Sections Conservancy pleads case for existence of cougars By Tom Carney Correspondent Bath, Mich. — Faced with mounting criticism of its methods and doubts over its conclusions, the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy has shifted gears in its attempt to prove the state is home to a native, wild, breeding population of cougars. In recent communications, Conservancy officials have responded to the criticism by leveling charges against others and by directing pleas to their supporters. “Help us convince people that the claims we have made are credible,” Conservancy executive director Dennis Fijalkowski urges in a Dec. 19, 2003 memorandum obtained by Michigan Outdoor News. An earlier press release trumpeted the Conservancy’s role in the National Park Service’s decision to erect “cougar warning signs” in the Sleeping Bear National Lakeshore. Officials there, however, said the Conservancy played no part in their decision. In his memo, Fijalkowski claims that an alleged cougar sighting in the park, “totally freaked the National Park Service.” He mentions but fails to identify a federal law that “requires that the National Park Service consult with the state fish and game agency on any such matter.” According to Max Holden, biologist at Sleeping Bear, there is no such law. “None whatsoever. We cooperate as a matter of courtesy and share information, but there is no law,” he said. Holden denied a rumor that Sleeping Bear officials consulted with Dr. Pat Rusz, the Conservancy’s director of wildlife programs, about the wording on the signs. Fijalkowski accuses the Michigan DNR of further subterfuge. “In their desperation, they’re starting to attack us in the press, personally, professionally, and on a science level.” But, says Brad Wurfel, DNR press secretary, “Anyone who thinks this is a campaign has grossly overestimated our level of interest in the drama side of this debate.” Adds DNR Deputy Director George Burgoyne, “I am not aware of anyone on our staff seeking out opportunities to comment on cougars. When our staff is contacted about cougars it appears to me that they have been very careful to restrict their comments to what little we do and do not know about cougars and to avoid speculation about what others may be saying.” Wurfel continues, “… if anything, the DNR has been frustrated with the mainstream media’s eager acceptance of the idea of a resident cougar population in Michigan, and our position in mainstream press accounts statewide has either been muted or distorted by reporters who missed the real issue. “Rhetoric wars create an ‘us versus them’ mentality that obscures the real issue, which for us is strictly scientific. They believe they’ve got the science to make a conclusion. We have not seen any scientific proof that warrants the conclusion they’ve reached. Since the DNR bears the responsibility for managing the resources on behalf of the people of this state, we also bear the responsibility for making those management decisions based on hard scientific evidence.” Keith Groty, past president of the Conservancy, challenged the DNR to do something about the evidence as presented. “If there isn’t good science … or if it needs to be checked … why isn’t the agency in charge of doing the good science doing it?” he asked. Officials say the Conservancy spokespersons had misrepresented the results of DNA tests performed at the Wyoming Game and Fish lab. Groty called the misrepresentation a minor oversight. “Even if you slice back the DNA evidence, there is so much information it’s like knock any one piece of it down, and there’s enough remaining to say this needs to be taken seriously,” he said. Fijalkowski and Rusz have said the Wyoming lab confirmed that scat samples Rusz submitted definitely came from cougar. They said the DNA came from “North American” cats, an indicator that the cougars possibly, but not indisputably, came from wild stock. But that’s not what the lab found, according to two lab workers and the written report that was sent to Rusz. Once determined to be Feline, the scat was never tested for any cougar markers. Lab manager Tom Moore added, “No other conclusions could be made from the limited testing conducted by the Wyoming Game and Fish lab.” Groty remained unfazed. “Is all of our data bad or just one little piece of it? All of the information we have is not just what Dr. Rusz found in the field. A lot has been reported by citizens.” But the Wyoming people raised an additional issue. Forensic supervisor Dee Dee Hawk said, “One of the reasons we distanced ourselves from Rusz is he had no scientific objectivity. You can’t have an end point determined and try to make the science get you there.” Groty claimed it was the Conservancy not the Wyoming scientists that severed the relationship: “We walked away, saying, ‘Since we don’t have the data or the samples we can’t use that.’ We haven’t been using that in anything we’ve done recently.” The Conservancy states that cougar expert Harley Shaw verified photos Rusz took of alleged cougar kill sites. In an interview with Michigan Outdoor News, Shaw denied the verification and said that for reasons similar to Dee Dee Hawk’s he had broken off relations with the Conservancy and asked that his name not be used in connection with its research. An August 2002 attack on livestock in Kalkaska County and an animal sighting by a Monroe County animal control officer in June 2003 produced photos of tracks. In both instances, Rusz identified the tracks as “cougar.” Recently, however, several out-of-state experts, at the request of the Eastern Cougar Network, examined the photos and determined it “unlikely” that a cougar was involved in Kalkaska. John Young, mammalogist for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, cited several details about the Monroe County track that led him to believe is was “not that of a mountain lion.” Darrell Land and Mark Lotz, biologists on the panther research team for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, went a step further and identified it as the track of a dog. More recently, the Eastern Cougar Network posted a document from Dr. Rusz that summarizes the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy’s “stronger evidence” of a cougar population in Michigan. (http://www.easterncougarnet.org/uppermidwest.htm.) Among his evidence for Menominee County: “Cougar sighting in 1991 by Jim Ekdahl, then district law supervisor, DNR, now deputy director, DNR.” Ekdahl has responded: “I have never made a report of a cougar sighting during my DNR career, nor have I ever been contacted by Mr. (sic.) Rusz to discuss whether I ever reported a cougar sighting. Any document or statement to the effect that I made a report of a cougar sighting is erroneous.” Jan 23, 2004