what is this on my game-cam?

[dretd]

Quote:
Thank you for your very detailed analysis! I am so glad you had pointed out this technique and think your background and training in visual analysis are just what is needed to help us out with this sort of ID. I have found that an outside eye is really helpful to point out things on a vexing problem-- if you are too close to the project sometimes you lose perspective on the big (or in this case, small) picture.

The side-by side feature of this technique is really smart--I was printing the pictures for measurements and looking as the whole and breaking it down to the parts is a nifty idea and really helpful. Thanks again!

 

[woodmort]

One of the reasons I find this thread so interesting and keep coming back to it is the differences of opinion as to what the OP's camera actually saw in terms of what is out there. How many people have offered opinions on what it is? 50? 100? We're all looking at the same series of still photographs, analyzing what we see, comparing them to our background and other photos of known animals, possible fauna in the OP's area, and still can't make a definitive ID. Yet there are some people that see an animal in the wild for 10 to 20 seconds and make a positive ID as to what it is. Makes a guy wonder.

That being said--I insist that it is a grey fox based on the series of photographs, timeline, comparisons to other photos of known animals, reference points and animals on subsequent photos, common animals in OP's area and my actual sighting of a number of grey foxes. Those of you making an ID based on a single photo need to broaden your view. For one thing check out some videos of the grey foxes--you will see they can look and move very feline like--they are not red foxes if that is your reference point.

 

[zzGypsy]

Quote:
Thank you for your very detailed analysis! I am so glad you had pointed out this technique and think your background and training in visual analysis are just what is needed to help us out with this sort of ID. I have found that an outside eye is really helpful to point out things on a vexing problem-- if you are too close to the project sometimes you lose perspective on the big (or in this case, small) picture.

The side-by side feature of this technique is really smart--I was printing the pictures for measurements and looking as the whole and breaking it down to the parts is a nifty idea and really helpful. Thanks again!

you're welcome.

another way to do this, if you want to use printed copies, is to print each one at a size/resolution that makes the animal about the same physical size in the prints.

now take a piece of cardstock or 5x7 index card and cut a 1/2" square opening in it... make 3 of these.
place the cardstock over the print and position the hole so only the part of the image you're studying is visible... move the cards around on each of the printed images so you can focus on details without seeing the whole image of the animal.

you'll need to adjust the size of the square cutout based on the size of the animal in your prints. the cardstock needs to be large enough to obscure the rest of the animal whereever the opening is positioned, and needs to be opaque enough to prevent you from seeing any of the rest of the image bleeding through.

this is what I do when I'm having trouble getting part of an animal right in a piece of artwork... usually it means I'm drawing from what I think it looks like, not what it actually looks like. I'll use reference photos of the animal in question, and use the cutout to focus my attention on the part I'm having trouble with. makes me really look at what is there, cuts out the distractions of what I think I see.

 

[greenkalki]

If they're in Alabama, they're in Georgia...

"The Jaguarundi in Alabama
The jaguarundi is larger than a domestic cat and a little smaller than a bobcat. Color ranges from rusty brown to almost black. These cats are most active in the early morning and evening, and prefer densely vegetated areas. The known range is from Argentina to Texas, but there have been several eyewitness accounts from south Alabama and northwest Florida. If jaguarundis do exist in the region, they could represent an introduced population, a pioneer population (think coyote, armadillo), or even the remnant of a native population. Although they have received relatively little attention in recent years, the following reports were summarized for Alabama's First Nongame Symposium (1982) by the late Dr. Dan Holliman, mammalogist at Birmingham-Southern College:
August 1974: Dr. Holliman and Dr. Thomas Nieson observed a single adult near Bayou la Batre, Mobile County.
January 1975: An adult jaguarundi was captured alive in a Clay County, Alabama farmyard, and was confirmed by James Peavey.
August 1980: Dr. Holliman observed an adult and two young at a garbage dump just outside Bayou la Batre, Mobile County.
April 1981: Dr. Holliman and Hugh Dowling observed one jaguarundi in Baldwin County crossing the road near the Gulf State Park water tower.

In the 30 years since these reports, many other reports from competent observers, plus a few recent highly suggestive trail cam images, lend further plausibility to the existence of a viable, reproducing population of this secretive cat in the region."

http://jagabama.blogspot.com/2010/11/kitty-kitty.html

 

[zzGypsy]

Quote:
see this is the point of perception that I find most fascinating.

when I look at the initial photo presentation, even after doing the analysis, my instinctive reaction is "cat". and I *feel* a high degree of certainty about it. that reaction is still powerful... in SPITE of having done the detailed analysis and proven to my own satisfaction that it's a fox. even with my own proof, I have to think about the image each time to see the fox. the "cat" impression is quite distinctive and strong, even though I'm pretty darn sure, from an intelectual analysis, it's a fox.

this is what the trick of perception does... the initial impression plugs in to a very specific recognition of cats in my head. even though I understand it to be a fox.

my guess is that the iconic "cat" tail and low-creep posture are plugging into what is called the Reticular Activating System (IIRC) ... it's basically a very primitive part of our brains that is designed to rapidly match things we see to known identifiable patterns so we can decide if we should kill and eat it, run away from it, or breed with it. this part of the brain is strongly tied to emotional reaction because it needs to activate us to respond appropriately and immedately - it's a survival thing. if it takes too long to figure out, it may kill us, or escape our grasp, so this system is very fast, and plugs in to "action" chemistry. we tend to react much more definitively to reticular matched images than to thought-through or analyzed ones.

the military uses this very fast, very accurate matching system in our brains to train fighter pilots... pilots are trained to recognize the profile - the outline shape - of various aircraft they will encounter, including outlines from a variety of angles. by being trained to recognize these outlines, pilots can rapidly identify friend or foe, even if the object is moving very fast or seen for only fractions of seconds... an essential skill in air warfare, particularly of the fighter plane kind. this process specifically uses the reticular activating system, they're taking strong advantage of a skill that's hardwired in our brains.

so... my speculation is that the curved tail and creeping posture with the artificially shortened face matches my reticular map of "cat", and that's why my reaction, even when I know better, is still *strongly* cat.

it's also why folks *powerfully* attach to their interpretation of what they've seen, especially if only glimpsed briefly. if you have time to study a moving animal, and deploy the thinking / analyzing part of the brain, you can, well, observe and analyze. if you have only a glimpse, a different part of your brain is engaged, and that part is likely to be reticular, and may well trigger adrenaline, and it will create a stronger emotional response, and therefore attachment, to the match that is stimulated.

it's probably why the people who saw the swimming beaver, and ran because they saw "bears", still swear by what they saw. their reticular system didn't have a match for "beaver" so the nearest thing it came up with was "bear". the *apropriate* survival response (unless trained otherwise) is run away. big adrenaline dump, healthy dose of fear, a good sprint, and BEAR is now locked into their recall.

reticular matching a threat can activate adrenaline, and adrenaline can anchor memory in a powerful way. we're not too far from our survival wiring.

aaaaaanyway, just my observations on why this is such a passionatly debated predator... with so much certainty on so many different sides.

 

[wyoDreamer]

xxGypsy - thank you for taking my analysis so much deeper.

I have used your system of analysis too frequently, my family think I am too weird to be making index cards with various holes inorder to isolate certain aspects of a picture. While I do not have much artistic talent, this system has allowed me to do drawings and paintings to my satisfaction. While my artwork will not bring me any awards or even sales, it brings me satisfaction and peace.

 

[zzGypsy]

Quote:
talent's great if you've got it... but persistence and development of skill will do. and not weird at all. keep doing what you're doing, you might be surpised where it will take you.

 

[dretd]

Quote:
Thank you for your very detailed analysis! I am so glad you had pointed out this technique and think your background and training in visual analysis are just what is needed to help us out with this sort of ID. I have found that an outside eye is really helpful to point out things on a vexing problem-- if you are too close to the project sometimes you lose perspective on the big (or in this case, small) picture.

The side-by side feature of this technique is really smart--I was printing the pictures for measurements and looking as the whole and breaking it down to the parts is a nifty idea and really helpful. Thanks again!

you're welcome.

another way to do this, if you want to use printed copies, is to print each one at a size/resolution that makes the animal about the same physical size in the prints.

now take a piece of cardstock or 5x7 index card and cut a 1/2" square opening in it... make 3 of these.
place the cardstock over the print and position the hole so only the part of the image you're studying is visible... move the cards around on each of the printed images so you can focus on details without seeing the whole image of the animal.

you'll need to adjust the size of the square cutout based on the size of the animal in your prints. the cardstock needs to be large enough to obscure the rest of the animal whereever the opening is positioned, and needs to be opaque enough to prevent you from seeing any of the rest of the image bleeding through.

this is what I do when I'm having trouble getting part of an animal right in a piece of artwork... usually it means I'm drawing from what I think it looks like, not what it actually looks like. I'll use reference photos of the animal in question, and use the cutout to focus my attention on the part I'm having trouble with. makes me really look at what is there, cuts out the distractions of what I think I see.

Thank you again for another great tip! --I'll have to pass this along to my 11 year old daughter. She is taking art and loves to draw and I think this could be very useful for her to get it right when she's drawing her animals (mainly chickens, of course)

 

[zzGypsy]

Quote:
you're welcome. BTW, I grew up in Ft. Collins... nice place! if you want to chat, art or geography, PM me.

 

[krissteff]

This is very interesting. Click on the photo of the mountain lion face and see how they determine size of animal captured in photo by using life-size silouettes.
http://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/wildlife-sightings/mountain-lions/confirming-physical-evidence