Why does cooter's reasoning that peeing on the fire would make animals easier to catch commit the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc?

Cooter's thinking that peeing on the fire would make creatures simpler to get submit the Fallacy oF post hoc hence propter hoc in light of the fact that the occasions oF peeing in the fire and effectively chasing were related, that doesn't mean one caused the other. Cooter makes an interest to prominence when he guarantees that he knows his fre hypothesis is valid