Migration

[Guest Spazmo]

Don't feel bad, Jodie...I'm also a newcomer to this field.

Besides, you always seem to have a pleasant demeanor, so even if you're way off or late, your posts are still nice to read...

[Guest]

Well that is certainly sweet of you to say, Thank you!

[Guest]

Jodie you keep coming up with some great stats.. the states you mentioned with those deer numbers all seem to have significant BF reports in them.. thanks for bringing that up.

[Guest COGrizzly]

I am now in Illinois (Merry Christmas!) in perhaps the best Bf habitat in the state (the NW corner, most forested) and I have yet to see a Bigfoot. Plenty of venison, no bigfoot.

I still say if they exist, they follow the food...they migrate.

And, yes, this may be one of my least relevent posts on the BFF of all time.

[BobbyO]

I am now in Illinois (Merry Christmas!) in perhaps the best Bf habitat in the state (the NW corner, most forested) and I have yet to see a Bigfoot. Plenty of venison, no bigfoot.

I still say if they exist, they follow the food...they migrate.

And, yes, this may be one of my least relevent posts on the BFF of all time.

Haha you should get into Chicago COGrizz, i used to see a few riding the L on my way home in the early hours of Saturday morning's, for sure, i think..

[Guest tracker]

I think for migration or following the game to happen they need the terrain to be linked. Like following a line of mountains or connecting forest regions or a river system. I can't see them venturing too far without having constant cover or a water source. Sure they may cut across a field at night. But if the cover runs out or is too spread apart or too thin. They would retreat back to the safety of the mountains & forest and go hunt else where. Makes you wonder how many times they have wandered into a homestead area and retreated before being noticed?

[Guest]

Good point; that BF would want to remain under under some sort of cover and avioding the possibility that they are observed up close. Of course, if they merely travelled off-trail, and did so mostly in low light they would accomplish that goal regardless of how much of the land was covered by significant forests. Draingages, strips of forests, fallow fields...one doesn't have to get very far off the beaten track to become invisible and 'off the radar' to the vast majority of humans.

Somewhere in the distant past of previous posts there is an interesting report of a researcher who wanted to see just how visible a BF would be at night in a modern, well developed housing area in a suburban setting. He found that he could, even without taking much precaution, remain un-detected as long as he remained at the margin of the backyards, away from obvious light sources, and remained silent. While it may have been possible for humans to detect him if they tried, none did. The neighboring humans there, as with esentially all modern humans, live in a world where there was light at night and so their eyes, despite their capacity to see into far darker ranges of light, never really do in our normal activity, and so never are/were able to peer into the surrounding darkness that envelopes us between dusk and dawn, and yet this is the time time when lots if not most animals are active.

[Guest]

Tracker.. nice way to put it. I agree.

Dogu4.... so true. Plus the cover available you described.. using natural vegetation. Working areas others do not walk. Staying at forest edge or out of the lights. They can drop to all fours.. and if all you see is the top of their backs.. they might even be mistaken for a big dog. Or a cow.

A cow in the woods bellowing is going to make a lot more sense to anyone who is not partial to possibilities.. if they stand up in the distance they are a person. Maybe they get a kick out of repetitious behavior that if it aint broke.. dont fix it. So why is it so hard to look at reports and realize they do a wide variety of things that normally people could look at and not even recognize them for what they are?

Edited December 30, 2010 by treeknocker

[Guest Woodenbong]

I tend to agree to a point with the above 3 posts.

I do find however that the BF here in Australia move east from there location, down to the lower and warmer areas and yet the food source stays in the area. Thats of course if the BF eat meat where kangaroos, wallabies abound. But in saying that I have no proof that suggest our animals here in Australia eat meat.

They do however eat fruit, crickets, ground grubs, bracken fern, tea tree pods all these aren't available in the winter months at higher altitude but are available on lower lying land.

So for the animals to leave an area that has an abundant supply of food source ie kangaroos and opt for the loer country makes me doubt that they eat meat.

They could move because of the colder weather, which I thought was the case but I'm rethinking that purpose.

[BobbyO]

Where in Oz are you Fella ??

PS : Unlucky with the Cricket..

[Guest]

Hey BobbyO HNY You too Wood. Regarding the comments on meat, my guess would be they are opportunists so I would expect things like eggs from birds anyway.. if not small mammals. Its interesting you havent found scavenged kills somewhere along the lines. Good luck with all the observations and if you get time down the road love to hear some observational descriptions and your ideas on who these guys are.... with variability and locales they may frequent.. either across the board or in pockets. Thanks a bunch.

[Guest]

Point taken people. My comment of "would" be noticed I'll change to "could" be noticed. I'm sure I exaggerated the likelihood that humans would notice some local increase in deer carcasses that could be evidence of bigfoot depredations, but allow me to expound a bit.

I live and work in the eastern U.S., and I understand the problems of superabundant deer. A primary reason for that abundance is that we've removed natural predators from the equation. So without predators, how do deer die?

The two primary agents of mortality are vehicle collisions and human hunting. The majority of road-killed deer end up close to roads. The majority of hunter-killed deer are removed (save the gut pile). Some deer do die off in the woods from run-ins with coyotes, starvation, disease, etc. but these events are relatively rare. This is why I think it's rare to find deer carcasses out in the field. Upon its demise, a deer is immensely more likely to have its carcass wind up on a roadside or in someone's truck bed.

So what I was really getting at was the spatial distribution of carcasses found, not their number. Ajciani, you mentioned that you've never found a deer carcass in the woods in Illinois. So if you did find one, you'd probably take notice, and I bet you'd go take a good close look at it too. Now what if you went to the same place a week or so later and found another one? If you found a third in that area, you might conclude that there's an effective predator of deer in the area. You might be intrigued enough to start paying very close attention to that area, because effective deer predators have been essentially gone from Illinois for a long time.

So if (1) bigfoots are specialist predators of white-tailed deer and deer is a primary source of winter nutrition for them, and if (2) bigfoots occupy winter ranges that overlap areas of high deer density, then I assume that there should be some localized areas where an unusual density of carcasses could be found, especially in late winter/early spring. If such areas exist, then I don't think it's too far-fetched that some human could take notice and investigate further. Maybe, unlike at Yellowstone where wolf reintroduction is thought to have reduced elk numbers and increased riparian vegetation density, the introduction of a small number of deer-specialist bigfoots would not improve oak regeneration. In other words, a population response in the state deer herds would be unlikely. But more local effects? I think they could be noticed.

[Guest Woodenbong]

Where in Oz are you Fella ??

PS : Unlucky with the Cricket..

I'm on the New England tablelands, North West New South wales.

As for the cricket, its great, I like to see them get a few losses

[norseman]

Point taken people. My comment of "would" be noticed I'll change to "could" be noticed. I'm sure I exaggerated the likelihood that humans would notice some local increase in deer carcasses that could be evidence of bigfoot depredations, but allow me to expound a bit.

I live and work in the eastern U.S., and I understand the problems of superabundant deer. A primary reason for that abundance is that we've removed natural predators from the equation. So without predators, how do deer die?

The two primary agents of mortality are vehicle collisions and human hunting. The majority of road-killed deer end up close to roads. The majority of hunter-killed deer are removed (save the gut pile). Some deer do die off in the woods from run-ins with coyotes, starvation, disease, etc. but these events are relatively rare. This is why I think it's rare to find deer carcasses out in the field. Upon its demise, a deer is immensely more likely to have its carcass wind up on a roadside or in someone's truck bed.

I respectfully disagree on one point. Winter kill is a major contributor to the population density of any ungulate living in a eco system that gets significant snow fall. Without the state biologists having some sort of winter feeding program, the population is competely at the misery of the amount of snow fall for any given year. Elk and especially Moose are better suited for a heavy winter than deer, but even they can sometimes succumb to heavy snowfall.

So what I was really getting at was the spatial distribution of carcasses found, not their number. Ajciani, you mentioned that you've never found a deer carcass in the woods in Illinois. So if you did find one, you'd probably take notice, and I bet you'd go take a good close look at it too. Now what if you went to the same place a week or so later and found another one? If you found a third in that area, you might conclude that there's an effective predator of deer in the area. You might be intrigued enough to start paying very close attention to that area, because effective deer predators have been essentially gone from Illinois for a long time.

Out west here, coyotes would be considered a effective predator of deer. I don't really know if there is anything else in Illinois, but I think I remember reading that cougar populations are starting to reassert itself in the Mid west and East?

So if (1) bigfoots are specialist predators of white-tailed deer and deer is a primary source of winter nutrition for them, and if (2) bigfoots occupy winter ranges that overlap areas of high deer density, then I assume that there should be some localized areas where an unusual density of carcasses could be found, especially in late winter/early spring. If such areas exist, then I don't think it's too far-fetched that some human could take notice and investigate further.

Another option is that bigfoot is not preying on white tail deer at all, or at least not in any significant way. He could simply be a scavanger that is simply utilizing protien out of a column in a game count report that state biologists already account for.

Maybe, unlike at Yellowstone where wolf reintroduction is thought to have reduced elk numbers and increased riparian vegetation density, the introduction of a small number of deer-specialist bigfoots would not improve oak regeneration. In other words, a population response in the state deer herds would be unlikely. But more local effects? I think they could be noticed.

And more importantly hunting has never been allowed in Yellowstone. So the wolves were reintroduced into a eco system that man hasn't hunted for over 100 years. This is a very different scenario than a deer population in Illinois. If wolves were reintroduced into Illinois they would simply take a piece of the pie that human hunters are now taking. And I wouldn't expect to see any major habitat change as a result. That along with agriculture....Illinois is a big agricultural state and the deer are utilizing that to their benefit, which is also not the case in Yellowstone.

[Guest tracker]

I wonder if the big guys become attached to certain objects they find or make and bring them when on the move? Like a special tool (stick?) or deer skin or a pretty keepsake like red trail ribon or toy. Maybe more durable stuff like a metal pan or cup left behind at issolated campsites? Makes you wonder is they try to scare campers off so they can salvage something thats left behind. I wouldn't put it past them to try that. Hmmm?