 |
 |
|
By Karen Howard
|
We know that reintroduction is necessary for the eventual de-listing and survival of the Florida panther. We also know that the largest obstacle in our path to reintroduction is Fear. I have read many times over that social and political issues need addressing if we are to move forward. Steve Williams and I continued to do just this by taking part in a workgroup on Florida panther reintroduction sponsored by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC). At the March 26, 1998 Issues and Options Workshop held in Lake City, FL, by the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium, community concerns and ideas were recorded and a committee was formed to review them. A final report on the workgroup results will go to the GFC for use in determining their position on Florida panther reintroduction. I remember walking into the library for the first meeting on April 22nd armed with a canvas bag full of scientific reports, educational studies, and opinion surveys. I was nervous about what I might have to face in what I knew were very angry people. They experienced problems first hand with the GFC and with captive-bred research animals during the '93-'95 feasibility study. So there we sat facing each other, twelve people, two representing each group of interested parties: Hunters, Property Owners, Residents, Environmental Groups, Outdoor Recreation, and Government Agencies. Introductions began but were interrupted when one resident turned in her petition against release, signed by 55 of her neighbors, 54 opposed, adding that if panthers were released they would not survive, they guaranteed it. With formalities finished, the meeting began. "Let's get this rat killing over with," grinned one resident. The tone was set for what would be three difficult meetings over the course of April, May, and June 1998. We were faced with four alternative scenarios:
B) Reintroduction into a large fenced area, C) Reintroduction in a target area, and D) Dispersed Reintroduction. At the second meeting, May 20th, many fears became evident as we began to discuss the impacts of the four scenarios on issues of property rights, livestock and pets, public safety, hunting, recreation and wildlife management, panther health and survival. There was a large concern for property rights. The GFC has assured us that land options will be safeguarded. Residents then argued that the Florida panther is not the Florida panther any more because of the genetic restoration program using Texas cougars. When a GFC representative gave us an abbreviated answer on the genetic facts a resident quickly diverted the question to another topic. Hunters felt that panthers would eat all of their deer. Property Owners and Residents claimed that they hunt solely for the thrill, killing numerous cattle or deer in one hunt. The facts are that deer are public property and panthers eat only one prey every seven to ten days. During the last meeting on June 3, several participants repeatedly stated that the '92-'95 feasibility study was all lies based on who had written the report. Those same people later referred to the same study saying, "look at the charts, you can see where the cats were" in defense of different release areas and cougar use of land. During the ending remarks, the GFC representative present that evening offered a movement forward in communication and trust between themselves and local residents. Her olive branch apology for past misunderstandings was quickly rejected. Through all of the meetings, I stuck to the facts in an effort to get them on record. Several panel members were against reintroduction no matter how a plan might work. We agreed to disagree when we could not get a consensus on the impacts of the alternative scenarios. I often asked myself why such a small representative group of disgruntled neighbors would have such a hand in deciding the Florida panther's fate. |