Leaderboard

For anyone interested in this idea of a Bigfoot metapopulation, I go deeper into the subject on Substack this week. I think this idea offers an answer to a few Bigfoot mysteries and debunker arguments. And, it may explain differences in Bigfoot morphology reported in different parts of North America (e.g., PNW vs east Texas region). https://thesocialbigfoot.substack.com/p/bigfoot-are-meta

I would suggest a home range model with a nomadic cycle of following resources completely every 2 to 3 weeks ( obviously deviating enough down from lasting snow ) along box-canyons and or benches that follow streams and smaller river pathways. This area would be chosen based on the ability to remain hidden, thermoregulation and browsing/hunting along the way. My data indicates constant movement cycle within a territory, they seem to hang in an area for not much longer than 3 or 4 days ( there have been certain months in certain areas that are exception ) and they basically travel for a day to another resource area along a known routine and hang out for a few days and so on, eventually they follow this general path all the way back around to the starting line and repeat but constantly flexing the path ( within 1 or 2 miles of bandwidth outside of direction of intended travel ) according to need or human activity. This model prevents patterning by prey and humans, prevents over browsing and resource devastation, explains the indifference and frequency of road crossing reports and provides a schedule that allows for gauging future resources to avoid scarcity periods. I plan on doing a thread thoroughly explaining it all in-depth in the near future.

My view is there are not many of these things out there ( less in your area, maybe 3 from border to Newport ) and I am convinced they come down right to a place they find " tolerable " and skirt along river corridors just above normal human access or use. The cycle they likely follow in the colder climates must be large and in thick timber so the ice plate deposits from melt and refreezing cover a lot of their recognizable prints and destroy details that give it away. I believe Grassman58 on youtube has found a few suggestive trackways over the years. Being close to edge habitat for deer, elk and remote valleys with running waterways would be priority. My only guess would be they reduce activity massively, perhaps have some caches and operate at on deficit until snow breaks up. I would not be surprised to find out one day they can reduce their metabolic rate in the colder months, some form of torpor but not true hibernation. I have heard some far north native tribes are reported to have this ability to a degree. I could see them taking advantage of shafts and shallow cave systems but I want to know why we don't find preserved tracks in the cave floor if that is the case. There are a variety of snow trackways from nearby your area and they tend to occur around periods of bad weather, one I remember was about a guy found a set of prints that crossed his property near the Priest River area and they led up hill to a mangled deer completely disemboweled and meat pulled from the body, he noted bloody butt marks, hand prints and knee prints in the snow around the carcass. This was back around 2008 or something, the tracks went up hill into timber through some nasty thick regrowth and the guys could not follow as the snow was bucketing down and night was falling. I met the guy and heard his story first hand at the Klondike Tavern in Laclede, WA just before he moved to Alaska ( Thorn Bay ). I heard a similar story about someone finding snow prints up Dry Canyon Rd in 2014, tracks crossed the road and went up hill toward the north to south ledge above the river, I tried to get in touch with the witness but he was native and did not want people to think he was crazy so he would not get in touch with me. I also got a report of a snow trackway behind Freeman Lake in February of 2017, guys brother told me a little about it but said that he would not talk to anyone as he was a totally recluse. The other factor is that people out in these more harsh environments and remote properties are generally tight lipped and don't like to share. They know stuff and you don't and they want to keep it that way. To just touch on the coast for a second, I have loads of data here that seems to indicate they are still moving through their core habitats and visit throughout the year, as noted in another thread. They seem to drop below the holding snowline and hang out in wet thick crap on the edge of big timbered slopes that border a variety of habitat types and resources, they then cycle through a kind of loop along preferred paths over the course of a couple weeks and return to the starting point. Outside of the coastal states, your guess is as good as mine honestly but we still get the occasional snow trackway in the dead of winter so my question would be, how is it happening if they go coastal? This where I am with the question and that is what I have come across in my 4 years investigating the Selkirk area and it did not add up to much. I 100% agree, if you can solve the winter strategy in snow holding areas then you can really move the ball forward.

Yeah, that is why the herbivore and even a plant dominant omnivore modeling is a tough pill to swallow for Sasquatch. I am of the mind that protein and fat are dominant in the diet. That would alleviate many of the problems regarding area devastation and energy expenditure. 1 pound of animal fat/ plant fat is around 3500. 1 pound of animal protein ranges from 500 to 900. 1 pound of huckle berries is about 170. If a Sasquatch wanted to eat well I think it would be fair to suggest that if they managed 2.5 pounds of fat, 5 pounds of protein and 3 pounds of fruit/leaves they would likely be in a surplus. That would indicate that you could meet the needs of one individual with just over 10 pounds of mass.

Something like that crossed my mind briefly back in Aug 2011 when "he" came into camp. The first thought was ... "Ishi?" Yep, Native Americans wearing moccasins .. and using night vision goggles. Surrrrre, just like bears, "they do that all the time." Then the speed of travel vs speed of steps .. thus length of steps .. became obvious and such foolishness went out the window. And so ... we follow the evidence ...

We should be able to select more than one category. I visit the tar pit to see what humor Inc has dredged up.

I packed spray for my cook tent in remote hunts. Weight and bulk weren't concerns (I use a off-road rig to get out there), and the thought was that it might work on a young, curious bear, negating the need to kill it. The social jury here in Alaska is that it might work on such bears, but that, too, depends on the bear. One friend has a bee hive on his deck (insanity where he lives up Eagle River valley). Sure enough, he got a bear on his deck, but instead of a thousand pound brown bear, it was a small black bear. He stepped out and shooed it away. In a few minutes it came back. He stepped out with the shotgun and fired a round into the air. It ran off, and in a few minutes it came back. He loaded a bean bag round in it and shot the bear on the fanny. It takes off............and in a half hour, is back. Finally, he puts it down with a slug. He calls the Troopers to report a DLP, and a Trooper shows up, throws it into the back of his pickup, and drives off. Didn't make my friend skin it out or even fill out the DLP report. Would spray have worked better? Dunno. Maybe the bear would have been uncomfortable enough to learn something. Since it was a young, small bear, it might have educated him and saved his life for a decade or so. But, then, maybe not. But my friend had walls between him and the bear and daylight outside, which gave him plenty of safety to decide what to do. A bear in the night while you're wrapped up in a sleeping bag inside a tent? That's a whole different scenario. Like this guy: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=15821 Sorry. AFAIC, that guy wasted too much ammo (ie, >1 round) on warning shots. I'd have shot that sasquatch as sure as sin, then sat with my back against a rock wall until daylight and ready to shoot more of them. There is absolutely, positively no way I'm going out into the wilderness without at least two firearms: a rifle and a sidearm.

I'm sure a lot of you already know about Lazy Cowboy's Bigfoot YouTube videos. If not, they are a MUST SEE. Lazy Cowboy does an excellent job taking the data from the PGF and creating a CGI recreations better than anything I have ever seen. Specifically, I recommend: 1) Bigfoot- Recreating Bluff Creek 2) Bigfoot- Recreating Bluff Creek Part 2 The Patteson Gimlin Film Route. <--- This is the best one. Outstanding. We can see points of view from any angle, through Roger's camera, through Patty's POV and so on. The terrain comes to life. For some already aware of the Lazy Cowboy videos, this is not news. Still, I would like to hear your thoughts on it and anywhere you might think Lazy Cowboy might get it wrong here or there. If you haven't seen these, don't walk, RUN to your computer and watch these Especially . Bigfoot- Recreating Bluff Creek Part 2 The Patteson Gimlin Film Route. They are amazing. The PGF site makes sense so much more sense to me now. One area I am uncertain about is his use of the shadows indicating the PGF was filmed at 3pm timeline not the 1 or 1:30pm. Give these a view.

Unfortunately, Bob Gimlin is an unreliable witness (which does not mean I think he's lying). With regards to this issue, he has said that the film site was: two miles from the campsite - see Webster's interview of Roger & Bob in 1967 four miles from the campsite - see John Green's interview of Bob in 1992 and a CBS47 2019 interview of Bob Roger Patterson gave both those estimates and added 3 miles in an interview by Stan Peters Interview of Roger Patterson As to the time they left camp, Bob has said: midday (which could be 1:30 during the summer, I suppose, but not in October) - see Robert Morgan's interview of Bob "right after lunch" (which could be anywhere from 11:00 AM if they were up early to 1:00ish) - Les Stroud's interview with Bob and this 1:30 time, which I believe came from a CBS47 2019 interview of Bob - If I understand correctly, The Lazy Cowboy is using other people's interviews, not his own. And leaving camp about 1:30 contradicts times Bob Gimlin has given for the encounter itself, which include: “about midday, perhaps a little bit after noon time” - again from John Green's interview of Bob in 1992 "Early afternoon" - attributed to John Green's questionnaire in Bigfoot at Bluff Creek by Danny (Daniel) Perez (2003) about 2:00 PM - Finding Bigfoot Legend (2018) All of this because early interviewers asked both Roger and Bob to tell them a story, but did not conduct the kind of interview necessary to determine as precisely as possible the facts. Also, I don't believe that The Lazy Cowboy (or anyone else) cherry-picked a certain interview because it better fits a narrative; instead, it seems a lot of of people are unfamiliar with (or unwilling to admit) the inconsistencies surrounding the P-G film.

People who argue that are arguing from "religion", not report data. The report data, taken as a whole, is very clear. Taking the next step, the body shape reports are indicative of something that is primarily a predator. BF seldom if ever is described as having a big sloppy gorilla style gut needed for digesting masses of vegetation, they're described as having ripped abs .. ripped abs are not an herbivore characteristic. I think that just as black bears are omnivores that are primarily herbivorous but will opportunistically scavenge or even prey, bigfoot is technically an omnivore but primarily a predator, one that will not pass up a berry crop if handy. I suspect this is consistent .. maybe necessary .. for the large distances reportedly traveled. If you spend 16 hours a day chowing on weeds that's not much time left for walking, but if you can meet your nutritional needs in 15-30 minutes catching and consuming meat, there are many more hours available for travel .. or whatever else is available. Moreover, that reduced time spent foraging also means reduced time distracted and at risk of being seen. So we don't KNOW .. but like linear approximations in math, we can get within almost any distance from exact that we want to. And .. from those approximations we can devise tests, devise questions for study. Like .. science .. at least in a sort of loose hinged way. I think loose-hinged is fine, we have to remember we're still in discovery mode, not study mode.

Norse, can you give a general area (again, I know) as to where you saw those tracks? Nothing that would dox yourself, but some major landmark in the area? Any idea of what would be drawing a Bigfoot (or other large animal) south - farmland, elk migrating in that direction, getting to lower elevation? Just curious. Also, love your driveway (and the fact that I'm not the one who has to clear it in the winter!). Norse and Huntster, Is it safe to infer behavior from a limited number of trackways, no matter how long? Someone upthread mentioned meta-populations of animals that are well spread out and have wide home ranges (for lack of a better word). So even a long trackway of over a mile could be just a day trip to the grocery store for Bigfoot. It's not necessarily an indication that Bigfoot populations are making like snowbirds and heading south. In the northeast US and Canada, there are 51 reports from December, January, and February where the report either stated direction of travel or was detailed enough to allow a reasonable approximation of direction of travel.* Only 14 of those were traveling in some southerly direction; 25 were heading in a northerly direction. However, that doesn't tell the whole story. I crunched numbers that I had in 2017 and there was a visible southward movement (between 160 and 200 miles) in the number of reported encounters. * Normal disclaimers apply - small sample size, room for witness error, room for error in analysis, &c., &c., &c.

Yes, stream pathways that branch off are harder to access and have restrictions but I think equally important is the overwhelming record of sasquatch doing this activity at night. This reduces exposure and therefore sightings, what few are by the river are majority at night by campers or night fisherman on reservations. I do have several dusk vocalization events close to salmon pathways at dawn and dusk and one very up close sighting ( 20 feet under a high powered flashlight ) in the parking lot of salmon fishing area.

^Good example, and yes lots of reports from pickers of all kinds. BTW, there's plenty to learn about behaviors from select podcasts. I recently listened to an interesting report from a mushroom picker who was picking to make money, and had hired a whole crew to help. They got an aggressive confrontation in which the man's dog tried to attack and was killed by the big guy. I got the impression that the people had really messed up by overharvesting. That one starts about 50:00 in the first video. The second one I haven't entirely listened to but the title is on-topic.

You talked about Bigfoot needing to leave cover and be out in the open to forage. That’s a false assumption. I have picked huckleberries under a lodgepole pine canopy in Ferry county. Stuff grows IN the forest. That’s my statement. And yes? There are plenty of reports of berry pickers encountering Bigfoot. And yes there is a seasonality to it. https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=20802

They do. Just not as often as we'd like. This is partially because there are very few sasquatches and the sasquatches have taken up nocturnal or other behaviors to minimize contact. For example, bear encounters in berry patches occur in Alaska, but not nearly as often as they could, considering there are @ 140K bears, less than 1 million people, and an area over twice the size of Texas involved..............as well as the fact that people don't pick berries for a good 16 hours of the day.

They hypothesis that we began burying our dead because it attracted predators. So it began as pragmatic and may have evolved into more of a ritual. Homo Naledi at Rising Star Cave just unceremoniously dumped their dead down a chute in the back of the cave. Whereas Neanderthals buried their dead with grave goods, ochre, flowers, etc. Interestingly enough? There are no stone tools associated with Homo Naledi. So I find it odd that they are included in the genus Homo. Which just shows that science has a very gray area defining what is included in our genus and what is not. So Sasquatch may be included in our genus or it may be excluded upon discovery. But I flat reject that they are apart of our species. Based on morphology alone. Great apes are exceptionally smart (excluding humans or Homo Sapiens), so our ancestors like Homo Erectus must of been terrifying. I would not want a pack of them hunting me in the forest with spears. (L-R) Australopithecus Afarensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Naledi

Bigfoot's needs and abilities are always stretched into whatever shape is needed to fit the narrative. <--- This almost always makes the narrative wrong. -Say Bigfoot is sick, suddenly there are more fellow Bigfeet out there bringing him food. -Say we can't find a body, Bigfoot bury their dead -Don't have sightings in decades of looking, Bigfoot has the ability to teleport. When Questions about Bigfoot arise, we need to look at the most likely scenario. Sure, shows like Finding Bigfoot seems to know what Bigfoot's favorite baseball team is, or his favorite color. Not bad considering they have never found Bigfoot let alone studied the actual issue in Queston. Yes, we can imagine various scenarios for Bigfoot. But if bigfoot is old or injured is just more likely to die or get eaten by another predator. Nothing extreme needs to explain it. If the food supply dries up for Bigfoot in one area, like most animals (or people) it would move on to an area where it needs are available. Billy the Kidd (of whomever) robbed banks because, "That is where the money is" Simplicity rules. Simplicity is the marketplace of nature. Brody: Now this guy, he... he keeps swimmin' around in a place where the feeding is good until the food supply is gone, right? Hooper: It's called "territoriality". It's just a theory that I happen to... agree with. It is easy to imagine elaborate scenarios to explain all things Bigfoot. When Bigfoot is not able to meet its needs, it dies. It will live so long as it can. We don't have to imagine much beyond that

Yes, would be helpful to list, say, your top three reasons, and add a few more.

That notion seems to lack imagination. Chasing down dinner is only one option. Ambush is another .. and doesn't take speed or endurance. Yet another is .. if you're somewhat nocturnal .. to wait for dinner to go to sleep, then sneak up on it. You should, if you want to get at the crux of the thing, think about all of the options, not just the stereotypical and obvious.

You are 100% correct. The NPS knew of his games over 13 years (not 8) in Kaflia Bay and allowed it to continue. So did the air taxi operator, who should have faced charges, AFAIC.

I'll add another layer of complexity to this. If Bigfoot are a real species, they could exist as a meta-population. As a meta-population they live in small, mostly isolated groups distributed over patches of forest areas. These groups are highly mobile, moving among these forest patches (across hundreds of miles) and occasionally running into other groups for breeding. In the case of Bigfoot, they may even exchange information in some way — for example, avoid that forest to the south because deer are sick or the water is bad or the BFRO is there or whatever. This isn't a new theory. I got the idea from a 2006 article on the Indian Gray Wolf, but the concept is frequently employed in ecology. Meta-population view of Bigfoot would explain: Sightings in non-remote places and roadsides Low inbreeding despite living in small groups Sightings in areas that may lack sufficient resources to survive over long periods Bigfoot sometimes reported taking farm animals (as they move between habitats) Overestimation of pop size, as the same animal is witnessed in widely different places near the same time Not seeing a Bigfoot when visiting a place where one or more were recently witnessed A meta-population of Bigfoot will likely be affected by the USDA removing 112 million acres of forests… which is equivalent to 175,000 sq miles, which is more than the size of California. Certainly this would not happen in one place, but it's likely that each forest management area will be reduced significantly enough to affect wildlife cover and food sources. I doubt this would be a thinning out of a forest, because that’s just not cost effective. It’ll be large swaths of biodiverse forest areas, and replanting will either not happen or will lack in plant diversity and become dead spots for wildlife. I’m not a hunter or camper but this is my main concern about this USDA initiative. Maybe someone with forest experience on BFF has a more optimistic assessment and can relieve my anxiety (or link me to a post in that other thread). Oh, and for any conspiracy theorists, perhaps the national forest system was created originally to support a meta-population of Bigfoot. An argument could be made, actually.

Served with borscht?🤣

If I ever heal up? I think a snow bike would be an amazing research tool. We obviously cannot keep up on foot. But a snow trackway being followed on a snow bike is sure to produce results. You cannot go straight up the mountain like a sled, but you can finesse your way through almost anything. They are dropping into creek bottoms I would never consider with a sled. Throw a drone in a backpack? I don’t think Sasquatch escapes without being seen, filmed, whatever. These things go any where.

I have seen no convincing data to suggest they as a population go all the way to the coast here in the PNW, I do find good data to suggest they come down in elevation. We have had activity in December, January, February, March and April here at various locations in WA. The below video is a fair example ( I personally went to this location a few years ago based on a number of winter reports including this track find, I was able to get in touch with the investigator who was on the scene at the time. ), the tracks came from up above ( small knobs and benches on the slope side at about 2200ft on the high end ) on the west side of Shannon Lake and Baker Lake that are both loaded with miles and miles of thick/marshy timber patches that are tough to hunt and penetrate. They came from the timber uphill and both jumped off a rock ledge over 12 feet up to get down to the edge of that community, they crossed the road and went up onto someone's porch and got into a charcoal grill likely out of desperation looking for food ( fat drippings ? ). I don't remember at the moment where they retreated to but it was generally back into timber up slope. Here is a side angle photo of the terrain and direction the prints came from, everything below the blue line would all be winter habitat under my theory. This would not encompass the entire space they use but rather a section of the loop or cycle they likely run along. The Gold pin in the back end of the photo is separate encounter report from years later in late November. For full context and accuracy I will note that this trackway from what we could gather is legitimate but after the investigation, word got around the community and someone got back in touch and with another trackway soon after and that trackway was clearly hoaxed and fabricated, the prints looked nothing like the original tracks and showed no dexterity of the foot or toes, lacked any of the athleticism and started in stopped at highly questionable places. They seem to hold up in very difficult and hard to access locations and move in changing weather conditions from one low human activity area to another.

Well it certainly doesn’t bode well for the person in Illinois claiming a family of Sasquatch live on his 50 acre wood lot all year long. But I don’t think they are that populous. And also that their activities probably fall through the cracks and are attributed to something else. Lastly? If they are as smart as say an Orangutan? Orangutans pick locks, know sign language and can paddle a boat. Surely Sasquatch could be rather cunning. And they probably know that sustained contact with humans is unhealthy. So they stay nocturnal, take only what they need and keep moving.

This is what bothers me. First, FWIW, I made a chart for my own edification comparing biological facts about common animals. As I got all of this information off the web, I am certain that it is highly accurate & not subject to question. Somewhere, I found an estimate that Cro-Magnon, Neaderthals, and paleo-Indians required 4,800 calories per day and moose required 9,700 calories per day. The data I found for other large animals is just in poundage - 10-20 pounds of food per day for elk, 30 pounds per day for grizzly bears, 35 pounds for black bears(?), and 30-45 pounds for gorillas. What bothers me is that if Bigfoot is an omnivore, and if Bigfoot is as populous in the eastern US as some believe, why aren't they eating farmers out of house and home? Deer do it, groundhogs do it, foxes and coyotes prey on chickens, and such ... why wouldn't a bigfoot settle down near a nice big corn or potato or squash field and simply strip mine it for a day or two, then move on. That problem occurs with other biological animals, why doesn't it occur with Bigfoot?

The mountains and inland plateaus of BC get heavy accumulations of snow, but the coastal valleys only get a few snow days a year, usually followed by enough rain to melt it away quickly. Most sightings in BC, Wa. and Ak. occur in those coastal valleys. The only Sasquatch trackway I ever found was in late spring snow, crossing a pass over a ridge between two river valleys. I believe they stay below the snowline as much as possible, just as the majority of big game does.

My take on this is that they use very similar resources as black bears do, and we have thousands of those here in BC. The only real difference from bears' needs is having to forage in winter, which bears avoid by hibernating. Sasquatch is supposed to be pretty intelligent, so presumably plans ahead by stockpiling food for the winter needs, such as nuts and tubers, which store well.

I think that is a part of the picture, maybe all of it depending on locale. My own area is very seasonal .. main time, late summer, with a couple data points in mid July which could be outliers or could represent a second, smaller, pass-through. Behavior is pretty different up there when it is "busy" and I suspect there is something "special" going on. That area spends winter under 5-10 feet of snow with nothing to eat but snow and tree bark. They are elsewhere. A friend works on a ranch at the bottom of a deep valley in the other direction. Off and on snow but nothing seasonal .. and no downhill for food to migrate way towards. He says they have low level activity year around with occasional flurries of greater activity. His explanation is that there is a very small permanent population (seemingly akin to what you describe) which act as a "rear guard" making sure that that spot is safe for the traveling groups to temporarily occupy as they pass through. I've followed up on a number of reports there and out maybe 10 miles in each way. I can't say that the explanation is right or wrong but I can say it certainly seems to fit the observations.

I have not read all the posts up to this point but I think it is difficult to calculate pounds of material because the caloric density per gram can vary greatly. We also can't measure metabolic rate with Sasquatches necessarily as what you eat at what time can change the rate itself. In mammals the metabolic rate is effected by sun exposure, temperature, stress and sleep. Sasquatches do not seem to be pot-bellied ( fermentation gut adapted ) and seem to consume a lot of direct protein when compared to gorillas. I would say that they focus on nutrient dense food heavily in the fall and again in the spring, sources heavily would lean toward insects, small critters, nuts, tubers, salmon, ungulates, fruits, lichens, mushrooms and softer plant leaf material. Just a side note, I am very convinced that omegas are likely the most important need to the Sasquatch, big brains demand them and this would explain the continued historic references in native cultures that sasquatch can become fairly confrontational in situations such as pulling salmon nets and invading smoke houses. I have also noted that Sasquatch reports do often happen on a regular basis close to large tracts of masting nut trees. I suspect they target certain foods at certain times and try to conserve energy, the few long trackways on record seem to indicate very focused directional travel as if they have a point B in mind. If I had to guess with what little I know from reading, behavior and looking for feeding sites I would say someplace between 7500 to 1000 calories split between 30% fat, 30% carbs, and 40% protein averaged across the year cycle. That is my 2 cents and again I don't have a whole lot of confidence yet in my view here but it is where I am at, critics are welcome. It would be interesting to see what the metabolic consumption of the Chinese snub nosed monkey is throughout the year as a comparison as they have a wide range diet and endure some fairly cold conditions following the snowline.

Back to the original question. NorthWind and I once investigated a sighting location at a lake camp. A (presumably) old sasquatch with a limp was seen dumpster diving numerous times. I'd guess scavenging, eating roadkill and pets kept outside would be much easier than taking a human. I would bet they have an idea, that if one of us goes missing, multitudes more will show up searching, which bodes ill for them. And, yes, I do think they are that intelligent.

Here's one time:

Well, then, the answer is clearly NO, and that has absolutely nothing to do whith critters. I'm proof of that. My many brushes with death were primarily the elements, not aggressive animals. Partners in the field can save your life.............but they can also shoot you accidentally, which happened to me as well. In fact, my trips into the Bush went primarily solo in the early 2000's because my partners became too dangerous, needy, or just plain intolerable, and I felt safer without them............until I damned near killed myself a few times. It's just dangerous out there, and sasquatches are the very least of my worries (except Alaska has no snakes, so I don't worry about them at all, and I'm very thankful).

I'm reducing travel, even to Anchorage, to only-if-necessary. Last winter, just hours after arriving in Vegas, I was in a situation where I had my hand on my weapon and was ready to shoot. The thugs drove away. Another very strange and suspicious character loitered nearby during and after this confrontation. Later, miles away in a rural area and right after bedding down in the motorhome, "somebody" started jiggling the door knob (turned out to be a cow licking the door knob). In both cases, I can't imagine feeling better about the situations with the equivalent of a bean bag round. Times are tense. I kinda' like it here. I think I'll just stay home until Mrs. Huntster forces the issue.

Those are a lot of questions to unpack. Any wild animal that is desperately trying to survive old age or serious injury would likely be dangerous to humans as without weapons we are the most helpless critters in the forest/jungle. (Except for pandas, of course. Seriously, google panda videos and ask yourself how these animals actually survive in the wild....) In going through old newspapers, I've run across several articles where tigers, elephants, bears, and wolves were said to hunt/injure humans out of "hate." As Silverback and Huntster state, yes, a wild animal (Bigfoot) is likely to act like other wild animals. As to the questions about whether certain national parks are dangerous and what specific cases involve, there is no end of information in threads such as the missing 411 thread at As to what kind of firearm (not necessarily a pistol) to carry in the backwoods, several members of the Forums who have extensive backwoods experience have offered opinions at this thread. Between the two threads, that's over 50 pages of discussion on most of the substance asked about. As to the "should people go out and do dumb things?" question, No. They shouldn't. But that didn't stop some guy from camping out with grizzlies because "they were used to him" or a New Jersey hiker from going up in the Adirondacks in shorts and a t-shirt without adequate food, warm clothing, and other survival stuff, and they both died even without help from Bigfoot.

I remember the story! Cliff has them on his website. https://cliffbarackman.com/home/projects/footprint-database/database-contents/2005-priest-river-id/ I still say a snow bike has the potential to follow a snow trackway to its conclusion. And if we don’t want to kill it? Then a crossbow with a biopsy dart is the next best thing.

1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

The answer to your original question is YES. We talked about Timothy Treadwell and the old bear guarding his carcass when the Park Service showed up. A similar situation IMHO. I have no doubt a starving Bigfoot in the right setting would hunt and eat a human. It’s also well documented in Indian folklore. But now we are debating about do Bigfeet take care of the old or injured? Or if they have human characteristics at all. Do they live in a family group to facilitate care? My personal experience is that I have never seen evidence of family groups. The trackway we cut in snow was alone. Patty in the Patterson Gimlin Film was alone. Lots of singular trackways in reports, etc. BUT. We also have reports like Ostman and Ape Canyon that do have them living in family groups. And there is absolutely no way that a breeding population of a species doesn’t come together. Maybe that’s seasonally? Maybe that’s a rut? Or berry picking season? Dunno. I am not saying that 15 Bigfeet are all living in a cave together like Neanderthals. But certainly if procreation is happening? Which it must? They have to be able to find each other and be together at least for a time. The answer is most likely BOTH. And my best WAG is that the males especially young males are more solitary. And mothers and daughters probably hang closer together in small groups depending on the season, maternity status and food availability. The Olympic project nesting site certainly suggests that they were living in a group. But we have no idea what that group dynamic looks like. If memory serves it was close to the Toba inlet.

I take most fantastic old stories with a major grain of salt. Many of these legends were published in a small newspaper first, in order to sell more papers.

Excellent event report. I'm always impressed with your YouTube videos as well, Nathan. I appreciate the video.

John Green's Data 1960-2000 BFRO Data 2000-2025

My personal opinion is there are far less out there than what people like to think. I would also say there is a lot of bad data incorporated from databases of encounters these days, I would be interested to see a data averaging from the 60's up to say 2008 ( before Finding Bigfoot ). I think you would see a very different spread both across behaviors and clusters geographically on the map. I do think the scenarios you lay out do in fact occur but just far less than reported.

It's possible that they do raid crops, and that it gets attributed to bears or feral hogs, as they are much more visible and therefore the "logical" answer.

Well, I hope that you come through the other side unscarred by the increased pressure! An old Army motivation poster (by an unknown artist) showed a guy getting squashed in a vice with limbs akimbo and bloodshot eyes bulging out and he's saying, "Go ahead, you SOB, tighten it some more!"

Jane Goodall was with Mary and Louis Leakey at Olduvai Gorge. She switched to behavior and studied apes and chimps and others. An amazing life.

I don't know if "da gub'ment" allows Sasquatch to "harvest" people in National Forests....but I would certainly allow for the possibility that DotGov is aware of incidents where humans have been taken and possibly consumed in the same way that any other predator would if presented with an opportunity for an easy chunk of toothless, clawless, slow moving protein and for economic and political reasons keeps it quiet. Then the question of WHY? I have a theory that as the logging, outdoor, tourist, and camping (equipment) business is nearly a TRILLION dollar per year business and all the tax revenue FROM those businesses TO the government would be in the area of $300 BILLION. Roll that into all the special interests, lobbyists, and money flowing into the coffers of politicians, then there's one hell of a motive for silence on the part of DotGov and the politicians who benefit. Look at the timber industry....if Sasquatch was undeniably proven to exist...body, live capture, roadkill...whatever, the ensuing protection of the species in prime timber areas would halt that industry and cost billions alone. So, there's another billion or so reasons why a lid would be kept on the whole subject as far as DotGov is concerned. "Oh no, nothing to see here, pay no attention to the hairy biped behind the tree". Why would a National Park be a "center of exploitation" for the Sasquatch? Guns and hunting are generally prohibited in National Parks and I am convinced that they are well aware of what a gun or a bow can do EVEN if they have no cognitive ability on par with a great ape, just by seeing a BOOM stick drop a deer they would accrue a fear of guns or bows....I know plenty of dogs, horses, and even coyote that are scared to death of guns and they are not on par with a primate or relict hominid. So...easy pickins in the National Parks. Let me just sum up my personal opinion with "Hell, I wouldn't be the least little bit surprised" at anything DotGov would do.

I'm pretty egalitarian in my choice of knives. I carry the same Camillus 6" Hunter I have had since I was 12 for a fixed blade. It holds a razor edge, has a full tang, and I figure I have known that knife for 45 years, skinned a lot of game with it, used it to baton a lot of kindling, and even lance a boil on my best friend's butt one time in Montana...I don't see a need to change. For a folder, I carry a 4.2" Spyderco that I carried for the last 15 years I was a cop, and a little two blade Victorinox Swiss Army knife and that's mostly for the tweezers and the toothpick.

From the FBI contemporaneous files - internal memo July 1969 'Park Officials have noted the attitude of Williams Martin has undergone marked change from time when he was frantically searching for his child and appreciative of all help rendered. He has increasingly come under the influence of visionaries, is unwilling to accept fact his child is dead, and prefers to believe child has been kidnaped and might yet be found alive'. This statement strikes me as being very callous and heartless. It does however, suggest that Mr Martin didn't 'always' maintain that his son was kidnapped, but entirely understandably, hung on to any hope he could find, which, as time went on and it was clear that he couldn't have survived alone in the wilderness for such length, latching on to the idea of kidnap. Again, there's no judgement here, I would almost certainly have done the same. Even if he had always believed that there was kidnap involved, a desperate father in emotional turmoil and probably blind panic likely isn't the best, most objective assessor of the situation. Trying to imagine how I would feel in his shoes, I certainly wouldn't trust my objective assessment of anything. Even then, if you do accept that he could think about it rationally and always believed it was a kidnapping, a belief, however strongly held, does not make it a fact. The fact is that there was never any credible information regarding a kidnapping. From the NPS chronology 'He [Bill Martin] quickly went west on the AT as far as Little Bald (Approximately 1 mile) and returned thinking Dennis might be back to the others. He then went west again on the AT to Russell Field, 2.5 miles, and returned to Spence Field.' I have no idea how long this might have taken him, but clearly Dennis hadn't gone west along the trail or his father would have found him. As such, we don't know where he went. But we do know that in the immediate aftermath, only the westbound trail was searched by his father. It seems from the chronology that, at least until Rangers arrived (some time after being notified at 8:28pm) only trails were searched. The first mention of searching the immediate area around where he was last seen comes with Rangers involved. The mention also comes after the first mentions of the heavy rainfall and mention that 'All streams were high and turbulent.' We know Dennis was off trail and looping around when last seen. Unless he got back on to a trail, no one was looking off trail until at least 8:30 in pouring rain and coming darkness. It was followed up on and the FBI didn't 'do nothing'. They visited the site with the witness. The timeframe is everything here. I've shown you, with sources quoted, that the scream happened at the same time, up to an hour before and certainly no later than an hour after Dennis went missing 90 minutes away. The FBI, with the Rangers, did what was necessary to conclusively establish that the encounter was completely unrelated to Dennis' disappearance and therefore not credible evidence of a kidnapping and therefore outside of the FBI's authority. You've provided no evidence or sources to suggest otherwise. No they don't, but plenty of forest animals make noises that could potentially be mistaken for a scream. Men who don't want to be seen or approached also have the potential to scream. There's simply no reason to believe that the scream was Dennis given that it would be impossible for him to be there, and you've provided nothing to suggest why it should be considered him. I absolutely agree that people were evicted to establish the park. Where you lose me is the leap that some haven't left, that the NPS/FBI would leap to the conclusion that they were child abductors, certainly responsible for a kidnapping (for which there is no evidence of kidnap anyway) and in collusion with the military, send in the Green Berets to take them out. Again, you've provided nothing to back up those huge assumptions and leaps in logic. I don't know why. I have given you quotes and sources for why they were included in this particular search. I've also suggested a logical answer to your question - that is that they weren't previously training in the local area at a time when a massive public SAR was happening and required the exact skills that the Green Berets had experience of and were currently training for. The NPS documents suggest improvements that could be made to SAR procedures, including using fewer searchers and concentrating on ones with specific knowledge of the area and tracking skills. 'could this have precluded using Green Berets in future? Again, I'm not stating that I know for certain, but it sure seems more likely than sending them in to take out mountain men or 'feral' humans in front of hundreds of potential civilian witnesses based on no evidence of wrongdoing. You're the one making an assertion that the official line is false and that there was another reason for the use of Green Berets, but you haven't provided anything to back it up. The FBI and NPS documents show that the 'Search admittedly was not absolute. This is extremely rugged terrain covered with heavy brush and woods and contains many deep crevices and sink holes.' As I have shown, the search covered 56 square miles by the end of the 9th day, meaning a search radius of 4.22 miles, not covered absolutely. I've also shown that with a speed of 1mph, by the time the co-ordinated search started on the morning after he went missing, Dennis could have been anywhere within a 450 square mile area. With a speed of 1mph, by the time the first Rangers and family started searching off trail that night, Dennis would have been at the outer edges of what was searched, but not absolutely, by the end of the 9th day. Any bear/cougar could have dragged him into an area not accessible for human searching, or outside the outer edges of what was searched. Your point also doesn't deal with the potential for accident, being washed away in those streams that were 'high and turbulent' even on that first night, or those sink holes, crevices and any other areas that couldn't be searched within, let alone without the search radius. You are stating things as a certainty, when they are absolutely not certain, then using that as a launchpad for a vague conspiracy that has no supporting facts and without providing any evidence or sources to back it up. This seems disingenuous to me. You say you have no dog in the fight, but keep repeating that the Harold Key encounter indicates something nefarious, in particular a kidnapping. You mentioned a 'mangy' human carrying something through the woods. I asserted that that was incorrect and provided quotes and reasoning, as well as showing how the encounter couldn't be relevant unless you accepted 411's false timeline. You didn't dispute my assertions or provide anything to disprove them but rather repeated the description of a mangy man carrying something through the woods that seems to be a Paulides fabrication, and use that fabrication as a reason to doubt the FBI assessment and thereby suggest some further conspiracy. You also mentioned Paulides in your first post on this thread and asserted on the 411 thread that he wasn't lying. You say that the case is well known 'because of the oddities associated with it' but on the 411 thread state that 'the fact still remains that without Paulides I would have no clue about Dennis Martin' and many of the oddities that you have listed and repeated are based on Paulides' untruths. My distrust of Paulides is not bias, it is a rational assessment of his reliability, or lack thereof, to accurately present the facts, some of which I have demonstrated in this thread, and which distrust is widely shared and proven elsewhere regarding this and other cases. I truly do not have a dog in the fight, I have satisfied myself of Paulides' unreliability and would be more than happy to discuss the case without any reference to him whatsoever. However, that is not possible until his inaccuracies are removed from the discussion, and at present, some of your arguments seem based on them, and you have provided no evidence or other sources to back up those arguments.

According to an article I read yesterday the U.S. annual tree harvest is between 3-6 billion trees a year depending on tree density per square mile. That's not board feet mind you. That's an actual whole-tree estimate. Your post sort of underscores the food competition thing. By extension it may also hint at a lower Sasquatch population.