ARIZONA

INTRODUCTION:

The purpose of this report is to summarize and evaluate lion management practices and procedures in Arizona.  This analysis is limited to information/data obtained from the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) in response to various requests for records reflecting lion management processes, strategies, decisions, and lion kill statistics.  The requested/received records were limited to lion management information dated from 1971 to the present.  While understanding lion management practices and hunt statistics prior to 1971 may be important in assessing the adequacy of current management practices, pre-1971 hunt statistics are not provided in this analysis. 

The first section of this analysis addresses lion management strategies employed by the AGFD.  The second section summarizes lion hunting and kill statistics compiled by the AGFD.  The third section identifies and discusses the goals and objectives of lion management as established by the AGFD and Commission.  All of the information, including the lion kill data, referred to in this report was taken from records obtained from the AGFD.  Where and when necessary, a critique identifying the strengths and/or weaknesses of the management strategies, data, and goals and objectives is provided. The fourth and final section identifies a number of questions/concerns associated with lion management in Arizona.

BACKGROUND:

            On February 22, 2000 several AGFD officials, including biologists, gathered at Cluff Ranch to “identify ways to increase mountain lion harvest in Arizona.”  February 28, 2000 memorandum from R. Lee to T. Supplee.   Suggestions for achieving such an increase included: 1) reducing the cost of resident and non-resident lion tags; 2) increasing the bag limit for lions; 3) allowing hunters to kill lions and then purchase a tag; 4) allowing the Mule Deer Association, the Arizona Desert Bighorn Sheep Society, and the AGFD to hire hunters to hunt lions; and 5) allowing the AGFD to put hunters together with guides.  Meeting participants noted that lion harvests in other western states had increased in the past several years and suggested that those states be polled to “determine why/how their harvests increased.”  February 28, 2000 memorandum. 

            To date, except for increasing the bag limit for lions in certain Game Management Units (GMUs), neither the AGFD nor the Arizona Game and Fish Commission has amended the lion hunting rules to implement any of the additional suggestions referenced above.  The AGFD and Commission have, however, continued to adopt lion hunting orders that have allowed for a near constant increase in the number of lions killed by sport hunters since 1982, ranging from 204 in 1980 (Table 1) to 327 in 2001 (Table 3) (a 60.3 percent increase over two decades). [1]

            Mountain lions are known to inhabit a large proportion of Arizona.   In 2001 lion hunting was permitted in 75 of Arizona’s 79 GMUs (see, Chart 1 for map of Arizona’s GMUs), although lion hunting opportunities are not available in each GMU open to lion hunting.   The number of lions killed in each GMU was highly divergent as the abundance and density of lions inhabiting these areas is variable.  The AGFD estimates that a total of 2,500 lions occupied 62,000 square miles, including 10,700 square miles of high quality habitat, in 1999.  Wildlife 2006. Additional information about lion management and lion kill statistics in Arizona is summarized below and depicted in the attached charts and graphs.

            Arizona is also home to a burgeoning human population.  According to data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau Arizona’s human population has increased from 1,755,399 in 1970 to 5,307,331 in 2001.  Table 4.  While much of this growth is concentrated in Arizona’s major metropolitan areas (i.e., Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff), census data indicates that each Arizona county has experienced substantial growth over the past several decades. [2]   Table 5.

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES:

            Arizona is divided into 79 GMUs (including subunits).  In 2002-2003, all GMUs except units 7M, 37M, 39M, and 42M and National Wildlife Refuges are open for the general mountain lion hunting season.  Commission Order 10 - 2002-2003 Arizona Hunting Regulations (hereafter Commission Order 10).  Units 7M, 37M, 39M, and a portion of 42M are open to archery-only mountain lion hunting. Id.  Lion hunting in Arizona is permitted year-round (July 1 - June 30).  Id.   

            The lion bag limit is limited to one lion per hunter per calendar year statewide except in GMUs 13A, 13B, 16AS, 18BS, and 22 where the bag limit is one mountain lion per day until the harvest objective has been reached.  Commission Order 10.  GMUs 16AS, 18BS, and 22, however, remain open to lion hunting even after the harvest objective has been reached with a bag limit of one lion per hunter per year.  Harvest objectives for the 2002-2003 season are established for only 11 GMUs (15 lions in GMUs 13A-13B, 17 lions in GMUs 16AS-18BS, 1 lion in GMUs 16B-40B-41-43A-43B-44B, and 12 lions in GMU 22).  

The increased bag limit in GMUs 13A and 13B is “to provide additional recreational opportunity to harvest mountain lions in areas that traditionally receive little hunt pressure.” [3]   Commission Order 10.  In units 16AS and 18BS the increased bag limit and decision to allow lion hunting after the harvest objective has been reached is “to encourage the removal of resident mountain lions by sport hunters prior to a desert bighorn sheep transplant.” ^[4]   Id.  For GMU 22, the increased bag limit and decision to allow lion to be killed in excess of the harvest objective is “to facilitate a Arizona Game and Fish Department research project.” ^[5]   Id. 

            Except in those GMUs where lions can be killed in excess of the harvest objective, once the harvest objective has been reached the GMU is closed to lion hunting on the following Wednesday.  Commission Order 10.  Thus, lion hunting in GMUs where the harvest objective has been met may continue for one to six days before the GMU is closed to lion hunting depending on the date the harvest objective is reached.

            In order to hunt lions in Arizona, both a hunting license and lion nonpermit tag must be acquired.  Commission Order 10.  Hound hunting of lions is permitted in Arizona and the majority of lions are killed with the use of hounds.  Table 6.  Since the lion hunting season is year-round, there is no pursuit-only season.  A mandatory check-in system is in place for successful lion hunters.   This system only requires successful lion hunters to call the AGFD to report a kill.  At no time does the AGFD physically inspect the lion carcass nor does it require the hunter to send/turn in any part (i.e., tooth, skull) of the killed lion.  Information reported to the AGFD via telephone includes the hunter’s name, location of the kill (i.e., GMU), sex, weight, age, and lactational status of the dead lion.  The accuracy of the information provided to the AGFD depends on: 1) the experience/knowledge of the hunter and/or guide; 2) ability of the hunter/guide to estimate/measure weight, age, and lactational status of the killed lion; and 3) the honesty of the hunter/guide.  Without a carcass inspection requirement, the accuracy of data collected from successful lion hunters is unknown.  The AGFD had never engaged in a study to determine what proportion of successful lion hunters are reporting their kills via telephone and/or whether the reported information is accurate. 

            Lion densities are based on a determination of the amount of high quality, medium quality, low quality, sparse quality, and absent lion habitat.  In determining the availability of high density lion habitat, the following parameters are used (see, Lion Mapping Instructions, 12/14/93):

             Occurrence of broken terrain

             Frequent depredation reports

Occurrence of cow/calf livestock operations (especially areas where calves are born over an extended period)

            High deer densities (10-15 deer/sq mi)

             Availability of alternative prey species (e.g. cattle, sheep goats, javelina, etc...)

            High sport/stockkiller harvest

No other parameters or descriptions are provided to assist in determining what constitutes high density lion habitat or distinguishing high density habitat from medium and low density habitat.   Wildlife managers who have a knowledge of each GMU provide the lion habitat quality estimates.  These estimates are inherently subjective and have not been verified through ground surveys, analysis of aerial photographs, or other methods.

            The AGFD conducted a complete assessment of lion habitat quality and quantity in 1988, 1997, and 2002.   A partial assessment of habitat quality and quantity for three GMUs (22, 23, and 24) was conducted in 1998.  Table 7 provides the complete lion habitat quantity and quality results for all  four assessments.   A section of Table 7 is included below for discussion purposes. 

Table A:

            As the table above reveals, the amount of high quality lion habitat in GMUs 22, 23, and 24A remained the same between the 1988 and 1997 assessments.  The 1998 assessment, however, resulted in a significant increase in the amount of high quality lion habitat in each of the GMUs (i.e., 31.9  to 1062.7 sq. mi. in GMU 22, 7.2 to 366.2 sq. mi. in GMU 23, and 42.7 to 184 in GMU 24A).  This resulted in a substantial increase in the high lion population estimate in GMUs 22 and 23 (i.e., 3.3 to 106.3 in GMU 22 and .7 to 36.6 in GMU 23) with a smaller rise in GMU 24A (i.e., .4 to 1.8).  Overall, the total high and low population estimates for lions in GMUs 22 and 23 increased from 73.5 (high) and 15.3 (low) in GMU 22 in 1997 to 116.8 (high) and 55.6 (low) in 1998 and 49.6 (high) and 9.6 (low) in GMU 23 in 1997 to 67.4 (high) and 24.9 (low) in 1998. [6]    This substantial increase in the estimated amount of high quality lion habitat in these GMUs all but vanished in the 2002 assessment as these estimates are far more similar to the estimates reported in the 1997 assessment.   As indicated in Table 7, the amount of high, medium, low, and sparse lion habitat has changed considerably in many of the GMUs with corresponding changes (both positive and negative) in the low, high, and total GMU specific lion population estimates.  No additional evidence or data has been provided by the AGFD to substantiate or justify the substantial increase in the amount of high quality lion habitat in these units. 

The AGFD uses the estimated amount of high, low, medium, and sparse lion habitat to generate GMU-specific lion population estimates.  To do this, the AGFD multiplies the habitat quantities by corresponding lion density estimates taken from the literature and cited in Cunningham et al. (1995 – Table 20).  The density estimates are 0.10-0.05 (high), 0.05-0.01 (medium), 0.01-0.005 (low), 0.005-0.0 (sparse),  and 0.0 (absent) lions/mi².  When these estimates are converted to lions/mi² (to be consistent with the scale used by the AGFD to estimate GMU-specific population size), the density ranges used by the AGFD would appear to be high ^[7] thereby, even assuming this population estimation methodology was accurate, resulting in an overestimate of the GMU-specific lion populations.

Table B (taken from Cunningham et al., 1995 – Table 20):

            Since the AGFD has only established lion harvest objectives in 11 of 75 GMUs (including subunits) open to lion hunting, the GMU-specific lion population estimates are not used to calculate the allowable lion kill rate in individual GMUs.  Rather, the AGFD uses these estimates to determine the sufficiency of its statewide lion kill (hunt and depredation) objective of 250 to 300.  Wildlife 2006.   The AGFD primarily relies on a bag limit of one lion/hunter/year to control hunting impacts within the majority of GMUs open to lion hunting in the state.

            The population estimation methodology used by the AGFD is of questionable veracity because: 1) lion habitat quality (i.e., high, medium, low, sparse) characteristics are not defined; 2) lion habitat quality estimates are subjective; 3) habitat quality estimates can be easily altered in order to increase the estimated number of lions in a GMU; 4) the alleged habitat quality level does not insure that the potential population density exists; and 5) the lion density factors are too high and do not reflect the density estimates contained in the studies cited in Cunningham et al. (1995). 

            In addition to its strategies to manage the sport hunting of lions, the AGFD also is responsible for implementing and enforcing lion depredation policies.  State law (ARS §17-302) permits the killing of mountain lions for the protection of property.  This law permits a landowner or lessee who is a livestock operator and who has recently had livestock attacked or killed by a mountain lion to “exercise such measures as necessary to prevent further damage from the offending lion.” Id. at §17-302(A).  A livestock operator may contract with another person for the taking of depredating lions.  Id. at §17-302(F).  The taking of such lions must comply with the following provisions: traps must be inspected within seventy-two hours, id. at §17-302(A)(1)); nontarget animals must be released without further injury or, if seriously injured, must be humanely dispatched, id.; and, lions must be humanely dispatched immediately.  Id.  Under this provision, lions may only be taken by means of: leg hold traps without teeth and with an open jaw spread not exceeding eight and one-half inches; leg snares; firearms; and other legal hunting weapons and devices.  Id. at §17-302(A)(2)(a-d).  Trapping with the use of snares, leg hold traps, body gripping traps, and poisons is not permitted on public land in Arizona except: 1) by health agencies to protect human health and safety; 2) for scientific research purposes and/or relocation of wildlife; 3) by the AGFD to manage aquatic wildlife; and 4) for rodent control.  ARS §17-301. 

            Any livestock operator taking a lion under this law must notify a department office “within five days after setting traps or initiating pursuit in any manner.”  Id. at §17-302(A)(4).  This notification must include information on “the number and kind of livestock attached or killed and the name and address of the livestock operator experiencing depredation.”  Id.  Such information, however, shall not be public information.  Id.  In addition, a livestock operator taking a lion pursuant to this law “shall provide reasonable evidence of having livestock recently attacked or killed if a person authorized by the director requests such evidence within forty-eight hours of the department being notified pursuant to paragraph 4.”  Id. at §17-320(A)(5).  Such information must include a description of sufficient detail to “allow the site of depredation and traps set to be located.”  Id.  This information is also not to be public information.  Id.  Dogs may be used to facilitate the pursuit of depredating lions.  Id. at §7-320(A)(6). 

            A license or tag is not required for taking a lion under this law, but within ten days after the taking, the livestock operator must file a written report with the Department.  Id. at §17-320(B).  The report must contain the name and address of livestock operator experiencing depredation losses; number, ages and kinds of livestock lost; numbers and locations of lions taken; sex and estimated age of each lion taken; location and date of livestock depredation.  Id. at §17-320(B)(1-5).  Information submitted identifying the location of the take, identity of the livestock operator filing the reports, and location and date of livestock depredation  is “not public information.”  Id. at §17-320(B). 

            The AGFD is also responsible for dealing with “nuisance” lions.  A series of human/lion encounters, including the wounding of a small, unleashed dog, in the Mt. Elden area near Flagstaff, AZ in 2002 prompted the AGFD to develop a nuisance lion policy.  The current status of this policy, however, is unknown but no official nuisance lion policy has been approved by the Commission.

LION KILL STATISTICS:

            Each year the AGFD publishes its Game Survey and Harvest Data Summary which contains the GMU-specific kill data for the majority of species hunted in Arizona.  In addition, since aspects of Arizona’s lion management program are funded, at least partially, through federal aid funds, it also produces annual reports containing lion kill data for submission to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  Finally, the AGFD develops various tables containing lion kill data by month and killed lion age, sex, and lactational status data by quarter.  It also sends a questionnaire to lion hunters every few years to collect data on hunter effort.  This data is summarized below and in several tables/charts attached to this report (click here for an index of tables and charts).

The AGFD produces several data sets containing statistics on the number of lions killed by sport hunters, depredation kills, and other kills over several decades.  Tables 1-3.  While the year-specific statistics for the majority of the years identified in Tables 1-3 are similar there is some variability.  The largest discrepancy is from lion hunt kill data contained in Tables 1 and 3 for 1982 through 1986.  It is not entirely clear why these data are so different (e.g., 144 (Table 3) versus 316 (Table 1) lions killed by hunters in 1982).  From 1971-1987, however, hunter kill data was estimated from a mail questionnaire with lion hunt data from 1988 to the present obtained through a mandatory check-out process (i.e., telephone check out system, no physical inspection of carcass). 

Table 1 provides lion hunt kill data that is highly variable beginning at 172 lions in 1971, increasing to 316 in 1982, declining to 130 in 1989, and then increasing to 267, 289, and 246 in 1997, 1998, and 1999, respectively.  When this time period is divided into five-year increments, the average number of lions killed by hunters is 174.6, 240.4, 231.6, 179.4, 203.4, and 266.75 for 1971-75, 1976-80, 1981-85, 1986-90, 1991-95, and 1996-99, respectively.   The percentage of lions killed by hunters (versus depredation or other kills) was over 80% in all but three years from 1971 to 1999.  

Table 2, which only contains lion hunt kill data from 1994-2000, indicates that a total of 1755 lions were killed by hunters during that time period ranging from 215 in 1994 to 289, 246, and 276 in 1998, 1999, and 2000, respectively.  The percentage of lions killed by hunters was over 83 percent for all seven years.  

Table 3 contains lion hunt statistics taken from quarterly reports compiled by the AGFD for 1982 through 2001.   The number of lions killed by hunters during this time period totaled 4178, ranging from a low of 131 in 1989 to highs of 290, 278, and 327 in 1998, 2000, and 2001, respectively.  The average number of lions killed increased over time beginning with 153 lion killed from 1982-85 and increasing to 176.4, 208.4, 273.6 in 1986-90, 1991-95, 1996-01, respectively.  

Table 8 breaks down the lion hunt kill by quarter (January-March, April-June, July-September, October-December) from 1982 through 2001.  The total number of lions killed for each quarter for the entire 20 year period was 1637 (January-March), 483 (April-June), 329 (July-September), and 1730 (October-December).  The spikes in lion hunt kills in the first and fourth quarter of each year is consistent with the monthly lion kill data reported in Table 9.  As this data reveals, hunters kill the majority of lions in January, February, March, April, October, November, and December.  The total lion hunt kill for these months for the years 1995-1999 was 201 (January), 153 (February), 122 (March), 106 (April), 90 (October), 178 (November), and 253 (December).  For comparison the total number of lions killed in May through September was 37, 24, 21, 43, and 42, respectively, for the same time period.  The percentage of lions killed by hunters during the first quarter of the year ranged from 30 percent in 1997 to 42 percent in 1998.  For the last quarter of the year, the percentage varied from 36 percent in 1999 to 44 percent in 1995 and 1996. 

From 1994-2000 the average percent of female lions killed by hunters was 47.4 based on data contained in Table 2, ranging from 43.2 percent female lion kill in 1994 to 51 percent in 2000.  This is far in excess of the 40% level identified by Lindsey et al. (1989) as the maximum female kill rate that will maintain a stable population.   The average percent female lions killed by hunters from 1982-2001 was 46.7 percent and included a total of 1932 lions.  Table 3.   When broken down into multi-year segments, the average percent kill of females ranged from 51 percent from 1982-85 to 47.8 percent in 1996-01.  Table 3.   When examined by quarter, the percent of females killed by hunters ranged from 31.5 percent in 1989 to 57.7 percent in 2000 in the first quarter, 33.3 percent in 1995 to 50.9 percent in 1999 in the second quarter, 18.2 percent in 1982 to 58.3 percent in 1989 in the third quarter, and 41.2 percent in 1991 to 66 percent in 1982 in the fourth quarter.  Table 8.  The total average percent females killed by quarter for the 1982-2001 period was 42.6, 40.2, 38.7, and 52.85 for the first, second, third, and fourth quarters, respectively.  Table 8.  The average percentage of females lions killed from 1996-01 was 46.82, 41.45, 45.19, and 47.34 for the first, second, third, and fourth quarters, respectively.   Table 8.

Of those hunters who killed female lions from 1982 to 2001, the total reporting that the female lion was lactating was very small.   Of  the 1637 lions killed by sport hunters from 1982-2001 during the first quarter (January-March), 695 were females and only 10 (.6%) were reported to be lactating.  Table 8.   Of the remaining successful hunters reporting lion kills during the first quarter from 1982-2001, 1224 (75%) did not report the lactational status of the dead lion and 403 (25%) reported that their lion was not lactating.  Thus, of the 695 lions killed, 10 were lactating, 403 were not lactating, and the lactational status of the remaining 282 female lions was not reported.

Lion age categories used by the AGFD include very old, old, young, and unknown.   The actual ages corresponding to these categories have been requested from the AGFD but have not yet been provided.  Data on the ages of lions killed by hunters is presented in Tables 3 and 8.  From 1982 through 2001, 397 (9.5%), 2220 (53.14%), 1108 (26.52%), and 462 (10.82%) very old, old, young, and unknown aged lions, respectively, were killed by hunters.  Table 8.  The average number of very old lions killed has increased from 12 from 1982-85 to 26.5 from 1996-01.  Table 8.  A similar increase occurred with old lions with 65.25 killed on average between 1982-85 increasing to an annual average of 153.5 from 1996-01.  Table 3.  The average number of young lions killed annually increased from 41.25 from 1982-85 to 76.65 from 1996-01.  Table 3.   The percentage of very old, old, and young lions killed by hunters from 1996-01 was 9.58, 56.02, and 28.2, respectively.  Table 3.  When examined by quarter, the number and percent of very old, old, and young lions killed by hunters from 1996-01 for each quarter was: 12.5, 59.6, and 23.5 for January-March, 12.9, 60.1, and 22.7 for April-June, 7.8, 52.3, and 34 for July-September, and 6.1, 52.4, and 34.1 for October-December.  Table 8.   For comparison, the number and percent of very old, old, and young lions killed from 1986-90 was: 15.1, 53.3, and 19.8 for January-March, 15.6, 48.2, and 22.9 for April-June, 1.4, 52.1, and 38.6 for July-September, and 6.8, 48.1, and 32.9 for October-December.

Table 6 provides a unit by unit breakdown of lion kill statistics, including data on the number of lions killed by hunter, with dogs, by sex, by quarter, and the number of lions killed for depredation and other reasons from 1994 through 2000.   The “other” category includes known lion kills other than sport or depredation kills (e.g., highway mortality, capture mortality, illegal take).   The total number of lions killed from 1994 through 2000 was 1755, including 832 females (47.4%), 1137 (64.8%) killed with the use of dogs, and 644 (36.7%), 220 (12.5%), 150 (8.5%), and 742 (42.2%) killed in the first, second, third, and fourth quarters, respectively.  The percentage of lions killed by sport hunters was in excess of 83% each year.  The percentage of lions killed with the aid of dogs ranged from 58% in 1996 to 70% in 2000.  The percentage of females lions killed ranged from 44 percent in 1994 to 51 percent in 2000.  When split into multi-year segments, the average number of lions killed for sport, with dogs, by sex, for depredation, for other reasons, and by quarter all increased from 1994-96 to 1997-00. 

The three GMUs with the highest number of lions killed from 1994 through 2000 were units 12A (northern Arizona), 27 (eastern Arizona), and 32 (southeastern Arizona).  The total hunt kill of lions in these three units was 85 (GMU 12A), 123 (GMU 27), and 96 (GMU 32).  Table 6.   Of the 85 lions killed in GMU 12A, 75 (88.2%) were killed with the use of dogs, 42 (49.4%) were females, and 45.9, 4.7, 3.5, and 45.9 percent were killed in the first, second, third, and fourth quarters, respectively.  Of the 123 lions killed in GMU 27, 79 (64.2%) were killed with the aid of dogs, 63 (51.2%) were females, and 34.1, 10.5, 20.3, and 34.9 percent were killed in the first, second, third, and fourth quarters, respectively.   Of the 96 lions killed in GMU 32, 67 (69.8%) were killed with the aid of dogs, 34 (35.4%) were females, and 43.7, 12.5, 2.1, and 41.7 percent were killed in the first, second, third, and fourth quarters, respectively.

The average number of lions killed for depredation increased from an average of 7.8 per year from 1976-80 to 46 per year from 1996-99, with highs of 65, 47, 52, and 47 lions killed for depredation in 1989, 1997, 1998, and 1999, respectively.  Table 1.   The average number of lions reported to be killed as a result of “other” factors ranges from 0 annually from 1976-80 to 5 annually from 1991-95.  The annual average number of lions killed as a result of “other” factors was 2 from 1996-99.  Table 1 provides additional data about the depredation and “other” kill categories. 

The total number of lion tags sold in Arizona increased from 3835 in 1971 to 8495 in 1988 and then declined precipitously to 3670 in 1989 only to increase to 6885 in 1999.  Table 1.  The reasons for the drop in lion tag sales between 1988 and 1989 is unknown.  During the 2002-2003 lion season, a resident lion tag costs $13.00 while the price for a non-resident tag is $183.00.  Commission Order 10.   From 1977 through 1999 more than 96.5% of lion tags sold each year were resident tags. 

Table 10 provides GMU-specific data on hunter days and hunter effort (days/hunter).  The AGFD obtained these data through questionnaires sent to lion hunters in 1991, 1996, and 1999.  The categories used by the AGFD in collecting hunter effort data including hunting with guide and dogs, hunting with dogs but without quide, hunting by calling, and hunting using other methods.  Under each category, the AGFD provides data on the number of hunters, hunter days, and days/hunter.  

As reported in Table 10, the total number of hunters hunting lions with hounds and a guide declined from 207 in 1991 to 125 in 1996 and then increased 1o 216 in 1999.  The number of hunter days followed a similar pattern decreasing from 1277 to 512 and then increasing to 1028 in 1999.  Days/hunter using dogs and a guide decreased from 6.2 in 1991 to 4.1 in 1996 and then increased slightly to 4.8 in 1999.  While this data, at face value, may indicate an increase in the number of lions in Arizona, there are other factors that alter this assessment (i.e., guides expertise and preparation, improvement in hound ability, weather variability).   According to Harley Shaw, the variability in the weather is of particular importance as lion hunting success rates are closely tied to weather patterns.  During drought years, for example, with a decline in snow fall, lion hunting success rate declines.  Similarly, in those years with extremely deep snows, the number of lions killed also declines.  The largest number of lions are killed during years with moderate storms spaced throughout the cooler months which provide conditions ideal for working dogs and ensures good access into lion habitats.  

The number of hunters and hunter days reported in the category of hunting lions with dogs but without a guide significantly increased from 1991 to 1999 in both categories with a significant dip experienced in 1996.  Table 10.  The number of hunters, for example, decreased from 365 in 1991 to 280 in 1996 and then increased to 662 in 1999.  Table 10.  Similarly, the number of hunter days decreased from 4330 in 1991 to 2203 in 1996 only to increase to 7375 in 1999.  Table 10.  Despite the significant increase in the number of hunter hunting lions with dogs but without a guide and in hunter days, the days/hunter declined from 11.9 in 1991 to 7.9 in 1996 and only increased to 11.1 in 1999.   Table 10.  Thus, despite a 136.4 percent increase in the number of hunters (1996-1999) and 234.7 percent increase in hunter days (1996-1999), the days a hunter required to kill a lion increased from 7.9 to 11.1.  Similarly, when comparing 1991 and 1999, despite an 81 percent increasing in the number of hunters and a 70.3 percent increase in hunter days, the days/hunter only declined from 11.9 to 11.1.  Table 10.  These data suggest that the hunters skill level has diminished, that the lion population has declined, and/or that climatic factors influenced hunter success rates. 

Conversely, the days/hunter in both the hunt using calling and hunt using other methods categories have declined between 1996 and 1999 despite a reduction in the number of hunters and hunter days during the same time period.   Table 10.  These data suggest that hunter skill levels using both calling and other methods have increased, that the lion population has grown in the state, and/or that the number of young lions – lions typically more vulnerable to opportunistic hunters or callers – in the population had increased.

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND GUIDELINES:

            The goals, objectives, and guidelines for mountain lion management in Arizona are delineated in a number of AGFD documents including: 1) Wildlife 2006 identifies the AGFD’s wildlife management program; 2) documents related to the AGFD’s federal aid project number W-53-M-51 including the 2000-2001 Performance Report; 3) an undated document entitled “Mountain Lion Management Guidelines;” and, 4) other documents as identified below.  This section of the report will identify some, but not all, of the goals, objectives, strategies, and procedures established by AGFD to direct lion management efforts in the state.  When and where appropriate, I have evaluated (in italics) the AGFD’s lion management efforts in light of its lion management goals, objectives, strategies, and procedures.  This evaluation is based on materials reviewed during the preparation of this report and discussions with AGFD officials.

            The goal for mountain lion management in Arizona is to “manage the mountain lion population, its numbers and distribution, as an important part of Arizona’s fauna,” and to “provide mountain lion hunting and other related recreational opportunities.”  Performance Report, Project W-53-M-51 (2000-2001); Mountain Lion Management Guidelines (undated).  Wildlife 2006. 

Whether lions are managed as “an important part of Arizona’s fauna” is open to interpretation and largely depends on how “important” is defined.  An increase in the number of lions killed annually through sport hunting and to control depredation, serious questions about the methods used by the AGFD to estimate GMU-specific lion population numbers, concerns about the percentage of female lions killed annually, recent AGFD proposals and experiments involving the lethal removal of lions, and a strong predilection among current AGFD Commissioners in support of the livestock industry raise concerns about whether lions are being managed as an “important part of Arizona’s fauna.”

Lion management objectives, as outlined in the Performance Report, include:

1.                  Maintain annual harvest at 250 to 300 mountain lions (including depredation and other take).   The total number of lions killed by year through sport hunting, depredation control, and for other reasons from 1995 through 2000 was 266 (1995), 265 (1996), 320 (1997), 342 (1998), 295 (1999), and 332 (2000).  Table 1.  In 2001, the number of lions killed by sport hunters alone was 327.  Table 3.  Thus, the total mortality of lions has exceeded the stated objective in four of the past seven years yet no action has been taken by the AGFD to reduce the number of lions killed to bring the total number of known lion mortalities back into compliance with the management objective.   

2.         Provide recreational opportunities for 3,000 to 6,000 hunters per year.   The total number of mountain lion tags sold in Arizona increased from 2991 in 1992 to 6885 in 1999.  Table 1.  In 2000, 7449 tags were sold.  Thus, assuming lion tag sales accurately reflect lion hunting opportunities, tag sales from 1998 through 2000 exceeded the management objective.  Tag sale data for 2001 was not obtained from the AGFD.   It is also possible that tag sales do not accurately reflect lion hunting opportunities in that many tags may be purchased by hunters who are primarily pursuing big game species (deer, elk) and who desire to kill a lion if they happen to observe a lion while hunting other species. 

3.            Maintain existing occupied habitat and maintain the range of all subspecies in Arizona.   In the Performance Report, the AGFD maintains that “the distribution of reported sport and depredation kills and the results of track survey efforts support the accomplishment of this objective.”  Based on the GMU-specific kill data, lions were killed by hunters in 46 of the 75 GMUs open to lion hunting during the 2000 hunting season.  Since 1994, lions have been killed in 59 of the 75 GMUs open to lion hunting.  While this suggests that lion habitat remains occupied, the number and viability of lions in each GMU is of concern due to flaws in the methodology used to estimate GMU-specific lion population sizes and a lack of data (except for kill data) on the GMU-specific age and sex composition of the lion population.  The AGFD has also not provided any records, except for GMU 22, pertaining to lion track survey efforts undertaken throughout the state. [8]   The location of track survey routes, frequency of track surveys, and the results of such surveys are not known.  Finally, research conducted by Melanie Culver has largely disarmed the whole concept of varying lion subspecies in Arizona and the U.S. at large.  Nevertheless, none of the relevant AGFD lion management documents specify whether there are one or more lion subspecies in Arizona and, if so, no description of the current range of such subspecies is provided.  Without such information and subsequent reevaluation of such range data based on additional research, it is impossible to determine if the range of all lion subspecies in Arizona is being maintained. 

            The Performance Report also includes the following species-specific strategies for mountain lions:

1.            Maintain a complete database from all harvest sources, through a mandatory checkout system, as to age, sex, and kill location, to develop population trend information.  Conduct a hunter questionnaire biannually.   See also, Wildlife 2006. The AGFD maintains a database containing information about lion kill statistics.  The database is based on a mandatory check requirement for successful sport hunters and a reporting requirement for livestock producers who may kill lions for depredation control.  The reporting process for both hunters and producers, however, is by telephone only as there is no requirement that hunters/producers bring any killed lion to an AGFD office/location for physical inspection.  Thus, none of the data (i.e., sex, age, lactational status, location of kill) taken from the hunter/producer can be verified by an AGFD official raising concerns about the accuracy of lion kill data reported to the AGFD.   The AGFD distributed lion hunter questionnaires in 1991, 1996, and 1999 (see, Table 10 for results).  Though this management objective claims that such a questionnaire process will be conducted biannually, a management procedure (see below) specifies that such questionnaires will be distributed every five years.   

2.            Through research determine whether the Yuma puma is a valid taxon, and if so whether it occurs in Arizona.   As previously stated, Culver’s research and increasing knowledge of lion dispersal patterns demonstrates that the Yuma puma subspecies is invalid.  Earlier studies, including at least three research reports concerning the taxonomic status of mountain lion in Arizona, did not resolve the subspecific status of Puma concolor browni. 

3.            Evaluate the management implications of population and relative density estimates.   See also, Wildlife 2006.   The AGFD claims that “population estimates derived from relative density estimates have been used successfully to establish kill objectives for specific mountain lion hunts.”  Performance Report.  Kill objectives, however, have only been established in 11 of the 75 GMUs open to lion hunting (though not all GMUs open to lion hunting provide lion hunting opportunities).  Lion population and relative density estimates for the remaining GMUs have not been used to regulate lion kill rates through hunt objectives or by other means.  In addition, as previously reported, the methods used to estimate GMU-specific population sizes and density estimates are flawed.

4.            Implement hunt structures to increase and direct kill emphasis towards areas with high lion population and where depredation complaints are sustained.   See also, Wildlife 2006.  The AGFD refers to “two multiple bag limit mountain lion hunts … established in 2000-2001” as an example of action taken consistent with this strategy.  Performance Report.  These two hunts, as previously explained, were established in an attempt to reduce the local lion population to ostensibly improve the success of a proposed (yet not implemented) bighorn sheep transplant operation (GMUs 16AS, 18BS) and to facilitate a controversial experiment requiring the removal of 75% of a local lion population (GMU 22).   The lion hunt structure used by the AGFD allows it to implement hunt structures to increase and direct lion kills as proposed in this strategy, though the potential environmental impacts of such hunt structures/kills on local lion populations and effectiveness of such hunts in actually increasing kill rates have not been fully explored or disclosed.

5.                  Determine population numbers and characteristics on a hunt area basis.   As indicated by the AGFD, “mountain lion population estimates exists (sic) for each unit and the database information maintained by unit combined with track survey information has allowed revision of population estimates in some units.”  Performance Report.  Assuming that the AGFD has collected  unit-specific track survey information, it has never been disclosed despite multiple requests for such records submitted under Arizona’s state records law.  The information reviewed for this report demonstrates that GMU-specific lion population estimates have been developed by the AGFD based on the quality and quantity of lion habitat in each GMU multiplied by a lion density estimate taken from the literature.  The density estimate used in the calculation depends upon the quality of the habitat (i.e., high, medium, low, sparse) determined by AGFD biologists/wildlife managers.  This process results in an estimated GMU-specific lion population size but the methodology is flawed.  Whether the AGFD uses track surveys to assess lion habitat quality, the location of the survey routes, and the frequency with which such surveys are conducted is unknown.  Even if track surveys are conducted throughout the state, the number of survey routes and frequency of conducting surveys will significantly influence the ability to detect changes in lion density (Beier and Cunningham, 1996).  The data provided by the AGFD and evaluated in this report does not contain information about the GMU-specific lion population characteristics.  The AGFD likely relies on lion kill statistics to determine characteristics of the GMU-specific lion populations but such statistics do not likely provide a reliable indicator of the population’s characteristics due to, in part, restrictions on the killing of female lions with young and hunter interest in pursuing large male lions.

6.                  Develop nuisance mountain lion procedures.   According to the AGFD, “a policy has been drafted and submitted for Department consideration.”  Performance

Report.  The content of the draft policy is unknown.

7            Increase public awareness of mountain lions and their habitats to reduce conflicts with humans.  See also, Wildlife 2006.  The AGFD has distributed “media releases both statewide and locally … to accomplish this strategy.”  Performance Report.

            In addition to these strategies, mountain lion guidelines (undated) issued by the Department identify specific procedures related to lion management.   These procedures are:

Procedure 1:            To determine the occurrence and relative abundance of lions in each management area. ^[9]   This includes: A) determining the adult population levels and estimated population numbers for each management area using habitat and distribution maps, track surveys, research data, mortality (hunting, depredation, and incidental) records, and observational data; and B) annually reviewing all available population data and updating population estimates if necessary.

            The AGFD relies on lion habitat quality and quantity estimates and lion density estimates taken from the literature to estimate GMU-specific lion population sizes.  As the density estimates are for adult lions, the estimates calculated by the AGFD presumably represent the number of adult lions in each GMU.  The flaws inherent in this process have been previously disclosed.  The AGFD has produced lion habitat/distribution  maps using GIS technology based on the quality and quantity of high, medium, low, and sparse lion habitat as determined by AGFD biologists/wildlife managers.  Attachment 1.  There is no evidence that the AGFD relies on track survey data to estimate adult lion population levels.  The potential deficiencies associated with using track surveys were previously discussed.  Finally, the AGFD reassesses lion habitat quality and quantity estimates and recalculates GMU-specific lion population estimates approximately every five years at a statewide level, not every year as specified in this procedure.

            The AGFD has engaged in a number of studies examining lion behavior, ecology, and biology.   According to a review of studies compiled by the Fish and Wildlife Reference Service, which theoretically includes all studies funded with federal aid funds, the following lion studies have been conducted since 1971.  This list of studies does not include studies conducted without federal aid funds.

Shaw, H.  1971.  Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona.

Shaw, H.  1972.  Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona.

Shaw, H.  1973.  Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona.

Shaw, H.  1974.  Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona.

Shaw, H.  1975.  Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona.

Shaw, H.  1978.  Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona.

Shaw, H.  1979.  Mountain Lion Field Guide.

Shaw, H.  1979a.  Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona.

McCulloch, C.Y., and Brown, R.L., 1979.  Factors Limiting Increase in the

Kaibab Deer Herd.

Shaw, H.  1980.  Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona.

Brown, R.L., and McCulloch, C.Y.  1980.  Factors Limiting Increase in the

Kaibab Deer Herd.

Brown, R.L.  1981.  Factors Limiting Increase in the Kaibab Deer Herd.

McCulloch, C.Y., and Brown, R.L.  Rates and Causes of Mortality Among

Radio Collared Mule Deer of the Kaibab Plateau, 1978-1983.

            Shaw, H.G.  1983.  Mountain Lion Field Guide.

Shaw, H.G., et al.  1987.  Factors Affecting Mountain Lion Densities and

Cattle Depredation in Arizona.

Ockenfels, R.A. 1994.  Mountain Lion Predation on Pronghorn in Central

Arizona.

Cunningham, S.C., et al.  1995.  Evaluation of the Interaction Between

Mountain Lions and Cattle in the Aravaipa-Klondyke Area of Southeast

Arizona: A Final Report.

Beier, P., and Cunningham, S.C.  1996.  Power of Track Surveys to Detect

Changes in Cougar Populations.

Germaine, S.S., and Bristow, K.D.  1997.  Mountain Lion Kill Rates, Habitat

Use and Feeding Behavior in Southern Arizona.

Germaine, S.S., et al. 1997.  Mountain Lion Surveys in Southwestern Arizona.

Cunningham, S.C., et al. 1999.  Diet Selection of Mountain Lions in

Southeastern Arizona.

Procedure 2:            To annually monitor the statewide lion harvest by management unit.  The specific strategies to fulfill this procedure include: A) mandatory reporting of all sport killed lions with pertinent data recorded on a check-in card; and B) distributing a questionnaire to hunters every fifth year to determine hunter effort and hunting techniques. ^[10]   Additional management guidelines (undated) specify that standardized track surveys are to be established and that the Department is to monitor and encourage non-consumptive use of mountain lions when compatible with management objectives.

            The AGFD has established a mandatory reporting system for all successful lion hunters.  This system requires lion hunters to contact the AGFD by telephone to provide hunt details that are recorded on a check-in card.  The AGFD has no means of verifying the information (i.e., sex, lactational status, weight, location of kill) provided by the hunter since there is no physical inspection requirement.  Questionnaires have been sent to lion hunters in 1991, 1996, and 1999.  In the future, questionnaires will be distributed every five years as indicated in this procedure (pers. comm. with B. Wakeling, AGFD).  There is no evidence that the AGFD has established standardized track surveys throughout the state, except in GMU 22 and perhaps other areas as part of ongoing lion research activities.  In addition, no information has been disclosed indicating that the AGFD has developed a process to “monitor and encourage non-consumptive use of mountain lions.”

Procedure 3:            Use population trends and hunt data to determine the maximum annual harvest of lions in each hunt area and formulate annual hunt regulations to accomplish that harvest.  The specific strategies to fulfill this procedure include: 1) setting annual lion harvest levels based on management objectives for individual lion hunt areas; 2) hunts in areas with harvest quotas will be conducted in accordance with current regulations; 3) set annual harvest levels to achieve a harvest of up to 25% of the estimated lion population; 4) in hunt areas with insufficient information to provide suitable population trends, seasons should be designed to achieve a harvest consistent with historic harvest levels; 5) make hunt recommendations in conformance with the Guidelines for Hunting Season Recommendations 1992-96. Additional guidelines (undated) specify that the annual harvest can be set between 0 and 25% of the estimated adult population, includes depredation and hunting take, and must consider current population status, carrying capacity and area management objectives.  Harvest levels in excess of 25% are authorized when justified by area management objectives.

            As previously indicated, the AGFD has  established harvest objectives in only 11 GMUs open to lion hunting.  The number of lions killed by hunters in the majority of GMUs is only limited by the 1 lion/hunter/year bag limit.  No GMU-specific information has been provided that delineates “maximum annual harvest” levels.  Moreover, except for rancher pressure to open and/or increase lion hunting opportunities in certain GMUs to reduce livestock depredation losses, the AGFD has not disclosed any information that defines the GMU-specific management objectives.   Since the AGFD does not establish lion harvest objectives for the majority of GMUs, the 25% criteria for determining the annual hunt kill is not applicable.  In comparing data on the GMU-specific estimated size of the lion population (Table 7) with the GMU-specific kill data (i.e., hunt, depredation, other) (Table 6), in those units without a harvest objective, the percentage of lions killed is highly variable.  In GMU 32, for example, the total number of lions killed in 2000 (26) was 27.6%  to 67.8%  of the high and low population estimate for that unit measured in 2002.

Procedure 4:            To respond to livestock depredation complaints in a consistent manner.  The specific strategies to fulfill this procedure include: 1) implement a cooperative program between livestock operators, land management agencies, and the AGFD to help identify and institute ways of reducing depredation losses; and 2) encourage the taking of lions through sport hunting rather than as “stock killers.”

            The number of lions killed to address depredation problems has increased from 35 to 55 between 1994 and 2000.  There is no evidence that the AGFD has developed a cooperative program between livestock operators and land management agencies to reduce depredation losses. [11]

Procedure 5:            To reduce non-livestock related lion-human conflicts.  Under this procedure, field personnel will provide information to the public regarding lions in those areas where lion conflict complaints have been chronic.

            The AGFD has engaged in efforts to educate landowners, residents, and the public about lions and how to live/recreate among lions in areas where lion/human conflicts have occurred.  The exact content of the educational materials and the process used by the AGFD to distribute the materials is unknown. [12]

Procedure 6:            To identify land use activities that may either improve or adversely affect lion populations.  This procedure involves the identification of important habitat areas and undertaking efforts to ensure protection of such areas through cooperation with land management agencies and private land owners.  

            The AGFD routinely reviews and submits comments on federal, state, and local government proposals that may affect wildlife.  The AGFD also engages in land acquisition to protect important wildlife habitat.  No evidence has been obtained from the AGFD to demonstrate that it has identified land use activities that improve or adversely effect lion populations, delineated important lion habitat areas, or undertaken efforts to protect such areas as specified in this procedure.

Overall, the AGFD has met achieved some of the objectives, strategies, and procedures for lion management delineated in various AGFD documents.   A number of objectives, strategies, and procedures have not been achieved and/or evidence demonstrating compliance with such standards has not been disclosed.  The lack of a strategy or procedure mandating an annual review of AGFD’s progress in meeting these standards prevents the AGFD and the public from easily tracking compliance with the objectives, strategies, and procedures established to guide lion management in Arizona.  As the objectives, strategies, and procedures are designed to achieve the broader lion management goal, failure to implement these standards precludes the AGFD from meeting its lion management goal. 

QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS:

1.                  The AGFD does not require successful lion hunters to have their lions physically inspected by any AGFD official.  Successful lion hunters are only required to telephone the AGFD to provide data (i.e., sex, estimated weight, location of kill, lactational status, hunt method) about their hunt.   Without a physical inspection process, the AGFD has no mechanism to verify the information provided by successful hunters raising questions about the accuracy of hunter reported data.  Should the AGFD amend its regulations to require a physical inspection of each lion carcass?  What are the implications to lion management and data collection caused by the current mandatory check procedures used by the AGFD?

2.                  The assessment of lion habitat quality and quantity within each GMU is subjective.  In addition to biologist/wildlife manager opinion, what other methods could and/or should be used by the AGFD to verify GMU-specific lion habitat quality and quantity estimates?  How frequently should reassessments of lion habitat quality and quantity be conducted.

3.                  The lion density estimates used by the AGFD in calculating GMU-specific lion population estimates are higher than the density estimates taken from the scientific studies relied on by the AGFD for such data.  Are the lion density estimates used by the AGFD too high?  If so, what density estimates for high, medium, low, and sparse quality lion habitat areas should be used?

4.                  Is the methodology used by the AGFD to calculate GMU-specific lion population estimates legitimate?  If not, what process should be used to make such estimates?  How frequently should such estimates be calculated?

5.                  The AGFD has only established lion “harvest objectives” for 11 of 75 GMUs open to lion hunting (not all open GMUs provide lion hunting opportunities).  The AGFD primarily relies on a one lion/hunter/year bag limit to regulate the lion kill.  Should the AGFD establish conservative lion “harvest objectives” in all or a larger number of units to better control hunter distribution and lion kill?  Should it establish female subquotas to control the killing of female lions?

6.                  The total number of lions killed (i.e., hunting, depredation, other) each year since 1995 has exceeded the AGFD yearly objective of 250-300 yet no apparent effort has been made by the AGFD to reduce lion mortality to bring it back in line with the objective.  What are the implications of continuing to allow the total mortality level to exceed the stated kill objective to lion populations at the statewide, regional, and GMU level?

7.                  The AGFD’s lion management objectives, strategies, and procedures frequently reference the use of lion track surveys to aid in the estimation of lion population numbers.  Such track surveys are known to be conducted in a few areas in the state but there is no evidence that survey routes have been established throughout occupied lion habitat in Arizona.  Are lion track surveys an acceptable method or index for estimating lion population sizes?  If so, how many survey routes should be established in a geographic area, where should such routes be established, and how frequently should routes by surveyed to properly estimate lion population numbers and/or detect changes in lion population estimates?

8.                  The percentage of female lions killed by hunters has consistently exceeded the 40% recommendation made by Lindzey et al. (1989) since 1992 yet no apparent effort has been made by the AGFD to reduce the female component of the hunt kill to below 40% of the total kill.  What are the consequences of allowing this level of female mortality each year over time to the overall viability of the statewide lion metapopulation, regional populations, and unit-specific populations?

9.                  What value is data on the number of hunters, hunter days, and days/lion for each method of lion hunting in determining population trend?  Can such data be used to determine trend or are there too many variables affecting these data sets to make them valuable as population indices?

10.              Can the pursuit of a lion with hounds result in adverse impacts to a lion?  What types of impacts may occur?  Do repeated chases or pursuit of the same lion during the same season increase the potential for adverse impacts?  What are the consequences of such impacts to short or long-term population viability?

11.              The AGFD provides no data, except for hunter kill data, on the sex and age composition of its wild lion population.  Does hunter kill data accurately reflect the age and sex composition of a wild population?  The AGFD also provides no data on the number of breeding female lions in its population.  Is such data critical to properly managing a lion population?

12.              There is no evidence that the AGFD has developed or implemented a comprehensive program for the protection of habitat for lions, their prey, and to maintain (or establish) travel corridors.  Given the increase in the human population in Arizona and the concurrent expansion of development/recreational activities, is it crucial that the AGFD create a comprehensive habitat protection program specific to lions and their prey? 

CONCLUSION:

            The number of lions killed by hunters in Arizona has increased over the past several decades.  While the amount of increase has not been as significant as measured in other western states, the potential impact of the increase cannot be overlooked.  The AGFD permits lion hunting year-round.  In most GMUs lion hunters are limited to one lion per year.  Hunters are required to report their lion kill but this can be done over the telephone.  The AGFD does not require the physical inspection of a sport-hunted lion carcass by AGFD officials.  This raises serious concerns about the accuracy of the data supplied by the hunters about their killed lion. 

            The AGFD estimates GMU-specific population numbers using a methodology that is fraught with problems.  Such problems include a subjective determination of lion habitat quantity and quality, the use of lion density factors which are not consistent with the density estimates taken from the literature, and no comprehensive research project to assess the accuracy of such population estimates or to model the dynamics of Arizona’s lions at the metapopulation, regional, or GMU-specific level.  The current population estimation methodology permits the creation of “paper lions” by altering the quantity of low, medium, and high quality lion habitat in one or more GMUs.  Furthermore, as the number of lions killed annually increases, the proportion of the kill consisting of female lions continues to increase and has exceeded the 40% level recommended by Lindzey et al. (1989) every year since 1990 (Table 3).  Yet, the AGFD is taking no apparent steps to reduce the killing of female lions to below the 40% recommendation.  The implications of this level of female kill have not been disclosed by the AGFD and apparently are of little concern.

            While the AGFD has set forth a number of objectives, strategies, and procedures to achieve its lion management goal, a number of these standards have not been met, implemented, or otherwise achieved raising questions about the AGFD’s commitment to the proper management of Arizona’s lions.

LITERATURE CITED:

Anderson, A.E., D.C. Bowden, and D.M. Kattner.  1992.  The Puma on Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado.  Colo. Div. Wildl. Tech. Rep. 40, Fort Collins.  116pp.

Beier, P., and R.H. Barrett.  1993.  The Cougar in the Santa Ana Mountain Range, California.  Orange County Cooperative Mountain Lion Study.  Final Rep. 102pp.

Beier, P., and S.C. Cunningham.  1996.  Power of Track Surveys to Detect Changes in Cougar Populations.  Wildlife Society Bulletin.  24(3):540-546.

Brown, R.L.  1981.  Statewide Investigations Project: Factors Limiting Increase in the Kaibab Deer Herd.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  5pp.

Brown, R.L., and McCulloch, C.Y.  1980.  Statewide Investigations Project: Factors Limiting Increase in the Kaibab Deer Herd.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  4 pp.

Cunningham, S.C., L.A. Haynes, C. Gustavson, and D.D. Haywood.  1995.  Evaluation of the Interaction Between Mountain Lions and Cattle in the Aravaipa-Klondyke Area of Southeast Arizona.  Final Report.  Arizona Game and Fish Department.  Research Report.  Technical Report #17.  Federal Aid project no: W-78-R.

Cunningham, S.C., C.R. Gustavson, and W.B. Ballard.  1999.  Diet Selection of Mountain Lions in Southeastern Arizona.  J. Range Manage.  52:202-207.

Germaine, S.S., and K.D. Bristow.  1997.  Mountain Lion Kill Rates, Habitat Use and Feeding Behavior in Southern Arizona.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  18pp.

Germaine, S.S., K.D. Bristow, and W. Zarlingo. 1997.  Mountain Lion Surveys in Southwestern Arizona.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  16pp.

Hemker, T.P., F.G. Lindzey, and B.B. Ackerman.  1984.  Population Characteristics and Movement Patterns of Cougars in Southern Utah.  J. Wildl. Manage.  48:1275-1284.

Lindzey, F.G., B.B. Ackerman, D. Barnhurst, T. Becker, T.P. Hemker, S.P. Laing, C. Mecham, and W.D. Van Sickle.  1989.  Boulder-Escalante Cougar Project: Final Report.  Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, UT.  92 pp.

McCulloch, C.Y., and Brown, R.L., 1979.  Statewide Investigations Project: Factors Limiting Increase in the Kaibab Deer Herd.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  4pp.

McCulloch, C.Y., and Brown, R.L.  1986.  Rates and Causes of Mortality Among

Radio Collared Mule Deer of the Kaibab Plateau, 1978-1983.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  37pp.

Ockenfels, R.A. 1994.  Mountain Lion Predation on Pronghorn in Central Arizona.  The Southwestern Naturalist.  39(3):305-306.

Shaw, H.  1971.  Statewide Investigations Project: Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  2pp.

Shaw, H.  1972.  Statewide Investigations Project: Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  8pp.

Shaw, H.  1973.  Statewide Investigations Project: Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  31pp.

Shaw, H.  1974.  Statewide Investigations Project: Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  5pp.

Shaw, H.  1975.  Statewide Investigations Project: Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  3pp.

Shaw, H.G.  1977.  Impacts of  Mountain Lion on Mule Deer and Cattle in Northwestern Arizona.  Pages 306-318 in R.L. Phillips and C. Jonkely, eds.  Proc. 1975 Predator Symp., University of Montana, Missoula. 

Shaw, H.  1978.  Statewide Investigations Project: Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  2pp.

Shaw, H.  1979.  Mountain Lion Field Guide.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  32pp.

Shaw, H.  1979a.  Statewide Investigations Project: Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  2pp.

Shaw, H.G.  1980.  Statewide Investigations Project: Ecology of the Mountain Lion in Arizona.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  Final Report.  P-R Proj. W-78-R.  Work Plan 2, Job 13, Phoenix.  14 pp.

Shaw, H.  1983.  Mountain Lion Field Guide.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  45pp.

Shaw, H.G., N.G. Woolsey, J.R. Wegge, and R.L. Day.  1987.  Factors Affecting Mountain Lion Densities and Cattle Depredation in Arizona.  Ariz. Game and Fish Dept.  28 pp.

Smith, T.E., R.R. Duke, M.J. Kutilek, and H.T. Harvey.  1986.  Mountain Lions (Feils concolor) in the Vicinity of Carlsbad Caverns National Park, New Mexico, and Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas.  Harvey and Stanley Assoc., Inc., Alviso, CA.  137 pp.

Sweanor, L.L.  1990.  Mountain Lion Social Organization in a Desert Environment.  M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Idaho, Moscow.  172pp.

Wildlife 2006.  Strategic Plan for the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Wildlife Management Program for the Years 2001-2006.