Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Large Mystery Scat Revisited

Yesterday evening I returned to the scene of the crime, so to speak. Vince needed more information than I could remember, so after inhaling a quick dinner, I grabbed my camera and a ruler, and Toby and I returned to the trail. I was surprised to find a new deposit right next to the old.



The original scat was greatly reduced in size, either thanks to the weather over the last week, or thanks to the vehicles that had driven through the area, or thanks to both.

Unfortunately, it was closing in on 7:00 PM when I reached the item in question. Although out in open areas the sun was still bright and visible, at this spot the sun was behind a mountain/hill/clump of trees, which meant lighting was poor. Photos taken sans flash are all dark and blurry (it's difficult to hold a camera and a dog steady at the same time). Photos taken with the flash didn't turn out much better. I think my next camera purchase will have to either be an external flash, or a macro lens. Hard choice. But I digress...

Here is a close-up of one of the new bits of scat. As you can see, it is filled with wood chips and coarse black fur.



This photo shows a good-sized clump of fur - almost like the tip of a weasel's tail in winter. I use this comparison simply for description, for the following images will prove that the food item was much larger than a weasel.




See? It's a claw! I found this in the original scat. Using a stick, I started to pick apart the largest bit of the old scat, the bit that in the original photos looked like a football with two sausages stuffed inside.




Further picking through the scat yielded a second claw. And since I had a ruler, I could demonstrate immediately just how big the claws are.



Now, I still don't know whose scat this is, but it looks to me like it ate a fisher. Why fisher? Well, the coarse black fur is one clue. The claws are a second clue. As previously stated, the claws are too big to be that of a weasel (as in short- or long-tailed). They are even too big to be from a marten (and the fur is the wrong color for a marten). Fur color might suggest mink, but not that coarse, and not with claws that big. We have a stuffed fisher here at work, and the claws are about the right size for that.

But, just to prove that I have an open mind, let's consider other options. What else could have coarse dark fur and large claws? A bear? Maybe a young bear. Coyote and fox and bobcat are eliminated because the fur is all wrong; these three animals have lighter colored fur. Yes, they also have black fur, but had it been any of those, there would very likely be evidence of some lighter fur, which there wasn't.

So, we have a rough idea of what was eaten, but not who did the eating. What would eat a fisher or a young bear? This would likely depend on whether the prey was killed and eaten, or if it was scavenged. This I cannot tell.

Unless the bits of wood are a clue.

I think I'm still leaning towards coyote as the predator and thus the depositor of the scat, albeit a very large coyote. It could be a bear, too, I suppose, but the formation of the scats just seem too canid-like to me. Our handy-man here at work, who has a background in wildlife management, is leaning toward bear.

I welcome the opinions of other scatologists and trackers.









5 comments:

  1. What you need is a "Ring Flash" for really good macro-lighting.

    We also investigate odd scat as we explore the woods, but I have yet to bring a ruler. LOL.

    Excellent "stuff" you got here. I think there are few predatory animals out there that eat Fishers. So, yeah, bear or coyote seem like good guesses. But somehow I never associate our Black Bears with this kind of diet. I always thought ours were more veggie-oriented. Very interesting!

    ReplyDelete
  2. At first glance I thought you were talking about owl pellets but that doesn't seem to be the case. I've never seen owl pellets before or bear scat. (City dog scat - ugh! Seen too much of that!)

    My suggestion for shooting in a dimly lit forest: a small lightweight but steady tripod. Use your camera's timer delay (like ten seconds). Since you're photographing something that isn't moving like scat, a long exposure, even 1 second, should be OK - as long as your walking companion doesn't bump into the tripod. The other option would be a bean bag or a bag or rice, loose enough to form a cradle for your camera.

    With a digital camera, try color correction like the overcast sky setting and see if that prevents your shots from being too blue.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the tips, Luke. I hadn't thought of a bean/rice bag. I have two tripods, one heavy and of good quality, the other lighter weight and not as high quality. I could probably schlep that one around on the longer hikes.

    TourPro - I've heard about those ring flashes. A friend of mine loves his, while other folks I've asked have been less than thrilled. I guess it's like everything - there are people on both sides.

    I now have the scat in hand, so to speak, so soon better photos will be appearing (I hope).

    ReplyDelete
  4. I can't account for the wood chips, but what about porcupine? They are know predators of Fisher, aren't they?

    ReplyDelete
  5. You are close, Diane. Fishers are predators of porcupines. Porkies are rodents and their primary food is the inner bark of trees, with a strong penchant for salt.

    And it turned out what I thought were wood chips were actually dried grasses and plant stems.

    ReplyDelete