After grappling with declines due to a mix of harsh winters, habitat loss, and predation, Utah’s mule deer are feeling the pinch, prompting the state's Division of Wildlife Resources to embark on a bold three-year experiment it hopes will help. Launched just last month, the study revolves around the targeted culling of mountain lions in six specific game management units which include Boulder, Monroe, Stansbury, Pine Valley, Wasatch East, and Zion.
The program’s goal is straightforward yet contentious, taking aim at determining if reducing cougar numbers can lead to a measurable increase in mule deer survival and population growth in areas where GPS collar data indicates predation is a significant limiting factor. By employing professional trappers from the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, alongside ongoing hunter harvests, the DWR aims to gather data on predator-prey dynamics, fulfilling a 2020 legislative mandate to address predation where and when it hinders big game recovery.
The rationale behind the study appears logical on the surface. Utah's mule deer herds have faced challenges, with predation accounting for up to 80% of cougar diets and contributing to "top-down" suppression in about 30% of the state's units, according to DWR biologists. Kent Hersey, the DWR's big game projects coordinator, explained that lowering this mortality source could reveal corresponding deer population boosts, providing evidence-based insights for future management. Collaborations with Brigham Young University researchers for related cougar diet and movement studies add a layer of scientific rigor, and the project is funded in part by conservation organizations committed to ungulate recovery. Proponents argue that in a state where cougar populations remain stable overall, this targeted approach is a necessary test to inform balanced wildlife policies, especially amid broader efforts like habitat restoration and updated mule deer management plans through 2030.
However, the initiative has sparked a firestorm of debate, revealing a deeply mixed consensus among stakeholders. Supporters, including the Utah Wild Sheep Foundation—which has pledged $150,000 in funding—and Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (who have ponied up an additional $150,000), view it as a proactive step grounded in data to enhance deer herds for hunters and ecosystems alike. These groups emphasize the potential benefits for bighorn sheep and other species impacted by predation, aligning with calls for science-driven decisions. On the flip side, opposition is vocal. The Utah Houndsmen Association has strongly condemned the study, citing risks to hunting dogs from snares and traps, potential damage to outfitter businesses, and poor public optics that could fuel anti-hunting sentiment.
UHA outgoing president Cory Huntsman | Instagram
“The Utah Houndsmen Association does not support this study,” said outgoing president Cory Huntsman.
Predator advocacy organizations, such as Utah Mountain Lion Conservation and the Cougar Fund, have been even more critical, labeling the effort as "predator eradication" masquerading as science. They argue that cougar removals disrupt social structures, potentially leading to increased human-wildlife conflicts, and that factors like drought and habitat degradation are the true culprits behind deer declines, rather than overabundant lions, whose populations are already declining in some areas. A Change.org petition opposing the study has garnered thousands of signatures, and groups like Wildlife for All decry it as a governance failure lacking proper controls, baseline data, or long-term monitoring.
Amid this polarization, the Mule Deer Foundation has adopted a notably neutral position. While the organization assisted with deer collaring efforts back in December and acknowledges the low body fat observed in many does, MDF President Greg Sheehan has stated they are withholding judgment until results emerge, eager to see how findings might shape future implementations.
As the culling proceeds, Utah's mountain lion experiment remains something of a mixed bag of opinions at the moment. As with any study or experiment, the true consensus is likely to evolve as data rolls in over the coming years. Sit tight.
