norseman

Bigfoot winter time survival

128 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, NathanFooter said:

 In April things are starting to grow, ungulates and other critters are hugging lower to get the buds and early greens.     

 

Redbone, can you get a whole 12 month graph data for elevation and time of year ?    I would love to see what you got.

I thought that's what I did. I have the data but you may have to clarify what you want to see.

At the moment I lack time. I'm on the road this week. I'll be all over Chicago tomorrow so I'll have to be on the lookout for Urban Bigfoot!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chew on these people., all from the SSR of course.

#Sasquatch #Squatchermetrics -

Reports from Home/Property Owners -

Total Reports :
WA : Spring 12%, Summer 33%, Fall 26%, Winter 29%.

Actual Visual Reports :
WA : Spring 9%, Summer 30%, Fall 22%, Winter 39%.

----

#Sasquatch - Reports from Witnesses "Normal activity at Home" is at a whopping 26% of all Winter Reports (30/114) in the Pacific Northwest State's of WA, OR, ID and BC.

Compare that to :

Spring 9% (16/178, Winter see's a 189% increase)
Summer 11% (47/417, Winter see's a 136% increase)
Fall 12% (32/265, Winter see's a 117% increase)

----

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Redbone said:

I thought that's what I did. I have the data but you may have to clarify what you want to see.

At the moment I lack time. I'm on the road this week. I'll be all over Chicago tomorrow so I'll have to be on the lookout for Urban Bigfoot!

 

My bad, on my phone it did not show the lower portion of your post.     Thanks for the information.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BobbyO   that sighting data seems to me to point out that in Washington,   BF move into more populated areas during the winter.   My reasoning is that sInce humans tend to move out of remote areas in the winter due to snow and access,   for the sighting percentage to increase in the winter,   the BF have to have moved into more populated areas where the humans are.    .    Does anyone have another interpretation of the data?   

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  I am going to include some information in this thread that was posted in another. 

 

  The below is some of my comments and theory on sasquatch movement along the Cascade range.

 

  

Out here in the PNW it seems that elevation and temps play a much larger role.  I am finding that from September to April the Sasquatch are staying fairly low ( 0 and 2200 ft ) in river valleys or at the bottom of wider watershed areas.   

 

 As the temps begin to rise the reports bounce between both high and low ( between 1000 and 4000 ft ), I believe they are higher during daylight hours and make there way down into the river valleys as night falls. There is a lot of reports along lower areas at say 2 - 4 AM at all times of the year. 

 

I will note that this is all based on a collection of my examination of report information and my experiences.   There is several factors that are messing with the data here such as unique terrain features that offer advantages or humans activity reduction during colder months. 

 

 It takes a person and a Sasquatch to generate a report.

 

  I have taken a few reports of tracks on the snowline moving down into remote valleys.  A couple where found because people where in an area that people should not have been.

 

  Below I have outlined the transitional areas from high and low elevation, when you compare to the BFRO data base you will see that not every valley has reports on a regular basis.   It seems to be very select areas have the year after year reports and those zones are near watersheds, winter closure areas and just undeveloped country.   A similar reflection can be noted over in the Blues.WA Cold Map..PNGWA Elevation Map.PNG

 

 

  Just thought it was relevant to the thread.   ^_^ 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, y'all will have to trust me on this because it's a little late and my ability to convert Google earth screenshots to pictures to add here is rusty.

 

I now have a high degree of confidence in my data set/map points for Vermont through northeastern Canada (east of the St. Lawrence Seaway).  So I turned on the Google earth markers for this region for sightings from the 1990s to present by season - spring, summer, fall, and winter.

 

For the winter months (December through February) if you extended the US/Canadian border (at the top of NH and Vermont) straight east, here is not a single encounter north of that line from Vermont east in the entire area.  There is a cluster of encounters reported in Maine; none of these are east of a line drawn through Bangor through Belfast (ME) through the Penobscot Bay.  

 

In the fall, a group of encounters cluster up near the tip of New Hampshire and there are scattered reports through the northenmost sections of the Canadian section.  The reports are spread out more, and slightly more numerous, and centered slightly further north in the summer months. In the Spring, there is almost no activity of note in the entire area.

 

I decided to look at this because of the thread.  I now recall posting the specific numbers in a different thread (forget which one), but again, this looks to me like an animal laying low in the birthing season, moving out to gather food while the weather is good, and closing up shop during the foul weather.

 

I'll mostly be offline for Thanksgiving, but hope to (find the time to) be more active once again after that. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No quote facility for me and having to use a proxy in Asia.

Anyway...

----

""""BobbyO that sighting data seems to me to point out that in Washington, BF move into more populated areas during the winter. My reasoning is that sInce humans tend to move out of remote areas in the winter due to snow and access, for the sighting percentage to increase in the winter, the BF have to have moved into more populated areas where the humans are. . Does anyone have another interpretation of the data? """"

I don't really have another interpretation of it. My thinking for the reasoning however, like most things to do where wild animals are concerned, is potentially easier, sometimes opportunistic food sources and in the winter in the PNW that could be crucial in some areas.

----

""""Out here in the PNW it seems that elevation and temps play a much larger role. I am finding that from September to April the Sasquatch are staying fairly low ( 0 and 2200 ft ) in river valleys or at the bottom of wider watershed areas.

As the temps begin to rise the reports bounce between both high and low ( between 1000 and 4000 ft ), I believe they are higher during daylight hours and make there way down into the river valleys as night falls. There is a lot of reports along lower areas at say 2 - 4 AM at all times of the year.""""

I will note that this is all based on a collection of my examination of report information and my experiences. There is several factors that are messing with the data here such as unique terrain features that offer advantages or humans activity reduction during colder months.""""

I'd like to have a look at what you're saying matching up with the hundreds of WA and OR Cascades Reports we have in the SSR. They're all sub-divided too if we so wish don't forget. We can look at time of day and elevation too.

----

Good stuff Gents, this is how progress in this field is made imo, if it's to be made.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had access to areaa with long term private cool-water resources in year-round watershed that later turned to less reliable and in another direciton over time in the Blue Ridge of NC, still the protected nature of the area and spring- fed features kept the target species at bay and locally at-large for years thereafter.  It is easy to see that PNW watershed features and year-round reliable drainages and snow melt, spring-fed features and lakes are heart and soul of the phenomena for sure. 

 

 

11 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

BobbyO   that sighting data seems to me to point out that in Washington,   BF move into more populated areas during the winter.   My reasoning is that sInce humans tend to move out of remote areas in the winter due to snow and access,   for the sighting percentage to increase in the winter,   the BF have to have moved into more populated areas where the humans are.    .    Does anyone have another interpretation of the data?   

 

Follow the ungulates

 

Edited by bipedalist
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats all i do every fall. Follow ungulates. I must be doing something wrong.

 

Small buck taken off my ranch Sunday.

IMG_0753.JPG

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah i don't believe it's just as simple as "follow the ungulates" even though i do believe it has some merit.

It's all about finding patterns in Sasquatch related data, geo-spatial patterns, seasonal patterns etc.

That imo is the only thing worth doing in the field and the only thing that gives you even a tiny chance of establishing any form of predictability at all, and if you can even establish the tiniest bit of predictability, it's potentially game on.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that ungulate presence is not the only factor.     They seem to have favorite areas based on my formerly active (but now inactive) research area.     It took practically total clear cut to get them to leave while at the same time there is history of presence at least from the mid 1990s.   Those reports are what got me looking there in the first place.    I have the gut feeling that their lifestyles closely paralleled that of Native Americans before the arrival of Europeans.    That may mean summer and winter camps,  favorite or traditional areas,   some migration even of a limited manner to change elevations with the temperature,    and yes some following of the movement of ungulate game sources and ripening of different berries.     Our arrival has to have thrown those traditions into disarray with a lot of displacement and increased need for human avoidance.     

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

 That may mean summer and winter camps,  favorite or traditional areas,   some migration even of a limited manner to change elevations with the temperature,    and yes some following of the movement of ungulate game sources and ripening of different berries.     Our arrival has to have thrown those traditions into disarray with a lot of displacement and increased need for human avoidance

 

Sounds like a good job for someone well versed, and interested, in creating algorithms. IMHO that's what it may take in order to not have to Humanly think of everything all at once every time a season changes or other factors like herd movement, berry seasons, apple season,  wildfire, drought, flood, wood harvesting or any number of changeable environmental advantages or disadvantages. Might take a couple of years but I'm not going anywhere. The SSR would be a good source for plugging in data.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just do not think we have enough sighting data to learn much more than we have from number crunching.     There is a glimmer of hope that some things can eventually be learned.   The efforts of those who are gathering data are certainly a good thing and it is long overdue.   .     I have no trust in BFRO data in that they do not seem to publish or process a lot of sighting reports.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think "follow the ungulates" is ok, but ... which ones?  

 

Speculating ...

 

Looking at the Cascades, there's a period I can predict activity.    Within that season, I can predict either location or year, but not both .. a sort of "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of bigfoot."   What it suggests is 1) they can be found in a type of place at a certain time of year, and 2) there are not enough of them to fill all such places every year.     In other words, there might only be less than 5% enough bigfoots to use all of the usable habitat (locations with suitable shelter + water + food) at any particular point in the year.    It suggests their numbers are well below carrying capacity.  

 

We have pretty good seasonal data.    Our year to year data is not complete enough to be predictive ... I think.   

 

For some reason or other, there was not much of a bigfoot presence in the area I've been researching last year and none detectable at all this year.   Was it because of fires pushing them out or was it because of some resource elsewhere drawing them there instead?  

 

Though I had a few good years with seemingly a lot of activity, I'm no longer sure that activity over those years predicts activity again next year.   Maybe it will be a bigfoot-free zone for 15-25 years before some cycle repeat.   Heck if I know.   All I can do is wait and see.

 

So far as "follow the ungulates" .. I think they'll be near SOME herd or other on winter range, but which herd which year and which winter range if the migration / cycle, rather than being annual, is 1 year in 3, or 8 consecutive years out of 25 followed by 17 without?    Not just patterns, but meta-patterns?   Exponential instead of linear functions?   Etc?

 

MIB

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When my research area was very active,  the river bottoms had a lot of elk presence in the summer.    The trails looked like an elk freeway covered with footprints.     As logging increased, the elk left, then eventually the BF did.    Coincidence?   Possiblly!     It just occurred to me,  reading MIB's post,     it got me thinking about cycles.        What if BF may be intelligent enough to understand resource management?  Indigenous peoples in Polar regions of Siberia seem to do that with caribou herds.   The caribou are not really domesticated but the humans stay near the caribou herds,   manage their harvesting, fully understanding that if they take too many,  the resource population will collapse.   Could that partially explain the disappearance of the BF in my research area?      The elk were not all killed but simply moved elsewhere as the area was logged off.  Could it be that BF tribes attach themselves to herds, harvest as necessary, and move when the herds do,    like the indigenous peoples in Siberia?     Extrapolating, if BF have near human intelligence,   it is not inconceivable that they could actually herd the animals away from encroaching human activity.    That opens the possibility that sometime in the future BF could move the herds back into the area when conditions are better for the elk and more cover is available for BF.         All pure supposition but I do not remember anyone throwing that theory on the table to be looked at.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites