This has been on my mind for a while. We always say he's very smart but could it be instinct and not intelligence. I have wandered if Bigfoot uses fire or has the intelligence to build a fire. I think he must know about fire from lighting strikes and forest fires and that it gives off warmth. I know one time I stopped to look at a tree that was on fire after being hit by lighting. But do you think he has taken a burning peace of wood back to his cave to build a fire say for warmth. Do you think he has seen us humans cooking on camp fires and liked the smell of cooked meet and decided to try it himself? Or do you think he knows about fire but chooses not to use it for fear of it giving his position away. What caused me to start thinking about it was a sighting in Champaign Co IL where two guys saw a campfire and stopped to check it out and all they saw a Bigfoot like creature squatting in the grass nearby. Let me know what you guys think. WVaNative

I think they are smart enough not to use fire.

Their physical build-up is also a great facilitator in this aspect. I imagine that they adapted that way because the issue became so important to their survival.

Just my opinion.

I personally think they have to be a very smart animal in order to still be out there and us not being able to find them. They are smart or we are really dumb one or the other lol.
Anyway Who can say the smell if cooking meat is not sicking to them ? Sure to us it smells great but we have no clue what they would think of it. Most animals would much rather have raw meat then cooked meat as they is what they are used to as well as what is best for their bodies.

I would say they know what fire is but have no need for it. They are covered in some sort of hair/fur so we have no idea how much they need for staying warm in winter. But I would be willing to say they have the warmth cover just fine.
As far as needing fire for cooking that is a human thing. No other animals that I know if cooks their meat before eating it unless we teach them how to first.
Their bodies would be made to eat meat just the way they find it raw. Cooking it might even make it so it is almost useless to them as far as getting the stuff from it.

I agree micahn, it always shocks me to think what animals can eat that would kill us!!!

Crew Chief

Bigfoot probably has a whole stash of the latest Coleman line products from all the hunters and campers he has scared over the years. Why work hard making a fire when he can just fire up the Honda generator and power the nice space heater in that dank dark cave,

The caves I have been in maintain a comfortable temp and a heater would not be necessary, maybe someone who knows more about caves can elaborate on this.

Wild animals, in general, fear fire. I don't think a sasquatch is any different. In most accounts, they stay away from or on the parimeter of camps with visable fires. It is only after the fire has died down that a 'squatch will venture into the camp. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, but in general it seems to be the case.

People often mistake instinct for intelligence in animals. We train our dogs to sit, stay, or lie down and view them as "smart" when all they want is for you to approve of them or feed them. We train animals by taking advantage of their instincts.

In the case of sasquatches, their instincts, particularly in the woods, are unsurpassed. They have keen senses of eyesight and smell and the ability to skulk silently through the forest, unless they want you to know they are there. Encounters are usually accidental and chances are, the reason why they don't happen everytime you go camping is because 1) humans are noisy louts who build bonfires in the woods and 2) they see us coming well before we get to their observation position. I am by no means stating they are unintelligent, but the use and control of fire is, in the animal world, VERY advanced behavior. Of all the primates on Earth, we homo sapian sapians are the only ones who do so naturally.

The visual on that is priceless.



I don't know about all animals or most animals, but I've got a pack of wolves that will drop their raw meat uneaten and go to the kitchen to try to get what was cooked on the stove even though they have never been fed table scraps, and have no idea what the table scraps taste like. I have to run them out of my kitchen, put up any left-overs, and make them eat their raw meat at times. I don't know whether they are just curious or whether the spices cooked into the left-overs are possibly more appealing to their palates. I've even been relaxing outside enjoying nature and reached down for my can of soda pop only to find it had been stolen by one of the wolves who has poured it out and is lapping it up gingerly. I think animals are opportunists that will eat what's handy and what smells good whether it's cooked or raw. I've also noticed they have a penchant to want what's in the others' bowls rather than their own and will steal food from each other when possible. I don't really know how this relates to the topic, but I do think animals' keen sense of smell will bring them around when food is cooking whether or not they know what it is or have tasted it before or not. That's been my experience, anyway.

Edited to add I don't think animals generally know what's best for them to eat i.e. cooked or raw. If it's handy, looks somewhat palatable, smells like it might be edible, they'll eat it. Historically, sasquatches have been reported raiding outdoor freezers and campers' food caches, not to mention dumpster diving when something smells edible in there and eating cat and dog food when available. Just my opinion for what it's worth.

I've also seen reports of sasquatches near campfires. Why, is a mystery.

This is one of the classics! I'd read the text of it before at Bobbie Short's site, but came across the original article in my newspaper searches. I'd posted it to the Historical Archives thread before, but here it is again.

Using fire? Not quite. But "aware of" fire? Yes!

tirademan

Sasquatch doesn't use fire, but he can use an electric crock pot like you wouldn't believe. Ask him to make you a pot roast sometime. You won't be disappointed!

Crock Pot roast venison -- Mmmmmmmm !!!

I wonder if he will seve deer liver, or just keep it for himself.

He just may, with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

He's smart enough to be able to live (adapt) all over the world, in negative environments. Only other primate to pull that impressive feat off is........us, except we kick it on the comfortable plains where life is easier.

In the version of Ostman's account printed by John Green, Ostman says he started a fire the morning of his escape to make coffee-yet he notes no particular reaction to his fire by the bigfoot family that was holding him captive. There are of course many possibilities, including that Ostman was a liar, but it is one of the few acounts of BF's reaction or lack thereof to fire.

Yeah, what he said.

RayG

I do not agree with this one!
Because it would mean that some breeds are very instinctual..while others have virtually no instincts! Now, why would nature be so lop-sided?
Turn a German Shepard or Border Collie (which are easily trainable) loose in the woods with a breed that is very difficult to train! Let them regress to their wild state. I think you will find that one does not have the edge over the other in their survival instincts! And both stand the chance of surviving equally well!

There are smart breeds..and there are dumb breeds..when it comes to training.
It is not instinct which tells a dog that if it does a certain trick..then it will receive a treat, or affection! Rather it is repetitive training to instill into the dog..action=reward. Believe me! I am sure that the dog would much rather steal the treat from you if it could get away with it! That would be instinctual. IMHO

Depends on what they are trained for. Both collies and German shepherds are working dog breeds bred specifically to answer to a master's commands and work with humans. Their training still takes advantage of instincts, in particular, hunting. The same goes for a harder to train breed like scent hounds (bassets, bloods, beagles). These were bred to be more independent and work for their masters who don't have a keen nose. They either drive or trap the game, using their hunting instinct once again. If they pay attention to their master's, it's likely they'll never eat :doh:

“some breeds are very instinctual..while others have virtually no instincts! Now, why would nature be so lop-sided?”

If forced to revert to the wild, almost all domestic animals would parish. However, if you threw a working dog into the wild along with a toy breed, the toy probably wouldn't last long, based solely on the fact that their hunting instinct has been so diluted over hundreds of years of selective breeding. However the true test of evolutionary triumph isn't what would win in a head to head brawl. Put a chicken in a room with their ancestor volociraptor, and the raptor wins 100 times out of 100, but which one is living today? The chicken. And so long as they provide humans with food, they will continue to survive and outlive all wild species of birds that do not fall under human protection. Same goes for the toy vs. the working dog, if humans were to suddenly find shiatsus favorable and German Shepherds evil (IMHO).

However, all of this is beside the point. Rams made a very good point about fire. The Ostman account does not note any particular reaction to his building a fire. Tirademan's article is also interesting in that it shows the sasquatch not really seeming to care about fire at all, in fact playing with it. These two accounts, if true, seem to blow a hole in my entire argument :blacknblue: A raging signal fire may not be the best deterrent to a sasquatch agitated by a camp in the middle of his/her territory. It certainly didn't help poor Bauman's partner in Idaho. I would be interested to see any accounts in which a sasquatch "reacted" to a fire of any kind

How smart is Bigfoot ?
Evidently,
Smart enough !

I'd have to disagree with this as we have an overabundance of feral cats and wild dogs in our surrounding areas as well as out in the boonies.

Wolftrax is 100% correct...Doc!
You are trying to build a case which refuses to gel!

Every city in the world (with a temporate..or warmer climate ) is awash in domestic animals turned wild! And they are very good at what they do..even to the point of driving off the natural wild inhabitants who used to claim that territory.




No! I think some breeds are just a lot smarter then others. Plain and simple! They are quick on the uptake! What makes an animal a good herding dog is its trainability, not instincts! Instincts would tell any animal..not to herd..but to pounce and eat ..instead!
What training does is overcome an animal's instinctual behavior and tendencies in order for it to reside with man, and to be an aid to mankind instead of a foe.
When you train your family dog..you are not using its instincts as an assistance..rather you are suppressing the creatures natural instincts in order to cause it to behave in a manner that it never would on its own.

Saying that training takes advantage of instincts is akin to saying that armed forces training takes advantage of a man's killer instincts to make him a soldier.
again...IMHO

yeah.
Try putting a young domestic pig out in the wild, doesn't even take a generation before it'll revert back to a hairy, tusk wielding psycho.

There is also an underabundance of predators in those areas. Why? Because humans killed them off or drove them out in order to protect their domestic stock. Even so, there are still examples of wild animals coming on to property and preying on domestics, particularly in areas close to wilderness. I know personally two families who have had their pets taken by cougar, and there are any number of ranchers in my state (Idaho) who have had livestock killed by wolves.



GrandCherokee, you and I obviously disagree on this as I don't think there is any such thing as a "dumb breed" of dog. Many dog trainers view Basset Hounds as a "dumb" dog because they aren't easy to train, when in reality, they were bred to be independent. There are some dog owners who think collies are dumb because they will chase a thrown ball for hours. I would never take a collie rabbit hunting because it would get confused and try to "herd" the darn things My trusty basset, however, puts her nose to the ground and follows one trail, driving the rabbit toward me



Not exactly. Training redirects instincts to the desired moment or object. Don't pee in the kitchen, pee outside. Don't chew on the sofa cushion, chew on this squeaky toy. Don't run down the cow and kill it, just chase it into this stock pen. With the exception of the terrier breeds (not the best herding dogs) and some sight hounds, domestic dogs have had their "kill" instinct greatly suppressed, however it is still there. Play tug-o-war with a dog and you'll see it. The shaking of the head from side to side is a kill instinct and all breeds do it and all breeds can be turned into a violent dog by encouraging (training) that behavior.



A human being, with very few exceptions, is not just another animal

I didn't mean for this to get so far off topic, so I'll let whoever wants it have the last word on domestic animals in the wild and how to train dogs. Now let's talk about the behavior of sasquatch. What has been observed; what we can glean from those observances. Discussion of these behaviors can help us better understand the Big Guys/Gals and how to get close to them for further study.

Not no, but hell no.

Well Doc..we agree to disagree!

As for you Fish...just what was the point you were trying to make?

I don't understand your position on this Fish. Could you quit beating around the bush?

Dog intelligence verses instinct: some observations that came to mind.
Different breeds have different hunting behaviors. A wolf will stalk, chase, hold, then deliver a killing bite. Many of the hunting dogs will stop short and perform only part of the hunting instinct of a wolf. They might just point and never get to the chase part of the hunting instinct. Others will hold their prey but will not deliver the killing bite. It seems to me all animals including us, must have little modules of instinctive or built in behaviors. There is some other part of the brain that is a sort of master control that controls all the instinct modules. As the master control becomes more powerful in the higher animals, it is able to integrate all those modules of instinctive behavior with greater control and exercises what we consider intelligence. It is a way for complicated behaviors to evolve in lower animals that lack our more powerful minds. It would also make it difficult to analyze the actual intelligence of animals based just on what they are capable of. Just something to consider.

I think Sasquatch either never had fire or were forced to give it up as they sought shelter in the night and the deep forest to escape from our ancestors. If they did use fire it could give their position away and lead to an attack by more aggressive hominids. To assume they are too stupid to have fire because of this behavior may be jumping to conclusions. There is no way to determine the skull size from an unknown animal from a film since we don't know how much is hair or muscle. Without that, it is only a guess and nobody knows if they potentially smart enough. I think it is a pretty safe bet that they don't use fire.

This is a most interesting question and one needing much thought. I don't think BF inteligence can be called instinct. There is just too much evidence to show that actual thought is given to actions taken. The in and of itself is enough to discount the instinctual behavior. Even we humans act on instinct at times; yet we are intelligent (well most of us are )

So we need to keep from assuming instinctual behavior negates inteligence or 'being smart'.

But that is another discussion, being smart is not being inteligent and vice versa.

Not trying to turn this topic back to dogs, but my husband had a border collie (which we all know is used to round up and herd domestic livestock). He had the animal as a pup and raised it in a city atmosphere away from any livestock of any kind. When visiting a friend out in the country he took the dog with him. After a few minutes the dog disappeared. He called the dog for several minutes and then he and his friend went looking for it. They found the dog a few minutes later with the friend's entire heard of cattle bunched together in a tight herd by the dog despite its lack of training to work cows. My husband's friend offered my husband a large sum of money for the dog because of its natural instinct to work cows on its own without any training or commands being given by a trainer.

I think a lot has to do with breeding, adaptation, and instincts in all animals, sasquatch included. Just my 0.02 for what it's worth.

Is it instinct or is it learned? You hear from time to time of a young child that will crawl out of a window and fall to its death. But as we get older we know that a fall from a high place can kill us. Is it then something we learn or is it just our brain growing to a point that we can process the end result of our actions? When I was a teen I used to climb the power towers with some friends in Glen Ellyn, IL. Looking back it was a very dumb thing to do and now that I am older I can see that and would never do that now. So what has happened to my thought process over the years? I will admit that I don't have the nerve's :willies: I used to have but is that the only difference? WVaNative

Maybe what you have is an example of learned behavior turned instinctual! However, I think that this is a different kind if instinct..and though it does not apply to Sasquatch..I will pursue it just a little further..
To my way of thinking many learned ( repetitive ) behavior can mutate into a form of instinctual behavior, like sheep herding! This could be what Doc was talking about..as well.
(No! I have no lab coat to put on and no test results to show you! I am just Joe Shmoe who has owned a handful of dogs in his life and watched National Geographic a lot! )
Then there is the other kind of instinct..which is what I was talking about...called survival instinct! This is what gives a poodle as much chance of survival if it regresses back to feral as a Burmese Mountain dog. They already have all of the tools of their counterparts who live out their lives in the wilds. (I mean, that is where dogs came from right?)
We also came from the same forests, plains and mountains. Ergo..WVaNative hit the nail on the head ,with the comparison of the toddler and a child a little older not making the same fatal mistake! Not because the child was taught so..but because his survival instinct developed.

So now..is Squatch smart or instinctual?
Going with the definitions above..I would have to say he is just survival smart, with finely honed survival instincts
Intelligent? Yes..but not more so then any other animal. imho.

No.

RayG

Oh..and yeah.....animals do not use fire!

Hmmmmm......

Yes, the use of fire would be very detrimental to a nocturnal primate. But as to whether or not they gave it up, I just couldn't say

They are hominids, but are they far enough away from the "ape line" to be called homo? Homo Erectus is (debatably) believed to be the first hominids to utilize fire. Are sasquatches at least as intelligent as Erectus was, just better at adapting?



Looking back on my younger days, I should probably be dead. Some people take a little longer to outgrow their "invincible" phase. BASE jumpers, bungee jumpers, cliff divers, people who hail cabs in Lima...

Using fire suggests some form of "advanced" technology - eg a bow drill to start the fire - surely we are not going to imagine a flint & STEEL. To "find" it as in WVaNative's original post would be a bit hit & miss and would suggest (to me) that he would at least need a way to maintain & carry it. All way too unlikely and to me a big NO.

John

The only answer that fits.

I only know how to start/control fire because my culture taught me.
Doubt I could've figured it out on my own, me being sharp as a bowling ball and all.

Oh a two part question!!....

Well the first part: are they smart? Smart enough to not beeing caught yet!!

Second part, if they use fire? I don't think so. It would be nice if they did, if that was the case all a field researcher would need to do would be to spot/ follow the smoke coming from Sas cave/nest and/or follow the smell of roasted deer/wild hog/racoon/ what ever is Sas cooking; and caught the smelly primate!! Who knows he might even get invited to dinner!!! :deadhorse:

Can you imagine all the forset fires that could happen by them using fire? I doubt if they would even "consider" (for the lack of a better term) using fire. Given most if not all animals would run from one. If they....... meaning Bigfoot didn't run, then I would seriously reconsider the intelligence level of this creature.

Not all of them. The European Jackdaw, being attracted to bright, shiny objects, has been known to pick up bits of burning straw and such and carry them back to it's nest, usually in someone's barn or even house, with predictable results, earning them the nickname "firebird."

(snip)



(snip)



Quite so. In this case, the jackdaw isn't so much using fire as utilizing it, (or attempting same) having the ability to take advantage of a preexisting resource without actually have mastery of that resource.

That said, I suppose I could cite that report of the mama alma and child who barged into a russian army barracks to use the camp stove...

Being able to make and use fire would be something only highly intelligent animals could do. Which is why only us Homo Sapiens do it. If sasquatches were smart enough to use fire, wouldn't they have been seen using tools as well? As far as I know, there have been no reports of sasquatches doing this. 'Sides, why would a sasquatch need fire? They have a fur coat to keep them warm, they eat meat raw, if one were wet it would just take it like anyother animal. Now, I'm not saying sasquatches are dumb, in my opinion to keep hidden as long as they have, either they're much smarter than we thought, or we're much dumber than we thought.

I remember reading the story Tirademan posted but I didn't remember that it was so old. For me that lends it a little extra credibility because it was before Wallace inventing the whole bigfoot phenomena (I'm not serious by the way). It was an interesting and very discriptive story. I think we humans tend to equate thinking with language and it may not necessarily be so. Just because animals don't speak doesn't mean that they can't think (IMHO) at least to a limited degree. My cat probably wouldn't come up the theory of relativity but he might learn strategies for hunting mice through trial and error. I think bigfoot apparently doesn't need fire to survive, so I agree with Bob that it just might not be worth the risks to use fire whether or not bigfoot is smart enough to learn how.

Diddo!

They are aparently quite intelligent, but technology seems to escape them.

There are accounts of Yeti/Almas/Almasty bartering with woodsmen in the Caucaus Mountains region north of Iraq going back hundreds of years. The reports state that they can't articulate words, but can understand gestures. This seems to be similar to the 1,000 plus word vocabulary of the San Diego Zoo's Koko gorilla who has conducted an online chat (via her trainer) on AOL and has her own e-mail account (she answers questions from the public through her intrepeter who types the answers she signs with ASL).

There is a 15th century woodcut by a European Artist that shows a man doing battle with a "Bigfoot" creature. The man is using a broadsword while the BF is using a club. it's called "Fight in the Forest" and is on display at the National Gallery in Washington, DC.

Other accounts suggest that they are capable of tool use (ala Chimpanzees at Gombe) but not tool making.

However, Zana, the famed "domesticated" Yeti/Almas of the 19th century was trained to perform a number of domestic chores and household skills. She also had an interesting habit of knocking two rocks together. The action is reminiscent of Knapping -- the process of making stone flake tools we attribute to neolithic humans.

Nevertheless, no one to date has found a cache of arrowheads or spearpoints made by a Bigfoot.

Fire use a a big unknown. Most likely not within their skills. We would certainly have found them by now if they did and would have located campsites with charred remains of cooked animal food. But that question is really way open for debate.

I do have accounts in my files of the Swamp Ape (Bigfoot's Southern Cousin) walking up to am unattended campfire while food was cooking and staring at the grub. It didn't take it, and just walked away when the campers came out of their tents.

Personally, I think the Swamp Ape migrates. If that is true, then they must have memory and the ability to recall routes -- since troupes appear to follow the same (but not identical) migration paths annually. This also would suggest the ability to plan.

There are also sighting accounts that report Bigfoot hunts other animals and makes a kill. This activity is consistant with known Chimpanzee behavior and would have to be true if Bigfoot is a preditor. The sophisticated brain activity needed for preditor behavior would require the kind of protein found in animal meat. Again, there is the implication of the ability to think as hunting would require both the ability to anticipate animal behavior and plan the hunt.