text: About the Proposed Florida Panther De-Listing |
  About the Proposed Florida Panther De-Listing
  Friday, August 18, 2017 at 2:48 by Ian Nance
  A fundamental difference in operation exists between hunting/conservation organizations and certain environmental/animal-right activists – the latter bunch is not capable of handling success.
  I thought this while pimping the Lakeland National Wild Turkey Federation's banquet last month. In the instance of wild turkeys, NWTF – with other stakeholders – helped restore turkey populations to the robust numbers we experience today. Since the turkeys have recovered, NWTF's focus has been on habitat conservation and restoration and hunter recruitment to keep funding intact for these projects. They recognize the challenges of the future and work to overcome these.
  In March of this year, USFWS reclassified the manatee from endangered to threatened. Any normal group of people would be celebrating the successful recovery efforts. They'd think, "What can we do now to sustain this? Continue education programs? Work on seagrass restoration projects? Sell more license plates?"
  A majority of "experts" on social media acted like it was suddenly open season on sea cows. Most of the hue-and-cry leading up to the reclassification was how powerful property owners were behind this, as if powerful property owners pick their teeth with splintered manatee bones.
  "How could the USFWS do this! Don't they know a couple hundred were killed by boats this year? They must remain endangered or they'll die! Trump and/or Scott hates the environment! Manatees were here first!!! We need human population control!!! Arrrggghhhhh!!!!"
  Anyway, a lot of clutched pearls over the reclassification though deeming it "threatened" as opposed to "endangered" is a distinction without a difference. Manatees are still protected by Federal Law through the ESA and Marine Mammal Protection Act.
  We're at a similar point now with Florida's panther population, though these cats rile up far more passion than the average sea cow.
  The basic issues with panthers are three-fold:
  1. There is not a lack of panthers in their current breeding territory. Notoriously a difficult species to count, USFWS and FWC estimate 120-240 adult and sub-adults within their range based on the use of trail cameras, panther road mortality data, and annual counts conducted on public land. This information is extrapolated to include their entire range and only includes animals contributing to the breeding population in SW Florida. Kittens and any cats north of the Caloosahatchee are not tallied. For an animal with a wide range which relies on a steady diet of live animals, that's a lot of cat in a little space, and resources are dwindling. Increasing human interactions, vehicle mortalities, intraspecies mortality & competition events, depredation events on pets and livestock, and a declining prey base all indicate a growing population.
  2. Is there such a thing as a Florida panther? In 1995, eight females from Texas were released to address the inbreeding rampant among Florida's panther population at that time. It saved Florida's cats, but did this compromise the supposed genetic distinction of the Florida panther? Biologists at the time felt their DNA was close enough, which brings us to a recent taxonomy review from the International Union for Conservation of Nature which classifies all panthers, mountain lions, pumas, and catmounts across North America as the same animal with 5 other subspecies occurring in Central and South America. With this information, does the Florida subpopulation require Federal Listing as Endangered when mountain lions et. al. are doing fine elsewhere?
  3. Who should be in charge of management? Two years ago, FWC released a position paper acknowledging the panther was nearing or at its carrying capacity within its breeding range. It said private landowners have been integral in sustaining and restoring panther populations and more must be done for habitat restoration on public lands. Furthermore, they said that they'll focus on the current population, and USFWS needs to take charge in re-establishing populations outside of this range to comply with the ESA recovery goal which it has failed to do. In their own words, "FWC will not provide direct staff and funding to support such efforts until issues with private lands, regulatory burdens, and human acceptance have been resolved. Successful expansion of breeding panther populations in Florida will require that FWC has meaningful and practical management flexibility along with clear options on federal regulatory issues north of the Caloosahatchee River."
  (That last part can be roughly translated into, "What the Hell should we do when there's a problem?")
  As you can see with the bureaucratic and basic biology questions in play, this is a deep rabbit hole. On June 30th, USFWS submitted a news release announcing the review of Florida's panther status. This is a normal – and overdue – five-year review as required by the recovery plan. USFWS has asked for public comments on the subject.
  "The public has an opportunity to provide new information on Florida panther recovery and conservation during the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) current five-year review of the status of Florida panthers.
  'We want new information from all sources to assist us and our partners in better targeting and prioritizing our conservation efforts for this species,' said Larry Williams, the Service's state supervisor for Ecological Services.
  To ensure species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act continue to have the appropriate level of protection, the Service conducts periodic assessments of their status about once every five years.
  The Service is accepting public input for consideration in this review of Florida panthers until August 29, 2017. Input should be sent to David Shindle by one of the following methods:
  Regular mail: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; South Florida Ecological Services Field Office; 12085 State Road 29 South; Immokalee, FL 34142
  Fax: 772–562–4288
  A five-year review utilizes the best available scientific and commercial data on a species to determine whether its status has changed since the time of its listing or its last status review.
  Upon completing a five-year review, the Service can make four possible recommendations:
  – Reclassify the species from threatened to endangered;
  – Reclassify the species from endangered to threatened;
  – Remove the species from the list; or
  – Maintain the species' current classification.
  A five-year review begins with gathering the best available scientific and commercial data regarding the species. To facilitate this process, the Service published a notice in the Federal Register today announcing Florida panthers are under review and requesting any relevant information that should be considered, particularly any information that has become available since the last five-year review on Florida panthers was published in 2009.
  The information most needed to conduct these reviews includes:
  – Species biology, including but not limited to population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics;
  – Habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
  – Conservation measures that have benefited the species;
  – Threat status and trends; and
  – Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to changes in taxonomy or nomenclature and identification of erroneous information contained in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
  'The Florida panther population has made significant strides towards recovery since it first received federal protection in 1967. And for the first time since 1973, we have documented females and kittens north of the Caloosahatchee River, a natural expansion of their breeding range,' said Williams. 'This five-year review will help ensure that our recovery efforts are guided by the best available science and help make sure the panther population continues to receive the appropriate level of protection.'"
  This memo sent several of those groups I griped about in the beginning towards the fainting couch – can't handle some success. Predictably, Kate MacFall, Florida State Director of the Humane Society of the United States, starting gobbling up editorial columns with portraits of gloom & doom. She had the audacity to write, "No scientific justification exists to strip panthers of their endangered species protection, and there is simply no pressing need to do so."
  As illustrated above, her comments are blatantly false, and she expects you to stay ignorant enough to believe her. Love the cats but learn nothing about them is her drive. What poor Ms. MacFall fails to recognize – and is incapable of due to her ideology of all things animal – is the opportunity to improve panther management for people and panthers.
  My vote is to federally de-list the panther and place FWC in charge of recovery and management with federal and private support. I trust local expertise over unstable federal influence and politics to devise a recovery plan with flexibility. I feel FWC would have an easier time working with landowners to establish breeding populations north of the Caloosahatchee, both in terms of trust between the parties and ability to handle depredation issues swiftly. And for those worried the panther will suddenly become fair-game through de-listing, rest assured FWC will ladle protections on them immediately if designated the lead agency.
  While I'm pleased with the success of the panthers thus far, the time to look forward is now. I don't share the pessimistic view of Florida 50 years down the road folks on the other side do. Yes, habitat – or "corridor" to incorporate the in-vogue environmentalist vernacular – preservation and restoration is vital, but de-listing won't change that, and profiting from the cats' current federal protection to halt all development is a familiar but unscrupulous tactic. Through education, the widespread enmity toward panthers, a driving force in their demise, is long gone, though it could quickly return if they continue to burden those closest to them without some promise of relief. All in all, by my gray hairs, I expect Florida's panthers to have spread – naturally and otherwise – throughout the state. The ESA has taken them this far, let FWC guide the rest of the journey.
  It's not time to declare the panthers are back, but we're not far off. Please take the time to relay your input regarding de-listing to Mr. Swindle through the above-referenced avenues. The intent of the ESA is not the problem, the federal framework for delivering the cats' well-being is. Advocate for state control over panther management for a more-streamlined, realistic approach to their future.