Hidden In The Forest

[Guest VioletX]

Probably not bringing up anything new...but after I am looking at maps like the one below, I wonder if the reason there are less sightings in some states, is the amount of forest coverage gives the Sasquatch more room to hide. Maybe we have more Bigfoot than we think in certain places. ; D

[BobbyO]

That's nothing, check this out..

http://www.stancourtney.com/Forests.html

[Guest VioletX]

Thanks, we could only be cracking the surface in Alaska! However, maybe it is a bit cold there for the average Sasquatch.

[Guest THRILLER 1]

I spent all day driving around yesterday outside of Darrington Wa.

I would say that at least 80-90% of the dirt roads have less than 100 feet visibility into

the woods. Most places are less than that.

So sitting up at a fire look out, I kind of had this thought.

He could be 25 feet from me and I couldn't see him, or he could

be 3 miles across the valley on top of the shear cliffs and I couldn't see him.

It would not take much to hide out there.

oh and thanks BoobyO....only 21.3 million acres to choose from....

Edited September 3, 2012 by THRILLER 1

[Guest]

Wow. My home state is 3rd. Wow never would have guessed that.

Edited September 3, 2012 by SquatchingOne

[Guest VioletX]

You guys make me jealous! But #21 is not too shabby, now I need to find a chart that compares sightings to forested land!

[Guest Thepattywagon]

I think the map misrepresents the southern half of Florida.

While it may not be as full of what is considered "forest", there are many many miles of low prairie dotted with areas of swamp and bayheads that are certainly wild and thick enough to hide a BF.

[Guest VioletX]

• Why not? If I were a Bigfoot, I might prefer a warm climate like Fla, at least for my winter home,lol!. I am sure they can camouflage themselves in many environments.
  

[TD-40]

If you compare a map of the US population with a map of Bf sightings, you will see that most sightings occur where the US population is greatest.

More people=greater probability of sightings.

[Guest Luckyfoot]

Here's a pet theory.

There's more Sasquatch in Canada than the U.S.

There are more reports from the U.S. than Canada because the U.S. has more people and less forest. I'm going to go ahead and "assume"

that the Bigfoot/Sasquatch entity doesn't give a rat's ass about any international border and if we look at a larger North American map there's plenty of forest that is more remote than most places in the U.S.

Here's a North American map of forest land;

[Guest thermalman]

That's nothing, check this out..

http://www.stancourt...om/Forests.html

THAT'S nothing! How about this ..........Canadian Forest land FYI, 1 hectare = 2.47 acres

Edited September 3, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest SquatchinNY]

If someone would give me a list of acres of forest per state, poulation per state, I will have some fun.

I am currently working on a project for this page, will post when done.

[BobbyO]

Canada kills me Thermal Man.

Canada is the biggest reason why we'll never have any real idea about the population of this Animal as because of Canada, it COULD be much, much mor ethan anyone ever suggests.

If someone would give me a list of acres of forest per state, poulation per state, I will have some fun.

I am currently working on a project for this page, will post when done.

Go get em Cowboy..

http://www.stancourtney.com/Forests.html

Go get your populations via Google..

[Guest thermalman]

That's 981M acres BBO. Our population density is +/- 28 people per sq. forested mile of Canada, but likely a lot less when considering the mass densities of the cities. You're right about the population of BF, who knows what numbers are out there?

[Guest NJBigfoot]

I'm at #44 for NJ, my home state. It's interesting that we have any BF sightings at all in NJ, but at least in the northwest areas of the state it is more plausible I guess.