Jump to content

Dead Grizzly Bears Found


Guest Darrell

Recommended Posts

Guest Darrell

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BFSleuth

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team

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 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team

You got Pics Cheech ? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Darrell

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 by Darrell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tirademan

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Darrell

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest tirademan

Those added bits increase the odds Immensly. Someone may have found one but not had the werewithall.

Tirademan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...