On Monday, August 7, 2000, at about 6:30 PM, Tim Arcilesi and this writer returned to the Arundel Mills site. We made a decision to examine the western perimeter of the construction area as well as the drainage pond and it environs. We spent 2 hours scouring the area for tracks and any form of evidence that would lend support to the claims made in this incident. The excavation was typical of the sandy soil, marl, and water-worn stones found throughout much of Anne Arundel County (see Figure 9). With the possible exception of two items, we found absolutely nothing unusual.

Item # 1

As we approached the drainage pond we immediately noticed a roughly 6-foot diameter area of flattened grass near the water, on the northwest slope. The surrounding grass was of the annual rye type that typically grows to a height of 2 to 3 feet (see Figures 10 & 11). Figure 12 shows a roughly 180 degree view from the area of mashed grass. This southeast view, just right of the trees is approximately where Officer DiPietro was positioned when he saw the large shape near the water.

Item # 2

When checking the area of DiPietro's "track" find, we were surprised to see a number of scratch-like marks on the hill. While we could not see any defined paw-prints, the 3-4 inch-long scratches in the soil were suggestive of claw marks (see Figure 13). The bare soil area seen above (in Figure 12), just to the left of the trees is where the scratches were found. These marks gave the impression that some animal, possibly a wild turkey, had been rooting. However, as mentioned, there were no pad or foot prints connected to them.

At this point we must mention that the weather in Maryland this summer has been unusually cool and wet. From Monday, July 31, 2000 until Friday, August 11, 2000, there were a number of thunderstorms in the Arundel Mills area--some of them quite violent. This fact must be considered for any soil impressions that would be considered as evidence. The weather conditions at the time definitely aided the deterioration of soil impressions in the excavated areas. In fact, during our visit on August 11^th we were hard pressed to find any the footprints we left behind on August 7^th.

EXAMINING THE SCENARIOS

"It was a bear..."

The total amount of evidence in this case to support any explanation for the incident at Arundel Mills is scanty, at best. Nonetheless, from a purely logical perspective, the available circumstances do support the notion that a bear was in the construction site, as opposed to the hoax or "giant, hairy hominid" explanations (see Figure 14).

Here are the "bear" facts which support the theory that the Arundel Mills site was visited by Ursus americanus (the American Black Bear):

Go To Page 9

Back to Page 7