Twist

Bigfoot range and population speculation thread.

175 posts in this topic

I agree. Choke/pinch points are always something to look for on highway maps too. Large culverts passing underneath major highways that connect wild areas in either side are good locations to monitor. F&W do monitor these places also so checking their websites can sometimes be beneficial as those agencies do sometimes post pics on their websites of animals using the passageways. My thoughts? If BF exists and are in those habitats then F&S must have a photo or two of the creatures. I would also think that bridges over ravines would be good pinch points that a reclusive animal like Sasquatch would prefer to pass beneath as opposed to crossing the road above. Especially females with young ones in tow.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the point I was making with regard to water sources in arid areas.  

 

You have to find the points that they either have to visit or cannot avoid.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's again, a very good point indeed. I think you wisely brought that up in the discussion regarding BF in the Desert Palm Springs area. And it makes perfect sense from both the aspects of available water for drinking as well as predation. Along those lines I am also thinking of remote accesses to underground aquifers as well since that particular area is an ancient seabed and so could be riddled with holes in the ground. All of the above ground watering for just the golf courses has to collect/percolate somewhere, too, beyond simply evaporating away. Gravity will do its work. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think water is key to narrowing down likely BF contact even in the PNW.       My summer contacts have been near running water.      High seasonal springs dry up during the summer,   snow fields are only present on the higher volcanic peaks,  so something that would be considered an omnivore needs water year round.      While it is everywhere in the winter and spring,   there are certainly fewer areas where to find water in the summer and fall.      While I am sure BF would prefer to be high, where the temperatures are not as hot,   water may force them lower than they like to be in the dry months.    However,     there could be snow runoff on the North side of the higher terrain that has water and cooler temperatures both.        But places like that are going to be hard to get to by humans.     The so called Indian Pits on Silver Star mountain might be an answer to what they eat in the high country when they are trying to stay cool.     Even though the Forest Service assigns them to the Indians, the Native Americans say they have no tribal memory or oral history that mentions them or their use.      The "Oregon Bigfoot Highway" book theorizes that those sorts of pits in rocky areas might be a source of  rodent food for BF in that something seems to be moving large rocks around in the pits.     Rocks too large for humans to lift.      When the huckleberries are in season,   bear and presumably BF move to find them.    That convergence might be a choke point to explore too.    So I think both food and water may require some seasonal movement by BF to stay near both.    Running water near plentiful huckleberry patches might be just the place to look.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think that water is a big factor with BF here in Florida most of what I have found has been in the proximity of water !  PNW seems to big to narrow down to a place that you might get a picture or a sighting ?  good luck ! 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Water in the PNW may be more precious than most people believe during the dry season.    Some localities here have only had a trace of rain in the last 70+ days.  That is not true in most parts of the country that are subject to thunderstorms during the summer months.     Normally the rain does not begin again until into September.  Anything in the woods that drinks water has to be near a water source during these dry months.     So that eliminates a big chunk of forest lands to likely have a population of BF because of lack of water availability during the dry season.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is dated, as I first wrote this back in 2014, but ...

 

Old Slippery Skin's territory, circa 1810, covered approximately 900 square miles.

 

The Litchfield Monster's territory (possibly a hoax), circa 1895, covered approximately 145 square miles and locals reported that the main creature was part of a family of three.

 

If you go to the Northeast sightings, Vermont thread, my tract "Bigfoot in the Northeast" includes maps, breakdowns of territories, and an accounting of physically distinctive Bigfoots in many parts of eastern New York.  For example, the vast majority of encounters in east-central New York occur on the roughly 900 square mile plateau/saddle that links the Taconic and Green Mountains - a saddle that happens to include Castleton, NY and Rutland, VT.

 

Unfortunately, while I've been out in the woods hiking/exploring more since then, I've had no more luck encountering anything - even bear.  I'm not sure I'd encounter a cow at a dairy farm the way things go.

 

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I thought that there was a thread on "Does Bigfoot Migrate?" but if so it's been closed down or I can't find it.  In any event, here is statistical evidence that suggests that the answer is yes.  (Sorry about the size.) 

Encounters%20by%20Lat%20and%20Season_zps

This is a statistical breakout of the 232 encounters (howls, tracks, sightings) I've identified to date in New England and Canada east of the St. Lawrence River.  There's actually over 300, but when you take out the ones that are known (or very likely to be) hoaxes and those without useful data as to location or season (or even year), you're left with only 232.

 

The "N41," "N42.20," etc., refers to latitude.  From the southern tip of Connecticutt (N41) to the northenmost tip of my section of Canada (N47; yes there is a big chunk more in Quebec and New Brunswick, but there are only two reported encounters north of lat N47) measures 6 degrees or a little over 480 400 surface miles.  I broke this area into five bands of 1.20 degrees (roughly 80 miles) and broke out the encounters north of each listed latitude line, but south of the next latitude line.  What you  end up with, in looking at the data, is that the further north you go, the fewer encounters that are reported in the winter.  

I myself was curious as to why there was a seasonally consistent number of encounters between latitude N43.40 and N44.60 and also as to that number did not drop off as steeply as the other groups.  

 

There is a remarkably logical answer based on geography and elevation.  I'll pay for a year's premium membership to anyone who reads my mind by naming two points that define that geographic corridor and why its significant. 

Edited by Trogluddite
To correct the distance from 480 to 400
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me - make that "I'll pay for a year's premium membership to the FIRST person who posts correctly the geographic corridor and it's geographic significance to bigfoot encounters."  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to answer but I'll leave it be so maybe a newbie can benefit :) Nice work Trog!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^

Actually, no, there west and south of this data set.  I figure a month or two of playing with my New England and Canada stats looking for questions raised in other threads, then start auditing and adding to New York.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LG is

13 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

I myself was curious as to why there was a seasonally consistent number of encounters between latitude N43.40 and N44.60 and also as to that number did not drop off as steeply as the other groups.  

 

I understand it may be west but doesn't LG run between N43.41 (southern point) and N43.85 (northern point) which is within your latitude range.

 

Edited by wiiawiwb
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly,  but there's an area wholly within that given latitude band that is also  distinctive from an elevation factor.  To be fair, it stretches into eastern New York, so it is slightly outside this data set, which ends at the New York/Vermont border.  But there will be a very natural extension once I start working on New York data again. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appalachian trail for most of the east coast.  Not sure that far North.  Main E_W corridors down here are along the rivers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites