Sasquatch Activity Cyclical?

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Looking back in time it almost seems like sasquatch activity is cyclical. What was going on in all those small towns in the 60s and 70s, was it just that the semi-rural areas of the country became more hospitable by that point of reforestation? Really seems odd that so many different small towns had those monsters just on the outskirts of town, and how often they were witnessed during that time. I wish mine were that dumb and aggressive, or maybe I don't but you probably get what I mean. I am getting almost interested enough again to record at night, mainly have not had time or energy, but with winter approaching I have more of both. My question on the home front is whether the activity I had between 2013-2016 but not since will return. Anyone with any experience?? Do they move the circle of activity around to not use up the resources, meaning a circle of activity might change its center point cyclically as well as those stops within the circle. It is a theory that seems to have some credence in the eyewitness reports, well at least the way I have read them. Some areas seem to have these couple of sightings every so many years, then nothing.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Lake County Bigfooot

[BlackRockBigfoot]

Parts of Upstate South Carolina and Western North Carolina are getting built up like you wouldn't believe right now. Lots of half-backers are moving here, and every week we see an area that was usually fairly pristinely wooded being clear cut for a new subdivision.  Last month we even saw a new gated community that went up almost overnight in the mountains north of us.  

 

I think that the rapid buildup in what has traditionally been a more rural wooded area is playing havoc on their usual patterns around here, at least.

 

You have an interesting point.  I wonder if it is the creatures changing up their normal movements in certain areas in order to escape detection or avoid depleting a food source?  Or is there another element at play?

[hiflier]

For myself, I think a closer study of reports of female BF's as well as small ones could support the idea better? I've always been of the opinion that mating areas exist and do show somewhat of a cyclical pattern. If one bases the study on the assumed mating maturity of females, I'm fairly sure that a ten year cycle might present itself. I saw some evidence of that a couple of years ago in an area North of Aberdeen, Wa. There's probably other places as well, like the nesting site in the Olympic Peninsula?  

[BlackRockBigfoot]

6 minutes ago, hiflier said:

For myself, I think a closer study of reports of female BF's as well as small ones could support the idea better? I've always been of the opinion that mating areas exist and do show somewhat of a cyclical pattern. If one bases the study on the assumed mating maturity of females, I'm fairly sure that a ten year cycle might present itself. I saw some evidence of that a couple of years ago in an area North of Aberdeen, Wa. There's probably other places as well, like the nesting site in the Olympic Peninsula?  

A ten year mating/breeding cycle?

 

It would go a long way to explaining why their numbers are so low.

[hiflier]

Indeed. The cadence may be shorter but I doubt it. And even though reports are all we have to go by it's better than speculating. John Green's database shows 70 reports of large females including one instance where there were two. Half are with large males along with smaller creatures. Oregon had the most reports with around 15. Overall the PacNW had the most which included WA, BC, CA, and ID which I guess we should expect? The database stopped being populated after it went digital and posted on the internet back in 2000.

 

So the database became stagnant about 20 years ago. But I have always said that if creatures live to between 40-50 years old, then a lot of the reports should show juveniles and small ones that should be adults by now still be alive today. That's why paying attention to where small ones were reported may be valuable if the clans they belonged to are territorial. 

Edited December 8, 2019 by hiflier

[Twist]

I tend to lean towards the idea that they are migratory.   If this turned out to be true it would easily explain the cyclic nature.   They could be 20, 30 miles north or south of your research area year to year based on what they are following or seeking out.  Just watching when and where leaves change each year can show you how things shift patterns based on weather and just nature in general.

[hiflier]

Many animals and birds and fish seasonally migrate and mate. Humans as well as animals have been the beneficiaries  by historically observing these migrations whether it be salmon or other creatures. Surviving the wild and mating in safety are what help keep nature thriving. Applying it to BF would seem a natural follow up. Is any of it true regarding BF? IDK, ask science. I can only go by what seems to be in the report record. Beyond that? Admittedly, pure speculation.

[Huntster]

The terms being used in this thread are similar, but there is enough difference to note them:

 

Migration

Seasonal movements

Cyclical

 

A migration is a term most accurately used to describe a regular or biologically timed, long distance movement (hundreds or even thousands of miles) by herds/flocks/schools/tribes of creatures moving together.

 

A seasonal movement most accurately describes a shorter distance movement of a species in a particular region motivated by climate or seasonal food availability. These movements tend to be under 100 miles.

 

A cycle most accurately describes population swings covering a period of years caused by a number of biological effects on a species such as food availability, disease, climate, etc.

 

[Twist]

Good to know. I would then amend my opinion to either migration or seasonal movement.  I do not know which.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

3 hours ago, Huntster said:

The terms being used in this thread are similar, but there is enough difference to note them:

 

Migration

Seasonal movements

Cyclical

 

A migration is a term most accurately used to describe a regular or biologically timed, long distance movement (hundreds or even thousands of miles) by herds/flocks/schools/tribes of creatures moving together.

 

A seasonal movement most accurately describes a shorter distance movement of a species in a particular region motivated by climate or seasonal food availability. These movements tend to be under 100 miles.

 

A cycle most accurately describes population swings covering a period of years caused by a number of biological effects on a species such as food availability, disease, climate, etc.

 

Thanks, Huntster

[BlobSquatch]

They do come and go. I'll vouch for that.

And it's not seasonal so much. They'll seem to be gone for years then ohp there was a wood knock.... they're baaaaack....

 

I live in the woods for all intent and purposes with the tree line not but 50 yards from my house. I know generally when they're back.

[wiiawiwb]

I think different areas of the country present different challenges.  A sasquatch in the North and Northeast, and area with high elevation, might have a larger movement given the severity of winters. Follow the food. In those regions, it wouldn't surprise me to see 100+ miles of movement to relocate to warmer areas. I'd also bet in regions where there are mountainous areas, sasquatch would move down in elevation to follow the food source. I think I remember analysis of sighting reports in Colorado (or other state) bear that out.