norseman Posted April 8, 2019 Admin Posted April 8, 2019 19 hours ago, JKH said: Think the map is outdated and of course under-reported, it just requires study. I live in the pnw, but travel to the Midwest and some east coast areas. I used to consider OK to be bleak and flat, but it's certainly otherwise, even in some western parts. They are mostly thriving all over, IMO. Well? If they are thriving in the small narrow cottonwood bottoms of the US Midwest? That should be a chip shot fer shooting one. Compared to digging one out of the Gifford Pinchot or the Tongass NF. In which a man can crawl on his belly for miles and never see the light of day.
NatFoot Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 52 minutes ago, norseman said: Well? If they are thriving in the small narrow cottonwood bottoms of the US Midwest? That should be a chip shot fer shooting one. Compared to digging one out of the Gifford Pinchot or the Tongass NF. In which a man can crawl on his belly for miles and never see the light of day. I was thinking of this today on my drive home. Got me a little discouraged because if they are within 40 mins of NYC and using small cooridors elsewhere to move around, if they are real flesh and blood creatures, one should be dead by now.
norseman Posted April 9, 2019 Admin Posted April 9, 2019 35 minutes ago, NatFoot said: I was thinking of this today on my drive home. Got me a little discouraged because if they are within 40 mins of NYC and using small cooridors elsewhere to move around, if they are real flesh and blood creatures, one should be dead by now. Alot of “ifs”.
NatFoot Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, norseman said: Alot of “ifs”. Not to get all spooky and out there, but one if seems somehow more possible than the other - as crazy as that might sound. I don't think the people all over the east coast and Midwest are crazy and/or lying. They are seeing SOMETHING.
norseman Posted April 9, 2019 Admin Posted April 9, 2019 3 hours ago, NatFoot said: Not to get all spooky and out there, but one if seems somehow more possible than the other - as crazy as that might sound. I don't think the people all over the east coast and Midwest are crazy and/or lying. They are seeing SOMETHING. I agree. But I don’t think there is one behind every bush. I look at things like how many acres does it take to support a 800 lbs Grizzly bear. Densities are low unless they are on the coasts that still support salmon runs. It takes an incredible amount of groceries to support just one Griz. If the Midwest is simply used as a travel corridor? I could see that...... working in North Dakota for 7 years. But supporting a population of them unseen? Not so much.
bipedalist Posted April 9, 2019 BFF Patron Posted April 9, 2019 (edited) On 4/8/2019 at 5:24 AM, BobbyO said: My bad, i think i mis-read what you initially wrote. Some Reports that i think of regarding that extreme arid areas is the trail of reports along the South Platte River in Colorado back in the early 00's, an area where there is literally no cover except for the along the River itself where it has tree cover. Anyway, even without seeing whatever it was in Florida all those years ago now, i've seen more than enough with Reports on their own to completely dismiss the Reports collectively as an elaborate hoax. If it was, then those responsible would be truly wasted and we should all be living on Mars by now, they're that smart. The below is just one example of why i think like this. 802 Total Reports North American Continent wide. If i found the same patterns as the below within my Soccer work, we'd be winning the Premier League next year. If i found these patterns for a current established Animal, they'd be set in stone as a standard creature behavior, and we'd be debating the "how's" and "why's". I have to admit the Ohio reports are an enigma to me. I have no doubt these things can follow riparian areas, watersheds, drainages and washes for long periods of time back and forth. I see them having no problems with travel corridors and if the latest NAWAC reports of their ability to swiftly negotiate extreme topography is true they can be on you quickly and far away from you even quicker. Sounds like NAWAC got flanked and circled based on their sensor reports. I believe also they are thriving and in no danger of going extinct. Edited April 10, 2019 by bipedalist 1
Huntster Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 17 hours ago, NatFoot said: ...........one should be dead by now. All sasquatches that have lived in the past have died. There is little doubt that remains have been found in all manner of conditions by people. We even have a few reports of people having killed sasquatches within the past century and beheld their freshly killed carcasses. There are also numerous reports of giant skeletons found continent wide. What we don't have is some magical authority waving his official hand and declaring all of this "scientific". 1
Patterson-Gimlin Posted April 9, 2019 Posted April 9, 2019 18 hours ago, NatFoot said: I was thinking of this today on my drive home. Got me a little discouraged because if they are within 40 mins of NYC and using small cooridors elsewhere to move around, if they are real flesh and blood creatures, one should be dead by now. You have to be correct if they exist and are a viable breeding population in abundance. If rare and existing only in dark forests then locating bones and bodies then finding them is unlikely. 1
SWWASAS Posted April 9, 2019 BFF Patron Posted April 9, 2019 When I flew for the military most of my flying was in the central plains or Western US. I got very familiar with the forestation or lack of it in the West. It was not until I started flying for the airlines and got to see the forests of the East. New York state is covered by far denser and more widespread forest than Washington State. Go further East in Washington State than Mt Adams and you run out of forest until you get to near the Idaho boarder. Unless they have been all shot because of much more time settled by Europeans, I see no reason that places like New York cannot be BF habitat. 1
norseman Posted April 9, 2019 Admin Posted April 9, 2019 3 hours ago, SWWASAS said: When I flew for the military most of my flying was in the central plains or Western US. I got very familiar with the forestation or lack of it in the West. It was not until I started flying for the airlines and got to see the forests of the East. New York state is covered by far denser and more widespread forest than Washington State. Go further East in Washington State than Mt Adams and you run out of forest until you get to near the Idaho boarder. Unless they have been all shot because of much more time settled by Europeans, I see no reason that places like New York cannot be BF habitat. Down south. Except for the Blues. Up north it’s all timber.
BobbyO Posted April 10, 2019 SSR Team Posted April 10, 2019 Forested Acres by State. No probs here.. http://www.stancourtney.com/Forests.html 1
spacemonkeymafia Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 Thumbs up for Georgia! #3 . I know my home state's forests were huge but I'm pleasantly surprised at that high ranking.
NatFoot Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 30 minutes ago, BobbyO said: Forested Acres by State. No probs here.. http://www.stancourtney.com/Forests.html Ok ..who is putting together the table that shows that vs population and number of Class A sightings?!? 😉
Huntster Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 7 hours ago, SWWASAS said: When I flew for the military most of my flying was in the central plains or Western US. I got very familiar with the forestation or lack of it in the West. It was not until I started flying for the airlines and got to see the forests of the East. New York state is covered by far denser and more widespread forest than Washington State. Go further East in Washington State than Mt Adams and you run out of forest until you get to near the Idaho boarder. Unless they have been all shot because of much more time settled by Europeans, I see no reason that places like New York cannot be BF habitat. Washington has a couple of very important variants from the eastern seaboard. First, the PNW has mountIns. Not hills like the Appalacians, but real mountains. Not one range, but three or more; the Coast Range, the Cascades or Sierra Nevada (secondry range), and the Rockies. There is every reason to believe that the mountains are key to sasquatch survival, both in the Old World and New World. Forest is key, but high Homo sapien density is detrimental to most other life, including weak Homo sapiens, and Homo sapien density is highest in lower elevations.
NatFoot Posted April 10, 2019 Posted April 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Huntster said: Washington has a couple of very important variants from the eastern seaboard. First, the PNW has mountIns. Not hills like the Appalacians, but real mountains. Not one range, but three or more; the Coast Range, the Cascades or Sierra Nevada (secondry range), and the Rockies. There is every reason to believe that the mountains are key to sasquatch survival, both in the Old World and New World. Forest is key, but high Homo sapien density is detrimental to most other life, including weak Homo sapiens, and Homo sapien density is highest in lower elevations. So you think the Eastern US reports are fake, misidentification or grand delusion?
Recommended Posts