Leaderboard

Sorry, I mean we don't have verifiable bigfoot fossils. Without those, everything else is speculation. Broken chain of custody, of sorts. Without that, even if we had Lovelock Cave skeletons to test, we can't prove they were bigfoot or related to bigfoot, we'd only know they exist and, if we can extract DNA, figure out how they relate to **us**. No way to connect the dots to bigfoot without having a type specimen. MIB

If this question was asked within the first year of experience, I would have traded anything to be free of it. The fear and confusion warped my view of everything from the natural world to my religion. Looking back at the beginning now, I strongly believe that I am better for it in every single way. Not one day goes by that I do not reflect on it and now I spend the majority of my free time working to get closer.

No, we don't, not fully and reliably. There are something like 3 billion base pairs in play. Many DNA segments can be in play in determining a single physical trait while some influence multiple traits but are not absolutely deterministic for any of them. It's like playing cards with only a fuzzy view of the rule book. This is why type specimens are important. While we can't say, in an absolute and deterministic way, that "this combination, and only this combination, causes that", we can say "when trait X is present, this segment matches that segment" understanding that we may not be looking at all the other things that also have to be in place at the same time. MIB

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

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

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

If Sasquatch reads Humans minds? Which is nonsense. Nothing would be a surprise.