OkieFoot Posted August 19, 2015 Moderator Posted August 19, 2015 Hello SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT, Knowledgeable folks might define the difference. I wonder if those unfamiliar with BF that file reports though would make the distinction between a "teen" and an adult. Height and size would be the criteria most would use when reporting and I doubt any estimates of age could be determined in novice sightings. If I were to establish a cut-off point for the discussion then I'd say anything under 5 ft. and certainly anything 4 ft. or smaller. I didn't see much in the way of a defining size for calling a juvenile a juvenile in Mr. Green's database. Sighting a group that includes smaller BF's of course would make the size relationship to adults easier to assess. I would say your right on that. Bigfoot would be no different than any other species; you're born small and grow taller and bigger as you get older. Bigfoot aren't born 7ft. tall. With so many reports of Bigfoot being around 7ft., even 8ft. and taller, and hugely big and bulky, it's reasonable that a Bigfoot much shorter would most likely be a juvenile; especially when their described as being more gangly rather than huge and bulky. Some people have mentioned this. The adults would be the main food gatherers so it stands to reason they would be seen more often than juveniles since the juveniles probably are still in the learning stages of finding food and don't go out as often. They're not as adept yet. So maybe there might be a few more juveniles than we think. Not to mention, I suspect children would be babysat or kept somewhere for their safety, while the adults did their business of food gathering, similar to what we do to our own children. I agree. I'm sure you remember the Memorial Day footage and the Independence Day footage; that is what we see in both (to assume both videos are genuine). Best I recall in the Mem. Day video, you see a figure running across the mountainside, disappear from view behind a depression for a few seconds, then emerge in view again, looking taller and also just walking, and no longer running. About the only explanation for the added height was the figure having picked up a youngster and then walked away into the woods for safety. The Ind. Day footage is very similar. A supposed Bigfoot walks behind some big rocks and disappears from the camera's view for several seconds and then stands up behind one of the rocks, very clearly holding a baby Bigfoot, which it did not have in it's hands before disappearing behind the rocks. It then walks off while carrying the baby.
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted August 19, 2015 Posted August 19, 2015 I agree. I'm sure you remember the Memorial Day footage and the Independence Day footage; that is what we see in both (to assume both videos are genuine). Best I recall in the Mem. Day video, you see a figure running across the mountainside, disappear from view behind a depression for a few seconds, then emerge in view again, looking taller and also just walking, and no longer running. About the only explanation for the added height was the figure having picked up a youngster and then walked away into the woods for safety. The Ind. Day footage is very similar. A supposed Bigfoot walks behind some big rocks and disappears from the camera's view for several seconds and then stands up behind one of the rocks, very clearly holding a baby Bigfoot, which it did not have in it's hands before disappearing behind the rocks. It then walks off while carrying the baby. Yes. Even among non-primates, animals who live in group/extended family keep their young close by and/or babysat by other animals within that family group. Regarding Big Foot and where they live......do Big Feet migrate? That is do they follow a season migration pattern? Or do they live in an area for a period of time, then pull up sticks and move to another neighborhood? If either of these occur than, it's quite possible that the BF population hasn't increased or decreased (in an absolute sense), but that the population has shifted from one area into another.
Guest Posted August 19, 2015 Posted August 19, 2015 ^^^ Migration? Oh I don’t know but over 9,000 reported encounters all across the country and nearly 200 separate accounts of multiple Bigfoot/ Sasquatches in movement seem to suggests they're going someplace from small groups to large groups all moving in transit going somewhere from someplace.
ShadowBorn Posted August 19, 2015 Moderator Posted August 19, 2015 Hello All,Topic please. I know I can stray a bit too but I always come back to.....the topic.I think what Im trying to say is we simply cannot answer your question with out first getting the species recognized, so that the full weight of science can solve the riddle. Otherwise we are just all rank amatuers stumbling around in the dark talking conjecture.But I will say this, other species and forests that I think this creature relies on are dwindling and going extinct. Google Chinook Salmon........the PacNW rivers and creeks are too warm for spawning by 16 degrees! Warm water causes gill rot and as a result salmon cannot get to spawning beds before dying. If this trend continues? We could see runs go extinct. Its not good news for any Pacific NW omnivore, including humans. Norseman Look at the bigger picture of the species dying, if the salmon die which is a food source to other large animals what will this do to the creatures that depend on the same? Dwindling forest, encroaching man kind and land grab by us humans. We are literally pushing these creatures out and maybe to extinction. As to our past where they were free to roam and not have the worry of us humans that came across the sea. It might be possible that they have learned to control their population . Like maybe their I some thing in there DNA encoder that helps them with their control of population. Like whales or dolphins that only have maybe two or one baby. Natures way of controlling population in a species is what I should say. Like who knows that the creature that are seen are not the same creatures that have been seen by other witnesses in other parts of the Nation. This just my opinion .
hiflier Posted August 19, 2015 Author Posted August 19, 2015 Hello ChasingRabbits and ShadowBorn, One of the reasons for populating a database is to determine if BF does or does not migrate. The general thinking is that they are territorial but even that would depend of available resources for a given group's size. As more information gets added in then increases in sightings in a given are may indicate an influx of creatures not a region that before was quiet. Or a region that was active becomes quiet. The idea is to see if such a dynamic is seasonal or if there are outside pressures causing a move. This kind of knowledge may help in knowing more about distribution and it's causes. Regionally things like industrial intrusions such as a high volume, long term presence of a logging activity or something just as disruptive. Major and even minor fires, lack of water, lack of prey for their own reasons (driven off?) probably contribute to fluctuations in presence. It's one thing to get a database together, it's entirely another when it comes time to analyze it. We all have a lot to learn but population size and whether or not it's increasing or decreasing still may not be all that evident. We need science to take the reins in a big way and what it will take for them to do so is something I think we all are keenly aware of.
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) Hello ChasingRabbits and ShadowBorn, One of the reasons for populating a database is to determine if BF does or does not migrate. The general thinking is that they are territorial but even that would depend of available resources for a given group's size. As more information gets added in then increases in sightings in a given are may indicate an influx of creatures not a region that before was quiet. Or a region that was active becomes quiet. The idea is to see if such a dynamic is seasonal or if there are outside pressures causing a move. This kind of knowledge may help in knowing more about distribution and it's causes. Regionally things like industrial intrusions such as a high volume, long term presence of a logging activity or something just as disruptive. Major and even minor fires, lack of water, lack of prey for their own reasons (driven off?) probably contribute to fluctuations in presence. It's one thing to get a database together, it's entirely another when it comes time to analyze it. We all have a lot to learn but population size and whether or not it's increasing or decreasing still may not be all that evident. We need science to take the reins in a big way and what it will take for them to do so is something I think we all are keenly aware of. Short of tagging and monitoring BFs (like they did to Cecil D'Lion and his pride), I don't see how that can be done. If an area is active for a number of years, then becomes inactive it can be due to a number of reasons: death, decreased resources, or simply wanting to get away from bad neighbors. A death of a patriarch/matriarch or several deaths of young/middle aged creatures might prompt the remaining creatures to move. Do BFs move from home after Mom or Dad (or Grandma or Grandpa) die? Instead of putting Mom or Dad in an old folks home, do BFs pack up their kids and go somewhere else, leaving the old folks behind? Decreased resources due to deforestation can force a move. But also decreased resources due to a BF Baby Boom can too. And a Baby Boom could also contribute to moving away from "bad" neighbors. Maybe some BFs don't want to hang around a bunch of unruly BF babies and toddlers. Maybe some older BFs can't stand teenaged BFs. Edited August 20, 2015 by ChasingRabbits
Guest Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 I do not believe they are in decline if anything they’re multiplying. The young when they come of age, they move on to on to find a mate and may or may not return to familiar territory briefly with a clan of their of their own. These things are highly adaptable and find food and resources on the fringes of society and are well suited for hiding in plain sight.
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 I've written this on another thread, but if I were a BF and had to choose between hunting/foraging daily for food not knowing if I'll come home empty handed or go to a dumpster behind a McDonald's or supermarket and be assured I'll bring some food home, I would dumpster dive. Fast Food joints are all over the place: inner city, suburbs, interstate highways, etc. How many Big Macs does a BF need to eat to feel full? I don't know, but the fat, protein and carbs supply calories a BF would probably need. Supermarkets are nearly everywhere too. We waste an outrageous amount of food in the US. :-(
Guest DWA Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 ...and guess what? The animals agree with you, as the reports of sasquatch dumpster diving attest. Here, have just one. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=36218
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 ...and guess what? The animals agree with you, as the reports of sasquatch dumpster diving attest. Here, have just one. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=36218 Smart animal DWA.
Guest DWA Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Well, they are. Like bears. I mean, you know what I mean. The thing that makes the encounter reports the core of the evidence to me is that when one reads them, one gets a major head start on the biology and ecology of a species. The reports sound like wildlife encounters; the behaviors like an animal in habitat; the sighting locations plausible in terms of ecological relationships. The reports show the full spectrum of interactions with the habitat. (Or with our food, or our trash, where it seems most animals are, sooner or later.) In short: if you aren't a consortium of world-class primatologists and ecologists...you are not making this up.
SWWASAS Posted August 20, 2015 BFF Patron Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) Deforestation in the US is a myth and not responsible for any recent decline in BF population. The total acreage of forests in the US has remained constant or increased in some areas since 1900. About 1870 there was a rapid decrease in total acreage because of population growth and using lumber for houses became more popular and at the same time trees were still being used for rural fences and heating. Since 1900 forest management practices, use of plywood and other manufactured products for housing, reduction of use of wood for rural fences with wire fencing, and other more efficient sources of heat other than wood have stabilized the total forested acreage at about 745 million acres. When Europeans arrived here in 1630 there were approximately 1 billion acres in forest or half of the country. 745 million acres reflects forest in approximately 30% of the country presently. http://forestry.about.com/library/bl_us_forest_acre_trend.htm Edited August 20, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
BobbyO Posted August 21, 2015 SSR Team Posted August 21, 2015 Regarding food sources and smart animals. In WA State as per the SSR : Just under 14% of all reports (576) are when the witness has been at home, on their own property, yet in winter, this rises to 32% of all reports, which is a jump of 129%. Of those winter reports, exactly half are from the Olympic Peninsula. Across the entire North American Continent : Just over 18% of all reports (2,670) are when the witness has been at home, on their own property, yet in winter, this rises to just under 25% of all reports, which is a jump of 39%.
Guest ChasingRabbits Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 Regarding food sources and smart animals. In WA State as per the SSR : Just under 14% of all reports (576) are when the witness has been at home, on their own property, yet in winter, this rises to 32% of all reports, which is a jump of 129%. Of those winter reports, exactly half are from the Olympic Peninsula. Across the entire North American Continent : Just over 18% of all reports (2,670) are when the witness has been at home, on their own property, yet in winter, this rises to just under 25% of all reports, which is a jump of 39%. That makes sense. I wonder if there are more sightings in late winter/early spring when food in the wilderness is more limited than in late fall and early winter?
BobbyO Posted August 21, 2015 SSR Team Posted August 21, 2015 Winter/Spring are the two seasons with the least amount of reports period in WA. However Winter has 28% of "normal activity at home" reports compared to 11% in Spring, 32% in Summer and 27% in the Fall. The months of Feb/Mar/Apr consist of 22% of "normal activity at home" reports, when Winter and Spring combined amounts to an average of 19.5% which is a 13% increase. Our winter is 20th December to 19th March and Spring is 20th March to 19th June for the record.
Recommended Posts