Attending for Technical Subcommittee:

Mr. Tom H. Logan, FGFC, Chairman

Dr. Suzette Kimball, NPS

Mr. Dennis Jordan, USFWS

Jim Stevenson, FDEP

Mr. Andy Eller, US Fish and Wildlife Service, (FWS), provided the following summery regarding FWS habitat Preservation activities.

The Florida Panther Plan, approved by the Interagency Committee in 1994, identified occupied and unoccupied panther habitat in eleven ecological units, totaling 926,00 acres in nine south Florida counties. (Those areas are identified on the map that is enclosed as Attachment 1.) Existing and proposed acquisition projects (shown in green on the attached map), if successfully acquired, would protect about forty percent of the (private) lands essential to the south Florida panther population. The Game and Fish Commission, if successful in the developing management/conservation plans on five ownerships; Bab Ranch, Lykes Brothers Inc., Alico Inc., Barron Collier, and Collier Enterprises (shown in yellow on the attached map), could protect another forty percent of the (private) lands essential to the south Florida panther population. Voluntary agreements, estate planning, conservation easements, land exchanges, and mitigation banks are methods that could be used on as yet unprotected lands.

Mr. Dennis Hammond, Florida Game and Water Commission (FGFC), provided the following summery regarding FGFC habitat preservation activities.

A bill which passed during the 1995 Legislative Session in Florida, charged the Florida Game and Fresh Water Commission as the lead agency in the design and implementation of a resource and land management planning process to protect panther habitat on private lands in south Florida. A final report was delivered to the Governor and the Legislature on January 1, 1996, containing 37 consensus recommendations from private landowners and representatives of nine governmental agencies. A bill was introduced during the 1996 Legislative Session which incorporated 18 of the 37 consensus recommendations. The bill failed, but there is now a memorandum of understanding being circulated among state agencies which would provide a process to deliver incentives to landowners who volunteer to protect panther habitat on their land.

further details of Mr. Hammond's presentation are provided as Attachment 2. 2. Genetic Restoration Updates:

Mr. Ken Johnson, FGFC, provided the following summery, on behalf of Ms. Deborah Jansen and Mr. Sonny Bass, both of the National Park Service (NPS), regarding status of recovery efforts that were implemented in March 1995, to restore genetic variation to the existing population of Florida panthers in south Florida.

Genetic restoration is a cooperative recovery activity that involves field staff of each of the FPIC agencies. Genetic restoration has been successfully implemented by releasing 8 Texas cougars in south Florida form March to July 1995. Two were released in Fakahatchee Strand State Preserve (FSSP), two in Bear Island in Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP), two in the southern BCNP, and two in Everglades National Park (ENP). One Texas cougar was struck and killed by a vehicle in September 1995. All seven of the remaining Texas cougars have settled into home ranges within panther habitat and are exhibiting routine movements and activities. Two of these primarily use the FSSP, one uses the Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation, two use the southern BCNP, and two use ENP. Three litters of intercross kittens have been born between September 1995 and June 1996. Plans are to continue research to document movements, reproduction, and improvements in the health of the panther population. 3. Proposal to Move Two Males From Captive Population to BCNP/Role of Captive Population:

Ms. Deborah Jansen, NPS, proposed that two male Florida panthers that currently are in the captive population be translocated from that population for release into the wild population, to serve as breeding males in that area of Big Cypress National Preserve (BCNP) that lies south of Interstate 75. The problem is that only on male is known to have frequented this area during the past decade, producing three litters of kittens, and he died during late June 1995. There currently are no known males within the BCNP, south of Interstate 75. Four females currently occupy that are, two of which are cougar females that have been released in that area as part of the genetic restoration strategy. Although a male locally could be expected to eventually move into the area, these females (especially the cougars) need to be producing kittens. Approximately fifty percent of breeding age females in the total population, produced litters during the past year. The management strategy proposed was to tranlocate the two males from the captive population as a first option, with a second option being to consider translocation of up to two sub-adult males from within the wild population, should option one fail. Further details of Ms. Jansen's presentation are provided as Attachment 3.

Mr. John Lukas, Director of White Oak Conservation Center (WOCC), reported on the status of the nine Florida panthers that are currently in the captive population. Five of those that are at WOCC, two are at the Lowery Park Zoo in Tampa, and two are at the Jacksonville Zoological Park. Mr. Lukas confirmed that males 201 and 203, which are held at WOCC, could be conditioned for translocation to the wild population as proposed. He also proposed that the FPIC consider translocating female 21 to the wild population and suggested evaluation of the other six animals to assure they are best serving the recovery program and determine whether any of those should be relocated within existing or additional captive facilities. RECOMENDATION BY TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE:

1. The Technical Subcommittee recommendation was presented by Mr. Tom Logan, to proceed by conditioning male panthers 201 and 203 at WOCC for translocation from the captive population, and to translocate those males to that area of the BCNP for release after January 1, 1997. FPIC ACTION: Motion was made and seconded to approve the recommendation; motion carried.

Mr. Logan stated that the draft document that had been prepared describing the proposed action would be redrafted as a final document and placed made a part of the public record.

2. Mr. Logan indicated to the FPIC that the Technical Subcommittee would prepare a proposal to evaluate and recommend the translocation of female panther 21 from the captive population to the wild population. He indicated that the proposal would be completed in the near future, and asked the FPIC for direction. FPIC ACTION:

The FPIC directed the Technical Subcommittee to prepare the proposal for a review by the FPIC. Chairman Egbert expressed concern for the proposal to receive appropriate public input prior to FPIC action, and told the Technical Subcommittee that the proposal would be reviewed by the FPIC upon receipt to determine whether the proposal recommendation could be acted upon independent of a formal meeting or whether a meeting would be required.

Comments were expressed by several people in the audience, conceptually supporting translocation of female 21 from captivity to the wild population.

3. Mr. Logan told the FPIC that the Technical Subcommittee would be assisted by Mr. Lukas who would serve as lead in an evaluation of the continuing best role for the other six Florida panthers that remain in the captive population. Any recommendations that result from the evaluation will be presented to the FPIC upon completion of the evaluation. No action was required by the FPIC. 4. Medical Status of Male Panther #51:

Mr. Ken Johnson reported that Florida panther #51 has a ringworm infection that now has persisted for approximately one and a half years. Ringworm previously has been diagnosed in two other panthers, but those infections cured without treatment in one case and with treatment in the other. It is suspected that #51 may also have an immune system problem that may be responsible for the persistence of the infection, because of other health maladies also affecting the animal. Although the animal has lost hair from up to ninety percent of its body, no open sores were observed as recently as two weeks prior to this meeting, and he contiues to function as a dominant male and breeder in the population. The concerns are that the infection could eventually affect the nails, cause their lose their lose, and affect the animal's survivability. Medical recommendations we have received are that the infection will not improve without aggressive treatment of the animal under captive conditions. Such treatment would require capture and placement of the animal in captivity for one to three months of weekly treatment, with a seventy-five percent or better expectation of full recovery. Recommendation By Technical Subcommittee:

Mr. Logan presented the Technical Subcommittee recommendation to make necessary arrangements to capture male Florida panther #51, as soon as possible, for placement and aggressive medical treatment of ringworm in FGFC captive facilities at the Wildlife Research Laboratory in Gainesville, Florida, and return to the wild population upon recovery. Action By FPIC:

Motion was made and seconded to approve the recommendation; motion carried.

Chairman Egbert instructed the Technical Subcommittee to assure that all necessary documentation is completed. The existing Cooperative Agreement between the FGFC and USFWS for handling o endangered species provides authority to the FGFC to capture, treat, and hold male panther #51 in captivity for up to forty-five days. Technical staff of the FGFC and USFWS currently are preparing an application for insurance of an Endangered Species Permit specifically for that period that may be required to retain #51 in captivity, beyond forty-five days. 5. Feasibility of Panther Reintroduction:

Mr. Chris Belden, FGFC, presented the findings of a completed three year study to determine the feasibility of reintroducing Florida panthers to north Florida. A final Report of the study (Belden and McCown 1996) is available upon request from the FGFC; an abstract from the report is enclosed as Attachment 4. Mr. Belden reported his general findings to be that reintroducing appeared to be biologically feasible, but that complex social issues were indentified that would require resolution, otherwise, reintroduction in north Florida would appear feasible. Recommendation By Technical Subcommittee:

Mr. Logan stated that the Technical Subcommittee has reviewed and agrees with the findings of the Belden and McCown report that reintroduction of Florida panthers into north Florida appears to be biologically possible; however, in order for reintroduction of Florida panthers to be socially feasible in that area and this recovery activity to move forward, it is felt that the public opposition factors that were identified in the report should be mediated to produce a consensus of local support for reintroduction of Florida panthers. Therefore, the Technical Subcommittee recommended that FGFC staff be directed to proceed in an appropriate manner to evaluate those social factors identified in the Belden and McCown report, specifically with the people and groups who have expressed concerns and opposition to reintroduction, to determine what solutions may exist that would make reintroduction socially feasible. Action By FPIC:

Motion was made and seconded to approve the recommendation; motion carried.

Considerable comment was received from the audience prior to the action.

Ms. Judy Han made detailed comments of support for the entire recovery effort and program staff. She commented on the importance of the Florida Panther Auto Tag and suggested that "Coryi" be reestablished. Ms. Han supported the recommendation and urged efforts to achieve consensus as a means to address the needs and concerns of those who oppose reintroduction, as well as to meet the request of the other eighty percent (plus) who support reintroduction.

Chairman Egbert responded that he felt that we should proceed as recommended to find solutions on behalf of the eighty percent support.

Ms. Holly Jensen asked whether the FPIC would not proceed, if after the effort, just one person still objected to reintroduction.

Chairman Egbert stated that would not be the intent, but we must seek to work with those people (those who oppose reintroduction in the north Florida study area) for a resolution that more closely resembles consensus.

Mr. Manley Fuller, Florida Wildlife Federation, offered to assist in any manner that would be determined appropriate. He also indicated that he would be willing to establish a fund to pay potential claims o livestock loss associated with a reintroduced population.

Ms. Clough asked how much public land is in the study area.

Chairman Egbert directed staff to prepare an answer to the question. This information is provided as Attachment 5. Mr. Burt Wahl suggested that the FPIC consider re-appointing a Public Affairs Subcommittee.

Comments between the FPIC and Technical Subcommittee members acknowledged that such a subcommittee had been appointed, but was no longer active. Chairman Egbert directed Mr. Logan to have the Technical Subcommittee review status of the Public Affairs Subcommittee and make recommendations to the FPIC, at a future date, for reestablishment of that subcommittee. 12:30 PM Meeting Adjourned.

A bill which passed during the 1995 Legislative Session in Florida charged the Florida Game and Fresh Water Commission as the lead agency in the design and implementation of a project to develop a voluntary, incentive-based, resource and land management planning process. The purpose of the process was to deliver equitable incentives to private landowners to encourage voluntary protection of panther habitat on private lands in south Florida.

In July of 1995, we drafted a study narrative which describes two project components:

First: was the development of a whole-farm plan for a specific parcel of private land in south Florida. This plan described the landowner's land uses of choice, certain BMP's for those uses, and the value of the mosaic of land uses to extant wildlife on the property. The plan was delivered to the landowners in January of this year. On May 9, the landowner announced having reached an agreement to sell 21,700 acres of natural area on this property to the South Florida Water Management District for $11.5 million. Shortly thereafter, we were notified by the landowners that they were no longer interested in a whole-farm plan for property.

The second component of the study narrative was the development of a process which would result in agreements between government and private landowners who volunteered to protect panther habitat on their lands.

Two working groups were established to "invent" a land management planning process by consensus. One was a private landowner's working group (Albritton, Bab , Barfield, Berry, Collier). The second consisted of federal, state, and county governmental agency representatives including (COE, EPA, FWS, NRCS/DCA, DEP,DOA-Div. of Forestry, GFC, SFWMD/Collier Co. and Hendry Co.)

Information gathered from these two working groups was used to develop a concensus land management planning process. On January 1, 1996, 37 concensus recommendations were forwarded to the Governor and Legislature in a final report.

During the 1996 Legislative Session in Florida, a bill was introduced which, in its original language, incorporated 18 of the 37 concensus recommendations from our final report. This language was subsequently amended and attached to an Ecosystem Management bill which ultimately failed.

The long-term future of panther habitat protection seems to be hinging on a cooperative effort among state agencies. A Memorandum of Understanding had been developed by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Div. of Forestry), and the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. It provides for (among other things) the process which would have resulted from the 1996 legislation which failed. The Water Management Districts are also proposed to be signatory.

Two obstacles to panther recovery are lack of suitable habitat and the lack of genetic diversity. Big Cypress National Preserve offers an opportunity to alleviate both of these problems.

It has been stated that the suitable habitat north of Interstate-75 (I-75) is saturated, based on low incident of dispersing males establishing new territories and the high incident of males killing each other in competition for females.

The situation is different in Big Cypress south of I-75. Suitable but vacant panther habitat exists there. Population increase has been slow due to numbers of individuals, combined with the fact that the ranges of males and females often have not overlapped. In fact, since panther work began, the only time kittens have been documented in southern Big Cypress has been during the three years that male #42's range has overlapped with that of the females.

Raccoon Point, often refereed to as the best habitat in southern Big Cypress, was used by six panthers in the early 1980's. Currently, it has little panther use. Thus, the suitable but vacant habitat in Big Cypress offers the potential for panther numbers to increase.

Another obstacle to panther recovery is the lack of genetic diversity. Big Cypress is a participant in the genetic restoration program. The first and second steps have been achieved: two female mountain lions have been released and have established home ranges. The next step is for them to breed with male panthers and raise their offspring for recruitment into the population.

Four females, two panthers and two mountain lions are currently being monitored in southern Big Cypress. One mountain lion lives south of Highway 41. All are proven breeders. The problem is that, since #42's death over a year ago, there have been no males within the home ranges of these females.

Sign of an un-collared male has not been found nor have the four females exhibited signs of denying since #42's death. They have, however, associated with each other for extended periods which is a rare event in a normal social structure, also indicating that a male is not presented.

PROPOSAL: Introduce two male panthers into home ranges of the females in southern Big Cypress to facilitate expansion of the population and meet the goals of genetic restoration.

There are four reasonable options:

Option 1: No action, but wait for a male to naturally disperse into the are. A similar situation occurred in Big Cypress in 1990, and it took two years for a dispersing male to enter the home ranges of the females. For the past 4.5 years, only one other male is known to have entered the area inhabited by the females. We may not have the luxury of letting nature take its course in this critically small population.

Option 2: Translocate adult males from the group of panthers north of I-75. Currently, four adult males are radio-collared there. Each have established territories which encompass the home ranges of females. Removing established males may not only disrupt the social structure, but it is likely that they will attempt to return to their territories.

Option 3: Translocate subadult males from the group of panthers north of I75. three subadult males are radio-collared north of I-75. One is bilaterally cryptorchid and therefore incapable of successful breeding. The other two are one year of age; one is still with its mother. If they were selected for translocation, they would not be physically able to breed for at least another year.

Option 4:Reintroduce two of the males currently in captivity. In 1991 and 1992, five male kittens were removed from the wild population to establish a captive breeding program. If it is decided that these males will not be used for captive breeding, they may be candidates for reintroduction.

Of the five, one is bilaterally cryptorchid and therefore incapable of successful breeding. Another is the offspring of a Big Cypress female, so using him may perpetuate inbreeding in the wild population. The remaining three were removed at seven to eighth months of age, thus they have had some adaptation to the wild. Two are also the only known living offspring of female #9, and therefore may add founder genetic material to the wild population.

The return to the wild of captive-reared panther #23 has been successful. The males, however, have been in captivity for a longer period of time. Belden and McCown reported that the captive-reared lions in their north Florida study were seen more frequently and were involved in more of the human/lion interactions. This may be less likely to occur in Big Cypress which offers the best chance for captive-reared panthers to successfully return to the wild because o fits large acreage with few roads and its remoteness to urban areas. In addition, there are no livestock and the cycling females may act as magnets, keeping the males in the area.

If this proposal is endorsed, and the captive-reared males are selected, the operational plan will include direct release, daily monitoring until the males have settled into an acceptable area, an on-call capture team, and documentation of prey taken to assess how the males are faring.

In summary, the introduction of male panthers into southern Big Cypress would provide the opportunity to expand the panther population, meet the goals of genetic restoration, utilize the reproductive potential of the females, and use the captive-reared panthers in a beneficial way.

DECISION:

The first choice of males are those in the captive population. If problems arise and they are unsuccessful in breeding the females, two subadult males from the population north of I-75 will be translocated into southern Big Cypress.

John Lucas recommended the use of captive males #201 and 203, neither of which have representation in the wild. Both are healthy, although #201 recently recovered from toxoplasmosis. In February of 1995, the sperm counts o f#201 and 203 were 14% and 11% respectively, compared to the average panther count of 7%. Each would have sibs that would remain in captivity, thus maintaining genetic reservoirs. The animals would be conditioned to kill live prey which would lessen likelihood of associating humans with food.

The release will occur in January 1997 which will allow adequate time for conditioning and finalization of a Reintroduction Plan. The general gun season in Big Cypress will have ended and a GFC veterinarian will be established in south Florida.

Ownership of Forest Lands Within 50 Miles of the Release Site for the Florida Panther Reintroduction Feasibility Study.

There were a total of 3,656 radio-locations documented of 19 cougars between 23 February 1993 and 30 June 1995. The preferred habitats used by the cougars were forested lands. The most distant location was 217 miles from the release site. However, 80.1% (2,930) of all locations were within 50 miles of the release site. Therefore, we focused on forested lands within a 50-mile radius from the release site to characterize the ownership of lands used by cougars in the Florida Panther Reintroduction Feasibility Study.

Data from Brown (1996) and Thompson (1989) were used with analyses from the Bureau of Wildlife Research's geographic information system to characterize the ownership of lands used by cougars in the Florida Panther Reintroduction Feasibility Study. Lands that are considered forested lands by the U.S. Forest Service are not included in this analysis. The Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge is the most significant publicly-owned land not considered forested land. However, such lands generally were not used by the cougars.

Area (acres) of forested lands by state and ownership class of lands within 50 miles of release site.

	Federal	State	County & Municipal	Industrial Forest	Total
Florida	204,502	68,843	6,786	809,166	1,089,315
Georiga	19,532	21,515	2,222	919,522	962,791
Total	224,052	90,358	9,008	1,728,688	2,052,106
%Area	4.5	1.8	.2	34.4	40.9

References:

Brown, M. J. 1996. Forest statistics for Florida, 1995. Resour. Bull. SRS-6. Asheville, NC. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Services, Southern Research Station. 48pp

Thompson, M. T. 1989. Forest statistics for Georgia, 1989. Resour. Bull. Se-109 Asheville, NC. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station. 68pp.