This follows extensive investigations by vertebrate pest experts
In their fantasies.
One guy turned up and looked at tree scratches about 2 years ago.
We gave him email responses to photos of the marks, that we had sent to herpetologists in Australia.
None thought the marks were due to goanna/possum and there are no koalas in the area.
Which leaves what animal.????
The ag dept didnt contact one of the experts and then lost the emails.
We did this because the dept had no herpetologist they could email and because the dept didnt bother doing a google search for any ...
The same guy swabbed a killed wallaby for saliva..then sent the swab away.
First result was "not dog"..great...no...the dpi wanted the swab done again.
Second result "not dog"..great..no..dpi wanted the test done again.
Third test, different scientist result=..."dog"...Dept of primary Industries was happy.
DPI conclusion was = dog but the results were inconclusive.
And a dog trapper was sent down, he faked a kill site, photographed a dog print, said it was a cat and then admitted he had lied to test people.
Yes...that about sums up their work in 12 years.
3 visits in 12 years...
The footprint casts came back as leopard like from taronga park .
An unnamed public servant reversed that conclusion in the final report.
And they had the brilliant idea of sending all scats/hair to experts that did not know what large felid scats/hair looked like.
We blind tested all of them with leopard scats and hair...
None got it right..guess who still tests for them....
Herpetologists study amphibians and lizards.
They may possibly be able to identify scratches as belonging to a reptile species.
Surely a large feline predator specialist ( with suitable academic qualifications) would be more relevant?
They may possibly be able to identify scratches as belonging to a reptile species.
..yes
Surely a large feline predator specialist ( with suitable academic qualifications) would be more relevant?
Sure..If we were talking about marks on trees possibly created by large felines like Lions/tigers etc..
In this instance we are talking about the possibility of a felid that is in the ranges of Asiatic Golden cat to leopards.
The first DPI "report" which is not released yet by the DPI stated". .The scratches are found at various heights in the trees and are similar to those found in other areas. These scratches are not consistent with a native animal as they are too big and deep in the tree to be a koala, goanna or possum. nor are they from a domestic cat." I just dont think , in regards to secondary evidence, tree scratches are that great compared to spoor prints.
If we could eliminate the most probable then it just points to something fairly interesting.
Sure..If we were talking about marks on trees possibly created by large felines like Lions/tigers etc..
In this instance we are talking about the possibility of a felid that is in the ranges of Asiatic Golden cat to leopards.
I don't recall making any specific felid size qualifications, other than large feline predator.
The first DPI "report" which is not released yet by the DPI stated
Are you privy to DPI documentation prior to release, or was it leaked?
If we could eliminate the most probable then it just points to something fairly interesting.
Is that the case? Has the most probable been eliminated? If so, how?
Fred Tobin wrote:
Is that the case? Has the most probable been eliminated? If so, how?
Fred... to save yourself further embarrassment, go to this website to find all the information you will need on the subject... or.....
just read Mike's quote, which answers your last question before you even asked it...
I don't recall making any specific felid size qualifications, other than large feline predator.
I dont recall ever saying you did. If the animal is not "large", and the damage to the tree did not look like it was from a "large" feline....ergo...
The large feline specialists you were referring to in your posts would be called primarily "zoologists" and "biologists"...
Are you privy to DPI documentation prior to release, or was it leaked?
FOI
Is that the case?
Parsimony..
Has the most probable been eliminated?
We brought in the opinions of herpetologists, you know, the people you told mestudy amphibians and lizards... identify scratches as belonging to a reptile species...." The reason we used herpetologists....drum roll...was for the exact reasons you told me what a herpetologist actually does.
Thats why we used them...
The National Parks and DPI staff on site did not think the scratches were from native animals.....
If you want the emails from the herpetologists then go to the links to my blog and ask the DPI for them.
If you read the posts above you will find this from the 1st DPI report 2008..". .The scratches are found at various heights in the trees and are similar to those found in other areas. These scratches are not consistent with a native animal as they are too big and deep in the tree to be a koala, goanna or possum. nor are they from a domestic cat." If we go back to 2003 DPI report we find this conclusion. "Scratch marks found metres up trees.The origin of these scratch marks is thought not to be made by a koala, possum.feral cat or goanna as they are so deep and so long."
Fred Tobin wrote:
Is that the case? Has the most probable been eliminated? If so, how?
Fred... to save yourself further embarrassment, go to this website to find all the information you will need on the subject... or.....
just read Mike's quote, which answers your last question before you even asked it...
Thank you Daniel and Mike, for your courtesy.
BTW, I am certain that there are big cats at large in the bush, so there is no need to address me as you might an infant. (or a skeptic).
..yes
