Local naturalist, Steve Vaughan has recently shared these thoughts in response to an email from head BIT researcher Cheryl Mollohan.
This addresses the captures of both Graybeard, the male whose collaring fell under heavy scrutiny nearly a year ago, in addition to that of Mama. The sections which are italicized and emboldened represent her words:
Graybeard was collared January 12, 2022.
Cheryl stated: "He will get used to his collar, and I will be very surprised if you do not see him return to his previous behavior very quickly." There has never been a study to observe cats before and after collar placement. It is now almost a year later and Graybeard's behavior has not returned to normal (pre-collar behavior). He is still much more elusive around people. That would make it more difficult to hunt effectively within the wetlands. I believe that would also most likely cause him to use the wetlands less frequently. Our observations are strong evidence that the collars not only have short-term effects on behavior, but long-term as well. The researchers don't want to hear that. ^This represents incorrect information from the study.
His collar is programmed to take a location every 13 hours and send that information every 4 days. "He has used the river bottom a lot (5 locations vs 2 at the preserve)." During that very same window, he was observed at the preserve at least 4 consecutive days by our group of naturalists. Assuming that he only used the preserve twice based on their data is a poor interpretation of the data. They recorded him there twice. We recorded him 4 times. Since this was following his collar, I'm sure we missed him a number of other times. Who knows how many times he was actually there. Incorrect info from the study.
I wrote to Cheryl Mollohan on January 19, 2022. Here is her response: "I am guessing that as long as he has been at Sweetwater he has already measured the fence, and would not try to go through it, regardless of the radio collar." If she had read my email, she would know that I stated both the male and female cats go through the fence. I have watched them do it.
"We fit the collar fairly tight and the zygomatic arches are always the widest part of the head. If the zygomatic arches fit through an opening, so would the collar. I am at a loss to think of what might hang up no a fence with this collar. The actual can that holds the electronics and batteries is below his chin and is square." The collar hangs below the chin. Cats have mechanoreceptors (pressure sensors) in the face, neck, and body. The facial and neck sensors help them determine whether they can fit through an opening. He has already tested the opening in the fence and knows he can fit through. He would not be aware that the collar extends above and below his head and neck and may get caught in the opening. Incorrect info from the study.
Following our concerns, BIT had adjusted the telemetry to provide data every 2-4 hours. If the signal remains stationary more than 3 hours, they claim they will check the cat's condition. I doubt they monitor 24 / 7. It only takes 3 minutes to suffocate. A cat veterinarian among our naturalist group has shared many examples of domestic cats hanging and suffocating even with break-away collars.
"There have been no records of bobcats in other studies becoming infected around / under the collar after immersion." If the collars are programmed to fall off at a specific time, no one is actually looking for infections. A study of feral cats in Brazil indicates that collars can lead to skin inflammation.
Mama was collared Novermber 12, 2022. Here is the info I have gathered since.
We observed her on November 16 with the collar. Cheryl stated: "The female had kittens in the past but did not appear to have nursed kittens recently so likely did not raise kittens this year." This is incorrect as we saw Mama with a kitten immediately before and after collar. This is another example of incorrection information from the BIT study.
The collar placement on Mama and our observations of her changes in behavior are extremely valuable. We now have a second opportunity to observe the behavioral changes and how long they last. Our observations would be strong evidence that the collars not only have short-term effects, but long-term as well. We have all had abundant pre-collar observations of Mama. Lack of observation following the collar is also important information. It, too, shows changes in behavior and hunting patterns.
BIT speaks of the 8 study cats who were shot or hit by cars, but there is no mention of cat D2. D2 was the cat who died within 24 hours of handling. I was of the understanding that cause of death was pericardial effusion but that has not been confirmed. Although the cause of death cannot be confirmed, odds are high that it was related to capture. BIT has privately admitted this. It would be far more transparent of them to publicly admit this on the website. The public should be aware that there are risks associated with these kinds of studies. BIT also stated they had no capture-related injuries....that they know of. They do not follow up after the release. There could be delayed, unobserved responses to trapping, tranquilizing, or collaring processes.
They have captured 49 cats, collared 31, and 9 of these collared cats have died. That is a 27% mortality rate. This seems like an extremely high number of deaths for bobcats, even in urban areas.
The journal of Mammology recommends the transmitter should represent less than 5-10% of the individual's body weight, for mammals. The recommended collar weight for bobcats is 2-3% of body weight. I believe that percentage would impact their performance. Cats depend on their ability to accelerate and pounce upon their prey. I believe that a 5 pound (3% of my body weight) collar around my neck would have a significant impact on my performance. Asking the researchers to study the impact of collars is like asking the tobacco industry to study the effects of cigarettes. No study has ever been conducted. There are a number of bird studies that show the negative effects of transmitters. Nearly every study has a comment like "we believe the benefits outweigh the potential risks...." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969715310548
These studies are not a benefit to the individuals studied. They are intended to benefit the population as a whole. They are detrimental to the individuals. The researchers are aware of the collateral damage. To them, the potential benefits are worth the risk. No one knows the scope of the detrimental effects because no one has ever looked.
The cats at Sweetwater is not ordinary. Mama's success of breeding and raising kittens to dispersal for 7 or more years is not ordinary. Graybeard is 10% heavier than any other bobcat recorded in Arizona. These cats are not ordinary. They're extraordinary and should be treated as such! One of the key components of the project is to "Increase homeowner, neighborhood, city, and statewide level appreciate of bobcats as watchable wildlife." If that were true, I believe BIT should release the two Sweetwater cats from their collars. There are no cats as watchable as the Sweetwater cats. They are truly ambassadors for all bobcats. They have been the most visible and watched cats in the state of Arizona and possible the United States.
My best description of the study is that it's sloppy. Something as simple as on their website, it lists "The Arizona-Sonoran Desert Museum." It is the Sonora, not "Sonoran" Desert Museum. Their responses to questions have often been less than accurate. Date (scientific information) in theory is good. How it is collected and interpreted is critical. From my experiences with this study, I don't have much confidence in their interpretation of the data.