Why Is It Easier To Find Large Animals In Third World Jungles Compared To North American Forests?

[Cotter]

Hi All:

This was a question posed in another thread by mbh, I thought it was worthy of it's own topic.

 

I'm not going to copy and paste the others' responses, but figured it could move on from here.

 

Mine and mbh's initial back and forth is below:

 

I said in response to the question above:

 

Take a look at population distribution and the amount of time the population is in the jungle compared to America.

 

Then, the exchange below:

 

mbh, on 26 Aug 2013 - 1:18 PM, said:

Where can I look at that information.

Well, the internet is a good source.  But so are programs like PBS or NatGeo.  From a high level look at it this way.  How many americans have to go out into the wilderness to forage or kill their food as compared to someone living in a 3rd world country. 

 

why is it easier to find large animals in third world jungles compared to north American forests?

 

See my response above.

I would assume locating a large animal in North America would be far more achievable task. What am I missing?

 

You assume, based on what?  May I ask what information you are using to arrive at that assumption?  I think you are missing that most Americans (a small % when compared to 3rd world jungles) don't live IN or NEAR the backcountry, but usually are weekend warriors bumbling their way through the woods on man-made paths designed to take folks to the most touristy spots in the easiest manner possible. 

 

[Guest Darrell]

I dont think its any harder to locate large animals in NA as opposed to other areas. Hunters and bioligists and regular dudes dont seem to have a huge problem finding deer, elk, moose, bear ect. Those are the large animals here. If you want to imply its harder to find a bigfoot in NA as it is finding an elephant in Africa well yes you may be right. But maybe its harder to find bigfoot because it doesent exist? Humm? 

[Cotter]

Well sure, that's definitely a possibility.

 

But there are other factors that contribute that, if indeed BF is roaming our woods, would hinder someone finding one. 

 

Just looking at it from a logistical standpoint (assuming that BF exists, and they have NOT been documented - in essence, tabling any conspiracy theories).

 

1)  A large portion of our country has never been surveyed by foot, only by plane.

2)  The vast majority of our population live in urban centers, not relying on the woods for our food (unlike jungle dwellers).

3)  These creatures would HAVE to be significantly more intelligent than the average large North American wild animal.  To what degree is obviously up for debate.

4)  Most North Americans lack the know how to properly and successfully navigate the woods with any sort of stealth or awareness, something that 3rd world folks, living or using the jungle, certainly have the edge on.

5)  When Europeans came looking for new creatures (read Gorillas), I'm not sure they just went in the woods and starting looking around, they used native guides and info from folks who had been seeing these - something that, to my knowledge, never occured in the search for BF in NA.

 

So there are tons of reasons to explain why it is harder to find BF in NA.  But I don't necessarily think it is harder to find a large animal in NA than the jungles, I bet it would be about equally tough, if the person looking doesn't know how to properly approach the search.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Cotter

[Guest Darrell]

5) When Europeans came looking for new creatures (read Gorillas), I'm not sure they just went in the woods and starting looking around, they used native guides and info from folks who had been seeing these - something that, to my knowledge, never occured in the search for BF in NA.

 

 

Problem is, they found the Gorilla. No question the Gorilla exists. I also dont buy into the whole noble savage native american comunes with bigfoot thing. Of couse thats just my point of view.

[Guest DWA]

Scientists exploring third world jungles use search protocols that have worked elsewhere for similar kinds of animals.  In subsequent searches, new ones inevitably turn up.

 

Bigfoot skeptics tend to harp on the little ones that science finds all the time as their "clincher."  But the little ones get found because of those protocols.

 

Hard to say why sasquatch was never taken seriously by Europeans colonizing North America.  My best guess is that Europeans right away started finding analogues to animals they were familiar with:  bears; squirrels; rabbits; foxes; wolves; goats; deer; antelope; sheep; big cats...but one thing that they weren't familiar with, outside of the Old World tropics, was primates.  European lore sets the "wildman" down as myth.  That's how Native informers were interpreted by Europeans:  as setting down their mythology.  Europeans saw that most of the animals Natives gave mystical powers were animals they knew about.  But the possibility never seemed to occur that bigfoot might be just one more real animal to which mythical powers were ascribed.

 

A guess there; but no one's explained it better to me.

[Cotter]

5) When Europeans came looking for new creatures (read Gorillas), I'm not sure they just went in the woods and starting looking around, they used native guides and info from folks who had been seeing these - something that, to my knowledge, never occured in the search for BF in NA.

 

 

Problem is, they found the Gorilla. No question the Gorilla exists. I also dont buy into the whole noble savage native american comunes with bigfoot thing. Of couse thats just my point of view.

 

Well one doesn't need to commune to know when something is there.

 

Do you have a recollection of a BF expedition of the same magnitude that utilized Native Americans as guides/trackers/informers? 

[Guest Darrell]

Well why would you need NA guides & trackers? IMO there are a lot more skilled non NA trackers and hunters in the US (not counting Alaska) than there are NA trackers.

[Rockape]

 I also dont buy into the whole noble savage native american comunes with bigfoot thing. Of couse thats just my point of view.

 

I know there are stories to the contrary, but in my view NA's saw BF much as we do, not very often and not for very long. I think that is why much of BF lies in their mythology, they weren't sure just what the heck it was either.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Rockape

[Guest Stan Norton]

Many of my friends who birdwatch in far flung places will certainly avoid certain parts of se Asia as most of the indigenous wildlife has been munched.

[Guest SDBigfooter]

Many of my friends who birdwatch in far flung places will certainly avoid certain parts of se Asia as most of the indigenous wildlife has been munched.

 

Hey Stan,

 

What are you getting at here?  Most has been munched?  Can you go into a little more detail here?     

[Guest Stan Norton]

Hey Stan,

What are you getting at here? Most has been munched? Can you go into a little more detail here?

Sure. The point was made earlier in the thread that many forest habitats elsewhere have been hunted out and that human pressure was more intense than in NA. My friends' experiences with birds in some parts of Asia supports this: there are some areas which are essentially birdless as everything's been hunted and eaten. Edited August 27, 2013 by Stan Norton

[Guest DWA]

_{The "exoticness" of "remote" locales such as Africa and southern Asia reinforces the plausibility, in Westerners' eyes,  of unknown animals reported from those places, when truth be told much of the North American continent is seen less by human eyes on a continuous basis.}

 

_{[edited, but funny font/spacing stuff persists; hey it's readable; sorry]}

Edited August 27, 2013 by DWA

[Cotter]

Well why would you need NA guides & trackers? IMO there are a lot more skilled non NA trackers and hunters in the US (not counting Alaska) than there are NA trackers.

 

Well, I'm guessing when the Europeans landed on the continent, there weren't tons of non-native trackers.

 

So, early on settlers did not conduct an expedition like this, utilizing the native help.

Has there been an expedition of the same magnitude utilizing a tracker of ANY nationality in the US?

 

I figured the natives would be better at finding BF at the time.

[Guest Darrell]

^Well yes back 100 yrs ago. Does anyone think there are unknown species of bear, elk, deer, wolf, ect that exit here in N. America that hasnt been discovered?

[JDL]

Ivan Sanderson documented hairy hominids around the world before he ever heard of bigfoot during the Jerry Crew flap in 1958.  When he went looking for the indigenous people to interview them (his standard protocol), they calmly looked at him and said something to the effect of:  "Oh, so the White Man is finally getting around to That!"

 

We carve civilization out of wilderness and have generally been taught that we, alone, were made in a certain image by a certain higher power.  There isn't generally room in our world for things we've been taught don't exist and things over which we cannot impose our will.