SWWASAS Posted March 25, 2017 BFF Patron Posted March 25, 2017 The one scat pile that I suspect could only have been bear or BF had not only berry contents but quite a bit of fur. If it was BF it's diet was supplemented by animal protein. Human shaped in form but huge diameter and lots of it. Bear skat is normally not that well formed and tends to be in more runny piles. Interesting story with that scat find, I was walking along an old, no longer used logging road and heard some brush break on a hillside above me. The break seemed more like a deer that was in get away mode. I went into the thicket expecting to find a deer but did not see anything. I went in on the logging road as far as it went and on the way out, right in the middle of the road was that huge pile of scat. Still warm. Bear or BF it seemed to want to leave it for me to find. Bear scat varies considerably in form and contents depending on what it's diet is when produced. Since BF is thought to eat pretty much the same things at the same time of year, I really would not know how to differentiate the two, unless you saw it being produced or there were footprints involved in the scat find. As far as huge foragers and signs of that, one documentary on human evolution showed the pile of vegetation necessary for sustain a human for a week. It was a pile as tall as the human and the table he was sitting at. But they showed animal protein necessary to produce the same food value. It fit neatly on a single plate. The point being that high level brain activity in a humans pretty much requires animal protein or we would spend nearly every waking minute foraging like a gorilla. When humans came out of the trees, developed high level brain function, and started a nomadic existence, animal protein was essential to supplement the human diet on the African savanna with its limited vegetation. The most likely animal protein source was carrion scavenging until hunting skills were developed. The 10 percent a day rule simply does not apply to an omnivore. I would think we have enough witness evidence of BF predation of deer and elk, small animal eating, and consuming termites and grubs like bear to assume BF are omnivores. If BF indeed migrated out of Asia to North America that migration was the BF equivalent of leaving the jungle trees and vegetarian life style and going out into the African savanna. As BF moved further North the trees became coniferous, had little or no leaf vegetation, had no fruit and few nuts, and vegetation alone could not have supported a large ape man. So perhaps it began to hug the coast, use fish or shell fish, and scavenge larger animals as it got into the forests near the Bering Sea. Inland would have been ice and heavily glaciated so the passage into North America had to have been along the ice ocean boundary. By the time it crossed the land or ice bridge and reached North America and moved down to the more temperate climates in the PNW it had to have incorporated animal protein into its diet to have ever gotten here. Plant life in those latitudes during the ice age could not have supported an exclusive vegetarian. So unless the BF originated on this continent or South America it is hardly surprising that the trip required it to be at least an omnivore. Once it made that adaptation, it would hardly revert back since animal protein is a more efficient food source. 1
norseman Posted March 25, 2017 Admin Posted March 25, 2017 But if Neanderthals needed 5000 calories of meat per day. We can easily double that for a full grown Sasquatch. Look at my deer carcass calorie numbers for a family. Any way you cut it they need large amounts of food. ------------ copy/paste 4 oz of meat equals 170 calories, so 1 lbs equals 680 calories. So a 200 lbs deer represents 136000 calories, not counting the loss of bone and or antler weight. 8800 cal X 5 equals 44000 calories. So a average sized deer represents roughly 3 days worth of meals for a family of five. Thats roughly 121 deer per year or 24333 lbs of annual meat consumed. ------------- Thats over 24 deer per year per individual. So a population of 100,000 requires 2.4 million deer annually.
hiflier Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 Hmmm. Been thinking about this some thanks you Norseman (or no thanks depending on the amount of time I spend with it ). If the Sasquatch population is closer to ten thousand (one tenth of your 100,000 figure) across North America and they are only carnivores half the time then that 2.4 million deer drops significantly to around 5% which would reduce the predation to about 120,000 deer. That's a large reduction from 2.4 million. Scatter that 120,000 across even only half the North American continent and place it in mostly remote habitat or places Humans don't frequent or think to look for Sasquatch at all and I can see where evidence of their presence being somewhat scant.
SWWASAS Posted March 25, 2017 BFF Patron Posted March 25, 2017 (edited) I really doubt there are 100,000 BF. If there were that many, sightings would be much more common. And you have good points about the amount of deer they would go through. However they do eat elk which are much larger with more meat than deer, have larger bones with more marrow. Also elk have more edible meat not just on big muscle groups like rib meat. Hence BTW rib eating teeth marks. As far as calories a day, while your estimate of 10,000 or twice Neanderthal 5,000 might be required for a full grown male, BF females are much smaller and are probably closer to the 5000 of the Neanderthal. Reports of juvenile sightings often comment on how skinny and underfed looking they are. My conjecture about this is that juvenile teen males might be pretty low on the food totem pole. As they grow into maturity, they might be considered sexual rivals in a patriarchal society, and forced to fend for themselves. Perhaps even being driven out of a family group by the dominant male as one finds with other large predators. Where as female child producers might be more likely to have shared meat provided by a hunting male. If we can just get some human woman to volunteer to live in a BF clan, we could learn all of this stuff. Edited March 25, 2017 by SWWASAS
norseman Posted March 25, 2017 Admin Posted March 25, 2017 http://www.defenders.org/black-bear/basic-facts In order to occupy much of North America (see map) there are at minimum 600,000 black bears. If Sasquatch has a similar distribution range? It would seem that the 100,000 number is quite low. Especially if we are dealing with a Primate that sticks to family groups. Versus bears that spread out in their habitat. It would take more Sasquatch to occupy the same range as it would Bears....logically speaking. So I'm definitely challenging conventional Sasquatch wisdom here. http://www.bfro.net/gdb/ Actually if reports are to be believed Sasquatches reside in all US states except Hawaii and most Canadian provinces coast to coast. So either we are dealing with a highly nomadic small population constantly on the move and spotted in various states or a very large sedentary population that occupies almost all of North America.
TritonTr196 Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 I realistically don't think there is even a third of the Bigfoot all these so called polls have shown. If these so called individual numbered polls are based on eyewitness reports, then that means probably not even a third of those reports are true, so that brings the population numbers down drastically. I'm taking a wild guess, but I think there is maybe in the range of 5,000 or less total in United States and Canada put together. Probably not near even that many. Eyewitness accounts, if true, can seriously skew a population guess when it comes to Bigfoot for a few reasons. I remember a time before facebook and youtube when Bigfoot didn't live in everyone's backyard in suburbia. I mean now we have reports of them eating food out of dumpsters in slum vacant areas in Chicago. There is a hundred homeless people going for that same thrown away food in dumpsters, so not really sure how a Bigfoot is going to fare fighting a mob of hungry people off for a piece of crust from an old pizza. If there was seriously that many Bigfoot around, one would have been dead by now and no way the government could cover anything up. Too many hunters in the woods all year long to have that many Bigfoot running around and not shot one yet. Sorry but every hunter isn't going to get that "oh but they looked so human" complex going on. If just 50,000 was running around, actually not one, but a few would have been brought in by now. And a few probably smashed by some large semi trucks.
MIB Posted March 25, 2017 Moderator Posted March 25, 2017 2 hours ago, TritonTr196 said: I remember a time before facebook and youtube when Bigfoot didn't live in everyone's backyard in suburbia. Right, but the question is .. why? Sounds like you assume attention getting copy-cat claims. I would consider other possibilities: 1) the people it was happening to didn't want to be thought crazy so they kept their mouths shut and 2) the people it was happening to weren't as informed about the "markers" left by bigfoot activity so they never connected the dots between what was happening to them and bigfoot. All we have are assumptions ... our personal belief system ... and nothing more ... to support assertion of any of those three. Until we each, individually go to some of the sites and look at the evidence, interview the witnesses, and try to see if it happens while we are there, all we are doing is spewing assumptions. Ironic, because that's essentially what we're accusing them of doing. Gotta love double standards!! MIB
Incorrigible1 Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 31 minutes ago, MIB said: All we have are assumptions ... our personal belief system ... and nothing more ... Some claim their mental pen-pals. 1
hiflier Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 I knew you were going to say that Inc1, my BF pal psyche-linked me and told me 1
Incorrigible1 Posted March 25, 2017 Posted March 25, 2017 And knew my response to your posting, too. Eh, my Maine associate? BTW, ME and NE, not too far off, eh? ;-) 1
hiflier Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 (edited) Nope, not too far off at all. A beautiful thing......well, that's what my Bigfoot said anyway. All kidding aside, and kinda on the recent few posts, any Black Bears in good ol' NE? Or are they all mistaken for Bigfoots Figured there might be some left over in your back yard from their making it down to the eastern OK/AR forests? Edited March 26, 2017 by hiflier
Incorrigible1 Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 Every ten years, or so, a black bear is reported on the NW border of Nebraska/Wyoming. Some love-crazed stud bear out wandering around, looking for a confused sow. We have far more moose reported, across the wide breadth of our state, but they get a brain worm that causes them to wander. That being said, the upcoming total solar eclipse will traverse more miles across my state than any other of the 50. C'mon out to witness, I'll provide a helluva couple days entertainment!
BigTreeWalker Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 Let's be honest here and look at some numbers for known animals. Cougars kill the same amount of deer per year as Norseman's estimate for a bigfoot requirement. In areas such as WA state were cougars are known to fill every available niche of habitat that fits their needs, how many cougar kills has anyone found to support those numbers? There are a lot more bear numbers in the state than cougars. Does anyone consistently find evidence of all those bears foraging for whatever it is they are finding to eat? Are we able to tell the difference between the above mentioned animals and bigfoot when evidence of feeding behavior is found? In the area we research we have found over two dozen elk and deer kills now. The age of these sites are within the last two or three years. Some show the evidence we are looking for in possible bigfoot feeding behavior. Elk are a lot bigger than deer so the requirement for animals killed is a lot less than would be required if deer were the only prey. This area is about 2 square miles. So if it's a cougar doing all this killing and feeding it's only about a 50th or less of a cougar's range. Makes me wonder how much we haven't found in a larger area. So with those numbers and considering a larger area, there is more than enough evidence to support a couple cougars (male and female, since only their ranges overlap), some scavenging black bears and a few bigfoot as well. So I beg to differ when it's said there is no evidence of feeding. I have no idea what the bigfoot population is but look at it this way; when researcher encounters, sightings and finding fresh evidence occur at the same time over large widespread areas it is not the same individuals we are seeing or experiencing. Unless portals are coming into play. 1
hiflier Posted March 26, 2017 Posted March 26, 2017 (edited) I'll bet you would too Inc1 my man! Been trying to persuade my spouse to get on the road earlier than planned to maybe see the eclipse in Oregon but it doesn't look like we'll be heading out that early. The plan is a northern summer=style route through Canada to the Dakotas and on thru the Teton Range and end up in Port Angeles, WA to see an old friend. Then head down to Tahoe to see more friends and hang out for a while around the lake and mountains looking for you-know who After that trek then we plan meander back this way on a more mid-country route so a blast through NE is certainly not out of the question as far as I'm concerned. Prolly be tired of the road so the quicker home the better. All in all, a month, or a bit more, round trip. Tenting most of the way with our dog, Eddie Edited March 26, 2017 by hiflier 1
norseman Posted March 26, 2017 Admin Posted March 26, 2017 42 minutes ago, BigTreeWalker said: Let's be honest here and look at some numbers for known animals. Cougars kill the same amount of deer per year as Norseman's estimate for a bigfoot requirement. In areas such as WA state were cougars are known to fill every available niche of habitat that fits their needs, how many cougar kills has anyone found to support those numbers? There are a lot more bear numbers in the state than cougars. Does anyone consistently find evidence of all those bears foraging for whatever it is they are finding to eat? Are we able to tell the difference between the above mentioned animals and bigfoot when evidence of feeding behavior is found? In the area we research we have found over two dozen elk and deer kills now. The age of these sites are within the last two or three years. Some show the evidence we are looking for in possible bigfoot feeding behavior. Elk are a lot bigger than deer so the requirement for animals killed is a lot less than would be required if deer were the only prey. This area is about 2 square miles. So if it's a cougar doing all this killing and feeding it's only about a 50th or less of a cougar's range. Makes me wonder how much we haven't found in a larger area. So with those numbers and considering a larger area, there is more than enough evidence to support a couple cougars (male and female, since only their ranges overlap), some scavenging black bears and a few bigfoot as well. So I beg to differ when it's said there is no evidence of feeding. I have no idea what the bigfoot population is but look at it this way; when researcher encounters, sightings and finding fresh evidence occur at the same time over large widespread areas it is not the same individuals we are seeing or experiencing. Unless portals are coming into play. Consistent evidence? I do. I've had a cougar kill with in 50 yards of my house, and always find deer bones on the ranch. I've walked into a angry hornets cloud because a bear had been ripping the log apart minutes before. We treed cats with hounds in winter and bears in fall. I can call bears in with a mouth call. I see tracks all of the time. Skunk cabbage ripped out, huckleberry bushes eaten, stumps torn asunder, rocks flipped...plus tons and tons of scat. I have no problem pointing to the harvest evidence from Bears or Cougars. And in your unique case your trying to seperate out the mundane from the extraordinary evidence. That's all fine and dandy. But who else in the country is sending you bones that have giant concave tooth marks chipped out? If we have a large coast to coast population of these things? The landscape should be littered with these bones your finding? Right? Especially in areas void of bears or cougars it should be a no brainer..... The Finding Bigfoot crew should be tripping over these bones with each outing in each state if they truly are in "squatchy" areas.....your garage should be full of deer bones people have sent you. And Im sticking with deer as a rule of thumb because it's by far and away the most populated ungulate in the US mainland. Most states do not have Elk or Moose or Caribou.
Recommended Posts