Comments on: Jaguar Listing and Habitat Designation Based on Junk Science

By: Cindy Coping

Cindy Coping — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:50:34 +0000

Kurt has a valid point, and kudos to the scientific skeptics in the world.
Extensive documentation in support of Parker’s claims regarding the two suspicious jaguars was submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service among more than 130 pages of attachments that aren’t included in the link to the comments.
The starting point of suspicion regarding the female jaguar that was killed by a varmint calling hunter in September 1963 and the male killed by a federal trapper in 1964 is the fact that both these cats were killed at altitudes over 8,000 feet (the 1963 jaguar was killed somewhere between 9,000 and 9,500 feet) in pine habitat where jaguars are not expected to be found. Another factor that does not pass the proverbial smell test is that the 1964 supposedly tropical jaguar was killed in mid-January at high altitude (winter conditions).
Another fact that raised suspicion is that both jaguars were killed in the interim period between the arrest of a famous “canned” hunting guide and his federal trial. He was charged with three counts of transporting caged mountain lions into Arizona from Utah without first complying with an Arizona game regulation passed by the Game Commission less than a year earlier, requiring a permit to transport wild animals. He did not buy a permit. Committing a wildlife crime involving state lines is a federal crime under the Lacey Act. There was no law at that time against canned hunting. The Endangered Species Act would not exist for another 9 years. But the evidence brought forth in this case pointed clearly to canned hunting and that was discussed at the trial, according to the case file. In addition, the guide was advertising guaranteed lion, jaguar and bear hunts. He offered a money back guarantee that the client would bring home game.
Beyond that, this was the only guide in all of Arizona history to lead jaguar hunts in the state. Three jaguars, two of which were female (the sex of the third is not documented) were taken in Arizona on hunts led by this guide. One source indicates the same guide led a successful jaguar hunt in Marfa, TX.
Keep in mind this was the same period of time when the famous Lee Brothers were running a highly successful jaguar hunting business in Mexico. The Lee brothers were from Arizona and never killed a jaguar in the state. Neither did Ben Lilly or Billy Chester, the famous hunters before them.
Another factor raising suspicion is the location where our “canned hunting” guide was leading his hunts. Abundant documentation indicates this guide led dozens of hunts between Heber and Young, Arizona during the years and weeks leading up to his arrest. At least two of those hunts started at a location approximately ten miles cross-country from the location where the 1964 jaguar was trapped. At the same time, he was also leading jaguar hunts in Nayarit, Mexico. He additionally kept two mountain lions in captivity that starred in a Disney movie, so we can guess he had facilities for holding big cats.
Many of the clients of this guide were themselves world-class hunters. Had a naturally occurring jaguar been in the area, with this guide’s jaguar hunting experience and the experience of his clientele, several of whom had also killed jaguars on previous hunts, and considering the amount of time they spent in the immediate area, why were no jaguar tracks reported? Had any been reported, he’d have been after it for money. This guide was in fact one of the most accomplished big cat hunters that ever lived. His bounty record in Arizona for cougars starts in 1949. He killed hundreds of mountain lions and jaguars himself, in addition to leading others. And although he did lead canned hunts, evidence also shows he led legitimate hunts.
The tactics of the criminal investigation prior to the 1964 trial destroyed the guide’s Arizona hunting business. (The news media reported that the judge banned him from leading hunts in Arizona for life but the case file does not support the claim). The hunting guide moved to British Honduras (known today as Belize), having been requested to hunt down a jaguar that had killed a small child. From that starting point he re-established a successful jaguar hunting guide business in Belize with famous clients from all over the world and the world’s most accomplished hunters hiring him. That business was destroyed with the passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973.
In 1973 the same guide was convicted a second time under the Lacey Act (he pleaded guilty at both trials) for leading canned hunts in New Mexico. The jaguar had not yet been listed in the US as an endangered species. The authorities documented 9 imported jaguars, including one female that got away. Notice how he apparently preferred to work with females. In total, at least 13 imported jaguars are documented to this single guide. In a face-to-face interview in August with this hunting guide, Mr. Parker asked about the two jaguars killed above the Mogollon Rim in 1963 and 1964. The old man laughed and said they had to have had a lot of help getting there. He also said the jaguars he released occasionally got away.
Another hunting guide was convicted in the 1980′s for selling a jaguar skin across the Arizona/New Mexico state line, and there’s suspicion this jaguar was the victim of a canned hunt.
Mr. Parker’s investigation turned up names of two additional guides that are alleged to have led canned jaguar hunts in Arizona during the 1960′s. Those two leads are still under investigation. So we have a possibility of eventually documenting at least 16 imported jaguars.
According to the grandson of Billy Chester, a famous jaguar hunting guide who sold his business to the Lee brothers and died in 1942, Mr. Chester frowned on canned hunting. For him to frown on it means it must have been occurring during the two decades when Mr. Chester was guiding hunts. Mr. Chester’s Arizona ranch is now the Santa Catalina State Park. Chester ‘s jaguar hunts took place 300 miles or more south of the border.
There’s actually more indication if you look into the skull sizes of jaguars killed in Arizona. Prior to 1930 there are exclusively huge skulls according to the Boone & Crockett records. Beginning around 1960 when jaguar hunting in Central Mexico such as the state of Nayarit, the distribution of skull sizes widened with significantly smaller skulls. The jaguar killed in 1963 was a female with a small skull compared to Arizona jaguar kills prior to 1930. This jaguar’s sex and dimensions suggest it may have been imported from Central Mexico by the same guide that led other hunts of small-skulled female jaguars in Arizona.
While the 1963 jaguar’s origin is suspect, the hunt where it was killed is not suspect. There’s evidence to believe the jaguar was roaming free at the time it was killed and every reason to believe the hunt itself was entirely legitimate. But as you can see there’s plenty of reason to suspect it is not a naturally occurring jaguar. Also, the trapper who killed the 1964 jaguar had seen tracks for some time prior to killing it. However, it is still highly probable that both jaguars were either originally released for canned hunts or were released when a hunting guide realized he needed to keep the authorities from discovering new evidence on which to charge him.

By: chico

chico — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:40:01 +0000

I agree wholeheartedly that the facts, rather than conjecture, should be stuck to here. Part and parcel of such an approach requires review of what was actually written in the report before questioning the data it cites. It also means citing statements made in the report correctly. The report, contrary to Mr. Bahti’s claim, does not state or cite that Macho B was having a hard time finding food. The report does state that Macho B’s “extensive travels prior to his death indicates he was having a tough time surviving in this dry, rugged region.” Moreover, if Macho B had been in as good health as the jaguars seen by hound men and via trail cameras as Mr. Bahti’s comment seems to suggest, then wouldn’t have been any reason to euthanize him.

By: Jonathan DuHamel

Jonathan DuHamel — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:07:32 +0000

Kurt, to see Parker’s research click on the link for the full report.

By: Kurt Bahti

Kurt Bahti — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:53:31 +0000

I believe that the jaguars that Dennis Parker refers to as being “imported” into New Mexico was an illegal guide who put on ‘canned’ hunts.
Just as I would require of CBD, I would like to see Parker’s research of the data. I highly dislike CBD from their unsavory tactics but i also question som eof the ‘data’ from folks against the designation of the habita. By the way, I DO NOT support the habitat designation for jaguar. I think they have always passed through AZ and historically travel large areas. This does NOT “suggest” as Parker cites, that he was having a hard time finding food. All the jaguars seen by hound men and via trail cameras appeared to be in fine health. So ,everyone, lets stick to fact and not conjecture to beat this designation and CBD as well as Sky Island Alliance.

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:06:59 +0000

I’ve never understood how a species thriving in an extensive range (such as the jaguar which inarguably lives in substantial numbers throughout Central America, South America, and the southern part of North America) can ever credibly be called an “endangered” species. If there are plenty of the species, just how the hell is it endangered?
Or are we just supposed to swallow without objection the highly dubious notion that if a species ever lived in a region, it must always live in that region — climate and landscape changes be damned?
The ESA has become a truly absurd policy that is nakedly being used as an alternative to getting what you want through legit democracy.

By: ari

ari — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:40:20 +0000

The court found was that those pictures misrepresented those areas photographed, NOT that Chilton or any other rancher are great stewards of the land. Let’s not get carried away.

By: ari

ari — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 15:33:20 +0000

Really? I thought ranchers wanted to raise cattle, not “do good”. And in an age of industrial feed lots, there is more and more pressure on them to put more head out there. If you’ve ever walked out public lands off of the trails, you would know the impact a heard can do…check it out (http://www.mikehudak.com/PhotoEssays/LivestockGalleryVS/) you can snap similar pictures on allotments all over southern arizona.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:19:36 +0000

Yes, we do have a responsibility to proper management of our resources. However, nonsense like this expansion and regulation that ranges from excessive to absurd (ie: the last “significant figure” for dioxin in RCRA air emissions is parts per quintillion) really is detrimental to the people who want to do good.

Now, the ESA is trying to extend protections beyond the borders of where jaguars have ever been. This is all pain for absolutely no gain, as you would know if you had actually read the article.

By: sethers

sethers — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 03:25:59 +0000

I get it, but I also have a hard time accepting “findings” about “findings” from one group about another group it doesn’t like as reliable information.

By: leftfield

leftfield — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:50:13 +0000

Is there consideration for the historical range of the Jaguar in adopting them as a protected species under the ESA? I don’t know a lot about the current intrigue RE: Chilton, CBD, et. al., but my understanding is that up until sometime in the early twentieth century, this area was in the range of the Jaguar.

Now, my personal opinion is that both the environment and all the animals (homo sapiens included) living in it would be better off if people would stop eating so much dead animal carcass parts. The “right” to eat huge quantities of muscle meat, the “right” to raise animals for muscle meat and the christian heritage which says that our species has “dominion” over the planet and everything on it are going to kill us all. Ranchers like to claim a historical precedent to justify ther activities, why can’t people whose interest is in non-commercial species use this same claim?