Bigfoot caloric intake.

[norseman]

Per Gorilla data I estimate a 800 lbs Sasquatch would need 80 lbs of vegetation per day. 10% of body mass.

 

So what do they do in winter?

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Hibernate. Another Gorilla ability.

[norseman]

They do?

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

They have the ability, we do as well, but not full on. It's a great ape thing.

We can lay about indefinitely and eat very little, I read it somewhere scientific...

[norseman]

I think a few primates truly hibernate.

 

Great apes do not.

 

Are you thinking about SAD?

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_affective_disorder

[MagniAesir]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

Per Gorilla data I estimate a 800 lbs Sasquatch would need 80 lbs of vegetation per day. 10% of body mass.

 

So what do they do in winter?

I think they may browse on similar vegetation as an elk or moose

This also may be a time when they may scavenge 

This also part of the reason that I think if sasquatch exist, then they are limited to areas such as the PNW, where they can avoid most of the real winter conditions that much of the continent goes through

every known large omnivore or carnivore in North America is well known to cattlemen an sheep herders, if sasquatch was either then they would not be a mystery IMHO 

 

[WSA]

Norse...I think you also have to take into account how likely it is that BF have adapted to scavenging human garbage, and other, similar low-hanging fruit. Every rural county in N. America has some form of road-kill disposal dump. You of course are aware stockmen always have an "away" disposal plot in the back 40. Then there are the opportune finds like the gut piles and fish heads that turn up in the wake of a lucky day for a hunter or fisherman.  We see many reports of BF activity in and around dumpsters, I'm sure for good reason. Pet food also seems to be an easy meal, if you believe the reports. 

 

Crops like corn and soybeans? You know that is happening.

 

I'm of a mind that the more frequent sightings, and presumably an increase in BF populations, over the last 20+ years is probably due to a number of environmental factors (and of course the rise of internet connectivity).  I'd propose, in no particular order of magnitude, these:

 

-De-populating of rural environments, and a trend towards more forested land, offering more covered habitat.

-Less hunting pressure on deer populations, both mule and whitetail.

-Adaptability of BF themselves.  These animals are nothing, if not resourceful. If there is any exploitable source of nutrition, they are bound to identify it and take advantage of it.

-Air conditioning. No, seriously. In the rural South, this is probably the single greatest factor in keeping people inside and unaware of what is going on just  outside their doors. We can assume this has not gone unnoticed by BF and emboldened them when they need an easy meal.  

     

[norseman]

Mag-You may be right. Much of this phenom could just be ripples outward from something real and tangible.

 

WSA- I think if Sasquatch was truly scavenging from humans? We would notice super fast. 8800 calories per day....that's a lot of fish heads and dog food. Something like 14 lbs of meat is needed per day. Or 80 lbs of corn and soy per day......

 

I think the realization is for me that a 800 lbs omnivore is going to punch a decent hole in the flora and fauna of a particular habitat. Grizzly bears mitigate this by being solitary animals with huge ranges. If Sasquatch lives in family troupes as it has been proposed? How they support themselves with out humans noticing becomes a real question.

 

Deer biologists, Botanists, Marine Biologists should be standing up and talking notice. Or this creature is very few and they are well dispersed, and any sort of kill or plant damage is attributed to some other animal like a Bear.

 

But Bears don't live in family troupes so if Sasquatch does that should be a red flag.

[WSA]

Norse....Well, a few hundred calories here, a few hundred calories there, right? If what I surmise is actually true, they are the original generalist/opportunistic feeders with a huge range. It also goes a long way towards explaining why they are absent from certain areas in certain times of the year. 

 

As for family units, your guess is as good as mine, but without much doubt the minimum family group size is Momma + juvenile. It might also be as large as the family group gets for any extended period, or they may only congregate in times of plenty, as the nomadic N.A. Indians did.  If Momma only keeps junior until he is weaned, that doesn't seem an increase in the caloric requirements of the landscape beyond the difference between a nursing/non-nursing female. I'm not sure the comparison of the impact by a troupe of gorillas is all that analgous.

 

Not to go too far down the scale of BF exceptional-ism, but we don't have any information as to how this organism processes its food and extracts calories from it. There may be some truly exceptional abilities along those lines, and super gut-flora might be one of the evolutionary adaptations in their tool box. They might even be ruminants adapted to eat plants we don't even particularly notice. How noticeable would it be if they were grazing leaves out of the forest canopy (but leaving enough intact canopy that they are still concealed while doing it)?  Not very, I'd guess.

Edited August 22, 2016 by WSA

[norseman]

At least in the PacNW where the myth seems to have arisen from? There are no leaves to eat in the canopy. Because the canopy is all evergreen trees. But I'm not sure how a 800 lbs animal is even going to make a living in the upper canopy of a deciduous forest anyhow.

 

And I agree that mother and offspring is probably the largest possible family unit for most of the North American continent.

[Rockape]

I wouldn't think a BF would be apt to graze on leaves anyway. Maybe a few specific ones. There would be lots of other edible plants though, ferns, cattails, mushrooms, wild onions, berries too. I'm not familiar enough with plants in the PNW to make a real list.

 

But then, I think if the do exist they are few and far between anyway and probably wouldn't completely deplete food sources from their range which is probably pretty wide. They would know what grows where and when it grows so therefore hang out in those areas while supplies last.

[norseman]

OK so thus far we are all in agreement that Bigfoot does not travel around in large family groups.

[MIB]

No agreement from me.   At least at certain times of year and in certain locations, they are moving in groups and living in groups.    Size may vary with time of year and location but you truly should not count on the one you find being alone. 

 

MIB 

[Rockape]

I wouldn't say I agree, I find it unlikely though. I suppose a group could congregate in a remote area, but not for long.

[JKH]

Perhaps "usually in small family groups" is more or less accurate, but I've heard of reports of many more together than that.

 

I've thought about foods, and from looking at a lot of data think we can assume great variety in their diets. I visited a native museum that had a nice exhibit about traditional foods with a list of nearly 300 separate plant and animal species. I'd guess they would use those and maybe more. Awhile ago, I started a list of unusual plants observed in reports, and there were examples of quite a few leaves and barks that we could not digest. Relative metabolic rate decreases with size which means you don't have to eat as much food per gram of your own tissue. It's more efficient to be big, this means you can eat more abundant low energy-dense foods, like trees, leaves and grass.

 

According to many reports, they take out mesopredators such as coyotes and housepets when available, along with the ungulates. They probably get a lot more livestock than is realized, as well. Marine/freshwater foraging could be another whole topic in itself.

 

I don't think they're operating in terms of scarcity in most places.

Edited August 23, 2016 by JKH