Saving Bigfoot

[Huntster]

Hummmm, you might be right when you say verifiable because if all it left was a dent that doesn't prove a thing. I wasn't bringing it up for that reason, just merely using cow versus bigfoot against cars as a comparison.

My whole point is this:

Even though grizzly bears are not common animals in the states, but are common in a state with few roads (Alaska), they are still killed by vehicles every two or three years. So since sasquatches have never been found dead after a vehicle collision, and even if they have intelligence equal to or even superior to humans, they still must either:

1) Spend the vast majority of their time in roadless areas, or

2) Be much more rare than grizzlies, or

3) Both of the above.

[Huntster]

I've mentioned the human road kill, too, and since sasquatches are clearly more intelligent than humans, they must possess "super-human intelligence", right?

So, did you figure that out all by yourself?

No. In fact, I don't agree with the statement at all. That is what you're implying, right?

Sounds like you may be a Grizzly expert.

Close, but not quite.

How many have you seen in Alabama?

There are no grizzlies in Alabama. That's the point. That's why they don't get shot there, hit by cars there, reported there, leave footprints there, etc.

Get it yet?

How many bears have you seen running fast enough on their hind legs to be mistaken for a bigfoot?

None. Never. However, if misidentifications of bears is what some people see instead of bigfeet, then the opposite must be true, right?

You can't have it your way 100% of the time............or can you?

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 01 December 2010 - 04:34 PM, said:

1) How many is "plenty"? Oh lets see, I can think of three off the top of my head, but one was a motorcycle, does that count? A guy ran into a reddish colored one and spun out, he got a handful of hair but I never read what he did with it. There is the story on Monster Quest of the girl hitting a Bigfoot just as she was arriving home. I've read a report where one got confused while trying to get across an interstate in California full of witnesses and got clipped by a truck.

Did you see the recent post here of the bigfoot that got hit and killed on the highway? It turned out to be a bear. In Florida.

2) I've seen plenty of cars that hit moose, and even one that hit a black bear. The damage is a given.

I think it has to do with how tall the sasquatch is, if it gets hit, it is usually the lower leg which allows a roll off, otherwise the car would look like an accordion

Did you know that moose are 7' tall at the shoulder? And did you know that they have very long legs?

Guess what usually happens when a car hits a moose? The car sweeps it's legs out from underneath it, and the moose tends to enter the car through the windshield.

And they die. Often inside the car.

So is the eventual death of the struck animal..........yeah, but if no major organs are hit, then it's possible it could limp away to safety before being found and survive, just depends on the speed of the car and the position it's standing in when and if it gets hit. If it's squatting in the road I imagine it would be hurt worse. The bigger and taller you are the more likely you are to go flying rather than being squished.

One summer I had the great job of mowing a forest of 15 year old poplar, spruce, and birch down with a hydro-ax for moose browse (my kind of environmental project!). This was along the Davis Highway between Ft. Richardson and Elmendorf Air Force Base. I left a "green belt" next to the highway that was about 50' wide. Just like previous cuts.

I found no fewer than five moose carcasses and skeletons in that stuff. They had been hit on the highway (40 mph speed limit), ran off, laid down, and died.

If that had been a sasquatch, and if it had been reported as hit, and if there was somebody who gave a rat's ass and used dogs to track it down, we'd have a carcass by now............sasquatch, bear, moose, something.

Don't you remember the fattest kid always got catapulted the highest on the trampoline?

I grew up in an era way, way before the trampoline fad.

[Guest tracker]

I've heard of the big guys getting clipped before.Then they get up and continue into the woods. It must be their height and mass that saves them. Their not stupid wandering animals, they watch for traffic. Many have been spotted doing so from the tree line before crossing. It would take a full on collision with a big rig or a train to kill one. They can move pretty fast so maybe thats why they only get clipped and survive?

There's a report out of Washington state? (oregons site) where a guy in his rig almost creamed a youngling crawling on the hwy and the parent that raced across and picked it up at the last second. The height of the parent BF was as tall as the top of his rig, it's waist was at his hood level. He said the youngling look to be about 6' and 300-400lbs. Apparently the parent without breaking stride snatched it up from a dead lift and continued walking across into the tress carrying it. He said he never seen anything move that fast and be as powerful as that creature was to pull that off. It's a good one,

[Sasfooty]

My whole point is this:

1) Spend the vast majority of their time in roadless areas, or

2) Be much more rare than grizzlies, or

3) Both of the above.

Sounds like you're just grasping at straws, trying to make excuses for your lack of expertise at spotting one.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 01 December 2010 - 07:43 PM, said:

My whole point is this:

1) Spend the vast majority of their time in roadless areas, or

2) Be much more rare than grizzlies, or

3) Both of the above.

Sounds like you're just grasping at straws, trying to make excuses for your lack of expertise at spotting one.

I suppose it could sound like that to someone who claims to have one living under her bed, but I haven't spotted any extraterrestrials, zebras, or giant squids in my moose, caribou, deer, and bear hunting trips, either.

Rather than calling it "grasping at straws", won't you at least acknowledge the rational of my position rather than refusing to even discuss the possibility that if sasquatches exist, they are rare or few in number rather just really good at hiding behind every tree?

[ShadowBorn]

Rather than calling it "grasping at straws", won't you at least acknowledge the rational of my position rather than refusing to even discuss the possibility that if sasquatches exist, they are rare or few in number rather just really good at hiding behind every tree?

Huntster

Rather then calling them few in numbers i would call them rare and on occassion do show themselves to us every so often.I still like to compare them to Grizzlies in such a way that they are capable of covering so much land and not be seen. Also that the young males seems to be solatary creatures and that these are the ones most often seen and are the ones that make mistakes that are not often made twice.There is something else that could be compared to them with Grizzlies and that is and this is speculation on my part how they might mate.If they wonder long distances like a grizzly then they also mate on certain times of the year which would lead to battles for domanance which would take place deep in the woods.That would also explain why these creature may not be seen .

By them not wanting to reveal themselves keeps this species alive and well for their survival.If they test their young on us for stealth then does that not tell alot about what this species is capable of?If Hunters are seeing these creatures close to thier stands while they are deer hunting or even elk or whatever and happen to shoot a deer or elk ect.ect.... and happen to loose that deer after knowing where that animal want down what does that tell you of this animal and it's capablilities? Now i am talking about suburbs where there is farms and neighborhoods.Now does this animal sound like an animal that realy fear us ?I know that you are a hunter but these animals or beings or creatures do not think like us and if we ever caught one we will never change it .It will remain wild and understand that it does not belong in our world.So how I see it is leaving it alone is our only option.

Why hunt it when it will only hunt you in such a way that you can not dream of.It is best to just leave them alone.

[Huntster]

Huntster

Rather then calling them few in numbers i would call them rare....

Rare:

–adjective, rar·er, rar·est.

1. coming or occurring far apart in time; unusual; uncommon: a rare disease; His visits are rare occasions.

2. thinly distributed over an area; few and widely separated: Lighthouses are rare on that part of the coast.

3. having the component parts not closely compacted together; not dense: rare gases; lightheaded from the rare mountain air.

4. unusually great: a rare display of courage.

5. unusually excellent; admirable; fine: She showed rare tact in inviting them.

"Thinly distributed over an area" and "few and widely separated" is exactly what I have been describing their density.

Conversely, those I've been debating here are trying to imply (if they haven't actually come out and openly stated) that sasquatches are in much greater numbers, and are just hiding like especially good ninja, which I refuse to accept. I deny that. I am a denialist with respect to that opinion.

I still like to compare them to Grizzlies in such a way that they are capable of covering so much land and not be seen.

I also agree with that statement, and opine that such movements are exactly why we get occasional reports from unlikely habitat.

Also that the young males seems to be solatary creatures and that these are the ones most often seen and are the ones that make mistakes that are not often made twice.There is something else that could be compared to them with Grizzlies and that is and this is speculation on my part how they might mate.If they wonder long distances like a grizzly then they also mate on certain times of the year which would lead to battles for domanance which would take place deep in the woods.

I agree wholeheartedly. That also mirrors grizzly reproductive rates, which are dramatically lower than black bear reproductive rates, which are higher.

By them not wanting to reveal themselves keeps this species alive and well for their survival.If they test their young on us for stealth then does that not tell alot about what this species is capable of?

I believe this is possible. They may well observe humans on a regular basis.

If Hunters are seeing these creatures close to thier stands while they are deer hunting or even elk or whatever and happen to shoot a deer or elk ect.ect.... and happen to loose that deer after knowing where that animal want down what does that tell you of this animal and it's capablilities?

For one, if they are so stealthy that they themselves do not get shot from hunters in treestands, they either have detection capabilities greater than that of bears, they are more active at night and less active during the day than bears are, or they are significantly more rare than bears, or a combination of the above.

For example, why doesn't this happen with sasquatches?

Now does this animal sound like an animal that realy fear us ?

They must, becasue they are clearly more reclusive than even ungulates.

I know that you are a hunter but these animals or beings or creatures do not think like us and if we ever caught one we will never change it .

According to many, we are changing even the climate. And clearly, we change the behavior of wild animals in parks.

Why can't/won't sasquatch behavior change due to man's behavior?

It will remain wild and understand that it does not belong in our world.So how I see it is leaving it alone is our only option.

That is if you don't believe they are "rare", and if you don't believe that species go extinct (with or without influence of man).

Why hunt it when it will only hunt you in such a way that you can not dream of.

I've been hunted or stalked by bears and men. I'm not afraid of a sasquatch.

[Guest]

...and men.

Now that sounds like a good story! Please?

[Sasfooty]

I suppose it could sound like that to someone who claims to have one living under her bed,

There you go quoting me as saying something I never said. (Why must people keep doing that?) Your arguments would be a lot more valid if you would stick to the facts, & leave out all the nonsense.

Rather than calling it "grasping at straws", won't you at least acknowledge the rational of my position rather than refusing to even discuss the possibility that if sasquatches exist, they are rare or few in number rather just really good at hiding behind every tree?

No, I won't, because I know it isn't true. The fact that you have never seen one isn't positive proof that they are rare, & your refusal to believe it does not change my opinion in the least.

I know people all over the south (& a few in the north), who see & hear them regularly. They don't think they are endangered or especially rare, & I don't either.

Maybe they are rare in Alaska. I prefer a little warmer climate myself, & can understand why they would, too.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Sasfooty

[Sasfooty]

Huntster

Why hunt it when it will only hunt you in such a way that you can not dream of. It is best to just leave them alone.

I've been hunted or stalked by bears and men. I'm not afraid of a sasquatch.

The wise listen to those who know what they are talking about.

Julio obviously knows.

[Huntster]

Now that sounds like a good story! Please?

VC sniper took a shot at me while I was on a perimeter wire repair job. Thankfully, he wasn't the best shot in the world (or his rifle wasn't the best).

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 02 December 2010 - 07:18 AM, said:

I suppose it could sound like that to someone who claims to have one living under her bed,

There you go quoting me as saying something I never said. (Why must people keep doing that?)

A little obvious exaggeration. It's getting the appropriate and desired result.

Your arguments would be a lot more valid if you would stick to the facts, & leave out all the nonsense.

I think they're having the desired results. I've given up on you. I'm writing for other readers.

Huntster, on 02 December 2010 - 07:18 AM, said:

Rather than calling it "grasping at straws", won't you at least acknowledge the rational of my position rather than refusing to even discuss the possibility that if sasquatches exist, they are rare or few in number rather just really good at hiding behind every tree?

No, I won't, because I know it isn't true.

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.

Sorry. I'm just as firm that such is just not acceptable, and I fail to see how you could possibly "know" otherwise.

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

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

your refusal to believe it does not change my opinion in the least.

Yup. And that's fine. But I can still test and probe your opinion.

[Sasfooty]

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.

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.

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?

Yup. And that's fine. But I can still test and probe your opinion.

Oh. Ok. I don't think I've ever had my opinion probed before.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Sasfooty

[Guest]

My whole point is this:

Even though grizzly bears are not common animals in the states, but are common in a state with few roads (Alaska), they are still killed by vehicles every two or three years. So since sasquatches have never been found dead after a vehicle collision, and even if they have intelligence equal to or even superior to humans, they still must either:

1) Spend the vast majority of their time in roadless areas, or

2) Be much more rare than grizzlies, or

3) Both of the above.

I definitely think it is number (1), I'm not convinced about (2) because, the last time I checked stats, rural and remote areas were far more prevalent than urban areas. I have read reports of them being hit, more than the three I listed. I explained why I thought there was no bigfoot roadkill. It has to do with how they are hit, at what speed, by what, and how their center of gravity is higher off the ground than a grizzly bear's...as an ex gymnast you can deflect damage if you know how to transfer the kinetic energy. I just did this last week when I took a fall down my front steps to avoid hitting my back, head , and breaking my wrists. I came out with a bruise on my butt and my wooden step split like someone hit it with a karate chop but my bones weren't cracked.