The Foundation:

Kodiak:

The Kodiak Island group (approximately 5,097 sq. mi.{a bit larger than the state of Connecticut}, which includes Afognak Island, Raspberry Island, and Shuyak Island) has a human population of 13,900, and a brown bear population of 3000 bears.

Kodiak Island is the second largest island under the U.S. flag.

The northern ¼ of Kodiak Island and the other islands of the group are forested, and the southern ¾ of Kodiak Island is open, brushy, and grassy.

A significant portion of the human population of the island group is Native, most of the Koniag tribe.

I know of not a single sasquatch report ever coming from the Kodiak Island group.

Prince of Wales Island:

Prince of Wales Island (approximately 3,600 sq.mi., a bit smaller than the state of Connecticut), about a thousand miles east of Kodiak, has a human population of 5,600, and an estimated black bear population of 54,000.

Prince of Wales Island is the third largest island under the U.S. flag.

Prince of Wales Island is heavily forested, except those areas that have been clearcut, and a good portion of the island has, indeed, been cut.

A significant portion of the human population of the island is Native, of the Tlingit, Shimshian, and Haida tribes.

Rob Alley, in “Raincoast Sasquatch�, has documented over 50 sasquatch reports over the past 50 years.

Assumptions:

It has been argued on this forum by both skeptics and believers alike that sasquatch reports are either:

1) Lies,
2) Mistaken identities (usually mistaken for bears), or
3) Real, live, sasquatches.

Obviously, skeptics tend to rule out #3 above.

Therefore, with regard to Kodiak Island and Prince of Wales Island, I am left with the following conundrum:

Questions:

1) If sasquatches don't exist, why is it that so many reports come from Prince of Wales Island, and none from Kodiak?

2) If these reports from POW are lies, why is such a higher percentage of the people of POW Island liars, and no liars at all live on Kodiak Island?

3) If these reports from POW are cases of people mistaking bears for sasquatches, why isn’t this happening on Kodiak Island, especially since the bears of Kodiak are (on average) more than twice the size of those on POW Island?

Maybe there aren't any Sasquatch ON Kodiak Island.

Just a thought.

That's my take on it.

But, then, the converse of that line of thought is that there are, indeed, sasquatches on POW Island.

Of course, skeptics would reject that line of thought.

That's why I'd like to hear how they'd explain it.

uh... maybe it's because of all those big honkin Kodiak bears that squatches steer clear of Kodiak Island?

Dang it all, Huntster, you made me git the big atlas out. :help:

POW Island is just above the Queen Charlotte Islands, tucked up tight against the mainland with lots of other islands; where quite a large number of sightings have been made over the years, including sasquatch at sea, swimming. The whole coastal area around there and south of there is a mass of mostly uninhabited, heavily forested islands, with steep fiord coasts. BF seem to run all up and down that PNW coast.

But now that you've got me thinking about it - and looking at the maps - I wonder if Kodiak and the entire Alaska Peninsula heading west, clear on out to the Aleutians as a whole, may also lack BF. I don't recall hearing any reports out of the Aleutian Islands either, although I certainly could be wrong; have you? And since you're of the Alaskan persuasion you'd probably be the one to ask about possible sightings in the Anchorage area as well. Not too many, maybe?

The story about the Ice Age land bridge/ice bridge at the Bering Strait 15,000 years ago comes to mind here. If BF came to the Americas this way, along with man, they might have cut a nice south-easterly arc which would take them, along with man, south-east, through the Yukon River ice-free corridor; which would have taken them in a direction away from the Alaska Peninsula. If so, maybe they just never got back. Just a thought.

(You know what? It's maybe a whole lot simpler to just put it down to the difference in bears.)
Dudlow

That's my point.

According to witness accounts, Southeast Alaska has lots of sasquatch activity.

Kodiak and the Alaska Peninsula, despite being the same general latitude, has none.

If we were talking about a real animal, this could make good sense, because Southeast Alaska, while having brown bears, doesn't have as manyas Southwest Alaska, yet has lots of black bears. It's also more forested than Kodiak and the Alaska Peninsula.

Kodiak and the Alaska Peninsula also does not have black bears. The brown bears own it all.

However, if sasquatch did not exist, and all the Southeast reports were mistaken identity or lies, then Kodiak and the Alaska Peninsula should have a similar number of accounts, or at least some.



None.

There are a number of reports around Lake Illiamna (which is at the northern end of the Alaska Peninsula), but none south of the Naknek River.



Correct. There are very few reports near Anchorage, but just to the south, on the coastal side of the Kenai Peninsula and in Prince William Sound, there are some reports, but not as many as in Southeast Alaska.

Again, if these reports were lies or misidentifications, there would be more reports near Anchorage, because there are more people living in that area.

EXTRA... EXTRA... EXTRA... READ ALL ABOUT IT! HUNTSTER DISCOVERS SASQUATCH FREE ZONE IN ALASKA!!!!!!!

Now you've really got my interest, Huntster. I'm again looking at the map in my atlas, and I'm seeing a HUGE virtually empty landscape to the west and north of Anchorage, where (I'm guessing) mostly native folks live in tiny scattered communities. If so, has anybody collected any of their legends and culture stories to search for BF knowledge? I am familiar with the Tlingit, Kwakiutal, etc., to the south, whose cultures and legends have been written about quite a bit; but how about the aboriginal histories from the western and even northern regions? There is much more truth than fiction in the native stories, I have found; making them quite useful for BF research.

When I read your postings and looked at the maps it made me realize, as well, that a serious lack of human population probably has a lot to do with the lack of BF sighting information across a lot of the landscape. On the other hand, you never know, they might just be EVERYWHERE but we just don't know it because there's no one there to report it. Hmm... an imbroglio of incomprehensibility...
Dudlow

Except southern California.

Just ask...

Not in the way that Rob Alley did in "Raincoast Sasquatch", but there are some stories and mention of sasquatch among the Athapaskan people.

Once you leave the coast of Alaska and head inland you enter the land of the Athapaskan people. This Native Nation has many different tribes within it, and it's lands stretch from Interior Alaska all the way east nearly to the Great Lakes region.

Near Anchorage the Athapaskan tribe are the Dena'ina. I have many Dena'ina friends (went to dinner tonight with a Dena'ina friend and her family; she is on the Board of Directors for the regional corporation, and her son is an anthropologist for the regional corporation and is running for a village board).

Their people have stories, but they aren't as numerous as the Southeast tribes, and nobody has collected and analyzed them. But, I find it noteworthy that these people feared the wild giants greatly (as written by Lieutenant Castner in the first white expedition that penetrated the Matanuska Valley, in the early 1890's).



That's true, but it still doesn't explain why reports are numerous in one area and uncommon or unheard of in others, especially when both areas have sparce human habitation unless there really are sasquatches running around in Southeast and very few elsewhere.

We used to have grizzly bears. They are all dead now.That's how we got the bear on the California flag. Maybe I could talk to one of the new high schools opening and convince them to have a school mascot named like the Chino Hills Sasquatch. Then we could start our own bigfoot tradition here in socal. GOOOOOO......Bigfeet! Bigfoot? Sasquatch? Hmmm... those cheers could be tricky! Sorry Dave, couldn't resist. I LOVE YOU MAN!

Which doesn't necessarily mean there haven't been any sightings. Plus, there's a HUGE difference between 3,000 bears and 54,000 bears, especially when the larger bear population is running around in a smaller geographical area.

RayG

Good question! I've wondered why there aren't more encounters reported in Alaska in general!

Correct. But the same general percentage of unreported sightings should be similar in both locations.

The point I'm trying to make is that the human cultures are very similar, thus hoaxes, misidentifications, and lies should be also similar.

But it doesn't mesh.



That is true.

So do you suggest that the reports from Southeast Alaska are the result of misidentifications?

Hunster,

Interesting finds


True, but I suppose it'd be easier to take into account respective reported sigthings provided that there are seemingly no reasons that a similar amount of sightings may result in such an opposed response (50-0), exception made, perhaps, of the following :

I'd lean toward the same hypothesis, but some will oppose this altogether.
Two exemples comes to my mind :

- an indian believing in traditional legends sees a BF : he thinks he saw a spirit
(untrue for many native cultures, but the point is for the sake of example),and therefore sees no point in reporting his sigthing

- someone else sees a BF : he thinks he saw an walking erect great ape, and therefore reports the sigthing (still often untrue) because he feels he saw something undocumented in North America

Cultural biases do exist, yet I admit that estimating their influence regarding the way people report their life experiences is pretty hard
There is a common conception in Western Europe which states that North American BF reports are not very credible due to the high numbers of other *strange* reports (UFOs, forteans,etc...) occuring in the same geographical area (a point extremely debatable IMO)

I'd suggest the *similar culture background* point works better if respective populations are actually very comparable, as far as culture goes.
This may also opposed by some who see the Mason-Dixon line as an unpassable cultural gap...but that's an other story

Anyway, perhaps Kodiac and POW populations have indeed very comparable cultures, except may be, the believe in *actual* existence of Sasquatsh, or not ?


This suggestion is indeed the first that would come to mind if inhabitants of both islands are considered as equal in their bear morphology knowledge.
However, I'd advocate that people living with 54.000 bears instead of 3.000 on a comparable territory should have a much greater knowledge of bears and thus should the misidentification level drop accordingly.
In support of this idea, I'd suggest that misidentifications between black and grizzlies bears occur more frequently in areas were both species are reported to exist but where people seldom see them, that in backwood communities where sighting of both is an everyday occurence.

As a side note, is there any stats on the frequency of (reported) sightings between indian populations and *unspecified* ones ?

I think that was a good portion of his point. That they are in fact 'very comparable' cultures and thus whatever happens or doesn't happen in any one place would be seen in the same way. Where there's a Bigfoot, it's reported. Where there's not, it isn't. DIFFERENCES in cultural biases would seemingly be diminished with similar 'tribes' even if they are 500 miles apart. Thus, the differences in the number of reports from one area compared to another could be considered 'prima facie' evidence that there is in fact 'SOMETHING' (that's not a bear) being reported where there actually is something to report.

Now I'm confused.

"Harry"

Maybe people just have an easier time imagining giant, hairy monsters lurking in a dark and gloomy forest, rather than on a broad, sunny, plain?

Harry,


Let's take two Britons, one living in the UK, the other in Rajapujistan :
Indeed they shall be nearer, on a cultural basis, than the latter and a Rajapujistan native, shan't they ?

Desertyeti :

Are the broad plains of POW island really so sunny ?

Good question.

At least in Alaska, no. "Raincoast Sasquatch" delves deeply into the native side of the phenomenon in Southeast Alaska/BC, but doesn't separate sightings as to Native witnesses vrs. Non-Native witnesses.

Perhaps so, however (like I pointed out above), the northern 1/4 of Kodiak Island as well as the other islands of the group (Afognak, Raspberry, and Shuyak) are all well forested.

And, just for the record, even the open, brushy, and grassy portions of Kodiak Island are extremely mountainous. The only "plains" are river valleys, few of which are more than a couple miles wide.

Hunster,

Thanks for the update and your neat post
I go to sleep now, have to rest a bit if I want to pass my PhD in anthropometrics

Not sure I understand. How do you define an unreported sighting?



I'm not familiar with all the reports from Southeast Alaska, how many clearly identified bigfoot? Is it possible there are other explanations besides the three you have given?

I'm suggesting that statistics can be interpreted in more than one way, and that the presence or lack of sightings doesn't make the creature real. Some people have suggested that my own 'encounter' on the Queen Charlotte Islands may have been caused by a bigfoot, and I have read other instances where similar behavior is attributed to the creature. I remain unconvinced it was bigfoot, but had it happened to someone else, it may have ended up firmly entrenched as a bigfoot report, and added to the statistical list without any extensive investigation.

"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that." -- Homer Simpson



RayG

An unreported sighting is a sighting that isn't reported.

We don't know if it occurred or not.

Like reported sightings, they should wash out in similar places. In other words, why should there be more unreported sightings in Kodiak than there are in Prince of Wales?

My basic point is that if sasquatches don't exist anywhere, and all reports are either lies or misidentifications, why are there many such reports in one place and none in a very similar place?



Only on Prince of Wales Island (I excluded the rest of Southeast), of the 56 reports documented in "Raincoast Sasquatch";

1 was bones, hair, or scat, and a rock throwing,
1 was an old story,
1 was a nest,
1 was a nest and sighting,
5 were bones, hair, or scat,
8 were tracks,
16 were vocalizations,
and 23 were sightings.



If one assumes that sasquatches don't exist, I'm not sure if there are any other explanation for reports other than lies or misidentifications.

If anybody else can think of other explanations for why false reports would come about, I'm open to consider them.



Correct. Again, there are three options:

1) The report is a lie, or
2) The report is a result of a misidentification, or
3) There are sasquatches out there, and at least some of the reports are true.

Can you think of any other possibilities?

SO, with those three options in mind, why would there be 56 reports from Prince of Wales Island, and none from Kodiak Island,....

especially since...........

both are at the same latitude, both have similar and related native populations (at similar, high percentages of the overall human population of the islands), and both have among the highest bear densities on Earth (the island with no reports having brown bears, the island with many reports having black bears)?

I don't think I follow.

For statistical purposes, what separates an unreported sighting from one that never happened to begin with? I guess I'm asking, how we are supposed to statistically track an event, since we don't know if it ocurred or not?



Because Prince of Wales has almost 20 times the number of bears. Kodiak has 4.6 humans for every bear, while POW has 9.6 bears for every human. That would suggest far more sightings, whether they be bear or mistaken bear, on POW.



Ok, of the 24 sightings, how many were clear sightings? I'm talking about close, detailed, daylight sightings, where weather, fatigue, distance, poor eyesight, drugs, alcohol, or stress were not factors.



I'd add misperceptions and active imaginations to that short list. A misidentification suggests that the subject could be clearly identified if conditions were favorable. A misperception however, suggests no such identity, there was nothing there to begin with. Whether sasquatch exist or not may have no bearing whatsoever on a particular report. There are many things that can affect our perception, some of them I pointed out above. A person can be telling the absolute truth and still be wrong if they didn't perceive something correctly. One only has to read some of the romantic reports to see active imaginations at play. Late at night, even if sitting around a roaring campfire, these romantics envision sasquatch in every tree creak, twig snap, or owl hoot. :willies:



See above.



Well, if we only take those three options, whittle down the number from 56 to the more accurate 24, we're still left with a far greater bear population on PoW than we have on Kodiak.



The larger proportion of bears per human on PoW may have something to do with that.

RayG

An unreported sighting, statistically, is equal to an event that doesn't occur, at least as far as my point is concerned. It cannot be factored in, except that similar human populations should have a similar number of them.

What I'm trying to point out is that there should be no reason why Kodiak Island should have a greater number of unreported sightings than Prince of Wales Island.

I'm open to debate on why that is wrong.



That's a good point. The human/bear ratio is double on Prince of Wales Island than it is on Kodiak Island, and thus, mathematically, Prince of Wales should have double the rate of misidentifications.

But it doesn't. It has an exponentially higher rate. In fact, Kodiak Island has none.

Why is that?



I don't know. All of the details of all of the sightings aren't included in the book. I don't even know how to differentiate between a sighting and a clear sighting. That would seem to be a matter of personal perspective.



Good point. I accept misperceptions along with lies and misidentifications as possible explanations of sasquatch reports.

That strengthens my argument. Thank you.

Are the people of Prince of Wales Island more vulnerable to misperceptions than the people of Kodiak Island? Both are of similar cultural, political, and racial makeup.

Is there a reason why there would be no misperceptions (along with liars and misidentifications) on Kodiak Island, while there are on Prince of Wales?



I'm rather reluctant to do that. I think tracks are a very valid report. In an area where bears run around in people's yards like gophers do in Southern California, when a person reports a strange footprint, it likely has some merit.

I'm willing to throw out the vocalizations.

This is a topic I've considered before with a state like Hawaii, where most of us are likely certain there are no sasquatches.

There is some natural base rate of fabrication, misidentification, perceptual failure, etc. None of us would say all submissions are legitimate (I hope...). Other factors may influence local false positive rates, so that they aren't the same across the board. Cultural awareness of forest giant/wildman folklore may push that base rate up.

It turns out that Hawaiians do have giants--the Aikanaka--in their cultural mythology. They aren't as well known as the Menehune (little people that are the Hawaiian version of leprechauns), but it's out there. Regardless, submissions to the BFRO from Hawaii were almost invariably obvious jokes (and not just considered such from an a priori stance).

If you could figure out what that base rate of reporting noise is in a place with no sasquatches but with an existing local giant mythology, you could use it for a comparison to places where you suspect sasquatches exist. I've suggested an experiment (with the requisite controls and blinds) along these lines to a few folks.

At the risk of stating the obvious, I don't think Hunster's point is intended as solely a 'statistical' problem. His declaration that NO, NONE, ZERO reports of 'possible Sasquatches' have come out of Kodiak Island seems to be underestimated in relation to his point. Although he isn't willing to concede the lower '24' number, suppose he did. That's still 24 more 'possibly valid' reports than the 'zero' from Kodiak. For the sake of argument, we'll say that's 24 times the amount from POW. Even from a statistical standpoint, and assuming that 24 number has some validity, that's not considered small enough to be an anomaly or within a 'margin of error' (or whatever it's called) is it?

As to the 'unreported sightings' aspect, I think all he means is that if one uses the assumption there are in fact 'unreported sightings', would they be any different in number (per capita or any other basis one might use) on Kodiak Island than POW given the similar cultures and conditions etc.? To wit, if there are in fact, say 5 'unreported sightings' on Kodiak, which would equal X number of 'unreported sightings' per capita, wouldn't that be a similar number on POW and thus they seemingly cancel each other out? In other words, one cannot rightfully say or conclude that "Kodiak might in fact have any number of sightings, they just go unreported" as that disregards what could ALSO be happening on POW in the same way. And thus 'unreported sightings' are naturally moot to his point as they have to be assumed to have 'not occured' and accordingly have a null value.

In my opinion, short of investigating each and every report that IS reported on POW and deciphering how valid it really is, there's obviously 'something' going on on POW that is NOT going on on Kodiak. Agreed that it could be mass hallucination and any number of other thangs, but I'm with Hunster in that there's some 'seeming evidence' that something 'like a Saquatch' (if not a real one) is being 'seen' in one place where it is not being 'seen' in another similar place where it in fact SHOULD be being 'seen' also if it was attributable to anything OTHER THAN a real Sasquatch i.e bear misidentification etc.

Does that make any sense?

"Harry"

Good point about Hawaii.

One difference between a Hawaii/Kodiak anology is that other areas of Alaska that do have reports have a lot in common with Kodiak.



This magnifies the significance of a lack of reports from Kodiak.



I know of absolutely no reports from Kodiak Island. Granted, an in depth sasquatch study of the island has not been done (to my knowledge), especially not to the degree which Rob Alley did with Southeast Alaska (including Prince of Wales Island).

Does anybody know if any reports from Kodiak Island were submitted to BFRO?

Various reports have been recorded from most other areas of Alaska by Green and others, but not to the degree of Southeast.

It seems that the hotspots in Alaska are (in order of report frequency):

1) Southeast Panhandle,
2) Yukon River,
3) Illiamna region,
4) The Gulf Coast from Glacier Bay to the SW tip of the Kenai Peninsula (including Prince William Sound), and
5) Western Alaska (the Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta)

I know it is considered as very rude to quote oneself but I really think we should take into account the level of "wildlife knowledge" from a said population before adressing possible *unlikely* discrepancies in wildlife sigthings

I'd have to agree with the above post. And not to rain on the parade here, but assuming (as I personally am not gonna check it) the information Hunster has provided is correct, this particular 'scenario' he has described is what some would call a 'no-brainer' in the sense that obviously SOMETHING is going on on POW that is NOT going on on Kodiak. Unless there is some unwritten code on Kodiak that there will be 'no reporting of strange phenomenon', there's no reason to believe something is happening there that in fact really isn't.

I think it can be said the people of either island would certainly not be considered 'city slickers', and their judgement would have to be, at least partially, considered valuable. Irony being Hunster would be considered far more a 'city slicker' than the natives would ever be especially if he grew up in So Ca. And would we trust HIS judgement if he was a part of the 'sighting' group on POW? Most likely.

Our over-analysis of the basic information given here will not change the 'result'. The people on POW ARE seeing 'something' that they reasonably and knowledgeably say is not a bear (of any persuasion) and in fact cannot totally describe what it is exactly they are seeing, apparently...and the people of Kodiak ARE NOT seeing the same. At ALL!! There's no need to keep 'crunching the numbers' over and over as the same result will prevail every time. POW = Yes, Kodiak = No.

Short of saying 'There IS a damn Bigfoot(s) on POW and we must go investigate NOW', I would be willing to say that 'There's a body of sighting evidence of a probable non-bear entity on POW that probably needs to checked out further for a possible Bigfoot infestation'. How's that for a 'scientific conclusion'?

Next topic!

"Harry"

I'm actually working on a paper on this subject right now. It's nearly done, but I'm waiting for a reply from M.K. Davis as to whether I can use some of his work in my paper. If I don't get a response soon, I'll release what I have and release and an updated version later if Mr. Davis consents.

The answer seems obvious to me. SE Alaska has many islands, many with sightings reported. There have been a fair amount of water-related sightings, which means the sasquatch population is able to move around from island to island. POW island is almost all heavily forested (did I read that right?) compared to only 1/4 of Kodiak island. (more cover and shelter) Does Kodiak island have a harsher climate than the SE Alaska panhandle? More tree cover, more shelter from the weather. Also, the panhandle area has better access to more sasquatches (breeding), more shelter, possibly milder weather (not sure about this) and a greater food supply (54,000 bears, there were several reports of possible bear predation) There may have been a population on Kodiak island at one time but maybe it died out and has not had a chance to re-establish itself due to not enough sasquatches near the area.

That's my two cents anyway......

Yes. Kodiak isn't as protected, and the southern side (that's the side with no trees) takes the full brunt of the storms in the Gulf.



That's true. Although temperatures are in a similar range, Southeast doesn't get the storms that Kodiak gets.

Do you know what percentage of the POW reports are made by native or permanent residents and what percentage of reports are made by visitors, tourists, and out of area hunters?

What kind of influx and mix of visitors, tourists, and out of area hunters do the two areas in question have?

Visitors, etc. may be more prone to misidentify or misperceive local fauna and events than permanent residents.

Actually, no, I don't know.

After reading "Raincoast Sasquatch", though, I don't think any of the sightings written about were submitted by tourists.

In all reality, there aren't many tourists in the area, but tourism is growing. Most of it is summer salmon fishing, spring black bear hunts, and spring steelhead fishermen.

Huntster,
Very interesting subject. I think this idea has merit.

As for visitor population- I was thinking that Kodiak would have a larger non-resident/itinerant population. The bears are well known and there is some related tourism, and Katmai N.P. is very close. Kodiak is a more significant city than anything on P.o.W. and is on the ferry route, which doesn't seem to be the case for PoW according to my map. Also, I don't know much about this, but it seems like Kodiak would be more significant as a port for the seasonal fishing industry, and you would have a lot of employment moving people in and out of the area. A lot of these people come from far away (tourists and workers) and, if skeptics' explanations of bigfoot are right, should be prone to misidentifying wildlife and imagining mythical monsters in the unfamiliar wilderness.
But they don't, it seems.

Of course, one big problem in the comparison, the big unknown variable, may simply be whether or not Kodiak has had anyone attempt to collect reports of sightings. It's possible that it's just a blank point in the data. By which I mean that it may be a case of zero data rather than the data being zero. If you follow me..
It would be interesting to actively seek reports from both islands, to compare numbers to numbers- almost a poll.
I've always believed there is a lot more research and investigation that can be done beyond looking for evidence in the woods.

I think the general thought behind this subject is actually pretty important. If bigfoot comes from the minds and hoaxes and ignorance of humans, then sightings should grow around human population trends, not ecological niches.

Thanks for the food for thought and the info, Huntster.

You're as sharp as a tack, Sleeper. All your points are correct, except one. POW island does have Alaska Marine Highway (ferry) service (at Hollis; the Marine Highway System has three "routes": Southeast, Prince William Sound, and Southwest: http://www.dot.state.ak.us/amhs/index.html )

Kodiak Island has a huge commercial fishing industry presence, and itinerant labor (from all over the Pacific Rim, especially Mexico and Philipines) come here for the salmon season in the canneries.

The commercial fishing industry on POW Island is almost gone, replaced with a sportfishing charter industry.



You're quite correct, and I agree fully.

Indeed, I was unaware of the extent of reports in the Ketchikan/POW area of Southeast until reading Rob Alley's "Raincoast Sasquatch". Alley's book is the only dedicated research into the phenomenon in Alaska that I'm aware of.

However, other reports in other areas of Alaska have been published, and some areas of the state have had several reports. Besides the pre-Alley reports in Southeast that were collected by Green or handed down from old newspaper reports, the other major areas of reports are the middle Yukon River area, the Lake Illiamna area, and the Gulf of Alaska area between Lower Cook Inlet east to Yakutat.



That is my point exactly; false reports of all kinds should either be relatively equal among human populations, or should be reasonably explainable.

You mean my U.S. road atlas, which gives Alaska as much space as the city of Phoenix on the opposite page, doesn't show everything????
I'm pissed.

Thanks for the info, though. With the fishing traffic alone there are probably a lot more people setting foot on Kodiak Island than the population would indicate, which one would think would make your comparison even more significant.

Discussing the fact that bigfoot sightings don't really follow human population patterns, but rather geographic or ecological ones, reminds me of something I read that John Green said. As to whether it is a human-dependent and human-created phenomenon...
I don't know the actual quote, but it was something along the lines of "Isn't it strange that people's need to imagine monsters stops where it rains less than 15 inches a year?"

I don't know the number he used, but the idea pans out when you look at the difference in sightings east and west of the cascade range.

Compare, for example, Skamania County and Benton County in Washington.
They are less than one hundred miles distant from one another, Skamania being directly west of Benton. In area, Benton County only barely larger than Skamania County, by less than 4 percent. In terms of population, Benton County has 14 times as many people.
So, we have two counties in the same state, of the same general size, in the same general area, but one with a much, much larger population.
If bigfoot sightings are dependent on the imaginations or ignorance of human beings, then Benton County, having 14 times as many people, should have many more sightings.
But that doesn't seem to be the case.
The BFRO reports 31 sightings in Skamania County, and only 2 in Benton.
What's different? Climate, rainfall, habitat... Things that shouldn't matter to phantoms and hoaxes, but are very important to living creatures.

This is a good argument against those skeptics.

One question though, is although the two cultures on kodiak and POW will be the same, individual reactions will be different, so whos to say this isn't keeping the people on Kodiak? from reporting sightings? What I am asking is that maybe a person's individual life lessons are keeping them from reporting.

And as an aside, how many bear/moose/elk/other large hairy creatures sightings are misidentified and are actually squatchies? The number of misidentifications should be the same either way.

Recently an elementary school teacher somewhere was informed that Alaska wasn't an island. She was very surprised, because (she explained) on U.S maps, Alaska is always shown in it's own special box way out in the Pacific next to the other box that has Hawaii in it.

:rotflmao:

Well, I'll admit that being stuck inside in a region with 300 inches of rain might do funny things to your mind.

:rotflmao:

But that funny thing so consistently being sasquatches is yet another question.

I'm gaining a new appreciation for John Green and his brilliant observations. That guy is amazing.

I'd sure like to meet him.

With regards to sightings on Kodiak Island I believe it's as simple as there are No Bigfoot on the Island.

Please bare with me while I give my reasoning, I have a tendency to babble.

Lets go back about 18,000 years when the Cordilleran ice sheet covered Canada West of the Rockies. This Ice sheet also covered S.E. Alaska, N.W. to Cook Inlet and S.W. out the Alaska Peninsula, it also covered most of Kodiak Island. By this time people had followed the herds of game into what is present Alaska, with some undoubtably venturing east to the ice edge ( nothing on Kodiak at this point ). About 14,000 years ago the Ice began to melt, the Laurentide ice sheet which covered Canada east of the Rockies started to recede east the Cordilleran ice sheet west of the Rockies recede west. This created an ice free corridor from Alaska to the ice free lands of the south, basically the lands of present day America, Mexico and south. Now at this time not only are people and game shooting down this corridor but the ice on the Alaska Peninsula and around Kodiak Island is also receding. Now lets go to 12,000 years ago, it is estimated that the Brown Bear has been on Kodiak 12,000 years, coming across on the ice sheet in search of Sea Mammals, when the ice receded the Bears ( as well as other land mammals ) became isolated on the Island ( I believe there are only six or seven land mammals native to the Island, Bear, Weasel, Otter, Red Fox I think a Bat of some sort and a mouse size rodent, can't remember the other). O.K. so when these animals came across the ice Kodiak Island was nothing more than Tundra sticking up out of an ice sheet. Ice on one side with ice and The Sea on the other. So what you have is a Bear that has found food from the Sea, some scavengers that can live off it's scraps a couple of fish eaters and a bat that probably survived mostly on mosquitos. Why wouldn't Bigfoot migrate to the Island with these other mammals you ask? Good question. I think Bigfoot would have chose to migrate with the masses, for some reason I cannot see it crossing hundreds of miles of ice fields to live at the waters edge. There is also that territory thing with bears and to be quite honest I think a Big Brownie could kick ass on a Bigfoot. There may also have only been a small portion of land for the Bears to hunt in. All speculation on my part.

In my opinion if there are Bigfoot they shot the ice free corridor with the Tlingits, Haidas and the other Indiginus Peoples of North and South America who followed the Herds of Game, of course like everything some stayed behind. I believe the ones that traveled south made it down to around present day Kamloops B.C. some hooked right traveled to the waters edge where some headed north up the ice free coast. When did they finely make to Prince of Wales Island? Who knows. I do know that I have seen many animals swimming those channels and bays so it is continually done. If it was me I would swim from the Quiet Harbor area on the mainland across Stikine Strait to Zarembo Island ( 2 miles ) from there I would swim across Snow Passage to Bushy Island ( 1.5 miles ) then across Ossipee Channel to Shrubby Island ( 1 mile ). From there I would swim south into the Kashevarof Islands (North Middle Islands .75 miles ) making it to West Island ( 1 mile ). From there one last swim across Kashevarof Channel ( 1.3 miles ) and your there just north of Ragged Cove. No big deal as long as you do not screw yourself in the tides. Now the swim to Kodiak Island is like 23 miles from the Peninsula with the most fierce tides and weather in the world, the winds rip through Shilikof Straight and the north side of the Islands like few places on earth ( and not just in winter time ). Granted it is shorter swims if one chooses the Barren Islands route but with the tides the way they are there no living Land Mammal could make it.

So there you have it No Bigfoot On Kodiak Island. Again pure speculation.

So Hunster, what's up with that Hairy Man from Iliamna, you ever here the Don and Frank story? Is there anything happening lately with the Lake Iliamna Monster? Hey Babe Alsworth said he saw the Sea Monster from the air in 1942 so as far as I'm concerned there is something Big in that lake. I would have followed that man to the ends of the earth. Crap, I think he died like damed near a year ago today. Freaky. Now I'm rushing on that old Taylorcraft he use to have. I'll tell you what that man was one hell of a pilot.

" And off we go "

Has anyone thought that maybe BF didn't migrate over here from Asia, but instead, migrated over there from HERE? Maybe that would account for more numbers of sightings over here, and less over there. Maybe very few went there and spread out...a few small family groups. At that time their populations may have been much larger than now, and in the recent centuries, especially if THEY were the native human population. Yes, I said human.

Of course it is possible, but I think unlikely.

For this to have been possible, they would of had to have been here when the world was in it's superpangea state, and then timelines don't match with evolutionary lines.

Very close to Kodiak Island on the Alaskin main land is the sight where the small cannary town of Portlock stood. During the second world war the small population deserted Portlack after reporting that several men were killed by a creature which fits the description of sasquatch. Its one of those deadly sasquatch stories from the past which was never followed up on. Most of the deserted buildings were wiped out by the 1964 earthquake title waves. Your right about the lack of reports from the Island but just across the strait on the main land stories of encounters with the sasquatch go up.?

Thomas Steenburg

P.S. I guess one of the resions there was no real investigation at the time was that Japan had occupied two Islands nearby, Attu and Kriskas, so everybody had other things to worry about???

Good speculation, Mangler.

I haven't heard anything on the Illiamna Hairy Man in a while. There was a report from a commuter plane load of folks flying to Manakotak from Dillingham in the late 1980's or early 1990's. The pilot saw it walking around and started circling it. Several on the plane saw the thing. There is also a report filed with BFRO by a moose hunter who saw it somewhere in the Bristol Bay drainage.

I'm not familiar with the "Don & Frank" story. Is that the one from the 1970's when the FAA employee saw something at the town of Illiamna?

You flew with Babe?! The man is a legend. I never met him, but sure wish I had. I've never even been to Port Alsworth. That's one area of the state that I haven't spent much time in.

I haven't heard a thing about the Lake Monster in a long time. But legends like that here in Alaska tend to be regional things. We don't hear most stories unless they're pretty spectacular.

Yes, indeed, Tom. The Portlock story is particularly interesting and chilling. There are also periodic sightings in Prince William Sound to the east, and on down the Gulf Coast to Southeast.

One reason why I've been particularly interested in Kushtaka Lake (east of Cordova) is because, obviously, the place is named "kushtaka", but also because there are "ruins" on USGS maps on the west side of the lake, at the base of Kushtaka Mountain. I'm wondering if these ruins are also an abandoned Native village.

I've spoken to a Bush pilot who has flown into the area for the past 20 years, as well as USFS employees. I've also written to the Chugach Native Corporation Historical specialist. Nobody seems to know (or will tell) what the "ruins" are.

And that place is among the most remote and least visited places in North America.

Great thread this Huntster. I don't know how I missed it until now. Very interesting. I agree 100% with your initial point about sightings on POW island compared to Kodiak. There are ample sightings on POW because it's likely they are there, whereas on Kodiak it is likely they are not so people aren't lying about or reporting things which aren't there. It all makes perfect sense to me this.

There are lots of other places like these, too.

For example, why would people in the Cascades be more willing to lie or more suseptible to mistake than folks in the Montana Rockies?

A few weeks ago a friend who now lives on Kodiak Island called me.



I couldn't. The freezers are full of caribou & moose meat, and I need to save my vacation time, because I've gotta haul Mrs. Huntster and the kids to Las Vegas (of all places) next spring.

But a couple of other friends went down last week. They got back yesterday.

They got snow throughout the whole week, accumulating to nearly two feet, but still limited out on bucks (3 apiece). The deer were everywhere.

Bears, too. They saw over a dozen. They told me that there were several at the village dump (Port Lions), one boar going well over 1,000 lbs. They said he was going through the dump like a D-9 dozer, digging like a gigantic marmot. There was even a sow with cubs still out, with the cubs looking like 400 lbs each.

They went fishing one day in the bay, just outside the harbor. Caught a 43 lb. winter king, and a couple halibut that went 50 lbs.

Before they went down I told them to keep an eye peeled for sasquatches.

They didn't see any......................