Bigfoot caloric intake.

[norseman]

14 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Unless the “Bigfoot Calorie intake “ issue is used to capture (in body or film) bigfoot the issue is useless.  
 

It only matters if it leads to an encounter.   Otherwise it doesn’t matter.  
 

 

That’s why I am looking at it. 👍

[Backdoc]

5 hours ago, MIB said:

 

You're probably going to start thinking I'm picking on you .. I'm not trying to.    a) you have to ask "useless to whom?"   b) who gets to define "encounter"?    

 

I absolutely look at food availability, location, season, type, effort to extract, etc. when I think about looking for bigfoot.    It's far from the only factor but it does have to be consistent with the rest.   Where there isn't food enough, then we're looking at travel rather than occupancy.   

 

 

 

 

Whatever use you or anyone can make of Bigfoot's diet is fine by me.   The more we know the more likely we can use it to come across Bigfoot.  

 

Since people still argue if Bigfoot eats meat or not that tells us we don’t know what bigfoots diet consists of.  Sure if someone saw Bigfoot eating an apple they could assume Bigfoot likes apples.  It doesn’t mean he doesn’t eat fish.  It really doesn’t mean he prefers apples.  Based on the report I would gladly put apples by a trail camera.  Hopefully Bigfoot would get to them before 100 other animals or insects did.  

 

As far as defining encounter, I’d define it in the most of us do.   To put it in a general way an encounter is the Goal.  That is, seeing Bigfoot, filming Bigfoot, capturing Bigfoot, and for some shooting Bigfoot. 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:06 AM by Backdoc

[Backdoc]

5 hours ago, norseman said:

That’s why I am looking at it. 👍

Godspeed.  May it lead to a PGF 2.0 or better by you or someone. 

[MIB]

2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

Since people still argue if Bigfoot eats meat or not that tells us we don’t know what bigfoots diet consists of.

 

People who argue that are arguing from "religion", not report data.    The report data, taken as a whole, is very clear.   Taking the next step, the body shape reports are indicative of something that is primarily a predator.   BF seldom if ever is described as having a big sloppy gorilla style gut needed for digesting masses of vegetation, they're described as having ripped abs .. ripped abs are not an herbivore characteristic.    I think that just as black bears are omnivores that are primarily herbivorous but will opportunistically scavenge or even prey, bigfoot is technically an omnivore but primarily a predator, one that will not pass up a berry crop if handy.

 

I suspect this is consistent .. maybe necessary .. for the large distances reportedly traveled.    If you spend 16 hours a day chowing on weeds that's not much time left for walking, but if you can meet your nutritional needs in 15-30 minutes catching and consuming meat, there are many more hours available for travel .. or whatever else is available.     Moreover, that reduced time spent foraging also means reduced time distracted and at risk of being seen.

 

So we don't KNOW .. but like linear approximations in math, we can get within almost any distance from exact that we want to.    And .. from those approximations we can devise tests, devise questions for study.   Like .. science .. at least in a sort of loose hinged way.     I think loose-hinged is fine, we have to remember we're still in discovery mode, not study mode.

 

[Backdoc]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

People who argue that are arguing from "religion", not report data.    The report data, taken as a whole, is very clear.   Taking the next step, the body shape reports are indicative of something that is primarily a predator.   BF seldom if ever is described as having a big sloppy gorilla style gut needed for digesting masses of vegetation, they're described as having ripped abs .. ripped abs are not an herbivore characteristic.

 

 

Gimlin talked about how massive and muscular Party was which goes along with this point. It just makes since Bigfoot would kinda have to be. Seems like a requirement to exist in the first place in such an environment.  

 

 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

    I think that just as black bears are omnivores that are primarily herbivorous but will opportunistically scavenge or even prey, bigfoot is technically an omnivore but primarily a predator, one that will not pass up a berry crop if handy.

 

 

Makes sense to me.  I’ve seen some of these scientists on Bigfoot shows limit Bigfoot to plants. I think they do that as cover to try to put their thumb on the scale against considering Bigfoot might be possible.  Well, possible in that available food supply shouldn’t be an issue against Bigfoot.  If Bigfoot can’t eat meat they think it’s harder to make the case there would be enough food to support Bigfoot. 

 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

I suspect this is consistent .. maybe necessary .. for the large distances reportedly traveled.    If you spend 16 hours a day chowing on weeds that's not much time left for walking, but if you can meet your nutritional needs in 15-30 minutes catching and consuming meat, there are many more hours available for travel .. or whatever else is available.     Moreover, that reduced time spent foraging also means reduced time distracted and at risk of being seen.

 

 

One fish = hours of scrounging-plants-on-the-full-belly standard. nature is supposed to favor efficiency.   

 

 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

So we don't KNOW .. but like linear approximations in math, we can get within almost any distance from exact that we want to.    And .. from those approximations we can devise tests, devise questions for study.   Like .. science .. at least in a sort of loose hinged way.     I think loose-hinged is fine, we have to remember we're still in discovery mode, not study mode.

 

the guessing is getting better now that Bigfoot has moved from the Peter Graves “Monsters and myths” type of presentation and more into the Jeff Meldrum level discussions on TV.   It’s a bit like the “ why don’t we find a body when they die” topic.   At least they address it by logic and compassion to know animals life cycle 

 

 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

People who argue that are arguing from "religion", not report data.    The report data, taken as a whole, is very clear.   Taking the next step, the body shape reports are indicative of something that is primarily a predator.   BF seldom if ever is described as having a big sloppy gorilla style gut needed for digesting masses of vegetation, they're described as having ripped abs .. ripped abs are not an herbivore characteristic.    I think that just as black bears are omnivores that are primarily herbivorous but will opportunistically scavenge or even prey, bigfoot is technically an omnivore but primarily a predator, one that will not pass up a berry crop if handy.

 

I suspect this is consistent .. maybe necessary .. for the large distances reportedly traveled.    If you spend 16 hours a day chowing on weeds that's not much time left for walking, but if you can meet your nutritional needs in 15-30 minutes catching and consuming meat, there are many more hours available for travel .. or whatever else is available.     Moreover, that reduced time spent foraging also means reduced time distracted and at risk of being seen.

 

So we don't KNOW .. but like linear approximations in math, we can get within almost any distance from exact that we want to.    And .. from those approximations we can devise tests, devise questions for study.   Like .. science .. at least in a sort of loose hinged way.     I think loose-hinged is fine, we have to remember we're still in discovery mode, not study mode.

 

Agreed. If it’s primarily an herbivore then winter becomes a very hard sell.
 

Yes. The coast of the Pacific NW is typically devoid of snow. But most of the northern U.S. and Canada where many reports come from have a real winter. That’s a problem for a primate herbivore IMHO. So unless they all migrate into a tiny area along the ocean, they must eat meat.

 

But we don't know what we don’t know, but they don’t discover black holes by looking for them. You cannot observe a black hole. But what you can do is observe the effects of a black hole on the stars and planets around it.

 

If Bigfoot is primarily a predator? Then its effects on ungulate populations that we track MUST be in the data. I really liked the bone study that BTW was doing. Hope all is well with him.

[NathanFooter]

13 hours ago, MIB said:

 

People who argue that are arguing from "religion", not report data.    The report data, taken as a whole, is very clear.   Taking the next step, the body shape reports are indicative of something that is primarily a predator.   BF seldom if ever is described as having a big sloppy gorilla style gut needed for digesting masses of vegetation, they're described as having ripped abs .. ripped abs are not an herbivore characteristic.    I think that just as black bears are omnivores that are primarily herbivorous but will opportunistically scavenge or even prey, bigfoot is technically an omnivore but primarily a predator, one that will not pass up a berry crop if handy.

 

I suspect this is consistent .. maybe necessary .. for the large distances reportedly traveled.    If you spend 16 hours a day chowing on weeds that's not much time left for walking, but if you can meet your nutritional needs in 15-30 minutes catching and consuming meat, there are many more hours available for travel .. or whatever else is available.     Moreover, that reduced time spent foraging also means reduced time distracted and at risk of being seen.

 

So we don't KNOW .. but like linear approximations in math, we can get within almost any distance from exact that we want to.    And .. from those approximations we can devise tests, devise questions for study.   Like .. science .. at least in a sort of loose hinged way.     I think loose-hinged is fine, we have to remember we're still in discovery mode, not study mode.

 

 

 Very well stated and consistent will credible report data.   I would also add that the young male I witnessed in 2009 was carrying a dead fawn that had been mostly picked over, I truly doubt the situation was anything like Tom Hanks and Wilson. 

[MIB]

12 hours ago, Backdoc said:

why don’t we find a body when they die

 

That is, admittedly, a puzzle.    A couple friends have stumbled over human bodies.  We generally don't leave our dead laying around but .. it does happen.   It may be just a matter of very much lower population but .. it is a thing that causes ye olde "eyebrow of concern" to raise a bit.   It is a question worthy of further consideration.   This may sound like I'm reversing course .. I'm not .. but I think that while we're following the data we have to consider not eliminating possibilities which might not be best-fit from further consideration.   Weight-of-data changes over time, sometimes only a little in ways that don't change the conclusions, other times very substantially requiring a total re-think.

 

Similarly we should find more signs of feeding on plants / berries than we seem to see in the report data.    Not giant gorilla-type swaths of destruction, but .. something.   Maybe it is too subtle, maybe it's mixed with bear foraging in ways such that we just don't recognize the BF contribution as a separate thing.

 

So .. I hope you observe that I'm as cautious about completely discarding potential conclusions as I am about prematurely embracing them .. even when the data seems to fit.

 

So far as calories?   The area I mostly research has a late summer berry crop which more or less coincides with the annual activity peak.   I'm leery of drawing a conclusion about that because the same activity peak occurs the full length of the Cascades yet the berry crop does not match in timing once you are further north or south.    Here, that activity seems to continue until mid October which is about the time the deer drop out of the high country and migrate .. unlike most of the Cascades where blacktails just drop in elevation to mostly stay below snowline, here they do that plus they take off and go another 30-150 miles beyond what's necessary, a more mule deer type pattern.   Anyway, things drop off mid September, about the time ODFW says the deer begin to move down and out, and continue to happen but with decreasing frequency until about mid October when the migration is essentially done.    Sounds like calories?   Seems likely.   But we have to continue to consider "maybe not" and think about what alternatives might also explain the pattern.    There are seemingly through-the-winter reports here in the deer / elk wintering areas.    There are also a few reports in the locations between summer and winter areas.   These seem to represent BF travel corridors.   Low elevation tight against the foot of the mountains.    A few lower passes have reports.   I note that there are similar reports from the foothills of the Rockies.   Hanging by deer herds?  Traveling through?   I don't know.   Probably won't ever live close enough to investigate first hand.

 

(Apologies for rambling.)

 

MIB

[Huntster]

13 hours ago, norseman said:

.........If Bigfoot is primarily a predator? Then its effects on ungulate populations that we track MUST be in the data..........

 

In addition to predator/omnivore, don't forget scavenger. I'm not talking "roadkill" (although that's surely part of it), but similar to brown bears (whose eating behaviors and food preferences differ from black bears). Among the first spring meals they seek out are winter kills, which are more numerous than most folks think. An example, beyond starved ungulates, are sheep, goats, and deer killed by avalanches. I remember a snow avalanche that killed a small herd of sheep on the Kenai Peninsula that attracted lots of brown bears the following spring.

 

As a hunter, I read a lot of ADFG Management Reports. They do pay attention and even conduct studies on predator effects on ungulates, and this has grown exponentially as the environmental movement has put political pressure on predator management. But the effect of so few sasquatches is more than minimal compared to humans (hunters, car drivers, trains, poachers, etc), bears, wolves, and lions, so sasquatch predation can easily be swallowed up by the rest of the predators.

 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/research/wildlife/speciesmanagementreports/pdfs/moose_2015_2025_smrp_gmu_14a.pdf

 

22 minutes ago, MIB said:

That is, admittedly, a puzzle.    A couple friends have stumbled over human bodies.  We generally don't leave our dead laying around but .. it does happen.   It may be just a matter of very much lower population but .. it is a thing that causes ye olde "eyebrow of concern" to raise a bit.   It is a question worthy of further consideration. .........  

 

I'm sure that the dead body/skeleton thing is primarily a thing regarding their rarity. For example, there are an estimated 30K-40K cougars and an estimated 60K-80K wolves in North America. Humans? 380 million in the US and Canada. Of those millions of people in North America, some 630K are reported as missing, although we  know many of them are alive and want to be missing, or are held by others. Compare all that to an estimated 5K sasquatches.

 

I've found skeletons in the woods. I Initially thought them as human (no skull) and called the Troopers. They turned out to be poached goat or sheep. I've found lots of moose and caribou skeletons or carcasses. Never bear or wolf...............or human.

 

If someone found a sasquatch skeleton, including the skull, what are they most likely to do? My bet is that they'd either call the local police (thinking they're "human"), or they'd walk away. I doubt they'd call fish and feathers, the FBI, or another agency. And if the local police investigate, what are they likely to do if they come to realize that these remains are...............funny? My bet is that they'd contact................somebody else? 

[Trogluddite]

21 hours ago, MIB said:

That is, admittedly, a puzzle.    A couple friends have stumbled over human bodies.  We generally don't leave our dead laying around but .. it does happen.   It may be just a matter of very much lower population but .. it is a thing that causes ye olde "eyebrow of concern" to raise a bit.   It is a question worthy of further consideration.   This may sound like I'm reversing course .. I'm not .. but I think that while we're following the data we have to consider not eliminating possibilities which might not be best-fit from further consideration.   Weight-of-data changes over time, sometimes only a little in ways that don't change the conclusions, other times very substantially requiring a total re-think.

 

Similarly we should find more signs of feeding on plants / berries than we seem to see in the report data.    Not giant gorilla-type swaths of destruction, but .. something.   Maybe it is too subtle, maybe it's mixed with bear foraging in ways such that we just don't recognize the BF contribution as a separate thing.

 

So .. I hope you observe that I'm as cautious about completely discarding potential conclusions as I am about prematurely embracing them .. even when the data seems to fit.

 

So far as calories?   The area I mostly research has a late summer berry crop which more or less coincides with the annual activity peak.   I'm leery of drawing a conclusion about that because the same activity peak occurs the full length of the Cascades yet the berry crop does not match in timing once you are further north or south.    Here, that activity seems to continue until mid October which is about the time the deer drop out of the high country and migrate .. unlike most of the Cascades where blacktails just drop in elevation to mostly stay below snowline, here they do that plus they take off and go another 30-150 miles beyond what's necessary, a more mule deer type pattern.   Anyway, things drop off mid September, about the time ODFW says the deer begin to move down and out, and continue to happen but with decreasing frequency until about mid October when the migration is essentially done.    Sounds like calories?   Seems likely.   But we have to continue to consider "maybe not" and think about what alternatives might also explain the pattern.    There are seemingly through-the-winter reports here in the deer / elk wintering areas.    There are also a few reports in the locations between summer and winter areas.   These seem to represent BF travel corridors.   Low elevation tight against the foot of the mountains.    A few lower passes have reports.   I note that there are similar reports from the foothills of the Rockies.   Hanging by deer herds?  Traveling through?   I don't know.   Probably won't ever live close enough to investigate first hand.

 

(Apologies for rambling.)

 

MIB

 

The "why don't we find a body?" argument is deeply illogical, I believe, on two accords.

 

1) I was extremely fortunate to join with a wilderness S&R team for several years.  In that time, I was on several searches that involved one missing human with limiting factors on their mobility (age, under the influence) whose last known point was well defined (e.g., a bar, an abandoned car in the woods, a small regional park).  Even though most of our searches (in downstate New York) don't involve "wilderness," I was on two searches where people weren't recovered until months after they had disappeared despite extensive previous searches.  The remains of a drunk teenager weren't recovered until months after he had disappeared in a search area less than 1 square mile, 75% of which was dense suburbs.  In another case the remains of a man were recovered less than a quarter-mile from the State Park parking lot.  In both cases, terrain and weather (snowfall) hid the body for months.  Prior to my joining the team, they were involved in searches - again, in a relatively limited area - where remains have never been recovered.  It's just not as easy to find what is at best a full human body in the woods. 

 

2) What do wounded animals (including humans) do?  My understanding of wildlife behavior is that wounded animals find the most secluded spot they can and attempt to burrow in.  It took four days to find and rescue a man w/medical issues who had burrowed in (or just gotten weak and couldn't go any further) in a search that was covering less than 2 square miles in a suburban area of lower New York. I see no reason why Bigfoot would react any differently.  Unless one is hit head on by a truck or a train, its going to limp as deep into the woods as it can.  

 

I agree that the lack of a body is a problem, I don't know if it rises to the level of suspicious.