Mountain lions (Puma concolor) and their current management: Texas residents' knowledge and attitudes

1 Mountain lions (Puma concolor) and their current management: Texas residents’ knowledge and attitudes Omar Ohrens1, Benjamin Ghasemi2, Bonnie E. Gulas-Wroblewski3, L. Mark Elbroch1 1 Panthera, 104 West 40th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10018, USA 2 School of Environment & Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 44691 USA 3 Unity Environmental University, 70 Farm View Drive, Suite 200, New Gloucester, ME 04260, USA Corresponding author: Omar Ohrens ([email protected]) Copyright: © Omar Ohrens et al. This is an open access article distributed under terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (Attribution 4.0 International – CC BY 4.0). Research Article Abstract Texas hosts approximately seven percent of the United States of America’s mountain lion (Puma concolor) population, although this estimate might be high due to their non-game status and lack of regulation. In August 2022, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) rejected a petition to change state mountain lion policy and established a stakeholder working group to evaluate potential management strategies. Here, we synthesised survey data collected from 740 Texas residents on their knowledge and attitudes about mountain lions and their regional management that is immediately relevant to the ongoing decisions being made by the Mountain Lion Working Group, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, the state-wide mountain lion management plan working group and TPWD more generally. Overall, Texans correctly reported that mountain lions are rare in Texas, but misreported that they are protected. Generally, participants were positive about mountain lions and supported their management. Hunters and livestock producers expressed more positive attitudes for mountain lions and their management than did non-hunters and people who did not own livestock. In contrast to previous research on support for carnivore conservation, we did not detect any differences in responses between rural and urban residents. Together, these data suggest that the traditional constituents of TPWD (i.e. hunters and livestock owners) are supportive of policies that have been proposed for inclusion in a state management plan for the species, such as mandatory reporting of any mountain lion killed for any purpose. Our results highlight the importance of TPWD’s prioritisation of public outreach and education targeting a greater diversity of Texans to: 1) mitigate the perceptions of risks and/or costs associated with mountain lions; 2) increase public knowledge about mountain lions and their management and 3) foster greater trust in natural resource governance to prevent disengagement by the public. Key words: Attitudes, mountain lion, policy, Puma concolor, surveys, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas residents, wildlife management Introduction Conservation as a practice has primarily focused on mitigating human impacts on wildlife and ecosystems, rather than building co-existence through co-adaptation (Pooley et al. 2021; Carter and Linnell 2023). Ultimately, legislation, policy Academic editor: Natasha Constant Received: 29 October 2024 Accepted: 6 September 2025 Published: 7 October 2025 ZooBank: https://zoobank. org/0E42F550-B6F0-4A52-AF8E22C25C36F3A8 Citation: Ohrens O, Ghasemi B, GulasWroblewski BE, Elbroch LM (2025) Mountain lions (Puma concolor) and their current management: Texas residents’ knowledge and attitudes. Nature Conservation 60: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3897/ natureconservation.60.140566 Nature Conservation 60: 1–19 (2025) DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.60.140566 2 Nature Conservation 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.60.140566 Omar Ohrens et al.: Texas residents´ attitudes towards mountain lion and regulation are amongst the more powerful conservation tools because of the extent (i.e. the geographic range of jurisdictions) and longevity of their impact on human behaviour that impact wildlife populations (Musgrave and Stein 1993; Langhammer et al. 2024). Consequently, conservation practitioners attempt to understand what conservation issues people support and which they do not. Unlike behaviour, attitudes are difficult to observe. Instead, researchers generally rely upon strategic survey designs with the intention of linking survey data understood to be representative of specific human values and attitudes, to potential or current behaviour impacting conservation agendas (Pierce et al. 2001; Bennett et al. 2016). Here, we synthesise survey data on the attitudes of Texas residents towards mountain lions (Puma concolor) relevant to current management decisions about potential conservation policy for the species and the current development of a state-wide mountain lion management plan. These data also provided us with the opportunity to test several hypotheses related to stakeholder attitudes and perceptions of wildlife management that have found support in previous research. Scientific evidence thus far suggests that hunters, livestock owners and rural residents experience greater tangible (e.g. livestock losses) and intangible (e.g. fear) “costs” of living with large carnivores, as well as more often face the real (e.g. actual damage) and perceived risks (e.g. vulnerability to damage) posed by mountain lions to livestock and ungulate hunting opportunities (Davenport et al. 2010; Young et al. 2015; Knopff et al. 2016; Elbroch et al. 2017; Mitchell et al. 2018). For these reasons, we hypothesised that hunters, livestock owners and people in rural counties would express less support for mountain lions and mountain lion conservation management than non-hunters, people without livestock and people who live in urban and suburban counties, as has been shown elsewhere (Davenport et al. 2010). Secondly, we tested the assumption that the majority of Texans are anti-trapping and, therefore, opposed to trapping-based management and the trapping of mountain lions, as previous research has suggested that most people do not support these measures, except in the defence of livelihoods (Vantassel et al. 2010; White et al. 2021). Methods Background As of 2021, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) lists mountain lions as S2/S3 on its Species of Greatest Conservation Need (TPWD 2021). S2 is an Imperilled classification defined as, “Imperilled in the nation or state/province because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province” and S3 is a Vulnerable classification defined as “Vulnerable in the nation or state/ province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation”. Despite these trends, mountain lions in Texas continue to be classified as “non-game” and can be killed in any quantity, by any method and at any time of year. In addition, Texas residents are not required to report any mountain lion harvest or mortality to TPWD. 3 Nature Conservation 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.60.140566 Omar Ohrens et al.: Texas residents´ attitudes towards mountain lion Chapter 67 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code (TPWD 2023) directs the TPWD to develop management programmes that ensure sustainable non-game wildlife populations (Section 67.002) and to conduct research of non-game to develop the necessary information on their populations in order to manage them (Section 67.003). Although mountain lions are listed as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need, the TPWD does not monitor or estimate their abundance. This lack of monitoring raises questions about whether current management practices fully align with the agency´s statutory responsibilities, including those outlined in Section 34 of the Texas Constitution, which emphasises sustainable use of wildlife resources for future generations (The Texas Constitution 2023). Further evaluation of management policies regarding mountain lion hunting may be warranted to ensure sustainability and compliance with relevant legal frameworks. In June 2022, a stakeholder working group composed of Texas residents, scientists, advocates, a veterinarian and other private citizens (Texans for Mountain Lions 2022) submitted a Petition for Rulemaking to TPWD and the Texas Wildlife Commission requesting the following six changes to Texas wildlife policy as governed by TPWD: 1) Conduct a state-wide study to identify the abundance, status and distribution of the mountain lion populations in Texas; 2) Require mandatory reporting of wild mountain lions killed or euthanised for any reason by members of the public, state and federal agents acting in their official capacity and other wildlife responders; 3) Require trappers employing any form of trap or snare to capture mountain lions to examine their devices at least once every 36 hours, to make mountain lion trapping consistent with current fur-bearer trapping regulations in Texas; 4) Limit mountain lion take in south Texas to five animals per year until TPWD can determine the size and status of the population in this area and a stakeholder advisory group can establish sustainable hunting limits for the region; 5) Prohibit the take of mountain lions that have been restricted from movement during a hunt or prior to a hunt; 6) Form a stakeholder advisory group to collaborate with TPWD to write a mountain lion management plan for Texas (see Elbroch et al. (2024) for additional context). In August 2022, TPWD denied this Petition, but provided a full presentation on the status of mountain lions in the State to the Texas Wildlife Commission. Consequently, the Commission mandated that TPWD fulfill the sixth request in the Petition and form a stakeholder group to assess the merits of the full Petition. In February 2023, TPWD hosted its first mountain lion stakeholder working group meeting, which included parties invited by the agency. Although the specific criteria for participant selection were not publicly detailed, invitees appeared to represent key constituent groups with interests in mountain lion management and related issues. To provide information about the proceedings of subsequent meetings of this stakeholder working group, the most recent working group tasked with drafting Texas’ first mountain lion management plan, the Texas Wildlife Commission and TPWD, we synthesised survey data to generate summaries of the attitudes of Texas residents about mountain lions and carnivore management practices, with the goal of predicting support for proposed policies (Pierce et al. 2001). The survey included questions intended to assess a respondent’s knowledge about the current status of mountain lions in Texas, their attitudes about 4 Nature Conservation 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.60.140566 Omar Ohrens et al.: Texas residents´ attitudes towards mountain lion and support for the species, scientific research, current mountain lion management and TPWD more generally. In addition, respondents were asked for input on best practices for trapping regulations for mountain lions and whether they approved of trapping or hunting as management tools for the species. Survey instrument and sampling We applied novel analyses to a subset of data that were collected as part of a longer survey (n = 137 questions total; Ghasemi et al. (2022)), which was subsequently shared in a technical report, but not in a peer-reviewed publication. The survey instrument was designed in Qualtrics software, both in English and Spanish and administered online by Qualtrics to fill specific quotas (Ghasemi et al. 2022). Qualtrics’ online participant panels are recruited from various sources (e.g. targeted emails, website intercepts, social media) and panel members’ names and addresses are validated prior to joining the panel. Panellists are then recruited to participate via email invitation, informing them that they will be compensated for their participation (the type and extent of compensation varies). Qualtrics does not disclose how many invitations were sent. Participants from rural areas are generally less abundant than urban participants in online surveys (Smyth et al. 2010); nevertheless, the goal was to obtain equal samples or quotas with 50% of respondents drawn from urban/suburban zip codes and the other 50% drawn from rural zip codes, as defined in the United States Census Bureau (2016). Data collection was conducted from November 2021 through January 2022 and the survey instrument and procedure were approved by the Texas A&M University Institutional Review Board (No. 2021-1339M). Participants were required to be at least 18 years of age. They were asked for initial demographic data, including their sex, residence and ethnicity. Participants were then asked whether they had participated in hunting or trapping of any wildlife in the last 12 months, which we used to define “hunters” versus “non-hunters”. Participants were also asked whether they had participated in any livestock (i.e. cattle, dairy cows, goats and/or sheep) husbandry in the last 12 months, to define “livestock owners” as distinct from people who did not own or raise livestock. Measurement Knowledge of the Current Status of Mountain Lions in Texas Participants were asked two questions about the current status of mountain lions in Texas. First, they were asked to characterise mountain lion populations as one of five options: 1) Extinct; 2) Endangered; 3) Rare, but not endangered; 4) Common; or 5) I don’t know. Second, participants were asked to select the legal status of mountain lions from amongst four options: 1) Game animal with controlled seasons regulating when and how many can be hunted or trapped; 2) Non-game animal with no hunting or trapping restrictions; 3) Protected animal that cannot be legally hunted or trapped; or 4) I don’t know. 5 Nature Conservation 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.60.140566 Omar Ohrens et al.: Texas residents´ attitudes towards mountain lion General Attitudes about Mountain Lions, Mountain Lion Management and Research and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Each participant received a unique combination of 10 randomly selected items regarding the three topics of mountain lions, mountain lion management and trust in TPWD, resulting in different sample sizes for each analysis. People responded to statements on these topics by choosing from amongst five options representing a 5-point Likert scale ranging from -2 to 2: 1) strongly disagree; 2) somewhat disagree; 3) neither agree nor disagree; 4) somewhat agree; or 5) strongly agree. For the first topic, we combined the responses of five statements (Table 1) to quantify people’s general attitudes about mountain lions (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75). We used the inverse values for statement 5 so as to combine results with a potential sum of -10 to 10. For the second topic, we combined participant responses to four statements (Table 1) to determine whether people in general are supportive of managing mountain lions (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.72). We used the inverse values for statement 2 to combine the results of these four statements to create a potential sum of -8 to 8. For the third topic, we combined the responses for seven statements that reflect people’s trust in TPWD’s current actions related to mountain lions to create a potential sum of -14 to 14 (Table 1) (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.90). We considered mean responses for these three topics to be unsupportive when their values were negative and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) did not overlap with 0, neutral if CIs overlapped zero and to be supportive if their values were positive (Nakagawa and Cuthill 2007). Following these analyses, we also calculated Potential for Conflict Index (PCI2) scores (Vaske et al. 2010) to assess the relative consensus amongst participants with regard to their responses to individual statements in each of the three topics (see Table 1). PCI2 values range from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates complete consensus and zero potential for conflict and 1 indicates complete disagreement and the highest potential for conflict. Trapping Regulations and Mandatory Harvest Reporting Participants were asked to select one of eight options related to how often trap regulations should require trappers to check their traps in the field or what they believe about trapping more generally: 1) Daily; 2) 36 hours; 3) 48 hours; 4) 72 hours; 5) Weekly; 6) There should not be trap checks regulations; 7) Unsure; or 8) Trapping should not be allowed. In addition, participants were asked whether they support mandatory harvest reporting for mountain lions with three possible responses: 1) yes; 2) no; or 3) unsure. Data were analysed as described below. Other Management Considerations We asked three additional questions that provide insight and guidance for decision-makers and policy-makers with regard to future mountain lion management. We enquired whether: 1) Trapping was an acceptable management practice for mountain lions; 2) Hunting was an acceptable management practice for mountain lions; and 3) Whether the participant would endorse a management plan inclusive of a compensation programme for livestock producers who lose 6 Nature Conservation 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.60.140566 Omar Ohrens et al.: Texas residents´ attitudes towards mountain lion animals to mountain lions. All responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (range from -2 or strongly disagree, to + 2 or strongly agree). We also assessed ratios of the percentage of people who strongly supported versus strongly opposed (+2 and -2 on a 5-point Likert scale) trapping-based management, hunting-based management, compensation programmes for livestock losses and mountain lion conservation management more broadly. People with the strongest opinions are those most likely to act on their beliefs (Krosnick and Petty 1995), including actions such as attending and speaking at public meetings, calling a wildlife official or politician or arguing for a particular viewpoint on social media or in newspapers. Data analysis Overall, recruited participants represented male to female ratios reported in the 2020 Census for Texas, but did not represent proportional relationships of ethnicity (i.e. 61% white, 39% Hispanic in the 2020 Census, versus 19% Hispanic in the survey). Therefore, we used the ‘SURVEY’ package (Lumley 2021) in R (ver. 3.6.2) to weight the data to match these proportions. For each of the questions below, we analysed all respondents pooled together as our best representation of the attitudes, beliefs and values of the general public in Texas. Next, we performed the analyses separating four comparative stakeholder ingroups to evaluate any differences in their responses: 1) hunters vs. non-hunters; 2) livestock owners vs. people without livestock; 3) rural vs. suburban/urban respondents; and 4) Hispanics vs. non-Hispanics. Given that 39% of Texans are Hispanic or Latino (United States Census Bureau 2020), potential differences in Table 1. Statements used in our analyses regarding general attitude about mountain lions, mountain lion management and trust in the state management of mountain lions. Statements from which we derived a general attitude about mountain lions: 1. Seeing the track of a mountain lion would help me enjoy an outdoor experience. 2. Seeing a mountain lion would help me enjoy an outdoor experience. 3. I enjoy knowing mountain lions live in Texas. 4. Mountain lions are an essential part of nature. 5. The potential presence of mountain lions causes many people to avoid outdoor activities. Statements from which we derived general attitude about mountain lion management and research: 1. Mountain lions should be protected. 2. Mountain lions should not be protected under any circumstances. 3. Valuable information could be obtained from scientific studies of mountain lion populations. 4. Efforts should be made to ensure the survival of mountains lions in Texas. Statements from which we assessed trust in state wildlife management of mountain lions: 1. I trust the state to manage mountain lions. 2. State officials are concerned about minimising the threats of mountain lions to residents. 3. The state does a competent job of minimising the threats of mountain lions. 4. The state is open and honest in the things they do and say when managing mountain lions. 5. The state makes decisions about managing mountain lions in a way that is fair. 6. The state listens to our concerns when managing mountain lions. 7. The state draws upon sound science to make decisions about mountain lion management. 7 Nature Conservation 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.60.140566 Omar Ohrens et al.: Texas residents´ attitudes towards mountain lion this stakeholder group’s responses were of interest to avoid the historic marginalisation of this constituency and to ensure their equitable representation in any forthcoming mountain lion management decisions (Chase et al. 2016). We used parametric tests in R version 3.6.2 for Mac OS X to relate participant responses (perceptions and Likert scale) with independent variables (e.g. comparative groups – hunters, livestock producers, urban vs. rural, ethnicity), as our sample sizes (> 30) were large enough to assume the distribution of sample means will likely approach a normal distribution (i.e. Central Limit Theorem) (Newing et al. 2011). T-tests were used when comparing means (from sums of attitude statements combined into additive scores) (Zimmermann et al. 2005) of two independent groups (e.g. trust in agency between hunters and non-hunters) and significance was determined at the p = 0.05 threshold; no correction tests were needed in this case (García-Pérez 2023). We used chi-square tests with a Rao and Scott adjustment (Rao and Scott 1987), here reported as an F statistic, to determine whether there were proportional differences in selecting specific responses amongst ingroups (e.g. legal status of mountain lions and the four comparative groups). When differences were detected, we employed z-proportions tests to determine which response category differed amongst comparative groups. Results Participants Qualtrics secured 740 respondents, but we were unable to meet the objective quotas (e.g. equal urban-rural representation and a sample reflective of the sociodemographic profile of Texas) set by the researchers responsible for the survey. Of the 740 respondents, 237 people reported living in rural zip codes (Fig. 1), 89 reported having participated in hunting or trapping in the previous 12 months, 87 reported owning or raising livestock in the previous 12 months and 141 self-identified as Hispanic. After weighting the data to account for an under-representation of Hispanic people amongst respondents, our analytical sample size for statistical tests was reduced to 702 people. In terms of sex, 505 respondents were female, 223 male, five non-binary, four stated they preferred not to answer and one did not answer the question. Knowledge of the Current Status of Mountain Lions in Texas More respondents correctly reported that mountain lions were rare, but not endangered (32%) than any other response and 28% believed mountain lions were endangered. Twenty-one percent reported that they did not know the status of mountain lions, 13% reported that they were common and 5% indicated that they were extinct. There were differences in the proportional responses for hunters versus non-hunters (F3.89, 2725.0 = 2.830, p = 0.025). More hunters reported that mountain lions were common than non-hunters, which is inconsistent with current scientific knowledge (Elbroch and Harveson 2022) and more non-hunters reported that they did not know the current status of mountain lions in Texas (Table 2). 8 Nature Conservation 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.60.140566 Omar Ohrens et al.: Texas residents´ attitudes towards mountain lion Livestock owners also reported that mountain lions were common more often than people without livestock (though inconsistent with state of knowledge about the species in Texas; Elbroch and Harveson (2022)) and more livestock owners misreported that mountain lions were extinct (Table 2). Similar to non-hunters, more people who did not own livestock reported that they did not know the current status of mountain lions in Texas (Table 2). Neither place of residence (urban vs. rural) (F4.0, 2799.2 = 0.577, p = 0.679) nor ethnicity (F4.0, 2801.1 = 1.527, p = 0.192) influenced responses about the status of mountain lions in Texas. Overall, the majority of respondents (45%) believed mountain lions are a protected species that cannot be hunted or trapped, which is not true in Texas. There were, however, differences in the proportional responses for hunters versus non-hunters (F3.00, 2100.7 = 5.496, p = 0.001). For example, hunters were more likely to report that mountain lions were a “game” species in Texas with some protections than non-hunters (Table 2). However, hunters were also more likely to correctly report that mountain lions were a non-game species with unmanaged harvest or reporting. In contrast, a larger proportion of non-hunters believed that mountain lions are a protected species, which is not true in Texas (Table 2). Place of residence (urban vs. rural) (F3.0, 2100.2 = 0.125, p = 0.945), ethnicity (F3.0, 2101.7 = 1.666, p = 0.172) and livestock ownership (F2.99, 2093.8 = 2.143, p = 0.093) did not influence responses about current mountain lion management in Texas. Figure 1. Inset shows the location of Texas in the contiguous United States. Main map displays the geographical distribution of survey respondents within Texas (Ghasemi et al. 2022). Green counties were those in which participants resided. 9 Nature Conservation 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.60.140566 Omar Ohrens et al.: Texas residents´ attitudes towards mountain lion General Attitudes about Mountain Lions Respondents exhibited a slightly more positive than neutral attitude about mountain lions (mean score = 0.38 ± 0.08 SE). Hunters and livestock owners expressed more positive attitudes about mountain lions than non-hunters and people who do not own livestock (Table 3). There was no difference in attitudes between rural versus urban respondents (t700 = 0.942, p = 0.347) or Hispanic versus non-Hispanic respondents (t700 = 0.138, p = 0.889). For every 35 respondents who strongly agreed with the statement describing mountain lions as an essential part of nature, only four people strongly disagreed. In contrast, for every 12 respondents who strongly agreed with the statement that it is exciting to find footprints of mountain lions in the field, 17 strongly disagreed (Table 4). This pattern was also clear in terms of general consensus amongst participants. Respondents exhibited the highest consensus in their belief that mountain lions are an essential part of nature (PCI2 = 0.16) and the least consensus (i.e. the greatest potential for conflict) regarding statements about the influence of seeing the footprint of a mountain lion (PCI2 = 0.31) or the actual animal (PCI2 = 0.33) on one’s outdoor experience (Fig. 2). Attitudes about Mountain Lion Management Respondents expressed slightly positive support for managing mountain lions (mean score = 1.04 ± 0.06 SE). There were no differences in responses amongst hunters and non-hunters, although the results were marginal (Table 3). We did not find differences between livestock owners and people without livestock, rural versus urban inhabitants or Hispanic versus non-Hispanic respondents (Table 3). Table 2. Proportional responses (%) of comparative stakeholder ingroups with regards to the current population and management status of mountain lions in Texas. Hunter Non-hunter z p Current population status of mountain lions Common 23.3 11.7 2.826 0.004 Endangered 21.2 29.1 -1.434 0.153 Extinct 5.7 5.4 0.097 0.920 I don’t know 11.0 22.6 -2.312 0.021 Rare 38.8 31.1 1.339 0.180 Livestock No livestock z p Common 19.8 12.0 1.979 0.048 Endangered 21.2 29.2 -1.504 0.134 Extinct 12.8 4.5 3.075 0.002 I don’t know 8.9 23.0 -2.905 0.004 Rare 37.2 31.2 1.085 0.276 Hunter Non-hunter z p Game 17.8 8.8 2.440 0.015 Current management of mountain lions I don’t know 20.9 26.2 -0.981 0.327 Non-game 31.9 17.2 3.050 0.002 Protected 29.4 47.7 -2.983 0.003 16 Nature Conservation 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.60.140566 Omar Ohrens et al.: Texas residents´ attitudes towards mountain lion adapt any mountain lion management policies and practices. More broadly, our results suggest that the common assumptions of hunters and rural residents being more negative about large carnivores may not be justified. In the very least, attitudes amongst these groups are clearly more complex than previous analyses suggest. In our work, hunters and livestock owners were more positive about mountain lions, augmenting previous Human Dimensions studies that linked knowledge of wildlife and/or trust in wildlife management agencies to positive attitudes towards wildlife and their management. Ultimately, our results provide Texas wildlife managers the opportunity to better integrate equitable representation of the diverse perspectives of all Texas constituents when creating a defensible, adaptive and integrated management plan to preserve mountain lion populations, Texas communities and the ecosystems on which we all depend. Additional information Conflict of interest LME is one of the authors of the 2022 Petition for Rulemaking to TPWD that proposed new mountain lion policies. Ethical statement No ethical statement was reported. Use of AI No use of AI was reported. Funding No funding was reported. Author contributions Conceptualization: LME. Data curation: OO. Formal analysis: LME, OO. Writing - original draft: LME. Writing - review and editing: BEGW, BG, OO, LME. Author ORCIDs Omar Ohrens https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9047-0804 Benjamin Ghasemi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1606-8953 Bonnie E. Gulas-Wroblewski https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5940-1384 L. Mark Elbroch https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0429-4179 Data availability All data used in this manuscript are available upon request to the corresponding author. References Adams CE, Leifester JA, Herron JSC (1997) Understanding wildlife constituents: Birders and waterfowl hunters. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973–2006) 25(3): 653–660. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2): 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T Bennett NJ, Klain SC, Ming K, Chan A, Cullman G, Curran D, Durbin TJ, Epstein G, Greenberg A, Veríssimo D, Wyborn C (2016) Conservation social science: Understanding 17 Nature Conservation 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.60.140566 Omar Ohrens et al.: Texas residents´ attitudes towards mountain lion and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation 205: 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006 Bruskotter JT, Wilson RS (2014) Determining where the wild things will be: Using psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores. Conservation Letters 7(3): 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12072 Carter NH, Linnell JDC (2023) Building a resilient coexistence with wildlife in a more crowded world. PNAS Nexus 2(3): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad030 Chase LD, Teel TL, Thornton-Chase MR, Manfredo MJ (2016) A comparison of quantitative and qualitative methods to measure wildlife value orientations among diverse audiences: A case study of Latinos in the American Southwest. Society & Natural Resources 29(5): 572–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1086455 Davenport MA, Nielsen CK, Mangun JC (2010) Attitudes toward mountain lion management in the Midwest: Implications for a potentially recolonizing large predator. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 15(5): 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/108 71209.2010.507564 Decker DJ, Forstchen AB, Siemer WF, Smith CA, Frohlich RK, Schiavone MV, Lederle PE, Pomeranz EF (2019) Moving the paradigm from stakeholders to beneficiaries in wildlife management. The Journal of Wildlife Management 83(3): 513–518. https://doi. org/10.1002/jwmg.21625 Elbroch LM, Harveson PM (2022) It’s time to manage mountain lions in Texas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 46(5): e1361. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.1361 Elbroch LM, Feltner J, Quigley H (2017) Human-carnivore competition for antlered ungulates: Do pumas select for bulls and bucks? Wildlife Research 44(7): 523–533. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR17006 Elbroch LM, Masters B, Morrison M, Swanson R, Harte P, Tischendorf J, Harveson PM (2024) A collaborative approach to initiating mountain lion (Puma concolor) policies in Texas. Canadian Wildlife Biology and Management 13(2): 102–110. Engel MT, Vaske JJ, Marchini S, Bath AJ (2017) Knowledge about big cats matters: Insights for conservationists and managers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41(3): 398–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.798 García-Pérez MA (2023) Use and misuse of corrections for multiple testing. Methods in Psychology (Online) 8: 100120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2023.100120 Ghasemi B, Kyle GT, Gulas-Wroblewski BE (2022) Texas residents’ attitudes toward mountain lions & their management. Texas A&M University AgriLife Research. https://www.texansformountainlions.org/tamu-study Heberlein T (2012) Navigating Environmental Attitudes. Oxford University Press, USA, 228 pp. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199773329.001.0001 Johansson M, Karlsson J (2011) Subjective experience of fear and the cognitive interpretation of large carnivores. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 16(1): 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2011.535240 Kansky R, Kidd M, Knight AT (2016) A wildlife tolerance model and case study for understanding human wildlife conflicts. Biological Conservation 201: 137–145. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.002 Karlsson J, Sjöström M (2007) Human attitudes towards wolves, a matter of distance. Biological Conservation 137(4): 610–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.03.023 Knopff AA, Knopff KH, St. Clair CC (2016) Tolerance for cougars diminished by high perception of risk. Ecology and Society 21(4): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES08933-210433 18 Nature Conservation 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.60.140566 Omar Ohrens et al.: Texas residents´ attitudes towards mountain lion Krosnick JA, Petty RE (1995) Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. In: JA Krosnick and RE Petty (Eds) Attitude strength: An overview. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1–24. Langhammer PF, Bull JW, Bicknell JE, Oakley JL, Brown MH, Bruford MW, Butchart SHM, Carr JA, Church D, Cooney R, Cutajar S, Foden W, Foster MN, Gascon C, Geldmann J, Genovesi P, Hoffmann M, Howard-McCombe J, Lewis T, Macfarlane NBW, Melvin ZE, Merizalde RS, Morehouse MG, Pagad S, Polidoro B, Sechrest W, Segelbacher G, Smith KG, Steadman J, Strongin K, Williams J, Woodley S, Brooks TM (2024) The positive impact of conservation action. Science 384(6694): 453–458. https://doi. org/10.1126/science.adj6598 Lumley T (2021) Survey: Analysis of Complex Survey Samples. http://r-survey.r-forge.rproject.org/survey/ McGovern EB, Kretser HE (2015) Predicting support for recolonization of mountain lions (Puma concolor) in the Adirondack Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 39(3): 503–511. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.557 Marino A, Braschi C, Ricci S, Salvatori V, Ciucci P (2016) Ex post and insurance-based compensation fail to increase tolerance for wolves in semi-agricultural landscapes of central Italy. European Journal of Wildlife Research 62(2): 227–240. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10344-016-1001-5 Mitchell MS, Cooley H, Gude JA, Kolbe J, Nowak JJ, Proffitt KM, Sells SN, Thompson M (2018) Distinguishing values from science in decision making: Setting harvest quotas for mountain lions in Montana. Wildlife Society Bulletin 42(1): 13–21. https://doi. org/10.1002/wsb.861 Musgrave RS, Stein MA (1993) State wildlife laws handbook. Center for Wildlife Law at the Institute of Public Law, University of New Mexico. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC (2007) Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: A practical guide for biologists. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 82(4): 591–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00027.x Newing H, Eagle CM, Puri RK, Watson CW (2011) Conducting Research in Conservation: Social Science Methods and Practice. London, UK: Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203846452 Olson ER, Goethlich J, Goudos‐Weisbecker B (2021) Attitudes towards a transient carnivore prior to recolonization. Wildlife Society Bulletin 45(2): 191–201. https://doi. org/10.1002/wsb.1166 Pierce C, Vaske J, Manfredo M (2001) Social science theories in wildlife management. In DJ Decker, TL Brown, WF Siemer (Eds) Human dimensions of wildlife management in North America, Wildlife Society, 39–56. Pooley S, Bhatia S, Vasava A (2021) Rethinking the study of human-wildlife coexistence. Conservation Biology 35(3): 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13653 Proffitt KM, Garrott R, Gude JA, Hebblewhite M, Jimenez B, Paterson JT, Rotella J (2020) Integrated carnivore-ungulate management: A case study in west-central Montana. Wildlife Monographs 206(1): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/wmon.1056 Rao JNK, Scott AJ (1987) On simple adjustments to chi-square tests with sample survey data. Annals of Statistics 15(1): 385–397. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176350273 Rapp C (2020) Hypothesis and theory: Collaborative governance, natural resource management, and the trust environment. Frontiers in Communication 5: 28. https://doi. org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00028 19 Nature Conservation 60: 1–19 (2025), DOI: 10.3897/natureconservation.60.140566 Omar Ohrens et al.: Texas residents´ attitudes towards mountain lion Riley SJ, Decker DJ (2000) Risk perception as a factor in wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in Montana. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5(3): 50–62. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10871200009359187 Smyth JD, Dillman DA, Christian LM, O’Neill AC (2010) Using the Internet to survey small towns and communities: Limitations and possibilities in the early 21st century. The American Behavioral Scientist 53(9): 1423–1448. https://doi. org/10.1177/0002764210361695 Stacker (2021) See how many registered hunters are in Texas. Stacker. https://stacker. com/texas/see-how-many-registered-hunters-are-texas Texans for Mountain Lions (2022) Texans for Mountain Lions. https://www.texansformountainlions.org/ Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (2021) Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/wildlifediversity/nongame/tcap/sgcn.phtml Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (2023) Parks and Wildlife Code. https://statutes. capitol.texas.gov/Docs/SDocs/PARKSANDWILDLIFECODE.pdf The Texas Constitution (2023) The Texas Constitution. https://statutes.capitol.texas. gov/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm Treves A, Chapron G, López-Bao JV, Shoemaker C, Goeckner AR, Bruskotter JT (2015) Predators and the public trust. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 92(1): 248–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12227 United States Census Bureau (2016) American Community Survey (ACS). U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs United States Census Bureau (2020) American Community Survey (ACS). U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs Vantassel SM, Hiller TL, Powell KDJ, Hyngstrom SE (2010) Using advancements in cable-trapping to overcome barriers to furbearer management in the United States. The Journal of Wildlife Management 74(5): 934–939. https://doi.org/10.2193/2009-298 Vaske JJ, Beaman J, Barreto H, Shelby LB (2010) An extension and further validation of the Potential for Conflict Index. Leisure Sciences 32(3): 240–254. https://doi. org/10.1080/01490401003712648 White HB, Batcheller GB, Boggess EK, Brown CL, Butfiloski JW, Decker TA, Erb JD, Fall MW, Hamilton DA, Hiller TL, Hubert Jr GF, Lovallo MJ, Olson JF, Roberts NM (2021) Best management practices for trapping furbearers in the United States. Wildlife Monographs 207(1): 3–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/wmon.1057 Wilbur RC, Lischka SA, Young JR, Johnson HE (2018) Experience, attitudes, and demographic factors influence the probability of reporting human-black bear interactions. Wildlife Society Bulletin 42(1): 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.854 Williams CK, Ericsson G, Heberlein TA (2002) A quantitative summary of attitudes toward wolves and their reintroduction (1972–2000). Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973– 2006) 30(2): 575–584. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3784518 Young JK, Zhao M, Laudati A, Berger J (2015) Human-carnivore interactions: Lessons learned from communities in the American West. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 20(4): 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2015.1016388 Zimmermann A, Walpole MJ, Leader-Williams N (2005) Cattle ranchers’ attitudes to conflicts with jaguar Panthera onca in the Pantanal of Brazil. Oryx 39(4): 406–412. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605305000992