So, why not a bear?

[cz]

Hi,

One of the first ideas of most wildlife enthusiasts not yet familiar with the details of the case appears to be a bear. This would have to be a European brown bear (similar to a grizzly in North America). Of course a bear is not immediately consistent with all the facts (like any other theory). I have here collected some points against a bear and what I make out of them. Maybe you can add more or comment on these. At any rate, I find the idea appealing because it is so very unspectacular...

1) No traces (footprints) were reported

Well, this may not be entirely waterproof because of the character of the investigation (or the lack thereof at the beginning). Traces on the tent may be rather unspecific or destroyed during the search; we know that the tent was heavily worked on.

2) Bears hibernate

Yes, kind of. They enter a state of deep sleep (torpor) during the winter and typically rest in small caves or dig dens (less controversial than the other well known den here). They can be woken up quickly though, because their body temperature remains rather high despite their metabolism running slowly. When they wake up or are woken up, their mood is mostly an aggressive one. As far as I know this phenomenon is known among Siberian hunters and winterly bear encounters are not being looked forward to by them.

3) There was food in the tent.

This would be strange because it would be an easy resource for a hungry bear to plunder. In particular, there is mention of a piece of loin (not so sure about this) or ham found in the tent. This would be strange. Rusk and canned milk would probably be less delicious but maybe still an option for the bear table, depending on how accessible it was (no can openers for bears). Maybe the bear was "disturbed" (or even wounded maybe) before going for it.

It is plausible that the group left the tent when food was prepared or they had dinner in the tent. Could that have attracted a hungry tramp?

4) There are no typical injuries

What are such typical injuries? Maybe one of you knows more. We can be relatively sure that none was brought to death directly by a bear I think. This does not necessarily exclude an encounter or a "low level" fight. As far as I could research this, bears are not known to attack groups of humans. Maybe two or three but I think there is no known case with more than five in an attacked group. However, the bear cannot see inside the tent.

There is probably more to say. Looking forward to seeing your thoughts on this.

[sarapuk]

I have a friend who is Russian, Iam English and have never been to Russia. My friend comes from Yekaterinburg and his brother went to the same college as the Dyatlov Group. I asked my friend could it have been a bear. He categorically said NO, it could not have been a bear. He is familiar with the Siberian wilderness. However that is not to say that it wasnt a bear or some creature like a bear. Lots of scratch marks on the bodies. The tent may have been ripped open from the outside [ speculation without more evidence ] Reports of very large non human foot prints found near by by some members of the search party. Other injuries on bodies could have been caused by a very large bear or bear like creature [ speculation ].

[cz]

I asked my friend could it have been a bear. He categorically said NO, it could not have been a bear. He is familiar with the Siberian wilderness. However that is not to say that it wasnt a bear or some creature like a bear. Lots of scratch marks on the bodies.

As I have essentially no wildlife experience, I definitely appreciate opinions of people knowing the Siberian nature. Your friend may very well be right. Yet, has he mentioned the reasons  to exclude this option?

As far as the tent and its damage are concerned, there is a highly informative post in the tent subsection of witness testimonies.

[sarapuk]

When I first mentioned to him about a year ago that I had heard of the Dyatlov mystery, he went very quiet and pensive looking. He never actually gave a reason for why he said it couldnt have been a bear. I didnt press him because I know he doesnt like to be pressed on certain things. Occasionally I mention the mystery when I see him, but I get the impression that there is something he feels but doesnt want to tell me about it.  As for the photos we see of the tent they do not prove that the tent was cut from the inside. What became of the tent ? A crucial piece of evidence has gone missing !

[cz]

Occasionally I mention the mystery when I see him, but I get the impression that there is something he feels but doesnt want to tell me about it.  As for the photos we see of the tent they do not prove that the tent was cut from the inside. What became of the tent ? A crucial piece of evidence has gone missing !

No reason to disgruntle a friend.

You are right, the current whereabouts of the tent remain unknown. We have to rely on the case file reports. Would not surprise me if the remains of the tent emerge from some cellar one day but who knows...

[Loose}{Cannon]

Brown bears hibernate during the winter period when food is unavailable or of greatly reduced availability, entering their dens in September to December and emerging in March to May. Hibernation lasts three to seven months

This is why I believe it not to have been a bear.

[sarapuk]

Yes I think its unlikely to be a bear, even though brown bears have been known to awaken from hibernation for some reason and become very aggressive. I think we would have seen more damage to peoples clothing etc had it been a bear and I dont recall any mention of slashed clothing.

[Blkdahlia]

Hi,

One of the first ideas of most wildlife enthusiasts not yet familiar with the details of the case appears to be a bear. This would have to be a European brown bear (similar to a grizzly in North America). Of course a bear is not immediately consistent with all the facts (like any other theory). I have here collected some points against a bear and what I make out of them. Maybe you can add more or comment on these. At any rate, I find the idea appealing because it is so very unspectacular...

1) No traces (footprints) were reported

Well, this may not be entirely waterproof because of the character of the investigation (or the lack thereof at the beginning). Traces on the tent may be rather unspecific or destroyed during the search; we know that the tent was heavily worked on.

2) Bears hibernate

Yes, kind of. They enter a state of deep sleep (torpor) during the winter and typically rest in small caves or dig dens (less controversial than the other well known den here). They can be woken up quickly though, because their body temperature remains rather high despite their metabolism running slowly. When they wake up or are woken up, their mood is mostly an aggressive one. As far as I know this phenomenon is known among Siberian hunters and winterly bear encounters are not being looked forward to by them.

3) There was food in the tent.

This would be strange because it would be an easy resource for a hungry bear to plunder. In particular, there is mention of a piece of loin (not so sure about this) or ham found in the tent. This would be strange. Rusk and canned milk would probably be less delicious but maybe still an option for the bear table, depending on how accessible it was (no can openers for bears). Maybe the bear was "disturbed" (or even wounded maybe) before going for it.

It is plausible that the group left the tent when food was prepared or they had dinner in the tent. Could that have attracted a hungry tramp?

4) There are no typical injuries

What are such typical injuries? Maybe one of you knows more. We can be relatively sure that none was brought to death directly by a bear I think. This does not necessarily exclude an encounter or a "low level" fight. As far as I could research this, bears are not known to attack groups of humans. Maybe two or three but I think there is no known case with more than five in an attacked group. However, the bear cannot see inside the tent.

There is probably more to say. Looking forward to seeing your thoughts on this.

Wow! Love this,
Mainly because it could be one of the ways for explaining the holes in the tent which does not align with most other theories.
If the bear entered the tent for food... couldn’t find its way out so clawed its way out leaving the holes in the tent that were made from the inside of the tent. That is one logical acceptable reason to me to explain the tent. Is it possible
Half the members fled down the mountain freezing to death and the others got a beat down by the bear?
If Zolotoryov went out of the tent and saw the bear, he could have alerted the members to exit out the enterance and escape down the mountain, leaving the holes in the tent to be made from the inside... because the bear could not figure out how to get out.

[cz]

If the bear entered the tent for food... couldn’t find its way out so clawed its way out leaving the holes in the tent that were made from the inside of the tent. That is one logical acceptable reason to me to explain the tent. Is it possible
Half the members fled down the mountain freezing to death and the others got a beat down by the bear?
If Zolotoryov went out of the tent and saw the bear, he could have alerted the members to exit out the enterance and escape down the mountain, leaving the holes in the tent to be made from the inside... because the bear could not figure out how to get out.

Possibly. I am even considering this: The idea that not all of the members where in the tent when the mysterious event struck them has been around for a long time. The reason is the comparably good clothing of Zolotarev and Thibo. Maybe they were outside. How does one notice the approach of a bear in a windswept tent? Probably not at all until the bear is literally in the tent. Unless somebody is outside and warns you (as you say). Now what if this somebody was attacked and the rest of the group cut the tent open from the inside, to come to help? First small cuts would be made to check the situation after noticing the warning and only then a long cut would be made. This would then not be an escape but a 'sortie' scenario.

I know there are many weaknesses. What/where are the injuries? Where are the traces (I believe bear pranks would have been recognized during the tent investigation)? Nobody was killed at the tent, so why did they not simply return? And so on. Still an interesting thought.

[Blkdahlia]

Occasionally I mention the mystery when I see him, but I get the impression that there is something he feels but doesnt want to tell me about it.  As for the photos we see of the tent they do not prove that the tent was cut from the inside. What became of the tent ? A crucial piece of evidence has gone missing !

No reason to disgruntle a friend.

You are right, the current whereabouts of the tent remain unknown. We have to rely on the case file reports. Would not surprise me if the remains of the tent emerge from some cellar one day but who knows...

I’m sorry but they don’t know where the tent is? Smh speechless

[Morski]

A bear attack could be a reason to flee in panic in the middle of the night, especially since you kinda dont expect to be attacked. What bothers me, is that even though we have some pictures and the general idea, that the tent was cut from the inside, we still lack the solid proof, that it was cut by group members. There is a huge gap between the theories of how was actually the tent found. Was it upright, or was it half buried in the snow? Were there two bodies just outside the tent, or not (like for example Karpushin says). One of the things I find most frustrating, is that we dont have a clear idea what was the actual condition of the tent and the close surroundings, and adding to that the strong suspicion, that someone could have manipulated the whole scene.
Lets say a bear entered the tent searching for food or for whatever reason and is not able to find the way out. Since we have most of the belongings and clothes of the group inside the tent, that huge animal would have turned the tent upside down, leaving multiple signs and tracks, before eventually going out through the side, cuting its way out. On the other hand it makes sense that the group was reluctant to go back, at least for the first few moments, or hours. Whether it was a bear or something/someone else, it probably stayed there for a while (doing what, if the group was already away, and if pretty much everything was found inside the tent?), and that could be a reason for the group not to go back.
As for the tent during and after the investigation, I also find it a bit absurd that it was not well documented. It was not photographed from every side, of the few photos we have, some are clearly amateurish, not forensic, even though by the time they took them, I think, it was obvious that they were dealing with a crime scene.
I consider the possibility, that there were more photos, but they gone missing. The other thing is, is there even a chance, that the tent still exists? Destroying the key evidence might prevent further attempts to investigate...

[Blkdahlia]

Maybe a bear came after the fact. They had not even started the stove which kept them warm right? They needed fire wood. They were probably setting up the stove when this mess started and had to leave the tent for whatever reason, then a bear came later...
They needed wood for sure. I doubt they went to the woods to collect it with no shoes.

[sarapuk]

I must say that my initial feeling after I first heard of the Dyatlov Case was that it may have been a Bear. I still harbour that feeling but obviously since reading more on the story and joining this Forum I have to consider other possibilities, as Iam sure most other members do.

[cz]

A bear attack could be a reason to flee in panic in the middle of the night, especially since you kinda dont expect to be attacked.

Lets say a bear entered the tent searching for food or for whatever reason [...].
Whether it was a bear or something/someone else, it probably stayed there for a while (doing what, if the group was already away, and if pretty much everything was found inside the tent?), and that could be a reason for the group not to go back.

As you say, even when we accept for a moment that a bear made them flee from the tent, what happened then? I can image a quick shoeless escape, but how long would they have been standing close to the tent to consider what to do next? And why would they not return? Clearly the deterrent must have been overwhelming to make you walk down without gear.

Obvious questions of course, and hard to answer working on this hypothesis. Can one image a bear to occupy the tent or somehow defend it? Probably yes when food was available, but then we have a bear with some housekeeping training in the urals, because I expect a hungry bear to be a destructive one as far as a tent is concerned. So I am back at your question: what was it doing there?

[sarapuk]

Well with so many theories I suppose each theory will have plenty of speculative ideas. Bear theory in particular. Any ones guess as to what a Bear could be doing at the camp site. The Dyatlov Group would have been aware of any potential animal threats in that area. But they carried NO WEAPONS. If I was hiking in the Siberian wilderness, even with a group, I would definitely take a weapon with me, and I put this to my Russian friend from Yekaterinburg, who agreed. So WHY NO WEAPONS ! ? Any way the Siberian Brown Bear is a very large animal, and very powerful. Note ; apparently it cant climb trees. It could certainly terrify any one close to it and possibly cause panic. The Dyatlov Group would not have been able to out run a Bear unless the Bear itself was disabled in some way, maybe ill or whatever. And of course there is the question of the mile hike from the Tent to the forest edge. So plenty of speculation re  the Bear Theory.

[CalzagheChick]

There was an American guy that like an idiot was living among a pack of Grizzlies in Alaska every year for years before their hibernation periods. The government told him to stop. He ignored them. One day he didn't come back from a trip. The search yielded a camcorder whose lens cap wasn't removed but had been recording the last moments of this man and his girlfriend's lives. Only one person has heard the 35 minutes of blood-curdling screaming and the sounds of human flesh being torn to shreds and eaten. She was his close friend and the footage was sent to her as she was listed as his next of kin. She will not even allow the media to get their hands on the footage.

My point is--if this had been a bear, we would not have photos of 9 relatively intact bodies. In my opinion of course.

[sarapuk]

Yes thats what I also thought re the Bear theory. We would expect more damage to clothing and bodies. There are what appear to be scratch marks on some bodies, but hardly deep wounds that we might expect. Even a disabled or injured Bear would still be likely to cause considerable mayhem. So obviously I also have difficulty with the Bear theory.

[Star man]

A bear is possible but what about a Siberian tiger?  They don’t hibernate. I watched a programme about conservation of these tigers recently. I think the reserve was in the ural mountains

[sarapuk]

Well Siberian Tigers are very big animals indeed. I remember when I was a kid in Birmingham, England, and we used to visit the Natural History Museum and one of my favourite objects was a STUFFED SIBERIAN TIGER killed a very long time ago.  It was enormous. It must have stood 6 foot tall at least. And with a huge somewhat frightening head. I thought no person would stand a chance of survival if attacked by that animal.  But I cant see how a Tiger could have caused the Dyatlov tragedy. A BEAR or such like animal could CRUSH a person by SQUEEZING them but not a Tiger. The Tiger could certainly CLAW its victims or bite them or fall on them. I was reading a medical report about crush injuries and a BEAR or such like animal could have caused the injuries to DUBININA.

[Star man]

Well Siberian Tigers are very big animals indeed. I remember when I was a kid in Birmingham, England, and we used to visit the Natural History Museum and one of my favourite objects was a STUFFED SIBERIAN TIGER killed a very long time ago.  It was enormous. It must have stood 6 foot tall at least. And with a huge somewhat frightening head. I thought no person would stand a chance of survival if attacked by that animal.  But I cant see how a Tiger could have caused the Dyatlov tragedy. A BEAR or such like animal could CRUSH a person by SQUEEZING them but not a Tiger. The Tiger could certainly CLAW its victims or bite them or fall on them. I was reading a medical report about crush injuries and a BEAR or such like animal could have caused the injuries to DUBININA.

Yeah a bear could do it.  But I don't think they were killed by a wild animal I was thinking more that a wild animal could have caused them to leave the camp and also why they didn't want to return.

[sarapuk]

There is something about THE DYATLOV PASS MYSTERY that lends itself to a SEQUENCE OF EVENTS as opposed to SEPARATE EVENTS causing the tragedy. Thats why I looked at it from a point of view of an animal such as a BEAR or such like  being responsible for all the EVENTS. But thats just one possibility.

[cz]

A bear is possible but what about a Siberian tiger?  They don’t hibernate. I watched a programme about conservation of these tigers recently. I think the reserve was in the ural mountains

Interesting idea. Yet, it appears that Siberian tigers do not live in the Urals but only much further east:   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_tiger

[cz]

My point is--if this had been a bear, we would not have photos of 9 relatively intact bodies. In my opinion of course.

The lack of injuries clearly attributable to a bear attack is of course puzzling.  Like "Star man", I also imagine that a bear could have initiated the sequence of events.   
 
As far as I could find out, bears do not usually attack larger groups of humans; I think no case is known where a group larger than five was attacked. While this might explain that no one was really killed by the animal (given they acted as a group), the question is how it started then.

When they were in the tent, a bear would have remained ignorant of their number, and it might have been curious. Based on their better clothing, it is often thought that some (two) of them were outside the tent, when "it" started; two is an attractive group for a bear attack. Now there is an interesting fact from Doroshenko's biography related to bears, which reads: "He had an impulsive personality and was famous at the school’s hiking club for having run at a giant bear with a geologist’s hammer while on a camping trip." So he knew bears and had some reputation (to lose?) for fighting one off. This made me imagine that maybe two of the group might have run into immediate danger outside the tent, notified their comrades, and those inside then rushed (slashed their way) out to support them. They did not manage to chase the animal away. Instead, it prevented them to return and left them trapped outside, where they at some point decided to seek shelter elsewhere with the known consequences.

I even think that they might have taken a photo of the animal (see thread "What is looking at me?")

[sarapuk]

My point is--if this had been a bear, we would not have photos of 9 relatively intact bodies. In my opinion of course.

The lack of injuries clearly attributable to a bear attack is of course puzzling.  Like "Star man", I also imagine that a bear could have initiated the sequence of events.   
 
As far as I could find out, bears do not usually attack larger groups of humans; I think no case is known where a group larger than five was attacked. While this might explain that no one was really killed by the animal (given they acted as a group), the question is how it started then.

When they were in the tent, a bear would have remained ignorant of their number, and it might have been curious. Based on their better clothing, it is often thought that some (two) of them were outside the tent, when "it" started; two is an attractive group for a bear attack. Now there is an interesting fact from Doroshenko's biography related to bears, which reads: "He had an impulsive personality and was famous at the school’s hiking club for having run at a giant bear with a geologist’s hammer while on a camping trip." So he knew bears and had some reputation (to lose?) for fighting one off. This made me imagine that maybe two of the group might have run into immediate danger outside the tent, notified their comrades, and those inside then rushed (slashed their way) out to support them. They did not manage to chase the animal away. Instead, it prevented them to return and left them trapped outside, where they at some point decided to seek shelter elsewhere with the known consequences.

I even think that they might have taken a photo of the animal (see thread "What is looking at me?")

Why would they want to DESTROY their means of safety ! ? And I dont think we should give the bear species too much in the way of cleverness. They are wild predators. Why would a bear want to stop them getting back into a TENT that they have just DESTROYED  !    ?

[WAB]

A bear is possible but what about a Siberian tiger?  They don’t hibernate. I watched a programme about conservation of these tigers recently. I think the reserve was in the ural mountains

God sees  , I did not want to climb down in discussion of any exotic versions of this case, but in this theme it is possible to tell shortly. Anyway I will try very much.

The Star Man and CZ, I think that you became hostages of transfer of terms from Russian on English.
Siberian tiger it not the tiger which lives in Siberia. He is the Amurian tiger, that is a tiger which lives in the Far East, practically on the bank of Pacific ocean. If to use correct geographical terms, the Far East it any more Siberia. Just as Ural Mountains, it yet Siberia. These are the different geographical areas having the specificity. As Ural Mountains are removed from an area of dwelling of the Amurian (Siberian) tiger more than on 7000 kilometrs or on 4500 mi. Here a picture where the locations of pass and an area of dwelling of this animal are designated.
 


Therefore any reserves on Ural Mountains for this tiger could not be. Especially it is necessary to consider that they live in certain environmental conditions which on Ural Mountains are not present. They are around an arrangement of the river the Cupid, therefore they live there.
I can tell at once and about bears who live in a place where there were events of Dyatlov group.
1.In 1959 bears was little and areas where they lived local Mansi knew well. By January and February 1959 Mansi did not know about one bear who has not laid down on hibernation. The bear is called "Шатун -Shatoun (in Russian) - bear who does not hibernate" which does not sleep, leaves appreciable snow traces, which local Mansi did not see.
2.If the bear on what that to the reasons has got out in the winter from a den (lair, holes) it cannot live that more than 2 or 3 weeks because will be lost for hunger and an exhaustion.
3.Bears hunt and live in wood, in woodless zone where there was tent Dyatlov group it would not began to rise. Especially if it is necessary to meet half-way wind.

In these parts I have received all data obout bears from local Mansi-hunters. They hunters very qualified and well know that was in a current of many last years.
For example, it is the local Mansi- hunter Valery Aniamov at where his father`s sign, has won a bear many years ago.
 


On surface tree (it is a cedar or Siberian pine in science) the sign that the bear here is won and a patrimonial symbol (катпос - kathpous) of Aniamov family is visible.
Valery's father took part in searches of Dyatlov group in 1959.

The last that I want to tell, character of the traumas received by participants of Dyatlov group is completely not similar on what turn out from a bear. The bear tears a body claws when leaves scars in 4 or 5 numbers with an interval in some centimetrs (about 1 inch). The bear can bite off the big pieces of a body with teeth. The bear can break a backbone, hands, feet and edges. But it anything (except breakage of edges) it was not revealed. If to tell about breakage of edges that from effort of a bear there should be crises in forward and back parts of a thorax. It turns out from the scheme of mechanical loading from compression by a bear. But crises are in the description of the judicial doctor sideways. It is characteristic for loading the big plane in front at fast process. The bear cannot develop such speed of loading of that it big and heavy and does slower movements, than it is required for reception of crises which the judicial doctor has described.

[Star man]

A bear is possible but what about a Siberian tiger?  They don’t hibernate. I watched a programme about conservation of these tigers recently. I think the reserve was in the ural mountains

God sees  , I did not want to climb down in discussion of any exotic versions of this case, but in this theme it is possible to tell shortly. Anyway I will try very much.

The Star Man and CZ, I think that you became hostages of transfer of terms from Russian on English.
Siberian tiger it not the tiger which lives in Siberia. He is the Amurian tiger, that is a tiger which lives in the Far East, practically on the bank of Pacific ocean. If to use correct geographical terms, the Far East it any more Siberia. Just as Ural Mountains, it yet Siberia. These are the different geographical areas having the specificity. As Ural Mountains are removed from an area of dwelling of the Amurian (Siberian) tiger more than on 7000 kilometrs or on 4500 mi. Here a picture where the locations of pass and an area of dwelling of this animal are designated.
 


Therefore any reserves on Ural Mountains for this tiger could not be. Especially it is necessary to consider that they live in certain environmental conditions which on Ural Mountains are not present. They are around an arrangement of the river the Cupid, therefore they live there.
I can tell at once and about bears who live in a place where there were events of Dyatlov group.
1.In 1959 bears was little and areas where they lived local Mansi knew well. By January and February 1959 Mansi did not know about one bear who has not laid down on hibernation. The bear is called "Шатун -Shatoun (in Russian) - bear who does not hibernate" which does not sleep, leaves appreciable snow traces, which local Mansi did not see.
2.If the bear on what that to the reasons has got out in the winter from a den (lair, holes) it cannot live that more than 2 or 3 weeks because will be lost for hunger and an exhaustion.
3.Bears hunt and live in wood, in woodless zone where there was tent Dyatlov group it would not began to rise. Especially if it is necessary to meet half-way wind.

In these parts I have received all data obout bears from local Mansi-hunters. They hunters very qualified and well know that was in a current of many last years.
For example, it is the local Mansi- hunter Valery Aniamov at where his father`s sign, has won a bear many years ago.
 


On surface tree (it is a cedar or Siberian pine in science) the sign that the bear here is won and a patrimonial symbol (катпос - kathpous) of Aniamov family is visible.
Valery's father took part in searches of Dyatlov group in 1959.

The last that I want to tell, character of the traumas received by participants of Dyatlov group is completely not similar on what turn out from a bear. The bear tears a body claws when leaves scars in 4 or 5 numbers with an interval in some centimetrs (about 1 inch). The bear can bite off the big pieces of a body with teeth. The bear can break a backbone, hands, feet and edges. But it anything (except breakage of edges) it was not revealed. If to tell about breakage of edges that from effort of a bear there should be crises in forward and back parts of a thorax. It turns out from the scheme of mechanical loading from compression by a bear. But crises are in the description of the judicial doctor sideways. It is characteristic for loading the big plane in front at fast process. The bear cannot develop such speed of loading of that it big and heavy and does slower movements, than it is required for reception of crises which the judicial doctor has described.

Ok so if it was a Siberian Tiger then it was far away from its normal home.  Also the injuries would be of a completely different kind to those seen in the Dyatlov group.  Makes sense to me.  That means an animal attack is an unlikely explanation to what actually happened.

[cz]

I can tell at once and about bears who live in a place where there were events of Dyatlov group.
1.In 1959 bears was little and areas where they lived local Mansi knew well. By January and February 1959 Mansi did not know about one bear who has not laid down on hibernation. The bear is called "Шатун -Shatoun (in Russian) - bear who does not hibernate" which does not sleep, leaves appreciable snow traces, which local Mansi did not see.
2.If the bear on what that to the reasons has got out in the winter from a den (lair, holes) it cannot live that more than 2 or 3 weeks because will be lost for hunger and an exhaustion.
3.Bears hunt and live in wood, in woodless zone where there was tent Dyatlov group it would not began to rise. Especially if it is necessary to meet half-way wind.

In these parts I have received all data obout bears from local Mansi-hunters. They hunters very qualified and well know that was in a current of many last years.

Dear WAB, I think your research and information is again well-founded and thorough.

It is, indeed, remarkable that the Mansi did not notice any shatoun traces in the region or the site of the tent. For sure they would have had every reason to report such traces because it would have relieved the Mansi people from the suspicion of murder -- without question a very dangerous affair for them.

As the number of bears and the short expected survival time of shatouns are concerned, I would argue that a single shatoun, roaming the region for one day, would be enough to cause the incident. Possibly, intense hunger may even motivate a shatoun to investigate a potential source of food beyond its usual habitat in the woods. After all, they were only about 1.5 km from the wood.

The missing traces, which an experienced Mansi hunter would not have missed, are certainly a strong argument against a shatoun. What remains for me to argue is that even the Mansi may not have noticed a shatoun, which caused no trouble otherwise, and the traces at the tent may have been destroyed prior to the arrival of the search team.   

The last that I want to tell, character of the traumas received by participants of Dyatlov group is completely not similar on what turn out from a bear. The bear tears a body claws when leaves scars in 4 or 5 numbers with an interval in some centimetrs (about 1 inch). The bear can bite off the big pieces of a body with teeth. The bear can break a backbone, hands, feet and edges. But it anything (except breakage of edges) it was not revealed. If to tell about breakage of edges that from effort of a bear there should be crises in forward and back parts of a thorax. It turns out from the scheme of mechanical loading from compression by a bear. But crises are in the description of the judicial doctor sideways. It is characteristic for loading the big plane in front at fast process. The bear cannot develop such speed of loading of that it big and heavy and does slower movements, than it is required for reception of crises which the judicial doctor has described.

Sure. Their injuries are not consistent with a direct bear assault, still a shatoun may have caused them to leave the tent and initiate the course of events.           

[flacyd]

Eurasian brown bears have their cubs in jan-feb, usually emerging in March. Is it possible that this is a mother bear emerging early with her cubs and one of the cubs was stuck in the tent rooting around for food? Curious cubs may have been attracted to the camp site while a distressed mother bear may have attacked the group as they moved away from the cubs. This might explain the lack of bear prints at the camp sight. The small cubs may have been light enough to leave only small, shallow, prints which might evade notice by examiners; the mother bear may not have even entered the camp site.

[sparrow]

Welcome flacyd. 

Bears make a terrible mess.  The tents contents were fairly neat.

[NightLurker]

I'm sorry but I think a bear is out of the question. A bear, no matter the size and even right out of hibernation, in an area that is foreign (snow everywhere, lots of people and in the middle of nowhere) would be more scared of people running around screaming than to attack them. Bears can be pretty feisty but in this case, a bear would be so out of it's normal environment that the the plausibility may be close to nil. Bears will scratch you up and generally go straight for the neck, which did not happen in any of these cases. A "bear hug" may break your ribs, but it is very rare. Plus, this bear would have to go after the whole party, even after they split up. A bear with a vendetta could be hired for the Russian mafia... but rubles are not what the bear is looking for.