Bigfoot range and population speculation thread.

[Twist]

There are plenty of threads that will lead to opinions getting expressed on the subjects of range and population.  I thought I'd start a thread to zone in on opinions as they stand at this point in time.

 

I'd rather this topic not turn into an existence debate but rather discussion about population, density, range, migration, etc.  

 

IMO, IF BF exists, it would be in a small numbers and rather nomadic in nature.  This would connect a few dots in the Bigfoot mystery for myself but opens up other possible mysteries.

 

1.  Sightings - a nomadic BF could account for its ellusivness.  If it's always on the move sightings could be far and few between and not really repeatable if it's a county away in 2 days.  Let's say a sloppy BF is seen on a given date if it's seen again a week later it could be 100 miles away.   It would take months/years ( or never ) to actually put a pattern to a single BF on the move.  That's even assuming each witness actually reported it to an "authority" that was looking for BF.   

 

2.  Habitat - A nomadic BF if elusive, leaves a small enough "footprint" to avoid detection if in an area for a brief time.  This smaller "footprint" is reflected in both the local food chain and changes physically to its surrounding environment. 

 

That's all I got for now but hope to add more later.  I'm interested in hearing what people believe and any pro's or con's to your beliefs.

 

 

[Yuchi1]

The clan we interacted with (2002-2004) on and around the Rogers county Oklahoma location numbered 7-9 individuals. I recall the night when reloading a game camera bait station (during a lunar eclipse) when ~7 of them loosed a opera of screams and howls from ~40 yards away that transfixed the two of us for the 2-3 minutes it continued. It wasn't a fearful event rather one of amazement.

 

During this time period, we surmised there were a couple of juveniles that loitered in the general vicinity while the rest of the clan made a circuit around Oologah reservoir apparently following the deer herds. Anytime we observed deer prevalent in our vicinity, activity/action was almost a given. When the whitetail were absent, activity was almost always nonexistent.

 

Subsequent residential development encompassed much of the previously vacant land and (~2006-2009) the intrusion of a so-called BF research organization and (per the landowners in the adjoining properties) multiple incidents of gunfire during night time "expeditions" appeared to have the effect of causing the clan to abandon the general area. Therefore, it is the conclusion belligerent actions by people toward them will cause a move. The NAWAC experience on the Branson property (and, adjoining property) further appears to buttress this finding.

 

Basically, the available resources, undisturbed property and lack of hostile encounters with people seem to be proximate factors in numbers of Sasquatch found in a given area. That's likely why the relative expansiveness of the Kiamichi mountains in SE Oklahoma is so conducive to a population that is both stable and possibly even expanding.

 

[wiiawiwb]

I think the density is thin with a family group in a particular area and maybe a few young males out on their own.  Where I live, there are several hot spots, some close and some not so close, and I believe it contains several groups in the region.

 

I believe they are seasonally nomadic moving north and south as it suits the food sources they seek. If they are in a region for a month or two or three, I believe they move about and cover that region often and maybe even daily if hunting demands it.  They know the variables at hand, as it relates to weather, human traffic, and food sources, and are able to determine where they need to be each day.

 

The more they move about the less they are defined by an area.  My part of the country is densely vegetated, has mountains, and is wet so it is not conducive for humans to go off trail. It is also very noisy bushwhacking, with branches snapping and breaking, so the handful of humans going off trail undoubtedly announce arrival far in advance. That provides a perfect habitat for a sasquatch as they are less likely to encounter humans in the more rugged environment which they live.

 

[gigantor]

2 hours ago, Twist said:

1.  Sightings - a nomadic BF could account for its ellusivness.  If it's always on the move sightings could be far and few between and not really repeatable if it's a county away in 2 days.  Let's say a sloppy BF is seen on a given date if it's seen again a week later it could be 100 miles away.   It would take months/years ( or never ) to actually put a pattern to a single BF on the move.  That's even assuming each witness actually reported it to an "authority" that was looking for BF.

 

hey Twist. I don't know anyone trying to track a single BF via sighting reports. Do you?

 

Sighting reports are useful in revealing patterns of a population. If you don't realize that then... umm.. never mind. 

 

Anyway, you probably should have sited some hypothesis about BF populations in order to get the thread started. Let me help you out:

 

1) I'll start with the earliest hypothesis by a PhD biologist, Dr Grover Krantz. He theorized that BF lives in the same environment as bears do, but are many times fewer in number. His idea is that they share the habitat based on time of day. Bears during the day, BF at night. I'll skip the details so that they can serve as the basis of argument for the thread. Basically Krantz thinks:

 

• Male BFs have a 100 square mile range
• Female BFs and babies much less
• Guesstimate 20 years ago: 10k - 15k BFs in all of North America.

 

 

 

[Twist]

Gig,

 

No, I do not know of anyone tracking a single Bigfoot nor do I believe at this time it's possible.  My line of thinking was if they are few in number and nomadic, a sighting in northern MN may very well be the same BF seen in souther MN 3 weeks later and then not seen again in MN.  There would be few and far data points to work off of.

 

Sighting reports can be useful tools but given my belief in their population numbers I take them with a grain of salt.  There are far to many sightings in such a large range of habitat, imo.

 

If I question the source(s) then naturally I'd have to question the pattern it presents.

[norseman]

 

[wiiawiwb]

Grizzlies eat ~20,000 calories per day and their environment supports it.  I don;t see any reason why  it wouldn't support fewer numbers of sasquatches.

 

There is a good argument about BF concerning where does all the scat go. I'll bet a sasquatch is smart enough to do so in a pond, lake, or stream. It would leave without a trace.

[norseman]

What about in winter?  Bears eat twice the number of calories because they spend half that time sleeping in the den.

[NatFoot]

54 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

Grizzlies eat ~20,000 calories per day and their environment supports it.  I don;t see any reason why  it wouldn't support fewer numbers of sasquatches.

 

There is a good argument about BF concerning where does all the scat go. I'll bet a sasquatch is smart enough to do so in a pond, lake, or stream. It would leave without a trace.

Only problem is that Sasquatches are spotted in areas that could never support Grizzlies.

 

I'm inclined to think that the idea of, if there's black bears there could be squatches approach works.

 

But even then....the difference in the mass of a sasquatch compared to a black bear is pretty sizeable.

 

We need Norse to actually bag one...

[norseman]

Ive been falling down on my job im afraid. Between my ranch and trucking company, ive had little time in the mountains. Much of this summer has been spent in the  Bakken oilfield.

 

But there are others out looking.

[SWWASAS]

• One thing to consider is that BF are not mindless amblers like bears.   Moving from patch to patch looking for food then hibernating all winter.        If BF are near human in intelligence they have tribal memories and seasonal hunting and gathering methodology.   If so we should expect great similarity to Native American behaviors.   Some areas they might be able to work nearly year round, as Native American tribes did.  I can see that West of the Cascades as the Native Americans had the largest villages East of the Mississippi before the influx of Europeans.    Large log and wood plank houses pretty much permanent in nature were not indicative of a lot of tribal migration.    Moderate climate along with high density of fish migrations,  deer, elk,  berries in season,  and edible vegetation made migration for subsidence unnecessary.     Perhaps futher East,  with more severe weather, the migrations necessary are greater to stay in more temperate climate and in areas with sufficient food.   They had summer and winter camps, moved to food sources as the seasons changed and it got cold at high elevations.       The more severe the climate variations the more migration related to that and food sources.      The plains Indians followed the buffalo herds with huge migrations.      So we should expect the same sort of variations with migration behaviors with bigfoot related to climate and food sources.     So I think it very unlikely that BF behavior is similar region to region.     The more intelligent they are found to be, the more likely their behaviors as far as migration and food gathering are found to be different.      We have seen some of that with behavior differences being reported.      Tree break offs,   stick structures,   etc are fairly common in some areas but unseen in my area.   But I hear people claiming that what they are seeing is the only sure sign of BF activity.   I doubt there is much similarity in BF behavior in Ohio and that near Mt St Helens.  

Edited August 15, 2017 by SWWASAS

[wiiawiwb]

I don't have the answer to the winter question other than to suspect that sasquatches migrate to warmer areas in the winter. A few hundred miles can make a world of difference in temperature.

Edited August 15, 2017 by wiiawiwb

[SWWASAS]

The other thing to consider and we of European descent tend to loose sight of,    in how to define BF is that almost universally the Native Peoples of North America consider BF a tribe of "people".       They have coexisted for as long as Native Americans have been on the continent, and rather that some giant ape,  scarey beast,  as Europeans have tagged them,    they are most often referred to as "forest or mountain people" or something similar by most native peoples.     Often tagged with spiritual or supernatural abilities.     Native Americans should know better than we what they are because they have been around them for at least 10,000 years.     

[wiiawiwb]

Although some tribes, and perhaps the Skookum if memory serves me, speak about sasquatch and say that we do not go where they live. A statement of both respect and fear.

[SWWASAS]

The Quinalt Tribe of the Olympic Peninsula has about as close an association with BF as any.    Their tribal elders provide a benediction to the Sasquatch Summit held on their tribal lands.   They express some dismay at the disrespect that many Europeans have for BF.    As I recall the elders suggest lowering your eyes, and allowing them to slip out of sight.    I don't think I am going that far,  but for sure I would display open hands which is a universal human sign,   showing I mean them no harm.    Talking in a calm voice certainly helps me get over my fear.   Perhaps it comforts them, knowing I am not going to flip out and start shooting or something crazy as us humans tend to do.