hiflier Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) Hello Trofluddite, The short answer is along the Appalachian line. Good job BTW. Edited October 21, 2013 by hiflier
Trogluddite Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 ^^^^ Yep, they don't like the flatlands .... the flags are counties where there have been NO sightings.
hiflier Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 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.
salubrious Posted October 21, 2013 Moderator Posted October 21, 2013 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.
Cotter Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 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.
Guest Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 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.
Guest DWA Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 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.
Cotter Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 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).
Guest Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 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.....
Cotter Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 You still a cheesehead? If so, nice to have another on the board. *cheers*
Guest Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 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.
Branco Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 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
Guest Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 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!
hiflier Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 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.
Guest Posted October 22, 2013 Posted October 22, 2013 Ok so if you divide the Black bear estimates by 100 you get these numbers. Gotcha
Recommended Posts