DWR outlines experimental cougar-removal study amid heated public backlash

Darren DuBois, the Division of Wildlife Resources’ private-lands public-wildlife coordinator, presented an informational update on a DWR predator-control research project that will experimentally remove cougars on six units to test whether lowering cougar-caused adult-doe mortality allows mule deer and bighorn sheep herds to recover. The units named by staff are Pine Valley, Monroe, Zion, Boulder, East Wasatch and Stansbury.

Darren said the division’s decision to run the experiment rests on collar-data thresholds: "one of the touchstones ... is that once lion predation on adult does goes above 7 percent, those populations will not grow," he told the RAC. He described Utah’s collar dataset as unusually large and argued a rigorous, experimental approach is needed to produce definitive answers about predator impacts.

The presentation emphasized technical limits of population models — they are harvest-based and thus conservative and "always two years behind," Darren said — and noted legal constraints: changes to permit quotas would require law changes, while some predator-management levers are available to the director under state law.

The proposal drew immediate and sustained public comment. Houndsmen and private citizens said the plan risks dogs and recreationists getting caught in snares or at bait sites. "When we register a bait site for bears... that's a lot of risk when we're hanging meat in a tree," said JJ Brewer of the Utah Houndsman Association, who asked whether the division would publicize government trap locations and whether sportsmen would be called to assist first. Darren said the division is "using government, you know, Utah State trappers" and that snares "are probably going to be the most effective way," and he acknowledged he did not know every operational detail yet.

Some speakers said the study was effectively an eradication effort. "This is an extermination order on the lions," Jeff Brewer told the RAC, adding he believed the project was imposed without full public process. Others urged reliance on existing long-term studies; members of the public cited a Monroe Mountain study they said showed intensive cougar harvest did not restore deer herds.

Stakeholder organizations supporting the study argued it fills an evidence gap. Travis Jensen of the Utah Wild Sheep Foundation said peer-reviewed university work and ongoing collaring indicate predator impacts on bighorn sheep and mule deer, and the foundation supports objective research to inform management. Hadley Sorensen, director of the Utah Wild Sheep Foundation, said the group "is willing to accept that risk because we are committed to letting the data lead the conversation."

Darren and other staff said the study is funded in part by outside conservation groups; he told attendees the project is funded by SFW (Sportsmen for Wildlife) and the Wild Sheep Foundation and that the WRI-type process identifies projects at DWR and then looks for partner funding.

Darren told the RAC the study’s intent is to answer a specific management question objectively: "If you remove enough lions will that release your deer herd?" He said the division will report findings to the wildlife board and that, if effective, the metric could focus management on problem units. He also acknowledged community concerns about safety and transparency and invited comments.

The RAC did not take action on the informational item; the chair reminded attendees that final decisions on related proposals go to the Wildlife Board at its Jan. 8 meeting in Farmington.

Ending: The division framed the effort as research to inform future management, while stakeholders and local residents urged greater transparency, protections for hounds and recreationists, and use of existing studies. The research design and operational details (timing, trap/site disclosure, compensation protocols) were not finalized at the RAC meeting and remain subject to further DWR planning and Wildlife Board review.