,000 III. DRAFT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE recommendations for L-23 Sport harvest has averaged 13-14 males, with 5-7 females, through the last 20 years (Figure 2). Historic non-sport harvest mortality has averaged only 1 puma per year, and the proportion of females in the harvest has been below 40% (Figure 3). The trends over the last 5 and 10 year periods are for a very slight increase in males being harvested, fewer females, and therefore a decreasing proportion of females in the harvest. Population Objective supported by CDOW staff. Stable/increasing population- To manage for a stable or increasing population, the total mortality number should be in the range of 8-15% of the legally harvestable lions, or 17-24. Current total mortality is within this range (20-22), and therefore no change in sport harvest quota may be necessary. Under no circumstances should the 5 or 10 year running average proportion of females in the harvest exceed 50%. Objectives: total mortality 13-24, sport harvest 11-22, maximum female mortality ≤11 Population Alternative not supported. Suppress the population- Suppression of the population could be warranted if game damage problems were high and/or increasing, or if human-lion encounters were high or increasing. These factors are not present and therefore population suppression is not warranted. Game Damage Objective. Game damage should not exceed $1000 per year based on a 3year average. The CDOW will utilize hunters whenever possible to harvest depredating lions. 8 �DWM’s and Biologists will continue to inform and educate the public on ways to prevent or minimize losses of domestic animals. Literature Cited: Logan, K. A. and L. L. Irwin, and R. Skinner. 1986. Characteristics of a hunted mountain lion population in Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 50(4):648-654. Logan, K. A., and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Ross, P. I., and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 56(3): 417-426. 9 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/ccdd3fb52d79a973b77f165dc9646359.pdf f7f5d05672feb27315e590065b4cc21a PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-23 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 70, 71, & 711 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife West Region By: Scott Wait Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Durango, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT This DAU is in the southwestern part of Colorado, and includes parts of Montrose, San Miguel, Dolores, and Montezuma Counties. This DAU has the 7th highest lion harvest in the state (6% of the total), the 12th highest game damage payments (2% of total), and had no human-lion conflict reports in 1997. Mountain lions are primarily an opportunistic carnivore, meaning they will eat a variety of animal matter depending on availability and season of year. Seasonally, they will catch and kill a variety of wildlife species, including big game, small game, and non-game animals. Mountain lions are classified as a big game animal, and their populations are primarily managed through sport harvest and natural self-regulation. Specific targeted control of mountain lion populations may be warranted in special situations, and can be initiated under the Mammalian Predator Management Policy of the Colorado Wildlife Commission (September 1999). TOTAL LION HARVEST OBJECTIVE: This DAU has averaged 18 lions harvested per year, 1988-1998, with a range of 5-25. The proportion of females in the harvest has ranged from 20-58%, and averaged 36%. Sport harvest has accounted for 95% of the harvest, while non-sport harvest has ranged from 0-4 per year. The objective total harvest for this DAU should be a maximum of 25 for a 3-year average. The quota in 2000 is 33. TOTAL LION DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: Damage payments in this DAU have averaged $1,337 per year, FY 8889 to FY98-99. Damage payments have been significantly lower except for FY96-97 when a $5,000 payment was made for losses to a captive wildlife owner. This DAU should be managed to keep damage payments below $3,000 per year for a 3-year average. When that number is reached, an investigator/adjuster could be hired to verify claims. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/bd5a8c4aae1662907f32923726aaaaf4.pdf 0d465e2debde90a56023400a535fc784 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION DATA ANALYSIS UNIT L-24 MANAGEMENT PLAN GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 72 & 73 Cortez-Mancos Area Southwest Region Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife By: Scott Wait Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist August, 2004 �Components of a Puma Management Plan DAUs are assemblages of Game Management Units (GMUs) within which puma occupancy has been mapped. Each DAU has a brief management plan with objectives for hunter harvest, game damage, and human-puma conflict, and objectives are stated as the maximum level on a three-year running average. I. Biological Basis and Framework for Management in Colorado Puma Population Estimation (Static) Colorado does not regularly inventory puma populations because no reliable, cost effective sample based population estimation technique currently exists. Population projections have been made based on densities reported in literature for intensively studied populations. Low and high densities were selected from study areas that had habitat types most similar to Colorado. Densities were then applied by biologists to areas of puma habitat within DAUs. Areas not considered puma habitat, such as extreme high elevations, intensively farmed land, cities, highways, or reservoirs, were first deleted. Biologists were allowed to apply more constrained densities based upon their knowledge of prey abundance or relative puma abundance. Finally, biologists were asked to pinpoint the puma density most applicable to DAUs within their management responsibility. Puma densities are driven by two main factors, abundance of available primary prey and quality of habitat for puma hunting behaviors. Given the temporal and spatial variability of these two factors, complicated time and space models for predicting puma densities have yet to be developed. Therefore, a population estimation method at this time should be static (I.e.: a snapshot in time) and should bracket the population between probable high and low numbers. Therefore, Colorado will use ranges reported from credible scientific literature for intensive mark and recapture studies on puma. When low densities for puma are reported in the literature it is usually from study areas of relatively low productivity in terms of primary prey. Conversely, high densities for puma are reported from study areas that are relatively rich in available primary prey and are relatively densely vegetated and/or have high topographic relief. These characteristics of high prey populations and productivity in productive and diverse habitats are supportive of the primary factors that drive puma densities. Estimating static population should consider the general make up of a population. For puma this includes adult male, adult female, subadults, and cubs. A simple algebraic equation expresses the population: static population = total adults + subadults + cubs, and total adults = male adults + female adults. In application, a static population is derived by extrapolating density ranges reported in literature to DAU land area. Two density ranges give high and low end densities. Logan and Sweanor (2001) found density ranged from 2.0 to 4.3 puma/100 km2 in the San Andres Mountains in New Mexico, whereas Logan, et.al. (1986) found density ranged from 3.5 to 4.6 puma/100 km2 in the Bighorn Mountains in Wyoming. Therefore, we use a range of 2.0 to 4.6 puma/100 km2 . Nearly all puma studies have estimated densities on winter range only (winter range of the prey species being used as a surrogate of puma winter range), so the previous density estimates should only be applied to winter range areas. 2 �For estimating the component make up of a puma population, two intensive mark recapture studies have used similar age classifications comparable to harvest data collected in Colorado. These were both conducted in moderately hunted populations or emulation of hunting effects. The age structure of these studies were 56% adult, 10% subadult, and 34% cubs (Logan and Sweanor, 2001), and 48% adult, 19% subadult, and 34% cubs (Ross and Jalkotzy, 1992, in Alberta). The average of these yield 52% adult, 14% subadult, 34% cub, or stated as a ratio 100 adult: 26 subadult: 65 cub. In populations that are heavily hunted, one would predict that the relative proportion of adults to be decreased. Conversely, a lightly hunted population should see a larger relative proportion of adults. It is illegal to harvest a female accompanied by kittens. Finally, estimating sex composition of the adult population assumes a 1:1 ratio male to female. This is based upon numerous intensive studies in scientific literature that found no significant difference between the number of adult male and female in the studied populations. Actual data almost always show slightly more females than males in the populations, however this is frequently offset by a lower number of females actually available for breeding. Finally, local biologists examine the estimated number of puma in DAUs and make adjustments based upon their knowledge of various qualitative habitat conditions. Conditions such as intensive agriculture, subdivision development, prairie, and relative prey density are types of factors that may influence puma populations. Consideration of these numbers in some cases help to tighten the range of the population estimation. The CDOW does not attempt to quantify habitat quality in any numeric fashion and due to the high cost of implementing intensive mark-recapture does not implement population inventory efforts on regular basis. Information to monitor population trends is gathered via mandatory harvest checks and is analyzed on a DAU basis. II. Data and trends for the Cortez-Mancos Puma Data Analysis Unit in Colorado The Cortez-Mancos Puma DAU (L-24) is in southwest Colorado (Figure 1), and includes most of Montezuma County as well as a small part of Dolores County, and includes the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation and Mesa Verde National Park. The unit ranges from <6000 feet at the Utah stateline to a few peaks over 13,000 feet. Nearly all of the DAU is considered moderate or high puma density habitat, and there are significant populations of primary prey species deer and elk. 3 �Figure 1. Location and mapped attributes of L-24, the Cortez-Mancos Puma DAU. This DAU is not completely mapped by the CDOW because of the Indian Reservation and National Park. The cross-hatched area is mapped as deer and elk winter range, and therefore high density for pumas, as well as all other areas at similar elevation and habitat coverage. Areas above deer and elk winter range up to 11,000 feet elevation are mapped as moderate density for pumas. A. Harvest and mortality data and trends The sport harvest quota has remained the same at 14 since 1994, while the harvest has decreased from 10-15 in the 1990’s to an average of 6 in the last 5 years (Figure 2). Concurrently, the female proportion of the harvest has generally been below 50% throughout the period, except in the period of high harvest in the early to mid 1990’s (Figure 3). The age data for these females is unreliable, but high harvest of females, and specifically adult age females, could be used as an indicator that the reproductive segment of the population is being impacted, and therefore the population is being suppressed. Even if the age structure of the harvested females was largely sub-adult, non-breeding females, the recruitment of breeding females is being suppressed. Mortality due to control of depredating puma (Figure 2) has been relatively low (< 10% of harvest) throughout the period, with the exception of 4 killed in 2001, and 6 killed in 1992. Likewise, the proportion of females killed in control actions has generally been <50%. Mortality 4 �due to factors other than harvest and control actions (roadkills mostly, Figure 2) has not been a significant factor in this DAU throughout the period of analysis. Figure 2. Lion mortality and sport harvest in L-24, Cortez-Mancos area of Colorado. L-24 Mortality and Quota 1988-2003 20 15 10 5 19 82 19 83 19 84 19 85 19 86 19 87 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 0 Harvest Quota Harvest Mortality Total Mortality Figure 3. Female mortality as a proportion of total mortality and quota achievement rates in L24, Cortez-Mancos area. % Female Mortality and Quota Achievement in L-24 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 19 88 19 89 19 90 19 91 19 92 19 93 19 94 19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 0% % Female Harvest % Female Total Mortality % Quota Achievement B. Evaluating the DAU in terms of habitat quality/population density, estimation of puma population 5 �For the purposes of estimating a static puma population in this DAU, we use the density estimates discussed previously, which are derived by averaging the density estimates from surrounding states where intensive studies have been completed. Until information is available from the new study in Colorado, this is the best information available. The range of puma density from these states is 2.0/100 km2 in low density to 4.6/100 km2 in a high density. This DAU is relatively good habitat for puma (as compared to the broad spectrum of habitats occupied by puma throughout their range), therefore the actual population (density) would be expected to be near the upper density seen in other good habitat areas. Portions of the DAU, however, have been altered or naturally would be expected to have a lower density (Table 1). These areas are assigned a reduced habitat effectiveness, resulting in a lower puma density. These breakdowns are very general, and their reduction in habitat effectiveness is only approximate. Until more specific information becomes available, these should be viewed as very coarse approximations. Pumas have very large territories, that incorporate a wide variety of habitats and human developments. This procedure results in static population estimates ranging from 94-216 puma in the DAU. To generate point estimates for the population, rather than the range developed previously, deer and elk winter ranges below 11,000 were mapped as “high density puma habitat (4.6/100km2)” and all other areas were mapped as “moderate density puma habitat (3.0/100km2)”. This results in an estimate of 55 puma in deer and elk winter ranges and 109 puma elsewhere, totaling 164 puma. This approach only deals with areas mapped by the CDOW as deer and elk winter range, which in this DAU neglects the role that the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation (which does have some limited puma hunting) and Mesa Verde National Park (with no hunting) play in metapopulation management. Because pumas have much larger territories than deer and elk, these areas allow for immigration and emigration of pumas. In order to more accurately reflect this, these areas were mapped as high density for pumas, except for the upper elevations of the Sleeping Ute Mountain, which was moderate density. This results in a population estimate of a total of 214 pumas. These three methods result in estimates of 94-216 pumas based only on land area, up to 214 pumas incorporating deer and elk winter range and a subjective evaluation of puma habitat quality in unmapped areas. Given this range in density projections for the DAU, then that number can be further broken down into approximate numbers of adults, sub-adults, and cubs. This once again uses average proportions derived from various studies conducted in other states and various habitats. These studies have found that adults are 52% of the population, sub-adults 14%, and cubs 34% (Table 2). Therefore, the puma population in this DAU should be comprised of 49-112 adults, 13-30 sub-adults, and 32-73 cubs. Because the point estimate is over 95% of the upper estimate of the range, the actual population might be expected to be in the upper 25% of these ranges, therefore most likely the demographic breakdown might be 42-56 adult males and females, 2230 sub-adults, and 55-73 cubs. Finally, based on the long term research conducted in New Mexico through increase and decline phases of puma population and prey densities, Logan and Sweanor (2001) have suggested several guidelines of acceptable mortality for managing for stable, increasing or decreasing puma populations (Table 3). Some of their guidelines have been modified for application in Colorado because of the significantly higher prey densities found here versus in their study area of the San Andres Mountains (Table 5). For this purpose, the huntable population is comprised of all subadults and adults, or approximately 106-142 (Table 2). 6 �Table 1. Low and High density puma population estimates for the Cortez-Mancos DAU of Colorado, L-24. Area calculations are all portions of the DAU below 11,000 elevation. Km2 Relative Effective Area Low High Effectiveness (km2) Density Density L-24 Cortez-Mancos Area (2/100 km2) (4.6/100 km2) Subdivisions 96 67% 65 1 3 Cities/Reservoirs 13 0% 0 0 0 Intense Agriculture 96 33% 32 1 1 Remainder of DAU 4612 100% 4612 92 212 Total for DAU 4817 4817 94 216 Table 2. Demographic breakdown of projected puma population in the Cortez-Mancos area of Colorado, DAU L-24. L-24 Adults males Subadults Cubs Huntable Cortez-Mancos Population Area Low Density 50 13 32 63 High Density 112 30 73 142 75th percentile 84 22 55 106 Table 3. Guideline removal rates for puma populations under different strategic goals. Strategic population Permissible removal rates (all mortality) goal Increase 8% of huntable population Stable 15% of huntable population Decrease 28% of huntable population An additional consideration is whether any “refuge” areas may exist within the DAU. In order to have population level effects, a refuge must be very large (maybe greater than 1000 km2), and this size area rarely exists. For the purposes of this DAU Plan, areas that might provide protection (refuge) for one or a few breeding females and a male (greater than 100 km2) might be considered sufficient to replenish areas temporarily vacant of resident puma. In order to represent these areas, harvest mortality from the mid 1990’s to present can be used to determine areas with low harvest where puma would be expected. These areas of low harvest usually occur because of poor access for lion hunters, but may occur for additional reasons. The distribution of harvest in this DAU is fairly evenly distributed in areas considered deer, elk, or bighorn sheep winter range, with concentrations near Dolores, Mancos to Cortez, Summit Ridge, and west of Highway 491 (formerly 666). Areas with relatively lower harvest are the extreme western edge along the Utah border (this portion of Utah is heavily hunted), the upper portion of Haycamp Mesa, and south of Dove Creek. Mesa Verde National Park is about 210 km2, and therefore provides refuge for a few puma. The Ute Mountain Ute Reservation usually has some harvest, but is often lightly hunted and part of the Reservation is not hunted. These four areas are widely distributed in the DAU. Each of the above four identified areas could be large enough to protect a single resident female or more, and might function as small refuges to provide for dispersal into more heavily hunted areas. 7 �Game Damage Considerations Damage payments have averaged $5324 (Figure 4) in the last 5 years, but this is heavily biased by a single very large claim for exotic livestock in 1999. Since then, the State Legislature limited the State’s liability to $5000 per individual unit of livestock loss. The yearly average 1992-2003 excluding 2000 is $4216, and forms the basis for the recommended Management Objective. Damage payments seem to follow a pattern of extreme ups and downs (Figure 2), with most years <$4216, but four years in 12 exceeding that. A relatively new occurrence is the proliferation of hobby livestock ranches. Relative to more traditional livestock operations, these hobby ranches typically raise smaller breeds of livestock (llama, alpaca, goat, etc). Many times, these animals are more concentrated and of a higher per unit value. Educating landowners of livestock practices to minimize this potential is the primary means of reducing this type of conflict. Figure 4. Indexed value of puma depredation claims in L-24, Southwest Colorado, 1992-2003. Indexed Value of Puma Depredation Claims 20 03 5Yr AV G 02 20 01 20 20 00 99 19 98 19 97 19 96 19 95 19 94 19 93 19 19 92 $20,000 $17,360 $18,000 $16,000 $14,000 $10,925 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $5,324 $4,916 $6,000 $4,711 $3,851 $2,576 $2,620 $4,000 $1,959 $849 $829 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 III. DRAFT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE recommendations for L-24 Sport harvest has averaged 4-5 males, 2-4 females, and the proportion of females in the harvest has been below 40%, and lower over the last 5 years than over the last 10 years. Historic non-sport harvest mortality has averaged only 1 puma per year. As stated previously, the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation has permitted the removal of some pumas in the past, and since the realistic DAU population estimates include the Reservation and Mesa Verde, those areas must be considered. The removal from the Reservation is NOT included in the above harvest or total mortality data. Tribal and National Park lands make up about 41% of the total land area, so potentially Colorado’s “allowable off-take” could be 59% of the biological maximum. 8 �Population Objective supported by CDOW staff. Stable/increasing population- To manage for a stable or increasing population, the total mortality number should be in the range of 8-15% of the legally harvestable lions, or 11-16. Colorado’s sport harvest objective would then be 7-10, and total mortality would be 8-11. Current total mortality is within this range (7-10), and therefore no change in sport harvest quota may be necessary. The harvest on the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation, and mortality within Mesa Verde will need to be tracked annually, and the harvest objective in Colorado can be adjusted on an annual basis. Objectives: total mortality 8-11, sport harvest 7-10, maximum female mortality ≤6 Population Alternative not supported by CDOW staff. Suppress the population- To suppress the population, total mortality should be in the range of 28% of the legally harvestable lions. There would need to be a clear and articulable reason to suppress this population, such as excessive game damage problems or extensive human-puma conflicts. Conflicts do occur in and around Mesa Verde National Park, but since the Park prohibits hunting of puma and their primary prey, deer, the Park serves as a reservoir, and population suppression outside of the Park would likely have little effect within the Park. In addition, the Park has instituted a puma incident reporting and tracking system to identify and handle concerns. Game Damage Objective. Game damage should not exceed $4216 per year based on a 3year average. The CDOW will utilize hunters whenever possible to harvest depredating lions. DWM’s and Biologists will continue to inform and educate the public on ways to prevent or minimize losses of domestic animals. Literature Cited: Logan, K. A. and L. L. Irwin, and R. Skinner. 1986. Characteristics of a hunted mountain lion population in Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 50(4):648-654. Logan, K. A., and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Ross, P. I., and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 56(3): 417-426. 9 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/71ccd0b03af8c2a8953cbe3eb7a9581a.pdf a1ee19be35ce73605f22f17d4044e1bd PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-24 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 72 & 73 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife West Region By: Scott Wait Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Durango, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT This DAU is in the extreme southwestern part of Colorado, and includes all of Montezuma County and part of Dolores County. This DAU has the 10th highest lion harvest in the state (4% of the total), the 6th highest game damage payments (5% of total), and had 1 human-lion conflict report in 1997. Mountain lions are primarily an opportunistic carnivore, meaning they will eat a variety of animal matter depending on availability and season of year. Seasonally, they will catch and kill a variety of wildlife species, including big game, small game, and non-game animals. Mountain lions are classified as a big game animal and their populations are primarily managed through sport harvest and natural self-regulation. Mountain lions do have impacts on other wildlife species populations, but control of another wildlife species population has not been documented scientifically, rather, mountain lions are one of many factors that may slow the recovery of small populations or accelerate the decline of small populations. Specific targeted control of mountain lion populations may be warranted in special situations. TOTAL LION HARVEST OBJECTIVE: This DAU has averaged 12 lions harvested per year, 1988-1998, with a range of 8-19. The proportion of females in the harvest has ranged from 22-69%, and averaged 39%. Sport harvest has accounted for 85% of the harvest, while non-sport harvest has ranged from 1-6 lions per year. The objective total harvest for this DAU should be a maximum of 14 for a 3-year average. The quota in 2000 is 14 TOTAL LION DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: Damage payments in this DAU have averaged $3,887 per year, FY8889 to FY98-99. Damage payments have been significantly lower except for FY93-94 when a $10,000 payment was made for horse losses. This DAU should be managed to keep damage payments below $4,200 per year for a 3-year average. When that number is reached, an investigator/adjuster could be hired to verify claims. December 4, 2000 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/debfe7e83a32819b21f5d603a61aee97.pdf 824e314c560478f304b15ae4b0fc79c7 PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION DATA ANALYSIS UNIT L-25 MANAGEMENT PLAN GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 74, 741, 75, 751, 77, 771 & 78 San Juan Basin of Colorado Southwest Region Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife By: Scott Wait Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist August, 2004 �Components of a Puma Management Plan DAUs are assemblages of Game Management Units (GMUs) within which puma occupancy has been mapped. Each DAU has a brief management plan with objectives for hunter harvest, game damage, and human-puma conflict, and objectives are stated as the maximum level on a three-year running average. I. Biological Basis and Framework for Management in Colorado Puma Population Estimation (Static) Colorado does not regularly inventory puma populations because no reliable, cost effective sample based population estimation technique currently exists. Population projections have been made based on densities reported in literature for intensively studied populations. Low and high densities were selected from study areas that had habitat types most similar to Colorado. Densities were then applied by biologists to areas of puma habitat within DAUs. Areas not considered puma habitat, such as extreme high elevations, intensively farmed land, cities, highways, or reservoirs, were first deleted. Biologists were allowed to apply more constrained densities based upon their knowledge of prey abundance or relative puma abundance. Finally, biologists were asked to pinpoint the puma density most applicable to DAUs within their management responsibility. Puma densities are driven by two main factors, abundance of available primary prey and quality of habitat for puma hunting behaviors. Given the temporal and spatial variability of these two factors, complicated time and space models for predicting puma densities have yet to be developed. Therefore, a population estimation method at this time should be static (I.e.: a snapshot in time) and should bracket the population between probable high and low numbers. Therefore, Colorado will use ranges reported from credible scientific literature for intensive mark and recapture studies on puma. When low densities for puma are reported in the literature it is usually from study areas of relatively low productivity in terms of primary prey. Conversely, high densities for puma are reported from study areas that are relatively rich in available primary prey and are relatively densely vegetated and/or have high topographic relief. These characteristics of high prey populations and productivity in productive and diverse habitats are supportive of the primary factors that drive puma densities. Estimating static population should consider the general make up of a population. For puma this includes adult male, adult female, subadults, and cubs. A simple algebraic equation expresses the population: static population = total adults + subadults + cubs, and total adults = male adults+ female adults. In application, a static population is derived by extrapolating density ranges reported in literature to DAU land area. Two density ranges give high and low end densities. Logan and Sweanor (2001) found density ranged from 2.0 to 4.3 puma/100 km2 in the San Andres Mountains in New Mexico, whereas Logan, et.al. (1986) found density ranged from 3.5 to 4.6 puma/100 km2 in the Bighorn Mountains in Wyoming. Therefore, we use a range of 2.0 to 4.6 puma/100 km2 . Nearly all puma studies have estimated densities on winter range only (winter range of the prey species being used as a surrogate of puma winter range), so the previous density estimates should only be applied to winter range areas. 2 �For estimating the component make up of a puma population, two intensive mark recapture studies have used similar age classifications comparable to harvest data collected in Colorado. These were both conducted in moderately hunted populations or emulation of hunting effects. The age structure of these studies were 56% adult, 10% subadult, and 34% cubs (Logan and Sweanor, 2001), and 48% adult, 19% subadult, and 34% cubs (Ross and Jalkotzy, 1992, in Alberta). The average of these yield 52% adult, 14% subadult, 34% cub, or stated as a ratio 100 adult: 26 subadult: 65 cub. In populations that are heavily hunted, one would predict that the relative proportion of adults to be decreased. Conversely, a lightly hunted population should see a larger relative proportion of adults. Finally, estimating sex composition of the adult population assumes a 1:1 ratio male to female. This is based upon numerous intensive studies in scientific literature that found no significant difference between the number of adult male and female in the studied populations. Actual data almost always show slightly more females than males in the populations, however this is frequently offset by a lower number of females actually available for breeding. Finally, local biologists examine the estimated number of puma in DAUs and make adjustments based upon their knowledge of various qualitative habitat conditions. Conditions such as intensive agriculture, subdivision development, prairie, and relative prey density are types of factors that may influence puma populations. Consideration of these numbers in some cases help to tighten the range of the population estimation. The CDOW does not attempt to quantify habitat quality in any numeric fashion and due to the high cost of implementing intensive mark-recapture does not implement population estimation efforts on regular basis. Information to monitor population trends is gathered via mandatory harvest checks and is analyzed on a DAU basis. II. Data and trends for the San Juan Basin Puma Data Analysis Unit in Colorado The San Juan Basin Puma DAU (L-25) is in southwest Colorado (Figure 1), and includes all of La Plata and San Juan Counties and parts of Archuleta, Mineral, and Hinsdale Counties. The unit ranges from 6000 feet to a few peaks over 14,000 feet, and the Continental Divide forms the eastern and northern boundaries. Nearly all of the DAU is considered moderate or high puma density habitat, and there are significant populations of primary prey species- deer, elk, and mountain sheep. 3 �Figure 1. Location and mapped attributes of L-25, the San Juan Basin Puma DAU. The crosshatched area is mapped as deer, elk, or mountain sheep winter range, and therefore high density for pumas, and other areas up to 11,000 feet elevation are mapped as moderate density for pumas. A. Harvest and mortality data and trends The sport harvest quota has increased from 5 in 1980-1982 to 22 in 2001-2003, while the harvest has increased from 2-7 in the early years to an average of 16 in the last 10 years, 17 in the last 3 years (Figure 2). Concurrently, the female proportion of the harvest has generally been below 50% throughout the period, except in the last 2 years (Figure 3). The age data for these females is unreliable, but high harvest of females, and specifically adult age females, could be used as an indicator that the reproductive segment of the population is being impacted, and therefore the population is being suppressed. Even if the age structure of the harvested females was largely sub-adult, non-breeding females, the recruitment of breeding females is being suppressed. 4 �Figure 2. Total and sport harvest mortality of puma in the San Juan Basin of Colorado, L-25 L-25 Mortality and Harvest Quota 1980-2003 30 25 20 15 10 5 Total Mortality DAU Harvest Quota 20 02 20 00 19 98 19 96 19 94 19 92 19 90 19 88 19 86 19 84 19 82 19 80 0 Harvest Mortality Mortality due to control of depredating puma (Figure 2) has been relatively low (< 10% of harvest) throughout the period, with the exception of 6 killed in 1995. Likewise, the proportion of females killed in control actions has generally been <50% (Figure 3). Mortality due to factors other than harvest and control actions (roadkills mostly, Figure 2) has also been relatively low (<10% of harvest) until the last 2 years, when it has been over 10% of sport harvest. This could be due to greater effort to document all puma mortality, or it could be related to environmental factors (drought, human development), or it could be a biological response to population suppression as sub-adult pumas disperse through the area. Figure 3. Female proportion of mortality and harvest of puma in the San Juan Basin of Colorado, L-25. % Female Mortality and Quota Achievement in L-25 19 80 19 82 19 84 19 86 19 88 19 90 19 92 19 94 19 96 19 98 20 00 20 02 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% % Female Harvest % Female Total Mortality 5 % Quota Achievement �B. Evaluating the DAU in terms of habitat quality/population density, estimation of puma population For the purposes of estimating a static puma population in this DAU, we use the density estimates discussed previously, which are derived by averaging the density estimates from surrounding states where intensive studies have been completed. Until information is available from the new study in Colorado, this is the best information available. The range of puma density from these states is 2.0/100 km2 in low density to 4.6/100 km2 in a high density. This DAU is relatively good habitat for puma (as compared to the broad spectrum of habitats occupied by puma throughout their range), therefore the actual population (density) would be expected to be near the upper density seen in other good habitat areas. Portions of the DAU, however, have been altered or naturally would be expected to have a lower density (Table 1). These areas are assigned a reduced habitat effectiveness, resulting in a lower puma density. These breakdowns are very general, and their reduction in habitat effectiveness is only approximate. Until more specific information becomes available, these should be viewed as very coarse approximations. Pumas have very large territories, that incorporate a wide variety of habitats and human developments. This procedure results in static population estimates ranging from 157-361 puma in the DAU (Table 1). To generate point estimates for the population, rather than the range developed previously, deer and elk winter ranges below 11,000 were mapped as “high density puma habitat (4.6/100km2)” and all other areas were mapped as “moderate density puma habitat (3.0/100km2)”. This results in an estimate of 248 puma in deer and elk winter ranges and 96 puma elsewhere, totaling 344 puma. Given this range in density projections for the DAU, that number can be further broken down into approximate numbers of adults, subadults, and cubs. This once again uses average proportions derived from various studies conducted in other states and various habitats. These studies have found that adults are 52% of the population, subadults 14%, and cubs 34%. Applying these data to the previous population estimates results in the projections in Table 2. Therefore, the puma population in this DAU should be comprised of 82-179 adults, 22-48 subadults, and 53-117 cubs. Because the point estimate is 95% of the upper estimate of the range, the actual population might be expected to be in the upper 25% of these ranges, therefore most likely the demographic breakdown might be 134-179 adults, 36-48 subadults, and 88-117 cubs. Finally, based on the long term research conducted in New Mexico through increase and decline phases of puma population and prey densities, Logan and Sweanor (2001) have suggested several guidelines of acceptable mortality for managing for stable, increasing or decreasing puma populations. Some of their guidelines have been modified for application in Colorado because of the significantly higher prey densities found here versus in their study area of the San Andres Mountains (Table 3). For this purpose, the huntable population is comprised of all subadults and adults. Table 1. Low and High density puma population estimates for the San Juan Basin DAU of Colorado, L-25. Area calculations are all portions of the DAU below 11,000 elevation. Km2 Relative Effective Area Low High L-25 Effectiveness (km2) Density Density San Juan Basin (2/100 km2) (4.6/100 km2) 6 �Subdivisions Cities/Reservoirs Intense Agriculture Remainder of DAU Total for DAU 1098 78 445 6967 8588 67% 0% 33% 100% 736 0 147 6967 8410 15 0 3 139 157 34 0 7 320 361 Table 2. Demographic breakdown of projected puma population in the San Juan Basin of Colorado, DAU L-25. Subadults Cubs Huntable L-25 Adults males Population San Juan Basin Low Density 82 22 53 104 High Density 179 48 117 227 75th percentile 134 36 88 170 Table 3. Guideline removal rates for puma populations under different strategic goals. Strategic population Permissible removal rates (all mortality) goal Increase 8% of huntable population Stable 15% of huntable population Decrease 28% of huntable population An additional consideration is whether any “refuge” areas may exist within the DAU. In order to have population level effects, a refuge must be very large (maybe greater than 1000 km2), and this size area rarely exists. For the purposes of this DAU Plan, areas that might provide protection (refuge) for one or a few breeding females and a male (greater than 100 km2) might be considered sufficient to replenish areas temporarily vacant of resident puma. In order to represent these areas, harvest mortality from the mid 1990’s to present can be used to determine areas with low harvest where puma would be expected. These areas of low harvest usually occur because of poor access for lion hunters, but may occur for additional reasons. The distribution of harvest in this DAU is fairly evenly distributed in areas considered deer, elk, or bighorn sheep winter range, with concentrations north of US Highway and 160 and south to the Southern Ute Reservation, and along US Highway 84. Areas with relatively lower harvest are the upper elevation deer and elk winter ranges, the mostly developed areas around Durango, Bayfield, and Pagosa Springs, and the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. The Reservation currently has relatively low harvest which could increase under current puma management. In addition, the Reservation has significant areas of private land within the exterior boundary where Colorado licensed hunters are allowed to hunt. These lightly hunted areas are mostly in fairly high elevation where most prey species migrate out of, and therefore the resident population of puma is probably fairly low. Puma do winter in these areas, however, and therefore these areas could function as small, widely distributed areas where puma could disperse from. Game Damage Considerations Damage payments have averaged $26,652 (Figure 4) in the last 5 years, but this is heavily biased by a single very large claim for exotic livestock in 2000. Since then, the State Legislature limited the State’s liability to $5000 per individual unit of livestock loss. The yearly 7 �average 1992-2003 excluding 2000 is $2235, and forms the basis for the recommended Management Objective. Damage payments seem to follow a pattern of extreme ups and downs, with most years <$1000, but four years in 12 exceeding that. A relatively new occurrence is the proliferation of hobby livestock ranches. Relative to more traditional livestock operations, these hobby ranches typically raise smaller breeds of livestock (llama, alpaca, goat, etc). Many times, these animals are more concentrated and of a higher per unit value. Educating landowners of livestock practices to minimize this potential is the primary means of reducing this type of conflict. Figure 4. Indexed value of puma depredation claims in L-25, southwest Colorado $140,000 $115,801 $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $22,010 $18,058 $7,312 $4,285 $510 $0 $3,449 $1,776 $20,000 $26,652 $4,434 $1,427 $0 G AV 03 5- Yr 20 02 20 00 01 20 20 99 19 97 98 19 19 96 19 95 19 94 19 19 19 93 $0 92 Indexed claim amount Indexed yearly lion damage payments 1992-2003 Year III. DRAFT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE recommendations for L-25 Sport harvest has averaged 8-9 males and 7-8 females per year and historic non-sport harvest mortality has averaged 2-3 puma per year (Figure 2). The total allowable mortality for this DAU is 18-25. The Southern Ute Reservation comprises about 13% of the geographic area and is totally within this DAU. The population of lions freely moves on and off the Reservation (Koloski 2002). The Southern Ute Tribe has instituted a mountain lion hunting season on Tribal lands. Each year the Tribe will determine their own allowable harvest and mortality, and will have objectives for total and female harvest. Presently, the Tribe has a quota of 7, with a female subquota of 3. In 2003, the first year of the Tribal hunt, 2 female lions were killed, and Tribal Wildlife Managers do not feel demand for lion hunts will increase significantly in the near future. Population Objective supported by CDOW staff. Stable/increasing population- To manage for a stable or increasing population, the total mortality should be in the range of 8-15% of the legally harvestable lions, or 18-25. Current mortality is within this range (20-21). Historic nonsport harvest mortality has averaged 2-3, leaving a biologically sustainable sport harvest of 1522. From the allowable sport harvest, deduct the potential Southern Ute harvest of 7, and this leaves a sport harvest objective for Colorado of 8-14. Alternatively, if the Tribe only harvested 13% (based on land area) of the allowable sport harvest, this would leave the Colorado portion with a range of 13-19. Based upon the uncertainty of the actual Tribal harvest, and the recent 8 �history of high female harvest , a Colorado harvest of 10-17 would appear to be reasonable and prudent. The balance of Colorado harvest and Tribal harvest will need to be constantly evaluated to maintain total mortality within sustainable limits Objectives: total mortality 18-25, sport harvest 15-22, maximum female mortality 11 Colorado total mortality 13-19, sport harvest 10-17, maximum female mortality 8 Population Alternative not supported by CDOW staff. Suppress the population- To suppress the population, total mortality should be in the range of 28% of the legally harvestable lions. In order to accept a population objective of suppression, their must be compelling reasons, such as excessive game damage consistently, or increasing or imminent human-puma conflicts. These factors are not present in this DAU, even though mountain lions are residents of the foothills and mountains adjacent to the cities, and observations of mountain lions are frequent. Game Damage Objective. Game damage should not exceed $2235 per year based on a 3year average. The CDOW will utilize hunters whenever possible to harvest depredating lions. DWM’s and Biologists will continue to inform and educate the public on ways to prevent or minimize losses of domestic animals. Literature Cited: Koloski, J. H. 2002. Mountain lion ecology and management on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. M. S. Thesis. Department of Zoology and Physiology, University of Wyoming, Laramie. Logan, K. A. and L. L. Irwin, and R. Skinner. 1986. Characteristics of a hunted mountain lion population in Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 50(4):648-654. Logan, K. A., and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Ross, P. I., and M. G. Jalkotzy. 1992. Characteristics of a hunted population of cougars in southwestern Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 56(3): 417-426. 9 � https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/40f1e9a3e30db68a63c86113eddab464.pdf 0abd6689c89823f1d6cf561f3dfa971e PDF Text Text MOUNTAIN LION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES FOR LION DAU L-25 GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS 74, 741, 75, 751, 77, 771, & 78 Prepared for: Colorado Division of Wildlife West Region By: Scott Wait Terrestrial Wildlife Biologist Durango, Colorado DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT AREA AND HABITAT This DAU is in the southwestern part of Colorado, and includes all of La Plata, San Juan, and Archuleta Counties and parts of Mineral and Hinsdale Counties. This DAU has the 9th highest lion harvest in the state (4% of the total), the 3rd highest game damage payments (8% of total), and had 12 human-lion conflict reports in 1997. This DAU contains significant area of the Southern Ute Indian Reservation. At times in the past, they have conducted lion hunts, but have not done so for several years. Mountain lions are primarily an opportunistic carnivore, meaning they will eat a variety of animal matter depending on availability and season of year. Seasonally, they will catch and kill a variety of wildlife species, including big game, small game, and non-game animals. Mountain lions are classified as a big game animal, and their populations are primarily managed through sport harvest and natural self-regulation. Mountain lions do have impacts on other wildlife species populations, but control of another wildlife species population has not been documented scientifically, rather, mountain lions are one of many factors that may slow the recovery of small populations or accelerate the decline of small populations. Specific targeted control of mountain lion populations may be warranted in special situations. TOTAL LION HARVEST OBJECTIVE: This DAU has averaged 13 lions harvested per year, 1988-1998, with a range of 3-23. The proportion of females in the harvest has ranged from 17-47%, and averaged 39%. Sport harvest has accounted for 81% of the harvest, while non-sport harvest has ranged from 1-6 per year. The objective total harvest for this DAU should be a maximum of 18 for a 3-year average. The quota in 2000 is 24. TOTAL LION DAMAGE OBJECTIVE: Damage payments in this DAU have averaged $5,436 per year, FY8788 to FY98-99. Damage payments have been significantly lower except for FY92-93 and FY96-97 when payments over $10,000 were made "exotic domestic stock" and sheep losses, respectively. This DAU should be managed to keep damage payments below $7,000 per year for a 3-year average. When that number is reached, an investigator/adjuster could be hired to verify claims. December 4, 2000 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Game Management Plans Description An account of the resource Includes management plans, management guidelines for DAUs, GMU/DAU annual maps for the following big game species:<br /> <ul> <li>Bighorn Sheep</li> <li>Black Bear</li> <li>Deer</li> <li>Elk</li> <li>Moose</li> <li>Mountain Lion&nbsp;</li> <li>Pronghorn</li> </ul> Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Colorado Mountain Lion Management Plans Description An account of the resource Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) manages mountain lions (Puma concolor) to conserve, protect and enhance lions for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the state’s citizens and visitors. CPW’s goal is to ensure that lions continue to exist in stable numbers in the state for their scientific, ecological and intrinsic value and for current and future generations to enjoy through hunting and occasional observation. <br /><br />The <a href="https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/1ce6bb21a99075af8bc23430749a19a2.pdf">Colorado West Slope Mountain Lion <em>(Puma concolor)</em> Management Plan</a>, published September 2, 2020, replaces all existing West Slope Data Analysis Unit (DAU) lion management plans.<br /><br />The <a href="https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/986e8fa3d279936b112602923cb4ea98.pdf">Colorado East Slope Mountain Lion <em>(Puma concolor)</em> Management Plan</a>, published November 15, 2024, replaces all existing East Slope Data Analysis Unit (DAU) lion management plans.<br /><br />The new management plans operate with the assertion that CPW's earlier DAU plans, each written to describe a single lion population, are too small in spatial scale to properly manage solitary, low-density, wide-ranging carnivores like mountain lions.<br /><br />Yearly maps from 2005-current show mountain lion DAUs and GMUs in Colorado.<br /><br />PDF's of the current plans and older (superseded) plans are available on the right. A print copy of all plans is available in the CPW Research Library at: QL 719 .C64 M79. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Colorado Parks and WIldlife Subject The topic of the resource Mountain Lion -- Management <em>Puma concolor -- </em>Management Cougar -- Management Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-NC/1.0/">No Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Only</a> Type The nature or genre of the resource Text