1902-1930 geographic bounty records of wolf and cougar kills in Montana.............does this early 20th century snapshot accurately portray where wolves and cougars were historically found circa AD 1500 when vast buffalo herds occupied the State? Please remember that even A.D.1800-1805 Lewis & Clark observations of Wolves in Eastern Montana(but no mention West of Continental Divide) does not take into account 300 years of Indians using horses(secured from the Spanish Conquistodors) and European impact on the land(while Lewis and Clark were the first to diary account this part of North America, Spanish colonization and influence as well as French trapper influence had impacts on how the tribes hunted, viewed each other and how their evolving hunting patterns impacted wildlife).....How wolves and cougars were impacted by the gradual shrinkage of the buffalo herds in terms of revised population distribution across the landscape can only be conjectured and not stated in absolutes................the historical distribution of our predators and their prey is a cornerstone interest of this blog and we will continue to pursue our investigations at every opportunity.

*, Genevieve M. Nesslage, Brian A. Maurer

Abstract

Bounty records from Montana (1902–1930) were used to better understand spatial and temporal response of wolves (

Canis lupus)

and cougars (

Puma concolor) to an eradication program. Number of payments for wolves declined from a high of 4116 in 1903 to 0

by 1928. Numbers of cougar pelts fluctuated, but generally declined from 177 in 1908 to 2 in 1930. An inverse spatial relationship

existed between density of payments for wolves and cougars. Payments for wolves were greatest in the Prairie ecoregion, while

payments for cougars were greatest in the Montane(MOUNTAINS). The ratio of pup to adult wolves also was greatest in the Prairie ecoregion and

least in the montane. If distribution and frequency of bounty payments were a reflection of the distribution and abundance of

wolves, populations were highest and most productive in areas where they currently do not occur.--note that where cougars and wolves occupy the same region, cougars tend to occupy higher Country where their stealth and ambush style hunting is optimized...........wolves as a coursing(chasing) predator prefer the open flatlands..............this is how the two predators minimize their conflicts with each other--blogger Rick

Once two of the most widely distributed large carnivores

in the world, wolves (

Canis lupus) and cougars

(

Puma concolor), were nearly eradicated in the western

US as a result of habitat loss and predator control

programs during the 20th century (Mech, 1970; Young

and Goldman, 1944). Central to the success of predator

control programs were economic incentives in the form

of payments (bounties) to hunters or trappers in exchange

for animal parts or pelts. Records of bounty

payments provide a novel source of data regarding distribution

and relative abundance of wolves and cougars,

and response of large carnivores to human-caused exploitation.

Improved understanding of where ancestral

populations existed and their response to exploitation

provide a historical perspective to management of large

carnivores such as wolves and cougars, and may aid

current conservation efforts for these species (Berger and

Wehausen, 1991; Fuller and Kittredge, 1996).

The first territorial bounty legislation aimed at wolves

and cougars in Montana was enacted in 1883 (Curnow,

1969). Bounty payments occurred until 1887, when the

bounty law was repealed. A new bounty program was

reinstated in 1891. By 1930, wolves were eradicated from

Montana, and few cougars remained (Bangs et al., 1998;

Young and Goldman, 1944, 1946).

 County Treasurers kept careful

records of the eradication program through meticulous

ledgers of bounty payments. These ledgers provide a

source of harvest data, which may provide insight into

historical exploitation and eradication of two species of

large carnivores.

The goal of this study was to increase understanding

of spatial and temporal dynamics of exploitation of

large carnivores, and identify implications of this understanding

for current management of these species.

Montana has a land area of 381,086 km2, and averages

approximately 870 km from east to west and 450

km from north to south (Fig. 1). Elevations range from

546 m where the Kootenai River exits the state in the

northwest corner to 3898 m in the Beartooth Mountains

of south central Montana. The western third of Montana

is mountainous and the eastern two-thirds are a

mix of undulating cleft prairie interspersed with rivers

and isolated mountain ranges of the Missouri and Yellowstone

watersheds.

All counties of Montana were assigned to one of

three main ecoregions, the Montane, Intermountain,

and Prairie ecoregions (Riley, 1998). The Montane ecoregion

was comprised of Northern Rocky Mountain

Steppe–Coniferous Forest–Alpine Meadow Provinces

(McNab and Avers, 1994) within the Columbia Basin of

northwestern Montana. Southwestern Montana and the

Rocky Mountain East Front were classified into an Intermountain

ecoregion, which contained a mix of Middle

Rocky Mountain Steppe–Coniferous Forest–Alpine

Meadow and Southern Rocky Mountain Steppe–Open

Woodland–Coniferous Forest–Alpine Meadow Provinces.

The remainder of the state is predominately in the

Prairie ecoregion, comprised of Great Plains–Palouse

Dry Steppe Province.

Bounty harvest records from 1902 to 1930, originally

recorded by county clerks, were transcribed from ledgers

archived in the Montana State Library in Helena. Record

books from 1924 were missing. Records represented

number of bounty payments for cougar, adult

wolf, and wolf pup pelts submitted by individuals in the

county for which the animals were killed. Cougar

bounty prices changed from $7 in 1902 to $10 in 1905.

Adult wolf bounty prices changed from $5 in 1902 to

$10 in 1906 and $15 dollars in 1912. Bounty price for

wolf pups was $3 until 1904 and $4 thereafter.

We summarized the proportion of total wolf and cougar

bounty payments made in each ecoregion.

Bounty records may provide a glimpse of historic

wolf and cougar ecology as well as population response

to human exploitation. However, caution need be exercised

when making inferences from the data. Some

patterns we observed may be an artifact of wolf and

cougar vulnerability to human harvest, or errors in reporting

bounty kills. Data are lacking on bounty hunter

effort, which might enable stronger inference between

bounty kills and actual populations. Another source of

potential bias is our inability to document the entire

history of wolf and cougar exploitation in Montana.

Bounty kills in Montana began in 1883, but only records

from 1902 to 1930 were retrievable. Despite these potential

sources of bias, we believe patterns from these

data may be valuable for conservation planning.

Number of payments declined rapidly from a peak

in 1903 until 1909 (Fig. 2). A temporary increase

in payments occurred from 1911 until 1914, after which

a decline occurred until wolves were extirpated. No

payments for wolf pelts were made in Montana after

1927.

Bounty payments for wolves were widespread across

Montana from 1902 to 1910, but were greatest in the

eastern half of the state. Through time, the

pattern of payments became more scattered across

Montana as payments were no longer reported in some

counties. Wolf kills from 1911 to 1920 were concentrated

in the middle of the state with brief, but relatively

high densities of kills localized in the northwest and

southeast. Small numbers of wolf pelts were presented in

a scattering of counties across most of the state during

the last 9 years wolves were present in Montana. One

exception was the Montane ecoregion, where no payments

were made after 1921. The last bounty payment

for wolves was recorded in Powder River County in

southeastern Montana.

The ratio of wolf pups to adults was greatest in the

Prairie ecoregion (Fig. 3). The ratio of pups to adult

wolves presented for payment never exceeded one in the

Montane (max

¼ 0:07) or Intermountain (max ¼ 0:57)

ecoregions.

Cougar payments fluctuated from 1902 to 1922 with

peaks occurring at an interval of 3–4 years

Payments were greatest in 1908, when 177 pelts were

submitted for payment. By 1930, only two payments

were made for cougar pelts in Montana.

From 1902 to 1910, nearly all counties in Montana

had cougar pelts presented for bounty payment (Fig. 2).

The highest numbers consistently occurred in the

Montane and Intermountain ecoregions. By 1911, few

pelts were presented for payment in the eastern half of

the state. From 1925 to 1930, less than five pelts per year

were presented across the state. Numbers of cougar pelts

were more concentrated in the Montane ecoregion except

in the last 5 years when they were scattered across

the western half of the state.

Bison bison), s first bounty program both occurred Odocoileus virginianus) populations (Riley andMalecki,

2001). Historically, many of these valleys were inhabited

by wolf populations that may have discouraged cougars

from descending to lower elevations (Mussehl and Howell,

1971). If wolf populations continue to expand into

areas currently occupied by cougars, wolves may once

again restrict cougars to more mountainous and rugged

terrain. Research is needed to better understand dynamics

of potential competitive interactions between

wolves and cougars, and their implications for conservation.

Dynamics of early wolf and cougar eradication efforts in

Montana: implications for conservation

The spatial differences in abundance and productivity

we observed between wolves and cougars have several

implications for conservation. Wolves in the western US

currently are limited to mostly mountainous habitats of

Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, on or adjacent to national

forests and national parks (Bangs and Fritts,

1996; Bangs et al., 1998). If historical distribution and

abundance of bounty payments were a reflection of

earlier distribution and abundance of wolves in Montana,

ancestral wolf populations likely were highest and

most productive in areas where they currently do not

occur. Localized pockets of high bounty yields were

observed in the Montane and Intermountain ecoregions.

However, these ecoregions did not sustain high yields

for as long as the eastern Prairie ecoregion. High apparent

productivity of wolves in the prairie was expressed

in the ratio of pups per adults presented for

payment, and this occurred despite high human-caused

mortality. Other ecoregions of Montana experienced

lower harvests, yet these ecoregions did not appear to

support sustained wolf productivity.

in 1883. Wolf populations probably switched

prey from bison to cattle as livestock grazing spread

rapidly throughout the Prairie ecoregion. Potential

conflict with agricultural interests now reduce opportunities

for species restoration in that ecoregion, and may

limit future range expansion of wolves in Montana

(Bangs et al., 1998).

A second implication of our analysis is that optimizing

both cougar and wolf populations in the same

area may be an unrealistic management goal due to interspecific

interactions. The number of wolf bounty

payments was highest where payments for cougars were

least. The spatial pattern of bounty payments indicates a

west to east gradient in abundance (least to greatest)

existed during the early 20th century for wolves, and an

opposite east to west gradient in abundance (least to

greatest) was observed for cougars. This observation is

supported by early explorer accounts of wolves in

Montana. For example, Lewis and Clark reported

wolves present throughout eastern Montana, but made

no mention of wolves once they reached the continental

divide (Coues, 1893).

Competition between wolves and cougars may exist

and have profound effects on their behavior and population

dynamics. Patterns of winter prey selection

in Glacier National Park indicated wolves and cougars

exhibit exploitation and interference competition

(Kunkel et al., 1999). Wolves can effectively compete

through direct competition for prey or occasionally

killing cougars (Bangs and Fritts, 1996; Boyd and Neale,

1992; Kunkel et al., 1999; White and Boyd, 1989). Potential

for competitive interactions is an important

conservation consideration because cougars exist in every

area where wolves are presently being restored in the

western US (Hornocker and Mobley, 1992). Cougars

are capable of exploiting valley and foothill habitats

because of relatively new, abundant white-tailed deer

(

Received 11 June 2003; received in revised form 17 October 2003; accepted 14 January 2004