I'd really like to hear from some central californian's from the Napa Valley area specificly, to tell me about what that area is like. I used to chat routinely with someone who lived north of Napa, up by Saint Helena. They lived on a winery, and it makes me wonder, from what limited pictures I've seen of that area, it seems like wooded/forested areas..?... on the mountain sides.

Wouldn't the rich grape growing arbors be a really tempting place to make a routine stop by Biggy for something to eat?

I looked at GCBRO and BFRO for Napa County, and there's virtually nothing there reported.

I'd really appreciate ONLY people who've lived, worked or have some firsthand knowledge of the area telling me about it. ( I really hate threads that get taken off track with discussion about stuff other than the topic. ) {almost sounds like a rant... don't it? }

Well... I don't live in the Napa Valley, but I've been through there a few times... and it is very beautiful...

Saint Helena is at the northern end of the valley. North of there it gets very steep and heavily wooded with lots of oaks and brush. There are also many small streams in the area.

It does however, get very warm and dry in the summer... and the mountains are not all that high.

There are also many small farms and ranches in the area... some areas are heavily populated, while other parts are very sparsely populated...

Not what I would call "prime" habitat, but much better than many parts of California.

It certainly wouldn't surprise me to hear of a sighting from that area...

I also don't live in Napa Valley, but I've been through it several times and done some hiking near St. Helena.

RB has pretty much got it right. The northern part is more forested, but a lot of the area is scrubby brush/foothill terrain. I remember reading of an old sighting near Lake Berryesa (a few miles E of Napa Valley), but I can't recall any other activity in the area.

It certainly wouldn't surprise me to hear of activity there, especially in the winter months (summers are hot and dry). I always tend to think of sasquatch areas (especially in CA) as corridors. One major north/south corridor is the Sierra-Nevada mountain range. The other is the Northern Coast Range of which the Napa Valley area would be the extreme southern part. I would think that any wandering sasquatch from NW California would stop before reaching Napa Valley because it would have to leave heavy forest to get there and that's where many more people live.

I'm planning to take a hot air balloon ride there later this year...hopefully a biggie will have dipped into the vino and be stumbling around in the vineyard


Jake

Hi,

I went to college for three years in Angwin, Ca. This village is several miles east of St. Helena in the mountains above the Napa Valley. The area was very wooded and in some ways quite remote. I believe the BFRO has a sighting listed in Pope Valley, CA. This is the valley immediately east of the Napa Valley and just below Angwin. I hope this helps.

I would suspect that sasquatches are being driven out of California by the sheer mass of humanity that now consumes the place.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

There are more people inhabiting California than there are in the entire nation of Canada, which is the second largest nation in land mass on Earth.

And that's just the folks in the offical census. The illegals aren't even counted.

you are wrong hunster


napa is my hometown. i lived there all of my life, until 1991. i went to napa high school, and later, worked at napa state hospital.

napa has some areas that are very rural. there are beautiful mountains surrounding the valley. the valley is long and narrow, more like a fat canyon really, and there are plenty of places that could be home to a bigfoot imo. there are many places that dont have a lot of houses. pope valley rd, mt veeder rd, silverago trail. it's been years since i've gone out that way, but i'd guess it's not too heavily populated. most of the vinyards are in the foothills, with not a lot of housing nearby. you can drive for miles and miles through the oak forests and not see a single car and very few houses.

st helena, and those other northern valley towns are very rural, and i wouldnt be at all surprised to hear of one there. those towns have one stoplight. serious. in all the reports i've read tho, i think only one or two were ever reported in napa county.

beautiful country. opulence


hth, gael

Maybe.



I agree that there are still very wild and remote places in California. And I'm certain that Northern California was historically outstanding habitat for these creatures.

After all, the PG film was shot in California, and my only (not-sure) encounter (footprints) was in California.

But California has changed dramatically since 1967, when Patterson shot that film, and since 1972, when I saw those prints in the Sierras. The official human population has more than doubled, and the unofficial human population has skyrocketed.

We don't even know how many people inhabit the place.

The grizzly bear was exterminated rather quickly in California, because bears and humans coexist only with extreme management efforts by humans. I believe that sasquatches are more shy, secretive, and able to live on the fringes of human society without the clashing so inevitable with brown bears.

But with the level of human encroachment that is going on in that state, it is inevitable that sasquatches will be driven out just as I believe they have in the Atlantic coastal states.

Greener pastures lie to the north for them.

The BFRO website has a handful of sightings in the Sonoma area


Sonoma is a great little town BTW - well worth a visit if you are in the area.

Just for kicks, I found some stats on California population. Notice most of the population is in the big city areas of SF and LA. Notice the county populations of Trinity, Siskiyou, Sierra, Modoc, Mariposa, Lassen and Tuolomne. Campare them to SF and LA county areas. As the population grows, so will the big cities because THAT is where all of the jobs are, not in the outskirts. Although not the size of Alaska, California is also no Connecticut. It is quite large in land mass and larger than many countries of the world. I think there is still plenty of room for the big guy to hide in CA.

CA Population Estimates

Although I live a few hours south of the Napa valley area, I visit often, as a getaway with my wife or passing through for our yearly vacation in Konocti, Clear Lake. I am also surprised that their isn't more activity in this area, there's a lot of potential with terrain and food. The only activity I'm familiar with is those Pope valley incidents. I wouldn't be surprised if more reports come out of this area in the future though. I don't know, maybe it gets too damn hot?

agreed, napa valley is lovely area.

you wanna move there?

I have to disagree that Bigfoot is being pushed out of California by the human populations. I think they are being pushed, for sure (and likely uphill in elevation), but there are millions of acres of land still available for use. The Sierra Nevadas, starting from Bakersfield (Sequoia National Forest) all the way up to the Oregon border (Modoc National Forest) are 99% managed by the U.S. Forest Service, BLM, Park Service, Tribes, and the State of California. Around 40% of this is wilderness. I did an acre count once, and forested land available just in the Sierras was around 2.5 million. That's a lot of land.

Napa and Sonoma, as does S Wash state, have pleanty of grapes to nibble on.

Definitely. The northern counties that make up the proposed 'State of Jefferson' are very rural and inaccessible in many places outside of the I5 corridor in the middle of the state.

I remember hearing that the land mass of these far northern counties is roughly equal to the size of Ohio, with a total population of a few hundred thousand.

And these counties aren't really growing. Check out this population density map for more info.

CA 2020 projected population density

Or for info on the State of Jefferson --

http://www.jeffersonstate.com/jeffersonhome.html