Guest Darrell Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/may/23/grizzly-bear-cub-found-shot-in-north-idaho/ Ok, so I linked a news article from the daily paper down in Spokane, WA about a couple of poached grizzlies here in N. Idaho. I think this is a good instance of an animal that was killed in the wild and was not disposed of within a couple of days via the forest disposal system. Of course the bears were poached and did not die naturally but does show that not every animal that dies in the wild is eaten or becomes worm food within a short period of time.
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 From reading the story I can only hope the hunter shot the mother grizzly out of self defense, then shot the cub because he knew it wouldn't survive.
Sunflower Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 That is disgusting. I hope they find evidence after the necropsy and catch the poacher.
BobbyO Posted May 31, 2012 SSR Team Posted May 31, 2012 Darrell, you're a million miles away with your angles Brother. You're trying to use a poached Grizzly Bear that was shot along with its Cub as a comparison and reasoning as to why no Sasquatch have never been found and to try to make the pint that you're " trying " to make, sound feasible, aren't you ?? The whole argument on " Why no Bones ? " is concerning Animals ( large Mammals ) that die of " natural causes " and why we don't find their bones. You know that, don't you ?
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 this notion that one doesn't find dead animals in the woods is fabrication stated over and over to the point people believe it's fact. I've come across dead deer, elk and bear while working in the bush. Not often by any means, but I've seen all three, all apparent "natural" deaths (i.e. predatory or old age). The bear was shown to me by a naturalist - died in its den during hibernation, so it's not like it was in plain view, but it was still found by a human.
Incorrigible1 Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 I don't dispute carcasses of every animal known to science are found, but here's a time-lapse sequence from MonsterQuest showing just how quickly decomposition can occur:
Guest Darrell Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) Ya I get that, but still it took 8 days to get it to where they stopped filming and remains could have still been there weeks later. And of course monster quest is what I base all my rational thought on (just kidding). But I have seen elk and deer remains while out hunting or hiking, not to mention cat and dog remains closer to town (which is something considering our hawk, crow, and coyote populations). I have seen a lot of animal remains while on field exercises, especially when I was stationed at Fort Polk, Fort Benning, and Fort Lewis just to name a few. Edited to add that I ment to post this to the in the field section and not the general section. So much for my rational thought process! Edited May 31, 2012 by Darrell
Guest tirademan Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 I've stated this before but people don't seem to get it. Who says no one has found a dead Sasquatch? What you're really asking is "Why in the last 150 years hasn't someone found a dead Sasquatch, recognized it for what it was (regardless of scavenging and decomposition), and had the werewithall to drag it out of the woods to be "discovered" by science?" I'd argue someone, at sometime HAS found a big pile of black fur with maggots and thought "that's odd" and kept right on walking. Tirademan
indiefoot Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Or when they walked up and poked it with a stick had several good size rocks chucked at them and decided to leave in a hurry.
Guest Darrell Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 "Why in the last 150 years hasn't someone found a dead Sasquatch, recognized it for what it was (regardless of scavenging and decomposition), and had the werewithall to drag it out of the woods to be "discovered" by science?" Thats a great question. So.....why in the last 150 years hasn't someone found a dead Sasquatch, recognized it for what it was (regardless of scavenging and decomposition), and had the werewithall to drag it out of the woods to be "discovered" by science? Or even better, why in the last 20 years hasn't someone found a dead Sasquatch, recognized it for what it was (regardless of scavenging and decomposition), and had the werewithall to drag it out of the woods to be "discovered" by science? Just saying is all.
Guest tirademan Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Those added bits increase the odds Immensly. Someone may have found one but not had the werewithall. Tirademan
Guest Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 With BF being far more rare (if not nearing extinction) and bear are much more plentiful, it's really amazing that we haven't found more bear carcasses... much less an elusive, intelligent, bipedal creature dwindling in numbers.
indiefoot Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Do bears bury their dead? Do bigfoot bury their dead?
Recommended Posts