Mountain Lions of the Black Hills

122 Mountain Lions of the Black Hills

up the two groups? Was there an age difference? Or maybe a regional difference; those
from the Black Hills versus others? Or were these diff er ent attitudes due to life style:
rural versus city?
Our first question was based on thoughts that younger individuals would be more
pro- lion than older individuals because of the history of predators in South Dakota.
In the past, lions and other large predators had been viewed as vermin and managed
based on bounties (this was the case for lions in South Dakota prior to 1978). Thus,
older South Dakota residents who were raised on farms and ranches had likely learned
that mountain lions killed livestock and game species, and therefore those residents
would be likely to have negative views toward lions. So we were not surprised to learn
that the average age of respondents who were strongly contra- lion was about 10 years
greater than for those who were strongly pro- lion ( table 8.2).
We also learned that people who lived in rural areas and raised livestock tended to
be strongly contra- lion, whereas those in other residential settings were more strongly
pro- lion ( table 8.3). The findings supported our suspicion that the potential for loss of
livestock from mountain lions was an impor tant driver of the contra- lion attitude. The

Table 8.2. Average age of survey respondents classed by attitude

toward mountain lions

Mountain lion attitude groups Mean Age 95% C.I.

Strongly pro- lion (23%) 50.3 48.7–52.0

Slightly pro- lion (34%) 49.3 47. 8 – 5 0. 9

Neutral (11%) 5 7. 4 54.1–60.7

Slightly contra- lion (22%) 53.4 51.3–55.5

Strongly contra- lion (10%) 59.8 56.5–63.0

Group total 52.4 51.4–53.4

Source: Gigliotti, Fecske, and Jenks 2002.

Table 8.3. Type of residence of respondents to a survey on attitudes toward mountain lions

Type of residence

Mountain lion attitude group (group size)

Strongly

pro- lion

23%

Slightly

pro- lion

34%

Neutral

11%

Slightly

contra- lion

22%

Strongly

contra- lion

10%

City of more than 10,000
(40%)

37% 43% 45% 40% 28%

Tow n /cit y
2,000–10,000 (14%)

16% 14% 15% 11% 15%

Town less than 2,000 (15%) 13% 14% 24% 15% 16%
Suburban setting (10%) 12% 11% 6% 9% 8%
Rural, no livestock (12%) 15% 12% 7% 15% 6%
Rural with livestock (9%) 7% 6% 3% 10% 27%

Source: Gigliotti, Fecske, and Jenks 2002.