A Quick Question For Those With Personal Experiences

[FarArcher]

5 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

I missed this original post.     My initial exposure followed a couple of footprint finds.     I knew they existed and were in the area.   I was just a matter of being there when they were.    The first encounter started with whooping back and forth as they came down on each side of a large creek towards me.    This creek would be called a river in most of the country.     At first, I thought the whoops were some strange owl.    Then when the second one started answering I was puzzled.   Had never heard owls whooping back and forth to each other.   I stood and figured they would come flying up the creek towards me, like an eagle I had seen another time flying up the creek.   I did not know it was a BF until I heard the footfalls.   One was headed right towards me and I could tell from the footfalls and breaking dry wood it was huge.    The sounds of the T-rex breaking through the brush in the first Jurassic Park movie came rushing through my mind.   I was right in one's path and had a fleeting thought that I might die right then and there.    I looked around and realized that there was no place to hide.    I thought about my gun and just knew that it would be useless for something that big.   I did not even draw it.    It saw me before I saw it and when down into a crouch with an enormous thud that I felt through my feet.   15 seconds or so of silence then rapid tree knocks of 4 or 5 knocks.  

 

I had not even heard of the ape/ human like whooping before.    So did not initially know what it was.     This happened mid day.     They are not suppose to be out and about in mid day was the second surprise.          The apparent mass of what was making the footsteps was the most surprising thing.    After waiting for it to do something,  I ventured towards it,   and got the picture of the juvenile popping up and peeking at me.    Fear suddenly hit me, I felt trapped by all the down wood around me that I had started to crawl over,   to get to where I heard the thud,    and I wanted to back out.    After I did, and all the noise of the approach they withdrew completely silently.   I did not hear another noise from them as they left.     That something huge enough to make that noisy approach could withdraw without so much as a twig breaking is remarkable.    

 

Before, I figured my first encounter might take years and that it would be a fleeting glimpse through the trees from a great distance.   I did not know I would be that close, nearly run over, and I would get a picture, all within 5 months of my first footprint find.    That it happened so quickly was the most surprising thing to me.    Now years later, that it happened at all, is the remarkable thing to me.     I just happened to be in the right place at the right time and they did not know where I was because of several reverses of direction of travel.   

 

Whoa!  Any estimate of how far from you it was when it spotted you?

 

Reason I ask, I think these things have better night vision than day vision.  

 

Amazing how quiet they can get when they want to.

22 hours ago, MIB said:

Trees .. the ones I saw, no.   There's one incident I attribute to BF which has puzzled me ... up a tree is a very logical possibility.

 

There's a report from Northern California, either Redwoods or Jedidiah Smith park, of a big redwood back toward the edge of a park area which has bark that suggests signs of something climbing the trunk which, if I remember right, is bare for 60 feet or so but impossible to see on up.   I haven't been back to the area since I heard about it so I haven't taken time to check on it myself.   Sounds like a good spot for a trail cam.

 

The two I saw were essentially at the same level I was, very slight slopes only.   Your idea is not bad though.  

 

MIB

 

It's not much of an idea - but what I saw - his head was more "forward" in relation to "level" than ours is - I mean, it was sort of leaning forward, and with his head a bit out of place more toward the front - I'm not saying he's looking down - but just from positioning, it would appear that he'd have more trouble looking up than he'd have looking down.

[MIB]

Fair.   Wish I could drop names thus giving credit where credit is due, but "a really good friend" suggested that where possible, bedding areas might be tucked up under the foot of a bluff where they can't be approached from above.  It sort of resonated with your question about them maybe not detecting what is above them.  It might provide safety in a direction they're otherwise particularly vulnerable. From a strategic perspective, only having to post watch in one direction instead of two might have advantages too .. of course, it could prove a trap if something gets close enough from below and you can't escape upwards.

 

Just thinking out loud. 

 

MIB

 

[FarArcher]

Probably just me, but there does seem to be a common practice of running the ridges and seeking high points unless they're hunting or scavenging.

 

I didn't know that about bedding underneath the foot of a bluff.  And you're absolutely right - if there's only one anticipated (possible) line of approach, it's much easier to cover.  I much rather only be required to cover a 180-degree approach than a 360-degree approach.  

 

Huh  .  .  .

[salubrious]

Upon my encounter the first thing that got me after realizing that they really were actually for real was that I was in Colorado and not the PNW yet here it was.  The second thing that got me was the sheer size of it- 6 feet seated on its rear. It's arms were bigger around than my legs and its legs were massive.  I figured if it was standing it would have been at least 10 feet tall!

[BigTreeWalker]

Talking about ridges made me consider the four experiences I have had. None were sightings but each was an encounter. The first was knocks coming from the ridge above us. There was a sentinal up there and it was answered by two other individuals in the creek below. The next time one came down from a ridge above us, probably looking for a meal as we were cow elk calling. It approached very noisily to 80 yards, saw us, and knocked twice before leaving very quietly. The third instance was a knock on a ridge above us at 1am. The last time we were hiking up one of the few creeks still flowing in the area last August and heard rock clacks and an answer off to our right both further up the hill above us. The last instance was a trackway we found after the individual had been spooked from an area near a trail. It could have gone in any direction. The easiest and quickest being down a creek and out of sight into thick cover. But instead it chose to run uphill toward the ridge top. Always up, always higher. Coincidences, maybe, but it could also be strategic. The high ground.

[wiiawiwb]

16 hours ago, MIB said:

I've never been in a tree stand and don't plan to start now.   For the most part we don't use tree stands here, we have a lot of public land, we're not cornered and limited by private property boundaries to the degree people in other parts of the country are so there has never been a lot of need.    I've already met bigfoot on the ground.   It left alive, I left alive.  I don't think either of us felt all that threatened.   I don't have any concerns about doing it again.   If I were, I wouldn't count on 4 feet more height of a tree stand to save me, I'd stay out of the woods instead.

 

MIB

 

If a Sasquatch were intent on getting to me by going up the tree, the 4' might allow just enough extra time for 360grains of hardcast lead from my 454 Casull to greet him.  If he is not so inclined to go up the tree, then he goes along his merry way and I have a longer time to view him with the extra 4'.

[FarArcher]

15 hours ago, salubrious said:

Upon my encounter the first thing that got me after realizing that they really were actually for real was that I was in Colorado and not the PNW yet here it was.  The second thing that got me was the sheer size of it- 6 feet seated on its rear. It's arms were bigger around than my legs and its legs were massive.  I figured if it was standing it would have been at least 10 feet tall!

 

Yeah!  I know what you mean.  I recall thinking "this things' legs are thicker than my waist!"  I experienced a dozen revelations in one meeting, but their mass is one thing I had trouble getting around.

 

About this being in a tree stand - I know it's a popular method of hunting - but I think that's the last place I'd want to be if I were to have a critter encounter.  Some are climbers, but some have legs on the ground, and others are large and have small enclosures with shooting windows.

 

I too, agreed to keep identifications confidential, but it was shared with me that a very heavy, well constructed, elevated shooting blind was destroyed by one of these things.  My feet have gotten me out of a lot of trouble in the past, and while I know I couldn't outrun one determined to run me down - I think I'll just keep my feet on the ground - just in case - because sometimes a second or even two can mean the difference between life or death.  

[MIB]

18 hours ago, FarArcher said:

I didn't know that about bedding underneath the foot of a bluff.

 

Just to be clear here, that's a very educated person's guess, not confirmed, just a suggestion for further investigation.   The negative would be rockfall .. a lot of bluffs have talus below.   That could be more dangerous than whatever critter they might try to avoid.   An overhang, if the overhang itself doesn't collapse, would provide some protection.  

 

If I remember right, the locations Albert Ostman and Muchalat Harry were supposedly taken were both surrounded by bluffs.     

 

13 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

If a Sasquatch were intent on getting to me by going up the tree, the 4' might allow just enough extra time for 360grains of hardcast lead from my 454 Casull to greet him.  If he is not so inclined to go up the tree, then he goes along his merry way and I have a longer time to view him with the extra 4'.

 

Or 4 more feet to fall when you get blasted out of your tree stand by a rock the size of a pumpkin.      (I haven't started casting for my .454 but the heavy jacketed 300 grain JHP from Speer and the magnum version of the 300 grain Hornady XTP give me some level of confidence ... not that I expect to need it for bigfoot, but for whatever made that roar ... maybe.)

 

MIB

Edited December 6, 2016 by MIB

[FarArcher]

The one I got up close to - if I'd had a 30-30 - I sure wouldn't have fired as I'm not sure that would be enough to survive my enthusiasm.

 

That S&W 460 magnum is just about the foot pounds as a 30-30.  I wouldn't mind carrying one, but I'd hate to have to rely on it - just like that would not be my preference against a big, coastal brown bear.

 

Better than nothing - but I'm a bit cautious when it comes to shootings.

[Yuchi1]

19 hours ago, FarArcher said:

 

Yeah!  I know what you mean.  I recall thinking "this things' legs are thicker than my waist!"  I experienced a dozen revelations in one meeting, but their mass is one thing I had trouble getting around.

 

About this being in a tree stand - I know it's a popular method of hunting - but I think that's the last place I'd want to be if I were to have a critter encounter.  Some are climbers, but some have legs on the ground, and others are large and have small enclosures with shooting windows.

 

I too, agreed to keep identifications confidential, but it was shared with me that a very heavy, well constructed, elevated shooting blind was destroyed by one of these things.  My feet have gotten me out of a lot of trouble in the past, and while I know I couldn't outrun one determined to run me down - I think I'll just keep my feet on the ground - just in case - because sometimes a second or even two can mean the difference between life or death.  

 

I agree on the treestand idea...makes you a form of "sitting duck".

 

The principals at the former Monster Central in Louisiana favored tree stands as they maintained the Sasquatch "couldn't climb trees" which I didn't subscribe to at all. That's the disagreement we had and why I wanted to be on the ground leaning up against the pine tree 30' from the deer carcass bait instead of 15' up in the tree in a climber stand. The principal of the hunt was adamant against such and why the "sniper boy" was allowed to take the first shift as there was no way he wanted to be positioned on the ground.

[SWWASAS]

Far Archer.   "Whoa!  Any estimate of how far from you it was when it spotted you?

 

Reason I ask, I think these things have better night vision than day vision.  

 

Amazing how quiet they can get when they want to".

 

 

I think it smelled me first. The wind was at my back and blowing right towards it.    The brush was so thick between it and me that it could not have possibly seen me or heard me.   I was standing dead still as it approached.    Us humans douse ourselves with all kinds of scents.   Deodorant etc.    We must smell like a perfume counter to something living in the woods.    The following day I returned to the encounter location and went to where I heard the thud and tree knocks.   The ground cover of dead fir needles was disturbed about 20 yards from my initial encounter location.   Trying to match the location with the picture, which included sword ferns pretty much coincided with the disturbed ground cover.    I am pretty sure where the adult and juvenile were.     A year later I went to the same location, to see if there was anything there which may have brought them there.   I could not get there.   The whole area was overgrown with blackberry bushes.  The woods in the PNW is a rain forest and everything grows like crazy.  

 

I cannot dispute their night vision.   They seem to move effortlessly in darkness we cannot navigate.      But if their night vision is so good, their daylight vision must be at least as good as ours.   All of my encounters have been in broad daylight.   I do not go blundering around in the woods solo at night.  The BFRO model of them only moving about in nighttime is flawed.   If humans are not present, I think they move about in daylight as much as they do at night.   If humans are active in an area, they adjust their tactics and move primarily at night.    Above all, they are intelligent and adaptive.   Because of their superior night vision, I choose to spend field time in the daytime hours when my vision as good as theirs. 

 

\

 

 

 

 

[dlaw]

WIIA and MIB, I had a Ruger SRH in 454, but it just recoiled too much to be comfortable for me with 454's, but was a pleasure to shoot with 45 Colts. Sold it as I have other 45 Colts to shoot. Plus it would be hard to get back on target for follow-up shots with the 454. I am not too sensitive to recoil as I shoot 44 mags regularly; a 6" 629 S&W, a Ruger flattop, a Ruger SBH, and even a ported 4" Taurus, but just did not enjoy shooting the Casull.  I would be reluctant to draw down on a BF unless I felt my life were in danger.  Seems to be some theory that if you shoot one, others may not take kindly to it and could retaliate.  I don't know about that, but don't want to test that theory.

[MIB]

I'm not fond of the SRH.   I had one of the first ones released in .44 many years ago.   Mine had the 9-1/2 inch barrel and often wore the older, heavier Burris 2-7X handgun scope of the day.   It was fairly accurate, reliable for 1-1/4th inch 6 shot groups at 100 yards with a rest, but something about the rubber grip, grip angle, etc did not fit me.   I much preferred shooting my much lighter 4-5/8" barreled super blackhawk with the same loads.   For that reason, I skipped the .454 and .480 versions of the SRH.    The Bisley is a whole different breed of cat.   It stretches my hand but doesn't actually hurt it.  A 50 round session with full power ammo does something.   The sensation the next day is somewhat akin to the day after a deep tissue massage where there's some odd sense of soreness from being stretched right to the limit, but it's not bruising nor torn skin.    In the long run, my plan with the Bisley .454 is to save the heavily jacketed 300 grain speer and 300 grain magnum hornady XTP for hunting elk (a bucket list item .. handgun elk) and load it most of the year with the medium jacketed Speer 300 grain "Unicor" sort point, Sierra 300 grain JSP, or the .45 colt version of the 300 grain XTP at more typical magnum revolver speeds, say 1400-1450 fps, not mid 1600 fps range.   A blackhawk will stand up to elevated pressures in .45 colt, but not quite elevated enough to hit my target level safely, so downloading the .454 seems the way to go ... to me.

 

I don't pack the .454 because of bigfoot.   There's nothing I know of that is going to cause me trouble in my area that I can't handle very readily with a .44 magnum.   I've had ... I think about 35 ... since college.  I lost count over the years.  The .454 was purchased because of that roar.   I don't know what it was.  While I think the probability it is bigfoot is greater than it used to be, it's still no more than 50/50.   It's the other 50 that is not bigfoot that concerns me.   If it is not, we have something else out there unknown to me.   I expect the .454 will also be useful for hunting .. just as the .44s were.   So long as I stay out of that one area, maybe 3 miles by 3 miles, where those roars came from, I often pack a S&W 329PD.   Because it's under 26 ounces, it's a fast, vicious kicking little monster, but it's for carrying lots and shooting very little .. perfect for backpacking. 

 

So far as the "bigfoot army conspiracy" ... I don't know.   I do not think you find them alone very often, if you see one, more see you.   That aspect rings true.   Hearing communication back and forth is suggestive of more than one.  Simple math, huh?   However, since I don't plan to shoot other than in self defense, and since they seem bent on not making me defend myself, I think it is unlikely that I'll ever have any need to worry about it.   If I do, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.   This is not an expression of ridicule, merely honest self-confidence.

 

I'm simply not wired like the clowns who cut loose firing blindly into the woods.   I'm not inherently fearful.   I pack my gun as a reasonable precaution, same as I wear my seatbelt as a reasonable precaution, same as I actually listen when the flight attendant gives her speech, same as I wear a life preserver on the river as a reasonable precaution, same as a wear a ... well, er, uh ... you know what you better do on a "date".   If I thought I had specific reason to be afraid on any given day I would stay out of the situation entirely.  

 

Just my rambling thoughts on the matter.  YMMV. 

 

MIB

 

 

 

 

 

[SWWASAS]

On 12/5/2016 at 9:59 PM, BigTreeWalker said:

On 12/5/2016 at 9:59 PM, BigTreeWalker said:

Talking about ridges made me consider the four experiences I have had. None were sightings but each was an encounter. The first was knocks coming from the ridge above us. There was a sentinal up there and it was answered by two other individuals in the creek below. The next time one came down from a ridge above us, probably looking for a meal as we were cow elk calling. It approached very noisily to 80 yards, saw us, and knocked twice before leaving very quietly. The third instance was a knock on a ridge above us at 1am. The last time we were hiking up one of the few creeks still flowing in the area last August and heard rock clacks and an answer off to our right both further up the hill above us. The last instance was a trackway we found after the individual had been spooked from an area near a trail. It could have gone in any direction. The easiest and quickest being down a creek and out of sight into thick cover. But instead it chose to run uphill toward the ridge top. Always up, always higher. Coincidences, maybe, but it could also be strategic. The high ground.

There are two factors at play with BF tendency to retreat to the high ground.   The first being that we are unlikely to be capable of following them up into high ground and if we do we certainly cannot move at the rate they do.     The second factor is the military crest aspect.   If you stay just below the crest of a ridge,   you have the advantage of holding the high ground but are not exposed to back lighting exposing your position like would happen if you are on the actual crest of a ridge.    Since one of BF defensive methods is lobbing large rocks,    the height advantage makes lobbing larger rocks possible for them downhill.    

[xspider1]

^ makes sense to me, SW!  And, excellent post above, MIB.  I'm not a Bigfoot witness (yet), just wanted to say: very interesting discussion!!!  I too would never doubt their ability to navigate much, much better than we do at night.  Heck, my dog can run 50 mph circles in our yard any night of the year and avoid obstacles that I can't even get a glimpse of.   

 

Thank you all for sharing your experiences!  Great thread.  

Edited December 9, 2016 by xspider1