Is Bf Instead A Plains Ape?

[Guest]

 

 

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.

 

I said "they are much more creatures of open country."  Their adaptations make it clear where they evolved.

 

(Neither, for example, can climb trees.  One can see that elsewhere.  Gray fox?  Forest animal; climbs trees.  Red fox?  Coyote?  Open-country animals; can't.)

 

Wolves and grizz (and red fox and coyote) can function in forest.  But they aren't spending most of their time there, which is why black bears (and bobcats) do and are never far from trees.  Even in the Arctic, black bears are never far from a tree, where for grizz and wolves it's routine to be out of sight of them.

 

I,  personally, never considered Alaska brown and grizz to be anywhere near the same animal.  (The lumpers won over the splitters on that one.)  But the former, where they are found in forest, are found invariably near streams running with food.

 

 

You may be generalizing off of what you have been exposed to.  I have witnessed many black bears in the Snake River breaks that are miles upon miles from the nearest tree.  There are also many bobcats that live in the deserts  where the tallest tree is some scrub brush.  Conversely, grizzlies of the Selkirks will never see anything but forest.  I have seen pronghorn on the Continental Divide between Idaho and Montana - and while not heavily forested I would not call it "plains" either.  Many animals can thrive in surprisingly diverse environments.  All that said - I'm not buying stories of BF in heavily populated suburban (or urban) areas.

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

My guess is that bigfoot never evolved at all.  If there were so many bigfoot as to drive multiple species to extinction, there'd be a body by now, especially given how common mastodon fossils are.

 

The general consensus is that Chimpanzee populations numbered in the millions just a century ago. There are still hundreds of thousands of Chimpanzees in Africa today. Prior to 2005 scientists had not identified a single Chimpanzee fossil. Even now there have been precious few identified, and those are limited to a small number of teeth.

How is it that MILLIONS of Chimps lived across Africa for hundreds of thousands of years, and it took over a century of exploration before we identified Chimp fossils? Just because we don't have the evidence that meets your criteria for being "proof", doesn't mean the animals don't exist.

 

 

And yet, we had thousands of chimpanzee skeletons.  We had hundreds, if not thousands, of chimpanzees in zoos and labs.  And Africa is a lot more remote than the Pacific Northwest.   Yet bigfoot, a species apparently so common in North America that anyone who goes looking for one will at least hear one, if not actually see one?  Not one skeleton.  Not one living specimen.   Where's the evidence?

[norseman]

 

 

I like the "generalist" description--a lot. Yet at some point, his sheer size tells us a lot about what he evolved to capitalize on. A modern day cave bear, of sorts. Here's a crazy thought: it's been thought that mastadons and mammoths were likely hunted to extinction. Who's to say it was modern humans and/or Neanderthat who did the killing? We had weapons and fire and clothing and tools, so we could afford to be smaller. What if you had to kill animals by sheer strengh and speed? And what about other huge ancient animals gone by the wayside: the aforementioned mammoths, the Irish elk bigger than any modern day moose, etc.? I realize I am mixing my observations here, but if I had to guess I'd say that BF did not evolve to hunt relatively small deer in the south. My guess is that BF evolved to target the largest and most abundant herd animals of the tundra and plains. And they did it using whatever cover they could find for concealment. In today's human-infested era, forests just give them more of what they need in that regard.

 

 

My guess is that bigfoot never evolved at all.  If there were so many bigfoot as to drive multiple species to extinction, there'd be a body by now, especially given how common mastodon fossils are.

 

 

How do you explain the hobbit then?

 

And I don't thing a Squatch is capable of driving anything to extinction.........that was our gig.

[norseman]

Well, that link says what I am saying:

 

Although their strength and basic generalist nature make climbing trees possible for grizz, they generally aren't doing it.  Black bears are much better at it, and get a hefty share of their food from up in trees.

 

The long claws of grizz are specially adapted for digging up the kinds of food one finds in open country, and not for climbing trees, which one doesn't.  The grizz's aggressiveness is also the evolutionary adaptation of an animal that didn't depend on trees when threatened.  So are the bear's reactions to intruders when with offspring.  I've had a cub treed, in a tree a foot from my face, and the mother staring right at me. 

 

More than once.  Griz?  I'm on my fourth life now.  But they were black bears.  Mom did nothing.  And that's typical. 

 

It's not that grizz can't hack it in woods.  It's that when a black bear wants to escape a grizz he can get into a tree the grizz can't climb.

 

Although now he has to get down, and has to factor his own - and the other bear's - patience into figuring out when.

 

Which, as the link points out, is why one NEVER CONSIDERS A TREE AS AN OPTION in escaping a bear.  As Doug Peacock says and my experience so far bears him out:  any bear that will let you get into a tree is one that is better dealt with on the ground.

 

The good news (maybe):  you are in a tree.  The bad news:  you are now treed.  And you did it to yourself.

 

Whoa.......slow down.

 

You know I like you and all. But your claim was that Grizzlies DID NOT climb trees. They do climb trees.

 

Do they climb trees as well as a Black Bear? Heck no. I never said that.

 

But regardless, a Grizzly bear IS a forest animal, not counting coastal Brown bears. They can put those long claws to work in a mountain meadow just as easily as they can on the plains. As well as shoveling huckleberries into their mouth or swatting an elk calf to the ground.

 

Put it this way, I would say a Grizzly bear does better in the forest than a black bear does on the plains. But we find black bear in some pretty low vegetation areas as well.

 

I was very surprised in working in the oil fields of N. Dakota to see Moose and Porcupines. Not something I expected. Those Moose have a long way to travel between Willow and Cottonwood bottoms out here. And go figure on the Porcupine. Back home they go after Pine pretty hard...........no Pine in N. Dakota.......but some in E. Montana. But there he was dead on the road...........

[Guest]

 

 

 

I like the "generalist" description--a lot. Yet at some point, his sheer size tells us a lot about what he evolved to capitalize on. A modern day cave bear, of sorts. Here's a crazy thought: it's been thought that mastadons and mammoths were likely hunted to extinction. Who's to say it was modern humans and/or Neanderthat who did the killing? We had weapons and fire and clothing and tools, so we could afford to be smaller. What if you had to kill animals by sheer strengh and speed? And what about other huge ancient animals gone by the wayside: the aforementioned mammoths, the Irish elk bigger than any modern day moose, etc.? I realize I am mixing my observations here, but if I had to guess I'd say that BF did not evolve to hunt relatively small deer in the south. My guess is that BF evolved to target the largest and most abundant herd animals of the tundra and plains. And they did it using whatever cover they could find for concealment. In today's human-infested era, forests just give them more of what they need in that regard.

 

 

My guess is that bigfoot never evolved at all.  If there were so many bigfoot as to drive multiple species to extinction, there'd be a body by now, especially given how common mastodon fossils are.

 

 

How do you explain the hobbit then?

 

 

 

Peter Jackson needed cash?

[Guest DWA]

 

 

 

Whoa.......slow down.

 

You know I like you and all. But your claim was that Grizzlies DID NOT climb trees. They do climb trees.

 

Do they climb trees as well as a Black Bear? Heck no. I never said that.

 

Actually, that's all I said.  Black bears are better at it.

 

(When I was a kid, lions didn't climb trees...because not enough people had seen enough lions in trees.  We know different now.)

 

(In a not-totally-unrelated note:  it's been recently noticed that gorillas and orangs are much more partial to water than anyone thought say, 30 years ago.)

 

We're closer than we sound on this.  But the standard take on the diffs between brown and black is that browns evolved in open country.

 

Like other bears, they're just adaptable.  Shoot, you'll see black bears in the open...when the grizz (or lack of same) will let them.

 

 

 

You may be generalizing off of what you have been exposed to.  I have witnessed many black bears in the Snake River breaks that are miles upon miles from the nearest tree.  There are also many bobcats that live in the deserts  where the tallest tree is some scrub brush.  Conversely, grizzlies of the Selkirks will never see anything but forest.  I have seen pronghorn on the Continental Divide between Idaho and Montana - and while not heavily forested I would not call it "plains" either.  Many animals can thrive in surprisingly diverse environments.  All that said - I'm not buying stories of BF in heavily populated suburban (or urban) areas.

 

Generalizing, yep, I am.  And I may be going too far on where you'll see grizz.  (And if you are seeing black bears miles from trees, maybe about them too.)  I'm doubting that salmon runs in the Selkirks are the only  reason they're there.

 

As I'm saying to Norseman:  it's more what zoologists think about where each bear evolved.  Bears are pretty adaptable in general.

 

As a kid, I was actually surprised to learn that bobcats were found anywhere other than desert.  I first thought of them as desert animals.

 

Sasquatch evidence doesn't indicate populations in heavily human-occupied areas.  Just like the case with other large animals - from mountain lions to bears to bobcats to coyotes to, well, deer - sightings tend to take place on the sparsely-inhabited fringes of large tracts of what appears excellent habitat for such an animal.

[WSA]

An  interesting theory, and as good as any other concerning this putative animal. 

 

My decidedly unscientific take on it though is: Not very likely. 

 

I look at the habits, prey and body mass of the current savannah/plains dwellers and I don't see a giant biped...at least not an omnivore. The largest animals we know of that have inhabited the plains since the last mass-extinction are the bison and the griz, but the griz is not truly adapted to prey on the other.  Of course, a plains-dwelling grizzly will feed on lots of dead/stillborn bison, but a full grown animal, even a cow, is going to just not be worth the return on investment, even if successful. (Discounting winter kills...which is an interesting theory to explore, given how the animals' foot size would "float" in snowy terrain) So, if a grizzly can't really exploit that protein on the hoof, is it likely that a squatch would/could fill that niche? I know, I know, a full grown male sasquatch is supposedly even more formidable than a she-grizzly guarding her cubs, but really? Faster? More determined and fierce? Bigger claws? Greater bite force and larger canines ? Pretty hard to imagine.

 

Smarter, well maybe, but that leads you to wolves.

 

(But, which leaves me to wonder: Exactly what evolutionary forces were selecting grizzlies to develop their formidable strength/size? Is it just bear vs. bear conflict? I mean, crap, a griz can live on pine nuts, and although those claws are great for digging, it would seem to be a bit of an evolutionary overkill, wouldn't you say?)

 

So, wolves have succeeded through socialization and cooperation, but there is not much evidence sasquatch cooperate to that extent.  A pack of sasquatch running down a bison is certainly something you'd be sure to note, if you ever saw it, I would think. 

 

I would be careful though about drawing any anthropomorphic comparisons between the plains tribes and hypothetical sasquatch bison hunters. As has been pointed out, they did it with horses and other tools...and it was a relatively recent adaptation made possible by the reintroduction of the horse to N. America. Yes, you can make a living almost exclusively off of large herbivores like bison, but unless you are cooperating to the extent of driving them off of cliffs (and getting more meat than you possibly can eat, preserve or transport in the bargain) you better have very specialized tools. Wolves are the most analogous species, and like I said, I don't see a sasquatch having those skills.

Edited May 28, 2013 by WSA

[Guest]

And yet, we had thousands of chimpanzee skeletons.  We had hundreds, if not thousands, of chimpanzees in zoos and labs.  And Africa is a lot more remote than the Pacific Northwest.   Yet bigfoot, a species apparently so common in North America that anyone who goes looking for one will at least hear one, if not actually see one?  Not one skeleton.  Not one living specimen.   Where's the evidence?

 

Again, Chimps numbered in the millions not that long ago. Once you are in their environment It isn't that hard to have an eyewitness encounter with wild chimps because they are generally confrontational when you enter their territory. Most captive chimps today were bred in captivity. Between poachers and captive chimps dying, there are plenty of dead chimps to produce physical evidence.

 

My point was that we know there have been untold millions of chimps yet we have very little fossil evidence. It's kind of difficult to explain also, no? Imagine if there were only an extremely tiny remnant Chimpanzee population in existence for the the last few hundred years, and suppose they were as evasive in behavior as mountain lions. Without the fossil evidence, or a body they may well be on the same footing as sasquatch, relegated to the ranks of cryptozoology.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Irish73

[Guest]

 

And yet, we had thousands of chimpanzee skeletons.  We had hundreds, if not thousands, of chimpanzees in zoos and labs.  And Africa is a lot more remote than the Pacific Northwest.   Yet bigfoot, a species apparently so common in North America that anyone who goes looking for one will at least hear one, if not actually see one?  Not one skeleton.  Not one living specimen.   Where's the evidence?

 

Again, Chimps numbered in the millions not that long ago. Once you are in their environment It isn't that hard to have an eyewitness encounter with wild chimps because they are generally confrontational when you enter their territory. Most captive chimps today were bred in captivity. Between poachers and captive chimps dying, there are plenty of dead chimps to produce physical evidence.

 

My point was that we know there have been untold millions of chimps yet we have very little fossil evidence. It's kind of difficult to explain also, no? Imagine if there were only an extremely tiny remnant Chimpanzee population in existence for the the last few hundred years, and suppose they were as evasive in behavior as mountain lions. Without the fossil evidence, or a body they may well be on the same footing as sasquatch, relegated to the ranks of cryptozoology.

 

Imagine being the key word. 

[Guest DWA]

Which is what people who are unaware of the depth of the sasquatch evidence are doing...imagining.

[Guest]

Which is what people who are unaware of the depth of the sasquatch evidence are doing...imagining.

 

Every year, millions of children and their parents report seeing an unusual creature during the winter months.  These reports are remarkably consistent throughout the United States -- an obese humanoid figure with white hair and a bushy beard wearing a red suit with black belt and boots, often carrying a sack on his shoulder.  Moreover, this creature is uniformly described as making a distinctive "Ho Ho Ho" sound when approached.  In many cases, there is photographic evidence - closer and with better resolution than the average bigfoot photo.  This creature often leaves behind physical evidence in the form of teethmarks on food not put away, and various "offerings" made to children who "habituate" the creature by putting messages to him in a box. 

 

Does that mean Santa exists?

Edited May 29, 2013 by leisureclass

[Guest DWA]

If you don't know the difference between sasquatch and Santa Claus, nothing I do or say will help you.

[WSA]

Leisureclass...check your syllabus man! You're down there....across the hall and down two doors. Glad we caught that before the first exam, or you REALLY would have been confused. Don't mention it. (fist bump)

[Guest DWA]

I've had that dream a lot, the one where the final is tomorrow and you didn't even know you were enrolled in the class.

 

I think that a phone booth is involved.  Maybe next time a sasquatch will be shaking the phone booth while I'm trying to call Santa and get an A in the course for Christmas because I've been a good little boy on this board.

 

(When you can give me Santa's shoe size and fingerprints now we're talking.)

[WSA]

Universal DWA. Backe when I was trying a lot of cases, I then had the compounding anxiety of dreaming I was standing in front of a judge and jury (usually in my underwear) concerning a case I knew nothing about and on looking down at my file it just HAD to be written in a language I did not recognize.