When i think of a show linke MonsterQuest actually proving the existence of ‘Squatch or Yeti i get a mental image of the harbor in “Jaws” just after the ad goes in the paper for the reward: full of hundreds of semi-professional and amatuer hunters looking for glory and fame.

“What if..” the Georgia boys had *really* found one? Do any of us honestly want that? Let Monsteruest entertain, inform, and give exposure to the genre. But please don’t let it confirm anything, for the sake of any large cryptid mammals that still exist.

I definitely don’t think that mountaineers are gonna see one on the summit of Everest. Mystery_man’s comment about the region just above tree line is what I had in mind. If you’re not finding bharal and ibex, you’re not finding snow leopard.

And for my money. you’re not seeing yeti where you see snow leopard, most of the time. When it comes to predation, I see the yeti as being like other primates (than us, I guess) are in this regard: an opportunist, taking what comes its way. it may take elderly or disease-weakened ungulates, or score the occasional lucky ambush of an unwary animal. But it’s going smaller – with a substantial vegetable component – most of the time. (The mouse hare – a lower-elevation animal – is cited as a strong possibility for closest item to an animal staple for the yeti.)

I also did not mean to say that above the tree line is completely devoid of life, at least to a point. Some organisms do survive to a certain extent above the tree line, but the high elevations and lack of vegetation make this environment one of the harshest on Earth. Many times, the animals that survive there are small animals and certain types of insects, often specially adapted for that lifestyle. They also tend to live fairly close to the tree line, (notice I said you are “starting” to get into the biological desert I described), but not in the elevations high above it, which are pretty much devoid of life. Also, the large mammals that live at higher elevations are predominantly found mostly in the higher forests within the tree line, or in the forested valleys, with animals like the yak and snow leopard being seen only occasionally above it.

The Yeti is a large animal, which entails large food requirements, and above the tree line is perhaps not the most suitable permanent habitat for it. I can’t really see a viable breeding population of animals this large persisting and flourishing permanently above the tree line. The greatest biomass is found lower. We can speculate all we want on the Yeti’s movements, but like other large animals in its habitat, it seems very plausible to me that the Yeti could be predominantly found at elevations below the tree line.

I tend to think that if there is a Yeti there, then it lurks at lower elevations below or very near the tree line, where food resources are plentiful, and perhaps crosses the more barren expanses perhaps to travel or in short forays.

Agreed; we’re not going to get a multibillion-dollar yeti search going tomorrow.

When I first read Schaller suggesting that amateurs – not professionals – should go to game cameras to document the sasquatch, my first thought was: sellout! I thought you thought this was worthy of scientific attention! Then of course I realized he was just reflecting reality. Scientists are busy. Full time. (It’s called a JOB.) To ask the vast majority of them to go after a cryptid like they go after the things they already go after is to tell them to give up their job and take up a whole new career. How many will do that? Hey, you see me giving up my job for this? (You don’t even see me. Right.) Schaller was just suggesting a new tool to folks who were already interested, and while they didn’t have near enough time to do this, at least were obviously devoting some time to it. And he’s a very busy man; he was doing the field a great favor simply by addressing it in a positive way becoming a scientist.

So, sure, MonsterQuest might be performing a useful function here. What it should also be doing, however, is dealing strictly in scientific honesty. (Am I the only one who wrinkles his nose at the “Monster” thing?) I applaud, as others do here, anyone who gives this any time; they’re our only hope at present. But like Schaller, some of us have suggestions (and a scientist right here is backing us up ) that we think are worth pursuing. Just because pulp fiction makes it a “snowman” doesn’t mean that’s where you have to look.

The only fly in the ointment might be the snow leopard, which does seem to be pretty much up there most of the time. But even the leopard moves up and down with the food. It is also highly specialized to hunt animals that occupy, to the limit, some of the very few niches for sizable critters that there are up there.

And remember: Jane Goodall wasn’t a scientist. She got into the trade pretty cheap. That’s what the search needs now.

But yes; it first needs professionals who can command the time, and the money, to think that is worth doing.

That’s right, *gasp* scientists don’t just get unlimited access to money for every little project they want to study.

So I’m glad that someone is putting money into these kinds of expeditions. Before animals like the gorilla and okapi were discovered, it pretty much went the same way. There wasn’t exactly a rush by the scientific community to throw money at them, it was some adventurous wild cards gathering interest through evidence. IF MQ finds something that is truly compelling, and subject it to peer review and rigorous scrutiny from all angles, it could mean more scientific interest, so this sort of expedition could eventually pave the way towards what everybody here wants.

Don’t expect it to be a fast process though. Most worthwhile things in science aren’t, and findings can be subjected to a harsh, almost Darwinian weeding out process. Many scientists go their entire careers without making any significant new finding that sticks. Science isn’t like Indiana Jones, and those articles you read in science magazines are condensed, watered down versions of usually years and years of hard work. It’s a long, arduous, some might even say boring (not for me) process, and this is no field for those looking for instant gratification or fast answers.

Short of finding a body, I won’t expect any miracle on the expedition, but it might turn up something useful I suppose.

DWA- You are correct about the Yeti likely staying in the lower elevations. It makes a lot of sense from a biological point of view.

Look at any mountain habitat and you will see that once you get past the tree line, you are starting to get into basically a “biological desert.” You can think of it as sort of like the middle of the ocean, where there is a lot of wide open space, but just not much there to support a permanent population of animals. It’s not really so much due to the cold temperature of the mountains as it is all of the food resources and biomass are at the lower elevations in places like the forested valleys you mentioned. It wouldn’t make a lot of sense for animals to hang out in the upper reaches of the mountain where there are no trees or plants, and therefore no other wildlife.

The Yeti would be a big creature, with definite large energy requirements, something it is not going to find over the tree line. Pretty much short forays, for perhaps the reasons you mention, is all I would expect. Animals follow the food, and there just isn’t any way up in the treeless, snow swept upper reaches of the mountains.

So the image of the Yeti living in the barren, wind swept, snowy peaks is a cool one, but not very biologically plausible.

I would say that almost certainly Yeti habitat would be in the lower elevation forested areas and that this is the best bet for someone searching for them.

The topics are mostly Yeti, television series, MonsterQuest, Snowman expeditions, and related subjects here folks.

Once in a blue moon, it’s okay to go wild and rant, but when it becomes the pattern from comment section to new comment section, sorry, I have to put the brakes on it.

Thank you!