See base of page for more credits etc. on the above photo. Photo by George Gentry (cropped).
I made a post about the Florida cougar (new window) based on a fresh scientific report of 2003 by a scientific review team who had a fresh look at all previous scientific data on this cat and its habitat requirements. Its findings were a little surprising. The research review came out of much argument and discovered that there were fundamental flaws in a large amount of scientific research. A major flaw was the conclusion that this cat had to live in a forest and “wouldn’t move across more than a 90-meter (about 300 feet) gap of non-forest..” This opened the door to development. {In an article of the Los Angeles Times referred to below, a significant percentage of scientists at the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) claimed to be pressured into modifying reports to favour business development.}
Accordingly, this flawed research formed the basis upon which decisions were made regarding US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) development permits. Since the date of the flawed paper (1995) there have been developments in an around the Florida panther habitat that arguably wouldn’t have happened but for the paper. The developments, of course, resulted in habitat being taken from the Florida panther, jeopardizing its existence. In other words, “the best available science” got it fundamentally wrong and helped businesses. Does that smell fishy to you?
Not enough to this day is known about the Florida panther. However, it is agreed that there has been inbreeding over a very considerable time due to the island habitat of this wild cat and there is continued commercial pressure on the habitat, which has, it could be argued, had an effect on the objectivity of scientific reporting about this animal and its habitat requirements. The trouble is that a wild animal that needs lots of space is in a very popular and valuable area for people. This is bound to create conflict between commerce on the one hand and environmentalists and conservationists on the other.
In addition to the above, the flawed earlier research indicated that the Florida panther was in robust health thus precluding the need to widen the gene pool and thereby improve survival. This also seems like subjective science. One problem was a blind faith in science (flawed or not) and little peer review. In short, the system was flawed as well as the science.
The above map shows Development Projects in Panther Habitat Since 2000. Author: (Illustration: Brad Nunley/National Wildlife Federation). Source: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov. A word about these developments. In 2005 panther habitat was (and I presume still is) shrinking at the rate of 1% per year, which translates to a 15% reduction over the forthcoming 25 years if it continues unabated. Biological opinions (the red areas on the map) are still being drafted. These are documents that state the assessments of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as to whether a Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat (src: http://www.expertglossary.com). In other words consideration is being given to further development on Florida panther habitat leading to actual developments on occasions despite the known fragility of the panther population. Little change is expected to take place and why should it? As I mentioned business, population growth, economic growth and a lack of political will to save the panther can only lead to one conclusion.
