Science-based Wildlife Management

A Great Idea or an Empty Slogan?

The phrase science-based wildlife management drifts often through wildlife commission meetings, policy papers, and agency reports, spoken with a tone of certainty. Yet, among wildlife advocates, those who care deeply about the welfare of wild animals of Colorado, its meaning remains far from settled. For advocates, it is a guiding principle; to others, it has become little more than a slogan worn thin by repetition.

Wildlife advocates, those who walk quietly through forests and canyon country, watching the lives of animals unfold beyond the reach of roads and towns, understand that words must eventually answer to reality. Science-based wildlife management, when successful, is driven by the specific needs of each species and the positive impact they have on the ecosystems they inhabit. Each species has a distinct set of biological and ecological factors it depends upon for a healthy population. A successful plan supports these factors.

For Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and for many hunters and trappers, the phrase science-based wildlife management often comes to mean maintaining the current system, the status quo. Seventeen species in Colorado, still referred to as “furbearers,” a term carried forward from another century, can be hunted or trapped each year under a single license for just under $50. Most furbearer species can be hunted for four months. Bobcats can be hunted for 90 days, most furbearer species for four months, beavers for seven months and coyotes every day of the year. And trapping on private land has even fewer restrictions, allowing for leg hold traps and other cruel methods. Several elements typically associated with science-based wildlife management remain completely absent. No comprehensive plans or accurate population estimates exist for these species. And there are no established hunting or trapping quotas to define harvest limits. The structure of the policy itself is straightforward. For thirty-nine dollars, a trapper may purchase a license and pursue these animals throughout a multi-month season, killing as many as they choose. This raises an important question about where solid science data supports this structure. Describing the practice as science based suggests it is guided by research, but in reality it is just a catch phrase. The phrase loses meaning when species-specific management plans, and harvest limits are not part of the framework. Colorado Parks and Wildlife also promotes these seasons as a way for new hunters to gain experience in the field before pursuing larger game such as deer and elk. The welfare of wildlife and their positive impact on the ecosystems they inhabit are rarely, if ever, discussed at a wildlife commission meeting. The most common question is, “Do we have enough animals on the landscape for hunters and trappers to kill this year?” At Colorado Parks and Wildlife, providing opportunity to kill animals has always outweighed a focus on supporting the welfare of wildlife. Let that sink in.

To the wildlife advocate standing quietly at the edge of a winter stream or beneath a wind-shaped pine, such arithmetic raises difficult questions. The wild world moves according to the patient laws of ecology, birth and death, food and shelter, drought and abundance, forces that cannot be understood without careful study and honest accounting.

For advocates, the meaning of science-based wildlife management stands far clearer. True science demands research, reliable data, and a willingness to adjust human behavior to what the land and its creatures reveal. At its heart stands the welfare of the species itself. A responsible plan looks first to the animal, its habitat, prey or forage, reproduction, and the ecological relationships that sustain its place in the larger community of life.

When these elements are understood and protected, healthy populations follow. The land and its inhabitants flourish together, each supporting the other in the quiet balance that shapes wild country long before human rules are written. Nature is constantly moving toward harmony. We are wise, for our own health, to participate in and join this flow.

Among the seventeen species caught in Colorado’s current framework is the bobcat, a secretive feline of rimrock ledges, snowy timber, and shadowed creek bottoms. Despite its wide presence across the state, no formal plan exists for the bobcat. Accurate population estimates remain elusive, and no hunting or trapping quotas are established to guide the harvest.

Exploring the principles of science-based wildlife management for bobcats offers a clear backdrop for understanding what this resilient predator needs to thrive. With solid foundations, wildlife managers can act with confidence and direction. Let’s take a short dive into what science-based wildlife management looks like for bobcats.

A bobcat family just being bobcats, far from the threat of hunters, trappers and poison.

Science-based Wildlife Management for Bobcats

A healthy bobcat (Lynx rufus) population depends on several interacting biological and ecological factors. Wildlife ecologists generally group these into five major drivers: prey availability, habitat structure, reproduction/survival, territory/space, and human impacts. These factors determine population growth, density, and long-term stability.

1. Prey Availability (Primary Limiting Factor)

Bobcats are opportunistic carnivores, but across most of North America their population size closely tracks the abundance of rabbits, hares, rodents, and other small mammals. Cottontail rabbits are often the principal prey species. Rodents, squirrels, birds, and occasionally deer supplement the diet. Habitat quality is often measured by its ability to produce abundant prey populations. If prey densities decline, bobcats experience reduced reproduction, lower kitten survival, expansion of home ranges, and population decline.

2. Habitat Quality and Structure

Bobcats require structurally complex landscapes that allow stealth hunting and shelter. Key habitat features include dense understory vegetation for ambush hunting, rocky outcrops, hollow logs, or brush piles for dens, and mixed habitats (forest, shrubland, fields) that support prey populations. Research shows bobcats often select areas with high stem density and thick understory cover, briars, grasses, and shrubs that hold prey. Fragmented or heavily developed landscapes can isolate populations and reduce genetic exchange.

3. Territory and Landscape Connectivity

Bobcats are solitary and territorial. Population density is limited by the amount of usable territory available. Typical home ranges for female bobcats are ~1–40 km² while males are often 2–3× larger. Healthy bobcat populations require large connected landscapes, dispersal routes for juveniles, overlapping male–female territories for breeding. If habitat becomes fragmented (roads, urbanization), dispersal declines and local populations can become genetically isolated.

4. Reproductive Biology

Bobcats reproduce slowly compared with small mammals. Breeding typically happens in later winter into spring. The gestation period is 50-70 days and the litter size is two to four kittens. Population health depends on adequate prey for lactating females, secure den sites, and low kitten mortality. Because females raise kittens alone, female survival is a key driver of population growth.

5. Mortality Factors

Bobcat populations are affected by both natural and human-caused mortality. Important sources include vehicle collisions, habitat loss and urbanization, trapping/hunting, and rodenticide poisoning in urban areas. Natural competition or predation may come from coyotes, mountain lions and large raptors (for kittens).

An example of an excellent bobcat management plan that incorporates the above factors, and more, was developed in Ohio. As I read the plan, I realized that on every page the welfare of bobcats was the focus of the plan. It wasn’t about catering to the unlimited slaughter preferences of hunters and trappers. In fact, bobcats are a protected species in Ohio.

When the welfare of wildlife becomes the cornerstone of science-based wildlife management, the conversation changes. Wildlife commission meetings are full of discussion and celebration regarding what these animals need for a healthy population, something that goes way beyond the current wet finger population estimate to justify more killing. They celebrate the positive impact bobcats and other species have on the landscapes they inhabit. It becomes a conversation that is wildlife focused rather than focused on the wants of hunters, trappers, outfitters and ranchers.

To the advocate who listens carefully to the land, that shared ownership carries a quiet responsibility. If wildlife truly belongs to everyone, then its care must rest upon knowledge deep enough, and humility great enough, to ensure that the wild lives entrusted to human stewardship endure, whole and thriving, for generations yet to walk these mountains. Science-based wildlife management, with real science behind it, makes a positive difference for wildlife. The human voice is the only voice for wildlife. Call Colorado Parks and Wildlife, ask for the carnivore and furbearer manager and ask for the wildlife management plans for these seventeen furbearer species. The main number is: 303-297-1192.