1
Moun ain lions (Puma concolo ) and hei cu en managemen :
Texas esiden s’ knowledge and a i udes
Oma Oh ens1, Benjamin Ghasemi2, Bonnie E. Gulas-W oblewski3, L. Ma k Elb och1
1 Pan he a, 104 Wes 40 h S ee , 5 h Floo , New Yo k, NY 10018, USA
2 School o En i onmen & Na u al Resou ces, The Ohio S a e Uni e si y, Columbus, OH, 44691 USA
3 Uni y En i onmen al Uni e si y, 70 Fa m View D i e, Sui e 200, New Glouces e , ME 04260, USA
Co esponding au ho : Oma Oh ens (ooh ens@pan he a.o g)
Copy igh : © Oma Oh ens e al.
This is an open access a icle dis ibu ed unde
e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion
License (A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional – CC BY 4.0).
Resea ch A icle
Abs ac
Texas hos s app oxima ely se en pe cen o he Uni ed S a es o Ame ica’s moun ain lion
(Puma concolo ) popula ion, al hough his es ima e migh be high due o hei non-game
s a us and lack o egula ion. In Augus 2022, he Texas Pa ks and Wildli e Depa men
(TPWD) ejec ed a pe i ion o change s a e moun ain lion policy and es ablished a s ake-
holde wo king g oup o e alua e po en ial managemen s a egies. He e, we syn hesised
su ey da a collec ed om 740 Texas esiden s on hei knowledge and a i udes abou
moun ain lions and hei egional managemen ha is immedia ely ele an o he ongoing
decisions being made by he Moun ain Lion Wo king G oup, he Texas Pa ks and Wildli e
Commission, he s a e-wide moun ain lion managemen plan wo king g oup and TPWD
mo e gene ally. O e all, Texans co ec ly epo ed ha moun ain lions a e a e in Texas,
bu mis epo ed ha hey a e p o ec ed. Gene ally, pa icipan s we e posi i e abou moun-
ain lions and suppo ed hei managemen . Hun e s and li es ock p oduce s exp essed
mo e posi i e a i udes o moun ain lions and hei managemen han did non-hun e s
and people who did no own li es ock. In con as o p e ious esea ch on suppo o
ca ni o e conse a ion, we did no de ec any di e ences in esponses be ween u al and
u ban esiden s. Toge he , hese da a sugges ha he adi ional cons i uen s o TPWD
(i.e. hun e s and li es ock owne s) a e suppo i e o policies ha ha e been p oposed o
inclusion in a s a e managemen plan o he species, such as manda o y epo ing o any
moun ain lion killed o any pu pose. Ou esul s highligh he impo ance o TPWD’s p i-
o i isa ion o public ou each and educa ion a ge ing a g ea e di e si y o Texans o: 1)
mi iga e he pe cep ions o isks and/o cos s associa ed wi h moun ain lions; 2) inc ease
public knowledge abou moun ain lions and hei managemen and 3) os e g ea e us
in na u al esou ce go e nance o p e en disengagemen by he public.
Key wo ds: A i udes, moun ain lion, policy, Puma concolo , su eys, Texas Pa ks and
Wildli e Depa men , Texas esiden s, wildli e managemen
In oduc ion
Conse a ion as a p ac ice has p ima ily ocused on mi iga ing human impac s
on wildli e and ecosys ems, a he han building co-exis ence h ough co-adap-
a ion (Pooley e al. 2021; Ca e and Linnell 2023). Ul ima ely, legisla ion, policy
Academic edi o : Na asha Cons an
Recei ed:
29 Oc obe 2024
Accep ed:
6 Sep embe 2025
Published:
7 Oc obe 2025
ZooBank: h ps://zoobank.
o g/0E42F550-B6F0-4A52-AF8E-
22C25C36F3A8
Ci a ion: Oh ens O, Ghasemi B, Gulas-
W oblewski BE, Elb och LM (2025)
Moun ain lions (Puma concolo )
and hei cu en managemen :
Texas esiden s’ knowledge and
a i udes. Na u e Conse a ion 60:
1–19. h ps://doi.o g/10.3897/
na u econse a ion.60.140566
Na u e Conse a ion 60: 1–19 (2025)
DOI: 10.3897/na u econse a ion.60.140566
2
Na u e Conse a ion 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/na u econse a ion.60.140566
Oma Oh ens e al.: Texas esiden s´ a i udes owa ds moun ain lion
and egula ion a e amongs he mo e powe ul conse a ion ools because o
he ex en (i.e. he geog aphic ange o ju isdic ions) and longe i y o hei im-
pac on human beha iou ha impac wildli e popula ions (Musg a e and S ein
1993; Langhamme e al. 2024). Consequen ly, conse a ion p ac i ione s a -
emp o unde s and wha conse a ion issues people suppo and which hey
do no . Unlike beha iou , a i udes a e di icul o obse e. Ins ead, esea che s
gene ally ely upon s a egic su ey designs wi h he in en ion o linking su ey
da a unde s ood o be ep esen a i e o speci ic human alues and a i udes,
o po en ial o cu en beha iou impac ing conse a ion agendas (Pie ce e al.
2001; Benne e al. 2016). He e, we syn hesise su ey da a on he a i udes o
Texas esiden s owa ds moun ain lions (Puma concolo ) ele an o cu en
managemen decisions abou po en ial conse a ion policy o he species and
he cu en de elopmen o a s a e-wide moun ain lion managemen plan.
These da a also p o ided us wi h he oppo uni y o es se e al hypo h-
eses ela ed o s akeholde a i udes and pe cep ions o wildli e manage-
men ha ha e ound suppo in p e ious esea ch. Scien i ic e idence hus
a sugges s ha hun e s, li es ock owne s and u al esiden s expe ience
g ea e angible (e.g. li es ock losses) and in angible (e.g. ea ) “cos s” o
li ing wi h la ge ca ni o es, as well as mo e o en ace he eal (e.g. ac ual
damage) and pe cei ed isks (e.g. ulne abili y o damage) posed by moun-
ain lions o li es ock and ungula e hun ing oppo uni ies (Da enpo e al.
2010; Young e al. 2015; Knop e al. 2016; Elb och e al. 2017; Mi chell e al.
2018). Fo hese easons, we hypo hesised ha hun e s, li es ock owne s and
people in u al coun ies would exp ess less suppo o moun ain lions and
moun ain lion conse a ion managemen han non-hun e s, people wi hou
li es ock and people who li e in u ban and subu ban coun ies, as has been
shown elsewhe e (Da enpo e al. 2010). Secondly, we es ed he assump-
ion ha he majo i y o Texans a e an i- apping and, he e o e, opposed o
apping-based managemen and he apping o moun ain lions, as p e ious
esea ch has sugges ed ha mos people do no suppo hese measu es,
excep in he de ence o li elihoods (Van assel e al. 2010; Whi e e al. 2021).
Me hods
Backg ound
As o 2021, he Texas Pa ks and Wildli e Depa men (TPWD) lis s moun-
ain lions as S2/S3 on i s Species o G ea es Conse a ion Need (TPWD
2021). S2 is an Impe illed classi ica ion de ined as, “Impe illed in he na ion
o s a e/p o ince because o a i y due o e y es ic ed ange, e y ew
popula ions (o en 20 o ewe ), s eep declines o o he ac o s making i
e y ulne able o ex i pa ion om he na ion o s a e/p o ince” and S3 is
a Vulne able classi ica ion de ined as “Vulne able in he na ion o s a e/
p o ince due o a es ic ed ange, ela i ely ew popula ions (o en 80 o
ewe ), ecen and widesp ead declines, o he ac o s making i ulne able
o ex i pa ion”. Despi e hese ends, moun ain lions in Texas con inue o be
classi ied as “non-game” and can be killed in any quan i y, by any me hod
and a any ime o yea . In addi ion, Texas esiden s a e no equi ed o e-
po any moun ain lion ha es o mo ali y o TPWD.
3
Na u e Conse a ion 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/na u econse a ion.60.140566
Oma Oh ens e al.: Texas esiden s´ a i udes owa ds moun ain lion
Chap e 67 o he Texas Pa ks and Wildli e Code (TPWD 2023) di ec s
he TPWD o de elop managemen p og ammes ha ensu e sus ainable
non-game wildli e popula ions (Sec ion 67.002) and o conduc esea ch
o non-game o de elop he necessa y in o ma ion on hei popula ions in
o de o manage hem (Sec ion 67.003). Al hough moun ain lions a e lis ed
as a Species o G ea es Conse a ion Need, he TPWD does no moni o o
es ima e hei abundance. This lack o moni o ing aises ques ions abou
whe he cu en managemen p ac ices ully align wi h he agency´s s a -
u o y esponsibili ies, including hose ou lined in Sec ion 34 o he Texas
Cons i u ion, which emphasises sus ainable use o wildli e esou ces o
u u e gene a ions (The Texas Cons i u ion 2023). Fu he e alua ion o
managemen policies ega ding moun ain lion hun ing may be wa an ed o
ensu e sus ainabili y and compliance wi h ele an legal amewo ks.
In June 2022, a s akeholde wo king g oup composed o Texas esiden s,
scien is s, ad oca es, a e e ina ian and o he p i a e ci izens (Texans o
Moun ain Lions 2022) submi ed a Pe i ion o Rulemaking o TPWD and he
Texas Wildli e Commission eques ing he ollowing six changes o Texas
wildli e policy as go e ned by TPWD: 1) Conduc a s a e-wide s udy o iden-
i y he abundance, s a us and dis ibu ion o he moun ain lion popula ions
in Texas; 2) Requi e manda o y epo ing o wild moun ain lions killed o eu-
hanised o any eason by membe s o he public, s a e and ede al agen s
ac ing in hei o icial capaci y and o he wildli e esponde s; 3) Requi e
appe s employing any o m o ap o sna e o cap u e moun ain lions o
examine hei de ices a leas once e e y 36 hou s, o make moun ain lion
apping consis en wi h cu en u -bea e apping egula ions in Texas;
4) Limi moun ain lion ake in sou h Texas o i e animals pe yea un il
TPWD can de e mine he size and s a us o he popula ion in his a ea and a
s akeholde ad iso y g oup can es ablish sus ainable hun ing limi s o he
egion; 5) P ohibi he ake o moun ain lions ha ha e been es ic ed om
mo emen du ing a hun o p io o a hun ; 6) Fo m a s akeholde ad iso y
g oup o collabo a e wi h TPWD o w i e a moun ain lion managemen plan
o Texas (see Elb och e al. (2024) o addi ional con ex ).
In Augus 2022, TPWD denied his Pe i ion, bu p o ided a ull p esen a-
ion on he s a us o moun ain lions in he S a e o he Texas Wildli e Com-
mission. Consequen ly, he Commission manda ed ha TPWD ul ill he
six h eques in he Pe i ion and o m a s akeholde g oup o assess he
me i s o he ull Pe i ion. In Feb ua y 2023, TPWD hos ed i s i s moun ain
lion s akeholde wo king g oup mee ing, which included pa ies in i ed by
he agency. Al hough he speci ic c i e ia o pa icipan selec ion we e no
publicly de ailed, in i ees appea ed o ep esen key cons i uen g oups wi h
in e es s in moun ain lion managemen and ela ed issues.
To p o ide in o ma ion abou he p oceedings o subsequen mee ings o
his s akeholde wo king g oup, he mos ecen wo king g oup asked wi h
d a ing Texas’ i s moun ain lion managemen plan, he Texas Wildli e Com-
mission and TPWD, we syn hesised su ey da a o gene a e summa ies o he
a i udes o Texas esiden s abou moun ain lions and ca ni o e managemen
p ac ices, wi h he goal o p edic ing suppo o p oposed policies (Pie ce e al.
2001). The su ey included ques ions in ended o assess a esponden ’s knowl-
edge abou he cu en s a us o moun ain lions in Texas, hei a i udes abou
4
Na u e Conse a ion 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/na u econse a ion.60.140566
Oma Oh ens e al.: Texas esiden s´ a i udes owa ds moun ain lion
and suppo o he species, scien i ic esea ch, cu en moun ain lion manage-
men and TPWD mo e gene ally. In addi ion, esponden s we e asked o inpu
on bes p ac ices o apping egula ions o moun ain lions and whe he hey
app o ed o apping o hun ing as managemen ools o he species.
Su ey ins umen and sampling
We applied no el analyses o a subse o da a ha we e collec ed as pa
o a longe su ey (n = 137 ques ions o al; Ghasemi e al. (2022)), which
was subsequen ly sha ed in a echnical epo , bu no in a pee - e iewed
publica ion. The su ey ins umen was designed in Qual ics so wa e, bo h
in English and Spanish and adminis e ed online by Qual ics o ill speci ic
quo as (Ghasemi e al. 2022). Qual ics’ online pa icipan panels a e e-
c ui ed om a ious sou ces (e.g. a ge ed emails, websi e in e cep s, so-
cial media) and panel membe s’ names and add esses a e alida ed p io o
joining he panel. Panellis s a e hen ec ui ed o pa icipa e ia email in i-
a ion, in o ming hem ha hey will be compensa ed o hei pa icipa ion
( he ype and ex en o compensa ion a ies). Qual ics does no disclose
how many in i a ions we e sen .
Pa icipan s om u al a eas a e gene ally less abundan han u ban pa -
icipan s in online su eys (Smy h e al. 2010); ne e heless, he goal was
o ob ain equal samples o quo as wi h 50% o esponden s d awn om
u ban/subu ban zip codes and he o he 50% d awn om u al zip codes,
as de ined in he Uni ed S a es Census Bu eau (2016). Da a collec ion was
conduc ed om No embe 2021 h ough Janua y 2022 and he su ey in-
s umen and p ocedu e we e app o ed by he Texas A&M Uni e si y Ins i u-
ional Re iew Boa d (No. 2021-1339M).
Pa icipan s we e equi ed o be a leas 18 yea s o age. They we e asked
o ini ial demog aphic da a, including hei sex, esidence and e hnici y.
Pa icipan s we e hen asked whe he hey had pa icipa ed in hun ing o
apping o any wildli e in he las 12 mon hs, which we used o de ine “hun -
e s” e sus “non-hun e s”. Pa icipan s we e also asked whe he hey had
pa icipa ed in any li es ock (i.e. ca le, dai y cows, goa s and/o sheep)
husband y in he las 12 mon hs, o de ine “li es ock owne s” as dis inc
om people who did no own o aise li es ock.
Measu emen
Knowledge o he Cu en S a us o Moun ain Lions in Texas
Pa icipan s we e asked wo ques ions abou he cu en s a us o moun ain
lions in Texas. Fi s , hey we e asked o cha ac e ise moun ain lion popula ions
as one o i e op ions: 1) Ex inc ; 2) Endange ed; 3) Ra e, bu no endange ed;
4) Common; o 5) I don’ know. Second, pa icipan s we e asked o selec he
legal s a us o moun ain lions om amongs ou op ions: 1) Game animal wi h
con olled seasons egula ing when and how many can be hun ed o apped;
2) Non-game animal wi h no hun ing o apping es ic ions; 3) P o ec ed
animal ha canno be legally hun ed o apped; o 4) I don’ know.
5
Na u e Conse a ion 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/na u econse a ion.60.140566
Oma Oh ens e al.: Texas esiden s´ a i udes owa ds moun ain lion
Gene al A i udes abou Moun ain Lions, Moun ain Lion Managemen
and Resea ch and he Texas Pa ks and Wildli e Depa men
Each pa icipan ecei ed a unique combina ion o 10 andomly selec ed i ems e-
ga ding he h ee opics o moun ain lions, moun ain lion managemen and us
in TPWD, esul ing in di e en sample sizes o each analysis. People esponded
o s a emen s on hese opics by choosing om amongs i e op ions ep esen -
ing a 5-poin Like scale anging om -2 o 2: 1) s ongly disag ee; 2) somewha
disag ee; 3) nei he ag ee no disag ee; 4) somewha ag ee; o 5) s ongly ag ee.
Fo he i s opic, we combined he esponses o i e s a emen s (Table 1)
o quan i y people’s gene al a i udes abou moun ain lions (C onbach’s alpha
= 0.75). We used he in e se alues o s a emen 5 so as o combine esul s
wi h a po en ial sum o -10 o 10. Fo he second opic, we combined pa ici-
pan esponses o ou s a emen s (Table 1) o de e mine whe he people in
gene al a e suppo i e o managing moun ain lions (C onbach’s alpha = 0.72).
We used he in e se alues o s a emen 2 o combine he esul s o hese
ou s a emen s o c ea e a po en ial sum o -8 o 8. Fo he hi d opic, we com-
bined he esponses o se en s a emen s ha e lec people’s us in TPWD’s
cu en ac ions ela ed o moun ain lions o c ea e a po en ial sum o -14 o 14
(Table 1) (C onbach’s alpha = 0.90). We conside ed mean esponses o hese
h ee opics o be unsuppo i e when hei alues we e nega i e and hei 95%
con idence in e als (CIs) did no o e lap wi h 0, neu al i CIs o e lapped ze o
and o be suppo i e i hei alues we e posi i e (Nakagawa and Cu hill 2007).
Following hese analyses, we also calcula ed Po en ial o Con lic Index
(PCI2) sco es (Vaske e al. 2010) o assess he ela i e consensus amongs
pa icipan s wi h ega d o hei esponses o indi idual s a emen s in each o
he h ee opics (see Table 1). PCI2 alues ange om 0 o 1, whe e 0 indica es
comple e consensus and ze o po en ial o con lic and 1 indica es comple e
disag eemen and he highes po en ial o con lic .
T apping Regula ions and Manda o y Ha es Repo ing
Pa icipan s we e asked o selec one o eigh op ions ela ed o how o en
ap egula ions should equi e appe s o check hei aps in he ield o wha
hey belie e abou apping mo e gene ally: 1) Daily; 2) 36 hou s; 3) 48 hou s;
4) 72 hou s; 5) Weekly; 6) The e should no be ap checks egula ions; 7) Unsu e;
o 8) T apping should no be allowed. In addi ion, pa icipan s we e asked whe h-
e hey suppo manda o y ha es epo ing o moun ain lions wi h h ee possi-
ble esponses: 1) yes; 2) no; o 3) unsu e. Da a we e analysed as desc ibed below.
O he Managemen Conside a ions
We asked h ee addi ional ques ions ha p o ide insigh and guidance o de-
cision-make s and policy-make s wi h ega d o u u e moun ain lion manage-
men . We enqui ed whe he : 1) T apping was an accep able managemen p ac-
ice o moun ain lions; 2) Hun ing was an accep able managemen p ac ice o
moun ain lions; and 3) Whe he he pa icipan would endo se a managemen
plan inclusi e o a compensa ion p og amme o li es ock p oduce s who lose
6
Na u e Conse a ion 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/na u econse a ion.60.140566
Oma Oh ens e al.: Texas esiden s´ a i udes owa ds moun ain lion
animals o moun ain lions. All esponses we e eco ded on a 5-poin Like
scale ( ange om -2 o s ongly disag ee, o + 2 o s ongly ag ee).
We also assessed a ios o he pe cen age o people who s ongly suppo ed
e sus s ongly opposed (+2 and -2 on a 5-poin Like scale) apping-based
managemen , hun ing-based managemen , compensa ion p og ammes o
li es ock losses and moun ain lion conse a ion managemen mo e b oadly.
People wi h he s onges opinions a e hose mos likely o ac on hei belie s
(K osnick and Pe y 1995), including ac ions such as a ending and speaking a
public mee ings, calling a wildli e o icial o poli ician o a guing o a pa icula
iewpoin on social media o in newspape s.
Da a analysis
O e all, ec ui ed pa icipan s ep esen ed male o emale a ios epo ed in he
2020 Census o Texas, bu did no ep esen p opo ional ela ionships o e h-
nici y (i.e. 61% whi e, 39% Hispanic in he 2020 Census, e sus 19% Hispanic in
he su ey). The e o e, we used he ‘SURVEY’ package (Lumley 2021) in R ( e .
3.6.2) o weigh he da a o ma ch hese p opo ions.
Fo each o he ques ions below, we analysed all esponden s pooled oge he
as ou bes ep esen a ion o he a i udes, belie s and alues o he gene al public
in Texas. Nex , we pe o med he analyses sepa a ing ou compa a i e s akehold-
e ing oups o e alua e any di e ences in hei esponses: 1) hun e s s. non-hun -
e s; 2) li es ock owne s s. people wi hou li es ock; 3) u al s. subu ban/u ban
esponden s; and 4) Hispanics s. non-Hispanics. Gi en ha 39% o Texans a e
Hispanic o La ino (Uni ed S a es Census Bu eau 2020), po en ial di e ences in
Table 1. S a emen s used in ou analyses ega ding gene al a i ude abou moun ain lions, moun ain lion managemen
and us in he s a e managemen o moun ain lions.
S a emen s om which we de i ed a gene al a i ude abou moun ain lions:
1. Seeing he ack o a moun ain lion would help me enjoy an ou doo expe ience.
2. Seeing a moun ain lion would help me enjoy an ou doo expe ience.
3. I enjoy knowing moun ain lions li e in Texas.
4. Moun ain lions a e an essen ial pa o na u e.
5. The po en ial p esence o moun ain lions causes many people o a oid ou doo ac i i ies.
S a emen s om which we de i ed gene al a i ude abou moun ain lion managemen and esea ch:
1. Moun ain lions should be p o ec ed.
2. Moun ain lions should no be p o ec ed unde any ci cums ances.
3. Valuable in o ma ion could be ob ained om scien i ic s udies o moun ain lion popula ions.
4. E o s should be made o ensu e he su i al o moun ains lions in Texas.
S a emen s om which we assessed us in s a e wildli e managemen o moun ain lions:
1. I us he s a e o manage moun ain lions.
2. S a e o icials a e conce ned abou minimising he h ea s o moun ain lions o esiden s.
3. The s a e does a compe en job o minimising he h ea s o moun ain lions.
4. The s a e is open and hones in he hings hey do and say when managing moun ain lions.
5. The s a e makes decisions abou managing moun ain lions in a way ha is ai .
6. The s a e lis ens o ou conce ns when managing moun ain lions.
7. The s a e d aws upon sound science o make decisions abou moun ain lion managemen .
7
Na u e Conse a ion 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/na u econse a ion.60.140566
Oma Oh ens e al.: Texas esiden s´ a i udes owa ds moun ain lion
his s akeholde g oup’s esponses we e o in e es o a oid he his o ic ma gin-
alisa ion o his cons i uency and o ensu e hei equi able ep esen a ion in any
o hcoming moun ain lion managemen decisions (Chase e al. 2016).
We used pa ame ic es s in R e sion 3.6.2 o Mac OS X o ela e pa ic-
ipan esponses (pe cep ions and Like scale) wi h independen a iables
(e.g. compa a i e g oups – hun e s, li es ock p oduce s, u ban s. u al, e h-
nici y), as ou sample sizes (> 30) we e la ge enough o assume he dis i-
bu ion o sample means will likely app oach a no mal dis ibu ion (i.e. Cen-
al Limi Theo em) (Newing e al. 2011). T- es s we e used when compa ing
means ( om sums o a i ude s a emen s combined in o addi i e sco es)
(Zimme mann e al. 2005) o wo independen g oups (e.g. us in agency
be ween hun e s and non-hun e s) and signi icance was de e mined a he p
= 0.05 h eshold; no co ec ion es s we e needed in his case (Ga cía-Pé ez
2023). We used chi-squa e es s wi h a Rao and Sco adjus men (Rao and
Sco 1987), he e epo ed as an F s a is ic, o de e mine whe he he e we e
p opo ional di e ences in selec ing speci ic esponses amongs ing oups
(e.g. legal s a us o moun ain lions and he ou compa a i e g oups). When
di e ences we e de ec ed, we employed z-p opo ions es s o de e mine
which esponse ca ego y di e ed amongs compa a i e g oups.
Resul s
Pa icipan s
Qual ics secu ed 740 esponden s, bu we we e unable o mee he objec i e
quo as (e.g. equal u ban- u al ep esen a ion and a sample e lec i e o he so-
ciodemog aphic p o ile o Texas) se by he esea che s esponsible o he
su ey. O he 740 esponden s, 237 people epo ed li ing in u al zip codes
(Fig. 1), 89 epo ed ha ing pa icipa ed in hun ing o apping in he p e ious
12 mon hs, 87 epo ed owning o aising li es ock in he p e ious 12 mon hs
and 141 sel -iden i ied as Hispanic. A e weigh ing he da a o accoun o an
unde - ep esen a ion o Hispanic people amongs esponden s, ou analy ical
sample size o s a is ical es s was educed o 702 people. In e ms o sex,
505 esponden s we e emale, 223 male, i e non-bina y, ou s a ed hey p e-
e ed no o answe and one did no answe he ques ion.
Knowledge o he Cu en S a us o Moun ain Lions in Texas
Mo e esponden s co ec ly epo ed ha moun ain lions we e a e, bu no
endange ed (32%) han any o he esponse and 28% belie ed moun ain li-
ons we e endange ed. Twen y-one pe cen epo ed ha hey did no know
he s a us o moun ain lions, 13% epo ed ha hey we e common and 5%
indica ed ha hey we e ex inc . The e we e di e ences in he p opo ional
esponses o hun e s e sus non-hun e s (F3.89, 2725.0 = 2.830, p = 0.025).
Mo e hun e s epo ed ha moun ain lions we e common han non-hun -
e s, which is inconsis en wi h cu en scien i ic knowledge (Elb och and
Ha eson 2022) and mo e non-hun e s epo ed ha hey did no know he
cu en s a us o moun ain lions in Texas (Table 2).
8
Na u e Conse a ion 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/na u econse a ion.60.140566
Oma Oh ens e al.: Texas esiden s´ a i udes owa ds moun ain lion
Li es ock owne s also epo ed ha moun ain lions we e common mo e
o en han people wi hou li es ock ( hough inconsis en wi h s a e o knowl-
edge abou he species in Texas; Elb och and Ha eson (2022)) and mo e
li es ock owne s mis epo ed ha moun ain lions we e ex inc (Table 2).
Simila o non-hun e s, mo e people who did no own li es ock epo ed ha
hey did no know he cu en s a us o moun ain lions in Texas (Table 2).
Nei he place o esidence (u ban s. u al) (F4.0, 2799.2 = 0.577, p = 0.679) no
e hnici y (F4.0, 2801.1 = 1.527, p = 0.192) in luenced esponses abou he s a us
o moun ain lions in Texas.
O e all, he majo i y o esponden s (45%) belie ed moun ain lions a e
a p o ec ed species ha canno be hun ed o apped, which is no ue
in Texas. The e we e, howe e , di e ences in he p opo ional esponses
o hun e s e sus non-hun e s (F3.00, 2100.7 = 5.496, p = 0.001). Fo example,
hun e s we e mo e likely o epo ha moun ain lions we e a “game” spe-
cies in Texas wi h some p o ec ions han non-hun e s (Table 2). Howe e ,
hun e s we e also mo e likely o co ec ly epo ha moun ain lions we e a
non-game species wi h unmanaged ha es o epo ing. In con as , a la g-
e p opo ion o non-hun e s belie ed ha moun ain lions a e a p o ec ed
species, which is no ue in Texas (Table 2). Place o esidence (u ban s.
u al) (F3.0, 2100.2 = 0.125, p = 0.945), e hnici y (F3.0, 2101.7 = 1.666, p = 0.172) and
li es ock owne ship (F2.99, 2093.8 = 2.143, p = 0.093) did no in luence espons-
es abou cu en moun ain lion managemen in Texas.
Figu e 1. Inse shows he loca ion o Texas in he con iguous Uni ed S a es. Main map
displays he geog aphical dis ibu ion o su ey esponden s wi hin Texas (Ghasemi e
al. 2022). G een coun ies we e hose in which pa icipan s esided.
9
Na u e Conse a ion 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/na u econse a ion.60.140566
Oma Oh ens e al.: Texas esiden s´ a i udes owa ds moun ain lion
Gene al A i udes abou Moun ain Lions
Responden s exhibi ed a sligh ly mo e posi i e han neu al a i ude abou
moun ain lions (mean sco e = 0.38 ± 0.08 SE). Hun e s and li es ock owne s
exp essed mo e posi i e a i udes abou moun ain lions han non-hun e s and
people who do no own li es ock (Table 3). The e was no di e ence in a i udes
be ween u al e sus u ban esponden s ( 700 = 0.942, p = 0.347) o Hispanic
e sus non-Hispanic esponden s ( 700 = 0.138, p = 0.889).
Fo e e y 35 esponden s who s ongly ag eed wi h he s a emen desc ib-
ing moun ain lions as an essen ial pa o na u e, only ou people s ongly
disag eed. In con as , o e e y 12 esponden s who s ongly ag eed wi h
he s a emen ha i is exci ing o ind oo p in s o moun ain lions in he
ield, 17 s ongly disag eed (Table 4). This pa e n was also clea in e ms o
gene al consensus amongs pa icipan s. Responden s exhibi ed he high-
es consensus in hei belie ha moun ain lions a e an essen ial pa o
na u e (PCI2 = 0.16) and he leas consensus (i.e. he g ea es po en ial o
con lic ) ega ding s a emen s abou he in luence o seeing he oo p in
o a moun ain lion (PCI2 = 0.31) o he ac ual animal (PCI2 = 0.33) on one’s
ou doo expe ience (Fig. 2).
A i udes abou Moun ain Lion Managemen
Responden s exp essed sligh ly posi i e suppo o managing moun ain
lions (mean sco e = 1.04 ± 0.06 SE). The e we e no di e ences in espons-
es amongs hun e s and non-hun e s, al hough he esul s we e ma ginal
(Table 3). We did no ind di e ences be ween li es ock owne s and people
wi hou li es ock, u al e sus u ban inhabi an s o Hispanic e sus non-His-
panic esponden s (Table 3).
Table 2. P opo ional esponses (%) o compa a i e s akeholde ing oups wi h ega ds o he cu en popula ion and
managemen s a us o moun ain lions in Texas.
Hun e Non-hun e z p
Cu en popula ion s a us o moun ain lions Common 23.3 11.7 2.826 0.004
Endange ed 21.2 29.1 -1.434 0.153
Ex inc 5.7 5.4 0.097 0.920
I don’ know 11.0 22.6 -2.312 0.021
Ra e 38.8 31.1 1.339 0.180
Li es ock No li es ock z p
Common 19.8 12.0 1.979 0.048
Endange ed 21.2 29.2 -1.504 0.134
Ex inc 12.8 4.5 3.075 0.002
I don’ know 8.9 23.0 -2.905 0.004
Ra e 37.2 31.2 1.085 0.276
Hun e Non-hun e z p
Game 17.8 8.8 2.440 0.015
Cu en managemen o moun ain lions I don’ know 20.9 26.2 -0.981 0.327
Non-game 31.9 17.2 3.050 0.002
P o ec ed 29.4 47.7 -2.983 0.003
16
Na u e Conse a ion 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/na u econse a ion.60.140566
Oma Oh ens e al.: Texas esiden s´ a i udes owa ds moun ain lion
adap any moun ain lion managemen policies and p ac ices. Mo e b oadly, ou
esul s sugges ha he common assump ions o hun e s and u al esiden s
being mo e nega i e abou la ge ca ni o es may no be jus i ied. In he e y leas ,
a i udes amongs hese g oups a e clea ly mo e complex han p e ious analy-
ses sugges . In ou wo k, hun e s and li es ock owne s we e mo e posi i e abou
moun ain lions, augmen ing p e ious Human Dimensions s udies ha linked
knowledge o wildli e and/o us in wildli e managemen agencies o posi i e
a i udes owa ds wildli e and hei managemen . Ul ima ely, ou esul s p o ide
Texas wildli e manage s he oppo uni y o be e in eg a e equi able ep esen-
a ion o he di e se pe spec i es o all Texas cons i uen s when c ea ing a de-
ensible, adap i e and in eg a ed managemen plan o p ese e moun ain lion
popula ions, Texas communi ies and he ecosys ems on which we all depend.
Addi ional in o ma ion
Con lic o in e es
LME is one o he au ho s o he 2022 Pe i ion o Rulemaking o TPWD ha p oposed
new moun ain lion policies.
E hical s a emen
No e hical s a emen was epo ed.
Use o AI
No use o AI was epo ed.
Funding
No unding was epo ed.
Au ho con ibu ions
Concep ualiza ion: LME. Da a cu a ion: OO. Fo mal analysis: LME, OO. W i ing - o iginal
d a : LME. W i ing - e iew and edi ing: BEGW, BG, OO, LME.
Au ho ORCIDs
Oma Oh ens h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0001-9047-0804
Benjamin Ghasemi h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-1606-8953
Bonnie E. Gulas-W oblewski h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0001-5940-1384
L. Ma k Elb och h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-0429-4179
Da a a ailabili y
All da a used in his manusc ip a e a ailable upon eques o he co esponding au ho .
Re e ences
Adams CE, Lei es e JA, He on JSC (1997) Unde s anding wildli e cons i uen s: Bi de s
and wa e owl hun e s. Wildli e Socie y Bulle in (1973–2006) 25(3): 653–660.
Ajzen I (1991) The heo y o planned beha io . O ganiza ional Beha io and Human De-
cision P ocesses 50(2): 179–211. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Benne NJ, Klain SC, Ming K, Chan A, Cullman G, Cu an D, Du bin TJ, Eps ein G, G een-
be g A, Ve íssimo D, Wybo n C (2016) Conse a ion social science: Unde s anding
17
Na u e Conse a ion 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/na u econse a ion.60.140566
Oma Oh ens e al.: Texas esiden s´ a i udes owa ds moun ain lion
and in eg a ing human dimensions o imp o e conse a ion. Biological Conse a ion
205: 93–108. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006
B usko e JT, Wilson RS (2014) De e mining whe e he wild hings will be: Using psy-
chological heo y o ind ole ance o la ge ca ni o es. Conse a ion Le e s 7(3):
158–165. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/conl.12072
Ca e NH, Linnell JDC (2023) Building a esilien coexis ence wi h wildli e in a mo e
c owded wo ld. PNAS Nexus 2(3): 1–8. h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad030
Chase LD, Teel TL, Tho n on-Chase MR, Man edo MJ (2016) A compa ison o quan i-
a i e and quali a i e me hods o measu e wildli e alue o ien a ions among di e se
audiences: A case s udy o La inos in he Ame ican Sou hwes . Socie y & Na u al
Resou ces 29(5): 572–587. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/08941920.2015.1086455
Da enpo MA, Nielsen CK, Mangun JC (2010) A i udes owa d moun ain lion man-
agemen in he Midwes : Implica ions o a po en ially ecolonizing la ge p eda-
o . Human Dimensions o Wildli e 15(5): 373–388. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/108
71209.2010.507564
Decke DJ, Fo s chen AB, Sieme WF, Smi h CA, F ohlich RK, Schia one MV, Lede le PE,
Pome anz EF (2019) Mo ing he pa adigm om s akeholde s o bene icia ies in wild-
li e managemen . The Jou nal o Wildli e Managemen 83(3): 513–518. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1002/jwmg.21625
Elb och LM, Ha eson PM (2022) I ’s ime o manage moun ain lions in Texas. Wildli e
Socie y Bulle in 46(5): e1361. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/wsb.1361
Elb och LM, Fel ne J, Quigley H (2017) Human-ca ni o e compe i ion o an le ed un-
gula es: Do pumas selec o bulls and bucks? Wildli e Resea ch 44(7): 523–533.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1071/WR17006
Elb och LM, Mas e s B, Mo ison M, Swanson R, Ha e P, Tischendo J, Ha eson PM
(2024) A collabo a i e app oach o ini ia ing moun ain lion (Puma concolo ) policies
in Texas. Canadian Wildli e Biology and Managemen 13(2): 102–110.
Engel MT, Vaske JJ, Ma chini S, Ba h AJ (2017) Knowledge abou big ca s ma e s: In-
sigh s o conse a ionis s and manage s. Wildli e Socie y Bulle in 41(3): 398–404.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/wsb.798
Ga cía-Pé ez MA (2023) Use and misuse o co ec ions o mul iple es ing. Me hods in
Psychology (Online) 8: 100120. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.me ip.2023.100120
Ghasemi B, Kyle GT, Gulas-W oblewski BE (2022) Texas esiden s’ a i udes owa d
moun ain lions & hei managemen . Texas A&M Uni e si y Ag iLi e Resea ch.
h ps://www. exans o moun ainlions.o g/ amu-s udy
Hebe lein T (2012) Na iga ing En i onmen al A i udes. Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, USA,
228 pp. h ps://doi.o g/10.1093/acp o :oso/9780199773329.001.0001
Johansson M, Ka lsson J (2011) Subjec i e expe ience o ea and he cogni i e in-
e p e a ion o la ge ca ni o es. Human Dimensions o Wildli e 16(1): 15–29.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/10871209.2011.535240
Kansky R, Kidd M, Knigh AT (2016) A wildli e ole ance model and case s udy o unde -
s anding human wildli e con lic s. Biological Conse a ion 201: 137–145. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.002
Ka lsson J, Sjös öm M (2007) Human a i udes owa ds wol es, a ma e o dis-
ance. Biological Conse a ion 137(4): 610–616. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.bio-
con.2007.03.023
Knop AA, Knop KH, S . Clai CC (2016) Tole ance o couga s diminished by high
pe cep ion o isk. Ecology and Socie y 21(4): 1–9. h ps://doi.o g/10.5751/ES-
08933-210433
18
Na u e Conse a ion 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/na u econse a ion.60.140566
Oma Oh ens e al.: Texas esiden s´ a i udes owa ds moun ain lion
K osnick JA, Pe y RE (1995) A i ude s eng h: An eceden s and consequences. In: JA
K osnick and RE Pe y (Eds) A i ude s eng h: An o e iew. Law ence E lbaum Asso-
cia es, Inc., 1–24.
Langhamme PF, Bull JW, Bicknell JE, Oakley JL, B own MH, B u o d MW, Bu cha SHM,
Ca JA, Chu ch D, Cooney R, Cu aja S, Foden W, Fos e MN, Gascon C, Geldmann
J, Geno esi P, Ho mann M, Howa d-McCombe J, Lewis T, Mac a lane NBW, Mel in
ZE, Me izalde RS, Mo ehouse MG, Pagad S, Polido o B, Sech es W, Segelbache G,
Smi h KG, S eadman J, S ongin K, Williams J, Woodley S, B ooks TM (2024) The
posi i e impac o conse a ion ac ion. Science 384(6694): 453–458. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1126/science.adj6598
Lumley T (2021) Su ey: Analysis o Complex Su ey Samples. h p:// -su ey. - o ge. -
p ojec .o g/su ey/
McGo e n EB, K e se HE (2015) P edic ing suppo o ecoloniza ion o moun ain lions
(Puma concolo ) in he Adi ondack Pa k. Wildli e Socie y Bulle in 39(3): 503–511.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/wsb.557
Ma ino A, B aschi C, Ricci S, Sal a o i V, Ciucci P (2016) Ex pos and insu ance-based
compensa ion ail o inc ease ole ance o wol es in semi-ag icul u al landscapes
o cen al I aly. Eu opean Jou nal o Wildli e Resea ch 62(2): 227–240. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1007/s10344-016-1001-5
Mi chell MS, Cooley H, Gude JA, Kolbe J, Nowak JJ, P o i KM, Sells SN, Thompson M
(2018) Dis inguishing alues om science in decision making: Se ing ha es quo-
as o moun ain lions in Mon ana. Wildli e Socie y Bulle in 42(1): 13–21. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1002/wsb.861
Musg a e RS, S ein MA (1993) S a e wildli e laws handbook. Cen e o Wildli e Law a
he Ins i u e o Public Law, Uni e si y o New Mexico.
Nakagawa S, Cu hill IC (2007) E ec size, con idence in e al and s a is ical signi icance:
A p ac ical guide o biologis s. Biological Re iews o he Camb idge Philosophical
Socie y 82(4): 591–605. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00027.x
Newing H, Eagle CM, Pu i RK, Wa son CW (2011) Conduc ing Resea ch in Conse a-
ion: Social Science Me hods and P ac ice. London, UK: Rou ledge. h ps://doi.
o g/10.4324/9780203846452
Olson ER, Goe hlich J, Goudos‐Weisbecke B (2021) A i udes owa ds a ansien ca -
ni o e p io o ecoloniza ion. Wildli e Socie y Bulle in 45(2): 191–201. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1002/wsb.1166
Pie ce C, Vaske J, Man edo M (2001) Social science heo ies in wildli e managemen .
In DJ Decke , TL B own, WF Sieme (Eds) Human dimensions o wildli e managemen
in No h Ame ica, Wildli e Socie y, 39–56.
Pooley S, Bha ia S, Vasa a A (2021) Re hinking he s udy o human-wildli e coexis ence.
Conse a ion Biology 35(3): 784–793. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/cobi.13653
P o i KM, Ga o R, Gude JA, Hebblewhi e M, Jimenez B, Pa e son JT, Ro ella J (2020)
In eg a ed ca ni o e-ungula e managemen : A case s udy in wes -cen al Mon ana.
Wildli e Monog aphs 206(1): 1–28. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/wmon.1056
Rao JNK, Sco AJ (1987) On simple adjus men s o chi-squa e es s wi h sample su ey
da a. Annals o S a is ics 15(1): 385–397. h ps://doi.o g/10.1214/aos/1176350273
Rapp C (2020) Hypo hesis and heo y: Collabo a i e go e nance, na u al esou ce man-
agemen , and he us en i onmen . F on ie s in Communica ion 5: 28. h ps://doi.
o g/10.3389/ comm.2020.00028
19
Na u e Conse a ion 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/na u econse a ion.60.140566
Oma Oh ens e al.: Texas esiden s´ a i udes owa ds moun ain lion
Riley SJ, Decke DJ (2000) Risk pe cep ion as a ac o in wildli e s akeholde accep ance
capaci y o couga s in Mon ana. Human Dimensions o Wildli e 5(3): 50–62. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1080/10871200009359187
Smy h JD, Dillman DA, Ch is ian LM, O’Neill AC (2010) Using he In e ne o su -
ey small owns and communi ies: Limi a ions and possibili ies in he ea ly
21s cen u y. The Ame ican Beha io al Scien is 53(9): 1423–1448. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1177/0002764210361695
S acke (2021) See how many egis e ed hun e s a e in Texas. S acke . h ps://s acke .
com/ exas/see-how-many- egis e ed-hun e s-a e- exas
Texans o Moun ain Lions (2022) Texans o Moun ain Lions. h ps://www. exans o -
moun ainlions.o g/
Texas Pa ks and Wildli e Depa men (2021) Species o G ea es Conse a ion Need.
Texas Pa ks and Wildli e Depa men . h ps:// pwd. exas.go /hun wild/wild/wildli e-
di e si y/nongame/ cap/sgcn.ph ml
Texas Pa ks and Wildli e Depa men (2023) Pa ks and Wildli e Code. h ps://s a u es.
capi ol. exas.go /Docs/SDocs/PARKSANDWILDLIFECODE.pd
The Texas Cons i u ion (2023) The Texas Cons i u ion. h ps://s a u es.capi ol. exas.
go /Docs/CN/h m/CN.1.h m
T e es A, Chap on G, López-Bao JV, Shoemake C, Goeckne AR, B usko e JT (2015)
P eda o s and he public us . Biological Re iews o he Camb idge Philosophical
Socie y 92(1): 248–270. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/b .12227
Uni ed S a es Census Bu eau (2016) Ame ican Communi y Su ey (ACS). U.S. Census
Bu eau. h ps://www.census.go /p og ams-su eys/acs
Uni ed S a es Census Bu eau (2020) Ame ican Communi y Su ey (ACS). U.S. Census
Bu eau. h ps://www.census.go /p og ams-su eys/acs
Van assel SM, Hille TL, Powell KDJ, Hyngs om SE (2010) Using ad ancemen s in ca-
ble- apping o o e come ba ie s o u bea e managemen in he Uni ed S a es. The
Jou nal o Wildli e Managemen 74(5): 934–939. h ps://doi.o g/10.2193/2009-298
Vaske JJ, Beaman J, Ba e o H, Shelby LB (2010) An ex ension and u he alida ion
o he Po en ial o Con lic Index. Leisu e Sciences 32(3): 240–254. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1080/01490401003712648
Whi e HB, Ba chelle GB, Boggess EK, B own CL, Bu iloski JW, Decke TA, E b JD, Fall
MW, Hamil on DA, Hille TL, Hube J GF, Lo allo MJ, Olson JF, Robe s NM (2021)
Bes managemen p ac ices o apping u bea e s in he Uni ed S a es. Wildli e
Monog aphs 207(1): 3–59. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/wmon.1057
Wilbu RC, Lischka SA, Young JR, Johnson HE (2018) Expe ience, a i udes, and demo-
g aphic ac o s in luence he p obabili y o epo ing human-black bea in e ac ions.
Wildli e Socie y Bulle in 42(1): 22–31. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/wsb.854
Williams CK, E icsson G, Hebe lein TA (2002) A quan i a i e summa y o a i udes o-
wa d wol es and hei ein oduc ion (1972–2000). Wildli e Socie y Bulle in (1973–
2006) 30(2): 575–584. h ps://www.js o .o g/s able/3784518
Young JK, Zhao M, Lauda i A, Be ge J (2015) Human-ca ni o e in e ac ions: Lessons
lea ned om communi ies in he Ame ican Wes . Human Dimensions o Wildli e
20(4): 349–366. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/10871209.2015.1016388
Zimme mann A, Walpole MJ, Leade -Williams N (2005) Ca le anche s’ a i udes o
con lic s wi h jagua Pan he a onca in he Pan anal o B azil. O yx 39(4): 406–412.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1017/S0030605305000992
