Is it possible for bigfoots to roam in this forest patch?

[yeetus]

Or is this too small of a habitat?
Location is 41.09956671479506, -74.3674959546926

[gigantor]

Welcome to the BFF yeetus.

 

Do you mean to live there full-time?  probably.

 

But if it were to have a range around there, its possible. There's a lot of green just North West of there.

 

[MIB]

It seems a bit crowded for full time occupancy but it certainly seems big enough for a short stay passing through.     It's about 1/3 of a mile to what seems to be a power line cut.   Fairly heavy timber.  

 

For comparison, I've followed up on a couple of reports along the Columbia River waterfront in Portland, OR where BFs were reported in some steep, brushy draws.   Less than a block offstreet but in a position where the car lights would go 20 feet over their heads.   Not ideal but if they're going to get past the city without a 50-75 mile walk, there's not a lot of choice.   From what I see, what you've showed is considerably better turf for them to pass through.

 

Why?    Following up on a report?

[Huntster]

The edge of that green patch is 20 miles from Central Park in New York City. At that distance, you can hear the cab drivers honking their horns. 

 

I'd go out on a limb here and suggest that looking for a sasquatch in that patch of woods would likely be a waste of time.

[Incorrigible1]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

The edge of that green patch is 20 miles from Central Park in New York City. At that distance, you can hear the cab drivers honking their horns. 

 

I'd go out on a limb here and suggest that looking for a sasquatch in that patch of woods would likely be a waste of time.

Do we still have our member within earshot of Chicago claiming bf activity?

[ArmChairScience]

Looking at the area in google earth, it seems like an acceptable environment to me. Lots of good terrain to hide in. But If they are there I think they would only be in extremely low numbers. If I was a bigfoot who wanted to stay away from humans, I wouldn't be worried so much about the proximity to a megacity, as I would be of the amount of housing developments located directly inside the wooded area, which it does have quite a bit of. The saving grace is that there are connections to other remote areas of the Appalachians and New England. So even if the amount of individual sasquatches in it is extremely small, it would still be sustainable population since they would be part of a much larger breeding population. At the very least, it's certainly a more plausible environment for them than the pine barrens, which an area close to it that gets a lot more credit as possible bigfoot habitat than I feel it should.

[JKH]

Certainly possible as a travel route and maybe more. Looks interesting, for sure.

[7.62]

I'll go out on a limb and say it's not possible and probably there are no Sasquatch in NY unless maybe you want to head north . NY has a lot of deep woods in the north country .

[7.62]

8 hours ago, ArmChairScience said:

Looking at the area in google earth, it seems like an acceptable environment to me. Lots of good terrain to hide in. But If they are there I think they would only be in extremely low numbers. If I was a bigfoot who wanted to stay away from humans, I wouldn't be worried so much about the proximity to a megacity, as I would be of the amount of housing developments located directly inside the wooded area, which it does have quite a bit of. The saving grace is that there are connections to other remote areas of the Appalachians and New England. So even if the amount of individual sasquatches in it is extremely small, it would still be sustainable population since they would be part of a much larger breeding population. At the very least, it's certainly a more plausible environment for them than the pine barrens, which an area close to it that gets a lot more credit as possible bigfoot habitat than I feel it should.

You are not going to get away from housing developments in lower NY state no matter where you go . My opinion it's good exercise for the OP to get  out and hike the area and look for signs and a day in the woods is always enjoyable . 

[Huntster]

18 hours ago, yeetus said:

Or is this too small of a habitat?.........

 

The area of that forested patch south of the state line is approximately 275 square miles. The average range of a black bear boar is 15-77 square miles (the mean being 44), and with the range of sows being considerably smaller (say, 15). So that patch of woods might harbor @ 25 black bears.

 

A theory posited by Roger Knights (a sasqustch researcher whom I held in high regard), based on black bear populations and report densities, estimated a density of one sasquatch per 200 bears. Thus one might theoretically expect 0.125 sasquatches.

 

Of course, black bear densities vary in suitable habitat throughout North America. New Jersey has a very high density of bears (estimated at 5,000) despite its large human population density. I proffer that this is mainly a result of poor black bear hunting policy, which has been well known to have produced a high number of negative bear/human interactions until the state finally relented several years ago and allowed reasonable bear harvests to resume, although the state again ceased bear hunting in 2021. If one is to use Knight's theory based on statewide bear numbers, one might expect to find 25 sasquatches in New Jersey. In that case, that patch of woods might have sasquatches conducting garden parties.

 

Sure enough, New Jersey has a fairly high density of sasquatch reports in the BFRO database (75), especially for a such a small state. Those reports are highly concentrated in three counties: Sussex (18), Burlington (15), and Ocean (10), which are the three counties furthest from NYC. The county your patch of woods is located in (Passaic) has zero reports recorded in the BFRO database.

[Backdoc]

18 hours ago, yeetus said:

Or is this too small of a habitat?
 

 

 

 

Welcome yeetus.

 

Is the area in question remote enough to allow the person place or thing (PPT) to go undetected?  Not all patches of woods are created equal.  If the area of the woods is large but there are a lot of people or towns nearby then the odds greatly increase of spotting the PPT.   For me, that means Bigfoot might be in the remote PNW but unlikely to be 20 miles for NY, NY.

 

Someone can get lost in the desert in the Sahara where there may be Zero trees or cover and not be found for 50 years.  Why did this WWII plane take so long to find in the desert?    Because the area is mostly devoid of people.   It's a given it is devoid of cover or any way shape or form to allow this plane to hide.  Yet, it was only recently discovered. 

 

 

Based on that thinking I would view all of these things by that standard first:    Is the area mostly devoid of people?   If so, the odds increase something wanting to be unseen will remain unseen.  If not, then the PPT is likely to be seen even if it is trying to avoid detection.  To answer your Q, some area might be generically big enough for a brief hiding spot but not remote enough for any long-term hiding of a PPT.   

 

Finally, "habitat" indicates not just a stop, hide and move on scenario.  That word seems to mean some longer residency in the region.

 

Summary:   When we cannot know the answer to a Q the best standard is to assume an area most devoid of people are the most likely capable of hiding something from people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wiiawiwb]

I think it would have a difficult time even migrating. To the west and southwest, it would have to thread the needle to make it across a band of humanity. It's possible if it travels at night and chooses farmland carefully. It's much worse to the south and east. Not worth it.

 

The only route/corridor I see is if it traveled northeast, staying east of Harriman and crossing the Hudson River before West Point. Then it could proceed to western Connecticut, north to western Massachusetts and on to Vermont. It could choose to go northeast to New Hampshire and Maine or west to Whitehall, NY and a hop scotch to the Adirondacks or a trek to Lake Champlain and on to Canada.

Edited July 13, 2022 by wiiawiwb

[Doug]

Possible? Absolutely. Probable? Maybe not so much. So, in other words, High possibility with low probability.

[yeetus]

On 7/12/2022 at 11:04 PM, Huntster said:

The edge of that green patch is 20 miles from Central Park in New York City. At that distance, you can hear the cab drivers honking their horns. 

 

I'd go out on a limb here and suggest that looking for a sasquatch in that patch of woods would likely be a waste of time.

The only city sounds I hear when hiking near the edge are trains and sirens coming from nearby villages. NYC is too far away to hear anything from. Often hear airplanes overhead.

 

On 7/13/2022 at 1:47 AM, ArmChairScience said:

Looking at the area in google earth, it seems like an acceptable environment to me. Lots of good terrain to hide in. But If they are there I think they would only be in extremely low numbers. If I was a bigfoot who wanted to stay away from humans, I wouldn't be worried so much about the proximity to a megacity, as I would be of the amount of housing developments located directly inside the wooded area, which it does have quite a bit of. The saving grace is that there are connections to other remote areas of the Appalachians and New England. So even if the amount of individual sasquatches in it is extremely small, it would still be sustainable population since they would be part of a much larger breeding population. At the very least, it's certainly a more plausible environment for them than the pine barrens, which an area close to it that gets a lot more credit as possible bigfoot habitat than I feel it should.

I think the only reason they would venture into the forest patch will be to hunt and scavenge at night, doubt they would settle there.

 

On 7/13/2022 at 10:28 AM, 7.62 said:

You are not going to get away from housing developments in lower NY state no matter where you go . My opinion it's good exercise for the OP to get  out and hike the area and look for signs and a day in the woods is always enjoyable . 

Deer love to hide around forest/developed areas. Maybe these patches attract sasquatches hungry for deer meat?
 

 

On 7/13/2022 at 12:48 PM, Huntster said:

 

The area of that forested patch south of the state line is approximately 275 square miles. The average range of a black bear boar is 15-77 square miles (the mean being 44), and with the range of sows being considerably smaller (say, 15). So that patch of woods might harbor @ 25 black bears.

 

A theory posited by Roger Knights (a sasqustch researcher whom I held in high regard), based on black bear populations and report densities, estimated a density of one sasquatch per 200 bears. Thus one might theoretically expect 0.125 sasquatches.

 

Of course, black bear densities vary in suitable habitat throughout North America. New Jersey has a very high density of bears (estimated at 5,000) despite its large human population density. I proffer that this is mainly a result of poor black bear hunting policy, which has been well known to have produced a high number of negative bear/human interactions until the state finally relented several years ago and allowed reasonable bear harvests to resume, although the state again ceased bear hunting in 2021. If one is to use Knight's theory based on statewide bear numbers, one might expect to find 25 sasquatches in New Jersey. In that case, that patch of woods might have sasquatches conducting garden parties.

 

Sure enough, New Jersey has a fairly high density of sasquatch reports in the BFRO database (75), especially for a such a small state. Those reports are highly concentrated in three counties: Sussex (18), Burlington (15), and Ocean (10), which are the three counties furthest from NYC. The county your patch of woods is located in (Passaic) has zero reports recorded in the BFRO database.

There is one eyewitness encounter https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=10918

 

On 7/13/2022 at 5:04 PM, wiiawiwb said:

I think it would have a difficult time even migrating. To the west and southwest, it would have to thread the needle to make it across a band of humanity. It's possible if it travels at night and chooses farmland carefully. It's much worse to the south and east. Not worth it.

 

The only route/corridor I see is if it traveled northeast, staying east of Harriman and crossing the Hudson River before West Point. Then it could proceed to western Connecticut, north to western Massachusetts and on to Vermont. It could choose to go northeast to New Hampshire and Maine or west to Whitehall, NY and a hop scotch to the Adirondacks or a trek to Lake Champlain and on to Canada.

My thoughts as well.

 

[Huntster]

11 hours ago, yeetus said:

........I think the only reason they would venture into the forest patch will be to hunt and scavenge at night, doubt they would settle there..........

 

From.........where? What would attract them to that patch of woods from wherever they come from?

 

My daughter sent me this pic last night. She shot it from her driveway as they packed their truck for a camping trip. They live along the eastern edge of Anchorage, Alaska. Two blocks east of her door, going true east, starts a wilderness that literally doesn't end until you get to Hudson Bay, 1900 miles away. I think you'd cross 3 roads in that crow flight.

 

In my opinion, there are no credible sasquatch sightings near Anchorage. Historically, Anchorage is only 107 years old and was literally carved out of a wilderness as a railroad town. There are areas a couple hundred miles away to the south with historical accounts of sasquatchery along the coast. But I can see the possibility of a sasquatch roaming through on his way to other areas. There are resources all around that might attract them, and the forest cover is endless. Anchorage is a rather small city sitting in the middle of the biggest wilderness on Earth that stretches from Moscow, Russia, to Newfoundland.

 

Is it possible that sasquatches live or pass through the wooded areas around a huge megacity like NYC (which itself is centered around a literal collection of other megacities a short distance away)? I think it's certainly possible that they might pass through, but it's pretty tough to accept that they live there as family units.......unless they're feral homo sapiens. If there were patterns of sightings or trace evidence, especially recent or fresh, it might offer enough potential to hunt the area. Otherwise, I'd look elsewhere. If it's an area you enjoy spending time in anyway, cool. But I think your odds of an encounter are pretty remote.

Whoops! I forgot the pic.......