Originally posted by Shane
I have reviewed the Thread, and would tend to express this "critter" would be a chupacabra.
I respect those who view this as something else, but I have difficulties with the "Hairless Raccoon" theory.
Raccoon's have delicate and agile forepaws. The photos offered of the "critter" show paws which seem more incline to dig. Some burrowing type of creature.
Raccoon forepaws are slender and have the ability to grip things such as frogs and fish/crayfish from out of water. They climb like, well, raccoons.
The paws on this "critter" do not appear to have that flexibility.
It does appear though, that this was Flesh Eating Species. It does have canines, (unless I have mistaken one photo of the guy with another)
As for the queries of where this occured, I was searching some of the links offered and it appears the "Local" reporting is from around the Baltimore area. Obviously Rural, apposed to downtown, thankfully.
My two cents.
Originally posted by Furbs
Review the thread again.
1. This happened out west, not in Baltimore.
2. There aren't 'pictures', there is a single picture.
3. The pictures I posted that are identical to the OP are confirmed raccoons.
Originally posted by Shane
There are more than one picture offered in this Thread my Friend. Most by the Raccoon Proponents.
Minus the Bullet Holes. And you see, Pictures, not A picture. Oh Yeah, Raccon Proponent.
May I be frank and ask? Who or what confirmed the victim, since it was shot, as a Raccoon?
Conspiracy Site, my Friend..........................................pause for effect..............................….
So, back to the forepaw.
That Doesn't appear like a similar hand structure.
Nor would it appear the Critter would have left such tracks
If tracks had been presented originally of the "critter" along with the DOA Photo, this would be a topic that had nowhere to go. It would be quite easy to point out that that "critter" is/was a raccoon. This hasn't occured to date.
And from the Photo presented, you can not see the structure of the "hand" for lack of a better term.
That is it.
The American hog-nosed skunk has stocky legs and plantigrade feet (the entire sole of the foot touches the ground). Its hind feet are broad and large with soles that are naked for about one-half their length. Its upper body is powerfully built, and the fore claws are very long. Length can range from 44.4–93.4 cm (17–37 in) and weight is typically 1,130–4,500 grams (2.5–10 lbs). The striped skunk can broadly overlap in size with this species but in comparison the striped has a shorter head-and-body length and a longer tail than the hog-nosed skunk. Males of this species average about 10% larger than females.
The American hog-nosed skunk is adapted for digging and resembles badgers rather than other species of skunks in this respect. The rectangular-shaped scapula, strong forearms, and shape of the humeri of C. leuconotus resemble those of badgers. The nostrils are located ventrally and open downward. Their sense of smell is acute, and the nose is used in locating and capturing buried prey. This skunk species also is a capable climber, although not as agile as the spotted skunks of the genus Spilogale.
It is a brown, hairless animal with inch-long toes, curved claws, long hind legs and oversize canine teeth.
Originally posted by GuidedKill
Raccoon with mange...All it is.
edit on 5-4-2012 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)edit on 5-4-2012 by GuidedKill because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by poloblack
reply to post by smirkley
I live in the south and in the woods in my backyard, I've seen all kinds of wildlife, foxes, raccoons, armadillo, possums, deer, etc. That, my friend, is no hairless raccoon. I don't care what some government wildlife agency ''confirmed''. I know what raccoon ''paws'' look like, and that's no raccoon, bub. Maybe it's some kind of animal that's rare and yet to be classified, but a raccoon it isn't.
Originally posted by poloblack
reply to post by Furbs
That was me, bub, not Smirkley. Ever trapped raccoons? I have. I know one when I see one. Say what you may, I know what I'm talking about. You don't know if they ran any extensive tests or not. Were you there to see the testing and results? Some adults are as gullible as young children.
The fact that I asked "why was it killed?", does not mean that I have not killed. Nor does it mean that I am not aware of many numerous reasons to kill. I was just asking why this particular animal was killed.
Originally posted by butcherguy
There are good reasons to kill something that doesn't require making dinner of it....
I understand that people born and raised in urban/suburban settings are not familiar with rural realities, but we can learn about them.
From the OP↓
Originally posted by hhott
I'm still seething at all the comments who seem to think that it shouldn't have been shot.
2)....... Any knowledgeable person will tell you that you should shoot any nocturnal animal you see out and about in the daytime because the most likely reason for such abnormal behavior is rabies.
.....But when I saw one in my yard in the middle of the afternoon, I promptly shot it. Rabies is not worth taking chances with.
Originally posted by smirkley
[color=FFF6C7]He shot it the night before, and this is the next morning.
The fact that I asked "why was it killed?", does not mean that I have not killed. Nor does it mean that I am not
aware of many numerous reasons to kill. I was just asking why this particular animal was killed.
Protecting livestock is just one. When I say 'protecting', that doesn't just mean that the critter is going to leap onto, bite and kill or injure the livestock. That thing was obviously infected with mange and could have infected the animals on the farm. Another thing that wild animals carry is rabies. I understand that people born and raised in urban/suburban settings are not familiar with rural realities, but we can learn about them.