I said I hadn't caught up with the thread. I did have time to read the Wikipedia entry and the first thing that struck me was the altitude. There was a similar discussion on Mountain Goats.
I'm reminded of the Yeti expeditions that looked above treeline instead of in the montane forests.
Why is that? That is no way to describe Vancouver Island marmot habitat or the field research of it.
Iowa would not be my first place to look if I wanted to have a sighting. The whole state has fewer sightings than average counties in western Washington and Oregon. Why are people in Iowa less likely to lie, hallucinate and misidentify sasquatch-wise than people in the PNW?
Regardless, Iowa may not be your first choice but with the number of sightings reported (35 on BFRO's list) it doesn't make it a bad choice either, if you believe those reports.
For Vancouver Island we only need to look at what's habitat in the PNW.
I think you are incorrect on this point. We only need look at any place where bigfoot is consistently reported, not just the PNW.
Avalanche-prone slopes? Alpine meadows? Hardly.
Now that you've read the links you know that this is the VIM's natural habitat, not only habitat. Nor, by any means is it the only place that field researchers are scouring. Nevertheless, are you implying that sasquatch reports do not come from Alpine meadows and avalanche-prone slopes? Where was Glen Thomas' reported encounter again?
See above. I'll try to read the rest of the links when I have time. A predator can certainly move out of its preferred habitat for a short time in search of prey, but they don't live in an unsuitable niche.
In the links you'll see that much of the VIM predations were made by animals not out of their preferred habitat.
No I didn't. The stay put comparatively speaking in that one individual doesn't range over hundreds of miles. They stay in colonies. I would have had no problem locating Pikas in Washington once I found out what was making those weird calls, but casually spotting one is an occurence that happened to me exactly once. Pikas use boulders too.
Comparatively to what? They don't just stay put in their colonies, they move. When they do researchers observe very precisely where, when, and why they move. From the air and from the ground. You really should have a good look at the slideshow I linked.
Did any of your links say specifically Marmot researchers have found no evidence of sasquatches?
You'd think they'd let us know if they did.
Got your copy of Meldrum's book? On page 41 he talks about George Cuvier asserting in 1825 it was doubtful any new large four-footed animals remained to be discovered. Cuvier discovered the Red Panda in 1826. A series of discoveries followed as naturalists acted on travellers' tales and native knowlege of the local fauna.
Not yet. Hmmm... red pandas? That's nice. You'd think an 8ft bipedal primate roaming all over the continent and claimed to be seen by many people monthly would have been catalogued by now.
That's not the information I asked for.
Ooooh yes it is. You asked about the standard methods that new species are identified. It's all there. If you've changed your mind then I know you're more than resourceful enough to supply your own answers.
