@SolitaryMan: Really? The creature supposedly having hoof-like feet was mentioned in several of the books and accounts I read. I was trying to remember if the beast Chastel shot had them or if it was the one bought in by the hunters sent by the king, but after doing some quick Googling, apparently it was Chastel’s creature.

@BFilmfan: Interesting. I imagine that even a lone baboon could probably do a great deal of damage to a person if it felt threatened enough or the like. Weren’t male baboons responsible for attacks on babies in Africa? I think I saw that on the National Geographic Channel on a series about animal attacks.

From what I’ve read, it appears that any reasonably wealthy person could have afforded a small menagerie at that time. I’d *guess* that middle class people could have gotten exotic animals, especially if it was just one or two. There’s also that old standby: traveling circuses.

I would like to find some info on how prevalent the exotic pet trade was at that time, but so far I’ve had no luck.

Yes, there were other attacks in France: Beast of Besnais, Beast of Sarlat, etc. The wolf-pack theory explains those cases, which is a major point in its favor.

“You mean the large wolf with the hooflike feet…”

I don’t recall reading about hoof-like feet on Chastel’s wolf, but there may have been an odd report of hoof-like feet.

@BFilmFan

You mention the Wolves of Paris and other attacks. These attacks support the wolf theory. Wolves are perhaps more timid nowadays because the aggressive ones have been killed off in past centuries, leaving less aggressive ones. Wolves may also have increasingly learned to fear man, as effective firearms became more common.

I recall reading a theory that humans may have originally tamed wolves to assist in protecting themselves from attacks by hyenas and there was a large version running about North America which may well have suppresed colonization; but, I am rather sceptical of that second theory.

I can easily see a hyena being responsible for some of the reported attacks. Baboons in troops are very dangerous and have been documented to attack and kill people. While I was unable to find a definitive bite force measurement for a baboon, I did run across one that stated an Orangutan had a bite force of up to 385 ft/lbs. Based on the fact that a baboon has larger canines than a lion and a jaw structure somewhat simliar to a dog or bear, I am led to believe that it would be in the same strength range.

I agree with the other commentary, that the Beast of Gevaudan was a combination of attacks by different animals, which have been merged into a single animal. And animal displaying all the behaviors observed is either a werewolf or not the same animal. Since I don’t beleive that werewolves are physical animal (and note that I didn’t say I didn’t believe in werewolves cause I certainly didn’t!), then it must be more than one animal.

The Wolves of Paris and other known and fairly well documented wolf attacks might be an interesting article, especially the wolf attacks in the 1700s in Japan.

The nobility kept hyenas in their imageries apparently, but I wonder if regular villagers would recognize a hyena if they saw one (I’m not particularly knowledgeable on seventeenth-century Europe, so I don’t know if menageries were operated like zoos or a purely private thing)?

I agree that mass hysteria probably was probably responsible for the werewolf stuff and causing people to exaggerate the beast’s traits (to a scared person, a large wolf-hybrid or hyena looks as big as a cow). Honestly, I’m actually leaning more towards the “multiple human and animal predators operating at the same time” theory now then just a hyena being responsible.

“The attacks stopped when Jean Chastel shot what, in most accounts, is described as a largish wolf.”

You mean the large wolf with the hooflike feet (something else the program didn’t really detail)?

“I suspect that the hyena in the National History Museum might have been shot in the area, and mistakenly labeled the Beast.”

*nods* I could see that. The Gevadaun case is extremely interesting. I’d love to find out the truth, but it’ll probably never really be known.

That seems the most likely scenario. I lean toward this:

1. A pack of wolves, similar to the man-eating wolves of India, became active. This explains the wolf-like descriptions, and the range of the attacks. If wolves can become man-eaters in India, why not in rural, 18th century France?
2. Hysteria took hold and caused people to misinterpret the attacks and sightings of the wolves. This was also an element in the attacks in India, as some told of werewolves.
3. A human or humans (perhaps Jean Chastel and his son?) took advantage of the attacks and hysteria either kill or abuse the corpses.
4.There might have been a hyena, a baboon, and a wolf-dog hybrid running around the Gevaudan at that time, though I doubt the baboon was involved in any attacks.

The attacks stopped when Jean Chastel shot what, in most accounts, is described as a largish wolf. I suspect that the hyena in the National History Museum might have been shot in the area, and mistakenly labeled the Beast.

In Cryptozoology A to Z (1999), page 35, I wrote that a taxidermist at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, Franz Jullien by name, discovered that an animal similar to the description and listed as shot by Jean Chastel, had been taxidermically mounted and was on display from 1766 to 1819. It was definitely identified as an African striped hyena.

@Matt_J and Genus Unknown: LOL, the both of you phrased my issues with the program a lot better then I did. I’m kind of disappointed in the History Channel. This show was like something I’d expect to see on SyFi, not HC. I think if they had handled it like their show “Histories Mysteries” or something in that vein, I could’ve taken it more seriously.