FarArcher

Do You Have a BF "Honey Hole?"

102 posts in this topic

I wouldn't be too sure their impact is measurable and detectable on an environment. Obviously they would eat, but what they eat and where could be quite diverse. Add in the fact that what they eat now is attributed to either some other predator or a natural mortality rate of it's prey. The rate of reproduction of it's prey could be skewed by their presence as well, all hidden in the data, because we don't account for them being there in the first place. I don't believe they would have to ravage a particular area to stay within a 100 square mile range which is only 10x10 , particularly if the area is uninhabitable by people like in flood zones or riparian forests along waterways down here.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need elk deer etc. Large game mammals to survive as a core protein item. They cannot exceed the density of game mammals per BF per square mile etc. Its a mathematical number, as are all preditor to prey ratios. Actually I think it's a standard equation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hogs could sure fill any voids in the BF diet plan down here in the south. I just don't feel that anyone could keep an accurate counting of how many were eaten by BF or their actual numbers. I'm sure their are estimates that could be made for BF's caloric intake. You could take a guess at what a small unit of them would eat seasonally.

 

"Honey hole" would simply be another word for a place where they have everything at arms reach for sustenance and hydration, while maintaning low human intrusion , plenty of cover and with numerous evasion pathways. Also known as an Oasis. This is ofcoarse if BF doen't find another strategy useful living just on the edge of human habitation and leeching off our crops or discarded foods.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But evidence shows that Bigfoot does live in some areas that is sparse on different types of food. We know they will eat meat on occasion, but they can also survive on many other things. We have no clue how they digest food or what they can actually eat. Maybe they have stomach acids like dogs, where they can eat almost anything and not get sick. I remember reports of them eating bark off a tree, they must have a strong stomach to let a big pile of bark sit in their stomach for awhile to digest. Roots, road kill, dead fish floating in a slough, bugs, ect are all easy foods. Not sure about out west, but here in the south there is enough opossums for a Bigfoot family to live quite comfortably all year long. Not hard for a five year old human child to run down a slow opossum. They are so many of them and coons, they have no natural predators down here other than yotes and cars. I have entire families of coons and opossums that raid my garbage cans every night. Maybe they can eat a good meal and not have to eat for a while. Maybe they digest their food slowly over a period of time so they don't actually have to eat every day...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I copied this over from my caloric intake thread:

 

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are calculating that all BF are 800lbs, you are likely way off. A honey hole / Oasis will have all sizes and ages. 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would Bigfoot possibly cache acorns, nuts etc for eating when  food resources are diminished?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What do you think an average adult would weigh? And how many in a family group?

 

In order to put pen to paper we are going to have come up with estimates that include averages.

Edited by norseman
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be tough for BF to sustain on acorns in the PNW     There are not a whole lot of oak trees West of the Cascades there to produce them.    There is a smidgen of evidence that BF may have some weaving skills.     Most seen in the form of art but certainly that could carry over to baskets which could be used to store food.       Not many claim to have been in a BF den or cave that lived to tell about it.   Who knows what might be stashed in them?     On the other hand there are steelhead and salmon runs that produce fish protein several times a year in many rivers.    Deer move around but are always present in the region.      Rodents are available year round.    Berries are present from early summer to late fall.   Perhaps they could be gathered and allowed to dry.   Native Americans had numerous root food sources which I suppose BF could collect also.       There are some reports of seen BF pulling roots.     Most of the Native American knowledge of these food sources has been list to modern civilization.    Perhaps by reading old settlers journals we could get an idea of what used to be food sources for humans in the area.   Certainly I doubt modern Native Americans have any special knowledge of that.     Most are even loosing their own languages.      Human history is pretty much what is left of tremendous amounts of lost knowledge.    Humans are terrible at keeping history.      When we conquer a rival we destroy their histories. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, norseman said:

What do you think an average adult would weigh? And how many in a family group?

 

In order to put pen to paper we are going to have come up with estimates that include averages.

 

I'm sure I'm not thinking they are as large and nomadic as you are. The less they have to move around, the  lower the caloric intake needed. This does put a greater emphasis on hiding and sneaking around human intruders, which I think they are better at than the passing enthusiast would give them credit for.

 

Adults 6 to 7 feet tall, family groups maybe ranging from 3 to 6 members.

Edited by southernyahoo
to give some numbers
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm needing weight estimates based on the Gorilla formula of eating 10% of body mass each day.

 

A 400 lbs Gorilla eats 40 lbs of vegetation each day or 10%.

 

And I am fine with Bigfoot being a super woods ninja. But I'm not fine with people not noticing hundreds and hundreds of lbs of vegetation stripped from the forest each day nor the large amount of waste left behind. Sneaky or not, nothing can hide forage sign. The biomass that is removed cannot be put back, it's gone.

 

Same goes for hunting. A family unit will be eating 2-3 deer sized animals per week. It won't take long to notice the mass amounts of deer bones piling up in an area. And I wouldn't think it would escape wildlife biologists for long either. Especially if an area is not known to harbor large predators like bear or cougar.

 

I personally think the Gorilla estimates are low. North America is not as warm as Africa as a whole, it's not as lush vegetation wise and Sasquatch is reported to be bigger than a Gorilla. This continent is a tougher place to make a living with the possible exception of Florida or Central America. Which means they cannot stay in one place too long without stripping it bare of flora or fauna resources. 

 

 

Edited by norseman
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, norseman said:

I'm needing weight estimates based on the Gorilla formula of eating 10% of body mass each day.

 

A 400 lbs Gorilla eats 40 lbs of vegetation each day or 10%.

 

And I am fine with Bigfoot being a super woods ninja. But I'm not fine with people not noticing hundreds and hundreds of lbs of vegetation stripped from the forest each day nor the large amount of waste left behind. Sneaky or not, nothing can hide forage sign. The biomass that is removed cannot be put back, it's gone.

 

Same goes for hunting. A family unit will be eating 2-3 deer sized animals per week. It won't take long to notice the mass amounts of deer bones piling up in an area. And I wouldn't think it would escape wildlife biologists for long either. Especially if an area is not known to harbor large predators like bear or cougar.

 

I personally think the Gorilla estimates are low. North America is not as warm as Africa as a whole, it's not as lush vegetation wise and Sasquatch is reported to be bigger than a Gorilla. This continent is a tougher place to make a living with the possible exception of Florida or Central America. Which means they cannot stay in one place too long without stripping it bare of flora or fauna resources. 

 

 

 

Perhaps you shouldn't be using the Gorilla formula. We don't see such mass foraging therefore they aren't so reliant upon vegatation for food. If nothing was off the menu, how well could you spot their feeding sign?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, southernyahoo said:

Perhaps you shouldn't be using the Gorilla formula. We don't see such mass foraging therefore they aren't so reliant upon vegatation for food.

 

This could be somewhat misleading if the truth is that we don't see much mass foraging because population are low. I think this is a point Norseman has been trying to make for some time now and I am inclined to think the same. He has cited numerous reasons for thinking along this line. Even if BF foraged on have the percentage- more like 5%- a 600 pounder would still be leaving about 30 lbs. of waste behind (see what I did there? ;) ) Add to that all the other foragers and there should be a lot of sign from nibbling fauna....and scat. And/or a lot of odd carcass kill sites where animals like deer have been mangled.

 

It doesn't seem to be the case even in the Olympics of Washington state where populations are thought to be thriving. Or in the Ouichitas, or in the Ocala National Forest, or in Salt Fork, or in the Smokey Mountains...........you get the idea. Dead animals, lots of foraging, lots of scat, lots of sightings, tons of footprints, hair everywhere, running from a fire........IDK. Sure doesn't look like tens of thousands to me- at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, southernyahoo said:

 

Perhaps you shouldn't be using the Gorilla formula. We don't see such mass foraging therefore they aren't so reliant upon vegatation for food. If nothing was off the menu, how well could you spot their feeding sign?

 

Ive looked at it from both sides. See my original thread. A Neanderthal diet was almost exclusively meat of 5000 calories a day. We find "sign" of their feeding 50,000 years later. If Neanderthals were the size of Bigfoot? How much meat would they be eating per day? Plus storing away for winter? 

 

What model should we be using? I don't think there is a model where giant ape men in large groups staying in a "honey hole" and are escaping detection for very long. They are going to be shoving some serious groceries down their gullet. Meat, meat and veggies or just veggies.....take your pick. They possess a big big powerful expensive body. And a supposed bigger brain size than a Gorilla to boot. Expensive means lots o food.

 

I don't know where you live but where I live food isn't easy to come by in a mountainous coniferous forest at 49 degrees north. Im just looking for answers.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good video of Gorillas foraging...

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites