Waxahachie Black Panther Update

I was able to get up to Waxahachie last Sunday to check on my cameras. To summarize, the property owners have had a series of sightings, though none in the last month or so, of large cats on their property. They have reported seeing at least two different big cats. One, judging by their description, is a mountain lion. The other cat, described as being 4-6 feet long, weighing between 80-100 lbs., and very dark, if not black, in color is more problematic. As readers of this blog know, “black panthers” are not supposed to exist; at least not in Texas. This particular cat acted in a particularly menacing manner when the property owner walked from her porch and turned a corner around a horse trailer to come face to face with it. Various incidents and sightings, not just by the property owners but neighbors as well, have continued since then though on a sporadic basis.



As you can imagine, I was anxious to get up there to see what, if anything, my cameras had been able to capture. The cameras had been in place for a little more than 5 weeks and I was hopeful that I would have an image of a big cat. I met fellow NAWAC Investigator and friend, Justin Horn at the property and the two of us, along with one of the property owners, began “making the rounds” to check on the cameras.



When we arrived at the location of the first camera we were amazed at just how much the vegetation had grown up. It was literally waste high in spots. I realized right away that this was going to cause some problems in identifying any small to medium-sized quadrupedal animals that might have been photographed. I feared I was going to have a lot of shots showing only the backs of any animals that might have moved through the area. That concern turned out to be, mostly, unwarranted. The real problem caused by the taller vegetation turned out to be the sheer number of false triggers it caused. The cameras, during the day, are activated by movement. The swaying of the now much taller grasses and weeds triggered hundreds of events on the camera. It has taken me the better part of a week to go through them all. Camera 1 did yield a couple of interesting images. The first was of a small/medium-sized animal of some sort running at a pretty good clip away from the camera. There are actually two animals in the video. The first appears in the upper left hand portion of the frame at the very beginning of the video. It appears only briefly before moving out of the frame to the left. Several seconds later is when the second animal appears. I’ve shown the video to several people. Opinions have ranged from raccoon to feral cat. I would welcome your opinion. The video is below.



Camera 1 also captured an image of a weasel-like animal moving right to left across the trail. I was a bit puzzled initially as to what it might be. It is dark except for some light markings around the face. I thought it might be an otter but the tail seems too bushy. Again, I showed the video to some qualified folks and got a range of opinions. Otter and weasel were mentioned but I have come to agree with one gentleman who said what I have video of is a solid black skunk. Skunks with no stripes do occur and, back in the heyday of the fur trade, their pelts were quite valuable. It is possible that the skunk does have stripes and the camera angle is not quite right to view them but I honestly don’t think that is the case. I think this is a solid black skunk.



The question would likely have been answered if the camera had activated sooner. As you can see, the camera failed to activate until the skunk was almost out of the frame. This slow activation is a real problem and can be observed in the video of the coyote below.



Notice how close the coyote is to the camera. The animal was practically on top of the camera before it managed to get going and take the shot. This slow activation practically guarantees that no photos of an animal moving at even a moderate speed is going to be captured on video; especially if the animal is moving perpendicular to the camera. So, what to do about this issue? My cameras are not cheap but would certainly not be considered “top of the line.” I have budgeted to get a decent number of cameras in the past but think I am going to change tactics and go with more expensive models in the future. Though I’ll have fewer cameras, and the higher dollar models have shortcomings, too, I think I’ll get better results.

Camera 2 yielded no useful shots at all. It did yield hundreds of false triggers along with a couple of videos of a squirrel, an armadillo, and some birds. I was really disappointed that this location didn’t produce more action. Worse, the camera acted a bit funny and didn’t cooperate when I tried to reprogram it after putting in fresh batteries. I decided to leave it in place and give the spot one more try. Also, I didn’t want to invest too much time in relocating the camera when I was none too sure it was even working properly. Again, discouraging.

We trekked on to camera 3, which was located adjacent to a fairly large pond. This camera is one of my older Cuddebacks. This is an old warhorse of a camera that has been deployed for most of the last decade in spots ranging from the Big Thicket of SE Texas to the Ouachita Mountains of SE Oklahoma/SW Arkansas. This model does not have video capability but still takes pretty nice color photos. This is the only camera to capture a cat. The bobcat photos below are not what I was hoping for but do show that the camera is in good working order. This location didn’t produce many events so we decided to move it to a spot near the rear of the property.





We placed camera 3 near another pond that is all but hidden from view from anywhere on the rest of the property. You really have to be right on top of it before you realize it is there. Waxahachie Creek runs by only 50 yards or so from the pond. The thin strip of land between the creek and the pond create a funnel of sorts that, I’m hoping, wildlife uses to move from one side of the property to the other without fear of detection. I really wanted to put camera 3 on a game trail somewhere in this “funnel” but was running short on daylight. That being the case, I decided to place the camera back at a spot near the hidden pond. We had located a lot of tracks around this pond along with some very interesting scat. The scat was of a pretty decent size and full of fur and bone fragments. It was on top of a large rock on the banks of the pond. Justin took a photo of the scat and I compared it to photos of cougar scat online. They look pretty similar to me. Take a look for yourself below.





I plan on checking my remaining two cameras north of Temple soon; possibly as early as tomorrow. If I find they have not produced anything unusual I will likely pull them. If I do, I may deploy them on the Waxahachie property.

Again, my efforts have failed to yield the photo/video of a long-tailed cat I’m hoping to capture. I did, however, very much enjoy the experience of getting out and enjoying the outdoors with a good friend, interacting with friendly folks (property owners) I likely would never have met had I not pursued this rather unusual hobby, and get a glimpse into the behavior of wildlife that most folks don’t ever enjoy. I also had the opportunity to enjoy a fine meal of fried catfish at the Catfish Plantation in Waxahachie. Supposedly, this is one of the most haunted buildings in the great state of Texas. Nothing spooky occurred but the food was good.

That, my friends, makes for a pretty good day.

Activity Update

I wanted to take a moment and update everyone on my recent activities.

Yesterday, I made a trip to Waxahachie to check on my cameras. If you recall, this is a piece of property on Waxahachie Creek where numerous big cat encounters, along with some horse kills, have taken place. I am beginning the process of viewing the videos shot by the game cameras now. At first glance, it doesn't look like I have any cat footage but won't know for sure until I go through the 200+ thirty second videos.

Also, I will soon be providing an update on the initial analysis that has been conducted on the black hairs sent in to me by a man who claims to have hit a large black cat with his vehicle in Central Texas a while back. I know that I've been promising this update for a while but was hoping to wait until the initial results were confirmed by a second party. I am running into some difficulty there which I will explain in the post to come.

So, now you know I haven't just been sitting idly around. More to come soon.

Texas Bigfoot Conference Videos Available For Viewing

The NAWAC is pleased to be able to bring to you the following video presentations from the 2013 Texas Bigfoot Conference.

First up, Brian Brown, NAWAC member and producer of The Bigfoot Show podcast, gave conference attendees a taste of the data and experiences the NAWAC collected during last year's Operation Persistence with "In the Valley of the Wood Ape."

Next, we have been granted special permission by Bill Munns to make available his presentation, "The Patterson Gimlin Hominid: Extraordinary costume or extraordinary reality?"

Finally, at the end of the conference, NAWAC member and Texas Cryptid Hunter blogger Mike Mayes moderated a panel discussion of all presenters based on questions submitted by audience members.

I would invite all of you to view these video presentations. If, however, you can only view one, I suggest strongly you watch the video of Bill Munns' presentation. NAWAC Chairman Alton Higgins had the following to way about it, "All three videos are good, but the Bill Munns presentation is really terrific, the result of years of research by a man with decades of experience as a Hollywood makeup artist. He talks about the famous 1967 film of a bigfoot that we've all seen and presents compelling reasons for its authenticity. Nothing else like it on the Internet."

Videos can be viewed here.

Take a look and let me know what you think about these presentations.

My best...

Is the Collection of a Wood Ape Specimen Necessary?

Should a wood ape specimen be collected in order to prove the existence of the species to science?

This question elicits passion like no other when it comes to the subject of the sasquatch. It is the equivalent of topics like gun control, abortion and same sex marriage in the political arena. Very few are ambivalent about the issue. Opinions are strong and emotions run deep when it comes to this particular subject. Often, the debate degenerates into name-calling and boorish behavior. This is unfortunate, as I can understand points on both sides of the issue.

I came to the conclusion a while back that the taking of a specimen was absolutely necessary. What I would like to do now is take you through the process that led me to that conclusion and why I believe it must happen if we are going to save the species. I don’t presume to speak for anyone else. The thoughts presented here are mine and mine alone. There are many who will agree with my position and many who will not. My intention is not to convince anyone to “come around” to my way of thinking though, I admit, it would make my life easier if some did. Instead, I merely want to present my thoughts in a logical manner so that others can see this is not a conclusion I came to lightly.



Science demands a specimen. It is really just that simple. In order for the species to be officially recognized, someone is going to have to bring in one of these animals. I realize there have been a few instances where science has recognized the existence of a new species based on photos or video but these cases are few and far between. They are clearly the exception to the rule. In order to prove the existence of something as fantastic as the North American wood ape, it is going to take a body. Realistically, the sasquatch is on a par with unicorns, dragons and centaurs in the eyes of mainstream science. I held out hope for a very long time that good video and/or still photos would be enough but have come to believe that is not the case. First, these animals have proven incredibly elusive and sightings, on the rare occasions that they do occur, typically are so fleeting that even if a witness is holding a camera they don’t have time to raise it and get a good photo. Game cameras may ultimately get a photo but will it be good enough? Doubtful. The NAWAC invested tens of thousands of dollars in the best game cameras commercially available and kept them deployed continuously for the better part of a decade. While a handful of intriguing images were captured, nothing definitive was obtained. I have come to believe that these animals avoid game cameras. I do not believe they know what they are but think, like alpha coyotes, cougars and other animals, they are extremely in tune with their environment and realize that these cameras are foreign objects. They may even associate them with humans. If so, they probably associate these odd boxes with potential danger. The final nail in the “video/photographs should be good enough” argument is that we actually already have great evidence of this nature and it hasn’t been enough. The chances of capturing video any clearer than that shot by Roger Patterson, Paul Freeman or Harlan Ford are extremely slim. If these excellent pieces of footage aren’t enough to convince mainstream scientists to list the species then, in my opinion, none ever will be good enough.



Again, science demands a specimen because, without a holotype, mistakes can occur and false assumptions can be made. Take, for example, the recent discovery of a new rodent in Sulawesi. It has turned out to be quite unique as, unlike over 2,000 other known species of rodents, the Paucidentomys vermidax lacks cheek teeth. This makes it impossible for this animal to gnaw on its food. This begs the question, what is this rodent subsisting on if it can’t gnaw on nuts and seeds? Scientists examined the contents of a single specimen to find that the Paucidentomys vermidax consumes only earthworms. This is crucial information that could never have been deduced from photographs only. If this rodent turns out to be critically endangered, and conservation intervention is necessary, it is vital that habitat be protected, not just for it, but for what is eats as well. A photo alone would not have yielded this information. Should it ever come to that, well intentioned efforts to protect and preserve this species might not have worked if officials had merely assumed this animal had a diet similar to other rodents. The taking of a single specimen yielded data that will be invaluable to the preservation of the entire species.

Opponents of taking a wood ape specimen sometimes recognize that photographic/video evidence won’t be enough to get the animals documented and, instead, turn their hopes to DNA. Certainly, they argue, a DNA sample, obtained via non-lethal means, would do the trick. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that to be the case either. Forget for a moment the difficulties in collecting such a sample and think about how DNA testing works. DNA is sequenced and then compared to a database of known DNA sequences. Simply put, if there is no match to a known species, and there is no type specimen from whence the anomalous DNA was taken, there is no documentation or recognition. The sample might be cataloged as “unknown,” something that has, I believe, happened before, or an assumption is made that the sample has somehow become contaminated and is, therefore, of no scientific value. Either way, a new species will not be recognized. Evidence of this can be found here. This article, while focusing mainly on herpetology, has obvious applications to the question of whether or not it is necessary to take a wood ape specimen. Below is an excerpt from the linked article:

“Information gathering in science is a careful and deliberate process, and it requires the best effort possible to produce a transparent chain of evidence based on reproducible methods. Three lines of evidence are generally accepted for the proposal and testing of taxonomic hypotheses. First, novel evidence is obtained through field and laboratory work, involving samples (e.g., whole specimens, animal parts, tissue samples) from known phenotypes collected in nature, with precisely known provenance, and associated with the obligatory documentation. These samples are deposited in institutions where their long-term curation makes them accessible to other researchers for subsequent hypothesis testing (see Cotterill 1997 on the value of biological collections).

Second, evidence should be sourced from existing samples in museum collections or from published information (e.g., GenBank), both of which are ultimately obtained as described above.

One or (typically) both of these lines of evidence should be required for taxonomic investigations. They act as a base for further research, so that later work does not have to begin the evidence-collection process de novo. For example, storage of sequence data in GenBank makes these data readily available online. If no records from publicly accessible genetic databases, backed by suitable voucher specimens, are listed in support of a taxonomic decision alleged to have been derived from DNA sequence data, then the decision should be rejected.”

Clearly, this article is saying that taxonomic decisions founded on DNA alone are simply not acceptable. This confirms, in my mind, that classifying something as unprecedented as a New World ape is going to take much more than photographs, video footage, or DNA extracted from questionable hair and/or scat samples. While all of these things can serve as supporting evidence, they can never adequately take the place of a type specimen.

At this point, many may question the need to officially document the wood ape at all. Why not just leave them alone? While I understand this sentiment, this is a recipe for extinction. Why? Habitat destruction. If the North American wood ape exists, then it is surely a rare animal. If we look at other primates, especially the great apes, it would seem safe to assume that wood apes are slow growing and have low reproductive rates. A rare animal that is slow to grow up and reproduce and that can only exist in the ever dwindling heavily forested remote areas of North America is going to be in trouble very soon if deforestation and development do not slow. One simply cannot overstate the affect deforestation is having on the planet’s wildlife. It is one of, if not the, greatest drivers behind biodiversity loss. Once, almost half the continental Unites States and three-fourths of Canada were covered in forests. That is no longer the case. Take a look at the graphic below. It illustrates quite clearly what happened to North American forests between 1620 and 1920.



90% of the virgin forest that once covered the lower 48 states has been cut and isn’t coming back. This habitat has been lost forever. About 80% of the forest that remains is on public land. National forests, state forests, wilderness areas, state parks, national parks, etc. contain much of what is left of our forests. Many would take comfort in this fact but understand that this does not mean that these wooded areas are safe. For example, approximately 80% of the forestland in the Pacific Northwest, the “holy land” of bigfoot research, is slated to be logged at some point in the future. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not completely anti-logging. Much of it is necessary and it is being done in a much more responsible manner than it was in the past. Having said that, there can be little argument that second growth forests differ greatly in make-up from the old growth forests they replace. Also, it takes up to 100 years for a replanted forest to mature. Any species affected negatively by the original cutting of an old growth forest is not going to still be around 100 years later. They are going to be gone. A great example of this is how the logging of what became known as the “Singer Tract” in Louisiana likely was the final nail in the coffin of the Ivory-billed woodpecker.

In my opinion, the wood ape has little to fear from hunters. If it did, a specimen would have been obtained years ago. Rather, the greatest threat to this species is loss of habitat. These animals require vast amounts of heavily forested land that is isolated and remote. Such areas are getting more and more difficult to find. Should these areas disappear, the wood ape, too, will disappear. In order to protect their habitat we must first prove to scientists and government officials that these animals are real. The government will simply not create protected areas that are off limits to logging and development for a mythical animal. It just won’t happen. Bringing in a specimen is the only way to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the wood ape is a flesh and blood animal. I support the taking of one, maybe two, of these animals in order to save the entire species.

As I stated before, I can understand why, on an emotional level, many would be against taking a specimen. Logically, however, I just don’t see how anyone that says they care about the future of this species can make a cogent argument against the necessity of doing so. Labeling those of us who take this position as blood-thirsty murderers is not only mean-spirited but completely off base. Not one person that I know who shares my point of view on this matter wants to take a wood ape as a trophy. They, like me, want to save them. In addition, those that argue that the taking of a specimen will somehow accelerate the extinction timetable need to realize that if the species is that depleted it is already too late.

Nothing would please me more than if someone stumbled across a wood ape body while out hiking in the woods. Ideally, this ape would have lived to a ripe old age before succumbing to natural causes. That way science would have what it needs and no animal would have died before its time. The chances of this happening, while not impossible, are practically nil. I live in the real world and believe if we wait for this ideal scenario to occur we will lose our opportunity to save this species. I believe strongly that attempting to collect a specimen is the responsible thing to do.

It is the only way.

Nobel Prize Winner on the Definition of Science

"Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceeding generation . . . As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

- Richard Feynman, Nobel-prize-winning physicist,
in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
as quoted in American Scientist v. 87, p. 462 (1999).

The Latest Black Panther Reports

It has been a little while since I did a post on the legendary black panthers of Texas. That does not mean that there has been nothing happening on that front. Not by a long shot. Reports continue to roll in to me on a weekly basis from people who claim to have seen these animals, which are not supposed to exist. I have two active study areas right now where I am attempting to get photos of anomalous cats. Finally, the preliminary testing on the hairs sent in by a reader who claims to have hit a black panther with his vehicle is complete and the results are promising. More on all of that later…

In the meantime, below are the latest batch of black panther and out of place big cat sightings to have come to my attention. The people who sent these reports did so on their own with no prodding from me. While it is possible some are hoaxing me by sending in bogus reports, and I have not spoken directly with most of these folks, I believe the people who represent the reports below are sincere. They have seen something that they cannot explain.

The italicized passages are the unedited, unless otherwise noted, words sent in by readers. My comments will follow each passage.

2/3/13

“I have seen a black cat smaller than a cougar or Florida posted in black water forest in North West Florida. I heard it before I saw it and it sounded like a woman screaming.”

TCH Comment: A brief and to the point report. I get a lot of these types of messages. This report comes from Florida. It is not unusual for readers in other states, especially those in the south, to send reports to me. There just aren’t many other places to do so as most wildlife officials dismiss the possibility of large black cats. The report of “screaming” is interesting. Cougars certainly do make a sound similar to that of a woman screaming from time to time. One does have to be careful though, since nobody saw the cat making the screaming sound, as other animals, foxes would be one example, make screaming sounds that can freeze your blood if you are not familiar with them.

3/4/13

“Two years ago, I heard a cougar at night. Once you hear that "scream" you will never forget that sound. It was during deer hunting season here at my ranch 7 miles Southwest of Johnson City. TX. We were able to verify it was a cougar by our game camera that was fastened to a tree near the deer feeder. Then again last fall (2012), I heard a throaty sound as if having labored breathing. It's difficult to explain, but I recognized the sound when I heard it this evening at approximately 7:10 pm. Its a beautiful evening. but my border collie and I both got startled and came into the house. We all need to be careful out here in the Hill Country.”

TCH Comment: Another report that mentions screaming. I know that back home in SE Texas any strange sound was often attributed to “panthers.” They were pretty much blamed for any, and all, weird noises that came out of the swamps, marshes, and woods. This witness is right in that once you hear a cougar screaming you won’t soon forget it. I would love to see the photo this reader’s game camera captured of the mountain lion. The “throaty, labored breathing” sounds the witness reports are very interesting. I’d like to hear more detail on these sounds.

2/11/13

“First part of Dec, 2012. A big black cat in private green belt back of my fence in Great Hills NW Austin. Have put up game camera, and so far nothing yet. But coyotes 1 to 3 times day and night every day since Christmas. Also notice very few deer around the area as in past.”

TCH Comment: Another short and to the point report. I wouldn’t be surprised if a mountain lion occasionally wandered into the area NW of Austin. A big black cat is something different, however, as they are not supposed to actually exist. I hope this reader keeps me informed and lets me know if any photos of the cat in question are captured.



2/13/13

“My grandparents used to live outside of Salado, TX on a large ranch and had property that backed up to Stillhouse Hollow Lake. On several occasions while hunting with my father when I was younger we would see a very large solid black cat with a long tail across one of the coves near the bank. We also saw the prints on our side of the lake and numerous times my family members would hear the screams from some sort of cat. Not sure what it was, but my Dad always said it was a panther!!”

TCH Comment: I am very familiar with this area as I live in Bell County. To the reader: Does your family still own the property? Have there been any sightings in the last couple of years? If so, please contact me via email at Texascryptidhunter@yahoo.com. I do get reports of “long-tailed cats,” both tawny-colored and black, from this part of the state on a fairly regular basis. A big cat wandering into the Stillhouse Hollow area would not surprise me at all.

3/10/13

“My uncle and I encountered two one morning after church in Knox county 1 mile south of the brazos river five miles north of Goree, Tx. They ran across a county road and were leaping through a cotton field and into an old abandoned house. Neither one of us would go in even with a gun. They were very large black cats I'd say bigger than mountain lions because I've seen them.”

TCH Comments: Goree, TX is located in Knox County about 85 miles north of Abilene. According to the 2000 census there were only 5 people per square mile in the county. The area features a lot of pretty lonesome country. The report of the cats running together is interesting as is their use of an abandoned house as a hiding place/shelter. I think it is entirely plausible big cats use man-made structures from time to time. As a matter of fact, I believe it helps explain the sightings of big cats and coyotes in more urban settings. I hypothesize that larger predators are finding their way into large cities via greenbelts and railroad tracks and then making themselves at home, at least for a while, in abandoned homes, warehouses, etc. Many larger cities have a lot of areas that fit this description.



2/14/13

“I live in midwest Missouri and I my self have seen a very large solid black panther with gold colored eyes run across 13 Hwy shortly after dusk about a year ago I remember yelling at my friend to stop the van she was gonna hit it, we swerved just in time and luckily the roads were clear it stopped looked at us then took off & finished crossing the road.”

TCH Comment: Another out of state report. The account is very typical in that it involved a cat crossing a road. The “gold-colored” eye shine intrigues me. Many witnesses have reported yellowish eye shine reflecting from the eyes of black panthers.

3/2/13

“We saw the same black adolescent "jaguar" twice in our back yard, 1.5 miles south of Liberty Oklahoma in the last 5 weeks. It was walking slowly in the tall grass, was ~ 75 pounds, and had a 3+ foot long tail. My dogs were barking at it from their fenced in enclosure and it was completely unconcerned. I started asking friends and neighbors about ‘black panthers’ and to a man and a woman, they have no doubt of their existence. One neighbor reported to me that something [she assumed it was a mountain lion] attacked her 250-pound mastiff some years ago, almost killing him. He had to have a drain in his neck for more than 4 months.”

TCH Comment: This report originates from Oklahoma. Texas’ neighbor to the north has a long history of black panther sightings. The only thing about this report that bothered me had nothing to do with the sighting itself or the description of the cat; rather, it was the reference to the 250 lb. mastiff. That seemed outlandishly large even for this giant breed. I was wrong, however. English mastiffs are reported to routinely weigh between 150-250 lbs. That being the case, my concerns were alleviated and I decided to include the report in this post.

3/18/13

“All I know is that where I grew up in the 1960s in south east Texas; that non existent black cat (call it what you want I call it a black panther) probably averaged 80 pounds did exist. So much so that I hunted them for a bounty paid at the county clerks office. Just bring in the pair of ears and I got paid $7.50 which in those days was a lot of gasoline at 16.9 cents per gallon. They may not exist any longer, possibly to over hunting of them but they did then. If the TPWD deny it then they LIE LIE LIE.”

TCH Comment: This comment is fascinating to me for several reasons. First, the attitude of this gentleman perfectly represents that of almost all people living in the bottomlands and back woods areas of SE Texas where I grew up. They don’t believe black panthers exist, they know they exist. In fact, most don’t consider them anything all that unusual. These black cats are just another animal that lives in the woods. Folks don’t get fired up until you tell them that science does not recognize the existence of black panthers. The second thing I find so interesting about this comment is that the reader says he hunted these cats for a bounty. This sort of thing was not all that uncommon when it came to “nuisance” animals. As recently ast 5-10 years ago many Texas counties were offering similar bounties on coyotes. All you had to do was present the ears and you got a check. I assume the programs are still in existence but it will, no doubt, vary county to county. The question this all raises is if these animals were hunted for a bounty then why have they remained undocumented? Why is there no record of them? Why do no county or state officials “remember” these programs. This may be an area that someone could research. If county or state records do exist showing that bounties were paid for black panthers, that would go a long way toward legitimizing their existence.

3/22/13

“I live in a Stamford, Texas. This is a small town north of Abilene. I know this site is dedicated to large black cat sightings but I have been puzzled lately by a smaller size of cat and would like to question you all. I have seen this cat or cats 4 times. 2 times at approximately 5am before daylight savings time and 2 other times just after dusk but before full night. This cat is small but larger than an average house cat. It has a very long almost pole/rod shaped tail that was almost as long as the body. It did not appear to have shorter legs like I see in pictures of Jaguarundi I have found on the internet. These have crossed the road from a mesquite/brush area over to a clearing. It was the tail that actually made me pause, being long but very full, yet like a baseball bat without the taper in size from end to end and the abrupt rounded end like a bat. My friends are starting to think I'm crazy because I keep asking if they see these at night. Thankfully my daughter was with me one evening and saw it also lol. So now I don't feel so alone. It was dark enough at all these times that I cannot tell you a color except that they did not appear black but more brown and the reflection of their eyes were noticable. I know we have bobcats around here but never have I seen a bobcat with a tail almost as long as the body.”

TCH Comment: Another report from the area north of Abilene. I don’t think the jaguarundi should necessarily be ruled completely out though they aren’t supposed to live anywhere even remotely close to this part of Texas. It could be an unusually large feral cat, I suppose. Also, it could simply be that this witness spotted a young animal. Whatever black panthers are, they aren’t born weighing 75-150 lbs. Like any other real species, they will have young. Maybe this witness saw a juvenile animal.

3/29/13

“My son and I saw one in Burnet County two years ago. The jaguarundi is a diurnal animal. Unusual for this one to be out at night.”

TCH Comment: I am assuming that this reader believes he saw a jaguarundi and not a classic “black panther” since he refers specifically to that species. If he and his son did see a jaguarundi in Burnet County it would be big news. Most jaguarundi distribution maps don’t even show them living in Texas. The TPWD does include them as a species living in the Lone Star State but claims they only exist in very small numbers in the “dense thorny shrublands of the Rio Grande Valley." I know they live up and down the coast up into the SE Texas and into the Piney Woods region. That is still a long way from Burnett County, however.



As you can see, reports of the black panthers of Texas are not going away. People continue to see big cats matching the description of the classic “black panther” of myth. Are they all lying? Mistaken? I find the thought of that much more unlikely than that of these big cats actually existing.

Please keep the reports coming in to me. If you would like a reply please email your account to me. If you post your report as a “comment” to an existing post I do not have any way to get in contact with you. My email address, again, is Texascryptidhunter@yahoo.com.

I hope to hear from you soon…

Ape Appellations

Ape Appellations
By Alton Higgins and Daryl Colyer

Over many centuries numerous appellations have been ascribed to the huge hairy hominoids said to inhabit North America, “Bigfoot” being one of the more widely used in recent decades. In his opening address at the 2013 Texas Bigfoot Conference, Brian Brown first announced the TBRC move to officially change its name to the North American Wood Ape Conservancy and the rationale behind the NAWAC decision to largely cease using the media moniker “Bigfoot” when referring to the species (Brown, 2013a).

As a companion piece to his conference presentation, Brown subsequently provided an article on the NAWAC website summarizing the reasons for the change (Brown, 2013b). While it is not necessary to reiterate those reasons, we would like to further discuss the “wood ape” appellation in terms of its use by others, predating the NAWAC’s use of the moniker, and its relevance from a natural science perspective. Although some may question or even deride the semantic modification, we propose that the term “wood ape” is an altogether more fittingly descriptive term and a more appropriate designator from a scientific perspective.

Many interested parties may not realize that the term “wood ape” has a history of use when addressing the North American ape phenomenon. One example, written quite a few years ago, is from the Q&A section of the Bigfoot Field Research Organization (BFRO) website, written in response to the constantly asked question: “Where are the physical remains?”

No serious work has ever been done to look for remains of surviving wood apes in areas where they are rumored to reside. No one should expect remains of such an elusive species to be found, collected and identified without some effort.



Very few remains of ancient wood apes have ever been found in Asia, where they were much more abundant. Millions of Gigantos (a branch of the wood ape line) lived and died in Asia over the ages. All the remaining physical evidence we have of them could fit into a few shoe boxes. Fossils of any land animal are very rare.

Remains do not become fossilized very often, but unless that happens, all the remains will, in time, become completely reabsorbed into the ecosystem. There would be remains of animals everywhere if remains were not naturally recycled, including bones and teeth.

Fossils or preserved bones of wood apes may exist in the Americas, but they will be exceedingly rare, because these animals are rare to begin with, and only a tiny fraction of that population will die in locations and soils that will preserve bones somehow. Odds are slim at best that any bones (which are normally fragmentary) will be found, collected and identified unless a focused effort is made to look for them. Until efforts are made in many places, over a long period time, no one should be scratching their head wondering why “we” don’t have any physical remains. (BFRO, n.d., http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MJM/hunters.htm)

Regarding a scientific perspective, interestingly enough, the apes that moved out of Africa into Europe millions of years ago, such as Dryopithecus, are referred to as “wood apes” by some anthropologists, including Chris Stringer, a human evolution expert (Andrews & Stringer, 1989, p. 22). After moving into Europe, Dryopithecus then immigrated into Asia where it apparently was ancestral to subsequent lineages, including Gigantopithecus and today’s orangutans. The species we refer to as the North American wood ape would almost certainly have dispersed from Asia, so the reference to the creatures as “wood apes” is a very reasonable alternative to “Bigfoot” and the plethora of additional locally derived epithets.

References

Andrews, P. J., & Stringer, C. P. (1989). Human evolution: An illustrated guide. Ipswich, England, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization. (n.d.). Where is the physical evidence?: Nobody looks for physical remains. Retrieved from http://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/MJM/hunters.htm
Brown, B. (2013a). In the valley of the wood ape. Live presentation at 2013 Texas Bigfoot Conference.
Brown B. (2013b). New name, same mission. Retrieved from http://woodape.org/index.php