Its true, Wisconsin DOES have a Marquette County and it IS in south central Wisconsin, but Michigan also has a Marquette County and its in the Upper Peninsula (which I've actually visited and camped in).
Normally I'd rush to stand by a fellow Wisconsinite but in this case, after thoroughly reading the article from Michigan, I have to say that something definitely does NOT smell right here.
From the article about cougars in Michigan:
Quote:
The cougar was photographed by a cased and padlocked trail camera on private property on June 1, 2012...
Dr. Patrick Rusz, Director of Wildlife Programs for the Conservancy, and Michael Zuidema, a retired DNR forester, verified the trail camera’s location on a well-worn wildlife trail atop a wooded ridge...
The camera has also photographed wolves, coyotes, fishers and numerous other species at the same site over a four year period...
The MWC said it was publicizing this photograph because it may be the best, clearest photograph of a wild Michigan cougar ever taken...
He has also identified a long list of additional physical evidence dating back to 1966, and notes that Michigan State College zoologist Richard Manville documented several cougar sightings or incidents when he inventoried the fauna of Marquette County’s Huron Mountains from 1939 to 1942...
The most recent MDNR confirmation occurred last May when a cougar was photographed with a hand-held camera near Skanee in Baraga County. That photograph was taken about 50 miles north of the Marquette County trail camera location.
|
This says to me that the photograph was taken in Marquette County, perhaps in the area around the Huron Mountain area (which I know is in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and NOT in south central WI), a month earlier than the OP said it was. I also believe, according to the article, that the last most recent sighting was a picture taken in a location 50 miles north of where this picture was taken. Last I checked Skanee, MI was NOT 50 miles north of anywhere you could be in Marquette County, WI.
The other thing I have to wonder is the quality and clarity of the photograph. See my ex wife is a graphic designer and I used to work with her in her studio as a photographer for her. Whenever she needed source photos for her work I was sent out to take them. I know that regardless of how far technology advances you CAN NOT add detail and clarity to a photo that isn't already there. The stuff you see on CSI is just science fiction that they threw in there to make their cases solvable. In reality if you have a fuzzy pixellalted image you're going to keep on having a fuzzy and pixellated image no matter how much you sharpen the edges and lines. Simply put you can't put details into the picture that aren't already there to begin with unless you're doing some SERIOUS photoshopping and in that event there'd be clear differences. Even with computer extrapolation you can't go from the fuzzy little picture that the OP claims is the original and make it as clear, detailed and as large as the one in the Michigan article which the OP claims is the copy. Its simply not possible. You CAN however go the other way, take a clear and detailed picture, then make it fuzzy and smaller. This is usually done by people to obfuscate something in the picture... To put make it easy to understand if you start with a fuzzy picture you're going to stay with a fuzzy picture. If you start with a clear picture you will be able to make it fuzzy (which isn't really too hard actually).