# MI Cougar



## KEN C

Nice Urban Legend
http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/patiomountainlion.asp


----------



## woodsrat

Linda G. said:


> I had reserved an opinion on the discovery of this track or tracks until just the other day, when I had a chance to look into it a bit further.
> 
> I believe it is very possible that a cougar or two is wandering around the western UP-there has been one documented just in the last couple of weeks in Wisconsin, I think it is, maybe Minnesota. They've got blood, tracks and hair on that animal. Plus a couple of blurry photos from reputable sources. Since cougars are known to have very large territories, especially in the winter, I thought it very possible that a cat seen in Wisconsin could have been in Delta County a couple of weeks later. There is still the matter, too, of the hair found in the Iron Mountain area, although that was never explained any further and occurred several years ago.
> 
> Then, on Sunday, I read an article about the discovery of the cougar track in Delta County. Guess who discovered it...a diehard member of the Michigan Wildlife Consrvancy.
> 
> That's all it took for me...
> 
> It's possible that the DNR has taken so much ridicule from various other state game agencies in the last few years, not to mention the Feds, for caving in to this organization by creating a website poage on cougars and spending closely held funds to send biologists out west to study cougars that they're now eager to prove they spent their money wisely...or something like that.
> 
> I don't know...I just know I'm not about to believe anything that comes out of the mouth of someone from the MWC unless it is accompanied by a live cougar seen by lots of people in the wild that has DNA proven to be wild...
> 
> You look back on all of this stuff over the last decade and you realize how absurd it is for scientific agencies to get caught up in all of this...and that, I'm sure is what the DNR is concerned about.


What is this? It sounds like "flip-flop". First you sound like you're saying that it is possible for Cougars to be roaming into the U.P. and then you say the track was found by the MWC and that causes you to lose confidence in the tracks. Well the track is posted on the DNR website. Confirmed by their own trained biologists. And what do you say now? Now the DNR is only confirming it as a Cougar track to justify having a Cougar page on their website? :lol::lol::lol: I think you've gone off on a trip to conspiracy-land.

I've avoided this site for quite some time now and only very occasionally drop in. The constant, childish Cougar debates and the cop bashing soured me to the site quite frankly.

Linda, let's face it. If you alienate the DNR your "bread and butter" as a writer may be in jeopardy. You have so vehemently denied the possibility of Cougars in Michigan that you would have the proverbial "foot in mouth" if one were confirmed by the DNR now. Therefore, you are not an unbiased person when it comes to this matter. You have damaged your credibility on this topic in your rush to judgement and I think you have been proven wrong and will only be more wrong in the near future.

Incidentally, your "tune" seems to have changed a bit since I last argued with you on this topic.


----------



## Linda G.

Get a grip. 

Read some of the hundreds of threads on cougars on this forum and look for my posts. I have said, repeatedly, that I believe it is entirely possible for a cougar or two to be roaming around the western UP. Repeatedly. I have also repeatedly said I do not believe it's likely for a WILD cougar to be making a home in Sterling Heights, Monroe, etc. 

As for the DNR, I've been "alienating" them for years. Which I'm not worried about, neither are they. I am not concerned about my career, it's very solid right now, believe me. Better than it's ever been. And not likely to change because of what, god forbid, the DNR might think of me...LOL

Believe me, sometimes I wish my career wasn't so solid right now...I might have time to get outside and do something. 

Last time you hollered at me, you accused me of "sucking up" to the DNR. 

I think every responsible sportsman on this site is already well aware of what a political entity the DNR is...unfortunately, their concern for the environment and our natural resources comes second to keeping their jobs. 

You're a trip...LOL


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI

OUCH! somebody just got SPANKED:yikes:


----------



## swampbuck

woodsrat said:


> What is this? It sounds like "flip-flop". First you sound like you're saying that it is possible for Cougars to be roaming into the U.P. and then you say the track was found by the MWC and that causes you to lose confidence in the tracks. Well the track is posted on the DNR website. Confirmed by their own trained biologists. And what do you say now? Now the DNR is only confirming it as a Cougar track to justify having a Cougar page on their website? :lol::lol::lol: I think you've gone off on a trip to conspiracy-land.
> 
> I've avoided this site for quite some time now and only very occasionally drop in. The constant, childish Cougar debates and the cop bashing soured me to the site quite frankly.
> 
> Linda, let's face it. If you alienate the DNR your "bread and butter" as a writer may be in jeopardy. You have so vehemently denied the possibility of Cougars in Michigan that you would have the proverbial "foot in mouth" if one were confirmed by the DNR now. Therefore, you are not an unbiased person when it comes to this matter. You have damaged your credibility on this topic in your rush to judgement and I think you have been proven wrong and will only be more wrong in the near future.
> 
> Incidentally, your "tune" seems to have changed a bit since I last argued with you on this topic.


:lol:


----------



## KEN C

Gentlemen 
Linda is a credible journalist, so lets not start this again. If you do a little research on the subject via credible media outlets you will find there is no concrete evidence of cougars.mountain lions in Michigan. You have to go further west to find concrete evidence IE DNA, and I do not mean DNA off somebodys car bumper.:lol:
Big Picture
http://www.cougarnet.org/totalus.html
Taken From:http://www.easterncougarnet.org/
Cougars are elusive animals, seldom seen even by experienced outdoorsmen. Even when a sighting occurs, it is often fleeting, e.g., a few seconds, before the subject disappears into vegetation. Sightings thought to be cougars are often misidentifications that are in actuality dogs, bobcats, house cats, deer, or other wildlife. Thus, only sightings backed by tangible physical evidence can be considered confirmations.

The Cougar Network employs two classifications for &#8220;Confirmations&#8221;:

Class 1 Confirmations:

The body of a dead cougar, or a live captured animal 
Photographs (including video) 
DNA evidence (hair, scat, etc.)* 
Class 2 Confirmations:

Track sets verified by a qualified professional 
Other tangible, physical evidence verified by a qualified professional (i.e., prey carcasses, microscopic hair recognition, thin-layer chromatography of scat) 
*DNA evidence alone should be interpreted with caution. Confirmation from two independent laboratories and/or photographs from remote cameras at predetermined DNA collection sites will enhance confidence in cougar activity.


----------



## woodsrat

KEN C said:


> Gentlemen
> Linda is a credible journalist, so lets not start this again. If you do a little research on the subject via credible media outlets you will find there is no concrete evidence of cougars.mountain lions in Michigan. You have to go further west to find concrete evidence IE DNA, and I do not mean DNA off somebodys car bumper.:lol:


Credibility is in the eye of the beholder (or reader) in this instance. I think Linda writes well and have enjoyed many of her articles. However, when it comes to the Cougar topic she can no longer be the unbiased, fact finding reporter/writer. She has so vehemently argued her personal beliefs on this matter that any stance she takes now would be "tainted" to say the least. Let's face it. Linda G. writes articles for a living. She is a writer. Her topics of writing are the outdoors; hunting, wildlife, the DNR etc. That career cannot be separated from what she writes about on this forum. She is a writer of outdoors articles writing/posting on an internet forum dedicated to the outdoor sports in Michigan. One in the same in my opinion and quite different from say, a cop or plumber writing their opinions on the Cougar topic.
Also, since I "met" Linda on this site, I have had some wonder if her position on this whole Cougar issue is mirrored by the publications that she has written articles for. That's what happens when you write for the media. It's kind of like what Dan Rather says gets associated with CBS or what Don Imus says gets associated with NBC.


----------



## woodsrat

Let's talk about "credible evidence" of Cougars in Michigan for a moment. It is widely accepted that "circumstantial evidence" is indeed evidence and sometimes it is very strong evidence in and of itself. Lawyers like to use this example to explain circumstantial evidence to a jury: "Let's imagine that you are inside your home and it has no windows. Your wife/husband walks into the house from outside. They are wearing a rain coat and carrying an umbrella. They and the umbrella are very wet and water is running off them. Just then you hear a clap of thunder and see a bolt of lightning through the partially open door. You also hear what sounds like rain hitting the roof of the house. You have not actually been outside to see for yourself if it is indeed raining. But the circumstances of what I just described lead you to draw a conclusion that it is indeed raining. THAT is circumstantial evidence."

Finding what trained DNR biologists have determined to be a Cougar track combined with all the other circumstantial evidence in other cases and even bordering states is telling us it is probably raining outside.


----------



## woodsrat

KEN C said:


> Gentlemen
> Linda is a credible journalist, so lets not start this again. If you do a little research on the subject via credible media outlets you will find there is no concrete evidence of cougars.mountain lions in Michigan. You have to go further west to find concrete evidence IE DNA, and I do not mean DNA off somebodys car bumper.:lol:
> Big Picture
> http://www.cougarnet.org/totalus.html
> Taken From:http://www.easterncougarnet.org/
> Cougars are elusive animals, seldom seen even by experienced outdoorsmen. Even when a sighting occurs, it is often fleeting, e.g., a few seconds, before the subject disappears into vegetation. Sightings thought to be cougars are often misidentifications that are in actuality dogs, bobcats, house cats, deer, or other wildlife. Thus, only sightings backed by tangible physical evidence can be considered confirmations.
> 
> The Cougar Network employs two classifications for Confirmations:
> 
> Class 1 Confirmations:
> 
> The body of a dead cougar, or a live captured animal
> Photographs (including video)
> DNA evidence (hair, scat, etc.)*
> Class 2 Confirmations:
> 
> Track sets verified by a qualified professional
> Other tangible, physical evidence verified by a qualified professional (i.e., prey carcasses, microscopic hair recognition, thin-layer chromatography of scat)
> *DNA evidence alone should be interpreted with caution. Confirmation from two independent laboratories and/or photographs from remote cameras at predetermined DNA collection sites will enhance confidence in cougar activity.


You edited your post. I find it interesting that you posted something from the Eastern Cougar Network's website because there were many people on this site, not that long ago, who argued that their evidence wasn't credible either.

Also, if you look at their "Class 2 Confirmation" information you will see that the TRAINED DNR Biologists who identified these tracks as Cougar tracks constitute a "Class 2 Confirmation" with the Eastern Cougar Net folks. So your point is what?

For the naysayers, the argument remains the same; no evidence of a resident, breeding population of Cougars. That's fine and I can agree with that. It's the ignorant references to sightings of Bigfoot and Elvis attached to this topic that I find childish and annoying. 
From the viewpoint of someone who believes in the possibility of a resident, breeding population in our state it seems like each and every time a piece of credible evidence is found it is discounted by the naysayers. The naysayers want DNA, somebody hits a cat and the DNA says "Cougar". Not good enough for the naysayer because they want live action video to go along with it. Then they want tracks to be confirmed by someone from the DNR and not just the MWC or some other private entity. That happens and the naysayer says that the DNR only confirmed the tracks as Cougar because they had to justify the Cougar page on their website and justify the cost of sending four employees to Cougar School in New Mexico. The naysayer says they want video. They get video and it is disputed and picked apart as not credible even though some very credible people examined it and found it to be credible. The naysayer says sightings aren't enough because people in Michigan are dumb and don't know what a Cougar looks like. The person reports the sighting and immediately the naysayer discounts the sighting because the person is either mistaken or just plain lying. It must be nice to be a naysayer. There isn't much effort in it.


----------



## BVW

woodsrat said:


> Finding what trained DNR biologists have determined to be a Cougar track combined with all the other circumstantial evidence in other cases and even bordering states is telling us it is probably raining outside.


This is not exactly true.. The DNR has never used the words "confirmed" or determined... They said "may be" and the expects they sent the photo to said "Most likely".. 
Woods, Would you help convict a family member or anyone else and put them in prison for the rest of thier lives if they "may be" or "most likely" commited the crime? Would you argue with someone that says "may be" and "most likely" are not enough evidence to convict someone? Do you think it's good science to say "may be" or "most likely" and call it a fact? 
How about if an organization (MWC) stands to profit from this conviction and has been found guilty of fruad in the past.. Would you accept thier testamony as truth and use it to convict someone? Also if all the "Circumstancial" evidence came from this same fraudulant Org would you or any other judge in the country take it as credible? 
The MWC is responsible for the evidence... They have house cats on thier website and call them Cougars... You really think this is the group of people you should listen to and take thier evidence as fact? IF a group that has been found guilty of BS many times over is responsible for putting your family member in prison wouldnt you have a problem with that?? That is all Linda and a few others are saying IMO.
You don't find it at all fishy that the 1st "possible" Cougar track just happend to come from a member of this group? 
http://www.easterncougar.org/newltr_pdf/ecfnew_spring05w.pdf 

Not looking to argue with ya woods, i know your a good guy, just my opinion.


----------



## KEN C

Lets just read what MWC stands for:
"Cougars in Michigan we proved there here now help us protect them" MWC Web site: http://www.miwildlife.org/
Hmm, you think that maybe if they convince the DNR and the general public that cougars are in a specific area that maybe they can also then get that area closed to hunting and recreational use due to Endangered Species Act. 

You really need to be careful when you view there evidence. This latest track was found by one of there long time members and supporters. Oh and BTW he found the track and then waited one day to call MDNR. 
The county I am farmilar with Presque Isle county mi we had a similar incident tracks carcass etc etc a few years ago. Guess what same deal MWC member was the finder of the evidence. It just seems fishy to me thats all. Trust me it would be neat to see a cougar in the wilds of Michigan, but with Trail Cams, 750,000 Deer Hunters, Bird Watchers, Snow Mobilers, ATV Riders and everyone else that spends time in the great outdoors. Still no irefutable evidence.


----------



## woodsrat

BVW said:


> This is not exactly true.. The DNR has never used the words "confirmed" or determined... They said "may be" and the expects they sent the photo to said "Most likely"..
> Woods, Would you help convict a family member or anyone else and put them in prison for the rest of thier lives if they "may be" or "most likely" commited the crime? Would you argue with someone that says "may be" and "most likely" are not enough evidence to convict someone? Do you think it's good science to say "may be" or "most likely" and call it a fact?
> How about if an organization (MWC) stands to profit from this conviction and has been found guilty of fruad in the past.. Would you accept thier testamony as truth and use it to convict someone? Also if all the "Circumstancial" evidence came from this same fraudulant Org would you or any other judge in the country take it as credible?
> The MWC is responsible for the evidence... They have house cats on thier website and call them Cougars... You really think this is the group of people you should listen to and take thier evidence as fact? IF a group that has been found guilty of BS many times over is responsible for putting your family member in prison wouldnt you have a problem with that?? That is all Linda and a few others are saying IMO.
> You don't find it at all fishy that the 1st "possible" Cougar track just happend to come from a member of this group?
> http://www.easterncougar.org/newltr_pdf/ecfnew_spring05w.pdf
> 
> Not looking to argue with ya woods, i know your a good guy, just my opinion.


Fill us in. What "fraud" was the MWC guilty of? What "fraud" were they suspected of? I have no clue what you're talking about, so please enlighten me. I really don't care what the MWC says or does, but I am curious what you are speaking about.


----------



## woodsrat

KEN C said:


> Lets just read what MWC stands for:
> "Cougars in Michigan we proved there here now help us protect them" MWC Web site: http://www.miwildlife.org/
> Hmm, you think that maybe if they convince the DNR and the general public that cougars are in a specific area that maybe they can also then get that area closed to hunting and recreational use due to Endangered Species Act.
> 
> You really need to be careful when you view there evidence. This latest track was found by one of there long time members and supporters. Oh and BTW he found the track and then waited one day to call MDNR.
> The county I am farmilar with Presque Isle county mi we had a similar incident tracks carcass etc etc a few years ago. Guess what same deal MWC member was the finder of the evidence. It just seems fishy to me thats all. Trust me it would be neat to see a cougar in the wilds of Michigan, but with Trail Cams, 750,000 Deer Hunters, Bird Watchers, Snow Mobilers, ATV Riders and everyone else that spends time in the great outdoors. Still no irefutable evidence.


750,000 deer hunters and about 2/3 of them don't go any further into the woods than they have to because they don't want to haul their bags of carrots, tent blind, comfy chair, heater, thermos etc. etc. etc. any farther than they have to. I bow hunted a piece of federal land in the Luther swamp for five years. It was about a 1/2 mile walk to the nearest road. The only other signs of humans were from loggers.:lol: I like to hunt public land because part of my strategy involves going where most hunters are too lazy to walk to. Guess what? The deer know that too.:lol:

From what you said, we're now back to the claim that there are "no cougars in Michigan" instead of there's "no resident, breeding population in Michigan."


----------



## dogwhistle

we could save everyone a lot of trouble and just repost the old threads. it's always the same, a lot of alledged sightings, maybe a questionable track or more questionable photo, but never any hard evidence.

more importantly there are cases, such as the alledged killing of a horse in jackson? co last year. there absolutely should be dna evidence from that that could show two things; whether or not it was a cougar and if so, whether it was a wild animal or south american captive that was released.

but there is never any followup on it. there is the initial sensational media report followed by a number of other "sightings", then supposedly an investigation and that's it. no followup and the animal disappears without a trace, never another report in the area.

all that leaves me more than a bit skeptical. circumstantial evidence is what defense attorneys may use to confuse a jury. but good dna evidence will get you a conviction- beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## Linda G.

Funny that you come out of the woodwork just for threads like this...hmmm...either a died in the wool member (or possibly wool pulled over your eyes?) member of the MWC, or possibly even a board member or major philanthropist of that august organization...??? LOL

And, although my credentials have nothing to do with the credibility of the existence of a cougar in the UP or the MWC:

"Let's face it. Linda G. writes articles for a living. She is a writer. Her topics of writing are the outdoors; hunting, wildlife, the DNR etc. That career cannot be separated from what she writes about on this forum. She is a writer of outdoors articles writing/posting on an internet forum dedicated to the outdoor sports in Michigan. One in the same in my opinion and quite different from say, a cop or plumber writing their opinions on the Cougar topic.
Also, since I "met" Linda on this site, I have had some wonder if her position on this whole Cougar issue is mirrored by the publications that she has written articles for. That's what happens when you write for the media. It's kind of like what Dan Rather says gets associated with CBS or what Don Imus says gets associated with NBC."


For the record, I am no longer an outdoor writer. Haven't been for the last year and a half. In fact, I've done very little outdoor writing at all for the past TWO years. I don't have time anymore. And I haven't changed my mind a bit about cougars in Michigan or the MWC.


----------



## woodsrat

Linda G. said:


> Funny that you come out of the woodwork just for threads like this...hmmm...either a died in the wool member (or possibly wool pulled over your eyes?) member of the MWC, or possibly even a board member or major philanthropist of that august organization...??? LOL............


I don't know much about the MWC except that according to BVW they are guilty of some sort of fraud. I am not a member nor do I have any affiliation whatsoever with the MWC.
Can someone be kind enough to let me know why this MWC is so despised on this forum?


----------



## Munsterlndr

No dog (or cougar) in this fight but I have to say that I agree with Linda that anything coming from MWC has to be viewed with a MAJOR grain of salt, as they have consistently shown to push bogus claims of finding evidence of Cougars. Still waiting for a trail cam photo to confirm the mythical Sleeping Bear Dunes cougar that was viewed by so many "Eyewitness's". I have a trail cam out year round near the National Lakeshore and I've gotten pics of Bear, Bobcat, Fox, Coyote, Deer as well as pretty much every other small native mammal but I'm still waiting for a Cougar to show up. With tens of thousands of trail cams out in the woods, year round, it would be very surprising if somebody did not get a picture of a Cougar that could be verified, if there was really a breeding population present in this State. As Linda said, it is marginally possible that a Cougar or two could have strayed into the Western UP but claims of seeing them in the EUP or the LP are a bit much.


----------



## MrFysch

My brother ... who along wth myself have hunted all over the country saw a cougar up on the mission peninsula 2 summers ago under a fruit tree...he took pictures of it but it was 300 yards away. No clear defined picture but definitely has a long tail. No way hed make up anything like that.


----------



## woodsrat

MrFysch said:


> My brother ... who along wth myself have hunted all over the country saw a cougar up on the mission peninsula 2 summers ago under a fruit tree...he took pictures of it but it was 300 yards away. No clear defined picture but definitely has a long tail. No way hed make up anything like that.


Well. According to the experts on this site, your brother was really witnessing a yellow lab or a bobcat. It could have even been a housecat because at 300 yards optical illusions happen causing you to think things are bigger than they appear. Did he get DNA? Scat? Tracks? Video? A live capture? No? Well then. It didn't really happen then. Sorry.


----------



## Munsterlndr

MrFysch said:


> My brother ... who along wth myself have hunted all over the country saw a cougar up on the mission peninsula 2 summers ago under a fruit tree...he took pictures of it but it was 300 yards away. No clear defined picture but definitely has a long tail. No way hed make up anything like that.


It's these kind of well intentioned but clearly unlikely stories that beg credibility. Are you familiar with the Old Mission Peninsula? I grew up on it and lived on it for 20 some years. My family still owns property all over the peninsula. Unless said Cougar swam across East Grand Traverse Bay from Antrim County (several miles across), the only access to the Peninsula is through a heavily developed urban area. There is virtually no way a Cougar is going to wander through a large part of Traverse City, to get to the Peninsula, without being observed. 

The OLM is also a heavily recreated area with joggers, runners, cross country skiers, cyclers, etc, being very common. It just begs any semblance of credibility to think that someone would not have seen a foot print or two, if there was a cougar roaming the Peninsula. Orchards do not provide much cover and the vast majority of the land on the OLM is either orchard or vineyard or has been subdivided and built on. There are very few areas that have woodlots larger than 10-20 acres, that would provide the habitat that a cougar would look for. Virtually, no swamps of any size and none of the woodland is impenetrable brush that could provide cover. The only woods of any size is the Township park at the very tip and it is infested with dog walkers and joggers & skiers pretty much year round. Tour buses stop there every day during the summer months. 

It's highly likely that what he saw was a yellow lab since, labs and goldens seem to be the prevalent dogs of choice inhabiting the OLM. But a Cougar? Call me a skeptic.


----------

