Perceptions of Mountain Lions 125old separating the two views lies or just what one has to do to get bumped from unbi-
ased researcher to protectionist. From our point of view, we might have classed our
feelings, perceived by others as protectionist, more as worry about how future changes
in management or the public’s attitude toward mountain lions might affect current
research proj ects. For example, what if someone (a child or a hunter) was killed by a
lion? Would sentiment for the species change immediately from a tendency toward
pro- lion attitudes to outright hatred for the species? If this happened, how would it
affect our current proj ects? Would such a change result in a bounty on the species,
subsequently forcing the end to current research proj ects because the lion population
would be reduced to a level at which we could not maintain a reasonable sample of
marked individuals?
At that time (i.e., 2010), some employees of the South Dakota Department of Game,
Fish and Parks, as well as some hunters and South Dakota residents, seemed to think
we were “protectors of the species” and thus more conservationist- minded or pro-
tectionist than just interested, focused scientists involved with the collection of infor-
mation to inform the management agency (this was primarily where our interests
lay). Even some Game and Fish Commission personnel intimated that I was against
the harvest season and that my estimates of the size of the lion population were
extremely conservative. This interpretation was totally incorrect; however, when I
thought back on this categorization, I concluded that in fact I was being conservative
in my estimates, but just as a result of my history with wildlife science and manage-
ment. When obtaining my undergraduate and gradu ate degrees, I was taught that man-
agement should be conservative to ensure that populations were not overharvested.
Thus, the accusation of conservative population estimates did fit with my views on
management. Nevertheless, the new interpretations of our motives were not helpful
when other factors within the Black Hills region changed and consequently affected
the public’s views on mountain lions.
Gigliotti (2009) evaluated the 2008 attitudes of Black Hills residents in a survey
that included questions regarding the current status of the mountain lion population.
Some of the questions were directly comparable to survey questions presented to South
Dakota residents in 2002 (Gigliotti, Fecske, and Jenks 2002). For example, his new
survey asked participants what size of mountain lion population they would prefer:
did they want it increased or decreased, or were they comfortable with its pres ent size?
When Gigliotti (2012) compared responses from 2002 and 2008, he observed a shift
from “remain the same” and/or “increase” to “decrease” or “remain the same” ( table 8.7).
This change in attitude toward the lion population occurred during the time period
when the population was believed to be saturated (See chapter 6). Thus, the shift in
public attitude was likely a response to increased numbers of news reports of sub-
adult lions that were being removed by the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish
and Parks biologists, additional reports of sightings of lions by the public (both resi-
dents and recreationalists), and news of lions being killed by vehicles on the extensive