Proceedings of the Seventh Mountain Lion Workshop

80 CRYPTIC COUGARS · Tischendorf
be considered a western wanderer or
escaped or released captive (Tischendorf
1994b, Cardoza and Langlois 2002).
Clouding the issue is the fact that much of
the Midwest was considered original range
of F. c. schorgeri, the supposed “Wisconsin
puma” which technically fits neither into the
ESA nor the eastern cougar recovery plan of
1982, which in any case has never been
implemented (Nowak 1976, Hall 1981,
USFWS 1982).
As Albert Einstein reportedly said,
“Perfection of means and confusion of goals
seem, in my opinion, to characterize our
age.” More simply, sometimes the process
can get in the way of the purpose. Clearly,
the Endangered Species Act is meant to
protect rare animals. Equally apparent, the
puma from the Great Plains eastward is rare.
Should the ESA unequivocally and
ultimately serve as a tool to protect this lithe
and golden ghost as it reestablishes itself
across its original range? Or can the case be
made that federal delisting, in concert with
state or multi-state management plans and
agreements, unencumbered by federal
oversight, may more favorably serve the
puma of the Great Plains, Midwest, and
East?
The Jaguar Conservation Team
(JAGCT), a diverse coalition of agencies
and individuals working together to develop
and implement a sound plan for protecting
and conserving jaguars in the Southwest,
may serve as a template organization for
those involved with puma recovery east of
the Rocky Mountains. Formed in 1997,
prior to listing of the jaguar as an
endangered species north of Mexico by the
USFWS, the JAGCT operates under a
formal conservation agreement with the
USFWS and today functions as an ad hoc
jaguar recovery team (Bill Van Pelt, Arizona
Game and Fish Department, personal
communication). In essence, the JAGCT
attempts to preempt the potential for heavy-
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEVENTH MOUNTAIN LION WORKSHOP
handedness and long-distance directives of
the ESA by working locally with all its
stakeholders to proactively find effective
solutions to conflict (Bill Van Pelt, Arizona
Game and Fish Department, personal
communication).
For now the future of eastern or
midwestern pumas is largely tied to the
ESA. Certainly similarity of appearance
semantics related to pumas and the ESA in
Florida have symbiotically done much to
pave the way for puma recovery elsewhere
east of the Rockies. Still, if the ESA is to
play a pivotal role, it clearly requires
modification to recognize P. concolor in
terms of individuals and populations,
without regard to an obsolete concept of
subspecies, as the rare animal that east of the
Rocky Mountains it truly is (Tischendorf
1994c, 1995). Such modification would
thus effectively resolve the unintentional but
critical double standard for recovery that
exists for pumas in Florida versus those
elsewhere in the East and Midwest. Based
on the powerful southern precedent,
similarity of appearance protection for all
free-ranging non-nuisance pumas and
potential puma populations today and
tomorrow, not only in Florida, but those
from the Great Plains eastward, would be a
simple, logical, and consistent step
(Tischendorf 1994c, 1995; Cardoza and
Langlois 2002).
In the northern Rockies with the wolf,
and in Florida with the puma, recovery has
been facilitated by formal restoration efforts.
It is questionable whether such
governmentally sanctioned activities will be
carried out to enhance natural cougar
recovery in eastern or midwestern North
America. Economic issues certainly exist,
witness the budgets necessary for not only
gray wolf and panther restoration, but those
for other high-profile endangered species
like the red wolf (Canis rufus), black-footed
ferret (Mustela nigripes), whooping crane