The reason I'm so stupefied by the salamander defense is that by square meter of forest, they occupy the densest source of protein/food per pound in deciduous temperate forests, period.

Not all species are deadly.
Maybe bigfoot, like other predators, have come to know the difference.

I would think they would have disappeared long ago if they had not come to an understanding between "go and no-go" when it come to food, but it goes to show
just how precarious living in the forest is.

LOL I almost posted that you sounded like you were confusing a salamander with some urban legends we have regarding banana slugs!


I have heard several variations on the newt/salamander in the coffee pot story. Salamanders and newts are best left alone (though we do admire them with gloves on here at the Harper farm, my daughter once found a teeny baby newt that was bright orange. Cutest damn thing) There are much better food choices out there!

Hi

I,m sure BF knows a little of the life cycle of some animals and uses that to his advantage, Like after a warm rain you can find the little redback salamanders all over, Bet BF eats them like popcorn, He might also know the den spots of some other reptiles, He has plenty of time to sit and wait for them to show,

Peace
Tim

Good grief RW, that thing can get to be almost 10 inches!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_slug

Just big enough for a hot dog bun!!

I'm kidding........I'm kidding.

edit........and it's the official mascot of the University of California!! It's a slug!

Not to bad with a little ketchup, but I don't recommend stepping on them barefoot

Redratsnake, those little red back salamanders have rather nasty secretions from what I have read.

Hi

The Garter snakes eat the ones around here, For BF it might be an acquired taste

Peace
Tim

Has anyone researched this data? My question is 'Is this enough calories/TDN to sustain a warm blooded animal that reportly weighs over 600+lbs mature?' and how much of this forage is available year round? Bears hibernate to compensate seasonal cycles when nutrition is below required levels, BF reports are pretty much year round, therefore I preclude BF hibernation.

Perhaps BF has an evolved digestive tract, to some degree anyway, and it utilizing something totally outside the realm of normal thinking? Maybe some type of nutrient rich lichen or even an unidentified tuber? Anyone recall any of the eyewitnesses (those generally considered reliable) reporting the BF eating or appearing to consume something out of the norm?

One point, I don't really identify a majority of the documented sightings reporting the individuals in the process of eating, foraging or food gathering, just a few here and there. Wouldn't he be pretty busy trying to make a living off the above mentioned forages, and at least leave behind alot more evidence of his endeavors to be documented following some of the sightings? Ie. overturned rocks, stripped bushes and trees, peeled bark, clam/oyster shells, excavated rodent dens?

Anyone got anymore insight on these subjects?

Hey Foxjr.
One of the moderators had some questions for you here, just in case you might have missed it.

Hi


One of our members had a great sighting yrs ago, He watched a BF from a deer stand for several minutes picking berries of a bush, The BF was so picky about them that he would throw the ones he must not have liked away, To me that kinda gives the impression that the Bigguy was not starving and had plenty of time to sit and eat only what he liked, then there is the post about BF digging a deep hole into some large boulders and coming up with a nest of rodents that he shared with his family, Cool Stuff


Peace
Tim

The food listed are available much of the year. The Western PNW is quite lush even in the winter. The foods listed were obtained through ethnobotany sources which means they were eaten by the Native Americans. The nutritional information is available on much of these food sources, you just need to look for it. I think people underestimate the nutritional content of many wild foods. The caterpillar information was an eye-opener for me.

I have seen evidence of peeled bark, excavated rodent dens and turned over logs/shredded logs. Were these done by deer, coyote, fox and bear? More than likely, but it is done.

There are reports of sasquatch gathering berries, eating fish, digging for shellfish, foraging gardens and dumps. I have never seen a bear eating, but I know they do. I have never seen a fox eating, but I know they do. I have never seen a coyote eating...though hubby saw one carrying a coke can in it's mouth...

Anyway, I have made my point.

Redwolf

I hate to disagee Red, but personally, unless the animal was retreating, trying to avoid confrontation, (which is the usual result) the above mentioned bear, fox and coyote, that I have observed (without them being aware) were all pretty much looking for something to eat or in a few cases something to mate with. Bears are always sniffing, rolling logs, and poking their noses into cracks and crevices, behavior I thoght was foraging. Here around the house it is not uncommon to see a fox these days, and most times they are spotted hopping on their hind legs and diving nose first thru the tall grass on the field edges, chasing rats. And I aint never seen a coyote walk past anything edible! They are the most opportunistic feeders around, and most any rabbit in distress call (electronic or manual) under the right circumstance, will bring in every yote on this side of the county for an easy meal!

So I guess difference of opinions, but one point that I brought up and someone else touched on, there is not as many reports submitted of BF eating/foraging as one might suspect for animal that size trying to sustain himself on what is marginal at best forage in many of the purported BF habitats. Gorillas survive on a less than desirable food source, thus they spend up to 18 hours a day either eating or taking short digestive rest periods in order for their system to make room for more. Most film/vid/pics of gorillas show axactly this behaviour.

Bf as reported seem to lead a pretty easy life, and he appears to have alot a free time on his hands to wander around, peek into windows, knock on trees and see generally what humans are up to from time to time. I kinda feel like he would get caught more by folks, grubbing about for groceries, but obviously that's not the case according to the sightings databases. One thought, perhaps he is partially habituated to humans for food, (trash, campsites, dumpsters) and maybe that explains some of the sightings of the creature observing human activity? Probably a pretty good bet?

Just my take.

If the animals I have seen were in retreat from activities such as foraging and mating isn't is logical to assume that reports where sasquatch were not eating are due to the same conditions?

We do not know how a sasquatch metabolizes food. Until we capture and study one of these animals, everything is speculation and we can argue our points of view until the cow come home. I personally find it logical to use documented data from ethnobotany and known animals resources (mainly bear) to come to my conclusions.

Redwolf

oh, I did forget that I saw a coyote playing with a mouse in an E. Oregon field. Tossed that puppy up and caught it for quite awhile before taking off with it. It was great entertainment for a couple of tired bowhunters.

I concur RedWolf with your logic concerning the nature of various animal's activities, but would you agree, there is an awful lot of reports of BF doing all kinds of things, very few of which seem to be foraging. My point to begin with was that when I do see the above mentioned native animals, until they realize my presence and turn tail and run, and unless they are mating or near a den, thay always seem to be in the pursuit of something to eat. Of course the variables when you throw a bf in the mix are endless, one big one being the possible highly developed senses one might expect in an animal such as a BF? But again, there is no anatomical indicators to suggest that a BF would have senses off the charts. All physical evidence reported, would lead one to assume they would have senses similiar to other known primates, which to my knowledge are about average in the animal kingdom.

This brings up my last point. Where you use ethnobotany, and the known animal resource, the bear. I generally keep my thinking within the realm of primates. Simply, IMO, the BF exhibit no physical characteristics that would warrant classifying them anything other than primates. I realize alot of folks consider them to be carnivorous to various degrees, (some suggest very bear like in diet) but I always had a hard time when I compare the BF to other top tier predators. They just do not match up physically, with what I consider the prototype carnivore, once again I see a monkey not a bear and I see an opportunistic/omnivore, like a chimp as the probable survival technique.

This all brings me back to square one, where I get stuck analytically speaking, because 99.9% (I know about the Japanese snow monkeys who have adapted in a very unique ecosystem, but they originated in the tropics) of unevolved primates , historically and present, all exist solely in equatorial/semi-tropic/rainforest environments. I was always taught because that was the only habitat that would support their nutritional needs and was key to their higher level of evolution and developement.

Now a ways back, a very smart one of these apes picked up a hunk of rock with a honed edge and realized it could be handy for something other than scratching his privates. Thus began the era of tool use/fabrication (not all at once), and eventually a particular group (or two) of these apes, with tools in hand, migrated out of the equatorial rainforests and African savannas, and spread into the deciduous hardwood forests of Europe/Asia and even to the Artic lands of the far north. According to the scientists and physical evidence unearthed, this was all made possible by the use of tools, which were further developed as they ventured forth and are actually used as a historical timeline for dating acheological finds.

How did another monkey get out without no tools? I wish somebody would go ahead and shoot one, and answer some of these puzzles!

I can't for the life of me figure out your point FoxJr.

Yeah, humans make and use complex tool. Chimps make simple tools to aide in food gathering. Are you suggesting bigfoot can't be a real species based on some reasoning that they would have to have tools to survive in the wilds of the U.S.?

I can't figure me out neither. Am I totally wrong here to assume that humans are the only primates to evolve complex tool skills, therefore facilitaing their succesful migrations out of traditional primate habitat. Are not all other primates confined to a particular type of environment as mentioned? Were they not, in a word, left behind, by the higher evolved apes?

Was the evolution of these complex tool skills not the catalyst which fueled this entire worldwide habitation? My question was did another monkey come along with us into these environs without any tools? Is that possible or a legitimate scientific analysis? Please correct me if I look like an idiot, hairyman!

Ethnobotany is the study of how plants were used by different cultures...as in people. People are primates.

All of the foods I listed are available for the picking without the use of tools other than hands or at most, a stick.

Redwolf

OK...I think you are saying that complex tools allowed humans to migrate into and occupy habitats other than those that we evolved in, right? That is true. Complex tools give us an advantage to live (and thrive mostly) in environments, such as deserts and the arctic, that aren't necessarily yielding to other large mammals. However, we do know that animals migrate over great distances (including the Bering Land Bridge...camels, horses, mammoth, etc.). Evolution also dictates that adaptation to an environment allows for survival...and we know that many large mammals have adapted to live in harsh environments (polar bears, Oakland Raider Fans, etc.).

So, it is possible that a bigfoot migrated here from somewhere on the other side of the Bering Land Bridge and found conditions here livable? Yep. Food resources available in the lower 48 that are nutritious, abundant, and easily obtained without tools have been well documented in many ethnographic studies. Redwolf has already listed some of the plant materials available in the PNW...and that list isn't complete. My California Ethnobotony book lists 924 plants and their uses.

What is the name and author of that California Ethnobotany book?

It's called "The Ethnobotany of the California Indians" by George R. Mead. It's a great book, but even it isn't complete! One of the more interesting things I've learned by reading the book was about seaweed. It's packed with vitamins and calories, it can be eaten fresh or dried (dried it lasts for weeks), and it is everywhere! Bob just got back from a trip to Mexico and apparently they feed the vast amounts of seaweed that washes up on shore from the Sea of Cortez to their cows!!!

Dig up a few clams and what a dinner that would be!

Thanks!

I wonder if we will ever have the lists complete. The varieties of wild foods that are nutritional and easily available amazes me.

But if Bigfoot exists in places other than the PNW and it's mild weather, how would the problem of 12" of ice under 12" of snow affect it's ability to forage? I mean deer in some places might as well not eat because the energy expenditure to find food is sometimes greater than the caloric intake of the food they end up finding.

We all have heard of the problems of eating nothing but Caribou, in the arctic, and losing the fat stored in the lining of the brain.

Well Drew -
a: I'm not a advocate of bigfoot living in environments such as the arctic or deserts.
b: Just like Native Americans and deer do, when it snows in the mountains in the west, you just move down in elevation below the snow zone.
c: Temperatures in the south (Texas, Georgia, AR, OK, etc). don't have the same temp variations that the PNW does (I recommend listening to the Mike Bankston and Steve Hyde interview on "Let's Talk Bigfoot" where I asked a question similar and Steve's outstanding answer could never be duplicated by me here).
d: In general, I know many people use bear as their indicator species for bigfoot food resources, etc., but I use Native Americans. I look at how NA used the landscape in the target area and I extrapolate my hypothesis from there.

I agree whole heartedly in looking at NA environment usage. The NA's and the BF seemed to have been sharing lands for hundreds of years prior to white settlement. It's my understanding that a lot of NA history states that the BF were here first, as in before the NA's. I do not see why BF must have followed man here. I see no reason why BF couldn't have already been here long before man was. Regardless of opinion, I do understand the concept of fossilized records and the land bridge theory, but part of me holds onto the fact that we just don't really know for sure. Perhaps there was a large primate in South America that worked it's way north as it grew in size and heartiness. BF do seem to be located in very similar ecosystem types regardless of where they are at. There also seem to be somewhat subtle differences in them depending on those environments. Example; Swamp Apes of the south compared to BF of the PNW. I believe these creatures have undergone adaptive evolution to their environments over time. I believe as time goes by we will continue to observe this, as we do with other living creatures. A lot of animals ended up as they are long before any type of isolation took place. In areas where isolation has occurred you see examples of this adaptive evolution more and more. Australia and the Galapagos Islands for instance. Only now there is a different type of isolation cause. Where once isolation occurred geographically, it now occurs by the encroachment of man. A BF that could once travel from say Oregon to Oklahoma over time, can no longer do so. If it were to be possible, the risk would more than likely impede it's decision to do so. I do feel they maintain vast regions and inner territories, which they move around in with relative ease. However, it still remains as an "island" surrounded by the waters of roads and civilization.

As for why we don't see them foraging more often, I would say a lot of it has to do with them primarily feeding at night, and in areas where they are not disturbed by human presence. I have read as many reports as the next person, and quite a number of them lend to the possibility that they could have either been foraging when they were "disturbed" or they could have been in route to do so. At other times they more than likely came in close to observe the human and got caught. What I do know is the vast majority of sightings happen in mere seconds. We haven't observed them enough to even begin to hypothesize what their feeding habits are. However there are still many instances where feeding or possible foraging has been observed. All in all we have no idea what they were doing prior to or following an encounter with a human. Whether it be shyness, fear, or intelligence, we can't, or have yet to have had, the opportunity to go out and observe these creatures as we have with other primates and known animal species. Another item to factor in is their population size. Comparatively speaking to other known animals, it is extremely small. Smaller numbers mean less opportunities for observation, and less amount of time spent feeding. What I mean by this is that if you take a bear population in a given area you might have 150 - 300 animals. You are obviously more likely to see one of these animals, thus the opportunity to see one feeding, than a BF which population in the same area might easily be less than 10. Add onto that the high possibility they primarily feed at night and their behavior and intelligence dictates and allows for them to avoid humans at all costs, and you just made it a near impossible task to observe one of these things feeding or doing some other routine behavior. Then further adding to that dilemma, you can factor in that the presence of a human would disrupt that behavior, more than likely long before we realized the BF was even there. It doesn't take super senses or fantastic abilities beyond that of normal primates for this to happen. Humans have lost touch with nature, and when we enter that domain we are obvious strangers to it. We make a lot of noise, we have a different smell, we behave differently. It's like walking into a strangers home with all the lights off and trying to find your way around. Granted, there are individuals who possess a much greater amount of woods knowledge and ability to blend in with the environment, but those numbers are minute at best when compared to the overall number of people who enter the woods throughout the year. One can certainly grasp how the cards are indeed stacked against us.

Thanks Hairyman, Redwolfand OKSquatch, IMO this is some of the most interesting and enlightening posting on any BF forum. I think some of the keys in isolating BF populations, and thus facilitating the evidence neccessary to prove it's existance, are hidden in the sciences of evolution and modern biology. Although dealing with an unknown variable, maybe by analysing known factors of similiarly evolved creatures and identifying associated habitats, nutritional needs, morphology, etc. I think it is possible to weed out certain potential research areas and methods, and to concentrate on those which could be rated as optimal, based on a 'theory of some sorts' of what science, history, and our collective conjectures and discussions indicate just what BF would most probably be like.

Hairyman, I get narrow minded when researching evolution, and the theories themselves vary on many issues. Redwolf, I was not questioning the NA food source aspect (IMO a rather unique and fresh possiblity in my own way of thinking) I was only pointing out that I am not sure of the effectiveness of comparing bears to BF, as I am stuck on the primate to primate comparison and still would expect the BF, if it ever is uncovered, to be more monkey than anything else.

Hairyman, is their any fossil evidence of any primate, other than man, existing or migrating in a woodland canopy ecosystem, an artic tundra environment or anything other than the aforementioned known primate habitats? I agree that some well documented carnivores and other successful top tier predators did in fact migrate across land bridges, tundras, ice shelves, etc., but were they not following the primary food sources, in this case herds of ungulates. Which many believe also motivated pre-historic man. I can't put my finger on any particular food source or any reason in general to compell a population of great apes to leave their prime environment and trek across a what may have been a marginal habitat at best. Perhaps there exists another angle I am unaware of, something like shifting continents or some other geological phenomenon?


One last question. I read and understand how the encroachment of man and civilization is probably effecting Bf, and most wildlife for that matter. Do ya'll think there is currently more BF than there were say 100 or even 1000 years ago, or less? They are reported all over continental North America nowadays and although due a great deal to the internet and the media explosion, there seems to be no shortage of sightings in the last few years. Is this all due to human encroachment, or perhaps is the population spreading and/or in a growth cycle. Are they suddenly adapting to the encroachment and being forced to urbanize in order to survive?

I don't subscribe to attributing every NA folktale or legend to a BF type character, esp. here close to home where it is highly questionable as to what many of the Cherokee stories are in fact concerning, that being the case it would appear that the BF is a relatively new phenomenon in many areas of the southeast. Is it possible that this is part of another epic migration into new habitat, forced by civilization, or just a population explosion, or what?

I'm not up to spend on fossil finds in the arctic, so I have no idea...but I know snow monkey like it cold! What does the arctic have to do with the conversation, btw? When our ancestors left Africa, they went through all kinds of different ecosystems to settle in their preferred habitat, especially when pressured to do so by moving food resources, population pressures, habitat pressures, predators, etc.



Tribes in the southeast do have bigfoot stories.

extensive tool use and problem solving comes with larger brain capacity. that comes with eating complex proteins like meat. usually they are all intertwined. brain growth leads to higher tool use and that leads to problem solving that leads to the ability to hunt and consume meat that leads to brain capacity growth. they are interdependent and interwoven. loose one step and the others dont occur so readily.