Understanding Human-Mountain Lion

Management Strategies Using PCI

Jerry J. Vaske

Rebecca Howe

Michael J. Manfredo

Colorado State UniversityFort Collins, CO

Context

• Conflicts with mountain lions increasing

– Mountain lion populations increasing

– Human development intruding into lion habitat

– Lions feeding closer to residential areas

– Management actions scrutinized in popular presswhen a human is injured or killed

• Important to evaluate attitudes to mountain lionsand acceptability of alternative mgmt. actions

Hypotheses

H1: As severity of human–lion interactions increases,

acceptability of destroying a lion increases

H2: As severity of the human–lion interactions increases,

consensus regarding destroying a lion decreases

Hypotheses

H3: Individuals with positive attitudes toward lions will be less accepting of destroying them regardless of severity of human–lion interaction

H4: Individuals with negative attitudes toward lions will have more consensus toward destroying them as severity of human–lion interaction increases

Methods

• Mailed survey (3 mailings)

• n = 2,668

• Two random sample populations– Denver metro area (response rate = 50%)

– Denver foothills (response rate = 67%)

• Non-response phone interviewNo statistically significant difference

Independent VariableAttitude toward Mountain Lions

• Overall, what are your feelings toward mountain lions?

– Beneficial or Harmful

– Good or Bad

– Positive or Negative

• Example response scale

Extremely Negative

Moderately Negative

Slightly Negative Neutral

Slightly Positive

Moderately Positive

Extremely Positive

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Reliability Results – Attitude Index

Mean

Corrected Item-Total Correlation

Cronbach Alpha if Item

DeletedCronbach

Alpha

Overall Reliability .835

Positive – Negative 1.65 .646 .818

Good – Bad 1.84 .748 .739

Beneficial – Harmful 1.59 .713 .751

Attitude Breakdown

Attitude Toward Mountain Lions

Number of Respondents

Percent

Positive 2026 77

Neutral 515 19

Negative 110 4

Total 2651 100

Management Action Highly Unacceptable Unacceptable

SomewhatUnacceptable Neither

Somewhat Acceptable Acceptable

Highly Acceptable

Monitor the situation -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Frighten the lion away -3 -2 -2 0 1 2 3

Capture and relocate the lion -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Destroy the lion -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Example scenario:Someone reports seeing a lion in your residential area

Given this scenario, how unacceptable or acceptable would it be for wildlife agencies to take each of the following actions.

Dependent VariablesEvaluations of 4 Scenarios

Dependent VariablesEvaluations of 4 Scenarios

Situations1 Someone reports seeing a mountain lion

in your residential area

A mountain lion has come into your residential area and

2. Kills a pet

3. Attacks and injures a person

4. Attacks and kills a person

Traditional Display

SightedKills Pet

Injures Person

Kills Person

Mean -2.08 -1.62 .45 1.35

Standard Error .030 .037 .046 .043

Standard Deviation 1.553 1.915 2.387 2.204

Variance 2.412 3.668 5.669 4.858

Skewness -1.817 -1.233 .336 1.043

Kurtosis 2.4 .210 -1.497 -.471

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3Highly Acceptable

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Act

ion

Acc

epta

bili

ty

Injures Person

KillsPerson

Kills Pet

Seenin Area

Overall Acceptability of Destroying Lion

.23.38

.61

.50

Highly Acceptable

Neither

Highly Unacceptable

Act

ion

Acc

epta

bili

ty

Injures Person

KillsPerson

Kills Pet

Seenin Area

Acceptability of Destroying Lion by Attitude

Negative Attitude

.61

.07

Positive Attitude Neutral Attitude

.20

.42

.14

.41.31

.68

.21 .19

.41

.09

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

• As severity of human–lion interaction increases:

– Average acceptability of lethal control increases– Consensus for lethal control decreases

• Those with positive attitudes (the majority) are always less accepting of lethal control

• Consensus for lethal control varies by attitude– Positive attitude – consensus decreases with severity– Negative attitude - consensus increases with severity

Summary

Questions