Back

Texans support mountain lion conservation management

Ohrens, O.; Ghasemi, B.; Gulas-Wroblewski, B.; Elbroch, L. M.

2023-08-18 scientific communication and education
10.1101/2023.08.16.553568 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The state of Texas encompasses an estimated 7% of the United States mountain lion (Puma concolor) population, a likely overestimate due to their nongame status, unregulated take and high mountain lion mortality rates. In August 2022, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) denied a petition to amend state mountain lion management policies, but was mandated by the Texas Wildlife Commission to form a stakeholder group to assess the potential to initiate mountain lion management and policy. Herein, we synthesize survey data collected and previously published in a report by Ghasemi et al. (2022) to provide members of this mountain lion stakeholder working group, the Commission, and TPWD with succinct summaries of Texas residents knowledge and attitudes salient to the evaluation of mountain lion management in the state. We analyzed responses to represent the opinion of all Texans as well as to compare the sentiments of four key stakeholder groups: hunters vs. nonhunters; livestock owners vs. people without livestock; urban vs. rural residents; and Hispanics vs. non-Hispanics. Overall, Texans expressed a positive sentiment about mountain lions and supported management to conserve the species. Respondents exhibited very high consensus regarding the value of scientific research about mountain lions and expressed overwhelming support for mandatory reporting of any mountain lion killed for any purpose by hunters, trappers, or state or federal agents. Texas residents also backed a compensation program supporting livestock producers who lose animals to mountain lions and rapid checking of set traps. Contrary to expectation, hunters and livestock owners were more positive about mountain lions than non-hunters and people without livestock, and we detected no differences in the responses of urban versus rural residents or Hispanics versus non-Hispanics on any topic.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.6%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 14%
14.3%
3
Frontiers in Veterinary Science
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.4%
4
American Journal of Primatology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
5
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.8%
6
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
7
FACETS
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
8
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.9%
9
Frontiers in Marine Science
55 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
10
Conservation Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
11
Ecosphere
53 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
12
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 26%
3.6%
13
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
14
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.6%
15
Animals
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.3%
16
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
17
Ecological Informatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
18
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
19
Forest Ecology and Management
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
20
Journal of Applied Ecology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
21
Diversity and Distributions
26 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
22
Biological Invasions
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
23
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 75%
0.7%