Mountain lions, myths, and media: a critical reevaluation of The Beast in the Garden.

In 2003, David Baron wrote a controversial book entitled The Beast in the Garden: A Modern Parable of Man and Nature. The Beast in the Garden describes attempts by residents of Boulder, Colorado to coexist with a recovering mountain lion population. As the predators settled into neighborhoods and threatened pets, the animals' presence turned ominous, provoking political battles and culminating in a fatal mountain lion attack on 18-year old Scott Lancaster in Idaho Springs, Colorado. In Mountain Lions, Myths, and Media: A Critical Reevaluation of The Beast in the Garden, Wendy Keefover-Ring, director of the carnivore protection program at Sinapu, criticizes Baron's book as containing serious analytical, historical, and scientific errors and inadequacies. Additionally, she believes the death of a mountain biker in southern California propelled The Beast in the Garden into the media, creating the perception that Baron is a mountain lion expert. Keefover-Ring argues Baron's book unnecessarily frightened the public and succeeded in reinforcing or even changing people's perceptions of predators. Baron then defends The Beast in the Garden, arguing KeefoverRing misunderstood the theme of his book: that humans are dangerous when they do not appreciate their impact on the natural world Baron then attempts to rebut Keefover-Ring's assertions and accuses her of politicizing The Beast in the Garden. In Final Words About Beasts and Gardens, Keefover-Ring attempts to undermine Baron's rebuttal and argues that Baron failed to prove a Boulder-based lion killed Scott Lancaster, thereby undermining his central thesis.

MOUNTAIN LIONS, MYTHS, AND MEDIA: A CRITICAL REEVALUATION OF THE BEAST IN THE GARDEN

BY WENDY J. KEEFOVER-RING *

David Baron's The Beast in the Garden: A Modern Parable of Man and Nature (Beast in the Garden) (1)--re-released into paperback by W.W. Norton--provides a well-intentioned attempt to warn us Westerners about the potential dangers of recreating or living in mountain lion country. The book's sloppy methodology, unsatisfying leaps in logic, historical inventions, and reliance on anecdotal "scientific" data create problems for itself. Yet, its authoritative tone and lengthy bibliography have convinced the media, many readers, and even some academics that Baron, a twenty-year National Public Radio reporter, is also an expert on mountain lions. (2)

According to the book's website, Baron has been interviewed on at least nineteen radio shows and three television stations, quoted in twenty-four newspapers or magazines, and his book was excerpted in several publications--including nine versions of Reader's Digest. (3) On top of that, the book has been favorably reviewed sixty-four times. (4) Beast in the Garden, with its alarmist style and emphasis on gore, appears to have, at least temporarily, modified the public discourse on mountain lions. For example, in April 2004, a Colorado news station reported, "Experts Fear Mountain Lion Confrontations Will Rise." (5) The expert interviewed on this subject is invariably journalist David Baron.

Has the book changed people's understanding of large native carnivores in the ecosystem? After the release of Beast in the Garden in October 2003, wildlife biologists and others have witnessed a shift in main-stream attitudes towards mountain lions--something akin to the predator angst the dominant American culture exhibited at the turn of the nineteenth century. Beast in the Garden, to use Baron's words, is "prone to weave elaborate stories from cryptic evidence .... " (6)

Baron argues that Boulder, Colorado's hippie-bred, herbal-tea-drinking, animal-venerating, nature-loving culture led to a mountain lion attack on a young man in Idaho Springs. (7) He claims that the 1991 death of Scott Lancaster, an eighteen-year old Idaho Springs resident, was the "inevitable" outcome following the confluence of political, historical, and ecological events that had "gone awry." (8) Wildlife lovers on Boulder's rural-urban interface lured deer into their unhunted "gardens," according to Baron. (9) The "increasing" deer population attracted mountain lions (the "beast") closer to human habitants. He argues that close proximity to humans created habituated wild cats. (10) In other words, Baron argues that Boulder's culture of animal and nature reverence killed Lancaster. By examining historical, scientific, and other sources uncritically, Baron steps into a trap of his own making.

The fundamental underpinnings of Beast in the Garden are easily contested. Baron's argument that a Boulder-based, human-habituated lion killed a boy in Idaho Springs has three important problems. First, in that rural burg, animal veneration has a different meaning. Bambi is venison, and the Lion King is an ornamental rug. People who live in Idaho Springs hunt large mammals, including mountain lions. In other words, Idaho Springs, the place where the attack occurred--the basis of the book--is the cultural antithesis of Boulder). (11) Yet this fact is conveniently left out of Beast in the Garden, to include it would have undercut Baron's main thesis.

A second fundamental problem is that Idaho Springs lies twenty air miles--over mountainous terrain--away from Boulder, and although a large male tom will have a territory of at least one hundred square miles, those miles are not linear. California-based lion biologist, Dr. Rick Hopkins, explains that a forty-mile radius is equivalent to 5,000 square miles--thus, it is unlikely that a lion living in Boulder also has a territory connected to Idaho Springs. (12) On the other hand, Dr. Ken Logan, a puma biologist, writes that if a subadult animal was dispersing from its natal area in search of its own home range, that animal could have originated "from anywhere in Colorado, or as far away as New Mexico or Wyoming." (13)

Moreover, the contention that lions will inevitably attack humans or become habituated to them is disputed by a well-respected 2003 San Diego, California study conducted by Linda Sweanor et al. that finds lions typically try to avoid human encounters. (14) Indeed, Baron cites no scientific evidence to support his theory that lions routinely adjust to humans.

Attributing human characteristics to wildlife and using unsound ethical reasoning further compound the book's flaws. According to Baron, mountain lions use ritualized murder no different than the Aztecs who "hauled prisoners up high pyramids and cut out their beating hearts as an offering to the sun...." (15) The lion that killed Scott Lancaster "hollow[ed him] out" "like a pumpkin" and then "sprinkled [the body with] moss and twigs" "as if to signify something profound." (16) Using "surgical" precision, (17) a lion "killed a young man and ate his heart." (18) Although such dramatic words keep the reader turning the pages, they are problematic.

In Beast in the Garden, Baron disguises mountain lions as human beings--a literary trick with ignominious precedent. In 1903, renowned naturalist John Burroughs excoriated nature writers who had published farfetched stories about animal behavior. In his essay, "Real and Sham Natural History," (19) Burroughs attacked these "nature faker" writers and ignited a debate in the literary world. Burroughs' critique proves instructive one hundred years later. He fumed that these nature fakers put "much sentiment" into their works to achieve "literary effects." (20)

Baron's pumas-as-Aztec-priests or knife-wielding-surgeons makes interesting reading and taps into people's primal fears about large predators. Apparently this tactic has worked since he has achieved enough interest to generate a second printing of his book, and he continues to receive glowing reviews and interviews; however, his style may spawn a generation of neo-nature fakers. Baron's attempt to give human qualities to pumas also taps into the debates about animals and the changing nature of human culture.

Ethicists agree that predators do not have murderous intent when they kill--they are simply seeking food, not the oppression of a victim. (21) Further, ethicists argue that without predation, increased suffering would occur in the natural world, while biologists cite simplification in ecosystems--both in terms of species richness and functionality. (22) Like early conservationists who distinguished between "good" and "bad" animals (prey species were "innocent victims" and "predatory animals" were evil and ravenous), (23) Baron pits anthropomorphized mountain lions against unsuspecting virtuous martyrs, such as Fifi the cock-a-poo, who becomes a lion hors d'oeuvre in this tale. (24)

In addition to flawed ethical understanding, Baron makes several unsupportable historic claims. I will illustrate three here. In the first, he writes, "[r]esidents of Boulder and nearby towns enthusiastically participated in the frenzy [of mountain lion] killing" in the late nineteenth century. (25) Baron's statement seems reasonable given that the dominant American culture before 1960 generally believed that large carnivores such as mountain lions, bears, and wolves were evil and ravenous. (26) His endnotes refer us to Colorado's bounty statutes. (27) Indeed, Colorado maintained a bounty on lions from 1881 to 1965 (but repealed the law briefly from 1885 to 1889). Under Colorado statutes, lion hunters would turn in a lion "scalp" to the county clerk and sign an affidavit declaring the county where the lion was killed. The county would then receive periodic reimbursements from the state treasury. (28)

According to Boulder County's bounty records, residents killed 296 coyotes, 32 wolves, 11 bears, and 2 mountain lions between 1890 and 1892. (29) Based on the evidence, one might argue that a "frenzy" of coyote killing occurred in Boulder, but not so for the other species. Also, Baron's readers might find it interesting to learn that most of Boulder County's early records were destroyed in a 1932 fire. (30) Instead of admitting the truth about a lack of primary evidence, Baron improvises.

Next, Baron tells us that Americans once "lured mountain lions to steel-jawed traps with catnip oil." (31) Not quite. According to Stanley Young, Senior Biologist for the Biological Survey (the federal agency largely credited with exterminating wolves and grizzlies in the lower 48 states), catnip oil lures proved impractical. In 1940, Young wrote, "[i]t was evident that it required a large quantity of the plants to obtain a very small quantity of off" because "[c]atnip oil is highly volatile...." (32) Thus, even the mighty federal Biological Survey, which had a Congressional mandate to eliminate native carnivores, (33) could not grow enough catnip to eradicate a few house cats much less the entire mountain lion population.

Third, Baron asserts early in the book that "some biologists believe" mountain lions "may be as abundant today as when Lewis and Clark paddled through the region two centuries ago." (34) Baron cites no evidence for this claim. His abundant population theory gets in his own way. Later he adds, "ironically, ancient Indians may have come closer to exterminating the species than twentieth-century lion hunters ever did." (35) Again, the author gives us no citation for this extraordinary assertion. Even now, biologists have few clues about how many lions exist in the inter-mountain West because scientists have conducted only a handful of mountain lion studies of adequate duration and intensity to obtain census numbers. At present, there are no valid methods for estimating lion numbers or population trends that I know of. Instead of conducting population counts, western state wildlife managers rely heavily on anecdotal evidence provided largely by mountain lion outfitters. States also use hunter harvest data to project what the living population might be--an unreliable methodology because the number of dead pumas has an unknown correlation to the living population. (36)

In Beast in the Garden, Baron claims that Boulder County's cat population rose rapidly during the 1980s. His evidence for this theory comes from anecdotal data collected in the 1980s by James Halfpenny, an expert tracker, and Michael Sanders, a naturalist. Baron, to his credit, writes that Halfpenny and Sanders' Boulder mountain lion count "was an admittedly crude research project." (37) As of this writing, lion biologists have yet to correlate track counts with population densities--although the Colorado Division of Wildlife, led by renowned lion researcher Dr. Ken Logan, is endeavoring to do this in a ten-year study on Colorado's Uncompahgre Plateau, which began in late 2004. (38)

Critical omissions in Beast in the Garden compound its flaws. Unfortunately, Baron fails to report on pumas' natural history, ecological role, and the rate of lion hunting conducted in the West since bounties were lifted in the 1960s and 1970s. Missing too--despite its keen focus on the topic of mountain lion attacks--is an unbiased risk assessment and sound advice for people who live or recreate in lion country. In both national and local radio interviews, David Baron has declared that the mountain lion population in the West has rebounded because states have replaced bounties with regulated hunting. (39) Empirical evidence neither supports nor negates this claim. As Colorado bounty records show, few lions were turned in for a bounty as compared to the number of lions killed in regulated hunting during the past two decades. (40) Across the West, however, mountain lion hunting has significantly increased in popularity resulting in a near four-fold increase in lion mortality in two decades. (41) Technology such as off-road vehicles, radio collars for hunting-dog packs, and remote communication devices have accelerated lion hunting. (42)

Moreover, western states in the last two decades have liberalized lion hunting by elevating lion-hunting quotas, increasing hunter bag limits, reducing tag fees, and lengthening the hunting season. (43) States ineffectively protect breeding females--the most important demographic of lion population in terms of conservation. (44) Human hunting pressures can easily overwhelm a cat population. (45) Large-ranging carnivores face other problems too. Habitat loss and roads, which bifurcate populations and cause both direct and indirect mortalities, may also hinder long term conservation of these species. (46)

Baron hints that growth and sprawl gobble up and fragment habitat for large mammals, (47) but the discussion is cryptic and unsatisfying. Large mammals, especially large carnivores such as lions, bears, and wolves, need expansive, intact, and connected ecosystems if they are to persist. Additionally, Baron fails to tell us the mountain lion's own story--one that is likely to be in peril unless we take concerted efforts to conserve them. (48) Also absent from Baron's rendition is the risk of an attack. In the 114 years since 1890, only seventeen credible human fatalities and less than 100 non-fatal attacks have occurred in the United States as a result of puma-human interactions. (49) Of the total fatalities, only two come from Colorado. Lion researcher and professor of biology Paul Beier has documented that there is no correlation between numbers of lions hunted and humans attacked. (50) Content to frighten readers with gore, Baron fails to tell us how to behave while living or recreating in lion country. Yet people can take common sense precautions to protect themselves, their children, and their pets; in fact, to do so is our individual and collective responsibility. (51)

In a 2001 survey conducted by Decision Research in Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico, respondents told pollsters that mountain lions were the "best representative of the Southern Rockies heritage and landscape." (52) Has that positive attitude changed among some since the release of Beast in the Garden in October 2003? Without a poll we cannot definitively know in the short term; historians will be better able to gauge this some time in the future. We do know that the book receives generous media attention.

For example, in November 2003, the book debuted in Reader's Digest. On the title page of the magazine article, one sees a head shot of a snarling mountain lion with fangs in clear focus while the rest of the cat's head fades. Over the photo, the text reads, "Man Eater: The people of Boulder wanted the local wildlife left alone. Until the killing started." (53) At the November 2003 Colorado Wildlife Commission hearing concerning setting lion-hunting quotas--a commission not known for its love of predators--the Reader's Digest was waved around by one commissioner and used, in part, to justify keeping Colorado's lion hunting quota at 790 animals, a high number considering the state had no puma population data.

In January 2004, a lion killed a mountain biker in southern California, catapulting Baron's status as a sage and a mountain lion expert in the media. Baron told the Los Angeles Times, "'[m]aybe we just have to accept that Southern California is too far gone to be viable mountain lion habitat.'" (54) After the fatal attack, Baron rode a wave of media adoration. He appeared on several syndicated radio shows broadcast by National Public Radio and Colorado Public Radio, and gave two long interviews on KGNU, Boulder's community radio station, in late 2003 and in early 2004. (55) His book was a bestseller in Boulder's book stores at Christmastime.

The chatter about mountain lion danger in Boulder heated up. Opinion writer Doug Schnitzspahn wrote on January 14, 2004, that David Baron has "instilled fear in this town." (56) Schnitzspahn adds, "Just don't be surprised if your yogic, vegan, PETA-supporting Boulder spouse brings along an assault weapon the next time the two of you hit the trail." (57) On January 31, the Boulder Daily Camera reported that someone illegally dumped elk and deer carcasses near Nederland, a small, progressive mountain town in Boulder County, and that a lion was seen nearby. (58) Julie Davis came upon the lion while running and told a reporter that "'I've never been afraid, but lately I am.'" (59) She added that the human and mountain lion balance "has been upset" for the first time in twenty years. (60)

Twice, on April 20 and May 25, the Colorado Division of Wildlife hosted public meetings in Boulder because many in the community had voiced concerns about a potential attack. Rob Beebe, a Boulder resident, might have created the impetus for the meetings after he was allegedly stalked by a lion and his dog disappeared. (61) His wife named the animal "Osama Bin Lion," (62) linking the animal with a foreign terrorist who is credited with masterminding the September 11 attacks on the United States.

Beebe's encounter garnered him attention in the Boulder, Denver, and national press. In May, on Four-Mile Fire Protection District letterhead, Beebe delivered dozens of letters to homes in Boulder's mountain community suggesting that lions killed thirty area pets in the past year; he warned that a child might be next. (63) Mirroring Beast in the Garden's notions about habituation and savagery, Beebe wrote, "[t]he lions in this area seem to be getting bolder. A number of reports suggest that they have lost their fear of people." (64) Dozens of Boulder residents turned out for both events. At the April meeting, one man called for the eradication of Boulder's mountain lions. At both meetings, many voiced their fear of living in the foothills of Boulder. Only a few raised their voices in alliance with the lions. In an opinion letter, Tracy Ferrell argued against "alarmist diatribe" propounded by Beebe and others, and reminded residents that "mountain residents have always lost pets to mountain lions, coyotes, and other predators. That is part of living in the mountains." (65) She added that they can either move or keep their pets inside. (66) At an area meeting, resident Naomi Rachel told The Denver Post, "'[t]he time and hysteria going into this is ridiculous.'" (67) By spring 2004, lions were the hot media issue and David Baron was the rage. In Ft. Collins, Colorado residents expressed concerns about reportedly seeing lions in the area. The Ft. Collins Coloradoan sought council. Baron asserted, "'I don't want to say this in an alarming way, but more people will be killed.'" (68)

In Beast in the Garden, Baron argues people will be killed in the future by mountain lions. Perhaps that is true. But no one knows how many and how often. Recently, Baron stated that the likelihood of a fatal mountain lion attack is "admittedly minuscule'--although this statement seems to undermine the basis of his central argument in Beast in the Garden. (69) How responsible then is the book?

While David Baron believes that his book is a "balanced" account, it leaves the discerning reader questioning his intent. Beast in the Garden comes rife with inaccuracies and inventions, an anti-predator bias, and a failure to provide critical information. Beast in the Garden's anachronistic thinking returns us to the turn of the nineteenth century, the time when the dominant American culture--conservationists included--believed that predators were evil and ravenous and we humans (as well as the deer) were innocent victims.

(1) DAVID BARON, THE BEAST IN THE GARDEN: A MODERN PARABLE OF MAN AND NATURE 6 (2003).

(2) The mountain lion's scientific name is Puma concolor, it was changed from Felis concolor over a decade ago. KENNETH A. LOGAN & LINDA L. SWEANOR, DESERT PUMA: EVOLUTIONARY ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION OF AN ENDURING CARNIVORE 17 (2001).

(3) Beast in the Garden, The Beast in the Garden: A Modem Parable of Man and Nature, by David Baron, http://www.beastinthegarden.com (last visited Nov. 20, 2005).

(4) Dozens of links to interviews and book reviews are available on Baron's website. Id. Two negative reviews not on the site include, Gary Wockner, Mountain Lyin', ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, Apr. 10, 2004, at E6 (book review), available at http://garywockner.home.comcast.net/ mtnlyin.hml and Kenneth A. Logan, The Beast in the Garden: A Modern Parable of Man and Nature, 68 J. OF WILDLIFE MGMT. 734 (2004) (book review).

(5) CBS4 Denver: Experts Fear Mountain Lion Confrontations Will Rise (CBS television broadcast Apr. 26, 2004) (transcript on file with author).

(6) BARON, supra note 1, at 82 (characterizing paleontologists as "prone to weave elaborate stories from cryptic evidence.... ").

(7) See id. at 16 (describing Boulder's "laid-back" culture and "stuck in the sixties" reputation); id. at 34 (stating that wilderness author Edward Abbey received a "rock star-like following" in Boulder).

(8) Id at 8.

(9) Id. at 49-50.

(10) See id. at 22-23 (arguing that animals lose their fear of humans when they are repeatedly exposed to people. "[W]hen the wildlife species in question is a carnivore, the results can be deadly.').

(11) Social ecologists have documented that people's attitudes towards wildlife vary depending on gender, education, and geographic location. See generally Stephen Kellert & Carter Smith, Humau Values Toward Large Mammals, in ECOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT OF LARGE MAMMALS IN NORTH AMERICA 38 (Stephen Demarais & Paul Kransman eds., 2000) (examining nine "values" that influence human attitudes toward large mammals and variations created by other factors); Tara Teel et al., Utah Stakeholders' Attitudes toward Selected Cougar and Black Bear Management Practices, 30 WILDLIFE SOC'Y BULL. 2 (2002) (examining Utahans' attitudes toward selected cougar and black bear management techniques).

(12) Telephone Interview with Dr. Rick Hopkins, Senior Wildlife Ecologist, Live Oak Associates, in San Jose, Cal. (Jan. 10, 2005).

(13) Logan, supra note 4, at 735 (citation omitted). In this review, Dr. Logan explains that eyewitness data is often wrong, based on a study he was involved In California where radio-collared cats were known not to be present during the times when people phoned in sightings. Id. at 736.

(14) Linda Sweanor, et al., Southern California Puma Project: Final Report for Interagency Agreement No. C0043050 (Southern California Ecosystem Health Project) Between California State Parks and the U.C. Davis Wildlife Health Center 1(2003). In this two and half year study, empirical data show pumas generally avoided humans and human facilities such as trails and buildings when humans were present. Id.

(15) BARON, supra note 1, at 8.

(16) Id. at 6, 8, 12.

(17) See id. at 6 (stating that the body was "carefully carved" in a "ghoulish backwoods surgery").

(18) Id. at 12.

(19) John Burroughs, Real and Sham Natural History, THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, Nov. 1903, at 298; see also LISA MIGHETTO, WILD ANIMALS AND AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS 9-26 (1991) (discussing Burroughs and President Theodore Roosevelt's attack on several turn-of-the-twentieth century nature-writing authors, such as Ernest Thomas Seton and William J. Long. Roosevelt dubbed them "nature fakers" because this group published ludicrous stories that gave animals unrealistic human-like abilities and attributes).

(20) Burroughs, supra note 19, at 299.

(21) STEPHEN CLARK, ANIMALS AND THEIR MORAL STANDING 17, 22 (1997); Evelyn Pluhar, The Basic Moral Rights of Humans and Nonhumans, in ETHICS AND WILDLIFE 40 (Priscilla Cohn ed., 1999).

(22) Pluhar, supra note 21, at 40. Concerning predators' enriching ecosystems, see for example, Brian Miller & Dave Foreman, Introduction to our Approach, in SOUTHERN ROCKIES WILDLANDS NETWORK: A SCIENCE-BASED APPROACH TO REWILDING THE SOUTHERN ROCKIES 43 (Brian Miller et al. eds., 2003); Douglas Smith et al., Yellowstone After Wolves, 53 BIOSCIENCE 330 (2003); Kevin Crooks & Michael Soule, Mesopredator Release and Avifaunal Extinctions in a Fragmented System, NATURE, Aug. 1999, at 400, 563-566.

(23) See MIGHETTO, supranote 19, at 75-93 (discussing American perceptions of predators).

(24) BARON, supranote 1, at 100-102 (describing a mountain lion attack on a dog).

(25) Id. at 31.

(26) See generally MIGHETTO, supra note 19 (discussing how attitudes toward wildlife have changed historically and how new values and ethics regarding the animal world have emerged); JON T. COLEMAN, VICIOUS: WOLVES AND MEN IN AMERICA (2004) (detailing the history of the relationship between new Americans and wolves from colonial times to the present); THOMAS DUNLAP, SAVING AMERICA'S WILDLIFE: ECOLOGY AND THE AMERICAN MIND, 1850-1990 (1988) (discussing American nature myths from 1850 to 1990) [hereinafter DUNLAP, SAVING AMERICA'S WILDLIFE]; Thomas Dunlap, The Coyote Itself: Ecologists and the Value of-Predators, 1900-1972, 7 ENVTL. REV. 54 (1983) (describing a shift in American attitudes toward predators); ALBERT M. DAY, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRIC., HANDBOOK FOR HUNTERS OF PREDATORY ANIMALS (1932) (providing instructions for hunting predatory animals).

(27) While Colorado counties paid bounties to mountain lion hunters, the state reimbursed those counties and kept its own ledgers. See Act of Feb. 11, 1881, 1881 Colo. Sess. Laws 192 (providing a bounty of ten dollars to encourage the destruction of mountain lions); Act of Apr. 18, 1889, 1889 Colo. Sess. Laws 35 (reinstating the bounty and broadening it to cover wolves, coyotes, and bears, in addition to mountain lions); Act of Apr. 8 1893, 1893 Colo. Sess. Laws 68 (reducing the bounty to one dollar per coyote, two dollars per wolf, and three dollars per mountain lion). Colorado then maintained a bounty on lions until 1965; after that date, mountain lions were declared a "big game species" and hunter harvest was limited. COLO. REV. STAT. [section] 331-102(2) (2005). But see Figure 1 infra p. 1093. As of this writing, Colorado's bounty on wolves and coyotes has never been lifted. See COLO. REV. STAT. [section] 3540-107 (2005). Despite the Great Depression and a handsome reward of $50, not many people took advantage of mountain lion hunting. See Figure 1 infra p. 1093 (showing mountain lion hunting statistics during the bounty period). There are two schools of thought. First, perhaps lion populations had been depressed before the bounty period, or lions were killed during the U.S. Biological Survey's massive poisoning campaign during the 1920s and 1930s, and their bodies were never discovered. See LOGAN & SWEANOR, supra note 2, at 15 (stating that early European immigrants brought predator control and habitat loss); DUNLAP, SAVING AMERICA'S WILDLIFE, supra note 26, at 112-23 (describing government poisoning efforts); Id at 56 (reporting A. Brazier Howells observation that government field agents had no incentive to look for predators killed by poisoning when reporting death tolls). Second, few lions were killed during the bounty period because of the lack of technology and limited access in hard-to-reach places like Colorado's canyon country. Steven Tortes et al., Abstract, Puma Management in Western North America: A 100 Year Retrospective, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP 148 (Scott A. Becket et al. eds., 2003).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

(28) See, e.g., Act of Feb. 11, 1881, 1881 Colo. Sess. Laws 193 (providing reimbursement of bounties to county treasurers from the state treasurer); but see Act of Apr. 8 1893, 1893 Colo. Sess. Laws 69 (providing bounty payments directly from the state treasury).

(29) Boulder County, Treasurer's Record on Bounties Paid (1890-1892) (stored in the Boulder branch of Carnegie Library). In 1890, George Buchanan turned in one scalp, and in 1891, J.A. Walker turned in another. Id. They each collected a $10 bounty payment. Id. While few lions were turned in for a reward, Boulder's bounty records show that dozens of coyotes and several bears and wolves were turned in for bounties. Id.

(30) The Boulder County courthouse burned down in 1932. Telephone Interview with Wendy Hall, Librarian, Boulder Carnegie Library, in Boulder, Colo. (Feb. 2, 2005).

(31) BARON, supra note 1, at 28.

(32) Stanley Young, Catnipping OurBig Cats, WESTERN SPORTSMAN, May 1940, at 4, 6.

(33) Animal Damage Control Act, ch. 370, 46 Stat. 1468, 1468-69 (1931) (codified as amended at 7 U.S.C. [section] 426 (2000)) (requiring the Secretary of Agriculture find ways to eradicate wildlife considered pesty to ranchers and farmers).

(34) BARON, supranote 1, at 11.

(35) Id. at 161.

(36) See LOGAN & SWEANOR, supra note 2, at 374 (stating that "harvest data can be disconnected from what may be occurring with the puma population in the wild"). For a synthesis of states' lion hunting practices and regulations, see Wendy Keefover-Ring, The State of Pumas in the West (2004).

(37) BARON, supranote 1, at 102.

(38) See Gary Gerhardt, Lion Sightings Leave Rural Folks on Edge: Residents Say Dogs Coming Up Missing DENVER ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, Apr. 10, 2004, at 8A (mentioning Ken Logan's cougar study on the Uncompahgre Plateu).

(39) For links to these radio interviews, see Beast in the Garden, supra note 3.

(40) See Figure 1 infra p. 1093 (graphing the number of mountain lions killed during Colorado's bounty period and its regulated hunting period). Steven Tortes et al. propose that fewer lions were killed during the bounty period in western North America than now. Steven Tortes et al., supra note 27, at 148. Due to the Biological Survey's poisoning campaigns, we may never know the truth.

(41) See Figure 2 Infra p. 1093 (graphing the total number of pumas killed by sport hunters in the western United States from 1983 to 2003). Hunter harvest, poaching, livestock protection kills, road kills, and human safety kills account for anthropogenic-caused mortalities. See generally Keefover-Ring, supra note 36. In unhunted populations, mountain lions face several causes of mortality, including intraspecific strife, predation, infanticide, disease, and starvation. See LOGAN & SWEANOR, supra note 2, at 117-26 (reporting the findings of a study on causes of death in a particular puma population).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

(42) LOGAN & SWEANOR, supra note 2, at 374.

(43) See generally Keefover-Ring, supra note 36 (describing changes in several states' lion hunting practices).

(44) Id. at 3-5.

(45) In his Montana study, state biologist Rich DeSimone found that hunters could substantially affect a localized puma population. See RICH DESIMONE ET AL., GARNET MOUNTAINS MOUNTAIN LION RESEARCH: PROGRESS REPORT JAN. 2001--DEC. 2002, at 4 (2003) (stating that hunters killed over 60% of radioed lions during the 1998-2001 hunting season). In one year alone, hunters killed 75% of his collared pumas. Id.

(46) The literature on large carnivore conservation is large. See, e.g., Reed Noss et al., Conservation Biology and Carnivore Conservation in the Rocky Mountains, 10 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 949 (1996) (discussing carnivore conservation issues in the Rocky Mountains); John Weaver et al., Resilience and Conservation of Large Carnivores in the Rocky Mountains, 10 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 964 (1996) (discussing issues of large carnivore resiliency in the Rocky Mountains); Lance Craighead, Wildlife-related Road Impacts in the Yellowstone to Yukon Region, http://www.y2y.net/science/y2yroadsmap.asp (last visited Nov. 20, 2005) (mapping regional roads and their impact on habitat); LOGAN & SWEANOR, supra note 2 (discussing the ecology and conservation of pumas in desert climates); John Laundre & Tim W. Clark, Managing Puma Hunting in the Western United States: Through a Metapopulation Approach, 6 ANIMAL CONSERVATION 159, 159 (2003) (proposing a puma management plan based on a metapopulation approach that designates some areas as "open to hunting" and others as "closed to hunting").

(47) See BARON, supra note 1, at 12, 230, 233 (discussing habitat loss).

(48) LOGAN & SWEANOR, supra note 2, at 4; see generally Keefover-Ring, supra note 36 (discussing the effects of states' lion hunting practices on lion populations).

(49) Paul Beier, Cougar Attacks on Humans: An Update and Some Further Reflections, in FIFTEENTH VERTEBRATE PEST CONFERENCE 365, 365 (John E. Borrecco & Rex E. Marsh eds., 1992) (documenting one human fatality and one non-fatal attack in the United States in 1991); Paul Beier, Cougar Attacks on Humans in the United States and Canada, 19 WILDLIFE SOC'Y BULL. 403, 403 (1991) (documenting ten human fatalities); E. Lee Fitzhugh et al., Lessening the Impact of a Puma Attack on a Human, In PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP 89, 94 (Scott A. Becker et al. eds., 2003) (documenting three human fatalities); Janet Wilson & Dan Weikel, To the Cougar,, Are People Now Fair Game?, L.A. TIMES, Jan. 11, 2004, at B1 (reporting a fatal mountain lion attack in California).

(50) Letter from Paul Beier to author (Mar. 31, 2003) (on file with author).

(51) The literature on human behavior in lion country is abundant. Several good websites exist, but for a printed guide on mountain lion safety see STEVEN TORRES, MOUNTAIN LION ALERT: SAFETY TIPS FOR YOURSELF, YOUR CHILDREN, YOUR PETS, AND YOUR LIVESTOCK IN LION COUNTRY (1997).

(52) Memorandum from Bob Meadow on Woff Restoration Issues to Interested Parties (May 9, 2001) (on file with author).

(53) David H. Baron, Man Eater, READER'S DIGEST, Nov. 2003, at 162, 162-63.

(54) Wilson & Weikel, supra note 49.

(55) Dozens of links to interviews and book reviews are available from Baron's website. See Beast in the Garden, supra note 3.

(56) Doug Schnitzspahn, The Banned Book: Don't Let Your Significant Other Read The Beast in the Garden, BOULDER DAILY CAMERA, Jan. 14, 2004, at 14.

(57) Id.

(58) Associated Press, Mountain Lion an Unwelcome Visitor to Ned, BOULDER DAILY CAMERA, Jan. 31, 2004, at A13.

(59) Id.

(60) Id.

(61) Marcos Mocine-McQueen, Canyon Proves a 'Hot Spot' for Pumas, THE DENVER POST, June 8, 2004, at B1.

(62) Chris Barge & Greg Avery, Keep Lids on Trash, Pets on Leashes, BOULDER DAILY CAMERA, Apr. 20, 2004, at Al.

(63) Letter from Rob Beebe to Residents of Fourmile Canyon (May 2004) (on file with author).

(64) Id.

(65) Tracy Ferrell, No Sound Reasons for Lion Panic, BOULDER DAILY CAMERA, May 8, 2004, at B7.

(66) Id.

(67) Mocine-McQueen, supra note 61. At the second Boulder town meeting, the Colorado Division of Wildlife reported it followed up on the question of the pets disappearing. Claire Solohub, District Wildlife Manager, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Remarks at a Boulder town meeting (May 25, 2004). They could confirm few, but added that lion-pet-killing apocrypha was alive and well. Id.

(68) Michael de Yoanna, Mountain Lions on the Prowl, FORT COLLINS COLORADOAN, Apr. 26, 2004, at B1.

(69) David Baron, Letter to the Editor, BOULDER DAILY CAMERA, Feb. 10, 2005, at B04.

(70) Keefover-Ring, supra note 36, at app. Colorado 3.

(71) Id. at 3.