Alien Big Cats in the UK?

[mummymonkey]

A big cat has been photgraphed in Scotland.
The railway line is about 4 and a half feet wide which by my rekoning makes the cat about 3 foot not including tail. That's a fairly hefty moggie for sure but I'd have thought it was still within the range of domestic cat?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8172064.stm

[lionking]

Many parts of Australia have had sightings of "big cats", with this being a recent one:

http://borderwatch.com.au/archives/808

One of the theories is that US troups brought leopard mascots with them when posted here during WWII. I think wikipedia deals with these sightings well. Phantom Cats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_cat

[Sean84]

I heard cats were verboten on here, but googling fat cat rather than big cat leads to some pretty *********** big domestic cats.

http://www.funnydog.net/images/poza-fatcat.jpg

[Tristan Chi]

A big cat has been photgraphed in Scotland.
The railway line is about 4 and a half feet wide which by my rekoning makes the cat about 3 foot not including tail. That's a fairly hefty moggie for sure but I'd have thought it was still within the range of domestic cat?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8172064.stmThat must be Behemot (http://hem.spray.se/badgerspotting/images/behemot.jpg)! Who was beheaded by the tram this time?

[Ersby]

I watched the video on the BBC website. It didn't strike me as being paticularly big. The way it daintly trots along the rail certainly looked more moggie than monster.

[shawmutt]

Dude sounds pretty excited...he couldn't have dubbed in a soundtrack or something?
Eye of the Tiger?

[pakeha]

While the Moggy Monster theory is attractive, my bets would be on the vid being a moggy of the Siberian Forest Cat, Norwegian Forest Cat or Maine Coon Cat persuasion.

[pakeha]

hi, lionking, loved the links.

This story was my favourite, though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnie_(feline)

[Darat]

I watched the video on the BBC website. It didn't strike me as being paticularly big. The way it daintly trots along the rail certainly looked more moggie than monster.

Have to agree - doesn't look that big to me.

[William Parcher]

It's a housecat. People making "alien big cat" claims don't truly understand how large leopards, jaguars and cougars are. The cat in this video also has a walk cadence unlike the real thing. It may be a rather large moggie, but it reveals its height when alongside the rail. Too much of the legs are concealed by the rail when it is briefly walking there. Once the cat has stepped onto the rail, we can see that its legs are not much taller than the rail itself.

[Akhenaten]

"Touch not the cat bot a glaive"

'tis a quiz! Takers?

[William Parcher]

The setting is known, so size comparisons could be made on location.

[Akhenaten]

That is, I'm fairly sure, the first time I've ever seen a critical analysis done of anything which included an indication of "Moggie Height"

coffee/monitor

[learner]

Whatever it is. the poor thing must be depressed. :(

[Marduk]

ah, I think this is a domestic housecat, but I also think that the UK now has big cats as a native species. This is because I have researched this in depth before.

;)

[Amapola]

"Touch not the cat bot a glaive"

'tis a quiz! Takers?

"There's no "fear" in "MacPherson"!"

I have to stay the animal strikes me as a perfectly normal, although large, housecat. It even has that type of behaviour. I don't see it being "over 4' in length" like the one guy claims. It just looks like a big kitty to me.

[Michael C]

doesn't look that big to me.

Nor to me. The BBC article quotes Shaun Stevens of the "Big Cats In Britain" group:

"Knowing the width of the rail tracks in Chris's video is 4ft 8.5in, the animal photographed by him is clearly in excess of 4ft and as such is certainly not a domestic cat."

Hm... almost as long as the width of the rail tracks? Look at the length of the beastie (without the tail) and the apparent width of the tracks:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/166124a6f0fb738553.jpg

Perspective is tricky. In this image, I think the cat is moving more or less perpendicular to the line of sight, so there's no foreshortening. The rails are certainly not perpendicular to the line of sight, so there is some foreshortening (exactly how much, I can't say). I'd estimate the length of the cat to be at most 1/2 the width of the rails.

So here's one more vote for "just a big kitty".

[Starthinker]

I heard cats were verboten on here, but googling fat cat rather than big cat leads to some pretty *********** big domestic cats.

http://www.funnydog.net/images/poza-fatcat.jpg

I think it's kittens they try to avoid here.

[Marduk]

Nor to me. The BBC article quotes Shaun Stevens of the "Big Cats In Britain" group:

"Knowing the width of the rail tracks in Chris's video is 4ft 8.5in, the animal photographed by him is clearly in excess of 4ft and as such is certainly not a domestic cat."

Hm... almost as long as the width of the rail tracks? Look at the length of the beastie (without the tail) and the apparent width of the tracks:



cats are usually measured from nose to the tip of the tail,
from wiki
Cats average about 23–25 centimeters (9–10 in) in height[14] and 46 centimeters (18.1 in) in head/body length (males being larger than females), with tails averaging 30 centimeters (11.8 in) in length.[15]
the longest domestic cat species is the maine coon cat.
the world record holder is 48 inches long
http://www.verismocat.com/htmscripts/leo-guinness.htm

so if its over 3 feet long then it isn't a housecat, you'll need to stop thinking black panther, that is not what the various native big cat societies in the UK are proposing, the current paradigm is a melanistic hybrid of a wild and domestic species.

[JohnG]

Whatever it is. the poor thing must be depressed. :(


Anna Katrenina?

[Fiona]

That must be Behemot (http://hem.spray.se/badgerspotting/images/behemot.jpg)! Who was beheaded by the tram this time?

The oil has already been spilled? Are you sure ? :D

[shadron]

Dude sounds pretty excited...he couldn't have dubbed in a soundtrack or something?
Eye of the Tiger?

Says in the story he had to run to his car to get his camera-phone. And, no, he doesn't sound excited, just winded.

[Akhenaten]

"There's no "fear" in "MacPherson"!"



Awesome. You win 9 internets. :)


Cheers,

Dave

[Lucky]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/166124a6f0fb738553.jpg

Perspective is tricky. In this image, I think the cat is moving more or less perpendicular to the line of sight, so there's no foreshortening. The rails are certainly not perpendicular to the line of sight, so there is some foreshortening (exactly how much, I can't say). I'd estimate the length of the cat to be at most 1/2 the width of the rails.

So here's one more vote for "just a big kitty".


I disagree - it looks quite a bit longer than half the width of the track. I'd say it's more like mummymonkey's estimate of three foot, which would be a very large domestic moggie.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_25504a6f2de1091d3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17082) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_25504a6f2dee5f3a8.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17083) http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_25504a6f2df7d4273.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17084)

It could be a Scottish Wildcat / domestic cat hybrid (http://www.messybeast.com/small-hybrids/libyca-hybrids.htm), perhaps a Kellas Cat (http://www.pawsonline.info/kellas_cat.htm). They can be bigger than either wildcats or domestic cats.

[jhunter1163]

It's a big fat domestic cat. My parents had a cat about that size. Usually you can't hear a cat walk; this one you could. And if he jumped off the kitchen counter, the whole house knew.

[rsaavedra]

Could be just a big cat, or just a young panther. ;)

[makaya325]

So these "Alien Big Cats" could be nothing more than abnormally large House cats?

[Darat]

The bloke who took the video is reported as commenting that the tail was very long, which is a common comment people make about my Maine Coon cat; his tail looks proportionally much longer than a standard domestic moggy's tail.

[Apology]

Looks like a black dog to me. There's nothing in this blurry, distant video that conclusively indicates that it's a cat.

[Safe-Keeper]

The missing link!

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/bigcat2.asp

:D

[Big Les]

"Touch not the cat bot a glaive"

'tis a quiz! Takers?

It's 'glove', surely? A glaive being a staff weapon. Although, one of the cats I had...

[blue sock monkey]

"Touch not the cat bot a glaive"

'tis a quiz! Takers?

Motto of the clan MacPherson. (I love Google.)

[Big Les]

You were beaten to it, I'm afraid. As was I! A favourite quote of mine.

[Marduk]

The bloke who took the video is reported as commenting that the tail was very long, which is a common comment people make about my Maine Coon cat; his tail looks proportionally much longer than a standard domestic moggy's tail.

how many jet black maine coon cats do you think there are running around in scotland ?
:D

[Amapola]

Awesome. You win 9 internets. :)


Cheers,

Dave

Yay for me! :D

Must confess though, it's supposed to be the family clan. So it's common knowledge in our family.

I can't see this being a dog, it definitely acts like a cat. It also moves like a cat. A domestic cat.

[blue sock monkey]

You were beaten to it, I'm afraid. As was I! A favourite quote of mine.

(note to self: read all posts more carefully before posting.)



Looks like a black dog to me. There's nothing in this blurry, distant video that conclusively indicates that it's a cat.

On the video, the animal seems to move more like a cat than a dog, IMO--a bit slinky. The videographer should have thrown a ball of yarn in front of it so we'd be sure.

[svenax]

"Touch not the cat bot a glaive"

'tis a quiz! Takers?

The motto of the Chattan confederation - Clan Chattan (the cat clan). Used by clan MacPherson, clan Mackintosh and the 14 other member clans.

[I Ratant]

It resembles a black Jaguar.
Cougars although said to have been seen in the melanistic phase, are not actually known to be black.
Here's one at the Exotic Feline Breeding Compound in Rosamond CA.
It LOVES getting a shower or taking a bath in the August heat! :)
The tail is quick long and not tapered to a point, as is the typical house cat.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Let's not forget Occam's Razor.

If you hear the pitty-pat of feline paws, think house cat, not panther.

[Marduk]

Let's not forget Occam's Razor.

If you hear the pitty-pat of feline paws, think house cat, not panther.

I thought occams razor is more likely to tell you that if you hear the pitty-pat of feline paws see your doctor, you have developed hyper sensitive hearing
:D

[ksbluesfan]

That must be Behemot (http://hem.spray.se/badgerspotting/images/behemot.jpg)! Who was beheaded by the tram this time?

Nice reference to Bulgakov!

:D

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, my cat is pretty darn big. His spine is like a slinky, though, and I know he can stretch out longer than he is when he's sitting. I just measured him while he was sitting on my lap (he hangs over--my lap isn't big enough). Measuring along the top, from his nose to the point where his tail starts he's 23" long. His tail looks proportionately short. It's just under 11" long.

Although he started out identical to his sister (at about 4 weeks old), he's now well over twice her size.

I thought occams razor is more likely to tell you that if you hear the pitty-pat of feline paws see your doctor, you have developed hyper sensitive hearing
:D

See jhunter's post number 25. My guy too is seldom silent. He likes to stomp on my stomach when I'm lying down and he's running from one point to another. I think he just gets a kick out of hearing me go, "Ooof!" When he's running from one end of the house to the other on my first floor, I can hear him when I'm in the attic.

[Akhenaten]

Apology to the Clan MacPherson


Everyone who took part in the MacPherson motto quiz did better than the fool who started it.

The only excuse I can think of is that Arthwollipot used his laser vision somehow to make me type "glaive" instead of "glove".

I have teh dumb. Winners - please share the internets out amongst yourselves.

/derail - puss now back on tracks


Cheers,

Dave

[Lucian]

By the way, my cat is pretty darn big. His spine is like a slinky, though, and I know he can stretch out longer than he is when he's sitting. I just measured him while he was sitting on my lap (he hangs over--my lap isn't big enough). Measuring along the top, from his nose to the point where his tail starts he's 23" long. His tail looks proportionately short. It's just under 11" long.

Well, I've spent some time today measuring my cat and my friend's cat. The data are in, and I can say conclusively . . . that PetSmart should market the tape measure as a cat toy. Seriously, how the hell did you manage to measure your cat? Did you knock him out first? I didn't get any reliable measurements, but the cats had a wonderful time.



See jhunter's post number 25. My guy too is seldom silent. He likes to stomp on my stomach when I'm lying down and he's running from one point to another. I think he just gets a kick out of hearing me go, "Ooof!" When he's running from one end of the house to the other on my first floor, I can hear him when I'm in the attic.

Our cats walk quietly enough, but when they're chasing each other, it sounds as if the annual wildebeest migration has made a detour through St. Louis.

[rjh01]

There is a large population of wild domestic cats in Australia. These are cats that escaped from shipwrecks and dumped cats. They are generally bigger than ordinary cats. Their main diet consists of rabbit and native animals.

[Foolmewunz]

I love learning a new word. Can some of you guys clarify, for me? Is that like what we call an "alley cat" in the USA, e.g. a stray of mixed lineage? Or is it just a domestic cat (e.g. pet) of no specific breed?


And that one definitely looks like a "moggie". A big one, but yer regulation kitty cat, nevertheless.

[Akhenaten]

I love learning a new word. Can some of you guys clarify, for me? Is that like what we call an "alley cat" in the USA, e.g. a stray of mixed lineage? Or is it just a domestic cat (e.g. pet) of no specific breed?


And that one definitely looks like a "moggie". A big one, but yer regulation kitty cat, nevertheless.


I'll speak for the Aussies. This will end well.


"Moggie" is almost completely synoymous with "domestic cat", as is "puss". Most Australian cats answer to a falsetto "Puss, puss, puss!"

"Alley cat", I believe, has the same meaning in Australia and the USA.

Cats living wild in the bush are just called "feral cats" (in colonies sometimes, known as clowders), Wild domestic cats living in urban areas are also referred to as feral, but less commonly. Plain old "Stray cat" would be the more common term in town.

We also use the term "kitty", spelled as you have, although I had, up to now, thought that it was spellt "kitteh" in the USA. The usage is equivalent, in any case.


I agree with your analysis of McPuss, FWIW.


Cheers,

Dave


PS Cats are cool.

[rjh01]

Ref http://www.petuniversity.com/cats/becoming-a-cat-parent/selecting-a-breed.htm
Purebred or Moggy?
So, now you need to decide whether you'd like a purebred or mixed breed (moggy) cat. Purebreds are descended from one particular breed and can be quite expensive, so if you're not planning to show or breed your cat, a moggy may be the right choice for you.

This site is implying that a moggy cat is a mixed breed cat.

[Akhenaten]

Ref http://www.petuniversity.com/cats/becoming-a-cat-parent/selecting-a-breed.htm


This site is implying that a moggy cat is a mixed breed cat.


I'll go along with that too, as a "rule-of-thumb". Good point.

Most people would, I think, where a purebred is concerned, say "Ooh look! A Siamese!" or "Burmese have no brains."

Still, it would be common to hear someone who is looking at a purebred Chinchilla asking, "What kind of moggie is that?"



Thanks rjh :)

[Rolfe]

Ref http://www.petuniversity.com/cats/becoming-a-cat-parent/selecting-a-breed.htm

This site is implying that a moggy cat is a mixed breed cat.


Not really. A moggy is a domestic cat of NO especial breed. Not one produced by cross-breeding existing breeds. On the contrary, the existing breeds have by and large been line-bred from particular moggies.

So you really can't call a Maine Coon or a Norwegian Forest Cat a moggy.

Rolfe.

[Foolmewunz]

Okay, so a mixed and indeterminate lineage housecat in other words. Sort of the equivalent of a mut when talking about dogs.

Feral cats I knew about. And then there are strays and alley cats - which are either moggies who got out, or descended from moggies who got out (or unpleasantly - were thrown out/abandoned), as most of us who live in cities know.

Sort of like "mongrel" or "mut" when talking of doggies.

[Akhenaten]

Okay, so a mixed and indeterminate lineage housecat in other words. Sort of the equivalent of a mut when talking about dogs.

Feral cats I knew about. And then there are strays and alley cats - which are either moggies who got out, or descended from moggies who got out (or unpleasantly - were thrown out/abandoned), as most of us who live in cities know.

Sort of like "mongrel" or "mut" when talking of doggies.


Yep. I was going to make the "mongrel" comparison myself.

[Michael C]

A Moggy is a Real Cat. See Terry Pratchett's "The Unadulterated Cat" (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0752853694/ref=sib_rdr_dp).

“Many Real cats are instantly recognizable. For example, all cats with faces that look as though they had been put in a vice and hit repeatedly by a hammer with a sock round it are Real Cats. Cats with ears that look as though they have been trimmed with pinking shears are Real cats. Almost every non-pedigree un-neutered tom is not only Real, but as it hangs around the house it gets Realer and Realer until one of you is left in absolutely no doubt as to its Realness."

[Rolfe]

I'm interested in this. As a veterinary pathologist I occasionally have to investigate livestock deaths involving teeth-marks. Last year we had a spate of stuff happening near here, including two ewes with their throats torn out, a lamb with a fatal bite to its flank, and a young ewe with a huge lump taken out of one leg. I wish I could post a picture of that last one because it was very dramatic, but it would probably be judged too gruesome. Of course we thought about the "big cat" possibility, and indeed one of the ewes was brought to us by a policeman with that specific question.

However, the conclusion was "big dog". In each case the bites were more typical of canine jaws. Also, the modus operandi was almost always a single bite, with the carcass found otherwise unscathed - that is, not actually eaten. The ewe with the leg bite and two of the lambs were still alive when they were found, and in one case the perpetrator appeared to have run wild round the field killing several lambs but then abandoning the carcasses and moving on to catch another one. This had all the hallmarks of an animal that was not killing to eat to live.

The number of carcasses brought in with significant amounts of meat missing was exactly zero. In total, though it was enough to get concerned about, there were only six or seven incidents over a period of many months. My conclusion was large domestic dogs intermittently sheep-worrying.

If there is a feral big cat, or even more so, a breeding population, I want to know what they're eating. I absolutely accept that some carcasses might be completely scavenged and disappear, but central Scotland is a well-farmed area and farmers do know how many sheep and lambs they have. Nobody has reported unexplained disappearances. Even if some carcasses were completely disappearing, I would expect at least some to be found part-eaten. It's the law that all livestock have to be inspected at least every 24 hours, and most farmers comply with that (and then show up here with the casualties when I'm already busy....)

We did have one strange case where a set of sheep bones was brought in, however these were clearly the work of human hands, with bones having been sawn and meat sliced off cleanly with a knife. They'd been lying around for a while, but weren't much gnawed, showing that a stripped carcass doesn't just vanish without trace.

Sheep and lambs are very vulnerable to this sort of predator. I fail to see how something like that could live entirely on wild animals, small rodents and the like, and if it ever does get a lamb, then somehow the carcass vanishes entirely leaving no trace. I'm really pretty confident that there's nothing like that living wild round here, because the evidence just doesn't stack up.

Helensburgh? There's more scope round there because it is on the edge of some relatively wild country, but my reservations above still apply. All the land is farmed, with sheep and cattle, and even the hill sheep are shepherded fairly closely. Farms which do have a problem are not slow to shout about it. Further north, some farms lost a lot of lambs to Sea Eagle predation this year, and there were articles in the farming press and bitter recriminations against the Sea Eagle conservationists. I have enormous trouble believing that the farms round Helensburgh are supporting a puma, and nobody has noticed any untoward losses.

There has been some speculation that the animal is a Labrador, but I saw the film on the TV news and I don't think so. The way it walks along the actual rail is not canine, it's feline. I just agree that it's probably not that big.

All-black specimens of the big domestic cat breeds are unusual, and most of these are long-haired. I think the picture is of a shorthair. Scottish wildcats are tabby. My first thought when I saw the film was the same as most people here. Big black mog.

I had a similar experience a few years ago when cycling by a canal. I looked across the canal at an open field, and seemed to see a black panther walking across it. I did a double take, and realised that it was just an ordinary black cat, not even especially huge, but sufficiently far from any clear size comparison markers that I'd been misled. If the cat had vanished after my initial sighing I could easily have been left with the impression I'd seen a panther.

I think the size comparison markers in the video are deceptive. It's a single-track railway (though probably normal gauge), and it's not as wide as it looks. Even watching the clip, sometimes it did look like a normal cat. I think the position was just conducive to a bit of a trompe l'oeil effect.

Domestic cats (which it probably was) have a fairly small range. I would suspect enquiries round the area would turn up someone with a big black pet cat.

Now, about the horse (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8162091.stm). A few days earlier, a horse was found mauled near Ayr. Some "expert" said they thought this was the work of a big cat, probably a puma.

I want to know what the "expert" was smoking. (Actually, I'm guessing about the identity of the expert, but I think he may have been the guy who declared that an obviously dog-killed hare I'd examined might have been hit by a car. Yeah, a car with teeth? So yes, vivid imagination at work perhaps.) The same thing applies, only more so. The Ayrshire countryside round there is intensively farmed. And, this is the biggie, our Ayr investigation centre is only a few miles from where the horse was found. I flat guarantee that if farmers round there were experiencing livestock losses suggestive of a big cat on the loose, we would know about it. The only possibility would be a recent escapee, and I sort of think something like that might have been reported missing.

And just to squash the conspiracy theorists, Ayr isn't that far from Helensburgh as the crow flies, but it's quite far enough to make the two incidents entirely unrelated. Especially as there is a sizeable body of water separating the two places (the Firth of Clyde), and the only way to get across is either to cross the Erskine Bridge or trot right through Glasgow city centre.

The puma thing was just someone with a vivid imagination not thinking clearly. For goodness sake, just phone Auchincruive and ask if there have been any other suspicious livestock losses in the area before you come out with that one, why don't you? And the video clip was a big black mog.

Rolfe.

[Marduk]

Hi Rolfe

there were big cats loose in the UK,
http://www.britishbigcats.org/images/cms/felicity.jpg
Felicity, as she was called, was capture by farmer Ted Noble at Cannich Scotland in 1980. This followed a string of reports dating back to 1976 in the area. Controversy surrounds this capture to date. Felicity was moved to the Highland Wildlife Park where she ended her days as somewhat a tourist attraction. (1980)
http://www.britishbigcats.org/images/cms/ludlowjunglecat.jpg
This jungle cat was found at the side of the road in Shropshire and was probably a casualty of a vehicle strike. It is rumoured that this cat mated with domestic cats and had several offspring. One large smokey grey cat called Jasper had all the characteristics and markings of a jungle cat. It later found its way to Dr Karl Shuker. (1989)

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_04/AsheraDM2910_600x458.jpg
Stuart Skinner shot a leopard cat on the Isle of Wight after thinking it was a rampaging fox that had been taking ducks and chickens from a farm on the Island. He did not report the incident for several months thinking he had shot a protected species. (1993)
http://www.britishbigcats.org/images/cms/91%20Norwich%20Lynx%20pic%20BBCS%20copy.jpg
Summer 1991 - Northern Lynx (Felis Lynx) shot near Beccles, Suffolk, after it killed about 15 sheep over a two-week period. After spending a short time in the farmers freezer it was sold on to a local game dealer - who then had it stuffed and sold it to a local collector - who apparently now has it on display in his house. The BBCS learnt about this previous unreported story last year and have unearthed the only pictures of it to exist.

A lynx was shot dead by R.U.C. marksman near the village of Fintona on the 18th of February 1996. The shooting followed days of reports of a 'young lion' in the area. The lynx, which was wearing a collar, was believed to have escaped from a private collection.
The body was suupposedly stuffed and placed in the R.U.C. museum.
A lynx was captured in London after a witness report of a leopard sat on a garden wall. The lynx was captured after being sedated by a vet with a dart and blow pipe. She was taken to London zoo and treated for a paw injury, she was given the name Lara there. (2001)

Big Cat Data

Regional Breakdown Big Cat Data Colour analysis

South West 21% Black 1319 – (64%)
South East 16% Brown / Sandy – 421 – (21%)
East Anglia 12% Lynx Type – 237 – (12%)
Scotland 11% Others – 75 (3%)
West Midlands 9%
East Midlands 9%
North West 7%
North East 7%
Wales 5%
Ireland 3%

Big Cat Sightings County ‘league table’ (between Jan 03 & March 04)

Scotland 231
Kent 141
Yorkshire 127
Wales 102
Devon 100
Cornwall 96
Lancashire 86
Ireland 82
Lincolnshire 80
Somerset 69
West Midlands 64
Gloucestershire 64
Essex 62
Suffolk 59
Norfolk 54
Sussex 50
Cumbria 47
Wiltshire 44
Dorset 42
Oxfordshire 39
Cambridgeshire 34
Shropshire 33
Hampshire 28
Leicestershire 27
Northamptonshire 26
Staffordshire 26
Derbyshire 24
Buckinghamshire 24
Herefordshire 23
Surrey 21
Warwickshire 19
Worcestershire 19
Northumberland 18
Berkshire 16
Cheshire 15
Nottinghamshire 10
Bedfordshire 7
London 7
Middlesex 6
Isle of Wight 5

TOTAL 2052

quite a lot of Animals that apparently don't exist which were all spotted during a 15 month survey, which lasted from January 03 till March 04.
http://www.britishbigcats.org/press_releases/Big%20Cat%20Evidence%20Gets%20Stronger.doc

there are currently two schools of thought, they both agree that the big cat phenomena started overnight when the 1976 wild animals act made it impractical for ordinary people to own their own big cats, this forced three choices
1. donate animal to zoo
2. have animal euthanized
3. open the back door and say "shoo"

that a large number of cats were released into the UK countryside is not disputed, not even by the government, what happened to them next is

1. the big cats succesfully bred with each other forming large populations of naturalised pure bred big cats who know better than to show themselves around humanity
2. the smaller varieties of cats mated with ordinary housecats creating a hybrid which is naturally melanistic (black) and larger than domestic cats

whats known for sure is that the life expectancy of most big cats
Lions 10 years
Puma 13 years
Lynx 10 years
makes their presence unsustainable without procreation

once the idea that black panthers became fixed in the national consciousness in the late 70s anyone seeing a large black hybrid will immediately think "panther" and report it as such

but consider really, option 2 is far more likely and that type of animal would not predate domestic livestock anyway, they are far too small. I don't think its unreasonable to assume that anyone finding the rotten carcase of a 4 foot long hybrid cat is going to think its anything but a dead housecat. You as a vet will know that the large and stocky appearence of most housecats is a result of their fur and not their build.

2052 sightings in a 14 month period made on the whole by people who are familiar with the usual wildlife and who have nothing togain by making it up, its not like claiming you saw the mother ship from Alpha centauri overhead on your way home from the pub is it, and I don't expect that the Royal Marines would be called out twice by the government at dartmoor to hunt for something that isn't there. Even if 1% of these sightings is genuine then there are 20 unknown felines running around out there

lets just hope they don't evolve like this
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/thumbs.jpg

and finally
the government does admit that there are big cats loose in the UK
or they wouldn't be publishing lists like this
http://web.archive.org/web/20061210055808/http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/reports/exotic-cat-escapes.pdf
checkout the last 6 which represents 1/5 of the total, 6 animals that were captured, shot or found dead which have no known origin
theyre out there, any way you want to look at it and its not like theyre attacking children
http://www.yowiehunters.com.au/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=376
right ?
:eek:

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, I've spent some time today measuring my cat and my friend's cat. The data are in, and I can say conclusively . . . that PetSmart should market the tape measure as a cat toy. Seriously, how the hell did you manage to measure your cat? Did you knock him out first? I didn't get any reliable measurements, but the cats had a wonderful time.
My big guy is a fraidy cat. The tape measure spooks him (as does pretty much everything including his own shadow), so I used my forearm (from my elbow to the tips of my fingers) and then used my other hand sideways to get the remainder, then I measured those two things on me.

[shawmutt]

FWIW, the "big cat" story is a bit of local woo woo as well, as hunters claim to have seen mountain lions in this and surrounding states. Some folks get really upset about the issue, and it's got all the trappings of a conspiracy theory.

For example, see: http://www.huntingpa.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1263505&fpart=1 from a local hunting forum I frequent.

[William Parcher]

there were big cats loose in the UK,

Those are dead or captured. What about now?

Big Cat Data

Regional Breakdown Big Cat Data Colour analysis

Big Cat Sightings County ‘league table’ (between Jan 03 & March 04)

TOTAL 2052

quite a lot of Animals that apparently don't exist which were all spotted during a 15 month survey, which lasted from January 03 till March 04.
http://www.britishbigcats.org/press_releases/Big%20Cat%20Evidence%20Gets%20Stronger.doc

Similar episodic sighting phenomenon with Bigfoot in North America.


that a large number of cats were released into the UK countryside is not disputed, not even by the government,

They have figures and evidence for this? Is it just assumed or what?

1. the big cats succesfully bred with each other forming large populations of naturalised pure bred big cats who know better than to show themselves around humanity

Are there any confirmed records of lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars or pumas presently living in the UK wilds? Any?


2052 sightings in a 14 month period made on the whole by people who are familiar with the usual wildlife and who have nothing togain by making it up, its not like claiming you saw the mother ship from Alpha centauri overhead on your way home from the pub is it, and I don't expect that the Royal Marines would be called out twice by the government at dartmoor to hunt for something that isn't there. Even if 1% of these sightings is genuine then there are 20 unknown felines running around out there

This is what the Bigfooters say.



and finally the government does admit that there are big cats loose in the UK or they wouldn't be publishing lists like this

What? Where is the government's confirmatory evidence that big cats are currently living in UK wilds? The list itself does not represent the "government admitting".


checkout the last 6 which represents 1/5 of the total, 6 animals that were captured, shot or found dead which have no known origin theyre out there, any way you want to look at it and its not like theyre attacking children

The last 6 are not big cats. Big Cat = lion, tiger, leopard, jaguar and (sometimes) puma.

[Arisia]

FWIW, the "big cat" story is a bit of local woo woo as well, as hunters claim to have seen mountain lions in this and surrounding states. Some folks get really upset about the issue, and it's got all the trappings of a conspiracy theory.

...

We hear occasionally about catamount sightings here in New England as well. Unless they find scat or a carcass with confirmed large feline bite marks (or at the most extreme, a catamount carcass), most of the Fish and Game folks are very skeptical. It would be nice to have a large predator back in the region as a natural control to the burgeoning population of large game animals (moose and whitetails), but I don't see that happening.

[Rolfe]

I'm not disputing that there have been incidents where non-domestic species have escaped in Britain. What I am disputing is the evidence of anything significantly larger than a domestic cat maintaining a population in the wild, or that anything large enough to prey on livestock could remain undetected for more than a few days or (at the most) weeks after escaping.

that a large number of cats were released into the UK countryside is not disputed, not even by the government, what happened to them next is

1. the big cats succesfully bred with each other forming large populations of naturalised pure bred big cats who know better than to show themselves around humanity
2. the smaller varieties of cats mated with ordinary housecats creating a hybrid which is naturally melanistic (black) and larger than domestic cats


That second one isn't entirely implausible, because of course feral cats exist, and of course they maintain populations in the "wild". Cats of that size are not going to go after livestock, they are going to get birds and small rodents. My question on that one just echoes another thread here. Where are all the road kill? Maybe some bodies have turned up and I'm just not aware of them, however if there are no reports of dead individuals being found, I'm sceptical of their existence. If on the other hand they're nothing more than black moggies at the top edge of the size range, so are not being recorded as anything special, well, that isn't anything very special. Interesting from a genetics point of view, but no more.

I don't think we're actually disagreeing with each other on that. And if you want to postulate that the cat in the video from Helensburgh is of that nature, then I'm not going to argue. (I'm not going to agree either until someone does some DNA analysis of a body, though.) It's just "some feral cats exist which are larger than average, and black, because they have a little bit of exotic cat in their ancestry courtesy of an escapee in the 1970s" isn't really a very newsworthy item.

So, about the bigger ones. That top photo is a cracker, and this is a famous case, but it happened in Cannich for God's sake! A better place to remain feral in would be hard to find. It's the back of bloody beyond. And even so, there were a string of reports for four years (from the 1976 act) and she was then captured. If a cat like that gets noticed even in a wild and remote area north of the Great Glen, then it's hardly going to be sneaking around Ayrshire under the radar.

The jungle cat in Shropshire is still quite small, and just proves what I was saying. If they are there, you find the road kill. But that wouldn't have been preying on livestock, and in fact there is no evidence it wasn't a recently escaped illegal "pet".

The leopard cat was found on the Isle of Wight. So where did it come from? I would start looking among people living on the Isle of Wight! How long had it been there? No idea, if we don't know where it escaped from. Probably not long. Recent escapees are always a possibility, and if people have been keeping things illegally, they may not report them. This thing was still small enough to have been secretly kept in domestic premises after all, it's not as if a wildlife park had lost a specimen.

Summer 1991 - Northern Lynx (Felis Lynx) shot near Beccles, Suffolk, after it killed about 15 sheep over a two-week period. After spending a short time in the farmers freezer it was sold on to a local game dealer - who then had it stuffed and sold it to a local collector - who apparently now has it on display in his house. The BBCS learnt about this previous unreported story last year and have unearthed the only pictures of it to exist.


You make my point for me. Anything big enough to prey on livestock isn't going to lurk unnoticed for long. The day I have 15 mauled corpses on my hands in a two-week period, is the day I'm absolutely convinced there's something out there. That day is not today, however. Also, if it was killing a sheep a day, where had it been before that two-week period? Another recent escape, clearly.

A lynx was shot dead by R.U.C. marksman near the village of Fintona on the 18th of February 1996. The shooting followed days of reports of a 'young lion' in the area. The lynx, which was wearing a collar, was believed to have escaped from a private collection.
The body was suupposedly stuffed and placed in the R.U.C. museum.


Recent escapee. No mystery.

A lynx was captured in London after a witness report of a leopard sat on a garden wall. The lynx was captured after being sedated by a vet with a dart and blow pipe. She was taken to London zoo and treated for a paw injury, she was given the name Lara there. (2001)


In London. How long do you think that had been on the loose? Answers in hours rather than days are more likely to win the jackpot.

the government does admit that there are big cats loose in the UK
or they wouldn't be publishing lists like this
http://web.archive.org/web/200612100...at-escapes.pdf (http://web.archive.org/web/20061210055808/http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/reports/exotic-cat-escapes.pdf)
checkout the last 6 which represents 1/5 of the total, 6 animals that were captured, shot or found dead which have no known origin


I've had a look at this, in fact a closer look than you have it seems.

The first two look like the same animal recorded twice, and it's our friend the leopard cat from the Isle of Wight. As I said, probably a recently-escaped illegal "pet", not reported missing for obvious reasons.

The next one is the London one. I really, really hope you're not suggesting that there is a breeding population of lynx established in London. :nope:

The last one is the Shropshire one you mentioned above. Small cat, no reason it couldn't be a recent escapee.

So we have only two left, both leopard cats. Small, again. One in Devon and one in the south of Scotland. Twenty years ago. And again, no reason to think they were anything other than recently escaped illegal pets.

You have totally failed to convince me that there is anything of that sort breeding in this country, or anything other than the occasional illegal exotic pet getting out and either coming to grief or being recaptured.

theyre out there, any way you want to look at it and its not like theyre attacking children
http://www.yowiehunters.com.au/index...o_pdf=1&id=376 (http://www.yowiehunters.com.au/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=376)
right ?
:eek:


No, you have no evidence that "they're out there". And that last link is just another story along the same lines as the mauled horse. Pure conjecture.

In spite of the 1976 act, some people will still continue to keep exotic cats. And sometimes they will get out. And the miscreant won't necessarily report this, and when the animal is either found dead or recaptured they will still keep quiet for obvious reasons. (That was one omission in my original post - while of course a legal zoological collection would report an escape, an illegal "pet" might well not be reported.) This is the simple explanation for all the cases you cited. Your information also highlights that when something big does get out, dead sheep are a pretty obvious giveaway.

Beyond that, hey, some feral cats alive now might have a little bit of exotic cat in their ancestry, and these may be larger than average and black. Well, stone the crows!

Rolfe.

[William Parcher]

It's just "some feral cats exist which are larger than average, and black, because they have a little bit of exotic cat in their ancestry courtesy of an escapee in the 1970s" isn't really a very newsworthy item.

Beyond that, hey, some feral cats alive now might have a little bit of exotic cat in their ancestry, and these may be larger than average and black.

Right, but we are talking about possible hybrids within the genus Felis. Increased size, but with limitations. The Big Cats are genus Panthera. We are not expecting Felis x Panthera (which would really kick-up the size).

The issue is that so many eyewitnesses are compelled to estimate the size of their beast as being in the domain of Panthera, not a Felis x Felis hybrid. The hype is for these wild or escaped exotics to be Panthera, not Felis. If you look at the enthusiast websites, you see many comparison photos of melanistic leopard (Panthera).

[Rolfe]

Well, exactly!

Rolfe.

[William Parcher]

Cougar Hysteria (http://www.cougarnet.org/Assets/CougarHysteria.pdf)


In the last year alone, we have witnessed television and newspaper news alerts, warning signs posted along public trails, public school and work-site closings, and city police warnings issued in several eastern states over nothing more than reported sightings backed up with videos and photographs of bobcats and housecats mistaken to be cougars and black panthers. It seems that deep down, somewhere in our psyche, many want these animals to exist so much that these kinds of events have become commonplace, even in our populated and heavily-modified environments. This phenomenon even exists in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries that don’t have native large cats. The term often used to describe these mysterious sightings of pumas or panthers is “Phantom Cats” or Alien Big Cats (ABCs).

[Marduk]

No, you have no evidence that "they're out there". And that last link is just another story along the same lines as the mauled horse. Pure conjecture.

well I think we can all see which side of the fence youre sitting on, to claim that big cats aren't occaisonally spotted in the UK is ridiculous when I have actually posted pictures of some of them.

I am not saying that I totally agree with either of the two schools of thought that I posted, but we do have alien big cats on the loose, they turn up bodily too often to deny it. Before you go mocking my use of Alien there, you'd best be aware that it is the right termnology for a creature that isn't native which is in evidence.
:D

btw the last link was backed up by several eyewitnesses and the testimony of the boy himself, who managed to describe the usual method used by panthera when attacking bipeds in its native habitat and displayed the wounds to prove it. I expect you'd claim he saw it on a tv show and then faked the injuries, and then went on to convince his parents, friends and the local constabulary that he had really been attacked. I expect he hasa future as a oscar winning actor, wake up, he was 11, not 30
To claim that it is conjecture is the grossest exaggeration, do you know what the word actually means or is it just an attempt on your part to defend your earlier position which you had decided on before you knew any of the evidence

as for me not examining the defra list properly, perhaps you can tell me then why there are not 6 unknowns listed but 11. I suggested you just look at the last six, I said nothing about ignoring the rest of the data
This means that 1/3 of the proven cats are from an unknown source, not 1/5 so in fact, you didn't really bother to read it at all before rendering judgement did you.

:p

and no, 2052 sightings is not just like bigfoot, we have a far smaller area and the witnesses on the whole were not a bunch of rednecks out to make some bucks from the local rag. The 2052 were reported in a 14 month period, since 2000 there have been over 12000 sightings and current government policy is that it is a police matter admittedly some of the claims were that they had spotted Top cat, the pink panther, Garfield or Simba, but these are not added to the figures
you say they arent there, thats fine, but the British Forestry commission don't agree with you
http://phantomsandmonsters.wetpaint.com/page/British+Forestry+Commission+Confirms+Big+Cats+Roam +UK
let me guess ?
conjecture again ?

this is a sceptic site, one of the rules of scepticism is that you are aware of the evidence and make an informed decision based on it, by claiming that there are no big cats in the wild in the UK you have shown a shocking ignorance of the facts

for shame

[William Parcher]

and no, 2052 sightings is not just like bigfoot, we have a far smaller area and the witnesses on the whole were not a bunch of rednecks out to make some bucks from the local rag. The 2052 were reported in a 14 month period, since 2000 there have been over 12000 sightings and current government policy is that it is a police matter admittedly some of the claims were that they had spotted Top cat, the pink panther, Garfield or Simba, but these are not added to the figures

It is because of the context you used. Thousands of sightings... they can't all be wrong. You sound unfamiliar with Bigfootery. Plenty of witnesses are not "redneck", nor out to make money from it.


you say they arent there, thats fine, but the British Forestry commission don't agree with you
http://phantomsandmonsters.wetpaint.com/page/British+Forestry+Commission+Confirms+Big+Cats+Roam +UK
let me guess ?
conjecture again ?

The official confirmation came yesterday — proving thousands of members of the public have been right for years.


Do you have a link to the actual government confirmation, instead of a blurb from a paranormal site?

The government is saying that this photo (on that link) shows a black leopard in the UK wilds?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Cougar Hysteria (http://www.cougarnet.org/Assets/CougarHysteria.pdf)

And here I thought the link was going to refer to Desperate Housewives!

[JoeTheJuggler]

ETA: removed a comment that was based on a misunderstanding of a post.


I once heard a news story about incursions of mountain lions into Missouri and Iowa. IIRC, part of the issue is that farmers and ranchers want laws changed to protect their property from just about anything, and reports of big cats can lead to a scare that might support passing such laws. So it might not be simply a matter of mistaken sightings but more about people who are motivated to see big cats.

[William Parcher]

And here I thought the link was going to refer to Desperate Housewives!

As I posted it, I thought that there is no way this forum will let that title pass. I intentionally left off the subtitle just for fun. :D

[Marduk]

It is because of the context you used. Thousands of sightings... they can't all be wrong. You sound unfamiliar with Bigfootery. Plenty of witnesses are not "redneck", nor out to make money from it.

Probably an error on my part mentioning bigfoot in the same breath, duh






Do you have a link to the actual government confirmation, instead of a blurb from a paranormal site?

The government is saying that this photo (on that link) shows a black leopard in the UK wilds?
I have the local gloucestershire news report that includes a police telephone number and a comment from the environmental health officer which is a lot more credible and is obviously the source for the earlier site
http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/New-evidence-big-cats-Forest/article-586302-detail/article.html

and
Earlier this year, Forestry Commission chiefs admitted for the first time that their own rangers had reported sightings of big cats in the Forest of Dean, in 2002 and 2005. The incidents were only made public after a request was made under the Freedom of Information Act.
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/lifestyle/s-lurking-garden/article-732345-detail/article.html
which may go someway to explaining why government sites weren't blazing it across their front pages

;)

[William Parcher]

So it might not be simply a matter of mistaken sightings but more about people who are motivated to see big cats.


JTJ, cougars are confirmed in Missouri and Iowa.

[William Parcher]

I have the local gloucestershire news report that includes a police telephone number and a comment from the environmental health officer which is a lot more credible and is obviously the source for the earlier site
http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/New-evidence-big-cats-Forest/article-586302-detail/article.html



In new information revealed under the Freedom of Information Act the Forestry Commission has confirmed two reliable sightings of large cats.

Rangers taking part in a deer survey using thermal imaging cameras spotted the creatures on two separate occasions in different areas of the Forest.

Deputy surveyor Rob Guest said they were reliable sightings of the mystery beasts.

He said: "Both were observed at night using heat-activated night vision equipment, used to undertake deer census, so the colour of the animals was not determined."

The first sighting was at the edge of Churchill Inclosure east of Parkend in February 2002 and the second was on the southern slopes of Staple Edge in March 2005."

But Mr Guest said there was no sign of large cats during the most recent deer census in March 2008.

Despite no concrete photographic evidence of big cats in the county, Gloucestershire police believe there are pairs living in the Forest of Dean and around the Cirencester area.


There could be problems with estimating size using thermal night-vision. They have no photos. It's not a proper confirmation.

The thing is, these Big Cats should be rather easy to locate and confirm. They are territorial and creatures of habit. They use game trails and scent-mark, etc. Camera traps will take pictures of them. Is the gov. presently engaging efforts to properly confirm them? Camera traps, meat baiting, scent baiting, hair traps, etc. all work VERY WELL for wild or escaped felids.

[Marduk]

There could be problems with estimating size using thermal night-vision. They have no photos. It's not a proper confirmation.

The thing is, these Big Cats should be rather easy to locate and confirm. They are territorial and creatures of habit. They use game trails and scent-mark, etc. Camera traps will take pictures of them. Is the gov. presently engaging efforts to properly confirm them? Camera traps, meat baiting, scent baiting, hair traps, etc. all work VERY WELL for wild or escaped felids.

totally agree, the police as always do not require evidence of an animal to take reports from a government source seriously. I think they would rather err on the side of safety than have to say "we did nothing" when someones toddler goes missing.

but heres the thing, we are a country that has reports of big cats roaming the countryside
we are a country that has recovered bodies of those big cats which were roaming the countryside
we have testimony from people attacked by those big cats roaming the countryside

so does it really matter if theyre recent escapees or breeding in the wild, either way, theyre still out there aren't they

found in a field by a farmer in Devon in 2006
http://www.britishbigcats.org/images/cms/skull%20bbcs%20photo%20low%202%20copy.jpg
identified as a puma

;)

[William Parcher]

Camera trapping research project (http://www.easterncougar.org/pdfs/LBLCameraTrappingProject.pdf) to survey for cougars in Western Kentucky/Tennessee. They didn't capture any on camera but got lots of other animals. No Bigfoots either.

The report contains some very interesting data from a project in Myanmar to survey tiger populations...


How do you know if an animal is truly absent?

Carbone et al. (2001) used camera trapping rates and computer simulations to estimate the minimum effort required to determine if tigers (or any other species) were present in an area.

Carbone et al. (2001) found that camera trapping programs running for 1000 trap nights had a 95% chance of obtaining at least 1 photograph at simulated low tiger densities of 0.4-0.7 individuals per 100 km2.

If trapping effort were 10,000 trap nights tigers presence could be determined when cat density was very low 0.05/100km2.

I think "trap nights" = number of cameras x nights in use.

[Rolfe]

:hb:

well I think we can all see which side of the fence youre sitting on, to claim that big cats aren't occaisonally spotted in the UK is ridiculous when I have actually posted pictures of some of them.


Please show where I claimed that "big cats aren't occaisonally spotted in the UK". I said no such thing. I said that in every case you cited, there was no reason to believe the animal wasn't a recent escape from captivity. Which rather implies, unless something else got out last week, that there are probably none "out there" at the moment.

I am not saying that I totally agree with either of the two schools of thought that I posted, but we do have alien big cats on the loose, they turn up bodily too often to deny it. Before you go mocking my use of Alien there, you'd best be aware that it is the right termnology for a creature that isn't native which is in evidence.
:D


Sorry, you have been totally unable to produce a single piece of evidence for an animal turning up which wasn't either definitely or most probably a recent escapee.

btw the last link was backed up by several eyewitnesses and the testimony of the boy himself, who managed to describe the usual method used by panthera when attacking bipeds in its native habitat and displayed the wounds to prove it. I expect you'd claim he saw it on a tv show and then faked the injuries, and then went on to convince his parents, friends and the local constabulary that he had really been attacked. I expect he hasa future as a oscar winning actor, wake up, he was 11, not 30

To claim that it is conjecture is the grossest exaggeration, do you know what the word actually means or is it just an attempt on your part to defend your earlier position which you had decided on before you knew any of the evidence


It's just another story, even less convincing than last week's mauled horse. Put it in the Bigfoot file.

as for me not examining the defra list properly, perhaps you can tell me then why there are not 6 unknowns listed but 11. I suggested you just look at the last six, I said nothing about ignoring the rest of the data
This means that 1/3 of the proven cats are from an unknown source, not 1/5 so in fact, you didn't really bother to read it at all before rendering judgement did you.


Yes, I did. I do work for the Scottish equivalent of DEFRA, I'm not a complete amateur. There are only five actual unknowns, as I discussed above. Unless you'd like to tell me how we can have a "date of escape" filled in, even though the animal is one of a wild-breeding population? For pity's sake, two of the "unknown source" cases are recorded as "recaptured". They simply don't have the full data on all the historical cases. The five with no recorded date of escape are the only ones they have no idea how long they had been out there for.

If you actually look at the data in detail, you can see that a lot of it is approximate (an awful lot of stuff seems to have happened on the first of a month, and especially the first of January, this suggests to me they sometimes only knew the month or even only the year, but Excel imposes restrictions) and some of it is missing. Some of the cases weren't reported till years after the event. Some of it is flat wrong - one lynx is recorded as having escaped in 1991 and then captured in 1950! Most of the animals were only on the loose for a very short time, so far as we can tell from the incomplete, approximate and questionable data.

There is absolutely NOTHING there to support any suggestion of a breeding population of any of these species being present in the wild. The range of species is wide, and the locations are widely separated. Exactly as you'd expect when the cause is sporadic escapes from (sometimes illegal) captivity.

and no, 2052 sightings is not just like bigfoot, we have a far smaller area and the witnesses on the whole were not a bunch of rednecks out to make some bucks from the local rag. The 2052 were reported in a 14 month period, since 2000 there have been over 12000 sightings and current government policy is that it is a police matter admittedly some of the claims were that they had spotted Top cat, the pink panther, Garfield or Simba, but these are not added to the figures
you say they arent there, thats fine, but the British Forestry commission don't agree with you
http://phantomsandmonsters.wetpaint.com/page/British+Forestry+Commission+Confirms+Big+Cats+Roam +UK
let me guess ?
conjecture again ?


Show me the helium bodies.

this is a sceptic site, one of the rules of scepticism is that you are aware of the evidence and make an informed decision based on it, by claiming that there are no big cats in the wild in the UK you have shown a shocking ignorance of the facts

for shame


I claim that there is no evidence of any big cats ever having been in the wild apart from a number of assorted escapes from captivity. I claim that there is no evidence that such cats are in the wild at the moment, or that there is or ever was a breeding population of anything beyond possible hybridisation of some small exotic cats with feral moggies. And even the last remains to be proved.

Listen, if something like this were true, it would make my day. It would be great! However, I know what my job would look like if there were anything big enough to prey on lambs anywhere around south-east Scotland, and I know that my colleagues around the country also make regular reports of the causes of livestock deaths they're seeing. The dog-worrying cases I mentioned above went into the reports. We know about the losses caused by the Sea Eagles. Big cats have to eat, and there's plenty around to prevent them going hungry.

Show me the bodies.

Rolfe.

[William Parcher]

but heres the thing, we are a country that has reports of big cats roaming the countryside
we are a country that has recovered bodies of those big cats which were roaming the countryside
we have testimony from people attacked by those big cats roaming the countryside

so does it really matter if theyre recent escapees or breeding in the wild, either way, theyre still out there aren't they

If I said "there are no Big Cats presently living in the UK wilds"... you would be powerless to prove me wrong using proper confirmatory evidence.

found in a field by a farmer in Devon in 2006 - identified as a puma

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmoor)
In 2006, the British Big Cats Society reported that a skull found by a Devon farmer was that of a Puma, however, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) states, "Based on the evidence, Defra does not believe that there are big cats living in the wild in England."

Why would they say that after the skull find?

[JoeTheJuggler]

JTJ, cougars are confirmed in Missouri and Iowa.

I know, but not in the numbers that present a serious threat--that's what the story was about. In fact, when I heard the story (some years back), conservation officials said the Iowa sightings were probably just "visiting" cougars--that is, at the time there wasn't a "resident" population, and the numbers of sightings being reported in the news were not credible.

Anyway, my point is that the "thousands of sightings" (in the U.K.) that could indeed all be wrong could include accounts from people who are motivated (for one reason or another) to embellish the truth aside from accounts of people who just saw some other animal and honestly mistook it for a big cat.

[Arisia]

JTJ, cougars are confirmed in Missouri and Iowa.

Now we just need them to jump that big ol' river and keep heading east! :)

(Confirmed as being wild North American cougars, not escaped/freed exotics by more than just eyewitness accounts/photos, I take it.)

[William Parcher]

conservation officials said the Iowa sightings were probably just "visiting" cougars

Natural dispersion from a large and growing population in the Dakotas. It is predominantly roaming males looking for females away from other male competitors. But, the further they get from the Badlands the lower the odds become for finding females (who do not disperse at the same rate). Without females there is no chance to establish a population.


Anyway, my point is that the "thousands of sightings" (in the U.K.) that could indeed all be wrong could include accounts from people who are motivated (for one reason or another) to embellish the truth aside from accounts of people who just saw some other animal and honestly mistook it for a big cat.

It's that romanticism of belief and the hobby that comes with it. This is very much like Bigfootery.

[William Parcher]

Now we just need them to jump that big ol' river and keep heading east! :)

(Confirmed as being wild North American cougars, not escaped/freed exotics by more than just eyewitness accounts/photos, I take it.)

This has already happened with confirmations in Wisconsin and Illinois. Those cats crossed the river with their origin being the big population in the Badlands. We now have DNA profiles of the various population areas and can talk smart when addressing the question "Where did this cougar come from?"

ETA: There is a way into Wisc. at the very far north that doesn't require a Mississippi crossing.

[William Parcher]

This has already happened with confirmations in Wisconsin and Illinois. Those cats crossed the river with their origin being the big population in the Badlands.


Nonetheless, the Mississippi River does seem to be a natural barrier of sorts. Look at this map and see what happens at the river.

Cougar Network (http://www.easterncougarnet.org/bigpicture.html) is an excellent source for no-nonsense coverage of cougars in "the east". Young male mountain lion asks: where are the MILFs?

[Marduk]

Why would they say that after the skull find?

Defra were recently caught covering up and playing down the evidence, they were forced to release information under the freedom of information act which showed they have examined plenty of animal remains over the years some of which showed clear evidence of a big cat attack and in every case they claimed "predator unknown" based on the fact that they didn't actually have the corpse of the animal responsible. The forestry commission were also forced to release information on a pair of panthers in the forest of dean spotted by forest rangers with thermal cameras on two seperate occaisons years apart. The rangers themselves were very clear on what they had seen and you don't get domestic cats that deep in the forest as someone suggested
it would cause public panic to know that there was a possibility of coming across a big cat in the wild, we have enough trouble getting parents to understand that every stranger is not a paedophile intent on raping and murdering their children without starting a nationwide panic over every domestic feline thats spotted without anything in view for scale

;)

I'm posting this evidence because I am familiar with it, what I've posted is just a fraction and I am in two minds about it myself, but well, if you don't know the evidence then opinion is worthless. Especially on a discussion board. I'm going to keep an open mind on this and keep my ears open.

[I Ratant]

I know, but not in the numbers that present a serious threat--that's what the story was about. In fact, when I heard the story (some years back), conservation officials said the Iowa sightings were probably just "visiting" cougars--that is, at the time there wasn't a "resident" population, and the numbers of sightings being reported in the news were not credible.
...

.
I got an e-mail some time ago about a cougar that had been hit and killed by a car, about 1000 miles from where it had been trapped and banded, out there in the Midwest.

[William Parcher]

The forestry commission were also forced to release information on a pair of panthers in the forest of dean spotted by forest rangers with thermal cameras. The rangers themselves were very clear on what they had seen and you don't get domestic cats that deep in the forest as someone suggested

I'm posting this evidence because I am familiar with it, what I've posted is just a fraction and I am in two minds about it myself, but well, if you don't know the evidence then opinion is worthless. Especially on a discussion board. I'm going to keep an open mind on this and keep my ears open.


Let's take a look at this evidence right now. Start with a link to the rangers' report on the thermal vision sightings. Then let's see a link to an official report on that Puma skull.

[William Parcher]

I found two quotes which are apparently variations of the same thing...


In July 2005 a farmer in North Devon discovered a skull belonging to a large cat, and has since been identified as that of a Puma. It is currently being examined.

In July 2005 a farmer in North Devon discovered a large cat's skull, which has since been identified as a puma's. It was apparently taken for scientific analysis, though no results have ever been released.

[Rolfe]

Defra were recently caught covering up and playing down the evidence, they were forced to release information under the freedom of information act which showed they have examined plenty of animal remains over the years some of which showed clear evidence of a big cat attack and in every case they claimed "predator unknown" based on the fact that they didn't actually have the corpse of the animal responsible.


Evidence?

Yes, we have examined plenty of animal remains over the years. And you know what? We have to record the diagnosis in every single case. On the networked computer system. We get assessed and tested on the accuracy of our recording as well.

Here's where all that data end up. (http://www.defra.gov.uk/vla/reports/rep_vida.htm)

Now I would dearly know how anyone has been able to go back and decide that certain animals "showed evidence of a big cat attack". Anything having been killed by a predator I would class as "trauma/fracture", because that's the closest I can get. For sheep, that is VIDA code 544. Look it up. That's how I coded the sheep mauled by dogs that I dealt with last year.

To do what you suggest, you'd have to dig up the actual post mortem reports to separate out the ones that refer to a predator from the road accidents and the falls and the handling accidents and so on. Supposing someone did that, all of them would be listed as "predator unknown" unless someone had actually seen the animal being attacked. I was 99.9% sure the ones I examined were dogs, and I reported them to both the police and the SSPCA as such, but DEFRA is a stickler for accuracy, and would correctly report "predator unknown".

I would dearly love to know, even if these reports were examined as you suggest, who it was who decided that any of the reports actually showed evidence that the predator was a "big cat"? Anything where you didn't actually see what the teeth were attached to could be anything, and nobody would go on record as saying it couldn't have been. What it probably was and where the evidence pointed is another question though.

It occurs to me, depending on when the request was made, that the handful of sheep I mentioned up-thread that I post mortemed myself might well have been among them. Nobody asked me, as the only person in a position to have any real idea, whether I thought a big cat was likely.

I do remember something, though. Months ago. Someone asked me if we took samples of bite wounds for DNA testing to see if we could identify what species had inflicted the bite. I said no, we didn't have routine facilities for that, but it would be something to consider if we ever had real reason to suspect there was something strange going on. However, the real usefulness of that would be if we could identify the original dog, so that we could prosecute the owner. I wonder if this was in connection with the FoI request you mention?

However, we'd previously discussed the cases I mentioned all round the houses and concluded that the evidence wasn't consistent with anything big enough to predate livestock living in the area, and was consistent with somebody with an out-of-control Rottweiler. I thought maybe if it happened again I should freeze a bit of the wound margin in case someone showed up with a suspect on the end of a lead, but there hasn't been another case since then.

So forgive, me, but I need to know exactly what you got from DEFRA that was interpreted in the way you describe it, and who made the decision that there was evidence of big cat attacks. I do know how the system works, and your version sounds extraordinary unlikely.

And another thing, if DEFRA wanted to cover up or downplay anything like that, you know what? They'd have to tell those of us at the front line, those of us actually doing the post mortems on a day to day basis, to make false reports in these cases, and then to keep it all confidential. Somehow, I must have missed that memo! :oldroll:

The forestry commission were also forced to release information on a pair of panthers in the forest of dean spotted by forest rangers with thermal cameras on two seperate occaisons years apart. The rangers themselves were very clear on what they had seen and you don't get domestic cats that deep in the forest as someone suggested.


Evidence? And why would DEFRA and the Forestry Commission be covering anything up? Why not simply tell the newspapers?

it would cause public panic to know that there was a possibility of coming across a big cat in the wild, we have enough trouble getting parents to understand that every stranger is not a paedophile intent on raping and murdering their children without starting a nationwide panic over every domestic feline thats spotted without anything in view for scale


Oh for goodness sake! These are government departments. The way they think, they'd be wetting themselves in case they were sued and held liable for not warning the public of a potential risk in the countryside.

Just think about the probabilities for about two minutes if you can. We do know that some non-native species have escaped into the wild and formed breeding colonies in Britain. It's not a state secret. Mink, coypu, sika deer, grey squirrels, probably more. Some of them are pests. Why would anyone be particularly reticent about a few leopard cats, for goodnes sake? We'd either be trying to eradicate them or selling tickets to go out and watch them, depending on what seemed like the appropriate response.

Rolfe.

[makaya325]

A little OT here. I was amazed earlier today by a curious little feline under an abandoned car. I, being the wise-ass i am, tried to scare it by shouting at it, and yet, not one movement from it. We just stared at each other (I lost the staring contest..darn it!).

In relation to this thread: Has anyone ever had a run in with Large Housecats or even mystery felines?

[Marduk]

Evidence?

Yes, we have examined plenty of animal remains over the years. And you know what? We have to record the diagnosis in every single case. On the networked computer system. We get assessed and tested on the accuracy of our recording as well.
SNIP


Rolfe.

have you read any of the previous posts at all Rolfe or were you giving them the same amount of scrutiny where you missed almost 50% of the unknown sources from the other link you didn't bother to read. You are repeatedly asking the same questions that have already been answered. I understand that you by your own admittance are incapable of determining a big cat attack froman animals remains, you don't need to keep stating it, and whos "we", did you suddenly become royal. I have sent off several emails today to government bodies attempting to request the information requested by Mr Parcher, you and your indifference to the already posted facts will have to wait. I am starting to think by your attitude that you actually have a vested interest in keeping the facts off this forum,

We are here to examine the existing evidence, we havent started to do that yet so please hold your vehemence back for a day or so if you can manage it. And I'll tell you again because your intellect keeps missing it, I'm not the message here, I'm just a mesenger. Stop sniping at me, if you don't appreciate a collection of data so that an informed opinion can be made its no concern of mine, thats your own personal issue

thanks
:rolleyes:

[Rolfe]

ETA: This is what I have been doing for the past two hours. Examining the evidence you said you were familiar with. And "we" is the VIOs (veterinary investigation officers) of England and Wales, and Scotland. That's my job, you know, what they pay me for. Finding out what livestock have died of. Since I don't do it all singlehanded though, I acknowledge my colleagues by referring to "we".

I'm posting this evidence because I am familiar with it, what I've posted is just a fraction and I am in two minds about it myself, but well, if you don't know the evidence then opinion is worthless. Especially on a discussion board. I'm going to keep an open mind on this and keep my ears open.


OK, let's just look at the one page of actual official information you linked to. You say you're familiar with it. I beg to differ.

What is it? "Reports received by DEFRA of escapes of non-native cats in the UK, 1975 to present day." Sounds very much like the response to an FoI request, actually. I wonder when "present day" was, because the last report is dated May 2001, more than eight years ago. If DEFRA were keeping that information for itself, it would be updated, but either there's been nothing in 8 years, or they've just made the list when requested, and abandoned it.

And if DEFRA wanted that information, it would be properly recorded. Which this isn't. It's a mish-mash of missing data and mistakes. In my opinion, someone was told to dredge up what they could find, put it into an Excel spreadsheet, and don't waste too much time on it.

If I'd been the one asking for that information, I'd have asked them to go back and do it again, but maybe whoever wanted it wasn't too critical and didn't look at it too closely. You say you're familiar with it, but you didn't even know how many "unknowns" there were, never mind spot the duplications and the implausibilities!

Now if I was given that information, and I was looking for evidence of a breeding population, I'd go through it in detail. I'd be looking for more than one individual of the same species identified in the same geographical area. But if you do that, you draw an almost total blank.

There are 27 actual entries on the table. Let's number them and look at what we've got.

1 and 2. A leopard and a clouded leopard, recorded as different species, but both loose in Kent in 1975. One report is dated April 1975, saying a leopard escaped on New Year's Day that year and was recaptured four days later. The other report is dated 1986, and says that a clouded leopard escaped in August and was shot the following January. Is this two different incidents, or an original and a later garbled report of the same incident? Who knows. But see below for the probable explanation.

3. That's Felicity. Well known case, which you showed a nice picture of. As I said, if a puma can't even hide out in that wilderness in the 1970s without leaving traces, it's hardly going to manage it in well-farmed Ayrshire in 2009, about five miles from a Veterinary Disease Investigation Centre which will get most of the dead livestock from the nearby farms for examination.

4. A caracal. Someone reported in 1993 that such an animal had been shot in Kent in 1980. No other details. It does rather look in this case as if the date in the "escaped" column should be in the "captured" column. But there's insufficient information to provide even a faint clue what that's all about, unless you put two and two together as I did below.

5. An ocelot. Date of escape, capture and report all given as 1st November 1981. Which either means there was a very specific incident, which should be traceable from contemporary news sources, or someone simply made a report that month that an ocelot had been shot in Lancashire. Can you find any more information on that one?

6. A jaguar. Apparently shot in North Wales in September 1982, with the report dated 20th September. Again I'm very sceptical of the escaped and captured dates being the same, and the first of the month. I suspect this just indicates that the incident occurred that month and was reported that day. You should be able to find this in the local press as well, do tell us what that was all about.

7. A lion, in Norfolk. Wow! At least the dates on this look specific. It seems to have escaped on 5th January 1984, been shot the same day, and reported the following day. I'm sure you'd find out the zoo or the circus that let that one go if you looked.

8. A tiger, in Kent. Another one with slightly ambiguous dates, but it appears that on 19th October 1994 this animal had escaped and was "shot and recaptured" some time that month.

What is this about Kent? One of the most farmed, tamed and populated counties in Britain! This is ringing a few bells. This bell, to be exact. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/812032.stm) John Aspinall ran a very peculiar zoo in Kent from the 1970s to his death in 2000. It leaked like a sieve. I'd take a moderate bet that all these Kent incidents are Aspinall's security problems.

That really disposes of 1, 2, 4, 8, 11 and 14 (already noted as "not a credible sighting"). The note against 11 suggests this matter was the subject of a question in parliament, though you'd have to track that down as well to see what the details are.

9 and 10 are the same incident, recorded twice. A leopard cat, apparently originating in Cumbria and shot in the Borders (hmmm, seems quite a long way for a small cat, I wonder how reliable the provenance of that is), some time in 1987.

12. A puma met with some sort of an accident in Leicestershire, in early 1988. Better get to those local newspapers again.

13 and 25 are both the same case. Another leopard cat, shot in Devon in March 1988, reported in April 1988.

Looking so closely at the data, I would now agree with you that an entry in the "date escaped" column means nothing. It's often just the same date as the "date recaptured" one, and the frequency of firsts of months and indeed firsts of Januarys suggests that only a month or maybe a year was originally entered and Excel did the rest. This has just been cobbled together in a hurry by someone with better things to do with his time.

15. A jungle cat, hit by a car in Hampshire. This report specifically says that the animal escaped on 29th July 1988 and was found dead on 28th May 1989. However, again we'd need to see some primary sources.

16. Another jungle cat, listed as having escaped from Cheshire and found dead of unknown causes in Shropshire, all on 3rd February 1989. This seems to be the second one you listed in your original post. A bit funny it managed to mate with domestic cats and have several offspring, all in one day! This again merely illustrates the unreliability of the DEFRA spreadsheet, with the same date entered in all three columns.

I wonder where the Cheshire part comes in? Looking at it again, I think the "location of source" column actually records the place where the report came from, not the place where the animal came from. Which makes it even more difficult to get meaningful information out of this mish-mash.

17. A lynx. Someone in Norfolk said they saw one. Maybe they made the report in February 1992, saying that they saw it the previous year. That's all we can tell from this, this animal is reported as having an unknown fate, but having been recaptured on 1st January 1950.

Look, this data is so scrappy, careless and poorly recorded that the best place for it would probably be the bin. Nevertheless, let's press on.

18. A lion. Recaptured in Humberside in 1991, with the report being dated 9th March 1991. A zoo or a circus? Look for the news report, I'd suggest.

19. A snow leopard. Apparently escaped and was recaptured on 29th November 1994 on Humberside, with the report dated the following day.

What sort of data sources are being used for this game anyway? It looks to me like a bunch of press clippings, some of them without a great deal of detail in them. I don't imagine this was the result of a google search in 2001, not to get stuff going back to 1975, but I wonder if some poor minion has simply been told to get a bunch of agency clippings and tabulate the results. (And don't spend too much time on it....)

20. A lynx. Allegedly escaped in Oxfordshire on 5th November 1996 and recaptured on the 28th, all got from a report dated 13th November.

21. An asiatic golden cat, A report originating in Somerset dated 15th May 1998 said one was loose some time in September the previous year. No other details.

22 and 23 are both the same case, the leopard cat you referred to earlier as being shot on the Isle of Wight. You dated that 1993, however the DEFRA spreadsheet has the report dated 1994 but the incident dated 1987. Frankly, by this stage, I'm more inclined to rely on your sources!

24 is that lynx that was discovered in London in May 2001, the last one on your original list.

26 looks uncannily like the leopard cat we already met as both 9 and 10, just a later report of the same incident.

27 is almost certailny your fecund friend from Shropshire again, but this time the information taken from a source dated 22nd November 1993.

OK, that's my assimilation of the spreadsheet. I'm going to stop now and summarise in another post.

Rolfe.

[Marduk]

In my opinion, someone was told to dredge up what they could find, put it into an Excel spreadsheet, and don't waste too much time on it.
SNIP.
your opinion isn't credible and your above statement is nonsense
Epic Fail,
read previous posts then I won't have to ignore yours
:p

[William Parcher]

I understand that you by your own admittance are incapable of determining a big cat attack froman animals remains, you don't need to keep stating it, and whos "we", did you suddenly become royal.

Canids and felids approach, attack, kill, and eat prey animals in meaningfully different ways. Injured animals and carcasses can reveal if it was caused by one or the other. It is also sometimes possible to determine the size and species of felid if that was the attacker.


I have sent off several emails today to government bodies attempting to request the information requested by Mr Parcher, you and your indifference to the already posted facts will have to wait. I am starting to think by your attitude that you actually have a vested interest in keeping the facts off this forum,

We are here to examine the existing evidence, we havent started to do that yet so please hold your vehemence back for a day or so if you can manage it. And I'll tell you again because your intellect keeps missing it, I'm not the message here, I'm just a mesenger. Stop sniping at me, if you don't appreciate a collection of data so that an informed opinion can be made its no concern of mine, thats your own personal issue

I greatly appreciate you trying to get this info. It interests me. There is always a danger when getting info from non-professional enthusiast websites and forums. They commonly engage in propagandizement. It's the same in Bigfootery. It's always good to go for the source data. Yes, you are only the messenger. But those pro-ABC sites are also only messengers. Why aren't the reports you are seeking already posted on their enthusiast websites? Did none of them previously think to ask for what you are seeking now?

[Marduk]

Canids and felids approach, attack, kill, and eat prey animals in meaningfully different ways. Injured animals and carcasses can reveal if it was caused by one or the other. It is also sometimes possible to determine the size and species of felid if that was the attacker.

I understand this, this is why people who climb into the lion enclosures at zoos usually survive and why people who climb into the leopard habitat don't




I greatly appreciate you trying to get this info. It interests me. There is always a danger when getting info from non-professional enthusiast websites and forums. They commonly engage in propagandizement. It's the same in Bigfootery. It's always good to go for the source data. Yes, you are only the messenger. But those pro-ABC sites are also only messengers. Why aren't the reports you are seeking already posted on their enthusiast websites? Did none of them previously think to ask for what you are seeking now?
I'll be the first to admit that I am not satisfied by the credibility of the evidence so far presented, thats why I'm going to the source, I have learned from long experience that you can't take any research presented on the net seriously unless its your own. Usually my discipline is regards to historic subjects and I am attempting to use the same care with this subject as I do with that. But it might take a couple of days. Government sources with an agenda can't be trusted either, the one person here who claims to be associated with them has decided theres no evidence before he knew what it was which is pretty typical imho
ce la vie
;)

[Rolfe]

have you read any of the previous posts at all Rolfe or were you giving them the same amount of scrutiny where you missed almost 50% of the unknown sources from the other link you didn't bother to read.


Far from not bothering to read it, I'm giving it the fine-tooth comb treatment. The closer you look, the more it falls to bits, unfortunately. I now don't believe the "source" column means any more but the county of publication of the newspaper clipping the minion was summarising.

You, however, didn't seem even to have noticed that five of the 27 "cases" were duplicates.

I have sent off several emails today to government bodies attempting to request the information requested by Mr Parcher,


Oh God, I hope nobody goes to too much trouble over this, we've all got more to do than trawl the database for this sort of nonsense.

you and your indifference to the already posted facts will have to wait. I am starting to think by your attitude that you actually have a vested interest in keeping the facts off this forum,


Oh lovely, can we move this lot to the CT forum, please? I need to get my NWO Kitty t-shirt on for this! I just knew you were going to decide that I was part of this amazing coverup sooner or later.

:hb:

We are here to examine the existing evidence, we havent started to do that yet so please hold your vehemence back for a day or so if you can manage it. And I'll tell you again because your intellect keeps missing it, I'm not the message here, I'm just a mesenger. Stop sniping at me, if you don't appreciate a collection of data so that an informed opinion can be made its no concern of mine, thats your own personal issue


How about you actually engage your brain and look at that DEFRA spreadsheet again?

Rolfe.

[makaya325]

people who climb into the lion enclosures at zoos usually survive and why people who climb into the leopard habitat don't

That could be due to levels of aggression and temperment of the felinids. Lions, despite being much larger, would likely not pounce on you for no reason, unless it was survival. Leopards, on the other hand, are smaller, yet quicker and less predictable felinids than the lion.

It also could be due to lack of intimidation for the lion (A 150 pound man challenges a 500 pound beast with bone crushing power. The most likely outcome is that the lion would not even bother with such a weakling, where as in the leopards case, it would attack you due to food shortages/temperment/intimidation factor/ or just plain hatred, which i find to be incredibly rare in animals towards humans

[Marduk]

That could be due to levels of aggression and temperment of the felinids. Lions, despite being much larger, would likely not pounce on you for no reason, unless it was survival. Leopards, on the other hand, are smaller, yet quicker and less predictable felinids than the lion.


its because in the wild bipeds are a normal food source for leopards, and so they have developed strategies to kill them efficiently
http://img2.allposters.com/images/LIFPOD/1181157.jpg
while lions rely on quadrupeds

[shawmutt]

It is just like a conspiracy theory! :popcorn1

[Marduk]

Far from not bothering to read it, I'm giving it the fine-tooth comb treatment. The closer you look, the more it falls to bits, unfortunately. I now don't believe the "source" column means any more but the county of publication of the newspaper clipping the minion was summarising.

You, however, didn't seem even to have noticed that five of the 27 "cases" were duplicates.




Oh God, I hope nobody goes to too much trouble over this, we've all got more to do than trawl the database for this sort of nonsense.




Oh lovely, can we move this lot to the CT forum, please? I need to get my NWO Kitty t-shirt on for this! I just knew you were going to decide that I was part of this amazing coverup sooner or later.

far from it, I have far bigger issues with your attempt to dismiss something without examining the evidence, this is not a good sceptic attitude

please read this and attempt to understand my position
The true sceptic is a welcome asset to real research. He says: "Maybe its true, but possibly not". The pseudo-sceptic contributes nothing to research. Before examining or discussing he shoots out: "This is bunk. Nothing to see here!" For some pseudo-sceptics this has become daily routine in the medias. Zero contribution, much destruction.
Pseudo-sceptics as those who take "the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves 'sceptics'
Scientism is what happens when you get large groups of scientifically-inclined men together who think in aching naive black and white terms.
"If society then offers them up a sacrificial common enemy, then irrationality and dogmatic fervour is almost certainly guaranteed:
- The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
-Double standards in the application of criticism
-The making of judgments without full inquiry
-Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
-Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments
-Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'
-Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
-Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
-Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
-Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
- Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it."
Marcello Truzzi






How about you actually engage your brain and look at that DEFRA spreadsheet again?

Rolfe.

what part of " I am not satisfied by the credibility of the evidence so far presented, thats why I'm going to the source" did you not understand, I could translate it into babylonian if it helps ?
:D
please feel free to poke holes in the flimsy evidence already presented, it should keep you busy for a few days
:rolleyes:

[William Parcher]

its because in the wild bipeds are a normal food source for leopards, and so they have developed strategies to kill them efficiently


That's a picture of a leopard chasing the rare bipedal baboon? What bipeds are the "normal food source for leopards"? Ostriches?

Are you a troll?

[Marduk]

That's a picture of a leopard chasing the rare bipedal baboon? What bipeds are the "normal food source for leopards"? Ostriches?


All primates can sit upright. Many primates can stand upright on their hind legs without any support. Chimpanzees, bonobos, gibbons and baboons[7] exhibit relatively advanced forms of bipedalism.

I don't understand the question, are you claiming that baboons aren't bipedal or that you don't realise that leopards are partial to monkeys and baboons ?

All primates can sit upright. Many primates can stand upright on their hind legs without any support. Chimpanzees, bonobos, gibbons and baboons exhibit relatively advanced forms of bipedalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipedalism#Primates
Leopards are carnivores and will eat any meat item they can find: monkeys, baboons, rodents, reptiles, amphibians, large birds, fish, antelope, cheetah cubs, and porcupines. At the San Diego Zoo, leopards are generally fed carnivore diet, with an occasional large bone, thawed rabbit, or sheep carcass.
http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-leopard.html


Are you a troll?
Trolls post inflamatory statements and insults, there is more evidence for that from you than me, were you deliberately trying to insult me there or did you suddenly get retarded ?

:p

[Geezer]

I'll go along with that too, as a "rule-of-thumb". Good point.

Most people would, I think, where a purebred is concerned, say "Ooh look! A Siamese!" or "Burmese have no brains."

Still, it would be common to hear someone who is looking at a purebred Chinchilla asking, "What kind of moggie is that?"



Thanks rjh :)

The bolded bit has now put you on my cat's hit list.You will not have a good time in "the stoopid monkey box o'doom"
You->:boxedin:
:D

[William Parcher]

I don't understand the question, are you claiming that baboons aren't bipedal or that you don't realise that leopards are partial to monkeys and baboons?

It was the context. Baboons are not generally refered to as bipeds, in spite of having the capacity for bipedalism. Besides that, your context was goofy. Captive leopards attack humans because we walk upright just like baboons sometimes do? Whaaa?

[Arisia]

As far as I'm aware, humans and bonobos are the only primates that are truly or primarily bipedal, they're the only ones with the proper pelvis for it. The other primates can move in a bipedal fashion for short periods of time, but if they were being chased, would go with what works best for them, which would be as quadrupeds.

ETA - and in that picture, just as a horse at a full gallop will have all four hooves off the ground momentarily, that baboon has it's front limbs off the ground

[Marduk]

It was the context. Baboons are not generally refered to as bipeds, in spite of having the capacity for bipedalism. Besides that, your context was goofy. Captive leopards attack humans because we walk upright just like baboons sometimes do? Whaaa?

leopards captive or not attack bipeds by jumping up and slashing the face with their front claws while using their back claws to disembowell the prey item, lions on the other hand attack bipeds by using their weight to subdue the animal and then chew bits off usually starting with the limbs, which of these attacks is most likely to result in a fast fatality in your opinion ?

I thought this was common knowledge among anyone who had studied big cat predation, which was why I mentioned it, peoples attitudes and ignorance in this thread are starting to make me regret saying anything at all, keep it up why don't you

:rolleyes:

[William Parcher]

leopards captive or not attack bipeds by jumping up and slashing the face with their front claws while using their back claws to disembowell the prey item, lions on the other hand attack bipeds by using their weight to subdue the animal and then chew bits off usually starting with the limbs, which of these attacks is most likely to result in a fast fatality in your opinion ?

I thought this was common knowledge among anyone who had studied big cat predation, which was why I mentioned it, peoples attitudes and ignorance in this thread are starting to make me regret saying anything at all, keep it up why don't you

:rolleyes:


You have no idea what you are talking about. You are making this stuff up as you go. Your knowledge of Big Cat killing strategies and behavior is bankrupt.

[Arisia]

your opinion isn't credible and your above statement is nonsense
Epic Fail,
read previous posts then I won't have to ignore yours
:p

Considering Rolfe does veterinary pathology of this kind for a living, I'm far more inclined to find his opinion credible than yours.

[fetchbeer]

Having grown up in an area with wild predators running wild I agree with Rolfe. There is no way anything is going to survive by eating other animals without leaving a rather obvious trail of corpses and disappearances. I had about 8 or 9 cats growing up, and I only ever got to bury one of them.

The predator in my case being coyotes. Lots of peoples pets disappeared over the years, and I don't think anyone ever suggested anything more exotic than what we knew we had.

Why did we know we had coyotes?

1. We heard them howl at night. (not good evidence, because dogs could easily be mistaken for coyotes)

2. Occasionally we would spot one from the road. (also not good evidence , because dogs could easily be mistaken for coyotes)

3. Missing pets, not livestock though, cows lived in the field behind my house. (still not good evidence, because neighborhood dogs also eat peoples pets, and are know to be responsible in some of the cases in the area)

4. Roadkill. Real dead coyotes found in the road. Proof that they lived there.

So if anyone wants me to believe that a predatory big cat is living in Scotland they need to show me a lot more proof than a blurry picture of a cat that moves just like every house cat I've ever seen.

[catbasket]

That's a picture of a leopard chasing the rare bipedal baboon? What bipeds are the "normal food source for leopards"? Ostriches?

Are you a troll?
Dunno ... SusanB-M1 says not -

Just dropping in here to say that I know Marduk pretty well, and he's definitely not a troll. [snip]

Seriously?
Do you have any evidence for that?
Still haven't seen the evidence.

[Marduk]

Considering Rolfe does veterinary pathology of this kind for a living, I'm far more inclined to find his opinion credible than yours.

uhuh, you missed where he said that hes never seen an animal killed by a big cat then, imo that = 0% experience

[Marduk]

You have no idea what you are talking about. You are making this stuff up as you go. Your knowledge of Big Cat killing strategies and behavior is bankrupt.

says the man who didn't know that leopards prey on bipeds, really if thats your attitude you can go scuttle back under your bridge. I no longer have any interest in educating you with basic facts that you could verify for yourself in 30 seconds on google. Please carry on being willfully ignorant
:rolleyes:

[Arisia]

uhuh, you missed where he said that hes never seen an animal killed by a big cat then, imo that = 0% experience

That might be because there are no big cats in his part of the world. That would be my first choice. I would think he would still be able to recognize the signs of a large feline having killed a sheep or cow, as opposed to a canine having done it.

[William Parcher]

leopards are partial to monkeys and baboons


You don't talk very pretty for the animal thread. Baboons are monkeys. It's like saying I'm partial to salmon and fish.

[Rolfe]

The spreadsheet.

Probable provenance. In 2001 or soon afterwards, an FoI request is received for all "Reports received by DEFRA of escapes of non-native cats in the UK, 1975 to present day." Well, dammit, DEFRA doesn't collect this information. Oops, might look bad if we say that straight out, can we collect some now? Somehow, a selection of press clippings on the subject is assembled, and someone gets the job of tabulating these.

Some of the reports are quite specific, like no. 11, which related to a parliamentary question, but others are lacking in essential details. The minion assigned the task decides on a few headings, and starts inputting data. However, he often just has to enter a month or even just a year, and Excel converts all these to the first of the month or the first of January. The reports are often unclear on the exact date of "escape" and/or "capture", and in some of these cases he just puts the same month (or just the year) down in both columns.

He doesn't actually notice that he has two reports relating to each of three cases, and three reports relating to one more case, and as the data he enters are slightly different each time, they appear as if they were separate incidents. He doesn't even notice that he's managed to enter one of the capture dates as 1950. He just orders the list according to the "date escaped" column, and hands it in. Job done. And if the recipient was disappointed, then we have no record of that.

If we strike off the duplicates, and strike off the Aspinall escapes, we have 16 cases left.

3. Felicity, who was a puma, in Invernesshire in 1980
5. An ocelot in Lancashire in 1981
6. A jaguar in north Wales in 1982
7. A lion in Norfolk in 1984
9. A leopard cat in the Borders in 1987
12. A puma in Leicesteshire in 1988
13. A leopard cat in Devon in 1988
15. A jungle cat in Hampshire in 1988
16. A jungle cat in Shropshire in 1989
17. A lynx in Norfolk in 1991
18. A lion in Humberside in 1991
19. A snow leopard in Hertfordshire in 1994.
20. A lynx in Oxford in 1996.
21. An asiatic golden cat in Somerset in 1997.
22. A leopard cat on the Isle of Wight in 1987, or 1994, or maybe even 1993.
24. A lynx in London in 2001.

The information is so sketchy, that all it could really serve is as a basis for hunting up more details from other sources - maybe finding the original reports used to compile this list. Details have already been posted as regards 3, 16, 21 and 24. It's also quite likely that the list is incomplete. For a start, two of the reports Marduk included in his original post seem to be missing (the lynx in Suffolk in 1991 and the other lynx in Northern Ireland in 1996).

Still, is there anything there that might support the suggestion of the presence of a breeding colony of any of the species concerned?

There are five lynxes, if we add the other two from Marduk's reports, but they are quite widely scattered. Northern Ireland, Oxford, Norfolk, Suffolk and London. The one in Suffolk appears to have been loose for only two weeks, the one in London maybe for two hours, and the one in Northern Ireland even had a collar on.

There are three leopard cats listed, but they could hardly be more widely separated - the Borders, Devon, and the Isle of Wight. The last in particular is a highly unlikely location for a breeding colony of anything like that.

There are two jungle cats, in Hampshire and Shropshire.

There are two pumas, in Invernesshire and Leicestershire.

There are two lions, in Norfolk and Humberside.

And there are four species which appear only once each - ocelot, jaguar, snow leopard and asiatic golden cat.

So, if Marduk wants to make a case for a breeding population of any of these, then I'd be interested to hear it.

The lynx seems most promising, with five individuals, but as I pointed out, the three we have better details of are unlikely candidates. You might decide to look a bit more closely at the Norfolk/Suffolk thing, it could be your best chance. So, one lynx in a report Marduk posted, in Suffolk in 1991, which is unaccountably missing from the DEFRA list, and one lynx in Suffolk in 1991 which is present in the DEFRA list. I'd put money on these actually being the same case, given the lamentable lack of accuracy in the DEFRA list. And that one was only loose for two weeks. The London and the Northern Ireland ones were obviously escaped "pets", and we know nothing about the Oxford one except that Oxford is quite a long way from Suffolk.

The leopard cats are widely separated, as I said, and anyway, even if a breeding population of these had managed to get established, why on earth would anyone want to hush it up? They're not much bigger than domestic cats, and quite commonly kept as pets. A feral colony would be no more remarkable than feral mink.

The two jungle cats seem to have been unlucky, both apparently roadkill, but again they were in quite different parts of the country.

Two pumas. Felicity in Invernesshire and one in Leicestershire eight years later. Some breeding colony! We don't know anything about the second one, a fuller report might tell us of an escape from a zoo or something like that.

And two lions. If anyone would like to tell us about the breeding prides of lions roaming the savannah between Norfolk and Humberside, I'd love to hear about it.

So if that's your evidence, I think it's a bit on the incomplete side. Still, it's another 11 leads to follow up to see if you can find out what's behind these sketchy snippets. I'd submit that the pattern of the data suggests nothing more than sporadic escapes of captive specimens though, most of which didn't stay out for long.

Rolfe.

[Marduk]

You don't talk very pretty for the animal thread. Baboons are monkeys. It's like saying I'm partial to salmon and fish.

did you miss the posted link from san diego zoo then ?

Leopards are carnivores and will eat any meat item they can find: monkeys, baboons, rodents, reptiles, amphibians, large birds, fish, antelope, cheetah cubs, and porcupines. At the San Diego Zoo, leopards are generally fed carnivore diet, with an occasional large bone, thawed rabbit, or sheep carcass.

or are you unclear why they are defining a predators favourite food sources in that order because of your already well displayed ignorance ?

[William Parcher]

Here, I'll make you happy. The San Diego Zoo made special mention of baboons because they are really different than other monkeys. You see, baboons are bipeds.

[Rolfe]

I have the local gloucestershire news report that includes a police telephone number and a comment from the environmental health officer which is a lot more credible and is obviously the source for the earlier site
http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/New-evidence-big-cats-Forest/article-586302-detail/article.html

and

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/lifestyle/s-lurking-garden/article-732345-detail/article.html
which may go someway to explaining why government sites weren't blazing it across their front pages


Sorry, but this is sensationalist fluff typical of local news outlets on a slow day. The reporter or reporters are having a field day with this Danny person. Who appears to have a couple of screws loose, and to be the source and the impetus for most of it.

I note this actually refers to the Forest of Dean. Do we know how long these animals are supposed to have been in there? Because there is an interesting little fact about the Forest of Dean. In 2001 the wild ungulates in there (wild boar, deer) were infected with foot and mouth. The entire forest was cleared of cloven-hooved livestock. I rather think that any big cats in there might just have been noriced during that exercise, which obviously had to be very thorough, and if they were left behind, one wonders what they ate after that.

Obviously livestock have returned in the years since then, so maybe Danny is trying to tell us that the cats moved in within the last few years. I wonder where they came from?

Rolfe.

[Akhenaten]

The bolded bit has now put you on my cat's hit list.You will not have a good time in "the stoopid monkey box o'doom"
You->:boxedin:
:D


Hi Geezer, nice to meet you, Mate.

I was looking for a bite and I'm surprised it took so long to get one. :)

Please tell Puss that I was just kidding and I really like Burmese.



Cheers,

Dave

[makaya325]

its because in the wild bipeds are a normal food source for leopards, and so they have developed strategies to kill them efficiently
http://img2.allposters.com/images/LIFPOD/1181157.jpg
while lions rely on quadrupeds


I hope you know that Leopards do not generally kill their prey, if larger than themselves, by sheer power. Instead, it has to do with stealthiness of the leopard, not the strength. Lesser ranked felinids (Compared to the lion and tiger) have been known to kill gorillas through sneak attacks.

[Rolfe]

far from it, I have far bigger issues with your attempt to dismiss something without examining the evidence, this is not a good sceptic attitude

please read this and attempt to understand my position

what part of " I am not satisfied by the credibility of the evidence so far presented, thats why I'm going to the source" did you not understand, I could translate it into babylonian if it helps ?
:D
please feel free to poke holes in the flimsy evidence already presented, it should keep you busy for a few days
:rolleyes:


You're quite a common phenomenon around here, you know. Someone who comes along with an "open mind", "just asking questions", about stuff other people have been discussing and considering for a long time. Maybe even as part of their jobs, no less, rather than just an idle hobby.

So forgive me, but we're going to cut to the chase. We don't really fancy doing a country dance for ten pages, going back over old ground, just because someone else has come in at the ground floor.

This is little different from the umpteenth homoeopathy proponent who shows up telling us about how homoeopathy really helped her irritable bowel or something, and then gets all huffy when we don't spend the next week dispassionately weighing up the evidence for shaken-up water and sugar pills having a curative effect. And most of these very soon turn out not to be naive innocents, but deeply convinced homoeopaths intent on preaching.

I know DEFRA has no evidence of breeding populations of big cats in this country, and indeed evidence of absence. Nevertheless, I have to say I was a bit startled by the sheer amateurishness of that cobbled-together list. I thought you said that was evidence you were familiar with? I don't think you even read it. Three duplicated and one triplicated report. Most dates approximate at best, with some obvious guesses. Obvious mistakes. Why did you link to it when you hadn't looked at it sufficiently closely even to notice these things?

Consider a thing called prior probability. How likely is it that even one really big cat could survive in the wild without copious evidence of dead livestock around the landscape? Never mind a breeding population? There really is no possibility that anything that size could be supporting itself in Scotland - or most parts of England so far as I know. (I don't know enough about the old "Beast of Bodmin" story to have a firm opinion, but I'm sceptical of that one too.)

I agree it's possible for smaller cats, such as the leopard cat, to live off rodents and birds and leave lambs alone. However, why would DEFRA or anybody else conceal evidence of a population of something like that? It's paranoid fantasy. In addition, it's not 10kg leopard cats that are occupying Danny and his mates. The cryptozoologists are all trying to make the case for puma-sized animals.

Your scenario just lacks credibility across the board.

Rolfe.

[William Parcher]

I hope you know that Leopards do not generally kill their prey, if larger than themselves, by sheer power. Instead, it has to do with stealthiness of the leopard, not the strength. Lesser ranked felinids (Compared to the lion and tiger) have been known to kill gorillas through sneak attacks.

This is ridiculous. You and Marduk talk about animals the same way. It's like internet boy blabber.

Leopards generally kill their prey with a bite(s) to the neck. Some prey may receive canine teeth through the skull as well. Strength is critical because they need to hang onto the prey until it succumbs to the neck bite. The claws are not used to slash or disembowel prey. They are used to grip the animal and prevent escape or personal injury.

Mak, stop using felinid. It's FELID. Leopards do prey on apes. They eat gorillas, chimps, orangs, and gibbons. They have killed and eaten humans.

[makaya325]

Strength is critical because they need to hang onto the prey until it succumbs to the neck bite. The claws are not used to slash or disembowel prey. They are used to grip the animal and prevent escape or personal injury.

Strength of a Leopard ends when it is dealing with a 450 lb Silverback. The only way that they can kill large non-human primates is through sneak attacks.

[Marduk]

You're quite a common phenomenon around here, you know. Someone who comes along with an "open mind", "just asking questions", about stuff other people have been discussing and considering for a long time. Maybe even as part of their jobs, no less, rather than just an idle hobby.
See I don't know what planet you are on but I have told you several times that I am gathering information from a government source using the freedom of information act. This may take some time. Til then youre just wasting your time talking crap about evidence I have stated several times is not good enough. I mean, what do I have to do here, write it in triplicate and hand it in to your supervisor at the funny farm ?
youre saying the same thing as I am but heres the difference
I am looking for better evidence, you have made your mind upon weak evidence and further to that your first post stated quite clearly that you didn't believe it because you'd never come across any big cat kills yourself
thats hardly credible, or correct is it, now you gonna give me some time to get some replies on this or do you want to talk more irrelevance to fill in the gaps
:D

I mean for crying out loud, what does homeopathy have to do with this subject ?

Stop the Rule 12 breaches and your bickering - if you can't respond in a civil and polite way do not post.

[William Parcher]

Strength of a Leopard ends when it is dealing with a 450 lb Silverback. The only way that they can kill large non-human primates is through sneak attacks.


Mak, they attack everything with stealth. It's how leopards hunt. It's always a surprise and they hit with great speed and force. They are extremely skilled at instantly getting their terribly long canine teeth DEEP into the throat, even when coming from behind. Leopards do not normally target large gorillas. They will certainly take smaller individuals.

[Rolfe]

By the way, you missed a couple.

Charlotte the sheep. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-459475/Charlotte-Church-savaged-death-Beckhams-garden.html)

That horse near Ayr last week. (http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2521324.0.Fears_puma_is_stalking_count ryside_after_horse_found_injured.php)

People do love to get excited about these incidents. However, just like the escaped cats, they're sporadic one-off reports from all over the place.

I recently met the pathologist who was said to have identified Ramsay's sheep predator as a big cat, and dammit I forgot to ask him! But the accounts of that sounded more like journalists making a great deal of someone who didn't say "no, that's just ridiculous" when the idea was put to him. Hertfordshire. And nobody has seen it. And it's killed one lamb in over a year.

As I said before, there is zero possibility that a puma is living in the farmlands within five miles of the Ayr veterinary investigation centre, and the only evidence of its existence is lesions on a horse.

People really do underestimate the damage a big dog can cause. And dogs are not usually expert hunters. They don't have the practice and they often lack the instinct. They can do anything from expertly ripping out a ewe's throat to running around grabbing randomly at lambs' rumps.

When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras - or unicorns. When you see occasional, sporadic sheep-worrying, think Rottweiler, not lynx - or lion.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

See I don't know what planet you are on but I have told you several times that I am gathering information from a government source using the freedom of information act. This may take some time. Til then youre just wasting your time talking crap about evidence I have stated several times is not good enough. I mean, what do I have to do here, write it in triplicate and hand it in to your supervisor at the funny farm ?


And who and where do you think the government source is going to get its information from?

I already showed you the VIDA reports. (http://www.defra.gov.uk/vla/reports/rep_vida.htm) The evidence of any big cat living in Britain would be in there, as statistics on the numbers of livestock dead in the appropriate category. By which I mean, the animals (mainly sheep and lambs) it would have had to kill to eat.

Ask DEFRA for a breakdown of these statistics and see what you find. How many sheep would a puma need in a week anyway? How many would a breeding population need? How many could it possibly sneak away before some of them got into these statistics?

youre saying the same thing as I am but heres the difference
I am looking for better evidence, you have made your mind upon weak evidence and further to that your first post stated quite clearly that you didn't believe it because you'd never come across any big cat kills yourself
thats hardly credible, or correct is it, now you gonna give me some time to get some replies on this or do you want to talk more irrelevance to fill in the gaps
:D

I mean for crying out loud, what does homeopathy have to do with this subject ?


I'm saying the same thing as you are? Really?

the government does admit that there are big cats loose in the UK


theyre out there, any way you want to look at it and its not like theyre attacking children
[link to allegation of an attack on a child attached]


by claiming that there are no big cats in the wild in the UK you have shown a shocking ignorance of the facts

for shame


I expect you'd claim he saw it on a tv show and then faked the injuries, and then went on to convince his parents, friends and the local constabulary that he had really been attacked. I expect he hasa future as a oscar winning actor, wake up, he was 11, not 30


Gimme a break.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Defra were recently caught covering up and playing down the evidence, they were forced to release information under the freedom of information act which showed they have examined plenty of animal remains over the years some of which showed clear evidence of a big cat attack and in every case they claimed "predator unknown" based on the fact that they didn't actually have the corpse of the animal responsible.


Look, you never answered me before. I want to know the source for that startling statement.

For someone who's just starting to look at the evidence you do seem to have some pretty firm pre-conceptions, and to have swallowed some pretty dubious-looking claims.

So tell us. What is the source for that one. Where is this evidence that DEFRA were "forced" to release? How did they hide it within the VIDA data?

And why should any predator attack be classed as anything other than "predator unknown" if nobody saw the attack? What makes you claim that these cases show "clear evidence of a big cat attack" rather than being dogs? Did you see the bodies? Who did then? Who made that judgement?

Come on, you can't just make statements like that with no intention of even showing where you got them from!

Rolfe.

[Marduk]

And who and where do you think the government source is going to get its information from?

Parcher specifically asked for the report made by the two forest rangers who twice spotted a pair of big cats over a three year period, they work for the forestry comission, you don't think they reported it, then where did the media release come from and why do the police have an emergency contact number for those two animals or is it just that you don't recognise the forestry comission as a government organisation ?

I already showed you the VIDA reports. (http://www.defra.gov.uk/vla/reports/rep_vida.htm) The evidence of any big cat living in Britain would be in there, as statistics on the numbers of livestock dead in the appropriate category. By which I mean, the animals (mainly sheep and lambs) it would have had to kill to eat.
Are you forgetting that the forestry comission said nothing about it in 2002 and 2005 and only released the information when it was requested under the freedom of information act, seriously, have you read any of the previous posts ?
:catfight:
]
Ask DEFRA for a breakdown of these statistics and see what you find. How many sheep would a puma need in a week anyway? How many would a breeding population need? How many could it possibly sneak away before some of them got into these statistics?
There are no feral sheep deep in the new forest
http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/sheep
:hb:





I'm saying the same thing as you are? Really?
I was talking about the quality of the evidence, heres what happened
1. I said the evidence wasn't very good
2. you said the evidence wasn't very good
3. I said I would dig up some better evidence from the foresty comission
4. you started banging on and on and on and on and on about the evidence not being very good and attempting to make it look like I had said the opposite













Gimme a break.

Rolfe.
I reckon you need one
:D

[Rolfe]

your opinion isn't credible and your above statement is nonsense
Epic Fail,
read previous posts then I won't have to ignore yours
:p


Oh yes. I posted a post at 10.47, that I'd been working on for two hours. Work you should maybe have done for yourself before you posted a link to that lame DEFRA list to support your case.

You posted that at 10.49. You couldn't have read a quarter of it.

Read the assistance one professional is giving you before you run around bothering other people.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Parcher specifically asked for the report made by the two forest rangers who twice spotted a pair of big cats over a three year period, they work for the forestry comission, you don't think they reported it, then where did the media release come from and why do the police have an emergency contact number for those two animals or is it just that you don't recognise the forestry comission as a government organisation ?


Have fun. If you can't recognise a fluff piece of journalism mainly provided by that Danny nutter, then too bad.

Are you forgetting that the forestry comission said nothing about it in 2002 and 2005 and only released the information when it was requested under the freedom of information act, seriously, have you read any of the previous posts ?


Maybe because the whole thing is a non-event blown up by Danny and fed to local reporters with a bit of space to fill?

There are no feral sheep deep in the new forest
http://www.newforestnpa.gov.uk/sheep



:hb:

Who said anything about the New Forest? Or feral sheep? The story you've been banging on about happened in the Forest of Dean. You know, the place I already told you was completely cleared of all ungulates in 2001 because of foot and mouth. Mainly deer and wild boar. They shot the lot, although it has since been re-stocked.

How did the pumas escape notice and then manage to survive while all that was happening?

And my question about "sheep" was general. How many sheep-sized prey animals per week does a puma need to live? A breeding family of pumas? Where is the evidence anywhere in Britain (possibly outside that Bodmin story, don't know enough about that) of livestock losses at the scale that would be inevitable if such animals were there?

I was talking about the quality of the evidence, heres what happened
1. I said the evidence wasn't very good
2. you said the evidence wasn't very good
3. I said I would dig up some better evidence from the foresty comission
4. you started banging on and on and on and on and on about the evidence not being very good and attempting to make it look like I had said the opposite


No, you came here flaunting "evidence" you seemed pretty pleased with. It began to look a bit less shiny after a little while, and you began making back-tracking noises. Your evidence got less and less shiny the more it was examined.

Maybe you go away and come back if you ever find anything that stands up to any reasonable scrutiny? Right now, you've shown nothing at all but some cut-and-paste from a bunch of crank web sites.

Have fun making a nuisance of yourself.

Rolfe.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Cougar Network (http://www.easterncougarnet.org/bigpicture.html) is an excellent source for no-nonsense coverage of cougars in "the east". Young male mountain lion asks: where are the MILFs?
That cracks me up.

I like that they specify their levels of confirmation: Level 1: mostly cadavers believed to be wild; Level 2: other physical evidence (like tracks IDd by an expert).

We now have DNA profiles of the various population areas and can talk smart when addressing the question "Where did this cougar come from?"
Is that info on the cougarnet site? I'd love to see where the cats found nearest to me came from.

ETA: Just surfing the site, about the only thing I see is that they've used DNA profiles to determine whether a cat is from a North American population. I haven't seen anything more specific than that.

[Marduk]

Oh yes. I posted a post at 10.47, that I'd been working on for two hours. Work you should maybe have done for yourself before you posted a link to that lame DEFRA list to support your case.

You posted that at 10.49. You couldn't have read a quarter of it.

Read the assistance one professional is giving you before you run around bothering other people.

Rolfe.

you wasted two hours on a post that was meaningless then, I had already stated quite clearly that I was contacting the forestry comission at 10:31 and asked you to hold of until I had an answer, since then you've been telling me over and over that the evidence presented so far isn't good enough, I was telling you that I knew it wasn't good enough, thats why I was mailing the forestry commission. Like I have said several times, if you don't bother to read previous statements about following up evidence then whats the point in you posting anything

youre like a stuck record over and over and over saying the same thing, I heard what you had to say the first time buddy and I acknowledged it, thats why I agreed with you and stated that I was going for the source at Parchers request. Are you even slightly interested in what a government organisation which no one has investigated yet has to say on the matter or are you convinced that you are the font of all knowledge

you clearly have lost the plot, you've been slagging off people you don't know, calling people liars and making spurious claims on my character, your house is dirty, go clean it
:hb: :hb: :hb:

last time in big bold letters at the end of the post just so you can't miss it
I AM CONTACTING THE FORESTRY COMMISSION TO SEE IF THE NEWS REPORT HAS ANY SUBSTANCE, WILL YOU WAIT FOR AN ANSWER OR WOULD YOU PREFER TO CARRY ON WASTING YOUR OWN AND EVERYONE ELSE'S TIME ?

If I was religious I would be worried about taking the lords name in vain at this point
:rolleyes:

[William Parcher]

Is that info on the cougarnet site? I'd love to see where the cats found nearest to me came from.

ETA: Just surfing the site, about the only thing I see is that they've used DNA profiles to determine whether a cat is from a North American population. I haven't seen anything more specific than that.


I'm trying to track down info on the applied science behind this. There could be something on Cougar Network, but I can't search the site.

I found this news article but the link is dead...

DNA tests link cougar shot in Chicago to Wisconsin, South Dakota

Animal did not have rabies, necropsy shows

A Chicago police captain said the cougar turned on officers when they attempted to contain it, forcing them to shoot it. (Tribune photo by Candice C. Cusic / April 14, 2008)

By Jeremy Manier | Tribune reporter
3:27 PM CDT, April 30, 2008

DNA test results show that the cougar police shot April 16 on the North Side of Chicago was the same animal that left blood drops in southern Wisconsin in January, Cook County animal control officials said Wednesday.

The cougar's genes link it to a population from the Black Hills of South Dakota, according to Wisconsin wildlife officials. The animal's long journey apparently took it through North Chicago and Wilmette, where people reported seeing a cougar after the animal left Wisconsin but before it arrived in the big city.

"These findings provide a glimpse into the life of this wild cougar and are critical pieces of a larger puzzle, which for us and other agencies is: where it came from, and how and why it reached an urban area," Dr. Donna Alexander, administrator of the Cook County Department of Animal Control, said in a statement. "Additional testing still being performed will further delineate his genealogy and paint a better picture of his life."

[William Parcher]

This is interesting...

Leopard Panthera pardus 01/06/1988 21/06/1988 21/06/1988 Shot Unknown Kent

(Evidence now exists to suggest that this is not a credible sighting)

Not a credible sighting? Was it not shot dead? Was a body examined? If the shot cat wasn't a leopard after all, why is it listed as a leopard? Please don't tell me we may have reports of shot cats that were never recovered.

[JcR]

Is this the same incident here?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-chicago-cougar-shot-webapr15,0,98147.story

Too add a thought:

Maybe these "UK big cats" are just "domestic cats" infected with some unusual wild strain of CDV,
and morph into what we would call Pantherinae, or in this case a (large) diseased felid.
Unless these cats are resistant/elusive to "pathogens" also?
I guess these unverified vertebrates elude exposure to dogs, ticks, and the usual farm beasts.
The lion has a cooperative ambush... I guess these "Big UK Cats" may have a co-op elusive strategy.
Like some of our cool cryptoids over here in North America, they never end up on the table.

[makaya325]

Is this the same incident here?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-chicago-cougar-shot-webapr15,0,98147.story

Too add a thought:

Maybe these "UK big cats" are just "domestic cats" infected with some unusual wild strain of CDV,
and morph into what we would call Pantherinae, or in this case a (large) diseased felid.
Unless these cats are resistant/elusive to "pathogens" also?
I guess these unverified vertebrates elude exposure to dogs, ticks, and the usual farm beasts.
The lion has a cooperative ambush... I guess these "Big UK Cats" may have a co-op elusive strategy.
Like some of our cool cryptoids over here in North America, they never end up on the table.

So, in other words, These cats are simply freaks of nature?

[Darat]

To all participants: stop the bickering and personal attacks. Any further breaches will result in suspension.

[Geezer]

<snip>

How did the pumas escape notice and then manage to survive while all that was happening?

<Snip>

Rolfe.

It's obvious, innit? They all stayed at the local B&B.

:covereyes


:D

[Sean84]

So, who's voting for the Scottish leopard and who expects an informed individual to end up right?

Nevermind, this has devolved into a bigfoot thread.

[JcR]

I guess a "shot Cougar" in Illinois doesn't = breeding population.
Are pushed out siblings/off-spring from South Dakota stock, meandering to Chicago? Time will tell if they set up camp in Illinois and other eastern regions.

Regarding the OP.
This cat? appears to be slightly taller than the rails, how tall are they? about 8 inches? One of my cats is 10 inches at the shoulders, as apposed to a Puma which can reach 30 inches. This has already be said so I will move along.
http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt53/JchristopherR_photos/Blackcat-1.gif

http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt53/JchristopherR_photos/CatonRails.jpg

To add: I wanted to add this link http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/11/20/manitoba-cougar.html?ref=rss

[Rolfe]

Regarding the OP.
This cat? appears to be slightly taller than the rails, how tall are they? about 8 inches? One of my cats is 10 inches at the shoulders, as apposed to a Puma which can reach 30 inches.


I've looked at the video a number of times, and it's a real shame the resolution is so poor, and that the cat is walking away from the camera and so gets less and less clear.

At some points it seems to look a bit like a black Labrador, which is what the policeman who took the pictures thought it was at first. However, at other points it looks distinctly feline, especially the shape of the head and the length of the tail. There are also parts of the film where it doesn't look any bigger than an ordinary moggy.

There's a part of the film where I thought it actually walked along the rail. If this is the case, that's a very feline thing to do and a dog wouldn't do that. (A dog would also be likely to wag its tail while exploring like that, and this animal doesn't.) Also, if I was right about it walking along the rail, that would suggest it wasn't any bigger than a domestic cat. However, looking again at the film, I can't be sure it actually does that.

In spite of the railway line, there aren't good size reference points in the film, the policeman was a fair distance away, and the resolution is very poor. I think, just as the news item said at the time, that it's very inconclusive. It still could be a black Lab, but I think it's more likely just to be a big black mog, maybe somebody of 6 kg or more. Trying to magnify it into a puma seems a bit of a stretch though.

Although Helensburgh is on the edge of the Highlands and the Loch Lomond Park, it's very civilised. It's posh Glasgow commuter belt. That's what the railway line is. It shouldn't be all that hard for someone determined in the area to find out what lives there that might have taken a little stroll on the tracks.

And if it is a wild or feral animal, rather than somebody's pet, it should still be easy. That animal wasn't wary. It wasn't casing an unfamiliar joint. It was comfortable. If that was a free-living animal, it's probable it was in its home range, so it should be quite easy to find. I don't suppose anybody's looking though, because it was a bit of a nine-hour wonder.

Hybrid moggies with some non-domestic ancestry some generations back aren't impossible, but if they are around it's a bit odd nobody has ever produced any DNA evidence - for example as part of the project to get DNA typing of the remaining Felis sylvestris specimens in Scotland and see how much hypridisation of these with domestic cats has taken place. I think it's all mostly horse-feathers.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Maybe these "UK big cats" are just "domestic cats" infected with some unusual wild strain of CDV, and morph into what we would call Pantherinae, or in this case a (large) diseased felid.


I really, really hope you're joking. Do you really imagine we don't know what strains of CDV are around? And the answer is very little to none, because widespread vaccination of puppies has pretty much wiped it out.

However, even in the days when CDV was rampant, it never infected cats. And we never had pet cats morphing into diseased werewolves before our very eyes.

This one hits a new high in the paranoid fantasy stakes.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

This is interesting...

Not a credible sighting? Was it not shot dead? Was a body examined? If the shot cat wasn't a leopard after all, why is it listed as a leopard? Please don't tell me we may have reports of shot cats that were never recovered.


William, I think it has to be seen in the context of Aspinall's zoo activities in the area. There were a number of escapes from there, into the Kent countryside, which as I'm sure you know is very intensively farmed and quit densely populated. It's "the garden of England". Local people were actually a bit paranoid about it all at the time, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone reported one of these "it's not as big as it looks" cat sightings, and it was at first attributed to Aspinall's activities, and some wires got crossed.

The other context is of course the absolutely dreadful quality of the DEFRA document. This is a million miles from the sort of data usually produced by that department. I linked earlier to the VIDA statistics. These are meticulously maintained and checked, and every so often I get someone on my doorstep asking me about a VIDA code assignment on something I've done, pointing out an irregularity, and asking me to clarify. That's how the work is routinely done.

In contrast that table isn't even dated. We don't know when "the present day" relates to. It's full of errors that can easily be identified simply on a cursory inspection. That's why I believe it was something hastily cobbled together for a specific purpose, some time in 2001 or soon after, and never looked at again. The heading suggests the specific purpose to me. It looks like an FoI request. It looks like something sketchily assembled simply to comply with that request.

I'm guessing where the source material came from, but I've a shrewd suspicion that someone was able to source a handful of press clippings about big cats discovered in the countryside, and just sat down and banged in what was there, guessing approximate dates. It must have been done very hurriedly, because it didn't take me long at all to spot the duplications, and the "date of capture" of 1950 is also a glaring typo.

So all that note against the Kent leopard story suggests to me is that the minion doing this had a garbled press report relating to something Aspinall may or may not have been responsible for, and just typed in a little caveat note without making any further enquiries. I don't imagine the writer spent more than half an hour on the whole thing.

Which is why I think Marduk might be disappointed with the result of his FoI enquiry. Such enquiries are usually made by people who think the government department has a specific document or set of records. If they're right, then hopefully the document will be released. But if nobody really knows what they're talking about, or the information simply doesn't exist in the form in which it is requested, then this is the sort of amateur abortion likely to be handed over.

That table may have been of use to someone. I suspect it's actually pretty complete. Once you've realised that the Norfolk incident in the table is probably the same one as the Suffolk incident Marduk listed, the only one of his six that's missing is the one in Northern Ireland, which might not have been covered by the original data-trawl. Once you've looked at what's there, there are about 11 reports that aren't either obviously Aspinall, or Marduk's six. Searching for further information about these might reveal more - some of them are almost certainly well-documented zoo or wildlife park escapes. What we can say though, even with that poor-quality information, is that there is no particular area of the country which is more likely than another to be involved in such a report (except Kent!), and there is no one species repeatedly being turned up. This therefore argues quite strongly against there being a breeding population of any species in any part of the country.

Rolfe.

[HansMustermann]

Depends on: cat paws on what? IMHO. On soft carpet, maybe not, but on any kind of hard floor and a quiet enough setting (e.g., at night) I think most people can hear a cat.

[zooterkin]

Strength of a Leopard ends when it is dealing with a 450 lb Silverback.

We don't seem to have many of those round here, and I suspect the same is true even in Scotland. Anyway, they'd be 32st 2lb Silverbacks.

(ETA: 204.5kg for the youngsters, and Rolfe.)
(ETA: Sorry, that was less than gallant; 204.5kg for the benefit of Rolfe and other youngsters. :) )

[HansMustermann]

Is this the same incident here?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-chicago-cougar-shot-webapr15,0,98147.story

Too add a thought:

Maybe these "UK big cats" are just "domestic cats" infected with some unusual wild strain of CDV,
and morph into what we would call Pantherinae, or in this case a (large) diseased felid.
Unless these cats are resistant/elusive to "pathogens" also?
I guess these unverified vertebrates elude exposure to dogs, ticks, and the usual farm beasts.
The lion has a cooperative ambush... I guess these "Big UK Cats" may have a co-op elusive strategy.
Like some of our cool cryptoids over here in North America, they never end up on the table.

Actually, _if_ such a big cat existed, my wildly uninformed bet would be more on "hybrid" than "mutant". Some hybrids of closely related species -- e.g., the Liger -- end up with some hormonal imbalance that makes them not stop growing.

I have no idea what could a moggie breed with for something like that to happen, though.

[William Parcher]

thats why I agreed with you and stated that I was going for the source at Parchers request. Are you even slightly interested in what a government organisation which no one has investigated yet has to say on the matter or are you convinced that you are the font of all knowledge


What is surprising is that we don't already have this information available on the web. I mean, why haven't the ABC enthusiasts tracked this stuff down yet? Big Cats are seen with night-vision and nobody is interested in the actual reports? A Puma skull is found in Devon and that is all there is to that story?

Are there any UK websites or forums devoted to ABC skepticism?

[Marduk]

What is surprising is that we don't already have this information available on the web. I mean, why haven't the ABC enthusiasts tracked this stuff down yet? Big Cats are seen with night-vision and nobody is interested in the actual reports? A Puma skull is found in Devon and that is all there is to that story?

Are there any UK websites or forums devoted to ABC skepticism?

I expect because like most other woo subjects they are not either controlled or set up by anyone who knows the rigours expected of a scientific hypothesis. The man who runs the British Big Cat Society is an ex carpenter who's income is now reliant on lectures that he gives on the subject, so debunking his own claims is not in his best interests. However he is very active in debunking some of the more ludicrous claims and hoaxes
see here bottom of page
http://www.britishbigcats.org/evidence.php
so he does have some rigeur, just not enough to damage his own income


I know myself from past experience that there is a big difference between lecturing as a form of entertainment and academic discipline. When I was working my way up studying Mesopotamia it was almost a year before I understood how to catch the attention of the academic community by demonstrating knowledge rather than open mindedness and another year before anyone really wrote back

[William Parcher]

However he is very active in debunking some of the more ludicrous claims and hoaxes see here bottom of page
http://www.britishbigcats.org/evidence.php
so he does have some rigeur, just not enough to damage his own income


I've seen those hoaxes before. I don't think "cuddly toy" is the proper explanation for the Norman Evans hoax photo. I think this is Photoshop and possibly uses a real dog for part of the body. Start with a shot of a reclining black lab and then shoop it into a black panther. Note that the area from the chest forwards is pure black with highly defined edges. I have seen this hoax explained as a toy on numerous sites, but nobody has produced an example of the toy that was used. A stuffed animal collector (some are extremely versed in all such toys) ought to be able to identify the exact plush toy that was used.

[Rolfe]

you wasted two hours on a post that was meaningless then, I had already stated quite clearly that I was contacting the forestry comission at 10:31 and asked you to hold of until I had an answer, since then you've been telling me over and over that the evidence presented so far isn't good enough, I was telling you that I knew it wasn't good enough, thats why I was mailing the forestry commission. Like I have said several times, if you don't bother to read previous statements about following up evidence then whats the point in you posting anything


I'll waste my time any way I want, thanks. (Our local TV relay transmitter went on the fritz last night, so the usual time-wasting opportunity was denied to me.) At 8.30, which is when I started the fine-tooth comb job on the DEFRA table, I was hardly in a position to see something you'd posted at 10.31, you know!

I found that trawl through the DEFRA table quite interesting, if only to see how many mistakes I could spot. I find it telling that anyone would link to that document as if it was evidence of anything at all, without having given it the cursory glance which would reveal that it was riddled with errors.

youre like a stuck record over and over and over saying the same thing, I heard what you had to say the first time buddy and I acknowledged it, thats why I agreed with you and stated that I was going for the source at Parchers request. Are you even slightly interested in what a government organisation which no one has investigated yet has to say on the matter or are you convinced that you are the font of all knowledge


So, you've decided to abandon the Helensburgh sighting which was the subject of the OP. You agree that was something unremarkable? Fine.

You've also decided to ignore the DEFRA table. Well, it's a mess. However, as I said, once you realise that the Suffolk incident with the dead sheep has been recorded as Norfolk, it seems to be complete as far as we know, as regards to mainland Great Britain. So it is actually a useful resource as far as that goes.

You've decided that the Forest of Dean is the place to look, in spite of its having been denuded of all cloven-hooved livestock in 2001. You're new to this, aren't you? The first question in that case, might be to see if any of these 11 DEFRA cases might possibly relate to that area.

The Forest of Dean is on the Welsh borders, in Gloucestershire, north of the Severn (nothing to do with the New Forest, which is in Hampshire, which you seemed to confuse it with earlier). Now, how many of the DEFRA cases (which are categorised by county) were found in Gloucestershire? That's right, NONE AT ALL. Nothing seems to have been found in that area.

If it's pumas you're after, then apart from Felicity, there is only one and it was in Leicestershire, quite some distance away, twenty years ago.

Do you actually know anything about the Forest of Dean? I've never been there, but I understand it's a very popular tourist spot. It's not very big - it's roughly circular, with a diameter of only about 5 miles. That's how they managed to clear it of wild boar and deer in 2001 without too much difficulty. There are several public roads through it and lots of paths, and it's studded with picnic areas. It's surrounded by main roads and by pretty villages, and the countryside around it is intensively farmed.

Now, just thinking about this sensibly, how credible do you really think it is that there's a breeding population of pumas living in there? Or even a solitary puma? With alleged sightings being rare, and questionable to put it mildly. Local farmers on the edge of the forest (remember, it's only 5 miles across) are not reporting mysterious livestock losses. And what do we postulate happened in 2001? Does this alleged colony date from later than that? In which case, where did the breeding stock actually come from, and who put them into this small enclave? Otherwise, how did they survive during the foot-and-mouth panic, when not only the Forest but the surrounding farms were all de-stocked?

If you're postulating real, warm, breathing animals rather then invisible pink unicorns, then these are the things you really have to consider.

you clearly have lost the plot, you've been slagging off people you don't know, calling people liars and making spurious claims on my character, your house is dirty, go clean it
:hb: :hb: :hb:

last time in big bold letters at the end of the post just so you can't miss it
I AM CONTACTING THE FORESTRY COMMISSION TO SEE IF THE NEWS REPORT HAS ANY SUBSTANCE, WILL YOU WAIT FOR AN ANSWER OR WOULD YOU PREFER TO CARRY ON WASTING YOUR OWN AND EVERYONE ELSE'S TIME ?

If I was religious I would be worried about taking the lords name in vain at this point
:rolleyes:


I think you need to stop these outbursts, if you want to keep posting. And I'm quite religious as it happens, don't be such a prude.

Now just think again about what I said above. You're putting in an FoI request to follow up on a reasonable suspicion (that you seem only to have thought of yesterday) that there is a breeding colony of pumas (or something of a similar size) in an area of Gloucestershire which is only five miles across, with a lot of human activity in and around it.

How seriously do you expect the Forestry Commission to take you? Any more seriously than they take that Danny fruitcake?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

What is surprising is that we don't already have this information available on the web. I mean, why haven't the ABC enthusiasts tracked this stuff down yet? Big Cats are seen with night-vision and nobody is interested in the actual reports? A Puma skull is found in Devon and that is all there is to that story?

Are there any UK websites or forums devoted to ABC skepticism?


Look at what I posted about the Forest of Dean. It's tiny. There's nothing hiding in there that the rangers don't know all about.

The "big cat" meme in that location is really all down to one fruitcake carrying on about it. In fact, in the (several) press reports I found saying that various sighting were credible, it was actually Danny or one of his mates who was being reported as giving the accolade of "credible" to the story, and most of the stories mainly just seem to be reporting what Danny is feeding the reporter. It's the sort of thing they like to put in local news on a slow day.

I don't know what the deal is with that skull, but from the utter lack of any interest in it, I suspect it's another case of "nothing to see here, move along folks". The DEFRA response to that is just a blocking tactic. They said they have no reason to believe there are big cats living in the British countryside. Yes, which says precisely nothing about the skull, as that isn't alive. The answer is intended to head off the Dannys of this world, rather than to inform - typical government brush-off. And nobody else has produced any other information about it. Which suggests it wasn't anything interesting. Or they lost it.

Rolfe.

[William Parcher]

Rolfe, I want to thank you for your outstanding work and informative posts. It's interesting investigative work and it feels like it hasn't been done before. That's why I asked about the ABC skeptic sites. Have others already gone through the DEFRA list and found the same problems that you did? Is it buried in some pro-ABC forum thread?

[William Parcher]

I'm especially curious about how the forest rangers concluded that is was Big Cats (Panthera or Puma) that they were seeing with thermal night-vision (non camera type).

I think that estimating size may be challenging with infrared (IR) vision. Warm objects glow and cool surroundings don't. Non-living objects around the living subject may not appear clearly. It could prevent a proper frame-of-reference to determine size of the glowing thing. I'm hoping that the ranger reports give objective explanations that were cause for concluding - Big Cats. Can you screw up an IR moggie sighting and think you are seeing a leopard?

[Marduk]

I think you need to stop these outbursts, if you want to keep posting. And I'm quite religious as it happens, don't be such a prude.

It wasn't an outburst, it was a response to stimulus, did you read the big letters or not, I can post them larger if it helps ?

Now just think again about what I said above. You're putting in an FoI request to follow up on a reasonable suspicion (that you seem only to have thought of yesterday) that there is a breeding colony of pumas (or something of a similar size) in an area of Gloucestershire which is only five miles across, with a lot of human activity in and around it.

no I'm not, like a poor marksman you keep missing the point don't you, how many times do I need to state what I am asking them for, it is the report made by the two rangers who claimed to have seen a pair of big cats, the report itself, nothing more, nothing less, if you are incapable of understanding any of my posts, and it certainly is starting to seem that way then just go back and read Mr Parchers original request will you, I'm getting sick of you wasting my time

How seriously do you expect the Forestry Commission to take you? Any more seriously than they take that Danny fruitcake?
I expect them to take it as seriously as the letter of the law, its quite specific on these matters
:rolleyes:

[ponderingturtle]

It is just like a conspiracy theory! :popcorn1

Yep, someone cross the genes of a bigfoot with a house cat and set the unholy spawn loose in Britian.

Now all the vets are covering it up, so as not to alarm the public.

[ponderingturtle]

Here, I'll make you happy. The San Diego Zoo made special mention of baboons because they are really different than other monkeys. You see, baboons are bipeds.

Not really. When they walk and especialy run they use all four limbs on the ground.

My dog can walk on two legs sometimes, that does not make him a biped.

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, I want to thank you for your outstanding work and informative posts. It's interesting investigative work and it feels like it hasn't been done before. That's why I asked about the ABC skeptic sites. Have others already gone through the DEFRA list and found the same problems that you did? Is it buried in some pro-ABC forum thread?


No, it's just not a subject of any interest to anyone outside the little fruitcake club that it the British Big Cats Society. And as they're all fruitcakes, I'm not surprised they haven't analysed any of their "evidence". I'm just interested because of those sheep that were worried here last year. Two had their throats torn out in just the way an expert predator would do it, so we all sat down and had a discussion about it.

We concluded that any animal killing for food wouldn't have left the carcasses otherwise unscathed. We concluded that although the two throat-tearing incidents were close in time, they were too far apart in distance to have been the work of the same predator unless someone had driven it in a vehicle across the Forth Road Bridge. We concluded that the three incidents on our own farm here were so sporadic they suggested a predator that was only here very intermittently. We also noted the very varied attack angles on these (one throat, one flank and one hind leg) suggested an inexperienced predator. And again, we noted that the predator had abandoned the sheep after the attacks, with apparently no attempt to eat them. Also, we noted that the shepherd concerned reliably showed up with almost every casualty he discovered for us to investigate, and that he knew exactly how many sheep he had, so we pretty much knew that there were no other deaths. And he hadn't seen anything roaming the fields. And we could see that the amount of meat missing from the carcasses we did have wouldn't have kept a spaniel alive.

So while we were speaking jokingly of the "Pentland Beast", logic dictated that we had a sheep-worrying dog in the area, which was only intermittently getting access to the sheep. I reported this to the police and the SSPCA, and even went on local radio about it. The attacks seem to have stopped. It would be wildly exciting if there was indeed something in tham thar hills. The Pentland Hills (where about half of the attacks happened) at least occupy an area significantly larger than the Forest of Dean. But it doesn't stack up, and that's the boring truth.

Rolfe.

[Delscottio]

It wasn't an outburst, it was a response to stimulus, did you read the big letters or not, I can post them larger if it helps ?

no I'm not, like a poor marksman you keep missing the point don't you, how many times do I need to state what I am asking them for, it is the report made by the two rangers who claimed to have seen a pair of big cats, the report itself, nothing more, nothing less, if you are incapable of understanding any of my posts, and it certainly is starting to seem that way then just go back and read Mr Parchers original request will you, I'm getting sick of you wasting my time

I expect them to take it as seriously as the letter of the law, its quite specific on these matters
:rolleyes:

How will the report (if there is one) get you any further forward though? Without other supporting evidence its pretty weak stuff.

[Rolfe]

I'm especially curious about how the forest rangers concluded that is was Big Cats (Panthera or Puma) that they were seeing with thermal night-vision (non camera type).

I think that estimating size may be challenging with infrared (IR) vision. Warm objects glow and cool surroundings don't. Non-living objects around the living subject may not appear clearly. It could prevent a proper frame-of-reference to determine size of the glowing thing. I'm hoping that the ranger reports give objective explanations that were cause for concluding - Big Cats. Can you screw up an IR moggie sighting and think you are seeing a leopard?


I've had a look at the BBC reports, because they tend to be the least sensationalist.

The one about that specific incident is very unhelpful. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/7814960.stm)

Commission spokesman Stuart Burgess said the sightings had been confirmed by "very experienced" rangers unlikely to mistake deer for big cats.

"Both were observed in low light, using heat-activated vision equipment while they were carrying out a deer census," he said.

"The colour of the animals couldn't be made out, but these are very experienced guys and they know what is and what isn't a deer.

"One definitely believed that what he saw was some sort of large cat."


It seems as if all the word "reliable" means is that they have confirmed one of the Rangers really believed he saw a big cat.

The other recent report I turned up (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/7902259.stm) was a good demonstration of how the BBCS are stirring up the media. (This is referring to a different incident.)

Big cat expert Frank Tunbridge, 60, who has 25 years experience believes the men's sightings are "credible".

He thinks the reason behind an increase in sightings at this time of year are due to the breeding season.

"I've had 12 this year that I am investigating in the Stroud Valley. As they are breeding they take more risks and go out looking for a mate.

"They are non-aggressive and some have lost their fear of people."


It's just silly. If there are enough animals there to form a breeding colony, and some have lost their fear of people, where the hell are they in this very manicured and populous countryside?

But this guy is an "expert", so his views are reported with a straight face, and he can actually validate the vague story in question as "credible". It's fluff like this that lies behind all these reports. It's just that a couple of the reports came from forest rangers, who are propably as susceptible to mistaking the size of an ordinary cat as anybody else.

To see how the stories grow in the telling, look at this one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7802874.stm). The original report of the story in question can be found here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7791419.stm).

We agreed with the police that while either cat could be a hybrid with a few wildcat genes within it, these were behaviours typical to wild-living feral cats and it was pure terrible luck that had taken place. The police intended to look at it some more and establish for certain if the cat might be best re-homed by someone like Cats Protection.

A few days later a series of media stories found their way to me, starting with the story of a 3ft feral, progressing to a 4ft "big cat" and culminating in a possible puma that had stalked the lady through the woods before charging after her and trying to drag her off to its lair - twice.

According to reports, police were apparently now telling people to lock themselves in their homes while the big cat lurked the Highlands.

Interestingly, transmogrification happens a lot with big cats in the UK - like the lion that turned out to be a Canadian lynx about the same size as a wildcat; or the black panther that turned out to be a soft toy; or the other black panther that turned out to be a cardboard cut-out; or the innumerable black panthers that turned out to be a farm cat.

The media love tales of British big cats. Every now and then a wild cat species does escape a private collection, but it has no idea how to hunt, most are designed for very hot climates and even if that doesn't get them then gamekeepers, farmers, their lack of any road sense or anything else to breed with certainly will.


That sums it up very well. The media love the stories, and people read them, but very very few people actually take them seriously, or if they do, proceed to become obsessive about it.

Rolfe.

[William Parcher]

Two had their throats torn out in just the way an expert predator would do it, so we all sat down and had a discussion about it.

You probably already know this stuff. Canids do not have a killing bite, felids do. Canids have to tear, shake and pull until the prey succumbs to blood loss or shock. Their paws are useless for gripping large prey and so they literally hang on by their teeth alone. If they bite the throat, it could indeed "rip it out". It is rarely a quick death and feeding may begin before that. The big cats are set up to deliver a bite to the throat or skull that causes death without any tearing or pulling with the teeth. There seems to be an instinct directed towards crushing the trachea and maintaining it until suffocation. Their killing bite is not applied to anything other than the head and neck. The different species of big cat have slight variations on how they do the killing, but it's all the same theme. Hold on tight with the claws and direct your bite(s) at the neck/head. Attacking any other part of the body is a waste of time and is potentially dangerous. Your teeth are not designed to kill that way.

The canids grab almost anywhere with their teeth and pull/shake. If they grab the throat of a fleeing sheep, they may try to plant their feet which causes the struggling animal to rip its own throat by frantic pulling away.

We also noted the very varied attack angles on these (one throat, one flank and one hind leg) suggested an inexperienced predator. And again, we noted that the predator had abandoned the sheep after the attacks, with apparently no attempt to eat them.

Attacking the flanks or legs is just not what big cats do - it's what canids do. When in doubt - shave the carcass and look for penetrating claw marks.

[William Parcher]

transmogrification

When a moggie becomes a different moggie.

[Rolfe]

It wasn't an outburst, it was a response to stimulus, did you read the big letters or not, I can post them larger if it helps ?


Suit yourself. If you'd rather thrash around aimlessly than read posts that are trying to help you, that's up to you.

no I'm not, like a poor marksman you keep missing the point don't you, how many times do I need to state what I am asking them for, it is the report made by the two rangers who claimed to have seen a pair of big cats, the report itself, nothing more, nothing less, if you are incapable of understanding any of my posts, and it certainly is starting to seem that way then just go back and read Mr Parchers original request will you, I'm getting sick of you wasting my time

I expect them to take it as seriously as the letter of the law, its quite specific on these matters


Yes, I get it. You've put in an FoI request for the reports by the Rangers who thought they saw big cats. Except that it might only be one, as the BBC report which quoted their spokesman only referred to one of the Rangers believing he'd seen a big cat.

What do you expect to get? It's possible that these "reports" were only verbal. Given that the incident already seems to have been the subject of an FoI request, and all that seems to have come out of that is a statement by a spokesman that yes, one of these men really believes he saw a big cat, I rather suspect that might be the case.

Suppose he wrote something down. I can't imagine that it will tell you any more than we already know. That one (or possibly two) Forest Rangers thought they saw something they thought was a "big cat" while using night-vision thermal imaging.

The fact that this has already been subject to FoI may be reason for them to refuse the request anyway.

Where do you think this is taking you? What reason do you have for believing there's any more to this than the usual mistaken-size sightings in poor visibility conditions, followed by the usual Chinese Whispers? If (as I suspect) you hadn't even thought about any of this until yesterday, don't you think it might be worth sitting on it for a while and thinking about the possibilities and probabilities in a sensible manner, rather than firing off FoI requests just because you read something on a fruitcake web site yesterday?

Rolfe.

[JcR]

I really, really hope you're joking. Do you really imagine we don't know what strains of CDV are around? And the answer is very little to none, because widespread vaccination of puppies has pretty much wiped it out.

However, even in the days when CDV was rampant, it never infected cats. And we never had pet cats morphing into diseased werewolves before our very eyes.

This one hits a new high in the paranoid fantasy stakes.

Rolfe.

I hope I was joking to... I shouldn't make light of such an highly contagious viral infection. I had large felids (lions in particular) on the brain. Maybe my brain tissue needs to be examined? Might find some positively labeled crazy antigen up there somewhere. :)
Anyhow. Yes I wish the video was a little more clear, though it does look like the cat? isn't much taller than the rail, considering the angle and poor quality, of the video. I guess it would have been ideal to be on the same level.
We had three large cats (Lion, Tiger and a cougar) in my area, kept as pets. Due to new bylaws they were relocated. They needed much better living quarters anyways. The black "blob cat" reminded me of my cat.
http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt53/JchristopherR_photos/KOintheGarden.jpg

[Marduk]

Suit yourself. If you'd rather thrash around aimlessly than read posts that are trying to help you, that's up to you.




Yes, I get it. You've put in an FoI request for the reports by the Rangers who thought they saw big cats. Except that it might only be one, as the BBC report which quoted their spokesman only referred to one of the Rangers believing he'd seen a big cat.

What do you expect to get? It's possible that these "reports" were only verbal. Given that the incident already seems to have been the subject of an FoI request, and all that seems to have come out of that is a statement by a spokesman that yes, one of these men really believes he saw a big cat, I rather suspect that might be the case.

Suppose he wrote something down. I can't imagine that it will tell you any more than we already know. That one (or possibly two) Forest Rangers thought they saw something they thought was a "big cat" while using night-vision thermal imaging.

The fact that this has already been subject to FoI may be reason for them to refuse the request anyway.

Where do you think this is taking you? What reason do you have for believing there's any more to this than the usual mistaken-size sightings in poor visibility conditions, followed by the usual Chinese Whispers? If (as I suspect) you hadn't even thought about any of this until yesterday, don't you think it might be worth sitting on it for a while and thinking about the possibilities and probabilities in a sensible manner, rather than firing off FoI requests just because you read something on a fruitcake web site yesterday?

Rolfe.
okay then words of one syllable

me not make ask for wood man say in word
parch ask for wood man say in word
me just help parch
me like that
nice man
read parch ask
here

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4951303&postcount=83

not my think to ask wood say in word
parcher think to ask wood man say in word

you think idea crap
why blame me
you blame parch
you not think right
you just blame

:rolleyes:

[William Parcher]

I don't even like the way these ABC loons debunk their own hoaxes. We get a "plush toy" explanation and shut your mouth if you want to know how they figured that out.

Here we have a "cardboard cutout" which was supposed to be the Beast of Bodwin Moor. Keep your mouth shut if you think it looks like a charcoal drawing instead of a photo of a cutout.

[shandyjan]

JCE is that a pic of your cat? It looks very big...again, nothing to compare it to in the photo.
Rolfe, been interesting reading your thoughts and the sharing of the parts concerning your job!

[William Parcher]

mog walk in woods
transmogrification
bloke see panther
presses stop
new headline
blimey
Marduk speaks

[Marduk]

I don't even like the way these ABC loons debunk their own hoaxes. We get a "plush toy" explanation and shut your mouth if you want to know how they figured that out.
.

http://www.bigcatsinbritain.org/englishnews960.htm

The 43-year-old amateur photographer from Upper Cwmbran said he spotted the animal while photographing a glamour model.
But yesterday the British Big Cat Society issued its "final verdict" on the photograph which has been examined by a zoologist and several photographic experts.
Danny Bamping, the society's founder and spokesman, has claimed the beast in the digital camera picture was nothing more than a 20 pound stuffed toy.
He says the animal's tail was arranged in such a way it looked broken in two places, the paws did not look genuine and a big feline would not allow a photographer so close. But Mr Evans has remained adamant the photograph is genuine.
After the picture was published, Chris Mosier, of Plymouth, a zoologist who has studied big cats for 15 years and has written two books on big cat sightings, cast doubt on it.
He said, "My opinion is that they are pictures of a toy and I recognise the toy used in the pictures as one you can buy for ?20 - a colleague sent me one from Scotland."
Mr Mosier's comments have now been followed by British Big Cat Society's final verdict being published on its website.
Mr Bamping said he also visited the scene where the photograph was taken but found no paw or scratch marks, or any smell associated with a big cat.
He said in a letter to Mr Evans, "After considering all of the above, I firmly believe that the photograph is actually of a large, stuffed 'cuddly toy' (full size) Black Panther. These are easily available from various sources.
I am outraged, where are the pictures of the glamour model.
:D

[Marduk]

transmogrification



whut ?
:p

[Marduk]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51O8qbgR1ZL._SL500_AA280_.jpg
omg, girl attacked by the beast of Cwmbran in high street
:D

[William Parcher]

They are saying it's a known full-sized stuffed panther toy that sells for 20 pounds?

[William Parcher]

That looks right. Send that pic to the loons. They need it on their site!

[Rolfe]

You probably already know this stuff. Canids do not have a killing bite, felids do. Canids have to tear, shake and pull until the prey succumbs to blood loss or shock. Their paws are useless for gripping large prey and so they literally hang on by their teeth alone. If they bite the throat, it could indeed "rip it out". It is rarely a quick death and feeding may begin before that. The big cats are set up to deliver a bite to the throat or skull that causes death without any tearing or pulling with the teeth. There seems to be an instinct directed towards crushing the trachea and maintaining it until suffocation. Their killing bite is not applied to anything other than the head and neck. The different species of big cat have slight variations on how they do the killing, but it's all the same theme. Hold on tight with the claws and direct your bite(s) at the neck/head. Attacking any other part of the body is a waste of time and is potentially dangerous. Your teeth are not designed to kill that way.

The canids grab almost anywhere with their teeth and pull/shake. If they grab the throat of a fleeing sheep, they may try to plant their feet which causes the struggling animal to rip its own throat by frantic pulling away.

Attacking the flanks or legs is just not what big cats do - it's what canids do. When in doubt - shave the carcass and look for penetrating claw marks.


The odd thing was, in our series of cases last year, we had two deaths that exactly fitted the pattern I bolded above. However, circumstantial evidence simply couldn't support a big cat being the cause. The shepherd was talking about badgers, but I found that a bit of a stretch too.

Then we had more deaths, in each case with a different area of the sheep being bitten, just one massive bite then nothing else. One gimmer lost all the muscle from one leg, leaving just a tibia. It was completely gruesome. These all suggested dog, and common sense says the whole lot were dogs, or probably a dog.

We still make jokes about the "Pentland Beast", but we know there's nothing with jaws that size living there, because every bloody lamb is tagged and counted and accounted for. My instinct says Rottweiler. However, if there's someone with an illegal pet leopard or cheetah around, who has only let it out twice, in the same week, on opposite sides of the Firth of Forth - well, that would make a good story too!

Actually, I usually skin the carcasses and look for the evidence of injuries from the inside out. I've seen a few where there were multiple teeth punctures on the hindquarters, apparently done as the lamb was running away.

Rolfe.

[William Parcher]

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14867&d=1248965980http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51O8qbgR1ZL._SL500_AA280_.jpg

[William Parcher]

The odd thing was, in our series of cases last year, we had two deaths that exactly fitted the pattern I bolded above. However, circumstantial evidence simply couldn't support a big cat being the cause.


It's not so odd to find canid kills with only a mortal throat wound. It suggests a single attacker with some experience. Also suggestive of an attack scenario that allowed biting the throat as first and only traumatic contact.

[JcR]

JCE is that a pic of your cat? It looks very big...again, nothing to compare it to in the photo.
Rolfe, been interesting reading your thoughts and the sharing of the parts concerning your job!

Yes... and the "real terror" reveals itself when the sun dips below the horizon, and sends the moon adrift up into the night sky. :)

[William Parcher]

This image was presented as a photo of a cougar in Maine. I know we discussed it before but I can't find the thread. Many thought the image was altered.


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/2c1718a5.jpg

[Hokulele]

Getting back to the OP.

In spite of the railway line, there aren't good size reference points in the film, the policeman was a fair distance away, and the resolution is very poor. I think, just as the news item said at the time, that it's very inconclusive. It still could be a black Lab, but I think it's more likely just to be a big black mog, maybe somebody of 6 kg or more. Trying to magnify it into a puma seems a bit of a stretch though.

Although Helensburgh is on the edge of the Highlands and the Loch Lomond Park, it's very civilised. It's posh Glasgow commuter belt. That's what the railway line is. It shouldn't be all that hard for someone determined in the area to find out what lives there that might have taken a little stroll on the tracks.


How difficult would it be for someone to place a reference object (moggie-sized) along the rails, then go back to the point where the original video was shot and shoot another video for comparison?

[Rolfe]

okay then words of one syllable

me not make ask for wood man say in word
parch ask for wood man say in word
me just help parch
me like that
nice man
read parch ask
here

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4951303&postcount=83

not my think to ask wood say in word
parcher think to ask wood man say in word

you think idea crap
why blame me
you blame parch
you not think right
you just blame

:rolleyes:


You funny man!

Here Forest of Dean.

http://www.vetpath.co.uk/jref/dean.jpg

Five miles across. And not just one big cat is supposed to be living there, but several. They're breeding!

Without leaving the slightest trace on the ecosystem!

The Rangers were doing a deer census, remember. They keep records. They go there all the time. There are also sheep there, which belong to people, who tend to notice if a lot go missing.

WHAT ARE THESE CATS EATING??

WHERE ARE THE BODIES?

Could an area as small as that actually support a population of pumas even if the govenment decided it wanted to have them there? How soon before they ran out of prey?

Where are the bones and the skulls? Where are the ewes and hinds whose lambs and fawns have vanished?

Where are the tracks and the shed fur and the bodies of the cats themselves when they die?

There's no point in listing a handful or two of "maybe" sightings and a paw-print that could be a dog's. If there was even one adult puma in there, there would inevitably be stacks of evidence. With a whole population, you'd be tripping over them. The Rangers would be finding half-eaten carcasses on a weekly basis. There would be regularly-used trails, dens even. Visitors would be snapping pictures on their mobile phones. Farmers and shepherds would be complaining of devastating losses. Dead pumas themselves would be found from time to time.

This is Bigfoot in the back yard!

And because William, quite reasonably, asks what evidence you base your claims on, instead of thinking about whether or not what you've just sucked up from a woo-woo web site is credible, you abuse our democratic privileges and waste out tax money by firing of FoI requests.

You heap funny man.

Rolfe.

[Marduk]

You heap funny man!

Here Forest of Dean.

http://www.vetpath.co.uk/jref/dean.jpg

Five miles across. .

http://www.royalforestofdean.info/forest-of-dean/
The Royal Forest occupies an area of 204 square miles in the western part of Gloucestershire.The 20 million trees that cover the Royal Forest of Dean include oak, beech, ash, birch and holly trees.

why are you so offended by the idea that I am attempting to find something that another poster requested ?
what does it have to do with you anyway
:rolleyes:
really, your arrogance is out of its box and its getting quite obnoxious. please attempt to control it
thanks
:D

[Rolfe]

http://www.royalforestofdean.info/forest-of-dean/

why are you so offended by the idea that I am attempting to find something that another poster requested ?
what does it have to do with you anyway
:rolleyes:
really, your arrogance is out of its box and its getting quite obnoxious. please attempt to control it
thanks
:D


That's the whole area designated with the "Forest of Dean" park status. It's not all forest though, the rest is mainly farmland and ordinary woods and stuff like that. And once you start considering that larger area, you have to contend with a lot of roads, farms, and several medium-sized towns. This isn't the Black Forest you know. Everything I said above still applies, just the same.

Part of what it has to do with me is that it's my tax money you've decided to squander in this wild goose chase. Not quite on an Iraq War scale, but it's still an expense.

I'll leave it to William to address your declaration that you're doing this for him (after you told him to scuttle off back under his bridge). However, do recall. You were the one who came here just copy-pasting stuff from a poorly-thought-out woo web site. When did you first access that site, anyway? Yesterday?

You backed off from some of their more preposterous claims, but latched on to a couple of instances where there seemed to be a little bit more evidence. However, even that was hearsay and third-hand, and you hadn't thought to question why there was no original documentation presented. William, quite reasonably, pointed this out.

So, instead of reassessing the credibility of the web site you were so interested in, you decided to invoke the Freedom of Information Act. In spite of the reports already accessible stating that that had already been done.

Sure, I suppose it's about 20p of my tax money. Be my guest.

Rolfe.

[zooterkin]

You heap funny man!

Here Forest of Dean.

http://www.vetpath.co.uk/jref/dean.jpg

Five miles across. .

http://www.royalforestofdean.info/forest-of-dean/
The Royal Forest occupies an area of 204 square miles in the western part of Gloucestershire.The 20 million trees that cover the Royal Forest of Dean include oak, beech, ash, birch and holly trees.

That's rather misleading, The actual area of woodland is, according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_of_dean), somewhat smaller:
The area is characterised by over 110 square kilometers (42.5 sq mi) of mixed woodland, one of the surviving ancient woodlands in England. A large area was reserved for royal hunting before 1066, and remained as one of the largest Crown forests in England, the largest after the New Forest. Although the name is often used loosely to refer to that part of Gloucestershire between the Severn and Wye, the Forest of Dean proper has covered a much smaller area since mediaeval times


Regardless of the actual area, it is still a well populated region, and has many tourists in the holiday season. You've not addressed those parts of Rolfe's post, only picked on what you imagined was a mistake.

why are you so offended by the idea that I am attempting to find something that another poster requested ?
what does it have to do with you anyway

It's a public forum; do you not know how those work?

[Rolfe]

Getting back to the OP.

How difficult would it be for someone to place a reference object (moggie-sized) along the rails, then go back to the point where the original video was shot and shoot another video for comparison?


Not sure. You'd need to know more about the camera used to take the pictures, and the zoom factor used, I think. It's just silly season fluff journalism though, even Marduk has abandoned the Big Cat of Helensburgh. I doubt if anyone is sufficiently concerned about the pictures to bother.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

That's rather misleading, The actual area of woodland is, according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_of_dean), somewhat smaller:

Regardless of the actual area, it is still a well populated region, and has many tourists in the holiday season. You've not addressed those parts of Rolfe's post, only picked on what you imagined was a mistake.


Thanks, Zooterkin. I picked the area designated by the Ordnance Survey, but Marduk has referenced the whole area of the designated park. The problem remains, whichever way you slice it. There's only a fairly small area of actual ancient woodland where anything weird could plausibly live. Even that part is criss-crossed by minor roads and full of picnic places. If you declare that you want to consider the whole region, then you have to explain how the animals can move across main roads and farms and in between towns and villages. The areas outside the part I indicated, as I said before, are intensively farmed by people who COUNT THEIR SHEEP.

Rolfe.

[Marduk]

Regardless of the actual area, it is still a well populated region, and has many tourists in the holiday season. You've not addressed those parts of Rolfe's post, only picked on what you imagined was a mistake.

I can ignore anything I want to ignore and post whatever I want to post as per any whim I happen to feel like while I am posting, you don't think thats right ?
thats cool, then why does the forum have an ignore button ?
:D

It's a public forum; do you not know how those work?
yes, someones says, hey "it would be nice to read the original report" I say "I will attempt to get it using the freedom of information act" and then I get nothing but constant abuse and irrelevance from a poster who by his own admittance had made his mind up before he saw any evidence at all, pardon me for not thinking that correct sceptical thinking. Its pseudo sceptical and everyone knows it.
:D

[shawmutt]

Cry me a river. Do you have any sort of reply yet?

[Marduk]

Part of what it has to do with me is that it's my tax money you've decided to squander in this wild goose chase. Not quite on an Iraq War scale, but it's still an expense.

thats got to be about the most pathetic excuse I have ever heard on any subject. I don't receive a penny from your tax money, can you enlighten me to how much the forestry commission is paid by your tax money, thousands of pounds is it,

seriously, please do the math and then let me know how much of your money I have wasted, I'll send you a cheque
:D

[Marduk]

Cry me a river. Do you have any sort of reply yet?

nope

[Rolfe]

You know, if you spent half the energy in answering questions as you spend getting all huffy, we might be getting on a bit better.

I can ignore anything I want to ignore and post whatever I want to post as per any whim I happen to feel like while I am posting, you don't think thats right ?


Sure. But then other people can take note of what you've been ignoring, especially when you've been completely pwned, and call you on it.

Here's one you've been dodging for a while.

Defra were recently caught covering up and playing down the evidence, they were forced to release information under the freedom of information act which showed they have examined plenty of animal remains over the years some of which showed clear evidence of a big cat attack and in every case they claimed "predator unknown" based on the fact that they didn't actually have the corpse of the animal responsible.So tell us. What is the source for that one. Where is this evidence that DEFRA were "forced" to release? How did they hide it within the VIDA data?

And why should any predator attack be classed as anything other than "predator unknown" if nobody saw the attack? What makes you claim that these cases show "clear evidence of a big cat attack" rather than being dogs? Did you see the bodies? Who did then? Who made that judgement?


And the catch-all question relating to the Forest of Dean. How do you imagine even one adult "big cat" could be living there with no effect whatsoever on the ecosystem - never mind a breeding colony?

If you can't answer that last one, then your zeal to fire off emails to innocent government apparatchiks seems a bit premature, don't you think?

Rolfe.

[William Parcher]

In spite of being fairly secretive, pumas are vocal and loud. Folks should regularly be hearing some pretty weird and scary sounds around the Forest of Dean. It's not hard for someone to identify their sounds.

[Rolfe]

I think the whole "DEFRA coverup" really needs to be put to bed.

If we're really talking about genuine big cats, things of puma size or more, the accusation is that they don't want to alarm the public. This is just ridiculous. If there is anything dangerous out there, it is DEFRA's duty to warn the public. They'd be wetting themselves in case a child was hurt and they were blamed for being too slow to issue an alert.

The reason DEFRA knows there's nothing that size out there is that DEFRA keeps a close track of what is killing livestock (those VIDA returns again), and it knows there simply isn't the slack in the system to account for what cats that size need to consume to live.

The ones we know about just underline that. Felicity was loose north of Loch Ness for many months. That area is remote in the extreme. The hills are wild, and go on for miles and miles in every direction. But even there, the sheep are shepherded and counted, and any unaccounted losses are a matter for concern. The farmer knew Felicity was there, he was pretty pissed off about what she was eating, and in the end he trapped her.

My own speculation is that Felicity was deliberately taken there and released by someone who didn't want to keep her (Dangerous Wild Animals Act, possibly?) precisely because of the remoteness of the area. There isn't a better place in the whole of Great Britain for such an animal to survive and maybe not be noticed. Good choice.

But she was noticed. For the obvious reason. Her effect on the ecosystem, specifically the sheep she was eating. Sheep that were counted and accounted for.

The Suffolk/Norfolk lynx is a very similar case. A farmer notices sheep being killed. A lot of sheep. And then a lynx is shot. Where did it come from? No idea. But if the sheep losses only started two weeks before the cat was killed, then that's your answer to when it arrived. And when it was shot, the sheep losses stop.

The whole Devon/Cornwall mythology, Beast of Bodmin and so on, is a lot more plausible than this Forest of Dean nonsense. The countryside is wild, and the livestock run free. There are deer and so on as well. It's more plausible that something could have lived there for a time, just as Felicity lived in the Highlands. But the stories are garbled and contradictory, and the sheer quantity of dead livestock doesn't seem to feature as one would expect. Farmers in the West Country aren't any more forgiving of big predators than those in the Highlands or East Anglia. I've seen a number of references to MAFF (DEFRA) having carried out some sort of official investigation there in the mid 1990s and concluding there was no credible evidence, but I can't find an original report. Maybe Marduk would like to ask for that as well?

But leaving the peculiarities of the West Country aside, the evidence of the few cases that are documented indicates that the presence of a genuine big cat is pretty much impossible to hide, simply because they have to eat.

On the other hand, what about smaller exotics? Could we be harbouring breeding colonies of leopard cats of Geoffroy's cats? They prey on birds and small rodents and so on. Well, it's no more implausible than colonies of mink, or coypu, or grey squirrels. Except that all these also leave evidence of their presence on the ecosystem, and there's no matching evidence of the little cats.

And in any case, why would DEFRA want to concel the presence of a species that's no danger to man? Why the secrecy?

Even if we leave the whole food chain to the side, has anyone watched Springwatch or Autumnwatch? What about the birdwatchers and the wildlife cameramen and the naturalists that roam the countryside? They'll find you a Scottish Wildcat or a ptarmigan or a mountain hare, and deliver you some film that lets you count its whiskers.

Ask Bill Oddie what he thinks of the whole idea, that might be a better answer than any.

Rolfe.

[Marduk]

You know, if you spent half the energy in answering questions as you spend getting all huffy, we might be getting on a bit better.
Ah classic forum misunderstanding, I don't dislike you at all, I am a bit miffed by your inability to see why all the evidence must be checked but thats really your problem. I even sent you a friend request earlier today. I never take anything said on a forum, that personally,






And the catch-all question relating to the Forest of Dean. How do you imagine even one adult "big cat" could be living there with no effect whatsoever on the ecosystem - never mind a breeding colony?

If you can't answer that last one, then your zeal to fire off emails to innocent government apparatchiks seems a bit premature, don't you think?

Rolfe.

my zeal is to check all the possible evidence before making a firm decision, I have learned this by past experience and some huge mistakes I could have avoided with just a little more zeal. To me research is like making sure all the sockets are turned off when I go to bed, it may take a little effort but I sleep better knowing that my chances of waking up burned to death are considerably decreased

You have already proved that most of the big cats found escaped a short while earlier, I have no complaint with that, but the fact that those cats were at large isn't changed by their source, I'm one of lifes methodical thinkers. I lose respect for myself when I am investigating something if I don't investigate everything properly.

Say just hypothetically lets say that the forestry commission report is backed by solid evidence that wasn't released, that something in it proves that there were two big cats on the loose for a short period, wouldn't you want to know that, it would be quite easy to find the source wouldn't it, I wouldn't imagine that many facilities in that immediate area have a pair of big cats that are inclined to elope together, when really this forestry commisson report seems to be the best evidence for unreported big cats, whats wrong with being thorough ?

I havent at any point asked you for any of your time, you seem to be giving it freely, I just wish you were a little more cooperative

this isn't really a big deal for me, I have a highly paid job which allows me a great deal of free time and I'm a speed typist, if I have spent more than 2 hours on this subject in the last three days I would be very surprised

;)

and finally, whatever subject is being discussed here I am always learning something, though it may not be very clear to anyone what exactly that is.
:p

[Marduk]

I think the whole "DEFRA coverup" really needs to be put to bed.

If we're really talking about genuine big cats, things of puma size or more, the accusation is that they don't want to alarm the public. This is just ridiculous. Snip

Ask Bill Oddie what he thinks of the whole idea, that might be a better answer than any.

Rolfe.

Excellent post
nominated
;)
but lets give bill oddie a miss eh, I always thought he was a bit of a loon

[I Ratant]

In spite of being fairly secretive, pumas are vocal and loud. Folks should regularly be hearing some pretty weird and scary sounds around the Forest of Dean. It's not hard for someone to identify their sounds.
.
I've wondered about this myself.
I've seen tracks of way larger than housecat animals, and others have seen cougars walking thru the community.
But I've not heard anything unusual.
The local coyotes are quite vocal especially in the evenings when the cop cars and EMT vehicles are rushing around, sirens on. They sing along. MOF that's how I located a den of coyotes recently, I heard them howling and was able to see where they were howling from.
But the lion, not a sound, nor has anyone mentioned hearing any, with several independent observations of animals, and tracks.
The coyote was yelling his head looking for MILFs, and the bobcat, no more than 50 feet away, ignored me.
It also spent a lot of time in the community.Recently it's been trapped and moved to the mountains north of here, along with its litter.

[William Parcher]

waking up burned to death

A horrifying experience, I'm sure.

[desertgal]

A horrifying experience, I'm sure.

But definitely one of a kind. :p

[Marduk]

A horrifying experience, I'm sure.
I could have used a more realistic example, but it might have actually been scary
;)

[William Parcher]

I've wondered about this myself. But the lion, not a sound, nor has anyone mentioned hearing any, with several independent observations of animals, and tracks.

The cougars may not be noisy when they are walking about the community. But they get loud especially when seeking a mate or announcing their turf.

Those are great photos. What region are you in if I may ask?

[Rolfe]

Ah classic forum misunderstanding, I don't dislike you at all, I am a bit miffed by your inability to see why all the evidence must be checked but thats really your problem. I even sent you a friend request earlier today. I never take anything said on a forum, that personally,


Well, I meant "get on" as "advance the discussion", but I never spurn an olive branch.

my zeal is to check all the possible evidence before making a firm decision, I have learned this by past experience and some huge mistakes I could have avoided with just a little more zeal. To me research is like making sure all the sockets are turned off when I go to bed, it may take a little effort but I sleep better knowing that my chances of waking up burned to death are considerably decreased


OCD? If you extend that to checking up on everything you randomly encounter on the internet, no matter how implausible, it may take you some time.

You have already proved that most of the big cats found escaped a short while earlier, I have no complaint with that, but the fact that those cats were at large isn't changed by their source, I'm one of lifes methodical thinkers. I lose respect for myself when I am investigating something if I don't investigate everything properly.

Say just hypothetically lets say that the forestry commission report is backed by solid evidence that wasn't released, that something in it proves that there were two big cats on the loose for a short period, wouldn't you want to know that, it would be quite easy to find the source wouldn't it, I wouldn't imagine that many facilities in that immediate area have a pair of big cats that are inclined to elope together, when really this forestry commisson report seems to be the best evidence for unreported big cats, whats wrong with being thorough ?


Say hypothetically that there's something absolutely eye-popping that wasn't released the last time they had an FoI request for that, is there any real reason they'd release it on a second request? "I refer the honourable gentlemann to my previous answer" is your likely fate.

And take another look at that abortion of a table DEFRA released about big cat escapes. That's the likely quality of the response that's going to be produced if a government department is asked for something they don't have.

It seems to me that you just pulled in the horns of your claims (or suggestions or whatever) even further. You agree then that the assertion that there's a breeding colony of pumas in a small patch of woodland in a very intensively-farmed county is implausible to the point of impossible? But you still think there might have been two there for a short period?

Why? Because a couple of park rangers joined the "I thot I thaw a puddy tat" brigade? That's all it is, you know. Something similar to the Helensburgh sighting, but at night with infra-red sights. There doesn't even seem to be anything in writing.

I'm especially curious about how the forest rangers concluded that is was Big Cats (Panthera or Puma) that they were seeing with thermal night-vision (non camera type).

I think that estimating size may be challenging with infrared (IR) vision. Warm objects glow and cool surroundings don't. Non-living objects around the living subject may not appear clearly. It could prevent a proper frame-of-reference to determine size of the glowing thing. I'm hoping that the ranger reports give objective explanations that were cause for concluding - Big Cats. Can you screw up an IR moggie sighting and think you are seeing a leopard?


Basically, yes, I would say. Essentially, all the press reports indicate that this entire stramash is being exclusively manufactured by "Big cat expert Frank Tunbridge, 60, who has 25 years experience", maybe with a few friends, going round spreading rumous. In that climate, people start to report sightings, it's a well-known phenomenon.

It's easy to see why. I remember being misled myself about the size of an ordinary black cat. If the circumstances had been very slightly different (i.e. I hadn't got a second, better look at it) and the local papers had been carrying the sort of stories Tunbridge is feeding to the Gloucestershire rags, there could well have been another one.

So Frank anoints these as "credible sightings", a big dog pawprint is exhibited as a cat's, and the whole thing becomes self-perpetuating.

Rather than asking whether maybe this is all about a single escapee that was in the forest for short time, or maybe it happened twice, why not ask whether there's even any grounds for that speculation? The nearest real zoos are in Bristol (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&cr=countryUK%7CcountryGB&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=zoo+gloucestershire&fb=1&split=1&gl=uk&view=text&ei=ljdySurcIdShjAecnoWrDA&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=more-results&resnum=1), and the only zoo near the forest only keeps butterflies! And if there were cats there for a few days or weeks, and they're not there any more, what happened to them?

I havent at any point asked you for any of your time, you seem to be giving it freely, I just wish you were a little more cooperative

this isn't really a big deal for me, I have a highly paid job which allows me a great deal of free time and I'm a speed typist, if I have spent more than 2 hours on this subject in the last three days I would be very surprised

and finally, whatever subject is being discussed here I am always learning something, though it may not be very clear to anyone what exactly that is.


Fairy nuff.

Rolfe.

ETA: You forgot this bit.

Defra were recently caught covering up and playing down the evidence, they were forced to release information under the freedom of information act which showed they have examined plenty of animal remains over the years some of which showed clear evidence of a big cat attack and in every case they claimed "predator unknown" based on the fact that they didn't actually have the corpse of the animal responsible.


I'm just curious. Why did you say this? Who determined these remains "showed clear evidence of a big cat attack"? Who made the request, what did they ask for, and where is the report they were given? Who determined that DEFRA were "caught" in a cover-up?

Enquiring minds still want to know.

[Stellafane]

Dunno anything about anything here, other than to say -- to this layperson's eye, that looks like one big-ass cat.

[I Ratant]

The cougars may not be noisy when they are walking about the community. But they get loud especially when seeking a mate or announcing their turf.

Those are great photos. What region are you in if I may ask?
.
Palmdale, CA.
We've had bears come all the way through the town to get to the airfield.. about 15 miles from the Angeles National Forest, crossing highways, the aqueduct, and generally surviving modern traffic. I've seen 3 raccoons, all which failed "Street Crossing 101" miserably recently.
This track, wasn't made by a house cat!
I've a -larger- track, most likely that a bear.

[Rolfe]

Ah, the interesting fauna of the large continental masses!

The biggest carnivore we have is the fox. Unless you count the badger.

And I'm not really kittening this thread....

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/funny-pictures-cat-has-a-role-model.jpg

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I note this actually refers to the Forest of Dean. Do we know how long these animals are supposed to have been in there? Because there is an interesting little fact about the Forest of Dean. In 2001 the wild ungulates in there (wild boar, deer) were infected with foot and mouth. The entire forest was cleared of cloven-hooved livestock.


Just correcting myself here. The sources I'm looking at (http://www.deanverderers.org.uk/deer-in-forest-of-dean.html) say that only sheep were cleared from the forest, and they left the deer. (I'm not seeing anything about wild boar, I may be getting mixed up with Kent there.) The whole forest area was free of sheep for about 18 months.

An analysis of the archives reported by Dr C Hart OBE have shown that deer numbers have fluctuated over the centuries. In summary, deer were:


numerous in C12th & C13th when the herd was safeguarded & offenders heavily punished
dwindling in C14th due to poaching
scarce in C15th & early C16th
increasing in late C16th when Elizabeth I introduced woodland management for ship timber
reduced dramatically to 300 in the 1630s before the civil war by mass poaching
legally restricted to 800 in 1668 Dean Forest (Reafforestation) Act
reduced to about 10 by 1800 with decrease in cover and much poaching
numbered at 800 in 1840 following enclosure and replanting
reduced to 150 bucks and 300 does in 1850 with poaching
all gone by 1855 due to the 1851 Deer Removal Act (enacted to counteract poaching)
re-established in the Speech House area during WWII
reported to number about 40 animals in 1971
assessed at 200 in number in 1992
censussed in 2000, 2002 and 2005 after culling at the end of the winter with night vision equipment and numbered slightly over 300

Before foot and mouth disease in 2001, the deer population tended to be more dense in the inclosures (http://www.deanverderers.org.uk/glossary.html#inclosure) which were not subject to sheep browse, but after the removal of all the sheep, the deer spread throughout most of the Dean. The period when there was no public access and the increased food availability because of the lack of sheep, probably combined to cause an observed increase in numbers.



So when the sheep were culled for FMD, the deer increased in numbers and spread. So what were these pumas eating, Mr. Frank Tunbridge, 60? 300 head of deer really doesn't seem much to support a bunch of big cats to me, and the census findings tell us that the population was actually getting larger.

This is just getting silly.

Rolfe.

[makaya325]

The problem is: Nobody makes an effort to count the number of stray cats in small communities.

[Marduk]

The problem is: Nobody makes an effort to count the number of stray cats in small communities.

or people
:D

[Marduk]

Just correcting myself here. The sources I'm looking at (http://www.deanverderers.org.uk/deer-in-forest-of-dean.html) say that only sheep were cleared from the forest, and they left the deer. (I'm not seeing anything about wild boar, I may be getting mixed up with Kent there.) The whole forest area was free of sheep for about 18 months.

So when the sheep were culled for FMD, the deer increased in numbers and spread. So what were these pumas eating, Mr. Frank Tunbridge, 60? 300 head of deer really doesn't seem much to support a bunch of big cats to me, and the census findings tell us that the population was actually getting larger.

This is just getting silly.

Rolfe.

The deer are predominantly fallow deer and these have been present in the forest since the 13th century currently numbering around 400. A number of the fallow in the central area of the forest are melanistic. More recently roe deer and muntjac deer have arrived spreading in from the East but they are in much smaller numbers.

The Forest is also home to wild boar; the exact number is currently unknown but possibly a hundred. The boar were illegally re-introduced to the Forest in 2005. A population in the Ross on Wye area on the northern edge of the forest escaped from a wild boar farm around 1999 and are believed to be of pure Eastern European origin, a second introduction was when a domestic herd was dumped near Staunton in 2004 but these were not pure bred wild boar —attempts to locate the source of the illegal dumps have been unsuccessful. The boar can now be found in many parts of the Forest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_of_Dean#Nature

so :-
fallow deer
roe deer
muntjac deer
wild boar
domestic boar
eastern european boar
badgers
rabbits
hares
foxes
mice
rats
voles
moles
bats
stoats
weasels
squirrels
birds
hedgehogs
pets



if theyre there they eat better than I do
:D

[pchams]

To the original post I say, my first thought was that it was a Black Labrador Retriever. It does seem to move as "perkily" as a Lab, but perhaps it is a cat.
It's hard to tell from the angle of photography, but the size could be deceptive, and hence a bog standard "moggie" :) (I like learning new words).


As pertaining to North American cats, I observed a Puma (Cougar) last year in eastern Canada.
I have a cottage in Haliburton, Ontario (http://www.haliburtoncounty.ca/tourism/directions.asp). It's been my second home for over 40 years. Last year, my daughter and I were driving along a gravel road not far from the cottage, and I observed in the ditch what I thought might be a white-tailed deer. I slowed to let her have a good look, and as we got to about 10 metres away, the animal stood up, looked, and bolted into the bush past the ditch.
It was a cougar. (Puma Concolor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar)) . There was no doubt. As soon as I saw the tail I knew it was something I wasn't expecting to see there.
My daughter blurted out, "Is that a mountain lion?"
I said, "no, we call them cougars".
I was amazed, even though the Eastern Cougar used to be indigenous to the area. Then colour was very similar to a deer, and I read that Puma can take on the colour of their prey. There are many deer there. It's 1000's of sq. km. of swamp.


I reported the sighting to the MNR (http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/index.html), but they claimed that most of the sightings in Ontario were escaped exotic pets.
It seems that recently, with increased sightings, that they may be changing their tune, and possibly, the Eastern Cougar has made inroads to being re-established in Ontario.

FYI, the articles I have read indicate that the Eastern Cougar is genetically identical to the South-Western Puma (ie. Puma Concolor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar#Subspecies)).

[makaya325]

OOPA'S do, indeed, exist. There is nothing mysterious about them. I do not see why people fail to comprehend this occurence?

[I Ratant]

The problem is: Nobody makes an effort to count the number of stray cats in small communities.
.
Since the entrance of the cougar, and most lately the bobcat, the instances of feral cats has dropped a LOT locally.
Especially at the office complex where the bobcat took up residence.
The three or four ferals I could expect to see on an evening's walk thru that area has dropped to zero.
The lion got credit for lowering the population here in the community, although there's coyotes active here also.

[makaya325]

Since the entrance of the cougar, and most lately the bobcat, the instances of feral cats has dropped a LOT locally.

Are you saying that Cougars actually prey on feral housecats?!! :covereyes


The lion got credit for lowering the population here in the community, although there's coyotes active here also

Was the coyote population affected too?

[pchams]

nevermind

[gtc]

There was mention made of the Blue Mountains (New South Wales) Black Cat earlier in the thread.

The NSW government took the reports seriously enough to produce a 23 page report which either supports (http://www.wollondillyadvertiser.com.au/news/local/news/general/state-lets-cat-out-of-the-bag/1580155.aspx) or doubts (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/16/2627459.htm) the claims.

And why would DEFRA and the Forestry Commission be covering anything up? Why not simply tell the newspapers?

There really doesn't seem to be any reason for the government to cover up the existence of big wild cats.

[zooterkin]

OOPA'S do, indeed, exist. There is nothing mysterious about them. I do not see why people fail to comprehend this occurence?

OOPAs?

[kakariki]

OOPAs?

Obviously Obsessive Posting Addicts :D

[zooterkin]

Apparently it's "Out of Place Animals". I don't see anyone is denying that they are found, and in fact Rolfe gave some examples. What is being questioned is whether a big cat could live in a populated area without leaving undeniable evidence. Next you'll be claiming bigfoot is real.

[Rolfe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_of_Dean#Nature

so :-
fallow deer
roe deer
muntjac deer
wild boar
domestic boar
eastern european boar
badgers
rabbits
hares
foxes
mice
rats
voles
moles
bats
stoats
weasels
squirrels
birds
hedgehogs
pets

if theyre there they eat better than I do
:D


Er, like I said, show me the bodies! No matter the number of species, depredations by large predators leave evidence.

Note one species which just isn't on that list. Felis concolor just doesn't seem to be recorded there, for some unaccountable reason.

You can see how closely the wildlife (and even the tamelife) in that area is studied. It's crawling with people counting stuff. It's also crawling with members of the public, and they're not all just picnickers. Some of them are very serious wildlife enthusiasts, with big expensive cameras.

Just suppose a puma was miraculously transported to that habitat, from whatever source. I'd give it a month, tops, before it was obvious to every sane adult in the location what was going on, and the main controversy was between the farmers who wanted to shoot it on sight and the animal-lovers insisting it should be trapped and sent to a zoo.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Apparently it's "Out of Place Animals". I don't see anyone is denying that they are found, and in fact Rolfe gave some examples. What is being questioned is whether a big cat could live in a populated area without leaving undeniable evidence. Next you'll be claiming bigfoot is real.


Well, yeah. Felicity, for a start. But this isn't a huge continent we're sitting on. This is a relatively small island, in continental terms. A well populated island, with farming going on everywhere - and that's farming, not ranching, with a law that obliges farmers to inspect their stock at least every 24 hours. Sheep are gathered and counted and dosed and marked, and people get pretty pissed-off when above-normal losses are noted. Even in the Highlands the deer are managed for shooting purposes, and indeed the shooting is necessary precisely because there are no predators picking them off. You tell a gamekeeper that his hill is supporting a family of pumas that he hasn't noticed and he'll laugh in your face.

Also, there are very strict import restrictions in place. You can't just swan into the country with a leopard in a cage. Even if you managed to smuggle something in in a private yacht, you couldn't afford to let anyone see what you had because it's illegal to keep wild animals without a licence. By and large, we know what's here, and nothing is just walking in off the street, as it were.

And if anything does get out, it's noticed and dealt with pretty soon. No mystery there.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

There really doesn't seem to be any reason for the government to cover up the existence of big wild cats.


Well, exactly. The problem, if there is one, is that nobody has ever taken the fruitcakes in the BBCS as seriously as they think they should be taken. They're cranks. So the replies they're getting are really government apparatchik-speak for "go away and stop bothering us you silly little man." However, the obsessive big cat enthusiast interprets this as "we're not going into the sort of detail you want because we have something to hide."

What surprises me is the lack of anyone stating the obvious. That any alien species will leave traces of its presence in the ecosystem. Something as big as a puma is inevitably going to leave pretty big traces, especially of what it's been eating. Every real instance of a big cat on the loose has been accompanied by dead sheep in abundance.

One needs to think about what the environment and the ecosystem would look like if something like that was there. At that point it becomes painfully clear that nothing is there. The few, ambiguous "sightings" and a handful of mauled (but not consumed) animals and a blurry pawprint or two just don't cut it.

Just explaining this to the local paper and radio station would put a big crimp in the public's propensity to believe these stories. But on the other hand, maybe nobody wants to do that? Are the stories themselves a bit of a tourist attraction? Nessie is worth fostering, after all.

Rolfe.

[Marduk]

Apparently it's "Out of Place Animals". I don't see anyone is denying that they are found, and in fact Rolfe gave some examples.

tcoh, there goes my thunder
:D

[Marduk]

Nessie is worth fostering, after all.

Rolfe.

bloody plesiosaurs turn up everywhere, theyre practically vermin in some american lakes
allegedly
:D

[JcR]

Actually, _if_ such a big cat existed, my wildly uninformed bet would be more on "hybrid" than "mutant". Some hybrids of closely related species -- e.g., the Liger -- end up with some hormonal imbalance that makes them not stop growing.

I have no idea what could a moggie breed with for something like that to happen, though.

Like this Liger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BucQb91MJg&feature=related) at around 1:59. The rest is just about a mini Bigfoot :D

[Marduk]

Ligers for some reason scare the crap out of me.
http://www.cryptomundo.com/wp-content/uploads/liger.jpg
if one of these were on the loose I doubt anyone would be reporting it, feeding it bodily yes, reporting it no
:D

[Sean84]

And someone once wondered how bigfoot threads get so long?

[Nomada]

18. A lion. Recaptured in Humberside in 1991, with the report being dated 9th March 1991. A zoo or a circus? Look for the news report, I'd suggest.

Rolfe.
This was indeed a circus escape, and it was 4 lions that ecaped into Grimsby town centre late in the evening. One man (biped) was attacked and the police used their car to ram the offending lion to get it off him. Think they were on the loose for a couple of hours if I remember. On the bright side, while the lions were rounded up, the local pubs were ordered to have a lock-in by the police!

[Rolfe]

I wasn't going to give details about last year's incident(s), but why not? It's not a state secret, no matter what Danny thinks. I can't get the exact dates and so on without searching the records, which I can't be bothered doing, but hey, it's lunchtime, so here's what happened as well as I can remember.

The shepherd from our own farm, right on the doorstep, showed up with the carcase of a ewe. He brings in almost every fatality he has, because of Home Office regs - a lot of his groups are on official feeding trials and things (OMG! vivisection! ban it!) and they're pretty strict about having fatalities properly investigated. This one was gruesome though, it was a classic throat-torn-out suffocation job. The excision was so neat he thought it might have been done by a human with a knife. He didn't find the missing flesh, but he did find the plastic ear tag from the missing ear, lying by itself a few feet from the body. The way it had been chewed suggested the missing tissue might have been eaten.

We got as far as determining that was no knife involved, and that it was a predator. I don't recall if we skinned her to check for claw marks or not. If it happens again I certainly will - this forum is a great resource! However, there was certainly no meat missing and the fleece was intact and unmarked. Whatever had killed her had not tried to eat her - only her right ear and her larynx.

I'd literally just got out of the PM room when I was called to the door to deal with a policeman. He had a bunch of photographs in his hand. The PM room attendant said, hey, how did you get photos of our sheep?? I pointed out that our ewe had been a Suffolk, and this was a Greyface. The policeman said the photos had been taken in Fife, the previous day, and he'd been sent to ask if it could be a big cat killing.

(At this point I tried to contact a retired local pathologist who has special expertise in these cases, the guy who looked at Charlotte the Sheep in fact, but he was away. When I got hold of him later, he confirmed from the photos that death was due to asphyxiation from the death grip, and the lack of bleeding was because the ewes were dead before the larynx was actually ripped out.)

So, we had a discussion about it - the shepherd, the policeman and the vets. Fife and Midlothian are separated by a big body of water, and we all agreed that it was physically impossible for an animal without access to a motor vehicle to have carried out both attacks. Thus, it was either two separate free-living animals, or one animal with access to a motor vehicle.

We considered the former possibility first. The policeman said that there had been big cat "sightings" in Fife, but we'd had none in Midlothian. We thought about the possibility of there being a loose cat in either location, and realised it wouldn't fly (unless the cat could fly!). Fife is low-lying and intensively farmed. One mouthful of larynx wouldn't keep anything going for very long, and they'd had no other reports of dead sheep. The same was really true for our own area. Although we have a big area of wild country right on our doorstep, and indeed the field the ewe had been in was on the edge of the wild country, it's still farmed. We have hill sheep and beef cattle up there, and the stockmen keep an eye on them and record any losses. There are also gamekeepers looking after the grouse shooting. Nobody had reported any unusual losses, or any devoured carcasses lying around. The hills are also very open, with little cover, and in spite of shepherds, gamekeepers and quite a lot of hillwalkers, there were no Danny-style "sightings" on record.

So we decided that if either case was the work of a big cat, it was a big cat which had only just arrived. Paradoxically, it was the double occurrence that was reassuring. If it had only been one, we'd have been seriously considering the possibility of a newly-released big cat (even though there isn't a zoo near here), and waiting for the next body to show up. However, the likelihood of two big cats appearing simultaneously in two separate counties was stretching credulity. We concluded that as we had two, it was either something common enough to happen in two places independently, or the same animal taken from one location to another in a vehicle. Both of these possibilities led to the same conclusion - dog. (The shepherd kept talking about badgers, but I didn't really buy that myself.)

I thought it was either the case that one dog had learned this particular killing grip, and the owner had taken it to Fife the previous day, or that the technique was quite a common canine attack method. However, I haven't seen another one since, so it seems to have been a coincidence whichever way you look at it.

More cases did appear, but they were different. Later in the summer the same shepherd came in with a big Suffolk lamb, newly dead. He said he'd seen it looking ill and breathing badly, and had taken it inside and given it antibiotics. However, he found it dead next time he checked. He was worried about pneumonia.

This lamb had suffered one single powerful bite to the flank, with the teeth apparently having taken hold round the end of the rib cage. There was a tear in the skin, the body wall was intact, but the rumen and the diaphragm were both ruptured. There were rumen contents in the chest, which is why the lamb had been breathing badly. There was one other skin-deep bite on the hindquarters.

About the same time a farmer from East Lothian came in with a lamb in his trailer. He said he'd gone out in the morning to find at least half a dozen lambs lying dead, and many of the remainder looking ill. He'd loaded up this one, apparently the sickest of the survivors, for us to find out what was going on, but it had died in transit. This lamb had also suffered bite wounds to the abdomen which had penetrated the intestines. This time there were numerous smaller bites, and when we skinned the lamb we found a lot of skin-deep teeth marks on the rump and hind limbs.

Oddly, when I made my report, the farmer didn't believe me, but by the time he received the report the knacker had already collected the other carcasses. A phone call to the knacker's yard elicited the information that there were no bite wounds visible, but there hadn't been on the one we'd seen either - they were only visible once the lamb was skinned. I asked if we could have another one, but as the others were all recovering the farmer was understandably reluctant. I told him to inform the police.

Some time passed, and then the third local case occurred. I got in one morning to be told that our shepherd was already on the doorstep with a casualty, and it was horrific. He had gone to do his usual morning inspection and found a full-grown gimmer trying to stand, but obviously injured. She had no muscle or connective tissue between the stifle and the hock of her left hind leg. The intact tibia was the only thing holding on the rest of the leg and the foot. The shepherd had immediately got his needle and killed the sheep on humane grounds. There wasn't another mark on her, but there wasn't a hunk of meat lying on the grass either. I've still got that leg in the freezer. We told the cops, because we were concerned that a dog that could do that to a sheep could do the same to a child, but they didn't seem all that interested.

These were all the ones I dealt with myself, but I think there was at least one more, possibly two, that colleagues saw. There have been none for some time though. I'm fairly sure that the East Lothian one was a separate incident, with a completely different modus operandi. However all the Midlothian ones I saw, all from our own farm, looked like a dog with very powerful jaws that was into giving one huge bite, then running off with whatever it had in its mouth. The first case, the throat-torn-out, had looked very expert, but it didn't manage to that again.

The real oddity was the Fife one, with the identical injury just two days before our one. Quite a coincidence whichever way you look at it. Either two dogs happened to do exactly the same (very unusual) thing almost simultaneously and never again, or our dog was taken to Fife by its owner and pulled off the only two perfectly-executed throat-rips of its life (that we know of) in the two locations. There have been no other casualties reported from Fife since then.

So there's why I'm as sure as I reasonably can be that there isn't a big cat stalking the Pentland Hills, or even Fife. Not because we haven't had suspicious injuries, because we have, but because the amount of unaccounted-for meat around here wouldn't keep a toy poodle alive. Even the ones that are found dead of disease or accident only have evidence of carrion bird scavenging.

I think there's a sheep-worrying Rottweiler somewhere round here, and I hope the next thing it bites isn't human.

Unless, of course, we have an invisible ghost panther that only slips through the interdimensional void to have one quick chomp, then disappears again....

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

This was indeed a circus escape, and it was 4 lions that ecaped into Grimsby town centre late in the evening. One man (biped) was attacked and the police used their car to ram the offending lion to get it off him. Think they were on the loose for a couple of hours if I remember. On the bright side, while the lions were rounded up, the local pubs were ordered to have a lock-in by the police!


Thanks, that's great info! I suspect all the other cases on the DEFRA list (which isn't hosted on www.defra.gov.uk (http://www.defra.gov.uk) by the way, it's a link to the Wayback Machine) can be found the same way by anyone who's interested. I think they've just collated whatever news reports they could find to get rid of an annoying FoI request, then washed their hands of it.

Rolfe.

[William Parcher]

It should also be mentioned that the big cats deal with their prey after killing in a different way than the canids.

Big cats (maybe putting aside lions) don't like to eat their prey in an exposed situation. They instinctively drag or carry the prey to a more secluded place before beginning to feed. Leopards commonly take prey up into a tree. Pumas try to hide the carcass and will even cover it with debris, returning to feed over a period of days. It is unusual for a big cat to feed on its prey in the exact location that it was killed (unless that spot is already in deep cover). A sheep may be killed in a pasture or meadow, but they will want to drag it to the woods before starting to eat. Conversely, canids are quite happy to eat the prey where it fell. Small prey that can be carried (think rodents and rabbits) may be taken to another location to eat.

There are also differing feeding preferences concerning which parts are eaten first and how.

[Rolfe]

Is there anywhere online that describes these differences? As you can see, we don't get many predator killings round here and it would be interesting to read up a bit more on it.

None of the cases I described showed any signs of anything trying to consume the carcass in any way at all, although the bitten-out chunk was always missing (except the ear tag had been rejected!). Two of the sheep weren't even dead, although one was certainly incapacitated and should have been easy prey.

I find this behaviour entirely typical of a sheep-worrying dog, which is acting out its predatory instinct in only a partial way, without taking the act through to consumption. It was really just the two examples of the apparently skilful throat-ripped-out bite I found remarkable.

Rolfe.

[William Parcher]

Is there anywhere online that describes these differences? As you can see, we don't get many predator killings round here and it would be interesting to read up a bit more on it.


There must be. It is also likely to be American. We have large predators here and they do take livestock. The science of specifying the predator is sometimes applied by necessity. We also have a similar situation here where people claim cougar predation in places where they are not documented or expected. This is because of Cougar Mania. Professional necropsies usually conclude canid or bear. Injuries from barbed wire and such will be blamed on cougar. Dogs or coyotes will get into wired pens and send a herd into a frenzy. You get ripped hides and other self-injuries from the barbs in addition to the typical kill/feed injuries. The hide rips can be declared as a cougar using its claws like a scalpel. Much of this can be attributed to local "common folk" insisting that they have cougars or "panthers". We told you so. :rolleyes:

This is routine work for vets and other experts, but the subculture populace can be at odds with them. Yes, we have our conspiracy theorists here in full force. Those government guys don't want to admit that big cats are on the prowl. Those guys will tell you that coyotes killed that pony but they know it was a panther!

[William Parcher]

HORSE KILLED BY COUGAR IN JACKSON COUNTY (Michigan Wildlife Conservancy) (http://www.miwildlife.org/detail-20050907.asp)


Horse was not attacked by cougar (Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources) (http://blog.mlive.com/citpat/2008/09/dnr_horse_was_not_attacked_by.html)


Here you will see the clash between the State and cougar maniacs.

[Rolfe]

As far as things that will go for sheep or larger are concerned, we've really only got domestic dogs. The last wolf was killed in 17-something. Foxes will take poultry and may scavenge, but they don't usually go for mammals bigger than about rabbit size. Our shepherd was banging on about badgers, but I'm still sceptical about that one. We do of course have people, too, but they usually use knives, which cut the hair, and that can be seen.

So if anything other than that is suspected, we'd have to go for American (or maybe European) information. We'd need the accounts of the pathologists who work in the areas where such animals are indiginous. I have a feeling that some of my colleagues are a little too ready to say "possible big cat" without any supporting evidence.

Charlotte the Sheep (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-459475/Charlotte-Church-savaged-death-Beckhams-garden.html)
The Sundrum horse (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8162091.stm)

Certainly, if the injuries are suspicious, then one must always consider the possibility of a recent escape from captivity. And in that case, where might it have come from? Privately-owned big cats are extremely rare and normally illegal, and the location of most zoological collections is known. One also has to ask, if this animal has been at large for any length of time, what else is it eating? Is there any possibility that the local ecosystem is supporting a large carnivore?

I just don't think enough people are asking these latter questions. There is no evidence of any such animal in Hertfordshire or Ayrshire or any other damn place for that matter. So, dear colleagues, kindly stop exciting local reporters by talking about big cat attacks until such time as some evidence emerges. Dogs (or as you say, barbed wire injuries) and occasionally human malice are the default explanations, and these causes can produce a very wide range of presentations.

Rolfe.

[William Parcher]

On this side of the big pond, there is considerably more 'sophistication', organization and effort put into promoting the mania. At least for that Michigan Wildlife Conservancy which seems to be running the front lines for this.

Their website hosts a video of two housecats in a Michigan field which they say are cougars. You will see expert testimony and analysis of the video. Conclusion: 100% cougars. It's ridiculous, but look at the slick product and promotion that they pulled off.


"Cougar Video" (http://www.miwildlife.org/c_ai_video.asp)

[Rolfe]

I had a fantastic week in Michigan last autumn. I loved it! However, I didn't get very far from Lansing, apart from a day trip to Saugatuck. I had an imaginative hour wandering in a patch of woodland telling myself it was a bit Paul Bunyan had missed, but I kept coming to the edge and finding myself in a ploughed field. I was shown round the university veterinary facilities, which were very impressive.

I'd have been mildly surprised to learn there were undetected big cats in the southern peninsula, given the geography. But who knows? It's all wild and woolly over there!

Rolfe.

[I Ratant]

Are you saying that Cougars actually prey on feral housecats?!! :covereyes

.
The community manager saw the cougar in her front yard, and her feral cats disappeared.
.

..
Was the coyote population affected too?
.
I don't know. There's many more coyotes than cougars around. And they move fast!
It's difficult to wait for the prey to come by out here in the desert. One has to go look for it.
The jacks I see are usually already moving away from me when I see them. They get antsy when I a hundred yards away, but some can be startled, and don't always move rapidly, sometimes freezing. Which can lead to disaster.

[William Parcher]

Is there anywhere online that describes these differences?


Some basic information here (http://texnat.tamu.edu/ranchref/predator/cougars/t-cougar.htm) (w/photos).

Related: INTERPRETING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF COYOTE PREDATION (http://texnat.tamu.edu/symposia/coyote/p16.htm)

[Rolfe]

Some basic information here (http://texnat.tamu.edu/ranchref/predator/cougars/t-cougar.htm) (w/photos).

Related: INTERPRETING PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF COYOTE PREDATION (http://texnat.tamu.edu/symposia/coyote/p16.htm)


Oh, thanks! :)

You seem to have some very ambitious foxes over there - ours don't tackle sheep or cattle of any age.

I note the comment about dog attacks.

Domestic dogs do not normally kill for food and their attacks usually lead to indiscriminate mutilation. True feral dogs are more apt to kill for food.

Sheep-killing dogs usually work in pairs or larger groups and can inflict considerable damage. Sheep are likely to be bitten in the head, neck, flank, ribs, and front shoulders, and the ears of mature sheep are often badly torn. Often sheep attacked by dogs are not killed but are mutilated to the point where they must be destroyed. The external appearance of some dog bites may not look serious but a necropsy reveals serious tissue damage (Bowns 1976).


Fits the cases I described very well. I didn't suspect a pair though. However, I noticed something else, with regard to the coyote.

In attacks on adult sheep, goats and older lambs, coyotes typically bite the throat just behind the jaws and below the ear (Wade and Bowns 1982). [....]

Connolly et al. (1976) considered the sheep killing technique of coyotes to be remarkably consistent. Each coyote ran alongside the fleeing sheep, clamped its jaws on the neck laterally (sometimes dorsally) just behind the ear, and braced its feet to stop the sheep. The coyote's grip then shifted to the larynx region, and it simply held on and waited for the sheep to succumb (primarily by suffocation).


That is an exact description of the first two ewe carcasses I saw. Which confirms my evaluation that a canid could be responsible. Whether it was one dog, simply taken to Fife on that day (I'm surmising it's local to here because of our subsequent losses), or two individual dogs which both got it right within two days, I suppose we'll never know. It didn't manage to repeat the performance in subsequent attacks though.

Rolfe.

[William Parcher]

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGfxD5hcInw) is an amazing video of a cougar taking down a deer on a forest road. NSFW because of profanities, and know that you will see a deer being killed.

Note the determined kill bite to the throat. This is all about crushing the trachea - it's virtually a bloodless kill.

[I Ratant]

That -is- one of the better ones!
At least they used the zoom properly.
The deer was bigger than the cat.
I'm bigger than the cat.
Hmmmmmmmm!

[Rolfe]

there were big cats loose in the UK,

http://www.britishbigcats.org/images/cms/felicity.jpg



Here's a little conundrum for the Bigfooters. The above photo isn't "real", of course. It portrays Felicity after her death and appointment with the taxidermist. I'm just curious about the provenance. I'm inclined to believe it might be as real as the Cottingley Fairies - that is, not manipulated. I think it's perfectly possible they took the stuffed cat into a street, put her on a bench, and photographed her with a couple of interested onlookers, as a publicity stunt for the museum or something.

However, it could be photoshopped. And I'm not sure where the background is, but it looks more likely to be Inverness than Cannich. The apparent age of the picture seems deceptive. Felicity didn't die till the mid-1980s as far as I know, so the whole picture can't be older than that. I think the use of black and white film (or is it a colour pic rendered in black and white?) makes it appear older than it really is. Or has someone photoshopped a picture of the late Felicity on to an older photograph? A car nut might be able to date the models on display in the car park.

I'm just curious, as I can't find the provenance of the image beyond its presence on the British Big Cats web site, where Marduk took it from.

Anybody know anything about it?

Rolfe.

[JcR]

Speaking about government cover ups. It got me looking for something I remembered from awhile back... Virgil Smith.
http://www.lib.niu.edu/2001/io010221.html

Mr. Smith contends there is a population of 250 to 300 cougars living in the wild in Illinois and that state and federal officials have participated in a secret release of the animals. As early as 1998, the DNR urged Mr. Smith to share his alleged evidence with state biologists.

On another note: I have come across a few deer kills from coyotes. In one case I followed the tracks, both deer and coyote, to the location where I had discovered the deer kill. Quite a bit of tooth punctures to the upper throat area, also, it was cleanly gutted. Drag marks on the ground around the area, and the puncture wounds to the neck, made me confident this was a kill as opposed to scavenging. The rear legs also had some small superficial cuts on the surface. I didn't see any large posterior leg wounds or any large perforations to the hind. My friend with me at the time thought "It must have been dogs, Only dogs would hamstring a deer." He said. I'm not convinced of this? I tend to think more "indiscriminate mutilation" would have been present. I had seen more damage to the upper neck area (puncture wounds) Thinking the coyotes had brought this deer down in this fashion... Then fed.
The last one I had seen was too scavenged to tell, it may have succumbed to disease or predation. Though I think the coyote diet here, consists more of the local rabbit.
Coyotes are the only large predator we have in my area. There isn't a big problem with attacks on livestock here. About the most exciting thing that happens here is the palpation of cattle.

[Rolfe]

Sorry, I'm having way too much fun here! I just noticed this delicious contradiction.

totally agree, the police as always do not require evidence of an animal to take reports from a government source seriously. I think they would rather err on the side of safety than have to say "we did nothing" when someones toddler goes missing.


Defra were recently caught covering up and playing down the evidence, [....] The forestry commission were also forced to release information [....]
it would cause public panic to know that there was a possibility of coming across a big cat in the wild, we have enough trouble getting parents to understand that every stranger is not a paedophile intent on raping and murdering their children without starting a nationwide panic over every domestic feline thats spotted without anything in view for scale.


Sorry, don't mind me. I hadn't realised quite what a rich seam of woo we have right here on this little island, and I was reviewing the thread to follow some of the lynx. [Boom, boom - I'll be here all week....]

I think a lot of what's going on is because nobody is really debunking it. So it's quite easy for the BBCS to feed up-beat stuff to receptive local press looking for a story.

Despite no concrete photographic evidence of big cats in the county, Gloucestershire police believe there are pairs living in the Forest of Dean and around the Cirencester area.


Well, if nobody actually goes to the Gloucestershire police and asks them if this is true, then it's just going to sit there unchallenged. And so the legend grows. I'm quite astonished at the number of web pages I found all either stating point blank that pumas are breeding in the countryside, or taking a mysterious, well-you-never-know line. Pointing out that the whole thing is vanishingly improbable simply on empirical grounds just doesn't sell papers I'm afraid.

I'm not volunteering, but it's kind of fun to realise that we've got our own local Bigfooters right here.

Rolfe.

[William Parcher]

About the most exciting thing that happens here is the palpation of cattle.


Wait until transmogrification comes to your town. Felix turns into the Pink Panther.

[JcR]

Wait until transmogrification comes to your town. Felix turns into the Pink Panther.

There goes my coffee. :) :D

[William Parcher]

I think a lot of what's going on is because nobody is really debunking it. So it's quite easy for the BBCS to feed up-beat stuff to receptive local press looking for a story.


There is big cat debunking here. I don't know of any site or forum dedicated to it.

You watched the Michigan housecat video with the experts? Here is a peer review of sorts posted on an eastern cougar website.


MICHIGAN "COUGAR" VIDEOS SHOW HOUSECATS (http://www.easterncougarnet.org/michigan8-23-04.htm)

[EHocking]

.
Palmdale, CA.
We've had bears come all the way through the town to get to the airfield.. about 15 miles from the Angeles National Forest, crossing highways, the aqueduct, and generally surviving modern traffic. I've seen 3 raccoons, all which failed "Street Crossing 101" miserably recently.
This track, wasn't made by a house cat!
I've a -larger- track, most likely that a bear.Bobcat (http://www.bear-tracker.com/bobcat.html), most likely?

[William Parcher]

Bobcat (http://www.bear-tracker.com/bobcat.html), most likely?


This is cougar. A big one.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14876&d=1249000251

[Rolfe]

There is big cat debunking here. I don't know of any site or forum dedicated to it.

You watched the Michigan housecat video with the experts? Here is a peer review of sorts posted on an eastern cougar website.

MICHIGAN "COUGAR" VIDEOS SHOW HOUSECATS (http://www.easterncougarnet.org/michigan8-23-04.htm)


Pwned! :D

One problem here is that only zoo experts know anything about the various species of non-domestic cats. The only things running loose here are Felis domesticus and Felis sylvestris. I'd have to look it up to have the first clue the difference between a cougar, a panther, a puma, a bobcat, a leopard, a leopard cat and all the rest of them, never mind their behaviour patterns. I notice Marduk spoke of puma and panther almost interchangeably at one point.

I don't think the big cat nutters are even very clear about what species they're postulating. Most of them have probably never seen a real specimen of any of these in their lives. I get the impression that one "big cat" sighting is the same as another to them, and that a report of a leopard cat directly supports their claims of puma presence.

I don't know how anyone here is in a position to know what a cougar or a panther kill looks like. The only specimens of these are in zoos and wildlife parks, and they eat butchermeat and knacker meat. So unless any of these "experts" has spent time in the USA or Canada or Africa or somewhere, I don't know how they can be sure of what they're saying.

In contrast, the experts consulted for that document appear genuinely familiar with the animals they're describing. I only watched the beginning of the clip, and I confess I didn't notice the spraying (and I didn't know cougars don't do that). But I did think that the cats were a lot closer to the camera than the tree, and that asking the husband to go and stand by the tree was deceptive.

Also, I've got some pics of wild turkey I took in a very similar field in Michigan last year. I just looked at them to gauge the appearance of the stubble, and the comparison suggests to me that whoever took the cat footage might have been hunkered down closer to the ground, which would of course make the cats appear bigger.

You could do a similar trick with the Helensburgh footage and that railway marker post that appears in many of the frames. But frankly, it's over 70 miles and I'm not that keen! I wonder what the US experts would make of that clip?

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

I see Marduk is on the naughty step. Was it something he said?

I only just noticed this post of his from the first page that I overlooked earlier.

ah, I think this is a domestic housecat, but I also think that the UK now has big cats as a native species. This is because I have researched this in depth before.


That's kind of strange, because I really, really thought that he'd only looked at it for the first time on Wednesday. He seemed so unfamiliar with what he was citing, I was sure he was only parroting material he'd just read for the first time and been over-impressed by.

This will have to wait till he gets back now, but Marduk, could you clarify whether you still think "big cats" are a native species in Britain in 2009 or not? I'd be really, really interested to know what it was that originally led you to that conclusion, after your in-depth research, and exactly what (if anything) has caused you to reconsider. I'd also like to know which actual species of cat or cats you thought were present, and where.

I'm sorry I didn't realise how much in-depth research you'd already done, and if I didn't give you the opportunity to present your conclusions and your evidence, then I apologise. I'd also like to know, if you have altered your opinion as a result of our discussion, what it mainly was that caused you to change your mind.

On a wider note, it seems to me that one very good way to get a handle on this would be to interrogate the VIDA database (http://www.defra.gov.uk/vla/reports/rep_vida.htm) by geographical area (post code?) and the subset of "trauma/fracture" diagnoses that are seen to be predator attack from the original reports. Absence of the sort of numbers that would inevitably be seen if one or more large carnivores were living in our ecosystem would be pretty telling, I'd think.

The thing is, absence is what such a request would find. The whole point of the VIDA returns is to allow the epidemiologists to spot significant causes of livestock morbidity, and in particular, patterns that suggest something weird is going on (like a new disease starting up). The idea that this system would completely not have noticed the amount of meat consumed by families of pumas roaming the fields is a bit of a stretch, to be polite.

Rolfe.

[jhunter1163]

Wait until transmogrification comes to your town. Felix turns into the Pink Panther.

Shouldn't that be transmoggification?

[William Parcher]

Shouldn't that be transmoggification?


Nope (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4954620&postcount=156).

[I Ratant]

This is cougar. A big one.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=14876&d=1249000251
.
I believe this is the cougar that was killed by train, some 1000 miles from where it had been tagged.
Big cat!

[William Parcher]

A train?! It looks like it died in its sleep. I think I've seen those photos used in a hoax.

[gtc]

My Grandmother's back garden is about 30 metres behind the trees in the background of the video shown on the BBC's (British Broadcasting not the Big Cat Society) website.

Unless, of course, we have an invisible ghost panther that only slips through the interdimensional void to have one quick chomp, then disappears again....

Rolfe.

You may be onto something. The man who spotted the Helensburgh cat works at Faslane; maybe they are covering up a leak of some mutagenic substance that turns ordinary house cats into interdimensional invisible ghost panthers.