Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest Kane2002

What Is Killing Off The Sasquatch? Yoicks! Could It Be Us?

77 posts in this topic

Ok, here are my thoughts on this. This is a theory only and I invite thoughtful rebuttal. I think there are very few Sasquatch and I wonder if we, Homo sapiens, are inadvertently killing them. "Wow," you say, "what's with this guy?" Well consider these thoughts.

A. We have not discovered or found a body or part of a body.

B. Really only one good set of film, the Patterson-Gimlin. And some won't even accept that.

C. Can you a Sasquatch hunter go out this weekend and find a certifiable castable track?

Anywhere, for sure?

D. Why are they so afraid of us? We don't hunt them, shoot them, or trap them, so why are they

so shy around us?

E. Why hasn't some 18 wheeler mowed one down, they get everything else?

So you say, "how are we killing them wise guy?" Answer, "the same way we almost wiped out the Native Americans when we arrived in America." The NA numbered in the 100 thousands. But we spread flues, colds, smallpox, measles, TB and other germs. Just by contact with our diseases they died. Of course our government helped by handing out blankets laden with the germs of smallpox, etc. The NA had little or no resistance and we almost wiped them out. They died off by the hundreds of thousands. Would Sasquatch have resistance to our diseases? I wonder if and when Sasquatch comes in contact with humans or with the byproducts of humans, like our trash, partially eaten Burger Kings; as they rummage in the trash bins, of our waste, things we have handled, are they susceptible to our colds, flues, smallpox and other health problems? We have developed immunity and shots for a lot of these diseases. They have not.

So, to me that would explain why there are so few. When they do get sick they go off and find a hidden place to die, not to be found. Most animals will do that. Also could they have come to realize that even if they come in contact with us they get sick? They don't know why but that would keep any animal away.

All of this assumes they have a certain degree of intelligence. Do we know they don't? This is something to think about. Input please.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have a different take on it but I want to address the disease issue first. We very well could have influenced the bigfoot population when first arriving to the United States/Canada. But exactly when did that happen? There are varying opinions on who the first europeans/asians were in North America. But for all intents and purposes, lets say in the last 300 years or so when we know the NA indians were hit hard by small pox.

Just like the NA indians, what sasquatch survived had genetic immunity, to a certain degree, to the disease or diseases if they were susceptible. So it might have taken awhile for the poulation to come back but I don't think you can attribute disease as a primary reason for not finding evidence. The sasquatch would more than likely be protected by the "herd immunity" from us if they are susceptible to any of the diseases we vaccinate against now. The only chance they have of getting sick with one of those major diseases is coming into contact with a child's soiled diaper that recently received a live virus vaccine.

On the other hand, we have only had vaccines for the last 60-70 years or so. For all we know, we could have been functioning as diease vectors for each other in all that time. This may explain the isolationism, but they don't sound like they are really trying very hard to avoid us if you look at all of the reports. That gets into how many reports are genuine and how many incidents go unreported. I don't think you can assume anything about there numbers when no one is seriously looking for them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think under the circumstances you mention, we would have found the odd body,or perhaps maybe more than the odd one.

I agree the scenario you paint is a valid one, and if the numbers of sasquatch were small initially the result would be pretty devastating.

but i still believe the odd one or two would not have been able to find a "hidden" place to die....surely one or two would have succumbed in a place where its bones may lie uncovered

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A. How do you know we haven't?

B. Agree with you there, but has nothing to do with killing them

C. There are no certifiable casts. You have to have one know cast for reference to be able to certify, and an accepted "expert" to perform the certification.

Again, nothing to do with killing them.

D. Only a Bigfoot could answer that question, but again, nothing to do will killing.

E. This has been labored over ad nauseum, with no answer. Again, how do you know we haven't?

Without knowledge if they exist, or if they did, how many there were at a certain date, it is impossible to know if their numbers are declining.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The introduction of pathogens into an isolated ecosystem can have devastating impacts on the local populations.

Concerning the isolated and genetically nondiverse group of wolves on Isle Royale: the introduction of parvovirus in the early 1980s dropped the population from 50 to 14 individuals.

http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/essays/essays/chronology_files/museum%20history%20of%20wolves%20handout.doc

When a population of organisms is decreases significantly over a short period of time, the process of genetic drift can become problematic. Due to the quick reduction of the Isle Royale wolf population, the allele frequrncy changed. The number of individuals with and inherited spinal vertebrae deformity has increased significantly.

http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/overview/overview/rescue

Apex predators are usually not as numerous as the species that they consume. Therefore sudden reduction in population numbers can compromise their overall survival.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just speculating here....

Could it be possible something like you mention in your OP happened in the past and formed a strong memory within their population. The current population would probably have an immunity by now but they don't know that.

They watched from the sidelines as we dealt with the NA population, as we decimated the forests, as we hunted the buffalo into near extinction. They can't have a very good opinion of us.JMO

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this is another example of self-loathing. I can give more details on what that means if you want. No amount of theoretical self-flagellation is going to ease this guilt.

Yes - we humans (specific kinds, that is - apparently) are responsible for all the evil in the world.

Also - there is no evidence of that oft-repeated story of the infected blankets is true. Repeat it until it becomes fact - that is what has happened. The only account that it was ever considered is in a letter by Lord Jeffrey Amherst, commander of British forces in North America during the French and Indian War (1756-'63), but there is no evidence that it was ever done. Not defending the thought, it is truly horrible. But "we" - you and I - are not to blame for all of the worlds ill's, especially a completely manufactured one - like the Sasquatch is dying off.

The Sasquatch is probably doing better than we are. Remember, all of the man-made surfaces and objects - including all paved roads - in North America, every thing we have "claimed" and "settled, and "developed" in the 200 plus years that western man has been here, can fit easily inside of Texas - with a lot of room to spare. The Sasquatch has more habitat than we humans do!

I know - this doesn't fit in with the "modern" thinking. We are bad. People bad - nature good. We are developing everything - paving over paradise. Save the Earth. Praise the Earth Mother. There - does that make me a better person? Here is a shocker...without humans the Earth would have NO value. Blasphemy! Humans are what determine value. Without us, there would be no person here to determine that value you think of. It is a human construct.

Here is a hypothetical - there is a far distant planet. One that we could NEVER reach. There is NO life there. It is dead through and through. Does it have value? if it wasn't there tomorrow, would your world be a sadder place?

I would dare to guess, no.

How about if you and the rest of our human kind lived there? Would it have value then? Why, yes, I believe it would. Why? For the simple reason that YOU are the one who has determined that value!

Sorry...ranted a bit there.

8)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bigfoot is working with Aliens. Yeah, that's where all of the sasquatches have gone. Man can't even find bigfoot, let alone kill em off.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A. We have not discovered or found a body or part of a body.

B. Really only one good set of film, the Patterson-Gimlin. And some won't even accept that.

C. Can you a Sasquatch hunter go out this weekend and find a certifiable castable track?

Anywhere, for sure?

D. Why are they so afraid of us? We don't hunt them, shoot them, or trap them, so why are they

so shy around us?

E. Why hasn't some 18 wheeler mowed one down, they get everything else?

Just some random thoughts on these:

A. I agree with Old Dog, how do you know that we have not? I have been going through some of the IBS sightings recently and have come across several that mention finding a body. The validity of these reports remain to be seen though. Some believe that BF bury their dead. If so, that could account for a big part of not finding bodies.

B. Cameras are much harder to focus these days! :P

C. Can most people go out this weekend and get tracks of weasles, bobcats, and badgers? All are "relatively" common, but can you get a track if you are looking for it? Just saying that conditions have to be right in order for tracks to be made. And there are indications that BF tries to hide tracks whenever possible.

D. Just a guess that they know what humans are. They also know that humans, while not as physically imposing, have many things that they do not. Such as firesticks, noise rocks, rolling boxes, really big rolling boxes, homebuilt caves, floating islands, etc. It was Arthur C. Clarke that once said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." To them, humans are a whole race of magicians with unknown intent. I would stay away from us too.

E. If BF has much better hearing and above average IQ, then they should be able to avoid semi's with relative ease. Not exactly the quietest vehicles on the road. Just waiting for that initial BF/Prius meeting....

Good questions, keep it up! :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this thread doesn't devolve into yet another filled with self-aggrandizing postings of just how evil is the human race. The history of the USA, like that of the entire rest of the world, is filled with bad things. Okay, I get that.

We, and the rest of humanity, are not intrinsically evil, and I, for one, don't care to hear just how bad I/we are. For every evil you post about, I can mention a corresponding positive trait.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this thread doesn't devolve into yet another filled with self-aggrandizing postings of just how evil is the human race. The history of the USA, like that of the entire rest of the world, is filled with bad things. Okay, I get that.

We, and the rest of humanity, are not intrinsically evil, and I, for one, don't care to hear just how bad I/we are. For every evil you post about, I can mention a corresponding positive trait.

Agreed,incorrigible... but without placing a value judgement, and purely speculating, it seems that our species/genus, or whatever, has clambered its way to the top on this planet by destroying/taking advantage of/living off of most other coexisting apex, etc. species. That seems to be the natural order of things - what it means to be a dominant species...Neither good nor evil, really, so I hope everyone can refrain from the value judgement of good/evil/positive/negative...That said, I find it highly likely that small sasquatch numbers (seemingly comparatively smaller than our numbers, or else there would be no doubt about their existence: they would be considered known species by the greater world, already) has to have had an awful lot to do with Homo sapien domination of the continent, or world. Notice I didn't say "evil invading European people." I mean humans - I remember seeing accounts/folklore from Native Americans that mention warring with what seem to be Sasquatches - or at least conflicting with them (Sasquatches take food/compete with native peoples for food, or steal their young/women/men). Leaning toward a more human view of Sasquatches, I am inclined to think that both European and Native American pathogens have done a number on them. How could they not? Isolation may have buffered their population, so that possible argument against decimation by pathogens exists. Loss of wilderness (preferred habitat:may effect breeding/mating/family rearing) due to humans and outright killing of them by Homo is not out of the question either. But it is all just "fun" speculation, since we don't really know the status of their population, or how it may or may not have changed over time, as lots of other people in the thread have noted. All of THAT said, I do think that it falls to Homo to realize our potential as stewards of the planet due to our dominant role. You know, I just realized that I really like / and ()...sorry 'bout that...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what MIGHT be the best 'Squatch killer? Disease? Encroachment? Habitat destruction? Inbreeding, maybe? How have we contributed? How might we be actually helping keep the relict population around?(What about scavenging our refuse??? Are humans a better food source than nature, sometimes?)...

Note: Edited to add additonal thought...

Edited by notgiganto
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are killing them off? What data are you using to theorize that there are fewer today than there were 25 years ago? 50 years ago? 100 years ago?... Last information I had on Bigfoot numbers was that aside from speculation we really have no clue how many of them there are. It's very difficult to create a realistic theory about a population in decline if we have no facts on the number of that population currently or from the past. Therefore I find theories like this one, based purely on speculation, a waste of time and energy in the community. We need to be focusing on information that has a chance of being substantiated. I know that there will always be speculation in this field until a bigfoot is really recognized by science but we need to keep this speculation based on some of the evidence we have on these creatures.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A. We have not discovered or found a body or part of a body.

Maybe, it's because they don't exist.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Just waiting for that initial BF/Prius meeting....

Touche, the ultimate nocturnal stealth-mobile.

...Just like the NA indians, what sasquatch survived had genetic immunity, to a certain degree, to the disease or diseases if they were susceptible. So it might have taken awhile for the poulation to come back but I don't think you can attribute disease as a primary reason for not finding evidence...

Exactly!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0