norseman

Bigfoot caloric intake.

157 posts in this topic

Good questions.   Also, how long is a particular "home" used, and when?    In my area the reports, though somewhat sparse, suggest the are in places with specific characteristics at a given time each year.    It's not "predictable" but it's far from random.    For instance, almost all of the "group activity" I've noted has been within a square mile or so and always the same time of year.    There must be a reason.   The group activity suggests I must be close to "home", close enough to get in the way somewhat frequently.   So .. within the area I'm looking, I need to figure out that spot.  

 

The season there is just starting up.   I'm planning to spend the weekend there, then more time if I can manage it, for the next 4-5 weeks.    After that, it seems to die off.   They leave, go wherever is next, or something.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How big do you estimate these groups to be?

 

And good luck.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So would you speculate that maybe every fall let's say, a family group congregates in a certain are for say 2 weeks?  After that 2 weeks they disperse and all head out in different directions?  I don't know, just throwing darts here.....  Maybe this is a breeding and passing of information meeting.   I remember reading somewhere if NA speaking of BF meetings.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norseman - 1) 5-6, 2) 3 or more, 3) don't know, but I think a bigger group though only 2 vocalized, and 4) 3.

 

Twist - something like that.   I suspect they are somewhat grouped most of the time in family units or extended family units.   Maybe siblings plus offspring.    I think this might be a bigger gathering, "tribe" or something on that scale, maybe bigger.   I'll speculate the purpose is mating ... bigger group avoids incest and genetic problems.   Depending on the gestation period, the young might be born then too.   Being a little bigger than us, maybe a little longer gestation period ... could be a year.   Wild guess.   If so, that would also bring more hunters together to work cooperatively to feed the group.   

 

Just speculation though.   That's the kind of thing I'd like to find out.   Carefully!

 

MIB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the whole large predator concept is incorrect 

Until someone can explain why an animal that supposedly hunts all manner of big game, has consistently left livestock alone (with possible rare exceptions)

An 800 lbs sasquatch eating a similar diet to a moose or elk, would leave a similar ecological footprint

An 800 lbs omnivore that primarily ate vegitation supplemented with small game, coastal wildlife (fish, shellfish ect) and scavaging big game would probably leave an ecological footprint similar to a bear

 

The only way "avoidance" would work as a compelling reason on why lifestock is left alone, is if you are giving them human level intelligence and reasoning ability

 

Many sasquatch sightings are reported near developed areas, and if these reports are to be believed then we need to re-examine what we think they eat

I live close to the birthplace of the modern sasquatch legend, in this area we have a lot of corn crops, blueberry crops, dairy farms and all sorts of other farms

However what we don't have is a tradition of crop raiding or livestock poaching 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I think if you had large groups of them in there raiding farms you would notice real quick. But if they were as smart as a human, then why wouldn't it be the Sasquatches farm with humans hiding out in the mountains?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible that the amount of food is less than what you estimate. Bigfoot might be 600 pounds. Gorillas eat large quantities because it's low calorie. For example, nuts and berries might give more calories per unit of volume. That said, your point is very valid. Even a 600 pound animal is still large and we are talking about a population not an individual. I don't post much but have mentioned in the past that I think grizzly bears are a good surrogate for estimating bigfoot natural history. I would think food habits and population densities would be similar. In the lower 48 states I would think bigfoot densities would be higher because there are not that many grizzlies to compete with. I can't see what would limit their numbers to be less than grizzly bear densities. Since apes don't hibernate, maybe high juvenile mortality in the winter? I would think bigfoot would have to migrate to warmer areas during the winter and up their meat intake then as plant foods would be more limited.   Granted my knowledge of Northwest U.S. flora is very limited. It's possible they have seasonal migrations to various food sources. Salmon runs would be to good a protein source to pass up. So if the animals are there we should see sign and we don't. They'll need to eat large amounts of food on a daily basis and there should be some evidence. Grizzly bears are pretty easy to document when they are around. Techniques that work for other animals (e.g. trail cameras, dna from hair and scat) don't seem to work for bigfoot.

 

Very good thread, thank you for starting this! Also thank you for looking at bigfoot as a "normal" animal.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we can compare the diet of a gorilla with that of Sasquatch.  The gorillas are all eating the same vegetation, sort of a restricted diet if we compared it to humans.  Pound for pound, small game provides pretty high caloric value.  Sasquatch could be eating squirrels, possums, rabbits, birds, fish etc. to supplement the occasional deer that they're able to take down.  In winter, bears would be easy pickings along with anything else that hibernates.

 

With the variety of different foods Sasquatch allegedly eats, I'm not sure we'd notice.  Plus anything Sasquatch eats, we'd likely attribute it to other carnivores.  Or in the case of crops, whatever other natural animal eats that particular crop. 

 

I think if your speculation is correct about how much they need to eat, the bigger question is why aren't we finding the scat that would have to go with it?  Whether it's an animal or hominid, by the laws of nature, it has to go somewhere and we should be finding a lot more scat.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MagniAesir said:

I think the whole large predator concept is incorrect 

 

An 800 lbs omnivore that primarily ate vegetation supplemented with small game, coastal wildlife (fish, shellfish etc) and scavenging big game would probably leave an ecological footprint similar to a bear

 

 

This.  Digging into rotten wood for grubs is not as sexy as running down ungulates, but oh well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grubs, seeds, vegetation, fruits, grass roots, nuts, fish, small rodents, scavenged kills and carrion.

 

What an Australopithecus would eat or early human (even relatively late human).

 

You notice most full on mammalian predators are cat family, dog family, bears can be carnivorous but prefer grubs, even from kills. they let them rot and then eat the maggots.

 

Ape family not so much, only man with recent hunting technology and stone blades.

 

One reason is you can't eat into a fresh kill with vegetation grinding teeth.

 

As a science experiment you could try it and report the results here.

 

Even the steak you eat with a knife has had to rot for several days to make it palatable.

 

Your ancestors ate carrion but not fresh meat. they were omnivores, not carnivores.

 

You would have to postulate how a bigfoot developed into a carnivore from an omnivore and then prove the postulate for it to be accepted as a fact and not merely assertion.

 

However, what I state above are facts.

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our molar cusps have become much more sharp than say Lucy. Because our diets became much more meat orientated as we pushed into cold regions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apex predator does not necessarily mean strict carnivore, it just means when they hunt, they're the top of the food chain.    Bigfoot seems to be both an apex predator and a decided omnivore.   Kinda like us.  

 

Or black bears: though very much omnivorous, when they go into predator mode, I don't want to be there.   I've seen them not just hunt deer, but hunt deer as a "pack" ... well, as a coordinated family unit ... two cubs pushing a doe in to an ambush where momma bear was waiting.   Chilling.

 

MIB

Edited by MIB
more words, for clarity
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cryptic Megafauna said:

Grubs, seeds, vegetation, fruits, grass roots, nuts, fish, small rodents, scavenged kills and carrion.

 

What an Australopithecus would eat or early human (even relatively late human).

 

You notice most full on mammalian predators are cat family, dog family, bears can be carnivorous but prefer grubs, even from kills. they let them rot and then eat the maggots.

 

 

It seems that in the past there were several species Australopithecines. Check this out out about Australopithecus sediba:

 

Finally, the researchers scraped off some of the dental plaque from two teeth of one of the known A. sediba skeletons. In the plaque were plant phytoliths, microscopic silica structures that form in plant cells. Different plants have distinctively shaped phytoliths, allowing scientists to use the structures to infer what ancient animals were eating. The team found 38 phytoliths, the first ever recovered from an early hominid. The phytoliths show A. sediba ate some water-loving C3 grasses and sedges as well as fruit, leaves and bark or wood. It’s the first evidence of a hominid eating wood, the researchers report in Nature.


It looks like we can add wood to the list. Here's the link to the article:  Australopithecus sediba: The Wood-Eating Hominid
 
 
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wood you say?  Alright I'm off to start my human/beaver Theory thread!!  Jk. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, WesT said:

 

It seems that in the past there were several species Australopithecines. Check this out out about Australopithecus sediba:

 

Finally, the researchers scraped off some of the dental plaque from two teeth of one of the known A. sediba skeletons. In the plaque were plant phytoliths, microscopic silica structures that form in plant cells. Different plants have distinctively shaped phytoliths, allowing scientists to use the structures to infer what ancient animals were eating. The team found 38 phytoliths, the first ever recovered from an early hominid. The phytoliths show A. sediba ate some water-loving C3 grasses and sedges as well as fruit, leaves and bark or wood. It’s the first evidence of a hominid eating wood, the researchers report in Nature.


It looks like we can add wood to the list. Here's the link to the article:  Australopithecus sediba: The Wood-Eating Hominid
 
 

Nut grasses where a prime food source for them, woody sedges? Still a grass.

So a nut grass is a grass root nut ball type of thingy.

So I forgot to add that, roots, to the list.

Bark is new, but a human survival source in lean times are various barks and leaves.

Can I recommend a fine birch bark spaghetti confetti?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites