BobbyO Posted March 28, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted March 28, 2011 I have had this debate with others for quite sometime and I think it goes back to some that have a absolute belief that this species is Ape like and thus they migrate to trees... Just don't buy it and when you think of size and weight up in the trees you to will come to this conclusion... Now do they possibly partially climb say 10 foot off the ground, completely feasible and I am in agreement, but that mass up in the tree tops, not a chance and then throw in it is swinging about and I end the conversation with you... This species like any other species has a survival instinct and that does not include climbing trees where branches cannot hold their weight and they like you and me, would not even tempt this because if they get hurt the possibility of death from an injury is very real... Also when you climb a tree to say avoid man there is no where to go without making a bunch of noise, this goes totally against logic and survival of an apex predator, before it took to the trees it would turn and fight... I have seen and heard stories of this happening when bear dogs get wind of them and are found in pieces and in the tree limbs tore apart... So in conclusion I can see them using a low level tactics possibly in the trees, I can see the young in the trees, but as a mature species I cannot logically make the leap that some do to think they are in the trees... This all of course IMHO... In the Canopy's, i'm in full agreement.. But you know better than most Risky that there are Tree's that can get very high that could support Mature Animals of this Size in them.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Yea depends on type of trees & size but also size, gender and age of the Bf. I am sure the younger ones would climb higher up than the adults. Just like with humans IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Let's get this straight. There is speculation that Bigfoot is a tree dweller? Can anyone please explain the evolutionary advantage of being a biped, with human-like toes, being larger than every forest dwelling creature in North America, and be a tree dweller? What would they be escaping from? Surely their extraordinary ability to elude humans is far outweighing the advantage of being able to escape into the trees. What hunting advantage would be gained? We know that humans can not get a bead on one, yet we can harvest the elusive white-tail, surely the Bigfoot does not require a roost in order to ambush a creature such as a deer. We also have eyewitness accounts of them ambushing deer on the ground. What advantage would be gained in North America, where 5 months out of the year, there are no leaves on the trees? In the jungles of Borneo, the leaves are on the trees all year, so hiding from things such as tigers would have been an evolutionary requirement for large primates in Borneo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TooRisky Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Let's get this straight. There is speculation that Bigfoot is a tree dweller? Can anyone please explain the evolutionary advantage of being a biped, with human-like toes, being larger than every forest dwelling creature in North America, and be a tree dweller? What would they be escaping from? Surely their extraordinary ability to elude humans is far outweighing the advantage of being able to escape into the trees. What hunting advantage would be gained? We know that humans can not get a bead on one, yet we can harvest the elusive white-tail, surely the Bigfoot does not require a roost in order to ambush a creature such as a deer. We also have eyewitness accounts of them ambushing deer on the ground. What advantage would be gained in North America, where 5 months out of the year, there are no leaves on the trees? In the jungles of Borneo, the leaves are on the trees all year, so hiding from things such as tigers would have been an evolutionary requirement for large primates in Borneo. Very well put Drew in short and concise verbiage....Like I said it just does not make sense in the entire scheme of things... It is just not in the MO of the species... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 I have had this debate with others for quite sometime and I think it goes back to some that have a absolute belief that this species is Ape like and thus they migrate to trees... Just don't buy it and when you think of size and weight up in the trees you to will come to this conclusion... Now do they possibly partially climb say 10 foot off the ground, completely feasible and I am in agreement, but that mass up in the tree tops, not a chance and then throw in it is swinging about and I end the conversation with you... This species like any other species has a survival instinct and that does not include climbing trees where branches cannot hold their weight and they like you and me, would not even tempt this because if they get hurt the possibility of death from an injury is very real... Also when you climb a tree to say avoid man there is no where to go without making a bunch of noise, this goes totally against logic and survival of an apex predator, before it took to the trees it would turn and fight... I have seen and heard stories of this happening when bear dogs get wind of them and are found in pieces and in the tree limbs tore apart... So in conclusion I can see them using a low level tactics possibly in the trees, I can see the young in the trees, but as a mature species I cannot logically make the leap that some do to think they are in the trees... This all of course IMHO... I totally agree with you. I do now believe that the BF species has discovered that if they climb up a tree, they may avoid discovery. Who would think to look up in a tree to locate a BF? Now I'll have something else to fear while in the woods. A BF falling out of a tree either in front of me, and crushing me to death if it landed on top of me. Yikes Thrice!!! I'm never going into the woods alone ever again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 In regards to the climbing ability of the big guy, read this report: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=22434 The witness seems to be knowledgeable about rock climbing. Note where she says, "The 200 foot cliff below the ledge is VERY steep and to a tradational climber would be rated at least a 5.9 or 5.10 chaucy climb." The howling big creature "literally dyno'd every move on this 5.9 cliff and yanked itself up the cliff to the top where the ledge was". By "dyno" a rock climber refers to pulling oneself up hard enough to be flying upward to grab the next hold. This is a video of a rock climber free soloing (without rope) a 5.7 with some dyno climbing thrown in .... The report of the sighting has the large guy climbing at high speed a rock face that is MUCH more difficult than the rock climber in the video, if her estimate of the difficulty of the climb is accurate. Ever see a large bear climb a fir tree that doesn't have branches for quite a ways? http://animal.discovery.com/videos/stranger-among-bears-grizzly-climbs-to-50-feet.html Those branches are pretty small in the video, yet they don't break because the 400 lb animal is distributing weight the way a good climber should. A large BF would be able to climb vertical trees easily. They have hands with excellent grip and feet with toes that have been described as "active". A branch doesn't have to hold all 800 lbs of a really big guy, sometimes far less if they distribute weight on more than one branch or are employing dyno moves to lighten their weight to contact at any moment as they go past a small branch. This video and the BFRO report make me think of the old Tarzan comic, where Tarzan would swing & run through the jungle screaming "Kreegah"! and "Bundolo!". Other old coots here know what I'm talking about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 Let's get this straight. There is speculation that Bigfoot is a tree dweller? Can anyone please explain the evolutionary advantage of being a biped, with human-like toes, being larger than every forest dwelling creature in North America, and be a tree dweller? What would they be escaping from? Surely their extraordinary ability to elude humans is far outweighing the advantage of being able to escape into the trees. What hunting advantage would be gained? We know that humans can not get a bead on one, yet we can harvest the elusive white-tail, surely the Bigfoot does not require a roost in order to ambush a creature such as a deer. We also have eyewitness accounts of them ambushing deer on the ground. What advantage would be gained in North America, where 5 months out of the year, there are no leaves on the trees? In the jungles of Borneo, the leaves are on the trees all year, so hiding from things such as tigers would have been an evolutionary requirement for large primates in Borneo. At one time there were some awfully big predatory mammals roaming North America. It might be handy to have climbing abilities not just limited to trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 If they swim well does that mean they dwell in the water or should have fins? I don't remember anyone suggesting that Bigfoot dwell in the trees, the suggestion is that they use trees as part of the world they live in. Young humans play in trees, hunters use them to ambush prey, it would be very unusual, IMO, if Bigfoot didn't use trees. They climb whatever they choose to climb whether it's a tree or a rock wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 If they swim well does that mean they dwell in the water or should have fins? I don't remember anyone suggesting that Bigfoot dwell in the trees, the suggestion is that they use trees as part of the world they live in. Young humans play in trees, hunters use them to ambush prey, it would be very unusual, IMO, if Bigfoot didn't use trees. They climb whatever they choose to climb whether it's a tree or a rock wall. Exactly what I was going to say. Of course trees wouldn't be where they spend one hundred percent of their time. I just suggested that they might use trees to their advantage as the seasons would allow. I expect that they would utilize every aspect of their environment in the proper season or stage of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Let's get this straight. There is speculation that Bigfoot is a tree dweller? Can anyone please explain the evolutionary advantage of being a biped, with human-like toes, being larger than every forest dwelling creature in North America, and be a tree dweller? What would they be escaping from? Surely their extraordinary ability to elude humans is far outweighing the advantage of being able to escape into the trees. What hunting advantage would be gained? We know that humans can not get a bead on one, yet we can harvest the elusive white-tail, surely the Bigfoot does not require a roost in order to ambush a creature such as a deer. We also have eyewitness accounts of them ambushing deer on the ground. What advantage would be gained in North America, where 5 months out of the year, there are no leaves on the trees? In the jungles of Borneo, the leaves are on the trees all year, so hiding from things such as tigers would have been an evolutionary requirement for large primates in Borneo. I don't believe anyone is saying that BF is a "tree dweller" which I would take to mean spending most time in trees. I do think they spend some time in trees. What reason's would they have going going into trees? Food would be one primary reason. Pine nuts, fruit, honey, etc. are in trees. Adult bears will climb high into pine trees to get pine cones. BF seems to also be an omnivore that follows the same basic diet as a bear, and I would also expect similar areas of activity. Trees also can be places of refuge or places to gain height to see your surroundings. Full grown gorillas build nests in trees. On hot days being up in a tree can be a great way to cool down and escape bugs, where the wind blows stronger. Trees also make excellent hides for ambush hunting. I don't believe BF is a tree "dweller" per se, but I certainly would expect they take to climbing trees very well for a variety of purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted March 29, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted March 29, 2011 Let's get this straight. You're not getting anything straight at all when you're using terms & words that nobody else had said IE Tree Dweller. By getting it straight you could always instead answer the question that was actually asked which was " How much time do they spend in them ? ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 29, 2011 Admin Share Posted March 29, 2011 Let's get this straight. There is speculation that Bigfoot is a tree dweller? Can anyone please explain the evolutionary advantage of being a biped, with human-like toes, being larger than every forest dwelling creature in North America, and be a tree dweller? What would they be escaping from? Surely their extraordinary ability to elude humans is far outweighing the advantage of being able to escape into the trees. What hunting advantage would be gained? We know that humans can not get a bead on one, yet we can harvest the elusive white-tail, surely the Bigfoot does not require a roost in order to ambush a creature such as a deer. We also have eyewitness accounts of them ambushing deer on the ground. What advantage would be gained in North America, where 5 months out of the year, there are no leaves on the trees? In the jungles of Borneo, the leaves are on the trees all year, so hiding from things such as tigers would have been an evolutionary requirement for large primates in Borneo. I lean towards Too Risky and your assessment. But playing the devil's advocate here.........do humans climb trees? Yes we do. And remember we have reports like Ostman that suggest they are very very good climbers. There are the laws of physics here, and a very large primate is going to have a tough time in the evergreen forests of the PacNW. But back east where there are large Oak and Maple trees that have very large limbs coming out of the bole of the tree? I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tracker Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 Here's a link where four Bf's of different sizes are spotted together on a road from AS. So i am sure the fourth one "Dad" in this report would break some branches if he tried to climb too high up! Just like the other Dads out there reading this. http://albertasasquatch.com/Reports_FTR_2002.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 29, 2011 Share Posted March 29, 2011 If there's such a thing as a bigfoot, then I'm sure that an average one could outclimb an elite athlete human being. A bigfoot any more than about 400 lbs, however, would be unlikely to spend much time at all in trees. I've attached a paper on nesting habitats of western gorillas. Apparently, only 21% of 3725 nests they examined were in trees. Silverbacks were the least likely to nest in trees (2% of their nests were arboreal). I know this is about nest sites specifically, but it illustrates that even a creature so superbly adapted to life in the trees as a gorilla actually spends most of its time on the ground. As something reputedly bigger and less-adapted to an arboreal existence than gorillas, I can't see bigfoots spending much meaningful time in the canopy at all. Orangutans live a truly arboreal existence, but their bodies are so modified to the purpose that they're really awkward on the ground. Mehlman and Doran 2002.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted March 29, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted March 29, 2011 Let's say them Sas for arguements sakes that they did/do exist, what about young/Juveniles ?? Would/Could Tree's be seen as potential " safe areas " for them would you think, possibly ?? & thanks for that link by the way.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts