Trogluddite Posted March 7, 2013 Share Posted March 7, 2013 ^ Sunflower, You are posting stats for wildlife and I'm assuming by your info above you think that they are wildlife, .... Yup. Big, hairy 2-legged wildlife, but wildlife nonetheless. I put the list together because I'm mapping PA-WV-NY sightings and was trying to figure out which sightings I could logically link together as the same critter. Hence the chart. However, I agree with your observation that BF (the animal) follows food, probably centered on its shelter (caves?). Human encroachment would likely displace a .... a pod? a herd? a bushel? of BF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 12, 2013 Share Posted April 12, 2013 Reading this thread brings a question to mind. Does anyone know if BF have ever bee 'boxed in' by encroaching populations and building? I always feel like I'm asking dumb questions :-/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveedoe Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 I would think the home range of a Bigfoot would be similar to a black bear. This is from Americanblackbear.org The home range of an American black bear can vary greatly depending on the location, the season, food availability, the density of individuals, and the sex and age of the individual in question. The home range of a male is normally larger than that of a female, and each male's home range will usually overlap the home ranges of several females. Generally, the poorer the habitat, the larger the home range must be in order to supply the bear with enough food, water, and shelter. While in some extreme instances a male American black bear could have a home range of over 100 square miles, a more typical size would be: Male 8 to 60 square miles female 1 to 15 square miles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Apparently a few acres behind a home depot is plenty of room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 (edited) Some link I found on another thread recently touched on this a little (but be warned, the link is about invisibility).... The poster lives in Oregon and said that BF "live inside the city limits of Portland, Oregon, and in most woods that are larger than 5 acres around here." And Elaine, your questions are always great! My sense is that it is not possible to box in a Sasquatch. I think they go anywhere they like, whenever they like. Like Sunflower said, if an area starts to feel not so congenial to them, they just scram outta there..... Edited April 13, 2013 by LeafTalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cowlitz2 Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 Have read that BF families migrate, some more than others. Evidence was verified by identifiable footprints. Older BFs are said to get comfortable and stay put, while young (esp males will migrate large distances). Looking for a mate, climate/elevation, food source, and excessive human interactions are some of the likely reasons. Habitation (e.g., attachment to a favorite food source) and in rare cases habituation (e.g., attachment to people) are also examples that have been discussed through examples. There are lots of variables in my mind on this subject of how much land area is required to support a BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2013 Share Posted April 13, 2013 about a hundred dollars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted April 16, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted April 16, 2013 Woah there Ace, twice in the same thread ? You can't be serious ? Haha.. Ok, seriously, I remembered this, via Jimmy Chilcutt.. " Though Chilcutt said he has examined some prints that were obvious hoaxes, the prints he deems authentic come from different locations and could not possibly be faked. Two castings were found in Washington and one in California, 15 years and hundreds of miles apart. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 25, 2013 Share Posted April 25, 2013 (edited) I can only speak for a relatively arid mountainous region in the SW US that seemed to support at least one family of BFs (4 at least) continually. The vertical elevation available to them ranged from 7,000 feet to just 1,500 in just a mile or two if one took rugged canyons (the roads extremely limited..but same change in about 12 miles). They also had a designated wilderness area bounding home base, along with National Forest. The total intense territory perhaps a six mile square (of which the surface area would far exceed the geometric area!!!!). There are some ranching communities/ranches and recreation use but of no real import. No logging anymore there, or significant mining. Low density grazing. Berries, grapes, acorns, walnuts among other obvious edibles. Area is fairly thick with turkey, deer, elk, bear, cougar, javelina, coati mundi, coyote, skunk, etc.... Only a few perennial streams in late summer. Plenty of canyons/caves...really rugged....ancient cliff dwellings and so on. Nothing suburban about it. But, I also am aware that BFs pretty much have their way at night, any where, or in difficult areas to traverse in the day, and waterways can be so thick with vines and vegetation we refuse to negotiate (think poison oak!) ..that I don't find the "suburban" bigfoot so outlandish...especially if the evidence produced is in keeping with what most are able to produce...I am not in a group who thinks people make this stuff up just to get attention on obscure discussion forums....or with random BF investigators...(yes, yes... weigh it all...) . Today many suburban areas were plopped right down at the edge of an older city...pushing against lands that were, till just a few decades ago, rural agricultural or wild. Edited April 25, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 Updated Chart Sorry about posting a half-a**ed chart the first time; should've gotten the job done and then posted. This is a cheat sheet for the non-hunting/non-wildlife specialist inquiring minds. I put this together to try to create a reasonable estimate - based on known critters and hominids - of biological parameters for bigfoot. I wanted those parameters so that I could make a reasonable guess of whether sighting "A" in, say 1978 in Westmoreland County, PA, might be the same bigfoot as sighting B in (again, only for example) 1991 in Cambria County. It's also an attempt to have some sort of metric to determine whether certain sightings just don't make sense - for example, a 1970s sighting in the heart of a suburb outside of Philly, where there is no open ground for miles around. To answer where I got the values for bigfoot - pure S*W*A*G*. One thing that jumps out at me that if a bigfoot is sighted at point "A" today, the best place to go looking might be a wooded area 20 miles away instead of rushing to point A, like everyone else, since both places might be part of that bigfoot's "home territory." The other interesting idea, touched on by Cowlitz2, is that one bigfoot (or bigfoot family group) might have several widely separated home areas that they rotate/migrate between. (I.e., something like winter and summer feeding grounds f/moose or deer.) If so, sightings in 1990 in Ohio might relate to 1995 sightings in New York. Biology Comparisons vBFF.doc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 IMO in the PNW... 400 sq. mi. But not as the crow flys. Prime real estate would most assuredly contain convoluted terrain, making for a variety of time constraints as to fruits, seeds, nuts and insects finding it the perfect time to season, sprout, shed and hatch. These in turn regulate larger organisms that feed on them to visit during these times. Then there is the calving seasons. Suffice it to say that Bigfoot would most definitely have a better subconcious resource map than most bears. They are probably pickier eaters as well, passing up rotten carrion and fish maggot laden for more high energy material just up the hill. Odors favor those with longer snouts so it shouldn't be a surprise that audio and sight would play a more important role in Bigfoots quest for food. High look out points would give them an ability to study large mammal movements better than being in the thick of the bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisBFRPKY Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 about a hundred dollars Rain Man!!! I like DDA's estimate of about 400 Sq miles. I'll bet it's all about the food. You can almost mark on the calander when the fruit trees and black berries in this area will be robbed. Home range of a family group is my guess with a very good memory of exactly where and when food is available within a few days each year. Chris B.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 IMO in the PNW... 400 sq. mi. ......Then there is the calving seasons. Suffice it to say that Bigfoot would most definitely have a better subconcious resource map than most bears. Just curious - any particular reason for that range of 400 mi2? Although I have to say that I probably agree that a larger home territory makes more sense than a more compact home area. If a home area is that large, it makes the chances of encountering a BF through a weekend (or even week-long) excursion pretty small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted August 7, 2013 Admin Share Posted August 7, 2013 Woah there Ace, twice in the same thread ? You can't be serious ? Haha.. Ok, seriously, I remembered this, via Jimmy Chilcutt.. " Though Chilcutt said he has examined some prints that were obvious hoaxes, the prints he deems authentic come from different locations and could not possibly be faked. Two castings were found in Washington and one in California, 15 years and hundreds of miles apart. " From Happy Camp California to Walla Walla Wa is 578 miles driving according to map quest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2013 Share Posted August 8, 2013 (edited) My reasoning for the 400 sq mi range: 1. If it were smaller we would have just as much chance of competing with it that we do with bears, and we know how that goes. A. Encounters so common that they are not officially reported, just mentioned in one up manship conversations, B. Authorities would be discussing or acting on capture and relocating tactics, C. We can outsmart most large animals on this planet but when cornered, defending a home range is pretty much a war, there would be serious injuries, deaths and unexplained disappearances. 2. If it were smaller they would be easier to find, track, observe, capture, etc. 3. If it were smaller there would be more in their population 4. If it were smaller there would be more observable evidence of their presence; grazing, hunting, shelter, mating, offspring, etc. 5. If it were smaller they would be more susceptible to unpredictable and hazardous weather conditions. The 400 sq mi area must contain: 1. Enough food and water as to go unmissing 2. Enough isolation as to hide the majority of its life cycle; mating, offspring rearing, eating, sleeping, dying 3. Enough potential for offspring 4. Enough change in elevation that mitigates hazardous weather 5. Enough ground vegetation to use as an aide in camoflage 6. Enough room that when competing individuals trespass they have a high probability of passing undetected by the home range resident Bigfoot 7. A reasonable lack of human influence in the landscape; roads, homes, constructions, 8. Natural barriers at the edges of their home range that they recognize as protective, restrictive; a constraint Just some more of my own thoughts. Edited August 8, 2013 by damndirtyape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts