The first in line or the last in line – these poor folks, according to David Paulidies, are the most likely to get snagged. He of course never comes out with it and says that Sasquatch probably did it! Anyway, that suggests ambush predator/opportunistic hunter. However, the question is is whether this is normal hunting behaviour for them (assuming they are responsible) or whether snagging humans is a fairly rare thing.

Things to consider:

1. Humans are not their normal prey food. Deer, elk and other animals most likely are. That does not mean to say that we do not appear on their menu at all, rather than we are further down the list.

2. If we are further down the list, then why would they take us? The most reasonable explanation would be for food. So, we can perhaps argue that if there is a shortage of their target prey species in their area, or they are unable to hunt effectively they may take us instead. This is consistent with the behaviour of other animals such as tigers who hunt people, usually women and children, when they become too old or sick to hunt. Often this is due to tooth loss.

3. Another possibility, given the probable high intelligence of Sasquatch (if it is indeed a human-unknown hominid hybrid as claimed by Dr. Melba Ketchum) is to perhaps assume that they have a sense of personal identity – a personality – and unique behaviour traits. They are effectively very human. They may suffer from human-type diseases, perhaps mental illness and this could could cause them to act aggressively. They may of course have a bad or dangerous character anyway – this is true of dogs or people. They may enjoy injuring or killing people. Another possibility is that they are highly territorial and they dislike people moving through their territory, especially if they are trying to create their own territories – it may annoy them. It may disrupt their movements. It may affect the movement of game, their prey. They may see us as a competitor (especially as they know we hunt the same prey species that they do, e.g. deer).

Not sure of anyone has done any analysis of Missing 411 cases where Sasquatch could be involved (berries, tracking dogs won’t track, weather coming in, etc). The first thing to do would be find these cases first.

1. Age of victims

2. Gender

3. Year/season

4. Location

If you have a cluster of disappearances of people within a given area (say a radius of 5-10 miles) over a 5-10 year period and at the times they went missing there was a shortage of game or disruption to their hunting activities (e.g. logging), this could mean that they were taking people for food. If there is no shortage of game or disruption to their hunting activities, then it probably means something else (see point 2). The possibilities are narrowed down. Correlation with periods when they perhaps move out to find their own territories or a mating season – periods when they perhaps become more aggressive – would also be interesting to consider. I know from his books that missing people are often associated with berries and berry picking, which suggest competition for food resources.

Much scope for useful analysis of the available information, I feel.