Index of Species Information
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Puma concolor
Introductory
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Puma concolor
AUTHORSHIP AND CITATION :
Tesky, Julie L. 1995. Puma concolor. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online].
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,
Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available:
www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/animals/mammal/puco/all.html [].
ABBREVIATION :
PUCO
SYNONYM :
Felis concolor Linnaeus [12,19]
COMMON NAMES :
mountain lion
cougar
puma
panther
Yuma puma
Florida panther
eastern cougar
Wisconsin puma
Texas panther
TAXONOMY :
The currently accepted scientific name for the mountain lion is Puma
concolor Linnaeus [63]. It is in the family Felidae and subfamily Felinae.
Thirty subspecies are generally recognized worldwide. Thirteen of these
occur in North America north of Mexico [12,19]:
Puma concolor azteca Merriam
Puma concolor browni Merriam (Yuma puma)
Puma concolor californica May
Puma concolor costaricensis (Costa Rican puma)
Puma concolor coryi Bangs (Florida panther)
Puma concolor couguar Kerr (eastern cougar)
Puma concolor hippolestes Merriam
Puma concolor kaibabensis Nelson and Goldman
Puma concolor missoulensis Goldman
Puma concolor olympus Merriam
Puma concolor oregonensis (Rafinesque)
Puma concolor shorgeri Jackson (Wisconsin puma)
Puma concolor stanleyana Goldman (Texas panther)
Puma concolor vancouverensis Nelson and Goldman
ORDER :
Carnivora
CLASS :
Mammal
FEDERAL LEGAL STATUS :
Eastern pumas, Costa Rican pumas, and Florida panthers are listed as
Endangered. In Florida, mountain lion subspecies other than the Florida
panther are listed as Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance [61].
OTHER STATUS :
Information on state-level status of animals in the United States is
available at NatureServe.
WILDLIFE DISTRIBUTION AND OCCURRENCE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Puma concolor
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION :
Mountain lions have the widest distribution of any native mammal in the
western hemisphere [12,56,34]. During presettlement times, mountain
lions ranged from northern British Columbia to southern Chile and
Argentina, and from coast to coast in North America [12]. Although
still covering over 100 degrees latitude from the Straits of Magellan to
the Canadian Yukon Territory and now also Alaska, there has been an
overall reduction in mountain lion distribution. In North America
substantial mountain lion populations occur only in the western United
States and Canada, and these ranges have been reduced from presettlement
times [56]. Isolated populations and incidental sightings have been
reported in the central and eastern United States [10,12]. At present
the only known mountain lion population east of Texas exists in southern
Florida, although a small population may exist in western Arkansas and
eastern Oklahoma [30]. The specific distributions of the North American
subspecies are listed below:
P. c. azteca - Occurs in Arizona, New Mexico, and Mexico [19].
Yuma puma - Yuma pumas live along the lower Colorado River in
California, Arizona, and Mexico [20].
P. c. californica - Occurs in southern Oregon, California, and Nevada
[19].
Florida panther - Historically Florida panthers ranged from the lower
Mississippi River valley east through the southeastern states to the
Florida Everglades. At present the Florida panther is found only south
of Lake Okeechobee, Florida, in four areas: the Fakahatchee Strand; Big
Cypress National Preserve; the southern portion of the Everglades
Conservation Area; and Everglades National Park, from the
Hole-in-the-Donut area north [16,34,53]. In addition to the above
areas, a number of recent, verified reports or specimens have come from
Highlands, Palm Beach, Broward, Martin, Osceola, Volusia, and St. Johns
counties. However, no reproduction has been recorded in these areas
[34]. Only 30 to 50 Florida panthers are believed to exist in the wild
[34,53]. The population of Florida panthers that existed in Everglades
National Park in the mid-1980's is now functionally extinct, with only
one male remaining [3].
Eastern cougar - Historically eastern cougars ranged throughout the
eastern United States from Michigan and Indiana east to the Atlantic
coast, and from southern Canada south to Tennessee and South Carolina.
Today eastern cougars may be extinct. No breeding populations have been
positively identified within the historic range since the 1920's.
Unconfirmed sightings continue to be reported from the mountains of
North Carolina and the Virginias. Tracks and scat were observed in the
Jefferson-George Washington-Monongahela National Forest as recently as
1981, but no positive confirmation was made [53].
P. c. missoulensis and P. c. hippolestes - Historically, P. c.
missoulensis ranged from British Columbia east to Manitoba, and south to
eastern Oregon, Idaho, Montana, northern Wyoming, and northern North
Dakota. P. c. hippolestes ranged from southern Idaho and northern Utah
east to eastern North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and western Kansas
[19]. Hansen [20] stated that both subspecies are now restricted to the
western portion of their historic ranges. However, sightings still
occur in Kansas, the Black Hills of South Dakota, and the Nebraska
panhandle [20].
P. c. kaibabensis - Occurs from southern Oregon south through Nevada,
western Utah, and northern Arizona [19].
P. c. olympus - Occurs in the Olympic Mountains of Washington [12].
P. c. oregonensis - Occurs in southwestern British Columbia, western
Washington, and Oregon [19].
Wisconsin puma - The current distribution of this subspecies was not
described in the available literature.
Texas panther - This subspecies formerly occupied most of Texas and
Oklahoma, but is now restricted to eastern New Mexico and western Texas
[20].
P. c. vancouverensis - Occurs on Vancouver Island, British Columbia
[19].
ECOSYSTEMS :
FRES20 Douglas-fir
FRES21 Ponderosa pine
FRES22 Western white pine
FRES23 Fir-spruce
FRES24 Hemlock-Sitka spruce
FRES25 Larch
FRES26 Lodgepole pine
FRES27 Redwood
FRES28 Western hardwoods
FRES29 Sagebrush
FRES30 Desert shrub
FRES31 Shinnery
FRES32 Texas savanna
FRES33 Southwestern shrubsteppe
FRES34 Chaparral-mountain shrub
FRES35 Pinyon-juniper
FRES37 Mountain meadows
FRES41 Wet grasslands
FRES44 Alpine
STATES :
| AL |
AK |
AZ |
AR |
CA |
CO |
CT |
DE |
FL |
GA |
| ID |
IL |
IA |
KS |
KY |
MD |
MA |
MI |
MN |
MS |
| MO |
MT |
NE |
NV |
NH |
NJ |
NM |
NC |
ND |
OK |
| OR |
PA |
SC |
SD |
TN |
TX |
UT |
VT |
VA |
WA |
| WV |
WI |
WY |
BLM PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS :
1 Northern Pacific Border
2 Cascade Mountains
3 Southern Pacific Border
4 Sierra Mountains
5 Columbia Plateau
6 Upper Basin and Range
7 Lower Basin and Range
8 Northern Rocky Mountains
9 Middle Rocky Mountains
10 Wyoming Basin
11 Southern Rocky Mountains
12 Colorado Plateau
13 Rocky Mountain Piedmont
14 Great Plains
15 Black Hills Uplift
16 Upper Missouri Basin and Broken Lands
KUCHLER PLANT ASSOCIATIONS :
K002 Cedar-hemlock-Douglas-fir forest
K003 Silver fir-Douglas-fir forest
K004 Fir-hemlock forest
K005 Mixed conifer forest
K006 Redwood forest
K008 Lodgepole pine-subalpine forest
K009 Pine-cypress forest
K010 Ponderosa shrub forest
K011 Western ponderosa forest
K012 Douglas-fir forest
K013 Cedar-hemlock-pine forest
K014 Grand fir-Douglas-fir forest
K015 Western spruce-fir forest
K016 Eastern ponderosa forest
K017 Black Hills pine forest
K018 Pine-Douglas-fir forest
K019 Arizona pine forest
K020 Spruce-fir-Douglas-fir forest
K021 Southwestern spruce-fir forest
K022 Great Basin pine forest
K023 Juniper-pinyon woodland
K024 Juniper steppe woodland
K025 Alder-ash forest
K026 Oregon oakwoods
K028 Mosaic of K002 and K026
K027 Mesquite bosque
K029 California mixed evergreen forest
K030 California oakwoods
K031 Oak-juniper woodlands
K032 Transition between K031 and K037
K033 Chaparral
K034 Montane chaparral
K035 Coastal sagebrush
K036 Mosaic of K030 and K035
K038 Great Basin sagebrush
K039 Blackbrush
K040 Saltbush-greasewood
K041 Creosotebush
K042 Creosotebush-bursage
K043 Paloverde-cactus shrub
K044 Creosotebush-tarbush
K049 Tule marshes
K052 Alpine meadows and barren
K055 Sagebrush steppe
K056 Wheatgrass-needlegrass shrubsteppe
K058 Grama-tobosa shrubsteppe
K059 Trans-Pecos shrub savanna
K079 Palmetto prairie
K081 Oak savanna
K092 Everglades
K071 Shinnery
SAF COVER TYPES :
67 Mohrs (shin) oak
201 White spruce
202 White spruce-paper birch
203 Balsam poplar
204 Black spruce
205 Mountain hemlock
206 Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir
207 Red fir
208 Whitebark pine
209 Bristlecone pine
210 Interior Douglas-fir
211 White fir
212 Western larch
213 Grand fir
215 Western white pine
216 Blue spruce
217 Aspen
218 Lodgepole pine
219 Limber pine
220 Rocky Mountain juniper
221 Red alder
222 Black cottonwood-willow
223 Sitka spruce
224 Western hemlock
225 Western hemlock-Sitka spruce
226 Coastal true fir-hemlock
227 Western redcedar-western hemlock
228 Western redcedar
229 Pacific Douglas-fir
230 Douglas-fir-western hemlock
231 Port-Orford-cedar
233 Oregon white oak
234 Douglas-fir-tanoak-Pacific madrone
235 Cottonwood-willow
236 Bur oak
237 Interior ponderosa pine
238 Western juniper
239 Pinyon-juniper
240 Arizona cypress
241 Western live oak
243 Sierra Nevada mixed conifer
244 Pacific ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir
245 Pacific ponderosa pine
246 California black oak
247 Jeffrey pine
248 Knobcone pine
249 Canyon live oak
250 Blue oak-foothills pine
251 White spruce-aspen
252 Paper birch
253 Black spruce-white spruce
254 Black spruce-paper birch
255 California coast live oak
256 California mixed subalpine
SRM (RANGELAND) COVER TYPES :
104 Antelope bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
105 Antelope bitterbrush-Idaho fescue
107 Western juniper/big sagebrush/bluebunch wheatgrass
108 Alpine Idaho fescue
109 Ponderosa pine shrubland
110 Ponderosa pine-grassland
201 Blue oak woodland
202 Coast live oak woodland
203 Riparian woodland
204 North coastal shrub
205 Coastal sage shrub
206 Chamise chaparral
207 Scrub oak mixed chaparral
208 Ceanothus mixed chaparral
209 Montane shrubland
210 Bitterbrush
212 Blackbush
213 Alpine grassland
216 Montane meadows
217 Wetlands
314 Big sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
315 Big sagebrush-Idaho fescue
316 Big sagebrush-rough fescue
317 Bitterbrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
318 Bitterbrush-Idaho fescue
319 Bitterbrush-rough fescue
320 Black sagebrush-bluebunch wheatgrass
321 Black sagebrush-Idaho fescue
322 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany-bluebunch wheatgrass
401 Basin big sagebrush
402 Mountain big sagebrush
403 Wyoming big sagebrush
404 Threetip sagebrush
405 Black sagebrush
406 Low sagebrush
407 Stiff sagebrush
408 Other sagebrush types
409 Tall forb
411 Aspen woodland
413 Gambel oak
415 Curlleaf mountain-mahogany
416 True mountain-mahogany
417 Littleleaf mountain-mahogany
418 Bigtooth maple
419 Bittercherry
420 Snowbrush
421 Chokecherry-serviceberry-rose
422 Riparian
502 Grama-galleta
203 Riparian woodland
503 Arizona chaparral
504 Juniper-pinyon pine woodland
505 Grama-tobosa shrub
509 Transition between oak-juniper woodland and mahogany-oak association
612 Sagebrush-grass
730 Sand shinnery oak
733 Juniper-oak
735 Sideoats grama-sumac-juniper
818 Florida salt marsh
819 Freshwater marsh and ponds
822 Slough
PLANT COMMUNITIES :
Mountain lions occupy a wide variety of plant communities. They are
found in montane coniferous forests, lowland tropical forests, swamps,
grasslands, dry brushlands, and any other area with adequate cover and
prey [16,20,31,46,56]. Typical mountain lion habitat in western North
America is open woodland such as oak (Quercus spp.) scrub, pinyon (Pinus
spp.), juniper (Juniperus spp.), curlleaf mountain-mahogany (Cercocarpus
ledifolius), snowbrush ceanothus (Ceanothus velutinus), and manzanita
(Arctostaphylos spp.) communities [56].
Logan and Irwin [31] investigated habitat use by mountain lions in the
Bighorn Mountains, Wyoming, and found that mixed conifer and curlleaf
mountain-mahogany communities were preferred. In southern Utah mountain
lion habitat consists of desert shrub and sagebrush (Artemisia
spp.)-grassland communities at lower elevations (4,445 to 5,940 feet
[1,330-1,780 m]). Mountain lions also occupy pinyon-juniper woodlands,
Gambel oak (Q. gambelii) scrub, open ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)
forests which dominate at mid-elevations (5,940 to 8,910 feet
[1,780-2,670 m]) [20,46], and higher elevation stands of quaking aspen
(Populus tremuloides), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), or white
fir (Abies concolor) interspersed with subalpine meadows. Mountain
lions also inhabit deep, rocky, vertical-walled river canyons containing
riparian vegetation including Fremont cottonwood (P. fremontii) and
willows (Salix spp.) [46].
In the Idaho Primitive Area, mountain lion habitat consists of Engelmann
spruce-subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa) and ponderosa pine-Douglas-fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii) associations at higher elevations. At lower
elevations mountain lions inhabit curlleaf mountain-mahogany, antelope
bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), and big sagebrush (A.
tridentata)-bunchgrass associations [46].
In California mountain lions occur primarily between 1,980 and 5,940
feet (590-1,780 m) in mixed conifer and brush habitats. Mountain lions
are rare at higher elevations in pure stands of conifers and at lower
elevations in pure stands of chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) [46]. In
New Mexico mountain lions commonly occur in pinyon-juniper plant
communities [25].
Florida panthers inhabit most types of vegetation in southern Florida
including tropical hammocks, pine flatwoods, cabbage palmetto (Sabal
palmetto), mixed swamps, baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) swamps, live
oak (Q. virginiana) hammocks, sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense) marshes, and
Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolia) thickets [4,14,28,34].
Belden and others [4] found that Florida panthers used mixed swamp
forests and hammock forests more than expected based on the availability
of these habitats within their home range. Day-use sites typically are
dense patches of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) surrounded by swamp, pine
flatwoods, or hammocks. Open agricultural lands are common around most
publicly owned land in southern Florida and receive some use by Florida
panthers if cover nearby is adequate [14,34].
BIOLOGICAL DATA AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Puma concolor
TIMING OF MAJOR LIFE HISTORY EVENTS :
Breeding season - Mountain lions are polygamous. They are capable of
breeding throughout the year, and successful litters can be produced any
month of the year [56]. However, there is generally a peak in litter
production during the summer [1,56]. The estrous cycle lasts
approximately 23 days, with estrus usually lasting 8 days. However,
periods of estrus lasting up to 11 days have been reported [56].
Mountain lions are generally solitary except during the breeding season
and when the female is raising young [10].
The breeding season of Florida panthers starts in October and continues
through April, with the majority of conceptions occurring from November
to March. Over half of the births occurring during the period form
April through August [3].
Age at sexual maturity - Mountain lions first breed when they are 2 to 3
years old [10,56,51]. Females born during the summer generally first
breed during the winter following their second birthday [20,56].
Females usually do not breed until they have established a home range
[20]. The earliest published instance of first reproduction in the
Florida panther was an 18- to 19-month-old female that raised four
kittens in her mother's home range. Male Florida panthers appear to
reach sexual maturity after 3 years of age [3].
Gestation and litter size - Following a gestation period of 82 to 98
days (90-98 days for Florida panthers), a litter of one to six young is
produced, with a mean of 2.67 [1,3,10,20,30]. Florida panther litter
sizes range from one to four kittens [3]. Female mountain lions may
produce only one kitten in their first litter [30]. A litter may be
produced every year under "optimal conditions" [56], but usually one
litter is produced every other year or at 3-year intervals [3,56]. If
the female loses her kittens to predators or other circumstances, she
may breed again soon after the loss [20].
Growth of young - Kittens begin nursing within minutes after birth and
gain weight rapidly. Males usually grow faster than females. At 2
weeks of age, eyes and ears are open, and kittens are able to walk. In
10 to 20 days kittens may weigh over 2 pounds. The female leads kittens
to kills when they are 7 to 8 weeks old [20]. The kittens are weaned
when they are 2 to 3 months old. Kittens can survive on their own at 6
months of age, but they typically remain with their mother until they
are 1 to 2 years old [1,20,30,56]. Siblings sometimes disperse as a
group and may remain together for 3 months or longer [37].
Longevity - The maximum longevity of wild mountain lions is unknown.
Once established on home ranges, mountain lions may live 12 to 13 years
[12,37]. There is evidence of a 15- to 18-year life span in the wild
for Florida panthers, but 8 to 12 years is considered old [3]. Three
captive male mountain lions lived at least 12, 15, and 18 years, and one
female lived at least 10 years. A 9-year average and a 20-year maximum
lifespan have been reported for captive mountain lions [1,12].
PREFERRED HABITAT :
Mountain lion habitat is essentially the same as that of their primary
prey. Within this habitat, mountain lions tend to prefer rocky cliffs,
ledges, vegetated ridgetops, or other areas that provide cover for
undetected surveillance of prey [46,56]. Stream courses and ridgetops
are frequently used as travel corridors and hunting routes. Riparian
vegetation along streams provides cover for mountain lions traveling in
open areas [46].
Florida panthers generally inhabit ecotones and subtropical, dense
forests in low-lying swampy areas composed mainly of trees, shrubs, and
vines. They also occur in pine forests [20,53]. In Everglades National
Park, edge habitat provides good forage and cover for white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), which in turn may attract Florida panthers
[20].
In the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, Idaho, mountain lions
preferred steep, rocky areas covered with "dense" Douglas-fir and
ponderosa pine mixed with sagebrush and grassland. Mountain lions
avoided crossing large open areas with sparse cover, preferring to
travel around perimeters [20,43]. In the Bighorn Mountains of northern
Wyoming, mountain lions frequented canyons with steep, rugged slopes (>
45 deg). Areas with gentle slopes (< 20 deg) were generally avoided
[31].
Den sites - In rough terrain mountain lion dens are usually located in a
shallow nook on the face of a cliff or rock outcrop. In less
mountainous areas dens are located in dense thickets or under fallen
logs. Little bedding is used in dens. Females may use the same den for
several years [56]. A radio-collared female Florida panther chose the
same large sawpalmetto thicket surrounded by hammock and freshwater
marsh for her den in 1986 and 1988 [34].
Home range - The home range consists of a first-order home area, used
primarily for resting, and a much larger area used for hunting [56].
Home ranges are maintained by resident mountain lions but not transient
mountain lions [56]. Mountain lions are capable of covering large
distances in short periods of time [30].
Home range size varies by sex and age of the mountain lion, season, and
spatial distribution and density of prey [20,30,43,56]. Home ranges as
large as 196 square miles (510 sq. km) and as small as 25 square miles
(65 sq. km) have been reported. Resident male mountain lion home ranges
are typically larger than those of females and overlap a number of
female home ranges, but only occasionally overlap those of other
resident males. Mean home range for resident male Florida panthers is
between 168 and 196 square miles (437-510 sq. km); for resident females
it is between 68 and 74 square miles (177-192 sq. km) [34]. Home ranges
of resident females commonly overlap, but females avoid each other in
the areas of overlap [20,30,56]. Female mountain lions probably select
areas with relatively high prey densities. Male home ranges may reflect
the density and distribution of females [34].
Mountain lions move from summer range to winter range in areas where
their main prey congregates during the winter [10,30,37]. The smallest
documented home ranges appear to occur in areas where deer (Odocoileus
spp.) do not exhibit seasonal movements [30]. Seasonal and sex
differences in home range size were reported by Seidensticker and others
[43] on the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness.
COVER REQUIREMENTS :
Stalking cover - The best stalking cover for mountain lions is thick
enough for mountain lions to remain hidden, and sparse enough for them
to see their prey [20]. Mountain lions commonly use terrain such as
steep canyons, rock outcroppings, and boulders, or vegetation such as
dense brush and thickets to remain hidden while stalking [3,20].
Protective cover - Dense vegetation or piles of boulders are often
selected as den sites to help protect kittens from harsh weather and
predators [20,32].
FOOD HABITS :
In North America mountain lions feed primarily on large ungulate
species. Small mammals are also eaten depending on local abundance
[10,20,34,56]. Occasionally, grass and carrion are eaten [1]. The main
prey seems to be a function of abundance [10,12]. Composition of the
diet may shift seasonally, reflecting the adundance and availability of
small prey and the dispersion of large prey such as deer and elk (Cervus
elaphus) [30].
Deer dominate the diet of mountain lions in most areas [30]. In the
western United States, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are the major
prey species. Other prey species include white-tailed deer, elk, moose
(Alces alces), bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), porcupines (Erthizon
dorsatum), American beavers (Castor canadensis), snowshoe hares (Lepus
californicus), ground squirrels (Citellus spp.), marmots (Marmota spp.),
smaller rodents (Rodentia), other carnivores, and domestic livestock
[9,30]. Porcupines are a preferred food item wherever they occur in
mountain lion range [56]. In most temperate regions, small mammals
represent a minor part of the diet and probably are taken
opportunistically.
In British Columbia moose comprised a large portion of diet of mountain
lions, as did snowshoe hares during a peak snowshoe hare population
[56]. In the Cascade Range of Oregon, black-tailed deer (Odocoileus
hemionus columbianus) were the most important prey item in the mountain
lion diet. Domestic sheep (Ovis aries), porcupines, and a variety of
small mammals were also recorded [48]. In the southwestern United
States, collared peccary (Pecari angulatus) can be an important part of
the mountain lion diet [56].
In Florida, Florida panthers commonly prey on feral pigs (Sus scrofa),
raccoons (Procyon lotor), and nine-banded armadillos (Dasypus
novemcinctus) in addition to white-tailed deer [16,32,34]. In
southwestern Florida from 1977 through 1989, 270 scat samples indicated
that feral pigs were the most common prey species followed by
white-tailed deer, raccoons, and armadillos [32]. The most important
food items, based on contents of six Florida panther stomachs, were
armadillos and white-tailed deer. All of the stomachs also contained 3
to 8 grams of grass. Another study in southern Florida found
white-tailed deer in 46 percent of Florida panther scat, rabbits
(Sylvilagus spp.) in 31 percent, cotton rats (Sigmodon hispidus) in 20
percent, feral pigs in 15 percent, raccoons in 11 percent, armadillos in
7 percent, and birds (Aves) in 3 percent [5].
PREDATORS :
Biologists working near the North Fork of the Flathead River, Montana,
have reported gray wolves (Canis lupus) killing mountain lions as well
as driving them from prey [37]. Adult male mountain lions are known to
kill mountain lion kittens and sometimes eat them [12,30,56]. Adult
female mountain lions are occasionally killed by other mountain lions
[30].
MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS :
Hunting - One of the largest causes of mountain lion mortality is
hunting [56]. Currently almost all states and provinces that support
viable mountain lion populations provide sport hunting opportunities.
Season lengths range from 1 month to year-round and often vary within a
jurisdiction [30]. Most states allow hunters to kill only one mountain
lion per season, with the exception of Texas, which places no limit on
the number of mountain lions a hunter can take [20]. In California
mountain lion hunting has been banned since 1990 [37].
Accidents - Road-killed mountain lions comprise the largest number of
accidental deaths [12,20,56]. Collisions with motor vehicles are the
primary cause of death of Florida panthers. From 1979 to 1991, almost
50 percent of the documented mortalities of Florida panthers were
road-kills [20]. Drownings in drainage canals in California have been
reported [12,56].
Habitat loss - Loss of habitat is probably the greatest threat to
mountain lion populations. Not only are large tracts of habitat
necessary to maintain individual populations of mountain lions, but
corridors that connect these tracts are required for dispersal of
mountain lions between populations. Any permanent loss of habitat,
especially deer and elk winter range in the West and white-tailed deer
and feral pig habitat in Florida, may cause a reduction in the mountain
lion population [20,34,56]. Habitat acquisition, enhancement,
restoration, and protection are fundamental to survival of all mountain
lion subspecies [20]. Specific recommendations for managing mountain
lion habitat in North America have been described by Hansen [20].
The long-term survival of mountain lions depends in part on the
availability of large tracts of roadless habitats [21]. Roads increase
human access to mountain lion habitat, thus increasing mountain lion
vulnerability to hunters. Mountain lions tend to avoid roaded areas.
In Arizona mountain lions crossed hard-surfaced roads and maintained
dirt roads less frequently than smaller dirt roads, suggesting that they
may select against areas with maintained roads [50].
Areas that are disturbed by habitat alteration associated with human
activities or by permanent human presence appear to be less acceptable
to mountain lions than undisturbed areas. Mountain lion reactions to
logging and other human activities were studied in northern Arizona from
1976 to 1980 and in south-central Utah from 1979 to 1982. Resident
males on both study areas generally inhabited areas that were relatively
free of human disturbance. They were rarely found in or near (within 1
km) sites that had been logged within the past 6 years [50].
Development related to oil exploration has been extensive in occupied
Florida panther habitat. The construction of roads, pads, and
associated petroleum production activities has changed some areas, but
the effects on Florida panthers are difficult to measure [34].
Florida panthers are found only in one small part of its original
range. Its decline has resulted primarily from habitat lost to
expanding urbanization and agriculture. Continued habitat loss and
fragmentation may cause extinction of this subspecies. However, where
pasture or vegetable crops exist in a mosaic of forest cover, Florida
panthers may persist. Interspersion of forested and early successional
habitats seems to benefit Florida panther prey [34].
Intensive efforts to protect Florida panther habitat on private lands
are essential for its survival. About half of the presently known
Florida panther range in southern Florida occurs on private lands where
agricultural and urban development are increasing rapidly [33]. Acreage
devoted to citrus production in prime Florida panther habitat has
increased by approximately 400 percent in Collier and Hendry counties
during the last 20 years. The human population in Collier County was
the fastest growing in the nation in 1992 [34].
Another threat to the survival of Florida panthers is low genetic
diversity which has resulted in reproductive disorders within the
population. Abnormal sperm comprised over 94 percent of the total sperm
count in the semen analysis of six Florida panthers [22]. Genetic
studies are continuing to address specific questions regarding the
long-term reproductive viabiltiy of remaining populations and the
feasibility for enhancement of their survivability through selective
introduciton of genetic material from Texas panthers [6].
A progam to reintroduce Florida panthers into "suitable" habitat in
Florida is underway. A captive male Florida panther and three female
Texas panthers are being breed in initial breeding trials. Any
offspring produced between these two subspecies will be sterilized and
released into suitable unoccupied habitat in Florida as "surrogates" to
determine the survivability of captive-bred mountain lions [6,22].
After a 1-year evaluation of the surrogate groups' response to their
habitat as well as the public's response to their presence, these
mountain lions will be removed from the wild. Pure Florida panthers
will then be released into these areas if, based upon the results of the
surrogates study, it appears feasible [22].
Depredations by mountain lions - Mountain lions sometimes kill livestock
and are hunted to prevent further depredations [30,56]. Cattle losses
are most common in southwestern states. Sheep losses may occur in any
area occupied by mountain lions [30]. Evidence suggests that predation
on livestock is opportunistic rather than habitual. None of the
mountain lions captured and released following depredations in
California were involved in further incidents of depredation [56].
FIRE EFFECTS AND USE
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Puma concolor
DIRECT FIRE EFFECTS ON ANIMALS :
Information was not found in the literature regarding direct effects of
fire on mountain lions. Kittens are probably most vulnerable to fire.
The activities of eight radio-tagged mountain lions were monitored
during and after the 1988 fire season in Yellowstone National Park.
Movement patterns of five adults and two kittens suggested that they
avoided areas with fires in progress, but used them afterward where prey
numbers and cover were not greatly reduced [38].
HABITAT RELATED FIRE EFFECTS :
Mountain lion habitat can be enhanced or expanded by fires that improve
habitat for prey species [42,54]. Preferred forage for deer is
generally more productive and easily accessible following fire.
Frequent fire over large areas maintains many stands in a successional
stage favorable to deer. Deer populations commonly increase
dramatically following forest fire, provided 40 percent or more escape
cover remains after the burn [54]. Mountain lion numbers increased
after fire in a western redcedar (Thuja plicata)-western hemlock (Tsuga
heteropylla) forest in British Columbia. This increase may have been
related to an increase in mule deer populations. Mountain lions became
so common that one hunter killed 18 during one season where a few years
previous it was unusual to even see mountain lion tracks [13]. In
California chaparral communities, mountain lions are attracted to the
edges of recent burns where deer tend to congregate [29].
During the late 1940's and early 1950's, logging and wildfires in the
pines and cypress of Florida provided ideal habitat for white-tailed
deer, and their numbers increased until the forest canopy began closing
over in the mid-1960's. Florida panther populations also increased
during this period [20].
Mountain lions may change their home range in response to fire. The
activities of eight radio-tagged mountain lions were monitored during
and after the 1988 fire season in Yellowstone National Park. After the
fire season, two adult mountain lions and two kittens showed pronounced
changes in their home ranges. A comparison of home ranges of three
adult mountain lions from winter 1987 through 1989 showed that each
individual is presently using a different area. The changes may have
been due to fire; however, differences in snow accumulations,
temperature, drought, and distribution of prey animals could also
account for the new patterns. Eleven percent of the radio-locations of
the eight radio-tagged mountion lions have occurred in burned habitat.
Eleven percent of the mountain lion prey has been captured in burned
areas [38].
For more information concerning fire effects on species of mountain lion
prey (i.e., mule deer, elk, white-tailed deer, and moose) refer to
write-ups on these species in the Fire Effects Information System.
FIRE USE :
Prescribed burning programs designed to improve habitat for large
ungulates such as deer and elk also benefit mountain lions. Prescribed
fires to improve winter range for mule and white-tailed deer have been
conducted in the Southern East Kootenay Strategic Plan Area, British
Columbia, in recent years [47].
Prescribed fire is currently being used in Florida panther habitat for
fuel reductions to prevent catastrophic wildfires. To provide maximum
benefits for deer and other important Florida panther prey species,
prescribed fires should be conducted on a 2- to 5-year rotation,
depending upon fuel type and site conditions. Burn areas should be less
than 6,177 acres (2,500 ha); annual partial fires or fires every 2 to 5
years should be used when possible to increase habitat heterogeneity
[42].
FIRE REGIMES :
Find fire regime information for the plant communities in which this
species may occur by entering the species name in the FEIS home page under
"Find Fire Regimes".
REFERENCES
WILDLIFE SPECIES: Puma concolor
REFERENCES :
1. Anderson, Allen E. 1983. A critical review of literature on puma (Felis
concolor). Special Report No. 54. Project No.: CO W-126-4; Co W-144-R.
Fort Collins, CO: Colorado Division of Wildlife. 91 p. [24576]
2. Ashman, Darrol L.; Christensen, G.; Hess, M. L.; [and others]. 1983. The
mountain lion in Nevada. Final Report. Project No. NV W-048-15/Job
OS/Study S&T 1; NV W-048-15/Job 01/Study R-V. Reno, NV: Nevada
Department of Wildlife. 83 p. [24578]
3. Belden, Robert C. 1988. The Florida panther. In: Audubon Wildlife
Report: 515-532. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Intermountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory,
Missoula, MT. [24557]
4. Belden, Robert C.; Frankenberger, William B.; McBride, Roy T.;
Schwikert, Stephen T. 1988. Panther habitat use in southern Florida.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 52(4): 660-663. [24564]
5. Belden, Robert C. 1986. Florida panther recovery plan implementation--a
1983 progress report. In: Miller, S. Douglas; Everett, Daniel D., eds.
Cats of the world: biology, conservation and management. [Place of
publication unknown]: [Publisher unknown]: 159-172. [24571]
6. Belden, Robert C.; Hines, Thomas C.; Logan, Thomas H. 1987. Florida
panther re-establishment: A discussion of the issues. Wildlife
rehabilitation: Proceedings of the National Wildlife Rehabilitation
Association 1987 symposium. 6: 115-123. [24566]
7. Bendell, J. F. 1974. Effects of fire on birds and mammals. In:
Kozlowski, T. T.; Ahlgren, C. E., eds. Fire and ecosystems. New York:
Academic Press: 73-138. [16447]
8. Bernard, Stephen R.; Brown, Kenneth F. 1977. Distribution of mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians by BLM physiographic regions and A.W. Kuchler's
associations for the eleven western states. Tech. Note 301. Denver, CO:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 169 p.
[434]
9. Boyd, Diane; O'Gara, Bart. 1985. Cougar predation on coyotes. Murrelet.
66: 17-19. [24563]
10. Clark, Tim W.; Harvey, Ann H.; Dorn, Robert D.; [and others], eds. 1989.
Rare, sensitive, and threatened species of the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Jackson, WY: Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative,
Montana Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, Mountain West
Environmental Services. 153 p. [16007]
12. Currier, Mary Jean P. 1983. Felis concolor. Mammalian Species No. 200:
1-7. [24559]
13. Edwards, R. Y. 1954. Fire and the decline of a mountain caribou herd.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 18(4): 521-526. [8394]
14. Ewel, Katherine C. 1990. Swamps. In: Myers, Ronald L.; Ewel, John J.,
eds. Ecosystems of Florida. Orlando, FL: University of Central Florida
Press: 281-322. [17392]
15. Eyre, F. H., ed. 1980. Forest cover types of the United States and
Canada. Washington, DC: Society of American Foresters. 148 p. [905]
16. Florida Panther Interagency Committee. 1987. Florida panther (Felis
concolor coryi). Revised Recovery Plan. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 75 p. [24575]
17. Garrison, George A.; Bjugstad, Ardell J.; Duncan, Don A.; [and others].
1977. Vegetation and environmental features of forest and range
ecosystems. Agric. Handb. 475. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. 68 p. [998]
18. Genoways, Hugh H.; Baker, Robert J.; Cornely, John E. 1979. Mammals of
the Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Texas. In: Genoways, Hugh H.;
Baker, Robert J., eds. Biological investigations in the Guadalupe
Mountains National Park: Proceedings of a symposium; 1975 April 4-5;
Lubbock, TX. Proceedings and Transactions Series No. 4. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 271-332.
[16022]
19. Hall, E. Raymond. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2nd ed. Vol. 2.
New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1271 p. [14765]
20. Hansen, Kevin. 1992. Cougar: the American lion. Flagstaff, AZ: Northland
Publishing. 129 p. [24577]
21. Harris, Charles E. 1992. Species management plan 1991-1995: Mountain
lion. Idaho Wildlife. 12(2): 17-20. [20010]
22. Hines, Tommy C.; Belden, Robert C.; Roelke, Melody E. 1987. An overview
of panther research and management in Florida. In: Proceedings, 3rd
southeastern nongame and endangered wildlife symposium; 1987 August
8-10; Athens, GA. [Place of publication unknown]. [Publisher unknown].
140-147. [24567]
23. Hornocker, Maurice G. 1969. Winter territoriality in mountain lions.
Journal of Wildlife Management. 33(3): 457-464. [24612]
24. Hornocker, M. G. 1970. An analysis of mountain lion predation upon mule
deer and elk in the Idaho Primitive Area. Wildlife Monograph No. 21. 39
p. [17924]
25. Howard, Volney W., Jr. 1988. Importance of pinyon-juniper woodlands to
wildlife. In: Fisher, James T.; Mexal, John G.; Pieper, Rex D., tech.
coords. Pinyon-juniper woodlands of New Mexico: a biological and
economic appraisal. Special Report 73. Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State
University, College of Agriculture and Home Economics, Agricultural
Experiment Station: 45-47. [5775]
26. Jalkotzy, M.; Ross, I.; Gunson, J. R., compilers. 1992. Management plan
for cougars in Alberta. Wildlife Management Planning Series: No. 5.
Edmonton, AB: Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife Division.
91 p. [21293]
27. Kuchler, A. W. 1964. Manual to accompany the map of potential vegetation
of the conterminous United States. Special Publication No. 36. New York:
American Geographical Society. 77 p. [1384]
28. Kushlan, James A. 1990. Freshwater marshes. In: Myers, Ronald L.; Ewel,
John J., eds. Ecosystems of Florida. Orlando, FL: University of Central
Florida Press: 324-363. [17393]
29. Quinn, Ronald D. 1990. Habitat preferences and distribution of mammals
in California chaparral. Res. Pap. PSW-202. Berkeley, CA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research
Station. 11 p. [15761]
30. Lindzey, Frederick. 1987. Mountain lion. In: Novak, Milan; Baker, James
A.; Obbard, Martyn E.; Malloch, Bruce, eds. Wild furbearer management
and conservation in North America. North Bay, ON: Ontario Trappers
Association: 656-668. [24560]
31. Logan, Kenneth A.; Irwin, Larry L. 1985. Mountain lion habitats in the
Big Horn Mountains, Wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 13: 257-262.
[4526]
32. Maehr, D. S. 1990. Florida panther research: Florida panther recovery
plan implementation: Florida panther movements, social organization and
habitat utilization. Final performance report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. 165 p. [24574]
33. Maehr, David S. 1990. The Florida panther and private lands.
Conservation Biology. 4(2): 167-170. [24570]
34. Maehr, David S. 1992. Florida panther: Felis concolor coryi. In:
Humphrey, Stephen R., ed. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Mammals:
Volume 1. Naples, FL: Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission:
176-189. [21069]
35. Maehr, David S.; Belden, Robert C.; Land, E. Darrell; Wilkins, Laurie.
1990. Food habits of panthers in southwest Florida. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 54(3): 420-423. [24565]
36. Mansfield, Terry M.; Weaver, Richard A. 1989. The status of mountain
lions in California. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife
Society. 25: 72-76. [24558]
37. McCarthy, John; Williams, Jim. 1995. Cougar. Montana Outdoors. 26(2):
24-28. [24573]
38. Mills, Susan M., editor. 1989. The Greater Yellowstone postfire
assessment. [Denver, CO]: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Northern Region. [Pages unknown]. In cooperation with: U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Grand Teton and
Yellowstone National Parks. [24521]
39. Ockenfels, Richard A. 1994. Mountain lion predation on pronghorn in
central Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist. 39(3): 305-306. [24572]
40. Reynolds, Hudson G.; Johnson, R. Roy. 1964. Habitat relations of
vertebrates of the Sierra Ancha Experimental Forest. Res. Pap. RM-4.
Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 16 p. [13485]
41. Roelke, Melody E.; Schultz, Donald P.; Facemire, Charles F.; Sundlof,
Stephen F. 1991. Mercury contamination in the free-ranging Florida
panther. Proceedings, American Association of Zoo Veterinarians. [Volume
unknown]: 277-283. [24569]
42. Schortemeyer, James L.; Maehr, David S.; McCown, J. Walter; [and
others]. 1991. Prey management for the Florida panther: a unique role
for wildlife managers. Transactions, 56th North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference. 56: 512-526. [24568]
43. Seidensticker, J. C., IV; Hornocker, M. G.; Wiles, W. V.; Messick, J. P.
1973. Mountain lion social organization in the Idaho Primitive Area.
Wildlife Monograph No. 35. 66 p. [17589]
44. Shaw, Harley G.; Woolsey, Norman G.; Wegge, James R.; Day, Ronald L.,
Jr. 1988. Factors affecting mountain lion densities and cattle
depredation in Arizona. Final Report: Federal Aid in Wildlife
Restoration Project W-78-R. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Game and Fish
Department, Research Branch. 16 p. [24561]
45. Shiflet, Thomas N., ed. 1994. Rangeland cover types of the United
States. Denver, CO: Society for Range Management. 152 p. [23362]
46. Spowart, Richard A.; Samson, Fred B. 1986. Carnivores. In: Cooperrider,
Allan Y.; Boyd, Raymond J.; Stuart, Hanson R., eds. Inventory and
monitoring of wildlife habitat. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Service Center: 475-496. [13526]
47. Tipper, Gary K. 1988. Prescribed burning for wildlife in the southern
East Kootenay. In: Feller, M. C.; Thomson, S. M., eds. Wildlife and
range prescribed burning workshop proceedings; 1987 October 27-28;
Richmond, BC. Vancouver, BC: The University of British Columbia, Faculty
of Forestry: 61-69. [3100]
48. Toweill, Dale E.; Maser, Chris. 1985. Food of cougars in the Cascade
Range of Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist. 45(1): 77-80. [24562]
49. Van Dyke, Fred; Brocke, Rainer H.; Shaw, Harley G. 1986. Use of road
track counts as indices of mountain lion presence. Journal of Wildlife
Management. 50(1): 102-109. [24611]
50. Van Dyke, Fred G.; Brocke, Rainer H.; Shaw, Harley G.; [and others].
1986. Reactions of mountain lions to logging and human activity. Journal
of Wildlife Management. 50(1): 95-102. [20014]
51. Van Gelden, Richard George. 1982. Mammals of the National Parks.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 310 p. [20893]
52. Verner, Jared; Boss, Allan S., tech. coords. 1980. California wildlife
and their habitats: western Sierra Nevada. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-37.
Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 439 p. [10237]
53. Lowe, David W.; Matthews, John R.; Moseley, Charles J. 1990. The
official World Wildlife Fund guide to endangered species of North
America. Volume 1. Plants: Mammals. Washington, DC: Beacham Publishing,
Inc. 556 p. [+ appendices]. [23209]
54. Wright, Henry A.; Bailey, Arthur W. 1982. Fire ecology: United States
and southern Canada. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 501 p. [2620]
55. The Network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers
and The Nature Conservancy. 1994. Element distribution - North America,
vertebrates. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy, Central Conservation
Databases. 31 p. [23374]
56. Chapman, Joseph A.; Feldhamer, George A., eds. 1982. Wild mammals of
North America. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 1147
p. [21085]
57. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994.
Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. 50 CFR 17.11 & 17.12.
Washington, DC: [Publisher unknown]. 42 p. [24413]
58. Roelke, Melody E.; Glass, Carolynn M. 1992. Strategies for the
management of the endangered Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi) in
an ever shrinking habitat. In: Proceedings, American Association of Zoo
Veterinarians/American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians: 38-44.
[25335]
59. Wood, Don A., compiler. 1994. Official lists of endangered & potentially
endangered fauna and flora in Florida. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Game and
Fresh Water Fish Commission. 22 p. [24196]
60. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. 1994. Fragile legacy:
Endangered, threatened and rare animals of South Dakota. Pierre, SD:
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, Wildlife Division. 55
p. [24341]
61. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016.
Endangered Species Program, [Online]. Available: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/.
[86564]
62. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 1992. Canadian
species at risk. Ottawa, ON. 10 p. [26183]
63. Baker, Robert J.; Bradley, Lisa C.; Bradley, Robert D.; Dragoo, Jerry W.;
Engstrom, Mark D.; Hoffmann, Robert S.; Jones, Cheri A.; Reid, Fiona; Rice,
Dale W.; Jones, Clyde. 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north
of Mexico, 2003. Occasional Papers No. 229. Lubbock, TX: Museum of Texas Tech
University. 23 p. [50946]
FEIS Home Page
https://www.fs.usda.gov/database/feis/animals/mammal/puco/all.html
