Beast of Gevaudan: Demon wolf or what? Your thoughts!!!

Originally posted by Nemox42
Hello Abovetopsecret readers,

I'm a new member...nice to meet everyone "Bows". I've always been interested in the unknown since i was a little kid. Just wanted to see what your thoughts were about the Beast of Gevaudan. Was this animal a "real" were-wolf, or some creature that went berserk and grew a taste for human flesh. Why was it so hard to kill? Even King Louis of France sending his personal elite hunters to track this animal could not kill it. I have read alot of sources on the net about this beast. It is real. It was even based on a movie " Brotherhood of the wolf". Anyways, you know what they say....sometimes real life has more scarier stories then fiction. Looking forward to your posts and thoughts. Here are some links on the story.

labete.7hunters.net...

www.net-monster.com...

That films class! It got shot by that indians mate. I reckon it was probably something bought back by a didgey traveller. Like a lion or something.

I had no idea le pacte was based on anything historical. But it interested me.

I founda book in the library with the beast of gevaudan in it so I checked it out. I'll get it later and paraphrase the important parts if I can. Otherwise...I wish I knew more about this.

Seeing that the topic was bumped, I might just as well add my two cents... I don't have a specific theory on the Beast, but I can say is that some people are way of as what it could be. I'm referring to those who support the "Cross Between X and Y animals"... Just keep in mind that some species just cannot copulate and create offspring. Cats cannot mate with dogs. Just as much as hyenas cannot mate with leopards. It's just impossible. Fullstop. No matter how much you believe in the paranormal. (And before anyone takes me on on this matter, just keep genetics in mind. Not that I'm an expert. There's just some basic "rules"...)

And adding that anyone who has seen a real life full grown male lion close up will agree that it can easily be "mistaken" for being "cow-sized"... But they don't look like wolves. Hyenas on the other can grow quite big, but not really bigger than a Rottweiler. And yes, although they are scavangers, they are good hunters as well - but they hunt in groups (packs)!

Actually this just reminded me of the movie "The Village" and its creature...

[edit on 25-8-2005 by Gemwolf]

Forgive me I only skimmed all the posts, but only because I know the answer to this. It was proven some time ago that the mysterious beast was actually a hyena that someone brought up from Africa originally as a pet. I can't remember exactly what happened during its period of captivity, but eventually it was either released or it escaped and thus terrorized the land and people. That's when all the legends and what not sprung about, because no one had ever seen it before. It adapted quite easily to the temporate terrain and was extremely aggressive. Surprisingly, hyenas can get VERY VERY big. Bigger than you would imagine, especially with ample food sources.

Sorry, it wasn't a "werewolf." However, to the people of the time, it was definitely a monster to be feared.

Originally posted by Ajax
Forgive me I only skimmed all the posts, but only because I know the answer to this. It was proven some time ago that the mysterious beast was actually a hyena that someone brought up from Africa originally as a pet. I can't remember exactly what happened during its period of captivity, but eventually it was either released or it escaped and thus terrorized the land and people. That's when all the legends and what not sprung about, because no one had ever seen it before. It adapted quite easily to the temporate terrain and was extremely aggressive. Surprisingly, hyenas can get VERY VERY big. Bigger than you would imagine, especially with ample food sources.

Sorry, it wasn't a "werewolf." However, to the people of the time, it was definitely a monster to be feared.

I'm sorry but I can't agree with the theory that it was a hyena. I live in South Africa where I Hyenas are commonly found, and I've seen enough Hyenas to tell you that it can't possibly be a hyena - referring to the descriptions from the victims and eyewitnesses.

1. Hyenas are not that big! The females are bigger than they males. Male wt 123-138 lb (56-63 kg), ht 32-34 in (79-86 cm); female wt 147-165 lb (67-75 kg), ht 34-35 in (84-89 cm). And 89 CM was a record! That's not even a meter... "Cow-size" is bigger than that, not?
2. Hyenas are known for their "laughter" (the sound they make) ... They usually make this laughing sound when they're excited, i.e. feeding. I can't recall from any of what I read about this beast that it made a particular sound?
3. Hyenas are scavengers generally speaking. But they do hunt occasionally, and when they do it's mostly in groups. No matter how vicious they are, they choose weak or sick prey. If the beast was indeed a hyena, she would probably only have preyed on livestock, picking lambs as victims.
4. Hyenas avoid human contact as far as they can. They are craven when approached, and would run away, rather than stand their ground. I could not find a single reference or record of a human being killed by a hyena. The few recorded cases were of rabid hyenas, and the "attacks" stopped at a single bite.

Surprisingly, hyenas can get VERY VERY big. Bigger than you would imagine, especially with ample food sources.

This is an untrue statement. I can imagine very large animals, but no matter how much food you give it, it can only grow that big (let's say this animal was a "freak" of nature, it could not have been bigger than 100 cm!)

I'm not saying that the Beast was a werewolf, I'm just saying that there is NO way it was a hyena! I don't care what "circumstantial evidence" of an escaped pet they think up, I can tell you without a shadow of doubt in my mind that it was NOT a hyena.

Read more about hyenas here or here.

Originally posted by Gemwolf

I'm sorry but I can't agree with the theory that it was a hyena. I live in South Africa where I Hyenas are commonly found, and I've seen enough Hyenas to tell you that it can't possibly be a hyena - referring to the descriptions from the victims and eyewitnesses.

1. Hyenas are not that big! The females are bigger than they males. Male wt 123-138 lb (56-63 kg), ht 32-34 in (79-86 cm); female wt 147-165 lb (67-75 kg), ht 34-35 in (84-89 cm). And 89 CM was a record! That's not even a meter... "Cow-size" is bigger than that, not?
2. Hyenas are known for their "laughter" (the sound they make) ... They usually make this laughing sound when they're excited, i.e. feeding. I can't recall from any of what I read about this beast that it made a particular sound?
3. Hyenas are scavengers generally speaking. But they do hunt occasionally, and when they do it's mostly in groups. No matter how vicious they are, they choose weak or sick prey. If the beast was indeed a hyena, she would probably only have preyed on livestock, picking lambs as victims.
4. Hyenas avoid human contact as far as they can. They are craven when approached, and would run away, rather than stand their ground. I could not find a single reference or record of a human being killed by a hyena. The few recorded cases were of rabid hyenas, and the "attacks" stopped at a single bite.

Surprisingly, hyenas can get VERY VERY big. Bigger than you would imagine, especially with ample food sources.

This is an untrue statement. I can imagine very large animals, but no matter how much food you give it, it can only grow that big (let's say this animal was a "freak" of nature, it could not have been bigger than 100 cm!)

I'm not saying that the Beast was a werewolf, I'm just saying that there is NO way it was a hyena! I don't care what "circumstantial evidence" of an escaped pet they think up, I can tell you without a shadow of doubt in my mind that it was NOT a hyena.

Read more about hyenas here or here.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

[edit on 26-8-2005 by Ajax]

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.

Hey buddy i really dont think it was a hyena. There have been some sources that have given ideas to say that it wasnt a hyena. The description of the beast said it had a very large hind quarter where the hind legs were somewhat larger than the front legs. If you look at a hyena there front legs are larger than their hind legs.
The actual identity of the beast coming from the sorces I have read, would be a very large wolf or wolf hybrid, that found it easier to kill people than it did the wild game it the forests in france. This beast pretty much relates to the two males lions of Tsavo who killed over 100 rail workers in the late 1800's. Apparently the main reason they killed was because when ever the railway workers woud die (not being eaten by lions), they would wrap the in cloth and lay them in the savannah not being buried. These two lions found easy meals in these dead railworkers and over time developed the idea of humans as food. When they started hunting them they found it much easier than hunting zebra or wilderbeast.
I think the a similar case applies to the beast of gevaudan.

I agree with east and the "humans as food resource" idea, mainly because of his quoted source: the lions of Tsavo. What intrigues me is the "hindquarters higher than shoulders" description, because, to me, that indicates a cat, and the canine aspect makes me think of the thylacine. However, a thylacine was only two feet tall at the shoulders, at best, and that's really not that big.

Admittedly, I don't know much about the Beast of Gevaudan. I'll read more into it and draw conclusions from there.

Hi all ,

I'm new here and couldn't think of a better thread then this one to start in.

I love the Beast of Gevauden mystery. I believe la bete to have been a cross between a dog and wolf possibly with human involvement.

I've done some research into the different breeds of dogs around at the time and picked one I believe could have been used. The description of the dog at the time are different to how they appear today though. That is something to keep in mind when reading the below.

These dogs are known to be highly agressive and need a firm owner to control them. Imagine one of these under the control of a nutter.

The Catahoula Leopard Dog's roots date back over 400 years, to the period of Spanish Exploration of the New World, specifically the Gulf Coast and southern portions of the East Coast of the United States. On these expeditions the Spaniards were accompanied by "war dogs", believed to have been the Mastiff and Greyhound. These dogs would assist in hunting, guarding the camps, and battle. Some of these dogs were wounded or left behind and were captured by the Native Americans of the region. It is believed by historians that these dogs may have bred with the red wolf, a species native to that area. These wolf-like dogs became the companions and protectors of the Native Americans.

About a century later the French, during expeditions along the mouth of the Mississippi River, became intrigued with these strange-looking dogs with haunting light eyes. The French found that the wolf-like dogs had the ability to successfully hunt game in the swamp because of several characteristics including a keen sense of smell and webbed feet. The dogs could also easily retrieve cattle which had wandered into marshy areas. The French had brought with them their own dogs, known today as the Beauceron. The Beauceron dates back to the mid 1500's and was originally used to hunt wild boar. It is believed that in an attempt to create an even better hunter, protector, companion, and herder the French crossed the Beauceron with these wolf-like dogs. The Catahoula Leopard Dog is the descendant of that crossing.

Well done old chap and a splendid find....ive just read your links and was well impressed, i had never heard of this story before?

its great to know that things with genuine mystery and intruigue still pop up from time to time.

Thanks and regards,

Welcome to ATS.

Originally posted by eazy_mas
Maybe its just a huge wolf just like there are huge people then there are huge wolf.

Does it go with packs or is it a loner?

i read on wikipedia that it was sometimes spotted with young.

Hyaena:
www.wildlifesafari.info...


La Bete:
labete.7hunters.net...
en.wikipedia.org...://www.mysterydatabase.com/english/cryptozoology/mammels/beastofgevaudan.htm
www.science-television.com...

There are three different renditions of this beast (the first is a modernised one)
The second does bear a resemblance to a hyaena although size, proportion and fur is wrong. The third is a far cry from a hyaena. Many reports claimed it was as big as a donkey or cow, which can be seen in the second and fourth pictures (look at the remains near them), and apparently really fierce, ravaging whole villages.
It had been shot several times but each time it seemed not to mind.

I don't think it was a werewolf, hyaena or dog/hyeana/wild cat/bear hybrid as someone stated there are certain genetic rules that even modern genealogy can't break.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by JackofBlades]

The Beast of Gevaudan is real...he lives at my house...

He must be truly fearsome and blood thirsty!!!

[edit on 18-11-2005 by Sparhawk]

You said it! Look at him laying there, contemplating devouring our very SOOUUULLSSS! His faceted eyes peering deep, deep into our hearts.
Make for the hills, my friends, flee!!!

Seriously though, could he BE anymore relaxed?

[edit on 18-11-2005 by JackofBlades]

Hi everyone OMG I am obessed with this beast! IF YOU ONLY KNEW WHAT IT DOES TO ME!!! Just curious have any of you done an in depth study on it? I have and seem to be at a dead end right now! if anyone can help me find more information please let me know! THANKs

hello to all. this is my first time using the site. from when i was very little i was interested in the unexplained and unknown, but each creature of alien seemed to fake, etc. now, after see the movie "Brotherhood of the Wolf" i have found an animal that interests me greatly. i took it upon myself to do some research on the elusive creature. after much looking it seems to me that it is, or is a decendent from the mesonychids family. these creatures fit the exact description of the beast. i have included the site i found most helpful in this blog. it is very concise and i hope you all will check it out: www.newanimal.org...

Originally posted by Souljah
There it shows one version, what could this Beast of Gevaudan be - it was not a Wolf at all, but a XXX XXX XXX.

Well - Maybe...

Dude, that was a massive movie spoiler...

(double post)

[edit on 2-1-2006 by Roark]