mr.bass pro shops

i know this sounds stupidis it possable to find a moutain lion or a cougar or a panther in ohio kentucky and indiana the storys are going around may be they sre storys may be they are true or maybe u can tell me
i know about the bobcats those are true

biscuit jake

Noone is jumping on this, so I will chime in. If the locals say they saw a cougar, I would not doubt them. It is a whole lot bigger than a linx or bobcat. But the population is a whole lot higher out west. At one of the local hunting stores, a guy shot a #165 cat in Colorado, handgun hunting. I track cougar range because I jog (they can call me back up to age 60) and would thus be on the lunch menu. There has been 1 report in Iowa lately. They eat joggers and bikers in Calif. on what appears to be a regular basis.

BrutalAttack

As far as biologists are concerned (I am one also), the cougars NA range typically doesn't include those states you mentioned. However, it is possible that one could have wandered down from WI, MI, or PA. I have my serious doubts however. This has been an ongoing controversy for several years and there has yet to be any verifiable evidence such as a carcass or high quality photograph, despite the efforts of a number of interested individuals. The best thing to do would be to check with your local state wildlife agency.

Coastie

The scientific community has developed a reputation over the past 20-30 years for being inaccurate, deceitful and down right dishonest when things come up that they have no easy answers for. If one of their own doesn't confirm something they have a tendency to pooh-pooh all other evedence, anecdotal or otherwise and tell people that something doesn't exist. I believe that if a population of anything exists in an area thatisn't large enough to be a breeding population, biologist have a tendency to ignore it and state that it just isn't there. Plaster casts of prints are either called inconclusive or useless, photos are nearly always of too poor a quality to determine the species. The list of excuses goes on and on. There is always the old "Escaped from captivity or turned loose by owner" story too. Just because an animal may have escaped or been turned loose, does not alter the fact that it is present in an area. Breeding populations of native animals get the interest and funds for studies and management and all others are relegated to the nuisance category. You ask for verifiable evidence such as a carcass or skeletal remains, anybody that spends any time in the woods knows that carcasses of even animals that are common to an area, such as deer, are not something you walk up on every time you go out. Nature has a way of having this evidence removed in a fairly short time in most instances, including bones and skulls. All of North America, well into Canada, Central America and South America were the range of the Mountain Lion at one time, why it is so difficult for the Scientific community to accept the existance of these animals, in whatever numbers, today in areas that offer even minimal habitat is beyond comprehension.

BrutalAttack

Well, you answered your own question. Where there exists minimal habitat we would assume that there wouldn't be a breeding population but possibly a transient animal or a few animals moving through. These things have a way of becoming apparent if there is indeed a breeding population. A cat would get hit by a car or someone would tree a cat or some other suchinstance would occur. I'm the first to admit thatlack of evidence doesn't mean they aren't there but until we know for sure, we use the best information available to make management decisions.

Also, sightings and other types of subjective evidence are not used in making management decisions. If Joe-bob thinks he sees a cougar, we can't go spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to look at cougars in an area just because he thinks he saw one. That would be irresponsible, we are after all, public servants first. Sightings like that have a nasty tendency to get out of hand and therefore are not considered reliable evidence (see Bigfoot).

"The scientific community has developed a reputation over the past 20-30 years for being inaccurate, deceitful and down right dishonest when things come up that they have no easy answers for."

Well if your going to fire off a rediculous statement like that I suggest being prepared to back it up with verifiable facts and case studies where you can objectively prove your statement. Funny how those "scientific" things like logic, objectiveness, and fact keep popping up. Hrrm could this be how logical people seek out truth? Gee, I guess it's possible...

Gundigest

We have had cougars in Michigan for some time now. The stupid DNR would not admitt to their existance yet they still made them illegal to shoot in the game book. It took a few years of spottings before they have even started to admitt they are around. I know a few people who have seen them and I myself have seen one once in Central Michigan (Remus area to be exact).

If the locals are saying they have seen them, they probably have.

BrutalAttack

So I suppose you believe in Bigfoot then? It's not as simple as you make it out to be. You can't just as a biologist say: "oh well we have cougars now so go head and open up the season on em". I don't know what you want them to do with so little information.

i shoot stuff

my dad and uncle saw one walking on the train tracks. i forget what it was. i think it was a bobcat. i live in ohio. also theres something up were i hunt at by my grandmaws house. they think its a cougar/mountain lion/bobcat

BrutalAttack

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/i/a/saa05.html

by the way, these are all the same species. North American cougar/mountain lion/panther/puma/whatever are all the same species Puma (or Felis) concolor

Gundigest

It doesn't matter if there is 1 or 1000 if the state does not recognize their existance in the state then they should not be illegal to shoot them. It would be like having a MI law against shooting Tigers or catching sharks.