the majority of individuals, i speculate, belive sasquatch is somewhat nomadic. or at least moves around alot. what would the need to move around alot mean?? that it needs a large area to gather food? that they live in small family groups, so moving around alot would keep them from leaving physical evedince in the forest? is there some diet that is established from season to season? berries are ripe in this area at this time of year and the salmon come in this time of the year and we need to be there? does seasonal food establish a route for these bipedals? i belive so, and i also belive with everything" terrain dictates all movement, no matter what u are". would natural shelters be something that all of these specualtions revolve around? maybe...? would an abondoned mine that everyone has forgotten about be a pemant shelter that all daily activites end in the safety of a mine shaft entrance? or what if, some sasquatches have never seen humans? or at least an area that there is enough food to survive? would this be sasquatch eutopia?

I've heard it's been speculated that it's mainly adult males which are the nomadic ones and move around a lot, hence this is why they are largely seen more than females or youngsters. Females and family groups might stick to only the most inaccessible areas and the very deepest parts of the forest where few (any?) humans go. Let's face it, most people out in the wilds tend to stick to paths and trails and hardly ever go into the real deep forests away from access points and trails.

You are right Lyndon, we're useing an old logging road thats gated on the main road where we hunt for the bigguy. The further in you go the less sign of human activity is seen. We take a compass reading and go off the road maybe 3/4 of a mile on each side of it, moving deeper and deeper each week. Nobodies around at night so the woods are ours for the searching, but still for easy walking the road access is the key to the deepest parts of the woods. The funny thing is we'll probably put him HARD down 100 yards from the jeep on the way out one night, you know how that goes!!!

Crew Chief

lyndon- why do u think that females and young stay in such isolated areas??? how does this make sense? the rouge males that are seen so much are just males that came of a certain age and were kicked out of the family unit. why, two males is one two many. i imagine a male would keep all female offspring for breeding purposes. of course this is just speculation. and back to natural or man-made shelters....

Well if there is plenty of food for them in these isolated areas and also a lack of human activity then that's your answer. I guess it would explain why females and youngsters aren't seen as often (especially youngsters). Perhaps there will be more chance to find these shelters you are speaking about in the really remote and rugged areas where nobody ever goes??



That could be the reason why large males are seen more often. Perhaps due to the spread out nature of these animals the nomadic males that are seen might be the ones who are searching for mates (amongst other things) and in those searches away from the really inaccessable areas are sometimes seen by humans. Maybe the sasquatches (even females that are sometimes seen) spotted by humans don't actually live in those areas, but are just moving through on their way to the really out of the way places and so shelter and permananent examples of their passing near these areas where they are seen most often are not going to be regularly found.

Exactly Chief. It's not like you are going miles and miles into the deep forest away from the track/trail. Even when I go out hiking in Europe, I never go real deep into the forest away from trails. At the most I might go have a peek for a couple hundred yards or so but you can lost if you go too far. I can imagine that in America and Canada it's even more dangerous (er, especially in bear country) and I don't expect many people to go far from trails. This is why I find it ridiculous when some skeptics claim that saquatch can't exist because every square mile of the country is hiked and travelled over and well known. Rubbish. Who are they trying to kid? Take British Columbia. Much of that province is inaccessable by road so who are these people who hike and travel over all of it LOL???

Its my opinion that its not the people who are actually out hiking & exploring the wilderness that don't see anything (because, yes, most don't go deeply into the forests), but the people who say that people have been all over the wilderness (simply because they don't an understanding of what real wilderness is).

I base things on what I know. I think I, myself, have an unrealistic viewpoint of what actual wilderness is. I'm from SW Michigan. We have lots of farmland & forests, and areas that are not highly populated. Yup, a bigfoot could probably still exist here, or travel through the area. They were a while ago. There are still occasional reports.

I've never been to the great Northwest, with the mountainous terrain and much greater distances between areas of population. I simply can't imagine the possibilities there. But boy oh boy, there's a damned good chance that if BF are anywhere still, they're there & thriving! I think the same could be said for alot of areas of this country & up into Canada (talk about vast wilderness & low population!!).

I agree with this 100%, and I've been in the Northwest. There's plenty of area a species can hide in there.

I can't speak with authority on sasquatch habitat and movement, but I share some opinions on it with others.

I'll liken sasquatches to wolverines; you don't see them often, and they aren't behind every tree, but they're out there.

Female wolverines den with their cubs during the winter. If you see a wolverine then, it's likely to be a male.

It's very uncommon to see wolverines in summer/spring/fall.

littlefoot- ur exactly right. i guess no one caught on to what i was REALLY trying to say. i have spent two years researching sasquatch reports in WA. and i have come up with two areas of interest. i am currently all over one area. i have found what i have been looking for. old mines. mines everyone has forgotten about. mines that are in counties that are not populated. i will be there this weekend, let u know what i find.

nighthunter, My best guess on Sasquatch social structure would be a noyau system; this is where males have a territory or range, and females+offspring have a territory or range. The male's range overlaps different female ranges, but not another males. The noyau social group is thought of as the simplest and most primitive, and is typical of nocturnal mammals. This would explain sightings of individual adults, but when two or more creatures are seen, usually only one is an adult. Google "noyau" and read up.

As to structures, I would try and get out of the weather, so anything else running around in the woods would, too! Have you seen the photos of the supposed "constructed" structures atributed to BF? I have a few pictures.

monkeyboy- i have seen a few, would appreciate some if u have some pics. thank u hiya hunster

by the way i went down to willow creek this weekend. the museum is closed until may, what the hell. oh well i got some good pics.

this place is kinda cool also. there is some wilderness around willow creek.

Nighthunter, do you want me to email the pics, try and post them, or probably best of all include links? I think one of my pics is on the BFRO website, and I have a short .asf video of an area in the redwoods where there were several small "play" structures around a larger one that was built (in my opinion, looking at the way the limbs were woven together) over a deadfall. I was too dumb at the time to explore inside the bigger structure for hair and what-not.

plz do monkeyboy.....

:rotflmao: I can't help it, guys!

Reread this post... Let me paraphrase:

We don't know why they do it, but we think they do either migrate or move around. Daddy goes out & brings home the bacon. Momma stays home & tends the roost & gardens & kids. The kids have ther little supervised play area. Rarely the mom will take the kids to the mall, but only out of necessity. Everyone knows how fast a little kid can disappear into a clothes rack, and the teens want to roam off on their own. It takes twice as long to get what you wanted to get with the kids along. It's best if there are two adults for this process, one to accomplish the shopping mission, and one to run shot-gun... We haven't even mentioned the whiners who are extremely annoying to both the parents & the other shoppers. (When I shop, I want to get it & get home, not have my kids drawing attention to our pathetic family by their temperamental antics!)...

Sound familiar? (Singles & those without children are excused from answering that question... Lucky you!!!). So what's so surprising that an animal has worked out a system for it's & it's family's survival? Even us dumb humans manage, sometimes. Tis the shopping season.

So we learn techniques to survive the holiday season, and bigfoot learns to survive in everyday life. Makes sense to me, as a mother of three kids.

About seasonal foods & natural shelters:

Foods:
I do it. My family has always eaten seasonal foods for the most part. It's not only plentiful, but frugal, and the quality is excellent! Bigfoot don't have to worry about price, but the cost of effort expended to obtain the food would qualify as a "cost" to them. And yes, availability counts!

Shelter:
I think bigfoot don't need houses like we do. They have hair (fur/whatever). Do they have the ability to make a shelter? I think so. What kind? I don't know. Possibilities, possibilities...
However, if it were 20 or 10 or 0 degrees with blowing & drifting snow outside, and I came across a 55 degree cave that sheltered me from the wind, I'd go inside. That makes sense. Other animals seek shelter in what's available to them, or dig burrows, or whatever. Why not a bigfoot?

Well, I guess that explains some of the weird hairstyles I've been seeing at the mall, it's Mama Bigfoot and the kids trying to blend in.

Why is that?

Oops! Double post!

First of all, they're quite rare. It's actually not common to see them at all. When you find anything, it's usually sign, like in footprints.

Secondly, in the summer the trees and brush is leafed out. This restricts vision tremendously, and the various colors provide a camoflaged background. In winter all the deciduous trees and bushes have no leaves, and there's (usually) snow cover on the ground. This makes animals, as well as simple movement, easier to see.

Thirdly, wolverines aren't very big critters. The biggest I've seen is 55 lbs, and most don't get much over 40 lbs. My standard poodles weigh more than that, and have longer legs, too (taller). Even a small black bear weighs in at twice that.

Well, if you consider how Native American's and other large mammals used the landscapes, I don't think it would be unreasonable to think that bigfoot uses it in a similar way. NAs traveled in small groups moving seasonally based on resource availability (as do bears). There is enough food in the forest to support a large bipedal primate, humans, and other mammals. NAs also used natural shelters (mine shafts are recent), again, as do bears. So, since humans and bears act similarly on the landscape, it is a reasonable hypothesis to suggest that bigfoot does as well. What you have to learn is your landscape…when and where are berries ripe, when is the salmon run, etc. Those are the times and places to look for evidence.

exactly hairyman- we have alot in common on how we view terrain association. as well as moving with the food.

I do not believe that sasquatch migrate any great distance. To my way of thinking, thier travels can be linked to fish spawn, big game migration and whatever vegatation that they are able to sustain on. Secondary to that concept would be digging-up what burrowing winter hibernators that inhabit thier primary area(s).

Coastal living sasquatch have even more choices where food sources are concerned.

Just opinion based on my experience. No proof available!

Gee, Mike, it sounds like you might live out west in "God's Country"! I live in the Midwest, in Michigan. There are many sightings east of the Rockies in areas that don't seem likely to be able to support bigfoot on a year' round basis. But people still see 'em & report them.

I think what may work for bigfoot in one area of the country might be different than what works in another, more secluded, area in another part of the country. Terrain & food sources impact that. I can't say that's a fact. Migrating as food availability would make sense to me. My opinion. I can't substantiate it. It's something to consider.

I think you're right.

Salmon, berries, clams (watch the lowest tides), deer fawns and leaf buds in the spring.

I reread the last few posts, and I think we're all saying about the same thing. When I say migrate, I mean following known food/shelter areas depending on the seasons. Oh boy, I'm not even making sense to myself tonight...

I think I'll just migrate off to bed now... !!

I'm getting something of an idea in my head, that as the native americans for the most part stuck to the plains and followed the buffalo, the Sasquatch are sticking to the woods and following the elk. As long as each stuck to his own province there wasn't much conflict, along the borders, there were encounters.

Same thing today, really. The vast majority of our human population are concentrated in cities, and cities are built along rivers, coasts, and in valleys and plains.

The mountains are still pretty wild.

yes they are. so lets all get out this week and look for some. a small grp of us are heading out tomorrow. will be all along the SW to SE of silver star mnt. got some info on a some-what recent report... wish us luck

Pics !

of course. will put update of trip on when we get back..

Flashman & Hunster, I agree. Animals follow their food sources, and Native Americans follow theirs. (Don't twist that, guys, I'm not in the mood...). It's called survival mode, and it's a wise thing to do. Native Americans in this country haven't been given the credit they deserve, in my opinion. Things they have done for millenium, and what they believe in, and the wisdom the elders have passed down for generations seems to be very much ignored. NA Indian history is covered from a "white man's" perspective in the USA. There's an incredibily rich heritage there that is being entirely overlooked in the US. There seems to be a paranormal slant to things which leads to a derision of all of their beliefs & wisdom. I hope it's not soon lost. That bothers me.

nighthunter, I envy you your mountains, and am looking forward to you update! Good luck in your endeavors! Wishing you a nice big juicy bigfoot...but not for lunch!

Littlefoot,
Are there any tribal staories of sasquatch taking members of villages where you live as there are in B.C. ?

I don't know, Mike. That sounds like a good project for me to research after the holiday, doesn't it! Way too busy with people coming home, starting tonight.


Merry Christmas, everyone!