I recently read a hilarious comment on a local newspaper website concerning my research into 'big cats.' Y'know, the usual stuff, some person under a false name claiming that a pig skull I'd found, which belonged to an eaten pig, had in fact not harboured puncture wounds made from a large cat, but the holes were probably made by a meat hook (even though the poor pig had been found on a farm eaten)! The cowardly person then went on to state how the 'men in white coats' should be employed to come and take me away (and then thought it necessary to make quick mention of my 'Beatle haircut' and '60s style of dress ha!) as I had 'no evidence' to prove 'big cats' existed in the wilds of Kent. Of course, what usually happens on these type of message boards is that everyone and their aunt likes to get their point across, mostly those detractors who then begin to ask questions like, "Yeah, this guy hasn't got a clue because if there was a big cat around there would be slaughtered sheep, and paw prints, and scat..." even though I've spent the last 25 years of my life presenting photo's of such evidence. It's a worrying fact that so many people rarely venture beyond their television set nowadays and are all too keen to comment under false names on internet forums when they clearly haven't a clue wehat they are on about, I guess we can call them the 'X-Factore generation' of cavemen, those kind of people who have a nose that must be so large that they can't see beyond it. I recently spoke to a contact of mine towards the Tonbridge area - a chap who spends a lot of his time in the Kent wilds tracking deer - and he said that he recently bumped into a local man who scoffed at the possibility of there being deer in his neck of the woods. When my comment pointed to the unusual tracks in the mud, the local man said "Well, there is probably only one deer around..." but then fell silent when my friend told him there were probably several hundred, if not more, which he backed up by showing a film of the delightful animals. My friend then mentioned the large cat seen to which the local chap laughed, despite the fact my contact had photo's of several deer carcasses tha had been killed with a throat bite, the fur rasped and ribs sheared off. The local chap clearly had to rethink, especially when my friend then produced leopard scat consisting of deer fur. There are white deer in those woods too, and yet so rarely seen despite their pure white coats. It's great that such animals can shy away from cumbersome man, and it gives us a sense of the good ol' days when forests in England were real forests, harbouring lynx, bear, wolf and boar. However, most of these animals have been wiped out, but it's great to see the boar back. "Boar??!!" the local man questioned, "Ha! Pull the other one," he said, "there are no boar around Tunbridge Wells." And once again my friend produced the evidence, some lovely up close and personal photographs of boar - a small group of rather docile creatures that were more than happy to be photographed. These animals, according to my friend, had been shoo'ed away recently from a local school. It seems the boar are spreading. Authorities tend to not give official statistics when it comes to boar, in the past a majority of the animals have bene dismissed by authorities, despite the fact that many escaped from farms when a severe storm hit Kent in 1987. Most of these boar spread throughout East Kent and over into the marshy areas of Sussex such as Rye. At the time mock warnings were posted in local woods as part of a campaign to warn parents and dog walkers not to approach such 'savage beasts'. Sure, boar damage crops, and in some cases golf courses, but again, these animals were here long before us, then wiped out by man. In Sussex folklore such creatures were known as water dragons, they were feared due to their aggressive behaviour when approached. It seems that the boar have spread towards Tunbridge Wells, and also Sevenoaks, and yet people rarely see them. I wonder how much more naive can people get in regards to what animals lurk in our woods, mind you, a majority of these sceptics are the ignorant sort who seem to think that 'big cat' researchers believe lions and tigers exist in the local woods. I admit, a majority of big cat researchers are clueless,they are simply people who've crawled out of the woodwork over the last few years and lay claim to having investigating such animals for decades, when all they do is take the occasional stroll through their local woods. There are also some who believe that 'big cats' are supernatural, the most ludicrous suggestion I've ever heard, and then there are those overweight camo' folk who have made it their life's work to find a body of a 'big cat', and one can see why so many scoff at such souls, in the same way people laughed at the UFO anorak brigade, but it also a concern when some people refuse to look at any evidence presented to them, and there are also those 'country folk' who wouldn't even know what leopard scat looked like. So, it's a vicious circle, whether it's big cats, or once native species such as boar, or even thriving deer populations, there will always be a sceptic...the type of person who looks at an eaten deer carcass and claims it was a fox, and then looks at an eaten fox carcass and claims it was a badger,and then looks at an eaten badger carcass...in a tree, and claims a person put it there, and then claims that the puncture marks in the throat must have been made by a meat hook, and that the paw print next to the tree was made by a dog, and that the scat consisting of deer fur was probably owl pellet...and it goes on and on...but hey, where would we be without these blind idiots ? Everyone loves a debate, but when will some people realise that the animals people call 'big cats' are simply flesh and blood animals and not something akin to the Loch Ness Monster. Not even a body or film footage will suffice, because someone will always say, "Well, that probably escaped from a zoo...", there's just no pleasing a prat, and it's as simple as that I'm afraid. Photo copyright James Mitson

Over the last couple of decades there have bene numerous articles, and a handful of books, written pertaining to 'big cat' in the UK countryside. What I find amazing is the sheer lack of decent evidence presented in such works. Local news, magazines, newspapers, and even major news stations seem all too keen to feature the latest blurry photo of an alleged 'big cat' and yet the more obscure evidence found is far more conclusive yet largely ignored. In a recent post I mentioned how a whisker of a large cat, possibly a leopard had been found in Ashford by a woman who, during the snowfall had found a large set of paw prints in her garden that had clearly upset the behaviour of her pet cat. I now present a photo of the whisker, which measures some six inches. I also present a photo of a leopard showing how the whisker compares. This whisker - as naturalist Jonathan McGowan states, is certainly from a large cat, possibly a leopard. Judging by recent sightings around Ashford, a black leopard seems the ideal suspect. On 29th March 2012 a black leopard was seen by a motorist travelling on the A20070 towards Ashford. It was around 12:20 pm when the witness noticed a large, black, sleek-looking anima running across a field near the area of the military canal. The animla had a long tail with a rounded end. The witness stated, "I have seen a black cat at a zoo before, I think it was a jaguar - the cat I saw differed in frame - the one I saw was more slender."

Left, whisker of leopard for comparison to above image of whisker. There has also bene a recent sighting near Edenbridge, and the animal - or at least its back - may well have been caught on film. A dead fox was eaten by an unseen predator that returned to the carcass the following night. The animal slinked by a trigger camera which flashed once, getting a photo of the long back of the animal.

More leopard scat has also been found in Kent, a great contact of mine stumbled across the distinctive scat - full of deer fur - in an area where deer and fox carcasses have been piling up. People must be walking past so much 'big cat' evidence all the time without realising it. Whilst newspapers may not be interested in stories, or photo's of leopard scat, whiskers, and sheep/deer kills, I'd take this evidence any day over another blurry inconclusive photo of an alleged 'big cat'.

 

 

Recent visits to the wilds of Dartford Heath and the marshes of Higham and Cliffe prove without a shadow of a doubt that there is enough cover in the county of Kent to hide a handful of elusive animals. When one considers the amount of forest still left, especially in places such as Ashford, Canterbury, and neighbouring Sussex, I'm rather surprised how many people seem to think that there's nowhere in county for a large cat to conceal itself. Paw prints and scat (faeces) are relatively easy to find on remote pathways. Paw prints can of course be distorted in snow and ruined on bridle paths by dogs, horses, people, bikes, but they can be found. In most cases the paw print of a leopard or puma will be bereft of claw marks - cats retract their claws but dogs do not - dog prints are symmetrical in shape and the claws will be blunt. When a cat does throw its claws out, usually to grip, they'll often show as tiny pin pricks around the toes. The main pad is often 'away' from the toes whereas you'll find a dog pad seems to be pushed up behind the toes. The images show a sketch of a print and also an actual 'big cat' print found near Tonbridge, and cast.

Left - sketch of cougar print. Note three lobes on base of pad. Also, prints can be distorted as the rear paw of the cat comes forward to step in the front impression.

 

 

 Left, leopard prints cast in Penshurst.

With regards to other prints it's always worth getting used to the marks made by native species - badger, fox, deer. It's amazing how many photographs I get sent when we've had a heavy snow fall. As snow thaws prints distort as they melt and one animal that often leaves a fist-sized impression in the snow is a rabbit! Although the print would be bereft of a main pad, when a rabbit sits on its haunches it leaves seemingly four toe marks, this is caused by the front two feet and the hind feet. If you are unfamilar with animal tracks and signs it's worth looking on the internet or buying a book to guide you and then you'll know what to eliminate when looking for a cat. Other evidence left by large cats would be scratch marks on trees. Badgers marks trees up to a couple of feet, and deer often mark bark with their antlers, but a cat such as a leopard will often reach several feet up a bark not only to sharpen its claws but a male leopard sweats from his feet, excreting a scent from a gland as a marker. Bark will often be peeled back or there will be deep score marks. In some cases it will be worth looking around the base of the tree in case the cat had shed a claw.

Hair samples are also worth taking - a couple of years ago hair found in woods in Devon were analysed and proven to belong to a melanistic leopard. Hair can often be found on game trails in England where deer, foxes etc, travel through wiry bushes or under barbed wire fences etc. Hair can also be found on the carcass of prey.

 

Finally, we have scat. Leopard, puma, lynx, like any animal drop scat. Their scat reflects what they've eaten - when dry ,the scat of a leopard, which can reach lengths of 8 or so inches, will appear in chain formation and be greysih in complexion and it'll be full of hair and bone. Usually deer and rabbit fur is evident. The image below was photographed by a James Mitson who has proven to be a vital contact in the heavily wooded areas of Tunbridge Wells. James has photographed deer, fox and rabbit kills and numerous scat. It's always worth looking on countryside pathways, especially near to where dogs have desposited. cats mark their territory. On one occasion a huge piece of scat found has actually be trodden on by a dog walker!

 

Left, leopard scat - photo by James Mitson - sample is full of deer fur. Three separate zoologists agreed this scat was from a large cat species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Left - Hary Matthews photo taken in 1998 of an unusual cat on Cooling marshes.I have just come back from giving a lecture today in Gravesend on the 'mystery animals of Kent', and the feedback, as always ranges from stunned, to spooked, with many of the sceptics in the audience impressed by the evidence I presented. I also noticed that in today's edition of The Guardian newspaper, that a deer carcass, which many people believed had been killed by a 'big cat', in Gloucestershire, had been confirmed as being killed by a dog then scavenged by a fox. This wasn't a surprise to me, despite many people being adamant it had been a cat kill, but the DNA analysis proved otherwise. It's great that 'authorities' are, at times, when they have the time and in some instances the money, analysing alleged evidence of 'big cat' activity because people often say to me that there is no evidence whatsoever that large cats exist in the UK. I find it strange that with so much evidence that the 'big cat' situation is regarded as a mystery and relegated to folklore. Even more bizarre, when evidence is presented to the sceptical eye, they refuse to believe it, even if a majority of disbelievers don't actually know what they are looking at. Some people would scoff at it even if it bit them on the nose and this type of ignorance isn't healthy to any situation.

When walking through the woods it's important to know what you are looking at in regards to native species as well as possible non-native species. It's vital when examining possible 'big cat' evidence, to eliminate every other possibility. In the south-east of England we have foxes, deer, badger, dogs, domestic cats, squirrels, and countless other animals, many which are rarely seen. In parts of Kent and Sussex there are also wild boar and wallaby - bizarrely these animals are also dismissed by sceptics even though they've bene photographed and filmed.

Most people would think that surely the best evidence to support the existence of a 'big cat' cat would be to film it - this is far easier said than done even in today's climate with people walkinga round with mobile phones etc. The problem is, a leopard or puma is an incredibly elusive animal, they can hear, se and smell a human, and often keep their distance. A majority of sightings are so brief and usually involve motorists travelling late at night or during the early hours, or people walking their dog etc. A cat often sticks to hedgreows, tree-lines etc and hunt under the cloak of night - no-one drives with their phone at the ready and if your security light comes on at night the last thing you expect to see in your garden is a black leopard. Even so, many people nowadays are using trigger camera's which they are setting up across the country - this is fine, but it seems that some people just want to film the local 'beast' to make some money out of it and to allegedly 'be the first'. In Kent there have been a few cases where cats have been caught on film, but across the UK film footage does exist - in 2011 a Jungle Cat was filmed crossing a road in the Meopham area near Gravesend. In 1998 Harry Matthews took a photo of an unusual cat on marshes at Cooling. Bizarrely, this photo has appeared on several websites (in other words, stolen) with people claiming it's the 'beast of Bodmin' etc. The cat in the photo is no 'big cat', but it could well be a Jungle Cat or a hybrid of Jungle Cat/domestic cat. Bizarrely, the local news channels at the time when covering the story of the photo claimed it was the 'beast of Blue Bel Hill' even though the animal was seen on the other side of the river, and clearly wasn't something akin to a black leopard. In 1994 a holiday-maker claimed he'd filmed a large black cat at Aylesford Priory, a few miles outside of Maidstone. I'm of the opinion that most footage of so-called 'big cats' will be ridiculed because sceptics expect someone to walk up to a leopard and photograoh it from a few feet away, this is highly unlikely to occur. For me we must look at what I consider to be the best evidence for 'big cats' in the wild, the sheep and deer kills. The photo's here are proof that farmers do lose sheep, and that deer are certainly high on the menu - wherever the deer move so do the cats, and it'ss even more amazing when deer and sheep are found high up in trees. Leopards take their prey into trees, as discussed in the last post. Whilst deer and sheep make an ideal meal for a cat, there is far easier prey to catch - rats, mice, birds, squirrels, foxes - sceptics expect there to be thousands of slaughtered sheep but this isn't the case, but there are cases throughout the south-east where farmers have succumbed to severe livestock losses.

 

 

 

This sheep was killed not far from Blue Bell Hill. When a leopard kills its prey it often goes for the throat leaving puncture marks. A large cat rasps the fleece/fur and leaves a very clean kill. No other animal kills in this fashion - foxes do not bring deer down, and certainly do not stash them in trees! The farmer who lost this sheep had never, in 40 years of farming lost a sheep before. In the same area other farmers had lost a few sheep in similar fashion.

In most cases of large prey, the head is left untouched, birds tend to peck the eyes and foxes will scavenge. It does not take long for a carcass of an animal to disappear in the wild.

These type of photo's can appear gruesome and finding a carcass like this in the middle of a deep, dark wood can be quite eerie, especially if the carcass appears relatively fresh. Quite recently I investigated a sheep carcss in the Rokvencden area, after a lady walking her dog had seen an enormous black cat walk into the churchyard in the village. The next day the woman found a carcass - all that was left was the skull and the spine, the ribs has been sheared off and scavengers had done the rest. In 1998 I found a carcass of a goat in a relatively built up area on the outskirts of Rochester. The goat had been licked clean and birds had taken the eyes. A large cat often stalks its prey, and will sit in an area, iften away from the flock before making its move. Sheep are sometimes carried to the edge of a field and eaten. I'm sure that if sheep could talk they'd have some pretty scary experiences to speak of!

This photo shows a ram kill in Sussex, it was taken by a farmer named Graham Bennett. He'd been losing a couple of rams a week for around five months!

 

 I have hundreds of similar photo's to this, some of small dogs, others domestic cats, deer, etc and they are all killed in the same way. When dogs attack they can be extremely spiteful, biting the face, the legs, and will rarely eat a sheep, and scavengers tend to pluck bits from the carcass afterwards. In Paddock Wood a few years ago a farmer found most of his flock had been mauled - this had been the work of dogs. The faces of the sheep had been bitten but the carcasses remained untouched elsewhere. 

 

 The next blog will look at other evidence such as 'scat' (faeces), and paw prints.