Leaderboard

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

Ah, c'mon, man ... we've already seen her without lingerie ...

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

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.