Why Can't We Discover A Bf Body?

[Guest RayG]

Ever hear of anyone finding a wolverine carcass?

Yes. We have clear evidence of someone finding the only supposed wolverine in Michigan, dead.

Wolverines have also been found as road-kill, and have been captured on game-cams. Numerous videos of wolverines too, check youtube.

Not so much with bigfoot though. No bigfoot carcass. No clear evidence of anyone finding a dead bigfoot. No bigfoot road-kill, no clear game-cam images, and no convincing bigfoot videos.

RayG

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 26 March 2011 - 07:41 AM, said:

Ever hear of anyone finding a wolverine carcass?

Yes. We have clear evidence of someone finding the only supposed wolverine in Michigan, dead.

From your citation:

Michigan's only known wolverine has been found dead along a trail in Sanilac County.

The animal, a female, was found by hikers on Saturday, said Arnie Karr, a wildlife biologist for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment.

So there are no more wolverines in Michigan, correct?

Wolverines have also been found as road-kill

Says you and tracker. I've never heard of such.

Proof? Or even evidence, like your news citation and photo, please?

and have been captured on game-cams.

Yup. We caught one on a game cam on the military installation I worked at while trying to catch naughty wolves. Neat photo.

Do you believe me?

I've even seen a wolverine in the wild myself. Once. I even ran over him (with a rail car.......he was uninjured).

Do you believe me?

Not so much with bigfoot though. No bigfoot carcass. No clear evidence of anyone finding a dead bigfoot. No bigfoot road-kill, no clear game-cam images, and no convincing bigfoot videos.

Thank you.

To me, that is clear circumstantial evidence that:

1) Sasquatches don't exist, or

2) They are exponentially more rare than wolverines.

Again (the point you were trying to dilute), my point:

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):

http://bigfootforums...dpost__p__47469

http://bigfootforums...dpost__p__47476

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.

Want to do another round of ring-around-the-rosey? It will give me yet another opportunity to put forth my point.

[Guest]

Ever hear of anyone finding a wolverine carcass?

Yes, each and every time Ohio State crushes them in football..!

[Guest]

It was a shooting and I don't think there is a written account but I could be wrong. Maybe someone can give SQ2 a second hand account.

TG was involved in the so-called "Honobia Incident" (aka the "Siege of Honobia"), involving sustained harassment of a family dwelling by one or more bf.

Initially the family sought assistance from the BFRO as to how to deal with the situation. Investiagtors were dispatched, but found themselves almost immediately at loggerheads with the family, who weren't interested in "investigating", they wanted the bf to leave their house alone. (The problem was eventually linked to the bf being interested in the deer the family had hunted that were being kept in a deep freezer.)

At the height of the event, multiple bf engaged in a night of continuous harrassment of the house with the BFRO investigators present. Shots were fired, and a bf was hit, possibly killed, but was carried off by the other bf present.

The BFRO put a lot of pressure on the family to allow continued and expanded investigations to be conducted, but the family was adamant they just wanted the activity to stop. That's when the BFRO, which had up to that point been holding up Honobia as a significant bf event, started downplaying it and even publicly casting aspersions on the family.

The end result was a lot of hurt feelings, and a lost opportunity. It wasn't long after that the the Great Exodus/Purge of the BFRO began, as veteran hands jumped ship and Moneymaker started turning the org into what many consider a glorified eco-tour guide group.

The whole affair was the subject of quite a lengthy debate (and often heated) on the old forum. Timberghost pretty much quit the forum because he was sick of the attitude of some of the other posters directed at him and the others at Honobia.

That's it in a nutshell.

No Body implies several possibilities... 2. They were always rare and now they are extinct. This BTW is my position in the Bigfoot question...

Then what are people seeing and photographing and casting tracks of today? Ghosts? (sincerely asked, not a shot).

I have found the remains of deer and other animals in the wild. The bones of a large animal will be around for several months in all but the harshest preservation conditions.

The operative question is how many are found relative to the total population. If there are 1000s+ deer in a state and a handful are roadkill every year, that's only a few thousandth's of a percent.

Take that number and apply it to a low population species such as sasquatch may be and the POTENTNIAL number of corpses can easily be statistically zero (meaning no realistic chance of one being recovered).

[Guest RayG]

From your citation:

So there are no more wolverines in Michigan, correct?

You may be right, I have no idea. The article stated it was the only known wolverines in Michigan, not the only wolverine. Either way it's irrelevant, as they have a dead wolverine carcass. So, the answer to your "Ever hear of anyone finding a wolverine carcass?" is a resounding yes.

Says you and tracker. I've never heard of such.

Proof? Or even evidence, like your news citation and photo, please?

Click on the link I provided for the details. If you find similar details about bigfoot road-kill, please don't hesitate to inform me.

Yup. We caught one on a game cam on the military installation I worked at while trying to catch naughty wolves. Neat photo.

Do you believe me?

Nice anecdote, have any evidence?

I've even seen a wolverine in the wild myself. Once. I even ran over him (with a rail car.......he was uninjured).

Do you believe me?

Nice anecdote, have any evidence?

Thank you.

No problem, I'm just being Captain Obvious.

Again (the point you were trying to dilute), my point:

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.

Nope, you asked: "Ever hear of anyone finding a wolverine carcass?"

Yes, I have. I provided a link to not only the article, but the picture of the wolverine carcass. Supposedly the only known wolverine in all of Michigan, and they found it dead.

Want to do another round of ring-around-the-rosey? It will give me yet another opportunity to put forth my point.

Chase your tail if you wish, but I've already provided evidence of a dead wolverine carcass, and that was the only aspect of your post that I was directly responding to. That was what you asked for, was it not?

RayG

[Guest tracker]

Makes no difference to me, wolverines, fishers, badgers & bears we got them all here and they all get crunched on occassion.

IMO another reason we don't have bones is because they go deep into the wilderness to expire far away from the souvenir collectors.

Edited March 27, 2011 by tracker

[Guest bsruther]

Makes no difference to me, wolverines, fishers, badgers & bears we got them all here and they all get crunched on occassion.

IMO another reason we don't have bones is because they go deep into the wilderness to expire far away from the souvenir collectors.

A large percentage of purported sightings occurred in areas where deep wilderness don't exist and accidental expiration is bound to happen.

I am open minded to the possibility that BF exists, but the absence of a body is a huge stumbling block for me. In a country with over 300 million people, it would seem that someone would have come across one of them. If DNA evidence confirms their existence, I'm still not sure I'd be 100% convinced, since the evidence would be the result of selective scholarship, in search of a point.

Need body, need big body.

[Huntster]

So, the answer to your "Ever hear of anyone finding a wolverine carcass?" is a resounding yes.

It's actually a very rare "yes".

Which is precisely the point. Again:

To me, that is clear circumstantial evidence that:

1) Sasquatches don't exist, or

2) They are exponentially more rare than wolverines.

Since I firmly believe that sasquatches exist (or existed recently), that would support my theory that they are exponentially more rare than wolverines.

Yup. We caught one on a game cam on the military installation I worked at while trying to catch naughty wolves. Neat photo.

Do you believe me?

Nice anecdote, have any evidence?

Yes and no. I have access to it, but on an Army computer network. Not here. And since it's Army property, I don't believe I'll share it with you. Thus, all I can offer you is my testimony.

Do you believe me?

I've even seen a wolverine in the wild myself. Once. I even ran over him (with a rail car.......he was uninjured).

Do you believe me?

Nice anecdote, have any evidence?

Only my testimony. There were three other men with me, but frankly, since this was in the early summer of 1978 (33 years ago), I don't know if any of those men are still alive. In fact, I don't even remember who one of those men were.

Do you believe me?

[Guest tracker]

A large percentage of purported sightings occurred in areas where deep wilderness don't exist and accidental expiration is bound to happen.

I am open minded to the possibility that BF exists, but the absence of a body is a huge stumbling block for me. In a country with over 300 million people, it would seem that someone would have come across one of them. If DNA evidence confirms their existence, I'm still not sure I'd be 100% convinced, since the evidence would be the result of selective scholarship, in search of a point.

Need body, need big body.

I understand your view but it would take quite alot to bring one down IMO. Or for it to become sick or weak enough for it not to be able to travel. So a injured or sick Bf could walk for or live for months years. More than enough time to retreat to it's place of birth or where ever it would feel safe enough to lay down and die without being found or attacked by the other preds which includes us. But yea we should have some bones by now. I am working on that and i only going to share them with my friends here at BF.

[Guest Kane2002]

Well, IMHO and it has been said here many times before, the reason we don't find a body is because A. there are **** few of them and B. given the least opportunity they will hide themselves when they get sick and die.

I have found dead deer but they seem to have been shot and died before they could hide themselves. Their carcasses are taken care of pretty quickly by other animals.

Now, the mother apes carrying their dead offspring. Motherhood is a pretty wonderful thing. Not only apes grieve. I once had a thoroughbred mare who aborted her foal in the 10th month. It was very sad. She would not leave it. I picked up the little body in a wheelbarrow to take it away and she followed me to the gate and then went back to where it had been born. She would not leave. I swear if she could have cried she would have. Perhaps she did in her own way. Aso ewes will morne the loss of a lamb. So why wouldn't sasquatch? If they don't hide the body of their loved ones at least they make it difficult to find.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Kane2002

[Guest]

I think a thing that is missing from most of this discusson is that these creatures most likely die where they live And that is the deep swamp.

The timed deer experiment was very good but the decomposition rate of a big dead body would likely be much faster and more complete in a very wet and swampy area.

Most hunters and hikers do Not penetrate the very wet areas that BF likely live in.

If you compare a 800# plus horse that would compare to a male BF they should likely need to drink 20 to 30 gallons of water per day and so have to be near water.

Most of the books I have read do not adequately discuss this area either and it should be apparent these are swamp critters.

[Guest]

I think a thing that is missing from most of this discusson is that these creatures most likely die where they live And that is the deep swamp.

The timed deer experiment was very good but the decomposition rate of a big dead body would likely be much faster and more complete in a very wet and swampy area.

Most hunters and hikers do Not penetrate the very wet areas that BF likely live in.

If you compare a 800# plus horse that would compare to a male BF they should likely need to drink 20 to 30 gallons of water per day and so have to be near water.

Most of the books I have read do not adequately discuss this area either and it should be apparent these are swamp critters.

I AGREE! Except for places that do not have swamp like mountains with heavy pine infuriation. Places like wetlands have that acidic like integumentary soil that kind of helps along the decomposition of bodies too. Good point. Oh oh.. I used a couple of words wrong but if they brought a smile then....

[Guest RayG]

It's actually a very rare "yes".

But rare isn't the same as none, which is what we presently have for bigfoot.

Which is precisely the point. Again:

To me, that is clear circumstantial evidence that:

1) Sasquatches don't exist, or

2) They are exponentially more rare than wolverines.

Either-or fallacy. Maybe there are many more bigfoot than wolverines, but they are more secretive, more adept at hiding/concealing themselves. Do you have any actual evidence they are exponentially more rare than wolverines? If so, where did you get your numbers from? How can you be certain the number of bigfoot is fewer than the number of wolverines? If they are exponentially more rare than wolverines, how is it that we have so many bigfoot encounters, reports, and sightings that seem to occur each year? Do you have the data for how many wolverine encounters, reports, and sightings occur each year for comparison purposes?

No matter how small the estimated number of bigfoot, it would still have to be large enough to maintain a healthy, breeding population, or logic would dictate an eventual and even significant drop off in the numbers of those encounters, reports, and sightings, would it not?

Since I firmly believe that sasquatches exist (or existed recently), that would support my theory that they are exponentially more rare than wolverines.

I don't see how your firm belief supports your theory. Can you elaborate? Did you have a firm belief that no one had ever found a wolverine carcass?

Thus, all I can offer you is my testimony.

Do you believe me?

Only my testimony. There were three other men with me, but frankly, since this was in the early summer of 1978 (33 years ago), I don't know if any of those men are still alive. In fact, I don't even remember who one of those men were.

Do you believe me?

Why the continual need for belief? I don't hang my hat on belief, and haven't for quite some time. You are asking me to have faith (belief without evidence) in your anecdotes, and I'm content to suspend any conclusions until further evidence is presented.

RayG

[Guest ThePattyArcade]

Maybe we should start digging....bones take decades (or more) to decay

[Guest bsruther]

Maybe we should start digging....bones take decades (or more) to decay

Sure, why not? Their femur should resemble a Mastadon bone, that shouldn't be to hard to find.