norseman

Bigfoot caloric intake.

157 posts in this topic

Nor am I LOL but I was able to follow a lot of it. Since the paper was submitted in 2001 and accepted in 2002 years old I would imagine science has looked pretty closely at it and recommendations regarding wildlife habitat management were instituted. It would indeed be an important guideline for all fauna including our own venerable subject.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've often toyed with the idea of acting more like a competitive animal when in the field. Primarily doing unusual things like perhaps pretending to do various methods of foraging. Maybe digging into rotted logs, actively sitting in berry patches and picking away at the fruits, breaking off small low branches and creating stick configurations. Bow down a sapling and pinning it to the ground with a log or rock. Digging into talus pretending to search for rodents and doing other things Sasquatch has been known or suspected of doing. In other words acting like a competitor for whatever food supply might be seasonally in a certain area. And all the while keeping a small video camera going.

 

The idea being that it may not appear that I am actively searching for and stalking Bigfoot or any other animal. Paying attention by listening and using peripheral vision by trying to look like I'm more occupied with my "activities" and appear to have my guard down because my attention is more on what I'm doing instead of actually watching. Would a Sasquatch find me curious enough to approach? Or a juvenile? Would I be taking an unnecessary risk in operating this way? I've read many reports of encounters where Humans were similarly "distracted" by their own activities and were approached.

 

And NO! I will NOT wear a "suit" ;)

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think this method would achieve results just as well as camping and not acknowledging BF in any form.  My reasoning that BF's curiosity is peaked by us doing what we do.  To them is and our actions are foreign enough that it caused curiosity.  That being said, your approach is as good as any and should most definitely be employed as a new tactic.  Almost anything is worth a try.

Edited by Twist
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This idea is more subtly AGGRESSIVE though. It isn't like someone gardening in their own "territory" or camping in known designated "territories". This is being in THEIR territory and appearing passive while being involved in the more aggressive activities of foraging in their own back yards so to speak. Being as competitive as any other Sasquatch or bear would be for that same food supply. It's a different approach on a number of levels. In an animal brain, intrusion on someone's food supply would be viewed as anything but innocent. It would be viewed as competitively moving in on another's claim. And while such a thing may seem harmless to other Humans I would think it would be as anything but harmless to a creature who had "won" foraging rights to an area for itself and it's family. And then in comes this Human- this new competitor for berries, grubs, nuts, and anything else?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Think about what BF have experienced in a few generations.      Native Americans pretty much lived much like they do.    Hunting, gathering roots and edible vegetation, and not having complex weapons.       Then Europeans showed up with fire arms.    That changed the BF human interactions.     Settlers poured in from the East and started to shrink their habitat.    Initially logging areas localized around the settlements but then became industrialized.       Clear cutting started drastically shrinking BF habitat.      Pushing BF further into more remote areas.     Automobiles, trucks,  became road crossing hazards.    

 

I flew over my former research area on Sunday.      I remember what the area was like when I first got into BF research.   Large areas of second growth mature forest then but much has been clear cut now.    There is little or no cover left.    Washington State forests are being aggressively harvested.    The state needs the money to fund it's out of control spending.       Because of the clear cutting, BF has to have been forced into the National Forests to the East.    Logging is much less extensive there,     large areas are untouched, and there is goof cover.      I wonder where the family group I interacted with had to move to.      At least 20 or 30 miles East if not further.      There is little cover until you go that far East now.   

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

According to an article I read yesterday the U.S. annual tree harvest is between 3-6 billion trees a year depending on tree density per square mile. That's not board feet mind you. That's an actual whole-tree estimate.

 

Your post sort of underscores the food competition thing. By extension it may also hint at a lower Sasquatch population.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^. That's a sad thing to hear SWWASAS, not just for BF but all fauna in that area.  We truly are the most destructive force this planet has ever seen.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites