https://cpw.cvlcollections.org/files/original/d2bc1348bca013bd1dd9fe8147d69f60.pdf e1596b47f166abafa885f089b629263f PDF Text Text Dan Prenzlow, Director, Colorado Parks and Wildlife • Parks and Wildlife Commission: Marvin McDaniel, Chair • Carrie Besnette Hauser, Vice-Chair Marie Haskett, Secretary • Taishya Adams • Betsy Blecha • Charles Garcia • Dallas May • Duke Phillips, IV • Luke B. Schafer • James Jay Tutchton • Eden Vardy �Chapter 4 Cougar Management in North America United States: Charles R. Anderson Jr. and Frederick Lindzey Canada: Kyle H. Knopff, Martin G. Jalkotzy, and Mark S. Boyce F rom t h e mom e n t Europeans established the original colonies that would become the United States, predators were viewed as a threat, not only to livestock but also to the settlers themselves and to the other wild animals settlers relied on for food. Since then three phases of cougar (Puma concolor) management have evolved: attempted eradication, followed by agency management to sustain sport hunting and address depredation concerns, and more recently an effort to sustain viable cougar populations as part of the ecological community. The first phase of cougar management emerged as an agricultural ethic that focused on eradicating “undesirable species” that potentially threatened livestock, game animals, or the settlers themselves. One of these undesirables was the cougar. This attitude of eradication dominated until the middle of the twentieth century, when states and provinces began to assume management authority for the species, initiating the second phase of cougar management. Along with this new authority to manage cougars came the responsibility to sustain cougar populations. This phase is characterized by the hunting of cougars to provide recreational opportunity, while continuing to address livestock concerns. Complexity of cougar management accelerated rapidly from this point as a more biologically based ethic began to develop within agencies and the public, and new stakeholders entered the management arena. This increasing complexity has forced some agencies into a third phase in which they have begun to examine management approaches more critically. State and provincial management plans illustrate these evaluations by addressing cougar ecology and sociopolitical aspects of cougar management. They also incorporate stakeholder input and recently acquired knowledge in order to develop management programs more acceptable to the public at large. In the first two sections of this chapter, Charles Anderson Jr. and Frederick Lindzey discuss the phases of cougar management in North America, primarily in the United States. They describe the evolution from eradication to supporting a sport harvest, addressing cougar predation on livestock, and sustaining viable cougar populations for ecological and recreational purposes. In the third and final section, Kyle Knopff, Martin Jalkotzy, and Mark Boyce identify how management in Canada differs from that in the United States. Earliest bounties paid by settlements, colonial governments, and later fledgling states were directed primarily at controlling wolves (Canis lupus). As wolf numbers declined and density of human settlement increased, bounties were also paid for other predators, such as cougars (Young and Goldman 1944, 1946a). From colonial times to the 1960s, the goal was to eradicate predators, a philosophy that moved westward across North America with European settlement. The result of eradication, along with habitat losses associated with human development, was that by the twentieth century cougars were extirpated from North America east of the Rocky Mountains, except for a remnant population in Florida (Nowak 1976; see also Range Map, p. vii). Although wolves were initially the focus of predator control efforts in the West as they had been in the East, other predators were taken incidentally during wolf control campaigns. Later these species, including the cougar, became prime targets as well. Livestock associations often hired hunters and trappers to kill cougars in areas with depredation �42 Charles R. Anderson Jr., Frederick Lindzey, Kyle H. Knopff, Martin G. Jalkotzy, and Mark S. Boyce problems. Bounties were commonly used to reward such hunters and direct their efforts to selected areas, a practice that continued in the western states until the mid-twentieth century. Young and Goldman (1946a, 166) found nine western states offering cougar bounties in 1937, with payments ranging from $50 per animal in Colorado to $2 in Nebraska. Poisons were widely used for predator eradication and likely killed cougars as well as their canid targets. As noted by Young and Goldman (1946, 167), young cougars may have been most vulnerable to poisoning from consuming poisoned carrion baits set for wolves and coyotes, Canis latrans. But poisoning the carcasses of animals killed by cougars can be effective in targeting the cats, because they commonly return to feed on these carcasses (Anderson 1983). Federal involvement began in 1907 with U.S. Forest Service wolf reductions on national forests. The federal government formally entered the predator control business in earnest in 1914 with passage of legislation providing money for the Department of Agriculture to fund “experiments and demonstrations in destroying wolves, prairie dogs and other animals injurious to agriculture and animal husbandry” (Young and Goldman 1946a, 383). The animal damage control program within the Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Biological Survey was later moved to the Department of Interior, and then eventually returned to Department of Agriculture (see Chapter 1 for fuller discussion of predator control). Bounties for cougars were generally phased out by the early 1960s (Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group 2005). Indiscriminate use of poisons on public lands was terminated by presidential proclamation in 1972, and most western states and provinces assumed management authority for cougars between 1965 and 1973. Current Environmental Protection Agency regulations prohibit the use of poisons on public lands unless a memorandum of understanding is developed with the federal land management agency. In these cases, only target-specific methods (M-44s or 10-80 collars) can be employed. Colorado and Nevada reclassified the cougar as a game animal in 1965; Washington in 1966; Oregon and Utah in 1967; California in 1969; Arizona, Montana, and New Mexico followed suit in 1971; Idaho in 1972; Wyoming in 1973 (Roberson and Lindzey 1984, Smith 1989, Dawn 2002); North Dakota in 1991 (with closed season until 2005); and South Dakota in 2003. Except for Florida, the remaining states and provinces have not implemented active cougar management programs because viable cougar populations are not evident. State and provincial agencies now faced the task of managing an animal that had been persecuted for two centuries to protect livestock and wild prey. Responsibility for cougars as a species accompanied management authority. For example, Wyoming statutes charge the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission and Department with providing an adequate and flexible system for the control, propagation, management, protection, and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife. The department is the only entity of Wyoming state government charged with managing wildlife and conserving it for future generations (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2006b, Department and Program-Level Strategic Plans). Real or perceived livestock depredation and wildlife predation concerns did not go away simply because the cougar was decreed a game animal. At last, however, the attitude of some members of the public and of many professional biologists supported the notion of a balanced approach in which “positive” as well as “negative” aspects of the species would be considered in management planning. Legal protection of the cougar as a game species signaled the entry of new stakeholders attempting to influence cougar management (Chapter 14, 15). Agencies faced the unenviable task of trying to achieve management decisions that would serve to maintain biological integrity while also balancing the demands of conflicting interests. Approaches and techniques learned from decades of managing other game species were often of little use when dealing with an obligate carnivore that occurred in comparatively low densities and traveled over large areas. The general history accounts (i.e., Young and Goldman 1946a) and the few more specific reports available in the early 1960s on breeding, food habits, and natural history (e.g., Connolly 1949; Gashwiler and Robinette 1957; Robinette et al. 1959, 1961) provided limited support for, or help in, developing management plans in what was certain to be a hostile management environment. Regulation Begins Typically, the first years of wildlife agency responsibility for cougars saw little more than the setting of bag limits. Hunting regulations then became progressively more restrictive as season lengths were shortened and timing shifted. Management areas were delineated to control distribution of the hunting harvest. In some areas, quotas were set to limit total kill and /or the harvest of male and female cougars. Over time, regulations protecting spotted juveniles and females with kittens have also been adopted by most management agencies (Table 4.1; management status reports in Becker et al. 2003). At the same time, most states and provinces continued to include liberal provisions for livestock owners to respond to cougar depredation problems (Roberson and Lindzey 1984, 207). �Cougar Management in North America 43 Agencies have used a combination of approaches to manage cougars, often with only a limited understanding of the effectiveness of their management prescriptions. Working with imperfect knowledge is nothing new to biologists, but it is a politically risky affair when the focus is an animal over which people are dramatically separated in their views. When faced with limited information, wildlife managers tend to be conservative in setting harvest objectives. Because knowledge of the effectiveness of various actions is slow to accumulate, state- or provincewide management strategies usually also change slowly. Political pressures, however, sometimes cause sudden and drastic shifts in cougar management programs (discussed in Chapter 15). Data Analysis Units Although most states and provinces began cougar management on a province- or statewide basis, many have subsequently delineated their cougar habitat based on vegetation and topography, and presumably similar cougar densities, to refine management efforts (i.e., cougar management units). These areas are typically large enough to support population-level analyses, although it is generally recognized that they rarely contain isolated cougar populations. Management units, in turn, are frequently broken into smaller contiguous areas or hunt areas that share “social” characteristics (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2006b), such as cougar depredation history, land ownership, public access, and hunting history, where unique management strategies can be applied to address localized issues (e.g., historic depredation incidents, cougar-human interactions). This division allows agencies to direct management actions to address the sociopolitical aspects of cougar management. Traditionally, social issues revolved around cougar depredation of livestock or potential predation impacts on game species (e.g., deer and elk). More recently, human-cougar interactions have become of increasing concern as recreational activities have increased in, or human development has encroached on, cougar habitat. Seasons Earliest regulations typically provided year-round hunting, but as management evolved, seasons were often shortened and timed to reflect specific objectives within management or hunt areas. For example, year-round hunting has been used to direct hunting effort into areas experiencing cougar depredation problems. Seasons are often set to begin after hunting seasons for other game species are over to avoid conflicts among different kinds of hunters, particularly in areas where cougar hunting involves dogs (Roberson and Lindzey 1984, 97). Seasons typically end in the spring, before ungulate peak birthing periods, in order to reduce the potential of disturbing ungulate neonates (Table 4.1). In northern states, timing of seasons in this manner often did little to reduce cougar hunting opportunities because hound hunting was normally limited to periods of optimal opportunity, when snow was on the ground. Additionally, most hound hunters chose to avoid situations where their dogs might be shot (e.g., during big game seasons). Season timing has also been used to reduce the likelihood of kittens being killed by dogs (e.g., Utah, Colorado). Because cougars give birth year-round, however, timing of seasons does not protect all kittens; patterns of cougar litter production are given in Chapter 5 (see Figures 5.2–5.6). When harvest quotas are used, seasons end when the quota is met. Regulating Hunter Numbers and Distribution Regulation of sport hunting for cougars typically follows one of three harvest strategies: general seasons, limited entry, and harvest quota systems (see Table 4.1; Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group 2005). General seasons allow unlimited hunting of cougars of either sex and have the least control over harvest levels, the only restrictions being the number of licenses issued per hunter (typically one per season) and the timing and length of the hunting season. General seasons provide the most hunting opportunity and have the least control over harvest levels. Also they may result in uneven hunting pressure—accessible areas are hunted more heavily than inaccessible areas, limiting control over the harvest level, composition, and distribution. Limited entry programs may restrict the number of hunters per management unit through limited license allocation, using either a first-come, first-served basis or lottery license sales. This approach may be the most limiting in terms of hunter opportunity but can be useful to disperse hunting pressure and control harvest levels, and it may increase the opportunity for hunters to be selective (increasing the male harvest) in areas where hunting pressure is low. For hunters willing to travel, limited entry may continue to allow similar hunting opportunities if the number of permits allocated is high. Harvest quota management requires setting a limit on the total harvest and/or the number of female or male cougars harvested from an area. Quotas are not goals but allowable harvest limits set to achieve specific population-level objectives. The hunting season is closed for the area once the quota has been met. Advantages of the quota approach are that hunting opportunity remains high and harvest distribution and level can be regulated. The quota system requires an agency to develop a method that allows hunters to monitor �44 Charles R. Anderson Jr., Frederick Lindzey, Kyle H. Knopff, Martin G. Jalkotzy, and Mark S. Boyce Table 4.1 Cougar population statusa and characteristics of management programs in the western United States and Canadian provinces in 2008.b State or Province Population Size/Trend Legal Statusc Season Dates (Bag Limit)d Season Structuree Dogs Allowed Female & Cub laws Pursuit Seasons Mandatory Inspection Depredation Compensation Alberta 800–1200/I Big game 12/1–2/28(1) FQ, MQ Yes Yes No Yes Yes Arizona 1,500–2,500/Unk Big game 9/1–5/31(1+) Gen Yes Yes No Yes No British Columbia 4,000–6,000/S Big game 9/8–6/30(2)f Gen, FQ Yes Yes Yes Yes No California 4,000–6,000/S Protected NA NA No NA No NA No Colorado 3,000–3,600/Unk Big game 11/19–3/31(1) TQ Yes Yes No Yes Yes Idaho 2,000/D Big game 8/30–3/31(1–2)f Gen, FQ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Montana Unk/Unk Big game 10/21–4/14(1) LE, FQ, MQ Yes Yes Yes Yes No Nevada 2,500–3,000/S Big game YR(2) TQ Yes Yes No Yes No New Mexico 2,000–3,000/Unk Big game 10/1–3/31(1–2)g TQ Yes Yes No Yes No North Dakota 27–101 adults/I Furbearer 9/1–3/11(1) TQ Yes Yes No Yes No Oregon 5,700/I Big game 8/1–5/31(1–2)g Gen, TQ No Yes No Yes No South Dakota 200–225/I Big game 11/1–12/31(1) TQ, FQ No Yes No Yes No Texas Unk/S Non-game YR/unlimited Gen Yes No No No No 11/21–6/1(1)g LE, TQ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Utah 2,528–3,936/Unk Big game Washington 1,000–2,500/D 21 counties 6 counties Big game Unk/S Trophy game Wyoming Yes 9/1–3/15(2) 12/1–3/31(2) Gen LE, TQ, FQ No Yes 9/1–3/31(1)g TQ, FQ Yes Yes No Yes a Population size and trend based on subjective information such as harvest data, sightings, nuisance incidents, extrapolation of localized field research, and/or literature-based density estimates extrapolated to suitable cougar habitat. Trend: I = increase; S = stable; Unk = unknown; D = decrease. Population size and trend information reported from most recent management summaries (Becker et al. 2003 or Martorello and Beausoleil 2005) if available, information accessible from agency websites, or Beausoleil et al. 2008. b Information accessed from management agency Web sites. c Legal status change from predator to game animal: Colorado and Nevada in 1965; British Columbia and Washington in 1966; Oregon and Utah in 1967; California in 1969; Alberta, Arizona, Montana, and New Mexico in 1971; Idaho in 1972; and Wyoming in 1973. Legal status in California changed from game animal to specially protected mammal in 1990, and from protected to game animal in South Dakota in 2003 and North Dakota in 1991 (with a closed season until 2005). d Bag limit = maximum number of cougars harvested/hunter/year except in Arizona where some management areas allow for 1 cougar harvested/hunter/day. YR = cougar hunting seasons open year-round. e Season structure: Gen = general; LE = limited entry; TQ = total quota; FQ = female quota or female subquota when used in combination with TQ; and MQ = male quota. f Season dates vary among management areas within interval reported. g Some management areas are open to cougar hunting year-round. the harvest so that they know when the quota has been met. This is accomplished using a toll-free hotline that is continually updated as cougars are harvested; hunters are expected to monitor the harvest by accessing the hotline. Occasionally, quotas are exceeded because there is often a lag in the reporting of kills and their entry on the hotline. This should be recognized and adjusted for in the development of harvest quotas. Female subquotas can be used to support a management objective of sustaining harvest levels by limiting female harvest levels and reducing impact on the cougar population. Potential disadvantages of harvest quotas are that the number of hunters per management unit is unlimited until quotas are filled, and quotas may be exceeded if several cougars are taken toward the end of the season but before the harvest is recorded on the quota hotline. All human-caused cougar deaths (including depredation control removals and known accidental deaths, such as from vehicle collisions) may or may not be counted against the quota; Wyoming, for example, recently moved to include all such deaths in its quota for fuller accountability. Counting all human-caused mortalities toward management quotas is a desirable management strategy because mortality factors other than hunting likely contribute to cougar population dynamics (Laundré et al. 2007). �Cougar Management in North America 45 Hunting Methods Methods of hunting cougars include opportunistic spot-andstalk hunting, calling cougars using predator calls, and hound hunting—tracking and baying cougars using trained hunting dogs. Most western states and provinces allow hound hunting, which has traditionally been the most common and effective method for hunting cougars. However, some stakeholders dislike the idea of pursing wildlife with dogs. As a result, Oregon and Washington have banned hound hunting. Where hound hunting is not allowed, predator calling and opportunistic cougar hunting during big game seasons appear to be comparably successful, based on harvest levels observed in Washington (Beausoleil et al. 2005) and South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. “South Dakota Mountain Lion Hunting Season,” http://www .sdgfp.info/Wildlife/MountainLions/MtLionhuntingseason .htm (accessed 2007). This may be a function of the increased number of cougar hunting permits issued and longer seasons in place of the more effective hunting method of using hounds. Results from Washington (Martorello and Beausoleil 2003) suggest that opportunistic cougar hunting is less selective than hound hunting. This has made female cougars more vulnerable: relative female harvest levels increased from 42 percent to 59 percent after hound hunting was banned in Washington. Harvest data from western states (management status reports in Becker et al. 2003, Beausoleil and Martorello 2005) suggest that hound hunting results in the higher harvest of males than females. Presumably, hound hunters have better opportunity than other hunters to identify females because they can often distinguish size differences when they encounter a track. They also can spend time observing the animal once it is treed. Additionally, they are more likely to encounter males while tracking, because males travel distances that average more than twice the average distances for females (Anderson 2003). On the other hand, opportunistic hunters who are not tracking cougars are more likely to encounter the more abundant sex (females; Logan and Sweanor 2001, Laundré et al. 2007). Bag Limits/Permits. Agencies have offered “sportsman packages” that included a cougar permit with the purchase of other game tags, but most states and provinces typically require the purchase of a separate cougar permit. Bag limits are most commonly set at one per season, but larger bag limits have been used to raise harvest levels in specific areas (e.g., where depredation incidents are high). Sportsman packages are more common where hound hunting is not allowed, in an attempt to increase the number of licensed hunters afield and thus maintain similar cougar harvest with less effective methods. Achieving Desired Cougar Sex and Age Classes of Harvest. It is illegal in most jurisdictions (with the exception of Texas; see Table 4.1) to kill spotted juveniles or females with young at their side (prohibitions known as cub laws; management status reports in Becker et al. 2003, Beausoleil and Martorello 2005). Although there are birth pulses, typically May–October (Figures 5.2–5.6; Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group 2005, 53), cougars may have young at any time of the year. Consequently, because kittens do not always accompany their mother, particularly when very young (Barnhurst and Lindzey 1989), hunters may unknowingly kill females that have young. Based on the proportion of reproductive-age females killed by hunters each year, evaluations in Wyoming (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2006b) suggest that juvenile loss resulting when females with young are killed average about twenty-two per year. Although undesirable, this loss should have limited effects on the statewide population. Female subquotas, cub laws, and the statutory timing of seasons to exclude summers are intended to offer juveniles and females with young some protection. Aiming in part to help hunters identify females and look for signs that they may have young, Colorado and Washington have recently introduced mandatory cougar hunter education programs, and New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming have similar voluntary programs. Pursuit Seasons. Currently, four states and one Canadian province provide special seasons during which cougars can be pursued by dogs and treed but not killed (Table 4.1). Some jurisdictions prohibit pursuit during ungulate seasons (Roberson and Lindzey 1984, 87). Pursuit seasons allow hound hunters increased opportunity to work their dogs by baying and releasing cougars during the pursuit season. Although cougar populations are ostensibly not directly impacted by this practice, unintentional kitten loss, potential for stressrelated mortality (Harlow et al. 1992), and increased illegal take may result. Dealing with Depredation. States and provinces have used various approaches to deal with livestock depredation. Generally, livestock owners are given a fair amount of latitude in dealing with problem cougars. Typically, they can kill the offending cougar without first obtaining a permit from the state. They are required to report any cougars killed and to justify their actions. Agencies have also responded to depredation problems by employing professional hunters, structuring hunting regulations to increase sport harvest in problem areas, reimbursing livestock owners for animals killed by cougars (four states and one Canadian province, Table 4.1), and contributing monies to federal animal damage control programs (Roberson and Lindzey 1984, 102, 204). �46 Charles R. Anderson Jr., Frederick Lindzey, Kyle H. Knopff, Martin G. Jalkotzy, and Mark S. Boyce Refining the Procedures Documenting the harvest level and composition is a required component of management. Hunter questionnaires have been used to estimate total harvest, location of kill, sex and age of the cougar taken, and effort expended. More commonly, agencies require that harvested cougars be checked by agency personnel, when biological data and hunter information are recorded. Cougars taken under depredation provisions are subject to similar reporting requirements, except in Texas, where cougar take is unregulated and mortality reports are voluntary (Young 2003). Management is the attempt to achieve desired objectives. Success is measured by how closely the results of the management prescription match the desired outcome. This implies that results can be measured, but cougar densities are rarely known or measured due to the cryptic nature of this solitary large carnivore and the rugged terrain it occupies. Hunting is the most controversial component of cougar management. Besides providing recreational opportunity, hunting is also used to alter populations in an effort to achieve specific objectives, such as reducing livestock depredation or predation on other animals, both of which are assumed to be related to cougar density. Although the relationship between cougar density and ungulate predation or depredation level is assumed to be linear—that is, a given percentage reduction of the cougar population will result in a proportionate reduction in predation or depredation—this has not been demonstrated (Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group 2005). Specifically, we do not know what percentage of the cougar population must be removed, if any, or what seasonal conditions, prey number regimes, and or husbandry practices result in a given level of predation or depredation reduction. Population Assessments Direct measures of cougar population characteristics (density, sex, and age composition) are needed to evaluate success of management programs, but estimating cougar numbers and documenting composition are difficult. The best density estimates have come from long-term studies of relatively small areas where most cougars were captured and dynamics of the populations were monitored (e.g., Hemker et al. 1984; Ross and Jalkotzy 1992; Logan and Sweanor 2001, Laundré et al. 2007). Such studies are costly, and they often yield data from central habitats where circumstances may differ from those in more peripheral parts of the species’ range. Nevertheless, these density estimates provide a starting point for management programs. Track surveys (Smallwood and Fitzhugh 1995) can provide estimates of relative cougar abundance in areas where tracking substrates are suitable, abundant, and sufficiently spaced to support a proper sampling design. Line intersect probability sampling, proposed by Van Sickle and Lindzey (1991), and later evaluated and expanded on by C. R. Anderson (2003), can yield precise density estimates and can detect 15–30 percent changes in population size with intensive sampling of moderate to high density populations that provide reasonable sample sizes (at least ten cougar tracks per survey). This approach, however, is expensive and geographically limited in application, because it involves helicopters and requires specific snow conditions. Indexes or indicators of population trend are valuable tools for agencies, but if population size is unknown, the actual relationship between the index (e.g., cougars harvested, depredation events, sightings) and population size is also unknown. Thus, where rigorous documentation of population status is still needed, indexes have limited use alone or even in combination. Anderson and Lindzey (2005) used the relative vulnerability of cougar sex and age classes to hunting, as described by Barnhurst (1986), and monitored changes in composition of a hunted population as it declined and recovered, in order to document compositional shifts that could be used to index population status. Various methods that use genetic identification with sight-resight analyses have been proposed (e.g., Ernest et al. 2002) and may provide useful population estimators in the future. Regardless of the monitoring methods available, multiple indicators should be used if the best evaluation of cougar management programs is to be achieved. Cougar Management Plans Most western states (except for Arizona, Montana, and Texas) periodically develop plans that, in effect, set the policy for cougar management and attempt to balance biological and social aspects. These plans typically include syntheses of available knowledge about ecology of the cougar and about management practices, provide for information and education efforts on how to avoid conflicts, and are intended to reflect stakeholder values incorporated after often lengthy public input sessions. Broad parameters are set for how objectives will be determined for hunt areas and at times management areas, how hunts are structured to accomplish objectives, and how accomplishment of objectives will be measured. Development of cougar management plans took hold primarily in the 1990s in response to several factors, including an accumulation of management and biological information from the Mountain Lion Workshops (see Chapter 2, Table 2.2), new agency personnel having a broader ecological background, the reported increase in cougar populations regionwide (management status reports in Becker �Cougar Management in North America 47 et al. 2003), increasing cougar-human interactions (e.g., Fitzhugh et al. 2003), and growing pressure from more diverse stakeholders challenging traditional cougar management programs. For the first time, cougar management began to include the human factor more explicitly. Approaches were developed to educate people living in and using cougar habitat on how to avoid conflicts (see Beausoleil et al. 2008). In addition, the management planning process began to acknowledge the value of cougars beyond recreational hunting, recognize potential threats to cougar populations from factors other than hunting (e.g., habitat loss), and accept the need for justification of hunting as a management tool and for transparency in the management planning process to ensure that all stakeholders are included. These are ostensibly major shifts, but results are variable; some of the newer participants contend that even where broader public input is effectively gathered, it is nevertheless often ignored (Chapter 14). Evaluation of Management Experience using various combinations of seasons, permits, and sex and age restrictions to achieve management goals has provided managers insight into the effectiveness of the different approaches. Dawn (2002) conducted the first broad-scale evaluation of cougar management strategies and, despite the apparent trend of progressively greater restrictions on hunters, results showed that the number of cougars taken by sport hunting increased (see Figure 4.1; Appendix 2). She noted that increases in harvests after states and provinces assumed management authority did not necessarily (but could) mean that cougar numbers had grown since the presumed lows in the mid-to late 1960s (Nowak 1976). Other factors might also have bearing, such as number and effectiveness of hunters and liberalization of allowable harvest limits. Further, Dawn’s analyses suggested that, among the season types, general seasons yielded the lowest harvest rates, a result she noted possibly reflected the fact that general seasons were most common during the early agency management period when cougar numbers were presumably low. The lowest percentages of females in the harvest occurred when female subquotas were imposed. Ross and colleagues (1996) also found that the harvest increased under the quota system in Alberta. However, they noted that the increase may have been due in part to concurrent increases in season length. The quota system with a female subquota resulted in a reduction of the proportion of females taken by sport hunters from 43 to 29 percent, with the increased harvest being composed primarily of males. Comparisons among various harvest methods over time can be tenuous because cougar numbers and hunter effectiveness may change. For example, less restrictive management strategies—that is, general seasons—are more common where cougar hunting is less effective, namely, in Figure 4.1 Reported number of cougars killed by sport hunters in the western United States, 1980–2007. Calendar year reported from Montana, Arizona and Oregon, and harvest year (fall of the previous year to spring of reported year) reported from Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Washington, New Mexico, Nevada, and Wyoming. The overall reported harvest increased threefold from the early 1980s to the late 1990s. �48 Charles R. Anderson Jr., Frederick Lindzey, Kyle H. Knopff, Martin G. Jalkotzy, and Mark S. Boyce areas lacking snowfall for tracking or areas where hound hunting is not allowed. Moreover, most states have shifted their management strategies in similar ways, broadly from general seasons to setting quotas (Dawn 2002, 25), during the period when cougar populations were considered to be increasing (management status reports in Becker et al. 2003 and Beausoleil and Martorello 2005). Further evaluations of the effectiveness of type and timing of seasons relative to cougar densities will increase the confidence of managers in their application. State and provincial agencies are uniquely positioned to test the prescriptions in their management plans, if they so choose, using designs built into an adaptive framework (see also Adaptive Management on page 49). Trends in harvest level should also be interpreted cautiously and in context. Harvest levels in western North America show remarkably similar trends, increasing during the early to mid-1990s, then leveling during the late 1990s and early 2000s, and exhibiting recent declines in some states (see Figure 4.1; Appendix 2). Although annual fluctuations in cougar harvests are in part related to changing harvest quotas/management strategies, some observers interpreted increasing harvests as endangering cougar populations, while others viewed the numbers as an indication that populations were growing at least sufficiently to support this increased harvest. States and provinces generally felt they were dealing with increasing populations (management status reports in Becker et al. 2003; Beausoleil and Martorello 2005) during the 1990s, even though evidence to support this conclusion was largely anecdotal, based on crude indices or a few long-term, localized studies. Four research efforts occurring at different but overlapping time spans and diverse locations (from New Mexico to Alberta) documented increasing cougar densities beginning in the mid-1980s and continuing through the mid-1990s (Ross and Jalkotzy 1992; Murphy 1998; Logan and Sweanor 2001; Laundré et al. 2007). Whether these localized observations reflected regionwide cougar population trends, however, is unknown. Three factors suggest that cougar populations were stationary, if not increasing, during the first three decades of agency management: (1) there was no consistent trend toward increasing adult females in the harvests, which would indicate that populations were being affected (Anderson and Lindzey 2005), (2) cougar populations were reestablishing along the species’ eastern range (i.e., South Dakota, North Dakota; see Range Map, p. vii) and (3) cougar observations have come from even farther east and in Canada (Chapter 12; see also Canadian section below). The recent downturn in harvests from some western states, however, may warrant attention. We do not know whether this trend reflects a reduction in cougar numbers and, if so, whether the reduction results from habitat conditions, prey densities (e.g., Laundré et al. 2007), increasing harvest levels (Dawn 2002), hunter participation, or a combination of these factors. Management summaries from the 2005 Mountain Lion Workshop Proceedings (Beausoleil and Martorello 2005) are conflicting relative to recent trends, suggesting a decline in cougar populations in British Columbia, Idaho, and Washington; increasing populations in Oregon and South Dakota; and stable populations in California and Nevada. If western cougar populations have indeed increased over the past thirty years and are reaching equilibrium, expansion eastward should be expected to continue and to present new management challenges in areas being recolonized. These population questions are controversial, and participants in the cougar debates tend to have very specific objectives. Livestock interests want management to lower depredation levels, and it has generally been assumed that the level of depredation is directly related to cougar density. Yet, the actual form of the relationship between cougar density and level of livestock depredation is not known. Addressing depredation simply by increasing the cougar harvest may find favor among livestock interests and deer and elk hunters who perceive a benefit from reduced cougar densities, but it garners less enthusiasm from the broader public and some cougar hunters, whose main interest is to ensure healthy/abundant populations. Thus, the challenge to management agencies is not merely to devise a biologybased approach that balances different interests but also to sell that approach to everyone and keep learning as we go along. While it may be relatively easy to document changes in livestock depredation or hunter opportunity, it is much more difficult, but equally necessary, to document concurrent changes in the cougar population. Among the population characteristics that have bearing here is the fact that cougar populations tend to be genetically and physically connected over large areas (see Chapter 3; Culver et al. 2000a; Sinclair et al. 2001; Anderson et al. 2004), with segments of each population’s overall area varying in suitability as cougar habitat and in terms of hunter access. The source-sink thesis described in Chapter 5 suggests that areas with low cougar survival (whether because of hunting and or other deaths) are supported by immigration from adjacent source areas, where survival and reproduction are higher. Logan and Sweanor (2001), and later Laundré and Clark (2003), used the source-sink concept to suggest a zone management and a metapopulation approach, respectively, whereby refuge areas are formally delineated within a state or province to guarantee sources. Abundance within these refuges of higher survival, and dispersal from them, should then ensure a supply of immigrants for exploited areas and assure continuation of viable populations. �Cougar Management in North America 49 Managers have long been aware that some areas of suitable cougar habitat are not hunted, or are seldom hunted; hunt areas were often initially delineated based on access, relative cougar density, and/or prevalence of depredation problems. Review of harvest records providing mortality density (number of human-caused deaths/area of cougar habitat) and sex and age of harvested cougars (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2006b) would help confirm initial assignment of hunt areas to source or sink status. Sex and age composition of harvests are best interpreted on the basis of whether the harvest is from a source or sink area. Harvests composed primarily of young and male cougars might be expected from both source and sink areas. For a source area, a preponderance of young male animals reflects harvest of the most vulnerable age class, with reproductive-age females remaining relatively secure. For a sink area, such a harvest may simply reflect the main category of cougars present (Anderson and Lindzey 2005). Past cougar mortality records providing changes in harvest sex-age composition, human-caused cougar mortality densities, and age estimates showing changes in age structure can assist in determining initial source or sink status of cougar populations. Monitoring changes in demographics of harvested cougars over time should allow detection of declines or increases in that population (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2006b). Adaptive Management State and provincial agencies do have the framework to design and conduct experiments to answer questions about the effectiveness of approaches such as using hunting to reduce livestock depredation, reduce predation on other desired wildlife, or reduce human-cougar interactions. Whether and how agencies use that framework depends on levels of interest, budget, and public pressure. The Cougar Management Guidelines (2005, 9) suggest that “adaptive management is characterized by the continual monitoring of indicators that measure progress toward the achievement of management goals and objectives, changing of management practices when new information indicates that better alternatives are available, monitoring relevant stakeholder values and interests, and the monitoring of natural environmental changes that may affect cougar management results.” While this statement seems to fit the cougar management approach of most agencies, learning from experiments requires that careful thought be devoted to their design and that agency and stakeholder support be secured. Management actions should be advanced as questions to be asked or hypotheses to be tested, with specific predictions made as to the outcome. For example, if an agency wished to test the question of whether sport hunting of cougars could reduce depredation on domestic sheep, the design would need to include means to measure level of cougar removal by sport hunting and level of sheep losses to cougars over the time of the experiment. Obviously, many other variables could act to influence the results. Sheep numbers and husbandry practices would ideally be held constant during the experiment, as would level of cougar harvest (this is where agency and stakeholder buy-in becomes essential). Weather patterns and general trends in cougar prey availability should be monitored as well. The results of such an experiment conducted in an area of contiguous cougar habitat might well differ from results in a more isolated area, indicating the need to replicate the experiment in other locales in order to predict better when and where sport hunting may be an effective tool to reduce sheep depredation problems. Results of properly designed experiments could be of value to managers throughout the species’ range, and if they were replicated with similar methods by a number of states and provinces, the cost and effort of gaining information could be shared. Recent Changes in Management Status Most western states and provinces have management authority over cougars, with the exception of Texas, where the species is not classified as a game animal and harvest is unregulated (Haverson et al. 1997; see also government mandates and jurisdictions discussion in Chapter 15). Management flexibility has been curtailed in some states and has more recently been relaxed in others. In 1990, California voters approved Proposition 117, which prohibited sport hunting of cougars. In 1994 a citizen ballot initiative called Measure 18 passed in Oregon, prohibiting hound hunting for cougars, and in 1996 Washington voters approved Initiative 655, likewise prohibiting the hunting of cougars with hounds (see Appendix 5 for more detail). Bills passed in 2004 in Washington (Beausoleil et al. 2005) and in 2007 in Oregon relaxed these prohibitions somewhat, allowing hound hunting for cougars in five Washington counties (increased to six counties in 2008) to address livestock depredation concerns and allowing the use of hounds for specific agency management actions in Oregon (e.g., depredation incidents). Cougars were reclassified in North Dakota in 1991, from state-threatened species to furbearer. South Dakota reclassified cougars in 2003, from state-threatened species to big game animal. Cougars have long been extirpated from most areas east of the Rocky Mountains except for the Florida panther, which the state classified in 1958 as endangered, with the federal government following suit in 1967 (Lotz 2005). Management emphasis went from documenting cougar presence to protection and recovery efforts (see Chapters 3, 12). �50 Charles R. Anderson Jr., Frederick Lindzey, Kyle H. Knopff, Martin G. Jalkotzy, and Mark S. Boyce Presence of cougar populations in other areas east of the Dakotas is currently unconfirmed, but sightings and occasional confirmed reports of dead cougars have increased in the past fifteen years (see http://www.cougarnet.org/ network.html for examples). Confirmed deaths and reliable reports have been documented in several midwestern states (e.g., Iowa, Missouri, Oklahoma). Whether these cougars are of captive or wild origin is unconfirmed in many cases, but known dispersal of radio-collared cougars from South Dakota into Oklahoma and Minnesota (Daniel Thompson, South Dakota State University, pers. comm., 2008) supports the notion that many of these records, at least west of the Mississippi River, are true wild dispersers. Additional factors also suggest potential expansion of western cougar populations eastward: the prevalence of males of dispersal age among the confirmed deaths; reemergence of cougar populations in eastern areas adjacent to the Rocky Mountain West (North Dakota, South Dakota, and possibly western Nebraska); and a recent increase in reliable cougar reports. As noted, observers in several western states considered cougar populations to be increasing during the 1990s, and this is supported by localized research documenting increasing cougar populations from New Mexico to Alberta (Ross and Jalkotzy 1992; Murphy 1998; Logan and Sweanor 2001; Laundré et al. 2007; on Canada, see below), and by genetic evidence suggesting recent demographic increase and expansion (Biek et al. 2006b). Whether establishment of cougar populations eastward succeeds will depend largely upon social acceptance and the proactive involvement of local wildlife agencies. Of the states bordering the known cougar distribution in the west, cougars are designated as protected in Louisiana and Wisconsin; game species with a zero harvest quota in Nebraska and Oklahoma; nongame in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Minnesota; and as unprotected in Iowa. Modification of management designations and implementation of management planning may be necessary to accommodate and/or prepare for cougar recolonization eastward. Special Circumstances in Canada Although most cougar research in North America has been conducted in the United States, findings presented in this book on cougar population dynamics, morphology, behavior, and interactions with prey are just as relevant to cougar north of the 49th parallel. Similarly, many of the general management issues described above also apply to Canada. Several aspects of the status and management of cougar in Canada are sufficiently distinct, however, that they deserve special attention: population distribution and abundance; level of protection, harvest, and control; and potential for range expansion and its implications for the northernmost cougars. Distribution and Population Status Prior to European settlement, cougar were present throughout the southern portions of Canada. Historical population size is unknown, but by the early 1900s a reduction of ungulates through market hunting and simultaneous persecution of predators probably restricted cougar at low densities to portions of British Columbia and western Alberta. As ungulate populations recovered by the mid-1900s cougar numbers are also thought to have increased, but as in the United States, bounty hunting and widespread poisoning for predator control may have limited recovery (Jalkotzy et al. 1992). Currently, breeding populations of cougar are known to be present in both Alberta and British Columbia (see Range Map, p. vii). With the possible exception of the far north, breeding populations of cougar are found across the entire British Columbia mainland and have also found their way onto the coastal islands, including Vancouver Island, where densities have reached levels among the highest ever recorded (Wilson et al. 2004). The estimated number of cougar in British Columbia is between 4,000 and 6,000 individuals (Austin 2005). By contrast, in Alberta, breeding populations have traditionally been relegated only in a relatively small region along the western edge of the province, where the most recent published population estimate is 640 cougars on provincial lands—that is, excluding Banff and Jasper national parks (Jalkotzy et al. 1992). Our ongoing research data suggest that either cougar populations have increased north of the Bow River, where they had not previously been directly studied, or the original estimates were too low in this large portion of Alberta’s cougar range. In either case, current cougar numbers in Alberta likely exceed the estimate provided in the early 1990s. Breeding populations of cougar have recently become established outside the previously well-defined eastern boundary for Canadian cougar along the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Alberta (see Range Map, p. vii). In the Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park, which straddles the Alberta-Saskatchewan border, a large number of cougar sightings, accidental trapping of an entire family group in snares set for coyote in December 2006, and high-quality photographic evidence of a second family group in August 2007 (Figure 4.2) are strong evidence that a breeding population exists in the park. Elsewhere in Saskatchewan, large numbers of cougar have been accidentally snared, shot, photographed, or confirmed by wildlife personnel since 2000. This, combined with numerous other sightings and reports across the province, has recently prompted the government �Cougar Management in North America 51 Management and Conservation Figure 4.2 A camera trap captured this cougar family in Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park in Alberta, Canada. This is the first photographic evidence demonstrating that breeding populations of cougar have moved east to the Alberta-Saskatchewan border. Photo by M. M. Bacon, Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park Cougar Study. to provide a provincewide estimate of approximately 300 cougars (Saskatchewan Department of the Environment 2007). Other than in the Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park, it is not clear where breeding populations might be found within Saskatchewan. Cougar sightings also are common in Manitoba, where a female cougar was shot and a male was trapped near the Duck and Riding mountains in 2004, suggesting the possibility of a small resident cougar population (Watkins 2005). In Ontario, large numbers of unconfirmed sightings in the Great Lakes region (e.g., Ontario Puma Foundation 2007) have led the provincial government to officially accept the presence of a breeding cougar population (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2007). Sightings are often unreliable indicators of cougar presence, however (Beier and Barrett 1993), and confirmation of breeding populations will require further evidence. If populations are present east of Saskatchewan, it remains unclear whether these are the remnants of original eastern cougar populations or derive from recent expansion out of the west or from the Dakotas to the south (see Range Map, p. vii). Confirmed presence of individual cougars has been reported in many other locations across the country. In Quebec and the Maritime provinces, for example, dedicated researchers have recently obtained genetic evidence of cougars occurrence (Gauthier et al. 2005). Cougars also have been confirmed as far north as the southern portion of the Yukon Territory (Jung and Merchant 2005). Dispersing cougars can cover incredible distances (Thompson and Jenks 2005), and many isolated occurrences and even repeated sightings may represent dispersing animals (see Chapters 5, 8, and 12). Alternatively, some of the eastern sightings and confirmed occurrences could be animals that have been released from captivity. Where confirmed incidents are particularly concentrated outside the known distribution of breeding populations, they may indicate resident populations occurring at low densities. As in most western states, cougars were managed as a bountied predator in Canada until the mid-twentieth century. They were extirpated from eastern Canada, and it was not until 1966 in British Columbia, and 1971 in Alberta, that the cougar achieved the status of big game animal. In Alberta, a comprehensive management plan is now in place (Jalkotzy et al. 1992), but it has not been updated since it was adopted in the early 1990s. At the time of this writing, there is still no official management plan for cougar in British Columbia, despite the fact that it is a species of important management concern in that province (Robinson et al. 2002). This is quite different from the way that cougars are managed in the United States, where official management plans are now the norm and are updated regularly in many states where cougar occur (e.g., Apker 2005; Barber 2005). Lack of a plan in British Columbia and of any updates to the Alberta plan mean that official activity does not incorporate recent developments in our understanding of predator-prey ecology, such as information on the ecosystem benefits derived from the presence of large carnivores, including cougars (Ripple and Beschta 2006). Stakeholder opinions, moreover, are not officially acknowledged. In the United States, stakeholder opinion is at least designated as a component of most cougar management plans, and public action has influenced management through ballot initiatives in California, Oregon, and Washington. In Alberta and British Columbia, by contrast, public opinion and new ideas may receive consideration by provincial agency staff in their day-to-day duties and may have some bearing on cougar management, but they are not reflected in official plans. Despite the lack of an official plan in British Columbia or regular updates in Alberta, cougar management remains an important issue. Cougar hunting is permitted and closely monitored in both provinces. In British Columbia, with the exception of some northern management units, cougar hunting is permitted throughout the province. The hunt is unlimited entry, with many units maintaining a bag limit of two cougar per hunter per season. Some management districts, however, have a female subquota limiting the number of females that can be taken each year. Cougar harvest in Alberta is regulated by a strict quota system for both males and females, with sex-specific harvest limits for each of several cougar management areas in the western part of the province (Ross et al. 1996). Both provinces permit hunting with hounds and forbid the harvest of spotted kittens or of females traveling with spotted kittens, although this regulatory constraint is a very recent development in British Columbia (Austin 2005). There is no season for cougar in the wildlife management units of eastern and northern �52 Charles R. Anderson Jr., Frederick Lindzey, Kyle H. Knopff, Martin G. Jalkotzy, and Mark S. Boyce Alberta, nor may cougar be hunted in any of the other Canadian provinces or territories. An important management issue for western Canadian cougar revolves around accidental snaring of the big cats. Snaring of wolves near carrion bait, often road-killed ungulates, is a common recreational and economic activity in western and northern Canada. Scavenging behavior has been demonstrated in cougars (Bauer et al. 2005), and some individuals scavenge frequently from animal remains (K. Knopff, unpublished data). Cougars are, therefore, susceptible to becoming by-catch in wolf and coyote snares. Because snaring for wolves is not currently permitted where cougars exist in the United States, cougars by-catch at wolf bait stations is a distinctly Canadian concern. Similar concerns exist, however, in states where snaring for coyotes is permitted and cougars also are present (Wyoming Game and Fish 2006b). By law, all human-caused cougar mortalities must be reported to provincial authorities. We analyzed the data for all reported mortalities in Alberta between January 2000 and March 2006. Over that six-year period, 837 humancaused cougar mortalities were reported. The vast majority of these were cougars harvested by licensed hunters (77 percent); the second most important source of humancaused mortality was accidental snaring (9 percent). Less frequent causes of mortality were removal of problem wildlife (4.7 percent), road kills (4.7 percent), and self-defense (2.3 percent). Trappers in Alberta cannot sell cougar hides and must forfeit all cougars trapped or snared to the province, so there are neither economic nor trophy incentives for cougar snaring. The removal of so many cougars through snaring is undesirable because it neither improves the ability of managers to preserve self-sustaining cougar populations nor assists in maximizing the benefit to Albertans through optimal allocation of the resource, two key management objectives outlined in Alberta’s cougar management plan (Jalkotzy et al. 1992). This issue has not previously received a great deal of attention, but our analyses show it to be an important source of human-caused cougar mortality in Canada, and it may become increasingly important in the United States if gray wolves are delisted and wolf management practices in Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming follow the Canadian model. Data currently available for cougar and wolf habitat selection, prey-site selection, and movement patterns (e.g., Alexander et al. 2006; Kortello et al. 2007; Atwood et al. 2007) might be usefully applied to help reduce the probability of unwanted by-catch of cougar at wolf bait stations, but the required analyses have yet to be conducted. As is true wherever cougars and people share the same space, an important component of cougar management in Canada involves managing cougar interactions with livestock, pets, and people. Between 1890 and 2004, British Columbia had thirty-nine cougar attacks on people, the highest number of any jurisdiction in North America, with the majority of the incidents occurring on Vancouver Island. Alberta has only experienced a single lethal cougar attack on a human (in 2001), but complaints involving cougars are frequent. As noted, nearly 5 percent of all human-caused cougar mortalities involve removal of problem animals by wildlife officers, and a further 2.3 percent are the result of self-defense. In addition, approximately as many problem animals were relocated (thirty-six) as were killed (thirtynine) by provincial wildlife agencies between January 2000 and March 2006. The high number of complaints by residents has led Alberta to amend its laws to allow cougars to be shot on sight on private land (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2007). Animals so taken may not be kept and must be turned over to provincial authorities. Compensation for livestock loss is available in Alberta from the Alberta Conservation Association but is unavailable in British Columbia (Austin 2005). As in the United States, high levels of negative interactions between cougars and people in Canada are likely a result of larger numbers of people living in and using cougar habitat, combined with a general increase in cougar numbers in recent decades. Cougar conservation and management are becoming increasingly important topics in the provinces east of Alberta, where cougars have previously been considered extirpated but are reappearing (Watkins 2005). No official management, conservation, or recovery plans have been in place for cougars in any of these provinces. Saskatchewan, however, is now in the position of developing a strategy for managing cougar populations and addressing conflict with people in regions where cougars are becoming established. It and the other provinces east of Alberta will be responsible for determining whether and to what extent cougars are able to repopulate historic range. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2007) lists the cougar in eastern Canada as data deficient, meaning that sufficient information is not available to assess the status of the eastern subspecies or assign it an extinction risk rating (i.e., extirpated or endangered). Therefore, if small populations of eastern cougar exist, they are not currently protected under Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA). In 2007, the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario independently designated the eastern cougar as endangered, stating that “there have been hundreds of sightings of cougars in Ontario over the years, and their presence here is generally acknowledged” (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources 2007). Consequently, the cougar now falls under the regulatory arm of the province’s Endangered Species Act, affording cougar in Ontario the highest level of protection of any cougar in �Cougar Management in North America 53 Canada. Revisions to the act, which took effect on June 30, 2008, require that no person kill, harm, or harass cougars and that both industry and the public must refrain from damaging cougar habitat. In addition, the act requires that the Province of Ontario develop and implement a recovery plan to bring cougar populations within the province up to a level where they are no longer threatened with extinction (Endangered Species Act, 2007, S.O., c. C-6). The Ontario cougar is only the second subpopulation in North America, after the Florida panther, to be classified as an endangered species. Range Expansion Population estimates and harvest information for the states and provinces with known breeding populations of cougars (Beausoleil and Martorello 2005) suggest that Canada probably supports less than one quarter of North America’s total cougar population. Relatively low human population densities, an abundance of suitable forested habitats, and large populations of ungulate prey, however, suggest potential for future population growth and range expansion in Canada. Indeed, this is already occurring. Eastward expansion of cougar may be occurring at present because it has taken western cougar populations time to rebuild from the days of bounties and general persecution. Cougar harvests and population estimates reached all-time highs in most western states and provinces around the turn of the new century (Beausoleil and Martorello 2005). Detailed genetic analysis (Biek et al. 2006b) lends additional support to the idea that North American cougars recently underwent substantial population expansion. With higher population densities, greater numbers of dispersers can be expected, facilitating expansion (see Chapters 4, 5, 12). Even so, range expansion is likely to be a relatively slow process because colonizers of both sexes must be simultaneously present and successfully produce offspring in the new habitat, and female cougars do not disperse long distances as often as males do (Sweanor et al. 2000). Anthropogenic features may also slow recolonization. For instance, while cougars do not generally avoid roads (Dickson and Beier 2002), major highways can present a barrier to dispersal if appropriate corridors or crossings are unavailable (see Chapter 12; Beier 1995). Highway 2, which runs north–south in Alberta and connects the major population centers of Edmonton, Calgary, and Lethbridge, may act as such a barrier, slowing expansion. Provided sufficient numbers of dispersing individuals are available, continued eastward expansion of breeding populations into suitable habitat where ungulate populations are high can reasonably be expected. Expansion north into boreal habitats that are not part of historic cougar range is also possible. Continued industrial development and global warming may play a role in the potential for future cougar expansion into higher latitudes in Canada. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have increased in abundance in many parts of North America, in some cases doing so well that they become a pest species (Augustine and DeCalesta 2003). Additional forage created by industrial deforestation combined with reduced snow depth and cover in winter (Rikiishi et al. 2004) may create conditions that are favorable for their expansion northward. Indeed, in Alberta, white-tailed deer have increased markedly (Latham, pers. comm., 2009) in some northern boreal forests that were originally the domain of moose (Alces alces) and woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) and were home to very few deer (Stelfox 1993). With increased prey densities, we speculate that cougar may successfully colonize areas north of their traditional breeding distribution (both present and historic), especially in riparian areas where prey is more plentiful. Between 2000 and 2004 in Alberta’s boreal region, over two hundred cougar occurrence reports were filed with the provincial government. These reports range across northern Alberta and include sightings, livestock depredation, and road-killed cougars (e.g., districts of Athabasca, Grand Prairie, Fort McMurray, and High Level). The reports do not confirm the presence of breeding populations, but, at a minimum, they provide evidence of northern dispersal movements by individual cougars. Expansion back into original cougar range in eastern Canada will serve to increase the resiliency of Canadian cougar populations and could serve to restore some ecosystem function in places where cougar have been absent for decades or centuries. Wolf reintroduction into the northwestern United States has had important top-down effects on ecosystems through trophic cascades (Beyer et al. 2007). Cougars have been linked to similar kinds of trophic cascades (Ripple and Beschta 2006), and effects on entire ecosystems might reasonably be expected as a result of recolonization (Chapter 10). As the Yellowstone wolf recovery program also demonstrates, however, predator repopulation can be controversial and can result in discontent among farmers, ranchers, and hunters. It is unclear how cougar expansion eastward will be received by Canadians, although there are indications that the response may be positive in some jurisdictions (Watkins 2005). Expansion northward has similar potential to increase the resiliency of Canadian cougar populations, and because of lower human population densities in the north, it is less likely to create controversy among residents. Ecosystem effects of colonization are still likely, and may not always be “positive.” Colonization of the boreal forest by cougar and white-tailed deer, for instance, may have important implications for other ungulates. Woodland caribou are a species at risk in some portions of the Canadian boreal �54 Charles R. Anderson Jr., Frederick Lindzey, Kyle H. Knopff, Martin G. Jalkotzy, and Mark S. Boyce forest (Edmonds 1991; Dzus 2001). The capacity for cougars to impact caribou populations negatively through apparent competition (Holt 1977) has been implied in other parts of Canada where cougar traditionally occur (Kinley and Apps 2001). Careful monitoring of cougar colonization (both north and east) by the provincial wildlife agencies would facilitate the identification and effective management of both the ecological and human conflict issues that surround cougar range expansion. Conclusion In Canada, the population distribution and size, level of protection, and management of cougar are entering a period of uncertainty and change. In the west, where cougar populations are well established, increasing human populations and development of rural areas will likely increase interactions between cougars and people. At the same time, there is great potential in Canada for cougar range expansion to both the north and east. Breeding populations of cougars have likely already become established in Saskatchewan and may also be present in Manitoba and Ontario. All this may serve to increase the profile of cougar in Canada and will likely result in the need for regularly updated management plans that account for stakeholder opinion, set protection levels and harvest objectives, and provide response guidelines for human-cougar interactions. If range expansion occurs at large scales, it will also increase the importance of Canada as a stronghold for cougar populations and will likely have important ecological consequences, both predictable and novel, for Canadian ecosystems. In the United States, wildlife managers with responsibility for cougars will continue to face the same issues they already know. Traditional stakeholders—livestock interests and hunters—have grown to expect hunting to play a major role in cougar management, whereas the larger public does not share this expectation and calls for reducing a suite of threats to cougar populations. The often diametrically opposing views of participants in decisions make it likely that middle ground will be hard to find; each group will dislike some management decisions and insist that these reflect pressure from other stakeholders. It is easy to describe, and perhaps even to implement, the steps agencies should take in their management of cougars: well-developed proposals with clearly stated objectives and scientific support as available; opportunity for stakeholder input; and transparency in a decision-making process, addressing as many stakeholder comments as possible. But even this approach will not result in all parties being happy with management decisions. View publication stats General growth of the human population and the trend toward rural housing developments will increase contacts between cougars and humans. Agencies need to hone protocols for dealing with people and cougars in populated areas and for handling incidents in which people are harmed or threatened (see Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group 2005, chap. 7). While most western states and Canadian provinces contain vast areas of contiguous, suitable cougar habitat, and cougars show remarkable flexibility in habitats that suffice as movement corridors, managers should be aware that massive land use changes and human structures can fragment habitats and compromise dispersal corridors (Chapter 12). In places, new issues are arising. Long before Europeans settled North America, cougars commonly moved through the plains states, and the frequency of recent confirmed reports suggests that this pattern may now be redeveloping. If so, agencies in these states are acquiring a new responsibility at a time of new complexity in public perceptions, and they will need to be both responsive and proactive about what to do in the novel situation of independent recolonization efforts by a large carnivore. Agencies and stakeholders will face many changes in the future and need to consider their actions in the broader context of how these will affect conservation of the species. Currently, hunting is the single most controversial aspect of cougar management programs. It is, after all, premeditated killing of cougars for sport or to address depredation, predation, or human safety concerns. Success is easily demonstrated only for recreational hunting. If hunting is removed from the equation, recreation is all that will be lost. Cougars will continue to be killed to protect livestock, to protect wildlife at risk (e.g., isolated bighorn sheep populations), and to address human safety concerns. Of potential threats to the species, sport hunting is the most visible and easily fixed by simply banning it, but it may be the least important in the long term. Alteration and fragmentation of habitats for cougars and the ungulate prey supporting them are ongoing and insidious and much more difficult to control. Loss of cougars because of habitat alteration will never be as obvious or as easily documented as cougars killed by hunters, making it much more difficult to develop support for necessary management actions. Decisions to protect cougar habitat in place of human development will be as controversial as decisions about hunting, or more so, and much more difficult to implement. The next phase of cougar management should see authority remain with state and provincial management agencies, and managers and stakeholders should recognize that habitat management is the crux of the long-term survival of the species. � 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 Journal Articles Description An account of the resource CPW peer-reviewed journal publications Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. 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 Cougar management in North America Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">In Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Permitted</a> Date Created Date of creation of the resource. 2009 Subject The topic of the resource Cougar <em>Puma concolor</em> Wildlife management Conservation Wildlife conservation Description An account of the resource <p>The cougar is one of the most beautiful, enigmatic, and majestic animals in the Americas. Eliciting reverence for its grace and independent nature, it also triggers fear when it comes into contact with people, pets, and livestock or competes for hunters’ game. Mystery, myth, and misunderstanding surround this remarkable creature.</p> <p>The cougar’s range once extended from northern Canada to the tip of South America, and from the Pacific to the Atlantic, making it the most widespread animal in the western hemisphere. But overhunting and loss of habitat vastly reduced cougar numbers by the early twentieth century across much of its historical range, and today the cougar faces numerous threats as burgeoning human development encroaches on its remaining habitat.</p> <p>When Maurice Hornocker began the first long-term study of cougars in the Idaho wilderness in 1964, little was known about this large cat. Its secretive nature and rarity in the landscape made it difficult to study. But his groundbreaking research yielded major insights and was the prelude to further research on this controversial species.</p> <p>The capstone to Hornocker’s long career studying big cats,<span> </span><i>Cougar<span> </span></i>is a powerful and practical resource for scientists, conservationists, and anyone with an interest in large carnivores.  He and conservationist Sharon Negri bring together the diverse perspectives of twenty-two distinguished scientists to provide the fullest account of the cougar’s ecology, behavior, and genetics, its role as a top predator, and its conservation needs. This compilation of recent findings, stunning photographs, and firsthand accounts of field research unravels the mysteries of this magnificent animal and emphasizes its importance in healthy ecosystem processes and in our lives.</p> Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Anderson Jr, Charles R. Lindzey, Frederick Knopff, Kyle H. Jalkotzy, Martin G. Boyce, Mark S. Language A language of the resource English Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Cougar : Ecology & Conservation Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available University of Chicago Press Extent The size or duration of the resource. 14 pages Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Anderson, C. R. Jr, F. G. Lindzey, K. H. Knopff, M. G. Jalkotzy, and M. S. Boyce. 2010. Cougar management in North America. Pages 41-54 <em>in</em> M. Hornocker and S. Negri, Editors. Cougar: Ecology and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, USA. Type The nature or genre of the resource Article