Guest Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 What some would call speculation or fiction, I would call common sense. I haven't personally come face to face with a lion but from my observation I speculate it could tear me limb from limb and then eat the pieces. I haven't read any accounts of gorillas attacking a human, but I can use common sense/speculate that 5 foot primate could probably rip my arms off and beat me over the head with them. Even though I've personally seen BF, from reading others accounts it seems quite obvious that they are extremely powerful creatures. I guess I don't need a peer reviewed scientific journal to confirm that for me. As to the existence, again I don't need a scientific journal to ok my belief in BF. I guess I have more faith in the word of my fellow man. Even taking into account the percentage of reports that are fake, there are still too many to dicount all of them. I wonder if the citizens of the Carolina's continue to seek mental evaluations when they see mountain lions, because the official stance of their Fish and Game was that panthers had been exterminated from the Carolina's. The off the record statement is that they reintroduced panthers into the area a while back. Some people are robots....?
Guest vilnoori Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 How to survive great ape attacks: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/7938060.stm
Guest Biggie Posted July 26, 2011 Posted July 26, 2011 http://www.bigfootencounters.com/stories/kamchatka.htm I found this account interesting - a hunter and guides concluded a bear had been wounded by a sasquatch. Interesting report but to me in the end it's not worth holding much stock in even though I personally believe bf exists. That is the first account I have read of a bf supposedly attacking a bear. Typically disappointing how they had evidence to save for analysis but no one took any samples pictures or video.
17x7 Posted August 2, 2011 Posted August 2, 2011 I was trying to think about any actual way to consider this. In most of the world, big primates and big predators don't share the same space. I could only think of one exception: What about tigers and orangutans? They share the same jungle (or at least did). A male orang is giving up weight, but should be an easy strength match (much like presumed match up between BF and grizzly). Intellect would also favor the orang. Any info on how that match up comes out? Is there any actual accounts of these two crossing paths and what happens when they do? Might shed some light on things. 17x7
Guest Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 As others have mentioned the strength of BF is speculation. However here is a little known fact about the species, the California Grizzly. In the 1800's we used to have our own form of bull fighting in this country. A very cruel and ugly spectator sport. We used the most fierce Mexican bulls versus the California Grizzly, But there was one problem. The Grizzly was too agile and would easily snap the necks of the bulls while dodging their horns aimed at their breast. So, they had to hobble the bears and also tie them to a post in the center of the arena to give the bulls a chance. Many of the bears would kill two or three bulls before being so exhausted to give their all before their death fighting that last bull. Don't count the Griz totally out.
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 As others have mentioned the strength of BF is speculation. However here is a little known fact about the species, the California Grizzly. In the 1800's we used to have our own form of bull fighting in this country. A very cruel and ugly spectator sport. We used the most fierce Mexican bulls versus the California Grizzly, But there was one problem. The Grizzly was too agile and would easily snap the necks of the bulls while dodging their horns aimed at their breast. So, they had to hobble the bears and also tie them to a post in the center of the arena to give the bulls a chance. Many of the bears would kill two or three bulls before being so exhausted to give their all before their death fighting that last bull. Don't count the Griz totally out. I'm no vegetarian PETA type...I eat meat and would hunt if necessary. And that is still one of the saddest most horrible things I have ever read. Sorry. I know that is off topic. I would like a bull, a griz, or even a Sas in there with all the jerks who think that something like that is entertainment.
Guest Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 As I said - a very cruel and ugly spectator sport. When I read of this article a while back, I almost did not finish it, being so disqusted and sickened. And I left out the gory details! I could NOT believe that people actually did this, and in OUR country! But it is part of our history, like it or not.
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 As I said - a very cruel and ugly spectator sport. When I read of this article a while back, I almost did not finish it, being so disqusted and sickened. And I left out the gory details! I could NOT believe that people actually did this, and in OUR country! But it is part of our history, like it or not. I know you were just passing along info Skunk. Much appreciated and it does put the power of the grizzly into perspective. After you have seen a wolverine run one off though, you realize it would have to be in a real corner to take on something like a Sas. People and animals just don't take risks like this unless they are starving or they are sure they have an upper hand. My view has already been beaten to death in this thread though (no pun intended)so I am gonna make like a tree and get outta here.
Guest Biggie Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 In most of the world, big primates and big predators don't share the same space. Is there any actual accounts of these two crossing paths and what happens when they do? The only report that I'm aware of is the Alaskan fisherman on monster quest that saw a giant grizzly on the beach run away from a bf when it approached the beach from out of the woods nearby.
JDL Posted August 3, 2011 Posted August 3, 2011 The only report that I'm aware of is the Alaskan fisherman on monster quest that saw a giant grizzly on the beach run away from a bf when it approached the beach from out of the woods nearby. A traveling squatch would probably run into a traveling bear on a frequent basis. The result of this would be that they each avoid each other the vast majority of the time. Now if there were food involved that both wanted, there could be conflict. Even so, if a squatch wanted to drive off a bear, it could do so by pelting it with rocks and other thrown items from a safe distance. If a bear tried to drive off a squatch, the squatch could retreat to a safe distance and take the same approach, pelting it until it goes away or takes a shot to the head. Theoretically, a squatch could actually kill a bear with a large, well-thrown rock, though I don't know of any reports where a squatch has been observed using rocks to kill things. It may be that they just don't think this way and prefer, when killing, to do it by brute force. There's some sense to this. A missed throw, or a glancing blow, may allow prey to escape, whereas closing in and killing prey hand-to-hand is a surer bet, for hunting. But to drive something that you don't want to eat away from something that you do want to protect or obtain, thrown objects should serve, unless it just simply hasn't occurred to them to throw rocks at bears. They seem to do so with humans readily and accurately enough, though. A bear encountering a group of squatch, would probably be driven off pretty easily and a bear that realizes a group of squatch are in an area would likely avoid the area and them. In the case where a lone bear manages to get the drop on a lone squatch, both are likely to come away in bad shape. A bear may be dumb enough to do this. I think a squatch would have to be desperate, though, to risk close contact with a bear. Even if a squatch can dispatch a bear with ease, why risk injury? We have the advantage over squatch because we work as a big group and have superior technology. Squatch would have the advantage over bears as a small group that can cause pain at a distance (superior technology). Bears probably learn young that squatch are painful. If I were a squatch, I'd start throwing rocks at bears every time I saw one, just to get the message across to the bear that hanging around a squatch hurts.
Guest Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 Polar bears are descended from brown bears and diverged only 150,000 years ago. The polar bear could even be considered a subspecies of brown bear... The fact that polar bear-grizzly hybrids are fertile is about all the evidence you need to show how closely they are related... The only question is, should we call it a Pizzly Bear or a Grolar Bear? ...and would that make a bigfoot a humanzee???? I find this interesting. I stumbled on the humanzee video's while looking for something else. Not that the thought of hybridization hadn't already crossed my mind, but what stood out in the 6 video series is when they discussed the Liger, and said that they were almost always sterile, as is the case with other animals that have been hybridized. I also found it interesting that the Liger was larger than the tiger or the lion, because of the affect of the cross breeding having something to do with the growth hormone not functioning properly. So the obvious conclusion (in my mind) would be that BF could be the result of such a hybridization. However, In the end, it doesn't work-because if we believe stories by native Americans, BF has been around too long.
Guest DWA Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 To the OP: it isn't. But there are a lot of reports that indicate that if these are real, a bear might not want to count its chickens before getting in a scrap with one.
Whistler Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 (edited) Animals in the wild don't normally randomly assault one another with no regard for the possibility of injury to themselves. I just don't see a Bigfoot, regardless of size, ambushing a full grown Grizzly bear or vice versa unless there is not an option of a safe exit by either party. Way too hazardous for both, IMO. Neither can afford a serious injury that would compromise the ability to find and catch food. I think predator animals have an innate sense of what is worth fighting over and what's not. That said, I think a big Grizzly would and could dominate a BF, only because it is built for ripping it's prey up with those claws and jaws. Plus its lower center of gravity makes it a tough customer. Even a good sized Black bear would be a formidable opponent, for the same reasons. Throwing the intelligence factor into the mix certainly adds a twist to the possibilities of just what a Bigfoot could or would use as a weapon against another mammal. I suppose it's possible that a nine foot tall, 700 pound Sasquatch wielding a club, could beat on a Bear hard enough to convince it to back off. Its size alone is probably more than enough to make any other predator species think twice about mixing it up. I agreed with everything you said about assaulting another with no regard, but we differ on the whole bear dominates the sasquatch thing. Good post though.. Edited April 5, 2013 by Whistler
Guest Posted April 5, 2013 Posted April 5, 2013 Another thread that turned into BF v Grizzly. I do agree that most encounters probably end very uneventfully, with both parties going their own way. There is no need to expend the energy, nor risk injury without cause. I still an going to side with the grizzly though, as I have in the past. I would also take the tiger over the orangutan - everyday of the week. I'm not sure why people are giving BF the nod over the bear in agility, have any of you seen a bear actually fight and attack something? They are amazingly quick and agile and they are simply a ball of muscle, teeth and claws.
Recommended Posts