Where Would Bigfoot Be Likely To Be Found and Why?

[Ray Ford]

Some things that Lefty said about where a person might find bigfeet suggested another question to me--a question like unto the one asked by the "What is Bigfoot?" thread:  Where would bigfoot, if he is out there, be likely to be found and why? 

Again, I don't want to dominate this thread. 
I just want to post the question,  Where would bigfoot be likely to be found and why? 
Anyone have any ideas?

[Bill]

Should such a critter exist (a possibility I rate about equal to space aliens abducting folks) then they would be near where the three requirements of all critters occurs. All wild things and us tame things as well really need food, water and shelter. You'll most often find critters where those three requirements are located.

Now the real question becomes what is food for them? I know so many claim they are meat eaters but in the same breath more or less admit they see them as an ape of some sort. In the real world where I live apes generally speaking are not meat eaters nor do they routinely walk or run on their hind legs only.

I'm not aware of any wild ape species that has ever existed in the Americas as least not any large one which could have mutated into what folks claim to be seeing here and now.

Those three must have features to my mind really do rule out almost without doubt their existence in most of the places folks keep claiming to be seeing them. Next time a space alien abducts me I'm gonna ask that sucker if he knows where I can locate a bigfoot. 

[Lefty]

When you consider the calories needed to sustain an animal of the reported Bigfoot size, I would guess that anywhere a bear can live, a bigfoot might could live. That's about as close as I can come to thinking about possible livable territory. Also the possiblility that BF might migrate along with game herds, following deer, elk etc for food, might futher sustain them.

[darkwinglh]

My theory is that here in Oklahoma, the reason we are having an abundance of sightings now, is that civilization is pushing further into areas previously untouched by development.  As more folks build in these remote areas, they are coming into conflict not only with deer, bear and other animals, but also bigfoot too, who have been long accustomed to being in remote areas without human contact.

[Ray Ford]

Over on the GBO site--at least I think that is were it is--is a discussion of some sightings that occured some years ago around a large lake.  One of the things that I read on that thread--when I have more time, I'll find it--was that piles of fish bones were found around the lake that some thought were left there by the critter.  With that in mind, I would suggest that, if there are bigfeet out there, they might be found, being fish eaters, near a lake where there was enough cover for them.  With that in mind, if there are bigfeet out there, they might be found, being fish eaters, in an area near a lake where a sizeable stream runs into the lake--and with that adequate cover of which I spoke.

The reason that I suggest this is that I was once told, while doing a feature story on a Native American habitation site for a newspaper for which I worked, that habitation sites were common where two streams came together.  The hunting and fishing were usually good, the expert told me, where there was a convergence of two rivers.  I would suggest that such would tend to be the case where a stream ran into a lake in a forested area.

Hence:
1. A lake well stocked with fish.
2. A stream running into the lake large enough that fish could migrate up out of the lake.
3. All in a forested area--best public, unused land.

If this description sounds familar to some of you, I have just described Bulletmaker's "research area."

Let me repeat what I have posted more than once:  Three of us were hanging out close to where the creek runs into the lake.  We had a fire built--but I can't remember if we were cooking.  Gar were runnin" up the creek from the lake in large numbers.  If they had held still, a person could have almost walked across the creek on their backs.  We were just listening to the night, something that I enjoy doing, when we heard three steps in the water and a splach.  The steps sounded like a biped something or the other wading in the creek.  There was no indication that anyone other than us was within a mile of where we were.  Did something wade into the creek on two legs, grab a Gar causing the splash, and then step silently up on the bank?

This is the closest thing to an encounter/the only thing like an encounter that I have had in my several trips to the area.

There may not be any of the big hairy guys and gals there, but the habitat....

[LAL]

Now the real question becomes what is food for them? I know so many claim they are meat eaters but in the same breath more or less admit they see them as an ape of some sort. In the real world where I live apes generally speaking are not meat eaters nor do they routinely walk or run on their hind legs only.

I'm not aware of any wild ape species that has ever existed in the Americas as least not any large one which could have mutated into what folks claim to be seeing here and now.

Gigantopithecus blacki had a tooth wear pattern similar to Chimpanzees, which do eat meat. (Chimps will hunt monkeys and apparently consider monkey meat a great delicacy. There's a whole sharing ritual about it). This means Giganto was an eclectic omnivore rather than a specialized bamboo eater. It, or a similar species, could have traversed the Bering Land Bridge in a time when the bridge was a thousand miles wide and dotted with stands of poplar and other hardwoods. The forests in both Asia and NA stretched further north than now and the temperature was milder.

Ray, the Columbia Gorge has your conditions and moreso. There've been a number of sightings on HWY 14. In the one that got my attention (Cox, March, 1969) a full print was found by the Columbia. Salmon and even Squawfish are probably as tasty as Gar. The salmon  runs used to be so thick it was said you could ride a horse over them. There are trout in the lakes and everything from frogs to salamanders on the banks.

Birds and their eggs might be a possibility. There's year-round green vegetation and fungi, insects, and plenty of small and large mammals, berries, roots, inner bark, and so on. There's plenty of cover and at least one report (from a wildlife officer) suggests they may be ambush hunters. Bob Titmus found evidence a group he'd been tracking in California were eating pine needles. Pine needles are very high in stored sugar and could be a winter food source.

I would think the PNW is still the prime habitat and most of it is still quite unpopulated.

[Ray Ford]

The Deep Fork bottoms in Oklahoma would appear to be possible habitat for bigfeet--if there are bigfeet out there. Old ox-bows and timber.  A river and lakes.  Fish and game--as well as possibly edible plants.  But to my knowledge, the only one who has suggested that there might be some such a critter as a bigfoot along that river is that part-Cherokee boy, now an old man with scarred fingers.  (See the "Works of Fiction" thread.)

It is pretty well accepted that there are cougars either living there or passing through.  And I am aware of two possible black bear encounters. 

[funksquatch]

I'm a bit more of a fan of swampland.  I read somewhere on some forum that one explanation for why we don't have more evidence is that they have adapted to live in areas where humans just aren't interested in being.  Basically, if we are there, they are not.  The one place around my neck of the woods that most folks just plain stay out of is the swamps.  Mosquitos, snakes, alligators, snapping turtles, fire ants, wasps, chiggers, ticks and leeches seem to be people deterrents.  I think that long term investigation of some of the hotspots in LA, TX and FL could show some good stuff.  All of the attention that has been paid to the PNW hasn't paid off so why not?

[Ray Ford]

I'm a bit more of a fan of swampland.  I read somewhere on some forum that one explanation for why we don't have more evidence is that they have adapted to live in areas where humans just aren't interested in being.  Basically, if we are there, they are not.

Funk,

Sorry that I have not responded to this post sooner--but I've been busy.  I don't disagree with you at all.  An area of extensive swamps, especially with intervening or adjoining higher, wooded areas would seem to be a very likely habitat--if Bigfeet are out there.

I also don't disagree with you about your observation that Bigfeet are not likely to be where humans are.  This mirrors my feelings previously expressed in my somewhat facetious statement that "most of the Bigfeet that I know wouldn't be caught dead at one of those organized hunts and certainly wouldn't want their picture taken there."  If an area is identified as a hot spot for the big hairy guys and gals, and if a signifnicant number of people invade the area looking for them, they are not likely to hang around there: the hot spot will get cold real quick.

[Ray Ford]

In my post of yesterday, I allowed that, if an area is identified as a hot spot for Bigfeet, and if a significant number of people invade that area, the Bigfeet, if they are out there, would be likely to leave.  This thinking is at least one reason that habituators tend to keep mum about their activities and locales--I am told!  I'm not in much communication with habituators--not directly.

[funksquatch]

I always wonder why people who claim to have habituated BF to themselves can't or won't produce evidence.  I've been spending too much time on the JREF forums lately and the skeptics are making a lot of sense.  Isn't it more than just a little coincidental that these folks can't or won't produce even a tiny sliver of evidence to back up their claims?  I understand that many people have an attitude of "they've been fine this long without humans, why mess with them now" but isn't the point of all this Bigfoot stuff to try to prove that they are more than just imagination?

[#59]

I always wonder why people who claim to have habituated BF to themselves can't or won't produce evidence.  I've been spending too much time on the JREF forums lately and the skeptics are making a lot of sense.  Isn't it more than just a little coincidental that these folks can't or won't produce even a tiny sliver of evidence to back up their claims?  I understand that many people have an attitude of "they've been fine this long without humans, why mess with them now" but isn't the point of all this Bigfoot stuff to try to prove that they are more than just imagination?

IMHO, habituated/habituator are "buzz words" that are shopworn and often misapplied as the people I'm aware of that are engaged in some level of interaction with something do not feel it is a Harry & the Hendersons type of situation.

Also, I personally aware of three (3) seperate situations where people engaged in this type of activity were subjected to serious harrassment and stress once word got out about what was going on with them. 

If I were engaged in a similar type of activity/interaction with "something" the absolute last place I would want such information disseminated would be in the so-called BF community.  Hell, 99.99% of the people involved in bigfootery are frickin' kooks, crooks or assclowns and (based upon personal experience with a few of them) I would not want them anywhere near my family or property.

The (point of all this BF stuff to try and prove that they are more than just imagination) sad fact is those (99.99%) trying to accomplish this are either so delusional, incompetent or conniving that the odds of them coming up with any acceptable forensic evidence is practically immeasurable.

That is precisely why the skeptics are having a field day with the extraction of candy from children.

[Ray Ford]

I always wonder why people who claim to have habituated BF to themselves can't or won't produce evidence.  I've been spending too much time on the JREF forums lately and the skeptics are making a lot of sense.  Isn't it more than just a little coincidental that these folks can't or won't produce even a tiny sliver of evidence to back up their claims?  I understand that many people have an attitude of "they've been fine this long without humans, why mess with them now" but isn't the point of all this Bigfoot stuff to try to prove that they are more than just imagination?

Funk,

I can't say that I disagree with anything that you say in this post--except your  statement that the point of "all this Bigfoot stuff" is to prove that they are out there.  I personally think that I would get a big hunter's high from encountering one whether I could prove it to someone else or not.  If I encountered one, but could not prove it to anyone, it probably would not elevate my status as an outdoorsman much, but I'm not really interested in such an elevation of status.  I would know what I would know.

While I can understand why a person living in proximity to one or more bigfeet would not want to let that information out and have their area overrun by all sorts of sorts, it still seems to me that some indications of the truth of their claims would be available.

[Yankee1]

I believe they want food, water, some shelter of sorts, and seclusion.
Just about what any wild animal would want. If these conditions exist then so does the probability of Bigfoot being there. If the food supply is seasonal then his movement would be tied to it. Of all three things, water would be most important. So I would look near plentiful water supply and food. If these conditions could be watched from a high vantage point where you could view the most of the area I think your ability to spot one would be enhanced
                                      Yankee1

[Ray Ford]

I believe they want food, water, some shelter of sorts, and seclusion.

Food, water, and shelter are basic needs.  Any habitat would have to provide these things for a species if that species is to be found there.  In other places, I have suggested that a lake area adjoined by some amount of "wilderness" would be a good possibility.  The lake would provide water and food--food in the form of fish.  There has been some suggestion that these big hairy guys and gals are fish eaters--and that would make sense.  The "wilderness" would provide some cover and/or shelter.  (I put "wilderness" in quotation marks because of something that I have been intending to post.  I'll do that later--not now.)

A couple of questions for you, Yankee, or anyone else that would like to respond:

1. Just what kind of shelter do you think that a Bigfoot would find or construct?

I have not been much into deer hunting until fairly recently.  One of the things that I have learned is that shelter is important--shelter in which to bed down and shelter through which to travel.  We have one wheat field on our place on which several deer have been killed in times past, but not recently.  It once had some 20 or so feet of timber along the creek connecting with other wooded areas on the farm.  The creek has washed out this timber so that the deer would have to approach the field in the open.  They don't!

2. Just how important is seclusion in your thinking? 

I personally feel that a Bigfoot would avoid even places that have good sources of food, water, and shelter in favor of seclusion--which is why I don't believe that extensive "research" in an area would be likely to produce results.  What do you think!