Feature image of Wyoming mountain lions courtesy of National Parks Service
When Wyoming’s House Bill 286 was introduced on January 26th, 2025, by Representatives Mike Schmid and Jeremy Haroldson, many of us working in mountain lion advocacy had immediate, painful flashbacks to Utah’s House Bill 469, which was signed into law in 2023. Both bills kicked the doors wide open for unlimited hunting and trapping of mountain lions in their respective states. Utah’s HB 469 was eventually signed into law, and advocates in that state and beyond are still working to get it overturned. The Mountain Lion Foundation and Western Wildlife Conservancy have an active lawsuit underway, and Utah Mountain Lion Conservation has used stunning footage of mountain lions to tell the story of the law’s lethal consequences on the ground in Utah.
Unlike Utah’s HB 469, however, which was essentially “slipped through” without public input, Wyoming’s HB 286 received a full public hearing before the state’s Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee on February 4th. Opposition to the bill was strong, swift, and loud. The Jackson-based Cougar Fund took the lead among wildlife advocates, coordinated by Penny Maldonado and Korinna Domingo, with the Mountain Lion Foundation and other organizations joining in supporting roles. Cougar Fund board members Cara Blessley Lowe and Corey Rutledge testified at the hearing.
Motivated by lessons learned in Utah, where hunting and trapping mountain lions has now become an unregulated free-for-all, Wyoming’s hunting community mobilized in opposition to HB 286 as well. Lee Livingston of the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association spoke in opposition, as did Luke Worthington of the Wyoming Houndsman Association. It’s not often that wildlife advocates and sportsmen’s groups are on the same side of an issue, but this was one of those times, and the mountain lions of Wyoming benefitted enormously: The bill never made it out of committee, and the victory was celebrated across the political spectrum.
“Wyoming and other western states are beautiful and full of hardworking people who love the wildness,” says Penny Maldonado, Executive Director of the Cougar Fund. “Often that love is expressed in ways that are very hard to understand. The lens of history focuses heavily on the utilitarian values of wildlife: prey to eat and predators to blame, because the predators seem to compete for the prey. Sadly, there is resistance to evidence that supports how mountain lions contribute to the intricacies of the natural world. Lions are not the enemy, but the human condition of needing something to ‘blame’ is stronger than the quest for data-derived knowledge. HB 286 was a symbol of that, and we thank the lawmakers for recognizing it.”
The Mountain Lion Foundation was honored to participate in the 37th annual California Small Farm Conference. This year’s theme was “Rooted in Place.” The conference was a hybrid model of online workshops held over five days, with regional in-person meet-ups and field days. The Conference is a project of CAFF: Community Alliance with Family Farmers.
“Founded in 1978, the Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF) is a California-based nonprofit that builds sustainable food and farming systems through local and statewide policy advocacy and on-the-ground programs to initiate institutionalized change. Our programs address current problems and challenges in food and farming systems, creating more resilient family farms, communities, and ecosystems. We work to support family farmers and serve community members throughout the state, including consumers, food service directors, schoolchildren and low-income populations with the aim of growing a more resilient, just and abundant food system for all Californians.”
Our Coexistence Programs Manager is a former board member of CAFF, and though Gowan’s board term has ended, their commitment to the mission is ongoing. Gowan hosted an in depth, extended version of the “Ranching with Wildlife” presentation they have given for public audiences in the past, focused on commercial farmers and ranchers getting a grounded idea of the practical, ecological, and legal landscape of coexisting alongside apex carnivores like the mountain lion in California. The talk pulled from cutting edge rangeland science as well as field-tested experience and answered frequently asked questions that arise in ranching communities.
For many agricultural professionals, they may go through their entire education and work experience without ever being offered detailed education on these topics. Farmers and ranchers are some of the people who are most likely to encounter mountain lions in their daily work, so bringing this education to them, in a respectful presentation from a working peer, is a tangible way to reduce conflicts and to give people a compassionate, workable and legal set of responses to take when conflicts do arise. The presentation was well received, with one attendee commenting: “This was a wonderful presentation. You are so knowledgeable and such a dynamic speaker. Great job and thank you!!”
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 21st 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.
Last month, the Mountain Lion Foundation had the opportunity to participate in the Public Interest Environmental Law Conference (PIELC) at the University of Oregon. Our team comprised a critical panel discussion titled “Right to Hunt: Impacts and Outcomes,” where we shared our ongoing work challenging legislation that threatens mountain lion populations.
PIELC’s Enduring Mission and Record Attendance
The 2025 PIELC continued its 43-year tradition of connecting and educating those working within environmental law. With this year’s theme, “Environmental Justice in a Changing Landscape,” the conference maintained its commitment to addressing evolving challenges in environmental protection. The conference serves as a crucial forum for environmental advocates to share strategies, discuss emerging legal theories, and build coalitions around pressing environmental issues.
This year’s event saw record attendance with over 3,000 participants, reflecting growing national concern about environmental legislation and wildlife protection. This impressive turnout provided the Mountain Lion Foundation with an invaluable platform to connect with environmental attorneys, policy experts, and advocates who might not otherwise engage with carnivore conservation issues.
Educating New Audiences About Our Mission
The “Right to Hunt” panel allowed us to introduce our organization’s mission to a broader audience of environmental professionals. Many attendees were familiar with broader conservation issues but had limited exposure to the specific challenges facing mountain lions and other large carnivores. By bringing mountain lion protection into conversations about environmental law, we’re building essential relationships with legal professionals who can help safeguard these iconic carnivores.
During our presentation, we highlighted how mountain lions serve as an umbrella species for ecosystem health and why protecting them benefits entire landscapes. We emphasized how our multi-faceted approach—combining advocacy, education, scientific research, and coexistence programming—strives to create comprehensive protection for these magnificent cats.
The enthusiastic questions from attorneys, law students, peer organizations, and policy professionals demonstrated a growing interest in carnivore conservation among those who may become powerful allies in our cause.
Sharing Our Utah Lawsuit as a Case Study
A significant portion of our panel presentation focused on our ongoing lawsuit, in partnership with Western Wildlife Conservancy, challenging Utah’s House Bill 469. This legislation, which broadly expands hunting rights while undermining science-based wildlife management, represents exactly the kind of threat that requires both legal expertise and conservation knowledge to combat effectively.
By walking the audience through the legal arguments of our case—particularly how HB 469 violates public trust obligations and undermines Utah’s “Right to Hunt” law—we were able to demonstrate the real-world application of environmental law principles to carnivore conservation. Law students and early-career attorneys in attendance gained practical insights into how litigation can support wildlife protection.
Building a Coalition for Science-Based Management
The panel discussion reinforced our conviction that effective mountain lion conservation depends on building diverse coalitions. By bringing together perspectives from wildlife biology, conservation advocacy, and environmental law, we’re creating a more powerful voice for mountain lions.
What made this panel particularly effective was how it connected legal theories like the public trust doctrine directly to on-the-ground conservation challenges. When we bring mountain lion protection into these broader environmental discussions, we’re helping ensure that carnivore conservation becomes integrated into the environmental movement’s core concerns.
Next Steps
The panel concluded with a discussion of potential nationwide implications of the Utah case. Regardless of outcome, this lawsuit represents a significant test case for balancing constitutional hunting provisions with public trust responsibilities and conservation imperatives. The next hearing happens in early April at the University of Utah Law School where we hope our case will find a large, interested audience of law students and media eager to know how our arguments and outcomes will impact Utah mountain lions and other similar challenges in the future throughout the country.
We are thrilled to announce the addition of John Ziegler, MD, FASA to the Mountain Lion Foundation’s Board of Directors. Dr. Ziegler brings a wealth of experience in advisory roles along with a deep passion for Utah wildlife conservation that will be invaluable to our mission.
A Distinguished Background
Dr. Ziegler has established himself as a thoughtful voice in both medicine and conservation. As a Fellow of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (FASA), he has demonstrated not only clinical excellence but also leadership capabilities that have made him effective on numerous advisory boards. His analytical approach to complex problems has guided organizations through challenging decisions while maintaining a commitment to evidence-based solutions.
Throughout his career, Dr. Ziegler has served on several advisory committees where he developed a reputation for building consensus while advocating for science-based approaches. His ability to translate technical information into actionable recommendations has made him particularly effective in roles that bridge different stakeholder communities.
Passion for Utah Wildlife
Dr. Ziegler has an unwavering commitment to Utah’s wildlife. A long-time resident of the state, he has witnessed firsthand the challenges facing mountain lions and other native species as development expands into previously wild areas. His concern for maintaining healthy ecosystems and protecting biodiversity has motivated his involvement in various conservation initiatives throughout Utah.
“The mountain lion represents not just an iconic species, but a critical component of healthy western ecosystems,” Dr. Ziegler noted upon joining the board. “Protecting these magnificent animals requires thoughtful management based on the best available science.”
Championing Science-Based Wildlife Management
Dr. Ziegler is a member of the Central Regional Advisory Council for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. He is a strong proponent of evidence-based wildlife conservation. He believes that effective management must be grounded in rigorous research rather than misconceptions or political pressure. Throughout his conservation work, he has emphasized the importance of making decisions informed by data on population dynamics, habitat requirements, and ecosystem interactions.
With the Mountain Lion Foundation, Dr. Ziegler hopes to advance conservation strategies that incorporate the latest scientific understanding of carnivore ecology while respecting the needs of all partners and communities.
Encouraging Civic Engagement in Wildlife Governance
One of Dr. Ziegler’s primary goals is to inspire broader public participation in wildlife management decisions. He firmly believes that conservation succeeds when local communities are engaged and informed about the issues affecting wildlife in their regions.
“Wildlife belongs to all citizens,” Dr. Ziegler explains, “and we all have a responsibility to participate in decisions about how these public resources are managed. Too often, these decisions happen without sufficient public input.”
Dr. Ziegler plans to work with the Mountain Lion Foundation to create more opportunities for public education and engagement in wildlife governance, particularly at the local and state levels where many critical decisions are made.
Looking Forward
The Mountain Lion Foundation is thrilled about the perspective and expertise Dr. Ziegler brings to our work. His combination of advisory board experience, passion for Utah wildlife, and commitment to science-based management aligns perfectly with our mission to ensure that mountain lions thrive in the wild.
We look forward to working with Dr. Ziegler to advance mountain lion conservation throughout the western United States and to inspire more people to get involved in protecting these magnificent cats for generations to come.
On Friday, January 24, the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners voted to deny a petition that sought to change trapping regulations to protect mountain lions from injury and death. The petition–supported by the Nevada Wildlife Alliance, WildEarth Guardians, and the Mountain Lion Foundation–included eight recommended changes to Nevada’s trapping regulations based on the best available science, professional trapper advice, and public polling. Eight commissioners, representing hunting and agriculture interests, voted against the petition.Furthermore, the Commission failed to meaningfully consider a single recommendation offered in the petition.
The petition recommended shortening the trap check window to 24 hours in accordance with recommendations from the American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians. The window is currently 96 hours, which is the longest in the continental American West. Other recommendations included limiting trap sizes, requiring trap-chain swivels, prohibiting drags (attaching traps to rocks, logs, or other moveable objects), and requiring trapper education.
Mountain lions are a “non-target” species in Nevada but still frequently fall victim to traps. Lions are injured, maimed, and even killed because of Nevada’s lax trapping laws. According to Nevada state data from just 9 years (2002-2004, 2007, 2010-2015), at least 278 mountain lions were caught in traps that were set for other animals. 11 of those lions were injured and 24 died. Only 19% of trappers report their non-target catch, so it’s likely that the number of mountain lions killed or injured by traps is higher.
Mountain lions are Nevada’s only extant apex carnivore, and studies show that species like lions have substantial and measurable benefits for ecosystems including river-corridor health, increased biodiversity, disease control, and even carbon sequestration.
In the big picture of wildlife stewardship, the changes that we and our partners brought to the Commission were modest and common-sense; they could have been implemented easily to help bring Nevada more in line with other Western states. Although we’re deeply disappointed in the Commission, the Mountain Lion Foundation and our partners are undeterred. We will continue to fight for Nevada’s native cats especially as they face opposition by the people supposed to be protecting them.
Feature image of Oregon mountain lion, photo credit: David Willingham
By: Erika Mathews, Director of Development, Mountain Lion Foundation
The Mountain Lion Foundation is grateful for the support of our dedicated donors. Because of you, we have had one of our best fundraising years in history, with a 38% increase in donations over last year!
We worked hard last year. You have already read about our successes and challenges, and we are more determined than ever to fulfill our mission: To ensure that mountain lions survive and flourish in the wild. The threats to their very existence are many.
With your help, we will continue to work in the field, in the courts, in state and town meetings, and in communities where mountain lions share our space. We will continue to stand up to powerful political interests and join hands with the community, who are our future. We will continue to strive to save this extraordinary animal. Not just for posterity, but for THEM. They have a right to exist and live their natural lives as part of our world, keeping it wholesome and in balance. But they cannot do it alone, and neither can we.
THANK YOU! The Mountain Lion Foundation succeeds because people like you cherish our beautiful big cats and recognize the importance of standing up to preserve our natural world and protect the creatures that call it home. Whatever we call her — puma, cougar, catamount, panther, or spirit of the mountains — she’s a magnificent and inspiring cat, and we must continue to protect her.
By: R. Brent Lyles, Executive Director, Mountain Lion Foundation
Few efforts have galvanized a statewide coalition of wildlife advocates more than Prop 127 did in Colorado last year. The ballot initiative, which sought to protect mountain lions, bobcats and lynx from trophy hunting and trapping in that state, brought together many dozens of organizations and hundreds of volunteers, united under the banner of Cats Aren’t Trophies, or CATs.
While Prop 127 missed its 51% target in November’s election by just six points, the many coalition volunteers and partners of the CATs campaign are continuing to fight for the protection of Colorado’s wild cats in 2025. This work is moving forward on several fronts.
First, some of the key players in the CATs campaign have joined together to launch the Colorado Wildlife Alliance. This new not-for-profit organization is focused on a core disconnect in wildlife management, namely that “Colorado’s wild animals are managed specifically for special interest groups, not for their own health or ecosystem benefits.” By creating a diverse and inclusive coalition of people across the state, this organization is working to build support for and ultimately effect change in how Colorado’s state agencies can act as stewards to the ecosystems of Colorado and the many plants and animals that inhabit them.
Another group of partners from the CATs campaign is focused on ending the sale of Colorado’s animal pelts to domestic and foreign markets (including black markets). A key goal of the CATs campaign and Prop 127 was to stop the widespread trapping of bobcats for their beautiful coats, and there is still very strong support for ending this cruel practice across the state. By cracking down on the sale of fur in Colorado, bobcats will gain meaningful and long-lasting protections.
Finally, many myths and misconceptions persist about Colorado’s mountain lions, despite a robust communications campaign as part of Prop 127. To address these harmful misunderstandings, a passionate group of leaders from the CATs campaign are rolling out plans for a statewide corps of volunteers who will make presentations at local college campuses and other venues, focused on mountain lions and their many benefits to Colorado’s healthy ecosystems. The group’s goal is to do at least 50 presentations in the next year.
And there’s more: A symposium on mountain lion science, a media campaign, and special events are all in the early planning stages. The Mountain Lion Foundation will continue to be a partner in these efforts and play an important role in Colorado’s advocacy moving forward, focused on education, regulatory protections, and peaceful coexistence. To learn more and to get involved, click on the links above to sign up for the mailing lists, and as always, keep an eye on your emails from the Mountain Lion Foundation for opportunities to volunteer and take action for Colorado’s majestic mountain lions!
Update: As we anticipated last November, the results of the recent elections are already shaping up with dramatic results for mountain lions and conservation. As we feared, the Wyoming’s legislature’s ultra-conservative majority is moving legislation that would remove most limits on mountain lion hunting. Nevada’s wildlife commission, perhaps emboldened by partisan gridlock between the governor and legislature, rejected a modest petition to align trapping standards with other states and prevent needless deaths and mangling of unintentionally trapped mountain lions.
On a federal level, the first weeks of the new presidential administration have been chaotic. A freeze on federal payments, despite court orders directing mandated spending to proceed, has harmed all federally funded research. Not only have salaries for postdocs and grants been cut off without notice, but review panels at the NSF and NIH have been halted, delaying and preventing new research, and making it impossible for professors to recruit grad students and plan field seasons. The full scope of those payment freezes are still unclear, with some reporting suggesting that routine payments to state wildlife agencies under laws like Pittman-Robertson may have been delayed, along with payments covering wildlife crossings, parks, and other state and local services that are funded with federal payments.
President Trump and Elon Musk have also pushed federal employees to leave government service, with results that are still uncertain. Trump’s Project 2025 plan called for terminating all federal endangered species specialists and significantly scaling back other federal biologists at agencies including the Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and National Park Service. If those staff accept the retirement offers emailed to all federal employees, the loss of knowledge could have devastating results for conservation in general, and especially for federally endangered Florida panthers.
We will continue monitoring state legislatures, including Wyoming, Montana, and other states where wildlife laws are being weakened. We will also continue telling members about opportunities to improve wildlife management through legislatures and state agencies. Be sure to sign up on our email lists with your current address to get information from your home state, and to be sure your messages go to your districts elected officials.
……………………………………..
Last week’s election was predicted to be, and will likely prove, among the most consequential in US history. Beyond the presidential election, voters made choices about control of Congress, eleven states chose governors, state legislatures changed hands, and voters considered ballot initiatives that set state and local policies on matters like climate change, housing development and habitat protection, and — of course – mountain lion hunting.
Colorado’s Proposition 127 was a historic effort to extend the protections mountain lions have enjoyed in California since that state’s proposition 117 (and an earlier legislative moratorium signed by then-Governor Ronald Reagan). Hunters, the gun industry, and ultimately a range of politically conservative political action committees invested heavily in opposing that initiative, while Cat’s Aren’t Trophies, the Mountain Lion Foundation, our members and our many dedicated allies worked tirelessly to support it. In the end, voters declined to end trophy hunting for wild cats in Colorado, with 55% voting against the initiative.
In Florida, voters approved a constitutional amendment that enshrines a right to hunt in the state constitution, with 67% voting in favor, well above the required 60% threshold. 23 other states have adopted an amendment of this sort, though the precise details vary. Utah’s Right to Hunt Amendment is the central basis for the lawsuit by the Mountain Lion Foundation and our partners challenging the state’s elimination of hunting limits on mountain lions. These amendments have also been used by wolf advocates in other states to challenge excessive hunting. Florida’s amendment requires, among other things, that “fishing, hunting, and the taking of fish and wildlife” should be the “preferred means of responsibly managing and controlling fish and wildlife.”
Other ballot measures in the states expanded and protected environmental policy. Washington voters shrugged off a referendum that would have eliminated the state’s carbon tax trading program, which aims to reduce climate pollution by 95% by 2050. In California, voters approved $10 billion in bonds to fund parks, environmental protections, clean energy programs, and water infrastructure. Unfortunately, voters in South Dakota declined to adopt limits on carbon dioxide pipelines, allowing the associated climate pollution to continue.
Voters in Washington state maintained strong pro-wildlife leadership. Outgoing Governor Jay Inslee’s appointees to the state’s Fish and Wildlife Commission have been instrumental in changing that body and making the state a leader in wildlife governance reform. He opted not to run for re-election, and the state’s Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, will replace him. Ferguson has been a vigorous defender of wildlife and the environment, and we are hopeful that he will continue the state’s progress on wildlife policy. Several state legislators who had been leaders on wildlife policy have left the legislature, and we will work to see strong leadership of key committees, and to educate them about issues affecting cougars. Washington also elected a new Commissioner of Public Lands to administer the state’s forests and waters. The winner, Dave Upthegrove, has been a champion for managing the Evergreen State’s forests for the benefit of wilderness not just timber companies.
Races for state office in other states produced little change. Utah’s Governor Cox was re-elected even after signing a law opposed by wildlife groups and hunters, which eliminated limits on mountain lion hunting. Montana’s Greg Gianforte was re-elected despite media reports of his having illegally killed a collared wolf, and his proud display of a cougar he killed with a legal license.
In Nevada, hopes for a legislative majority large enough to overcome the state’s Republican governor appeared to fall short by a single seat. Efforts to address wildlife killing contests and needless deaths and maiming of cougars in traps set for other species have been caught in the Silver State’s partisan crossfire. Wyoming voters installed an ultra-conservative governing majority in the state’s House, making it less likely that wildlife advocates will be able to address loopholes that left no way to prosecute a hunter who ran over a wolf with a snowmobile, dragged it to a bar where he tortured it before finally killing it.
Local voters across the country voted to fund public transit. Roads create critical risks to mountain lions, both from loss of connectivity between habitat patches and from direct mortality from car strikes. Increasing public transit rather than road construction is a key element of mountain lion conservation, and these moves away from cars will benefit not just mountain lion survival in areas like Maricopa County, AZ, or Denver, CO, but maintain the paths that mountain lions will one day use to return to areas like Richland County, SC or Nashville, TN.
The presidential election is also likely to have significant effects on wildlife policy, though most direct management of mountain lions falls to state policymakers. President-elect Trump has proposed substantial revisions or outright repeal of the Endangered Species Act, which protects the few remaining Florida panthers. In addition, the conservative agenda Project 2025 proposes eliminating federal scientists who specialize in endangered species and their recovery, which could affect the survival of those last eastern panthers. And it proposes undoing the Antiquities Act, which protects wildlife and cultural resources in National Monuments. In his first term, Trump dismantled key climate provisions, including international treaties and federal offices that support energy efficiency and climate resilience. Some of those changes may require action by Congress, and partisan control of the US House remains unclear, though it is sure to be closely divided. Other changes may lead to litigation in the courts, and judicial appointments may flow more easily through the Senate under its new Republican leadership and under recent precedents that make it easier to overturn strong environmental regulations.
Undoubtedly, this election created setbacks for mountain lions and environmental policy. The Mountain Lion Foundation and our partners remain steadfast in our commitment to our work, which is now even more critical. Regardless of the political winds, Americans need resilient communities that can live comfortably and safely near wildlife. We will continue to fight for the mountain lions that make our wild lands unique and vibrant.
Hunters have long used teams of dogs to chase mountain lions. One well known description comes from former president Theodore Roosevelt:
With a very little training, hounds readily and eagerly pursue the cougar, showing in this kind of chase none of the fear and disgust they are so prone to exhibit when put on the trail of the certainly no more dangerous wolf. The cougar, when the hounds are on its track, at first runs, but when hard-pressed takes to a tree, or possibly comes to bay in thick cover.(Roosevelt, 1922)
Today, dogs are still used for mountain lion hunting, and also for research. Now, more and more people are asking whether dogs could be used to mitigate human-mountain lion conflicts in the form of hazing.
Generally speaking, “hazing” refers to practices that are meant to teach animals to stay away. While hazing can be accomplished through various means, some states have already incorporated hazing with dogs as part of their policy. California, for instance, allows for “aggressive hazing that does NOT injure or kill the mountain lion. The use of less than lethal ammunition (beanbags, rubber bullets, cracker shells, rock-salt, paintballs), noise making devices, pursuit with ATV, and/or pursuit with dogs” (State of California, 2022).
The practice of using dogs to haze mountain lions sparks broad debates surrounding effectiveness and ethics. Some believe it could stop livestock depredations, keep people safer, and save the lives of mountain lions that would have otherwise been killed due to conflict. Some claim that mountain lions no longer fear humans, and hazing could instill that fear. On the opposite side, some see hazing as a cruel practice that needlessly endangers wildlife and working dogs, while not doing anything to help conflict. There has been a glaring lack of research on the topic, but recent publications may help to offer some insight.
What does the research say about hazing with dogs?
In 2024, two studies were published regarding how chasing mountain lions with dogs impacts the lions’ behavior. The first study was conducted by Winter et al. (2024) in California. The team captured and collared mountain lions by chasing them with dogs or setting box traps in the area. 34 mountain lions were captured using dogs, and the other 42 were captured using traps. They measured how far the mountain lions fled from where they were captured, and if they returned to the location. Both the lions captured with dogs or in box traps fled similar distances, and neither group avoided where they were captured. They concluded that pursuit with dogs did not deter mountain lions from a specific area.
A collared mountain lion is released for research purposes. Photo credit: California Department of Fish & Wildlife
A separate study was conducted by Parsons et al. (2024) in collaboration with the Kalispel Tribe of Indians. This work was conducted in Washington State and aimed to determine if hazing mountain lions with dogs could increase mountain lions’ sensitivity to approaching humans. The researchers, who included the well-known houndsman Bart George, accomplished this by approaching GPS-collared mountain lions while playing podcasts aloud. They measured how close they could get to the mountain lion before it ran away, and how far it ran. The 12 mountain lions in the control group were only approached in this way. The 39 mountain lions in the treatment group were approached and then chased by dogs. Both groups were approached in four separate trials.
After having been hazed, mountain lions began to flee from the approaching researchers sooner. They also ran farther away than before. The control groups that weren’t chased with dogs allowed the researchers to get closer and fled a shorter distance over the course of the four trials. The researchers concluded that hazing with dogs could increase mountain lion avoidance of approaching humans, and that exposure to approaching humans with no hazing could make lions more tolerant of human approach.
Both of these studies face limitations. Winter et al. (2024) didn’t follow traditional hazing protocol and instead relied on the hazing effects of capture. Parsons et al. (2024) sampled primarily male mountain lions, which may bias the results to reflect male mountain lion behavior more so than female. Neither study tested whether or not hazing could reduce any type of conflict with mountain lions. It’s unclear whether they offer any practical lessons for human safety.
What doesn’t the research say?
Hazing mountain lions with dogs is a tool we have more questions about than we do answers. Dogs don’t appear to deter mountain lions from returning to a location after one interaction. And hazing with dogs might increase mountain lion’s avoidance of the As of now, no published research has studied if hazing could be used to mitigate mountain lion conflict with livestock or people. Also, research is still needed on whether hazing with hounds has short- or long-term impacts on the individual lions’ well-being.
The research also doesn’t address whether the effects of hazing last for very long—whatever those effects may be. As of now, the methods needed to haze mountain lions with dogs, what goals it could accomplish, and how long the effects will last are unknown.
Do mountain lions need more fear?
Some believe that mountain lions have lost their fear of humans, and that hazing is needed to instill it once again. But is there any reason to believe mountain lions have lost that fear?
For many years mountain lion populations were persecuted as vermin, resulting in their local extinction in much of the United States. New protections in the mid 20th century helped populations recover in many areas. Today, there are many claims that there are more mountain lions than there used to be before, and in many locations across the American West, that is true. However, this conservation success does not mean that lions are overpopulated — far from it.
With more mountain lions, an expanding wildland-urban interface, social media, and ubiquitous outdoor cameras, we are able to see lions more than ever before. This increased exposure has led many to believe that mountain lions no longer fear people, and that hunting or hazing is needed to teach them more fear. But mountain lions avoid and hide from people every day. They become more nocturnal, change where they live, and reduce their activity to avoid people (Bolas, et al., 2024 and Riley, et al., 2024). Current evidence suggests that mountain lions still have a strong avoidance of humans, with or without hazing.
Conclusion
Hazing may have the potential to help protect or harm mountain lions. If hazing does have a place in mitigating human conflict with lions, it could offer an alternative to killing the lion involved in the conflict. However, if the method is ineffective at reducing conflict, it may just offer a pathway for individuals to harass mountain lions. Furthermore, we don’t fully understand the potential damage that hazing could cause to mountain lions. There is also a question regarding how safe it is to deploy dog teams to chase mountain lions in areas with human-mountain lion conflicts — most of which occur near human homes.
Without more research, it is difficult to determine whether or not such a practice should have a place in mountain lion coexistence strategies. Fortunately, there are many other nonlethal tools to address coexistence with large carnivores. Current evidence supports the use of nonlethal methods to coexist with large carnivores as the most effective and sustainable approach (Lorand, et al., 2022). Here at the Mountain Lion Foundation, we will continue to support nonlethal coexistence strategies that protect both lions and the people living with them.
References
Bolas, E. C, Pingatore, A.D, Mathur, M, Blumstein, D. T, Sikich, J. A, Smith, J. A., Benson, J. F, Riley, S. P.D, & Rachel V. Blakey, R. V. (2024) Human recreation influences activity of a large carnivore in an urban landscape, Biological Conservation, Volume 301,10812. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320724003744?via%3Dihub
Lorand, C., Robert, A., Gastineau, A., Mihoub, J. B., & Bessa-Gomes, C. (2022). Effectiveness of interventions for managing human-large carnivore conflicts worldwide: Scare them off, don’t remove them. The Science of the total environment, 838(Pt 2), 156195. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156195
Report to the Fish and Game Commission regarding findings of necropsies on mountain lions taken under depredation permits in 2021. (2024) State of California Natural Resource Agency: Department of Fish and Wildlife. Prepared. Wildlife Health Laboratory. Retrieved from: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=198919&inline
Riley, S. P. D., Sikich, J. A., & Benson, J. F. (2021). Big cats in the big city: Spatial ecology of mountain lions in Greater Los Angeles. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 85(8), 1527–1542. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27088093
Roosevelt, T. (1922) The Wilderness Hunter. [New York, London, G.P. Putnam’s Sons [Pdf] Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/26014771/.
Winter, S. Y, Van Vuren, D. H, Vickers, T. W, & Dellinger, J. A. (2024). Response of mountain lions to hazing: Does exposure to dogs result in displacement? Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference, 31. Retrieved from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8hm0k87f
