The Curious Case of Macho B

by Martin Matheny · 2010-02-04 13:30:00 UTC
Topics:

jaguarWhen you think about big cats, you probably think about majestic creatures, beautiful dignified animals who awe and inspire us. But the last days of the last known wild jaguar in the United States were anything but majestic and dignified. Macho B died as a result of the malfeasance of the people who were supposed to protect him. His story is a lesson in how not to protect endangered species.

Here are the facts, according to a report issued on January 22 by the Inspector General's Office of the U.S. Department of the Interior. In February of 2009, a male jaguar named Macho B was snared in a trap set by subcontractors of the Arizona Game and Fish Department. While releasing Macho B, officials of the AZGFD noted that the jaguar had suffered a broken canine tooth, possibly incurred in trying to free himself. Macho B was also fitted with a GPS tracking collar before being released.

A week and a half later, researchers following the jaguar's progress via GPS noticed that Macho B wasn't moving. On March 2, 2009, Macho B was found, darted and brought to the Phoenix Zoo for evaluation. There, veterinarians found the jaguar suffering from renal failure, and later that day, Macho B was put to death.

So who's to blame? The feds at Fish and Wildlife call foul on themselves for failing to order a full necropsy because an FWS field inspector did not understand the difference between a full necropsy and a full cosmetic necropsy. The full cosmetic necropsy, which was performed, is an incomplete investigative procedure, designed to preserve the skull and pelt of the animal.

The true blame for Macho B's death, however, falls squarely on the shoulders of state officials in Arizona. While the snare that trapped Macho B was designed to capture black bears and mountain lions for a different project, the people at AZGFD failed to apply for an incidental take permit, which is a big mistake, not to mention illegal under the Endangered Species Act. Not only did Arizona break the law, they also lied about it. According to the Department of the Interior, "[An FWS biologist] said that on at least one occasion, while discussing the potential capture of Macho B during a JagCT meeting, he heard [AZGFD official Terry] Johnson say he believed the AZGFD had a permit to intentionally capture a jaguar."

But the plot thickens, because there is evidence to suggest that Macho B's capture wasn't an accident. That part of Macho B's death is still being investigated by the FWS and the Department of Justice.

This incident is disturbing enough if Macho B's capture was accidental. If it was an incidental take, the AZGFD should be held accountable for willfully failing to get permission to have snares in an area known to be home to an endangered species. Terry Johnson, who lied to FWS officials about having a permit under the Endangered Species Act ought to be at least fired, if not prosecuted.

But if the capture of Macho B was intentional, as the Department of Justice investigation seems to imply, then the stakes are raised even higher. It's not negligence, it's disgusting and amoral -- a betrayal of the animals that the Arizona Game and Fish Department is paid to protect.

The questions remain about how the AZGFD will respond to this. Will the people responsible be told to pack up and find another job, preferably as far away from animals as possible? Will the AZGFD commit to doing no more business with the contractors and subcontractors involved? The dodging, weaving, and outright stonewalling coming from AZGFD doesn't inspire a lot of hope that these questions will be answered to our satisfaction.

Here's hoping the AZGFD cleans up their act. Here's hoping Macho B didn't die in vain.

Photo credit: Tambako the jaguar

Martin Matheny is a political consultant and animal welfare writer based in Athens, Georgia.
PREVIOUS STORY:
Green Ham?
NEXT STORY:
Petitions Delivered Around the World for Release of Indonesian Circus Dolphins

COMMENTS (3)

    Comment Policy

    · All fields are required to comment.

    [X]

    Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the campaign on Change.org. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments which, as determined solely in our discretion: (1) are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; (2) include content solely intended to personally attack the campaign creator, (3) are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them; and/or (4) violate our terms of service and/or privacy policy. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion. Please also be advised that: (A) we do not actively curate and/or monitor in any manner whatsoever the comments made on the Change.org platform, and (B) the creator of each campaign on Change.org may remove any comment at her/his/its discretion.