How Much Area Does Bigfoot Require For A Habitation ?

[Trogluddite]

....

Just some more of my own thoughts.

All very good ones - I'll likely be using the 400 sq. mile estimate when I start pondering possible connections between sightings.  Even a 4 mile x 10 mile patch of woods would not be all that big and if hunters/squatchers wanted to, you could flood that zone and flush out anything in there.

[Guest Rex]

about a hundred dollars

 

 

heard ya the first time sport!..

[Explorer]

Trogluddite,

 

Thanks for sharing the chart on the biology comparisons to BF.

 

I am studying something similar with regard to animal density and game cameras capture probability.

 

I also needed average daily range (guess) for BF, but I believe you already tackled that question in another post.

 

[SWWASAS]

I have corresponded with two individuals who have BF living on their property. There is varying degrees of interaction. Both the humans and BF have established a mutual but guarded trust. But that can be violated. One woman brought an outsider in and the BF reacted strongly. The other one I worry about is a single woman who lost her husband to cancer. After that happened, the BF were entering her house and a couple of times she reported that she woke up with one watching her in bed. That cannot be good.

In both cases these are homesteads at the edge of the forest. The BF have a sanctuary in the tree line. They will only come out after dark and explore the property. If outside lights are on they will not approach. Both situations the people are very protective of the location and after one bad experience, will not allow researchers on the property. The one woman I mentioned contacted researchers who then showed up armed with rifles. At that point she knew the BF would not harm her and she asked the researchers to leave. She did not want the BF harmed.

So if any of you researchers do have the opportunity to investigate such a situation, approach the people carefully or it can be an opportunity lost. While I have no direct evidence, and they will not let me on the property, I tend to believe both situations are real. There must be many others out there that have not been reported for similar reasons.

Edited November 17, 2013 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Explorer]

I was re-reading sections of the Raincoast Sasquatch by Robert Alley and realized that he covered this topic on his book appendix (2007, 2nd printing).

 

Alley commentary on habitat and range is with regard to his area of research (along the coasts of Alaska and B.C.).

 

To quote Alley directly (pp. 301-202)

 

“The range of individual animals is speculative and may be influenced by the frequency of movement within a range. This range may be upwards of 400 square miles and overlap with ranges of adjacent

 

individuals. The usage of a number of individual, widely separated ranges or food gathering locales has been theorized, with the passage of animals along a familiar corridor in between. The coastal

 

ecosystems are supportive of a high biomass and 100 square miles of this type of habitat could be viewed as easily carrying one sasquatch. Interior ranges and subalpine/alpine areas would require

 

two to three times that area. Males ostensibly range further. Range for a dominant male might include 400 to 500 square miles embracing a variety of all above ecosystems. Female territories are

 

apparently more remote from human centers of population and females with young are not commonly observed. The range of a female would be in the order of 100 square miles, optimally embracing all

 

of the above ecosystems.â€

[SWWASAS]

The question that started this thread was the size needed for a habitation situation. I have had contact with three individuals in three different states where they claim to have a habitation situation going on. In all cases they are surrounded by forest or woods. Two of the situations the humans provide some food. When they do that they of course reduce the need for the resident BF to get food from other sources. They have observed deer predation on their property. So all of these variables affect the needed surrounding habitat to support the resident BF. Food seems to be the glue that keeps the BF in the area. Food provided by the humans. Livestock grain feed, human food raided from outdoor freezers, some lost livestock, and some raiding of gardens. In one case the property owner left a horse trailer available and there was some evidence they used that for shelter during severe weather. Nesting materials were found in the trailer. If I had to guess the reason for such a relationship it would be tolerant humans, human supplied or made available food, and allowing the BF to have a safe environment to retreat during the day. The BF pretty much own the property during the night and will approach the house if outside lights are not on. In each case the humans will not reveal locations, are reluctant to try to take photographs, and will not invite researchers. So their claims cannot be verified. Quite frankly, if these situations are authentic, I think they have the best chance of proof of species, but the humans involved are uncooperative and really do not want that. If and when the species is recognized, these locations have the best chance to learn anything about the species, but with years of human involvement with supplying food it may tell us very little about how BF lives in the wild. Someone wondered why a normally reclusive BF would get in this situation. Raccoons and other wild animals are very opportunistic with human food sources so I cannot see why BF would be any different if the humans rounded out their food supplies when deer and elk were not available. Readily available food in a fixed location would reduce the need for migration to follow food supplies.

All of this is conjecture and predicated on the reliability of the those who claim to have resident BF on their property. If only they could be talked into allowing researchers there. Randy

[Guest]

I often wonder if the right conditions come together if they would not take up shop, at least for part of the year, right on the fringe of society. For example if you live in an area where there are a fair amount of small towns spread out across a farming area, but with lots of bush land, and lots of natural rivers. This creates a lot of deep cut river beds, and are usually very thick, and difficult to hike or walk in. If they can find connecting cover through area's like this, it would make for a very abundant food supply. In these area's the local wildlife explodes, raccoon, possum, rabbits, deer,squirrels, etc. This same escalation in population of these types of animal contributes to crop damage as well, and would cover something else helping itself as well. So  I wonder sometimes if they take advantage of something like that, and to what degree?

[BobbyO]

The question that started this thread was the size needed for a habitation situation. I have had contact with three individuals in three different states where they claim to have a habitation situation going on. In all cases they are surrounded by forest or woods. Two of the situations the humans provide some food. When they do that they of course reduce the need for the resident BF to get food from other sources. They have observed deer predation on their property. So all of these variables affect the needed surrounding habitat to support the resident BF. Food seems to be the glue that keeps the BF in the area. Food provided by the humans. Livestock grain feed, human food raided from outdoor freezers, some lost livestock, and some raiding of gardens. In one case the property owner left a horse trailer available and there was some evidence they used that for shelter during severe weather. Nesting materials were found in the trailer. If I had to guess the reason for such a relationship it would be tolerant humans, human supplied or made available food, and allowing the BF to have a safe environment to retreat during the day. The BF pretty much own the property during the night and will approach the house if outside lights are not on. In each case the humans will not reveal locations, are reluctant to try to take photographs, and will not invite researchers. So their claims cannot be verified. Quite frankly, if these situations are authentic, I think they have the best chance of proof of species, but the humans involved are uncooperative and really do not want that. If and when the species is recognized, these locations have the best chance to learn anything about the species, but with years of human involvement with supplying food it may tell us very little about how BF lives in the wild. Someone wondered why a normally reclusive BF would get in this situation. Raccoons and other wild animals are very opportunistic with human food sources so I cannot see why BF would be any different if the humans rounded out their food supplies when deer and elk were not available. Readily available food in a fixed location would reduce the need for migration to follow food supplies.All of this is conjecture and predicated on the reliability of the those who claim to have resident BF on their property. If only they could be talked into allowing researchers there. Randy

Or better still than researchers would be Norseman. Then we could have ourselves our subject as a legitimately classified species as we'd have a type specimen.

Researchers aren't going it do anything unfortunately in order to get this thing done.

[BobbyO]

Am I right in saying that 400 square miles is approx a quarter of a million acres ?

[Explorer]

400 square miles = 256,000 acres

[BobbyO]

Hmmmm, the entire Olympic Peninsula is just under one million acres.

Now if we would be talking about a group/ clan etc for that type of range of maybe 6 animals for arguments sake, which is how I think they could be living like, then we'd be talking about 20-30 animals on the Olympic Peninsula, and that to me would be much, much more feasible.

I know one specific researcher on the Peninsula estimates there to be approximately 50 different animals there based on the last 20 or so years of footprint finds.

But then of course you could have animals coming and going for whatever reason too.

Maybe given the fact that the Olympic Peninsula would be regarded as some of the richest habitat in the US ( and of course x 100 where Western Canada is concerned ) they would need as big of an area.

That is of course they're not moving much more than this type of distance at any given time which I think could be possible.

Edited February 8, 2014 by BobbyO

[Explorer]

BobbyO,
 
I was curious whether the density estimates I made in my previous post (see link below) (that used existing allometric scaling equations developed from known mammals) is close to the two suggestions above for home range (of 1 BF per 400 sq. miles).
  
http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/43879-animal-population-density-and-game-camera-capture/

 

I used the density estimated in the original Table 3 (for Carnivores normalized with 2012 cougar data) and multiplied it by 400 square miles to see how many BF that density will yield.  Results are shown in Table 4 attached.  The density is a function of weight, so if there are females or young ones that are lower weight then there would be more in 400 sq.  miles.

 

The results are in the ball park with what DDA and Robert Alley suggested.