the couger declared extinct.

[oakranger]

There's actually a lot of speculation over puma subspecies.  We like to divide them here in NA into a Florida variety, California variety, and eastern and western varieties, but some consider them to actually just be seperate populations of the same animal.

I believe they are divide into sub-spices by their DNA. 

i see your point, but just because someone offers $$$ for the furs&bodies of the animal, does that make it allright to hunt it to extinction over?
especially an animal that was allready on the endangered species list to begin with?

over in iran, a man put out an add saying he will pay $$$ for body parts of killed americans.

that man is offering $$$, so does that make it ok to hunt americans and sell there body parts?


i have nothing against hunting in its true form:for survival. when you hunt to eat the meat. but when your in a part of the world that is allmost overrun with deers, do you really need to hunt an endangered animal for its meat?
and most of these cougers probally werent even killed because of that. they were most likely killed out of ignorance. people look at a big predator like that, and they immediatly think "kill it!". its like how most people react to snakes. if you see a snake in your field, 8/10 people would try to kill it instead of just letting the snake go along its way. if the cougers attacking your livestock, then theres diff ways of removing the problem without actually killing it. you could of had it captured, and relocated.

and yes i fully understand humanity is the problem, thats why ive been saying we have lost our respect for nature. we kill animals off without even shedding a tear when there gone. we demolish the rain forrest for trees to make paper out of, and by doing that were pushing very rare animals out of there homes.

and in the cougers case, america was its territory before humans ever arrived. i feel we had no right to kill it off.we tend to forget that most animals have been around longer than we have when we're destroying there homes.

You have to understand that most people (Americans) do not understand about wildlife biology.  They understand how to tweet and blog.  However, they have no clue how displacing one specie of wildlife can disrupted the whole ecosystem. 

[mtnman]

I believe they are divide into sub-spices by their DNA.  

Interestingly, that's why there's been the discussions on NA puma subspecies (or lack of).  Before they looked into the DNA, they had the mountain lion broken down into many, may subspecies (30 or more, I believe).  

Following the DNA research, they've basically settled on 6, 5 of which aren't even indigenous to NA (they are only found in SA).

That means that based on DNA, the eastern subspecies never existed, so is therefore not extinct.  It wasn't a subspecies, it was just an eastern population.

No sense in jumping to conclusions though, it would kind of make this entire thread pointless...  Let's just keep it under our hats, and let people vent.

The puma used to be recognized as belonging to the genus Felinae (Felis concolor), but is now recognized as belonging to Puma (Puma concolor).  That's another outcome from DNA analysis.  Let's talk about that one instead.

[morfiend]

Interesting stuff Mtnman!

 So are you say the Florida Puma is a subspecies{Puma concolor}or are you talking about the SA Puma?


 Up here in southern Ontario there's been many sightings,scat and tracks found,of a type of Cougar. Whether these are "Eastern" Cougars or not has yet to be determined but if what you say is true then they'll never be able to tell.

 Most biologist suspect these cats are released pets that have grown to be too much work to keep! However they've stopped the spring bear hunt here and now the bear population has grown considerably,to the point that bears are becoming a nuisance and this may have driven a once illusive cat into the open.


   

[MORAY37]

Interestingly, that's why there's been the discussions on NA puma subspecies (or lack of).  Before they looked into the DNA, they had the mountain lion broken down into many, may subspecies (30 or more, I believe).  

Following the DNA research, they've basically settled on 6, 5 of which aren't even indigenous to NA (they are only found in SA).

That means that based on DNA, the eastern subspecies never existed, so is therefore not extinct.  It wasn't a subspecies, it was just an eastern population.

No sense in jumping to conclusions though, it would kind of make this entire thread pointless...  Let's just keep it under our hats, and let people vent.

The puma used to be recognized as belonging to the genus Felinae (Felis concolor), but is now recognized as belonging to Puma (Puma concolor).  That's another outcome from DNA analysis.  Let's talk about that one instead.

Hmmmm.  One publication stated this analysis (Culver et al (2000)),which went right into Mammal Species of the World), that there are 6 distinct subspecies.  While this may be true... the distinction between a sub-species and a non-interbreeding sub population of the same species is very razor thin.  Gene flow is certainly highly highly restrictive between members.

While I would not ascribe to the somewhat obscure "32 sub-species" of the late 80's, there is sufficient restriction among alleles to warrant more than 6.  I find Culver's clumping of the North American cats to be a little simplistic.  His loci may have contributed to a certain degree of bias in his results, as well.

But in any case, it's truly splitting hairs.  Sub-species, or non interbreeding sub-population.... they're all gone.
Link to the Culver et al paper http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/186.full.pdf

[Penguin]

Hmmmm.  One publication stated this analysis (Culver et al (2000)),which went right into Mammal Species of the World), that there are 6 distinct subspecies.  While this may be true... the distinction between a sub-species and a non-interbreeding sub population of the same species is very razor thin.  Gene flow is certainly highly highly restrictive between members.

While I would not ascribe to the somewhat obscure "32 sub-species" of the late 80's, there is sufficient restriction among alleles to warrant more than 6.  I find Culver's clumping of the North American cats to be a little simplistic.  His loci may have contributed to a certain degree of bias in his results, as well.

But in any case, it's truly splitting hairs.  Sub-species, or non interbreeding sub-population.... they're all gone.
Link to the Culver et al paper http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/186.full.pdf

We're learning about alleles in Biology!

/hijack

-Penguin

[oakranger]

What is interesting about the argument of subspecies cougars is that there is a similar argument about Red wolf and Kit Fox. Biologist debate on whether if Red wolf (Canis rufus) is a subspecies to the Eastern Gray wolf or a cross breed between coyotes and Gray wolf.

As for the Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis), it is greatly debated whether if it is a subspecies with the Swift Fox (Vulpes velox).  Both look so similar that it is hard to tell the difference.  Some biologist will argue that they are sub-species do to their geo-biological area.  While the other side believe they are the same species just a slight difference in color and body size. 

[hlbly]

I don't understand this part.

Basically, there are three requirements to life.  Food, water, shelter.  You cannot live without all three; all three are vital.

Most people (hunters included) argue that it's only acceptable to kill if you plan to eat it.  But...  Fur has been (and still is) used for clothing, which is simply portable shelter.  That makes fur harvest as "acceptable" as food harvest.  There's still a large demand for fur world-wide, and (contrary to popular belief) it isn't just for fashion.

If I trap and sell the fur, how is that any less acceptable than killing an animal and selling the meat?  Is buying meat acceptable, if it puts money in someones hands?  What about fur?  What about vegetables, if wildlife habitat was destroyed to make room for the farm?  What about a book, if its creation was enabled by habitat destruction resulting in loss of animal life (during the harvest of the wood, its transport to the mill, the building of the printing facility, the creation of the ink, etc, etc, etc...)  Is it acceptable to buy a computer?  Is it acceptable to use a computer?  It all results in animal death, and those animals aren't being eaten.

Reality check- If you're alive, you're encroaching on wildlife.

Mountain lions aren't threatened nearly as much by hunting as they are by habitat encroachment.   Just by existing you're part of the "problem".  The farm that supplies your food, the road that allows the food to be delivered to your neighborhood, the habitat destruction that occurs to fuel your energy needs all encroach on wildlife.

How does the puma protect itself from you?

Thrown in the leather too bro . LOL . Love a well reasoned statement .

[hlbly]

Question, what makes you think a population of 500 is to low or 5700 is to high? 

The available habitat .

[hlbly]

1. I don't think these farmers are too concerned about the endangered species list.

2.  They'll tell people, farmers talk like women at a hair salon.

Take a look at game laws . Fines etc. you may see why it is not paraded . I don't know state law anywhere but here . You must prove that life or livestock was endangered here . Not pets , livestock or human life . A bureaucrat will be the one that determines that life was endangered not a biologist or a warden .