Mountain lion depredation in southern Brazil

Biological Conservation 105 (2002) 43–51
www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon
Mountain lion depredation in southern Brazil
Marcelo Mazzollia,*, Mauricio E. Graipelb, Nigel Dunstonec
a
Projeto Puma, R. J. Pio Duarte Silva, 535 Horto Florestal, 88037-000, Florianópolis-SC, Brazil
Departmento de Ecologia e Zoologia-CCB, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina-UFSC, 8804- 900, Florianópolis-SC, Brazil
c
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Durham, South Road, Durham City, DH1 3LE, UK
b
Received 6 July 2000; received in revised form 5 July 2001; accepted 27 July 2001
Abstract
Mountain lion (Puma concolor) depredation incidents on livestock herds were recorded at 15 ranches in southern Brazil from
1993 to 1995. Maximum losses to mountain lions were 78% for goats, 84% for sheep, and 16% for cattle. Cattle mortality arising
from causes other than depredation assumed a greater importance in herd productivity. In contrast, attacks on sheep and goats
were more frequent than losses to other causes, but could be reduced to acceptable levels when flocks were corralled at night. Most
depredation incidents occurred when weather and light conditions were unfavorable to human activity. We explain these patterns
and inter-ranch variation in depredation rates on the basis of a risk-avoidance strategy by the mountain lions. Stock losses can be
minimized by understanding these patterns and by applying appropriate herd husbandry, thus reducing the urge to persecute this
protected species. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Mountain lion; Livestock depredation; Puma concolor
1. Introduction
Globally, large felid predators face three major
threats: a diminishing prey base, direct persecution by
man, and habitat modification and fragmentation
(Nowell and Jackson, 1996). These three factors are
likely to operate together since they are predominantly
products of anthropogenic disturbance. The predominance of any one factor over the other will vary
according to local culture, economy, and land tenure
system. In areas where ranching predominates predators
may suffer more from direct persecution following
attacks on livestock.
Livestock loss is the greatest source of conflict
between humans and large cats, and the major cause
underlying their disappearance from considerable areas
of their former range [e.g. tiger Panthera tigris from
most of China; lion Panthera leo from north Africa and
southwest Asia; and the mountain lion or puma Puma
concolor from most of eastern North America (Nowell
and Jackson, 1996)]. Weaver et al. (1996) estimated
from several studies that the greater proportion (75%)
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Mazzolli).
of adult mountain lion mortality resulted from conflict
with humans. In Brazil the mountain lion is currently
considered endangered (Bernardes et al., 1990),
although it cannot be considered so under IUCN criteria (IUCN, 1994; Nowell and Jackson, 1996). The
global range of the mountain lion is estimated to be
17,120,00 km2 (Nowell and Jackson, 1996). Hence,
Brazil,with a land area of 8,547,403 km2, could host half
the global population (Mazzolli, 2000). Although there
is currently no indication that mountain lion populations are declining in Brazil their lethal removal by
hunting or other means is prohibited by law.
Although its threatened status is controversial this
does not imply that mountain lions should not be protected as they have, for example, restricted their range
mainly to mountainous areas in southern Brazil (Ihering, 1892; Mazzolli, 1993). While the current high rate
of deforestation occurring in the lowland rainforests of
the Amazon Basin of northern Brazil is a cause for
concern (Collins, 1990; Reading et al., 1995), and may
eventually lead to widespread fragmentation, the Moist
Ombrofilous (Atlantic forest; GAPLAN, 1986; IBGE,
1992) and Mixed Ombrofilous (Araucaria angustifolia
pine forest, hereafter Araucaria forest) forests of eastern
and southern Brazil, respectively, are already fragmented
0006-3207/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0006-3207(01)00178-1
44
M. Mazzolli et al. / Biological Conservation 105 (2002) 43–51
to a large extent. About 5–12% of the Atlantic Forest
remains (Brown and Brown, 1992), and of the Araucaria
forest only 3% was left in 1978, of which 0.6% was
primary forest (IBDF/FUPEF, 1978). Deforestation
continues with 11% of the remaining Atlantic Forest
areas destroyed between 1985 and 1990 (SOS Mata
Atlântica and INPE, 1993).
In southern Brazil, livestock husbandry is commonly
practiced on a small scale with mixed species herds of
cattle, goats, sheep and swine. Farming of livestock and
the fodder crops (e.g. corn Zea mays) grown to supplement livestock diet have fragmented forests considerably. The consequences of forest fragmentation
include the decline of prey refugia and increased conflict
between wildlife and humans, particularly near habitat
edges where wild ungulates such as deer (e.g. Mazama
spp.) and rodents such as capybara (Hydrochaeris
hydrochaeris) are attracted to crops and from where
they are easily poached. Chiarello (1999) found that
small, isolated reserves in south-eastern Brazil lacked
both large predators and their prey base (e.g. agoutis
Dasyprocta leporina, pacas Agouti paca, peccaries
Tayassu tajacu and T. pecari, and deer).
Under these circumstances, poaching of wildlife has
been shown to exacerbate the effects of forest fragmentation with direct effects on population genetic structure
and demography (Glanz, 1991; Robinson, 1996; Turner
and Corlett, 1996; Cullen et al., 2000). In all cases, the
degree to which predator and prey are affected will
depend not only on the type of disturbance but also on
how it is implemented and whether procedures are
adopted to reduce crop damage and livestock depredation.
Despite the fact that depredation incidents have been
widely reported and documented for mountain lions
(e.g. in Chile: Yáñez et al., 1986; Iriarte et al., 1991; in:
Arizona, Cunningham et al., 1995), little is known of
the factors affecting depredation success under these
circumstances. Also within the context of predatorhuman interaction, few studies have dealt with the issue
of large felids living entirely within productive agricultural and ranching systems (e.g. Schaller and Crawshaw, 1980; Van Dyke et al., 1986; Mazzolli, 2000), and
it is still unclear whether long term habitat suitability
for large carnivores can be maintained in such areas
even with the incorporation of alternative regimes of
forest management and land use. The consideration of
this issue is crucial to determine which development
models can be recommended and implemented in the
vicinity of suitable large carnivore habitat.
The present study aims to contribute to the understanding of such predator–livestock and predator–
human interactions by attempting to establish the relationship between livestock losses and husbandry methods in southern Brazil; to identify some of the factors
that limit or encourage livestock attacks; to identify
local constraints to the instigation of mitigating procedures; and to compare the extent of mountain lion
depredation with losses due to other causes. Such
information on predator–livestock interactions should
ultimately help to prevent or diminish livestock losses
and hence persecution of large felids. This information
is especially important in areas where these predators
are found at low density and where there is interest in
protecting their populations and avoiding conflict with
ranching enterprises.
2. Study area
The study area is located in the coastal mountains of
southern Brazil, from approximately 49 W to 51 W
and from 26 500 S to 28 500 S (Fig. 1), and comprises
two areas, distinguished by vegetation and landscape
features. The southern area is located near the Serra
Geral which in southern Brazil is characterized by a
series of plateaus rifted by steep cliffs, with the easternmost slopes covered with Atlantic forest up to 700 m,
and cloud forest from 700 to 1600 m (Falkenberg and
Voltolini, 1995). Extensive steppe (‘‘campos de altitude’’) cover the plateaus above and westward of the
cliffs, where, as a consequence of anthropogenic fires set
to expand livestock grazing areas, most Araucaria forest
has given way to the steppe with scattered fragments of
cloud forest and/or other shrub associations (Safford,
1999).
The northern part of the study area consists of a
mountain range with climate, geomorphology, and
phytophysiognomy characteristic of the ‘‘Serra do
Mar’’, a mountain chain that harbors much of the
remaining Atlantic forest in southern and southeastern
Brazil. There is a predominance of Atlantic Forest and
mountainous terrain with valleys, which are not so
abruptly cut as the canyons in the southern area. At
higher altitudes small patches of steppe and Araucaria
forest also occur.
3. Methods
Livestock depredation surveys were conducted from
1993 to 1995, and earlier information regarding mountain lion poaching incidents are included where available. Poaching records were based on analysis of
mountain lion skulls and pelts (n=25) from animals
killed whilst attacking livestock. In some cases, records
are derived from information gathered during interviews (n=5). In order to determine the sex ratio of these
mountain lions their skulls were collected, compared,
and classified according to strong dimorphic features
(Mazzolli, 1992). Individuals were classified as adult,
subadult or young according to cementation of fissures
M. Mazzolli et al. / Biological Conservation 105 (2002) 43–51
45
Fig. 1. The study areas are represented by county limits: Lages (Cochilha Rica-Rincão do Perigo, Bocaina do Sul-Mineiros, Capão Alto-Sto Cristo,
Capão Alto/Capão Verde), Rancho Queimado (Alto da Boa Vista), Dr. Pedrinho (Bom Sucesso and Rio do Cedro), Bom Retiro (Campo dos
Padres) and Itaiópolis (Toldo). Grey areas represent primary remnant vegetation above 800 m. Numbers indicate mountain lion locations from
Mazzolli (1993): 1, Praia Grande (Pedras Brancas); 2, Meleiro (foothill zone of Serra Geral); 3, São Joaquim (River São Mateus/Chapada Bonita/
Colégio); 4, Urupema (Morro do Capote); 5, Urubici (River Baiano); 6, Bom Retiro (Paraı́so da Serra); 7, Alfredo Wagner (Caeté); 8, Anitápolis
(Maracujá); 9, São Bonifácio (Neeketer ranch); 10, Antônio Carlos (Santa Maria/Faxinal); 11, Blumenau (Source of the Garcia River); 12, Brusque
(Limeira Alta); 13, Rio dos Cedros (Alto Palmeiras); 14, Rio Negrinho; 15, Joinville (D.Francisca Road/Waterfall 1 of River Cubatão); 16, Campo
Alegre; 17, Garuva (plains and foothill zone of Serra do Mar); 18, Itapoá (plains of Bom Futuro and Barra do Saı́-Mirim); 19, Rio do Campo (Azul
River); 20, Curitibanos (das Pedras River); 21, Agua Doce; 22, Ponte Serrada (between rivers Chapecó and Chapecozinho).
and skull size (Mazzolli, 1992). We only attributed kills
to mountain lion depredation in those cases where the
rancher or one of the authors had inspected the carcass(es) and its location. Some could not be inspected
owing to difficult terrain and were included in losses
attributed to other causes. Several neighboring ranches
were also surveyed to allow consistency of depredation
incidents to be checked. This allowed us to evaluate whether a depredation incident on one ranch was supported
by others occurring on neighboring properties. Since we
did not wish to rely on anecdotal accounts, we also
looked for evidence of recent kills (carcasses), and skins
and skulls of killed mountain lions kept as trophies. No
other major predator, e.g. jaguar (Panthera onca),
inhabited the study area, which might otherwise have
increased the possibility of predator misidentification.
We compared depredation losses of sheep between
managed herds (i.e. confined within a corral during the
night) and free-ranging herds. We also compared the
mortality arising from depredation with that attributable to other causes, which may include theft, disease,
and falls from cliffs, in all herds on an annual basis.
We compared losses between mortality factors and
between managed and non-managed sheep herds by
summing the values for each factor across ranches (i.e.
number of ranches involved and the value for each factor on each ranch). We also compared the average loss
per ranch by applying a Mann–Whitney U test. In the latter comparison, only those cases where mortality occurred
were included unless otherwise mentioned. Means were
compared as percentages to allow comparison of data
from ranches with different herd sizes at the same scale,
i.e. larger herd sizes will tend to have higher losses.
Livestock units were standardized by converting livestock head units to US Dollars/head to avoid underestimating cattle losses. Because there were insufficient
data available on age class composition of herds, we
assumed, for calculation purposes, that all animals
within a particular herd belonged to the same weight or
price class. The following cost/head estimates which
were based on local market value were applied: cattle
$210, goat $50, sheep $50, swine $60.
4. Results
Fourteen of the 15 ranches surveyed within mountain
lion range were located at altitudes above 800 m, one at
46
M. Mazzolli et al. / Biological Conservation 105 (2002) 43–51
650 m. The average size of ranches was 840 ha, ranging
from 40 to 2500 ha (see Table 1). These were categorized
into three size classes: small (five ranches from 40 to 100
ha in extent); medium (four ranches, 150–400 ha) and
large (six ranches, 500–2500 ha). Twelve of these ranches reared cattle, 12 reared sheep, six reared goat
and seven reared swine. Most livestock births
occurred during spring to protect newborn livestock
from winter stress, when temperatures may drop to
10 C.
Of 37 recorded depredation incidents, 15 occurred in
winter (June–September), 11 in spring (September–
December), nine in autumn (March–June), and two in
summer (December–March). Most attacks (92%) were
recorded at night. For those incidents when weather conditions were recorded (n=13), 62% were in rainy weather
(including drizzle) associated or not with fog, 31% in
good weather, and 7% under fog. In addition, there were
several alleged incidents of mountain lion attacks during
foggy conditions only, some of which were not verified.
Table 1
Details of ranches visited during the study, including number of head of livestock at each rancha
Ranch name
Area (ha)
Year
Livestock
Total
Losses
lions
Losses
other
Managementa
Obs. date
Cabanha Sto. Cristo
Boa Vista
Cerro Azul
Do Aleixo
Judas Tadeu
Mineiros
Palmeira Velha
Cabanha Sto. Cristo
São Domingo
Saulo Yung
Sı́tio São Pedro
Sta. Cruz
Judas Tadeu
Sı́tio Ruck
Sı́tio São Pedro
Estância S.F. Rio Perdido
Saulo Yung
Judas Tadeu
Boa Vista
Mineiros
Judas Tadeu
Sı́tio Ruck
Dona Olindina
Judas Tadeu
Do Aleixo
Judas Tadeu
Mineiros
Palmeira Velha
Potreiro Velho
Cabanha Sto. Cristo
São Domingo
Sta. Cruz
Sta. Cruz
Judas Tadeu
Cabanha Sto. Cristo
Saulo Yung
Sı́tio Ruck
Sı́tio São Pedro
Boa Vista
Do Aleixo
Judas Tadeu
Mineiros
Potreiro Velho
São Domingo
Judas Tadeu
Sı́tio Ruck
2000
500
400
70
2500
150
350
2000
70
2500
100
522
2500
40
100
400
2500
2500
500
150
2500
40
2500
2500
70
2500
150
350
50
2000
70
522
522
2500
2000
2500
40
100
500
70
2500
150
50
70
2500
40
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
91-94
1994
1994
1995
1995
1995
1993
1991
1993
1994
1994
1995
1995
1992
1992
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
1991
1995
1995
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1994
1995
1995
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Cattle
Goat
Goat
Goat
Goat
Goat
Goat
Goat
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Sheep
Swine
Swine
Swine
Swine
Swine
Swine
Swine
Swine
1000
400
19
25
600
80
70
1000
25
840
86
150
600
32
86
80
14
28
11
28
14
62
25
25
17
25
12
120
34
42
9
65
65
25
60
20
6
14
8
6
35
18
9
7
35
39
1
0
3
0
0
2
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
28
7
4
1
22
0
22
0
13
1
8
8
45
1
12
1
1
18
0
0
6
0
2
0
0
3
0
1
0
1
0
22
8
4
0
4
6
1
12
0
20
11
10
3
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
7
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
Aug 95
Apr 95
Apr 95
Nov 94
Apr 95
Nov 94
Nov 94
Aug 95
Nov 94
–
Aug 95
Nov 94
Apr 95
Apr 95
Aug 95
Apr 95
–
Apr 95
Apr 95
Nov 94
Apr 95
Apr 95
Jan 93
Apr 95
Nov 94
Apr 95
Nov 94
Nov 94
Aug 95
Aug 95
Nov 94
Nov 94
Nov 94
Apr 95
Aug 95
–
Apr 95
Aug 95
Apr 95
Nov 94
Apr 95
Nov 94
Aug 95
Nov 94
Apr 95
Apr 95
a
The management column indicates whether the livestock were corralled at night or not.
47
M. Mazzolli et al. / Biological Conservation 105 (2002) 43–51
Table 2
Records of mountain lions killed at ranches from 1988 to 1995
#Colec.
Procedence
Sex
Age
Record
UFSC-0320
UFSC-0381
UFSC-0351
UFSC-s/n
FURB-s/n
UFSC-0352
UFSC-0605
UFSC-0333
UFSC-0397
UFSC-0396
UFSC-0373
None
None
UFSC-0344
UFSC-0387
UFSC-0559
M.M.
FURB-s/n
UFSC-0318
UFSC-0557
UFSC-0319
UFSC-0606
UFSC-0745
UFSC-0323
None
None
None
A. Palmeiras-Rio dos Cedros-SC
D. Francisca-Joinville-SC
Urupema-SC
Curitibanos-SC
A. Palmeiras-Rio dos Cedros-SC
Alto Palmeiras-Rio dos Cedros-SC
Tainhas-Cambará do Sul-RS
Ponte Serrada-SC
Jaquirana-RS
Alfredo Wagner-SC
Bom Jesus-RS
Rincão do Perigo-Lages-SC
Rincão do Perigo-Lages-SC
Bom Jesus-RS
Urubici-SC
Joinville-SC
Alfredo Wagner-SC
A. Palmeiras-Rio dos Cedros-SC
A. Palmeiras-Rio dos Cedros-SC
Alfredo Wagner-SC
Siderópolis-SC
São Joaquim-SC
Rancho Queimado-SC
A. Palmeiras-Rio dos Cedros-SC
Afredo Wagner-SC
Dr. Pedrinho-SC
Bocaina do Sul-SC
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Male
Unknown
Male
Unknown
Male
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Subadult
Subadult
Subadult
Subadult or adult
Subadult or adult
Subadult or adult
Unknown
Unkonwn
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Adult
Subadult
Subadult
Subadult
Subadult
Subadult
Young
Young
Young
Unknown
Skull
Skull
Skull
Skull and skin
Skull
Skull
Skull
Skin
Skin
Skin
Skin
Interview
Interview
Skull and skin
Skull and skin
Skull
Skull
Skull
Skull
Skull
Skull
Skull and skin
Skull
Skull
Interview
Interview
Interview
Mountain lions killed by ranchers were categorized by
age and sex whenever possible. Adults were from 3 to 5
years old, and all young were killed when in attendance
with the mother at sheep and goat kills (Table 2). The
sex ratio of adults and sub-adults was 1.2 M:1 F, comprising five adult males, five adult females, five subadult males, three sub-adult females, and three young
(< 1 year old).
4.1. Cattle
Attacks on cattle occurred in only four out of 12
ranches with cattle herds, although mountain lions were
present and actively depredating other herd types in ten
of these ranches. Cattle herds were not put into corrals
at night. Three of the four ranches with cattle depredation had losses ranging from 0.1 to 2.5% of their herd
value, and also had depredation of other livestock types;
the other ranch, which experienced a 16% loss, did not
maintain other types of livestock, and had the smallest
cattle herd size of all ranches, suggesting a relationship
between these variables and the higher mountain lion
attack rate.
As a result of a generally low loss per ranch and low
number of cattle ranches affected, it can be seen from
Fig. 2 that depredation represented only 0.27% (US$
1,890) of the summed value of all cattle herds from all
ranches (US$ 699,670). In contrast, cattle losses to other
causes occurred on 10 ranches, and were 12 times
greater than those to depredation, representing 3.37%
(US$ 23,520) of the total value of all cattle herds.
The difference in financial loss between the two mortality factors is mainly a consequence of the larger
number of ranches with losses to other causes, which sum
to a higher value. Nonetheless, on an individual basis,
ranches that have suffered attacks generally lost less to
mountain lions than to other causes, as percentages of
their stock (Mann–Whitney U=10, df=12, P=0.16).
4.2. Sheep
Sheep were attacked at 10 of the 12 ranches with
flocks, accounting for 32% (US$ 5,900) of the summed
value of all flocks from all ranches (US$ 18,600) (see
Fig. 2). Four ranches managed their sheep herds, corralling them at night. Of these, only two suffered losses to
depredation, which amounted to 3 and 14% of their value.
All eight ranches that left sheep to graze extensively
had depredation losses. From these, seven had losses to
mountain lions ranging from 24 to 84% of their flock
value (mean=43,%, S.D.=23). The remaining ranch,
which suffered a 6% depredation loss, was the only one
with losses within the same range of values reported for
managed flocks.
A large difference was found in depredation between
managed and non-managed ranches where losses
48
M. Mazzolli et al. / Biological Conservation 105 (2002) 43–51
occurred (Mann–Whitney U=15, df=10, P=0.07).
This difference is even larger when managed ranches
with no losses to depredation are included in the analysis (Mann–Whitney U=31, df=12, P=0.01).
Mountain lions often killed several free-ranging sheep
and/or goats in a single attack, but would take only a
single animal from a corral. We witnessed two cases of
massive depredation on free-ranging flocks, with 25
goats and sheep killed in the southern area and 12 sheep
near the northern area, within a 2-week period.
Among the managed sheep flocks, the highest loss
(14%) was sustained where sheep were penned farthest
from the main house (about ca. 60 m) and very near a
deep and forested canyon (about ca. 40 m). One ranch,
which recorded no sheep losses, sustained high goat
losses, which probably reduced attacks on the small
sheep flock. These ranches also had dogs near the
house, which might have helped to reduce depredation.
Only four of the 12 ranches with sheep sustained losses to other causes, less than half the number of ranches
affected by depredation, accounting for 4% (US$ 744)
of the summed value of all sheep flocks from all ranches
(US$ 18,600) (see Fig. 2). In three of the four cases,
losses to other causes were < 10% per ranch, although
the other ranch recorded 41% losses. The economic
impact of mountain lion depredation on sheep farming
is mostly due to the higher number of ranches suffering
attacks, although the average losses to mountain lions
were, in most cases, higher than to other causes (Mann–
Whitney U=29.5, df=14, P=0.18). Differences between
mortality factors are even larger when only those depredation cases at non-managed ranches are included in the
analysis (Mann–Whitney U=25, df=10, P=0.126).
4.3. Goat
All six goat flocks were free-ranging and sustained
depredation, ranging from 9 to 78% of their value.
Fig. 2. Livestock losses to mountain lions (in% of US$) from all
studied ranches (n=number of sampled ranches) to mountain lions
compared to losses due to other factors.
Depredation losses from combined flocks was 38%
(US$ 4332) of the summed value of all goat flocks from
all ranches (US$ 11,150), while that attributable to
other causes accounted for < 2% (US$ 205) of this
value (see Fig. 2). Two of the goat ranches had losses to
other causes (3 and 7% of the herd), this was lower than
that caused by depredation (range 9–78%, mean=37,
S.D.=25).
4.4. Swine
Seven ranches raised swine, the total value of the herd
amounted to US$ 7,320. Two ranches reported losses to
mountain lions (11% loss each) amounted to only US$
300. Losses of swine to other causes were reported on
three ranches, ranging from 13 to 22% (US$360) (see
Fig. 2). Some of the losses attributed to other causes
may have been in fact a product of depredation.
5. Discussion
5.1. Livestock depredation
Free-ranging flocks of goats and sheep suffered more
losses to mountain lions than to causes other than
depredation. However, those ranches that corralled
flocks at night were able to maintain a productive stock,
providing evidence that with relatively little management effort small ranching enterprises are able to coexist with mountain lions. Whereas all free-ranging
sheep and goat flocks sustained depredation losses,
managed flocks may avoid losses.
There is evidence that differences found in predation
rates on managed and non-managed sheep flocks are
related to risk-aversion by the mountain lion. Depredation rates were influenced by environmental factors,
which reduced visibility of prey and human activity.
Mountain lion predation was modified by the proximity
of human habitation and fencing in two ways. First,
attacks did not occur on successive nights as was frequently the case with free-ranging flocks; and when
mountain lions did enter a corral, the damage inflicted,
commonly killing only one or two sheep, was lower than
in the case of a single attack on free-ranging flocks.
Other evidence of stress is found by the way mountain
lions handled livestock kills. The wild prey of mountain
lions is usually dragged away after a kill, and covered
with leaves following feeding (Hornocker, 1970). However, when mountain lions killed many free-ranging
sheep or goats during a single attack they left most of
them uncovered where they fell. Within a corral,
mountain lions were reported dragging sheep up to the
fence and attempting to jump over. Where fencing was
sufficiently high to prevent jumping, mountain lions ate
the prey in the corral. On one occasion a mountain lions
M. Mazzolli et al. / Biological Conservation 105 (2002) 43–51
was observed vomiting following such a meal presumably as a result of feeding under stress (Mazzolli,
pers. obs.).
Cattle herds suffered more losses to diseases, falls
from cliffs, and theft, than to depredation. Similarly low
levels of cattle depredation (0.4, 0.15 and 1.5%) by
jaguar and mountain lions were also estimated at three
ranches in Venezuela by Hoogesteijn et al. (1992). Cattle
ranchers would benefit by adopting strategies to minimize such losses, including fencing, adequate drug
administration, and herd security, than by attempting to
eliminate mountain lions. Additional methods that
could be adopted to deter predators include the use of
guard dogs (Andelt, 1999; Hansen and Smith, 1999),
and aversion conditioning, such as electric fences and
use of nauseating substances (Gustavson et al., 1976;
Andelt et al., 1999; Huygens and Hayashi 1999; Ternent
and Garshelis, 1999).
It is possible that some unknown number of cases of
cattle falling from cliffs could be an indirect result of
mountain lion attack. Typically, fencing was inadequate, and pastures frequently included forested patches
that provided suitable places of concealment for predators. Adequate fencing would prevent cattle from
approaching large forested patches and very steep
slopes where large prey is known to be more vulnerable
to predators (e.g. Hornocker, 1970; Schaller 1972;
Courtin et al., 1980, Deutsch and Weeks, 1992; Hoogesteijn et al., 1992; Cunningham et al., 1995).
Only one cattle herd scored a high depredation loss
(16%), and possible explanations are speculative in this
case. This ranch had the smallest cattle herd among
ranches and the only one that lacked more vulnerable
alternative livestock such as goats and sheep. The size of
the herd (e.g. Schell, 1993), learning by young mountain
lions prior to independence (Leyhausen, 1979; Rabinowitz, 1986; Quigley and Crawshaw, 1992), and injuries
(Rabinowitz, 1986) are all reasons that may lead a felid
to depredate a herd intensively. Size and sex of the
mountain lion also may play its role; for example, male
mountain lions which are considerably larger than
females (Anderson, 1983; Mazzolli, 1992; Gay and Best,
1995), have been found to take larger wild prey (Jalkotzy et al., 1992), and are more commonly involved in
cattle predation than females (Cunningham et al., 1995).
5.2. Local issues concerning depredation incidents
Meetings were held with a local ranching association
in the southern zone of our study area to discuss solutions to the widespread loss of sheep. The government
has subsidised sheep and goat ranching since 1990,
although no consideration of the predation by mountain lions had been made. This resulted in a fast growth
of the number of free-ranging herds, which was then
followed by an increase in mountain lion depredation
49
incidents. Depredation may also have increased indirectly as a result of the rigorous enforcement of environmental laws, which might have lead to increased
mountain lion populations. Although illegal, ranchers
still kill mountain lions following livestock depredation
incidents. They also alleged that attacks had recently
become more intense and they believed (incorrectly)
that the environmental agency [IBAMA (Instituto Brasileiro de Meio Ambiente)] had released mountain lions
in the area, and was therefore to blame for predator
attacks.
We observed three main reactions from the sheep and
goat ranchers who sustained the highest levels of losses:
abandonment of ranching of their most vulnerable
stock (sheep/goat/ pigs), but retaining cattle; attempting
to eliminate the predators or confining stock to a corral
at night. The latter was the least frequently implemented
option although this had been advocated as early as
1820 (Saint-Hillaire, 1978). There seems to be a reluctance to adopt alternative husbandry strategies, as has
been reported in other investigations of felid depredation incidents (Oli et al., 1994; Weber and Rabinowitz,
1996). The reluctance to adopt appropriate stock management techniques may be reduced by appointing a
local environmental officer to implement and supervise
changes in herd management on some ranches and possibly,by subsidising the cost of fencing, as a way to stimulate the changes. Such methods are commonly used
in Brazil to increase crop and meat production.
In conclusion, our investigation suggests that the predation strategy of the mountain lion when hunting
domestic livestock in southern Brazil is predominantly
cautionary. Preference is shown for attacking free-ranging flocks of goats and sheep and with only occasional
incidents occurring near households. In addition, predation on livestock is influenced by weather condition,
time of day, physical (declivity) and biotic (forest cover)
characteristics of the terrain, and the predator’s physical
condition. By attacking at night under conditions of low
visibility (rain and fog) mountain lions not only avoid
instant retaliation from ranchers, but their prey are also
less likely to recognise predation risk (Vasquez, 1994),
thereby minimizing any prey reaction or struggle that
may result in injury to the predator. Ranchers and
wildlife managers should use this knowledge and avoid
leaving domestic stock in conditions favorable to
attacks, thus minimizing livestock losses, and persecution of mountain lions.
Acknowledgements
We like to thank the staff of the Department of Ecosystems at IBAMA-Santa Catarina, especially to biologists Américo Ribeiro Tunes and Marlise Becker for
their continuous support. IBAMA partially funded the
50
M. Mazzolli et al. / Biological Conservation 105 (2002) 43–51
trips to check incidents, and on several occasions made
vehicles available for field trips. Ana Cimardi has given
unconditional support to the surveys, and some of the
early field trips were only possible due to FATMA
funding obtained with her help. Ivo Ghizoni Junior
(Paraná) helped by participating on several of the most
recent expeditions, while Marcos Da-Ré participated in
the early stages. Thanks also to Kristin Nowell and
Peter Jackson of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group for
recognizing Projeto Puma as a valuable initiative, and
their willingness to provide help. Appreciation is also
due to The UK CommonWealth Office and the British
Council which provided a MSc scholarship to Marcelo
Mazzolli.
References
Andelt, W.F., 1999. Relative effectiveness of guardian-dog breeds to
deter predation on domestic sheep in Colorado. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 27, 706–714.
Andelt, W.F., Philips, R.L., Gruver, K.S., Gutrie, J.W., 1999. Coyote
predation on domestic sheep deterred with electronic dog-training
collar. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27, 12–18.
Anderson, A., 1983. A critical review of literature on puma (Felis
concolor). Colorado Division of Wildlife, Wildlife Research Section,
Special Report Number 54, pp. 91.
Bernardes, A.T., Machado, A.B.M., Rylands, A.B., 1990. Fauna brasileira ameaçada de extinção. Fundação Biodiversitas.
Brown Jr., K.S., Brown, G.G., 1992. Habitat alteration and species
loss in Brazilian forests. In: Whitmore, T.C., Sayer, J.A. (Eds.),
Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinction. Chapman and Hall,
London, pp. 119–142.
Chiarello, A.G., 1999. Effects of fragmentation of the Atlantic forest
on mammal communities in south-eastern Brazil. Biological Conservation 89, 71–82.
Collins, M., 1990. The Last Rain Forests. Mitchell Beazley Publishers,
London.
Courtin, S.L., Pacheco, N.V., Eldridge, W.D., 1980. Observaciones de
alimentación, movimiento y preferencia de hábitat del puma, en el
Islote Rupanco. Medio Ambiente (Chile) 4, 50–55.
Cullen Jr., L., Bodmer, R.E., Pádua, C.V., 2000. Effects of hunting in
habitat fragments of the Atlantic forests, Brazil. Biological Conservation 95, 49–56.
Cunningham, S.C., Haynes, L.A., Gustavson, C., Haywood, D.D.,
1995. Evaluation of the interaction between mountain lions and
Cattle in the Aravaipa-Klondyke area of southeast Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department Technical Report 17.
Deutsch, J.C., Weeks, P., 1992. Uganda Kob prefer high-visibility leks
and territories. Behavioural Ecology 3, 223–233.
Falkenberg, D.B., Voltolini, J.C., 1995. The montane cloud forest in
southern Brazil. In: Hamilton, L.S., Juvik, J.O., Scatena, F.N.
(Eds.), Tropical Montane Cloud Forests. Springer-Verlag, New
York, pp. 138–149.
GAPLAN, 1986. Atlas de Santa Catarina. Gabinete de Planejamento
e Coordenação Geral.
Gay, S.W., Best, T.L., 1995. Geographic variation in sexual dimorphism of the puma (Puma concolor) in North and South America. The
Southwestern Naturalist 40, 148–159.
Glanz, W.E., 1991. Mammalian densities at protected versus hunted
sites in Central Panama. In: Robinson, J.G., Redford, K.H. (Eds.),
Neotropical Wildlife Use and Conservation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 163–173.
Gustavson, C.R., Kelly, D.J., Sweeney, M., 1976. Prey-lithium aversions. I: coyotes and wolves. Behavioural Biology 17, 61–72.
Hansen, I., Smith, M.E., 1999. Livestock-guarding dogs in Norway—
part II: different working regimes. Journal of Range Management
52, 312–316.
Hoogesteijn, R., Hoogesteijn, A., Mondolfi, E., 1992. El dilema
depredacion vs conservacion del jaguar y analisis de la mortalidade
de bovinos causada por felinos en tres hatos del llano venezolano.
In: Felinos de Venezuela—Biologia, Ecologia y Conservacion.
FUDECI (Fundacion para el desarollo de las Ciencias Fisicas),
Matematicas y Naturales, Caracas, Venezuela, pp. 129–160.
Hornocker, M.G., 1970. An analysis of mountain lion predation upon
mule deer and elk in the Idaho Primitive Area. Wildlife Monographs 21, 1–39.
Huygens, O.C., Hayashi, H., 1999. Using electric fences to reduce
Asiatic black bear depredation in Nagamo prefecture, central
Japan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27, 959–964.
IBDF/FUPEF, 1978. Inventário do pinheiro no sul do Brasil. Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal.
IBGE, 1992. Guia da vegetação Brasileira. Instituto Brasileiro de
Geografia e Estatı́stica.
Ihering, H.V., 1892. Os mamı́feros do Rio Grande do Sul. Anais do
Estado do Rio Grande do Sul 96–123.
Iriarte, J.A., Johnson, W.E., Franklin, W.L., 1991. Feeding ecology of
the Patagonia puma in southernmost Chile. Revista Chilena de
Historia Natural 64, 145–156.
IUCN, 1994. IUCN Red List Categories. 40th Meeting of the IUCN
Council, Gland, Switzerland.
Jalkotzy, M.G., Ross, P.L. & Gunson J.R. 1992. Management Plan
for Cougars in Alberta. Wildlife Management Planning Series No.
5. Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Edmonton.
Leyhausen, P., 1979. Cat Behaviour. Garland STPM Press, New
York.
Mazzolli, M. 1992. Contribuição ao conhecimento da distribuição,
identificação e conservação do puma (Felis concolor ssp.) no Estado
de Santa Catarina. Bachelor dissertation, UFSC-Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Mazzolli, M., 1993. Ocorrência de Puma concolor (LINNAEUS)
(FELIDAE, CARNIVORA) em áreas de vegetação remanescente
de Santa Catarina, Brasil. Revista Brasilera Zoologia 10, 581–587.
Mazzolli, M. 2000. A Comparison of Habitat Use by the Mountain
Lion (Puma concolor) and Kodkod (Oncifelis guina) in the Southern
Neotropics with Implications for the Assessment of their Vulnerability Status. MSc Thesis. University of Durham, Durham, UK.
Nowell, K., Jackson, P., 1996. Status, Survey and Conservation
Action Plan, Wild Cats. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Oli, M.K., Taylor, I.R., Rogers, M.E., 1994. Snow leopard (Panthera
uncia) predation of livestock: an assessment of local perceptions in
the Annapurna Conservation Area. Nepal. Biological Conservation
68, 63–68.
Quigley, H.B., Crawshaw Jr., P.G., 1992. A conservation plan for the
jaguar Panthera onca in the Pantanal region of Brazil. Biological
Conservation 61, 149–157.
Rabinowitz, A.R., 1986. Jaguar predation on domestick livestock in
Belize. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14, 170–174.
Reading, J., Thompson, R.D., Millington, A.C., 1995. Humid Tropical Environments. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Robinson, J.G., 1996. Hunting wildlife in forest patches: an ephemeral
resource. In: Schellas, J., Greenber, R. (Eds.), Forest Patches in
Tropical Landscapes. Island Press, Washington DC , pp. 111–130.
Safford, H.D., 1999. Brazilian Páramos I. An introduction to the
physical environment and vegetation of the campos de altitude.
Journal of Biogeography 26, 693–712.
SOS Mata Atlântica and INPE, 1993. Evolução dos Remanescentes
Florestais e Ecossistemas Associados do Domı́nio da Mata Atlântica. SOS Mata Atlântica e Instituto de Pesquisas Espaciais, São
Paulo, Brazil.
M. Mazzolli et al. / Biological Conservation 105 (2002) 43–51
Saint-Hillaire, A., 1978. Viagem a Curitiba e provı́ncia de Santa Catarina. Itatiaia Ltda.
Schaller, G.B., 1972. The Serengeti Lion. Univ. of Chicago Press,
Chicago, USA and London, UK.
Schaller, G.B., Crawshaw Jr., P.G., 1980. Movement patterns of
jaguar. Biotropica 12, 161–168.
Schell, D., 1993. Profitability, encounter rates, and prey choice of
African lions. Behavioural Ecology 4, 90–97.
Ternent, M.A., Garshelis, D.L., 1999. Taste-aversion conditioning to
reduce nuisance activity by black bears in a Minnesota military
reservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27, 720–728.
Turner, I.M., Corlett, R.T., 1996. The conservation value of small,
isolated fragments of lowland tropical rain forest. Tree 11, 330–333.
Van Dyke, F.G., Brocke, R.H., Shaw, H.G., Ackerman, B.B., Hemker,
51
T.P., Lindzey, F.G., 1986. Reactions of mountain lions to logging
and human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 50, 95–102.
Vasquez, R.A., 1994. Assessment of predation risk via illumination
level—facultative central place foraging in the cricetid rodent Phyllostis darwini. Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 34, 375–381.
Yáñez, J.L., Cárdenas, J.C., Gezelle, P., Jaksic, F., 1986. Food habits
of the southernmost mountain lions (Felis concolor) in South
America: natural versus livestocked ranges. Journal of Mammalogy
67, 604–606.
Weaver, J.L., Paquet, P.C., Ruggiero, L.F., 1996. Resilience and conservation of large carnivores in the Rocky Mountains. Conservation
Biology 10, 964–976.
Weber, M., Rabinowitz, A.R., 1996. Global perspective on large carnivore conservation. Conservation Biology 10, 1047–1054.