Puma SightingsCan they contribute to science?

Some Puma concolor facts for California Apex predator California population estimated at 4,000-

6,000 Extensive habitat across the state Coincides with deer habitat Possibly 30-40 Puma in Santa Cruz Mountains Territories and populations socially regulated

An individual’s range can be as large as 100 square miles

Major threats: Habitat fragmentation & genetic isolation Vehicles, disease, shooting, wildfires

Methodology Publicly reported puma sightings recorded from multiple sources &

mapped San Mateo County police reports News articles Blogs & forums iNaturalist YouTube JRBP camera traps >330 reports during an 8-year period, >50 cities and towns

Sightings rated by degree of confirmation: Confirmed, Probable, Kill (carcass from likely kill by Puma), Unconfirmed

Data narrowed to sightings occurring within a Greater Bay Area quadrangle, Sept. 2009-May 2011 (150 reports)

JRBP photos used as control

Data Challenges & Limitations Inconsistent observation and reporting

False positives Under reporting in areas where Puma more

common Based on chance Newsworthiness varies

News archiving: older data less availableSmall numbers at municipality levelMany underlying variables – data inherently

“messy”

Not a mountain lion…

So why bother?Numbers are significant in aggregateQualified sightings can provide additional

puma movement data beyond camera trap locations & radio-collared cats Limitations exist on both of these methods

High number of sightings and/or high-profile events can pinpoint localities where public education and responder protocols are needed

Initial results

Quadrangle covers area within San Rafael-Martinez-Gilroy-Santa Cruz boundaries

277 sightings within quad

8 year time period

Narrowed to likely sightings

Confirmed, probable and kills only

8-year period (2004-2011)

175 data points within quad

Likely sightings, 2009-2011Confirmed, probable

& kills onlySept. 2009 – May

2011 (corresponds to JRBP camera trap Puma sightings)

119 data points within quad; 76 excluding JRBP camera traps

Sightings show surprising degree of confirmation

32%

16%9%

43%

Puma Sightings 2004-2011 excluding JRBP cameras

ConfirmedProbableKillUnconfirmed 57%

Likely

233 sightings Confirmed: Photo/

video, wildlife officer corroboration, or multiple witnesses

Probable: Credible description (“long tail” important)

Kill: Deer or livestock carcass, ideally with wounds identified as likely Puma-inflicted

Dangerous Puma encounters are down…

Source: San Jose Mercury News April 4, 2011

…but reported sightings appear to be increasing

2011 data extrapolated to full year (50 actual sightings so far, Jan-May)

Excludes JRBP cameras

Caveat: under-recording of older years

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20110

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Greater reporting possibly a result of greater awareness?

Num

ber o

f rep

orte

d sig

htin

gs

Seasonality of sightings is indeterminate

Possible pattern in data; not clear Possible

correlation with deer movement patterns?

JRBP differences could be due to sample size

More research needed

FALL WINTER SPRING SUMMER

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2004-20112009-2011JRBP Camera Traps

Time of day: Morning & evening sightings most likely

Time segments: Early a.m.

(EAM): 00:00-5:59 a.m.

A.M. (AM): 6:00-11:59 a.m.

Afternoon (AFT): 12:00-5:59 p.m.

Evening (EVE): 6:00-11:59 p.m.

198 sightings; excludes killsEAM

AM

AFT

EVE

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

20

72

37

69

7

27

6

28

4

7

5

13

8

24

21

24

Unconfirmed SightingsProbable SightingsConfirmed SightingsAll Sightings

Evening Confirmed +Probable reports = 42% of Total

Afternoon Confirmed + Probable = 11%

Morning Confirmed + Probable = 35%

Early Morning Confirmed+Probable = 11%

Daytime sightings not bizarre

Daytime = 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.24 % of total confirmed sightings

This is consistent with other Puma activity studies1

8:15 8:45 9:00 9:55 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 15:30 16:16 17:3516:30

• 9/23/10 Pescadero: Puma behind school• 3/29/11 Redwood City : Puma shot in neighborhood

• 10/14/10 Pescadero: Puma behind school• 10/21/07 Gilroy: Cub found eating dog food• 6/13/06 Pleasanton: 50-60 lb. Puma shot near condo

• 9:00, 9/13/10 Morgan Hill: Puma spotted, escapes• 9:55, 1/13/05 Palo Alto: 50-lb. male Puma spotted, escapes

• 1/12/10 Los Gatos Older male struck, killed by car

• 4/29/05 San Jose Photo taken of 80-lb puma in yard• 8/31/08 Portola Valley Credible sighting near yard

• 6/29/08 “daytime” Morgan Hill YouTube video

• 5/17/04 Palo Alto Puma shot by police

• 11/1/08 Saratoga Riders see Puma in open space

• 1/31/10 “late after-noon” La Honda Hikers approached by 2 Puma

• 1/1/07 Portola Valley Puma seen by 3 people

• 3/12/11 Los Altos Puma on security cam

1 Hansen, 1992

Sightings by locality probably do not reflect amount of actual Puma movement

aptos

belmon

t

berkel

ey

boulde

r cree

k

burlin

game

Clayto

n

danvill

e fel

ton gilr

oy

Hayward

la hond

a

los alt

os

Mill Vall

ey

montar

a

morgan

hill

novato

pacific

a

pescad

ero

pleasa

nton

redwoo

d city

san ca

rlos

San Le

andro

san m

ateo

santa

cruz

Scotts

Valley

stanfo

rd

Walnut

Creek

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Confirmed Probable Kill Unconfirmed

JR Camera traps

High variability in number, confirmation level of sightings across communities

Expected & actual impact of human population density on sightingsWe might expect to see a relationship

between human population density, actual Puma movement, and propensity to report sightings…

# Re

porte

d Si

ghtin

gs

Population density

More rural = Puma considered more commonplace; observers less likely to report sightings

More urban = Puma activity is unusual but there is a much higher propensity to report it

A hypothetical “sweet spot” may exist in semi-rural areas where Puma activity is not unusual but people consider sightings noteworthy

…Data say “sort of” JR camera

traps excluded (not a function of human observation)

Some outliers can be explained, but not all

Relationship looks better on log scale; don’t know why!10 100 1000 10000 100000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Population density per locality

# of

repo

rted

Pum

a sig

htin

gs

Pescadero schoolyard sightings

Portola Valley, Woodside

• Outliers include Gilroy, Morgan Hill with a high # of livestock kills.• Other outliers have mixed densities (Palo Alto, Redwood City)

Education can be prioritized by community

Relatively dense communities with high %s of likely sightings should be prioritized for education outreach & responder training (Shaded area)

Cities in bold have already had incident needing responder training

Likely Sightings as % of Total Sightings per Locality

Population Density (person/mi.2)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000-10%

10%

30%

50%

70%

90%

110%

= Total # of Sightings

San Mateo

Berkeley

San JoseGilroy

Morgan Hill

Palo AltoRedwood City

Los Altos

Daly City

Portola Valley

Woodside

Pescadero

Note: JR data omitted

Terrain characteristics of sightings are consistent Consistent nearby land features: Always 1 or

more within < 3 miles Streambeds Open space/parks Hilly terrain, often wooded These are typical Puma habitat features

Even “urban” sightings are within 2-3 miles of 1 or more features Berkeley “Gourmet Ghetto” lion, August 2009 Redwood City Sequoia Hospital puma, March 2011

Pumas typically travel 0.5 miles/hour;1 thus can travel 2-3 miles in a few hours from a habitat area into human habitation

1Kevin Hansen, citing Paul Beier, 1992

Open Spac

e

Stre

ambed

Hilly T

erra

in0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

84%

34%51%

Chart notes:• Percents sum to >100%• Terrain rating estimated

“Urban” sightings not far from Puma habitat areas

San Francisquito Creek

Berkeley Redwood City

Palo Alto

Streambeds

Gilroy

1 Mile

Conclusions Social and news media can be a useful ecology tool

Citizen science puma tracking Even this “messy” data yields some useful information

Corroborates behavior studies Has potential predictive value

Reported Puma sightings in the greater Bay Area appear to be increasing

Sightings peak during morning and evening as expected but almost 25% occur during daytime

Sightings vary greatly among communities Communities can be prioritized for education & training outreach There are common terrain features near sightings, even urban

ones, that can possibly be used to anticipate future Puma activity Human demographics and Puma behavior data can potentially be

combined to predict human-Puma interaction at a high level

Next Steps Share results with Felidae Conservation Fund, other researchers Tie results in with puma radio movement data – possibly

identify individuals Do additional research to add to/scrub data:

Police reports Animal Control

Conduct more in-depth terrain & seasonality analysis Use results to identify areas to find pumas to collar Use results to place cameras at likely corridor points Develop “citizen science” puma app to capture better data

when new sightings occur http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RR3YTWN

Some interesting Puma sightings

Video: Los Altos Hills http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLXGLgSAZj4

Video: Morgan Hill http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8DK2RGUXuk

Video: Ben Lomond (Felidae Fund) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1axaB_zRn8

Some photos from JRBP