Content uploaded by Mark S. Boyce
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mark S. Boyce
Content may be subject to copyright.
From the moment Europeans established the
original colonies that would become the United
States, predators were viewed as a threat, not only
to livestock but also to the settlers themselves and to the
other wild animals settlers relied on for food. Since then
three phases of cougar (Puma concolor) management have
evolved: attempted eradication, followed by agency man-
agement to sustain sport hunting and address depredation
concerns, and more recently an effort to sustain viable cou-
gar populations as part of the ecological community.
The fi rst phase of cougar management emerged as an
agricultural ethic that focused on eradicating “undesirable
species” that potentially threatened livestock, game animals,
or the settlers themselves. One of these undesirables was
the cougar. This attitude of eradication dominated until the
middle of the twentieth century, when states and provinces
began to assume management authority for the species, ini-
tiating the second phase of cougar management.
Along with this new authority to manage cougars came
the responsibility to sustain cougar populations. This phase
is characterized by the hunting of cougars to provide recre-
ational opportunity, while continuing to address livestock
concerns. Complexity of cougar management accelerated
rapidly from this point as a more biologically based ethic
began to develop within agencies and the public, and new
stakeholders entered the management arena. This increasing
complexity has forced some agencies into a third phase in
which they have begun to examine management approaches
more critically. State and provincial management plans
illustrate these evaluations by addressing cougar ecology
and sociopolitical aspects of cougar management. They
also incorporate stakeholder input and recently acquired
knowledge in order to develop management programs more
acceptable to the public at large. In the fi rst two sections of
this chapter, Charles Anderson Jr. and Frederick Lindzey
discuss the phases of cougar management in North America,
primarily in the United States. They describe the evolution
from eradication to supporting a sport harvest, addressing
cougar predation on livestock, and sustaining viable cougar
populations for ecological and recreational purposes. In the
third and fi nal section, Kyle Knopff, Martin Jalkotzy, and
Mark Boyce identify how management in Canada differs
from that in the United States.
Earliest bounties paid by settlements, colonial govern-
ments, and later fl edgling states were directed primarily at
controlling wolves (Canis lupus) . As wolf numbers declined
and density of human settlement increased, bounties were
also paid for other predators, such as cougars (Young and
Goldman 1944, 1946a). From colonial times to the 1960s,
the goal was to eradicate predators, a philosophy that moved
westward across North America with European settlement.
The result of eradication, along with habitat losses associ-
ated with human development, was that by the twentieth
century cougars were extirpated from North America east
of the Rocky Mountains, except for a remnant population
in Florida (Nowak 1976; see also Range Map, p. vii).
Although wolves were initially the focus of predator
control efforts in the West as they had been in the East,
other predators were taken incidentally during wolf control
campaigns. Later these species, including the cougar, became
prime targets as well. Livestock associations often hired hunt-
ers and trappers to kill cougars in areas with depredation
Chapter 4 Cougar Management
in North America
United States: Charles R. Anderson Jr.
and Frederick Lindzey
Canada: Kyle H. Knopff, Martin G. Jalkotzy,
and Mark S. Boyce
a species accompanied management authority. For example,
Wyoming statutes charge the Wyoming Game and Fish
Commission and Department with providing an adequate
and fl exible system for the control, propagation, manage-
ment, protection, and regulation of all Wyoming wildlife.
The department is the only entity of Wyoming state govern-
ment charged with managing wildlife and conserving it for
future generations (Wyoming Game and Fish Department
2006b, Department and Program-Level Strategic Plans).
Real or perceived livestock depredation and wildlife preda-
tion concerns did not go away simply because the cougar
was decreed a game animal. At last, however, the attitude of
some members of the public and of many professional biolo-
gists supported the notion of a balanced approach in which
“positive” as well as “negative” aspects of the species would
be considered in management planning.
Legal protection of the cougar as a game species sig-
naled the entry of new stakeholders attempting to infl uence
cougar management (Chapter 14, 15). Agencies faced the
unenviable task of trying to achieve management decisions
that would serve to maintain biological integrity while also
balancing the demands of confl icting interests. Approaches
and techniques learned from decades of managing other
game species were often of little use when dealing with
an obligate carnivore that occurred in comparatively low
densities and traveled over large areas. The general history
accounts (i.e., Young and Goldman 1946a) and the few
more specifi c reports available in the early 1960s on breed-
ing, food habits, and natural history (e.g., Connolly 1949;
Gashwiler and Robinette 1957; Robinette et al. 1959,
1961) provided limited support for, or help in, develop-
ing management plans in what was certain to be a hostile
management environment.
Regulation Begins
Typically, the fi rst years of wildlife agency responsibility for
cougars saw little more than the setting of bag limits. Hunt-
ing regulations then became progressively more restrictive
as season lengths were shortened and timing shifted. Man-
agement areas were delineated to control distribution of the
hunting harvest. In some areas, quotas were set to limit total
kill and /or the harvest of male and female cougars. Over
time, regulations protecting spotted juveniles and females
with kittens have also been adopted by most management
agencies (Table 4.1; management status reports in Becker
et al. 2003). At the same time, most states and provinces
continued to include liberal provisions for livestock owners
to respond to cougar depredation problems (Roberson and
Lindzey 1984, 207).
problems. Bounties were commonly used to reward such
hunters and direct their efforts to selected areas, a practice
that continued in the western states until the mid-twentieth
century. Young and Goldman (1946a, 166) found nine west-
ern states offering cougar bounties in 1937, with payments
ranging from $50 per animal in Colorado to $2 in Nebraska.
Poisons were widely used for predator eradication and likely
killed cougars as well as their canid targets. As noted by
Young and Goldman (1946, 167), young cougars may have
been most vulnerable to poisoning from consuming poisoned
carrion baits set for wolves and coyotes, Canis latrans. But
poisoning the carcasses of animals killed by cougars can be
effective in targeting the cats, because they commonly return
to feed on these carcasses (Anderson 1983).
Federal involvement began in 1907 with U.S. Forest Ser-
vice wolf reductions on national forests. The federal gov-
ernment formally entered the predator control business in
earnest in 1914 with passage of legislation providing money
for the Department of Agriculture to fund “experiments
and demonstrations in destroying wolves, prairie dogs
and other animals injurious to agriculture and animal hus-
bandry” (Young and Goldman 1946a, 383). The animal
damage control program within the Department of Agri-
culture’s Bureau of Biological Survey was later moved to
the Department of Interior, and then eventually returned to
Department of Agriculture (see Chapter 1 for fuller discus-
sion of predator control).
Bounties for cougars were generally phased out by the
early 1960s (Cougar Management Guidelines Working
Group 2005). Indiscriminate use of poisons on public lands
was terminated by presidential proclamation in 1972, and
most western states and provinces assumed management
authority for cougars between 1965 and 1973. Current
Environmental Protection Agency regulations prohibit the
use of poisons on public lands unless a memorandum of
understanding is developed with the federal land manage-
ment agency. In these cases, only target-specifi c methods
(M-44s or 10-80 collars) can be employed. Colorado and
Nevada reclassifi ed the cougar as a game animal in 1965;
Washington in 1966; Oregon and Utah in 1967; California
in 1969; Arizona, Montana, and New Mexico followed
suit in 1971; Idaho in 1972; Wyoming in 1973 (Rober-
son and Lindzey 1984, Smith 1989, Dawn 2002); North
Dakota in 1991 (with closed season until 2005); and South
Dakota in 2003. Except for Florida, the remaining states
and provinces have not implemented active cougar man-
agement programs because viable cougar populations are
not evident.
State and provincial agencies now faced the task of man-
aging an animal that had been persecuted for two centuries to
protect livestock and wild prey. Responsibility for cougars as
42 Charles R. Anderson Jr., Frederick Lindzey, Kyle H. Knopff, Martin G. Jalkotzy, and Mark S. Boyce
Lindzey 1984, 97). Seasons typically end in the spring,
before ungulate peak birthing periods, in order to reduce
the potential of disturbing ungulate neonates ( Table 4.1).
In northern states, timing of seasons in this manner often
did little to reduce cougar hunting opportunities because
hound hunting was normally limited to periods of optimal
opportunity, when snow was on the ground. Additionally,
most hound hunters chose to avoid situations where their
dogs might be shot (e.g., during big game seasons). Season
timing has also been used to reduce the likelihood of kittens
being killed by dogs (e.g., Utah, Colorado). Because cougars
give birth year-round, however, timing of seasons does not
protect all kittens; patterns of cougar litter production are
given in Chapter 5 (see Figures 5.2–5.6). When harvest quo-
tas are used, seasons end when the quota is met.
Regulating Hunter Numbers and Distribution
Regulation of sport hunting for cougars typically follows
one of three harvest strategies: general seasons, limited entry,
and harvest quota systems (see Table 4.1; Cougar Manage-
ment Guidelines Working Group 2005). General seasons
allow unlimited hunting of cougars of either sex and have
the least control over harvest levels, the only restrictions
being the number of licenses issued per hunter (typically
one per season) and the timing and length of the hunting
season. General seasons provide the most hunting opportu-
nity and have the least control over harvest levels. Also they
may result in uneven hunting pressure—accessible areas are
hunted more heavily than inaccessible areas, limiting con-
trol over the harvest level, composition, and distribution.
Limited entry programs may restrict the number of hunt-
ers per management unit through limited license allocation,
using either a fi rst-come, fi rst-served basis or lottery license
sales. This approach may be the most limiting in terms of
hunter opportunity but can be useful to disperse hunting
pressure and control harvest levels, and it may increase the
opportunity for hunters to be selective (increasing the male
harvest) in areas where hunting pressure is low. For hunters
willing to travel, limited entry may continue to allow simi-
lar hunting opportunities if the number of permits allocated
is high.
Harvest quota management requires setting a limit on the
total harvest and/or the number of female or male cougars
harvested from an area. Quotas are not goals but allowable
harvest limits set to achieve specifi c population-level objec-
tives. The hunting season is closed for the area once the
quota has been met. Advantages of the quota approach are
that hunting opportunity remains high and harvest distribu-
tion and level can be regulated. The quota system requires an
agency to develop a method that allows hunters to monitor
Agencies have used a combination of approaches to man-
age cougars, often with only a limited understanding of the
effectiveness of their management prescriptions. Working
with imperfect knowledge is nothing new to biologists, but
it is a politically risky affair when the focus is an animal
over which people are dramatically separated in their views.
When faced with limited information, wildlife managers
tend to be conservative in setting harvest objectives. Because
knowledge of the effectiveness of various actions is slow
to accumulate, state- or provincewide management strate-
gies usually also change slowly. Political pressures, however,
sometimes cause sudden and drastic shifts in cougar man-
agement programs (discussed in Chapter 15).
Data Analysis Units
Although most states and provinces began cougar manage-
ment on a province- or statewide basis, many have subse-
quently delineated their cougar habitat based on vegetation
and topography, and presumably similar cougar densities,
to refi ne management efforts (i.e., cougar management
units). These areas are typically large enough to support
population-level analyses, although it is generally recognized
that they rarely contain isolated cougar populations. Man-
agement units, in turn, are frequently broken into smaller
contiguous areas or hunt areas that share “social” char-
acteristics (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2006b),
such as cougar depredation history, land ownership, pub-
lic access, and hunting history, where unique management
strategies can be applied to address localized issues (e.g.,
historic depredation incidents, cougar-human interactions).
This division allows agencies to direct management actions
to address the sociopolitical aspects of cougar management.
Traditionally, social issues revolved around cougar depre-
dation of livestock or potential predation impacts on game
species (e.g., deer and elk). More recently, human-cougar
interactions have become of increasing concern as recre-
ational activities have increased in, or human development
has encroached on, cougar habitat.
Seasons
Earliest regulations typically provided year-round hunting,
but as management evolved, seasons were often shortened
and timed to refl ect specifi c objectives within management
or hunt areas. For example, year-round hunting has been
used to direct hunting effort into areas experiencing cougar
depredation problems. Seasons are often set to begin after
hunting seasons for other game species are over to avoid
confl icts among different kinds of hunters, particularly in
areas where cougar hunting involves dogs (Roberson and
Cougar Management in North America 43
the harvest so that they know when the quota has been met.
This is accomplished using a toll-free hotline that is continu-
ally updated as cougars are harvested; hunters are expected
to monitor the harvest by accessing the hotline. Occasion-
ally, quotas are exceeded because there is often a lag in the
reporting of kills and their entry on the hotline. This should
be recognized and adjusted for in the development of harvest
quotas. Female subquotas can be used to support a manage-
ment objective of sustaining harvest levels by limiting female
harvest levels and reducing impact on the cougar popula-
tion. Potential disadvantages of harvest quotas are that the
number of hunters per management unit is unlimited until
quotas are fi lled, and quotas may be exceeded if several cou-
gars are taken toward the end of the season but before the
harvest is recorded on the quota hotline.
All human-caused cougar deaths (including depredation
control removals and known accidental deaths, such as from
vehicle collisions) may or may not be counted against the
quota; Wyoming, for example, recently moved to include all
such deaths in its quota for fuller accountability. Counting
all human-caused mortalities toward management quotas is
a desirable management strategy because mortality factors
other than hunting likely contribute to cougar population
dynamics (Laundré et al. 2007).
Table 4.1 Cougar population statusa and characteristics of management programs in the western United States and Canadian provinces in 2008.b
State or
Province
Population
Size/Trend
Legal
Statusc
Season Dates
(Bag Limit)d
Season
Structuree
Dogs
Allowed
Female &
Cub laws
Pursuit
Seasons
Mandatory
Inspection
Depredation
Compensation
Alberta 800–1200/I Big game 12/1–2/28(1) FQ, MQ Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Arizona 1,500–2,500/Unk Big game 9/1–5/31(1+) Gen Yes Yes No Yes No
British
Columbia
4,000–6,000/S Big game 9/8–6/30(2)fGen, FQ Yes Yes Yes Yes No
California 4,000–6,000/S Protected NA NA No NA No NA No
Colorado 3,000–3,600/Unk Big game 11/19–3/31(1) TQ Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Idaho 2,000/D Big game 8/30–3/31(1–2)fGen, FQ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Montana Unk/Unk Big game 10/21–4/14(1) LE, FQ, MQ Yes Yes Yes Yes No
Nevada 2,500–3,000/S Big game YR(2) TQ Yes Yes No Yes No
New Mexico 2,000–3,000/Unk Big game 10/1–3/31(1–2)gTQ Yes Yes No Yes No
North Dakota 27–101 adults/I Furbearer 9/1–3/11(1) TQ Yes Yes No Yes No
Oregon 5,700/I Big game 8/1–5/31(1–2)gGen, TQ No Yes No Yes No
South Dakota 200–225/I Big game 11/1–12/31(1) TQ, FQ No Yes No Yes No
Texas Unk/S Non-game YR/unlimited Gen Yes No No No No
Utah 2,528–3,936/Unk Big game 11/21–6/1(1)gLE, TQ Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Washington 1,000–2,500/D
21 counties
6 counties
Big game
9/1–3/15(2)
12/1–3/31(2)
Gen
LE, TQ, FQ
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Wyoming Unk/S Trophy game 9/1–3/31(1)gTQ, FQ Yes Yes No Yes Yes
aPopulation size and trend based on subjective information such as harvest data, sightings, nuisance incidents, extrapolation of localized fi eld research, and/or literature-based
density estimates extrapolated to suitable cougar habitat. Trend: I = increase; S = stable; Unk = unknown; D = decrease. Population size and trend information reported from
most recent management summaries (Becker et al. 2003 or Martorello and Beausoleil 2005) if available, information accessible from agency websites, or Beausoleil et al. 2008.
bInformation accessed from management agency Web sites.
cLegal status change from predator to game animal: Colorado and Nevada in 1965; British Columbia and Washington in 1966; Oregon and Utah in 1967; California in 1969;
Alberta, Arizona, Montana, and New Mexico in 1971; Idaho in 1972; and Wyoming in 1973. Legal status in California changed from game animal to specially protected mammal
in 1990, and from protected to game animal in South Dakota in 2003 and North Dakota in 1991 (with a closed season until 2005).
dBag limit = maximum number of cougars harvested/hunter/year except in Arizona where some management areas allow for 1 cougar harvested/hunter/day.
YR = cougar hunting seasons open year-round.
eSeason structure: Gen = general; LE = limited entry; TQ = total quota; FQ = female quota or female subquota when used in combination with TQ; and
MQ = male quota.
fSeason dates vary among management areas within interval reported.
gSome management areas are open to cougar hunting year-round.
44 Charles R. Anderson Jr., Frederick Lindzey, Kyle H. Knopff, Martin G. Jalkotzy, and Mark S. Boyce
Hunting Methods
Methods of hunting cougars include opportunistic spot-and-
stalk hunting, calling cougars using predator calls, and hound
hunting—tracking and baying cougars using trained hunt-
ing dogs. Most western states and provinces allow hound
hunting, which has traditionally been the most common
and effective method for hunting cougars. However, some
stakeholders dislike the idea of pursing wildlife with dogs. As
a result, Oregon and Washington have banned hound hunt-
ing. Where hound hunting is not allowed, predator calling
and opportunistic cougar hunting during big game seasons
appear to be comparably successful, based on harvest levels
observed in Washington (Beausoleil et al. 2005) and South
Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. “South
Dakota Mountain Lion Hunting Season,” http://www
.sdgfp.info/Wildlife/MountainLions/MtLionhuntingseason
.htm (accessed 2007). This may be a function of the increased
number of cougar hunting permits issued and longer sea-
sons in place of the more effective hunting method of using
hounds.
Results from Washington (Martorello and Beausoleil
2003) suggest that opportunistic cougar hunting is less
selective than hound hunting. This has made female cou-
gars more vulnerable: relative female harvest levels increased
from 42 percent to 59 percent after hound hunting was
banned in Washington. Harvest data from western states
(management status reports in Becker et al. 2003, Beausoleil
and Martorello 2005) suggest that hound hunting results
in the higher harvest of males than females. Presumably,
hound hunters have better opportunity than other hunt-
ers to identify females because they can often distinguish
size differences when they encounter a track. They also can
spend time observing the animal once it is treed. Addition-
ally, they are more likely to encounter males while tracking,
because males travel distances that average more than twice
the average distances for females (Anderson 2003). On the
other hand, opportunistic hunters who are not tracking cou-
gars are more likely to encounter the more abundant sex
(females; Logan and Sweanor 2001, Laundré et al. 2007).
Bag Limits/Permits. Agencies have offered “sportsman
packages” that included a cougar permit with the purchase
of other game tags, but most states and provinces typically
require the purchase of a separate cougar permit. Bag limits
are most commonly set at one per season, but larger bag
limits have been used to raise harvest levels in specifi c areas
(e.g., where depredation incidents are high). Sportsman
packages are more common where hound hunting is not
allowed, in an attempt to increase the number of licensed
hunters afi eld and thus maintain similar cougar harvest with
less effective methods.
Achieving Desired Cougar Sex and Age Classes of Harvest. It
is illegal in most jurisdictions (with the exception of Texas;
see Table 4.1) to kill spotted juveniles or females with young
at their side (prohibitions known as cub laws; management
status reports in Becker et al. 2003, Beausoleil and Martorello
2005). Although there are birth pulses, typically May–October
( Figures 5.2–5.6; Cougar Management Guidelines Working
Group 2005, 53), cougars may have young at any time of the
year. Consequently, because kittens do not always accompany
their mother, particularly when very young (Barnhurst and
Lindzey 1989), hunters may unknowingly kill females that
have young. Based on the proportion of reproductive-age
females killed by hunters each year, evaluations in Wyoming
(Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2006b) suggest that
juvenile loss resulting when females with young are killed
average about twenty-two per year. Although undesirable, this
loss should have limited effects on the statewide population.
Female subquotas, cub laws, and the statutory timing of
seasons to exclude summers are intended to offer juveniles
and females with young some protection. Aiming in part to
help hunters identify females and look for signs that they
may have young, Colorado and Washington have recently
introduced mandatory cougar hunter education programs,
and New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming have similar voluntary
programs.
Pursuit Seasons. Currently, four states and one Canadian
province provide special seasons during which cougars can
be pursued by dogs and treed but not killed (Table 4.1).
Some jurisdictions prohibit pursuit during ungulate seasons
(Roberson and Lindzey 1984, 87). Pursuit seasons allow hound
hunters increased opportunity to work their dogs by baying
and releasing cougars during the pursuit season. Although
cougar populations are ostensibly not directly impacted by
this practice, unintentional kitten loss, potential for stress-
related mortality (Harlow et al. 1992), and increased illegal
take may result.
Dealing with Depredation. States and provinces have used
various approaches to deal with livestock depredation.
Generally, livestock owners are given a fair amount of
latitude in dealing with problem cougars. Typically, they can
kill the offending cougar without fi rst obtaining a permit
from the state. They are required to report any cougars killed
and to justify their actions. Agencies have also responded to
depredation problems by employing professional hunters,
structuring hunting regulations to increase sport harvest in
problem areas, reimbursing livestock owners for animals
killed by cougars (four states and one Canadian province,
Table 4.1), and contributing monies to federal animal damage
control programs (Roberson and Lindzey 1984, 102, 204).
Cougar Management in North America 45
Refi ning the Procedures
Documenting the harvest level and composition is a required
component of management. Hunter questionnaires have
been used to estimate total harvest, location of kill, sex and
age of the cougar taken, and effort expended. More com-
monly, agencies require that harvested cougars be checked
by agency personnel, when biological data and hunter infor-
mation are recorded. Cougars taken under depredation pro-
visions are subject to similar reporting requirements, except
in Texas, where cougar take is unregulated and mortality
reports are voluntary (Young 2003).
Management is the attempt to achieve desired objec-
tives. Success is measured by how closely the results of the
management prescription match the desired outcome. This
implies that results can be measured, but cougar densities
are rarely known or measured due to the cryptic nature
of this solitary large carnivore and the rugged terrain it
occupies. Hunting is the most controversial component of
cougar management. Besides providing recreational oppor-
tunity, hunting is also used to alter populations in an effort
to achieve specifi c objectives, such as reducing livestock
depredation or predation on other animals, both of which
are assumed to be related to cougar density. Although the
relationship between cougar density and ungulate predation
or depredation level is assumed to be linear—that is, a given
percentage reduction of the cougar population will result in
a proportionate reduction in predation or depredation—this
has not been demonstrated (Cougar Management Guide-
lines Working Group 2005). Specifi cally, we do not know
what percentage of the cougar population must be removed,
if any, or what seasonal conditions, prey number regimes,
and or husbandry practices result in a given level of preda-
tion or depredation reduction.
Population Assessments
Direct measures of cougar population characteristics (den-
sity, sex, and age composition) are needed to evaluate success
of management programs, but estimating cougar numbers
and documenting composition are diffi cult. The best density
estimates have come from long-term studies of relatively
small areas where most cougars were captured and dynam-
ics of the populations were monitored (e.g., Hemker et al.
1984; Ross and Jalkotzy 1992; Logan and Sweanor 2001,
Laundré et al. 2007). Such studies are costly, and they often
yield data from central habitats where circumstances may
differ from those in more peripheral parts of the species’
range. Nevertheless, these density estimates provide a start-
ing point for management programs.
Track surveys (Smallwood and Fitzhugh 1995) can pro-
vide estimates of relative cougar abundance in areas where
tracking substrates are suitable, abundant, and suffi ciently
spaced to support a proper sampling design. Line intersect
probability sampling, proposed by Van Sickle and Lindzey
(1991), and later evaluated and expanded on by C. R. Ander-
son (2003), can yield precise density estimates and can detect
15–30 percent changes in population size with intensive
sampling of moderate to high density populations that pro-
vide reasonable sample sizes (at least ten cougar tracks per
survey). This approach, however, is expensive and geograph-
ically limited in application, because it involves helicopters
and requires specifi c snow conditions.
Indexes or indicators of population trend are valuable
tools for agencies, but if population size is unknown, the
actual relationship between the index (e.g., cougars har-
vested, depredation events, sightings) and population size is
also unknown. Thus, where rigorous documentation of pop-
ulation status is still needed, indexes have limited use alone or
even in combination. Anderson and Lindzey (2005) used the
relative vulnerability of cougar sex and age classes to hunting,
as described by Barnhurst (1986), and monitored changes in
composition of a hunted population as it declined and recov-
ered, in order to document compositional shifts that could
be used to index population status. Various methods that use
genetic identifi cation with sight-resight analyses have been
proposed (e.g., Ernest et al. 2002) and may provide useful
population estimators in the future. Regardless of the moni-
toring methods available, multiple indicators should be used
if the best evaluation of cougar management programs is to
be achieved.
Cougar Management Plans
Most western states (except for Arizona, Montana, and
Texas) periodically develop plans that, in effect, set the
policy for cougar management and attempt to balance bio-
logical and social aspects. These plans typically include syn-
theses of available knowledge about ecology of the cougar
and about management practices, provide for information
and education efforts on how to avoid confl icts, and are
intended to refl ect stakeholder values incorporated after
often lengthy public input sessions. Broad parameters are
set for how objectives will be determined for hunt areas and
at times management areas, how hunts are structured to
accomplish objectives, and how accomplishment of objec-
tives will be measured.
Development of cougar management plans took hold
primarily in the 1990s in response to several factors, includ-
ing an accumulation of management and biological informa-
tion from the Mountain Lion Workshops (see Chapter 2,
Table 2.2), new agency personnel having a broader eco-
logical background, the reported increase in cougar popu-
lations regionwide (management status reports in Becker
46 Charles R. Anderson Jr., Frederick Lindzey, Kyle H. Knopff, Martin G. Jalkotzy, and Mark S. Boyce
et al. 2003), increasing cougar-human interactions (e.g.,
Fitzhugh et al. 2003), and growing pressure from more
diverse stakeholders challenging traditional cougar manage-
ment programs. For the fi rst time, cougar management began
to include the human factor more explicitly. Approaches were
developed to educate people living in and using cougar habi-
tat on how to avoid confl icts (see Beausoleil et al. 2008).
In addition, the management planning process began
to acknowledge the value of cougars beyond recreational
hunting, recognize potential threats to cougar populations
from factors other than hunting (e.g., habitat loss), and
accept the need for justifi cation of hunting as a manage-
ment tool and for transparency in the management planning
process to ensure that all stakeholders are included. These
are ostensibly major shifts, but results are variable; some
of the newer participants contend that even where broader
public input is effectively gathered, it is nevertheless often
ignored (Chapter 14).
Evaluation of Management
Experience using various combinations of seasons, permits,
and sex and age restrictions to achieve management goals
has provided managers insight into the effectiveness of the
different approaches. Dawn (2002) conducted the fi rst
broad-scale evaluation of cougar management strategies
and, despite the apparent trend of progressively greater
restrictions on hunters, results showed that the number of
cougars taken by sport hunting increased (see Figure 4.1;
Appendix 2). She noted that increases in harvests after states
and provinces assumed management authority did not nec-
essarily (but could) mean that cougar numbers had grown
since the presumed lows in the mid-to late 1960s (Nowak
1976). Other factors might also have bearing, such as num-
ber and effectiveness of hunters and liberalization of allow-
able harvest limits. Further, Dawn’s analyses suggested that,
among the season types, general seasons yielded the lowest
harvest rates, a result she noted possibly refl ected the fact
that general seasons were most common during the early
agency management period when cougar numbers were
presumably low. The lowest percentages of females in the
harvest occurred when female subquotas were imposed.
Ross and colleagues (1996) also found that the harvest
increased under the quota system in Alberta. However, they
noted that the increase may have been due in part to con-
current increases in season length. The quota system with a
female subquota resulted in a reduction of the proportion
of females taken by sport hunters from 43 to 29 percent,
with the increased harvest being composed primarily of
males. Comparisons among various harvest methods over
time can be tenuous because cougar numbers and hunter
effectiveness may change. For example, less restrictive
management strategies—that is, general seasons—are more
common where cougar hunting is less effective, namely, in
Figure 4.1 Reported number of cougars killed by sport hunters in the western United States, 1980–2007. Calendar year reported from Montana, Arizona
and Oregon, and harvest year (fall of the previous year to spring of reported year) reported from Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Washington, New Mexico, Nevada, and
Wyoming. The overall reported harvest increased threefold from the early 1980s to the late 1990s.
Cougar Management in North America 47
areas lacking snowfall for tracking or areas where hound
hunting is not allowed. Moreover, most states have shifted
their management strategies in similar ways, broadly from
general seasons to setting quotas (Dawn 2002, 25), during
the period when cougar populations were considered to be
increasing (management status reports in Becker et al. 2003
and Beausoleil and Martorello 2005). Further evaluations
of the effectiveness of type and timing of seasons relative to
cougar densities will increase the confi dence of managers in
their application. State and provincial agencies are uniquely
positioned to test the prescriptions in their management
plans, if they so choose, using designs built into an adaptive
framework (see also Adaptive Management on page 49).
Trends in harvest level should also be interpreted cau-
tiously and in context. Harvest levels in western North
America show remarkably similar trends, increasing during
the early to mid-1990s, then leveling during the late 1990s
and early 2000s, and exhibiting recent declines in some
states (see Figure 4.1; Appendix 2). Although annual fl uc-
tuations in cougar harvests are in part related to chang-
ing harvest quotas/management strategies, some observers
interpreted increasing harvests as endangering cougar pop-
ulations, while others viewed the numbers as an indication
that populations were growing at least suffi ciently to sup-
port this increased harvest. States and provinces generally
felt they were dealing with increasing populations (man-
agement status reports in Becker et al. 2003; Beausoleil and
Martorello 2005) during the 1990s, even though evidence
to support this conclusion was largely anecdotal, based on
crude indices or a few long-term, localized studies. Four
research efforts occurring at different but overlapping time
spans and diverse locations (from New Mexico to Alberta)
documented increasing cougar densities beginning in the
mid-1980s and continuing through the mid-1990s (Ross
and Jalkotzy 1992; Murphy 1998; Logan and Sweanor
2001; Laundré et al. 2007). Whether these localized obser-
vations refl ected regionwide cougar population trends,
however, is unknown. Three factors suggest that cougar
populations were stationary, if not increasing, during the
fi rst three decades of agency management: (1) there was
no consistent trend toward increasing adult females in
the harvests, which would indicate that populations were
being affected (Anderson and Lindzey 2005), (2) cougar
populations were reestablishing along the species’ eastern
range (i.e., South Dakota, North Dakota; see Range Map,
p. vii) and (3) cougar observations have come from even
farther east and in Canada (Chapter 12; see also Canadian
section below).
The recent downturn in harvests from some western states,
however, may warrant attention. We do not know whether
this trend refl ects a reduction in cougar numbers and, if
so, whether the reduction results from habitat conditions,
prey densities (e.g., Laundré et al. 2007), increasing harvest
levels (Dawn 2002), hunter participation, or a combina-
tion of these factors. Management summaries from the
2005 Mountain Lion Workshop Proceedings (Beausoleil
and Martorello 2005) are confl icting relative to recent
trends, suggesting a decline in cougar populations in British
Columbia, Idaho, and Washington; increasing populations
in Oregon and South Dakota; and stable populations in
California and Nevada. If western cougar populations have
indeed increased over the past thirty years and are reaching
equilibrium, expansion eastward should be expected to con-
tinue and to present new management challenges in areas
being recolonized.
These population questions are controversial, and par-
ticipants in the cougar debates tend to have very specifi c
objectives. Livestock interests want management to lower
depredation levels, and it has generally been assumed that
the level of depredation is directly related to cougar den-
sity. Yet, the actual form of the relationship between cougar
density and level of livestock depredation is not known.
Addressing depredation simply by increasing the cougar
harvest may fi nd favor among livestock interests and deer
and elk hunters who perceive a benefi t from reduced cougar
densities, but it garners less enthusiasm from the broader
public and some cougar hunters, whose main interest is to
ensure healthy/abundant populations. Thus, the challenge
to management agencies is not merely to devise a biology-
based approach that balances different interests but also to
sell that approach to everyone and keep learning as we go
along. While it may be relatively easy to document changes
in livestock depredation or hunter opportunity, it is much
more diffi cult, but equally necessary, to document concur-
rent changes in the cougar population.
Among the population characteristics that have bearing
here is the fact that cougar populations tend to be genetically
and physically connected over large areas (see Chapter 3;
Culver et al. 2000a; Sinclair et al. 2001; Anderson et al.
2004), with segments of each population’s overall area vary-
ing in suitability as cougar habitat and in terms of hunter
access. The source-sink thesis described in Chapter 5 sug-
gests that areas with low cougar survival (whether because
of hunting and or other deaths) are supported by immi-
gration from adjacent source areas, where survival and
reproduction are higher. Logan and Sweanor (2001), and
later Laundré and Clark (2003), used the source-sink con-
cept to suggest a zone management and a metapopulation
approach, respectively, whereby refuge areas are formally
delineated within a state or province to guarantee sources.
Abundance within these refuges of higher survival, and
dispersal from them, should then ensure a supply of immi-
grants for exploited areas and assure continuation of viable
populations.
48 Charles R. Anderson Jr., Frederick Lindzey, Kyle H. Knopff, Martin G. Jalkotzy, and Mark S. Boyce
Managers have long been aware that some areas of
suitable cougar habitat are not hunted, or are seldom
hunted; hunt areas were often initially delineated based on
access, relative cougar density, and/or prevalence of dep-
redation problems. Review of harvest records providing
mortality density (number of human-caused deaths/area
of cougar habitat) and sex and age of harvested cougars
(Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2006b) would help
confi rm initial assignment of hunt areas to source or sink
status. Sex and age composition of harvests are best inter-
preted on the basis of whether the harvest is from a source
or sink area. Harvests composed primarily of young and
male cougars might be expected from both source and sink
areas. For a source area, a preponderance of young male
animals refl ects harvest of the most vulnerable age class,
with reproductive-age females remaining relatively secure.
For a sink area, such a harvest may simply refl ect the main
category of cougars present (Anderson and Lindzey 2005).
Past cougar mortality records providing changes in harvest
sex-age composition, human-caused cougar mortality den-
sities, and age estimates showing changes in age structure
can assist in determining initial source or sink status of
cougar populations. Monitoring changes in demographics
of harvested cougars over time should allow detection of
declines or increases in that population (Wyoming Game
and Fish Department 2006b).
Adaptive Management
State and provincial agencies do have the framework to
design and conduct experiments to answer questions about
the effectiveness of approaches such as using hunting to
reduce livestock depredation, reduce predation on other
desired wildlife, or reduce human-cougar interactions.
Whether and how agencies use that framework depends on
levels of interest, budget, and public pressure. The Cougar
Management Guidelines (2005, 9) suggest that “adaptive
management is characterized by the continual monitoring of
indicators that measure progress toward the achievement of
management goals and objectives, changing of management
practices when new information indicates that better alter-
natives are available, monitoring relevant stakeholder values
and interests, and the monitoring of natural environmental
changes that may affect cougar management results.” While
this statement seems to fi t the cougar management approach
of most agencies, learning from experiments requires that
careful thought be devoted to their design and that agency
and stakeholder support be secured.
Management actions should be advanced as questions to
be asked or hypotheses to be tested, with specifi c predictions
made as to the outcome. For example, if an agency wished to
test the question of whether sport hunting of cougars could
reduce depredation on domestic sheep, the design would
need to include means to measure level of cougar removal
by sport hunting and level of sheep losses to cougars over
the time of the experiment. Obviously, many other vari-
ables could act to infl uence the results. Sheep numbers and
husbandry practices would ideally be held constant during
the experiment, as would level of cougar harvest (this is
where agency and stakeholder buy-in becomes essential).
Weather patterns and general trends in cougar prey avail-
ability should be monitored as well.
The results of such an experiment conducted in an area
of contiguous cougar habitat might well differ from results
in a more isolated area, indicating the need to replicate the
experiment in other locales in order to predict better when
and where sport hunting may be an effective tool to reduce
sheep depredation problems. Results of properly designed
experiments could be of value to managers throughout
the species’ range, and if they were replicated with similar
methods by a number of states and provinces, the cost and
effort of gaining information could be shared.
Recent Changes in Management Status
Most western states and provinces have management
authority over cougars, with the exception of Texas, where
the species is not classifi ed as a game animal and harvest
is unregulated (Haverson et al. 1997; see also government
mandates and jurisdictions discussion in Chapter 15). Man-
agement fl exibility has been curtailed in some states and has
more recently been relaxed in others. In 1990, California
voters approved Proposition 117, which prohibited sport
hunting of cougars. In 1994 a citizen ballot initiative called
Measure 18 passed in Oregon, prohibiting hound hunting
for cougars, and in 1996 Washington voters approved Ini-
tiative 655, likewise prohibiting the hunting of cougars with
hounds (see Appendix 5 for more detail). Bills passed in
2004 in Washington (Beausoleil et al. 2005) and in 2007
in Oregon relaxed these prohibitions somewhat, allow-
ing hound hunting for cougars in fi ve Washington coun-
ties (increased to six counties in 2008) to address livestock
depredation concerns and allowing the use of hounds for
specifi c agency management actions in Oregon (e.g., depre-
dation incidents). Cougars were reclassifi ed in North Dakota
in 1991, from state-threatened species to furbearer. South
Dakota reclassifi ed cougars in 2003, from state-threatened
species to big game animal.
Cougars have long been extirpated from most areas east
of the Rocky Mountains except for the Florida panther,
which the state classifi ed in 1958 as endangered, with the
federal government following suit in 1967 (Lotz 2005).
Management emphasis went from documenting cougar pres-
ence to protection and recovery efforts (see Chapters 3, 12).
Cougar Management in North America 49
Presence of cougar populations in other areas east of the
Dakotas is currently unconfi rmed, but sightings and occa-
sional confi rmed reports of dead cougars have increased
in the past fi fteen years (see http://www.cougarnet.org/
network.html for examples). Confi rmed deaths and reliable
reports have been documented in several midwestern states
(e.g., Iowa, Missouri, Oklahoma). Whether these cougars
are of captive or wild origin is unconfi rmed in many cases,
but known dispersal of radio-collared cougars from South
Dakota into Oklahoma and Minnesota (Daniel Thompson,
South Dakota State University, pers. comm., 2008) supports
the notion that many of these records, at least west of the
Mississippi River, are true wild dispersers.
Additional factors also suggest potential expansion of
western cougar populations eastward: the prevalence of
males of dispersal age among the confi rmed deaths; reemer-
gence of cougar populations in eastern areas adjacent to the
Rocky Mountain West (North Dakota, South Dakota, and
possibly western Nebraska); and a recent increase in reliable
cougar reports. As noted, observers in several western states
considered cougar populations to be increasing during the
1990s, and this is supported by localized research docu-
menting increasing cougar populations from New Mexico
to Alberta (Ross and Jalkotzy 1992; Murphy 1998; Logan
and Sweanor 2001; Laundré et al. 2007; on Canada, see
below), and by genetic evidence suggesting recent demo-
graphic increase and expansion (Biek et al. 2006b). Whether
establishment of cougar populations eastward succeeds will
depend largely upon social acceptance and the proactive
involvement of local wildlife agencies. Of the states bor-
dering the known cougar distribution in the west, cougars
are designated as protected in Louisiana and Wisconsin;
game species with a zero harvest quota in Nebraska and
Oklahoma; nongame in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and
Minnesota; and as unprotected in Iowa. Modifi cation of
management designations and implementation of manage-
ment planning may be necessary to accommodate and/or
prepare for cougar recolonization eastward.
Special Circumstances in Canada
Although most cougar research in North America has been
conducted in the United States, fi ndings presented in this
book on cougar population dynamics, morphology, behav-
ior, and interactions with prey are just as relevant to cougar
north of the 49th parallel. Similarly, many of the general
management issues described above also apply to Canada.
Several aspects of the status and management of cougar in
Canada are suffi ciently distinct, however, that they deserve
special attention: population distribution and abundance;
level of protection, harvest, and control; and potential for
range expansion and its implications for the northernmost
cougars.
Distribution and Population Status
Prior to European settlement, cougar were present through-
out the southern portions of Canada. Historical popula-
tion size is unknown, but by the early 1900s a reduction of
ungulates through market hunting and simultaneous perse-
cution of predators probably restricted cougar at low densi-
ties to portions of British Columbia and western Alberta. As
ungulate populations recovered by the mid-1900s cougar
numbers are also thought to have increased, but as in the
United States, bounty hunting and widespread poisoning
for predator control may have limited recovery (Jalkotzy
et al. 1992). Currently, breeding populations of cougar are
known to be present in both Alberta and British Columbia
(see Range Map, p. vii).
With the possible exception of the far north, breeding
populations of cougar are found across the entire British
Columbia mainland and have also found their way onto
the coastal islands, including Vancouver Island, where den-
sities have reached levels among the highest ever recorded
(Wilson et al. 2004). The estimated number of cougar in
British Columbia is between 4,000 and 6,000 individuals
(Austin 2005). By contrast, in Alberta, breeding populations
have traditionally been relegated only in a relatively small
region along the western edge of the province, where the
most recent published population estimate is 640 cougars
on provincial lands—that is, excluding Banff and Jasper
national parks (Jalkotzy et al. 1992). Our ongoing research
data suggest that either cougar populations have increased
north of the Bow River, where they had not previously been
directly studied, or the original estimates were too low in
this large portion of Alberta’s cougar range. In either case,
current cougar numbers in Alberta likely exceed the esti-
mate provided in the early 1990s.
Breeding populations of cougar have recently become
established outside the previously well-defi ned eastern
boundary for Canadian cougar along the foothills of
the Rocky Mountains in Alberta (see Range Map, p. vii).
In the Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park, which straddles
the Alberta-Saskatchewan border, a large number of cougar
sightings, accidental trapping of an entire family group in
snares set for coyote in December 2006, and high-quality
photographic evidence of a second family group in August
2007 ( Figure 4.2) are strong evidence that a breeding popu-
lation exists in the park. Elsewhere in Saskatchewan, large
numbers of cougar have been accidentally snared, shot, pho-
tographed, or confi rmed by wildlife personnel since 2000.
This, combined with numerous other sightings and reports
across the province, has recently prompted the government
50 Charles R. Anderson Jr., Frederick Lindzey, Kyle H. Knopff, Martin G. Jalkotzy, and Mark S. Boyce
to provide a provincewide estimate of approximately 300
cougars (Saskatchewan Department of the Environment
2007). Other than in the Cypress Hills Interprovincial Park,
it is not clear where breeding populations might be found
within Saskatchewan.
Cougar sightings also are common in Manitoba, where
a female cougar was shot and a male was trapped near the
Duck and Riding mountains in 2004, suggesting the possi-
bility of a small resident cougar population (Watkins 2005).
In Ontario, large numbers of unconfi rmed sightings in the
Great Lakes region (e.g., Ontario Puma Foundation 2007)
have led the provincial government to offi cially accept the
presence of a breeding cougar population (Ontario Minis-
try of Natural Resources 2007). Sightings are often unre-
liable indicators of cougar presence, however (Beier and
Barrett 1993), and confi rmation of breeding populations
will require further evidence. If populations are present east
of Saskatchewan, it remains unclear whether these are the
remnants of original eastern cougar populations or derive
from recent expansion out of the west or from the Dakotas
to the south (see Range Map, p. vii).
Confirmed presence of individual cougars has been
reported in many other locations across the country. In
Quebec and the Maritime provinces, for example, dedi-
cated researchers have recently obtained genetic evidence
of cougars occurrence (Gauthier et al. 2005). Cougars also
have been confi rmed as far north as the southern portion
of the Yukon Territory (Jung and Merchant 2005). Dis-
persing cougars can cover incredible distances (Thompson
and Jenks 2005), and many isolated occurrences and even
repeated sightings may represent dispersing animals (see
Chapters 5, 8, and 12). Alternatively, some of the east-
ern sightings and confi rmed occurrences could be animals
that have been released from captivity. Where confi rmed
incidents are particularly concentrated outside the known
distribution of breeding populations, they may indicate resi-
dent populations occurring at low densities.
Management and Conservation
As in most western states, cougars were managed as a boun-
tied predator in Canada until the mid-twentieth century.
They were extirpated from eastern Canada, and it was
not until 1966 in British Columbia, and 1971 in Alberta,
that the cougar achieved the status of big game animal.
In Alberta, a comprehensive management plan is now in
place (Jalkotzy et al. 1992), but it has not been updated
since it was adopted in the early 1990s. At the time of this
writing, there is still no offi cial management plan for cougar
in British Columbia, despite the fact that it is a species of
important management concern in that province (Robinson
et al. 2002).
This is quite different from the way that cougars are man-
aged in the United States, where offi cial management plans
are now the norm and are updated regularly in many states
where cougar occur (e.g., Apker 2005; Barber 2005). Lack of
a plan in British Columbia and of any updates to the Alberta
plan mean that offi cial activity does not incorporate recent
developments in our understanding of predator-prey ecology,
such as information on the ecosystem benefi ts derived from
the presence of large carnivores, including cougars (Ripple
and Beschta 2006). Stakeholder opinions, moreover, are not
offi cially acknowledged. In the United States, stakeholder
opinion is at least designated as a component of most cougar
management plans, and public action has infl uenced man-
agement through ballot initiatives in California, Oregon, and
Washington. In Alberta and British Columbia, by contrast,
public opinion and new ideas may receive consideration by
provincial agency staff in their day-to-day duties and may
have some bearing on cougar management, but they are not
refl ected in offi cial plans.
Despite the lack of an offi cial plan in British Columbia
or regular updates in Alberta, cougar management remains
an important issue. Cougar hunting is permitted and closely
monitored in both provinces. In British Columbia, with the
exception of some northern management units, cougar
hunting is permitted throughout the province. The hunt is
unlimited entry, with many units maintaining a bag limit
of two cougar per hunter per season. Some management
districts, however, have a female subquota limiting the num-
ber of females that can be taken each year. Cougar harvest
in Alberta is regulated by a strict quota system for both
males and females, with sex-specifi c harvest limits for each
of several cougar management areas in the western part of
the province (Ross et al. 1996). Both provinces permit hunt-
ing with hounds and forbid the harvest of spotted kittens
or of females traveling with spotted kittens, although this
regulatory constraint is a very recent development in Brit-
ish Columbia (Austin 2005). There is no season for cougar
in the wildlife management units of eastern and northern
Figure 4.2 A camera trap captured this cougar family in Cypress Hills
Interprovincial Park in Alberta, Canada. This is the fi rst photographic evidence
demonstrating that breeding populations of cougar have moved east to the
Alberta-Saskatchewan border. Photo by M. M. Bacon, Cypress Hills Interpro-
vincial Park Cougar Study .
Cougar Management in North America 51
Alberta, nor may cougar be hunted in any of the other
Canadian provinces or territories.
An important management issue for western Cana-
dian cougar revolves around accidental snaring of the big
cats. Snaring of wolves near carrion bait, often road-killed
ungulates, is a common recreational and economic activ-
ity in western and northern Canada. Scavenging behavior
has been demonstrated in cougars (Bauer et al. 2005), and
some individuals scavenge frequently from animal remains
(K. Knopff, unpublished data). Cougars are, therefore, sus-
ceptible to becoming by-catch in wolf and coyote snares.
Because snaring for wolves is not currently permitted where
cougars exist in the United States, cougars by-catch at wolf
bait stations is a distinctly Canadian concern. Similar con-
cerns exist, however, in states where snaring for coyotes is
permitted and cougars also are present (Wyoming Game
and Fish 2006b).
By law, all human-caused cougar mortalities must be
reported to provincial authorities. We analyzed the data for
all reported mortalities in Alberta between January 2000
and March 2006. Over that six-year period, 837 human-
caused cougar mortalities were reported. The vast major-
ity of these were cougars harvested by licensed hunters
(77 percent); the second most important source of human-
caused mortality was accidental snaring (9 percent). Less
frequent causes of mortality were removal of problem wild-
life (4.7 percent), road kills (4.7 percent), and self- defense
(2.3 percent). Trappers in Alberta cannot sell cougar hides
and must forfeit all cougars trapped or snared to the
province, so there are neither economic nor trophy incen-
tives for cougar snaring. The removal of so many cougars
through snaring is undesirable because it neither improves
the ability of managers to preserve self-sustaining cougar
populations nor assists in maximizing the benefi t to Alber-
tans through optimal allocation of the resource, two key
management objectives outlined in Alberta’s cougar man-
agement plan (Jalkotzy et al. 1992). This issue has not pre-
viously received a great deal of attention, but our analyses
show it to be an important source of human-caused cou-
gar mortality in Canada, and it may become increasingly
important in the United States if gray wolves are delisted
and wolf management practices in Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming follow the Canadian model. Data currently
available for cougar and wolf habitat selection, prey-site
selection, and movement patterns (e.g., Alexander et al. 2006;
Kortello et al. 2007; Atwood et al. 2007) might be use-
fully applied to help reduce the probability of unwanted
by-catch of cougar at wolf bait stations, but the required
analyses have yet to be conducted.
As is true wherever cougars and people share the same
space, an important component of cougar management
in Canada involves managing cougar interactions with
livestock, pets, and people. Between 1890 and 2004, British
Columbia had thirty-nine cougar attacks on people, the
highest number of any jurisdiction in North America, with
the majority of the incidents occurring on Vancouver Island.
Alberta has only experienced a single lethal cougar attack
on a human (in 2001), but complaints involving cougars are
frequent. As noted, nearly 5 percent of all human-caused
cougar mortalities involve removal of problem animals by
wildlife offi cers, and a further 2.3 percent are the result of
self-defense. In addition, approximately as many problem
animals were relocated (thirty-six) as were killed (thirty-
nine) by provincial wildlife agencies between January 2000
and March 2006. The high number of complaints by resi-
dents has led Alberta to amend its laws to allow cougars
to be shot on sight on private land (Alberta Sustainable
Resource Development 2007). Animals so taken may not
be kept and must be turned over to provincial authorities.
Compensation for livestock loss is available in Alberta from
the Alberta Conservation Association but is unavailable in
British Columbia (Austin 2005). As in the United States,
high levels of negative interactions between cougars and
people in Canada are likely a result of larger numbers of
people living in and using cougar habitat, combined with a
general increase in cougar numbers in recent decades.
Cougar conservation and management are becom-
ing increasingly important topics in the provinces east of
Alberta, where cougars have previously been considered
extirpated but are reappearing (Watkins 2005). No offi cial
management, conservation, or recovery plans have been in
place for cougars in any of these provinces. Saskatchewan,
however, is now in the position of developing a strategy for
managing cougar populations and addressing confl ict with
people in regions where cougars are becoming established.
It and the other provinces east of Alberta will be responsible
for determining whether and to what extent cougars are able
to repopulate historic range. The Committee on the Status
of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC 2007) lists
the cougar in eastern Canada as data defi cient, meaning that
suffi cient information is not available to assess the status of
the eastern subspecies or assign it an extinction risk rating
(i.e., extirpated or endangered). Therefore, if small popula-
tions of eastern cougar exist, they are not currently pro-
tected under Canada’s Species at Risk Act (SARA). In 2007,
the Committee on the Status of Species at Risk in Ontario
independently designated the eastern cougar as endangered,
stating that “there have been hundreds of sightings of cou-
gars in Ontario over the years, and their presence here is
generally acknowledged” (Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources 2007).
Consequently, the cougar now falls under the regulatory
arm of the province’s Endangered Species Act, affording cou-
gar in Ontario the highest level of protection of any cougar in
52 Charles R. Anderson Jr., Frederick Lindzey, Kyle H. Knopff, Martin G. Jalkotzy, and Mark S. Boyce
Canada. Revisions to the act, which took effect on June 30,
2008, require that no person kill, harm, or harass cougars
and that both industry and the public must refrain from dam-
aging cougar habitat. In addition, the act requires that the
Province of Ontario develop and implement a recovery plan
to bring cougar populations within the province up to a level
where they are no longer threatened with extinction (Endan-
gered Species Act, 2007, S.O., c. C-6). The Ontario cougar is
only the second subpopulation in North America, after the
Florida panther, to be classifi ed as an endangered species.
Range Expansion
Population estimates and harvest information for the states
and provinces with known breeding populations of cougars
(Beausoleil and Martorello 2005) suggest that Canada prob-
ably supports less than one quarter of North America’s total
cougar population. Relatively low human population densi-
ties, an abundance of suitable forested habitats, and large
populations of ungulate prey, however, suggest potential for
future population growth and range expansion in Canada.
Indeed, this is already occurring. Eastward expansion of
cougar may be occurring at present because it has taken
western cougar populations time to rebuild from the days
of bounties and general persecution. Cougar harvests and
population estimates reached all-time highs in most western
states and provinces around the turn of the new century
(Beausoleil and Martorello 2005). Detailed genetic analysis
(Biek et al. 2006b) lends additional support to the idea that
North American cougars recently underwent substantial
population expansion. With higher population densities,
greater numbers of dispersers can be expected, facilitating
expansion (see Chapters 4, 5, 12). Even so, range expansion
is likely to be a relatively slow process because colonizers of
both sexes must be simultaneously present and successfully
produce offspring in the new habitat, and female cougars do
not disperse long distances as often as males do (Sweanor
et al. 2000). Anthropogenic features may also slow recolo-
nization. For instance, while cougars do not generally avoid
roads (Dickson and Beier 2002), major highways can present
a barrier to dispersal if appropriate corridors or crossings are
unavailable (see Chapter 12; Beier 1995). Highway 2, which
runs north–south in Alberta and connects the major popu-
lation centers of Edmonton, Calgary, and Lethbridge, may
act as such a barrier, slowing expansion. Provided suffi cient
numbers of dispersing individuals are available, continued
eastward expansion of breeding populations into suitable
habitat where ungulate populations are high can reasonably
be expected.
Expansion north into boreal habitats that are not part of
historic cougar range is also possible. Continued industrial
development and global warming may play a role in the
potential for future cougar expansion into higher latitudes
in Canada. White-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus ) have
increased in abundance in many parts of North America,
in some cases doing so well that they become a pest species
(Augustine and DeCalesta 2003). Additional forage created
by industrial deforestation combined with reduced snow
depth and cover in winter (Rikiishi et al. 2004) may cre-
ate conditions that are favorable for their expansion north-
ward. Indeed, in Alberta, white-tailed deer have increased
markedly (Latham, pers. comm., 2009) in some northern
boreal forests that were originally the domain of moose
( Alces alces ) and woodland caribou ( Rangifer tarandus cari-
bou ) and were home to very few deer (Stelfox 1993). With
increased prey densities, we speculate that cougar may suc-
cessfully colonize areas north of their traditional breeding
distribution (both present and historic), especially in ripar-
ian areas where prey is more plentiful. Between 2000 and
2004 in Alberta’s boreal region, over two hundred cougar
occurrence reports were fi led with the provincial govern-
ment. These reports range across northern Alberta and
include sightings, livestock depredation, and road-killed
cougars (e.g., districts of Athabasca, Grand Prairie, Fort
McMurray, and High Level). The reports do not confi rm
the presence of breeding populations, but, at a minimum,
they provide evidence of northern dispersal movements by
individual cougars.
Expansion back into original cougar range in eastern
Canada will serve to increase the resiliency of Canadian
cougar populations and could serve to restore some ecosys-
tem function in places where cougar have been absent for
decades or centuries. Wolf reintroduction into the north-
western United States has had important top-down effects
on ecosystems through trophic cascades (Beyer et al. 2007).
Cougars have been linked to similar kinds of trophic cascades
(Ripple and Beschta 2006), and effects on entire ecosystems
might reasonably be expected as a result of recolonization
(Chapter 10). As the Yellowstone wolf recovery program
also demonstrates, however, predator repopulation can be
controversial and can result in discontent among farmers,
ranchers, and hunters. It is unclear how cougar expansion
eastward will be received by Canadians, although there are
indications that the response may be positive in some juris-
dictions (Watkins 2005).
Expansion northward has similar potential to increase
the resiliency of Canadian cougar populations, and because
of lower human population densities in the north, it is less
likely to create controversy among residents. Ecosystem
effects of colonization are still likely, and may not always
be “positive.” Colonization of the boreal forest by cougar
and white-tailed deer, for instance, may have important
implications for other ungulates. Woodland caribou are
a species at risk in some portions of the Canadian boreal
Cougar Management in North America 53
forest (Edmonds 1991; Dzus 2001). The capacity for cougars
to impact caribou populations negatively through apparent
competition (Holt 1977) has been implied in other parts
of Canada where cougar traditionally occur (Kinley and
Apps 2001). Careful monitoring of cougar colonization
(both north and east) by the provincial wildlife agencies
would facilitate the identifi cation and effective management
of both the ecological and human confl ict issues that sur-
round cougar range expansion.
Conclusion
In Canada, the population distribution and size, level of
protection, and management of cougar are entering a period
of uncertainty and change. In the west, where cougar popu-
lations are well established, increasing human populations
and development of rural areas will likely increase inter-
actions between cougars and people. At the same time, there
is great potential in Canada for cougar range expansion to
both the north and east. Breeding populations of cougars
have likely already become established in Saskatchewan and
may also be present in Manitoba and Ontario. All this may
serve to increase the profi le of cougar in Canada and will
likely result in the need for regularly updated management
plans that account for stakeholder opinion, set protection
levels and harvest objectives, and provide response guide-
lines for human-cougar interactions. If range expansion
occurs at large scales, it will also increase the importance
of Canada as a stronghold for cougar populations and will
likely have important ecological consequences, both pre-
dictable and novel, for Canadian ecosystems.
In the United States, wildlife managers with responsibil-
ity for cougars will continue to face the same issues they
already know. Traditional stakeholders—livestock interests
and hunters—have grown to expect hunting to play a major
role in cougar management, whereas the larger public does
not share this expectation and calls for reducing a suite
of threats to cougar populations. The often diametrically
opposing views of participants in decisions make it likely
that middle ground will be hard to fi nd; each group will dis-
like some management decisions and insist that these refl ect
pressure from other stakeholders. It is easy to describe, and
perhaps even to implement, the steps agencies should take
in their management of cougars: well-developed propos-
als with clearly stated objectives and scientifi c support as
available; opportunity for stakeholder input; and trans-
parency in a decision-making process, addressing as many
stakeholder comments as possible. But even this approach
will not result in all parties being happy with management
decisions.
General growth of the human population and the trend
toward rural housing developments will increase contacts
between cougars and humans. Agencies need to hone proto-
cols for dealing with people and cougars in populated areas
and for handling incidents in which people are harmed or
threatened (see Cougar Management Guidelines Working
Group 2005, chap. 7). While most western states and Cana-
dian provinces contain vast areas of contiguous, suitable
cougar habitat, and cougars show remarkable fl exibility
in habitats that suffi ce as movement corridors, managers
should be aware that massive land use changes and human
structures can fragment habitats and compromise dispersal
corridors (Chapter 12).
In places, new issues are arising. Long before Europeans
settled North America, cougars commonly moved through
the plains states, and the frequency of recent confi rmed
reports suggests that this pattern may now be redeveloping.
If so, agencies in these states are acquiring a new responsi-
bility at a time of new complexity in public perceptions, and
they will need to be both responsive and proactive about
what to do in the novel situation of independent recoloniza-
tion efforts by a large carnivore.
Agencies and stakeholders will face many changes in
the future and need to consider their actions in the broader
context of how these will affect conservation of the spe-
cies. Currently, hunting is the single most controversial
aspect of cougar management programs. It is, after all,
premeditated killing of cougars for sport or to address
depredation, predation, or human safety concerns. Suc-
cess is easily demonstrated only for recreational hunting.
If hunting is removed from the equation, recreation is all
that will be lost. Cougars will continue to be killed to
protect livestock, to protect wildlife at risk (e.g., isolated
bighorn sheep populations), and to address human safety
concerns.
Of potential threats to the species, sport hunting is the
most visible and easily fi xed by simply banning it, but it
may be the least important in the long term. Alteration and
fragmentation of habitats for cougars and the ungulate
prey supporting them are ongoing and insidious and much
more diffi cult to control. Loss of cougars because of habitat
alteration will never be as obvious or as easily documented
as cougars killed by hunters, making it much more diffi cult
to develop support for necessary management actions. Deci-
sions to protect cougar habitat in place of human develop-
ment will be as controversial as decisions about hunting, or
more so, and much more diffi cult to implement. The next
phase of cougar management should see authority remain
with state and provincial management agencies, and manag-
ers and stakeholders should recognize that habitat manage-
ment is the crux of the long-term survival of the species.
54 Charles R. Anderson Jr., Frederick Lindzey, Kyle H. Knopff, Martin G. Jalkotzy, and Mark S. Boyce
