Saving Bigfoot

[Guest]

Hummm tried to edit the above post when I saw your moose carcass post. It said I didn't have permission......All I can tell you is it has to do with the center of gravity. Moose are horizontal, Bigfoot is vertical. Bigfoot more than likely is more agile than a moose based on a bigfoot's description. It might be going to far to suggest that they learn the same principals of gymnastics when they are children climbing trees, but that is a distinct possibility if they are primates.

[Guest Xskeptic]

I know people all over the south (& a few in the north), who see & hear them regularly.

Proof please, or is that just unsubstantiated blabber.

The fact that you have never seen one isn't positive proof that they are rare,

I'm not surprised that the Huntster hasn't seen one. Heck I've hunted for 60 years in the state that has more reported sightings than any other state in North America without seeing one. In fact, it wasn't until recently that I found very good tracts that convinced me bigfoot is most likely real. All of my hunting friends don't believe BF exists because they have not seen it or found anything that suggest it exist. Nope, I think this creature whatever it is, is rare indeed.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 02 December 2010 - 11:28 AM, said:

I've given up on you. I'm writing for other readers.

Well, that's a shame. It's so hard to keep somebody to argue with.

Yes, but there might be more fishes in the sea than sasquatches behind your trees..........

It's good enough for me to firmly believe that they are not inhabiting my hunting areas.

Good enough for me, too, but unless your hunting area covers the entire continent, it doesn't mean that they aren't somewhere else.

I'm rather confident they are somewhere else, but I'm also very confident that they aren't behind every tree there, either.

And that is why I've given up on you. You are welded to the position that there are many sasquatches, and the reason why they have avoided official discovery is because they're a better ninja than ninjas.

I thought you said that I said that they avoid "official" discovery because they are more intelligent than humans. Now you're talking about ninjas. Which is it?

Both. They apparently are so smart that they can avoid vehicular collision like no other creature (including man), and they're also so stealthy that great numbers of them can exist in areas populated by millions of humans (hunting, hiking, flying, fishing, surveying, etc) and not be seen.

[Huntster]

......All I can tell you is it has to do with the center of gravity. Moose are horizontal, Bigfoot is vertical.

I do agree that the difference in the center of gravity would likely put a sasquatch rolling over the roof after getting it's legs swept, while moose tend to go through the windshield.

But I've never read a report of such happening. Must be the ninja effect; the sasquatch just jumps like Spiderman and disappears.

[Sasfooty]

Yes, but there might be more fishes in the sea than sasquatches behind your trees..........

Yep. I expect there are, too.

I'm rather confident they are somewhere else, but I'm also very confident that they aren't behind every tree there, either.

Who said they're behind every tree? Oh...I bet that's some more of your obvious exaggeration!

Both. They apparently are so smart that they can avoid vehicular collision like no other creature (including man), and they're also so stealthy that great numbers of them can exist in areas populated by millions of humans (hunting, hiking, flying, fishing, surveying, etc) and not be seen.

Isn't it amazing how much we can agree on?

[Huntster]

I'm not surprised that the Huntster hasn't seen one. Heck I've hunted for 60 years in the state that has more reported sightings than any other state in North America without seeing one. In fact, it wasn't until recently that I found very good tracts that convinced me bigfoot is most likely real. All of my hunting friends don't believe BF exists because they have not seen it or found anything that suggest it exist. Nope, I think this creature whatever it is, is rare indeed.

That's my experience. I stumbled upon one very good set of tracks in my entire life, and it was in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Since moving to Alaska a few years after that, I haven't seen hide, hair, or print.

But I'm in Southcentral Alaska, not Southeast. I believe Southeast is more likely habitat for a number of reasons, but I'm quite confident that they are still quite rare there.

Considering such a density, I think it's more than reasonable to consider the species threatened, if not endangered.

[Sasfooty]

Proof please, or is that just unsubstantiated blabber.

More unsubstantiated blabber, because I don't think they would want me spreading their names around here.

They would possibly be here themselves, but some people are offended by being called unsubstantiated blabberers.

It doesn't bother me, though.

[Guest Xskeptic]

More unsubstantiated blabber, because I don't think they would want me spreading their names around here.

They would possibly be here themselves, but some people are offended by being called unsubstantiated blabberers.

It doesn't bother me, though.

Thanks for being honest.

[Sasfooty]

Thanks for being honest.

I'm always honest, but you're welcome anyway.

[Guest Xskeptic]

That's my experience. I stumbled upon one very good set of tracks in my entire life, and it was in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Since moving to Alaska a few years after that, I haven't seen hide, hair, or print.

But I'm in Southcentral Alaska, not Southeast. I believe Southeast is more likely habitat for a number of reasons, but I'm quite confident that they are still quite rare there.

Considering such a density, I think it's more than reasonable to consider the species threatened, if not endangered.

Yeah, nothing like a good spoor to change ones mind.

Are there more black bears than browns in the Southeast? is that one of the reasons?

I heard about some place in Alaska where tree stumps have been uprooted and shoved in the ground upside down. Is that anywhere near you?

[Huntster]

More unsubstantiated blabber, because I don't think they would want me spreading their names around here.

They would possibly be here themselves, but some people are offended by being called unsubstantiated blabberers.

While sasquatches might be smarter than the average IT engineer, their fingers are too fat to type. That's why they don't participate on this forum.

[Huntster]

Are there more black bears than browns in the Southeast? is that one of the reasons?

Southeast is really a neat place. For one, it is the largest temperate rain forest on Earth, and it is also a huge island archipelago. It's as large as the state of California, and only 75,000 people total live in the entire region (and 3/4 of those people in the two towns of Juneau and Ketchikan). There are few to no roads. Travel is primarily by air or ferry.

Secondly, yeah, some areas of southeast are actually devoid of brown bears, and those areas are brimming with very large black bears. On the other hand, some of the islands have high densities of brown bears, and those islands are also devoid of black bears.

I believe another reason why the southeast coast is better habitat than southcentral is snowfall amounts. North of Yakutat gets much more snow, and it stays (accumulates) longer/deeper. That is especially so once you get to Prince William Sound. The amount of snowfall there is incredible.

But once you get north of the Chugach Range and upper Cook Inlet (where I am), snowfall is less again, but you're out of the evergreen rainforest. It's a mixed forest like interior British Columbia; birch, poplar, and both white and black spruce. Colder, too.

I heard about some place in Alaska where tree stumps have been uprooted and shoved in the ground upside down. Is that anywhere near you?

No, that's southeast...........Prince of Wales Island, for sure. Maybe other islands down there, too, but I don't know which.

Frankly, I think that was loggers or something..........

Edited December 3, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest Xskeptic]

Southeast is really a neat place. For one, it is the largest temperate rain forest on Earth, and it is also a huge island archipelago. It's as large as the state of California, and only 75,000 people total live in the entire region (and 3/4 of those people in the two towns of Juneau and Ketchikan). There are few to no roads. Travel is primarily by air or ferry.

Secondly, yeah, some areas of southeast are actually devoid of brown bears, and those areas are brimming with very large black bears. On the other hand, some of the islands have high densities of brown bears, and those islands are also devoid of black bears.

I believe another reason why the southeast coast is better habitat than southcentral is snowfall amounts. North of Yakutat gets much more snow, and it stays (accumulates) longer/deeper. That is especially so once you get to Prince William Sound. The amount of snowfall there is incredible.

But once you get north of the Chugach Range and upper Cook Inlet (where I am), snowfall is less again, but you're out of the evergreen rainforest. It's a mixed forest like interior British Columbia; birch, poplar, and both white and black spruce. Colder, too.

No, that's southeast...........Prince of Wales Island, for sure. Maybe other islands down there, too, but I don't know which.

Frankly, I think that was loggers or something..........

Thanks Huntster for that info. Sure hope to make it up there before I die.

[Guest DWA]

On ‎11‎/‎28‎/‎2010 at 9:43 AM, Guest said:

I've been hearing this rational used on other threads as a reason for researchers to relinquish evidence in order to prove their claims. Is this emotional manipulation for selfish curiosity or is this genuine concern for the plight of an animal/huminoid?? that most of us aren't certain exists? As of 2005 over 100 million people world wide are homeless for various reasons. That rate may have increased due to changing political situations and the world economic crisis. That means that 1/4 of the world's human population is living like Bigfoot. I view the issue from this perspective. I just really don't care about proving Bigfoot exists although I'm interested in the subject. It's the holiday season and time to be thankful for what we have,that includes the luxury of worrying about Bigfoot. Maybe I missed something more subtle about the issue,assuming the big guy exists, why is preserving Bigfoot important to you?

Dam F'in good question.  And the reasons.

1.  Don't pretend you care about humanity if you don't care about the natural world.  We are finding out, on more fronts it seems daily, that what we do to nature...gets done to us.  Enough, right there.

 

2.  Not only that.  If it exists, sasquatch is what you call yer "umbrella species," the straw that stirs the drink in the ecosystems it inhabits.  Core sasquatch range is probably some of the best left; removal of an umbrella species is not only a direct invasion of that system but sets in motion all sorts of cascading indirect effects, most all of them awful.  ENOUGH, right there. 'coz blow it on 2. ...and you are sure as heck blowing it on 1.

 

3.  Humans make their own bed.  NO, I do NOT go in for this current Blame The Victim For His Problems kick. But homelessness happens for the same reasons despoliation of nature happens.  We won't control our population we don't take care of our young and our sick and our needy and...I know I don't need to go on there.  But cutting off the natural world to fix those problems...makes them terminal.

 

4.  BECAUSE I WANT THERE TO BE THINGS HERE OTHER THAN WHAT WE GOT DONE RUINING.  Have a nice day.