Utah DWR outlines controlled cougar-reduction study; public raises safety and process concerns
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
At an informational meeting in Vernal, DWR staff described a BYU-partnered study that will reduce cougar numbers on selected units to test effects on mule deer survival; the proposal drew strong public concern about snares, hounds, pelts and lack of prior public design input.
Darren Du Bois of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources told the Northeast Regional Advisory Council onstage in Vernal that the division will run a controlled, paired-unit study to test whether prescribed reductions in cougar numbers can improve mule deer survival. The three-year field phase will rely on GPS-collared deer and cause-specific mortality investigation, followed by two years of analysis.
The division chose units where adult-doe mortality attributed to cougars already appears high — DWR staff said the working threshold was roughly 7% adult-doe mortality in affected units — and will pair treatment units with comparable controls. DWR said it is partnering with Brigham Young University on study design and analysis and is coordinating with UDAF predator specialists; the Utah Wild Sheep Foundation and other sportsmen’s groups have contributed funding but Division staff emphasized the division led unit selection and study methodology.
The study’s methods, Du Bois said, include helicopter capture and GPS-collaring of deer (locations logged about every two hours) and rapid field investigation when collars transmit mortality signals. “When that collar lies still for eight hours… we’ll send a biologist or student out there and they’ll document how that animal died,” Du Bois said, describing cause‑specific mortality procedures and sample accumulation over time.
Public commenters pressed the division on several fronts. Houndsmen and other hunters said snares, baited lethal sets, and trapping approaches risk dogs and pets, and asked for warning signage; one attendee called the proposal “a massacre” and others said their dogs had already been harmed. Speakers also criticized the process, saying the study was developed without wider public design review. Representatives of sportsmen’s groups including the Utah Wild Sheep Foundation defended funding the work while insisting they did not design it, and urged that data replace opinion in future management.
Division staff said the study is intended to produce rigorous, unbiased results and that public process will follow if management changes are recommended based on study outcomes. They noted legal changes have already broadened authorized take methods and that some policy adjustments would require legislative action. DWR promised annual updates to RACs while the study is underway.
The meeting produced no action or vote on the study; staff described it as informational and invited continued public input and follow-up reporting.