Jump to content

Bigfoot caloric intake.


norseman

Recommended Posts

http://www.world-builders.org/lessons/less/biomes/annutrita.html

 

I estimate that a 800 lbs mammal is going to need roughly 8800 calories per day to maintain its body weight.

 

A 400 lbs silverback gorilla eats roughly 40 lbs of vegetation (plus a small percentage of insect protein) per day.

 

What would the caloric intake of say a family of 5 Sasquatch be per day? Approaching 50k right? Or in vegetation consumed terms it's right about (80 lbs or double gorilla daily intake X 5) 400 lbs per day per family troupe.

 

Thats a lot of veggies.

 

What if the troupe killed a whitetail deer?

 

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/wild-game-whitetail-deer-venison-328430317

 

4 oz of meat equals 170 calories, so 1 lbs equals 680 calories. So a 200 lbs deer represents 136000 calories, not counting the loss of bone and or antler weight. 8800 cal X 5 equals 44000 calories. So a average sized deer represents roughly 3 days worth of meals for a family of five.

 

Thats roughly 121 deer per year or 24333 lbs of annual meat consumed.

 

Check my numbers guys.....

 

In the Virunga range trackers follow mountain gorillas around by the swath of vegetational destruction they leave behind. These gorillas are like lawn mowers constantly moving along the mountain side. Family troupes up to 20 all feeding together. They also recieve some protein eating insects.

 

Of course gorillas can forage all year long in Africa. North America is a different story is most regions minus some gulf states and west coast. So if your caching food stores all summer for the winter months? A conservative estimate minus spoilage and increased caloric winter need, would be doubling the daily 400 lbs of vegetation collected to 800 lbs per family. 

 

Gorillas spend 60 % of their day simply chewing their food. That doesn't leave a lot of time to sleep, mate, play, teach babes and collect food for winter months for a Bigfoot.

 

Meat must play a heavy role in winter time. But the snow is crunchy, the background is white, the leaves have fallen. Not good ambushing. So they must either store plant material away or hibernate. But Apes don't hibernate that we are aware of.

 

Anyhow just some crunching data in my mind tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good questions and points that must be considered. Being an omnivore would certainly give anything an advantage. Living in a southern climate would as well, much less snow or rivers/lakes freezing up. Further north you go it gets tougher.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norse

I have heard of similar estimates. If the creatures do exist it stands to reason they would of course live off the land as you described . Near water with fish and abundance of aquatic life. Food sources is one of the key reason I have always doubted their existence especially in places where the sources are limited.

 

It is more logical they would reside in places where large bears eat and near water. From what I understand that is in fact where most credible sightings occur.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we split plant/Meat into 50/50 %

 

We are left with 40 lbs of vegetation per Bigfoot per day and roughly 13.5 lbs of venison per day to get to 8800 calories per day.

 

Thats a healthy appetite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, based on your estimates ,are you inclined to think this supports the possibility of the creature in abundance, non existent or extremely rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are dealing with something more rare than a Grizzly bear in the lower 48. I don't think family units stick together much unless it's seasonal in good times.

 

They have to disperse to live off of the land. Native Americans could stick to one spot, but they farmed. 

 

It also makes me question like in the northern Rockies how they cope in winter. Your either living on a large food cache or your sleeping with occasional hunting forays close to the den.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you and I would agree if they do exist. They would have to be much more rare than a bear.

I think they would have to migrate to warmer climates in the cold winter. Disperse as you said .

Perhaps, that could explain some of the multiple sightings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

migration routes works but that should expose you to more humans. For example any mugwamp leaving the cascades for the coast has to go right thru interstate 5 And the burbs......

 

should be be tons of sightings as you say.

 

they could follow mtn ranges I guess staying hidden. But not a lot of feed or cover in the alpine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, norseman said:

They have to disperse to live off of the land. Native Americans could stick to one spot, but they farmed. 

 

Some tribes did but the plains tribes were nomads roaming over a wide range. The only time they really stayed in one area long was when they set up winter camps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all plains tribes were nomads either. Many tribes lived in earthen mounds and farmed along the Missouri River.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, norseman said:

Not all plains tribes were nomads either. Many tribes lived in earthen mounds and farmed along the Missouri River.

 

Yeah, Mandan, Hidasta, some smaller tribes. Lakota, Cheyenne, Comanche etc. were big tribes though and covered wide areas following buffalo herds.

 

My point was simply that they ranged a wide area in search of food, which is something a BF would have to do in certain areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron
12 hours ago, norseman said:

migration routes works but that should expose you to more humans. For example any mugwamp leaving the cascades for the coast has to go right thru interstate 5 And the burbs......

 

should be be tons of sightings as you say.

 

they could follow mtn ranges I guess staying hidden. But not a lot of feed or cover in the alpine.

The Cascades normally have a snow line only down to 2000 and most of the time above 3000 for most of the winter.     The valleys there are as temperate as the coast.    Other than some need to migrate for seafood I don't see much need for a migration to the coast.    Often the temperatures in the mountains are warmer in the winter than where I live at 300 feet.     When we have the lowest temperatures of the winter at my house and fog,   an inversion is in place, and temperatures in the mountains may be 20 degrees warmer and sunny.      During periods of precipitation,   in the winter, the coast is pretty much the same temperature as the mountain valleys on the West flank of the Cascades.     East of the Cascades is colder so if any migration happens, it might just be to get on the West side and warmer temperatures.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok so a population of 1000 adult Bigfeets eating only deer would require 23,617 deer per year at 8800 calories per day each.

 

Sounds like a lot. But Idaho's deer population is 200,000 and the US population is 30 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem that I have with this theory is if sasquatch where predators  (even 25% of their diet), then we would know a lot more about them

Surely as ranchers an sheep herders moved into their area, sasquatch would avail themselves of the relatively easy to get food supply 

Since there doesn't seem to be a long history of sasquatch and rancher/farmer conflict, I doubt that sasquatch would be more than an occasional hunter of big game

They may be a scavenger of big game and possibly hunt small game and fish.

G. Blacki is thought to have had a diet similar to the giant panda, so if sasquatch is a desendant of G. Blacki perhaps it's diet is similar to a black bear or even a moose or elk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...