Sasquatch- How Far Does It REALLY Travel

[hiflier]

So either Bigfoot is more scarce in those winter areas or it's merely the fewer reports of them looking scarce due to less Human activity. How to determine that is anyone's guess. One thing therefore might be to focus more on areas of denser evergreen growth and forego the more deciduous regions. If ungulates use the evergreen areas for shelter as well as foraging then it adds to the idea. Also two to three years after an area has been logged herbicides are no longer used and undergrowth begins to fill in so even replanted areas given time would be good for at least sporadic winter foraging? I do so wish there was a way to track logging operations just for this purpose 

Edited March 15, 2017 by hiflier

[BigTreeWalker]

It has definitely been a bad winter in the PNW as SWWSP said. Either snowing or raining constantly. What with my work schedule and weather I haven't gotten out as much as I would like this winter. Most people don't venture far from their homes or cars into the woods this time of year. Two areas where we do research have been designated elk wintering areas, so access is limited, no people no sightings. The WDFW do keep an eye on these areas too. Ran into a game warden the other day. We were where it was OK to be. He was coming out of the valley which is off limits til June. He said he ran into two big herds of elk in there. So if sasquatch were following those elk and helping themselves occasionally; who would know except the warden, who probably wouldn't say much anyway. My partner told the warden why we were in the area so he wouldn't think we were poachers. We were servicing cameras and placing audio for our research. It didn't elicit any response from the warden. So if he had anything to say on the subject he was being tight-lipped about it. 

[hiflier]

Would have been cool if instead he had said, "Really? Well then I have some videos you might be interested in seeing".

[SWWASAS]

BTW:    If you go out next time and discover your gear is missing or the SD cards gone, that would say a lot about what the warden was really thinking.    I think the whole thing is a "wink wink - nod nod" thing anyway.   Some  of them have to have experienced something.  I wish I could remember who related their footprint story on the forum.        It was up near Mt St Helens.     Two researchers found a BF footprint.    They either happened on a Park Ranger or one happened on them when they were documenting the find.     When they got back from their vehicle, with the casting materials, the footprint had been obliterated and the area covered with fir needles.       Unless the BF did it, it had to have been the Park Ranger.    I guess the moral of the story is that if there are two of you,  one should stay with a find. 

[BigTreeWalker]

On 3/17/2017 at 0:57 PM, SWWASAS said:

BTW:    If you go out next time and discover your gear is missing or the SD cards gone, that would say a lot about what the warden was really thinking.    I think the whole thing is a "wink wink - nod nod" thing anyway.   Some  of them have to have experienced something.  I wish I could remember who related their footprint story on the forum.        It was up near Mt St Helens.     Two researchers found a BF footprint.    They either happened on a Park Ranger or one happened on them when they were documenting the find.     When they got back from their vehicle, with the casting materials, the footprint had been obliterated and the area covered with fir needles.       Unless the BF did it, it had to have been the Park Ranger.    I guess the moral of the story is that if there are two of you,  one should stay with a find. 

Well considering he probably spends most of his time in his pickup and probably doesn't get too far from it when he is out and about; he would have a hard time finding our cams (they are well hidden or 16' off the ground) seeing as how they are a mile or so from the road. Someone did remove a couple of my research partner's cams last year, but they were placed along a couple overgrown roads that people do occasionally walk up. So that could have been anyone. That was before I started being more creative on how we place cams. Besides we didn't tell the warden what we have found up in there, so he had no reason to be curious. 

[7.62]

On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 2:29 PM, hiflier said:

Would have been cool if instead he had said, "Really? Well then I have some videos you might be interested in seeing".

Yup

People like that spend a lot more time in the woods than the average hunter or bigfoot researcher .

I've often wondered what people that spend 100 days or more a year in a fire look out tower have seen but keep it to them selves .

[coffee2go]

9 hours ago, 7.62 said:

Yup

People like that spend a lot more time in the woods than the average hunter or bigfoot researcher .

I've often wondered what people that spend 100 days or more a year in a fire look out tower have seen but keep it to them selves .

 

Here is a way to find out what you can see from a fire tower.  Volunteers are needed to sit in towers in certain areas of the country.

http://www.firelookout.org/lookout-jobs.html

 

 

 

[Guest]

Wouldn't a Bigfoot family, clan, group etc. almost  have to travel great distances ?   Whatever territory they settle in  ,if they are territorial,  wouldn't it eventually  become overwhelmed by these creatures who some say would need to consume 5000-8000 calories a day? It just seems that they would have to leave one territory for another one so that their territores could recover....

[Guest Waggles]

The males will mark out a territory for food/ resources. Once established then they breed like all other mammals. It might be large, or "small depending on the resources of that area. But a good area is going to be marked for sure. 

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, Vivian said:

Wouldn't a Bigfoot family, clan, group etc. almost  have to travel great distances ?   Whatever territory they settle in  ,if they are territorial,  wouldn't it eventually  become overwhelmed by these creatures who some say would need to consume 5000-8000 calories a day? It just seems that they would have to leave one territory for another one so that their territores could recover....

 

Yes, and that's the point of the OP. Because even if breeding occurs annually and somewhat in the same region it's not just Sasquatch that puts pressure on the food resources. Bears, ungulates, birds, squirrels, and many other animals are also present and also compete for the food supply. There was a discussion a year or two ago about bears vs. Bigfoot and who gives way to who in a given area. Either way it's ALL of the animals that work an area for whatever food is there. It may be that while predation during the winter months is expected the practice may occur more often if the natural supply of nutrition becomes scarce because of drought or fire.

 

The size of the fauna population in any given region has to be directly related to the amount of food available otherwise animals simply move on- followed soon after by the creatures that prey on them. Getting at the drought, logging, and fire history of any given area would tell us a lot. Added to report databases a better sightings picture may take shape as well. One person couldn't possibly tackle such a large task of digging up that kind of information but I think it would be important to somehow do so.    

[MIB]

Quote

Wouldn't a Bigfoot family, clan, group etc. almost  have to travel great distances ?   Whatever territory they settle in  ,if they are territorial,  wouldn't it eventually  become overwhelmed by these creatures who some say would need to consume 5000-8000 calories a day? It just seems that they would have to leave one territory for another one so that their territores could recover....

 

Not necessarily.  

 

It depends on how thoroughly they use the resources before they move on.   If it is something other than food pressures like weather which causes them to move, the food chain might not be substantially impacted by their temporary presence.  

 

Moreover, if they tend to forage farther from "home" and return with food, in order to keep their core living area unnoticed, for instance, the actual sign of their presence might occur some distance from the core they're occupying.  

 

53 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Bears, ungulates, birds, squirrels, and many other animals are also present and also compete for the food supply.  

 

Ummm ... no, not so much.   Those other animals are far more likely to be part of the food supply than to be competition for food supply.  There's little evidence supporting the idea that bigfoot is primarily herbivorous, much more evidence supporting the idea they are toward the carnivore end of the omnivore scale.  

 

MIB

[BigTreeWalker]

I was out in the field today. One of the few nice days we've had this winter. Found another elk kill today probably cougar. But the thought that animals move out of an area due to food supply is not supported in the wild where there are few migrations. Their populations will fluctuate but they don't leave. Today from a high point I counted 80 elk in a small area in the valley, less than a square mile. They rotate through an area and move up and down with the snow levels, but they don't leave. If the herbivores are available for food in an area then the predators that feed on them will also be nearby. But this is western WA and herbaceous food is always abundant. 

 

Hiflier, you could use available knowledge from those that live in an area for information about fires, drought or logging that you are wondering about. I can tell you that there have been very few large forest fires in SW WA for the last hundred years. So other than a few square miles here and there they are not a large factor. Of course eastern WA is a whole other ballgame. Logging here is business as usual. Since we don't know how it affects sasquatch in the long run, anyone's guess is as good as mine. Drought other than lack of rain for a month or so doesn't really happen in western WA. There is always water available nearby. Springs may dry up in the high country, but the creeks and rivers still flow. But then this part of the country is prime bigfoot habitat.

[hiflier]

Yes, MIB, but there are other animals that feed on other animals as well like coyotes, fisher cats, lynx, bobcat, sometimes bears, wolves mountain lions and whatever else. Then there are the animals and birds that ravage the nuts, berries, grubs, spring shoots, and other edibles. It's not like Sasquatch can come into an area to feed and have it untouched and devoid of other hungry mouths before it/they get there and while it's there. If food supplies in the wild were constant then no animal would have to roam and forage. If foraging didn't deplete the food supply in an area then why would an animal go elsewhere? But they do go elsewhere. Sometimes they may get chased out but it would probably be by an animal that was hungry because it's own area was over harvested.

 

This isn't to say that mating isn't the cause of animal movement but for most mating is seasonal. The rest of the year animals simply hunt for food and eat it when and where they find it. I would imagine an animal stumbling onto a huge ripe huckleberry patch would be one big beautiful windfall of a thing  

 

@BTW Yep, West WA and North into the Olympics sure is prime habitat. I have a friend who has mover to Port Angeles. I was going to visit the area this spring but have postponed the trip until late summer. In which case instead of flying out  in my spouse, the dog, and I are hitting the road and camping our way from Maine to the Olympics and back. Should be a great trip.

Edited March 20, 2017 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

BTW:   Your comment about forest fires provoked a thought.    My formerly active research area was smack in the middle of the Yacolt burn.       What was the Tillamook burn is a very active BF area.         Could it be that large fires set the stage for forest regrowth and an influx of BF activity?       Old tribes might be forced to leave by the fire then as regrowth happens perhaps there is a a land rush of tribes moving back in and more sighting activity.     Perhaps territory is so tightly controlled by local tribes, that the only thing that can disturb that are fires and regrowth of the woods.   Further, clear cut logging may have a similar result on a smaller scale.       Forced displacement,   territories disturbed, then with regrowth,  tribes move in to expand their territory.     Something to ponder related to this thread.   

Edited March 20, 2017 by SWWASAS

[MIB]

SWWASAS -

 

LIkely it's a food issue.   Forest fires open space for new growth which, a few years after the fire, has a lot more nutrients available to grazers ... deer, elk, etc.   That, in turn, draws the predators.    Clearcuts do indeed have the same result.   

 

I've had this discussion in other places in a different context: elk herd management.   Until about 1900 or so, fires just burned.   The Cascades contained a lot of open "parks" which were habitat for elk.  In the early 1900s we began suppressing forest fires, however, roughly the same time we expanded logging which replaced the fire-opened acres with clearcut-opened acres.   The difference is aesthetic, an elk's belly can't tell the difference what made the clearing it feeds in.    In the 1980s we mostly stopped logging in the Cascades but we continue to stop wildfires.   The amount of meadow acreage available to provide elk habitat is dropping drastically and along with it, elk populations.   I believe this is a much more significant factor than the change in cougar hunting (no dogs or bait now) increasing their numbers so far as elk herd size.

 

MIB