Today I Learned That Bigfoots Are Best Friends With Coyotes


While doing research on coyote calls and Bigfoot, we came across an interesting theory that was discussed in the BFRO "Blue" forum 3 years ago. During a recent expedition to the Sierra "Kill Site", prerecorded coyote calls were used to solicit animals in the area. Though blasting audio of coyote calls isn't really a new thing, some explanations on the effectiveness of it is pretty interesting.

According to researchers, coyotes and Bigfoots are usually in close proximity to each other. They theorize that since Bigfoot only eat the liver of their prey, perhaps the coyotes take advantage of a fresh Bigfoot kill by scavenging. Forum member PBYodeler believes Bigfoots and coyotes have a mutual agreement to share food. "It's also possible that Bigfoots could use the calls of a hunting pack of coyotes as a dinner bell of sorts. If he knows they're making a kill he could drive them off it and take what he wants," PBYodeler wrote.

Another person, who sounds like he knows what he's talking about, believes Bigfoots "proactively employ coyotes to literally digest the evidence of their kills":

I think you've touched on the significant behavior that is occurring between the Squatches and their canine neighbors. There is an awe inspiring intelligence level to the Big Guys that must be factored in as we cipher out their behavioral equation. It would be easy to overlook their sophistication of thought. I constantly find myself underestimating them but I'm learning. It's so easy to assess them to be the equivalent of other common wildlife because that's where every other animal has always fit. They have evaded the radar of modern science for all these years and succeeded where nearly all other animals have failed. There are many reasons why, but one of the primary reasons is because these creatures possess an intelligence far exceeding nearly all other animals (man being the primary exception and I know some who would even debate that).

All that was said to preface my point that I think there is a brilliant cunning to the coyote/Sasquatch transaction. The Sas are elusive. A large amount of Sasquatch behavior is steered by their desire to avoid detection and interaction with us. They adopt nocturnal activity patterns, they avoid malleable ground so as not to leave tracks, they may bury their feces and they probably dispose of their deceased. They really are geniuses at living a covert lifestyle. I think they proactively employ coyotes to literally digest the evidence of their kills. The mob has "cleaners" and so do Squatches.

No doubt they manipulate the yotes for other collateral purposes too such as providing audible cover for movement, driving/confusing prey and maybe the occasional snack when times get desperate. There's probably some squatches who haven't adopted any yote groupies and that may be for reasons related to factors like an ungulate sparse diet or less pressure from nearby human populations. There might be a social dynamic at work too between a lone Sasquatch and his coyote pals.

You can follow the entire discussion here: s2.excoboard.com

Comments

  1. Replies
    1. ^Loonytroll approved!^

      This is an interesting theory... Though there are many that would disagree with this. What does everyone think?

      Peace.

      Delete
    2. You know what I think Joe....he's right. We are beginning to see more people recognize that they manage forest resources. Ungulates coyotes (real men don't shoot them according to Kiedis) and other species. And there is Inuit history of conflict with only one species. You can't manage a Grizz you Welch pilgrim. :)

      Delete
    3. HA HA HA HA HA HA!!

      I am inclined to agree with this too. John W Jones once put a very interesting theory to me that would conflict with what is suggested up top and I am inclined to agree with him on the basis that I feel that Sasquatch are regional and might differ in diet and method to those allocated geographical residence (not taking into account the nomadic theories that circulate about this creature, to which I am very open about)... But the theory up top sits well with me.

      John, if you are reading, you what account I am referring to and if you feel like elaborating on this that would be really cool.

      Peace.

      Delete
    4. I think its completely plausible if they are part human they will seek companionship. Human do in form as a dog so maby bigfoot dose in the form of a coyote. Could be a stealth tatic aswel humans will run when faced with a coyote maby this is bigfoots way to get rid of threats

      Delete
    5. I would love to hear from John and I agree. Omnivores and their diets are going to be resource specific to the region they feed in and Johns region may be so plentiful that they don't have to expose the risks of hunt and kill tactics. I was watching how Moose attain their huge caloric intake just the other day by harvesting aquatic vegetation in the shallows ignored by other species and remembered Jeff Meldrum is hot on this. Speaking of Meldrum Joe. While we are waiting for John. Did you ever read my post asking you if you remember the MonsterQuest on Patterson-Gimlin where Meldrum opens his lab and with Jimmy Chilcutt talks about them seeing individual footprints being recast again. Ie Patty showing back up In another location years later. It goes largely ignored in Patterson Gimlin discussions. ???

      Delete
    6. Furthermore. Nomadic v Local populations would seem to only be determined by me to be based on resource availability. Hence if there is a cooler with Heineken and cold cuts on the coffee table this NFL Sunday I will not travel the dangerous pathway to the Kitchen.

      Delete
    7. No Doubt. MJA. My friend. I think you and Joe and I would make short work of one. :)

      Delete
    8. Now that's interesting MJA. Very much so. Here in the States. We use animals for detection and security against other animals. Example. Guineas or Peacocks to warn of Coyotes or Fox to people who keep Fowl or Rabbitt. Or. Donkeys or Mules against Coyotes or Wolves. So. Bigfoot use Coyote eyes and ears for detection and protection. I like it.

      Delete
    9. Here we use dogs for detection against people or i use them for detection against pigs on the farm so its the same circumstances with bigfoot and coyotes.

      Delete
    10. No doubt. Good stuff my friend. Passing back out now. Always a pleasure.

      Delete
    11. Trolls are like little girls, giggling about firsting and looney tunes. They have no lives, they are turds.

      Troll on turds!

      Delete
    12. I've seen many coyotes in the wild. I've hunted them, called them, filmed them, etc. But I've never seen or heard a squatch.

      Delete
    13. While we don't have coyotes here in England, we do from time to time see packs of Corgys, that disobey pedestrian crossings and run roughshod over mother's herb garden.

      Delete
    14. 6:21...

      Yawn.

      6:32...

      HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

      Peace.

      Delete
    15. You wanna know what I think...."I think you're all F--ed in the heads. We're 10hrs from the F--in Fun Park and you wanna bail out. This is no longer a vacation....it's a quest. A quest for fun. I'm gonna have fun, you'e gonna have fun...we're gonna have some much F---in fun we'll need plastic surgery to remove our God D--n smiles. We'll be whistling zippity do da out of our A$$holes. I'm on a quest to see a moose. Praise Marty Moose....Holy $hit!"

      Clarke W. Griswold

      via

      YGNALI

      Delete
    16. They say dog is mans best friend, there fore, coyotes and The Big Fella, could have a mutual of omaha wildkingdom relationship...thank you...Howard Stern

      Delete
  2. Wel dog is a mans best freind maby coyote is bigfoots best freind. I wonder it that makes the coyote the bigfoot of the k9 world

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nah not al all. Its the time of year that i have to stay awake at night to check my stock for birth problems and boar attacks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh I see! Wow, what a life that must be.

      Peace.

      Delete
    2. Its 2 months working 18 hours a day then about 6 of 12 thrn the other 4 months take 1 hour a day to do all the jobs so its not half bad

      Delete
  4. Bigfoots also have a mutual agreement with people. If people leave the deer alone, they will leave the cows alone. That is why deer are bigfoot food, and cows are people food.

    I'm a Platinum Level Cryptozoologist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do bigfoot send their coyote to kill the cows the man hunts their deer

      Delete
    2. I have the same deal with the local chupacabras: I don't suck the blood of the local deer and they don't suck the blood of my cows

      Delete
  5. That is so damn funny. And it's why I may be reeling it way back in. Fozz my furry friend. I'm starting to reel it back in. I can see why Footers become skeptics and vice versa. And yes. You most certainly are Platinum. All the way ! Bigfoot and I have an agreement. He agrees to stay just out of focus. Just outa of camera range. The Bastard. GerHard said it best. "Bigfoot , Show yourself you Bastard!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems to me bigfoots just shy. Hes like the kid that sits in the corner keeping to him self

      Delete
    2. Bigfoot 's possess different agenda's and temperaments, outlining their intelligence.

      Peace.

      Delete
    3. Bigfoot, show yourself! - Gerhard Reinke Platinum level cryptopoologist

      Delete
    4. Fuckin A. Fuckin A. Gerhards in the HOUSE. Ain't nobody doin nothin to no water buffalo. To no coyote. To nothin. Cause. Gerhard is in the Platinum muthrtfuckin house! Well that's it then. He's here. I am complete.

      Delete
  6. Classic cryptozoology: The study of hidden animals and the shit we make up about them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Classic troll talks shit in an attempt to make himself try feel better. Well i got news for you, you look like an idiot.

      Delete
    2. This theory is based on an accumulation of accounts and evidence from experts and trackers of many decades, other creature comparisons, and is the product of merging theories that are in turn based upon long standing research fields and what we already know about the most elusive creature on the planet.

      Made up stuff is for your comic books (which I have nothing against).

      Peace.

      Delete
    3. "Coyotes would likely scavenge the remains of Bigfoot kills" is a workable hypothesis. "Bigfoots proactively employ coyotes to literally digest the evidence of their kills" is making shit up unless you've got a video of a Bigfoot ordering a coyote around like a sheepdog or some other evidence. Going from "coyotes and Bigfoots are usually in close proximity" to "Bigfoots regularly manipulate coyotes in several different ways" is a hell of a jump.

      Delete
    4. Bigfoot is claimed to be a hairy man like creature is he not? Coyotes are a form of dog. Man has used dogs as a tool for many years. Creating a completely plausable hypothesis

      Delete
    5. Ok. I'm with you. I'm not ready to make that leap and you stated that well. M

      Delete
    6. I agree that using them to get rid of evidence abit of a leap. Protecting and hunting though its possible

      Delete
    7. "Bigfoot is claimed to be a hairy man like creature is he not? Coyotes are a form of dog. Man has used dogs as a tool for many years. Creating a completely plausable hypothesis"

      Forming a hypothesis is just the first step. The next step is to gather all the relevant evidence and see if any of it supports the hypothesis or disproves the hypothesis.

      If anyone actually has any evidence of Bigfoots and coyotes working together now is the time to bring it forwards, otherwise the hypothesis can be set aside as being completely unsupported. That doesn't mean it's wrong or completely unlikely, just that there's further point in discussing it.

      Delete
    8. Bigfoot wouldn't really have to manipulate packs of coyotes, they would merely have to ensure that there are packs of these around, to which there usually are. Also, the sheep dog herding Bigfoot is a funny exaggeration, but when you consider what an intelligent creature this is, with an intelligence equal to that of any human, it is plausible that if they understood the ways in which packs of coyotes work, could then be used to hide evidence of their kills.

      It is widely reported that Bigfoot imitate the sounds of other animals, though I understand that this gets taken to extreme delusional levels.

      Peace.

      Delete
    9. But is there any evidence supporting your hypothesis that thet dont. Both are possible and both have no evidence.

      Delete
    10. "Coyotes are a form of dog."

      No, they're a different species. They are not a form of dog.

      Delete
    11. Dogs are k9 species wolves coyotes dingos the common house dog species all are k9s witch are dogs. Their are hundreds of species of dog dosnt mean there not dogs. What are they then

      Delete
    12. "Bigfoot wouldn't really have to manipulate packs of coyotes, they would merely have to ensure that there are packs of these around"

      That's not the hypothesis that was being put forwards in Shawn's blog post. "I think they proactively employ coyotes" means that they would be purposefully manipulating them.



      "But is there any evidence supporting your hypothesis that thet dont. Both are possible and both have no evidence."

      I have approximately 12 million separate reports of coyotes not acting in concert with Bigfoots. If you have any documented cases of coyotes following orders from Bigfoots then I'll be happy to examine them.

      Delete
    13. "Dogs are k9 species wolves coyotes dingos the common house dog species all are k9s witch are dogs. Their are hundreds of species of dog dosnt mean there not dogs. What are they then"

      Dogs are a subspecies of the Canidae family. Coyotes are a species within the same family. They are closely related but not the same. All dogs are canids but not all canids are dogs.

      Delete
    14. Wheres your evidence then. Unless your a mind reader theres no evidence. Im a skeptic over weather bigfoot exists but as with humans and dogs i find it possible that bigfoot may seek companionship from coyotes

      Delete
    15. Anon 6.17 its like saying americans are a diffrent species to asians. Both are homosapian like coyotes and dogs are both canine. In both cases diffrent sub species but a "dog" means nothing its a word for all canine species witch common house dogs and coyotes both fit into.

      Delete
    16. Oh I'm not saying that it's impossible, I'm just saying that the hypothesis seems to be completely unsupported.

      We've got literally millions of reports of coyotes *not* acting in concert with Bigfoots. That doesn't prove that it's never happened or that it might never happen but that's true of pretty much anything we can make up.

      For example, here's 5 hypotheses that we also can't disprove about Bigfoot:

      - Bigfoot is allergic to Oprah Winfrey. If a Bigfoot tried to eat Oprah it would swell up and die unless you injected it with adrenalin.
      - Bigfoot voted for Obama
      - Bigfoot approves of Matt Moneymaker's haircut
      - The reason that we've never found a Bigfoot skeleton is that they're lighter than air so when Bigfoots die the bones fly to heaven. If you went to heaven you'd see that God sits on a throne made entirely from Bigfoot bones.
      - if you mated a Bigfoot with a chupacabra the end result would *not* vote for Obama

      Delete
    17. "coyotes and dogs are both canine"
      This is correct.

      "but a "dog" means nothing its a word for all canine species"
      This is incorrect.

      Delete
    18. A dog is not a species a dog is a word for a group of species. I have 8 dogs 6 diffrent types there all dogs. A canine and a dog is exactly the same thing.

      Delete
    19. Anon 6:14...

      Where in my comment did you see me state that I was suggesting that what I stated was what the original post is about? I was taking what I perceived as logical from the subject matter. Read properly sir.

      What I will say, is that if thee creatures bury their dead, like the posted article suggests (this is a theory that I also promote, which in turn suggest some degree of culture, which in turn suggests a shared level of capacity with homo sapiens), then the idea that Bigfoot could manipulate coyotes is not really all that far-fetched... Unless you don't understand the level of intellect these creatures possess.

      "I have approximately 12 million separate reports of coyotes not acting in concert with Bigfoots."

      There we are then, we can account for the behaviour of every pack of coyotes in the entire country of the United States now then can we?

      Peace.

      Delete
    20. The domestic dog is Canis lupus familiaris, a subspecies of Canis lupus familiaris (the grey wolf). The family Canidae (canines) includes jackals, coyotes, domestic dogs, wolves, African wild dogs, dingos, foxes, raccoon dogs, maned wolves, dholes and a whole bunch of extinct species.

      The 8 dogs you have are 6 different breeds, not 6 different species.

      Delete
    21. "Where in my comment did you see me state that I was suggesting that what I stated was what the original post is about? I was taking what I perceived as logical from the subject matter. Read properly sir."

      I know, I was pointing out that your theory was conflicting with Shawn's post, which was the current topic of discussion. Perhaps you should work on your own lpowers of comprehension?

      "There we are then, we can account for the behaviour of every pack of coyotes in the entire country of the United States now then can we?"
      See my previous comment of "That doesn't prove that it's never happened or that it might never happen but that's true of pretty much anything we can make up." It's a worthless hypothesis unless someone can come up with any evidence to support it. ANY evidence. Just one report of a Bigfoot directly controlling a coyote. C'mon, there's tens of thousands of eyewitness accounts of Bigfoots, surely there must be one which shows that coyotes follow orders from Bigfoots. Just ONE. C'mooooon. Post the evidence.

      Delete
    22. Did i say species. What you not understanding is im not denieing the fact the subspecies is diffrent. Im denieing the fact your calling a subspecies a dog where is a dog is the word for the whole species. Canine is a dog. Canidae and canis lupus are canine dogs.

      Delete
    23. A wolf is not a dog. A fox is not a dog. Both are canines.

      Delete
    24. They both are dogs. Dog is a word for canine

      Delete
    25. Canis lupus familiaris is a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), a member of the Canidae family of the mammalian order Carnivora. The term "domestic dog" is generally used for both domesticated and feral varieties. The dog was the first domesticated animal and has been the most widely kept working, hunting, and pet animal in human history. The word "dog" can also refer to the male of a canine species,

      Delete
    26. Thank you for agreeing with me, MJ A. It's nice to know that not everyone here is contrary just for the sake of argumentativeness.

      Delete
    27. Anon 7:06...

      No... you were focussing on a a piece of running dialogue that was meant to show that I do not necessarily agree with the entire subject matter suggested up top.

      (Sigh)

      In your effort to try and be clever, I should probably work on your own comprehension... Hypocritical comes to mind.

      To one minute suggest that you feel you can account for the behavior of every coyote and then state that this does not prove anything, would indicate that you're really not sure what you're on about at all really, wouldn't it?

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    28. "To one minute suggest that you feel you can account for the behavior of every coyote"

      Yeah that never happened., but good on you for putting words into my mouth and then shooting them down instead of trying to tackle my actual arguments. (That's called a strawman argument, in case you were wondering. Yet another of your logical fallacies.)

      Delete
    29. Boy, you guys are really really not interested in answering my call for evidence, aren't you? You'll argue on and on about completely immaterial topics (whether coyotes are dogs, etc) but whenever I point out that the topic of Shawn's original post is completely baseless there's a deafening silence.

      Delete
    30. To me anon your the one claiming to account for every coyote

      Delete
    31. And he'll require evidence from others eh?

      A logical fallacy?

      Peace.

      Delete
    32. Get a life losers! Seriously!

      Delete
    33. "To me anon your the one claiming to account for every coyote"

      Feel free to quote any of my posts where I said that. (I've said the exact opposite several times.) If that's just your interpretation then you've failed to keep up with the conversation and you need to read it over again.


      "And he'll require evidence from others eh?

      A logical fallacy? "

      Sorry Joe, I don't understand what you're trying to drive at here.

      Delete
    34. Dont worry i have a life and a pretty good one at that.

      Delete
    35. I have approximately 12 million separate reports of coyotes not acting in concert with Bigfoots.

      Posted at 6.14

      Delete
    36. Wait, really? That's the comment that you got hooked up on? That's absolutely not the same as "I can account for every coyote".

      Dude you're really not keeping up with the conversation.

      Delete
    37. Thank you, I was just about to paste that... And like I stated quite clearly, so clearly that MJA even understood... you will require evidence then to back up other people's claims.

      See how this works?

      Delete
    38. 12 million separate reports. Surely theres not 12 million packs of coyote in the us?

      Delete
    39. "See how this works?"

      No you're still not being clear. Were you replying to MJA or me, and which part of the conversation is that in reference to?

      Delete
    40. "Surely theres not 12 million packs of coyote in the us?"

      I never said there was????
      My reports of coyotes acting without the control of Bigfoots includes all the youtube videos of coyotes, all the documentaries, all the scentific papers, all the holiday photos of coyotes, all the holiday blog entries that mention coyotes, etc etc.. None of them show Bigfoots controlling them. 12 million was a conservative estimate, there's probably much, much more than that.

      On the flip side, the number of reports that show coyotes being controlled by Bigfoots is zero.

      As I said several times earlier, this doesn't mean that Bigfoots have never controlled coyotes, it just shows that out of the millions of reports there's absolutely no evidence to support the hypothesis.

      This really isn't a complicated concept, I really don't know why you guys are struggling with it so badly.

      Delete
    41. Read it 6.14 you not me not joe you said you have 12 million seperate reports. There probably is not 12 million packs in the u.s.

      Delete
    42. And you want to condescend someone else about comprehension?

      If you require evidence that supports the suggestion that Bigfoot manipulate coyote packs, that's fair enough, but we require evidence of your 12 million separate reports of coyote behaviour.

      See how this works Einstein?

      Peace.

      Delete
    43. Where not struggleing at all. You seem to change the subject every time you cant come back. You dont have 12 million reports. You have reference to reports which will not be 12 million by the way. Claiming you have 12 million is like claiming you have reports on every one in the u.s

      Delete
    44. Coyotes have definitely been mentioned at least 12 million times throughout human history. That's my dataset: recorded human history. It includes every youtube video that mentiones coyotes, every documentary about coyotes, etc etc.. Coyotes have definitely been mentioned at least 12 million times in human history. It's all freely available, go google it if you want to read a portion of it.

      Even if the exact number of my dataset isn't 12 million it's still a truly enormous number, and it's 100% more data then there is to support the hypothesis in Shawn's blog post.

      Delete
    45. My point still stands: the hypothesis "Bigfoots proactively employ coyotes" is completely unsupported.

      Delete
    46. And how many have been in relation to your hypothesis to bigfoot and coyotes. None its never been observed before.

      Delete
    47. My point still stands that '12 million reported accounts of coyote behaviour' is a claim...

      And I'm bored of you Einstein.

      Take a hike.

      Peace.

      Delete
    48. It's all related, MJA. We can't cherry pick our data.

      My counterclaim would be completely nullified by just ONE verified report of Bigfoots controlling coyotes but no one can show me any such report. I'll happily agree that it's true if someone can show me any decent evidence. I'd even be willing to allow that it's feasible or likely if anyone could show me related evidence. I don't think these are unreasonable requests.

      Spinning completely unsupported hypotheses, however, isn't something I can support. "Just throwing ideas around" like that isn't helpful and I'd actually argue that it further damages the credibility of cryptozoology. "Bigfoots can control coyotes" will sound like crazy talk to many people unless you have something to back it up, and there's more than enough unsupported crazy hypotheses in the field making us look bad without new ones being added.

      Now if someone can come up with a methodology to test this hypothesis and actually implement it, that'll be a different matter altogether .....

      Delete
    49. "Take a hike"??? Really, dude? That's how you deal with opposing points of view? That's weak.

      Maybe the internet just isn't your thing.

      Delete
    50. Einstein...

      ""Bigfoots can control coyotes" will sound like crazy talk to many people unless you have something to back it up,"

      You see, this is why I suggested in one of my responses to you, when you exaggerated and suggested that the article was suggesting that Bigfoot were using coyotes like sheep dogs, that Bigfoot wouldn't really have to use coyotes this way and still get out of them what is desired to cover their hunting tracks... Which would be applying a little imagination to rendering the subject matter a little more believable and not so 'crazy', and you suggested that I was not understanding what the article was implying?

      Clown... Total clown. Who are you to state what is believable in this subject? What are your credentials??? In an effort to dodge countering what I proposed to you...

      YOU SUGGESTED I WAS WRONGFULLY UNDERSTANDING THE SUBJECT MATTER INSTEAD OF CONFRONTING THE POSSIBILITY OF WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING.

      Yeah... take a hike you clown. There are people with ten times more intelligent than you around here and I suggest you look at your own methods before calling in anyone else.

      Einstein... Take a hike.

      Delete
    51. Copy/pasting your comments from elsewhere on this page isn't going to impress anyone, Joe. But I'll copy/paste the reply I gave so we can have this same dumb conversation twice over:


      "Bigfoot wouldn't really have to use coyotes this way and still get out of them what is desired to cover their hunting tracks..."

      The article suggested that they actively use them for certain tasks apart from scavenging their kills:

      "Bigfoots and coyotes have a mutual agreement to share food."
      "No doubt they manipulate the yotes for other collateral purposes too such as providing audible cover for movement, driving/confusing prey"
      "There might be a social dynamic at work too between a lone Sasquatch and his coyote pals."

      Your original comment of "Bigfoot wouldn't really have to manipulate packs of coyotes, they would merely have to ensure that there are packs of these around, to which there usually are" doesn't cover those extra activities. Using coyotes to drive or confuse prey would indicate that there was some level of communication between the Bigfoot and the coyotes at the very least.
      So yeah dude, you either didn't understand the article or you chose to ignore parts of it and then bitched and whined when you got called out on it.

      Delete
    52. My comment doesn't acknowledge those extra 'activities' you speak of because these activities were not of a concern to me, you are talking about irrelevances you absolute half wit... HA HA HA!!

      And Einstein... You didn't call me out on anything... You avoided my proposition because what I proposed threw you and because you couldn't counter, you suggested I didn't understand the subject matter. Just because I did not discuss the other 'activities' does not make my theory any less important.

      To call me out on it would be to counter my theory, not deny it was there... You laughably silly clown.

      You then proceeded to make about twenty posts about 'avoidance'... You are a contradictive clown pal, I really think you are the biggest clown I've seen on this blog in ages.

      Take a hike Einstein... Not so clever.

      Delete
    53. I'd already mentioned that "theory" earlier in this thread at 5:54AM and then moved on from it, but your comprehension skills are clearly at a kindergarten level so I'll forgive you for not realising that the discussion had already moved past that point.

      Delete
  7. I believe That Bigfoots might actually have relationships with Coyotes,Like us Humans have with Dogs.think we can train dogs so it makes sence that bigfoot could train coyotes to let them know where to Hunt,if people are coming,Because when I was a teen I spent sometime in this group of woods&on a few Times when would stand at a trail would see what a first thought was person walking Dog,but when got closer was no Human or bear&now thinking about it what thought was dog could have been a Coyote,then I remember how big the creature was with Black hair&very big&wide,the few times. I saw it I would get scared&leave trail right away!

    ReplyDelete
  8. There are tales of that. Or tails if you prefer (sorry). The Familiar. How many people remember a familiar from Dungeons and Dragons. So. BIGFOOTs keep a pet. A familiar. A symbiotic relationship. Not a parasitic one. Companionship. Tracking. Olfactory and hearing senses. I can see that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your evidence is Dungeons and fucking Dragons? Are you for real or are you trolling?

      Delete
    2. Read below. I'm taking about concepts of comfort with animals and its perception. Open your mind or close your mouth.

      Delete
    3. I just complimented you above and you go right back to proving that you can't even follow out a discussion thread without Windexing the chalkboard with your ignorance. Time for coffee. The background noise at a Starbuckss is prefable to your input. Blurrrrschhghhwweeeeeerrrrruuuup

      Delete
    4. You're really not interested in finding out the actual truth of the matter, are you? You'd rather invent a cosy fantasy to believe in than research what's actually occurring.
      "Oh maybe Bigfoot is a 7th levele druid/ranger multi-class character with a coyote familiar and +5 stealth vs orcs and 18 charisma!"

      If you're going to bring up dumb shit I'm going to call you out on your dumb shit.

      Delete
    5. If you are gonna miss-type, miss-spell and talk utter bullshit, then I'm not even gonna bother reading your comments.

      Plus... Everybody knows the Druids were Celtic.

      Peace.

      Delete
    6. You've made a bunch of spelling and grammatical mistakes yourself, joe. (Who is this Miss Type woman?? Or did you mean 'mis-type'??")

      If you're going to invent spurious reasons to avoid addressing my counter arguments I'm going to assume you've tacitly awarded victory to me.

      Delete
    7. In fact Anon 7:12, it's time for a little Sgt Lincoln Osirus, "want some?" Cue Gunfire..."get some!"

      Delete
    8. Joe is my bitch, I'll put him in the corner all I want.

      Anon 7:16: AH HA HA HA HA cry some why why don't you? You're so amazingly butthurt, it's amazing.

      Delete
    9. 'Bitch'? I think you are either jumping the gun or even getting a little too excited with your own logic that holds about as much sway as anyone elses that you claim are incorrect.

      "Oh maybe Bigfoot is a 7th levele druid/ranger multi-class character with a coyote familiar and +5 stealth vs orcs and 18 charisma!"

      I'll be buggered if I can understand that... What counter arguments did I avoid exactly? I missed that... I think you need to actually read properly before you suggest that you would put anyone 'in a corner' and then half declare a victory??

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    10. Anon. "We tired of bein your trail donkeys, actin like your some one-man GPS! You're lost, your super lost Man!"

      Delete
    11. I'll be waiting for what these 'counter arguments' that I have avoided...

      Delete
    12. Last time i heard a bitch was a female dog. And i dog would not be able to talk through a computer so wheres your evidence that joes a "bitch"

      Delete
    13. Oh Joe. IMy point was that if you're going to make a smartass reply about someone's spelling then you're just going to look like a fool if your reply is also full of spelling mistakes. You fumbled the play.

      I should also add that ignoring someone's arguments because of their spelling or their tone is a form of ad hominem attack.

      I'm disappointed that you'd resort to picking on my spelling, Joe. It was a weak moment and I've come to expect better from you.

      Delete
    14. Like I posted before..

      "Oh maybe Bigfoot is a 7th levele druid/ranger multi-class character with a coyote familiar and +5 stealth vs orcs and 18 charisma!"

      ... If I could actually understand what the heck you are on about then would oblige you. To suggest that I am your bitch after comment content like that is ritch. Whichever way I didn't spell properly, I'm pretty sure you could understand my comment at least. If I was to suggest people were avoiding my comments, I would make my comment clear first... Not blow my own horn after hypocritically suggesting that anyone else's comprehension is suspect.

      Peace.

      Delete
    15. That comment wasn't in reply to you Joe, it was in reply to Mike's Dungeons and Dragons comment. I'm sure that Joe understood what I said.

      If we're going to have to restrict all our comments to "Stuff that Joe understands" then this discussion is going to be awfully rudimentary.

      Delete
    16. "Rudimentary" means simple or basic or uncomplicated. Apologies for using a big word, I know you struggle with them.

      Delete
    17. I couldn't care how you type, spell, shit in the pan... Just don't suggest people avoid countering arguments when firstly; they haven't avoided anything, and secondly; they can't understand what you are typing. I think that's a reasonable point that is now being conveniently 'avoided'.

      Peace.

      Delete
    18. "If you are gonna miss-type, miss-spell and talk utter bullshit, then I'm not even gonna bother reading your comments."

      My thoughts exactly when it comes to Joe's stupid ass comments.

      Comment of the day right there folks.

      Delete
    19. Wow, this guy thinks he's Einstein or someone? Sure likes blowing his own horn anyway... Think he needs to win a debate before he suggests people don't understand big words.

      (Sigh at the amount this guy needs to get over himself)

      I'm still waiting for what counter arguments Mike has avoided exactly? Or is this narcissistic dribble in an attempt to change the subject, because in actual fact... You haven't the slightest idea what you are on about anymore?

      Peace.

      Delete
    20. Great stuff... You understood what I was commenting about though... Yeah Einstein?

      Ever tried typing on a blog using an iPhone? Or does your mummy not allow you that type of financial expenditure?

      Delete
    21. If you're going to say "If you are gonna miss-type, miss-spell and talk utter bullshit, then I'm not even gonna bother reading your comments" then I can only conclude that A) you care how I spell, and B) you're inventing reasons to avoid my posts (ie: my arguments).

      If you don't want people to draw conclusions like that then don't say things like that. Maybe take responsibility for what you say in future?

      Delete
    22. Its quite hatd isnt it joe. Im using a htc desire and thats pretty hard

      Delete
    23. I couldn't care how you spell, type, but I care that you would suggest I am your bitch when nobody can understand what you are typing and you maintain avoidance of explaining yourself.

      This is getting hilarious... What arguments am I avoiding?? This is possibly the fourth time I have asked you? Quite ironic.

      That's all I'm getting from you is efforts to condescend as opposed to actually supplying me with an answer? If you don't want people to draw on your ignorance then don't suggest that anyone else is a 'bitch'... especially when you really haven't driven home anything and merely lessened the quality of comment.

      Odd behaviour for sure.

      Delete
    24. You're still making ad hominem attacks, Joe. Your lack of rhetorical skill is showing. You're also contradicting your earlier claim of caring about my spelling.

      And as I already explained, I'm claiming that your statement "If you are gonna miss-type, miss-spell and talk utter bullshit, then I'm not even gonna bother reading your comments" was an attempt to invent a reason to avoid reading my comments and thus avoid engaging with any arguments in those comments. If you went ahead with your idle threat and ignored my posts (which you haven't) then you'd also be ignoring the arguments within those posts.

      Delete
    25. Anon 8 32
      Shut up looser go back to class your talking pure bullshit

      Delete
    26. Great reply, MJA. Really intelligent and nuanced, it struck right to the heart of the matter. You're making some great contributions to this discussion, keep it up!

      (What's a looser? Someone who loosens things??)

      Delete
    27. Oh dear... This guy is a rare one...

      Like I said, I don't care about your spelling, I just care about idiots making claims about me.

      What argument am I avoiding? Point it out to me... I have acknowledged all your dribble. There was no need to see through that threat of ignoring your posts, because you have taken on board the importance of being clear to people since (schooled).

      Also, I'm bored of you... I've got better things to do.

      Peace.

      Delete
    28. A looser is a person with no life. If your going to come to this blog to talk shit then piss off.

      P.S
      You can never win when you try to outsmart joe

      Delete
    29. MJA... You are a true friend buddy, I would love to have a couple of beers with you. Thank you bro... The blog has really benefited from you commenting and I very much enjoy looking out for you.

      Peace buddy.

      Delete
    30. Ah ha ha ha, your little support group is just precious.

      Delete
    31. No probl joe. I think these trolls just want to talk to us but dont no how in inteligently about somthing relivant. Not just absolute bullshit

      Delete
    32. "I think these trolls just want to talk to us but dont no how in inteligently about somthing relivant."

      Holy hell dude, I don't need to try to make you guys look stupid. You're doing all the work for me.
      Did you have a stroke or something while you were trying to type that out????

      Delete
    33. A stroke buddy my health it perfect. I would even say fitness wise you would never keep up. How am i looking stupid telling you to piss offs stupid now yep sure. Now why dont you go and play with your mate unless you can talk about somthing relivant.

      Delete
    34. "MJA is an idiot" is entirely relevant. Or even 'relivant', if you prefer.

      Have you ever been tested for autism? Were your parents closely related? Maybe if we figure out what exactly is misfiring in your brain we can steer this trainwreck back towards something resembling a useful conversation.

      Delete
    35. Your saying that argueing about bigfoot and dungons and dragons is relivant. Yea right. And how about you come and say that shit to my face in stead of hiding behind a anon account. Then see what happens. Fucken troll.

      Delete
    36. Fine, I'll call your internet toughguy bluff. Post your name and address here and I'll be right over and we really will see what happens.

      Delete
    37. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    38. Einstein...

      ""Bigfoots can control coyotes" will sound like crazy talk to many people unless you have something to back it up,"

      You see, this is why I suggested in one of my responses to you, when you exaggerated and suggested that the article was suggesting that Bigfoot were using coyotes like sheep dogs, that Bigfoot wouldn't really have to use coyotes this way and still get out of them what is desired to cover their hunting tracks... Which would be applying a little imagination to rendering the subject matter a little more believable and not so 'crazy', and you suggested that I was not understanding what the article was implying?

      Clown... Total clown. Who are you to state what is believable in this subject? What are your credentials??? In an effort to dodge countering what I proposed to you...

      YOU SUGGESTED I WAS WRONGFULLY UNDERSTANDING THE SUBJECT MATTER INSTEAD OF CONFRONTING THE POSSIBILITY OF WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING.

      Yeah... take a hike you clown. There are people with ten times more intelligent than you around here and I suggest you look at your own methods before calling in anyone else.

      Not so tough and apparently, not so clever either. Yeah Einstein... Take a hike.

      Delete
    39. That's obviously a fake address, you can't even spell Kaingaroa correctly. Post your real address, asshole.

      Delete
    40. He would have more then one new hole teared in him. Google tuhoe thats my tribe you will see what sort of people we are

      Delete
    41. "Bigfoot wouldn't really have to use coyotes this way and still get out of them what is desired to cover their hunting tracks..."

      The article suggested that they actively use them for certain tasks apart from scavenging their kills:

      "Bigfoots and coyotes have a mutual agreement to share food."
      "No doubt they manipulate the yotes for other collateral purposes too such as providing audible cover for movement, driving/confusing prey"
      "There might be a social dynamic at work too between a lone Sasquatch and his coyote pals."

      Your original comment of "Bigfoot wouldn't really have to manipulate packs of coyotes, they would merely have to ensure that there are packs of these around, to which there usually are" doesn't cover those extra activities. Using coyotes to drive or confuse prey would indicate that there was some level of communication between the Bigfoot and the coyotes at the very least.
      So yeah dude, you either didn't understand the article or you chose to ignore parts of it and then bitched and whined when you got called out on it.

      Delete
    42. I googled the tuhoe tribe and it said "Whiny internet bitches who act tough when they think they're being anonymous on the internet but who give out fake addresses when their bluffs get called."

      Welp, there we go.

      Delete
    43. Haha certain people i know would eat you if you tell them that. Go to that adress see if its fake. Put your name and adress up they or are you to much of a bitch to do that. Fucking weasel

      Delete
    44. That empty feild now has my house on it and has has for nearly 2 years

      Delete
    45. Oh right, that image of an empty field which was updated in 2013 has had your house on it for two years. Riiight.

      Delete
    46. It's a satellite photo, dumbass. They update them regularly.
      I'm still not falling for your bullshit.

      Delete
    47. My comment doesn't acknowledge those extra 'activities' you speak of because these activities were not of a concern to me, you are talking about irrelevances you absolute half wit... HA HA HA!!

      And Einstein... You didn't call me out on anything... You avoided my proposition because what I proposed threw you and because you couldn't counter, you suggested I didn't understand the subject matter. Just because I did not discuss the other 'activities' does not make my theory any less important.

      To call me out on it would be to counter my theory, not deny it was there... You laughably silly clown.

      You then proceeded to make about twenty posts about 'avoidance'... You are a contradictive clown pal, I really think you are the biggest clown I've seen on this blog in ages.

      Take a hike Einstein... Not so clever and not so tough.

      Delete
    48. I think you're probably being kind to him there MJA.

      Einstein... Not so clever and not so tough in the end.

      Delete
    49. Im starting to think the anons talking shit joe. Il catch you next time im off to work take care bro.

      And you anon turn up get your head smacked in u watch your back

      Delete
    50. Actually Joe, I just checked the conversation where you posted that comment and my preceding post at 5:54AM PDT says:

      ""Coyotes would likely scavenge the remains of Bigfoot kills" is a workable hypothesis. "Bigfoots proactively employ coyotes to literally digest the evidence of their kills" is making shit up unless you've got a video of a Bigfoot ordering a coyote around like a sheepdog or some other evidence. Going from "coyotes and Bigfoots are usually in close proximity" to "Bigfoots regularly manipulate coyotes in several different ways" is a hell of a jump."

      My argument was that coyotes might hide Bigfoot kills without the Bigfoots having to direct them but that any level of interaction above that was unsupported. Your subsequent post was within the context of that argument and since it failed to "acknowledge those extra 'activities' you speak of because these activities were not of a concern to me" then you clearly missed the context of the argument. In any case, you were just parroting something I'd already agreed to as being obvious and which I'd then put aside and moved on from.

      Either you got the context wrong or you tried to put forward a point I'd already made.

      Delete
    51. What the fuck are you trying to argue for, anyway? Anything interesting? Anything less mundane than "Coyotes are opportunistic scavengers"??? Do you have any genuine points of interest to add to this conversation or are you just going to blather on like this for days and days? What the fuck was the point of all the hundreds and hundreds of words you posted apart from "Coyotes eat dead animals"????

      Delete
    52. I've got to say as well Einstein... You're not reading my comments people's either and avoiding what I proposed as a more logical version of what using coyotes.

      Funny.

      Unlucky Eisntein. You can put out a lot of comments but you literally just snake around confronting anything.

      Ha ha ha ha ha!!!

      Delete
    53. "avoiding what I proposed as a more logical version of what using coyotes. "

      I'd already made that suggestion myself earlier in the conversation. You just stole my suggestion and then went parading around like a toddler who was proud of the shit they'd just taken all by themselves.

      Delete
    54. Holy fuck, you're even more retarded than MJA. That in itself is pretty impressive because MJA has the reading and comprehension skills of a severely autistic armadillo.

      You're just completely ignoring my replies and yelling "I won!" as if that's going to convince anyone.

      Delete
    55. If you agree that the Sasquatch may use coyotes without communicating with them, then why the fuck did you suggest that I didn't understand the article when I suggested that?

      This suggests to me you don't what you're on about... Still.

      I was not parroting, rather you were just trying to cause an argument.

      Round in circles I think?

      Delete
    56. Are you realy tuhoe MJA. Anon do you know who your talking to. When i was in N.Z. i was told about there training camps. They are experts in combat and ruthless. You take one of them on its like taking 2 hells angels on. Just saying

      Delete
  9. And then we are brought right back to the ape v man theory. Koko loves kittens. I love strippers. There is nothing wrong with companionship. But at what level does a proto human or an ape develop a third party perspective sufficient to satisfy their own need for companionship by using another species to fulfill those needs. And at what point do I run out of money :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey eva
      Any type of strippers
      Chicken strippers
      Paint strippers
      Female strippers

      Delete
    2. Hello MJ A ,i've just been reading about bigfoots possible relationship with coyotes,from what i've read before i thought bigfoot didn't like dogs,it's an interesting idea though,and i think i'll stick with the chicken strippers xx

      Delete
    3. Maby not human dogs but maby just maby coyotes are dogs for bigfoot

      Delete
    4. "i've just been reading about bigfoots possible relationship with coyotes"

      Oh I don't doubt that Bigfoots have 'relationships' with coyotes, even if they're not using their psychic powers or subsonic vocalisations to control them like remote drones. It can get awfully lonely in those deep woods.

      Delete
    5. If coyotes are anything like dogs my dogs just know what to do thats the hunting dogs and tje farm dogd work off whistles. Is it possible bigfoot uses whistles aswell.

      Delete
  10. Some people have way too much time on their hands.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Like you. Unfortunately we can't get our time back after you donate your carbon to our atmosphere. I would like to apologize to Starbucks for comparing their background noise to you. Speaking of proto humans. Preach on brotha...

    ReplyDelete
  12. I have to go get Coffee. After re reading your posts Anon I just noticed how you used employed. I'm going to check and see if Wil E Coyote has a W-2 employment form Sasquatch. Gentleman. It was fun till Mommy woke him. Have a beautiful day. M

    ReplyDelete
  13. You calling out "dumb shit" is simply yelling "present " in class. You might be need to take a long walk on a short beach. For the rest of you. Good day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh what an excellent comeback. A long walk on a short beach, you say? A devastating blow of Shakespearean proportions! I fear you may have dealt me a death blow, sir.

      Delete
    2. I think I may have. You know I tried to be nice. If we could just get along you might seen my points. I've made attempts. You know back before our Bigfoot War broke out I was a Sous chef here in San Antone. If you could forgive me I might get some crawfish out the paddy ? Maybe some of that crab apple?

      Delete
    3. Just so you know, coming back into a conversation after you've said "Good day" is poor form.

      Delete
    4. Look. Gerhard is in the HOUSE. I will relinquish the floor to him. Don't call in Bussys on me. Or do you even know what that means. I invented poor form. I was there when the dog licked the butter as Harry Dean Stanton says. I was there when McEnroe broke the racket. When Bjorg put on the hadnand AND when Wes Anderson parodied it in Tannebaums. And I'll be here when you are long gone. I said good day to the floor. Not you sit. And Gerhards reemergence from some form of space hibernation has changed the rules. Do not speak to me of Form sir. Like Petef Gabriel I have shed my skin. I exist now beyond it. And now I say. A good day to you too!

      Delete
    5. Well I say harumph to you, sir! Harumph and harumph again!

      Delete
  14. I have coyotes on and around my property year round. They make many different calls, leave tracks, droppings, and kills. Things called sign or evidence.

    I haven't seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched anything from a squatch.

    No squatches just coyotes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmmm. Interesting. I have a Coyote on my television. His name is Wil E Coyote. He is a Suuuuper Genius. He works for a corporation called ACME. And though he may have seen, smelled and heard the Roadrunner's distinctive "Beep Beep". He's never tasted it. :)

      Delete
  15. My Native American relatives and friends all are in agreement that every bird and animal in the forest are connected and will work in harmony with each other.

    When humans enters the woods for hunting, hiking or whatever, the "pine squirrels" sound off, the "wood peckers" sound off and the flying sentinels of the sky the "Crows" or "Ravens" definitely sound off! The woodland animals (including big foots) are now alerted.

    This is a fact, and most hunters know about this activity. When out "Big foot searching" and any of the above birds or animals sound off, believe me, the Big foots are long gone.

    This is why it is so hard to spot them. Any movement in the woods is detected. If you read about American history you can read about that during our early "Indian Wars" the French or British troops were always ambushed easily in the woods. Why? Because they could never understand, the Native American's knowledge of how the woodland animals and birds of their "Interactive relationship".

    So it is entirely plausible, that Big foots could use Coyotes as their eyes and ears to. However, I totally disagree that Big foots are the "Apex predators" and that they eat meat!

    I go with the theory that they are Plant and vegetation eaters only. And they just like the Moose can get all the starch and protein they need from Cattails, Sedges water plants etc.

    If they were "meat eaters" than how come there is not an increase of Cattle/Cow kills especially in the winter? Also eating meat would make them more aggressive too. There has been no "documented" case at all, of a Big foot eating a Cow or a human. None! Stories sure.

    And while I'm on the subject of theories, another reason they are not easily seen, based upon my experiences at least here on the East coast, Big foots spend a lot of there time in pine or Spruce trees. Did you ever stand under a 100' spruce tree and look up? You can't see past 3-5 feet. If they do spend a lot of time in Pine trees, that's another reason why tracks are not always seen, Plus they can feed up in the Pines on it's cones and rarely need to come down.

    I know my remarks will generate some disagreement, but that is why most of us are on this site "To learn from each other".

    Now I am going to leave my E mail address to invite "Mature discussions" only. Those "Trolls" that made lewd comments about my Wife have now felt my wrath, and if any of you try that again, you will shortly find out how far I will go to protect my wife or family. Remember, any E mail can be tracked to it's source!

    John W. Jones E mail healthyhappylawns@reagan.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the squatches spend a lot of time in Pine trees shouldn't there be a big pile of poo?

      Delete
    2. If there high up in a pine tree, when they poop, it wouldn.t reach the ground for us humans to find, there are just to many branches in the way. think about it.

      I am not saying I'm right, that why it call Big foot research. Every expedition I go on, I learn something new.

      We have to get away from the "Accepted" way of Big foot thinking and methods used, as for the past 5-6 decades we've proved nothing!

      Delete
    3. Wow John Jones, you know your shit! Yes, Bigfoot does like to hang out in those big pines, but not just on the east coast. My friend in Canada has described seeing lot's of sign of Foots climbing trees, even some trees that have one side clear of limbs so the Big guy can escape down the tree quick.

      Delete
    4. John is an absolute legend and I am so, so, so pleased he has decided to post again after the way he was treated.

      John, we admire you,depend on your opinion and experience, love that you leave some of the most profound comments we have ever read on here and celebrate you totally buddy.

      Peace John

      (PS... Will respond to your email later on)

      Delete
    5. Bears often climb trees as well. I guess it he tree can support a large bear it could support a large squatch as well. If a human approaches do they exit the tree or stay put? J.D.

      Delete
    6. Well how many people walk around looking up trees

      Delete
    7. Well said sir,

      There is a saying that my Oglala Lakota brothers had taught me early in life's paths. "Mitakuye Oyasin" (all are related).

      In the hypothesis of things, isn't all related to the food chain of logic? Is the hyena working with the lions or salvaging or taking over a killed prey?

      I seen where the dolphin will herd fish close to the waiting fishermen and receive part of the bounty in return for working with the fisherman. Is this taught or just a way a animal goes thru the evolution process of just trying to feed one self?

      So that's why I love what Mr. Jones said and respect his view. I am sorry though to hear what some will do to dis-credit rather than debate. My hat is off to those on both sides if no intended harm is involved.

      I am starting over with a new day of lives' mysterious roads, but I always know their will be forks ahead!

      In the end, I believe the smallest of animal, the worm benefits from the feast!

      Delete
  16. Replies
    1. In fact. I'm sending you something now John Jones. Snapped them yesterday. Have a great day my dear friend.

      Delete
  17. Coyotes with imaginary bipedal friend 8 ft tall 650 lbs of course is the most credible voice in tomfootery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are the most incredible voice in skepfoolery.

      Delete
  18. Coyotes with imaginary bipedal friend 8 ft tall 650 lbs of course is the most credible voice in tomfootery.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I received my first 2 XX "kiss, kiss" from Eva yesterday. I put one in my front right pants pocket and one in my left front pants pocket. It kind of tickles.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Not to throw water on the party but if you read William Jevenings account from 1972 The state patrol officer involved said the bigfoots had been preying on coyotes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most people love dogs. Pes Obamya love to eat dogs

      Most BF love dogs. Some eat dogs

      They are people

      Delete
    2. Sir. I have read all of Waylon Jennings accounts. There is a great deal about ladies, outlaws, Willie Nelson and stray dogs. Buy not once is a coyote mentioned. Please elaborate. And for Mr Hall Monitor aka my bemused nemesis. I have returned. much to your dismay.

      Delete
    3. Oh. William Jevenings account. Apologies. Different chap altogether.

      Delete
    4. Dear Komrade even married a dog he loves them so much. Agree, they are a kind of people. Bigfootzes are too.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story