Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Division outlines 3‑year cougar-removal study (WRI 7707) to test effects on mule deer
Summary
The Utah Division presented WRI 7707, a BYU‑partnered, multi‑unit field study that will reduce cougars on six units meeting a 7% adult doe mortality threshold to test whether cougar removal increases mule‑deer production; rack members and public asked about habitat confounders, trap risks, controls and a 3‑ to 5‑year timeline.
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources on Tuesday detailed a proposed research and management project, WRI 7707, to test whether aggressively reducing mountain‑lion (cougar) numbers on selected units improves mule‑deer population performance.
Division presenter Darren said the study will target six units—Zion, Pine Valley, Monroe, Boulder, East Wasatch and Stansbury—chosen because collar data show adult doe mortality from cougars at or above a 7% threshold that the division considers likely to suppress population growth. "Let's get some data," Darren said, describing plans to work with BYU, use department trappers and track overlap with collared deer to measure demographic responses.
Why the data lag: the division explained that harvest‑based age data tend to underrepresent kittens and yearlings, which makes model outputs effectively two years behind current conditions. "That model's always gonna be looking back," Darren said, describing the constraints of age‑based harvest models.
Public and rack members pressed the division on study design and confounding factors. Brett Guymon asked whether existing collar data already answer the question and whether the units selected have habitat differences that could explain deer trends; Darren said the study will include habitat covariates and control units selected from other locations that meet the same criteria. "If those aren't accounted for, it's gonna be really hard to make a good decision about what actually caused it," Darren said.
Safety and non‑target risk were repeatedly raised. Audience member Cody Webster asked whether snares or traps could accidentally capture pets, stock or other recreationists on public land; Darren said the techniques planned mirror livestock‑depredation methods and acknowledged a risk, adding that precise work areas will be part of field planning.
Timeline and partners: the division said field work is expected to run at least three field seasons (a three‑year field component with analysis and publication likely extending to about five years). Funding partners noted in the presentation include BYU and organizations such as the Utah Wild Sheep Foundation; the division said some federal funding (Pittman‑Robertson/PR) could be applicable for related efforts.
What happens next: WRI 7707 is described as a research/management action rather than a finalized policy; the division invited rack members and interested public to review the WRI materials (WRI 7707) and follow up for details on study design and control selection.
The rack did not vote on this item but moved on to related agenda matters and public comment. The division asked for patience while the study design is finalized and emphasized that open questions (site pairing, exact techniques, and non‑target protections) will be addressed in the formal project plan and permits.
