Wednesday, January 18, 2012

How Dark Coloration Helps Big, Tough Animals

The great biologist Dr. Valerius Geist observed in his book, 'Deer of the World' (on page 34, with figure 2-12 on the opposite page), that large mammals which are known to typically confront and defend against predators have a strong tendency to have darkly colored bodies.

Geist gives nine examples: the sambar, moose, guar, okapi, water buffalo, musk ox, wild boar, and black bear, and gorilla. I would also add the cape buffalo.

What Geist does not address is why this tendency towards dark coloration should be the case. As a hunter, I have a perspective on this that may be useful.

I believe that these animals all benefit from the dark colorations of their species as juveniles. An animal that is of a mostly uniform dark shade is especially difficult to judge in terms of size unless it is very close. Its not easy to tell a lone, young cape buffalo from a lone, older one at a distance. I won't say that this is impossible to do - just that its difficult. You can't always tell the difference between size versus depth perception.

If you are a predator that can kill and eat a smaller pig but expects to be injured in a fight with a larger pig then you can't go running after any given pig until you have determined how big and potentially dangerous it is. If there is an easier meal somewhere else then you'd probably take it.

This doesn't need to work every time against every predator every time in order to be useful to the species overall. If dark coloration confuses predators and causes them to move on, say, in 10% of approaches then that ought to be enough to justify the trait.

Observe the photo included above. I took this picture at around dusk in Texas a few months ago. It isn't great photography but it illustrates the exact thing that I'm talking about. I took this picture and then stood there with a knife on my belt for a few minutes trying to figure out whether to pursue this particular animal. This was while I was hunting on foot armed only with a knife and I wasn't stupid enough to go charging after some 300 pound boar with tusks like tent pegs that could rip me to shreds. I was deliberately seeking out smaller, isolated pigs of roughly 100 pounds or less that looked like something I could handle without a trip to the hospital.

With its uniform black color I could not tell how big a pig I was looking at. All I get when I look at these wild pigs at more than around 50 yards distance is a silhouette, even in better light than this. On this occasion I stalked in towards them with the wind in my favor until I could tell that one of the others in the field was a good target. Other times I ended up hesitating for too long and finding that they would scent me or see me while I was still trying to make up my mind.

In the field as an actual predator armed only with what amounts to a single big fang (my knife), I discovered that being darkly colored provides a very real advantage to large animals that frequently fight back against predators. I have to hesitate or pass up juveniles because I can't tell if they are actually larger, dangerous specimens. This is the sort of thing that I just don't tend to notice while hunting with firearms.

Geist's book, by the way, is excellent.

[Photo copyright 2011 and 2012 by Jackson Landers.]

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Late-Night Lions & the Slippery Truth

I looked both ways across the highway interchange and darted across the pavement with a flashlight in my hand. Stopping on the grass only a few feet from the road I pointed the light down at the strange carcass below me. A long, tawny-colored corpse with a half-skeletonized face. The blunt, heavy jaw with long, heavy canine teeth.

Reporter Ted Strong of the Daily Progress and I had driven hours on short notice in the dark to look for what we were told was a road-killed mountain lion in a state that officially has no mountain lions. In the first few seconds of staring at the battered body I thought that perhaps I'd finally found what I'd spent years looking for.

A few years ago I accidentally became the point man for sightings of wild cougars in Virginia. I became interested in the topic of sightings of mountain lions in Virginia and in the Southeast generally. So I spent a few weeks doing research and then I wrote up a blog entry summarizing my own thoughts and theories on the subject.

Then a funny thing happened. People really cared. Years later I still get comments on that blog entry. I get thousands of hits every week on that piece. Rarely does a week go by when I do not get an email from someone describing a cougar sighting. It seems that if you search the internet for information about mountain lions in Virginia, my blog entry usually comes up first. All of these people who have just seen something in the wild that they can't explain have been coming here first.

Gradually I began to feel a sense of responsibility. All of these people were looking to me as not only a source of information but as someone to talk to about a strange thing that nobody else will believe. Moreover, they wanted me to do something about it!

I considered every email and photo sent to me with care, concern and an increasingly logical approach. At first the photos seemed particularly important. Photographs really seem like they should be proof of the thing that they show. Only the more I looked and the more that I thought the more I realized that photographs usually tell us more about ourselves and what we want to see than about what is really there.

Someone sends me a picture of what is very clearly a cougar. I can see the long, sinuous body in graceful predatory action. Perhaps it is even dragging a deer carcass. Every detail of the face is obvious. The email says, 'this was taken by a trail camera near the George Washington National Forest in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia.'

Hot damn! Photographic evidence! Well, not so fast. How do we know where the picture was really taken? I can see some trees, some indistinct plants. Dirt. A rock. This could have been anywhere. Maybe somewhere in Montana or California where mountain lions are often seen and expected.

That is what I have concluded when sent a photo that clearly shows an unambiguous mountain lion. Every. Single. Time. The location and date claimed for the picture was fraudulent. Usually the person who sent it to me had the best of intentions. His friend, neighbor or cousin sent him the photo with a misleading caption. When in doubt I start tracking it down and ask the person who supposedly took the photo to show me the spot where it was taken so I can see those same trees and rock and dirt. This never ends well.

The ambiguous photos always depict either a domestic cat or a bobcat. There are little cues to look for.

My most challenging source of red herrings is credible witnesses. Time after time I hear accounts of sightings from people who know what they are talking about. Park rangers, former game wardens, experienced hunters, western ranch-owners, etc. People who know what a wild cougar looks like. I don't think that any of those people who have contacted me were deliberately lying. They all really believed in what they felt they had seen. Yet someone who has seen a lot of cougars is, if anything, probably more likely to fit what they have seen into that familiar 'cougar' category than someone who knows very little about them. Just a few days ago I mistook a distant image of a sambar doe for a whitetail. I, who have butchered countless deer and who has written a book on whitetails, made this error. I made it because my whitetail-wired brain wants to turn everything into a whitetail.

The only evidence that might really mean something would be physical evidence. Not a photo or a story but an honest-to-goodness dead cougar on the ground that can be examined and used for DNA analysis. I stopped caring about photos very much and started paying more attention to anything involving dead cats. People would email me sometimes about a cougar that had been hit by a car but in every case it was so long after the fact and so far away that there wouldn't be any point to my trying to go out and collect the evidence.

Finally I got an email this morning from a very intelligent woman informing me that there was a dead lion sitting by the side of the road in Culpeper Virginia and would someone please come and do something about it already.

The premise isn't so ridiculous. Yes, the eastern cougar subspecies is now officially extinct and there hasn't been a 'confirmed' sighting of a cougar in Virginia since the early twentieth century (by the way, there is really no such thing as a 'confirmed sighting' of any species in my opinion. There are only eyewitness reports that you personally choose to agree with or not. No person in a position of authority is much better equipped to discern between the quality of various eyewitness reports than you or I. Sightings alone are almost never hard evidence). But cougars are a species native to Virginia and we know for a fact that they can survive here. They disappeared arguably because of over-hunting due to the bounties put on their heads rather than because of any inherent inability to survive here.

While working on 'Eating Aliens' I went to a lot of different places and saw some pretty strange species thriving in North America that weren't supposed to exist here at all in the wild. African gazelles in Texas; Asian aquatic snails in Virginia; Mexican lizards in Florida. Right now there are central American armadillos breeding in Nebraska. An Asian prawn the size of my forearm just started breeding off the coast of Louisiana and nobody has the slightest idea as to how it really got there.

Nearly any species can suddenly appear nearly anywhere in the world at this point. International trade and the desires for exotic pets and plants have transported absurd things into novel places where they have thrived. The idea that cougars from North America are thriving again in an area where they only disappeared in the last century is less absurd than any of the situations that resulted in chapters of 'Eating Aliens.'

How could cougars get here? There are three explanations that seem likely to me.

First, we could have western cougars colonizing the area. Young cougars can disperse a very long way when they go out on their own to find their own territory. A few years ago one was killed in Connecticut which had traveled all the way there from the Black Hills of South Dakota.

Second, escaped exotic pets could provide a small but genetically diverse basis for a wild population. Many thousands of people have pet cougars and sometimes they escape. Sometimes they escape and other times the door just sort of gets left open when the pet becomes inconvenient for some reason.

Third, it is possible (though unlikely) that there has been a remnant population of the eastern cougar subspecies here in Virginia all along.

Or I suppose it is possible that sightings have resulted from some combination of all three vectors.

What I had hoped that I would find tonight was a dead cougar that could be the start of an examination of physical evidence. That we could sent DNA samples off for analysis to start answering some of these questions.

I crouched on the damp ground beside the body along the highway interchange and looked closely. One of the women who had contacted me about the carcass, Donna, stood nearby.

Donna was as ideal a witness as I could ever ask for. She even knew her big cats. As a former volunteer at an exotic cat rescue facility she had seen cougars up close and personal. If Donna thought that she was looking at a dead cougar then she probably knew what she was talking about more so than 99% of the people who could possibly ever contact me.

The basic shape of the head was right. The size of the animal was about like a young cougar. This fit with the idea of young cougars tending to go a long way during dispersal and getting hit by cars. The partially skeletonized tail was almost the right length. Perhaps post-mortem shrinkage could account for it being a bit short. It was certainly much too long for a bobcat.

Enough hide remained on the body that I could see it was the correct tawny color expected of a cougar.

Man, did this thing ever look like a dead cougar. I started thinking about where we could get a bigger cooler this late at night to haul the entire body away in.

But I saw what I wanted to see. I tried to think more rigorously. The simplest way to narrow things down should be through the teeth, which were intact.

I was struck by the uniformity of the size of the front teeth. They reminded me of my dog's front teeth. Behind each canine was a row of molars that seemed too numerous. I have had the lower mandible of a domestic cat sitting on my desk in front of my computer monitor at home for the last few months since plucking it out of some bobcat scat to identify (I realize how ridiculous I am for even being able to write those words). Often I have noted how very few teeth are behind the canines; it stood to reason that other felids should have the same basic layout of teeth.

The remains of the paws firmed up my opinion. Too narrow. This wasn't a cougar. It was a pit bull.

Even when the animal is dead, right there, on the ground in front of us, most of us have no idea what we are really looking at. We see what we think that we see. And that is with what seems to be unassailable physical evidence. Photographs are worth even less. A glimpse of something strong, tan-colored, and long-tailed darting across the road is so unrevealing as to be meaningless.

I want there to be wild cougars in Virginia. I really do. And I still think that they are probably out there, though I accept the possibility that I am wrong. Meanwhile I'm still looking.


[Apologies for the grisly photograph, copyright 2012 by Jackson Landers. It seemed too relevant for me to fail to include it. This is a photo of the non-cougar that I traveled to Culpeper to see. Note the first pre-molar right below the canine tooth. That gives it all away]

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

The Fog of Bears: How Bad Maps Make Bad Policy

While in the field around the US working on 'Eating Aliens' I often saw animals that did not officially exist in the places where I was seeing them. Grant's gazelles running wild in Texas were one of the more dramatic examples. There are a lot of other species native to north America whose ranges I have noticed in the field do not seem to line up very well with the official party line.

One native example is the black bear. I have seen similar maps used on many otherwise credible websites showing the range of the black bear along these lines. But it only takes a moment to prove that this alleged range of the black bear is incorrect.

I know Virginia's wildlife very well, so lets look at the Virginia portion of this supposed range. The map shows the bear's range coming sharply down the middle of the state, just west of Loudoun County in the north and continuing down to the west of Richmond and Brunswick County. These maps sure do make it look like black bears aren't likely to be found much farther east than Charlottesville or Richmond.

Yet we have solid data from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries proving that this is wrong. A dead bear, brought physically into a check station by a hunter, is a pretty good indication that bears are present in a particular county. At least a few bears are being tagged most years in Loudoun and Brunswick Counties and even in the City of Virginia Beach, waaay out of the alleged range. Suffolk, almost 100 miles outside of the official range, had 22 black bears killed last season alone.

Black bears are in fact very well distributed throughout all of Virginia, with the sole exception of much of the Delmarva Peninsula. The harvest data proves this, without even getting into the questions of trail camera photos or other sightings that don't result in a dead bear with a state inspection.

The farther away that you go from hard science sources, the more ridiculous some of the claims about black bear ranges get. This hunting site displays a range map for black bears which appears to almost completely exclude Virginia. Defenders of Wildlife, a serious organization, limits the range to what looks like only about a third of VA (look to the right side of the page). This is a perfect example of (unintentionally, I believe) false information being used as part of advocacy for policy-making.

This is just one species, in one state. It got me thinking that there could be a whole lot of other species whose ranges and populations densities are actually very different from what the official data visible to the public represents. This cannot be good for environmental policy-making.

What happens when some staff person for CITES needs to make a judgment call on whether a species merits additional protection? What about a legislator about to vote on whether to open or close a season for hunting an animal? What about land-owners wondering whether there is a species they need to be concerned about in the area before cutting down trees or brush? Bad maps and bad data like what we find with the bears is much of what they will encounter and it will result in bad decisions.

I ran into some problems with this stuff while going through the editing process for 'Eating Aliens.' I'd get asked about what someone in a white lab coat thinks about whether a particular invasive animal is present or how it got there. But as much respect as I have for the guys in the white lab coats, wildlife does not live in a test tube. We are very good at tracking and studying the animals that we know are out there but by definition we lack good data on the wildlife that we didn't expect to be there in the first place. Personally, I don't believe that we necessarily need a federal study in order to start responding to an ecological problem and I don't believe that someone needs a Phd or a badge from FDA to determine whether they are looking at a snakehead in the bottom of their boat, or a cougar staring them down in the Virginia woods.

Even when a group of biologists knows what is going on (for example, DGIF's own maps show a very sound assessment of black bear ranges), the system overall is apparently not very good at disseminating this information accurately among other stake-holders, advocacy groups and the public in general.

I would guess that these inaccurate bear maps are probably just decades out of date, but who knows? Maybe these maps were never correct. I bet that they'll still be used ten years from now. It is so much easier to grab and copy a map from someone else's book or website and use it for whatever you need than it would be to actually confirm the data. In this age of 'content farming' the accuracy of information has nearly zero value to most of the internet.

The fog of war applies well to making sense of the distribution of wildlife. Its all too fluid and complex and deliberately hidden by the subjects themselves for us to ever have a perfect understanding of what is out there in nature. Which is part of what makes zoology so much fun.


[Photo copyright 2010 by Jackson Landers. That's a bear track I found. In Virginia.]

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Guided Deer Hunt Dates

Saturday is booked, but I have three days of the regular deer season still available for guided/tutored deer hunts for adult beginners. January 4th, 5th, and 6th are open. The standard rate is $150 per day for one hunter. After January 7th, deer will be out of season in most of Virginia but other species are still on the menu.

I can travel to your land (up to 200 miles from Charlottesville, VA, though a mileage fee applies) to help you learn how to understand how the deer are using it and how to hunt it, or we can hunt on wildlife management areas.

[Photo copyright 2010 by John Athayde]

Monday, January 02, 2012

High, Wild and Free

Most documentary films these days leave me cold. 'Reality' TV has infected documentary film making to a distressing degree. Those movies that don't suffer from an overdose of fakery still seem to be riddled with CGI and endless interviews with people in white lab coats sitting in suspiciously well-lit 'labs'. I hate all of this crap and I rarely watch modern documentary films any more because of it.

For the most part I find that I have to reach back a few decades at least to find documentaries that don't make me want to throw a brick at the screen. One that I find myself coming back to again and again is 'High Wild and Free,' by Gordon Eastman.

The film is a totally unscripted (as far as I could tell, anyhow) document of a months-long ramble through the Canadian wilderness by Eastman in 1968. He appears to have done most of the camera work himself. There is no plot except a vague effort to get from point A to point B but I never noticed this fact until the 3rd or 4th time watching it. Eastman goes fishing for salmon, builds a canoe and floats down a river, hunts sheep, and generally farts around and has a good time.

It wasn't until I was half-way through my first viewing of the movie before I noticed that there is no original audio. The whole thing looks like it was probably shot on 16mm without any sort of sound. All of the audio is provided in the form of narration by Eastman, in the style of Bruce Brown's 'Endless Summer,' which came out that same year.

In fact, 'High Wild and Free' is very much an outdoorsman's version of 'Endless Summer' in terms of narration, era, and overall style. Both are footloose, unscripted journeys that were obviously undertaken for their own sake with the film-making being an excuse for the trip. This, to me, is what outdoor documentary film-making can be at its best. Go out and have an adventure, try not to get the cameras smashed up too badly, and figure that something good can be edited together from what results.

Nobody does this any more. And yet the results were so great back when people did it. Neither Eastman nor Bruce Brown really knew anything about film-making. What they had was initiative and the guts to go out there and live a good story. I could say the same about Thor Heyerdahl, who made the film, 'Kon-Tiki' about his famous voyage across much of the Pacific ocean in a balsa raft and won an Oscar for it without having any notion of film-making whatsoever.

Live a good story and try to get it on camera. This, to me, seems like the right approach to making a really good outdoor documentary. This was essentially what I did to produce my forthcoming travel/adventure book, 'Eating Aliens,' and I hope that it will be the basis for the documentary films that I hope to make over the next few years.

Meanwhile, I want to strongly suggest that you give 'High Wild and Free' a look. They have it for instant play on Netflix. If you can get past the corny opening song then its an excellent look at a moment in documentary film making that seems to have passed us by.

Cooking Geese with The Perennial Plate

The Perennial Plate Episode 85: Goose Dilemma from Daniel Klein on Vimeo.


Back in September I filmed an appearance for the web TV show, 'The Perennial Plate' with Mirra Fine and Daniel Klein. We met up at Glass House Winery in Free Union, Virginia to hunt and cook giant Canada geese.

The episode is finally finished and online today. I really like what they did with the editing.

Helenah Swedberg put together a quick three minute segment about the same outing. She was filming the filming while working on her movie about me. They each captured an slightly different take on the day's events, with the common theme being lots of shots of my butt.

One thing that I want to clarify about the goose situation is that Canada geese are in fact native to the eastern part of Virginia. I don't want people to think that I'm saying all geese are invasive in all of Virginia. Here in Albemarle County we are way off of the Atlantic flyway where Canada geese would traditionally have been found. What we have here are resident geese of a subspecies that isn't even native to the Atlantic flyway. It was those non-native resident geese that we were hunting in this episode.

The other guy hunting with me in this episode is Michael Macfarlane. We probably wouldn't have gotten any geese that day without Michael's help. Our strategy for bagging the three geese that were warily hanging out on the other side of the pond, out of range, required a two-person approach.

We checked the direction of the wind, knowing that the geese would need to take off into the wind to create the necessary lift (like an airplane). Michael positioned himself straight down-wind of them in plain view. The idea was to distract the geese with Michael's obvious presence. I wanted them to be watching Michael while I stalked up behind them from the woods. Then once I started shooting they would have to fly straight at him and he could drop any that I missed.

The plan worked beautifully. I caught the geese totally by surprise with Helenah and Daniel filming behind me. I bagged one on the water (the point was culling here -- not sport) and took a second on the wing. The third one came right at Michael as planned and he dropped it perfectly.

Those extra shots that you can hear me taking were to finish off the birds as they fell.

Michael also did equal work plucking, gutting and butchering. I was the one being interviewed and filmed but Michael was an equal partner in the day's success.
Custom Search