Do You Have a BF "Honey Hole?"

[salubrious]

On 3/24/2017 at 5:21 PM, SWWASAS said:

Would be tough for BF to sustain on acorns in the PNW     There are not a whole lot of oak trees West of the Cascades there to produce them.    There is a smidgen of evidence that BF may have some weaving skills.     Most seen in the form of art but certainly that could carry over to baskets which could be used to store food.       Not many claim to have been in a BF den or cave that lived to tell about it.   Who knows what might be stashed in them?     On the other hand there are steelhead and salmon runs that produce fish protein several times a year in many rivers.    Deer move around but are always present in the region.      Rodents are available year round.    Berries are present from early summer to late fall.   Perhaps they could be gathered and allowed to dry.   Native Americans had numerous root food sources which I suppose BF could collect also.       There are some reports of seen BF pulling roots.     Most of the Native American knowledge of these food sources has been list to modern civilization.    Perhaps by reading old settlers journals we could get an idea of what used to be food sources for humans in the area.   Certainly I doubt modern Native Americans have any special knowledge of that.     Most are even loosing their own languages.      Human history is pretty much what is left of tremendous amounts of lost knowledge.    Humans are terrible at keeping history.      When we conquer a rival we destroy their histories. 

 

Pine is edible. One thing we have a lot of on this continent is pine. So if you're out in the middle of nowhere and starving, if there is a pine tree you can eat. Spruces no, so you best learn the difference.

 

I took a photo of a bit of scat in British Columbia last year in the Flathead Wilderness. It looked human but was about 10" in length and easily 3" in diameter. Right in the road (which is closed to motorized traffic), a few miles north of the US border, about 49.067051, -114.862906. A minute or two earlier I had stopped to take a photo of an unusual stick formation in the forest adjacent to the road. As I was taking the photo of that, I heard a 'whoop! from way up on the mountainside above me. The photo of the stick formation turned out to be out of focus but the other shot was OK.

 

 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

1 hour ago, salubrious said:

Pine is edible

I think what most animals would find edible are the seeds in the cones which are a major food source for many animals.

[southernyahoo]

Getting back on topic, I would take segments of territory that are bisected by rivers and streams and search or surveille within a mile of those on either side to find honey holes. 

[salubrious]

19 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

I think what most animals would find edible are the seeds in the cones which are a major food source for many animals.

 The base of the pine needle is edible and the younger growth is edible too.

[BigTreeWalker]

In western Washington, west of the Cascade crest, (see the map Norseman posted above) there are very few pine trees. Unless you are a squirrel, fir, hemlock and cedar cones wouldn't make a very substantial diet. 

 

Hiflier, you mentioned animal avoidance of humans above. I posted photo evidence of a bear waiting until I left an elk kill site in the research section. Within about a half hour of my leaving it was right back in there again. A thought crossed my mind a couple months ago that human avoidance my be the result of animals avoiding another biped in the woods. That other biped may be the real reason for their avoidance of us. Just to turn the thought around.

[southernyahoo]

On ‎3‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 1:39 AM, norseman said:

 

Ive looked at it from both sides. See my original thread. A Neanderthal diet was almost exclusively meat of 5000 calories a day. We find "sign" of their feeding 50,000 years later. If Neanderthals were the size of Bigfoot? How much meat would they be eating per day? Plus storing away for winter? 

 

What model should we be using? I don't think there is a model where giant ape men in large groups staying in a "honey hole" and are escaping detection for very long. They are going to be shoving some serious groceries down their gullet. Meat, meat and veggies or just veggies.....take your pick. They possess a big big powerful expensive body. And a supposed bigger brain size than a Gorilla to boot. Expensive means lots o food.

 

I don't know where you live but where I live food isn't easy to come by in a mountainous coniferous forest at 49 degrees north. Im just looking for answers.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't have a formula for the number of calories a bigfoot would need, but I would expect it to be similar to Neanderthal and man, but not identical to either. Prey animals in their environment might be predictable in behavior, and somewhat corralled by comparison to how a Neanderthal would have hunted. I don't have a problem with a low postulated population density, because I think Bigfoot overcomes that with resourcefulness and long distance communication to find each other and viable mates.

[MIB]

7 hours ago, BigTreeWalker said:

A thought crossed my mind a couple months ago that human avoidance my be the result of animals avoiding another biped in the woods. That other biped may be the real reason for their avoidance of us.

 

I've been wondering that exact thing for a bit.     Someone (Randy maybe?) once speculated that perhaps some sightings occur because the BFs initially think the adult human is a juvenile bigfoot and it takes them a sec to realize that's not "Jr" after all, it's a human.   Seems to me that other forest critters could make approximately the same mistake.   It's a thought ...

 

MIB

Edited March 30, 2017 by MIB

[SWWASAS]

On 3/26/2017 at 10:51 AM, hiflier said:

2 hours ago, MIB said:

 

I've been wondering that exact thing for a bit.     Someone (Randy maybe?) once speculated that perhaps some sightings occur because the BFs initially think the adult human is a juvenile bigfoot and it takes them a sec to realize that's not "Jr" after all, it's a human.   Seems to me that other forest critters could make approximately the same mistake.   It's a thought ...

MIB

 

Having unable to get rid of quote issues.     Good line of thought outside the box.    Anyway every time I see the Gorilla Glue commercial,  I wonder how BF would react to that actor in the woods.     In my case I have had less interaction when I have been wearing camo than when wearing more brightly colored normal clothing.    Could be coincidental but one would think we would look more BF like at first glance in camo than ordinary clothing.     Another way to look at it,   is perhaps BF is more wary of other BF outside of its own clan, that it is of humans.      After all, unless we have a gun, humans are not much of a threat to them.    If a human in camo or a ghilly suit at first glance looks like another BF,  the BF has to evaluate is that human or BF, and then assess if the BF is in its own clan and safe or some rogue that might be a threat.    Depending on its eyesight,   it may have to close the distance to decide.      At some distance from the subject,   the BF would have to relay on the last known location of its own clan if the profile / size / color is similar.    Humans until we are close enough for face recognition,   would fall back on clothing worn to recognize hiking companions in the woods.     It might be much more difficult for BF to recognize each other at a distance until close enough to recognize certain features in coloration or marking.     If territory is worth fighting over,  BF may well be more afraid of each other than us.  

[salubrious]

5 hours ago, MIB said:

 

I've been wondering that exact thing for a bit.     Someone (Randy maybe?) once speculated that perhaps some sightings occur because the BFs initially think the adult human is a juvenile bigfoot and it takes them a sec to realize that's not "Jr" after all, it's a human.   Seems to me that other forest critters could make approximately the same mistake.   It's a thought ...

 

MIB

 

OK- this touches on a mystery for me. I was on a bicycle touring trip recently and encountered two grizzly bears, both of which (thankfully!) fled as soon as they saw me. One was pretty big and would have been taller than me if on two legs.

 

Grizzlies are an apex predator!  Why then is it that they retreat so often upon human encounter? According to the Forest Service, this is normal as long as they are not habituated by food at camp sites and such. My pet theory is that they mistake humans for another creature with which they have encounters. Otherwise I would think they would be entirely unconcerned.

 

[Twist]

I think it comes down to risk/reward for most large predators.  An encounter with another animal it's equal size or close has a greater chance of injury despit possibly winning the fight.  In the animal world a serious injury could lead to death in time.  Unless there is a specific motivation such as young, food etc they pick their battles wisely and probably avoid unnecessary risk.

[guyzonthropus]

Perhaps, but humans are far from equally sized with a grizzly....

[salubrious]

On 3/30/2017 at 4:41 PM, Twist said:

I think it comes down to risk/reward for most large predators.  An encounter with another animal it's equal size or close has a greater chance of injury despit possibly winning the fight.  In the animal world a serious injury could lead to death in time.  Unless there is a specific motivation such as young, food etc they pick their battles wisely and probably avoid unnecessary risk.

 

plussed on that; humans have health care even though it might just be clean water and bandages. Its easy to take that for granted; its a big deal if you are injured and don't have those things!