I think you come down a little too hard on greed. “Greed,” as Gordon Gekko said, “… is good.”

What you term “greed,” in a human context, is analogous to nature’s hard-wired drive to ensure one receives “my share” of limited resources. As food is generally available in contemporary society, I chose criminal activities to illustrate my point where humans were concerned.

Human society frowns upon these “me first” impulses and criminalizes the more extreme examples. Obviously, most people are able to override their baser urges. However, “free will” works both ways and the fact that, despite the consequences, some people continue to take more than they are entitled to suggests that what we call “greed” is humanity’s expression of an animal’s innate “me first” drive; opposite sides of the same coin if you will.

To award the benefits of near-human intelligence while reserving the ability to completely override baser instincts casts Bigfoot in the role of the “noble savage” – a step that I’m not willing to take.

Either Bigfoot is an animal, hard-wired to procure its “share” of limited resources, regardless of the consequences, like: raccoons, coyotes and bears. Or, they are human-like in their intelligence and subject to the vagaries of free will; knowledgeable of, but not always willing to do, the “right” or “smart” thing, like: embezzlers, shoplifters and bank robbers.

Either way, they’re eventually gonna get caught.

If you weigh 500 pounds and you can’t break thru the ice to get at the fish and plants you hunger for, and several feet of snow covers the berries and other greens that could sustain you, you might head down hill and stream to happier hunting grounds, using whatever stealth capabilities you have to acquire food to fill your stomach.

But when the weather warms and snow melts, your intelligence, weighing substantial (instinctive? mythical?) risk against the certainty of your normal diet now being available “back home”, might head you back to the plants and ponds at your natural, higher, habitat.

Survival of the smartest doesn’t mean the greediest, except in most homo saps.

No mystery here – see my interview with the Blogsquatcher.

Good point regarding seasonal migration as a way for Sasquatch to cope with winter food shortages. I will also concede that piggy-backing on human technology is another viable strategy – at least in principle. Certainly, raccoons, coyotes and bears – just to name a few – do it all the time; but I would ask you to weigh the feasibility of ongoing urban foraging vs. the inevitability of discovery.

Even if initially introduced to urban/rural scavenging strictly as a way to get through the winter, it stands to reason that a creature, especially an intelligent one, upon discovering a readily available, high-energy food source would continue to return – even against its better judgment and at considerable personal risk – as long as the supply continued. If you doubt me, consider for a moment the number of human-level intelligences that choose to continue engaging in high-risk/high-reward behaviors as long as the supply beckons: embezzlers, shoplifters, bank robbers, etc., most of whom are invariably caught…

I’ll wager just about everyone has either witnessed personally, or seen clear pictures/video of, ordinary animals scavenging in close proximity to human dwellings. Alleged hand- and foot-prints attributed to foraging Sasquatch aside, I haven’t yet seen any indisputable video/photographic evidence of Bigfoot caught, red-handed, going through the trash.

Assuming they exist, I question how Sasquatch, intelligent or not, could spend any substantive amount of time foraging in close human contact without becoming habituated and subsequently ending up:
A. On camera;
B. Captured;
C. Shot.

(Or, D. Arrested. But, who would you get to stand in the lineup?)

Winter of ‘77-78 was rather brutal along parts of the East Coast, with water sources frozen over and everything deeply covered by blizzards, making it difficult for animals to find natural food sources.

Most hunkered down or hibernated, but Squatches moved down frozen streams to larger tributaries, then down rivers to warmer climes, then back up the feeder streams, showing up at farms and domestic back yards, raiding chicken coops and other pens and leaving large, unexpected footprints in the snow.

Came Spring and Squatch survival activity decreased, as they presumably abandoned the cultural chaos to return to more peaceful habitats. These creatures are not stupid, and their nomadic and seasonal migratory habits are well known.

Opposed thumbs. Tools. Structures. Habitat Modification. Language. Communication. Intelligence. Free Will. Etc…

As to any speculation about sasquatch numbers, and whether a given level is good or bad, we simply don’t have enough evidence to know. Numbers (at least the “best” estimates) are projected using techniques of wildlife biology …against report data that are, well, at least a weetad suspect. Of course, they are far from conclusive even for species we know exist.

The only way headway can really be made from here is for a dedicated team to move into an area of a lot (relative term) of recent reported activity, prepared to stay until contact is made and good documentation secured. (Or a team of part-time researchers will need to get really, really lucky.) When science gets interested – and nothing short of proof, it seems, will interest science – now you can move beyond speculation.

I know you all know a lot – I am just a janitor but I know what I observe so indulge me briefly? When I had, on my little plot, 1 Coyote (that I know of), I had many cottontail and many many (grr) mice. When the Coyote was ‘removed’ (and I know this from some info I cannot prove but trust) I then gained 2 pair of foxes, a bobcat, and a fisher cat. Other than the foxes I do not know about mating pairs. I can say, however, that before the Coyote was ‘removed’ bunnies were everywhere. it was his (or ‘their) feast. After though, with so much competition, I see very few cottontails, and most of the mice are in my shed or in my garage, haha.

I am no biologist, but I suppose such knowlegable people base their numbers on quantifiable statistics – sustainable numbers, etc. But regarding Sasquatch, I just wonder if, due to other factors; longevity, genitics, or some unknown or rather unstudied factors, there may be other posibilities for their continued existence?

If genetics, longevity, instinct and other natural influences sustained them above the capabilities of their competitors like bear, then perhaps “smaller” numbers actually ensure their survival?

I have seen, watched and wondered about black bear at times in my life and I know how communal they CAN be, depending on their supply vs demand. would so many bear really mind one or 2 pair of Sasquatch?

I do not know how to exactly say what I mean as I am not an educated man, but perhaps some one can help expand on this cryptic diatribe (haha). Or else put me straight.

Thanks so much

When I pointed to us as nonconforming, it wasn’t as an example of a cold-tolerant ape, but of one that doesn’t conform to most of the “ape rules,” including the one that apes can’t fly.

As I said: models only address what we know about. All that means is that, before you change a model, you need proof that the model needs changing. That we don’t have yet. But we have enough evidence that the model seems at least a bit shaky to those acquainted with the evidence.

That these guys leave lots of putative tracks in snow indicates that, like bears, they’re not holing up for the entire winter. But if bears can leave tracks of bare feet in snow, why can’t an ape? No reason, particularly. We just have an inherent bias against thinking that way. Just ’cause it strikes us as cold doesn’t mean it has to bother a bigfoot that much.