DNR must open eyes on cougars

By Howard Meyerson
Copyright 2005 The Grand Rapids Press
All rights reserved; used with permission

Are too! Are not!
Are toooo! Are not!
-- A familiar refrain

I got to thinking about the cougar debate the other day while reading about the big cats in "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of Michigan," a 1994 publication by the University of Michigan Press. The document states that we once had cougars in Michigan and may well have breeding populations again that should be protected.

The irony, of course, is that the DNR has its heels dug in on the matter of cougars. Cougars are an inconvenience in tight budget times. There are other things to be done, more clearly established species to manage.

DNR officials don't deny that Michigan has cougars, just that there is not sufficient evidence of a resident or breeding population. Too little is known under current conditions to warrant a full scale management program which is what proponents are asking for.

Matter of priorities
In particular, the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy (MWC) has recommended that the DNR formally recognize the species as "resident and breeding" and establish policies to protect them.

Dr. Pat Rusz, the chief biologist for the conservancy says there is ample indication of cougars in Michigan, predictable occurrences, not just random, transient events.

"There are 15 to 18 spots around the state where we have documented the presence of cougars, whether with tracks or scats," he said. "We are not finding cougars all over the place. They exist in pretty well defined areas around the state.

"We got 200 reports from people at Outdoor-rama and all but two of those reports came from areas we know. Three of those reports came from the exact crossroads where I park to check on a particular cougar in Roscommon County."

The state, in essence, says, "so what?""We don't believe we have a breeding population in Michigan. If we could verify cougars and found there was a small population, what would we do?" asks Ray Rustem, the head of the DNR Natural Heritage program.

"We might want to do some education like we do with wolves, but I can't do everything for every species. The (endangered species) law says we should be managing them, but I don't have to drop everything to do it.

"We have staffing, time and budget constraints, so they are not going to be a priority."

How to report sightings
People who see signs of cougars can write to an e-mail hotline at the DNR Web site michigan.gov/dnr, but Rustem concedes it isn't checked regularly.

"We haven't had anyone look at them in a month or two. We were waiting until after the deer season," he said.

Rustem checked for the purpose of this column and found there were 158 reports of sightings this year. There were 156 last year and 81 in 2002.

One might think that 150 sightings would get biologists excited, but Rustem said the Web site can produce a lot of false leads. Instead, he prefers more definitive sightings.

"We are interested in the situation at Sleeping Bear Dunes," he said, adding that the DNR is providing trail cameras to the park to help document the presence of a cougar there.

"There are enough credible reports that I don't dispute what people are reporting to me," said Rustem. "There is a good chance that they are seeing a cougar. But just what that means is in dispute."

At issue in the debate is how much data is enough. What constitutes proof of a breeding population? How many dots have to be connected for the state to acknowledge the outline of a cougar population in Michigan?

Rustem says a carcass would help.

"We haven't killed one on the road here in 90 years. Yet, other places like South Dakota where they are moving in, kill 15 or 16 on the highways," he said.

There is a lovely irony in the DNR's position. The document I mentioned reports data that was provided by the DNR's own highly respected Natural Features Inventory staff. The book was also reviewed by the agency's top wildlife biologists before it was published.

What it says is: "In recent years, reports of cougars have become increasingly more frequent and believable in Michigan and the Upper Great Lakes region ..."

"In 1984 confirmation of a Michigan cougar (through a blood sample) was obtained for the first time in decades in Menominee County. There are also encouraging signs that the Michigan cougar is not transient, but occurs in a self sustaining population, based on several reliable sightings of adult cougars with kittens."

It concludes: "Whether individuals are from small, remnant populations that survived human pressures through the last two centuries, transients from the western Great Lakes region or privately released (or escaped western subspecies, the cougar needs to be recognized, protected and studied in Michigan's Upper Peninsula."

This was back in 1994. The agency budget was more flush. Ten years later the beleagured agency is hiding behind the arguement that there aren't enough cougars to warrant the effort.

I think its is time for the DNR to take off its blinders. No doubt, budgets are a real concern. But so is credibility in the state's official wildlife agency.

Nay-saying doesn't suffice when current and past records suggest that there are more than enough dots to justify a focused study of the cats. Whether the DNR conducts the research or helps fund it is less important than making sure its done. Maybe then the agency can make an informed decision about whether cougar management is actually needed.