| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Sasquatch on Prince of Wales vs Kodiak Island | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 27 2005, 09:48 PM (3,572 Views) | |
| goldie | Oct 27 2005, 09:48 PM Post #1 |
|
Little Squatch
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Recently a question was posed on a forum regarding the number of sasquatch sightings on two Alaskan Island groups, Kodiak Island and Prince Wales Island and why there have been many sightings on Prince Wales Island but the poster had never heard of any sasquatch sightings on Kodiak Island and so posed the following three questions concerning why this might be. The poster made the assumptions that this discrepancy in sighting reports are either lies, mistaken identities (usually mistaken for bears), or real live sasquatches. He went on to ask the following three questions. 1. If sasquatches don’t exist, why is it that so many reports come from Prince of Wales Island and none from Kodiak? 2. If the reports from Prince of Wales are lies, why is such a higher percentage of the people of POW Island liars, and no liars at all live on Kodiak Island? 3. If these reports from POW are cases of people mistaking bears for sasquatches, why isn’t this happening on Kodiak Island, especially since the bears of Kodiak are (on average) more than twice the size of those on POW Island. I was intrigued by this question enough to do a little research. What I found I think points to the credibility of the historical record of the existence of sasquatches among the native peoples and current sightings and also gives us a few insights into what we have already discerned concerning sasquatch habitat and physical capabilities. One of the most important considerations into why we don’t have sasquatch sightings historically from the Kodiak Island Alutiiq peoples is that Kodiak Island is an archipelago which is a group of islands. These islands are separated from the mainland by Shelikof Strait which is 30 miles across. One of the things noted when the British came to these islands was that any occupation of the islands would have to have been done by boat. So the islands are basically inaccessible from the mainland unless you have a boat. This fact alone would make these island inhospitable to a group of sasquatches. Prince Wales Island on the other hand is close to the mainland so it would have been accessible in the first place for a group of sasquatch to move onto the island. The second consideration is the geography of the island itself. These are not wooded islands. The majority of the island coastal area is exposed bedrock. There are some forests however the majority of the island is open, grassy and brushy with muskegs and bogs. Exposed bedrock makes up 50 percent of the island. Hardly the type of environment one would find a sasquatch. In comparison Prince Wales Island is a very acidic cool Alaskan rainforest. Limestone and marble bedrock is present and form caves and Karst features on the island. Most of the drainage is underground and large and small sinkholes and caves (ideal hiding spots for a sasqautch) are common. Much of the island is characterized by steep, forested mountains. There are deep u shaped valleys with streams, lakes, saltwater straits and bays. The forest is made up of Sitka spruce and western hemlock with some western red and yellow cedar, alder and shore pine. This is favored and traditional habitat for a sasquatch. The island is also close to the mainland shore so it would be easy for a sasquatch to travel back and forth if necessary. Now let’s talk for a bit about the issue with the bears that was brought up. The bears on Kodiak Island are a unique and distinct subspecies from the brown bears on the mainland. They are unique due to the fact that they are genetically and physically isolated. Their skull shape differs slightly also from the mainland brown bears. Another fact to consider about the brown bears on Kodiak island and the other animals is that they are not unique to the island. The island was created as a refuge for these animals that were specifically placed on the island. One other important thing to consider is the speed of the brown bear and the black bear which is found on Prince of Wales Island. The brown bears can attain speeds of up to 35 miles an hour and the black bears that are half the size of the brown bear can run 30 miles per hour. The size of the brown bear and the speed of the brown bear is a very close match to a sasquatch and therefore would be strong competition for them for food. Black bears also favor forested areas just as the sasquatch do. If there are stories of Sasquatch on Kodiak Island I would be very skeptical of their truthfulness. I think it is exciting that there is a difference here because if there were an equal number of sightings given the islands distance from the mainland and the geography I would be concerned that we should question the historical legends about the sasquatch passed down from the locals on Prince of Wales Island. Both the Alutiiq and the Haida and other tribes shared their myths somewhat. |
| http://spaces.msn.com/members/goldiesblog/ | |
![]() |
|
| Dudlow | Oct 28 2005, 05:56 PM Post #2 |
|
Little Squatch
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hello, goldie. I also read the other forum info, and you've explained it above pretty well. There is one problem with your explanation, however. If you have a look at an atlas and find Prince of Wales Island, you will see that immediately south are the Queen Charlotte Islands; which are well over 50 miles at sea away from the mainland and any other close islands. But squatchy is well established there in the Queen Charlottes. A 50-mile swim is not a barrier to squatchy, so a roughly 30-mile swim from the mainland to Kodiak Island should not be a barrier there either. That still leaves the Kodiak and Alaska Peninsula 'BF-Free-Zone' a bit of a mystery.Dudlow |
![]() |
|
| goldie | Oct 28 2005, 10:59 PM Post #3 |
|
Little Squatch
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi Dudlow, I'm reading a book right now called "The Golden Spruce" (excellent book about the logging and such in this area) and the Queen Charlotte Islands are mentioned alot in the book so it got me to thinking and now I have more of this mystery to unravel. I think it is fascinating. Will let you know what I find out about the Queen Charlotte Islands. Geography and wildlife and such might be important to a choice of residence for squatchy. (like that term) Will get back to ya.
|
| http://spaces.msn.com/members/goldiesblog/ | |
![]() |
|
| goldie | Oct 29 2005, 12:24 AM Post #4 |
|
Little Squatch
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A brief lookup on the net tells me what I already knew. Queen Charlotte is an island of trees. This would be squatchy paradise. Is there another specific area that does not have any sasquatch reports that is populated enough so that there would be reports? Thanks |
| http://spaces.msn.com/members/goldiesblog/ | |
![]() |
|
| Dudlow | Oct 29 2005, 09:14 AM Post #5 |
|
Little Squatch
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi, goldie. Offhand, I know of no other areas where this has been noticed. Huntster's revelation on the other forum concerning the 'Sasquatch-free-Zone' is indeed unique, as far as I know. I was surprised to learn of it. Most of the reports I have read from the Queen Charlottes are from the local fishermen's settlements; and there have been quite a lot of sightings going all the way back to John Green's first books in the late 1960s. A lot of squatchies have been seen both on the islands and swimming in the ocean; even climbing right up onto the fishermen's nets and terrifying the poor guys!My take on the Kodiak Island and Alaskan Peninsula thing is that either (1) lack of population in certain areas prevents sightings or (2) BF never migrated there. (I outlined my reasons for suggesting this on the other forum so I won't restate them here.) Personally I don't think the people in that area would tend to lie about sightings, but that's just my view. Also, the book you are reading is supposed to be fantastic. I heard a CBC radio interview and documentary by the author of the book. What a fascinating mystery in a fascinating land! How DID he meet his mysterious end? Enjoy. Dudlow |
![]() |
|
| goldie | Oct 29 2005, 12:14 PM Post #6 |
|
Little Squatch
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi Dudlow, Just finished reading the book. It was well worth the hardback price. And you will just need to go get a copy to find out what happens. You know what I'm really curious about now is the dates of the sightings from this area. Do you know if they are more historical sightings or recent? With all the logging that has been done on Haida it would be interesting to know how the logging affected the sasquatch habitation in these areas. I'll tell you after reading that book I don't want to buy anything wood related now. It was truly a scary eye opener to see what we are doing to our planet. goldie
|
| http://spaces.msn.com/members/goldiesblog/ | |
![]() |
|
| Dudlow | Oct 29 2005, 02:20 PM Post #7 |
|
Little Squatch
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi, goldie. I looked up the references to the B.C. Coastal islands in my 3 John Green books from 1968, 1970 and 1973.There are at least twenty (probably more) reports from the Klemtu, Bella Coola and Queen Charlotte Islands areas; but because of the age of the books, the reports naturally all occurred before those publication dates. According to Green about half were by native peoples and half by non-natives. I have read probably a dozen or more recent reports over the past 2 1/2 years that would have come from any of the 50 or more web sites that I browse from time to time; and truthfully, the more contemporary reports could have come from any of those web sources; but I have read these reports and I know BF are still being reported. I have also read that most folks up that-a-ways no longer pay much attention to them anymore, they're so commonly seen, especially among the natives. Back in the late 60s and 70s people (outsiders) like John Green, Bob Titmus, Rene Dahinden and others began asking questions; so a lot of local interest was stirred up back then. Less so today, so there are fewer reports. That is one of the biggest drawbacks to current research. We have no comprehensive bibliography of collated reports, sightings and other research matrerials. There are at least a 100 sites to search on the net and 'Googling' just doesn't cut it for the kind of referenced research we need access to. By the way if you've never see a clearcut take a drive up Vancouver Island to Port Alberni or north of Courtenay, B.C., where Dr. John Bindernagel lives. Or if you're in Ontario, drive north of Smooth Rock Falls towards the Fraserdale dam. These areas are clearcut like the craters of the moon for as far as the eye can see. It's enough to make you question mankind's sanity! Dudlow |
![]() |
|
| Belle | Nov 13 2005, 12:13 AM Post #8 |
|
Belle of Texas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One must remember, what humans call paradise, animals might find it hell on earth.
With what we consider prime areas of Sasquatch, turns out to be nothing at all. I also think not all of the earth is covered in Sassy Territory... One would need to scope out the island(s) in person and do research to see if it at one time it supported a large Ape. I have never been out the states to even know what these islands look like... I know polar bears are known to swim many miles for prey... Don't know if the bigfella would waste time and energy on prey that may or may not be there. Nice thread. Belle |
|
Mary Who?..... VolSquatch BFF "Everybody has a right to their opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value."....Rene Dahinden http://s10.invisionfree.com/belles_chatroom/ | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Independent Research · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)



Hello, goldie. I also read the other forum info, and you've explained it above pretty well. There is one problem with your explanation, however. If you have a look at an atlas and find Prince of Wales Island, you will see that immediately south are the Queen Charlotte Islands; which are well over 50 miles at sea away from the mainland and any other close islands. But squatchy is well established there in the Queen Charlottes. A 50-mile swim is not a barrier to squatchy, so a roughly 30-mile swim from the mainland to Kodiak Island should not be a barrier there either. That still leaves the Kodiak and Alaska Peninsula 'BF-Free-Zone' a bit of a mystery.
You know what I'm really curious about now is the dates of the sightings from this area. Do you know if they are more historical sightings or recent? With all the logging that has been done on Haida it would be interesting to know how the logging affected the sasquatch habitation in these areas. I'll tell you after reading that book I don't want to buy anything wood related now. It was truly a scary eye opener to see what we are doing to our planet. goldie

9:32 AM Jul 11