Avoiding Human Contact? Or Not?

[ShadowBorn]

This is along the same train of thought that fararcher was talking about. Animals recognize stealth as opposed to nonchalance. With nonchalance animals can usually see you coming for a ways. They can then determine the threat level and decide whether to stay or leave. Many times us not being the wiser. However, when we are in stealth mode, as in hunting. This may trigger a predator/prey response of fight or flight. From my experience they do recognize the difference.

If this is so would there not be more sightings of them by folks who are just walking or hiking along in the woods? Or is it that people just are not reporting their encounters,  since they are not comfortable with them.

Sure I understand what Fararcher is saying and it is very clear, on what he says about them. But is also shows a creature that is capable of deciding, and not like the natural animal that live by instinct. They are capable of processing thought like us and this makes them cunning.

If they are capable to make decisions based on a threat level, what other level headed decisions are they capable of doing?  To have this level of mental awareness really does not make them animal.

If they are avoiding humans then they do it on purpose. But if they have made contact with you it is due after a long period of observance. I am sure that they do not make mistakes but when they do they will not make it again.

[norseman]

It has been noted many times on these pages, by me and others, that in order for BF to survive the rise of H. sapiens, it had to evolve better strategies to meet the threat. We excel at killing stuff not "us." If BF did not adapt to use weapons as we did (and obviously they did not...why? Good question) they only had two choices: Go extinct or go covert. They obviously adapted and survived. Only a genetic predisposition to be furtive around humans would have allowed them to survive as long as they have. Presuming their existence, this observation seems irrefutable.

Plussed.

And if you tip toe around a competing species? That means you have to make due in the ecological niches they dont want. which then means your going to need a lower population to be carried on less productive lands.

And the more your cousins push the harder it gets.

[FarArcher]

Hello DWA,

 

Hey! I've been templating. "Sasquatch As The Animal" says so. But I have to admit seeing BF as an animal has only been a thought for a few months. Mainly because the hybrid thing wasn't working. And neither was the Ape or Human thing. WE are the only things we call Human. Sasquatch? Is something.....else.

 

Hiflier, I see you framing your feeling/intuition - not human, not ape, not a hybrid.

 

I can fully understand the human.  I would say not an ape.  But could you elaborate on why not a hybrid, and I only leave this as a possibility as there appears to be a ton of narratives through the centuries, here and in Europe, about woman stealers.

 

Can you elaborate?  I mean, I don't know, but I'd like to hear your opinion.

[BigTreeWalker]

ShadowBorn,

I said: They can then determine the threat level and decide whether to stay or leave. Many times us not being the wiser.

How does this equate to more sightings? Cougars are very good at this. The majority of the BF sightings probably occur because they chose to be seen.

[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. 

Well, being a skeptic you know I don't buy into a lot of this stuff anyway, but I do try to keep an open mind and have started to be more receptive to what others in the BF community say about their own experience. 

 

-- I’ve noticed that. That’s very cool (and smart). Good for you. 

 

Your own particular "habituation", as I'll call it, is a good example. I know we recently discussed it in another thread and while it's not something I see plausible under scientific terms it's not something I readily dismiss

 

 

-- That’s awesome. It’s not wise for us to dismiss the experiences of other people just because we haven’t had the same experiences, even when – or especially when – societal pressure seems to dictate we do that. Our society is seriously messed up, so its pressures generally are, as well. So again, good for you for bucking the trend and thinking for yourself. 

 

I can find explanations for your habituation account but from a skeptical view.

 

For instance I believe what some think of as being "spoken to" by BF could actually be ultrasound or infrasound of some sort and people misinterpret it as hearing someone speaking to them.

 

 

-- Ultrasound and infrasound are, as I understand it, simply sound waves that are above and below the part of the wave spectrum that humans can hear. Infrasound (and ultrasound?) is/are felt in the body and can affect a person’s mood, but by definition, you cannot “hear†infrasound. And something you can't hear can't be misinterpreted as the very clear messages so many of us get. So whatever I and others are hearing, it’s not infrasound or ultrasound. 

 

And I do believe that if BF exists they are very intelligent creatures and very aware of their surroundings. Therefore they would see some people as less threatening. I have taken from our conversations you are a woman and I hope I'm correct about that and I mention it because I'm sure BF would see women as less threatening. They would know it is usually men who carry guns and are looking to kill something. I'm sure there are some men who they would learn to see as not a threat as well.

 

-- It’s very true that there are many, many men who are not perceived as threats. However, it is not quite accurate to say that BF “learn†to see some people as non-threatening. They are extremely perceptive and intuitive. They don’t rely on visual cues to evaluate who’s a threat and who isn’t. They know your mind and your heart immediately. 

 

But then there are folks like myself, it's been very seldom if ever in my life I went into the woods unarmed. Even as a kid I would have a BB gun, so folks like me they would see as a threat or at least a concern and they would not show the same actions or reactions towards us.

 

 

-- What makes you think that? It happens to be untrue. They do NOT see people with weapons as being threats to them. They only see people who are coming after THEM with weapons as being threatening. 

 

I would treat one the way it treated me most likely. I'm one who thinks we need a BF body for absolute proof, but even then, I don't think I could shoot one unless it seriously threatened me and got close. I quit hunting years ago because I lost the heart for killing animals so that alone would probably keep me from wanting to shoot it plus there's the old "they look so human" factor.

 

-- And they know this about you. They know this the instant you step into their domain. They know you are reluctant to kill things, and that reluctance speaks volumes about you. You are someone that some BF somewhere (or many BFs somewhere) would be happy to know. 

 

But if I see one I'm not going to wait to see if it wants to be friends, it better step the other way or I'm popping a cap in it's behind. I don't mean to sound cruel but understand I don't expect a warm reception from a BF.

 

-- Why wouldn’t you expect a warm reception from a BF? You just said that you don’t enter the woods with an interest in killing anything. The minute you step in the woods, they know this about you, and it’s an appealing thing. So you can -- and should -- expect a warm reception. Live and let live: It’s a magical thing. Every living being loves that attitude.  

 

[ShadowBorn]

ShadowBorn,

I said: They can then determine the threat level and decide whether to stay or leave. Many times us not being the wiser.

How does this equate to more sightings? Cougars are very good at this. The majority of the BF sightings probably occur because they chose to be seen.

Where it should equate to more sightings ? is in the fact that the more comfortable a hiker is in the domain of the Bigfoots the more observant they will be around these hikers. So if these creatures are so observant over hikers that are calm, then these creatures should be more prone to show them selves.

 

I am also on point with the gun issue as well, where they do not care if we are carrying guns or not. What do they know about guns since they have never seen what they do. They are a animal of nature capable of thinking like us but never introduced to weapons. So they have no understanding of them, so why should they worry of them. Just like a deer that has never been shot at be fore it has no understanding of a bow or a hunter or even arrows or bullets. The day it has awareness of these weapons is when it is shot at and is hit by them and survives. If they have memories  then they know not to go near bait piles. Same goes with these creatures until they get physically injured by these strange things we call guns. That is when the become aware and learn that these human have some thing that causes physical harm to them. 

[JDL]

I think the number one, two and three reasons they are around us so much are food.  They have to be hungry most of the time and always in search of current or future food sources.

 

We grow, breed, harvest, collect, and discard food in quantites.  Some of the food available through us is rich in nutrients that they can't necessarily get in the natural environment. 

 

And they are not the only creatures attracted to us for this reason.  Deer and plenty of others aggregate around us that bigfoot can also use as food sources.

[LeafTalker]

Man does not live by bread alone. 

 

Neither do the BF. 

[BigTreeWalker]

ShadowBorn,

I said: They can then determine the threat level and decide whether to stay or leave. Many times us not being the wiser.

How does this equate to more sightings? Cougars are very good at this. The majority of the BF sightings probably occur because they chose to be seen.

Where it should equate to more sightings ? is in the fact that the more comfortable a hiker is in the domain of the Bigfoots the more observant they will be around these hikers. So if these creatures are so observant over hikers that are calm, then these creatures should be more prone to show them selves.

 

I am also on point with the gun issue as well, where they do not care if we are carrying guns or not. What do they know about guns since they have never seen what they do. They are a animal of nature capable of thinking like us but never introduced to weapons. So they have no understanding of them, so why should they worry of them. Just like a deer that has never been shot at be fore it has no understanding of a bow or a hunter or even arrows or bullets. The day it has awareness of these weapons is when it is shot at and is hit by them and survives. If they have memories  then they know not to go near bait piles. Same goes with these creatures until they get physically injured by these strange things we call guns. That is when the become aware and learn that these human have some thing that causes physical harm to them.

Animals being aware of our activities, and yes BF would probably be the most aware, has nothing to do with our calmness. I get out of this that you think hunters aren't calm. I would swear that game animals have a copy of the game regulations. The day hunting season starts they change their behavior accordingly.

Animals can be aware of weapons without the least idea of how they function. But again I think a lot of that goes back to our behavior. They don't ever have to be shot at to recognize hunters in the woods. Just an aside, Kodiak Brown Bears equate the firing of a rifle with 'dinner is served'. Hunters must be on their toes because a bear just might invite itself to dinner.

Sasquatch supposedly being one of the most aware entities in the woods would assuredly be able to discern our behavior. In the PNW, them not being aware of what a firearm is capable of is a stretch. You can't go out in the woods on a weekend without someone shooting or target practicing. BF, if they are there, have probably watched the results of weapon use enough to know what they can do. Just as the bears on Kodiak have learned the results of gunfire.

As far as sightings go it was either a mistake on their part or they chose to be seen. And lucky you either way if you happen to be in the right place at the right time.

[Midnight Owl]

It has been my experience out in the field, that the Bigfoot/Sasquatch subject is a very, very cautious individual, but at the same time, their curious nature can also be their downfall.  They will keep their distance, even more so if you are openly carrying long guns.  They know what these items can do.

 

If they detect suspicious activity (i.e. bate and trap locations, tracking or herding them etc.) they are usually out of there never to be seen or they harass you from a safe location. 

 

Just camping out in areas of known activity can and will draw them in close to observe.  Land owners have in the past established interaction with them, sometimes good, sometimes bad and a few really, really ugly situations.

 

In short, they are not a dumb animal from my experiences out there.   They have a level of reasoning and cognitive that gives them a big edge with the keen senses they possess.  They usually will keep adistance and avoid detection.

[Guest]

Early agricultural human societies gave rise to Jack the Giant Killer stories.  Theme is usually similar.  Giant pilfers something, Jack pursues, kills giant, and recovers whatever.

 

In some of the gorier ones the giant does some serious damage tot he community.  In most the giant eats people.

 

There's even a Disney version from the Great Depression in which a prosperous kingdom suffers due to the predations of a giant.

The one with Mickey, Donald and Goofy.  There are other Disney versions of the Jack the Giant Killer stories.

They may also be refering to humanoid type giants of which are covered up all over the place.

 

Sometimes, they show themselves on purpose, or are caught by surprise, and the road incidents are about 30% or more of sightings, they just may not give a darn about walking in front of a car, and don't want to stop they just keep on going, or they may do it on purpose. Nothing ever happens to them because of this behavior. It only has negative consequences on humans who report the incident. LOL.

 

The question is: Do they KNOW that humans don't generally beleive in them? By testing the water, getting a shock reaction, they might guesstemate we don't include them in the general human  social scene. No one hunts them down, they know we are physically inferior. They are the kings of the forest. They have rules about human interaction. They do or can seem to get ''pee'd off'' when a human catches them out in the open.

 

They may get bored, they are obviously curious about us, they are attracted to females and children, for amusment at the least. So they peek around. Issue is the negative interaction with humans that generally follows. Most humans do not react favorably to the encounter. If humans did, things might be very different.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Wag

[MIB]

I think we're misinterpreting.   I don't believe they are avoiding contact, only controlling it.    I think that explanation fits the report data better than blind avoidance does.  I think that explanation would be easier to accept if it didn't poke our fear / insecurity button by implying things ape camp mentality, whether we acknowledge it in ourselves or not, refuses to consider.  

 

MIB

[JKH]

Plusses for Wag and MIB.

 

I've come to similar conclusions. There are too many reports that indicate deliberate approaches, most likely food-related, but some not so. Heck, the BFRO even has terminology for such behaviours, such as "campstalkers", among others. I'm sure that when Matt M says things on tv like, "they're afraid of humans and would never touch one", he actually knows better and perhaps considers it a public service.

 

Here's an interesting report:

 

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1341

 

 

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

In considering this, as in the case of having a creature show itself, one has to reason out WHY. Saying it's simply because they want to just isn't good enough IMO as it doubly compounds speculation. If that were the case then why not show themselves at one particular spot at one particular time of day every day. Maybe they do and Humans aren't there to see them but since folks talk about visiting the same sighting places with no further encounters there must be something else going on.

 

I still say that sightings occur because the animal is number one new to the area for some reason or another. I am also of the opinion that BF lookouts may be "walking the property" which is a large area and so wouldn't always be at the same place at the same time. It leads one to think that when there is a sighting that it occurs along the outside lines between BF controlled regions. Something that I think can only be determined with a topo map to see natural barriers and how they line up with sunlight in the daytime- especially in winter. In summer the areas should shift in respect to shade, water, isolation from trails, frequent road usage and noise. 

 

These shifts would also be dependent on whether or not other BF groups also shift around for the same reasons, berry seasons being an example. I also think that these shifts of territory are sometimes forced by natural events and that they may sometimes lead to altercations because of it. Because I think populations are small though I don't see it as a frequent event. Animals know who the top alphas are in the region so, like bears, will choose flight over fight.

 

There are reasons for everything in nature. An exposed BF IMO isn't something that happens because the BF wants it to happen. There are other factors at play: wandering juveniles, mate searches, stretching territorial limits for food or water, and jusyt plain being the new kid on the block and so unfamiliar with the terrain. Their having a conscious intent to show themselves simply speculates and over anthropomorphizes the situation. My opinion. 

[scottv]

Hello everyone.

 

Wouldn't bigfoot be less wary on national parks because there is no hunting? I would think they would migrate there for this reason and therefore densities should be much higher on national park lands than elsewhere. So, high numbers with less wary animals. That would be the place to look in my opinion.