INTRODUCTION

Now You See It, Now You DonÕt

In August of 1997, Jim Deutsch spotted what he first thought was a deer lying in ferns and grass next to a line of stumps. He was driving on a lane on property of his employer, Larry Lippert, in rural Alcona County, Michigan and happened to have a camera with him. Mr. Deutsch figured if he was lucky, he could pull up to that deer and get a picture before it bolted. What he got instead was a point-blank look at a cougar and the photo of a lifetime. The very clear picture of the cougar was published on the front page of the September 13 issue of the Detroit Free Press.

Meanwhile, Mr. Lippert had called Michigan Department of Natural Resources biologists to review the photo and inspect the spot where it was taken. Since it appeared the photo had indeed been taken there, the DNR staffers needed to explain how this could be when there arenÕt supposed to be any cougars in Michigan.

DNR biologist Glen Matthews came up with a gem of an explanation. He noted that on careful inspection, it appeared that the cougar was not looking squarely at the camera, but rather a few degrees to the side. This, he theorized, indicated that the cougar must be a mounted specimen. Fraud. Lies meant to trick experienced biologists like himself, and he said so. Case closed.

A year later, Larry Robinson, another DNR biologist involved in the photo analysis, was traveling on a U.S. Forest Service road when he spotted a cougar. He reported in an email to his supervisors: ÒThis is a note I absolutely dread writing. I donÕt know if Glen talked to you yet, but I had the terrible misfortune of seeing the Alcona County cougarÉ I figured I had to fess up eventually. What do I do to get the pictures and info to our division files without this getting out to the media? By the way, the location is about 10 miles Òas the cougar fliesÓ from the Lippert property where the picture was taken last summer.Ó

That same year just a few miles from the Lippert property, veteran DNR biologist Jon Royer found what he described as a clear and distinct cougar track. He discussed it with the DNRÕs Òcat expert,Ó Rich Earle, who informed Mr. Royer that the animal in question Òmust be a pet cougar.Ó It was an explanation for cougar evidence of which Mr. Earle was fond. Three years earlier he had used it to dismiss apparent (based on microscopic examination) cougar hair taken from a bumper of a car after a motorist claimed to have hit and injured a cougar in Iron County.

In late September of 2006, high-ranking DNR biologist Mike Bailey addressed the Michigan Association of Animal Control Officers at their annual fall meeting. Bailey warned the county officials to Òbeware of fraudÓ when citizens come forth with photos of cougars. He then referred to the 1997 Alcona County photo and claimed Òinvestigations showedÓ it was a mounted cougar. Glen MatthewsÕ unsupported notion had somehow become a point of fact.

These incidents exemplify a Ògood oleÕ boys club,Ó in action. Evidence of cougars in Michigan Òwent poof,Ó and business went on as usual! Jim Deutsch and Larry Lippert were wrongly accused of fraud, and important pieces of information on a state-listed endangered species were muddied. Unfortunately, similar scenarios have played-out nationwide.

Same Play, Different Theatre

On April 11, 1976 in Pocahontas County, West Virginia, a farmer saw a big cat jump a fence with one of his lambs in its jaws. Without pondering, the farmer simply shot the male cougar, which had no apparent signs of captivity. (Pet cougars are usually declawed and sometimes defanged; other tell-tale signs of captivity include brands, collars, or tattoos.) Two days later, during the ensuing investigation, another cougar Ð a pregnant female Ð was captured nearby. The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) then did lots of pondering. The state wanted the USFWS to assume jurisdiction over the cougar, the FWS wanted it released. An expert, handling the case over the telephone, insisted the cougar Òmust be a petÓ and advised it not be released. In the end, both the dead and live cougars simply Òdisappeared,Ó and the West Virginia DNR subsequently destroyed all the paperwork.

In the late 1980s, a cougar was found in a tree near Worthington, Minnesota. The animal was tranquilized and captured by two Minnesota Department of Natural Resources conservation officers. The cougar was a large male with chewed ears and other scars from fights with other cougars. It had all of its claws and no signs that it had been altered; therefore it was not considered a released pet. The animal was held for several months and eventually transported to a wildlife ranch in Colorado. The fate of the animal was unrecorded. For the next 15 years, Minnesota seemed to acknowledge the presence of a small number of cougars. But after a change in leadership, around 2002, state officials decided Minnesota would no longer acknowledge that it harbored wild cougars. A female cougar was shot and her two cubs captured that year, but it made no difference. Hiding the cougar (issue) is easy in the nooks and crannies of state and federal wildlife agencies.

A New Focus Needed

For 50 years following World War II, wildlife officials staunchly refused to acknowledge the presence of cougars in Òthe East,Ó claiming the big predator was extirpated by the early 1900s. But despite the antics of agency biologists, the issue of cougars in the Midwest can no longer be dismissed. Well-documented physical evidence of cougars in the Great Lakes Region, especially in Minnesota and Michigan since the late 1960s demands a shift in thinking. The recent (2004) recovery of two cougar carcasses in separate incidents in Illinois, and evidence of cougars gained from DNA analyses of tissue, hair, and scats elsewhere in the Region, make it clear the debate should be on the origin, not the mere presence, of cougars.

Three hypotheses are forwarded to explain the presence of cougars in the East:

1. The animals are former escaped or released captives (FERCs);
2. The cougars are transients from established populations west of the Mississippi River; and
3. The cougars are descendants of remnant populations; that is, cougars were never extirpated from the East.

Proponents of each of the three hypotheses agree that cougars are rare in the East, but generally do not share a common set of facts about the cougars found there. They disagree about historical occupation by cougars of specific areas, how cougars disperse and establish territories, and behavior and detectibility of cougars. While it is often almost impossible to scientifically prove the origin of any particular cougar, enough is known about the animals to look at the notions that underlay these explanations of where Great Lakes Region cougars (and cougars that may be documented elsewhere in the East) come from.

WERE COUGARS REALLY EXTIRPATED?

The Root Of The Problem

Two of the three major hypotheses Ð the FERC and transient ideas Ð are based on the assumption that there was a fairly long period between when the cougar was said to be extirpated and when cougars were next detected. Long ago, zoologists established that one essential criterion for determining that a species is extinct is that there are no sighting reports of an individual of that species for at least 50 years. That criterion was never met for the cougar in the East. Rather, there have been thousands of credible cougar reports, with several documented on film and video in each decade, since 1900.

In Michigan, the species was considered extirpated in 1906, when the last well-documented cougar was killed in a wolf trap in the stateÕs Upper Peninsula (Chippewa County). This animal was an 80-pound, immature male and apparently, no one asked what happened to its relatives. The last cougar specimen documented in Maine was killed in or about 1938, years after wildlife officials had declared the species gone from Maine and other parts of the Northeast. Record-keeping before World War II on rare wildlife species ranged from poor to almost absent throughout the U.S. and Canada. In addition, few field surveys to detect scarce animals were conducted anywhere. The last of the few comprehensive inventories of selected counties in northern Michigan were conducted prior to 1930; after that, searches for animals thought to be extirpated or very rare were limited in scope and area surveyed. The upshot is that there was never any sound scientific basis to declare the cougar extirpated. Nevertheless, wildlife officials prior to World War II seemed eager to pronounce the cougar gone, perhaps in part, to verify the success of government predator control programs that flourished until the 1930s.

By The Side Of The Road

A lack of road-killed carcasses or cougars shot and turned in has since been used by wildlife officials to justify the assumption that cougars were gone from the East. This use of Ònon-evidenceÓ or lack of proof is neither science-based or logical. Numerous small populations of predators have not been subject to documented road kills. Many lynx were found (tracked) in certain areas of the Maritime Provinces of Canada for decades, yet no road-killed lynx were recovered. There have been few, if any, cougars killed by cars in Minnesota and Manitoba, although both have small verified/proven numbers of cougars. In North Dakota, which recently confirmed the presence of a small cougar population through an experimental hunt in which several males and females were taken, has never had a road-killed cougar. So cougar mortality on roads must depend on a complex set of variables; the absence of road-kills cannot be used to prove cougars do not exist in an area.

Nevertheless, wildlife officials often cite low, but persistent rates of cougar-car collisions in Florida, where a remnant cougar population was rediscovered in the 1970s, and the Black Hills region of South Dakota. Projecting from either situation is misleading. Florida had 30-50 cougars during a 20-year period when an average of 1.2 traffic deaths per year occurred. However, that small population was confined to a 3,000 square mile area of the Big Cypress Swamp and the Everglades that is traversed by I-75, an expressway with high traffic volumes and natural cougar crossing areas on strips of high ground. The density of cougars was about one per 65 square miles, and is many times greater than likely to be found anywhere else in the East.

Road-killed cougars were usually found because they were tracked with radio-collars that emitted mortality signals. The use of fencing and underpasses to eliminate cougars crossing the freeway reduced the number of road-killed cougars. Few cougar carcasses have been recovered along U.S.-41 which also traverses part of the South Florida cougar range.

The Black Hills population of about 165 cougars occupies approximately 3,300 square miles. Thus, there is about one cougar per 20 square miles. Reliable estimates for cougar numbers in the East are lacking, but using an optimistic figure of 50 cougars spread over 16,824 square miles of MichiganÕs Upper Peninsula would yield a density of only one cougar per 330 square miles. (Cougar densities per 100 square miles: Florida - 1.6, Black Hills Ð 5.0, MichiganÕs Upper Peninsula Ð less than 0.3). One non-fatal cougar Ð car collision in 2004 was confirmed by DNA analysis of hair in the Upper PeninsulaÕs Menominee County, a fact acknowledged by the Michigan DNR. Another non-fatal cougar collision in 1995 in nearby Iron County probably occurred, based on microscopic analysis of hair.

A Closer Look Would Help

Mis-information, faulty logic, and inappropriate extrapolations have also been used by wildlife officials who cite lack of cougars shot by hunters or treed by hounds. Cougars have been encountered by hunters with hounds in Michigan, but these encounters have typically not been documented with photos. The same is true in Minnesota. Apparently, low densities of cougars, reluctance of hunters to report chance encounters, poor record keeping, and other factors combine to make such sources of evidence unsuitable for determining the presence/absence of a rare animal.

When the wild, remnant population of cougars was found in South Florida in the early 1970s, many people questioned whether there might be wild cougars in other remote areas of the East. Conservationists called for searches to be conducted, and under threat of a lawsuit by South Carolina environmentalists, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a cougar survey in parts of the Appalachians. Wildlife officials frequently cite the subsequent study by Robert Downing of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who was based at Clemson University. However, Downing never wrote or stated that his regional study was adequate to prove there were no cougars in the East. In fact, he stated many times, in many forums, that he had great difficulty finding places to track efficiently and that all of his search areas of bare ground would not extend 20 miles if laid end-to-end. He ended up over several years simply searching the same area over and over. Yet, federal wildlife officials continually and knowingly used his studies to justify classifying the cougar as extinct in the East. This federal action, in turn, greatly influenced state wildlife officials, who also declared the issue of wild cougars dead.

Although the assumption that cougars were gone from the East has been periodically challenged by conservationists, the idea seems to play well with the general public. That is, in part, because many people associate the cougar with wilderness, and they believe wilderness in the East is lost. Habitat destruction and degradation certainly occurred in every state; however there remained areas with suitable cover and prey. The notion that the Òlast cougarÓ was necessarily extirpated from the great swamps of Arkansas and Louisiana, the Allegash River area of Maine, the Appalachian Mountain chain, and remote areas of Minnesota and Michigan is questionable at best. Cougars could have easily survived in the ÒpocketsÓ of cover provided by the countless areas that were too wet for logging and that remained roadless in the early 1900s. (Michigan has several significant tracts of upland old growth forest Ð the 36,000-acre Huron Mountains Club property has been off limits to the public since 1904.) The tremendous but unsuccessful effort to rid the Western states of cougars is testimony to the adaptability of the animal and the resilience of the landscape.

The only population of cougars in the East that has been well-studied is the one in South Florida. After years of bounty hunting, cougars were thought to have been extirpated in the state by the late 1800s. However, hound hunters shot eight in five weeks of hunting in 1935. Hunting remained legal until 1958, but few cougars were shot or seen in Florida between 1935 and 1958. By 1970, cougars were again thought by wildlife officials to have been extirpated. But in 1973 a population of 30-50 animals was located in what would objectively be considered poor habitat because of a low prey base. ItÕs clear that cougars remained in the Big Cypress Swamp and Everglades areas because relative inaccessibility prevented them from being hunted to extinction.

Better habitat is found in many areas of the East north of Florida; equally remote areas arguably occur in Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, the Upper Peninsula and Northeastern Lower Peninsula of Michigan, Minnesota, and Maine. Physical evidence of cougars and/or credible cougar sighting reports have been documented in these areas and elsewhere in the East. The National Park Service compiled cougar evidence for Great Smokey Mountains National Park and concluded that 3-6 cougars were living in the park in 1975. Compelling evidence of resident cougars in Minnesota (a lactating female was shot and its two cubs were captured) and Michigan (DNA analyses from scats revealed cougars in eight widely-separated areas) had accumulated by 2002. At Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore in the northwest part of MichiganÕs Lower Peninsula, signs warn visitors they are entering cougar habitat. The warnings came after decades of credible sightings by National Park Service staff as well as visitors.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE FERC AND TRANSIENT THEORIES

Explanations Of Convenience

Cougar sighting reports greatly increased in the East after World War II. Wildlife officials and other interested persons conceded that some of the reports were credible. The FERC theory seemed to some to be a reasonable explanation why cougars would occasionally show-up, yet be hard to find. They argued that FERCs would not live long because they were declawed and would not likely have adequate hunting skills. FERCs would wander aimlessly, never staying around anywhere long enough to be caught or documented. (Yet curiously, carcasses of FERCs have seldom been found.) The FERC hypothesis had been used between 1930 and 1970 to explain cougars seen in Florida.

The FERC explanation was bolstered in the minds of wildlife officials outside of Florida in the 1980s by several published papers by Rainer Brocke, a professor at State University of New York, Syracuse. Brocke studied wild cougars in the West and found that if a resident wild cougar was present, tracks could usually be found if it had not rained for about a week and 20 miles of trails or road with good tracking surfaces were checked. On the basis of lack of evidence, Brocke implied that the East was cougar free except perhaps for FERCs.

The lack of carcases, federal and state declarations of the eastern cougar outside Florida as extinct, and the proliferation of cougars in the pet trade, led to the FERC explanation appearing prominently in texts. There has been a proliferation of books on mammals and other wildlife in the past two decades; almost all parrot the conclusions of state and federal agencies. Students of wildlife biology have thus been indoctrinated with the mantra Ð cougars are a wilderness species, the wilderness is gone from the East, the cougars are gone from the East, FERCs often are running around loose, ill-informed people see FERCs and think they are wild cougars.

The notion that cougars being detected in the East are transients from the West evolved in 2004 and is associated with the Cougar Network (formerly the Eastern Cougar Network) a small, East Coast internet-based group, and their supporters (fish and game agencies). It is sometimes used in companionship with the FERC hypothesis. It relies on the recently documented long dispersal of male cougars from established populations, especially the one in the Black Hills area of South Dakota. That population is now proposed by speculating biologists as the source of cougars in the Great Lakes Region.

Proponents of the transient explanation often quote wildlife biologists who have noted the gradual expansion of western cougar populations. It has been used to explain cougars found in the East that appeared to be wild (e.g., those with DNA indicative of cougars of North American origin). Like the pet theory, it serves the interests of fish and game agencies of the East. It absolves wildlife officials for not detecting cougars previously, and removes the need to treat cougars in the East as an endangered or threatened species.

EVALUATING THE THEORIES WITH OPEN EYES

A Parade Of Pets? CÕmon!

An underlying assumption of the FERC hypothesis is that a significant number of pet cougars are being released in remote areas by their owners. Michigan is among several states that have laws and regulations that restrict ownership of cougars by individuals. After 1989, citizens were not allowed to purchase cougars (exceptions were made for zoos and certain other commercial facilities). Other states allow cougars to be kept under permits.

Captive cougars, which may live as long as 17 years, require fairly frequent care by veterinarians. Very few veterinarians will treat cougars unless they are declawed and spayed or neutered to deter aggressive behavior. Most owners do not remove the animalÕs fangs; however some file them down. Based on veterinarian records in Michigan, less than 10 cougars were treated in the past 15 years. And under questioning by the Michigan Natural Resources Commission on October 5, 2006 DNR Furbearer Biologist Dave Bostick admitted there was only one (1) pet cougar under permit in Michigan.

While some FERCs could certainly kill large prey, their ability to survive in the wild would be limited, particularly in areas of deep snow and prolonged periods of cold. (Wildlife officials in Michigan often say FERCs wouldnÕt live more than 30 days.) The possibility of a FERC killing white-tailed deer every week or two seems remote, since the animals are separated from their mothers and never taught to hunt. FERCs would also not likely establish home ranges (territories) for prolonged periods (more than a month), unless they encountered a female cougar. (Female cougars seek to establish territories that overlap those of other females.)

The Glove DoesnÕt Fit

In Michigan, there are distinct areas with long histories of cougar sightings. While individual sighting reports are not always accurate, the thousands of Michigan cougar sightings clearly reveal patterns. Some of the areas where sightings are clustered are very remote, and credible sightings date back 50 years or more. It seems unlikely pets would selectively find, inhabit, and survive in these few areas for long periods, and keeping cougars as pets didnÕt became popular until the 1970s.

It is widely believed the FERCs usually are of South or Central American origin because such animals dominate the pet cougar trade. At least five cougars have been captured or killed in Minnesota since 1980. None were defanged, declawed, or neutered, and none showed any evidence of captivity (such as tattoos, collars, or micro-chips.) Two cougars killed in Illinois also showed no signs of captivity and were North American in origin. Records of which we are aware show only one cougar killed in the Eastern U.S. (a cub in Kentucky) that was determined to have one South American parent.

Homeless Cougars DoesnÕt Explain It

Cougars typically disperse from their birth areas at about 2 years of age. Dispersal distances vary greatly. Males may move hundreds of miles. However, females typically disperse relatively short distances, eventually setting up home ranges that overlap slightly with that of their mothers or at least another female. Transient males, and to a lesser extent transient females, may establish temporary home ranges for several weeks where they encounter vulnerable prey such as livestock, pets, or deer in winter Òyards.Ó

The research on the cougar in Florida, an inbred population with limited reproductive success, did not reveal long dispersal distances, even by young males. Furthermore, despite the cougarÕs mobility and ability to swim long distances, certain rivers seemed to stop or at least slow dispersal.

Dispersal of cougars from populations in the West is likely a multi-directional, somewhat haphazard, phenomenon undoubtedly influenced by mountain ranges and large rivers such as the Missouri and Mississippi. Because of the limited dispersal of females, it would not likely account for any resident cougars found more than about 200 miles east of the cougars in the Black Hills of South Dakota or in Texas. That is, male transients, failing to find resident females, would keep moving without mating and establishing territories. Furthermore, the increase in the Black Hills population is a recent phenomenon (the 1990s), and canÕt possibly explain sightings dating back to 1900. Based on even the most extreme dispersal distances of young cougars, transients from the West canÕt explain the presence of any cougars except, perhaps, some of those detected in Missouri, Iowa, and parts of Minnesota. To use this hypothesis to explain cougars in Maine, Tennessee or Michigan is ridiculous. There could be occasional movement of a few male cougars from South Florida, and from established, but largely unrecognized populations in the Great Lakes Region, the Appalachians, and the Northeast. However, the transient theory simply provides no biological basis to explain persistent cougar evidence over long periods in any area East of the Mississippi.

REMNANT POPULATIONS: THE ONLY PLAUSABLE EXPLANATION!

One of the first to argue that at least some of the cougars detected in the East are from remnant populations was Bruce Wright, a graduate student of famed Aldo Leopold. Wright, a leading wildlife official in New Brunswick, compiled cougar evidence in the Province starting in the 1960s. He relied heavily on eye-witness reports of cougars and their tracks. He believed that field studies and/or sighting report patterns have shown the likelihood that resident cougars rather than FERCs or transients are present in some areas. Critics have pointed out that with the proliferation of deer, the primary prey of cougars, and protection of cougars from hunting, small populations of remnant cougars should rapidly expand as occurred in the West. However, studies in Florida and Manitoba showed that remnant cougar populations do not necessarily respond to increases in prey base or available habitat. In Florida, inbreeding kept the remnant population from increasing in numbers and expanding its range over a 30-year period. Thus, the hypothesis has evolved from WrightÕs simple one, ÒThey just never killed them allÉ,Ó to a complex explanation based on principals of population genetics.

When considered over long (10 years or more) periods, the distribution of credible sighting reports and physical evidence of cougars in the East are not random, but clustered around areas that were inaccessible during the period when big predators were supposedly extirpated. Contrary to the notions of some contemporary writers, the East was not laid waste by timber barons, wild fires, and mining companies. There remained huge inaccessible areas where larger predators could, and did, remain. Many of the areas have long histories of cougar sightings.

In Michigan, the distribution of evidence corresponds with large, roadless swamps and/or large blocks of privately-owned land with restricted access. Cougars have been seen and photographed elsewhere in Michigan, even in developed areas and farmland, but the overwhelming number of reports and physical evidence consistently comes from less than 30 fairly distinct areas. The distributions of cougar sighting reports in Wisconsin and Minnesota exhibit similar patterns. These patterns provide for predictable occurrences of cougar evidence and are inconsistent with that which would likely be generated by wandering pets or transients from the West. Also consistent with the remnant population hypothesis is the documented presence of breeding cougars in Minnesota, and resident (probably breeding) cougars in Michigan where there have been nearly 100 credible documented sighting reports of cubs or female cougars with cubs in the past 50 years. It is extremely unlikely that transient females have arrived in the Great Lakes Region from Florida, or South Dakota or any other western population in this relatively short time span given what we know about range expansion.

Remnant populations would not be expected to remain small unless hampered by low reproductive rates or high mortality rates, or both. In-breeding, as demonstrated in Florida and speculated in Manitoba, and the tendency for cougars to be killed illegally where they Òare not supposed to beÓ are very plausible explanations for lack of population increases and range expansions by remnant populations. However, even precarious populations would be expected to generate dispersing cougars. These could easily account for cougars occasionally showing up at the edges of populated areas.

MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Taxonomy Needs Straightening

Cougar management in the East is hampered by mis-information about the taxonomy of the animal and poor administration of endangered species protection programs. At present, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers the Federal Endangered Species Protection program, uses range maps that recognize 15 subspecies of cougars in North America. The Service declared the eastern cougar extinct but manages the cougar in Florida as the so-called Florida panther, an endangered subspecies. However, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that there was never a solid basis for considering either the eastern cougar or the Florida panther as separate subspecies. Although the Service is aware of the taxonomic errors, it has proposed no changes in policy. It has poured tens of millions of dollars into Florida cougar conservation. But it has provided no federal funds for cougar management in other states in the East partly because the bogus range maps show only an extinct subspecies in the East outside of Florida.

Treasury Empty

The Michigan Wildlife Conservancy is often asked why the Wildlife Division of the MDNR would hide the cougar? Money is one possible answer. With no prospect to get federal funds for research or protection, state agencies have shown reluctance to recognize the presence of cougars or adopt protection programs. MDNR Wildlife Division draws 98% of its funding from the Michigan Game and Fish Protection Fund: the vehicle receiving all hunting and fishing license money in the state. Twenty years ago license sales began to decline, while at the same time costs have increased. In 1981 over 90% of all the monies expended from the Game and Fish Protection Fund went to pay salaries and fringe benefits. Today that number is even higher. By the time the MDNR employees cash their checks there is little left for wildlife. Now, if the Wildlife Division was to recognize that the rarest animal in the state still exists, where will the money come from to restore/manage the population? Without new legislation, it can only come from one source, if not the federal government Ð the MDNR employees. Pressured to maintain an adequate staff, administrators donÕt want cougars, wolverines, or any other Ònew speciesÓ to manage, unless there is a federal dowry for the animal.

Lack of federal funds may also explain why state officials in Minnesota have, after seemingly recognizing that they had small cougar populations in the 1980s and 1990s, changed their policies Ðdeclaring they have no wild cougars. The result of all this has been the development of a game of Òhide the cougar,Ó in which evidence of the species is at best ignored and at worst, intentionally hidden from the public. ItÕs sad (and obviously inconsistent) that two units of the National Park Service Ð in the Great Smokey Mountains and the Sleeping Bear Dunes Ð recognize the presence of cougars while the states of Tennessee, North Carolina and Michigan, in which these National Parks lie, do not.

Confusion Reigns Supreme

In recent years, wildlife officials in Michigan, as in other states, have also quietly changed their positions. The MDNR Wildlife Division has disavowed allegiance to any particular theory, instead stating that while Michigan has some cougars of unknown origin, there is no viable, breeding cougar population. The question arises: ÒWhat does Ôviable meanÕ?Ó The Michigan Wildlife Division seems to be saying that there are cougars but no population worth managing, while confusing both itself and the public. In 1995, MDNR biologist Rich Earle threw out a cougar hair sample taken from a car bumper on the assumption Òit must be a pet.Ó In 2004 wildlife official Ray Rustem stated, ÒWe believe there probably are some cougars in the state. We just donÕt know what their origins areÉÓ In 2005, when asked for an estimate of the cougar population in Michigan, Wildlife Division biologist Doug Wagner stated on a Marquette Public Television show, ÒMy estimate is zero. We have never had an animal in hand, never had one treed by bear hunters, never found one dead on the side of the road, never had one shot by a deer hunter. Until we have that evidence, our population estimate is zero for cougar.Ó This position ignores the 1995 hair sample and a February 3, 2005 MDNR press release confirming cougar hair was taken from a car bumper by a state trooper in 2004. Incredibly, fish and game agencies throughout the East are clinging to 1950s wildlife management because it helps them to hide the existence of cougars. Their Òshow me the carcassÓ mantra makes it more difficult for citizens to prove the cougar exists, and leaves the public frustrated by the ridicule heaped on them by arrogant biologists. True science-based organizations recognize the importance of DNA analysis and other current techniques and technologies to detect small populations.

Excuses Getting Old

The FERC and transient hypotheses remain an essential component of the game wildlife agencies are playing. They provide excuses for failing to keep centralized records of potentially valuable cougar evidence, and failing to conduct systematic field searches for cougars. Wildlife managers claim they are being ÒscientificÓ in not acting until hard evidence ÒprovesÓ that wild, resident and breeding populations of cougars exist in their states. However, they have no plan or incentive that offers any hope of obtaining such evidence. Thus, when confronted with cougar evidence that requires some type of response, the FERC or transient hypotheses are used and business goes on as usual.

Few, states have policies or laws that clearly identify cougars as protected animals. Based on the cougarÕs low numbers, mobility, and potential genetic bottlenecks, every state in the East should provide at least minimal protection for the cougar. States with strong evidence of resident cougars and/or the re-occurrence of transient cougars should have a standardized system of data collection. Finding cougar evidence where the animals are rare is tedious and difficult but can be done through networking with landowners and other citizens. The cougars wonÕt be saved by people sitting at computer terminals or waiting for animals to be crushed on roadways. Systematic searches are needed. Citizens, not agency biologists, have uncovered the most compelling evidence of cougars in the East. Yet, many state agencies have alienated the public with decades of condescending treatment, including ridicule, of citizens who have reported evidence of cougars.

It is critical that accountability be restored in wildlife management. The controversy in Michigan is no longer about whether there are cougars, but whether the MDNR is required to do anything about it. The MDNR knew of the cougars in Michigan at least since 1985 and continued to tell the public Michigan had no cougars. A directive from top management of MDNR prompted Lawrence Robinson, MDNR wildlife biologist, to email supervisors in July 1998 asking how to hide his cougar sighting (attachment A).

A TIME TO ACT

Law Being Violated

The Michigan DNRÕs viewpoint is that the stateÕs endangered species protection act merely mandates that it have a program to manage rare species; the agency is not required to study or manage any particular rare species such as the cougar. This seems to be a very narrow and erroneous view of its responsibilities; however, by invoking the FERCs and transient hypotheses, the MDNR has fended off public pressure to study its cougar population. But the reality is that the Michigan DNR is clearly violating the state Endangered Species Act that mandates restoration of a rare species. The MDNR has declared that any cougars in Michigan Òmust be escaped or released pets,Ó and issued permits to kill cougars (including at least two permits to landowners who merely saw a cougars and expressed concerns). Just as troubling, the MDNR has refused to help police agencies which have had to deal with cougar sighting reports. Some citizen reports of cougars in populated areas have been false. But other incidences have yielded videotapes showing cougars. Animal control officers are not trained or equipped to deal with large wild animals like cougars nor is it the job of sheriffÕs deputies who get many of the calls from the public. But the MDNR doesnÕt collect these reports or investigate them, saying that (in their double talk) the cougars arenÕt the state agencyÕs problem because there is no absolute proof the cougars are wild. Two cases in point are the MDNRÕs handling of incidents in which horses were attacked in 2005. On August 31st, a 1,200-pound horse was killed in western Jackson CountyÕs (Michigan) Parma Township. Evidence collected by the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy, two Jackson County animal control officers (ACOs), and the Parma Township Supervisor indicated the healthy 26-year old Arabian show horse was killed at night by a cougar. Thorough inspections of the animal showed puncture marks that matched the bite of a large cougar, and the Township Supervisor spotted a cougar the next day crossing a road about one mile away. Tracks were also found on the site and a neighboring farm that were consistent with cougar. The DNR was called by local and county officials the day the horse was found, but no one from DNR showed up until several days later.

The MDNRÕs Ray Rustem, supervisor of the Natural Heritage Program, was quoted in the Jackson Citizen Patriot as saying: ÒThereÕs no way to track these animals, we have no expertise. Without that knowledge (of the catÕs location), it would be a waste of time. If we had the opportunity, if we could dart it, weÕd attach a radio, a tracking device, and use it as a learning experience. WeÕd like to know its home range, where itÕs traveling.Ó

It Just Keeps Getting Worse

On November 26, 2005 a horse in Berrien County was injured so severely it had to be euthanized. A detailed field investigation and necropsy by Berrien County Animal Control Officers, a local veterinarian, and the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy confirmed a cougar attacked the horse. Distinct claw marks were observed by more than 15 police officers and newspaper and television reporters during a three-hour necropsy. However, the MDNR stated, based on a review of photos, that the horse was attacked by coyotes or dogs.

The previously-mentioned Cougar Network has aided wildlife agencies by attempting to discredit any evidence that does not fit the FERC or transient hypotheses. This ÒinstrumentÓ of the fish and wildlife agencies is doing the cougar and the people of America a tremendous disservice. The Cougar NetworkÕs biases have been exposed in various forums, and denounced by one of its founders, Jim Close, who has separated himself from the organization (attachment B).

Enough Is Enough

This Òhide the cougars gameÓ must cease. The cougar populations need advocates who demand real programs that fully protect the cougar while addressing public safety concerns, not irresponsibility and arrogance from the agencies with the legal mandate to protect the species.

The so-called Òghost catÓ of the East is, at least in some areas, a real part of our natural heritage. The apex predator is mysterious, not just because of the renowned secretive nature of the cougar, but largely because of the priorities of modern wildlife management. Information is not sought or kept on species considered ÒextinctÓ or peripheral, and without such information no state or federal agency will do anything. The public and the cougar deserve better.

ATTACHMENTS:

Cougar Milestones In Michigan

Larry Robinson Memo

MWC Cougar Management Recommendations

Jim Close Email