Michigan Outdoor News

March 21, 2003

State's `cat fight' has disputed points

By Tom Carney

Correspondent

Lansing ‑ Trying to get a handle on the debate behind Michigan's "cougar controversy" is like grabbing a tiger by the tail.

This beast is fueled by the volatile mixture of scientific skepticism and "romantic possibilities," a private conservation group confounded by the machinery of a government agency, and biologists who hold disparate views on what exactly constitutes "science."

At the taproot of the debate there is no disagreement: both sides acknowledge that some large felines roam freely in northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. The Michigan Wildlife Conservancy (formerly the Michigan Wildlife Habitat Foundation) maintains it has "proved the existence of a wild cougar population in Michigan through a five‑year research effort." On the other hand, Ray Rustem, Natural Heritage Unit supervisor for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), says the department "has recognized the existence of cougars in Michigan, but the origin, distribution, and abundance are points of the debate."

Actually, there is one additional point of agreement. Spokespeople on both sides say this debate is not an "us against them" proposition.

Though Dr. Pat Lederle, the DNR's endangered species coordinator, calls that notion "ludicrous," it's clear to whom he refers when he calls the controversy "a figment of their imagination."

Says Dennis Fijalkowski, executive director of the Conservancy, "It's not about the DNR. It's about the cougar, trying to save the cougar. We don't mean it to be controversial. We're not trying to upstage" the DNR.

Mike DeCapita, regional endangered species coordinator for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says the issue has become "needlessly contentious."

Truth bubbles up through politics

The Conservancy and DNR hit the ground running and immediately butted heads. The collision floods the discussion with a torrent of pointed implications, sarcasm, and plenty of he said/she saids.

For space considerations, a small sample must suffice:

"Everyone has started to get really heated and gravely serious about this issue, and I think it could use a bit of levity and perspective," says Brad Wurfel, DNR press secretary.

"I believe we very likely have some cougar in Michigan, but it's most likely the subspecies `Ownerus Dumpus Roadsideus.'

"I did not mean to seem flip, but we've been biting our tongues here for a couple of years on this issue with this group.

"I'm just saying there are a lot of interesting questions and circumstances associated with this controversy that are worth considering before one gets too caught up in the swirl of romantic possibilities."

Fijalkowski says, "Most of the people in the state who work with wildlife are ignorant on the issue. They shouldn't be talking to the press about this."

Dr. Pat Rusz who conducted the research for the Conservancy fires another round.

"Are there some DNR people out there who would jerk people around? Yeah. There are also some good ones. But we are in an atmosphere in the state where truth doesn't come out; it has to bubble up through politics and people's own personal agendas."

He says the Conservancy did not set out to embarrass the DNR, adding, "We had a natural resources mystery and wanted to gain some insight into it."

Rustem compares this mystery to, "a court case; it is the body of evidence that provides proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The department does not believe that burden has been met."

Rusz attributes that line of thinking to "a bizarre twist of politics and media coverage. The burden of proof somehow ended on us instead of on the skeptics where it should be. So we've got hundreds of Michigan residents every year reporting what they've seen to be cougars and being told they have seen something else. That we have gotten to this point is a travesty."

Strip away the passion, invective, and sensationalism that this controversy evokes, however, and at its core you'll find the very matter Rustem and Dr. Rusz have introduced, the validity of proof and the interpretation of evidence. Follow each river and creek of discord far enough upstream, and it becomes clear they all flow from a single source.

A campaign of deceit

During a two‑year period (1998‑2000) Rusz and Fijalkowski looked into the topic of cougars in Michigan. They were surprised to find the DNR maintained no central repository of cougar sighting information, not even a single folder in the DNR's files marked "Cougar." They were shocked to learn that something as valuable as a plaster cast of a cougar print from 1966 had apparently been taken home by a DNR biologist when he retired; they found it tucked away in the attic of his garage in the U.P., they say.

"This is how they collect evidence of one of the rarest life forms in Michigan," Fijalkowski said.

Rusz prepared a 64‑page report, "The Cougar in Michigan: Sightings and Related Information," a technical publication of the Bengal Wildlife Center, headquarters of the Conservancy. On Dec. 8, 2000, the two shared a draft of the report with the DNR's Rustem and Dr. Dale Rabe. In a Jan. 5, 2001 follow‑up letter to Rabe, Fijalkowski reiterated the Conservancy's suggestions:

"We believe that we need to develop a standardized data collection system for cougar information in Michigan. We also feel that the department has to make it clear to the public that the DNR position is not that all cougar sightings are released pets. The public should also be reminded that cougars are protected under state wildlife law! Lastly, a modest research effort of some kind to get a better idea of Michigan's cougar numbers and movements would be advisable."

He alleges that at the meeting, Rustem and Rabe found these suggestions "reasonable" and that they subsequently told him their superiors had given the ideas a green light.

On Jan. 4, 2001, Wildlife Division Chief Rebecca Humphries sent Fijalkowski a letter of her own. In it she mentioned an outcome of that December meeting, "some changes to provide a more efficient system for reporting and maintaining (wildlife) observations."

She then outlined what the DNR would do:

1) Discuss with staff the importance of maintaining good communications with the public, the status of cougars in Michigan, and request information from field staff;

2) Develop public wildlife reports at the department web site into a central collection system for information and add cougar sightings as well as other important species;

3) Encourage reliable reporting of cougar sightings;

4) Seek opportunities to increase public understanding that cougars are protected under state's endangered species regulation;

5) Offer the Conservancy or any interested parties the opportunity to apply for Nongame Fish and Wildlife grants program funds to conduct research.

Fijalkowski's interpretation: "They said in December and certainly in that letter ‑ if it's not stated outright it's implied ‑ that they will acknowledge the cougar population and collect data in the manner that we asked."

Fast forward to March 2001. The minutes of the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) meeting indicate that both Fijalkowski's and Rusz's reports were received without comment or action. Some folks, however, offer additional observations the minutes didn't catch.

"As I recall, one commissioner did ask them, `What did that presentation have to do with habitat?' " said George Burgoyne, resource management deputy for the DNR.

Fijalkowski remembers more.

"They not only discredited our research but they didn't believe there was a cougar population. To me that's a flip‑flop . These people cannot be trusted. Somebody at the levels above the Wildlife Division is the architect of a campaign of deceit to fool the public here."

Burgoyne says neither he, Humphries, nor some members of her staff recall any "turn‑around" in the Wildlife Division's position about cougars."

Fijalkowski recalls one more notion the meeting minutes don't cover. "They told us to go out and prove it, and that's when we decided to begin our own study."

The original document prepared by Rusz and discussed at the NRC meeting is not a report on his personal research. Rather, it was written before he conducted his field studies in the summer of 2001. About half of the document details the natural history of cougars, especially in the Great Lakes region. The other half, "Evidence of Cougars in Michigan," presents a compilation of cougar sighting reports from the 1930s to 2000. Two of the paper's conclusions: cougars exist in Michigan and the majority are "not likely" escaped or released pets.

The Gold Standard

Fijalkowski mentioned this paper in his Jan. 5 letter: "It is not our intention to discredit the department or get into an argument publicly about this population. In that regard, we would encourage you and your staff to provide comments on the manuscript that Dr. Rusz has authored. We also would be happy to list you or a department representative as a reviewer in the acknowledgements section of the paper."

The proposal was familiar, for in her letter of Jan. 4, Humphries had already written, "We respectfully decline the opportunity to participate in the publication of this report."

Humphries' letter continued: "We have some concerns about the structure and presentation of data; we suggest that you consider submitting it for publication in the Michigan Academician, The Wildlife Society Bulletin, or another peer‑reviewed journal."

Burgoyne said, "As a former researcher, I too, would encourage that."

The Bengal Center published this report, plus it's on the Conservancy's web site, so what's the big deal?

The DNR's Lederle says succinctly, "Peer‑reviewed is the gold standard in scientific information."

Mike DeCapita, the FWS biologist, explains what happens when an author submits a paper to a peer‑reviewed journal.

"The author does not get to pick the reviewers or referees. In most cases, the author never learns the identity of reviewers. This is important, because an anonymous reviewer does not need to worry about politics or causing hard feelings. You can see why this process is so important to science, and why we all should be very careful about purported scientific information that has not been subjected to this type of scrutiny."

Lederle summarizes, "I'm sorry, but putting something on a web site is not publishing."

Adds DeCapita, "Anyone can say or publish anything they want, call it anything they want. Doing so does not make it sound science."

Barbara H. Blake, editor of the Journal of Mammalogy says this: "Peer review is important, because it ensures that a manuscript has been looked at by several other biologists in the same (or a related) field who judge whether the research study was well done, followed basic research principles, used appropriate statistics, and drew reasonable conclusions from the data. It puts a stamp of approval on the study."

Says Rusz, "This really sticks in my craw. The standard scientific research format is for a scientist to spend eight to 10 years in a lab coat then to emerge like Moses with the Ten Commandments. This is in your face, take it to 'em research. We've taken volunteers, teachers, students, reporters out there, and all our data is out there for the public to see.

"Besides," he adds, "it would probably be a $15,000 cost to me or someone if we were to submit to journals."

Many journals do charge to publish papers. Some, like the Journal of Mammalogy, will waive the charges if finances are a problem.

"I don't think not having funds for page charges is a very good reason for not publishing ‑ especially if it is a well‑designed and scientifically sound study," Blake says.

In a nutshell, then, peer‑reviewed literature becomes the linchpin of the entire debate.

It's what prompts Wurfel to say, "It's pretty clear that the line between science and hype has gotten blurry . This is why the DNR has been trying to stay out of this conversation for the past two years. There's just nothing of substance, as far as we're concerned."

It's what provokes Rusz to state clearly, "As far as our methodologies go, they're as scientific as anything."

Next issue of Michigan Outdoor News: Evidence and Implications.