Sasse, D. Blake

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 55 Article 322001Status of Pet Mountain Lions (Puma concolor) inArkansasD. Blake SasseArkansas Game and Fish CommissionFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Zoology CommonsThis article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able toread, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking priorpermission from the publisher or the author.This General Note is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the ArkansasAcademy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu.Recommended CitationSasse, D. Blake (2001) "Status of Pet Mountain Lions (Puma concolor) in Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 55, Article 32.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol55/iss1/32188Status ofPet Mountain Lions [Puma concolor) in ArkansasD.Blake SasseArkansas Game and Fish Commission#2 Natural Resources DriveLittle Rock, AR 72205The practice of keeping mountain lions {Puma concolor)and other large and exotic animals as pets has been increas-ing in popularity in the United States, and prices for theseanimals have dropped in recent years (Green, AnimalUnderworld: Inside Americais black market for rare andexotic species, Public Affairs, P. 95-97 and 120-121, 1997).Though the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal &Plant Health Inspection Service does require permits for thesale of wildanimals, regulation of the care and livingcondi-tions of mountain lions kept as personal pets is the respon-sibility of state and local governments.The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) hasauthority over all wildlife in Arkansas, including individualsliving in captivity, and has regulated private ownershipthrough provisions in the AGFC Code of Regulations.However, it is difficult to trace the regulatory history ofmountain lions in Arkansas because of incomplete AGFCrecords. In 1937 the AGFC required permits for possessionof wildbirds and animals outside ofan open hunting season,but this may not have been applied to pet mountain lionssince apparently there was not a general closed season onnongame animals until 1967. However, 1957 AGFCregulations did not include mountain lions on a list ofapproved wildlife pets, and another section of the 1957 codeprohibited possession of predatory animals. From 1980-1987 possession of mountain lions was prohibited though anexception was made for those having proof of legal owner-ship. This exception was eliminated inJanuary 1987 but wasrestored inMarch 1990 with the caveat that ownership mustbe in accordance with U.S. Department of Agricultureregulations (AGFC regulations, 1937-2001).Two different mail surveys were used to determine thestatus of pet mountain lions in Arkansas in 2000. The first,sent to 155 AGFC wildlife officers, requested that officersreport the total number of dangerous wild animal pets,including mountain lions, present in their county and theknown escapes and injuries caused by wildlife pets from1997-2000. In counties where more than one wildlife officerwas present, they were asked to consult with each other andsubmit only one report for the county. Wildlife officersurvey data were supplemented with other AGFC recordsand newspaper accounts of escapes and human injuriescaused by pet mountain lions from 1990-2000. The secondsurvey, sent to all 308 incorporated Arkansas towns, askedwhether or not the towns had any regulations relating to thekeeping of animals and requested that each townis officialsreturn copies of applicable ordinances.Wildlife officers returned surveys for 66 counties (88%)and reported at least 101-151 pet mountain lions in 20Arkansas counties, four of which had more than five petmountain lions. The respondent from Benton County esti-mated there were 50-100 pet mountain lions in the countybased on prior complaints and said that he knew ofat least10 pet mountain lions within 10 miles ofhis home. Escapesor intentional releases ofpet mountain lions are not uncom-mon; there was at least one incident each year from 1997-1999, three in 2000, and two in the first three months of2001. Three of the five incidents of human injury recordedfrom 1990-2000 occurred during an escape or subsequentrecapture attempt. Poor caging that did not fully preventcontact between the animal and the public allowed the othertwo injuries to occur. Since there are no requirements forreporting escapes or injuries to the AGFC, it is likely thatthere are many more undocumented incidents than report-ed herein.Atotal of 192 towns (62%) returned the town ordinancesurvey, 42 (22%) of which have wildlife pet ordinances.These ordinances vary in the severity of restriction and ani-mals covered; 17 towns prohibit all wildlife pets, 15 onlyprohibit dangerous wildlife pets, four allow wildlife petsunder permit, three prohibit most wildlife pets, one pro-hibits only dangerous reptiles, and one prohibits only lions.Nine towns also prohibit the keeping of exotic animals inaddition to other wildlife pet restrictions while one townonly specifically prohibits exotic animals. Most of theseordinances were enacted in recent years, increasing from atleast six in 1989 to 42 in 2000.Arkansas is not unique in facing issues relating to cap-tive mountain lions; in 1993 there were an estimated 300-500 pet mountain lions in Florida, and in the late 1970s aNew York official estimated that 5-10 mountain lions escapeor are released by private owners in that state every year(McBride et al., Proc. Ann. Conf. Southeast Assoc. of Fishand Wildlife Agencies, 47:394-402, 1993; East, AmericanForests, 85:21, 54-59, 1979). This study demonstrates thatpet mountain lion ownership is widespread in Arkansas andthat citizen concern expressed by a 700% increase in townwildlife pet ordinances since 1990 is warranted due to thenumber of escapes and human injuries caused by these pets.Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 55, 2001188Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 55 [2001], Art. 32Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 2001

Status of Pet Mountain Lions (Puma concolor) in Arkansas

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 55 Article 32 2001 Status of Pet Mountain Lions (Puma concolor) in Arkansas D. Blake Sasse Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, blake.sasse@agfc.ar.gov Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Sasse, D. Blake (2001) "Status of Pet Mountain Lions (Puma concolor) in Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 55, Article 32. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol55/iss1/32 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This General Note is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu, uarepos@uark.edu. 188Status ofPet Mountain Lions [Puma concolor) in ArkansasD.Blake SasseArkansas Game and Fish Commission#2 Natural Resources DriveLittle Rock, AR 72205The practice of keeping mountain lions {Puma concolor)and other large and exotic animals as pets has been increas-ing in popularity in the United States, and prices for theseanimals have dropped in recent years (Green, AnimalUnderworld: Inside Americais black market for rare andexotic species, Public Affairs, P. 95-97 and 120-121, 1997).Though the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal &Plant Health Inspection Service does require permits for thesale of wildanimals, regulation of the care and livingcondi-tions of mountain lions kept as personal pets is the respon-sibility of state and local governments.The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) hasauthority over all wildlife in Arkansas, including individualsliving in captivity, and has regulated private ownershipthrough provisions in the AGFC Code of Regulations.However, it is difficult to trace the regulatory history ofmountain lions in Arkansas because of incomplete AGFCrecords. In 1937 the AGFC required permits for possessionof wildbirds and animals outside ofan open hunting season,but this may not have been applied to pet mountain lionssince apparently there was not a general closed season onnongame animals until 1967. However, 1957 AGFCregulations did not include mountain lions on a list ofapproved wildlife pets, and another section of the 1957 codeprohibited possession of predatory animals. From 1980-1987 possession of mountain lions was prohibited though anexception was made for those having proof of legal owner-ship. This exception was eliminated inJanuary 1987 but wasrestored inMarch 1990 with the caveat that ownership mustbe in accordance with U.S. Department of Agricultureregulations (AGFC regulations, 1937-2001).Two different mail surveys were used to determine thestatus of pet mountain lions in Arkansas in 2000. The first,sent to 155 AGFC wildlife officers, requested that officersreport the total number of dangerous wild animal pets,including mountain lions, present in their county and theknown escapes and injuries caused by wildlife pets from1997-2000. In counties where more than one wildlife officerwas present, they were asked to consult with each other andsubmit only one report for the county. Wildlife officersurvey data were supplemented with other AGFC recordsand newspaper accounts of escapes and human injuriescaused by pet mountain lions from 1990-2000. The secondsurvey, sent to all 308 incorporated Arkansas towns, askedwhether or not the towns had any regulations relating to thekeeping of animals and requested that each townis officialsreturn copies of applicable ordinances.Wildlife officers returned surveys for 66 counties (88%)and reported at least 101-151 pet mountain lions in 20Arkansas counties, four of which had more than five petmountain lions. The respondent from Benton County esti-mated there were 50-100 pet mountain lions in the countybased on prior complaints and said that he knew ofat least10 pet mountain lions within 10 miles ofhis home. Escapesor intentional releases ofpet mountain lions are not uncom-mon; there was at least one incident each year from 1997-1999, three in 2000, and two in the first three months of2001. Three of the five incidents of human injury recordedfrom 1990-2000 occurred during an escape or subsequentrecapture attempt. Poor caging that did not fully preventcontact between the animal and the public allowed the othertwo injuries to occur. Since there are no requirements forreporting escapes or injuries to the AGFC, it is likely thatthere are many more undocumented incidents than report-ed herein.Atotal of 192 towns (62%) returned the town ordinancesurvey, 42 (22%) of which have wildlife pet ordinances.These ordinances vary in the severity of restriction and ani-mals covered; 17 towns prohibit all wildlife pets, 15 onlyprohibit dangerous wildlife pets, four allow wildlife petsunder permit, three prohibit most wildlife pets, one pro-hibits only dangerous reptiles, and one prohibits only lions.Nine towns also prohibit the keeping of exotic animals inaddition to other wildlife pet restrictions while one townonly specifically prohibits exotic animals. Most of theseordinances were enacted in recent years, increasing from atleast six in 1989 to 42 in 2000.Arkansas is not unique in facing issues relating to cap-tive mountain lions; in 1993 there were an estimated 300-500 pet mountain lions in Florida, and in the late 1970s aNew York official estimated that 5-10 mountain lions escapeor are released by private owners in that state every year(McBride et al., Proc. Ann. Conf. Southeast Assoc. of Fishand Wildlife Agencies, 47:394-402, 1993; East, AmericanForests, 85:21, 54-59, 1979). This study demonstrates thatpet mountain lion ownership is widespread in Arkansas andthat citizen concern expressed by a 700% increase in townwildlife pet ordinances since 1990 is warranted due to thenumber of escapes and human injuries caused by these pets.Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 55, 2001

English

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1700&context=jaas

Status of Pet Mountain Lions (Puma concolor) in Arkansas

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UARK

UARK (University of Arkansas )