Human–carnivore competition for antlered ungulates: do pumas select for bulls and bucks?
L. Mark Elbroch A C , Jennifer Feltner B and Howard Quigley A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Panthera, New York, NY 10018, USA.
B University of Montana, College of Forestry and Conservation, Wildlife Biology Program, Forestry 312, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: melbroch@panthera.org
Wildlife Research 44(7) 523-533 https://doi.org/10.1071/WR17006
Submitted: 16 January 2017 Accepted: 2 August 2017 Published: 12 December 2017
Abstract
Context: Many institutions of wildlife management and their hunting constituents tend to value ungulates over large carnivores, in part due to financial incentives associated with ungulate hunting over carnivore hunting. This system benefits from mythology that presents large carnivores as competitors for antlered male ungulates most prized by the hunting community.
Aims: We explored puma (Puma concolor) foraging and prey selection in two study areas in the Rocky Mountains, USA, to test whether pumas were competing with human hunters for antlered elk (Cervus elaphus) and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus).
Methods: We employed GPS technology to track pumas and document their prey. We measured population- and individual-level selection by comparing prey killed by pumas to two estimates of prey availability: (1) landscape-level as determined by annual agency game counts; and (2) total prey killed by marked pumas.
Key results: Pumas in both study systems killed small numbers of antlered elk and mule deer. Pumas exhibited avoidance of mature elk, instead strongly selecting for elk calves over any other age or sex class. Pumas in both systems also selected for mule deer fawns; however, they also exhibited small positive selection (Jacob’s index of 0.08 in CO and 0.11 in WY on a scale of 0.0–1.0) for antlered mule deer.
Conclusions: In terms of numbers killed, pumas were not a competitor with human hunters for either antlered species. In terms of prey selection, pumas showed that they may be greater competition for rare antlered mule deer but not for antlered elk. In both study sites, antlered elk and deer remained at levels at which they could perform their ecological functions.
Implications: Our results highlight the fact that the overhunting of large carnivores over competition for antlered ungulates is mostly unfounded; we should instead focus management, media attention and conservation science on disentangling the complex ecology driving localised declines of mule deer, elk and other important ungulate resources, many of which are anthropogenic in nature and can be addressed.
Additional keywords: foraging, prey selection, wildlife conflict, wildlife management.
References
Anderson, C. R., Lindzey, F., Knopff, K. H., Jalkotsky, M. G., and Boyce, M. S. (2010). Cougar management in North America. In ‘Cougar: Ecology and Conservation’. (Eds M. Hornocker, and S. Negri.) pp. 41–54. (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.)Atwood, T. C., Gese, E. M., and Kunkel, K. E. (2007). Comparative patterns of predation by cougars and recolonizing wolves in Montana’s Madison Range. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71, 1098–1106.
| Comparative patterns of predation by cougars and recolonizing wolves in Montana’s Madison Range.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Brodie, J., Johnson, H., Mitchell, M., Zager, P., Proffitt, K., Hebblewhite, M., Kauffman, M., Johnson, B., Bissonette, J., and Bishop, C. (2013). Relative influence of human harvest, carnivores, and weather on adult female elk survival across western North America. Journal of Applied Ecology 50, 295–305.
| Relative influence of human harvest, carnivores, and weather on adult female elk survival across western North America.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Byers, C. R., Steinhorst, R. K., and Krausman, P. R. (1984). Clarification of a technique for analysis of utilization-availability data. The Journal of Wildlife Management 48, 1050–1053.
| Clarification of a technique for analysis of utilization-availability data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Carbone, C., Mace, G. M., Roberts, S. C., and Macdonald, D. W. (1999). Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores. Nature 402, 286–288.
| Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK1MXnvFSiu70%3D&md5=5b92ab85b21815e5b04fa3f649cb2b8dCAS |
Chao, A. (1987). Estimating the population size for capture–recapture data with unequal catchability. Biometrics 43, 783–791.
| Estimating the population size for capture–recapture data with unequal catchability.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaL1c7gsl2qsw%3D%3D&md5=3ee68abf4683a8d1abd1ded105f4e410CAS |
Clark, S. G., and Vernon, M. E. (2016). Elk management and policy in southern Greater Yellowstone: assessing the constitutive process. Policy Sciences , .
| Elk management and policy in southern Greater Yellowstone: assessing the constitutive process.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Clark, D. A., Davidson, G. A., Johnson, B. K., and Anthony, R. G. (2014). Cougar kill rates and prey selection in a multiple-prey system in northeast Oregon. The Journal of Wildlife Management 78, 1161–1176.
| Cougar kill rates and prey selection in a multiple-prey system in northeast Oregon.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Cook, R. C., Cook, J. G., Vales, D. J., Johnson, B. K., Mccorquodale, S. M., Shipley, L. A., Riggs, R. A., Irwin, L. L., Murphie, S. L., Murphie, B. L., Schoenecker, K. A., Geyer, F., Hall, P. B., Spencer, R. D., Immell, D. A., Jackson, D. H., Brett, L., Miller, P. J., and Schmitz, L. (2013). Regional and seasonal patterns of nutritional condition and reproduction in elk. Wildlife Monographs 184, 1–45.
| Regional and seasonal patterns of nutritional condition and reproduction in elk.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Darimont, C. T., Fox, C. H., Bryan, H. M., and Reimchen, T. E. (2015). The unique ecology of human predators. Science 349, 858–860.
| The unique ecology of human predators.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC2MXhtlKlt7%2FN&md5=7aa1bc508416111846473ff74cfe18b5CAS |
Eacker, D. R., Hebblewhite, M., Proffitt, K. M., Jimenez, B. S., Mitchell, M. S., and Robinson, H. S. (2016). Annual elk calf survival in a multiple carnivore system. The Journal of Wildlife Management 80, 1345–1359.
| Annual elk calf survival in a multiple carnivore system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Elbroch, L. M., and Lowrey, B. (2013). ‘Garfield–Mesa Lion Project, Final Report.’ (Panthera: New York.)
Elbroch, L. M., Jansen, B. D., Grigione, M. M., Sarno, R. J., and Wittmer, H. U. (2013a). Trailing hounds vs. foot snares: comparing injuries to pumas captured in Chilean Patagonia. Wildlife Biology 19, 210–216.
| Trailing hounds vs. foot snares: comparing injuries to pumas captured in Chilean Patagonia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Elbroch, L. M., Lendrum, P. E., Newby, J., Quigley, H., and Craighead, D. (2013b). Seasonal foraging ecology of non-migratory cougars in a system with migrating prey. PLoS One 8, e83375.
| Seasonal foraging ecology of non-migratory cougars in a system with migrating prey.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Elbroch, L. M., Allen, M. L., Lowrey, B. H., and Wittmer, H. U. (2014). The difference between killing and eating: ecological shortcomings of puma energetic models. Ecosphere 5, 53.
| The difference between killing and eating: ecological shortcomings of puma energetic models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Elbroch, L. M., Lendrum, P., Robinson, H., and Quigley, H. (2016). Individual- and population-level prey selection by a solitary predator, as determined with two estimates of prey availability. Canadian Journal of Zoology 94, 275–282.
| Individual- and population-level prey selection by a solitary predator, as determined with two estimates of prey availability.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Elbroch, L. M., Feltner, J., and Quigley, H. (2017). Stage-dependent puma predation on dangerous prey. Journal of Zoology , .
| Stage-dependent puma predation on dangerous prey.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Forrester, T. D., and Wittmer, H. U. (2013). A review of the population dynamics of mule deer and black-tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus in North America. Mammal Review 43, 292–308.
| A review of the population dynamics of mule deer and black-tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus in North America.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Griffin, K. A., Hebblewhite, M., Robinson, H. S., Zager, P., Barber-Meyer, S. M., Christianson, D., Creel, S., Harris, N. C., Hurley, M. A., and Jackson, D. H. (2011). Neonatal mortality of elk driven by climate, predator phenology and predator community composition. Journal of Animal Ecology 80, 1246–1257.
| Neonatal mortality of elk driven by climate, predator phenology and predator community composition.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Haigh, J. R., and Hudson, R. J. (1993). ‘Farming Wapiti and Red Deer.’ (Mosby-Year Book: St. Louis, MO.)
Hairston, N. G., Smith, F. E., and Slobodkin, L. B. (1960). Community structure, population control, and competition. American Naturalist 94, 421–425.
| Community structure, population control, and competition.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hayward, M. W., Hofmeyr, M., O’Brien, J., and Kerley, G. I. H. (2006). Prey preferences of the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus): morphological limitations or the need to capture rapidly consumable prey before kleptoparasites arrive? Journal of Zoology 270, 615–627.
| Prey preferences of the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus): morphological limitations or the need to capture rapidly consumable prey before kleptoparasites arrive?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hornocker, M. G. (1970). An analysis of mountain lion predation upon mule deer and elk in the Idaho Primitive Area. Wildlife Monographs 21, 1–39.
Husseman, J. S., Murray, D. L., Power, G., Mack, C., Wenger, C. R., and Quigley, H. (2003). Assessing differential prey selection patterns between two sympatric large carnivores. Oikos 101, 591–601.
| Assessing differential prey selection patterns between two sympatric large carnivores.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jacobs, J. (1974). Quantitative measurement of food selection – a modification of the forage ratio and Ivlev’s electivity index. Oecologia 14, 413–417.
| Quantitative measurement of food selection – a modification of the forage ratio and Ivlev’s electivity index.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Jonzén, N., Sand, H., Wabakken, P., Swenson, J. E., Kindberg, J., Liberg, O., and Chapron, G. (2013). Sharing the bounty – adjusting harvest to predator return in the Scandinavian human–wolf–bear–moose system. Ecological Modelling 265, 140–148.
| Sharing the bounty – adjusting harvest to predator return in the Scandinavian human–wolf–bear–moose system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Knopff, K. H., Knopff, A. A., Kortello, A., and Boyce, M. S. (2010). Cougar kill rate and prey composition in a multiprey system. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74, 1435–1447.
| Cougar kill rate and prey composition in a multiprey system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Krebs, C. J. (2014). ‘Ecological methodology.’ (Benjamin Cummings: London.)
Lechowicz, M. J. (1982). The sampling characteristics of electivity indices. Oecologia 52, 22–30.
| The sampling characteristics of electivity indices.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lendrum, P. E., Anderson, C. R., Monteith, K. L., Jenks, J. A., and Bowyer, R. T. (2013). Migrating mule deer: effects of anthropogenically altered landscapes. PLoS One 8, e64548.
| Migrating mule deer: effects of anthropogenically altered landscapes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXot1ygtL4%3D&md5=64c4900914430fd97399551b8c6bb5bcCAS |
Lowrey, B., Elbroch, L. M., and Broberg, L. (2016). Is individual prey selection driven by chance or choice? A case study in cougars (Puma concolor). Mammal Research 61, 353–359.
| Is individual prey selection driven by chance or choice? A case study in cougars (Puma concolor).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lubow, B. C., and Smith, B. L. (2004). Population dynamics of the Jackson elk herd. The Journal of Wildlife Management 68, 810–829.
| Population dynamics of the Jackson elk herd.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mattson, D. J. (2007). Mountain lions of the Flagstaff Uplands. 2003–2006 progress report. Open-file Report 2007-1062, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey: Flagstaff, AZ.
Mattson, D. J. (2014). State-level management of a common charismatic predator: mountain lions of the west. In ‘Large Carnivore Conservation: Integrating Science and Policy in North America’. (Eds. S. G. Clark and M. B. Rutherford.) pp. 29–64. (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.)
Merrill, E., Zimmermann, H. S. B., McPhee, H., Webb, N., Hebblewhite, M., Wabakken, P., and Frair, J. L. (2010). Building a mechanistic understanding of predation with GPS-based movement data. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 365, 2279–2288.
| Building a mechanistic understanding of predation with GPS-based movement data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Morrison, T. A., and Kauffman, M. J. (2014). ‘Mule Deer Modeling Report: a Quantitative Evaluation of Survey Efforts to Model, Monitor and Manage Wyoming Mule Deer Populations.’ (Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit: Laramie, WY.)
Murphy, T., and MacDonald, D. W. (2010). Pumas and people: lessons in the landscape of tolerance from a widely distributed felid. In ‘Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids.’ (Eds D. W. MacDonald and A. J. Loveridge.) pp. 431–452. (Oxford University Press: Oxford.)
Murphy, K., and Ruth, T. K. (2010). Diet and prey selection of the perfect predator. In ‘Cougar: Ecology and Conservation’. (Eds M. Hornocker, and S. Negri.) pp. 118–137. (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.)
Mysterud, A., Coulson, T., and Stenseth, N. C. (2002). The role of males in the dynamics of ungulate populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 71, 907–915.
| The role of males in the dynamics of ungulate populations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Northrup, J. M., Anderson, C. R., and Wittemyer, G. (2015). Quantifying spatial habitat loss from hydrocarbon development through assessing habitat selection patterns of mule deer. Global Change Biology 21, 3961–3970.
Ordiz, A., Bischof, R., and Swenson, J. E. (2013). Saving large carnivores, but losing the apex predator? Biological Conservation 168, 128–133.
| Saving large carnivores, but losing the apex predator?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pierce, B. M., Bleich, V. C., and Bowyer, R. T. (2000). Selection of mule deer by mountain lions and coyotes: effects of hunting style, body size, and reproductive status. Journal of Mammalogy 81, 462–472.
| Selection of mule deer by mountain lions and coyotes: effects of hunting style, body size, and reproductive status.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Raithel, J. D., Reynolds-Hogland, M. J., Koons, D. N., Carr, P. C., and Aubry, L. M. (2016). Recreational harvest and incident-response management reduce human–carnivore conflicts in an anthropogenic landscape. Journal of Applied Ecology , .
| Recreational harvest and incident-response management reduce human–carnivore conflicts in an anthropogenic landscape.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Reynolds, J. C., and Tapper, S. C. (1996). Control of mammalian predators in game management and conservation. Mammal Review 26, 127–155.
| Control of mammalian predators in game management and conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shallow, J. R., Hurley, M. A., Monteith, K. L., and Bowyer, R. T. (2015). Cascading effects of habitat on maternal condition and life-history characteristics of neonatal mule deer. Journal of Mammalogy 96, 194–205.
| Cascading effects of habitat on maternal condition and life-history characteristics of neonatal mule deer.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Treves, A. (2009). Hunting for large carnivore conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 46, 1350–1356.
| Hunting for large carnivore conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Treves, A., Krofel, M., and McManus, J. (2016). Predator control should not be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14, 380–388.
| Predator control should not be a shot in the dark.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
