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

[BobbyO]

Google is our friend

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=12542

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=2100

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=18219

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=18219

And now malnourished

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=27800

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=23400

Edited August 7, 2014 by BobbyO

[clubbedfoot]

^^^^ proof that the paleo diet works wonders....

[Doc Holliday]

maybe that's the ticket..... if habitat is shrinking just make the squatches smaller

[Guest]

Minisquatches could find suitable habitats in many places including my nieces' doll houses and my mother's rock garden. Of course my mother would have to feed the squatch. She cant grow plants to save her life or anybody else's for that matter : ) I do love my Mommy but she is hopeless when it comes to the care and keeping of other living things.

[georgerm]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like Ohio had dense forest at one time with a fair population of bigfoots.

 

Just look how the forest in Ohio are cut up into small patches. In what ways would this make bigfoots survival more difficult or easier?

 

Sometime old aerial photos can be compared to the new ones like the one posted below.

 

[Will]

Most of the timber in this country was cut in the early 20th century, mining and railroad were the biggies. Sawmills now have thin kerf blades which only cut an 1/8 inch thick kerf. The bark is used as mulch, the slabs are chipped and sent to paper mills. Nothing is wasted.

 

Heck the tops are even pulled out and also sent to paper mills, hence forest are out-growing us. The government is even paying land owners to plant trees.

 

Forests are growing. The real problem we are going to have since we don't cut as much timber, and forests aren't being managed, the big threat is going to be disease. You're going to see forests completely die off. Bf better get used to overgrown brush. 

[JDL]

I'm still not convinced and it hasn't been proven that bigfoot can only live in forested areas.  I've encountered them in areas where there was no forest within twenty miles, and the catalogue of reports places them in other such areas.

 

The common thread from reports is that bigfoot can exist in any area where there is sufficient food and water, and where there is a lack of interference by people, which can be a widespread condition, even in rural areas, since most people do not even think they exist.

 

When bigfoot are discovered, there will be a host of people who come out trying to use bigfoot as a justification to support their pet cause, whether it be wiping them out because of the belief that they are a threat, or demanding that everybody grow petunias because of the belief petunias are a universal sign of goodwill toward bigfoot.  In these two exaggerated examples, neither "belief" is proven, as is the case with their assumed absolute dependence on forestation put forth in the OP.

 

The OP clearly has a pet cause and is getting a jump on things.

[SWWASAS]

Will is quite right.     I cannot remember the exact figures but there is more forested acres in the US by about 20 to 30% than there was in the mid 1800s.    Sure there has been some urban growth but not as much as the forests have been expanding.     There are several reasons.        In the 1800s and earlier everyone used wood for heat.     Homesteaders cleared land to plant.   And systematically cut trees for buildings and firewood.     Forest fires were not fought until the 1900s.    They just burned out.    Privately owned forests are now managed and quickly replanted.    State forests are managed and replanted after logging.     In the 1800s and before none of that was done.     Environmental pressures have all but ended logging on Federal Forests.   Announce a plot will be logged and injunctions are filed and the protesters show up.      Native Americans used to set fire to forests to provide meadows to encourage deer grazing.   That is no longer done.      Small homesteads have been abandoned because of inefficiencies and the land becomes overgrown with forests.         All of these factors have produced a net increase in forested acres in the US.      So while some areas have been subject to habitat reduction (my research area) by logging there is more BF habitat now than there was in the 1800s.      My research area is in one of the biggest forest fires ever in the state of Washington.    The Yacult Burn.      Even that area has far more wooded area than it did after the fire in the early 1900s in spite of recent logging.   

Edited August 15, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[georgerm]

I'm still not convinced and it hasn't been proven that bigfoot can only live in forested areas.  I've encountered them in areas where there was no forest within twenty miles, and the catalogue of reports places them in other such areas.

 

The common thread from reports is that bigfoot can exist in any area where there is sufficient food and water, and where there is a lack of interference by people, which can be a widespread condition, even in rural areas, since most people do not even think they exist.

 

When bigfoot are discovered, there will be a host of people who come out trying to use bigfoot as a justification to support their pet cause, whether it be wiping them out because of the belief that they are a threat, or demanding that everybody grow petunias because of the belief petunias are a universal sign of goodwill toward bigfoot.  In these two exaggerated examples, neither "belief" is proven, as is the case with their assumed absolute dependence on forestation put forth in the OP.

 

The OP clearly has a pet cause and is getting a jump on things.

 

 

There are probably many factors that could result in BF living in arid areas with sparse trees, boulders, and some water. We simply don't know about BF and its habits. We know that most of the sightings come from forest lands, but your sighting was an exception to the rule. Maybe BFs are forced out of an area and seek a less desirable area. Maybe BFs migrate across arid areas from one forest to another.

 

I don't understand how some can look at the aerial photo of Ohio just posted, and not surmise that bigfoot habitat has not been improved with the land clearing and home development in this area.

 

We are native Oregonians and love our forest and river creatures and nuffs.....e...nuff. How many homes and more people do we need to grow? We are here on the upper Rogue River for a week, and the banks of the river have now filled in with homes. The trees are now cut and homes border the river bank where otter used to live and lawns going right down to the bank. It's turning into a canal.

 

The forest a few miles away are cut in patchwork fashion like the aerial photo uploaded. Have you ever seen a helicopter going over the newly planted forest and spraying herbicides? This happens on all logged forest to kill the Alder and other unwanted species. In Gold Beach they sprayed a bunch of homes by accident and the residents are still sick. More people equals more, homes, more timber and in my opinion less bigfoots. JDL, this is not an exaggerated example, but reality here and other areas such as Ohio....................

[BobbyO]

That hurts my eyes.

[JDL]

For the record:  I'd just as soon there was more forest myself.  I just don't think it's an issue to bigfoot survival.  They've lived around us for millennia and are reported in a lot of inhospitable country, to which they seem able to adapt.

[SWWASAS]

The common thread in all BF sightings no matter where in the country,  when a human encounters BF, they make a bee line for the nearest cover.     Only at night with the relative safety of darkness do they get very far from cover.    That is when most of the near road or road crossing reports happen.     Reports in Ohio and agricultural areas in Oklahoma report encounters near rivers and various tree lines.   I would guess the less cover the more they rely on night movement.     If cover is not near and they encounter a human, then reports indicate they often go into a crouch or just freeze.   They really slam down when they go into a crouch.     You can feel it through the ground if they are very close.    I bet dozens of people see them in a years time and because they freeze and make like a stump, the humans never know what they are looking at and assume it is a stump. 

[BobbyO]

You'll like this thread SWWA..

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/32134-unique-sighting-report-ability-of-bf-to-hide-in-plain-sight/?hl=+hiding%20+plain%20+sight

[Guest]

Taking into account the comments made in this forum, I wanted to bring in some statistics to offset some of the statements being made about overpopulation, the need for population reduction, Sasquatch habitat problems theory, and some other things. No offense intended at all, the info is out there and I'm a statistics girl. So here goes

According to the Forestry Service, 31% of Ohio is covered in forest.  

8.1 MILLION acres are forested. that's 12,500 square miles.

Over 200 National parks, preserves, memorials, wildlife areas.

The Army Corps of Engineers, Department of interior, Department of agriculture, EPA, BLM and a myriad of other agencies oversee State owned land, wildlife and fish concerns.

Two counties in Ohio are over 70% forest, Vinton and Lawrence. 

Wayne National Forest in southern Ohio consists of over 236,000 acres of Protected FOREST. 

Ohio has 20 state forests, exceeding 191,000 acres, spanning 21 counties. Not to mention, Ohio borders a few other heavily forested states = plenty of habitat!

Over 6 Million acres of forest in Ohio is privately owned. 

Part of Ohio is flat plains. Not naturally forested.

 

The Census bureau statistics also state that only 5.6% of America's total land is inhabited. 

 

I don't believe that Sasquatch are being squeezed out of Ohio. Ohio ranks 10th in the US in population due in part to it being centrally located and a lot of shipping routes which have to move through the state. Traditionally there has been high employment/good paying jobs to be had in Ohio. No longer true. According to the Brookings Institute, the population of Ohio is actually shrinking.

 

The United States is third in land mass in the world behind Russia and Canada.  In 2013 There were 83 people per square mile, average, in the US. 

In 2013, Ohio had 11,570,808 Ohioans. Over 9.5 million of them lived in the top 7 populated cities and their metro areas. (Wikipedia)  BUT the smaller towns take large chunks out of that left over 2+ mil.

 

Incidentally, the United States birth rate is average 2 kids per household. No where near most middle eastern countries which average 5 and 6 kids per.

Every person in the world, all 7+ billion could live in an area the size of Texas. Uncomfortable to imagine, but there that is. I've been studying the subject of Sasquatch for 20+ years, Read a thousand+ reports, talked to a lot of people about it. I'm not under the impression that this species is experiencing a failure to thrive. They continue to live and eat and give birth. There are enough of them that the Government has to cull them every so often in certain areas. Tells me they can be a nuisance.

.

Point being, there are many millions of acres of deep thick forests and habitats in Ohio for "whatever" to survive in out there. In 2012 the estimated deer population in OH alone was 750,000. Not to mention the innumerable other species, and plant life. Plenty of food.

Humans are the only species on earth that can improve the environment. I don't agree with the animals over people position. India and especially China, which has 3.5 times the population of the US, need to address population impacts and concerns. The US and, more specifically, Ohio are not *that* overpopulated.

[Guest lightheart]

The government culls them? Did someone tell you this? Since I believe them to be a hominid of some sort I would find this really distressing.