State has cat fight on its hands
Editor’s note: Following is the first of a three-part series examining the controversy surrounding cougars in Michigan.
By Tom Carney
Correspondent
Lansing — It’s difficult if not impossible to couple the words “Michigan” and “cougar” these days without whipping up a storm of disagreement. Much of the dispute, according to vested interests, centers on “facts” that are inaccurate or misconceived.
People who have paid attention to the news articles and even a wildlife biologist with the state have expressed opinions based on misinformation, they say. Mike DeCapita is the endangered species coordinator at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) field office in East Lansing. Weighed down by facts, non-facts, and everything in between, he admits, simply, “I’m confused.”
Before moving into a more complete discussion of the debate, here are inaccurate notions that have already come forth:
Notion: One party in the controversy, the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy, says that much like the gray wolves which have reintroduced themselves to the U.P., cougars are alive and well, thriving in the wilds of Michigan, poised to reclaim traditional territories.
Response: Not true, some say.
“Talk as I might, I can’t get that across to people,” says Dr. Patrick Rusz, the Conservancy’s point man on cougar research. “I can’t emphasize enough how convinced I am that it’s an inbred population that’s in trouble. I will admit that I don’t have the scientific proof to the degree that I’d like to have it. I have drawn inferences from studying the Florida population.”
The Florida panther population, subject of a well-publicized recovery and protection effort, was thought to be weakening itself genetically, diluting the gene pool through tight inbreeding. So in 1995, Florida wildlife officials introduced eight female cougars from Texas, some “new blood” to alleviate genetic problems. As expected, the result has been an increased population.
Of the Michigan cougars, Dr. Rusz says, “I’m convinced that they are not well, an animal that has gotten so low in numbers with a genetic variability so low that they aren’t producing well. They produce some but not well.
“There are loads of deer everywhere. They should be reproducing like mad. “So, instead of us seeing the cougar on the comeback, we are instead seeing cougars on the way out.” In short, Dr. Rusz says, “There is no comeback.”
Notion: The 64-page report available from the Conservancy’s headquarters in Bath or online (www.miwildlife.org) represents Dr. Rusz’s findings after conducting his field research in the summer of 2001.
Response: Wrong.
Published in February of 2001, the report was a review of the available literature and a summary of the sightings others had reported over the previous 60 years. His evidence-gathering later that year was the “modest field research effort” in the Seul Choix Point area he had suggested in the paper.
Notion: The DNR says there are no cougars in Michigan.
Response: “That’s not true,” says DNR press secretary Brad Wurfel. “We constantly get stuck with that incorrect position. Our position, very simply and very clearly is this: We acknowledge that there may be some individual cougars roaming the state’s wild (and perhaps not-so-wild) areas. However, we have no physical proof of a viable resident cougar population at this time. What I mean is an established, naturally-reproducing, genetically successful population of cougars.”
Ray Rustem, the DNR’s Natural Heritage Unit Supervisor, further explains: “The department has recognized the existence of cougars in Michigan, but the origin, distribution, and abundance are the points of debate.
“There are sighting reports from very credible witnesses including biologists, naturalists, and other people very familiar with wildlife. Neither I nor others have any reason to doubt some of these sightings. All we can say is the animals have been reported. In our opinion, these reports do not indicate a cougar population.”
Also, viable population or not, the DNR lists cougars among “protected wildlife” in the annual Michigan Hunting and Trapping Guide.
Notion: The DNR is doing all it can to suppress evidence of a wild cougar population in Michigan.
Response: Quite the contrary, according to state officials.
On its web site, it has added a “Cougar/Lynx Observation Report” form for the public’s use
dnr.state.mi.us
Also, the DNR conducts a “Furbearer Winter Track Count Survey.” The cougar is one of 15 mammals whose tracks are sought. The most recent report, released in June 2002, states, “no evidence of lynx or cougar has been found by this survey since its inception in 1996, despite 1,726.9 km of survey route distance completed.”
Says Wurfel, “If they’re here, of course we’d like to prove it. We’d want to know. We’re the DNR, remember? If they’re part of Michigan’s flora and fauna, we’d manage for them. There just isn’t any proof that this is an animal we should be managing for.”
Notion: Since 1989, it has been illegal for individuals to own cougars as pets in Michigan.
Response: Popular misconception.
Rustem says that in 1989, the Wildlife Division sent “about 20 or so” letters to individual cougar owners. The purpose of the letter was to inform them that since the animal had been listed as endangered, the owners needed permits to keep their cats and could no longer sell or breed them.
The Large Carnivore Act of 2000, however, prohibited the ownership of any big cats. Any existing pets could be kept as long as the owner obtained a permit, implanted the animal with an identifying microchip, and followed through on stringent rules for confinement, control, and transportation.
Notion: The FWS summarily rejects the possibility that wild cougars exist in Michigan.
Response: This is a sore spot with FWS’ Mike DeCapita who says his thoughts have been “misrepresented” by the mainstream media. In order to accurately frame any of his comments on the matter, two things must be understood. First, the FWS would become involved with Michigan cougars only as prescribed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Second, it’s time to introduce a couple of scientific terms.
Under traditional taxonomy, what we would call a cougar (puma, mountain lion, catamount, panther) is the species Felis concolor and shows up as 32 subspecies in the New World. The listings for the ESA, however, are for selected subspecies only. For example, the Florida panther is listed as a separate, endangered species, Felis concolor coryi.
The commonly named “eastern cougar,” the one listed under the ESA, is the subspecies Felis concolor couguar.
From the federal perspective then, says, DeCapita, “when we say the eastern cougar is extirpated, we are not saying there are ‘no cougars’ in Michigan or the eastern U.S., only that the listed subspecies is extirpated.
“Put it another way: there may be cougars present in Michigan or elsewhere, but until someone can provide scientific evidence of the existence of Felis concolor couguar, we say any existing cougars are not this particular subspecies.”
Notion: The DNR has “determined” that a cougar was likely involved in two attacks on livestock in Kalkaska County last August.
Response: Not quite.
Penny Melchoir, supervisor of the DNR’s Northwest Management Unit says, “Both myself, the local wildlife biologist, and the local animal control officers visited these sites.
“At the first farm, we also had a local trapper association member view the tracks, too. All of us determined that it was a small feline-type animal, so we issued a permit for bobcats at that farm. They never had any problems after that.
At the second farm, “All we were able to confirm was that a large feline was in the area. We could not conclusively determine that it was a cougar. The last sightings of the animal were reported during deer season, and only tracks were seen.
“We have never been able to confirm the origin of these animals, and no one has ever gotten photographs.”
Next issue of Michigan Outdoor News: Fur flies as the debate heats up.
michiganoutdoornews.com |
