posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 04:59 AM
To anyone thinking to shoot the animal just to prove it existed: it may do no good.
I saw a programme on Discovery on the "God Bear of Kamchatcka" (catchy title) where a Russian hunter shot this pretty massive bear of a kind he had
never encountered before. He had no way of preserving it, being out in the wilderness, so he skinned it and took a photo of himself before the
outstretched fur, sending that to the proper people in Moscow. They were intrigued since the bear seemed somewhat different than normal ones, but
couldn't conclude anything further from a picture.
Okay, so it was a Discovery show rather than some article in your favourite scientific journal, and it wasn't necessarily the last bear of its kind,
or even 100% certain of an unknown species of bear, but still... (I did wonder why the hunter didn't ship the fur to Moscow as well, but perhaps he
Anyhow, it would be a quandary for me. I'm rarely armed when wandering around in situations where I'd be even remotely likely to meet any strange
creature, so shooting it is basically out. Then again, I don't normally carry a camera around either, and pics are too easily faked. And it would
anyhow depend on both creature and situation: a new species of butterfly flying prettily around a sunlit glade, or a Gray-Bigfoot halfbreed rushing me
with a rectal probe. There, it would be camera and gun, respectively.