Bigfoot Social structure

[Deleted]

Just finished my research paper on Sassy and have come up with some thoughts on social behaviour that I know have been covered before probably a thousand times.

Here it goes.

I have noticed that many if not almost all Sasquatch sightings are of one animal. Some rare circumstances there are 2 or even mother offspring sightings. But these are very uncommon situations.

My thought is that Sasquatch have a very low birth rate, limited mating season and are almost entirely non social. Very likely there is almost zero family extended family structure. This would be most unlike any ape behaviour I know of. Males are sparadically territorial since they don't compete much with same species. Probably take a care less attitude while taking mid-day naps. At night territorialism increases. It is possible at times 2 Sasquatch likely male hang out together as seen in some accounts. No theory as to why, maybe younger males beginning to break out on thier own.

With my research on eyewitness accounts which I think the majority of encounters are with male Sasquatch, are fairly grumpy and would rather be left alone. This could be the explanation for the high fear factor with encounters that include territorialism. Yet almost always without physical harm. This could be due to Sasquatch instinct to not harm each other and humans luckily seem close enough for them to not attack.

Accounts that seem to involve Female and immature Sasquatch show different and more interesting qualities. The sociability and outright interest in humans has been noted in accounts however extremely rare. Some have postulated that children may actually attract female and young bigfoot to an area. Some very rare cases even mention minor social interaction with humans in the form of leaving objects et-cetera. It is these accounts that are so different than the other more common accounts it is worth noting.

I believe that human encounters with mature male Sasquatch are not much different than what sasquatch encounter with each other. For the mature males (mosts sightings) it's a "hey, what the heck are you doing here, get out of here, or I will leave and I don't want to see you again" you know grumpy.

Young males who have yet to exhibit territorial traits may find interest in humans as a source of quick food. It may be in some accounts people are seeing young hungry males trying to smooch off of campers/hikers. Who normally when fully mature would avoid such contact.

Finally, concerning the male population, I believe we are typically talking about single animals who move quite often. This is why going back to areas where there are sightings rarely get a repeat occurence. Concerning Females they just avoid contact when at all possible especially with young outside of the rare curiosity aspect.

Now I say all this to express how incredibly difficult it would be to dicover an animal with this somewhat unique type of social structure. The only aspect of this theorizing that I have a problem with is the increased possibility that a lone Male sasquatch would leave remains when he eventually died. Any explanation of this would be such conjecture that I would't venture to speculate yet. OK maybe Sasquatch is tasty treat for a bear?

[sebastian]

Krantz once speculated about the sasquatch social structure would be similar to the orangutan's. I do think that such a model would fit or at least helped explaining sighting details (time of day, season, location, and sex of the object) and at least to predict the next sighting. However, I do expect that the large home range of sasquatch and high mobility will result in unpredictibility of their appearance. Most wittnesses encountered sasquatch based on random occurrences. So far, there is no systematic search and no defined sample area, neither. We simply don't know what variables (ecological, social and interspecific interaction) causing sasquatch to repeatedly visit the same locality. On top of that, we simply can't rule out all lies and hoaxes in the current database.

[Deleted]

My personal take on it is that the Sasquatch are a type of people (hence the interbreeding stories).They follow the same ways the old ones of my nation (Carrier) did. An extended family would travel together. The males would hunt.The women would gather. The children were kept close to camp and gaurded by mothers and elders. Camps were along long-established routes that spanned the mountains from the coast to the Rockies. Camp would be made during peak seasons for hunting or gathering and remain until the food was exhausted. The families would gather at winter camp and pool resources to last out the winter. I think that is how the Sasquatch do it,too. The fact that we only rarely glimpse them tells me that they are adept at concealment and cautious in daylight. If you do see one I would assume it is not alone. Unarmed groups of men hunt in patterns, using similar tactics.The norm is to frighten prey into a trap. As an aside, many people here and on other sites refer to the Sasquatch and Bigfoot as 'undiscovered'. I believe this is a misnomer. I think it makes more sense to assume the creatures have allies assisting them. The way to find proof may be to locate a rancher that is buying one hell of a lot of oranges or something like that. While I am at it I would like to speculate that there are at least two entities,here,Sasquatch, (whom I hold to be humans) and Bigfoot (seemingly apes). Skunk Apes,Zowies and Yetis are disparate as well. The commonality would seem to be that all are inconvenient to our thoughts about ourselves.

[vilnoori]

That's a very interesting insight. We know that their population number is quite low compared to ours, at any rate, and that it takes more area to feed a population since they are not farmers and depend on hunting and gathering. It would make sense that sightings of lone males are actually males out hunting, and females with young are out gathering, separately but for the benefit of a small family group that stays hidden. There are accounts of areas that have high numbers of sightings and sounds which people are warned away from. Perhaps these are areas where the groups are hidden. Caves would make a lot of sense here.

I too favor the idea that these are people. However, some could be more culturally advanced than others. Since they have great size and strength, they are not as dependent on culture as we are, and because of the great areas they inhabit and their small population, there is a greater chance that some of them are very much alone and become more like a lone animal. Their communication may range from percussive signals (knocking) and howls to chattering speech. This might explain the great range in types of cultural ability that are reported in sightings--some are more apelike, and some are more humanlike.

[Deleted]

Some do say that Sasquatch represents a strange bridge between animals and humans. I can see why this is the belief of some. Sasquatch clearly stands out from all other animals when people describe the animal.

It is common for eyewitness accounts to attribute known physical qualities to an unknown creature. It's a normal way of understanding what we are seeing. For instance, someone seeing a racoon for the first time might say "it was like a cat". I believe this is what is happening with Sasquatch sightings. People are attributing certain qualities to the animal.

From the past 2 years of earnestly looking into this phenomenon I am somewhat convinced that Sasquatch is decidedly not human but an apelike animal that is mainly bipedal while at times will use forelimbs for assist in locolmotion. I know of 2 accounts where witnesses claimed to have seen this. Along with a few accounts of incredible apelike tree climbing ability. Not to say that Sasquatch is not entirely apeish. Some behaviours are not totally consistent with what we would call an ape. Even so, the Sasquatch behaviours that are not as apelike do not preclude that Sasquatch is not an ape.

What is most disturbing to eyewitnesses is the bipedality of the animal. This phsychological effect will put the witness in the position of inferring humanlike qualities. As a normal way the mind tries to comprehend what is being seen.

There is evidence as I have mentioned earlier that the Sasquatch/Bigfoot gait is fundamentally and significantly different from humans. And I think this gives us a clue as to the Taxonomic identity of this animal. Which points to an apelike animal.

Yes lies and fakeries are a real part of trying to sift through this very important aspect of Sasquatch research. I think these can be deciphered mostly by comparisons to other accounts. It is not a bona fide way of determining the tall tale vs. the credible witness, but there is a clear commonality with many accounts that lends to general credulity.

[vilnoori]

Well taking your point of view means essentially discarding the First Nations viewpoint and given that they have had the longest interaction with these beings I think we should really be taking them a lot more seriously. First nations people are still the ones with the greatest opportunity to interact with them, since a lot of nations are still living in rural areas in the Northern areas of Canada.

It also means discarding a fair number of accounts of sightings where a higher degree of culture was indicated, such as wearing furs, using woven bedding, woven shelters, using bags or containers, making signs with saplings, sticks and stones, as well as percussive signaling and language or chatter within groups. You'd also have to discard the accounts of protective behaviour of these beings toward human beings--looking after wounded people in the forest, taking care of lost children, comforting them, etc. That sort of thing is very rare in wild animals.

Also we need to realize that there are huge cultural differences here. I grew up in Africa and I saw men with incredible "apelike climbing ability" all the time, as well as superior jaw and tooth strength to what we consider the norm, and incredible, almost superhuman abilities in strength, endurance and stealth. Study the Kung San people for example, and get an idea of the range of human cultures and you get a broader viewpoint on these things. Heck, our people only considered Blacks to be human within the past 150 years or so, and some bigots still don't think so.

I think that we are talking about another human species here. The size difference alone can account for greater ability to withstand the harsh climate without resorting to our cultural adaptations. But that foot is incredibly human, and I think we definitely are talking about a human being of some kind but with foot modifications for greater weight bearing and rough terrain. Australopithecines still had a wide toe divergence, but these do not. So they are closer to us than Australopithecines, they are Homo. Not Homo sapiens but Homo something. Therefore people.