Sasquatch- How Far Does It REALLY Travel

[hiflier]

Time to get serious folks. It is my contention that with this animal there is no such thing as territory. Regions is more like it but as far as range of travel? I'm pushing for the entire North American continent. That means a Sasquatch in Alberta, Canada is just as likely to be the same one as the one seen in Northern California. It's a big creature. Tough enough to take a bullet, fast, strong, smart, hair-covered, and in my opinion walks, runs, and swims. I considered things like breeding grounds, how far it might be able to go in one year,  and whether or not the male hangs around a mate only until she can fend for herself and then leaves.

 

This idea should include things stick structures along a 1,000 mile journey. Probably most of those structures never get seen. This is all about breeding and so probably should be joined with the Sasquatch Breeding thread but for now I want to see if, and how many, questions we have regarding the creature fit this concept. That being that Sasquatch does indeed travel over great distances and that the male is only territorial for a short time during the year. The female and offspring would only reside in the remotest of locations as long as there is a good food supply. I've also considered the idea that only the females hibernate? But in any case I also hold to the notion that the creature, though viable is very rare.

 

This opens a quagmire of sorts that involves many things but as Norseman has been doing the tough questions will show up here. Everyone is welcome on this thread but I especially invite Norseman and gigantor as their hinking and comments as of late might be able to shed some light on some of the finer points of this topic. It will be interesting to see how much of the Sasquatch subject fits with this line of thinking. So far the best fit does seem to be wrapped around a breeding season so perhaps that's a good place to begin? Be forewarned, the questions will get tougher as the thread grows. And some of those questions will probably NOT be well received. The floor is open......   

[hiflier]

Of lot of the thoughts that crop up when I generate these topics comes out of studying databases. In my mind it further goes to prove their value. All I really do is continuously look at the data and allow my brain to form questios regarding the various details recorded. One of the questions initially has ALWAYS been why the apparent randomness of sightings. That randomness involves everything from hair color to sighting locations to eye shine color to size and many other aspects covering many incidents. These details seemingly have no pattern when it comes to tring to nail down a certain characteristic=ic with regard to county, state, or region.

 

These inconsistencies have been constantly thwarting anything close to a level pattern recognition. Why is that? Is the Randomness the key? And if so how does the randomness fit the phenomenon? Nature can appear random but it still can be seen as having patterns, especially when stepping back and looking at a larger landscape. So the question crossed my mind regarding Sasquatch databases that asked how far back does one need to step in order to see any pattern regarding the creature. It turns out that one has to step quite far back. What the data was telling me was that the range of Sasquatch isn't what we think it is. The range looks to be larger. Much larger if what is in the databases is anything to go on. It appears then that the creature's "neighborhood" is not local at all but instead is quite extensive.

 

What that means is that the animal can appear to have a large population when in fact the opposite may be true. The population is small which makes it rare but it is constantly on the move. That works for several reasons as a viable answer to a number of perplexing issues which I don't have time to go into until later on. For now I'm just laying the groundwork and getting these thoughts out of my head to help organize them.

 

 

[BobbyO]

My two cents, there is only one reason and one reason only that a Sasquatch, or a family unit of Sasquatches or whatever it would be called, would need to leave (travel) for example the Olympic Peninsula, and that reason is to breed.

I'd suspect that if that is the case where the Olympics are concerned and a place with such an abundance of food sources and water then it most certainly is the case throughout the rest of the lower 48 for sure.

H have you ever come across a Guy called Jimmy Chillcut (sp) ?

The Guy is/was LE and a fingerprint technician and crime scene investigator if i remember rightly.

Anyway he went on record to say he found footprints of the same subject 15 years apart, one in WA State and the other in California.

[norseman]

 

[hiflier]

Yes, I am familiar with him. My take on this particular thread is that in the interim during that 15 years the creature had travelled thousands of miles. not a few hundred. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. For Mr. Chillicut to claim the same creature in 15 years was in two different lacations to me is short sighted although it reinforces that they can and do travel. My studies lately might show two locations with similar or even identically described animals across three states during a span of twenty years for example but the actual randge with further investigation may show an even greater range.

 

Now granted not all Sasquatch look the same- we know that- but some do so this study will not be anywhere definitive. There are lots of variables but looking farther out to greater distances may reveal a pattern that smaller areas will not show. And too, with years comes age which is another variable that may ay least affect things like hair color and size. But as things stand the variables that affect local, territorial, or regional parameters show so much in the way of creature types that it kind of forces a look at perhaps greater distances for a creature that is, as you said elsewhere, is on the move. I'm thinking it's ALWAYS on the move. The thought being we see more of them in summer because they are here and less in winter because they are not- I mean NOT here. Here being wherever seasonal conditions do not favor a bipedal animal that doesn't herd. 

 

It gets complicated when discussing things like group hunting which such discussion here is premature. Primarily this thread is to run down long distance travel for a creature fully capable of long distance travel. We talk about how animals are predictable- until we get to Sasquatch. But in trying to determine any predictability one must look at all potentials. One of the fallouts of our current time frame is that we don't know if Human activity along with natural disasters like fire and heavy winters collectively upset a normal breeding cycle that was in place for hundreds of years and is now out of whack with Sasquatch breeding times now in disarray for individual animals. The variables as I mentioned are vast but there should still be an overall pattern available once we learn how to look for it.

[BobbyO]

I know what you mean regarding similar description but I think it's dangerous ground to put any real time/effort in to personally.

There's been reports of a grey animal over the last 10 years or so now in Grays Harbour and Mason County, WA (Olympic Peninsula), same general size and colouring but who knows if that's the same individual or one of a few with that hair colouring for whatever reason.

Someone needs to put collars on these things, it would make things so much easier.

[NCBFr]

While I am sure there are exceptions, small groups of BF's (1-4 but usually just 1 or 2) would have to have a territory in which they live some or all of the year.  This is an area they know like the back of their hand including hunting grounds, safe spaces, dens, and water holes.  I doubt they would survive if they spent their life wandering the country.  The size of this territory is probably an easy 1 day walk for them which in rough numbers is probably twice that for active humans so perhaps 15-20 miles understanding that is not distance as a crow flies.  Now I do believe they migrate once a year in to breeding zones and these migrations could be hundreds of miles.  My 2 cents based on experience hiking the woods in which I have lived in 2 states and reading hundreds of cases for what it is worth.

[hiflier]

19 hours ago, BobbyO said:

there is only one reason and one reason only that a Sasquatch, or a family unit of Sasquatches or whatever it would be called, would need to leave (travel) for example the Olympic Peninsula, and that reason is to breed.

 

My thoughts exactly  

 

11 hours ago, BobbyO said:

I know what you mean regarding similar description but I think it's dangerous ground to put any real time/effort in to personally

 

Perhaps so, but I'm still going to post this abbreviated file from John Green's database. The data was first sorted with a time line for state/county and Canadian Provinces for each of the reported hair colors followed by height from smallest to biggest for each of those colors. I know of no other way to look at this idea other than this file.

 

John Green Databas- Chronological Color-Height.ods

 

Edited February 17, 2017 by hiflier

[BigTreeWalker]

I can go along with the movement for breeding thought. Especially in the area where we spend a lot of time in the field. There seems to be what I would assume is a large male. He occasionally leaves 18" tracks in the area, about every three or four months. It may be more often than that it's just that we don't always find them. However, we do find smaller tracks and other evidence of what we think are a female and juvenile on a more consistent basis. I interpret that to mean they frequent the area most of the time while the larger individual may move around more. I agree yes they are mobile and can easily cover much territory but that doesn't mean they all do. I'm in agreement with BobbyO that other than breeding purposes there's really no reason to move out of a familiar, food plentiful area. I also agree with NCBFr that there really isn't much of a reason, at least in the PNW to move more than a days walk from a familiar area. Around here if you moved 20 miles from any one place to another you could be in some very inaccessible spots to us humans. 

[hiflier]

In a way I think there is reason for wider movement. Intelligence. Experience should have taught these creatures that their caloric intake cannot be sustained if they remain in an area and consume what it would take to sustain their caloric needs and that of the females and young. That kind of pressure on the food supply would fairly quickly deplete consumables other than meat. Not just talking about bulk as most of what would be consumed say in Summer would mostly contain water like berries and fruits. The Fall would have more in fat rich nuts and the last of any berry crops. The Spring would be early skunk cabbage and not much else.

 

For a female with maybe one offspring it might be enough to keep them local especially if they maintain a low energy level/output during the leaner months- unless males begin to prey on other animals. But that said a viable population of say 60-100 in any region would be leaving carcasses everywhere to the point where FS would have no choice but to take notice; something which apparently has not happened. If the males leve after breeding then what food is available for females and young will go farther. Therefore it will be the males that travel and as they do (IF they do) they will encounter other areas dealing with the same situation.

 

So males may hunt constantly but by moving over large distances the number of kills will also be more widely scattered and after they leave an area the population of prey settles down to foraging- life back to normal. This is a larger scope that I think you brought out before where BF was on one side of a mountain with the actual hunting grounds on the other. That may be a situation that has a long range say up and down the North and South Cascades where hunting parties could roam for hundreds of miles even up into the Selkirks and beyond and then return. It would only take fifteen or twenty groups of two to four individuals dispersed over thousands of square mile to sustain a breeding population.

 

The trick will be determining a breeding cycle and hammering away on the data. I think in this regard it's OK to have the idea ahead of the data which is a different method of research but when large regions are discussed it may be the only avenue to take. After all that we have looked at most must admit that the data appears random at the local or territorial level. And even dividing say Washington state into five regions has shown us that we have needed to expand beyond that into neighboring states. The data IS telling us something but the scale that we have been focused on has been too small.

 

I apologize to everyone for these long posts sometimes the thought cannot be expressed in just a couple of sentences. In this case I truly think the breeding thing is worthy of focus as is the possibly wider scope of the male creatures. We just may see the randomness in the reports start to make some sense.  

Edited February 18, 2017 by hiflier

[OkieFoot]

On 2/17/2017 at 4:46 AM, BobbyO said:

I know what you mean regarding similar description but I think it's dangerous ground to put any real time/effort in to personally.

There's been reports of a grey animal over the last 10 years or so now in Grays Harbour and Mason County, WA (Olympic Peninsula), same general size and colouring but who knows if that's the same individual or one of a few with that hair colouring for whatever reason.

Someone needs to put collars on these things, it would make things so much easier.

 

It would be very interesting to know if some of the reported sightings from a certain area could be of the same creature.

[MIB]

If you want the answers to this, they are available via some of the habituators.   They're in a position to watch specific individuals over time.   People reporting single road crossings are not.   Investigators of such crossings are, a the very very best, GUESSING that two different people saw the same individual.

 

You have to decide whether you're willing to listen to the answers you've already been given, which can be found in the literature,  or whether you're going to dismiss them and look for other answers that fit your preconceived ideas better.    It's up to you.

 

MIB

[NCBFr]

Where I have lived, NC and NJ, a BF group could eat a deer a day with no significant loss in the deer population.  In fact, there have been studies that conclude that the faster deer are killed, the faster they reproduce.  Heck, if they picked up 10% of the deer roadkill they could probably live a hunger free life and do the public a service.

 

18 hours ago, OkieFoot said:

 

It would be very interesting to know if some of the reported sightings from a certain area could be of the same creature.

 

You can get some sense of this by studying white BF reports.  They seem to be rare enough that repeated sightings of one in an area is probably the same creature.  I know of one on Alabama that seems to inhabit a localized territory and I recall another out west but cannot recall the exact location.

[SWWASAS]

I agree with MIB on the habituators maybe being the key to more understanding.       But I have to admit that he and I have been exposed to some of the same people who claim to be in this group.      So perhaps that drives our conclusions.      Let me relate what I have been told by some of them.     Mind you, I know of some of them second or third hand, so information they give out is hardly vetted.      I and you for that matter have to take it with a grain of salt.      The majority have BF who are living in groups nearby nearly year round if not year round.      Those groups are in more temperate locations so that is certainly possible in the Pacific Northwest.    Even these locations seem to have BF male drifters move through who seem to cause different degrees of trouble.    Perhaps that is related to food availability,  territorial associations, or availability of females,    I do not know.    Some less temperate situations the BF seem to migrate away from the habituators in the winter months.       That would make sense.      I know one report of some exchange of breeding age females with distant groups.      Genetically that makes sense in that it would reduce inbreeding problems but the single report I have of that happening is not indicative of anything other than regional or an individual case.      Objectively looking at it, this habituation situation may be rare and the exception.   It takes a good location with food and cover and a human family willing to tolerate and accept sharing their land with BF.      Neither or both of these situations may be very common.      BF scares the daylights out of most people.     The sad part of this is that people who claim to be in habituation situations are often driven out of forums such as this by both skeptics and skeptical believers alike and we loose contact with them.       While my personal contact with them has always been supportive,    they have always reacted to my offer to deploy camera or other gear with distrust. or outright rejection.      The reasons given are that they do not want to put their BF group in potential harm by revealing locations,  they have had bad experience with various researchers,   or simply that they do not want BF to be proven to exist.     Certainly these are valid considerations, but in all honesty, even though I am a witness,   it introduces some level of uncertainty in my mind that some of them are authentic.        If I made daily claims of BF in my back yard,   had the opportunity to validate it photographically, yet would not agree to carefully agreed upon protocols,  I should not be surprised that people did not believe me.        At some point they were willing to come into a public forum, tell their story,  yet back out just short of the point where that story could be validated.      Maybe they need their own forum or something to tell their story and stay around.      But from my experience it would be little more than a support group for troubled humans and not much useful would come of it for the rest of us.    When I have suggested even simple experiments without any gear of any kind deployed it is normally rejected by the humans involved.     As a curious person,  that really raises red flags for me.    

Edited February 19, 2017 by SWWASAS

[BigTreeWalker]

2 hours ago, NCBFr said:

Where I have lived, NC and NJ, a BF group could eat a deer a day with no significant loss in the deer population.  In fact, there have been studies that conclude that the faster deer are killed, the faster they reproduce.  Heck, if they picked up 10% of the deer roadkill they could probably live a hunger free life and do the public a service.

 

NCBFr very astute observation. I've even heard of the authorities concerns about the deer population in NJ out here in the PNW. I've also heard of various suggestions for solutions to the deer problem. Maybe the best answer is just let the BF feast.