Yeti vs Sasquatch

[norseman]

Often we hear that the Yeti is more Plausible than Sasquatch. The Yeti lies in the mysterious hinterlands of the Himalayas. While the Sasquatch supposedly exists in Seattle’s back yard. But is this true? Surely the Asian crowned jewels and greatest heights in the world smashes any challenger in terms of remoteness and wildness, correct?

 

First, if you look at each mountain range comparatively without regard to its longitude or latitude axis?  A stunning fact emerges. Tall mountain ranges create rain shadows. Both mountain ranges are a semi circular crest. With the Himalayas creating the Gobi desert to the north. While the cascades create a rain shadow into the Columbia plateau which is then bordered by the western Rockies to the east. The Himalayas southern flank is populated by dense lush jungle.  With moisture coming from the Indian Ocean. While the Cascades western flank is populated by dense lush temperate rainforests. With moisture coming from the Pacific.

 

Parts of India adjacent to the Himalayas can receive 90 inches of rain per year. The parts of the US and Canada west of the cascades can receive up to 120 inches of rain per year.

 

Nepal and Bhutan sit roughly at 28 degrees north. In comparison to North America? Corpus Christi, TX is at 28 degrees north. So the southern flanks of the Himalayas are much more close to the equator than the Cascades. Albeit the western flanks of the Cascades are much closer to the Pacific Ocean. A Yeti could have access to many species of tree fruits including Mango and Guava. While a Sasquatch could have access to many species of berries. Both areas are rich in flora and fauna with the Cascades also providing a huge boon in marine life.

 

Lets look at Human populations. China and India are roughly 1.4 billion people EACH. (2.8 billion) Nepal is 28 million and Bhutan is 750,000.

 

The US population is 330 million and Canada is 37 million.

 

What about regional populations?

 

Vancouver BC - 631,000

Seattle Wa - 761,000

Portland - 645,000

Kathmandu Nepal -  1.4 million

 

Its hard to decipher population numbers by region. But definitely despite the growing I5 corridor? There are more people living in close proximity to the Himalayas than the Cascades. With human habitation sharply dropping off north of Vancouver BC. Bhutan is much less dense than Nepal at 28 million people to the west. So in both cases populations are not evenly distributed. Also size relation. For example. Measuring Nepal from north to south through the city of Kathmandu it is 100 miles across. Where as measuring from the pacific coast east to Leavenworth, Wa (eastern limit of mountains) through Seattle, Wa is 175 miles.

 

The Himalayas are the tallest mountains in the world. But if measured by prominence? (Imagine cutting a mountain off at its base for comparison) Many American and Canadian flags begin to appear high on the list.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mountain_peaks_by_prominence

 

 

Conclusion.

 

Does the legendary status of the Himalayas hold up? Actually looking at this comparison closely? I think the similarities far outweigh the differences. But the Cascades are every bit as wild and remote as the Himalayas. And either example is well within its capacity as a eco system to hide a large bipedal primate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Trogluddite]

Interesting.  I wonder how many yeti encounters are reported at the altitude of the dense, lush jungles (where there would be relatively much more to eat) as opposed to altitudes in the ice/rock zone (where there would be relatively less to eat, particularly for a large omnivore or carnivore).  I think that likely food availability goes as a plus under the squatch column.

[norseman]

15 minutes ago, Trogluddite said:

Interesting.  I wonder how many yeti encounters are reported at the altitude of the dense, lush jungles (where there would be relatively much more to eat) as opposed to altitudes in the ice/rock zone (where there would be relatively less to eat, particularly for a large omnivore or carnivore).  I think that likely food availability goes as a plus under the squatch column.

I think it’s likely in the reverse. Especially with Flora. And probably with fauna too. It’s just more tropical. 
 

 

[norseman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeti
 

Also, Yeti is a Tibetan word. The Nepalese word is Bun Manchi, which interestingly translates as “Jungle man”.

[Wooly Booger]

I recall reading Grover Krantz's book "Sasquatch Evidence" in which he postulates that the Sasquatch and the Yeti comprise the same species or at least a sub-species. His line of reasoning is that the species fills a similar ecological niche to the brown bear and both would likely share a similar range. With the Sasquatch/Yeti primate habitat stretching from the Himalayas and Siberia across the Bering Strait and throughout much of North America. 

Edited February 15, 2021 by Wooly Booger

[norseman]

A Tiger at over 11,000 feet in Bhutan. Their 11,000 ft doesn’t look like our 11,000 ft being way farther north. 11,000 feet in the Cascades is glacier territory.

[wiiawiwb]

eDNA results found that Argali live in Bhutan which was not known before that.

[Trogluddite]

Good points Norse; I pretty much think of everything above xxx feet as being snow, ice, and rock.  I probably also have an incorrect impression because Himalayas = Everest = snow, ice, and rock and that's sort of the "habitat" of the yeti.

[Huntster]

Why does a yeti leave tracks in the snow at nearly 20,000' of elevation where there is no vegetation or prey?

 

Perhaps to get to the other side of the Barun Khola mountain range?

[norseman]

11 minutes ago, Huntster said:

Why does a yeti leave tracks in the snow at nearly 20,000' of elevation where there is no vegetation or prey?

 

Perhaps to get to the other side of the Barun Khola mountain range?

Yes. And we have similar reports here. I think the main difference is the worlds mountaineering community is climbing all over the Himalayas. That’s the brass ring in their world. The cascades or coastal mountains in BC and Alaska? Less so.

[BC witness]

Funny you should say that, Huntster, as the trackway I found and took John Green to see a little over 40 years ago was crossing a mountain pass in the snow, from one valley to another. The tracks were unnoticeable on the hard gravel logging road, but showed up clearly once I reached the snow line in that pass. It was leaving the same valley I had seen one in the year before.

[Henry Stevens]

In the last 100,000 years or so we have had Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo erectus, Flores, the New Hobbit from the Philippines and a strange ape-man from South Africa.  Why would not the same range of variation exist for Australopithecus or one or more great ape?  With current notions of species relaxed somewhat, do we need to pound all those square pegs into round holes?

[hiflier]

So far? Five species (subspecies?) of Australopithicus, three of Paranthropus.

Edited February 16, 2021 by hiflier

[Henry Stevens]

And at lest two at the same time, maybe three.

[hiflier]

Well, yes, that we know of anyway. I also thing there were many branches of Orangutans, Gorillas and Chimpanzees that didn't make the evolutionary grade. I mean why should Homo be the only ones with concurrent or overlapping timescales? But in the context of this Forum, that doesn't mean a whole lot to me as much as whether or not there yet is another Last Common Ancestor (missing link if you will) AFTER the Chimpanzee split. Something not yet Homo if the current  school of thought about the evolutionary primate line is true. There are those in science that are looking back and forth at Ardipithicus Ramidus (Ethiopia?)but it might mean that Homo advanced along side, and outside of, the Gorilla/Chimpanzee line. We're getting there but it still going to take a while, and some more boots-on-the-ground digging around