High Sierra Topix

AlmostThere wrote:Even porcupines, which no one ever seems to see either.

I didn't know it is rare to see porcupines. Here is one found two years ago here. Sorry for a blurry photo (appropriately for this topic), that's all I managed in the dark forest in a hurry (0.5s exposure).

Well good news:

http://news.msn.com/science-technology/ ... f5495138e6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you listen closely, though, I think you'll find it's a coyote (maybe two).

A slow day, so I started reading this thread, which I'd been avoiding.

Bigfoot can't exist because you say they can't and have never seen any evidence to that point. You've also never heard any stories or seen any evidence so there isn't any. Thanks for setting me straight and saving me from untold hours of futile searching and embarrassment.

In the sense that you can't prove a negative, you're right. However, the number of people telling you they've never seen, heard of, or come across evidence of a large and otherwise unidentified critter that might go by the name of bigfoot is worth respecting. That's, cumulatively, decades of backcountry travel and observation by the members of this community. I'll add my own: over 40 years as a backcountry ranger, snow surveyor (where, presumably, it would be easy to see bigfoot tracks in winter) and ski ranger. That's probably 20 years of cumulative time spent entirely in the backcountry. Not a single instance of anything I couldn't otherwise explain or understand from known species existing in the Sierra.

The old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is certainly true, but you'd have to explain where bigfoot fits on any evolutionary line; how (as has been mentioned) a large animal would survive -- what does it eat, where does it live; there have to be enough that they could mate and reproduce -- so it's more than one**; and, of course, how it exists yet has no confirmed sightings or credible evidence. Every other large mammal has a good record of sightings, study skins, scat, tracks, long-term history etc. etc. How has a large animal somehow not been subject to the usual rules of wildlife behavior? That's called science and has to be central to how you approach this. Otherwise you might as well be pursuing stories of leprechauns. After all, there's centuries of sightings of them.

You can't reasonably expect to seek stories only of the existence of bigfoot but reject any discussion of why it can't exist.

George

**And this is a huge point. Population dynamics requires a viable number of individuals -- likely at least 100 -- for a species to survive. This has been well studied.

Operators are standing by:

http://news.discovery.com/human/bigfoot ... 21127.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-11-27/bad ... d-vermont/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's a simple matter of Ockham's razor.

Occam's razor?

I'd sooner buy a bigfoot community in Vermont than in the Sierra Nevada!

So George, does that mean if someone does document a Sasquatch, you aren't interested in featuring it in Sierra Nature Notes?

I would cheerfully publish her study -- though would send it out for at least some basic peer review... . I might change my mind on the haunting howl of the earlier post. Gosh darned if that isn't bigfoot, bereft 'cause there's no one to play with.

Next would be a line of clothing, shoes and accessories. (Bigfoot Feet -- maybe as successful as Ugg Boots???). I think those blurry shots of retreating furry critters would look good carrying a purse or something.

This could be a whole cottage industry for out of work rangers!

g.

I seem to remember seeing bigfeet on the ski slopes(mini snow shoe/skis).

atreehugger wrote:Though I have never had a Bigfoot Sierra experience (other than the beer)...these folk did while camped in Monanche Mdws area:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=-C ... %2C4564720" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the link:

...said that in the twilight, about a city block away, they saw the shadowy outline of an human-looking creature at least 8 feet tall.

I had the same experience in a similar evening setting at about the same distance. I was setting up camp off-trail north of Smedberg Lake when I noticed a dark moving shadowy outline that appeared to be standing upright on two legs. My first thought was to grab my camera and slowly approach the figure that was some distance away and moving slowly at times behind a tree and at times in front of a tree at which time I could see the shape of the creature.

When I got closer the creature moved into a brighter part of the forest and I saw that it was a momma bear since now I also saw her cub scamper up a tree.


This interaction was a pleasure but what was interesting to me and why I bring up the story is how I perceived in the dim light and distance a bear to be an upright humanoid. In fact for a few initial seconds I thought in might be a fellow off-trail hiker looking to camp.

The mind and eye aren't as reliable as we hope.

For a second or two I really hoped my adventure was to meet an unknown creature.

Evidence that Bigfoot or "Hairy Man" is in the archaeological record of the southern Sierra foothills:

http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/mayak_datat.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;