Not Enough Wilderness In Midwest To Support Bigfoot?

[Branco]

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

You are right TT. Sasquatch - being the "other tribe" as described by many NA tribes - without question followed the major rivers flowing east and southeast off the great divide just as the NAs did. All one has to do to see that statement is true is pull up a map of the country's river system, then a plot of the locations of the old major NA communities and camps. Now plot the Sasquatch sighting reports on that map. You will notice that most of the sighting reports of Sasquatch come from the same areas that was once home to vast populations of NAs. (Sasquatch was not forced to move to less habitable less sustaining areas and reservations.)

 

When NAs and Sasquatch reached the south and southeastern coasts and could go no further, the populations of both increased to the point that many followed the rivers back upstream and began settling along the larger creeks and river forks. The NA's of course were forced to stop doing that hundreds of years ago; but Sasquatch still do that. That is why they are often seen passing through large cities which have major rivers passing though or beside them.

 

As a result, most of the south/southeastern states have areas in which the population density of Sasquatch per land area exceeds any other such area in the PNW. One state that is a good example of that is Texas. 

[TedSallis]

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

 

 

So what you're saying is "we don't know squat" about 'squatches?

[hiflier]

Hello Texas Tracker,

 

Um...I think that would be "diddly squatch" then?

[Guest TexasTracker]

Branco, well stated brother...  The limited research I've done in Texas, Oklahoma and SW Arkansas sure seem to indicate the same, even with occasional sightings MANY miles further down a river than you'd expect to see em.

 

TedSallis, pun intended, of course.

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

This is actually a very intelligent thread, Thank you TedSallis. BTW, a way to beef up the concept of the long term historic migration of the Sasquatch populations would anyone care to delve onto John Green's stuff and sort the data with the goal of corraborating the idea?

[MIB]

What it shows, IMHO, is that many people think they know what the conditions are in other parts of the country, and don't.   It shows that other people think they know what a large mammal needs to stay hidden .. and don't.    Leave your assumptions at the door ...

 

MIB

[Guest TexasTracker]

hiflier,

 

I'm a huge fan of Mr Green's work and I've actually been working along those lines for a couple of years now. Specifically, I've been attempting to find correlations between the times of the year where sightings have occurred along the major waterways down here (Tex, Okla, La, & Ark). If it was all just black & white right there this mystery would be solved.

 

There are def years with more activity, but not on a predictable cycle. There are some months that seem to indicate more activity, but not consistently on a year-to-year basis.

 

I thought the data for down here might be more manageable because of the fewer reports, but I might be too limited to gain any real insight. Like most everyone else, I need more data.

 

Personally, I do not believe these animals "migrate" due to weather. Its mild enough around here year round and movement within a few 100 miles results in very little climate change. They may however migrate do to human pressure, or food supply. Say, if edibles within their range are growing scarce. 

 

I'm always open to input or suggestions.

 

The main waterways I have been concentrated on are the Red river valley, the Canadian river/rivers from Colorado, through Okla and the various waterways of southeastern Okla.... All of these waterways come together within just a few miles of good ole Fouke, Arkansas... what are the odds?

 

CG

[Guest lightheart]

I find your post very thought-provoking and informative Branco. I believe that North and Central Florida have healthy populations of Sasquatch. The St. Johns River watershed covers thousands of acres and more and more wildlife reserves and greenways are being added. In these areas the wildlife is abundant- rich with deer, hogs,turkey etc.

[hiflier]

Hello Texas Tracker,

 

Good to know that I'm not the only "huge fan" of Mr. Green . I too do not think that Sasquatch migrate unless there are environmental pressures such as a sparse food supply. Historically though following the NA tribes as Branco pointed out makes sense. I think it safe to say that no one believes that Sasquatch appeared out of thin air. It follows then that, rather than migrate East across the plains, the populations in the Upper Midwest and on into the Eastern Seaboard came down from the Canadian Provinces. Unless of course the Buffalo was simply too much of a good easy food source. Especially in winter. 

 

One of the things to remember about mammals with fur is the issue of long distance running with a coat of fur/hair. Overheating can be deadly and that's why I mentioned the winter aspects to buoy up the idea of a possible Great Plains movement.

Edited October 21, 2013 by hiflier

[Guest TexasTracker]

Hiflier,

 

I suspect that whatever species, or sub-species inhabits the Rockies would be the same as whatever we have down here. I think the species that inhabits our areas down here is considerably smaller (as a species) than in the PNW. Our "typical" reported bf is smaller down here. I do not think they migrate away from down here regularly. I think they inhabit they area and have adapted to whatever is available.

 

Take a look at the deer population in the PNW compared to Texas/Okla. They are easily 2-3 times bigger up there. Many factors including weather, diet, etc. There is actually a scientific term for animals being smaller in warmer habitats, but I cannot recall that term; someone help me out.

 

If I had to guess, I'd expect that whatever lives in Florida, the Appalachians and the east coast would be a slight genetic variation of the species here.... and both of those different that whatever inhabits the PNW region. On that note, I could more easily believe an "urban squatch" down here over one in the PNW that could easily live it's entire life and never see a human. Dumpster diving and living on the fringe of human population might be easier for one that is older or injured....

 

CG

[MIB]

TT - you're talking about Bergman's Rule I think.

 

hiflier - Consider another angle.  I don't think they're running.  I don't think they merely use the trees and brush along streams as cover, I think they're traveling ... swimming.  I've seen that once.  Paulides cites several witness reports of the same in The Hoopa Project.  That'd be a heck of an adaptation to manage heat for something large and well insulated in a warm climate.   Two birds, one stone.

 

MIB

[hiflier]

Hello Texas Tracker,

 

Yeah, that's Bergmann's rule. I knew it started with a "B" but couldn't remember it either. Had to look it up, thank you WIKI!

 

I could more easily believe an "urban squatch" down here over one in the PNW that could easily live it's entire life and never see a human. Dumpster diving and living on the fringe of human population might be easier for one that is older or injured....

 

CG

I agree. Animals adapting to Human habitation is well known. The ones that live within cities will surprise you. Even deer can be quite urbanized.

Hello MIB,

 

I'm liking this thread a lot I have to say. Swimming or even simply walking on the bottom at times or, like me, just sitting and doing nuthin' LOL. And then there's the fish and also the adaptation of ambushing animals who come to drink or ford the creeks and rivers to get somewhere else. Being vulnerable around water is well known in the animal kingdom even amongst the most intelligent of them all- Humans.

[Guest]

Branco and TT good stuff. It only makes sense for them to travel in or along rivers because it is harder to track and hard to leave a track on a rock.

   There is no doubt that annual precipitation plays a huge role  http://voices.yahoo.com/where-rain-falls-most-united-states-by-5668146.html

[Trogluddite]

Not all terrain may support BF equally.  I just updated NY-PA-WV counties w/no sightings (Anticipatory response to Rex: Yes, I'm sure I've missed a few reports in these counties!)  These are the counties w/no reports as per BFRO.  I've eliminated a few counties based on reports from other sources.  W/out seeing the human boundaries, any one notice anything about these counties?

 

(I didn't flag the NY metro area - I'm pretty sure BF is only there during the "Castle" season.)

NY-PA-WV No Sightings.pdf

Edited October 21, 2013 by Trogluddite

[Trogluddite]

Let's see how this works for those who don't want to download a .pdf file....

 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2013 by Trogluddite