|
Focus: Sport Hunting and Public Safety
Mountain lion attacks on humans are undeniably viscerally and emotionally charged events. A powerful predator, mountain lions are capable of bringing down elk and deer several times their size. In extremely rare occasions, mountain lions have attacked and even killed humans. The fear of being attacked by a mountain lion or other wild animal evokes a deep primal terror, even as Americans become accustomed to news of people killed while engaging in far more dangerous but innocuous activities as:
- driving a car (43,200 fatalities in U.S. in 2005)
- walking down the street (4,674 fatalities in 2005)
- swimming in a pool (~4,000 fatalities per year)
- being attacked by a neighborhood dog (~17 fatalities per year)
As famed ecologist E.O. Wilson has noted, “We’re not just afraid of predators. We’re transfixed by them, prone to weaving stories and fables and chatter on endlessly about them, because a fascination creates preparedness, and preparedness, survival.”
Though attacks by mountain lions on humans are extremely rare, there has been an observed increase over the past several decades. Experts on mountain lion attacks have attributed the increase to the rapid growth and expansion of human populations and loss of mountain lion habitat across the West, which has brought more people into proximity with mountain lions, as well as to an increase in mountain lion populations in some areas due to the growth and spread of deer populations (CMGWG 2005, Quigley and Herrero 2005).
Indeed, in recent years several attacks have occurred in some of the most densely populated counties of the West where there is significant development and recreation in mountain lion habitat, including California’s Orange (3,606 people/mi²) and San Diego (670 people/mi²) Counties and Colorado’s Boulder County (392 people/mi²).
|
Sport hunting is occasionally proposed as a tool to reduce the risk that cougars will attack humans. There is no scientific evidence that sport hunting achieves this goal.
- Cougar Management Guidelines
|
|
It is worth noting that the state of Wyoming (5.09 people/mi²), which has the lowest human population density of any western U.S. state except Alaska, had no confirmed attacks until 2006.
Some sport hunting advocates and state wildlife agencies have claimed that attacks can be reduced by sport hunting of mountain lions. Yet, as 13 of the world’s leading mountain lion experts concluded in the Cougar Management Guidelines:
“Sport hunting is occasionally proposed as a tool to reduce the risk that cougars will attack humans. There is no scientific evidence that sport hunting achieves this goal. In rare cases where a cougar exhibits dangerous behavior and needs to be removed, this job is best done by a professional to expeditiously track and kill the individual cougar, rather than via sport hunting.
Assuming that mortality from sport hunting is at least partially additive to other sources of mortality, hunting must reduce cougar density. Proponents of hunting use this reasoning to argue that sport hunting—by reducing density—must also reduce risk of attacks on humans. However, hunting may shift cougar population structure towards young animals, which are more likely than adult cougars to attack humans …Furthermore, the public may not support efforts to reduce regional cougar populations in a questionable effort to reduce a miniscule risk.
Arguments for decreasing cougar density often focus on scenarios of cougars lurking near human homes and settlements. Because few cougars are more than 1 home range width from some sort of human settlement, this argument may be nothing more than a rhetorical device to promote regional hunting. Sport hunting of cougars near the densest human settlements is difficult because houndsmen are reluctant to hunt these areas (due to the risk that dogs will be killed on paved roads), and private landowners or local laws often prohibit hunting. Furthermore, although cougar attacks do occur close to human settlements, they do not seem to be concentrated there."
The assertion that sport hunting is a necessary and effective strategy for reducing mountain lion attacks on people remains widespread in the mainstream media and in the popular literature (e.g. Etling 2001, Baron 2003). While some state wildlife agencies, such as in California and Wyoming, state that sport hunting cannot be expected to increase public safety, other state agencies have claimed the opposite, apparently to garner public support for sport hunting.
For example, in 2005 the South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks offered as the primary justification for the states first-ever sport hunting season on mountain lions that it “may be a more effective solution [than removal of individual lions] for dealing with problems caused by mountain lions.”
We reasoned, for the purposes of this study, that if sport hunting reduced the risk of attacks on humans, then states where mountain lions are sport hunted should consistently have fewer attacks than states where they are not hunted, relative to the size of their human population and amount of suitable mountain lion habitat.
|
“It is not valid to initiate hunting on the grounds that it will reduce risk of cougar attacks on humans. Quite simply, sport hunting will not reduce the risk of cougar attacks on humans.”
- Dr. Paul Beier
|
|
To test this assumption, the Mountain Lion Foundation tabulated data on confirmed mountain lion attacks in North America from 1972 (the first year without a sport hunt in California) to 2005. For attacks up to 1990, MLF used attacks reported by Dr. Paul Beier (1991). Per Beier, an attack was defined “as an incident in which the [mountain lion] bit, clawed, or knocked down a human” and excluded incidents involving captive mountain lions and “cases in which a person…deliberately approached or harassed” a wild mountain lion. For attacks from 1991 to 2005 MLF consulted state wildlife agencies and other sources that documented attacks (Chester 2006, Lewis 2006) but included only those attacks confirmed by government officials or medical personnel.
Figure 6. Distribution of human population in western U.S. states. Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000)
Figure 7. Distribution of suitable mountain lion habitat in western U.S. states. Source: Ashman et al. (1983), Edwards et al. (1995), Merrill et al. (1996), Thompson et al. (1996), Cassidy (1997), Davis et al. (1998), Redmond et al. (1998), Kagan et al. (1999), O’Neill et al. (2001), Schrupp et al. (2000), Scott et al. (2002), NMGFD (2005), CDOW (2005), Wolstenhulme (2005)
It is important to note, as mountain lion researcher Dr. Rick Hopkins has pointed out, the western states differ with regards to human population and amount of suitable mountain lion habitat (Figures 6 and 7). Therefore it would be inaccurate to compare the number of attacks in California, which has more than 92 thousand square miles of lion habitat and 34 million people, to the number of attacks in New Mexico, for instance, which has a little over 24 thousand square miles of lion habitat and fewer than 2 million people.
Therefore, to correct for variations in human population and amount of suitable mountain lion habitat for each state we calculated:
- The average annual number of attacks per one million residents from 1972 (the first year sport hunting was prohibited in California) to 2005.
- The average annual number of attacks per 10,000 sq mile of suitable mountain lion habitat from 1972 to 2005.
Human populations were obtained from decadal counts and population estimates for years between counts from the U.S. Census and from the government of British Columbia. Estimates of the amount of suitable mountain lion habitat for each U.S. state were obtained from the national Gap analysis program and/or from state wildlife agencies. (No data on suitable habitat were available for British Columbia or Alberta.)
Findings
- Nine western U.S. states, as well as British Columbia, which allow sport hunting of mountain lions, had a higher per capita rate of attacks on humans than did California, from 1972 to 2005 (Figure 2).
- Two western U.S. states which allow sport hunting of mountain lions had a higher rate of attacks on humans per 10,000 square miles of suitable mountain lion habitat than did California, from 1972 to 2005 (Figure 3).
Figure 2. Annual mountain lion attacks on humans per one million residents in the western U.S. and British Columbia, 1972-2005
Figure 3. Annual mountain lion attacks on humans per 10,000 square miles of suitable mountain lion habitat in the western U.S., 1972-2005
It is notable that there were no mountain lion attacks on humans in California for the first 15 years after sport hunting was banned in 1971. During the same period, however, there were 9 confirmed attacks in U.S. states with sport hunting of mountain lions. At the same time, thirteen attacks also occurred in British Columbia, which has had an intensive sport hunting program. In fact, from 1972 to 2005, one-third of all attacks in North America took place in British Columbia.
The rate of attacks on humans was extremely low in all states and provinces, regardless of whether mountain lions were sport hunted. Nevertheless, there was no evidence that states where mountain lions are sport hunted had consistently fewer attacks than California, relative to the size of their human population and amount of suitable mountain lion habitat.
These results do not support the claim that sport hunting reduces the incidence of mountain lion attacks.
Interestingly, the observed increase in attacks during the 1990s occurred at the same time that the number of mountain lions killed by humans was reaching record levels. According to records provided by state wildlife agencies, from 1990 to 1999:
- 3,255 mountain lions were reported killed by sport hunters in Colorado (10 attacks on humans)
- 5,063 mountain lions were killed in Montana (4 attacks)
- 1,710 mountain lions were killed in Washington (3 attacks)
In fact, some lion experts have raised the possibility that sport hunting – rather than decreasing the likelihood of attacks – may actually increase the likelihood of attacks.
For instance, Dr. Maurice Hornocker (1992), considered by many to be the dean of mountain lion researchers, has speculated that sport hunting may be exacerbating the likelihood of attacks by removing those lions that are more wary of people—and thus quicker to climb into trees when pursued—thereby skewing the population towards those more aggressive animals likely to attack humans.
Moreover, according to Dr. Paul Beier (1991), sport hunters also tend to seek out larger and older mountain lions as trophies, which increases the proportion of younger aged mountain lions that are frequently implicated in attacks.
Regardless, when attacks occur, there are inevitably calls to overturn California’s ban on sport hunting, as occurred after a lone mountain lion attacked two mountain bikers, killing one, in Orange County in 2004.
In a response to these calls, the Director of the California Department of Fish and Game affirmed the effectiveness of the states public safety policies regarding mountain lions (Broderick 2004). Specifically he wrote:
"Proponents of a lion hunting season believe the animals no longer fear humans and are more likely to attack people when they get hungry. However, there is no scientific evidence supporting that claim…”
"When [mountain lions] do pose a threat to public safety, our personnel follow strict guidelines to eliminate the threat. ... Our policy, essentially, says: “If mountain lions don’t bother us, we won’t bother them. In the vast majority of cases, this policy works.”
"As California’s burgeoning human population continues to expand into lion habitat, conflicts between people and the animal are inevitable. The only way to completely eliminate the risk to people is to eliminate lions. We believe a better alternative is to manage the risk under existing law and accept it as a condition of sharing the land with its natural inhabitants."
|
“Even if we did know why [mountain lions attack people], wildlife agencies probably could do nothing to prevent attacks—other than educate the public.”
- Steve Torres, Lion Sense
|
|
Reducing the likelihood of attacks remains an obvious priority for wildlife managers in all states where mountain lions exist.
There is widespread agreement among mountain lion experts that the most effective tool for reducing the likelihood of mountain lion attacks on humans is to educate people in how to be safe while living and recreating in mountain lion habitat.
As Steve Torres, an environmental scientist and former mountain lion coordinator for the California Department of Fish and Game, observed in his book Lion Sense, “We don’t know why mountain lions attack people…[but] Even if we did know why, wildlife agencies probably could do nothing to prevent attacks—other than educate the public.”
Similarly, the Cougar Management Guidelines state (CMGWG 2005):
"Within areas that support cougar populations, there is no way to prevent all cougar encounters or attacks, and humans are accepting risk as a consequence of using these wildlands just as automobile users accept 37,000 deaths per year as a consequence of having the convenience of using motorized vehicles. The challenge for managers is to modify human activities and behaviors to reduce this risk. It should be much more effective for humans to modify their own behavior than it is for humans to modify cougar behavior."
|
MLF endorses the following recommendations made in the Cougar Management Guidelines to reduce the likelihood of a negative encounter with a mountain lion when living or recreating in mountain lion habitat.
- Secure pets and hobby animals in predator-proof enclosures between dusk and dawn. Keep pets on leashes and off trails in the backcountry.
- Keep garbage under control to avoid attracting raccoons, skunks, etc. Do not feed pets outside and remove extra feed from domestic animal pens.
- Do not feed deer and wild turkeys.
- Keep children under close control, and in view. Pick up small children immediately if you encounter a mountain lions. Do not hike alone.
- If you encounter a mountain lion do not run.
- Stand. Wave your arms. Raise jacket over your head. Appear as large as possible. Move to higher ground if nearby. Throw sticks, rocks, or other objects if within reach and accessible without bending too low.
- Avoid dead animals and never approach kittens. Talk calmly. Back away.
- Maintain eye contact. Do not look away. But if cougar appears agitated use peripheral vision to keep track of its location.
- Be alert to your surroundings
- If attacked, fight back. Humans have successfully deterred attacks by becoming aggressive.
|
|
Next Section
|
