The presence of the cougar (Puma concolor) in the state of Kansas is a controversial issue. Since 1999, 234 cougar sightings have been reported to the Extension Wildlife Specialist at Kansas State University. To those who have reported such sightings, the existence of cougars in Kansas is undeniable. Others, however, question the validity of such sightings as providing evidence of cougars. After surveying other governmental agencies and organizations, we discovered that acceptable identification criteria for rare or unusual felines included things beside sightings: voucher specimens, DNA from hair or scat, tracks, prey carcasses, and photographs or videos. The cougar sightings from Kansas were plotted on a map using ArcGIS 9.1, and the Spatial Analyst Tool was used to test the 3 hypotheses of: 1) cougar sightings are located near rivers, as cover is provided; 2) sightings of cougars are located around captive felines that may be potential breeding partners; and 3) cougar sightings are located within the vicinity of cities with populations greater than or equal to 35,000 people, as the higher densities of observers may be associated with more opportunities for sightings. Our data led us to accept all 3 hypotheses

Gipson, Philip S.

Houts, Mike

Lee, Charles D.

Livingston, Troy R.

Warneke, Alyssa E

English

UNL | Libraries

University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln 
USGS Staff -- Published Research US Geological Survey 
2006 
Cougars in Kansas 
Charles D. Lee 
Kansas State University, clee@k-state.edu 
Alyssa E. Warneke 
Kansas State University 
Mike Houts 
Kansas Biological Survey 
Troy R. Livingston 
Kansas State University 
Philip S. Gipson 
Kansas State University 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub 
 Part of the Earth Sciences Commons 
Lee, Charles D.; Warneke, Alyssa E.; Houts, Mike; Livingston, Troy R.; and Gipson, Philip S., "Cougars in 
Kansas" (2006). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 193. 
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/193 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of 
Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- Published Research by an authorized 
administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 
A wide range of environmental and behavioral 
factors can explain species distribution. 
Examination of those factors can help  management 
agencies develop plans for species management 
and conservation.  Unfortunately, the reliability of 
occurrence records when using sighting reports as 
evidence is highly variable.  Our objectives in this 
paper are to: 1) provide confirmation of 
identification criteria for rare or unusual felines; 
and 2) evaluate the distribution of cougar sightings 
in Kansas.
IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA
Virtually  all methods for providing species 
distributions are based on occurrence records 
(Ferrier 2002).  In the absence of physical evi-
dence, researchers must rely upon information 
provided by sightings. An observer’s knowledge of 
the characteristics, behavior and field sign of a 
cougar certainly contributes to the validity of 
sightings when reviewed by  those who are 
developing occurrence records.  The correct ident-
COUGARS IN KANSAS
CHARLES D. LEE, Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, 
KS 66506, USA
ALYSSA E. WARNEKE, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 
66506, USA
MIKE HOUTS, Kansas Biological Survey, Lawrence, KS 66046, USA
TROY R. LIVINGSTON, Department of Geography, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS  66506, 
USA
PHILIP S. GIPSON, Kansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, U.S. Geological Survey, 
Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
Abstract: The presence of the cougar (Puma concolor) in the state of Kansas is a controversial issue. 
Since 1999, 234 cougar sightings have been reported to the Extension Wildlife Specialist  at Kansas 
State University. To those who have reported such sightings, the existence of cougars in Kansas is 
undeniable. Others, however, question the validity of such sightings as providing evidence of cougars. 
After surveying other governmental agencies and organizations, we discovered that acceptable 
identification criteria for rare or unusual felines included things beside sightings: voucher specimens, 
DNA from hair or scat, tracks, prey carcasses, and photographs or videos.  The cougar sightings from 
Kansas were plotted on a map using ArcGIS 9.1, and the Spatial Analyst Tool was used to test the 3 
hypotheses of: 1) cougar sightings are located near rivers, as cover is provided; 2) sightings of cougars 
are located around captive felines that may be potential breeding partners; and 3) cougar sightings are 
located within the vicinity  of cities with populations greater than or equal to 35,000 people, as the higher 
densities of observers may be associated with more opportunities for sightings.  Our data led us to 
accept all 3 hypotheses.
Proceedings of the North American Prairie Conference 20:269-274
Key words:  ArcGIS, cougar sightings, mountain lion, puma, Puma concolor
Published in PRAIRIE INVADERS: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 20TH NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIE CONFERENCE, 
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT KEARNEY, July 23–26, 2006, edited by Joseph T. Springer and 
Elaine C. Springer. Kearney, Nebraska : University of Nebraska at Kearney, 2006. Pages 269-274.
ification of sighted cougars is crucial to 
management of the animal.  
In order to compile a list of identification 
criteria for confirmation of cougars, we questioned 
Kansas governmental agencies and organizations 
on the criteria required to document various species 
of animals. For mammals, voucher specimens are 
the preferred source of evidence (Frey 2006).  In 
the absence of such a specimen, however, other 
physical evidence, such as hair, DNA (from hair), 
tracks, scat, and still photographs or video, is 
accepted for identification by some.
Frey (2006) published a table that provided a 
means to evaluate the reliability of species 
occurrence records.  In that paper, an expert’s 
evaluation of preserved physical evidence that 
exhibits diagnostic characteristics is considered in 
the “verified” class.  At the other extreme, the 
“highly questionable” class includes records that 
have a high potential for inaccuracy such as second 
hand reports or questionable identification.  The 
Cougar Network (Anonymous 2006a) applies 
rigorous criteria when evaluating cougar incidents 
that may extend the cougars range.  They  accept 
only those reports supported by  tangible physical 
evidence verified by qualified wildlife profes-
sionals.  Evidence submitted by  non-professionals 
and private individuals or groups is only 
recognized after it has been corroborated by 
“independent experts” e.g., natural resource agency 
or university affiliated biologists (Anonymous 
2006a).
It should be noted that the Cougar Network 
(Anonymous 2006a) has recorded no confirmed 
cases of cougars in Kansas.  The Cougar Network 
requires tangible physical evidence verified by 
qualified wildlife professionals or other evidence 
only after it  has been corroborated by independent 
experts (Anonymous 2006a).
To clarify  the characteristics and behaviors 
associated with cougars, we provide some details 
of the appearance, tracks, and scat.  
Appearance
A cougar has a coat that is pale brown to tawny 
in color, with white/buff on the underside. The 
coats of juvenile cougars, however, have black 
spots. The points (whiskers, ears, and tail) are dark 
brown to black. The length of a mature cougar 
varies, but the body is generally 1.50-2.75 m 
(4.9-9.0 ft), with the tail contributing 53-92 cm 
(21-36 in).  The hind foot is 22-31 cm (8.7-12.2 in) 
in length (Whitaker 1996).   The senior author 
believes that the most common mistake made when 
reporting a possible sighting is the length of time 
the animal is under observation.  Many sighting 
reports also occur in poor lighting or from vehicles 
at highway speeds.
Tracks
Cougar tracks are asymmetrical and rounded. 
The fore is 80-100 mm (3.1-3.9 in) in length and 
the hind is slightly smaller. The heel pads are 
lobed; the front edges are concave, whereas the 
rear edges are tri-lobed. No indication of claw 
marks is present in the tracks (Whitaker 1996) 
unless the cougar making the track was leaping or 
pouncing at which point their retractile claws may 
be extended. The most common mistake made 
when reporting cougar tracks is to confuse them 
with dog tracks which may not always show the 
presence of claw marks.
Scat
The scat of a cougar is presented in different 
forms, from masses to irregular cylinders to pellets. 
The contents of the feces include traces of hair 
(either from grooming or prey) and bone particles. 
The cougar may leave the scat exposed as a 
territorial marker or cover it with earth/debris 
(Whitaker 1996). Food habits determine the size 
and shape of scat and thus scat appearance is not a 
reliable indicator.
METHODS
The geographical study area was Kansas. We 
chose to use physical features including all rivers 
in the state and their associated lakes and the cities 
with populations greater than or equal to 35,000 
people (Manhattan, Shawnee, Hutchinson, 
Leavenworth, Salina, Olathe, Lawrence, Overland 
Park, Topeka, Kansas City, and Wichita).  Since 
Kansas requires owners of captive wild felines to 
be permitted, the locations of captive-held felines 
was obtained from Kansas Department of Wildlife 
and Parks.
Since 1986, cougar sightings reported the 
Wildlife Extension Specialist  at Kansas State 
270 Cougars in Kansas  •  Lee et al.
University  have been entered into a database and 
provide information on observer contact 
information, observation location and duration, and 
animal characteristics. Locations described in the 
sighting reports were plotted onto a paper map of 
Kansas. The latitudes and longitudes of the points 
were measured in degrees, and the coordinates 
were entered into the database. The degrees were 
converted to decimal degrees by  separating the 
degrees, minutes, and seconds into individual cells 
using the Text to Columns function and inputting 
the separated values into the equation ((degrees) + 
(minutes/60) + (seconds/3600).  We saved the 
converted coordinates and relevant observation 
data as a dBase IV file to be used in ArcGIS 
Desktop (Anonymous 2006b) to evaluate spatial 
distribution of the cougar sightings throughout 
Kansas.  A spatial analysis of mapped points was 
then performed.
The data needed to construct the maps using 
ArcMap (Anonymous 2006b) were counties, major 
rivers and their associated lakes, and cities with 
populations greater than or equal to 35,000 people 
in Kansas. The chosen geographic coordinate 
system was North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) 
with UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) Zone 
14N. We set the coordinate system of the Data 
Frame and added our acquired layers. The cougar 
sightings and captive feline databases were opened 
in ArcMap as tables and converted to layers.  
Hawthstools (Beyer 2004) was used to create a 
random sample of 300 points within the Kansas 
state boundary.  Points were then plotted on the 
map as a layer.  Hawthstools was again used to 
calculate the distance between all points and 
distance to nearest neighbor.   
With the map (Fig. 1) constructed, we used the 
ArcToolbox (Anonymous 2006b) to measure the 
spatial statistics and analyze the data. The 
statistical test was high/low clustering. We made a 
joined layer of the counties and cougar sightings 
and began a high/low clustering spatial analysis, 
using the joined layer as the input feature class and 
counts attribute as the input field. 
Cougars in Kansas  •  Lee et al. 271
!
Fig. 1.  Distribution of cougar sightings reported to Kansas State University 1999- 2006.  Captive cats may include 
cougars, bobcats and other felids not native or indigenous to Kansas.  The sighting density was determined using the 
cluster analysis procedure found in ArcGIS.
RESULTS
We calculated difference between the means 
using z-scores.  We examined all tests of 
significance at α = 0.05.  The high/low clustering 
statistical test  provided a graphic output that 
suggested the cougar sightings were highly 
clustered.  It  was with < 1.0% likelihood that the 
clustering of high values could be a result of 
random chance.  A 2-sample z-test was used to 
compare the mean distances between random 
points and known locations of sightings and 
physical features.  The average straight line 
distance of sightings to cities was 86.3 km 
(53.6  mi) and the average distance to random 
points was 141.3 km (87.8 mi).  The z-score for 
that comparison was -6.83 (P < 0.0001).  The 
average distance from sightings to all rivers was 
2.5 km (1.6 mi) and the average distance to random 
points was 3.5 km (2.8 mi) with a z-score of -3.86 
(P < 0.0001).  The average distance from all 
sightings to the nearest location of a captive feline 
was 47.7 km (29.6 mi) and the average distance to 
random points was 60.6 km (37.6 mi) with a z-
score of -3.61 (P < 0.0003).  
The land cover occurring at the point locations 
of cougar sightings, captive felines and random 
points was assessed which revealed some 
interesting patterns.  The random points appear to 
capture the general abundance of the different land 
cover classes across the state, but the frequency  of 
cougar sightings in forested areas is much greater 
than what occurred randomly (Fig. 2).  
 
DISCUSSION
Our initial hypothesis was that  cougar sightings 
in Kansas would have an association around rivers, 
captive felines, and cities with populations greater 
than or equal to 35,000 people. We assumed that 
cougars would travel along rivers due to the large 
amount of cover protection provided by trees and 
shrubs, in addition to available prey. We also 
272 Cougars in Kansas  •  Lee et al.
Land cover  
Fig. 2.  Land cover associations and cougar sighting reports in Kansas 1999-2006.
believed that cougar sightings should concentrate 
around captive felines since transient cougars 
entering the state may  be seeking potential 
breeding partners or occasionally captive felines 
would be accidentally  or intentionally released.  In 
the cities with populations greater than or equal to 
35,000 people, we believed that  the greater number 
of humans (thus more observation opportunities) 
would increase the number of sightings of cougars.
The high/low clustering statistics, though not 
specific in location, indicated that clustering of 
cougar sightings was evident. When viewing the 
map, it was clear that sightings clusters did appear 
along the major rivers and their associated lakes, 
perhaps due to the protection and shelter provided 
by vegetation.  The z-scores calculated from the 
straight distance line analyses to nearest neighbor 
showed that cougar sightings were more likely to 
be observed along rivers in Kansas.  When 
frequency of sightings information was compared 
with land-cover data, the frequency of cougar 
sightings in forested areas was double the 
frequency of sightings found near random points.
The association of cougar sightings and large 
cities was also strong.  More observers in an area 
should see more cougars if they are present.  The 
mean distance from random points to captive 
felines when compared to the mean distance from 
sightings to captive felines indicated that  the means 
were not equal and thus an association existed. 
Given the uncertainties associated with observer 
sighting reports, we believe that more credence 
could be given to those sightings that are in close 
proximity to rivers, cities with > 35,000 population 
and sightings closer to captive held felines.
The closest known established populations of 
cougars to Kansas are those found along the front 
range of Colorado.  If natural dispersal from that 
population was the source of the cougars being 
sighted we should see more reports from that part 
of Kansas.  The lack of sightings of cougars in the 
western part of Kansas does not imply cougars are 
not present in that part  of the state.  With the 
majority  of the reports in Kansas coming from 
eastern Kansas, this may indicate that the cougars 
that are being sighted in Kansas would be coming 
from somewhere other than Colorado, perhaps 
South Dakota.  Another interpretation could be that 
the sightings are simply erroneous.    
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
Reviewing criteria that  establishes the 
occurrence records and thus the range of rare or 
unusual species shows a lack of formal guidance as 
to what constitutes “official” criteria.  In some 
cases voucher specimens are required but other 
species may only require a sighting done by an 
expert.  Authors suggest  that professional 
biological organizations develop written criteria 
that can be used to establish occurrence records. 
Cougar sightings continue to be reported. 
Agencies have a difficult time ranking those 
sighting reports as valid or not.  A written set of 
what each state will accept as evidence would 
reduce controversy.
Sighting reports are important in wildlife 
management.  The public at large can help 
establish occurrence records.  Some sighting 
reports are more credible than others.  In the 
absence of physical evidence such as voucher 
specimens, hair, DNA, track casts or images, 
professionals must use their best judgment when 
evaluating the validity of the sighting reports.
 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge those who 
took the time to report their sightings to Kansas 
State University.
LITERATURE CITED
Anonymous.  2006a.  Cougar confirmations. The 
Cougar Network.  <www.easterncougarnet.org/
cougarconfim.html> Accessed in April 2006.
Anonymous.  2006b.  ArcGIS Desktop version 9.1. 
Environmental Systems Research Institute, 
Redlands, California, USA.
Beyer, H. L. 2004. Hawth's Analysis Tools for 
ArcGIS.  <www.spatialecology.com/htools> 
Accessed in April 2006.
Cougars in Kansas  •  Lee et al. 273
Ferrier, S. 2002. Mapping and spatial pattern in 
biodiversity for regional conservation planning: 
where to from here? Systematic Biology 
51:331-363.
Frey, J. K. 2006.  Inferring species distributions in 
the absence of occurrence records: An example 
considering wolverine (Gulo gulo) and Canada 
 lynx (Lynx canadensis) in New Mexico. 
Biological Conservation 130:16-24.
Whitaker, John O., Jr. (Editor).  1996.  National 
Audubon Society field guide to North 
American Mammals. (Second) Revised edition. 
Chanticleer Press, Inc., New York, New York, 
USA.
274 Cougars in Kansas  •  Lee et al.


Cougars in Kansas

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Staff -- Published Research US Geological Survey 2006 Cougars in Kansas Charles D. Lee Kansas State University, clee@k-state.edu Alyssa E. Warneke Kansas State University Mike Houts Kansas Biological Survey Troy R. Livingston Kansas State University Philip S. Gipson Kansas State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub  Part of the Earth Sciences Commons Lee, Charles D.; Warneke, Alyssa E.; Houts, Mike; Livingston, Troy R.; and Gipson, Philip S., "Cougars in Kansas" (2006). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 193. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/193 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- Published Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. A wide range of environmental and behavioral factors can explain species distribution. Examination of those factors can help  management agencies develop plans for species management and conservation.  Unfortunately, the reliability of occurrence records when using sighting reports as evidence is highly variable.  Our objectives in this paper are to: 1) provide confirmation of identification criteria for rare or unusual felines; and 2) evaluate the distribution of cougar sightings in Kansas.IDENTIFICATION CRITERIAVirtually  all methods for providing species distributions are based on occurrence records (Ferrier 2002).  In the absence of physical evi-dence, researchers must rely upon information provided by sightings. An observer’s knowledge of the characteristics, behavior and field sign of a cougar certainly contributes to the validity of sightings when reviewed by  those who are developing occurrence records.  The correct ident-COUGARS IN KANSASCHARLES D. LEE, Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USAALYSSA E. WARNEKE, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USAMIKE HOUTS, Kansas Biological Survey, Lawrence, KS 66046, USATROY R. LIVINGSTON, Department of Geography, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS  66506, USAPHILIP S. GIPSON, Kansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, U.S. Geological Survey, Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USAAbstract: The presence of the cougar (Puma concolor) in the state of Kansas is a controversial issue. Since 1999, 234 cougar sightings have been reported to the Extension Wildlife Specialist  at Kansas State University. To those who have reported such sightings, the existence of cougars in Kansas is undeniable. Others, however, question the validity of such sightings as providing evidence of cougars. After surveying other governmental agencies and organizations, we discovered that acceptable identification criteria for rare or unusual felines included things beside sightings: voucher specimens, DNA from hair or scat, tracks, prey carcasses, and photographs or videos.  The cougar sightings from Kansas were plotted on a map using ArcGIS 9.1, and the Spatial Analyst Tool was used to test the 3 hypotheses of: 1) cougar sightings are located near rivers, as cover is provided; 2) sightings of cougars are located around captive felines that may be potential breeding partners; and 3) cougar sightings are located within the vicinity  of cities with populations greater than or equal to 35,000 people, as the higher densities of observers may be associated with more opportunities for sightings.  Our data led us to accept all 3 hypotheses.Proceedings of the North American Prairie Conference 20:269-274Key words:  ArcGIS, cougar sightings, mountain lion, puma, Puma concolorPublished in PRAIRIE INVADERS: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 20TH NORTH AMERICAN PRAIRIE CONFERENCE, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT KEARNEY, July 23–26, 2006, edited by Joseph T. Springer and Elaine C. Springer. Kearney, Nebraska : University of Nebraska at Kearney, 2006. Pages 269-274.ification of sighted cougars is crucial to management of the animal.  In order to compile a list of identification criteria for confirmation of cougars, we questioned Kansas governmental agencies and organizations on the criteria required to document various species of animals. For mammals, voucher specimens are the preferred source of evidence (Frey 2006).  In the absence of such a specimen, however, other physical evidence, such as hair, DNA (from hair), tracks, scat, and still photographs or video, is accepted for identification by some.Frey (2006) published a table that provided a means to evaluate the reliability of species occurrence records.  In that paper, an expert’s evaluation of preserved physical evidence that exhibits diagnostic characteristics is considered in the “verified” class.  At the other extreme, the “highly questionable” class includes records that have a high potential for inaccuracy such as second hand reports or questionable identification.  The Cougar Network (Anonymous 2006a) applies rigorous criteria when evaluating cougar incidents that may extend the cougars range.  They  accept only those reports supported by  tangible physical evidence verified by qualified wildlife profes-sionals.  Evidence submitted by  non-professionals and private individuals or groups is only recognized after it has been corroborated by “independent experts” e.g., natural resource agency or university affiliated biologists (Anonymous 2006a).It should be noted that the Cougar Network (Anonymous 2006a) has recorded no confirmed cases of cougars in Kansas.  The Cougar Network requires tangible physical evidence verified by qualified wildlife professionals or other evidence only after it  has been corroborated by independent experts (Anonymous 2006a).To clarify  the characteristics and behaviors associated with cougars, we provide some details of the appearance, tracks, and scat.  AppearanceA cougar has a coat that is pale brown to tawny in color, with white/buff on the underside. The coats of juvenile cougars, however, have black spots. The points (whiskers, ears, and tail) are dark brown to black. The length of a mature cougar varies, but the body is generally 1.50-2.75 m (4.9-9.0 ft), with the tail contributing 53-92 cm (21-36 in).  The hind foot is 22-31 cm (8.7-12.2 in) in length (Whitaker 1996).   The senior author believes that the most common mistake made when reporting a possible sighting is the length of time the animal is under observation.  Many sighting reports also occur in poor lighting or from vehicles at highway speeds.TracksCougar tracks are asymmetrical and rounded. The fore is 80-100 mm (3.1-3.9 in) in length and the hind is slightly smaller. The heel pads are lobed; the front edges are concave, whereas the rear edges are tri-lobed. No indication of claw marks is present in the tracks (Whitaker 1996) unless the cougar making the track was leaping or pouncing at which point their retractile claws may be extended. The most common mistake made when reporting cougar tracks is to confuse them with dog tracks which may not always show the presence of claw marks.ScatThe scat of a cougar is presented in different forms, from masses to irregular cylinders to pellets. The contents of the feces include traces of hair (either from grooming or prey) and bone particles. The cougar may leave the scat exposed as a territorial marker or cover it with earth/debris (Whitaker 1996). Food habits determine the size and shape of scat and thus scat appearance is not a reliable indicator.METHODSThe geographical study area was Kansas. We chose to use physical features including all rivers in the state and their associated lakes and the cities with populations greater than or equal to 35,000 people (Manhattan, Shawnee, Hutchinson, Leavenworth, Salina, Olathe, Lawrence, Overland Park, Topeka, Kansas City, and Wichita).  Since Kansas requires owners of captive wild felines to be permitted, the locations of captive-held felines was obtained from Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks.Since 1986, cougar sightings reported the Wildlife Extension Specialist  at Kansas State 270 Cougars in Kansas  •  Lee et al.University  have been entered into a database and provide information on observer contact information, observation location and duration, and animal characteristics. Locations described in the sighting reports were plotted onto a paper map of Kansas. The latitudes and longitudes of the points were measured in degrees, and the coordinates were entered into the database. The degrees were converted to decimal degrees by  separating the degrees, minutes, and seconds into individual cells using the Text to Columns function and inputting the separated values into the equation ((degrees) + (minutes/60) + (seconds/3600).  We saved the converted coordinates and relevant observation data as a dBase IV file to be used in ArcGIS Desktop (Anonymous 2006b) to evaluate spatial distribution of the cougar sightings throughout Kansas.  A spatial analysis of mapped points was then performed.The data needed to construct the maps using ArcMap (Anonymous 2006b) were counties, major rivers and their associated lakes, and cities with populations greater than or equal to 35,000 people in Kansas. The chosen geographic coordinate system was North American Datum 1983 (NAD83) with UTM (Universal Transverse Mercator) Zone 14N. We set the coordinate system of the Data Frame and added our acquired layers. The cougar sightings and captive feline databases were opened in ArcMap as tables and converted to layers.  Hawthstools (Beyer 2004) was used to create a random sample of 300 points within the Kansas state boundary.  Points were then plotted on the map as a layer.  Hawthstools was again used to calculate the distance between all points and distance to nearest neighbor.   With the map (Fig. 1) constructed, we used the ArcToolbox (Anonymous 2006b) to measure the spatial statistics and analyze the data. The statistical test was high/low clustering. We made a joined layer of the counties and cougar sightings and began a high/low clustering spatial analysis, using the joined layer as the input feature class and counts attribute as the input field. Cougars in Kansas  •  Lee et al. 271!Fig. 1.  Distribution of cougar sightings reported to Kansas State University 1999- 2006.  Captive cats may include cougars, bobcats and other felids not native or indigenous to Kansas.  The sighting density was determined using the cluster analysis procedure found in ArcGIS.RESULTSWe calculated difference between the means using z-scores.  We examined all tests of significance at α = 0.05.  The high/low clustering statistical test  provided a graphic output that suggested the cougar sightings were highly clustered.  It  was with < 1.0% likelihood that the clustering of high values could be a result of random chance.  A 2-sample z-test was used to compare the mean distances between random points and known locations of sightings and physical features.  The average straight line distance of sightings to cities was 86.3 km (53.6  mi) and the average distance to random points was 141.3 km (87.8 mi).  The z-score for that comparison was -6.83 (P < 0.0001).  The average distance from sightings to all rivers was 2.5 km (1.6 mi) and the average distance to random points was 3.5 km (2.8 mi) with a z-score of -3.86 (P < 0.0001).  The average distance from all sightings to the nearest location of a captive feline was 47.7 km (29.6 mi) and the average distance to random points was 60.6 km (37.6 mi) with a z-score of -3.61 (P < 0.0003).  The land cover occurring at the point locations of cougar sightings, captive felines and random points was assessed which revealed some interesting patterns.  The random points appear to capture the general abundance of the different land cover classes across the state, but the frequency  of cougar sightings in forested areas is much greater than what occurred randomly (Fig. 2).   DISCUSSIONOur initial hypothesis was that  cougar sightings in Kansas would have an association around rivers, captive felines, and cities with populations greater than or equal to 35,000 people. We assumed that cougars would travel along rivers due to the large amount of cover protection provided by trees and shrubs, in addition to available prey. We also 272 Cougars in Kansas  •  Lee et al.Land cover  Fig. 2.  Land cover associations and cougar sighting reports in Kansas 1999-2006.believed that cougar sightings should concentrate around captive felines since transient cougars entering the state may  be seeking potential breeding partners or occasionally captive felines would be accidentally  or intentionally released.  In the cities with populations greater than or equal to 35,000 people, we believed that  the greater number of humans (thus more observation opportunities) would increase the number of sightings of cougars.The high/low clustering statistics, though not specific in location, indicated that clustering of cougar sightings was evident. When viewing the map, it was clear that sightings clusters did appear along the major rivers and their associated lakes, perhaps due to the protection and shelter provided by vegetation.  The z-scores calculated from the straight distance line analyses to nearest neighbor showed that cougar sightings were more likely to be observed along rivers in Kansas.  When frequency of sightings information was compared with land-cover data, the frequency of cougar sightings in forested areas was double the frequency of sightings found near random points.The association of cougar sightings and large cities was also strong.  More observers in an area should see more cougars if they are present.  The mean distance from random points to captive felines when compared to the mean distance from sightings to captive felines indicated that  the means were not equal and thus an association existed. Given the uncertainties associated with observer sighting reports, we believe that more credence could be given to those sightings that are in close proximity to rivers, cities with > 35,000 population and sightings closer to captive held felines.The closest known established populations of cougars to Kansas are those found along the front range of Colorado.  If natural dispersal from that population was the source of the cougars being sighted we should see more reports from that part of Kansas.  The lack of sightings of cougars in the western part of Kansas does not imply cougars are not present in that part  of the state.  With the majority  of the reports in Kansas coming from eastern Kansas, this may indicate that the cougars that are being sighted in Kansas would be coming from somewhere other than Colorado, perhaps South Dakota.  Another interpretation could be that the sightings are simply erroneous.    MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONSReviewing criteria that  establishes the occurrence records and thus the range of rare or unusual species shows a lack of formal guidance as to what constitutes “official” criteria.  In some cases voucher specimens are required but other species may only require a sighting done by an expert.  Authors suggest  that professional biological organizations develop written criteria that can be used to establish occurrence records. Cougar sightings continue to be reported. Agencies have a difficult time ranking those sighting reports as valid or not.  A written set of what each state will accept as evidence would reduce controversy.Sighting reports are important in wildlife management.  The public at large can help establish occurrence records.  Some sighting reports are more credible than others.  In the absence of physical evidence such as voucher specimens, hair, DNA, track casts or images, professionals must use their best judgment when evaluating the validity of the sighting reports. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors gratefully acknowledge those who took the time to report their sightings to Kansas State University.LITERATURE CITEDAnonymous.  2006a.  Cougar confirmations. The Cougar Network.  <www.easterncougarnet.org/cougarconfim.html> Accessed in April 2006.Anonymous.  2006b.  ArcGIS Desktop version 9.1. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California, USA.Beyer, H. L. 2004. Hawth's Analysis Tools for ArcGIS.  <www.spatialecology.com/htools> Accessed in April 2006.Cougars in Kansas  •  Lee et al. 273Ferrier, S. 2002. Mapping and spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: where to from here? Systematic Biology 51:331-363.Frey, J. K. 2006.  Inferring species distributions in the absence of occurrence records: An example considering wolverine (Gulo gulo) and Canada  lynx (Lynx canadensis) in New Mexico. Biological Conservation 130:16-24.Whitaker, John O., Jr. (Editor).  1996.  National Audubon Society field guide to North American Mammals. (Second) Revised edition. Chanticleer Press, Inc., New York, New York, USA.274 Cougars in Kansas  •  Lee et al.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1202&amp;context=usgsstaffpub

Cougars in Kansas

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNL | Libraries

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska