Why Can't We Discover A Bf Body?

[Guest tracker]

Yea lots of lost people die in the wilderness every year and only a few remains are ever recovered. Still I see the point we should have bones by now.maybe someone does? Or maybe when someone does come across them they don't make it back out with them? Their not tame and have been known to be defensive, teritorial and on occassion very aggressive. What could any of us do to escape creature(s) that can run as fast as a horse, see in the dark and can break trees and through bolders? Or do we wish one would just lay down and die on a well used hiking path in a national park?

almost forgot JMO, tracker.

Edited March 26, 2011 by tracker

[Guest]

I now *very* sincerely believe that BF exists.

Do they hide like dogs do when giving birth and dying?

Possible...Iother ape females do just that http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdWQ6X41NRWMAJP5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByZWgwN285BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkAw--/SIG=138q01rd3/EXP=1301132186/**http%3a//carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/maternal-tolerance-allomaternal-assistance

All of the sightings, and no one has shot one and admitted it?

Actually, there have been several reports of shootings and killings...just no recovered bodies.

It just seems that someone somewhere should have found a body.

This is just one of those counter-intuitive things that "everybody knows"...people have a false impression about how easy it is to contact animals in the wild, alive OR dead. Too many Wild Kingdom/Steve Irwin/Marty Stauffer programs out there give the illusion that it's easy to do.

[Guest tirademan]

I've posted this before, but I really think this question needs to be "reframed."

http://bigfootforums...bigfoot-corpses

Who knows if anyone has found a sasquatch corpse? I'd say someone probably has.

BUT, what you're really asking is "Why in the last X00 years has nobody dragged a sasquatch carcass out of the woods, regardless of decomposition and scavaging, to be identified?"

I can imagine a hunter finding a large pile of maggot strewn black/brown/red fur and bones, thinking "wow, that's strange" and then keep right on moving. Do you want to stick maggots in your pack for something weird?

And we're also taking timeframe. John Bindernagel investigated an incident where a kid poaching moose during WWII thinks he killed one. But under the circumstances, 1941 and poaching, he 1). didn't know what he shot and 2), left it there as he was poaching.

There may be many incidents we can't find out about because people might not have reported it back in 18XX,

Anyway, a corpse has not been an easy find, but I think public awareness is at a level now where it might help someone come forward.

tirademan

Edited March 26, 2011 by tirademan

[Guest]

Great question Susi- I think its been discussed as part of other posts, but im not sure if much time has been dedicated solely to this question...

#1 I think dead animals decompose more quickly than people imagine. It's also my experience that animals seek out quiet, remote, places to die. Have you ever been to a big city, and seen all the pigeons ?? It's a running joke for people who live in NYC- you never see a ) baby pigeons or b ) very rarely a dead one- and yet there are (literally) hundreds of thousands of them (if not millions)... I dont see BF being much different in this respect- they may go off somewhere and wedge themselves up under the low bows of a pine tree or something, i dont know.

I also think scavengers account for much of any remains disappearing as well. In all my years of hunting I have rarely come across a dead deer carcass- and there are thousands of them around here in upstate NY... I have seen (sadly) where trophy hunters took down a nice white-tailed buck, cut off his head (for the trophy) and left the entire deer there to rot. Coming back through there only days later (in November mind you)- most of the carcass had been devoured, there were some bones and hide left but not much else.

#2 Just the vast amount of geographical space we're talking about. Aside from when its fresh (and stinky)- myself or any other hunter/hiker/passerby could walk within 10 feet of some dead carcass and if its in high grass or obscured- could easily not see it there.

#3 As "outdoorsy" as many consider themselves to be (myself included), its also human nature that we follow trails, we look for easier ways to scale hills, cross streams, and there are few among us who really get off the beaten path and go bushwhacking any more.

And again, even when they do- aside from the few hundred feet to either side of them that they can see- they might walk right by something laying just out of their line of sight and never know its there.

#4 I dont really subscribe to the whole "BF bury their dead" club- and I say that because i think its actually a reason that people come up with to try to help explain the answer to your original question... I will admit its possible, but until its proven.. its a theory.

I agree to some extent with your "no kill" stance- but some have suggested that one should have been run down by a bus or semi truck by now, but i think they're too observant and smart for that to happen.. I think we have a better shot (no pun intended) of bagging one if someone just happens to have a high powered rifle w/ them when they have their sighting.

Then again there are those who say that because you have the rifle w/ you that you'll never get close enough....

Maybe someday we'll find out...

A r t

Edited March 26, 2011 by Art1972

[Guest]

I've posted this before, but I really think this question needs to be "reframed."

http://bigfootforums...bigfoot-corpses

Who knows if anyone has found a sasquatch corpse? I'd say someone probably has.

BUT, what you're really asking is "Why in the last X00 years has nobody dragged a sasquatch carcass out of the woods, regardless of decomposition and scavaging, to be identified?"

I can imagine a hunter finding a large pile of maggot strewn black/brown/red fur and bones, thinking "wow, that's strange" and then keep right on moving. Do you want to stick maggots in your pack for something weird?

And we're also taking timeframe. John Bindernagel investigated an incident where a kid poaching moose during WWII thinks he killed one. But under the circumstances, 1941 and poaching, he 1). didn't know what he shot and 2), left it there as he was poaching.

There may be many incidents we can't find out about because people might not have reported it back in 18XX,

Anyway, a corpse has not been an easy find, but I think public awareness is at a level now where it might help someone come forward.

tirademan

Several documentaries have researched this issue and discovered several 1800 era newspaper accounts of BF being killed and one paper actually had a picture or a drawing of the beast. It was a typical BF body. Now just to locate said documents and discover which TV show had that info. I hope that I live that long

[Guest BDK]

Theres a few things folks tend to not think the argument through, bodies decompose quickly. Within 2-6 months that evidence is gone. Humans, tend to even when hiking not wander. They stick to a trail and follow it, so anything say 1000 yards away you'd walk right by and never know about. Now, on to the actual bodies, they would smell very rank, and be not pleasent to be around. So whats to say folks haven't walked past, upchucked and just kept hiking dismissing the body as a bear or a deer or anything but a sasaquatch?

Now, if they are intelligent as some folks say, they probably do as a tribe/family unit do something with the body, be it digging a grave or maybe something as simple as laying it to rest in a cave it was fond of sleeping in or something. Quite possibly they stand guard or vigil until the body decomposes, maybe not out of fear of discovery but mourning. If thats the case I would not want to be the person that stumbles on that group.

[Guest bsruther]

Deer bones can take many years to disappear. I've witnessed their rate of decomposition many times. The carcass is usually stripped clean, within a week, but the bones lay there, until plant matter covers them up. Animal decomposition occurs at different rates, in different ecosystems. If BF are as widespread as some say, there would have to had been a discovered body, at some point.

[Incorrigible1]

If you've not seen this segment from Monster Quest, it's quite eye-opening regarding speed of decomposition of a deer carcass:

[Guest]

If we could keep up to one when they bolt I bet they would eventually lead us back to their den and nearby graves? my theory anyways. But as far as finding one in the woods. How many hunters/hikers go off the grid and hunt and track for days into unexplored areas? Even career rangers like action Jackson YNP never came across them but seen a few Bf's in his 30 yrs in that rugged wilderness hunting poachers. Nothing goes to waste into the woods and disappears fast, many causes. Also there's not that many to be tripping over their bones. IMO we see the same ones in different places because they can travel so far.

JMO tracker.

Tracker, You are only 3 posts from being an addict. I'm an addict also

[Guest]

Deer bones can take many years to disappear. I've witnessed their rate of decomposition many times. The carcass is usually stripped clean, within a week, but the bones lay there, until plant matter covers them up. Animal decomposition occurs at different rates, in different ecosystems. If BF are as widespread as some say, there would have to had been a discovered body, at some point.

Too many other factors regarding that. I find it hard to believe as well that there is no body parts. But there is so much other nonsense that accompanies both the acceptance of the species and the ignorance of what it does that it really adds up. Who in their present day right mind is going to mess with a stinking rotting carcass in the woods ? Most people run the other way. Robert Alley gives two accounts of the reaction of a pair of couples who saw alledgedly the same foot in a stream bottom. One couple picked it up and were ready to haul it home but at the last minute the gal made the guy throw it back. She refused to go home with it in cargo. Similar situations may well run the board and the chances of any numbers of carcasses well placed so that the general body of surface hikers can see or smell them I would suspect is small especially if any of the higher level of thinking some acclaim to the species has any bearing. If you discount the species because the body is not there then you must discount the entire cross section of secondary characteristics that accompany the phenomenon across the board. That to me at least remains a much bigger pile of consideration. But if you are not close to those who have had the experiences it is much easier to do. When you start to have the similar things happen personally it becomes much harder. That is one reason why I am so interested.. if I thought for one moment I was wasting my time, I would just let it go and go on and do something completely different.. which I will probably spend time doing anyway, just less time since this is much more fun.

*Another consideration that must be strongly considered is their mobility and how many reports stem from just one specimen.. be it immature mobile highly testeroned male or any number of other scenarios. This is just my opinion of course, but low density widespread distributions account for more than difficult discoveries, even of carcasses or portions of them.

Edited March 26, 2011 by treeknocker

[Guest bsruther]

I've seen that segment and while they say what happens to the bones, they don't show it, beyond day seven. In many cases the bones get covered up by decaying plant matter, after a year or two, in some cases they don't. A few years ago, I found a cow skull, in the woods, behind my house. At the time, it still had most of the skin on it's face, jaw was still intact and had most of it's teeth. This past fall, I decided to bring it home and make a yard ornament out of it. It's sitting by a tree, near the woods and it has no skin, but still has a jaw connected and a few teeth. This skull sat in the woods exposed, for at least two years.

Also, I think an animal that's 9 feet tall and weighs 600 pounds, isn't going to decompose at the same rate a Deer would. There'd be a lot of big bones. Imagine how big the femur alone would be.

[Guest]

I've seen that segment and while they say what happens to the bones, they don't show it, beyond day seven. In many cases the bones get covered up by decaying plant matter, after a year or two, in some cases they don't. A few years ago, I found a cow skull, in the woods, behind my house. At the time, it still had most of the skin on it's face, jaw was still intact and had most of it's teeth. This past fall, I decided to bring it home and make a yard ornament out of it. It's sitting by a tree, near the woods and it has no skin, but still has a jaw connected and a few teeth. This skull sat in the woods exposed, for at least two years.

Also, I think an animal that's 9 feet tall and weighs 600 pounds, isn't going to decompose at the same rate a Deer would. There'd be a lot of big bones. Imagine how big the femur alone would be.

You do make a good point bsruther.. at the same time, the bear specialists just do not find the bear skeletons and they are much much more common than the big hairy.

[Guest]

I've seen that segment and while they say what happens to the bones, they don't show it, beyond day seven. In many cases the bones get covered up by decaying plant matter, after a year or two, in some cases they don't. A few years ago, I found a cow skull, in the woods, behind my house. At the time, it still had most of the skin on it's face, jaw was still intact and had most of it's teeth. This past fall, I decided to bring it home and make a yard ornament out of it. It's sitting by a tree, near the woods and it has no skin, but still has a jaw connected and a few teeth. This skull sat in the woods exposed, for at least two years.

Also, I think an animal that's 9 feet tall and weighs 600 pounds, isn't going to decompose at the same rate a Deer would. There'd be a lot of big bones. Imagine how big the femur alone would be.

You do make a good point bsruther.. at the same time, the bear specialists just do not find the bear skeletons and they are much much more common than the big hairy.

[Huntster]

I now *very* sincerely believe that BF exists.

Why can't we discover a body?.....

Ever hear of anyone finding a wolverine carcass?

I believe the reason carcasses aren't found at every highway rest stop is because these creatures are extremely rare.

I will refer to Damned Dirty Ape's excellent posts referred here, in which he compares wolverines to sasquatches in Washington state, which is the region which boasts the most sasquatch reports (by far):

In Washington State there are:

3000 Mt Goat

25,000- 30,000 Black Bear

40,000 Deer

60,000 Elk

2 Wolves

20 Grizzly

25 Wolverine

60,000 hunters

So I like to equate the sasquatch with an endangered species more so than with these other big mammals... the Wolverine

The population estimate for Wolverine is between 250 and 300 for all of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah, and California. That is a very large area of distribution area and a pretty small population size (this is called population density.) These animals do not have large ranges either. They are rarely seen and small in size.

Now with the Sasquatch, I think we have to move the numbers around a bit to fit the observations. First, Sasquatch are large in size, probably able to travel at least as far as a Grizzly in range, and seem to be seen more often than wolverines. In the US, there are only 50 known den sites being monitored on private lands. Scandinavia has about 500 dens located.

So the way I figure it is that for Washington there is probably no more than 150 and no fewer than 25 animals at any one time, since they probably don't recognize state and country boundaries. Why do I think this? Because there are about 6 distinct areas of activity in Washington when it comes to Sasquatch. Each of those areas could not have more than 25 animals in them or the 10,000 hunters (divided by 6 of course) would run in to them a lot more than they do. Those six areas of activity are the Oly Penn, S. Cascades, Central Cascades, N. Cascades, Blues, Okanogan. I don't really use this terminology though. I go by watersheds. These are what I use in my research, not state county's like some sighting listings do.

I think his estimation is right on the money, which would indicate that there is likely no more than 1,000 sasquatches in North America, and probably fewer than that.

[Guest tracker]

Tracker, You are only 3 posts from being an addict. I'm an addict also

I've been an addict long before they started keeping count and even before the internet was invented. But thanks for the warning anyway .

Hey Hunster we seen a wolverine carcass last fall, road kill I am affraid. We felt bad for the scrappy blighter. Sightings are becoming scarce.