Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

So assuming of course that Sasquatches exist, what would their actual range be? Looking at sighting data on the BFRO, which I'm highly skeptical of, there are hundreds of sightings coming from states like Illinois and Pennsylvania. It's hard for me to believe Sasquatches could exist in an area that couldn't also support elk, wolves, bears, etc. The PNW and mountainous West seem like the most plausible habitat, based on both sightings and undisturbed habitat, followed by Appalachia, parts of the upper Great Lakes, Ozarks, Ouachita, and Southeast. 

 

I was bored so I put together a very rough guesstimate of what an approximate range map could look like (I think I'm being very generous in terms of potential habitat). What areas do you think I'm missing? Any I should take away? What do you make of sightings in places like Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Florida?

 

image.thumb.png.5b726ada60d1f66f4e563909822121a6.png

  • Upvote 2
  • gigantor featured this topic
Posted

well, for starters i dig the map and your assumed territory ranges. what some folks dont realize though is that there is wilderness in the southwest Illinois and southern Indiana maps. i know of 2 credible researchers in those areas and have helped them evaluate evidence from those areas. however, much of both of those states are largely questionable, maybe a migratory route at best? 

i would add the glades though, lots of interesting stuff has come from the everglades, i would also expand the GA line down to horse creek mills or cypress creek WMAs. ive been in those parts before and they are vastly uninhabited and have TONS of wildlife, biodiverse habitats, and plenty of clean water. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)

My understanding is that they inhabit every US state, including the plains, SW deserts, etc. They seem to use many more resources than do the larger fauna mentioned and are true omnivores. I've heard of evidence from places most wouldn't consider great habitat, but if there's food, they may be present at times.

Edited by JKH
Posted

A superior posting, NorthWind. Well told experiences, and scary as hell.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Posted
14 hours ago, Sasquatchodon said:

What areas do you think I'm missing? Any I should take away? What do you make of sightings in places like Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Florida?

Iowa and Nebraska are my stomping grounds. I am biased of course, but I think Iowa is one of the best places for squatching in the country. The midwest cannot be left out.

In Nebraska,  lots of activity is experienced on the Omaha and Winnebego Reservations. In Iowa, check out Yellow River State Forest. Finding Bigfoot let that 'secret' location out of the bag.

 

The key to the midwest states is the wooded areas along the rivers. Iowa has 2.9 million acres of forest, but Nebraska only has 141,000. Most activity is along the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, or along the rivers and creeks that flow into them.

I have been hit by a rock thrown from the trees in Iowa, while on a bridge over a river. I have a daytime sighting in Nebraska not more than a few hundred yards from the Missouri River. I have lots of audio from both states.

 

image.thumb.png.16c994902f0a2f1a3c6950b10ca899f2.png

  • Upvote 1
Moderator
Posted
1 hour ago, Redbone said:

The key to the midwest states is the wooded areas along the rivers.

 

Yes, this needs to be emphasized.   

 

Rivers with wooded riparian zones can present corridors of cover, not just through otherwise open plains, but sometimes through metro areas.    Many towns grew at the convergence of rivers.

 

MIB

  • Upvote 2
SSR Team
Posted

I agree that they are likely found in every state. The Midwest has a lot of deciduous trees, as opposed to the lush evergreens of the west. But forest is forest.

 

While Sasquatch would do well from an elk kill, I don't think they rely on meat. Other great apes (chimps and gorillas) are largely vegetarian and eat meat opportunistically. I feel that in the east, Sasquatch are more adapted to farmland and less densely forested areas, unlike their western cousins, who thrive in high elevation montane regions. MC2 is a fan of the notion that wherever a bear can live, so can a Sasquatch. If you plot BFRO points over bear habitat (We did it for the west), the points line up perfectly over the polygons of bear habitat.

 

TLDR; even though some areas may not look forested or able to sustain large game, those areas mostly likely still have resources a Sasquatch can exploit.

Posted
1 hour ago, Redbone said:

Iowa and Nebraska are my stomping grounds. I am biased of course, but I think Iowa is one of the best places for squatching in the country. The midwest cannot be left out.

In Nebraska,  lots of activity is experienced on the Omaha and Winnebego Reservations. In Iowa, check out Yellow River State Forest. Finding Bigfoot let that 'secret' location out of the bag.

 

The key to the midwest states is the wooded areas along the rivers. Iowa has 2.9 million acres of forest, but Nebraska only has 141,000.

 

RB, you're in a fantastic area for the state of Nebraska. The heavily wooded areas along the banks of the Missouri (the state's eastern border) have the cover required by the creatures.

 

The various waterways as one heads west in the state have mixed tree and woodland cover. By mixed, I mean there is some suitable cover along the Platte and Elkhorn rivers, but there are also numerous areas nearly devoid of anything but the occasional cottonwood. There may be miles between sufficient cover to allow unseen movement or existence.

 

Particularly this time of year, without crops in the fields, line of sight visibility is fairly uninterrupted. Often, crops are grown right up to the river banks.

 

It would be mighty tough for a lone seven foot BF to traverse, unseen, across the state, let alone a family group. This is true of most of the Great Plains.

 

Again, I'm not discounting the activity you've encountered. You're in area with suitable cover where they could make a living and remain out of sight. I wish you fortune in your research.

  • Upvote 1
Admin
Posted
20 hours ago, JKH said:

My understanding is that they inhabit every US state, including the plains, SW deserts, etc. 

 

Well, maybe not Hawaii...  ;) 

 

But yes, everyplace else if fair game. In some places I doubt there are any left and in some others, it is mainly on the migration route that they can be found.

 

I think on the above map, the South is underrepresented. There are a lot of forested areas that make perfect habitat for creatures that do not want to be found. Same goes for the NJ Pine Barrens.

 

Map of Heritage Oaks:

 

Heritage Oaks.png

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, VAfooter said:

 

 

Map of Heritage Oaks:

 

Heritage Oaks.png

 

 

Cool, @VAfooter!

 

Here is a close -up. After all, what good is info without red arrows and circles?

 

The arrow shows the water in which whatever it was walked, and the direction. The second-floor of the building right there is where we were when we heard it sloshing through at that late night hour. 

 

The small circle is the "growly bushes" that were shaken violently. The larger red circle is the circular swamp (now not shown with water in this photo, but it was when I went in there). Likely a sinkhole. Florida is riddled with them. Look at Florida in Google Earth, and you will see thousands of perfectly circular small lakes. Sinkholes. The road "Coash" to the lower left is where I would take the dog to walk. Lots of critters everywhere there. Deer, armadillos, raccoons, snakes of all kinds including cottonmouths, coral, pygmy rattlers, canebrake rattlers, birds of all kinds, and apparently, skunk apes.

 

So yes. Florida needs to be on the map.

 

 

image.png

HeritageOaksEncounters.jpg

Edited by NorthWind
image add - need coffee
Admin
Posted

Just a guess, but it looks like the small pond is covered with algae, or at least the center portion is. Unfortunately, street view is only on Coash Road and nothing closer can be seen.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

@NorthWind thanks for sharing those encounters! I was discounting Florida a bit, but there is definitely a history of reports, and some decent habitat, at least around the Everglades. I think if an area can support cougars, it’s a good indication Sasquatch wouldn’t be impossible. 
 

It’s interesting you’ve seen Jaguarundi there, I’ve heard other BF researchers, and even some biologists say the same thing. Some think they’re a “feral” population that escaped from a private collection during a Hurricane. But they were native to the region, so it could be a relict population as well. 

  • Upvote 1
Posted

We saw two that day. One darted off as I got the camera up, so I set the camera down, just as the second one hopped out to follow her mate. Missed that one, too. Isn't that the way it goes?

  • Upvote 1
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, VAfooter said:

 

Well, maybe not Hawaii...  ;) 

 

But yes, everyplace else if fair game. In some places I doubt there are any left and in some others, it is mainly on the migration route that they can be found.

 

I think on the above map, the South is underrepresented. There are a lot of forested areas that make perfect habitat for creatures that do not want to be found. Same goes for the NJ Pine Barrens.

 

:whistle: yeah, I always forget HI is part of the US. I totally agree with all the rest. Was just listening to a podcast with a witness from OK who has had encounters there (rivers key) and other southern states. His quote was "these things are everywhere", and so far in my experience, that's pretty accurate. Water, food, cover, and it works for them. Of course, they probably like places better where they can spread out, but they also hang out in or travel some suburban and edge areas, like NW's accounts. Very interesting btw, read this before, was it here?

I love to check out encounter maps and try to figure out their travel routes, IMO you accidently discovered one of their secrets.

Edited by JKH
×
×
  • Create New...