http://www.bfro.net/GDB/state_listing.asp?state=ca#map Take a look at this Map from BFRO.

If this is at all accurate, and as we all know how many sightings are false, then the only area's one can take seriously as "hot spots" are the regions up by Humbolt county and the region below lake Tahoe, to the right of Stockton and Modesto. Only because of the sheer number. Looking at the area's where the reported sightings take place and then looking at a road map for california...


It becomes clear that there are a lot of damn highways blocking the southern population from the northern one. I believe that if a southern population does exist, then it is completely cut off from the rest up North.

This explains the lack of sightings in between even though a lot of it is heavely forested.

Highway 80 is a very major highway, 2 lanes per direction and wide open, highway 50 is less so. That cuts california right in half. There is no way a sasquath could make it accross Highway 80 today. If it did, it would have to be quick.

Then Highway 5 would be its next obsticle. Highway 5 is narrow in parts but once again, a very major road with lots of people. That creates another blockade for a bigfoot.

I believe that the BF's in Central California are now a seperate population from their cousins up North. Only in the last 80 years or so has man increasingly made it almost impossible for a BF to travel so there would be no genetic differences, but perhaps only behavoiral ones.

I asure from growing up in Tuolumne ciuntry all of my 36 years there is a healthy population here in central california. I do agree with you that they are seperate from their nothern cousins. There is just to much raods and people in between. Just my opion

sorry about the typing I get going way to fast thanks

There is no mention of segregation of populations in California black bears on the DNR website, although there are subpopulations. I believe California's DNR does get input on highway construction to minimize impact on wildlife corridor use. But, I don't have any details on that.

And just to promote my current interest... here's a map of California black bear habitat, followed by a description of what the bear population densities are in various parts of the state (they aren't evenly distributed).

Look at/read both of those and then look at the BFRO map again.... Hmmm....

California Black Bear habitat map

California black bear population density distribution

It would interesting to investigate underpasses and overpasses, areas where wildlife could pass over or under the interstate, and see if any migrating BF's are bottlenecked in these areas.

There is great winter habitat in Tuolomne County Ca for all speices, I think it is more than adaquete for foilage and these places are very remote ie the game perserve below berdsley res. there would be no need for them to go further. We have caught bears when our dogs in the worst winters out of American Camp next to Columbia State park along the Melones Res. and they are in great shape. My point is that there is alot of graet habitat out here even in the deepest of winters say feb and jan.

It's interesting to note (and maybe somewhat obvious too) that if you were to use that 'Black Bear Habitat' map and pinpoint precise 'Bigfoot' sightings on it you'd see a distinct correlation between bear habitat and Bigfoot sightings in southern California.

California is mostly a 'coastal state' in that at least 75% of it's population lives within 40 miles of the coast. The rest of CA is quite rural and 'wild'. It's TOTALLY possible that a 'corridor' could exist between northern and southern CA for 'Bigfoots' to migrate. The sole barriers being roads and highways/freeways, most of which are not traveled that heavily on the average night (including I-15, I-10 and I-40). Anyway, below is the 'bear habitat' map with the aprox. locations of documented sightings (black dots and per the BFRO). For the record, a bear sighting in southern CA is so rare that MAYBE ONE occurs every 3-5 years.

Just thought it was interesting.

"Harry"

As far as BF crossin freeways and such...I remember in Roseville near here they captured a mountain lion thas was too close to houses and stuff so they tranqed him and took him off way away somewhere....

I think it was maybe 6 months later...he showed up somewhere close to back where he was originally first discovered..I think they shot him that time. I cannot remember if they radio collared him...but when they drew a line from where they had taken him to where he was found....they said he had to have crossed at least 5 or 6 major rivers and at least 3 major freeways to get back to where he was.

I gotta find that story...

But I do think that territory is a big factor and when an animal has to go find a place to hunt and live...well it does what it has to do.

A BF does what a BF has to do...

-Janice

i have to agree with you sagehunter.that erea is more than capable of sustaining a stationary population.the beardsley erea especially.

Yeah, good points about the bear stuff.

When I meant cut off from the northern population , I didnt mean it in a relativaly bad way, the still do have a lot of forest to move around in. But it would be intresting to see how a bigfoot would cross an area filled with ski resorts, roads, and people. I never even considered how other animals do it, nor did I think about overpasses and how they could travel underneath them.

Two things to consider:

BFRO reports are far from the whole story when evaluating sightings from a given area. Nor are they a representative sample.

And, freeway crossings are not a problem for BF, I'd say. Most freeways you can cross underneath at several points via storm drains or following the rivers and streams. Don't look for one crossing the Golden Gate Bridge, but other than that I don't think roads will act as a barrier. The map tells me they should be able to move pretty freely from S. Cal all the way up to the land of hockey.

I don't expect BFRO sightings to be completely indicative of sasquatch densities, encounters, etc. I'm sure the vast majority of encounters are never reported to any organization, so we only have a small percent of all encounters to begin with. And maybe someone could make the case that PNW people are more likely to report this kind of thing than East Coasters, because BF activity is "expected" in the PNW. I don't know.

Then, whatever screening the reported encounters go through, investigator location and availability, etc. I'm sure all of this affects the numbers and distribution of reports, maybe just as much as sasquatch activity does. I'm not privy to the whole process, so I'm just guessing.

All that being said, if we fast forwarded several years to a point in time where the number of BFRO reports was double what it is now, I would be surprised if there were no more reports from California, Oregon, and Washington, while North Dakota and Nevada became the new hotbed of encounters. Those are patterns I expect to be fairly reliable.

Anyhow, it's interesting to speculate....

Interesting points made by everyone and I think everyone is correct to
some extent. I'm sure the major highways such as I-80 and Hwy. 50 have
been a deterrent to some extent for BF to cross now that they carry much
more traffic at all hours these days. But I agree that they wouldn't stop it
totally---there are times coming back from Tahoe where I seem to be the only
person on the road for a short ways. Also, during the snowstorms the roads
are sometimes closed for traffic or at least the traffic is great reduced. I'm sure
Biggie runs back and forth as much as he pleases then! But the incredible
wilderness and abundance of the Yosemite/ Tuolumne area would more than
keep him happy. But hominids are notorious wanderers--never satisfied-- so I wouldn't be surprised if a Bigfoot gets hit by a car on I-80 one of these days!

Sosha, just last year they shot a mountain lion in Orangevale! Just down
the street from my friend's house! Amazing that the critter found his way through
all those inhabited neighborhoods without being spotted until he got into
O'vale!

Say, snow-plow operators may be a category that should be added to our list of possible witnesses (of tracks) for investigators to quiz. (Like early-morning newspaper deliverers, who often have sightings, as someone here pointed out a few months ago.)

EDIT: The Terry Reams sighting, of a BF running along an interstate in WA in a state of fear and confusion, indicates that BF aren't always adept at interfacing with large freeways.

it doesnt seem to me that i80 would be a problem. i've driven the stretch between sacramento and reno plenty of times, and have been the only one on the road for as far as i can see....i mean, no headlights or taillights in the distance....and the center divide isnt really much. i've read about bigfoot(s) hopping a 4 or 5 foot fence with a single step/hop. so i think if the big guys timed it right, it'd be a sinch.

hwy 50 would be absolutely no prob. 2 lanes, no divide.

gael

The only thing about snow plow is how many sighting actually occur in snow I `m thinking not many it`s my opion they stay below the snow most of the bears we caught are below snowlines not all but most. I really believe they migrate out of the snow

Roger, thanks for bringing up the Reams sighting. A little more info on it is here:

http://bfjournal.tripod.com/pages/990828.html

I think I read a detailed account of this in an issue of The Track Record, but can't remember which one. It's a GREAT sighting - I've always found reports called in by multiple, unassociated people who had a highway sighting to be at the top of the credibility pile.

This is a great topic. I probably spend more time trying to figure out something about patterns of movement than anything else. How much land do these buggers cover in a lifetime? Do they return to the same places? How much of a role does human intrusion play in their movements. What am I gonna cook for the football games? Questions abound.

Sure, but it snows below the snow-line from time to time! It's snowing in Seattle the last few days, and I'm only 300 feet above sea level.

i am not sure i would go as far as say that they migrate out of snowy ereas.but i do feel that their metabolism may slow down and they become very in active.not hibernate,but limit their movement to a very small erea.if you dont find that small erea,you wont find tracks. just my 2 cents.

What I find also interesting to note is the correlation between Californian human population with the other two PNW states, to number of Bigfoot reports found on the BFRO.

State, Population estimate ( as of July, 2003 U.S Census Bureau), # of sightings


Washington- 6.1 million > 286

Oregon- 3.6 million > 129

California- 35.5 million > 247



California, having the highest population of people in the PNW, is second to Washington state in the # of sightings, but Washington state has a population 5.8 times smaller than California. Washington and Oregon are on a closer par for population to # of sighting comparison. Now you would think that with the above figures, there would or even should be more sightings reported from California due to the higher population of people, but that's not the case. Considering that the vast majority of sightings are never reported, could it be that Californians are less inclined to report Bigfoot sightings than the other two PNW states?

Another interesting note in this whole picture is that the total population of Canada presently is 31.6 million people, according to a July, 2003 census. There are more people living in the state of California than in all of Canada. That's probably also why Canadian sightings are not a large data base on the BFRO, (too much terrain for BF to hide in Canada), and a large portion of sightings are also never reported.

Ravines and creeks would be likely places that an animal could slip into certain areas without being detected. We've had surprise visits in our big town of mountain lions. Creeks and ravines were determined to be the route the cats took.

Currently, I'm more inclined to think it has to do with human population distribution in rural areas than overall state population (Shorebreak was the first person to suggest that in the black bear thread ). Sasquatch don't show up in downtown Los Angeles, Portland, or Seattle. So, how do the state human populations and population densities look after we subtract out the major metropolitan areas?

Well, I'm actually doing that and will have some answers in a few weeks. Any metropolitan area of 100K or greater in population will be subtracted out of each state's population figure. There are over 300 of those areas in the US. I'll then be able to correlate to a sasquatch sightings per rural capita measure and to a black bears per sq mile measure.

There are three things I'm hoping to show.

1) As rural human population density drops (rural people/rural sq mile), black bear rural density increases (bear/rural sq mile).
2) As rural human population density drops (rural people/rural sq mile), sasquatch sightings per rural capita increases (BFRO sightings by state/rural people)
3) As black bear rural density increases (bear/rural sq mile), sasquatch sightings per rural capita increases (BFRO sightings by state/rural people)

I'll let everyone know how it goes, probably by the end of January.

I'm looking forward to reading your findings, Judaculla!

Great thread, everybody!
Thanks for starting it, JetL, and for the bear info, Jud..and for all the input!

I would agree on most of the points made here and think there is a good population of Bigfoot creatures distributed throughout the state with the greater population densities in the North (Shasta to the coast) and the Central Sierra.
And I think they are possible whereever a black bear population can be sustained. (is this John Bindernagel's theory? I think that's where I read it, and Robert Morgan mentions this on his tape.)
So, ponder this, how about the Santa Lucia's? Between Monterey and, say, San Luis Obispo. Maybe we can try a short trip in near Tassajara sometime.

Still looking forward to meeting all of you sometime soon.
- Tom

I agree with Harry.... a corridor does exist.....
there have been sightings in my sister-in-laws Mojave desert community of Hesperia in the Mojave River dry wash....leading to the San Bernardino Mountains....and you just swoop on down past Mt. San Jacinto and you're in the wilderness behind San Diego...."here chicky, chicky, chicky..." area!

I've always been curious about that vast wilderness between Monterey and San Luis Obispo. there are some reports from Camp Roberts, or Fort Hunter-Liggett and some from Atascadero.....from Sunset campground...
They are very isolated reports, but nonetheless, I think a small population could exist in this Los Padres National Forest....

Interesting topic here. I'd also like to read Judaculla's research results.

I can relate to the "corridor" theory. I live in moose country, yet I rarely see them at my home. I do see them in the yard in the spring, and they congregate in a huge nearby river delta that time of year. But by greening (mid-May), they're gone.

I'm also a moose hunter. I've gotten pretty good at finding them in the fall. I've even stumbled upon them in summer. The cows with calves have "nurseries", where it's easier for them to defend their calves from the bears (near water; ponds, sloughs, rivers, and even in residential areas where bears are not as likely to go). Bull moose tend to be as Sasquatches must be; they go to the loneliest, wildest places, stay to themselves, and feed all summer.

I also suspect that black bear and Sasquatch habitat is the same. Black bear thrive in the coastal Pacific Northwest. You can find them elsewhere, but not in the numbers and density as between coastal south Oregon and Southeast Alaska.

Black bears and Sasquatches seem like very similar creatures. Brown bears are different critters altogether.

There is a "correlating black bears to sasquatch" thread in independent research where I posted some preliminary results. More in depth analysis of trends is going to take a good deal more time.

Hunster, down here in Wa. state a 400lb. black bear is a big bear, but a small squatch.(Also the bears here on the 'left' coast don't really hibernate they just slow down their winter activity.) So don't you think Sas would be more like a Brown bear in his feeding habits at least to gain their size?

kbsquatch:

Good questions, especially about the size differences in black bears and sasquatches. I'm no educated biologist, but I study ADFG (Alaska Dept. Fish & Game) management reports regularly, so might be qualified to participate on an "amatuer" basis.

In Alaska, bears have a long hibernation period. Depending on latitude, it can range from Nov-Mar in Southeast to Oct-Apr above the Brooks Range (there are no black bears north of the Brooks).

Their feeding habits are almost identical: in the spring after awakening, they graze on fresh grass and any winter-kill carrion they can sniff out. Later in the spring, both species will take newborn ungulate calves (moose, caribou, deer) if the mothers can't defend them, they can't hide well, or before the calves can run well. When the fish start running, both species gorge on them. In the fall, when berries ripen, they head uphill for that feast. In the meantime, both will utilize ground squirrels, mushrooms, etc as the opportunities occur. There's one notable exception on the feeding. As a bear baiter, I learned (and was told by ADFG biologists) that using sweets will attract more black bears than brownies. Apparently black bears have a sweet tooth that isn't as intense in brownies.

Black bears are shy, skittish, nocturnal creatures of the deep forests (like I believe sasquatches are). They prefer the heavy cover, and that's why they aren't found in the huge tundra areas of Alaska (like the west central Alaska, the Aleutian Peninsula, and north of the Brooks Range). Brown bears are less so, and can readily be found above treeline, and throughout tundra areas. Black bears also rarely congregate like brown bears do on the most productive salmon streams. They tend to space themselves out more, and always stick close to cover.

The size difference? What a great question! Genetics? I'm hestitant to venture a guess beyond that.

But Peter Byrne wrote something in one of his books that burrowed deep in my mind and stuck there. He opined that a creature the size of a sasquatch, and that was clearly not a hoofed grazer or browser, simply had to be omnivorous. I tend to agree. I'm not sure if they're as aggressive a hunter as a brown bear, but I've read plenty of reports of them digging ground squirrels, chasing deer, hanging around salmon streams, and stealing fish from human fishermen.

Hibernation? Another good one. But I simply can't see what any creature like a sasquatch (or a bear) would sustain itself on in an interior (or even southcentral) Alaskan winter. Southeast, maybe. It's a shorter, milder winter there, not much more harsh than Puget Sound. But where I'm at, and especially north of the Alaska Range, the winter can't be described as anything less than savage. Most of the birds leave, bears hibernate, and the ungulates work hard to survive on whats left, and many of them don't make it.