Saturday, February 25, 2012

If A Bear Can Do It, Why Can’t Bigfoot?



Editor’s Note: This is a guest post by Mackenzie U., a student of Environmental Conservation Studies. She believes in the possibility of Bigfoot and is hopeful that one day scientific methods will help prove its existence.

The first question people ask me when the subject of Bigfoot comes up is if I believe in Bigfoot. My answer is always no, but I do believe in the possibility of Bigfoot. This means that although I cannot say with conviction that Bigfoot exists, I believe that the North American continent has plenty of areas that can support a creature such as Bigfoot. If you have watched the show “Finding Bigfoot”, you’ll notice that the evidence of bears makes a place automatically “Squatchy” in their eyes. Though it may seem like a rush to judgment, the bear rule is actually a pretty good one when you realize what it takes to keep a bear happy in his habitat. Since California is home of the famous Patterson and Gimlin film, I’ll use its bears to explain the logic behind the bear rule.

The history of bears in California is a fascinating one. Less than a century ago, California had two species of bears that covered most of the state. In the mountainous regions, California black bears were the bear du jour while the California grizzly bear (AKA California golden bear) called the foothills and valleys home. The tenacity of this bear and its preferred habitat that just happened to include gold bearing rivers led to the active pursuit and extermination of this species. It is said that the last California grizzly was shot in Tulare County in 1922.

This was obviously bad news for the California grizzly, but great news for the California black bear. It is becoming more and more apparent that the only thing keeping the black bears in the mountains was the larger grizzly bears dominating the valley region. The black bear has proven itself to be a successful opportunist that has been expanding its habitat more and more every year. Unfortunately, this has led to many bears having run-ins with humans and being thought of as a pest.

Now, how does the success of a bear correlate with the possibility of a Bigfoot surviving in the wild? It all comes down to calories. Opportunistic feeders such as bears and humans can find enough calories to keep bodily functions going relatively easily. There are berries, plant roots, other animals, and if all else fails there is plenty of insects to eat in the woods. A great example of this is the grizzly bears in Yellowstone Park that have been observed eating an estimated 20,000 calories each worth of moths per day in the summertime. The caloric equivalent at Carl’s Jr would be eating 9 Western Bacon Six Dollar Burger meals with large fries and Oreo cookie shakes. I’ll take Carl’s Jr over moths any day, but if I was trying to survive in the woods for any length of time, grubs would become my new cream puffs.

Now, I don’t claim to be a nutrition expert but I think it is safe to assume that if Bigfoot does exist, its caloric needs would fall somewhere between the average man (2,000 calories) and a bear (20,000 calories). Put that together with the information that California alone has habitat capable of supporting an estimated population of around 30,000 black bears and it becomes easy to conclude that the same habitat could potentially support a Bigfoot population as well. If a bear can do it, why can’t Bigfoot?

The tiny army cutworm moth is a vital source of the mighty grizzly bear's diet.

29 comments:

  1. Great article. I think this is an importatnt topic. I asked Dr. Bindernagel about caloric requirements for Sasquatch on the MN.B.R.T. Radio show, he compared the requirement to moose based on the body mass.

    My calculations estimate calorie requirements of Sasquatch to be 4500-21,000. But 40,000+ is still plausible based on bear behaviour and proported body mass.

    my article: http://sasquatchenlightenment.blogspot.com/2011/12/sasquatch-and.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Sasquatch Enlightenment, I like the "Further Questions" section of your article. I think all of those are excellent questions that should be explored further.

      Delete
  2. Hi I have often thought the same thing. But bears have the ability to hibernate during the winter after putting on a tremendous layer of fat to tide them over. Polar bears do the opposite and estivate during the summer. It could be they store caches of food or rely on cougar kills or something or perhaps they too can build up a heavy fat layer and hole up during the coldest part of the winter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A human living in the wild hunting, gathering, building shelters ETC. would require at least 5,ooo -6,000 cal, cold weather would nearly double that.

    If young are present they have to provide for them also. Just sayin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree. Good points.

      Delete
  4. The fact that elusive, dangerous animals like griz, wolf and mountain lion were nearly wiped out by human predation is an argument that BF would have suffered the same fate... if they existed.

    Trappers would have thier hides hanging from sheds. Ranchers would display full body mounts and cowboys would be posing with thier foot atop a dead BF in tin types.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I know I know,cuz if Bigfoot was really out catching moths in rockpiles we would have a picture of him by now?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi. S.E... I posted the above anon @ 428 and @ 435.
    Please don't take my comments as hating or trolling I just like you, wan't to belive but can't, not with the evidence provided so far.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate your critical thinking. All your points have been valid.

      Delete
    2. Hey Anon, I'm in the same boat as you. I'm the type who needs conclusive proof before I could accept the existence of Bigfoot. At the same time though, I feel that the closed-mindedness within the science community regarding the possibility of an unknown bipedal primate is rather disheartening. What happened to the scientific curiosity that used to spur people to explore beyond their known world just to answer the what-if questions?

      The way I see it, there are legitimate arguments regarding why the existence of Bigfoot is not possible. At the same time though, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why it is possible that are observable in nature.

      Delete
    3. legit scientists have looked into it, some even have made careers of it (meldrum krantz...etc). The thing is that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant much more interest. There's plenty of other things that we know exist that need further study to waste time chasing the boogyman....

      Delete
    4. Nick, critical thinking is GOOD, even NECESSARY, however, so is having an open mind, which you've consistently demonstrated you DON'T. Why not read/post somewhere ELSE?

      Delete
  7. Hey I've got an idea. Since it is a fact that Bigfoots do exist, therefore they must be able to satisfy whatever their caloric intake is, and quite successfullyc since they are far superior equipped to gather food sources, than any other North American animal. That number may not be as high as one might think, but I would think it would be high compared to humans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A fact you say? Where is your evidence to prove this statement?

      Delete
  8. That was a fantastic post. I'm glad someone pointed that out. If we can have that many large creatures with a huge caloric need, tossing in a population of sasquatches would not be hard. We can assume that, where bears are, squatches exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Autumn! Every time I see a bear scat pile, I am amazed by the quantity and what is in there. Next time you see one, grab a stick and poke around for a minute and you will have a good idea about what food is available in the area.

      Delete
    2. Mackenzie--I like you. I might have to call you my next new sis. Just my luck, I'll poke at one of those meathead BF hunter's scat and find a bunch of beer and Jack Link's jerky.

      Delete
    3. LOL! Those scat piles are easy to avoid! If you see a skunk hauling butt past you, there HAS to be something stinkier down the trail.

      Delete
  9. I agree, there's enough food in the forests of the Pacific Northwest in particular to keep a large primate fat and sassy. But that doesn't prove the existence of Bigfoot.
    Still, I want to believe.
    The idea is seriously intriguing--a large, simpler and seemingly more humane primate than ourselves roaming the woods and occasionally allowing us a glimpse of herself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pamela, I completely agree that food availability doesn't prove the existence of Bigfoot but I really hope it's true.

      News of new animals being discovered always makes my day because I love knowing that we really don't know everything about this big blue marble.

      On a more humorous note, every time a new animal is announced I can't help but think of the "crazy" little old man in the village saying "See! I told you there was a blood-sucking spider the size of a dinner plate!" I truly hope that all the Bigfoot witnesses will get their "I told you so!" moment as well.

      Delete
    2. Pamela. I am glad that your thoughts about the possible existence of a Bigfoot type creature have made it upon our scene.

      The public needs to be aware of this from time to time, however this type of debate has been rehashed many times in the world of bigfootology, from actual scientist,(no disregard intended), however it is old news. I absolutely feel that a North American Sasquatch is the most perfectly adapted species brought to bear to live off the land and can consume easily as many calories as it needs to in order to survive. It must as hundreds of thousands of people if not millions have had some kind of encounter with this animal, and believe me they not seeing things, as it can be the most traumatic event in their life.

      Imagine this. You take an eight to ten foot tall human with the build of an NFL linebacker on massive steroids and bring him in at 800 plus lbs. and then turn him loose on the North American Forest and ask him to eat. Well one has just described a North American Sasquatch Father and Mother that has a sole purpose of keeping the family unit strong and out of harms way of the North American human.

      Please keep on keeping an open mind as you are just starting out on this human quest to try and discover. If one looks deep enough just maybe the truth will evolve.

      I Welcome you into the the seriously deep mystery that is the Sasquatch.

      Chuck

      Delete
  10. but it doesnt explain why sasquatches are also being seen in areas that dont have substantial bear populations..or any for that matter,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's where curiosity comes into play. If someone reports a Sasquatch in a bear-less area, then other questions should be asked. Questions like what animals are predominant in the area and what are their food sources should be the first ones. Just because there isn't bears doesn't mean there isn't food.

      Now, if someone reports seeing Sasquatch in the middle of Times Square, I would start with questioning the witnesses food sources. Especially the recreational ones ;o)

      Delete
  11. Someone needs to get into the woods and see how many much food they can find, and live on in the area being hunted for Bigfoot... I happen to watch Snow walker in out of the wild. Those people looked like there were about to starve to death by the end. These people were in the moist rich landscape. With a few solid woodsman to hunt and find food. They still almost starved. It may be alot tougher to be a Bigfoot than anyone thinks. I would love to see some Bigfoot hunters get out there and stay in the woods like a week or 2. It's so important to get to know your hunting grounds. That is a good way to see how people and maybe Squach react in the wilderness. I honestly think it may be hard to pull that much from the woods in a group setting. I'm no Matt Moneymaker but I do know humans have lived in groups and so do apes.. So In closing, let's keep in mind these beasts are not a Bear or a human. So bottom line WE DON'T know what it would take for them to live and survive. Who's to say they don't farm. Only God and bigfoot know whats real. Who know's maybe Bigfoot is God.. lol All we have are footprints that can not be confirmed. So let's get out there people! GO team Tazer Bigfoot!!! Bring one home for Daddy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Google "Gene Rosellini" he tried to live off the land in the Pacific North-West with only stone age tools. He spent years attempting improve his skills and knowlege, his conclusion was "it is not possible for human beings as we know them to live off the land."

      Your point about extremely limited information is well made.

      Delete
    2. Maybe Gene Rosellini couldn't make a go of it, but the Native American population has been successfully living off the land for millenia.

      Delete
  12. Hi I posted earlier about the bears hibernating in winter. Bear scat is everywhere in the woods and very easy to find. So my question is where is all the bigfoot scat? I remember Justin Smega mentioning before he shot the bigfoot seeing a bunch of weird scat on the road. Even if the bodies dissappeared the scat should have still been there. Find scat and you will be able to find bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Great post Mackenzie! This is a very good point. I admire your confidence and intelligence. Please share anything more you have, you are very insightful on the subject of Sasquatch. ~LB

    ReplyDelete