BobbyO Posted March 18, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) I've seen one. Good for you Les, you're a lucky Man.. Can you post the Picture of it please ?? Edited March 18, 2011 by BobbyO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lesmore Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) Good for you Les, you're a lucky Man.. Can you post the Picture of it please ?? Unfortunately I only saw it. I did not have my cameras with me. It was before the digital age. I was in my freighter canoe, with it's trusty Evinrude, 4 hp deluxe (deluxe get's you a reverse gear) and I was drifting in a large Canadian Shield lake, on a beautiful day in October. I was about 25 feet from shore and was fly fishing for pike, by some weed beds. The freighter drifts very quietly, hardly any wake...the Wolverine was ambling by the shore...it saw me, I saw it and it ambled off with that peculiar gait. You know Bobby...there are certain things I've seen in my (over 60 years) of life...that become embedded forever in my mind....sights (mostly wildlife, wilderness) that never leave my memory. There aren't a lot and they are very significant to me.... this was one of them...this Wolverine. I was relieved that I was on the lake, not on the shore.... I've been very fortunate to live where I live...on the Canadian prairies...the northern part of the Great plains of North America. As I live near one of the extremities of the northern plains....I am also close to the Eastern edge of the Canadian Shield (90 + miles) and about 120 miles from the Southernmost edge of the Boreal Forest. I've always been an outdoorsman and can't believe my fortune that I have such ready access to these wonderful, isolated wilderness areas. As you can imagine I'm out and about in these areas on a fairly regular basis. Edited March 18, 2011 by Lesmore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted March 19, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted March 19, 2011 Great stuff Les, even though you didn't get a Picture & haven't seen one since that day to be able to take a Picture of one, i have no reason to disbelieve you as i don't think you'd make it up to just get attention nor had a Mis ID as you pointed out thatpeculiar Gait that they have.. You're a lucky Man like i said.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 If what Erickson meant was there are just as many and the purported black bear population in the US, which is close to 1 million, correct? Then I agree with him 110%, I believe there are so many its insane. Why do you think that there are so many BF? I hope that you are correct, but it seems to me we would be having more encounters if their population were as large as that. Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Wolverines are rarely seen, due as you say to small #'s and large territories...but people do see Wolverines on occasion. We do know Wolverines exist....pictures, zoos, some lucky enough to see them in the wild. BF, however does not share that even limited visibility. Yikes, There are as many hunters as there are Elk! Surely, with 60,000 hunters someone *has* to have at least stumbled over a BF, a bedding spot, just something. I highly recommend that hunters *take * camera's* with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lesmore Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) Yikes, There are as many hunters as there are Elk! Surely, with 60,000 hunters someone *has* to have at least stumbled over a BF, a bedding spot, just something. I highly recommend that hunters *take * camera's* with them. I agree. But there are cameras and there are cameras. Many point and shoot cameras ...the kind most people have are limited in what they can do. Limited ability to handle difficult lighting situations, limited ability to capture scenes well, from a distance. Yes many have 'telephoto' lens...but the lenses are not of high quality, the sensors on P+S units are small and the ability to set the camera for difficult photography conditions is limited. Also P+S cameras don't react fast...ie; shutter lag...you see a bird in flight, press the shutter...Mississippi 1, Mississippi 2...then the shutter actuates....but the bird has flown out of the picture frame. The best cameras for outdoors and wildlife photography are expensive, bulkier digital single lens reflex cameras (DSLR). But not a lot have them, or if they do are able to wring out all the capability of these cameras. Then there are the lenses...a lens with a minimum focal length of around 300 mm is necessary, IMO.here are not a lot of people who use DSLR's...fewer still that go out in the bush with good camera equipment. I do and have been doing so for decades. At first I didn't carry a good camera and a lens all the time. But as I said in the following post, I learned a lesson about always being prepared, when out in the bush. But I don't see a whole lot of others that do. Edited March 19, 2011 by Lesmore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lesmore Posted March 19, 2011 Share Posted March 19, 2011 Great stuff Les, even though you didn't get a Picture & haven't seen one since that day to be able to take a Picture of one, i have no reason to disbelieve you as i don't think you'd make it up to just get attention nor had a Mis ID as you pointed out thatpeculiar Gait that they have.. You're a lucky Man like i said.. Thank you. I am a lucky man, but also a man who has learned his lesson about having proper equipment, when out and about. Now, when I'm out in the wild, I invariably carry a small lightweight, very capable DSLR, a Pentax KM (known as a K2000 in the states), with a Pentax 55-300mm. This lens is relatively physically small, has great ratings and on a DSLR with a APS-C sensor, is the equivalent of around 450mm, which gives me significant telephoto reach. I'm ready if I get a second chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knuck Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Knuck, are you trying to form a relationship with them or are you attempting to obtain evidence? (Or both?) Respectfully, Shake Shake, I already have a relationship with them. I use gestures and some word association to communicate with them. They picked up on the gestures very quickly. I'm amazed beyond belief how smart they really are. And for those reading this, for how ever many times this makes, no I have no recorded sounds as of yet, and no photos. For now, I just want to observe their behaviour and cultivate this "friendship". I have interacted directly with them on a few occasions, and I treat them as I would other people, because they act like a kind of people. If the oppertunity arises, where I can collect some tid-bits of evidence, (photos etc.) without putting any stress on the situation, I will. This group's behaviour seems unique (for sasquatches,that is) as they live and move among us humans and our habitat every day and night. They are very stealthy, but I've found it is possible to catch one off-guard on occasion. Discovery will happen. I don't know if it will be here or elsewhere. It's just a matter of time. And for now, I'm just marvelling at my situation, and knowing that they are real! Sorry I can't please everyones wants.-Knuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Yikes, There are as many hunters as there are Elk! Surely, with 60,000 hunters someone *has* to have at least stumbled over a BF, a bedding spot, just something. I highly recommend that hunters *take * camera's* with them. There aren't 60, 000 hunters constantly traversing over Bigfoot territory. No, far from it. Hunters are far and few between to ensure that the hunting is actually safe. It would be relatively easy for Bigfoot to remain hidden from an obvious predator such as a human with a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 damndirtyape, on 16 March 2011 - 04:41 AM, said:There has been a theory proposed that Giganto had a life span close to 100 years. The longer the life span of an animal, the longer other things in it's life take, such as gestation periods, infancy, etc. With longer infancy comes greater intelligence and smaller numbers of young at any one time. This isn't true with Black Bears..... But you still have to prove that squatchy is Giganto This is not the time to "prove that squatchy is Giganto". Today, the goal is to "prove" that bipedal apes or primitive hominids still walk the Earth. Unfortunately, the only way to do so is to kill one, drag it's stinking carcass from campus to campus, and rub denialist noses in it. Afterward, they will (finally) scramble for research money to pontificate whether or not it is Giganto or not. What I think I see DDA doing here is opining and theorizing on the numbers, range, and density of these creatures in order to better come up with a plan to rub some noses in stinky fur, and I believe that his opinions and/or theories are right on the money. which massively unlikely again, imo. It is actually impossible if the existence of bipedal apes or primitive hominids is, in itself, not established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I agree. But there are cameras and there are cameras. Many point and shoot cameras ...the kind most people have are limited in what they can do. Limited ability to handle difficult lighting situations, limited ability to capture scenes well, from a distance. Yes many have 'telephoto' lens...but the lenses are not of high quality, the sensors on P+S units are small and the ability to set the camera for difficult photography conditions is limited. Also P+S cameras don't react fast...ie; shutter lag...you see a bird in flight, press the shutter...Mississippi 1, Mississippi 2...then the shutter actuates....but the bird has flown out of the picture frame. The best cameras for outdoors and wildlife photography are expensive, bulkier digital single lens reflex cameras (DSLR). But not a lot have them, or if they do are able to wring out all the capability of these cameras. Then there are the lenses...a lens with a minimum focal length of around 300 mm is necessary, IMO.here are not a lot of people who use DSLR's...fewer still that go out in the bush with good camera equipment. I do and have been doing so for decades. At first I didn't carry a good camera and a lens all the time. But as I said in the following post, I learned a lesson about always being prepared, when out in the bush. But I don't see a whole lot of others that do. Les, I am so impressed. What camera would you recommend? The best camera, if I should encounter BF, I would want to take a good picture *before* I died of shock... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 There aren't 60, 000 hunters constantly traversing over Bigfoot territory. No, far from it. Hunters are far and few between to ensure that the hunting is actually safe. It would be relatively easy for Bigfoot to remain hidden from an obvious predator such as a human with a gun. What about people with a camera? No odor of fired weapons, just camera clicks..if a human was walking quietly, not talking(yeah, like that would happen,) perhaps just being quiet,would we stand a chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Shake, I already have a relationship with them. I use gestures and some word association to communicate with them. They picked up on the gestures very quickly. I'm amazed beyond belief how smart they really are. And for those reading this, for how ever many times this makes, no I have no recorded sounds as of yet, and no photos. For now, I just want to observe their behaviour and cultivate this "friendship". I have interacted directly with them on a few occasions, and I treat them as I would other people, because they act like a kind of people. If the oppertunity arises, where I can collect some tid-bits of evidence, (photos etc.) without putting any stress on the situation, I will. This group's behaviour seems unique (for sasquatches,that is) as they live and move among us humans and our habitat every day and night. They are very stealthy, but I've found it is possible to catch one off-guard on occasion. Discovery will happen. I don't know if it will be here or elsewhere. It's just a matter of time. And for now, I'm just marvelling at my situation, and knowing that they are real! Sorry I can't please everyones wants.-Knuck Knuck, What type of sounds do you key in on to know when they are around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sallaranda Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 What about people with a camera? No odor of fired weapons, just camera clicks..if a human was walking quietly, not talking(yeah, like that would happen,) perhaps just being quiet,would we stand a chance? Only an incredibly well trained, and patient individual would ever even stand a chance. Even then, they would likely have to remain in BF territory for weeks on end before Sasquatch became comfortable enough to make its presence known. After that it would likely take several more weeks to get close and comfortable enough with the animal to photograph it. Forget about hunting it. That's just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 There aren't 60, 000 hunters constantly traversing over Bigfoot territory. No, far from it. Hunters are far and few between to ensure that the hunting is actually safe. It would be relatively easy for Bigfoot to remain hidden from an obvious predator such as a human with a gun. "Among all hunters, 564,825 were residents and 32,056 were nonresidents." Number of deer hunters in Wisconsin in 2010. http://blogs.twincities.com/outdoors/2010/11/wisconsin-deer-kill-up-6-perce.html That's just Wisconsin. Only an incredibly well trained, and patient individual would ever even stand a chance. Even then, they would likely have to remain in BF territory for weeks on end before Sasquatch became comfortable enough to make its presence known. After that it would likely take several more weeks to get close and comfortable enough with the animal to photograph it. Forget about hunting it. That's just my opinion. What, chance encounters don't count? There's a caca-load of cameras traversing the woods and suburbs of America. There's growing numbers of trail-cams. The longer I remain fairly convinced the bigfoot creature exists, the more I have to wonder just why the hell a body, dna evidence, or just a decent photo aren't harvested. :insert sorely needed "head scratching smiley here:: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts