 |
 |
|
| | ABSTRACT | | | CONCLUSIONS | |
Abstract: Nineteen mountain lions
(Felis concolor stanleyana) were released into northern Florida as
surrogates for evaluating the feasibility of reintroducing Florida panthers
(F. c. coryi) into unoccupied areas of their historic range. These
included 11 females and 8 vasectomized males. Six of the released mountain
lions were born and raised in captivity at Gillman Paper Companys White
Oak Plantation near Yulee, Florida, 10 were captured in the wild in western
Texas and translocated to Florida, and 3 were captured in the wild in western
Texas and held in captivity in Florida 2-8 years prior to release. Animals
were monitored using radio-telemetry at least 3 days/week from 22 February
1993 to 30 June 1995. Fifteen lions established one or more home ranges.
Nine (60%) home ranges overlapped one or more other home ranges. This
population was made up of predominately captive-born and
wild-caught/captive-held animals in an area that varied is size from 127
to 418
sq. km (1.5 to 3.1 lions/100 sq. km). Mountain lions that established home
ranges outside of this population had a high excursion rate than did animals
within it. Excursions were more frequent during the breeding season than
during the rest of the year. Captive-raised animals tended to establish home
ranges more quickly and were more likely to be in association with other
animals than were wild-caught animals. However, captive-raised animals,
particularly males, were more likely to be seen and caused most of the
human/lion interactions that created negative attitudes toward the
program.
The mean distance from the release site to the home range center and the
mean home range size were significantly greater for wild-caught males.
Reestablishment of additional Florida panther populations is biologically
feasible. It would require incorporating the advantages and planning around
the disadvantages of both captive-raised and wild-caught translocated
animals. However, complex social issues were identified that must be
satisfactorily addressed, and it must be decided whether the tremendous
costs involved (economic, political, social, etc.) in the reestablishment of
additional Florida panther populations can be offset by the benefits
gained in
reducing the risk to present Florida panther population.
CONCLUSIONS
Reestablishment of additional Florida panther populations is
biologically feasible. It would require incorporating theadvantages and
planning around the disadvantages of both captive-raised and wild-caught
translocated animals. There are enough habitat and prey available in
northern Florida and southern Georgia to support a viable, self-sustaining
population of Florida panthers. This population would expand in a relatively
short period of time and despersers from this population likely would travel
throughout many of the southeastern states.
The presence of this population, however, will create new problems for governmental agencies as well as the general public. These problems will be similar to the problems faced in California and Colorado where the expanding human population is encroaching into mountain lion habitat. The problems associated with a reintroduced population of Florida panthers will result from their encroashment into human habitat, but the problems will be similar. A segment of the general public will shoot the animals, either maliciously or possibly out of fear. This will require additional law enforcement manpower. Panthers will be killed on kighway, particularly dispersing subadults. There will be depredation problems, and most depredations, whether caused by dogs, coyotes, bobcats, or other animals, will be blamed on panthers. This will require an increased amount of manpower to respond to and investigate these complaints, and there will always be some risk, however small it may be, of panther attacks on humans. There will always be a tremendous ongoing need for public information and education because local opponents, if organized and politically astute, may be capable of defeating an otherwise well planned and financed reintroduction effort despite overwhelming but passive statewide support.
The Florida panther faces threat of extinction on 3 fronts. First, there is a continual loss of remaining panther habitat through human development. This continuing decline in amount of available habitat reduceds the carrying capacity and, therefore, the numbers of panthers that can survive. Second, genetic variation is probably decaying at a rate that is causing inbreeding depression (reduction of viability and fecundity of offspring of breeding pairs that are closely related genetically) and precluding continued adaptive evolution (Seal and Lacy 1989). Third, panther numbers may already be so low that random fluctuations could lead to extinction. Protection of remaining habitat (Logan et al. 1994) and genetic restoration (Johnson et al. 1995, Seal 1994) are ongoing projects. However, the success of both these projects still leaves the Florida panther population vulnerable to random fluctations that could lead to extinction. It will only be through the reestablishment of additional populations that this risk can be significantly reduced. It must first be decided, however, whether the tremendous costs involved (economic, political, social, etc.) in the reestablishment of additional Florida panther populations can be offset by the benefits gained in reducing the risk to the present Florida panther population.