Guest StevieStrangeGlove94 Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 I dont nessicarly think thier large in numbers in alaska. I just think that because of the amount of habitat, unscathed and rarley visited by man, that the populations that do live there, are able to live the solitary lifes they want in a sort of safe zone. Far from the grasp of men. But like many of you said canada as well as the nw could also be home to a similar haven. IMO id think alaska would be a safer haven just because the lack of humans. But again thats just my two bits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Lots'm sumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StevieStrangeGlove94 Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 The whole subject is an assumption. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Unless.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted January 24, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2014 I think assigning them to Alaska / Canada is human psychology at work, nothing more. Those are "remote, wild places" where strange things can exist because they haven't been explored. Only ... they have. And unexplored isn't necessary. But it is easier for the city dweller to accept such a possibility in some far away, wild, semi exotic place than in the briar patch along the creek behind their house inside the city limits. And, for the frustrated field researcher, it's a lot easier to imagine that the sasquatch are somewhere else rather than address the possibility they're right there under the researcher's nose and the researcher just isn't "good enough" to find them. All "IMHO", of course. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StevieStrangeGlove94 Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 I think assigning them to Alaska / Canada is human psychology at work, nothing more. Those are "remote, wild places" where strange things can exist because they haven't been explored. Only ... they have. And unexplored isn't necessary. But it is easier for the city dweller to accept such a possibility in some far away, wild, semi exotic place than in the briar patch along the creek behind their house inside the city limits. And, for the frustrated field researcher, it's a lot easier to imagine that the sasquatch are somewhere else rather than address the possibility they're right there under the researcher's nose and the researcher just isn't "good enough" to find them. All "IMHO", of course. MIB . I actually completley agree with that. Lol but its not that i dont think thier in the lower 48, its just that the small human population in alaska would allow more privacy. And even if every corner of alaska has been explored, there are still many places where humans rarley care to venture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 Hello JDL, In thinking about things like this I try to consider many things. One would be the apparent plethora in the PacNW that generally seems to taper off as one looks east with pockets of higher activity dispersed in areas. There are areas too that have apparently little activity like Maine and generally East and North of the Hudson Valley. Then there's the "Midwest" thread that contained some speculation about Sasquatch in say Nebraska and Kansas being more transitory. Families grow and the young move on. Habitat in the U.S. is available for sure and as populations in those habitats grow old and the young take over or move on themselves then it could be that areas become sparse. Other game with less predation pressures then flourish which, as cycles in nature go, draw in new predators. If the origins of Sasquatch are ancient and involve the land/ice bridges of the past then the Alaskan group might be very entrenched with many networks of trails and places that are safe to populate. No one can know this for sure but it woukd intuitively seem to make sense. The rise and fall of bear populations due to fires, food supply, competition for habitat, etc. might be a factor in getting Sasquatch to seek places that are not as dangerous. This would be something not so conciously thought of by them but more like populations would fare better elsewhere. The result could be a fluctuating wave of migrations over time as pressures increase or recede. Once in the lower 48 there would be other issues to deal with for newcomers learning the ways of the newer habitats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted January 25, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 25, 2014 It's an interesting theory. To make a strong case for it, though, requires IGNORING a bunch of report data. It's not that it directly contradicts the idea, it just says there are a lot more options even more strongly supported. I don't think we should throw it aside but I think it is very premature to present it as "The Final Answer." MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Hello MIB, Thank you for being rather generous. I reread my post and, well, what can I say, it needs work LOL. You are of course right, and I didn't mean to serve up an absolute as there aren't any. Once again my impatience for answers concerning the subject rears it's ugly head....which at this point really should be examined (my head I mean) You know, it's hard to not run around in circles sometimes and in the effort of trying to keep the subject moving forward the most ridiculous things can come out of my mouth. Yep, i'm an idiot. Does this mean that the Hairy One is winning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted January 25, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 25, 2014 I don't mean to sound uppity or like an expert. In a way, quite the opposite. I've thought I had it figured out several times and each time, I've been wrong. I hope to share the caution but also the stubbornness, the will to keep trying, however carefully, despite failure. Have a good evening! MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) Hello MIB, You as well, my friend. And I completely agree with your statement. I just know that if I sleep on it then by morning I'll have it all figured out Edited January 25, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zenmonkey Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Lots'm sumptions. Isn't it all. I automatically assume everything here is an assumption. oh look what I did there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 25, 2014 Share Posted January 25, 2014 Hey, just read Alley's Raincoast Sasquatch. And it's just like everything else there. AK has some of the worst wildlife habitat on the continent (MD and NJ, much better, to name only two). It's just that the wildlife habitat pretty much everywhere else has been devastated. Haven? Um, yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted January 25, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted January 25, 2014 DWA you've confused me. Are you saying that Maryland and New Jersey has better wildlife habitat than the Tongass National Forest ? NJ and MD combined has 4.5m forested acres, the Tongass on its own as 17m acres of such rich habitat, probably the richest and most wildlife friendly habitat on the entire North American Continent, and the Tongass is the only National Forest that is bigger than the Chugach which is also in Alaska. I don't understand why you just said that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted January 26, 2014 Share Posted January 26, 2014 This falls into the trap that so many do - the trap of forgetting how things were. And how they got to be the way they are now. I'd take any single acre of any of the nature I've seen in NJ or MD over any acre of the Tongass, any day of the week, as habitat for anything but caribou and polar bear and Dall Sheep and moose. Captain John Smith could tell you why: oyster bars that hampered shipping. Sturgeon runs so thick one could walk on them, and not even need anything but a heavy fry pan to go fishing. Wolves mountain lions elk deer and bear all over. Wildlife density that makes anything in AK look like moonscape. Two things happened in NJ and MD - and most of the rest of the continental US - that never have to any significant extent in AK - habitat devastation and uncontrolled hunting. Everyone compares AK now to the lower 48 now. Wrong comparison. Given that there still is, despite all the devastation, much more good habitat in the lower 48 now than anyone thinks, it's not hard to understand why each state in the lower 48 has a significant number of sasquatch sightings - and why MD was one of the states that caught John Bindernagel's eye and helped him figure out that it isn't just PNW records that need to be taken seriously. We let current wildlife numbers in an austere environment tell us too much, because we forget what the lower 48 was - and what it still has. AK has simply never had anything close to the pressure on resources. The Tongass? Sure it and some other places in AK are nice refuges for high-latitude wildlife. But the lower 48 is as good as one gets for an omnivore that the society in general denies and that no hunter goes out prepared to see. And one reason why MD has more bigfoot reports than AK. Overlook the habitat...overlook the animal. That simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts