One Week To Squatch, Where To Do It?

[Guest DWA]

If "stuff to eat per acre" is the criterion, and that alone, OH wins.  And that's the criterion, if one is an individual looking for food.  For the individual it's not the total available; it's what the individual can get to.

 

Bindernagel based his judgment on this:  how big a territory would one need to eat?  In OH, one would need far less than one would in OR or WA.  (Or AK.  Even the Tongass.)

 

Folks tend to forget that there is no state in the union with worse habitat than AK.  Here's the difference:  since pre-Columbian times, the other states have seen somewhat of a degradation of total habitat available.  AK by contrast has seen virtually none.  What has happened in the lower 48 would make the total tree fellage in AK look like a toothpick by comparison.

 

Could one take the Wayne NF in OH; blow it up to Tongass acreage; and populate it with the fauna Europeans first found, it would make the Tongass's fauna look less impressive than New York City's.  Unfortunately there's nothing like that in the lower 48 any more.

 

What one sees in AK now is a bare shadow of what Europeans found in the American East.  OH has more than folks think of the latter kind of habitat.  In fact, even current Europeans with little experience in the US would be wowed by much of Ohio.  Granted, they'd be more wowed by the West.  But if bigfoot's what you're looking for and you only have a week, well, you're gonna want to be able to see most of the habitat, and in OH you can.

 

(In AK, if one saw a million acres a day it would take a year to see it all.  And it would pretty much require an aircraft.)

I should add that if one has only a week, the best two strategies to maximize chances for success are:

 

1) Driving for as many of the 24 hours as one can manage, every single day, focusing on the hours of darkeness and staying in the quietest most forested areas possible; or

 

2) Staying, for a week, in a tent in a remote location not too far away from a haystack size pile of either rotting offal ...or bacon.

Anyway, my point:

 

An acre in the Midwest pumps out more critter food than practically any acre in the northwest could manage.  Which means animals like bear and sasquatch will basically be limited by human pressure - which ain't much when you're presumed not to exist.

Edited January 2, 2014 by DWA

[Explorer]

Quote from BobbyO:

 

"No public sightings in or around the Bluff Creek part of NorCal for years now. If you're going to WA, it all depends what time of year. If you tell the time of year and be as specific as possible, i can narrow it down REALLY well to where you've got the best chance of getting some activity, without a doubt."

 

 

BobbyO is right, if you go to BFRO website, not much is going on in Northern CAL.

 

However, if you read David Paulides books, The Hoopa Project (2008) and Tribal Bigfoot (2009), he investigated BF cases in Northern CAL going all the way to 2008.

 

My belief is that most people in that area (specially Native Americans), don't bother calling BFRO to report.  That is why Paulides was able to fill the whole Hoopa book with cases that were not in BFRO database.

 

I spent 2 weeks in Six Rivers and Trinity Alps wilderness this summer, and saw/heard no evidence but I love the outdoors and it was beautiful and fun.  While I was there, I recall sightings were being reported in the Redwoods State Park by Crescent City but I had not time to follow thru.

 

BFRO is now going to the Redwoods in Northern CAL for 2014 expedition and not to Bluff Creek.

 

I am not encouraging you to go to Northern California, just letting you know that sightings are still happening but are not being documented or reported to BFRO.

[Guest zenmonkey]

Of course being from Oklahoma You'd think I'm being biased but I'm not. After the NAWACs studies and the fact that the research are is much smaller in comparison to PNW id say south east ok.

[Guest]

Oklahoma by far...  sightings are actually in the thousands .. Many spots to go ! Not just SE

[norseman]

Nonsense. The pacific rim supports the largest bears in the world. And for good reason......anyone that claims ohio is better habitat for an omnivore than washington isn't taking into account the thousands of miles of beaches and salmon and steelhead runs up the tributaries. Supposedly cockles are a favorite food source......at low tide there are millions and millions of them.

[Sasfooty]

All the BFs are probably already evacuating the west coast, so Ohio is probably a better bet.

 

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/36-signs-the-media-is-lying-to-you-about-how-radiation-from-fukushima-is-affecting-the-west-coast

[Guest DWA]

Unless you're prepared to say the only sasquatch in the PNW are beachcombers...Ohio.  Sightings so indicate.  NONE of those Ohio sasquatch are clamming.

[norseman]

I would say the most sightings seem to come from coastal areas.......yes.

[Guest DWA]

Well, the forests the ones in OH frequent are more productive than the forests of the PNW.

 

Smaller forest acreage may account for a smaller population.  But a sasquatch would need fewer acres of territory to get the same quality of forage as one in the west.

 

OH seems to me to be getting all those reports for a reason.  And again, it's easier to get to most of it than it is to most of the habitat in WA.  Although for scenery - and one might want to go for that given the chance of seeing a bigfoot - I'd pick WA, particularly the coast of Olympic NP, in a minute.

[norseman]

If Ohio had thousands of salmon

Coming up a small stream? I would agree with you. But there is too much protien coming up the water ways of the coastal areas in Washington

To say Ohio is more productive.

Besides our trees may produce nothin much but coastal areas are really productive for plants as well. Skunk cabbage and blackberries come to

Mind as prolific.

[Guest DWA]

Well, this is an angels-on-pin argument until we have population data, which I'd say is gonna take some time.

 

But I think it's a valid point that if one only has one week to squatch, OH has an edge in accessibility and sightings/square miles over most places.

[norseman]

Iam only arguing that western Washington forests produce more grub per acre than Ohio forests and nothing more.

And the west is not equal, ohio forests I am sure produce more grub than forests in the Rockies.

[Guest DWA]

Fair enough.

 

And I'd say to our Irish pals:

 

For real fun, head to the SE AK coast, say Revillagigedo Island, build a bonfire on the beach and sit there for a week.  You will never forget the week, whatever you see.

[BobbyO]

If "stuff to eat per acre" is the criterion, and that alone, OH wins. And that's the criterion, if one is an individual looking for food. For the individual it's not the total available; it's what the individual can et to.

I would agree with that, if of course Ohio had the millions of Salmon running its creeks and rivers each year..

Edit : Norseman beat me to it..

Fair enough.

And I'd say to our Irish pals:

For real fun, head to the SE AK coast, say Revillagigedo Island, build a bonfire on the beach and sit there for a week. You will never forget the week, whatever you see.

Plussed.

And if you do that Seamus, make sure you take some Kleenex as I get the feeling you'll need it..

Edited January 3, 2014 by BobbyO

[Guest Squatchologist]

C'mon to Minnesota and head up by Canadian border, bring warm clothes as Mondays high is forecasted -13