Dozhier, Parker L.

Frothingham, Tom

Heidt, Gary A.

Lynn, Mark

Witsell, Theo

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 53 Article 31 1999 Recent Documentation of Mountain Lion (Puma concolor) in Arkansas Theo Witsell University of Arkansas at Little Rock Gary A. Heidt University of Arkansas at Little Rock Parker L. Dozhier University of Arkansas at Little Rock Tom Frothingham University of Arkansas at Little Rock Mark Lynn University of Arkansas at Little Rock Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the Animal Studies Commons, and the Zoology Commons Recommended Citation Witsell, Theo; Heidt, Gary A.; Dozhier, Parker L.; Frothingham, Tom; and Lynn, Mark (1999) "Recent Documentation of Mountain Lion (Puma concolor) in Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 53 , Article 31. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol53/iss1/31 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. 157Recent Documentation of Mountain Lion (Puma concolor) in ArkansasTheo Witsell, Gary A.Heidt*, Parker L.Dozhier, Tom Frothingham, and Mark LynnDepartment of BiologyUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockLittle Rock, AR 72204 and Hot Springs, AR (PLD)Corresponding AuthorSealander and Gipson (1973) stated that the mountainlion {Puma concolor) was probably never extirpated inArkansas, and that populations may be expanding with thegrowing white-tailed deer {Odocoileus virginiana) herd.Because of persistent reports of mountain lion sightings andvocalizations, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commissionconducted a field search (1988-89), led by an qualified lionhunter/tracker, for evidence of mountain lions in Arkansas.This study suggested "there are no wild,reproducing popu-lations of mountain lions in Arkansas" (McBride et al.,1993).Herein we report five localities in which hard evidenceof mountain lions was found in late 1998 and early 1999 bythe authors. Evidence can be assigned to one of two cate-gories: soft or hard evidence. Soft evidence is that evidencewhich cannot be documented for future reference, such assight/vocalization reports that are not accompanied bytracks, scat, photographs, audio/video recordings, or otherdocumentable evidence. All hard evidence (scat, plastercasts, photographs) was deposited in the vertebrate collec-tions at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.On 1October, 1998 one of the authors (PLD) found a45 cm long scat in a stone quarry near Magnet Cove, HotSpring County (T3S R17W S28). InNovember 1998, a sec-ond scat (33 cm long) was found ina quarry near Lonsdale,Garland County (T2S, R17W, S18). On 31 December 1998,T. Witsell and C. Tracey found a 30 cm scat at an elevationof 268 m on a steep rock outcrop on the south-facing slopeof the western-most peak of the Maumelle Pinnacles (T3N,R14W, S31) in western Pulaski County. The scat consistedalmost entirely of white-tailed deer hair and bone fragments.A second scat was found 19 February 1999 by Witsell at anelevation of 177 m on the south-facing slope of BuzzardMountain (T2N, R15W, S21), Pulaski County, along an oldlogging road. Mountain lion scat is usually deposited inlarge amounts and varies from masses to irregular shapes.The scat contains hair and possibly bone fragments from theanimal's prey (Rezendes, 1992).Also on 19 February 1999, further down BuzzardMountain, at an elevation of 145 m, along the same road, aset ofapproximately 15 tracks were found under a high volt-age power line. The front prints measured 12 cm long by 11cm wide. The hind prints measured 10 cm wide by 10 cmlong. The stride was 56 cm. Plaster casts and photographswere made from the prints. Mountain lion tracks are typicalof cats ingeneral, with four toes on both the front and hindfeet. Tracks are wider than long and the claws are notobserved. Typical front tracks measure approximately 7-11cm long by 9-12 cm wide;hind tracks are slightly smaller 5-7 cm long by 6-8 cm wide. The animal's stride is 50-80 cm(Rezendes, 1992).A fresh white-tailed deer kill was found 27 February,1999 by T.Frothingham along Nowlin Creek (T2N, R14W,S6), Pulaski County at an elevation of90 m. Though the car-cass had been scattered by dogs, drag marks and a trail ofblood and hair indicated that the deer had been draggedfrom a field of broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), over afence and into an area of dense bottomland forest where thecarcass was consumed. The hindquarters and head of thedeer were never found. Two mountain lion prints werefound inmud along Nowlin Creek near the carcass.In early March 1999, S. O'Quinn of the Little RockParks and Recreation Department contacted the authorsabout the sighting of mountain lion tracks at Otter CreekPark (on the border of Pulaski and Saline counties) duringthe winter of 1998. Witsell, Frothingham, and O'Quinnsearched the 50 ha park and found several ambiguous scatscomposed largely of animal hair that had been weatheredby the elements. At least two of these scats were of dimen-sions consistent with that of a mountain lion. A single trackwas found in a wet depression along a powerline right ofway. Although this track wasn't as well preserved as the oth-ers found, ithad the same size and shape of an adult moun-tain lion track (11 cm long by 11 cm wide, large heel pad,and no claw marks). Aplaster cast was made.Allof the areas where evidence was found are within a40 km radius. Hornocker (1969, 1970) found western moun-tain lion home ranges to be quite large (13-52 km2 forfemales and 39-78 km2 or larger for males). Thus, our evi-dence may well represent one or more mountain lions.DNA analysis could be used to determine how many lionsmight be in the area.Aside from the availability of prey items, the main lim-iting factor for mountain lion populations is the availabilityof sufficiently large, rugged forested areas removed fromhuman activity (Sealander and Heidt, 1990). Now, morethan ever before, such areas are disappearing from theArkansas landscape. All three areas where evidence wasJournal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 53, 1999157Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 53 [1999], Art. 31Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1999.found inPulaski County are now either being developed orare marked for development in the near future. Small wood(1994) found that loss of forest was strongly correlated withdecline of some populations of mountain lions inCaliforniaand concluded that forest management must be the focus fortheir conservation. Ifitis proven that there is a reproducingpopulation of mountain lions in Arkansas, remaining areasproviding suitable forested habitat willneed preservation ifthis species is to be part of our wildlife heritage for futuregenerations (Sealander and Heidt, 1990). Clearly, moreresearch needs tobe conducted to gather and evaluate infor-mation on the presence of the mountain lion in Arkansas.Questions remain as to whether these recent reports areof the endangered native Florida panther {Puma concolorcoryi) or are of introduced individuals of other subspecies(Young and Goldman, 1946). Introductions can take placeeither bynatural movements from populations inneighbor-ing states or result from individuals releasing captive lions.Again, DNA analysis can possibly answer where existingmountain lions originated.Ongoing research includes historical cataloging of sight-ings from 1973 to present. DNA analysis of collected scatand scent rubs, follow-up of sight/vocalizations reports, andplacement of motion-triggered cameras in areas of suspect-ed activity.Literature CitedMcBride, R. T.,R.M.McBride,J. L.Cashman., and S.S.Maehr. 1993. Do mountain lions exist in Arkansas?.Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Fish and Wildl. Agencies.47:394-402.Hornocker, M. G. 1969. Winter territoriality in mountainlions.J. Wildl. Manage. 33:457-464.Hornocker, M.G. 1970. An anlysis of mountain lion pre-dation upon mule deer and elk in the Idaho primitivearea. Wildl. Monogr. No. 21, 39 pp.Rezendes, P. 1992. Tracking and the art ofseeing - how toread animal tracks and signs. Camden HousePublishing, Inc., Charlotte, VT. 320 pp.Sealander, J. A., and P. S. Gipson. 1973. Status of themountain lion in Arkansas. Proc. Arkansas Acad. ofSci.27:38-41.Sealander, J. A., and G. A. Heidt. 1990. ArkansasMammals: their natural history, classification, and dis-tribution. The University of Arkansas Press,Fayetteville. 308 pp.Smallwood, S. K. 1994. Trends inCalifornia mountain lionpopulations. Southwest. Nat. 39:67-72.Young, S. P., and E. A.Goldman. 1946. The puma: mys-terious American cat. American Wildlife Institute,Dover Reprints, New York. 385 pp.Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 53, 1999158Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 53 [1999], Art. 31https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol53/iss1/31

English

Recent Documentation of Mountain Lion (Puma concolor) in Arkansas

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 53 Article 311999Recent Documentation of Mountain Lion (Pumaconcolor) in ArkansasTheo WitsellUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockGary A. HeidtUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockParker L. DozhierUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockTom FrothinghamUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockMark LynnUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Animal Studies Commons, and 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 CitationWitsell, Theo; Heidt, Gary A.; Dozhier, Parker L.; Frothingham, Tom; and Lynn, Mark (1999) "Recent Documentation of MountainLion (Puma concolor) in Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 53 , Article 31.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol53/iss1/31157Recent Documentation of Mountain Lion (Puma concolor) in ArkansasTheo Witsell, Gary A.Heidt*, Parker L.Dozhier, Tom Frothingham, and Mark LynnDepartment of BiologyUniversity of Arkansas at Little RockLittle Rock, AR 72204 and Hot Springs, AR (PLD)Corresponding AuthorSealander and Gipson (1973) stated that the mountainlion {Puma concolor) was probably never extirpated inArkansas, and that populations may be expanding with thegrowing white-tailed deer {Odocoileus virginiana) herd.Because of persistent reports of mountain lion sightings andvocalizations, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commissionconducted a field search (1988-89), led by an qualified lionhunter/tracker, for evidence of mountain lions in Arkansas.This study suggested "there are no wild,reproducing popu-lations of mountain lions in Arkansas" (McBride et al.,1993).Herein we report five localities in which hard evidenceof mountain lions was found in late 1998 and early 1999 bythe authors. Evidence can be assigned to one of two cate-gories: soft or hard evidence. Soft evidence is that evidencewhich cannot be documented for future reference, such assight/vocalization reports that are not accompanied bytracks, scat, photographs, audio/video recordings, or otherdocumentable evidence. All hard evidence (scat, plastercasts, photographs) was deposited in the vertebrate collec-tions at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.On 1October, 1998 one of the authors (PLD) found a45 cm long scat in a stone quarry near Magnet Cove, HotSpring County (T3S R17W S28). InNovember 1998, a sec-ond scat (33 cm long) was found ina quarry near Lonsdale,Garland County (T2S, R17W, S18). On 31 December 1998,T. Witsell and C. Tracey found a 30 cm scat at an elevationof 268 m on a steep rock outcrop on the south-facing slopeof the western-most peak of the Maumelle Pinnacles (T3N,R14W, S31) in western Pulaski County. The scat consistedalmost entirely of white-tailed deer hair and bone fragments.A second scat was found 19 February 1999 by Witsell at anelevation of 177 m on the south-facing slope of BuzzardMountain (T2N, R15W, S21), Pulaski County, along an oldlogging road. Mountain lion scat is usually deposited inlarge amounts and varies from masses to irregular shapes.The scat contains hair and possibly bone fragments from theanimal's prey (Rezendes, 1992).Also on 19 February 1999, further down BuzzardMountain, at an elevation of 145 m, along the same road, aset ofapproximately 15 tracks were found under a high volt-age power line. The front prints measured 12 cm long by 11cm wide. The hind prints measured 10 cm wide by 10 cmlong. The stride was 56 cm. Plaster casts and photographswere made from the prints. Mountain lion tracks are typicalof cats ingeneral, with four toes on both the front and hindfeet. Tracks are wider than long and the claws are notobserved. Typical front tracks measure approximately 7-11cm long by 9-12 cm wide;hind tracks are slightly smaller 5-7 cm long by 6-8 cm wide. The animal's stride is 50-80 cm(Rezendes, 1992).A fresh white-tailed deer kill was found 27 February,1999 by T.Frothingham along Nowlin Creek (T2N, R14W,S6), Pulaski County at an elevation of90 m. Though the car-cass had been scattered by dogs, drag marks and a trail ofblood and hair indicated that the deer had been draggedfrom a field of broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), over afence and into an area of dense bottomland forest where thecarcass was consumed. The hindquarters and head of thedeer were never found. Two mountain lion prints werefound inmud along Nowlin Creek near the carcass.In early March 1999, S. O'Quinn of the Little RockParks and Recreation Department contacted the authorsabout the sighting of mountain lion tracks at Otter CreekPark (on the border of Pulaski and Saline counties) duringthe winter of 1998. Witsell, Frothingham, and O'Quinnsearched the 50 ha park and found several ambiguous scatscomposed largely of animal hair that had been weatheredby the elements. At least two of these scats were of dimen-sions consistent with that of a mountain lion. A single trackwas found in a wet depression along a powerline right ofway. Although this track wasn't as well preserved as the oth-ers found, ithad the same size and shape of an adult moun-tain lion track (11 cm long by 11 cm wide, large heel pad,and no claw marks). Aplaster cast was made.Allof the areas where evidence was found are within a40 km radius. Hornocker (1969, 1970) found western moun-tain lion home ranges to be quite large (13-52 km2 forfemales and 39-78 km2 or larger for males). Thus, our evi-dence may well represent one or more mountain lions.DNA analysis could be used to determine how many lionsmight be in the area.Aside from the availability of prey items, the main lim-iting factor for mountain lion populations is the availabilityof sufficiently large, rugged forested areas removed fromhuman activity (Sealander and Heidt, 1990). Now, morethan ever before, such areas are disappearing from theArkansas landscape. All three areas where evidence wasJournal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 53, 1999157Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 53 [1999], Art. 31Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1999.found inPulaski County are now either being developed orare marked for development in the near future. Small wood(1994) found that loss of forest was strongly correlated withdecline of some populations of mountain lions inCaliforniaand concluded that forest management must be the focus fortheir conservation. Ifitis proven that there is a reproducingpopulation of mountain lions in Arkansas, remaining areasproviding suitable forested habitat willneed preservation ifthis species is to be part of our wildlife heritage for futuregenerations (Sealander and Heidt, 1990). Clearly, moreresearch needs tobe conducted to gather and evaluate infor-mation on the presence of the mountain lion in Arkansas.Questions remain as to whether these recent reports areof the endangered native Florida panther {Puma concolorcoryi) or are of introduced individuals of other subspecies(Young and Goldman, 1946). Introductions can take placeeither bynatural movements from populations inneighbor-ing states or result from individuals releasing captive lions.Again, DNA analysis can possibly answer where existingmountain lions originated.Ongoing research includes historical cataloging of sight-ings from 1973 to present. DNA analysis of collected scatand scent rubs, follow-up of sight/vocalizations reports, andplacement of motion-triggered cameras in areas of suspect-ed activity.Literature CitedMcBride, R. T.,R.M.McBride,J. L.Cashman., and S.S.Maehr. 1993. Do mountain lions exist in Arkansas?.Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast Fish and Wildl. Agencies.47:394-402.Hornocker, M. G. 1969. Winter territoriality in mountainlions.J. Wildl. Manage. 33:457-464.Hornocker, M.G. 1970. An anlysis of mountain lion pre-dation upon mule deer and elk in the Idaho primitivearea. Wildl. Monogr. No. 21, 39 pp.Rezendes, P. 1992. Tracking and the art ofseeing - how toread animal tracks and signs. Camden HousePublishing, Inc., Charlotte, VT. 320 pp.Sealander, J. A., and P. S. Gipson. 1973. Status of themountain lion in Arkansas. Proc. Arkansas Acad. ofSci.27:38-41.Sealander, J. A., and G. A. Heidt. 1990. ArkansasMammals: their natural history, classification, and dis-tribution. The University of Arkansas Press,Fayetteville. 308 pp.Smallwood, S. K. 1994. Trends inCalifornia mountain lionpopulations. Southwest. Nat. 39:67-72.Young, S. P., and E. A.Goldman. 1946. The puma: mys-terious American cat. American Wildlife Institute,Dover Reprints, New York. 385 pp.Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 53, 1999158Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 53 [1999], Art. 31http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol53/iss1/31

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1769&context=jaas

Recent Documentation of Mountain Lion (Puma concolor) in Arkansas

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UARK (University of Arkansas )

ScholarWorks@UARK