Victorian Government Big Cat Study
Assessment of Evidence for the Presence in Victoria of a Wild Population of ‘Big Cats
The Victorian Government recently contracted some biologists to investigate reports of ‘panthers’ in that state in a ‘desktop study’.
Source
The report fell down in a number of areas, not least because
it set out to either prove or disprove the existence of big cats but made no
attempt to collect fresh evidence, and from the outset was dealing with
secondary evidence and sources.
It was a study commenced to find primary evidence of big
cats in Victoria – despite the fact this office-based review was starting off
with no primary evidence at all!
There are numerous statements contained within the report
that do not stand up to scrutiny, quoted here in bold with clarifying
statements underneath:
“Although feral Domestic Cats can attain a large size
(weights of up to 16 kg have been claimed (Denny and Dickman 2010).”
This paper (Denny and Dickman 2010) is quoting Mahood (1980). The rest of the paper
went on to say: "Because Mahood’s 1980 records appear so extreme and
have not been approached in any subsequent studies, and the author is deceased,
they are considered to have been erroneous and are not subject to further
discussion."
The 16 kg claim has not so far been substantiated.
“However, there are many thousands of reports of ‘big cats’
in the files of community cryptozoological groups and individuals.”
Let’s not try to marginalise these reports by confining them
to ‘community cryptozoological groups and individuals”, the subtext of which
one suspects is ‘kooks’. There are also numerous reports of big cat sightings
in State Government databases collected by their own staff that have been
flushed out by numerous FOI requests.
“However, some evidence cannot be dismissed entirely,
including preliminary DNA evidence…”
Exactly which "case" are they talking about? If
the authors are talking about the Winchelsea case, they managed to appear to
try and dismiss it.
“The wide geographic spread and temporal span of claims
of alien ‘big cats’ and other predators suggests that it may be a human
sociological phenomenon, rather than a biological fact.”
Many standard animal reports come from a wide geographic
spread and the majority of reports of any standard animal are temporal, so it’s
puzzling why academics would use this language. What other predators are they
talking about, and why bring it up?
Since sociology is the study of human social activity, why
are they using the nonsensical term “human sociological”? No attempt is made to
explain what sort of sociological phenomena the authors are trying to imply but
there is the appearance of an attempt to try and pathologise the observers.
Cognitive dissonance could explain the response of many academic observers to
the phenomena and their attempt to play down reports due to 1/peer pressure,
2/social and academic status, 3/financial implications i.e. State Government
sub-contracters and State Government staff members ... and good old ignorance.
“Consequently, claims of the presence of alien big cats,
which are rarely, if ever, supported by convincing evidence, are seldom taken
seriously by mainstream zoologists.”
1/The authors don't define the word "convincing".
To whom, themselves?
1/The majority of mainstream Australian zoologists would
know nothing about the phenomena.
2/The majority of mainstream zoologists in Australia know
nothing about the behaviour of large felids.
3/The majority of mainstream zoologists would come under the
same pressure mentioned above regarding cognitive dissonance.
“The Minister for Agriculture and Food Security requested,
in May 2012, a science-based, preliminary assessment of the available
evidence."
This is a preliminary assessment. Having scientists do a
study does not mean automatically that it is "science-based".
"Further, these databases of evidence have not been
subjected to independent and scientifically rigorous assessment. Without such
assessment, these private databases have limited capacity to advance
understanding of the issue. Where rigorous assessments have been conducted the
conclusion has always been either inconclusive, or that the most parsimonious
explanation involves a known species, notably Domestic Cat or Dog.”
No one appears to have edited this "scientific
study". One minute the databases have not being assessed, the next minute
they have been.
We must ask - who carried out the "rigorous
assessments"? Or are the authors being coy when they are self-referencing
?
And let’s sort out "parsimonious" – an adjective
characterised by or showing parsimony; frugal or stingy.
So it’s a stingy explanation?
We agree with this assessment, but not in the way the authors
intended.
“A small number of the cases we reviewed either showed
characteristics considered unusual in known species or showed characteristics
known to occur in large felids, such as dragging and covering a carcass, or
peeling back the skin from a limb of a carcass to access the flesh, a feat
requiring considerable strength. Assessing this evidence either requires us to
expand the pattern of behaviours attributable to known species of predator (for
example, Dog), or deduce the presence of an unknown species. In the absence of
convincing corroborating evidence for an unknown species, the former conclusion
is considered the most appropriate at this stage.”
The pea and thimble in the above is, of course, "In the
absence of convincing corroborating evidence for an unknown species".
Once again, convincing to whom? What cases were examined
with more than a singular line of "evidence"?
Could not even one other case...corroborate a single case?
Or the Winchelsea could corroborate cases near by. It’s just that the authors
choose not too.
The authors even resort to deciding off their own bat to now
"expand the pattern of behaviours" i.e. of dog, to try and
maladroitly avoid an unknown predator conclusion. The basis of this
decision(other than the obvious) is not explained of course. This is a logical
fallacy called Argument from Ignorance and it is amazing that a
"scientific study" used it.
“In other cases people have claimed that known predators,
such as wild Dogs or Pigs, are not present in a district, and therefore
predation must be caused by an unknown species (i.e. ‘big cat’). It seems more
likely that our understanding of the distributions of known predators is
inadequate.”
No, the authors are confused. People are pointing out the
predation patterns they are seeing because they are not something they have
seen associated with dogs or pigs. And pigs and wild dogs are frequently not
present in their area when the livestock attacks and kills occur.
Interestingly, many of the "people" reporting
these unusual patterns have also been DSE staff, who are more than aware of
what dog and pig predation looks like.
In reference to "The Deakin Puma Study Group" the
authors write:
“However, despite the stated aims of objectivity we have
discerned some potential sources of bias in the approaches used. For example, the
title given to the study ‘Deakin Puma Study’ is likely to have led to
unconscious bias in the volunteer participants, predisposing them to read ‘Puma’
into inconclusive evidence.”
The authors imply that the title preceded the study, so that
it could possibly influence the volunteers’ bias. Which means the authors must
have researched this by contacting Deakin University, or the study’s author Dr
John Henry, because how else would they know this ‘fact’? Surely a scientific
report, would not present facts by guessing!
But it transpires Professor John Henry decided the title
after the study was completed (pers comms).
The irony of mentioning unconscious bias is obviously lost
on the authors of this “scientific study”.
No mention is made of the Deakin study actually tricking its
participants by fakery, then telling them to be on their guard in future, in
this report.
And there is no mention of the Deakin study’s conclusions.
“This scat became one of five pieces of evidence upon
which Henry (2001) based his conclusion that there ‘is sufficient evidence from
a number of intersecting sources to affirm beyond reasonable doubt the presence
of a big-cat population in Western Victoria’. However, in an addendum to the
report, Henry (2001) admits that the Geranium Springs scat 2 is most likely a
regurgitated pellet from a Wedge-tailed Eagle."
Because Henry et al were wrong with some analysis (and
admitted it!), the Deakin Study group was, by implication, wrong on all pieces
of evidence, according to this report, and its findings should therefore be
dismissed.
Following that exact same logic, this report’s findings
should also be dismissed.
“We believe that this revised finding is indicative of
the Deakin Puma Study Group falling into the understandable position of being
captured by the legend it was seeking to prove.”
This patronising response is projecting its own motives on
to other groups.
Why would a long and active, real scientific field study be
“captured” by a “legend”? It is also normal scientific practise to admit a
mistake, as the Deakin study did.
“Another case worthy of close consideration involves
photographs of two clear footprints on a sandy track in Longford Pine
Plantation taken in December 2005 and supplied by Richard Sealock, along with
an analysis of their size and shape. We agree that these footprints are highly
likely to have been made by a cat and that their reported dimensions are
greater than could be explained by a Domestic Cat, however, that is as far as
that line of evidence can be taken.”
Confusingly, however, there is no indication of the actual
size of the prints.
Richard Sealock stated he believed the prints to be 87mm-88
mm (pers comms).
The authors had time to cut and paste leopard photos easily
found on the Internet, which were not required, but had no time to cut and
paste the Sealock prints or mention their size.?
“We find that none of the investigations that have
focussed on secondary and tertiary evidence has succeeded in providing an
unequivocal answer. We see little point in dedicating public resources to that
line of inquiry.”
What “investigations” are the authors taking about? The
Sealock prints, in my opinion, are giving an “unequivocal answer” – they’re
large felid. Just as the Winchelsea case are odds-on Panthera pardus.
“No ‘big cat’ scats have been identified during studies
involving the systematic collection and analysis of thousands of mammalian
predator scats (feral Domestic Cat, wild Dog (includes Dingo), Red Fox)
undertaken as part of studies of predator diet and as a mammal survey technique
(for example, Brunner et al. 1976, Klare et al. 2011).”
Another pea and thimble trick.
The weakness of the systemic collection meme is below - and the
above ‘argument’, as weak as it is, falls apart for identification outside the
authors’ stated parameter.
We are forced to rely on the authors’ implied access to
every scat report ever compiled in Victoria.
We are forced to believe that every field worker who did (by
implication) find a possible outsized felid scat, would automatically know this
and report it.
We are then forced to have to believe that this report would
have made it into some form of study.
We are then forced to believe that scientists who supposedly
are skilled in scat analysis and could identify large felid scats were always
contacted and that the same scientists, who are sub-contractors, are highly
skilled at identifying large felid scats.
And then we are forced to believe that this same unknown
scat scientist would be unaware of what the implications were if they did
report the scat was from an unknown large felid and were oblivious to the
ramifications to their possible future contracts.
And, without a family identification (since species would be
impossible without DNA) this hypothetical scat result would be dismissed with
the wave of a hand since it did not “prove” what species of animal the scat
came from.
And when the scat is identified by DNA down to species
level...this is ignored anyway.
Now what about outside the “involving the systematic
collection and analysis” parameters of this statement?
The Winchelsea case (discussed further down) fits the bill
perfectly.
The Kurt Engel cat
“DSE arranged for the extraction and analysis of DNA from
a small sample of skin taken with permission from this tail. The analysis was
undertaken at the Department of Genetics, Monash University, and the result was
that the sample exhibited between 97.7% and 100% sequence identity with the
Domestic Cat, and only 87% sequence identity with the Leopard (Kate Charlton in
lit. to Bernard Mace, 24 November 2005, copy on DSE file 85/3043-4). The length
of this cat’s tail, at 65 cm, is twice that of a normal Cat (Appendix 1) but it
may have been stretched during skinning, a common occurrence if care is not
taken. Hence, the conclusion is that the animal was a particularly large
individual of Felis catus, the Domestic Cat.”
In their haste to produce this "scientific
report", did the authors not think it was odd, that if the DSE arranged
the extraction and analysis, the only reference for this in all of its files is
"Bernard Mace, 24 November 2005, copy on DSE file 85/3043-4)"? Why no
reference to the actual DSE file?
Because Bernard Mace, who passed the sample to Charlton, was
not working for the DSE. The DSE, as the authors would have known, had nothing
to do with the “Engel case” what so ever. And it is worse than that…
The DSE was initially offered the tail and photos, but their
staff were not the slightest bit interested.
The only plausible way the tail could have been altered in a
way to have increased the length to any decent level, was not by stretching,
which would have torn it. It would have required a "trick" cut
further up the body, but fraud was dismissed by a Melbourne Museum biologist
who examined the tail firsthand.
Australian Big Cats: An Unnatural History of Panthers
(Strange Nation Publishing, 2010) tells the full story:
Melbourne
Museum biologist Rory O’Brien was one of the few people to physically examine
the tail soon after the animal was shot. He dismissed claims the length of the
tail may have been hoaxed by skinning a part of the back hide.
“It was
large, pretty long ...the tail was very thick overall and very furry and the
last 3-4cm of the tail still had the remaining caudal vertebrae. It seemed
pretty fresh to me,” he said. “It looked authentic…because the tail was the
same colour (as the photographs). It was a uniform tail, all black. It was very
bushy, but sleek and catlike in texture.”
An
attempt to have the material further examined by DSE employees was rebuffed by
the department.
The Engel tail was also examined by Bernard Mace, a
long-time cat researcher with extensive field experience, who was also of the
opinion the tail was genuine and had not been tampered with.
So we have two scientists who examined the fresh physical
evidence, but two biologists looking at photographs have a more valid
scientific opinion? Hmmmmm…
Earlier in this post I referred to the Winchelsea faecal sample,
which is a highlight of the report since it basically is saying that secondary
evidence led to a species ID using DNA.
Winchelsea faecal sample
This result seems not to have been formally conveyed to any
Government Department and has not been publicised before this study, apart from
a passing reference in Australian Big Cats: An Unnatural History of Panthers
(Strange Nation Publishing, 2010). Scientist Stephen Frankenberg has personally
conveyed that the decision not to publish this information was largely because
the result could not be considered 100% reliable due to a small possibility of
contamination (note that Triggs had leopard hairs in her workshop).
The contamination issue was a strawman argument.
If there was contamination, then both ‘control’ hair (zoo)
and Winchelsea sample hair would have had the same DNA sequence exactly. They
would have, too, since they would, by implication, be just from the same
animal.
The two samples were not the same animal since they shared
similar but not identical DNA sequences (to ID the animals as leopard), but
they also had a slight difference.
They were two different leopards (pers comms, D. Cass)!
In the late 1990s a high rate of predation of sheep in parts of South Gippsland created widespread interest. Attempts to identify and even to trap the predator did not produce results. Carrie Magnik, an Honours student in the Department of Genetics at La Trobe University conducted a study that attempted to extract predator DNA from saliva samples taken from attacked sheep, and from scats collected in the area (Magnik 2000). Canine- and feline-specific microsatellite markers were used to determine if dog or cat DNA was present in any samples. Two of 12 saliva samples indicated the presence of canine DNA and none indicated the presence of feline DNA so there is no evidence that the livestock were killed by any species of cat. However, the results were considered to be inconclusive because: 1) the tests could not exclude the possibility that farm dogs had access to the carcasses before the samples were collected, and 2) the possibility of contamination between sample collection and processing could not be excluded (Magnik 2000; N. Murray La Trobe University Department of Genetics pers. comm.). Faecal sampling was also inconclusive because of a failure to extract feline DNA, even from control samples.
These three cases highlight the difficulties in extracting and identifying traces of DNA from secondary sources such as carcasses and scats. Even when successful at extracting and amplifying DNA, the results will be probabilistic rather than binary.
Confusing language structure. All DNA results are essentially probabilistic, so what?
They are the gold standard for species ID.
It’s almost like the authors are trying to lessen the
importance of DNA results by using the term “probabilistic”.
The term “binary” is implied (possibly) to have some greater
scientific importance than mere probabilistic.
Binary means composed of two pieces or two parts, yet
paradoxically, in this specific sense, DNA results are always a binary result -
the sample and the extraction - so its use is baffling.
Veracity of available evidence
No unequivocal evidence supporting the presence of ‘big
cats’ in Victoria was found in this study.
We are guessing the authors mean “a body on the table”.
Perhaps even more compelling is the lack of evidence.
The authors appear to ignore their own conclusions.
see below
"Notwithstanding conclusions 1-3, some evidence
cannot be dismissed entirely, including preliminary DNA evidence, footprints
and some behaviours that seem to be outside the known behavioural repertoire of
known predators in Victoria."
see below
If they cannot check what meagre facts they present here,
and cannot even check their own report for inconsistencies like this, why are
the general public supposed to give any credence to this report?
When the authors of this report have made mistakes, “chance”
would dictate that unless they have some sort of bias, the mistakes would be
random.
Some of the mistakes would inadvertently support the
possible existence of big cats in Victoria, and some against this possibility.
But what is interesting is that all the major mistakes are
towards supporting the government’s views, and none for the opposite view.
The probability of that sort of result, happening by chance,
would be zero.
The report was not science-based but rather just a
collection of anecdotes and opinions that seemingly, in spite of itself, made
several interesting points such as the Winchelsea DNA result.
Conclusion number 4 and the six recommendations were
excellent and ‘on the money’, but sadly, they will never be implemented.
This desktop study of old reports was overwhelmingly a textbook
example of confirmation bias, and merely a tick of the box for a relatively new
state government eager to deliver on an election promise.
It’s also the latest in a long line of ‘government
investigations’ into a phenomena that has stalked the states of NSW and WA,
delivering yet another substandard result on what is surely one of Australia’s
most compelling wildlife mysteries.
Victorian Government Big Cat Study
Assessment of Evidence for the Presence in Victoria of a Wild Population of ‘Big Cats
Victorian Government Big Cat Study
Assessment of Evidence for the Presence in Victoria of a Wild Population of ‘Big Cats
