Migration

[Guest]

I can only guess at bigfoot thought processes. I'm not sure whether they consciously practice conservation or not, it might just be a matter of taking only what they need when they need it, learning what is or isn't edible, how to avoid getting hurt, what is considered suitable shelter and where it is appropriate to seek shelter. If your body was equipped the way bigfoot seems to be there wouldn't be much need to plan ahead. I can't think of a predator for bigfoot, other than humans. That means any survival planning they do would be avoiding where we are located. I see bigfoot living in the moment and adapting to whatever changes are forced upon his population by humans or other natural environmental changes. He seems to be fully equipped to survive on the fly which is one reason I think we haven't found evidence for him. There may be no set pattern to follow.

[BobbyO]

For the "record" (the best way to listen to The Carpenters), I could listen to Karen sing almost all day long. Depends on the day, though. Some days it's Ella Fitzgerald. But I digress . . .

Of course, deer and elk numbers are enormous compared to their predators. But I do think if there were populations of bigfoots subsisting on them we'd notice something. Case in point is Yellowstone NP. Some folks say that the introduction of wolves has resulted in dramatic ecological changes in the Park. While wolves were gone, there wasn't really anything eating elk consistently - especially though the winter when the bears are out of commission. A lucky coyote here and there, a Golden Eagle takes a newborn in spring - that's about it. Now there's something in that place that eats elk - regularly - all year long. It makes a difference in behavior and has had reverberations through the ecosystem, e.g., recovery of aspen. (Caveat: the wolf interpretations at Yellowstone can be confounded by the effects of the 1988 fires . . . )

Across huge areas of wt deer distribution, there is no consistent predator. Occasionally lucky coyotes, elk, bobcat, black bear, etc. sure, but nothing except automobiles that systematically hunts deer, every day, all year long. Wolves are gone. Cougars gone or just starting to come back. Maybe studying deer in areas of cougar recolonization could be insightful. Are there more carcasses to find? How do cougars and coyotes interact? Do coyotes scavenge cougar kills? Can you follow coyotes to find cougars? Do coyotes follow bigfoots? Can we follow coyotes to find bigfoot kills? Lots of cool questions to ask regarding the ecological ramifications of a specialist predator on an abundant prey species . . .

I understand what you're saying Sas completely, i just don't think the numbers would be sufficient enough to notice anything specific..

We could point to a direct collaration with the decline of the Deer Population in the area i've been talking about over the past 10 Years, but there wouldn't be anything specific in it to suggest a BF was reasponsible.

Of course the Official line would state other Predators amongst other things for the decline but we wouldn't expect them to tell us ( the Public ) about BF, so therefore how are we expected to notice soemthing, if we are not to accept that the actual decline itself is " something " even though there isn't anything specific for us to notice ??

That's what i'm really trying to do here though really, ideally give Researchers a basis to actually go & have a look in area's where, albeit it's only summizing but area's that when we look it them, there DOES seem to be " something " to go on.

We can't look at the fws.gov website to look for areas of known Habitat or go on some Montana hunting Website to buy Map's for Migrating BF & the Trails they use so we have to do things like this or at least try to, in my opinion.

It's a toughie & one with more questions than answers really, just like the whole subject.

Edit : Still not goign with The C's, i'm thinkign more Lady Gaga these days actually..

Edited December 11, 2010 by BobbyO

[Guest tracker]

There's thousands of newborn deer, elk every spring in parks like YNP. So if the big guys killed a few dozen more deer/elk every year in the back country no one would even notice, nothing is wasted. The wolves, bears, cougars and nature take all the credit.

I am sure they would move to better shelter or to be closer to the game animals in the winter at least if they didn't live in a great place like YNP.

[BobbyO]

Am i right in saying, Colorado specifically & the areas that have been looked at in this Thread, that the Snow Levels through Winter are very high anyway given the high Altitudes of the area on the whole ??

Guess i'm asking if, because of the high altitude's & Snow Levels, it'd be likely to rule out them moving in Colorado to get away from the Snow at x time of the Year ??

[Guest COGrizzly]

Am i right in saying, Colorado specifically & the areas that have been looked at in this Thread, that the Snow Levels through Winter are very high anyway given the high Altitudes of the area on the whole ??

Guess i'm asking if, because of the high altitude's & Snow Levels, it'd be likely to rule out them moving in Colorado to get away from the Snow at x time of the Year ??

Well that made no sense... last post did not post.

Loong story, I think they would not move out of Colorado because the elevations are so extreme. Any BF in CO stays in CO....just like Vegas.

Edited December 16, 2010 by COGrizzly

[Guest]

There's thousands of newborn deer, elk every spring in parks like YNP. So if the big guys killed a few dozen more deer/elk every year in the back country no one would even notice, nothing is wasted.

Maybe, but my point was that the addition of a few wolves to Yellowstone was very much noticed. So too would be a seasonal influx of subsistence hunters of deer or elk across huge areas of the U.S. A few bigfoots spending the winter hunting deer in, say, Alabama? That should leave a lot of carcasses lying around by spring, and probably some notable decline in deer numbers during subsequent growing seasons. The first people to notice if bigfoots had been feeding on deer for a winter would probably be the foresters, surprised by a good year for oak regeneration.

[Guest tracker]

Not sure if the demand on game from a few ominivour Sasq should be compaired with 4 or more of pure carnivour wolf packs of 8-10 adult members in each. Wolves would be much more successful hunters also. Especially in places like YNP.

Watch out for the Buffalo there! I wonder how the preds do against them?

[Guest]

Not sure if the demand on game from a few ominivour Sasq should be compaired with 4 or more of pure carnivour wolf packs of 8-10 adult members in each.

That's my point - if there are migratory bigfoots out there, they ain't specialist deer hunters.

[BobbyO]

That's my point - if there are migratory bigfoots out there, they ain't specialist deer hunters.

In your opinion.

[Guest]

In your opinion.

Of course. I tend not to include phrases such as "in my opinion" because they are redundant.

[Guest vilnoori]

That's my point - if there are migratory bigfoots out there, they ain't specialist deer hunters.

Like NA populations they probably depended a lot more on game, and especially deer (or farther north, Caribou), in the winter and early spring, before there was much else. The exception being fish--though preference for fish was largely a cultural thing. These would be largely inland populations. Those beside the ocean would have many more choices.

[norseman]

I remember Jimmy Chilcutt talking about finding two tracks that matched that spanned thirty years. One track was cast in N. California and the other track was cast in SE Washington. He was quite certain it was the same individual by studying the dermal ridges.

(I could be rusty on the exact details)

If true, I most certainly would define that distance as possibly migratory.

[BobbyO]

Of course. I tend not to include phrases such as "in my opinion" because they are redundant.

No probs, it's just that you have a habit of making things sound like just because you have said/wrote it, that that's the end of it, when it's not..

No biggie..

[Guest]

Good one norseman. Any idea on the distance there ? IF they can actually cover 100 miles in a very short time, in a field season of foraging, that looks like either a big range or any number of possibilities. I think Doc Meldrum suggests BIG territories at least for some. Then you have potential clan competition that is likely variable depending on .. uh.. the variables.

[BobbyO]

I remember Jimmy Chilcutt talking about finding two tracks that matched that spanned thirty years. One track was cast in N. California and the other track was cast in SE Washington. He was quite certain it was the same individual by studying the dermal ridges.

(I could be rusty on the exact details)

If true, I most certainly would define that distance as possibly migratory.

Yep, this is it norseman.

Chilcutt developed an expertise in primate skin patterns as an offshoot of his ongoing study of the human fingerprint. His archive of more than 1,000 ape-skin impressions - prints he collected from tranquilized orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas - is the largest such collection in the world.

When Chilcutt visited Meldrum's lab, it seemed his hunch would turn out to be accurate. He quickly determined that the ridges he found in the first track Meldrum gave him were from a human finger.

But when he examined the rest of Meldrum's collection, Chilcutt found two casts with coarse ridge patterns similar to each other but different from humans or known great apes. One cast of a footprint discovered in Washington's Blue Mountains in 1985 astonished him with the distinctive puckered scars of several healed wounds.

"When primate skin heals, the ridges curl inward toward the wound," he said. "Someone would have to know a real lot about biology and dermatoglyphics to know that. Anybody that smart wouldn't be messing with fakes."

While Chilcutt allows that any single track could be a hoax, he said the skin impressions he has identified in the Blue Mountains track were consistent with those found in a Bluff Creek track from 1967. "We're talking about 18 years and 700 or 800 miles apart," he said. After he spoke about his finding on National Public Radio, a sheriff's deputy sent in a cast of a track he'd found in Georgia in 1977. Same pattern.

In mid-November, Chilcutt examined skin impressions from alleged heel impressions from the body imprint discovered in Washington. He said they match the other four examples he's identified.

Unlike other Bigfoot researchers who are often the object of professional scorn, no one has stepped forward to contradict Chilcutt.

"I'm so well entrenched, my reputation as a latent fingerprint examiner is secure," he said.

"So I don't have that problem. Knowing my background and expertise, they accept my findings." Chilcutt said he's encouraged Meldrum to continue his research.

"I tell Jeff, "There's no question this animal is out there, so don't give up,'- " Chilcutt said.

"I want him to not give up on this. He's on to something."

Edit : Source - Denver Post

Edited December 16, 2010 by BobbyO