What the hell is this ??!!

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.

Ciao

Shane

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.

Ciao

Shane

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 Furbs

Review the thread again.

1. This happened out west, not in Baltimore.

Seemed it was a local story in the one of the "Papers" offered. My bad.

2. There aren't 'pictures', there is a single picture.

There are more than one picture offered in this Thread my Friend. Most by the Raccoon Proponents.

3. The pictures I posted that are identical to the OP are confirmed raccoons.

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.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Shane
There are more than one picture offered in this Thread my Friend. Most by the Raccoon Proponents.

There is only one photo that is being debated. The OP's single photo. Say what you want about the rest of them, the OP's photo is the subject of the thead.

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..............................….

Yeah, I get it. You are on a CONSPIRACY SITE, where nothing can ever be taken at face value because THEY don't want it getting out that there is a Chupacabra. It doesn't make sense. If an an educated and accredited wildlife expert says it has been identified as a raccoon, what reasoning would there be to challenge it? The credentials of the people making the IDs are in the links I posted.

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.

Ciao

Shane

I see a paw structure that does fall in line with the norms for the species, so we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

reply to post by Furbs


Let's just do that. There is no room here for conflict, not that I am accusing you of such. This is a site which offers and promotes thought, and as such, different views are welcomed, regardless if they are deemed correct or not by others.

I will agree whole heartedly with this.

The Shot little "critter" is rodent. It is the approximate size of a raccoon and having time to reflect, the entry hole does appear that the little guy and/or girl, since the sex hasn't been clarified, did carry itself in a way to suggest it was an easy target. Much akin to the position a Raccoon would place itself in when walking.

To me, the question is the forepaws.

Hey, to throw it out there, what does a hairless skunk appear like. I can not find any photos, outside of what has already been presented of a skunk with no hair.

But the text from Wiki, seems to also fit the presumed size of the shot critter, and would clarify the matter I have with the forepaws.

en.wikipedia.org...

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).[4] 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.[5] 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.[6]

Another article caught my interest, from, of all places, the absolute authority of all things strange.

weeklyworldnews.com...

It is a brown, hairless animal with inch-long toes, curved claws, long hind legs and oversize canine teeth.

Have a good day Furb.

Ciao

Shane

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)

You win my star GuidedKill !!

You called it first exactly.

Dept. of Wildlife Resources has made it official.

A Racoon with Mange. Verified.

Nice spot dude !

reply to post by Idonthaveabeard


That's no possum, bub. I see them frequently in the woods behind my house. Another thing, a possom is not in the rodent family. A possum is a marsupial, which means they carry their young in a pouch. And a possum is the only marsupial native to North America...mostly found in Georgia. A possum also has around 50 teeth, with a much longer snout.

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 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.

Let me translate that for you, smirkley.

Even though I have only seen one picture, I am going to flat out ignore the findings of a trained and accredited professional's findings based on a single ambiguous photograph on the internet.

HOW DARE YOU SAY IT IS A RACCOON??? The implications mocks my delicate raccoon knowing sensibilities.

-------


On a serious note,

Put this one to bed, it is a raccoon, just as everyone with sense has said from the beginning.

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.

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.

I know who it was, I was translating what you said to smirk so we could both have a good chuckle.

Actually, I have trapped raccoons. We used to go out with lighted hardhats with different colored gels so we would know who was who. Lots of good times were had.

I know that someone with credentials said it was a raccoon. I am more apt to believe someone that was there than someone that simply saw a picture.

I'm still seething at all the comments who seem to think that it shouldn't have been shot.

If you live out in the country, you know better. If you don't, you don't know jack about it and shouldn't be so judgmental.

1) That was a very sick animal. Mange is a painful, miserable, and debilitating disease which animals don't recover from without treatment. It was, indeed, put out of its misery.

2) Raccoons and skunks are the most common carriers of rabies in the US, and they will attack dogs or humans when infected. 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.

3) I used to have over 40 free-range chickens, a dozen+ ducks, and 6 geese. I now have 1 chicken, 1 duck, and 8 motherless ducklings. Opossums, raccoons, coyotes, and bobcats have eaten everything else. And you want to tell me that I don't have a right to shoot them? Why? Just because I live out in the country my livestock and pets should be a free buffet for the local wildlife? Sorry, don't think so.

I love raccoons, used to have one as a pet. I made my husband get a live trap and we relocated the 'coons who were destroying my garden, eating the chickens, and tearing down the bird feeders nightly. 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.

reply to post by Furbs


Cool bro...we respectfully agree to disagree.Neither of us has any definitive proof, so truce.

reply to post by butcherguy
'Captain Assumption' strikes again, with yet another 'Swing & a Miss'.


Unless you were there at the time and/or know the person who pulled the trigger, you could not definitively know the answer, which makes me unsure of why you felt the urge to chime in with a response to my question.

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.

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.



reply to post by hhott

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.

From the OP↓

Originally posted by smirkley

[color=FFF6C7]He shot it the night before, and this is the next morning.

Originally posted by poloblack
reply to post by Furbs

 

Cool bro...we respectfully agree to disagree.Neither of us has any definitive proof, so truce.

Works for me, broseph.

Until next time.

DWR has my vote.

They took a tissue sample for disease,..and left the rest to be buried.

Case closed. (wish it was something 'cooler',..but it aint)

Looks, to me, like a cross between an ardvark, a dog, and a rat. I do know that in southern US there was a problem with a giant rat species (which has been outlawed as a pet) that had escaped captivity/been let loose and was roaming around tearing things up. Very gentle creatures, but harmful and invasive nonetheless. This could possibly be something of that sort that has worked it's way west and possibly cross-bred with other rodents or genetically mutated to live in the new environment.... Maybe

It is an ROUS.

Whoops, just saw someone beat me to it.

I would definetly go with the streaking raccoon.

Though what actually concerns me is why are there hairless raccoons showing up?

I agree with the other comments on this board, why do people just go and shoot things?

reply to post by zayonara


How stereotypical was he? lol
Wearing a camo baseball hat and says: "I didn't know what it was, so I got my rifle and shot it!"

reply to post by BrokenCircles

That animal is a raccoon with mange.

That is reason enough to kill it. No one needs their pets or livestock coming down with mange.

If anyone needed to be there when the animal was shot, it would be yourself. I grew up on a farm, I know what mange looks like, I know what it is and know what a pain in the arse it is to treat an animal that gets it.

So I have a big swing and a miss...... What was your 'home run'?

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.

You may have noticed that I gave the perfectly good reason that the animal was killed in the post that you have such a problem with....

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.