It was evil, evil looking and it had a horrible stench I'll never forget.

[Dr. Dalek]

Localy in the town of Turner, Maine a strange looking animal was killed, apparently by a car. State wildlife officals, and animal controll officers declined to look at the remains.

Since the animal was discovered it was believed to be the "Mysterious Beast" that has been firightening Turner residents, mauling dogs, and been the subject of local legend for half a generation. Untill now other sugestions for the identitiy of the "Beast" ranged from ordinary fishers and coyotes to fantastic beasts that seem right out of a D&D monster manuel.

I tried to upload a picture I scanned of the newspaper to this post, but it was too big. I had to save it as a monochrome so it has no color. The picture should be on the newspaper website tomorow so I can get it in color.

The only person of any authority (if you can call it that) who examined the remains was a cryptobiologist. He sugested that the animal was a Chow that had gone feral. Here is a picture of a Chow.

However this cuddly little fella dosn't entirly resemble the animal in the news paper, the cryptozoologist suggested that it was some breed of chow or a chow mix.

I'll post the color picture next chance I get.

The main areas of concern in identifying the animal is the size, the shape of its ears, and its weird snout. Unfortunatly the remains have been picked at by animals after the picture was taken and there is not much left. One of the paws was taken by a news paper called the Sun Journel ad they intend to have DNA tests done.

If there is anyone on this website with any authority in Zoology I encourage you to post any of your ideas.

[insane_alien]

wow that chow looks like a fluffy version of the eyehounds in the origional halflife game.

[swansont]

This report states "The skull is gone. The haunches and all the internal organs, too. The only fleshy parts left are the paws," said the veteran cryptozoologist, who studies creatures not recognized by science.

 

and

 

Coleman had little to work with. The carcass had been picked clean by birds and other animals four days after it was killed.

 

"Here's a shoulder blade. Something like this won't have much DNA in it," he said, poking at bones and body parts with a long ruler. "I imagine something dragged the skull away for later. In the woods, something dead like this gets eaten very quickly."

 

So what is the picture you posted? It doesn't sound like it can be the same creature, if there's no skull.

[Dr. Dalek]

So what is the picture you posted? It doesn't sound like it can be the same creature, if there's no skull.

The picture was taken some days before the cryptozoologist examined it. It was still relativly whole then.

Why they didn't move the animal into a freezer or some place it wouldn't be picked at by birds I'll never know. If I found something weird like that I would consider trying to preserve the body.

[gcol]

So that is 0/10 marks for the cryptozoologist then. What a shame. I can just imagine his reaction when informed of the find while eating his lunch "Oh my Lord, another crackpot, it can wait for a few days". His will be the official arse-covering version, yours confined to the dustbin of unscientific urban legend.

[Dr. Dalek]

His will be the official arse-covering version, yours confined to the dustbin of unscientific urban legend.

Okay, what does that mean? I'm not being unscientific, I'm making an inquiry to any people who may have some authority in zoology, or can say with some level of certainty what this animal is. I'm not trying to proove that this thing is the animal of local ledgend.

[Phi for All]

FOX News has the color picture. Apparently a wolf-dog hybrid, from the DNA testing.

[Dr. Dalek]

It does look like a dog, . . .

Apparently a wolf-dog hybrid, from the DNA testing.

.

That wouldn't surprise me in the least. There have been a few of those shot in the northern part of the state in recent years.

However . . .

After reviewing photos of the carcass, Coleman said he was bothered by the animal's ears and snout. It reminded him of a case years ago in northern Maine in which an animal shot by a hunter could not be identified.

In the end, wildlife officials got a DNA analysis that showed the animal was a rare wolf-dog hybrid, he said.

The wolf-dog was a different case. I doubt though a wolf would mate with a chow, and there are almost no wolves in central Maine anyway. The wolves are all up north. Though this dosn't rule out that this could be a coy-dog of some kind.

[insane_alien]

doesn't look that evil. especially for after a few days of decomp

[Dr. Dalek]

I just spoke with someone who has some experience with Chow. He described a dog that was half chow half german shepard. He described it as very muscuar, and moderatly agressive having a dislike of strangers.

 

the Chow Chow has a reputation for being a willful and independent breed that is sometimes difficult to train. They can be very aloof and wary of strangers. They often do not get along well with other dogs.

The Chow Chow is a stocky dog with broad skull and small' date=' rounded ears[/b']. . . .The coat may be one of several colours including reddish-brown (described as "red"), black, blue[/b'], cinnamon, and cream. . . . heavy-set dogs,

These facts would account for the animals appearence and reputation. I apologise if I made much adou about nothing. It seems that this is nothing more than a Chow mix.

[Phi for All]

The wolf-dog was a different case. I doubt though a wolf would mate with a chow, and there are almost no wolves in central Maine anyway. The wolves are all up north. Though this dosn't rule out that this could be a coy-dog of some kind.

I misread the article. You're right, the DNA test showing a wolf-dog hybrid was the earlier case, not this current one.

[Sisyphus]

It looks like a dead dog. Why would anyone think otherwise?

[mr d]

hello

 

i think the point for me is how easiley dismissed the tales of the beast of the woods were by scientists. true it was in all likelihood only this cross bread animal. but helps goe to show there may be truth in a number of old tales and stories. perhaps not what the story portrays it to be, but there might be something to them after all.

so keep an open mind. my questions here would be if this is the animal of the stories where did it come from. feral animal escaping from an owner, or dumped in the wild, breeding with a wolf. the animal does not appear to be fifteen years old, which is around how old the stories are. does that mean there is a breeding population out there in the wild. or is some person breeding these animals for whatever reason, or bred the original which escaped.

i remember the arguements over the wolf-dogs thatwere the trendly rage a few years back. half wolf-half sheppard or husky in most cases. fine pet in most cases, except it had a certain instability and was prone to turning unexpectedly on its owner and everyone else around.

ended up be banned in a number of cities, which helped kill off the craze.

 

so keep an open mind, and ask futher questions. you might not find a monster, but you might find something even more interesting.

 

mr d

[swansont]

i think the point for me is how easiley dismissed the tales of the beast of the woods were by scientists.

 

Tales aren't evidence.

[CPL.Luke]

but consider the scientist, he has to get his university to put its money on the line and let him go out there to investigate it, he has to request the use of lab time and materials, in the end put his salary and his career on the line (because if he goes on enough of these wild goose chases he won't beallowed to go out looking for animals anymore).

[Dr. Dalek]

Tales aren't evidence.

No, but they can become the basis to inquiry's that can obtain evidence.

 

If people just dismissed things because "Tales aren't evidence" alot of archeologists would not know were to dig.

[swansont]

No' date=' but they can become the basis to inquiry's that can obtain evidence.

 

If people just dismissed things because "Tales aren't evidence" alot of archeologists would not know were to dig.[/quote']

 

 

But archaeologists have a different job, and the relics are the evidence. Not a whole lot of bigfoot-ologists out there (at least, of which I am aware. Haven't heard any legends about them, anyway) with faculty positions. If you know of any, call them. CPL.Luke's answer suffices.

[Sayonara]

I know this is off-topic, but why would anyone expect a cryptozoologist to be able to identify a real animal?

[Mokele]

An excellent example of the uselessness of local tales is that of Megalania, an extinct australian monitor lizard that was roughly twice the size of a Komodo dragon. There are currently lots of stories by locals about super-huge lizards they've seen, and some stories in the past all the way back to...1860, when the fossils were discovered. Were the stories based on actual encounters, they'd surely have preceeded the knowledge of the fossil species.

 

Cryptozoologists are those with too little knowledge of biology and too much gullibility to actually do *real* biology.

 

Mokele

[mr d]

hello

 

so how about simple scientific curiousity? you mean no scientist in th area had no curiousity even over this animal. and a carcus is more than a tale. does not need to be a full on scientific expedition, but how about if your in the area drive by and take a look.

in the past few decades several new types of insects, fishes, antelope, small primates have all been discovered in areas scientists already considered explored and catalogged.

also as i stated above some type of investigation should occur to see if this is a possible a natural(feral occurance) or man made animal. such animals, especially if a breeding population does exist can have possible consequence to the native ecostructure. or are we looking at some type of breeder experimentation that may need to be halted by authorities.

 

mr d

[Sayonara]

Gnerally when someone contacts the newspaper first, instead of the CDC, you know they haven't found anything interesting.

[Steph]

Gnerally when someone contacts the newspaper first, instead of the CDC, you know they haven't found anything interesting.

 

Or they just don't know how to contact the CDC (or even what the CDC is?). I think that in a population, most people, when confronted to something weird will call the newspapers first.

 

about the title quote... wasn't it originally used for a moose? (well the first time i heard it was in a documentary about the moose invasion of PEI).

[swansont]

hello

 

so how about simple scientific curiousity? you mean no scientist in th area had no curiousity even over this animal. and a carcus is more than a tale. does not need to be a full on scientific expedition' date=' but how about if your in the area drive by and take a look.

in the past few decades several new types of insects, fishes, antelope, small primates have all been discovered in areas scientists already considered explored and catalogged.

also as i stated above some type of investigation should occur to see if this is a possible a natural(feral occurance) or man made animal. such animals, especially if a breeding population does exist can have possible consequence to the native ecostructure. or are we looking at some type of breeder experimentation that may need to be halted by authorities.

 

mr d[/quote']

I think perhaps you underestimate the volume of nonsense that inundate scientists' mailboxes. Probably not as bad now as it was, given that anyone can make their own website to devote to any idea they wish. Time, too, is a resource that is in limited supply, and not something that one is going to commit to a project thought to be a waste of it.

[Dr. Dalek]

I think perhaps you underestimate the volume of nonsense that inundate scientists' mailboxes. Probably not as bad now as it was, given that anyone can make their own website to devote to any idea they wish. Time, too, is a resource that is in limited supply, and not something that one is going to commit to a project thought to be a waste of it.

That is very true, I once saw a documentary on "Sea Monsters" a Marine Biologist on the show commented on how he got samples and inquirys reguarding "Blobs" people find washed up on the shore. People think they are sea monsters but they always seem to turn out to be whale blubber.

[bascule]

Anyone remember last year when an Australian hunter shot what DNA tests revealed to be a giant feral cat?