Tracking the Elusive Lynx
Rare and maddeningly elusive, the "ghost cat" tries to give scientists the slip high in the mountains of Montana
- By Abigail Tucker
- Photographs by Ted Wood
- Smithsonian magazine, February 2011, Subscribe
(Page 6 of 6)
Later that day, we drove back hundreds of miles to check the newly set traps in the Lewis and Clark National Forest.
They were empty.
By lantern light in the cabin that night, Squires talked of shutting down the new trapline. There were too many miles to cover between the Garnet and Lewis and Clark sites, he said. It was too much work for a small crew.
In the morning, though, the air was fresh and chilly. The mud-encrusted truck was covered with smudges where deer had licked off road salt in the night. New snow lay smooth as rolled dough, with lynx prints as neat as if stamped with a cookie cutter.
Squires was reborn. “Oh, I’d like to trap that cat!” he cried for what must have been the thousandth time that season, blue eyes blazing.
The traplines stayed open.
Staff writer Abigail Tucker last wrote about the artist Arcimboldo. Ted Wood is a nature photographer in Boulder, Colorado.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Related topics: Carnivores Hunting Montana Mountains
Additional Sources
"Ghost Cat: a historic land deal will protect forests for the rare Canada lynx—if researchers can find it," Scott McMillion, Nature Conservancy Magazine, Winter 2009
"Movements of a Male Canada Lynx Crossing the Greater Yellowstone Area, Including Highways," John R. Squires and Robert Oakleaf, Northwest Science Notes, 2005
"Winter Prey Selection of Canada Lynx in Northwestern Montana," John R. Squires and Leonard F. Ruggiero, Journal of Wildlife Management, April 2007
"Characteristics of an unharvested lynx population during a snowshoe hare decline," Kim G. Poole, Journal of Wildlife Management, October 1994









Comments (8)
Actually, I tend to side with Alan Stretch, while at the same time understanding that Science wants to endlessly know more details too. The illusion science practically must prescribe to, is the understanding of how "our" impact affects all other life. This was never necessary at any other time in history, because at any other time humanity - expanding as it does, like a cancer - has never HAD the same impact on the rest of life before now. That our behavior IS negatively affecting everything else that lives on this planet is a no brainer. No degree is required to know that. And no degree was required to know much more about lynx behavior in the days when Indians had this continent to themselves. What I see in what science it doing, is a desperate attempt to save whatever we can save before humanity destroys it all, and it will. There is an intelligence, which comes into play, when a people lives with and reveres Nature. We have lost that intelligence and are trying to replace it with intellect, that is a logical way to 'explain everything'. Eventually, we will learn that such can't be done, and probably just in the nick of time when we realize that 'going back' is no longer possible either. The most effective way to maintain a healthy natural balance would be to reduce humanity by about 90%, but I doubt we could find the necessary numbers to volunteer for it, even with all the famine in the world. Ah well, just a thought:-)
Posted by Pete Sennhauser on February 28,2013 | 02:08 PM
Tina, While not a researcher I know much data can be learned from observation, viewing, photography, scat analysis, interviewing locals and hunters, autopsies, and if adventurous enough with software modeling. The idea that two thirds of the animals being tracked died should in itself tell an ethical person to stop. How many of these deaths were the result of a drugged animal with a noose around it's neck running into traffic, or too disoriented and distracted to find food. If "a dedicated researcher without traps and radio collars would be lucky to see one lynx in ten years," and I've seen fifty without trying, can I get paid for my insight? To me this approach is akin to thinking people die from hypothermia, let's throw some in the ice water and collect the data as they suffer and die, then we'll know what to do. These animals do not require rocket science, if you want to help them help the local rabbits, if you want to help the rabbits, plant some grass. Common sense is lacking here. Alan Strech
Posted by Alan Strech on November 5,2012 | 06:46 PM
Alan Strech, you have no idea what you're talking about. "A multitude of other ways to get the data"? Name three. Name one. A dedicated researcher without traps and radio collars would be lucky to see one lynx in ten years. This animal can range over hundreds of square miles of rugged mountains, and leaves tracks only in snow, often deep snow. Want to try tracking one without a collar? You first! "Of the animals that died while Squires was tracking them, about a third perished from human-related causes, such as poaching or vehicle collisions; another third were killed by other animals (mostly mountain lions); and the rest starved." Now tell me how to get information like that without radio collars-- which are not "permanent nooses" but are sized so the animal can follow its normal routine and are generally designed to fall off after a certain time. The trapping is done with as little disruption to the animals as possible. The information gained is often critical to their conservation and survival, as is stated clearly in this article. If you have any better ideas, your nearest university department of wildlife conservation would like to hear them.
Posted by Tina Rhea on March 22,2012 | 06:04 PM
"Snow Phantom" was an interesting read. In our neighborhood we have 3 or 4 of their brethren, bobcats (Lynx rufus), which we welcome. What we don't do is pursue them with snowmobiles, bait them, trap them, drug them and tie transmitters to their necks. One can only imagine the horror of a wild animal waking up in and from a drugged state with a permanent noose around their neck. Where I'm from we shun people who torture animals, not revere them. There are a multitude of other ways to get the data that is neither lazy nor cruel. Shame on them.
Posted by Alan Strech on February 22,2011 | 10:05 PM
well, im gonna have a nice discussion tomorrow about this.I could understand this text well...
Posted by luiz on February 21,2011 | 06:10 PM
Dear Ms. Tucker,
This is a wonderful story and I loved the photographs of the lynx. I just have one criticism; I saw the same photographs (and read essentially the same story, with only a slightly different text) a few months ago while waiting in the dentist's office in Nature Conservancy Magazine.
I would have preferred, if you're publishing the same story twice, to have some different pictures to go with the slightly different text.
all the best,
Grayson Hugh
Posted by Grayson Hugh on February 2,2011 | 07:34 PM
Hi
Interesting article on the linx. It was mentioned that the lynx can bare young at a very early age, one year I believe.
Could it be that the diet of the lynx, which is exclusively rabbits may have something to do with this early onset of the ability to become pregnant? I believe that rabbits are able to not only pregnant at less than a year, but that they also can have overlapping pregnancies.
I feel that the lynx ingesting so many rabbits in its lifetime over countless generations have become linked to the hormonal balances and influences of the rabbit and have inadvertently become physically adapted to the hormonal cycles of the rabbit.
Posted by Amphibian. on January 28,2011 | 07:58 PM
Ms. Tucker: While you followed the team on the track of the lynx, you carried us along--not only through the anecdotal asides, but with sentences so deftly written they operated like hidden cameras. You kept us in the world with your words. If that piece does not win honors--such as republication in America's Best Essays--the judges should hang their heads like the guy who found nothing in those cages. Well done.
Posted by Mike Robinson on January 22,2011 | 10:16 AM