Schinckel.net

During a family gathering today, I remembered that there were some rumours about a Puma or Panther (or several) living in the Grampians Mountains in western Victoria. I wound up others at the lunch with my belief in the urban (rural?) myth, and provided quick corroborating evidence in the form of several web pages. But do I believe in it? Anyone could come up with evidence to support any point of view, if they wanted, just by googling. I was able to quickly find about four sites that were all quite well written, and the only info I found that was anti-Pumas was so poorly written, and so badly thought out that I might start believing in the Puma just for that sake:

Personly, i bleive after being in the grampians just yesterday, and 3 days befor there are NO puma’s in the grampians. All evedence suppporting the matter should be ditched as it is a hoax. They might have used to be there, YES, but now i think not. I understand that people may have seen them, but to me… “seeing is bleiveing” not today. i saw 0.0 puma’s, no sheeps up trees, or foot prints. they are no longer living in the grampians! mabey somewere elese, only god knows! CYA L8R

Liam: you are a tool, and you should be taken out and shot. Let’s examine your argument in detail (ignoring, for the time, you clear lack of spelling ability).

1. You were in the Grampians ‘yesterday’ (9/6/05). Good for you. Somehow this makes you an expert as to the existence or otherwise of big cats in the whole mountain range. Did you visit every square kilometre? Did you take your rock that keeps Pumas away?
2. All evidence (I do know how to spell, most of the time. I also know how to use the ‘Shift’ key on the keyboard. Capital letters are often used at the start of sentences, as well as in places where you want to emphasise a point. But I digress.) should be ditched. Why is this exactly? What evidence (See, I still know how to spell!) have you got that the evidence (Still!) is a hoax?
3. Technically, the evidence itself could not be a hoax, but false. The story could be a hoax, but evidence does not have the property in itself to be a hoax or otherwise. Only true, or false. (Or partially true, or undetermined).
4. Okay, now we come to it. You did not see a Puma yesterday. Or any sheep up trees. Or foot prints. Got some news for you, buddy, the Grampians are a big place. I visited them several times, and never saw a Puma either. Or sheep up a tree. I did see a koala up a tree though. Although, not on the last time I visited. Does that mean that there are no koalas there anymore? Or does it just mean that there might be koalas, but I didn’t see any?
5. Oh, and the plural of sheep is sheep. Funny little word isn’t it.

Reading some of the other posts on that page, and there are a lot of them, makes me start to believe in the story. I think I want to believe (not just to prove Liam a tosser), and a couple of the posts/comments are fairly well thought out, and believable. There are a lot of other pages, too, that give plenty of evidence supporting the Puma theory. I think the best one is from the Bulletin.

In the rugged Geranium Springs Valley in the Grampians, sheep carcasses were found on a narrow ledge, 300 metres above the valley floor. Mutilated animal carcasses were also found on the valley floor. Droppings recovered from the valley were identified by a leading US big cat expert as matching puma faeces. Within a hidden rock shelter on Mount Bepcha in the Grampians, many animal remains - ranging from large cattle bones to those of freshwater tortoises - were found. Researchers also took casts of two large carnivore prints, later judged by US experts as matching those of a puma.

Apparently these three quotes are all from a report by Dr John Henry, a 1970s Science lecturer from Deakin University, and now Professor of Education. This report is fairly conclusive, and quite detailed, by all accounts. Tim Winton wrote a book based on this rural ‘myth’. I’ve not read any Winton, and I’ve been meaning to. Perhaps I will.