After reading the thread BF range stats and Jud's idea about black bears, a few thoughts occured to me.
Here I sit in Alaska, where black bears are almost a vermin, yet BF sightings up here are very rare.
The vast majority of Alaskan BF sightings take place in Southeastern, which of course is right close to mainland British Columbia and Washington state. The climate in Southeastern is the mildest in the state. It would make sense that BF would range into the area from Canada and the lower 48. So why not further north?
In every sighting that I can remember reading about, the sasquatch is described as having long, course "hair". Most animals in the Alaskan interior have fur or, like the muskoxen, a dense woolly undercoat beneath the course hair.
Has anybody seen or heard of a sasquatch with an undercoat?
Yet they must have some means of keeping warm, since winter temps and conditions in the Lower 48 can get really cold...isn't there an Indian story saying that they hibernate?
Then there's the Yeti, which with or without an undercoat obviously can handle super cold temps. My question is, how, and if surviving cold is a common ability of BF, why haven't they expanded their range into Interior Alaska...which would seem logical given the large, ever increasing human population in the Lower 48 and the huge expanses of untouched wilderness up here?
The only explanation I can think of is:
A) Perhaps they are able to hibernate only for relatively short periods of time, not a whole winter as bears do, and therefore...
B ) They would require food for some or most of the months that are still the dead of winter up here, when there is very little but willow bark to eat, and...
C) Unlike the Lower 48, Alaskan towns and villages are not spread out over miles of countryside- there are very few isolated homes and almost none of those has livestock or crops- so any food pillaging from human sources would have to be an all out raid of a human community.
Or maybe the North American BF is a different species than the Yeti and simply cannot handle extreme winter conditions for long periods of time. Or perhaps it has something to do with the day length up here...constant light in summer and constant darkness in winter...who knows...
?????

Those are good questions, Arletta, I've often wondered that myself. I would think that climate would have a lot to do with it. Wouldn't the winter be shorter further south too? Better habitat for food stuffs also.

Alaska may not be Washington State, but it does have a fair amount of sightings in relation to its rural population. I show Alaska as having about 630K in total population, but only 370K who are non-metropolitan.

When you do a sightings per capita rate for all states, that puts Alaska on the same level as Pennsylvannia, New York, and Michigan as far as frequency of sightings. That's not bad at all.

I think it’s mainly due to population density. Less people in a particular area, less sightings in that area. Heck there may be more BF in the area you speak of than anywhere else for all we know. Jud made some good points above, but I still think the reports would be higher in rural areas if they had the same type of personality of urban folks.

This is I think most of the real encounters go unreported. Most folks in remote areas live there for many different reasons. Many of them being that they like to be alone and could care less about having to tell someone else about personal happenings. Folks that live in higher population areas for the most part enjoy communication, and that makes them more apt to relay a BF encounter, or to make one up.


Most BF reports are probably mistaken identity; the next large number of reports is due to overactive imaginations or outright BS. Even most of the ones that may seem legit, can fall into those categories.

Could it be alaska's large population of really big bears?
I've wrote something last year about bigfoot diets and how they could possibly have enough to eat.
My thoughts are to look at the other animals equally as large or larger, the bears, they get the most protein from samon, no? Likewise don't they have a lot of trout, or samon in the pnw?
If you can potentially accept that fish constitue a lot or the most of a bigfoots diet then that would go a long ways to answering the reasons they seem to thrive in the pnw and how they might potentially thrive in the southern or gulf states if they're there, since those southern regions have so much water.
I would think the protein sources in southern waters would be almost limitless for most any animal.
In short I've always had the opinion that bigfoot territory is more likely to be closer to water most of the time.
Has anyone ever done a study with larger scale or even state maps to see if the majority of sightings center around areas with a lot of streams, lakes, swamps, ect. overall?
As for the samon in alaska, perhaps the bears simply have the territory around most of the best fishing places. And that said, I would still guess that although the estimated population density might be less in alaska because of various factors, diet, cold, ect., my guess is that as mentioned the vast amount of area with low or no human population has a lot to do with the low number of sightings if they are in fact there.
Only some thoughts.

John Green mentions how most sightings occur close to water, and that below a certain level of annual precipitation, Sas sightings disappear. I don't know if there has been further work on that. A good person to ask might be Streamrunner (and there is significance to his handle!).

Arletta,

The sasquatch would not have an undercoat; however, a large body would provide a favorable surface area/mass ratio to help cope with severe cold, as seen in the stocky bodies of Eskimoes.

Bears don't exhibit "true" hibernation, but they certainly reduce their metabolic rates dramatically. Since some people are capable of lowering their heart and breathing rates, and thus their caloric needs, it stands to reason that something like that is at least a possibility for the sasquatch.

The yeti almost certainly doesn't live in conditions of ice and snow. I think Ivan Sanderson was one of the first to note the probability that yeti tracks show movements through mountain passes as an animal travels from one drainage system to another. Like the sasquatch, the yeti probably frequents streams and inhabits heavily forested areas.

Hi Barley
The book RAINCOAST SASQUATCH has maps at the back which track sightings. Huge amount of coastline...very low human population. Some good data there.
Jan
Edit: If only I could spell!

Could this be a reason for fewer sightings the further south one travels. ei: New Mexico,Nevada.Arizona, into Mexico itsself.

South America sightings might also be very rare, under these circumstances, as the BF would have to first travel through the aforementioned lands of the arid 'southwest' to get there.

Actually Peregrine, there's nothing that says BF couldn't
have an "undercoat." We've touched on that before...

Japanese macaques

peregrine........

you made 2 good ...at least to my thinking.....comments.......

i don´t think they have "undercoats" nor really need them....

i also don´t believe that they hibernate......

i don´t know that much about the yeti....same animal or not? the footprint suggests not.......probably don´t have undercoats either, as Arletta suggests..............jon

That makes sense to me! They might need a regular light & dark cycle to carry on their functions. I believe length of day is a big factor as far as when animals mate, migrate, & so on. If bigfoot IS a very old species, its range & habits should have settled down by now. I would think.
Without going too off topic, are BF known to exist way up in Canada (besides B.C.) or in any other extreme northern latitudes, anywhere around the world?
(It could also be too hard of a climate in which to raise young, or perhaps too many large predators all competing for the same food; or else they saw what happened to the mastodons!)

I guess in Asia there is the Yeti from Tibet and Nepal..but in North America the BF northern sightings are mostly in the west

Do Bigfoot hibernate or not? Now that's a question that has never been settled or finalized since the first fleeting glimpse of this creature was recorded.

In the PNW, the lower elevations are relatively free of snow in winter due to the milder temperatures which in turn inundate areas with rain day after day. So, these lower elevations have the possibility for a Bigfoot to still be active in winter with a reliable food source to be found, and not hibernate in any way.

But what about the other parts of North America where winter brings snow which can stay on the ground for months? Food would be almost impossible to find. Also, if Bigfoot are really present in those areas, people should easily see their footprints in snow. Animals sure can't hide their presence easily in snow. But in reality, there are less sightings in winter by people who spend time in the outdoors in the snow. And this is proven in the reports that the BFRO get during certain months of the year. The BFRO are not exactly flooded with footprint sighting reports in winter, a season when any Bigfoot present and still active in areas, should easily be discernible. We should be able to narrow down areas where they congregate in large numbers in winter. They sure can't hide their tracks in snow.

So why is that? Why are there little to no Bigfoot or footprint reports in snow laden areas, if these creatures do not hibernate as many believe?

But this is a double edged sword; What the__

You must remember that people are fewer in the back country during the winter months, then the warmer times of year. So there are less to see BF footprints.

Also, BF probably pulls himself/herself back further into the wilderness, when its footprints are more easily spotted, in order to elude their enimies (threats) we humans. Just as they track, on an instincttive level they know that they too can be tracked.
Even a moose will backtrack before bedding down for the night so that his scent is nowhere near his makrings in the snow.

Moose-vegan
BF-predator

A family of five BF ranging over an area of some 200 miles squared will not so easily be found..not even a track.

Then again..there is always the Bahamas. They are know to be swimmers!

The macaque is a monkey. I'm not aware of any great apes with an undercoat. The best sasquatch pictures indicate areas of thin hair, providing further support for the absence of an undercoat.

I don't know GrandCherokee. There is a big increase of outdoor sports such as snowmobiling and cross country skiing in winter. Yet, there are hardly any sightings by those winter outdoor enthusiasts of Bigfoot footprints, especially in provinces or states with snow on the ground presently.

Even bears are a lot smarter than we think. I've seen bears move into their hibernation dens during the first snow storms of the year, in order to hide their tracks from observation. This way here, no one can ever find or follow them into their dens. I believe that BF may hibernate like bears in snow laden areas. But who knows? Its all speculation, like 90% of the things discussed and said about BF. No one has yet really found any concrete evidence of what they do in winter.

But, I'll let you know if they head down south in winter and I see one, when I go down to Mexico on holiday this winter.

Great question. I'll add one of my own (hey, I'm new here). With all of their strength & intelligence, what is the possibility of their building a concealed shelter, such as a small tunnel, or cave; maybe covered with natural materials. This concealment of shelter, along with their vigilance when people are around, might be a reason we have limited contact. Shelter building, if actually done, could lend to surviving harsh weather, & maybe raising young, or storing food. I'm sure they are strong enough, but wonder at the liklihood of their doing this? And, of course, it would really have to be way off the beaten track. (Sorry if this has been addressed in other posts.)

Something to consider might be when the sightings occur. Many beleive Sasquatch migrate. This makes sense to me. I feel they are very intelligent and adaptable creatures. While maybe not all migrate maybe some find advantageous and do migrate.

P.S. If someone already posted this idea/comment kudos to you, I didn't read the entire thread before I posted.

Now I am going to look at some Alaska sightings.

Welllllll....................i´ve seen tracks in snow........in Idaho, Utah and North Dakota......

i´m not buying hibernation...............or migration.........jon

Actually, from what I'm told from a reliable source(has been within 20 feet of them) they do indeed have an "undercoat".

The only migration that I think is likely is that sasquatch are seen at lower elevations in winter. I do think they stay in the same general area. They aren't whales or ducks.

As far as hibernating, I don't think they do. They might reduce their activity somewhat.

There's a certain book out there which suggests the same thing.




(note: all this talk about 'telepathy' is a little disconcerting. Do I think sasquatch can plant pictures in a persons mind? f-no! Do I think sasquatch could emit an odor that we can't really detect consciously and that odor inturn can make us extremely anxious? sure. How does our brain react to anxiety, a million different ways (nightmares are a good example), which might explain the erroneous idea of "pictures" being planted. I still believe the book, but none of this current 'telepathy' stuff, I think that is more Janice's misinterpretation of how her mind reactsto/justifies a situation/odor.)

Well, I guess that makes it so.

Personally, I question the reliability of your reliable witness. Undercoats (for those species that have them) are not readily visible. They consist of small dense hairs located under the much more prominent guard hairs. The large guard hairs overlay the undercoat.

Besides that, I hereby further question the likelihood that anyone standing within twenty feet of a sasquatch would trouble himself/herself with noting any detailed physical particulars, much less improbable characteristics such as an undercoat on a great ape.

But who knows? Your pal may be right. It's fun to speculate. I'll deprive myself of pancakes smothered with real butter and honey for a year if it turns out that I'm wrong.

Well, beleive what you will.
I will tell you this, the "source" doesnt have a book out but, after him and his brothers ordeal I wouldn't be surprised to see one.