Leaderboard

I meant the woods I hunt in. I don't want to think I hunt humans.

In my post at the bottom of the previous page, I mentioned a lead regarding footsteps heard by a young man I met on that outing, in the next valley east of where we met. I managed to spend a few hours in that valley this afternoon, after being rained out the last couple of days by torrential downpours. I was lucky enough to find the gate to that road system open today, which is not always the case when I go up there. The last time I was in this watershed was about 4 years ago, and I soon saw that there had been very extensive logging in there since that time, leaving many new branch roads and dozens of new clearcuts, which didn't bode well for seeing sasquatch or game, as all the activity would have sent those deeper into the wilderness. I drove to the end of the newest logging road, where some equipment was still parked, only meeting one other vehicle in the whole valley, a couple and their 2 dogs, getting ready to explore some of the side branches on their ATV. After scouting around the area at the end of the road looking for tracks, and finding none, I took a few photos and turned back for home, as the change to DST this weekend meant that sunset was at about 4:45. This valley is about 30km long, and the roads end at about the 15km mark, so there is still a lot of untracked wilderness in the upper reaches. The recent heavy rains had the main creek and the smaller tributaries roaring and seething, not something you'd want to fall into! IMG_1500.MOV

Nothing about bigfoot is clear or easy. I'm going to predict .. recognizing that's all it is, a prediction .. that bigfoot will somehow manage to occupy a niche where it is not clear which set of rules applies, "wildlife" vs "person", and jurisdiction will have to be settled in court. Probably incorrectly, but still, in court.

Makes no sense, that would mean the corresponding part of it’s spine would be one solid piece as well which would make it extremely rigid to the point that it would have trouble doing most anything. I’ve heard Cape Buffaloes and some other large animals have extremely wide ribs that are canted somewhat and they can overlap which presents the appearance of solid bone, an arrangement similar to that could be a possibility.

There is a popular belief on this forum that if there aren't. male and female specimens collected, they can't be taxonomically recognized. Have such specimens been collected and cataloged?

In regards to the question of why would sasquatch need to develop cloaking or effective camouflage or invisibilty, when it is the apex predator of its environment? It's because adaptation is always a step behind the the causative factors. Sasquatch weren't always the alpha predator in North america. Figuring they came over the Bering straight land bridge in time to get swept up in the "megafication" of the North American megafauna, and thus became Pleistocene mega-hominids, they were still dealing with a large variety of megapredators more specialized for predation than they were. And while their heightened cognition probably lent itself well to cooperative hunting/foraging as well as cooperative defence, individually they were still pretty vulnerable to predation. That and I'm sure they didn't start off with as refined cooperative behaviors as they ended that era with. In light of that, it's pretty easy to see how the camouflage/concealment abilities would arise, perhaps even sentiently directed or guided, as we must keep in mind these are not mere apes nor displaced giganthopithicus looking for a bamboo substitute, these were increasing larger hominids capable of strategy, contextual analysis, and a growing awareness of just what groups of such creatures might be capable of(which could well prove quite the advantage, especially as the climate began to shift and things began getting desperate for the more specialized predators as the shifting plant communities killed off much of their prey) So the abilities for concealment and camouflage could well be adaptations to conditions no longer quite so pressing, yet they still prove useful, and so therefore are retained.

Ditto...I've seen hunters on tv talk about that. They lowered their rifle when the creature looked human.

If Bigfoot is being treated in court as an animal of the forest then Biology practices will apply. A type specimen is needed. If Bigfoot is being treated as a Human being in a court of law? The question of it existing as a species is already taken care of. And obviously no court is going to ask for a type specimen. The next step would be showing somehow Bigfoot is the bereaved party as an unrecognized “tribe” whose human rights have been trampled on. It’s a stretch, it’s a long long stretch…..