Ecology of Cougars (Puma Concolor) in North-Central Montana
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ecology of Cougars (Puma concolor) in north-central Montana: Distribution, resource selection, dynamics, harvest, and conservation design Chippewa Cree Tribal Wildlife Program In cooperation with World Wildlife Fund Northern Great Plains Program Bozeman, Montana Final Report April 2012 Kyran Kunkel1, Tim Vosburgh2, and Hugh Robinson3 1World Wildlife Fund; presently University of Montana, Gallatin Gateway, MT; 2Chippewa Cree Tribal Wildlife Program; presently Bureau of Land Management, Lander, WY; 3University of Montana; presently Panthera, New York, NY Space for Cougar photo Photo credit: Kyran Kunkel 1 Ecology of Cougars (Puma concolor) in north-central Montana: Distribution, resource selection, dynamics, harvest, and conservation design Kyran Kunkel, Tim Vosburgh, and Hugh Robinson Chippewa Cree Tribal Wildlife Program in cooperation with World Wildlife Fund, Final Report April 2012 Citation: Kunkel, K, T. Vosburgh, and H. Robinson. 2012. Ecology of cougars (Puma concolor) in north-central Montana. Final Report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. World Wildlife Fund Northern Great Plains Program 202 S. Black, Ste 3 Bozeman, MT 59715 P.O. Box 7276 Bozeman, Montana 59771 (406) 582-0236 To learn more, visit www.worldwildlife.org/ngp/ ©2010 WWF. All rights reserved by the World Wildlife Fund, Inc. 2 1. Introduction opportunity. Information about cougar recolonization and ecol- Increasing attention is being directed to ecological ogy of established populations will greatly enhance restoration in North American grasslands (Forrest et understanding and management of cougars in the al. 2004), particularly with respect to species that grasslands and prairie breaks of north-central Mon- have been lost or eliminated from these systems. tana. This is especially important because cougars Some species, notably wolf (Canis lupus), bear (Ursus have been little studied in this type of landscape (Wil- spp.), and cougar are expanding in Montana through liams 1992) and very little work has been conducted reintroductions and natural recolonization. While anywhere on a recolonizing cougar population. Mon- the value of large carnivores to ecosystem function is tana FWP (1996) has adopted a cougar management increasingly understood (Terborgh et al. 1999; Pyare program (including harvest) that uses regional man- and Berger 2003; Smith et al. 2003; Soule et al. 2003, agement based on habitat capabilities of respective Ripple and Beschta 2006, Dalerum et al. 2008, Licht regions, and the CMR is developing harvest manage- et al. 2010, Estes et al. 2011, Ritchie et al. 2012), large ment guidelines as part of its ongoing planning pro- carnivores present major challenges and opportuni- cesses. But because very little is known about capa- ties for communities, ranchers, and wildlife managers bilities of landscapes in this region to support cougars, because they may also kill livestock or reduce ungu- or how to design and manage populations in source- late populations in landscapes where they have been sink landscapes to ensure persistence of cougars and absent in recent history (Atwood et al. 2007, Atwood other large carnivores (Woodruff and Ginsberg 2000, et al. 2010, Griffin et al. 2011). Because large carni- Carroll et al. 2002, Ruth et al. 2011), additional infor- vores operate at multiple and large scales (Kunkel et mation on cougar ecology, threats, and habitat use is al. 2012), management, conservation, and restoration needed. of top carnivores have played a significant role in fos- tering ecosystem approaches to wildlife management First, data are needed to understand if and how the (Minta et al. 1999). cougar population in north-central Montana is ex- panding, if it will be viable over the long term in this Cougars have recolonized much of central and eastern region, and what management is required to ensure Montana. Much of the landscape in north-central it remains viable. To provide appropriate manage- Montana appears suitable for recolonization (Riley ment, we need to determine if and how this popula- and Malecki 2001). Prey populations are robust and tion is connected to other cougar populations (Beier there are large contiguous areas of undeveloped 1996; Sweanor et al. 2000; Laundre and Clark 2003), land. The area contains the largest block of protected to other source populations, where the sources and and public lands in the Great Plains (e.g. Charles M. sinks are (Doak 1995, Sweanor et al. 2000, Robinson Russell National Wildlife Refuge (CMR) and adjacent et al. 2008, Ruth et al. 2011) and how we ensure it Upper Missouri Breaks National Monument (UMB- remains a functional part of the larger statewide cou- NM), as well as several million acres of Bureau of Land gar meta-population (Haight et al. 1998). Addressing Management lands and a diverse mix of potentially these questions will also provide information about suitable habitats. It is important to understand and connectivity in the region for other species and can document how cougars are using the landscape as add significant information about management needs they recolonize it, because that will provide much to ensure this connectivity potential remains intact insight into conservation strategies for this species, (Boyd and Pletscher 1999; Craighead et al. 1999). their prey and what might occur as other carnivores expand into the region (Mladenoff et al. 1999). Pres- Second, as wildlife managers move to more sophisti- ently there is no regional, multi-jurisdictional conser- cated models of cougar harvest as opposed to general vation plan for cougars in eastern Montana. General seasons (unlimited harvest of either sex), they will objectives for cougar management by Montana Fish, need to have information on which to base harvest Wildlife, and Parks (FWP) are to manage populations levels. Limited entry (harvest is limited by restricting at a level that promotes social and political tolerance, the number of licenses sold), quota system (harvest is minimizes human/cougar conflicts while ensuring limited by season closure once a prescribed number viable cougar populations, and sustained recreational of animals are taken) and “zone management” (Lo- 3 gan and Sweanor 2001) or “meta-population” model 2. Project Goals & Objectives (Laundre and Clark 2003) strategies are thought to re- duce the risk of overharvest by ensuring a sustainable Overall Goal loss of the total population (limited entry), reduction of female mortality (quota system), or preservation of Understand cougar population dynamics, habitat use, source populations that sustain hunted areas (meta- and distribution to assess needs for large carnivore population model). conservation in a prairie landscape in a multi-jurisdic- tional setting. Developing information on cougar resource selec- tion will provide a better understanding of popula- Objectives tion potential in grassland and breaks systems. At 1. Obtain a minimum count estimate of cougars the very least, more information on factors affecting within the project area and factors influencing this, sustainability of harvest in general based on regional including harvest, and landscape components and conditions would be useful, particularly in regions configuration; with low cougar densities and connectivity, and would be a very valuable contribution in designing regional 2. Obtain estimated rate of cougar mortality, as harvest management. well as cougar density, population distribution, and reproduction; Figure 1. Home range minimum convex polygons for GPS-collared cougars on and around Rocky Boy’s and Ft. Belknap Indian Reser- vations overlayed on cougar habitat suitability index developed by Riley and Malecki (2001). 4 3. Obtain estimates of size and composition of cou- mortality and movements (Beier 1995, Kunkel 1997, gar home ranges and habitat use; Kunkel et al. 1999, Sweanor et al. 2000, Anderson and Lindzey 2003). We either captured cougars using 4. Determine the role of the Little Rockies and Bears hounds released on tracks or by snares (Kunkel et al. Paws as a potential source population and factors in- 2007). We immobilized captured cougars and then fluencing this including connectivity between these fitted them with a radio collar. We located cougars ranges and the Missouri River Breaks and other via aerial telemetry to detect mortality and dispersing nearby habitats; or wide-ranging animals. Collars were equipped with 5. Obtain estimates of overlap and potential for con- mortality sensing devices in order to measure cougar flicts between cougars and livestock and prescrip- mortality rates and causes and factors influencing tions to reduce conflicts. mortality. We recorded hunter harvest of uncollared animals. We computed survival and cause-specific 3. Study Area mortality rates via the program MICROMORT (Heisey 1985, Heisey and Fuller 1985). We considered intra- The Rocky Boy’s and Ft. Belknap Indian Reservations specific strife to be the cause of death when blood, are located in north-central Montana (Figure 1). The subcutaneous hemorrhaging at wound sites, or signs reservations include a variety of terrain ranging from of a struggle were found at the site. We compared 1,000 – 2,300 m including the Bears Paws Moun- daily survival rates for each interval by examining tains, Little Rockies Mountains, foothills, mixed-grass overlap among confidence intervals, pooling data prairie, coniferous and mixed-coniferous/deciduous from intervals if rates were not significantly different forests, and wetlands. The project area encompasses (Heisey and Fuller 1985). We