A very well researched blogger makes his(her) case that in North America wolves are wolves regardless of where they are found and cougars are cougars regardless of where they are found...............So the constant debate about what and where and how many wolves and cougars are designated for "protection" or "saving" seems politically fueled based on subjective points of views by whomever is in charge of a particular locales wildlife................Take a read on this.............Reinforces many points/counterpoints previously discussed on this blog as it relates to our most charismatic trophic carnivores

Gray wolves and Cougars by *sulfide What do gray wolves and cougars have in common? The reality of "pure" Something that most people seem to forget is that the term "pure" does not biologically exist anymore. In fact, I tend to wonder if it ever did at one point. Phylogenetics teaches us the relationship among organisms (species, populations), which is discovered through molecular sequencing known as mtDNA studies. People will love to tell you their dog is "pure Pomeranian" or "pure Pit bull terrier" – but that isn't the case now, is it? Of course, we have been taught that dogs descended from wolves. This would also mean that your dog is not "pure". First, let's talk about wolves. We have also been taught that the red wolf is its own species, genetically distinct from both the gray wolf and the coyote. But is this true? Biologically, no. Ernst Mayr wrote the book Systematics and the Origin of Species which defines species as "a group of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups." Because a red wolf can interbreed with both a gray wolf and a coyote, it is not a viable candidate for a species (according to this definition). Analysis of an mtDNA study indicated that the red wolf from current and historical populations possessed both coyote and gray wolf mtDNA genotypes. As such, the red wolf also isn't a "pure" species – but does it really matter? Some might say it does, and that we should pull the plug on the red wolf recovery program. Some say it is a waste of our taxpayer money to be funding a hybrid in disguise. Yet we must remember the truth: nothing is biologically "pure". This counts for the subspecies of the gray wolf as well. Wolf advocates love to talk about how the Mexican gray wolf (subspecies of the gray wolf) needs to be preserved because there are only 50 left in the wild. Yet they will continually say, "wolves do not recognize invisible lines", especially when it comes to arguing with others about how it was illegal (and non-beneficial) to dump a non-native subspecies into the Greater Yellowstone Area. They love to say, "a wolf is a wolf" and "wolves don't recognize invisible lines" – but will then turn around and say, "preserve the Mexican gray wolf!" Kinda contradictory, ain't it? The Mexican gray wolf is in fact under heavy dispute by taxonomists for its purity. Reason being because the animal was declared extinct in the wild in the 1970s when researchers captured the last 5 wolves for breeding purposes in captivity. Taxonomists claim that the released wild stock is now tainted with coyote and dog DNA – but we have already gone over the fact that wolves and coyotes have been interbreeding ever since the Pleistocene epoch! And what about interbreeding with dogs? Well, that's how wolves get their black coats, of course. The fact of the matter is, nothing is truly "pure". "It's nice to know what the origins are from the standpoint of curiosity, but from a conservation standpoint, it shouldn't make any difference." This is what mtDNA does for us: it lets us know the origins, but when it comes to conserving that species, we should not really be focusing on whether or not that population is "pure". If a wolf wants to mate with a coyote, let it. There are thousands of hybrid plants and marine life that are still protected, so why should vertebrates be treated differently? Biologists tend to agree that when it comes to the wolf, being the highly adaptable and wide-ranging animals that they are, subspecies differences are likely minor and therefore inconsequential. I beg to differ, however. I believe that Bergmann's Rule applies to wolves - it is clearly evident in Canadian/Russian wolves when compared to their southern relatives (just Google an image of a Canadian gray wolf vs. a Mexican gray wolf). In regards to Dr. Mech's article titled Canis lupus soupus, he pointed out that there is no such thing as behavioral differences as seen in different subspecies (or, rather, that there has never been a definite study to prove this). Now onto cougars. What is it they have in common with gray wolves? It has to do with taxonomy, of course. It is apparent that biologists view cougars the same way they do wolves; that is, they see subspecies as minor and inconsequential. There are splitters and lumpers in the cougar world just as there are in the wolf world (splitters are those that that still recognize over 30 distinct subspecies, and lumpers are those who lump all of the subspecies into major groups seeing mtDNA studies find many of the other subspecies to be too similar to be recognized rather than distinct). The subspecies of cougar I'm referring to specifically is the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). This animal was listed as Critically Endangered for a long time until a huge debate over the subspecies of cougars and a total re-evaluation of them put this animal's conservation status at risk. It is, as of now, not evaluated at all. Brief history overview: From the 1600s-1890s, the panther was extirpated from its range in the Eastern US as Europeans settled the land and expanded. The government issued bounties for panthers and the governmental predator elimination campaign hit the cougars hard. In 1967, the US Department of the Interior listed the panther as endangered. In 1973 Congress passed the ESA. By 1981, panther population was verified at 30-50 adults left living in Florida. Now was it by sheer ignorance that the government decided to introduce a "non-native" subspecies in order to help repopulate the now dwindling Florida cougars? Some might say that. Some might also say that the Florida cougars would have inbred themselves to extinction. Others would say that the Texas cougars brought in (Puma concolor stanleyana) would have migrated there on their own anyways, so it didn't matter (much like the wolf advocates that cheer for the reintroduction saying that the wolves from Canada were already on their way - even though new, yet-not-so-new, research done by one of their very own, Robert Ream, proves that the wolves were actually headed further north, back into Canada). While all of this was going on, the government locked up 300,000+ acres of land in different nature preserves to protect the panthers, and behind the scenes captive breeding was taking place. As of 2011, there is an estimated 100-160 wild cougars left in the wild. Some have begun to push their range back northward into Missouri, where 8 reported sightings (and shootings) have occurred this year alone, and more reported sightings in other eastern states continue to flood in. Advocates continue to cry "preserve the Florida cougar!" when it has been proven and admitted that they are no longer a "pure" subspecies. Remember the introduction of the Texas subspecies? And what of the mysterious "Eastern cougar" that was declared extinct a few months ago? Isn't that what a Florida/Texas cougar technically is? Yes indeed! Biologists are so confused with their own work that they are torn between being splitters and lumpers. M. Culver et. al. performed mtDNA studies on all of the world's cougar populations, lumping them into 6 total. The Florida panther is now classified under the North American cougar (Puma concolor cougar), which would put the Florida panther and the Texas panther into the same subspecies, meaning that it didn't matter that they interbred. Dr. Judith Eger, chairman of the American Society of Mammalogists checklist committee, believes that M. Culver et. al.'s work was improper, as it offered no evaluation of the existing subspecies of the cougars. According to Dr. Eger, the Culver revision is only accepted by some puma biologists. As for the USFWS, they continue to accept the Young and Goldman taxonomy (which acknowledges 32 subspecies in the US). "While more recent genetic information introduces significant ambiguities, a full taxonomic analysis is necessary to conclude that a revision to the Young and Goldman (1946) taxonomy is warranted," the agency said in 2011. If that didn't confuse you, which would be surprising, the main point of what I'm trying to say is that these same people - the biologists and advocates - continuously say that wolves (or cougars) don't recognize invisible lines drawn in the ground, but will then turn around and say "protect this animal, it is so unique and there are only x amount left!" When provided evidence, especially mtDNA evidence, it shows that all wolves are genetically linked, and all cougars are genetically linked. This means that we could, in theory, bring in a wolf from the Arctic circle to inhabit New Mexico, or bring in some cougars from Texas to inhabit Florida - oh wait, we already did that! One has to remind themselves that they cannot have it both ways. Remember, I truly believe that subspecies are unique. It is the biologists and advocates who try to say they aren't (but then will turn around and say they are only when it fits their agenda).