Are the BIGFo0Ts Nomadic?

[RedHawk454]

Its prolly been discussed ad nauseum and i did do a kinda half assed search and didnt find anything

 

But

 

Is Sasquatch Nomadic?

 

The Sasquatch species is allegedly very large (when compared to a human) and would require a rather large caloric intake

 

I think they would have to be very nomadic, constantly following a herd of deer or something

 

They could be stationary or stay within a small area but would have to have a food source

 

I dont think they are very stationary, They are likely nomadic wood knocking coast ~2~coast or they migrate up and down the west coast or maybe just in states.

 

 

[Doug]

I believe that they are to certain extent. Some more than others. There are reports of individual sasquatches with distinct features being seen many miles apart. One was a rather well known white sasquatch.

[MIB]

On 11/28/2025 at 6:18 PM, RedHawk454 said:

Is Sasquatch Nomadic?

 

I think some are some aren't.    In my area we see indications of both.    My hunting / hiking / bigfooting buddy works some weekends on a ranch where there appears to a low level of year around activity.   Likewise, where we hike, camp, fish, and where I do my main research, the activity is very very seasonal and can seemingly be followed leading up to presence there and after presence there ends.    I would expect that in some areas with different conditions there would be a greater propensity towards year round occupation in some place and greater propensity towards only seasonal occupation .. ie migration.

 

So I think you have to look at the specifics of a given location and answer for that location rather than trying to give a single answer that covers all situations, all locations.

 

There is a hole in that as well, potentially, and that is that it is not just "my" spot that is active at that one time, there's a mountain chain over 1000 miles long and the activity peaks within a week in any given year the whole length of the dang thing so it is possible that rather than migration, what we're seeing is some quirky seasonal change of behavior.    Or .. BOTH.   Because, again, we do see activity to the north 4-6 weeks earlier and to the south 3-4 weeks later.   It may be both migration and seasonal something peaks converging.   

 

The data is sparse and we have to be cautious about over-investing in specific interpretations which might not fit a fuller data set.

[Backdoc]

So long as Bigfoot's needs are met, they stay in the area they are.   If conditions change, they move to a place with more stable conditions which can deliver on their needs.   

[Trogluddite]

But what is a realistic definition of "the area where they are?"  From some old research of mine, which I may update, the home territory for black bears ranges from 1-15 square miles (females) to 8-60 square miles (males).  For grizzlies, its 50-300 square miles (females) up to 1,500 square miles (males).*  Where would Bigfoot, as a species, slot in to that?  Also, what would the regional variations be?  Certainly in the PNW, one should expect more compact and stable home ranges.  In the northeast US, one of the most "crowded" sighting areas is the corridor around Whitehall, New York.**  I don't believe that all of those Bigfoot encounters are the result of Bigfoots that have a home range there.

 

 

* No citations, I need to update this rudimentary effort.

** This is circa 2018 research. 

[MIB]

17 minutes ago, Trogluddite said:

Where would Bigfoot, as a species, slot in to that?  Also, what would the regional variations be?

 

This triggered a thought.   We have had some discussion about "local circuits" ... not annual migration, but places where the bigfoots might cycle through an area, always moving, but coming past the same spots once a week, or every other week, etc so there is no daily concentration of activity but over a fairly short period of time, there are repetitions.     This could considerably complicate understanding the report data in a particular location.