First off, glad to be back. I haven’t posted in quite awhile, and it’s good to see this place is still going strong.

Anyway, I just watched this show air on the “National Geographic” channel, and it got me thinking… Btw, my apologies for re-hashing an old topic, if this has already been discussed.

Back to the point:

The show delved into the theory of predation attacks on Black bear, from Grizzlies, in Yellowstone.

After investigating several Black bear carcasses, it was determined that in most cases, Black bear had accidentally, or were forced into doing so by hunger, stumbled into terrain less suitable for cover (more open), a landscape more suitable to Grizzlies. However, in two cases, Grizzlies actually made kills in more thickly wooded areas, more suited to Black bears…in once case, a female Black bear was attacked and killed; method—dragged from her den, while still hibernating. This case was proven to come at the paws of an early-awakened male Grizzly from hibernation, driven by hunger. Later captured, then re-released.

Two things:

They made a note of emphasizing the fact that two apex predators can co-exist, but hunt/feed, at different times avoiding contact. That should come as no surprise. How this could relate to the Sas, imo:

1) Bears being omnivorous, such as the Sas is claimed and documented to be, wouldn’t there at some point, just like with the Black bear vs. Grizzlies, come that rare occasion when the two species might cross paths? And if so, in defense of maybe cubs, or a young Sas, would it be out of the realm of possibility to expect violence ensue? Or are both the Grizzly and Sas, so attuned to their surroundings, holding so much respect for the other, they would avoid violence at all cost…even if they happen to stumble upon each other, starving or other potentially combustible circumstances?

2) If violence did come about, in that documentary, Grizzlies skinned their prey in order to reach the fatty layers of meat, underneath the hair. In each kill, the black bear carcasses showed signs of a violent struggle, but regardless of the violent nature of the attacks, the bones structure was left mainly intact, with the hair pulled back the major joints, or paws, for access to the muscle. Again, if by chance a younger Sas was caught exposed by a Grizzly, either stocking up for the winter, or just after leaving hibernation (as with the documented Black bear attacks) shouldn’t we, by now, expect to have maybe have found a Sas body as a cause of a scenario like this? Or, maybe the opposite, a large Grizzly carcass found destroyed in a manner suggesting something equal to, or much more powerful, was the possible murder suspect?

I know in the past we’ve discussed Griz carcasses, but with no real solid evidence to suggest that whatever killed them, was nothing more then possibly another larger Grizzly, or man. Is it possible for two apex predators to co-exist like the Sas and Griz, without confrontation? It happens (albeit on rare occasions) in every other animal relationship (for example, Lions Hyenas, Leopards, or Sharks vs. larger Sharks), why not with these two species?

Serious question btw, and not posed with any intention to upset the experts on here.

I am not sure just how much time you have spent in the woods. But it is a very rare thing to find any sort of dead animal. When a animal dies in the woods all sort of critters comes out of the words to have a good feed. Even animals that do not eat meat most times will have some if given a chance as it is just to good of a deal for them to pass up.
I have came upon I think 1 deer that was killed by what I think was a panther, And one dead hod that I have no clue what killed it but it was mostly gone. That was with at least 25 years in the woods hunting and just being out in the woods.
Go out even during deer season and try to find a gut pile. Find one and go back the next day and chances are you will not even be able to tell it was there it will be cleaned up so well.

So the point is it is not shocking to me at all that a dead Bigfoot has never been found.

We've heard that of sasquatches. Open terrain.

Rarely.......



Not unusual at all. The last few people killed in Alaska by brown bears have been in the dead of winter.

The bears were disturbed. "In the middle of the night", so to speak...............

Brown bears "hibernate" lightly.



Yup. No doubt about it.



If sasquatches exist, there can be no doubt about it.



There can also be no doubt that they avoid each other at all cost.........

At least, I avoid brown bears as best I can. I assume sasquatches do likewise.

I have evidence that brown bears avoid me, too............



That's not accurate.

Brown bears eat certain organs immediately. If hungry, they'll eat more. If wolves (humans, black bears, other brown bears, etc.) are around, they'll guard their kill (find).

They'll bury it. They'll piss on it. They'll crap on it.

They'll lay right on top of it and sleep.

They'll lay a ways away to see if something comes around.

They can be really nasty about it.



Not in my opinion.

I think sasquatches are so rare that a happenstance skeletons are too rare to "find".



Nope.

The likely murderer of a large griz is a human or a larger griz.

I think sasquatches avoid grizzlies like they avoid humans.

Maybe more.........



I think that's why sasquatch sightings coincide with prime black bear range.

Humans have kept brown bears in check. If sasquatches are more like black bears (and I think they are), consider reality:

* Black bears still range throughout North America
* Grizzlies cannot live with humanity - black bears can
* The sighting databases clearly show that present brown bear strongholds are devoid of sasquatch sightings, and prime black bear habitat is plentiful of sasquatch reports.



Consider this.

Thanks for the reply.

Yes, that thought has crossed my mind as well, way before this documentary. However, with that in mind, many of the bears roaming North American, as the show points out, both black bear & Grizzlies, are now collard. This is how they are able to find bear carcasses. In this situation, I'd expect IF bear/Sas confrontations ended up with a killed bear, the follow-up investigation might lead to some type of evidence…I guess the question then would be would the biologist even consider something such as a Sas, as the possible culprit.

I do agree it's rare to find any type of carcass in the wild, but there have been those opportunities when some hunter, fishers, hiker, etc, has stumbled onto a rare find, such as those bear carcasses found that were discussed in older threads.

Yes and no.



That's the only way they're able to find bear carcasses (unless, of course, they kill the bears themselves......



I suspect if a sasquatch killed a bear, humans would never know about it.



Depends on the sign left.

The question really is whether or not the biologist would "tell".



Those "rare opportunities" have been reported............

........and discounted.

I'm wondering if the speed of either vegetation or consumption by carrion feeders is maybe slower in the PNW, Alaska, and most of Canada, versus in the lower portions of the lower 48?

In areas such as Texas, Oklahoma, and the Deep South, there seems to be a more abundant selection of wildlife, on all levels, microbes to mammals, just waiting to devour, scatter the remnants of a fallen animal. The first thing that pops to mind would be the obvious visual que's from Turkey Vultures and Black Vultures. These two birds are rare that far north, and in the Black Vultures case, not found at all outside the southern states & the SW. The Turkey Vulture rarely ventures north of the Canadian border.

Another factor would be the extreme heat, in the more southern states, to include levels of humidity. Bodies tend to decompose faster. The smell would most likely travel further in both higher elevation thermals, and those hanging at the tree top levels and below. This should also work as a guide to animals more prone to scavenge. In some areas, the lower lying vegetation is more abundant, as far as types, and those that tend to spread rapidly in vine-like forms, or fungal in nature...Both acting to help conceal a body. Another factor may be the type of trees more commonly associated in the Midwest & southern states. Coniferous trees do grow abundantly in certain areas, but deciduous trees are more common. They would also better aid in rapid concealment with the shedding of leaves, vs. needles.

If any of this stands or has merit, one would expect a body of any kind, found in the states/southern regions mentioned, to have a better chance of staying hidden, becoming hidden faster, and being covered under a thicker layer of undergrowth, or a shorter period, vs. in the say Alaska or many coniferous, or mixed coniferous areas in the north.

I understand the terrain in areas of the PNW, are much different due to moisture. Decomposing there, is helped by other means such as moss, algae, fernlike plants, and fungi, as well. But if I'm not mistaken, the rainforest areas are situated within coastal areas between northern Oregon, to southern Vancouver. Outside those areas, would I be incorrect in suggesting a fallen body might disappear a little slower (without adding in the scavenging aspect)?