Bigfoot range and population speculation thread.

[wiiawiwb]

8 hours ago, Twist said:

^ possibly and that's assuming that the BF walks within 30 yards of his camp, when he's up and around, and he's paying attention.  It's not a needle in the haystack, it's two needles landing near each other in a hay stack. 

 

Maybe others would lounging around their camp all day not paying attention to things around them. I would be out trying to make things happen. Put myself on a game trail, near a pond, or on the side of a mountain with a view to open fields below. I would be doing all the things a "troop" of people do but in more stealth mode. Not people stumbling about in the woods making a racket that could be heard a half mile away.

 

We look at needles and haystacks a bit differently.

[BobbyO]

On 8/15/2017 at 11:29 AM, Twist said:

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.

 

I don't believe it's possible neither, and trust me i've looked in to trying to do it for years but don't see how it could even be remotely possible to do for a tonne of reasons.

 

Saying that however, there has been a fair few reports over the last 10 years of a grey animal in the southern part of the Olympic Peninsula (all in the SSR) in the last 10/15 years that raises my eyebrow.

 

Grey doesn't get reported that much and when you add that to a specific area like it is, then you just may start to think of the possibility that it's the same animal.

 

But of course it might not be, there could easily be more than one animal that is grey in that area.

 

From my perspective however i see sighting reports from a KPI perspective as nothing else but location and season/date. That for me is the key to any report, and most important. It's those indicators that i believe can help the most in building up trends and patterns.

 

From there you can start to dig in to potential "why's" and look at possibly potential food sources in specific locations etc, and stuff like that, building up a picture.

 

So much of the rest is subjective, even witnesses describing coloring imo.

 

I love this thread though, thanks for starting it.

 

My $0:02 ?

 

I think they utilize family type groups that have home ranges in general but move a lot based on food availability and mating, you would then get rogue animals aside from the family groups that would be predominantly male..

 

Continent wide population estimates i'd have no idea on, wouldn't even like to guess because of Canada and Alaska and the habitat it has and lack of people.

 

The lower 48 is different though.

 

I think we can build up rough guesstimates if we split up areas.

 

Just to throw one out there with my belief, i'll go anywhere between 500 - 1,000 in WA State at any one time based on sub-division of different geographical zones and the habitat and food sources available.

 

That isn't a viable size for a healthy, breeding population however, and that's one of the big reasons why i believe they move a lot.

 

One interesting thing i found over the last few years though was a general, small ish area that i honestly thought for a number of reasons (don't have time now, work soon, sorry) could potentially be used for mating at a specific time of year because of sighting reports, the specific location and local testimony which had no idea of the numbers i had found, which matched up.

 

I really want to write it up well instead of just free typing it in a rush.

 

 

19 hours ago, norseman said:

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

 

Strategic, seasonal opportunists ?

 

Look at this, look at the colder climate States compared to the warmer climate States.

 

 

 

And this..

 

 

 

Edit : Gig, these are old charts before we put BFF on, for clarification. It's on everything now going forward.

Edited August 16, 2017 by BobbyO

[Yuchi1]

8 hours ago, norseman said:

If people want to be left alone? How does the word get out?

 

I dont get it.

 

If there is a problem of "wild eyed gunslingers" showing up on their property? It is a problem of their own making!

 

The only way "the word" gets off the ranch is if I make it so.

 

And anybody that thinks they can trespass on my ranch without permission? Has another thing coming...

 

N,

 

In two of the aforementioned situations, a private website some of these people had set up to communicate with each other was hacked and the locations then discovered. In another, a neighboring property owner had become affiliated with a BF group, asked the habituators if they had anything going on (w/o disclosing the affiliation) as he had "seen something" and then conveyed to the group the location. Can't even trust long-time neighbors on things of this nature.

 

So, information can get out in a variety of ways with several of these people now communicating by phone and other means that are not able to be easily interdicted. 

 

[norseman]

But if they just want to be left alone?

 

Why talk about it on a private website or say anything to a nosy neighbor in the first place?

 

Obviously these people ARE reaching out.

[Twist]

Habituators are a curious case to me.  Why is it that BF only habituates those that won't expose them?  What are the chances a clan has always hit on the right types?  

[Yuchi1]

N,

 

Why do you fault like-minded people for wanting to communicate with each other, privately?  After all, homo sapiens are herd animals.

 

T,

 

There have been habituators that have gone into the public domain. Janice Carter, Mary Green & Arla Williams are a few that come to mind.

 

The ones (habituators) I am aware of feel their relationship with these "entities" is something sacred in nature and not a commercial enterprise.

 

And, with all of them being no-kill in philosophy, going into the public domain (as per the above cited incidents) has no positive outcomes.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Yuchi1
typo

[Twist]

I'll have to do some research on the names you referenced Yuchi, thanks for that.

[TritonTr196]

3 hours ago, Twist said:

Habituators are a curious case to me.  Why is it that BF only habituates those that won't expose them?  What are the chances a clan has always hit on the right types?  

 

 

Because those are the people who needs an identity on the internet. They read others stories and decides to make one of their own. Always with the "I don't have to show any proof" attitudes along with blurry pictures of orbs following the Bigfoot around. And then they get accepted into which ever Bigfoot group on facebook that allows that stuff and bam, instant fake online friends and conversation. Kinda like a certain thread on this forum. From the looks of it, mostly old cat ladies come up with these stories.

[Twist]

^^^^ 

[JKH]

Stuff and nonsense. The H word is useless in this arena, meaning almost anything people want it to, from "researchers" going out to the same camps over and over with their sandwiches, pies, bbq baits, etc. to the folks who have somehow crossed paths more than once, sometimes at homes or on their farms. All the "researchers" know it's not unusual for that to happen, often when folks don't welcome such. Even your buddies Bear and Coonbo acknowledge such activity from experience and legit reports.

[JDL]

We really overthink (and underthink) this stuff, in my opinion.

 

If a bigfoot is hanging out in a particular area for a period of time, it has a reason for doing it.  If it keeps coming back regularly over weeks, months, and years, you can bet it has pretty good reasons for that too.  

 

I'd say the big three reasons are Food, Safety, and Potential Mates (going all Maslow, on you here).  The order of priority is going to vary depending on the individual and the prevailing circumstances (availability of food based on time of year, human intrusion into group areas, etc.).  If a group is being provided with food, and the people providing food for them (knowingly or otherwise) leave them alone, then they're going to have a reason to stay and less of a reason to leave, especially if the females of the group are feeling well fed, safe, and more inclined to be potential mates.  Just a hypothesis.

 

Water is another reason that bigfoot may stay close to a particular area, but it gets overlooked.

 

Someone; Byrne, I think; proposed that bigfoot only populate areas where there is at least a certain amount of rainfall, and that perception persists, but it isn't universally true.  I've shared sightings on this forum from arid areas, and others have reported bigfoot in relatively arid regions in the Southwest, often near small lakes.  I'm certain that their populations are higher in areas with greater rainfall, but it may be that the chance of encountering one is lower there than in arid areas from which we have reports.

 

Here's why I think this.  In arid areas water is both scarce and vital, so resident or itinerant bigfoot are going to be drawn to them.  Humans in the area are also often going to use these areas for property development, or for recreation.  This brings them together.  Really, this is nothing new if you get right down to it.  Look at any African watering hole in the dry season.

 

So I'm thinking more and more, that if I ever get a chance to do some field work, I'll be looking at water sources in arid areas as a possible study area.

[norseman]

3 hours ago, Yuchi1 said:

N,

 

Why do you fault like-minded people for wanting to communicate with each other, privately?  After all, homo sapiens are herd animals.

 

T,

 

There have been habituators that have gone into the public domain. Janice Carter, Mary Green & Arla Williams are a few that come to mind.

 

The ones (habituators) I am aware of feel their relationship with these "entities" is something sacred in nature and not a commercial enterprise.

 

And, with all of them being no-kill in philosophy, going into the public domain (as per the above cited incidents) has no positive outcomes.

 

Because people have big mouths.... 

 

If your incapable of keeping your own secret? Then dont blame other people for your woes!

 

Simple.

 

 

[gigantor]

On 8/15/2017 at 5:14 PM, wiiawiwb said:

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.

 

Krantz: maybe they have a Hindgut Fermenter

[Yuchi1]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Because people have big mouths.... 

 

If your incapable of keeping your own secret? Then dont blame other people for your woes!

 

Simple.

 

 

 

It's really amusing to see pro-killers get wound up tighter than a 30-day clock over why on earth people with ongoing interaction don't want outsiders in the loop.

 

The pro-killers salve their ego by taking a measure of satisfaction from habituators being outed. IMO, a measure of jealousy is in play as they are continuously engaged in something the former can only dream of, probably waking up in the deep, dark watches of the night screaming "why not me!"

 

There is hope though as maybe one of you may have a Smeja moment. Would be interesting though to see how you/they handle things post-DNA analysis. 

 

[Twist]

^^ Well that's just plain silly I'd say.  Anyone that put much emotional investment into BF might need to take a step back.