Talk:Upper Peninsula of Michigan/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cougars[edit]

The Michigan DNR says nearest cougar breeding population to UP is 900 miles away.

[[1]]. A bear was sighted in Newark, New Jersey in recent years; a moose in Binghampton, N.Y. It would be wrong to say, however, that bears live in Newark and moose live in Binghampton. Ditto cougars in U.P.

See also this reasonably current site [[2]] Calamitybrook (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times (good source) has several articles concerning deer in Manhattan during past 10-15 years. ALso at least one concerning a turkey, and a couple on coyotes. I myself have seen a chicken....Police tracked a bear through Newark, N.J. a few years ago, according to widely published reports .
On this basis, it would be unreasonable to say that deer, turkey and coyote are among "Manhattan wildlife" nor bears in Newark, nor that any claims as such are made.
The sources now (again) removed, report that two cougars were confirmed in Michigan.

There are two similar confirmations in Massachusetts and many other weird examples abound........ No reasonable sources are presented, nor are available, that claim or suggest in any way that cougars are established in Michigan nor in Mass., etc.

When circus comes, elephants are in Michigan & Manhattan & etc & that's a fact too.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The references confirm consistent sightings. The Michigan DNR has from time to time said there are no cougars in Michigan, and has alternatively confirmed their existence. The cited references confirm all of this. The DNR does not ipse dixit make the Cougars disappear. Your tongue-in-cheek reference (WP:AGF reference to elephants does not change the facts either. You are saying these are "transient individuals" but have no reference. As you will note, the edit acknowledges both their reality and their existence. The test here is WP:Verifability, not WP:Truth. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
FWIW, I have personally observed Cougars on three occasions in Northern Michigan, one at 10 feet. I know, WP:NOR. But the sources and the legislative investigation confirm what I know, and those are fully in the references. If you want more references I'll provide them. But your "relevancy" objection does not negate the persistent fact that they are observed, as are their scat and paw prints, not to mention that they are photographed. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I've removed the reintroduced cougar material for the same reasons offered above.
Yes there have been 2-3 cougar in Michigan. There have also been at least two in Massachusetts.
A species needs a resident, breeding population to be reasonably described as part of a region's wildlife. The nearest such cougar population to Michigan is in Western South Dakota.
North American bird species occasionally turn up in Europe, having been literally been blown across the ocean. They are not part of European birdlife in any reasonable sense.
A manatee was found in the Hudson River. The nearest established population is Florida. One wouldn't describe manatee as part of New York's fauna.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am confused about where to reply.
You misunderstand the question and also what the state DNR says about it.

There have been two or perhaps three confirmed cougar in Michigan. Nobody disputes this.

You'll simply not be able to find (nor cite) any wildlife expert who believes cougars are part of Michigan's resident fauna.
Please spend some time digging around in this Web site:

http://www.cougarnet.org/ Calamitybrook (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Michigan Wildlife Conservancy, a private, non-profit organization based in Bath, Michigan, released results of an investigation that confirms a cougar was photographed near the south shore of Glen Lake in Leelanau County[1]

Dr. Patrick Rusz, director of wildlife programs for the Wildlife Conservancy, took measurements and photos of objects of known size at the site on September 9 accompanied by Christian Wiater, a National Park Service employee, and another witness. Dr. Rusz analyzed the photos in consultation with forensic photography experts and concluded that the animal had the profile and coloration of a cougar and was too large to be a house cat. Specifically, he found that the cat was likely more than 30 inches long from nose to end of body (excluding tail). House cats typically have body lengths of 18 inches. The cat’s body was at least 10.9 inches from top of back to bottom of chest/belly, just slightly less than for a mount of an adult cougar that Dr. Rusz measured as part of his investigation.

“Both Jerome and Christian Wiater stated that the animal they observed was about the same size as their pet hound,” noted Dr. Rusz. Based on my analysis, it may have been slightly smaller than the dog, but was definitely the size of a small cougar. The Wiater photos, along with decades of sighting reports and tracks found in the same general area during the past 9 years, provide compelling evidence of the presence of cougars in the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore area.

The Michigan Wildlife Conservancy has been researching the cougar population in Michigan since 1998. By March 2001 the organization had seen enough physical and anecdotal evidence to conclude that both peninsulas of Michigan were home to small, remnant cougar populations. In 2003 the Conservancy collected scats in eight Michigan counties that Central Michigan University analyzed and found cougar DNA. The results of this DNA study were printed in the April 2006 American Midland Naturalist, a peer-reviewed, science journal published by Notre Dame University.

Copies of the full text of Dr. Rusz’ report along with photos used in his analysis are available on our website at: http://www.miwildlife.org/c_ai_leelanau_sept_2009.asp

I recognize that Leleenau County is not in the U.P. But here is your one expert. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]

I have put in lots of references, many of which are specific to the Upper Peninsula, and some of which reference breeding populations. Best regards and happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
You have concluded that Elephants do not exist in Michigan. And you infer therefrom that cougars do not, either. This is illogical. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Indeed, you (and the DNR sometimes) choose to ignore reliable and credible evidence to the contrary. We will not resolve here whether cougars exist. What we can resolve is that a lot of sources say they do. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Ok, you two. That's quite enough. If you need a tie-breaker, this UP-native says that cougars exist in the UP, with certain explanations and qualifications. As I remember, reports on WLUC and in The Mining Journal were that the DNR couldn't admit to their existence without triggering Endangered Species List obligations, so the DNR officially denied the sightings. That's probably changed since then, but the point is that they exist, and we need to clean up the presentation of the information. Now, when I set about cleaning up the references, I'll be removing some of the given references to hone in one high-quality sources. No sentence on Wikipedia should need four footnotes after it. Additionally, references to web pages should have the accessdate indicated as a way to help prevent linkrot. There are bots that troll through the articles and find archived copies of the pages if they go offline, but the bots don't work if they don't know when the pages were accessed initially/last. Imzadi 1979 → 00:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the coverage of the Cougar is fine and appropriate to a section of the article about wildlife in a region famous for it's wildlife. This is a significant development and I would bet a topic of much discussion by the people living in the UP. I also think the speculation about the reaction, actions and motives of different groups is okay too. An for what it is worth, I personally really do hope that they are making a comeback. Mother Nature deserves to win a few rounds right about now. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting fixes[edit]

Ok, I won't do it tonight, but in the next few days, I plan on cleaning up the reference formatting. When I do so, I'll post a notice on the article that it's in-use so that we don't edit-conflict all night. Basically, there are a half-dozen references to Hunt's Guide and none of them are formatted right. That's just for starters, and there are even some WP:SPSs in use that should be removed and replaced with better WP:RSs. I just thought that I would let everyone that cares know. I'd appreciate if the "discussions" about cougars could be wrapped up on the talk page here first though. Imzadi 1979 → 03:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar in Chicago (with photo)[edit]

Cougars not yet part of Chicago fauna.
Please see interesting link here:

http://www.cougarnet.org/cmw-desc/Chicago-08.htm

No citations suggest that mountain lions are established in Michigan.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our "tie-breaker" comment suggests a conspiracy theory regarding Michigan wildlife officials.
Unconvincing, without reliable sources.
Please do post some responsible citations that say cougars have established a population in Michigan. (Ain't gonna be available.)
That's a minimal requirement.

Calamitybrook (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I'm actually from the UP. Are you? I'm just saying that as I recall, there was talk in the press about why the DNR was denying cougar sightings in the UP. As for citations, I believe that current DNRE sources should be sufficient for you. Now then, I'm tired of the arguing here. I'm going to start working on cleaning up the citation formatting. Afterwards, I'll work on culling the low-quality sources out of the article regarding cougars, just as I have already replaced the self-published source in the highways section with the state map. Imzadi 1979 → 01:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point about the residents of the UP is what???
That Michigan DNR IS denying cougar sitings is alleged government conspiracy & without reliable citations. Quite dubious.
The state DNR's position is that there is no established cougar population. It appears quite open about both data and rationale.
In sum, there are two or three confirmed reports of cougars in Michigan (as there are two in Illinois, including one in city of Chicago.) There are no reliable sources that suggest that cougars are a part of Michigan's established wildlife, nor Chicago's.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I don't care about Chicago in this instance. The fact remains that cougars have been sited, and there are RSs to point out their existence in the UP. Case closed. Move on. Imzadi 1979 → 03:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is quote from March 10, 2010, posting on Michigan DNR Web site:

"DNRE biologists believe cougars are occasional visitors to Michigan, but there's no evidence they are permanent residents."

Please see [[3]]

This is an authoritative source, far better than statements from a state legislator (!!?) &/or an advocacy group that asserts, in what is essentially fund-raising material, that "We proved" that cougars live in Michigan, etc.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you think that your "reliable source" trumps all the others. There are numerous and accumulated other viewpoints. In any event, the standard is not ultimate "WP:Truth but WP:Verifiability. FWIW, the City of Troy, Michigan recently had a spate of reported cougar sightings, which were pooh-poohed by the local authorities. Frankly, I tried to highlight both sides of the ongoing controversy, but you don't seem to be interested. The scientist on Leleenau County, Michigan was published in a peer-reviewed journal. BTW, my three encounters with cougars were in Alcona County, Michigan over a period of a decade, and the Close Encounters of the Fourth Kind was in Negwegon State Park as I and a friend were riding a bicycles, and we flushed the Cougar from the grassy cover next to the road. Frankly, all I wanted was a mention of this in the article, but some of us want to beat a dead horse. Imzadi1979 has gotten this right, and it is time to move on. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
We can add mention that the official DNRE position differs from other evidence and move on. I'm in the middle of letting my laptop configure my new DSL connection and I can work on that addition later when I'm not trying to follow stuff on my iPhone while the computer is taking ages to set up my account.


Why the DNR continues to deny the existence of Cougars in Michigan] with links to newspaper articles. And Discussion pro and con of Cougars in Michigan and denials by DNR, with testimonial regarding Alcona County Cougar. Alcona County is in Northern Michigan including a column from the Detroit News. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I don't think we need to add any more sources. I've already stripped all of the low-quality sources out. If you can find the original Detroit News article, and not a reprint elsewhere, I'll consider incorporating information from it to replace and supplement what is in the article now. Otherwise, the current parargraph is pretty good as it stands. Imzadi 1979 → 21:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Michigan Citizens For Cougar Recognition" appears to be essentially a Web site run by one person residing in Gobles, Michigan, whose credentials are unknown & who believes in a government conspiracy. It isn't a reliable source. Neither are a couple of the others posted.
The Michigan DNR's four cougar specialists believe as of March 2010, "there is no evidence cougars are permanent residents." DNR presents their view in the context of a highly responsible and fairly detailed discussion of what evidence exists & what doesn't.
So yeah, when covering wildlife biology, the views of wildlife biologists do trump the views of non-specialists.
Perhaps a majority of U.P. residents believe the earth was created in 7 days, 6,000 years ago. :But this shouldn't therefore form basis for covering U.P. geology.
At minimum the DNR view should be a very prominent part of any presentation of these alternate theories.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calamity, can I ask a favor? I've spent a lot of time on this article in total recently. Most of that effort and energy has been focused on proper and consistent reference citation formatting. Your last set of edits removed all of the footnotes, and inserted malformatted external links, one of which was already in the article in full. Please be more careful with your editing. Secondly, I tried in my limited time to minimize the MCCR links in favor of more reputable sources. You've not removed them in favor of less reputable sources. I'm going to attempt to refactor what you've changed to restore some semblance of balance, reputation and formatting consistency. Imzadi 1979 → 00:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It's not the DNR anymore. The department was renamed to the DNRE a year ago when the DNR and the DEQ were merged back together. The functions of the DEQ were previously part of the DNR until the DEQ was formed under the Engler Administration. The Granholm Administration merged them back together under a revised name last year. Imzadi 1979 → 00:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar re-write[edit]

Re-did cougar bit highlighting available scientific views with the conflicting cultural elements. This is critical content. and available sourcing CAN be followed by interested readers.
Am indeed weak on the formatting questions. Hope somebody terribly interested in this can help improve!!.

Calamitybrook 00:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, make you a deal. stop editing the article, and bring the proposed text here. We'll hammer it out and move a single, concise paragraph to the article at once. Imzadi 1979 → 01:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draft paragraph[edit]

As of 2010, cougars were not considered permanent residents in the region according to evidence available to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE), although "some individuals that seem to be filtering into the state, probably from the Dakotas."[2] The DNRE's team of four cougar specialists noted that it "has never verified the body of a road-killed animal, which is a fairly common occurrence in states with established cougar populations."[2] The presence of cougars has been persistently reported over many years.[3] DNA evidence, scat samples, photographs and paw prints have been verified in eight counties in Northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula.[4] The first confirmed trail camera photographs in Menominee County near Wallace were taken in mid-2010.[5][6] A report, the 2001 Michigan's Natural Resources and Environment: A Citizen's Guide, prepared by the Michigan Legislature states that "the gray wolf, cougar, lynx, and prairie vole are examples of endangered animals that can be found in Michigan."[7] The founder of a group called Michigan Citizens for Cougar Recognition (MCCR) charges that the DNRE is breaking the law for not protecting any cougar population in the state.[8] The MCCR has even reported various theories as to why the DNRE has not recognized a cougar population in the state from budgetary and bureaucratic reasons to a conspiracy to reduce the white tail deer population.[9]

References
  1. ^ Cougar Photographed in Leelanau County, MI.
  2. ^ a b "DNRE's 'Cougar Team' Investigates Sightings". Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment. March 24, 2010. Retrieved October 28, 2010.
  3. ^ "Lawmakers Look At Cougar Evidence". Michigan Wildlife Conservancy. January 29, 2009. Retrieved October 27, 2010.
  4. ^ "Living With Cougars in Michigan". Michigan Wildlife Conservancy. Retrieved October 27, 2010.
  5. ^ "DNRE Confirms Cougar Sighting in Michigan". The Morning Sun. Mt. Pleasant, MI. June 21, 2010. Retrieved October 27, 2010.
  6. ^ "Trail Camera Photographs Cougar in Michigan". Kalamazoo, MI: WWMT-TV. June 21, 2010. Retrieved October 27, 2010.
  7. ^ Michigan Legislature, Legislative Service Bureau, Science and Technology Division (Revised March 2001) [Originally published 2001]. Michigan's Natural Resources and Environment: A Citizen's Guide (PDF). p. 17. Retrieved October 27, 2010. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ Noble, Denise. "Is the DNR Breaking the Law by Not Protecting Cougars?". Michigan Citizens for Cougar Recognition. Retrieved October 27, 2010.
  9. ^ Noble, Denise. "Why the DNR Continues to Deny Michigan's Cougars". Michigan Citizens for Cougar Recognition. Retrieved October 27, 2010.

Newspapers and other articles[edit]

Dated sources
Undated

Comments on sources[edit]

I can access the full text of Grand Rapids Press and Detroit News articles through Newsbank at my library, and I can e-mail them to anyone that would like a copy. The key here is to build as concise and well-sourced of a paragraph as possible, excluding low-quality sources. The MCCR is a low-quality source except on what it says or claims about itself. If they're quoted in the mainstream press though, as they have been in the Grand Rapids Press, that would be better. I can e-mail any Newsbank articles on request. Just e-mail me your address through the "E-mail this user" link on my user page. (P.S. can you guys get things correct on formatting. Article titles go in quotation marks and newspaper/magazine/book titles go in italics. Your credibility suffers when basic details like that or the names of state departments are wrong.) Imzadi 1979 → 13:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the articles say, so there is no need to send them. This is amply and credibly reported.
Sorry that my credibility is now in question based on your format suggestions. I would think my edit history and contributions might be a more worthwhile basis for evaluation. Nevertheless, I'll keep your suggestions in mind.
In any event, I am not telling you what to write, but was simply trying to find credible sources, and leaving it to you to make the judgments. I trust your judgment based on your oeuvre and reputation. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Well, there's a third participant in this discussion, and the offer is good to both of you. That being said, the Newsbank search I just did for "cougar sightings Michigan" (in an attempt to weed out every sports team with "Cougars" as a mascot name) came up with 53 hits from the Grand Rapids Press and the Detroit News for the last decade or so. If either of you would like the full text of all of those articles, let me know. I have had them all 25 of them e-mailed to me, except the articles that discuss other animals and only mention cougars in passing. Imzadi 1979 → 14:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is better[edit]

The stuff above is much improved. From it, the reader can perhaps discern prevailing opinion of scientists vs. crackpot & man-on-the-street views & etc.

A bit of confusion may prevail over reported sightings, which in themselves are mere interesting data points (most often false.) Only (expert) analysis of aggregate data is meaningful.

One might question why a non-resident species would get so much coverage in subsection on U.P. wildlife, or why the crackpots are included at all.

On the other hand, perhaps the so-called controversy is culturally (if not scientifically) significant & reveals some small aspect of rural life.

(Since the crazies get their due here, why edit out the hilarious bit about insurance companies secretly paying DNR??). Calamitybrook (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This, as you can see from just the last 10 years, is a controversy and a debate that's not going away. The key is to factor it into an appropriate section, because let's face it, significant popular opinion in this state is that the species exists. The section on wildlife in the UP (or for that matter, the whole state) can't ignore the topic completely, but why give too much credence to the MCCR over higher-quality sources like the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy? We should be using secondary sources, which means that any of the listed articles above from press outlets or scientific journals should be used, even over the DNRE's own webpages. Imzadi 1979 → 15:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The various "pro Cougar" groups are not all "crack pots" and "crazies." That they exist suggests that depth of the public concern and the fracture between many citizens and the government. In fact, many of the websites give links to other sources, e.g., the film in Sterling Heights taken by the police. The Michigan Conservancy has had expert opinions rendered in peer-reviewed journals.
Further, there have been more than a few accusations in main stream news sources -- and quoting former and present members of the DNRE -- suggesting that the DNRE has its own agenda, and is simply trying to paper over real wildlife issues.
I am not making accusations here. Rather, I am simply encapsulating the conclusions reported elsewhere.
Additionally, whatever we do here will have to be revised and replicated in Northern Michigan. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I haven't dug farther than what I found in Newsbank yet, so if you can help find any of the peer-reviewed journal articles, that would be of benefit. I'm trying to work the Donnelly article into my second draft below because in 2007 the DNR position was that no cougars were in Michigan, but since 2008-09 or so, the department's position has changed. My position here is that I'm trying not to call the MCCR crazy, but obviously they have an explicit agenda. Short of creating a full-blown article on cougars in Michigan, which I don't want to do, we need to keep the pargraph that's moved into the article at a minimum to avoid undue weight. Yes, there is a controversy about the issue, but let's keep the paragraph concise by sticking to what the reliable, secondary sources say. Imzadi 1979 → 16:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found the MWC/CMU study, but I don't have JSTOR access to get the full text. I will see if any one of my friends that are college students can access it for me. The article is at:
Imzadi 1979 → 16:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, a friend of mine that works for WMU e-mailed me the full paper, so I have it handy. I can forward that on to anyone on request. Imzadi 1979 → 18:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second draft[edit]

Draft Number 2, completely written from press accounts:

There is significant controversy over the presence of cougars in the UP. Historically, the last of the species was killed near Newberry in 1906, although there have been sightings of the creatures over the years since. These reports have increased in number over the first decade of the 21st century. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE) has formed a four-person team to investigate sightings in the state. The biologists with the DNRE currently do not believe that there is a breeding population anywhere in the state, rather that the sighted animals are visitors to the state.[1] As late as January 2007, the DNRE's official position was that no cougars lived in Michigan.[2] Several residents in the state disagree with both current and previous positions on the part of the DNRE.[2][3] A citizen's group, the Michigan Citizens for Cougar Recognition (MCCR), has independently tracked sightings and in 2009 listed Delta County as the location with the greatest number of reports in the state.[4] The DNRE has verified five sets of tracks and two trail camera photos in Delta, Chippewa, Marquette, and Menominee counties since 2008.[5] DNRE officials acknowledge that there are cougars in the UP, but not elsewhere in the state. Critics of the DNRE's position on the species, including the founder of the MCCR, say that the department is attempting to "avoid paying for a cougar management program".[3]

References
  1. ^ "On the Cougar Trail: Team Investigates Sightings, Tracks Throughout U.P., State". Daily Press. Escanaba, MI. March 18, 2010.
  2. ^ a b Donnelly, Francis X. (January 27, 2007). "Roar of Michigan Cougar Debate Grows Louder". Detroit News.
  3. ^ a b Aupperlee, Aaron (December 21, 2009). "Cougar Sightings Growing Common: DNR Says it Has No Proof Big Cats Are Lurking, But Many Folks Say Otherwise". Grand Rapids Press. p. A3.
  4. ^ Michigan Citizens for Cougar Recognition (December 21, 2009). "Top 10 Counties for Cougar Sightings". Grand Rapids Press. p. A4.
  5. ^ "DNRE Confirms Cougar Sighting in Michigan". The Morning Sun. Mt. Pleasant, MI. June 21, 2010. Retrieved October 27, 2010.

Comments[edit]

Thoughts? Imzadi 1979 → 16:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

". . . and having the Endangered Species Act invoked." 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
First draft was better, though too long. Lede with available science. Then to the history & pseudo-controversy, if desired.
Again, the perfectly good analogy: According to significant popular opinion in this state (let's face it), the world was created in seven days. Therefore, add to a U.P. geology segment? Calamitybrook (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're going to have to disagree here. There is a controversy. It's not "pseudo". There are groups and peer-reviewed studies now that refute the previous DNR position. In fact, we can document that the DNRE's current position on the issue has changed. There is a citizen's group in the state lobbying for change in state policy. I'm trying to stick to press reports and journal articles here. That means no DNRE, MWC or MCCR webpages, no blogs, nada. I don't even want to use links to republished press articles. As for the paragraph above, if we start with historical information, it makes the latter parts of the pagragraph make sense. Imzadi 1979 → 17:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7&6: from what article did that quotation originate? Imzadi 1979 → 17:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imzadi, Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't quoting, just suggesting text. But I think that thought came from the Chicago article. Or one of the other new reports that specifically picks on DNRE's position. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]

If cougars do exist in Michigan, they are protected under the Endangered Species Act. {cite news |url=http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E4DD1731F930A15751C1A9679C8B63&fta=y |title="OUTDOORS; A Scientific Search for Cougars" |work=New York Times |date=February 23, 2001 |Access date=10/27/2010}} 7&6=thirteen (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Yeah, so definitely lede with the science, & then you can add "man-on-the-street" stuff, or whatever some 20-year-old reporter for a local newspaper came up with for his daily quota.
The state biologists probably have the best handle on question. Any peer-reviewed stuff is probably prime. Is going to agree with DNR March 2010 press release I cited.
Can we also include popular views on geology? Calamitybrook (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you keep bringing up geology. When it comes to science though, we still have two camps of belief. The DNRE says 8 cougars, transient and in the UP. The MWC says more like 100 and supports the position that both peninsulas have them. I won't say that the DNRE has the best handle on things. They just represent one side of the story. I have the study from the American Midland Naturalist now, so let me read through it. If you want a copy, let me know by e-mail and I'll pass it along. Imzadi 1979 → 18:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Calamitybrook was perhaps making a (poor) attempt at irony (I am not trying to speak for him/her) when he/she talked about a plebiscite on geology. The problem with that metaphor is that it ignores the politics and public policy questions that are inherent in whether cougars exist in Michigan, if so to what extent, and what (if anything) should be done by government. THe DNRE has ever more limited resources, and very good resons to not want more on its plate. The conservation and environmental issues are very real. West, Valerie (November 30, 2008). "Cougar sightings prompt dispute among wildlife organizations". Daily Tribune. Journal Register News Service. Retrieved October 27, 2010. Daily Tribune. This is no joking matter. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
(Interestingly, the Journal Register Co. is, in my opinion, possibly the worst newspaper chain in America, though am sure the article is acceptable.)
Be that as it may, MWC seems to have trouble with simplest of facts.
MWC's main page has a little advertisement with picture of a cougar and the words "We Proved They're Here. Will You Help Protect Them?" (First sentence is misleading; second sentence means "so therefore give us money.") MWC wasn't critical, nor did they even play a role in most of the few verified cougar observations in Michigan. So they've proven little, & certainly not that the state has an established cougar population.
Regardless, the scientific consensus appears to be the reverse of what they suggest.
If Michigan DNRE biologists are withholding information on cougars for whatever reason, that might be of interest. Haven't seen any reliable sources on what appears to be a fringe theory.
BTW, it's not a joke. The above notion that public opinion plays any role in practice of science is simply wrong-headed.

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the face of the accusations about the DNRE "cover-up" (not my words), and the rather extensive evidence that Cougars exist in both peninsulas (even if we get rid of the groups) (as indicated in the above-cited sources -- Wikipedia may have to ignore the groups, but I don't), the DNRE refusal to recognize their existence is not "scientific." That you would think it so, is to ignore the reality of political administration, and I would respectfully and charitably suggest that it displays a shocking Naïvete. The DNRE are not the final arbiters of the science, but they are the bureaucrats who are supposed to enforce all the laws. This is a matter of legal and public policy, not science. And the legal and public policy are being administered by fallible humans who are subject to administrative inertia, at least.
But we are not here to adjudicate the truth of any of this. To reemphasize, the test is WP:Verifiability, not WP:Truth. How you feel about the conservation groups, or how I feel about the DNRE's position, is irrelevant to the propriety of putting it into the article. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Quite right. I fully agree.
The Wikipedia editors' task would appear to be ranking sources. So the DNRE potentially has an agenda, according to the assertion of one former employee, quoted in a rather minor news source.
The very locally based non-governmental wildlife groups obviously also have, if nothing else, the agenda of private fund-raising and, it seems, a much-related goal of unjustified self-aggrandizement.
Peer-reviewed articles in science journals, if any, would be best.
I'd suggest the "eastern cougar network" (dot org) as another source that is clearly removed from Michigan politics and purely local private fund-raising concerns.
It has a very credible board of scientific advisers, with good credentials, none of whom are from Michigan, and who it may be assumed, review information on organization's Web site.
They aren't fixated on Michigan but rather, on the "big picture" of potential range expansion. Their Web site has been updated during the current year. It shows three verified cougar reports from Michigan since 1990, according to described and rather stringent criteria. Calamitybrook (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So gentlemen, what is the current opinion? I've left things here alone while attending to other things. The article has a mass of text on this issue that is hidden at the moment We have some paragraphs above to work with. No matter what your opinion of the MI-based wildlife groups, Calamity, they are being quoted and discussed in very prominent news outlets here, and the co-author of that peer-reviewed study is from the MWC. We have to balance the "official" DNRE/federal gov't sources with the "unofficial" state-based conservation/recognition groups. Both sides need to be presented in some fashion because both sides are presented in the press. If we include the Eastern Cougar Network, that's fine too, but my preference is to find this information in secondary sources like newspapers and magazines. Peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, gov't and group press releases and gov't and group web pages are all primary sources, which is fine, but we have to be careful when using them. Calamity, you say you want sources removed from Michigan politics, which is fine, but a lot of this controversy is political, and it will need to be addressed. The end goal should be a short, concise paragraph though because otherwise we risk undue weight in the wildlife section. Imzadi 1979 → 06:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Sources, quote:"Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. "
See: [4], [5] & others... Calamitybrook (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Imzadi. Another alternative would be a separate article on the subject, with a link in this article. Which would thereby avoid the undue weight' question. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
We should be constrained by Wikipedia policy above regarding peer-reviewed articles.
I've only found two peer-reviewed articles; One is by MWC guy, who seems to me have vested interest in topic apart from the article.
The other is by several outsiders, and is severely critical of MWC guy's methods and conclusions.
I'd definitely not oppose a separate article on topic to include all the various theories & political factors & interest groups. Politics, however, may be out of place in a simple listing of species.Calamitybrook (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that quote, but I'm considering another issue with what I said. The projects on medicine and pharmacology have a guideline called WP:MEDRS, which doesn't technically apply here, but I think it's persuasive on the issue. The guideline there is to only accept reviews of studies, not the initial studies themselves. They consider the first study, the actual research, to be a primary source. A peer-reviewed paper that summarizes the results from a number of studies is a secondary source, and that's what those projects prefer. Honestly, I read that article from the JSTOR link you provided. (We've already discussed it above.) I have the full paper here as a PDF in case either of you want it e-mailed. There's not a lot in it that's of use except to cite that there was an independent scientific study that proves that there are cougars on both peninsulas. The other useful tidbit is that it buttresses the credibility of Dr. Rusz of the MWC. (Remember, he wasn't the only one to write the paper, and it was accepted into a scientific journal even if others disagree with methods and conclusions._ Now I haven't read the second yet, because I need to find a way to access the full text. Sorry, I disagree with one point. Politics is wrapped all over and through this issue. Imzadi 1979 → 17:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The study I linked to above is largely a review of Rusz' study; claims its conclusions are incorrect, and also notes that Rusz's is the only study "in the literature" that asserts there is a breeding population of pumas in Michigan.
Thus there is no "meta-analysis" to be done, even assuming that he medical project guidelines should trump WP:SOURCES (though I don't hear any particular reason why they should).
Politics occasionally impinges on science. Two salient examples are evolution and climate change. Yet I think it's possible to fairly treat these two subjects without covering the politics.
Here's a round-up you may have already found [6] Calamitybrook (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't read that second study, only the abstract appears at the link. An abstract of an article is only so useful, but without the rest of the study we can't evaluate the analysis and the reasoning. As an analysis of the initial study, it qualifies as a secondary source. Your latest link though is a blog, which is not allowable under the policy on self-published sources. According to a news search on Google, the Cougar Rewilding Foundation, or its other name Eastern Cougar Foundation, (the group behind that link) does not appear in any news sources. Most of the entries on that blog are summaries of press reports, which are reliable sources. In other words, that source can't be used here either. Imzadi 1979 → 01:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand contents of blog Web site. Those aren't summaries of press reports; those are the complete articles, some of which you've already linked to. I merely provided it as a resource, as it appears to be fairly complete.
I believe the foundation has sponsored a number of conferences, proceedings of which are cited in certain scholarly papers.
Your notion that the medical project guidelines should trump basic WP on sourcing remains unexplained.
Regardless, one can probably access the full text related to the scholarly abstract electronically through a university library or other good library, but is unnecessary. One might, for example, cite a book that you may not personally own. You needn't demand a copy of the book, though you're free to purchase one. Calamitybrook (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the foregoing part of Calamitybrook's assessment. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
You shouldn't be citing sources you have not personally read or viewed. If you only have the abstract, you can only cite details or conclusions explicitly mentioned in the abstract. Future reviewers at places like GAN, PR or FAC are free to demand explanations or elaborations of information cited to a document, but if you don't have the document, they're likely to ask that the content be stripped from the article or the article not be promoted. (I have a file with all of the various newspaper articles used in my FAs stored here. I have copies or access to copies of all of the maps I've used in creating the articles, even if that's meant that I've scanned in the pages of the atlases and stored them on my hard drive. I regularly print the digital archive copies of articles, unless the page is in the Wayback Machine at archive.org. Either of you two may not do the same, but I've successfully submitted 57 articles to GAN, 10 articles through the USRD A-Class Review process and 5 articles through FAC. One additional article was submitted through FLC for which I had to interlibrary loan request an atlas from Marquette, the pertinent pages of which I have scanned and archived for future consultation. These are all good habits that any editor should be encouraged to adopt.)
You're misunderstanding me on another point though. WP:MEDRS does trump the general sourcing guidelines for medical/pharmacological articles. (There is substantial consensus to enforce a stricter level of scrutiny on sources in those categories of articles.) I have not stated that it explicitly applies here, but that the basic principle behind part of it is very valid and should be considered in this case, i.e. that even a peer-reviewed paper published in an academic journal can be either a primary or secondary source. The general guidelines are clear to take care on using primary sources. A peer-reviewed paper that is an analysis of a research study or a review of available studies in the scientific literature is a secondary source. Both types are considered reliable, but using primary sources is generally discouraged to some degree.
As for the blog site, if it's regurgitating other sources, then go directly to the other sources and bypass the middle man. There can be opportunities for the republished articles to be altered, intentionally or unintentionally, and the blog itself can't be cited in the article. The bloggers can also omit articles for various reasons. There is nothing on the site to give a general indication of editorial oversight or reputation. The organization hasn't been quoted or mentioned in any news sources that I have found which would indicate some measure of their reputation. On the other hand, we have the MCCR and the MCW appearing in other sources. Imzadi 1979 → 16:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Above post may be too long for an effective response.
The foundation's collection of "news sources" (for which you seem to argue for inclusion) seems comprehensive and therefore perhaps useful. One can, perhaps use their detailed citations to locate "origninal" sources. I'd argue that little local daily newspapers in Michigan (owned largely by Wal-Mart like corporations) employ writers and reporters with little skill or ability and therefore should be used with great caution. But what it presents, regardless of this concern, is a fairly comprehensive collection of such articles.
As far as WP policy goes, the few people writing med/pharma project "guidelines" are more or less free to go in whatever direction they like. This isn't policy, and the UP article isn't a med/pharma article. So what's your point there?
Don't see why politics belongs in section on wildlife.
I'd support using the two available scholarly articles here, and creation of separate article on politics & speculation regarding eastern cougars. I think this prospective article should NOT be limited to Michigan, however, as many of these same so-called issues exist in half a dozen or more states. Calamitybrook (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The key point I was making in mentioning MEDRS is that there is a difference between primary sources (research papers) and secondary sources (papers that review other research). Wikipedia as a whole prefers secondary sources, and in this case, anything directly published by the DNRE or any of the groups are primary sources, as is the CMU/MWC authored research paper. The other journal article you found is a secondary source, but we don't have access to the full text of it.
Well, next time I read the Grand Rapids Press or the Detroit News, I'll be glad to know that i's a "little local daily newspaper". When it comes to the Daily Press in Escanaba, they are one of the 5 major daily papers for the UP with a pretty good reputation. Given the consistency in reporting in the number of other news sources that covered the same story as The Morning Sun in Mt. Pleasant I'm pretty sure that story is just fine.
The revision to the article that you reverted cited both of the articles that were published in the American Midland Naturalist journal, yet you reverted it. What you call "politics & speculation" is not really either. There are political considerations whenever the government is involved. There really isn't speculation, since both sides have stated that there are cougars in the UP; they just disagree on the numbers. Imzadi 1979 → 01:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
so the record is clear, I concur whole-heartedly with Imzadi's version on Cougars as he wrote it and inserted it in the article. It is a beautiful, balanced and well-sourced contribution. Concurrently, I strongly disagree with the attempt by Calamitybrook to delete or alter it. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
Scientific advisory board of Eastern Cougar NetworkBill Watkins Biodiversity Conservation Section

Wildlife and Ecosystem Protection Branch Manitoba Conservation Commission Winnipeg, Manitoba, CANADA

Ron Andrews Furbearer Resource Specialist Iowa Department of Natural Resources Clear Lake, IA

Darrell Land Florida Panther Section Leader Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Naples, FL

Adrian P. Wydeven Mammalian, Ecologist, Conservation Biologist Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Park Falls, WI

Jay Tischendorf DVM, Former Cougar Researcher Hornocker Wildlife Institute Great Falls, MT

Its board of directors is similarly credentialed & sizable.

None of these scientists have an ax to grind in Michigan.
The organization doesn't support the notion that there is an established cougar population in Michigan.
The scientific basis for contrary arguments are offered almost exclusively by one person alone, who then uses this as a means of fund-raising for his local organization.
YOU don't have access to the negative scientific review of his "research" because you're unwilling to locate it.
Am going to see if my university library offers full-text via Internet. (I expect they do). If you are sufficiently enterprising and interested, I am certain you too, could obtain this.
However, a well-written abstract is indeed sufficient for citation purposes and is indeed a key part of any scientific paper.
If you want to call the Grand Rapids Press a "major newspaper" I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Calamitybrook (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I found it. You can too. Much of it is discussion of how DNA technology was misapplied & perhaps grossly misunderstood. Not a surprise. But not particularly accessible.
There is more that is quite comprehensible and plain-spoken, partly about how in areas with established populations there are invariably road kills, accidental trapping & hunter kills etc., but none in Michigan.
Nothing political.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I tried looking for that study. It's not on JSTOR, through which I have indirect access from a friend. I don't have access to http://www.bioone.org content. I can only access source databases available to Kent District Library card holders, or the Michigan eLibrary as a Michigan resident. (I assume that I'm the target of the "YOU" above.) Your tone here has been nothing but condescending through out this whole discussion. The two studies you wanted listed in the article have been used and cited. You have three other editors (including myself) that have endorsed the tone and content of the paragraph in the article. I think that this discussion as a whole has wound down. Thank you for insulting the second largest city/metro area in the state. I think that we're done now. Imzadi 1979 → 15:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against home of AMWAY and birthplace of Gerry Ford, but a newspaper with 133,000 circulation is not by any stretch a "major newspaper."
If you don't have the ability to obtain or evaluate sources, it doesn't mean they don't exist or can't be cited.
See if you can access ProQuest. Am sure there are other databases also available. It may be that Amer Midland Naturalist itself makes back issues directly available.
The article points out, both in the abstract and in its body, that Rusz makes the sole claim "in the literature" for an established population in Michigan.
You also learn something about the topic in general, if you can track down a copy of an article titled The eastern cougar: A management failure? by James E Cardoza, Susan A Langlois. It appeared in Wildlife Society Bulletin. Bethesda: Spring 2002.
Best of luck in your continued research!!!

Calamitybrook (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'll have to revise your opinions based purely on circulation numbers as time goes on. All newspapers are seeing a drop in circulation as more and more people switch over to their online pages instead of having a print edition delivered to their home. Now, you've removed wording from the article again, where yet another editor has restored it. It would appear that consensus is running against you since myself, 7&6=thirteen, theEd17 and Bkonrad have all "endorsed" the text in the article. There is more that can still be written about the subject in another article, but the paragraph that's there is fine as is. It's not undue weight because it is addressing the key points of the issue in a concise manner. You'll notice that I used a journal article I can't access beyond the abstract in the article here, but only to the extent of what I can evaluate and source to the abstract. The latest article you've mentioned is available through JSTOR, so I'll ask my friend to get it for me. (If you were willing to e-mail me a PDF of the one on bioone I can't access, I'd love to read through it too.)
I'm not sure though that a summary of the issues surrounding cougars in the UP needs much more than what's in the article now. The paragraph summarizes the key details (there is a controversy, The DNRE is investigating the reports but says one thing. Other groups say another. One research article refuted the previous DNRE position, but a second article has disputed the results of the first. A citizen's group is tracking the issue independent of the DNRE, even though the DNRE admits that there are some cougars. And it closes with the critic's position. If you want to explore each of these topics in depth, we can do so in another article on the whole issue at greater detail. For now though, the paragraph is pretty well balanced. Imzadi 1979 → 20:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our friend Rusz claims there are (or were) at least eight individual cougars residing in Michigan, I think maybe some of whom he says were in Lower P.
Yet bit about cougars amounts to fully a third or more of wildlife section.
Why would a creature whose established presence is at best uncertain rate so much coverage? What about the chipmunks, etc.
My view is against "consensus," but can't help but think the consensus has gone off deep end.
Really, the stuff is all very interesting and good, but belongs in what is now a stub, Eastern Cougar. Calamitybrook (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add any or all of it there. What's here though can stay put. When scientists are disputing the presence of chipmunks, and there is a legal issue over chipmunks that gets press attention, we can expand coverage of them as well. Imzadi 1979 → 21:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC) (P.S. Grand Rapids isn't Gerald Ford's birthplace. That's Omaha where the other G.R. Ford Freeway is located. It would also help if you could keep your indentation levels consistent to help following how the discussion is being threaded. Signatures should be be tacked on to the end of the last paragraph of your comments or indented to the same level as the rest of your posts.)[reply]

RfC: Is there too much coverage devoted to cougars?[edit]

There is a disagreement regarding whether or not the current amount of coverage of cougars (amounting to approximately half of the Wildlife section) is WP:UNDUE or not. For previous and ongoing discussions, see all of the talk page. 17:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Placed by request. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a topic has reviewed as much controversy as this, I think it deserves thorough coverage. I have no problem with the section as it stands. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the notion that there is "too much" space devoted to this. As you will note from the sources listed above in the discussion, this is a real controversy that has been percolating for many years. This is not to take away from the notion that Eastern Cougar ought to be a free standing article, and that it should be expanded. It would be worthwhile (there) to pull together the bigger picture. But Michigan cougars (and that is in the Lower Peninsula and Northern Michigan, too, have had widespread and persistent reports of isolated populations in four counties. I'm not talking about the occasional reported sighting of cougars in suburbs in western (e.g. Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo) and southeastern Michigan (Troy and Sterling Heights). This is an important bellweather, and carries with it zoological, legal, political, environmental and social implications. The many sources (most not cited in this article, but they exist nonetheless) attest to the interest in the subject. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]


My strong preference is to greatly expand the existing Eastern Cougar stub and keep brief mention here.
Is a bit like wolves or brown bears in discussion of current wildlife in the Cascade Mountains. An interesting footnote to region's wildlife, but potentially a distraction to broad understanding, unless kept in proportion. Calamitybrook (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ed and 7&6 above. The level of coverage on the topic in the state accords the level of coverage in the article. When I wrote the paragraph I tried to keep it as concise as possible. (Given the number of sources listed above much more could be added which would be undue weight.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deer & fish in the local newspapers may receive vastly more "coverage" than cougars, though how this is measure of significance isn't clear. Calamitybrook (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any controversies? Most of the coverage related to deer and fish would be on deer hunting and fishing, which, while related, are different topics. Imzadi 1979 → 17:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subhed is currently "Wildlife" and not "Wildlife Controversies."
Your argument seems to be that volume of local news coverage is a valid measure of species' significance. Perhaps reminiscent of "climate change debate" of some years ago.
We very much love folklore and deem it highly significant. But the cougar has no proven ecological significance in Michigan wildlife. Calamitybrook (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've stated your case. Let's see if anyone else replies to your request for comments. Imzadi 1979 → 00:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that Cougars have "no proven ecological significant in Michigan wildlife" is not equivalent to saying that they have no ecological significance. Of course, since the DNRE says that they do not exist, the superficial attractiveness of the argument exists. As has been indicated, the truth of that assumption -- the basic underlying premise -- is a public question that is being openly and extensively debated. However, there is evidence to the contrary in other states where Cougars are acknowledged to exist. Fountain, Henry. "Observatory: When Mountain Lions Hunt, They Prey on the Weak" November 16, 2009 New York Times. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Moreover, their potential impact should not be underestimated. See, Weaver, John L.; Paquet, Paul C. Ruggiero, Leonard F. “Resilience and Conservation of Large Carnivores in the Rocky Mountains” Article first published online: 19 JAN 2002 DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10040964.x Conservation Biology Volume 10, Issue 4, pages 964–976, August 1996 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
It is also well established that cougars are elusive, stealthy and difficult to track, so that arriving at accurate estimates of their numbers is a daunting task of ecological import. Regulation and protection based on science and not on politics is seen as a desirable goal. Kemper, Steve “Cougars on the Move: Mountain lions are thought to be multiplying in the West and heading east. Can we learn to live with these beautiful, elusive creatures? Smithsonian magazine, September 2006 See also, [http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/cougars.html#ixzz14eOzXURK More. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
I have not read this book, but I know it exists and might be of some relevance. Hornocker, Maurice (Editor); Negri, Sharon (Editor); Rabinowitz, Alan (2009). Cougar: Ecology and Conservation [Hardcover] Chicago: University of Chicago Press ISBN 0226353443; ISBN 978-0226353449. 7&6=thirteen 13:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]
As well, I think you've stated your case, 7&6, so let's see what others have to say in the request for comments. Imzadi 1979 → 18:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the above is beside the point, which is simply whether species is given undue weight in a listing of various U.P. wildlife.
Nobody (including the state DNR ) says that cougars don't "exist." But there is no proof that is widely accepted by science, of an established U.P. population. Indeed, most evidence suggests the opposite.
Also, science and public opinion are unrelated concepts & the count of newspaper articles on a speculative question of science can shed no light on the question itself.
Potential ecological significance, obviously, isn't the same as actual ecological significance.
What might be true isn't the same as what is actually known.
But if consensus is against these various points, then what can be done?

98.250.134.159 (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh, sorry that's me again, immediately above, "Calamitybrook." Too lazy to sign in.98.250.134.159 (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the coverage of the Cougar is fine and appropriate to a section of the article about wildlife in a region famous for it's wildlife. This is a significant development and I would bet a topic of much discussion by the people living in the UP. I also think the speculation about the reaction, actions and motives of different groups is okay too. An for what it is worth, I personally really do hope that they are making a comeback. Mother Nature deserves to win a few rounds right about now. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Just copying the following from a section above to this section. Imzadi 1979 → 03:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Picture[edit]

That new picture looks like a black cow on a black night.  :-) Lighten up or put the old one back in? North8000 (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah daylight! North8000 (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
plz see Eastern Cougar expansion, which is provisional and incomplete-- but well sourced.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two new sources[edit]

Have just added two new reliable sources with detailed volume and page numbers. If somebody wishes to improve formatting of these sources, this could be yet a further improvement.

Calamitybrook (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources can't be verified. You didn't include the links. That was way too much additional material. At most, in this article would only need one or two additional sentences related to this "Bigfoot effect", but you added several short paragraphs, without direct sources. Sorry, I removed it. Please propose any additions here on the talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 02:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I provided dates, volume and page numbers for reliable sources.

It seems clear that you want to dominate how this page describes the (essentially false) notion of cougars in Michigan. Guess because you're a true resident of this deeply benighted region, you'll prevail at the expense of a reasoned item based on well-sourced expert opinion. Calamitybrook (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Imzadi1979 regarding the article. This sounds like an essay from a debate about cougars, not an addition to a Michigan article. It's quite possible that Michigan has some cougars. If you have a reliable RS statement to that effect, then maybe add one sourced enclyclopedic sentence. North8000 (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)n[reply]

(edit conflict) Look, here's my logic on this situation. You're the one that keeps claiming that the cougars don't exist in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. We've found dozens of sources (see above) that say otherwise, from reputable secondary sources. Your response has been to impugn the sources' credibility, while at the same time inserting primary sources asserting more outlandish claims out of context in an effort to assert a point of view, contrary to the consensus of many other editors who disagree. When asked for citation information, you provide sources that are inaccessible links and "tell us to use the library". I'd love to use the library, but if I don't know what your source is, I can't find a copy of it to verify what it's supposed to say. At a minimum, a reference needs a title, a publisher and a date. Authors/editors and additional information are appreciated as well. A source doesn't not need to be online, as I have and will continue to use microfilm/microfiche to retrieve old newspaper articles or interlibrary loan request books. A {{cn}} means that an editor would like, per WP:CITE, a source for the quotation, statistic, information or statement. You should provide one, even if that means you're repeating citations. That's just how things are done around here. There is also another principle of editing called BRD, which stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss. You're Bold in adding something to the article. I reverted it, and then we Discuss it on the relevant talk page. After the discussion, whatever is decided is implemented into the article. If you have any further questions, ask. Imzadi 1979 → 03:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually I added two reliable secondary sources concerning science and a primary source that illustrates the "folklore" that many of your "secondary sources" reflect.
You removed these sources.
Obviously if you ask the very elderly and dismally uneducated Folk of the UP what they think of scientists, government & etc., they will tell you that none of this makes sense, and that cougars abound and perhaps even witchcraft, etc........They can be and are indeed, quoted in local newspapers.

Your earlier argument focused on the fact that YOU are a resident of the Upper P., and that I am not........This reveals a tremendous amount. Calamitybrook (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble following, including who is advocating what. If we're talking presence/ absence of cougars in Michigan, the are showing up all over the place, in small numbers. Most likely there are a few in the UP. If so, it could merit about one (sourced) sentence in this article. North8000 (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[1] and [2] (without linkage to anything) are not sources. The secondary sources used in the article at the moment do not repeat the insurance company claim. If you're going to assert that the elderly and poorly educated are the sources for newspaper articles, then the burden is on you to provide proof of that so others may assess the validity of the news story in that light. If you aren't going to do that, then don't bring up the argument in this forum. Imzadi 1979 → 04:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
North, here's the short version of the issue. 7&6=thirteen included a mention in the wildlife section of the article on the presence of cougars in the UP. At some point I got involved and attempted to craft a better sourced, more neutral paragraph on the issue of cougars, and the debate in the media about that. The previous position of the state was that there weren't any cougars in the state. Since 2007 that position has been revised to one that there are some, but not many. Other groups claim otherwise, and several scientific studies have been done back and forth on the issue. In the end, several other editors have all weighed in and agreed that the current discussion of the issue in the article is neutral and properly sourced to secondary sources. I'm of the opinion that Calamitybrook may have an axe to grind on the issue because he keeps trying to insert the state's previous position without mention of the debate. I don't know if he does or doesn't. The discussions wear on as he keeps adding stuff to this article. He's started a second article, Eastern Cougar on the issue. I wish he'd confine the cougar debate to that article, and provide actual citations per policy for his information and quotations. Imzadi 1979 → 04:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain that to me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Upper_Peninsula_of_Michigan/Archive_2&oldid=1085542205"