Jump to content

Not Enough Wilderness In Midwest To Support Bigfoot?


TedSallis

Recommended Posts

Hello Trogluddite,

 

Makes sense again. Fewer Humans is the obvious answer because of competition for food and stealth. Another point is smell. Warm air rises upslope and carries with it aromas of every variety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

Minnesota and Wisconsin are considered Midwest.

 

We have plenty of BF reports up here. There appears to be a corridor along the Mississippi and St. Croix rivers. Lots of wooded areas too- even a large, bona-fide wilderness area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To expand on Wisconsin.

The Chequamogon and Nicolet forests cover 1.5 million acres.

Horicon Marsh is 32,000 acres.

 

Adding in the Mississippi River Basin and the Okooch Mountain Range, it adds up to a LOT of wilderness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To expand on Wisconsin.

The Chequamogon and Nicolet forests cover 1.5 million acres.

Horicon Marsh is 32,000 acres.

 

Adding in the Mississippi River Basin and the Okooch Mountain Range, it adds up to a LOT of wilderness.

A lot of wilderness but not a whole lot of sightings. Having lived in southern Wisconsin my whole life I always found it odd regarding the amount of sightings in Illinois. Horicon is one of many marshes in southern Wisconsin and I've spent many hours sitting in trees along side of these marshes waiting for very nocturnal deer. Never encountered a Biggie in southern Wisconsin however on one occasion I found in very strange that someone or something would be pounding on a tree in the dark well before sunrise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Exactly.

 

I don't care how much experience you have in the field, or how highly I regard you in the field otherwise.  Just driving through the midwestern states on the interstates I can tell you that if you know for a fact that there are no bigfoot in those states, well, no you don't.

 

Confirm the animal.  Then let's start on the range maps, OK?  Circ-filing reports for "no way here" is just silly at this point.

 

Locals in the Abruzzo region of Italy had no idea they were sharing the area with brown bears...until researchers showed them the proof.  There's only so far I let anyone take their certainty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know in the county I live in there have been 10 reports to the sherriff's dept in the past 3 years.

 

I wonder if the type of folks around here just don't report as a rule.  I know of several folks with sightings that have never been reported....

 

The amount of ridicule in the MW would be magnitudes greater than say, in the PNW if one to report a sighting (just a hunch).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know in the county I live in there have been 10 reports to the sherriff's dept in the past 3 years.

 

I wonder if the type of folks around here just don't report as a rule.  I know of several folks with sightings that have never been reported....

 

The amount of ridicule in the MW would be magnitudes greater than say, in the PNW if one to report a sighting (just a hunch).

I would quess ridicule plays a huge factor in the number of reported sightings. That may be different state to state however, if I was to have a bigfoot slap me across the head today I still would not share that experience with a sherriff's department or people I know personally. We may wear cheese on the top of our head and drink a lot of beer but we're not crazy.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

As a rough estimate of the possibility of bigfoot, you could take the American Black Bear population and divide it by 100. We start with black bear because these are large, solitary, omnivores. In other words, there are no characteristics of black bear that appear to make them more likely to be seen. Therefore there cannot be as many bigfoot as black bear because the sightings are much more infrequent. There are no black bear in Illinois or Indiana, and only a peripheral population in Ohio in the southeast corner of the state. There are no black bear in the Great Plains states. An estimate like this does tend to contradict the claim that there are bigfoot in every state but such a claim is not really based on common sense. The state of Indiana does not have mountains or deep forest where a large animal could hide. The largest forest is the Hoosier National Forest and this is heavily visited. Southern Illinois is very similar to Indiana and you have significant urban areas stretching from Chicago to Gary Indiana. You also have bounding rivers like the Mississippi and Ohio as well as Lake Michigan and Erie. Essentially you end up with habitat that is contained within the Appalachians and Rocky mountains. Not surprisingly, these are where the largest black bear populations are located.

 

I can state with great confidence that are no bigfoot in the state of Indiana or Illinois or the Great Plains states or the arctic tundra. You also then have to consider what bigfoot would eat in the Winter when black bear hibernate. Do bigfoot hibernate? This would create a northern bound as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

United States estimated Populations of Resident Bigfoot following method proposed: 19 Oct 2013.

Alabama – 5

Alaska – 20,000

Arizona - 300

Arkansas - 400

California – 3,000

Colorado - 1100

Connecticut - 35

Delaware - 0

Florida - 300

Georgia - 500

Hawaii - 0

Idaho – 2,000

Illinois - 0

Indiana - 0

Iowa - 0

Kansas - 0

Louisiana - 70

Maine – 2,500

Maryland - 600

Massachusetts - 300

Michigan – 1,800

Minnesota – 2,000

Mississippi - 18

Missouri - 20

Montana – 1,000

Nebraska - 0

Nevada - 23

New Hampshire - 500

New Jersey - 350

 Mexico - 600

New York - 650

North Carolina – 1,300

North Dakota - 0

Ohio - 7

Oklahoma - 80

Oregon – 2,750

Pennsylvania – 1,400

Rhode Island - 1

South Carolina - 120

South Dakota - 0

Tennessee - 450

Texas - 25

Utah - 200

Vermont - 410

Virginia - 1600

Washington – 3,000

West Virginia – 1,000

Wisconsin – 3,500

Wyoming - unknown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Very Interesting  Branco. I would guess Ohio and Florida to have more and NC and VA  to have less. I was wondering what the parameters were to get the numbers. I would say SC, my state, sounds about right with 120 though I would like to think there is more!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Branco,

 

Thanks. Never have I seen anything like this. I of course know where the numbers came from but I get the sense that "scientia" is thinking along a good line. Maine has always been low in the report statistics but not in the bear population category. Using only such a reference to come up with a Sasquatch population distribution figure would obviously slant the numbers as other factors need to come into play. I'm not saying anything obviously that you are not already aware of though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...