Not Enough Wilderness In Midwest To Support Bigfoot?

[TedSallis]

I've read that Jeff Meldrum has postulated that Nebraska doesn't have expansive wilderness necessary to support a Bigfoot population, and wondered what everyone thought of this.

 

It's been sighted often in various Midwest states, including my own of Illinois, and we don't have thick wilderness either, really.  Lots of woods but nothing like the national parks of the West. 

 

Is this incongruous?  Or is there an "out" that allows for Bigfoot to be seen and exist here without such geography?

[BobbyO]

I don't know about the Nebraska's and Iowa's of this world, and am still a little skeptical about Illinois even though I'm amazed how many reports there are out of it, but further east I don't have a problem with, PA, OH etc..

[GuyInIndiana]

Is this incongruous?  Or is there an "out" that allows for Bigfoot to be seen and exist here without such geography?

 

It only tells me that anyone, no matter how educated they may be in KNOWN, studied and understood things, can easily have no grasp about something like sasquatch. He can "mean well" and understand general anthropology, but that clearly doesn't mean he knows or understands anything about sasquatch.

Edited October 19, 2013 by GuyInIndiana

[hiflier]

Hello All,

For wildlife in general the younger woodlands provide better food sources, protective cover, and inpenetrability than older stands of forest. If Sasquatch exists then it could be reasoned that they would follow game, vegetation, and the protective covering that these kinds of habitats provide. The lumber companies' activities by default result in this kind of environment.

[HOLDMYBEER]

I don't understand why they haven't been tracked after snowfall. Out west a creature could hold up in areas that have no snowfall like the Pacific coastal bush. Or they could take advantage of altitude and reside in vast forests beyond the reach of snowmobilers, skiers, snowshoers. How would they do that in the midwest? How would they not leave tracks in the snow that outdoorsmen could find and follow? It would seem, given the amount of snow and relatively tame topography, someone would have followed tracks to more evidence.

[Guest]

There is not much wilderness in the midwest.  Keep in mind the expanse of the completely untouched areas in the west.  There is one (of many) official wilderness area in Idaho (no roads, no mountain bikes, no nothing) that is over three times the square mileage of Rhode Island.  Three times a state with NO roads - 2.4 million acres.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Nod4Eight

[GuyInIndiana]

There is not much wilderness in the midwest. 

 

But that's the very problem people like Meldrum (and other authoritative figures) have with understanding the issue(s). They create broad brush concepts of "wilderness" to define where they can only be, and everyone else fills in the blanks. It isn't about how many roads do or don't line the way to or thru where they live. It's about overall lack of human population present in areas where BF *can* live if they choose to.

 

*If it's not "wilderness" the BF can't be there*.... again, shows a lack of simple understanding how complex the real issues are. 

[norseman]

There is not much wilderness in the midwest.  Keep in mind the expanse of the completely untouched areas in the west.  There is one (of many) official wilderness area in Idaho (no roads, no mountain bikes, no nothing) that is over three times the square mileage of Rhode Island.  Three times a state with NO roads - 2.4 million acres.

 

Add another 2 million for the Selway Bitterroot wilderness that is only separated by the Frank Church by the Magruder corridor. Biggest in the lower 48.

[Incorrigible1]

I agree with Dr. Meldrum. A lifelong NE resident, there are no large, bipedal, hairy residents in Nebraska. Passing through? Going where, from where? The western 2/3 of the state is population sparse, but there is no suitable habitat where the creature could remain, to live out its days and nights.

 

During the westward migration of the mid-19th century, Nebraska was a treeless prairie. Vast areas remain so, the trees in the state largely human-planted. There are huge acreages of irrigated corn, but after October or November, those are picked clean. Even in Nebraska, a large ape-like creature would stand out like the proverbial sore thumb.

 

The only areas with suitable tree cover are along rivers and streams. Nebraska does have more miles of river than any other state, but the tree-covered river stands do not extend far from the river banks. The most dense vegetation and tree-cover occurs along the Missouri river banks, but the area is also among the most densely populated part of the state.

 

Would love to add sasquatch/bigfoot to the state's residents, but it just ain't so.

[norseman]

I don't understand why they haven't been tracked after snowfall. Out west a creature could hold up in areas that have no snowfall like the Pacific coastal bush. Or they could take advantage of altitude and reside in vast forests beyond the reach of snowmobilers, skiers, snowshoers. How would they do that in the midwest? How would they not leave tracks in the snow that outdoorsmen could find and follow? It would seem, given the amount of snow and relatively tame topography, someone would have followed tracks to more evidence.

 

They have. But I disagree that they can take advantage of a habitat that can receive up to 95 feet of snow...........

 

I've been working in North Dakota for almost three years now, and for one? They don't get much snow, when compared to the Pacific NW. And for two? The snow that is present is very dry and blows all over the place, which would fill in tracks easily.

 

In the Pacific NW, you better find the animal your tracking before the next snow storm comes and buries them.

 

I think the Midwest doesn't have many Sasquatch because it's a water/timber issue, that's the habitat they prefer. And when I say Midwest, I'm talking about the great plains only. It's the same as why the Columbia basin which is farm land in Washington state doesn't receive many reports either. We don't see our black Bear out there roaming around either......

[Guest TexasTracker]

I think it's narrow minded to assume we understand how this animal moves (or doesn't). Perhaps their migration paths follow those narrow river corridors at certain times of the year. Perhaps sub-adult males are driven from their "troops" and have to find other areas to live. I think it's totally logical to assume that the waterways would be their "highways".

 

Meldrum's experience is probably largely from studies in the PNW. Who's to say that the practices of those PNW animals is the same as those in the Arkansas/Oklahoma area or those assumed to be in Florida? 

 

Any of you guys recall the story behind the Oklahoma casino footage? That place is miles from the nearest waterway... nothing around but farmland for as far as you could see.

 

Just my belief, but perhaps those rare sightings from non-traditional areas are just transient animals.... assuming misidentification was ruled out.  

Edited October 20, 2013 by TexasTracker

[Incorrigible1]

I think it's narrow minded to assume we understand how this animal moves (or doesn't). Perhaps their migration paths follow those narrow river corridors at certain times of the year. Perhaps sub-adult males are driven from their "troops" and have to find other areas to live. I think it's totally logical to assume that the waterways would be their "highways".

 

 

Where are they coming from? Where are they going? Realize, too, there are large, wide areas, even along riverways, that are treeless. It's not narrow minded. Pragmatic, perhaps.

[Guest TexasTracker]

I'm simply saying that it's reasonable to assume we don't know squat about these guys; not tryin' to ruffle any feathers.

[HOLDMYBEER]

When I speak of Pacific Northwest I am speaking west of the Cascades. Actually very little snow and what snow there is is usually quite wet.  Elevations below 1,000 feet almost never get snow through the entire winter. 

 

Virtually everywhere west of the Cascades has logging road within a mile or two. When we do get snowfall it limits access by vehicle. The snowmobilers and skiers can still get around but they are typically serviced by vehicle to the limit of access. That leaves huge areas above 2-3-4,000 feet that just don't get seen for much of the winter. I can understand how creatures might get away with not being detected through our long wet winters but I don't see how it can happen in the midwest. 

[Guest]

For wildlife in general the younger woodlands provide better food sources, protective cover, and inpenetrability than older stands of forest. If Sasquatch exists then it could be reasoned that they would follow game, vegetation, and the protective covering that these kinds of habitats provide. The lumber companies' activities by default result in this kind of environment.

 

Spot on methinks. Around here, all you have to do to create perfect Sasquatch territory is take a field and leave it the heck alone for 15+ years. By then you'll have dense multilayered mixed deciduous woods full of nuts, seeds, berries and deer.

 

Though having said that, you do have to have somewhere within a mile or so for the deer and other critters to arrive from, preferably with hedgerow or topological cover, creeks etc.

 

Some of this is rainfall related, if it wasn't in the higher rainfall zone, stuff wouldn't grow so quick and dense, there wouldn't be so many creeks and drainage ditches.

 

Anyway, you get this sort of thing looking like a network of neurons with clumps of woodland connected by the axons of hedgerows and creeks. It might be 50% farmland and rural dwellings, but as long as that cover is there...

 

Then you go a bit further west and there's the megafarms with thousands of  acres of wheat or corn or taters in one lump, flat, no ridgelines to hide behind, and only scattered islands of trees, drop a sasquatch there and he'd be like a polynesian who grew up afraid of water.