Do Bigfoots that are Injured, or too old Hunt Dangerous?

[georgerm]

Do Bigfoots that Despise people, are Injured, or too old Hunt  Dangerous? Are these kinds of bigfoots the type that would take down a human for a needed meal? Why would a Hungry cougar or starving black bear be any different from a Bigfoot that has become dangerous due to starvation and will hunt people. If this is the case, then single individual should not go in the deep forests where Bigfoot is known to live and to take a chance.  If an individual is going to be on an extended hike what kind of pistol would you take in case you are attacked by a Bigfoot. Are there any national forests that have a reputation for missing hikers?  Are there missing people cases where their clothing, camping gear and bodies are reported missing?

Edited Friday at 07:50 PM by georgerm

[Huntster]

40 minutes ago, georgerm said:

Do Bigfoots that Despise people, are Injured, or too old Hunt  Dangerous? Are these kinds of bigfoots the type that would take down a human for a needed meal? Why would a Hungry cougar or starving black bear be any different from a Bigfoot that has become dangerous due to starvation and will hunt people. If this is the case, then single individual should not go in the deep forests where Bigfoot is known to live and to take a chance..........

 

Well, since cougars and bears (not to mention snakes, wolves, and homo sapien criminals) are dangerous as well as sasquatches by your own admission, single Homo sapiens should not go into the wilderness. 

 

There are approximately a million black bears, 50,000 brown bears, 20,000 polar bears, 90,000 wolves, 35,000 cougars, unknown millions of venomous snakes, and at least 18 million criminals in North America. I would estimate the sasquatch population to be less than 5,000. The number of hateful, injured, or old of each species might be @ 10% of each (100,000 black bears, 5,000 brown bears, 2000 polar bears, 9000 wolves, 3500 cougars, unknown millions of venomous snakes, and at least 1.8 million criminals).

 

Should it be banned for individuals to go into the wilderness alone? What would constitute wilderness, or "deep forests"? What should the penalty be by law? 

[Silverback Sax]

If you believe that these creatures are nothing more than a wild animal, then yes they may act like a starving wild animal.  Based on thousands of reports and the oral traditions of the first nations, I tend to think of them as "people".  As far as the OPs questions, yes, humans go missing in the forest, sometimes more often in certain forests.  I do not believe that every missing person in the forest is related to sasquatch.  Is it possible?  Sure.  Can I backup my theory?  Nope, not even gonna try.

[Trogluddite]

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.

[MIB]

2 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

Those are a lot of questions to unpack.

 

Moreover, those are a lot of assumptions and assertions to unpack, essentially none proven.      We should never forget that though I think they are predators, omnivores, there are a number of people who would swear on their grandma's grave that BF are strict herbivores.   If that's the case, then the whole question of predation is moot.   

 

Who presumes the right, or authority, to "ALLOW" **me** to go into the woods or not, alone?    What fool presumes someone else has the right to dictate that to me .. or to anyone else?    The whole notion of someone attempting that stupidity makes my blood boil.   

[Trogluddite]

^^

Good points MIB about assumptions, assertions, etc.  I don't think the OP was proposing a "ban" on what people do in the woods alone, though, in my read of it.  I read it more as, "is it wise to do this?"  

 

I'll take this opportunity to note that my point in flagging the available resources that could answer these questions was not to "zing" the OP or anyone else.  There are just too many good threads on the forums that get buried under flotsam and jetsam.  I've spent the better part of 30 years arguing (semi-successfully) that large federal bureaucracies need to do a better job with knowledge management.  That problem is magnified in a loose organization like the Forums.

 

Fortunately, I was just about to ask a question in another thread and remembered to do a quick search before I typed!

[MIB]

25 minutes ago, Trogluddite said:

I read it more as, "is it wise to do this?"  

 

That is a fair question as long as it is asked as "is it wise for ME to do this" vs "is it wise for YOU to do this" especially with an undercurrent of attempted manipulation / control over others choices.    My fuse .. in real life .. is getting shorter and shorter with people telling ME not to do a thing simply because THEY are afraid to do it or because they are too feeble to do it.   It goes along with people trying to get me to do a thing simply to give them a crowd to hide in.  (Example .. some years ago my buddy was encouraging me to cheat on my GF .. his foster daughter .. because "you're not married."  Turns out he was cheating on his wife and was really looking for the chance to say "well, MIB is doing it so it can't be so wrong."    Jerk.)   It is possible I'm wrapped around the axle a bit to tightly .. but for the next 4-5 years, life is going to increase that pressure for me, not decrease.   

[Trogluddite]

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!"  

Edited yesterday at 01:30 AM by Trogluddite

[norseman]

If Sasquatch is a member of the genus Homo or closely related to it? 
 

There is a very strong possibility it is a cannibal. Just as the old Indian legends seem to suggest.

 

https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/humans-evolutionary-relatives-butchered-one-another-145-million-years-ago

 

There is evidence in our genus of cannibalism from almost 1.5 million years ago. Cut marks from stone tools on bone.

 

I do almost all of my trekking any more solo. It’s a risk. Be safe folks.

[Huntster]

56 minutes ago, Trogluddite said:

........I don't think the OP was proposing a "ban" on what people do in the woods alone, though, in my read of it.  I read it more as, "is it wise to do this?"..........

 

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).

[georgerm]

19 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

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).

What happened when you almost killed your self? 

Do you fear bigfoot? 

How many out of a 100 are people killers?

Can you tell us about some of your expeditions and some of the exciting stuff that happened with you? Uh

 

[Huntster]

28 minutes ago, georgerm said:

What happened when you almost killed your self?........

Which time? 
 

Quote

......Do you fear bigfoot?.......

Not at the moment, or even before I go out into the Bush. But I would if I saw one, even at a distance, and even well armed. If I saw one while glassing for moose, caribou, or bear, after I lost visual contact, it's time to break camp and head back home. 
 

Quote

..........How many out of a 100 are people killers?........

I'd hazard a guess at 1%, so if there are 5000 sasquatches out there in North America, maybe 50 would kill a person under the right circumstances.

 

Quote

..........Can you tell us about some of your expeditions and some of the exciting stuff that happened with you?.........

Too much to type again. Later I'll link a couple stories I posted here in the past.........

 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, georgerm said:

.........How many out of a 100 are people killers?..........

 

I thought about your question a bit and how that applies to bears. We have pretty good scientific population estimates for bears in Alaska: 200K black bears, 35K brown bears, and 5K polar bears, for a total of 240K bears of all species. We have no cougars or venomous snakes. I looked up the average number of bear attacks in Alaska annually:

 

Quote

..........Alaska has an average of about four fatal bear attacks per year over the past 30 years, while the average number of non-fatal bear attack hospitalizations is around 3.8 per year, according to a 2019 State of Alaska report on data from 2000–2017. The total number of bear attacks can fluctuate annually, and some reports indicate a recent increase in incidents. 

Fatal attacks: 

On average, there are about four fatal bear attacks per year, though this can vary. 

Non-fatal attacks: 

Between 2000 and 2017, there were 66 bear attacks resulting in hospitalization, averaging 3.8 per year. 

Total attacks: 

Some sources suggest there are roughly six reported injuries from bear attacks each year, but data can be speculative, and many attacks go unreported..........

 

So four fatal and 4 non-fatal attacks (total of 8 serious attacks) per year out of 240K bears, or 0.003% of bears are potential man killers. If we used the same math on an estimated 5000 sasquatches, there would be 0.17 dangerous sasqatches out there.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, georgerm said:

What happened when you almost killed your self?.........

 

Here's one time:

 

 

 

 

[Frisco85132]

Well if one accepts the ridiculous notion that Bigfoot is a "woopernatural" space monkey....then I think one should also accept the notion that they would dematerialize/vibrate to a different frequency of matter/jump into a portal/float off on an orb, or simply allow the projectile(s) to pass through them ala Kitty Whatzername from X-Men long before a bullet, slug, or load of buckshot hit them, so the choice of caliber is moot.

If, however, on the other hand, you are one who disregards the woopidity and accepts the very real possibility that they are, in fact, an apex predatory omnivore or an opportunistic omnivore with at least the ability to harvest mammal or pescatarian protein when it's convenient...then the possibility remains that they will ****** a hairless tool using ape such as a human if it is low risk high reward.  

As for a firearm, I carry a Glock 20 in 10mm with Buffalo Bore Big Game ammo when I am out in the field for ANY reason, whether I am hunting deer or fishing.  Less because I think Bigfoot is going to prey on me, though I allow for the possibility, but more for the very real possibility that a black bear with a ****** attitude and general disposition may want to nibble on my ass.  If "attacked" by a Bigfoot, the reality is that you're probably going to be dead before you knew an attack was coming because it's probably going to be from ambuscade and done by the Grand Master Gold Medalist Hide And Seek Champion of the world. 

BUT...the Ape Canyon account tells us that one was shot and fell into a gorge, and when the miners were allegedly attacked, they used their rifles and shotguns to drive the "Mountain Devils" away, so there is a presumption that guns DO have an effect on them and they won't "woo away on a moonbeam".  Hell, even if you believe Justin Smeja killed not one, but two mind ya, TWO of them....then...the possibility that guns work on them like any other biological critter remains.

Now, the bad news....the ONLY way that any firearm would be of ANY value is if you have at least a little warning, and even then, 99% of gun owners are barely competent to carry a gun and not shoot themselves in the foot on a range, let alone during an adrenaline dump facing a dangerous animal charge/attack.  Over 27 years as a police officer having to review literally hundreds of videos of person to person gun fights from stores, etc....the probability of emptying your gun concurrently with your bladder and bowels are about the same while missing every shot.  Sorry if the truth hurts...buuuuuut...there it is.  Most people survive because they were the luckiest and least incompetent combatant.

When in a dynamic critical incident, you will ALWAYS default to your level of training and as the extreme vast majority of gun owners don't get ANY training beyond MAYBE a hunter safety class, or a CCW class taught by Joe The Tactical Plumber, then the default will be "draw gun, **** pants, miss target, panic, empty magazine or cylinder, scream like a chick".  Generally lifelong hunters who don't get "buck fever" are exempt from this, trained competitive shooters, or prior military with combat arms/deployment MOS are fairly stress inoculated too, but it also depends upon keeping up with training.  I have been in several critical incidents during my career where other officers who were not "gun people" who placed a high value on training were next to useless in a gun fight, so I am not ******** on John Average Gun Carrier.  I am ******** on other cops too.

But....It's not ALL bad news even for the 99% who are a danger to their own feet in a high stress situation.  Based upon not only my own face to face encounter were I am convinced that the revelation of my pistol is what caused the one I was staring at to flee, there have been other encounters where the BF/SQ took off when the presence of a firearm was discovered...so I believe, based upon this, that a visible firearm probably has a deterrent effect.  So, if I were part of the 99%, I'd carry a 12 gauge shotgun or a big old hawg leg in a hip holster so it could be seen as a deterrent to a hungry, opportunistic BF/SQ.