The Concerns

The Issue

Concerns have been raised across wildlife

advocacy and conservation groups, scientific

communities, hunters, ranchers and the general

public. Some of those concerns include:

Lack of public input: Formal public input has not been requested on HB125, HB469, the BYU study, and the WSF bounty. The aggressive cougar harvesting provisions of HB 469 had no debate and very little discussion on the floor. Governor Cox signed the bill with hesitation.
Lacking science: Evidence abounds within the scientific community that elimination of a native species in hopes of saving another doesn’t work. In fact, the collateral damage of man tinkering with the natural balance of things, especially apex predators, has played out time and again. The State’s methods appear driven by political (i.e. monetary) influences rather than scientific calculus.
Public and pet safety: Information regarding the location, quantity and type of traps and snares used for cougar removal is not available to the public. This poses a risk to our family and friends, the general public, the tourists the State encourages to explore our precious outdoors, and our pets. Our TRAPS AND SNARES page has additional information.
The effect on private lands: Trapping and snaring are allowed on private land as well. Trappers must receive written permission from the private landowners before placing any traps or snares. But this potential presence on your neighbor’s property amplifies the safety concerns of traps ensnaring unwary people and pets.
The rise of chronic wasting disease (CWD): Cases of CWD in Utah are rising within our mule deer population. CWD was first recorded in the Vernal area in 2003. As of February 2026, 435 mule deer had tested positive for CWD. The State speaks of preventative measures to help control it. Yet, removing a primary apex predator that helps control the spread of such diseases is another contradiction against the State’s methods.
The mule deer population target is outdated: The main reason for the culling of cougars is for the State to try to achieve its mule deer population target of 404,900. Yet those numbers haven’t been realized in Utah in decades. In the 70s and 80s when Utah was much more rural the mule deer population was 500,000 plus. Yet the 2010 estimate was only 261,300, peaking in 2015 at 385,450 then dropping to 324,170 in 2025. Urban sprawl has had a meaningful impact on the historical mule deer range. So is the State’s target reasonable given everything affecting the mule deer populations?
An unknown entity: Population estimates of Utah’s mountain lions has ranged from just over 1000 to 2700. That’s a big range, which means no one knows. What’s the critical mass required to avoid extinction and how do we know we’ve reached it? Are these predator management practices destined to repeat the same mistakes Man has made with the wolves and grizzlies where we remove, rethink, then reintroduce?
The economic motivators are short-sighted: The total annual ripple effect of hunting in Utah is over $1B in annual revenues, and mule deer hunting is the primary driver of the State’s hunting economy. Trying to improve or even maintain this revenue stream by tweaking nature's “formula” risks long term sustainability for short term gains. This practice of tactical implosion plays out frequently in corporate settings where the drive for short term profits overtakes the discipline of long term strategic planning.
The threat to lifestyles and livelihoods: Houndsmen have had little input into the State’s methods and are concerned about the removal of a species that has contributed to generations of lifestyles and livelihoods. By impacting the houndsmen the State is impacting the very economies they’re trying to protect.
Upsetting the ecological balance: Removal of one apex predator increases opportunities for others normally kept in check by the one removed. Read Andy Rice’s article in the Salt Lake Tribune where he, as a farmer/rancher, methodically outlines the negative series of events that removing the cougar could have on the broader ecosystem.
Traps and snares are not species-specific: In addition to the threat to personal pets, collateral damage (bi-catch) will occur to other predator species. How will the impact of this collateral damage be measured and assessed?
Subsequent financial impact to farmers and ranchers: The more deer, the more the over-grazing of the shrinking natural landscape, which compels the deer to feed on crops and vegetation intended for livestock and man.
Increase in negative human contacts: Young cougars stay with their mothers for approximately 18 to 24 months. Killing a mother before the cubs are of hunting age is life-threatening to the cubs. Killing the mother before the cubs gain independence risks producing a cougar without honed skills to hunt their natural prey. As such, an inexperienced cougar is far more likely to assume additional risk in securing a meal of livestock and pets, ultimately increasing the likelihood of conflicts with the cats.
Impact to neighboring cougar populations: Removing a cougar from one area creates an opportunity for neighboring cougars to expand their territories into the target units, thus culling cougars far beyond the originally intended geographic boundaries of the prescribed units.
This isn’t a public safety issue: The State’s actions are not on behalf of our public safety, which suggests the State realizes cougars are not a public threat. With less than 10 cougar attacks per year across the US and Canada combined. We are over 50 times more likely to be struck by lightning. Yet, despite these realities, the State’s methods actually create a public safety risk that didn’t previously exist.
Conflict with our pro-tourism message: Utah actively promotes our outdoor assets to a global market to drive an $12B tourism industry (2022 income). Yet while the State promotes the value of our great outdoors, it’s dismantling cornerstones to a healthy ecosystem while increasing safety risks to the very tourists they’re soliciting.