Feature photo credit: Dan Potter

By Paige Munson, Science and Policy Coordinator and Josh Rosenau, Director of Policy and Advocacy

The Mountain Lion Foundation and the Summerlee Foundation partnered to fund the publication costs of the “Special Issue on Mountain Lion Conservation and Management” published by the journal, Canadian Wildlife Biology and Management, on December 26, 2024.* The breadth of the issue reflects the diverse approaches mountain lion research draws on, and the range of important conservation challenges facing the species.

The special issue was edited and organized by mountain lion biologist and Puma Program Director for Panthera, Dr. Mark Elbroch. In his introduction to the special issue, Elbroch highlights the recent threats that mountain lions have faced from culling and increased hunting due to both agency and legislative decisions. He also highlights the increased efforts to give mountain lions more protection through initiatives to ban mountain lion hunting (that ultimately did not pass in Colorado), and improved regulations in Washington state and Texas.

The publication features a breadth of topics that include scientific studies and also opinions on research needs and management for mountain lions.  Some of the studies discuss the challenges and likelihood for mountain lions to recolonize parts of their former territory. Other studies address rodenticide exposure in mountain lions. Opinions cover management needs for the species, call for more research on coexistence, and summarize what we know about how mountain lions impact deer. Reflecting that broad range , the special issue has reports from state wildlife managers in Kansas and Missouri, grappling with how to manage the recolonization of mountain lions in those states, as observations of naturally-dispersing individuals rise steadily. Understanding where pumas might repopulate, and how communities now unaccustomed to the presence of an apex carnivore will handle their recovery, is crucial to the species’ eastward spread. This forward-thinking approach and openness to the species’ recovery should be cause for celebration.

Researchers with Panthera, in Montana and New Hampshire, looked to quantify public attitudes more widely, surveying news coverage of mountain lions in the first years of the 21^st century. Not surprisingly, the frequency of undesired encounters in the news makes that coverage more negative, but they found an overall increase in positive coverage of mountain lions in recent years, a trend that can only help improve policy. As Elbroch says, “Culture has changed. Not only do more people see wildlife as equal partners in a shared society, people in general have become more positive about mountain lions.”

That positive attitude has already begun shifting attitudes in Texas. A team including Elbroch, filmmaker Ben Masters, and Texan advocates for mountain lion recovery report on the approach they took to changing attitudes, and then policy, in the Lone Star state. Using a film that highlighted the beauty of, and threats to, mountain lions, the film engaged audiences and began a discussion in screenings. That engagement led viewers to send feedback to state wildlife officials, urging simple changes to regulate hunting and gather data on the state’s mountain lions. While a public petition was rejected, that engagement led to further discussions with staff, and ultimately to rule changes on the state wildlife commission’s own terms.

Another paper in the issue reports field research from West Texas, documenting the harm that unregulated trapping does to the state’s under-studied mountain lion populations. The results suggest that trapping and hunting are causing the population to decline in the study area, and urges the sorts of improved data collection now being required by Texas regulations.

Similarly, a team analyzed data from fur trapping lines near national parks in Alberta, and report that 8-12% of the mountain lion population in those areas may be dying as a result of accidental trapping. To prevent these unintended deaths, the team recommends that areas near those protected lands eliminate the use of neck snares, the largest cause of incidental trapping mortality in their study.

While incidental trapping can cause fatalities, it also can cause serious but sublethal injuries to mountain lions and other nontarget species. Researchers in California tracked the long term consequences of sublethal injuries on mountain lions, showing that these wounded lions were less likely to hunt deer, and more likely to attempt to predate on domestic animals than otherwise similar lions in the same area. In this case, the animals had been injured by gunshots that they survived. This finding reinforces the benefits of deterrence over lethal responses to conflict, as lethal responses can paradoxically increase subsequent conflict.

The need for better deterrence and deterrent tools was a focus of two papers. One reviews the current literature on deterrence and makes recommendations for further research. Much of the knowledge on deterrence has not been distributed through scientific papers or tested using scientific methods, which creates challenges in convincing policymakers or individual practitioners to adopt new practices. The other deterrence paper describes a new deterrent approach, developed in Chile through collaborative outreach to ranchers and carnivore specialists. The device they invented responded to user needs, and incorporates the latest findings on effective deterrence, including flashing lights as well as a range of random deterrent sounds to prevent pumas from habituating to any one sound.

Likely the most controversial paper in the special issue comes from Washington state, and assesses the use of hounds to haze cougars. While the study aims to assess hazing as a tool for reducing conflict with livestock, limit , and the paper’s utility for policy is limited.

Researchers in California and Washington report new findings on rodenticide exposure, a serious threat that is poorly studied, and where California has led the nation in legal protections. Despite those laws, the California researchers found rodenticides, often of more than one type, in the bodies of 9 out of 15 fetuses  tested. The Washington study was the first to assess and document rodenticide exposure in cougars outside of California. Even in protected wildlife habitat of the Olympic peninsula, 17 of 24 cougar carcasses tested had been exposed to at least one such rodenticide. The situation is likely far worse in areas with more housing and agriculture nearby, and highlights the crucial need for more data in other states, along with stricter regulations on these compounds.

Other researchers synthesized the large literature assessing mountain lions’ effects on prey populations. Because mountain lions are often managed by state agencies whose main interest is maintaining huntable deer populations, understanding how predation affects those prey species is crucial to management, and is also essential to understanding the lives of pumas and entire ecosystems. Crucially for policy, they conclude that “Current research findings do not support the existence of widespread population regulation of deer populations by mountain lions,” a result that means increased mountain lion hunting would be unlikely to produce any increase in deer populations.

Elbroch describes his hope for the special issue at the end of the piece. “Taken together, I hope these papers contribute additional resources to help disentangle fact from fiction, and that they support equitable decision-making about wildlife held in public trust for future generations.”

We couldn’t have said it better. Here at the Mountain Lion Foundation, we are honored to have supported this publication and will work to ensure that our shared hopes with Dr. Mark Elbroch for mountain lions are realized.

*Additional note: While the Mountain Lion Foundation provided financial support for the publication of this special issue, the organization did not have any input on the selection or scientific review of the pieces included therein.