Would A Bigfoot Ever Hit The Wall Regarding Intrusions?

[hiflier]

Is there a risk in pushing Bigfoot too far? Every creature needs a certain amount of territory to feed and mate in peace. One could assume that it means territory where disturbances or intrusions are few or preferably non existent. But there are lots of intrusions into habitats. Research of flora and fauna that pushes deep into remote areas along with resource harvesting practices are just a couple of examples.

 

Grizzly bears, which can weigh as much as 600 lbs. or more for a female and better than 1,500 lbs. for a large male, need lots of calories to maintain themselves. Their range can be anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 square miles. If that's set up as a roughly square area then it would be between 30 and 40 miles on a side. Bigfoot, full grown, could possibly weigh in as much as a female Grizzly bear and could even be a couple of hundred lbs. heavier.

 

That's a lot of calories as well, and with an assumed similar diet as a Grizzly, so one could guesstimate their range to be similar as well. I do not think that Bigfoot and Grizzly necessarily share territory unless they have worked out a feeding schedule that minimizes threats from one to the other. It may be different with Bigfoot and Black Bears. Regardless of that though, when one consideres other types of intrusions outside of normal wildlife then is there a line that gets crossed where an animal will no longer feel safe? Or tolerate Human "visitors" only to a point? The floor is open.... 

Edited August 2, 2019 by hiflier

[Madison5716]

Oh, I'm sure there is. I think we're pushing it at the Meadow. However, the more we are there just puttering around, the more time they have to acclimate to us being there occasionally. So far, they seem to be curious (based on the lack of aggression and that clear wood knock indicating their presence on Sunday). Let's hope it continues. 

 

We have a fire in the southern end of the state, and I wonder how much fires mess with territorial lines.

Edited August 2, 2019 by Madison5716

[hiflier]

6 hours ago, Madison5716 said:

We have a fire in the southern end of the state, and I wonder how much fires mess with territorial lines.

 

It messes with EVERYTHING. I started a thread quite a while back (2 or 3 years ago?) that discusses the dynamics of wildfires. My book has a chapter called "Burned Areas" that looks a bit into Sasquatch survivability and has some thoughts on animals in general as well as possible cave use to ride out a wildfire. It also mentions that in the race to avoid death younger Sasquatches may have to leave an old one behind who couldn't keep up in which case the possibility of finding a dead one in the aftermath might be possible. But the aftermath of a wildfire also presents dangers to Humans who aren't careful or aware of those dangers. The ash cover alone could hide some very serious aspects of exploring such areas even if only looking for footprints. Caves can also be repositories of dangerous gases like methane and carbon monoxide once a wildfire has passed through.

[Huntster]

I believe that the analogy with brown bears is appropriate in terms of density and range. There are an estimated 50,000 brown bears remaining in North America. I believe there are approximately 5,000 sasquatches left. 

 

But sasquatch habitat is likely more aligned with black bear habitat; more dense forest, and less open ground.

[hiflier]

24 minutes ago, Huntster said:

I believe there are approximately 5,000 sasquatches left. 

 

Total in North America or only the U.S.? Black Bear totals for North America are estimated to be 600,000 with an estimated 300,000 being in the U.S.. Add in the 50,000 Brown Bears and that's a LOT of competition for food and territory. I started this thread because I think Human presence in woods and forests have a detrimental impact on the 5,000 or so Sasquatches that are left. By all reason there should be at least as many Sasquatches as there are Brown Bears? Doesn't seem to be the case though which tells me that Bigfoot, because of it's make up and nature could be more sensitive to intrusions into its habitat. In general I think Sasquatch need to come to us, not us to them.

 

I bring this up because we are all interested in this creature but in our desire to see one, or a second one, or even a third one, we inadvertently stress out the creature in its habitat. Where numbers are already low it may be time to rethink our approach. Sure, it's a fine point but considering the nature of how the animal responds to us we need to start looking at these finer points. Mainly because I think our presence miles in off-trail is an unnecessary incursion into their territory. Avoiding us, which is the typical response for this creature only means our presence will cause it to eventually uproot and go somewhere else. The point being, is this a fair situation? 

Edited August 2, 2019 by hiflier

[Huntster]

19 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Total in North America or only the U.S.?.......

 

Total for North America.

 

..........Black Bear totals for North America are estimated to be 600,000 with an estimated 300,000 being in the U.S...........

 

I'm confident there are many more than that; probably close to 1 million in North America. There are an estimated 200,000 in Alaska alone.

 

.........

Add in the 50,000 Brown Bears and that's a LOT of competition for food and territory. I started this thread because I think Human presence in woods and forests have a detrimental impact on the 5,000 or so Sasquatches that are left. By all reason there should be at least as many Sasquatches as there are Brown Bears? Doesn't seem to be the case though which tells me that Bigfoot, because of it's make up and nature could be more sensitive to intrusions into its habitat.........

 

I agree strongly, and add that sasquatches are likely susceptible to human diseases, so very well may have suffered catastrophic losses in the 16th Century along with aboriginal Homo sapiens in the New World that they never fully recovered from.

[hiflier]

42 minutes ago, Huntster said:

I agree strongly, and add that sasquatches are likely susceptible to human diseases, so very well may have suffered catastrophic losses in the 16th Century along with aboriginal Homo sapiens in the New World that they never fully recovered from.

 

One never knows if that could be the case. It does seem to be something that can affect other primates like Gorillas so researchers there take precautions to mitigate any risks as much as possible. We perhaps should be more aware that what we don't know about Sasquatch immunities may mean that we give them their space as much as we can. But even if immunity to Human diseases isn't an issue, even though we don't know that for certain, we should still be sensitive to the low numbers. Keeping to trails and roads, even primitive roads, isn't such a bad idea with the aim to not only not stress out the few creatures in a region but also to lessen the stress on other animals that Sasquatch may depend on or having the creature not looking up from a berry patch when hungry with little ones when they hear Humans nearby where they are not expected to be.

 

Again, this is a finer point but it's one I have refined because of the nest find where some of the nests still had greenery on the twigs when they were first discovered. Any visits by Bigfoots- if they were the ones who built them- ceased. Because the nests were freshly made it told me that the nests were active and possibly going to be used. Instead they remain unused and apparently have been for over four years now. Who or whatever made them over the 40+years that the area has remained untouched have probably found it necessary to relocate. In retrospect I think the lesson is that if such a siite is ever found again that the protocol should be to not go back after the first visit.

 

Reason? Simple, the creature's range is probably so vast that a monitoring program could be set up some distance away, even several miles away, and let the users of the nests go about their business as usual. The result could be that we discover something much better than just seeing a Sasquatch taking a nap. That' would be remarkable enough of course but to see a female with a possible new born of a group coming and going would be much better? I don't know why folks don't think their presence has any impact on these creatures. It does and more minds should be aware of it when in the field. Give the animals and these magnificent creatures some space- even if that space seems to be in proximity to where Humans normally go. Seeing one and chasing it into the woods with a camera does it no justice and only makes things harder for the creatures to acclimate to us. They have in the past if reports are to be believed and we in turn respond in ways that are probably not good for them, food wise, mating wise, or otherwise.

 

Science won't look at the subject. We have to. But there are things to think about and in all respects these creatures and their comfort level should be number one. In the long run I think our chances for encounters will go up if we get out of the driver's seat and let Bigfoot come to us. Mainly because I think they will given time as historically it has been shown to be part of their nature to do so. If anyone disagrees with this then I'm all ears.

Edited August 2, 2019 by hiflier

[Huntster]

3 minutes ago, hiflier said:

........Science won't look at the subject. We have to. But there are things to think about and in all respects these creatures and their comfort level should be number one. In the long run I think our chances for encounters will go up if we get out of the driver's seat. If anyone disagrees with this then I'm all ears.

 

Actually, with "science" (including, and especially, government wildlife management agencies) voluntarily out of the picture (except for their generalized lawyer blanket regulations), that puts me in the driver's seat. If they wanted these creatures protected, they'd get with the program, but they insist there's no program to get with.

 

I'm free, just like I would be if I was hunting unicorns or flying dragons. No harvest tag, license, or closed season. Even if they whip out their silly blanket restrictions (like no hunting any species not specifically listed), I can say that I thought it was a bear. Mis-identidfication is a built-in legal defense, because they've been accusing people of just that all along.

[hiflier]

And that's part of the reason this thread even exists. IOW, fewer Humans in the habit that shouldn't honestly need to be there just may increase any chances for getting one to science. The reasoning is the creatures will relax more in their habitat and even be more encouraged to expand their territory, especially where bears are fewer in number because of previous Human intrusions. One could even thing that pro-kill people would promote fewer people in the wild who are there just to get a glimpse of the creature. I see that "glimpse" as having become less and less likely as researchers more or less shoot themselves in the foot by being deeper in Sasquatch habitat in the first place- especially where sightings have a strong history in an area. It doesn't surprise me that what were once voluntary appearances by Bigfoot have tapered off to almost nothing.

 

It's because I think these creatures are more sensitive to intrusion than bears or any other animal simply on the basis of higher brain development and it's time we seriously consider that aspect. What Bigfoot will tolerate is an unknown so no one really knows what the point of no return really is when it comes to Humans being safe in the wild. Sure, always give "regular" animals a safe retreat but we don't know what the safe margin is when it comes to Bigfoot. I mean at what point will they stand their ground and not in a good way- especially if trying to eat something in an area when hungry of if young are present and also hungry. We all know mama, wherever she happens to be or whatever she happens to be doing, WILL step forward for the sake of her young but we also do not know a Bigfoot mama's breaking point on that situation.

 

I also think Bigfoot's confidence in where it goes and how it conducts itself needs at least a ten year boost without us interfering by being say, four miles in from a trail. This is essentially saying that we are forcing Bigfoot hand and it simply doesn't come off as something particularly good for us or fair and good for Bigfoot. My sense is also that it creates a situation that makes it harder for science and also for the ones trying to secure a creature for science. One really has to weigh what is important here is the long view as opposed to the more shortsighted "it's all about ME seeing one" viewpoint. I don't see that as being any good for the creatures or their living situation.

 

As an important added note, members here only represent a fraction of who else is out there. I wouldn't be surprised if BFF folks that go into the deep woods would only amount to 1% of the total who are actually out looking for this creature.

Edited August 2, 2019 by hiflier

[RedHawk454]

On 8/2/2019 at 10:35 AM, hiflier said:

And that's part of the reason this thread even exists. IOW, fewer Humans in the habit that shouldn't honestly need to be there just may increase any chances for getting one to science. The reasoning is the creatures will relax more in their habitat and even be more encouraged to expand their territory, especially where bears are fewer in number because of previous Human intrusions. One could even thing that pro-kill people would promote fewer people in the wild who are there just to get a glimpse of the creature. I see that "glimpse" as having become less and less likely as researchers more or less shoot themselves in the foot by being deeper in Sasquatch habitat in the first place- especially where sightings have a strong history in an area. It doesn't surprise me that what were once voluntary appearances by Bigfoot have tapered off to almost nothing.

 

It's because I think these creatures are more sensitive to intrusion than bears or any other animal simply on the basis of higher brain development and it's time we seriously consider that aspect. What Bigfoot will tolerate is an unknown so no one really knows what the point of no return really is when it comes to Humans being safe in the wild. Sure, always give "regular" animals a safe retreat but we don't know what the safe margin is when it comes to Bigfoot. I mean at what point will they stand their ground and not in a good way- especially if trying to eat something in an area when hungry of if young are present and also hungry. We all know mama, wherever she happens to be or whatever she happens to be doing, WILL step forward for the sake of her young but we also do not know a Bigfoot mama's breaking point on that situation.

 

I also think Bigfoot's confidence in where it goes and how it conducts itself needs at least a ten year boost without us interfering by being say, four miles in from a trail. This is essentially saying that we are forcing Bigfoot hand and it simply doesn't come off as something particularly good for us or fair and good for Bigfoot. My sense is also that it creates a situation that makes it harder for science and also for the ones trying to secure a creature for science. One really has to weigh what is important here is the long view as opposed to the more shortsighted "it's all about ME seeing one" viewpoint. I don't see that as being any good for the creatures or their living situation.

 

As an important added note, members here only represent a fraction of who else is out there. I wouldn't be surprised if BFF folks that go into the deep woods would only amount to 1% of the total who are actually out looking for this creature.

 

 

I have to believe most of the aggressive BiGFo0T encounters are due to emaciation, human encouragement on their territory (including protecting young), and there are probably just psychopath BiGfo0T too