Comments on: Hunting Utah’s Giant Beavers and Loch Ness Otters

By: Dr. Strings

Dr. Strings — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:29:04 +0000

It’s very true that animal skeletons are a rare find. We have abundant wildlife on our property and live on a saltwater river, and if remains were the measure of local animal life, most would think our area devoid of living creatures. The elements and both wild and domestic animals do have a way of making remains disappear rather quickly, so I don’t buy into the “no remains = no monster” theory. How many people are lost at sea never to be found again, even when being actively searched for? People who drown in lakes and rivers are usually found, but those on the hunt usually know when they went missing. If we knew when a lake monster appeared and died, it would be much easier to find the corpse.

The thing is, I know there are coyote, deer, raccoons, bald eagles, hawks, turkey vultures and other animals in the area because I’ve clearly seen them more than once, as have many others, with no question as to what they were. Failing to find the remains of a lake monster or any other cryptid wouldn’t matter much if live specimens were seen with more frequency by more people on a daily, or at least weekly, basis. Giant squid are elusive, yet they’ve been seen, filmed, photographed, caught, and their remains have been frequently found, thus removing them from mythic status and cementing them as real creatures.

By: Rillo777

Rillo777 — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:00:06 +0000

That’s my point, Alligator. I’ve spent about the same amount of time wandering through the woods and very few times have I seen an animal skeleton. In something like Loch Ness we might expect the carcas to never wash up on the shore. No doubt in some lakes the legend of a creature is just that–a legend, but in others they, as is said in the song about lake Superior, may never give up their dead. A huge creature with a great deal of weight and body mass might just sink after bloating and, for all we know, maybe SOME of the reports of humps that rise and then sink might be dead lake monsters settling back down to the bottom.

By: Alligator

Alligator — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:41:22 +0000

The fact is, it is rare to find bones of any animals, terrestrial or aquatic in nature. They are quickly dispersed, gnawed away by rodents and other animals and decompose rapidly. In my 40+ years wandering in the woods, I think I’ve found two, maybe three deer skeletons (none of them pristine). Can’t say that I’ve ever found beaver, otter, or muskrat remains even though I’ve physically seen them or abundant signs in an area. I found a dead mink laying on the riverbank, once. Just curled up and evidently died a few hours before. But that is the only one I’ve found like that.

By: Rillo777

Rillo777 — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 06:04:47 +0000

Well, that explains it. Cute little otters are all these lake monsters. Who’d a thunk it! I guess we can just ignore all the evidence that doesn’t fit the “cute little otter theory” or maybe those are just beavers which may or may not be cute since Joe didn’t say. By the way, just how many cute little otter skeletons have we found in these lakes to support his theory, anyway?

By: Bake Neko

Bake Neko — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 19:56:59 +0000

Thanks, I am definitely going to check that book out. I recognize all the cryptids listed except for the sea centipede. It would be fascinating to discover an animal like that.