gigantor

Poll: Do You Think BF has a Viable Population?

Poll: Do You Think BF has a Viable Population?   66 members have voted

  1. 1. I'm curious to see what members think about the status of BF as a species.

    • BF Does Not Exist. It Never Has.
      9
    • BF Existed at Some Point but it has gone Extinct
      3
    • BF Exists now but it is Endangered. Its population is so low that it probably won't make it.
      7
    • BF Exists now and it is a viable species. It should survive if its habitat is protected
      26
    • BF Exists now and it is doing Great. Its population is large enough.
      21

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

137 posts in this topic

Given some of things I've seen walking down near the Belmont Red Line Station on a Saturday night, don't be so sure.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure, my friend.

 

I'm quite certain there are no Bigfoot in Chicago.

 

You don't have to be me to agree with that statement.

 

Anyway, how about back to that poll?

 

 

Edited by Squatchy McSquatch
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too, but Chicagoland has a possibility, the Cook County Forest Preserves have the habitat.

Walking down Michigan Ave, not so much.

I'm still not convinced they're in those Forest Preserves however.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When people start reporting mangy, emaciated bigfoot I'll start to worry about their future.

 

Aside from the occasional individual with an orthopedic injury or an aged bigfoot, reports are generally about healthy, viable members of the species.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mangy reports are there JDL from all over the continent, and from years ago to more recent times too.

They are only few in number however.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2017 at 1:09 AM, Rockape said:

Not sure how to answer this since I see these first three all as viable answers.

 

 

I agree.

I needed an "I have no clue" option.

If not for the fact that I believe certain people are being truthful when they say they have plainly seen one, I would have no belief at all that they exist.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do believe that their numbers are good but not like over populated or else we be seeing them all the time. I believe that they travel long distances and may stick around in certain areas  for awhile and then move on and return after awhile. I also believe that their footprints could be used like a finger print to where we can tell if the same family has passed through a given area. Like if creatures from the PNW come out say to Ohio or Michigan. But I am not sure if anyone has tried to do that type of research. But it would be nice to know or find out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted #3. Our planet is going through a major die off right now, supposedly one of the bigger extinction events. Since it has been a 50+ year struggle to get proof since the PGF I can only assume that they are one of those species that isn't going to make it. Heck, we might not make it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And amidst all this doom and gloom deer are overpopulating and bears, coyotes, wolves, cougars are expanding their ranges, moving back into states where they were once eradicated.  Even wolverines and the rare fisher are being spotted again.  In the U.S. either the die off folks are wrong or the resurgent animals are wrong.

 

Seems to me that there are always species dying off and there are always species resurging.  Nothing to sound an alarm over.  I'll put my money on an intelligent, adaptable, mobile hominid to be doing just fine.  They don't seem to be constrained by habitat since they are sighted in most types.

 

Clear cut a hill and they move to the next.  Then they come back to the clear cut to hunt ungulates feeding on the grass.  They're too opportunistic to curl up into a fetal position and wait for the end.

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JDL said:

I'll put my money on an intelligent, adaptable, mobile hominid to be doing just fine.  They don't seem to be constrained by habitat since they are sighted in most types.

 

Clear cut a hill and they move to the next.  Then they come back to the clear cut to hunt ungulates feeding on the grass.  They're too opportunistic to curl up into a fetal position and wait for the end.

 

Agreed, if they exist, they would have to be rather intelligent creatures, not human smart but smarter than any other know life. Much smarter. Being omnivorous would give them a huge advantage as well. I still think that if they do exist there population is very small and perhaps on the verge of extinction. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolverines are probably more endangered than bigfoot in the lower 48. Since there don't seem to be any wolverine sighting data bases there's probably a lot less sightings than bigfoot, too. Just found this. It seems there are wolverine sighting hoaxes too. ;)

http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/environmental/wolverine-sighting-costs-a-guide-his-job/article_ddf87b92-daba-5196-bd7a-2c26a3d3b8fd.html

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JDL said:

And amidst all this doom and gloom deer are overpopulating and bears, coyotes, wolves, cougars are expanding their ranges, moving back into states where they were once eradicated.  Even wolverines and the rare fisher are being spotted again.  In the U.S. either the die off folks are wrong or the resurgent animals are wrong.

 

I tend to side with resurgent animals side.  In Michigan where I reside and travel there is definitely an up tick in animal activity, both common and "rare" in these parts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything in the intermountain west the wolves are eating everything else out of house and home....

 

Cougar and bear numbers suffer as a result. And of course ungulates.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BigTreeWalker said:

Wolverines are probably more endangered than bigfoot in the lower 48. Since there don't seem to be any wolverine sighting data bases there's probably a lot less sightings than bigfoot, too.

 

 

BigTreeWalker: Exactly! 

 

Even though wolverines are endangered and very, very rare, we still have sign of them. We have tracks, video, dead bodies, etc.

 

 

If you are correct and wolverines are even more rare than BF, and we have conclusive proof that wolverines are extant, how come we do not have proof of BF even though it is a much, much bigger animal?

 

We do not have that kind of evidence for BF; hence, it cannot be that common. (i.e. very low numbers, extinct or non-existent)

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gigantor, but we do have the same evidence you mentioned for bigfoot as we do for wolverines, except the bodies. Accept it or not we do have the bodies of prey though, for both species. I do admit that there is more scientifically acceptable evidence for the existence of wolverines, DNA, better pictures, etc. But to the the best of my knowledge wolverines simply avoid humans by the rugged terrain they inhabit rather than through conscious avoidance as bigfoot do. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.