A Predictive Population Model for Gougars in Oregon
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GeorgeP. Keister, Jr.,r Oregon Department of Flshand W d fe 2995Hughes Lane, Baker Cty. Oregon97814 and WalterA. Van Dyke,Oregon Depart.nent of F sh andWidlife, 38T4 C ark B vd. Ontarlo,Oregon 97914 A PredictivePopulation Model for Gougarsin Oregon Abstract Cougar nunbers in Orcgon declinedberween 1928 and 1961.prinrdrily due lo exccssjveharvest ffom the bc'untysystem. Cougafs werc classified as a game mammal in I967 and spo harvestbegan on a limiled basis in I 970. B ecause detemining population size ofcougars by direct count mcthodsis impractical,indircct nrethodsto evalualestatus are needed. \\'e analyzedharrcst ]cvels. lianage conrplaints.and data obuincd from harvestedcougars 1o evaluate their statusin Orcgon. Biological data oblained lrom oregon and other stateswere used1() dcvelop a densitydependen! nrodel of the cougarpopulation ofOregon. As indicaledby thc model. nLrmbersi ncreased fioln an cslimatedlow of 2 1.1in 196I to 2,830i n I 992, which coincidcdwith other indicators including incrcascdlivesrock damrge. human safety complaints.and sport hanest. The nodel indicaled higher moltality r.rteslbr hunled poputarjonsand lo*,er proportionsofj venile cougarsin populatjonsat caffyirg capacit]'.For the modeledpopuladon in 1993. sportharrest ratesof5.4q. alowed a 5% annualgrowlh. A sporthanest of 107. of thc populationand a total mortality rale of 35% was neededto srabilizethat populatjon.The model predictedthat if spofi harlest ceascd.cougar nunbers would incrcaseuntil carrying capacily is reachedin thc year 2009.We believe the model is a useful lool lo summariTeexisting data.erplorc cffectr of hyporhcsizcdrn anagemenr plans. and adaptivelyaid in managcmcn!deci sion s. The nodel can be adaptedto olher statesifappro priate populadon parameterscan be determlned lntroduction reports, and past harvest history have been the primarl lactor.u'eLl lo recommendhunting.er- (Puma concolor) were con- Historically,cougars sons.Legal challengesto cougarhunting in 1988 predator in the western sidered an undesirable prompted the Oregon Department of Fish and a threatto livestock, United States.Perceived as Wildlife (ODFW) to look for additional ways to implementedprograms stateand federal agencies assessthe statusof cougarpopulations. rhdtre.ulred in r.ubstantialreduction in cougar numbersand elimination of cougarsfrom much Becauseof their low densities,secretive na u of their historic range (Dixon 1978).ln Oregon, ture.and largehome rrnge.. ildlife managers problem a bountysystem fbr cougarsexisted until 1961. and researchershave struggledwith the populations.We Statisticalanalyses in the early 1970s,based on of accwately measuringcougar populrtione.timate: lium hlrvesledcougars. in- are unableto measurc,on an lLnnualbasis, most precisely dicatedthat the statewidepopulation in 1961was of the parametersnecessarJ to know what populations extremely low and without protection, cougars is happeningwith local cougar at all poor is because would likely have been extirpatedfuom Oregon times. Our monitoring capability by the early 1970s(Wanen W. Aney. 1973.un- methodsare simply not availableto measureoougar possible publishedletter on file at OregonDepartment of populationswith the precision for other (e.g. mule Fish and Wildlife, Portland). species Douglas-fir trees,bald eagles, deer, pronghom) and money is rarely available were afforded game mammd status Cougars to use the methods that are available.The best and no season by the 1967 Oregon Legislature population estimatescome from intensive field 1970. Limited hunting be- was authorizeduntil work (Lindzey1987). Track counts have been used were pri- gan in 1970 when 25 tags authorized, in severalareas (Ashman et al. 1983,Neal et al. livestock damageconcems ma ly in responseto 1987).However this method only providesan index Sincethen, in a smallarea of northeasternOregon. to population,depends on a good tracking sub- complaints, cougar sighting livestock damage stratesuch as snow or dust, and hasbeen costly. Most commonly, radio telemetry has been em- rAutbor to whom conespondenceshould be addressed.E- ployed in mark-recaptureand complete capture mail : glwkeisr@)oregonVOS.net studies.Several years are necessary to determine NorthwestScience. Vol. 76, No. l, 2002 15 O2002byrhe\oflh*e{S.1.rtfi.A$ociatior Allrighcre\erred a population estimate.Both methods are costly dationhas occurred since 1980. Reproductive sta- and tjme consumingbecausc of the logistics in- tus. stomachcontents, age, and sex of harvested volved in captu.ingo high prcportionof thepopu- cougarswere determinedat the ODFW Wildlif'e lation in a large areaof mgged habitat. In addi- Laboratoryin Corvallis. tion. resultsof suchstudies may representonly a small portion of the state.Wc employed statisti Analysisof Harvestand Cornpla nt Data cal analysisand populationmodeling to assess We used regressionanalysis to examine hulter statusofcougar populationsthroughout the state. haryestrLnd success and to determineif therewere We relied on data accumulatedover many years signiticant trends through time. Severaldepen and resultsof studiesin Oregon and other states. dentvariables (bountied cougaLrs, sport harvested Whereasit appearsthere are numerouspieces of cougars.hunter success)were individuallyre- unrelatedinformation relative to cougars.through gressedagainsttime. The analysiswas broken into population modeling we can combinc this infor- two periods:l) 1928-61during the cougar bounry mation in a way that approachesreality and bet- years.and 2) 1970-92when cougarswere hunted ter explainscougar population performance. Our as a big game mammal with an annual limit on objectivesfbr this paperwere to: l)analyzehis- the number of tagsissued per hunt unit. In addi- torical data to help determine status of cougar "other tion, losses"(e.g. depredation, accidents), populationsin Oregon and 2) developa biologi 1980-1992,and damage complaints, l91O-1992, cally intuitive nodel that relies on data that are were used as dependentvariables in simple rc- readily available and which can be createdand gressionsagainst time. Relationshipsbetween usedby managers. dependentand independentvariables were con- sideredsignificant atP ( 0.05.Dunage complaints StudyArea most commonly included complaintsto ODFW Habitatsin Oregonarc diverse.Temperate conif- ftom depredationon livestock and sightings of erousforests dominate the CoastRange and west- cougars on pnvate property where there were ern slope of the Cascades.Several interior val- concernsfor human safety. leys of westernOregon are usedfor agriculture. suchas grass seed production. fruit andvegetable B ologicalParameters llrming.dairl larming.rnd lirestockuperation.. Mary biologicalparzrmeters affecting cougupopu- Most (1377.)of the hummpopulation('3,000.000) Iationsmustbe consideredin modeldevelopment. residein thewestem interior valleys (Levine 1995). Factorsthat affect productivity were age at first Eastofthe CascadeMountains, habitats are drier breeding,birth interval, litter size,sex ratio, and and include coniferousfbrests on the east slope longevity.Factors affecting age-specificmo al- ofthe CascadeRange and in the Blue Mountains; ity includednatural and human causedmorlality shrub steppedominates the southeasternthird of (e.9.sport or depredationharvest, auto collision). the state. Intensive agriculture occurs at lower Severalstudies of cougarsin the westem states elevationsin the Columbia and SnakeRiver ba- andCanadahave reported rcsults relative to these SlnS. tactors (Table 1). We used plausible values for Cougars are distdbutcd statewideexcept for theseparameters based on data collectedmostly areas where agricultural practices and human in Oregonor representativeof cougarpopulations developmenthave alteredhabitat suitability for throughouttheir range. cougars and thet prey. For the most paft, cou- Seidenstickeret al. (1973)believed young te- garsare closely associatedwith deerand elk dis- malesusually breed only afterestablishing ahome tributions in the state.In the 1990s,reports to range.Data collectedin Oregonsupport that hy ODFW of cougarsin urban and suburbanareas pothesis(Trainer and Colly, 1989).Based on these becameincreasingly common. data and rcsults found elsewhere(Table l), we assumedthat all females> 3 yr old and 6970of Methods thosebetween 2 and 3 yr of age breed.Thereaf- A mandatorycheck-in of all cougfs taken dur- ter.females normdly breedsoon after loss of k ittens ing hunting seasonsin Oregon was institutedin or dispersalof their litter (Lindsey 1987)causing 1970,while check-inof cougarskilled on depre- the binh intenal to vary (Table 1). We assumed 16 Keister and Van Dyke TABLE 1. Factorsailecling cougurpopulations and the range ol valuesrepo(ed by various authon. Producti!it! lac|or Sourcc Age at first breeding 16-29mo Eaton and Velander 1977 27 3l mo Young and Coldnan 19.46 29mo Rabb 1959 22-)1.r'o Ashmanet al. 1981, Loganet al 1986 20 mL) Lindre) 1987 Bift irlenal 2,1mo Johnsonand Couch 195,1 2.1mo Robinetteet al. l96l 1220 mo Homocker 1970 Ashmanet a]. 1983 l8-21mo Lindze]'1987 12-17mo Lindzel et al. I994 Andcrsonct al. 1992 Lirler sire 2.O Johnsonand Couch 1954 2.5 Hornocker1971 2.5 Eabn and Velander1917 2.6 Anderson1983 2.8 Ashmanet al. 1983 2.1 Logan er al. 1986 2.1 Hemkeret al. 1982 2.1 Lindzeyei al. 199.1 2.8 Toweill er al. 198,1 2.1 To'\'eill et al. 1988 2.4 Trainer et al. 1993 Se\ LJIio (m.nc.lemJleJ 100:100(populadon) Johnsonand Couch 195,1 100:100(population) Tanncr 1975 l15:100(ki!!ens) Ashnan ct al. 1983 l25rl00(haNe\t) AndeNon1983 100:l00lcaplure) Logan