1. Understanding Human-Mountain Lion Management Strategies Using PCI Jerry J. Vaske Rebecca Howe Michael J. Manfredo Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO

2. 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 press when a human is injured or killed Important to evaluate attitudes to mountain lions and acceptability of alternative mgmt. actions

3. Hypotheses H 1 : As severity of human–lion interactions increases, acceptability of destroying a lion increases H 2 : As severity of the human–lion interactions increases, consensus regarding destroying a lion decreases

4. Hypotheses H 3 : Individuals with positive attitudes toward lions will be less accepting of destroying them regardless of severity of human–lion interaction H 4 : Individuals with negative attitudes toward lions will have more consensus toward destroying them as severity of human–lion interaction increases

5. 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 interview No statistically significant difference

6. Independent Variable Attitude 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 NegativeNeutral Slightly Positive Moderately Positive Extremely Positive -3-20123

7. Reliability Results – Attitude Index Mean Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach Alpha if Item Deleted Cronbach Alpha Overall Reliability.835 Positive – Negative1.65.646.818 Good – Bad1.84.748.739 Beneficial – Harmful1.59.713.751

8. Attitude Breakdown Attitude Toward Mountain Lions Number of Respondents Percent Positive202677 Neutral 51519 Negative 110 4 Total2651100

9. Management Action Highly Unacceptable Unacceptable Somewhat UnacceptableNeither Somewhat AcceptableAcceptable Highly Acceptable Monitor the situation -3-20123 Frighten the lion away -3-2 0123 Capture and relocate the lion -3-20123 Destroy the lion -3-20123 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 Variables Evaluations of 4 Scenarios

10. Situations 1Someone 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

11. Traditional Display Sighted Kills Pet Injures Person Kills Person Mean-2.08-1.62.451.35 Standard Error.030.037.046.043 Standard Deviation1.5531.9152.3872.204 Variance2.4123.6685.6694.858 Skewness-1.817-1.233.3361.043 Kurtosis2.4.210-1.497-.471

12. -3 -2 0 1 2 3 Highly Acceptable Neither Highly Unacceptable Action Acceptability Injures Person Kills Person Kills Pet Seen in Area Overall Acceptability of Destroying Lion.23.38.61.50

13. Highly Acceptable Neither Highly Unacceptable Action Acceptability Injures Person Kills Person Kills Pet Seen in 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 0 1 2 3

14. 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

15. Questions