TEXAS RESIDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARD MOUNTAIN LIONS & THEIR MANAGEMENT

Full text

TEXAS RESIDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD MOUNTAIN
LIONS & THEIR MANAGEMENT
NPS (Big Bend National Park)
FINAL REPORT
May 18, 2022
Benjamin Ghasemi, PhD
Warner College of Natural Resources
Colorado State University
Gerard T. Kyle, PhD
Department of Rangeland, Wildlife and Fisheries Management
Texas A&M University
Bonnie E. Gulas-Wroblewski, PhD
Natural Resources Institute
Texas A&M University

i
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by a grant from the Summerlee Foundation (grant #M2200612). We would
also like to express our gratitude to Monica Morrison from Texas Native Cats for her insight in the
development of the survey instrument.
Citation:
Ghasemi, B., Kyle, G. T., & Gulas-Wroblewski, B.E. (2022). Texas residents’ attitudes toward mountain
lions & their management. Texas A&M University AgriLife Research.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... IV
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. VII
1.0 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Mountain Lions and Humans in Texas ............................................................................ 1
2.0 METHOD ................................................................................................................................4
2.1 Sample ............................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Survey Instrument ........................................................................................................... 4
3.0 SAMPLE PROFILE ....................................................................................................................5
3.01 Socio-demographic Characteristics .............................................................................. 5
3.02 Landowners ................................................................................................................... 9
3.03 Identification with Social Groups ................................................................................ 10
3.04 Participation in Outdoor Recreational Activities ........................................................ 11
3.05 Agricultural Producers ................................................................................................ 11
4.0 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 12
4.01 Knowledge .................................................................................................................. 12
4.02 Past Experience ........................................................................................................... 15
4.03 Perceived Risk ............................................................................................................. 16
4.04 Attitudes...................................................................................................................... 17
4.05 Management Preferences .......................................................................................... 20
4.06 State Response ............................................................................................................ 21
4.07 Regulated Hunting ...................................................................................................... 22
4.08 Trapping ...................................................................................................................... 23
4.09 Harvest ....................................................................................................................... 23
4.10 Information About Mountain Lions ............................................................................ 24
4.11 Group Comparisons on Select Variables ..................................................................... 24
4.11.1 Question: Which of the following do you believe describes the status of mountain
lions in Texas? ............................................................................................................. 25
4.11.2 Question: What do you believe is the legal status of mountain lions in Texas? ..... 28
4.11.3 Question: How far, do you think, is mountain lions’ territory from the area you
live? ............................................................................................................................. 31
4.11.4 Question: Which of the following best describes your personal experiences with
mountain lions? .......................................................................................................... 34
4.11.5 Question: What do you believe to be the level of risk posed by mountain lions
where they exist? ....................................................................................................... 38
4.11.6 Question: The following statements reflect a variety of opinions that Texans
express toward mountain lions. Please indicate your level of agreement with each
statement. ................................................................................................................... 41

iii
4.11.7 Question: Please select which action you would prefer the state to take in
response to each of the following scenarios. Please circle the number that best
matches your opinion. ................................................................................................ 45
4.2 Comparison to 2001 Investigation ................................................................................ 49
5.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 53
6.0 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 55

iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Confirmed reports of mountain lion sightings for January 2009 to January 2019. ............... 2
Figure 2 - Geographical Distribution of Respondents ............................................................................ 7
Figure 3 - Gould Ecoregions of Texas with County Lines Delineated. .................................................... 9
Figure 4 – Social Group Identification ................................................................................................. 10
Figure 5 - Self-Reported Knowledge of Wildlife ................................................................................... 15
Figure 6 – Perceived Risk ...................................................................................................................... 16

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Distribution by Survey Mode ................................................................................................... 5
Table 2 - Distribution by Gender ............................................................................................................ 5
Table 3 - Distribution by Education ........................................................................................................ 5
Table 4- Distribution by Ethnicity ........................................................................................................... 6
Table 5 - Distribution by Race................................................................................................................. 6
Table 6 - Distribution by Annual Household Income.............................................................................. 6
Table 7 - Distribution by Residency ........................................................................................................ 7
Table 8 - Residential Distribution by Texas Ecoregion ........................................................................... 8
Table 9 – The Presence of Wildlife ....................................................................................................... 10
Table 10 – Financial Incentives ............................................................................................................. 10
Table 11 – Outdoor recreation participation ....................................................................................... 11
Table 12 – Ecological Status of Mountain Lions ................................................................................... 12
Table 13 – Legal Status of Mountain Lions. .......................................................................................... 12
Table 14 – Proximity to Mountain Lions .............................................................................................. 13
Table 15 – Mountain Lion Distribution across Texas ........................................................................... 13
Table 16 – Mountain Lion Weight ........................................................................................................ 13
Table 17 – Mountain Lion Food Items .................................................................................................. 14
Table 18 – Information on Mountain Lions .......................................................................................... 14
Table 19 – Impact of Rodenticide ......................................................................................................... 14
Table 20 – Past Experience ................................................................................................................... 15
Table 21 - Attitudes Toward Mountain Lions and their Management................................................. 17
Table 22 - Trust in the State ................................................................................................................. 20
Table 23 – Mountain Lion Management .............................................................................................. 21
Table 24 – Hunting Mountain Lions ..................................................................................................... 22
Table 25 – Frequency of Checking Traps .............................................................................................. 23
Table 26 – Reporting Mountain Lion Harvest Kills ............................................................................... 23
Table 27 – Preference for Mountain Lion Information ........................................................................ 24
Table 28 – Preferred Content of Mountain Lion Information .............................................................. 24
Table 29 – Hunters v. Non-hunters (Status of mountain lions in Texas) .............................................. 25
Table 30 - Livestock Producers v. Non-Producers (Status of mountain lions in Texas) ....................... 26
Table 31 - Rural/Urban Residents (Status of mountain lions in Texas) ................................................ 26
Table 32 – Texas Gould Ecoregions (Status of mountain lions in Texas) ............................................. 27
Table 33 – Hunters v. Non-hunters (Legal status of mountain lions) ................................................... 28
Table 34 – Livestock producers v. Non-producers (Legal status of mountain lions) ........................... 28
Table 35 – Rural/urban Residents (Legal status of mountain lions) .................................................... 29
Table 36 – Texas Gould Ecoregions (Legal status of mountain lions) .................................................. 30
Table 37 – Hunters v. Non-hunters (Proximity to mountain lion territory) ......................................... 31
Table 38 – Livestock producers v. Non-producers (Proximity to mountain lion territory) .................. 31
Table 39 – Rural/Urban Residents (Proximity to mountain lion territory)........................................... 32
Table 40 – Texas Gould Ecoregions (Proximity to mountain lion territory) ......................................... 33
Table 41 – Hunters v. Non-hunters (Personal experience) .................................................................. 34
Table 42 – Livestock producers v. Non-producers (Personal experience) ........................................... 35
Table 43 – Rural/Urban Residents (Personal experience) .................................................................... 36
Table 44 – Texas Gould Ecoregions (Personal experience) .................................................................. 37
Table 45 – Hunters v. Non-hunters (Perceived mountain lion risk) ..................................................... 38
Table 46 – Livestock producers v. Non-producers (Perceived mountain lion risk) .............................. 38

vi
Table 47 – Rural/Urban Residents (Perceived mountain lion risk) ...................................................... 39
Table 48 – Texas Gould Ecoregions (Perceived mountain lion risk) ..................................................... 40
Table 49 – Hunters v. Non-hunters (Attitude towards mountain lions) .............................................. 41
Table 50 – Livestock producers v. Non-producers (Attitude towards mountain lions) ....................... 42
Table 51 – Rural/Urban Residents (Attitude towards mountain lions) ................................................ 43
Table 52 – Texas Gould Ecoregions (Attitude towards mountain lions) .............................................. 44
Table 53 – Hunters v. Non-hunters (Preferred management action) .................................................. 45
Table 54 – Livestock producers v. Non-producers (Preferred management action) ........................... 46
Table 55 – Rural/Urban Residents (Preferred management action).................................................... 47
Table 56 – Texas Gould Ecoregions (Preferred management action) .................................................. 48
Table 57 – Comparison between results of 2001 and 2022 surveys .................................................... 49

vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Study Purpose: The purpose of this investigation was to provide a contemporary snapshot of Texans’
knowledge, understanding, and preferences for the management of mountain lions in the state. Since
individuals’ experiences, livelihoods, and awareness of mountain lions vary tremendously, we
purposively targeted the opinion of several stakeholder groups most affected by the management of
Texas’ mountain lions and in which the literature has previously reported varied perspective, including:
urban and rural residents, livestock (sheep, goat, dairy, and cattle) producers, and licensed hunters.
Method: An online questionnaire was completed by 1,069 respondents. Respondents’ email contacts
were obtained through three data sources: a) a panel of rural/urban residents (Qualtrics), b) licensed
hunters from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and c) a panel of Texas agricultural producers
(US Farm Data). Of the 1,069 respondents: a) 357 identified as someone who had previously hunted in
the past 12 months; b) 229 identified as being involved or having a family member in their household
who was involved in livestock/agricultural production (cattle, dairy, sheep, and goat); c) 370 resided in a
zip code that was urban; and d) 370 resided in zip codes that were rural. Stakeholder group
memberships were not mutually exclusive. Respondents were distributed across all 10 Texas Gould
ecoregions.
Findings Snapshots:
Knowledge – Ecological Status
• Approximately 43% of respondents considered the ecological status of mountain lions in Texas
to be “rare but not endangered”. Alternately, 24% reported its ecological status to be
“endangered”.
• Hunters, livestock producers, and rural residents were significantly more likely to consider
mountain lions to be “rare but not endangered”.
Knowledge – Legal Status
• Approximately 31% of respondents correctly reported the legal status of mountain lions to be a
“non-game animal with no hunting or trapping restrictions”. Thirty four percent reported the
legal status to be a “protected animal that cannot be legally hunted or trapped”.
• Hunters, livestock producers, and rural residents were significantly more likely to correctly
identify the legal status of mountain lions than those who did not identify with these groups.
Past Experience with Mountain Lions
• In terms of respondents’ past experience with mountain lions, 52% indicated having heard or
read about mountain lions, 27% indicated having personally seen a mountain lion in the wild,
and another 22% indicated that a member of their household had seen a mountain lion in the
wild.
Perceived Risk Posed by Mountain Lions
• Respondents were presented with a number of items/activities potentially threatened by the
presence of mountain lions and requested to indicate the degree of risk posed by mountain lion
existence. Respondents considered sheep and goat farming to be at the most risk with 72%
indicating no less than “moderate risk,” followed by deer populations (71%) and then cattle
farming (61%).

viii
• Generally, hunters, livestock producers, and rural residents considered mountain lions to pose
less of a threat to their person, property, and other animals compared to those that did not
identify with these groups.
Attitudes toward Mountain Lions and their Management
• There were strong levels of agreement with the statement suggesting mountain lions are an
essential part of nature (M=4.0 on a 5-point scale with 5=strongly agree) and with suggestions
that efforts should be made to ensure mountain lions’ survival. Respondents enjoyed knowing
that mountain lions live in Texas (M=3.74).
• There was modest support (M=3.7) for the establishment of statewide management plans to
monitor the abundance and distribution of mountain lions. There was also support for the
suggestion that mountain lions ought to be protected (M=3.63). The meaning of “protection”,
legal or otherwise, was not explained to respondents.
• In terms of managing mountain lion populations, all options received modest support with
relocation most favored (M=3.61), followed by hunting (M=3.20) and then trapping (M=3.16).
• For variations among stakeholder groups:
o Hunters and livestock producers were less inclined to support the protection of
mountain lions and to consider the presence of mountain lions to be a deterrent for
engaging in outdoor activities, compared to those who did not identify with these
groups. Hunters and livestock producers also considered making a living from the land
more important than conserving habitat for mountain lions and indicated that hunting
was an acceptable management tool for managing mountain lion populations. The
pattern of findings for rural residents is somewhat similar, with the exception of them
opposing the idea that mountain lions should only be protected in national parks,
wildlife refuges, and other reserves.
o For non-hunters, non-producers, and urban residents, there was stronger agreement
with the statement mountain lions ought to be protected, stronger opposition to the
use of hunting and trapping to manage mountain lion populations, and a stronger
tendency to avoid outdoor activities because of the potential presence of mountain
lions.
State Action
• Respondents were requested to identify action the state ought to take in a number of
human-mountain lion interaction scenarios. These actions ranged from do nothing, monitor
the situation, frighten the animal, capture and relocate, through to killing the mountain lion.
• Respondents expressed the most support for the more aggressive management actions in
instances where there was direct human-mountain lion conflict resulting in an attack on a
person, pet, or livestock. There was also support for more aggressive action when mountain
lions encroach on (human) communities and begin to display little concern for the presence
of humans (e.g., “deliberately approaches a person,” “shows no fear of people,” “is
frequently seen along a popular hiking trail”).
• Broadly, hunters, livestock producers, and rural residents expressed more support for
stronger management action in most of the mountain lion interaction scenarios than did
respondents who did not identify as a member of these groups. However, one exception
was in the instance of a lion attacking a person: those not identifying as being a hunter or
livestock producer were significantly more supportive of stronger action than were hunters
and livestock producers.

1
1.0 BACKGROUND
When present in biologically significant numbers, apex predators are critical components of an
ecological system, promoting biodiversity through top-down regulation of other species. The predatory
activities of mountain lions (Puma concolor) directly control prey populations (Terborgh, 1988; Terborgh
et al., 1997; Estes et al., 1998; Schoener & Spiller, 1999). Indirectly, the presence of these apex
predators can lead to alterations in prey behavior with carryover effects on ecosystem functioning
(Berger et al., 2001; Brown et al., 1994; Brown, 1999; FitzGibbon & Lazarus, 1995; Kotler et al., 1993;
Palomares & Delibes, 1997; Schmitz, 1998;). Prey may also modify their habitat and resource use, vary in
group sizes, and/or alter the timing of their activity patterns. By reducing the numerical abundance of a
competitively dominant prey species (or by changing its behavior), mountain lions erect and enforce
ecological boundaries that allow weaker competitors to persist (Estes et al. 2001). If a predator selects
from a wide range of prey species, the presence of the predator may cause all prey species to reduce
their respective niches and thus reduce competition among those species. Any subsequent removal of
predators can elevate competitive exclusion among prey species, leading to an overall loss of prey
diversity (see Paine, 1966; Terborgh et al., 1997; Henke & Bryant, 1999). A similar effect is evident in the
case of apex predator removal from ecosystems in which these predators control mesopredator
populations. If mountain lions are extirpated from a region, mesopredators are “released” and increase
in abundance, which reduces the number and diversity of the underlying prey community (Terborgh et
al., 1999). In addition, the ecological impact of carnivores often extends past the objects of their
predation. Mountain lions indirectly contribute to the structure of plant communities and nutrient
cycling by predating herbivores, which, in turn, influences the distribution, abundance, and competitive
interaction within groups of birds, mammals, insects, and other animals as well as microbial
communities (Terborgh, 1988; Terborgh et al., 1997; Estes et al., 1998).
1.1 Mountain Lions and Humans in Texas
The original human inhabitants of Texas fostered a rich and spiritual connection with sympatric
mountain lions, an attitude preserved across the centuries in the form of pictographs depicting the
merger of shamans with the large cats in Panther Cave of southern Texas (Boyd, 2003). Although the
essence of this interrelationship with wild cats lives on in the Pueblo descendants of those earliest
Texans, both the native indigenous communities and the native felines have been largely decimated by
European colonization of the state. Of the five cat species historically endemic to Texas, two (the
jaguarundi, Herpailurus yagouaroundi, and the jaguar, Panthera onca) are believed to be functionally
extirpated and one (the ocelot, Leopardus pardalis) is listed as federally endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (Davis, 2000). The status of the remaining two species of native cats in Texas
(the mountain lion, Puma concolor, and the bobcat, Lynx rufus) remain unclear in the absence of
systematic statewide monitoring for these taxa.
In the case of the mountain lions, there is no current estimate for the total number within the state.
Habitat loss and fragmentation, predator control programs, and other forms of human-mountain lion
conflict have shrunk the once statewide distribution of mountain lions to dispersed populations in the
Edwards Plateau, South Texas Plains, and Trans-Pecos Ecoregions with occasional reports from other
ecoregions (Schmidly, 2004; Young, 2009; see TPWD, 2022 - Figure 1). In the few Texas mountain lion
populations evaluated, the primary cause of mortality was human-induced, with mortality rates
reported to be at or beyond sustainable levels (Smith et al., 1986; Harveson, 1997; Pittman et al., 2000;
Harveson et al., 2012). The most recent abundance estimates for mountain lions in west and south

2
Texas are some of the lowest density estimates reported for all of North America, likely as a result of
this elevated human-related mortality (Harveson et al., 2012).
Figure 1 - Confirmed reports of mountain lion sightings for January 2009 to January 2019.
Map by TPWD (2022)
Running parallel to the scientific uncertainty surrounding Texas mountain lions' population health and
abundance are questions concerning Texas residents’ current attitudes toward and awareness of the
state’s native wild cats. In an investigation of Texas residents’ attitudes toward mountain lions
conducted 20 years ago, Peña (2002) reported that almost three-quarters of her respondents supported
mountain lion conservation and the idea that the species should be afforded some protective status
(e.g., game). Understanding the public’s attitudes toward the state’s mountain lions will play an
indispensable role in acquiring resources to better understand their ecology, distribution, and
abundance.
In the 20 years since Peña’s (2002) investigation, much has changed. In the context of population
growth, Texas has experienced an explosion like no other state in the U.S. Between 2000 and 2020, the
population of Texas burgeoned from slightly below 21 million to almost 30 million, boasting an increase
of over 40 percent. The majority of this growth has occurred around the state’s four major metroplexes:
Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. The state’s racial and ethnic diversity has also expanded. In
2000, 84 percent of the Texas population identified as White and 31 percent as Hispanic. By 2020, 73
percent identified as White and 37 percent as Hispanic (Census, 2020). These population shifts hold

3
important implications for the manner in which Texans relate to nature and their predilection for
wildlife management initiatives. In particular, a significant divide has been revealed between rural and
urban residents on the issue of native species (especially predators) management, with urban residents
expressing greater tolerance for the protection of carnivores when compared to rural residents (Ma et
al., 2016; Pat et al., 2011). In her 2002 study of mountain lions, Peña also reported differences between
Caucasian and Hispanic respondents related to hunting and protection of the big cats. Caucasians were
more supportive of hunting mountain lions, whereas Hispanics were more likely to believe that
mountain lions were protected.
Coupled with the population growth and demographic change of Texas has been large-scale landscape
alteration. Land-use and land ownership patterns in the state have changed considerably over the last
quarter-century. From 1997 to 2017, Texas lost about 2.2 million acres of working land. Projections for
the next 30 years suggest that large-scale development of large swathes of agricultural land will
continue (Lombardi et al., 2020). As livestock numbers have declined, interest in wildlife enterprises
(e.g., hunting of mule deer and other game species) has grown significantly (Butler et al., 2005). This
renewed interest in managing ungulates can directly impact native feline management (Butler et al.,
2005; Geist, 1988, Woodruff et al., 2014). As development and urbanization escalates habitat
fragmentation and pushes human habitation and anthropogenic impact into formerly wild areas, the
potential for human–native cat interaction and conflict is increasingly heightened.
Given the social change that is occurring within Texas, continued monitoring of the public’s attitudes
and beliefs about Texas’ mountain lions and their management remains a managerial imperative. The
success of wildlife management plans is dependent not only on the quality of their underlying science,
but also the level of acceptance they receive from all relevant stakeholders. Ongoing monitoring of the
public’s disposition toward the state’s mountain lions will remain an important component of Texas
Parks and Wildlife Department’s ability to develop and maintain adaptive plans for effective native cat
management and conservation.
With this in mind, the research described herein provides an updated snapshot of Texans’ knowledge,
understanding, and preferences for the management of mountain lions in the state. Since individuals’
experiences, livelihoods, and awareness of mountain lions vary tremendously, we purposively targeted
the opinion of several key stakeholder groups most affected by the management of Texas’ mountain
lions, including: urban and rural residents, livestock (sheep, goat, dairy, and cattle) producers, and
licensed hunters.

4
2.0 METHOD
2.1 Sample
Multiple databases/methods were used to acquire respondent email contacts. The sampling framework
was not explicitly designed to capture a representative random sample of Texas residents. Rather, the
design was developed to capture substantive representation from several stakeholder groups who have
previously reported varying opinions related to large carnivores on an array of issues.
1. Urban/Rural Residents: Using the Census Bureau’s (2016) classification system for the urban-
rural distinction, we obtained 370 completed surveys from residents of urban communities and
370 completed surveys from rural communities across the state. Respondents were drawn from
zip codes considered to be 100 percent urban or rural, based on 2010 census data. This resulted
in 376 urban and 865 rural zip codes from which respondents were drawn. The sample/data
were purchased from Qualtrics®. Sample quotas were established to be reflective of the socio-
demographic profile of Texas.
2. Hunters: Working with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), we drew a random
sample of licensed hunters from their database. Email invitations (4,500) were sent to potential
respondents using modified a Dillman et al. (2014) protocols for questionnaire distribution and
respondent recruitment. Three email solicitations were sent four days apart, each with an
individualized URL weblink to the questionnaire. Of the email solicitations sent, 405 were
bounced (i.e., undeliverable addresses). Two hundred and sixty-three respondents completed
the entire questionnaire (6.5% response rate).
3. Livestock producers: We purchased contact information (name and email) from a commercial
market research firm (https://www.usfarmdata.com/) of agricultural producers within Texas
(n=4,502). The livestock production categories included: cattle, dairy, goats, and sheep. Of the
email solicitations sent, 1,025 were returned (i.e., undeliverable addresses). Sixty-six
respondents completed the entire questionnaire (1.9% response rate).
Survey solicitations were sent via email to prospective participants in November 2021 through January
2022.
2.2 Survey Instrument
The survey instrument (see Appendix A) contained a broad array of questions largely adapted from past
work (e.g., Peña, 2002). It contained approximately 20 minutes of content, was available in both English
and Spanish, and was administered online via the Qualtrics platform. All solicitations were administered
via email with a URL to the questionnaire.

5
3.0 SAMPLE PROFILE
In total, we received 1,069 fully completed questionnaires through the three survey databases (Table 1).
Table 1 - Distribution by Survey Mode
Survey mode n %
Response Rate
%
Qualtrics
740
69.2
N/A
TPWD
263
24.6
6.4
Livestock Producers
66
6.2
1.9
Total
1069
100.0
3.01 Socio-demographic Characteristics
Nearly 51% (n = 542) of respondents identified as female, while 47% (n = 505) identified as male, 1% (n =
7) as non-binary, and 1% (n = 11) preferred not to respond (Table 2). The mean age of respondents was
47.3 years old (SD = 16.9). Approximately 1% (n = 10) of respondents indicated having no formal
schooling, around 25% (n = 264) had some schooling or a high school diploma, 30% (n = 318) attended
trade school or some college, 28% (n = 302) graduated college, 15% (n = 155) had some postgraduate,
professional, or master’s education, and 1% (n = 13) reported having a doctorate (Table 3).
Table 2 - Distribution by Gender
Gender
n
%
Male
505
47.4
Female
542
50.9
Non-binary
7
0.7
Prefer not to answer
11
1.0
Total
1065
100
Table 3 - Distribution by Education
Education
n
%
No schooling completed
10
0.9
Some schooling
48
4.5
High school diploma
216
20.3
Trade school or some college
318
29.9
College graduate
302
28.4
Some postgraduate, professional, or master’s
155
14.6
Doctorate degree
13
1.2
Total
1062
100
In terms of ethnicity, 16% (n = 163) of respondents identified Hispanic or Latino, while 79% (n = 827)
indicated they are not Hispanic or Latino, and 5% (n = 50) preferred not to answer (Table 4). For race,
65% (n = 697) identified as White or Caucasian, 15% (n = 163) Black or African American, 5% Asian (n =
51), 3% (n = 28) American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.4% (n = 4) Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander,
and the remaining identified with multiple races, other races, or preferred not to answer (Table 5).

6
Table 4 - Distribution by Ethnicity
Ethnicity
n
%
Hispanic or Latino
163
15.5
Not Hispanic or Latino
827
78.5
Unknown
13
1.2
Prefer not to answer
50
4.7
Total
1053
100
Table 5 - Distribution by Race
Race
n
%
American Indian or Alaska native
28
2.6
Asian
51
4.8
Black or African American
163
15.2
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
4
0.4
White or Caucasian
697
65.2
Multi-race
16
1.5
Some other race
64
6.0
Prefer not to answer
35
3.3
Total
1058
100
The median household income was in the $25,000 - $49,999 category (22%, n = 230), while the second
largest income group was in the less than $25,000 category (17%, n = 180), followed by $50,000 -
$74,999 category (17%, n = 178; Table 6). Twenty-one percent (n = 221) of respondents described their
current place of residence as farm or ranch, 38% lived in towns (with less than 50,000 population; n =
397), and 41% (n = 432) lived in cities or metropolitan areas with a population of more than 50,000
(Table 7). The average length of residence at respondents’ current address was 12.3 years. The
geographical distribution of respondents based on self-reported zip codes of their permanent residence
is displayed in Figure 2.
Table 6 - Distribution by Annual Household Income
Annual household income
n
%
Less than $25,000
180
16.9
$25,000 - $49,999
230
21.7
$50,000 - $74,999
178
16.8
$75,000 - $99,999
106
10.0
$100,000 - $149,999
113
10.6
$150,000 - $199,999
64
6.0
$200,000 - $249,999
30
2.8
$250,000 - $299,999
11
1.0
$300,000 or more
42
4.0
Prefer not to answer
108
10.2
Total
1062
100

7
Table 7 - Distribution by Residency
Residency
n
%
Farm
101
9.6
Ranch
120
11.4
Town – Less than 15,000
304
29.0
Town – 15,001-50,000
93
8.9
City – 50,001-250,000
245
23.3
Metropolitan area – Over 250,000
187
17.8
Total
1050
100
Figure 2 - Geographical Distribution of Respondents

8
Respondents’ residential distribution across Gould ecoregions of Texas (Figure 3) is displayed in
Table 8. For zip codes falling across more than one ecoregion, respondents were randomly
assigned to one of their identified regions.
Table 8 - Residential Distribution by Texas Ecoregion
Texas Ecoregion
n
%
East Texas Pineywoods
128
12.1
Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes
203
19.2
Post Oak Savannah
46
4.3
Blackland Prairies
302
28.5
Cross Timbers and Prairies
173
16.3
South Texas Plains
45
4.2
Edwards Plateau
62
5.8
Rolling Plains
43
4.1
High Plains
31
2.9
Trans-Pecos West Texas
27
2.5

9
Figure 3 - Gould Ecoregions of Texas with County Lines Delineated.
3.02 Landowners
Thirty-one percent of respondents (n = 335) indicated they currently own or operate land for farming,
ranching, or recreation. The lands were spread across 172 counties in all ten Gould ecoregions. About
2% of these landowners (n = 7) believed that the presence of wildlife on their farms or ranch was not
important, 10% (n = 33) believed it to be somewhat important, and 88% (n = 290) believed the presence
of wildlife on their land is important or very important (Table 9). Among landowners, 68% (n = 212)
expressed that financial incentives would definitely or likely encourage them to conserve or restore
wildlife habitat on their farm or ranch (Table 10).

10
Table 9 – The Presence of Wildlife
Do you believe the presence of wildlife on my farm or ranch is important?
n
%
Not at all important
7
2.1
Somewhat important
33
10.0
Important
79
23.9
Very important
211
63.9
Total
330
100
Table 10 – Financial Incentives
Would financial incentives encourage you to conserve or restore wildlife
habitat on your farm or ranch?
n
%
Not at all
24
7.3
Potentially
82
25.0
Likely
93
28.4
Definitely
129
39.3
Total
328
100
3.03 Identification with Social Groups
Respondents were provided a list of social groups and requested to indicate the extent to which they
identified with each group. Of the social groups depicted in Figure 4, respondents most strongly
identified with “gun rights advocate” (49% indicating “strongly” or “very strongly”), followed by
“property rights advocate” and “farmer/rancher” (41% indicating “strongly” or “very strongly”) and
“wildlife advocate” (39% indicating “strongly” or “very strongly”).
Figure 4 – Social Group Identification
14%
26%
33%
21%
22%
16%
26%
19%
54%
19%
22%
12%
12%
24%
20%
15%
16%
16%
28%
23%
16%
18%
26%
28%
18%
24%
17%
20%
16%
15%
16%
17%
21%
18%
20%
8%
19%
13%
23%
33%
10%
15%
23%
21%
5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Wildlife advocate
Animal rights advocate
Hunter
Gun rights advocate
Environmentalist
Conservationist
Farmer/rancher
Property Rights Advocate
Trapper
Not at all Somewhat Moderately Strongly Very strongly

11
3.04 Participation in Outdoor Recreational Activities
The most popular outdoor activity respondents reported participating in within the last 12 months was
fishing (48.6%), followed by hiking (39.6%), and then hunting (33.6%; Table 11).
Table 11 – Outdoor recreation participation
Within the past twelve months, which outdoor recreational
activities have you participated?
n %
ATV Riding
303
28.3
Biking
319
29.8
Bird watching
320
29.9
Boating/canoeing
303
28.3
Camping
408
38.2
Fishing
519
48.6
Golf
148
13.8
Hiking
423
39.6
Hunting
357
33.4
Trapping
66
6.2
Wildlife photography
218
20.4
3.05 Agricultural Producers
In total, 275 respondents indicated they or an immediate family member within their household are
agricultural producers. Of these, 45% (n = 124) were involved in the production of crops, 79% (n = 216)
livestock, and 10% (n = 28) dairy (categories not mutually exclusive). Among livestock producers (n =
229), 91% (n = 197) produced cattle, 16% (n = 35) sheep, and 20% (n = 44) goats (note that some
producers raised one, two, or all three categories of livestock). Eighty-nine respondents indicated they
or an immediate family member within their household were game ranchers. Among these, 41 kept
exotic game species and 65 managed native game species. Among all respondents, 142 indicated that
they lease land for hunting or guided hunting trips, 61 for guided ecotours, and 95 managed land for
nature photography-based tourism.

12
4.0 FINDINGS
We have divided our presentation of findings into two sections. We first present descriptive analyses of
the questionnaire using the entire (pooled) sample. We then present comparative analyses of each of
the stakeholder groups. Membership in the different groups is not mutually exclusive, therefore, we
restricted our comparisons to those indicating “membership” (e.g., “hunter”) to those who identified as
a non-member (e.g., “non-hunter”).
4.01 Knowledge
Approximately 43% of respondents indicated that the ecological status of mountain lions in Texas was
“rare but not endangered,” 24% reported the species’ status as “endangered,” and slightly more than 14
percent reported mountain lions as “common” (Table 12).
Table 12 – Ecological Status of Mountain Lions
Which of the following do you believe describes the status of mountain lions in Texas?
n
%
Extinct
41
3.8
Endangered
256
24.0
Rare but not endangered
457
42.8
Common
153
14.3
I don’t know
160
15.0
Total
1067
100
In terms of mountain lions’ legal status in Texas, 34% of respondents incorrectly reported that the
species was a “protected animal that cannot be legally hunted or trapped,” and 11% indicated that
mountain lions are a “game animal, with controlled seasons regulating when or how many can be
hunted or trapped” (Table 13). An additional 24 percent reported “I don’t know.” Slightly more than
31% correctly identified mountain lions as a “non-game animal with no hunting or trapping restrictions.”
Table 13 – Legal Status of Mountain Lions
What do you believe is the legal status of mountain lions in Texas?
n
%
Game animal, with controlled seasons regulating when or how many can be hunted or
trapped
118 11.2
Non-game animal with no hunting or trapping restrictions
330
31.2
Protected animal that cannot be legally hunted or trapped
359
34.0
I don’t know
250
23.7
Total
1057
100

13
Almost 43% of respondents believed mountain lions to be present more than 20 miles from their
residence, while 20% reported they reside within the territory of mountain lions (Table 14).
Table 14 – Proximity to Mountain Lions
How far, do you think, is mountain lions’ territory from the area you live?
n
%
I live within mountain lions’ territory
216
20.3
Less than five miles
61
5.7
Five to twenty miles
124
11.7
More than twenty miles
455
42.8
I don’t know
208
19.5
Total
1064
100
While some respondents believed mountain lions to be present across Texas, participants most
commonly associated the species with the Trans-Pecos Gould ecoregion in west Texas (38.4%; Table 15).
Table 15 – Mountain Lion Distribution across Texas
In which region or regions of the state do you believe mountain lions occur?
Texas ecoregion
n
%
East Texas Pineywoods
225
21.0
Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes
100
9.4
Post Oak Savannah
155
14.5
Blackland Prairies
179
16.7
Cross Timbers and Prairies
220
20.6
South Texas Plains
318
29.7
Edwards Plateau
316
29.6
Rolling Plains
224
21.0
High Plains
309
28.9
Trans-Pecos West Texas
411
38.4
All regions
273
25.5
Not found in Texas
48
4.5
Forty-six percent of respondents reported adult mountain lions weigh 76 to 150 pounds, aligning with
the average weight of adult males and females in Texas (Table 16).
Table 16 – Mountain Lion Weight
What is the average weight of an adult mountain lion?
n
%
1-75 lbs
46
4.3
76-150 lbs
490
46.1
151-225 lbs
349
32.8
226-300 lbs
128
12.0
Greater than 300 lbs
51
4.8
Total
1064
100

14
The most commonly reported prey of mountain lions were deer (44.7%), followed by rodents and
rabbits (23.7%; Table 17).
Table 17 – Mountain Lion Food Items
Mark the food items
that contribute most to
the diet of mountain
lions.
1st important food
source
2nd important food
source
3rd important food
source
n
%
n
%
n
%
Songbirds
3
0.3
13
1.2
24
2.2
Quail
7
0.7
41
3.8
54
5.1
Rodents & rabbits
253
23.7
191
17.9
192
18.0
Cattle
76
7.1
85
8.0
100
9.4
Sheep and goats
83
7.8
187
17.5
164
15.3
Dogs and cats
11
1.0
32
3.0
59
5.5
Mesquite and cactus
5
0.5
10
0.9
41
3.8
Snakes & lizards
16
1.5
54
5.1
77
7.2
Deer
478
44.7
196
18.3
102
9.5
Javelina
15
1.4
52
4.9
53
5.0
Feral hogs
64
6.0
146
13.7
134
12.5
Respondents indicated that they are the most interested in information about “living nearby lions”
(58%) and “predator-prey relationships” (56%; Table 18).
Table 18 – Information on Mountain Lions
What information about mountain lions would you be interested in learning?
n
%
Predator-prey relationships
598
55.9
Predation deterrents
391
36.6
Living nearby lions
617
57.7
Approximately as many respondents reported being aware of the impact of rodenticide on wildlife
(39.1%) as those that were unaware of the impacts of rodenticide on wildlife (38.4%; Table 19).
Table 19 – Impact of Rodenticide
Are you aware of the impacts of rodenticide (rat poison) on wildlife in your area, such as
birds, coyotes, bobcats, or other animals?
n
%
No
407
38.4
Yes
414
39.1
Unsure
239
22.5
Total
1060
100.0

15
About two-thirds (66.3%) of respondents reported at least some knowledge (>5) of wildlife (Figure 5).
Figure 5 - Self-Reported Knowledge of Wildlife
1=Not at all knowledgeable through 10=Very knowledgeable
n=1060
4.02 Past Experience
With regard to respondents’ past experience with mountain lions, the majority (52.0%) indicated having
“read or heard about mountain lion-human interactions” (Table 20). Slightly more than 27% reported
having seen a mountain lion in the wild, while 22% indicated that “a member of their household had
seen mountain lion in the wild.”
Table 20 – Past Experience
Past experience with mountain lions…
n
%
Had a friend or neighbor whose livestock was threatened by a mountain lion
133
12.4
Read or heard about mountain lion-human interactions
556
52.0
A family member read or heard about a mountain lion-human interaction
155
14.5
Personal threat to themselves or their family member by a mountain lion
32
3.0
Threat to theirs or their family member’s pet by a mountain lion
47
4.4
Threat to theirs or their family member’s livestock by a mountain lion
78
7.3
Their friend or neighbor was threatened by a mountain lion
36
3.4
Personally saw a mountain lion in the wild (no threat)
292
27.3
Seen a dead animal and attributed it to a mountain lion kill
139
13.0
A member of their household had seen a mountain lion in the wild
236
22.1
Had a friend or neighbor whose pet was threatened by a mountain lion
72
6.7
2.1%
3.8%
7.0%
9.3%
8.1%
9.1%
14.9%
20.5%
15.7%
6.7%
2.8%
012345678910
Frequency
How would you rank your overall knowledge of wildlife?

16
4.03 Perceived Risk
Respondents were presented with a number of items/activities potentially threatened by the presence
of mountain lions and requested to indicate the degree of risk posed by their existence. Respondents’
considered sheep and goat farming to be at the most risk with 72% indicating no less than “moderate
risk,” followed by deer populations (71%) and then cattle farming (61%; Figure 6).
Figure 6 – Perceived Risk
6%
7%
5%
4%
10%
26%
14%
21%
24%
33%
34%
24%
44%
43%
36%
45%
42%
43%
42%
45%
26%
22%
31%
21%
28%
16%
19%
27%
20%
9%
19%
13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Deer populations
Non-hunted wildlife
Cattle farming
Sheep and goat farming
Safety of children
Personal property
My pet(s)
My personal safety
No risk at all Low risk Moderate risk Great risk

17
4.04 Attitudes
Respondents were presented with a variety of statements reflecting a broad spectrum of perspectives related to mountain lions, their
management, and their role within Texas ecosystems (Table 21). To reduce respondents’ burden related to completion time for the
questionnaire, each participant was randomly presented with a subset of nine items from the total list of 27 items presented in Table 21.
Statements receiving the strongest agreement were:
a. Mountain lions are an essential part of nature (M=4.0);
b. Valuable information could be obtained from scientific studies of mountain lion populations (M=3.99); and
c. Efforts should be made to ensure the survival of mountain lions in Texas (M=3.93).
Least agreement was evidenced for the following items:
a. Mountain lions should not be protected under any circumstances (M=2.29);
b. Mountain lions only kill animals that are sick, injured, or old and will likely die anyway (M=2.37); and
c. Housing and urban development is more important than conserving habitat for mountain lions (M=2.47).
Table 21 - Attitudes Toward Mountain Lions and their Management
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
n
M
SD
%
Seeing the track of a mountain lion would help me enjoy an
outdoor experience
354 3.25 1.30 13.6 14.7 25.1% 26.6 20.1
Seeing a mountain lion would help me enjoy an outdoor
experience
349 3.40 1.29 12.3 10.6 24.9 29.2 22.9
Mountain lions should be protected
346
3.63
1.18
5.5
11.8
25.7
27.7
29.2
I would endorse a state management plan that compensates
livestock producers for livestock loss from mountain lion
predation
366 3.58 1.07 6.3 6.6 30.3 36.9 19.9
Mountain lions are an essential part of nature
335
4.06
1.02
3.6
4.5
14.3
37.9
39.7
I enjoy knowing mountain lions live in Texas
352
3.72
1.16
6.8
5.7
27.6
29.0
31.0
Mountain lions are symbols of power and cunning
361
3.74
0.97
2.8
6.1
28.5
39.6
23.0
Efforts should be made to ensure the survival of mountains lions
in Texas
359 3.93 1.06 4.2 4.5 21.2 34.8 35.4

18
Table 21, continued - Attitudes Toward Mountain Lions and their Management
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
n
M
SD
%
My life would not be changed or be affected if mountain lions did
not exist in Texas
350 3.25 1.14 8.6 14.0 36.0 26.3 15.1
I would use lethal force to eliminate any threat posed by mountain
lions
352 3.30 1.22 10.5 12.5 33.0 24.1 19.9
Being attacked by a mountain lion while spending time outdoors is
something I worry about
358 2.49 1.35 33.0 20.1 21.5 15.4 10.1
The potential presence of mountain lions causes many people to
avoid outdoor activities
363 3.02 1.23 14.6 19.6 26.4 28.4 11.0
Landowners benefit from having mountain lions on their land
because they can charge visitors for the opportunity to hunt or
photograph them
354 2.62 1.24 25.4 18.9 31.1 16.9 7.6
I would support statewide management plans that monitor the
abundance and distribution of mountain lions across the state
348 3.70 1.10 7.2 2.9 28.4 35.6 25.9
People who benefit from mountain lions should be required to pay
for problems caused by mountain lions 358 2.91 1.15 15.6 15.4 39.7 21.2 8.1
Housing and urban development is more important than conserving
habitat for mountain lions 361 2.47 1.21 25.8 28.0 27.4 10.8 8.0
Making a living from the land (ranching, farming) is more important
than conserving habitat for mountain lions 358 2.95 1.18 11.5 23.7 36.9 14.2 13.7
Mountain lions’ prey species (animals that are naturally eaten by
mountain lions) will overpopulate if all mountain lions are
removed
361 3.52 1.10 6.1 11.1 26.3 38.0 18.6
Mountain lions only kill animals that are sick, injured, or old and will
likely die anyway 360 2.37 1.17 29.2 27.8 25.0 13.3 4.7
Because wildlife is owned by the public, public money should be
used to solve problems caused by mountain lions
345 3.53 1.04 4.9 8.1 34.8 33.6 18.6

19
Table 21, continued - Attitudes Toward Mountain Lions and their Management
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
n
M
SD
%
Mountain lions should only be protected within national parks,
wildlife refuges, and other reserves 358 3.18 1.31 14.0 17.6 23.5 26.0 19.0
Mountain lions should not be protected under any circumstances
351
2.29
1.23
35.3
23.4
24.8
9.7
6.8
Hunting is an acceptable way of managing mountain lion
populations
347 3.20 1.32 15.0 14.4 24.8 26.8 19.0
Trapping is an acceptable way of managing mountain lion
populations
363 3.16 1.23 14.0 12.1 32.2 27.0 14.6
Relocating is an acceptable way of managing mountain lion
populations
352 3.61 1.13 4.8 13.6 21.6 36.1 23.9
Valuable information could be obtained from scientific studies of
mountain lion populations
350 3.99 1.00 3.7 3.1 18.6 40.0 34.6
There is no need to manage mountain lions
357
2.54
1.08
18.5
31.4
33.3
11.5
5.3

20
4.05 Management Preferences
Table 22 presents a number of statements discussing the state of Texas’ management of mountain lions. Overall, there was a modest level of
agreement with all of the statements. Statements receiving the strongest agreement were:
a. The state should do more to understand mountain lion populations in Texas (M=3.69);
b. State officials are concerned about minimizing the threats of mountain lions to residents (M=3.43);
c. The state makes decisions about managing mountain lions in a way that is fair (M=3.39); and
d. The state draws upon sound science to make decisions about mountain lion management (M=3.39).
Statements for which respondents expressed the least agreement were:
a. The state is open and honest in the things they do and say when managing mountain lions (M=3.23);
b. The state listens to our concerns when managing mountain lions (M=3.24); and
c. The state does a competent job of managing healthy populations of mountain lions across the state (M=3.29).
Table 22 - Trust in the State
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
n
M
SD
%
I trust the state to manage mountain lions
1053
3.34
1.05
6.6
11.7
34.9
34.3
12.5
State officials are concerned about minimizing the threats of
mountain lions to residents
1053 3.43 0.96 3.9 7.8 43.7 30.7 14.0
The state does a competent job of minimizing the threats of mountain
lions
1054 3.37 0.89 3.6 5.9 51.6 27.6 11.3
The state is open and honest in the things they do and say when
managing mountain lions
1053 3.23 0.99 5.8 11.4 48.8 22.5 11.5
The state makes decisions about managing mountain lions in a way
that is fair
1055 3.39 0.90 3.2 6.5 51.2 26.4 12.6
The state listens to our concerns when managing mountain lions
1053
3.24
0.94
5.5
8.5
52.4
23.6
9.9
The state draws upon sound science to make decisions about
mountain lion management
1056 3.39 0.92 3.5 7.0 49.3 27.6 12.6
The state does a
competent job of managing healthy populations of
mountain lions across the state 1055 3.29 0.91 4.2 8.2 52.2 24.8 10.5
The state should do more to understand mountain lion populations in
Texas
1056 3.69 0.91 1.5 4.8 37.7 35.0 20.9

21
4.06 State Response
Table 23 lists potential actions that the state can use to respond to different human-mountain lion interaction scenarios. These actions range
from doing nothing to lethal management. Respondents were most inclined to support lethal management when a mountain lion:
a. “attacks a person” (41.3%);
b. “attacks a pet” (37.0%);
c. “attacks livestock” (32.8%); and
d. “is frequently seen along a popular hiking trail” (32.1%).
With the exception of a lion wandering near a home (once), there was general support for capturing and relocating lions that encroach on
human habitations.
Table 23 – Mountain Lion Management
Please select which action you would prefer the state to tak
e in
response to each of the following scenarios.
Do nothing
Monitor
the
situation
Try to
frighten it
away
Capture
and
relocate it
Kill it
When a mountain lion …
n
M
SD
%
… wanders near a home once
1063
2.45
1.02
13.4
50.6
17.8
14.0
4.2
… wanders repeatedly near a home
1058
3.24
1.03
2.7
25.5
26.7
35.1
9.9
… damages property one time
1059
3.20
1.07
4.8
24.3
27.7
32.9
10.4
… deliberately approaches a person
1057
3.75
1.03
2.7
7.7
29.2
32.4
28.0
… shows no fear of people
1058
3.77
1.11
4.7
12.7
9.5
47.4
25.7
… attacks a person
1059
3.78
1.14
2.5
7.1
9.4
39.7
41.3
… is frequently seen along a popular hiking trail
1059
4.10
1.01
2.9
16.9
10.0
39.2
31.0
… attacks livestock
1059
4.04
0.93
2.4
5.4
11.0
48.5
32.8
… attacks a pet
1060
4.07
0.98
3.0
5.6
10.0
44.4
37.0
… is seen near a school
1059
3.82
0.89
1.7
10.3
9.3
61.6
17.2
… is seen in a neighborhood
1061
3.57
0.95
2.8
15.4
13.2
59.3
9.3

22
4.07 Regulated Hunting
In terms of the hunting and trapping of mountain lions, respondents expressed the strongest support for
these activities when managed by the state for the following outcomes (Table 24):
a. “to control their populations” (67.6%);
b. “to maintain deer population for hunting” (61.5%);
c. “for the protection of species eaten by mountain lions (60.7%); and
d. “to control their damage to livestock” (57.0%).
Respondents expressed the least support for hunting and trapping activities that were motivated by:
a. “for their fur” (60.4%);
b. “as a trophy animal” (55.9%); and
c. “for their meat” (54.4%).
In general, support for year-round hunting and trapping of mountain lions without state regulation was
low.
Table 24 – Hunting Mountain Lions
To what extent do you think regulated huntin
g or
trapping of mountain lions in Texas should be permitted
for the following purposes?
Never
When
managed
by state
Permitted all year
round without
state regulation
%
To control their populations
16.9
67.6
15.3
For recreation and sport
49.7
36.5
13.8
As a trophy animal
55.9
31.1
13
For their fur
60.4
29.1
10.5
To control their damage to livestock
11.7
57.0
31.3
To maintain deer populations for hunting
22.0
61.5
16.5
For protection of wild species eaten by mountain lions
22.6
60.7
16.7
For their meat
54.4
33.1
12.6
n=1060

23
4.08 Trapping
As displayed in Table 25, about two-thirds (66.3%) of respondents felt that mountain lion traps should
be checked daily.
Table 25 – Frequency of Checking Traps
If mountain lions are trapped, how frequently should the traps be
checked?
n
%
Daily
704
66.3
Every 36 hours
106
10.0
Every 48 hours
67
6.3
Every 72 hours
12
1.1
Weekly
25
2.4
There should be no checking requirement
12
1.1
Unsure
65
6.1
Trapping should not be allowed
71
6.7
Total
1062
100
4.09 Harvest
The majority (71.1%) of respondents indicated that the killing of mountain lions should be reported to
public officials (Table 26).
Table 26 – Reporting Mountain Lion Harvest Kills
Should it be required that the harvest (killing) of mountain lions be reported
to public officials?
n
%
No
122
11.7
Yes
742
71.1
Unsure
180
17.2
Total
1044
100.0

24
4.10 Information About Mountain Lions
Respondents expressed preferences for a variety of media as information sources about mountain lions
(Table 27). Primarily, participants preferred to receive information from the internet (49.1%) and state
agencies (48.6%).
Table 27 – Preference for Mountain Lion Information
How would you prefer to receive more information
about mountain lions?
n %
State agencies
519
48.6
Television
325
30.4
Radio
169
15.8
Word of mouth
141
13.2
Local libraries or county extension offices
215
20.1
Library books
131
12.3
Nature centers, zoos, parks, etc.
341
31.9
Classes, workshops, or webinars
187
17.5
Articles in newspapers or magazines
299
28.0
Internet
525
49.1
Presentations by experts
296
27.7
Social media
272
25.4
Newsletters or online communications
283
26.5
I am not interested in learning about mountain lions
105
9.8
In terms of the type of information respondents would like to receive about mountain lions, most
expressed interest in the “locations and number of mountain lion populations” (75.4%) and “ecology –
mountain lion behavior, effects on prey species, habitat use” (63.3%; Table 28).
4.11 Group Comparisons on Select Variables
In the following section, we report comparisons among stakeholder groups on select variables. Groups
of focus were hunters, livestock producers, urban/rural residents, and residents of Texas Gould
ecoregions. For categorial/ordinally measured variables, we report Chi-Square (χ2) distributions along
with effect sizes (Cramer’s V; ϕc). For the Likert-type measures and group comparisons with
dichotomous categories (e.g., hunter/non-hunter), we report t-tests and the accompanying effect sizes
(Cohen’s d). The respective effect sizes can be interpreted as follows: values of approximately 0.2 or less
can be interpreted as “small;” values ranging from approximately 0.3 to 0.5 can be interpreted as
“medium;” and values of 0.5 or more can be interpreted as “large” (Cohen, 1988). For Likert-type
Table 28 – Preferred Content of Mountain Lion Information
What sorts of information about mountain lions would you be interested in
learning?
n %
Locations and number of mountain lion populations
806
75.4
Ecology – Mountain lion behavior, effects on prey species, habitat use
677
63.3
Methods for reducing problems caused by mountain lions
522
48.8
How to assist with mountain lion conservation in Texas
520
48.6
Other: Please specify
43
4.0

25
measures with more than three categories (e.g., Texas Gould ecoregions), one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) tests were used to identify variation, and eta-squared (η2) was used to identify the strength of
the association. For η2, values of approximately 0.01 are considered weak, values of approximately 0.06
are considered moderate, and values of 0.14 or more are considered large.
It is important to note that stakeholder categories are not mutually exclusive. For example, while we
obtained a sample of licensed hunters from TPWD, licensed hunters also appear in our other sampling
frames (i.e., rural/urban residents and livestock producers; see Section 2.1 for the description of data
sources). Similarly, livestock producers appeared in both our rural/urban resident and TPWD hunter
sampling frames. For the findings below, respondents who indicated that they had hunted in the
previous 12 months were defined as “hunters” (n=357). Respondents were identified as livestock
producers if they reported that they or any of their immediate family are agricultural producers. For
respondents answering “yes” to this question, we selected cattle, dairy, sheep, and goat producers for
additional analyses (n=229). A number of these respondents were involved in the production of all three
of these livestock categories. Only the Qualtrics panel was used for the urban/rural comparisons
(rural=370, urban=370). The distributions of respondents across Gould ecoregions are displayed in Table
8.
4.11.1 Question: Which of the following do you believe describes the status of mountain lions in Texas?
When compared to non-hunters, hunters were more inclined to report mountain lions being “rare but
not endangered” (59.4% v. 34.5%) and “common” (20.2% v. 11.4%). Alternately, non-hunters were more
inclined to indicate that mountain lions were endangered (28.9%) compared to hunters (14.3%). The
strength of this association was moderate (ϕc=.327; Table 29).
Table 29 – Hunters v. Non-hunters (Status of mountain lions in Texas)
Hunter (n = 357)
Non-hunter (n = 712)
%
Extinct
1.4
5.1
Endangered
14.3
28.9
Rare but not endangered
59.4
34.5
Common
20.2
11.4
I don’t know
4.8
20.1
Pearson Chi-Square (df)
113.899(4)
p-value
< 0.001
Cramer’s V (ϕ
c
)
0.327

26
Similarly, compared to other respondents, livestock producers were more inclined to report mountain
lions being “rare but not endangered” (51.5% v. 40.5%) and “common” (23.1% v. 11.9%). In contrast,
those not involved in livestock production were more inclined to identify mountain lions as endangered
(26.7%) compared to livestock producers (14.0%). The strength of this association was relatively small
(ϕc=.211; Table 30).
Table 30 - Livestock Producers v. Non-Producers (Status of mountain lions in Texas)
Livestock producer (n = 229)
Not livestock producer (n = 840)
%
Extinct
4.8
3.6
Endangered
14.0
26.7
Rare but not endangered
51.5
40.5
Common
23.1
11.9
I don’t know
6.6%
17.3%
Pearson Chi-Square (df)
47.682(4)
p-value
< 0.001
Cramer’s V (ϕc)
0.211
Compared to urban residents, rural residents were slightly more inclined to report mountain lions as
“rare but not endangered” (39.5% v. 26.8%) or “common” (16.2% v. 9.2%). In comparison to rural
residents, urban residents were more likely to indicate that mountain lions were “endangered” (32.7% v.
25.1%) or indicate that they didn’t know the status of the species (24.3% v. 15.4%). The strength of the
effect was modest (ϕc=2.04; Table 31).
Table 31 - Rural/Urban Residents (Status of mountain lions in Texas)
Rural (n = 370)
Urban (n = 370)
%
Extinct
3.8
7.0
Endangered
25.1
32.7
Rare but not endangered
39.5
26.8
Common
16.2
9.2
I don’t know
15.4
24.3
Pearson Chi-Square (df)
30.880(4)
p-value
< 0.001
Cramer's V (ϕ
c
)
0.204

27
Across Texas Gould ecoregions, we observed:
a. While few residents across the ecoregions considered mountain lions to be “extinct”, residents of the Gulf Prairies reported this
status more often than those from other regions.
b. Residents of the South Texas Plains were less likely to identify the status of mountain lions as “endangered” (8.9%) compared to
those in the other ecoregions (~20%).
c. Compared to residents in the other ecoregions, residents of the Edwards Plateau (24.2%) and the Trans Pecos (22.2%) were the most
inclined to report mountain lions as “common” (Table 32).
The strength of the effect of these regional differences is relatively weak (ϕc=.130).
Table 32 – Texas Gould Ecoregions (Status of mountain lions in Texas)
Blackland
Prairie
(n = 302)
Cross
Timbers
(n = 173)
Edwards
Plateau
(n = 62)
Gulf
Prairies
(n = 203)
High
Plains
(n = 31)
Piney
Woods
(n = 128)
Post Oak
Savanah
(n = 46)
Rolling
Plains
(n = 43)
South Texas
Plains
(n = 45)
Trans-
Pecos
(n = 27)
%
Extinct
3.6
3.5
1.6
8.4
0.0
1.6
0.0
4.7
4.4
0.0
Endangered
29.1
21.4
21.0
28.1
25.8
18.8
17.4
23.3
8.9
25.9
Rare but not endangered
40.1
51.4
45.2
33.0
35.5
46.1
50.0
48.8
57.8
29.6
Common
10.9
12.7
24.2
12.8
12.9
19.5
13.0
11.6
17.8
22.2
I don’t know
16.2
11.0
8.1
17.7
25.8
14.1
19.6
11.6
11.1
22.2
Pearson Chi-Square (df)
71.88(40)
p-value
< 0.01
Cramer's V (ϕc)
0.130

28
4.11.2 Question: What do you believe is the legal status of mountain lions in Texas?
Understanding of the legal status of mountain lions varied significantly between hunters and non-
hunters. Hunters more accurately reported the status of mountain lions as a non-game animal with no
trapping or hunting restrictions (57.2% v. 18.1%; Table 33).
Table 33 – Hunters v. Non-hunters (Legal status of mountain lions)
Hunter (n = 357)
Non-hunter (n = 712)
%
Game animal, with controlled seasons regulating when or
how many can be hunted or trapped.
13.8 9.8
Non-game animal with no hunting or trapping restrictions
57.2
18.1
Protected animal that cannot be legally hunted or trapped
14.4
43.9
I don’t know
14.6
28.2
Pearson Chi-Square (df)
197.5(3)
p-value
< 0.001
Cramer's V (ϕ
c
)
0.432
Similarly, livestock producers were significantly more likely than those not involved in livestock
production to correctly identify the legal status of mountain lions as a “non-game animal with no
hunting or trapping restrictions” (50.4% v. 26.0%). Conversely, those not involved in livestock production
were significantly more likely than livestock producers to indicate that mountain lions were a “protected
animal that cannot be legally hunted or trapped” (37.3% v. 21.7%) and to report their uncertainty of the
species’ legal status (25.9% v. 15.5%). These effects were relatively weak (ϕc=.229; Table 34).
Table 34 – Livestock producers v. Non-producers (Legal status of mountain lions)
Livestock producer
(n = 229)
Not livestock
producer (n = 840)
%
Game animal, with controlled seasons regulating when or
how many can be hunted or trapped.
12.4 10.8
Non-game animal with no hunting or trapping restrictions
50.4
26.0
Protected animal that cannot be legally hunted or trapped
21.7
37.3
I don’t know
15.5
25.9
Pearson Chi-Square (df)
55.3(3)
p-value
< 0.001
Cramer's V (ϕ
c
)
0.229

29
A rural-urban divide is evident in the slight (ϕc=.106) but statistically significant variation in the
responses of Texas residents regarding the legal status of mountain lions. In comparison to urban
residents, rural residents are more inclined to correctly identify the species as a “non-game animal with
no hunting or trapping regulations” (21.0% v. 14.5%). In contrast, urban residents are more likely than
rural residents to indicate that mountain lions are a “protected animal that cannot be legally hunted or
trapped” (48.5% v. 39.6%). The effect size for these differences was small (ϕc=.106; Table 35).
Table 35 – Rural/urban Residents (Legal status of mountain lions)
Rural (n = 370)
Urban (n = 370)
%
Game animal, with controlled seasons regulating when or how
many can be hunted or trapped.
10.1 10.7
Non-game animal with no hunting or trapping restrictions
21.0
14.5
Protected animal that cannot be legally hunted or trapped
39.6
48.5
I don’t know
29.2
26.3
Pearson Chi-Square (df)
8.258(3)
p-value
0.041
Cramer's V (ϕc)
0.106

30
Across Texas Gould ecoregions, modest (ϕc=.136) differences were observed in respondents’ understanding of the species’ legal status (Table
36). Compared to those in other ecoregions, residents of the Post Oak Savannah were more inclined to report that mountain lions were a “game
animal, with controlled seasons regulating when or how many can be hunted or trapped” (17.4%). Residents of the South Texas Plains and the
Edwards Plateau were more likely to correctly indicate that mountain lions are a “non-game animal with no hunting or trapping restrictions”
(46.7% and 45.9%, respectively). Alternately, residents of the Piney Woods, the Trans-Pecos, and the Gulf Prairies were more inclined to identify
the species as a “protected animal that cannot be legally hunted or trapped” (44.5%, 44.4%, and 42.3%, respectively). Uncertainty regarding the
legal status of mountain lions was lowest among the residents of the Trans-Pecos (14.8%) and the South Texas Plains (11.1%). However, the
effect size for these differences was weak (ϕc=.136).
Table 36 – Texas Gould Ecoregions (Legal status of mountain lions)
Blackland
Prairie
(n = 302)
Cross
Timbers
(n = 173)
Edwards
Plateau
(n = 62)
Gulf
Prairies
(n = 203)
High
Plains
(n = 31)
Piney
Woods
(n = 128)
Post Oak
Savanah
(n = 46)
Rolling
Plains
(n = 43)
South Texas
Plains
(n = 45)
Trans-
Pecos
(n = 27)
%
Game animal, with controlled seasons
regulating when or how many can
be hunted or trapped.
14.0 8.2 8.2 12.9 6.5 6.3 17.4 9.5 13.3 3.7
Non-game animal with no hunting or
trapping restrictions
30.1 32.9 45.9 23.9 32.3 28.1 30.4 35.7 46.7 37.0
Protected animal that cannot be
legally hunted or trapped
32.8 31.2 14.8 42.3 38.7 44.5 17.4 23.8 28.9 44.4
I don’t know
23.1
27.6
31.1
20.9
22.6
21.1
34.8
31.0
11.1
14.8
Pearson Chi-Square (df)
58.57(3)
p-value
< 0.01
Cramer's V (ϕc)
0.136

31
4.11.3 Question: How far, do you think, is mountain lions’ territory from the area you live?
Respondents who hunted in the past 12 months were significantly more likely to report living within the
territory of mountain lions than were those who had not hunted in the past year (21.2% v. 4.1%). This
effect was moderate (ϕc=.304; Table 37).
Table 37 – Hunters v. Non-hunters (Proximity to mountain lion territory)
Hunter (n = 357)
Non-hunter (n = 712)
I live within mountain lions’ territory
21.2
4.1
Less than five miles
9.2
4.1
Five to twenty miles
12.0
10.8
More than twenty miles
34.2
54.5
I don’t know
23.4
26.6
Pearson Chi-Square (df)
68.218(4)
p-value
< 0.001
Cramer's V (ϕ
c
)
0.304
Livestock producers were also significantly more likely to report living within the territory of mountain
lions than were those not associated with livestock production (38.4% v. 15.3%). As with hunters v. non-
hunters, this effect was moderate (ϕc=.258; Table 38).
Table 38 – Livestock producers v. Non-producers (Proximity to mountain lion territory)
Livestock producer
(n = 229)
Not livestock producer
(n = 840)
I live within mountain lions’ territory
38.4
15.3
Less than five miles
6.6
5.5
Five to twenty miles
13.1
11.3
More than twenty miles
32.8
45.5
I don’t know
9.2
22.4
Pearson Chi-Square (df)
71.0(4)
p-value
< 0.001
Cramer's V (ϕc)
0.258

32
Respondents residing in rural areas were significantly more likely to report living within the territory of
mountain lions than were those living in urban areas (21.2% v. 4.1%), with a moderate effect (ϕc=.304;
Table 39).
Table 39 – Rural/Urban Residents (Proximity to mountain lion territory)
Rural (n = 370)
Urban (n = 370)
I live within mountain lions’ territory
21.2
4.1
Less than five miles
9.2
4.1
Five to twenty miles
12.0
10.8
More than twenty miles
34.2
54.5
I don’t know
23.4
26.6
Pearson Chi-Square (df)
68.218(4)
p-value
< 0.001
Cramer’s V (ϕc)
0.304

33
There was modest (ϕc=.149) variation across Gould ecoregions with regard to the perceived proximity of mountain lion territory relative to
respondents’ homes (Table 40). Notable differences included:
a. Residents of the Edwards Plateau (46.8%) were most likely to report living in mountain lion territory; and
b. Residents of the High Plains (54.8%), the Gulf Prairies (53.0%), the South Texas Plains (48.9%), and the Blackland Prairie (47.7%) were the
most likely to report living more than 20 miles from mountain lion territory.
Table 40 – Texas Gould Ecoregions (Proximity to mountain lion territory)
Blackland
Prairie
(n = 302)
Cross
Timbers
(n = 173)
Edwards
Plateau
(n = 62)
Gulf
Prairies
(n = 203)
High Plains
(n = 31)
Piney
Woods
(n = 128)
Post Oak
Savanah
(n = 46)
Rolling
Plains
(n = 43)
South Texas
Plains
(n = 45)
Trans-
Pecos
(n = 27)
I live within mountain lions’ territory
13.2
24.0
46.8
11.4
12.9
25.8
26.1
32.6
26.7
18.5
Less than five miles
6.0
6.4
4.8
3.5
9.7
5.5
4.3
9.3
4.4
14.8
Five to twenty miles
13.2
16.4
11.3
10.9
0.0
9.4
8.7
9.3
8.9
3.7
More than twenty miles
47.7
35.1
22.6
53.0
54.8
40.6
34.8
30.2
48.9
33.3
I don’t know
19.9
18.1
14.5
21.3
22.6
18.8
26.1
18.6
11.1
29.6
Pearson Chi-Square (df)
94.22(40)
p-value
< 0.001
Cramer's V (ϕ
c
)
0.149

34
4.11.4 Question: Which of the following best describes your personal experiences with mountain lions?
Hunters were more likely to report a diversity of interactions with mountain lions compared to those
who had not hunted in the last 12 months. These effects were generally weak (Table 41).
Table 41 – Hunters v. Non-hunters (Personal experience)
Hunter
(n = 357)
Non-hunter
(n = 712)
Pearson
Chi-Square
(df)
p-value
Cramer's V
(ϕc)
Had a friend or neighbor whose
livestock was threatened by a
mountain lion
18.8% 9.3% 19.69(1) < 0.001 0.136
Read or heard about mountain lion-
human interactions
52.7% 51.7% 0.09(1) 0.763 0.009
A family member read or heard
about a mountain lion-human
interaction
13.4% 15.0% 0.48(1) 0.488 0.021
Personal threat to themselves or
their family member by a
mountain lion
2.5% 3.2% 0.41(1) 0.521 0.020
Threat to theirs or their family
member’s pet by a mountain lion
5.6% 3.8% 1.85(1) 0.173 0.042
Threat to theirs or their family
member’s livestock by a
mountain lion
12.0% 4.9% 17.87(1) < 0.001 0.129
Their friend or neighbor was
threatened by a mountain lion
3.6% 3.2% 0.12(1) 0.725 0.011
Personally saw a mountain lion in the
wild (no threat)
43.7% 19.1% 72.45(1) < 0.001 0.260
Seen a dead animal and attributed it
to a mountain lion kill
22.4% 8.3% 41.92(1) < 0.001 0.198
A member of their household had
seen a mountain lion in the wild
27.7% 19.2% 9.96(1) < 0.01 0.097
Had a friend or neighbor whose pet
was threatened by a mountain
lion
5.6% 7.3% 1.10(1) 0.295 0.032

35
Livestock producers were more likely to report a variety of interactions with mountain lions compared
to non-producers. These effects were generally weak (Table 42).
Table 42 – Livestock producers v. Non-producers (Personal experience)
Livestock
producer
(n = 229)
Not livestock
producer
(n = 840)
Pearson
Chi-Square
(df)
p-value
Cramer's
V (ϕc)
Had a friend or neighbor whose
livestock was threatened by a
mountain lion
23.1% 9.5% 30.64(1) < 0.001 0.169
Read or heard about mountain lion-
human interactions
47.2% 53.3% 2.75(1) 0.097 0.051
A family member read or heard
about a mountain lion-human
interaction
19.2% 13.2% 5.23(1) 0.022 0.070
Personal threat to themselves or
their family member by a
mountain lion
4.8% 2.5% 3.29(1) 0.070 0.055
Threat to theirs or their family
member’s pet by a mountain
lion
5.7% 4.0% 1.14(1) 0.286 0.033
Threat to theirs or their family
member’s livestock by a
mountain lion
20.1% 3.8% 70.49(1) < 0.001 0.257
Their friend or neighbor was
threatened by a mountain lion
4.4% 3.1% 0.89(1) 0.344 0.029
Personally saw a mountain lion in
the wild (no threat)
43.7% 22.9% 39.25(1) < 0.001 0.192
Seen a dead animal and attributed it
to a mountain lion kill
22.3% 10.5% 22.13(1) < 0.001 0.144
A member of their household had
seen a mountain lion in the wild
31.9% 19.4% 16.27(1) < 0.001 0.123
Had a friend or neighbor whose pet
was threatened by a mountain
lion
8.7% 6.2% 1.85(1) 0.173 0.042

36
While rural residents were slightly more inclined to report having seen a mountain lion compared to
urban residents, urban residents more often reported that friends’ or neighbors’ livestock had been
threatened by mountain lions. No other significant differences between urban and rural Texans were
noted for personal experiences with mountain lions. These effects were relatively weak (Table 43).
Table 43 – Rural/Urban Residents (Personal experience)
Rural
(n = 370)
Urban
(n = 370)
Pearson Chi-
Square (df)
p-value
Cramer's V
(ϕc)
Had a friend or neighbor whose
livestock was threatened by a
mountain lion
8.9% 14.3% 4.93(1) 0.026 0.082
Read or heard about mountain lion-
human interactions
53.9% 51.1% 0.52(1) 0.473 0.026
A family member read or heard
about a mountain lion-human
interaction
17.1% 12.7% 2.40(1) 0.121 0.057
Personal threat to themselves or
their family member by a
mountain lion
3.0% 5.1% 1.99(1) 0.159 0.052
Threat to theirs or their family
member’s pet by a mountain lion
5.4% 3.8% 0.86(1) 0.354 0.034
Threat to theirs or their family
member’s livestock by a
mountain lion
5.4% 8.0% 1.94(1) 0.164 0.051
Their friend or neighbor was
threatened by a mountain lion
4.4% 2.5% 1.50(1) 0.220 0.045
Personally saw a mountain lion in the
wild (no threat)
21.9% 15.6% 3.96(1) 0.047 0.073
Seen a dead animal and attributed it
to a mountain lion kill
8.5% 9.7% 0.27(1) 0.607 0.019
A member of their household had
seen a mountain lion in the wild
19.5% 19.0% 0.03(1) 0.873 0.006
Had a friend or neighbor whose pet
was threatened by a mountain
lion
7.8% 8.9% 0.27(1) 0.607 0.019

37
For experience by Gould ecoregion, we observed little variation with weak effect (Table 44). Residents of the Edwards Plateau (40.3%), the
Rolling Plains (39.5%), and the South Texas Plains (37.8%) were more likely to report having seeing a mountain lion in the wild (posing no threat).
Table 44 – Texas Gould Ecoregions (Personal experience)
Blacklan
d Prairie
(n = 302)
Cross
Timbers
(n = 173)
Edwards
Plateau
(n = 62)
Gulf
Prairies
(n = 203)
High
Plains
(n = 31)
Piney
Woods
(n = 128)
Post Oak
Savanah
(n = 46)
Rolling
Plains
(n = 43)
South Texas Plains
(n = 45)
Trans-
Pecos
(n = 27)
Pearson Chi-
Square (df)
p-value
Cramer's V
(ϕc)
a.
12.3
14.5
16.1
9.4
19.4
7.8
8.7
18.6
22.2
14.8
14.54(10)
0.150
0.117
b.
55.6
48.0
56.5
53.2
61.3
48.4
52.2
48.8
44.4
51.9
9.45(10)
0.490
0.094
c.
14.6
13.3
11.3
14.3
25.8
18.8
13.0
9.3
8.9
18.5
8.38(10)
0.592
0.089
d.
3.3
4.6
1.6
2.5
0.0
3.1
2.2
2.3
2.2
3.7
3.85(10)
0.954
0.060
e.
3.3
6.4
6.5
4.9
3.2
3.9
0.0
9.3
2.2
0.0
10.65(10)
0.385
0.100
f.
8.6
6.9
9.7
7.4
3.2
1.6
8.7
11.6
13.3
3.7
13.28(10)
0.208
0.111
g.
3.0
2.9
4.8
4.9
3.2
2.3
0.0
2.3
2.2
11.1
9.82(10)
0.457
0.096
h.
21.9
33.5
40.3
20.7
29.0
33.6
10.9
39.5
37.8
25.9
32.43(10)
<0.001
0.174
i.
14.6
15.0
12.9
11.8
6.5
9.4
4.3
14.0
24.4
11.1
12.60(10)
0.247
0.109
j.
19.5
23.1
29.0
19.2
6.5
21.9
32.6
23.3
24.4
40.7
17.64(10)
0.061
0.128
k.
6.0
9.8
8.1
3.4
6.5
6.3
4.3
9.3
11.1
11.1
9.98
0.443
0.097
a. Had a friend or neighbor whose livestock was threatened by a mountain lion
b. Read or heard about mountain lion-human interactions
c. A family member read or heard about a mountain lion-human interaction
d. Personal threat to themselves or their family member by a mountain lion
e. Threat to theirs or their family member’s pet by a mountain lion
f. Threat to theirs or their family member’s livestock by a mountain lion
g. Their friend or neighbor was threatened by a mountain lion
h. Personally saw a mountain lion in the wild (no threat)
i. Seen a dead animal and attributed it to a mountain lion kill
j. A member of their household had seen a mountain lion in the wild
k. Had a friend or neighbor whose pet was threatened by a mountain lion

38
4.11.5 Question: What do you believe to be the level of risk posed by mountain lions where they
exist?
In general, hunters considered mountain lions to be less of a threat to their person and property than
did non-hunters. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were within the medium range (Table 45).
Table 45 – Hunters v. Non-hunters (Perceived mountain lion risk)
Hunter
(n = 357)
M (SD)
Non-hunter
(n = 712)
M (SD)
t(df)
p-value
Cohen’s d
Deer populations
2.80 (0.86)
2.99 (0.86)
3.42(1057)
<0.001
0.222
Non-hunted wildlifea
2.58 (0.75)
2.74 (0.86)
3.11(801.7)
<0.01
0.194
Cattle farming
2.52 (0.75)
2.85 (0.83)
6.24(1056)
<0.001
0.406
Sheep and goat farming
2.91 (0.76)
2.98 (0.84)
1.21(1055)
0.227
0.079
Safety of childrena
2.32 (0.82)
2.69 (0.95)
6.57(808.7)
<0.001
0.407
Personal propertya
1.82 (0.78)
2.30 (0.92)
8.87(824.7)
<0.001
0.546
My pet(s) a
2.36 (0.83)
2.66 (0.99)
5.09(834.3)
<0.001
0.311
My personal safetya
1.93 (0.76)
2.42 (0.97)
9.03(885.1)
<0.001
0.541
aEqual variances not assumed.
0=No risk at all, 1=Low risk, 2=Moderate risk, 3=Great risk
Overall, livestock producers considered mountain lions to be less of a threat to their person and
property than did non-producers. Effect sizes were within the small range (Table 46).
0=No risk at all, 1=Low risk, 2=Moderate risk, 3=Great risk
Table 46 – Livestock producers v. Non-producers (Perceived mountain lion risk)
Livestock
producer
(n = 229)
M (SD)
Not livestock
producer
(n = 840)
M (SD)
t(df)
p-value
Cohen’s d
Deer populations
2.90 (0.84)
2.93 (0.87)
0.45(1057)
0.656
0.033
Non-hunted wildlife
2.67 (0.77)
2.69 (0.84)
0.39(385.91)
0.700
0.027
Cattle farming
2.57 (0.81)
2.78 (0.82)
3.51(1056)
<0.001
0.263
Sheep and goat farming
3.01 (0.75)
2.94 (0.83)
0.39(385.91)
0.700
-0.090
Safety of children
2.41 (0.88)
2.61 (0.93)
3.00(377.70)
<0.01
0.217
Personal property
2.08 (0.92)
2.15 (0.90)
1.04(1062)
0.299
0.078
My pet(s)
2.44 (0.88)
2.59 (0.97)
2.29(390.64)
0.023
0.162
My personal safety
2.07 (0.84)
2.30 (0.95)
3.60(402.64)
<0.001
0.250

39
In general, those living in rural counties considered mountain lions to be less of a threat to their person
and property than did urban residents, with effect sizes ranging from small to medium (Table 47).
Table 47 – Rural/Urban Residents (Perceived mountain lion risk)
Rural
(n = 370)
M (SD)
Urban
(n = 370)
M (SD)
t(df)
p-value
Cohen’s d
Deer populations
2.96 (0.83)
3.07 (0.86)
-1.80(730)
0.072
-0.133
Non-hunted wildlife
2.73 (0.83)
2.76 (0.89)
-0.43(728)
0.667
-0.032
Cattle farming
2.79 (0.79)
2.99 (0.84)
-3.40(730)
<0.001
-0.251
Sheep and goat farming
2.98 (0.80)
3.03 (0.88)
-0.93(729)
0.355
-0.068
Safety of children
2.60 (0.91)
2.87 (0.98)
-3.93(736)
<0.001
-0.289
Personal propertya
2.16 (0.87)
2.51 (0.93)
-5.24(732.1)
<0.001
-0.386
My pet(s)a
2.68 (0.94)
2.73 (1.05)
-0.73(727.5)
0.466
-0.054
My personal safetya
2.25 (0.87)
2.65 (1.03)
-5.68(711.9)
<0.001
-0.419
aEqual variances not assumed
0=No risk at all, 1=Low risk, 2=Moderate risk, 3=Great risk

40
For Texas Gould ecoregions, modest variation was evidenced across regions with regard to respondents’ perceptions of risk related to the safety
of children, personal property, and person. This variation was relatively small (Table 48).
Table 48 – Texas Gould Ecoregions (Perceived mountain lion risk)
Blackland
Prairie
(n = 302)
M (SD)
Cross
Timbers
(n = 173)
M (SD)
Edwards
Plateau
(n = 62)
M (SD)
Gulf
Prairies
(n = 203)
M (SD)
High
Plains
(n = 31)
M (SD)
Piney
Woods
(n = 128)
M (SD)
Post Oak
Savanah
(n = 46)
M (SD)
Rolling
Plains
(n = 43)
M (SD)
South
Texas
Plains
(n = 45)
M (SD)
Trans-
Pecos
(n = 27)
M (SD)
F(df)
p-value
η
2
Deer populations
2.94
(0.86)
2.84
(0.88)
2.92
(0.89)
2.99
(0.87)
2.84
(0.78)
2.93
(0.85)
2.85
(0.82)
2.93
(0.84)
2.91
(0.9)
3.08
(0.74)
0.49(9) 0.884 0.004
Non-hunted wildlife
2.70
(0.85)
2.71
(0.75)
2.66
(0.73)
2.75
(0.87)
2.35
(0.84)
2.66
(0.85)
2.62
(0.78)
2.71
(0.77)
2.64
(0.8)
2.72
(0.94)
0.80(9) 0.617 0.007
Cattle farming
2.77
(0.82)
2.64
(0.79)
2.50
(0.59)
2.88
(0.88)
2.71
(0.78)
2.74
(0.79)
2.63
(0.8)
2.73
(0.81)
2.69
(0.92)
2.92
(0.8)
1.85(9) 0.056 0.016
Sheep and goat farming
2.95
(0.85)
2.88
(0.8)
3.02
(0.71)
3.07
(0.77)
2.77
(0.67)
2.88
(0.83)
2.93
(0.81)
2.95
(0.84)
3.11
(0.86)
2.92
(1.02)
1.06(9) 0.388 0.009
Safety of childrena
2.70
(0.96)
2.50
(0.85)
2.31
(0.78)
2.68
(0.92)
2.39
(0.88)
2.35
(0.9)
2.43
(0.93)
2.53
(0.93)
2.71
(0.94)
2.67
(1.07)
2.84(9) < 0.01 0.024
Personal property
2.19
(0.92)
2.06
(0.91)
1.93
(0.81)
2.29
(0.94)
1.94
(0.77)
2.01
(0.91)
2.07
(0.9)
2.02
(0.8)
2.24
(0.88)
2.52
(0.8)
2.37(9) 0.012 0.020
My pet(s)
2.67
(0.98)
2.53
(0.94)
2.45
(0.82)
2.60
(0.98)
2.23 (0.8)
2.46
(0.96)
2.41
(0.91)
2.56
(0.93)
2.67
(0.93)
2.52
(1.01)
1.33(9) 0.218 0.011
My personal safetya
2.37
(0.93)
2.17
(0.91)
2.02
(0.84)
2.41
(1.02)
2.10
(0.83)
2.09
(0.84)
2.16
(0.82)
2.14
(0.89)
2.18
(0.96)
2.41
(1.08)
2.59(9) < 0.01 0.021
aEqual variances not assumed, Brown-Forsythe test used.
0=No risk at all, 1=Low risk, 2=Moderate risk, 3=Great risk

41
4.11.6 Question: The following statements reflect a variety of opinions that Texans express toward mountain lions. Please indicate your level of
agreement with each statement.
Some differences were observed between hunters and non-hunters in terms of their attitudes toward mountain lions and their management
(Table 34a). Compared to those who had not hunted in the past 12 months, hunters were more inclined to agree with the idea that “mountain
lions are an essential part of nature” (M=4.29 v. M=3.93), that “hunting is an acceptable way of managing mountain lion populations” (M=4.01 v.
M=2.81), and that “trapping is an acceptable way of managing mountain lions populations” (M=3.35 v. M=3.07). Alternately, compared to
hunters, non-hunters were more inclined to agree with the statements that “mountain lions should be protected” (M=3.84 v. M=3.26) and that
“the potential presence of mountain lions causes any people to avoid outdoor activities” (M=3.27 v. M=2.48). The effect sizes of these
differences ranged from moderate to strong (Table 49).
Table 49 – Hunters v. Non-hunters (Attitude towards mountain lions)
Hunter
(n = 357)
M (SD)
Non-hunter
(n = 712)
M (SD)
t(df)
p-value
Cohen’s d
Mountain lions should be protecteda
3.26 (1.26)
3.84 (1.08)
4.28(215.2)
<0.001
0.505
I would endorse a state management plan that compensates livestock
producers for livestock loss from mountain lion predation
3.70 (1.18) 3.52 (1.02) -1.50(364) 0.134 -0.170
Mountain lions are an essential part of nature
4.29 (0.97)
3.93 (1.03)
-3.11(333)
0.002
-0.357
Mountain lions are symbols of power and cunning
3.79 (0.93)
3.72 (0.99)
-0.66(359)
0.507
-0.076
The potential presence of mountain lions causes many people to avoid
outdoor activities
2.48 (1.18) 3.27 (1.17) 6.02(361) <0.001 0.674
Landowners benefit from having mountain lions on their land because they
can charge visitors for the opportunity to hunt or photograph them
2.61 (1.24) 2.63 (1.25) 0.151(352) 0.880 0.017
Making a living from the land (ranching, farming) is more important than
conserving habitat for mountain lions
3.07 (1.20) 2.89 (1.17) -1.32(356) 0.186 -0.150
Mountain lions should only be protected within national parks, wildlife
refuges, and other reserves
3.15 (1.32) 3.20 (1.31) 0.316(356) 0.752 0.036
Mountain lions should not be protected under any circumstances
2.28 (1.23)
2.30 (1.24)
0.12(349)
0.903
0.014
Hunting is an acceptable way of managing mountain lion populationsa
4.01 (1.00)
2.81 (1.27)
-9.58(280.2)
<0.001
-1.010
Trapping is an acceptable way of managing mountain lion populations
3.35 (1.26)
3.07 (1.21)
-2.08(361)
0.038
-0.232
There is no need to manage mountain lions
2.62 (1.13)
2.50 (1.06)
-1.03(355)
0.306
-0.115
aEqual variances not assumed.
1=Strongly disagree through 5=Strongly agree

42
There was also variability between livestock producers and non-producers related to their attitudes toward mountain lions and management of
the species (Table 50). In comparison to those that were not involved in livestock production, livestock producers were more inclined to agree
that making a living from the land (ranching, farming) was more important than conserving habitat for mountain lions (M=3.34 v. M=2.85) and
that hunting is an acceptable way of managing mountain lion populations (M=3.66 v. M=3.08). Alternately, compared to livestock producers,
non-producers were more inclined to agree with the statements “mountain lions should be protected” (M=3.71 v. M=3.34) and “the potential
presence of mountain lions causes any people to avoid outdoor activities” (M=3.27 v. M=2.48). The effect sizes of these differences were in the
medium range.
Table 50 – Livestock producers v. Non-producers (Attitude towards mountain lions)
Livestock
producer (n
= 229)
M (SD)
Not livestock
producer
(n = 840)
M (SD)
t(df)
p-value
Cohen’s d
Mountain lions should be protecteda
3.34 (1.31)
3.71 (1.13)
2.25(104.5)
0.026
0.321
I would endorse a state management plan that compensates livestock
producers for livestock loss from mountain lion predation
3.74 (1.10) 3.54 (1.07) -1.44(364) 0.150 -0.192
Mountain lions are an essential part of nature
4.13 (1.10)
4.03 (1.00)
-0.74(333)
0.461
-0.097
Mountain lions are symbols of power and cunning
3.88 (0.97)
3.70 (0.97)
-1.35(359)
0.177
-0.177
The potential presence of mountain lions causes many people to avoid
outdoor activities
2.58 (1.24) 3.16 (1.19) 3.90(361) <.001 0.475
Landowners benefit from having mountain lions on their land because they
can charge visitors for the opportunity to hunt or photograph them
2.44 (1.30) 2.67 (1.23) 1.35(352) 0.177 0.183
Making a living from the land (ranching, farming) is more important than
conserving habitat for mountain lions
3.34 (1.24) 2.85 (1.14) -3.14(356) <0.01 -0.416
Mountain lions should only be protected within national parks, wildlife
refuges, and other reserves
3.01 (1.43) 3.23 (1.28) 1.23(356) 0.218 0.163
Mountain lions should not be protected under any circumstancesa
2.55 (1.42)
2.22 (1.17)
-1.81(103.1)
0.074
-0.262
Hunting is an acceptable way of managing mountain lion populations
3.66 (1.24)
3.08 (1.31)
-3.45(345)
<0.001
-0.447
Trapping is an acceptable way of managing mountain lion populations
3.19 (1.21)
3.15 (1.24)
-0.25(361)
0.806
-0.031
There is no need to manage mountain lionsa
2.61 (1.11)
2.52 (1.07)
-0.65(117.7)
0.517
-0.085
aEqual variances not assumed.
1=Strongly disagree through 5=Strongly agree

43
Rural and urban residents exhibited less variation in their attitudes toward mountain lions and the species’ management (Table 51). When
compared to rural Texans, urban residents were more likely to agree with the idea that “the potential presence of mountain lions causes many
people to avoid outdoor activities” (M=3.46 v. M=3.15), “landowners benefit from having mountain lions on their land because they can charge
visitors for the opportunity to hunt or photograph them” (M=2.90 v. M=2.48), and “mountain lions should only be protected within national
parks, wildlife refuges, and other reserves” (M=3.57 v. M=2.90). Rural residents were more inclined to agree with the statement “hunting is an
acceptable way of managing mountain lion populations” (M=3.06 v. M=2.68) compared to urban residents. These effect sizes were in the small
to medium range.
Table 51 – Rural/Urban Residents (Attitude towards mountain lions)
Rural
(n = 370)
M (SD)
Urban
(n = 370)
M (SD)
t(df)
p-value
Cohen’s d
Mountain lions should be protected
3.79 (1.08)
3.79 (1.13)
0.05(241)
0.959
0.007
I would endorse a state management plan that compensates livestock
producers for livestock loss from mountain lion predation
3.51 (1.01) 3.61 (1.07) -0.76(253) 0.451 -0.095
Mountain lions are an essential part of nature
4.08 (0.93)
3.87 (1.09)
1.57(229)
0.118
0.207
Mountain lions are symbols of power and cunning
3.78 (1.00)
3.59 (0.99)
1.51(250)
0.132
0.190
The potential presence of mountain lions causes many people to avoid
outdoor activities
3.15 (1.14) 3.46 (1.14) -2.13(255) 0.034 -0.266
Landowners benefit from having mountain lions on their land because they
can charge visitors for the opportunity to hunt or photograph them
2.48 (1.24) 2.90 (1.26) -2.68(247) 0.008 -0.340
Making a living from the land (ranching, farming) is more important than
conserving habitat for mountain lions
2.85 (1.21) 3.06 (1.17) -1.43(250) 0.155 -0.180
Mountain lions should only be protected within national parks, wildlife
refuges, and other reserves
2.90(1.31) 3.57(1.22) -4.22(249) <0.001 -0.532
Mountain lions should not be protected under any circumstances
2.22 (1.15)
2.44 (1.26)
-1.40(235)
0.163
-0.182
Hunting is an acceptable way of managing mountain lion populations
3.06 (1.21)
2.68 (1.26)
2.36(238)
0.019
0.306
Trapping is an acceptable way of managing mountain lion populations
3.18 (1.20)
2.98 (1.23)
1.31(248)
0.190
0.166
There is no need to manage mountain lionsa
2.50 (0.97)
2.61 (1.18)
-0.79(236.0)
0.430
-0.101
aEqual variances not assumed.
1=Strongly disagree through 5=Strongly agree

44
No statistically significant differences between Gould ecoregions were evident in respondents’ attitudes toward mountain lions and their
management (Table 52).
Table 52 – Texas Gould Ecoregions (Attitude towards mountain lions)
Blackland
Prairie
(n = 302)
M (SD)
Cross
Timbers
(n = 173)
M (SD)
Edwards
Plateau
(n = 62)
M (SD)
Gulf
Prairies
(n = 203)
M (SD)
High Plains
(n = 31)
M (SD)
Piney
Woods
(n = 128)
M (SD)
Post Oak
Savanah
(n = 46)
M (SD)
Rolling
Plains
(n = 43)
M (SD)
South Texas
Plains
(n = 45)
M (SD)
Trans-
Pecos
(n = 27)
M (SD)
F(df)
p-
value
η
2
a.
3.58 (1.26)
3.84 (0.96)
3.79 (1.18)
3.63 (1.29)
3.57 (1.13)
3.49 (1.33)
3.35 (0.86)
3.6 (0.83)
3.6 (1.18)
3.7 (1.34)
0.47(9)
0.895
0.012
b.
3.63 (1.02)
3.78 (1.03)
3.31 (0.7)
3.38 (1.26)
4.14 (0.69)
3.51 (1.04)
3.47 (1.07)
3.56 (1.01)
3.59 (1.18)
3.46 (1.13)
0.94(9)
0.494
0.023
c.
3.97 (1.11)
4.14 (1.01)
4.24 (1.15)
3.98 (1.02)
4.42 (0.67)
4.11 (0.9)
4.14 (0.53)
4.17 (1.27)
4.06 (1.03)
3.5 (1.18)
0.74(9)
0.677
0.020
d.
3.77 (1.02)
3.78 (0.97)
3.67 (0.84)
3.73 (0.98)
3.75 (1.04)
3.87 (0.78)
3.78 (0.97)
3.81 (1.11)
3.37 (1.16)
3.4 (0.97)
0.57(9)
0.818
0.015
e.
3.07 (1.29)
2.98 (1.27)
2.75 (1.21)
3.19 (1.17)
2.92 (1.12)
2.79 (1.12)
2.83 (1.1)
2.88 (1.31)
3.36 (1.12)
3.29 (1.6)
0.68(9)
0.731
0.017
f.
2.71 (1.23)
2.80 (1.27)
2.54 (1.14)
2.59 (1.3)
2.67 (1.44)
2.47 (1.2)
2.77 (1.17)
2.11 (1.05)
2.11 (1.24)
3 (1.34)
0.96(9)
0.478
0.025
g.
2.95 (1.31)
2.83 (0.99)
3.19 (1.38)
3 (1.19)
3.08 (1.32)
2.72 (1.1)
2.88 (0.96)
2.88 (0.93)
3.18 (1.08)
3.5 (1.41)
0.60(9)
0.792
0.016
h.
3.2 (1.22)
3.21 (1.33)
2.52 (1.33)
3.41 (1.31)
3.18 (1.47)
3.00 (1.38)
3.42 (1.22)
2.64 (1.45)
3.53 (1.36)
3.22 (1.3)
1.38(9)
0.194
0.035
i.
2.24 (1.25)
2.25 (1.22)
1.91 (1.04)
2.38 (1.21)
2 (1.12)
2.17 (1.29)
2.65 (0.99)
3.14 (1.41)
2.43 (1.22)
2.14 (1.57)
1.38(9)
0.196
0.035
j.
3.04 (1.38)
3.16 (1.21)
3.82 (1.05)
3.24 (1.38)
3.13 (0.83)
3.26 (1.33)
3.46 (1.2)
3.3 (1.38)
3.11 (1.41)
2.5 (1.76)
0.98(9)
0.454
0.026
k.
3.16 (1.23)
2.90 (1.3)
3.46 (1.06)
3.27 (1.26)
3.18 (1.08)
3.13 (1.4)
3.11 (1.08)
3.38 (0.96)
3.05 (1.1)
3 (1.41)
0.56(9)
0.828
0.014
l.
2.50 (1.02)
2.50 (0.85)
2.63 (1.07)
2.71 (1.29)
2.8 (1.32)
2.47 (1.06)
2.31 (0.75)
2.82 (1.08)
2.42 (1.44)
1.88 (0.83)
0.85(9)
0.571
0.022
1=Strongly disagree through 5=Strongly agree
a. Mountain lions should be protecteda
b. I would endorse a state management plan that compensates livestock producers for livestock loss from mountain lion predation
c. Mountain lions are an essential part of nature
d. Mountain lions are symbols of power and cunning
e. The potential presence of mountain lions causes many people to avoid outdoor activities
f. Landowners benefit from having mountain lions on their land because they can charge visitors for the opportunity to hunt or photograph
them
g. Making a living from the land (ranching, farming) is more important than conserving habitat for mountain lionsa
h. Mountain lions should only be protected within national parks, wildlife refuges, and other reserves
i. Mountain lions should not be protected under any circumstances
j. Hunting is an acceptable way of managing mountain lion populations
k. Trapping is an acceptable way of managing mountain lion populations
l. There is no need to manage mountain lionsa
aEqual variances not assumed.

45
4.11.7 Question: Please select which action you would prefer the state to take in response to each of the
following scenarios. Please circle the number that best matches your opinion.
With regard to the state’s management of human–mountain lion interactions, hunters were generally
the most supportive of active management actions (e.g., frighten, relocate, kill; Table 53). However,
non-hunters expressed more support for these types of actions when mountain lions wander near
homes or attack people. These differences ranged from minor to substantial in effect size.
Table 53 – Hunters v. Non-hunters (Preferred management action)
When a mountain lion …
Hunter
(n = 357)
M (SD)
Non-hunter
(n = 712)
M (SD)
t(df)
p-value
Cohen’s d
… wanders near a home once
2.28 (1.04)
2.54 (1.01)
3.94(1061)
<.001
0.256
… wanders repeatedly near a
home
3.35 (1.04) 3.18 (1.02) -2.50(1056) 0.013
-0.163
… damages property one time
3.21 (1.16)
3.19 (1.02)
-0.35(633.90)
0.729
-0.024
… deliberately approaches a
person
4.11 (0.93) 3.57 (1.04) -8.57(782.30) <0.001
-0.538
… shows no fear of people
4.15 (0.89)
3.57 (1.16)
-9.00(892.10)
<0.001
-0.538
… attacks a person
3.84 (0.97)
4.23 (1.00)
6.16(1057)
<0.001
0.401
… is frequently seen along a
popular hiking trail
4.54 (0.84) 3.40 (1.09) -18.79(890.76) <0.001
-1.124
… attacks livestock
4.26 (0.92)
3.93 (0.92)
-5.67(707.01)
<0.001
-0.370
… attacks a pet
4.18 (1.04)
4.01 (0.94)
-2.63(655.83)
<0.01
-0.177
… is seen near a school
3.87 (0.92)
3.80 (0.88)
-1.24(1057)
0.215
-0.081
… is seen in a neighborhood
3.56 (0.99)
3.58 (0.94)
0.31(677.91)
0.755
0.021
1=Do nothing, 2=Monitor the situation, 3=Try to frighten it away, 4=Capture and relocate it, 5=Kill it

46
With the exception of when a mountain lion attacks an individual, livestock producers were generally
more supportive of the state actively responding to mountain lion interactions with the public than were
non-producers. These differences ranged from small to medium effect (Table 54).
Table 54 – Livestock producers v. Non-producers (Preferred management action)
When a mountain lion …
Livestock producer
(n = 229)
M (SD)
Not
livestock
producer
(n = 840)
M (SD)
t(df)
p-value
Cohen’s d
… wanders near a home
once
2.35 (1.07) 2.48 (1.01) -1.71(1061)
0.088 0.127
… wanders repeatedly
near a home
3.25 (1.09) 3.24 (1.01) 0.13(1056)
0.900 -0.009
… damages property one
time
3.21 (1.14) 3.19 (1.05)
0.19(343.01)
0.851 -0.015
… deliberately approaches
a person
4.03 (0.99) 3.68 (1.03) 4.62(1055)
<0.001 -0.347
… shows no fear of people
4.07 (1.02)
3.69 (1.12)
4.88(390.49)
<0.001
-0.346
… attacks a person
3.89 (1.04)
4.16 (0.99)
-3.58(1057)
<0.001
0.267
… is frequently seen along
a popular hiking trail
4.25 (1.07) 3.65 (1.13) 7.19(1057)
<0.001 -0.538
… attacks livestock
4.20 (0.96)
4.00 (0.92)
2.83(352.70)
<0.01
-0.216
… attacks a pet
4.19 (0.96)
4.03 (0.98)
2.09(1058)
0.037
-0.156
… is seen near a school
3.83 (0.93)
3.82 (0.88)
0.21(1057)
0.836
-0.015
… is seen in a
neighborhood
3.59 (1.01) 3.56 (0.94) 0.28(1059)
0.776 -0.021
1=Do nothing, 2=Monitor the situation, 3=Try to frighten it away, 4=Capture and relocate it, 5=Kill it

47
With the exception of when a mountain lion wanders near a home, rural residents were generally more
supportive of the state actively responding to mountain lion interactions with the public compared to
urban respondents. These differences were of moderate strength (Table 55).
Table 55 – Rural/Urban Residents (Preferred management action)
When a mountain lion …
Rural
(n = 370)
M (SD)
Urban
(n = 370)
M (SD)
t(df)
p-value
Cohen’s d
… wanders near a home oncea
2.39 (0.94)
2.74 (1.04)
-4.78(728.9)
<0.001
-.352
… wanders repeatedly near a home
3.16 (1.01)
3.27 (1.04)
-1.41(733)
0.159
-.104
… damages property one time
3.22 (1.02)
3.26 (1.04)
-0.52(734)
0.605
-.038
… deliberately approaches a
person
a
3.67 (0.99) 3.53 (1.10) 1.81(727.7) 0.070 .134
… shows no fear of peoplea
3.76 (1.07)
3.40 (1.23)
4.12(732)
<0.001
.304
… attacks a persona
4.54 (0.76)
4.10 (1.10)
6.25(651.5)
<0.001
.461
… is frequently seen along a
popular hiking trail
a
3.46 (1.00) 3.22 (1.08) 3.22(728.0) <0.01 .238
… attacks livestocka
4.10 (0.81)
3.80 (1.00)
4.54(702.9)
<0.001
.335
… attacks a peta
4.19 (0.84)
3.92 (1.01)
4.01(708.9)
<0.001
.296
… is seen near a schoola
3.89 (0.83)
3.76 (0.96)
2.05(718.7)
0.041
.151
… is seen in a neighborhood
3.63 (0.89)
3.60 (0.96)
0.38(735)
0.703
.028
aEqual variances not assumed.
1=Do nothing, 2=Monitor the situation, 3=Try to frighten it away, 4=Capture and relocate it, 5=Kill it

48
There was relatively minor variation across Texas Gould ecoregions with regard to respondents’ preferences for management in instances of
mountain lions damaging property (item c), attacking livestock (item h) and pets (item i), and being seen in a neighborhood (item k). These effect
sizes were weak (η2=~.02; Table 46).
Table 56 – Texas Gould Ecoregions (Preferred management action)
When a
mountain
lion …
Blackland
Prairie
(n = 302)
M (SD)
Cross
Timbers
(n = 173)
M (SD)
Edwards
Plateau
(n = 62)
M (SD)
Gulf
Prairies
(n = 203)
M (SD)
High Plains
(n = 31)
M (SD)
Piney
Woods
(n = 128)
M (SD)
Post Oak
Savanah
(n = 46)
M (SD)
Rolling
Plains
(n = 43)
M (SD)
South Texas
Plains
(n = 45)
M (SD)
Trans-
Pecos
(n = 27)
M (SD)
F(df)
p-value
η
2
a.
2.51 (1.01)
2.45 (1)
2.16 (0.99)
2.59 (1.07)
2.67 (0.99)
2.28 (0.94)
2.5 (1.07)
2.23 (1.11)
2.49 (1.01)
2.48 (1.12)
1.81(9)
0.064
0.016
b.
3.31 (1.01)
3.22 (0.97)
2.9 (1.09)
3.3 (1.04)
3.17 (1.02)
3.11 (1.01)
3.46 (1.03)
3.19 (1.14)
3.38 (1.05)
3.11 (1.12)
1.69(9)
0.107
0.014
c.
3.24 (1.04)
2.97 (1.05)
3.16 (1.05)
3.19 (1.05)
3.2 (0.96)
3.17 (1.10)
3.46 (1.00)
3.26 (1.06)
3.6 (1.25)
3.15 (1.13)
1.99(9)
0.038
0.017
d.
3.75 (1.04)
3.71 (1.01)
3.72 (1.02)
3.69 (1.06)
3.76 (0.83)
3.71 (1.01)
4.04 (0.84)
3.78 (1.08)
4.16 (1.09)
3.56 (1.19)
1.44(9)
0.164
0.012
e.
3.83 (1.08)
3.73 (1.04)
3.79 (0.99)
3.64 (1.2)
3.9 (1.12)
3.71 (1.11)
4.04 (0.84)
3.9 (1.14)
4.02 (1.22)
3.37 (1.36)
1.49(9)
0.148
0.013
f.
4.15 (0.98)
4.1 (0.98)
3.92 (0.94)
4 (1.11)
4.33 (0.8)
4.27 (1.01)
4.15 (0.89)
4.22 (1.01)
3.96 (1)
4.04 (0.76)
1.35(9)
0.207
0.012
g.
3.79 (1.12)
3.84 (1.06)
3.85 (1.19)
3.69 (1.15)
3.77 (1.04)
3.65 (1.15)
3.89 (1.3)
3.76 (1.11)
4.22 (1.15)
3.52 (1.28)
1.38(9)
0.194
0.012
h.
4.06 (0.89)
3.92 (0.95)
4.03 (0.89)
3.83 (1.06)
3.97 (0.96)
4.18 (0.75)
4.33 (0.9)
4.19 (0.89)
4.56 (0.55)
3.89 (0.97)
4.15(9)
< 0.001
0.035
i.
4.05 (1.03)
4.04 (0.9)
4.08 (0.97)
3.88 (1.12)
4 (0.85)
4.17 (0.89)
4.35 (0.71)
4.21 (0.92)
4.44 (0.69)
4.15 (0.72)
2.85(9)
< 0.01
0.020
j.
3.9 (0.84)
3.84 (0.89)
3.52 (1.03)
3.72 (0.98)
4.03 (0.72)
3.82 (0.84)
3.89 (0.77)
3.86 (0.95)
3.96 (0.8)
3.81 (0.92)
1.68(9)
0.090
0.014
k.
3.58 (0.96)
3.6 (0.88)
3.13 (1.09)
3.53 (1.02)
3.8 (0.85)
3.63 (0.89)
3.74 (0.83)
3.48 (0.86)
3.82 (0.86)
3.52 (1.05)
2.43(9)
0.011
0.020
1=Do nothing, 2=Monitor the situation, 3=Try to frighten it away, 4=Capture and relocate it, 5=Kill it
a. … wanders near a home oncea
b. … wanders repeatedly near a home
c. … damages property one time
d. … deliberately approaches a person
e. … shows no fear of peoplea
f. … attacks a person
g. … is frequently seen along a popular hiking trail
h. … attacks livestock
i. … attacks a peta
j. … is seen near a schoola
k. … is seen in a neighborhooda
aEqual variances not assumed, Brown-Forsythe test used.

49
4.2 Comparison to 2001 Investigation
Statistical comparisons between our results and the work conducted by Peña in 2001 are confounded by the studies’ use of different levels of
measurement (i.e., we did not universally include a “don’t know” response category). Below (Table 57), we present an overview of some
“general trends” reported by Peña (2002) and identified in this investigation in Table 35. The reported “n” in 2022 is lower than our total “n”
owing to our efforts to reduce the respondent burden (discussed in Section 4.04).
Table 57 – Comparison between results of 2001 and 2022 surveys
Year
n
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree
nor agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Don’t
know
%
Seeing the track of a mountain lion would help me
enjoy an outdoor experience
2001
786
13.0
14.6
19.6
31.2
17.8
3.8
2022
354
13.6
14.7
25.1
26.6
20.1
-
Mountain lions should be protected
2001
783
9.1
26.2
16.9
25.9
18.4
3.6
2022
346
5.5
11.8
25.7
27.7
29.2
-
Mountain lions are an essential part of nature
2001
775
1.8
4.3
9.8
50.8
29.9
3.4
2022
335
3.6
4.5
14.3
37.9
37.9
-
I enjoy knowing mountain lions live in Texas
2001
765
2.7
5.8
21.3
42.6
24.2
3.4
2022
352
3.8
5.7
27.6
29.0
31.0
-
Mountain lions are symbols of power and cunning
2001
777
1.5
6.7
20.7
49.5
16.5
5.0
2022
361
2.8
6.1
28.5
39.6
23.0
Efforts should be made to ensure the survival of
mountains lions in Texas
2001
773
3.6
4.3
13.3
46.3
30.0
2.5
2022
395
4.2
4.5
21.2
34.8
35.4
-
My life would not be changed or be affected if
mountain lions did not exist in Texas
2001
776
8.6
20.0
21.0
35.6
8.2
6.6
2022
350
8.6
14.0
36.0
26.3
15.1
Being attacked by a mountain lion while spending
time outdoors is something I worry about
2001
783
23.2
43.6
13.5
11.1
6.0
2.6
2022
358
33.0
20.1
21.5
15.4
10.1
-
The potential presence of mountain lions causes
many people to avoid outdoor activities
2001
781
19.7
42.0
11.7
13.1
3.8
9.7
2022
363
14.6
19.6
26.4
28.4
11.0
-
Landowners benefit from having mountain lions on
their land because they can charge visitors for
the opportunity to hunt or photograph them
2001
783
18.6
29.6
14.8
13.2
2.8
20.9
2022 354 25.4 18.9 31.1 16.9 7.6 -

50
Table 57, continued - Comparison between results of 2001 and 2022 surveys
Year
n
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree
nor agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Don’t
know
%
Landowners benefit from having mountain lions on
their land because they can charge visitors for
the opportunity to hunt or photograph them
2001
783
18.6
29.6
14.8
13.2
2.8
20.9
2022 354 25.4 18.9 31.1 16.9 7.6 -
People who benefit from mountain lions should be
required to pay for problems caused by
mountain lions
2001
786
13.7
26.7
22.0
18.8
7.0
11.7
2022 358 15.6 15.4 39.7 21.2 8.1 -
Housing and urban development is more important
than conserving habitat for mountain lions
2001
785
20.4
35.5
22.4
13.1
4.1
4.5
2022
361
25.8
28.0
27.4
10.8
8.0
-
Making a living from the land (ranching, farming) is
more important than conserving habitat for
mountain lions
2001
781
9.3
26.8
28.2
24.1
8.2
3.5
2022 358 11.5 23.7 36.9 14.2 13.7 -
Mountain lions’ prey species (animals that are
naturally eaten by mountain lions) will
overpopulate if all mountain lions are removed
2001
778
3.9
17.2
8.6
41.3
14.4
14.7
2022 361 6.1 11.1 26.3 38.0 18.6 -
Mountain lions only kill animals that are sick,
injured, or old and will likely die anyway
2001
779
16.8
42.6
6.7
10.8
3.5
19.6
2022
360
29.2
27.8
25.0
13.3
4.7
-
Because wildlife is owned by the public, public
money should be used to solve problems
caused by mountain lions
2001
776
4.4
16.6
24.0
39.9
8.0
7.1
2022 345 4.9 8.1 34.8 33.6 18.6 -

51
Table 57, continued - Comparison between results of 2001 and 2022 surveys
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither disagree
nor agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Don’t
know
Year
n
%
Mountain lions should only be protected within
national parks, wildlife refuges, and other
reserves
2001
788
1.6
3.7
6.04
46.4
39.0
2.9
2022 358 14.0 17.6 23.5 26.0 19.0 -
Mountain lions should not be protected under any
circumstances
2001
787
36.3
41.3
7.9
5.0
5.2
4.3
2022
351
35.3
23.4
24.8
9.7
6.8
-
Hunting is an acceptable way of managing
mountain lion populations
2001
773
9.8
21.3
18.5
33.5
8.4
8.4
2022
347
15.0
14.4
24.8
26.8
19.0
-
Trapping is an acceptable way of managing
mountain lion populations
2001
772
6.5
13.3
13.0
48.7
9.5
9.1
2022
363
14.0
12.1
32.2
32.2
14.6
-

52
5.0 CLOSING REMARKS
5.1 What these Data Provide
These data provide a contemporary snapshot of select Texas stakeholders’ experience, knowledge, and
attitudes toward mountain lions and their management. Using three different data sources (commercial
panels, TPWD licensed hunter database), stakeholder groups were identified from past work that had
previously reported varying attitudes toward mountain lions and their management. Of the 1,069
respondents who completed a survey questionnaire in its entirety: a) 357 identified as someone who
had previously hunted in the past 12 months; b) 229 identified as being involved or having a family
member in their household who was involved in livestock/agricultural production (cattle, dairy, sheep,
and goat); c) 370 were identified as residing in a zip code that was urban; and d) 370 were identified as
residing in zip codes that were rural. Stakeholder memberships were not mutually exclusive.
5.2 What the Data do not Provide
These data do not provide insight on the “average Texas resident’s” attitude toward mountain lions and
their management. Stakeholder groups that have been previously identified as sharing varied
perspectives on mountain lions and their management were purposively sampled. While all Texans have
a stake in the management of mountain lions, not all Texans are impacted by their presence or
management policy equally. A statistically representative random sample of Texas residents would draw
a predominantly urban sample (~85%). The intent of our sampling approach, however, was to target
groups who were most likely to have their lives and livelihoods impacted by both: a) the presence of
mountain lions in their communities, and b) state policy concerning the management of mountain lions.
This sampling framework captured urban residents in addition to other groups who reside in reported
mountain lion ranges and/or are situated in reported mountain lion ranges through their recreation and
agricultural production interests.
While these data revealed a degree of consensus among key stakeholder groups, there are limitations to
interpreting these findings as indicative of Texas residents as a whole. Therefore, further inquiry would
be necessary to investigate the perspectives of the “average Texan” and those most likely to be
impacted by the presence of mountain lions and by policy related to this species’ management.
Relatively inexpensive and accessible panels are available to provide a statistically representative sample
based on Texas’ socio-demographic profile, which would facilitate the evaluation of the “average
Texan’s” perspective on mountain lions and their management. However, assessing the perspective of
those most likely to be directly impacted by the presence of mountain lions and/or their management
proves a more challenging and costly venture (e.g., accessing tax role data and conducting a postal
survey). If mountain lion sightings are somewhat indicative of mountain lion range, then accessing the
perspective of residents of the counties depicted in Figure 1 where sightings occur most frequently will
be challenging. Ultimately, understanding the attitudes of those who are impacted by and/or those who
can have impact on a mountain lion management strategy will be integral to the design and
implementation of a successful statewide strategy for the species.

53
5.0 REFERENCES
Berger, J., Stacey, P. B., Bellis, L., & Johnson, M. P. (2001). A mammalian predator-prey imbalance:
Grizzly bear and wolf extinction affect avian neotropical migrants. Ecological Applications, 11, 947-
960.
Boyd, C.E. (2003). Rock Art of the Lower Pecos. Texas A&M University Press.
Brown, J. S. (1999). Vigilance, patch use, and habitat selection: foraging under predation risk.
Evolutionary Ecology Research, 1, 49-71.
Brown, J. S., Kotlier, B. P., & Valone, T. J. (1994). Foraging under predation: A comparison of energetic
and predation costs in rodent communities of the Negev and Sonoran Deserts. Australian Journal of
Zoology, 42, 435-448.
Butler, M. J., Teaschner, A. P., Ballard, W. B., & McGee, B. K. (2005). Commentary: Wildlife ranching in
North America—arguments, issues, and perspectives. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 33, 381-389.
Census Bureau. (2016). Defining rural as the U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Department of Commerce.
Census Bureau. (2020). Population estimates. Census Bureau.
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=texas&tid=PEPPOP2019.PEPANNRES&hidePreview=false.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge Academic.
David, W. B. (2000). Cats of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
Dennison, C. C., Harveson, P. M., & Harveson, L. A. (2016). Assessing habitat relationships of mountain
lions and their prey in the Davis Mountains, Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist, 61(1), 18-27.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed mode surveys: The
tailored design method (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Estes, J. A., Tinker, M. T., Williams, T. M., & Doak, D. F. (1998). Killer whale predation on sea otters
linking oceanic and nearshore ecosystems. Science, 282,473-476.
Estes, J., Crooks, K., & Holt, R. (2001). Predation and diversity. Pp. 857-878 in S. Levin, ed. Encyclopedia
of Biodiversity (pp. 857-878). Academic Press.
FitzGibbon, C. D., & Lazarus., J. (1995). Antipredator behavior of Serengeti ungulates: Individual
differences and population consequences. In A. R. E. Sinclair & P. Arcese (Eds.), Serengeti II:
Dynamics, management, and conservation of an ecosystem (pp. 274-296). University of Chicago.
Geist, V. (1988). How markets in wildlife meat and parts, and the sale of hunting privileges, jeopardize
wildlife conservation. Conservation Biology, 2, 15-26.
Harveson, L. A. (1997). Ecology of a mountain lion population in southern Texas. Dissertation, Texas
A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, and Texas A&M University, College Station, USA.
Harveson, L. A., Tewes, M. E., Silvy, N. J., & Rutledge, J. (2000). Prey use by mountain lions in southern
Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist, 45, 472-476.
Harveson, P.M., Harveson, L.A., Hernandez-Santin, L., Tewes, M.E., Silvy, N.J., & Pittman, M.T. (2012).
Characteristics of two mountain lion Puma concolor populations in Texas, USA. Wildlife Biology,
18(1), 58-66.
Henke, S.E., & Bryant, S.E. (1999). Effects of coyote removal on the faunal community in western Texas.
Journal of Wildlife Management, 63, 1066-1081.
Kotler, B. P., Brown, J. S., Slowtow, R. H., Goodfriend, W. L., & Strauss, M. (1993). The influence of
snakes on the foraging behavior of gerbils. Oikos, 67, 309-316.
Leopold, A. (1966). A sand county almanac: With essays on conservation from Round River. Ballantine
Books.
Lombardi, J. V., Perotto-Baldivieso, H. L., & Tewes, M. E. (2020). Land cover trends in South Texas (1987–
2050): potential implications for wild felids. Remote Sensing, 12(4), 659.
Ma, K., D. Liu, R. Wei, G. Zhang, H. Xie, Y. Huang, D. Li, H. Zhang, & Xu, H. 2016. Giant panda
reintroduction: Factors affecting public support. Biodiversity and Conservation 25 (14):2987–3004.

54
Noss, R. (1999). A citizen's guide to ecosystem management. Biodiversity Legal Foundation.
Paine, R. (1966). Food web complexity and species diversity. American Naturalist, 100, 65-75.
Palomares, F., Gaona, P., Ferreras, P., & Delibes, M. (1995). Positive effects on game species of top
predators by controlling smaller predator populations: An example with lynx, mongooses, and
rabbits. Conservation Biology, 9, 295-305.
Pat, W.S., R. Darville, A. Keul, M. Legg, N. Garner, and C. Comer. (2011). Stakeholders' attitudes toward
black bear in East Texas. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16, 414–24.
Peña, I. (2002). Assessing knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding mountain lions in Texas.
Pittman, M.T., Guzman, G.J., & McKinney, B.P. (2000). Ecology of the Mountain Lion on Big Bend Ranch
State Park in the Trans-Pecos Region of Texas.Project Number 86. Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department Press.
Schmidly, D.J. (2004). The Mammals of Texas. Revised Edition. University of Texas Press.
Schmitz, O. J. (1998). Direct and indirect effects of predation and predation risk in oldfield interaction
webs. American Naturalist, 151, 327-340.
Schoener, T. W., & Spiller, D. A. (1999). Indirect effects in an experimentally staged invasion by a major
predator. American Naturalist, 153, 347-358.
Smith, T. E., Duke, R.R., Kutilek, M.J., & Harvey, H.T. (1986). Mountain lions (Felis concolor) in the vicinity
of Carlsbad Caverns National Park and Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas. Final Report, U.S.
Department of Interior, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Terborgh, J. (1988). The big things that run the world: a sequel to E. O. Wilson. Conservation Biology, 2,
402-403.
Terborgh, J., Estes, J., Paquet, P., Ralls, k., Boyd, D., Miller, B., & Noss, R. (1999). Role of top carnivores in
regulating terrestrial ecosystems. In M. Soulé & J. Terborgh (Eds), Continental conservation:
Scientific foundations of regional reserve networks (pp. 39-64). Island Press.
Terborgh, J., Lopez, L., Tello, J., Yu, D., & Bruni, A. R. (1997). Transitory states in relaxing land bridge
islands. In W. F. Laurance and R. O. Bierregaard Jr. (Eds), Tropical forest remnants: ecology,
management, and conservation of fragmented Communities (pp. 256-274). University of Chicago
Press.
Terborgh, J., & Soulé., M. (1999). Why we need large-scale networks and megareserves. Wild Earth, 9,
66-72. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). (2022). “Mountain Lions” Availabile online at:
https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/nuisance/mountain_lion/ Accessed on 5/19/2022.
Wilson, E. O. (1992). The diversity of life. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Woodroffe, R., Hedges, S., & Durant, S. M. (2014). To fence or not to fence. Science, 344(6179), 46-48.
Young Jr, J.H. (2009). Estimating mountain lion (Puma concolor) population parameters in Texas.
Dissertation, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, Kingsville, USA.

55
6.0 APPENDICES