Avoiding Human Contact? Or Not?

[SWWASAS]

The Native Americans said that when Europeans came that the BF died off at even greater numbers than they did.  That was discussed at last weekends,  Sasquatch Summit.      Native Americans have had some exposure to  Europeans and Asians pre-Columbus so that is not surprising.    Vikings,   Chinese,  Irish,   Polynesians,  are all groups that some evidence suggests of them having contact with Native Americans pre-Columbus.    Since the BF have avoided contact with humans,  they are more at risk because of that isolation when exposed to human disease.   They would have no acquired immunity.   Just that reason could be why BF avoids human contact.   Perhaps they have noticed that when they have contact with humans, they get sick and die.     We might be considered toxic.  

[norseman]

Over hunting over a 150 year period or so. this would not be the case with sasquatch because we'd have a body, skin or skull.

No.

Grizzly bear are rare.......period. Because their home ranges are huge. And with loss of habitat its very hard to expand their population through conservation efforts.

This has nothing to do with bullets and everything to do with bulldozers. I would expect this level of impact with any large north American omnivore.

Edited November 24, 2015 by norseman

[Twist]

But...But...But I showered last week...im not toxic!

 

If that were the case....I wonder how the bigfoot would have been infected? Would it be via the Native Americans that were infected?  I ask this because its not like there is a plethora of early European accounts of bigfoot.  There may be some, but enough to decimate the population? 

 

This summit that happened last week, did you attend is Swwas or is there a place to read a transcript?

[Guest]

Point 93 about game cameras... (okay I lost count and went random) ... they have been well demonstrated on species that we had a firm grasp of the habits of, before we went and set cameras for them. I do know that camera traps found a new deer species, but, new deer species, hardly animal brain of the century, even if it was nocturnal.

 

 

Over hunting over a 150 year period or so. this would not be the case with sasquatch because we'd have a body, skin or skull.

 

Overhunted all his food though, that's if cholera and smallpox didn't nearly wipe 'em out in the 1700s.

[JDL]

I didn't know about the discussion at the summit last weekend, but I have read one native historical account to that effect.  The account, which I have not been able to relocate stated that in the 1500s the squatch were hit so hard that for a few generations the native Americans thought they'd been wiped out.  The account also said that prior to that they had been numerous.

 

Since squatch pilfer food, it wouldn't be a stretch to surmise that they could have picked it up.  Also consider that many Native Americans were dying first and that it is possible for shared water sources to become contaminated.  There's also a possibility that some of the diseases were carried by rodent vectors that may have been pests from the human perspective, but food from the squatch perspective.

 

The more interesting thing is that squatch were so vulnerable to the diseases.  This suggests that they share a lot genetically with humans, though on occasion zoonotic transfer is deadly to an unrelated species, my understanding is that it is more rare than similar fatality rates between closely related species.

Edited November 25, 2015 by JDL

[scottv]

Grizzly bears are rare in the lower 48 states initially due to hunting and are kept that way for reasons you mention, although even in the presence of humans they could probably behaviorally adapt if allowed to do so. In Canada and Alaska they are not rare and are seen all the time. Their population densities are lower than other animals but that does not necessarily mean they are rare. Quick google search and I get about 30 per 1000 square km in Glacier National park and 0-10 up to 50-60 per square km in British Columbia. So let's take 30 as an average. 1000 square km is 386 square miles, so on a 19 mile by 19 mile area we have 30 bears. Which is not a lot but not all that rare and very easily documented as shown by the density estimates. I would think that bigfoot would reach these kinds of densities and gravitate towards national parks. Also I would think in the absence of grizzly bears to compete for resources with bigfoot densities would be higher.

 

Interesting idea on human to bigfoot disease transmission .No idea, but if it happened on a massive scale from Europeans I would think some bodies would have been found. Much harder, in my opinion, to imagine transfer from Indians to bigfoot due to the length of time in North America together.

 

As with all things bigfoot the above is all speculation aided by google.

If bigfoot has one male with a harem then all (most) of the females would still be breeding, just with one male. So you'd have younger males roaming which would greatly raise their probability of detection. Not unusual for juvenile males of a given species to be much easier to trap than the rest of the population.  One male with a harem is seen in gorillas and they do not have densities that are so low the species is undetectable.

[Twist]

So, just ramblings here but......

 

So lets go back to the 1500's..... Indians have tales of BF and they were prominent enough that they commonly knew of them enough that as they started to die off they noticed a change in population.  This leads to me to believe the Indians new and probably interacted with sasquatch either as a "race" or creature, lets say akin to buffalo or deer.  A commonly known being. 

 

Now foreigners show up, Vikings, Spaniards, Europeans....which ever.  They show up and start infecting the natives and possibly sasquatch with disease.  This is the first point that rises a real question in my thought process.  Did the foreigners infect just the Indians and they passed it along to the Sasquatch?  Or did foreigners interact with both Indians and Sasquatch and infect both?   What I'm wondering here, is its possible as mentioned above that a Sasquatch could be infected by water supply or pilfered food to the levels of decimating a "numerous" existence?  My assumption here ( and only an assumption) is that as of the 1500's the reach of foreigner influence would not have been much more widespread than a few hundred miles inland from the Atlantic coast.  PNW squatch for example would be oblivious to this effect.  I'd go as far as to say anything west of MO would be exempt. 

 

So now we have a reason to believe that either via second hand Indian contact or direct contact with foreigners BF has become sick from foreign influence.  This would be a reason to believe BF, beginning in the 1500's is afraid of Man and actively works to avoid it, given BF is an intelligent being with the ability to connect cause and effect.

 

I've always wondered why to this date, BF would be so afraid of man that it is the ninja of the woods it is often made out to be.  What are they afraid of?  Sure we kill other animals but so do all other predators in this world.  BF itself is known to kill deer, and other animals.  Bear's are known to kill, Coyotes are known to kill. We as "foreigners" have no history of hunting and killing this animal to the brink of extinction like animals such as Wooly Mammoth, Buffalo, Giant Armadillo's and N. American Camels.  Some of the previously named species were hunted and killed to extinction 10,000 years ago but there is "history" of it.  Why does Bigfoot elude any type of history of man hunting it to the verge of extinction as recently as 500 years ago? 

 

There had to be some event that freaked out bigfoot so much that to this day they avoid us like the plague to the point we cannot publish substantiated proof of them. 

 

The next issue I have is, given the hundreds of years since the "events" that had to have happened to make one animal avoid us so much, these "events" have had to of passed down to make them still so strong to this day.  They would have to have some way of "communicating" to future generations that evasion must be kept up to the level it has been.  They have to have a way to pass down oral tradition of why they avoid us.  Even humans, with written language have trouble with things becoming legend and myth given time if there is not a continual display of why we do something or live a certain way.  What is still driving this species to avoid us to this day if we cannot even photograph one, let alone kill one.  Why are they still so afraid?  At some point wouldn't a single BF become over confident in their ability and be caught / killed ? 

 

IDK....just random ramblings of someone stuck at home with a broken ankle and bottle of wine

[norseman]

Grizzly bears are rare in the lower 48 states initially due to hunting and are kept that way for reasons you mention, although even in the presence of humans they could probably behaviorally adapt if allowed to do so. In Canada and Alaska they are not rare and are seen all the time. Their population densities are lower than other animals but that does not necessarily mean they are rare. Quick google search and I get about 30 per 1000 square km in Glacier National park and 0-10 up to 50-60 per square km in British Columbia. So let's take 30 as an average. 1000 square km is 386 square miles, so on a 19 mile by 19 mile area we have 30 bears. Which is not a lot but not all that rare and very easily documented as shown by the density estimates. I would think that bigfoot would reach these kinds of densities and gravitate towards national parks. Also I would think in the absence of grizzly bears to compete for resources with bigfoot densities would be higher.

 

Interesting idea on human to bigfoot disease transmission .No idea, but if it happened on a massive scale from Europeans I would think some bodies would have been found. Much harder, in my opinion, to imagine transfer from Indians to bigfoot due to the length of time in North America together.

 

As with all things bigfoot the above is all speculation aided by google.

If bigfoot has one male with a harem then all (most) of the females would still be breeding, just with one male. So you'd have younger males roaming which would greatly raise their probability of detection. Not unusual for juvenile males of a given species to be much easier to trap than the rest of the population.  One male with a harem is seen in gorillas and they do not have densities that are so low the species is undetectable.

One adult male requires 500 sq miles......thats rare. What if Sasquatch is more rare?

And lets remember that Sasquatch is detectable, otherwise we wouldnt be talking about it here.

We just dont as of yet have a body. A bipedal Higher Ape is going to be smarter than the average Bear, and Bears are smart. So this is still a mystery as to how they have alluded us for so long.

[dmaker]

"And lets remember that Sasquatch is detectable, otherwise we wouldnt be talking about it here. "

 

 

That is simply not a fact. Sasquatch could be nothing but a myth and we could still be discussing it here. 

[norseman]

Where did the myth come from?

Thats right, native americans described seeing something in their forests. And they passed that on in oral tradition. What it looks like, what it eats, what it smells like, so forth and so on......

Thats a fact.

Edited November 25, 2015 by norseman

[SWWASAS]

But...But...But I showered last week...im not toxic!

 

If that were the case....I wonder how the bigfoot would have been infected? Would it be via the Native Americans that were infected?  I ask this because its not like there is a plethora of early European accounts of bigfoot.  There may be some, but enough to decimate the populatio

This summit that happened last week, did you attend is Swwas or is there a place to read a transcript?

Yes I attended.   Joe Beelart,   Bigtreewalker, and Norseman were among the Forum members that I know were there.   I did not see Norseman for some reason.     I guess because I have never met him.    The whole thing is video taped but I don't know when it is released to the public and if that costs something.   Check Youtube as people other than the official photographers were taking video.   Some usually pop up on Youtube.  

 

Anyone that gifts or leave stuff out for BF to examine is exposing BF to human pathogens.    But vaccinations have pretty much eliminated most of the nasty and deadly human pathogens that humans might give bigfoot.    I worry about what people are doing to BF  teeth that give them sugary stuff.    Humans that do not brush well have plenty of problems because of what we eat.   With the most nasty human diseases controlled by human vaccination it is certainly possible that BF populations have stabilized because of that and the fact that forest acreage is stable and not decreasing like it was in the late 1800s and early 1900s. 

[Incorrigible1]

Where did the myth come from?

Thats right, native americans described seeing something in their forests. And they passed that on in oral tradition. What it looks like, what it eats, what it smells like, so forth and so on......

Thats a fact.

Perhaps so, but there's bound to be embellishment to the story, over the many generations the tales are passed down.

 

The speculation that bigfoot suffered from introduced European diseases is just that, too: speculation. Oral traditions are fine, and there may even be some truth at the heart of the stories, but that's not a guarantee, either. Speculation can be fun, but one shouldn't assign too much gravity to the oral traditions.

[dmaker]

Norse, not every myth is founded in a real creature.  You can keep insisting that this one is, but it is not a fact.

 

It's great for you if your world view absolutely has to include room for bigfoot both in its present reality and its history. But, again, that does not make it factual.

Edited November 25, 2015 by dmaker

[norseman]

The myth of Sasquatch IS a fact, it was detectable to native Americans, which is why we have the myth in the first place.

You guys can speculate all you want to, about how that came about in history. From a real creature to peyote......I care not.

Really!? of course that doesnt make the creature factual in the eyes of science. A type specimen does...... I think we are past this stage of our relationship D? Inc?

[Guest]

 

Anyone that gifts or leave stuff out for BF to examine is exposing BF to human pathogens.    But vaccinations have pretty much eliminated most of the nasty and deadly human pathogens that humans might give bigfoot.    I worry about what people are doing to BF  teeth that give them sugary stuff.    Humans that do not brush well have plenty of problems because of what we eat.   With the most nasty human diseases controlled by human vaccination it is certainly possible that BF populations have stabilized because of that and the fact that forest acreage is stable and not decreasing like it was in the late 1800s and early 1900s. 

 

 

I think that's more likely to happen from "unintentional" gifting than intentional, dropped apple cores etc with human saliva on, garbage rummaging. they might not be seen in town doing that with any frequency, but I bet they get their share in wilderness parks after dark.

 

Anyway, I think their food is now more abundant than at any time since the 1700s, and their gene pool was pruned back both for inquisitiveness and aggression/boldness by firearms, and by disease, favoring those with natural mutations and idiosyncratic resistance.