BFRO / Official BFRO Question and Answer / Archives / 04-22-2009 / Dogmen

Topie: Dogmen
February 10th, 2009 06:30 AM
brubakej I watched the National Geographic program morphed this weekend and got to thinking about the various sightings in the midwest of the so called dogmen and the Jacobi photos in Pa. Could what people being seeing in this area be a relic population of the shortface bear (arctodus simas)? The description of a snout creature with long ears standing 9-10 feet tall with long arms and weighing 1000+ pounds sounds like it might be this bear they are describing? From the skeletal remains the front limbs are longer and this is consistent with the Jacobi phot. There is a good fossil record of the bear too. Being bear tracks do look like human tracks alot of these 13+inch foot prints might be from this creature. Has anyone explored this route to explain alot of the sightings?
February 10th, 2009 01:05 PM
Andy You would think that maybe some bear hunter might have bagged one if that were the case...although it might have been shrugged off as a "weird" bear and sent to the cutter like always with nobody the wiser....but that's a pretty big bear for PA. (Twice the size of a black bear?)
February 10th, 2009 02:33 PM
brubakej There are some big black bears in PA. a 522-pound male was found strucked by a car and killed on Oct. 1 along busy Route 22 near Fords Corner Road. This was the third largest skull in PA. That is a pretty nice size bear.
February 10th, 2009 05:30 PM
Andy I think black bears max out at ~600 lbs. or so (males) don't they? Hate to hit that with a car....

But these short-faced cave bears were more like a small fat horse...really fat, because I think they weighed more than my horse (who is a fat 15H2 @1,200 lbs!).

But I think it still looked 100% bear--not like a "dog man" or a "wolf man". Even on their hind 2 legs, bears just look like bears. Even Yogi & Boo-boo.
February 11th, 2009 06:17 AM
brubakej From what I read about the short faced bears they were proportioned differently than other bears. They were built more like a lean race horse with long legs. On all fours they were as tall as a man (5' 6" at the shoulders) and on two legs they were eight to twelve feet tall. They didn't have the bear look to them as other bears such as grizzlies, black and even the extinct cave bears of Europe (which is a different species). Their heads were more flatter without that slope like other bears had too much like a bulldog and their limbs were long.
February 11th, 2009 11:48 AM
Andy This will give you nightmares! (Nightbears?)

And this, from 'bone clones' is even worse.
February 11th, 2009 12:12 PM
BethinFL I grew up in Michigan, and never saw any kind of bear in the wild. Never in the right place at the right time I guess. I also never saw any werewolves or dogmen or anything else. It is a curious topic for me what people could be seeing.
February 12th, 2009 06:05 AM
brubakej It is a curious topic for me too because the sightings from the upper midwest of a large biped are different from the other parts of the country. This where it is of a large creature with a snout makes you wonder if they are talking about a completely different beast. The reports that I have read shows it is more aggressive and a carnivore. This is from reports of deer being taking from the back of a pickup truck in Wisconsin to the reported pictures of the beast in Ontario carrying a small dog. It is also reported to run on all fours. Thats why maybe this isn't a primate but maybe a relic population of the shortface bear.
February 12th, 2009 10:14 AM
Andy Whatever it is, I agree that it seems more aggressive and more frightening than your basic pinecone tossing Bigfoot.

I totally do not want to ever, ever have a sighting of this one.

I did read the Bray Rd book & was struck by how Bigfoot-like everything else was about the creature.

The lady who wrote the book has a website on which she collects current accounts of sightings. This has become a big business for her, which to me sends up caveat signals. Whenever anything crypto becomes a big business--or a sole monetary pursuit--there is the potential to encourage the sensational aspects of sightings rather than the mundane details.

For instance, one sighting makes a big deal of a head appearing triangular...but not much of the creature hiding behind a tree. The 'triangular' was taken to mean canid...but that's interpretation, not fact.

(And now I think of it, "triangular" is just how some of the Hoopa creatures might appear face on--with the low point being lower facial hair--a beard, for lack of a better description.)

The animals are also said to have yellow eyeshine; again, taken usually to mean 'canid' but that's not the only animal that has yelloweye shine.
February 13th, 2009 09:25 AM

Just some info. I think it is rare for a black bear to reach this wieght, but none the less possible.
February 13th, 2009 09:45 AM
Andy The black bears around my cottage are probably 350/400 lbs--and they get a lot to eat.

Recently the acorn 'crop' in parts of the North & East failed, if you can call it that. There are literally NO acorns in some of the forests, and the small animals who depend on them are starving.
This has dreadful implications for bears; they may not have been able to eat enough mast before hibernating, and they may not be able to find enough when & if they wake up, either.
There may be fewer cubs, more hibernation loss, and an increase in bears foraging garbage to make ends meet.

It may be that Bigfoots will also have a lean year.
February 13th, 2009 10:31 PM
walt smith Actually the short faced bear weighed around 3800 pounds and standing on their hind legs were 14 foot tall. Their front legs were around seven feet long with 9 inch claws and like a grizzly could outrun a race horse for short distances . Be happy they did not surive the end of the ice age.
February 14th, 2009 01:27 PM
cape6000jkg Could these sighting stories actually be of a large and undocumented monkey species rather than an bear? The long snout desrciption seems similar to a baboon or mandrill except that it could be a much larger species of monkey. If true, this would be the largest monkey ever known. Also, monkeys are omnivores, just like apes, bears, and humans. Are there credible enough reports with these types of descriptions to make this worth investigating?
February 16th, 2009 03:45 PM
Andy Monkeys as we know them come in 2 flavors: Old World & New World.
To anybody's knowledge, BF excluded, New World monkeys are the only primates who've ever lived in the New World, so maybe this is worth thinking on....

New World monkeys (called platyrrhnes-which I can never spell!), have differing numbers of teeth and different facial structures than their Old World cousins.
The noses are very different. They're kind of flat & broad and the nostrils point a bit out. They're cute, IMHO. (Capuchin monkeys used to be common as pets--the organ-grinder monkey?...they're a good example of NW Monkeys.)

There is something like a 30,000 history of fossil remains documenting their existence (which is impressive). A lot of the fossils were dug up in what is now Mexico/Central America. There are some proto-monkey fossils that were found in what would now be the SW of the United States

All of them today are smallish, with the big ones reaching only about 25 lbs at best.
They also tend to eat fruit & bugs, and generally run around on all fours, with a little bit of leaping and hanging from the trees. They're diurnal, with one exception, but he weighs only about 3 lbs.

The one crypto note about monkeys in the New World is probably "de Loy's ape"--which is the long-limbed ape shot and killed, and then photographed by Francois de Loy, who propped it up with a stick under its head. It had never been seen before, and hasn't been seen since. It was said to be about 1 & three quarters meters tall--which is about 5'7". Just for comparison, your basic H. baboon (also a monkey) is only about 3 ft long (not counting the tail). This crypto animal probably weighed in at something like 140 lbs or more....

Here's the photo: