Why Is Bf So Shy/reclusive?

[Guest DWA]

Answer to OP question:  because known mammals are, and primates right up there with the best of them.

 

The shyness and reclusiveness is vastly overstated, however, by the societal denial of the animals' existence.  Reports indicate that they're being encountered rather often.

To be fair the region where the Bili apes are located is exactly the least hostile place on earth, and the natives where well aware of their existence and the Bush meat traders were well aware of them also...

 

Something 8ft somewheres in the excess of 700lbs is hard to miss, especially when you factor in the frequency of reports of the creature. Its like have a bunch of Samsung double door Fridges on the loose and people on catch glimpses of them.. It is just incredible how BF can go unnoticed in some of the places people are reporting sightings.

 

We accept everything in that quote except sasquatch.  Big diff that completely explains everything.

[Midnight Owl]

I have experienced just how elusive the Bigfoot/Sasquatch subject can be in many situations, but I have also had the incredible experience of being openly approached by a family group because they trusted the land owner I was with.  These subjects do establish relationships with people.  I have seen it on more than one occasion in different places with different folks.  From personal observations, I have come to several personal conclusions most folks have trouble accepting, but it doesn't change what I have experienced one bit.

 

1.  The Bigfoot have intellect and cognitive thinking.  To treat them as if they are just a dumb animal to be driven, baited and hunted is a recipe for failure.  Just look at the groups who hold this position and show how that has worked for them?  Many have never even seen one, yet profess they are experts about who and what these subjects are!

2.  The Bigfoot clearly understand intentions.  They will not amuse or perform on command.  They are a curious lot and will respond to someone who is genuine and reaching out with no strings attached.

3.  The young ones are usually the ones on the perimeter of a family group that are used as sentries.  They will alert the group of your presence and often distract and lead you away from the group.  They toy with getting close to you, but never being seen.  It is a big game with them.  To be found out is a bad thing.

4.  They do understand spoken language and some folks-including myself-have communicated with them.

 

That's not my opinions, but are my personal experiences for what its worth.  If you think its BS, no harm done, just treat it as fiction and believe what you will.

 

Have a very blessed day!

 

M.O.   

[Guest]

I will go against the grain here. personally I buy into the theory that multiple generations of predation by humans on top of an endangered population level has drove the big lad into a state of perpetual hide and seek.Just my theory.

[Guest Boolywooger]

 

You may think the second hour of the above video by the late Lloyd Pye is total hogwash, but I think the first hour is one of the best  scientific explanations for BF and it's current behavior that I've ever seen. 

[Guest lightheart]

Interesting Boolywoogger. Thanks for posting.

 

I have to question this though respectfully. If his theories are correct then they are bipedal apes. How do we explain their language capabilities? ....... ........I have personally heard several hours of their communications. 

 

How could they mate with humans and produce viable offspring?........ For that matter if Neanderthals are apes as he suggests then how does our DNA contain some of theirs?

 

I agree with you that his explanations are possible about where they live and why they are shy and reclusive however. More food for thought......

[Guest]

Boolywooger thank you for posting that link. Someone I know recommended that I watch that a while back and I never got around to it. I now have it saved to my favorites to watch later today.

[Guest]

I suggest that we (BF and humans) were and still are competitors for the same resources (game, wild fruit, water, habitat, etc.) and humans have done a great job of driving BF away from these prime resources. As such, BF has had to become nocturnal or diurnal as well as actively avoid contact in order to take advantage of the resources they do have access to. Avoiding competition or predators is a major driving force in animal behavior and evolution so you could make the assumption that BF's reclusive nature is in direct response to negative human contact in the past.

[Guest Cervelo]

I little history lesson might help....

http://www.eduplace.com/ss/socsci/ca/books/bkf3/reviews/pdfs/LS_6_02_01.pdf

I would think from the moment we started using fire our paths would have diverged....

Theirs would have been a nomadic lifestyle rarely if ever assembling in large groups, no agrarian tradition, no tools, no language (as we understand it) no fire.

To have stayed that way and not "progressed" in anyway other than become gigantic and yet remain passive, shy, ect but still remain on the fringe of our societies for centuries.....and not have a rich history of conflict and numerous relics, trophies ect to show for our conquest over the giants.....nah can't buy it...wish I could!

But hypothetically speaking no conflict for resources if they exist they have and have had all they need for sometime.

[Guest DWA]

I suggest that we (BF and humans) were and still are competitors for the same resources (game, wild fruit, water, habitat, etc.) and humans have done a great job of driving BF away from these prime resources. As such, BF has had to become nocturnal or diurnal as well as actively avoid contact in order to take advantage of the resources they do have access to. Avoiding competition or predators is a major driving force in animal behavior and evolution so you could make the assumption that BF's reclusive nature is in direct response to negative human contact in the past.

 

That's actually pretty likely.  There's certainly precedent.  Brown bears in Europe have had the stuffing so shot out of them that Italians living in brown bear country had to be shown the proof by researchers before they'd believe it.  Wolves and mountain lions too.

 

One thing scientists don't seem to be able to get their noggins around, bless their li'l hearts, is that animal populations can simply decline over time to a level that people aren't casually running into them anymore.  This doesn't mean extinct.

[Guest]

Just a wild guess here, what would anyones opinion say to the fact that because the First Nation tribes were impacted by sicknesses that the europeans brought with them that BF has a learned set to avoid non-Indians.

[Guest DWA]

I personally don't think animals react to stuff like that; I don't expect sasquatch to pinpoint us as disease vectors. Otherwise we are more than similar enough to those we displaced to be lumped in pretty handily with them.

[Guest]

Dwa- animals? quite frankly the Sas hasn't been idenified as an animal or other yet. There have been maybe accounts that the First Nation Peoples traded goods with the Sas and communicated with them.

[SWWASAS]

In my opinion there are factors at play with their shyness. They do it because it is part of their survival protocol with humans. We are another top predator (or used to be) and for many thousands of years were only armed with bows and arrows, spears etc which is not much different than throwing rocks like some witnesses describe as BF behavior. So the Native Americans treated them with respect, and pretty much left them alone. But introduce European settlers with guns and the equation changed. So I think their survival protocol changed and they got even more reclusive because the white skinned people had a tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. Unlike spears and bow and arrow, firearms can be deadly even to something the size of BF. It was not that long before even the Native Americans had firearms too. If they raided cattle or harmed humans the human reaction was armed posies hunting them down. So they learned to avoid that. The skeptics will probably question that happened by there are many many newspaper and ledger accounts of just that happening. Monster seen and woods searched by armed men has been reported dozens of times. Now other than human hunters who carry rifles that are quite evident, a BF cannot be really sure who is armed. Many hikers are not but some may be. So survival conditioning has pretty much trained them to avoid human contact as much as possible. There may be some who enjoy scaring humans when they are having a bad day but I do not think it very common. There seem to be some areas like Northern Washington where some BF there are into frightening humans. The reason is unknown but for all we know it might be because they have been shot at or had a relative shot. Or maybe some are just plain bad tempered. There are some areas more dangerous than others for field work. The areas that people often go missing should be approached with caution no matter what the reason. Randy

[AaronD]

"If they raided cattle or harmed humans the human reaction was armed posies hunting them down. So they learned to avoid that"

 

If they can collectively learn to avoid humans I wonder why the deer haven't....or bear...or fish for that matter. Maybe cuz the BF isn't just an animal? Just a thought.

[Guest Cervelo]

While visiting the Atlanta aquarium some years ago, I walked up very close to the Beluga tank.

I was within a foot of the tank, a whale immediately came right up..face to face and looked me right in the eye.

I've had this same experience with gorillas and chimps and a wild dolphin...that was cool!

In every instance within in a zoo......I first felt shame and guilt...but also saw intelligence beyond what is assumed.....my dog dreams, what does that mean?

But I can tell you this....if a saw a chimp out while hiking or hunting tomorrow I'd shoot it on sight, with regret ....but I know what they are capable of....Bigfoot is most likely no smarter than any animal I've mention....the rest is just what we want them to be.