USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · 70269483

Public support for puma reintroduction in the eastern United States

Abstract

Pumas ( Puma concolor ) are among the species identified as having the potential to enhance ecosystem function. Previous research highlights sufficient ecological habitat to support pumas in the eastern United States; however, their reintroduction requires social and institutional support as well. To this end, we conducted research to assess attitudes about puma reintroduction among key constituencies like hunters, rural residents, and young people. We sampled 2756 respondents across seven states (Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and West Virginia). Ratios of strong support (for puma reintroduction) to strong opposition across states ranged from 4:1 to 13:1, and support outweighed opposition in every state. Our results contrasted with common assumptions that hunters, rural residents, and people who identify as politically conservative oppose carnivore conservation and reintroduction. We found marginal differences among categories of people, but overall little variation in support exhibited by different groups. People who identified very strongly as hunters were more supportive of reintroduction than those who did not identify as hunters at all. Taken together, the presence of quality habitat and support for puma restoration warrant further exploration. However, federal funding for state-based restoration efforts likely requires the inclusion of pumas in State Wildlife Action Plans (SWAPs), which are currently under a 10-year revision due to be published this year (2025).

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 37.201483° to 47.459686° latitude; -82.598189° to -66.986318° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

L. Mark Elbroch, Jazmin Murphy, Shelby Carlson, John A. Vucetich, Richard Eugene Waggaman Berl, Lexi Galiardi, Shelby Perry, Tom Butler, Neil H. Carter, Joseph W. Hinton, Axel Moehrenschlager, Emily M. Carrollo, Rana Bayrakcismith, Jeremy T. Bruskotter. 2025-07-23. Public support for puma reintroduction in the eastern United States. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.70105

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Successes and opportunities for solutions-oriented conservation research: Lessons learned from avian science

Conservation science struggles with an ongoing divide between research and action. Given its history of broad public engagement and multi-scale management coordination, avian conservation typifies many of the challenges, successes, and opportunities across the broader field of conservation and is rich with examples that may guide solutions-oriented conservation science. In semi-structured focus groups composed of bird conservation scientists and practitioners from various backgrounds, we discussed the definition, characteristics, and examples of solutions-oriented conservation science. Our discussions highlighted several examples where successful application of avian conservation science led to change in programs, policy, regulations, and social systems, including several with co-benefits for local communities. These successes were characterized by communication, collaboration, and co-development with local communities, decision-makers, practitioners, and Indigenous communities. We identified remaining opportunities for improvement, including aligning incentives and priorities between research and practice, working across disciplines to mobilize solutions, dismantling barriers to inclusion, and emphasizing the importance of relationship-building in conservation science. We outline suggestions that researchers can use to incorporate these lessons from solutions-oriented avian conservation science into training and mentoring programs.

Conservation Science and Practice

Connecting and coordinating conservation action across landscapes through regional planning processes and syntheses

Modern threats to conservation are often global; however, relevant conservation decisions and actions typically occur within local jurisdictions. The socio-ecological complexity of these problems requires collaboration across large landscapes, diverse community interests, and geopolitical boundaries, yet a lack of interoperability of planning products among decision makers, jurisdictions, and objectives impedes collaboration. Here, we provide a working model for the collaborative, iterative development of a landscape conservation design (LCD) in the Midwest region of the United States, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint, and demonstrate its applicability to the coordination of voluntary conservation actions and investments across jurisdictional boundaries. We used spatial prioritization software to synthesize over 20 datasets to develop a basemap of priority lands and waters for conservation across a diverse set of societal and ecological values (e.g., water quality, biodiversity, recreation). The Midwest Conservation Blueprint is a living plan, updated annually based on improvements in underlying data, understanding of local conditions, and public input. Landscape-scale planning is not designed to replace local knowledge or supersede decision-making authorities. However, by synthesizing existing data that represent diverse socio-ecological values and planning at a broader scale, the Midwest Conservation Blueprint documents where there are shared priorities and opportunities for collaborative landscape conservation.

Midwest

Debunking the myth of the quintessential resource manager: Precision in actionable science

“Actionable science” is a widely held standard for identifying the merits of natural resources research. Yet, science is often framed as actionable to a vaguely identified quintessential “manager” without defining either the intended manager or use. Generic descriptions lack precision for identifying end users or their needs, limiting methodological rigor in research design and leading to contextual misalignments of outputs with the need they intended to serve. Further, imprecise terminology limits the ability to evaluate impact, replicate efforts, or foster adoption and implementation of findings. This perspective article presents the heuristic of “who, what, when, where, why, how” to help researchers be more precise when describing their actionable science. Through intentional reflection, researchers can move beyond generic framings of “managers” representing monolithic organizations. “Managers” become individuals, with unique responsibilities, functions, worldviews, and levels of authority, all influencing their use of and need for scientific information and data.

Conservation Science and Practice