With all due respects to places like Harrison hot springs ,and Bluff creek .Washington state has more sightings from the Blue mtns west to Skamania up to the Olys , then back again to the northern cascades . 'BF' is there you can count on it

Anyone can claim that their area have got most BF:s.

It´s the amount of serious reports per squaremile (and inhabitant perhaps) that counts.

I really think Canada would have to be the best places to look. There is so much more uninhabbited terrain. Washington and California is a good place but thats where everybody is looking. They say that BC has over 100 planes missing and never found. (I wish I could remember where i read that statistic) There are not as many sightings up North but how many people live there. I remember going for a trip in Northern Manitoba and not passing a town for 5 hours i think it was. I believe there is so much to see up there.

If you have your own webspace or know someone who does (hint: I'll bet a few people here do, in fact bipto may even do it for you).

I think there's a lot of promising habitat in the Northwest, but I wouldn't sell the Southeastern US short as being a good place to look. Some good evidence has come from central/southern Georgia for example, and the best thing is that BF isn't the tourist industry/cultural phenomenon down here that it is up there. Consequently, very few people are down here looking for it. So if you're looking for good promising areas without roving bands of weekend warriors looking for Our Friend alongside you, come on down

Absolutley! You have several corridors of prime territory here in Ga that I believe support habitation, due to recent and historical reports in the areas. There is what I refer to as the Chattahoochee river corridor which runs from I20 in Douglas county, north of the Dog river southwesterly to Ft Benning and including the Alabama counties of Cleburne, Randolph,Chambers, Lee and Russell. The Flint river corridor that includes Elkins creek(has track cast that Chilcutt identified as having dermal ridges, and a certain person here at the BFF cast.), Sprewell Bluff and runs down the whole length of the river I feel. Thats some real bad bush from Dooly county north. There is a southern corridor from southern Worth county southward from Bridgeboro between the Little River and the Little Ochlockonee River. Of course, The mountain regions and the Ft Stewart area has had some sightings. I base these corridors upon historical sightings, reports from the BFRO, reports from the GCBRO, newspaper archives, and word of mouth reports passed along. There is probably more out there but not reported or I haven't heard them yet.


Mike

Most of the BFtourists stay close to the big roads and towns and they hardly explore the most offroad areas of Washington for instance.

There are plenty of space with hardly any people around in the Northwest as well!

I second Mike, one can pinpoint a lot of potential areas in Georgia and surrounding states. One advantage we do have down here is that the climate is milder without the big swings you see in the PNW, especially as you get closer to Canada. If you're a field researcher that extends the amount of time per year you can spend in the bush without having to worry about hazardous weather.

In my old group we concentrated on the broad general areas that are a natural consequence of the major interstates, mostly below I-20 and the pockets north of I-10 in north Florida. We worked on the broad assumption that very little BF movement would take place across interstates (though later on I revisited that assumption), and that the resulting isolated areas would have to support a viable population. I don't remember having as many specific areas pegged as Mike does, as we decided on two or three that we felt as especially promising and spent the bulk of our time in those.

Mike, you mentioned "and a certain person here at the BFF cast". Is there a cast from this area I don't know about? (probably).

Steve

I am looking for some good areas to search in Florida. I have some time off in May and the only other spot that I might visit is the beach. (Suggestions for nice family beach locations are welcome as well) I am new to the area, and I live near Orlando. Originally I am from Utah, where there are a few good spots in the Wasatch Mountains. I also have taked to people who have had sightings in Sourthern Idaho, around Bear Lake. Because the vegetation and cover is not quite as dense, I doubt these areas are as good as spots in the Northwest. Either way, I'll never stop searching.

Evacuate

I could get pretty specific about two of the corridors I mentioned and narrow it down to "high" probabability areas within, but ..........

About the other I'll pm ya.

I've got to agree with some of the replies on the last page. With all due respect to Washington (and obviously it IS one of the top areas so I'm not aguing there) I feel that the coast and islands of British Columbia and southeast Alaska are where THE highest densities of these animals inhabit and it is the best place to look without a doubt. It just makes perfect sense to me.

More effort should be concentrated on the estuaries, islands and tidal flats of BC and southwest Alaska in my view. Here you have great field of vision and are more likely to spot something than smack bang in the middle of a mountainous forest area. I'm sure if great effort was spent searching these areas by boat and making semi permanent hides and camps here on the coast the success rate would be greater than anywhere else in North America. I've no doubts about that whatsoever.

If somebody gave me unlimited time and money I'd head for the coast of BC and Alaska.

Ahem!
Not all sightings are reported..for a number of good reasons. And not all reports are truthful! It would be a grave error to speculate on Sasquatch population just from the number of reports that any one area claims to have! There are very valid reports and incidents out there which never make it to the BFRO, or any other organization.
My .02...Southern British Columbia....within the next few years!

Islands? I doubt that!

BC in general have got a lot of sightings but it can´t compete with the best areas in Washington according BFRO sightings/capita and squaremile

Perhaps there are very few BFRO people and internetconnections in the countryside of BC.

Lyndon: Why do you think Alaska and BC are the best areas and do have any sprecific counties in mind?

True GC. You can use reported sightings to speculate the possibility of bigfoot inhabiting an area, and maybe research the area because of the reports, but reports don't necessarily mean that they are there. Just like you said not all reports are truthful, and most all are anecdotal. I listed in another thread some possible corridors of habitat in my state, based on sighting reports, both recent and historical, but are they there?
Don't know. Are some of the reports BS? Yep. Would I speculate the number of sasquatch in my state based on the number of reports from my state? Heck no. I do have some areas to research though.
Mike

Hello Magikern.

Islands? Yes, islands.

There are literally hundreds (thousands?????) of tiny islands not far off the coast, inlets and estuaries of BC and Alaska. Just look at any close up map of the area and you can see them going all the way from the inside passage near Vancouver all the way up to Juneau in Alaska and beyond. Some are so close to the coast you or I could swim to them and we all how how Sas isn't shy of swimming.

Really, these coastal areas with their inlets, estuaries and islands of BC and south east Alaska would be a perfect haven. It's less harsh in winter than interior latitudes of the same, there are plenty of natural resources and what's more human populations are minimal. VERY minimal. Most of these areas along the coast don't have road access and the only way to reach them is by plane or boat. It's basically human free, wild, rugged and totally remote and isolated.

This is the main reason why researchers neglect this area. The difficulties in reaching the locations and the vastness of the terrain leads them to pick easier spots more suitable for a long weekend light trip (no disrespect to the likes of the BFRO here of course). That's where I think many organisation are going wrong. They pick the easiest spots and not necessarily the most likely.

As for specific areas, well I'm talking of places from north of Vancouver and beyond all the way up. You can take your pick. Areas such as Bella Coola in BC and islands such as Revillagigedo, Wrangell and Prince Of Wales islands in Alaska (the Ketchikan area basically). That's just a few to give you some examples.

I'd advise you to read Raincoast Sasquatch by J. Robert Alley. His book is replete with reports from this area (many of them not listed by the BFRO). John Bindernagel's book also mentions this area often.

Like I said before, my view is that searching tidal flat areas here during low tide when these animals are foraging the shores in search of food would be the best bet of seeing them. There are plenty of reports of this kind of activity. The scope and field of vision offered along these tidal flats would be vast and certainly better than anything deep in a forested area way inland. Searching by boat and making base camps would be the way to go.

Just my opinion but I think it makes sense.

You speak the Truth Lyndon! You have done your homework for sure!
It was along that coastline that Bob Titmus has his best encounter with a Sasquatch on a beach during his Hazelton years. He made a number of castings, as well.
People have to understand....not every report ends up on the BFRO! I have read many reports out of British Columbia which do not appear on the BFRO site..!
Washington State has more of a population..but they might be seeing the same 10 Squatch over and over! (j/k)
Just trying to point out that reports are merely anecdotal evidence! One report is as good as 500 reports..at least it carries the same amount of weight...for neither number provides proof of anything!

majikern wrote:


There are no BFRO people in BC. If there are then no one has ever admitted such.
But trust me on this one..interactions and interconnections are a happening thing up in these parts.
You just got the dog by the tail on this subject, that's all!

Well GC, I don't know either area myself but from what I can gather from my 'armchair research', coastal BC and southeast Alaska look to be the best bet.

I totally agree with what you say, more Sasquatch reports don't nessecarily mean there are more Sasquatch. It just means there are more PEOPLE who are reporting them. There are very few people in the real rugged coastal areas of BC and Alaska. Tidal flats would be a great place to look for tracks when the tide is out.

Still, I do think that Washington and Oregon are among the top spots in North America, even if I do feel that further north from there is number one.

I would like a list of serious BFreports from BC and alaska during recent years.

BFRO has got a couple but not that many.

Well, like I said your best bet is to read the book Raincoast Saquatch by J. Robert Alley.

Seems that folks in those parts don't go blabbing to the BFRO (and why should they?) and it's only because of the diligent research done by the likes of Alley and others that these reports surface and come to light. Most of the reports that Alley mentioned are a result of Alley himself tracking down and intervewing the witnesses.

I certainly have more faith in a witness report from Revillagigedo Island, Alaska which has been investigated by Alley rather than a witness report from New Jersey just because it appears on the BFRO list. I certainly know which I think is the area most likely to have these animals out of those two particular locations.

Your best bet for that would be Robert Alley's book which Lyndon mentioned!
There is no database of recent years (which anyone is talking about ) for either BC or Alaska! Mr. Green's 2000+ reports span the past 50 yrs or so, I believe.
Although, make no mistake Type "A ", "B" and "C" encounters are still being reported and investigated. on a regular basis.

How big are the islands mentioned?

It should be pretty easy to find a group of BF isolated on an Island.

Well Revillagigedo Island is about 60 miles by about 50 miles or so (looking on the map) but it's got very easy access to the mainland. You or I could swim it. An animal definately could and in fact there are reports of these animals swimming in the waters there. Prince of Wales Island is bigger. All of these islands seem easy enough for a swimming primate to travel to and fro to the mainland or even other islands as 'stepping stones'.

The islands of BC are so many and all over the place, off the coast, in inlets, in estuaries. They are of different sizes from Vancouver Island (250 miles by 70 miles, or so) to some that are just tiny dots. Many of these islands don't see much (any?) human habitation and activity.

Which island do you start with? As far as I know, there has never been a proper systematic search done on any of these islandS, even the small ones. As has been mentioned, the researchers concentrate on 'easier' locations further south in the U.S.

The water seems to be to cold during most part of the year to me.

Ha, so basically from all your negativity am I right in thinking you dismiss the idea that the coastal inlets, estuaries and islands of BC and south eastern Alsaka is NOT a prime area for Sasquatch?

I'm writing to Robert alley and telling him that he and his witnesses and his book are full of crap!
Then a strongly worded letter to John Green for perpetrating the myth of Sasquatch in BC!
And also a letter along the same lines to Thomas Steenburg!

It is all crystal clear now!
The BFRO has too few reports on this part of the country...and the water is too cold to swim in, up in these parts! Ergo! Anything going on north of the 49th parallel is a pipe dream!

Seriously...Alley, Steenburg, Green, Dahinden.Murphy....buy their books and enjoy.

GC,

Let's not forget Bob Titmus, probably one of the renowned Sasquatch investigators of all time.
Titmus relocated to British Columbia from outside Redding, California.
Now I might be wrong here, but my guess would be that Bob Titmus moved to British Columbia for a very good reason. That being because he believed his chances of finding evidence of Sasquatch was considerably better in B.C. than anywhere else he had been.

While the BC and Southeast Alaska coasts may hold the highest densities of these creatures, they are also among the most rugged and remote places on the continent. The only way I can imagine searching this area is by boat, and that would be expensive.

Washington, Oregon, and Northern Calfornia may have lower densities, or the creatures may have been pushed into more remote areas, but these states have many more roads with which to access areas. Access costs would be much cheaper than BC or Alaska.

Hunster,

What you say is true to a certain extent.
I suppose it all boils down to knowing the country, and more importantly, knowing where solid evidence of the existence of Sasquatch has been previously found.
For instance, I am familiar with country where Sasquatch tracks have been found and documented sightings have occurred in the recent past. This region is considered by many to be extremely remote, yet it is relatively close to the bustling metropolis of Vancouver. For less than $200 in water transportation costs, and a small fee for a bush road taxi service, I could have you in the heart of Sasquatch country (where few people have set foot) within three hours from where I'm sitting in Mission, British Columbia at the moment.
While I could never guarantee a Sasquatch sighting or even a vocalization, I am reasonably sure you would never see another person during your stay in this remote valley.
That being said, I am a firm believer that Sasquatch prefers to live out its life in remote regions where it is far away from man and everything that goes along with him.

Man you guys are making me homesick....

I'm sure you're right, and that is a bargain compared to Alaska Bush transportation costs.

For example, just to get to Ketchikan you'd have to fly or take the ferry from Prince Rupert (at least $100 to $200 right there), then hire a charter boat to a remote bay (another $200 at least, but probably more like $400).

Then you're there.....literally. With no mobility.

IMO, the best way to cover a coastal fiord-like area is to stay on the boat, anchored, glassing the bay by night with night-optics, then sleep during the day. Cover a bay for 3 consecutive nights, then sail into another bay for a repeat.

Staying on board also reduces the scent of man all over the beaches.

It's also more comfortable than sleeping on rocky shorelines.

Hiring a boat for such an endeavor would be prohibitively expensive. You'd have to have your own.

(I'm still working on Mrs. Huntster on that account.)

That's how bear hunters do it in Southeast. Those forests are so thick it's rather foolish to try whacking your way through it, stinking the place up, making all manner of racket, and never having a field of view much greater than 50 yards.

Huntster,

I agree with you 100 per cent on that one.
Nowadays, hiring a boat for coastal Sasquatch hunting in Alaska (or B.C.) would be prohibitively expensive.
Back in the '70s, I spent a good deal of time in Alaska commercial fishing for halibut (when the world was a simpler place and Canadians and Americans shared their fish stocks). During the hundreds of hours I spent at the wheel with my eyes scanning the beaches for any manner of game, I never had the good fortune to catch a glimpse of a Sasquatch up your way.
After reading as many Alaskan Sasquatch sighting reports as I could get my hands on over the years, Prince of Wales Island certainly looks inviting to me.
Maybe someday, but with the price of fuel heading for the stars, I think I'll have to concentrate my Sasquatch hunting efforts a little a closer to home here in the Fraser Valley.
Good huntin' to you.

POW Island is different than most other areas of Southeast Alaska in that:

1) There are lots of logging roads everywhere, and
2) No brown bears

I've been there once for a two week black bear hunt and visit with my wife's cousin. The place is beautiful. While there I rented a pickup truck (10 days; cost $1300) and a cabin in Coffman Cove (I think about $65 per day). Costs were split with a hunting partner. Plane fare to Ketchikan was about $250 from Anchorage, and the ferry ride to POW (without vehicle) was about $40.

If a guy drove a truck with camper (and inflatable raft) to Prince Rupert, took the ferry to POW, you could do the trip much cheaper.

That's one of my goals upon retirement. Drive my truck/camper to Ketchikan/POW, and stay in the area for several months. I'll try my best to become nocturnal, sit in a camp chair with night vision gear on, and watch a lake or bay shore.



You're in famous sasquatch territory there, my friend. It ought to be great hunting in them thar hills.

Interesting posts there Huntster. It's a whole different world up there. That's why I've always wanted to get there to see it for myself. Went a long ways once, all the way to Rocky Mountain House, Alberta. And that was only half-way, or one-quarter of the way, counting the return.
Interesting boat tactic. Sounds good.

The area in and around Klawock Lake on Prince of Wales Island seems to have had considerable Sasquatch (Kushtakaa) activity in the recent past.

Although I fished the outside waters in the Gulf of Alaska all the way up to Kodiak Island, I have traveled past all the those beautiful islands on my way through the inside passage. We used to keep our halibut bait frozen at Pelican, AK cold storage. Some mighty pretty country, and some real friendly people in those parts.
Yep, Alaska has always had a special heart-pull for me.
You're a lucky man to be living in that country, Hunster.




I'll agree with you 100 per cent on that one, too.
I firmly believe there are a few Sasquatch that call them thar hills in the upper Fraser Valley home.



Good luck in your pursuit of Sasquatch up on POW. Sounds like fun to me.

A little later this year I'll be putting some of my Sasquatch theories into practice with the hopes of successfully nailing one on film, in what I consider to be, the greatest remaining hunt on Earth.

I consider it a blessing.

I hope you folks that have expressed a desire to come see Alaska get an opportunity.



Good luck to you. The Fraser River Valley and the surrounding mountains is as good a place as any, and better than most for such a venture.

And I wholeheartedly agree that a hunt for a photo or even just a glimpse of a sasquatch is probably the greatest and most satisfying hunt on Earth.

I certainly hope so. It's one of my biggest dreams. I'm burning for it. However, it isn't cheap.

And it's a loooooooooong way away!

YES! YES! YES! There speaks a man who knows what he is talking about. I'm pretty sure if more effort was concentrated on that kind of thing then it would be very successful. In my opinion, that would be the best way to see something. Sure beats stumbling through a thick mountain forest where you don't have much field of scope.

I hope I can one day. I agree with the fact that you Hunster live in one of the most beautiful places on Earth. (Thats speaking from pure envy!)


Mike

Going back up is a thing I think about almost constantly. Gonna have to get to work on making it happen. Way things are getting here in WA, might be time to relocate.....Costa Rica sounds nice but then theres all the damned snakes

I can agree with that BIG time.

The heat and humidity would probably kill me down there.

My uncle has made noises about going to Costa Rica, and has invited us to go along. I want to go have fun with him and his wonderful wife, and Costa Rica sounds like a wonderful place to visit, but I know I could never live there.

For my one week vacation this summer and I stuided various location for me get a chance to see Sasquatch or bigfoot tracks. I am from Chicago area that's mean drive to the west is toooooooo far for one week vacation.

I have to take airplane and rent a car!

Willow creek is good place for the first time bigfoot hunter to check out Bigfoot museum, Bluff Creek, etc but for me that I feeling is bigfoot slow down there also drive 5 hours from San Fransico is not easy.

Then I pick is Skamania County for one week, fly to Portland then rent a car to drive around Cougar, Carson and Trout Lake. Maybe Randle if I have time. I would check out Northwest of Skamania where FR 90, Lewis River, Quartz Creek and several smaller creeks in Dark Divide but my problem is rent a car in poor roads might be not good! Rent 4 wheel drive is only way to go!

If I have whole summer and money then I would go to BC. Bella Coola and Tweedsmoir Provincial Park or farther north. I feel good number of Sasquatch there! Lot less reports mean less people there!

British Columbia, Alberta.. pretty much anything on the west coast.

I would love to be able to pick an area not bigger then you average county and spend some weeks there.

I use to to think that the Nortwester part of Scamania County was number one but I am starting to think that someplace in the Nortern part of BC is better.

You also have to consider terrain, mosquitos and most important transportation in your search of the best of the best.

Based on my own research, I'd argue that Skamania county is one of the worst places to find Bigfoot.

My statistical research basically consists of hierarchal cluster analysis followed by a linear regression to check for telltale correlations that would suggest an animal population or a hoaxed phenomenon. The source of my data is the BFRO's online database.

The correlation that I look for to detect a zoological phenomenon is a correlation between human population density and Bigfoot report frequency. The reasoning behind this method is outlined in Glickman's paper, "Toward a Resolution of the Bigfoot Phenomenon".

When I checked for this correlation in the counties of Washington, I didn't find it. This was particularly puzzling because Glickman had analyzed the entire U.S. down to the state level and found a correlation across six states, including Washington. However, it appeared that there was no significant correlation in the state of Washington alone at the county level. Thus there was a contradiction.

In attempting to resolve this contradiction, I looked at the dendrogram I had obtained from my hierarchal cluster analysis of the counties in Washington state. In the dendrogram, Skamania county appeared as what could be interpreted as a "runt" (that is, a case that is too different from the other cases in a population to be easily grouped with any of them). I hypothesized that, if Skamania county was indeed a runt, then it was also likely to be an outlier that would have skewed the linear regression.

I then predicted that removing Skamania county from the dataset would increase the correlation across the Washington counties to a significant level. I computed the linear regression again, this time excluding Skamania county, and my prediction was confirmed. I now conclude that Skamania county is indeed a runt and an outlier, and is not a significant part of the Bigfoot population of Washington state.

This is not to say that it's impossible for any Bigfoot to be located in Skamania county. It does show that Skamania county has a disproportionately large number of hoaxes, fraudulent reports, or mistaken reports. Any actual Bigfoot population in Skamania county would have to be so small as to be statistically insignificant.

Instead of Skamania county, I would suggest that Okanogan county is the most likely location for finding Bigfoot in Washington.

"ok, watch this"

<walks over and staples map of(insert your state or desired state here), walks back, wheels and shoots dart into map.>

"there now,......theres where ya needs to go squatchin"

Why would there be hoaxers when there are so few people in the first place.

The Skokum cast was made in Skamania county maybe that atracts hoaxers.

Please talk to (EMAIL) the BFRO guy that handles the reports in Skamania and tell him what you think.

You also have to consider the terrain when you are looking for the best of the best.

What do you think about the Olympic Peninsula?

Now that's science at it's best.

Skamania County with Mt. Hood in the Distance... If I was a Sasquatch I'd like it here...

Blight, Fla,
I agreed with you about Okanogan County is a good place also I like east area of Whatcom County, too. For my limit vacation and rent a car that's why I pick Skamania County. Just common sense about hoxas and too close to town as Carson, Cougar and Randle. Look for ridges details in tracks. Drive late night on small road with nightvison camcorder and sounds, creeks off path from roads and enjoy wildlife during hiking! If I am a bigfoot then I would like to live in northeast of Skamania County and point fingers to human that they can't shoot me! Ha! For whole summer then I would go to BC!
Are you looking for Skunk Ape in Florida? What do you think of photograph of Skunk Ape in Loren Coleman's website? Sooner or later, someone might find a Skunk Ape in Florida because of so much increasing new homes and reduce lands.