Quote:
So who takes this "fox" to the groomer to get it's tail trimmed?... It's obviously a feline. Guess GA DNR healthcare plan no longer covers vision... darn budget cuts!
probably the same hairdresser as the gray fox on post #164 on this page
https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=565337&p=17 .
or maybe the hairdresser used by the gray fox on post # 137 on this page
https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=565337&p=14 .
but possibly even the hairdresser used by the gray fox on post # 36 on this page
https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=565337&p=4 .
Quote:
'course if you're worried about your vision, you can always do the eye test from my post # 507 on this page
https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=565337&p=51 .
red fox = big fluffy tails we associate with foxes.
grey fox = longer, more feline tail with considerably less fluff and a more cat-like carriage.
it's not a cat, its a grey fox. just my opinion, but hey, I did the eye test...
I get it, grey fox's tail is not as fluffy as red fox's tail... Still, the photos you linked to have tails that are two to three times as thick as the tail of the UPA.
I understand why team fox thinks it's a fox, because they're common and they're the right size.... What I don't get, is why team fox thinks that size and abundance are compelling enough arguments to disregard the simple fact that the UPA looks like a cat, and not at all like a fox.
Likewise, I understand why team big cat thinks that the UPA is a big cat, because it looks exactly like an adult Puma concolor... What I don't get is why team big cat thinks that appearance is enough to disregard the fact that the size of the UPA is way too small to be an adult Puma concolor, and when Puma concolor are at the age to match the size of the UPA, they're proportions and markings look nothing at all like that of the UPA.
That's why I'm inclined to think that the UPA is a Jaguarundi. Jaguarundi look like miniature Puma concolor, yet they're the size of a grey fox.
In short, it can't be a big cat if it ain't big, and it can't be a fox if it don't look like a fox... If it looks like a jaguarundi, is the same size as a jaguarundi, and was spotted in a region where jaguarundis have been spotted, then it must be a jaguarundi!
No need to speculate, or engage in convoluted "eye tests," or contrived silhouette manufacturing exercises, when there is a much simpler and more reasonable explanation:
It is what it looks like, and it looks like what it is.
How hard is that?