Puma population limitation and regulation: What matters in puma management?

Abstract

Wildlife managers require reliable information on factors that influence animal populations to develop successful management programs, including the puma (Puma concolor), in western North America. As puma populations have recovered in recent decades because of restrictions on human‐caused mortality, managers need a clear understanding of the factors that limit or regulate puma populations and how those factors might be manipulated to achieve management objectives, including sustaining puma and other wildlife populations, providing hunting opportunity, and reducing puma interactions with people. I synthesized technical literature on puma populations, behavior, and relationships with prey that have contributed to hypotheses on puma population limitation and regulation. Current hypotheses on puma population limitation include the social limitation hypothesis and the food limitation hypothesis. Associated with each of those are 2 hypotheses on puma population regulation: the social regulation hypothesis and the competition regulation hypothesis. I organize the biological and ecological attributes of pumas reported in the literature under these hypotheses. I discuss the validity of these hypotheses based on the limits of the research associated with the hypotheses and the evolutionary processes theoretically underlying them. I review the management predictions as framed by these hypotheses as they pertain to puma hunting, puma‐prey relationships, and human‐puma interactions. The food limitation and competition regulation hypotheses explain more phenomena associated with puma and likely would guide more successful management outcomes. © 2019 The Wildlife Society.

Effects of Hunting on a Puma Population in Colorado

“…Moreover, the high finite growth rates of independent pumas on the UPSA, especially during RY4–RY5 and RY5–TY1 (i.e., λ = 1.25 and 1.39, respectively), suggested that if the population continued to be protected from hunting, abundance would likely have increased further. Theoretically, had the non‐hunted puma population been naturally limited by food and regulated by competition, growth would have declined (Logan 2019, Ruth et al 2019). The decline, however, could follow a 4–8‐year time lag (Laundré et al 2007, Pierce et al 2012).…”

“…Theoretically, puma populations are naturally limited by available food and regulated by density‐dependent competition (Pierce et al 2000, Logan and Sweanor 2001, Laundré et al 2007, Logan 2019, Ruth et al 2019). Hunting mortality may perturb these natural processes.…”

Long‐Term Evaluation of Cougar Density and Application of Risk Analysis for Harvest Management

“…We did not directly infer which factors (e.g., weather, prey, harvest levels) affected our density calculations, but our findings, and those of others, suggest that home range size and cougar density may be related to ungulate abundance and distribution (Johansson et al 2018, Stoner et al 2018, Logan 2019). For example, the Okanogan study site had the lowest density and the only primarily migratory mule deer herd (Zeigler 1978), which was the principal prey source of cougars in the area.…”

Reintroduced wolves and hunting limit the abundance of a subordinate apex predator in a multi-use landscape

“…road mortality, conflict management and depredation permits [14]). Like other apex carnivores, theory predicts that the abundance of pumas in areas without human hunting is determined by prey availability [15][16][17]. Pumas, however, are also subordinate to four dominant competitors across their range: grey wolves (Canis lupus), grizzly bears (Ursus arctos), American black bears (U. americanus) and jaguars (Panthera onca) [18].…”