Explorer Posted June 19, 2018 Posted June 19, 2018 On the topic of peeing, I had a weird experience last year on the hot spot that I frequent on the high Sierras. I heard a sound, left my tent and started therming. Did not see anything. Then got urge to pee, walked down a trail and started peeing. In that instant, a heavy piece of wood fell near where I was standing (no more than 1 ft away). I zipped, got my thermal on, and voila - batteries were dead. Went back to tent, added fresh batteries, video taped the whole area with thermal imager and captured nothing. I ended up dismissing the whole event as coincidence. But, how many times does a piece of wood fall at a random place you choose to pee at 2 AM? The next morning I examined the piece of wood and it was a large branch segment. Could have been a simple branch break - that is what Occam will say.
norseman Posted June 20, 2018 Admin Posted June 20, 2018 10 hours ago, SWWASAS said: Like you I question existence throughout the country but that is based on what I know about active areas in my area of SW WA and Western Oregon. From my experience, and you have to trust me on that, In this area, BF is only found to hang out in areas of heavy cover and running water. They may transit other areas with some sort of migration but the recipe for them to establish in one area and leave sign requires a certain amount of heavy cover and running water. Get away from that and I have never seen any sign of one. Thinner cover may reduce or eliminate day activity and increase the chance of observation by humans. Certainly running water gets more rare East of the Cascades. Both of those may be a factor in your area. Evidence of the effects of cover density is what happened in my research area when the state started to clear cut it. Active areas went inactive when there was not continuous cover allowing movement through the area. Patches of cover do not work long for them when they can simply move away and not take the chance of being seen hunting or moving around in the open. Clear cut, at least the way the state is doing it, leaves patches of cover with no way to move between them. There is little logging in National Forests so it is easy for BF to avoid logged areas there You mention bears. From what I have seen bears are not as dependent on cover as I have found footprints completely in the open. While bears avoid humans when they can, a sentient creature like BF with what seems to be a prime directive to avoid humans, seems less likely to be seen than a bear who only moves away with direct human contact. Much of grizzly country is fairly open or thinly forested. Get very much East of the Cascades, where forests get more thinly treed, areas like that would not be preferred by BF if they have a choice. They may be there in areas with denser trees. Admittedly I do not have much time in Eastern Washington or Oregon. But looking at the density of sighting reports, that seems to favor the denser forests West of the Cascades in both Oregon and Washington. Of course sightings require people who are much less in numbers East of the Cascades. One of my bear encounters was a close face to snout encounter on a human trail. Bears follow human trails. I have never found a BF footprint where it was following a human trail. But I have found several paralleling human trails or where the BF stepped across a trail trying to avoid leaving a footprint on a muddy trail. Some one expecting to find a BF print near a human trail should be looking at the trail margins or game trails that parallel them. The only place I have seen a BF footprint completely in the open, away from cover, was on the Eastern flank of Mt St Helens near the lahar where the trees had been cleared out by the 1980 blast. They seem to move between treed areas remaining after the blast. And that is likely at night, when the tourists have headed for their hotels. While the numbers of BF West of the Cascades in Oregon and Washington may be the highest in the country, they are still very rare. Otherwise they would be seen more often and leave more sign. If their species is like any other, encroachment by humans into their habitat has to be reducing their numbers even more. Like every other bipedal humanoid that has co-existed with humans, they are likely to go extinct at some point. We seem to hurry that along with every species we have contact with. Thanks. See the doctor again tomorrow and hope to get a handle on what this is. Up to this point he doesn't have a clue. I live on the edge of the Selkirk mountains which are apart of the ITR or Inland Temperate Rainforest. Its common for people in western Washington to envision scabland when they think of eastern Washington. But nothing could be further from the truth. This valley is due north of my house maybe 100 miles. NE Wa, N ID and NW MT are wet, mountainous regions. http://www.makeitmissoula.com/things-to-do/explore-it/explore-it-ross-creek-cedars/ 1
SWWASAS Posted June 20, 2018 BFF Patron Posted June 20, 2018 Norseman you got me that. I was basing my statements on the Blues in Eastern Oregon which is where I am from and more familiar with. While the Blues are forested, they are not the rain forests West of the Cascades and the tree density is not nearly the same. I am not familiar with the Selkirks at all and will have to rely on your comparison since I know you have been all over the state of WA. In the case of the Blues, while the area is probably good habitat for BF in the summer months, the problem occurs in the winter. While the temperatures are cold and snowy in the winter Cascades, when the temperatures get below freezing and the snow levels come down in the winter, BF can migrate in elevation or move West and quickly get below the freezing level for most of the winter. The snow level in the Western Cascades averages about 2000 in the winter. West of them is forested with cover all the way to the I-5 corridor. The few days where the low valleys are below freezing, are the days where a temperature inversion happens, and it is actually warmer in the mountains than the valleys. In the Blues, there is no place to go to get out of freezing weather. The whole region is below freezing much of the time in the winter. Well below freezing at night. Elevation change might get you below the snow level but away from the mountain is all flatland grain growing country to the West and arid without cover to the East, so there is no cover and little running water. So different micro climates can made a very big difference to a creature that lives out in the elements. I would have to rely on your analysis of the Selkirks micro climate to determine the differences from the situation in the Cascades. I know and am familiar with hot spots of BF activity on Northern Idaho running up into Western Montana. If I was in that area, I would be doing field work there where there are sighting report clusters. When I started BF research, I looked at decades of sighting reports, before narrowing in on areas with clusters of sighting reports to begin field work. Fortunately for me, some of those areas were as little as an hour away from where I live. I went to previous sightings and worked out from there. If your area has no history of frequent BF sightings, while it may be timbered and all of that, BF may have good reasons for not being there. We get that from a lot of the skeptics. They have experience camping, hiking, and hunting in their area but say they have never seen BF. It could well be because there is none there to see. Another factor I have found here, is that there are favored places accepted by government agencies to for people to shoot. Normally gravel pits etc. I have never seen any sign of BF whatsoever within miles of of those places. Hell I don't like to be near there looking either because have ended up with bullets whizzing over my head. BF is not stupid. I would expect, rather than drive tens of miles to the nearest firing range, it is likely that you and other ranchers near you shoot on your own property. I would. But you can be pretty sure any BF in the area knows who shoots and avoids the property of frequent shooters. All of those factors are at play.
SWWASAS Posted June 20, 2018 BFF Patron Posted June 20, 2018 23 hours ago, Explorer said: On the topic of peeing, I had a weird experience last year on the hot spot that I frequent on the high Sierras. I heard a sound, left my tent and started therming. Did not see anything. Then got urge to pee, walked down a trail and started peeing. In that instant, a heavy piece of wood fell near where I was standing (no more than 1 ft away). I zipped, got my thermal on, and voila - batteries were dead. Went back to tent, added fresh batteries, video taped the whole area with thermal imager and captured nothing. I ended up dismissing the whole event as coincidence. But, how many times does a piece of wood fall at a random place you choose to pee at 2 AM? The next morning I examined the piece of wood and it was a large branch segment. Could have been a simple branch break - that is what Occam will say. There it is again. I just had a branch fall off my big 120 foot tall Doug Fir when I walked past it this afternoon. . But it did not land 2 feet from me. More like 20 feet. As for probability, the closer something falls to you, the less probable it is accidental. The least probable would be a limb falling and hitting you. It happens but looking it up, one source said it is a one in 10 million chance to be hit by a tree or limb in the woods. I would say a limb hitting 2 feet from you would be approximately the same likelihood. So based on probability alone, that might point to something thrown at you. Let me again suggest an experiment. We have little control over our interactions with BF, but this we do. If you hear movement in the woods you attribute to BF, why not (for males) turn in their direction and make a big deal (no pun intended) out of marking their territory. It you elicit a reaction from the woods, then that supports my theory. If we never hear from you again, I am sorry I suggested it. I feel obligated to say that because as with the thrown branch, there may be some risk involved in the experiment. As far as that goes, much of what we do in BF research, carries some level of risk because we know so little about them and what sets them off. . BF is a large and potentially very dangerous animal to mess with. (I have a mental image of skeptics thinking this is hilarious)
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 1 hour ago, SWWASAS said: (I have a mental image of skeptics thinking this is hilarious) Close. I would use the term preposterous.
Patterson-Gimlin Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Unusual to say the least. However, the entire subject of large man apes living among us is preposterous in itself. What is even more hard to imagine is real honest and reputable people claim to see them. Some not so reputable. 1
PBeaton Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 3 hours ago, SWWASAS said: (I have a mental image of skeptics thinking this is hilarious) Don't forget the scoftics thinkin' it preposterous haha ! 1
wiiawiwb Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: Unusual to say the least. However, the entire subject of large man apes living among us is preposterous in itself. What is even more hard to imagine is real honest and reputable people claim to see them. Some not so reputable. They don't claim to have seen them. They saw them. Edited June 21, 2018 by wiiawiwb 3
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 12 hours ago, wiiawiwb said: They don't claim to have seen them. They saw them. This is utter nonsense. They could be lying. They could be mistaken.
PBeaton Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Nonsensical would be hangin' out on a bigfoot forum when one doesn't believe they exist in the first place. "Bigfoot could exist...but it doesn't." They could be tellin' the truth. Or they seen one. 2
Patterson-Gimlin Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 18 hours ago, wiiawiwb said: They don't claim to have seen them. They saw them. Obviously we disagree on that. Great thing about opinions. Every one has one. 2
MIB Posted June 21, 2018 Moderator Posted June 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: Great thing about opinions. Every one has one. True but irrelevant. A witnesses' statement is just that. It might be true, it might be false, but one thing it is NOT is merely an opinion. MIB 1
ShadowBorn Posted June 22, 2018 Moderator Posted June 22, 2018 Quote It happens but looking it up, one source said it is a one in 10 million chance to be hit by a tree or limb in the woods. I would say a limb hitting 2 feet from you would be approximately the same likelihood. So based on probability alone, that might point to something thrown at you. It is fine that tree limbs can fall horizontally since it can be explained easily. But what about tree limbs that come flying at you vertically when there is no strong wind to explain it. How does one explain those ? You can say that maybe a human might have done it but when you are out in the middle of no where then what. It is not just rocks that get thrown but small tree limbs and when they do, it is like a game to them. They did it with my kid when I would be placing my stands and it would not just be small limbs but small rocks that my son would throw back at them. It would be a game between them. It almost seemed like it excited them to have this exchange.
Squatchy McSquatch Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 There are 6 members in this thread who claim to have seen Bigfoot. At least 2 of them had tree branches fall (possibly on three separate occasions) too close to their comfort. Oh yeah and BF doesn’t like it when you urinate. Do the math... 2
Patterson-Gimlin Posted June 22, 2018 Posted June 22, 2018 6 hours ago, MIB said: True but irrelevant. A witnesses' statement is just that. It might be true, it might be false, but one thing it is NOT is merely an opinion. MIB I am forced to agree with you. I respect your view and account more than most. I like you and I am biased.
Recommended Posts