Bigfoot caloric intake.

[Backdoc]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

How do gorillas, chimps, orange, monkeys, etc trim their finger and toe nails?

 

Just a crazy thought that jumped in my head when I was trimming my dog's nails.   :-)

[Huntster]

22 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

Just a crazy thought that jumped in my head.........

It's not so crazy. We've come to know you as a very deeply thoughtful and curious guy. In fact, you infect me with such thoughts. Now I'm wondering how our more wild and primitive homo sapien cousins did it. 
 

I occasionally keep goats and sheep on my property which is forested, not rocky. Consequently, their hooves need occasional trimming because the rocks don't do it for them like their wild cousins on cliffs.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 07:12 PM by Huntster

[Incorrigible1]

36 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

 

Just a crazy thought that jumped in my head when I was trimming my dog's nails.   :-)

 

In my old age, brittle and not so supple anymore, it's become a ever-more-difficult chore!

[Backdoc]

This Q of "How many Calories" is a good Q.   I would call it part of the Life Support Q.    That is, what does Bigfoot need to survive if bigfoot it real?   Food Supply seems to be an issue brought up by the science skeptic types on these Bigfoot shows on TV.  Before we dismiss it, I would say we have to give it a fair consideration.  

 

I remember a grey-haired lady scientist on one of these shows describing the PNW as I recall it a "Vaste wasteland" to find food.  She correctly assumed there needs to be a certain number of calories to feed a big animal and esp. one with a big brain.  I completely disagree with the area being a wasteland.       (As I remember the show, she did at least look closer at the PGF in the end of the episode and admitted the gait of Patty was odd and not ape or human.   At least that is something)

 

We don't know if Bigfoot would be a Carnivore, omnivore, or whatever.  Assuming it eats meat, I would think Fish in the stream make sense.  Yet, we never see them fighting bear for salmon on a regular basis, but the bear is there on a regular basis.

 

It's reasonable for skeptics to base any disbelief of Bigfoot on Life Support issues.   These might include breading numbers, climate conditions, and so on.    I do know unlike bears we don't have regular reports of Bigfoot in the trash, but we do bears.   

 

 

I haven't watched Diane Fosse stuff for a long time, but it seems to be she said the big Gorillas sleep most of the 24 cycle away.  That would allow a few less calories than if they we massively active.   I'll assume it the same for Bigfoot and assume the calorie needs are similar. 

 

The source of those calories has to come from the environment Bigfoot finds itself in. 

 

Knowing the animal = an understanding it to encounter it or even trap the animal.  We just don't know enough about Bigfoot to know for sure.  It seems the only Life Support thing we can say is -like all creatures- Bigfoot needs enough food to survive and thrive.    

 

[BC witness]

My take on this is that they use very similar resources as black bears do, and we have thousands of those here in BC. The only real difference from bears' needs is having to forage in winter, which bears avoid by hibernating. Sasquatch is supposed to be pretty intelligent, so presumably plans ahead by stockpiling food for the winter needs, such as nuts and tubers, which store well.

[Backdoc]

15 hours ago, BC witness said:

The only real difference from bears' needs is having to forage in winter, which bears avoid by hibernating. 

 

 

I'm assuming Bigfoot could not/ could not hibernate.  I think of Bigfoot country being the PNW.   It's my understanding many of those places get a lot of cold damp rain but little to no snow.   Where snow does exist, I would think there would be a lot more Bigfoot tracks reported.   After fresh snow we see all kinds of tracks in most places as long as the snow remains. The longer it is there the more traces of activity we see evidence of.  

 

 

Where there is thought to be Bigfoot and where there happens to be snow shouldn't there be a lot more snow tracks reported?  

 

Edited yesterday at 03:41 PM by Backdoc

[BC witness]

The mountains and inland plateaus of BC get heavy accumulations of snow, but the coastal valleys only get a few snow days a year, usually followed by enough rain to melt it away quickly. Most sightings in BC, Wa. and Ak. occur in those coastal valleys. The only Sasquatch trackway I ever found was in late spring snow, crossing a pass over a ridge between two river valleys. I believe they stay below the snowline as much as possible, just as the majority of big game does.

[Trogluddite]

23 hours ago, Backdoc said:

The source of those calories has to come from the environment Bigfoot finds itself in. 

 

This is what bothers me. First, FWIW, I made a chart for my own edification comparing biological facts about common animals.  As I got all of this information off the web, I am certain that it is highly accurate & not subject to question.  Somewhere, I found an estimate that Cro-Magnon, Neaderthals, and paleo-Indians required 4,800 calories per day and moose required 9,700 calories per day.  The data I found for other large animals is just in poundage - 10-20 pounds of food per day for elk, 30 pounds per day for grizzly bears, 35 pounds for black bears(?), and 30-45 pounds for gorillas.

 

What bothers me is that if Bigfoot is an omnivore, and if Bigfoot is as populous in the eastern US as some believe, why aren't they eating farmers out of house and home?  Deer do it, groundhogs do it, foxes and coyotes prey on chickens, and such ... why wouldn't a bigfoot settle down near a nice big corn or potato or squash field and simply strip mine it for a day or two, then move on.  That problem occurs with other biological animals, why doesn't it occur with Bigfoot?

[BC witness]

It's possible that they do raid crops, and that it gets attributed to bears or feral hogs, as they are much more visible and therefore the "logical" answer.

[MIB]

1 hour ago, Trogluddite said:

What bothers me is that if Bigfoot is an omnivore, and if Bigfoot is as populous in the eastern US as some believe, why aren't they eating farmers out of house and home?

 

Go back 'n' read Nathan's post from a few days ago.   He was talking about something else but the lack of obvious destruction like you're asking about is a side effect .. from a couple different angles.

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, BC witness said:

The mountains and inland plateaus of BC get heavy accumulations of snow, but the coastal valleys only get a few snow days a year, usually followed by enough rain to melt it away quickly. Most sightings in BC, Wa. and Ak. occur in those coastal valleys...........

 

Another feature of coastal range is that the sea provides all kinds of sustenance like seaweeds, mollusks, and fish as regularly as the tide, all winter long.

[Trogluddite]

32 minutes ago, MIB said:

Go back 'n' read Nathan's post from a few days ago.   He was talking about something else but the lack of obvious destruction like you're asking about is a side effect .. from a couple different angles.

1 hour ago, BC witness said:

It's possible that they do raid crops, and that it gets attributed to bears or feral hogs, as they are much more visible and therefore the "logical" answer.

 

MIB, I agree that Nathan makes a great point. 

 

BC, Also a good point.  They also got attributed to tramps, hobos, and vagrants in the 1800s.

 

Out of 1250+ northeast US encounters, almost 200 (194, to be exact) Bigfoot (and wild men) were seen foraging, or the inferred behavior was that they were foraging, or they were blamed for killing livestock, stealing food, etc.  Broadly speaking,

 

23 accounts where Bigfoot was drinking or catching fish/aquatic animals (again, all of these include an encounter where the activity is identified or can be inferred, or was blamed on Bigfoot).

58 accounts where Bigfoot was foraging cultivated crops/gardens and livestock.  

20 accounts where Bigfoot was poaching processed foods or scraps or landfills.

23 accounts where Bigfoot was foraging/hunting wildlife (turkey, deer, wildlife caught in traps, roadkill). 

24 accounts where Bigfoot was foraging native plants, rodents, and insects.

4 accounts where attacked/injured people (not sure if they were on the menu or just unlucky).  

 

I'm just now adding what the Bigfoot was foraging for, so I have a lot of entries that just read "foraging."

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

 

This is what bothers me. First, FWIW, I made a chart for my own edification comparing biological facts about common animals.  As I got all of this information off the web, I am certain that it is highly accurate & not subject to question.  Somewhere, I found an estimate that Cro-Magnon, Neaderthals, and paleo-Indians required 4,800 calories per day and moose required 9,700 calories per day.  The data I found for other large animals is just in poundage - 10-20 pounds of food per day for elk, 30 pounds per day for grizzly bears, 35 pounds for black bears(?), and 30-45 pounds for gorillas.

 

What bothers me is that if Bigfoot is an omnivore, and if Bigfoot is as populous in the eastern US as some believe, why aren't they eating farmers out of house and home?  Deer do it, groundhogs do it, foxes and coyotes prey on chickens, and such ... why wouldn't a bigfoot settle down near a nice big corn or potato or squash field and simply strip mine it for a day or two, then move on.  That problem occurs with other biological animals, why doesn't it occur with Bigfoot?

Well it certainly doesn’t bode well for the person in Illinois claiming a family of Sasquatch live on his 50 acre wood lot all year long.

 

But I don’t think they are that populous. And also that their activities probably fall through the cracks and are attributed to something else.

 

Lastly? If they are as smart as say an Orangutan? Orangutans pick locks, know sign language and can paddle a boat. Surely Sasquatch could be rather cunning. And they probably know that sustained contact with humans is unhealthy. So they stay nocturnal, take only what they need and keep moving.

[NathanFooter]

4 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

 

This is what bothers me. First, FWIW, I made a chart for my own edification comparing biological facts about common animals.  As I got all of this information off the web, I am certain that it is highly accurate & not subject to question.  Somewhere, I found an estimate that Cro-Magnon, Neaderthals, and paleo-Indians required 4,800 calories per day and moose required 9,700 calories per day.  The data I found for other large animals is just in poundage - 10-20 pounds of food per day for elk, 30 pounds per day for grizzly bears, 35 pounds for black bears(?), and 30-45 pounds for gorillas.

 

What bothers me is that if Bigfoot is an omnivore, and if Bigfoot is as populous in the eastern US as some believe, why aren't they eating farmers out of house and home?  Deer do it, groundhogs do it, foxes and coyotes prey on chickens, and such ... why wouldn't a bigfoot settle down near a nice big corn or potato or squash field and simply strip mine it for a day or two, then move on.  That problem occurs with other biological animals, why doesn't it occur with Bigfoot?

 

 My personal opinion is there are far less out there than what people like to think.  I would also say there is a lot of bad data incorporated from databases of encounters these days, I would be interested to see a data averaging from the 60's up to say 2008 ( before Finding Bigfoot ). I think you would see a very different spread both across behaviors and clusters geographically on the map.

 

 I do think the scenarios you lay out do in fact occur but just far less than reported.

[Huntster]

24 minutes ago, NathanFooter said:

My personal opinion is there are far less out there than what people like to think..........

 

Mine as well; 5000 individuals, continent wide, max, and concentrated in the best black bear habitat. Thus, more sasquatches in the PNW and Canada, few to none in Kansas and west Texas.

 

It is now believed that the homo sapien species population dropped to a low of 1000-10,000 individuals @ 70,000 years ago. These creatures could easily be in such a situation.

 

2 hours ago, norseman said:

......... If they are as smart as say an Orangutan? Orangutans pick locks, know sign language and can paddle a boat. Surely Sasquatch could be rather cunning. And they probably know that sustained contact with humans is unhealthy. So they stay nocturnal, take only what they need and keep moving.

 

I think they're much smarter, to the point of oral communication, rudimentary food storage, and more. There is something very significant to the kidnapping phenomenon that transcends the Primate order. We're into the Hominidae family.