US Officials Declare Eastern Cougar Extinct

William Parcher said:
Mikey, the dead CT cougar works against the "cougars are living in the East" claim, not for it.
Click to expand...

Nope, they clearly get here genius. You were the one making the subspecies, if they have a same genetic, you are a coward for not admitting you're wrong. This thread has become pointless.

Bye
 
Mikey, how does a society of enlightened and civilized people ever decide if an animal species lives somewhere? How are animal species ranges ever determined?
 
What would allow people to confidently say that the geographic range of the wolverine does not include Florida. How do they know?
 
William Parcher said:
Mikey, how does a society of enlightened and civilized people ever decide if an animal species lives somewhere? How are animal species ranges ever determined?
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension genius, I don't find you enlightened, just arrogant and pigheaded. Your premise was that they dont live here, if they pass through here they live here during that time, you tap dance around semantics, and I said I was leaving.

Bye, twice.
 
mikeyx said:
Nope, they clearly get here genius. You were the one making the subspecies, if they have a same genetic, you are a coward for not admitting you're wrong. This thread has become pointless.

Bye
Click to expand...

You have remained obstinately ignorant of the facts.

Like everything else about Science, Taxonomy is in the continual process of refinement. At the time that the US government became interested in establishing a wildlife conservation program, about a hundred years ago, the so-called Eastern Cougar was seriously considered as a subspecies, and US agencies appropriately followed the guidelines of Science.

You also fail to acknowledge that taxonomic distinctions are not always strictly genetic.

Even so, as the consensus changed in the scientific community, there were also regulatory and practical considerations that have led the various agencies to continue to maintain the distinction. One of these is that it is a very convenient way to label a breeding population within a region for the purpose of allocating conservation resources. In the sense of shared lineage, this does indeed represent a specific gene pool, even if it does not meet the current standard for a separate taxonomic subspecies. Similarly, "extinct" has a specific legal connotation within the context of conservation agencies that is not necessarily completely synonymous with the scientific usage. Context matters.

Your shameless equivocations shall not be missed.
 
Enough with the bickering; this includes you Mikeyx and William Parcher. Recent bickering moved to AAH. For everyone, please keep your comments civil/polite, on topic, and ensure they address the argument vs attack the arguer.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar
 
leonAzul said:
You have remained obstinately ignorant of the facts.

Like everything else about Science, Taxonomy is in the continual process of refinement. At the time that the US government became interested in establishing a wildlife conservation program, about a hundred years ago, the so-called Eastern Cougar was seriously considered as a subspecies, and US agencies appropriately followed the guidelines of Science.

You also fail to acknowledge that taxonomic distinctions are not always strictly genetic.

Even so, as the consensus changed in the scientific community, there were also regulatory and practical considerations that have led the various agencies to continue to maintain the distinction. One of these is that it is a very convenient way to label a breeding population within a region for the purpose of allocating conservation resources. In the sense of shared lineage, this does indeed represent a specific gene pool, even if it does not meet the current standard for a separate taxonomic subspecies. Similarly, "extinct" has a specific legal connotation within the context of conservation agencies that is not necessarily completely synonymous with the scientific usage. Context matters.

Your shameless equivocations shall not be missed.
Click to expand...

It matters to a point, beyond that discussions like this become pointless. I guess I won't be missed in the pointlessness. Oh well.
 
It really isn't pointless.
There is no confirmatory evidence of a cougar population existing in the Eastern United States, and some people continue to claim they exist. Here is where the point comes in; Why do people continue to claim these things that they do not have any supporting evidence of?

This is a real animal, and people claim it is breeding in the mountains of NY. We can parallel this with pretend animals inhabiting the rest areas and semi-rural driveways of North America.

The Connecticut cougar being struck by a car is a nail in the coffin to those who claim there are breeding cougars in and around Connecticut. Here is one cougar, that has been trailed across the northern tier of States via game cams, it gets to Conn. and gets whacked by an SUV. This tells us that if there were pre-existing populations of cougars in the area, that a certain percentage of those would be killed as well. The one cougar in Connecticut got whacked, the others are smart enough to avoid roads I guess.
 
I've always felt like its upon the claimer to back up their assertions. If they feel there is a breeding population in NY then there should be evidence of it to support that. If not, chalk it up to occasional sightings of wandering cougars or BS.

I saw cougar tracks ONCE in GA in my lifetime. I have spent a fairly good amount of time out in nature hiking and doing other outdoor related activities that take me sometimes to fairly remote areas. I can accept just fine that there is not a breeding population in the north GA mtns. (even though there is plenty for them to eat, and range there)

I also concur with some of the sentiments of there not really being a need for a subspecies designated due to the very minor (if any, still debated) differences between eastern and western cougars. Apparently reality and wishful thinking don't neccessarily meet up in some cases regarding claims made about this animal.
 
Last edited:
Apparently one was hit by a car in upstate NY where I am originally from last year or the year before. Certainly, there is plenty of space and range for them to live without detection in the Adirondacks.
 
billydkid said:
Apparently one was hit by a car in upstate NY where I am originally from last year or the year before. Certainly, there is plenty of space and range for them to live without detection in the Adirondacks.
Click to expand...
And a young Emperor Penguin was found in New Zealand earlier this year.

This does not make Emperor Penguins endemic to NZ or indicate that there is a viable population outside of Antarctica.
 
billydkid said:
Apparently one was hit by a car in upstate NY where I am originally from last year or the year before. Certainly, there is plenty of space and range for them to live without detection in the Adirondacks.
Click to expand...

Pics or linkz plz...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom