norseman Posted February 22, 2013 Admin Posted February 22, 2013 Holy COW! That's a big bear, Cervelo. Where did that monster live/die? I guarantee you that is a Alaska coastal brown bear.
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 A) I don't think anybody is claiming that bears prey on bigfoot. We are discussing the outcome of a chance territorial encounter. B ) You bring up all sorts of fanciful stories to prove your point that Sasquatch is a alpha predator. If Sasquatch is an alpha predator like a Grizzly bear or a Wolf, than they would have been hunted to extinction just like the Griz or the Wolf. I think Sasquatch is much more prone to be a berry picking, tuber digging, fish eating omnivore. Than something that runs down it's supper everyday with a little bit of greens on the side. Perhaps if we could ask the Native American's did they fear and respect a bear more than BF? Are you serious with your opinion of BF? Have you not read some of the reports, not even from NA's in yester-year, but some from present day hunters? Have you not read some of their testimonies that they haven't been hunting SINCE seeing one? Where some people state they didn't even think of shooting a BF because they doubt it would have stopped them? Are you trolling us....do I need to copy/paste some accounts?
Guest COGrizzly Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 I guarantee you that is a Alaska coastal brown bear. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/giantbear.htm#.USb9RB2siSo And for what it's worth, I'd think the two creatures respect one another and basically try to stay away from each another.
norseman Posted February 22, 2013 Admin Posted February 22, 2013 Perhaps if we could ask the Native American's did they fear and respect a bear more than BF? It's a question worth asking.........they respected Bears a great deal. Are you serious with your opinion of BF? Have you not read some of the reports, not even from NA's in yester-year, but some from present day hunters? Have you not read some of their testimonies that they haven't been hunting SINCE seeing one? Where some people state they didn't even think of shooting a BF because they doubt it would have stopped them? Yes, I'm serious. If they were apex predators like you say they are? Then humans would be in much more conflict with them. The Grizzly Bear and Wolf are apex predators and they were decimated. I reject that just because human hunters are in the woods they would have shot a Bigfoot by now. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if your both going after the same prey? Your going to bump shoulders often and conflict is going to occur over the resource. This happens often in areas where there are human hunters and Grizzly bear. With humans even being killed after they take the shot and kill the animal. Why don't we read reports about that? Humans being killed by a Squatch over a elk or deer carcass? If a human is killed then they will investigate. In the 411 books I remember reading about one account where a bow hunter in the Yukon was killed, with the investigation stating that it was a bear that had killed him, but with strange circumstances surrounding it. If Sasquatch was the predator that a Grizzly bear was? Then we would be reading about this type of stuff OFTEN and not in the Yukon........but Montana, California, Washington, Ohio, etc....... Or there is some other mitigating reason as to why Bigfoot being the king of the hill, will step completely out of the way for his smaller cousin? Are you trolling us....do I need to copy/paste some accounts? I'm not trolling you, you and I just don't see eye to eye. And by all means please use everything at your disposal to convince me. To me the numbers just don't add up...........Apes are generally not apex predators, we humans are the only exception and we only managed this by tool manufacture.......as we lacked the god given tools of a predator. Despite some scary stories, we really have no evidence that Bigfoot is a refined apex predator of ungulates. Consider this.......in my 42 years of life as a hunter in the Pac NW, I've never had an instance of a Sasquatch pushing me off of a kill, nor discovering that one was stalking the same animal I was........in fact I've never seen hide nor hair of them, despite the fact of being a fairly successful hunter. To be fair? I've never been attacked by a Bear or a Cougar either........but I have many friends who HAVE and have the scars to prove it. It certainly punches much closer to home.
Guest DWA Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) ^^^I just happen to think that, like the bear, sasquatch is a refined apex predator, of ungulates and of other stuff. He just happens to be much better at staying out of our way so that resource conflicts don't go badly for him. (Not to mention: deer? No worries.) He's better than the bear at picking his spots. Why? Well, this is one reason I want sasquatch confirmed, so we can find that out. (Distribution - including, apparently, in areas where bear have been driven out - seems to indicate that he's better than this at the black bear. Who is a LOT better at it than the grizzly.) I should also add that, when he does run afoul of us, nothing happens to him. Why? HE'S NOT REAL. Which tells you why the griz is in much more trouble. We don't have a mental problem with him. Other than the very basic, pathological one we seem to have with everything that tries to share space with us. Edited February 22, 2013 by DWA
norseman Posted February 22, 2013 Admin Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) ^^^I just happen to think that, like the bear, sasquatch is a refined apex predator, of ungulates and of other stuff. He just happens to be much better at staying out of our way so that resource conflicts don't go badly for him. (Not to mention: deer? No worries.) He's better than the bear at picking his spots. Why? Well, this is one reason I want sasquatch confirmed, so we can find that out. (Distribution - including, apparently, in areas where bear have been driven out - seems to indicate that he's better than this at the black bear. Who is a LOT better at it than the grizzly.) I should also add that, when he does run afoul of us, nothing happens to him. Why? HE'S NOT REAL. Which tells you why the griz is in much more trouble. We don't have a mental problem with him. Other than the very basic, pathological one we seem to have with everything that tries to share space with us. So what your saying is that Bigfoot makes a choice to stay out of our way, while we are in the forest hunting. While the Griz does not. Ok.........I can sort of live with that. But that opens up a couple more questions I have: A) A large apex predator should be taking every opportunity for protein that it can. So if a Squatch CAN push a weak little human off of a elk kill? Why doesn't he? It's going to take a lot of calories to fuel a large body like that, especially one that doesn't hibernate like a Bear. Fall is the season of preparing for the cold months ahead. B ) If a Squatch is zeroing in on the ungulate population? Then he is going to pop up on the radar of biologists that follow ungulate herds. They study kill sites and assign responsible predators to those kill sites. So how is it that Squatch slips through the cracks? By my logic, only two explanations can be had, either biologists misidentify kill sites OR Squatch is not making a meaningful dent in the ungulate population. Either because there are too few of them, or because they really do not focus that much on ungulates to begin with. Consider this, it is a known fact that Chimps hunt, but of their diet only 3% of that comes from meat. A Griz on the other hand that do not have fish runs to rely on still can have a diet consisting of 20% meat. With coastal bear diets being much higher of meat, but most of that is from fishery stock. The reality of the situation is that neither apes (minus humans) nor bears are apex predators. An apex predator is something that eats exclusively meat, such as a Cougar or a Wolf. That's not to say that apes or bears cannot be opportunistic, but by the numbers those opportunities are few and far between. Edited February 22, 2013 by norseman
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 The Bear pictured above was confirmed(???) by, I believe either Monsterquest or Is it Real? to be a cross between a Grizzly and a Polar Bear. O.O
Guest Cervelo Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Holy COW! That's a big bear, Cervelo. Where did that monster live/die? Alaska... I think he's about 10' and 1000 lbs or so, There's a little photo trickery that most sportsman engage in by putting the subject closer to the camera than the hunter/fisherman thus making the subject look bigger. But he's still a big boy and that paw and claws would decimate all comers without a gun IMO. When we read reports of bears hauling butt because of Bigfoot...it's got nothing to do with Bigfoot and everything to do with the little biped with the boom stick. No this is not the hybrid bear Edited February 22, 2013 by Cervelo
Guest DWA Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 ^^^Actually, I think that was a different bear (whose coat if I recall made it look more like a polar bear than a brown bear).
Guest Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) There are reports of people being pushed off their ungulate kills whether deer or elk by big rocks being thrown at them. Grizz obviously push people off their kills and I have read that they have been directed and alerted to them by gunshot. You wonder if the big guys do that too. Most people are unaware of how little meat that grizz do ingest.. compared to the foraging of plants and miscellaneous things like insects (ok thats meat). It will be interesting to see what comes up in the future after its more ok to talk about the subject .. and if they increase in number.. regarding their potential impact on ungulate populations.. or if there is any ... I would guess its more localized than widespread.. due to the variety of possible food sources out there in different regions... Regarding the bear picture, the wide angle lenses they use in the capture often contribute to ridiculous size ratios.. despite all the followup comments misrepresentation on a lot of pictures remain common. Regarding size, 1600 lb is a wt attainable by both polar and brown bear but its not that common and I see no indication that this is a hybrid. It has the hump.. hybrid vigor is a consideration I suppose. I am not convinced that the information associated with the photo is correct.. perhaps.. *On another note I took a moment to review claims for largest individuals of ea species. Several references site 2500 lb the largest brown bear.. record wt with the polar bear second at 2200lb. These were represented by single specimens. The average wts are far lower. So a 1600 lb brown is only a hundred lb heavier than the upper level suggested for them size wise.. up to 1500 lb normally. I think this is a case where you can find literature to support whatever position you want to hold on it. Edited February 22, 2013 by treeknocker
Guest DWA Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 So what your saying is that Bigfoot makes a choice to stay out of our way, while we are in the forest hunting. While the Griz does not. Ok.........I can sort of live with that. But that opens up a couple more questions I have: A) A large apex predator should be taking every opportunity for protein that it can. So if a Squatch CAN push a weak little human off of a elk kill? Why doesn't he? It's going to take a lot of calories to fuel a large body like that, especially one that doesn't hibernate like a Bear. Fall is the season of preparing for the cold months ahead. Well, there are numerous reports of sasquatch pilfering deer (mainly) kills from the hunter. But they tend to stay out of sight, work quick, and use intimidation techniques known from many reports (e.g., vocally threatening from out of sight range) to secure the prize. To me, it would seem they don't push us off kills for the very reason smart bears (IMHO) avoid us: beat up one, and 50 with guns will come after you. B ) If a Squatch is zeroing in on the ungulate population? Then he is going to pop up on the radar of biologists that follow ungulate herds. They study kill sites and assign responsible predators to those kill sites. So how is it that Squatch slips through the cracks? If a biologist has ever seen this (e.g. John Mionczynski), he has tended to run into The Stone Wall of Denial, either his own personally (count on it), or as in John's case, that of his employers. By my logic, only two explanations can be had, either biologists misidentify kill sites OR Squatch is not making a meaningful dent in the ungulate population. Either because there are too few of them, or because they really do not focus that much on ungulates to begin with. Or, count on it, my third option above, "I didn't see that." Consider this, it is a known fact that Chimps hunt, but of their diet only 3% of that comes from meat. A Griz on the other hand that do not have fish runs to rely on still can have a diet consisting of 20% meat. With coastal bear diets being much higher of meat, but most of that is from fishery stock. Can't make claims as to percentage volume; I haven't studied it. But what bears and chimps eat in the way of meat, they are very good at getting. So too with sasquatch. The reality of the situation is that neither apes (minus humans) nor bears are apex predators. An apex predator is something that eats exclusively meat, such as a Cougar or a Wolf. That's not to say that apes or bears cannot be opportunistic, but by the numbers those opportunities are few and far between. Well, then we are just quibbling over terms. A sasquatch eats pretty much what it wants. Most of the time that is stuff that won't fight back, just like bears.
Guest Cervelo Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Com'on man really, I'm standing there with a gun that just took down an elk, most likely with others armed and biggies running us/them off with rocks. The only reason bears run off hunters is because the hunters can't shoot them, it's going to get someone killed if it hasn't already. But it is a great example of how smart (or dumb maybe) a bear is. Edited February 22, 2013 by Cervelo
Guest DWA Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 There are reports of people being pushed off their ungulate kills whether deer or elk by big rocks being thrown at them. Good point; I have read at least one such report from AK; and other from AK as well of hunters shooting a black bear; not retrieving it immediately, and being in no hurry figuring that with the blood trail it wasn't going far....and finding it dead the next day, in a hole that had been dug, by something, covered very carefully with a layer of overlaid ferns. Hmmmmm. Usually it seems to be rapid and stealthy pilferage, with intimidation of the hunter should the hunter follow closely enough to provoke an encounter.
norseman Posted February 22, 2013 Admin Posted February 22, 2013 The Bear pictured above was confirmed(???) by, I believe either Monsterquest or Is it Real? to be a cross between a Grizzly and a Polar Bear. O.O Nope. That's the bear your thinking about.
Recommended Posts