Warning Panter Sighting In Obion County

[dawgdoc]

 Not saying it's impossible, but find me the last reported case of a large cat in the wild attacking a person in the eastern United States. 

 

Not an attack, exactly, but more than just seeing one across a field:  http://www.fieldandstream.com/pages/discussion-topic-was-forester-chased-black-panther   And a more complete version: http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/sc-black-panther/

[TMF]

Not an attack, exactly, but more than just seeing one across a field: http://www.fieldandstream.com/pages/discussion-topic-was-forester-chased-black-panther And a more complete version: http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/sc-black-panther/

I would not count this as reliable one bit. Single source reporting with no physical evidence to back up the claim. I might be inclined to believe the story if people didn't make terrible eye witnesses. He either made it up, or was being chased by a small black bear. Younger ones are incredibly skinny making their legs appear longer than on a normal bear.

The other part would be that there is more evidence of flying saucers and Bigfoot than there is for the existence of a black panther. With today's technology equipped society, there would be photographs, video or trail cam pictures by now. In Florida we have only 200 panthers in the whole state, yet FWC gets them on trail cams quite frequently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dawgdoc]

Eyewitnesses can be unreliable, but that does not mean every eyewitness is in tact unreliable. Each report shuld be examined on its merits--distance, clarity of the view, experience of the eyewitness. In the case a guy who spends a whole lot of time in the woods was spooked enough to jump in a river in the winter. He could be lying in order to cover a careless fall into the river, but why make up a story involving a panther rather than a bear?

Discounting all eyewitness reports as unreliable is disingenous because there is a large spectrum of quality of sightings. If I, person who works with animals everyday, has two college degrees, experience working directly with (as in touching) wildlife such as bears, and is generally level-headed, was told by some game warden that I must have seen a dog or a bear instead of a large cat, I would be highly offended. I would also be disappointed in our public servants refusing to do their jobs because it is easier to discount reports than to investigate.

Just because some city slicker who gas never been to a zoo once reported a black chow as a bear doesn't mean every eyewitness is that unreliable. The same thing happens with known animals. Black bears live throughout Georgia, but they are less often seen outside the mountains. When the rare one is spotted somewhere like Macon, the DNR tells people they probably saw a dog, until someone finally gets a good picture. They don't even apologize for basically calling people poor eyewitnesses or liars.

[TMF]

Eyewitnesses can be unreliable, but that does not mean every eyewitness is in tact unreliable. Each report shuld be examined on its merits--distance, clarity of the view, experience of the eyewitness. In the case a guy who spends a whole lot of time in the woods was spooked enough to jump in a river in the winter. He could be lying in order to cover a careless fall into the river, but why make up a story involving a panther rather than a bear?

Discounting all eyewitness reports as unreliable is disingenous because there is a large spectrum of quality of sightings. If I, person who works with animals everyday, has two college degrees, experience working directly with (as in touching) wildlife such as bears, and is generally level-headed, was told by some game warden that I must have seen a dog or a bear instead of a large cat, I would be highly offended. I would also be disappointed in our public servants refusing to do their jobs because it is easier to discount reports than to investigate.

Just because some city slicker who gas never been to a zoo once reported a black chow as a bear doesn't mean every eyewitness is that unreliable. The same thing happens with known animals. Black bears live throughout Georgia, but they are less often seen outside the mountains. When the rare one is spotted somewhere like Macon, the DNR tells people they probably saw a dog, until someone finally gets a good picture. They don't even apologize for basically calling people poor eyewitnesses or liars.

When I hear hooves I assume it's horses, not zebras. Once again, there is zero compelling case for this mystery animal other than the desire for it to exist. If you replaced "black panther" with "Bigfoot" it would have the same credibility, based on the lack of any tangible evidence. Scratch that, there's actually video evidence of Bigfoot, and reliable if you ask a Sasquatchologist, so that puts our panther one rung down from Bigfoot.

I'm a skeptic by nature. It's based on a lifetime of experience dealing with other people. When being skeptical of something, I utilize my internal assessment matrix which catalogs indicators. This story does not pass the smell test. I have never once been proven wrong when accessing my skepticometer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Moped]

Yep. Needs a NSFA tag. Not Safe For Anyone.

Wrong!  Not Safe for ANYWHERE!  That jpeg should be banned from the internet!

[dawgdoc]

I would disagree that there is zero compelling evidence.  Eyewitness sightings and footprints are evidence; they just are not the type of evidence that proves to science something exists.  However, once that thing has been shown to exist, both sightings and footprints are perfectly acceptable as evidence that the thing is in that particular area.  I agree that science will not accept a large black cat in America until there is a body.  Although DNA testing should be adequate on parts of a body, it won't be.

 

Take ball lightning for example.  For years, it "didn't exist."  Many people saw the phenomena and reported similar manifestations, yet science did not accept that it existed.  That is, until it one day did exist.  Even then, it was not until the 21st century when ball lightning was replicated in a laboratory, and they still don't know exactly what it is.  So something that "didn't exist" left the ranks of the damned and joined the ranks of scientific knowledge.  Would those scientists who created ball lightning had even tried if it had not been reported for all those years?  And now that we know it exists, it may explain a whole host of supernatural things, such as UFOs and ghosts.

[Oh Shoot]

...but why make up a story involving a panther rather than a bear?

 

Homo sapiens has largely always believed all sorts of stuff for which there is no evidence, and perception is altered to fit what we already "want to believe". From fanciful creatures all the way to the conceit of one's eternal consciousness. Largely due to our ongoing progression of attempting to explain the natural universe without adequate information, and resistance to that information once available when it conflicts with preexisting beliefs.

 

Not to mention the psychology of the simple tall tale within our ongoing folklore. A bear is ho-hum, "dog bites man" is not news, even a cougar where highly unlikely isn't enough, better to make it a black one. ;)

 

Perhaps melanistic cougars exist. But there's never been any evidence in the hundreds of years of the cougar being identified as a species, so if they do they must be exceedingly rare indeed, and hence the number of "sightings" logically totally out of proportion to any basis in fact. So pick your own motive for folks saying so. I choose "people - they're the worst". :)

 

- OS

Edited October 11, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[Schadenfreude]

You're looking in the wrong places for these cats

[bigtruuck]

thats not a cougar its a clearly a polecat

[Oh Shoot]

thats not a cougar its a clearly a polecat

 

[monkeylizard]

That's a ninja turtle.

[Wingshooter]

Why have I not been checking this thread? It's full of win. Well, except for post #53 by TMF. That's proof right there that strange creatures do exist. I was going to repost the pic but was afraid it would crack my ipad.

[gjohnsoniv]

It's Post Turtle!

[TrickyNicky]

 

 

Obama?  :stunned:

[TMF]

I would disagree that there is zero compelling evidence. Eyewitness sightings and footprints are evidence; they just are not the type of evidence that proves to science something exists. However, once that thing has been shown to exist, both sightings and footprints are perfectly acceptable as evidence that the thing is in that particular area. I agree that science will not accept a large black cat in America until there is a body. Although DNA testing should be adequate on parts of a body, it won't be.

Take ball lightning for example. For years, it "didn't exist." Many people saw the phenomena and reported similar manifestations, yet science did not accept that it existed. That is, until it one day did exist. Even then, it was not until the 21st century when ball lightning was replicated in a laboratory, and they still don't know exactly what it is. So something that "didn't exist" left the ranks of the damned and joined the ranks of scientific knowledge. Would those scientists who created ball lightning had even tried if it had not been reported for all those years? And now that we know it exists, it may explain a whole host of supernatural things, such as UFOs and ghosts.

Sure, but proving something which at one time was not accepted is not proof of a black panther. It just isn't. Until there is real evidence, it doesn't exist. Just like Bigfoot.
Back to my original reason for my post, it was to discount the notion of killing a large cat in self defense. I do believe there is a strong possibility of mountain lions in East Tennessee, however rare they may be. My point was to illustrate that they must not pose much danger, since there is no REAL evidence of anyone being attacked. The most dangerous creature in the woods walks on two legs. If mountain lions are officially listed as being present in TN, there will be no limit to the number of bubbas going out to try and kill one and say it was self defense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

..... If mountain lions are officially listed as being present in TN, there will be no limit to the number of bubbas going out to try and kill one and say it was self defense.

 

They don't need to be acknowledged by TWRA for that to happen now. Which is simply more evidence how rare they are, if extant at all in any real sense here, meaning breeding populations compared to a once in blue moon lost wanderer. No shortage of bubbas to whack one and publicize it.

 

Forget just hunters -- if you can go 100 years and not have an extant species of mammal killed by a car in TN, that's about as rare as it gets. Yet hundreds, maybe thousands,  of people have "seen" them here. Right.

 

And even given those odds with "normal" ones, what are the odds of all the BLACK ones really being seen when nobody since the advent of photography has documented one dead or alive. NOBODY. EVER. ANYWHERE. In it's entire range, of which TN would compare to like 1% or something of just its current known extent. Yet lots of people have "seen" "black painters" in TN too. Riiiggghhhttt.

 

 

- OS

[runco]

I haven't seen a red fox killed on the road in years, but until I placed a trail camera out a few months ago, I didn't realize what a population that I have of red foxes.  So I guess my eyes are fooling me.  No dead fox on the road = no foxes.  Doesn't pass my BS meter.

[Spots]

I haven't seen a red fox killed on the road in years, but until I placed a trail camera out a few months ago, I didn't realize what a population that I have of red foxes. So I guess my eyes are fooling me. No dead fox on the road = no foxes. Doesn't pass my BS meter.

I will say I haven't seen a coyote, bobcat or fox dead on the road ever that I can remeber, nor do I know anyone who has hit one, but I see both coyotes and red foxes with regularity and bobcats 2 to 3 times a month. I know they exist, I have trapped, hunted or treed all 3 of them at one time or another. I'm not saying there's a large population of mountain lines or pantsrs here, but I do believe people see them with some regularity and there will always be some liqured up redneck who wants to kill a predator or any animal that is trying to be left alone, and will use any excuse to do so.

Sent from behind the anvil

[Capbyrd]

If mountain lions are officially listed as being present in TN, there will be no limit to the number of bubbas going out to try and kill one and say it was self defense.
 

 

 

 

And people say that Memphis is bad.  At least around here we only kill the invading species. 

[monkeylizard]

pantsrs found

 

 

[Wingshooter]

And they're even wearing belts!? They must be defective or maybe should come with instructions. :shake:

[Oh Shoot]

I haven't seen a red fox killed on the road in years, but until I placed a trail camera out a few months ago, I didn't realize what a population that I have of red foxes.  So I guess my eyes are fooling me.  No dead fox on the road = no foxes.  Doesn't pass my BS meter.

 

Well, I guess you're right -- since you are 1/6,000,000th of the state population and all, you should be a plenty wide enough sample. ;)

 

I will say I haven't seen a coyote, bobcat or fox dead on the road ever that I can remeber, nor do I know anyone who has hit one, but I see both coyotes and red foxes with regularity and bobcats 2 to 3 times a month. I know they exist, I have trapped, hunted or treed all 3 of them at one time or another. I'm not saying there's a large population of mountain lines or pantsrs here, but I do believe people see them with some regularity and there will always be some liqured up redneck who wants to kill a predator or any animal that is trying to be left alone, and will use any excuse to do so.

 

Ironically, I myself,  as also that huge 1/6,000,000th sample of the state population, have seen both foxes and a coyote dead on the road, right here in the middle of Knoxville no less - the coyote only about six months ago, likely the same one I've seen alive nearby a number of times, and more than one fox (I used to have any number of them right behind my condo, along with possums, coons, and whatnot in a small remaining urban wildlife cul de sac).

 

Then again, I walk the streets. A lot. Easier to notice what the road kill is.  Might have something to do with it, dunno. Or that foxes and coyotes are primarily urbanites these days. ;)

 

- OS

[monkeylizard]

You heard it here first, folks. Oh Shoot is a self-confessed street walker.

[Oh Shoot]

You heard it here first, folks. Oh Shoot is a self-confessed street walker.

 

I'm cheap, but I ain't free.

[Spots]

Well, I guess you're right -- since you are 1/6,000,000th of the state population and all, you should be a plenty wide enough sample. ;)


Ironically, I myself, as also that huge 1/6,000,000th sample of the state population, have seen both foxes and a coyote dead on the road, right here in the middle of Knoxville no less - the coyote only about six months ago, likely the same one I've seen alive nearby a number of times, and more than one fox (I used to have any number of them right behind my condo, along with possums, coons, and whatnot in a small remaining urban wildlife cul de sac).

Then again, I walk the streets. A lot. Easier to notice what the road kill is. Might have something to do with it, dunno. Or that foxes and coyotes are primarily urbanites these days. ;)

- OS

Must be the city dwelling. I've seen several foxes and coyotes live around my house, but none dead. I ride a motorcycle everywhere and tend to notice road kill. Hitting a swollen 20 lb coon in a car is bad. It exploding all over your motorcycle is so much worse....... I do see tons of coons, possum and skunk though. I do think a lot of foxes moved into the city life for easier food sources.

Sent from behind the anvil