Sasquatch- How Far Does It REALLY Travel

[hiflier]

54 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

....clear cut logging may have a similar result on a smaller scale.       Forced displacement,   territories disturbed, then with regrowth,  tribes move in to expand their territory.   

 

Your own area that you have spoken of with the small section left with the tree fall and the spring certainly comes to mind. Two or three years ago you said there was activity and now after the cut there's not. Makes sense.  

[BigTreeWalker]

I agree with MIB in that it is a food availability issue. Fires and clearcuts provide that, given a few years. The native Americans knew this. They used to burn large swaths to rejuvenate the huckleberry fields. However, I would like to interject also that bigfoot is a species that has shown the requirement for cover, i.e. SWWSP 's observations support this. If their numbers are few, as many believe, then would their movement into an adjacent area, with more cover, have any consequences to them? If there are more than some believe, we don't know if they are territorial. Maybe they get along with each other better than we do. Has anyone recorded what might be considered a bigfoot fight? 

[Guest Seatco]

Michigan DNR.

"Male black bear live in an area about 100 square miles in size, while females live in smaller areas of 10-20 square miles."

Thoughts always evolving.Would think larger then bear if need be.

[MIB]

1 hour ago, BigTreeWalker said:

If there are more than some believe, we don't know if they are territorial. Maybe they get along with each other better than we do.

 

This is a very important point.   The "territory" model is based on species of essentially solitary animals.    It might be interesting to reconsider the same question from the perspective of pack predators like wolves.   There's a good body of anecdotal evidence regarding bigfoot hunting in teams, sometimes only pairs, sometimes larger.   If they are doing this, then the percentage of predatory attempts that "miss" is probably lower than expected for solo efforts reducing the calorie expenditure balance of hunting.   It also points to a less than territorial lifestyle ... or if territorial, it is tribal-territorial, not individual-territorial else the cooperation wouldn't happen.   Again, follow the model for stone age or pre stone age humans, it appears much more applicable, based on the reports to date, than assumptions based on grizzly bear behavior.

 

MIB 

[SWWASAS]

Clear cuts do not provide much of any cover for about a decade.  Presuming they are  immediately replanted.       Last time I flew I examined the clear cuts that used to be my research area.     Some, not all have been replanted.    Actual practice sort of flies on the face of the propaganda put out by state foresters.    Some areas near my research area had been clear cut when I started research and have yet to be replanted.    There very little cover anywhere nearby.    Small trees widely separated.    For a BF to hang out nearby to harvest grazing deer in these areas requires a lot of travel to and from cover.      They might do that at night but I cannot see them doing it in the daytime.    I am just guessing but I do not think BF likes the practice of clear cut.  If natural forest is their habitat,  anything that disturbs that has to be disruptive to their daily life.  

 

I recall reading about a a BF fight in one old report.     The looser was disemboweled.        That could have been territory or a fight over a mate.    I am inclined to believe the later.     Juveniles have been reported to play fight.     Pretty much like young male humans.     Total conjecture on my part but the parallels between them and us, seem to point to using us as a model for their behavior.    If we don't  know something about BF behavior,  figure out what human motivations are or were in our distant past.   That might work more often than not.    Certainly that points to warfare between rival tribes of BF.    Throw in stealing of human women from Native Americans and you certainly have a parallel to human tribes at the same time period.   

[hiflier]

There was a report of a witness who hid behind a rock after hearing a commotion up the hill from him. He reported seeing two large BF's wrestling as they rolled down the hill. When they got to the bottom they stopped, turned and looked at the witness, and then walked off.

[MIB]

58 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

Clear cuts do not provide much of any cover for about a decade. 

 

It's not the center of the clearcut that matters, it's the borders where it butts up against uncut forest.   This is referred to as "edge".   The cleared area allows light to hit the ground and power new growth where animals can reach it, the adjacent forest provides the cover.    Good clear cut hunters don't watch the middle of a young cut, they watch the border right at dusk and dawn.    They will sometimes appear out in the middle but usually not older, wiser animals.   An exception .. a cut that's been slash-burned will sometimes have deer visit the ash because they can roll in it to relieve themselves of some of the ticks, fleas, and sometimes flies.   Another exception ... once the fall rains start, deer will spend more time out in the open.   Think they can shake dry better out there.

 

Once it gets up shoulder high on us, then deer will sometimes hide right out in the middle.

 

Elk are funny ... less predictable in this sense.   Rocky Mountain elk and Roosevelt elk don't behave quite the same regarding cover.  

 

MIB

Edited March 20, 2017 by MIB

[SWWASAS]

As far as BF moving around near clear clear cuts,   as long as they had continous cover to move around in the daytime they did.       When the clear cuts broke up the cover,   activity stopped.        The most active place in my former research area is now a island of timber completely surrounded by recent clear cut.     When the last ingress and outgress path of continous cover was clearcut,   activity there stopped.    This sign is posted on that island of timber.      If Special means they were trying to keep that area intact for BF, it did not work.    They left.  

[SWWASAS]

Now for my admission of guilt.      It is entirely possible that had I not known the area was active, and was not poking around there two or three times a week,   BF might have accepting their island of timber and stayed put.     They had an spring bubbling up in the middle with clear fresh water year round,  could drink during the day,   and could leave the island to forage or hunt at night.      It was very difficult for a human to move through the woods there due to extensive down timber related to the Yacolt burn.    It would take me an hour or two to move a few hundred yards.    When I did that to force a BF I heard moving about to break cover, I got growled at.    Then a few weeks later I got zapped.     Thinking about it,    when they were in that island of timber,   with someone like me poking around,   they could not retreat without breaking cover and being seen.     I knew that, and had video camera ready.      So I may well have forced them to move off myself.     In retrospect I should have just come to the edge of the timber island and just sat and not tried to force them to break cover.  

[hiflier]

SWWASAS, you candidness is noteworthy and highly commendable. It makes me think retrospectively on things I could have or should have done differently myself. I can only hope to learn and so to think better about my own conduct in the field. And not just for Sasquatch either but the rest of whatever inhabitants reside in areas that I frequent. Thank you for pointing out for me such an important aspect when out in nature. Especially when it involves water sources. 

Edited March 21, 2017 by hiflier

[Branco]

23 hours ago, hiflier said:

There was a report of a witness who hid behind a rock after hearing a commotion up the hill from him. He reported seeing two large BF's wrestling as they rolled down the hill. When they got to the bottom they stopped, turned and looked at the witness, and then walked off.

That happened about 16 years ago. Within just a very few hundred feet of the location I had a teenage BF male deliberately allow me to see him one afternoon during the very hot summer of 2010. (Repayment for doing he and the others favors for several years.) The family group still occupies that mountain, and forages over an area of about 20 square miles.

[hiflier]

Thanks, Branco, but this is the one I was referring to. Happened in 1985;

 

http://woodape.org/reports/report/detail/367

 

"The witness stated that he first heard deafening roaring, screaming and growling sounds from unknown animals on the forested mountain slope north of his concealed hunting location. He assumed the animals were bears. He heard tree limbs and brush cracking and breaking as the animals came closer to the opposite side of the clear-cut he was watching for deer. He saw the brush being shaken and bent and within a few seconds he saw two huge auburn-colored animals come rolling out into the open woods alongside the clear-cut. He estimated that they were about 150 yards from his position. He stated they were wrestling, grappling and roaring as if in mortal combat. As he watched, they separated more than once and one of them would try to run away in quadrupedal fashion only to be run down and caught by the other as it traveled upright on two feet. The witness said that each time the fleeing individual was caught, the two began wrestling and rolling on the ground again, all the while screaming and roaring. The fight continued down the mountain, just inside the wood line adjacent to the clear-cut and in clear view of the witness. The witness stated they were soon within 50 yards of him as they reached the the old logging road just above the point where he had earlier walked off it to conceal himself in a gap in a rock outcrop. At the point the animals reached the log road, the road crosses Rocky Branch. The moment the two reached the log road and branch, all of their previous sounds and actions ceased. Immediately one of the subjects turned to look up the log road and branch, and the other looked the opposite direction. One of them slowly scanned the woods in his vicinity, and looked directly at him. Within a split second, both stepped into the brush and vines in the boulder-strewn branch bed and disappeared without another sound and without visible movement of the vegetation through which they passed."

Edited March 22, 2017 by hiflier

[Branco]

hiflier: You are right, the sighting of the young male one would have been 25 years after the "fight". Man, I screwed that post up good. I saw the young one only six years after I submitted the witness report to the TX group. 

[hiflier]

Hey, Branco my friend, no worries. In fact I would very much like to read any links you may have that are along these same lines. I saw the video of two young ones shoving each other back and forth before a larger one stepped in and read an older report from 1944 I think regarding a couple of BF's fighting over a deer carcass. I think these kinds of encounters are good for folks to read up on.

 

In another thread I had some thoughts on BF's being vocal and stomping around when they are mostly thought of as being stealthy and quite the recluse. Seems the two worlds are counter to each other. Any thoughts on that seeming dichotomy would be appreciated. I think being smack in the middle of their normal "routine" may have something to do with it?

Edited March 23, 2017 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

Highflier the fight account that you relate shows two behaviors that I find interesting.   Anytime humans witness BF behavior we should pay attention.    We know very little about BF behavior so we have to glean what we can.      First of all the fact that they were fighting in the first place.    The reason for the conflict is unknown but the behavior shows that they do fight.    It could be mock combat or perhaps they had a genuine problem with each other.      Mock combat would imply that they also do real combat with each other in certain circumstances.  Why else would you play wrestle?    If they were fighting because they had a beef with each other that also shows they do real combat.     The second behavior that this report shows is also very interesting.          First of all if you encountered two bears fighting I doubt very much that they would stop their fight, look at a human and then run off.     We have lots of video of bears fighting and they pay little attention to the human camera man.      They would continue fighting and ignore the human.     Most animals including dogs etc refuse to stop fighting because of human presence.     Pick an animal fighting and they ignore humans present.     As a matter of fact if you intervene you become part of the fight with most animals.       If the BF combat was real,  and they stopped fighting because they were being observed by a human,   I would have to think that human avoidance is at or near the very top of their priorities.   Certainly their avoidance behavior shows this might be true.     Humans must have done something very bad as a species to BF to get that sort of total avoidance behavior.      Most animals, if you observe them at a safe distance they ignore  you and continue what they doing.      BF will hide if you are a half mile away.