http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/cougar.html

A plummeting cougar population alters the ecosystem at Zion National Park

• By Eric Jaffe
• Smithsonian.com, December 01, 2006

It All Falls Down Growing crowds at Utah's Zion National Park have led to the displacement of cougars, the area's top predator, resulting in a devastating series of changes to the region's biodiversity, environmental scientists report.

Compared with a nearby habitat in which cougars still thrive, Zion has fewer cottonwood trees, butterflies, amphibians and wetland plants, and much more deer, according to a paper that appears in the December Biological Conservation.

"The effects have been quite strong and rippled through this ecosystem," says Robert L. Beschta of Oregon State University, who coauthored the study.

Zion's dwindling cougar population traces its roots to the late 1920s, when park management made efforts to increase visitation. By 1934, tourism had risen considerably, attracting some 70,000 visitors a year—about eight times what it had been only a decade earlier. Today the park receives about three million annual visitors.

To measure the impact of the shrinking cougar population, Beschta and William J. Ripple, also of Oregon State, collected census data on Zion's deer populations dating back to the 1930s. They also studied tree rings to estimate the age and abundance of cottonwoods, a favorite food of young deer, and surveyed nearby river banks to gauge the number of butterflies, frogs, lizards and certain plants.

The researchers compared their figures with similar populations from an area next to Zion called North Creek, which has a stable cougar population. They found more deer, fewer young cottonwood trees and less riverbank life in Zion—a difference they attribute to the absence of cougars in the park.

"These major predators are a key component of maintaining biodiversity," Beschta says. "Most people look [around Zion] today and think it's natural, but it's not."

The evidence from Zion suggests a system of trophic cascading, in which a reduced population of top predators has a trickle-down affect on the plants and animals below them in the food chain.

In Zion's case, tourists caused the shy cougar, also called the mountain lion, to flee the area. Deer, which are the cougar's main prey, increased in abundance, leading to a spike in the consumption of young cottonwood trees. These changes contributed to the erosion of riverbanks and a decline in wetland species.

Though trophic cascades have been well-documented in marine life, environmental scientists have debated their presence on land, says biologist Robert T. Paine of the University of Washington, who was not part of the study. Some cascade doubters believe that competition for food regulates deer populations in the absence of a top predator.

"This is a terrific contribution to a growing body of evidence that [cascades] occur in major terrestrial systems," says Paine, who coined the term "trophic cascade" in 1980. Recent studies of shrinking numbers of wolves in Yellowstone National Park have shown similar effects on plant-life.

Restoring at least part of the cougar population could, over time, rebalance Zion's ecosystem. One way to boost the number of predators might be to limit vehicle access to the park, speculates Ripple. When the park implemented a bus system that reduced car traffic in 2000, he says, cougar sightings increased.

 

  Photo by Mark Elbroch for Felidae Conservation Fund

********************************************************************************************************************

 

John W. Laundré

More and more we as a society are facing problems with how wildlife of all types are managed in the United States.  We see increasing conflicts and polarization between hunting and anti-hunting groups.  On the one side, invoking the pioneer tradition of our ancestors, hunting groups contend that the right to hunt is undeniable and is essential to the sound management of our wildlife resources.  On the other hand, anti-hunting groups contend that the need to kill wildlife animals is no longer justified and hunting represents a next to barbaric act against living, feeling animals. On one side, hunters contend that because they pay the bills for the management of wildlife resources through their licenses and a federal excise tax on their hunting equipment, they are the only ones who should have a say in how wildlife manage.  On the other side, anti-hunters argue that moral objections to the slaying of innocent animals overrides any priority as to who has a say in these matters.  And the arguments go on and on.  Both sides have their army of lawyers and donating members to support the lawyers.  Each spends millions of dollars for their causes and sometimes hunters win and other times anti-hunters win battles but the war goes on, seemingly without end.  Should it be that way?  Should we manage or mismanage our wildlife resources though the press, through the courts?  Who should have the say over wildlife management and what should that say be?

Given that hunters only comprise 5% of Americans of hunting age and approximately 16% of Americans disapprove of hunting, anti-hunters outnumber hunters by three to one.  In the land of majority rule, should not the majority hold sway over the minority?  But 16% is far from a majority of the American people. What about the other 79% of America?  Should they also have a say?  And if they do, what would it be?  Of that 79%, 74% approve of hunting but do not hunt.  Thus, the majority would seem to fall squarely on the side of hunters.  But do non-hunters (the 79% who don’t hunt but are not anti-hunting) approve of how hunting is used in wildlife management and if they do or do not, is their voice heard? Are they allowed to express an opinion? Who then has the say over how wildlife are managed in America, the hunters, the anti-hunters, or the rest of the American people?  Again, in all this, majority or not, hunters fall back on their base preposition, they pay for wildlife and so they should have the say, the only say.  In doing so, they are denying this right to even the 73% of Americans who favor hunting and 95% of the American people are left out of these decisions. One has to ask how such a system differs from the European one our Founding Fathers tried to avoid: wildlife being owned and managed by a small fraction of landowners verses a small fraction of the population who feel they own the “right” to wildlife and how they are managed. In both cases, the majority of the public is left out of the decision process.  

Central to the answers to all these questions are two more fundamental questions of first, who owns the wildlife in America and second who is paying for their management/conservation?  If we can answer these questions, then we at least define the “rights” of the different sides in the overall argument. 

So, first, who owns the wildlife in America?  As mentioned above, our founding fathers abhorred the European system where large landowners also owned the wildlife on those lands. To avoid these problems in the new more egalitarian society they were forming, the formers of our government declared that each state claimed ownership of wildlife on behalf of its people.  This state ownership was reinforced by the Greer v Connecticut Supreme Court decision that forbid interstate transport of wildlife killed within a state and “to confine the use of such game to those who own it, the people of the state”.  So clearly, from the beginning to today, we the people, ALL of us own the wildlife within our respective states. And not only do we own the wildlife, imbedded in that ownership is the right to regulate it by all of us.  Further, IF that wildlife is migratory or lives on Federal lands in a state, not only do state residents have the right to regulate it but so does the rest of the nation.  As stated in the Constitution, “Congress (all of us) shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States” (Article IV).   This puts most wildlife in the National public trust and this right has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court. So clearly stated, all wildlife belongs to all the people and all the people should have a say in how it is managed.

What about the argument that those who pay should have the most, if not all, the say in how wildlife is managed?  This brings us to the more fundamental question of who actually does pay for wildlife management in the U.S.?  Is it just the hunters?  And what wildlife are they paying to manage?  There is no doubt that hunters pay a large amount of money to manage wildlife.  For many states, game agencies are strictly funded by hunting license fees, to the tune of millions of dollars.  Figures range around 600-700 million dollars nationwide.  In addition to the hunting license and fees, the Pittman-Robertson act in 1937 dedicated a 10% excise tax on firearms and ammunition to be spent on wildlife restoration.  This fund generates around 150 million dollars a year to be distributed to the states.  If we add to this figure an estimated 10 BILLON dollars hunters spend when they go hunting, it all comes up to an impressive amount of money they spend on wildlife.  So, maybe they should get the say?  But wait a minute, let’s look at the possible contributions from non-hunters.  Regretfully, non-hunters who use and enjoy the outdoors do not pay an excise tax on sporting equipment.  They had a chance to do so but did not follow through, but that is another story.  Though they do not contribute to wildlife by an excise tax, do they contribute in other ways?

Let me count the ways.  First fees.  It is true we don’t have a wildlife watching fee or license, though that might be a good idea!  But non-hunter, when they use the great outdoors do pay fees, camping fees, entrance fees.  How much?    On the state level, it varies from state to state with a state like California generating 81 million dollars in park fees and more modest 3-10 million dollars in other states.  If we use a modest 10 million dollars a year average by state, nationwide, park users pay 500 million dollars a year toward the maintenance of the lands AND by default wildlife on those lands.  Add to that, the fact that general tax revenues are also used to make up any difference in expenditures probably in an equal amount.  This means general taxpayers, 95% of which do not hunt, pay several hundred million dollars in state taxes to support parks AND the wildlife on these lands.  Add to that the average 1 million dollars per state taxpayers check off on their tax forms for nongame species and the total state contributions come up to around 1.5 billion dollars a year.

What about the Federal level?  For National Parks, entrance fees generate around 25 million dollars a year.  But the National Park budget, is around 3 billion dollars a year, again, paid for in grand part by the 95% non-hunters. We have to add to that the annual budget of the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife of 2.5 billion dollars.  Also, the U.S. BLM (960 million dollars) and the Forest Service (5.1 billion dollars), which maintain large tracts of land for wildlife, add another 6 billion taxpayer dollars to the pot.  I am sure I missed some other state and federal agencies whose goal it is to maintain lands and thus the wildlife on them but this should do for now. 
Adding up the state revenues and the various Federal sources, we see that recreation users and general taxpayers support wildlife to the tune of around 12 BILLON dollars annually.  This compares to the annual 800-900 MILLION dollars generated by sportsmen. But how about that 10 billion dollars generated by sportsmen spending?  If we compare the number of people participating in hunting versus other outdoor activities, the latest figures are:  24 million hunters vs 317 million outdoor enthusiasts.  Of those, more people go birdwatching (67 million) than hunting.  If we assume a similar per person spending as hunters, then these non-hunters are spending over 130 billion dollars!  So, I leave it up to you to decide, are hunters the only ones paying for wildlife? 

One last important note.  Although hunters do pay hundreds of millions of dollars for wildlife management, that money is normally earmarked for specific wildlife, the ones they hunt.  Though some money is spent on nongame species, it is done grudgingly or is listed as a side benefit.  Most game agencies are not paid to nor really care to manage non-game species.  They know where the money comes from and cater to hunters to “put more game in the bag”. State game commissions are the same in that they know who they are paid by and as the name indicates only deal with game species.  What this does is produce single species management where wildlife in general, the supposed great benefactor of the hunters largess, are ignored or worse yet, like predators, treated as vermin to be hunted without control because they interfere with game species.  This also leaves the other 95% of the population, who is really paying the lion’s share for wildlife habitat, with little or no say on how the other 99% of the wildlife are managed.  This is wrong and needs to be changed.  If game agencies cannot, will not, manage the rest of the wildlife resources in a proper manner, then they should only be allowed to manage the ones they are being paid for, game species.  This excludes predators which they only “manage” (kill) in response to hunters’ cries for more game.  All nongame species should be wrenched from game agencies’ grasps and given to new standalone state wildlife agencies who cater to the 95% of the people who REALLY pay the bill for wildlife habitat. We need a dramatic change in how wildlife are managed in this country and the separation of “game” management and wildlife management is the first critical step.  Let the game agencies with their millions of hunter dollars manage the deer and the ducks but let the new wildlife agencies manage the rest of the wildlife the way they should be managed, based on sound ecological science, not hunter demands. It is time we stop sacrificing the many for the few in the wildlife world and start managing our wildlife as the integral part of the ecosystems they are. 

 

 

Dr. John W. Laundré
We hear more and more of the bemoaning of western politicians and hunting interests concerning how wolves are “decimating” the elk herds, causing economic hardships for outfitters and guides, and how it then ripples down to economic problems for the rural areas surrounded by the hunting of elk.  Based on all this concern, the three main states where wolves have returned, when handed the management of this species, have declared war on wolves with overall plans of not managing them as they would other wildlife but of reducing their numbers to ecologically ineffective levels.  And secretively, even eliminating them from parts if not all of their states.  Are these concerns of first reducing the elk herd and second, economic hardships that follow, founded in fact or in hysterics?  As for the first concern, though the politicians continue to deny it, their own wildlife biologists continue to report healthy numbers of elk in all parts of their states.  There is no solid scientific data indicating that wolves are “decimating” elk herds.  For this concern, suffice to say, it is really a case of Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling and I will not deal with it here.  It is a convenient lie perpetrated by politicians to get votes.
The second concern, reduced revenue because of the wolves, could happen even if wolves are not significantly reducing elk.  One way, ironically, is just by state politicians repeating the myths of reduced elk herds, they themselves create a negative atmosphere where people, especially out of state hunters, think twice about coming to their state.  So their rhetoric in itself is what is causing some of the economic problems they are trying to blame on the wolves.  However, is it possible that wolves are having an economic effect in themselves?  Though not decimating elk herds, are they reducing them enough to have a net negative economic impact? I will use the state of Idaho to analyze this potential problem. First we need to just see how lucrative elk hunting is to a state like Idaho.
Based on data from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, in 2010 there were approximately 63,615 elk tags sold to resident hunters at $31.00 per tag.  I don’t count the hunting license they have to buy because that can be used for other animals.  Here I just want to see what elk bring in.  For out-of-state hunters, around 10,000 tags were sold for $416.00 plus a hunting license of $155.00 or $572.00 per hunter.  I included the license fee here because many of these hunters come specifically to hunt elk.  What these numbers give us is total revenue of $7,676,161.00 dollars going directly into the state coffers, usually to support the Fish and Game Department.  As for the general economy, the politicians point to the millions of dollars hunters spend preparing for hunting and when hunting.  This is primarily aimed at out of state hunters, new money to the state.  Estimates range as low as $40/day to over $100/day hunters spend in the field.  If we use the higher value of $100/day and an estimated 7 day trip (including travel and time in the field), the economic stimulus from out of state elk hunters is around another $7 million more dollars.  This money goes into the coffers of local businesses and is indeed not a small amount of money.  Any reduction in either of these amounts then could be viewed as adversely affecting the economy of the state.  However before we decide to pull the trigger, let’s look at the other side of the coin.
Having seen how much money elk hunting brings into the state, let’s ask the question, would wolves be able to bring in money to the state and if so, how much?  To analyze that, we need to turn to Idaho’s neighbor, Wyoming, and specifically, what is happening in Yellowstone National Park.  Here wolves were released in 1995 and initially, local towns around the Park complained of economic hardships because of the loss of elk hunters, etc.  However, a mere 16 years later, little complaining can be heard from local businesses.  This is because over that period of time, millions of people have come to Yellowstone to see wolves.  The estimate is that of the 3.6 million visitors to Yellowstone Park in 2010, 44% (1.6 million) were specifically interested in seeing wolves.  An average of 3.5% (127,407) said they would not have come to Yellowstone Park if they did not have the opportunity to hear or see wolves. What has this meant for local businesses?  Based on the average amount visitors spent in the counties surrounding Yellowstone and just that 3.5% who would not have come without wolves, the estimate is that $22.5 million dollars could be attributable just to wolves.  On the three state scale (Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana), the estimate strictly from people who specifically came to see wolves jumps to $35.5 million dollars.  So not surprisingly, business owners around Yellowstone do not complain much lately.  In fact, because wolves can be seen and heard year round, motels and restaurants have experienced booming business during the “off” seasons.  So wolves bring in 3 times as much money to communities as do all of the out-of-state elk hunters in Idaho!  It also means that the approximately 100 wolves in Yellowstone are worth $225,000 EACH!!!!
What about the outfitters and guides, do they still complain? Those that still rely only on elk hunters probably do but those who have adapted to the new market are doing well.  One company offering ecotours, specifically to see wolves in the winter, had 650 people participate from 2006 to 2009 at a cost of $650 to $2,000 per person and brought in revenues of around a million dollars.  And this is not the only one.  A 2005 survey of 27 guides showed that over one year, 6,165 people participated (average of 228 clients per firm) in various outings to see wolves at an average cost of $761 per person, which brought in a total of $4.7 MILLION dollars!  Divided by the 27 firms, this is an annual average gross income of $174,000 dollars per firm JUST FROM WOLVES! 
Let’s compare these numbers to the income guides can make from elk hunter clients.  In Idaho, there are approximately 200 licensed elk guides.  They charge anywhere from $600 to $1000 a day per person.  Average trips are 5-7 days.  Let’s use 7 days and $1,000 dollars/days or an average trip income of $7,000 per person.  The number of clients that were guided in 2009 was approximately 1,200.  This then is an average revenue of $7.0 million dollars/year.  Divide this among the 200 guides and each guide averages $35,000 per year just for elk; a modest sum that is earned over an approximate 3 month period, IF they guide for all weapon types.  I guess that then leaves them free to make their living at second jobs the other 9 months of the year! 
What if these same guides began guiding people to see and hear wolves?  If each guide service offered trips to an average of 230 clients a year (mere 20 people a month) at an average cost of $761/person, each guide would bring in $175,000 a year per firm or $35 MILLION dollars!  This is 5 times as much as elk guides bring in now! This brings up an important aspect regarding guiding for wolves, it can be done year round!  There is no off season, unless you want to take a break from earning all that money!  If guides are really concerned about making a living as guides, then they should look at the numbers and realize that adding predator watching to their menu will indeed enhance the bottom line year round!!!  It is time outfitters and guides grasp this golden opportunity to expand their business into this lucrative area.  They should not look at the return of wolves as hurting their business but as allowing them to expand it into unheard of growing markets that have no limit. 

Why is there no limit?  Where are all these clients going to come from? We are talking about ONLY 6,000 people a year!  In Idaho alone in 2006, 419,000 people (61% from out of the state) went to view mammals!  These are the most likely people to be interested in seeing or hearing wolves.  All the elk guides in Idaho working year round would only be able to satisfy < 2% of their total potential market!  This is an enormous untapped market where clients are literally beating on doors for you to take their money!  Will guides be good businessmen and tap into this market or will they continue to cling to a seasonal business that brings in relatively small amounts of money compared to the potential for wolf watching? 
It makes good business common sense for a company to change its product to serve a changing market otherwise it will go out of business.  Companies that survive are those that switch from selling ice to selling refrigerators, from selling wagons to selling cars, from selling adding machines to selling computers,… from selling hunting elk to selling watching wolves.  With or without wolves, guide revenue from elk hunting has and will continue to decline.  If outfitters and guides do not add wolf watching to their mix, they will soon be selling a product few people want.
And their wolf watching clients will all spend money in the local towns!  Imagine little towns like Challis in Central Idaho.  If they became wolf “hotspots”, guides and businesses would have a year round lucrative income!  Wildlife watchers spend approximately $334/person so those 6,000 people would spend over $2 million dollars locally.  This compares to $1.2 million spent by guided elk hunters.  And that $2 million is less than 2% of what is possible!  Nationwide, statewide, wildlife watchers spend more locally than hunters because there are just so many more of them!  The number of mammal watchers nationwide continues to grow, topping 16.2 million in 2006 while the number of hunters at 12.5 million continues to decline about 1% a year. To not tap into this lucrative growing market just does not make good business sense! 
So, yes, Idaho might lose some revenue from elk hunters but IF the state capitalizes on the profits that can be made from a public hungry to see and hear wolves, not only would those revenues make up for but greatly exceed any losses from wolves eating elk.  In fact, the best use of elk may just be as food to support the wolf related industry!  Are the politicians of Idaho cashing in on this potential?  Noooo, instead they charge a person $11.50 to shoot a wolf that is easily worth over $100,000 alive!!???  By denying the potential income from wolves for the citizens of the state, politicians are committing an extreme economic injustice.  They are denying the rural areas of needed revenue for schools, hospital, roads….  Their misguided actions are keeping these rural areas in economic backwaters as they insist on clinging to a shrinking market.  If they truly had the economic wellbeing of rural constituents in their best interest, politicians should do the numbers and see that wolves are probably the best thing to happen to rural Idaho (and Montana and Wyoming) in a long time. Ecotourism, especially for viewing large carnivores is the economic engine of the future for states like Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.   If politicians fail to realize the economic value of wolves, they are doing a tremendous disservice to their citizens by losing tens of millions of dollars of revenue.
The assistant director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game commented in 2009 regarding estimating possible lost revenue from wolves impacting elk: “We’ve gone through this type of analysis… it helps illustrate for the public and the Legislature that there are economic costs to foregone opportunities.”  I agree with her whole hardily and conclude that the western states that now have wolves need to “go through this type of analysis” and look at the economic loss incurred from foregone opportunities for ecotourism relative to wolves. If they do the numbers as I have done, they will see that wolves are more valuable alive than dead and their current policies are indeed killing the golden goose.  

WHAT STATE GAME AGENCIES SAY

“Cougar sightings are up, therefore, the population has increased.”

WHAT THE EXPERTS SAY:
“In our experience during 1988-1992, at least 75% and perhaps as many as 95% of the routine sightings were cases where the observer has misidentified a bobcat, coyote, domestic dog, raccoon, or deer.”

-- Dr. Paul Beier & Dr. Reginald H. Barrett: “The Cougar in the Santa Ana Mountain Range, California,” June 1, 1993.

“80% of the calls the department receives about mountain lion sightings (in Placer County) are something else -- dogs, bobcats, or domestic cats.”

 -- Ryan Brodrick, Chief, Region II, California Department of Fish And Game, at Placer County Meeting on Mountain Lions, March 13, 1995.

CONCLUSION:

SIGHTINGS DO NOT PROVIDE USEFUL INFORMATION ABOUT COUGAR POPULATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE UNRELIABLE!


AND EVEN IF THERE IS A VERIFIED COUGAR SIGHTING:

“The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) logs hundreds of Wildlife Incident Reports annually related to mountain lion sightings. On average, fewer than three percent of these reports result in a mountain lion being identified as an imminent threat to public safety and killed under the CDFG’s Wildlife Public Safety Guidelines.

The vast majority of these reports (79 percent) are resolved by providing information about the natural history and behavior of mountain lions. Another 18 percent of cases are legitimate threats posed by mountain lions that can be resolved by modifying human behavior.”

 -- California Department of Fish and Game Website, March 3, 2011 -- http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/lion/trends.html

 

 

Below is a letter Tim, president of Mountain Lion foundation wrote and gave OreCat permission to reprint.  Tim spells out very clearly the fundamental flaws consistently found in Statewide cougar "management" plans.  The numbers don't add up and here in Oregon it is no different.  Oregonians have been treated to the same flawed number system and wrong science.  Please read this letter and prepare for yet another season of an irresponsible cougar management plan laced with lies about fears of children being attacked even though no child has been killed from cougars in 150 years.  However, drugs, cars, guns and an occasional parent kill children every year. And no child was killed before or after the cats were shot to extinction in 36 States. And too many 3rd hand unsubstantiated stories from folks who want the cats killed, of cougar attacks or sightings.  Isn't it time we stop getting manipulated by people who enjoy killing animals?   There are safer and much better ways to protect Oregonians and cougar. Read the science in this letter and you will begin to understand how gun lobbyist and big game hunters will try to manipulate you for their personal hunting "rights".


MOUNTAIN LION FOUNDATION


Saving America s Lion ™
July 23, 2010

Mountain Lion Management Plan Comments


South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks


523 E Capitol Avenue


Pierre, SD 57501


Via Overnight Courier and email (chad.switzer@state.sd.us)


 

Re: Draft 2010 - 2015 South Dakota Mountain Lion Management Plan


To the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks Commission:


On behalf of the Mountain Lion Foundation (MLF) and our members and
 supporters in South Dakota and throughout the United States, I present these
 comments on the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks'
(SDGF&P) Draft 2010 - 2015 Mountain Lion Management Plan. The Mountain
Lion foundation is dedicated to protecting and conserving mountain lions
throughout the United States and in promoting peaceful coexistence between 
mountain lions and humans.


The Mountain Lion Foundation's review of South Dakota's Draft 2010-
2015 Mountain Lion Management Plan found the document full of conflicting 
numbers, flawed mathematical equations, bad scientific practices, faulty
 assumptions, and a complete disregard of the basic biological and behavioral
 qualities of the species. The following are our most vehement objections to
 this Plan.


First, the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks have turned
 the issue of managing the State's mountain lion population into a much 
narrower focus of managing mountain lions in the Black Hills.
The state of South Dakota encompasses 75,896 square miles of land. Of
 this, the Black Hills region is less than seven percent ofthe state's land area.
SDGF&P's mountain lion management plan presents the Black Hills as the
"only" viable mountain lion habitat in South Dakota because this is where
 resident territories and breeding populations are currently found.
  What is not presented to the public is the fact that, until the species was 
extirpated from the state sometime around 1906, mountain lions could be
found throughout the entire state. Because of this human induced extinction,
South Dakota's mountain lion population is undergoing the slow process of
 recolonization. A process which has slowed even further in consequence of the
 disproportionate number of trophy-hunting related lion mortalities throughout the region 
(South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana) which have vacated previously held resident 
territories.


Studies show that mountain lions are a highly adaptable species which can live in almost all 
types of environments ranging from high mountain forests to harsh desert canyons. A key 
determining factor for suitable lion habitat is the availability of their primary prey species--deer.
  The National GAP Analysis Program's listing of suitable habitat, and prey species probability
 virtually guarantees that mountain lions could exist almost anywhere within South Dakota.
  Mountain lions as a species are biologically designed to disperse. Maturing juveniles have been
known to travel hundreds of miles to establish home range territories. By not allowing the 
species to roam, inbreeding will inevitably occur (as is seen with the approximately 100 
panthers left in Florida) and the genetic health of the population will decline.
The bottom line is that mountain lions should be managed on a larger, regional scale and
not confined within the Black Hills. Until the recolonization process is complete, with a
mountain lion population appropriately scattered throughout the state, any discussion about 
overpopulation and habitat limits is premature.


Second, the relatively small size of South Dakota's mountain lion population, makes the
 accurate estimate of population numbers critical in making any reasonable management 
decisions, and dramatically increases the margin of error risks. An analysis of SDGF&P's 
mountain lion population estimate raises several questions as to the validity of their population
 growth mode" and identifies major errors in their mathematical calculations.

For example, SDGF&P's rate-of-growth calculation is based on the maximum growth rate, 
found in one study (Logan and Sweanor 2000L which took place in an environment totally
 dissimilar to that found in South Dakota. In actuality, mountain lion growth rate values can and
 do change annually in anyone area, and are highly dependent on unique geographic factors. By 
not looking beyond a single aspect of a single study, SDGF&P researchers are violating sound
 analytical practices and have risked developing a population estimation formula which is likely
 to be misleading and far from reality.

After creating this potentially faulty population growth model, SDGF&P attempted to justify 
their conclusions by using their 2007-2009 mountain lion harvest data. But according to them,
"No harvest occurred in 2008 due to movement of the harvest season to January 2009. Harvest 
data for 2009 provided a similar estimate of population size to that of 2007." The three years of
 harvest data supposedly used for the population estimate is actually just 2007's mortality
 numbers, which means they are relying on only one year's data to assume population trends.
SDGF&P rationalize this choice by saying 2009 was "similar" to 2007 and thus they only needed
 to use results from one of the years. Their harvest data is noted below.

	2007	2008	2009
Female	16	NH	15
Male	3	NH	11
Area 3	19	0	0

Yes, female mortality data was similar (16 to 15) but the male lion harvest (3 to 11)
increased drastically! That's up 267 percent ... how convenient to ignore the higher male
harvest year.


Even if you overlook the fact that they are only using one year's data to support a trend 
analysis, and selecting their favorite year to build upon, they still screwed up their calculations.
SDGF&P noted that in 2007, estimates of population size were generated for the female
 segment of the population . ... " This decision was made... due to total harvest of one radio
 collared male." At the time, South Dakota's collection of radio-collared lions totaled 35 (15 
males, 20 females- page 29). When calculating the female segment of the population by harvest 
data from 2007, the harvest rate should therefore be calculated as 5/20 collared females, NOT 
5/35 total (male + female) collared lions. This error in their mathematical calculations for 
population estimates on page 5 leads to a drastically different estimate of South Dakota's
mountain lion population.


A total of 16 total female lions were killed that year. Five of those killed were radio collared, 
thus 5 out of 20 radio-collared female mountain lions were killed (5/20 = 0.25 = 25 percent). So 
if those 16 lions represent 25 percent of the female population, then SDGF&P's data shows 
there could only be 64 female lions in the state (16 is 25 percent of 64). By dividing instead by 
35 lions, the 112 lion result SDGF&P is presenting as females only, is actually a combination of 
males and females.


SDGF&P further compounds their error by assuming that their estimated female population
 number represents 70 percent of the total lion population in South Dakota.
This 70 percent female estimate appears to be based on data from SDGF&P's own lion
 harvest data for 2007 and 2009. During these two years, 31 females and 14 males were killed 
(45 total). The 31 females represent about 70 percent of the total harvest, so SDGF&P made a
giant leap in assuming 70 percent of the entire population must also be female, and thereby
 able to create a lot of kittens. As justification for this assumption, SDGF&P researchers 
incorrectly cited Logan & Sweanor's research from a 2000 lion population study in New Mexico. 
Yes, Logan & Sweanor did find that their study population sometimes had slightly more
 females than males because males have a higher mortality rate (via killing each other for home 
ranges and through competition for breeding females), and a female bias was noted in first time
 litters, but in the end, Logan and Sweanor concluded "none of the annual comparisons of 
adult sex ratios in either area were significantly different from 1:1." This is clearly a case where
 SDGF&P researchers once again only rely on a single source, and then "cherry-picked," data 
which would appear to validate their conclusions. 

Third, SDGF&P claims that the Black Hills can only support a population of some where 
between 150 to 200 lions and that recreational hunting quotas must increase to "ensure a
healthy, self-sustaining population of mountain lions in the Black Hills of South Dakota." They
base this conclusion of their assertion that there are currently 251 mountain lions (138 adults,
113 kittens) residing in the region.


MLF has clearly demonstrated the inaccuracy of SDGF&P's mountain lion population 
estimate. But even using the Departments own population estimate numbers it is disingenuous
 to include "kittens," as if they were adults, just to create a false sense of overcrowding in order
 to justify the need for an increase in the annual hunting quota.
 In conclusion, the Mountain Lion Foundation finds that the South Dakota's Draft 2010-
2015 Mountain Lion Management Plan is poorly written, contains conflicting numbers (such as 
the total number of mortality events), has critical errors in their mathematical equations which 
profoundly affect their estimated population figures, and makes assumptions far beyond 
anything that can be proven with current research.


The Mountain Lion Foundation formally requests that the South Dakota Game, Fish and
Parks Commission reject this flawed document and authorize a complete audit of the process
as well as a peer review and second opinion on the proposed 2010 - 2015 Mountain Lion
 Management Plan from credible outside experts.


Sincerely,


Tim Dunbar


Executive Director


The Mountain Lion Foundation

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

Refusal to balance the books with our natural resources and instead remain dependent on a dysfunctional and outdated system to manage our natural resources and wildlife, will destroy the Oregon we have all come to know and love. We pay a heavy price to look the other way. Oregonians need to make decisions about our natural resources that are anchored in truth, not secret meetings and bills passed without regard for public input or support primarily the interests of wealthy private hunting clubs. Yes, people in the city count. You drink from the watershed these cougars help keep healthy. You breath the air the forests help provide for you. Hunters are allowed to shoot pregnant elk. Wild sheep succumb to diseases from domestic sheep, Christmas tree growers have open season on deer (keeping 5 of all the deer they shoot) causing cougar to have less food that contributes to livestock conflict, yet the cougar is wrongfully exploited as the culprit for too many bad management plans that undermine the health and vitality of other species.

 

The problem is not out there in the wilderness or with a species of animal. The problem lies within us.

 

 

 

Why is it that you can kill a mother with dependent young

that can't live without her? 

 

Where is the logic in all this ?? In the last 100 years 71 USA citizens have been officially attacked

by cougar, 3 died, one from rabies. 

 

 

Every year in the USA 1/2 a million US citizens are crippled or disfigured from pet domestic dog

attacks, and 100 citizens die from these attacks.  Yet we let the dog sleep at the foot of our bed

while killing to genetic extinction cougar in 36 States! 

 

 

Every year here in Oregon more hunters, poachers, and children shoot each other

than are killed by cougar (zero) and many die from these hunting or poaching accidents. 

How can you call it an accident when you are looking at the person!  

 

You will hear 2nd and 3rd hand stories from hunters regarding cougar attacks, but truth is most of these 

 big fish are stories or issues the hunters brought on themselves from harassing the great cat.  

 

Do the math...a single cougar's range is about 150 miles.  So, if there are 10 hunters or non-hunters

scattered in this 150 mile range and they all saw a cougar but did not know it was the same cougar, how

many times many times is that cougar counted?   Right, it is counted by everyone who saw the cougar. 

So that one cougar becomes on paper, not one but 10 cougar. 

 

How can we have an increase of cougar sightings when we have not been counting them for too

few years to compare?