What sedative were they using? I've been involved in jaguar and puma captures in South America, and my understanding is that it's very hard to kill a cat with too much sedative. Ketamine certainly won't do it. I've heard speculation from people who do lots of cat captures that this cat's kidney failure was due to dehydration, from being in the snare too long. However it happened, it's a shame.

Sandy,

If you go back and read the entire thread or go to the AGFD jaguar page, either will provide some needed explanation of why the jaguar died. It wasn't necessarily the sedative, but the combination of it and stress, combined with the already poor health of this very old cat.

The necrosy even suggested that had Macho B not been snared and sedated he would have died shortly of natural causes of an existing kidney problem that wasn't brought on by the snaring.

I'm not so big on relying on a necropsy performed by the people who had custody of the cat when it died. My understanding from folks who know this stuff way better than we do is that the cat was in the snare too long and should have been given IV fluids way earlier than it was. The snaring was unfortunate but was not enough, on its own, to kill the cat. And I'm not willing to excuse the death based on the notion that the cat was old and might have died soon, anyway. Perhaps it's all just bad luck, and perhaps the cat would have died within months, without heading south to Mexico and breeding again, but I'm not satisfied with the explanation given, and my lack of satisfaction is largely based on conversations with informed people who have conducted many cat captures, including a vet.

quote:

I'm not so big on relying on a necropsy performed by the people who had custody of the cat when it died.

Sandy,

No doubt you've heard the adage that goes something like..."you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink?"

So.... since you won't take my suggestion but prefer to speculate and make erroneous statements...

"Veterinarians from the Phoenix Zoo conducted a necropsy immediately following the death of the cat on Monday, but did not find anything unexpected for an older jaguar. Veterinarians Dr. Dean Rice and Dr. Julie Swenson from the zoo performed the necropsy.

Multiple tissue and organ samples, including from the kidneys, liver, adrenal glands and heart, were submitted for histopathology study to an outside laboratory. Histopathology is the study of microscopic anatomical changes in diseased tissue.

“During the necropsy, we didn’t find anything out of the ordinary for a cat of Macho B’s advanced age,” said Dr. Rice, a veterinarian and executive vice president at the Phoenix Zoo. “But, given the extremely small size of his bladder despite aggressive intravenous fluid therapy, it was apparent that his kidneys were shutting down. I expect the histopathology reports to show that this animal had been experiencing kidney failure for awhile. Kidney failure is more a matter of weeks or months, not days.”

The histopathology report may also reveal if the jaguar had any other medical conditions that were not evident during the physical necropsy. Results are expected in several weeks."

*****************

"Meanwhile, current distribution of the remains is as follows: (a) Tissue samples from the trachea, esophagus, lungs, heart, stomach, liver, spleen, gall bladder, bladder, kidneys, small and large intestines, and adrenal glands were removed by The Phoenix Zoo post-mortem and sent to the Arizona Veterinary Diagnostic Lab (AZVDL). After evaluation at AZVDL, the samples were sent to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin. Once the USGS Wildlife Health Center has completed its evaluation, the samples or portions thereof will be sent to a veterinary histopathologist/necropsy expert at the University of California at Davis for independent analysis. Remaining samples will be returned to The Phoenix Zoo pending finalization of the necropsy report and the independent reviews. (b) Blood, hair, and swabs are being stored at the University of Arizona, pending distribution for genetic analyses. At least one sample will be sent to the Global Felid Conservation Genetics Program (American Museum of Natural History) for integration into their database for long-term management and conservation of jaguars range-wide. Other samples or portions thereof will be analyzed at the University of Arizona. (c) An additional tissue sample has been banked at the San Diego Natural History Museum in the San Diego Zoo's Conservation and Research of Endangered Species group, pending possible need for further laboratory analysis. (d) A premolar (tooth) was pulled for cementum aging by specialists in Montana."

This has been a very good thread. Lots of good info and thank you sir for posting this.

Sorry, Tony -- I didn't need you to cut and paste your source again to make me believe it more. The cat died while in the custody of the zoo, and they have every incentive to view things in a way that says the jaguar was already dead on its feet well before they got it -- especially if any of the results are susceptible to more than one reading. I doubt that the AZVDL has much incentive to read things unfavorably for AZFG or the zoo, either. The animal was certainly old and may have had weakened kidneys before the whole ordeal, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't have survived it had he been taken better care of. You're correct to say that I am speculating, but you're out of line to say that my statements are "erroneous." I've said I'm not satisfied with the explanation, and I'm sorry that you feel I should be. I have no dog in this fight, other than to hope that we won't lose another jaguar, if one ever makes its way north again. There's never been a big jaguar population in the US, and we can't realistically hope to hunt them in Mexico again, but there's a reasonable chance that certain countries farther south will reopen. News stories about the death of the only known jaguar in the U.S. can't help such efforts.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the zoo caused the death. Rather, I'm saying that everyone who touched that cat has an incentive to say they had nothing to do with its death, and that an explanation from someone who handled the cat is therefore not something I'm willing to take as gospel. I think it's more likely that the cat was in the snare too long and should have been given IV fluids at the time of capture (remember, it wasn't with the zoo until the very end), as has been suggested to me by others.

Sandy hunter, just an observation here, but unless any of the folks you have been talking to were involved directly with the incident, you are operating under THEIR THEORIES AND SPECULATION.

I have been involved in plenty of knockdowns of all sorts of exotics during my tenure at the Fort Worth Zoo, and have seen perfectly healthy appearing animals die under a routine knockdown.

Necropsies performed brought out findings of problems that were not readily discernible on a visual examination of the animal prior to the knock down.

Things go wrong sometimes even under the best and most controlled circumstances.

Also, this was not the only jaguar that has been recorded in the U.S. in recent times, this was however the one that had been seen most.

Just like when people go under anestesia for routine surgical procedures, there is a certain amount of unpredictability to their reactions to the drugs being used, and sometimes people die.

None of us, and I suspect none of your sources, were involved in what happened to this particular animal.

Mistakes whether preventable or not were made in this case.

It is my guess that the only ones that will be answering for what happened are the lowest people on the totem pole and that whoever was ultimately in charge will never be pointed out publicly, and will in all probability end up around the Great Lakes working on how to control zebra mussels.

Crazyhorse, I do appreciate your comments, and I agree with you on who will end up answering for this. Sadly, that's the way these things always go. You're also right that the others I'm talking about are not first hand witnesses to the handling of the cat and are therefore speculating to some degree. However, their speculation is based on what they've heard about the capture and on their own extensive experience -- literally hundreds of captures, sedations, and evaluations of jaguars and other cats. I trust them and their experience enough to give real value to their speculation, even if it's well short of factual proof. Again, I've simply said I'm not satisfied with the current explanation, and I understand that we may never get anything further.

Also, I didn't say that this was the only jaguar in the US in recent times. I know there was another one, and maybe two, as I recall, but I'm pretty sure this was the last one recorded in the States in the last few years. Have you heard of one appearing since the death of this one? I sure hope so. For me, Warner Glenn's story and photos from his sighting back in 1996 were some of the greatest news ever. I felt the same way about the latest ivory-billed stuff, until it turned out to be BS (or so it seems, unfortunately).

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts on this. I figure we're all ultimately on the same side of this (i.e., conservation that involves hunting, where possible).

quote:

Originally posted by sandyhunter:
The cat died while in the custody of the zoo, and they have every incentive to view things in a way that says the jaguar was already dead on its feet well before they got it -- especially if any of the results are susceptible to more than one reading. I doubt that the AZVDL has much incentive to read things unfavorably for AZFG or the zoo, either. The animal was certainly old and may have had weakened kidneys before the whole ordeal, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't have survived it had he been taken better care of. You're correct to say that I am speculating, but you're out of line to say that my statements are "erroneous."

The jag was NOT in the custody of the zoo; it was in in the custody of the USFWS & the AGFD.Representatives of those agencies brought it to the zoo for treatment.

Nor did the cat "die" per se. It was euthanized by order of the USFWS after the zoo vets diagnosed the problem. By then, any treatment would have been useless. Thus, the expert vets at the zoo had no incentive to do anything but tell the truth.

Also, the protocols for any intentional or inadvertant capture had already been in place when the Borderland jaguar project began years ago. Those protocols, detailing the sedation procedures/dosage and subsequent handling came about after consultation with leading jaguar experts.

I apologize if they didn't call you or any of the other speculators you claim to have consulted. Maybe next time.

I'm going to pass on the opportunity to debate whether an animal dies when it is euthanized, or whether a party that has an animal at its facility and performs euthanasia on it has custody of the animal for purposes relevant to this discussion. You may disagree, but I'm fairly confident that people have an incentive to be in the right when they euthanize an animal, even if they do it at the direction of someone else. Thinking about it in the human context (i.e., termination of life support) is helpful. Also, knowing human nature and knowing how zoos need to be friendly with USF&W and state authorities, I'm pretty sure no one in the room wanted to throw anyone else under the bus after sending that cat to the great beyond. At that point in the process, the cat had to be euthanized, and everyone was surely very sad about it. In such a situation, it's much easier to say that the cat was dead on its feet before anyone caught it. Still, I don't doubt that the cat needed to be euthanized by the time it was at the zoo. My speculation has to do with whether the jaguar would have died just as soon, or nearly just as soon, had the cat not been left in a snare for too long and/or had it been given IV fluids at the time of the snare capture. You have greater confidence in the zoo's stated assessment than I do, and we'll probably have to leave it at that.

The people I "claim" (give me a friggin' break) to have spoken with have done more jaguar captures and sedations than anyone involved in establishing the protocol established in that area -- of that, I am certain. I will not name names, though, because I am not interested in even the most remote chance of drawing others into what is no doubt a legal and political sh!t storm in AZ. While we're on the subject of the protocol, can you tell me whether it was 100% complied with, and whether it included contingencies for animals in weakened condition or left in snares for too long?

Please note that I'm appreciative of you starting this thread, and that we probably share a lot of the same disappointment in the loss of the captured jaguar. I'm all for spirited discussion, but I have no desire to engage in a flame war. As I said with crazyhorse, we're all on the same team here.

quote:

My speculation has to do with whether the jaguar would have died just as soon, or nearly just as soon, had the cat not been left in a snare for too long and/or had it been given IV fluids at the time of the snare capture. You have greater confidence in the zoo's stated assessment than I do, and we'll probably have to leave it at that.

More woulda, coulda, shoulda.

So how long was the jag in the snare?

How long is too long?

What indications would have showed it was dehydrated?

Were those indications present when the field biologists examined the cat using the recommended protocols?

If those indications were present, why would the field biologists who had much experience with lion captures pronounce the cat as being in good health? A sick or dead jaguar wouldn't provide a helluva lot of of information, eh?

quote:

While we're on the subject of the protocol, can you tell me whether it was 100% complied with, and whether it included contingencies for animals in weakened condition or left in snares for too long?

This will be the last time I do the research. It is all available for the reading. Refer to the horse adage in my earlier message.

****

.......While awaiting agency decisions on intentional capture of one or more jaguars, in 2007 JAGCT again revised its protocols for jaguar handling (Jaguar Handling Protocol PDF, 25kb) and capture (Jaguar Capture Guidelines PDF, 60kb). The JAGCT capture guidelines invoked more detailed capture and immobilization guidelines that had been published by the Wildlife Conservation Society in 2005 (WCS Jaguar Health Program Manual PDF, 662kb). Note: the WCS guidelines are now maintained by Panthera, an international "wild cats" conservation organization that was founded in 2006 by the reigning jaguar expert in the world, Alan Rabinowitz, and others.

Alignment of the necessary stars for an intentional capture decision (i.e. the right jaguar at the right time at the right location) had still not occurred as of February 18, 2009. But, on that date AGFD inadvertently captured a borderlands jaguar (subsequently identified as Macho B) in a foot-hold snare. The snare-set location, in a remote area southwest of Tucson, was known to be used by three mountain lions and two bears. AGFD researchers set the snare to capture one of those lions for an ongoing study of wildlife corridors. (My note: McCain and Brun decided on their own that this snare site would be a good one to place the jag scat. READ the transcripts!)

The work JAGCT had done to prepare for intentional capture of a jaguar was put to good use by the AGFD researchers. They used the handling information (with updated information on anesthetic and dosage recently provided by two expert veterinarians) to immobilize, process, and GPS-collar the snared jaguar before releasing it on site, after it recovered from the drugs. Was there a choice regarding immobilizing the jaguar? No. Once that jaguar was in the snare, the researchers had to drug it to remove it from the snare; if it had to be drugged anyway, it might as well be GPS collared so we could learn more from it. But, that event is a different story, one that is detailed on our Macho B Jaguar Web page.

sandyhunter, you are absolutely corrct in not believing a word these people are feeding the gullable. ALMOST everyone invloved with this from the AGFD lied about this and covered it up. Articles were published early about the baiting and lying. Now people are finally going to jail. That is the bottom line. Probably not enough. Why some folke keep believing the liars is beyond me. Look at the videos of the conference and then look at what really happened when people started feeling the heat.

Were protocols followed? We will NEVER know because we have only the liars word for it. They would still be saying it was an accident, had they not been caught.

quote:

ALMOST everyone invloved with this from the AGFD lied

Utter inane nonsense.

ONE person employed by the AGFD -- Thorrie Smith, the one that was fired -- lied. And the only thing he lied about was knowing AFTER THE FACT, that McCain and Brun had used the scat near the snare site.

Any other comments from the department were based on the information fed to them by McCain, Brun and Smith.

Once again, READ the interview transcripts.

The reason the AGFD said nothing publicly after Brun revealed her and McCain's involvement is simple: the FEDERAL investigation was ongoing and still is. Thus, the AGFD is under a gag order on certain aspects until that investigation is done.

The inter-agency interview transcripts that have been released are redacted in many places because of it.

quote:

As I said with crazyhorse, we're all on the same team here.

I am not so sure that we are all on the same team here.

Seems to me that some of us are wanting something that none of us discussing the issue can give.

Tony is simply passing on the information he has available to him, that same information is available to all of us, if we are willing to look it up.

For those of you who are so upset, contact Arizona Game & Fish, register your complaints/concerns and move along with your lives.

Setting around and second guessing what happened and getting Pissed Off at each other is not doing any of us any good.

None of us will ever be privy to the real story, unless we set around and keep up with the careers of all those involved.

As I said earlier, some of these folks will end up in dead end meaningless research projects I.E. zebra mussels in the Great Lakes for instance, but none of them will probably ever attain a higher position in their respective agencies.

I ain't asking for everyone to get along, just have the decency to not shoot the dad gum messenger, when all that person is trying to do is let folks know what happened, From The Information He Has Available.

If You Want Better Information, CONTACT the sources listed and find out for yourself and tell us how that works out for you!

All those discussing this issue that have any actual knowledge of what happened-how it happened-who is ultimately responsible-who can guarantee it would not have happened if they had been involved-or was involved directly with the incident, please step forward and spill your guts.

Otherwise, everything else is pure conjecture and second guessing.

As I have said previously, after a 25 year career in the zoo field and working around various "Scientific" types, all of them want to discuss their successes, but none of them want to mention their failures.

This is one of those incedences when too many folks with differing opinions and protocols were involved in a procedure without consulting with each other.

From AGFD:

May 20, 2010

An individual involved in the Macho B incident last year pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court on Friday, May 14 for unlawfully taking a jaguar, an endangered species, in violation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

Emil McCain, 31, of Patagonia, was sentenced by U. S. Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco to five years of supervised probation with the condition that he is not permitted to be employed or any way involved in any large cat or large carnivore project or study in the United States during his probationary term. McCain was also fined $1,000 for the Class A misdemeanor conviction.

Court documents provide the following facts describing McCain’s connection to the conduct for which he pleaded guilty:

On February 4, 2009, at or near Ruby, in the District of Arizona, Emil McCain placed jaguar scat or directed a female person to place jaguar scat at three (3) snare sites in an attempt to capture and trap an endangered species, to wit, a jaguar (Panthera onca).

McCain knew that there had been recent evidence of a jaguar in the area of the snares. The snares had been set solely for the purpose of capturing and placing tracking collars on mountain lions and bears; there was no authorization to intentionally capture a jaguar. A jaguar known as Macho B was caught at one of those snare sites on February 18, 2009.

Some media reports and other accounts about McCain’s guilty plea have incorrectly identified McCain as an Arizona Game and Fish Department employee or state official. As the Department has previously stated, McCain has never been an employee of the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and by February 2009, when Macho B was initially captured, McCain was acting independently, and was neither a contractor, subcontractor, nor a formal volunteer to the Department.

McCain’s admission of guilt conclusively establishes his true involvement in this matter and supports the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s long-standing assertion that there was no authorization from the Department for the intentional capture of a jaguar.

Until the Department obtains access to the federal investigative file, the Department’s own internal investigation continues to be open and ongoing.

Web Links:

Read the U.S. District Court documents: USA vs. McCain [PDF 452kb]

Read the Associated Press story: Southern Arizona man pleads guilty in jaguar’s death

View the Arizona Republic story: Trapper pleads guilty to capturing jaguar

Learn more by reading the AGFD Response to Office of Inspector General Report