Avoiding Human Contact? Or Not?

[MNskeptic]

Those that profess to know more about sassy than most others claim the creature does everything possible to avoid human detection, thus the infrequency with which the creature is seen. In nearly the same breath, these creatures are said to shadow hikers, peep in windows, invade occupied campsites, and otherwise intentionally seek out relatively close human contact. Those behaviors don't sound like a creature that is avoids human detection at all costs. So, which is it? What's the true nature of sassy when it comes to interaction with us Homo sapiens?

MNSkeptic

[hiflier]

Hello MNskeptic,

First of all I'll preface this by saying that most of everything I say and post, even when starting threads, is based on only the ASSUMPTION that Sasquatch is real. And since this is a Bigfoot discussion Forum I see no issues with the assumption.

That said how about a metaphor, or an analogy if you will. Let's say a job that I have is going to be no longer. Basically it's about putting food on the table. And let's say I find another job but it's in the next county. I move myself and my family there and can again put food on the table. BUT! I now am interacting with the folks, restaurants, and school system of the new area in which I live.

Sasquatch may be territorial but that depends on several factors which may change year to year. So moving around may be necessary. In doing so it may happen that the group finds itself more in proximity to Humans, or different road systems, terrain, etc.. I think this is when the number of reports go up- as the group is unfamiliar with the new surroundings and members accidently wander into view, or are seen along or running across a road. I also think it's why A Human will catch one drinking at a stream or eating berries. It simply doesn't know the new area well enough to sense intruders.

And whatever reasons that got them there in the first place will change and will cause them to move elsewhere in which case the sightings will dry up and be no more. For a while anyway. As researchers put the pieces together I think some of this may come to be better known as efforts are made in correlating regional histories with regional drops and rises in reports. Just lobbing in my two rocks here.

Edited October 18, 2015 by hiflier

[dmaker]

"First of all I'll preface this by saying that most of everything I say and post, even when starting threads, is based on only the ASSUMPTION that Sasquatch is real. And since this is a Bigfoot discussion Forum I see no issues with the assumption."

 

Is that even necessary? Why can't someones position be made clear by the content of their posts, while allowing for both skeptic and proponent to interact? There is too much this side vs that side around here. 

Edited October 18, 2015 by dmaker

[Terry]

^

I think so and I'm glad hillier mentioned it.  I respect his opinion more knowing that.

 

t.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Terry

[hiflier]

Hello dmaker,

 

I mentioned my position for those that may be coming in here new. To read the post without giving some background on myself, even though I lean toward existence of the creature, reiterates the fact of how little there is supporting that existence. Out and out belief or out and out rejection of that existence is where heads bang seemingly without resolution.

 

Showing that there is a skeptical middle road even though unsure either way is important as it helps keep the Forum's discussion floor open. Something I am all for as much as anyone else.

 

@Terry

 

Thank you. There are proponents and opponents with hardliners on either side but I think most of the members lay somewhere in the middle with varying degrees of yes and no depending on the level of possibilities they accept. Pretty subjective IMO. Regardless of the debates though this thread and my post  on why Sasquatch is seen sometimes is certainly up for anyone's opinion. I think it's a good topic to boot. 

Edited October 18, 2015 by hiflier

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Excellent topic and you bring up interesting points. I do not think anyone can be described as an expert on a unknown ,unproven creature. If they do exists,it would seem logical to assume there would be both types of followers ,peepers and avoidance at all costs. After all we other known,proven creatures certainly vary in many diiferent ways.

[Rockape]

"First of all I'll preface this by saying that most of everything I say and post, even when starting threads, is based on only the ASSUMPTION that Sasquatch is real. And since this is a Bigfoot discussion Forum I see no issues with the assumption."

 

Is that even necessary? Why can't someones position be made clear by the content of their posts, while allowing for both skeptic and proponent to interact? There is too much this side vs that side around here. 

That's the thing though Dmaker, because of the war between the "knowers" and "denialists" the "maybeists" like hiflier and myself feel the need to preface what we say so as not to be mistaken for someone who has their mind made up. I know I've been accused at times of being  a BF believer kook AND/OR a government agent here to discredit BF existing.

 

As for the question in the OP, I'd say obviously BF would try to avoid us at all costs, else we'd have one by now.

Edited October 18, 2015 by Rockape

[bipedalist]

Since I was in an episode of research where I was actively pursued (not chased, but surprised a few times by tree breaks or pushovers) then that must mean something as well.  I will leave that for others to figure out. 

[WSA]

I like to use the descriptor "furtive." The picture painted by all the accounts, including those who claim a level of habituation, is this animal wants interaction on their terms, and their terms only. "Shadowing" is not inconsistent with that presumed intent. When one is surprised by the unexpected human presence, there does not seem to be any panicked reaction, only a measured and deliberate retreat to a position of comfort. Aggression and intimidation come into play where there is no avenue of retreat, or the need to protect a territory or (presumed) progeny is acute. 

[Branco]

You pretty well nailed'em WSA. Deliberately exposing themselves even for a few seconds to humans during the day is extremely rare. If they do it, it shows they have seen and watched you over time and concluded you mean them no harm. (Leaving a few snacks in their home range over time will help them decide.)

 

To them, the night is THEIR time, and they have no fear of intruding onto human's home range. For  reasons unknown to us, their prime "witching" hours are from about 2 am (varying with the season) until dawn. I'll bet that a close review of night time reports from campers and residents will show that to be true.) I think they realize that most folks are soundly asleep at those hours.

[HOLDMYBEER]

 

 

............As for the question in the OP, I'd say obviously BF would try to avoid us at all costs, else we'd have one by now.

 

There is another dimension to consider, one of time. Perhaps they existed in substantial numbers, were curious and didn't particularly avoid humans at all costs. Now they are essentially deceased and so rare (if at all) they seem to 'avoid at all costs'.

[LeafTalker]

Branco and WSA are dead on.

 

I will only add that, when you've become a "person of interest" to them -- that is, a friend -- you will encounter them at all times of day. 

[hiflier]

Hello LeafTalker,

 

T would nt see them as something that would consider a Human a "friend". I see them as something that got used to a Human as a non-threat and is therefore tolerated. A situation that could change unannounced at anytime. A current tolerated situation mistakenly viewed as "friendship" does not take into account the history of reports that say otherwise which has the potential dangerous effect of letting one's guard down. A more realistic approach would be to treat Sasquatch as if living next door to a bear that someone has been feeding. And I would hazard a guess that when it comes to a Human "friend" Sasquatch NEVER let's it's guard down regardless of the situation.

[OkieFoot]

I like to use the descriptor "furtive." The picture painted by all the accounts, including those who claim a level of habituation, is this animal wants interaction on their terms, and their terms only. "Shadowing" is not inconsistent with that presumed intent. When one is surprised by the unexpected human presence, there does not seem to be any panicked reaction, only a measured and deliberate retreat to a position of comfort. Aggression and intimidation come into play where there is no avenue of retreat, or the need to protect a territory or (presumed) progeny is acute. 

 

You make good points; especially abut they want interaction but on their terms. As long as the people they're watching don't move towards the Bigfoot, they watch quietly, but will start moving away if the people head towards the creature.

This is what happened in the Stacy Brown thermal footage sighting. 

[Branco]

 

 

............As for the question in the OP, I'd say obviously BF would try to avoid us at all costs, else we'd have one by now.

 

There is another dimension to consider, one of time. Perhaps they existed in substantial numbers, were curious and didn't particularly avoid humans at all costs. Now they are essentially deceased and so rare (if at all) they seem to 'avoid at all costs'.

 

Well, I suppose if they are essentially dead and buried they wouldn't have  to try to avoid us.    (Just messing with you Beer; I know what you mean. A simple typo; happens to everyone.) 

 

The Booger population in the SE hasn't decreased, but development and clear-cutting practices have CERTAINLY concentrated them down here over the past 60 years or so. That's a dead certain fact. More and more of them are scavenging around residential housing, landfills and businesses that generate a lot of scrap foods. (In that regard, the local law enforcement complaint files will tip you off, if you search for the right complaints.)