Comments on: Panther Photographed in NY

By: CalebKitson

CalebKitson — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:45:52 +0000

It looks like it’s front paws are bound.

By: northeast cryptid

northeast cryptid — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 23:45:38 +0000

I have seen a Mountain lion in N.E. Pa.-(18643 between Wilkes-barre/Scranton)—it’s been hanging around a 3 square mile area for about 4 years now. Several people have come to me with their sightings,but I have not been fortunate to run into it again since the initial sighting along with my father. No mistaking any other animal for a mountain lion…very distinct appearance.

By: MrInspector

MrInspector — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:21:48 +0000

Now, that’s a cougar photo!

By: youcantryreachingme

youcantryreachingme — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 12:49:00 +0000

Having now read most comments here, and all comments at the source article, I really don’t think that photo links in with the report of recent cougar sightings in NY. I don’t think it’s a cardboard cutout – the eyeshine level is normal. I don’t think it’s a stick in front of the paw (I see the stick you mean but I don’t think it aligns exactly with the mark on the paw). But more importantly, as commentators here – and at the source article – have said, if the photo links with the story, why didn’t the writer explain it? If it doesn’t, then why didn’t they put a caption explaining this is what a mountain lion looks like? Despite the comments, the editors haven’t responded.

One thing to be said though – plenty of other people wrote in at the source article to say “I saw a big cat at xyz date, and abc location” etc.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 07:12:01 +0000

Alligator- I agree. I think the possibility of cougars in the area is very strong and their presence likely. A lot of very convincing evidence certainly points that way, and like you said, these animals can have large ranges and are known to expand outward into new territories. Considering the ecology and habitat of these Eastern areas, I can’t see any real reason why mountain lions could not successfully gain a foothold there. If there are populations of cougars in the area, I would not be that surprised at all.

By: Alligator

Alligator — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 04:18:50 +0000

Yup, that’s a cougar but I want to know where the photo was taken and who took it, etc. and then someone ought to be able to go to that spot and find that specific tree in the background.

In November 1993 a cougar killed deer was verified in Keene Valley NY by DEC biologist Ed Reed.

April 1997 in Quabbin Reservoir Massachusetts, scat found at a beaver kill tested for DNA turned out to be cougar.

July 1995 Maine Fisheries and Wildlife verified a cougar by DNA at Cape Elizabeth.

September 2000 tracks of a female with a kitten were verified by Maine wildlife biologists after a hunter reported seeing the pair.

In the past few years there have been five officially confirmed sightings in New Brunswick and Quebec. Of course, there have been many unverified sightings throughout this region. So while I would want to see more details about this photo, the possibility of wild cougars in upstate New York is strong and I think growing each decade. Remember, cougars will haunt an area of 150 to 300 square miles. Tagged males have now been documented as traveling from 600 to nearly 900 miles seeking to establish new territories. They can move and spread much further than we originally believed.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 01:57:07 +0000

DWA- And you are right, I am very critical with evidence. I want to make sure that it is solid before resting any hypothesis on it. This is imperative in any scientific field.

To me, the photo here is solid, but the chance remains it is not what it seems in terms of relevance to the sighting. I guess you could say that I am convinced that this is not a photoshopped picture and fairly convinced it is not an intentional hoax, and that the evidence suggests a photograph of a mountain lion, yet I’m not totally convinced that the photo was taken where it is claimed. That possibility still needs to be considered and that is what I’d like to see more information on in this case.

Some others here including Kittenz (whose opinion I value) have claimed to have seen this photo before, which raises an eyebrow for me. If this is the case, then I’d be very curious to see if someone were to come forward with this photo in its original context.

Until then, however, I think we have to consider that this photo could be something special. I won’t say it is absolutely legit until I know for sure, but it is very compelling.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 00:19:07 +0000

DWA- Yes, I do want to know more on this photo, namely whether it was really taken where it is claimed to have been taken. It seems the only thing we have to go on is that the newspaper decided to print this photo with this story which as Loren states probably has a reason. Yet other than that, the location of the photo does not seem to be established.

Other than that, it is unmistakably a photo of a mountain lion. There doesn’t need to be any chain of evidence to establish that, pumas are a known animal well documented by science. It is not as if we are using this photo to establish the existence of a completely new animal (like the sasquatch). What isn’t agreed upon or established is whether there is a population where this one was claimed to be.

So the location is what is needed to be proven here, not if mountain lions exist (which is the big hurdle for sasquatch). If it can be ascertained the exact source of this photo and that it was taken where claimed, then it is very strong evidence for the Eastern mountain lion indeed.

Right now, like corrick said (and as I said too actually,) it is just a clear picture of a mountain lion. But I do think this is potentially great evidence and that we should give it a chance. If the location is legit, then it will be really exciting.

By: corrick

corrick — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:46:05 +0000

People, until a “chain of evidence” is firmly established it’s just a photo of a mountain lion, nothing more, nothing less.
Not that I don’t think there are some mountain lions in the northeast and mid-atlantic states. But could they also be western mountain lions expanding territory or the classic escaped/abandoned pets?
Question. Is there enough DNA documentation on record to differentiate an eastern mountain lion from a western one?

By: DWA

DWA — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 17:20:39 +0000

mystery_man: I feel better already.

I know you to be pretty tough on evidence. And to be fair, you have to be. As I’ve said more than often enough here: evidence is just that. It can’t be proof until it passes a threshhold. Now, yes, science sets that threshhold on a case by case basis. But evidence is how they set it.

A photo has almost never, by itself, been accepted as proof without copious additional evidence that science considers valid. My strongest argument for (gosh, here she is again) the Patterson film is: nothing’s been proposed in 40 years to make us think it isn’t a sasquatch. NOT: that film is proof. A photo – a film – could have been taken anywhere; I have to hold out, however remote, the possibility of a fake or a shot taken out of context. I have to take it on the word of the presenting authority that a photo was taken where it was. I’d want to know more if I were a scientist pronouncing on this.

(Me personally? I don’t need to know more. But what clinches it for me doesn’t – and shouldn’t, really – clinch it for science. This is why “you must believe me” sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. No I don’t, unless your evidence convinces me.)

Given everything else I have heard, however – and given my virtual certainty that that shot is a mountain lion, and my strong confidence that the shot was taken where claimed – I’m seeing something I’ve long suspected looking more and more like something that’s really happening.