Most likely, a lot of [bad] water had gone under the bridge in this regard by 1934.

I guess in a sense you could be right. Maybe the main reason is that this fear of ridicule perhaps came later (after all, this report is from 1934, not exactly the time of first contact), when the natives became all too aware that whites were not familiar with animals like sasquatch and might dismiss them as mythical folklore. In that case, the natives would come to the realization that this is one particular animal that instills disdain in people outside of their culture, and so be treated as another part of the curiosity of traditions that were being assimilated. Maybe they freely discussed sasquatch at first until it became apparent it was something seen as strange for foreigners, and so the object of ridicule.

Still, the fact remains that there have been other native cultures that have been subjected to the same conditions as Native Americans, and yet more or less freely speak of ethno-known animals as if they are any other living creature on their land. Maybe they just have not had enough negative feedback concerning these creatures to be tight lipped.

It’s just very interesting to me.

The same seems to be the case for some other ethno-known animals that are still considered cryptids. For instance, the natives that speak of creatures such as Mokele Mbembe, or the Almas, and others, seem to speak fairly freely about these animals as if they are just another animal in the area. This candidness is in fact one of the compelling things about native reports, because it makes me think that perhaps they are describing an actual animal that just has not been discovered yet.

Unless there is some sort of religious significance or reverence for the animal in question, why the hesitation for natives to talk about it? If the animal is real, ethno-known, and an actual part of the habitat, I find it interesting that the natives described here should feel a fear of ridicule by talking about it with white explorers. Why should that be the case if the creature is just another naturally occurring animal? After all, they don’t necessarily know that the rest of the world finds the creature implausible. Did they have the same reservations about talking about other indigenous animals such as bear or moose?

Curious.

Perhaps the only difference now is that ALL witnesses are subject to ridicule from scofftics – and, IMHO, from those in high places who think they have something to lose by acknowlegding the reality of the great hairy man.