Human Exploitation of Mountain Lions in the American West          

 Mountain Lion Foundation

12/12/2006

Christopher Papouchis
Conservation Biologist

Executive Summary

In recent years, humans have killed more mountain lions in the American West than at any other time in the past century — greatly exceeding even those years when mountain lions were the target of bounties and government eradication efforts (Figure 1).

From 1997 to 2004 alone, according to records obtained by the Mountain Lion Foundation from state wildlife agencies, nearly 30,000 mountain lions were killed in 11 western states, an average of more than 3,600 each year and an increase of nearly 400 percent since 1970.

The record levels of exploitation in the American West have caused concern among some conservation scientists, particularly in light of a 2002 decision by the World Conservation Union (IUCN), which monitors the status of the world’s species through the IUCN Red List of threatened species, to reclassify mountain lions from a species of Least Concern to Near Threatened because of “a declining trend due to persecution and degradation of its habitat and prey base” (Cat Specialist Group 2002).

Figure 1 . Reported human-caused mountain lion mortality in 11 western U.S. states, 1902-2000 (Torres et al. 2004)

Large carnivorous mammals—the big cats, canids and bears—are considered a crucial element in the race to conserve biodiversity because of their role in maintaining ecosystem health and integrity (Terborgh et al. 1999, Ray et al. 2005). According to Ray et al. (2005), “keeping large carnivores is a measure of how we are doing in the battle to save the planet’s biodiversity.” 

In the western United States, the mountain lion is the only remaining large carnivore with viable populations throughout the region (Logan and Sweanor 2001). Consequently, our ability to conserve mountain lions serves as a powerful metric in determining whether we will be successful in conserving biodiversity in in the American West.

State wildlife agencies and commissions have, however, placed little emphasis on conserving mountain lions and continue to manage the species primarily as a resource for sport hunters and as potential sources of conflict with human interests.

It had been widely assumed that mountain lion populations have been increasing throughout the American West (e.g., Riley and Malecki 2001), and that the increasing numbers of mountain lions being killed were having little effect on the status of lion populations. However, since 2003, wildlife officials from four western states have concluded that mountain lion populations in these states have declined in recent years.

Moreover, in 2005, thirteen leading mountain lion scientists and managers cautioned that “Wildlife managers cannot assume that these unprecedented removal levels, especially when combined with the historically high levels of habitat loss and fragmentation that are occurring, have no affect on cougar numbers” (Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group 2005).

Because the primary mission of the Mountain Lion Foundation is to ensure the long-term survival of mountain lions across their historic range, we wanted to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the extent, causes and distribution of human-caused mountain lion mortality in the American West. This report is intended to inform and encourage scientific and public discourse on how mountain lions are managed and conserved in the United States.

Based on our review of mountain lion mortality records provided by wildlife agencies from 11 western U.S. states for the years 1997 to 2004 (when comprehensive data were available for all mountain lion management units), the major findings of this report are:

• In total, humans reported killing 29,387 mountain lions over this 8-year period.
• On average, 3,673 mountain lions were reported killed each year.
• 56 % of all human-caused mountain lion mortalities in the American West occurred in the four states of Idaho, Montana, Utah and Colorado.
• The states which reported the highest number of kills did not have the most suitable habitat for mountain lions.
• Female mountain lions, which make up the reproductive base of lion populations, comprised approximately 43 % of all the mountain lions killed.
• The primary justifications for killing mountain lions were:
• 85 % due to sport hunting
• 10 % in response to real or perceived conflicts with livestock and other domestic animals
• 2 % in response to real or perceived concerns over public safety
• 3 % due to other reasons including road kill, incidental killing, poaching, etc.
• Geographic areas with the largest concentrations of kills, defined as mortality hotspots, were:
• The northern Rocky Mountains (northern Idaho, western Montana and eastern Washington).
• The northern Utah mountains
• Utah’s High Plateau

The record levels of mountain lions killed in the American West by humans in recent years warrant concern for at least two reasons. First, excessive levels of human caused mortality, termed overkill by scientists, has been identified as one of the primary threats to the long-term viability of mountain lions (Logan and Sweanor 2001).

Overkill increases the vulnerability of mountain lion populations to extinction, particularly populations that are small and isolated (Beier 1993, Logan and Sweanor 2001). Intensive and sustained overkill can even destabilize mountain lion populations spread over large regions, known as metapopulations (Logan and Sweanor 2001).

Although conservation scientists may view declines in mountain lion populations with concern, wildlife managers may consider declines the inevitable consequence or even a goal of management (Mace and Hudson 1999).

In fact, high levels of exploitation by humans have been implicated in the declines of mountain lion populations in Utah and Montana and a metapopulation spreading across northern Idaho, eastern Washington and southern British Columbia (Beausoleil et al. 2003, DeSimone, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, personal communication, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 2005, Lambert et al. 2006).

The second, and more far reaching, reason for concern is the potential negative effects that the intensive and sustained killing of mountain lions may be having on ecosystem health. There is a growing body of scientific research that mountain lions play a key ecological role and that their loss can negatively impact the health of the natural landscape and eventually lead to the extinction of many other species (Terborgh et al. 2001; Ripple and Beschta 2006). Unfortunately, there is a disturbing lack of research

Photo Courtesy of Robert Chaponot

aimed at understanding the short term and cumulative effects of exploitation on mountain lion populations, or on ecosystem health.

Effectively conserving self-sustaining and ecologically effective populations of mountain lions in the American West will require actively addressing issues related to exploitation and habitat loss. Focused research to assess the effects of heavy and sustained removals of mountain lions on mountain lion populations and ecosystem health is imperative. More specifically, wildlife agencies and commissions must change their focus from a single-species, utilitarian approach to an ecosystem management approach that considers mountain lions in their ecological context rather than simply as resources for hunters or problems for ranchers, landowners and the general public.

Critically, we must pursue strategies for conservation and management that satisfy the common good—such as maintaining ecological health, conserving biodiversity, and representing the full array of human values towards this species—rather than merely satisfying the needs of special interests.

To this end, the Mountain Lion Foundation makes the following recommendations:

• Manage mountain lions in the context of their important ecological role in maintaining and restoring ecosystem health. Base management policies and approaches in the principles of conservation biology (Torres et al. 2004).
• Scientifically demonstrate that current management practices are maintaining sustainable and ecologically effective populations of mountain lions.
• Create protected areas and linkages for mountain lions to promote the long-term viability of mountain lion populations.
• Standardize recording and compilation of mountain lion mortalities so that reporting is consistent within and across states.
• Standardize criteria and protocols for the issuance of depredation permits and public safety removals of mountain lions so that these are consistent within and across states.
• Support and initiate research to determine when and where mountain lions play ecologically significant roles and what densities of mountain lions are needed to generate these effects (Ray et al. 2005), and how exploitation of mountain lion populations affects the species’ ecological role.
• Implement the following management principles and other recommendations of the Cougar Management Guidelines (CMGWG 2005: 8-10), which include:
• “A large-landscape approach, on the order of thousands of square kilometers of well-connected habitat with thriving natural prey populations, is necessary for healthy, self-sustaining cougar populations.”
• “Given uncertainties about basic demographic parameters [of mountain lion populations], responses of populations to management prescriptions or hunter selectivity, temporal and spatial variation, and understanding that cougar habitat is changing, cougar management should adopt an adaptive management approach.”
• Adaptive management is “A type of natural resource management in which decisions are made as part of an ongoing science-based process. Adaptive management involves testing, monitoring, and evaluating applied strategies, and incorporating new knowledge into management approaches that are based on scientific findings and the needs of society. Results are used to modify management policy, strategies, and practices” (water.usgs.gov/owq/cleanwater/ufp/glossary.html)
• “Cougar management should reflect the full array of human values and input from all stakeholders.”
• “In light of the diversity of stakeholders and human values, funding for cougar research, management, and conservation should not be derived solely from hunting-related programs.”

Introduction

Mountain lions—also known as cougars, pumas and Florida panthers—are large carnivores native to the western hemisphere that have roamed North America for at least 10,000 years prior to European colonization (Culver 2000). In the United States mountain lions once ranged from the Pacific coast to the Eastern seaboard, where they were first encountered by white settlers who feared and vilified them as killers of deer and threats to livestock and human safety. Along with wolves and grizzly bears they were targeted for extermination through bounty and government sponsored control programs that would continue into the second half of the 20th Century. By the mid-1900s, mountain lions had been eliminated from the eastern two-thirds of the U.S. with only a small population left in southern Florida. Eventually, an increase in conservation oriented attitudes towards wildlife led to the cessation of the mountain lion bounties and the establishment of protections from indiscriminate killing by the early 1970s in all western states except Texas.

Today, mountain lions are recognized by scientists as playing an invaluable role in maintaining the health and resilience of the natural landscape (Terborgh et al. 2001; Logan and Sweanor 2001; Ripple and Beschta 2006). Since mountain lion populations require large areas on the order of thousands of square miles to survive, conserving habitat for mountain lions can also benefit a myriad of other species (Beier 1996). The mountain lion’s wide range, adaptability to a variety of habitats, and superior predatory ability may afford the species a more important ecological role than any other large carnivore in the Americas (Murphy et al. 1999).

However, state wildlife agencies and commissions have placed little emphasis on conservation and continue to manage mountain lions primarily as a resource for sport hunters and as potential sources of conflict with human interests. Under current management policies, lethal control is the primary technique used by wildlife agencies for “managing” mountain lion populations (Murphy et al. 1999).

These policies have led to a significant increase in the number of mountain lions killed by humans in the American West—a rise of nearly 400 percent from 1970 to 2000—which today greatly exceeds the number killed when the species were subjected to bounties and government eradication efforts (Figure 1; Torres et al. 2004).

Figure 1 . Reported human-caused mountain lion mortality in 11 western U.S. states, 1902-2000 (Torres et al. 2004)

These record levels of exploitation in the American West have caused concern among some conservation scientists, particularly in light of a 2002 decision by the World Conservation Union (IUCN)—which monitors the status of the world’s species through the IUCN Red List of threatened species—to reclassify mountain lions from a species of Least Concern to Near Threatened (IUCN 2002). The change in status was initiated by the Cat Specialist Group, an international committee of wild cat scientists, who determined that,

“based on estimates of density and geographic range… the puma’s total effective population size is estimated at below 50,000 mature breeding individuals, with a declining trend due to persecution and degradation of its habitat and prey base, and may possibly qualify as Vulnerable if these trends persist, or if better information on its status were available.”

In the western United States it has been generally assumed that the increasing rate of exploitation over the past several decades has not negatively effected mountain lion populations. However, in 2005, thirteen leading mountain lion scientists and managers cautioned that “Wildlife managers cannot assume that these unprecedented removal levels, especially when combined with the historically high levels of habitat loss and fragmentation that are occurring, have no affect on cougar numbers” (Cougar Management Guidelines Working Group 2005).

Since the mission of the Mountain Lion Foundation is to ensure the long-term survival of Puma concolor, we initiated this report to document the extent, causes and distribution of human-caused mountain lion mortality in the American West. Specifically, we considered a recent 8 year period, 1997 to 2004, when mortality records were available for all states and management units. Our goal is to inform and encourage scientific and public discourse on how mountain lions are managed and conserved in the United States.

Results

Summary

Humans killed nearly 30,000 mountain lions from 1997 to 2004 in the 11 western states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming (Table 1). This averages to more than 3,600 lions killed each year.

Table 1. Reported human-caused mountain lion mortalities in 11 western U.S. states, 1997 – 2004. N/A = Not applicable. N/D = state wildlife agency does not use this category.

	Mountain Lions Reported Killed (1997-2004)
	Total	Sport Hunting	Depredation	Public Safety	Other
Arizona	2569	2136	404	5	24
California	996	N/A	918	78	N/D
Colorado	3276	2998	98	N/D	180
Idaho	5252	5090	62	7	93
Montana	4466	4321	108	37	N/D
Nevada	1649	1410	99	N/D	140
New Mexico	1472	1269	164	5	34
Oregon	2631	1441	792	210	188
Utah	3560	3216	234	N/D	110
Washington	1852	1491	152	193	16
Wyoming	1664	1504	64	N/D	96
Total	29,387	24,876	3,095	535	881

In 2000, the number of lions reported killed by humans reached an all-time annual peak of just under 4,000 (Figure 2), exceeding 1990 levels by 85 percent and 1980 levels by 290 percent.

Figure 2. Overall human-caused mountain lion mortality reported in the American West, 1997 to 2004.

Female mountain lions constituted more than 40 % of the mountain lions killed in all years from 1997 to 2004 (Table 2), which has important implications for the the social stability of mountain lion populations as discussed below.

Idaho reported the greatest total number of lions killed at more than 5,200, followed by Montana, Utah and Colorado (Table 1). However, there was no apparent correlation between the number of mountain lions killed in each state and the amount of estimated suitable habitat within that state (Logistic Regression, Pearson P = 0.508). In other words, states which reported the highest number of kills did not also have the most suitable habitat for mountain lions. For example, California has the most mountain lion habitat in the American West but reported the fewest mountain lions killed (<1,000), primarily because sport hunting is banned in the state (see below).

Table 2. Percentage of female mountain lions in total human-caused mortality in American West.

	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	Average
Arizona	48%	46%	47%	49%	44%	42%	48%	49%	46%
California	Unavailable
Colorado	46%	48%	46%	45%	45%	42%	44%	44%	45%
Idaho	43%	42%	46%	48%	46%	48%	41%	49%	45%
Montana	44%	50%	35%	51%	52%	50%	46%	40%	46%
Nevada	46%	41%	39%	48%	45%	40%	49%	40%	43%
New Mexico	35%	38%	42%	39%	41%	40%	45%	48%	41%
Oregon	33%	42%	39%	34%	57%	43%	42%	ND	42%
Utah	32%	31%	32%	29%	40%	30%	30%	29%	32%
Washington	55%	59%	60%	59%	51%	54%	52%	49%	55%
Wyoming	37%	37%	38%	43%	37%	42%	35%	39%	38%
Average	42%	43%	42%	45%	46%	43%	43%	43%	43%

Reasons

Human-caused mountain lion mortalities are generally compiled by state wildlife agencies under four general categories. From 1997 to 2004, 85 percent of mountain lions deaths were attributed to sport hunting, 10 percent to depredation, 2 percent to public safety, and 3 percent to other unspecified reasons (Table 1).

The category of sport hunting includes reports of mountain lions killed under state sponsored hunting seasons. The category of depredation includes primarily lions killed in response to threats or attacks on livestock or other domestic animals, including pets. The other category generally includes lions killed in incidents such as being struck by vehicles and incidental trapping, but in seven states also includes lions killed under public safety policies (see below).

However, no standard technique is used by all western states for recording human-caused mountain lion mortalities, particularly those related to depredation, public safety and other reasons. For example, in 10 states reports of mountain lions killed for attacking pets are categorized under depredation along with those killed for threatening or attacking domestic sheep or other livestock. However, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife classifies mountain lions killed for attacking pets under the category of public safety. In Washington mountain lions were killed under “preventative” public safety hunts though in many cases no verified threat to human health and safety existed. Interpretation of these figures therefore should reflect these inconsistencies in reporting.

Figure 3. Human-caused mountain lion mortality reported in the American West, 1997 to 2004.

Sport hunting

Nearly 25,000 mountain lions were killed by sport hunters in the American West from 1997 to 2004 (Table 1), an average of more than 3,100 annually. Sport hunting is legal in 10 of the 11 states considered in this report—i.e., Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. California has not had a sport hunting program since 1972 when then Governor Ronald Reagan signed a legislative moratorium, and mountain lions in that state are presently classified as a specially protected mammal because of a 1990 voter approved ballot initiative.

Idaho reported the highest total number of sport hunting related lion mortalities, followed by Montana, Utah and Colorado. In total, 63 percent of mountain lions killed by sport hunters occurred in these four Rocky Mountain States. Nevada reported the fewest number of lions killed by sport hunters.

Sport hunting related deaths reached a peak in 1997 at 3,391 (89 percent above 1990 levels) and remained above 3,000 until 2001 before dropping to 2,547 by 2004. This decline was attributed primarily to a decrease in hunting related mortalities in Idaho, Montana and to a lesser degree Utah (Figure 3), as a consequence of declining mountain lion populations in these states due to years of intensive sport hunting and other control activities (Beausoleil et al. 2003; Utah Division Wildlife Resources 2005; Lambert et al. 2006, DeSimone, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, personal communication).

In Oregon, sport hunting kills increased steadily from 1997 to 2004. The rise in kills occurred after the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife liberalized sport hunting regulations in response to a 1994 ballot initiative that banned the use of hounds for hunting mountain lions and reduced sport hunting related mortalities in Oregon for several years.

Depredation

At least 3,095 mountain lions were killed in the American West from 1997 to 2004 for reportedly threatening or attacking livestock, pets or other domestic animals (Table 1). Sixty-eight percent of these kills occurred in California, Oregon and Arizona. It appears that in general, states with more habitat and larger human population, such as California, reported higher numbers of lions killed for depredation purposes. Overall, there was a slight increasing trend in the number of depredation related mortalities in the American West from 1997 to 2004 (Figure 2).

Public safety

California, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington report mountain lions killed for public safety concerns in their own specific category. Combined, these five states reported a total of 535 mountain lions killed in this category from 1997 to 2004 (Table 1). However, records of public safety related kills were unavailable for Montana in 1997 and for Washington from 1997 to 1999 (at which time public safety related mortalities were reported in the category of other prior to the creation of a public safety category in 2000). As a result, this total understates the actual number of mountain lions killed for reported public safety concerns.

The number of lions killed for public safety concerns were highest in Oregon and Washington with California following a distant third.

Arizona (from 1997 to 2002), Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming included lions killed for public safety concerns in the category of other (see below). Wildlife managers in these states (personal communication) have stated that fewer than 5 mountain lions are generally killed each year for public safety concerns in these states.

Because management practices and reporting practices vary from state to state, the number of mountain lions reported killed under the category of public safety is not necessarily representative of actual threats to public health and safety. Public safety guidelines in all the western states permit the killing of mountain lions identified as verified threats to public safety. However, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife initiated a preemptive public safety removal program in 2001 in response to citizen concerns about mountain lions that resulted in the killing of more than 160 lions over the next three years. These kills were categorized under public safety, though there was no evidence that any of the lions killed had posed a threat to humans. Furthermore, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife includes mountain lions killed for preying on pets under the category of public safety, though there is no scientific evidence that predation on pets is a precursor to an attack on humans.

Other

From 1997 to 2004 more than 880 mountain lions were reported killed in the category of other (Table 1) in 8 western states. Reports of mortalities that occur for reasons other than sport hunting, depredation or, in some states public safety (see below), are usually included in the other category. This category includes but is not limited to mountain lions killed as the result of collisions with vehicles, incidental trapping, illegal killing and research related mortalities, and in Oregon, mountain lions found dead of unknown causes.

California and Montana do not formally compile reports of mountain lions killed for other reasons. Four states (Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico and Utah) include lions killed for public safety concerns in this category in all study years; Arizona included lions killed for public safety concerns in this category from 1997 to 2002 before itemizing them separately. New Mexico includes in this category mountain lions killed in the Unit I management area (southeastern part of the state) as part of a New Mexico Department of Game and Fish program to suppress mountain lion populations in areas with reported livestock losses. Washington Fish and Wildlife ended the use of this category after 1999.

An increasing trend in mortalities classified as other was observed in Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Utah through the study period (Figure 3). A decreasing trend was observed in Idaho and Wyoming. Overall, from 1997 to 2004 the total number of mountain lions killed in the western U.S. reported in this category exhibited a slightly increasing trend.

Figure 4. Distribution of suitable habitat (indicated by blue shading) for mountain lions in American West.

Mortality Hotspots

Because the western states differ significantly in terms of size and amount of suitable habitat for mountain lions, comparing the number of lions killed in each state provides a poor measure of the intensity of human-caused mountain lion mortalities. A more useful metric for comparison therefore, is to consider the density of kills, or how many mountain lions are being killed each year relative to the amount of suitable habitat.

In total, the 11 western states incorporate about 555 thousand square miles of suitable habitat for mountain lions (Table 1), roughly half of the 1,174 thousand square miles of total land area (Figure 4). If kills were evenly distributed we would find that from 1997 to 2004, on average 6.6 mountain lions were killed annually per 1000 sq. mi. of suitable habitat (Table 1). However, kills were not evenly distributed and the density of mountain lion mortalities varied significantly from state to state (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Annual average number of mountain lions killed per 1000 sq. mi. of suitable habitat in 11 western U.S. states, 1997 to 2004.

Idaho, Montana, and Utah had the highest kill densities, averaging in excess of 10 mountain lions killed each year per 1,000 square miles of suitable habitat (Figure 4). California, which has the most suitable habitat for mountain lions of any state in the American West, had the lowest average annual kill density throughout the period of study, primarily because sport hunting is prohibited.

Considering the significant differences in kill density among states we could postulate that the highest kill densities would occur in states with the densest mountain lion populations. Testing this notion is difficult since no valid statewide estimates of lion population densities exist. Thus we have to consider as a proxy estimates derived for smaller areas based on intensive research projects (Table 3). Comparing these reported population densities to the average kill densities observed from 1997 to 2004 (Logistic regression, Pearson P = 0.21), however, does not support the notion that kill densities were necessarily higher in states with higher reported lion population densities.

Table 3. Mountain lion population densities reported in the literature from studies conducted in western U.S. states.

Location of Research	Population Density (lions / 100 sq mi)		Source
	Resident Adults	Total
Arizona		0.55	Cunningham et al. (1995)
California		8.5 – 10	Hopkins (1989)
Colorado		2.8	Anderson (1992)
Idaho	2.6 – 4.4	4.4 – 9.1	Seidensticker (1973)
Montana		4.2 – 7.5	DeSimone et al. (2002)
Nevada		2.6 – 4.1	Ashman et al. (1992)
New Mexico	2.1 – 5.4	4.4 – 11	Logan and Sweanor (2001)
Utah	2.6		Lindzey et al. (1994)
Washington	1 – 1.8	2.3 – 3.9	Lambert (2003)
Wyoming	3.6 – 3.9	9.1 – 12	Logan (1986)
Wyoming	6.2 – 8.8		Anderson and Lindzey (2005)

Note: Reported population densities are from intensive radio-collaring research studies over relatively small areas and should not be interpreted as densities of statewide mountain lion populations.

A more detailed picture of the distribution and intensity of human-caused mortalities can be realized by reducing the focus to the management unit level. Management units—also referred to as management areas or simply GMUs—are geographic designations created by state wildlife agencies to facilitate wildlife management activities. Table 4 lists the 30 management units with the highest average annual kill density, 1997 to 2004.

Table 4 Thirty management areas with the highest average densities of human-caused mountain lion mortalities, 1997 to 2004.

Rank	State	Management Unit	Suitable Habitat Sq Mi.	Total Kills (1997-2004)	Annual Kills per 1000 sq mi Suitable Habitat
					Avg	Max
1	WY	Area 15	471*	132	35.0	48.8
2	UT	Cache	589	139	29.5	61.1
3	WY	Area 23	532*	120	28.2	33.9
4	ID	Elk City	1,839	405	27.5	41.3
5	ID	Palouse-Dworshak	2,286	494	27	51.2
6	UT	Morgan/Rich	346	74	26.7	46.2
7	WA	Blue Mountains	613	102	26.1	55.5
8	UT	Manti	2,347	488	26.0	25.6
9	WY	Area 21	500*	103	25.8	40.0
10	UT	East Canyon	391	79	25.2	40.9
11	UT	Ogden	383	67	21.9	20.9
12	WY	Area 18	477*	76	19.9	25.2
13	UT	Chalk Creek & Kamas	567	87	19.2	21.2
14	WY	Area 6 & 27	958*	145	18.9	32.4
15	UT	Wasatch Mtns.	1,982	298	18.8	23.7
16	UT	Fillmore	1,333	196	18.4	30.8
17	AZ	GMU 31	1,223	117	18.1	23.7
18	AZ	GMU 27	1,347	191	17.7	24.5
19	ID	Panhandle	7,390	1,100	17.7	23.8
20	NM	B	866	117	16.9	25.4
22	UT	Zion	850	114	16.8	28.2
23	AZ	GMU 17	978	130	16.6	19.4
24	WY	Area 7	844*	112	16.6	30.8
25	ID	Hells Canyon	1,320	182	16.4	21.6
26