Patterson BF

[Catmandoo]

32 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Actually, that long list is primarily because the area got hit hard by several serious on-the-ground researchers, and got focused on immediately after "initial contact" when the timber industry first penetrated the area. There are precious few areas like that left within prime sasquatch habitat along the temperate Pacific coast.

 

The timber industry went in to remove forests in the way of interstate highway construction...

 

32 minutes ago, Huntster said:

The trackway was in snow and observable from the air.

Helicopter pilot(s) have reported track ways on the snow covered mountains of Vancouver Island.  I do not think that Blacque Jacque Shellaque was post holing track ways in remote areas. Perhaps Canadian members of the forum could comment on aerial track way sightings.

[NatFoot]

I guess my question remains unanswered.

 

 

Just because this happened all after "first contact" doesn't mean anything to me. Unless you are saying BF have evolutionarily gotten much better over the past 50 years of covering up their existence....otherwise people would be seeing prints everywhere.

 

Or evolution is not at play and generations of BF have passed along knowledge and learning ...which is culture....right?

[OldMort]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

It was incompletely described. The trackway was in snow and observable from the air.

 

Yes of course, since it was in January.

 

But even then, identification would be unreliable at best.

 

Thanks for the extensive list.

[Huntster]

21 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

........Just because this happened all after "first contact" doesn't mean anything to me. Unless you are saying BF have evolutionarily gotten much better over the past 50 years of covering up their existence....otherwise people would be seeing prints everywhere.

 

Or evolution is not at play and generations of BF have passed along knowledge and learning ...which is culture....right?

 

Well firstly, I think that the thick dust left on the new road surfaces in the Bluff Creek area were perfect to record all the prints left by a family, families, or clans of sasquatches that started checking those new roads out. 

 

And yes, it appears that the individuals in the area did indeed get better at hiding. Or once the Old Lady got busted by a couple of men on horses in a regular rodeo type circus act, she promptly went back to the cave thoroughly pissed off and told the Old Man, in no uncertain terms, to pack his stuff, because it's time to move. 

 

And yes, older compacted and weathered roads probably don't produce the number fo outsanding prints that fresh roads do, and without road crews travelling them daily, there are fewer people there to find them. And with no John Green, Rene Dahinden, Bob Titmus, Syl McCoy, etc looking for fresh tips, there's only BFRO to call..........who might or might not record the report in the database, and maybe a couple years later.

 

And yes, as the human population grows and their intrusions accellerate, the younger sasquatches learn quickly. Remember, the human population of California in 1958 was less than 15 million. Los Angeles and Orange Counties alone now have that many people in them (not counting illegal aliens). The last 50 years have been a true invasion. I'm sure they felt it and reacted accordingly.

8 minutes ago, OldMort said:

........But even then, identification would be unreliable at best.......

 

True........until they saw the sasquatch making the tracks.

 

A couple of similar sightings have occurred in Alaska from aircraft.

 

http://www.mid-americanbigfoot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=167&t=3738&start=40

[OldMort]

35 minutes ago, Huntster said:

True........until they saw the sasquatch making the tracks.

 

Yes true, and I won't nit pick this any further, but there were two different aerial observations.

 

Only one of them included a sasquatch sighting as well.

 

[norseman]

6 hours ago, NatFoot said:

@Huntster

 

Thank you for that. Even with my interest for over 15 years now, I had no idea there was that much activity in the area leading up to the PGF.

 

That is unbelievable and some of those folks must have gotten really good looks.

 

Makes you wonder why we don't have anyone today having that much consistent success.

 

Grizzly Bear, Elk, Bison, Beaver, Carrier Pigeon, Etc.

 

Pre-Discovery vs. Post Discovery?

 

I dont think its much of a mystery.

 

Primates are super adaptable.... it what makes us survivors. But I dont think any species is going to thrive when you build a Seattle, Portland or San Fransico in its backyard. Or destroy wild salmon runs with dams. Or cut down the forest it resides in.

 

Trust me, Im not a hippie. But I do admit that choices have consequences.

 

This is why Im dead set on killing one. Im not at all convinced everything is "great", and Bigfoot is a super ninja wood shaman that can just shrug off concrete jungles and major changes in the fauna and flora of the PacNW. Why? Because Grizzlies, Wolverines, Lynx, Woodland Caribou, Salmon, etc say so. No species is stand alone. Its all interconnected.

 

The endangered species act has made an absolute impact. But is it enough for Sasquatch? Or is it too little too late?

 

I think leaving the animal in the realm of a cryptid? We may never know.

 

It would have been cool to have ridden my Mule through the massive wilderness that was North America pre contact.

 

I bet it was serengeti like.

 

Grizzy Bear range map

Edited February 3, 2019 by norseman

[Doug]

When I was younger in the coastal rain forests of Oregon , in one year of hunting and hiking/camping, I would see 300 plus black tailed deer, at least half as many porcupines and as many coyotes, and several bobcats. Rabbits and California quail abounded. Elk were everywhere. Now in one year I see about 20 to 50 black tailed deer, two or three coyotes, zero porcupines ,bobcats, California quail, and elk. Some years I can see up to 12 elk but rarely any at all.

 

My point is, as populations and the habitat changes, it effects every living thing. I don't see any reason why Sasqatches would be any different.

Edited February 3, 2019 by Doug

[Little Foot]

I agree with Doug.  Just because you don't see the animals of the forest as often as you once did doesn't mean there are not as many.  If other animals can avoid human contact, why wouldn't bigfoot be able to do the same.  I dare say that bigfoots are much more intelligent creatures than other wildlife.  My thinking is that there were several hundred bigfoots in the northern California area before man invaded their territory.  All they did was just move on to more remote, untouched wilderness areas.

[hiflier]

Assumed?

[Little Foot]

Assuming means without evidence to support something one way or the other.  The evidence in this case is that bigfoots were seen regularly for a length of time in the same area, yet are rarely seen now in that same area, so unless they were killed or otherwise died off, they moved on.  It's not unlike any reclusive animal to migrate to a new area away from man.  Men are inherently a danger to wildlife, and I'm pretty sure any animal that has any degree of intelligence knows that.  To "assume" would mean that ALL those eyewitnesses, including Patterson and Gimlin and their famous film, are either lying, misidentifying, or hoaxing.

[hiflier]

But it doesn't necessarily follow that hundreds of sightings translates into hundreds of Bigfoots. I agree that Human activity places pressure on habitats and their dwellers but without proof of movement, die-offs, or killings, or even the number of BF's in an area then it can only be a guess as to why sightings are down. Looking at my own thread about where the Sasquatches are in the OP I also am trying to use examples of intrusions but in the end like most everything else about this subject I am only left with assumptions and speculation. So it doesn't really matter what I present for facts. The REAL fact is that there is no proof that such creatures exist as long as the PGF debate remains active and unsettled.

 

I do follow your thinking and it has merit. But as far as hard evidence of creature populations or existence, both before and after Human stresses on wildlife went into play, a strong conjecture may be the best anyone can come up with. I certainly mean no disrespect by saying that but instead appreciate your efforts in thinking things out that more in line with Nature's natural responses to gross and sometimes sustained Human intrusion. Natural disasters like the California flood that created the Bluff Creek PGF site itself along with fires and drought also play a role in causing unscheduled migrations of animals.

Edited February 14, 2019 by hiflier

[Little Foot]

Irrefutable proof is never going to be there unless a body is brought out.  The mass sightings "suggest" there were "many" (several hundred is only a guess based on the number of sightings and the varying characteristics of the evidence) bigfoots inhabiting that area for more than a decade, hence the number of sightings.  As to where they went, we can only use conjecture.  My "opinion" is that the vast majority of them moved further out into the wilderness just like most animals do when man invades their habitat.  If anybody actually "knew" where they were we would've already had a body.  Sighting charts help when searching for a hotspot for activity.

[hiflier]

Seems that we are on the same page then  Because if there is a population in upheaval it stands to reason that moving away to quieter areas would make more sense.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Yes  ,thank you very much for sharing. 

I had forgotten about Patterson's other finds.  

When I think of him I only think of the film subject. 

Too bad with all of that activity he was the only one that got a subject on  film 

[wiiawiwb]

I'm not surprised that people today aren't producing clear pictures of a sasquatch. Nowadays, everyone carries along their $1k iphone like a proud mother with its newly-born baby thinking it is the latest and greatest. I hate to burst their bubble but modern-day cell phones absolutely stink at taking pictures in the woods. Smart phones are dumb phones in the woods. I'll preference that statement by saying that in Big Sky country with open landscape it might get by. In thickly-wooded forests, you'll do as well to have a Kodak Instamatic 104 with a flashcube on top <kidding>.

 

In days of old, people had 35mm cameras they would bring and would focus on the subject being shot. I'm a perfect example as I used to have a 35mm that I could focus perfectly and take a clear picture. Now, I've got this waste of money that takes wonderful wedding pictures but is absolutely useless for capturing wildlife in the woods.  So the percentage of people out in the woods with a manually-focused real camera who can take a clear and crisp picture has declined geometrically.

 

Having said the above I am perplexed, and have no answer, why there aren't more pictures from trailcams. Perhaps a sasquatch can detect them in some manner. I really don't know. 

 

My strategy has changed from capturing one on camera to capturing one on thermal. I think it provides me with the best odds of getting the proof I want. It will never satisfy the world, nor would I share it with the world, and that's perfectly ok with me.