Guest zenmonkey Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 the sightings here in OK were in plains but were also near a few tree breaks here and there. Alton Higgins said he spooked something from a creek and it ran bent over for a tree break. I go by that area all the time trying to visualize and theorize how a wood ape could live there. they (assuming they are real) would travel along a main river here id assume so maybe they were just passing through. Maybe its the same thing in other stories they are "passing"by Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 If you don't know the difference between sasquatch and Santa Claus, nothing I do or say will help you. Of course I know the difference. Santa Claus is based on a historical figure. Bigfoot? Not so much. Plus, people only dress up as Santa a few months out of the year. Bigfoot is a year round costume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Anything that makes your world comfortable, you should go on. But if you aren't paying attention, don't expect anyone to agree with you except others who aren't. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Norse...............are you a professional wildlife biologist and not telling us? If your facts are correct, knowledge does help keep the discussion grounded. Was BF a plains animal? The long legs and speed does make it adapted for the plains. Living on the plains does make its young and mate targets for predators. Are there any Indian accounts? A video somewhere shows a BF chasing a herd of deer on the open plains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 To me, the congruence of Native and European cultures on the animal is an intriguing aspect of the evidence. That doesn't happen with folklore generally. I would expect the Plains tribes to account for this animal...and the Lakota, at least, do. But it's not clear to me where they saw it and what they saw it doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 At least in the contemporary sighting reports there seems to be a strong association with riparian landscapes. This could be explained by a couple of theories. It could be the preferred habitat for BF as rivers, creeks and swamps are going to provide more food choices and cover, especially for travel. OTOH, it may be the BF is only adapting to what habitats are left after residential and agricultural development. Or it might be a combination of the two. If BF is plains- adapted, I would guess it evolved using these same wooded riparian coulees and corridors for food, cover and security for its young. I would have to believe that making a living exclusively out on the open savannah in proximity to a bison herd is not only dangerous, but not very fruitful. Lurking on the wooded fringes sounds like much more of a successful adaptive strategy, especially for an ambush predator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 30, 2013 Share Posted May 30, 2013 Norse...............are you a professional wildlife biologist and not telling us? If your facts are correct, knowledge does help keep the discussion grounded. Was BF a plains animal? The long legs and speed does make it adapted for the plains. Living on the plains does make its young and mate targets for predators. Are there any Indian accounts? A video somewhere shows a BF chasing a herd of deer on the open plains. I'm not sure I'm tracking............sorry? And no......I'm not a wildlife biologist. But it probably would have been a profession choice if I could do it all over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts