Leaderboard

I remain unsure about this topic, which is not a problem for me. Did you know that orcas are the most widely distributed mammal in the sea and without predators besides humans? It occurs to me that the BFs fill a similar niche in nature, as contrary to what some think, they are found in nearly every habitat. I remember an old forum member describing activity in an urban area in central Oklahoma, for one example. I later visited there myself and found some interesting evidence. That's just one place where BF activity is underestimated, but dedicated investigators know differently. They're often present in close proximity to human populations. Back on the topic, I sort of agree with something I heard elsewhere, what they are not. Not apes, not monkeys, not human, yet a kind of people. That's all I've got.

Incompetence. Happens all the time.

Of course you are correct. I am much more suited for a Sasquatch costume. Pun intended.

No offense. But you would look horrible in a cheerleader costume!

Would anyone care to donate to Incorrigible1's Home for Wayward Cheerleaders?

I'm sure we have killed bunches of them. Even in recent times. There are plenty of reports of people shooting at them, only to have them disappear into the woods. So far, nobody seems to have had the required balance of large reproductive rocks and/or low IQ to chase a wounded squatch into the brush it ran off into. If such a person has had those basic requirements, we've not found their body either. What I know is that if such an animal (or whatever it is) gets gut shot, or even a 'pass through' deep wound without any follow up medical treatment, it's almost guaranteed to succumb to blood loss or infection. The problem is just how far and deep it ran before it died. Maybe the ticket to finding a body is a tracker and cadaver dog on retainer and ready to fly off in a moments notice. I have always believed that the first body found would be as a result of road kill. There are reports of sightings along roads all the time. Some narrowly missed and some reported being hit. No real way to plan or do an expedition. I think that hunting them poses issues as I believe that they do remove/defend their dead when possible. Road kill would be problematic for that because of the human activity at a crash site. Police, ambulance, good Samaritans, etc. With all that going on, the rest might flee and leave their comrade. That would leave it for somebody to find and report. A problem is that they are a big, tough, critter. That means they are not likely to just drop on the roadway. In fact, none have so far. I think they run off as far as they can and then succumb to their injuries. We just haven't looked to find them. 17x7

Background Science needs a type specimen (a body) to recognize Bigfoot as an extant species. Government recognition of the species will lead to habitat protection and its long term survival. There are laws in place which could be used to prosecute the first person to obtain a type specimen. Hypothetical Scenario An ordinary citizen obtains a type specimen and presents it to government authorities for recognition. Sasquatch is then recognized but there is public outcry over the kill and existing laws are used to prosecute the citizen. A Legal Defense Fund is created to help pay for the expenses of defending the citizen.

Kayak ... there's a better option at lower cost. Look into PackRafts ... Kokopelli Rogue-Lite. https://kokopellipackraft.com/product/rogue-lite/. The weight is around 5.5 pounds compared to the kayak's 20 pounds and it folds / packs smaller. I want one for hike-in fishing and access to islands in lakes for camping. I think it'd strap to an external frame pack very nicely. A parabolic mic is directional. Unless you have a specific direction to target, you're better off with an omni-directional mic. The built in mics on most audio recorders aren't that great so I use aftermarket mics with my small audio recorders. I very much like the Olympus ME-51S. If you want a very small directional mic, I've been playing with the Edutige ETM-008 and it seems to be pretty good. You can get both through Amazon fairly cheap. One recorder that does seem to have decent built in mics is the Tascam DR-05, not to say they can't be improved on, but the margin of improvement is slimmer. So far as recorders, the one I use in my pack while I'm hiking is an older Olympus. The ones I set out when I'm backpacking are Sonys. The Tascams are a bit bulkier and heavier .. mostly use those car camping where bulk and weight don't matter. Each type has strengths and weaknesses. My selections for each use is intended to play on their strengths and avoid their weaknesses. MIB

What stood out for me in this article: https://www.sciencealert.com/there-s-a-bunch-of-eel-dna-in-loch-ness-raising-questions-about-nessie-s-identity is the fact that soooo much DNA was found that belonged to land mammals. Needless to say, no Nessie: "There was - and this may or may not be a surprise, depending on your feelings about the Loch Ness Monster - absolutely no evidence of any Jurassic-era animal DNA, including plesiosaurs, in any of the samples tested.......We find a large amount of eel DNA. Eels are very plentiful in Loch Ness, with eel DNA found at pretty much every location sampled - there are a lot of them," the researchers wrote on the project's website. "Researchers had earlier suggested that a giant eel might explain some sightings. That idea then lost popularity as theories about extinct reptiles became more common. But there have been ongoing reports of very large eels by a number of witnesses." Specifically, the DNA is from European eels (Anguilla anguilla), which does present another problem. As far as biologists know, these fish don't grow any larger than about 1.5 metres (4 feet, 11 inches). To be consistent with Nessie reports, an eel would have to be quite a bit bigger. The data doesn't reveal the size of the eels shedding their DNA into the loch, but the whole idea is not without precedent. Another strange beast sighted in a highland loch could have been an eel. In 1865, a huge "sea serpent" was reported in a loch in Leurbost, eel-like in appearance - leading to the conclusion that it was, probably, an eel. More research will need to be undertaken to understand how an eel fits in with Monster sightings, if it does at all, but the team's findings revealed more about the loch than just ruling out Nessie candidates." What this really means for us Sasquatch researchers is that soil samples needn't be the ONLY place to search for Sasquatch DNA: "One of the more intriguing findings was the large amount of DNA from land-based species in the Loch system," the researchers wrote. "These included high levels of DNA from humans and a variety of species associated with us, such as dogs, sheep and cattle. We also detected wild species local to the area e.g. deer, badgers, foxes, rabbits, voles and multiple bird species. These findings show eDNA surveys of major waterways may be useful for rapidly surveying the biological diversity at a regional level." There has been a lot of water sampling done everywhere at minimum in the last five years. I think some deeper research needs to be done by folks here into just what F&W and academia is finding for land mammal DNA in their local ponds and lakes. It's something we never really hear about. Just stick with the science and all will be well. https://labs.wsu.edu/edna/documents/2015/05/field-protocol.pdf/

Treehuggers would, opportunistic lawyers would, whereas the industries effected by their recognition and possibly religious types would freak out in the opposing direction.

Forgive me, but the questions seem unfair. If a person says they would not donate as a response to question one, the next question should not ask how much they would donate and not have a "0" as an option. The final question, too, there should be an option that says "I told you already, I would not donate." Sounds like the writer is assuming everyone would give money. Respectfully submitted.

Thats the Problem, we set up nice inviting campsites, They dont come. Probably cuz we bang on tress and Hollar at them. I dumped to wifes because all they did was Hollar and complain...... LOL

Sweet kayak, twenty pounds! Not low end, but I've had this on my list for a long time: https://hydrobikes.com/

Im not advocating that the government goes around cleaning up dead bodies.... But ask yourself this. If the 411 books truly show a problem in our national parks and forests? And that came out? Tourism would go to zero. And all of the families of the missing and dead? Would file lawsuits. The government warns you about everything. Cliffs, Bears, trails, roads, cougars, etc. But they failed to warn you about a potentially violent 800 lbs ape man running amok in their forest? I’d say there is plenty of reason for them to care.

I think there is a simpler explanation as to why we don't find a Bigfoot body.

I fully believe there are bodies that have been found, they just get swept away by government agencies whom, for a variety of reasons, feel the need to keep the existence of Sasquatch a joke to the vast majority of the public and even the vast majority of themselves. I'm sure some of those bodies are hidden away in secret government storage areas or laboratories. There almost certainly bones that have been found buried deep in the bowels of the Smithsonian's archives, purposefully not labeled and "lost" so as they never see the light of day. You'd also have to factor in that there simply isn't anyone really out there looking for Bigfoot, alive or dead. I mean, sure, it might seem like Sasquatch is a big deal and super important to discover here on the bigfootforums. But the reality is that most people don't believe they're real. Most of the people that do believe aren't out in the woods looking for them. Most of the people that do venture into the woods looking for them don't have a clue what they're really looking for or how to really look for it (I'd venture to say that almost all the people who go out into the woods looking for Bigfoot do so because they watched a few episodes of Finding Bigfoot and thought it'd be fun to try it themselves). Basically, the number of researchers who are actively out in the forests of North America seriously looking for proof of Sasquatch's existence is so tiny compared to the area they'd need to cover it's harder than finding a needle in a haystack. I'm also willing to bet that at least half those serious researchers have techniques that are far more likely to drive a Sasquatch away than to attract them. I'm guessing that given the obvious intelligence and purported family groups of Bigfoot, they also have some sort of death ritual that involves disposal of the body in some manner. Sasquatch are NOT just any ole animals. They're far closer to people than they are animals. As far as hunting or shooting one goes. There just aren't many people out there trying to do that and the odd hunter than happens to get one in the crosshairs probably can't bring themselves to pull the trigger. As previously mentioned, most hunters are looking for food, hides, or trophies. They're after animals, not giant hairy people. It's real easy to sit in front of a computer screen or around a campfire and boast how you would never pass up the chance to bag yourself a Bigfoot. It's an entirely different thing to be in the moment, starring down the barrel of your gun at something that's "not supposed to exist" and looks far more human than animal. 99.9% of people wouldn't be able to take a shot like that. To expect that you'd find anyone from that 0.1% of the population that could take a deliberate kill shot in a situation like that to actually have the chance to do so... Well, you've got better odds when buying a Powerball ticket. I'm sure there, indeed, has been some hunters to happened upon a Sasquatch and blasted a hurried or panicked shot or two at the big guy. Maybe even hit them, but panicked or excited shots rarely land well enough to bring down a being the size of a Bigfoot. And who's to say they don't have much thicker skin that any known animals? It's entirely possible that a bullet simply wouldn't do as much damage to them as it would to a human. Bottom line is that there are a number of reasons why we "don't have" a body. At least not one known to the general public.

Most hunters are out hunting game animals to put in a freezer. They have bought a license and a tag. The last thing on their minds is shooting something humanoid. Great apes throw things. We know this. I’m not sure the correlation between throwing things and being not rare though. Throwing things to make people leave is a great strategy for staying hidden. Think of a sniper taking a spoiler shot like in old westerns. Nothing says “go away” more. It’s the Grizzly Bear tactic of bluff charges and in close and personal that can get you extinct quick. If the human feels trapped and cornered and they have a gun? Your in for a really bad day. Rocks flying out of thin air and maybe some scary noises makes the human simply want to leave. But lets be real. I think many reports are either fabricated or misidentified animals. Doing my work up on caloric intake is a eye opener. Large omnivore like Grizzlies need hundreds if not thousands of square miles to survive. Bigfoot is not living on a 20 acre woodlot outside Chicago.... Not many of us are willing to shoot one. And I’ve been called every name in the book too for wanting to. Project Grendel was never anymore than 6-8 guys spread thin across the North American continent. We just shared ideas and notes. The GCBRO is another large outfit down south. They have their own TV show. Its a part time affair. Absolutely. I’m not aware of a professional dedicated team being bankrolled somewhere. The most popular scenario with PG was to set up a camping trip with sniper over watch. Sasquatch seems to be curious of human activity. Spies on the camp and a sniper up in a tree takes the shot. My only issue with the scenario is I have got a lot of time sleeping in the woods. I have nothing strange to report. No rock throwing or strange noises coming from the timber. I say we appeal to its stomach. I don’t know how to pick a fight with a Sasquatch or what his mate swoons him with. But a fawn in distress is a call every predator understands completely. There are basically three types of hunting calls. Each call is appealing to a certain behavior. Prey Sex Sparring Bigfoot may be too smart for this. Or he smells us or hears something he doesn’t like. Or maybe he is a like a bobcat. He comes in slower, takes longer, let’s the Bears take the bait first and observes what happens. When calling Bobcats you have to let Coyotes come and go. And you may let 3 coyotes go and never see a Bobcat. You have to have painstaking patience with cats unless you have hounds. The other obvious choice is to cut his tracks in snow. That’s my only experience with something out of the norm. But I was too young to act on it and my father wanted nothing to do with it. Which I understand. I wouldn’t risk my young son either. But with tracks to follow on a snowmobile? Or tracked ATV? Barring a snow storm you would be set. My MO anymore is just to enjoy my activities outdoors but have the capability to do something proactive IF an encounter happens. A big game rifle or large caliber handgun, a light, a sharp cutting tool and a game bag or tarp. It should be in everyone’s pickup or SUV if they take this thing seriously. You don’t have to be vocal about it like I am. Shoot, take what you can feesably carry and get out. Go get help.

https://www.orukayak.com/

Not all hunters are incompetent, but I would venture to guess that most are, and the percentage of incompetent hunters has increased with social urbanization. Moreover, hunters aren't hunting for sasquatches, and they are fairly well versed with hunting laws and regs, which literally didn't exist a century ago. While hunters seem quite able to kill bears and moose in Alaska, you might be surprised to learn that the overall success rate in Alaska for moose is @ 20%, and that is for nearly 100,000 hunters hunting 200,000 moose, the success rate in most game management units is much lower (under 10% is common), and the success rate for bears (especially brown or grizzly bears) is significantly lower than that. I believe they are extremely rare. For example, there are only an estimated 45,000 brown/grizzly bears in all of North America, Canada and Alaska included. Of these, 75% of them are in Alaska, and of the Alaskan bears, the vast majority are concentrated in Game Management Units 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9. If there are only an estimated 5,000 sasquatches on the continent, that's less than 10% of the grizzly population, and also extremely localized in remote habitat featuring great cover and concealment. Conversely, there are human habitations and structures literally everywhere, including in the middle of classified wilderness lands and parks. Many are often uninhabited, which encourages wild animals of all kinds to become emboldened to hang out in the area only to bevome invaded when the humans show up. This is a common theme with all kinds of animals. No doubt about it. As an example, I'm an experienced, accomplished, and frequent Alaskan big game hunter, I'm a strong believer in the existence of sasquatches, and not only do I not hunt for them, I have come to the reasoned conclusion that the only way I would shoot one is in self defense. Of all the people on this forum, there are just a few who regularly state that they are pro kill and they regularly go out looking for sasquatches. I believe so, especially in the 1970's. Has NAWAC professed a pro kill position and mounted hunting expeditions to that end? Probably, along with a lack of experience, know how, time, access, and sasquatches to shoot. Good question. Everybody on this forum who is pro kill has proposed a number of scenarios. I'm confident that quite a few factors are important: * Fresh reports in the area would be ideal * A history of sightings in that area are important * Funding, which isn't cheap; even a relatively local week long caribou hunt for me will cost a few hundred dollars just in fuel, communications subscriptions, spare parts, etc. That doesn't include food (I eat anyway at home) or license and tag (a sasquatch hunt might require some sort of license and tag, however, to legally justify the carry of firearms in the woods, depending on the politics of the area, but in Alaska, I already have a lifetime license), and I'm already all geared up * The proper tactic is critical; baiting? Calling? Spot and stalk? Stalking upwind along a noisy creek like Patterson & Gimlin? * Spending plenty of time on location........like weeks * Complete access to the area, both legally and tactically * A good plan for carcass preservation and extraction, including out of the woods as well as to a final destination, which would include a plan for interstate/international smuggling, all of which is illegal on the federal/international level (CITES) * A good legal defense plan and funding in the possible event of criminal prosecution

Three parts to the answer all converging. First, I don't think there are as many as people assume, I think they travel farther, faster, and are seen more often, so there are fewer bigfoots accounting for the reports than people realize. Second, I do not think they are alone, I think even if you only see one, there are others "near enough" that they simply do not die alone. Third, I think they engage in deliberate ritual burial, and move the body as far as necessary for that to occur in a remote location seldom, if ever, visited by humans. Given their reported strength and ability to travel distance quickly when they choose to do so, I could see them relocating a body more than 100 miles if needed for secluded burial. It all points back to the almost unavoidable conclusion we are not dealing with a mere wild animal that decomposes where it falls, we're dealing with an alternate kind of person with intelligence, ritual, etc. I believe you have to find the burial locations and exhume one. I think there could be some risk involved in doing that. The next best situation would be some sort of natural disaster that could wipe out a group so there are no survivors to remove the bodies. Could well be that Mt St Helens provided that scenario. SWWASAS has suggested this in the past and I do not disagree. Actually, Joe Beelart suggest a variation of this in his first (fiction ... darn good fiction) book. Talented is not the same as infallible. And in the absence of a person who is both willing and instantly ready to pull a trigger, a sighting does not produce a body to recover. MIB

Yes, but he had neither. I visited him at the site the next day, and saw the tracks, and the video that he took before firing the shotgun. I stayed that night, and we left the following evening. I had a license, but no cougar tag. I picked one up as soon as I got back to town. Had the cat actually made a run at him, he could have killed it, and filed a self defense report with F&W, but that's always a major PITA. The cougar was just beyond the sunlit patch across the old logging road in the pic below, facing him as he stood at the edge of the road near my red camp chair. After he fired the shot, it slunk into the timber on the left. He followed, shotgun at the ready, and spotted it lying next to a log just 40' into the trees. A blast from his whistle chased it further into the trees, out of sight.

My wives family were big time mushers. They put on the Priest Lake sled dog race for years. Houndsmen do it differently. Just one hold for all the dogs and a strike platform on top. Plott Hounds are considered best for bear.

Just got back from seven day Alaska cruise with my wife. I haven't been very active the past few years due to health issues. Doing better now dropped 50 lbs getting out walking and plan to get out there and do more time in the forests. We saw dozens of hump back whales some Orcas, porpoises, sea otters, seals but no bears. Lots of salmon in Sitka AK.

As I posted in another thread, I have the Scout TK arriving tomorrow. I was going to go with either a Leupold or drop some coin on the Scout II. I went with the TK due to its ability to record images and video. Down the road I may upgrade to a better thermal unit that can record video out to a separate piece of equipment. However, for now I want to keep it simple. We are in the Smokeys a lot at night, and I think that a thermal scope will be worth the expense.

Some sort of large, largely bipedal, ape. Perhaps related to Gigantopithicus. I see zero evidence of any sort of "humanity" in what I consider to be honest and legitimate sightings and descriptions of Sasquatch. His behavior is very, very, very much like what you see in the modern great apes. His physical attributes are also very apelike and not very humanlike when you look at all of our known ancestors. Modern man and Cro Magnon man were the larger than most or all of the other human ancestors. Neanderthal man was robust but not overly tall. Even some of the "tall" ancestors like Heidelberg man were under 6 feet tall, which is nothing compared to an 8 foot plus Sasquatch. Also, we know many of our human ancestors not only used tools but made tools. And, for half a million years, made fire. There is no evidence of Sasquatch actually making anything resembling what our ancestors made, and they don't make or use fire. I believe Sasquatch is capable of making animalistic sounds but does not have an actual language in the way that some people think. Most higher animals make noises to communicate. But animal sounds do not meet the actual defining elements of a language. As to intelligence, that is interesting to me. If you take a person and put them out in the woods, most people are at a disadvantage compared to even a marmot. It would not be hard for something with the intelligence of a chimpanzee, gorilla or 10 year old boy to hide or elude capture in his own territory. He is going to see you coming and from that point on you are at a disadvantage.

Mr. Spock.

I was born and raised in central Arkansas, and spent my formative years just south of Little Rock. I do not really remember what started it all, but I suspect it was newspaper articles that I read back in the late 60's and into the 70's. My parents got the Gazette and I read it every day. Even as a kid, I always read the daily newspaper and found it interesting. It was probably reading the occasional Bigfoot or Yeti article (along with Loch Ness, the White River Monster, and UFOs as well...) that grabbed me by the back of my neck and would not let go. I cut out every article that I found and kept it in a folder. Eventually the folder became quite thick. Add to that the Fouke monster craze of the early 70's, even though I never associated it with Bigfoot (I know, kind of weird looking back at it...) until much, much later. I graduated from high school in 76, went off to college, and life happened. I thought I was kind of strange for being interested in that sort of stuff anyway. I quit collecting articles and the folder got buried in some box. At some point, probably in the mid to late 80's, I came across the folder, I looked through it, smiled at the memories, and then tossed it (oh to go back in time!!!). During some computer class for work I was taking in the 97-98 time frame, I was at the terminal killing time while others were working and finishing on their class project. It had Internet access. For whatever reason, Bigfoot popped into my mind. I did the search with whatever the popular search engine was at the time. Lo and behold, lots of stuff popped up. I started reading and I was re-hooked. Been that way ever since. I realized that I was not just one of a few that had been fascinated by the subject earlier in life. It was at that time that I made the connection between Fouke and Bigfoot. So I get that I am not the fastest learner...... Looking back on things, I have had a few experiences that might have been BF related, but certainly nothing definitive. More than likely not, but I was totally unaware of all aspects of encounters so did not associate the incidents with BF. I wish I had known and had been more aware of my surroundings at the time. Who knows, I might have been surprised.

No I just think "being on TV" isn't really anything that sets the bar very high.

I don't think you covered everything: Firstly if the Relic Human-ish theory holds up and the body falls under that category than it may well be more murder than science. More so I think it's hugely naive to think the Government is just going to recognize the thing in terms of science. More likely given the nature of Government they would just likely seize the body to have control of the situation and place the shooter(s) under some form of nda or legal mess. The NAWAC, for example's, belief in this is just unrealistic and if the Government did just seize the body then one of them has been killed for nothing. Why would the Government do this? Need to control information. Protect certain commercial interests, Timber and Tourism come to mind