Leaderboard

Ironic. In the past couple of posts you've asserted, specifically or implicitly, that people who do not agree with you are ignorant, that they are not entitled to opinions because they are ignorant, and that they should read some books (of unspecified title or subject, but evidently restricted to your approval only), yet dismiss the references central to the subject of this thread, and are therefor unable to conduct informed discourse regarding their contents.

The use of the term stalking is problematic because I think with BF it could have two meanings. Witness evidence suggest that BF follow or stalk people, presumably out of curiosity, or just escorting them out of the woods. Since they are a predator they also stalk as part of hunting. As humans we cannot know what intent that BF stalking behavior has in a given situation. From personal experience, if BF are moving with any speed at all they are not noiseless with a normal forest with a lot of down and dead wood. Certainly they can and will approach nearly noiselessly in a static situation like approaching your campground when they can carefully place each footstep to avoid breaking dead wood. But if they are moving with any speed because you are, or because they are unaware you are present, they are not noiseless, If following they will stop when you do in hope that you are not hearing them over your own noises. That behavior has been reported dozens of times. I would think since they are capable of running speeds in the high twenties or low thirty MPH, if they are close enough to hear following you and do not attack in a minute or two, I don't think they probably will. They would have some other agenda.

But which species was it?

Up here in Ontario we have red oak and white (burr) oak. Both species have dense wood of course, typical to hardwoods, and you never see them snapped off like you do with poplar and pine after a weather event. Oak typically blow over with the root mass attached or if they die, they stand for years and years eventually falling apart from the top down. There is nothing that can snap off a two ft. diameter oak at the base. We shouldn't even be talking about the possibility. t.

I believe that they are actually an Ice Age adapted hominid.

Hey if ya'll don't wanna believe it that's fine---I just don't give any more credence to your silly theory of evolution

It would take someone killing a Sasquatch for you to see how sad our civilization is? Where the heck have you been? :-)

Thanks for your respectful response, Georgerm. I will answer your questions in reverse order. "Do you think all BFs are going to be respectful or are their homicidal ones out there that could care less about respectful chatter? This my friend is the real question." I will say as respectfully as I can that that actually is not the real question, but I will answer it anyway. BF are like us. The human race produced both Mother Theresa and John Wayne Gacy. What meaningful conclusions about humans -- and therefore, how you should behave around them -- have you drawn from that? If you have a good formula that's been working for you with humans, I would try that with the BF, too. I have no doubt there are some John Wayne Gacys among the BF. But on a day-to-day basis, that isn't important information. Every time you get up in the morning, you are risking your life. Do you drive a car? Every time you get into a car, you are risking your life. But you still get up and drive cars and live your life, because the majority of the time, it all works out fine. All those poor people who have come on here to say, "I've been in the woods all my life and I've never seen a BF, so therefore they don't exist" -- well, they are not good logicians, but they are telling the truth: They have been in the woods all their lives and never seen a BF. What does that suggest about your chances of going about your business and never encountering any kind of BF, much less a "homicidal" one? It suggests your chance are very, very good you will never have to deal with what you're afraid of dealing with. But let's say you do have the weird misfortune to draw the one short straw out of a billion trillion, and you come across what you believe to be a homicidal BF. If an 8-foot tall, 600-to-1,000-pound individual who chases bears and big cats out of his territory wants to put you on the menu, it's probably over. Oh well. You probably had no warning that John Q Public would be hitting the sauce in the middle of the afternoon just before he came around that blind curve on the road you were traveling to go pick up your sister, either. But if you're wrong, and the BF doesn't want to put you on the menu -- he's just scared and uncertain and bluffing, or sees that you're right next to his kid or his wife, or can no longer get that deer because you spooked it -- then you have options. You can just talk soothingly, explain yourself, put out your request respectfully, and give them time to think about it and respond. Why do we spend all our energy worrying about, and trying to imagine, what we would do in a situation where there's likely nothing we can do, but spend no time practicing -- or even considering -- the very real, very useful strategies that ARE available to us, and that work 99.99% of the time when we encounter situations that seem tense, but are easily resolved? Why do we fret about the things we can't change, instead of sharpening our abilities to change what we can? And sometimes you won't know which situation you're in. But to act like you know -- to act like a particular situation is the worst (and rarest!) kind, where you might die whatever you did, instead of acting like the situation is the better (and much more likely!) one, where a simple act of kindness and thoughtfulness could diffuse all the tension -- is a little bit, um, odd. At least try the sensible thing first. Then you can worry, if that doesn't work. This is why I say the question you posed as the "real" question is not the real question. We know the answer to the question you say is the "real" question. The answer is, yes, of course, sometimes there is nothing we can do to protect ourselves. Yes, there is real danger in the world. But by far the greatest amount of danger there is in the world is the danger we create by adding fuel to a tiny fire that would have gone out quickly and easily, if we hadn't opened our big mouths to yell in terror or anger, or fired a gun. When you get into a car, you put on a seatbelt, and most every time, you'll be fine. When you go out into the woods, put on your awareness that BF are just like us, and that a soft answer turneth away wrath, and you'll be fine there, too. I will answer your other question, too, although I have a pet peeve about that one, too. Yes, twice I've had encounters in the woods where I heard a sound that I had never heard before in my life, and therefore slotted into the category of "growl". I was quite scared, so I said that. "I'm a little scared. I'm not certain what you're trying to say to me. I would like to keep going on this trail. If you'd like me to stop, though, I will. Can you give me some confirmation that you mean for me to stop and turn around?" Then I stood there for a moment and waited. Nothing happened. I heard no sound, no twigs snapping, no growling, no breaking of branches, no nothin'. So I thought, cool -- I'm movin' on. And I did. And nobody came after me. And in fact, the next week, when the "growl" (which I no longer think was a growl, but just a hello type of vocalization) happened again, at the exact same spot in the trail, it was softer and closer to me. I understood that to mean that they had understood me perfectly the week before. They knew I'd been frightened the week before, but they really wanted to make contact anyway, so they did it in such a way as to honor both my fear and their desire, by making a quieter noise. So yes, I've had some experience with this. But I didn't have the experience until I went into the woods and tried out what I had read about and studied for many months, almost non-stop, almost 24/7. I knew, before I ever stepped into those woods, that these strategies would work, because I listened to others who made sense to me. When things make sense, you know that intuitively. You don't need to demand proof of things, because, as we all know, "proof" is in the eye of the beholder. In the end, it is you who decides what is true or not, based on how the information strikes you. Nobody decides but you. It would be nice if we could all finally acknowledge that the final responsibility for deciding what is true or not rests with ourselves. And if we've made a mistake, who cares? You just refine your listening skills. You don't stop going about your life because you made a mistake. Thanks, Georgerm, for the opportunity to answer these questions. Hope this helps.