What Is Killing Off The Sasquatch? Yoicks! Could It Be Us?

[Guest]

We are killing them off? What data are you using to theorize that there are fewer today than there were 25 years ago? 50 years ago? 100 years ago?... Last information I had on Bigfoot numbers was that aside from speculation we really have no clue how many of them there are. It's very difficult to create a realistic theory about a population in decline if we have no facts on the number of that population currently or from the past. Therefore I find theories like this one, based purely on speculation, a waste of time and energy in the community. We need to be focusing on information that has a chance of being substantiated. I know that there will always be speculation in this field until a bigfoot is really recognized by science but we need to keep this speculation based on some of the evidence we have on these creatures.

I think it was pretty much established at or near the beginning that this thread is quite speculative. I am all for seeing some numbers on these creatures, too. BUT the title reads: "Could it be us?" Seems to anticipate speculation, and I hope that most folks participating recognize that there might some less-than-substantiated-but-hopefully-reasonable ideas flying around. Why participate in a thread if it does not meet your criteria, or if the whole notion seems "too speculative?" And perhaps the "maybe we should protect these things/people because their numbers MIGHT be dwindling" argument could bring interested funding/attention to "the field." Speculation on my part again. Maybe the thread will get folks thinking about how our species impacts other species. Yes, we would need some sort of physical recognition of Sasquatch before evaluating population size , so yes, speculating is putting the proverbial cart before the horse. But, umm, this is an open forum on an internet website. I don't think any of us need data to speculate when we say, "what if" or "this is speculation, but.." And I, for instance, am not a "researcher" myself; I am a follower of the bigfooting world. I don't see anything wrong with the occasional "what if." So I have to disagree with your scathing critique of either the thread or the posts, and disagree with the judgement that posters on an internet site should not put energy into "speculation." But, one person's reasonable speculation is another's wild speculation. It is what it is. And sometimes speculation is fun and interesting, especially when you make clear that it is only speculation. I do sincerely agree and hope that "real researchers" are putting in more hours in the field gathering passable scientific evidence than we followers spend on the internet....

[Guest squatchrider]

I think it was pretty much established at or near the beginning that this thread is quite speculative. I am all for seeing some numbers on these creatures, too. BUT the title reads: "Could it be us?" Seems to anticipate speculation, and I hope that most folks participating recognize that there might some less-than-substantiated-but-hopefully-reasonable ideas flying around. Why participate in a thread if it does not meet your criteria, or if the whole notion seems "too speculative?" And perhaps the "maybe we should protect these things/people because their numbers MIGHT be dwindling" argument could bring interested funding/attention to "the field." Speculation on my part again. Maybe the thread will get folks thinking about how our species impacts other species. Yes, we would need some sort of physical recognition of Sasquatch before evaluating population size , so yes, speculating is putting the proverbial cart before the horse. But, umm, this is an open forum on an internet website. I don't think any of us need data to speculate when we say, "what if" or "this is speculation, but.." And I, for instance, am not a "researcher" myself; I am a follower of the bigfooting world. I don't see anything wrong with the occasional "what if." So I have to disagree with your scathing critique of either the thread or the posts, and disagree with the judgement that posters on an internet site should not put energy into "speculation." But, one person's reasonable speculation is another's wild speculation. It is what it is. And sometimes speculation is fun and interesting, especially when you make clear that it is only speculation. I do sincerely agree and hope that "real researchers" are putting in more hours in the field gathering passable scientific evidence than we followers spend on the internet....

First of all I do not think that my post was scathing. I do understand that a forum like this on a topic like this allows for speculation. I will even go so far as to say that speculation will be required on this topic. We don't know much about this creature at this time and need to speculate to try and find answers until the factual answers appear. However, I believe topics like this pull us further away from the path of true discovery at this point. Healthy speculation, I believe, has a basis in fact and then expounds upon the fact into the realm of what if. I won't take this any further for fear of offending another member. This is my opinion and I will just let other members speculate away at will from now on without interjecting my opinion unless I feel it will enhance the discussion in a positive fashion.

Edited January 22, 2011 by squatchrider

[Guest]

We do know a lot about ourselves and how our brain works, what our tendencies and habits are, so you can go with a known to attempt at a guess for an unknown.That said, we don't have very good eye sight. If our brains don't accept something as a reality, it simply chooses not to see it. So I'm not so sure skeletal remains haven't been found, they might have and we never heard about it. Other than a skull, if I found any part of a bigfoot skeleton, I might attribute that to a human or some other known animal depending on how intact it was. This could also be true of living bigfoot. How many bear or moose have been seen from a distance that no one paid any attention to? Were they always bear or moose? How many things go on around your rural or suburban dwelling that borders national forest land that you attribute to other animal activity? Based on those kinds of knowns, such as human nature and psychology, I came to the conclusion that there are potentially more bigfoot out there than one would assume considering they haven't officially been discovered. You can look at this all kinds of ways and draw opposite conclusions regarding whether bigfoot is endangered or not.

[Guest]

-------------------------------------------------

Kane2002, on 21 January 2011 - 01:32 PM, said:

A. We have not discovered or found a body or part of a body.

WE have not. Have OTHERS ?

B. Really only one good set of film, the Patterson-Gimlin. And some won't even accept that.

TRUE but resolution problems.

C. Can you a Sasquatch hunter go out this weekend and find a certifiable castable track?

NO.

Anywhere, for sure?

In TIME some can.

D. Why are they so afraid of us? We don't hunt them, shoot them, or trap them, so why are they

so shy around us?

Good question previous answer I like is we are magicians. We have stuff that creates light and sounds. I suspect some have seen what we do to deer and other hunted wildlife. Translated: We have surprises and big equipment lol. Is it possible they communicate from their sentinels ?

E. Why hasn't some 18 wheeler mowed one down, they get everything else?

Luck and some would say low numbers. Maybe bodies have been confiscated by the powers at be. Regarding what is killing them off, what signs do we have of that? I think by managing our major predators we are enhancing habitat for them. Add the fisheries. That may suggest an increase in numbers which might correspond with locations of reports. IF they are as cryptic as many suggest, reports are generally ignored, and sounds that might be them result in nothing being done. I would guess their chance for larger numbers than most would accept is possible. That would suit them well if so.

[Guest Crowlogic]

One thing is certain there simply can't be the number of Sasquatchs that puts them in nearly every one of the lower 48 states. I think they went extinct in the 1970's. But even at their peak numbers before Europeans arrived in the New World I'd be willing to guess that there were never more than a 3000-5000 individuals. The physical evidence and lack thereof indicates that if they did indeed exist that they were rare in the extreme.

[Guest]

The nearest comparable type of critter in terms of habitat to sas is the bear, and bears are doing just fine...in fact in some places they are TOO numerous.

I think there are plenty of sasquatches, we simply don't encounter most of them.

[Guest]

The nearest comparable type of critter in terms of habitat to sas is the bear, and bears are doing just fine...in fact in some places they are TOO numerous.

Well CRAP! It must be a sign of the apocalypse ...I agree with Mulder.

[Guest rockinkt]

LOL! I'm with you Redwolf!

To be fair to Mulder since I post when I disagree with him - I should also acknowledge when I do agree with him.

[Guest Kane2002]

Let me clarify my thoughts. The reasons I gave, A through E was to substantiate my feelings that I believe there are very few BF about. My reasons A-E had nothing to do with killing them. A-E only gives the reasons to show my thoughts in the scarcity of BF. IMHO human borne disease kills them and still does. As new strains of flu (like H1N1) develop they kill us-why wouldn’t they kill Sasquatch?

To my reader “Old Dog.†How do I know there haven’t been any bits or parts of bodies found? I don’t. But I believe that if there had been, it would be on display. Think of the “Kennewick Man.†A few years ago a partial skeleton of a male Caucasian estimated to be near 10,000 years old was found on the banks of the Columbia River near Kennewick WA. In his thighbone was the broken partial of a stone spear point. One skeleton and it is still causing all sorts of fits between the NA and the Corp of engineers and local scientists. Who, where, why and who can have the bones, such an argument rages on. Would not a much larger partial skeleton cause the same concerns and conjectures? Would not those of us who pay attention to these things notice its find? I think so, and I would have.

I am in possession of two hydrocal-cast footprints. They are very large. I did not cast either one however I do not have any reason to believe they are not authentic. No, I did not see the critter as he walked along making the tracks. One came from the Blue Mountains in Eastern WA. Found and cast by a water resource employee, Paul Freeman. The other I purchased from Dr. Jeff Meldrums’ collection at a BF symposium a few years ago in Idaho. There are several pictures of cast tracks owned by Dr. Meldrum and others in the picture sections of his book “Sasquatch, Legend Meets Science.â€

I have been in the home of Canadian, John Green on several occasions and reviewed his fine collection of footprints. I feel I could recognize an authentic foot print VS a Ray Wallace fake, were I to see one. In 60+ years of hunting, fishing, trapping and hiking throughout Canada, the Western and Northwestern states, I have not been fortunate enough to have seen a certifiable track. If there are so many Sasquatch out and about where are they? Not in my back yard. In my opinion Sasquatch are **** few and far between. The big question and response I wish to raise is why?

There are many people more knowledgeable than I am; that have found and cast footprints and other body impressions, such as the “Skookum Meadows body imprint.†I do not have any reason to believe that they are not actual and that BF does not exist. In fact, I believe they do. My sole reason to start this thread was to try to explain my theory for their limited numbers.

There is a lot of misidentification out there. Every bent blade of grass and broken twig do not a Sasquatch make. Show me the physical tracks before I will believe one passed through.

[Guest]

"My sole reason to start this thread was to try to explain my theory for their limited numbers."

Ok,I understand that. You sound a little aggravated that we don't all agree with you. You did ask for input.........

[norseman]

Is it plausible that the human species is negatively effecting Sasquatch populations? Yes I think this is a reasonable assertion.

Somebody mentioned Black bear, yes Black bear are doing very well coping with global warming and human expansion. But on the flip side of the coin Polar bears are endangered. And it's not because we are running them over with cars, or hunting them to extinction. We are through our actions, none the less are killing them, every year the polar ice cap shrinks, because of our obsession with energy produced by burning carbon.

Look at the great apes, the Borneo Orang could be extinct by 2050. Jungles are cleared for palm oil production, by the millions of acres annually.

But the bottom line is without scientific recognition and study, we simply have no idea what the population is doing. We do not even have a understanding of what the species needs in order to survive.

Living in the PacNW all my life, the first thing that strikes me as a problem is that we have destroyed our fisheries. Where I live was the home to the mightiest falls west of the Mississippi, Kettle Falls on the Columbia river. The Indians would come from all over the inland region of the N. Rockies to harvest 2 MILLION pounds of fish annually. The Colville, Kootenai, Okanagon, Lake, Kalispel, Flatheads and others all fished there, or came and traded buffalo for salmon. Grand Coulee dam ended this salmon run forever in 1941 upon completion, no fish ladder was built and the subspecies of salmon that spawned in all of the tributaries of the upper Columbia went extinct. It's human actions like that that can have huge impacts upon habitat that we do not fully understand or appreciate.

[Guest vilnoori]

Any time there are migration waves of animals from one previously isolated area into another new diseases will be carried along and have an impact both ways. But there has to be two things that make it possible. First the two populations of animals have to be closely related in the first place. Secondly there has to be contact on a regular basis or depending on the virulence of the disease-causative agent at least contact to a susceptible individual and group of individuals. Apparently there have been waves of human migrations all over the world, including North America, for the last several hundred thousand years. Our recent European migration here is one of any number of them. Each time presumably the populations on each side of contact weather the storm, have temporarily decreased numbers, then recover their population.

It took until the early part of the 20th century for European diseases to migrate and effect NA populations on the West Coast, and so if populations of sasquatches also were affected that is when we would have expected their numbers to slump. Since then there has been a steady and constant influx of people from Europe, Africa, Asia and so on. Isolation of human populations has become super rare now in this era of jet-setters. There has been a constant flow of disease-causing microbes all over the world for several decades now. The H1N1 epidemic last winter showed us just how fast a virus can get around the world. So if contact is occurring (and that is the question here) between sasquatches and humans today they would have had the same epidemic, the same immunity response and the same effect on population (which was little to none).

I would caution anyone who thinks they have a habituation situation going with a clan of sasquatches to take care not to go to them when you are feeling ill. You owe it to them to be careful.

Edited January 23, 2011 by vilnoori

[Guest]

Global warming is a farce. That is my opinion based on facts that I have researched and not the media alarmists.

Polar Bears are not endangered Polar Bears not endangered

every year the polar ice cap shrinks, because of our obsession with energy produced by burning carbon.

There has been calving in the western Antarctic. This happens every 10-20 years or so. The ice in Eastern Antarctic was more dense in 2009 than it had been in 10 years.

2009 article

I am not saying we shouldn't be caretakers of the earth, but the information that gets tossed out by alarmists is destructive and does nothing to further any cause once the truth is revealed. The alarmists lose steam for their cause and people become fed up with the whole "crisis" mentality that has become the norm in media.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Redwolf

[Guest vilnoori]

I agree that it seems that environmental arguments are over dramatic and the science allows for dissenting opinion. But it is getting off topic a tad, don't you think?

Edited January 23, 2011 by vilnoori

[Guest]

Duly noted. It was brought into the conversation and I thought I would bring a different point of view.

I must say that I find it interesting that you called me as being off topic when I responding to someone who was also off topic...but then again...

Nevermind.

Edited January 23, 2011 by Redwolf