Shrinking Bigfoot Habitat........can We Stop The Trend?

[georgerm]

After reading about bigfoot in Ohio, I began to look at how the forest land is being reduced to small patches about a half mile in size that are not enough for bigfoots to survive. The land is already filled in with homes and small farms that have pushed lush forest to oblivion. Is this what we want in America?

 

See the maps of Ohio that show how bigfoot is being pushed to extinction in a majority of Ohio's landscape. The same applies to Oregon where I live and work as a registered landscape architect and land use planner. Working with maps showing human development is what I do and the trend is disturbing.

 

In Ohio and in many parts of the USA, shrinking forest habitat continues to happen. Unless we begin to reduce  human population growth and allow forest land to grow back, we can kiss many bigfoots good bye. Besides forest land filters our water and helps build up freshwater supplies and provides oxygen for all animals.

 

America can thrive with half the population that will allow Ohio's and other area's bigfoot habitats to grow back imho. Can we Americans muster the strength to put population growth in the decline and forest land on the incline? Will this be good for humans as well as bigfoot since hunters and recreationist will have twice the area to roam?

Edited August 2, 2014 by georgerm

[Incorrigible1]

Good luck on convincing Americans to save habitat for an unverified species.

 

Certainly another reason that a carcass needs plopped upon Dr. Meldrum's desk, eh?

[georgerm]

..............what about saving land for humans too?  We can at least dream, and be ready to jump when BF is plopped on his desk with ticks, fleas, and ripe hair.

 

When BF is proven, do you think these areas can be returned to forest?  

Edited August 2, 2014 by georgerm

[LeafTalker]

forest land filters our water and helps build up freshwater supplies and provides oxygen for all animals.

 

 

Single most important thing ever said on this forum. Thanks for saying it, George (and thanks to the others here who have said it, too). 

[Guest]

Considering that Americans are among the more ardent conservationists I am astounded that this would be a doubtful proposition. Prove bigfoot is real and Americans will fight to protect some habitat for them. We established the first national parks in all of the whole world and Americans today DO LOVE their parks. Most Americans would be happy to establish a protected park for no reason except to have a place to camp and hike and fish etc. If it protects an amazing species, then all the better. Not that I think bigfoot habitat is all that endangered. We have more forest today than we had one hundred years ago. The forests that were cut down in the previous two centuries have since grown back.

 

Pristine forest habitat is rare true but most animals still in North America have adapted to this sort of habitat with little issue. Why would bigfoot be any different? Especially if it's smarter than anything else?

[Will]

It's ridiculous to think forests are in decline.  A forest needs to be managed not left in some wild pristine state. Left alone sets it up for nature to take its course, which many times is not pretty.

 

Something even more ridiculous is saying we need to set forest more aside for wildlife. The government, state and federal, own much of this country.

 

Everyone here has a forestry department in their state, even they know the true facts of Americas forest land. It is in wonderful shape, and BF has proven many times, it doesn't need us providing it a sanctuary.

 

By the way, my avatar is the end of a beautiful veneer cherry log from the Alleghany National Forest, where the finest cherry in the world grows. It is world renowned for its color, tightness of grain and lack of defects. No other land area grows it better.

Edited August 2, 2014 by will

[gigantor]

This is one of the greatest myths I love to debunk. Just 'cause a local town is experiencing this issue doesn't mean the whole country is. It is the equivalent of an anecdotal account in BF reports.

 

According to the US Department of Agriculture, who we taxpayers pay a lot of money to keep track of these things, the land use inventory is as follows:

 

 

Notice that developed land is 6% of the total land mass.

Edited August 3, 2014 by gigantor

[hiflier]

Hello All,

 

I think the issue as a whole has a somewhat hidden point. It's not really the amount of developed land vs. forest. That proportion seems more than adequate for sustaing wildlife habitat- on the surface. The issue really seems to be that the in the devoped areas the forest parcels are being cut up and made into smaller tracts of land. the total forest figure looks good but every time a new road goes through somewhere it serves to minutely isolate fauna groups from each other. This doesn't overtly look like a problem however for some creatures more sensitive to disturbances I'll bet it takes it's toll. One would think that the noise of a road being built and the subsequent vehicular noise from things like trucks and motorcycles afterwards have to have an effect. Especially on a reclusive Creature like a BF should it exist. 

Edited August 3, 2014 by hiflier

[Guest]

A busy interstate may impede movement of some species, but a forest road impedes virtually nothing, especially nothing as mobile as a bigfoot should be.

 

A goal of zero population growth or decline is not attainable as long as our borders and immigration laws are not enforced.

Edited August 3, 2014 by Pteronarcyd

[norseman]

http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=52069

[Guest]

Short answer is... no, for all of the reasons listed by prior posters & then some.  Land has value for development, and ultimately every man has his price... 

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

If my hypothesis is correct then the shrinking habitat is only half of the problem. I postulate that the sasquatch population has been increasing for centuries at this point, which is contrary to the most widely held opinion where population is concerned. I have conjectured quite a bit on this issue, and there are some notable possibilities if I am correct. The most obvious possibility is that sightings will tend to increase over time. This would be quite easy to test if everyone reported their sightings, but since that is not the case then the number of reports might actually hide evidence of this idea. In fact, a favorable increase in the number of reports could still represent a declining population. Statistical analysis of any kind where sasquatch is concerned is still quite difficult. There are some notable mathematical equations for modelling various characteristics of an animal population, but this is not very useful considering absolutely nothing is known about the sasquatch life cycle, births and deaths per year, their current population, etc...So there is nothing that I am aware of that would allow us to actually get some useful numbers. I have estimated in the past that the sasquatch population is in the tens of thousands. The many tens of thousands.

 

I mentioned sightings increasing, and this is an obvious outcome due to the fact that the sasquatch will be hunting for new habitat as well as sources of food. This could theoretically drive them to frequent human settlements and habitations more often, where of course they are more likely to be seen. An increase in sightings of this nature may be seen across the United States, or it may be localized considering it would be dependent on the number of sasquatch already living in a certain region, versus how many sasquatch that area can sustain. And human deforestation increasing along with the sasquatch population would make the effects noticeable much sooner.

 

I will not get into why I believe the population is increasing, as that is not the main objective of this thread, but I think I have offered my ideas in the past. The other possibility that greatly interests me is the idea of a mass sasquatch migration. This would be independent of any seasonal, small-scale migrations that might be prevalent in the sasquatch population. As a matter of opinion I believe that there is evidence in the sighting record for seasonal migrations. But the migration I am referring to would exist on a much larger scale. Where would the animals be moving? North. There is the possibility that they would have a trial and error period, where they are going in all directions, looking for habitat that has not been encroached or overpopulated, and this may make more sense than moving into unfamiliar climates, but I honestly believe that all sasquatch are capable of surviving where any other sasquatch survives...Granted that the population is in check. I honestly believe that the majority of sasquatch are equipped to survive the climates of the North, not just those who already occupy that territory. If you take a southern sasquatch, like the one I saw in Texas, and plop him down in the Yukon, he will have a decent chance at survival...Granted it is not in the dead of winter already, as they likely prepare for winter either internally or externally in some way.

 

The last main possibility that I entertain is that sasquatch would attempt to drive out other sasquatch, essentially hijacking already occupied territory. But the results would be similar to a voluntary migration, except for the fact that it is not so voluntary.  But in this case it would be the weaker sasquatch seeking new territory, and this could have interesting results. I think such weak sasquatch are eventually destined for destruction if humans cannot intervene, and even if they could there is so little that could be done by that point that I am not sure it would help. Certain sasquatch will defend their territory, and others will not. There is the possibility of parasites that rewire connections in the brain as well, which is now gaining traction in the scientific community. For instance, T. Gondii, a parasite that lives in cats, infects other hosts, such as a mouse, and makes the mouse actually attracted to the cat, thus furthering the aims, the life cycle, or the parasite. These parasites live in a significant number of the human population, and there is more and more evidence coming out which states that this bug is having mental health effects on people. It may even be the root cause of schizophrenia. There is evidence supporting it.

 

My point is that there are likely whole armies of these types of parasites in all animals, and they can significantly alter the behaviors exhibited by certain animals. Definitely humans, so likely sasquatch as well. They have been shown to make one more or less outgoing, maybe even aggressive or less aggressive, and are having a noticeable impact on various populations. Perhaps deer could be attracted to sasquatch because of a parasite of this nature. The potential scientific discoveries that await humans where sasquatch is concerned are great. What is known of the evolution of humans is still being changed, and I think sasquatch may provide some piece of the puzzle. If not directly then indirectly.

 

To answer your question, "Can we stop the trend," I would have to answer in the negative. We could curb the trend, but not outright stop it. Which translates, and again this based on what I personally believe regarding sasquatch, to us being able to save sasquatch that otherwise would have perished due to the survival of the fittest, but the amount would likely be negligible at first. If I am wrong, and the population is not blooming, then the outlook becomes more hopeful. But both are dependent on documenting the species NOW, as the longer we wait the less hopeful the outlook becomes.

 

My reasoning is this: if the sasquatch population is already hovering near endangerment, then there is a natural reason for it, and deforestation would not really hurt them since there would be many other places they could go, places where they are not likely to clash over habitat with other sasquatch. So if one believes the population to be small, then I wouldn't sweat the destruction of habitat. All the national parks in the US would probably be enough land for the bigfoot if that were the case. But discovering them NOW would allow us to better understand just why they are endangered in the first place. Is it due to food, habitat, etc., and the trend could possibly be reversed before they die out completely. I really hope their population is large, as that means they are more likely to be around into the future.

 

But I suppose that a huge population would also mean that human influence is not likely to deter their numbers significantly at first. It would take much more deforestation and habitat destruction to actually endanger these animals on a large scale. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the negative impacts of humans are not likely to affect the larger sasquatch population at this point. In the future this will not be the case, but I think that for the short term the animals will continue to do just fine. If their numbers are small, there is a reason for it that has nothing to do with human causes. So in that case the answer is no, we could not have a significant impact on the sasquatch population, even if we were to stop deforestation. And if their numbers are huge, a significant portion of the population will survive despite what we do in the near future. So I think I contradicted a point I made earlier, but thus is the nature of considering possibilities I suppose.

[georgerm]

Jiggy as usual, you present some very good points. 

 

My research started when I was reading Hammer's comments from the PTSD thread, and she saw bigfoot along the Mohican River. Her area looks like one of the few good areas for bigfoot in Ohio. Just look at the maps and the new one below. Does it look like Ohio's bigfoot habitat has shrunk? We are looking at Ohio for now and can expand the thread to other states later. After looking at Ohio on google map, I was disappointed to see their rolling hills once covered by million of acres of forest cut into tiny half acre patches of left over forest that are too small for bigfoot. Bigfoot is too big..........the shoe doesn't fit if you get my drift. Just look before leaping into dialogue.

 

Will and Antfoot, I live in Oregon and understand our forest here and how they get replanted. I've helped replant. I worked as a choker setter in 1964 behind a D-6 cat and nearly bit the dust when the bull winch cable broke.

 

Look at the maps that I posted and see how Ohio's forest are giving way to massive land clearing for homes and small farms. Bigfoot was once abundant there I'll bet, but is it now? Does bigfoot have room to roam there? Look at the maps.

 

 

[georgerm]

http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=52069

 

Looked over the study and posted one conclusion below that related to road building and road use with the decline of Grizzly bears. This makes sense and applies to bigfoot in my opinion. Habitat protection is imperative.

[Incorrigible1]

Should we preserve unicorn grazing areas? I don't mean to ridicule, but instead point out nothing can or will be done until proof of existence is delivered, in the case of bigfoot.

 

Edit: How would you go about proposing any remedial steps for a will-'o-the-wisp? The creature is a myth, in authority's eyes.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Incorrigible1