Opinion on what made these scratches?

[el-bagr]

Not to flog a dead porcupine, but didja check out stopher&c's Bearcamp Trackers page? These guys know their stuff ... and found a strong correlation between fresh bark chew marks and quillpig tracks...

Last spring we tracked a porcupine through mixed hemlock/beech woods up a steepening slope. Tracks stopped at a 20' crumbly ledge. Forgetting about the tracks for the moment, we climbed onto the rock and traversed up and right along a narrow ledge to a small cave (desk-sized). The cave smelled very strongly of animal sign ... and was full of sawdust-like scat. Way cool.

See also this link on porc-epic sign, or this one -- particularly this picture of the bark chew sign:

http://trackertrail.com/tracking/mammals/porcupine/Porcupinegnawings0051.jpg

(cut'n'paste)

 

[chuck]

Thank you. I think its porcupine too now.
Bearcamp trackers - cool site

 

[NH_Mtn_Hiker]

It's Bigfoot, I can prove it!

When I first opened this thread several people had posted and the answer to Jim's question had been posted so I moved on. Later, after noticing 22 replies, I had to pay the thread another visit.

I was surprised, based on the evidence, to see which of the theories of "what made the marks" was prevailing. I know, without any doubt, what kind of animal made those marks, and no, it wasn't bigfoot.

Lets look at the evidence:
1) "Scrape went as high up as 6-7 feet"
2) "but the tree I saw the weekend before on Tecumseh had vertical scratches, reaching 7 feet up the tree and stopping about 2 feet from the ground."
(same animal, different weapon)
3) "I have seen similar in the Willey range before"
(possibly a widespread problem)
4) "there were about 5 trees that were stripped like this"
5) "they were either spruce or fir"
(big clue there)
6) "by their breadth and orientation -- that the marks are more like those made by teeth than claws"
(Right-On Grumpy)
7) "There were 5 trees stripped like this, all on one side"
8) "Elevation was around 3K"
9) "Do Porcupines climb up 5-6 feet to feed on trees"
(yes, more importantly though, why didn't this one climb higher.)
10) "I'd love to see a picture of how a moose eats bark."
(me two, especially since they have no front teeth, just big lips)
11) "I'm thinking a moose's antlers are more smooth and the rubbing would be more smooth and less gouging."
(Bingo!)
12) "While climbing No. Brother in early October I saw dozens of trees with similar markings. Only hardwood trees had the markings all the conifers were "clean""
(key word= dozens)
13) "Nearby Gatineau Park is FULL of trees that look like that from ole Porky. Usually, it is about 20 feet up."
(these only go 6-7 feet, that's a significant clue)
14) " I am pretty sure we agree that bear is out"
(not all of us )
15) " porcupine gnawing "
(Note the difference in the teeth marks between Jim's photo and the one in the above link)

Over the last twenty years or so I have seen thousands of trees, both hardwoods and softwoods, marked like this, and I've seen freshly marked trees in January and February. Moose generally shed their antlers by Christmas, and since moose neither have front teeth nor teeth on their antlers, I think we can rule them out.

As for the Porky theory. The teeth marks in Jim's photo don't look at all like those of a porcupine and if it is a porupine, why doesn't he ever climb higher than 6-7 feet? Because it wasn't a porcupine.

The animal that made those marks was a black bear. If you look closely at Ivy's picture on the 2nd page of album You can see old scars on the tree. Bears typically return to the same trees year after year. Also of interest is the type of tree. I've never seen or heard of a porcupine eating evergreens other than pines and eastern hemlock where as spruce and balsams are a staple of bears after first snow.

EDIT: I was wrong and so was everybody else, see my next post.

 

[Jim lombard]

Lets look at the evidence:
1) "Scrape went as high up as 6-7 feet"
2) "but the tree I saw the weekend before on Tecumseh had vertical scratches, reaching 7 feet up the tree and stopping about 2 feet from the ground."
(same animal, different weapon)
3) "I have seen similar in the Willey range before"
(possibly a widespread problem)
4) "there were about 5 trees that were stripped like this"
5) "they were either spruce or fir"
(big clue there)
6) "by their breadth and orientation -- that the marks are more like those made by teeth than claws"
(Right-On Grumpy)
7) "There were 5 trees stripped like this, all on one side"
8) "Elevation was around 3K"
9) "Do Porcupines climb up 5-6 feet to feed on trees"
(yes, more importantly though, why didn't this one climb higher.)
10) "I'd love to see a picture of how a moose eats bark."
(me two, especially since they have no front teeth, just big lips)
11) "I'm thinking a moose's antlers are more smooth and the rubbing would be more smooth and less gouging."
(Bingo!)
12) "While climbing No. Brother in early October I saw dozens of trees with similar markings. Only hardwood trees had the markings all the conifers were "clean""
(key word= dozens)
13) "Nearby Gatineau Park is FULL of trees that look like that from ole Porky. Usually, it is about 20 feet up."
(these only go 6-7 feet, that's a significant clue)
14) " I am pretty sure we agree that bear is out"
(not all of us )
15) " porcupine gnawing "
(Note the difference in the teeth marks between Jim's photo and the one in the above link)

Over the last twenty years or so I have seen thousands of trees, both hardwoods and softwoods, marked like this, and I've seen freshly marked trees in January and February. Moose generally shed their antlers by Christmas, and since moose neither have front teeth nor teeth on their antlers, I think we can rule them out.

As for the Porky theory. The teeth marks in Jim's photo don't look at all like those of a porcupine and if it is a porupine, why doesn't he ever climb higher than 6-7 feet? Because it wasn't a porcupine.

The animal that made those marks was a black bear. If you look closely at Ivy's picture on the 2nd page of album You can see old scars on the tree. Bears typically return to the same trees year after year. Also of interest is the type of tree. I've never seen or heard of a porcupine eating evergreens other than pines and eastern hemlock where as spruce and balsams are a staple of bears after first snow.

Good detective work NH...
I couldn't open that link though. One thing I didn't mention is that above the scrapes, bites whatever was a pretty dense branch cover. Now I want to see a picture of a bear eating a tree! I looked pretty close but didn't see any hairs.

 

[HockeyPuck]

I googled "moose Diet" and found some infohere . The 3rd set of pics from the top show moose scrapings from antlers and from teeth.

 

[Tuggy]

I've seen a porcupine eating bark on a tree 15 or so feet off the ground. But it seemed to strip the bark off all the way around the tree. It would leave gaps between areas it stripped. The tree was much thinner than this one appears to be. There were several nearby trees where it had obviously been busy. This was in North Central, Pa at World's End SP.

Interesting thread.

 

[drewski]

moose

i have watched moose do this..

 

[forestgnome]

My guess is that it's from a moose eating the bark, something I've watched many times. However, now I can't remember if I've ever seen them eating softwood bark specifically.

I see this excact type of marking everywhere in the forest and I've always thought of it as being from a moose eating the bark. They'll grab a piece with their teeth and tear long stips off, then gobble them down.

Do we know for sure that moose don't also eat softwood bark?

 

[JackH]

scratches

I vote black bear because some marks seem like parallel claw marks rather than teeth or antlers which I would think would look more indiscriminate. Maybe we can get a CSI team up there next time and pull some DNA?

 

[Rugger]

I would lean toward Moose, as I never ever saw this until late 70's when Moose started making their way into Vermont in quantities. Only trees I've ever seen bear marks on were Beech trees.

 

[Mattl]

Im pretty sure that moose will eat young softwood bark for the sap underneith, usually during times of food shortages, but nevertheless. I think they strip it with its bottom teeth. Im still going for a moose, but an interesting thread! What do you think Grouse? -Matt L

 

[Jim lombard]

i have watched moose do this..

Do they grab the bark with their lower teeth? I'd love to see a video of this. The marks do seem to start at the edge of the bark and move upwards. I should've looked closer for hairs or some other sign.

 

[NH_Mtn_Hiker]

We were all wrong!

I stopped by Fish & Game Headquarters in Concord this morning and spoke with one of their wildlife "experts". I described the marks on the tree and directed her to this thread on her computer. After seeing the pictures <drum roll please>, she seemed relatively sure the marks were made by white tailed deer. She said the only trees she'd seen or heard of moose eating were maples, deer will eat many different trees. She also said that moose don't generally like to bend over and usually just eat higher up.

Ok! My final answer is White Tailed Deer.

 

[darren]

Maybe it was a Pemi Ranger? They have been doing a lot of tree scraping lately.

(sorry, I couldn't resist)

- darren

 

[Sir Hikesalot]

I stopped by Fish & Game Headquarters in Concord this morning and spoke with one of their wildlife "experts". I described the marks on the tree and directed her to this thread on her computer. After seeing the pictures <drum roll please>, she seemed relatively sure the marks were made by white tailed deer. She said the only trees she'd seen or heard of moose eating were maples, deer will eat many different trees. She also said that moose don't generally like to bend over and usually just eat higher up.

Ok! My final answer is White Tailed Deer.

That's what I said!









after I edited my post

 

[Rick]

Since the trees were all scraped on one side, could it have been the side facing the sun, which could have warmed the tree and and caused something (Bear?) to search for some active insects on this sunwarmed side of the tree.

 

[DougPaul]

Since the trees were all scraped on one side, could it have been the side facing the sun, which could have warmed the tree and and caused something (Bear?) to search for some active insects on this sunwarmed side of the tree.

Another explanation might be that it was easier for the deer (or whatever) to reach one side of the tree than the other.

Doug

 

[Mattl]

I dissagree that it was a white tailed deer..Firstly if the location were in a lower elevation and different part of the state I was agree possible..We are talking about people seeing this in Baxter, Willey Range, and on the summit of Sandwich Dome. These are elevations above 3000 feet or more. Let me just say there are very very VERY few deer that high up and in that type of environment. I worked for fish and game as well and we looked at distribution of wildlife and deer dont live or really even go through those areas. We need to examine the types of animals that live in boreal or high elevation forests in NE. They are Moose, Bear, Pine marten, bobcat (not as much), Fisher, Porcupine, and maybe one im missing. Has anyone ever even seen deer tracks in the White Mountains besides lower elevations?..I sure havent. Moose and bears outnumber deer in the white mountains by far overall anyway. I still think it was a moose because 1) moose during late fall and winter travel to high elevations with fir and spruce and live throught the winter there. They eat bark off softwoods and needles during this time, they will also eat buds off of deciduous as well. 2) If it were a bear I think it would be a more localized scratching in one area and not bite marks. 3) Possibly a porcupine, but usually they do there stripping much higher up in the trees normally I think. I would bet it were a bull moose getting ready for winter. -Matt L

 

[NewHampshire]

"That rabbit is dynamite"

Does not look like bear claw marks I have seen. Do Porcupines climb up 5-6 feet to feed on trees?

Ive seen a poky up a good 20 feet in a tree before. They are real nasty to trees too. They are quite cumbersome getting up and down, but they love getting up there to feed on the tree.

Brian

 

[grouseking]

I agree with matt.....sounds like a reasonable explanation to me....but what do I know? anyone else have any explanations?

grouseking