August 22, 2017 Kirk Woodward, Chair Wildlife Board Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 1594 W North Temple, Box 146301 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Email: kirk.woodward@yahoo.com Re: Utah Cougar Recommendations and Rule Amendments for 2017-2018 Dear Chairman Woodward and Members of the Wildlife Board: On behalf of The Humane Society of the United States (The HSUS) and our supporters in Utah, I submit the following comments relative to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) recommended permit allocations for the 2017-2018 cougar hunting season (hereinafter referred to as “Recommendations”). The proposed increase in permits to 571, not including those in the state’s four unlimited hunting units, is alarmingly high. The HSUS and most Americans do not support this trophy hunting, and we request that DWR no longer allow this practice to continue in Utah. For reasons expressed below, we ask the Wildlife Board to reject the current Recommendations. Following in the footsteps of Utah’s cougar management plan adopted in 2015, the Recommendations lack the best available science and fail to encourage sustainable cougar management. The Recommendations, a “sledgehammer approach” to wildlife management, will also have negative consequences for our state’s fragile cougar population by permitting excessive levels of trophy hunting based on unfounded justifications. Current science shows that hunting cougars will not bolster mule deer or bighorn herds. The best science also shows that intemperate trophy-hunting levels will inadvertently increase complaints and livestock losses. Moreover, persecuting cougars harms their populations through direct mortalities and creates social chaos resulting in even greater indirect mortalities from intraspecific aggression on females and their kittens. Moreover, if a hunter kills a mother, up to 3 young kittens will die from starvation, dehydration or exposure. Hunters end up killing not only the mother, but also the young kittens left behind. Finally, the majority of Utahans are opposed to the unsporting practice of hounding cougars in our state and the Wildlife Board must uphold public values when regulating cougar management. It is axiomatic that administrative agencies create rules and regulations that conform to their authorizing statute. See, e.g. Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n, 566 P.2d 1249, 1251 (Utah 1977). Here, the Utah Code directs DWR to “determine the facts relevant to the wildlife resources of this state” and, on the basis of those facts, mandates the Wildlife Board to “establish the policies best designed to accomplish the purposes” of “the preservation, protection, conservation, perpetuation, introduction, and management of wildlife.” Utah Code § 24-143(2)(a). In carrying out this dictate, the legislature further directed the Board to “seek to maintain wildlife on a sustainable basis.” Id. § 24-14-3(2)(b). And, like all Utah agencies, DWR may not establish rules that are “not supported by substantial evidence.” Id. § 63G-3-602(4)(a)(ii). Taken together, the statutory scheme authorizing this rulemaking requires fact-driven, scientific management that seeks to sustainably maintain wildlife populations. The Recommendations are clearly not meant to encourage sustainable cougar management; in fact they are the antithesis of that mandate. Therefore, we ask the Wildlife Board not to adopt the Recommendations. If trophy hunting of cougars is to continue in Utah, DWR must reduce hunting quotas and permits to better reflect sustainable cougar management. DWR should do this by placing a 12% cap on trophy hunt mortality and updating the state’s cougar management plan to include this cap. Additionally, we call on DWR to provide an updated, reliable population estimate for cougars and no longer permit the use of hounds to hunt this iconic native wild cat. I. Trophy hunting of cougars is harmful to their persistence. Utah ranks fourth highest in the U.S. for its cougar trophy-hunting mortality. Between 2005 and 2014, trophy hunters killed 3,192 cougars in Utah. In the 2015 to 2016 hunting season, trophy hunters killed 371 cougars (The Humane Society of the United States 2017). These native carnivores are not resilient in the face of heavy-handed trophy hunting regimes (Beausoleil et al. 2013, Wielgus et al. 2013). At highest risk are females, the biological bank account, and their young. Female cougars provide extended parental care to their young and limit reproduction. A female cougar does not reach reproductive age until she is around two-and-a-half years old (Cougar Management Guidelines 2005) and in her lifetime will produce only a few kittens, many of whom do not survive to adulthood (Cougar Management Guidelines 2005). Female cougars are frequent victims to trophy hunting, both directly from the trophy hunter, and indirectly, because social chaos leads to intraspecific strife. Thus, a trophy hunter kills more than just the animal in the crosshairs: trophy hunting causes a sudden disruption in species’ social structures which leads to additional mortalities that are never counted in states’ hunting quotas (Lambert et al. 2006b, Robinson et al. 2008b, Cooley et al. 2009a, Cooley et al. 2009b, Robinson and Desimone 2011, Beausoleil et al. 2013, Peebles et al. 2013, Wielgus et al. 2013, Robinson et al. 2014a):  If a trophy hunter kills a mother cougar, multiple young can die from starvation, dehydration, exposure or predation (Logan and Sweanor 2001, Stoner et al. 2006).  Cougar kittens up to 12 months of age are likely incapable of dispatching prey animals on their own and are unable to survive without their mothers (Elbroch and Quigley 2012). 2  When trophy hunters remove the stable adult cougars from a population, young male cougars are attracted to these vacancies. The immigrating young males may kill the kittens from the previous male so they can sire their own. In the process, however, females defending their kittens are also frequently killed (Lambert et al. 2006b, Cooley et al. 2009b, Wielgus et al. 2013, Keehner et al. 2015b). Additionally, social stability is a significant contributor to the resiliency of cougar populations. Yet, human persecution, primarily from trophy hunting, changes the demographics (sex and age) and density of cougar populations (Lambert et al. 2006b, Stoner et al. 2006, Robinson et al. 2008a, Cooley et al. 2009a, Cooley et al. 2009b). For example, if the cougar in a home range is removed or killed, the vacancy likely will attract a younger, dispersing animal (Lambert et al. 2006) that is more likely to be involved in human or livestock conflicts (Peebles et al. 2013). II. DWR permits too high levels of persecution, rather than the “conservative management approach” recommended by Utah’s own cougar biologists. Cougars occur at low densities relative to their primary prey making them sensitive to both bottom-up (prey declines) and top-down (human persecution) influences (Stoner et al. 2006). Trophy hunting cougars is their major source of mortality in Utah (Cougar Management Guidelines 2005, Stoner et al. 2006, Robinson and Desimone 2011, Stoner et al. 2013b, Wolfe et al. 2015). Based upon Utah’s substantial literature concerning cougars, it seems that that the only thing that ensures cougar continuity in Utah are de facto refugia and suboptimal habitats (Stoner et al. 2006, Stoner et al. 2013a, Stoner et al. 2013b). That is because Utah cougars are managed using a “sledgehammer approach” (Logan and Sweanor 2001, Robinson and Desimone 2011). That is, heavy hunting regimes designed to suppress the population. After conducting 17 years of research, Utah cougar biologists Wolfe et al. (2015) recommend that Utah manage cougars at a metapopulation level rather than at the single population level. They further add: “We recommend a conservative management approach be adopted to preclude potential over-harvest in future years” (Wolfe et al. 2015, p. 195). Instead, Utah cougars experience additive levels of mortality (Wolfe et al. 2015). Wolfe et al. (2015: 194) explain that on one of their long-term study sites, the Monroe Mountains, along with surrounding locations, were population sinks. Utah cougar biologists note that cougars are “exploited at similar levels” on the Monroe Mountains as they are in all surrounding areas (Stoner et al. 2013b, Wolfe et al. 2015). To compensate for these mortalities, Utah cougar biologists recommend that other cougars be allowed to “replenish” the heavily exploited areas, which means that Utah must reduce hunting levels, secure refugia and ensure connectivity between populations. The HSUS, also concerned by the high levels of cougar persecution allowed in Utah, is concerned by DWR’s failure to adequately protect breeding females and prevent kitten orphaning (Stoner et al. 2006, Stoner et al. 2013a). We find it particularly disturbing that the State expressly prohibits people from rehabilitating kittens (who are orphaned because of trophy hunting). Instead of a helping hand, kittens born in Utah are forced to endure a death of dehydration and malnutrition (see: Stoner et al. 2006). 3 Perhaps the only thing that ensures cougar can exist in Utah in the face of heavy persecution from packs of trailing hounds and trophy hunters are the de facto refugia, such as the Oquirrh site, and suboptimal habitats which hunters do not exploit (Stoner et al. 2006, Stoner et al. 2013a, Stoner et al. 2013b). Instead of a “conservative management approach” or a metapopulation scheme, DWR’s Cougar Plan, citing no studies, states: “Most cougar populations can sustain harvest rates of 20% to 30% of the adult population depending on the age and sex composition of the harvest.” Yet new studies (e.g., Beausoleil et al. 2013, Logan 2014), suggest a much lower rate, in the range of 1114%, for maintaining sustainable cougar populations. Hunter harvest results not only in the direct mortality but has an additive effect of causing kitten orphaning and their subsequent starvation and population reduction (Stoner et al. 2006, Stoner et al. 2013a, Robinson et al. 2014a). Studies show where there is heavy hunting pressures, hunter mortality can exacerbate other causes of cougar mortality including intraspecific strife; preypursuit injuries; vehicle collisions; predator control actions; poaching; starvation and disease (see: Beausoleil et al. 2013). In short, Utah wildlife managers have failed to use science to inform their cougar management in Utah. Instead of a conservative, calibrated approach to wildlife management, the state has adopted a cruel sledgehammer approach that amounts to an unmitigated slaughter of its polygynous, iconic symbol of wild Utah. III. DWR must significantly reduce cougar hunting quotas and provide an updated, reliable cougar population estimate to prevent over-persecution. Cougars are a rare species and it is important for the state to conserve cougars and ensure sustainable population growth by prohibiting over-persecution. Unfortunately, DWR still relies on an almost 20 year old population estimate of 2,528 to 3,926 cougars to manage this iconic species in our state (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2015). DWR must provide an updated, reliable cougar population estimate and manage the state’s population sustainably, prioritizing the species’ stability and persistence on the landscape. The most reliable method to derive cougar populations is from radio-telemetry studies (Cougar Management Guidelines 2005, p. 44). We request DWR produce such a study using the following guidelines to ensure accuracy:  The study must be of sufficient length, several years, not weeks, in order to accurately measure a cougar population.  The study should not include animals below 18 months of age (Beausoleil et al. 2013), nor includes dispersing animals. Beausoleil et al. (2013) suggest that wildlife managers use a density of 1.7 (2) cougars/100 km2 if managers cannot afford to conduct a marked, recapture study.  Population trends must be determined using reliable methodologies; however, sightings, depredation events, and kill levels are not reliable means to indexing a population (Cougar Management Guidelines 2005, p. 48-50). 4  DWR must estimate cougar habitat in a manner that conforms to the best peer-reviewed science, including using GIS-mapping technologies.  David Stoner, Ph.D., who presented at the WAFWA Mountain Lion Workshop in Estes Park, Colorado on 5/16/17, suggests that Utah can reliably estimate cougar abundance based upon the productivity available to deer, because one can reliably estimate the deer population based upon productivity; and also the cougar population can be reasonably estimated based upon the deer population. Dr. Stoner’s work used remote satellites, which estimated Utah’s plant productivity for mule deer from 2000 to 2014 (Stoner et al. 2016). (Dr. Stoner’s paper on Utah’s cougar abundance is forthcoming.) DWR currently allows the killing of cougars without understanding how the level of killing they permit is affecting their populations. If DWR is to continue allowing trophy hunting of cougars, the agency must set sustainable quotas based off reliable population estimates in order to prevent over-persecution. A ten-year study of hunting cougars on the Uncompahgre Plateau by Colorado Parks and Wildlife found that a sustainable offtake rate amounted to 11 to 12 percent of the population (Logan 2014), while a study in Montana suggests no more than12 percent (Robinson et al. 2014a). Additionally, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists suggest a harvest of no more than 14 percent of the resident adults to avoid overkill of cougars (Beausoleil et al. 2013). The Recommendations request a total of 571 cougar hunting permits in 47 units and unlimited permits in four additional units be made available for the 2017-2018 season. Based on DWR’s outdated cougar population estimate, this quota would allow approximately 22 to 34 percent of Utah’s adult and subadult cougars to be killed,1 not including those killed in the unlimited permit units. DWR is allowing dangerously high levels of killing that could harm the long-term survival of Utah’s cougar population. While Utahans and Americans have signaled to Utah decision makers that cougar hounding and trophy hunting should end, at a minimum, DWR must adopt rational, sound science and limit cougar trophy hunting to no more than 12% of the total population, or risk continual scrapes with extirpation, including cruel mortalities from infanticide and intraspecific aggression. Also, we request that Utah permit AZA-approved sanctuaries to rehabilitate dependent cougar kittens instead of condemning them to such wanton cruelty. Additionally, DWR must update the state’s cougar management plan to reflect this 12% cap. Such action will support the sustainability of Utah’s cougar population if trophy hunting of the species is to continue in our state. IV. Hounding of cougars is unsporting animal cruelty and should cease. Using radio-collared trailing hounds to chase cougars and bay them into trees or rock ledges so a trophy hunter can shoot these cats at close range is unsporting, unethical and inhumane (Teel et al. 2002). Hounds kill kittens, and cougars often injure or kill hounds (Lindzey et al. 1992, Logan and Sweanor 2001, Elbroch et al. 2013). 1 This estimate excludes kittens because they are not legally hunted in Utah. Adults and subadults would total approximately 1,694 to 2,637, or 67% of the estimated total population of 2,528 to 3,926 (e.g., Logan and Sweanor 2001). 5 Hounding is not considered “fair chase” hunting by most (Posewitz 1994, Teel et al. 2002). Fair chase hunting is predicated upon giving the animal an equal opportunity to escape from the hunter (Posewitz 1994). The use of hounds provides an unfair advantage to trophy hunters who rely on hounds to do the bulk of the work in finding and baying a cougar. Additionally, hounds chase non-target wildlife and trespass onto private lands (e.g., Hristienko and McDonald 2007, Mori 2017). Despite this, DWR allows the hounding of cougars. The HSUS does not support the use of hounds for trophy hunting wildlife and requests this method to no longer be permitted in Utah. V. The best available science demonstrates that killing native carnivores to increase ungulate populations is unlikely to produce positive results. The Recommendations provide justification for the trophy hunting of cougars in 22 units based on the threat cougars pose on the viability of native ungulates. However, this justification is not supported by the best available science regarding ungulate survival. Current research affirms three key points: 1) Because ecological systems are complex, heavily persecuting cougars will fail to address the underlying malnutrition problems that deer face: Five recent studies demonstrate that predator removal actions “generally had no effect” in the long term on ungulate populations (Forrester and Wittmer 2013, p. 300). Authors found that “both coyote and mountain lion predation was compensatory rather than additive” (Forrester and Wittmer 2013, p. 300).2 In other words, if predators had been absent from those ecosystems, the deer would have died from some other cause anyway. In Idaho, study areas where cougars and coyotes endured heavy-killing regimens, the massive amounts of native carnivore killing failed to change the population trends for mule deer. Hurley et al. (2011) conclude that the benefits of predator killing are marginal and short term in nature, and more important, the killing failed to change the long-term dynamics of mule deer population. Bishop et al. (2009), in their long-term, Colorado-based study, found that food limited the deer population, but especially the quality of winter-range habitats. They determined that if deer had access to adequate nutrition, neither cougars nor coyotes negatively affected the deer population. They also suggest that cougars selected for deer that had poor body condition (Bishop et al. 2009). In a follow up, Colorado-based study, Bergman et al. (2014) found that managing winter range for deer, weed control and reseeding, benefitted deer greatly. While predators are limited by the number of prey (e.g., Peckarsky et al. 2008), new studies reveal an increase in the number of prey does not bring a proportional increase of predators, and that predator populations stay at a lower size relative to prey biomass (Hatton et al. 2015). 2) Mule deer need adequate nutrition to survive, reproduce, and recruit new members to their population: 2 If cougars kill more prey beyond what would otherwise happen from all the other causes of death, that extra mortality is called “additive mortality.” But if cougars kill prey that would die even if there was no predation, that mortality is generally considered to be “compensatory mortality.” 6 Mule deer populations in the western United States have experienced population declines over the latter part of the last century because of myriad factors including habitat loss or fragmentation, changes in forage quality, competition with other ungulates, predation, disease, increased hunting, poaching, stochastic weather events, fire suppression, noxious weeds, overgrazing by livestock, energy development, and changes in hydrology caused by global warming—including changes in snow pack and temperature (e.g., Forrester and Wittmer 2013, Monteith et al. 2014). In their review article that surveyed 48 predation studies involving mule deer, Forrester and Wittmer determined that while predation was the “primary proximate cause of mortality for all age classes” of deer, all of the predator removal studies indicate that “predation is compensatory, particularly at high deer densities, and that nutrition and weather shape population dynamics” (2013: 292). In other words, each year, some deer are “doomed surplus”; that is, they die no matter what (Monteith et al. 2014, citing Errington 1946). The question is whether deer die from predation or some other cause, especially malnutrition. As part of a new, comprehensive study, biologists Monteith et al. (2014) caution against assuming mortalities are purely compensatory or additive. Monteith et al. (2014) found that both additive and compensatory mortality can occur in a single year in the same systems and “should be viewed as a continuum rather than as a dichotomy” (p. 41). In a California study, cougar predation on mule deer was likely additive during one time period of an increasing deer population, but it did not stop the growth of the population, which indicates that resource availability (food) is more important to mule deer (Pierce et al. 2012). The condition of the deer were strongly correlated with the availability of nutrition, and thus cougar predation during a deer decline was not an additive source of mortality (Pierce et al. 2012). The deer were in poor physical condition and reproductive rates were low, indicating that nutrition, not predation caused the decline (Pierce et al. 2012). If Utah wants to grow its ungulate population, then DWR must foster survival of adult female mule deer to stem declines; and it must increase nutritional conditions for mule deer as these factors are the most important for mule deer survival (e.g., Forrester and Wittmer 2013, Monteith et al. 2014, Robinson et al. 2014b). The scientific literature is clear that large herbivores are limited by their food resources (e.g., Monteith et al. 2014). Young animals that have access to fewer nutritional reserves are less likely to survive – a theory that has been well tested in the West (Watkins et al. 2002, Pojar and Bowden 2004, Bishop et al. 2009, Monteith et al. 2014). Mule deer survival is absolutely reliant on their ability to gain access to adequate nutrition – but that nutrition can be hindered by weather, habitat loss, oil and gas development, fire suppression, and other causes. Alterations to the landscape, especially from fossil fuel extraction are becoming an increasing issue for mule deer survival, as recent research shows (Bergman et al. 2014, Bergman et al. 2015, Johnson et al. 2016, Sawyer et al. 2017). To underscore, the underpinnings of ungulate population density is their access to nutrition, or what biologist call their “nutritional carrying capacity” (Monteith et al. 2014). 7 3) Persecuting cougars will not help bighorn sheep recruitment: It is clear from the literature that bighorn sheep populations are in decline in the U.S. because of unregulated market hunting, trophy hunting, disease from domestic sheep, 3 resource competition by livestock, and loss of habitat (Warren 1997, Logan and Sweanor 2001, Lomax 2008, Murphy and Ruth 2010, Monteith et al. 2013). The Payette National Forest’s Update to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (January 2010), provides an excellent literature review on sheep die offs attributed to domestic livestock and recommend that wild and domestic sheep and goats be separated.4 Sawyer and Lindzey (2002) surveyed over 60 peer-reviewed articles concerning predator-prey relationships involving bighorn sheep and cougars, and they concluded that while predator control is often politically expedient, it often does not address underlying environmental issues including habitat loss, loss of migration corridors, and inadequate nutrition. In total, the best available science suggests that persecuting cougar populations is not a solution toward enhancing bighorn sheep numbers. That is because cougar predation upon bighorn sheep is a learned behavior conducted by only a few individuals who may not repeat their behavior (Logan and Sweanor 2001, McKinney et al. 2006b, Ruth and Murphy 2010). Cougars cache their prey under vegetative cover to prevent detection by scavengers, to cool, and to impede spoiling (Murphy and Ruth 2010). Cougars remain close to their kills and feed generally on the kill for two to five nights (McKinney et al. 2006b, Murphy and Ruth 2010). This behavior affords researchers the opportunity to avoid targeting a subpopulation and remove only individuals who feed on bighorn sheep. DWR can better plan for bighorn sheep management by selecting relocation sites for bighorn sheep that have little stalking cover (McKinney et al. 2006b, Murphy and Ruth 2010). Escape 3 “Severe pneumonia outbreak kills bighorn sheep: Lamb survival to be closely monitored for several years” http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/may10/100501c.asp 4 http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/payette/publications/big_horn/index.shtml. It states: Bighorn sheep are a New World species and are closely related to domestic sheep, which are an Old World species. Domestication and intense artificial selection have probably helped domestic sheep develop a resistance to important diseases (Jessup 1985). However, bighorn sheep can be highly susceptible to diseases carried by domestic sheep. A long history of large-scale, sudden, all-age die-offs in bighorn sheep exists across Canada and the United States, many associated with domestic animal contact (Shackleton 1999). Although limited knowledge of transmission dynamics exists (Garde et al. 2005), extensive scientific literature supports the relationship between disease in bighorn sheep populations and contact with domestic sheep, including both circumstantial evidence linking bighorn die- offs in the wild to contact with domestic animals and controlled experiments where healthy bighorn sheep exposed to domestic sheep displayed subsequently high mortality rates (Foreyt 1989, 1990, 1992; Foreyt et al. 1994; Onderka et al. 1988; Onderka and Wishart 1988; Garde et al. 2005). In a summary of risk to wild sheep from Pasteurella and Mannheimia spp., Garde et al. (2005) makes the following conclusions: 1. These bacteria can cause pneumonia in bighorn sheep, but there are benign commensal strains in the upper respiratory tract 2. Domestic sheep, goats, and llamas have been reported with these bacteria species 3. Wild sheep and mountain goats have been reported with these bacteria species 4. Transmission is by direct contact and aerosolization 5. These bacteria species do not persist in the environment 6. Acute-to-chronic die-offs in bighorn sheep can result in low to 100% mortality, although they can be present in healthy sheep 7. These bacteria are considered opportunistic and can result in pneumonia outbreaks 8. These bacteria can cause clinical disease in domestic sheep and goats, but are rarely primary pathogens. Management Recommendations: The separation, either spatially, temporally, or both of bighorn sheep from domestic sheep has been recommended by leading bighorn sheep disease experts (Schommer and Woolever 2001, Garde 2005, Singer 2001). Experts also recommend developing site-specific solutions for each bighorn sheep population and domestic sheep allotment, and to develop a management strategy appropriate for the complexity of the management situation (Schommer and Woolever 2001). 8 terrain that contains cliffs, rocks, and foliage makes excellent ambush cover for a cougar (McKinney et al. 2006a) and should be avoided. Also, the amount of cougar predation is generally greater on small-sized bighorn sheep populations (those that are under 100 individuals) than on other larger bighorn sheep populations (Sawyer and Lindzey 2002, McKinney et al. 2006b, Ruth and Murphy 2010). In their first year, newly transplanted bighorn sheep travel long distances from the release site, which makes them vulnerable to predation (McKinney et al. 2006a). A host of authors reviewed by McKinney et al. (2006) and Ruth and Murphy (2010) recommend only limited cougar removals to benefit bighorn sheep populations. Authors suggest:  Predation is greatest where mule deer and bighorn sheep are sympatric and that predation on bighorn increases when mule deer herds decline (Ruth and Murphy 2010).  Group size of released bighorns, habitat quality and quantity, alternative prey such as mule deer, escape terrain at relocation sites can effect translocation efforts (McKinney et al. 2006b, Ruth and Murphy 2010).  Logan and Sweanor (2001) found the desert bighorn sheep population in their study area to be negatively affected by drought, disease, and lack of connectivity to other subpopulations and that predation was not additive. Removal of cougars from a population can result in unintended consequences such as an increase in migration from subadults, particularly when a dominant male is removed; this could increase the cougar density into an area (Lambert et al. 2006b, Stoner et al. 2006, Robinson et al. 2008a, Ruth and Murphy 2010). Females with kittens avoid these infanticidal subadult males by moving to higher elevations, and prey switching from abundant, primary prey in lower elevations to rare, sensitive and threatened secondary prey at higher elevations (Keehner et al. 2015). The literature is clear: the problems sheep face are trophy hunters and livestock – because they are important disease vectors and because they compete with wild sheep for limited resources, habitat loss, and lack of adequate nutrition. Utah could see better success with protecting bighorn sheep populations by leaving cougars alone who are not preying on bighorn sheep (Ruth and Murphy 2010, Keehner et al. 2015a). VI. Trophy hunting of cougars increases complaints and livestock losses. Increased cougar hunting quotas have been shown to increase complaints and livestock depredations (Lambert et al. 2006a, Peebles et al. 2013, Teichman et al. 2016). A Washington state study shows that as cougar complaints increased, wildlife officials lengthened seasons and increased bag limits to respond to what they believed was a rapidly growing cougar population. However, the public’s perception of an increasing population and greater numbers of livestock depredations was actually a result of a declining female and increasing male population (Peebles et al. 2013, citing Lambert et al. 2006 and Robinson et al. 2008). Heavy hunting of cougars caused compensatory immigration and emigration by young male cougars, and resulted in no net change in the population (Ibid). 9 Study authors found that the sport hunting of cougars to reduce complaints and livestock depredations had the opposite effect. Killing cougars disrupts their social structure and increases both complaints and livestock depredations (Peebles et al. 2013). Peebles et al. (2013, p. 6) write: . . . each additional cougar on the landscape increased the odds of a complaint of livestock depredation by about 5%. However, contrary to expectations, each additional cougar killed on the landscape increased the odds by about 50%, or an order of magnitude higher. By far, hunting of cougars had the greatest effects, but not as expected. Very heavy hunting (100% removal of resident adults in 1 year) increased the odds of complaints and depredations in year 2 by 150% to 340%. Hunting disrupts cougars’ sex-age structure and tilts a population to one that is comprised of younger males, who are more likely to engage in livestock depredations than animals in stable, older population (Peebles et al. 2013, Teichman et al. 2016). To emphasize: sport hunting changes the demographics (sex and age) and density of a cougar population (Lambert et al. 2006b, Stoner et al. 2006, Robinson et al. 2008a, Cooley et al. 2009a, Cooley et al. 2009b). If the cougar in a home range is removed or killed, the vacancy likely will attract a younger, dispersing animal (Lambert et al. 2006). Therefore, both Utah’s trophy hunting coupled with indiscriminate predator-control programs can easily destabilize the cougar population, which leads to increased conflicts with humans and livestock (Lambert et al. 2006a, Peebles et al. 2013, Teichman et al. 2016). VII. Cougars are vital to their natural ecosystems and other wildlife. Cougars serve an important ecological role, including the ecosystem services they provide. Maehr et al. (2003: 849) assert the importance of cougars on the landscape: One aspect of cougar ecology that is becoming less debatable is its role in biotic communities . . . . P. concolor has the potential to structure the distribution and demography of prey (Logan and Sweanor 2001, Maehr et al. 2001). Browse lines, highway collisions, Lyme disease (Wilson and Childs 1997), loss of biodiversity (Alverson et al. 1988, Waller and Alverson 1997), and other problems associated with overabundant white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) hint at the benefits of returning such a predator . . . In Zion National Park, researchers found that by modulating deer populations, cougars prevented overgrazing near fragile riparian systems. The result: more cottonwoods, rushes, cattails, wildflowers, amphibians, lizards, and butterflies, and deeper, but narrower stream channels (Ripple and Beschta 2006). In other words, cougars enhance biological diversity. The carrion left from lion kills feeds scavengers such as bears and raptors, enhancing biological diversity (Elbroch and Wittmer 2012). Mountain lions, as with most large carnivores, are also considered a keystone species because they help drive the ecosystems in which they live (Soule et al. 2003). As a large predator, mountain lions regulate many of the other species in their 10 communities, including herbivores, who then regulate the plant community (Allen et al. 2014, Elbroch et al. 2014). While top carnivores are integral to biological diversity and ecological function, many face an extinction crisis in North America and across the earth (Berger et al. 2001, Ritchie and Johnson 2009, Estes et al. 2011, Ripple et al. 2014, Darimont et al. 2015, Ripple et al. 2016). Humancaused extinctions result from habitat loss and fragmentation, loss of dispersal corridors, overhunting, poaching, the spread of invasive species, the change in species assemblages; changes in ecosystem function, disease, sickness, and a host of other problems (Cardillo et al. 2004, Gaston 2005). Already, nearly one quarter of the world’s mammals are at “high risk of extinction” with top carnivores especially affected (Cardillo et al. 2004, Estes et al. 2011, Ripple et al. 2014, Darimont et al. 2015, Ripple et al. 2016). Utah’s cougars must be conserved and protected so that our wild spaces may continue to receive the critical ecosystem benefits they provide. VIII. Cougars must be conserved for all, not just managed for a few trophy hunters. The state has an obligation to manage cougars for all citizens, not just a vocal minority who enjoy trophy hunting cougars. A large study of Utah residents shows that the majority of people in the state disapprove of current cougar management practices, including hunting of cougars and using hounds to hunt cougars (Teel et al. 2002). Additionally, the majority of Americans, by 61%, hold positive values towards cougars compared to just 13% who hold negative values (George et al. 2016). Another study showed that most people hold positive attitudes towards cougars and were likely to believe that cougars are a sign of a healthy environment and pose little real risk to people living near them (Zinn et al. 1996). Cougars also benefit the numerous wildlife watchers in Utah. The FWS reports that, in Utah alone, wildlife watchers outnumber hunters by nearly fourfold, and they spend over $585 million annually (Table 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). Table 1: 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Considering this, the DWR Wildlife-Associated Recreation in Utah must give wildlife watchers Number of Participants Expenditures ample consideration as part of Hunters 193,000 $499,141,000 its public trust duties to manage Wildlife Watchers 717,000 $585,406,000 cougars for long-term conservation. Utah’s cougars are an important component of our natural wild heritage, and deserve reasoned management so that their populations are conserved for future generations—including for all stakeholders (Jacobson et al. 2010, Nelson et al. 2011). IX. Conclusion: State law mandates that the Wildlife Board preserve, protect and conserve that State’s wildlife for all of citizens. Yet, the current Recommendations clearly are not meant to encourage 11 sustainable, conservation-minded cougar management. Instead, they provide an overall increase in trophy hunting of Utah’s cougar population for reasons not based on sound science and at levels that are too high to maintain a stable population. We urge you to reject the current Recommendations. If DWR continues to allow trophy hunting of cougars, the agency must reduce hunting quotas across the state to ensure the species’ longterm conservation. Additionally, DWR must provide an updated, reliable population estimate to establish sustainable quotas as well as no longer allow hounding of cougars. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Sundays Hunt Utah State Director The Humane Society of the United States shunt@humanesociety.org 12 Bibliography Allen, M. L., L. M. Elbroch, C. C. Wilmers, and H. U. Wittmer. 2014. Trophic Facilitation or Limitation? Comparative Effects of Pumas and Black Bears on the Scavenger Community. PLOS One 9. Beausoleil, R. A., G. M. Koehler, B. T. Maletzke, B. N. Kertson, and R. G. Wielgus. 2013. Research to Regulation: Cougar Social Behavior as a Guide for Management. Wildlife Society Bulletin 37:680-688. Berger, J., P. B. Stacey, L. Bellis, and M. P. Johnson. 2001. A Mammalian Predator-Prey Imbalance: Grizzly Bear and Wolf Extinction Affect Avian Neotropical Migrants. Ecological Applications 11:947-960. Bergman, E. J., C. J. Bishop, D. J. Freddy, G. C. White, and P. F. Doherty. 2014. Habitat Management Influences Overwinter Survival of Mule Deer Fawns in Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:448-455. Bergman, E. J., P. F. Doherty, G. C. White, and A. A. Holland. 2015. Density dependence in mule deer: a review of evidence. Wildlife Biology 21:18-29. Bishop, C. J., G. C. White, D. J. Freddy, B. E. Watkins, and T. R. Stephenson. 2009. Effect of Enhanced Nutrition on Mule Deer Population Rate of Change. Wildlife Monographs:128. Cardillo, M., A. Purvis, W. Sechrest, J. L. Gittleman, J. Bielby, and G. M. Mace. 2004. Human Population Density and Extinction Risk in the World's Carnivores. PLOS Biology 2:0909-0914. Cooley, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, G. Koehler, and B. Maletzke. 2009a. Source populations in carnivore management: cougar demography and emigration in a lightly hunted population. Animal Conservation 12:321-328. Cooley, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, G. M. Koehler, H. S. Robinson, and B. T. Maletzke. 2009b. Does hunting regulate cougar populations? A test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis. Ecology 90:2913-2921. Cougar Management Guidelines. 2005. Cougar Management Guidelines. WildFutures, Bainbridge Island, WA. Darimont, C. T., C. H. Fox, H. M. Bryan, and T. E. Reimchen. 2015. The unique ecology of human predators. Science 349:858-860. Elbroch, L. M., B. D. Jansen, M. M. Grigione, R. J. Sarno, and H. U. Wittmer. 2013. Trailing hounds vs foot snares: comparing injuries to pumas Puma concolor captured in Chilean Patagonia. Wildlife Biology 19:210-216. Elbroch, L. M., and H. Quigley. 2012. Observations of Wild Cougar (Puma concolor) Kittens with Live Prey: Implications for Learning and Survival. Canadian Field-Naturalist 126:333-335. Elbroch, L. M., and H. U. Wittmer. 2012. Table scraps: inter-trophic food provisioning by pumas. Biology letters 8:776-779. Elbroch, M. L., H. B. Quigley, and A. Caragiulo. 2014. Spatial associations in a solitary predator: using genetic tools and GPS technology to assess cougar social organization in the Southern Yellowstone Ecosystem. acta ethologica 18:127-136. Estes, J. A., J. Terborgh, J. S. Brashares, M. E. Power, J. Berger, W. J. Bond, S. R. Carpenter, T. E. Essington, R. D. Holt, J. B. C. Jackson, R. J. Marquis, L. Oksanen, T. Oksanen, R. T. Paine, E. K. Pikitch, W. J. Ripple, S. A. Sandin, M. Scheffer, T. W. Schoener, J. B. 13 Shurin, A. R. E. Sinclair, M. E. Soule, R. Virtanen, and D. A. Wardle. 2011. Trophic Downgrading of Planet Earth. Science 333:301-306. Forrester, T. D., and H. U. Wittmer. 2013. A review of the population dynamics of mule deer and black-tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus in North America. Mammal Review 43:292308. Gaston, K. J. 2005. Biodiversity and extinction: species and people. Progress in Physical Geography 29:239-247. George, K. A., K. M. Slagle, R. S. Wilson, S. J. Moeller, and J. T. Bruskotter. 2016. Changes in attitudes toward animals in the United States from 1978 to 2014. Biological Conservation 201:237-242. Hatton, I. A., K. S. McCann, J. M. Fryxell, T. J. Davies, M. Smerlak, A. R. E. Sinclair, and M. Loreau. 2015. The predator-prey power law: Biomass scaling across terrestrial and aquatic biomes. Science 349:doi:http://0dx.doi.org.libraries.colorado.edu/10.1126/science.aac6284 Hristienko, H., and J. McDonald, John E. 2007. Going in the 21st century: a perspective on trends and controversies in the management of the black bear Ursus 18:72-88. Hurley, M. A., J. W. Unsworth, P. Zager, M. Hebblewhite, E. O. Garton, D. M. Montgomery, J. R. Skalski, and C. L. Maycock. 2011. Demographic Response of Mule Deer to Experimental Reduction of Coyotes and Mountain Lions in Southeastern Idaho. Wildlife Monographs:1-33. Jacobson, C., J. F. Organ, D. Decker, G. R. Batcheller, and L. Carpenter. 2010. A Conservation Institution for the 21st Century: Implications for State Wildlife Agencies. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:203-209. Johnson, H. E., J. R. Sushinsky, A. Holland, E. J. Bergman, T. Balzer, J. Garner, and S. E. Reed. 2016. Increases in residential and energy development are associated with reductions in recruitment for a large ungulate. Global Change Biology. Keehner, J. R., R. B.Wielgus, and A. M. Keehner. 2015a. Effects of male targeted harvest regimes on prey switching by female mountain lions: Implications for apparent competition on declining secondary prey. Biological Conservation 192:101-108. Keehner, J. R., R. B. Wielgus, B. T. Maletzke, and M. E. Swanson. 2015b. Effects of male targeted harvest regime on sexual segregation in mountain lion. Biological Conservation 192:42-47. Lambert, C. M., R. B. Wielgus, H. R. Robinson, H. S. Cruickshank, R. Clarke, and J. Almack. 2006a. Cougar population dynamics and viability in the Pacific Northwest. J Wildl Manage. 70. Lambert, C. M. S., R. B. Wielgus, H. S. Robinson, D. D. Katnik, H. S. Cruickshank, R. Clarke, and J. Almack. 2006b. Cougar Population Dynamics and Viability in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:246-254. Lindzey, F. G., W. D. Vansickle, S. P. Laing, and C. S. Mecham. 1992. Cougar Population Response to Manipulation in Southern Utah. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20:224-227. Logan, K. A. 2014. Puma population responses to sport hunting on the Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado. Pages 1-3 in Colorado Parks and Wildlife, editor., Unpublished letter of 12/10/14. Logan, K. A., and L. L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press, Washington, DC. Lomax, B. 2008. Tracking the Bighorns. Smithsonsian 38:21-24. 14 Maehr, D. S., M. J. Kelly, C. Bolgiano, T. Lester, and H. McGinnis. 2003. Eastern cougar recovery is linked to the Florida panther: Cardoza and Langlois revisited. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:849-853. McKinney, T., J. C. deVOS, W. B. Ballard, and S. R. Boe. 2006a. Mountain Lion Predation of Translocated Desert Bighorn Sheep in Arizona. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34:1255-1263. McKinney, T., T. W. Smith, and J. C. deVOS. 2006b. Evaluation of Factors Potentially Influencing a Desert Bighorn Sheep Population. Wildlife Monographs 164:1-36. Monteith, K. L., V. C. Bleich, T. R. Stephenson, B. M. Pierce, M. M. Conner, J. G. Kie, and R. T. Bowyer. 2014. Life-history characteristics of mule deer: Effects of nutrition in a variable environment. Wildlife Monographs 186:1-62. Monteith, K. L., R. A. Long, V. C. Bleich, J. R. Heffelfinger, P. R. Krausman, and R. T. Bowyer. 2013. Effects of harvest, culture, and climate on trends in size of horn-like structures in trophy ungulates. Wildlife Monographs 183:1-28. Mori, E. 2017. Porcupines in the landscape of fear: Effect of hunting with dogs on the behaviour of a non-target species. Mammal Research 62:251-258. Murphy, K., and T. Ruth. 2010. Diet and Prey Selection of a Perfect Predator. Pages 118-137 in M. Hornocker and S. Negri, editors. Cougar: Ecology and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Nelson, M. P., J. A. Vucetich, P. C. Paquet, and J. Bump. 2011. An Inadequate Construct? North American Model: What's Missing, What's Needed. The Wildlife Professional:58-60. Peckarsky, B. L., P. A. Abrams, D. I. Bolnick, L. M. Dill, J. H. Grabowski, B. Luttbeg, J. L. Orrock, S. D. Peacor, E. L. Preisser, O. J. Schmitz, and G. C. Trussell. 2008. Revisiting the Classics: Considering Nonconsumptive Effects in Textbook Examples of PredatorPrey Reactions. Ecological Society of America 89:2416-2425. Peebles, K. A., R. B. Wielgus, B. T. Maletzke, and M. E. Swanson. 2013. Effects of Remedial Sport Hunting on Cougar Complaints and Livestock Depredations. PLOS One 8. Pierce, B. M., V. C. Bleich, K. L. Monteith, and R. T. Bowyer. 2012. Top-down versus bottomup forcing: evidence from mountain lions and mule deer. Journal of Mammalogy 93:977988. Pojar, T. M., and D. C. Bowden. 2004. Neonatal mule deer fawn survival in west-central Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:550-560. Posewitz, J. 1994. Beyond Fair Chase: The Ethic and Tradition of Hunting. Falcon Press, Helena, Montana. Ripple, W. J., and R. L. Beschta. 2006. Linking a cougar decline, trophic cascade, and catastrophic regime shift in Zion National Park. Biological Conservation 133:397-408. Ripple, W. J., G. Chapron, J. V. López-Bao, S. M. Durant, D. W. Macdonald, P. A. Lindsey, E. L. Bennett, R. L. Beschta, J. T. Bruskotter, A. Campos-Arceiz, R. T. Corlett, C. T. Darimont, A. J. Dickman, R. Dirzo, H. T. Dublin, J. A. Estes, K. T. Everatt, M. Galetti, V. R. Goswami, M. W. Hayward, S. Hedges, M. Hoffmann, L. T. B. Hunter, G. I. H. Kerley, M. Letnic, T. Levi, F. Maisels, J. C. Morrison, M. P. Nelson, T. M. Newsome, L. Painter, R. M. Pringle, C. J. Sandom, J. Terborgh, A. Treves, B. Van Valkenburgh, J. A. Vucetich, A. J. Wirsing, A. D. Wallach, C. Wolf, R. Woodroffe, H. Young, and L. Zhang. 2016. Saving the World's Terrestrial Megafauna. BioScience. Ripple, W. J., J. A. Estes, R. L. Beschta, C. C. Wilmers, E. G. Ritchie, M. Hebblewhite, J. Berger, B. Elmhagen, M. Letnic, M. P. Nelson, O. J. Schmitz, D. W. Smith, A. D. 15 Wallach, and A. J. Wirsing. 2014. Status and Ecological Effects of the World's Largest Carnivores. Science 343:151-+. Ritchie, E. G., and C. N. Johnson. 2009. Predator interactions, mesopredator release and biodiversity conservation. Ecology Letters 12:982-998. Robinson, H. S., and R. Desimone. 2011. The Garnet Range Mountain Lion Study: Characteristics of a Hunted Population in West-Central Montana: Final Report. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks:102pp. Robinson, H. S., R. Desimone, C. Hartway, J. A. Gude, M. J. Thompson, M. S. Mitchell, and M. Hebblewhite. 2014a. A test of the compensatory mortality hypothesis in mountain lions: A management experiment in West-Central Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:791-807. Robinson, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, H. S. Cooley, and S. W. Cooley. 2008a. Sink Populations in Carnivore Management: Cougar Demography and Immigration in a Hunted Population. Ecological Applications 18:1028-1037. Robinson, H. S., R. B. Wielgus, H. S. Cooley, and S. W. Cooley. 2008b. Sink populations in carnivore management: Cougar demography and immigration in a hunted population. Ecological Applications 18:1028-1037. Robinson, K. F., D. R. Diefenbach, A. K. Fuller, J. E. Hurst, and C. S. Rosenberry. 2014b. Can Managers Compensate for Coyote Predation of White-Tailed Deer? Journal of Wildlife Management 78:571-579. Ruth, T., and K. Murphy. 2010. Cougar-Prey Relationships. Pages 138-162 in M. Hornocker and S. Negri, editors. Cougar: Ecology and Conservation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Sawyer, H., N. M. Korfanta, R. M. Nielson, K. L. Monteith, and D. Strickland. 2017. Mule deer and energy development—Long-term trends of habituation and abundance. Global Change Biology:n/a-n/a. Sawyer, H., and F. Lindzey. 2002. Review of Predation on Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis). Prepared for Wyoming Animal Damage Management Board, Wyoming Domestic Sheep and Bighorn Sheep Interaction Working Group, Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Soule, M. E., J. A. Estes, J. Berger, and C. M. Del Rio. 2003. Ecological effectiveness: Conservation goals for interactive species. Conservation Biology 17:1238-1250. Stoner, D., M. , M. L. Wolfe, and D. Choate. 2006. Cougar Exploitation Levels in Utah: Implications for Demographic Structure, Population Recovery, and Metapopulation Dynamics. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1588-1600. Stoner, D. C., J. O. Sexton, J. Nagol, H. H. Bernales, and T. C. Edwards. 2016. Ungulate Reproductive Parameters Track Satellite Observations of Plant Phenology across Latitude and Climatological Regimes. PLOS One 11. Stoner, D. C., M. L. Wolfe, C. Mecham, M. B. Mecham, S. L. Durham, and D. M. Choate. 2013a. Dispersal behaviour of a polygynous carnivore: do cougars Puma concolor follow source-sink predictions? Wildlife Biology 19:289-301. Stoner, D. C., M. L. Wolfe, W. R. Rieth, K. D. Bunnell, S. L. Durham, and L. L. Stoner. 2013b. De facto refugia, ecological traps and the biogeography of anthropogenic cougar mortality in Utah. Diversity and Distributions 19:1114-1124. Teel, T. L., R. S. Krannich, and R. H. Schmidt. 2002. Utah stakeholders' attitudes toward selected cougar and black bear management practices. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:2-15. 16 Teichman, K. J., B. Cristescu, and C. T. Darimont. 2016. Hunting as a management tool? Cougar-human conflict is positively related to trophy hunting. BMC Ecology 16:44. The Humane Society of the United States. 2017. State of the Mountain Lion: A Call to End Trophy Hunting of America's Lion. Washington, DC. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and WildlifeAssociated Recreation: Alaska. https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/fhw11-ak.pdf. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2015. 2015-2025 Cougar Management Plan V.3. 15028. Warren, L. S. 1997. The Hunter's Game: Poachers and Conservationists in Twentieth-Century America Yale University Press, New Haven. Watkins, B., J. Olterman, and T. Pojar. 2002. Mule Deer Survival Studies on the Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado 1997-2001. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Wielgus, R. B., D. E. Morrison, H. S. Cooley, and B. Maletzke. 2013. Effects of male trophy hunting on female carnivore population growth and persistence. Biological Conservation 167:69-75. Wolfe, M. L., D. N. Koons, D. C. Stoner, P. Terletzky, E. M. Gese, D. M. Choate, and L. M. Aubry. 2015. Is anthropogenic cougar mortality compensated by changes in natural mortality in Utah? Insight from long-term studies. Biological Conservation 182:187-196. Zinn, H. C., M. J. Manfredo, J. Jones, and L. Sikorowski. 1996. Societal preferences for mountain lion management along Colorado's Front Range (Project Report No. 28) Project report for the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Fort Collins, CO. Colorado State University, Human Dimensions in Natural Resources Unit. 5th Mountain Lion Workshop Proceedings. 17