Draft Terms of Reference for Puma (Puma concolor) Revised 24.7.19 Image by Donna Wilson/Zambi Wildlife Retreat Proposal Summary Puma concolor (Linnaeus, 1771) is a large slender American cat species known by a myriad of names including, cougar, mountain lion, catamount and panther. It occupies the most extensive range of any New World terrestrial mammal (Nielsen et al., 2015). This species was formerly captive in Australia in a sizeable population, kept and bred at several zoos and parks. Puma are covered by the zoo carnivore felidae policy. The last major zoo in the country to hold them was Melbourne Zoo (their last
Transcript
Draft Terms of Reference for Puma (Puma concolor) Revised 24.7.19
Image by Donna Wilson/Zambi Wildlife Retreat
Proposal Summary
Puma concolor (Linnaeus, 1771) is a large slender American cat species known by a myriad of names including, cougar, mountain lion, catamount and panther. It occupies the most extensive range of any New World terrestrial mammal (Nielsen et al., 2015).
This species was formerly captive in Australia in a sizeable population, kept and bred at several zoos and parks. Puma are covered by the zoo carnivore felidae policy. The last major zoo in the country to hold them was Melbourne Zoo (their last animal dying in 2011) and until recently there were also two females at Dreamworld, which died in 2016 and March 2018.
This species was formerly captive in Australia in a sizeable population, kept and bred at several zoos and parks. Puma are covered by the zoo carnivore felidae policy. The last major zoo in the country to hold them was Melbourne Zoo (their last animal dying in 2011) and until recently there were also two females at Dreamworld, which died in 2016 and March 2018.
Puma concolor have been safely exhibited in Australia since the seventies (Bullen’s Animal World, Australia), without any record being found of incidence. Currently the only captive puma (female 17 years) remaining in Australia is under the care of Zambi Wildlife Retreat (ZWR) and will soon be transferred to their exhibitors’ license on completion and NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) approval of their new puma exhibit. The puma is currently being held under Earl Courtenay Pty Ltd NIAC license 0002. ZWR has been approved by the Department of Primary Industries NSW to construct an exhibited facility and are working towards completion by October/November 2019. On approval of the facilities ZWR will be granted an exhibitors license. ZWR will look at becoming a member of ZAA.
Zambi Wildlife Retreat would like to provide co-habitation for the last puma in Australian captivity, along with the opportunity to exhibit both sexes of the species. Exhibiting both sexes is both visually and educationally beneficial.
In basically all animal species, males and females do tend to behave in distinct ways. Male pumas are significantly larger and heavier than females. (Goldman.1946; Kurten, 1973; Anderson, 1983; Maehr and Moore, 1992; The species also exhibits sexually dimorphic traits in both communication, scent marking and courtship behaviours (Logan & Sweanor, 2001; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002; Harmsen et al; 2010).
ZWR was approved by the NSW DPI in September 2017 to construct a new exhibited puma enclosure. The exhibit is a 4.2m high fully enclosed 324sqm naturalistic habitat with a 50sqm off exhibit holding yard and a further 30sqm of den space. The exhibit is capable of housing 3 individuals comfortably if required.
Interest has been shown to exhibit pumas from other Australian institutions, including Australia Zoo, Mogo Zoo, Shoalhaven Zoo, Wild Animal Encounters and the new Sydney Zoo.
The exhibited animals will play an important role in ZWR’s public exhibition and educational programs. ZWR has become a real world training ground for students undertaking animal studies in TAFES and University students conducting research.
The puma plays an important part in its natural eco-system and since human encroachment into it’s territory, it is important to educate the public about the conservation of this species and the important role it plays in the eco-system. Showcasing and educating the public about this splendid species of felid will help to promote conservation efforts.
The imported animal/animals, after undergoing an Official Veterinarian inspection and being issued with a health certification regarding freedom from disease and fitness for travel, would then travel in IATA approved crates via International air services. On arrival the imports would then be transported by road to a secure, approved NSW quarantine facility where it/they will stay for a quarantined period of 30 days, as per Biosecurity regulation.
1. Taxonomy of the species (IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 2018).
Kingdom AnimaliaPhylum ChordataClass MammaliaOrder CarnivoraFamily name FelidaeGenus PumaSpecies Puma concolorScientific name Puma concolor (Linnaeus, 1771)Common names Puma, Cougar, Mountain Lion
2. Status of species under CITES
Puma concolor is classified in CITES as Appendix II, which includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilisation incompatible with their survival (Shivaraju, 2003).This assessment uses the CITES standard taxonomic reference for Puma concolor, which names the subspecies coryi and cougar as separate subspecies of Puma concolor (Wilson and Reeder, 1993).According to the IUCN Status the Puma is classified as Least Concern (LC), however, numbers are decreasing in the wild (Nielsen et al., 2015). This species is listed as Least Concern because it is one of the most widely-distributed mammals in the Western Hemisphere. Although it has been extirpated from its former range in mid-western and eastern North America (Nowell and Jackson, 1996), it is attempting to recolonize this region (Thompson and Jenks, 2010, LaRue et al., 2012) and populations are healthy enough for regulated harvest in western North America. However, it is considered to be declining elsewhere in its range, and as a large carnivore intricately linked to other wildlife and habitat associations, from a social and political perspective its conservation and management presents numerous challenges.
3. Species Ecology
Lifespan of the species Puma concolor can live up to 18 years in the wild and averages 23.8 years in captivity (Weigl, 2005).
Size and weight range As with many felid species, males are often larger in size than females (Logan and Sweanor, 2001). This is also applicable to Pumas. They stand between 60 -76 cm tall at the shoulder. Adult male pumas are around 2.4 m long nose to tail, and typically weigh 53 to 100 kilograms, averaging 62 kg. Females average 2.05 m from nose to tail and typically weigh between 29 and 64 kg, averaging 42 kg.
Natural geographic range
Habitat This species is found in a broad range of habitats, in all forest types, as well as lowland and montane desert. Several studies have shown that habitat with dense understory vegetation is preferred, however, Pumas can live in very open habitats with only a minimum of vegetative cover (Nowell and Jackson, 1996). Pumas co-occur with Jaguars in much of their Latin American range, and may favour more open habitats than their larger competitor, although both can be found in dense forest (Sunquist and Sunquist, 2002; Busch, 1996). Mountain lions use a wide variety of habitats including montane coniferous forests, lowland tropical forests, grassland, dry brush country, swamps, and any areas with adequate cover and prey. Dense vegetation, caves, and rocky crevices provide shelter.
¥ Habitat Regions temperate tropical terrestrial¥ Terrestrial Biomes desert or dune savanna or grassland chaparral forest rainforest scrub forest mountains¥ Other Habitat Features suburban agricultural riparian
The geographic range of the Puma is the largest of any terrestrial mammal in the Western Hemisphere (Sunquist and Sunquist, 2002), from Canada through the US, Central and South America to the southern tip of Chile. While the Puma is an adaptable cat, being found in every major habitat type of the Americas, including the high Andes (5,800 m asl in southern Peru; Sunquist and Sunquist, 2002), it was eliminated from the entire eastern half of North America within 200 years following European colonization (Nowell and Jackson 1996). The male can occupy a territory of 250 km2, while the female makes do with about half this area. A remnant endangered sub-population persists in Florida. Recent confirmations and suitable habitat in the Midwestern U.S. indicate attempts at recolonization (LaRue and Nielsen 2011, LaRue et al., 2012).
Diet, including potential to feed on agricultural plants
Diet in the Wild Pumas are highly successful obligate carnivores, meaning they must eat meat to survive. In the wild, pumas will eat elk, deer, moose and caribou in North America. They will also eat smaller animals such as squirrels, bobcats, coyote, other pumas, rabbits, possums, birds, rats and fish. In North America over 60% of a puma’s diet is deer. If there is a scarcity of prey, pumas will also eat domestic animals like calves, sheep, poultry, goats and pigs. Puma do not eat agricultural plants. Mountain Lions are able to hunt a diversity of prey sizes from rabbits to moose. In Texas Mountain Lions are relatively smaller than those found in the northern and southern ranges (Canada and Argentina for example) and their main prey species are deer and smaller mammals.
Captive Diet As pumas are an obligate carnivore, their protein source must be derived from raw animal flesh. Pumas in captivity are fed beef, horse, kangaroo, rabbits, deer and chicken with an added supplement of predamax vitamin and mineral powder (Shoemaker et al., 1997).
Social behaviour and groupings Pumas are typically solitary, spending most of their lives in well-defined home ranges that vary in size according to a cat's gender, the season, habitat quality, and prey availability (Vynne et al., 2007). Generally, male territories are larger, (often up to 140kms) than those of females, with females often sharing overlapping ranges, (mostly 50kms each animal). For breeding access, male territories may overlap several female ranges, but never those of other resident males. Pumas mark the boundaries of their territories with olfactory signposts, or scrapes, specifically by building and urinating on piles of dirt, pine needles, and leaves. In search of home ranges, young and transient pumas are allowed to travel through the established ranges of resident cats, but not for long periods. When young males, (sub-adults) leave their mother at 12-24 months of age, they must disperse out of their natal area or be killed by the dominant male (their father). Females usually disperse shorter distances and often times set up home ranges adjacent to their mother (López and González, 1998).
Territorial and aggressive behaviours
Most felids are solitary, with some notable exceptions (e.g. the lion, and to a lesser extent the cheetah, and wildcat). Mostly for cats, conspecific encounters occur most frequently not between individuals but between signals, sent through territorial marking behaviour. Pumas are sympatric with jaguars in much of their Latin American range, and may favour more open habitats than their larger competitor (Vynne et al., 2007), although both can be found in dense forest.
Felids compete for access to resources, ranges, mates, and/or reproductive opportunities, and deadly conspecific encounters have been recorded for some big cats. Among pumas, mature males may kill (but generally do not eat) other males (Anderson et al., 1992) or juveniles of both sexes (Harveson et al. 2000). Some of these wanderers are undoubtedly overflow from wild areas filled to their cougar capacity. Adult males can have home ranges of 100 square miles or more, and aggressively defend those territories from other lions.
Most felids are solitary, with some notable exceptions (e.g. the lion, and to a lesser extent the cheetah, and wildcat). Mostly for cats, conspecific encounters occur most frequently not between individuals but between signals, sent through territorial marking behaviour. Pumas are sympatric with jaguars in much of their Latin American range, and may favour more open habitats than their larger competitor (Vynne et al. 2007), although both can be found in dense forest.
Research has also shown that the Puma plays a critical role in providing resources to other species in the ecosystem in which they live. This concept is known as “ecosystem engineering which increases ecosystem health and biodiversity” (Barry et al. 2018).
Behavioural traits:
Growling/Snarling/ Spitting: all signs of aggressive or territorial behaviour. When a puma is threatened it will start growling at a low volume, gradually getting louder if the threat/discomfort persists. Snarling and spitting signal an increase in aggression and potential for confrontation. Hissing: Cubs are able to hiss from 9-10 days old. Pumas will hiss when protecting territory/food. Meow/Chirp: Short meows are a greeting to cubs and also a greeting to familiar people within captive settings for hand reared pumas.Purring - sound of contentment, heard during intimate interactions (with a male before copulation, and also heard in hand reared pumas with their handlers). Heard when cubs suckle. Scream/Yowl: Heard when the female puma is in oestrous (to attract a male). Aggression occurs when a puma, encountering a person or animal, responds in such a way as to increase the odds of physical contact, either as an act of predation or in defence of self, dependent young, or killed prey.
Olfactory Communication Solitary felids such as puma concolor will use scent-marking behaviours by means of communication for territorial defence and location of mates (Allen et al., 2014). These scent marking behaviours are inclusive of “scraping, urine spraying, body rubbing, caterwauling, cheek rubbing, and the flehmen response” (Allen et al., 2014; Harmsen et al., 2010).
Urine spraying - Male pumas will perform territorial patrols and mark objects at significant intervals by urine spraying on vertical objects. Although females may spray on vertical objects on the occasion, its mainly the male that sprays and marks territory. Pumas are also found to use urine as a way of conveying and interpreting communication within their communities in the wild (Allen et al., 2014).
Clawing - similar to domestic cats clawing at carpet, pumas will claw at the ground and use scratching posts to sharpen claws and mark territory.
Scent marking - pumas have scent glands in their cheeks and paws. They leave scent markings by scratching or rubbing their heads on objects and trees. They can follow scent markings left by other pumas.
Natural predators For the most part, the puma has no natural enemies and sits atop the food chain. However, they occasionally compete with other predators such as bears and wolves for food. It has been known however, for pumas that are vulnerable due to sickness or injury to be preyed upon by other large predators including Bears and Wolves, and even other Pumas.
Characteristics that may cause harm to humans and other species. Pumas are ambush predators that require cover to stalk their prey. They are opportunist hunters and will take advantage of circumstances.
With increasing human populations and spread of residential areas into puma habitat, the probability of humans encountering puma has increased. At the same time, puma seemingly have become less wary of humans near residential or recreation areas in puma habitat. As a result, the number of humans encountering puma has increased along with attacks on domestic stock and backyard pets. (Beier et al., 1991; Fitzhugh et al., 2003)
Presently, the puma is the most widespread apex predator in the Americas. Livestock predation is one of the major causes of conflicts between humans and pumas and one of the major causes of this conflict and consequently, a major driver of the depletion of large carnivore populations worldwide (Guerisoli et al., 2017).
Human fatality by puma in their native lands is very rare as they almost never attack a human. They prefer to avoid confrontation, but in saying this if the animal is cornered and feeling threatened or a fleeing human/child stimulates their prey instincts there would be a potential for an attack (Mattson et al., 2004).
Pumas like are obligate carnivores. Humans and felids come into conflict in ecosystems, where a high proportion of ungulate biomass is made up of domesticated species. Pumas are intermediate sized felids so they prey on smaller livestock and juveniles of the larger species. There have been accounts of predation on livestock such as cattle, sheep, goats and pigs (see Table 6.1; pg. 169, Macdonald and Loveridge 2010). Also, there have been records of accidental or depredation by Puma on humans with only record found from the USA between 1890-90s. It was noted that people were attacked or killed mainly because of human encroachment into habitat (see table 6.2, pg 174; Macdonald and Loveridge (2010).
4. Reproductive biology
Male pumas remain reproductively active until they are at least 20 years old, and females remain fertile until at least the age of 12. Mountain lion cubs weigh about 400–500 g at birth (Robinette et al., 1961). Males typically outweigh females throughout their lives (Logan et al., 2001).
Pumas have no specific breeding season and are induced ovulators. Female pumas generally reproduce when they are about 2-1/2 years old. A female mountain lion can come into estrus any time of the year. Estrus lasts about nine days. Females usually give birth every other year (average generation time is 92.3 days). After six cycles without mating, the female has a lull for two months before coming into estrus again. Males remain reproductively active to at least an age of 20 years, and females to at least an age of 12 years.
Female pumas in oestrous rub against objects in their territories and vocalise frequently to gain the attention of a potential mate. Courtship begins when a roaming female in heat makes frequent sounds (screams/yowls) and leaves a scent that attracts males. Males often respond with similar yowls. After locating the female, the male accompanies her for just a few days when mating occurs.
Breeding can take place throughout the year but most females give birth between April and July (in the northern hemisphere) following 3-month gestation period. The male puma has no role in raising cubs.
Litters vary in size from 1 to 6 cubs with an average of 3 or 4. Birth weight is between 226 to 453 grams. The cubs open their eyes 10 days after birth. At the same time their ear pinnae unfolds, their first teeth erupt, and they begin play. The cubs are fully weaned at about 40 days of age. Cubs have about a 70 percent survival rate during the first year. Mother and cubs remain together for as long as 26 months, though the average is 15 months. Male young disperse from 23 to 274 km, while females disperse from 9 to 140 km. Males reach sexual maturity at about 3 years of age and females at 2 1/2 years.
5. Feral populations
Presently, there are no confirmed evidence of wild big cats present in Australian forests. Researchers have mentioned that the the most parsimonious explanation for many of the reported sightings is that they involve large, feral individuals of the domestic cat Felis catus. Obtaining unequivocal evidence for the presence of ‘big cats’ would require an organised and structured program aimed at collecting DNA samples from faecal material or prey carcasses, or the opportunistic collection of a number of ‘big cat’ carcasses of proven provenance. More than one specimen would be required because the presence of a single individual is not evidence of a self-sustaining population (Menkhorst and Morrison, 2012).
According to a study by O’Neil et al. (2014), recent findings indicate that cougars (Puma concolor) are expanding their range into the mid-western United States. Confirmed reports of cougar in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have increased dramatically in frequency during the last five years, leading to speculation that cougars may re-establish in the Upper Great Lakes (UGL) region, USA. Recent work showed favourable cougar habitat in north-eastern Minnesota, suggesting that the northern forested regions of Michigan and Wisconsin
may have similar potential. Recolonization of cougars in the UGL states would have important ecological, social, and political impacts that will require effective management.
A distribution list of countries and territories is available as follows (Source: Species + https://speciesplus.net/#/taxon_concepts/6330/distribution);
COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES
ArgentinaBelizeBolivia (Plurinational State of)BrazilCanadaChileColombiaCosta RicaEcuadorEl SalvadorFrench Guiana [FR]GuatemalaGuyanaHondurasMexicoNicaraguaPanamaParaguayPeruSurinameUnited States of AmericaUruguayVenezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
6. Environmental risk assessments of the species Risk assessments have been completed on puma concolor in its natural territories in North and South America. These assessments were needed due to livestock predation and human conflicts. In reference to the environmental risk assessment the disease agent, Puma lentivirus is genetically distinct from Feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) found in domestic cats and does not cause disease in domestic cats (Australia B, 2002).
Puma lentivirus
Puma lentivirus (PLV) is related to, but phylogenetically distinct from feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV). It has been detected in North American non-domestic feline species (VandeWounde et al., 1997). A lentivirus that cross reacts with FIV has also been found in East African lions, and one that reacts to puma lentivirus was found in lions,
leopards and cheetahs in Botswana (Olmsted et al., 1992; Osofsky et al., 1996). A survey report in 1993 by Roelke et al. indicated that the pathogenic effects, if any, for Felis concolor coryi, were mild. Pathogenicity for domestic cats appears negligible, although viraemia and seroconversion were demonstrated. Transmission could be vertical (both placental and mammary transmission suggested), and horizontal via wounds, copulation and ingestion.
Puma lentivirus seropositivity of the order 40% has been detected in some wild populations of Felis concolor in the USA (Evermann et al., 1997). Importation of these species would present a moderate likelihood of agent entry. For other species, data are not available. Because of the intimate contact required for transmission of this agent, establishment of the disease in other species within zoo Felidae, or other genera within or outside the zoo would not be expected to occur.
The consequence of introduction of this agent, if not already present in zoo Felidae would be expected to be negligible to mild.
The status of this agent in Australia is not known. Current knowledge of the mode of transmission indicates the rate of spread would be low, and then only within the affected species. The consequences of establishment if not already present, would be negligible to mild. Quarantine measures for this agent are not considered warranted.
Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy agents
Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) is caused by prions, infectious protein agents that affect the central nervous system, resulting in a slowly progressive degenerative disease. Several cases of TSE have occurred in non-domestic Felidae. The first of these was identified in the UK in 1990 (Fraser et al., 1994). Since then it has also been diagnosed in Norway (Bratberg et al., 1995). Circumstantial evidence indicates that infection may have resulted from ingestion of tissues from cattle affected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) (Kirkwood and Cunningham, 1994). Onset of the disease in a puma (Felis concolor) began with ataxia, loss of balance and fine muscle tremors. She was euthanized, and histopathology and immunostaining with TSE prion antiserum confirmed a diagnosis of a scrapie-like spongiform encephalopathy (Willoughby et al., 1992). Cases of TSE in cats and non-domestic Felidae have occurred predominantly in the UK (Kirkwood et al., 1995). One case in an imported cheetah occurred in Australia and one in France, both cheetahs having been bred and spent a period of their lives in the UK, where it is assumed they contracted the infection. The incubation period is long and, in cats, infection appears to occur through consumption of infected carcass parts (Kirkwood et al., 1995).
The likelihood of TSE entering Australia in an infected animal is extremely low. Changes to slaughter procedures as a result of BSE in cattle in the UK would likely preclude current TSE transmission to carnivores. Older animals may still be affected because of the long incubation period. Theoretically, these animals could be imported, but in practice zoos prefer to import younger animals, therefore the risk of introduction of an infected animal is extremely low. Dead zoo animals are not destined to end up in the animal food chain in Australia, and the likelihood of a zoo Felid importation resulting in the establishment of a TSE in Australia is negligible.
The conclusion is that negligible quarantine risk is associated with transmissible spongiform encephalopathy in zoo Felidae. No risk management measures are warranted.
Below is an abstract from a risk assessment carried out in Patagonia (Kissling et al., 2009), “Livestock predation and associated human‐carnivore conflicts are increasing worldwide and require the development of methods and concepts for risk assessment and conflict management. Here we use knowledge on habitat preference and distribution of pumas and provide a first assessment of the spatial risk of livestock to puma depredation in Patagonian ranches, Argentina. In an initial step, we developed a rule‐based habitat model in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to predict the distribution of puma habitat at a regional scale in Patagonia. We then used empirically derived puma occurrence records from Patagonian ranches 1) to test our regional habitat predictions, and 2) to evaluate if paddock characteristics (vegetation cover, topography, and distance to roads) contribute to explain puma occurrences within ranches. Finally, we simulated three livestock management scenarios differing in their spatial and seasonal allocation of livestock to paddocks, and compared the likelihood of livestock exposure to pumas among scenarios. At a regional scale, 22% of the study region was predicted to be suitable for puma home ranges. The greatest uncertainty in these predictions resulted from assumptions on woody vegetation cover requirements at the home range scale. Within ranches, puma occurrences were positively associated with paddock topography, woody vegetation cover on paddocks, and proximity to predicted regional puma habitat. Comparing the risk of predation by puma among simulated livestock management scenarios implied that rotating livestock during seasons may help to reduce the likelihood of livestock exposure to pumas. Our results show the usefulness of rule‐based habitat models for describing broad‐scale carnivore distributions and for aiding risk assessments to mitigate conflicts between predators and human activities.”
Rabies virus
Rabies is a usually fatal, viral encephalitis that can affect all warm-blooded animals. Rabies is present worldwide and is common in all continents except Australia and Antarctica. Many island countries, territories and states are also free from rabies.
Australia is considered free of terrestrial classic rabies. Australian bat lyssavirus has been defined as a new genotype by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, USA. It is 8% different from its closest relative, classical rabies, with which it has close antigenic similarity. The hosts are a number of species of bats and flying foxes (Department of Primary Industry and Energy, 1997). It causes rabies-like disease in bats and humans, and has caused two human fatalities. (Gould et al., 1998; Field et al., 1999) No other terrestrial mammals in Australia have been known to acquire natural infection with Australian bat lyssavirus.Cats become infected, but do not contribute significantly to the
perpetuation of the disease (Geering et al., 1995). Infection in cats is considered to be a spill over from wildlife rabies (Greene, 1998).
The domestic cat is considered highly susceptible to rabies. In cats, the prodromal phase is short, with the disease commonly progressing to the furious form of rabies rather than the dumb form, although one study showed this to be the opposite (Blancou et al., 1986). Cats infected with rabies can subsequently progress to a paralytic phase, or die from exhaustion (Greene, 1998). Less is known of the susceptibility of non-domestic cats. Chronic or latent
infections are recognised but should be regarded as of minor importance in the epidemiology of the disease (Greene, 1998).
Rabies in three lions in a zoo in India was believed to have been introduced by a mongoose. (Rao et al., 1980) There are also reports of cases in lions in a game reserve believed to have been introduced by an incursion of a fox through the perimeter fencing Madhumeet-Singh et al., 1991).
Burkholderia mallei (Glanders)
Glanders is principally a disease of horses, mules and donkeys, but may also affect humans and small carnivores such as dogs and cats. Transmission occurs by close contact, but small carnivores have become infected through eating infected carcasses (Dungworth, 1985). Glanders has been documented in captive Felidae that were fed infected horse meat (Magaji, 1974; Bese, 1984). Humans are highly susceptible with a high fatality rate in untreated cases.
B. mallei infection of Felidae is rare. Most countries are now free from this agent. The likelihood of importing potentially infected animals is negligible from countries free from the disease, and very low from countries not free. In the unlikely event of introduction of an infected zoo animal, establishment and spread of the agent beyond zoo precincts would be most unlikely. Establishment in Australia outside zoo premises would require close contact between zoo animals or fomites from within the zoo with outside horses. This would not occur under normal circumstances. It is considered that the likelihood of establishment is very low to negligible.
Mycobacterium tuberculosis, M Bovis
Cats appear to be more susceptible to M. bovis than to M. tuberculosis or M. avium. There is a number of reports of tuberculosis in non-domestic Felidae, mostly from those in captive situations (Helman et al., 1998; Rathore and Khera, 1981; Das and Jayarao, 1986). A survey of deaths of wild animals in captivity in India showed 5.8% of felines died from tuberculosis. The route of infection is usually by the ingestion of contaminated milk or diseased wildlife. The existence of reports of tuberculosis in zoo Felidae is acknowledged (Gillespie and Timoney, 1981). Biosecurity Australia considers the overall likelihood of introduction to Australia of M. tuberculosis and M. bovis in zoo felids to be very low.
The likelihood of establishment of infection following introduction within a zoo would be low because zoo Felidae are kept in small isolated groups.
The likelihood of spread of infection beyond the zoo to farm livestock would be negligible. because there is no mixing of zoo and farm animals. However, the likelihood of spread of infection from one zoo to another via animal exchanges for breeding purposes is higher.
The overall likelihood of introduction and establishment within a zoo is considered very low. There is a negligible likelihood of establishment beyond zoos.
Although the likelihood of introduction and establishment of M. bovis and M. tuberculosis is very low, the consequences of this event would be serious. For public health reasons, and for
the protection of zoo collections, risk management measures to prevent the introduction of M. bovis and M. tuberculosis in non-domestic Felidae are warranted.
Trypanosoma evansi
Trypanosoma evansi causes the disease known as surra. Surra has a wide host spectrum. The disease is most severe in horses, donkeys, mules, deer, camels, llamas, dogs and cats (Geering et al., 1995). Transmission to the dog (and presumably cat) and rodents may also be by ingestion of infected meat (Raina et a., 1985).
It was not clear from the literature the extent to which non-domestic Felidae may be non-clinical carriers. It has been suggested that all mammals from endemic countries be considered potential carriers (Reid, 2000).
The prevalence of T. evansi in the country from which the Felidae were sourced would have a large bearing on the likelihood of introduction. Big cats from zoos in an endemic area would present a very low risk of introduction, while animals that had never been domiciled in an endemic country would present negligible risk of introduction.
Potential vectors of T. evansi are widespread in Australia. Most zoos have ungulate animals on their premises. There are insufficient data on which to quantify the potential for transmission from infected zoo Felidae to other species. The literature does not indicate that Felidae play a significant part epidemiologically.
Some zoos are outside or on the outskirts of metropolitan areas. If T. evansi were to become established within such a zoo, establishment and spread of the agent to animals outside the zoo could occur. This likelihood is considered low to moderate.
Australia has feral populations of goats, buffalo, camels and horses and has large cattle holdings in the northern half of the country. Any disease agent that may be transmitted by insects present in this country, would be difficult to eradicate. Should T. evansi be introduced to these populations, the likelihood of T. evansi becoming endemic is considered moderate to high.
Horses are most seriously affected by this agent. The diverse nature of the horse industry makes it difficult to determine the social and economic impact that establishment and subsequent control of surra would have in Australia. As the population is naïve, it is probable that mortality in infected horses and direct economic loss would be high if a reliable treatment was not readily available.
Australia participates in many international horse events with horses leaving the country or being imported on a regular basis. This trade could be seriously and, if eradication not possible, permanently affected.
Australian native fauna are known to be susceptible. Wallabies (Macropus agilis) and pademelons (Thyogale brunii) were infected experimentally and suffered pathological changes. They either died or were euthanized in-extremis (Reid and Copeman, 1999).
Thus, the consequence of disease establishment would be serious.
The likelihood of introduction of T. evansi is relative to the source of the animal, and from endemic countries would be low to moderate. However, the consequences of establishment would be serious. Risk management measures for animals originating from or that have been domiciled in endemic countries are warranted.
Echinococcus multilocularis
Non-domestic Felidae are occasionally infected with the adult stages of Echinococcus species. They would not be expected to show any signs of disease. In the absence of any control measures, there is a low likelihood of introduction in an imported zoo felid.
Subsequent establishment would depend on intermediate hosts having access to imported animal’s faeces. Rodents, the intermediate hosts of E. multilocularis, may conceivably have such access. The controlled hygienic disposal of excreta from animal enclosures in Australian zoos would substantially reduce the likelihood of establishment of Echinococcus spp. from an imported non-domestic felid.
Humans exposed to the faeces of imported zoo Felidae would be at risk of contracting infection, but would be dead end hosts, and not contribute to establishment of the agent in Australia.
The likelihood of establishment and spread of the agent beyond the confines of a zoo is negligible.
E. multilocularis is an important zoonosis, and the introduction of an animal excreting viable eggs in its faeces would pose a threat to animal handlers. In the unlikely event of establishment, this agent could have serious consequences to those persons exposed, by occupation or association, to infected animals.
Although the risk of spread beyond the confines of a zoo is negligible, E. multilocularis is a serious exotic zoonosis, and within the zoo, poses a hazard for zoo staff. For the protection of zoo staff, quarantine measures for E. multilocularis are warranted (Soulsby, 1982; Eckert et al., 1974; Crellin et al., 1981).
Cochliomyia hominivorax and Chrysomya bezziana (Screw-worm fly)
Screwworm fly (SWF) is an obligate parasite of all warm-blooded animals. Cats are not animals that are commonly attacked by SWF, and the likelihood of entry of screwworm fly on a zoo cat is very low. The likelihood of an infection going undetected on a valuable zoo animal, and running the full life cycle of the fly is also very low. However, if larvae were to develop to pupation and maturity, and if ambient temperatures were conducive to development, the likelihood of establishment of the agent within a zoo is moderate.
If establishment within the zoo occurred, and it were located close to livestock enterprises, feral or fauna populations, there is a moderate likelihood of establishment outside the zoo.
SWF could cause major disruption to many animal industries if it became established. It is difficult to predict exactly how SWF might behave in Australia, although modelling predicts a huge suitable habitat over much of the continent, especially during summer. At an industry level, the additional financial burden of surveillance and treatment would be placed on livestock owners in affected areas. Although there is a very low risk of introduction of this agent, the consequences of introduction are serious. Risk management measures are required (AUSVETPLAN, 1996; Australia, B., 2002).
Canine Distemper virus (CDV)
Exposure to CDV is more limited for zoo animals, although those housed outside in areas that may be unofficially frequented by small carnivores, and those belonging to circuses are less well protected (Appel et al., 1994). It is considered the overall risk of introduction of an infected non-domestic felid to be very low.
Direct contact is not essential for the spread of CDV; it may be spread by aerosols. In the unlikely event of an infected animal being imported, the risk of establishment and spread of infection within zoo Felidae and to other susceptible zoo carnivores is high.
If virus were introduced and became established within the precincts of a zoo in Australia, the risk of establishment and spread outside the zoo is considered moderate.
Distemper in large Felidae is usually fatal. The introduction of an infected animal into a zoo, and its subsequent establishment in other Felidae would be serious for the zoo in question. In addition to the loss of individual animals, captive breeding programs could be seriously affected.
Domestic dogs in the Serengeti were affected with the same variant that killed the lions (Carpenter et al., 1998). It is believed domestic dogs to the west of the park were the origin of the outbreak. Mortalities in domestic dogs to the west of the Serengeti National Park were constant, but among domestic dogs to the south east of the park there was an increase in mortalities in 1994, about the time of the outbreak among lions (Cleaveland et al. 2000).
Australian fauna and domestic dogs have already been exposed to local CDV. The likely effect of the Serengeti strain is unknown, but it seems reasonable to assume it would be similar to effects of the local strain.
The likelihood of introduction and establishment is considered to be low.
The introduction and establishment of a CDV variant, virulent for zoo Felidae, could prove fatal for zoo Felidae. Given that these are almost all endangered species, the impact in terms of biodiversity would be medium to serious. It would likely be virulent for other zoo carnivores, but the opportunities for transmission would be reduced if they were housed at a distance from the felids. Beyond zoo collections, the consequences would be negligible to mild.
The imposition of quarantine measures to protect valuable and possibly endangered species exhibited in zoos is warranted.
Nipah virus
There is no evidence that cats are a significant factor in the epidemiology of this disease, and the likelihood of establishment in and spread of the disease from a zoo cat to other animals is considered extremely low (Australia, B, 2002).
Yersinia pestis
There is no information on which to predict the likely consequences of this disease agent if introduced to Australian fauna Greene, 1998; Prevention of Plague, 1996; Australia, B, 2002).
Exotic ticks
A number of ticks are exotic to Australia, and some of these may transmit agents infectious to man and animals. Protozoan, rickettsial and viral agents may be spread by ticks. A number of these ticks may be found on felines as incidental hosts, others have a predilection for Felidae.
NZ MAF reported finding 40 exotic ticks over the period 1980 to 1995. New Zealand maintains quarantine standards similar to Australia’s, and the likelihood of exotic ticks coming into Australia would be of the same order (Fairley and Health, 1999). In the event of no preventative measures being taken, the likelihood of introduction of exotic ticks on an imported animal is high. The likelihood of establishment and spread would depend on the environment in which the imported animal is housed, and the availability of other host species. Where the imported animal is placed in or adjacent to other Felidae, this would be likely. The consequences of introduction of exotic ticks would be dependent on the species of tick introduced, and whether or not it was carrying an exotic disease agent. Measures to prevent the introduction of exotic ticks on non-domestic Felidae are warranted.
Likelihood of disease agent entry, establishment and spread
There are sporadic reports of zoo Felidae developing rabies in captivity (Kolar et al., 1976;
Rao et al., 1980; Rao and Nayak, 1984). The reports cited are all from countries in which rabies was poorly controlled at the time.
The likelihood of entry of the rabies virus in a zoo felid is dependent on the rabies status in the country of origin and the level of security under which the animal is housed. Even from an endemic country, importation of non-domestic Felidae from a zoo would present a very low likelihood of agent entry. The likelihood would be higher with an animal from an open-range situation in an endemic country. There is negligible likelihood of agent entry with animals imported from a rabies-free country.
The method of housing of big cats in zoos is designed to prevent their escape and to prevent injury to zoo personnel. Even in open range situations, wide moats and/or high fences provide secure confinement. This factor would limit to low, the likelihood of spread of rabies from a zoo in case of an imported animal developing signs of the disease after arrival.
Biological, environmental and economic consequences
The introduction of rabies to Australia would impact significantly on social patterns and human health. There would be little disruption to Australia’s exports in animal products and, with the exception of the export of carnivores, little disruption to live animal exports.
Rabies, however, is an OIE List B disease that would have significant public health implications, and bring with it significant social changes. It has been said to have a hold on the human imagination out of proportion to the real risks involved. In some rural communities where dog controls are rudimentary, serious threats to human health could exist.
If the agent became established in the feral dog, dingo, fox and feral cat populations found throughout most of Australia, eradication would be difficult.
There are no data on the virulence of rabies in Australian fauna, so the consequences of introduction on fauna are unknown.
Conclusion on risk
Whilst the risk of establishment of rabies as a result of an importation of non-domestic Felidae into a zoo is low, the consequences would be serious. The importation of zoo Felidae from countries not free from rabies, without restriction, would pose an unacceptable threat. Quarantine measures for the control of this agent are warranted.
7. Likelihood of species establishing a breeding population in Australia. In Australia, given that there is suitable habitat and food available for this species, the likelihood of puma establishing a breeding population would be highly unlikely. A founding population would have to be of considerable size. According to MVP (minimal breeding population) there would need to be a minimum of 50 wild animals to establish a viable breeding population going on the 50/500 rule, which suggested that a minimum population size of 50 was necessary to combat inbreeding and a minimum of 500 individuals was needed to reduce genetic drift. Management agencies tended to use the 50/500 rule under the assumption that it was applicable to species generally (Vath and Robinson, 2015; Shaffer, 1981). The high security standards for keeping of this species would ensure a very low likelihood of this species being able to enter the Australian environment.
Based upon literature review, it is unlikely that accidental release of puma pair from captivity will eventually result in establishment of a viable population. This is evident from a recent study by (LaRue and Nielsen, 2016), which used population viability analysis (PVA), a process which has been used to predict population changes in wide-ranging carnivores. Specifically, this study built a stage based population model using >40years of published literature, and implemented the stage matrix into a spatially explicit population model
(RAMAS/GIS) to understand the possibility for establishment and viability of cougar populations in the Midwest.
To some extent the Midwest is similar Australian rangeland in that it contains variably sized patches separated by poor habitat (in this case, row-crop fields, prairies, and pastures). The study found that that regardless of harvest scenario, female cougars are likely to recolonize large patches of habitat in mid-western North America within 25 years, with seven of eight large patches occupied in the harvest scenario. Recolonization was dependent on dispersal rates and distances, and not on variation in demographic rates; this suggests that despite harvests in western populations, female cougars are likely to disperse far enough to encounter large habitat patches in the Midwest such that these patches are likely to be recolonized.
Even patches as far-east as Minnesota and Wisconsin were predicted to contain at least one female cougar during this time, though such a population could suffer from the Allee effect and therefore could remain effectively extinct (Allee et al., 1949; Lande, 1987).
8. Potential impact of a feral population if established. Cougars, particularly young males, will travel hundreds of kilometres in search of new territory (Sweanor et al., 2000; Thompson and Jenks, 2005; Logan and Sweanor, 2010; Wiedenhoeft et al., 2012). In 2011, one individual traveled more than 1,700 km from Minnesota to Connecticut, and may have travelled a straight-line distance of 2,500 km from the Black Hills to the East Coast (Widenhoeft et al., 2012).
If puma did establish a feral population their solitary and elusive habits would make them difficult to detect and therefore difficult to eradicate by hunting. Puma would therefore become the apex predator in their chosen territory (males up to 140kms and females 50kms) and would compete with the dingo for food. Diet would consist of large and small mammals, feral deer, pigs and domestic livestock.
The overall impact of an established feral population would impact on Australia’s native wildlife but would not affect agricultural crops. Puma would be a nuisance to livestock farmers alongside dingoes, foxes and feral dogs. It is reported that livestock losses to predation both in North and South America to puma runs at between 1 - 10% (Guerisoli et al., 2017; Elbroch and Wittmer, 2013; Smith et al, 2017).
9. Conditions/restrictions that could be applied to importation of species to reduce negative impacts on environments Given that this species is to be imported to approved high security facilities only, where there are existing management protocols, the likelihood of accidental introduction to the natural environment would be extremely remote. If it was seen necessary to take further precautions, the import of animals could possibly be restricted to single sex or neutered animals only.ZWR is a non breeding facility and have no plans for future breeding, though the import of same sex or neutered animals would not benefit the future of other zoological exhibitors in Australia wanting to add puma to their breeding programs.
10. Summary of the types of activities that species would be involved in. Currently, Zambi Wildlife Retreat cares for a single female puma aged 17 years. Given that she is the last of her kind in Australia and quite capable of living another 6 years, ZWR would like to offer her co-habitation. Pumas, long known as solitary carnivores, are more social than previously thought, according to a study led by conservation organisation Panthera and co-authored by UC Davis and the American Museum of Natural History (Panthera, 2017; Elbroch et al., 2017). The study, is the first to quantify complex, enduring, and friendly interactions of these secretive animals, revealing a rich puma society far more tolerant and social than previously understood. Puma’s are quite social, even with other species of felid and canid of similar size. Puma’s tend to display more natural behaviours when living in co-habitation. ZWR’s new naturalistic puma habitat is designed to encourage these behaviours.
.Introductions are common in most zoological facilities worldwide between male and female exotic cat species, generally for breeding purposes but also for animal welfare through socialisation. During the last few decades, zoo exhibits have been made increasingly complex to try to reduce abnormal behaviours and to increase the potential for an array of natural behaviours to be performed by the animals. One factor that may be important for the welfare of captive animals is the presence of conspecies sharing the same enclosure (Carlstead 1996; Koontz & Roush 1996; Shapiro et al1996, 1998). Studies of the social organisation of wild felids are difficult as felids tend to live a low population densities in vegetation or terrain that makes them difficult to observe (Robinson 1992).
Pairs of unrelated puma can be found exhibited in zoos worldwide, one of which includes the San Diego Zoo in California. The San Diego Zoo’s first mountain lions arrived in 1925, and they continued to exhibit this beautiful cat species with their current mountain lion exhibit being home to two animals: a female, Koyama, or “Koya,” and a male, Yakima, or “Kima.” They came to the Zoo in 2006 and 2007, respectively. https://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/mountain-lion-puma-cougar
The Saint Louis Zoo also exhibits a pair of puma that came from the Hogle Zoo in Utah in 2012. https://www.stlzoo.org/animals/abouttheanimals/mammals/carnivores/puma
Introductions don’t always go to plan and because of this it is important that animals can be separated and rotated through the exhibit.
The ZWR enclosure includes 3 dens and an off exhibit area which allows animals to be rotated though the enclosure and also separated if required.
The existing puma benefits greatly from social interaction. This puma was raised alongside tiger cubs, dogs (see image in Photo Appendix 1) and also young lions. Her parents had been introduced to each other successfully in 1998 for breeding purposes and had bred two litters with the first litter (two females) being sold to Dreamworld in Queensland and the second being a single kitten (puma in mention). As a film/TV animal, the puma was exposed to many environments, animals and humans, so she never lived a solitary lifestyle until recently The female puma often calls out and runs to the fence for attention and carers spend as much time
as possible with her to try and satisfy her need for attention. ZWR feels that a male of the same species would benefit her well being greatly.
11. Species management (Husbandry) ZWR was granted approval to construct an animal display establishment in September 2017. The application for the puma enclosure was approved by the Department of Primary Industries (DPI). In New South Wales the display of animals is regulated by the Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 (EAPA). The Standards for Exhibiting Carnivores in NSW, Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 pertains to the conditions for exhibiting carnivores (pursuant to Clause 8(2) of the
Exhibited Animals Protection Regulation 1995). This publication outlines the standards developed to maximise the welfare of animals in captivity and cover a range of areas including: ¥ psychological and physical animal welfare ¥ educational value of exhibits ¥ public safety ¥ guidelines for new and existing displays ¥ legal effect The General Standards for Exhibiting Animals in NSW apply to all exhibited animals and include requirements such as: ¥ Staff experience ¥ Educational value. ¥ Visitor facilities. ¥ Animal enclosures. ¥ Public safety. ¥ Husbandry and management. ¥ Nutrition and hygiene. ¥ Capture, handling and transport. ¥ Health ¥ Behaviour. ¥ Breeding control. Exhibitors must meet these standards as well as any other relevant standards for the exhibition of specific taxonomic groups. Puma comes under the Standards for Exhibiting Carnivores in New South Wales.
Security The exhibited animal facility is enclosed by a perimeter security fence. All compound gates are secured and locked. All access points, enclosures, cages and fencing are checked first thing in the AM and last thing in PM as part of the ZWR Standard Operating Procedures (SOPÕs). In extreme weather conditions, precautions are taken to secure animals inside den areas. The Operations Manager and a senior staff member live onsite. A video camera surveillance system will be included in the new exhibited area.
Housing The DPI approved puma exhibit, currently completed at ZWR exceeds the EAPA standards. It is designed with species pacific requirements to ensure animal welfare along with providing components to stimulate natural behaviours. This naturalistic habitat will showcase this beautiful cat species (see image in Photo Appendix 1).
The ZWR puma enclosure is designed to ensure security and safety to both human and animal. Enclosure entry points are double gated and den areas are entered via a locked service walkway. The 324 suare metre, 4.2 metre high enclosure is fully enclosed with 5mm 75 x 50 galvanised weldmesh panels, as per the EAPA requirements for housing Puma concolor.
12. Provide information on all other commonwealth, state and territory legislative controls on the species. Puma concolor is a high security non-indigenous animal that requires specialised care and housing. Therefore it is required nationally, that an exhibitor hold an authority to house this species.
Biosecurity National issues are dealt with by the Commonwealth Government, e.g Australian
Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, Department of Environment and Energy, Biosecurity Australia, national security, quarantine, customs, international
treaties, such as CITES. At the Commonwealth level, zoos principally have to comply with the Quarantine Act and the Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Imports and Exports) Act
1982 (Baker, in litt).
The Puma is listed in the Vertebrate Pests Committee List of Exotic Vertebrate Animals in Australia under VPC threat category of extreme and earlier VPC category of 2 (2 - Limited to statutory zoos or endorsed special collections) (VPC, 2007).
The Puma is also currently listed under the CITES listing appendix II (Source: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/wildlife-trade/do-i-need-permit).
Appendix II of CITES contains the species that, although not threatened with extinction now, might become so unless trade in them is strictly regulated. You can read more about Appendix II listings on our CITES page.
To assist in the effective regulation of sustainable trade, Australia has chosen to adopt a stronger position by applying stricter domestic measures than required by CITES for these species.
Import of live animals listed on Appendix II of CITES into Australia for non-commercial purposes are limited to research, exhibition (and zoos), education and as household pets.
Export of live animals listed on Appendix II of CITES from Australia for non-commercial purposes are limited to research and exhibition (and zoos).
You must meet strict Australian standards and animal welfare requirements to be granted a permit for these purposes.
If you are importing into Australia you will need to apply to the Department for a CITES import permit and provide with your application a CITES export permit issued by the CITES Management Authority of the country of export.
This species is intended for holding by approved carnivore exhibitors only. Each state and territory has it’s own legislature and responsibilities governing the control and standards for keeping exhibited animals both native and non-indigenous.
Department of Primary Industries NSW (Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986), Biosecurity Queensland, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Victoria (Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994), (Zoological Parks and Gardens Act 1995), Parks and Wildlife WA, Parks and Wildlife NT.
The Puma is listed in the Vertebrate Pests Committee List of Exotic Vertebrate Animals in Australia under VPC threat category of extreme and earlier VPC category of 2 (2 - Limited to statutory zoos or endorsed special collections) (VPC, 2007).
The Puma is also currently listed under the CITES listing appendix II (Source: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/wildlife-trade/do-i-need-permit).
Appendix II of CITES contains the species that, although not threatened with extinction now, might become so unless trade in them is strictly regulated. You can read more about Appendix II listings on our CITES page.
To assist in the effective regulation of sustainable trade, Australia has chosen to adopt a stronger position by applying stricter domestic measures than required by CITES for these species.
Import of live animals listed on Appendix II of CITES into Australia for non-commercial purposes are limited to research, exhibition (and zoos), education and as household pets.
Export of live animals listed on Appendix II of CITES from Australia for non-commercial purposes are limited to research and exhibition (and zoos).
You must meet strict Australian standards and animal welfare requirements to be granted a permit for these purposes.
If you are importing into Australia you will need to apply to the Department for a CITES import permit and provide with your application a CITES export permit issued by the CITES Management Authority of the country of export.
Appel MJG, Yates RA, Foley GL et al. (1994) Canine distemper epizootic in lions, tigers, and leopards in North America. J. Vet. Diag. Investigation 6(3): 277-288.
Allen, ML., Wittmer, HU., Wilmers, CC. 2014. Puma communication behaviours: understanding functional use and variation among sex and age classes. Behaviour, 151, 819-840.
Anderson, A.J., Bowden, D.C., and Kantter, D.M. (1992). The puma on Uncompahgre Plateau, Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife Technical Bulletin, 40, 1-116.
Australia, B., (2002) Importation of Non-domestic Felidae into Australia Import Risk Analysis, Final Report. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/ba/memos/2002/animal/2002-08a.pdf
Barry, J.M., Elbroch, L.M., Aiello-Lammens, M.E., Sarno, R.J., Seelye, L., Kusler, A., Quigley, H.B. and Grigione, M.M., 2018. Pumas as ecosystem engineers: ungulate carcasses support beetle assemblages in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Oecologia, pp.1-10.
Beier, P., Choate, D., Barrett, R. H. 1995. Movement patterns of mountain lions during different behaviors. Journal of Mammalogy 76: 1056–1070.
Bertin, J. (2017). Differences Between Ligers and Tigons: All About Cat Hybrids. https://www.animalwised.com/differences-between-ligers-and-tigons-all-about-cat-hybrids-1320.html [Accessed 16 Jan. 2019].
Blancou J, Artois M, Barrat J et. al. (1986) Vaccination of the cat against rabies: antibodies rate and resistance to contamination one year after vaccination. Revue Méd. Vét. 137: 29-36.
Busch, RH. 1996. The Cougar Almanac: A complete natural history of the Mountain Lion, The Lyons Press.
Carlstead 1996; Koontz & Roush 1996; Shapiro et al1996, 1998. A compararative study of the influence of social housing conditions on the behaviour of captive tigers M Deb Rouck; AC Kitchener; G Law; M Nelissen
Carpenter MA, Appel MJG, Roelke-Parker ME et al. (1998) Genetic characterization of canine distemper virus in Serengeti carnivores. Vet. Immunol. Immunopathology 65 (2-4): 259-266.
Cleaveland S, Appel MG, Chalmers WS et al. (2000) Serological and demographic evidence for domestic dogs as a source of canine distemper virus infection for Serengeti wildlife. Vet. Microbiol. 72(3-4):217-227.
Crellin JR, Marchiondo AA, Andersen FL (1981) Comparison of suitability of dogs and cats as hosts of Echinococcus multilocularis. Am. J. Vet. Res. 42(11): 1980-1981.
Das AM and Jayarao BM (1986) Tuberculosis in a lioness (Panthera leo persica). Indian Vet. J. 7(2-3): 116.
De las Mercedes Guerisoli, M., Luengos Vidal, E., Franchini, M., Caruso, N., Beatriz Casanave, E., Lucherini, M. 2017. Characterization of puma–livestock conflicts in rangelands of central Argentina. R Soc Open Sci, 4, 170852. Eckert J, Muller B, Partridge AJ (1974) The domestic cat and dog as natural definitive hosts of Echinococcus (Alveolococcus) multilocularis in Southern Federal Republic of Germany. Tropenmedizin ud Parasitologie. 25(3): 334-337.
Elbroch, M.L., Levy, M., Lubell, M., Quigley, H., Caragiulo, A. (2017). Adaptive social strategies in a solitary carnivore. Science Advances, 2017; 3 (10): e1701218 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1701218
Elbroch, LM., Wittmer, HU. 2013. The effects of puma prey selection and specialization on less abundant prey in Patagonia. Journal of Mammology. 94, 000-000.
Evermann JF, Foreyt WJ, Hall B and McKiernan AJ (1997) Occurrence of puma lentivirus infection in cougars from Washington. J. Wildl. Dis. 33(2): 316-320.
Fitzhugh, E. L., Schmid-Holmes, S., Kenyon, M. W., Etling, K. 2003. Lessening the impact of a puma attack on a human: In Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop, 89–103, ed. S. A. Becker, D. D. Bjornlie, F. G. Lindzey and D. S. Moody. Lander, Wyoming.
Geering WA, Forman A J and Nunn M J (1995) Exotic Diseases of Animals a field guide for Australian veterinarians. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Gillespie JH and Timoney JF (1981) The Genus Mycobacterium. In Hagan and Bruner’s Infectious Diseases of Domestic Animals 7th Ed. (Comstock Publishing Assoc., a divn of Cornell University Press.) Chapter 25, pp 247-280.
Gould AR, Hyatt AD, Lunt R, Kattenbelt JA, Hengstberger S, Blacksell SD. (1998) Characterisation of a novel lyssavirus isolated from Pteropid bats in Australia. Virus Res. 54: 165-87.
Greene CE (1998) Infectious Diseases of the Dog and Cat 2nd Ed. (W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia)
Guerisoli MM, Luengos Vidal E, Franchini M, Caruso N, Casanave EB, Lucherini M. 2017. Data from: Characterization of puma--livestock conflicts in rangelands of central Argentina. Dryad Digital Repository (http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.k5904)
Harmsen, BJ., Foster, RJ., Gutierrez, SM., Marin, SY., Doncaster, P. 2010. Scrape-marking behavior of jaguars (Panthera onca) and pumas (Puma concolor). Journal of Mammology, 91, 1225-1234.
Harveson, L.A., Tewes, M.E., Silvy, N.J., and Rutledge, J. (2000). Prey use by mountain lions in southern Texas. Southwestern Naturalist. 45, 472-6.
Helman RG, Russell WC, Jenny A et al. (1998) Diagnosis of tuberculosis in two snow leopards using polymerase chain reaction. J. Vet. Diag. Invest. 10(1): 89-92.
Kirkwood JK, Cunningham A A, Flach EJ, Thornton S M and Wells G H (1995) Spongiform encephalopathy in another captive cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus): evidence for variation in susceptibility or incubation periods between species. J. Zoo and Wildl. Med. 26(4): 577-582.
Kissling, WD., Fernandez, N., Paruelo, JM. 2009. Spatial risk assessment of livestock exposure to pumas in Patagonia, Argentina. Ecogeography, 32, 5.
Kolar Z, R Ippen (ed.) and HD Schroder (ed.) (1976) Rabies in Carpathian lynx. [Tollwut bei einem Karpatenluchs (Lynx lynx).] Erkrankungen der Zootiere. Verhandlungsbericht des XVIII. Internationalen Symposiums uber die Erkrankungen der Zootiere, Innsbruck 1976, 103-104. (Akademie-Verlag.; Berlin publ.)
Lande, R., 1987. Extinction thresholds in demographic models of territorial popula-tions. Am. Nat. 130, 624–635.
LaRue, M.A. and Nielsen, C.K., 2016. Population viability of recolonizing cougars in midwestern North America. Ecological modelling, 321, pp.121-129.
LaRue, M.A. and Nielsen, C.K. 2011. Modelling potential habitat for cougars in midwestern North America. Ecological Modelling 222: 897-900.
LaRue, M.L., Nielsen, C.K., Dowling, M., Miller, K., Wilson, B., Shaw, H. and Anderson, C.R. Jr. 2012. Cougars are recolonizing the Midwest: Analysis of cougar confirmations during 1990-2008. Journal of Wildlife Management 76: 1364-1369.Mattson, D., Logan, K., Sweanor, L. (2011). Factors governing risk of cougar attacks on humans. Human-Wildlife Interactions. 5, 135-158.
Logan KA, Sweanor LL (2010) Behavior and social organization of a solitary carnivore. In: Hornocker M, Negri S, editors. Cougar: ecology and conservation. Chicago, Ilinois, USA: University of Chicago Press. pp. 105–118.
Logan KA, Sweanor LL (2001) Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Washington: Island Press. pp. 1–463.
López González, C.A. and González Romero, A., 1998. A synthesis of current literature and knowledge about the ecology of the puma (Puma concolor Linnaeus). Acta Zoológica Mexicana (nueva serie), (75).
Madhumeet-Singh R L, Dhoble and Dhanwantar Singh (1991) Rabies outbreak in a lion safari. Indian Vet. J. 68: 370.
Mattson, D.J., 2004. Living with fierce creatures? An overview and models of mammalian carnivore conservation. People and predators: from conflict to coexistence, pp.151-176.
Menkhorst, P.W. and Morison, L. (2012) Assessment of evidence for the presence in Victoria of a wild population of ‘big cat’. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Unpublished Client Report for Department of Primary Industries, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria
Nielsen, C., Thompson, D., Kelly, M. & Lopez-Gonzalez, C.A. 2015. Puma concolor (errata version published in 2016). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T18868A97216466. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T18868A50663436.en. Downloaded on 03 December 2018.
Nowell, K. and Jackson, P. (1996). Animal use: non-food uses. In World Conservation Monitoring Centre (ed.), Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth’s Living Resources, p. 374. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.
Osofsky SA, Hirsch KJ, Zuckerman EE and Hardy WD (1996) Feline lentivirus and feline oncovirus status of free-ranging lions (Panthera leo), leopards (Panthera pardus), and cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) in Botswana: a regional perspective. J. Zoo and Wildl. Med. 27(4): 453-467.
Olmsted RA, Langley R, Roelke ME et al. (1992) Worldwide prevalence of lentivirus infection in wild feline species: epidemiologic and phylogenetic aspects. J. Virol. 66(10): 6008-6018.
O′Neil ST, Rahn KC, Bump JK (2014) Habitat Capacity for Cougar Recolonization in the Upper Great Lakes Region. PLoS ONE 9(11): e112565. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112565
Panthera. (2017, October 12). Pumas found to exhibit behaviors like social animals: Findings could raise questions about all solitary carnivores. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 15, 2019 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012103639.htm
Rao AT, Acharjyo LN, Tripathy SB and Nayak BC (1980) Rabies in lions of Nandankanan Biological Park, Orissa. Cheiron, Tamil Nadu J. Vet. Sci. Anim. Husb. 9(6): 350-351.
Rao AT and Nayak BC (1984) Rabies in a tigress. Indian Vet. J. 61(1): 84.
Rathore BS and Khera SS (1981) Causes of mortality in felines in free-living and state and captivity in India. Indian Vet. J. 58(4): 271-276.
Raina AK, Rakesh Kumar, Rajora VS et al. (1985) Oral transmission of Trypanosoma evansi infection in dogs and mice. Vet. Parasitol. 18(1): 67-69.
Reid, S (2000) Pers. Comm. (email communications dated 12 February and 6 April, 2000).
Reid S and Copeman B (1999) Pathology of Trypanosoma evansi infection in Wallabies and an immunoperoxidase technique to demonstrate T. evansi antigens in host tissues. In: Final Report on the Collaborative Project of Trypanosoma evansi Infection for the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. (Aust Inst. of Tropical Vet. and An. Sci., James Cook University, Qld) pp 54-63.
Robinette WL, Gashwiler JS, Morris OW (1961) Notes on cougar productivity and life history. Journal of Mammalogy 42: 204–217.
Robinson 1992 A compararative study of the influence of social housing conditions on the behaviour of captive tigers M Deb Rouck; AC Kitchener; G Law; M Nelissen
Shivaraju, A. 2003. "Puma concolor" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed December 03, 2018 at https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Puma_concolor/
Shoemaker, A.H., Maruska, E.J. and R. Rockwell (1997) Minimum Husbandry. Guidelines for Mammals: Large Felids American Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
Smith, J.A., Suraci, J.P., Clinchy, M., Crawford, A., Roberts, D., Zanette, L.Y., Wilmers, C. (2017). Fear of the human ‘super predator’ reduces feeding time in large carnivores. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 284: 1471-2954.
Soulsby EJL (1982) Helminths, Arthropods and Protozoa of Domesticated Animals (7th ed. Ballière Tindall, London)
Sunquist, M.E. and Sunquist, F. (2002). Wild cats of the World. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Sweanor LL, Logan KA, Hornocker MG (2000) Cougar dispersal patterns, metapopulation dynamics and conservation. Conservation Biology 14: 798–808.
Thompson, D.J. and Jenks, J.A. 2010. Dispersal movements of subadult cougars from the Black Hills: the notion of range expansion and recolonization. Ecosphere 1: 1-11Thompson DJ, Jenks JA (2005) Long-distance dispersal by a subadult male cougar from the Black Hills, South Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 818–820.
VandeWoude S, O'Brien SJ and Hoover EA (1997) Infectivity of lion and puma lentiviruses for domestic cats. J. Gen. Virol. 78(4):795-800.
Vath, C. and Robinson, S. (2018). Minimum viable population | ecology. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/science/minimum-viable-population#ref1215147 [Accessed 19 Nov. 2018].
Vertebrate Pest Committee, 2007. Vertebrate Pest Committee list of exotic vertebrate animals in Australia, July 2007.https://www.pestsmart.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/VPCListJuly2007.pdf
Vynne, C., Almeida, R., and Silveira, L. (2007). Landscape matrix composition affects distribution of puma and jaguar in a cerrado ecosystem. In Felid Biology and Conservation Conference 17-20 September 2007: Programme and Abstracts, p. 66. Widlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford, UK.
Weigl, R. 2005. Longevity of mammals in captivity; from the Living Collections of the world. E. Schweizerbart'sche, Stuttgart, Germany.
Willoughby K, Kelly DF, Lyon DG and Wells GAH (1992) Spongiform encephalopathy in a captive puma (Felis concolor). Vet. Rec. 131: 431-434.
Wilson, D.E., and Reeder, D.M., 1993. Mammal Species of the World. A taxonomic and geographic reference. 2nd Edition. pg. 296.
Wiedenhoeft JE, Wydeven AP, Bruner J (2012) Rare mammal observations 2011. 122–135 p.
Bertin, J. (2017). Differences Between Ligers and Tigons: All About Cat Hybrids. https://www.animalwised.com/differences-between-ligers-and-tigons-all-about-cat-hybrids-1320.html [Accessed 16 Jan. 2019].
Bese M, Ilgaz A, Tantas A et al. (1984) A case of glanders encountered in the lions of Istanbul Gülhane Zoo. J. Fac. Vet. Univ. Istanbul, 10(2): 39-49.
Bratberg B, Ueland K and Wells GAH (1995) Feline spongiform encephalopathy in a cat in Norway. Vet. Rec. 136 (17): 444.
Department of Primary Industry and Energy (1997) Current knowledge on the Australian bat lyssavirus. A.V.J. 75(2): 151-153.
Dungworth DL (1985) In Pathology of Domestic Animals 3rd Ed. (Jubb KVF, Kennedy PC and Palmer N eds.) (Academic Press, London publ.) Volume 2, Ch 6.
En.wikipedia.org. (2018). Pumapard. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumapard [Accessed 19 Nov. 2018]. Field H, McCall B and Barrett J (1999) Australian bat lyssavirus infection in a captive juvenile black flying fox. Emerg. Inf. Dis. 5(3): http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no3/field.htm
Fraser GR, Pearson, McConnell I et al. (1994) Transmission of feline spongiform encephalopathy to mice. Vet. Rec. 134 (17): 449.
Itis.gov. (2018). Integrated Taxonomic Information System. [online] Available at: https://www.itis.gov/ [Accessed 18 Nov. 2018].
IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. (2018). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. [online] Available at: https://www.iucnredlist.org/ [Accessed 19 Nov. 2018].
Kirkwood JK and Cunningham AA (1994) Epidemiological observations on spongiform encephalopathies in captive wild animals in the British Isles. Vet. Rec. 135: 296-303.
Magaji Y (1974) Electrophoretic analyses of soluble extracts of Trypanosoma vivax and of the sera of its normal and abnormal hosts. J. Nigerian Vet. Med. Assoc. 3(2): 79-85.
Mnforsustain.org. (2003). Mountain Lion Life Cycle. [online] Available at: http://www.mnforsustain.org/cats_cougar_living_with_wildlife_in_lion_country.htm [Accessed 18 Nov. 2018].
Nielsen, C., Thompson, D., Kelly, M. & Lopez-Gonzalez, C.A. 2015. Puma concolor (errata version published in 2016). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T18868A97216466. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-4.RLTS.T18868A50663436.en. Downloaded on 03 December 2018.
Panthera. (2017, October 12). Pumas found to exhibit behaviors like social animals: Findings could raise questions about all solitary carnivores. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 15, 2019 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012103639.htm
Reidy, K. (2017). Pumas Are More Social Than Previously Thought Findings Raise Questions about Solitary Carnivores. UC Davis. [online] Available at: https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/pumas-are-more-social-previously-thought/ [Accessed 18 Nov. 2018].
Rogers, P. (2017). Why don’t mountain lions attack more people?. The Mercury News. [online] Available at: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/06/20/video-mountain-lions-fear-humans-run-from-voices-new-study-finds/ [Accessed 18 Nov. 2018].
Shivaraju, A. 2003. "Puma concolor" (On-line), Animal Diversity Web. Accessed December 03, 2018 at https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Puma_concolor/
ST Lois Zoo https://www.stlzoo.org/animals/abouttheanimals/mammals/carnivores/puma
Vath, C. and Robinson, S. (2018). Minimum viable population | ecology. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/science/minimum-viable-population#ref1215147 [Accessed 19 Nov. 2018].
Vynne, C., Almeida, R., and Silveira, L. (2007). Landscape matrix composition affects distribution of puma and jaguar in a cerrado ecosystem. In Felid Biology and Conservation Conference 17-20 September 2007: Programme and Abstracts, p. 66. Widlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford, UK.
Web, A. (2018). BioKIDS - Kids' Inquiry of Diverse Species, Puma concolor, mountain lion, puma, cougar: INFORMATION. [online] Biokids.umich.edu. Available at: http://www.biokids.umich.edu/critters/Puma_concolor/ [Accessed 19 Nov. 2018].
Western Wildlife Outreach. (2018). Cougar Biology & Behavior - Western Wildlife Outreach. [online] Available at: http://westernwildlife.org/cougar-outreach-project/biology-behavior/ [Accessed 19 Nov. 2018]
