Steering Committee
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

296 Outstanding!

About BigTreeWalker

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Camping (not in developed campsites), hunting, map reading, photography, exploring new territory, and of course sasquatch, since junior high (let's just say many many years). Saw P&G film when they first showed it in theaters! I also enjoy kayaking. I've built three of my own from scratch.

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?
    Not sure

Recent Profile Visitors

1,006 profile views
  1. Norse, can you say for sure that all those cougar kills are what they seem to be? And all the stumps are torn apart by bears? Do you find tracks identifying the animals at every location you find? Because I sure don't. One thing I have found in my studies is that cougar feeding sites and bigfoot feeding sites are very similar. More similar than any of the other animals.The point I was trying to make, at least in the area where we are going, is that there is enough evidence of foraging to include bigfoot. That IS what you were originally getting at. There are lots of smaller animals that no-one would even notice if they were being fed on. I know we don't find all the evidence of foraging that a cougar or a bear leave. The bones aren't piled all in one place (although I've heard it reported that such places have been found) and the ripped stumps are spread out over miles of territory. I've said it before, if bigfoot exists and has been living in the ecosystem for thousands of years then that same ecosystem would be able to sustain what you have decided has to be mass devastation just to stay fed. Their dietary requirements would not have changed in recent years. Other people have found similar evidence on bones as we have. I've contacted some. Sometimes I get a response, other times I'm still waiting. It may be a WAG but I think it's a reasonable one. Very similar to what I've calculated as well. For those that have a problem with those numbers, divide it by 200 instead. You still get some interesting numbers. Another thing I thought I would mention is that no, we are not tripping over bones everywhere. We walk through the forest spread out like a search and rescue team to see what we can find. Sometimes it works, most of the time we find very little. And no Finding Bigfoot wouldn't. We've never found any bones in the dark. That's a daylight process.
  2. Let's be honest here and look at some numbers for known animals. Cougars kill the same amount of deer per year as Norseman's estimate for a bigfoot requirement. In areas such as WA state were cougars are known to fill every available niche of habitat that fits their needs, how many cougar kills has anyone found to support those numbers? There are a lot more bear numbers in the state than cougars. Does anyone consistently find evidence of all those bears foraging for whatever it is they are finding to eat? Are we able to tell the difference between the above mentioned animals and bigfoot when evidence of feeding behavior is found? In the area we research we have found over two dozen elk and deer kills now. The age of these sites are within the last two or three years. Some show the evidence we are looking for in possible bigfoot feeding behavior. Elk are a lot bigger than deer so the requirement for animals killed is a lot less than would be required if deer were the only prey. This area is about 2 square miles. So if it's a cougar doing all this killing and feeding it's only about a 50th or less of a cougar's range. Makes me wonder how much we haven't found in a larger area. So with those numbers and considering a larger area, there is more than enough evidence to support a couple cougars (male and female, since only their ranges overlap), some scavenging black bears and a few bigfoot as well. So I beg to differ when it's said there is no evidence of feeding. I have no idea what the bigfoot population is but look at it this way; when researcher encounters, sightings and finding fresh evidence occur at the same time over large widespread areas it is not the same individuals we are seeing or experiencing. Unless portals are coming into play.
  3. The mental picture I got of the area around the cast was dry according to Thom Powell's account. The fruit was placed in the center of a drying up mud hole. Meaning approach to the spot without leaving tracks would have been fairly easy except near the center of the mud hole. As many here have brought up, no elk tracks in the center of the lay is very telling that it wasn't an elk. I mentioned hair patterns as Joe mentioned above near the beginning of this thread. Elk hair patterns should have been fairly easy to determine. Don't fall into the erroneous idea that bigfoot leave tracks everywhere they go. If we are walking through an area and not leaving any tracks, bigfoot probably wouldn't either. You would be very hard pressed to track a bear very far through the forest in the PNW. The same holds true with any animal with padded feet. You will find an occasional track in the dust or a soft spot now and then but that's about it. If the skookum cast was surrounded by dry ground it would be hard to find tracks of anything but elk.
  4. Yes it seems you sure are. I thought these forums were a place to share experience, useful knowledge and discuss bigfoot, not a place to provide proof for those that have to have it. I could phrase your question in a different way too... What is your data base doing for you?
  5. I agree with MIB in that it is a food availability issue. Fires and clearcuts provide that, given a few years. The native Americans knew this. They used to burn large swaths to rejuvenate the huckleberry fields. However, I would like to interject also that bigfoot is a species that has shown the requirement for cover, i.e. SWWSP 's observations support this. If their numbers are few, as many believe, then would their movement into an adjacent area, with more cover, have any consequences to them? If there are more than some believe, we don't know if they are territorial. Maybe they get along with each other better than we do. Has anyone recorded what might be considered a bigfoot fight?
  6. I was out in the field today. One of the few nice days we've had this winter. Found another elk kill today probably cougar. But the thought that animals move out of an area due to food supply is not supported in the wild where there are few migrations. Their populations will fluctuate but they don't leave. Today from a high point I counted 80 elk in a small area in the valley, less than a square mile. They rotate through an area and move up and down with the snow levels, but they don't leave. If the herbivores are available for food in an area then the predators that feed on them will also be nearby. But this is western WA and herbaceous food is always abundant. Hiflier, you could use available knowledge from those that live in an area for information about fires, drought or logging that you are wondering about. I can tell you that there have been very few large forest fires in SW WA for the last hundred years. So other than a few square miles here and there they are not a large factor. Of course eastern WA is a whole other ballgame. Logging here is business as usual. Since we don't know how it affects sasquatch in the long run, anyone's guess is as good as mine. Drought other than lack of rain for a month or so doesn't really happen in western WA. There is always water available nearby. Springs may dry up in the high country, but the creeks and rivers still flow. But then this part of the country is prime bigfoot habitat.
  7. Well considering he probably spends most of his time in his pickup and probably doesn't get too far from it when he is out and about; he would have a hard time finding our cams (they are well hidden or 16' off the ground) seeing as how they are a mile or so from the road. Someone did remove a couple of my research partner's cams last year, but they were placed along a couple overgrown roads that people do occasionally walk up. So that could have been anyone. That was before I started being more creative on how we place cams. Besides we didn't tell the warden what we have found up in there, so he had no reason to be curious.
  8. It has definitely been a bad winter in the PNW as SWWSP said. Either snowing or raining constantly. What with my work schedule and weather I haven't gotten out as much as I would like this winter. Most people don't venture far from their homes or cars into the woods this time of year. Two areas where we do research have been designated elk wintering areas, so access is limited, no people no sightings. The WDFW do keep an eye on these areas too. Ran into a game warden the other day. We were where it was OK to be. He was coming out of the valley which is off limits til June. He said he ran into two big herds of elk in there. So if sasquatch were following those elk and helping themselves occasionally; who would know except the warden, who probably wouldn't say much anyway. My partner told the warden why we were in the area so he wouldn't think we were poachers. We were servicing cameras and placing audio for our research. It didn't elicit any response from the warden. So if he had anything to say on the subject he was being tight-lipped about it.
  9. If you are smoking in the woods there's really no need for any of the scent-free hassle, just watch the wind direction. I have taken pictures of myself with my trailcams with my gear on. I have a camo fleece jacket that shows up white, with no pattern, in IR light. So much for camo. I wear it because it's comfortable. The wind and movement are either your best friends or enemies in the woods. More to the original post. I remember reading in Robert Pyle's book where Bigfoot Walks, his mentioning trying out his birthday suit in the woods. But he did it for his own experience. Although who knows what might have been watching.
  10. The flip side of the hoaxing coin also to leads to the fallacious conclusion that everyone who spends time in the outdoors and has a sighting or finds evidence is incompetent.
  11. You can see more of it and discussion on Paul Graves Facebook page. I wonder if he has any pictures of it before he walked along side?
  12. You are right Norseman. If there wasn't something compelling there, even with all the hoaxes, then why are we even bothering?
  13. Thanks Norse, it was a great list, with which I concur. It's also interesting that stumps being torn apart is on the list, because, unless we see them doing it, it's only possibly a bear. I do agree with the claw marks being bears though. Flipped rocks are also a good sign of bears in an area (but that one has the same problem as stumps), unless there are tracks nearby. But looking at your list, just be careful what you throw out as evidence (not proof) of bigfoot being in an area. Because some of those items were on your previously posted list as to what should not be used to determine bigfoot presence in an area.
  14. Norseman, I do have to ask what evidence do you use to determine if there is a bear or a cougar in the area? And how do you know for sure without seeing one? Just a simple list of what you would look for would suffice.
  15. Since he posted those with this one I'd say he's just pulling everyone's leg. To be polite about it.