"A decade before the celebrated mountain men entered the Northern Plains and Rockies, some dozen little-known trading forays were launched into the plains of the Southwest".................."In 1808–1809, with a party of twelve hunter-traders, Mississippi planter and hardware store owner Anthony Glass acted as a semi-official emissary of President Thomas Jefferson in probing the uncharted Texas lands of the Taovaya-Wichita and Comanche Indians"....... "Alone among the early southwestern traders, Glass kept a lively journal detailing his route and experiences with the Indians, with the landforms and wildlife of the region...............A.B. Hammond Professor of Western History at the U. of Montana and author of best selling books on the ecological history of the western USA , below is Dan's Flores reveal on the wildlife described by Glass during his trek into Texas

Journal of an  Indian Trader Anthony Glass and the  Texas Trading Frontier,  1790-1810 Edited by Dan L. Flores "The Wild Horses of the early West  were descendants of Andalusian stock,  a line of animals whose ancestry can be traced to the  Barbary and Arabian hourses of  northern Africa and the Middle East".Small fleet and beautifully  proportioned, these animals were  ideally shaped by  their desert evolution to compete as  grazers with bison and pronghorn  antelope on the  prairies and plains of the southwest"..... "By 1800, they had reached a peak  population of  perhaps 2 million, most between the  Rio Grande and Arkansas rivers, the  center of their range, apparently, west-central Texas" Wolves and Pumas, the only predators of Wild Horses "The Frenchmen who traversed East  Texas in the 1680's saw no wild  horses, but the  de Leon and Teran expeditions of  1689-91 brought more than a  1000 horses and mules  to the region, at least 200 of which  were lost" The Texas Cross Timbers "Lewis & clark saw no wild horses on the Northern Plains during their 1804-1806  expedition".........""Pike however frequently sighted bands along the ARkansas River in  1806 and saw "immense herds"  in South Texas in 1807".........."Freeman and Custis,  whose 1806 expedition was stopped about a week short of the Blackland Prairies,  do not mention wild horses at all in the woods and bottoms of Arkansas and Texas" In green, historical distribution of Black Bears(note East Texas gradient on left side of map) "The Alabama-Coushattas(Indians) had been hunting  wildlife for the market since their arrival on the Red River; Sibley remarked in 1805  that one family of them had taken  118 black bears, while a single hunter had killed 400  deer in 1804 and sold the hides for 50 cents each" "Glass has his first encounter with a true prairie species;  prairie chickens, a  plump grouse of the humid, tall-grass prairies"......... .As late as 1850, there still were 500,000 of these birdes in the North Texas prairies"..... "Market hunting and habitat  alteration by agriculture extirpated them completely".... ..."No attempt was made to save them; the last flocks were seen near Marshall in  1920" Based largely on Vernon Bailey's zoological survey of  1905, the eastward range of  this species in Texas has long been fixed at about 98  degrees west"....There has  been some archaeological work, however, indicating  that the prairie dog did once range farther east"....Blackland clays would have been  good habitat"........."Glass therefore may provide us with a rare documentation  for the existence of relict  prairie dog colonies on the Blackland Prairie of the  early 19th century" "The crossings of Bois d' Arc Creek, a favorite beaver  stream of the old French  hunters, seems to be effected near Bonham"..."This  first mention of great numbers of bison and mustangs seems to refer to  the country between Bonham  and the Grayson County Line".......In his "Prehistoric  Bison Populations of North Central Texas, Mark Lynott uses archaeological  evidence to argue that bison populations were never large in the Prairie-Cross  Timbers country, primarily because the nutritional value of bluestem was less  suited to bison needs than the shorter grasses farther west, and that  whitetail deer were always the more important subsistence animal in the area" "A surround of a bison herd began when two lines  of (native) horsemen, about a mile  distant from each other, advanced on  either side of the herd and slowly brought their ends together to encircle the  animals"....."Whilst the poor affrighted animals eddying about in a crowded and confused  mass, hooking and climbing upon each other"....."In this grand turmoil, a  cloud of dust was soon raised, which  in parts obscured the throng where the hunters  were galloping their horses around and driving the whizzing arrows or their  long lances to the hearts of  these noble animals"..."In this way, the grand  hunt soon resolved itself into a desperte battle; andin the space of fifteen  minutes, resulted in the total destruction of the whole herd"

Dan Flores is A. B. Hammond Professor of Western History at the University of Montana and the general editor of the  Environmental History series at Texas A&M University Press. He is the author or co-author of seven books, including Journal of an Indian  Trader: Anthony Glass and the Texas Trading  Frontier, 1790-1810,published by Texas A&M Press in 1985. Flores received his Ph.D. from Texas A&;M and currently divides his time  between Missoula, Montana, and Santa Fe. "The journal is a fascinating running  account of wilderness travel,  negotiations with Indians, robberies by  the Comanches and hunting adventures.  It includes information on plants and animals, Indian culture and attitudes,  geographical features and political  relations of the natives with Spaniards  and Americans. . . . fascinating reading  and at the same time an important historical reference. It is superbly  annotated, and the editor demonstrates  a very perceptive understanding of the  importance of Indian traders in  promoting good Anglo-Indian relations.  He also documents effectively the whole  problem of Spanish-American relations  on the vague borders of the provinces of  New Mexico and Texas. This book  deserves a place in every library  concerned with the Indian trade and  frontier History." --The Museum of  the Fur Trade Quarterly

Ecologist and Public Lands advocate George Wuerthner taking us out of "myth and fairy-tale" as it relates to what is true and and false about wildfires and salvage logging ---Is this type timber removal really preventative medicine as it relates to reducing the incidence of fire?

From: George Wuerthner gwuerthner@gmail.com

Date: November 24, 2016 at 2:23:27 PM EST

http://helenair.com/news/opinion/guest/logging-myths-fuel-legislation/article_4e7ccbd7-223b-53a5-80a4-43c02b2ed103.html

Guest column

Logging myths fuel legislation

The timber industry and its advocates continue to promote a number of myths designed to garner public support for increased logging. New legislation is proposed that would weaken environmental protections, reduce public review of U.S. Forest Service timber sales (called variously vegetation management, forest health restoration, fuels reduction, hazard tree reduction, salvage timber sale) and significantly increase money-losing logging on public lands.

Myth: Restoration of our forests is needed to re-create historic conditions.

Truth: There is growing debate about whether most forest ecosystems need any restoration. Nearly all higher-elevation mixed conifer and subalpine forests grew in dense stands that tended to burn at medium to long intervals (often at intervals of hundreds of years), with large patches of mixed to high mortality, so they are well within historic conditions.

Low-elevation ponderosa pine forests were considered different from the moister, higher-elevation forests and characterized as open and park-like, and burned by frequent low severity surface fires. However, new research concludes that many pine stands historically experienced occasional high severity stand replacement blazes and may not be significantly outside of their historic condition.

For instance, one recent review paper concluded: “current attempts to 'restore' forests to open, low-severity fire conditions may not align with historical reference conditions in most ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests of western North America.”

Myth: Logging reduces large wildfires.

Truth: Large wildfires burn under extreme weather conditions. Under extreme weather, wildfires burn through, over and around clearcuts, thinned forests and areas that have been prescribed burned. Such fires are “controlled” when the weather changes to more moderate conditions.

Logging may even increase fire spread and fire severity.

The conclusion of the Sierra Nevada report to Congress had this to say: "Timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate, and fuels accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other recent human activity."

Another study done by fire ecologists at the Missoula Fire Lab concluded: "Even extensive fuel treatments may not reduce the amount of area burned over the long-term and furthermore, reduction of area burned may actually be an undesirable outcome.”

A new study soon to be published found that reviewed 1,500 wildfires between 1984 and 2014 found that actively managed forests had the highest level of fire severity. While those forests in protected areas burned, on average, had the lowest level of fire severity. In other words, the best way to reduce severe fires is to protect the land as wilderness, not “manage” it.

Myth: Thinning national forest lands will protect homes

Truth: One only needs to reduce the flammability within 100 feet of homes to protect them. Reducing fuels more than 100 feet beyond the home confers no additional protection. As one study concluded: “It may not be necessary or effective to treat fuels in adjacent areas in order to suppress fires before they reach homes; rather, it is the treatment of the fuels immediately proximate to the residences, and the degree to which the residential structures themselves can ignite that determine if the residences are vulnerable.”

Myth: Beetle outbreaks increase the chances of wildfire.

Truth: Any number of research studies has documented that beetle outbreaks have little effect or even reduces the chance of large wildfire for a period of years. Dead trees do not burn as well as live trees with flammable resins. For example, one study concluded: “we found no detectable increase in the occurrence of high-severity fires following MPB outbreaks. Dry conditions, rather than changes in fuels associated with outbreak, appear to be most limiting to the occurrence of severe fires in these forests.”

Myth: Dead trees are a sign of a forest health problem.

Truth: Dead trees are critical to healthy forest ecosystems. Some 250 scientists recently sent a letter to Congress affirming “snag forest habitat” are “ecological treasures comparable to old growth forests."

Unfortunately, as a result of logging and other forest management, we have a deficit of dead trees in our forest ecosystems. Episodic input of dead woods results from wildfire, beetles and disease. These natural processes help maintain forest ecosystem health.

George Wuerthner is an ecologist who has published 38 books, including "Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy."

• 
  

On this fine Thanksgiving Thursday, the hunting and conservation Organization, PHEASANTS FOREVER, are spot on and show intelligent insight in their acknowledgement that predators and prey, in this case Coyotes and Pheasants, have positively existed together for millennium in rough equilibrium,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Imbalances of any animal species has more to due with our disruption of their habitat than it has to do with the impacts of the predator suite existing in a given locale..................."The bottom line is while predator removal and exclusion methods can increase nesting success on small areas, these methods are too expensive for use on a landscape basis and do not significantly increase the number of nesting birds over the long term"........................ "Through the addition and management of habitat, we not only decrease the impact predators have on existing nests, but also increase the number of nests and population size in an area"..................... "Predators will continue to eat pheasants and their nests, but weather and habitat conditions will drive population fluctuations"

https://www.pheasantsforever.org/Habitat/Why-Habitat/Pheasant-Facts/Effects-of-Predators.aspx

EFFECTS OF PREDATORS

HABITAT MANAGEMENT DECREASES PREDATION

Few subjects generate as much concern and misunderstanding among pheasant hunters as predators and their impact on pheasant populations. Many over look that one of the best management practices to reduce predation rates of ring-necked pheasants is to increase wildlife habitat.

The best way to minimize the threat of predators? 
Make their job tougher with more upland habitat. 
Photo by PF Life Member Craig Armstrong

PHEASANT ECOLOGY: PREDATORS

No single predator gets more blame for pheasant predation than coyotes, but research over several decades has proven that coyotes focus their foraging on rodents and rabbits and do not take adult pheasants or nests as frequently as the other mammalian predators (red fox, striped skunk and raccoon). In addition, the larger home range and territorial nature of coyotes can actually result in lower populations of these other, more destructive predators. Predation accounts for three-fourths of unsuccessful nests, and nearly all of adult mortality (excluding hunting) is directly predator related.

Bottom line: Through the addition and management of habitat, we not only decrease the impact predators have on existing nests, but also increase the number of nests and population size in the area. This management comes at a fraction of the cost of other predator reduction methods. 

MORE HABITAT, LESS PREDATION, BEST OUTCOME

Less-expensive methods to improve game bird populations and nesting success exist. Experts have focused on the amount of habitat (composition of the landscape) and the arrangement (configuration) that increase nesting success by reducing the effectiveness of predators. Well-designed habitat projects can reduce predation by up to 80 percent.

A lack of quality cover can make pheasants susceptible 
to predators – of both aerial and ground variety.

Larger patches of nesting cover (more than 40 acres) have significantly higher rates of nest success than smaller sized patches. For example, in agricultural landscapes where the primary form of grassland habitat is road and drainage ditches, predator activity is concentrated on those smaller strips of cover. In landscapes having a greater component of grassland habitat, predator activity is diluted throughout the many patches of habitat. In addition to diluting predator activity, high grassland landscapes reduce the efficiency of predators.

Cover quality is also important. Dense blocks of undisturbed cover, such as Conservation Reserve Program acreage that is not mowed or grazed, are the most effective at reducing predation. Dense mixtures of grasses and forbs offering good residual cover after winter are highly selected by pheasant hens because they conceal nests from both avian and mammalian predators.

PREDATOR REMOVAL: A SMALL SCALE REMEDY

Early attempts to decrease the impact of predators on pheasant populations focused on reducing the overall number of predators, mainly through trapping. These efforts are effective for small areas but are dependent on three important factors.

• Trapping efforts must reduce nest predator populations during the key period of recruitment—beginning prior to, and continuing throughout the entire pheasant nesting season (approximately 100 days). 
• Trapping needs to extend beyond the boundaries of the controlled area. Most nest predators have large home ranges and if trapping efforts fail to account for this, predators from surrounding areas will still negatively impact nesting success within the controlled area. 
• Most importantly, a successful removal program is a professional, full-time effort. The occasional removal of individual animals by hunters has very little impact on predator populations and trapping efforts that rely on bounties are destined to fail.

It is important to understand that sustained trapping efforts tend to stimulate reproduction by predators (compensating for artificially low densities) and create populations with proportionately more juveniles that wander more across the landscape thereby increasing the chances of encountering pheasants.

SUMMARY

While predator removal and exclusion methods can increase nesting success on small areas, these methods are too expensive for use on a landscape basis and do not significantly increase the number of nesting birds over the long term. Through the addition and management of habitat, we not only decrease the impact predators have on existing nests, but also increase the number of nests and population size in an area. Predators will continue to eat pheasants and their nests, but weather and habitat conditions will drive population fluctuations.

During the Whitetail Deer rut in the Fall, male deer "rubbing and scraping" facilitate breeding............. "Both of these behaviours serve as scent signposts for olfactory and visual communication to other deer of both sexes"............. "A lot of rubbing behavior takes place shortly after male antler velvet is dried and/or shed, but continues throughout the rutting period"............... "A rub is initially made by a buck rubbing his antlers and forehead (for scent deposition) on a shrub or small tree"............. "Once created, a rub may be used by several bucks or does".............. "Generally, bucks begin "making scrapes" several weeks after the first rubs appear"................ "This activity increases as the breeding season peaks and then declines throughout the remainder of the rutting period"............... "A scrape is made by a buck pawing a spot of ground, usually to bare soil, and rub-urinating in that soil".............. "A scrape is often associated with a low, overhanging branch which is often broken by the buck biting and/or pulling on the branch"............... "Scent from the forehead, preorbital gland or mouth is often deposited on the broken branch"............. "Much rubbing and scraping behavior is nocturnal".................."It’s probably too simplistic to think of rubbing and scraping as mere personal ads to attract the opposite sex".............. "Every deer that walks through a meadow or woodland where a rub and scrape has occurred smells the scrape and takes something from it"............"Whether it was a doe learning about a potential mate, or a buck learning about a potential rival, what takes place is a complicated language that we can only tenuously understand"..............Click on video below to see a full "rub and scrape" sequence taking place in the Massachusetts woods

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001mFUxxXOfX7r3MYKAu3YbbfinVOn7KOANj8usie3l4BCKX3HOT7cq1YOD6n6FY-ZwcjbZaV5fNmJJckDWUvIvcB9ff8FoOcvzVqCai2dAmKfeG9ApAJVUUoqt7YhcdwaH9ATErIcaWV2hbnDU0VevCBzsDHf7EzfsRRr8vN782mRYTSZ-OiemRVTCO2THEwmwSSkz1YEqEO-mZiGD4aT5C6MquOM-tpas0QTrBZw9sZc=&c=i9vMPJko_FNmEao0faEMBiTDjW8kQSs9RrF7OcELZkX8HjBFyiLFVA==&ch=xQmACZv8fNTigvJx_RK4VwCW6lgn7rE5tMO5C4K5C4gkwRCAxUA6MA==

CLICK ON THIS LINK BELOW TO VIEW A BUCK MAKING A SCRAPE
https://youtu.be/s_TSWzmJA-8

The Whitetail Rut

Northern Woodlands Magazine; Susan Morse

The most prominent event in the November woods is the whitetail rut, and in the spirit of the season, we’re thrilled to be able to share this fabulous video of a buck making a scrape. The footage was shot in 2013 by David Dargie in Andover, Massachusetts.

Biologists call the events you’re about to see a “full sequence scrape.” First, the buck approaches a licking branch, then proceeds to sniff it, chew it, and rub it along his head, adding scent from his saliva, nasal glands, preorbital glands, and forehead glands. He then paws the earth, depositing more scent from the interdigital glands between his toes. At 1:15 in the video, he squeezes his hind legs together and urinates on his tarsal glands; the urine then drips onto the scrape, adding more stink.


"Rub and Scrape" behaviour in Whitetail Deer

Buck scrapes facilitate breeding, but as our resident tracker Susan Morse points out in this article, it’s probably too simplistic to think of them as mere personal ads. Every deer that walked through that meadow in Andover smelled the scrape and took something from it, whether it was a doe learning about a potential mate, or a buck learning about a potential rival. Animals communicate through their noses, and it’s a complicated language that we can only tenuously understand.

Historically, Jaguarundis were thought to range from South America up into Arizona, New Mexico, Texas---and perhaps Colorado, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Louisiana................ .......Totally believable this is as in addition to thorny scrublands, jaguarundi's in Central and South America make homes in rainforests, prairie, deciduous forests and marshland.............Absent from the USA for a good 30 years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service succumbed to intense environmental pressure to create a a Habitat Recovery plan for the species in 2014............Will it be put into action via translocation of animals from Mexico or will the "otter-looking" Jaguarundi have to sneak into our border states ahead of the planned Border Wall construction?..

http://www.businessinsider.com/endangered-jaguarundi-returns-to-texas-2014-1

(Is)The Endangered 

Jaguarundi  

Coming Back

 To Texas?

• Kelly Dickerson

Its been almost 30 years since the rare jaguarundi was last spotted in Texas, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has plans to change that.

They hope to reintroduce the endangered feline to its native land: the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

The ultimate goal is to establish a jaguarundi population of 500 by 2050 and get the species safely taken off the endangered list.

Jaguarundis are dark brown or brownish-red felines slightly larger than house cats.

According to the Center for Biological Diversity the jaguarundi has a long neck and tail, short legs, and a small flattened head. They're a little goofy looking — they look more like large weasels or otters than cats, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

What made the jaguarundi endangered in the first place

Habitat loss from increasing urbanization and agriculture expansion were primarily responsible for the disappearance of the jaguarundi from Texas. The population was especially vulnerable once border security between Texas and Mexico cut it off from the neighboring jaguarundi population in Mexico.

Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Commons/Alena HouškováScientists know very little about the jaguarundi. Its a shy species that quickly retreats into the underbrush when disturbed. The recovery plan includes improving techniques for tracking the cats and learning more about them so scientists are better equipped to protect them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9255

Tuesday, January 7, 2014 
Jaguarundi--Rare, Beautiful Gulf Coast Cat--Receives Roadmap to Recovery 

Nearly four decades after it was listed as "endangered," imperiled cat finally has a recovery plan 
Contact: Taylor Jones (505) 490-5141

Washington, DC – The Gulf Coast jaguarundi, a rare cat native to Mexico and the thornscrub habitat of southern Texas, today received a long-overdue “recovery plan,” a document outlining necessary steps to bring the species back from the brink of extinction. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) published the plan late yesterday, the result of a settlement agreement with WildEarth Guardians. Despite listing the Gulf Coast jaguarundi as “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act in 1976, the Service failed to designate critical habitat or write a recovery plan for the critically imperiled cat. Guardians challenged the Service’s failure to produce a recovery plan specific to the species in 2009. If the recovery plan is funded and followed, the Service predicts the species could be removed from the list of imperiled species in 2050.

“This recovery plan is a long overdue and important step to safeguarding rapidly disappearing jaguarundi habitat,” said Taylor Jones, Endangered Species Advocate for WildEarth Guardians. “These beautiful and rare cats waited nearly forty years for a path to recovery. We call on the Service to now fully and effectively implement the recovery plan and prevent this species’ extinction.”

The Gulf Coast jaguarundi is a subspecies of jaguarundi that historically ranged from the Lower Rio Grande Valley in southern Texas into the eastern portion of Mexico in the States of Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Tamaulipas, San Luis Potosi, and Veracruz. The last confirmed sighting of this subspecies in the U.S. was in April of 1986.  Most jaguarundi habitat in the U.S. is already lost to agriculture or urban development, including over 95% of thornscrub habitat in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Jaguarundis need dense vegetation such as thornscrub to hunt prey, mainly small rodents, reptiles, and birds.  Preservation of remaining habitat will also help other rare species, including the imperiled ocelot, that share jaguarundi habitat.

Development along the U.S./Mexico border also poses threats to the jaguarundi and many other border species. Barriers along the border destroy and fragment habitat, reduce access to habitat and resources, including food and water, and isolate wildlife populations. Approximately 70 miles of  fence have been proposed in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, 56 miles of which are already constructed.

The recovery plan emphasizes identifying, protecting, restoring, and connecting potential habitat in southern Texas. The Service also intends to study the feasibility of reintroducing jaguarundi in Texas, as well as learn more about these elusive cats through population and habitat surveys.

Reproduction and Offspring: After a gestation of approximately 70-75 days, females produce a litter of 1-4 kittens. Like cougars and lions, newborns are spotted, and the spots soon disappear. They begin to take solid foods around the age of 6 weeks, and attain sexual maturity between 24-36 months.

Social System and Communication: Jaguarundis are known to be solitary or travel and forage in pairs. They have a wide variety of vocalizations, with 13 distinct calls having been documented.

Hunting and Diet: Their primary diet is quite varied and is comprised of small rodents, rabbits, armadillos, opossums, quail, wild turkey, reptiles, frogs, fish and domestic poultry. They have also been recorded eating fish stranded in puddles.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjVvoGYnrvQAhVB1mMKHaeGDioQFggmMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2F10.1111%2Fmam.12051%2Fabstract&usg=AFQjCNGSaUV-0wsjjX-fvfscF8UjeoaURw&sig2=CdJgr1le2U3MMnYxpUgqEg

Ecology and status of the jaguarundi Puma yagouaroundi: a synthesis of existing knowledge

Authors

• 
  

• First published: 19 November 2015

• Distribution and Habitat

  The jaguarundi ranges from the USA–Mexico borderlands south through south-central Argentina (de Oliveira 1998a), making it second only to the puma among felids of the western hemisphere in its overall latitudinal expanse . Parts of the jaguarundi's distribution, however, are incompletely understood, possibly because of a lack of research interest or funding to study the species, and its current ‘Least Concern’ status (Caso et al. 2008).

• Survey information from the northern limit of the jaguarundi's range, for example, including broad parts of southern Texas, USA, and northern Mexico, is still lacking; this makes purported observations difficult to confirm and a matter of continuing debate. In extreme south Texas and northern Tamaulipas, Mexico, thornscrub habitats have historically been considered the northernmost limit of the species' geographical range (Goodwyn 1970, Tewes & Everett1986, Caso 1994). 

• Although recent unconfirmed sightings exist from the vicinity of Laguna Atascosa Wildlife Refuge, Texas, the last confirmed jaguarundi in the USA appears to have been a road-killed individual near Brownsville, Texas in April 1986 (Grassman & Tewes 2004). Based on reliable observations (i.e. those for which the observer was considered knowledgeable and the context was considered credible) collected between 1970 and 1982, Everett (1983) and Tewes and Everett (1986) suggested that the jaguarundi may have recently ranged north and west from south Texas across the southern Edwards Plateau, and north along the entire coastal plain of east Texas. Its current existence in this region, its occurrence in the Pecos region of Texas and northern Coahuila, Mexico, and whether or not it occurs or has occurred in parts of southern Arizona, USA and Sonora, Mexico, remains unresolved (Little 1938, Brown & Lopez-Gonzalez 1999, Grigione et al. 2007, 2009, Giordano et al. 2011), and physical evidence is lacking (Fig. 1). Despite the ambiguity, new, confirmed jaguarundi records from additional areas of Mexico, including the first from Mexico's central highlands (1324 m; Charre-Medellin et al. 2012), have occurred recently.