nanoboy
Well-Known Member
zoo-keepers should be more reliable witnesses, but not necessarily. They are only human after all. In this case she is a former Parks Victoria ranger and now works at a "zoo" that does not have any big cats anyway, so she's really no more experienced in identifying a panther than any regular zoo-goer. I remember when Orana Park sent out some people to "investigate" a panther sighting in Canterbury (NZ) several years ago, and the "big cat expert" on the search was the head of their maintenance department who had some free time.
In the case of the animal's size, if she at first thought it was a wallaby then I'd say a big domestic/feral cat is far more likely than a panther.
As for the footprints, Chris didn't say (at least in this article) they were the prints of a "black panther", he said a "large cat", which you can take whichever way you like I guess.
It would be interesting if he did set up some camera traps and got shots of a panther though!!
(Just as an aside, if you open the article there's a photo of a black feral/domestic cat labelled as a "mystery large black cat")
That big cat search party in Canterbury sounds like such a Kiwi cliche'. Haha. I couldn't help but laugh.
I totally agree that working at a zoo does not give someone extra credibility - like the doctor who saw Loch Ness (as though being a doctor means that everything you say is fact).
True, Chris did say the prints were that of a big cat, but given the context of the article, one must assume he meant lion/tiger/leopard etc rather than a large domestic cat.
Conclusive evidence of big cats out there would be fascinating! The black cat in the photo in the article further reinforces what I may have said earlier in the thread: how come the people that witness these cryptids always have the crappiest cameras?
Hix, the guy had (maybe still has) his own show, and the zoo is not open to the public, so I am not sure that publicity is a logical motive for fabricating a big cat sighting.