Bigfoot caloric intake.

[Trogluddite]

10 hours ago, norseman said:

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.

 

Haven't heard about that one ... and don't want to, unless a thread explodes and I just can't avoid it.  

 

 

8 hours ago, NathanFooter said:

 

 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.

 

Out of those 1200+ reports, I only believe that 29 are "more likely than not" a Bigfoot encounter and another 161 or so could be a bona fide encounter.  As to bad data .... yikes.  Some "research organizations" would post an encounter if the witnesses heard it from their long dead great grandmother through a Ouija board. 

 

The problem with data averaging is that its dependent upon both encounters, willingness to report it, and someone to take the report.  For example, Maryland encounters in the 1970s reported to John Green make it look like there are was a veritable Bigfoot reunion going on there.  Pennsylvania also had tons, but that's because each state had very active researchers.  Actually, the 70s (post P-G film) and the post Finding Bigfoot era are probably very similar. 

 

[Redbone]

11 hours ago, NathanFooter said:

 

 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.

John Green's Data 1960-2000

 

BFRO Data 2000-2025 

[Backdoc]

18 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.

 

Elite body builders in the 1970's world would eat 5,000 a day.   These guys trained nearly daily.   The output of their 'work' to me would equal or way exceed what Bigfoot would put out in a given day in Bigfoots world.   That's just my guess as a max for reasonable estimate.  Yes, these guys weighed under 250lbs back in the 1970's Gold's Gym era of weightlifting.   I would think Bigfoot would only be as active as Bigfoot needs to be.   Bigfoot would rest often and essentially be a couch potato until food, reproductive needs, or whatever motivated Bigfoot.   

 

 

18 hours 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?  

 

Skeptics are skeptics because these reasonable points about Life Support make them skeptics.   We should expect if bigfoot is as common as some say, we should have more of these sightings in trash cans, and so on.  Trash cans tend to exist in towns and cities vs out in the middle of nowhere.    Many have security cameras and Ring doorbells.  The most likely reason to explain this must be Bigfoot are few in number, live in massively remote areas, and are shy to human activity.   

 

 

 

 

I don't know how credible Bigfoot sightings are when all over the country.   Many are just in unlikely places and unlikely regions.  I am sure they see something just not bigfoot.   

 

If Bigfoot was in all these areas the trash cans would be raided, the farms would be raided, and so on.   

 

Bigfoot being near extinct is a better explanation vs attributing ninja skills to bigfoot to explain it.   

 

If you bet on finding Bigfoot, you would bet on the PNW more so than downtown NY City. 

 

 

[Backdoc]

This map has been offered as locations of bigfoot sightings/ reports.  

 

 

 

 

When we look at Canada, we might think from the map there are very few reports of Bigfoot in Canada. The map is deceiving.   Here is a map of where most people live in Canada. 

 

 

 

 

 

The majority live pretty close to the USA Canadian border.     I have never been to Canada.  The winters in the Middle and Northern Canada are more extreme than Canada just above Seattle Washington.  There are large areas of Canada (or Russia for that matter) where few people go.  Large areas as large as Texas might have very few people.  The only limiting factor to many of these areas is just how extreme the winters could be and any limited food supply as a result.  There is more food to eat on Gilligan's Island than the North Pole (sorry Santa). 

 

 

When I look at the bigfoot map, I am immediately skeptical of these places marked in the great planes. 

 

We need to be honest and say that all reports are not created equal.   Just because someone gives a report does not mean it has the same Grade or Credibility as other reports.   Finally, just because there are no reports to an area does not mean there are even people there to even give a report.   

 

 

[Trogluddite]

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

If you bet on finding Bigfoot, you would bet on the PNW more so than downtown NY City.

And yet, back in 2014 or 2015 there was a video circulating that claimed to show a Bigfoot in a park in the middle of Brooklyn....

 

I just got back from Canada.  Talk about vast, empty, and remote ... and that's just 20 minutes outside of Jasper (or at least how it felt to me, our dear Canadian members).  I felt the same way driving around Nova Scotia and Cape Breton several years back.  If there is a lack of Bigfoot encounters in Canada, it's likely due to a lack of nearby humans, not a lack of Bigfoot.

 

And the flip side of that, looking at the sightings map, is that Pennsylvania and Maryland look swamped compared to Michigan, Kentucky, or West Virginia.  This is likely due to PA and MD having robust research groups and active researchers who catalogued a lot of reports rather than to an overabundance of Bigfoot.

[Redbone]

3 hours ago, Backdoc said:

When I look at the bigfoot map, I am immediately skeptical of these places marked in the great planes. 

My Bigfoot sighting was along the Missouri River in Nebraska.

I've been hit by a rock in Iowa.

I have other possible experiences in Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Arkansas.

 

Oh wait - you were talking about big planes. I thought you meant plains.

Never mind...

[JKH]

Back on topic, always interesting 

 

The late great Branco started this one way back and included a lot of information about feeding behaviors and geographic patterns, at least in the South where he documented BF a great deal. 

 

[Backdoc]

The amount of Bigfoot's calorie needs is important. I still think where Bigfoot can find those calories is more important.  

 

As long as Bigfoot's needs could easily be filled by everything around him the food issue isn't a big deal.   

 

Readily available calories                                   =   More likely Bigfoot could exist (and thrive)

Hard to come by food sources                          =   Bigfoot unlikely to exist (or will soon be extinct)

 

I love the line of thinking on this thread.   When I dig further it makes me wonder how much of certain things Bigfoot (or Bear Grylls) would need to survive.  

 

How many bugs, crickets, grubs and so on would be filling?  Sure, a few might meet the needs of certain vitamins where the remaining calories could be made up from more basic stuff.   I would think you would need a giant bucket of crickets to survive.  A few grubs or worms won't do beyond being an important side dish.    The most likely source from something big and hungry to me would be fish and other creepy crawlys in a stream.   A few would fill ya up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[norseman]

It’s always this time of year that I wonder what they do in winter. We get typically four feet of snow here in the valleys.

 

Do they migrate to the coast? Do they stockpile and hunker down? Do they migrate south? Do they retreat down low in elevation and hunt?

 

I saw tracks in December. Those tracks were heading south for whatever that means.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

.........I saw tracks in December. Those tracks were heading south for whatever that means.

 

In both the Sunnyslope trackway find in 2017 and the Bossburg cripple trackway of 1969 the trackways were headed northwards. 

 

If the creatures are in the coast range (which is almost certainly higher population densities and better range), I'm pretty confident they head for the coast to forage for the winter. Primary seasonal movements would be up and down in elevation. Farther inland, I believe densities are lower and movements would still be primarily up and down in elevation.

[NathanFooter]

19 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

In both the Sunnyslope trackway find in 2017 and the Bossburg cripple trackway of 1969 the trackways were headed northwards. 

 

If the creatures are in the coast range (which is almost certainly higher population densities and better range), I'm pretty confident they head for the coast to forage for the winter. Primary seasonal movements would be up and down in elevation. Farther inland, I believe densities are lower and movements would still be primarily up and down in elevation.

 

 I have seen no convincing data to suggest they as a population go all the way to the coast here in the PNW, I do find good data to suggest they come down in elevation.  We have had activity in December, January, February, March and April here at various locations in WA. 

 

 The below video is a fair example ( I personally went to this location a few years ago based on a number of winter reports including this track find, I was able to get in touch with the investigator who was on the scene at the time. ), the tracks came from up above ( small knobs and benches on the slope side at about 2200ft on the high end ) on the west side of Shannon Lake and Baker Lake that are both loaded with miles and miles of thick/marshy timber patches that are tough to hunt and penetrate.  They came from the timber uphill and both jumped off a rock ledge over 12 feet up to get down to the edge of that community, they crossed the road and went up onto someone's porch and got into a charcoal grill likely out of desperation looking for food ( fat drippings ? ). I don't remember at the moment where they retreated to but it was generally back into timber up slope.

 

 Here is a side angle photo of the terrain and direction the prints came from, everything below the blue line would all be winter habitat under my theory. This would not encompass the entire space they use but rather a section of the loop or cycle they likely run along. The Gold pin in the back end of the photo is separate encounter report from years later in late November.

 

 

 

 

 

 For full context and accuracy I will note that this trackway from what we could gather is legitimate but after the investigation, word got around the community and someone got back in touch and with another trackway soon after and that trackway was clearly hoaxed and fabricated, the prints looked nothing like the original tracks and showed no dexterity of the foot or toes, lacked any of the athleticism and started in stopped at highly questionable places.

 

They seem to hold up in very difficult and hard to access locations and move in changing weather conditions from one low human activity area to another.

[norseman]

If I ever heal up? I think a snow bike would be an amazing research tool. We obviously cannot keep up on foot. But a snow trackway being followed on a snow bike is sure to produce results. 
 

You cannot go straight up the mountain like a sled, but you can finesse your way through almost anything. They are dropping into creek bottoms I would never consider with a sled.

 

Throw a drone in a backpack? I don’t think Sasquatch escapes without being seen, filmed, whatever. These things go any where.
 

 

 

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, NathanFooter said:

.........The below video is a fair example ( I personally went to this location a few years ago based on a number of winter reports including this track find, I was able to get in touch with the investigator who was on the scene at the time. )..........

 

Excellent event report. I'm always impressed with your YouTube videos as well, Nathan. I appreciate the video.

[socialBigfoot]

23 hours ago, Backdoc said:

The amount of Bigfoot's calorie needs is important. I still think where Bigfoot can find those calories is more important.

 

I'll add another layer of complexity to this. If Bigfoot are a real species, they could exist as a meta-population. 

 

As a meta-population they live in small, mostly isolated groups distributed over patches of forest areas. These groups are highly mobile, moving among these forest patches (across hundreds of miles) and occasionally running into other groups for breeding. In the case of Bigfoot, they may even exchange information in some way — for example, avoid that forest to the south because deer are sick or the water is bad or the BFRO is there or whatever. This isn't a new theory. I got the idea from a 2006 article on the Indian Gray Wolf, but the concept is frequently employed in ecology. 

 

Meta-population view of Bigfoot would explain: 

• Sightings in non-remote places and roadsides

• Low inbreeding despite living in small groups

• Sightings in areas that may lack sufficient resources to survive over long periods

• Bigfoot sometimes reported taking farm animals (as they move between habitats)

• Overestimation of pop size, as the same animal is witnessed in widely different places near the same time

• Not seeing a Bigfoot when visiting a place where one or more were recently witnessed

A meta-population of Bigfoot will likely be affected by the USDA removing 112 million acres of forests… which is equivalent to 175,000 sq miles, which is more than the size of California. Certainly this would not happen in one place, but it's likely that each forest management area will be reduced significantly enough to affect wildlife cover and food sources. I doubt this would be a thinning out of a forest, because that’s just not cost effective. It’ll be large swaths of biodiverse forest areas, and replanting will either not happen or will lack in plant diversity and become dead spots for wildlife. I’m not a hunter or camper but this is my main concern about this USDA initiative. Maybe someone with forest experience on BFF has a more optimistic assessment and can relieve my anxiety (or link me to a post in that other thread). 

 

Oh, and for any conspiracy theorists, perhaps the national forest system was created originally to support a meta-population of Bigfoot. An argument could be made, actually. 

[norseman]

56 minutes ago, socialBigfoot said:

 

I'll add another layer of complexity to this. If Bigfoot are a real species, they could exist as a meta-population. 

 

As a meta-population they live in small, mostly isolated groups distributed over patches of forest areas. These groups are highly mobile, moving among these forest patches (across hundreds of miles) and occasionally running into other groups for breeding. In the case of Bigfoot, they may even exchange information in some way — for example, avoid that forest to the south because deer are sick or the water is bad or the BFRO is there or whatever. This isn't a new theory. I got the idea from a 2006 article on the Indian Gray Wolf, but the concept is frequently employed in ecology. 

 

Meta-population view of Bigfoot would explain: 

• Sightings in non-remote places and roadsides

• Low inbreeding despite living in small groups

• Sightings in areas that may lack sufficient resources to survive over long periods

• Bigfoot sometimes reported taking farm animals (as they move between habitats)

• Overestimation of pop size, as the same animal is witnessed in widely different places near the same time

• Not seeing a Bigfoot when visiting a place where one or more were recently witnessed

A meta-population of Bigfoot will likely be affected by the USDA removing 112 million acres of forests… which is equivalent to 175,000 sq miles, which is more than the size of California. Certainly this would not happen in one place, but it's likely that each forest management area will be reduced significantly enough to affect wildlife cover and food sources. I doubt this would be a thinning out of a forest, because that’s just not cost effective. It’ll be large swaths of biodiverse forest areas, and replanting will either not happen or will lack in plant diversity and become dead spots for wildlife. I’m not a hunter or camper but this is my main concern about this USDA initiative. Maybe someone with forest experience on BFF has a more optimistic assessment and can relieve my anxiety (or link me to a post in that other thread). 

 

Oh, and for any conspiracy theorists, perhaps the national forest system was created originally to support a meta-population of Bigfoot. An argument could be made, actually. 

The forest needs to be logged. That’s why forest fires are so bad in the west. But fires don’t respect property lines and that’s how forest fires enter towns and burn them to the ground.

 

In Washington state if you clear cut you must replant.  I just bought a logging permit for my ranch. But at least here the forest does a great job of reseeding itself. The grand fir saplings are over taking my ditches along my drive way. I need to get my excavator over here to kill them. With them in the ditch it’s harder to push the snow off the 3/4 mile driveway.

 

Both forest fires and clear cuts are great for ungulates. The new foliage is tender and green and Elk, Moose and Deer love it.