• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Mysterious Wolf-Like Creature Shot In North-Central Montana

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
13,848
Was it a wolf, some type of hybrid, or a creature that hasn't been seen in Montana since the Ice Age?

On May 16 a lone wolf-like animal was shot and killed on a ranch outside Denton. With long grayish fur, a large head and an extended snout, the animal shared many of the same characteristics as a wolf; but its ears were too large, it's legs and body too short, its fur uncharacteristic of that common to a wolf.

636627587841708143-Wolf-like-creature.jpg


So what was it? At this point, no one is 100 percent sure.

"We have no idea what this was until we get a DNA report back," said Bruce Auchly, information manager for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "It was near a rancher's place, it was shot, and our game wardens went to investigate. The whole animal was sent to our lab in Bozeman. That's the last I ever heard of it."

636627858498297135-Denton-Canid-body.jpg


"Several things grabbed my attention when I saw the pictures," said Ty Smucker, wolf management specialist for Montana FWP. "The ears are too big. The legs look a little short. The feet look a little small, and the coat looks weird. There's just something off about it."

Smucker's own speculation runs toward some type of wolf/dog hybrid. He noted several occasions within the last few years in which canid predators, neither all wolf nor all dog were causing problems with ranchers east of the Continental Divide.

"We've had a few instances of wolf/dog hybrids out there," Smucker said. "One was out somewhere in eastern central Montana killing sheep like crazy. Finally, we caught it and it turned out to be a hybrid."

636627858492515060-Denton-Canid-paw.jpg


https://eu.greatfallstribune.com/st...us-creature-montanans-look-answers/634379002/

maximus otter
 
Wild wolf and coyote hybrids can be really nasty. They are generally less skittish around humans than their wild ancestors, but every bit as hungry, predatory, and potentially vicious. Not a good combination.
 
It's a non-lactating female canid. Wolves, dogs and coyotes interbreed regularly. I'm at a loss as to why people would jump to fantastic conclusions like werewolf, dogman, dire wolf, etc. I suspect that because there is a picture (and the public is generally not informed about genetics and hybridization) this kind of stuff goes way off the tracks. Interesting? Yes. Incredible? Nope. It will be a while before the DNA result come out. If they are nothing special, this story never gets its fair conclusion and there is a chance that a myth is reinforced.
 
It's a non-lactating female canid. Wolves, dogs and coyotes interbreed regularly. I'm at a loss as to why people would jump to fantastic conclusions like werewolf, dogman, dire wolf, etc. I suspect that because there is a picture (and the public is generally not informed about genetics and hybridization) this kind of stuff goes way off the tracks. Interesting? Yes. Incredible? Nope. It will be a while before the DNA result come out. If they are nothing special, this story never gets its fair conclusion and there is a chance that a myth is reinforced.

I think you're flying off the handle slightly - the text does say it's likely a wolf/dog hybrid.
 
I think you're flying off the handle slightly - the text does say it's likely a wolf/dog hybrid.
Two posts mentioned the crazy speculation going on.
Some of the same information and photos in this link, but some colourful speculation as well. Werewolf? Relative of Bigfoot?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44243644
Was it a wolf, some type of hybrid, or a creature that hasn't been seen in Montana since the Ice Age?

Early postings on this story, even the version from the Washington Post, also veered into wild speculation. They even linked to books and podcasts on the Dogman. It does reasonably seem like a common hybrid but that's not a cool story, is it? It's frustrating to see mainstream news jump immediate to clickbait tactics.
 
It does reasonably seem like a common hybrid but that's not a cool story, is it? It's frustrating to see mainstream news jump immediate to clickbait tactics.

It does, but unfortunately, that's what a free press gives us: cheap journalism. Clichés, pre-digested thinking, sensationalism, misleading headlines, even (whisper it) fake news.
 
A Mystery Animal Shot in Montana Has Confused Wolf Experts, But Werewolf? Really?
And by the way, dire wolves are extinct.


Like I said, early postings including the speculation and now it's viral.

The same trend is seen with so many "mystery carcasses". (Haven't you heard? Monster crocodile carcass washed up in Wales! - I don't see a thread on this.) Some people throw insults at me for stating the obvious but cryptozoology today is so sensationalized, it leans heavily paranormal and fantastic, and the scientific viewpoint is ridiculed and brushed off. That's sad. I love mystery animals but I want to know what it really is and am conservative with regards to throwing out extreme guesses. Even mentioning dogman, werewolves, and dire wolfs will cause these baseless claims to become normalized. People really believe it. The field has turned heavily towards a bunch of monster fans telling outrageous stories and the credibility has tanked.
 
A Mystery Animal Shot in Montana Has Confused Wolf Experts, But Werewolf? Really?
And by the way, dire wolves are extinct.


Like I said, early postings including the speculation and now it's viral.

The same trend is seen with so many "mystery carcasses". (Haven't you heard? Monster crocodile carcass washed up in Wales! - I don't see a thread on this.) Some people throw insults at me for stating the obvious but cryptozoology today is so sensationalized, it leans heavily paranormal and fantastic, and the scientific viewpoint is ridiculed and brushed off. That's sad. I love mystery animals but I want to know what it really is and am conservative with regards to throwing out extreme guesses. Even mentioning dogman, werewolves, and dire wolfs will cause these baseless claims to become normalized. People really believe it. The field has turned heavily towards a bunch of monster fans telling outrageous stories and the credibility has tanked.

The Wales monster has been posted here! Don't encourage another new thread!

You make good points about the noise to signal ratio. The sort of thing which has largely turned me away from the UFO and Ghosts fields.
 
Poor thing :( If it had been rare, well, shoot first ask later
 
A Mystery Animal Shot in Montana Has Confused Wolf Experts, But Werewolf? Really?
And by the way, dire wolves are extinct.


Like I said, early postings including the speculation and now it's viral.

The same trend is seen with so many "mystery carcasses". (Haven't you heard? Monster crocodile carcass washed up in Wales! - I don't see a thread on this.) Some people throw insults at me for stating the obvious but cryptozoology today is so sensationalized, it leans heavily paranormal and fantastic, and the scientific viewpoint is ridiculed and brushed off. That's sad. I love mystery animals but I want to know what it really is and am conservative with regards to throwing out extreme guesses. Even mentioning dogman, werewolves, and dire wolfs will cause these baseless claims to become normalized. People really believe it. The field has turned heavily towards a bunch of monster fans telling outrageous stories and the credibility has tanked.

Thing is Sharon, this is where we are now. This is pretty much all that's left with cryptozoology as it's widely defined and diseminated these days. If 99.9% was ever any different.

People will watch TV programmes and click on links that tell them there's sonething weird out there because it's exciting for them, and to a large extent I believe because they like to read that those 'stupid lazy scientists' aren't half as clever as they think they are. It appeals to a demographic you're never going to reach, not least because it's less about the content and more about the subtext, which is something that no amount of reason is ever going to fix.
 
People will watch TV programmes and click on links that tell them there's sonething weird out there because it's exciting for them, and to a large extent I believe because they like to read that those 'stupid lazy scientists' aren't half as clever as they think they are. It appeals to a demographic you're never going to reach, not least because it's less about the content and more about the subtext, which is something that no amount of reason is ever going to fix.

Well, that's cheered us all up! :) I'll go one further: it's worse than that because so many websites and search engines match results to your previous browsing. So if you look at 3 posts of a particular kind, chances are, you will be given links to 10 more. If a person does not understand this, they will think that the sites they are seeing are a representative cross section, and give additional credence to them.

Wishful thinking plus anecdotes leads to the von Däniken argument: "We have a thousand pieces of evidence, and if we discount 90% as mistakes and 90% of the rest as hoaxes, and 90% of the rest can be explained scientifically, that still leaves... and therefore they must be real [monsters/ghosts/poltergeists/UFOs...] and now we've established that there are some real [monsters etc.] maybe we were hasty in excluding so many from the original sample. In fact, there are monsters [etc.] everywhere!"
 
The same trend is seen with so many "mystery carcasses". (Haven't you heard? Monster crocodile carcass washed up in Wales! - I don't see a thread on this.) Some people throw insults at me for stating the obvious but cryptozoology today is so sensationalized, it leans heavily paranormal and fantastic, and the scientific viewpoint is ridiculed and brushed off. That's sad. I love mystery animals but I want to know what it really is and am conservative with regards to throwing out extreme guesses.

The headline is clickbait to get you onsite. If it looks a bit like a crocodile so much the better - 'Dead dolphin washes up' probably isn't going to get much traffic. When you read the text, it usually has an informed opinion saying what the creature most likely is. In the case of the Gower 'crocodile', the text makes it clear it's probably a cetacean. It's still an unusual find on the beach.
 
I don't think that I'm going to be popular, but here goes...I bet that the DNA test is going to be "be lost in the post" and it was all a hoax. I.E. a prop for a film.
 
Well, that's cheered us all up! :) I'll go one further: it's worse than that because so many websites and search engines match results to your previous browsing. So if you look at 3 posts of a particular kind, chances are, you will be given links to 10 more. If a person does not understand this, they will think that the sites they are seeing are a representative cross section, and give additional credence to them.

Wishful thinking plus anecdotes leads to the von Däniken argument: "We have a thousand pieces of evidence, and if we discount 90% as mistakes and 90% of the rest as hoaxes, and 90% of the rest can be explained scientifically, that still leaves... and therefore they must be real [monsters/ghosts/poltergeists/UFOs...] and now we've established that there are some real [monsters etc.] maybe we were hasty in excluding so many from the original sample. In fact, there are monsters [etc.] everywhere!"

I really had no idea Google worked like that. I know that if I ever try and Google 'thylacine film' I get a load of fox videos rather than the historical footage I'm after. Which really annoys me especially as I never look at that sort of thing.

I agree with what you say regarding the Von Däniken malarky, and the 'there are just too many eyewitnesses for this to be wrong' argument is another bugbear of mine.
 
I really had no idea Google worked like that. I know that if I ever try and Google 'thylacine film' I get a load of fox videos rather than the historical footage I'm after. Which really annoys me especially as I never look at that sort of thing.

I agree with what you say regarding the Von Däniken malarky, and the 'there are just too many eyewitnesses for this to be wrong' argument is another bugbear of mine.

Just to be clear, I didn't mention Google by name. That aside, there's an interesting parallel to evolution here: the effect of selection. So, let's say I watch 3 videos about Alien Big Cats. Many video websites are likely to suggest 10 further ABC videos for me to watch. As, like many people, I waste far too much time browsing, I'm likely to watch all or many of them. The website has taken my sample of 3 as representative of my likes and given me 10 similar videos. My sample of what's available therefore includes 13 similar videos. Because I've watched all or most of them. The website sends me even more. I develop a distorted picture of what's available, and the website develops a distorted picture of what I like.

With a sufficiently sophisticated algorithm to interpret how long you watched each video, what you searched for and so on, you could conceivably end up only being recommended the same single video all the time: the one video that perfectly matches your viewing history and preferences.! (It's unlikely, but...)

Similarly, if you ask your music player to play "favourites" they become even more favourite...

Eventually, we will be clever enough to see how stupid we are, but not for a while. :)
 
Just to be clear, I didn't mention Google by name. That aside, there's an interesting parallel to evolution here: the effect of selection. So, let's say I watch 3 videos about Alien Big Cats. Many video websites are likely to suggest 10 further ABC videos for me to watch. As, like many people, I waste far too much time browsing, I'm likely to watch all or many of them. The website has taken my sample of 3 as representative of my likes and given me 10 similar videos. My sample of what's available therefore includes 13 similar videos. Because I've watched all or most of them. The website sends me even more. I develop a distorted picture of what's available, and the website develops a distorted picture of what I like.

With a sufficiently sophisticated algorithm to interpret how long you watched each video, what you searched for and so on, you could conceivably end up only being recommended the same single video all the time: the one video that perfectly matches your viewing history and preferences.! (It's unlikely, but...)

Similarly, if you ask your music player to play "favourites" they become even more favourite...

Eventually, we will be clever enough to see how stupid we are, but not for a while. :)

I won't.

I get bombarded with these sort of videos, I never watch them. Perhaps it's because I can't resist debunking the sort of '10 new animals discovered last Wednesday that the stupid lazy scientists missed' videos, or in the past used to react to the spate of Australian fox videos that's the root of it in my case?

But I never considered it really, it's an interesting point though. Thanks for your observations it's been illuminating to hear about this aspect of how this stuff get spread about the internet.
 
I won't.

I get bombarded with these sort of videos, I never watch them. Perhaps it's because I can't resist debunking the sort of '10 new animals discovered last Wednesday that the stupid lazy scientists missed' videos, or in the past used to react to the spate of Australian fox videos that's the root of it in my case?

But I never considered it really, it's an interesting point though. Thanks for your observations it's been illuminating to hear about this aspect of how this stuff get spread about the internet.
It's not just videos, of course. It's news stories too. My whimsical speculation takes on a more serious note when you consider that followers of the major parties are likely to receive recommendations to read stories that support their existing point of view. Therefore (1) they never get to see an alternative point of view and (2) repeated exposure to the same basic message reinforces it. Of course, anyone can do new active searches, or use Chrome incognito or certain search engines that do not use this approach, but how many people really do? People find it comfortable to have their preconceptions supported and reinforced and the internet has made that far easier. A preconception that is reinforced enough times becomes a prejudice.
 
Ahem ... Back to the original subject of this thread. The tests are in, and the mystery canid was a wolf ...

Tests confirm mystery animal shot in Montana was a wolf
...The mystery is over: Wildlife officials have confirmed that an unusual-looking animal shot in central Montana was a gray wolf.​

Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials initially weren’t certain what the creature was when a rancher shot it in May. They noted the legs, front claws and canine teeth were shorter and its ears were bigger than normally seen on wolves.

The agency said Monday that an inspection of the animal at its laboratory revealed it to be a relatively normal-looking wolf. DNA tests confirmed that it was a gray wolf.

Officials say the wolf was a 2- or 3-year-old female with unique physical features.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service geneticist Mary Curtis says it’s not unusual for there to be physical variations of animals within a species.

SOURCE: https://apnews.com/55d9eec885734341...irm-mystery-animal-shot-in-Montana-was-a-wolf
 
Was it a wolf, some type of hybrid, or a creature that hasn't been seen in Montana since the Ice Age?

On May 16 a lone wolf-like animal was shot and killed on a ranch outside Denton. With long grayish fur, a large head and an extended snout, the animal shared many of the same characteristics as a wolf; but its ears were too large, it's legs and body too short, its fur uncharacteristic of that common to a wolf.

636627587841708143-Wolf-like-creature.jpg


So what was it? At this point, no one is 100 percent sure.

"We have no idea what this was until we get a DNA report back," said Bruce Auchly, information manager for Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. "It was near a rancher's place, it was shot, and our game wardens went to investigate. The whole animal was sent to our lab in Bozeman. That's the last I ever heard of it."

636627858498297135-Denton-Canid-body.jpg


"Several things grabbed my attention when I saw the pictures," said Ty Smucker, wolf management specialist for Montana FWP. "The ears are too big. The legs look a little short. The feet look a little small, and the coat looks weird. There's just something off about it."

Smucker's own speculation runs toward some type of wolf/dog hybrid. He noted several occasions within the last few years in which canid predators, neither all wolf nor all dog were causing problems with ranchers east of the Continental Divide.

"We've had a few instances of wolf/dog hybrids out there," Smucker said. "One was out somewhere in eastern central Montana killing sheep like crazy. Finally, we caught it and it turned out to be a hybrid."

636627858492515060-Denton-Canid-paw.jpg


https://eu.greatfallstribune.com/st...us-creature-montanans-look-answers/634379002/

maximus otter
What was it?
 
Back
Top