Merged Alien Big Cats in the UK?

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
 
Last edited:
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:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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 ?
 
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.
 
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...ats-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.
 
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
 
its because in the wild bipeds are a normal food source for leopards, and so they have developed strategies to kill them efficiently
[qimg]http://img2.allposters.com/images/LIFPOD/1181157.jpg[/qimg]
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Back
Top Bottom