Burrowing cats

[helen99]

As you may have heard, the bald eagle at the Washinton DC national zoo died on the 4th of July. The death is currently under investigation.

The following articles attribute the death to Burrowing Cats. I did a search on Google to see if I could find any instances of Burrowing Cats (besides these articles), and you know what? I couldn't find any! This does not mean they don't exist (mine certainly burrow under the covers), but still...

This is about the 10th death at the National zoo. As a conspiracy theorist, I am forced to suspect there's more to this than meets the eye. Like maybe a disgruntled employee wanted someone's job, didn't get it, and is trying to make someone look bad by killing the animals. Or maybe there is a psycho on staff. Or maybe they're being poisoned with Spider Milk. Or something. But I don't think it's Burrowing Cats. No, no I don't.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13678-2003Jul5.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23447-2003Jul7.html

Comments

[silenti77.livejournal.com]

Method of wounding found suggests a possum, although they seem to be somewhat quiet about the fact that the eagle was very, very sick and near death already, or it wouldn't have been on the floor of the cage and vulnerable - an eagle on the floor is perfectly capable of killing something about the size of a pit bull.

It fits with how all of the other animals died (neglect, food-related or poisoning issues). Burrowing cats, indeed. I liked how the Forest Service came right out and said the 'bobcat' theory was pure bullshit.

[stormcat.livejournal.com]

It was the storms that put it on the ground and made it vulnerable. Yeah, that sounds good. Never mind that eagles are JUST fine in storms in the wild and have talon strength that pretty much welds them to branches when they want.

I don't think it was a 'possum. Or a bobcat. It was savaged by something, though. Not a "large housecat"; I don't think even a healthy Maine Coon would be able to pull it off, at least not without leaving a shitload of telltale fur behind. And that's about the only housecat that gets big enough to even consider taking on even a sick bald eagle. As for "burrowing"... anything that can burrow under the fence like that will leave one hell of a hole. And it would have done it before, which would mean the bird could have gotten out before -- and eagles are quite capable of scruffing in the dirt, they're bloody scavengers and often eat things like snakes and rabbits in the wild. Try to catch -those- without going in a hole or two... so much for the "burrowing" theory.

It's worth pointing out that it's the DC zoo. Which has no admission fee and you can pretty much walk into at any time. The gates are closed at night... which means jack, really, it's just that no one really wants to go after a zoo. I do wonder if they might not find BB pellets in some of those "claw wounds."

And then there's the irony of it dying on the 4th...

Re:

[helen99.livejournal.com]

If it was someone who was, say, who wanted to make an existing zoo director lose their job (either for revenge or to obtain their position) they would want to do this in a way that attracted a lot of attention. Killing the prize eagle on the 4th would do that.

[stormcat.livejournal.com]

Or at least the weekend of the 4th; it was discovered on the evening of the 3rd.

Honestly, it'd be near-impossible to trace who it might have been. Too many humans...

Re:

[helen99.livejournal.com]

Someone with a key may have put a large animal in there with the eagle after it had been weakened sufficiently.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

Even weakened raptors with broken wings, heavy bloodloss, or other injuries can do serious damage to anything coming near them... they're actually especially dangerous if they're hurt in some way since all of their defensive reactions will come to the forefront in a major way. For an attack like that to leave no signs of the attacker, like blood on the ground that doesn't match the eagle's, I'm betting the attacker was human and probably someone who knows how to handle birds of prey. If not he or she probably would have left a finger or two behind. Or an eye... well, you get the idea.

Granted, the birds was a permanent cripple already from what I understand and would have been used to working with humans due to its rehabilitation and its subsequent stay at the zoo, but unless most of the injuries were made postmortem the eagle still would have reacted VERY violently to the attack.

(I used to volunteer at an avian rehab center here in south jersey when I was younger, so I know firsthand how violently raptors can react when they're injured.)

[stormcat.livejournal.com]

Which just highlights that it couldn't have been a burrowing cat or much of anything else wild; there'd be either a nearby corpse or a serious blood trail... but they didn't mention any blood around, did they?

I'm wondering if they neglected to mention a broken neck on the poor eagle, frankly. You can do a lot to a bird after you wring its neck, and it'd be easy to do if the eagle was used to humans.

I just feel so sorry for the poor thing.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

*nods* Aye... breaking it's neck would have been an excellent way for either a human killer or even a predatory animal to immobilize the bird quickly. I'm also noting that there seem to be conflicting reports in different news articles about whether or not the eagle was capable of flight. Also, their suggestion that the bird was killed by an animal attracted to the fish that were being fed to it seems preposterous... any animal attracted by the fish would have EATEN the fish, and not bothered with the eagle unless the eagle tried to defend it's fish. Which it probably would not have tried to do against a superior predator, particularly since it was used to food being delivered to it regularly. So I agree, probably a human and not any sort of cat.

Sadly, though, I get the feeling that if the bird was murdered by a human it's neck was not broken... for a human to leave behind a corpse that could be described as "savaged" implies a large amount of cruelty and even some sort of rage behind their actions, IMO, and I would think that such a person would be more likely to leave the bird alive during the act. I think it would be more... satisfying... for a person with that sort of motivation. Then again, I may simply have watched too many crime shows involving profiling of murderers. *chuckles*

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

Just to be totally weird and abandon the mundane theories for a moment....

... anyone consider a were-bobcat zoo employee or former employee? ;-)

[stormcat.livejournal.com]

*giggle* Yes, actually.

Re:

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

*grins* Glad to hear I'm not the only person who thinks of weird stuff like that. :)

[stormcat.livejournal.com]

If the neck was not broken and the damage was not inflicted postmortem... then there were at least two people involved, one to hold the neck and claws of a terrified eagle and the other to inflict the damage.

Hm. The poor bird was alive, you're right; it was found badly injured and died about ten the next morning, not found dead.

The eagle wasn't capable of flight, incidentally, not as wild eagles are. I saw it when I went to the zoo on a date once. It'd had a broken wing. It could flutter around and sort of do extended gliding hops, but the wing was... badly injured. That may have even been the eagle with the amputated wing, I can't remember if that was the Baltimore or DC zoo.

Re:

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

I notice that at least one article which went into detail about the birds injuries said that they were multiple puncture wounds and lacerations to the bird's abdomen. It sounds to me like someone went at it with a knife. And they wouldn't necessarily have needed two people... one guy with a heavy leather glove suitable for handling raptors could have held it by the legs while stabbing it with the knife in his other hand. It would have struggled a lot, but a few good stabs and it probably wouldn't have had a ton of fight left in it. At which point the killer probably would have dropped it and left. I would surmise that any bite wounds from a feral cat may have come afterwards, while the bird was already lying on the ground and dying.

If the bird was a permanent cripple with a broken wing, then it being caught on the ground by a predator is even more suspicious in my opinion... usually raptors with broken wings like that are kept in pens where they have ramps and platforms they can walk up to hop up into a branch or constructed perch of some sort. Their talons are not really built for extended time walking on the ground, so without such a setup it could have developed problems with the pads of its feet. That's avoided by giving it access to a branch-like object it can wrap its talons around and perch on.

age tends to kill things too

[hanibal.livejournal.com]

Take it from someone who worked at the National Zoo for 10+ years. animals die. amazingly enough they get old and die and stuff. I have been keeping track of what has been going on, and been checking in with the friends I still have over there (my mother included) and none of this stuff has happened because of the intention to hurt the animals. when people over there get pissed at each other they file sexual harassment charges like any civilized person. they dont take it out on the defenseless animals. Normally I would agree with the conspiracy theory, as I KNOW they are out to get me, but it just isnt the case here.
-t

Re: age tends to kill things too

[helen99.livejournal.com]

Most of these deaths have not been age-related, though...

I'm not ruling out coincidence - but there have been so many non-age-related deaths in the past two years with causes ranging from starvation to puncture wounds to poisoning.

Most people would never hurt animals. But it's starting (emphasis on the word starting) to look kind of weird (to me).