Population Pockets

[Guest kfoster]

bipedalist,

There was a young pine tree about 4-6 inches in diameter and maybe 10-12 foot tall pushed over with its root ball exposed and pointing its top in the same direction as the pointer on the ground and about 15 feet in front of the scrapes on the ground. It would take alot more strength than I have to push over the tree like it was pushed over. The tree was still alive, but the soil was healed at the rootball and so it was done much earlier in time than the scrapes were made. At least weeks before, likely months or more. I don't think the scrapes were more than a day old at the most. They were so fresh that I was looking for dermal ridges in the heel print and actually thinking I might see some. I couldn't as it was very dry dust. There may be no correlation with the pushed over tree and the finger scrapes. I have never seen sign of an elk pushing over a tree like that however, and there were no damage marks on the young pine. No tracks at the tree location could be descerned of any species, including sasquatch.

I rarely find sasquatch tracks when looking actively for them. I found the scrapes and tracks while fishing again. I always have my eye to the ground looking for tracks of any species. I like tracking and trailcraft.

On tracking, interesting facts about tracking humans was written by tracking expert Ellsworth Jaeger in his original book "Tracks and Trailcraft" in the 1940's. It is a fact that humans in the habit of going shoeless or wearing soft bottom moccasins show much less toe out "angle of gait" than humans in the habit of wearing hard soled shoes. Shoeless humans step softer to avoid heel damage and their feet point more directly the direction they are traveling by proxy. Another fact relayed by Jaeger was that a human wearing a backpack or carrying much weight has much less straddle in a line of their tracks, with one foot being directly in front of the other foot, rather than the more obvious human left right left pattern. Even to the point that their right foot may track slightly left of the left foot in a line of tracks. I have noted this on the trail with backpackers carrying 50 or more pounds in their backpacks. Also watch a backpackers legs when they are carrying much weight and you will note an avoidance of harsh steps and also an avoidance of hyperextension of the knee joint. They walk much more like a sasquatch when bearing much weight in a pack. Combine the bare footed human habit of less angle of gait and then put a backpack on that human and you have tracks one in front of the other like the guy is walking an invisible tightrope. The barefooted backpacker tracks are laid out just like the huge 17 inch tracks I found in the SSJ Wilderness in the early 90's that got me to start researching the mystery. One huge foot directly in line with another huge foot, all pointing directly the same direction and no straddle whatsoever. A heavy laden backpacker will modify his steps shorter to bear the load, but ole sasquatch just treks on out strongly bearing the immense frame they carry around daily as an adult. They are amazing. Jaeger was a tracker of experience, not just a track form expert.

Self proclaimed track expert Jim Halfpenny's criticism of tracks in snow not showing "bipedal" staddle of the left right left pattern of a bi-ped holds no water. Halfpenny's criticism of my assessment of some of the track lines in snow in Colorado on that Monsterquest program were due to his ignorance of human tracking evidently. Also the program did not relay that the track finders had dug down in the snow to see that the huge imprints were indeed made by the massive foot as it compressed the snow underneath. Interestingly, I also show no straddle when I am sprinting, just one track right in front of the other, all in line. Sasquatch pretty much walk like a human sprints, even to the point of that heel coming up pretty dang high between steps prior to rotating the leg forward in the next step.

Experiment. Instruct a friend to walk across an area that you can see his tracks in, say shallow snow or damp sand on a beach. Tell him to walk across the area without ever fully straightening his knees, maintaining at least a 15 degree bend in his knees during each step. Then observe the line of tracks he makes and compare them to what they look like if he just simply walks normally across the same area. Don't tell the friend why you are doing the experiment until after the tracks are laid out for study. You can also do an experiment with your unwitting friend by putting a 50 pound backpack on him and observing the track line he lays. Make him barefoot for a mile with the pack on and he will really get "compliant" gaited. Sasquatch walk like they do, whether any so called track expert likes it or not. Sure, they might show some straddle when walking slowly enough and even some angle of gait at times. Their foot is what it is, their anatomy is what it is. It all seems to work together in perfect orchestration. Cool design. I'm going to have to make friends with one so I can have him carry my backpack for me to some wilderness lakes I've wanted to get to. Shoot, I'll just have him carry me and my pack up there. Sasquatch never cease to amaze me. Mainstream science is certainly missing out, with their self inflected blinders.

There is a difference between reading tracks, i.e. real tracking, and just knowing the shape of a certain animals tracks. There seem to be plenty of track experts today, but reading the tracks themselves is evidently a forgotten art if some of the comments on sasquatch by the "track experts" are taken into account.

Ellsworth Jaegers book "Tracks and Trailcraft" is still available in reprint from Amazon and even original 40's editions are available used. He knew nothing of sasquatch evidently, but relayed why they walk the way they do in his book.

[BobbyO]

Keith, massive thanks for your participation.

And a fabulous initial post, it made great reading.

I'lll read through it more thoroughly in the morning, but i just can't resist looking at that picture tonight so i'm off to be nosey before bed..

[Guest COGrizzly]

Keith - thanks for stopping by and sharing. You've got a great way of explaining the Sasquatch. And I know you have a TON more stories/theories you can share.

The 2 Sas hunting the elk remind me of the BFRO report from the 1930's of 2 Sasquatch doing the same thing up near Walden.

Please keep sharing kfoster!

I have not heard anything recently on a local level.

[Explorer]

I speculate a territorial social system very much like that of the Orangutan, but on a terrestrial level of much larger territory.

Territory based on caloric need for survival and very similar to the puma territorial requirements times 4.

Even at peak population, no one area can support hoards of sasquatch in a group due to the fact that they would eat themselves out of house and home and die of starvation after they killed off too many of their prey.

Keith,

Thanks much for your great post.

Your comment on the BF caloric requirements versus the puma, led me to search for the cougar population estimates in CO.

I found the following reference (not sure how good it is, but it is a first pass):

A 2003 Colorado Division of Wildlife report notes that "Colorado does not regularly estimate puma populations because no reliable, cost effective sample based population estimation technique currently exist." Instead, CDOW developed its official estimate of 3,000 to 7,000 mountain lions by first extrapolating population projection models provided by studies completed in other states, and then by using information provided annually from "Hunter harvest, non-hunter mortality, game damage conflicts, and human-lion conflicts . . . for crude indicators of population change."

While CDOW officials may use these broad numbers in explaining mountain lion management policies and hunting quotas, the Department's status report also stated that a range of 3,500 to 4,500 mountain lions was more probable.

Source:

http://www.mountainlion.org/us/co/-co-portal.asp

So if the cougar population ranges from 3,000 to 7000, and the BF caloric/territorial requirements is 4x cougar, is it a stretch to estimate the BF population in CO to range from 750 to 1,750?

[Guest COGrizzly]

Explorer - Thank you for taking the time to look into that theory.

3000 - 7000 Cougars in CO estimate was from 2003. There are probably more now. Just a complete guess on my part....based off my own personal experiences and the amount of people that are now seeing mountain lions. 10 years ago it was incredibly rare for someone to see one. Now, many more people are seeing them. Check this out -

I work in a gated community, but hunters can come through to access the national forest behind us. A hunter told us (Public Safety) recently that when he was walking back down the road after his hunt (early morning), he felt as if he was being watched. So he turned around. 40 -50 yards away was a mountain lion on the hillside, stalking him. He slowly loaded his rifle, then started walking again. He turned around again and the lion had jetted up the hillside and he then heard a deer cry out.

So was the hunter and the deer being stalked and the lion chose the deer?

[Guest kfoster]

Colorado might be able to support over 1000 sasquatch in it's forests, if it had no direct competition from man for elk, deer and habitat. Likely habitat limitations and prey limitations to some degree hold them well under any levels like that. Cougars also use much more open brushland areas, while sasquatch seem pretty much very limited to full forest cover. There is very much more cougar habitat in Colorado than sasquatch habitat. Probably 1/4 less sasquatch habitat than cougar habitat. Maybe even much less than that. One could probably figure out how many square miles of each kind of habitat is in Colorado and do some figures based on that. But if sasquatch needs 4 times the area to call hunting ground and has 4 times less hunting ground than cougars, then we come down to a level of 250 sasquatch that could be supported in Colorado, maybe less. ???????

Adult male cougars with territory established can often require over 100 square miles that he calls his own, with interlopers on the edges. Females generally cover less ground, down to 1/4 as much area used. All territory size needs dependant upon prey numbers. Young males wandering around trying to find someplace they won't be killed by an older tougher male. It would not surprise me if a male sasquatch would use 400 square miles, which would only be a 20 x 20 mile area, with a female or two in the area and a couple different age offspring. I'm guessing sasquatch males get along better than puma males, with some arguments maybe and some displaying, but probably rarely getting into any to the death fights. Some of the odd branch arrangements and tree breaks might be territorial signs and such, but I am not yet convinced by any of it as to exactly what any of it means. Some of it sure seems associated with the species somehow, but how, I don't have any idea. They seem to put logs/trees across human trails at times in some way maybe trying to keep people out of some areas at some times, perhaps during a time when his mate is birthing or has a very young infant. Those instances of blocking trails also seem to at times be a time that a person might be given some of those threat screams that sasquatch do from time to time. They are likely very protective of offspring, like most mammals, but with both the father and the mother doing some protective measures. I have speculated that at some point of maturity, mom sasquatch can leave her youngster up a tree and do some close distance hunting and foraging herself. We might have a better chance of seeing a sasquatch if we look up when wandering deep into core areas. I've been into a few areas of dark forest way off human trails or even any game trails where it was deathly quiet and I started getting a true sense that I shouldn't be there. One area I wandered too deep into even had a nauseating smell, kind of sickly sweet musky smell, thick in the air, that you could almost taste. I nearly wretched. It was prior to me having any idea that sasquatch could be real, and I was thinking at the time maybe weasel, martin or wolverine musk, as it was similar to ferret musk, only much heavier in the air. Might have not been sasquatch related. Perhaps a martin latrine area? I don't remember looking up, but maybe should have peered around up in the trees there. Plopping a tent down there would possibly get some sasquatch attention at night, maybe unwanted attention. People just don't camp in those kind of places. We had rocks thrown all around our tent, mostly baseball size and less, for 1/2 hour or more, in the South San Juans. None ever hit our tent directly, with most falling what sounded like 10 feet from the tent or more. We were about 20 feet from the edge of water and some of the rocks were hitting the water and also bouncing off the rocks at the side of the water and ricocheting into the water. It was about 1 am when the barrage started. We were the only people within a mile of our location. We were in a location that others had camped before, so I don't know why we got some rock thrower all huffy. Mild intimidation act? I always wondered if I plopped a tent down in the middle of a deep dark core area, those places where one feels he should not even be, far from human trails, if I might be putting myself at risk of being crushed by a boulder in the middle of the night rather than the little stone throwing thing.

In regards to core areas, I do think that some of the larger unbroken forested areas that have no human trails directly through them are the core areas for females and young. I also think the males likely take food to their mate and offspring in the core area. Males, especially adult males are seen more than females or young, so they must be moving farther and more than the females. They are likely omnivorous, but there is just not that much to be had in the old growth forest as so little sun gets to the ground. There are little pockets here and there of vegetative foodstuffs, but few and far between. Elk and deer have to leave the forest bedding areas and come to the edges to graze and browse where the sun hits the ground. Black bears also must come to more open areas to graze on grass. Sasquatch don't seem to be coming out to graze on grass like bears, at least not in any kind of daylight at all. When actively hunting, they are possibly sneaking into the edges of the open where the ungulates are at during dusk through dawn. Probably even at those times of relative darkness they are sticking to cover at those edge locations to avoid detection by the prey species. If I was a sasquatch I would be waiting downwind of the bedding to feeding trails that the ungulates use and waylaying them there. That is how I often bowhunt, and it is pretty easy to get with a couple feet of passing deer and elk, by simply standing behind a tree quietly. The last deer I killed with my longbow was less than 3 feet from the end of my arrow when I shot. If I can do it, a sasquatch sure can get that close with regularity.

[Guest COGrizzly]

Another nice post from you Kfoster. Thanks.

[gigantor]

There is very much more cougar habitat in Colorado than sasquatch habitat. Probably 1/4 less sasquatch habitat than cougar habitat.

Welcome to the BFF KFoster.

Just curious, what exactly is sasquatch habitat? and how do you measure it?

Edited November 25, 2012 by gigantor

[Guest kfoster]

I propose that sasquatch habitat is the opposite of what ancestrel humans have used and lived in for millenia. That is why we still have some of them. We are naked, lovers of open spaces, lovers of daylight, get cold easily, are small and fragile They are huge and well covered with hair, prone to heat stress, lovers of dense cover, much less gregarious, always know where they are located, avoid open areas for living or travel, lover the dark and hate the light of day, and on and on. Human niche and sasquatch niche are opposite for living off the land. Humans are made for persistance hunting on the more terrestrial open areas of the earth. Humans are hunters by nature and by history. Sasquatch are hunters by nature and by history, so we had to survive in two entirely different environs. What brings us together to startle each of us at times is that the prey species we prefer enjoy life at the edge of both of our environs. We generally avoid sasquatch habitat as humans when hiking through the mountains, as we use the more open drainages for travel, not the deep forest where we have to step over deadfalls every few feet or so. We travel human trails almost exclusively by habit and you can bet that sasquatch know where every human trail is located and even when most likely that humans will be using them. In my opinion, sasquatch are so good at patterning the daily and seasonal movements of their prey species that they are also extremely keen at patterning the movements of humans on a daily and seasonal level.

The best way to find sasquatch habitat is to map out where humans live and travel by road or human foot-trails and subtract that from your map. Then subtract another 1/2 mile in all directions from those areas you have just mapped. Then subract all habitat with vegetative cover less than 10 feet tall from your map. Then subtract all areas with cover more than 10 feet tall, but that are not more than 1/2 mile wide, such as tree cover along drainages spilling out onto the plains of eastern Colorado. Subtract all areas of high heat in summertime, though some may be used in winter (remember that very large animals are prone to heat stress). Human housing additions in full forest areas are not good for sasquatch. Humans building in those areas will also eventually wish they hadn't when forest fires come along. Fires and logging are good for ungulates in the Rockies, when the logging is done in moderation and allowed to regrow to that height required for cover. Some of the best ungulate habitat for hunting for them by humans and sasquatch are in those areas of regrowth from fire or regrowth from logging, though humans retire to their open areas and sasquatch retire to their heavy cover areas after the hunt.

Even the cattle and sheep of humans do not venture into sasquatch bedding habitat, though they are all through he edges of it, just as we are wandering around the edges. Overlaying a topo map with a birds eye google earth map and seeing where humans travel and where real forest is located can give you a great idea of where sasquatch can live, once one knows they are our opposites. Put dots on the map as far from any area you have subtracted to find core areas of sasquatch, i.e. their nursery bedding areas. Home sweet home. Just like your home. Safe from harm.

Squatch have to come to the edges of their bedding habitat for hunting, just as we go the the edges of our bedding habitat for hunting. We meet at the edges sometimes, by accident. I am convinced, no simple guessing, that sasquatch know more about our habits than we know about theirs. That is the way their brains are tuned. It is all about patterning movements for them. They may not use fire, or need hunting tools, but they are far from stupid. They are mentally sharp the way they have to be mentally sharp. They may only have the braincase the size of a gorilla, according to the anatomy sculptures I am doing on the Patterson film subject, but don't underestimate their woodsavy and humansavy. I've always said that a puma with the brain of a chimpanzee would still be an undiscovered animal. Squatch are better than that, I propose. Grizzlies are extremely stupid by comparison to a chimpanzee or even a puma, but still may be extant in Colorado, being detected officially every 30-50 years or so. Talk about inbreeding.

There is some discussion on inbreeding by science and by sasquatcheers. I have studied the subject somewhat and think no one knows the truth of the full matter. It is still a "far from known science" the exact results of such bottlenecks, even if some in science may make bold claims on the negative influence of the genetic consequences. I know of a case where a human brother and sister bred and produced 5 offspring, 2 were severely mentally disabled, 1 was moderately mentally disabled and 2 were top of their class mentally. Actually the two that were top of the class mentally were really, really mentally sharp, beyond normal. I grew up with those persons in fact. What's up with that??? In my opinion, God makes a way.

As far as the braincase of a sasquatch being smaller apparently than human and in a pattern completely different than we have, in regards to intelligence, forget the idea that bigger is better in many cases. Squatch are smart the way they have to be smart. Survival, survival, survival. When a coronal mass ejection of the sun takes out all of your electricity for years and you have to survive no fuel, and try to find food for yourself and offspring, who wins? Sasquatch will have a real advantage over you. Who is smart and who is stupid?

[Guest COGrizzly]

"Plus 1" to you Keith.

I just love the way you explain these things. I think you even explained Sasquatch Habitat even better than you did in 2003/2004 on the bowsite.

Truly nice work.

[Guest]

When I lived in Colorado last year we were at the very edge of the mountains on one of the roads that led up to Estes Park. We had a mountain lion in our RV park and across the street at the school play ground. It was amazing, I came across the bridge with my kid and the manager came running out to see if we'd seen it - it had passed over the bridge going towards the highway 2 minutes before we crossed it going the other way. On the edge of a town of 70K people;

[Explorer]

We generally avoid sasquatch habitat as humans when hiking through the mountains, as we use the more open drainages for travel, not the deep forest where we have to step over deadfalls every few feet or so. We travel human trails almost exclusively by habit and you can bet that sasquatch know where every human trail is located and even when most likely that humans will be using them. In my opinion, sasquatch are so good at patterning the daily and seasonal movements of their prey species that they are also extremely keen at patterning the movements of humans on a daily and seasonal level.

Excellent post on habitat, Keith!

This explains my lack of success in CA, UT (high Uintas), and CO.

I stick to trails in forested wilderness areas.

In CO, I have backpacked in the Weminuche Wilderness, the La Garita Wilderness, and the Sangre de Cristo Range (from Crestone Pk down to La Blanca Pk area) w/o even seeing a bear (altough this August, I was told a bear was seen in the Zapata Falls BLM campground area, the same day I was camping there).

But, I have been sticking to trails.

I am not a hunter, just a backpacker.

I do go off trail but only in deserts like Mojave, Death Valley, Big Basin, Joshua, etc. (no BF in these places, though).

As far as the braincase of a sasquatch being smaller apparently than human and in a pattern completely different than we have, in regards to intelligence, forget the idea that bigger is better in many cases. Squatch are smart the way they have to be smart. Survival, survival, survival. When a coronal mass ejection of the sun takes out all of your electricity for years and you have to survive no fuel, and try to find food for yourself and offspring, who wins? Sasquatch will have a real advantage over you. Who is smart and who is stupid?

Scary thought.

If we lose the electric grid (via coronal mass ejection), I don't want to be around to see how we humans react.

[Guest COGrizzly]

Explorer - those are some fantastic areas to possibly see one of these things. Especially the Wem-Wilderness. 500,000 acres of just you and the bigguy.

Plus, I spoke with a guy back in 2004 that followed enormous 19 inch tracks five feet apart for miles and miles on snowshoes...and those tracks did not ever break stride like an ungulate would. In the Weminuche.

Like Foster says, they know you are there - you are in their house - and want to avoid you.

[Guest TexasTracker]

great stuff guys... very much appreciated

[NathanFooter]

WOW ! Thank you Kfoster for sharing with us !!! This is the kind of information that pulls me in and makes my mind start ticking !!! Keep posting !!!