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

 

I'm of the opinion that no amount of evidence in support of large, exotic cats roaming Britain, is good enough for the most hardened sceptics, which is a shame really. Today I spoke with a man who stated that quite categorically a few years back he caught a strange animal - cat-like - in a snare in Kentish woodlands, and had taken a photo of it. The animal had, sadly, died in the snare, but when I asked the man - who was very experienced in the wilds of Kent regarding poaching etc - what he did with the carcass he replied, "We left it and it just rotted." Over the years I've spoken to dozens of people who have claimed to have shot a big cat, or run one over or found a dead one, and in every case these people have either burned or buried the carcass. In most cases this was long before the country was buzzing with researchers keen on making some money out of a good photo or other piece of evidence. And in any case, most people who do come across a carcass - especially if they have shot the animal, aren't going to tell many people about it. As you can see on this blog there have been a few cases over the years across the countryside of the UK where exotic animals have bene run over or shot. Mind you, I'm often asked why we don't find many dead ones, but there is an easy explanation for this and it doesn't involve silly conspiracy theories etc. Basically, if you consider that a large, yet extremely elusive animal is prowling around the remote thickets of Kent, then that means it is avoiding main roads, in fact most sightings I get of animals crossing a road usually involves a motorist travelling on a remote b-road in the wilds of Ashford etc. There isn't much chance that a large cat is going to run out in front of car in such a remote location. However, if a cat did then it still knows to kepe a distance but, if by chance the cat is hit, it may crawl away to die or, as in the case of alot of road kill, vanish simply due to the progression of nature. If you consider also how many sightings of large cats take place after dusk, then you can see why these cats are hardly ever filmed or photographed. However, what seems to be the case is that a piece of footage, no matter how clear, or whether it's been scrutinised and passed by 'experts', it's still not going to convince a hardened sceptic. In reality, I'd love to ask the sceptics one question back (because the sceptics seem quite happy to bombard me), and that is, What would it take to prove to you that these animals exist ? Some would respond that seeing is believing, but is it really when you are so closed off to such a situation ? Some people don't even believe their own eyes. Would a clear, up close photo prove anything ? Of course not, sceptics could argue that it came from a zoo. Over the last few years a terrible hoax photo has been doing the rounds showing what is meant to be a black leopard in a field in Staffordshire. Of course, the image is simply a cut 'n' paste job onto a backround, but I guess these 'big cat' stories bring out the best and worst of people. I still don't think a 'big cat' with young would convince many people, so maybe a cat killing a sheep would, but there's so little chance of getting this on film, and there's a major reason one - no-one is out there putting the time and effort in. Trigger camera's are fine but they mean that someone has to keep checking them. ideally, the people who are going out to film leopards in Africa, etc, are the people we need in the UK, but they haven't the time to do this, and some of these guys may feel that their reputation will be tarnished, which is a pity, as I'm sure that any wildlife cameraman that films a 'big cat' in the UK may see his profile soar. The trouble is, all we have at the moment are 'experts' telling us these animals don't exist rather than looking at the evidence we have and taking it further. Sure, we've had hair analysed, DNA from saliva will eventually prove also that there are 'big cats' around, but it's still not enough. Only today I picked up a cutting from the Daily Mail of November 30th 1994 concerning the escape of a female snow leopard from a private collection in Hertfordshire. It made me realise how easy it is for a cat to escape but also how relatively easy it is for one to get recaptured, which is why I don't believe the animals we have in the wilds today are zoo escapees. Hopefully, with the evidence for such animals accumulating since the 1960s Surrey puma cat-flap (excuse the pun!), all we can do is continue to collate, but I don't think 'big cat' research should be in effect to appease the sceptics. At times we seem to forget that it's about the animals and not the personal egos that are involved. There are always detractors, there are sceptics, and I guess that's what makes the debate healthy to some extent but the problem is, it has become every man for himself, as in most walks of life so no wonder people are hesitant to come forward with their evidence...but you know what a sceptic would say to that, "Maybe they don't want to come forward because they don't have any evidence," so you can't win either way. Deep down I hope these cats outlive us all and I also hope that a child is never attacked by one in the wilds. I'm also of the opinion that if someone gets their 'irrefutible' evidence (whatever that may be), that it will of course only prove one thing - that there's one large cat out there. The situation as a whole is far greater than many realise and even if the authorities (whoever they may be) admit to such animals existing in our wilds (which is highly unlikely) I still don't see us moving on or out from the shadow of the sceptical view.

 

I see that on The Sun website there is more debatable footage of an alleged 'big cat'. It's rather frustrating when people come forward and state that such 'evidence' is "the most conclusive" despite the fact that so many pieces of film footage are shot from a distance and are often blurry. Any sceptic would have the right to argue at such a piece of film, and so many of these types of footage seem to be floating around on You Tube and the like....but these would be the last place I'd submit footage. What is clear is that in the UK...and the same as Australia, there are a lot of large feral cats, a few years ago in Australia a man shot a feral cat that was four-feet in length! Even so, a feral/domestic cat does not look like a puma or leopard, but in my opinion any footage that is blurry or debatable shouldn't be put forward as evidence. It's great that people are roaming the countryside with camera's but to get close enough to a predatory cat requires patience and a lot of luck, but it is also dangerous and that's the concern that many people seem to be forgetting amid the mystery.

Many people ask the question, Where the hell do all these cats come from ? There is quite a simple set of answers on this question and there's no real mystery. Sadly, the mystery of the topic is all that people want. Over the years people looking into the subject have come to the conclusion that there are more than 1000 'big cats' roaming the UK - this is a laughable statistic and wildly off the mark. It's certainly fair to say that it's impossible to judge how many puma, leopard, lynx etc there are, but to say there are a 1000 is ridiculous. Only a year or so ago it was claimed that 13...yes, 13, black leopards were roaming the Romney Marsh area of Kent...where do people get this sort of information! Having researched this subject since the early '80s I've seen only a steady rise in numbers, which would be correct if say a female black leopard had produced between 1and 8 cubs in her short lifespan. There isn't one female on heat scouring the countryside, and whilst every county DOES have a 'big cat' legend, we can only guess that there are small but viable populations. If the country was running alive with 'big cats', as some newspaper headlines claimed recently, then we'd have a majr problem. Whether people like the theory or not, it is a fact that a majority of the animals seen today are offspring of animals from animals released in the '60s,'70s and early '80s around the time of the '76 Dangerous Wild Animals Act. My research has proven that in a majority of English counties in the '60s, people owned puma, lynx and black leopard - lions were also purchased - the most popular story concerning the lion cub, Christian, purchased from Harrords in London. A majority of folk who purchased exotic cats - usually as cute and cuddly cubs/kittens, didn't go to the newspapers with their pets, they kept them in their front room, in shoddy basements, and only a few cases were actually highlighted by the media. In my 2009 book Mystery Animals of the British Isles: Kent I listed thousands of eye witness reports of exotic cats across the south-east and examined some of the theories. My recently published follow up, Mystery Animals of the British Isles: London also looked at several cases of animals being kept as pets. For example, there's the case of the chap who walked into his pub in London in 1974 with his pet puma on a lead. The cat became very agitated ripping apart the upholstery of the pub. The man was eventually fined. In another incident a man purchased a puma kitten for his children and it attacked a child. A lion 'playfully' leapt on a woman as she was walking down a London street, and another man owned a serval - an African hunting cat - which bit a friend in a restaurant. These cases are not rare. In the '60s and '70s it was quite common to own an exotic cat - as well as a menagerie of exotic animals, from monkeys, to reptiles. One man ordered a rhino from Harrods! These animals were simply an extension of someone's ego, a status symbol, a novel pet - just like terrapins, snakes and baby alligators have bene over the years. When the 1976 Dangerous Animals Act was introduced it is a known fact that people DID release their pets. A puma kitten or leopard cub could easily survive in the wilds of England. I've no doubt that the Surrey puma legend began due to a cat that had been released from a private collection - although this does not explain the mystery creature seen around Coulsdon in the 1800s! Even so, whilst lions and larger cats were purchased, it was the smaller cats, especially lynx and puma and jungle cat, whic were released, and the black leopard was certainly the iconic animal to own in the '60s. You'll find that in almost every case, if not all, regarding tigers, lions etc, escaping, they've either been recaptured or shot dead. One fascinating case from the '70s, regarding Kent involved a Mr Fred Lloyd, who, whilst fishing on the banks of the River Medway at East Peckham, on 5th Jan' 1974, got the shock of his life when a black leopard cub rolled out of the bushes. "I grabbed it by the scruff of the neck", Fred told the newsppaers that covered the incident, "...and shoved it straight into my fishing box."

The animal hissed and growled and so Mr Lloyd took it home and put it in a play-pen but the animal proceeded to destroy it and so he transfered it to a beer crate. Mr Lloyd phoned several zoo parks but they, bizarrely, laughed at him. 24 hours later an RSPCA Inspector arrived on the scene but no-one came forward to say they'd lost a 'panther'. Weirdly, a 'panther' cub, caled Zar had allegedly been stolen from a zoo in Essex on 4th January, but there's no evidence to suggest this was the same cat - thought to be worth in the region of £600. It seems highly unlikely this was the same animal, and this may well have been the first case on record where someone actually captured a leopard cub that had been born in the wilds of England. On 22nd Jan' 1975 The Daily Mirror ran a story concerning a London man who had split up from his wife and so decided to leave his aggravated pet puma in the back garden of his former home. Westminster MP, Peter Templemore, when commenting to the press stated, "Sooner or later someone will get killed", and yet three decades later we find that we've not moved on in our progress at offisially recognising the situation we have in the UK regarding so-called 'big cats'.  A puma escaped from a garden in Byton, Hertfordshire on 1st Jan' 1975 - it was never confirmed as to whether to animal was recaptured. These sort of cases are numerous, and again, prove that people were keeping such animals across the country and certainly when the 1976 Act was introduced, a majority of people did not give their animals to zoo parks and certainly did not destroy their 'pets', and so they released them. Even so, there is no evidence of bizarre cross-bred cats out there, so there'd certainly have to be enough of each species for there to be a viable population today, and this is the case. In the 1940s an Orpington man, as a child, was given a present by his father who'd been abroad on war duty. The man was given a cute black cat which decided to eat the next door neighbours cat. The family did not have a clue what sort of cat they had and so asked a vet who stated quite categorically that it was a 'panther' cub. With that, the father went straight to the most remote woodland he knew and released the animal. Only a decade or so ago a man from Torquay, in Devon, phoned police to say say he'd released his "black puma" but wouldn't say where as he didn't want such a "beautiful" animal hunted. Again, these are quite common occurrences. However, these cases do not explain the reports which date back more than a century.

During the Victorian era many people had private menagerie's and travelling zoo's. Barnum, Wombwell, Bostock, Jamrach, just a few well known showmen who would exhibit all manner of curious creatures and oddments to draw in the gullible crowds. However, in my book Mystery Animals of....London I highlighted many, many cases of animals escaping into the wilds, one involving a leopard that escaped in Camden, and even a tiger that grabbed a small child. These are not stories concocted by sensational headlines, despit the fact that newspapers have always sought out a beastly tale or two. If one takes the time to trawl countless archives - and it is an exhaustive process - you'd be amazed at how many stories there are concerning not just exotic cats escaping/being released into the wilds, but a whole host of animals - from wallabies, monkeys, snakes, birds of prey, and not al of these were recaptured or shot dead. There has been a legend around Blue Bell Hill of a large, elusive animal for at leats 400 hundred years! That's a long, long time. Old records know the legend as the 'great dogge' but this beast was said to roam parts of Trottiscliffe too two hundred years later, but one one occasion this 'lean, grey' animal with 'prick't ears' was said to have killed a man who was walking on the Pilgrims Way. There were also rumours of a black leopard being shot near Burham in the 1930s. I was told this information by a Mr Cuckow many years ago because as a child, he, and a few other friends actually saw this happen. They believed it may have escaped the local zoo at Maidstone which was run by Sir Garrard Tyrwhitt Drake but this was never confirmed. Interestingly, I recently read of this case in a new book called Big Cats just a shame the author couldn't have mentioned that he got the information from me! It's also worth noting that even the Roman's housed large cats - but not the puma - in their vast amphitheatre's, and there is also legend that during the wars some pilots brought over exotic cats as mascots, and were then told to shot them but may have released them instead, but this has never been proven and certainly wouldn't account for the amount of sightings there have been. Again, we have to look at consistency and in my two books I've highlighted so many cases that even the most sceptical person would find difficult to debunk.

So, there you have it...a brief explanation as to where black leopard, puma, lynx etc have come from. Interesting to note as well that I've never, in all my years of conducting this research, received a sighting of a leopard with normal pelage. Black leopard parents only produce black offspring, due to a recessive gene, and over the course of a few decades the rosette pattern will gradually seem to phase out due to the density of the darkness. The strain is less dominant in squirrels, but in the leopard in the UK it appears very dominant. I'm happy to consider that we may have leopards of the normal pelage but again, there needs to be consistency in reports for me to take this into consideration. The same also goes for animals with varying coat markings which do not seem to fit in with conventional markings.

Mystery Animals of the British Isles: Kent and Mystery Animals of the British Isles: London are available from Amazon and can also be ordered from bookshops such as Waterstone's.

 

 

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.