gigantor Posted March 6, 2011 Admin Share Posted March 6, 2011 (edited) Assuming a static population is the least of the errors in my analysis. Well, thank you for admitting that shortcoming and much more. I rest my case vis-a-vis your analysis. Edited March 6, 2011 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Huntster, on 05 March 2011 - 08:50 AM, said: Well done! I'll avoid belaboring the exchange and simply enjoy that witty reply! Thank you, sir. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Well, both compliments (appreciated) can be contested by many, but I'll surely admit this: That was among the best replies I've ever gotten on an online forum, and I salute you for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Fun thread, my response to the base Q of the thread: Ample habitat (water, food and cover). That can vary due to the preposed flexible diet of the BF. We know we have reports that suggest they predate: deer, bear (smaller blacks), elk, fish, small game, livestock (primarily pigs,chickens,cats, but also includes sheep, goats, etc.). They also take vegetation of all kinds. If these foodstuffs are available year round that would to me be more ideal than scraping by. So states with a large hooved mammal population, cover such as conifers, and plenty of moisture.. so whether that is temperate rainforests that you might see in the Pac NW including Alaska and western Canada OR other areas that have the cover along with mountains, rivers, streams, (fisheries access) or wetlands such as swamps and marshes, PLUS the land that is open for range. If there are a few rural families in there to get some dumpster diving in once in awhile and teach the youngens about people and their stuff.... that might be an asset as well. Anyone wondering about black bear predation please check out Rob Alleys book that Bobby O. suggested (Raincoast Sasquatch).. it is one of my favs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Hunster, Thanks once again. As to anyone who questions your social status or scholarly capabilities, just consider the source. Pteronarcyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 In my post #57 I managed to make a spectacular idiot of myself. I owe Pteronarcyd a public Apology. He outlined his criteria clearly, and I went charging ahead with my train of thought inapproprietly. All I can say, is sorry for interrupting the Thread and I'll endeavor not to make the same mistake again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Thanks, grayjay. We both appear to have survived intact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 On 2/27/2011 at 6:01 PM, Guest PAKid said: What in your opinion are ideal bigfoot living habitats? This thread is meant to be opinionated, so do not start fighting. I would just like you know what YOU think is an ideal bigfoot habitat. Thanks, PAKid 1) Near water. The animals might move large distances, and a number of sightings have been made good distances from water sources, but the vast majority of reports indicate they're staying near water. Many reports include consumption of aquatic foods: fish, shellfish; water plants; etc. 2) A range of both plant and animal foods. Deer appear very important; I'd consider mast as important as it is for deer bear and turkey, so mast-bearing trees are very likely to be in good habitat. John Bindernagel, examining reports in OH, PA and MD, said that what convinced him of the legitimacy of the reports was the excellent range of potential foods, among which deer and mast-bearing trees are prominent. If those things are there, a range of smaller animals and plants of which many records of sasquatch consumption exist are almost certain to be present. 3) Lots of cover. Many - I'd say most - reports are close to residences and other human artifacts (roads, trails, campgrounds, parks, farms/ranches, etc.). This isn't surprising; if lots of people are seeing them, one wouldn't expect many reports to be in the most remote of remote places. However, all of these reports share one commonality: natural travel corridors, or large tracts of what appears good habitat, are very nearby. 4) Farms and ranches, speaking of those. Much of the eyewitness literature indicates that crops and livestock can figure prominently in the diet. If there are significant tracts of wild habitat nearby, this may represent the "most ideal" potential habitat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I forgot to point out one thing about what I just posted: It is what a scientist would absolutely expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts