Is Bf Instead A Plains Ape?

[Gotta Know]

I've been wondering about a topic that goes to BF population (originally posted in the recent "population" thread but didn't want to hijack); I've seen it speculated that whatever the poplulation is now, "there used to be a lot more of them." I started thinking about what would deplete BF populations in our modern era and the first notion is (of course) habitat loss and degredation through human encroachment. But I also wonder if BF's weren't also at one time a plains species and subsisting on the bounty of the great bison herds?

 

Elk used to be primarily a plains animal until sheer need for survival pushed them into the mountains. When I think of BF's huge size and lightining-fast speed, it only makes sense that they would have been supreme predators on once plentiful bison, able to run down and overpower old and weak animals with relative ease. Put another way, their own great size might have been a direct result of their quarry! And their coordinated and documented "army like" tactics speak to coordinated manuevers to cull their target from a herd.

 

What's more, their great night vision would have given BF the upper hand to make kills without being spied by angry herd bulls or cows; plus the advantage of simply approaching the vast herds in the first place (buffs have good but not great eyesight but VERY good smell; BF night vision might allow them to get closer to buffs who don't want to stampede in the dark in relative blindness). I have no idea if there is any anecdotal evidence to suggest a "plains ape" as it were, but their present day sightings in the midwest suggest a possibility to me.

 

So I'm wondering, were BF (like the elk) pushed to the woods to survive following the eradication of the bison herds and our ceaselss westward encroachent? Thoughts?

Edited May 24, 2013 by Gotta Know

[Guest DWA]

Who knows? Intriguing at least. Don't know what the lore of Plains Indians says about that. Sure not aware of any. I would consider this an essential part of the puzzle.

Competition with wolf and grizzly bear in the open would in my opinion have been VERY problematical.

[Guest]

I've been wondering about a topic that goes to BF population (originally posted in the recent "population" thread but didn't want to hijack); I've seen it speculated that whatever the poplulation is now, "there used to be a lot more of them." I started thinking about what would deplete BF populations in our modern era and the first notion is (of course) habitat loss and degredation through human encroachment. But I also wonder if BF's weren't also at one time a plains species and subsisting on the bounty of the great bison herds?

 

 

Given that no one saw a BF until roughly 50 years ago, I'd say that the opposite is true: there used to be a lot fewer of them. 

Edited May 25, 2013 by leisureclass

[Guest DWA]

Given that no one saw a BF until roughly 50 years ago, I'd say that the opposite is true: there used to be a lot fewer of them. 

 

 

In this field where there is much uncertainty, there are flat correct and flat incorrect statements.  You just made one of the latter.

 

The New York Times was pushing for resolution of this issue - in 1871.  Wow, feels like more than 50 years ago, don't it.  Time do fly.

Edited May 25, 2013 by DWA

[Guest JoelS]

All I can say is that it's an interesting theory.  All we can do is speculate until we learn a lot more about them.  And that won't come easy.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

This is quite an interesting subject in my opinion. I am one of the few proponents of the idea that the bigfoot population is larger today than it was a hundred or two-hundred years ago, and I believe it will continue to steadily rise. It stands to reason that sighting reports should be on the rise as well, as people spread further into sasquatch habitat, with new subdivisions and buildings being constructed in relatively rural areas. But unfortunately it is impossible to tell whether I am correct, since we know for a fact that only a percentage of witnesses submit a sighting report, and most of those who do have had a recent sighting. Some submit sightings from back in the 70's, up until recent times, but we have no idea what percentage of people.

 

Personally I would estimate that less than 10% of sightings get reported. Maybe way less than that. I don't know what others believe though. I do not think however that our encroachment into their territory has hurt them that much...YET. It willl in the future, and that is the main reason I believe documenting them scientifically, and then protecting them, is essential. They are not in danger now, but who knows how long it will be before they are in serious danger. But there is no arguing that humans must have pushed them into a smaller area. But even though this is probably the case, I feel there is ample room and food for them to live comfortably in most states in the United States.

 

Regarding whether they were ever "plains" animals, I would have to say no. I say this because of many different factors, including their mass, instincts, running speed, etc...Native Americans were effective at hunting plains animals like bison mainly because they utilized horses, which are swift runners. It has been said that sasquatch are swift runners as well, but personally I doubt that they can run as fast as a horse. Even if they do kill deer, and even if they at one time killed bison, I do not think they would have done it by running them down and tackling them, or swiping the animals legs out from under it to bring it down.

 

Rather, I believe that they are mainly ambush predators when it comes to larger game. Another tactic that the sighting record suggests is the working of sasquatch in groups or just pairs. I remember one report of two sasquatch who entered a sheep (I think sheep) pen and then herded one of the animals into an area where the other could grab it and break its neck. Even if this sighting report were false, this is likely a tactic they would use. And it would be much easier for them to ambush prey in a wooded environment, as opposed to the open plains. I suppose that a large group of bigfoot could have descended on a herd of bison from all directions, after crawling to a close distance, or utilizing the landscape as cover if the ground was not completely flat. But this method does not seem likely. It would also suggest a level or coordination that I do not believe sasquatch to posses.

 

It is not that they are not intelligent enough, rather I do not believe they are "social" enough. I don't think they live in huge tribes or anything, or have bigfoot rendezvous once a year or anything like that. I think that they are rather solitary animals, living only with their immediate family, or often even alone. Whether they live in groups or not, in my opinion, is based on the males, and their mating habits. Are they monogamous or do they mate with multiple females? This will depend on the population, as well as other factors. Do males stay with a single female, or do they roam around looking to mate with multiple females?

 

I honestly do not have a very strong opinion regarding this matter. I just don't know, and I don't think there is enough evidence to provide enough grounds for probability either way. But if I had to guess, I would say that it depends. I think that many relationships are monogamous. Probably the majority. But I also think that it is quite common for solitary males to roam around. I doubt they have a particular mating "season," but they could. A lone male probably spends his time searching for food and females. I wonder if they "date" like humans do. I mean would a male find a female and then "court" her, or would they just get at it? And if they did, would the male then stay with the female? How does the female choose whom she wishes to mate with? Does she even get to choose?

 

These are questions that are so interesting that I would love to know the answers, but unfortunately all answers would be nothing more than speculation, just as most things are when it comes to sasquatch. I mean just think about all the things we do not know. Basically everything. What we think we know very well could be wrong. We may think they are avoiding humans, but from their perspective this might not be the case. I really am quite passionate about the subject of sasquatch in general. I am going to have a field day when science documents these animals, and begins to study them. Especially if a live one is ever captured. It will happen sooner or later, both discovery and capture. Once science admits these animals are out there, money is going to come from everywhere for the study of these animals. Maybe then the government wildlife agencies will release what they know.

 

Regardless of how it happens, most scientists are not going to take the correct approach to studying these creatures. So even after their discovery, it is going to take a while before the biologists who are in the field to realize that they are going to have to alter their search methods to get any good results. But with the increased number of people in the field, there will be those who get lucky enough to gather some form of data. So I am going to be ecstatic once we start getting information about how these animals live, their behaviors and characteristics, etc. So many questions, and not enough answers. And most answers are probably going to lead to more questions initially. We are living in the right time when it comes to sasquatch. At least I hope so.

[norseman]

I've been wondering about a topic that goes to BF population (originally posted in the recent "population" thread but didn't want to hijack); I've seen it speculated that whatever the poplulation is now, "there used to be a lot more of them." I started thinking about what would deplete BF populations in our modern era and the first notion is (of course) habitat loss and degredation through human encroachment. But I also wonder if BF's weren't also at one time a plains species and subsisting on the bounty of the great bison herds?

Elk used to be primarily a plains animal until sheer need for survival pushed them into the mountains. When I think of BF's huge size and lightining-fast speed, it only makes sense that they would have been supreme predators on once plentiful bison, able to run down and overpower old and weak animals with relative ease. Put another way, their own great size might have been a direct result of their quarry! And their coordinated and documented "army like" tactics speak to coordinated manuevers to cull their target from a herd.

What's more, their great night vision would have given BF the upper hand to make kills without being spied by angry herd bulls or cows; plus the advantage of simply approaching the vast herds in the first place (buffs have good but not great eyesight but VERY good smell; BF night vision might allow them to get closer to buffs who don't want to stampede in the dark in relative blindness). I have no idea if there is any anecdotal evidence to suggest a "plains ape" as it were, but their present day sightings in the midwest suggest a possibility to me.

So I'm wondering, were BF (like the elk) pushed to the woods to survive following the eradication of the bison herds and our ceaselss westward encroachent? Thoughts?

Your flawed in your belief that elk were only a plains animal to begin with. but its a common misconception.

certain sub species lived on the plains to be sure, but the now extinct eastern elk alwsys lived in the eastern woodland. and the roosevelt still lives in pacnw forests today.

they were not forced their by white hunters, they always lived there

[bipedalist]

^^^ What he said (north and south in the east too)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_elk

 

http://www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescience/elk.htm

 

 

Banner Elk in NC got it's name for a reason. 

Edited May 25, 2013 by bipedalist

[MIB]

GK -

 

I suspect, but my "proof" is obviously weak for now, that BF is a mountain "ape", WE are the plains "ape".   Compare relative foot structures as specializations, as darwin's finches specialized, for different terrain to keep our two kinds from competing directly.  

 

MIB

[norseman]

GK -

 

I suspect, but my "proof" is obviously weak for now, that BF is a mountain "ape", WE are the plains "ape".   Compare relative foot structures as specializations, as darwin's finches specialized, for different terrain to keep our two kinds from competing directly.  

 

MIB

 

Agreed.

[Guest]

I think the OP raises at least a valid question....

 

DWA mentions competing with wolves and grizzly bears...   also very interesting.

 

I have read twice now, the book "Undaunted Courage"  by Stephen Ambrose (of Band of Brother's fame), which is a biographical following of the Lewis and Clark expedition.   It's a fantastic read, and much of it is based on, and follow the actual accounts from Meriwether Lewis's journal. 

 

The thing that stands out to me in relation to the OP's idea/question-  is that the Lewis and Clark expedition took place a little over 200 years ago, and the Great Plains were a very different place compared to what they are today.   Herds of Bison numbered in the ten's of thousands stretched for miles, and both wolves and grizzly bears were plain dwellers themselves- following the herds as they migrated.

 

I dont see any reason why if Bigfoot's were around at the time, that they wouldnt do the same.    But looking at Bison as a food source is kind of restricted to one region of the country anyway, and there's obviously not enough evidence to say that Bigfoot's are nomadic, although common sense would dictate that once they have started to deplete the food sources in any given area, they would need to move on to find new sources.

 

As I mentioned above, I cannot recommend the book enough.  It was fascinating to take an in depth look at what Lewis and Clark (and their expeditionary team of 30+ men) endured, the hardships they faced, the wonders that they saw, and the relationships they had with native peoples.

 

Much of it I had never been taught in school, and it was both extremely interesting, and eye opening.   For instance, one quick example- I had never known that Lewis had suffered a gruesome and somewhat mysterious death only a few years after completing the expedition.

 

 

Sorry for the slight derail, but this topic got me thinking about the book...  I may have to read it again soon...  lol.

 

 

-A-

[norseman]

I think the OP raises at least a valid question....

 

DWA mentions competing with wolves and grizzly bears...   also very interesting.

 

I have read twice now, the book "Undaunted Courage"  by Stephen Ambrose (of Band of Brother's fame), which is a biographical following of the Lewis and Clark expedition.   It's a fantastic read, and much of it is based on, and follow the actual accounts from Meriwether Lewis's journal. 

 

The thing that stands out to me in relation to the OP's idea/question-  is that the Lewis and Clark expedition took place a little over 200 years ago, and the Great Plains were a very different place compared to what they are today.   Herds of Bison numbered in the ten's of thousands stretched for miles, and both wolves and grizzly bears were plain dwellers themselves- following the herds as they migrated.

 

I dont see any reason why if Bigfoot's were around at the time, that they wouldnt do the same.    But looking at Bison as a food source is kind of restricted to one region of the country anyway, and there's obviously not enough evidence to say that Bigfoot's are nomadic, although common sense would dictate that once they have started to deplete the food sources in any given area, they would need to move on to find new sources.

 

As I mentioned above, I cannot recommend the book enough.  It was fascinating to take an in depth look at what Lewis and Clark (and their expeditionary team of 30+ men) endured, the hardships they faced, the wonders that they saw, and the relationships they had with native peoples.

 

Much of it I had never been taught in school, and it was both extremely interesting, and eye opening.   For instance, one quick example- I had never known that Lewis had suffered a gruesome and somewhat mysterious death only a few years after completing the expedition.

 

 

Sorry for the slight derail, but this topic got me thinking about the book...  I may have to read it again soon...  lol.

 

 

-A-

 

Your right of course........Wolves and Griz did live on the plains. But Wolves and Griz lived in the mountains as well........... so that shouldn't be a hurdle.

 

I think it goes right back to what MIB said. The plains areas were ours.......we evolved there, we excel there and a Squatch caught there by a group of 20 hunters would be in serious trouble. On the other hand, while we live in the mountains and forests as well, there were areas that we just didn't go. In the PacNW these places are called "Skookum" or "Skookumchuck".

 

While reading the Wilderness Hunter by Teddy Roosevelt, I remember him talking about a woodland Caribou hunt he went on in northern Idaho. And the Kalispel Indian they hired as a porter/guide didn't want to leave the valley and travel very high into the mountains. They basically had to prod this guy day in and day out. He finally spilled the beans and told them he was afraid of the "little people" in the mountains........which of course the white men guffawed it. But it speaks a lot about the mindset of the local Indians in heavily forested, mountainous areas. They stayed along river bottoms and valleys that were open and really did not venture far into the mountains.

[Guest DWA]

Wolves and grizz may have lived in the mountains, but they are much more creatures of open country.  The attributes of sasquatch give it an advantage in forest...which is one reason why black bears stayed there rather than compete with grizz in more open habitats.

[norseman]

Wolves and grizz may have lived in the mountains, but they are much more creatures of open country.  The attributes of sasquatch give it an advantage in forest...which is one reason why black bears stayed there rather than compete with grizz in more open habitats.

 

That's not true either.

 

Unless of course you define coastal brown Bear as not Griz. As for wolves? There were Eastern Wolves when Europeans first came to this continent. No, I would say they both are adapted to a variety of terrain and traditionally so.

[Incorrigible1]

Norse, you're not incorrect, but careful not to discount just what biomass there was upon the Great Plains of America. The historic plains, with their bison herds, are among the largest biological ecosystem known. The cattle country west of the Missouri river once contained unfathomable numbers of bison.

 

Do you realize just how enormous even a cow bison is? (Norse, I know you do.)  Yes, grizzlies walked and predated among the vast herds, and wolves took their share. The sheer number and mass of the animals roaming the vast grasslands of the Great Plains was greater than the migration of Africa.

 

Could BF have made a living among the enormous herds of bison? Perhaps, I certainly can't discount the proposition. I will say, considering the impressive size and ferocity of an adult American Bison, I seriously doubt it. And again, the old lack of fossil remains is a serious challenge to the proposal.

Edited May 26, 2013 by Incorrigible1