indiefoot Posted May 31, 2012 Posted May 31, 2012 Ghuda, I, also can no more take all eyewitness claims as fact than I can dismiss them all. I have a few folks that I've learned to trust, and they have reported BF outside the PNW the same as my sightings in Kansas of all places. Some of what I know to be fact makes little sense to me, go figure. It will be interesting if we ever get to the point where we know what we don't know about BF.
Guest Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 I have never posted here before and didn't read every post in this thread. That said, I live in Ohio and find it very unlikely to have bigfoots living here... we don't even have bears here anymore. Anyway, I'm a hopeful skeptic, if that makes sense. Actually... http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/Home/ExperienceWildlifeSubHomePage/kidspagesplaceholder/kidsblbear/tabid/6460/Default.aspx http://wildlifehaven.tripod.com/bear.htm http://www.ohio.com/news/black-bears-emerging-in-ohio-1.124916 http://www.hockinghills.com/featstory/bears.html
Guest Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 @ Mulder - One article states there are about 60 bears living in Ohio full-time. While that may be true, my main point is Ohio is pretty densly populated and much of the land has been cleared of forest. I've been to Salt Fork State Park many times(where most of the BF sightings happen around here) and even there it is hard to fathom a group of unknown animals existing. I'm not saying I'm right, it just seems unlikely.
Guest UPs Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 I ave also camped and hiked a bit with BigTex and find him a very reasonable and honest man. He knows a great deal about the areas that he explores including the wildlife that are in the area. Based on what he and others have told me specifically about Texas, I believe they have been seen here as well as AR, LA, and eastern OK. As far as my property in the UP, believe there was at least one very close to my property, however, I do not see fresh sign of feeding or movement (or I am confusing moose feeding with bf feeding sign). My own theory is that they move through during certain times of the year. These times would be when food is most abundant. It's entirely possible that they have a home range well away from the few humans that live in the UP, but I have no proof of that yet. When asked about bf, I do tell friends and family that they in fact do exist, but only in the PNW. It's the only way I can get them to spend a couple weeks up there with me. UPs
Guest Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 BC has 150 million acres of forest. Ontario has 175 million acres. Together, Washington state, Oregon and california have 75 million acres. Why is there no chance of Ontario having sasquatch when the habitat to support it is abundant? I just wonder what your reasoning is Summit? Even your province has had sightings, do you think they are in AB?
Guest Luckyfoot Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) Most Canadian cities are located in the southern portion of the country , near the U.S. border (Edmonton prolly the only exception). The Northern portions are sparsely or un-populated. Being the second largest country in the world in terms of size, that would leave an enormous amount of area for large animals (or anyone) to live undetected. Lots of space with no one around to see them. I personally think there's alot of them hidden up there. However, like myself , I believe , they might prefer more temperate climates and navigate and habitate the mountain ranges on the west coast down through California. $0.02 Edited June 1, 2012 by Luckyfoot
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 No, Antarctica is the only continent with no hairy hominid sightings, legends, or stories. Every other continent has sightings, legends, and stories.
Guest peter Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 @ Mulder - One article states there are about 60 bears living in Ohio full-time. While that may be true, my main point is Ohio is pretty densly populated and much of the land has been cleared of forest. I've been to Salt Fork State Park many times(where most of the BF sightings happen around here) and even there it is hard to fathom a group of unknown animals existing. I'm not saying I'm right, it just seems unlikely. Is population density really an issue? I'd think an intelligent creature could more easily adjust. Ohio has very little virgin forest left but the combination of farms and harvestable timber must create a great food source and dense cover, and finally precipitation Northeast and Southern Ohio gets up to 3 feet of precipitation and some think that may be a key to BF habitation.. http://dnr.state.oh.us/water/pubs/fs_div/fctsht11/tabid/4094/Default.aspx Precipitation in Ohio varies greatly from area to area. The general trend is for precipitation to be greatest in the south and east, diminishing in amount toward the northwest. Based on the 50-year period 1931-80, Ohio averages 37.57 inches of precipitation annually. Locally, average annual precipitation ranges from a high of nearly 44 inches in the northeast near Chardon (Geauga County) and in the southwest near Hillsboro (Highland County) to less than 30 inches at Put-in-Bay on South Bass Island (Ottawa County). Snowfall ranges from greater than 100 inches in the northeast, east of Cleveland in Ohio's snowbelt, to less than 20 inches in the south along the Ohio River. The snowfall contributes significantly to the average annual precipitation total in the snowbelt areas. On the average, 10 inches of snow equals 1 inch of rain when melted.
BobbyO Posted June 1, 2012 SSR Team Posted June 1, 2012 No, Antarctica is the only continent with no hairy hominid sightings, legends, or stories. Every other continent has sightings, legends, and stories. I get the feeling Mr Darrell wasn't being serious with his question BFS..
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 I considered that possibility, but then if it is a valid question it does deserve an informative response.
indiefoot Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 I seriously am of the opinion that BF populations are on the increase, and they are making a living wherever they can do so. I assume that they have some sort of alternative arrangments for the winter monthes and are very capable of travelling several hundred miles to get to a place of temporary residence. A scenario.... an extended family group knows of an overgrown area adjacent to a ready scource of food. They travel there when the plants green up and provide cover and leave at the end of the season to some more remote location. Like migrant workers.
Guest Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 An increase now doesnt make sense to me, the population of north america has been estimated at between 2 ~ 17 million pre Columbus. Now its something like 530 million. (quick wiki check so may be off in numbers) My guess would be the increase in sightings is due to the increase of humans and the new areas they move into. The only other animals on the planet that enjoy an increase in numbers when humans turn up are the scavengers, rats, mice, roaches etc. I just cant imagine a large 8 foot tall primate having a population boom due to humans. If that were the case then garbage dumps would have to be their main area of foraging and we would have a body by now.
Incorrigible1 Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 I don't really have an opinion on the subject, but wish to point out that I can name at least a couple predators that have naturally recently expanded their range, and one that seems to be spreading since its reintroduction. The naturally expanding predators are the coyote and the mountain lion. The wolf is spreading its range, too. FWIW
Guest Darrell Posted June 1, 2012 Posted June 1, 2012 I get the feeling Mr Darrell wasn't being serious with his question BFS.. No I was actually being serious. But, i wonder if Antartica had more people it might not be the only place on earth bigfoot has'nt been seen. Well probably not as I dont think there are any sightings in the northern arctic either, or has there?
Recommended Posts