Migration

[BobbyO]

Could bigfoots follow deer and elk herds as a source of primary sustenance? Sure, why not? But if they did, I'd expect a lot more carcasses lying around out there by springtime.

You'd expect to find Carcasses or find evidence of Carcasses " out there " do you mean, or would you just expect them to be there Sas ??

& it depends how you'd define " a lot more " but i can't imagine if BF's were using those Herds as a primary food source for those times, they'd have any real impact on numbers of that Elk/Deer species really given the probable low numbers of the BF Species, in comparison..

We really wouldn't be talking about a number of Elk/Deer that fell prey to BF's that one would class as " a lot " when compared to the population of the Animal's, in my opinion, when the number of Animal's for that area is close to Half a Million for Deer & over a Quarter of a Million for Elk ..

http://www.biggamehunt.net/forum/colorado-elk-and-deer-population-changes

http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/ED3D5C53-8144-43D6-B39F-0E638A8641E3/0/2010BigGameObjectives.pdf

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5170655_colorado-elk-hunting-information.html

I'd be dissapointed if it were ot be found that BF listened to The Carpenters personally too, for the record..

[Guest]

For the "record" (the best way to listen to The Carpenters), I could listen to Karen sing almost all day long. Depends on the day, though. Some days it's Ella Fitzgerald. But I digress . . .

Of course, deer and elk numbers are enormous compared to their predators. But I do think if there were populations of bigfoots subsisting on them we'd notice something. Case in point is Yellowstone NP. Some folks say that the introduction of wolves has resulted in dramatic ecological changes in the Park. While wolves were gone, there wasn't really anything eating elk consistently - especially though the winter when the bears are out of commission. A lucky coyote here and there, a Golden Eagle takes a newborn in spring - that's about it. Now there's something in that place that eats elk - regularly - all year long. It makes a difference in behavior and has had reverberations through the ecosystem, e.g., recovery of aspen. (Caveat: the wolf interpretations at Yellowstone can be confounded by the effects of the 1988 fires . . . )

Across huge areas of wt deer distribution, there is no consistent predator. Occasionally lucky coyotes, elk, bobcat, black bear, etc. sure, but nothing except automobiles that systematically hunts deer, every day, all year long. Wolves are gone. Cougars gone or just starting to come back. Maybe studying deer in areas of cougar recolonization could be insightful. Are there more carcasses to find? How do cougars and coyotes interact? Do coyotes scavenge cougar kills? Can you follow coyotes to find cougars? Do coyotes follow bigfoots? Can we follow coyotes to find bigfoot kills? Lots of cool questions to ask regarding the ecological ramifications of a specialist predator on an abundant prey species . . .

[Guest ChrisBFRPKY]

Saskeptic, you're starting to sound like a field researcher. Chris B.

[BobbyO]

Saskeptic, you're starting to sound like a field researcher. Chris B.

That's what i thought & i felt really weird for a moment & got a cold shiver..

[Guest tracker]

Good luck following coyotes, they wander all over the place. Cougars and wolves will hunt and kill coyotes if they get too close. Maybe the same goes for Sasq since they hate canines? It must have something to do with the wolves and competing for territory.

Has anyone else heard or read reports of them both howling at the same time? Anyways the wolves go quiet when the big guys start to sing. I wonder if they stop so not to give up their position? or if they hunt each other when they are in the same area?

[Guest TooRisky]

TR & everyone.. Q for you. How long do you think it would take a BF to cover ground if it was determined to hypothetically lets say.. go from a foraging and hunting area to a wintering area ? Let us just for a moment pull out a number like 100 miles. And time to go.. how long from what you know, would you reasonably expect them to cover ground and get from point a to b (100 mi or thereabouts for an idea of what they are capable of..providing they really exist of course ). I am not suggesting it is typical, as I certainly do not know. With their alledged and seemingly apparent physical capabilities, I wonder, especially if they had significant access to cover and a wilderness area(wide expanse with little to no human interference).. how fast they could do it. Gradual movement or you think ..whoops.. weather conditions .. time to go. (In other words variable depending on particular circumstances.. season..environmental factors..etc. Appreciate any comments.

Good question... We have to take into consideration the terrain, but hypothetically if the species was on flat terrain and determined... I would guess 6 miles an hour "average", so I would say it could be done in a 24-36 hour period with rest and eating/foraging included...

[Guest Spazmo]

Just a speculation, but I would guess that one of these animals could and would cover as much ground as necessary to keep up with a herd of food.

[Guest]

Well for what it's worth, I think it might just be dependent on the BF's situation. Maybe loners would track the herd, but a family group? It would be hard for a mother with young children I would think. They seem to eat everything, why expend the extra energy in constantly pursuing a herd if you can get fish out of a river or other fruits and vegetables depending on the season?

[Guest Spazmo]

Absolutely agreed, Jodie. The needs dictate the activity.

But if there are no fish or fruit (or whatever), then the only remaining alternative is the ungulates. Some BF might not move at all if the protein doesn't (think wild hogs).

But, as far as movement with family groups being difficult, I don't think so. Native Americans did it for centuries, giving birth on the trail. I would think (speculate) that this type of nomadic existence would be easier for BF than for humans.

[BobbyO]

Well for what it's worth, I think it might just be dependent on the BF's situation. Maybe loners would track the herd, but a family group? It would be hard for a mother with young children I would think. They seem to eat everything, why expend the extra energy in constantly pursuing a herd if you can get fish out of a river or other fruits and vegetables depending on the season?

I completely agree Jodie, that's why i think it would make perfect sense positioning a Family Group in a location where they wouldn't have to follow Herds of Animals, but let the Herds come to them..

But i think it's what someone said earlier in the thread, it's " when needs must ", with maybe everything to do with these Animals..

& certainly where a Food source is concerened, regarding patterns of movement..

[Guest tracker]

Some may have to move and others don't. Maybe its just a matter of hunting or searching for food in different areas or a little further . They may just walk to different valleys where the Elk, Rams, Deer etc usually hold up for the winter. Carrying Elk shanks over their shoulders all the way home would be nothing for the big guys to do.

Edited December 10, 2010 by tracker

[Guest LittleFeat]

Of course, deer and elk numbers are enormous compared to their predators. But I do think if there were populations of bigfoots subsisting on them we'd notice something. Case in point is Yellowstone NP.

But what if the BF have established a stable population that's been around for thousands of years? If that's the case, then how would we be able to tell if BF is having more (or less) of an effect on deer and elk numbers now than in the past? Maybe they're smart enough not to deplete a food source that they have to depend on. Rotational use of different areas, as well as seasonal elevation changes in range, would seem to make the most sense regarding the movements of BF.

[Guest]

What FUN !! Thanks Tracker ! & yup. From what I know on wolves.. they knock out coyote. But not in every case since there is talk about them in certain states hybridizing.. There is a classic reference to two sounds of coyote at Pullayup Or however its spelled.. Washington in J Green Apes Among Us. Two sounds come together and then whap! Apparently end of the road for one. Supposedly someone spied a smashed-against-a-tree coyote on the trail.. Preds on the rise man..

Nice one Sask Do not forget Shakira.. and her Espanol companion album... BTW regarding YNPark.. how many squatchies we thinking are in there ? I wonder if they cannot eat their fill and have nobody notice.. numbers you know.. Plus I doubt they would feast on elk primarily except seasonally. Lots of stuff to eat really and how about grass storage in winter ? We call it haybales around these parts....add roots and such.. plus fish and.. carcasses and.. just another guy messing with ideas..

[Guest]

But what if the BF have established a stable population that's been around for thousands of years? If that's the case, then how would we be able to tell if BF is having more (or less) of an effect on deer and elk numbers now than in the past? Maybe they're smart enough not to deplete a food source that they have to depend on. Rotational use of different areas, as well as seasonal elevation changes in range, would seem to make the most sense regarding the movements of BF.

That's a really good point, we might not notice if it has been going on well before we started wild life management programs.

[Guest LittleFeat]

Thanks Jodie. The point is that we know very little about BF's travels and food sources. BF are often compared to bears, because bears apparently share the same habitat and are omnivorous, but that's where the similarities end. Bears are mostly scavengers when it comes to meat, unless of course, we're speaking of brown bears. However, there are not a lot of brown bears in the lower 48, outside of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and possibly parts of Washington. BF has been reported in almost every state in the union, so when people compare BF to bears, they really mean black bears. Black bears are mostly herbivores unless they've been habituated (oh no, not that word again!) to garbage or have happened upon a dead carcass.

Bears are also not primates either and there are very few primates except man and chimpanzees that eat meat as part of their diet. With chimpanzee DNA being very close to human DNA, it stands to reason that we might want to start comparing BF to chimpanzees and man if we want to know more about their activities. In this light, BF seems very different from black bears and could easily share the land with them, but still not have a tremendous amount in common with BF.

Assuming that we don't have any chimpanzees breeding in the wilds of the lower 48, I think it's best to compare BF to Homo sapiens. Now, please don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that we should compare BF to someone that we grab off the streets of NY or Chicago. What I am proposing is that we compare them to Native Americans of the past that lived in concert with nature and understood the consequences of harvesting prey and plant life for their subsistence. NA life is centered around their harmony with nature, much like BF's most likely is, and their seasonal travels and camps probably mirror that relationship. If BF are in fact are another primate, they also most certainly possess the intelligence to not overuse the land and avoid man for long-term survival.

We could also compare to non-NA people that live in remote or extremely rural locations. Interestingly enough, these are the same locations that produce a lot of reports and human/BF habituation stories. Most people living in those type of locations share a respect for nature with BF, unless of course we're talking about a billionaire with a trophy home, in which case their motivations for living in rural and remote locations may be a tad more materialistic.