Originally posted by Ajax
1. Given that it was not in it's natural environment, and that it was most likely an abused and tortured pet that had some contact with humans, I
would say that all of your "facts" can be thrown out the window so to speak.
Why? Why can
facts be "thrown" out of the window because of some weak
theories based on... what? "Most likely's"? If you take a
wild animal out of it's natural habitat does it suddenly become a completely different animal? Does it suddenly go against its natural instincts?
Does it suddenly grow into monstrous proportions?
The answer is no and no. Keeping in mind... Yes, animals do adabt to their circumstances. But they don't suddenly change from black into white. (At
least not with a couple thousand years of evolving!)
Originally posted by Ajax
2. Sure they hunt in packs (in Africa), but there was only 1 brought up there. Was it supposed to just sit there and starve to death because it
wasn't hunting in a pack?
No. The point was that Hyenas do hunt. But when they hunt they hunt it packs. And even when they're a group, they'll target the weaker animals. A
lonely hyena would at the most "hunt" rodents or baby animals. I could believe that a pack of Hyenas could take down a grown human - and there is no
such recorded case - and remains yet another theory. But a single hyena? No way! You must keep in mind the hunting strategy of hyenas as well. They
don't stalk their prey like the big cats. No. They're opportunists. When they see possible prey, they run up to it, and take it if the gap is there.
When a pack hunts, they would cut a weak - let's say antelope - away from the rest of the herd. They then surround the prey and try to bite it from
all sides. The animal would turn in circles trying to defend itself, and this would go on until the animal has been wounded or exhausted until it
collapses.
Thus no - if it was a hyena, it wouldn't "sit around there and starve because it couldn't hunt in a pack"... it would scavage and at the most prey
on livestock.
Originally posted by Ajax
3. We all know how stories are embellished to make things seems much bigger, stronger, faster, etc. etc. than they really are. That's just human
nature. Hyenas can get pretty big in a matter of speaking (at least relative to some things up there in Europe)...and I'm sure with a few hundred
years of embellishment, a "large monster" description is not out of the question.
Agreed. People tend to "over-estimate" when things like this happen. But a) the descriptions are from that time. There were no "few hundred years
of embellishment..."
b) if it was a normal sized hyena, it would not be able to take down a grown human.
Let's say for argument’s sake that the Beast was a Rottweiler. I'm sure you are familiar with these dogs... Now these are aggressive dogs, and
they are HUGE. (About the same seize of a hyena). Now, taking in consideration how well you know these dogs, do you think a single Rottweiler could
attack over 100 people (many of them adults including full grown men...), kill them, devour them in many cases with only a head/limb remaining in a
single night, avoid being shot and killed for a couple of years AND not be positively identified as a Rottweiler in all this time? Now replace the
word Rottweiler with hyena, and replace your knowledge of these dogs with my knowledge of hyenas. And the answer to the questions will be NO.
Originally posted by Ajax
4. Who's to say this thing didn't feed on some livestock, etc. I think if I recall some of the stories...it actually did.
Most probably. At some stage people were to affraid to leave their homes, and care for their livestock. People's stock started dying, they ran wild,
got stolen and got eaten by all kinds of critters. Men were out hunting for the Beast, and the crops suffered the neglect as well. Actually the Beast
of Gevaudan had quite an impact on the economy of that time as well.
Originally posted by Ajax
5. If this thing was abused repeated by its owner, I can guarantee it wouldn't stop at a "single bite." It would tear humans apart.
But was it? No. There's no proof that the "supposed hyena" was abused! This is just another theory ontop of an already existing theory. Let's look
at an abused pet. Let's take dogs as they are most likely to be aggressive. Most often abused dogs "feel sorry" for themselves, and keep to
themselves. They don't allow humans near them, and show signs of aggression ... ie. that they mean business should you approuch them. And they would
take a go at you should you try to touch them. BUT they do not lurk around with hate and revenge in their hearts and attack and kill humans because
they were abused. It's as simple as this... If something hurts you then you're going to avoid it. You're not going to run around looking for it?
That would mean some intelligence from the "supposed hyena's" side. Some people may not agree but I doubt if animals really know revenge.
Originally posted by Ajax
In short, all of the regional facts about hyenas in Africa can only be looked at so much. There are many other factors that would take us away from
the "African hyena model."
You are probably referring to this story:
There are many different views on what she was - about twenty books have been written - and almost all the other authors do not agree with
Pourcher. They are fairly equally divided between conventional explanations - large wolves, cross-breeds, tricks with hyenas etc. and the abnormal -
alien, mutant, prehistoric etc. There are also differing opinions among authors on La Bête as to the character of the Chastels - father and son.
Pourcher records Jean Chastel as being a man of very good character whereas, for example, Chevalley, in his semi-fictional novel, regards the family
with suspicion, even to the extent of surmising there might have been some deception or cross-breeding involving a hyena. It is alleged his son,
Antoine, had been a prisoner, castrated and tortured in the Middle East. Incidentally, the hyena species, which hunts as much as it scavenges, is
genetically more similar to cat than dog, being of the feline family Feloidea, which certainly opens up the possibility of a terribly formidable
cross-breed, such as hyena and big cat. In any event, the Chastel name is closely associated with the La Bête mystery but whether justifiably and, if
so, for good or evil has never become clear.
Take note that this ^ ^ ^ is just another theory. It was never proven!!! Given my knowledge on these animals, having seen them in the wild, having
seen them hunt, I'm saying that this theory doesn't stand it's ground. Whether it was a hyena in Africa, or in Europe, a hyena could not have done
in 3 years what this Beast of Gevaudan has done. And until you start giving some facts for your
theory - it will remain only a
theory.
He must be truly fearsome and blood thirsty!!! 
if anyone can help me find more information please let me know! THANKs 
