An understanding of how a predator uses the landscape can assist in developing management plans. We modeled resource selection by cougars (Puma concolor) during 2 behavioral states (moving and killing) and 2 seasons (summer and winter) with respect to landscape characteristics using locations from global positioning system (GPS)‐collared cougars in the Pryor Mountains, Montana and Wyoming, USA. Furthermore, we examined predation‐specific resource selection at 2 scales (fine and coarse). When possible, we backtracked from cache sites to kill sites and used a fine‐scale analysis to examine landscape characteristics of confirmed kills. At this fine scale, kill sites had less horizontal visibility, were more likely to be in juniper (Juniperus spp.)‐mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius), and were less likely to be in grassland vegetation. For the coarse‐scale analysis of predation risk, we used the entire dataset of kills by buffering each cache site by 94.9 m, which was the 95% upper cut‐off point of the known distances dragged from kill sites to cache sites, thereby creating buffered cache sites that had a high probability of containing the kill site. We modeled seasonal cougar predation site selection by constructing resource selection functions for these buffered cache sites. The top model for summer predation risk consisted of vegetation class, distance to water, and slope. The top model for winter predation risk included vegetation class and elevation. These predation risk models were similar to but simpler than the resource selection models developed from the moving locations. Essentially, the behavioral state (i.e., killing vs. moving) of the cougar had little influence on resource selection, indicating that cougars are generally in hunting mode while moving through their landscape. To potentially reduce cougar predation on mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) in our study area, managers can intersect the cougar predation‐risk resource selection functions with deer and sheep habitat to guide habitat modification efforts aimed at increasing horizontal visibility in risky vegetation classes. © 2016 The Wildlife Society.

Detection dogs, specially trained domestic dogs (Canis familiaris), have become a valuable, noninvasive, conservation tool because they remove the dependence of attracting species to a particular location. Further, detection dogs locate samples independent of appearance, composition, or visibility allowing researchers to collect large sets of unbiased samples that can be used in complex ecological queries. One question not fully addressed is why samples from nontarget species are inadvertently collected during detection dog surveys. While a common explanation has been incomplete handler or dog training, our study aimed to explore alternative explanations. Our trials demonstrate that a scat’s genetic profile can be altered by interactions of nontarget species with target scat via urine-marking, coprophagy, and moving scats with their mouths, all pathways to contamination by nontarget species’ DNA. Because detection dogs are trained to locate odor independent of masking, the collection of samples with a mixed olfactory profile (target and nontarget) is possible. These scats will likely have characteristics of target species’ scats and are therefore only discovered faulty once genetic results indicate a nontarget species. While the collection of nontarget scats will not impact research conclusions so long as samples are DNA tested, we suggest ways to minimize their collection and associated costs.

Understanding predator-prey dynamics is a fundamental principle of ecology and an ideal component for management decisions. Across North America, the impact of cougars (Puma concolor) on their prey varies regionally. To document the relationships between cougars, bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis canadensis), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and feral horses (Equus caballus) on the Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area and the Pryor Mountains, we deployed GPS collars on 6 cougars (the total number residing on the study area), and visited their clusters to determine predation rates and foraging patterns. We examined the composition of cougar kills by species, mule deer sex-age classes, prey size classes, season, and cougar sex. As a measure of selection, we examined the composition of prey killed relative to the composition of ungulates obtained during an aerial survey. We found mule deer were the primary prey, while bighorn sheep constituted secondary prey. While cougars selected for bighorn sheep, this was attributable to a single cougar. Among mule deer, female cougars killed more does and male cougars killed more bucks. Family groups had the highest predation rates (i.e., the shortest time intervals between kills), while adult males had the lowest rate. During the study, cougars were not depredating any feral horses in the area. Maintaining predator and prey numbers will require agencies to monitor and manage all fauna within this complex ecosystem. Habitat manipulations may be necessary to increase populations of deer and bighorn sheep, while continued management of feral horses will be required to reduce competition with native ungulates.