What Is The Daily Range Of A Bigfoot?

[ShadowBorn]

Shadowborn, how did you come up with you hypotheses ? How do you know leaves are hard for them to digest ?

If they are anything like us ,their digestive track must be the same. I see them like in a way that they do not move much during the day and that they eat vegatables or leaves through out the day.

[norseman]

What would a small range be though ?

100 square miles ?

That's still a lot of camera's.

 

That will probably only take lot's of blobsquatch photos........

 

Jimmy Chilcutt, the LE officer that is an expert on dermal ridges claims he has two casts from Meldrum's collection that were made by the same individual. One cast was collected in northern California and one cast was collected in SE Washington. That's roughly 500 miles, and the casts were 20 years apart.

 

So it's unclear if this animal had migrated 500 miles over the course of a significant portion of it's life time? Or if this shows a migration pattern that is executed yearly? Or perhaps a longer cycle? Or if this animal had a bad encounter and simply bolted 500 miles to another area to settle down in.

 

It's all conjecture at this stage of the game.

[BobbyO]

That's exactly right Norse, I've read about that and linked it on here.

All surmising though like you say.

However, I think I have found sightings of the same individual in WA over the course of a few years, it might well be anyway as at least the description fits and it's not the usual colouring, still working on it however..

[sheri]

Shadowborn, your hypothesis, is your assuming their digestive tract's are like our's. No one know's that. I also know almost half of the sightings are during the daytime, including mine. They just might be less active when there are human's around that they feel threatened by or during hot day's. We really won't know until a continuous study of them is done. Of course that is going to take money and courage.

[Trogluddite]

FWIW,

 

My conjecture about a daily range is, at its simplest form:

 

Fact: All animals (and pre-farming/herding humans) have to wander about for their food.

 

Assumption: Bigfoot is an animal (or pre-farming/herding human).

 

Conclusion: Bigfoot has to wander about for its food.

 

The animals on my chart (above) are lined up roughly by weight, which = minimum calories to sustain life which = minimum amount of food to get those calories which = S.W.A.G. as to the territory necessary to harvest that food (w/out creating obvious signs of occupation).

 

The only outlier to the trend of bigger = more is the gorrila, and the materials I found indicated that its environment is so rich in easily available food that its not a useful measurement for animals that don't live in that environment.

[BobbyO]

FWIW,

 

The animals on my chart (above) are lined up roughly by weight, which = minimum calories to sustain life which = minimum amount of food to get those calories which = S.W.A.G. as to the territory necessary to harvest that food (w/out creating obvious signs of occupation).

 

The only outlier to the trend of bigger = more is the gorrila, and the materials I found indicated that its environment is so rich in easily available food that its not a useful measurement for animals that don't live in that environment.

I can't see any cart Trog ?

With regards to that Gorilla habitat and a comparison, I always thought of the Oympic Pennsula in WA as the same kind of environment, or at least the closest to it in the US anyway.

But all along that cast there and especially north into BC, you've got that real rich habitat.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

A better question for this thread is "what is the daily caloric intake for a 600 pound Sasquatch?". A 200 pound Human may consume 2,500 calories a day. This is good to know as the ratio should be the same for any animal. It would follow then that a 600 pond animal would need around 7,000 calories to fullfil the ratio. A 600 pound bear needs about that much averaged out but bears are different- they hibernate.

In order to meet those obligations a Brown Bear say, would have to ramp up it's daily nutritional requirements in order to cover the time in hiberantion. This means that the daily intake for a 600 pound Brown Bear could be in excess of 20,000 calories a day for the late summer and Autumn months!

So the question of whether or not Bigfoot hibernates arises and it would seem from the reports that they do not. Anthropologist and biologists alike look at habitat in assessing if an area does or does not have the resources to sustain size or numbers of animals in a given region. They would probably be the best experts in judging that criteria.

So, given that SSQ's in the 600 pound range do not hibernate then an AVERAGED daily caloric intake would, or should be, in the range of 7,000 calories a day depending on temperature and activity. Obviously areas with fewer animals to prey on, or carcasses to eat, or vegetation to graze upon would require a greater range and this should be a determining factor in addressing the OP.

Still in all, when winter aproaches then eating more in order to prepare for harsher climates and leaner times through experience and therefor habit could very well cause Bigfoot to go on binges in order to lay in the fat reserves.

Edited August 22, 2013 by hiflier

[Trogluddite]

BobbyO,

 

I can't see any cart Trog ?

It's in an "In the Field" thread on the amount of range needed for habitation.  Don't take the first (crappy) chart (I never should have put up there); go for the second one I posted. I agree that the OP is a very good environment, but it still pales (or so I understand) to a true tropical rainforest.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

"...Still in all, when winter aproaches then eating more in order to prepare for harsher climates and leaner times through experience and therefor habit could very well cause Bigfoot to go on binges in order to lay in the fat reserves...." -hiflier, post #22

Now that I've mentioned it, "Patty" was looking rather "plump" on her maiden film debut in October 1967 wouldn't you say?

[JDL]

I've never seen a male with excess pounds.  The females do seem to carry more fat.  Makes sense from a reproductive standpoint.

 

With regard to caloric requirements, keep in mind the relative size of their lungs.  Much greater than ours.  Several effects here.  That lung volume alters the size to mass ratio from our own by as much as fifteen percent.  Their lung to body mass ratio is also greater than ours.  This leads to better oxygen intake, better oxygenation, and more efficient use of stored energy, whether it be from blood glucose, from glycogen in the liver, or from the conversion of fat to energy.  Also few sightings describe them in activities where they are rampantly burning calories.  They seem to efficiently move from place to place and remain stationary for long periods.  I doubt that their caloric needs correspond directly to ours.

 

Edited to say:

 

That said, they still need a lot more food than we do, are probably always hungry, and their primary daily concern remains the procurement of food.

Edited August 22, 2013 by JDL

[Guest]

For there to be enough of them, I'd suspect their territories are relatively small. I wonder if they even keep territories year-round when not in a family group.

I'm not so sure but it sounds like a lot of factors go into range

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v259/n5543/abs/259459a0.html

http://www.montana.edu/hansen/documents/bio494/harestadbunnell.pdf

[Guest Urkelbot]

 

 

With regard to caloric requirements, keep in mind the relative size of their lungs.  Much greater than ours.  Several effects here.  That lung volume alters the size to mass ratio from our own by as much as fifteen percent.  Their lung to body mass ratio is also greater than ours.  This leads to better oxygen intake, better oxygenation, and more efficient use of stored energy, whether it be from blood glucose, from glycogen in the liver, or from the conversion of fat to energy.  Also few sightings describe them in activities where they are rampantly burning calories.  They seem to efficiently move from place to place and remain stationary for long periods.  I doubt that their caloric needs correspond directly to ours.

 

 

This is all nonsense you couldn't know this unless you have dissected measured and weighed the lungs.    

 

Lung volumes and most respritory traits of mammals are scaled to their body mass.  

http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/1966/stahl1966a.pdf

[BobbyO]

Wouldn't something that highly likely weighs more than double the average human, which is also a primate, have bigger lungs then ?

[Sunflower]

Can't prove what I think, but 60 miles in a day seems to be no sweat for a full grown hairy guy.  This is from info of my own experiences and friends' as well. 

[Guest]

With regards to above, I covered 9 miles in 1.5 hours "briskly" walking home from work yesterday. I'm 5'9 so someone 18-24 inches taller with legs to match could no doubt better that if they wanted and keep on going if needs be.