Mountain Lion Management Guidelines

I. Introduction

Historically, the mountain lion (Puma concolor) ranged throughout the Great Lakes region, including Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan (De Vos 1964). Because of the antipathy early settlers felt towards large predators, their numbers were quickly reduced. In 1897, the last recorded mountain lion was harvested in Becker County, Minnesota. Wisconsin's last "official" native mountain lion was killed in 1908 in Douglas County (Wydeven and Ashbrenner 1994). Today, empirical evidence shows that the big cat may be returning to its previous stomping grounds.

In 1939 there were four reported mountain lion sightings in Oneida County, and in 1945 there were several sightings in Dunn County (Wydeven and Ashbrenner 1994). It is generally believed that all sightings after the 1920's were of escaped or released animals. However, their reappearance in the 1930's and 1940's coincides with a dramatic increase in the population of their primary prey species, the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (Wydeven and Ashbrenner 1994).

From the 1960's through the 1990's, reports of mountain lion sightings continued to trickle in to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), with the highest observation rates found in Oneida, Douglas and Washburn Counties. In 2002, the highest numbers of observations were in Oneida, Iron and Forest Counties.

Reported observations of mountain lions in Wisconsin coincide with a rising number of reports in neighboring states. The carcass of a mountain lion which had been hit by a train was discovered in Illinois in 2003. Numerous mountain lion sightings have been reported to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) (MDNR 2004). Recently, a horse was killed as a result of injuries sustained during a mountain lion attack near Ely, Minnesota (Foss 2004). Although the source of the attacking animal is unknown, and the legitimacy of some of the sightings is questionable, this information raises speculation that mountain lions may indeed have returned to the area.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) claims that the sole source of mountain lions in the east are escaped or released captive animals. Protection for eastern mountain lions will not be granted until a breeding population is documented (Boligiano 2001). The WDNR is committed to live-capturing, collaring and radio-tracking any mountain lions found in Wisconsin, as well as examining their genetic make-up through blood samples or other techniques (Wydeven and Ashbrenner 1994).

Locating these elusive animals may prove difficult. In the meantime, a multi-evidence approach should be used to confirm the presence of Wisconsin mountain lions. This could include various remote techniques for DNA analysis, cast hair identification, camera traps, and track surveys (Davidson 2002). If and when a population of Wisconsin mountain lions has been verified, a plan for their management would have to be instated. As stated by the USFWS in the 1982 Eastern Mountain lion Recovery Plan:

Managers of lands where mountain lions have been seen but not confirmed have the awkward choice of committing resources to an animal that has not been proven to occur, or ignoring the reports and possibly managing in a manner detrimental to the species.

Our suggestions for confirming the presence of Wisconsin mountain lions and management guidelines for any such animals are included in this report.

A. Assumptions of Suggested Guidelines

The goal of these suggested guidelines for mountain lion management in the state of Wisconsin is to foster an environment where a self-sustained breeding population of mountain lions can exist within the state. This goal will be supported through monitoring and research, thorough documentation, management on both population and individual levels, and public education.

Mountain lions are a naturally occurring animal in Wisconsin. It should be noted that the WDNR has not and will not reintroduce any animals to the state. Additionally, the WDNR will address any dangerous human and/or domesticated animal encounters seriously and expediently, and will keep the public informed regarding any such events. We suggest a media protocol be developed to address such issues.

All attempts will be made to immediately and safely control (through the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services) any mountain lion exhibiting any of the following behaviors and/or conditions:

- Socialization to humans and/or abnormal behaviors

-Any act which threatens a person/s

- An attack or attempted attack on any domesticated animal

- A feral animal with surgically-removed front claws

-Sick and/or incapacitated animals

- Any mountain lion found within the limits of a municipality

II. Legal Status of Mountain Lions in Wisconsin

In order to make recommendations for the management of mountain lions in Wisconsin, the relevant laws need to be considered. Mountain lions found in Wisconsin are not listed as a federally endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. Unless this is changed, Wisconsin mountain lions will have to rely on state protection and funding.

Wisconsin mountain lions are designated a species of special concern under full protection by state law. Their state rank is "historical occurrence" and they are suspected to still be extant (WDNR 2004a). Other state regulations pertaining to mountain lions as captive wildlife are found in chapter 169 of state statutes (WDNR 2004b). Captive mountain lion regulations may have to be altered if wild mountain lions are to be successfully managed within the state. (SEE Escaped/Released Captive Animals)

III. Mountain Lion Biology and Ecology

(Mountain Lion Biology/Ecology)

IV. Possible Sources of Mountain Lions in Wisconsin

There are three potential origins of any mountain lions found in Wisconsin. The first is a relic population, or a population which has somehow remained, unnoticed and viable, since the extirpation of mountain lions from the state. This is unlikely. Although a relic population is claimed by some to be the case in the neighboring state of Michigan, few reputable scientists concur.

The second possible origin for Wisconsin mountain lions is a source population, or a viable population which is near enough for animals to disperse to Wisconsin. The closest known populations are in Colorado, Manitoba, and South Dakota (Cordoza and Langlois 2002). This is a valid possibility, as mountain lions have been known to disperse nearly 500 miles from their natal ranges (Logan and Sweanor 1999). (Map of Known Eastern Mountain Lion Distributions).

The third option is the escape or release of captive animals from Wisconsin or the surrounding states. According to Mark Dowling of the Eastern Cougar Network, "There have been verified encounters in many midwestern states in the past decade, and while a few turned out to be from captive cats released into the wild, necropsy reports and DNA tests indicate most have been full-blooded wild cougars" (Sargeant 2003).

Identifying the origin of any mountain lions found in Wisconsin is crucial to the development of a well-grounded management plan. Native animals may be handled differently than those of a non-native genotype (Mountain Lion Subspecies), as they are likely to be released or escaped captive animals (VIA-Escaped/Released Captive Animals) for specific problems potentially associated with these individuals). If non-native subspecies are successfully intermingling with a native population, this occurrence and its ensuing effect on the overall population should be carefully documented. Additionally, providing scientific evidence of a dispersing population of native animals may help promote mountain lion recovery throughout the eastern states.

A. Mountain Lion Subspecies

Genetic comparisons have found little evidence of the 32 previously named subspecies, and instead suggest that the taxonomy of the mountain lion be revised to designate 6 phylogenetic subspecies (Culver et al 2000). These subspecies are as divided as geographic groups, as follows: southern South America, eastern South America, northern South America, central South America, Central America, and North America (including USA, Mexico, and Canada) (O'Brien 2003).

It appears that all North American mountain lions are of the same subspecies, having descended from a population bottleneck occurring 12,000-18,000 years ago (O'Brien 2003). Comparisons between microsatellite allele variations revealed a marked difference between the North American animals and all five of the South American mountain lions (Culver et al 2000). Captive-raised animals are often of the South American genotype.

B. Setting the Standard for DNA Genotyping

To ensure reliable results, standards of evidence must be developed. This includes; standardized collection protocols for each method of sampling (i.e. sample handling, collection and storage), sample shipping and signed chain of custody documentation, blind testing procedures and testing at multiple laboratories (Cordoza and Langlois 2002).

It is imperative that pilot studies be carried out for each application to quantify error rates, develop protocols (including those for extraction and amplification), and to collect the data necessary for a cost-benefit analysis (Piggott and Taylor 2003).

Animal DNA can be utilized to determine the phylogenetic makeup of an individual (Piggott and Taylor 2003). Blood, tissue, hair, scat, and saliva samples can be used for DNA analysis. It is best to use blood or tissue whenever available, as they provide the most consistent results. However, due to the elusive nature of mountain lions, remote collection of DNA samples may be the only available option. Fresh, plucked hair provides the best genetic information. Fecal samples should only be used if necessary, as they generally contain poor quality DNA (Ernest 2000a, 2000b).

C. Remote Collection of DNA

Potential study areas can be identified through the information gathered by the WDNR carnivore tracking program and rare animal sightings cards (WDNR RARE MAMMALS SIGHTING CARD). By incorporating these data with the locations of other reported mountain lion sightings, a map can be developed to highlight the areas most likely to be inhabited by mountain lions (LINK TO WISCONSIN MOUNTAIN LION SIGHTINGS MAP).

1. Hair- Recommended Method

Hair snaring has proven effective for surveying lynx (Lynx canadensis), another rare and elusive cat. The method used by the National Lynx Survey, developed and completed by the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the University of Montana, takes advantage of the feline behavior of facial rubbing, a scent-marking technique (Turbak 2003).

Their methodology begins with rubbing bait oil into a 4" square of carpet which has been studded with small nails. The most effective bait oil is a mixture of beaver castorium and catnip oil (heavy on the catnip) (McKelvey et al 2001). The carpet is then attached to the tree, nail points out, at the height of the head of the animal. An aluminum pie pan is hung from a nearby branch to attract the visually-oriented cat to the hair snare site.

This methodology may have to be slightly modified to better suit mountain lion behavior. A similar technique, involving whole-body rubbing behavior, has been successfully used for remote hair collection in both brown (Ursus arctos) and black bears (Ursus americanus) (Piggott and Taylor 2003).

All hair snaring stations should be placed within the study areas determined by the sightings map (LINK TO WISCONSIN MOUNTAIN LION SIGHTINGS MAP). Five stations are placed at regular intervals along a 400-yard transect. Twenty-five such transects are set at 2-mile intervals within the study area, creating 125 hair snare stations. In addition to the hair snares themselves, track collectors and remote cameras can be used to record any animals which approach the station but do not encounter the hair snare (Turbak 2003).

DNA can be extracted from hair samples immediately, in the field, by boiling the hair in a suspension of Chelex resin. If this is not possible, store the samples in dry paper envelopes (Piggott and Taylor 2003). Wear gloves when handling the samples to reduce contamination.

2. Saliva

It has recently been determined that traces of DNA, found in saliva transferred to bite wounds on the prey animals, can be useful for confirming the species, sex and microsatellite genotype of the predator. This technique could prove useful in cases of livestock depredation (Williams et al 2003).

Collect samples as soon as possible, as this technique is most effective when the carcass is less than 24 hours old. Using dry sterile cotton swabs, obtain multiple samples from each wound on the carcass. Air-dry the swabs for 24 hours and then freeze the samples in a paper bag at negative 20C until they can be analyzed (Williams et al 2003). Wear gloves whenever handling the samples.

This technique can be expensive, as multiple amplifications must be done in order to confirm microsatellite genotypes.

3. Fecal Analysis

While fecal samples generate relatively poor quality DNA, genetic information can be successfully extracted and amplified from approximately 53% of scats (Davidson 2002). The scat must be transported to the lab quickly or adequately stored (dehydrated and sealed in an air-tight container) as soon as possible to avoid contamination (Piggott and Taylor 2003). Always wear gloves when handling fecal samples.

Potential complications with this type of sampling can be reduced by an awareness of the range of species whose DNA will co-amplify with the target species. With this knowledge, species-specific primers can be developed (Piggott and Taylor 2003).

V. Management Goal for Wisconsin Mountain Lions

Our recommendations cover three aspects of Wisconsin mountain lion management, and are based on the USFWS recommendations for the recovery of the Eastern mountain lion (Downing 1982). They are 1) monitoring and research, including the documentation of a breeding population, 2) population management, and 3) public education. The goal of these recommendations is to foster an environment where a self-sustained breeding population of mountain lions can exist in Wisconsin.

VI. Management Strategies for Mountain Lions in Wisconsin

A. Management Zones

We recommend using the 4-zone approach developed and utilized by the WDNR for grey wolf (Canis lupus) management (WDNR WOLF MANAGEMENT ZONES). According to the WDNR, Such a system provides maximum protection in most portions of suitable habitat, yet allows a flexible system for controlling wolves in less suitable areas where higher levels of conflict are likely to occur (WWAC 1999) (V-A Management Goal for Wisconsin Mountain Lions)

We believe that this system could be easily adapted to mountain lion management if a viable population is established within the state. Wolves and mountain lions share similar habitat requirements and both species have the potential to conflict with humans, including tendencies to depredate livestock.

B. Monitoring and Management of a Mountain Lion Population

1. Monitoring and Research

In the first stages of mountain lion recolonization it is imperative to have a monitoring program established. This allows for the gathering of reliable information that can be used when making future decisions about the Wisconsin Mountain lion. The WDNR carnivore tracking program should be emphasized as an important tool to potentially detect, then monitor, mountain lion presence (WDNR TRACKING SITE: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/mammals/volunteer/).

The carnivore tracking program covers the probable range of the mountain lion in Wisconsin and is extremely cost-efficient, as most of the labor is done by volunteers. Although currently focused on wolf monitoring, the volunteers look for and record all carnivore tracks. Encouraging the volunteers to look for other types of mountain lion sign (scrapes, mounds and kills) could enhance the utility of this program.

If highly-probable mountain lion sign (e.g. tracks, feces, cached prey, etc.) is found, an intensive search of the area should be conducted. According to USFWS, research needs to be done, in conjunction with states with mountain lion populations, in order to determine the parameters of these searches. Research should focus on describing the abundance, distribution, persistence, and observability of sign. It is also important to know what determines a thorough search in an area. By quantifying the frequency and variability of observing positive sign, it is possible to determine the level of searching necessary determine, within acceptable confidence limits, that mountain lions dont exist in an area (Downing 1982). If positive mountain lion sign is detected in an area, it is important to acquire a DNA sample from the animal to determine its potential origin as captive or wild. (IV Possible Sources of Mountain Lions in Wisconsin)

There are two basic methods for safely live-capturing mountain lions. Hounds are often used to detect trails and tree the cats. Inflated crash bags are then placed at the base of the mountain lion's refuge tree to catch the animal as it releases its hold after immobilization (O'Brien 2003). Foot snares have also been used safely and effectively (Logan et al 1999).

Any captured and released mountain lions should be fitted with a PIT (passive integrated transmitter) tag and a radio transmitter for tracking purposes. Research can then be conducted to acquire a variety of information, including productivity, mortality patterns, behavioral patterns, home range, habitat selection, effect on area prey base, and relationship between mountain lions and other predators (Downing 1982).

It is important that research continues in states with a high mountain lion density. Questions regarding the possible effect of radio collars on productivity should be answered to ensure that our monitoring methodology is not detrimental to the population. Studies on effective depredation deterrents will help eastern states prepare for problems with depredation. Many aspects of the ecology and biology of these elusive cats remains a mystery, and any new information garnered can assist in their management.

2. Management

Our population management recommendations for mountain lions in Wisconsin are quite general, and should be seen as flexible in the case that research contradicts or calls for the modification of population goals. The viable population estimates we have set forth are based on populations that exist in distinctly different habitats and with varying human population densities. This reemphasizes the need for in-depth research on Wisconsin mountain lions.

The minimum population, or metapopulation, suggested for self-sustaining eastern mountain lions is 50 breeding adults, if the losses of these adults are being replaced through reproduction and/or immigration from nearby populations (Downing 1982). The USFWS based this on inbreeding research. It has been demonstrated that a population of at least 50 adult animals is necessary to prevent reduced fecundity and survivorship and to ensure the genetic fitness of the species for short-term survival (Downing 1982). We suggest that this be a conservative estimate for a minimum population for mountain lions in Wisconsin. Preliminary results from population viability analysis suggest a viable population may need to be considerably larger in size, depending on the rate of immigration into the state (Meinerz et al unpublished data). This estimate should be adjusted as more aspects of local mountain lion population dynamics are generated.

Another aspect of mountain lion population management is social carrying capacity, or the density of animals that can be tolerated by the human population without the development of strong negative attitudes toward mountain lions (Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee (WWAC) 1999). The use of the 4-zone management approach will hopefully allow for an optimal carrying capacity for Wisconsin mountain lions by adjusting to different social carrying capacities by region.

Interstate cooperation will be an integral part of the population management of mountain lions in Wisconsin. Population viability analysis (Meinerz et al unpublished) shows that regardless of the founding population, extinction rates continue to rise over time. Lack of immigration from bordering state could lead to an increase in genetic homozygosity. Cheetahs are repeatedly represented as an example of how low heterozygosity affects a population. Consequences include low juvenile survival, impaired reproduction, and increased succeptibility to disease (Laurenson et al. 1995). Corridors should be developed and maintained to allow interstate migration. This will aid the genetic flow between populations and augment potentially high mortality rates in the densely-roaded Wisconsin.

If mountain lion numbers begin to decline once a population has been established, manually supplementing the population from other sources should be avoided. This is a short-term solution that carries a high public relations cost. Instead, the source of the population decline should be identified and resolved.

C. Habitat Management

The WDNR may be also assessing potential mountain lion habitat through their studies of wolf habitat, as the two predators have very similar requirements (Wydeven and Ashbrenner 1994). (SEE WDNR WOLF PLAN VD AND MOUNTAIN LION HABITAT SECTION). However, more detailed habitat models may emerge that indicate finer-scaled habitat attributes for mountain lions (e.g. slope, cedar swamps, etc.). State-owned land in Wisconsin is managed as an ecosystem rather than for any one particular species. The current condition of the Wisconsin ecosystem, including the large deer herd, is favorable to mountain lion recolonization. Inter- and intrastate corridors should be developed to allow the safe dispersal of mountain lions (Maehr et al 1991).

D. Management of Depredation

A number of factors can result in depredation, or the hunting and consumption of livestock by wild carnivores. Domestic animals exhibit little anti-predator behavior, which makes them vulnerable. Livestock compete with wild herbivores for resources and may reduce the abundance or alter the distribution or behavior of wild prey, thus changing the patterns of carnivore predation (Silero-Zibiri and Laurenson 2001). Some landowners dump livestock carcasses on their land, which can attract carnivores to the area.

Although it is not labeled as a rapacious killer of livestock like its canid counterparts, the wolf and the coyote (Canis latrans), the mountain lion does depredate farms and ranches within its range (Kellert et al. 1996). In the western states mountain lions cause approximately 20% of the total livestock predation losses (Knight 1994). The domestic animals most commonly depredated are sheep, cattle, goats, and horses. Depredation events also occur with pets (Torres et al. 1996).

Littaurer et al (1987) reported verified losses of 1,202 sheep and lambs, 230 cattle and calves, three goats, and two colts to mountain lions in New Mexico during 1983, for a total estimated value of $125,000. In Utah, Mason et al (1999) reported an average of 939 livestock killed per year from 1992-1998, at a reported value ranging from $79,277 in 1996 to $120,615 (LINK TO MOUNTAIN LION NATURAL HISTORY).

Often, depredation events by mountain lions are not evenly distributed. In Nevada it was estimated that annual losses of range sheep to mountain lions averaged 0.29%, but in one incidence 59 sheep, most of which were lambs, were killed by a mountain lion (Shuminski 1982 as cited by Knight 1994). Depredation is thought to be more common among male lions (Odden et al 2002, Torres et al 1996).

The state of Wisconsin has a compensation program in place pertaining to wolf depredation. A total of 358 domestic animals, including cattle, chickens, dogs, domestic deer, sheep, and turkeys were killed by wolves in Wisconsin between 1976 and 2000. The state paid out $150,485 in compensation costs. This averages a cost of $96.00 per wolf/year. Most of the depredations occurred in the last decade when the wolf population size was around 250 individuals (Treves et al. 2002).

It should be noted that depredation on dogs, most of which were hunting dogs, accounted for about 75% of the reimbursement payments provided by the WDNR. This occurred most frequently when the dogs ran through a wolf packs territory. Only about 0.4% of the farms in the current wolf range have experienced wolf depredation problems (WWAC 1999).

Unlike the wolf, the mountain lion would have little territorial dispute with domestic animals, and hunting dog depredation would be of little consequence. On the contrary, hounding mountain lions is a very effective management tool, and non-lethal pursuit is used as a training technique (Bodenchuck et al 1999). Small dogs and cats are an easy target for a mountain lion, but Van Dyke et al (1986) reported that mountain lions in Utah established home ranges with little or no sites of human residence. Although mountain lions hunted near roads and developments, they did so only at night, and only occasionally. Educating people to keep pets indoors from 1 hour before dusk to 1 hour after dawn should eliminate most encounters (Anonymous 1996).

As mountain lions and wolves have similar habitat and prey preferences, it seems likely that their depredation rates would be similar (Wydeven and Ashbrenner 1994, Maehr 1990, Fritts and Mech 1981). However, Weaver et al. (1996) suggest that mountain lion density is positively related to the number of cervids in habitats with stalking cover. Therefore, areas with high deer densities and wooded areas could expect increased numbers of mountain lion/livestock encounters.

A depredation compensation system does nothing to reduce the source of the problem and encourages a state of constant conflict (Silero-Zibiri and Laurenson 2001). Euthanization and/or private landowner control are not currently an option with problem mountain lions because of their protected status.

Many states practice animal damage prevention. Andelt and Hopper (2000) showed that the use of guard dogs reduced mountain lion predation of sheep in Colorado. In the same study, they also showed that using a fenced pasture opposed to open range decreased predation significantly. Heavy woven-wire fencing at least 10 feet high is recommended, particularly near areas with heavy cover. Electric fencing at the same height can be effective (Knight 1994). Unfortunately, the cost of building and maintaining such fences would be prohibitive.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) suggests that bringing calves, foals, and lambs inside at night is also a good way to deter predation. Scarecrows, pyrotechnics, and motion-sensing lights work if they are moved and rotated frequently to prevent the animals from becoming accustomed to them. Removing brush and trees, used by the lions for cover, within mile of buildings and livestock may deter the cats. Bright lights, flashing white lights, barking dogs, or loud noises may repel mountain lions (Knight 1994).

E. Mountain Lion/Human Conflict

As mountain lion populations expand and urban sprawl continues, an increase in human-mountain lion interactions is eminent (Treves 2004; 2002). Attacks on people by mountain lions, although rare, do occur where large populations of humans and mountain lions coincide. Although Barnes (1960) reported 24 human fatalities due to mountain lion attacks, a detailed study of verifiable mountain lion attacks by Beier (1990) reported nine deaths caused by mountain lion attacks between 1890 and 1990, and 41 non-fatal attacks. Since 1994 there have been an additional 8 mortalities and 31 attacks. Most attacks are on unaccompanied children (Beier 1990) (SEE MOUNTAIN LION ATTACKS).

It is possible that the fear of attacks may discourage some people from hiking, biking, or camping in mountain lion country. As with the wolf, education will play a key role in the acceptance of the mountain lion in Wisconsin (WWAC 1999). Educational programs in communities where the mountain lion is present on subjects such as attack avoidance, identification of sign, what to do if attacked, and depredation avoidance should prevent some problems. Signs at public access points such as trailheads, canoe launches, and remote campgrounds would also promote people to take extra precautions when needed.

Mountain lions are not likely to investigate food stores, as they prefer to hunt their own food, but clean camping will keep scavengers like raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginianus), skunks (Mephitis spp.), and feral animals, all potential prey of the mountain lion, away from the campsite.

F. Interspecific Interactions

The mountain lion is an ambush hunter with a preference for large ungulates, including deer, elk (Cervus elaphus), and moose (Alces alces) (Lindzey et al. 1989, Spalding and Lesowski 1971). Wisconsins burgeoning population of over 1 million white-tailed deer supplies an enormous potential prey base for wolves, coyotes, and mountain lions (Holton 1997).

High deer densities have a negative affect on the reproduction of Canada yew (Taxus canadensis), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), and white cedar (Thuja occidentalis) (Alverson et al 1988). Byfield (2003) reported 45,278 deer/vehicle accidents in Wisconsin, 2002. Increased predation on the white-tailed deer via the mountain lion and wolf, coupled with land management which decreases available deer habitat, could help reduce the herd to the population goals set by the WDNR. The return of the wolf may have helped to decrease deer numbers (Schultz et al 1999).

The WDNR and the College of Natural Resources (CNR) of the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point (UWSP) initiated an elk reintroduction to the Clam Lake area of Wisconsin in 1995 (Anderson 1999). The population is currently healthy and growing at 120 animals, but sustained its first recorded depredation by wolves in the winter of 2003-04 (Stowell and McKay 2004). Berger and Wehausen (1991) demonstrate that mountain lions, supported by high mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) populations in areas where bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) are present and deer are historically rare, have had negative impacts on reintroduction efforts as well as the survival of established herds. The addition of another predator at this early stage of elk repopulation in Wisconsin could result in additive mortality, resulting in a decreasing population.

The moose is thought to be recolonizing Wisconsin (Wydeven 2002). Though the moose has received no reintroduction efforts, it is protected, and the WDNR is encouraging its return through research and education. Although mountain lions do not utilize the moose nearly as often as deer, they are taken when available (Jalkotzy et al 1992). The known moose population in Wisconsin is located in the area where mountain lion sightings have been the most common (Wydeven and Ashbrenner 1994, Wydeven 2002). This could increase the likelihood of incidental take by mountain lions, again causing additive mortality

On the other hand, the likely decrease in the white-tailed deer population due to recolonization of mountain lions in northern Wisconsin may encourage moose repopulation. Moose are excluded from some portions of its range due to the brainworm Parelaphostrongylus tenuis, which is carried by whitetails, and lethal in moose (Schmitz and Nudds 1994, Alverson et al 1988).

Kunkel et al (1999) examined the effect that newly-established wolves had on an established mountain lion population in Glacier National Park, Montana. The situation in Wisconsin could provide an opportunity to complete a companion study to determine the effects of a newly-established mountain lion population on an established wolf population. In turn, research of this sort may also assist white-tail deer biologists as they attempt to determine the cumulative effects of the two predators on the deer herd (Kunkel et al 1999).

The reestablishment of a mountain lion population in Wisconsin would reinstate a significant top mammalian predator which has been absent from the northern forests since the late 1800s. It is hard to put a monetary value on biodiversity, though most people realize the intrinsic value of preserving native species (Ghilarov 2000, Edwards and Abivardi 1998).

G. Educational Programs

According to data obtained from a mail study on predators in 1996, respondents recognized that predators can come into conflict with humans and that they will sometimes kill livestock. However, they tended to discount the magnitude and frequency of these events. In general, the respondents appreciated predators and believed in their right to exist (Messmer et al 1999).

Before designing an educational campaign, the WDNR will need to conduct a survey to help determine the attitudes and level of understanding that Wisconsin's residents express regarding mountain lions. This will allow the agency to target specific areas of concern, thus increasing the effectiveness of their campaign. An example of a simple attitude survey, conducted by Messmer et al (1996) to reveal respondents' attitudes towards predators, follows:

One of the most effective ways to gain public support for large carnivore conservation is through educational programs (Silero-Zibiri and Laurenson 2001). This is particularly important in rural communities and near public lands where mountain lion/human conflict is most likely to occur (Boligiano 2001).

Public education was a major factor in the success of wolf recovery in the state of Wisconsin. Education programs emphasized a greater acceptance of wolves and have reduced fear and myths about the animal (WWAC 1999).

Mountain lion education should be focused on showing mountain lions as an important part of Wisconsins natural heritage, clearing up myths that are and will be generated, how to reduce depredation risks, and the impact the mountain lion has on other wildlife in Wisconsin. The following recommendations for accomplishing these educational goals are suggested by the National Wildlife Federation (Murdock 2004):

- Wildlife agencies and environmental organizations should initiate educational campaigns, displays at nature centers, and presentations at local schools to teach the public about the ecological importance of the mountain lion and other large predators.

- Wildlife agencies and environmental organizations should educate people and the media through handouts, fliers, and editorials about the relatively minimal threat that mountain lions present to humans. Campaigns should be developed that emphasize the relative rarity of mountain lion attacks and how people can reduce their risk of being attacked.

- Educators, environmental organizations, and wildlife agencies should teach citizens living in mountain lion regions how to tailor their behaviors to avoid negative encounters with mountain lions. These groups should also pursue opportunities to work with the media to communicate this information (i.e. through suggested stories, editorials, and articles). In areas where mountain lion and human uses overlap, people should be taught how best to react in the event that they do encounter a mountain lion.

- Wildlife agencies and environmental organizations should work directly with private landowners and other government agencies to establish depredation programs where appropriate.

- State and provincial governments in mountain lion areas should develop and publicize protocols for reporting mountain lion incidents to wildlife management agencies or other appropriate authorities.

H. Improving the Quality of Reported Information

It is thought that 90-95% of all reported mountain lion sightings are misidentifications of coyotes, dogs, cats, and fishers (Martes pennanti) (Cordoza and Langlois 2002). Misidentification, together with unconscious bias and poor memory can often taint eye witness accounts.

The quality of the information reported can be improved in various ways. When an area demonstrates a rash of mountain lion sightings, pamphlets, which show photos of mountain lions, their tracks, typical food caches, and scrapes, should be locally distributed (Cordoza and Langlois 2002). The development of a non-leading "sighting" questionnaire can also be helpful (Davidson 2002).

I. Escaped/Released Captive Animals

In 1994, there were 21 facilities in central and southeastern Wisconsin licensed to raise mountain lion (Wydeven and Ashbrenner 1994). A more recent assessment found 20 facilities housing 50-70 mountain lions (E. Anderson, personal communication). The number of unlicensed captive animals is unknown. Escaped or released captive mountain lions may be socialized to humans, exhibit abnormal behaviors, lack hunting skills, and/or have their front claws surgically removed. However, like the domestic cat, they seem able to quickly acclimate to new surroundings and learn to kill wild prey quickly (Cordoza and Langlois 2002).

We recommend that the WDNR require PIT tags or identifying tattoos on all captive mountain lions in Wisconsin. This will allow the WDNR to easily identify any animal of captive origin and to determine its source (Cordoza and Langlois 2002). If the owner of a released/escaped mountain lion exhibiting abnormal or detrimental behaviors cannot be found, the mountain lion should be controlled following the guidelines developed for escaped privately-owned wolves or wolf/dogs hybrids. (SEE WDNR WOLF MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION V-L)

J. Ecotourism

One measure of the value of the mountain lion population in Wisconsin can be determined by increased tourism dollars. The WWAC (1999) suggests that the wolfs reoccupation of Wisconsin could prove profitable on an ecotourism basis through wolf howling sessions, snowmobile and all terrain vehicle (ATV) tours through wolf habitat looking for sign, and tours/programs coordinated through local naturists. The same could be argued for the mountain lion. Although the calls of the mountain lion are rare and unpredictable, the tracks left by the large cat in the snow, coupled with occasional scrapes and other sign, are obvious and easily identifiable for most amateur trackers (Barnes 1960).

K. Hunting

Hunting for mountain lions takes place in many states in the western portion of the United States and Canada. The animals are valued as a food source and as a furbearer, and provide a one of a kind hunting experience. Most western states allow hound hunting of the big cats, but they are also taken by "spot and stalk" and by calling.

Hunting potential in Wisconsin depends on the minimum viable population. Most mountain lion populations can withstand up to 10% human-caused mortality (Robinson 1999). However, Lindzey et al (1992) suggest that the resilience of mountain lion populations depends on the rate of male immigration and the availability of female recruitment, rather than adult mortality.

The income provided by mountain lion hunting could be compared to that of black bear or bobcat (Lynx rufus) hunting. The number of allowable tags would be lower, but the potential for income to guides with hounds would be greater. Similar to bear and bobcat hunting, mountain lion hunting with hounds should have the highest success rate, and not all hunters would own or have access to hounds (SEE WDNR HOUND HUNTING SUCCESS PAGE).

Utah harvested 492 mountain lions in 1997-98, and 76% were taken with the assistance of a guide. Each hunter spent $2,000 - $3,000 for guide and hound services (Bodenchuck et al 1999). Guiding for bobcat and bear with hounds is a very profitable business in northern Wisconsin (John Olson, WDNR Furbearer specialist, personal communication), though no other data were available to substantiate this claim.

VII. Literature Cited

Alverson, W. S., D. M. Waller, and S. L. Solheim. 1988. Forests too deer: edge effects in northern Wisconsin. Conservation Biology 2(4):348-358.

Andelt, W. F. and S. N. Hopper. 2000. Livestock guard dogs reduce predation on domestic sheep in Colorado. Journal of Range Management 53(3):259-267.

Anderson, S. C. 1999. Experimental elk reintroduction in northern Wisconsin: planning and initial results. MS Thesis University of Wisconsin Stevens Point. Stevens Point, Wisconsin, USA.

Anonymous. 1996. Safety guide to cougars. Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection. Province of British Columbia, Canada.

_____. 2004. Saftey awareness. Kodiak security company, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Associated Press. 1994. Mountain lion kills jogger in California. New York Times 26 April: 21. New York, New York, USA.

Barnes, C.T. 1960. The cougar or mountain lion. Ralton Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Beier, P. 1991. Cougar attacks on humans in the United States and Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:403-412.

Berger, J. and J. D. Wehausen. 1991. Consequences of mammalian predator-prey disequilibrium in the great basin desert. Conservation Biology 5(2):244-248.

Bodenchuck, M., D. Peay, B. Bateman, B. Bates and K. Robinson. 1999. Use and demand. Pages 30-40 in Cougar Discussion Group, Mammals program coordinator, and Regional Wildlife Managers, editors. Utah Cougar Management Plan. Utah division of Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Boligiano, C. 2001. Confirming eastern cougar presence. Wild Earth 11(1):54-56.

Byfield, K. A. 2003. Vehicle killed deer in Wisconsin fiscal 2002 report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Cordoza, J. E. and S. A. Langlois. 2002. The eastern cougar: a management failure? Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(1):265-273.

Culver, M., W. E. Johnson, J. Pecon-Slattery, and S. J. O'Brien. 2000. Genomic ancestry of the American Puma (Puma concolor). Journal of Heredity 91(3):186-197.

Davidson, A. 2002. On the origin of feces: morphological versus molecular methods for surveying rare carnivores through their scats. Journal of Zoology 257(2):141-143.

De Vos, A. 1964. Range changes of mammals in the great lakes region. American Midland Naturalist 71(1):210-231.

Downing, R. L. 1982. Eastern cougar recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia. 17pp.

Edwards, P. J. and C. Abivardi. 1998. The value of biodiversity: where ecology and economy blend. Biological Conservation, 83(3):239-246.

Ernest, H. B. 2000a. DNA analysis for mountain lion conservation. Outdoor California 61(3):16-19.

_____, H. B. 2000b. DNA sampling and research techniques. Outdoor California 61(3):20-21.

Foss, S. 2004. Horse dies after cougar attack near Ely. Timberjay online News, Monday April 12, 2004.

Fritts, S. H. and L. D. Mech. 1981. Dynamics, movements, and feeding ecology of a newly protected wolf population in northwestern Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs 80.

Ghilarov, A. M. 2000. Ecosystem functioning and intrinsic value of biodiversity. Oikos 90(2):408-412.

Holton, P. 1997. Antlerless deer quota set for 1997 hunting season. Wisconsin Outdoors and Conservation News. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Jalkotzy, M., I. Ross and J. R. Gunson. 1992. Management plan for cougars in Alberta. Wildlife Management Planning Series, No. 5. Alberta Forestry, Lands, and Wildlife. Fish and Wildlife division, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Kellert, S. R., M. Black, C. R. Rush and A. J. Bath. 1996. Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology 10(4):977-990.

_____, 1991. Public views of wolf restoration in Michigan. Transactions of the 56^th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C., USA.

Knight, J. E. 1994. Mountain lions. Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA.

Kunkel, K. E., T. K. Ruth, D. H. Pletscher, and M. G. Hornocker. 1999. Winter prey selection by wolves and cougars in Glacier National Park, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:901-910.

Kurta, A. 1995. Mammals of the Great Lakes region. The University of Michigan Press. Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.

Laurenson, K. M., N. Wielebnowski, and T.M. Caro. 1995. Extrinsic factors and juvenile mortality in cheetahs. Conservation Biology 9(5):1329-1331.

Lindzey, F. G., B. B. Ackerman, D. Barnhurst, T. Becker, T. P. Hemker, S. P. Laing, C. Mecham and W. D. Van Sickle. 1989. Boulder-Escalante mountain lion project: final report. Utah division of Wildlife resources, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

_____, W. D. Van Sickle, S. P. Laing and C. S. Mecham. 1992. Cougar population response to manipulation in southern Utah. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:224-227.

Littaurer, G., and R. J. White 1987. Cougar predation on livestock in New Mexico, January 1983 through June 1984. Eigth Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop, Rapid City, South Dakota, USA.

Logan, K. A. and L. Sweanor. 1999. Puma. Pages 347-377 in S. Demarais and P. R. Krausman, editors. Ecology and management of large mammals in North America. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.

_____, L. Sweanor, J. F. Smith, and M. G. Hornocker. 1999. Capturing pumas with foothold snares. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27:201-208.

Maehr, D. S., R. C. Belden, E. D. Land and L. Wilkins. 1990. Food habits of panthers in southwest Florida. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:420-423.

_____, E. D. Land, and M. E. Roelke. 1991. Mortality patterns of panthers in southwest Florida. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 45:201-207.

McKelvey, K. S., G. W. McDaniel and L. F. Ruggiero. 2001. Hair snaring and DNA identification. Intermountain Journal of Sciences 7(4):133.

Meinerz, R., B. Bulin, and S. Fullington. Population Viability Analysis of the Cougar (Felis concolor) in the State of Wisconsin. Unpublished Data.

Messmer, T. A., M. W. Bruson, D. Reiter and D. G. Hewitt. 1999. United States public attitudes regarding predators and their management to enhance avian recruitment. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(1):75-85.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2004. Cougar (Felis concolor). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

Murdock, E., R. Harrison, A. Frank, and D. Bonnardeaux. 2004. Endangered cats of North America. National Wildlife Federation, Washington D.C., USA.

O'Brien, S. J. 2003. A run for its life: the Florida panther from tears of the cheetah and other tales from the genetic frontier. St. Martin's Press, New York, New York, USA.

Odden, J., J. D. C. Linnell, P. F. Moa, I. Herfindal, T. Kvam, and R. Anderson. 2002. Lynx depredation on domestic sheep in Norway. Journal of Wildlife Management, 66(1):98-105.

Piggott, M. P. and A. C. Taylor. 2003. Remote collection of animal DNA and its applications in conservation management and understanding the population biology of rare and cryptic species. Wildlife Research 30:1-13.

Robinson, K. 1999. Natural History. Pages 2-8 in Cougar Discussion Group, Mammals program coordinator, and Regional Wildlife Managers, editors. Utah Cougar Management Plan. Utah division of Wildlife Resources. Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Sargeant, F. 2003. Cougar comeback. Tampa Tribune 4 July.

Schmitz, O. and T. Nudds 1994. Parasite-mediated competition in deer and moose: how strong is the effect of meningeal worm on moose? Ecological Applications 4(1):91-103.

Schultz, R. N, K. R. McCaffery and A. P. Wydeven. 1999. Impact of wolves on deer in Wisconsin. Appendix E in Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee, editors. Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan October 27, 1999. Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Shuminski, H. R. 1982. Mountain lion predation on domestic livestock in Nevada. Proceedings Vertebrate Pest Conference 10:62-66.

Silero-Zibiri, C., and M. K. Laurenson. 2001. Interactions between carnivores and local communities: conflict or co-existence? Pages 286-298 in Gittleman, J. L., S.M. Funk, D. MacDonald, and R. K. Wayne, editors. Carnivore Conservation Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Spalding, D. J. and J. Lesowski. 1971. Winter food of the cougar in south-central British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 35:378-381.

Stowell, L. and M. McKay. 2004. Clam lake elk herd updates. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Sweitzer, R. A. 1997. Near extinction of porcupines by mountain lions and consequences of ecosystem change in the Great Basin Desert. Conservation Biology 11(6):1704-1714.

Torres, S., T. M. Mansfield, J. E. Foley, T. Lupo, and A. Brinkhaus. 1996. Mountain lion and human activity in California: testing speculations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:451-460.

Treves, A., L. Naughton-Treves, E. K. Harper, D. J. Mladenoff, R. A. Rose, T. A. Sickley and A. P. Wydeven. 2004. Predicting human-carnivore conflict: a spatial model derived from 25 years of data on wolf predation on livestock. Conservation Biology 18(1):114-125.

_____, R. R. Jurewicz, L. Naughton-Treves, R. A. Rose, R. C. Willining and A. P. Wydeven. 2002. Wolf depredation on domestic animals: control and compensation in Wisconsin, 1976-2000. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:231-241.

Turbak, G. 2003. North America's mystery cat. National Wildlife 41(4):36-41.

Van Dyke, F. G., R. H. Brocke, H. G. Shaw, B. B. Ackerman, T. P. Hemker and F. G. Lindzey. 1986. Reactions of mountain lions to logging and human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:95-102.

Weaver, J. L., P. C. Paquet and L. F. Ruggiero 1996. Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation Biology 10(4):964-976.

Williams, C. L., K. Blejwas, J. J. Johnston, and M. M. Jaeger. 2003. A coyote in sheep's clothing: predator identification from saliva. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(4):926-932.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2004a. The natural heritage inventory working list: rare mammals. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

_____. 2004b. Captive wild animal farm regulations. PUB-CS-17 2004. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Wisconsin Wolf Advisory Committee (WWAC). 1999. Wisconsin wolf management plan October 27, 1999. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Wydeven, A. P. and J. E. Ashbrenner. 1994. History and status of cougars in Wisconsin. Eastern Cougar Conference, Gannon University, Erie, Pennsylvania, USA.

_____, and J. E. Wiedenhoeft. 2002. Rare mammal observations. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.