Where specifically would Bigfoot live?

Most people obviously know the GENERAL areas where these kinds of creatures would live, i.e. the Pacific Northwest, the Florida Everglades, the Appalachian Mountains, etc. But do you have any ideas beyond that where Bigfoot could live, sleep, and settle?

For example, what kind of basic NEEDS would Sasquatch require in the Pacific Northwest? Proximity to a water source? Would they prefer springs, lakes, creeks, or rivers? Do you think they actually like to live somewhat near humans so they can have a backup food source (trash, scraps), just in case they run into problems collecting food for the season?

What about sleep? Do you think they'd sleep in dense grass dens, deep caves, or abandoned mines?

Does population size have anything to do with the types of geographic areas they would settle (this BFRO article talks a bit about pop size)

I'm very curious what you guys think. This article from Bigfoot Base covers some general ideas, but can you guys come up with any other possibilities?

a reply to: DelmarRozan

Where could they possibly live where no remains would ever have been found?

a reply to: DelmarRozan

Somewhere else.

I believe that you hit at least one of these requirements on the head. Water.
I don't think that they would be too terribly picky about its source.

Food on the other hand is plentiful for omnivorous creatures.
I've read accounts where a couple of Bigfoot entered a campground or two and walked past a few startled people without even a second glance at whatever patronage happened to be there.

They went right for the garbage cans and picked whatever they wanted out of them.

Urban sprawl seems to be a problem also.

In Southeastern Louisiana where I live, people are encroaching on Bigfoot habitat.

It is a huge puzzle.

One which I have changed my mind to the solution many times.

If they truly exist. (And I believe they do) they will retreat deeper into the wilderness.

Some things (creatures) need their space without human interference to survive.

I really just think they need to be left alone.

That's my two cents.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: DelmarRozan

Where could they possibly live where no remains would ever have been found?

In the woods. Finding "remains" in a forest environment is rare. Assuming no special attention such as burial after death it would take only a few days for a corpse to be torn apart, decompose, and disappear. It's extremely rare to find dead bears, cougars, or deer in a forest environment, much less smaller animals. Not finding a corpse in the woods is not at all unusual.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: DelmarRozan

Where could they possibly live where no remains would ever have been found?

In the woods. Finding "remains" in a forest environment is rare. Assuming no special attention such as burial after death it would take only a few days for a corpse to be torn apart, decompose, and disappear. It's extremely rare to find dead bears, cougars, or deer in a forest environment, much less smaller animals. Not finding a corpse in the woods is not at all unusual.

Except much of what WAS woods now is not. Remains are dug up all the time. Unless Bigfoot sprung into existence 20 years ago, their habitat is now crawling with people and their remains would be found.

I did this thread a while ago.

1840 Bigfoot Capture with two Cubs

This is before people were making money on Bigfoot.

Or, maybe this is the first time someone made money on BF.

Anyway, it's the best unknown Bigfoot story I've read.

Behind a Denny's.
Pro dumpster diving, get free wine off the hobos.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: DelmarRozan

Where could they possibly live where no remains would ever have been found?

In the woods. Finding "remains" in a forest environment is rare. Assuming no special attention such as burial after death it would take only a few days for a corpse to be torn apart, decompose, and disappear. It's extremely rare to find dead bears, cougars, or deer in a forest environment, much less smaller animals. Not finding a corpse in the woods is not at all unusual.

Except much of what WAS woods now is not. Remains are dug up all the time. Unless Bigfoot sprung into existence 20 years ago, their habitat is now crawling with people and their remains would be found.

No, they would not. I don't think you understood my post. Dead bodies DISAPPEAR ENTIRELY. It takes a few days, not hundreds of years. The maggots start tearing the body apart within a day or two. They eat the flesh and soft tissues. Scavengers tear up the body and eat muscle tissue. Bones deteriorate in a wet moldy environment. They are torn apart for the marrow and scattered. Bacteria takes care of the rest. Dead bodies are not simply covered up to be found later. They cease to exist. That's why it is rare to find dead bodies of anything in a forest environment. Now add in a very sparse population, much less than deer, bear, or cougars, and you have a situation where you are unlikely to find anything--ever. The fact that you do not find any remains is not evidence for anything. The forest is a very efficient recycling mechanism.

a reply to: schuyler

It takes 10 years normally, and can be extended. PLENTY of bones have been dug up. Just no bigfoot. A Bigfoot like creature would have been all over and a top tier animal along with humans. In hundreds of years we would have huge amounts of evidence.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: schuyler

It takes 10 years normally, and can be extended. PLENTY of bones have been dug up. Just no bigfoot. A Bigfoot like creature would have been all over and a top tier animal along with humans. In hundreds of years we would have huge amounts of evidence.

No, we would not. I suggest you consult a hunter or someone who is familiar with country life, maybe even a biologist at a university. These city slicker views of yours are not credible. It is not unusual that we do not have "bones" of a bigfoot. They decomposed way before we could happen upon them accidentally.

Where would they live, in my backyard literally, if the area had less people, but it does have water, woods, remoteness, etc,etc. The site you shared has a fair breakdown, though I believe, as seem with the skunk apes it can vary as far as habitats go. As are the skunk apes in appearance.

I agree with population size to a point and as brought up about food. Maybe some do stay near camp areas(or even closer to homes) where they can find food scraps. There was a woman in TX(Art Bell show guest) who claimed she would leave p-nut butter and jelly sandwiches out for them and they gladly would accept the food.

a reply to: schuyler

Very true and well put. About all you find in the woods where I live is deer sheds. Other then that not much. Nature has a way of recycling itself.

I live out in the woods of the UP. and have size fifteen 4E shoes.

a reply to: DelmarRozan

I would think their needs and habitat would be the same as for another omnivore, a bear.

Animals struggle to survive in the best of circumstances and it would be the same for a Bigfoot. I don't out of hand reject the idea they could exist, but if they do, they should be seen far more often and physical evidence should have been found. Not questionable evidence, but evidence that would be indisputable.

Hidden away in hard to access area's where even a bear could not make it, would likely lead to extinction in short order. I'm afraid the more time that passes with no real evidence the less likely it is they are anything more than a myth.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: DelmarRozan

Where could they possibly live where no remains would ever have been found?

Where could they possibly live where no remains would ever have been found?
How about the vast Shoshone National Forest? Remote Alaska? The Cascades? Various places in the Northern territories of Canada?

There's a saying in the snowy woods: "When the snow melts the bones come out." While that is alluding and quoted as a reply to missing people in rural and remote areas: Sometimes they don't, and in some unexplored, or at least explored thoroughly on a monthly, etc. basis, it's quite possible they will remain undiscovered.

a reply to: schuyler

im with you man.
i spent some time up in northern florida. all kinds of forrests there. panther, bear, boar. all that # lives in those woods and you never find remains of any of them.
i dont see why people do not understand this.

finding a carcass of anything in the woods is a rare thing. if youre not johnny on the spot after the animal dies it happens just like you said.
depending on where, at least in florida the vultures take remains away. my grandparents lived on a river. there was a dead turtle in her backyard and a vulture flew up and took the whole damn thing away. we watched it.

a reply to: schuyler

Bones deteriorate in a wet moldy environment

Or are carried of by other creatures for nest decoraction , etc.

If Jack Links jerky pays good he probably lives in a nice house in Ca,He`s made a lot of commercials the last few years for them.Couldn`t resist,someone had to say it.

The Western Slope of the Sierra Nevadas in Northern California. There have been many sightings in the Stanislaus National Forest and Immigrant Wilderness areas. My best friend of 30+years swears he saw a Squatch near Dodge Ridge Ski Resort 25 years ago.

This area is along the 37th parallel, for what it's worth. Long history of reported strangeness. Bill Birnes called this area "Triangle Alley" in an old episode of UFO hunters. I think Bigfoot is part of the same phenomena as UFO, demons, ghosts, etc. My friend, however, vehemently disagrees.