Michigan Outdoor News

April 4, 2003

The ‘cat fight’ conclusion

Editor’s note: Following is the third and final part of a three part series examining the controversy surrounding cougars in Michigan.

By Tom Carney

Correspondent

Lansing — Remember that Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes commercial from a few years back? In it, the actor peers into a magnifying glass, obsessed with pointing out flakes that bear Tony the Tiger’s likeness. Meanwhile, he fails to notice the real Tony running past his window. Likewise, focusing too intently on the controversial aspects of the Michigan cougar question leaves one inspecting the flakes at the risk of missing the cats.

At issue: do any cougars sighted in Michigan represent “a wild cougar population,” as the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy claims, or are they escaped/released pets, the most widely circulated theory of wildlife professionals in Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

Actually, the question has been settled in a way that transcends the debate itself. The evidence speaks clearly but not conclusively.

To begin to understand the relevance of any cougar evidence, it’s important to first understand the term subspecies. To put things in non‑technical terms, let’s say you plan to donate $10,000 from lottery winnings to a Big Ten basketball team in Michigan. Wouldn’t any number of people find it essential that you differentiate between Spartans and Wolverines? That third element, the precise team name, would be the equivalent of a subspecies.

Traditional taxonomy identifies 32 subspecies of Felis concolor, or cougar, in the New World. Two subspecies in eastern North America are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): Felis concolor coryi, the Florida panther; and Felis concolor couguar, the eastern cougar.

Only F.c.couguar is protected in Michigan under the ESA. The ESA does not apply to any other subspecies that might show up here. If Melanie Culver’s findings gain general acceptance in the scientific community, however, the ESA listings could be cast to the winds.

One name appears early and often in nearly every discussion of cougars — Dr. Melanie Culver, a USGS Scientist at the University of Arizona. Her 1999 doctoral thesis for the University of Maryland presents the results and implications of DNA tests on free‑ranging cougars.

“I suggested there are six subspecies based on genetics,” instead of the traditional 32,” she says.

More important: “There is one subspecies covering everything north of Nicaragua which includes all of North America and part of Central America. Its name is that of the oldest described subspecies of that region, which is Puma concolor couguar, which previously covered only the eastern part of North America.”

Furthermore, Culver suggests, “It is currently not possible to distinguish the ‘eastern cougar’ from the western North American cougar regardless of what you call it.”

Culver’s research might be just as interesting for what it cannot prove.

Many of the pumas she tested came from the eastern U.S. “Many times I have found the genetic characteristics to be that of South American pumas. I interpret that to indicate a captive released animal because I know captive breeders often have South American genes in their captive stock.

“A few times I have seen genetic characteristics consistent with a North American puma. In this case there are two possibilities (with no way to distinguish between them), a North American puma or a captive released puma from a captive breeder that keeps North American stock.”

In other words, even if science can tell us a cougar comes from North America, it cannot distinguish between wild and pet.

Nevertheless, Brad Swanson says, “For the research we’re doing, it won’t matter whether they’re North American or South American.”

Dr. Swanson runs the Applied Technologies in Conservation Genetics Laboratory at Central Michigan University that the Conservancy has hired to analyze over 250 samples of suspected cougar scat (dung) from Michigan.

As a way of explaining the tests he’s conducting, Swanson compares them to the various techniques for making dairy products. Like the milk taken from a cow, DNA is extracted from the source (animal tissues, scat, hairs). Just as different processes turn the milk into cheese, butter, or cream, for example, Culver’s methods allow him to determine three things: cougar or not; if cougar, its mother’s continent of origin; and its individual markers.

Though he figures he’ll need another year to finish testing the samples, in November 2002, Swanson gave the Conservancy a preliminary report of his findings. Of the eight scat samples tested, one came from a bobcat and seven from cougars. But he says the specimens can tell him more.

“We’re looking to see how much territory each cat uses. Hoping to use the scat to map out home ranges. We might find a difference in how their territories compare to others’ where they are higher in population but without as many deer or with more competitors such as in Yellowstone with wolves.

“It would be interesting to describe the characteristics of the Michigan population: the number of males vs. females, is it a breeding population? How many animals there are? Are some North American and some South American? There is a chance we would be able to say that this is a unique group of cougars. Then we’d have a more interesting discussion.”

But he still won’t be able to determine conclusively if the cougars are wild. Even Dr. Pat Rusz of the Conservancy acknowledges that.

“The best we can do is to produce a probability,” he says, “by testing captive cougars. If they all have South American markers, and if we find some cougars that don’t, we can say it’s a high probability that they are wild.”

Recent data collected on cougars in other states might offer a glimpse at the most anyone will be able to determine about any cougar specimens in Michigan.

In July 2000, a train killed a cougar in Randolph County, Illinois. In their report, researchers from Southern Illinois University say, “genetic data were used to verify that the cougar was of North American origin and not an escaped or released cougar of South American origin.”

In October 2002, a cougar was killed by a car in Kansas City, Missouri. Tissue samples were sent to Swanson at CMU who determined the cat was of North American origin. Once again, wildlife biologists could only speculate that it was “probably” wild.

Ray Rustem, Natural Heritage Unit Supervisor for the DNR sums up the situation for anyone interested in Michigan’s cougar controversy.

“Are all cats in Michigan released cats? The answer is ‘We do not know.’ Do we have wild cats establishing territories? The answer is ‘We do not know.’ Are the cats part of a remnant population? We can neither prove nor disprove this theory.”